Reti's Checkmate

The checkmate pattern know as Reti's Mate originates in a miniature played against none other than Saviely Tartakower. The game was played sometime in 1910 in Vienna. Both men were in their early 20s. Tartakower studied law in Geneva and Vienna; Reti came to Vienna to study mathematics. They had met in at least two tournament games prior to this game, which was a casual game played for a stake.

The mating combination itself has processors, including Morphy's Opera Game. Edward Winter's article, "Reti vs. Tartakower, Vienna 1910" is worth a look for some of these, as well as what little historical background exists. If Tartakower would have moved his king back to its starting square, the checkmate with rook and bishop would have been the same as Morphy's.

Reti,Richard -- Tartakower,Saviely [B15]
Vienna, 1910

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Qd3

This unusual move has been played a mere eight times in more than 3000 games reaching this position. This game is the earliest in MegaDatabase 2020 to feature this move. The same database contains fifteen games up to and including this one with 4...Nf6. In fact, the Caro-Kann Defense was relatively new at the time. Horatio Caro and Marcus Kann had published their analysis in 1886. Tartakower was born the following year; Reti two years after Tartakower.

Databases are incomplete. For example, we do not have all the games from the Second Trebitsch Memorial, played in Vienna in 1909-1910, which Reti won ahead of Tartakower. I have spent enough time reading old chess magazines from the last few decades of the nineteenth century to be confident that even published games played between those recognized as masters are more likely absent from databases than found there. 

Using the database as our point of reference, 5.Qd3 would be a novelty. But, there is a very good chance that Reti had seen it before.

5.Nxf6+ is played almost every time. 5.Ng3 is a distant second.

Black to move

5...e5?

Tartakower finds a clever idea that fails.

5...Nxe4 6.Qxd4 Qd5 appears equal.

5...Nbd7 6.Bd2 Nxe4 7.Qxe4 Nf6 8.Qd3 Bg4 9.f3 Be6 10.0-0-0 Qd6 11.Kb1 0-0-0 is given in an article on Chess.com by AksanAkhmad.

6.dxe5 Qa5+

6...Qxd3 seems reasonable, but is not the reason Tartakower played 5...e5. Perhaps he should have reassessed his plan. 7.Bxd3 Nxe4 (7...Ng4) 8.Bxe4 and White seems slightly better.

7.Bd2 Qxe5

It would seem that this was Tartakower's idea.

White to move

Reti's pinned knight is attacked twice.

8.0-0-0 Nxe4??

Tartakower has won a whole piece, but Reti saw further.

8...Be7 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 (9...Bxf6 10.Re1) 10.Nf3 and White seems slightly better.

White to move

9.Qd8+! Kxd8 10.Bg5+

Tartakower resigned here, according to some accounts. Later, in his A Breviary of Chess (1937), he stated, "nothing could better illustrate the power of a double check" (as quoted by Winter, referenced above).

10...Kc7 11.Bd8# 1-0

If 10...Ke7, 11.Rd8#

The game is worthy of memorization, especially by chess teachers. It pairs nicely with the Opera Game.

Textbook Ending: Historical Considerations

This position arose twice in Fiebig -- Tartakower, Barmen 1905. It was reached after 58...Kc8 and again after 60...Kc8, at which point the game was agreed drawn.

White to move

Historical questions arise. What were the rules in 1905 regarding draw by repetition or by triple occurrence of position? What endgame books that should be known by aspiring masters of the time explain the technique of triangulation?

Fiebig missed an elementary win that is a textbook ending. Today, it is in many textbooks, but was it as well-known more than a century ago?

In "Pawn Ending" in Edward Winter, A Chess Omnibus (2003), 42-43, this position is reached after the first move from a diagram presented there. Winter references Das Endspiel im Schach (1917) as a source, noting that the score of the game Fahrni--Alapin has not been found. Winter notes the position from Fiebig--Tartakower, and that the game appears in the Barmen tournament book. Winter's article also appears at "Edward Winter Presents: Unsolved Chess Mysteries (14)" (2007).

Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) presents the rules that had been approved by the British Chess Association and many chess congresses. "When both players persist in repeating the same moves," is given as one circumstance that produces a drawn game. There is no reference to the number of repetitions necessary. I have previously written about the development of the Fifty Move Rule at "Max Judd's Draw Claim" (2016). Perhaps a narrative concerning the development of rules regarding repetition can be found somewhere. Winter states the game was "agreed drawn" (42).

J. Berger, Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele (1890) discusses opposition in a separate section within the larger portion devoted to kings and pawns (28-34), but I do not see any reference to triangulation--neither process nor terminology. As far as I am aware, Berger's was the standard endgame book of the time.

