Soviet Outcast - Grigory Levenfish PDF

Contents
Title Page
Publisher’s Foreword 3
Translator’s Preface 7
1 School and Student Years 9
2 The Master Title, Memorable Encounters 23

The Tournament at Carlsbad 24
St Petersburg 1914 46
3 First Tournaments in the Soviet Republic 53

The All-Russia Olympiad 53
Petrograd Championship 63
2nd USSR Championship 66
3rd USSR Championship 79
4th USSR Championship 82
4 The Years 1925-36 87

1st Moscow International 1925 87
2nd Moscow International 1935 119
3rd Moscow International 1936 143
5 My Best Achievements 163

Tournament with the Participation of Fine 163
The Match versus Botvinnik 177
6 The Pre-War Years 195

The Training Tournament 196
The Match versus Alatortsev 201
7 The Great Patriotic War 211
2
8 Some Games of Recent Years 213
Translator’s Postscript 220

Appendix – Additional Games 221
Pictures
Afterword by Jacob Aagaard – One Hundred Years Later 257
Candidates 268
Long variation – Wrong variation 274
Rook endings 280
Tournament and Match Record of Grigory Levenfish 287
Crosstables from Key Events 289
Index of Opponents (Levenfish playing White) 294
Index of Opponents (Levenfish playing Black) 296
Selected books authored or edited by Levenfish 298
Name Index 299
3
Chess Classics
Soviet Outcast
The Life and Games of Grigory Levenfish
By
Grigory Levenfish
Quality Chess
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk
First English edition 2019 by Quality Chess UK Ltd

Originally published in Russian in 1967 as “Izbrannye Partii i Vospominaniya”
Copyright © 2019 Quality Chess UK Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior permission of the publisher.
Paperback ISBN 978-1-78483-085-4

Hardcover ISBN 978-1-78483-086-1
All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd,

Suite 247, Central Chambers, 11 Bothwell Street,
Glasgow G2 6LY, United Kingdom
Phone +44 141 204 2073
e-mail: info@qualitychess.co.uk
website: www.qualitychess.co.uk
Distributed in North and South America by National Book Network

Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through
4
Sunrise Handicrafts, ul. Szarugi 59, 21-002 Marysin, Poland
Translated and collected by Douglas Griffin

Editorial notes by Yuri Brazilsky
Typeset by Jacob Aagaard
Proofreading by John Shaw & Colin McNab
Photos courtesy of Alexander Kentler & Ilan Rubin
Cover design by Carole Dunlop and Jason Mathis
Epigraph
In youth the years stretch before one so long that it is hard to realize that they will ever pass, and even
in middle age, with the ordinary expectation of life in these days, it is easy to find excuses for delaying
what one would like to do but does not want to; but at last a time comes when death must be
considered. Here and there one’s contemporaries drop off. We know that all men are mortal... but it
remains for us little more than a logical premise till we are forced to recognize that in the ordinary
course of things our end can no longer be remote... I have long thought that it would exasperate me to
die before I had written this book.
Somerset Maugham, ‘The Summing Up’
Key to symbols used

² White is slightly better
³ Black is slightly better
± White is better
µ Black is better
+– White has a decisive advantage
–+ Black has a decisive advantage
= equality
© with compensation
„ with counterplay
ƒ with an initiative
÷ unclear
? a weak move
?? a blunder
! a good move
!! an excellent move
!? a move worth considering
5
?! a move of doubtful value
™ only move
# mate
6
Publisher’s Foreword
Levenfish seen from the 21st Century
It is over a decade since we initiated the Classics series. Back then it was not our ambition to release as
many books as we have done in the series. Actually, the main goal was to translate into English
Lipnitsky’s masterpiece Questions of Modern Chess Theory. When we started working on a new
translation of My System, we had a discussion about what to do with analytical mistakes in old books.
None of us liked the way some others had inserted computer lines continuously in older books, pointing
out mistakes. It ruined the flow of the books and felt condescending towards the great chess writers of
the past. We never believed that someone was picking up these books expecting 21st-century accuracy
in the analysis. Rather, they were looking at the books as historic documents and a way of thinking that
was different from the move-move-move obsession of pressing the spacebar and thinking you are
actually understanding chess.
Our approach became to add some endnotes to the text to the moments where the computer’s
discoveries were interesting and could tell us something about a better way to think about chess, or
simply where they were fascinating. I have sought to do the same with the article you can find on page
257 of this book.
What our original thinking did not take into account is that some classic manuscripts would come to us
with corrections from other editors (like Maxim Notkin’s additions to Geller’s analysis in our recent
publication The Nemesis) or as with this book, from the translator and the original Russian editor Yuri
Brazilsky. We have chosen to keep their additions, though some chess corrections have been made to
Brazilsky’s notes. Some superscript numbers have also been added to highlight chess positions which I
have more to say about in my Afterword.
The book you have before you is very much the translator Douglas Griffin’s project, and we are
grateful that he has chosen to realize it with us. His love for the original book and the research to find
additional notes and additional annotated games by Levenfish makes this book what it is.
With its first game played more than a hundred years ago, this is to some extent a historical document,
but it is also a deeply personal account of playing chess and a great collection of games. We hope you
will enjoy reading it as much as we have enjoyed working on it.
Jacob Aagaard
Creative Director, Quality Chess
Glasgow, September 2019
7
Translator’s Preface
I first became interested in the story of Grigory Levenfish around 30 years ago, when playing through
the games of his 1937 match with Mikhail Botvinnik. Previously, he had been familiar to me only as
the co-author, with Vasily Smyslov, of a classic work on rook endgames. However, in 1986, Caissa
Books published a small booklet featuring the games of the Levenfish – Botvinnik match, with
translations of the contemporary annotations by the players from the magazine 64. I was of course very
familiar with the name of Mikhail Botvinnik, and was aware that by the mid-1930s he was already one
of the strongest players in the world, having shared 1st-2nd place in two of the greatest events of those
years – the 2nd Moscow International (1935) and Nottingham 1936. Yet here was a man who, in the
course of the 13 games of the 1937 match, managed to defeat Botvinnik no fewer than five times. To
put this in context, in the Moscow and Nottingham events, as well as in the 3rd Moscow International
of 1936 (where he finished 2nd, behind Capablanca) Botvinnik had lost only three times in 51 games.
Information on Levenfish was hard to come by in those distant, pre-internet days. I was limited to what
I could glean from Kotov and Yudovich’s work, The Soviet School of Chess, which featured his
magnificent victories v. Kan (9th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934/35) and Smyslov (17th USSR
Championship, 1949). Additional games found in the pages of Shakhmatnyi Byulleten and in some
older books such as Nimzowitsch’s celebrated My System helped complete the picture of Levenfish as a
player, but said very little about him as a person.
Further information about him had to wait until 2001, and the publication of Genna Sosonko’s Russian
Silhouettes. The closing chapter of that magnificent book is dedicated to Grigory Levenfish, and the
picture that emerges from it is of someone who was much more than just a very strong chessplayer.
Unlike many of his contemporaries in the Soviet Union, he was for many years essentially an amateur;
by profession he was a chemist, specializing in the production of glass. He held senior positions in
industry, and it was only when he was effectively forced to give up his work and concentrate on chess
that the full extent of his talent was revealed. From Sosonko’s portrait it became clear just why, despite
winning the Soviet Championship twice in the space of three years and drawing with Botvinnik in the
1937 match – thereby gaining the title of Soviet Grandmaster (only the second player to then hold the
title, after Botvinnik himself) – he was not selected to represent the USSR in the great AVRO
tournament of 1938. Unfortunately for him, the Soviet chess authorities had already put their faith in
Botvinnik, a representative of the post-Revolutionary generation, and someone with impeccable
political credentials. Levenfish, in contrast, was seen as one of the old guard, and his entire outlook on
life put him at odds with the Soviet system. Thus, he became something of an outcast.
Sosonko’s portrait featured extracts from Levenfish’s autobiographical work Izbrannye Partii i
Vospominanie (‘Selected Games and Reminiscences’) which was published in the USSR in 1967, some
six years after Levenfish’s death, and I determined to get hold of a copy of this book, as well as others
written by him, such as the tournament book of the 9th USSR Championship. When I discovered
Levenfish’s memoir had never been published in English, I decided to translate it myself, and the result
is Soviet Outcast.
8
In his memoir Levenfish describes in vivid detail the atmosphere of pre- and post-revolutionary Russia,
giving first-hand impressions of some of the most famous names in early-twentieth-century chess, such
as Lasker, Rubinstein, Alekhine and Capablanca – all of whom were personally known to him. Some of
the passages in the book stay long in the memory – descriptions of the hardships endured by players in
the first USSR Championship that took place in the difficult years of the Civil War, of idyllic trips to
the Caucasus and Crimea, of grim struggles for survival in the winter of 1941, when he nearly died of
exposure when travelling across country from the Urals to Kuibyshev. Unlike the short portrait in
Russian Silhouettes, his autobiography also features example of Levenfish’s play; included are his
annotations to 79 of his finest games. To these I have added a number of his games from other sources
– Soviet periodicals and tournament books – mostly with annotations by Levenfish himself. Additional
biographical material has been gained from material published by modern Russian chess historians
(notably Aleksandr Kentler on www.e3e5.com). Finally, this book includes a full listing of Levenfish’s
tournament and match record, and cross-tables from key events in which he participated.
It has long been an ambition of mine to see Levenfish’s memoir published in English, to bring the story
of this remarkable man to the wider audience that it deserves. I am grateful to Quality Chess for
allowing a personal ambition to be fulfilled.
Douglas Griffin
Insch, Aberdeenshire, Scotland
September 2019
9
Chapter 1
School and Student Years

[Translator’s note: In his book, Levenfish gives relatively little information regarding his earliest years.
However, an article by Aleksandr Kentler published on the website www.e3e5.com in 2011 allows
some of the details to be filled in. He was born as Gershlik Levenfish, on 27th March 1889, in the
Polish town of Piotrków (now Piotrków Trybunalski), in what was then the Russian Empire. His
parents were Yakov and Golda (née Finkelstein) Levenfish. As will be seen, he only became known by
the name Grigory following his baptism in the Russian Orthodox Church in 1913.]
***
My childhood years passed in Poland. Our family often moved from one town to another, which was
required by my father’s business. But he evidently did not possess the qualities of a businessman, and
concerns regarding sustenance fell on the shoulders of my mother. A teacher by profession, she was
forced to earn our bread by giving poorly-paid lessons.
When I was still very young, my mother moved to Lublin, to her sister. My father lived by his
business and only occasionally came to Lublin.
Lublin in those years was a quiet provincial town with little developed industry. A few ancient Polish
cathedrals was all it had by way of architecture. The adornment of the city was the extensive shady
town gardens, where on Sundays a regimental orchestra played.
I learned to play chess at the age of six from my father. I proved to be an able pupil; my father,
however, played poorly and soon began to lose to me. His pride suffered, and the home atmosphere
became tense. The chess duels brought upset to my mother and me alike.
It is not surprising that chess held no particular attraction for me at that time. I could have learned a
lot from my uncle, who was one of the strongest chessplayers of the city, but he was not interested in
playing with me.
As is well known, M.I. Chigorin passed his final days in Lublin. Here lived his family – his wife and
daughter.
The visits of Chigorin to his family provoked excitement among the local chessplayers. And although
at that time illness had already undermined Chigorin’s health, he always agreed to give simultaneous
displays. Chigorin’s opponents were three to four of the town’s strongest chessplayers. There was no
chess club, and the displays were arranged in the officers’ assembly. My uncle took part in the
meetings with Chigorin and always spoke with delight of the brilliant play of the Russian champion. He
particularly valued the correctness and attentiveness of Chigorin in joint analysis after the end of the
displays.
In the years of study at the gymnasium, my chess successes were not great. No kind of circle or club
was permitted – in the Lublin café where chessplayers gathered, entrance to pupils from the gymnasium
10
was strictly forbidden, and play took place in private apartments. There was no chess literature. In the
seventh year of school I saw a chess book for the first time – a mediocre translated textbook of Porteus
– while I only became familiar with Schiffers’ manual of self-tuition when I was in Petersburg. All the
same, in the gymnasium I was considered one of the strongest players.
The events of 1905* were reflected also in the mood of the schoolchildren. We decided to take the
1st May 1906 as a holiday, and only a small handful of pupils appeared for lessons. The authorities
avenged themselves for this demonstration and when issuing certificates of matriculation, deprived me
and the other participants of medals.
[*Translator’s note: A reference to the Russian Revolution of 1905, in which many thousands died or
were imprisoned at the hands of the Tsarist security forces. The resultant ‘October Manifesto’ led to the
creation of an Imperial Duma and a limited constitutional monarchy, paving the way for the adoption of
a new Russian Constitution of 1906.]
I finished the gymnasium in the year 1906. The Warsaw Polytechnical Institute – the only one in
Poland – did not have the best reputation, but it was only with difficulty that I persuaded my mother to
agree to allow me to travel to Petersburg, in order to take part in an entry examination for one of the
institutes of the capital.
In the summer of 1907 I went to Petersburg and successfully passed the exams for the mining, railway
and technological institutes. After mature reflection I settled on the chemical department of the
Technological Institute, one of the best in terms of the make-up of its professors. I had been attracted
by chemistry for a long time and had more than once poisoned the atmosphere of our apartment with
my experiments, provoking the justified complaints of my mother.
The irrationality of the ‘classical’ education that I had received immediately told. For technical
drawing and design I was completely unprepared. I had to work under a great deal of stress.
In my few free hours I wandered the streets. The magnificent palaces, the remarkable architectural
ensembles, the mighty Neva, the islands, the picturesque embankments, the hundreds of bridges – all
this made a staggering impression on me, a resident of a quiet province.
After the year 1905 the higher educational institutions gained a certain autonomy. In the assembly
hall of the institute there were often arranged gatherings, at which topical questions were discussed. A
separate outbuilding in the courtyard of the institute was made available to the student commission, and
there a canteen was set up. The canteen gave the hard-up students the possibility of making ends meet.
In this dining area there was also accommodated a chess circle, headed by a few enthusiasts. The space
at the tables was always overcrowded. We played for money – the stake was a ‘frank’ – 25 kopecks.
Sometimes tournaments were also arranged.
In the first year of my student life there was not enough time for chess. The chess circle of the
Technological Institute was considered to be one of the strongest in the city. The whole group of
students: Maltsev, Yakobson, Bomze, Panchenko, Smyslov – played approximately at first-category
strength. In 1908, when I became a regular attendee at the circle, V.O. Smyslov – father of the future
world champion – had already finished at the institute. I enthusiastically did battle with the best
chessplayers of the circle, paying them a ‘frank’ for the lesson. But in a few months I took a sharp step
forwards, and the ‘franks’ flowed back from the other side.
At that time chess clubs in Petersburg were short-lived on account of the absence of resources. Y.O.
11
Sosnitsky, by profession a dealer in second-hand books, had the idea of getting attached to the so-called
Financial and Commercial Assembly. Under this innocuous screen there flourished the largest card-
playing club in the capital, obtaining huge revenues from the games. Sosnitsky, being a member of the
club, proposed to its bosses that they ‘ennoble’ the gambling house, to this end providing for the chess
circle two large rooms, three times a week – free of charge. In 1907 the modest chess circle at the
Educators’ Assembly moved to new premises and was renamed the St Petersburg Chess Assembly. For
the first time the chess club was freed from financial difficulties and could occupy itself with the
development of chess life.
Significant events were planned. Influential Petersburg amateurs came up with the idea of perpetuating
the memory of Chigorin (he had died in Lublin in 1908) by organizing an international tournament.
This was not the first time that the chessplayers of the capital had arranged an event with the
participation of foreign masters. In 1893 a match was held there between Chigorin and Tarrasch, while
in 1895/96 the four strongest masters in the world – Lasker, Steinitz, Chigorin and Pillsbury – crossed
swords in a famous match-tournament. But on this occasion there was projected the first great
international tournament in Russia with the participation of ten foreign and ten Russian masters. In
addition, the strongest Russian amateurs would take part in a tournament, the first prize-winner of
which would achieve the title of Master.
To put in place two such important events, significant resources were required – approximately 8,000
gold roubles. The Petersburg Chess Assembly, numbering about a hundred members, could not gather
such a sum, and recourse to the help of patrons had to be sought. In chess circles there were a few rich
men; the Urals factory owner Prince Demidov San-Donato, the sugar-factory owner Tereshchenko, the
tobacco king, Bostanzholgo. However, they did not donate very much, while among the members of
the club no more than 1,500 roubles were gathered. The organizing committee sent out subscription
lists and an appeal across the whole country. The small-scale benefactors numbered over three hundred,
among them the composer Taneev, the student at the Conservatory, Prokofiev, Belavenets (father of the
future master) and the theoretician Khadrin. Provincial chess circles also subscribed. All of these
donations gathered a further 1,500 roubles.
A decisive role in the organization of the tournament was played by P.A. Saburov and Y.O.
Sosnitsky. The important functionary Saburov was a great lover of chess. In 1860, while secretary of
the Russian Embassy in London, he even played a match against Kolisch. The match was played until
six games had been won, with Saburov obtaining knight odds. Kolisch won six games in a row...
Saburov was well connected at the court. He succeeded in persuading the Tsar to repair his tarnished
reputation* by donating 1,000 roubles. As soon as this became well known, Sosnitsky easily convinced
the gentleman card-players of the necessity to demonstrate the loyal and cultural nature of their
personas. The club donated 4,000 roubles to the organization of the tournament, waived all fees and
made several halls available to the Assembly.
[*Translator’s note: A further reference to the events of 1905.]
On 1st February 1909 the opening of the International Tournament in Memory of M.I. Chigorin and the
All-Russian Amateurs Tournament was held.
Interest in the tournaments was enormous and attendance, by the standards of that time, was high.
12
The two great halls allocated for play were overcrowded. The entrance fees – one rouble – amounted to
1,700 roubles during the whole tournament. The press regularly covered the course of the battles. I was
often present at the tournament as an enthusiast. For the first time I saw the chess luminaries – Lasker,
Schlechter, Rubinstein and others, and watched their games with unwavering attention. In one of the
rooms, adjacent to the tournament halls, there hung a demonstration board, on which a particularly
interesting game was displayed. I recall the explanation of a game by one of the amateurs – the
Petersburg lawyer Bobrischev-Pushkin. His analysis was bad, but eloquent.
Lasker was then at the height of his power. He was 40 years old. He had just defended the title of
World Champion in a match against a serious opponent – Tarrasch. He began the tournament poorly –
he lost to Rubinstein and was on the verge of defeat against Freiman. But with what intensity and
assertiveness he began to make up for lost time! Heavyweight strategical games alternated with brilliant
combinational ideas. Lasker played with ease, without experiencing time trouble, and at the last
moment drew level with Rubinstein, sharing first prize with him.
The athletically-built Czech, Duras, had been considered one of the main competitors of Lasker. In
1908 in two international tournaments in Prague and Berlin he had taken first place. He also began the
tournament poorly, but conducted the final rounds excellently and shared third and fourth places with
Spielmann. For the 25-year-old Spielmann this result was the first great success of his career.
Schlechter and Teichmann played beneath their capabilities. An affliction of the right eye, which was
permanently covered by a patch, reduced the tournament successes of the outstanding German
grandmaster.
The sporting honour of Russia was defended by the champion of the country, Rubinstein, his teacher
Salwe, the Muscovites Bernstein and Nenarokov, Duz-Khotimirsky from Kiev, and Znosko-Borovsky
and Freiman from St Petersburg.
The expressionless face of Rubinstein was absolutely not in keeping with one’s idea of a chessplayer
of genius. Rather, he looked like the assistant in a small shop. But behind the low forehead were
concealed wonderful chess ideas. His game with Lasker is a pearl of chess art, while the endgames
against Schlechter, Spielmann and Cohn have entered the textbooks. Rubinstein led for the course of
the entire tournament. I was amazed by his exceptional stamina and calmness. At the most tense
moments of the chess duel it seemed that this was a man without nerves. Alas, this did not prove to be
so for long...
The good-natured Salwe had begun to play in tournaments only in the 41st year of his life and soon
achieved great successes. He was the spiritual leader of the Lódź Union of Chess Amateurs. A
remarkable practician, he was completely uninterested in bookish theory, which did not however
prevent him from raising a whole constellation of pupils – Rubinstein, Rotlewi, Daniuszweski and
others. In 1907 he had played in a tournament in the resort of Ostend. At the entrance of the
administration building, on the bottom step of the staircase there was carved the Latin inscription
‘Salve’ (welcome). Teichmann without particular difficulty convinced Salwe that the inscription was in
his honour, and the master from Lódź was very flattered by the attention paid to him by the Belgian
administration.
In Russia the principal rival to Rubinstein was considered to be Bernstein and he was expected to
take one of the first places. Bernstein only partially justified these hopes, taking fifth place. In his
meetings with the first four prize-winners he picked up 3 points, but he struggled in some games
13
against the lower-placed masters.
The sensation of the tournament proved to be the victories of Duz-Khotimirsky over Lasker and
Rubinstein.
In the amateurs’ tournament there were no famous masters, but for me it presented no less interest.
Alongside the experienced masters from Petersburg and the provinces there participated a group of
youngsters: Rozanov, Rotlewi, Daniuszweski and two still younger chessplayers – Alekhine and
Romanovsky. The youth achieved a decisive victory. Alekhine, who amazed the public with his fantasy
and combinational gifts, gained first prize and the title of Master. The second-prize winner, Rotlewi,
demonstrated mature positional play. Daniuszweski shared the fourth prize. I was present at the
tournament when Romanovsky defeated Alekhine in brilliant style. Even to the uninitiated it had
become clear that a talented new group was entering the chess arena.
On the Nevsky Prospekt, opposite the Kazan Cathedral there was situated the Dominika Restaurant.
Opened in 1841 by a certain Swiss citizen, the restaurant had several times changed proprietor, but had
retained the name of the first owner. In keeping with foreign customs, the Dominik offered one of its
rooms to chessplayers. The chess room of the Dominik played no little role in the history of Russian
chess, analogously to the famous Café de la Régence in Paris. Beginning in 1850, chess clubs had
several times come into being in Russia, but without exception they were made up of a group of a few
amateurs and, not having the means to pay for premises and maintenance personnel, they invariably
‘burned out’. But abroad, in contrast to Russia, it was very common to find cafés where in the evening
petty bourgeois, artisans, functionaries and white-collar workers sometimes gathered together to drink a
mug of beer, to listen to music, or to play chess or cards. The proprietors of the cafés willingly offered a
separate room for chess and on the basis of such cafés there arose clubs with their charters, chairmen,
secretaries etc. In Germany hundreds of such clubs developed interesting activity and many of them
facilitated the popularization of chess.
In Russia it was preferred to go to such places as guests, while visits to restaurants and taverns was
usually associated with a great deal of drinking. Modest leisure activities in evening cafés never held
great popularity among us. In Petersburg there was the Dominik, in Moscow the coffee-house Pechkin,
close to Theatre Square. In Kiev there was the Warsaw Café; in Odessa there was a club in the
confectionary Fankoni. These, perhaps, are all the known informal meeting-places for chessplayers
during the years 1850-1905. Somewhat later, around 1910, there appeared a serious competitor to the
Dominik – the Café Reuter on the corner of Sadovaya and the Nevsky, to which the majority of
Petersburg chessplayers migrated. The 1914 war also liquidated these chess oases.
At the Dominik games were played for money. For the pleasure of playing against well-known
masters, patrons agreed to ‘fork out’. The stakes were from three to five roubles, and the chess
professionals were very happy.
In 1909, when I arrived at the Dominik, I found there one of the ‘last of the Mohicans’ of the
Chigorin period – A.P. Shishkin. Tall, with a long grey beard on a haggard face, he sat in the restaurant
from three o’clock in the afternoon until three in the morning. A construction engineer by training,
Shishkin became a chess professional. He played at the strength of a first-category player, but he was
famous for his ability to give odds to weaker opponents to a greater degree than Chigorin or Schiffers,
and therefore there were very many who were keen to play him. I spent many evenings with Shishkin
14
and became closely acquainted with him. At one time, according to him, he had typically earned 50
roubles in a day at Dominik. But the days of golden money passed: the clientele reduced, and in 1909
the normal rate was a quarter of that. I somehow asked Shishkin how he contrived to give such great
odds. Shishkin confidentially informed me, “The soul of a show-off is dark, and I understand it very
well.” Shishkin died in the hungry years of the Civil War.
Superficially, the ambiance of the chess wing of the Dominik was not attractive. The tables drowned
in clouds of tobacco smoke. Players and spectators accompanied the course of the battles with noisy
commentary. Chigorin wrote in Shakhmatnyi Listok in the year 1876: “What strong nerves, what a
strong head the chessplayer playing at the Dominik must possess!” By chance the writer Kuprin
wandered into the chess room of the Dominik, and it made such an impression on him that he wrote
about it in the story ‘Marabou’.
At the time of the international tournament the owner of the restaurant singled out two large rooms
for the chessplayers. Rounds began at 11 o’clock in the morning, concluding in the afternoon, and in
the evening the participants could meet one another in the Dominik. On one occasion I found Lasker
and Vidmar there. They were playing blitz, the moves being played instantly. Lasker gave Vidmar, if
my memory is correct, rook odds – and won the majority of games, to the pleasure of the numerous
spectators. At an adjacent table the strong first-category player (according to modern terminology)
Potemkin was playing against the genial Eliashev. Play was accompanied by the amusing commentary
of Potemkin. Nearby, A.P. Shishkin was patiently earning his ‘franks’. For some reason I recall that a
constant visitor was the writer Ossovsky. During the games he could not quietly sit on a chair and the
whole time swung his body like a pendulum, back and forward. Think about the mechanical energy he
spent over the course of many hours! Less often, one could find the mathematical teacher Chebyshev-
Dmitriev, a decent first-category player, at the Dominik.
The international tournament revitalized the chess life of Petersburg. No sooner had it concluded than
the Chess Assembly arranged mixed tournaments for first- and second-category players, and I decided
to test my strength. Strong players took part in the tournament, among them some participants from the
All-Russian Amateurs Tournament. I was admitted as a representative of the chess circle of the students
from the Technological Institute. It was the first time that I had had to play with clocks, and I was really
quite uncertain before my first public entry onto the chess stage.
The draw paired me in the first round with the student of the Conservatory, Seryozha Prokofiev. The
city was already talking about the outstanding talent of this youth, who later became our famous
composer.
Music and chess have something in common. Philidor was an exceptional composer. One of his
compositions was performed in the 1930s by the Leningrad Hermitage Theatre. From modern
musicians, the lovers of chess may be said to be Prokofiev, Goldenweiser, Dopukhanov, Oistrakh,
Khaikin and Zak. S.S. Prokofiev retained a love of chess until the end of his life, attending important
events without exception and more than once on the concluding evenings captivating us with masterful
performances of his works. Unfortunately, serious illness prematurely undermined the health of
Prokofiev. In the autumn of 1952 we met one another in the street. After a serious stroke Prokofiev had
difficulty in getting about, and depended on a walking stick. “How is your health, Sergey
Sergeyevich?” – “Below par; the doctors have allowed me two hours to think and one hour to play, per
15
day.” A few months later, in March 1953, Prokofiev passed away.
The tournament went successfully for me; I took first place, picking up 12 points from 13 games. My
first encounter with Romanovsky proceeded curiously. At that time I willingly played gambits and
offered the MacDonnell Gambit.
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Nc3 gxf3 6.Qxf3 c6 7.0-0 Bh6 8.d4 b5 Romanovsky was clearly
not prepared for gambit play. 9.Bxf7† Kxf7 10.Qh5† Kg7 11.Bxf4 d6 12.Be5† Black resigned.
Second place was taken by the able electrical student Platz, third – by Romanovsky. The young players
played boldly and sharply.
The revival in the St Petersburg Chess Assembly continued. In November of 1909 a tournament of
six players was organized. In it I first crossed swords with masters. The tournament concluded fairly
successfully for me – I shared first-third places with Lebedev and Freiman. In this tournament the
following game was played.
GAME 1
Grigory Levenfish – Fedor Duz-Khotimirsky

