Endgame Gambit

Black is clearly worse in the position. While playing it, I remembered some discussion with Gary Younker, then president of the Spokane Chess Club, about the difficulties he faced with a rook against three connected passed pawns. I neither had seen the game not studied the ending.

This post is a continuation of yesterday's "Rook vs. Three Connected Passed Pawns".

Black to move

With the memory of Gary's comments, I opted for the rook exchange. My opponent was Phil Weyland, one of the strongest youth players in my city at the time. He was a B Class player; I was in C class. The game took place during our Taxing Quads event in April 2002.

46...Rxd4+ 47.Rxd4 g5 48.Ke3

The right idea. The rook cannot battle the pawns alone.

48...Kg6 49.Ke4 f5+

White to move

50.Ke5!

Phil finds the only winning move.

50...h4 51.Rd6??

This move spoils the win. White had to play 51.Rd3, putting Black in zugzwang.

Analysis after 51.Rd3

51...g4 and here the intuitive 52.Kf4 is premature, due to h3 and 53.Rd8 leads to a position similar to that in Sam Shankland, Theoretical Rook Endgames (see yesterday's post).

51...f4 and White has several possibilities. 52.Rh3 Kh5 53.Kf5 (only move) g4 54.Ra3 f3 55.Ra8 and facing a mate threat, Black must surrender a pawn.

51...Kh5 52.Kxf5 is easy to see, as is

51...h3 52.Rxh3

51...Kf7 also allows 52.Kxf5

Phil's move looks strong because it wins the f-pawn by force, but Black has a drawing resource.

51...Kh5 52.Kxf5 h3!=

White to move

53.Rd7 Kh4

The only move to avoid checkmate.

54.Rd4+ Kh5

I found the drawing idea, but not yet. Perhaps, 55.Rg4+ worried me somewhat.

55.Rd8 Kh4 56.Rh8+

Phil forced me to find the right idea.

Black to move

56...Kg3

Here, the only legal move is one I could have played two moves earlier.

57.Kxg5 h2 58.Rxh2 and we agreed to a draw.

Rook vs. Three Connected Passed Pawns

This position arose in a game that I played Wednesday morning online. It is a technical draw, but my opponent erred along the way.

White to move

Several moves earlier, I could have reached a favorable ending with the same material, except that my  understanding of rook vs. three connected passed pawns was deficient. 

Black to move

In haste to eliminate the passed b-pawn, I played 54...Rb1

54...Rd3 is better, as it prepares to get behind the b-pawn while also protecting the h-pawn with a threat on the f-pawn. 

55.Kxh3

Black to move

Tablebases reveal that Black has two winning moves here, but they do not explain the reasoning. I've spent a bit of time playing through tablebase lines in search of understanding.

I started looking through the 65 endgame books on my shelf. Few books are helpful. Reuben Fine, Basic Chess Endings has three pages on rook vs. three pawns, but these have limited application to the position before me. Ilya Rabinovich, The Russian Endgame Handbook has a page and a half with some of the same illustrative positions found in Fine. I have this book both in a print version and in the Forward Chess app.

Some useful analysis appears in Sam Shankland, Theoretical Rook Endgames.

In the game, I played 55...Rxb4?? 56.Kg3 Kg7 to reach the diagram at the top of the page. After several more moves, we reached this position.

White to move

My opponent's move here was the decisive error, but it took me quite a few more moves to find the winning idea.

65.Ke4??

Either 65.Kf2 or 65.Kg2 holds the draw.

Shankland has this position.

Black to move

Shankland points out that the king needs to step back and shuffle the king between g7 and h7. The h-pawn is secure because otherwise Black's other two pawns became a serious threat, although White can hold the draw. Shankland does not analyze this line in detail, stating only, "White is lucky not to be lost" after snatching the h-pawn (373). When I played the White side against two students on Thursday, I failed to hold the draw after snatching the pawn.

Shankland's position differs from that in my game, but the idea of shuffling the king back and forth on the second rank could have been known to my opponent from Theoretical Rook Endgames.

How Could I Win?

Back to the position after 55.Kxh3. My haste to eliminate the b-pawn was an error. Instead, there were two winning moves that I could have played. Lines following from either move require me to centralize my king.

a) 55...Kg7!

The best move, according to Stockfish.

After 56.Kg3, only one move wins.

Black to move

56...Kf6! 57.h4 Ke5!

