Florian, Tibor - Defence and Counter-Attack 1983

TIBOR FLORIAN
..
CORVINA KIADO
Defence and Counter-Attack
PERGAMON CHESS SERTRS

Executive Editor:
MARTIN J. RICHARDSON
General Editor:
DAVID N. L. LEVY
ALEXANDER, C.H. O'D. & BEACH, T. J.

Learn Chess: A New Way for All
ASSIAC & O'CONNELL, K.
Opening Preparation
AVERBAKH, Y.
Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge
BARDEN, L. W.
The Ruy Lopez: Winning Chess With 1P-K4
BELL, A.
The Machine Plays Chess?
CAFFERTY, B. & HOOPER, D.
A Complete Defence to 1P-K4, Second Edition
A Study of Petroff's Defence
CAFFERTY, B. & HOOPER, D.
A Complete Defence to 1d4
A Study of the Queen's Gambit Accepted
DICKINS, A. S. M. & EBERT, H.
100 Classics of the Chessboard
EVANS, L.
The Chess Beat
-GLIGORIC, S. & SOKOLOV, V.
The Sicilian Defence, Book 1
HARDING, T. D.
The Chess Computer Book
HARTSTON, W. R. & REUBEN, S.
London 1980: Phillips & Drew Kings Chess Tournament
KEENE, R.
The Chess Combination from Philidor to Karpov
LEVY, D. N. L.
Learn Chess from the World Champions
MEDNIS,E.
From the Opening into the Endgame
PORTISCH, L. & SARKOZV, B.
Six Hundred Endings
VUKOVIC, V.
The Art of Attack in Chess
WINTER, E. G.
World Chess Champions
TIBOR FLORIAN
Defence and
Counter-Attack
CORVINA KIADO
Translated by Sandor Eszenyi

Translation revised by Jerry Payne and Frank Boyd
Tibor Fl6rian, 1965, 1983

ISBN 963 13 1685 8
This is a translation of the original Hungarian edition entitled
vedekezes es e//entdmadtis published by Sport, Budapest, 1965
Published in co-operation with Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York
Contents
Attack or Defence '! 1
General thoughts and a short historical review
Different Kinds of Defence 5
Active and passive defence. Some definitions 5
Be Prepared! Preventive Defence 9
The Principle of Maximum Difficulty 13
Defence of Attacked Castled Positions 21
When both players castle on the same side 21
Avoid those weakening pawn moves! 21
Defence by moving the pawns defending the castled position 24
Pawn attack against short-side castled positions 31
Both players castle long 33
When the players have castled on opposite wings 34
Attack and Defence when the King Remains in the Centre 51
A Little Intermezzo: Attacks Other than those against the King 59
The Methods of Defence 64
Defence by material sacrifice aimed at changing the strategic character of the position 64
Defence by a tactical counter-blow 66
Defence by modification of the castled position 68
Defence by transition to an endgame 69
Defence by simplification (exchanging the attacking pieces) 71
Defence by closing a file 72
Self-defence by the king 74
Defence by setting traps 75
Defence by counter-attack on the other wing 76
Defence by sacrifice 77
The intermediate move (Zwischenzug) 78
The freeing move 79
Defence against Some Typical Attacks 81
The Pillsbury position 81
Knight sacrifice on f5 82
Defence against sacrifices in the Caro-Kann 84
Defence against the attack with an isolated pawn on d4 87
Defence against minority attacks 90
Postscript. Methodological Recommendations 94
Bibliography 95
Index of Players 96
Attack or Defence?
attack is futile without good defence. Attack
and defence are strategically related aspects
Should we play attacking or defensive chess? of the game of chess, particularly in the middle
Which is the more elegant, which the more game, and they are inseparably linked.
purposeful? Tournament players pond~r
Balancing attack with defence is, of course,
over these and similar questions just as much not only done for aesthetic reasons. It is
as ordinary chess enthusiasts. The answer also done as a response to such questions as
depends to a certain extent on temperament, which is more to the point, which is more useindividual preference, talent and many other ful, which is easier, or which is more difficult?
Looked at from this angle, the answer defactors.
It would seem, however, fairly certain pends perhaps even more on the player's
that for all the admiration aroused by the temperament, ft.air and taste. Certainly, the
spectacular feat of defence, the hearts of majority would opt for attack. ~we attack
most chess players beat fastest when the because we like to, we defend because we
names of the great attacking players, such have to," wrote the late American chess
as Anderssen, Morphy, Alekhine, Keres, writer, Fred Reinfeld, in his book dedicated
Bronstein or Tai, are mentioned.
to defence. As a rule, we do what we like
The rich imagination of these great mas- better than what we are compelled to do.
ters, their daring combinations, and spec- "No game has ever been won by defence
tacular sacrifices, have captivated contempor- alone,'' add the protagonists of attack. Dearies andsucceeding generations. Nimzowitsch fence, the repulsion of an attack, generally
believed that great defensive players were only leads to restoration of the balance.
numerically in a minority. Of the names Unless defence is followed by counter-attack,
mentioned by him, only Steinitz and Lasker the game will end in a draw. Of course, any
were widely known, whilst the rest (Bum, player is justly proud of achieving a wellDuras and others) are only remembered by a fought draw, and half a point in competition
handful of experts. It is also characteristic chess is better than none at all. Even so,
that when a great attacker emerges (for most chess players regard defence, to a
instance grandmaster Tal) people are so certain extent, as passive, since it is the atimpressed by the superiority that they tend tacker who determines the course of the game
to talk of a new style. But this is a subjective and the direction of events, in both the short
conclusion. It was Tai himself who referred and long term. The defender will have to adto those players, contemporary and past, just his moves, plans and methods according
who had ift.uenced him and who played to what the attacker does. The latter seems
in a style similar to his own.
free to choose between a number of differ.:.
While popular opinion unequivocally pre- ent possibilities, while the defender's game
fers the attacking game, when it comes to is dictated to him. For this reason the attacker
aesthetic effect it must be remembered that is psychologically in a more favourable situGeneral thoughts and a short historical review

ation: he is confident that he will soon develop his superior position into a victory, he
is optimistic, his imagination is stimulated by
the attractive combinative prospects unfolding in the course of his attack. The defender,
on the other hand, occasionally becomes
dispirited and dejected by the realization of
his handicap, and the repeated, increasing
threats wear away at his resistance. He cannot concentrate satisfactorily or for long
enough, he loses his patience or his belief
in the defensibility of the position, he makes
an error and he loses. This is the reason why
most chess players, from grandmasters to
"amateurs" who . only play for the fun of
it, regard defence to be more difficult than
attack. The talents demanded by a successful
defence: steadiness, patience, obstinacy, coolness, presence of mind, protracted concentration, unfailing alertness, all these are rarer
talents and more difficult to develop than
the combinative ability needed for attack.
This latter often emerges at an early age,
and is one of the most essential, perhaps
even the most essential element in the game of
chess.
It is not for nothing that attack and defence
are, as a rule, evaluated differently, depending on the player's age. Young people
usually go all out for attack. In their often
unbalanced eagerness to do this they frequently lose their heads and their patience
when their opponent in his turn launches an
attack. More mature people, on the other
hand, find much pleasure in studying the
games of the great defenders, and prefer
to analyse attacking games from the point
of view of whether the attack was really
irresistible, even in the face of some other,
more effective defence. In addition, they
tend to go for the quieter, more considered
lines in their own games.
It is commonplace, indeed nowadays essential, for young, aggressive players to steady
down and acquire the art of positional play
and defence. The leading chess players of

our age are generally many-faceted artists
with a wide variety of strengths. One-sidedness is unquestionably detrimental to success. It is no surprise, therefore, that one of
the greatest attacking players of all times,
grandmaster Keres, the chess-idol of many
enthusiasts, wrote an essay on the defence
of difficult positions. He is perhaps the best
example of how a young man, who first
attracted attention with flamboyant attacking
feats and sharp sacrifices, gradually perfected his positional play, endgame technique
and defence. The full armoury of chess can
be found in his games. In the interests of
truth, however, it should be noted that,
according to the latest and most advanced
theory, the chess player need not strive for
attack at any cost so much as seek the initiative. He should try to decide the course
of the game's development and force his
will onto his opponent. This, in any given
case, may also mean that he does not let his
opponent attack, that he manages the opening in such a way that it prevents the opponent from getting tactical chances, from
creating baffiing complications and confusing positions. From this point of view these
preventive measures are certainly not passive, they conform with the principle of initiative. But there is no doubt that the concept
of initiative generally relates to that of attack
and activity, and not to that of defence.
The maturing process whereby a fiery

youngster, endeavouring to attack in all
his games, gradually settles down, is commonplace in the history of chess. In the
heroic age of the game, up to the end of the
nineteenth century and the appearance of
Stei.ajtz on the scene, the world of chess
was dominated by what the literature termed
the romantic trend. This style began with
an almost medieval code of chivalry. The
attacks were not carefully prepared, the in-
Attack or Defence?
herent dangers were not weighed up, and the
players did not overtly care about the security of their king. They often and gladly
sacrificed pawns and pieces alike, with the
aim of creating utmost confusion. Acceptance of the sacrifice was almost obligatory,
simplification was regarded as shameful
retreat, play being guided not by reason and
logic, but by the flourish of the imagination.
Surprise attacks and combinations often
came about as a result of the defence either
having been neglected or its importance
underestimated. Attacks were considered to
have been the product of genius, not the
consequence of the position reached on the
board, of thoughtlessly weakened points,
open lines, and the number of other strategic
errors which smoothed the way for the
attacker and eased his task. Adolf Anderssen,
winner of the first international chess tournament, the London tournament of 1851,
was the hero of this era. Following his victory, contemporaries regarded his romantic
and combinative style as superior to the
quieter, positional play adopted by some
players since Philidor and which was represented at that famous tournament, inter
alia, by the Englishman Howard Staunton.
It was Paul Morphy who usurped Anderssen's sovereignty in chess. This young
American was also an attacking player, yet
he introduced a further, higher phase of
development. His attacks were no longer the
product of a free, ill-disciplined imagination,
nor the result of adventure and the fortunes
of war. His games show that during a career
of but a few years, Morphy had recognized
the importance of a number of strategic
principles, primarily those of the development
of advantage and superiority in the centre.
His opponents, mostly still adherents of the
old, romantic style, were simply unable to
resist this attacking technique, based as it
was on superior strategic principles, which
they were incapable of countering.
The first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, was the one who initiated the great
change in the concept of attack and defence.
Steinitz had thoroughly analysed the brilliant attacking games of the combinativeromantic style, and found that the attack! often succeeded by the negative virtue of poor
defence. Steinitz saw chess as a function of
the balance of forces on the board, and he
accordingly raised defence to a status of full
equality. It was inconceivable to him that
any attack could be successful if it was met
by adequate counter-measures in the right
place and at the right time. By working out
the strategy of positional play and defence
Steinitz became the founder of the modern
approach to chess.
One of Steinitz's important conclusions is
that an attack can only succeed if the attacker
has an advantage. This can be temporary or
lasting. An advantage in mobility frequently
disappears after a few moves, but the strong
and weak points resulting from the pawn
structure are more permanent. One should
endeavour to increase these lesser or greater
advantages and sooner or later there will
develop a superiority of power which permits
a combination. The one who has the advantage should attack, while the other should
concentrate on defence. He should eliminate
weaknesses right away and not wait until a
crisis arises. While defending, he should pay
constant attention to the principle of economy, that is, as far as the elements of time
and force are concerned, he should expend
as little of these as possible on fending off
the opponent's threats. If the defender thus
adapts to the character of the position and
to the inner logic of the defence, then, according to Steinitz, he will have no reason to
despair and can confidently oppose even the
most perfect of attacks.
This is not the place for a detailed account
of Steinitz's revolutionary theories. The best
analyst of his ideas and his successor on the
3

throne of
Ever since Steinit7., defence has had a

value equal to that of attack, and the study
of the techniques and methods of defence is
just as necessary to the chess players of our
age as familiarity with the most frequent
mating positions or combinative motifs.
World Cham.pionhip was:
Lasker. He, along with Tarrasch and all of

the other great chess players around the tum
of the century and beyond, were disciples of
Steinitz. With some, for example Tarrasch,
his teachings were turned sometimes into
dogmas. Others, such as the members of the
Soviet school of chess, enriched Steinitz's
findings with valuable innovations.
Different Kinds of Defence

Acti'fe and passive defence.
Some definitions
he could prevent the execution of our attacking plans. This is only possible if we are
acquainted with the techniques of defence.
The reverse is also tme: we must recognize
the clouds that are charged with lightning,
the gathering storm of the attack, we must
foresee the threat and know how the opponent's forces can approach our position. In
short, we must know everything about attack
in order to build a successful defence.
The comparatively limited number of
books on the subject use a number of terms
to distinguish the various kinds of defence.
The Austrian master, Hans Kmoch, whose
work "The Art of Defonce" was one of the
first. on the subject, distinguished between
passive, active, aggressive, automatic and
philosophical defence.
Reuben Fine, obviously following some
other basis of distinction, also talks of
"useless" defence. Otherwise, many of the
authors distinguish only between good and
bad defence, and group their illustrations
accordingly. In his time, Nimzowitsch dealt
in detail with preventive defence (prophylaxis) and over-protection, that is the reinforcement of strategically important squares.
As far as we are concerned, we agree with the
opinion of the Soviet master, I. Kan, according to which it is enough to talk about active
and passive defence at the present stage of
development in defence theory. Apart from
that, we also accept the distinction of the
Yugoslav expert, V. Vukovic, who talks of
direct and indirect defence. The defending
party applies direct defence on those sections
of the front where the opponent's threats are
apparent, while the creation of counter-
Although we have regarded defence, in the

wake of Steinitz's concepts, as a completely
legitimate strategic process for more than a
hundred years, its literature is rather meagre.
This also holds true, to a certain extent, for
middlegame literature. This is because games
are typically classified by their openings,
even though the substance of the middlegames deriving from various openings may be
identical or at least similar. Thus, for instance, the Queen's Gambit Accepted, the
Panov variation of the Caro-Kann, the SemiTarrasch Defence to the Queen's Gambit,
the Nimzo-Indian can all lead to a middlegame where White's advantage in space and
attacking chances on the K-side are compensated by Black's counterplay against the isolated d-pawn.
Even works which deal with attack as well
as defence usually treat the former more
thoroughly. An example is the book by the
excellent Austrian theoretician, Hans Miiller,
"Attack and Defence", in which he dedicates some 130pagestoattackand a mere 15
to defence. Similar disproportions can be
observed with other authors as well. Nonetheless, this situation is not really so bad,
and we should not condemn the authors for
it. Attack and defence are so closely interwoven that it is impossible to analyse one of
them without studying the other. Or, putting
it in the vernacular of the chess player: in
order to ensure the success of our attack, we
have to evaluate the resistance of the opponent's position, we must see in advance how

tJ>.reats on some other part of the board is
caQ.ed indirect defence. The former corresponds more or less to passive, the latter to
active defence.
~ssing the subject it becomes quite
clear ~at active and passive defence essentially epcompass all kinds of defence. On the
other hand, in practice the defending player
uses both methods equally, even during a
single game. He might apply passive defence
for a while, limiting himself to fending off
his opponent's threats, then gradually create
counter-thrC4ts and swing into counterattack. Obviously we cannot categorically
declare that active defence is of a higher order
or that we should conduct an active defence
in every position, however, much activity and
initiative are among the major principles of
modem chess attitudes. The choice of the
mode of defence is always the prerogative of
the defending party, depending on the character of the attack. We h~ve to apply one
defence against an attack led by pieces,
another against storming pawns, and yet
another when the basis of the opponent's
initiative is generated by positional pressure
or a strongly entrenched piece.
It is advisable to connect the meeting of
threats as far as possible with the preparation
of the counter-attack, in other words to
conduct the defence as actively as circumstances allow. But often passive defence also
leads to success, even victory. It is not
infrequent for the attacker himself to become
weak in the course of the attack. Perhaps his
pawns advance too far and are unable to
provide adequate defence for his king's
position, or the majority of his pieces are lined
up on one sector of the board, leaving other
parts defenceless. If the attack does not reach
its objectives on such occasions, owing either
to the accurate play of the defender or to
mistakes on the part of the attacker, then it is
often impossible to salvage even half a point,
since the attacker is destroyed by the
weaknesses developed in the course of his

own attack. In that event it is enough to ward
off the direct threats, perhaps to effect some
simplification, and the resulting endgame
will be hopeless for the attacker!
In what follows we shall mainly be studying practical examples, again following the
concept of the Soviet master, Kan. The theory
of the middlegame is still insufficiently
developed for it to be reasonable to formulate
general rules. Such rules involve the dangerous
possibility that readers might mechanically
memorize them instead of actually studying
the position reached on the board.
There is yet another pitfall we try to avoid.
The remarks and advice that are to be found
in some chess books are, to a certain degree,
of a general character, suggesting good
conduct rather than giving practical guidance.
They are hints of the nature that we should
"prepare a plan", "be circumspect in the
execution of the plan", "not drop our guard
even in a favourable position", "the devil and
the opponent is eternally vigilant", etc.
Of course, these reasonable admonitions have
as much validity and are of as much use in
chess as they are in other areas of life, but
they do not exhaust the correlations of the
ancient struggle fought out over a board
with 64 squares and involving 32 pieces.
Some chess authors have gone to the
other extreme: they analyse individual moves
and sequences exhaustively, cite masses of
variations, but fail to deduce general conclusions. They state that one move is good,
another bad, but they do not explain why.
They lay too much emphasis on aspects of
technique and neglect those of didactics,
psychology or philosophy. Often one cannot
see the wood for the trees with this method
of treatment. We believe that we must try to
reconcile both of these methods.
In the course of studying defence we find
that there are many valid propositions which
can also be found in military strategy. But
6
Different Kinds of Defence

this does not excuse us from actually analysing the details of defending against possible
mating attacks on h2 or h7, introduced by
a typical bishop sacrifice. Conversely, if we
find why it is that the seemingly effective
defence of the castled position by moving
a pawn to h3 (or h6) is detrimental, then we
should also draw the appropriate conclusions.
It is not always easy to define the terms
relating to chess strategy and tactics. The
debate on the definition of the concept
"combination", for instance, went on for
years, and it has not yet been concluded.
The definition of defence is relatively simple:
defence is the repulse of an attack. However,
in order to understand this definition, we also
need to define the concept of attack.
If we aim one of our moves against one of
our opponent's pawns or pieces, that is, if we
are threatening to capture it with our next
move, or if we line up our forces concentrating on an important square with the intention
of taking possession of it, then we say we are
attacking the piece or the square in question.
Yet attack, as a strategic process, is more than
that, particularly in the middlegame. We conduct an attack when we produce several consecutive threats in order to reach a definite
target, even if we occasionally interpose some
"quiet", preparatory moves or manoeuvres.
The aim is to check mate the opponent's
king, or to acquire such a decisive advantage
in material or position that the eventual
attainment of this primary aim is secured.
On the basis of the foregoing, the definition of attack could be this: attack is the
sequence of moves connected by a consistent
plan and aim, whereby we acquire a decisive
advantage once the obstacles in the way of
the attack are overcome.
In general it is held that there are two
conditions for the success of an attack:
1. There must be some weakness in the
opponent's position which dictates the direction of the attack. If there is no such weakness
at the time the attack is launched, we must

be sure that we will be able to force the creation of such weak points in the course of, or
as a result of, the attack.
2. The attacker's forces must have an
overwhelming superiority on that part of the
board where the attack is aimed, or it must
be calculated in advance that the attacker can
concentrate greater forces in the chosen area
than the defender can.
Naturally, sufficient strength of one's own
position is also a preliminary to launching
a successful attack, since it deprives the
opponent of any chance of staging a
successful counter-attack. One of the criteria
for this is a solid centre.
Many people rightly analyse the defence by
reversing the principles of attack. Preventing
the development of weak points or their
exploitation if they already exist (e.g. exchanging an isolated pawn, etc.), and reducing the
opponent's material superiority on the endangered section of the front by exchanging off
hostile pieces or by regrouping the defending
forces, are also considered to be preconditions of effective defence.
Attacks develop, as a rule, in the direction
of some weakness. There may therefore be as
many different kinds as there are different
kinds of weakness. It is possible to capture
an adventurous piece by means of a longterm attacking manoeuvre, or to occupy
important squares in the vicinity of the defensive line. Yet, because the king is the most
important and yet most limited piece as far
as mobility is concerned, the attack is most
frequently directed against the position of the
king (mating attack). For this reason, we
shall give prominence to the study of defending such attacks.
The counter-attack is, in fact, an indirect
form of defence. Here the defender becomes
the attacker. Thus it needs no separate
definition. Two kinds of counter-attack are
possible.
7

1. The defender first parries the threats and
enters into the counter-attack afterwards.
2. The counter-attack develops simultaneously with the attack, in order to force the
withdrawal of the attacking forces into
defence.
Attacks are also distinguished by the forces
employed by the attacker. If he uses exclusively (or predominantly) pieces for attaining
his goal, we talk of an attack by pieces.
If he sends his pawns into the offensive, then
a pawn attack ensues. The most frequent
mating attack comes about when both
players castle on the same wing, usually on the
K-side. In such an event the main method
used is the piece attack. Castling on opposite
sides is also quite common, particularly as a
consequence of the modem handling of the
opening (some variations of the Sicilian and
the King's Indian defences). When this is the
case, the pawn charge is the predominant
method of attack. The main chapter of our
book discusses possible methods of defence

against the latter and this is where the theme
of counter-attack is encountered most frequently.
When castling is carried out on the same
side, we will learn the various methods of
defence, and when castling is done on
opposite sides, we will mainly see examples
of counter-attack (sometimes called "simultaneous counter-attack", or play over the
whole board, etc.). The pawn attack when
both players have castled on the same side,
and the piece attack when they have castled
on opposite sides, are treated as comparatively rarer occurrences.
Before we discuss our major subject, the
attack on the castled position, we will
introduce the difficult task of defence in some
general chapters and we will finish our book
with a few chapters on the question of which
defensive methods should be employed
against the various forms of attack.
Be Prepared!
Preventive Defence
we frequently make moves whose profit will
become clear later, as the opponent's plans
take shape. This is why we try to develop
rapidly and secure the harmonious cooperation of our forces, this is why we
endeavour to take a firm stand in the centre
and avoid the development of weak points in
our positions.
The position shown below develops in one
of the main variations of the King's Indian
Defence, which is currently so popular, after
the following sequence of moves:
It follows from Steinitz's teaching and the

foregoing that defence comes into play when
one of the parties has a disadvantage in some
area. The best thing, therefore, is to maintain
strength, as far as possible all the time, to
prevent the opponent from gaining an
advantage in the first place. This is more
easily said than done because of the limitations of the human mind. Still, we will give a
few examples, first where the player, recognizing the impending danger well in time and
seeing the direction of the opponent's possible
attack, reinforces the threatened section of the
front-line before the attack actually develops.
If then the opponent does not give up his
intention, the defender has sufficient forces
to repel it and then perhaps to launch a
counter-attack in some other area of the
board. If the opponent attacks on one of the
wings, the scene of the counter-attack will,
as a rule, be on the' other wing or in the centre,
whence the enemy forces were siphoned off
in order to mount the attack. From this
arises a rule of the middlegame (perhaps the
only one to allow no exceptions): a successful
flank attack is only possible when the centre
is secure. Or, looking at it from the point of
view of the defender: if the enemy threatens
an attack on the flank, we should not close
the centre; if it is already closed, we should
endeavour to open it (the centre is regarded
as closed when the pawns are "interlocking",
e.g. when White's pawns are on c4, d5, e4, and
Black's on c5, d6 and e5).
These preventive measures are also called
"defence in an equal position" by some chess
writers. As a matter of fact, in the opening
stages, when the game's foundations are laid;
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0

6 Be2 e5 7 0-0 Nc6 8 d5 Ne7 9 Net Nd7
The outlines of Black's impending attack

are becoming clear from the pawn structure
and his last knight moves (with 8. . . Ne7
the queen's knight is directed towards the
K-side, and with 9 ... Nd7 the King's knight
moves out of the f-pawn's way). Since the
centre is closed, it is feasible to attack on the
wing. Black sometimes obtains a decisive
attack with f7-f5-f4 then ... g5-g4 and a
pawn sacrifice on g3, combined with ...
Nf6, ... Ng6 and ... Rf6-g6 (or ... Rf6-h6).
White's defence is impeded by the lack of
9

room that results on the K-side. Therefore
it is sensible to take measures against this
before the attack develops. The seemingly
startling move 10 g4! was played for the
first time in a game between the Hungarians
Sandor and Gereben during the 8th Hungarian Championship in 1952. After 10 ... f5
11 f3 ! (the move-order 10 f3 f5 11 g4 has
become more customary, as for instance in
Gipslis-Gufeld, 31st U .S.S.R. Championship,
1963) it turns out that Black can no longer
achieve the attack described above. There is
a satisfactory defence open for White on
the K-side, whether Black opens a file with ...
fX g4 or keeps the position closed.
The moves 9 Nel 10 g4 and 11 f3 are
therefore links in a well-considered defensive manoeuvre. Black was determined to
keep up the attack and opted for a piece
sacrifice in both of the games quoted, but
he failed to gain sufficient compensation and
lost. In the Gipslis-Gufeld game, Black
continued with 11 . . . Nf6 12 Nd3 Kh8.
Instead, he could have executed a preventive
defensive manoeuvre on the Q-side similar
to that of his opponent by 12 ... c5 then .. .
a6, ... b6 and ... Ra7 (or ... Qc7 and .. .
Bd7) in order to ward off any Q-side attack
that could be started with a pawn charge.
A Portisch-Taimanov game (BudapestLeningrad, 1959) :finished in a draw after
very similar moves.
If necessary, White could render his Kside even more "airtight" with h2-h4 and
g4-g5. It should be noted for the sake of
completeness that yet another method is
available to White for preventing Black from
playing ... f7-f5-f4, viz. 10 Be3 f5 11 e X f5
gXf5 12 f4!. Here too the aim of the preventive defence is to stop Black from gaining
additional ground. Black would also acquire
an advantage in time, as well as space, on
10 Be3 f5 11 f3 f4 when his pawn, by attacking
the bishop, advances with gain of tempo.
10
Mason -
Cbigorin
London, 1883
The above position arose after White's

25th move. Here too White is trying to
attack on the K-side. Black has already
carried out the preventive measures ... Kh8.
Now he does not stand idly by, waiting for
the storm, but initiates a counter-action in
the centre.
25 ... d5! 26 h4 d4 27 exd4 exd4 28 g5
The immediate 28 h5 was better, since the
advance . . . g5 would weaken f5 and after
29 Nf5 Black would get into difficulties.
Any other move by Black would allow the
opening of the h-file.
28 . Qg7 29 b5 Kg8
Black is putting up a calm and collected
defence, allowing his queen to be driven
into a passive position because he realizes
that this passivity is of a temporary nature.
Moreover, in this way Black avoids the opening of the important h and g-files.
30 h6 Qb8
White has apparently attained a considerable advantage, since he has pushed back
Black's forces. A deeper analysis of the position, however, shows that White's attack has
faded, and the temporary passivity of Black's
pieces can be remedied by opening the ffile, and by getting rid of the pawn on g5.
31 Qd2 f6! 32 Qf4 fXgS 33 Qd6
White must seek complications, because
after 33 QXg5. Ne5 34 Nxe5 RXfl+ 35
Be Prepared! :Preventive Deien<!e

NXfl Qxes the initiative would slip over
to Black.
33 Rf7 34 Rhf2 Qf6 35 QXf6 RXf6 36
eS
An ingenious trap, but it is only effective
if Black falls into it: 36 ... NXeS? 37 Ne4!
RXf3 38 RXf3 NXf3 39 Nf6+ and White
wins.
36 Rf4 37 Nxg5 RXf2 38 RXf2
RXeS
Black has beaten off White's attack, and
won a pawn. White's subsequent exchanges
are aimed only at reaching a draw.
39 NXh7 KXh7 40 c3 NXd3 41 Rf7+
KXb6
White's attack has disappeared into the
mists of time.
42 RXd7 NXb2 43 cXd4 cXd444RXb7d3
Black won.
Let us have a look now at a counterexample, where the defender fails to recognize
his opponent's plans in time or perhaps
underestimates them. Black does not carry
out the necessary preventive measures and
succumbs to his opponent's attack.
Stahlberg -
Filip
10th Olympiad, Helsinki, 1952
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 Bb4 S cXd5

exd5 6 BgS b6 7 Bh4 cS 8 Rel c4
Much could be said even at this stage
about the opening itself, a major variation
of the Ragozin Defence. With his last move
Black avoids the danger of his d-pawn becoming isolated by White's move dXc4.
The other advantage is that it creates a pawn
majority on the Q-side, where Black can
eventually obtain a passed pawn. Its great
disadvantage, on the other hand, is that it
relaxes the pressure in the centre, and with
a closed centre it is more difficult to find
efficient counter-play, should the opponent
eventually attack on the flanks.
11
9 Nd2! Be6
The threat was 10 BXf6 QXf6 11 NXd5.
10 e3 0-0 11 Be2 Nc6 12 0-0 a6?
The position here being more or less equal,

Black thinks he can immediately go ahead
with the pawns' advance, a natural plan in
view of his Q-side majority. But he should
first have pre-empted White's pawn attack
on the K-side with a few safety moves.
White's threat should have been foreseen
for the following reasons, even if White did
not make such "obvious" moves as in the
previous example (h3, and particularly g4):
1. Black has weakened his K-side with ...
h6 since it makes the opening of the file
easier after g4-g5;
2. The pin on the Nf6 complicates the defence of the K-side by pieces;
3. White has a pawn majority on the K
side;
4. The centre, so vital for counter-play
against a flank attack, has already been
closed by Black. Since the possibility of Q-side
play remains open, the correct defence here
was 12 ... Be7 ! in order to prevent the white
pawn advance, answering 13 f4 with 13 ..
Nd7! 14 BXe7 NXe7! 15 g4 f5!
Since his opponent fails to carry out the
appropriate preventive measure, grandmaster Stahlberg converts the attack into
victory in examplary fashion.
13 f4! Ne7!
This was intended to lure White into 14

DX f6 in which event the black king position
would be easier to defend than in the actual
game. After 14 ... gXf6 15 g4 the important
move 15 . . . f5 ! would become possible.
14 g4! Nh7 15 fS Bc8 16 e4!
Now 17 N X d5 is threatened. Should Black
capture on e4, then 17 NdXe4 would follow
and 18 BXc4 as well as 18 f6! would be
threatened.
16 Ng5 17 BXgS hXgS 18 eS!
White only needs to open the h-file and
the fate of Black's king is sealed.
18 b5 19 Nf3 Nc6 20 Qd2 f6 21 exf6

gXf6 22 b4! gXh4 23 Kg2 Qd6 24 NXh4
Ra7 25 Ng6 Rft"7 26 Rht Rh7 27 Bf3 RXhl
28 RXhl Rh7
28 .. BX c3 is not on, because of 29 Rh8 +
Kil 30 Qh6!
29 BXdS+ Kg7
Or 29 ... QXd5+ 30 NXd5 BXd2 and
White wins after 31 N X f6 +.
30 RXh7+ KXh7 31 Qe3! Black Resigned.
Black resigned because the mating threat
32 Qh3+ Kg7 33 Qh8 + can only be parried
by 31 . . . Qd8 losing a piece.
12
The Principle of Maximum Difficulty

In the last chapter we discussed defence in
equal positions and how the defender can
avoid getting into an inferior position.
In fact, it is much more common for one
of the parties already to be at a disadvantage
and forced on the defensive as a result of
earlier mistakes. The attacker's aim in such
cases is, generally speaking, to overcome various obstacles. By exploiting his material
advantage, the superior activity of his forces
or the weaknesses that have developed in his
opponent's position, he endeavours to break
down any feasible resistance, give mate or
attain a decisive material advantage.
It is generally accepted that defence is the
reverse of attack. In most instances we can
arrive at its principles and rules by reversing
the principles and rules of attack. If the
attacker strives to surmount obstacles, then
the interest of the defender consists in erecting as many serious hurdles as possible.
This was discovered by Steinitz and Lasker.
Grandmaster Kotov, in his analyses of Alekhine's games, called this the "principle of
maximum difficulty".
Let us see this idea illustrated in some
examples. The author's likes and dislikes are
inevitably reflected in the selection of material. We will, therefore, write about a
Portisch game first, a game which we had
the opportunity to admire while it was being
played and which we believe to be a magnificent defensive feat quite apart from any
subjective leanings.
Teschner -
Portisch
Jnterzonal
Stockholm, 1962
1 e4 cS 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cXd4 4 NXd4 a6 5
Bd3 Bc5 6 Nb3 Ba7 7 0-0 Ne7 8 Nc3 Nbc6
9Qb5!?
It is not difficult to see that with this move
White plans a K-side attack should Black
castle short. The other aim of such sorties
is to persuade the opponent to make safety
moves which may lead to the weakening of
his position. These are mainly pawn moves,
such as 9 ... g6? or 9 ... h6?
9 Ng6 10 Bg5 Qc7 11 Rael 0-0!?
So Black accepts the attack on the castled
position, obviously in recognition of the
fact that the king is no better off in the centre,
since there is a threat of the eventual opening
of a file, for example by the temporary piece
sacrifice Nd5 !
12 Khl Nf4!
One of the methods of defence in a piece
attack is the repulsion or exchange of the
attacker's pieces.
13 Qg4! Bb8!
A concealed riposte, resembling the famous 14th move ... Bb8! in the well-known
Spielmann-Keres game at Noordwijk, 1938.
After a passive retreat such as 13 . . . Ng6
White could carry on with the attack by
way of h4 or f4, whereas now Black has
not only defended himself, but has also created an indirect counter-threat on h2 by for
instance 14 ... Nxd3. Should White parry
this with the obvious 14 g3 he could not
bring his rooks into the attack on the third
rank and would also weaken the a8-hl
13

long diagonal, along which Black would
obtain counter-play.
14 eS! Ng6!
This time, however, passive resistance is
the only pos~dbility! Even though 14 ...
Nxd3 would reduce the number of the opponent's attacking forces by one, the fact
that the only piece defending the K-side, the
black knight, would also leave the board,
weighs more heavily. White would not recapture immediately after 14 . . . N X d3?
but would interpolate the move 15 Bf6 ! with
the threat of mate on g7. The latter could
only be warded off by 15 ... g6 after which
the subsequent Qg5-h6 would face the
defender with a hopeless task. We should,
therefore, think positively and evaluate all
the possible variations of defence!
15 f4 d6!
Owing to the inner logic of the position,
White's pawn structure has become rigid
in the centre in the course of the attack. The
goal of the defender is to get rid of the e5
pawn, which is hemming in his own position.
This generates some activity, in order to
distract the opponent's attention. But the
German master does not allow himself to be
diverted from his aggressive plans and he
sacrifices a pawn.
16 Qb5! dXeS 17 Re3! fS!
The attack on the castled position, conducted exclusively with pieces, has almost
brought results; the threat of 18 Rh3 could
have forced 18 ... h6 after which the attacker
14
would deprive the opponent's king of the

support of his pawns with the sacrifice 19
BX h6 ! and break in along the open files.
What made all of this possible? It was not
so much the consequence of individual mistakes or omissions, as the character of the
defence chosen. Quite frequently in the Sicilian Black temporarily accepts a defensive
role on the K-side and, as in the variation of
the Paulsen Sicilian chosen here, several
black pieces end up on the Q-side. This, in
turn, leads to White's material superiority
on the opposite flank, a condition without
which a piece attack on the wing cannot
succeed, particularly if the K-side is not yet
weakened (where the pawns are still in their
original position, defending the king). Actually the knight only is defending Black's
king against the attack of four white pieces.
No wonder, therefore, that Portisch now
applies the method of defence which Steinitz
named "the self-defence of the king": the
king, believing that running away is inglorious but useful, leaves the endangered area
as soon as possible.
18 Rh3 Kf7!
A peculiar combinative parrying of the
attack against h7. If 19 QXh7? Rh8! and
the queen cannot escape.
19 fXeS Nxes 20 Bf4 Qe7!
The direct mating threat is over, but
annoying pins have developed. It is best to
remove these as quickly as possible.
21 Ne4! b6!
21 . . . fX e4 22 Bg5 + would be fatal,
and in addition 22 Ng5 + is threatened. Black
again coolly employs the simplest form of
defence. Now, after 22 Rg3 Black's haven
lies in 23 Qh4 ! 23 Be2 Kg8 !
22 BxeS! BXeS
Fortunately, the bishop on e5 prevents 23
Rg3. The presence of the bishop also reinforces the defence : if needed, ... Bf6 could
strengthen the king's position. But Teschner
continues to find fresh threats.