As I was playing through Fiebig -- Tartakower, I was certain that White should be winning after Tartakower blocked a check with his rook.

White to move

The game continued:

51.Kd4 b6

Hiarcs, running tablebases, likes 51...Kc6 52.b5+ Kc7 53.Rxd6 Kxd6 54.a4+-

52.Ke5 Rxd5+ 53.Kxd5 Kc7 54.a4 a6

54...Kd7 is more stubborn

White to move

According to Hiarcs, it is checkmate in nineteen moves.

55.a5

The second best move. White wins more quickly with 55.Ke5 Kd7 56.c5 Kc6 57.cxb6 Kxb6 58.Kd6

55...bxa5 56.bxa5 Kd7 57.c5 Kc7 58.c6 Kc8

The game has reached the position at the top of the post. After seeing how the game concluded, I opened my playing software and continued from the diagram against Stockfish 10. I checkmated the engine in sixteen moves.

59.Kc4

59.Kd6 was played by Fiebig.
59.Kd4 is given by Winter from Fahrni's book.

59...Kb8 60.Kd4 Kc8 61.Kd5

The diagram at the top of the post has been reached again, but the position has changed. Now, it is Black to move.

The rest was easy.

Bogoljubov -- Alekhine, Hastings 1922

Alexander Alekhine gave up three queens to beat Efim Bogoljubow in their last round game at Hastings Six Masters in 1922. The game featured some spectacular tactics and a textbook finish with a near zugzwang position giving way to an elementary pawn ending. Many chess enthusiasts consider it one of  the greatest games ever played. I included it among my ten candidates in the list created for my Spring Break Chess Camp class on the subject of the best game ever played.

Alekhine needed a win to finish first in the tournament as he was tied with Akiva Rubinstein going into the last round. This need drove his choice of the Dutch Defense, which he characterized as risky. Many recent accounts of this game confuse this event, held September 1922, with the Hastings International Chess Congress, held December 1922 -- January 1923. Rubinstein won the latter. Alekhine did not participate. The Six Masters event was a double round robin featuring two British masters--George A. Thomas and Frederick Yates--and four of the leading masters from outside Britain--Alekhine, Rubinstein, Seigbert Tarrasch, and Efim Bogoljubow.

The round-by-round results with links to the games are posted on Chessgames.com. I looked at crosstables for this event and for the Hastings Chess Congress in John Donaldson, and Nikolay Minev, The Life and Games of Akiva Rubinstein, vol. 2: the Later Years, 2nd. ed. (2011).

A. Alekhine from Wikimedia Commons*

Alekhine considers this game against Bogoljubow, alongside his win against Richard Reti (Baden-Baden 1925), as "the most brilliant wins of [his] chess career" (Alekhine, My Best Games of Chess, 1924-1937 [1965], 13). Irving Chernev also calls this game, "the most brilliant game ever played" (The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played [1965], 67). Chernev annotates this game in The Chess Companion (1968) and in Twelve Great Players and Their Best Games (1976). The former is quoted on the website Master Chess Open:

Alekhine's subtle strategy involves manoeuvres which encompass the entire chessboard as a battlefield. There are exciting plots and counterplots. There are fascinating combinations and brilliant sacrifices of Queens and Rooks. There are two remarkable promotions of Pawns and a third in the offing, before White decides to capitulate.
Chernev, The Chess Companion (as quoted at Master Chess Open).

Andrew Soltis lists this game as number four in The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked (2006).

Despite such praise, Bogoljubow -- Alekhine, Hastings 1922 is absent from Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms, The World's Greatest Chess Games (1998). Burgess does include it in Chess Highlights of the 20th Century (2000), but that book contains 270 games. The editors of The World's Greatest Chess Games carefully culled their list to one hundred. Their criteria were:

Quality and brilliance of play by both contestants.
Historical value.
Historical significance.
Burgess, Nunn, and Emms (1998), 7.

Bogoljubow's play falls short of this standard. He makes several positional errors in the opening and middle game, which Alekhine then exploits brilliantly. Even then, however, Alekhine may have eschewed the clearest path to victory in favor of artistic chess.

Annotations to this game are found in many books, websites, and YouTube videos. Most annotators start with Alekhine's own comments in My Best Games of Chess, 1908-1923 (1927) or in W.H. Watts, The Book of the Hastings International Masters' Chess Tournament 1922 (1924). A. J. Goldsby offers detailed annotations on his website and also a YouTube video. While going through this game, I studied annotations in S. Tartakower, and J. DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1975); Max Euwe, From Steinitz to Fischer (1976); and Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 (2003). The game without annotations is included in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), which I mention frequently on Chess Skills. There are three middlegame positions in GM-RAM from this game.