Again, there was only one winning move.

58.f4+ Ke4!

Another only move.

White to move

After 59.b5, 59...Rg1+ is the shortest distance to mate.

59.g5 is the longest distance to mate, and now Black has 59...Kf5.

b) 55...Rg1 was also winning.

56.b5 Kg7! 57.b6 Kf6 58.f4

Black to move

58...Ke6!

The only winning move.

59.b7 Rb1

At this point, not earlier, it is necessary to stop the passed b-pawn. Afterwards, Black's king will move to d5 and then e4. For example, 60.Kg3 Rxb7 61.Kh3 Rb3+ 62.Kg2 Kd5 63.h3 Ke4 64.f5

Black to move

The pawn chain is vulnerable because of the placement of Black's pieces. Shankland's defensive idea fails here because the pawns all need to advance one square further.

In two games this week, I prevailed with a rook against three pawns. Analysis of these games showed that there is much that I can learn about these endings, which can often lead to interesting positions demanding precise play. 22 years ago, I chose to exchange my last rook for one of my opponent's rooks, reaching a ending where I had three connected passed pawns against a rook. I drew that game, but only because my opponent missed the right idea in a critical position. That is the subject of tomorrow's post.

Two Positions

When FM Jim Maki does game analysis at local youth chess tournaments, as he usually does, he always shows me some interesting puzzle positions. Last Saturday he showed me one that had been shown him by a chess parent, a strong player who was active in the Spokane Chess Club until his daughter was born. Now his daughter is playing chess.

I do not recall the exact placement of the rooks, but the solution for this position matches the one that Maki showed me.

White to move

Can you solve it?

Yesterday at an after school chess club, two players reached this position and then asked me whether it was a draw. I said that I would try to beat Stockfish on my phone while they played on. After I failed, I showed the position and the moves of my efforts against Stockfish on the demo board. I took White. 

Black to move

The young students saw many stalemate positions as we looked at my efforts together. I then positioned the pawns on the 5th and 6th rank to illustrate the difference it makes. Finally, I removed the Black pawn and placed the bishop on a light square, showing another sort of position where material superiority is of no value.

Doing it Right

I had White and the move from this position a couple of days ago. As a couple of my students and I have been working on rook endings, I spent some time in post game analysis. I thought that I played the ending well.

32.Rxc8

32.Ree1 was worth considering, but I was aiming to simplify, trusting that I could prevail with minimal risk in a rook ending with a one pawn advantage.

32...Rxc8 33.Bxd4

33.Rg4 g6 34.Bxd4 Bxd4 35.Rxd4 was not even considered.

33...Bxd4 34.Rxd4

Black to move

34...Rc7?

This error gives me winning chances.

34...a5 35.Re4 Kf7 36.Re5 Rc1+ 37.Kg2 Ra1 38.Rxb5 Rxa2 more than likely leads to a draw.

35.Kg2 Kf7 36.Rd6 Ke7 37.Ra6 h6?!

37...Rd7 38.d4 keeps White's advantage minimal.

38.Kf3+-

Black to move

38...g5 39.Ke4 Rd7 40.d4 Kf6 41.g4!

Black to move

Black's options are limited. My rook is more active and my king is threatening to advance.

41...Rc7

41...b4 42.h3 Kf7 was a better option for Black.

42.d5 Re7

42...Rc2 43.Rxe6+ Kg7 44.Re7+ Kf6 45.Rxa7 Rxf2 46.Ra6+ Ke7 47.Rxh6 Rf4+ 48.Ke5 Rxg4+-

White to move

This position might serve as a training exercise.

43.Kd4

I considered 43.Rxe6+ Rxe6+ 44.dxe6 Kxe6 45.f4+- but did not correctly evaluate the pawn ending. That would have simplified the game.

43...Kf7 44.d6 Rb7 45.Ke5 b4

Better would have been 45...Ke8 46.Kxe6 Kd8

46.Rc6?

My first error in the ending.

46.Ra5+- and the rest is easy. 46...Ke8 47.Kxe6

46...Rb5+ 47.Ke4

Much of my advantage has slipped away.

Black to move

47... Ke8?

47...Rd5 48.f4 a5

48.Rc7+-

Aron Nimzowitsch assures me that this should be winning.

48...Rd5 49.Rxa7

49.Re7+ Kd8 50.Rxe6 Ra5 51.Rxh6 Rxa2 52.f4+-

49...Rxd6 50.Ke5

I was happy with this fork as I believed that the penetration of my king would be decisive even if several of my pawns came off the board.

