The Tarrasch Trap

I mentioned the "Tarrasch Trap" in annotations to Capablanca -- Lasker, game 3 in the World Championship match in Havana, March-April 1921. This possibility was noted by American Chess Bulletin as something that Lasker had to avoid in that game. There are, in fact, two Tarrasch Traps in the Spanish opening. The one that is our concern here is sometimes called the Dresden Trap because Siegbert Tarrasch played it against Georg Marco there in a tournament in summer 1892.

In Tarrasch's annotations to this game in Dreihundert Schachpartien (1896), he noted, "it is an exact copy of the analysis given by me in the February edition of the Schachzeitung" (248).* The referenced analysis was in the form of an annotation on the second game of the 1891 World Championship match between Isidor Gunsberg and Wilhelm Steinitz. This was published as "Partieen aus dem Wettkampf Gunsberg-Steinitz", Deutsches Schachzeitung 46, no. 2 (February 1891), 41-56.

Gunsberg,Isidor -- Steinitz,William [C60]
World Championship, New York (2), 11.12.1890
[Tarrasch]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6

The Spanish game is, theoretically at least, difficult to defend, because in most variants White has the advantage that his king's bishop is better than Black's. Steinitz currently considers the present defense to be the best; However, it gives the player a rather cramped and pressed game, which is why I prefer the usual move Nf6.

4.c3

A stronger attack is 4.d2-d4; if Black takes the pawn, attractive play develops after Nd4: with Nc3, O-O and Bb2!, which gives White an excellent game (cf. the game Tarrasch - Blackburne, Schachzeitung, November 1890). It is best to omit the exchange on c6 completely in order not to remove the tension, but can also (exceptionally) take advantage of the king's bishop, because in this type of game the knights will prove to be very strong--occasionally one gets to f5 and from there already threatens the position of the Black king, which is also threatened by the open line of the queen's bishop.

But if Black avoids the pawn swap in the fourth move, then, according to Steinitz, the following swap itself leads to a position that is advantageous for White: 4...Bd7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.0-0 Be7 7.Bxc6.

This variant can be made even more compelling 7.Re1! 0-0 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Nxc5! Nxc5 16.Bg5 and White wins the exchange through the threat Be7.

Also through 16...Rd5 nothing is to be changed because of 17.Be7 -- with the idea 18.c4. Tarrasch offers detailed analysis after 15.Kf1 instead of 15.Nxc5: 15...Bb6 16.fxe4 (16.Nf4 Nd2+) 16...fxe4+ 17.Nf4 g5 18.Rxe4 gxf4 19.Ke2 (19.Bxf4 Rd2; 19.Rxf4 Rd1+ 20.Ke2 Rxf4 21.Kxd1 Rf2 and Black is better) 19...Rfe8 20.Rxe8+ Rxe8+ 21.Kf3 Re1 22. -- threatening Be3.

The rest of Gunsberg -- Steinitz is not our present interest. Nor are Tarrasch's annotations to the rest of this game, which are detailed.

7...Bxc6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Rxd8 10.Nxe5 Bxe4 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Re1] 4...Bd7 5.0-0 Nge7 6.d4 Ng6 7.d5 Nb8 8.Bxd7+ Nxd7 9.Na3 Be7 10.Nc2 Nc5 11.Qe2 Qd7 12.b4 Na4 13.Bd2 0-0 14.c4 f5 15.exf5 Qxf5 16.Rac1 Rae8 17.Nfe1 Bg5 18.g3 Nc3 19.Bxc3 Bxc1 20.Ng2 Qf3 21.Qxf3 Rxf3 22.Nge3 Bxe3 23.Nxe3 Ref8 24.Kg2 c6 25.Bb2 cxd5 26.Nxd5 Rd3 27.Bc1 b5 28.Ne3 bxc4 29.Nxc4 Rd4 30.Ne3 Rxb4 31.Rd1 Rb1 32.Ba3 Rxd1 33.Nxd1 Rd8 34.f3 d5 35.Nc3 d4 36.Ne4 Rb8 37.h4 h5 38.Kf2 Rb1 39.Bd6 Rb2+ 0-1

We now look more closely at the annotations in Deutsches Schachzeitung through Tarrasch -- Marco, Dresden 1892, a game played eighteen months after the analysis was published. This game followed the main line of Tarrasch's 1891 annotations, and he later reproduced the variations mentioned in 1891 in Dreihundert Schachpartien.

Tarrasch,Siegbert -- Marco,Georg [C66]
DSB Kongress-07 Meisterturnier Dresden (7.3), 22.07.1892
[Tarrasch]

Annotations are from Dreihundert Schachpartien, except two references to Chess Informant's Encyclopedia of Chess Miniatures.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Be7 6.0-0 Nf6 7.Re1

Black to move

7...0-0

After this move Black is lost. Better is 7...exd4 but it is not good enough to equalize. Annotations of this game in Encyclopedia of Chess Miniatures (2015) continues: 8.Nxd4 0-0 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bf1with a slight advantage for White.

8.Bxc6 Bxc6

8...bxc6 Black loses a pawn.

9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8

10...Rfxd8 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Kf1 White would have a plus (see below at annotations to move 15). Encyclopedia of Chess Miniatures offers this line as concluding with a decisive advantage for White.

11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4

White to move

13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+

White to move

15.Nxc5

15.Kf1 would yield no advantage because of 15...Bb6 16.fxe4 (Or 16.Nf4 Nd2+) 16...fxe4+ 17.Nf4 g5 18.Rxe4 gxf4

Analysis diagram

19.Ke2 (19.Bxf4 Rd2; 19.Rxf4 Rd1+ 20.Ke2 Rxf4 21.Kxd1 Rf2) 19...Rfe8 20.Rxe8+ Rxe8+.

15...Nxc5

White to move

16.Bg5 Rd5 17.Be7

 Not 17.c4 at once because of 17...Rd7 18.Be7 Nd3

1-0 Black resigned here as on 17...Re8 (or 17...Rf7) White wins the exchange by 18.c4. This game is an important contribution to the refutation of Steinitz's 3...d6. It is an exact copy of the analysis given by me in the February edition of the Schachzeitung.

As noted in Friday's post, other books offer annotations of this game. There was also a lively discussion several years ago at chessgames.com.

*Siegbert Tarrasch, Three Hundred Chess Games (Dreihundert Schachpartien), trans. Sol Schwarz (1999).