In my annotations, I aim to highlight the critical moments of this game, rather than creating a compendium of all that has been said by others.


Bogoljubow,Efim -- Alekhine,Alexander [A90]
Hastings Six Masters, Hastings, 21 September 1922

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2

6.Qxd2 offers White much better prospects. This game well-illustrates how this capture leads to a misplaced knight and reduces White's influence in the center. As long as this knight stands on d2 it prevents White's rooks from controlling the d-file and it stands as a potential target should Bogoljubow seek exchanges in the center. Tartakower suggests 6.Qxd2 and Nc3. Kasparov concurs.

6...Nc6 7.Ngf3 0–0 8.0–0 d6 9.Qb3 Kh8

White to move

While running a youth chess tournament at the end of our Spring Break Camp, I spent my idle moments going through this game. The position in the diagram above was on my board for much of the day. I asked many of the youth players and coaches whether they agreed with Alekhine's assessment that Black already has the upper hand. The first youth to face this question suggested 10.d5 and thought White was better. Tartakower also prefers 10.d5 to the move Bogoljubow played in the game.

Black's queen knight on c6 is more active than its counterpart on d2. White's queen is temporarily more mobile than Black's, but knowing how the game continued makes it hard to evaluate the position objectively. Black's queen proved to have more influence in the game. Perhaps the White queen is somewhat misplaced on the queenside. White's rooks are connected. Many youth players suggested that White has a lead in development and cannot be worse.

Alekhine annotated this game from the perspective of having won a brilliant victory. He might not have been particularly objective in his assessment of the game up to this point. We know that Black's queen made a foray to the kingside, where it provoked weaknesses, then returned to e8 to support action in the center and on the queenside. From the standpoint of the game's whole, Black's queen proved much more flexible and effective.

After 9.Qb3, Alekhine wrote, "This manoeuvre does not prevent Black from realising his plan, but it is already difficult to suggest a satisfactory line of play for White (Alexander Alekhine's Best Games [2012], eBook, loc 2665). Presumably, it is this comment that Euwe translated into the Informant symbol for Black has the upper hand in From Steinitz to Fischer. But, it seems to me that Alekhine might be annotating by result.

Tartakower and DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess offer several improvements to White's play over the next several moves. Most of these suggestions are repeated by Kasparov in My Great Predecessors. I think the game is still balanced at this point, but that Black has a clear edge after move 18. Kasparov quotes Alekhine's "already difficult ... for White," adding "Why?"

10.Qc3

After 10.d5, Kasparov offers two lines that the young players and I examined at the youth tournament.

10...Na5 11.Qc3 c5
10...exd5 11.cxd5 Ne7

In both cases, it does not seem that Black has an advantage. Kasparov states, "Black would have faced a thankless defence" (365).

10...e5 11.e3

Alekhine points out the vulnerability of White's knight on d2. If 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Qxe5 and the knight on d2 is en prise. Tartakower, Euwe, and Kasparov all repeat this line.

11...a5

Upon seeing this move, I might agree that Black has a slight edge after White's failure to play 10.d5.

White to move

12.b3 Qe8 13.a3 Qh5

At this point, Kasparov quotes Alexander Kotov, "The start of a deep strategic plan. First of all Black creates threats on the kingside and provokes a weakening of the opponents pawns" (Kasparov, 365).

A defect of My Great Predecessors is the absence of documentation. The whole series is full of quotes from other chess writers. Parts IV and V offer bibliographies, but not the sort of documentation that is desirable for a work that is so much a digest of the work of others. The first three parts offer less.

Kotov wrote several books about Alekhine in Russian (I saw the number six somewhere). One book exists in English, put out by R.H.M. Press: Alexander Kotov, Alexander Alekhine, tran. K. P. Neat (1975). I am tempted to buy this book. There are used copies floating about, and also an Ishi Press reprint.

14.h4

Alekhine writes, "A good defensive move, which secures new squares for his f3-knight and revived the threat of 15.dxe5" (loc 2682). I do not see why 14.dxe5 was not possible. Tartakower rejects it because after 14...dxe5 15.Nxe5 drops a piece. It seems to me that White could open the center and does not need to follow-up by blundering away a knight. The h2-h4 push can be played later.

I considered 14.Rab1 to support b3-b4. The immediate 14.b3-b4 drops a pawn because after 14...e4 15.Ne1, the rook is skewered through White's a-pawn.