Black to move

50...Rd2 51.Kxe6 Re2+

ChessBase auto analysis gives this move a question mark, but a greater depth of analysis by the engines concurs with Black's decision.

51...Kf8, recommended in the auto analysis is about the same. 52.f3 Rf2 53.Kf6 Rxf3+ 54.Kg6 Rh3 is not substantially different than what occurred in the game. 

52.Kf6 Rxf2+ 53.Kg6! Rxh2 54.Rb7 Rxa2

White to move

55.Rxb4??

I spoiled the win. Either 55.Kxh6 or 55.Rb8+ with 56.Kxh6 to follow would keep the win in hand. As often occurs with these online ten minute games, when I think that I played well, post game analysis with the help of my silicon friends reveals that I threw the game away with a terrible error.

55...Rg2??

My opponent returned the favor, and once again I am winning.

55...Rh2=

56.Kxh6 Kd7 57.Kxg5 Kc6

White to move

58.Rd4!

Cutting off the Black king from the side of the board where my king and pawn are ready to advance together assures me of reaching a Lucena Position.

58...Kc5 59.Rd8 Rg3 60.Kf5 Rxb3 61.g5 Rf3+ 62.Ke6 Re3+ 63.Kf6 Rf3+ 64.Kg7 Kc6 65.g6 Kc7 66.Rd1 Rh3 67.Kg8 Kc6 68.g7 Kc7

The Lucena position has been reached.

White to move

69.Rd5 Kc6 70.Rg5 Kd7 71.Kf7 Rf3+ 72.Kg6 and Black resigned.

Poor Development

Konstantin Sakaev and Konstantin Landa, The Complete Manual of Positional Chess: Opening and Middlegame (2016) begins with development. They state, "everyone is aware of the rule [rapid development], but when it comes to practical play, one often sees players struck by 'amnesia'" (18). The first three examples show Mikhail Tal exploiting this amnesia when it afflicts normally strong players.

Wolfgang Uhlmann, the victim in the first example, annotated the game for Chess Informant 12. Tal's annotations appear in Life and Games of Mikhail Tal (1997). Prior to the game, Tal prepared a surprise for Uhlmann: his fifth move, which had appeared in some previous games and had been recommended by Alekhine.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.Ngf3 Nc6 5.Bb5

The surprise! Uhlmann gives the move !? and the same annotation to his reply, which Tal reports that took more than twenty minutes off Uhlmann's clock (437).

Black to move

5...dxe5

Sakaev and Landa assert that this move is dubious.

6.Nxe4 Bd7 7.Bg5!

Tal, Uhlmann, and the authors of The Complete Manual of Positional Chess all agree on the excellence of this move, developing with tempo.

Other examples of amnesia recently came up in my reading and play. Leonid Stein fell to a beautiful attack by the relatively unknown Leonid Remeyuk in the 1959 Ukranian Championship. The game is annotated in P.H. Clarke, 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures (1963).

White to move

White played 10.Bxb5+ and Stein resigned nine moves later.

Clarke writes, "White is so indignant at the sight of the text move, which disdains the principle he himself has been so careful to keep, that he there and then determines to punish the offender" (78).

Another example was selected yesterday by my advanced students in an after school chess club. They started by looking for Adolf Anderssen's final assault in his first game against Howard Staunton at the 1851 London tournament.

White to move

Staunton's problems began early.

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nxd4 Bc5

4...a6 or a knight move is normal today.

5.Nc3 a6

5...Qb6 would at least apply some pressure on the knight.

6.Be3 Ba7 7.Bd3

White's lead in development should be abundantly clear. I tried to tell the students that Staunton had taken a journey through time on the T.A.R.D.I.S., met Ilya Kan, and learned some of Kan's ideas in the Sicilian Defense, but did not absorb the lessons well. They did not believe my story, finding time travel unlikely.

Black to move

In a rapid game this morning, I was presented with the opportunity to apply the lessons from these games.

White to move

15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bg3?

And I blew it immediately. 16.Nxe6 rips open the center and defends the attacked bishop. Black's best response would have been 16...Nxf4, when White has several winning lines.

16...g5?? 17.Bh5

Again, Nxe6 is best, but this time my move is good enough to secure a decisive advantage.