St Petersburg 1909
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.Nc3 a6

A serious loss of time. Correct is 6...Be7.
7.Bxc6 Bxc6 8.Bg5
16
8...Be7
A mistake, leading to the loss of a pawn. It was possible to retain the pawn, continuing 8...exd4
9.Qxd4 Be7, but after 10.Rad1 0-0 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qh4 Qc8 13.Nxe5 Black has a difficult-to-defend
position.
9.dxe5 Nxe4
Or 9...dxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxd1 (or 10...Nxe4 11.Qxd8† Rxd8 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.Nxc6†) 11.Raxd1 Nxe4
12.Nxe4 Bxe4 13.Bxe7 Kxe7 14.Rfe1 Rhd8 15.Nd3.
10.Bxe7 Qxe7
Or 10...Nxc3 11.Bxd8 Nxd1 12.Bxc7 Nxb2 13.Bxd6.
11.Re1 d5
Still worse is 11...Nxc3 in view of 12.exd6 Nxd1 13.Rxe7† Kf8 14.Rxd1 cxd6 15.Rc7 Rd8 16.Ne5.
12.Nxd5 Qd7 13.c4 Nc5

On account of the opening mistake Black has lost a pawn. It would have been natural to expect from
White exchanges and transposition to an endgame. White, however, finds a way to rapidly decide the
struggle with a far-calculated sacrifice.
14.e6! Nxe6 15.Rxe6† fxe6 16.Ne5 Qd6 17.Qh5† g6 18.Nf6†

Not 18.Nxg6 in view of 18...exd5 19.Nxh8† Kd7 20.Qxh7† Qe7 with a drawn-out struggle.
18...Kd8
After 18...Ke7 decisive is 19.Qg5!.
17
19.Nxg6 Re8 20.Qxh7 Kc8 21.Nxe8 Bxe8 22.Qg8 Qd7 23.Ne5 Qe7 24.Rd1 Kb8 25.Rd7 Qb4
26.Qxe8† Ka7
27.Nc6†! bxc6 28.Rxc7† Kb6 29.Rxc6† Ka5 30.Qh5† Ka4 31.Qd1† Ka5 32.a3
1–0
The combination beginning at the 14th move pleased the jury (Alekhine, Lurye, Tereshchenko), who
recognized the game as the most beautiful in the tournament and awarded it the Chigorin prize, which
had been established for this event.
The Petersburg Chess Assembly continued to develop energetic activity, but in Petersburg there were
few titled chessplayers. Alapin was to be found in Germany most of the time, Duz-Khotimirsky
wandered between Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev, and Levin had effectively withdrawn from practical
play. There remained only E. Znosko-Borovsky. The title of Candidate Master did not exist, while of
the remainder the strongest were considered to be Lebedev and Freiman.
The situation was better in Moscow. Grandmaster Bernstein had moved there, Nenarokov was a
strong, solid master who had won a match against the young master Alekhine, and here lived the strong
first-category players Goncharov, Blumenfeld and some others.
The strongest was the Lódź group, headed by Rubinstein. There were no masters in Ukraine, but on
the other hand there had begun to advance an able group of youths – Bogoljubow, Verlinsky, Izbinsky,
List, Loran. In Warsaw the elderly Winawer had withdrawn from practical play, but the able Flamberg
had come forward. In Vilna (now Vilnius), chess life was directed by the master A. Rabinovich. He
operated as per the recipe of Sosnitsky: a chess club ‘ennobled’ a card-playing one and with the means
of the latter Rabinovich managed to put in place some interesting activities. A strong chess collective
was to be found in Riga: grandmaster Nimzowitsch, the brothers Betins, Lurje.
This small survey of chess life in the year 1909 is in need of clarification. Without exception, all of
the indicated clubs and circles had a small number of chessplayers, in the main of the property-owning
class and members of the intelligentsia. The number of members of the Petersburg Chess Assembly
18
was no higher than a hundred, and in other cities the numbers were still less. The main mass of the
population, occupied by heavy physical labour, had a very vague conception of chess.
Today our youth and schoolchildren, in Pioneers’ Houses and in clubs, obtain their chess tuition
under the direction of experienced trainers. The chessplayers of my generation were essentially self-
taught. Of course, we witnessed fortunate exceptions. The elder brother of P.A. Romanovsky
participated in the championship of the country, while the elder brother of Alekhine – the first-category
player Aleksei – carefully followed the play of Alexander. The Lódź chessplayers were well schooled.
In the great majority of cases, however, we had to seek out chess truths with our own minds, and this
somewhat slowed the growth in the number of Russian masters.
The directors of the Petersburg Chess Assembly, freed from concerns over premises and finances,
exerted considerable effort in order that the pulse of the chess life of the club should not weaken.
Tournaments, matches and simultaneous displays attracted many amateurs, especially students. To
determine which among these able chessplayers could grow to be masters – this was the task that the
organizers S. Znosko-Borovsky and B. Maliutin set themselves. My successes in mixed events, and in
the ‘Tournament of Six’ did not pass unnoticed by them. The games of the amateurs were reviewed by
Maliutin. He invited me to annotate a number of games. In this way, in 1910 my chess-literary activity
began. In January 1910 in the club, I gave my first simultaneous display.
Regularly visiting chess events, I got to know of most of the members of the club. My frequent
partner was Sergei Nikolaevich Freiman. His full title was Baron von Freiman, but there was nothing
‘baron-like’ in Sergei Nikolaevich. I recall that on first acquaintance he appeared to me as: ‘Freiman, a
student of the last century’, which corresponded to reality, since he had graduated from the Institute in
1899.
For success in chess, besides talent, one needs tenacity, strength of will and stamina. It was just these
qualities that Freiman did not have in sufficient quantity. Individual games or parts of games he
conducted magnificently, but then he would yield and suffer defeat. Thus, in the international
tournament he lost to Lasker a game that he had brought to a strategically winning position. His life as
a perpetual student is also explained by the weak-willed nature of this highly gifted chessplayer.
A great chess enthusiast was another baron – Rausch von Traubenberg, one of the strongest
chessplayers of the University. In him too there was nothing at all ‘baron-like’. When the war with
Germany began, he entered military school and was promoted to officer. After the Revolution Rausch,
finding himself in the ranks of the Red Army, showed himself to be a talented leader and gained the
title of Commandant. After demobilization he worked in the theatre and was awarded the title of
Honoured Artist.
A very interesting event was held in April of 1910. The Petersburg students called for a match with the
Chess Assembly. One member of the Assembly, the student Freiman, was allowed to play on the side
of the students. The Assembly mobilized all of its forces, and the match took place over 30 boards. It
concluded in the victory of the students. On first board Freiman won from Levin in good style. On the
second board I met with the master Znosko-Borovsky. I present this game.
19
GAME 2
Eugene Znosko-Borovsky – Grigory Levenfish

St Petersburg 1910
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nb5
A recommendation of Alekhine and Krause. White intends to fortify the centre with the move 8.c3.
However, the whole manoeuvre involves a loss of time and eases Black’s game. Modern theory
recommends 7.Qd2, or 7.f4.
7...Nb6 8.c3
Interesting complications are obtained after 8.a4 a6 9.a5 axb5 10.axb6 Rxa1 11.Qxa1 c6 12.Qa8 0-0
13.Qxb8 Qb4†.
8...a6 9.Na3 f6 10.f4 0-0

Much stronger is 10...fxe5, and in the case of 11.Qh5† Kd8 12.fxe5 Na4! White loses a pawn
without sufficient compensation. [Editorial note: After 13.Nc2 Nxb2 14.Nf3, as occurred in one of
Capablanca’s games, White has some compensation for the sacrificed pawn.]
11.Nf3 c5 12.Qd2 Nc6 13.Nc2 Bd7 14.Be2 Be8 15.0-0 Bg6
20
16.Bd3
Black intended to continue 16...Be4 and 17...f5, which White prevents. On 16.exf6 Black would have
replied 16...gxf6.
16...Nc4 17.Bxc4 dxc4 18.Ne3

18.d5 exd5 19.Qxd5† Kh8 20.Nce1 Bf7 did not promise anything good for White.
18...Bd3 19.Rf2 Rad8 20.exf6 gxf6 21.Re1?

Perhaps a decisive mistake. Essential was 21.dxc5 Qxc5 22.Re1 with a difficult, but defensible,
position.
21...cxd4 22.cxd4 Qd6

Black does not fall into the trap: 22...Nxd4? 23.Nxd4 Rxd4 24.Nf5
23.b3 b5 24.bxc4 bxc4 25.Qc3
21
White must lose the d4-pawn. The attempt to win the c4-pawn is refuted tactically.
25...Nxd4 26.Nxc4 Nxf3† 27.gxf3 Qc5!

Much stronger than 27...Qxf4.
28.Rc1 Bxc4 29.Kg2

It transpires that on 29.Qxc4 there follows 29...Rd1†! 30.Kg2 Rxc1.
29...Rf7
A continuation of the same idea. On 30.Qxc4 there follows 30...Rg7† and then 31...Rd1†.
30.Re2 Rg7† 31.Kh1
22
31...Bd5! 32.Qxc5 Bxf3† 33.Rg2 Rxg2 34.h4 Rc2†
0–1
This game created a sensation. It appeared in foreign newspapers. The Directors of the Chess Assembly
‘believed’ in me and decided at the first possibility to help me to gain the title of Master.
At the beginning of May 1910 at the striving of Aleksei Alekhine there was held a match between
Petersburg and Moscow, over nine boards. The Muscovites showed themselves to be good organizers
and hospitable hosts. The Petersburgers won by the score of 6–3. On first board the game Alekhine v.
Znosko-Borovsky concluded in a draw; on the second Freiman won from Blumenfeld; on the third I
encountered Selezniev.
GAME 3
Alexey Selezniev – Grigory Levenfish

Moscow 1910
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.Nc3 Bd7 6.d4 Be7 7.Re1 exd4 8.Nxd4 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6
10.b3
This method of development permits Black to seize the initiative.
23
10...d5 11.e5 Bb4! 12.Bd2 Ng4!
With the threats of 13...Qh4 and 13...Nxf2.
13.Nf3 Bc5 14.Rf1 f6 15.Na4 Bxf2†

A perfectly correct combination. The continuation 15...Be7 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Bc3 leads only to a level
game.
16.Rxf2 Nxf2 17.Kxf2 fxe5 18.Kg1 Bg4 19.Qe1 Bxf3 20.gxf3 Qf6
21.Qg3!
Selezniev defends tenaciously. By giving up a pawn, he escapes an immediate attack and directs the
24
play into an ending.
21...Qxf3 22.Qxf3 Rxf3 23.Re1 Raf8 24.Re2 R8f5?