14...Ng4 15.Ng5 Bd7

White to move

16.f3

Alekhine sought to provoke a weakening of White's kingside, and did so. But, Bogoljubow might have been a little too cooperative. I am tempted to regard 16.f3 as a mistake. Alekhine suggested in comments to 15.Ng5 that 15.b4 was preferable. Kasparov repeats Alekhine's suggestion.

Here Alekhine offers a tactical line that is even worse for White: 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.f3 exd4 18.fxg4 dxc3 19.gxh5 cxd2 with a better endgame for Black.

16...Nf6 17.f4

Black threatened 17...f4, which would have pried open White's pawn shield.

e4 18.Rfd1

18.d5 was White's last chance to be slightly worse.

18...h6 19.Nh3 d5

White to move

Black clearly has the upper hand now, in my view. Where did White fail? On moves 10-18, Bogoljubow had several opportunities to open the center and possibly create a balanced struggle. He opted instead to close the kingside and close the center. As a consequence, his pieces lost their mobility and became passive. His long-term plan seemed oriented towards action on the queenside, but the game's subsequent course revealed surprising resources for Black there.

Kasparov offers another juicy quote from Kotov, which highlights the success of Alekhine's long-term strategic plan. Kasparov's note preceding the game highlights the centrality of Kotov's commentary.

The last of the wins is one of the most grandiose Alekhine canvases. It once again shows that his amazing combinations did not arise out of thin air, but were the fruit of very deep strategic preparation.
Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 364.

20.Nf1

This position is the first of the three in GM-RAM from this game.

Ne7 21.a4

This position is the second in GM-RAM from this game.

Now, Boguljubow weakens his queenside, offering Black a nice outpost for his knight. Could he have tried to close matters there, too, and then hunkered down inside a fortress? To wit, 21.c5 Qg6 22.Qe1 Neg8 23.Kh2 Nh5 24.Ng1 Ngf6. White has no play, but how will Black break through?

21...Nc6 22.Rd2 Nb4 23.Bh1

This bishop could be useful preventing Black's knight for employing d3 as an outpost. Alas, there is no way to maneuver the bishop to such a useful square so long as the knight on f1 must guard the weak g-pawn. Perhaps White could redeploy his knights to h1 and h2 to guard g3 and g4? Surely, that would offer Black some opportunities elsewhere on the board.

Maybe 23.c5 is no worse than White's other choices. the tension between c4 and d5 only benefits Black. 23.cxd5 looks suicidal.

23...Qe8!

White to move

Now, c4-c5 is not possible due to b6. The problems with 24.cxd5 are worse than before.

24.Rg2 dxc4 25.bxc4 Bxa4

Alekhine has won a pawn. More significant than the pawn, however, is the preponderance of force for Black on the queenside as things open up. Half of White's army is sitting in the bleachers with their monarch, watching the game.

26.Nf2 Bd7 27.Nd2 b5 28.Nd1 Nd3

Alekine rejected 28...bxc4 because it would bring a White knight to e5.

29.Rxa5

White has won back the pawn, but his position is now much worse than it was a few moves ago. Now the game enters the phase where Alekhine's flashy tactical brilliance shines. Black has several ways to win, but the manner he chose elevates this game in the opinions of many chess students.

29.cxb5 and Alekhine offers 29...Bxb5 30.Rxa5 Nd5 31.Qa3 Rxa5 32.Qxa5 Qc6 with a winning attack for Black.

Black to move

29...b4! 30.Rxa8

Ziyatdinov's third position in GM-RAM from this game has now been reached.

30...bxc3!! 

This brilliant move was not necessary to win. 30...Qxa8 31.Qb3 (Alekhine's suggestion) 31...Qa1 (Kasparov's improvement over Alekhine's 31...Ba4) 32.Qb1 Ra8 and Black has a technical win.

31.Rxe8 c2 

The point of Black's last few moves.

32.Rxf8+ Kh7 33.Nf2 c1Q+ 34.Nf1 Ne1

Threatening smother checkmate.

35.Rh2 Qxc4 36.Rb8 Bb5 37.Rxb5 Qxb5

White's moves 30-37 are the computer's top choice. Alternatives lose much quicker.

White to move

38.g4 Nf3+ 39.Bxf3 exf3 40.gxf5 Qe2

White to move

What can White do? He is in zugzwang. Pawn moves delay the end.

41.d5

41.Nh1 Ng4 42.Rxe2 fxe2 and after sacrificing two queens. Black will gain one more to sacrifice.

41...Kg8 42.h5 Kh7 43.e4

Now White's remain pawn moves lose pawns.

43...Nxe4 44.Nxe4 Qxe4

White to move

45.d6 cxd6 46.f6 gxf6 47.Rd2 Qe2

Alekhine threatens checkmate in one.

