Chess Strategy by Edward Lasker (inspirational novels .TXT) 📕

breach in the Black barrier by playing P-KKt4 as well. These manoeuvres result in the pawn formations given in Diagrams 31 and 32.

–––––––––––––

8 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | #P | #P | | | | | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | | | #P | #P | | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | #P | #P | ^P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | | ^P | | ^P | | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | ^P | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | | | | | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | | | | | | | | |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 31

We must now turn to the development of the pieces corresponding to these pawn skeletons. If White plays P-K5

–––––––––––––

8 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | #P | #P | | | | | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | | | #P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | #P | #P | ^P | #P | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | | ^P | | ^P | ^P | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | ^P | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | | | | | | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | | | | | | | | |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 32

on his third move, he prevents the Black KKt from reaching KB3, whence he might have moved to Q2. This is a desirable position, from which he could support the advance of P-QB4. But the Knight has other chances of development, to KR3 and B4, whence he can take his share in the attack on the White Pawn at Q4. In consequence White must postpone P-KB4 in order not to intercept the action of the QB on R6. Now, in that case White’s Pawn at his K5 has not sufficient support against the attack by Black’s P-KB3 (Diagram 31), and the latter move gives Black the advantage. The two main variations illustrative of these considerations are:

I

3. P-K5 P-QB4

4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3

5. P-KB4 PxP

6. PxP Q-Kt3

7. Kt-KB3 Kt-R3

II

3. P-K5 P-QB4

4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3

5. Kt-B3 P-B3

In both cases the initiative falls to Black, in the first through the attack on White’s Q4, the mainstay of White’s centre; in the second through attack on White’s K5, the White centre itself. We must therefore consider White’s advance of P-K5 on the third move as premature. Let us now find out whether it is advantageous to effect the same subsequently. A developing move can be interpolated, e.g. 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3. If White plays P-K5 now he gains time for his advance of P-KB4, as Black’s Knight must retreat. On the other hand he cannot now maintain his pawn at Q4, as he has blocked his QBP. We arrive at the following plan of development:

 

3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3

4. P-K5 KKt-Q2

5. P-B4 P-QB4

6. PxP Kt-QB3

If Black were to play BxP at once, White could play Q-Kt4 with an attack on the Knight’s Pawn. That is the object of Black’s waiting move. White must either play 7. Kt-B3, which prevents his Q-Kt4, or 7. B-Q3, after which Black would take the pawn on B4 with his Knight, getting rid of the White Bishop. 7. Q-Kt4 at once would be answered by P-B4.

 

7. Kt-B3 BxP

8. B-Q3 P-B4

Black cannot castle yet, on account of the following threat, which I give in full because it occurs frequently in practice: 8. … Castles; 9. BxPch, KxB; 10. Kt-Kt5ch, K-Kt1: 11. Q-R5, R-K1; 12. QxPch; 13. Q-R5ch; 14. Q-R7ch; 15. Q-R8ch; 16. QxP mate.

–––––––––––––

8 | #R | | #B | #Q | #K | | | #R |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | #P | #P | | #Kt| | | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | #Kt| | #P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | #B | #P | ^P | #P | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | | | | ^P | | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | ^Kt| ^B | | ^Kt| | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R | | ^B | ^Q | ^K | | | ^R |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 33

The position in the diagram seems favourable to Black as White cannot castle for some time.

For that reason another line of play has come to the fore in which White exchanges his inactive QB for Black’s troublesome KB.

 

3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3

4. B-Kt5 B-K2

5. P-K5 KKt-Q2

6. BxB QxB

–––––––––––––

8 | #R | #Kt|#B | | #K | | | #R |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | #P | #P | #P | #Kt| #Q | #P | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | | | #P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | | #P | ^P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | | ^P | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | ^Kt| | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R | | | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 34

White has now the choice of two lines of development. He can either prepare for P-QB3 to support his QP. or he can develop his King’s side, holding the P at K5 only

I

7. Kt-Kt5 Kt-Kt3

8. P-QB3 P-QR3

9. Kt-QR3 P-QB4

10. P-KB4 Kt-B3

11. Kt-B2 Castles

12. Kt-B3 B-Q2

13. B-Q3 P-B4

The sacrifice BxPch, as mentioned above, was threatened.

 

14. Castles Kt-R5

15. R-Kt1 P-QKt4

If White does not wish to lose so many moves with his Kt, he can effect the intended protection of his QP as follows:

 

7. Q-Q2 P-QR3

not P-QB4 at once, because of Kt-Kt5.