17...Bg7 18.Nxe6! Qf6

White to move

I did not always find the best move with such a smorgasbord of winning choices, but I punished Black for poor development nonetheless. 

Radiology

In a rapid game online this morning, I planned an attack well before conditions on the board were ready. My opponent failed to defend appropriately and the attack succeeded.

After some opening moves, we reached this position with White to move. I had White.

At this point in the game, I began to have fantasies about an attack along the f-file against a pinned knight. This attack requires a knight sacrifice on f7 to capitalize on the x-ray.

11.f4! gxf4

11...Bxe5 12.fxe5 Nd7 13.Qh5+-

12.Rxf4

12.Qf3 was better--battery 12...Rf8 13.exf4

12...Be7??

12...Rf8= anticipates White's threats and prevents them.

White to move

Now is the time!

13.Qe2

But. I thought that more preparation was necessary, planning to first double rooks on the f-file.

13.Nxf7!! Kxf7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Qg6+ Kf8 16.Raf1+-

13...Bd7

13...Rf8 was still possible, neutralizing White's plans. 14.Raf1

14.Raf1

14.Nxf7 is less effective now 14...Kxf7 15.Qh5+ Kf8 16.Raf1 Be8 the point of Bd7.

14...Rg8

White to move

15.Nxf7! Kxf7

15...Qb6 16.Rxf6 Bxf6 17.Rxf6 Qxb2 18.Na4 Qb4 19.Nc5 is also winning for White.

16.Qh5+ Kf8 17.Qxh6+ Kf7

White to move

18.Be2?!

Throws away most of the advantage.
I considered 18.Bh7 Rg7 19.Qh5+ Kf8 but did not see the ideas clearly enough.

18...Rg6??

Black moves into forced checkmate.

18...Rg7 19.Bd3 (19.Qh5+ Kg8=) 19...Qh8 (19...Qg8 20.Rxf6+ Bxf6 21.Qxf6+ Ke8 22.Rf2) 20.Rxf6+ Bxf6 21.Qxf6+ Kg8 22.Ne2+-.

19.Qh7+ Rg7

19...Kf8 holds out longer 20.Qxg6 Be8 21.Qh6+ Kg8 22.Qg5+ Kf8 23.Rh4

White to move

White has a mate in five, which I saw to the end.

20.Bh5+ Kf8 21.Qh8+ Rg8 22.Rxf6+ Bxf6 23.Rxf6+ Ke7

23...Qxf6 24.Qxf6#

24.Rf7+ Kd6 25.Qe5# 1-0

The Grob for Beginners

Beginners should not play the Grob.

Some may object to such a prohibition. Asserting it brings to memory my negative reaction to reading, “I cringe whenever I see 1600-players wheeling out the King’s Indian Attack” (3) in John Donaldson, A Strategic Opening Repertoire (1998). As a sub-1600 player with affection for the Reti Opening when I read this twenty years ago, Donaldson’s harsh words about the KIA seemed aimed at me, too. He states, "everyone should start with 1.e4 and 1.d4 and play classical chess at the beginning of his career” (3). My problem was that I had been playing chess thirty years and was still C-Class. Having learned the moves at age eight and started playing seriously at 15, I was hardly at the beginning of my chess career in my 40s. I thought I should be able to play openings that interested me.

My initial negative response to Donaldson's words were temporary. I agree with him. In fact, I find the so-called "recapitulation theory of chess development" useful pedagogically, even if it does not hold up as a description of most player biographies. See "On the Origin: Reading Journal" (2020). In several forum posts, I have offered the advice that a beginner should only play openings found among the games of Gioachino Greco--with White, that's the Italian, King's Gambit, and Queen's Gambit.

Beginning a game of chess with 1.g4 is clearly risky. The move has gone by many names, but today is most commonly called the Grob in honor of Swiss International Master Henri Grob (1904-1974) who advocated the opening in Angriff (1942) and employed it in correspondence games. The notorious criminal Claude Bloodgood (1937-2001) also employed it in correspondence chess and authored The Tactical Grob (1976).

A few days ago, a beginner played the Grob against me. The beginner in question favors 1.g4 and 1.Nf3 and was under 1200 after nearly 12 years and more than 8000 games on chessdotcom, although the player’s peak rapid rating is 1368.

Chessdotcom does not keep Explorer up-to-date. This data reflects a small portion of the player's games. Nonetheless, it serves to suggest that the Grob has not served him well.