48.Rxe2 fxe2 49.Kf2 exf1Q+

Alekhine's third queen sacrifice in this game.

50.Kxf1 Kg7 51.Kf2 Kf7 52.Ke3 Ke6 53.Ke4 d5+ 0–1

There is not much to criticize in Bogoljubow's moves after about move 20. But, his inaccurate play in the early game deprives this game of some of its merit. Alekhine's strategic preparation and tactical execution deserve study.


*George Grantham Bain Collection (Library of Congress) derivative work: Jesus Angel Rey, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16985493.

The Restricted Center

Dutch versus the English

My interest in the English Opening has been revived lately. As a consequence, I've been looking at some games in Anatoly Karpov, How to Play the English Opening (2007); Vladimir Kramnik, and Iakov Damsky, Kramnik: My Life and Games (2000); and S. Tartakower, and J. DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1952). There are a handful of Kramnik's instructive games in both his book and Karpov's. These merit study. Tartakower and Dumont offer a mere seven games with the English Opening.

The first of these seven in Tartakower and DuMont is Staunton -- Horwitz, London 1851. As Staunton's endorsement of 1.c4 is the reason the opening bears the name English, it is a fitting beginning. The authors describe this game as "a methodical blockade" (626). Staunton's systematic exploitation of weaknesses in Black's position and Horwitz's reduction to spectator status because of the passivity of his position probably merits more study than I have given it so far. I ran through the game and annotations yesterday. On the second pass through this morning, I found myself caught up in the opening.

There was clearly something wrong with Horwitz's effort to transpose into a Dutch Defense against Staunton's English, but it is less clear that his opening moves were fatal.

Staunton,H -- Horwitz,B
London 1851

1.c4 e6

There have been times, especially in 2016, when I have advocated that Black can play 1...e6 against any first move by White. One of my own former students beat me badly in a tournament game a few months ago that began 1.d4 e6. I was White. He played a Dutch Defense. My effort to deploy the Raphael variation blew up in my face.

2.Nc3 f5

Tartakower and DuMont comment:

Trying to revert to the Dutch Defence. But White, instead of playing 3.P-Q4, decides on a restricted centre (5.P-Q3), with action on the wings. (626)

This restricted center is more commonly known today as a small center. According to Hooper and Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd ed. (1996), "[a]s a strategic weapon for White the small centre was pioneered by Staunton" (375).

3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6

It is this offbeat move that removes most reference games while looking through this game with a database open.* It certainly appears that Black is making too many pawn moves. However, I found an interesting reference game that reveals another way that Black might have proceeded (see below).

5.d3

Black to move

5...Na6

5...d5 would transpose to my recommended reference game, Gashimov -- Moskalenko, Internet 2006. That game began 1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 d5 (playing this move before c7-c6 could have served Horwitz a little better) 5.d3 c6 6.Nf3 dxc4! 7.dxc4 Qxd1 8.Nxd1 and was drawn after 58 moves. Moskalenko's idea to eliminate the queens early worked well for him in this blitz game and might be worth considering should a player find him- or herself in a similar position.

6.a3 Be7 7.e3

"The restricted centre" (Tartakower and Dumont).

7...O-O 8.Nge2

In most games that resemble this one even slightly, this knight goes to f3. Perhaps, however, Staunton anticipates a need to support e3-e4 with the bishop.

8...Nc7 9.O-O d5

Black has been preparing this move.

10.b3

It is clear that Staunton had seen Moskalenko's game and had no wish to exchange queens.**

Black to move

10...Qe8

Tartakower and DuMont condemn this move as "aimless". They recommend e6-e5 "after due preparation." Annotations by Raymond Keene at Chessgames.com urge 10...e5 immediately.

While studying this opening and the rest of the game, I wonder whether the Dutch Defense is a viable way of meeting the English Opening. According to Tartakower and DuMont, the idea is flawed because White is not obligated to play d4. On the other hand, Black's f7-f5 was not the flaw in his opening. After ten moves, it is clear that Black's pieces are less mobile than White's even though White has made more pawn moves.


*I played through this game on the dining room table with Tartakower and DuMont open, but then went to my computer for further work on the opening. Thanks to a now defunct website, I have all of this book's games in a separate database.

**This nonsensical statement should be understood as irony.

Fried Liver Attack

In the second week of after school chess club, my beginning group doubled in size and includes several who have never played chess. While emphasizing how the pieces move and other first things, I showed the group Gibaud -- Lazard 1924, then offered assistance as the students paired off and played.

The advanced group saw this game, but not with all of the annotations presented here.

Von der Lasa,Tassilo -- Mayet,Carl [C57]
Berlin Berlin, 1839

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5

White's aggressive move immediately presents Black with some problems.