 

8. Kt-Q1 P-QB4

9. P-QB3

II

7. P-B4 Castles

8. Kt-B3 P-QB4

9. B-Q3 P-B4

10. Castles Kt-QB3

and so on.

In both cases White has an easy development, whilst Black has no convenient square for his Queen’s Bishop.

To avoid this drawback Rubinstein has evolved the following variation, in which provision is made from the first for the freedom of action of the Queen’s Bishop:

 

3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3

4. B-Kt5 PxP

to open the diagonal for the Bishop at QKt2, e.g.:

 

5. KtxP QKt-Q2

6. Kt-KB3 B-K2

followed by P-QKt3 and B-Kt2.

We will now leave the French defence and turn our attention to the Caro-Kann, of which the initial position was shown in Diagram 28. Here also we find two essentially different systems of development, according to whether White plays P-K5 or gives Black the option of exchanging pawns by 3. Kt-QB3. In the first case a very noticeable difference from the French defence is, that Black can bring out his Queen’s Bishop. Here the process of development may be:

 

3. P-K5 B-B4

4. B-Q3 BxB

Not B-Kt3, because White could play P-K6! and paralyse the whole of Black’s game by preventing his playing the King’s Pawn.

 

5. QxB P-K3

6. Kt-K2 or KR3

Through this the move P-KB4, which fits into this pawn formation, is kept in reserve.

While White’s development is easy and natural, Black has difficulty in finding good places for his King’s side pieces. The game can proceed generally speaking on the lines of the French defence. Only Black can hardly attack White’s centre with P-B3, since the Pawn at K3 would be weak in the absence of the Queen’s Bishop. On the other hand, Black would be a move behind with an attack on the Queen’s side, since to reach QB4 his pawn would have made two moves instead of one as in the French defence. A certain compensation lies in the fact that White’s attacking King’s Bishop has been exchanged.

In practical play it has nevertheless been shown that White’s attack is more likely to succeed, and for this reason a variation introduced by Niemzowitsch has been tried several times; it aims at the exchange of Queens in order to weaken and retard White’s threatened attack, and to gain time for Queen’s side operations.

 

6. … Q-Kt3

7. Castles Q-R3 or Kt4

But after 8. Kt-B4, QxQ; 9. KtxQ, White is so much ahead with his development that Black’s chance of equalising the game would seem questionable.

If White plays Kt-KR3 on his sixth move, he foils at once Black’s attempt of forcing an exchange of Queens, as he could play 8. Q-KKt3.

On the whole we can conclude that in the Caro-Kann defence White obtains a good game by 3. P-K5.

A line of play which used to be in vogue, namely, 3. Kt-QB3, PxP; 4. KtxP, Kt-B3; 5. KtxKtch, KPxKt or KtPxKt, gives Black an even chance, for although he loses his centre pawn he obtains a good development, and later in the game he has opportunities of exercising pressure on White’s QP through his open Q file.

Except the French defence and the Caro-Kann, there is no game in which an irregular reply to White’s 1. P-K4 necessitates any special considerations either in development of pieces or pawn formation. In all such cases it is sufficient to maintain the pawn centre and to occupy such squares with the pieces, whence they cannot be driven away with the loss of a move. Just one example: If Black plays 1. … P-QB4 (Sicilian defence), White will not play his King’s Bishop to B4, because Black can reply P-K3, and gain a move by P-Q4.

B. Let us now consider the openings in which the first move is 1. P-Q4 on either side. Here the centre cannot be cleared as early as in the openings beginning with 1. P-K4, P-K4. The advance of a second centre pawn, which there led to a clearance, is not feasible in this case. White does not command his K4, and for some time to come he will be unable to advance the K pawn beyond K3. In consequence the K file does not seem a likely opening for the Rooks, and another file must be found for them. The conclusions arrived at for Black in the French defence hold good for both sides in the opening now under consideration, and accordingly the QB file is that most advantageous for the Rooks. The advance of the QBP strikes at the opposing centre, and, that being of paramount importance, the Queen’s Knight must not be developed at B3 before the QBP has been pushed on. Another development might be conceivable for the Rooks; viz. on the KB file, and also the KKt or KR file; here, as we shall see, an occasion may arise for storming the opposing King’s side by a pawn attack. But in this case, too, although it seems unnecessary to play the QBP, it is advisable to develop the Knight via Q2, as there is a constant threat of the QB file being forced open subsequently by the opposing forces.

We will start with the games in which the QB Pawns are played in the earliest stages of the opening, so that the pawn skeleton in Diagram 35 forms the basis of development. The sequence of moves is of moment, because the advance of the KP, whether forced or not, determines the possibility of bringing out the Q Bishops. The simplest