One might object to the term “beginner” for someone who has been active on a chess playing site more than ten years. Although I use that term for everyone under 1200, regardless of how long they have been playing, I also have more than a few losses to such players.* Perhaps novice is a better term. This opponent, 1308 at this writing, is in the top 8% of players in chessdotcom’s pool. From another point of view, the player might be considered quite strong. Certainly he or she should have a plus score against those near the average rating on the site (the average rapid rating on the site today is 618).

Perhaps my advice should be modified somewhat. For a 1200 rated player, the Grob is not an ideal choice for developing the skills needed to rise above 1400. Nor is it a particularly good choice against a player rated hundreds of points higher. The Grob immediately gives Black a slight advantage. Nonetheless, it can be useful against an unprepared player who overestimates this slight advantage.

Here, then, is the game.

Internet Opponent — Stripes, J. [A00]
Live Chess Chess.com, 29.11.2024

1.g4 c6

My reply is not common and is not my usual response, but I have played it once before. I was thinking of a partially remembered line in Bloodgood's book where this move was played a few moves later. Bloodgood shows that it fails as an effort to protect d5 in that line.

Twelve years ago, I had the White side of this position. That game continued 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d4 g6 6.c3 Bg7 7.Qb3 Nf6 8.g5 and I won the d-pawn, eventually converting the advantage.

2.a3

This move does nothing for White's position.

2...e5 3.Nc3

In Bloodgood's line, both c4 and Qb3 are commonly combined with placing the bishop on the long diagonal. This move interferes with White's normal plans. The evidence so far is that White has chosen an offbeat opening, but has not taken the time to learn the principal ideas behind the initial move.

4...d5

White to move

Black has a strong center.

4.g5

White has a plus score on Lichess with this sacrifice.

4...Qxg5 5.d4

Perhaps many of those games on Lichess were played by players oblivious to the discovery.

5...Qh5!?

5...Qe7 is played more often here, but I like discouraging the move that White should have begun with.

6.dxe5 Bc5?!

Why not 6...Qxe5? Now, I'm trying to provoke 7.e3 to exchange queens. But also, 1.g4 weakens the e1-h4 diagonal, and I'm speculating that I might be able to use that. That I was able to shows that White's tactical sense needs considerable work--something that develops more rapidly when most games begin 1.e4.

White to move

7.Nf3

7.Bf4! secures the pawn and prepares Bg3, putting an end to my kingside fantasies. As with any opening, the board position makes demands to which the players must attend. My speculative sixth move looks silly if White responds appropriately.

7...Bg4 8.Rg1?? Bxf3-+ 9.exf3

Black to move

9... Qxh2

This fork picks up the e-pawn with tempo.

10.Rg2 Qxe5+ 11.Be2 Nd7 12.Rg5?

12.f4 at least chases the queen back instead of provoking Black to threaten checkmate.

12...Qh2 13.Bf1

13.Qd3 avoids immediate checkmate.

13...Qxf2# 0-1

If you are a novice or even stronger and want to play the Grob, at least do yourself the favor of looking at Bloodgood's pamphlet, The Tactical Grob. Also be aware that trotting out this opening against a much higher rated player means that you could be playing someone who knows the opening better than you.

*As many as 1/3 of them showed evidence of using assistance. 10% have been banned.

Halloween Gambit: Early History

For more than a century, the line known today as the Halloween Gambit was an entertaining option in casual play, but received minimal attention. Wikipedia notes that it appeared in a brief note in an 1888 publication as Gambit Müller und Schulze (not the names of specific people, but rather anyone or everyone). The article relies for historical details upon a article by Tim Krabbe for Chess Cafe (March 2000) and now hosted elsewhere. Krabbe's article is entertaining and the central facts are verifiable. He was prompted to write it after losing to a Crafty clone on ICC named Brause. Brause was the work of Steffen Jacob who coined the name The Halloween-Attack in the Four Knight's Game.

Although Krabbe goes back as far as Oskar Cordel, Führer durch die Schachtheorie: Ausführliche Tabelle der Spiel-Eröffnungen auf Grundlage neuester Forschung (1888), there were at least two games published in magazines prior to Cordel's text. Cordel notes that the opening had been played in Leipzig and a game played there in 1874 is the oldest in ChessBase Mega 2024.