4.d3 is the main line and scores best.

4...d5

4...Bc5 is the other principal way of meeting White's threats. 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kf1 and White should be better 6...Qe7 7.Nxh8; 4...b5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bb3.

4...h6 5.Nxf7 Qe7 6.Nxh8 was played in De Wit -- Soylu 1999.

5.exd5 Nxd5

Accepting the Fried Liver gives White strong practical chances. Black is okay, and probably better, but it is much easier for Black to err. Moreover, errors are often fatal.

5...Na5 is a recommended alternative, as we saw last week.

White to move

6.Nxf7

6.d4 is an alternative, leading to:

a) 6...Bb4+ 7.c3 Be7 8.h4 Bxg5 9.Bxg5 Qd7 10.dxe5 Nb6 and was drawn in 47 moves Stoltz,G (2487) -- Karaklajic,N (2436), Belgrade 1952.

b) 6...exd4 7.0–0 Be6

7...Be7 was played against Paul Morphy when he was playing blindfold 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Ke6 10.Nc3 dxc3 11.Re1+ Ne5 12.Bf4 Bd6 13.Bxe5 Bxe5 14.Rxe5+ Kxe5 15.Re1+ Kd4 16.Bxd5 Rf8 17.Qd3+ Kc5 18.b4+ Kxb4 19.Qd4+ 1–0 Morphy,P -- Amateur,New Orleans 1858.

8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Qf3+ Kg8 11.Rxe6 is the line recommended by Tartakower and Du Mont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1952). Last week's game also came from this book.

6...Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6

Beginners sometimes play 7...Ke8 8.Bxd5 Qf6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Qxf6 gxf6 11.d3 and White has a clear advantage with both material and positional superiority.

8.Nc3

Black to move

8...Nce7

8...Ncb4 is Black's principal alternative, and one that I prefer as Black.

White's main responses are:

a) 9.Qe4 c6 10.a3 Na6

Alternately, Black can return the material in hopes of finding a secure home for the king 10...Nxc2+ 11.Qxc2 Kf7.

11.d4 Nac7 12.Bf4 Kf7 13.Bxe5 Be7 14.0–0–0 with a clear lead in development for White.

b) 9.Bb3 c6 10.a3 Na6 and Black is surviving for now.

c) 9. a3 Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1 11.Nxd5 Kd6 12.d4 Be6

In a correspondence game ten years ago, I played 12...b5 13.Ne7!? and I spent several hours finding Bg4.

The knight is untouchable:

13...Bxe7 14.Qd5#
13...Kxe7 14.Qf7+ Kd6 15.Qd5+ Ke7 16.Qxe5+ Be6 17.Qxe6#
13...Qxe7 14.Qd5#

13.Re1 b5 14.Nb4 bxc4 15.Qc6+ Ke7 16.Bg5+ Kf7 17.Bxd8 Rxd8 18.Qxc7+ Rd7 19.Qxe5 Rd6 20.d5 Bd7 21.Qf4+ Kg8 22.Qxc4 a5 23.Nd3 a4 24.Nc5 h5 25.Nxd7 Rxd7 26.d6+ Kh7 27.Re6 g6 28.Rxg6 1–0 Shirov,A (2709) -- Sulskis,S (2544), Tromso 2014.

9.d4 b5 10.Nxb5 

Black to move

10...c6

Students were asked to find White's refutations of 10...Ng6.

11.Bxd5+ Qxd5 12.Nxc7+

11.Nc3 Qb6

11...Bb7 is met by 12.Ne4.

12.dxe5 Bb7 13.Ne4 Qb4+?

13...Kd7 may be Black's best chance.

14.Bd2 Qxc4

White to move

This position offers a good example of materialism vs. piece activity and coordination. White has sacrificed two minor pieces, netting three pawns, but has a decisive attack.

15.Qg4+! Kxe5 

15...Kf7 16.Nd6+ Kg8 17.Qe6#
15...Nf5 16.Ng5+ Kd7 17.Qxc4+-.

16.f4+ Kd4 

16...Kxe4 17.Qe6+ Kd4 18.Be3+ Nxe3 19.Qe5#.

17.c3+ 

17.0–0–0 wins as quickly.

17...Nxc3 18.Bxc3+

Black to move

18...Kxe4

18...Qxc3+ 19.bxc3+ Kc4 20.Qe2+ Kd5 21.0–0–0+ Ke6 22.Ng5+ Kf5 23.Qe6+ Kxf4 24.Nh3#.

19.f5+

Von der Lasa missed a quicker checkmate:19.0–0–0 Qd3 20.f5+ Kd5 21.Rxd3+ Kc5 22.Qb4#.