23 Bc4! bS!!
passes the point of no return. The attack also
Until now Black's method of defence has has its psychological pitfalls.
consisted mainly of passive and direct de 31 Be4 Ra7! 32 Rd3 Rc7! 33 g4 Ne7 34 Rd6
fence. In other words, he has tried to repel Be5 35 Rb6 Bd4!
With this tactical exchange, Black rescues
the direct threats in the area under attack;
repeatedly throwing up new barriers in the the otherwise indefensible a6 pawn; and
way of the attacker.
maintains his material superiority.
But now Black switches to indirect defence 36 NXd4 RXcS 37 b3 Rc4! 38 Rd6 e5!
and gradually swings into counter-attack.
The last freeing move, whereby Black
The basis of this is the technical considera- achieves simplification by combinative means.
tion that his opponent's first rank can be This game was played during the twentieth
weakened after a few exchanges, thus giving round, and was very important from the
rise to mating chances. In the meantime, Black point of view of qualifying for the Candigives back the pawn that White sacrificed in date's tournament. Portisch's rivals still
the interest of his attack, another frequent thought that White would win with the next
defensive recourse.
move!
24 Rxrs+ Kg8! 25 Rxf8+ Qxf8! 26 Rf3
Qd8! 27 Bd3 Qb4! !
What has Black achieved with these last
few moves? Some of the white attacking
pieces have fallen in exchanges, and now the
strongest one, the queen, cannot avoid exchange owing to the mating threat 28 ...
Q xh2. This puts an end to White's own
direct mating threats. Nevertheless, there are
still weaknesses in Black's position: his e6
pawn is isolated, his c8 bishop is back in its
original position and is difficult to develop 39 Nc6! Nx c6!
because of the a6, b5 and e6 pawns occupying
White would have won after any other
white squares. Abandoning the mating at- move, e.g. 39 . . . K.f8 40 Rd8 + KI7 41
tack, White now increases positional pressure Nxes+ etc. Both players were in serious
on the Q-side.
time trouble at this stage.
28 QXh4 NXh4 29 Rb3 NfS 30 NecS?! 40RXc6
BXb2!!
Isn't this an oversight? After all White
White, who has directed the play until could fork the rook with 40 Bd5 + and after
now, still considers his position to be better; 40 ... Kf8 41 BXc4 bXc4 he could also
since his knight on c5 "dominates" the c8 capture the c6 knight and finish up winning
bishop, and his bishop and rook are becoming the exchange! But this is not the case.
active. Yet none of this compensates for the Black calculated one move further ahead:
pawn disadvantage and Portisch's continuing 42 RXc6 Bb7! and he would have come out
dour resistance, so White would have done .a piece up.
better on his 30th move to resort to the pro- 40 Rxc6 41 Bxc6 Kf7 42 c3 Ke7 43
saic c3. But this is often the attacker's fate: Be4 Kd6 44 a3 Kc5 45 Bd3 e4! 46 Bel Be6
in the heat of battle he fails to realize that 47 Kg2 Bc4 48 Bdl e3!
he should be thinking defensively; and so White resigned.
15

Well, there is no doubt that Caissa, the
goddess of chess, had been really kind to the
defender. But the value of the dour and
resourceful defence would have been vindi
cated even if victory could have been shown
for White somewhere along the line, because
the sequence of repeated obstacles wore down
his strength.
We take our second game from a chapter
of grandmaster Kotov's excellent Alekhine
monograph, "The Art of Defence". Although
Alekhine was primarily an attacking player,
several examples of stubborn and circumspect
defence are to be found in his games, as if in
i11ustration of the close interaction between
attack and defence.
16 Re8 17 exf7+ Kxf7 18 Qdl?

Better was 18 Qc21, after which Black's
king could not retreat to safety without
losing the g6 pawn and would fall to a decis
ive attack on the f-file. As it is, Black succeeds in organizing a defence.
18 Ndf6! 19 cxdS g5! 20 Bg3 Qe7!
For the time being, Black intends to ease
his position with the defensive exchange
of queens. In some variations . . . Qc5 +
is also threatened.
21 Khl Kg8 22 Rfel QcS 23 Re6!
Alekhine gets the upper hand again,
because he will soon have a strong passed
pawn on e6.
23 Rad8 24 Qe2 .Kh8 25 h3! Rxe6
26 dXe6 Nh5! 27 Ne4! Qc6
Alekbine - Marshall
New York, 1924
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nc3 g6 4 e4 Bg7 S f4
0-0 6 Nf3 Bg4 7 Bel Nc6 8 dS Nb8 9 0-0
Nbd710 Ng5! BXel 11 Qxe2 h6
Nowadays the opening is managed differently by both players. On the whole it is
Black's play that is open to criticism, because
he allows too much freedom to his opponent
in the centre. 12 e5 is already threatened
therefore the pawn move; which weakens the
K-side, can hardly be avoided.
12 Nf3 e6
A risky move. Perhaps Marshall overlooked White's 16th move. 12 ... e5 was better,
since it hinders the advance in the centre.
13 eS! dXeS 14 fXeS Ng4 15 Bf4 eXdS
16e6!
A quick action, characteristic of Alekh
ine's dynamic style, which leads to the further loosening of Black's king position.
Black's reply is forced, since after 16 ...
fXe6? 17 QXe6+ the knight on g4 would
be lost, and 16 ... Qf6 17 exd7 Qxf4
18 Nxd5 Qd6 19~Radl
leads to"a consider
..
able positional advantage for White.
28 Bxc7?
Alekhine lets victory slip out of his hands
for the second time. After 28 Nfxg5!
NXg3+ 29 NXg3 hXg5 30 QXg4 White
obtains a pawn advantage, with a simultaneous weakening of Black's K-side. As it is,
he is at a disadvantage, and faces a difficult
defence.
28 QXc7 29 hXg4 Nf4
After this, the pride of White's position,
the e6 pawn, falls. In fact, what White does
is exchange off his important e6 pawn for
Black's insignificant one on c7, and he
acquires doubled pawns and a weakened
king's position to boot.
30Qe1 Nxe6
From the series of won positions just a few
16
The Principle of Maximum Difliculty
moves ago, an almost hopeless one has developed for White. White's pawns on b2 and
g4 are weak, his pieces are badly positioned,
and his king's position, particularly g2, is
vulnerable. Is there any available defence
here?
Alekhine provides evidence of great presence of mind in this difficult position. Not
only does he keep his head, but he also
mobilizes all his energy and willpower in
the interests of defence. He must repel the
pressure of the opposing pieces and avoid
a multiplication of targets for Black to attack.
"What are Black's major threats?" was
what Alekhine had to decide first. The
gravest danger is the attack against g2.
The rooks must be exchanged in order
to prevent this, even at the cost of sacrificing
the b2 pawn. After that the white king will
be in safety. If the remaining Black forces
were still to concentrate against him, Black's
king could get into trouble in his tum,
since his position is also vulnerable. Perhaps that very peculiar method of escape,
perpetual check, will be a possibility.
31 Ng3 Nf4 32 Rdt! RXdl
Black sidesteps the trap 32 ... Nd3?,
which would not do (although a queen move
would be answered with 33 ... Nf2+
winning the exchange) because of 33 RXd3!
Rxd3 34 Qe8+ and Qe4+.
33 QXdl BXb2 34 Qa4!
White attacks the a7 pawn, but the really
important thing is that he threatens Qe8 +.
34 Bg7 35 Qe8+
35 QXa7? would be a mistake. After
35 ... Qc2! 36 Qgl Qxa2 White would
be condemned to passivity.
35 Kh7 36 Qe4+ Ng6
The first fruits of resistance: the black
knight has left the strong f4 square, and
plays a merely defensive role, since it is now
pinned.
37 Nb5 Qct + 38 Kh2 Qc6 39 Qd3 Qc7 +
40 Khl Bh8
Otherwise the bishop is exchanged off

and Black's king is left completely defenceless.
41 Qe4 Qct + 42 Kh2 Qc7 + 43 Khl Qf7
44 Qc2 b5
Marshall can no longer free his pieces and
throw them into the attack, therefore he
pins his hopes on the Q-side pawn advance.
But Alekhine finds new attacking targets
in turn.
45 Qc6! b4 46 Ng3!
The knight, which appears to be quite
active on h5, is heading for fS, in order in due
course to deprive the Q-side pawns of the
bishop's support. A rather subtle possibility.
It took an Alekhine to find it!
46 QXa2 47 Qb7+ Bg7 48 Nf5! Qal+!
49Kh2Qf6
Not 49 ... b3 because of 50 N~d4. As it
is, surprisingly White does not capture the
seemingly more dangerous advanced pawn,
but the other one. He accurately calculates
that the b-pawn is also moribund!
SO Q X a7 b3 51 Qb7! b2 52 N3d4!
The other passed pawn falls too, and the

shadow of a draw looms in view of the meagre
material remaining.
52 NeS
52 ... Qe5+ does not win either, the most
accurate defence against it being 53 g3 !
53 QXb2! NXg4+ 54 Kb3 QeS 55 g3
55 KXg4 Qf4+ 56 Kh5! g4 57 NXh6! is
also a draw.
17

55 Qe4!
In order to answer 56 NXg7 with ... Ne3!.
weaving a mating net around the white king,
56 Qc2! QXc2 57 NXc2 bS 58 Nce3 Nxe3
59 N Xe3 Bd4 60 Nf5 Bc5 61 g4 Kg6 62
Nh4 + ! Drawn.
Our next example is taken from more
modem times.
Further proof that the best antidote

against an attack is counter-attack through
the centre.
23 cxd4?
White, as often happens, overestimates
the strength of his attack. 23 e6 Q X c3 24
Qxc3 dxc3 25 e7 etc. would still have led
to a draw.
23 RXd4 24 e6
At a glance, the position is rather frightening. However, Karpov does not lose his
head (a very important attribute for the
defender!) but swings into the counterattack, maintains his material advantage
and wins.
Stein - Karpov
Moscow, 1972
16NXe6!?
Grandmaster Igor Zaitsev referred to
another interesting attacking chance: 16
f5!? hXg5 17 f6 Bh8 18 BXg5 and then
Rf4-h4.
16 fXe6 17 BXe6+ Kh8
17 . . . K.h7 was more accurate.
18 Qg4Rfd8!
This seems to drain power away from the
defence of the king, but the more important
consideration is the move . . . Nf8. Karpov
is unsurpassable in handling technical
endgames, but here he also proves himself unmatched in tactical defence, which
requires accurate calculation.
19 f5 Nf8! 20 f6 Nxe6 21 QXe6!?
21 fXg7+ NXg7 22 QXg6 Qc6! 23
Rf6 Qe41 etc. leads to a draw, but White
wants more than that.
21 Bf8 22 Qb3 cxd4!
24 BcS! 25 Khl
25 QXh6+ Qh7 26 QXh7+ KXh7 27
Be3 Rg4 ! does not ease White's situation.
(25 Be3 was slightly better, although Black
maintains his advantage after 25 . . Rd2 !
26 QXh6+ Qh7 27 QXh7+ KXh7 28 Bf2
R/8 29 /7 Re2).
25 bS 26 Ra2 BdS 27 Rd2 RXd2 28
BXd2QeS!
White is powerless against Black's powerful centralization.
29 Qd3 QXe6 30 QXg6 Qg4 31 Qh6+ Kg8
32 f7+ BXf7 33 Bc3 ~4 34 b3 Qg7
Black won after a few more moves.
Finally here is a game, in which this
"rearguard action" was asserted against
the great attacker. Alekhine himself.
18

by checks, in order to get the defending piece
into play. But Reti's torment does not end
yet.
17 fXg7 Qb6+!
Immediate retaliation would be a crude
defensive blunder: 17 . . . KXg7?? 18
Qg5 + Kh8 19 Qf6 + Kg8 20 Rf3 ! and Black's
situation is hopeless.
18 Khl KXg719 BXc4! Bb7!
The combination to trap the queen does
not work now, because after 19 ... bXc4
20 Qxa8 Bb7 the subsequent 21 Rabi leads
to White's advantage. If 21 ... QXbl then
22 QXf8+ secures the win of the exchange.
20 QeS+ Qf6 21 Bd3 Rfe8!
Black is already one pawn down and now
loses another. Still, this is the correct defence,
for it leads to the activation of his pieces.
22 QXf6+ Kxf6 23 Bxh7 would not be
good because of the rook invasion by
23 ... Re2!
22 QhS b6 23 Qg4+ Kh8 24 Qxd7 Re7 25
Qd4
The exchange of queens is reasonable
because of the weakness of g2. In any case,
simplification is one of the most frequent
methods of capitalizing on material superiority. In addition, White's pawn formation
gets straightened out by means of the
exchange. The fate of the game appears to
have been decided.
Alekhine - Reti
Vienna, 1922
1 e4 eS 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 BbS a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5
Nc3 bS 6 Bb3 Bc5 7 Nxes Nxes 8 d4 Bd6
9 dXeS Bxes 10 f4 BXc3+ 11 bXc3 0-0
12e5
Black has not played the opening vecy
well, and Alekhine is already initiating a dangerous attack in the centre. 12 . . . Ne4?
will not do, because of 13 Qd5. The passive
12 . . . Ne8 is met by 13 0--0 with the unpleasant threat of f5-f6 and the tearing open
of the K-side. The pin 12 ... Re8 is only
symptomatic treatment, because the position
of the knight on f6 is even worse after
13 0--0. What can Black do here?
12 cS!
So, indirect defence has been opted for:
after 13 e X f6, Black denies White the chance
of castling with 13 . . . Re8 + and then wins
back the piece with 14 ... c4.
13 Ba3!
Now even the c5 pawn is hanging. Alekhine annotated this with a double exclamation mark, and remarked that it was the initial
move of a profound combination. "I could
not foresee", he wrote, "that the material
and positional advantage would not be
sufficient for a win, owing to Black's impeccable defence."
13 QaS! 14 0-0 QXa3 15 exf6 c4!
16 QdS! QaS! !
It would increase the strength of White's
attack if Black's most powerful piece, the
queen, stayed clear of the main battleground.
16 Qd5 ! prevents . . . Qc5 + and threatens
on the one hand 17 Qg5 g6 18 Qh6 with
unavoidable mate, and on the other the more
prosaic 17 Qxa8; but now 17 ... Qb6+
followed by .. _ Q X f6 would parry the first
threat, while the second would be averted
with 17 ... Qb6+ followed by ... Bb7. The
rationale of the defence is to gain tempo
25 QXd4!
Black evaluates the position thoroughly
19

-and sees that even White's improved pawn
position still provides sufficient targets to
justify an active defence. Indeed, apart from
the open g-file, the bishop poses a constant
threat against g2, so White will have to
exchange it sooner or later, when a rook
endgame will develop. The saying "all rook
endings are drawn" is commonplace. In other
words, the defender has plenty of chances to
escape in this type of endgame, in spite of his
material disadvantage.
26 cxd4 Rd8! 27 f5!
This threatens to create a mating position
with 28 f6. Defending the attacked pawn with
27 c3 would only lead to the further activation
of Black's position by ... b4 !. On the other
han,d, let us now observe that Black, down in
material, does not grab the opportunity of
regaining a pawn, but first secures his king's
position. The d4 pawn will not run away!
20
27 f6! 28 Rael Rg7! 29 Be4 RXd4

30 BXb7 RXb7 31 Re6
Black again gets into a seemingly critical
situation, his material deficit again increasing
to two pawns. Nevertheless, grandmaster
Reti puts up a cool defence.
31 Kg7 32 RXa6 Rc4! 33 Rf3 RXc2
Black has obviously got over the worst.
White's pawn advantage cannot be driven
home, since he is unable to create a strong
passed pawn. The game concluded:
34 b3 Kf7! 35 Rg3 Rf2! 36 Rg6 R xf5 37
R Xh6 Kg7 38 Rh4 b4 39 Rg4+ Kf7 40 Rg3
RfbS! 41 Rb3 Kg6 42 Kh2 RcS! 43 Ra4 RcbS!
44 h4 RSb6 45 Kh3 Rb8 46 g3 f5 47 RaS Rc8
48 Rf3 Rf6 49 Kg2 Rc3 SO Ra8 RXf3 51
KXf3 Rc6 52 Rb8 Rc4 53 Rb6+ Kg7 54 h5
Rd4 55 Rc6 Re4 56 Rg6+ Kf7 57 g4 RXg4
58 RXg4 fXg4 59 KXg4 Kg7 Drawn.
Defence of Attacked Castled Positions

In the preceding chapters, we dealt mainly
with those aspects of the defence which are
generally valid, even outside the game of
chess. Now, however, we shall treat defence
from the "technical aspect" as it is manifest
in the present state of the art. The game of
chess is a struggle, and therefore the general
rules of struggle are valid here too. It is well
known that the great philosopher-player,
Lasker, applied these rules to the game of
chess. In addition, we can examine phenomena which are peculiar and quite unique
to chess, namely stalemate and perpetual
check. Since defence is really a natural
reaction to attack, we shall organize our
theme around the various types of attack.
The literature tends towards confusion in this
area. We have already referred to the fact that
the difference between various writers can be
rather considerable even in the field of
terminology. Indeed, it is also quite common
for them to confuse general human or
psychological aspects with ones peculiar to
chess. Chapters on the sensing of threats, for
instance, or on the principle of maximum difficulty, are lumped together with chapters on
simplification or stalemate traps, etc.
The most common form of attack is the one
against the castled position, but we may
establish several sub-divisions here too.
In his work on attack, grandmaster Bondarevsky, studying tournament games, concluded that both players castled on the same side
in the overwhelming majority of cases and
there is no doubt that this is so. Defence
options alter radically if the players castle
on different sides.
21
When both players castle on the same side

It is not our intention to split this particular problem into too many sub-sections,
but we must differentiate between two basic
situations here. In the first, the pawns
defending the castled position are stiU on
their original squares, on f2, g2 and h2 (or, on
the black side f7, g7 and h7). While not uni
versally applicable, it is still true in the majority of cases that any move by these pawns
weakens the castled position. For this reason
we designate an attack in this case as an
attack against the unweakened ca'stled .poSition.
The second follows logically from the

first: an attack against the castled position
when the defending pawns have already
moved from their initial squares.
Avoid those weakening pawn moes !

Reshevsky -
Euwe
.Amsterdam, 1950
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Qc2 c5 5 dXc5
0-0 6 Nf3 Na6 7 Bd2 Nxc5 8 a3 BXc3
9 BXc3 b6?! 10 Ng5!

justified since it may lead to the opening of a
file. IfEuwe had played 10 ... g6? here, then
after 11 b4 Na6 12 h4! h6 13 h5! hXg5
14 hXg6 he would have been defenceless
against the threat of 15 g7!, the winning
answer to 14 ... Re8 being 15 gXf7+ KXf7
16 Rh7+ I Kf8 17 Qg6.
10 Re8!
An exceltent defensive move, which creates
room for the black king eventually to resort
to the method of "self-defence". All this is
based on recognition of the fact that White's
penetration to h7 is not so dangerous if g7
is defended from f6 by the black queen.
Indeed, after 11 BXf6 QXf6 12 QXh7+
Kf8 13 Qh5 Ke7 I it is Black who gets the
attack, e.g. 14 Qf3 QXg51 15 Qxas Nb3!
16 Rdl Qa5 + and Black wins.
11 b4 b6!
After 11 ... Na6 White would secure a
lasting positional advantage, whereas 12 Nf3
can now be answered by ... Nce4 !
12 b4! hXgS!?
The game has advanced somewhat from
our starting-point in that the castled positions
are no longer intact. Illustrations, however,
frequently pass from one stage into another,
they can rarely be found in pristine form.
Now that White has weakened his own
K-side with h4 and could hardly castle there
with any safety, 12 ... Na6 could be considered. Euwe gives 13 Rdl Bb7 14 f3 as an
answer but according to Pachman, the ensuing
14 ... hXg5! 15 hXg5 Ne4! 16 fXe4 QXg5
gives Black the better game.
The opening of the h-file is full of danger,
but Euwe calculates that after 13 h X g5 Nfe4 !
14 bXc5 Nxc3 15 Qh7+ Kf8 16 Qh8+
Ke7 17 QXg7 Ne418 g6 Rf8 Black can hold
his own, with a piece advantage.
13 bXc5! gXh4
13 . . . g4 would only have prevented the
opening of the file temporarily and could have
been followed by 14 h5 threatening h6.
14 RXh4bXcS15 Qd3! d6!
While defence is principally a part of the

strategic content of the middlegame, it also
figures in the opening and in the endgame.
Neither of the parties have completed the
mobilization of their pieces here, the number
of moves indicates we are still in the opening,
yet Black is already on the defensive. His last
move was a slight error. 9 ... Nce4 would
have been better.
Now the threat is 11 BXf6 followed by
12 QXh7 mate.
Let us examine what makes this early attack
possible and what means are employed by
the attacker. The circumstance that made the
attack feasible is the superiority of firepower
developed on one section of the frontline,
despite equality of material and the small
number of moves made: there are three white
pieces attacking (queen, bishop and knight)
and only a solitary black piece (the knight)
in defence. Otherwise the position is relatively
open, that is, there are no closed pawn formations on the board (particularly in the
centre) which might contain the drive of the
pieces towards the king's wing.
This is already a partial answer to the
second question: the attacker uses the
armoury of the piece attack, unsupported by
pawns. the circumstances described favour
this, as when the players have castled on the
same side (or intend to do so), the advance of
the pawns on that wing weakens their own
king's position and is therefore risky.
Let us return to the game. Can't Black parry
the threat with the simple 10 ... g6? (10 ...
h6? is already too late, because 11 BXf6
attacks the queen so there is no time for
11 ... hXg5). This method of defence would
be extraordinarily passive, indeed, primitive.
The target of similar early sorties (remember
9. Qh5!? in the Teschner-Portisch game)
is often to lure the opponent into making
weakening pawn moves. After that, the
castled position in fact is transformed into the
second type, where a pawn advance is
22

The white queen wants to reach h3. The
seemingly more active 15 ... d5 would not be
good, because White would regain his
sacrificed pawn with advantage: 16 Qh3 Kf8
17 cxd5 exd5 18 Rh8+ Ke7 19 Bxf6+
gXf6 20 Qe3+ Be6 21 Qxc5+. The aim of
Black's 15th move is to close the bishop's
diagonal with 16 . . . e5 ! and reduce the
pressure.
16g4!
The attack now ceases to be led purely by
pieces, as the pawns also join the fray. 17 g5
threatens to chase away Black's solitary
defending piece. No protection is offered
against this by 16 . . . e5 because of 17 g5
e4 18 Qg3 ! and 19 Qh2. 16 ... Kf8 is no good
either, because of 17 g5 Ng8 18 Rh8! with
the threat of 19 Qh7.
16 Bb7! 17 g5 Ne4! 18 RXe4 BXe4
19 Qxe4 QxgS
Black has defused the attack with his
exchanges. The pair of bishops still give some
advantage over the rook and the two pawns,
but there is no possibility of creating a passed
pawn, and with accurate play by both sides
the game ended in a draw on the 39th move.
Instead of a weakening pawn move (10 ...
g6 ?) Black chose to defend himself here by a
combinative modification of the castled position (10 . . . Re8 !). He only resorted to pawn
moves later on under rather different circumstances.
Keres
Leningrad, 1941
Smyslov -
23
White has superiority on the K-side, where

his rook can create strong threats from g3 or
h3. If he succeeds in forcing either . g6
or ... h6 Black's K-side will be fatally weakened. Black intends to parry the impending
attack by exchanging one of the attacking
pieces, the g5 bishop. The correct method of
attack, as Botvinnik pointed out, was 22 Bf6 !
The aim of piece attacks is usually to get rid
of the pawns defending the opponent's king
by the sacrifice of a piece. This can be achieved if Black accepts the offer: 22 . g X f6
23 Qf5 Rfd8 24 Rg3 + Kf8 25 e Xf6 Qd6 26
Qxh7 Ke8 27 Rel!. If the sacrifice is not
accepted, then after 22 ... Nf4 23 Rg3 Ng6!
24 Bg5 Kh8 25 Qf3 ! the threat is 26 Qh5
and 27 Rh3 etc.
In the given position, however, Smyslov
continued with
22 Qf5?
Now 23 Bf6! is threatened. But Black
immediately grabs the opportunity to simplify.
22 Nc5! 23 g4?
Another mistake. White does not want to
waste time retreating his queen, because the
black knight would take up a much more
active position on e4. Yet any superiority in
the centre which follows the exchange of the
queens will be short-lived.
23 QXfS 24 gXfS f6!
Immediate action is warranted against the
threatening phalanx of pawns!
25 exf6
No better is 25 dXcS fxg5, or 25 BXf6
Ne4! 26 Bh4 RXf5.
25 Ne4 26 fXg7 Rxf5 27 Be7 Kxg7
No trace is left of White's attack. On the
contrary, his pawn formation has been
fatally weakened as a consequence of the
erroneous 23 g4? Black won the game on the
67th move.
The method of the defence was to exchange
off the attacking pieces and simplify to an
endgame.

Nleoarokov -
Grigoriev
Moscow, 1924
White's minor pieces are threateningly

grouped on the K-side, giving him superiority on this section of the board. There are
no actual threats yet, but there is a strong
temptation for the defender to drive back
the pieces on the :fifth rank with either
... h6 or .. g6. Both of these moves would,
however, involve a serious weakening of the
position. In answer to 15 ... h6 an immediate
sacrifice on that square comes into consideration, while 15 ... g6 would weaken f6 and h6.
Consequently Black tries to achieve simplification by a different method.
15 Bf4! 16 BXf4 QXf4 17 g3?
White considers he still has the advantage,
and pins most of his hopes on penetrating
the seventh rank. But this pawn move weakens the position of White's king, particularly
if the a8-hl diagonal were to be opened up.
17 Qc7 18 Ne7+ Nxe7 19 RXe7 Rae8!
20 Qe2 Qd8! 21 Rael Nf6!
Black's cool defence exasperates White.
He tries to hold onto the initiative at any cost,
but this only gets him into trouble.
22 Nh4? c4! 23 Bbl d4! 24 cxd4 Qd5!
Black's counter-attack soon won.
The method of defence here was also simplification by exchange. Overestimating his
advantage, the attacker weakened his own
king's position, and thereafter attacker and
24
defender changed roles until finally Black

gained the upper hand through counterattack.
Let us draw a lesson from these examples:
when an attack against the castled position
is led by pieces, we should endeavour to repel
them without moving the pawns wherever
possible, preferably by forcing exchanges.
Pawn moves should also be avoided when
countering threats along diagonals. ff pawn
moves that weaken the king's position are illadvised, even for the purpose of fending off
a threat, then the practice of playing ... h3
or ... h6 without compelling reason (just to
keep an opposing piece away from g4 or g5,
or for the purpose-so beloved by beginners-of securing an "escape route" for the
king on h2 or h7) must be seen as an even
graver blunder.
These pawn moves are particularly dangerous when the opponent has not yet castled
short. They immediately encourage him
either to leave his king in the centre, or perhaps castle on the long side, and launch an
immediate pawn charge against your own
weakened castled position. Apart from the
method demonstrated in the ReshevskyEuwe game, the g2-g4-g5 (or .. g7-g5-g4)
advance may also easily lead to the opening
of a file, thus multiplying the attack's firepower.
Defence by moving the pawns

defending the castled postion
Even though we have strongly advised
against moving the pawns in front of the
castled position, it could happen that it is
unavoidable. The defender must always study
the position realistically, consider the possible
variations and utiliz.e any means at his
disposal, since quite frequently he has little
to lose. Particularly in sharp positions, which

21 Rxn QXgS 22 Bf6?
With 22 Bel! Qe5 23 Bf4 Qd4+ 24 Be3 Qe5
White could have forced a draw by repeti
tion, since Black cannot safely extricate himself. Once again, the attacker has overestimated his chances.
22 Qh5!
Defence by simplification. White would
have nothing after the exchange of queens.
23 Qg3 Rdt! 24 Qb8+ Kf7 25 QXb7+ Nd7!
26 BgS+ Rxn+ 27 Kxn QxgS 28
QXd7+ Qe7 and Black won the pawn ending.
contain concrete threats, one must be wary

of moving on the basis of general principles
or omitting moves on grounds of general
considerations. Excellent examples of defence
by pawn moves are given in Kan's already
quoted work.
Romanovsky - Grigoriev
Leningrad, 1930
Konstantinopolsky - Tolush
Moscow, 1950
White is threatening 17 Q X g7 mate.