An inaccuracy. Black has a small material advantage (rook and three pawns for two minor pieces),
but in the endgame the paramount role is played by the king. Correct was 24...R8f6 with the threat of
25...Rg6†. The exchange of rooks is favourable to Black, since his king becomes operational.
25.Nc5 e4 26.Be3
The white pieces have taken up active positions. The threat is 27.Ne6, and therefore Black transposes
into a rook endgame, but achieves no more than a draw.
26...Rxe3 27.Rxe3 d4 28.Rxe4 Rxc5 29.Rxd4 Rxc2 30.Ra4 c5 31.Rxa7 c4 32.b4 Rb2 33.Rxc7 Rxb4
½–½
I spent the summer of 1910 in an estate 25 kilometres from Vyazma, to which I had been invited by the
hospitable owners. Whole days were occupied by bathing, fishing and gathering mushrooms. I have
never known a better holiday. Unexpectedly, at the end of the summer I obtained a letter from the Vilna
chess club, proposing that I play a match against the local chessplayer List. The director of the club, A.
Rabinovich, knew of my successes from the press and had decided to arrange an event between the two
young representatives. I accepted the proposal.
The real surname of my opponent was Odes. He had only recently come to Vilna from Odessa. In
Odessa he had had misunderstandings with letters addressed to Odes in Odessa and he had decided to
go by the pseudonym ‘List’. This was how Odes himself explained it. He was in no way related to the
musician Liszt. It should be noted that the brewers of Vilna had beaten List to it. One factory was
named Chopin, a second – Tannhäuser, while a third was under the modest name Liszt. However, the
25
high quality of the ‘musical’ beer was not in dispute...
List had had a good schooling in chess in Odessa, in encounters with Verlinsky and Loran, and knew
the opening excellently. At the start of the match he had the advantage, but then I became comfortable
with his style and levelled the score. The games of the match are of little interest. The study year was
beginning, and with the score at 4–4 the match was recognized as drawn.
In the autumn of 1910 the Chess Assembly organized a major tournament in groups. 36 participants
were divided into four groups, from each of which two would qualify for the final. The results of the
encounters with masters in the final disappointed me. I lost to Duz-Khotimirsky, won from E. Znosko-
Borovsky and drew with Freiman. First and second places were shared by Duz-Khotimirsky and
Znosko-Borovsky; Freiman and I were a half-point behind, having gathered 5 points. Then there
followed Maliutin – 2½, Platz – 2, Gelbakh – 1½, Chepurnov – 1. All the same, in this tournament I
demonstrated that in strength of play, I had joined the group of masters.
In the semi-final I met at the board the professor of the Technological Institute, B.M. Koyalovich.
The professor had the reputation of being a strong first-category player. In 1905 in one of the club
tournaments he had won a good game against Chigorin himself. I offered the King’s Gambit. The
professor declined it with the move 2...Bc5.
Later, he was wrongly tempted by the win of a rook, fell under a headlong attack and perished at the
24th move. Koyalovich was clearly upset at having lost so quickly, and meanwhile I faced being
examined by him in higher mathematics. Although Boris Mikhailovich was known as a strict but fair
educator, and I knew the subject fairly well, all the same before the examination I felt somewhat
uncertain. My fears proved to be unjustified. After I had correctly solved all the examples, Boris
Mikhailovich put the mark ‘good’ in the credit book and, grinning, added, “It’s nice that you are able to
unravel the secrets of more than just chess positions.”
In general, the results of my appearances in the years 1909 and 1910 should be assessed as poor. I was
approaching the class of a master. However, these successes had been achieved as a result of my
combinational gifts. Combinations came easily to me, and I did not find their calculation to be difficult.
On the other hand, in strategic manoeuvring, in the defence of difficult positions, and in technical
endings I was still faced with much to learn. My knowledge of openings was also weak. However, no-
one recognized these vulnerable points of mine; everyone simply praised the talented tactician.
26
Chapter 2
The Master Title, Memorable Encounters

In those years the path to the acquisition of the Master title lay through the Congress of the German
Chess Union. The chess life of Germany was excellently organized. Alongside international
tournaments for masters, there were also arranged additional ones for amateurs. By winning such a
tournament one obtained the Master title. In 1910 the congress was held in Hamburg. First prize in the
tournament was taken by the representative of Russia, Rotlewi. In 1911 the same tournament was held
in the summer in Cologne, and here too first place was taken by a representative of Russia, Lowtzky.
Freiman shared second place.
The attraction of chess seriously told on my study. I was very much ‘in arrears’. The prospect of
passing among the ranks of the ‘perpetual students’ was not at all enticing, and I had to very seriously
apply myself both in the laboratory and in technical drawing. I could not even dream of going to
Cologne. However, fate smiled on me: the resort town of Carlsbad (now Karlovy Vary) intended to
hold during July and August – that is, the months of the summer break – a great international
tournament of masters. Formally, I did not have the right to take part in it, but the director of the
Petersburg Assembly helped out. A letter by P.A. Saburov to the organizer of the tournament, Mr.
Tietz, immediately had an effect, and soon there followed an invitation to include me among the
participants. Meanwhile a rich family, departing for the summer to the resort town of Tsoppot (now
Sopot, in Poland), invited me to be their tutor. At the start of June I was already in Germany. My
tutoring work took up some of my time, but in the evenings I was free. The resort of Tsoppot is near to
the port city of Danzig (now Gdańsk) and was connected to it by a tram line. In Danzig I tracked down
the local chess circle. It was located in one of the rooms of a restaurant. The strongest chessplayer of
the circle was considered to be the naval officer von Hennig, a commander of the personal yacht of
Kaiser Wilhelm. With Hennig I played a series of training games. I needed an opponent of heavyweight
positional style, but unfortunately Henning was first and foremost a tactician. The games took a very
lively course, but were hardly beneficial to me.
The way to Carlsbad passed through Berlin. Leaving my suitcase at the station, I decided to visit the
café Kernau, one of the centres of chess life of the German capital. I did not have time to enter the
chess room, since I was approached by a very smart gentleman of small height, and between us there
took place the following dialogue:
“Would you not like to play a game of chess?”
“Please.”
“Perhaps we could play blitz?”
“Agreed.”
“Only for a mark per game.”
“Agreed.”
“The account will be settled after every five games.”
27
For blitz games, lasting two-three minutes, these stakes were high. But in Petersburg I was
considered one of the best blitz players and I decided to test my strength against this brisk gentleman.
We played without clocks. My opponent suggested a lightning tempo, in which moves were made
with both hands. I replied with the same speed and won all five games. The moment of reckoning had
arrived, but it turned out that my opponent did not have five marks. Then he asked me:
“What is your surname?”
I stated my name.
“So you will play in the international tournament. Why did you not say so earlier?”
“You did not ask.”
My opponent began to fuss, and soon appeared with the final draft of some chess book or other.
“This is for you, instead of the five marks.”
I did not object. It turned out that he was the author of this pulp literature, and I learned that his name
was Bernhard Kagan.
During the First World War, Kagan became rich. Then he founded a large chess publishing house and
brought out some decent magazines. In those difficult years for Germany, when famine raged, Kagan
financed tournaments and matches and was of great help to chess masters, being mindful of the difficult
times that they faced.
The Tournament in Carlsbad

Mr. Tietz very much liked tournaments with a large number of players. In the first Carlsbad tournament
he invited 21 masters, in the second – 26! Apart from Lasker and Tarrasch, all of the strongest
chessplayers of the world were present. In order to avoid the accumulation of adjourned games, play
continued from nine in the morning until one in the afternoon, and after a two-hour break for lunch,
from three until seven in the evening. Thus, an eight-hour load, difficult even for experienced masters.
In the two Petersburg tournaments in which I had participated, we had played in the evening three to
four times per week; I was completely unprepared for such a chess marathon and in the afternoon hours
‘buried’ not a few points. On the other hand, play took place in the great hall*, where the clean air and
complete silence eased the tension of the struggle. One could count the number of spectators on one’s
fingers.
[*Translator’s note: The event was held at the Imperial Bath-house Hotel (the Kurhaus).]
In this tournament, for the first time Russia was represented by a large group of masters: Alapin,
Alekhine, Duz-Khotimirsky, Nimzowitsch, A. Rabinovich, Rotlewi, Rubinstein and Salwe. Alapin I
was seeing for the first time; with the remainder I was familiar from the time of the first St Petersburg
tournament of 1909. It was in the very second round that I was to meet Alapin. He was rather heavy-
set, but still vigorous and cheerful, with lively dark eyes. He was then 54 years old. He lived in Berlin
more than he did in Petersburg.
Alapin’s serious chess achievement relates to the year 1879, when in the St Petersburg tournament he
shared first place with Chigorin. In the subsequent match he suffered defeat. Alapin’s further successes
in tournaments and matches were mediocre, but he gained recognition as a first-class analyst. His
studies of the Evans Gambit, the French Defence and the Four Knights’ Game were published world-
wide. Alapin’s faith in the power of chess analysis sometimes led to curiosities. For example, Alapin
28
proposed to Spielmann to play a match with the condition that each would have the right during play to
make use of a pocket chess set for analysis. Spielmann agreed and, though he never once touched the
pocket set, won the match. At the Dominik café and in the Chess Assembly I more than once heard talk
of how Alapin, having invited a familiar chessplayer to his home, had locked the door with a key and
the joint analysis had continued... for three days. A maid brought meals from the restaurant, but the
guest was not released. The Englishman Burn invited Alapin to visit him after the Carlsbad tournament.
Burn’s invitation was tempting enough, but Alapin all the same declined. “Burn, it is said, has an
ancient castle in Scotland, with a drawbridge. We will be carried away by Burn’s analyses, and I will
never get out.”
When I played against Alapin, after each move he wrote something on his scoresheet. After the game
I asked him what he had written. It turned out that Alapin had been counting the number of tempos
spent on the development of his pieces. What benefit he reckoned on extracting from this counting, I do
not know. In the game against Alekhine he had an advantage of four tempos, but at just that moment
Alekhine carried out a decisive combination.
In Carlsbad our first acquaintance took place, but the following year at Vilna we got to know each
other more closely and analysed a lot together.
I present several games.
GAME 4
Simon Alapin – Grigory Levenfish

Carlsbad 1911
1.c4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bf4

If White does not want to play the Schlechter Attack (5.cxd5) then it is better for him to choose 5.e3.
5...cxd4 6.Nxd4 Bb4 7.e3 Nge7

Thus continued the game Em. Lasker – Freiman from the St Petersburg tournament.
8.Qb3 Qa5 9.Rd1

White makes an automatic developing move. On his scoresheet Alapin counted the number of
tempos. At the present moment he has an advantage of two tempos, but a bad game. 9.Rc1 ought to be
played.
29
9...Bd7!
With the threat of 10...Nxd4 and 11...Ba4.
10.Nc2 Bxc3† 11.bxc3 0-0 12.Be2 e5

Now it is clear why White’s 5th move is not good.
13.Bg3 Be6 14.0-0 Rac8

With the threat of 15...dxc4 and 16...Nd4. Defending against it, White carries out an exchanging
combination, which unexpectedly leads to a strategically lost position.
15.Nb4 dxc4 16.Nxc6 Nxc6 17.Qxb7 Qxc3 18.Bf3 Nb4 19.Bxe5 Qxe5 20.Qxb4
30
20...c3
The passed pawn rapidly decides the game.
21.Qa3 c2 22.Rc1 Qc5!

Transposition to an endgame is the shortest path to victory.
23.Qb2 Qc3 24.Qxc3 Rxc3 25.a4 a5 26.Be2 Bb3 27.Bb5 Rd8 28.Rfe1 Rd2 29.Kf1 Kf8 30.Re2 Rd1†
31.Re1 Ke7
The king is going a long way – to b2. The remainder is simple.
32.Ke2 Kd6 33.Rexd1† cxd1=Q† 34.Rxd1† Bxd1† 35.Kxd1 Kc5 36.h4 Ra3 37.g4 Ra2
31
White resigned at the 53rd move.
...0–1
After the 12th round I had gathered 6 points – 50 per cent. Quantitatively, this was not a bad result, but
it was achieved at the expense of relatively weak opponents, while the ‘old hands’ still lay ahead. I
suffered a failure in the game against Chajes. Having a healthy extra pawn, in time trouble I lost the
exchange at the 30th move. But on the other hand, in the following game I had no basis to reproach
myself for anything.
GAME 5
Oldrich Duras – Grigory Levenfish

Carlsbad 1911
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.c4

Duras’s celebrated continuation. I vaguely remembered that Black continues ...g6 and ...Bg7, but I
wanted to get away as quickly as possible from the theoretical designs of my opponent.
6...Be7 7.h3 0-0 8.Be3
8...Nh5!
The beginning of an interesting idea. 9.Nxe5 will not do in view of 9...Nxe5 10.Qxh5 Nxd3†.
9.Nc3 f5
32
A strong move. Unfavourable for White is the continuation 10.exf5 Bxf5 11.g4 Bg6, and White
cannot take the knight at h5 in view of 12...Bxh5.
10.Nd5 Nf4!
A positional sacrifice of a pawn.
11.Bxf4 exf4 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.0-0 Bf6!
The white king has taken cover, while the pawn at f4 is hanging. To defend it by means of 13...Bg6
led after 14.Qd2 to the loss of the initiative. Black has thought up a more aggressive plan.
14.Nxf4 g5!
Naturally, not 14...Bxb2 on account of 15.Rb1 and then 16.Rxb7.
15.Nd5 g4 16.hxg4 Bxg4

The pin is very unpleasant, and White is obliged to immediately liquidate it.
17.Ne3 Bh5 18.g4 Bg6 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Rb1 Qd7 21.Nh2 Bd4 22.Qd2 Qg7 23.Ng2 Rab8 24.b3
The pawn sacrifice has completely justified itself. Black has mastery of the whole board, and the
pawn cover of the white king is weakened.
33
24...Bc3 25.Qc2 Kh8 26.Nh4
In order to rid himself of one of the bishops.
26...Be5 27.f3
This weakening was all the same impossible to avoid.
27...Rf4 28.Rbd1 Rbf8 29.Qg2 Rd4 30.Nxg6† Qxg6 31.Qe2 Re8 32.Rfe1 h5!
The final attack.
33.Kh1 hxg4
Intending on 34.fxg4 to reply 34...Re7 with the threat of 35...Rh7.
34.Nxg4
34
34...Rxg4! 35.fxg4 Qh6†
White now loses the queen or is mated.
36.Kg1 Bd4† 37.Kg2 Rxe2† 38.Rxe2 Qf4

White’s game is hopeless, but Duras draws matters out for a long time.
39.Rh1† Kg7 40.Rh3 Be5 41.Ree3 Qg5 42.Rhf3 c5 43.a3 Bb2 44.Re4 Bxa3 45.Rf5 Qd8 46.Ref4 Bb2
47.g5 Be5 48.Rf2
48...Qb8 49.R5f3 Bd4 50.Re2 Qxb3 51.Re7† Kg6 52.Re6† Kxg5 53.Re4 Bf6 54.Kh3 Qc3 55.Rg4†
Kh5 56.Rf5† Kh6 57.Rg3 Be5 58.Rgf3 Qd2 59.Kh4 Kg6 60.Rf2 Qh6† 61.Kg4 a5 62.Rf1 a4 63.R1f3
35
a3 64.d4 a2
0–1
After this victory I had 7½ points. In order to obtain the title of Master, according to the statutes of the
German Chess Union, it was necessary to gather one third of all the available points in the tournament,
that is, 8½ points. Therefore I played the following game with great élan.
GAME 6
Grigory Levenfish – Paul Leonhardt

Carlsbad 1911
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2 b5 6.Bb3 Be7 7.a4 Rb8 8.axb5 axb5 9.Nc3
9...0-0
The correct reply. On 10.Nxb5 there follows 10...d5 with an attack.
10.0-0 d6 11.h3 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5

Better is 12...Bd7, after which White has to play 13.d3, and the queen does not get to the queen’s
flank.
13.Bxd5 Nd4
Evidently, this move already represents a decisive mistake. The paradoxical continuation 13...Qd7,
and on 14.Qc4 – 14...Nd8 – rids Black of the opening difficulties.
36
14.Nxd4 exd4
15.Qc4! c5
Forced. On 15...Bf6 there follows 16.Ra7 winning a pawn.
16.Ra7 Bd7
With the threat of 18...Bb5.
17.d3 b3
This freeing attempt is provoked by the absence of useful moves, whereas White threatens to increase
the pressure with 18.Bf4 and 19.e5.
18.cxb3 Bb5 19.Qc2 Bf6 20.Bd2 Qb6

The black pieces have seemingly escaped to freedom. But not for long.
21.Rfa1 g6
37
22.b4!
A counter-sacrifice of a pawn. The black pieces will soon be thrown back.
22...cxb4 23.Qb3 Be8 24.R7a6! Qc5 25.Rc1 Qb5 26.Ra7 Kg7

There was threatened 27.Rcc7, to which Black now replies 27...Bd8!.
27.Bf4 Rb6
28.g4!
Taking away the h5-square from the queen, and deciding the game.
38
28...Bd8 29.Bc4 Qc6 30.Bxf7 Qxc1† 31.Bxc1 Bxf7 32.Bh6†! Kg8 33.Qa4 Be8
Or 33...Re8 34.Qd7 Be7 35.Ra8! Rxa8 36.Qxe7.
34.Rg7† Kh8 35.Qa7

1–0
Thus, I became a Master.

From my Petersburg friends I received congratulatory telegrams. At this point I occupied seventh
place in the tournament table. But, as often happens, after achieving the intended goal, a reaction set in.
In addition, I began to show fatigue, and I conducted the finish of the tournament languidly. Rubinstein
and Nimzowitsch employed against me new opening systems that had been worked out in detail. I
defended tenaciously, but at critical moments did not find the correct continuations. I present the
conclusions of these games.
Akiba Rubinstein – Grigory Levenfish

Carlsbad 1911
The position in the diagram arose after White’s 16th move. The dark squares in the centre are at the
mercy of White, and the e6-pawn is weak. Black’s only counter-chance consists in an attack on the
white king. There followed:
16...Nxb2?
Haste, which immediately ruins Black’s game. It was not difficult to understand that Black expends
his last reserves without obtaining an attack. Meanwhile, by continuing 16...b4! 17.Na4 Bd7, Black
would prevent the important manoeuvre Nd4 and create the threat of ...N6a5. If 18.c3, then 18...bxc3
39
19.Nxc3 Rab8, and Black’s attack is irresistible.
17.Kxb2 b4 18.Nd4! bxc3†
19.Ka1!
Now White’s king is in safety, and Black’s position comes apart at the seams.
19...Nxd4
There was the threat of 20.Nxe6 Bxe6 21.Rxe6.
20.Qxd4 Rb8 21.Re3 g5

A desperate attempt to provoke complications.
22.Rxc3 gxf4 23.gxf4 Bd7

23...Qxf4 will not do on account of 24.Rg3†.
24.c6 Qxd4 25.Rxd4 Be8 26.Bh3 Rf6 27.c7 Rc8 28.Rxd5 Rxc7 29.Bxe6†
1–0
The sorry result of an incorrect assessment of the position.
Aron Nimzowitsch – Grigory Levenfish

Carlsbad 1911
40
In the game against Nimzowitsch too I lost control over the dark squares and in addition had lost a
pawn. I was later able to complicate the play. After White’s 30th move the position in the diagram was
reached. I began an at first sight tempting combination.
30...Qb7?
The last move before the interval. Nimzowitsch found a spectacular, study-like win.
31.Rxd4! Bc5 32.Qd8!