The annotation in Deutsche Schachzeitung (July 1874) of the game between an unnamed player who played the gambit against Johannes Minckwitz, editor of the publication, offers what remains today an apt assessment of the gambit: it is unsound, but in practical play White gets a dangerous attack.

I offer the original annotations, which were in German, translations, and some of my own comments.

NN -- Minckwitz,Johannes [C47]
Leipzig, 02.05.1874

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5

Dieses Opfer ist zwar incorrect, gewährt jedoch einen im practischen Spiele sehr gefährlichen Angriff. This sacrifice is indeed incorrect, but grants a very dangerous attack in the practical game.

4...Nxe5 5.d4

Black to move

5...Ng6

5...Nc6 is the principal alternative.

6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.0–0 Bxc3 9.Qf3 Qe7 10.bxc3 Nh6 11.a4 Nh4 12.Qe4

Black to move

12... d5

Schwarz ist hierzu genöthigt, da er sonst auf keine Weise zur Entwickelung gelangen kann.
Black is compelled to do this, because otherwise he cannot achieve development in any way.

13.Bxd5 c6 14.Bxc6+!

Diese Fortsetzung fällt zu Gunsten von Schwarz aus. Die Combinationen sind sehr interessant.

This sequel is in Black's favor. The combinations are very interesting.

14...bxc6 15.Qxc6+ Qd7 16.Qxa8 0–0

White to move

17.Bxh6

This move gives Black opportunities. Better would be 17.Ba3 or 17.Rb1.

17...Bb7 18.Qxa7 Ra8 19.Qb6

19.Qc5 Qg4

19...Ra6?

White to move

 20.Qb5??

20.e6!! Qd5 21.exf7+ Kf8 22.Qb4+ Kxf7 23.f3 and White should prevail. The move played walks into a mate in four, which Minckwitz finds.

20...Nf3+ 0-1 

21.gxf3 Rg6+
21.Kh1 Rxh6 22.h3 Rxh3+

Ten years later, the second game in the database was played and published. It was part of a blindfold exhibition in St. Petersburg. Ernst Falkbeer provided annotations.

The White player is not well-known. Sarah Cohen (aka batgirl) described him as a strong amateur in "The Prince of Mingrelia, Part 1" on chess.com. The game was published in a Vienna newspaper: Wiener Hausfrauen-Zeitung (1885), which I was able to find online.

De Marcovan,M - NN [C47]
Blindfold Exhibition M de Marcovan St Petersburg, 1884
[Falkbeer,Ernst Karl]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5

Ein ganz neues und geniales Opfer des Blindspielers, um die Partie interessanter zu machen.

A completely new and ingenious sacrifice of the blind player to make the game more interesting.

4...Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bd3 d6 8.f4 dxe5 9.fxe5

Black to move

9...Bb4

Augenscheinlich darf die Dame den Bauer auf d4 nicht schlagen, weil sie sonst durch 9...Qxd4 10.Bb5+ verloren ginge.

Apparently, the queen must not capture the pawn on d4, otherwise she will pass through (discovered attack) 9...Qxd4 10.Bb5+ was lost.

10.0–0! Qxd4+ 11.Kh1 Bxc3 12.bxc3 

Black to move

12...Qxc3

Schwarz hätte den Bauer auf c3 nicht schlagen, sondern die Dame nach 12...Qd8 zurückziehen sollen.

Black should not have captured the pawn on c3, but should have withdraw the queen with 12...Qd8.

13.Qf3

Ausgezeichnet gespielt. Weiß droht jetzt zu gleicher Zeit das direkte Schach auf f7 und das Abzugsschach, respektive den Gewinn der Dame durch 14.Lb5+.

Excellently played. White is now threatening direct check on f7, or winning the queen by 14.Bb5+.

13...Qxe5

Es war schon gar nichts mehr zu machen.

There was nothing more to be done.

Wenn die Dame den Turm nahm, so folgte 13...Qxa1 14.Qxf7+ Kd8 und dann 15.Bg5+

If the queen took the rook, then 13...Qxa1 14.Qxf7+ Kd8 and then Bg5+.

14.Qxf7+ Kd8 15.Bxg6 hxg6

White to move

16.Bg5+

Ein schönes Endspiel dieser reizenden kleinen Partie.

A beautiful endgame of this charming little game.

16...Ne7 17.Rad1+ Bd7

Weiß setzt in zwei Zügen matt:

White mates in two moves:

18.Qf8+ Rxf8 19.Rxf8# 1-0