Which pawn should be moved to parry this?
16 . . . g6 appears to be bad on general
grounds, since it will weaken the black
squares and, to make things worse, the
diagonal is open. Nevertheless, this is in fact
the correct move in the given position, since
16 ... f6 would lead to passive defence, and
the threat of e4-e5 would continue to loom.
After 16 . . . g6 Black can hope for counterplay, the more so because White cannot
exploit the weakening of the black squares.
White not only threatens 18 Nd7 but also

the immediate destruction of the castled
position by a piece sacrifice: 18 BXh7+ !
NXh7 19 Qh5. Consequently Black must
move either his g-pawn or the h-pawn.
The situation cannot be resolved in the given
position by calculating more or less forced
variations as in the previous example.
Since White no longer has a bishop on the
black squares, the usual piece sacrifice on h6
is not likely, so Black decides to play ... h6.
16 g6! 17 Nf3 fS!
Black is looking for counter-play. If the

e-pawn vanishes from the board, . . . Bf6
becomes possible, with the relaxation of
pressure along the long diagonal. White
sacrifices a pawn in the interests of the attack.
18 Qh3 fXe4 19 Ng5
Against 19 Qh6 Grigoriev planned 19 ...
Rd4 ! ? sacrificing the exchange.
19 BXgS 20 fXgS RXft+
20 . . . Rf5 ! was better.
17 h6! 18 g4
The customary pawn attack against the

weakened king's position, but since White has
also castled on the short side it gives Black
some counter-chances.
25

strong castled position can be defended
against White's impending attack.
18 Rfd8 19 Rel?
A loss of time. 19 Ndf3 was better.

19 Nc6!
13 Khl e5!
Black wants to ease his situation with an

exchange, but White sacrifices a pawn in the
interests of his attack.
20 f4 NXd4 21 g5 dXc4!
By the time White has managed to open a
file on the K-side, Black has created very
strong threats in the centre and on the other
wing, where his forces are superior. White
still seeks to maintain the attack by the
sacrifice of the exchange.
22 RXc4 BXc4 23 bXc4 QcS!
A decisive counter-blow, after which White
has no choice.
24 gXf6 Ne2+ 25 Khl NXf4 26 Qg4 gS!
Now even this is possible. If Konstantinopolsky plays 27 RXh6, the reply 27 ...
Q X e5 28 Nf3 RX c4 ! shows the power of the
counter-attack.
27 Ndf3 RXd3! Black won.
Szab6 -
It would not be advisable to allow White's

attack to gather strength after a possible f4
and e4-e5, with the d3 bishop also joining the
fray.
14 Qb4 bS 15 Rael Bb7 16 Re3 h6!
As in the previous example, this is in no

way "weakening" because the opponent can't
take advantage of it. White, with queen and
rook versus knight, does not have the same
sort of superiority on the king side as in previous examples, so all of the attacker's efforts
to upset Black's castled position come to
nothing.
17 Rg3 Kh818 Ndl Rae819 Ne3 Bc8!
Naturally, 20 NfS has to be prevented,

since it threatens the destruction of the
weakened castled position by 21 NXg7 or
21 NXh6.
20 c3 Be6 21 Rf3 Nh7!
Eluding sacrificial continuations on f6.
22Rg3 b4
Korchnoi
The game may go on for a long time, but

as far as attack and defence are concerned,
it has already ended in Black's favour.
Budapest-Leningrad, 1961
Botvinnik - Flohr
Groningen, 1946
This was the position after White's

twelfth move. Black still has the choice of
"castling into" White's attack or resorting
to some other solution.
12 0-0!
A master of defence and counter-attack,
Korchnoi is right in concluding that his
26
We have already seen in the foregoing

examples that an early h3 or g3 can be an

error not only from the defender's point of
view, but also from the attacker's: if the pawns
are already on the third rank, a white rook
cannot get onto the g-or h-files ! Here a
typical middlegame position has developed
after White's 15th move, one that had
already been examined by Steinitz. White's
pieces are lined up in threatening fashion
against Black's K-side. On the other hand,
Black controls the central d5 square, and in
the event of further simplification he can
confidently expect to exploit the weakness of
the isolated d-pawn. But the endgame is far
off, and Black must defend his king. The
choice between . . . h6 and . . . g6 is not
difficult here: it can be positively stated that
15 ... h6? loses after the obvious 16 BXh6!
gXh6 17 Qd2! The only thing left, therefore,
is the other pawn move.
15 g616 Bh6
Grandmaster Bronstein believes that 16
Qd2 is stronger here, with the threat of 17
Qh6.
16 Re8 17 Qd2 Rc8 18 Bd3 a6 19 Rel b5
20 Rg3 Nb5!
Black handles the defence calmly. A multiple piece sacrifice was threatened on g6.
This is now no longer feasible, however,
because after 21 BXg6 hXg6 22 RXg6+
fXg6 23 Qc2 the subsequent 23 .. Ndf4!
would defend the g6 square.
21 Rh3 Nbf6 22 Bbl Rc7 23 Rg3 Nh5 24 Rh3
Nbf6 25 Qe2
White again avoids the repetition of moves,
in order to exploit his attacking chances.
25 NXc3
Black connects the white pawns, but only
temporarily.
26 bXc3 b4! 27 Rg3
White sacrifices a pawn m direct attack
on the king.
27 RXc3! 28 NXf7!
This combination is typical in positions
where the rook has been successfully lured
away from the defence of f7. In any event,
27
sang-froid and good nerves are indispensabfe.

28 Qd5! 29 Ne5
Here Botvinnik could have forced a draw;
as grandmaster Bronstein demonstrated:
29 Rg5! Qc4 30 Bxg6 hXg6 31 Rxg6+
K Xf7 32 Rg7 + Kf8 33 Rg3 + with perpetual
check. After the next move the initiative slips
into Black's hands. Both players were in
serious time trouble here.
29 RXg3 30 fXg3 QXd4+ 31 Khl Bd6
32 Bf4 Nh5?
The knight proceeds to h5 from "force of
habit". If we consider that White wins a
piece after this move and that the game still
ends in a draw, we have to conclude that Black
would be close to a win after the stronger
32 ... Nd5!
33 Rdl NXf4 34 gXf4 QXf4!
The lesser of two evils! After 34 . . . Qc5?
or 34 ... Qb6? White wins by 35 Nd?.
35 RXd6 Bd5! 36 Bc2
The only move. 36 ... Rc8 ! was threatened
as well as 36 ... Qcl+.
36 Rf8
Now 36 ... Rc8 (ian be met by 37 Bdl.
The tournament book recommends 36 ..
BXa2 as a winning attempt.
37 h3 Qfl+ 38 QXfl RXfl+ 39 Kh2 Rf2
40 Rxd5 exd5 41 Bb3 Kg7
Play was adjourned here. Having analysed
the position, Botvinnik concluded that his
advantage was not enough to win and the
game ended in a draw without resumption.
The position shown below developed in the
course of a game Charousek-Mar6czy
(Nagyteteny, 1897), in a sharp variation of
the French Defence:
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 BXf6
Bxf6 6 e5 Be7 7 Qg4 0-0 8 Bd3
Since Black's king's knight is already off
the board, the target of White's attack is
h7. Previously in this position it was customary to play 8 . . . rs against the threat of
Qh3 and White would generally reply 9 Qh3

anyway and later attempt to open a file, and
loosen up the black defensive position with
g4. Mar6czy defers his defence until the opponent has committed himself.
8 c5! 9 Qh3 g6!

Here again, the feasibil!ty of this pawn
move is due to the fact that the attacker's
black square bishop has already been exchanged.
10 dxcS Nc6! 11 f4 BxcS
The consequence of these last two moves
is that White cannot castle on the K-side, and
long castling is ill-advised because Black
. already has superiority there. The king is
subject to considerable risk in the centre too,
as the game instructively demonstrates.
White, therefore, has already imperceptibly
passed the point of no return. Either he gets
a powerful attack or he will founder due to his
own weaknesses.
12 Nf3! f6!
This takes g5 away from the knight, and
threats against h7 will now be defensible along
the seventh rank:
13Qh6
14 BXg6 is threatened when White has at
least a draw by perpetual check. But Black can
easily counter this, therefore 13 Qg3 was recommended by Mar6czy.
l3 Rf7
For the time being, Black quietly adopts
passive defence, fending off the opponent's
immediate threats. The ensuing exchange of
28
pawns is forced because 14 0-0--0? fails to

14 ... Be3+ 15 Kbl fXe5, while White has
hardly any other useful moves. But after the
exchange the initiative passes over to Black,
and a surprisingly quick counter-attack puts
an end to White's inadequately based
aggression.
14 exf6 Qxf61S g3
15 Ba3!!
With this tactical counter-thrust grandmaster Mar6czy seizes the initiative, White's
king is in deep trouble after 16 bxa3
Qxc3+ 17 Ke2 e5!
16 Ndl Bf8 17 Qh4 Nd4! 18 NXd4 QXd4
19 Qg5 Bd7
Only the queens are on the attack. Black
still has the advantage though, because the
mobility and co-operation of the white
pieces is seriously hampered.
20 b4 Be7 21 Qb6 eS!
This is the decisive breakthrough and is
followed up by imaginative tactical strokes
against the roving white queen.
22 b5 g5!
Cutting off the queen's retreat. White can
no longer avoid material loss.
23Bg6
White would gladly sacrifice a bishop for
the opening of a file. 23 f X g5 is not on, of
course, because of 23 ... Bf8 and loss of the
queen.
23 Rg7 24 c3 Qb6 25 fXgS Qd8! 26 Bc2
Bc8! White resigned.

The loss of the queen could only be
avoided by giving up the bishop. The great
mobility of Black's queen is worthy of
attention. Her round trip . . . Qd8-f6-d4b6-d8 is rather original. In the meantime,
the white queen, in the interest of furthering
an imaginary attack, played a rather passive
role and finally found herself trapped.
The moral: The examples up to, now enable
us to draw some conclusions regarding piece
attacks against "undisturbed" and "weakened" castled positions. Our previous chapter
dealt with defence by way of pawn moves.
These, however, tend to change the character
of the castled position in the sense defined at
the beginning of our discussion.
Is successful attack possible with pieces
alone agamst a castled position defended by
an untouched phalanx of pawns? Grandmaster Bondarevsky mentions that he frequently
received a negative answer to this question
in the course of his teaching experience. If
the king's position is strong, some say attacking it is like beating your bead against a
wall. Others maintain that weaknesses in the
king's position must be regarded as a
necessary prelude to any attack. Indeed, even
some textbooks contain similar statements.
On the basis of Steinitz's teaching, we can
conclude that these statements are false. Of
course, this is quite obvious on purely theoretical grounds, but thousands of over-theboard examples show us situations where the
pieces of one player are concentrated on the
opponent's king's position, while the defending pieces do not co-operate well and
become scattered over various parts of the
board. Thus a superiority of force develops
on the K-side, and some of this firepower
can be used to destroy the pawn formation
covering the king and open up lines of attack.
This may entail a sacrifice, but the remaining
forces will still be sufficient either to give
mate or to win back the material with advantage.
29
, Another possibility for the attacker is to

create a threat with his pieces which can only
be met by a pawn move. Then he can throw
his own pawns into the fray in order to force
the necessary opening of a file.
Is successful defence possible against piece
attacks against the castled position? Well, as
the examples have demonstrated, yes.
Which are the most important methods of
defence?
We should first mention preventive defence, to which we referred in the chapter
"Be prepared!". If our pieces are well coordinated, and if our king's position is strong,
then an attack will not develop, since any
such action would be suicidal. For this
reason we should avoid separating our
forces from the main battle area or from
the vicinity of the king.
This practical advice can be easily adhered
to in some openings, but there are numerous
features of modern theory which render its
application more difficult. The Soviet grandmaster Suetin treats these cases in detail.
Among them are the acceptance ( !) of material advantage in exchange for a lag in
development, the creation of early tactical
complications before development is complete, etc. In earlier times, players tended only
to accept material disadvantage (for instance in the numerous gambit variations) in
exchange for a lead in development. Today,
on the other hand, there are instances (in
the Siimisch Variation of the Nimzo-Indian
for example) where Black immediately tries
to exploit the weaknesses in White's Q-side
pawn formation, confident that he can repel
the K-side attack and assert his material
advantage at a later stage.
What are the possible methods of defence
against a piece attack on the K-side?
In his work "The Art of Attack", V. Vukovic devotes an entire chapter to this subject in which he deals with the various
methods of defence in a whole series of postu-

lates. Before we enumerate these, let us point
to the most important ones on the basis of
conclusions that can be drawn from the examples already cited.
Since the attack is launched with pieces, we
should try either to repel the attacking forces
or diminish their number by exchanges. One
of the methods of repulsion is to attack
those pieces with less valuable pawns. We
should be careful with pawn moves though,
since they tend to create weaknesses and
ease the attainment of the attacker's aim.
If we have to resort to a pawn move, we
should first consider which pieces the attacker
still has on the board and which weaknesses
are unexploitable, or at least exploitable only
with difficulty. Thus defence by way of pawn
moves or simplification is the most obvious
means of defending the castled position.
At the same time, of course, the defender
may use any other method that comes to
hand. He must calculate pragmatically and
consider the possible variations ("if he
takes that move I'll do this, if he does this,
I'll do that") and be must not act from general principles or dogmas. The latter are only
justified when the position is still calm and
when the opponent has no immediate threat.
In his book Vukovic enumerates the following ways of repelling attacks against the
castled position:
A. Direct defence
1. The defence or preventive defence of

particular squares in the castled position.
2. Changing the castled position's structure
by pawn moves.
3. Changing the castled position's structure
by moving the king.
He emphasizes that any king move alters
the location, conditions and target of the
attack. He also identifies some sub-groups:
(a) A consolidating king move, for example
... Kg8-h8 or, in the event of long castling,
... Kc8-b8.
30
(b) King moves that produce a significant

change, such as . . . Kg8-f7.
(c) The flight of the king, called "automatic
defence" by Kmoch and "the king's selfdefence" by Steinitz.
4. Defence by reducing the number of
attacking units either by capture or by exchange.
He points to economy as an important
requirement of these direct defensive methods,
in other words, only as many of our fighting
units should be tied down to these tasks as
absolutely necessary.
B. Indirect defence
The distinctions made here are so fine
that we will be content to highlight only
those cases which can be illustrated using
the examples cited so far.
1. Counter-action on the opposite wing
or in the centre. Apart from classifying
counter-actions by area, Vukovic also differentiates between them from the point of
view of their possible target. The aim of the
action may be the acquisition of material
advantage, and the maintenance of some of
that advantage (or at least equality) even if
it becomes necessary to defend the K-side
by sacrificial means.
2. The target of the counter-action can be
to gain ground on the other wing whereby
encircling movements and back rank threats
can be established.
3. Counter-action in the centre alters the
attacker's chances and could result in counter-attacks against his own king or other
forces. This is why the general rule to close
the centre in the interests of the attack, if at
all possible, is always a valid one.
The list of possibilities given by Vukovic
demonstrates the diversity, wealth and flexibility of the opportunities open to the defender,
and also the necessity of first fully examining the position before deciding on the
appropriateness of any given method. Tim-

ing is very important in indirect defence.
The fundamental aim of the counter-attack
is to bring about, at the right moment a threat
which forces the attacker to abandon his
plans or withdraw part of his attacking forces
into the defence. The counter-action is particularly effective when the attacker has already
committed himself, when there is no return
for him. In contrast, counter-actions executed too early or too late are condemned to
failure. Indirect defence is more commonly
used against pawn attacks than piece attacks.
The piece attack develops rapidly, and quickly
produces immediate threats (usually on h 7,
g7 or h2, g2) which must be repelled directly.
Of course, if any "breathing space" develops during the attack, the defender should
also use the weapons of simultaneous counter-attack, tactical counter-blow, countersacrifice, etc.
However, cases where the defender first
deals with the threats (and only later moves
onto the counter-attack) are more frequent
than simultaneous counter-attacks.
Pawn attack against short-side castled

positions
We have already seen examples where the

advance of the pawns also weakens the attacker's king's position when both players
have castled on the same side. White's g4
move proved to be fatal in the Konstantinopolsky-Tolush game when Black opened
up the centre. In Mason-Chigorin the opening of the f-file gave the defender sufficient
counter-play. The situation was better for
the attacker in Stahlberg-Filip, where Black
closed the centre early and in so doing gave
a free hand to his opponent for his flank
attack.
It is not always easy to distinguish between
piece and pawn attacks. Here is an example
from the beginning of the century:
31
Yevtifeyev - Danyushevsky
St. Petersburg, 1909
The centre is closed as a result of an earlier

blunder by Black. White has chances on the
K-side, while Black's chances of counterplay on the opposite wing are better than
in some previous examples. The continuation was: 21 Nh4?
Dreaming of tactical success, e.g. Ng6,
White assesses the position incorrectly.
Black's castled position cannot be overrun
with a piece attack pure and simple. The correct attacking plan was 21 g4 Nf7 22 Qg3.
The continuation might have been 22 ... h6
23 h4 a5 24 Rf2 a4 25 Rgl axb3 26 axb3
Ra2 27 g5! hxg5 28 hXg5 Rxc2 29 Rh2
fxg5 30 Qh3 Nh6 31 RXg5 with various
threats.
21 Be8
This retreat is not really necessary, because
22 Ng6 was an empty threat, unless Black
captured the knight. The immediate 21 ... a5
was better.
22 Qg4 a5 23 Rf3 a4 24 Rh3
White is hoping that after 24 ... a X b3 25
a X b3 Ra2 26 N g6 Rf7? he can get an attack
with 27 RXh7! Black's simple reply puts
paid to these illusions.
24 Qd7!
Now 25 Ng6 BXg6 would involve exchange of queens. White realizes that his
pieces engaged on the K-side are not strong
enough to carry on with the attack, so he

withdraws them and switches over to a pawn
attack. However, he loses a lot of time as a
result of his hastily thought out plan, and in
the meantime, Black takes over the initiative
on the Q-side and penetrates White's position via the a-file.
After such a difficult struggle comes the

almost inevitable error in an inferior position. 36 Bh5 still gives some chance of counter-play. If that too is answered by 36 ...
BXb3, then 37 Qg4! follows with the threat
Rgl. But after 36 ... c4! 37 Bxf7 Nxf7 38
2S Qg3 a><.b3 26 aXb3 Ra2 27 Qc1-
bx c4 b X c4 39 d X Cl\ Qe3 Black again
27 Ng6 is pointless: 27 ... BXg6 28 fxg6

h6! and Black avoids the opening of the file.
27 Qa7 28 Rf3 Bf7 29 Rf1 Ra8 30 Nf3
White's pieces have returned to base,
whence they launched their attack nine moves
earlier. The adventure did not cost material,
but the positional disadvantage is con~ider
able. Black now dominates the a-file, and
will e-ventually break through with ... c5-c4.
30 QaS 31 Qdl Qc3
Black methodically presses on with his
counter-attack, but 31 c4 32 bXc4 bXc4
33 Rbl Qc3 34 Nel cxd3 etc. was better.
32g4
White launches the pawn attack (his last
chance to escape) after a delay of 11 moves
and in a worse position. He would in any
case come to grief on the Q-side if he adopted
passive defence.
32 Rb2 33 g5 Raa2!
obtains a decisive advantage by capturing

the e4 pawn.
36 . BXb3!
White overlooked this tactical shot. After
37 c X b3 RX e2 mate would be threatened
onh2.
37BbSNXe4!
Now the threat is 37 ... Nf2+
38 dXe4 BXc2 39 Nxc2 RXc2 40 Rxc2
QXc2
White is doomed to a lost ending because
of the mating threat on h2. This is the negative consequence of the g-pawn's advance!
41 QXc2 RXc2 42 Rbl b4 43 Bdl d3! 44
Kgl Ke7 45 h3 Kd6 46 Kf1 Kc6 47 Rb3 Rc3!
48 Ke1Kb5 49 Kd2RXb3 SOBXb3c4 White
resigned.
In this example the attacker first made the
wrong choice between pawn and piece attack,
thereby losing tempo. By the time he had
gone over to a pawn attack, the defender
already had a counter-attack going on on the
opposite flank and was able to exploit (by
means of an encircling movement) the typical weaknesses left in White's king's position by the pawn advance.
As can be seen, our examples are becoming
increasingly complex. Play goes to and fro
and the factor of timing is most important.
It is often a matter of the winner being the
one who gets in first. Various sub-classifications can also be identified in pawn attacks. The advance of the f- or h-pawn
affects the attacker's king's position differently than when the f- g- and h-pawns all
take part in the attack. Without drawing on
separate examples, it is fairly obvious that
the advance of one pawn does not weaken
34 gXf6 gXf6 35 Net Kf8

Black has concentrated considerable
strength on the Q-side, so the king resorts to
"self defence". White threatened both 36 Bh5
and36 Rgl+.
36Rg1?
32

the king's position as much as when all three
press forward.
To sum up the lessons of pawn attacks
(when both players castle on the same side)
we must emphasize that they are feasible
only in closed positions. Even then they are
a risky venture, because the attacker's king
is weakened as the pawn attack proceeds.
Therefore the following questions must always be borne in mind:
1. Is there an imbalance of firepower developing along the open lines that might
favour the opponent?
2. Can the opponent launch a counterattack in the centre? (KonstantinopolskyTolush)
3. Is the counter-attack the opponent might
start on the other wing likely to materialize
sooner? (Yevtifeyev-Danyushevsky).
relatively less stable than it would be on the

short side. Whilst all three pawns defend the
king in the latter event (n, g7, h7), in the
former the outermost pawn (a7 or a2) is
undefended, thus offering a target to the
attacker. This structural difference offers
various combinative chances to the attacker
which differ in their nature from those he may
have against short castling. However, we shall
write about this in our next chapter when we
deal with castling on opposite sides.
As we have already said, when both players
have castled long, attacking chances and
methods of defence are in principle the same
as in the event of mutual short castling.
Therefore, on the whole piece attacks are
justified when the position is open, and pawn
attacks when it is closed.
Duras - Spielmann
Both players castle long
Vienna, 1907
The principles of attack and defence are

basically no different when both players
castle on the long side, the queen's wing.
This occurs far less frequently than mutual
castling on the short side, but it does happen.
It can develop in one of the main variations
of the Caro-Kann (1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3
dXe4 4 NXe4 Bf5), in the Centre Counter
Defence and generally speaking in openings
where the development of the Q-side pieces
precedes the development of those on the Kside. Usually in such cases one of the players
will castle on the long side, while the other
may still choose between the long and the
short side. If they castle on opposite sides,
either player can freely attack on the wing
where the opponent's king is, since his own
king is secure from the consequences of
such an aggression. Castling on the same side
as the opponent can therefore be a method
of preventive defence.
When castled long, the king's position is
33
The position is open in character. There

followed:
16 a4!
The black knights provide good cover for
the king for the time being, therefore White's
aim is to drive away one of the defending
pieces in order to acquire superior firepower.
Black naturally prevents this. If White were
to get in a5, then Qb5 would be threatened.
16 a5 17 g4!
Both attacker and defender must think

Let us first look at an example where both
castled positions are intact. An important
point here is that the attacker's pawns must
travel the maximum distance in order to
achieve their objective.
pragmatically and in terms of concrete variations when the position is open. The piece
sacrifice that follows two moves later cannot
be played here, because after 17 NXb7?
KXb7 18 Nc5+ Kb8! 19 Qa6 mate can be
averted by 18 . . . Qc8 !. Therefore the objective of the second pawn move also is to
get rid of a defending piece.
17 Qf6 18 c3 Rhe8?
Black plans a trappy counter-attack. But
the alarm bells should be ringing! On reflection he might have tried 18 ... Bd6.
19 NXb7! RXd1+
The knight cannot be captured, since after
19 ... Kxb7 20 Nc5+ Kb8 21 Qa6! mate
cannot be avoided. The fact that an additional file is available to the attacker against long
castling is well demonstrated here.
20 Rxd1 BXc3 21 N7cS! Nb4! 22 gS!
Of course it would have been risky to
capture the black bishop, but now the white
queen can escape the pin by giving check on
g4.
22 ... QeS 23 NXaS hS
Preventing Qg4+.
24bXc3QXc3+ 25KblQXc5
Black was pinning his hopes on this, but
now comes an elegant coup de grace.
26 Rd8 + ! ! Black resigned.
Capture of the rook would lead to loss of
the queen, e.g. 26 . . . RX d8 27 BX c5;
or 26 ... Kd8: 27 Nb7+.
A. Geller - Spassky
Leningrad, 1954
1 e4 cS 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cXd4 4 NXd4 Nf6

5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 Qf3 Be7 8 0-0-0 Qc7
9 g4
White's king is on the opposite side, so
this pawn move involves no risk.
9 . b5 10 Rg1 b4 11 Neel Bb7 12 BXf6
BXf613 g5 BXd4 14 NXd4 Nd715 Qe2 NcS
16 Bg2 0-0
This is the moment when decisions depend
on temperament, tournament tactics or some
other factor. 16 ... 0-0-0 was also possible
here, with much quieter play. Such would be
the choice of the player who dislikes being
attacked or who is content with a half point,
enough to reach his objective (which could be
qualifying for a higher standard of competition or just reaching a given grade). A competitive player with an energetic style and combinative inclination, like Spassky, or someone
who must try to win at all cq_sts, would
"castle into" his opponent's attack, pinning
his faith on the strength of the counter-attack.
17Kb1
Owing to the defenceless state of a2 and the
half-open c-file, this is a useful safety move
after castling long.
17 . Rfd8 18 b4 a5 19 b5 eS!
For us, this move, which alters the structure of the centre, is the most pleasing feature
of Black's play. It seems to concede good
squares to his opponent's knight, but while
the black knight, which is heading for e6,
will take part in both attack and defence,
White's knight on f5 will be too far away to
When the players have castled on opposite

wings
This area is much better charted than the
preceding one. It is widely known that the
main method of attack here is the pawn attack
and that of defence the counter-attack on the
opposite wing, also with pawns. The principal
aim of the pawn attack is to gain open lines
whereby the pieces can penetrate the opponent's king's position.
34

in the defence of his queen's wing.
20 NfS Ne6 21 Qg4 a4 22 g6! b3!
A picturesque sight, this mutual storming
of the castled positions by the pawns. The
g-pawn has to be advanced to open a file,
because after h6, for instance, Black would
simply reply ... g6. It is interesting to observe
that the race has ended in a virtual dead-heat,
as both sides have reached their target simultaneously.
A beautiful variation would follow after

29NXd6,namely 29 ... Nc5!30Qg3Qg4!!.
29 Qg3 Qc2 30 Rel Kxf7 31 Nxd6+ Kg8
32 h6?
An oversight, but after the earlier sharp
struggle, White (not grandmaster Yefim
Geller, only his namesake) has a momentary
lapse. Another nice denouement would have
been possible after 32 NXb7, viz. 32 ...
Nd4 33 Nc5 Qbl + ! ! and 34 ... Nc2 mate.
32 . Qd2! 33 f4 exf4 34 Qc3 QXd6 Black
won.
We saw in the last example that one of the
players could have chosen to castle either way.
This is not always possible, even when the
rules apparently allow both methods. If one
of the players evaluates his position and
decides that he has better chances than his
opponent if they castle on opposite wings,
then he must try to prevent his opponent from
castling on the same side. How is that
possible? The task is not as difficult as it
seems. Psychological as well as technical
means must be resorted to during various
phases of the fight in order to find a solution.
Let us illustrate this with a classic example:
JOID
23 cXb3 aXb3 24 Rel!

For the time being White defends himself
well. Black wins after both 24 a3? Qc2+ 25
Kal Rxa3+ ! and 24 axb3? Ral+ ! 25
Kxal Qc2!, in both cases by way of a spectacular but typical rook sacrifice.
24 .. bXa2+ 25 Kal Qd7 26 gXf7+ Kf8
It is apparent that both parties are attacking
and defending at the same time.
In one section of the battlefield they are
defending, in the other they are conducting an
attack against the castled position by way of
pawn attacks. Both players employ similar
methods of defence, i.e. their kings find a
certain degree of cover behind one of the
opponent's pawns. 26 g X h7 + and 27 Bfl
would have been somewhat better for White.
27 Rgdl?
27 Bfl was better. Black's attack is much
reinforced by virtue of various combinative
motifs, among which the smothered mate is
dominant.
27 .. Rdc8! 28 Rxcs+ QxcS!
Alekhine -
Marshall
Baden-Baden, 1925
This position developed after Black's 13th

move. The last moves were 13 Qd2 Bd7!.
35

Both sides have seen through the other's
plans. White is planning a quick pawn storm,
counting on his pawn superiority on the
K-side (four pawns against three), and is
endeavouring to tuck his king safely away on
the long side. Seeing this Marshall avoids
castling for the time being, and instead
with 13 . Bd7 he prepares to castle long,
should White do the same, thereby take the
wind out of his opponent's sails. But Alekhine
sees through this preventive plan, and scuttles
it by exploiting the already mentioned peculiarity of long castling, namely, that the rook's
pawn remains undefended.
14 Qe3! Bc6 15 0-0-0 0-0
Black cannot find a useful move, and
submits to his fate. Of course, 15 ... 0-0-0
does not work because of 16 Qxa7 and in
response to 15 . . . Qa5 White could have
prevented long castling by yet another
method, i.e. 16 Bc4! (hitting the undefended
f7 and opening the d-file).
16f4Qe6
The answer to 16. . . Qa5 would also be
17 e5, since 17 ... Nd5 would lose a pawn on
account of 18 NXdS BXdS 19 Bxh7+
KXh7 20 Qd3+.
17 e5 Rfe8
Capture on g2 would have been suicidal,
since Black would have been opening a file
for the attacker.
18 Rhel Rad8
This leads to inevitable defeat. 18 ... Nd7
was better, after which White would have
continued with 19 g4.
19 f5 Qe7 20 QgS! NdS 21 f6! Qf8 22 Bc4!
NXc3
If 22 .. h6 the reply would still be fxg7.
23 RXd8 RXd8 24 fXg7! Nxa2+
Black tries for tactical diversions in a lost
position. 25 BXa2 would still offer a lifeline
with 25 ... Qc5+ and 26 ... Rd7.
25 Kbl Qe8
25 ... Nc3+ leads nowhere now after 26
bXc3.
26 e6! Be4+ 27 Kat

This is the simplest. 27 RX e4 also works,
but if 27 . . . Rdl + the necessary answer
would be 28 Kc2 (not KXa2?? Qa4 mate)
28 ... Qa4+ 29 b3.
27 f5 28e7+ RdS29 Qf6! Qf730 e8=
Q+ ! Black resigned.
The defence did not prove equal to the
task here. Marshan was himself a famous
attacking player, and defence was not his
strength. It is likely, however, that preventive
defence was needed here. Castling on opposite sides should have been avoided at all
costs since afterwards play became rather
one-sided as Black had absolutely no counterplay on the other wing. The pace of the pawn
storm is considerably quicker in the event of
castling on opposite wings than is the case
when castling on the same side. In spite of
this, rapid advance of the pawns must be
combined with defensive manoeuvres on the
side where one's own king stands. The principle of economy must be kept in mind, in
other words, no more tempo and material
must be employed in defence than is absolutely necessary, and weaknesses must, of
course, be avoided.
Tolosh -
Sokolsky
R.S.F.S.R. Championship, 1936
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 Qb3 Nc6 5 e3

dS 6 Bd2 0-0 7 0-0-0
36
Defence of :Attacked Castled Positions

again Black solves his problems without any
weakening pawn moves.
Castling has taken place on opposite sides,

so a sharp game can be expected. White is all
ready for the pawn storm with f3 and g4.
The Bb4 and Nc6 make Black's task slightly
more difficult. Therefore he withdraws these
pieces in order to open the c-:file by ... cs.
20 b5 21 Kbl b4 22 Ndl Nc4! 23 Bel
23 Rhfl? would be a mistake, because of

23 ... Bf5! 24 NXfS QXf5! 2S QXfS
Nxd2+ and mate in two.
23 Qc7 24 Nf2 Rab8! 25 b3
2S f5 would be followed by 2S ... Na3+ !
7 Be7 8 cxd5 eXdS 9 f3! Be6 10 g4
Just as in the previous example, the capture

of the b-pawn does not come into consideration here, since it would only accelerate the
opponent's plans.
26 bXa3 bxa3+ 27 Kal Qb6! with the

threat of28 ... R xcl +.After the next move,
26 f5 is again threatened and Black once
more fends it off with a withdrawal of his
pieces without playing ... g6.
10 NaS 11 Qc2 cS 12 Bd3
What should Black do? 13 gS is threatened,

followed by the subsequent capture of a pawn
on h7. This could be prevented by 12 ... g6
or 12 . . . h6. As we have seen, though, it is
better to refrain from pawn moves of this
kind, as they make the opponent's attack
easier. Black finds a way to repel the threat
without further weakening his position.
White's attack leads into a cul-de-sac.