It now becomes clear that after 32...Bxd4 33.Qxd4 Qg7 there follows 34.Nd6! with the irresistible
threat of 35.Ne8.
32...Be7 33.Qd7 Qa6
41
34.Rd3!
A beautiful concluding manoeuvre. White prevents ...Qf1† and frees the square d4 for the queen.
34...Bf8 35.Nf7† Bxf7 36.Qxf7 Rc8

1–0
For this game Nimzowitsch deservedly obtained a beauty prize. Meanwhile, in the position in the first
diagram there was a hidden possibility of no little interest.
30...g5!
A logical continuation – to create additional threats along the g-file. White cannot reply 31.Nxg5 on
account of 31...h6. There remains:
31.fxg5
Or 31.f5.
42
31...Rc5! 32.Nxc5 Qxe5 33.Nb7
Otherwise there follows 33...Bd6.
33...Bd5 34.Qd8 Bxg2†

With a guaranteed draw.
In the 20th round I achieved a winning position against Vidmar, but did not take my chances, and a
dead draw was reached. Then Vidmar decided to wear me down, moving pieces back and forth, until
after many hours of unsuccessful manoeuvring, there was finally a mistake on my part. In the same way
I lost a drawn position against Marshall. The chances of advancing in the tournament table were thrown
into doubt.
Young Rotlewi fought remarkably well, defeating in excellent style strong opponents: Schlechter,
Nimzowitsch, Marshall, Spielmann. After the seventeenth round Rotlewi, Teichman and Schlechter
were in first place, having outstripped the nearest competitor, Rubinstein, by 1½ points. The
representatives of the chess press began to stir; interviews with the newly-emerged ‘stars’ appeared.
Rotlewi came from a very poor family, and his suit provided vivid evidence of this sad fact. The city
councillor Tietz became agitated. Imagine, a prize-winner of the Carlsbad tournament walking around
in trousers that clearly belonged to his younger brother! Tietz gave Rotlewi an advance against his prize
and invited him to equip himself anew. The next day Rotlewi appeared in a good suit and polished
shoes. With the links of a chain in his pocket, he was unrecognizable.
But Tietz proved to have done Rotlewi a disservice. Having become a dandy, he paid tribute to the
entertainments of the resort, and was no longer up to chess. At the finish Rotlewi suffered several
defeats and occupied no higher than fourth place.
Soon after the tournament Rotlewi became mentally ill. Thus, the career of a talented chessplayer
came to an end.
43
In the 22nd round I met with Tartakower.
GAME 7
Grigory Levenfish – Saviely Tartakower

Carlsbad 1911
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7 4.Nc3 g6

Black chooses an unusual but difficult method of defence. It was sometimes employed by Steinitz.
5.d4 Bg7
Essential here is 5...exd4 6.Nxd4 Bg7. The attempt to maintain the centre leads to bad consequences.
[Editorial Note: Instead of 6.Nxd4, stronger is 6.Nd5! Nxd5 7.exd5 Qe7† 8.Kf1 Ne5 9.Bf4 Bg7
10.Qxd4 f6 11.Re1 with a large advantage for White.]
6.Bg5! f6
On 6...exd4 there follows 7.Nd5.
7.Be3 a6
If Black castles, then White can begin a headlong attack with the move 8.h4.
8.Ba4 b5 9.Bb3 d6 10.Nd5!

A very strong move, the idea of which escaped my opponent. Trusting in the fortified central square
e5, Black decided to rid himself of the enemy bishop at b3.
44
10...Na5
Relatively the best continuation was 10...exd4 11.Nxd4 Na5.
11.dxe5! dxe5
Black is not in time to eliminate the b3-bishop. On 11...Nxb3 there follows 12.exf6.
12.Bh6! Kf8 (see page 269)

Clearly, the only move. 12...Bxh6 loses the queen after 13.Nxf6†, while on 12...Nxb3 there follows
13.Bxg7.
45
13.Be3?
A very annoying oversight. Spectacularly concluding the struggle was the continuation 13.Nb6!!
Qxd1† 14.Rxd1, and Black loses the exchange without any compensation. This combination was
overlooked both by Vidmar in the tournament book, and by Keres in an opening handbook compiled by
him.
13...Nxb3 14.axb3 Nxd5 15.exd5 Kf7 16.0-0 Bb7 17.c4 Qd6 18.Qc2 c6
19.c5!
A positional pawn sacrifice. After 19.dxc6 Qxc6 Black would have stood excellently.
19...Qxd5 20.Rad1 Qe6 21.Rd6 Qe7 22.b4 Rhd8 23.Qb3† Kf8 24.Rfd1 Rxd6 25.cxd6 Qd7 26.Bc5
Bh6 27.Qc3 Re8 28.h3 Bc8 29.Ne1 Re6 30.Nc2 Ke8 31.Na1 Bf8 32.Qd2 e4
The only way to enliven the black pieces.
33.Nb3 Re5 34.Qe3 Kf7 35.Rd4 Rd5

On 35...f5 there follows 36.f3.
36.Qxe4 Qe6 37.Qxe6† Bxe6 38.Rxd5 cxd5

On 38...Bxd5, 39.d7 Be7 40.Nd4 decides.
39.Nd4 Bh6 40.Kf1 Bc8 41.Ke2 Ke8 42.Nc6 Kd7 43.Ne7 Bb7 44.g3 Bc1 45.b3 Ke6 46.Kd3 Ba3
Preparing ...a5.
47.f4 a5
46
48.f5†! gxf5 49.Nxf5 axb4
Losing is 49...Bxb4 in view of 50.Bxb4 axb4 51.Kd4 and then Kc5.
50.Kc2 Bc8 51.g4 Bd7

The black bishops are excluded from play, but there is too little material remaining on the board.
52.Bd4 Kf7 53.Nh6† Ke6 54.Nf5 Kf7 55.Ne3 Ke6 56.Nf5 Kf7 57.Kd2 h5
After 57...Bxf5 58.gxf5 Black falls into zugzwang.
58.Nh6† Ke6
Not 58...Kg6 on account of 59.Ng8; and not 58...Kg7 on account of 59.g5.
59.gxh5 Kxd6 60.Ng4 Bf5 61.h6 Ke6 62.Nxf6 Kf7 63.Nxd5 Bb1
Despite the material advantage, White cannot win.
47
64.Nf4 Kg8 65.Nd3 Kh7 66.Bg7 Kg6 67.h4 Kh7 68.h5 Kg8 69.Bd4 Kh7 70.Bg7 Kg8 71.Nf4 Be4
72.Ne6 Bf3 73.Nf4
On 73.Nf8 Black would have replied 73...Be4 (but not 73...Bxh5 in view of 74.Bd4!, and there is no
acceptable defence to 75.h7).
73...Be4 74.Ng6
74...Bc1†
There could follow 75.Kxc1 Bxg6 76.hxg6 stalemate.
½–½
48
In the following round I encountered grandmaster Burn.
GAME 8
Amos Burn – Grigory Levenfish

Carlsbad 1911
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Be2

Modern theory recommends here 6.Ndb5 Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3† 8.Nxc3, and White obtains the two
bishops. However, White’s advantage is insignificant.
6...Bb4
7.Bf3
A passive move, which passes the initiative to Black. Better is 7.0-0, offering the sacrifice of two
pawns, for example: 7...Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nxe4 9.Bf3 Nxc3 10.Qd3 Na4 11.Ba3 with a strong attack.
[Editorial note: On 9.Bf3 strong is 9...d5 10.Ba3 Qa5. Therefore better is 9.Bd3, retaining the
possibility of the move Nb5. For example, 9...d5 10.Ba3 Qa5 11.Nb5!.]
7...d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Ne4 Ne5 11.Be2 Ng6

Intending 12...e5 13.Nf3 Bg4.
12.f4
49
12...Ndxf4!!
An unexpected combination, which is crowned with success.
13.Rxf4
The variation 13.Bxf4 Nxf4 14.Rxf4 e5 is analysed at the end of the game.
13...e5 14.c3 Ba5 15.Rf1 exd4 16.cxd4 Bb6 17.Nc5 Qe7 18.Qc2 Bd7 19.Bf3 Bb5 20.Rd1 Rad8
Due to the threat of 21...Rxd4 the d-pawn is lost. The attempt to maintain the balance at the expense
of the b7-pawn suffers ruin.
50
21.Nxb7 Rxd4 22.Kh1 Nh4! 23.Bd5 Rxd5
0–1
The venerable grandmaster was left very unhappy that he had been crushed so quickly. After all, in
essence he had not made a single serious mistake. Burn began to analyse the game. Unfortunately, I
was unable to help him, since I did not know English, while Burn, like a true ‘Brit’, was familiar only
with his native language. I went for a walk. After lunch, at three o’clock, I returned to the tournament
hall – Burn was still sat at the board. Towards the end of the day I again returned to the hall to find out
the results of the games – as previously, Burn was analysing. With gestures he beckoned me to the
board. We were rescued by the English journalist Hoffer, who knew the German language. It transpires
that instead of 13.Rxf4, White ought to play 13.Bxf4 Nxf4 14.Rxf4 e5 15.c3 Ba5 and now:
16.Rxf7! Rxf7 17.Bc4 Kh8! 18.Bxf7 exd4 with an approximately level game. Having re-established the
chess truth, Burn immediately cheered up.
In the penultimate round my opponent was Schlechter. The first prize had already been secured by
Teichmann, but for second place there was a battle between Schlechter, Rubinstein and Rotlewi. In a
drawn position I managed to lose a pawn and after an eight-hour struggle lost, for which I ‘caught it’
from Rubinstein. After the end of the game Schlechter asked me:
“Why did you not offer a draw?”
“But this game was of great significance to you,” I replied.
“In a completely level position I did not have the right to refuse the draw,” said Schlechter.
Frankly speaking, I did not greatly regret the loss of a half-point. Schlechter was an outstanding
grandmaster. A year before he had almost won a match against Lasker, and he had just drawn a match
against Tarrasch. He made a fine impression on me with his modesty, sensitivity and courtesy, and for
his passionate love for chess. And this first-class master considered it inappropriate for himself to
squeeze a half-point from his opponent, in the way that some others did. It is no wonder that in an
obituary for Schlechter (he died in 1918), Mieses wrote: “Schlechter always looked upon chess as an
51
art. Had he possessed greater sporting pragmatism, his tournament successes would have been still
more significant.”
In the final round I defeated Süchting and took 14th-16th places, having picked up 11½ points. Without
losing time, I hurried back to Petersburg, where I was faced with serious work, in order to eliminate the
‘holes’ in my study record.
***
At the end of 1911 the Chess Assembly organized an All-Russian tournament of amateurs. This event
ended in the brilliant victory of S.M. Levitsky, finishing ahead of Flamberg, Izbinsky, Verlinsky and
others. Tall, with a broad beard, looking like a genuine Mikula Selyaninovich*, Levitsky infected
everyone around him with his cheerfulness and humour, although his life in the Urals was far from
easy.
[*Translator’s note: literally, Mikula the Villager’s Son, a legendary Russian character, of
formidable physical strength.]
Levitsky aimed at a tactical struggle, which he conducted with great skill and originality.
Heavyweight strategic games were not to his taste. First place gave him the right to participate in
international tournaments. The following year Levitsky went to the international tournament in Breslau
(now Wrocław, in Poland), where he confirmed the title of Master.
For me personally, the most significant chess development proved to be the arrival of Alekhine in
Petersburg. After gymnasium Alekhine entered the Petersburg School of Jurisprudence. This privileged
school gave legal training and prepared the diplomats of the future. Only nobles, and moreover rich
nobles, were accepted there. A lawyer was not supposed to ride on trams, but was expected to get
around in his own horse-drawn carriage. In their older years lawyers usually supported one of the many
varieties of the capital’s Frenchwomen, in order to improve their Parisian pronunciation.
Alekhine’s parents were very well-off people. His father was a landlord, his mother the co-owner of a
textile factory. But he was interested in neither horse-drawn carriages nor in Frenchwomen. His passion
for chess dominated over every other interest in his life.
I cannot pass judgement on the quality of the legal training, but the future diplomat possessed fluent
French, German and English. Subsequently, knowledge of foreign languages came in very handy for
Alekhine.
Finances were gathered, and accordingly chess moved to more comfortable accommodation on
Liteiny Prospekt. The chess club was open four evenings a week, from six until ten o’clock in the
evening. Up until the year 1914, I was Alekhine’s constant opponent. I played many tens of games with
him. In my entire life I never encountered such an interesting opponent as Alekhine. He played with
great nervous tension, smoking incessantly, the whole time twirling a lock of his hair and fidgeting in
his seat. But this tension stimulated in a remarkable way the workings of his brain. The rich ideas and
creativity of Alekhine are widely known. In unimportant friendly games these factors were displayed, it
seemed to me, still more clearly. Alekhine’s exceptional inventiveness displayed itself when he was
conducting an attack; in defence he was more vulnerable. At that time he had reached 20 years old, at
which age many outstanding players were similar to Alekhine. But Alekhine played in tournaments and
52
matches over the course of the next 35 years, virtually without a break or a rest, during which time his
nervous system and brain worked infallibly. Alekhine’s failures in the period 1935-38 were provoked,
as is well known, by reasons that were not at all to do with chess. In my view Alekhine was a unique
phenomenon in the history of chess.
The advantage in our encounters was on the side of Alekhine. The slightest lessening of my attention
would result in a tactical invention by my opponent, and the outcome of the game would no longer be
in doubt. Alekhine possessed a phenomenal chess memory. He could reconstruct in full games that had
been played many years previously. But no less astonishing was his absentmindedness. Several times
he left in the club a valuable cigarette case with a large emerald on the clasp. Two days later we would
go to the club and sit at the board. A waiter would appear and, as if nothing had happened, he would
hand Alekhine the cigarette holder. Alekhine would thank him politely...
***
In 1912 the Chess Assembly organized a tournament of the thirteen strongest players of the capital.
Alekhine’s game against me decided the question of first place. Alekhine won it brilliantly. It is
included in Alekhine’s book My Best Games of Chess 1908-23.
The following game was played in this tournament.
GAME 9
Grigory Levenfish – Monoszon

St Petersburg 1912
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Qf3 f5 6.d3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 d4 8.Qg3 Nc6 9.Be2 Be6
53
10.Nh3
Up to this point, the play had been as in my game with Black against Spielmann (Carlsbad 1911),
which continued 10.Bf3 Qd7 11.Ne2, and I could by means of 11...Bc5 12.Qf2 Bb6 have obtained a
comfortable game. Probably, Monoszon knew this variation, and I chose a different plan.
10...Qd7 11.0-0 dxc3 12.Be3 0-0-0 13.Bf3 Rg8

Threatening 14...g5.
14.Qf4 a6
Black anticipates 15.Qa4, on which there could follow 15...Bd5. Instead 14...Nd4 led to equality.
15.Rab1 g6 16.Ng5 Bd5

I expected the move 16...Bh6, on which I had prepared: 17.Rxb7 Bxg5 (or 17...Kxb7 18.Rb1† Kc8
19.Qa4) 18.Rfb1! Bxf4 19.Rb8† Nxb8 20.Bb7#
54
17.e6! Bxe6 18.Rxb7 Bxa2?
The sacrifice of the rook should have been accepted: 18...Kxb7 19.Rb1† Kc8 20.Qa4 Nb4!
21.Qxa6† Nxa6 22.Bb7† Kb8 23.Bxa6† Ka8 24.Bb7† with a draw.
19.Qa4 Kxb7 20.Qxa2 Bb4 21.Rb1 Qe7
22.Rxb4†! Qxb4 23.Bxc6† Kxc6 24.Qxa6† Kd7 25.Qe6#

A dashing game, which pleased the spectators.
***
55
The Vilna club, following the example of Petersburg, organized two major events: the All-Russian
Masters’ Tournament and a tournament of amateurs. Due credit must be given to master A. Rabinovich,
who took on his shoulders all the work for holding the tournaments. The masters’ tournament proved to
be very strong: three outstanding grandmasters, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Bernstein; then Alekhine;
the winners of the first two Petersburg amateurs’ tournaments, Levitsky and Flamberg; the
representatives of the old guard, Alapin and Salwe; the new master Freiman (having obtained this title
after winning a match against Znosko-Borovsky); master A. Rabinovich; and me. A serious struggle
was in prospect, the more so since the tournament was a double round-robin.
I present several games.
GAME 10
Grigory Levenfish – Simon Alapin

All-Russian Masters’ Tournament, Vilna 1912
1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.cxd5 Nf6 5.Bb5† Nbd7 6.Nc3 a6 7.Be2
A good manoeuvre. After 7.Bxd7† Qxd7 8.Qb3 g6 Black develops comfortably, the d5-pawn is soon
lost, and the weakening of the light squares is very perceptible. Still worse for White is the variation
7.Ba4 b5 8.Bb3 Bb7 and then ...Nb6 or ...Nc5.
7...Nb6 8.Nf3 Nbxd5 9.0-0 e6 10.d4 Be7

In a roundabout way there has been obtained a position from the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, in a
favourable version for Black.
11.Bg5 0-0 12.Ne5 Qb6
56
Black begins to direct fire at the d4-pawn.
13.Na4 Qa7 14.Rc1 Rd8 15.Nc5 Bd7 16.Qb3 Be8

This set-up was recommended by Steinitz. The b7-pawn is indirectly defended.
17.Bxf6 Nxf6?
By continuing 17...gxf6! 18.Qg3† Kh8 19.Ng4 Qb8, Black achieves an advantage.
Alapin decided on the text move after long thought, as he checked the correctness of the piece sacrifice.
Nonetheless there followed:
18.Nxe6! fxe6 19.Qxe6† Kf8 20.Rc7 Nd5 21.Bc4 Rd6 22.Qf5†

Up to this point everything had been forced. Now bad is 22...Rf6 on account of 23.Qxh7, and
22...Bf6 on account of 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Qxh7.
22...Nf6
Here Alapin’s analysis ended, but White had calculated further.
23.Re1! Bd8
24.Rxe7 was threatened.
57
24.Nc6! Bxc7
The knight at c6 cannot be taken. On 24...Bxc6 White gives mate in three moves, while after
24...Rxc6 25.Rxe8†! – in five moves.
25.Nxa7
Only now does the correctness of the sacrifice at the 18th move become apparent. The knight at a7
cannot be taken: 25...Rxa7 26.Qe5 Rd7 27.Qc5† and 28.Qxa7. Meanwhile 26.Qc5 is threatened, and
on 25...Bb6 there follows 26.Nc8.
25...Rad8 26.Bb3 Bg6 27.Qf3 Bb6 28.Qxb7 R8d7 29.Qb8† Rd8 30.Nc8 Ba5
58
31.Qa7!
The shortest path to the finale.
31...R8d7 32.Qc5 Bxe1 33.Nxd6