19...Kd5 20.0–0–0+ Kc5 21.b4+ Kb5 

21...Kb6 22.Qxc4

22.a4+ 1–0

White regains far more material than he sacrificed to create an attack against the king.

A Magnet Sacrifice

Chess vocabulary varies and can be colorful. This morning, as I was reading S. Tartakower and J. Du Mont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1975 [1952]), I came across an old term for the maneuver that is usually called decoy these days. The term attraction is also used by some, such as Chess Tempo.

White to move

This position came about in a miniature played by Henri Delaire against an opponent whose name was omitted from the records. It appears in the annotations to G. A. MacDonnell -- Anderssen, London 1862, which is my current Game of the Week.

The move 14.Qxf5+! is called "a magnet sacrifice" by Tartakower and Du Mont. Black's king is lured or attracted to a vulnerable square where it suffers additional assaults. Accepting the sacrifice leads to checkmate.

Okay, Not So Easy

In"Training Exercises" I claimed to have achieved "an easily won game" as a result of an exchange sacrifice that was far from the best move in the position. In the comments, both Chesstiger and Rolling Pawns questioned my assertion.

All rook endgames are drawn.
Siegbert Tarrasch*

Ten moves against the computer from the first problem in Imagination in Chess led me to this position.

Black to move


Hiarcs 10 - Stripes,J
Progressive Thinking, 26.11.2008

I played 11... Ra4 with the idea of attacking the knight and passed c-pawn.

Play continued 12.Rd7 Rxd4 the exchange sacrifice

13.Rxd4 Rxc2+ 14.Ke3 Ra2

White to move


6k1/5p1p/6p1/p5P1/3RP2P/4K3/r7/8 w

I propose that this position might be useful for training against the computer as a means of developing endgame skill. Black has an outside passed pawn and has better pawns on the other side of the board. On the other hand, White has some play. White will quickly bring the rook behind Black's passed pawn via d8 or d7, and the e-pawn might threaten some disruption. My first effort was smooth and successful, but I tried again several more times after reading the comments in reply to my assertion that it was easy. I tried the position against several different engines--Hiarcs 10 and 12, Fritz 9--with modest success. I did not succeed in winning every effort.

Black has a technical win, but my assertion that is is easy overreaches a bit.


Mixed Results

The "Easy" Win

15.Rd8+ Kg7 16.Rd7 a4 17.e5



17...Kf8 18.Ra7 a3 19.Kd4 Ra1 20.Kc4 a2 21.Kb3



21...Rh1 22.Rxa2 Rxh4 23.Ra5 Ke7 24.Kc3 Ke6 25.Kd3 Rg4 26.Ra6+ Kxe5 27.Ra7 Rxg5 28.Rxf7 h5 29.Ke2 Rf5 30.Re7+



30...Kf4
30...Kf6 seems worth considering with the idea of keeping the White king from in front of the pawns

31.Kf2 Kg4+ 32.Kg1 h4 33.Re4+ Rf4 34.Re6 g5 35.Rg6 Rb4 36.Ra6 h3 37.Kh2 Rb2+ 38.Kh1 Kh4



If not for the h-pawn, White could play Ra3 and draw (Philidor position).

39.Ra4+ g4 40.Kg1 Rg2+ 41.Kh1 Rg3 42.Kh2 Rb3 43.Kg1 Kg3 44.Ra1 Kf3 45.Rf1+ Ke2 46.Rf2+ Ke3 47.Rf8 Rb1+ 48.Kh2 Rb2+ 49.Kg1 g3 50.Ra8

This move seems inexplicable. But sometimes when the computer sees that checkmate is forced, it will make a stupid move as if in despair.

50.Re8+ Kd4 51.Re1 Rf2 52.Kh1 Kd3 53.Rb1 Ke2 54.Kg1 Kf3 55.Rb3+ Kg4 56.Rb4+ Rf4 57.Rb2 h2+ 58.Kg2 Rf2+ 59.Rxf2 gxf2 60.Kxf2 h1Q 61.Ke2 Qd5 62.Ke3 Kg3 63.Ke2 Qd4 64.Ke1 Kf3 65.Kf1 Qa1#

50...Rb1# 0–1


An Easier Win

Hiarcs 12 - Stripes,J
Progressive Thinking, 27.11.2008

15.Rd8+ Kg7 16.e5 a4 17.Ra8 a3 18.Ra7 Kf8 19.Kd4 Ra1 20.Kd3 a2 21.Kc2



21...Rh1 22.Kb2 a1Q+ 23.Rxa1 Rxa1 24.Kxa1 Ke7 0–1

Often the key to winning a rook and pawn endgame is conversion to an elementary king and pawn endgame.