After the apparently natural 27 g6, Black
would avoid opening any key files by 27 ...
fX g6 28 fX g6 h6 !. Besides, Black was also
threatening to reinforce the counter-attack
with 27 . . . Bb5 !
12 ... cXd413 eXd4 Nc6! 14 g5 Nb4!
27 dXa4 28 Qe2
25 Bf8! 26 f5 Bd7 27 bXc4
14 ... NXd4? would lose a piece after

lS Qa4 ! White's best continuation now is
lS gXf6 Nxc2 16 fXe7 Qxe7 17 Bxc2,
sacrificing his queen for three minor pieces.
But it is difficult to give up a promising Kside attack and change plans in mid-course.
15 Qbl? NXd3+ 16 QXd3 Ne8!
This is the correct retreat, since after 16 ...

Nd7 17 f4 the threat would be 18 fS. Black
switches the knight to d6, where it can take
equal part in both attack and defence.
17 f4 Nd6 18 Nge2 Qd7!
18 ... Rc8 was tempting here with the

earliest possible occupation of the open file.
However, one must try to place all available
forces as efficiently as possible in the course of
counter-attack and defence. Black reserves
the c-file for his other rook, since the queen's
rook will have to lend support to the advancing b-pawn from b8.
After the acceptance of the sacrifice, all

the files leading to the white king open
up, and there is no longer any defence
against the attack.
19 Ng3 Rfc8 20 Rdel!
We can see from the foregoing examples

that while the pawns can freely and quickly
advance (from the point of the king's security) when the players have castled on differ-
Now 21 fS really is threatened, e.g. 21 ...

Nxf5 22 NXf5 BXf5 23 Rxe7! winning.
Has the time arrived to play 20. . . g6? Once
37
28 . b3! 29 Nfe4 bXa2+ 30 Kai Rbl+!

31 K Xa2 Rb3 32 Kal Rcb8 33 Qa2 Qb6!
34 Be3 Ra3 35 Rehl RXa2+ 36 KXa2
QaS mate.
12 BXc4 BXc4 13 gS BcS 14 Qf4 Nd7

15 h4 bS! 16 b3?
There was no need yet for such a weakening move.
16 ... Ba3+ 17 Kbl Rb8!
Acceptance of the piece sacrifice would
lose immediately: 18 bXc4 bXc4+ 19 Kal
Bb2+ 20 Kbl BXc3+ 21 Kcl Bb2+ 22 Kbl
Be5+ etc.
18 hS Qe7 19 Nh3 b4
ent sides, this method is not enough in

itself. The co-operation of the pieces is often
necessary for the decisive opening of files,
sometimes in the form of a sacrifice.
What makes a sacrifice possible? Again
it is the fact that both players, having castled
on opposite sides, concentrate considerable
forces against the hostile king, thus weakening
the other wing where a material superiority develops in favour of the opponent.
It is possible that this superiority may still
be sufficient to render the attack irresistible,
even after the sacrifice of one or two pieces.
It follows, therefore, that the struggle in
such instances is mainly of a tactical nature.
Both players can use the whole armoury
of tactical ploys: unexpected sacrifices,
the opening of files, double attacks, mating
threats. We have seen several such motifs
in the games examined so far. Furthermore,
the reason why strong players gladly accept
struggles of this kind is that they trust
their own ability to spot the chances developing in one section of the battlefield more
readily than their opponent.
Grandmaster Spielmann wrote a whole
book about the various types of sacrifice.
In the course of the last game examined
a very interesting sacrifice took place, which
we could call a tempo-winning piece sacrifice. In order to enable our counter-attack
to reach its target sooner than the opponent's
own attack, sometimes we should not withdraw pieces attacked by the opponent's
pawns, but sacrifice them.
Ozsvath -
20 g6!?
White does not waste time withdrawing

the Nc3 but instead increases the force of
his own attack. After 20 Nd5 BXd5 21 exd5
Qe5 ! exchange of queens would become
unavoidable because of the mating threat
on b2. Black would then have satisfactory
counter-play in view of the possibility of
mate on the back rank and White's pawn
weaknesses.
20 fXg6
Black must choose which file to open.
Probably the opening of the h-file is fraught
with more danger than of the g-file, which
would follow after the immediate 20 ... h6.
(After acceptance of the sacrifice by 20 ...
b X c3 no win by force can be seen but
White would get a strong attack after 21
gXh7 + Kh8 22 BXc3 Ne5 23 h6!).
21 hXg6 h6 22 Nf2 Rf8?
A reprehensible move for three reasons:
1. It involves loss of time and enables
the opponent to prepare the opening of the
h-file with a gain of tempo.
Kluger
Hungarian Championship
Semi-finals, 1955
1 e4 eS 2 d4 eXd4 3 QXd4 Nc6 4 Qe3
Nf6 5 Nc3 Bb4 6 Bd2 0-0 7 0-0-0 Re8
8 Bc4 d6 9 f3 NeS 10 Bd3 Be6 11 g4 Nc4
38

2. It leaves e6 insufficiently protected.
3. It cuts off the king's escape route.
23 Qg3 bXc3 24 BXh6!!
The mating net is drawing tighter around
both kings. White is already threatening
Bg5 followed by Rh8+ !, Qh3+, Qh7 mate,
and after 25 Bg5 Nf6 then 26 Qh3 would be
sufficient.
24 BXb3!?
Now, after anything except taking the
bishop, Black will get at least a draw by perpetual check.
25 axb3 QeS 26 Qh3?
In a sharp position such as this the slower
solution is also the worse one. 26 Bf4 ! wins
immediately, e.g. 26 ... QXf4 27 Qh3 Qh6 28
Qe6+ ! Kh8 29 RXh6+ gXh6 30 QXd7
or 26 ... RXf4 27 Qh3 Kf8 28 QXd7 Kg8
29 Rd5 Qe8 30 Rdh5 I with unavoidable
mate. Against a counter-attack starting with
... RX b3 +, White can use the same defence
as in the actual game. 26 Bf41 is ''quicker"
than 26 Qh3?, because the sacrifice 27
Rh8+ ! threatens immediate mate. It is
interesting that a few moves later Black
could win with the same motif.
26 RXb3+! 27 Ka2!
The rook cannot be taken because of
27 cxb3 c2+ I 28 KXc2 Qb2+ 29 Kd3
NeS+ and Black wins.
27 Rb2+ 28 Kai
28 RbS?
The decisive mistake. 28 ... Qa5 was not
39
on either, because of 29 Qe6+, and neither

was 28 . . . Bb4 on account of 29 Rd5 !.
The initial move of the winning combination
was 28 ... Rb6 !! leaving the queen's route to
the a-file clear. This would have invited
29 Be3 Bb2+ 30 Kbl Bel+! (otherwise the
bishop would be in the way), 31 KXcl
(31 Bxb6 would fail to 31 . . . Qb5 + !)
31 ... Rbl+l 32 KXbl Qb5+ and 33 ...
Qb2 mate.
The difference between the two rook moves
is shown by the variation 29 Bel. With the
rook on b6 then 29 . . . Bb2 + ! is possible,
because the black queen is able to check
on a5. 29 Nd3 gives a variation on the same
theme: 29 ... Bb2+ 30 NXb2 Qa5+ etc.
Finally, 29 Rd5 does not help, because of
29 . . . Bb2+ 30 Ka21 (after 30 Kbl the
quiet 30 ... Ra6! leads to mate 30 ... Ra6+
31 Kb3 Nc5+! 32 RXc5! dXc5 33 Be3!
c4+! 34 KXc4 Ra4+ and mate next move.)
How could one have chosen the correct
rook move, even in time trouble? Time is
needed to calculate the difficult variations
shown, but the general consideration of not
placing one's pieces each other's way and
of not disturbing their smooth co-operation
without being forced to do so, would perhaps have helped.
29 Bell! Rbl +
Now, after 29 ... Bb2+ 30 BXb21
there is no chance of 30 ... Qa5 +, and there
is no time for a quiet move because White
will mate.
30Ka2
This was not really necessary, because
Black would run out of checks after 30
KXbl Qb5+ 31 Ka21 Qc4+ 32 Kal!.
The alternative 30 ... Rb8+ 31 Ka2 Kf8
would not work either, because 32 QXd7
would threaten mate on both f7 and h8.
30 Ral+ 31 KXal Bb2+ 32 Kbl Black
resigned.
Here we saw yet another function of the
advanced pawns. When file opening is

avoided by "pushing past" the pawn on the
adjoining file (as was done here by 21 ... h6),
the attacking pawn forms a wedge on the
6th (or 3rd) rank which can both cut off the
king's escape route and assist in various
mating combinations.
The Gereben-E. Geller game, which
received the brilliancy prize at the I st Mar6czy
Memorial Tournament (Budapest, 1952),
is a beautiful example of similar tempogaining piece sacrifices.
Once again, defender and attacker almost

changed roles. The defender became the
attacker and vice versa.
Apart from those seen in the last two
examples, there are several other types of
piece sacrifice which can be made in order
to accelerate the advance of the pawns.
A particularly interesting one is the bishop
sacrifice on h 7, with the subsequent offer
of a pawn on g6.
Averbakh -
Sardarov
2nd U.S.S.R. Spartakiade, 1959
17 a4!!
White has just created his first real threat,
but the black bishop does not retreat!
It would have been hardly possible to calculate all the variations of the sacrifice.
It's based on the fact that White cannot
regroup his forces for the defence of the
Q-side, his material advantage will be of
little consequence. At the same time, White's
own attack will fizzle out after the win of
material.
18 h4 aXb3 19 aXb3 Ra2! 20 fXe6 fXe6
21 Qe3 QaS!
The white king is already threatened with
mate by 22 ... RXb21 (getting rid of the
last defending piece by means of a sacrifice) 23 KXb2 Qa3+ 24 Kbl Ra8 etc.
22 c4 RXb2 23 KXb2 Qa3+ 24 Kbl Ra8
25 Ncl Qal+ 26 Kc2 Ra2+! 27 NXa2
Qxa2+ 28 Kcl NXb3+ 29 QXb3 Qxb3
Black, having regained the sacrificed
material with interest, went on to win.
40
1 c4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 Nbd7 5

cXd5 exd5 6 Bf4 c6 7 Qc2 Be7 8 e3 0-0
9 Bd3 Re8 10 b3 Nf8
As a rule, the defence of h7 after castling
short is taken care of by the knight positioned
on f6, but there it often becomes exposed
to attack. The same role can be taken over
by a knight on f8, because it is less vulnerable
to the attacking method known as "elimination of the defending piece". Yet the
f8 position also has its drawbacks: f7,
usually defended by the rook on f8, tends
to be weakened. Furthermore, the knight
cuts off the king's escape route, so if checked,
the latter is forced to move to h8, and this
in turn increases the vulnerability of f7.
110-0-0 b5
Black begins the thematic pawn attack,
but without any concrete plan. The opening
of the c-file (as in Tolush-Sokolsky) was
an alternative.
12 Ne5 Bb7 13 g4 a5 14 Rdgl a4 15 g5 Nb5
White's pieces co-operate very well with
his pawns. This makes a piece sacrifice
possible, in order to effect the rapid opening
of the g-file.
(See Diagram on the next page.)
16BXh7+!! NXh717 g6! fXg6

Due to the weakness of f7, the acceptance
of both sacrifices is forced.
18 QXg6 N7f6 19 Qf7+ Kh8 20 RXg7!!
NXg7 21 Rgl! NfbS 22 Rg6! Qd6 23 RXd6
White woo.
Another fine example of the BXh7
sacrifice in furtherance of a flank attack
provided in the following game by a Hungarian master:
P. Szilagyi -
Nacu
European Team Championship

Semi-finals, Sinaia, 1964
1 e4 c5 2 NfJ d6 3 d4 cXd4 4 NXd4 Nf6

5 NcJ Nc6 6 BgS e6 7 Qd2 a6 8 ~ Bd7
9 f4 Be7 10 NfJ b5 11 Bd3 b4 U Ne2 0-0
13 g4! a5 14 Bxf6 BXf6 15 g5 Be7 16 Kbt
Qb6 17 fS Rfb8 18 f6! Bf8 19 e5! b3!? 20
cXb3!
This capture is a fairly common feature
of the defence after long castling, since the
opening of the c-file is less dangerous than
that of the a-file. The general principle of
capturing towards the centre, whenever
possible, must be discarded in this case.
20 Nb4!
A few more moves and Black could reinforce his attack with . . . a4 or . . . N X a2,
but White gets in first!
41
21 BXh7 + !! KXh7 22 g6+ ! Kg8

Other moves are no better, 22 ... fXg6
23 Ng5+ Kg824f7+ Kh8 25 Qf4 and mate
is unavoidable. A single bishop is simply
not enough for the king's defence!
23 gXf7+ Kxf7 24 NgS+ Ke8 25 Qf4
NdS 26 fXg7! NXf4 27 g8 = Q Nxe2
28 RXd6! Qf2 29 Qg6+! Kd8 30 Nxe6+
Kc8 31 Qc2+ ! Black resigned.
The "self-defence" of the king did not
help in this case as, due to the many open
files, his fate caught up with him even on
the other wing.
So far our examples have involved situations where both castled positions were
unweakened, i.e. where the pawns were
positioned on their original squares. We have
to give separate attention to cases where
the g-or the h-pawn has already advanced
a rank, since in a number of openings they
often leave their original positions in the
interest of K-side development. When short
castling follows in such instances, the opponent often decides to castle on the opposite
side, using the weakened enemy castled
position to accelerate his own pawn attack.
The Dragon Variation of the Sicilian, and
the King's Indian Defence are typical openings involving the advance of the g-pawn.
The characteristics of the fianchetto in the
castled position (... g6, . . . Bg7, or in
White's case, g3, Bg2) can be clearly seen
from the following analysis by Vukovic.

We will not discuss the problems of the
opening here, since they go beyond the scope
of our work.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cXd4 4 NXd4 Nf6
5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7
This bishop defends Black's castled position like a "dragon". According to some
authorities, the name of the variation is
derived from this.
7f3 0-0 8 Qd2
This arrangement of the pieces originates
from the Soviet master, Rauzer. White's
last move has a dual purpose: it opens up
the possibility of long castling and under
certain circumstances the black "dragon"
can be exchanged by Bh6.
8 .. Nc6 9 0--0--0 NXd4 10 BXd4 Be6
11 g4! QaS 12 a3
After 12 Kbl Black can possibly still
break through on a2 by sacrificing the exchange with ... Rc8Xc3. This is a ploy
worth remembering!
12 Rfc8 13 h4 Rab8 14 h5 b5
15 hXg6 hXg6
In this situation, recapturing away from
the centre with ... fX g6 is worth considering.
Its advantages are that it clears a path for
the king's escape and opens the h-file only
as far as h 7. This point can often be defended
by a rook on the seventh rank. The h8 square,
however well-defended it appears, offers
interesting chances for White's attack.
16 QgS!
This impedes 16 b4 and thereby slows
down Black's pawn storm on the opposite
wing. It can also prepare the transfer of
the queen onto the h-file.
16':- a6 17 Rd2 Qc7 18 Rdh2 b4
For White's attack to be successful, the
bishop defending h8 must be eliminated.
In his earlier textbook on openings, Vukovic
recommended 19 Qh4 after which 19 ...
bxc3 would be too slow, since mate follows
after 20 Qh8+ BXh8 21 RXh8+ Kg7 22
42
Rlh7. Later he found a very witty defence

for Black, viz. 19 . . . Nh5 ! !, which is yet
another kind of sacrifice, closing the file to
help the defence. lfnow20BXg7 then 20 ...
bXa3!! 21 Qg5! (21 gXhS is answered by
21 Kxg7, and 21 Bd4 by 21 ... axb2+
22 Kb/ Qa5/ White's queen move eliminates
this latter possibility) 21 ... axb2+ 22
Kbl KXg7 23 RXh5 is met with 23 ...
Ba2+ ! 24 Kxa2 bl = Q+, while 23 gXh5
is simply countered by23 ... QXc3.
An error may easily slip into the analysis
of such a long and intricate variation, and it
is possible that White's play can be improved. All the same, it is no doubt right stating
that there is a more radical method for the
elimination of the Bg7 in the given position.
19 Qh6!!
Now 19 . . . Nh5 is not possible, because

of 20 QXg7+ ! NXg7 21 Rh8 mate. The
king cannot run away for 19 . . . Kf8 20
Qh8+ Ng8 21 QXg8+ ! KXg8 22 Rh8+ !
also leads to mate, the "X-ray" effect of the
d4 bishop asserting itself on h8. There is no
alternative, therefore, but the acceptance of
the sacrifice.
19 BXh6+ 20 RXh6 gS 21 Bd3!!
21 Rh8+ Kg7 22 Rlh7+ Kg6 only leads
to perpetual check.
21 RXf6 does not work either, because
of 21 ... Bc4! 22 Rh8+ ! Kg7 (not22 ...
KXh8 23 Rh6+ + and 24 Rh8 mate) 23
Rfh6 + e5 ! etc.

21 BXg4
Black cannot avoid mate with any other
continuations either:
A. 21 . . . Bc4 22 Rh8 + Kg7 23 Rlh7 +
K.g6 24 e5+ BXd3 25 Rh6+ Kg7 26 exf6+
exf6 27 BXf6 mate.
B. 21 ... d5 22 Rh8+ Kg7 23 Rlh7 +
Kg6 24 eXd5+ Ne4 25 Rg7 mate.
C. 21 ... Nh7 22 RXh7 f6 23 Rh8+ Kf7
24 Rlh7+ Kg6 25 e5+ f5 26 BXf5+ BXf5
27 Rh6+ Kf7 28 e6+ BXe6 29 R6h7+ Kg6
30 Rg7 mate.
22 Rh8+ Kg7 23 Rlh7 + Kg6 24 eS + Ne4
25 Rh6+ ! KfS 26 BXe4+ Kf4 27 Ne2 mate.
The following lessons can be learnt from
these fine variations :
The pawn structure of the black castled
position (f7-g6-h7) facilitates the opening of
the h-file for White. Apart from this, the same
pawn structure also has the consequence of
weakening f6 and h6. Black's king's bishop
undertakes the defence of these squares from
g7. Therefore the method of securing superior fire-power in this section of the board is to
eliminate this fianchettoed bishop by exchange or even by sacrifice.
Now let us look at an example where the
defender outruns the attacker on the other
wing:
Boleslavsky -
E. Geller
World Championship Candidates'

Tournament, Zurich, 1953
43
11 g4
The opening phase of the game is over and
White begins the pawn attack without delay.
His aim is to open up the h-file with h4-h5,
to exchange the g7 bishop by Bh6 and to
finish the game by direct attack. The sequence
of moves is important. An immediate 11 Bh6
is not good because of 11 . . . N X d4 12
BXg7 Nxf3 and preparing it by 11 Nxc6
b X c6 would reinforce Black's centre and open
up the b-file.
11 Rc8
Couldn't the pawn attack be checked by
. . . h5 as in some variations of the King's
Indian?
Here, after 11 ... hS 12 gXhS NXhS
13 Rgl, White would threaten 14 NfS !
12Kbl
This is a generally useful move, for reasons
we have already seen (the king defends a2 and
leaves the half-open c-file), but in this position
it is unnecessary. Since time is an important
factor in double-edged positions, the immediate 12 h4 was better.
12 NeS 13 h4 bS 14 Bh6
It is unlikely that either player calculated
the consequences of capturing the b-pawn,
but the opening up of the file would have
been dangerous. However, 14 h5 was preferable, reserving Bh6 until after the probable
14 ... Nc4 15 BXc4 bXc4.
14 BXh6! 15 QXh6 RXc3!
White has achieved a significant weakening
of Black's K-side but Black now overtakes
him with his own attack by means of a
typical exchange sacrifice.
16 bXc3 QaS! 17 Qe3
If 17 Kb2 Black continues the attack with
17 ... b4.
17 Qa318 h5
The roles have been reversed. Now it is
White who is seeking counter-chances.
18 b419 Qcl
Defence by simplification. 19 Nb3 could
have been answered by 19 ... a5. After ex-

change of queens, White could evaluate his
material advantage.
19 QXc3 20 Qb2 Rc8
Black is slightly over-optimistic in evaluating his chances in the endgame. Avoiding the
exchange 20 . . . Qe3 was a possibility.
21 hXg6 QXb2+ 22 KXb2 hXg6 23 a3?
An oversight. 23 Be2 followed by Ral was
necessary, and only then a3, hoping to create
open files for the rooks.
23 bXa3+ 24 KXa3 NXf3! 25 NXf3
Rc3+ 26 Kb2 RXf3
The base of White's pawn chain has
collapsed and further material loss is
unavoidable. Black won.
of the Gereben-E. Geller game. How can

Black defend himself against this plan?
The following stratagem occurs quite frequently: after the preparatory . . . Rfe8,
when Bh6 is played. Black avoids the exchange with ... Bh8.) There have even been
examples of the bishop leaving g7 with the
rook still on f8, thus preferring loss of the
exchange to the weakening of the king's position. Threats developing along the second
rank can sometimes be parried from a
distance by the rooks. It can happen that
the whole second rank becomes cleared, and
then the queen rook may defend the K-side
from a7.
These are the methods of direct defence
(we prefer the term "direct" to "passive",
since the latter term tends to be pejorative).
Furthermore, since the player who attacks
the fianchetto position himself normally
castles on the opposite wing, indirect defence
is also available to the defender, i.e. a
counter-attack against his opponent's king.
The same points apply here as in connection
with the preceding examples.
A clever combination of direct and indirect methods of defence can be seen in the
position below.
Let us draw some conclusions from these

examples, from the point of view of the
defence, and also list the advantages of a
fianchetto for the castled position. The black
king is generally quite safe from an attack
against h7 (though there are exceptions, as,
for instance, in some variations of the Ruy
Lopez where White sacrifices a knight on
rs; we will treat this separately in our chapter
on defence against typical attacks). The black
squares, weakened by the move g6, are
defended by the bishop on g7. When the pawn
structure allows, this bishop can also play a
role in the counter-attack against the opponent's long castled position. Should the
bishop move away, there will be an extra
flight square for the king on g7. The principal
method of attack against the fianchetto position is to open up the h-file by h4-h5,
followed by hXg6. The push ... g6-g5 is not
possible as a rule, since gS is under the control
of the opponent and there is seldom an
opportunity to prepare this with ... h7-h6.
The principal means of stopping the opening
of the file is ... h7-h5.
The other main method of the attack is to
eliminate the g7 bishop. (We have seen an
example of the fianchettoed bishop's elimination on b2 after long castling in the final stage
Panov- Kan
Tbilisi, 1937
44

Black has succeeded in avoiding the exchange of the g7 bishop by using the manoeuvre mentioned above ( .. Re8, .. Bh8),
and is also ready for the counter-blow ...
N X b2 ! on the Q-side. But is not h X g6 opening the file, fatal for Black? This is how it
went:
18 gS!!
Black prevents the opening of the file with
a pawn sacrifice. He can accept this material
loss because in doing so he averts his opponent's attack brilliantly and can then carry
on undisturbed with the counter-attack on the
other wing.
19 Rd3?
The unexpected defence rattles White.
He should have accepted the sacrifice on gS
which would of course have been followed
by ... NXb2. As it is, Black not only gets an
attack, but also cuts off the h6 bishop from
play, and so he can now count on what is, for
practical purposes, a piece advantage.
19 BeS! 20 Qf2 f6!
Black won ten moves later.
Here too the problem of preventing the
open file was solved by the pawn "pushing
past", this time in the form of a sacrifice.
It is important for the defender Uust as
much as the attacker) to be acquainted with
the most common check mating positions.
It is not our intention, however, to list them
here, since we will encounter most of them
as we go along studying the examples.
Awareness of imminent danger would in any
case be of no avail in defending the fianchetto
position; there is no chance of preventive
defence, since the move . . . g6 occurs in the
early phase of the opening, sometimes on the
second or even the first move. This is how the
middlegame is linked to the opening. Modem
chess thinking requires us to study the openings in conjuction with the typical middlegame problems which develop from them.
If, after profound analysis of the latter, a
player concludes that the defence of the
45
castled position with the g6 pawn is inappropriate for himself, then he must adapt his
opening repertoire accordingly and discard
the King's Indian and Griinfeld defences.
Players may, however, choose such openings
on purely psychological grounds, when, for
example, they play against an opponent who
is indecisive and slow in attack and who
dislikes a double-edged, complicated game
of attack and counter-attack.
While a castled position "modified" (as
distinct from "weakened") by the move ... g6
is the unavoidable concomitant of several
defence systems, the same cannot be said
about the move ... h6. An early ... h6 is
usually dictated by the intention of keeping
an enemy piece away from gS (usually a
bishop or a knight) or of forcing it back, if it is
already in occupation of that square. We have
already seen the attacking system made
possible by this move in the ReshevskyEuwe game in the chapter on avoiding
weakening pawn moves: the attacker lets the
attacked piece on gS be captured, since he
immediately achieves the opening of the h-file
when he recaptures with his own pawn positioned on h4.
Here is anoth,er game on a similar theme:
Tolush - Niemela
Baltic Team Tournament,
Riga, 1960

both to his own omissions and to the nature
of the position.
10 g4!
Capturing the sacrificed piece is usually
wrong on general grounds in such instances.
However, one must always be pragmatic and
see whether there is a chance to organize
effective defence post f actum. In the present
case the material advantage would be lost
immediately, since the black knight could no
longer be defended after 10 . . . h X g5 11
hXg5 Ne4 12 cxd5 exd5 13 NXd5.
10 Re8?
In the event of a wing attack by pawns, one
should try to take the initiative in the centre
or on the opposite wing. The passive (and we
use the word advisedly in this instance) repelling of direct threats alone is seldom effective.
In the given case, Black is not sufficiently
Leonhardt - Spielmann
Nuremberg, 1906
tksrJ~d.ta,11c.t~l".rumte.r:-'}l~.1mtJie..s.hrotld.
still try for it with 10 ... cxd4!, which

would cause White some problems. If 11
exd4, then 11 ... hxg5! 12 hxg5 and ...
Ne4 becomes possible, since after 13 cXd5
exd5 14 Nxe4 dxe4 15 Qxe4 Black can
capture on g5 with a check. White would
most likely continue instead with 11 N X d4,
when 11 ... hxg5 would again not work
because of 12 hXg5 Ne4 13 cXd5 eXd5
(or 13 ... NXg5 14 f4) 14 Nf5 BXg5 15
RXd5 etc.
11 Bxf6 NXf6 12 gS Ne4 13 Nxe4 dXe4
14 Qxe4 cxd4
If 14 ... Qxa2 then 15 Bd3 g6 16 h5 wins.
1S Bd3 g6 16 NeS
Now there is no longer any defence against
17 NXf7. White's attack is so strong that
there is no need to open a file for the rooks.
16 dXe3 17 Nxf7! Ba3
A last trap: Black threatens mate in two by
18 ... Qxc3+.
18 Q X g6 + Kf8 19 Qf6! Black resigned.
What was the reason for the sudden
collapse of Black's position 1 Partly the
weakness of the king's position (particularly
the move . . . h6); partly the fact that Black
could not get counter-play anywhere else due
46
Both players deliberately aimed to reach

this position, White apparently supposing
that the g4 bishop would now have to retreat
after which 11 Ne5 ! would give him an
advantage (even in the event of 10 ... BXh3).
But the continuation was:
10 0-0-0! 11 hXg4?
It is usually better not to capture in such
situations. In the case in question, three
different outcomes are possible:
1. The offered piece stays "en prise" for
some moves, while the defender mobilizes
new forces in the endangered area.
2. There are sufficient defensive forces for
the piece to be captured sooner or later.
3. Given the superiority of the opposition
the offered piece retreats or is exchanged
(in this game for the f3 knight, which would
not be unfavourable for White).
All of these alternatives are better, as a rule,
than the opening of a file involved in acceptance of the sacrifice.
11 NXg4 12 g3
During a discussion with Tarrasch, Spielmann demonstrated that 11 Rel was not
possible because of 12 . . . Bh2+ ! 13 Kfl
Be5 !, threatening both 14 . . . Qhl + and

14 ... NXd4.
12 Qb3!
This ties down the defending white pieces.
The f3 knight cannot move, while Rel would
lose immediately to . . . BX g3 !
13 Ne4Be7
14 . . . NXd4 is threatened, with the
elimination of a defending piece.
14 Be3 f5 15 Ned2 NXe3 16 fXe3 QXg3+
17 Kbl Rd6 18 Nb2 Rh6 19 Bb5 Bd6 20 Rf4
BXf4 21 exf4 Qb4 White resigned.
We will not cite any more examples of the
castled position modified by . . . h6 (or h3
in White's case). Here, the best method of
defence is prevention: unless absolutely
necessary, the move should not be played.
We can find numerous examples for this.
If the move is nevertheless played, and the
opponent offers a piece on g5 (or g4) in order
to open a file, we should examine very
carefully whether or not the sacrifice can be
declined.
Our last example leads us to our next subject: attack on the wings not by pawns, but
by pieces alone. Although the principal method of attack after castling on opposite sides
is a pawn storm, it is still perfectly feasible
for one or other player to adopt a piece attack.
Superficially it does not seem to matter on
which side our king is situated in the event of
a piece attack. But this is deceptive, as there
is one important difference. When castling
has taken place on the same side, the attacking
pieces operate close to their own king, and can
quickly join in his defence if necessary.
This is not the case when the kings are on
opposite wings. In such an event, the pieces
attacking the opponent's king move too far
away from their own king and cannot return
to his defence in time, so again there are plenty
of opportunities for a successful counterattack. We have already seen some examples
of this, perhaps the finest being the GellerSpassky game, where White's fS knight
attacks but takes no part in the defence,
47
while Black's knight on e6 unites the two

functions : qefending g7 and possibly threatening mate after . . . NcS or . . . Nd4, thereby
attacking as well. We give two examples now
in which both players attempt a piece attack
having castled on opposite wings.
Tai -
Smyslov
World Championship Candidates'