1–0
Combinations with ‘quiet’ moves are very difficult to calculate. In the present case ‘quiet’ moves had
to be reckoned with in advance in the position after 25.Nxa7.
GAME 11
Grigory Levenfish – Alexander Flamberg

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.a4 Rb8 8.axb5 axb5 9.Nc3
9...0-0
A well-known pawn sacrifice. After 10.Nxb5 d5 11.exd5 e4 12.Ng5 Nb4 it is difficult for White to
defend against the numerous threats.
10.d3 d6 11.Bg5 Bg4

A natural but mistaken move. Correct is 11...Be6.
12.Nd5 Nd4
59
Flamberg was familiar with the game Alapin – Leonhardt (Bad Pistyan 1912), in which White played
13.Bxf6?, on which there followed 13...Ra8! 14.Qd1 Rxa1 15.Qxa1 Nxb3 16.cxb3 gxf6 17.b4 c6, to
Black’s advantage. The present game supports the rule that sharp variations should be checked very
carefully.
13.Nxd4! Bxe2 14.Bxf6 Ra8

The best reply.
Bad is 14...gxf6 on account of 15.Nc6! and the black queen is lost.
No better is 14...Qd7 in view of 15.Nf5! Rfe8 16.Bxg7 Re6 17.Kxe2.
15.Kxe2 Qb8 16.Nc6 Qb7 17.Nde7† Kh8 18.Bg5 Rxa1 19.Rxa1

As a result of the combination (which was found by Alapin and Schlechter), for the queen White has
obtained three minor pieces. In addition, the black queen finds itself in imprisonment – White’s
advantage is obvious.
60
19...f6 20.Be3 Bxe3
The exchange of bishops would have been in any case forced after 21.Bd5 and 22.b4.
21.fxe3 g6
Forced. On 21...Ra8 there would have followed an amusing finale: 22.Ra7! Rxa7 23.Nd8 with the
threat of 24.Nf7#.
22.Bd5 Qb6 23.b4 f5 24.g3 f4 25.gxf4 exf4
26.d4!
Not letting the ‘bird out of the cage’.
61
26...fxe3 27.Kxe3 Kg7 28.Be6!
Threatening Bd7, Nd5 and Ra7, and the queen is caught. Black is forced to give up an exchange.
28...Re8 29.Bd7 Rxe7 30.Nxe7 c5 31.Nc6! cxd4† 32.Nxd4 Kh6 33.Bxb5 Qd8
The queen had finally escaped to freedom, but the advantage in material and the passed b-pawn must
give White the win. The remainder is a matter of technique.
34.Be2 d5 35.b5 Qe7 36.Bf3 Qc5 37.Rd1 dxe4 38.Bxe4 Kg5 39.Rb1 Qa3† 40.Kd2 Qd6 41.Kd3 Qb6
42.c4 Kg4 43.Nc6 Kf4 44.Rf1† Kg4 45.Rf3 Qc5 46.h3† Kh4 47.Bd5 g5 48.Ne5 Qg1 49.Nd7 Qa7
50.Rf7 h5 51.b6 Qa3† 52.Ke4 Qxh3 53.b7 Qg2† 54.Ke5 Qg3† 55.Kf6
1–0
GAME 12
Akiba Rubinstein – Grigory Levenfish

1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bd3 b6 5.Nc3 Bb7 6.f3

White intends to give battle in the centre and prepares e3-e4. Such a treatment of the Dutch Defence
was considered best in those years. In our day White aims to be the first to have mastery of the diagonal
h1-a8 and fianchettoes the f1-bishop.
62
6...c5
Intending 7...cxd4 8.exd4 d5.
7.d5 exd5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 Bxd5 10.Bxf5 Bf7

There has been created an interesting position, which it is not easy to assess. White has four pawns
against two on the right flank, but two against four on the left. Who is more likely to realize their pawn
majority?
11.f4 Be7
Not 11...d5 on account of 12.Qa4†.
12.Nf3 Bf6 13.e4
63
13...Be6!
An excellent positional move made, to tell the truth, under pressure of necessity. After the exchange
at e6 important points in the centre will be covered for Black.
14.Bxe6 dxe6 15.Qb3 Qc8 16.Be3 0-0 17.0-0 Kh8 18.Rad1 Nc6
Black threatens by means of ...e5 and ...Nd4 to obtain an unassailable outpost at d4.
19.e5 Be7 20.g4

The advance of the pawn to e5 has weakened the light squares, and Rubinstein hurries to activate the
king’s flank. Better appears 20.a3, preventing the manoeuvre in the game.
20...Nb4!
With the threat of 21...c4 and 22...Nd3.
21.Qc4 Nd5 22.Bc1

White’s position is clearly compromised. His only hope is to break through with the move f4-f5. The
straightforward prophylactic move 22...g6 liquidates this danger, and Black could then occupy himself
with increasing the pressure on the queen’s flank by means of ...Qb7, ...Rad8 and at a suitable moment
...b5 and ...c4.
64
22...Qc6? 23.f5! Nc7
The continuation 23...b5 also did not save the game in view of 24.Nd4!.
24.Bg5 b5 25.Qe2 Rae8
26.f6! gxf6 27.exf6 Bd6

Or 27...Bxf6 28.Bxf6† Rxf6 29.Qe5.
28.Ne5 Bxe5 29.Qxe5 Rf7 30.Rd6 Qb7 31.Rd7 Ref8 32.Bh6 Qc8 33.Rxc7
1–0
65
The game with Rubinstein played a significant role in the formation of my chess thinking. A feeling of
narrowness and one-sidedness in my chess horizons had followed me for a long time. Defeat in
encounters with strong opponents demonstrated that with one tactic one will not go far, and that it is
necessary to develop oneself in the strategic struggle, in positional manoeuvring. I was struck by the
fact that with a few well-thought-out manoeuvres I had managed to outplay the great Akiba himself.
For the first time I developed a ‘taste’ for positional play.
In Vilna first prize was won by Rubinstein. This was his fourth victory in the year 1912 (after San
Sebastián, Bad Pistyan* and Breslau). Rubinstein was at the zenith of his power, and negotiations were
held with Lasker, regarding the organization of a match for the World Championship. The third prize of
Levitsky was the best achievement of his chess career. Fifth place was taken by Flamberg. Alekhine
and I shared sixth and seventh prizes. In the amateurs’ tournament second place (behind Hromádka)
was taken by Bogoljubow, third – by Rausch.
[*Translator’s note: now Piešťany, in Slovakia.]
***
In 1913 great interest was provoked in the chess world by the tour of the famous Czech grandmaster O.
Duras. He visited Russia and then the United States. The Petersburg Assembly organized a tournament
of four players with the participation of Duras, Alekhine, Znosko-Borovsky and me. I won against
Alekhine and drew with Duras and Znosko-Borovsky, whereas Alekhine overcame both.
Thus, we shared first place.
GAME 13
Grigory Levenfish – Alexander Alekhine

St Petersburg Quadrangular Tournament 1913
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bf4

Modern theory considers this continuation to be without danger for Black. I chose it for the sake of
its novelty.
3...Bg4 4.Nbd2 Nbd7 5.h3 Bh5 6.c3

White for the time being prevents the move ...e7-e5, which was possible in the case of 6.e3.
6...c6 7.Qb3 Qc7 8.e3 e5
66
9.Bh2!
On 9.Bg3 possible was 9...e4 10.Ng5 Bg6, and then 11...Qb6 and 12...d5 with an active position.
After the move in this game this manoeuvre is refuted in the following way: 9...e4 10.Ng5 Bg6 11.h4
h6 12.h5! hxg5 13.hxg6 fxg6 14.Bxd6
9...0-0-0
On 9...Be7 there could follow 10.g4 Bg6 11.Rg1 0-0 12.h4.
10.Bd3
Tempting is 10.Bc4, but Black has a defence: 10...d5! 11.Nxe5 Bd6! and Black regains the pawn
with the better position – a typical Alekhine invention.
Now though White threatens 11.g4 Bg6 12.Bxg6 fxg6 13.Ng5.
10...Bxf3 11.gxf3 d5
67
12.c4!
Preventing the move 12...Bd6 in view of 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Nc4.
12...Qa5!
Indirectly defending the e5-pawn: 13.dxe5 dxc4 14.Bxc4 Nxe5
13.0-0-0 exd4
The opening of the diagonal h2-b8 leads to catastrophe. The best defence, 13...Bd6 14.Kb1 Kb8
15.cxd5 cxd5 16.e4! also did not relieve Black of serious difficulties.
14.exd4 g6 15.Kb1 Bh6

Now there follows a decisive combination.
68
16.cxd5! Bxd2 17.dxc6 Nb6
Or 17...bxc6 18.Rxd2 Qxd2 19.Ba6#.
18.Qxf7 Nfd7 19.cxd7† Rxd7 20.Rc1† Qc3

White also wins after 20...Bxc1 21.Rxc1† Kd8 22.Qf6†, or 20...Bc3 21.Qf6 and then 22.Rxc3.
21.Rxc3†
1–0
Soon after the end of the quadrangular tournament, a match between Alekhine and Levitsky began in
the Chess Assembly. The philanthropist Tereshchenko provided the means to organize the match. He
set the condition that all the games should start with the move 1.e4. Clearly, Tereshchenko feared that
the chessboard would be ‘desecrated’ by the detested (by him) Queen’s Gambit. The match concluded
in a confident victory by Alekhine (+7–3=0). His talent was developing with astonishing speed,
whereas Levitsky could not find his sporting form.
[Translator’s note: Aleksandr Kentler’s researches have brought to light the fact that in 1913,
Levenfish was married for the first of what would prove to be five times during his life.
After changing addresses several times, he eventually settled in lodgings at Zagorodniy Prospekt 28,
Apartment 10 – not far from the Technological Institute. His landlords were the Grebenshchikov
family. The father, Vladimir Ilyich, was already deceased; surviving him were his wife Elena
Sergeyevna, four sons (Vasily, Ilya, Sergei, and Veniamin) and a daughter Elena, born on 9th October,
1893. In due course Levenfish became engaged to Elena Vladimirovnaya Grebenshchikova.
The wedding took place at the city’s Prince Vladimirsky Cathedral (ul. Blokhina 26) on 13th
February 1913, but not before Levenfish was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church, taking the
69
name Grigory Yakovlevich.
In the same article, Kentler points out that according to a biographical note written in Levenfish’s
own hand in 1950, his mother had died in 1910, while his father was to die during the Great War.]
70
St Petersburg 1914
The Chess Assembly decided to hold in commemoration of its jubilee two important events: a
tournament of Russian masters (without Rubinstein and Bernstein) and an international tournament of
grandmasters, into which there would also be permitted the winner of the masters’ tournament.
Unfortunately, the organization of the grandmaster tournament was entrusted to Saburov junior. This
typical representative of the ‘golden youth’ of the aristocracy, incapable of any sort of work, had the
idea of filling his leisure time with the organization of a chess tournament. Not having any
understanding of chess, he decided that the tournament should be made up of strictly bureaucratic,
formalistic features. Invitation was restricted to those players who had won a first prize in an
international tournament, although many of them had completely withdrawn from practical play, or had
long ago lost their mastery of the game. Luckily, the majority of the veterans refused to participate and
to Petersburg there came only the 72-year-old Blackburne and Gunsberg, the latter having had a very
lengthy break from tournament play.
To top it all off there was adopted the system, condemned by practice, of an elimination stage. All of
the participants fought according to the usual system in a single round-robin, and then the five winners
played a further double-round-robin amongst themselves, after which the points from the first and
second tournaments were combined.
The interests of Russian masters were not taken into account by Saburov. As mentioned, only first-
prizewinners were permitted into the grandmaster tournament. The remainder remained outside, with
the completely bureaucratic principle of selection of participants being strictly observed.
The opening of the masters’ tournament was set for the 22nd December 1913. I urgently needed to
finish at the Institute, and I had already started my thesis project. But I simply could not refuse to
participate, and I adopted a compromise solution – to combine play with study.
Later, I more than once had to combine play in tournaments with engineering work. On the basis of
real experience I would caution against such a combination. The quality of play is reduced, while the
nervous system is frayed to an unacceptable extent. Lasker once said that a loss is a loss, which there is
no getting away from. No-one cares that you came to the game fatigued from work and suffered defeat
on account of this.
I began the tournament successfully: four wins and a draw from the first five games, but then suffered
three defeats in succession. All the same I did not lose heart. In the following six games I picked up 5½
points, but then finally ran out of steam – a half-point from the final three games – and as a result, fifth
prize.
GAME 14
Aron Nimzowitsch – Grigory Levenfish

Masters’ Tournament, St Petersburg 1914
71
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.Bc4
5...c6
In the match-game Nimzowitsch – Alekhine, played a few days later, Alekhine continued 5...Bc5. I
think that the text move is no worse.
6.Nxe5 d5 7.exd5 cxd5 8.Bb5† Nxb5 9.Nxb5 a6 10.Qe2

Forced. On 10.Nc3 there follows 10...d4, while if 10.Nd4 then 10...Bd6 is very strong.
10...Be7 11.Nd4 0-0
12.0-0
72
White does not fall into the trap. Losing is 12.Nec6 on account of 12...bxc6 13.Nxc6 Qd7 14.Nxe7†
Kh8 15.0-0 Re8 16.Re1 Ra7.
12...Re8 13.Ndf3 Qc7!

On the tempting move 13...d4 White had the strong retort 14.Qc4!.
14.d4 Bf5 15.c3 Bd6 16.Be3 Ng4! 17.Nh4

Black’s pressure is so tangible that Nimzowitsch agrees to return the pawn. After 17.Nxg4 Bxg4 the
pin on the knight would have caused White not a few worries, while Black threatens the manoeuvre
...f7-f5-f4.
17...Bxe5 18.Nxf5 Bxh2† 19.Kh1
19...h5
Clearly, not 19...Nxe3 on account of 20.Nxe3 Bd6 21.Qf3, to White’s advantage, and not 19...Bg1?
on account of 20.g3.
20.Qf3 g6 21.Nh6†
Again a forced reply. Still worse for White is 21.Nh4 Re4!.
21...Kg7 22.g3
White correctly chooses the lesser of the evils. 22.Nxg4 hxg4 23.Qxg4 Rh8 24.g3 would lead to a
quick finish: 24...f5 25.Qf3 f4 etc.
73
22...Bxg3?
Somehow the simple win 22...Rxe3 23.Nf5† gxf5 24.fxe3 Qxg3 25.Qxf5 Qh3 26.Qxf7† Kh8 did not
suit me.
23.Nxg4 hxg4 24.Qxg4 Bd6

Black can transpose to a favourable endgame by means of 24...Re4 25.Qxg3 Qxg3 26.fxg3 Rxe3
27.Kg2 Rae8.
25.Kg2 f5 26.Qf3 Re4 27.Rh1 f4 28.Bd2 Rf8 29.Rh4 Rf5