A Variation that Failed

Hiarcs 12 - Stripes,J
Progressive Thinking, 27.11.2008

15.Rd8+ Kg7 16.e5



16...Ra1?!
16...a4 is better. Black's a-pawn is the key to winning.

17.Rd7 Re1+
Black still wins with 17...Kf8

18.Kf4 Kf8 19.Ra7 Ra1 20.e6 Rf1+ 21.Kg4 fxe6 22.Rxa5 Rf5 23.Ra7 Rf7 24.Ra8+ Kg7 25.Re8 ½–½


Learning from Errors

My first effort against Fritz 9 encountered a different defensive strategy, and I failed.

Fritz 9 - Stripes,J
Progressive Thinking, 27.11.2008

14.Rd8+ I cannot explain why this move number is now 14 instead of fifteen Kg7 15.Ra8 a4 16.Ra7 a3 17.e5 Kf8 18.Kf4!

Fritz opts not to chase the a-pawn, preventing its promotion by another method.


18...Ra1 19.Kg3 a2 20.Kg2 Ke8 21.Kh2 Kd8 22.Ra8+ Ke7 23.Ra6 Kd7 24.Kg2 Kc7!



It is not necessary to protect the kingside pawns so long as the a-pawn is menacing.

25.Ra8 Kb7 26.Ra5 Kb6 27.Ra4 Kc5 28.Ra8 Kd5 29.Ra5+ Kc4 30.Ra7 Kb3 31.Rb7+ Kc3 32.Ra7 Kd4 33.Ra5 Ke4 34.Kh2 Kf4 35.Kg2 Kg4 36.Ra4+ Kh5 37.Kh2



37...Re1 38.Rxa2 Kxh4 39.Rf2 Kxg5 40.Rxf7 h5 41.Kg2 Rxe5 42.Rg7 Ra5 43.Kh3 Ra3+ 44.Kg2 Kf5



I've already demonstrated that I could win this sort of position. But I later got mixed up.

45.Rd7 Ra4 46.Kf3 h4 47.Rd5+ Ke6 48.Rb5 Kf6 49.Rb6+ Kg5 50.Rb5+ Kh6 51.Rb8 g5 52.Rh8+ Kg7 53.Rb8 Rf4+ 54.Kg2 Kg6 55.Ra8 Kf5 56.Kh3 Rf3+ 57.Kh2 Kg4 58.Ra4+ Rf4 59.Ra3 Rb4 60.Rc3 Kf4 61.Rc2 g4 62.Rf2+ Kg5 63.Ra2 h3 64.Kg3 Rb3+ 65.Kh2 Kh4 66.Ra4



66...Rb2+ 67.Kg1 Rb7 68.Kh2 Rf7 69.Rd4 Rf2+ 70.Kg1 Rf3 71.Kh2 Ra3 72.Rc4 Ra2+ 73.Kh1 Kg5 74.Rc5+ Kf4 75.Rc4+ Kf3 76.Rc3+ Kf2 77.Kh2 Ke1+ 78.Kg1 Rd2 79.Rc4 g3 80.Rc3 h2+ 81.Kh1 Kf2 82.Rxg3 Rd1+ 83.Kxh2 Rh1+ 84.Kxh1 Kxg3 ½–½

Trying again from the diagram after 66.Ra4:

Fritz 9 - Stripes,J
Progressive Thinking, 27.11.2008

66... Rb2+ 67.Kg1 Re2!
Improvement!

68.Ra6 g3 69.Ra4+ Kh5 70.Ra5+ Kg4 71.Ra4+ Kf3 72.Ra3+ Re3 73.Ra1



73...h2+ 74.Kh1 Kg4 75.Ra4+ Kh3 0–1

It's a long endgame from my training position, and perhaps not so easy. But, neither is such technique horribly complicated. With a bit of practice, these rook and pawn endgames can be won consistently.


*It is not entirely clear that Tarrasch ever made such a statement. An unsourced comment in Frank Brady, Bobby Fischer: Profile of a Prodigy (1973) states that Tigran Petrosian took comfort recalling this adage, attributed to Saviely Tartakower, while defending a rook endgame against Bobby Fischer (166). Often the statement as attribed to Tartakower reads slightly differently: "all rook and pawn endgames are drawn." Others attribute the quote to Tarrasch, who did write something similar: "In rook endings the weaker side generally has some chances of a draw right up to the very end" (Tarrasch, The Game of Chess [1935], 81, translated from Das Endspiel [1931]). See Edward Winter, Chess Notes 5822.