Tournament, Bled, 1959
White has the better position. His pieces are

excellently placed, and there is no impediment
to their further development and smooth coordination. Black has yet to solve the
problem of his Q-side development. True,
there are no weak points in his position, so he
can rightly expect to equalize once he completes his development. In other words,
White's development advantage is only transitory, and unless he can transform it into
something more permanent (material superiority, or a lasting weakness in the opponent's
position), it may quickly evaporate.
Black can choose between two, theoretically
absolutely different ways of overcoming his
development handicap: "gradual defence", as
some experts (e.g. Reinfeld) so aptly call it,
or counter-attack with pieces. The former
means that the player tries to develop his
forces gradually, while also striving to
eliminate his lag in development via exchanges. Such a plan begins with 10 .. NdS,

for instance. This could be followed by 11 h4
in the spirit of the preceding examples.
If now 11 . . . f6 then 12 Bc4 N7b6 is the
logical continuation. But even with the
simple 12 Bf4 White keeps some advantage,
because e6 has become a weakness in Black's
position.
Smyslov did not opt for such meticulous
defence, in the course of which one has to
beat back the opponent's threats gradually,
but for a counter-attack with pieces.
Grandmaster Bondarevsky, whose interesting analysis and comment we now follow,
uses an interesting analogy from opening
theory. The first method, he says, is reminiscent of the old openings, like the orthodox
Queen's Gambit or the Steinitz variation of
the Ruy Lopez, where Black counterbalances
White's push in the centre directly and in the
same area. The second method is more like
modem openings, such as the Nimzo-Indian
or the King's Indian, where White is left free
to operate in the centre while Black finds
compensation elsewhere.
10 QaS!
11 ... QXa2isnowthreatened,andifll Kbl
then 11 ... BXd6 12 QXd6 Ne4. White's
reply is practically forced.
11 Bc4 b5!
Were Black to follow the other method,
he would settle for 11 . . . Qc5 here. Then
White would maintain a slight positional
advantage, perhaps by 12 Nxc8 Raxc8 13
Rhel.
11 ... BXd6 would not be good now,
because of 12 Q X d6 Ne4 13 Qe7 ! e. g. 13 ...
NXf2 14 RXd7 BXd7 15 Rfl.
12 Bd2!
Not 12 Bb3 because of 12 ... c5 and 13 .. .
c4. Black's answer to 12 Nf5 would be 12 .. .
Bc5.
12 Qa6
Black continues to attack a2.
13NfS
48
It is interesting to see that White has made

several very good moves which were in fact
almost forced. The fight is extraordinarily
sharp now.
13 Bd8
13 ... bXc4 14 NXe7+ Kh8 15 Kbl
would lead to a clear positional advantage
for White, while after 13 ... Bc5 14 Qh4
bXc4 15 Bc3 the attack would be decisive.
Not only would the simple 16 Qg5 be
threatened, but also 16 RXd7! BXd7 (or
16 ... NXd7 17 Qh6!) 17 Nh6+ Kh8
18 QXf6.
14 Qb4 bXc4
After 14 . . . Nd5 15 Qg3 White's initiative
increases without major complications, e.g.
15 ... Bf6 16 Bg5. Black couples the acceptance of the offer with an interesting counter-sacrifice.
1S QgS NbS!
White gets strong attacking chances after

other moves. For example 15 ... g6 16 Bc3
Qxa2 17 Nh6+ Kg? (if 17 ... Kh8 then
18 RXd7!) 18 Rhel. The variations could
probably only be calculated here by a computer, but the sacrifice can be regarded as
correct because it gives White sufficient
chances, quite apart from 18 Nf5+ and
perpetual check.
The other counter-sacrifice 15 ... Ne8
is less good. White's attack continues after
16 QXd8 QXa2 17 Bc3, e.g. 17 ... Nef6
18 RXd7! BXd7 19 Nh6+ Kh8 20 QXf6.
Neither 18 ... NXd7 19 Qg5 nor 18 ...
Qal + 19 Kd2 Ne4+ 20 Ke3 would help here.
If Black plays 17 . . . Nb6 (instead of 17 ...
Ne/6) White replies with another combination,
18 NXg7! NXg7 19 Qf6!
16Nh6+
The answer to the immediate 16 Qxh5 is
16 ... Nf6!
16 Kh8 17 QXbS
This position has been much analysed, as
the merits of Black's whole defensive concept

depends on it. If the analysis concludes that
Korchnoi - E. Geller
White cannot increase his advantage to force
21st U.S.S.R. Championship, 1954
a win, then the exclamation marks after
Black's moves 10 ... Qa5 and 11 ... b5
can stay where they are. First of all, it can
be stated that 17 ... gXh6 is no good, as
after 18 Bc3+ f6 (or 18 ... B/619 Qxh6 and
20 Ng5 is a winning threat) 19 QXh6 White
threatens 20 RXd7 as well as 20 Ng5. If
19 ... Rg8 then 20 Rhel and 20 ... Qxa2 is
met by 21 Ng5 RXg5 22 Re8+ Rg8 23
RXd7 with mate in a few moves.
Yet there are two moves which can hold
Black's position: 17 ... Bf6 and 17 ... Nf6.
Against 17 . . . Bf6 nothing is gained by
Here both players have a half-open file for
18 NXf7+ Kg8 19 N3g5 because of 19 ... the attack. Black's correct continuation
would have been 14 . . . Rc8 !, after which
BXg5 20 NXg5 Nf6.
After 17 ... Nf6 White has 18 Qc5, but this 15 Be2 RXc3! 16 BXf6 BXf6 17 bXc3 Be7
could be followed by 18 ... Nd7.
18 Kbl Qb6+ 19 Kal Nxe2 20 Qxe2 Ba3
Thus Black's defensive strategy was cor- 21 Rbl Bb2+ ! 22 RXb2 QXgl + led to
rect, he loses only because of his over-hasty Black's advantage in a game Karak.laicJoppen (Belgrade, 1954).
next move.
17 .. Qxa2? 18 Bc3 Nf6
The above variation is not obligatory for
There is no longer any satisfactory defence Black, as he can also play 15 . . . Qa5
e.g. 18 ... Bf6 19 Nxf7 + Kg8 20 N3g5 h6 instead of 15 ... Rxc3.
Geller, however, accepted the sacrificed
(or 20 ... BXg5+ 21 NXg5 h6 22 Qg6)
pawn with consequent loss of tempo. In
21 NXh6+.
On 18 ... f6, the best continuation of the double-edged positions this can be the
equivalent of material loss.
attack is 19 Rhel.
14 .. NXf3? 15 Qf2 Qb6
19 QXf7! Qal+
Black has to give up the exchange. Given
Better was 15 . . . Nd4, but White would
his weak pawns, this is tantamount to con- still have the advantage after 16 Qg3.
16 Be3 Nd4 17 RXd4!!
ceding defeat.
20 Kd2 RXf7 21 Nxf7+ Kg8 22 RXal
By sacrificing the exchange, White increases
Kxf7 23 Ne5+ Ke6 24 NXc6 Ne4+ 25 Ke3 the efficiency of his pieces to the maximum.
Bb6+ 26 Bd4 Black resigned.
17 exd4 18 BXd4 Qd8 19 NdS Ne8
There were no open or half-open files for
19 . . . Kh8 will not do because of 20
the intrusion of the rooks in this example, NXe7 QXe7 21 RXg7! KXg7 22 Qg3+
yet the struggle was extremely sharp. This is Kh8 23 Qg5!
why the smallest omission had fatal conse- 20 Qg3 f6
20 . . . g6 is no better because of 21 Qe5.
quences.
If 20 . . . Bh4 the best answer is 21 Qf4,
when there is no satisfactory defence against
22 Qh6. The flashy 21 Q X g7 + is less promis-
49

ing, since Black can still put up some defence
by giving back material.
21 Bc4 Rf7
21 . . . Kh8 fails because of 22 Nf4 with
the dual threat of 23 Ne6 and 23 Ng6+
h X g6 24 Qh4 mate.
22Nf4Bd6
22 ... QXd4 23 BXf7+ KXf7 24 Qb3+
leads to loss of the queen.
23BXf7+ Kxf724Qb3+ Ke725Bxf6+!!
Black resigned.
With these two games we end our discussion of mutual piece attacks against the
kings on opposite sides of the board, since
practical examples are quite rare. The same
advice can be given to the defender as applies
to piece attacks in general: weaknesses

should be avoided, direct threats should be
beaten back in the most economical way, and
counter-attacking chances should be sought
on the other flank during moments of respite.
The counter-attack must be calculated even
more accurately in piece attacks than in pawn
advance. The movement of pawns is relatively
slow and there are usually some pawn moves
which do not involve concrete threats. When
they are played, we can ponder the preparation of our own counter-action. The piece
attack, on the other hand, quickly brings about
real threats, with the result that we can only
switch to counter-attack and indirect defence
after they have been dealt with.
50
Attack and Defence when the King Remains in the

Centre
An attack against the castled position is, in
the majority of cases, a mating attack.
Although castling takes place sooner or later
in most games, we still have to deal with that
rarer event when the king, for one reason or
another, remains in the middle.
We now know that, historically speaking,
castling, that most peculiar of chess moves,
is relatively new. It first appeared during the
sixteenth century in Italy, in a form slightly
different from the present one (when castling
short, for instance, the king was moved to
fl, gl or hl at the discretion of the player,
and the rook to el, fl or gl respectively).
This form remained in use in its land of
origin, Italy, right up to the nineteenth century. Elsewhere it was gradually replaced by
the modem form of castling (which appeared
first in France) from the eighteenth century
onwards. Before the introduction of castling
the king had the right to "jump" once during
the game but in those days the moves of
some of the other pieces also differed from
present practice. The case where the king was
left in the centre was therefore much more
frequent in the past than it is nowadays,
and a vast number of the magnificent attacking games played during the romantic
era ~aw the king being chased to his demise
at or near his original position on the board.
Two situations can be distinguished here,
and the one often turns into the other: the
king may stay on his original square (el or e8),
or he may move from there and lose his right
to castle in so doing.
Let us have a look at the first situation from
the point of view of the defender. The major
threats appear on the e-file and around the
51
square f2 (f7). In most openings, the centre

pawns come into contact with one another
after the initial moves, and when they are
perhaps exchanged, leave open files in their
wake. This is particularly true of the classical
open games which we could also characterize,
very schematically of course, as situations
where (after e4 eS) White intends to play d4
under favourable conditions, thus gaining
space in the centre. Take, for example, the
Scotch Game (2 NO Nc6 3 d4) or Ponziani's
opening (2 NO Nc6 3 c3) where the opening
of the e-file can occur early in the game.
When a rook appears there, it not only
threatens the opponent's king, but often
creates nasty pins against any enemy piece
which happens to be on the same file.
The importance of f7 in the basic position is
similar to that of g7 and h7 (g2, h2) after
castling. This is the only point defended solely
by the king in the initial position. Therefore
the principle that an attack develops in the
direction of the least resistance will assert
itself.
What are the methods of defence when the
king, left in his original position, comes under
attack? Usually direct defence will be appliedi
and the instances when counter-attack can be
used are less frequent. In line with the basic
principle of defence, we should try to avoid
giving the attacker what he wants. Does he
intend to open the e-file? We should try
to keep it closed. Does he threaten the point
f7? We should try to defend it as often as he
attacks it. As we know, there can be no succesful attack without superiority of forces.
If the king leaves his original position,
again the main danger arises when he wanders

onto files which are opened up relatively
earlier during the game than the g- and h-files
on the flank. If possible, the defender should
try to keep the position closed, at least
in the vicinity of the king. Therefore he
should avoid exchanging pawns. Otherwise,
again the usual method is direct defence, or
sometimes "self-defence of the king".
It is apparent from the foregoing that the
king is in serious danger once he is Ieft in the
middle. Does this mean that we should try to
castle at any cost? Definitely not. Castling
can be delayed and the king can stay in the
middle a long time, even to the end of the
game. This does, however, require certain
conditions, the most important one being the
creation of an absolutely closed, interlocked
pawn structure in the centre, so that there is no
threat of a file being opened. To keep our own
king in the middle under such circumstances
is nearly the equivalent of castling on the
opposite side, i.e. it gives us a free hand to
attack on the wings. The Kotov-Keres game,
examined later, is a nice example of this.
It is also justified to keep the king in the
centre in middlegames which simplify very
rapidly into endgames, in other words when
many of the pieces and particularly the
queens have already been exchanged. The
king usually plays an active role in the
ending (some writers distinguish between the
endgame and the middlegame by this very
criterion), and the fact that the king does not
have to be brought to the centre from the
flanks can mean an important gain of tempo.
One of the drawbacks of the king staying
in the middle is that no connection is established between the rooks (many an expert
calculates the completion of the opening and
the beginning of the middlegame from the
move after which all of the pieces are developed and when a connection is established
between the rooks by castling). But even this
disadvantage can be ignored when, as in the
previously mentioned Kotov game, such
superiority in firepower develops that one of

the rooks is not needed. One method of
defence is "artificial castling", when the king
moves to f7, then the rook to f8, and finally
the king to a secure position on g8. This
entails the loss of two tempi compared to
normal castling, but the security of the king
is paramount.
Should we castle, then, or should we avoid
it? Well, our answer may seem a bit evasive,
but actually it is to the point: it always
depends on the position. It is likely though
that the practical advice of Vukovic is correct:
even if we do not castle, we should keep it in
reserve. The squares between king and rook
should be free, if possible, in order to tuck
the king safely away whenever the necessity
arises. The first World Champion, Steinitz,
mocked those who hid their king behind the
castled position. "My king fights bravely all
over the board", he said. But this is not everybody's cup of tea, and it is not recommended.
The threats against the king demand a very
precise analytical approach if they are to be
met. Today the players tend to play moves
based on general considerations and requiring
less effort, rather than get into time trouble.
This is, perhaps, why the King's Gambit has
become such a rare bird.
All we have explained so far could be
derived from Steinitz's theory of power
ratios, from the geography of the board and
the way in which the pieces move. We will
still give a few examples in this chapter,
mainly because the mating threats to the
king naturally differ from those which occur
in the castled position.
N. N. -
Steioitz
Simultaneous game, The Hague, 1873
1 d4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 c6 5 Bxf6

exf6 6 NXe4 Qb6 7 Qe2
52
Attack and Defence when the King Remains in the Centre

(Nemet-Trifunovic, 18th Yugoslav Championship, Vmjacka Banja, 1962).
In the other variation the double check
can in fact be given. Indeed, it leads to the
win of exchange.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 e6 5 e3 Nbd7
6 Bd3 dXc4 7 BXc4 b5 8 Bd3 a6 9 e4 c5
10 e5 cXd4 11 Nxb5 Ng4 12 Qa4 NgxeS?!
The theoretical continuation 12 ... Bb7
13 NbXd4 Bc5 14 0-0 Qb6 15 h3 NXf2
(or 15 .. . BX/3) also leads to considerable
complications. It appears, however, that this
is not enough for Trifunovic.
13 NxeS Nxes 14 Nc7+ + Ke7 15 NXa8
NXd3+
Profiting from White's subsequent blunders
Black won (Toran-Trifunovic, European
Team Championship, Oberhausen, 1961).
We must add, for the record, that the
latter variation was later refuted by the no
less surprising 15 Qb4+ ! K.f6 16 Ne8+ !!
Qxe8 17 QXd4.
The attacker has every chance here to put
a stop to the flight of Black's king.
The threat of double check seems to be so

strong that most players would automatically
try to avoid it. However, after accurate calculation, Steinitz concludes that the double
check is not fatal, self-defence being sufficient
to protect the king against White's sparse
attacking forces. Indeed, the other king will
soon be in a dangerous position!
7 QXb2! 8 Nd6+ + Kd8 9 Qe8+ Kc7
10 QXc8+ KXd6 11 Rdl Na6! 12 Qxas
Kc7!
13 ... Bb4+ is threatened, winning the
queen. Calculation was made easier in this
instance by the forced nature of the variation:
no digressions are possible.
13 Qxa7 Bb4+ 14 Ke2 Qxc2+ 15 Kf3
Qf5+ 16 Kg3 Bd6+ 17 Kh4 Qg5+ 18 Kb3
Qb5 mate.
Allowing the double check can come as a
tactical surprise which tends to confuse the
opponent. Grandmaster Trifunovic liked
using this device, and introduced the idea
in two opening variations:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 NXe4
5 d4 Be7 6 Qe2 d5 7 NXeS Bd7 8 NXd7
Nxd4!
After the natural 8 ... QXd7 the continuation 9 c4! would give the initiative to White.
9 Nf6+ + will not do now, since the queen
is en prise.
9 Ne5+ c6 10 BXc6 NXc6+ 11Nf30-0
Black's position is perfectly satisfactory
Spassky -
Furman
Tallinn, 1959
1 e4 eS 2 f4 e Xf4 3 Nc3
Grandmaster Spassky is one of the few
tournament players nowadays who employs
not only the King's Gambit, but also one
of its most dubious variations, the Steinitz
Gambit, which begins with this knight move.
3 Qh4+ 4 Ke2
White not only has to move the king, but
also to hinder the bishop's development.
Black immediately tries to open up the central files.
4 d5! 5 N:xd5 Bd6
The recommended plan is 5 . . . Bg4 +
6 Nf3 Nc6! 7 NXc7+ Kd8 8 NXa8 Ne5!
53

(threatening 9 ... NXf3 10 gX/3 BX/3+!
winning the queen) 9 Qel! Nxf3 10 Qxh4
NXh4 with advantage to Black. Furman,
fearing perhaps that his opponent had prepared some "home-grown" variation deviates from theory.
6 d4 Bg4+ 7 Nf3 Nc6 8 eS 0-0--0! 9 BXf4
Black seeks to open up the e- file, but
White refuses to oblige.
9 Nge7 10 c4!?
In this unusual position, almost every
general principle loses its validity. The
possibilities have to be weighed pragmatically, move by move.
10 NfS? 11 eXd6 NfXd4+ 12 Kd3
This did not give Black a satisfactory attack
against the plucky white king, and his material deficit eventually proved too much.
According to the analysis of the Soviet
grandmaster, Suetin, Black would have
confronted his famous opponent with insoluble problems with the surprising 10 ...
Bb411
The king began his walkabout almost
voluntarily in the above examples. This
romantic touch has now gone out of fashion.
The essence of the attack against a king
stranded in the middle frequently consists
of an attacker seeking to open up the necessary files by the most diverse and unexpected methods, before the king can reach
safety by castling.
Gereben -
Spielmann
area and Black's bishops have no useful

diagonals. The only open file, the c-file,
gives no grounds for an attack.
12 e5!! 13 fXeS NXeS!!

White must accept the pawn offer in order
to avoid the opening of the e-file, and also
the sacrifice of the knight, because after,
say, 14 Be2 Nc4! Black would still prevent
White from castling, and get an attack going
against the king stranded in the middle.
If one has to defend anyway, White thinks
it is better to do it with material advantage.
Perhaps something can be counter-sacrificed somewhere and one can survive the
attack!
14 dXeS d4!
Black has achieved the opening of the
coveted central file. The question is, has he
paid too great a price for it? He could hardly
have calculated this in advance, but subsequent analysis proved his decision to be
right. We will not give it here, since it would
fill several pages, so we are content to advise
the reader to practice the art of analysis
Sopron, 1934
on this and other examples, an art describ-
Black is ahead in development, as White

needs two more moves to complete his
mobilziation. These might be Bd3 and 0-0
after which he would be safe. Since White's
king is still in the middle, it is obviously
a target for attack. But the position is quite
closed. There are no open files in the vital
ed by Botvinnik as the chess player's most

important attribute.
15 Ndl
15 e X d4 would be best answered by an
immediate 15 ... QXd4 rather than 15 ...
Qh4+, because then White's king would
reach a relatively safer position after moving
to 16 Kdl.
54

is fully satisfactory. For instance 25 - Qf3
Rxe2!, or 25 Bd3 Rg4!
2S ... Rae8 26 Bb5 RX el+ 27 BXel Re3!
28 QgS RXel+
Black won after a few more moves.
The dangers threatening the king stranded
on f7 are so commonly known that we will
refrain from giving examples. We all remember those fine variations of the Giuoco
Piano, Evans Gambit and other such openings which we first studied in our younger
days. Just for entertainment, instead we
present a counter-example, i.e.: one where
the defender triumphs. The king, showing
Steinitzian valour, not only defends himself,
he even attacks. A variation of the Queen's
Gambit Accepted is involved:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dXc4 3 Nf3 a6 4 e3 Bg4 S BXc4
e6 dS?! eXdS 7 BXdS Qe7! 8 Qb3 c6!
Now White can apparently win a pawn
with the combination 9 BXf7+? QXf7
10 QXf7+ KXf7, but 11 NeS+ Ke6! 12
NXg4 hS! follows, and Black finishes up
with a piece advantage.
After this little digression, let us give an
example of when the king can be considered
safe in the middle. Vukovic lists and classifies the various possibilities. We shall content ourselves with the principal rule:
he is safe when the centre files are closed.
1S Bxes 16 e4
White avoids the opening of further lines
(the d-file and the diagonal of the Be5).
16 Bxe417 Nfl BdS 18 Qb3
The defender has had some success. He
has protected g2 and fended off the threat
of . . . Qh4 +. If he can keep his position
closed with Bd3, he can look forward
to the future with confidence in view of his
material advantage, even should Black capture a third pawn for the sacrificed piece
with 18 ... BXa2.
18 Qe7 19 Bel
White's intent to castle as soon as practicable is understandable. In contrast to
previous examples, he could not allow the
discovered check because Black would get
three pawns for the piece and a lasting attack
after 19 Bd3 Bf4+ 20 Kdl Bxd2 21 Kxd2
Qb4+ 22 Kc2 Qa4 + 23 Kd2 Q xa2.
Spielmann reckoned that the best defence
was 19 Kd 1.
19 d3!
This new pawn sacrifice opens up the
position even further.
20NXd3
After 20 QXd3 BXg2 21 Rgl Bb7 White
could no longer castle, and he would fall
victim to attack by the rooks along the many
open files.
20 Rfe8
21 . . . Bg3 + is threatened followed by
22 ... Qxe2 mate.
Has the time to castle now arrived, perhaps? Unfortunately not, because if 21 0-0
then 21 ... Bd4+ wins back the lost piece
on e2 with interest.
21 Kfl BXb2!
The attacker must be on his toes too! After
the seemingly very strong 21 . . . Bc3 22
Bxc3 Qxe2+ 23 Kgl Re3 White has a
hidden defence: 24 Nf4!
22 Rel Qf6+ 23 Nf2 Bd4 24 Qg3 Re4!
25 h4
Many moves are possible here, but none
Kotov - Keres
Candidates' Tournament,
Budapest, 1950
55
This position developed after Black's

13th move. First let us evaluate the position
so that we can plan a course of action.
We know that beginners in particular set
out largely from considerations of material
balance (often by counting the captured
men at the sides of the board) when they
evaluate a position. When material is equal,
they consider the position to be equal as well.
We already know that this is not so, since
the decisive events do not generally take
place all over the board, but only in one
section of it. Thus the one who has the advantage in the relevant section of the board
at the decisive moment can even be at an
overall material disadvantage, and his position is still better. This is particularly true
of the area around the most valuable piece,
the king. The most important step in evaluating the position is therefore to note
strengths and weaknesses of the kings'
positions. In a good number of cases the
position can be adjudged from this aspect
alone. For the rest, the most essential elements have to be ascertained in each individual case, because they do not always have
equal importance. This applies to material
balance, the mobility of the pieces and the
character of the pawn structure.
It is Black who seems to have the initiative
in the position shown: his last move was ...
d7-d5; White cannot further defend c4_
exd6 is not good either, since the pawn
, on eS is there to cramp Black's position.
However, let us proceed to a fuller evaluation:
1. White is better off in respect of his
king's position, since even though he has
yet to castle, the king is quite safe in the
middle. Black, on the other hand, has weakened his castled position with the move ...
h6. A group of White's pieces are already
concentrated on the king's wing and further
reinforcements can be sent there along the
undefended bl-h7 diagonal.
56
2. From the point of view of material,

the position is balanced. If material advantage
were the decisive criterion, White could
continue with 14 exd6 and we would be
robbed of a magnificent combination.
3. The game is about equal in respect
of piece mobility and activity, though as
some of Black's pieces have wandered over
to the Q-side, there is still the possibility
that White could achieve dominance on
the K-side.
4. The important feature of the pawn structures is that Black cannot open the centre
files and the eS pawn restricts his freedom
of action.
These are factors advantageous to White.
On the other hand, White's pawn weaknesses
on the Q-side favour Black. If Black survives the middlegame, he will have winning
chances in the endgame. Perhaps grandmaster Kotov did not take all of this into consideration, but he still divined the essence of the
position and launched a violent attack.
14 Bbl!
Cutting off the queen's rook, but this

is of no consequence in the given position.
More important is that White's strongest
piece, the queen, should join the attack.
14 gS
Black accepts a further weakening of the

castled position in order to free his knight,
thus allowing it to take part in the defence.
Subsequent analysis demonstrated that, after
14 ... BXc4, either 15 Qc2 or 15 Nf4 gives
the advantage to White.
15 Qc2 Ng6
If 15 ... NfS then 16 g4 wins.
16 Nf4!!
A remarkable move! White has created
(perhaps we should say "conjured up")
a decisive attack after only three moves from
the initial position!
16 gXh4
Other defences are no better, e.g. 16 ...
Qe8 17 NhS Qc6 18 cXd5 eXdS 19 Bg3

followed by h4 with a winning attack. The
white king is still in complete safety. If
necessary, he can find refuge on f2.
17 NXg6 Re8 18 Nh8!!
Another original idea. After any other
move but this peculiar jump into the comer,
the knight would not have been able to take
such an active part in the attack.
18 Re7 19 Qh7 + Kf8 20 f4! !
So-called "quiet" moves, which apparently
do not threaten anything and allow the
defender to reorganize, even find some
counter-action, are the most difficult to play
in the, heat of an attack. Now 21 f5! is
threatened, opening a file. If 20 ... Ke8
then 21 NXf7! RXf7 22 Bg6 wins.
20 NXc4 21 fS! eXfS 22 0-0
In this case castling is not designed merely
to bring the king into safety, but to place
a rook on the open file. Hence not defensive,
but aggressive castling.
22 Bc8 23 BXfS BXfS 24 RXfS Ke8
25 RXf7!
The breakthrough has succeeded. Looking
at this position, it does not even occur to us
to count whether one or the other party
has a pawn advantage. Not even the character of the pawn formation matters. All that
counts is the poor position of Black's king.
25 Kd7 26 QfS+ Kc6 27 Qf6+ Kd7
28e6+ Kc6
28 . . . Kd6 is not possible because of
29 RXe7 Qxe7 30 Nf7+ winning the queen.
29 RXe7 QXh8 30 RXc7+! KbS
If he captures the rook, the king would
be pushed onto the back rank after 31
Qf7+ (if 31 ... Kc6 then 32 Qd7+ mate)
and after 32 Rfl the promotion of the pawn
could no longer be prevented.
31 Qe7 aS 32 Qd7 + Ka6 33 Rbl Black
resigned.
Another method of waging war against
the king stranded in the middle is demonstrated by the game below.
57
Bellin -
Lipnitsky
Riga,1950
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 c4 dS 4 BgS h6
It is interesting to recall that Alekhine
criticized this move at one time.
S BXf6 QXf6 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Qa4+ Nc6
8 NeSBd7.
The Ragozin System of the Queen's
Gambit has arisen by transposition of moves.
Certain tactical ploys, we could almost
say traps, are part of any opening. Thus
9 NXd7? would not do here, since it would
be followed not by 9 ... KXd7, but by
9 ... QXd4!. If the latter is answered by
10 Qc2, then 10 ... QXc4 follows, with
a two-pawn advantage to Black.
9 Nxc6 BXc3+ 10 bXc3 BXc6 11 Qb3
dXc412 Qxc4 0-0
So ends the first phase of game, and Black
stands better. He has completed his development, while the king's wing is still causing
White some problems.
13 f3 eS!
Black, having an advantage in development, correctly tries to open up a file, because the power of better developed pieces
asserts itself in an open position.
14 dS Bd7 ts QXc7
Since White cannot avoid the opening
up of the c-file after 15 e4 c6 I, he at least
wants to be a pawn up. Furthermore, he
reckons that he will gain a tempo by attacking the undefended bishop on d7 and can
overcome his development handicap that
way.
ts e4!
This gives direct defence against 16 QXd7,
after which 16 . . . Qxc3+ would win.
16Rcl
(See Diagram overleaf.)

18 . . RX c3 19 Rdl Rfc8 20 g3 Rel 21
Bb3.
White devises an interesting trap in his

difficult situation. After the tempting 21 ...
Qc3 + 22 Kfl Qd2? the outcome of the game
would be reversed by 23 BXc8!! RXdl+
24 Kg2 QXe2+ 25 Kh3 RXhl 26 Qe8+
Kh7 27 Bf5 + with a quick mate.
21 ... RXdl+! 22QXd1Qc3+ 23Kf1Qd2!
24Kg2
Now comes an impressive conclusion.
16 Rac8!
The start of a nine-move combination.
17 QXd7 e3!!
Here is the other method of attack against
the stranded king: a push which cuts White's
forces in two. Beautiful variations now
follow. The principal threat is 17 . . . Qd4 ! !
with forced mate.
18 Qa4!
Marshalling the white queen back into
the defence is reasonable. A spectacular
finish would otherwise have developed after
18 QXb7, viz. 18 ... Rxc3 19 Qb2 Rfc8
20 Rxc3 RXc3 21 g3 Rb3!! and White
might as well resign.
58
24 .. Rel!! White resigned.