In terrible time trouble Black again does not play in the best way. After 29...Be7! 30.Rh3 Rf5 White
cannot bring the second rook into play. On 31.Rah1 there follows 31...Rg5† 32.Kf1 Qc4†.
30.Rah1 Be7 31.Rh7† Kf6 32.R1h4 Ke6 33.Rg7 Kd7 34.b3 Qd6 35.Kf1
74
35...Qa3??
Such a move is difficult to explain. Black gives up the main bastion of his position – the f4-pawn. By
continuing 35...Qf6 36.Rhh7 Kc6, Black as before retained winning chances.
[Editorial note: After, for example, 37.Qg4 the position is decisively in White’s favour. For example,
37...Re6 38.Rf7!, 37...Rg5? 38.Qc8† or 37...g5 38.Rxe7!. The decisive mistake had been committed by
Black earlier; his 30th move fatally weakened the f4-pawn.]
36.Rxf4 Rexf4 37.Bxf4 Qxa2 38.Qe3 Qb1† 39.Kg2 Qe4† 40.Qxe4 dxe4 41.Bc1!
The remainder is clear.
41...Ke6 42.Rxg6† Bf6 43.Rg4 Kd5 44.Be3 b5 45.Rg8 Be7 46.Rc8 Rf8 47.c4† Kd6 48.Rc5 bxc4
75
49.bxc4 Ra8 50.Bf4† Kd7 51.Rc7† Kd8 52.d5 Rc8 53.Ra7 Rxc4 54.d6 Bf6 55.Rf7 Bh4 56.Kh3 Ke8
57.Rc7
1–0
This game was played in the final round. Nimzowitsch caught up with Alekhine, and after a match
between them ended in a draw, both were permitted into the grandmasters’ tournament.
Despite the deficient system of qualification for the international tournament, the Chess Assembly
succeeded in attracting a very strong selection of grandmasters. The very first to agree to play was
World Champion Lasker, though it is true that he only did so on the basis of a fee. Next there were two
of the candidates for the chess crown – Capablanca and Rubinstein. Then Tarrasch, Marshall, Janowski,
Bernstein, the two victors of the amateurs’ tournament – Alekhine and Nimzowitsch – and, finally,
Blackburne and Gunsberg. Unfortunately Duras, Maróczy and Schlechter declined to play. Five prizes
were established.
Would the 45-year-old Lasker manage to compete with the young Capablanca, who had stunned
Europe with his successes, and with Rubinstein, the winner of a series of important tournaments? This
was the basic question that concerned chessplayers the world over.
I helped the organizing committee with the accommodation of the participants. Rubinstein arrived a
week before the beginning of the tournament; he was presented with a good room at the Grand Hotel
Europe. But already after two days he expressed dissatisfaction with his room – he was supposedly
disturbed by noise from the lift. One of the members of the Assembly offered Rubinstein the choice of
rooms in his apartment. There were six rooms, while the proprietor was a single bachelor. Rubinstein
moved in with him, but again proved unhappy – he found the silence oppressive, and he had to move
back to the hotel. It became clear to me: Akiba’s nervous system was giving up, and this did not bode
well for the future.
Rubinstein’s main competitor from the All-Russian Masters’ tournament at Vilna, the Moscow lawyer
O.S. Bernstein, yielded nothing in playing strength to the other competitors. But he had spent little time
on chess and his theoretical preparation was clearly insufficient. In a decisive game against Tarrasch,
Bernstein, playing with White, was already dead and buried in the opening.
The Riga master Nimzowitsch had achieved a major success in the San Sebastián tournament of
1912, where until the final round he was in contention for first prize.
Particular hopes were pinned on Alekhine. For the first time he would have to cross swords with
world-class grandmasters. In fact, he achieved modest results against Lasker and Capablanca, but
against the remaining grandmasters he played very successfully. Alekhine proved to be the sole
representative of Russia among the five qualifiers for the final.
Capablanca made an unforgettable impression on me. It was also his first time competing in a
tournament of such a strong make-up, but it seemed that he was able to battle without any nervous
tension. In the qualifying tournament Capablanca easily won game after game. He conducted his first
meeting with Lasker very well. A marvellous pawn sacrifice led to material gain, and only
exceptionally deep defence by Lasker saved him from defeat.
I was seeing Tarrasch for the first time. After the loss of the match to Lasker his arrogance had taken
a beating, but nonetheless he made an unpleasant impression with his swaggering self-assurance. His
76
achievements in the field of popularizing chess are undisputed; two generations of chessplayers have
studied Tarrasch’s books. It is not for nothing that he has been called the chess tutor of Germany. He
was a dogmatic strategist, but a superior tactician. His game against Nimzowitsch was awarded a prize
for beauty.
Janowski, a native of Russia, had emigrated to France and lived in Paris. He was undoubtedly the
most elegant participant – both in appearance and in style of play. In the years 1900-1907 he had
achieved outstanding successes, but the matches against Lasker and Marshall clearly showed that his
talent had passed. Janowski was too attracted by reckless play, and he did not have the time and
patience for chess.
Externally, Marshall did not correspond to the idea of a typical ‘Yankee’. Possibly, the admixture of
Indian blood had had its effect. His motto was attack. Marshall conducted it with great endurance and
level temperament, and he proved unstoppable for weaker opponents. In tournaments of mixed make-
up Marshall had more than once achieved the top prizes, but in grandmaster tournaments and especially
in matches against strong opponents, where his clever combinations were repulsed by solid defence, he
could not achieve success.
A similar style was possessed by the ‘patriarch’ of the tournament, Blackburne. In his day it was not
for nothing that his opponents called him the ‘Black Death’. Blackburne had won many prizes in
tournaments, but had lost heavily in matches against Lasker, Steinitz and Zukertort. Despite his age,
Blackburne fought for each point, brilliantly smashed Nimzowitsch, and in a worse endgame outwitted
Rubinstein himself and achieved a draw.
In the 1890s Gunsberg had the reputation of being one of the strongest in the chess world. He had
drawn a match with Chigorin and lost to Steinitz in a tough battle. A lengthy break from practical play
had sharply told on his mastery, and he lost points without a fight. One must give Gunsberg’s
endurance its due. It is not so easy to tolerate a series of straight defeats, but Gunsberg remained
unperturbed and politely congratulated his opponents on their victories.
The sensation of the tournament proved to be the complete failure of Rubinstein. The quality of his
play was unenviable. Against all expectations, Rubinstein was not among the five qualifiers.
Capablanca effortlessly took the lead and finished the first stage with 8 points from 10 games. In the
eighth round, Lasker lost in haphazard fashion to Bernstein, while in the ninth he stood on the verge of
defeat against Tarrasch. He could have easily suffered the fate of Rubinstein. Tarrasch observed that
while the five winners were playing in the second stage, Lasker and Rubinstein could have played a
match for the World Championship. But in the final rounds, Lasker improved his position and together
with Tarrasch finished in second place with 6½ points. Fourth and fifth place was shared by Alekhine
and Marshall – on 6 points.
In the final tournament Lasker demonstrated exceptional mastery. It is sufficient to recall that from
his eight games against Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall, Lasker collected 7(!) points and
won first prize. Capablanca was a half-point behind. The third place of Alekhine was a great surprise. It
had become obvious that Alekhine had confidently advanced to the front rank of grandmasters.
The tournament provided many examples of genuine chess art, and it can only be regretted that there
is still no tournament book in the Russian language of this first-class competition.
The Petersburg tournament finished at the end of May, while already it had been announced that the
77
next congress of the German Chess Union would take place in Mannheim in August. A large group of
Russian chessplayers were invited: Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Flamberg and I to the masters’ tournament;
Bohatirchuk, Romanovsky, I. Rabinovich, Rudnev, Selezniev, Maliutin, S. Vainshtein to the amateurs’.
I made every effort to finish at the Institute in the autumn, and sat down with my diploma thesis. I
could not even dream of the trip to Germany. Thus I happily avoided the German captivity into which
the Russian participants of the Mannheim tournaments fell, but all the same I did not manage to finish
at the Institute: the First World War had begun...
I was mobilized as a chemist and at first worked in one of the chemical factories. But soon the
German army used gas, and I was transferred to the production of anti-gas agents. The production was
directed by Professor (and future Academician) Zelinsky.
I had to live through a great deal in the stormy years of war and revolution. I laboured in factories
supporting the war effort, but was sometimes left completely without work. In 1917 my wife suddenly
died.
[Translator’s note: According to Aleksandr Kentler, Elena Vladimirovna died as a result of sepsis.
Their first daughter, Lida, had died of diphtheria in her third year of life. Levenfish was left with their
second daughter Elena, who had been born on 30th June 1916.]
Of course, it was not even possible to think about chess.
Chess life was frozen in the years of war, hunger and devastation. The old clubs and circles were
closed, the chess enthusiasts Maliutin and Sosnitsky were killed. Poland, Latvia and Finland became
independent states, and the masters living in these countries – Rubinstein, Lowtzky, Przepiórka,
Flamberg – were left abroad. Bernstein and Znosko-Borovsky emigrated to France, while the
whereabouts of many Soviet masters was unknown. Alekhine returned from Mannheim already in
1914, but I. Rabinovich, Romanovsky, Selezniev and Vainshtein were detained and transferred to
Triberg. The many tournaments and matches which took place in this provincial town had a beneficial
effect on the captives’ play. In the following years Bogoljubow became a leading grandmaster, while I.
Rabinovich, Romanovsky and Selezniev returned to their homeland as fully-fledged masters.
Bogoljubow married a local German woman and settled in Triberg.
78
Chapter 3
First Tournaments in the Soviet Republic

Chess life in the young republic had to be built anew in difficult conditions. But the Soviet state sought
to make culture the property of the people. Chess ceased to depend on patrons and card-playing clubs
and began to receive the regular help of the state and the trades unions. And most importantly – only
now did there appear the possibility of attracting broad swathes of the workers to chess. For the new
task, good organizers were needed. Fortunately, these were to be found in both Petrograd* – S.
Vainshtein and I. Golubev, and in Moscow – A. Ilyin-Zhenevsky and N. Grigoriev.
[*Translator’s note: St Petersburg had been renamed Petrograd in September 1914, soon after the
outbreak of World War I.]
At that time I was working in the Central Petrochemical Laboratory. It was there that Vainshtein
found me.
With great effort he organized a championship of Petrograd for the year 1920. After a six-year break
I played abysmally, but the training proved useful, since a major event – the All-Russia Chess
Olympiad – was soon to be held.
The All-Russia Olympiad

During the Civil War the Red Guard and then the Red Army was replenished by spontaneous military
training of soldiers from factories and enterprises. In April 1918 the headquarters of General Military
Training [Translator’s note: Vseobshchego Voennogo Obucheniya, or ‘Vsevobuch’] was created. The
Commissar for the Vsevobuch was named as A.F. Ilyin-Zhenevsky, while the head of the Moscow
Vsevobuch was to be the strong draughts player, V.N. Russo. Both were set the task of organizing the
All-Russia Olympiad, while the chief of the Vsevobuch, Comrade Podvoisky, supported this
undertaking.
The addresses of many chessplayers were unknown. Therefore, across the entire territory of the
Vsevobuch, telegrams were sent regarding the organization of a chess tournament to be held in
Moscow starting on 1st October 1920, and inviting those wishing to play to send their names and
addresses. In this way there were found in Minsk the master A. Rabinovich, in the Gomel province D.
Pavlov, and others.
In general, the organizers managed to assemble almost all the full strength of the country, with the
exception of Duz-Khotimirsky, Levitsky and Freiman. From Moscow there played Alekhine (returned
from Odessa), Blumenfeld, Grigoriev, Zubarev, Ilyin-Zhenevsky, D. Pavlov, N. Pavlov, A. Rabinovich
and Tselikov. From Petrograd – Golubev, A. Kubbel, Levenfish, I. Rabinovich, Romanovsky – and
also the Lódź masters Daniuszweski and Mund, who were ‘caught’ in the territory of the Soviet
republic. There were many visitors at the tournament. Three prizes were established.
79
With difficulty I managed to escape from work, and travelled late to Moscow, arriving only at the
drawing of lots. The players from cities other than Moscow were placed in a dormitory – used by the
higher-ranking members of the Vsevobuch – which was heated after a fashion. In the first round, in the
game against Romanovsky, in a completely hopeless position for him I blundered and lost. In the
second round my game with I. Rabinovich took the same course. I did not lose a single game more and
gathered 10 points from the remaining 15 games, but this was good enough only for third place. First
place was taken by Alekhine, second – and the master title – was taken by Romanovsky. [Translator’s
note: the All-Russia Olympiad was subsequently considered to have been the 1st USSR
Championship.]
The organization of supplies for the participants of the Olympiad was no easy matter. The
accommodation in the dormitory was ‘full board’. Alas, in those difficult years for the republic it
consisted of two hundred grams of bread, and one meal – lunch. For the first course we were given
soup made of herring heads. For the second – herring tails. Where the middle parts of the herring were,
we did not manage to establish...
To improve the miserly ‘cadets rations’ the players from St Petersburg elected Vanya Golubev, who
was considered to be an experienced kommersant (merchant). He sometimes managed to obtain ‘grub’
from factory workers in exchange for the cigarettes that were provided for the participants. But in
general, food matters were not brilliant. An additional load fell on the shoulders of dear A.F. Ilyin-
Zhenevsky. Instead of preparing for tournament games he was forced to occupy himself with searching
for additional supplies. Displaying great energy and perseverance, he achieved outstanding success – all
of the participants were given two hundred grams of cheese. The failing organisms of the chess
matadors thus obtained some unexpected protein.
The shortage of calories was compensated for by youthful enthusiasm and love for chess. Play was
‘for its own sake’, without any worries regarding qualification for the next tournament. The players
fought with vigour and many good games were played, but unfortunately, the majority of them have not
been preserved.
My game with Alekhine took a very tense course. Alekhine was saved from defeat only by his
tactical resourcefulness.
The resumption of games after adjournment did not pass without adventures. Alekhine and
Blumenfeld appeared for theirs with detailed written analyses, each convinced of the superiority of their
position. Within four moves, their analyses had already gone awry. After great complications matters
concluded in a draw. The game between Alekhine and Ilyin-Zhenevsky was adjourned in a pawn
endgame, which everyone assessed as hopeless for Alekhine. To general astonishment, Alekhine came
to the adjournment in cheerful mood. In home analysis he had found a hidden path to salvation and
achieved a draw, to the great disappointment of his rivals.
The question of prizes was resolved most easily. White (anti-communist) emigrants fleeing abroad
had left in pawn shops many valuables, which were confiscated by the authorities. The organizing
committee obtained from the pawn shops three items. The division of them was done in a very original
way. The prizes were placed in a separate room. Into it went Alekhine first. He chose a prize for
himself and, coming out with a bulky vase in his hands, declared, “It seems that in terms of weight I
chose correctly.” After him there followed Romanovsky. I, though, had no choice to make. The
prizewinners were given certificates. I have retained mine. It is written on a sheet of poor paper, which
80
it was difficult to track down anywhere; there was no way of having the certificates printed.
GAME 15
Peter Romanovsky – Grigory Levenfish

All-Russia Olympiad, Moscow 1920
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6

With this move Black takes serious obligations upon himself. Normally 4...Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 is played.
Also possible is 4...Nd7 and only then 5...Ngf6, which occurred in the game with Ravinsky (Game 33).
5.Nxf6†
5.Ng3 Bg4 and then 6...e6 or 6...g6 leads to fully adequate play for Black.
5...gxf6
After 5...exf6 White’s pawn majority on the queen’s flank can in time be converted into a passed
pawn. The capture with the g-pawn sharpens the play. Along the g-file Black can obtain an attack
against White’s short-castled position.
6.Be3
As a preparation for long castling, not a bad move. On 6.Bf4 Black could have replied 6...Qb6.
Theory considers the strongest continuation to be 6.Ne2 Bf5 7.Ng3 Bg6 8.h4 h6 9.h5 Bh7 10.c3 Qb6
11.Bc4 Nd7 12.a4 a5 13.Qf3 e6 14.0-0 Bc2 15.Bf4!± (Horowitz – Flohr, Radio Match USA v. USSR
81
1945). However, Black’s play can be improved, for example 6...Bg4 7.h3 Bh5 8.c3 Qc7.
6...Bf5 7.Bd3 Bg6 8.Ne2 Na6

A good move. The threat of ...Nb4 forces 9.c3, but then there is 9...Nc7 followed by ...Nd5, winning
a tempo in comparison with the route ...Nd7-b6-d5.
9.Bxa6
This exchange passes the initiative to Black. Correct is 9.c3, 10.Qd2 and then 11.0-0-0.
9...Qa5† 10.Qd2 Qxa6 11.0-0 e6 12.Ng3 0-0-0 13.Qc3

13.f4 would have weakened the central squares. Black can reply 13...f5 or instead go in for not
unfavourable complications: 13...h5 14.f5 h4 15.fxg6 hxg3 16.hxg3 Be7 17.gxf7 Rdf8
13...h5 14.Rfe1
As the further course of the game shows, better is 14.Rfd1.
14...Qa4 15.Re2 h4 16.Nf1 Qb5! 17.Qe1

In view of the threat of ...Bb4 – the only move.
17...h3 18.g3 Bh5 19.Rd2 Qxb2 20.c4 Qa3 21.c5 Bg6 22.Qe2 Be4 23.f3 Bd5 24.Rb2 Bg7 25.Rab1
Rd7 26.Nd2!
82
After losing a pawn White has played in the best way and now offers an exchange sacrifice, in order
after 26...Bxa2 27.Ne4 Bxb1 28.Rxb1 to create a complicated situation in which Black could easily
stumble.
26...f5! 27.Kf2
Preparing Nc4.
27...f4! 28.gxf4 Bf6 29.Ne4 Bxe4 30.fxe4 Rg8 31.Rb3 Rg2† 32.Kf3 Qa5 33.Qd3 Qxa2
Also winning is 33...Qd8 34.Qa6! Qg8 35.e5 Qg4† 36.Ke4 Qg6† 37.Kf3 Rxh2 (or 37...Qxb1). Of
no help is 35.Qxc6† in view of 35...Kd8. While my opponent was thinking over his move, I got up
from the board and walked around. Alekhine was doing likewise. He looked at my game and then,
coming towards me, said, “A-ha, preparing mate at g2!”
83
34.e5
Romanovsky had clearly seen the threatened rook sacrifice. For example, on 34...Rg3† 35.hxg3 Qg2†
36.Kg4 Rd8 37.Bg1 Rg8† 38.Kh5 Rh8† 39.Kg4 Rh4#. The move played by him prevents this
combination. Black can win in various ways, most simply of all by means of 34...Rd8, renewing the
threat of 35...Rg3†, or 34...Bh4 or, without any trickery, 34...Rxh2. But, hypnotized by Alekhine’s
words, I arrived at the board and immediately sacrificed the rook, not even writing down White’s
move!
34...Rg3†?? 35.hxg3 Qg2† 36.Kg4

This move proved to be a surprise for me. Interestingly, a similar hallucination occurred to Lasker in
his game against Bernstein from the international tournament in St Petersburg in 1914.
36...Rd8
84
37.Qh7!
This is the point of the move 34.e5.
37...Rh8 38.Qxh8† Bxh8 39.Rxb7 Qe2† 40.Kh4 Qa6 41.Rb8† Kc7 42.Bd2
1–0
I was punished for this nonchalance and as a result of this game took third place, while Romanovsky
took second.
Unfortunately, as the reader will be convinced from the following, such incidents more than once
spoiled my sporting successes. Alekhine’s words were said without any malicious intent, but at the
same time I want to say that conversations during play should not take place. I never once saw Lasker,
Tarrasch or Botvinnik discuss their games with other tournament participants. Meanwhile there are
grandmasters and masters who are ready to discuss the situations on their board after every move.
Supposedly, this makes them ‘outgoing’ personalities. I, though, consider such conduct to be
unsporting.
GAME 16
Alexander Alekhine – Grigory Levenfish

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4 e6 4.e3

Alekhine was not a fan of the Schlechter-Rubinstein Attack (4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3).
85
4...Nc6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.b3
A method of development that promises little. The normal 8.Qe2, or 8.a3, is stronger.
8...cxd4 9.exd4 b6
White threatened in some cases to transfer the centre of gravity of the struggle onto the queen’s flank
with the move c4-c5.
10.Bb2
10...Ba6!
Now the negative sides of the manoeuvre 8.b3 and 10.Bb2 come to light. Black threatens to fall on
the weak c4-pawn, while if White continues 11.cxd5, then there follows 11...Bxd3 12.Qxd3 Nb4 and
then 13...Nbxd5. White obtains a weak isolated pawn at d4 without any compensation.
11.Re1 dxc4 12.bxc4 Rc8 13.Nb5
At Bad Pistyan (1922) Alekhine chose with Black the very same method of development as I did in
the present game. His opponent Grünfeld was prepared and replied 13.Qa4!.
Seemingly Black can continue 13...Nxd4 14.Nxd4 Qxd4 15.Rad1 Qh4 16.Qxa6 Ng4!. However,
after 13...Nxd4 14.Rad1! White wins.
Instead there followed 13...Nb4 14.Bf1 Qe8! 15.Qb3 Nc6 with level play.
13...Bxb5 14.cxb5 Nb4 15.Ne5!

Worse is 15.Bb1 (see page 275) in view of 15...Qe8 16.Qe2 a6 17.a3 Nbd5 18.bxa6 Qa4 with strong
pressure.
86
15...Nd7
The e5-knight, which threatens after the exchange at d3 to make itself at home on the c6-square,
should be exchanged. However, the move in the game weakens the defence of the kingside, and
Alekhine immediately finds a tactical trick.
Correct was 15...Bd6!. Black’s threat is to exchange at e5 and d3 and to seize with the knight the
unassailable square d5 with excellent prospects both in the middlegame and endgame. Bogoljubow
suggested for White the continuation 16.Ba3, but then 16...Bxe5 17.Bxb4 Qxd4 18.Bxf8 Qxa1, or
17.dxe5 Nxd3, or 17.Rxe5 Nxd3 18.Qxd3 Re8, with advantage for Black.
16.Re3! Nxd3
There was threatened 17.Bxh7† Kxh7 18.Qh5† Kg8 19.Rh3.
17.Rxd3 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Qe8

White has managed to rid himself of the isolated d4-pawn, but he has not completely equalized the
game; in particular, he has a bad bishop.
19.Qb3 Rd8 20.Rad1 Rxd3 21.Rxd3 Bc5 22.g3 h6 23.a4

On 23.Bd4 Black would have replied 23...Qe7 and if 24.a4 then 24...Rc8. The weakness of the pawns
at e5 and a4 gives Black good chances in the endgame.
87
23...Qa8! 24.Bd4 Rc8
The threat of 25...Qe4 forces a weakening of the pawn cover.
25.f3 Qb8! 26.f4 Qc7!