This game deservedly received the brilliancy
prize.
A Little Intermezzo:
Attacks Other than those against the King
Up to now we have been discussing attacks
against the king. In a narrow sense, this
is what is principally understood as attack.
In the course of a game of chess, however,
positions may arise where a mating attack is
strategically unfounded and so the initiative
of one of the players manifests itself in an
attack launched against some weak point in
his opponent's position. It can also happen
that an attack may start as a mating attack,
but turns into one against some weak point
as a result of the defence put up by the opponent.
E. Geller -
Broadbent
London, 1954
One cannot draw a clear line between closed

and open positions, but looking at the pawn
structure here, no one could reasonably
doubt that this is a closed position.
Black's castled position is still intact, the
pawns have yet to move, and it could hardly
be supposed that Black would fail to marshal
sufficient defensive forces against an attack
led purely by pieces, even considering his
relative disadvantage in space.
59
The pawn structure, which promises to be a

lasting one in the centre because of the closed
nature of the position, indicates the natural
strategic plans of the players. White must seek
the initiative on the K-side where, again
owing to the closed centre, the advance of
his pawns will expose his king to relatively
little danger. Black must seek counter-play
on the Q-side, where, however, neither the
exploitation of the c4 weakness nor the opening of a file can be accomplished without
some difficulty.
15f4Rc7
No immediate counter-attack is possible
against the c4 pawn, because if 15 . . . Ba6
16 Qe2 Qd7 then 17 a4 prevents any chance
of increasing the power ratio centred on c4
to 3: 2 in favour of Black. Not that this would
have decisive significance in itself, since if
White's mating attack were to succeed, the
loss of a pawn or even of the whole queen's
wing would not matter. But this attack is
only latent and its strength could be diminished by Black's counter-action on the
Q-side.
Another consideration: Black could prevent the threatened pawn advance at a
stroke, by way of 15 . . . e Xf4. But this
would only be advisable if he could then
occupy the eS square with one of his knights,
where it could take an equally active part in
defence (f7 and g6) and attack (c4, d3 and
f3). However, during the earlier course of the
game Black's knights went to positions from
which they can reach eS only at the cost of
serious loss of time. Thus after 16 BXf4
White would have a chance to develop a
strong piece attack. The g3 knight would

come into play on fS, the rook on g3 via f3,
and the other rook perhaps on the f-file.
Therefore Black renounces the exchange and
awaits developments.
16f5
A question of principle arises here too.
Why does White not open up a file by 16
fx es? Mainly because d6 would then be
free for the now passive knight on e8. Even
if this is not as valuable as the centrally situated cS square, the knight would still control
f7, rs, c4 and e4, etc. White does not give
up the opening of the file altogether with 16
fS I, he just hopes to achieve it under more
favourable circumstances. 17 f6! NXf6 18
BgS is already threatened, an attacking possibility well worth remembering. As White
threatens to shatter the K-side with this
pawn sacrifice, Black must play . . . f6, after
which White can open up the g-file with
g4-gS. When eventually White tries to penetrate the defensive line along this file, his spatial advantage will play an important role;
he will have fewer difficulties, for instance,
in doubling his heavy pieces than his opponent, pushed back as he is onto the back three
ranks.
16 . f6 17 Qe2 Bc8 18 h4 Rb7 19 Rf2
Bd7
Black is preparing for a counter-action on
the queen's wing, first by 20 ... Ba4, then by
21 ... a6 and 22 ... bS. White's K-side
chances remain intact, so he first of all
hinders Black's counter-play on the other
wing and then starts putting his own plan
into action. This is what some chess writers
call "defence in attack". Very instructive
for overtly temperamental attackers I
20 a4! Nc7 21 Nfl Qe8 22 Bc2 h6?
Black's plan is no secret after this move;
if White plays g4-gS, Black will first open the
h-file with . . . h X gS and then he will try
to spirit away his king from the endangered
zone via f7. The first question we must ask
in cases where . . . h6 (or h3) and possibly
... a6 or (a3) is played is: who will occupy

the open file? In the present situation it is
White, because he has the space advantage.
The second question: is penetration threatened along the open file? In this case, yes.
Therefore it was better to avoid the opening
of the h-file and immediately flee with the
king (self-defence), without any further
weakening of the position.
23 g4 Kf7 24 g5 hXg5 25 hXgS Ke7 26 Rh2
Rb8
The simplest way to oppose enemy rook
penetration along an open file is to move
one's own rook there.
27 Nd2 Rb8 28 RXh8 QXh8 29 Kg2 Rf8
30 Rbl
But now it is clear who has gained from
the opening of the h-file.
30 . Qg8 31 g6!
This again, apparently, contradicts logic,
since the objective of the pawn advance is to
get within reach of the opponent's pawns,
and then to open up files by exchanges. But
the king has already left the right-hand side
of the board, therefore the opening up of
the g-file would assist Black's counter-chances
more than White's attack. After this, we
should not talk about an attack against the
castled position so much as one against g7.
The h-file is sufficient for this since White,
owing to his space advantage, can increase
his pressure tactically. The apparent dijliculty involved in the approach to the target
of the attack (g7) does not help Black.
31 .. Kd8 32 Nft Re8 33 Rb7 Qf8 34 Ng3
Qe7 35 Nh5 Rg8 36 Bb6 Ne8
It seems that the pressure against g7 has
reached its zenith and cannot be further
increased. The ratio of attacking to defending
forces concentrated there is 3: 3. But chess
is not pure mathematics, and Black's lack
of space is of decisive importance in the present case.
37 Kf2! Qf8
Were the white king on g2, then 38
60
A Little Intermezzo: Attacks Other than those against the King

g X h6 would be threatened but this is not so
now because of 39 Rf7 ! winning the queen.
38 Bd3!
White frees his queen from the defence of

c4. There is no longer any need to hold the
a4pawn.
38 Bxa4
If 38 ... Rh8, then 39 BXg7 Nxg7 40
NXg7 RXh7 41 gXh7 QXg7 42 QhS! Qh8
43 Qf7 ! wins, since the promotion of the
passed pawn cannot be prevented.
39 Qe3!
This reinforces the attacks against g7 !
39 Bdl 40 NXg7! NXg7 41 BXg7 Qe8
If 41 ... RXg7 then 42 Qh6! Rg8 43
Qxf8+ Rxf8 44 g7! and 45 Rh8 wins.
42 BXf6+ Kc8 43 Qh6 Ba4 44 Re7 Black
resigned.
This example also demonstrates that the

pawn advance takes a relatively long time
when castling takes place on the same side.
White interposes one or two defensive moves
on the other side, in order to slow down his
opponent's counter-attack and to co-ordinate the advancing pawns and pieces. Quick
pawn attacks are more likely with castling
on opposite sides, as we have seen.
However, the main interest lies in the fact
that the initial attack against the castled
position turned into one against a weak point,
for the purpose of gaining a material advantage. The attacker's space advantage played
an important role both as a precondition of
the attack and in its realization.
Some of the works dealing with the subject of attack anj defence also treat, quite
correctly, such strategic problems as the
importance of the centre or of strong and
weak points. The first book to treat the defence separately, the work of the Austrian
master, Hans Kmoch, devoted an early
chapter to the subject of the centre. There is
no doubt that this is "the zone of enhanced
value", as pointed out by Kmoch's compatriot, Hans Millier. The value of each piece
61
increases in the centre, and radiates all over

the board. The rule that successful flank
attack is possible only with a closed centre.
and that one should therefore seek counterplay against a flank attack by opening the
centre, does not exhaust the problem. It is
also true to say that the theory of strong and
weak points forms the basis of all positional
play in modern chess.
Nevertheless, we do not intend to follow
these authors along this path. Our subject
is not the strategy and tactics of the middlegame in general, but only of defence and
counter-attack. We already slightly over
stepped the limits of our subject when we
gave more than usual attention to attack,
but we considered that this was really the
other side of the coin, the twin brother of
defence.
The detailed investigations carried out by
Vukovic concerning the roles of the individual
pieces are very useful, of course, in conducting an attack. We could also investigate the
roles of the queen, the rooks, bishops and
knights in defence. But this would not be
likely to lead to the formulation of rules of
general validity; the principle of economy in
defence, i.e. not devoting more in terms of
time and strength to defence than is abso
lutely necessary, is of the essence. Besides,
other rules would have too many exceptions.
Why are there such exceptions, why is it
so difficult to express the events of the game
of chess, particularly in the middlegame, as
rules? Let us just say that this is fortunate,
otherwise, if the value of the pieces were
always directly proportionate to their power
and mobility, we would be closer to the time
when chess is exclusively played by computers,
instead of by people. For the time being,
however, it is the least agile piece, the king,
which is most valuable. Whatever happens
near the king is particularly important. He
is the only piece entitled to make that special
move, castling, even if only once in a game.

Various values attach to the pawns in
different parts of the board. The value of the
pieces also depends on where they are positioned, since the potential battlefield-the
chessboard-is finite. Indeed, even this arena
can be restricted further. We have seen an
abundance of evidence that superior forces
in the vital part of the front-lines and at the
critical time can be enough, and that the
fluctuation in the size of the forces in other
areas or over the whole board can be irrelevant. Both nominal value of the pieces
and their real worth is ultimately influenced
not only by the position they occupy on the
board, but also by their co-ordination, which
(together with other factors) often multiplies their strength.
There are innumerable factors that play
a role in the game of chess and consequently
in defence and attack. But these very same
factors bring at.:: ut such an abundance of
possibilities that the formulation of general
rules becomes simply impossible in the present state of the art. The most important factors, the power emanating from the manner
of the pieces' movements, the space circumscribed by the finite nature of the board, and
the time resulting from the alternation of
the moves, do, however, have prime importance as far as evaluating a position and choosing the appropriate plan is concerned.
Every chess player applies aU these in the
course of play, if not consciously then instinctively, at a higher or lower level. The great
masters of the game have, of course, a far
better grasp of the consequences that arise
from the above, they have greater experience, and evaluate the position to a greater
depth; they "see" more. But less experienced
chess players also often apply correct defence
and attack intuitively, simply by relying on
common sense. For a more exhaustive
coverage of the subject of attacks on targets
other than the king, we therefore recommend
Dr. Lasker's book "Common Sense in Chess"
62
which is full of practical advice on this particular theme.

In every position, there are points that can
become exposed to enemy attack and others
that are protected. When one player's position is defended at each important point,
then the game is very one-sided; one of the
players is performing very poorly. Indeed,
voluntary acceptance of weaknesses in order
to assure superiority in other areas is, to a
certain extent, characteristic of the modem
style, both in the handling of the opening and
in general positional play. The attack will
be aimed primarily against our weakest
points. We should therefore evacuate from
these weak points any pieces of high value
positioned there. To put it bluntly: if the
opponent attacks our more valuable pieces,
we should move them away from the attacked
squares. The other reasonable method of
defence is to strengthen the attacked points.
We should endeavour to position the reinforcements in such a way that they are not
exposed to the attack. Our remaining forces
should be used for launching counteractions in order to engage the opponent and
make it impossible for him to use his pieces
for strengthening his attack.
The aim of the opponent's attack, is,
generaUy speaking, to alter the deployment of
our forces in a given area by force. We should
refrain from doing ourselves what the opponent wants to force on us until he has first
committed part of his strength to that purpose. This is where most chess players err.
They play ... h7-h6 to keep the opponent's
pieces away from g5, thus losing tempo and
weakening their castled position. This sort
of move should be deferred until the opponent has spent time and effort to force it. To
sum up: we should be economical in defence I
The methods of the defender should, of
course, be adapted to those of the attacker in
many respects. Lasker hits on a general formulation here too. The aim of the attacker
A Little Intermezzo: Attacks Other than those against the King

is to create strong points as close to his
opponent's defensive lines as possible. The
defender's objective is to prevent this, so his
methods are accordingly the opposite of the
attacker's. Is the attacker opening up files?
The defender shold utry to prevent it. Is he
trying to create superiority of firepower in
a given area by concentrating his attacking
63
pieces? The defender should try to exchange

those attacking pieces.
The examples so far have demonstrated
more or less all methods of defence in practical play. In the next chapter we shall sum up
these methods and look at their characteristics one by one, paying particular attention
to the less common ones.
The Methods of Defence

Defence by material sacrifice aimed at
changing the strategic character of the
position
This form of defence is frequently successful not only because of its objective merits. but
also because of its psychological effect. The
attacker resolves that events will proceed as
he wants them to. Having to rethink his
strategy and reorientate himself in an altered situation does not come easily. Possessing
some material advantage also dulls one's
vigilance a bit and the attacker might easily
think that he has already achieved his aim.
One of the most frequent sacrifices is that of
the exchange. The German term "Qualitat"
suggests that material advantage or the lack
of it depends here on aspects of quality. It
certainly depends on open files. without which
the rooks are no stronger than the minor
pieces, the bishop or the knight. These exchange sacrifices are characteristic of the style
of the former World Champion, Petrosian.
but were also part of the armoury of his
predecessor. Botvinnik. He provides our
next example:
Lyublinsky -
Botvinnik
Moscow, 1943
Black's position is inferior. His Q-side
pawns are weak, and White's threat to
capture the c5 pawn after Qf2 and Na4 is
obvious. No counter-action is possible elsewhere on the board either. Yet Botvinnik finds
a surprise sc:ilution.
64
25 . Rd4!!
If the sacrifice of the exchange is accepted,
Black immediately straightens out his pawns,
indeed he acquires a strong, defended passed
pawn which hinders the movements of the
opponent's pieces. His bishops can also
become active as a result of the altered pawn
structure, and a pawn advance is possible on
the K-side. The psychological effect of all this
could have contributed to White's imminent
strategic error. Instead of capturing the rook
with his bishop and blocking the pawn with
the subsequent manoeuvre Ne2-c1-d3, he
gives up his knight for the rook.
26 Ne2 Bc8 27 NXd4? cXd4 28 Bf2 c5 29 Rf1
f5 30 Bg3 Bd7 31 Radl f4 32 Bf2 g5
If we compare this position with the one
in the diagram, we might think they were
from entirely different games. Black has
switched from defence to attack, and White's
material advantage cannot make itself felt in
this position. The conclusion of the game:
33 g4 fXg3 34 BXg3 Bh3 35 Rf2 b5 36
Rfd2 b4 37 Bf2 Rf8 38 Rd3 Rf4 39 Kbl Kb7
40 Rgl Bd8 41 Qe2 Qf7 42 Qdl Qh5 43 Be3
Qxf3+ 44 QXf3 Rxf3 45 Bxg5 RXd3 46

BXd8 Re3 47 Bb6 RXe4 48 BXcS Re2 49
Rdl Bg4 50 b3 BX b3 51 b4 Bf5 52 Bd6 d3
53 b X a5 b3 White resigned.
The attack in this example was not aimed
at the king, but against the weak c5.
Krogius -
Stein
R.S.F.S.R. v. The Ukraine,
Kiev, 1960
White's plan is quite clear in the above

position: he wants to occupy the strong
square d5, after which he could force Black
into a long and difficult defence. On the one
hand, a4-a5 and then b6 would be threatened,
and on the other, if Black were to exchange on
d5, the a2-g8 diagonal would be weakened.
Grandmaster Stein crosses White's plans
with a very clever idea.
16 Bf8! 17 Nb4 d5! !
At the cost of a pawn, Black opens the
a7-gl diagonal for his bishop. Files will soon
be opened on the K-side ~swell, and White's
king will be threatened with mate. According
to some commentators, the position is so
complicated that the sacrifice could hardly
have been offered on the basis of concrete
calculation so much as intuition. But as far as
the actual game is concerned, we could
perhaps chance the general conclusion that
Black succeeds in opposing the strategy of
open diagonals and files to that of the strong
and weak points.
18NbXd5Bc5+ 19Kh1Nb520Qe1Ng3+!
21 hXg3 Qg5 22 g4 b5 23 g3
Every move was forced so far. The pawn
move is the only defence against 23 ... h X g4
and the subsequent 24 . . . Qh6 + I mating
threat.
23 bXg4 24 Kg2 Raf8 25 Bd2?
It was not easy for White to switch from
positional pressure to tactical play, and in
the role of defender to boot. 25 Rhl ! was
better, to prevent the queen manoeuvre.
25 .. Qb6! 26 Rbl Qg7
The queen's retreat is rather apparent.
The opening of another file is threatened
... g5 and then ... gXf3+. In some
variations ... Ng5 is also a possible threat.
27 gXf4 eXf4 28 Rdl gS! 29 e5!?
White also resorts to tactics, hoping that
he can keep the position closed one way or
another, or at least exchange some attacking
pieces, especially the queen.
29 . QXeS 30 fXg4
White expected 30 ... f3+ 31 BXf3 Qxel
32 RhXel ! RXf3 33 RXe6 Rf2+ 34 Khl
R8f3 35 Be3 ! But the -Soviet grandmaster
finishes this lively game with an astonishing
sacrificial combination.
30 . QXe2+!!
Unexpected and effective I White's position
is hopeless after 31 NXe2 BXd5+ 32 Kfl
(or 32 Kh3 R/61) 32 ... BXhl and ... f3.
After White's next move, Black quickly
restores the material balance and emerges
with a won position.
65

sacrifice and the subsequent sacrifice of the
exchange. Black's menacing centre pawns
have disappeared from the board, and the
f6 pawn has become a threat. Black's confusion over this unexpected turn of the events
soon becomes evident.
26 Rhg8 27 Bh7! Rh8 28 Bd3 Rde8'?
It was better to halt the advance of the
f-pawn immediately by way of 28 ... Bh5.
29 f7 Re7 30 fS=Q+ RXf8 31 Bb4 Rff7
32 Bxe7 Rxe7 33 f3 Bd7 34 a5 Kc7 3S Kf2
Rf7 36 Ke3 Kd6 37 g3 KcS 38 f4
White won on the 47th move. "The rest
was a matter of technique", as they say.
31 QXe2 f3+ 32 QXf3 RXf3 33 Rhf1

BXg4 34 Ne4 Bb3+ 35 Kh2 RXfl 36 RXfl
Bxn 37 NxcS Rf2+ 38 Kgl RXd2 39
NXc7 Bb3 40 a4 Rg2+ 41 Khl Nf6 42 aS
Ng4 43 Ne4 Rel White resigned.
Fischer -
Schweber
Buenos Aires, 1970
Defence by a tactical counter-blow
According to grandmaster Teichmann, chess

is ninety per cent tactics. Tactical methods
are, however, the prerogative of the attacker
with his superiority of :firepower. Usually the
defender can only use them when he is able
to apply the method of indirect defence, the
counter-attack. In other words, he also
attacks, but in another part of the board.
Steinitz ascribes the search for a winning
combination to the player with an advantage,
and the defender can normally adopt a combinative solution only when his opponent
combines erroneously.
. Black has just executed the freeing move

... e6-e5 and apparently intends to take the
initiative. The white queen is under attack,
further gain of ground is threatened by the
eventual ... e5-e4 (not immediately because
of Bf4), and the d4 pawn is also endangered.
But let us see the actual continuation.
21 Qg3! NXd4 22 Re3 e4
Here Black expected 23 QXc7+ KXc7
24 Bfl. Even though 24 ... NXc2? would
not do because of 25 Rc3 +, with his active
position he could then look to the future with
confidence. But he is in for an immense
surprise ...
23 RXe4! QXg3 24 RXd4!!
A-quiet intermediate move, after which it
becomes clear that in spite of her apparent freedom, the queen is doomed. She tries to sell
her life dearly, but possibly 24 ... QXd3
would have been best here, in order to obtain
bishops of opposite colour.
24 Qg4'?! 2S RXg4 BXg4 26 BXg6
White has radically changed the structure
of the position with the temporary queen
Both king's positions are weakened here

by the move of the g-pawn. But this is
66

meaningful (and dangerous) only from
Black's point of view, since any check on the
back rank could easily lead to mate.
Black played 1 . Q Xb2, seeing that after
2 Rxes Rxes 3 Qf6 he could obtain perpetual check with ... Qbl-e4+. But White
continued with the sharper 2 Qf6! What
should Black do now? 2 ... Qxc3 seems
good, but it leads to mate after 3 Qg7 + ! !
BXg7 4 Re8+ Bf8 s Rxf8.
White has utilized the tactical motif known
as "diversion of the defending pieces".
Later on, a defensive move of rare beauty
was found, based on a similar idea 2 . Qcl! !
Here it is, the diversion of the attacking
pieces l Whether White captures the queen
with the bishop or the rook, 3 ... BXf6!
becomes feasible. If he continues with 3
QXe5 then Black gets a defensible position
with 3 ... Qxh6!
21 Nf5!!
White continues with a very fine combination!
21 ... eXf4 is answered by 22 Ne7+ Kh8
23 fXg7 mate!! If 21 ... QXf6 White has
22 BxeS. But Black does not lose his head.
21 . BXg2+! 22 KXg2 QXf6!
White has to realize that 23 BX eS is no
longer feasible because of 23 . . . QXfS!
24 Q X fS Ne3 +. He therefore must capture
with the queen, even though it means the end
of his attack.
23 Qxes Qxes 24 BxeS RfeS 25 Bd4 Nd2
Bringing the black knight into play still
poses some difficulties.
26Kf2 Rad8
As often happens, White cannot switch
from poetry to prose. He could have put up
a tough defence here by way of 27 NXg7
RXd4 28 NXe8 RXd3 29 Ke2 Rd8 30 Nc7!
Instead of this, he embarks on a losing rook
and pawn ending.
27 Nb6+? gXb6 28 Rgl+ Kf8 29 Bc5+ Re7
30 BXe7+ KXe7 31 Ke2 Rd4!
Black won the endgame.
Kopper - L. Schmid
18th Olympiad,
Lugano, 1968
White has sacrificed a rook and minor

piece to reach this position. Now 1 QXf6!?
followed, whereupon Black resigned! He was
convinced that 1 ... gXf6 would have been
followed by 2 Rg3 + and then mate by
3 BXf6 and that he could not have defended
g7 by any other means.
Certainly Black could not solve the problem with the sacrifice ... Qel+; since White
Black wants to avoid any weakening of his

pawn position on the K-side. After 20 ...
gXf6 White gets a dangerous attack by 21
RXfl (not 21 QX/6 Qd8!) 21 ... eS 22 Qh4!
The game continued:
20 eS!
Now 21 QxeS can be met, of course, by
21 ... Qxf6.
67

would not be obliged to accept it, but could
maintain his threats by 2 Kh2.
However, he not only could have parried
the threats with 1 Qg4!!, but also obtained a decisive advantage.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to give
advice as to when the defender should adopt
tactical means to save the situation, as in
these examples. We can only reiterate the
moral psychological advice that, even in the
worst looking situations, we should examine
carefully whether an unexpected solution can
be found in some peculiarity in the placement
of the pieces or of the opponent's king.
Biyiasas -
Stean
Lone Pine, 1978

1 e4 cS 2 Nf3 e6 3 d3 Nc6 4 g3 g6 5 Bg2 Bg7
6 0-0 Nge7 7 Rel 0-0
7 . . . d6 is more cautious here, since 8 e5
faces Black with difficult, but not insurmountable problems. White's chances are demonstrated by the game Petrosian-Pachman
(Bled, 1961), which finished on the 19th move
with a queen sacrifice (!) by the former
World Champion. Black's play has subsequently been improved.
8 Nbd2 b6 9 Nc4
"Provocative and apparently quite good,
but appearances can be deceptive", writes
Stean in his analysis.
9 dS! 10 ex dS N X dS 11 Nees
This is the position White wanted to reach.
Black has difficulties on the hl-a8 diagonal,
but finds an original solution: he exchanges
his bishop on g7 for the e5 knight!
11 ... NxeS 12 Nxes
Defence by modification of the castled position

We have already seen several examples of
this method of defence in the preceding chapters. We have also learned that the modification
of the castled position can be effected in two
ways: either by moving the king or rook, or
by moving pawns that are part of the castled
position. We should avoid the letter, unless it
is absolutely necessary. Nevertheless many
a game has gone this way and these pawns
often leave their posts quite early for one
reason or another. Weakening moves should
be avoided, but they must be made when
there is no other defence !
The English masters have an excellent
understanding of the defence of castled
positions characterized by . . . g6 and ...
Bg7. They are specialists in the Dragon
Variation of the Sicilian, a variation to which
Tony Miles, the first British grandmaster,
owes his Junior World Championship title
(with his memorable game against the Soviet
player Kochiev) and many of his other
successes. Nevertheless, the following game
of another English grandmaster, Michael
Stean, is quite special.
12 Bb7! 13 c4 BXeS!? 14 RXeS Qc7!

Black puts his affairs in order on the long
diagonal but what is going to happen to the
weakened K-side? Both ... e6 and ... g6
have already been played, and Black has
parted with the fianchettoed king's bishop 1
15 d4!?
The sharpest continuation. After 15 Rel
Ne7 16 BXb7 Qxb7 Black more or less
68

equalizes with the manoeuvre . . . Nf5-d4.
ts ... Ne7!
Forced. Beautiful variations would have fol
lowed 15 . . . cxd4, e.g. 16 Qxd4 Ne7
17 Bh6 Rfd8 18 Rc5!1(not18 Rd5? because
of 18 ... N/511) 18 ... RXd4 19 Rxc7
Bxg2 20 KXg2 Nf5 21 Bg5 with advanLage
to White.
16 Bxb7 Qxb7 17 Bh6 Rfd8 18 d5 exd5
19 Qg4!?
The Greek-born (presently American)
grandmaster continues his drive for an
attack. 19 Qf3 was also a possibility, though
Black could deal with the threats quite well
after 19 ... Nf5 20 RXf5 gXf5 21 QXf5
by 21 . . . Qc6. It would be an error now to
try to hold on to the extra pawn with 19
. . . d4? since 20 Qg5 would follow, after
which only 20 ... f6 would offer any defence
against immediate mate.
19 Nc6!
The white king's position is, as it turns out,
vulnerable to a knight on d4. If now 20
RXd5, then 20 ... RXd5 21 cxd5 Nd4!
22 Qe4 f5 ! forces 23 Qg2 after which comes
23 ... Rd8 or 23 ... Re8 and Black controls
the whole board.
20 Qf4fS!
White's last move was a trap:20 ... NXe5?
would have lost to 21 Qf6.
Black's last pawn move, however, has put
paid to White's attack. The recovery of the
pawn by 21 RXd5 fails for the same reasons
as before, so White makes a last attempt to
achieve perpetual check by a combinative
stroke.
21 RXfS Nd4!!
21 ... gXf5 is followed by 22 Qg5+ Kh8
23 Qf6+ and perpetual check. After the next
move, however, Black can simplify to a won
endgame.
22 ReS dXc4 23 Re4 Qf7! 24 Qxf7+
X:Xf7 2S Rf4+ X:g8 26 Rel Re8 27 RXe8+
RXe8 28 Rf6 NfS! 29 Bd2 Rf8 30 RXf8+
X:Xf8
Black won the ending after a few more

moves. An original and spirited game!
Defence by transition to an endgame
Naturally, the defender only aims for

endgames which favour him or at least give
him a chance of a draw. We have already
seen an example of this in the Alekhine- Reti
game. Black had to calculate all the time what
chances there were of him reaching a draw
in an ending that might have evolved from
a position in which his opponent still had a
material advantage.
It is clear that the modern handling of
openings demands a knowledge of the
corresponding middlegames, while the correct
management of the middlegame depends on a
knowledge of the most important types of
endgame. The various parts of the game can,
however, be distinguished from each other
only for purposes of study. In reality, the
opening, middlegame and endgame form an
organic whole.
"All rook and pawn endings are drawn"
according to an obviously exaggerated;
though not entirely untrue, axiom. It is true
in so far as it is often not the material
advantage but the position of the rooks and
kings that is the decisive factor in such end
games.
Analysing Alekhine's defensive art, grandmaster Kotov dedicates a separate chapter
to this type of simplification and demonstrates with a number of examples how the
former World Champion succeeded in saving
some of his losing rook and pawn endings.
Reshevsky -
Alekbine
AVRO Tournament, 1938

Alekhine has a material deficit as a result
of earlier mistakes. His e6 pawn is also weak.
69
46d5?
White's effort to maintain his two-pawn
advantage is understandable, but this mistake
gives Black a chance to find a pretty escape.
46 Ra5! RXd4 47 Kg3 Ke6 48 h4! would
have won relatively easily here.
46 .. a3 47 Rh7 + Kf6 4S Ra7 Ke5!
49RaS
Should the pawns push on, e.g. by 49
h4, the black king could prevent any further
advance by 49 . . . Kf5. Black could then
exchange the a-and d-pawns at the right
moment and reach a theoretically drawn
position. For this reason, White keeps the
d-pawn and does not weaken the K-side.
49 Rd2 + SO Kf3 Rd3 + 51 Ke2
51 Kg4 Rd2 52 Kh3 a2 transposes to the
actual game.
51 Rb3 52 Kf2 Rb2+ 53 Kg3 Rb3 +
54 Kh4 Rb2 SS Kh3 a2!
Although White is two pawns up, he cannot move his K-side pawns. Therefore Reshevsky reverts to the plan which would have
won only a few moves before.
56 d6+ KXd6 57 g4 Kc6!
The black king, no longer a defending
piece, launches a counter-attack.
SSKg3
58 g5 Rb5 leads to an immediate draw.
SS .. Kb6 S9 Ra8 KbS 60 b3
60 h4 is answered by checks from b3 and
b2, and Kf4 will never be possible because
of ... Rb4+ and ... Ra4.
60 Kb4 61 Kf4 Rc2 62 Rb8 + Ka3
63 Ras+ Kb3 Drawn.
Further checks get nowhere.
White could create various threats on the

open f-file after 26 . . e5 27 Rf l . Realizing
this, Alekhine simplifies to an endgame.
26 Rd2! 27 Qxd2 Qxe4 28 Rel
Qxc4 29 Qd6 Rc8 30 Qxe6+ QXe6 31
RXe6 Kf7 32 Rd6 aS.
Alekhine has achieved his aim. White has
still got his pawn advantage, but capitalizing on it is no easy task. In any case, Black
has far better chances of getting a draw than
he had before the 26th move.
33Kf2Ne7!
This move leads to the exchange of the
bishop for the knight. According to endgame
theory, the bishop is stronger than the knight
so long as there are pawns on both sides,
because the power of the bishop can be asserted from a greater distance. Thus, this
exchange favours the defender.
34 Bd4 NfS 35 Rd7 + Ke6 36 Ra7 N X d4
37cXd4Rc2+
Black now has what he wanted, a pure
rook and pawn ending. Objectively, this
position is won for White, but only with
extremely accurate play.
38 Kf3 RXa2 39 Rxg7 Ra3+ 40 Ke4 bS
41 Rg6+ Kf7 42 Rh6 Ra2 43 Kf3
White's winning chance lies in the survival
of the two connected pawns. As soon as
one of them disappears, the position will
turn into a draw.
43 ... Ra3+ 44 Kf2 Rd3 45 RXh5 a4!
Alekhine sets a fine psychological trap in
this lost position.
Rotlevi -
Burn
Karlsbad, 1911
To say the least, Black's king's position is
rather shaky. His f5 pawn is en prise and
Qh5 is also threatened. Yet Bum, whom
70

(Not 45 bl
mate!?)
Nimzowitsch considered among the world's

six best defensive players (there were two
World Champions among the other five:
Steinitz and Lasker), defends his apparently
fragile position with great vigour.
= Q?
46 Rg4+ ! Kf7 47 Re7
46 Rxes+ Kf7 47 Re7+ Kf8

White resigned.
Defence by simplification
(Exchanging the attacking pieces)
This method of defence is akin to the

last one in as much as several authors treat
the two methods together. We propose to
distinguish between the general case and,
as in the last chapter, simplification specifically into an endgame. Just as the elimination
of defending pieces is in the attacker's interest (by exchanges, or, when circumstances
are favourable, by sacrifices) so the reverse,
i.e. the elimination of attacking pieces, is in
the interest of the defender. In other words,
by using this method, he can diminish the
opponent's superiority in some critical section of the board.
To avoid misunderstandings, we should
add that an exchange of the attacking pieces
is involved here. As a rule, the attacker's
pieces approach the critical points of the
defender's position and are generally more
mobile and more active than the defending
pieces, so their exchange is justified. Thus
bishops of opposite colour, which tend to
lead to a draw in the endgame because of
their non-exchangeability, increase the attacker's chances in the middlegame.
The case is rather different with pawn
exchanges. We know that these generally
result in the opening of files, therefore they
favour the attacker in most instances.
Several examples of defence by simplification, i.e. by the exchange of the attacking
pieces, have been shown so far. An illuminating counter-example should, perhaps, be
given here.
26 Qf7! 27 Qc2 e4 28 Be2
29 Bh5 is the threat.

28 QXdS!
It's moments like this when experts say

"Black has nerves of steel!" The queen exposes herself to apparent danger on the a2-g8
diagonal.
29Nh5
29 Nc4 is met by 29 ... Nc6 ! and then ...

Nd4. It is difficult to fortify White's position.
29 QeS 30 Bc4 + Kh8! 31 Radl
31 Nf3 is followed by 31 ... Qc3 !

31 Bg7 32 Bf7
(32 Nf3 Qb2 !)
32 Rf8 33 Nc4 NXc4 34 BXc4?
34 Qxc4 would have been better here,

because now Black forces the exchange of
queens and simplifies to a won endgame.
34 Qb2! 35 QXb2 BXb2 36 Rd6 a5
37Be6?
37 Red 1 ! was the last chance for a draw.