After 26...Qa8 27.Bxc5 Rxc5 28.Qd1 Qe4 29.Rd8† Kh7 30.Qd3 the rook endgame should lead to a
draw.
27.Bxc5 Qxc5† 28.Kg2 Qc1 29.Qd1 Rc2† 30.Kf3

On 30.Kh3 White evidently feared 30...Qb2.
30...Qb2 31.Rd8† Kh7 32.Kg4
88
32...Rxh2
A shame! By continuing 32...h5†! 33.Kxh5 (33.Kg5 f6†) 33...Rxh2† 34.Kg4 Qg2 35.Qd3† (if
35.Rd7, then 35...Rh6!) 35...g6 36.Rd7 (or 36.Kg5 Kg7 37.Rd7 Rh5† 38.Kg4 Rh4†! mating) 36...Kh6!
37.Rxf7 Rh4†! 38.Kxh4 Qh2† 39.Kg4 Qh5#, Black would have ended this fighting game beautifully.
[Translator’s note: in fact, after 32...h5† 33.Kxh5 Rxh2† 34.Kg4 Qg2 35.Qd3† g6 36.Kg5! Kg7
White has the resource 37.Qa3! when Black has no more than a draw after 37...Rh5† 38.Kg4 Qh3†
(38...Qe2† 39.Qf3) 39.Kf3 Qf1† 40.Kg4 (40.Ke3 Qe1†) 40...Qh3†, etc.]
33.Qd3† g6 34.Rd7 Kg7 35.Rxf7†

½–½
This was my last encounter with Alekhine. Soon afterwards, he abandoned his native land for good.
GAME 17
Abram Rabinovich – Grigory Levenfish

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6

Black is offering a gambit: 3.c4 c6 4.dxc6 Nxc6 Rapid development and the seizure of the important
squares d4 and e5 balances the loss of a pawn.
Giving White nothing is 3.Bb5† Bd7 4.Bc4 Bg4 5.f3 Bf5 6.Nc3 Nbd7 and then 7...Nb6.
89
3.d4 Nxd5 4.c4 Nb6 5.Nc3 e5
A suggestion of Bogoljubow. The correctness of the pawn sacrifice is not completely clear.
6.dxe5 Qxd1† 7.Nxd1 Nc6 8.f4 Nd4 9.Ne3

Better than 9.Bd3 in view of 9...Be6 10.Ne3 0-0-0 and the bishop stands badly at d3.
9...Be6 10.Bd2 0-0-0 11.Rc1 g5

It is necessary to sharpen the play, as otherwise White completes development with Ne2-c3 with a
clear advantage.
12.f5!
After 12.fxg5 Bg7 Black wins the e5-pawn with an excellent position.
90
12...Bxf5 13.c5 Nd5 14.Nxf5 Nxf5 15.Bxg5 Re8 16.Nf3 Nd4!
The same combinational idea was possible with the intermediate move 16...f6 and then 17.Bd3 Nd4,
but I did not like the continuation 18.Nxd4 Rxe5† 19.Kf2 Rxg5 20.Nf3.
17.Nxd4 Rxe5† 18.Be2 Rxg5 19.0-0 Ne3 20.Rxf7
20...Bxc5
This tempting move is weaker than 20...Rxg2† 21.Kh1 Rhg8 22.Bf3 R2g7.
21.Bf3! Nc2
Not 21...Bxd4 in view of 22.Rcxc7†.
An interesting variation is obtained after 21...Bb6 22.Rfxc7† Bxc7 23.Ne6 Rb5 24.Nxc7 Rxb2. Instead
White does best to meet 21...Bb6 with 22.Kh1 Rc5 23.Rxc5 Bxc5 24.Nf5 Nxf5 25.Bg4 etc.
22.Rxc2 Bxd4† 23.Kh1 Be5 24.Rc5 h6

There was threatened 25.Rfxc7†.
25.Rb5 b6 26.b4
Leading to a simple draw was 26.h4 Rg7 27.Rxg7 Bxg7 28.Rd5. White had overlooked a prepared
trick.
91
26...Bxh2! 27.Rxg5 hxg5 28.b5!
Black’s pawn majority on the queen’s flank is now devalued and the opposite-coloured bishops
guarantee a peaceful outcome.
28...Kd8 29.g4
And the players soon agreed on a draw.
...½–½
Master A.I. Rabinovich loved chess fanatically. After the Olympiad, Rabinovich soon moved to
Moscow. He worked as an accountant in the Porcelain Trust, and then for many years led the chess
department in the newspaper Vechernaya Moskva. His constant partner was Verlinsky. At the board
Abram Isaakovich forgot about everything else.
One time, when still in Vilnius, Rabinovich – a very welcoming and congenial person – was
celebrating the birth of his first child. In the evening twenty guests gathered at his home. But the host
was stranded somewhere in the city. The guests continued to wait in vain for several hours, and the
celebration had to be cancelled. It turned out that Rabinovich had met a visiting chessplayer in the
street. He took him to a hotel to play a pair of friendly games, and Rabinovich remembered about his
guests only the next morning.
Despite his undoubted tactical talent, Rabinovich was unable to achieve major practical successes,
since he was lacking in endurance and patience. In opening theory he managed to find interesting ideas,
but he struggled to combine this with analysis. Rabinovich recognized a variation as bad only if it led to
being mated; he did not consider the loss of a piece or a pawn to be a sufficiently convincing refutation.
***
The revival provoked by the Olympiad was felt most keenly in Petersburg and Moscow. Through the
92
efforts of S. Vainshtein and I. Golubev, in April 1921 there appeared the first Soviet chess magazine,
Listok Shakhmatnogo Kruzhka Petrogubcommuny (‘Chess Leaflet of the Petrograd Province
Commune’), while in Moscow there appeared a chess column in some newspapers. The greatest
difficulties appeared in Petrograd with the search for premises for the city chess club. There were many
vacant premises, but they were not heated. In the autumn of 1921 S. Vainshtein held a ‘Tournament of
Six’ in his apartment. In this tournament the following game was played.
GAME 18
Grigory Levenfish – Ilya Rabinovich

Tournament of Six, Petrograd 1921
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 b6 3.Nd2 Bb7 4.Ngf3 e6 5.e4 h6

Here is why Black permitted the move 5.e4 – he forces the exchange at f6.
6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Bd3 c5
8.e5
If 8.c3, then 8...cxd4 9.cxd4 Nc6, and White all the same has to play 10.e5.
8...Qd8 9.Be4 Qc7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Re1 0-0 12.dxc5

White opens lines for the rooks. Also possible was a different strategic plan: 12.c3 f6 [Editorial note:
stronger is 12...d6 with equality.] 13.Rc1 Nc6 14.Bb1 with the threat of Qc2, emphasizing the darker
sides of the move 5...h6.
93
12...bxc5
Nothing good was promised Black by 12...Bxc5 13.Bxb7 Qxb7 14.Ne4 Be7 15.Qd2.
13.Bxb7 Qxb7 14.Nc4 Nc6 15.Qd3
15...f6 16.Rad1 Rad8 17.Qe4

Nothing is given by 17.Nh4.
17...Qc7 18.Qg4 fxe5 19.Ncxe5 Nxe5 20.Nxe5 Rf5 21.Qe4

Threatening 22.Nxd7. Moreover, White intends to continue 22.c4. Black’s reply is forced.
21...d5
Black has obtained a powerful pawn centre. Tarrasch would probably have considered that Black is
almost winning. But White has mastery of the central square e5, and the black pawns are held back.
94
22.Qe2 Bd6 23.Ng4 Re8 24.h3 d4
Black threatens to win the knight after ...h5, but permanently weakens the light squares. Somewhat
better is 24...c4, on which White wanted to continue 25.b3.
25.f3! Bf4 26.Qc4 Qf7 27.Re4 h5 28.Nh2 Rd5 29.Nf1 Bb8 30.Rde1 Qd7 31.Qe2 Kf7
After 31...e5 32.Nd2 and then 33.Nc4 Black’s game is strategically lost.
32.f4 g6 33.Nd2 Rf5 34.Nf3!
34...Rxf4
Of course, not 34...Bxf4 in view of 35.Rxf4 Rxf4 36.Ne5†.
95
35.Ng5† Kg8
Black would have offered more tenacious resistance by continuing 35...Kf6. Then bad for White is
36.Rxf4† Bxf4 37.Ne4† Kg7 38.Nxc5 Qf7 39.Nxe6† Kg8, and there is no defence against 40...Be3†
(or 40...Bg3). The correct continuation is 36.h4! (threatening 37.Rxf4† and 38.Rf1) 36...Rxe4 37.Qxe4
Kg7 38.Rf1 Re7 39.Qf3 Qe8 40.Qf6† Kh6 (40...Kg8 41.Ne4) 41.g4! hxg4 42.h5 Kxh5 43.Ne4 Kh6
44.Kg2.
36.Rxf4 Bxf4
37.Qe4! Bxg5
Or 37...Be3† 38.Rxe3 dxe3 39.Qxg6† Kf8 40.Nh7† Ke7 41.Qg7† Kd8 42.Qxd7† Kxd7 43.Nf6†.
38.Qxg6† Kh8 39.Qxh5† Bh6 40.Re4! Kg7 41.Rg4† Kf6 42.Rg6† Ke7 43.Qxc5† Qd6 44.Qxa7†
Kd8 45.Rxh6
The remainder does not present any interest. Black resigned on the 77th move.
...1–0
Schlechter maintained that a chessplayer having combinational gifts will with correct training become a
master. But is it possible to develop a gift for combinations in the absence of being born with one? The
example of I. Rabinovich demonstrates that this is possible. Rabinovich found the creation and
calculation of combinations difficult, but nonetheless hard work permitted him to overcome this
shortcoming to a certain extent. In addition, Rabinovich possessed excellent positional instinct and
decent technique, and he achieved significant successes.
96
Petrograd Championship
The chess movement was developing at a rapid tempo. Everywhere in the country chess circles were
being organized. In Petrograd, in place of the Listok Shakhmatnogo Kruzhka Petrogubcommuny,
through the efforts of S. Vainshtein and I. Golubev, Shakhmatnyi Listok (‘Chess Leaflet’) was
established, while in Moscow the monthly magazine Shakhmaty (‘Chess’) came out.
I transferred to work in the Glassware Trust. The service was not very burdensome, and I was able to
take part in the Petrograd Championship of 1922. The number of participants was limited to twelve.
Taking 9 points from 11 games, I took first place. Second prize was achieved by I. Rabinovich, third
place was shared by Gotthilf and Platz.
I present a game from the championship.
GAME 19
Grigory Levenfish – Peter Romanovsky

Petrograd Championship 1922
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Be7 5.Nc3 d6 6.d4 Bd7 7.Bg5
After 7.Re1 0-0 Black loses a pawn, as was shown by the well-known game Tarrasch – Marco
(Dresden 1892). In the present case castling is possible: 7...0-0 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Nxe5
Bxe4 11.Qxd8 Bxd8 12.Bxf6 Bxf6
7...exd4 8.Nxd4 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Qd3 Re8
97
11.Rae1
The queen’s rook comes to e1, which later facilitates the advance f2-f4.
11...Rb8 12.b3
There was threatened not 12...Rxb2, which led to the loss of the exchange, but 12...c5, and the knight
is forced to retreat to b3.
12...Ng4
Normally 12...h6 13.Bh4 Nh7 is played.
13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.f4 Qh4

An interesting idea. Black wants to operate with the queen on the king’s flank; otherwise after 15.h3
Nf6 there will be no convenient stance for the queen.
15.h3
Deserving attention is 15.Nf3 Qh6 16.e5 Qxf4 17.h3 Nh6 18.Re4 Qg3 19.Ne2 Qg6 20.Nf4 Qg3
21.exd6 Rxe4 22.dxc7! Rbe8 23.Qxd7, or 18...Qf5 19.exd6 Qc5† 20.Qd4 cxd6 21.Qxc5 dxc5 22.Rc4.
15...Nf6 16.Re3 c5 17.Nde2

A passive move. Correct is 17.Ndb5, and if 17...Rb7 18.a4 with the threat of 19.e5. The counter-blow
in the centre does not work, for example: 17.Ndb5 d5 18.Nxc7 d4 19.Nxe8 Rxe8 20.Re2 dxc3 21.e5
Qh5 22.Re3 Bf5 23.exf6, or 19...Bxe8 20.e5 Nd7 21.e6 fxe6 22.Rxe6 dxc3 23.Rxe8† Rxe8 24.Qxd7.
17...Bc6 18.Ng3 g6 19.Rff3

On 19.Qa6 there could follow 19...Rb6 20.Qxa7 Bb7 21.Qa4 d5!. The move in the game is the
98
starting-point of a complicated combination.
19...Rb4
20.e5! Bxf3
Other branches are 20...Nd7 21.exd6!, and 20...Rd4 21.Qa6 Bxf3 22.exf6 with the threat of mate.
The best response for Black consists of 20...dxe5 21.fxe5 Nd7, but after 22.e6 Rxe6 23.Rxe6 fxe6
24.Re3 White has sufficient compensation for the loss of a pawn. 25.Rxe6 and 25.Qa6 are threatened.
21.exf6 Bc6 22.Nd5!
99
In this lies the whole point. Black had intended the continuation 22...Rd4, but then 23.Rxe8† Bxe8
24.Qe3! Bc6 25.Qe7 h5 26.Qd8† Kh7 27.Qf8.
22...Rbb8 23.Ne7† Rxe7 24.Rxe7 Qxf6 25.Rxc7 d5 26.Qe3 Re8

Black correctly aims to complicate the play, as otherwise he would have been faced with a prosaic
endgame with a pawn less after 27.Qe5.
27.Qxc5 Re6 28.f5 Rd6

Or 28...gxf5 29.Rc8† Be8 30.Qxd5.
29.Qe3 Kg7 30.Rc8 d4

Now there follows a spectacular concluding combination.
31.Nh5† gxh5 32.Qg3† Kh6 33.Rg8 h4

The only defence.
34.Qf4† Kh5 35.Qg4† Kh6 36.Qf4† Kh5 37.Qg4† Kh6

The checks were given to win time; the control was at the 38th move.
100
38.g3!
The threat is 39.Qf4† Kh5 40.g4#. If 38...hxg3, then 39.h4, and there is no defence against 40.Qf4†
Kh5 41.Rg5†.
1–0
101
2nd USSR Championship
Already in his day Chigorin had dreamed of organizing an All-Russian Chess Union. His idea was
picked up in 1914 by the directors of the Petrograd Chess Assembly. A union was organized and
counted 800 members – for that time a large number. But the union did not survive the events of 1914-
1917 and practically ceased to exist. The Petrograd chess organization, headed by S. Vainshtein,
energetically took to reviving the All-Russian Chess Union. Unfortunately, the organization took as a
model the bourgeois German Chess Union, although it was clear that in the new conditions a different
form of association of chessplayers was needed.
The Union was created at the end of 1922 and immediately began preparations to arrange an All-
Russian Congress. With the support of the Moscow and other affiliates the association was provided
with the necessary means, and the congress turned into a great chess event. Included in the programme
was the championship of the RSFSR [Translator’s note: The Russian Socialist Federative Soviet
Republic; the USSR was officially established in December of 1922, comprising the Russian,
Ukrainian, Belorussian and Transcaucasian Soviet Republics] with the participation of the strongest
chessplayers of the country and a tournament of the strongest amateurs. All of the competitions took
place between the 7th and 24th July 1923. In the amateurs’ tournament 36 participants took part; these
were split into three semi-final groups. The three highest-placed players in each group qualified for the
final. Romanovsky became Champion of the RSFSR, taking 10 points, and I with 9 points finished
second. [Translator’s note: This event was subsequently recognized as the 2nd USSR Championship.]
The first prize was four(!) chervonets [Translator’s note: these were gold coins, minted in the USSR in
1923]. In the final of the amateurs’ tournament first prize was taken by the Muscovite Sergeev; second
was Verlinsky.
In a survey of the tournament, Shakhmatnyi Listok noted that I played some games “with a touch of
fatigue”. All the same I played some individual games well. This particularly applies to the following
one – from the first round.
GAME 20

2nd USSR Championship, Petrograd 1923
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3

White does not want the difficult defence associated with the win of a pawn (4.Ng5), and takes play
into a quiet variation of the Italian Game.
4...Bc5 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3

Black agrees to part with one of his bishops, in order to seize the initiative. Mistaken would be
8...Bh5 on account of 9.g4 Bg6 10.Nd5 and then the exchange at f6. Black’s bishop at g6 would be
102
excluded from the game. Perfectly acceptable is 8...Be6.
9.Qxf3 Nd4 10.Qd1 c6

Black threatens 11...b5 12.Bb3 a5 13.a4 Nxb3 14.cxb3, and White’s pawns are broken up.
11.a3 b5 12.Ba2 a5 13.0-0

White’s plan is clear. After castling he intends to begin operations in the centre. Since the basic
principles of strategy say that a flank attack is doomed to failure when there is the possibility of a
counter-blow in the centre, White fears least of all the move ...g5.
13...g5!
Nonetheless!
14.Bg3 Qd7 15.Ne2 h5 16.Nxd4 Bxd4 17.c3 Bb6 18.Qf3

[Editorial note: Better is 18.Kh1, e.g. 18...h4 19.Bh2 g4 20.f4! gxh3 21.fxe5 hxg2† 22.Kxg2 Rg8†?
(Black should play 22...Ng4 with unclear play) 23.Kh1 Qh3 24.Qe2 with advantage for White. Also
promising is the prophylactic 18.Bh2 planning to meet 18...h4 with 19.d4.]
103
18...Bd8!
A difficult move, leaving the king in the centre for the time being.
On 18...Rh6 White could reply 19.h4! g4 20.Qe2. Black’s offensive on the king’s flank is held back,
while a counter-blow in the centre by White is not far off.
Now though on 19.h4 there follows 19...Ng4 20.hxg5 Bxg5 and then ...h5-h4.
19.d4! g4 20.hxg4 hxg4 21.Qe3

The exchange of queens (21.Qf5) contradicts White’s basic plan and after 21...Qxf5 22.exf5 Nh5
23.Rfe1 f6 24.Rad1 Bb6 with the threat of 25...d5 and 26...e4 Black has the advantage.
Tempting is 21.Qd3 Nh5 22.dxe5 Nxg3 23.Qxg3, but the hidden retort 23...f6! with the threat of
...Qh7 fundamentally changes matters. After the forced 24.Rfe1 and 24...fxe5 and then ...Bh4, ...0-0-0
and ...Rdf8 Black should win.
104
The move chosen by White is well thought out. If now 21...Nh5, then 22.dxe5 Nxg3 23.fxg3! Rf8
24.Rf5 Rb8 25.Kf1 with a clear advantage for White.
21...Bb6!
Threatening long castling followed by ...Rh5 and ...Rdh8. In his analysis of this game Romanovsky
points out the following plan for White: 22.Rfe1 0-0-0 23.a4 Rh5 24.axb5 Rdh8 25.Kf1 cxb5 26.Bb3
Rh1† 27.Ke2 Rxe1† 28.Rxe1, but then too after 28...Re8 Black retains a strong attack.
22.f4 exd4!
Black does not permit the opening of the f-file and switches to an attack on the weak square d4.
23.cxd4 0-0-0 24.Rad1
105
24...d5! 25.e5 Ne4
Threatening the doubling of rooks on the h-file. White’s reply is forced.
26.Bb1 f5 27.exf6
Otherwise after the forced exchange at e4 Black would reply ...dxe4, and the pawn at d4 would soon
perish.
27...Rde8 28.Bxe4 Rxe4 29.Qc3 Kb7 30.Rfe1 Qh7
31.Kf2
Or 31.Rxe4 Qh1† 32.Kf2 Qxd1 33.Re7† Ka6 34.Qxc6 Qxd4† 35.Ke2 Qxb2† 36.Kd3 Qxa3†
106
37.Kd2 Qb4† 38.Kc2 Qc4† etc.
31...Rhe8 32.Rxe4 Rxe4 33.Kg1 Qh8