37 Bxe6 38 RXe6 Rbd8!
39 . . . Rd2 and . . . Bd4 is threatened.

39 Re2 Rdl+ 40 Kh2, Bd4 41 g4 c4! 42
gxf5 cXb3 43 R2Xe4 b2 44 Re8 Kg8!
45 f6 Rxes
71

Defence by closing a file
Blackburne - Schwarz
Berlin, 1881
"An open file is often like an open wound",

says Tartakower. More often than not, open
files are needed by the attacker for the advance of his pieces against his opponent's
weak points. Consequently the attacker tries
to open up files, normally by piece sacrifices
if the attack is executed by pieces, or by the
advance of the pawns and the forcing of
pawn exchange in the case of pawn attacks.
There is no special defensive system against
piece attacks and piece sacrifices. Various
methods of defence have to be applied, depending on the situation. The point is to
render the sacrifice as risky and dangerous
for the attacker as possible. Reinforcing the
endangered section of the battle front can
be one of these methods, since what makes
the sacrifice possible is a superiority of firepower in some part of the board. This is
what makes an otherwise undesirable material
disadvantage bearable. The method of simplification can also be used here. The more of
the attacking forces are liquidated, the more
unlikely it is that the player at a material
disadvantage can create a decisive attack.
The exchange of the strongest and most
mobile piece, the queen, is particularly desirable.
There is, however, a special method of
preventing the opening of a file by the exchange of pawns. This is the avoidance of the
pawn exchange by moving past the attacking
pawn. As we have already seen an example of
this, we present another instructive counterexample.
White's heavy artillery is lined up against
the opponent's castled position. No counteraction is threatened in the centre or on the
other wing, and the only thing needed for a
decisive blow is open files. The attacker could
attempt to open one with his pawns, but
this would fail, because Black would close
White is compensated for his pawn weaknesses by the more active position of his
pieces and by the weakness of the black
squares in his opponent's castled position.
1 Bf6! Nf4+? Black omits the opportunity
to simplify here by way of ... Be7!. The
explanation of the mistake is that he was
only thinking of Qh6.
2 Qx4!! BXf4 3 RXb5! and there is no
remedy against mate.
The f6 bishop was the essential piece here
as far as the attack was concerned. After
1 ... Be7 ! 2 Be5 Black could oppose again
with 2 . . . Bd6, while 2 BX e6 fX e6 3 Qg5
BXf6 4 QXf6 Qd8! was dangerous for
White, since 5 QXg6+ would have been
impossible due to the loss of the queen after
... Rg7.
We must always be careful of what we
give in exchange for what we take. Sometimes
even the exchange of an essential attacking
piece should be avoided, if we have to give
up an important defensive piece for it. We
have seen examples of this in earlier chapters
(e.g. Black's 14th move in the TeschnerPortisch game). A fianchettoed bishop can
be particularly important from the standpoint of the castled position's defence, as
can the f6 knight. The former defends the
weakened black squares, the latter h 7.
72

the files permanently after 1 g6 with 1 ... h6,
or after 1 h6 with the other by-passing move
1 . . . g6. Although White could offer a
piece sacrifice after these moves, e.g. 1 g6
h6 ! 2 Nf3 Bd7 3 Ng5, Black is not likely to
grant him the favour of taking the knight.
Black would not capture after 1 h6 g6 2
Nh5 either, because there is no direct danger
after 2 . . . Kh8 3 Nf6 Qf7. Black could get
a safe draw this way.
Incidentally, we encounter a less common

variation of file closing in the erroneous
variation 2 h6? h X g6 3 h7 + Kh8. Here,
the defending king uses the opponent's
pawn as a shield. Another example of this
was seen earlier in the A. Geller-Spassky
game.
The closing of a file can sometimes be
achieved by a piece sacrifice as in the next
example.
Sorensen -
Hollis
8th Correspondence Olympiad Final
White still has an opportunity to increase

the power of his attack, but he must eliminate the possibility of a by-passing move by
means of a piece sacrifice.
1 Nbg6! Bd7
If 1 ... Kf7 then 2 h6! hXg6 3 h7 Be7
4 Qh4 and NXg6 could follow, while after
1 . . . h X g6 2 h X g6 White would break in
along the open h-file.
2Rghl!
White must play very accurately. The
immediate 2 h6? hXg6! 3 hXg7 BXg7
poses no threat to Black. White's attack also
appears to be inadequate after 3 h7 + Kh8
4 Rh6 gXh6 5 gXh6.
2 c6 3 Qh2 Rb7 4 h6! hXg6 5 hXg7
BX g7 6 Rh8 + White won.
It can be seen from this example that the
attacker can sometimes combine the two
methods of file opening. There is nothing
else left to the defender in such cases than
to have a most diverse selection of responses
up his sleeve.
Black's position is seemingly quite untenable. His king is stranded in the middle, and
White is threatening not only the prosaic
24 BXa8, but also 24 Rdl, after which the
opening of the centre files will be unavoidable.
Nevertheless, Black (Britain's second correspondence grandmaster) still hits on a
clever defence :
23 ... NeS!!
Now 24 B Xa8 would be followed by 24 ...
Nxf3+ and then capture on e3, so White's
reply is forced.
24fXe5
Now the e-file is closed by the attacker's
own pawn.
24 eXdS 25 e6 BXe3+ 26 RXe3 Qc5
27 e7 d4 28 Qg2
The other possibility was 28 Re5, but after
26 ... d3 + the ending would be drawn.
73

28 Rc8 29 Rd3 Rg8! 30 Rfl Rg7 31 Rdf3
If now 31 ... RXe7? then 32 Rf8+ Kd7
33 Qg4+ and White wins.
31 d3+ 32 Khl Qc6! 33 Rf8+ KXe7
34 Rxcs QxcS 35 Qf2 Qf5!
There was an invitation for Black to play
35 . . . Qc6+, which would lose owing to
the vulnerability of f6 and f8.
36 Qe3+ Qe6 37 Qa7+ Ke8! 38 Qb8+
If the rook is taken, Black has perpetual
check.
38 ... Kd7 39 Qb7+ Ke8 40 Qa8+ Kd7
41 Qa7 + Drawn.
"In some ways this draw was more satisfying than many won games," commented
Hollis.
Unzicker - Reshevsky
13th Olympiad,
Munich, 1958
This position developed after Black's 26th

move. Black has just exchanged rooks on bl,
and hopes, in spite of his weak back rank,
to get counter-play with the threat of ..
Rel+. But White has foreseen this possibility.
27 Qe2!!
A beautiful defence by file closing, based
on Black's equally difficult back rank position I 27 ... Qxe2 28 BXe2 leads only to
a hopeless endgame.
27 Qc8 28 Rc7! Qd8 29 Qc4 d5 30

BXdS Nd2 31 Qc6
White won in a few more moves.
Naturally, the closing of the file as a method
of defence becomes necessary only in a
threatened area. One of the major methods
of indirect defence, the counter-attack, is
exactly the opposite- the opening of files
at some sensitive point in the opponent's
position, either in the centre, or on the opposite wing.
Self-defence by the king

The essence of this method is that the
king takes his affairs into his own hands and
leaves the endangered area. Strictly speaking,
the term is used when the king flees all the
way to the other wing. Generally, every king
move shifts the attacker's main target, and
this can make regrouping and new preparations necessary.
We have already seen examples of this
defence. It was crowned with success in the
N.N.-Steinitz game, but achieved little in
Kotov-Keres.
The following example has added interest
in that the defender uses psychological means
to steer the game in a direction where selfdefence by the king can be used. In other
words, it is not enough to know the various
kinds of defence (or attack, for that matter I);
one must also know how to manipulate the
game so that these defences can be applied.
The game is published here with the comments of the loser.
Kan -
Lasker
Moscow, 1935
Black's position has been made to look

rather shaky by White's last move, 32 e4.
74

haven, the outcome of the struggle is beyond
doubt. The denouement is brief.
After lengthy consideration, Lasker chooses

a risky continuation :
45 Qd6 Re8 46 h4 Rel+ 47 Kh2 Rel

48 Bf5 dt = Q 49 Bc8+ Ka5 White resigned.
"Lasker's imaginative defence is quite
admirable," says the loser.
The precondition of the king's successful
migration is that the files he crosses should be
as closed as possible. This always requires
attention whenever this defence is adopted.
Defence by setting traps
This is akin, in a way, to defence by tactical

counter-blow. Here too surprise is all-important. But the term "trap" means that the
combination is only successful when the
opponent falls into it. If he doesn't, the trap
fails and makes no contribution to preventing defeat. Consequently, we should only
resort to setting traps if our position is objectively hopeless, i.e. when it cannot be
saved by any other means.
A chess writer once said that the defender
does not pit strength against strength when
preparing a trap, but rather craftiness. To lay
a successful trap, it is necessary either that
it be well disguised or that the attacker have
some reason for falling into it.
Some examples of this are given below.
32 exd4!? 33 exf5?
Lasker's calculation has been proved correct psychologically. White faced an embarrassment of riches, in the form of tempting
possibilities. Instead of acquiring material
advantage with the prosaic 33 exd5, he
chooses a risky attack. The subsequent course
of the game is very instructive.
33 Qf6! 34 Re6 dXc3! 35 RXf6
cxd2
The following rook sacrifice is in fact
forced, in view of the threatened . . . dl =
Q+ and ... Nxf6.
36 RXg6+ hXg6 37 QXg6+ Kf8 38
Qd6+ Ke8
The king's flight towards the Q-side begins
and eventually, though not without further
complications, leads to Black's victory.
39 Bc2Rb6!
It is not easy to find this move. The rook
defends the bishop and at the same time
opens the way for the king. In the meantime,
Black is forced to give up his knight for the
f-pawn, but the d2 pawn becomes a trump
card even when material is roughly equal.
40f6Kd8
A cool head is still necessary, because
40 ... NXf6 is followed by 41 Bg6 mate!
41 f7 Kc8 42 rs = Q+ Nxf8 43 Qxrs+
Kb7 44 Qf6 Ka6
Now that the king has reached a safe
Chigorin - Schlechter
Ostend, 1905
75

White's material advantage is enough for
victory, even against optimal defence. Black,
therefore, tries a trap. 1 Qc7 + 2 Qb6+ ??
Practically any other move leads to victory.
Why, then, did White still make this mistake?
Mainly because he did not see his opponent's
reply, his vigilance and concentration blacked
out momentarily. But the consideration that
one of the means of asserting one's material
advantage is simplification also played a part.
And here White has an opportunity to "force"
the exchange of queens. 2 KaS! 3 Ka6.
If 3 Qxc7 then Black is stalemated, but now
he gets perpetual check. 3 QcS+ 4 KaS
Qc7! etc.
Lasker liked this finish so much that he
even based an endgame study on it.
Our next example demonstrates a trap
relying on similar psychology.
The trap shown in the following diagram

is not so much combinative as positional.
White's positional advantage is considerable. Black's pieces are pushed back and
the black squares around the castled position
are weak. Bf2-h4-f6, followed by Qh4 and
an increase of the pressure is in the offing.
Kholmov -
Averbakh
Kiev, 1954
Sliwa-Doda
LOdz, 1967
1 . gS!? 2 fxgS? Ng6! followed. Black

has succeeded in setting up an impenetrable
fortress, since g4 can now be answered by
... f4 !, preventing any further opening offiles.
White was obviously so sure of victory
that he deemed 1 . . . g5 ! ? to be a sign of
desperation and thought he could convert his
positional advantage into material gain.
Black's escape was, however, not an objective
necessity, but the result of psychological
factors, since White could have faced him
with insoluble problems by 2 g4 ! instead of
the fatal 2 fxg5?.
White continued with 1 QeS. Black could

now have made his position safe by 1 ...
Qb2+ and then 2 ... Qe5. But he neglects
the stalemate danger, and White acquires
quite a few more strings to his bow. 1 ...
Qa2+ 2Kh3 Q Xc4 3 Qe7+ ! . Now White can
set up two different stalemate variations:
3 ... Kg6 4 Be4+ ! Qxe4 5 Qg7 + ! KXg7
stalemate, as happened in the game, or 3 ...
Kg8 4 Qe8+ Nf8 5 Bd5+ ! Qxd5 6 Qxf8+ !
Defence by counter-attack on the other wing
Several examples of this theme were shown

when we studied castling on opposite flanks.
Let us now sum up the lessons learnt from
grandmaster Kotov, who made a study of
this problem.
76

Before a pawn attack is launched, one has
to decide whether the opponent can get his
attack in first, forcing us into a long and
passive defence. In these "bayonet charges"
(this term is usually used when all the pawns
charge together on one wing) we burn all
our bridges, so we have to calculate accurately and realistically.
The considerations involved are:
1. The position of our own pawns; how
far are they advanced, are there any doubled
or isolated pawns, can they advance fast
enough? Each peculiarity of the position
has to be taken into account; one pawn can
sometimes carry out the attack better than
several together.
2. The position of the opponent's pawns. It
is particularly important to see if any of them
have stepped out of line, thus providing a
target, whereby their exchange might lead
to a file being forced open. The defender,
therefore, should avoid advancing his pawns
whenever possible.
3. The position of the pieces. Do the
opponent's pieces provide us with the chance
to gain tempo for our attack? Might our own
pieces not stand in the way of our pawns, and
can they support the pawns' action at the
right moment?
A few methodological points can supplement the above. The possibility of a by-pass
must be avoided if the opening of a file is to
be achieved, therefore the pawn we intend to
exchange must be immobilized. A good
example for this was seen on p. 73 where a
knight had to be sacrificed for this purpose.
Tactics dominate in mating attacks on
both wings, so one must keep an eye on all the
possibilities of tactical play, including sacrifices. The aim of a sacrifice may be to eliminate obstacles, to accelerate our own counterattack, to slow down the opponent's attack,
etc. These will be discussed under the next
heading.
Defence by sacrifice
A sacrifice is more a method of attack than
defence. Although superior fire-power is one
of the prerequisites of attack, one can often
sacrifice some of it and still maintain enough
to win.
How can the poor defender sacrifice anything, seeing that he is probably at a material
disadvantage in the area defended?
As has been demonstrated, sacrifices mainly
occur in indirect defence, i.e. during the counter-attack, when the defender himself takes up
the initiative.
The theme of defensive sacrifice is rather a
new one, so the following list makes no claim
to completeness:
1. The preventive sacrifice, in order to avert
the opening of a file, where the material disadvantage is counter-balanced by some gain
elsewhere. This was demonstrated in the
Panov-Kan game and the 19 . . . Nh5 I
move in Vukovic's analysis on the Sicilian
Dragon.
2. The sacrifice to avoid loss of time. We are
probably the first to identify this category.
Examples are: 17 ... a4!! in the GerebenGeller game, and 20 g6 ! ? in Ozsvath-Kluger.
3. The sacrifice to accelerate our own attack.
Examples are: the bishop sacrifices on h7 in
the Averbakh-Sardarov and Szilagyi-Nacu
games.
4. The sacrifice to eliminate a strongly
entrenched enemy piece. It often happens that
an enemy piece gets established on the sixth
rank (or on the third, in White's case) and
almost cuts our position in half, preventing
the smooth co-ordination of our pieces and
posing various threats. Bishop or knight can
be equally dangerous in such cases. If there
is no chance of getting rid of such a nuisance
by trading it off, then the sacrifice of the
exchange should be considered, particularly
if it can be compensated by an additional
77

pawn. The endgame of minor piece and pawn
against rook is not always hopeless.
5. The material sacrifice in order to change
the strategic character of the position belongs
in a sense to the category of preventive defence. We have discussed this interesting
method, pointed out by Kan, separately.
6. The combinative sacrifice, the countersacrifice. Sacrifices are an essential element
of all combinations, according to some
authorities (though others argue this point).
We have also witnessed sacrifices in defence
by combinative counter-blows.
It often happens in the course of an attack
that the attacker offers a sacrifice. This may
provide the defender with an opportunity to
later give back some of the material advantage
thus gained, and thereby avert the opponent's
threats and even try to win the game. Ample
examples of this have been seen.
called by chess writer Schwarz, "The Life or

Death Variation". The previous moves were:
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 eS Ne7 5 a3
BXc3+ 6 bXc3 c5 7 Qg4 Qc7 8 QXg7
Rg8 9 QXh7 cxd4 10 Kdl!? Nbc6 11 Nf3
dXc3 12 Ng5 Nxes 13 Bf4 Qb6! 14 BXe5
RXg5 15 h4 Rg8 16 Ket Bd7 17 Rh3 Rg4!
18 Rf3 0-0-0 19 Bf6 Re8 20 BX e7
Of course, Black now recaptured on e7
quite mechanically. Before a "natural"
capture, we should, however, always consider an intermediate move.
Just after the end of the game, the analysts
pointed out that Black could have won with
20 Re4+!
One of the main variations is 21 Kdl
Qb2 I 22 Rel Q Xcl+ ! ! and mate next move.
The other key line is 21 Be2 BbS ! 22 RX c3 +
Kb8 23 BcS Qa5 24 Bb4 RXb4! with advantage to Black.
The intermediate move (Zwischenzug)
Matuloric -
Sarajevo, 1968
This is generally a move, which forces the

opponent to lay aside his plans for a moment
while he fends off a check.
Matulovic -
Pietzsch
Ublmann
Budapest, 1967
The position shown developed from one of

the sharpest variations of the French Defence,
78
It is interesting that the Yugoslav grandmaster, who won the above game, loses here
against his opponent's compatriot in the
same opening and in the same manner,
by failing to play an intermediate move.
In this case White chose the other main line
of the Wtnaver. Moves 1-12 were the same
as in the previous game.
13 f4 RXg5! 14 fXg5 N5g6! 15 Bd3 eS!

advantage or superior fire-power. But the
defender can also sometimes benefit from the
opening of files. This is particularly true in
cramped positions, in which defending pieces
lack room, thus hindering what active pieces
there might be.
But let us see all this demonstrated in some
examples.
The queen's bishop and centre pawns now

come into play. For this reason, 15 Be2 was
possibly preferable on the last move.
16 Rfl Bg4+ 17 Kel 0-0-0 18 QXf7
It is interesting that the game is identical to
Adorjan-F. Portisch, played during the
Hungarian Championship in 1966. There 18
Rxf7 was played, but after 18 ... e4 19 Bfl
d4 20 Bf4 Qc5 21 h3 d3 ! Black gained the
upper hand. It looks as if it is better to capture with the queen.
18 e4 19 Bel BXe2
Now we arrive at the position shown in the
diagram. The continuation was:
20 KXe2? Qd7! 21 Be3 d4 22 Qc4+ Nc6
23 BX d4, but even this "atonement sacrifice"
failed to help. Black asserted his material
advantage on the 36th move. White, as was
subsequently found, should have played
Qe6 + ! on his 20th move, and then he could
have proceeded with the capture on e2. In
this case Black's attack would either have
vanished, or at least would not have been as
immediate as in the actual game.
Larsen -
Miles
Las Pa/mas, 1978
It is more than likely that White has handled

the opening slightly inaccurately. The g5
bishop and the d2 queen are not where they
should be. Miles exploits this and grabs the
initiative.
14 b4! 15 Ne2
15 Ndl? NXe4! would be interesting.
15 Na4 was worth considering since the
knight will be pinned on e2.
15 . dS!
The well-known freeing move is the Sicilian. The general rule is: if Black achieves
... d5 without disadvantage, his position is
automatically the stronger!
16 eS Ne4 17 BXe4 dXe4 18 Rfdl
18 QXd8 RfXd8 19 NXa5 BXe2 favours
Black.
18 .. Nc6! 19 Qe3 Qb6! 20 QXe4
Or 20 QXb6 axb6 21 f6 BXe2. This was
perhaps better than the text move, because
White's queen soon gets into danger.
The freeing move
This method of defence is mentioned by

grandmaster Pachman. Undoubtedly, it is
related to some of the methods already dealt
with, such as the tactical counter-blow. It is
also akin to the intermediate move, which
interrupts the expected course of events for
one move, just like the sliding tackle in football. Normally, though, the intermediate move
is the form of a check which forces the opponent to put aside his plans and find a remedy
against it.
The freeing move is often accompanied by
file opening. Until now, we have characterized
the opening up of the position as a typical
element of attack. The attacker attempts to
open up files in order to utilize his positional
79

20 Nxes 21 Ng3
21 BXe7 loses to 21 ... gXf5.
21 Ba6! 22 Bxe7 Rc4!
A strong intermediate move. After 22 ...
Bb7 the position could still have been held
with 23 Q X b4 RX c2 24 Rd2. (Now 23 Rd4 is
answered by 23 ... Rfc8, while 23 BX/8
RXe4 24 Bc5! Qc7! 25 Nxe4 Ng4!).
23 Nd4 Re8 24 BgS Bb7 25 Qb4
If 25 Qf4 or Qe3, the simple ... h6 wins.
White's space advantage, his knight firmly

entrenched on d6 and Black's bishop idling
on a4 indicate that White is better. But the
latter's last move 36 Kgl-g2?, which was
meant to be a waiting move, enables Black to
relieve his position by a tactical twist. After
36 .. Bc2!! 37 Rxa7 came the intermediate
move 37 .. BXe4+, whereupon 38 Nxe4
Qxa7 39 fS Qa2+ 40 Kg3 Kg8 41 h4? Qe2!
gave Black the upper hand.
The aim of the check here was to exchange
the undefended piece. Had Black to recapture
immediately on a7, he would, of course, have
lost a piece.
We saw the other objective behind the
intermediate check in the Alekhine-Reti
game: enabling the defending piece to
approach the endangered area with a gain of
tempo.
With this, we have come to the end of our
description, or summing up, of methods of
defence. Kan, who organizes his work
according to these methods, also provides
material related to the following: defence
against pins, examples of unsuccessful defence, etc. But these do not relate to methods,
and their implications were touched upon in a
number of examples.
Other authors regard stalemate and perpetual check as distinct methods. But these are
mere tactical possibilities and opportunities
to lay traps as provided for by the current
rules of the game.
2S Nf3!!
This strong tactical blow demolishes
White's unstable position. 26 gXf3 is bad
because of26 ... RXd4! 27 RXd4 Bxf3+.
26 NXf3 RXh4 27 NXh4 Bf6 28 BXf6
Q Xf6 White resigned.
The freeing move is generally a pawn move,
but sometimes it is a piece that is involved.
Malich - Paoli
7th Asztalos Memorial,
Pees, 1964
80
Defence against Some Typical Attacks

There are some systems which serve the development of an attack almost from the very
first moves. White, particularly, directs the
positioning of his pawns and the development
of his pieces in such a way that he can swing
onto the attack straight after the preparatory
phase. About the only way to avoid such
attacks is to avoid the openings that make
them possible. If the defender goes in for
the variation in question, then he must accept
the middlegame problems it produces.
Here we shall show typical defence systems against no less typical attacks. We do
not aim at completeness, but since openings
are studied nowadays in connection with the
middlegames they generate, so, when a
number of variations are analysed, we also
want to study the prospects for attack and
defence which arise later. Even an opening
which generally results in a positionaJ
struggle can, in a minor variation, lead to an
attack.
reserves were thrown in on the K-side after

f4-f5 by means of Nc3-e2-f4, where considerable superiority already existed in the wake
of the moves described.
This system is rather passe today, but it was

considered very dangerous in its day. Here is
an example:
Pillsbury -
Marco
Paris, 1900
The Pillsbury position
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 BgS Be7 S e3 0-0

6 Nf3 b6 7 Bd3 Bb7 8 cxdS eXdS 9 Ne5!
Nbd710 f4 c5110-0 c4? 12 Bc2 a613 Qf3 b5
14 Qh3 g6
Forced, since 15 NXd7 QXd716 BXh7 + !
Kh8 17 Bf5 + threatened to win for White.
15 f5! b4 16 fXg6! hXg6
After 16 ... bXc3? White would win by
17 BXf6 NXf6 18 RXf6.
17 Qh4! bXc3 18 NXd7 QXd719 RXf6! a5
Black intends to bring his a8 rook into
the defence. If 19 ... BXf6? 20 BXf6 wins.
20Raf1 Ra6
The American grandmaster, Harry Nelson

Pillsbury, winner in 1895 of the first international tournament at Hastings, conducted
many fine winning attacks from the position
given on the diagram.
The way White's attack developed from
this and similar positions was as follows:
White reinforced the knight on e5 with f2-f4.
This pawn move, at the same time, opened the
way for the manoeuvre Rfl-f3-g3 or h3.
White's queen went to the king's wing by
the same route. If appropriate, further
81
21 BXg6!!
Pillsbury was one of the greatest attacking
players at the tum of the century, indeed of
all time.
21 fXg6 22 RXf8+ BXf8 23 RXf8+!
Kxf8 24 Qh8+ Kf7 25 Qh7 +
Black resigned, because either mate or the
loss of the queen follows.
Pillsbury's system shows a clear similarity
to the new variation introduced largely by
Tony Miles and other British players against
the Queen's Indian Defence. As is known,
this begins 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 Bf4 !?.
The only difference is that a bishop is
stationed on f4 instead of a pawn. Black's
counter-play often develops similarly to the
above game, and the closing of the centre
(which gives White a free hand to launch an
attack on the K-side) was even adopted by
the ex-World Champion, Spassky (MilesSpassky, Montilla, 1978).
Let us return now to the original Pillsbury
position (see p. 81). Black was making a
fundamental error playing . . . c4? in this
situation. Of course, he was one of Pillsbury's
first victims and could not have been acquainted with his opponent's scheme (the
game was played at the Hastings tournament
mentioned above). Today we are aware that
one of the best remedies against an attack in
preparation is to open the centre and to look
for counter-play there. From that point of
view, the move . . . cS is almost an antidote
to the move f4 (or f3), seeing that it further
82
weakens the a7-gl diagonal opened by

moving the f-pawn.
Of course, it isn't likely that this is the only
line of defence for Black against the Pillsbury
attack. Since the attacker's lynch-pin is the
knight stationed on eS, it is advisable to seek
the solution on that square. The following
approach was recommended by Pillsbury's
contemporary, Marco, and we can only agree
with it:
11 ... NXeS! 12 dxes Ne8 13 Bf4 g6
14 Bh6 Ng7 lS f4 d4! 16 fS BgS ! and Black
reaches a satisfactory position, having eliminated the attacking piece by exchange and
created counter-play in the centre.
Knight sacrifice on fS
While the Pillsbury position is a rarity

nowadays, the closed variation of the Ruy
Lopez occurs frequently in practice. In order
to force the opening of lines on the K-side,
the attacker sacrifices his knight on fS in one
of the main variations. Clearly, there are
several ways of dealing with this sacrifice.
The following example represents an interesting method.
Sawadkoubi -
Ohlenscbliger
Schleswig-Holstein Championship,
Kiel, 1964
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 BbS a6 4 Ba4 Nf6
5 0-0 Be7 6 Rel b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 b3 NaS
10 Bc2 c5 11 d4 Qc7 12 Nbd2 Bd7 13 Nft Rfe8
This sequence of moves has occurred in
thousands of games all over the world.
14 Ne3 g6 1S dXeS dXeS 16 Nb2 Bf8
The Italian chess magazine from which we
borrowed this game accompanied this move
with a question mark. It recommends the
preventive 16 . . . Rad8 l instead, with the

continuation 17 Qf.3 Be6 18 Nhg4! NXg4
19 hXg4 Nc4, and now after 20 NfS the reply
could be 20 ... gXfS 21 eXfS and then
21 ... BdS ! with 22 ... f6 in mind.
17 Qf3 Bg7 18 Nbg4! NXg4 19 hXg4 Be6
20 NfS!!
after 22 f6 Bf8 (22 . . . Bh8 would lose

immediately to 23 Bh61) 23 Qg3+ (this is
more accurate than 23 Qh5) 23 . . . Kh8
24 Re3 ! and then, depending on Black's defence, Rf.3, Qh4-g5 and Rg3, or perhaps Qh4
and Rh3, White wins.
Considering all this, it looks as if Black
should have avoided any opening of lines
by way of 20 . . . f6 or 20 . . . Bf8. Even
though both these moves are passive and
White's positional advantage in each case
is beyond doubt, there is no immediate
winning line for the attacker.
The actual fate of the game was:
20 BXfS? 21 eXfS Qe7 22 gS! Qc7
23 f6 Bf8 24 Re4! Nc4 25 Rh4 Nd6 26 Qh3
hS 27 g4! Black resigned.
Nunn - Cooper
The critical phase has arrived. According

to the comments published in the journal,
20 ... gXfS is bad because of 21 eXfS and
since 21 . . . BdS cannot be played now
White wins in a few moves after 22 f6 Bf8
23 Qe4. Yet if we examine this variation
thoroughly, we see that the Zwischenzug
21 ... e4!! (after 21 eXf5??) will avert all
danger whichever piece captures on e4. 22
BX e4, for instance, could be answered by the
pin 22 ... BdS!, or if 22 RXe4 then 22 ...
BdS 23 Rxe8+ Rxe8 and 24 QXdS will
not do because of 24 ... Rel mate! or if
22 QXe4 Bd7 (not ... BdS? 23 QXe8+ !
RX e8 24 RX e8 + Bf8 25 Bh6 winning) 23
Bf4 RX e4 wins.
A closer analysis of the position, however,
provides yet another surprise. What White
fails to achieve with the diagonal attack (owing to 21 ... e4!1), he can manage with a
frontal one! The correct answer to 20 ...
gXfS is 21 gXfS!! and Black can avoid
immediate defeat only by counter-sacrificing
a piece, with a lacerated king's position, but
at least complete material equality. If he
wants to save his bishop by 21 ... Bc8, then
Surrey Open, 1976
20 NfS!!
The above position developed from the
Hungarian Defence (1 e4 e5 2 Nf.3 Nc6 3 Bc4
Be7 4 d4 5 dS etc.) but its structure and treatment is similar to the Ruy Lopez. The attacking British grandmaster (he acquired the title
in 1978 at the Tungsram tournament in
Budapest) and the defender show great
resourcefulness in handling this difficult
position.
20 gxrs
20 . . . Ng8 21 g5 f6 22 h5 eventually
leads to the opening of a file on the K-side.
83
21 ~xrs e4!
The best chance for counter-play. If 21
.. Ng8 then 22 g5 f6 23 g6! and White wins.
21 . . . Rg8 is no good either, because of
22 g5 Nh5 23 NXe5 !, to White's obvious
advantage.
22 Bc3!!
If 22 BXe4, then after 22 ... NXe4
23 QXe4 Bf6 Black reinforces his position.
22 eXf3 23 Qe3!
Not 23 Qb2? Kg8 ! 24 g5 Nh5 25 f6 Qd7 !
and Black is still able to defend.
23 Ne6
A witty attempt to close the e-file. After
23 .. Kg8 24 g5 wins.
24 fXe6 fXe6 25 dxe6 Bd8
Another pretty variation is 25 . . . d5
26 cxd5 Bd6+ 27 Khl Kg8 28 Qh6! Qe7
29 g5 Nxd5 30 g6 NXc3 31 g7! and White
wins.
It should be remembered that studying

such middlegame positions is useful, because
,they can develop out of a variety of openings.
Thus, the knight sacrifice on f5 can also occur
in the Benoni. Two very interesting examples
are Alekhine-Kieninger, Cracow, 1941, and
Smyslov-Panov, Moscow, 1943.
Defence against sacrifices in the Caro-Kann

An interesting line of the Nimzowitsch
variation of the Caro-Kann is reminiscent
of the Pillsbury position (Ne5) as far as the
attack is concerned, and of the Ruy Lopez
variation as far as the defence is concerned
(combinative chances on the e-:file).
Lilienthal - Randviir
26 Rael!
After 25 g5? Black returns the piece by
26 . . . Q X e6 and manages to exchange
queens.
26 Kg8 27 gS Nd7
27 ... Nh5 is met by 28 g6! Nf4 (or
28 .. Ng7 29 Qh6 wins) 29 gXh7 + + and
mate.
28eXd7QXd7
White could even meet 28 . . . Q X e3
with 29 d X c8 = Q since he would win
'easily after either 29 ... Q X f2 + 30 Kh3, or
29 Qf4+ 30 Rg3, or 29 . Qxd3
30QXb7.
- 28 .. BXd7 loses to 29 Qd2! Qf7 30 Be4!.
As it is, Black threatens 29 . . . Qh3 + and
mate, but this can be easily parried.
29 Rg3 dS?!
A last attempt, but it fails because Black's
position cannot be defended against the
crossfire of the two bishops.
30 cxdS Bc7 31 d6! BXd6 32 Bc4+ Rf7
33 Qe8+ Bf8 34 BXf7+ QXf7 35 QXc8
Black resigned.
Piimu, 1947
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dXe4 4 NXe4 Nd7
5 Nf3 Ngf6 6 Ng3 e6 7 Bd3 Be7 8
~ ~
9 Qe2 c5 10 Rel Re8

When choosing an opening one should be
acquainted with the potential tactical lines.
The rook move defends the "e7 bishop, but
it is not absolutely necessary, because the
white queen can be captured after 10 ... Qc7
11 Nf5? exf5!! 12 Qxe7 Re8.
Grandmaster Lilienthal suggests an interesting variation: 10 ... cXd4 11 NXd4 Nc5
12 Rdll Nxd3 13 Rxd3 Qc7 14 b3! Nd5
15 c4 Nf4 16 Bxf4 Qxf4 17 Radl. Black
comes through with a pair of bishops, but
the space advantage and pressure commanded
by White is more significant. 17 . . . Qc7
18 Nb5 Qc6 19 Nd6 b6? 20 Ngf5 I Bf6 21 Qe5 !!
and White stands better. If 21 ... exf5
22 QXf6! gXf6 23 Rg3+ Kh8 24 NXf7+
RXf7 25 Rd8+ ! and mate in two moves.
21 ... BXe5 22 Ne7+ Kh8 23 NXf7+ !
leads to a similar mate.
84

Ke8 19 BX e6 Bf8 20 Bc4 Black resigned.
As often happens, the defender's chances
in this example were all "behind the scenes".
11 c3 Qc7 12 Ne5 b6?
Randviir -
Flohr
Piirnu, 1947
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dXe4 4 NXe4
Nd7 5 Nf3 Ngf6 6 Ng3 e6 7 Bd3 Be7 8 0-0
0-0 9 c4 c5 10 b3 b6 11 Bb2 Bb7 12 Qe2
Re8 13 Radl Qc7 14 Bbl
A poor move. 12 ... cxd4 should have

been played. This would prevent 13 NXf7?
because of 13 ... KXf7 14 QXe6+ Kf8
15 Bc4 Ne5!!, (the defender must keep his
composure!) 16 Qxes Bd8!! and Black wins
material, as the rook on el is unprotected.
13Ne4!
Again White has to resist the temptation
to opt for the above variation. It still looks
attractive because if Black plays the seemingly
stronger 16 ... Bd6? in the last move of the
combination (instead of 16 ... Bd8/I) White
could win with a spectacular queen sacrifice:
17 Qxf6+!! (17 ... gXf6 18 Bh6+ etc.).
13 NXe4
Black does not really have a satisfactory
defence. The weakness of 12 . . . b6? is
best underlined in the following variation:
13 ... Nxe5 14 Nxf6+ ! BXf6 15 dXe5
Be7 16 Qe4. If 14 ... gXf6 is played here,
then White wins by 15 dXe5 f5 16 Qh5 and
17 Re3.
13 ... Bd7 is defeated by the simple 14
Ng5.
14 Bxe4 Bb7 15 BXh7+!
Now the weakness of f7 becomes clear,
but in a different way.
15 Kf8
15 ... Kxh7 is answered by 16 Qh5+
Kg8 17 Qxf7+ Kh7 18 Re3! and Black
cannot avoid mate.
16 Qb5 NXeS 17 dXeS Red8 18 BfS!
Here White takes too long to prtpare the

occupation of the outpost on e5 and Black
rules it out completely with his next move.
14 Qc6! 15 Net
White intends to ease the pressure on g2
with 16 f4 and 17 Nf3. This could have been
achieved more simply by 15 Rfel and 16
Qfl.
The following variation is interesting: 15
d5?! exds 16 cxd5 Nxd5 17 Rfel Nf4
18 Qfl Nh3+ ! 19 Khl QXf3! with advantage to Black.
15 Rad8 16 f4?
16 f3 was better. The text move weakens
the centre and king's wing.
16 cXd4 17 BXd4 eS! 18 NfS?
White answers Black's active defence with
a combination, which in turn founders on
Black's counter-combination. 18 fX e5 can
85
9 c5 10 c3 b6 11 NeS Bb7 12 f4
In the Pillsbury position there is a pawn on
e3 when f4 is played, but here the move
simply weakens the a 7-gl diagonal, in addition to the a8-hl diagonal being already
under Black's control.
12 ... cxd413 cxd4 NxeS!
The most radical solution to the knight
outpost problem! In an earlier game Flohr
had been unsuccessful with 13 ... Re8, as
White got an attack after 14 Be3 a6 15 f5!
14dXeSNg4!
be answered by 18 ... NXe5 19 Bxe5

Bc5+ 20 Khl RXdl 21 Qxdl Rxe5 and
Black is in an excellent situation with his
pair of bishops.
18 exd419 Qxe7
White captures with the queen not only
for aesthetic effect, but because he realizes
that 19 Nxe7+ would lose after 19 ...
RXe7! 20 Qxe7 Re8!, since 21 ... Rxel
threatens to win other minor piece. The
rook cannot be recaptured because of 22 ...
QXg2 mate.
19 g6!
Black puts up an extremely cool defence!
Now 20 QXd8 is followed not by 20 ...
RXd8? 21 Ne7+, but by 20 ... gXf5! and
the queen perishes far behind the front lines.
20 Nh6+ Kg7 21 Qxf7+ Kxh6 22 Rd3
A rook appearing on the third rank often
joins the attack with powerful effect, but the
situation is different here.
22 Nh5! 23 Rh3 Ndf6!
One always has to be on one's guard!
Now 23 ... Rxel?? doesn't work because
of 22 RX h5 + ! and White would win the
race for checkmate I
24 BXg6 hXg6 25 f5 gXf5 26 Nf3 Rg8
27 Rf2 Rg7 White resigned.
Grandmaster Flohr can conjure up some
very beautiful combinations from the seemingly quiet Caro-Kann Defence. This is
exemplified by the following game:
Yefseyev -
A remarkable pawn sacrifice which White

is obliged to accept. 15 Be4 is defeated by
15 ... Bc5+ 16 Khl Qh4, while after 15
Ne4 Qd4+ 16 Khl Rfd8 Black has an overwhelming positional advantage.
15 BXh7+ KXh7 16 QXg4 Qd4+ 17
Kbl Rac8 18 Nh5
18 Qe2 can be answered by 18 ... Qc4
19 Qf2 Qd3 !, with the threat 20 ... Rc2.
18 g6 19 Qb3 Rb8!
If the knight is captured, White has perpetual check. Black is not afraid of the double
check.
20 Nf6+ + Kg7 21 QeJ?
21 Qb3, preventing 21 . . . Rc2, was only
slightly better; after 21 . . . Rh4 22 Be3
Rch8! 23 Bgl Bc5! 24 Qg3 Qxb2 Black
would still get the upper hand.
21 Rc2!!
A powerful finish. White is unable to parry
the mating threats: 22 QXd4 loses to 22 ...
Flohr
Odessa, 1948
1 e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 Nc3 dXe4 4 NXe4 Nd7
5 Nf3 Ngf6 6 Ng3 e6 7 Bd3 Be7 8 0-0 0-0

9 Qe2
The early occupation of e5 was a possibility, e.g. 9 Ne5 c5 10 c3 cxd4 11 cxd4
Nd5? 12 Nh5 g6? 13 Bh6! gXh5 V 14.
BXh7 +!with a winning attack.
86

RX g2, and 22 Rgl to 22 . . . Qdl ! 23 Ne4
Bxe4 24 Qxe4 Qh5!
22 Qg3 Qd3! 23 QXd3 RXg2 24 Ng4
Rg X b2 + + ! White resigned.
Steinitz, who believed in the power of

defence, liked this seemingly passive manoeuvre. The bishop later proves to be quite
mobile.
16 Rfel Rac8 17 Bb4
Defence against attacks with an isolated

pawnond4
This middlegame position can develop
from the most varied openings, the Queen's
Gambit (Accepted and Declined), the NimzoIndian and the Tarrasch Defence, as well as
the Caro-Kann. We have already seen one
example of it in the Botvinnik-Flohr game.
The position is characterized by the knight
outpost on e5 supported by the isolated pawn
on d4, the bishop on g5, and a piece attack
on the K-side; from Black's point of view
by defensive positional manoeuvres and play
directed against the d4 pawn. It attracted
the attention of Steinitz, Nimzowitsch and
many other grandmasters. Black's correct
defence is more or less clear nowadays, but
before drawing any definitive conclusion, let
us have a look at a few examples.
Zukertort -
Steinitz
9th game of match series,

St. Louis, 1886
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 d X c4 S

e3 cS 6 BXc4 cxd4 7 exd4 Be7 8 0-0 0-0
9 Qe2 Nbd7 10 Bb3 Nb6 11 Bf4 NbdS 12
Bg3
In his textbook, Lasker objects to Zukertort's haphazard play. But the handling of
this extremely complicated position was not
at all clear in those days. Indeed, Lasker
himself was unable to come to grips with the
difficulties of the position fifty years later.
12 QaS 13 Rael Bd7 14 Ne5 Rfd8
15 Qf3 Be8
87
17 ... NXc3!
This exchange, which we have already
seen in the Botvinnik-Flohr game, is important for the defence.
18 b X c3 Qc7 19 Qd3 NdS!
This exchange manoeuvre is one of the
typical methods of defence in this position.
20 BXe7 Qxe7 21 BXdS
Lasker also condemns this exchange but
Zukertort is after forcing moves and an
attack.
21 RXdS 22 c4 Rdd8 23 Re3
Throwing the rook in on the third rank is
a typical attacking procedure. But here
Black's K-side is solid, so the attack is not
sufficiently prepared strategically, and White
does not command the necessary supremacy
on this wing. The weakening of the back
rank is also a drawback of the rook manoeuvre and gives opportunities for counterplay.
23 Qd6 24 Rdl f6 2S Rb3 b6 26 Ng4
Qf4! 27 Ne3 Ba4! 28 Rf3 Qd6 29 Rd2 Bc6!'
30 Rg3 rs 31 Rg6 Be4 32 Qb3 Kh7!
This forces White's next move, which
would be a good one if Black had played
32 ... f4?.

The above game exemplified bad defence.
As a contrast, the next one will be an example
of weak attack and good defence.
33 Rg3? is bad because of the fork 33 ...

f4.
33 c5 RXcS 34 RXe6 Rel+ 35 Ndl Qf4!
36 Qb2 Rbl 37 Qc3 Rc8! 38 Rxe4 Qxe4!
White resigned. His last move was a trap:
38 ... fxe4? 39'Qxc8 Qxd2 followed by
40 Qf5 + and perpetual check.
As we mentioned, the pros and cons inherent in this position were so complex that
they were not clearly evident even to the grandmasters who took part in the 1936 Nottingham Tournament. Here are two examples.
Botnnnik -
Lasker -
Reshevsky
Nottingham, 1936
1 d4 d5 2 c4 d X c4 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5
Bxc4 c5 6 Nc3 a6 7 0-0 b5 8 Bd3 cXd4 9
e Xd4 Bb7 10 BgS Be7 11 Qe2
In the tournament book, Alekhine recommends a radical approach: 11 BXf6 Bxf6
12 Be4.
11 0-0 12 Radl Nbd7 13 Ne5
This move only looks like an attacking
one, says Alekhine. Both the immediate 13
Bel Nd5 14 Ne4 and 13 Rfel together with
14 d5! and a simplifying manoeuvre were
better.
13 Ncl5!
Again, one of the key moves of the defence.
14 Bel Nxc3! lS bXc3 Nf616 a4
In order to revitalize White's passive centre
after 16 ... bXa4 by 17 c4. Alekhine recommends 16 f4, saying that White is forced to
attack in view of the many weaknesses in his
position.
16 QdS! 17 Nf3
Now 17 f4 can be answered by 17 b4!
A frequent occurrence: the d4 pawn
would be taken with check!
17 ... Rfc8! 18 Bb2 Ne4! 19 Rel
If 19 axb5 aXb520 Bxe4QXe4, then 21
QXbS? loses to 21 ... Ba6!, while the endgame is a technical win for Black after the
exchange of queens.
19 Ng5! 20axb5aXb521BXb5NXf3+
22 gXf3 QgS+. White resigned, because
his queen will be lost after 23 Khl Qg4 !
In our next exampl~ Black has come
through the opening phase with a position
practically identical to the one above. Black's
pieces work smoothly together in solving
the strategic problems.
Vidmar
Nottingham, 1936
The simplifying 12 . . . Nfd5 I was the
correct move here, on the evidence of the

foregoing examples. In his collection of
selected games, Botvinnik points out that
the response to 13 Bc2 would be 13 . . . g6 !
with the threats 14 ... Nb4and 14 ... Bxg5,
while 13 Be3 could be met by 13 ... Nxc3;
the rationale of this move is already fairly
familiar to us: 14 bXc3 Ba4. But the actual
game went as follows:
12 NbdS? 13 NeS! Bc6 14 Radl Nb4
15 Qb3! BdS 16 NxdS NbXdS
Here too, 16 ... NfXdS was better.
17 f4! Rc8 18 rs exfs 19 Rxfs Qd6 20
NXf7!! Rxf7 21 BXf6 Bxf6 22 RXdS
Qc6 23 Rd6 Qe8 24 Rd7 Black resigned.
The game was awarded a brilliancy prize.
88
Taimanov -
Lipnitsky
yet, owing to White's K-side attack. We have

encountered this pawn move often before.
20 Rdt bXc3 21 BXc3 NdS
The d5 square seems to serve as a springboard for the black pieces. 22 ... Nf4 is now
threatened.
20th U.S.S.R. Championship, 1952
22 Bd2 BgS!
The position will be further simplified

after the virtually unavoidable exchange of
bishops. It is increasingly difficult to see a
successful attack for White, but Black
threatens more and more to penetrate down
the c-file with his rook.
23Rg3
23 Qh5 is not dangerous because of the
simple 23 ... h6.
Now, Black could have secured the better
game by 23 ... BXd2! 24 QXd2 Qh4.
14 NfdS! 15 Bet
One of the reasons for saving the bishop
is that the f4 square would be weakened if
the bishops were exchanged, and . . . Nf4
would then be threatened.
15 NXc3! 16 bXc3 Rc8
We already know that the exchanges
favour Black.
The c3 pawn left on the open file is the
weak point in White's position instead of the
d4 pawn. Should Black succeed in exchanging the knights and the white square
bishops, the endgame could hardly be saved
by White. We also know that the apparent
reinforcement of the d4 pawn by its comrade
on c3 is only transient: Black can isolate the
d-pawn again by playing . . . b4 !
17Rd3
An attempt to eliminate the weakness of
the c3 pawn by the immediate 17 c4 is not
good positionally, and it also fails tactically:
17 ... bXc4 18 NXc4 Bxg2! and 19 ...
QdS+.
17 ... NdS
The knight is not only attacking c3 but is
also ready to defend the king's wing.
18 Bd2 Nf6
Now White's attack poses no threat, since
Be4 can be played if needed.
19 Rb3 b4!
Black cannot exchange any minor pieces
Keene - Miles
Hastings, 1975/76
This is an example of the correct handling

of the attack. The position developed out of
the Semi-Tarrasch Defence, where, according
to theory, the move ... Nc6-b4 is not
absolutely satisfactory. The continuation was:
14 Re3!! g6
The threat was 15 BXf6 BXf616 BXh7+ I
KXh7 17 Qh5+ Kg8 18 Rh3 with unavoidable mate. The defender cannot generally
avoid the weakening ... g6 move.
Another point of interest here is that after
89

and Black's is initiative on the queen's wing.
Indeed, the American grandmaster Marshall looked for the solution to the position's
strategic problems with the move Rae 1
followed by e3--e4. But the d4 and d5 pawns,
immobilized in the centre, make the implementation of such a scheme rather difficult.
Should White play e3-e4, his pawn superiority comes to an end on the K-side and
his d4 pawn becomes isolated. The situation is
similar if Black plays ... ~5.
For this reason, another strategic plan was
sought for White, and the system relating to
this is called the "minority attack". After the
completion of his development, White advances his b-pawn to b5, in order to give Black
a weak, backward pawn on an open file by
playing b X c6 (Black created a similarly weak
pawn in previous examples with the ...
Nd5 x c3 exchange!). If Black captures on b5
with ... c X b5 his d5 pawn will be considerably weakened. This is, therefore, an attack
not against the king, but against weak points.
When this variation first appeared in
tournament practice, it was believed that
Black could look for counter-chances on the
opposite wing. This, as normally happens
with play on both sides of the board, leads
to a very sharp game. According to current
theory, however, White is able to repel the
attack and then realize his own aims on the
Q-side.
In the following, the defender has just
enough for a draw.
14 ... Ng4 15 Bxe7! Nxe3 16 Bxh7+ !

Black, far' from winning the exchange, loses
both his queen and the game.
, 15 Rg3 Rc8?
It was better to move the b4 knight, now
virtually out of play, back into the defence.
According to grandmaster Keene, after 15 ...
Nc6 16 Bh6 Qxd4!? 17 Qxd4 Nxd4
18 BXf8 White acquires only minimal advantage.
16 Bh6 Re8 17 a3 Nc6
The counter-attack against the d4 square
is too late. A classical "destructive" sacrifice
follows, the elimination of the pawns defending the king.
18 NXg6!! hXg6 19 BXg6 fXg6
19 . . . Bd6 is no good because of 20
Bxf7++ ! Kxf7 21 Rg7+ Kf8 22 Qf3!,
while 19 .. Bf8 fails to 20 Bc2+ Kh8 21
Bxf8 RXf8 22 Qd2 Ng8 23 Rh3+ Kg?
'24 Rh?+ Kf6 25 d5!.
20 Qbt!!
This quiet move is the point of the double
sacrifice. Black's "atoning" sacrifices can no
longer help.
20 NeS 21 dxeS Ne4 22 Nxe4 Kh7
23 Nf6+ Bxf6 24 Qxg6+ Kh8 25 Bg7+
White won.
Defence against the minority attack

While the previous type of attack can
develop from a number of openings; the
introductory moves of the minority attack
(1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Nbd7 5 e3 c6
6 c X d5 e X d5) are more or less fixed. This
Exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit
results in a characteristic pawn structure in
the centre, which cannot really be modified.
White commands three pawns on the queen's
wing against four black pawns, and the
picture is the reverse on the K-side. This
could suggest that White's one and only
correct strategic plan is activity on the K-side
Flohr -
Ragozin
Moscow - Leningrad, 1939
(See Diagram on the next page.)
90
Trifunovic - Pirc
Saltsjobaden, 1948
The last moves were 22 b4 g5. Instead of

defending the queen's wing, Black launches a
counter-attack on the K-side. There followed:
23 Qb2 rs 24 a4 Rb6
Throwing the rook into attack in this way
is similar to the Rdl-d3-h3 manoeuvre
seen in the last chapter.
25 b5 axb5 26 axb5 Qf6 27 bXc6 bXc6
28 Ral Rf8 29 Ra8 f4! 30 e Xf4 Q Xf4 31 Nf3!
Seemingly an oversight, but in reality an
interesting tactical solution.
31 g4 32 Qd2! Qf6
32 ... gxf3 33 QXf4 RXf4 34 RXc8+
also gives a drawish endgame. Black attempts
to maintain the attack.
33 Ng5 Bf5 34 RXf8+ KXf8 35 BXf5
QXfS 36f3?
36 Qb4+ followed by 37 Re5! was better.
Now Black again gets counter-play.
36 Rg6! 37 Re5 Qbl + 38 Kf2 Rf6
39 Rel QfS 40 Re5 Qbt 41 QaS Kg8 42 Qa8+
Drawn.
Since this method is full of risks, and is
based merely on tactical elements, other
been sought. First of all
.defences have
.
it was estabhshed that with this pawn structure, the exchange of the white square
bishops is advantageous for Black.
A peculiar knight manoeuvre was found
for this purpose, one which some authorities
attribute to Stahlberg.
91
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 BgS Be7 S e3

0-0 6 Rel Nbd7 7 Nf3 c6 8 Qc2 Re8 9 a3
a6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 Bd3 Nf8 U 0-0 g6!
13 Na4 Ne6 14 Bh4 Ng7 1S NcS Nd7 16
BXe7 RXe717 b4 Nb6 18 a4 BfS!
The black queen's knight gets onto c4
after the exchange of the bishops and reduces
pressure against the c6 pawn.
19 Nd2 Bx d3 20 Q Xd3 NfS Drawn.
The knight's walkabout ... Nb8-d7-f8-e6g7-f5-d6 finally leads to the control of c4
b5 and e4. Now 21 b5 is dubious because of
21 ... cxb5 22 axb5 a5 when Black finishes
up with a passed pawn.
Final position:
Black can occupy c4 in other ways as well,

as shown in the next example.
Pachman -
Averbakh
Saltsjobaden, 1952
Black .weakens his c6 pawn deliberately,
but White cannot take advantage of the
situation.
16 b5! 17 Rfcl Re6

It is important here to have the pawn
defended by the rook from the side, since
with the latter on the back rank White could
capture on b5 or d5.
18 Qb2 BXf319 BXf3 Nb6 20 Ra3
Black can completely neutralize the c-:file
by playing ... Nc4 and then perhaps get some
play on the a-file. White prevents this.
20 Ree8 21 RXa8 RXa8 22 Rat Qd8
23 b3 Drawn.
Grandmaster Portisch adopted yet another
method at a Havana tournament.
Black accepts the weakness of the isolated

d5 pawn rather than a backward pawn on c6.
The occupation of the e4 square gives Black
counterplay.
15 dXc5 Nxc5 16 Rael Nce4 17 Qb2 Be6
and the game was drawn after mutual complications.
As always the attacker, as well as the
defender, had to pay attention to the peculiarities of the actual position. Stereotyped play
can easily lead to difficulties.
Pacbman - Ragozin
Donner -
Portisch
Saltsjobaden, 1948
Havana, 1964
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5
5Bg5
Ex-World Champion Petrosian sometimes
prefers S Bf4 here.
5 c6 6 e3 h6 7 Bh4 Be7 8 Qc2 ~ 9 Bd3
Nbd710 Nf3
White can follow a very different strategy:
10 Nge2 and 0-0-0; he can then aim at a
quick K-side attack with g2-g4 as in the 32nd
game of the Alekhine-Capablanca match
for the World Championship title 10 Re8
11 ~ Ne4 12 Bxe7 Qxe7 13 b4 Ndf6
14 b5 cS!
White's 17 b5? was unexpectedly followed

by the avoidance of the exchange by way of
17 .. c5! There followed: 18 dXc5 Nxc5
It becomes clear that taking the pawn is
92
Defence against Some Typical Atcks

not on now because of 19 Q X d5 BX c3 !
20 QXe6 N X e6 and the c3 bishop is defended.
After the queen's move, the initiative passes
to Black. 19 Qfl d4! 20 e X d4 BX d4 21 Rel
QfS and White was able to hold the balance
only with difficulty.
Following the teachings of the Soviet master Zhdanov, whose examples we have been
using in part, we will now summarize the
defender's possibilities:
1. Black can launch a counter-attack on the
king's wing, but this is rather risky.
2. He can exchange the bishops which
control the white squares and then occupy c4
with a knight (via b6 or d6).
3. He can prevent the b5 breakthrough by

playing ... b7-b5, and then also neutralize
the resulting weakness on c6 by positioning a
knight on c4.
4. He can answer b4-b5 with . . . c6-c5,
accepting the isolation of the d5 pawn.
When applying methods Nos. 2-4, Black
should also consider the feasibility of opening .
up the a-file by playing ... a7-a6 before
White's b4-b5 move (or perhaps . . . a 7-a5
even earlier), since this would force the preparatory a2-a4 or a2-a3.
93
Postscript. Methodological Recommendations

Any move on the chess board involves a
certain modification of the relationship
between the pieces. The positions that have
developed need first to be evaluated (static
evaluation), and then we should plan certain
moves or sequences of moves on the basis of
that evaluation. Finally we should again
evaluate the position that would develop
after the execution of our plan. This is particularly important in defence, when one wrong
move may bring fatal conseqences. Playing
over our examples will assist beginners and
advanced players alike in seeing more, and
better, possibilities. The comparison of the
examples and counter-examples will increase
their ability to evaluate positions correctly.
It is best first to evaluate the positions
given in this book independently then to plan
for 5-10 minutes how we might continue in
the role of the attacker or defender. The
actual continuation of the game should
only be examined afterwards.
We have exercised caution in laying down
rules and principles, since the same move,
the same manoeuvre or procedure could be
appropriate in one position and a decisive
error in another one. The same method can be
used by the defender or the attacker. The
94
attacker may aim at simplification in order to

arrive at a won endgame, or the defender might
also do this to lessen the pressure on him.
It would be ideal if the chess player were
able to analyse each position and evaluate all
the possible variations during the actual game.
This is of course impossible during tournament games with time limits, or in extremely
complicated situations.
These are the times when the examples of
typical attacks and defences stored up in our
minds can help us a lot. These will develop
the chess player's instincts, the sensing of
danger and crisis, which is so important from
the point of view of the defender. It helps the
player in coming to relatively quick conclusions regarding the most essential and decisive factors in a position.
Therefore, even though we have attempted
to systematize and analyse the material
examined, our book is chiefly a thesaurus of
examples. It does not intend to teach, but
to call attention to the conscious application
of certain methods.
We believe that if we have succeeded in
achieving this more modest aim, we have also
contributed to the readers' appreciation of
chess quite considerably.
Bibliography
Bachmann, L.: Schachmeister Steinitz. 2nd ed., 1928.
Baranov, B. F.: Storming the Royal Fortress. Moscow, 1971, 2nd ed. 1981.
Bondarevsky, I.: Attack against the king (Russian). Moscow, 1962.
Coles, R. N.: Dynamic Chess. New York, 1966.
Crusi More, R.: Ataques sobre el enroque. Madrid, 1975.
Euwe, M. and Kramer, H.: Das Mittelspiel. Hamburg, 1958.
Fine, R.: The Middle Game in Chess. London, 1953.
Hannak, J.: Der Michelangelo des Schachspiels. Vienna, 1936.
Kagan, B.: Maroczy's hundert Schachpartien. Berlin, 1921.
Kan, I.: Defence in the Chess Game. Moscow, 1957.
Kan, I.: The Defence. 2nd ed. Moscow, 1965.
Keres, P.: Defence of difficult positions. (Russian) Chess in the U.S.S.R. 1964.
Kmoch, H.: Die Kunst der Bauernf'Uhrung. Berlin, 1956.
Kmoch, H.: Die Kunst der Verteidigung. Berlin-Leipzig, 1927.
Kotov, A.: Alekhine's chess legacy (Russian). Moscow, 1958.
Kotov, A.: Selected games (Russian). Moscow, 1962.
Lasker, Em.: Common Sense in Chess. New York, 1895.
Lasker, Em.: The textbook of chess (Russian). 5th ed. Moscow, 1937.
Levy, D. N.: Sacrifices in the Sicilian. 2nd ed. London, Batsford, 1980.
Lionnais, le, F.: Les Prix de Beaute aux Echecs. 2nd ed. Paris, 1962.
Lipnitsky, 0.: The problems of modem chess theory (Russian). Kiev, 1956.
Lisitsin, G.: Strategy and tactics of chess (Russian). 2nd ed. Moscow, 1958.
Moran, P.: Pillsbury, el genio de/ ataque. Madrid, 1973.
Millier, H.: Angriff und Verteidigung. Berlin, 1960.
Miiller, H.: Das Zentrum in der Schachpartie. Amsterdam, 1963.
Nimzowitsch, A.: "Should we attack or defend?" (Hungarian). Magyar Sakkvilag, 1929.
Nimzowitsch, A.: Mein System. Berlin, 1925.
Pachman, L.: Moderne Schachstrategie. Prague-Berlin, 1958.
Pachman, L.: Moderne Schachtaktik. Prague-Berlin, 1961.
Panov, V.: Attack in the game of chess (Russian). Moscow, 1953.
Paoli, E.: Strategia e tattica sulfa scacchiera. Milan, 1953.
Paoli, E.: The Art of the Combination in Chess. Milan, 1979.
Reinfeld, F.: How to Fight Back. New York, 1955.
Romanovsky, P.: The middle game, 1-Il (Russian). Moscow, 1961-1963.
Samarian, S.: Despre aparare. Revista de Sah, 1963-1964.
Snosko-Borovsky, E.: Das Mittelspie/ im Schach. Hamburg, 1958.
Sokolsky, A.: Pawns in movement (Russian). Moscow, 1962.
Spielmann, R.: Richtig opfern! Leipzig, no date.
Suetin, V.: The middle game in chess (Russian). Minsk, 1961.
Tartakower, S.: Schachmethodik. Berlin, 1929.
Voltchok, A. S.: The Strategy of the Attack against the King. Kiev, 1980.
Vukovic, V.: The Art of Attack in Chess. London, 1965.
95
Index of Players
Alekhine 16, 19, 35, 69
Averbakh 40, 76, 91
Bellin 57
Biyiasas 68
Blackburne 72
Boleslavsky 43
Botvinnik 26, 64, 88
Broadbent 59
Burn 70
Charousek 27
Chigorin 10, 75
Cooper 83
Danyushevsky 31
Doda 76
Donner 92
Duras 33
Euwe 21
Filip 11
Fischer 66
Flohr 26, 85, 86, 90
Furman 53
Geller, A. 34
Geller, E. 40, 43, 49, 59
Gereben 40, 54
Grigoriev 24, 25
Hollis 73
Kan 44, 74
Karpov 18
Keene 89
Keres 23, 55
Kholmov 76
Kluger 38
Konstantinopolsky 25
Korchnoi 26, 49
Kotov 55
Krogius 65
Kupper 67
Larsen 79
Lasker 74, 88
Leonhardt 46
Lilienthal 84
Lipnitsky 57, 89
Lyublinsky 64
Malich 80
Marco 81
Mar6czy 27
Marshall 16, 35
Mason 10
Matulovic 78
Miles 79, 89
Nacu 41
Niemela 45
Nienarokov 24
Nunn 83
Ozsvath 38
Ohlenschlager 82
Pachman 91, 92
Panov44
Paoli 80
Pietzsch 78
Pillsbury 81
Pirc 91
Portisch 13, 92
Ragozin 90, 92
Randviir 84, 85
Reshevsky 21, 69, 74, 88
Reti 19
Romanovsky 25
Rotlevi 70
Sardarov 40
Sawadkouhi 82
Schlechter 75
Schmid 67
Schwarz 72
Schweber 66
Sliwa 76
96
Index of Players
Smyslov 23, 47
Sokolsky 36
Sorensen 73
Spassky 34, 53
Spielmann 33, 46. 54
Stahlberg 11
Stean 68
Stein 18, 65
Steinitz 52, 87
Szab6 26
Szilagyi, P. 41
Taimanov 89
Tal47
Teschner 13
Tolush 25, 36, 45
Trifunovic 91
Uhlmann 78
Unzicker 74
Vidmar 88
Yefseyev 86
Yevtifeyev 31
Zukertort 87
97
Printed in Hungary, 1984

Franklin Printing House, Budapest
DEFENCE
&COUNTERATTACK
In this textbook the author, a leading Hungarian
Master, examines the principles of defence against
a variety of common attacking themes. He then
goes on to discuss how to recognise when a
successful count~r-attack may be launched. The
theoretical sections.are illustrated by the inclusion
of numerous positions and games from master play
Orders to
KULTURA
Budapest 62, P. 0 . 8. 149
H- 1389
- - --
'

Florian, Tibor - Defence and Counter-Attack 1983

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Florian, Tibor - Defence and Counter-Attack 1983

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TIBOR FLORIAN

Defence and Counter-Attack

PERGAMON CHESS SERTRS

ALEXANDER, C.H. O'D. & BEACH, T. J.

Translated by Sandor Eszenyi

Tibor Fl6rian, 1965, 1983

Defence and Counter-Attack

and defence. The leading chess players of

The maturing process whereby a fiery

Defence and Counter-Attack

Ever since Steinit7., defence has had a

World Cham.pionhip was:

Lasker. He, along with Tarrasch and all of

Different Kinds of Defence

Although we have regarded defence, in the

Defence and Counter-Attack

weaknesses developed in the course of his

Different Kinds of Defence

at the time the attack is launched, we must

Defence and Counter-Attack

book discusses possible methods of defence

It follows from Steinitz's teaching and the

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0

The outlines of Black's impending attack

Defence and Counter-Attack

The above position arose after White's

Be Prepared! :Preventive Deien<!e

10th Olympiad, Helsinki, 1952

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 Bb4 S cXd5

The position here being more or less equal,

Defence and Counter-Attack

18 b5 19 Nf3 Nc6 20 Qd2 f6 21 exf6

The Principle of Maximum Difficulty

Defence and Counter-Attack

would deprive the opponent's king of the

The Principle of Maximum Difficulty

Defence and Counter-Attack

16 Re8 17 exf7+ Kxf7 18 Qdl?

The Principle of Maximum Difliculty

Otherwise the bishop is exchanged off

The other passed pawn falls too, and the

Defence and Counter-Attack

Further proof that the best antidote

The Principle of Maximum Difficulty

Defence and Counter-Attack

27 f6! 28 Rael Rg7! 29 Be4 RXd4

Defence of Attacked Castled Positions

When both players castle on the same side

The second follows logically from the

Avoid those weakening pawn moes !

Defence and Counter-Attack

While defence is principally a part of the

Defence of Attacked Castled Positions

White has superiority on the K-side, where

Defence and Counter-Attack

White's minor pieces are threateningly

defender changed roles until finally Black

Defence by moving the pawns

Defence of Attacked Castled Positions

contain concrete threats, one must be wary

White is threatening 17 Q X g7 mate.

White not only threatens 18 Nd7 but also

16 g6! 17 Nf3 fS!

Black is looking for counter-play. If the