Preventing 34.f7 on account of 34...Rxd4.
34.Bf2 Rxf4
At White’s disposal there was an interesting combination – 35.Bh4!, and if 35...Qxh4, then 36.g3. Its
refutation consists of 35...Rxd4! 36.Rxd4 Qxh4 37.f7 g3 38.f8=Q Bxd4†.
35.Be3 Rxf6 36.Rf1 g3 37.Rxf6 Qxf6 38.Qd3 Bc7 39.b3 Bf4 40.b4 axb4 41.axb4 Qh6 42.Bxf4 Qxf4
43.Qf3 Qc1†
And mate in three moves.
0–1
The game is interesting from the strategic standpoint. Why did Black manage to achieve victory with a
flank attack? Is the basic tenet of strategy, that a flank attack is refuted by a counter-blow in the centre,
really obsolete? On the contrary, it is absolutely valid. I decided on the move 13...g5 for two reasons:
the white king was on the right wing and White had made the move h2-h3, which facilitated the
opening of the h-file. But even in the presence of these two factors, the attack demanded exceptional
accuracy and hung literally by a thread (see the variation after the move 21.Qd3). Games decided by a
flank attack with a closed or blocked centre are many, but those such as the present one are very few.
An example of an analogous strategy is the famous game Vidmar – Nimzowitsch from the New York
tournament of 1927.
107
GAME 21
Ilya Rabinovich – Grigory Levenfish

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5† c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4
10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 Qc7
Also deserving attention is 11...exd3 12.Nxd3 Qc7, on which White should continue 13.Na3 Ba6
(recommended as strongest by all the textbooks) 14.Nf4!.
12.Bd2
A new treatment of the opening. In Chigorin’s time there was played 12.f4 0-0 (not 12...exf3 on
account of 13.Bxf3!) 13.0-0 c5, and Black has a lasting initiative for the pawn.
12...Nb7
Bad is 12...Bxe5? in view of 13.dxe5 Qxe5 14.Bc3 Qc7 15.Qd2 Nb7 16.Bxf6 etc.
13.Bc3
This attempt to hold the pawn is refuted by Black.
Theory recommends 13.Na3 Be6. The position that is obtained is a contentious one. Black retains
pressure for the pawn.
13...Nd5 14.Qd2
A consistent but clearly antipositional move.
108
14...0-0 15.Na3 f6!
A strong move. After 16.Ng6 Re8 there is the threat of ...Kh7, winning the knight.
16.Nec4 Bxh2!
White is faced with a dilemma: to accept the piece sacrifice or to continue 17.0-0-0 Bf4 18.Ne3,
obtaining a clearly worse position after 18...Bxe3 19.fxe3 Qg3 20.Nc4 Be6.
17.g3 Bxg3 18.fxg3 e3!

An unpleasant surprise. After 18...Qxg3† 19.Kd1 e3 20.Qe1 it is much easier for White to defend.
19.Qd3 Qxg3† 20.Kd1
109
20...Nf4!
The basic idea of the combination. The e3-pawn is invulnerable: 21.Qxe3 Nxe2 22.Kxe2 Qg2†
23.Qf2 Bg4† 24.Ke3 Rae8† 25.Ne5 Qd5
21.Qe4 Bg4!
White cannot take this bishop, because after 22.Bxg4 Qxg4† 23.Kc1 Ne2† the queen is lost.
22.Re1 Bxe2† 23.Rxe2 Qg4

White resigned, since on 24.Qxe3 there follows 24...Rae8 25.Ne5 fxe5 26.dxe5 Nxe2 27.Qxe2 Rf1†.
0–1
GAME 22
Grigory Levenfish – Fedor Duz-Khotimirsky

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6

For a long time this move was thought not to be completely reliable on account of White’s reply, but
modern practice has changed this assessment.
5.c4 Nf6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Be3 Bb4† 8.Nc3
110
8...d5 9.exd5 exd5 10.0-0 0-0
10...dxc4 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxc4 ought to be preferred. Evidently, the move 8...d5 is premature.
11.cxd5 Bxc3
Forced, since on 11...Nxd5 there follows 12.Bxh7† Kxh7 13.Qh5†.
12.bxc3
Tempting is 12.dxc6 Bxd4 13.cxb7 Bxb7 14.Bxd4, but there follows 14...Qd5!.
12...Nxd5 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd4
111
14...Qg5 15.Qf3 Rd8 16.Rfe1 Qg4!
There was the threat of 17.Re5 Qg4 18.Qxg4 Bxg4 19.Rg5.
17.Be4 Qxf3 18.Bxf3 Be6 19.Rab1 Rab8 20.h3 Rxb1 21.Rxb1 c5

The combination prepared by Duz-Khotimirsky was not at all unexpected for White. Better is 21...h6,
although also then after 22.Rb3! White’s positional advantage is undisputed.
22.c4! Nf4
After 22...cxd4 23.cxd5 Bf5 24.Rb4 d3 25.Rd4 Rd6 26.g4 Bg6 27.Bd1 and then 28.f4 White wins the
d3-pawn.
23.Bxc5 Bxc4 24.Rb4! Ne6

Leading to a rapid denouement. However, also after 24...Ne2† 25.Kh2 Bd3 26.Be3 h6 27.a4 Black’s
situation is very awkward.
25.Rxc4 Rc8 26.Bg4!

1–0
***
The year 1924 was rich in chess events. On the 4th of February the ex-World Champion Emanuel
Lasker came to the Soviet Union. He delivered several lectures and played a series of games with
Leningrad* and Moscow masters.
[*Translator’s note: Petrograd (formerly St Petersburg) had been renamed Leningrad in January
1924, a few days after the death of Lenin.]
On March 6th the Leningrad Championship began. Its make-up was limited to the six strongest
112
chessplayers, but they played each other twice. I ceded only three draws and took first place;
Rabinovich was second.
In one of the early rounds I met Romanovsky. The reader will have probably noticed that our
previous encounters had been lively struggles, not without adventures. But in terms of the amount of
‘escapades’, the game below can perhaps be considered a record.
GAME 23

3rd Leningrad Championship 1924
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 e6 4.g3

My opponent felt an attraction to the ideas of Réti, and in particular to the fianchetto development of
bishops.
4...d6 5.exd6 Bxd6 6.Bg2 Nxc3 7.bxc3

After 7.dxc3 Black’s pawn majority on the king’s flank could later prove to be very perceptible.
7...0-0 8.Ne2
8...c5
In order to neutralize the bishop at g2, 8...c6 suggested itself, but the manoeuvre in the game is more
active.
113
9.0-0 Qc7 10.Rb1 Nc6 11.d3 b6
The fianchetto development of the f1-bishop has not brought White any benefit. Black has developed
comfortably and after ...Bb7 and ...Ne5 intends to bring the square f3 under fire. Therefore White takes
the e5-square under control.
12.f4 Bb7 13.c4 Rae8 14.Nc3 Nd4 15.Ne4 Be7 16.Bb2
16...f5!
It was not easy to decide on such a weakening of the e6-pawn, but a dynamic assessment of the
position showed that Black’s pressure on the queen’s flank outweighs this weakness.
17.Bxd4 cxd4 18.Nd2 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qc6† 20.Qf3

Not 20.Nf3 on account of 20...g5.
20...Qa4 21.Nb3 Bf6 22.Rf2 Re7

Defending the a7-pawn and threatening the capture of the pawn at a2.
114
23.Ra1 Rfe8 24.Re2 g6 25.Kf1 Kg7
Both sides remove their kings from possible future diagonal checks. It is now seen that the
manoeuvre 16...f5 has justified itself. White is cramped, while Black can prepare ...Qa3, ...a5-a4 and,
depending on circumstances, ...e5. Romanovsky is not one of those masters who is ready to agree to a
slow worsening of his position. Correctly assessing the position, he seeks to sharpen the play.
26.c5 g5
An unjustified striving after tactical sharpening.
The calm 26...Rc7! 27.cxb6 axb6 and then 28...Rc6 and 29...Rec8 would have revealed the positional
defect of the move c4-c5.
115
27.cxb6?
White clearly overlooked the following intermediate move by the opponent.
27.g4! h5 28.fxg5 Bxg5 29.gxf5 would have led to double-edged play, which was just what White
hoped for.
27...g4 28.Qg2 axb6 29.Rae1 Kf7 30.Nd2 b5 31.Nb3 Qxa2?

Instead of strengthening the positional grip by means of 31...Rc7 32.Ra1 Qa8, which led to a
favourable endgame, Black begins a combination, in the most important branch of which he has
overlooked something. Romanovsky, on the other hand, has figured everything out exactly.
116
32.Ra1 Qb2 33.Ra6 Rc7
It was still not too late to return ‘to the path of virtue’: 33...Qc3 34.Rc6 Qb4 35.Nc5 Qb1† 36.Re1
Qa2 But at this moment I was least of all thinking about going over to defence.
34.Rc6 Rec8
The main point of the combination. I now expected 35.Rexe6 Rxc6 36.Rxc6 Qb1† 37.Kf2! (37.Ke2
Re8†) 37...Qxc2†! 38.Rxc2 Rxc2† with a winning endgame.
35.Rcxe6! Rd8
Only now did I notice that on the prepared 35...Qb1† there follows 36.Re1! Qxc2 37.Qd5! Qxd3†
38.Kg1, and Black is defenceless. An unpleasant surprise, particularly in time trouble.
36.Nc5! (see page 266)

This knight is invulnerable on account of 36...Rxc5 37.Qb7† Kg6 38.Qb6.
36...Qb4?
A mistake, costing the exchange. Correct is 36...Qa1† 37.Kf2 Qa7.
37.Na6 Qb1† 38.Re1 Qxc2 39.Nxc7 Qxc7 40.Qa2 Kg7 41.Qa6 Rf8 42.Qxb5 Kg6 43.Rc6 Qa7
44.Ra6 Qc7 45.Rc6 Qa7 46.Qd5
117
Finally the time control has passed (we were playing at the time control of 3 hours for 45 moves), and
Black could look at the position cold-bloodedly. Frankly speaking, I am proud of the following move.
It was not the result of many hours of home analysis, but was sealed. Its idea is so well hidden that
although the resumption of the game took place a week later, it never entered the head either of my
opponent or of the other Leningrad masters that Black had any chances at all of saving the game.
46...h6! 47.Kf2 Qa3 48.Qxd4 Kh5!
It is in this that the idea of 46...h6 lies! After 49.Rxf6 Rxf6 50.Qxf6 Qa2† 51.Kg1 Qg2† 52.Kxg2
Black is stalemated! The pinned black bishop is suddenly revived and begins to operate.
118
49.Qd6 Qb2† 50.Kf1!
Only not 50.Re2 in view of: 50...Bd4† 51.Kf1 [Translator’s note: correct is 51.Ke1, when after
51...Qb1† 52.Kd2 Qb2† the game is drawn by perpetual check.] 51...Qb1† 52.Re1 Qxd3† 53.Re2
Qd1† 54.Re1 Qf3#
50...Qd2! 51.Ra6
The rook at f8 is invulnerable on account of 51...Qxd3† and mate in a few moves.
On 51.Re2 there could follow 51...Qd1† 52.Kf2 Qh1, and again the rook at f8 cannot be taken.
Therefore White temporizes.
51...Rd8
52.Qxf6
Interesting are the other branches:
a) 52.Qc6 Qxd3† (not 52...Qxh2 on account of 53.Qg2 Qxg2† 54.Kxg2 Rxd3 55.Rh1† Kg6 56.Rxh6†!
Kxh6 57.Rxf6† Kh7 58.Rxf5 and wins) 53.Kg1 Rc8! 54.Qxf6 (54.Qb7 Rc7 55.Qa8 Rc8) 54...Qe3†
55.Rxe3 Rc1† 56.Kf2 Rc2† 57.Ke1 Re2† etc.
b) 52.Qe6 Qxd3† 53.Qe2 Qd5! with a draw.
52...Qxd3† 53.Re2?
In time trouble White commits a decisive mistake. After 53.Kg1 Qe3†! 54.Rxe3 Rd1† Black forces
the stalemate that was already intended with the move 46...h6!.
53...Qf3† 54.Ke1 Qh1† 55.Kf2 Qxh2† 56.Kf1 Rd1† 57.Re1 Qh1†
119
And mate in two moves.
0–1
In the second cycle the following game was played.
GAME 24

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4 5.0-0 Nxf3†

5...Bc5 leads to a more full-blooded struggle.
6.Qxf3 c6 7.Bc4 d6 8.d3 Be7 9.h3 0-0 10.Bg5
10...Nd7
Black transfers the knight to the queen’s flank, but there it proves to be out of things. Deserving
preference is 10...h6 11.Bh4 Nh7.
11.Be3 Nb6 12.Bb3 Kh8 13.Qh5

In positions where pawn tension in the centre has not arisen, it is often created by means of the
advance of the f-pawn. Both sides have clearly prepared for this. However, now on 13...f5 there follows
14.f4 fxe4 15.Bf7 with the threat of 16.Bg6.
13...Be6 14.Rad1
120
White avoided 14.f4, since after 14...Bxb3 15.axb3 exf4 16.Bxf4 Bf6 no promising plan of
development was apparent.
14...g6
An altogether incorrect weakening of the dark squares. Correct is 14...Qe8 and then 15...Rd8.
15.Qe2 Bxb3 16.axb3 Bg5
17.f4 exf4 18.Bxf4 Bxf4 19.Rxf4 Qe7 20.Rdf1 f6 21.Qf2 Nd7 22.Nd1 a6 23.Ne3 Rf7 24.Nc4
Tempting is 24.Ng4 Raf8 25.Nh6 Rg7 26.g4, but it was not apparent how the pressure was to be
increased. Therefore White intends an operation on the queen’s flank.
24...Rd8 25.Na5 Rb8 26.Qa7 Qf8!

On 26...Qd8 White had prepared 27.Nc4 Nc5 28.Rxf6 Rxf6 29.Rxf6 Ra8 30.Rxd6!.
Black indirectly defends the pawn at b7; on 27.Nxb7 there follows 27...Ne5! 28.Rxf6 Rbxb7. White
again switches front.
27.Qd4 Ne5 28.Qf2 Kg7 29.d4 Nd7 30.Qg3! Qe7 31.R4f2!

The at-first-sight aimless manoeuvres of the white queen have in fact led to the struggle being
strategically decided. There is threatened 32.Nc4 as well as the break e4-e5, and Black cannot prevent
both threats. On 31...Qxe4 there follows 32.Nc4, and on 32...Qxd4 33.Nxd6 White wins at least the
exchange, while on 32...Rff8 possible is 33.Nxd6 Qe6 34.Rf3 and then the invasion of the white rooks
along the e-file.
121
31...Nb6 32.e5 dxe5 33.dxe5 Rbf8
White wins after 33...Nd7 34.exf6† Rxf6 35.Rxf6 Nxf6 36.Qxb8.
33...f5 34.Rxf5 (not 34.e6 on account of 34...Qc7!) 34...Rxf5 35.Rxf5 Qc5† 36.Qf2 Qd5 37.Rf3 Nd7
38.Rd3 is also winning for White.
34.exf6† Rxf6 35.Rxf6 Rxf6 36.Rxf6 Kxf6
37.Qh4†?
In view of a shortage of time White wanted to repeat moves, believing that this check did not change
anything. Correct was 37.Qf2† Kg7 38.Qxb6. The mistake becomes clear 10 moves later.
122
37...g5! 38.Qd4† Kg6 39.Qxb6 Qe1† 40.Kh2 Qe5† 41.g3 Qe2† 42.Kg1 Qe1† 43.Kg2 Qd2† 44.Kf3
Qd1† 45.Ke4 Qxc2† 46.Ke5 Qd3!
This is the point alluded to in the previous note. Had the black king stood at g7 White would have
won by means of 47.Qxb7† Kh6 48.Nxc6. Now mate at d5 is threatened, and White can save himself
only at the cost of the g- and h-pawns.
47.Ke6 Qxg3
On the attempt to win there could follow 48.Nxb7 Qxh3† 49.Ke7 Qg2 50.Qxa6 Qe4† 51.Kd7 g4,
and the black pawns are already running. This game was played in the final round. For Romanovsky’s
rivals in the tournament the result of the game played no role. For me, however, a draw secured first
place. Therefore I did not consider it to be necessary to undertake a risky attack and offered a draw,
which was accepted.
½–½
GAME 25
Grigory Levenfish – Solomon Gotthilf

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 c5 5.dxc5 bxc5 6.c4 g6 7.Nc3 Bg7 8.Be3 d6 9.Qc1
White’s plan of exchanging the g7-bishop is unsuccessful and involves a loss of time. 9.0-0 and then
10.Ng5 appears more expedient.
123
9...Ng4 10.Bd2 Nd7 11.0-0 0-0
More active is 11...Qb6 and on 12.h3 then 12...Nge5.
12.h3 Ngf6
Losing a pawn is 12...Nge5 13.Nxe5 Bxg2 14.Nxf7!.
13.Bh6 Qb6 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Qc2!

Finally White decides to occupy himself with the centre and prepares e2-e4, at the same time
preventing the manoeuvre ...Nf6-e4.
15...Bxf3
124
Stronger is 15...Rab8, threatening 16...Bxf3 and 17...Ne5, and if 16.b3, then 16...a5.
16.Bxf3 Rab8 17.b3 Ne5 18.Bg2 Nc6 19.f4 Kg8

A loss of time. To repulse White’s intended f4-f5 necessary was 19...e6 and then 20...Ne7.
20.Rf2 e6 21.Raf1 Nb4?

Driving the queen to a square from which it can participate in the attack on the kingside. Possibly
21...Ne8 22.g4 f5 23.gxf5 gxf5 24.Kh2 Kh8 would all the same have led to a defensible position.
22.Qd2 Rbd8
Black prepares ...d5, which could indeed have led to a turnaround, but matters do not get as far as a
break in the centre.
23.f5! exf5
Forced. On 23...Nd7 there would have followed 24.a3 Na6 25.fxe6 fxe6 26.Nd5! exd5 27.Bxd5†
Kg7 (27...Kh8 28.Qc3†) 28.Rf7† Rxf7 29.Rxf7† Kh8 30.Qh6.
24.Rxf5 Ne8
Of course, not 24...gxf5 in view of 25.Qg5† with a rapid mate.
25.R5f2
The tempting 25.Qh6 did not give a win after 25...Rd7.
25...Qc7 26.Qh6 Qe7
125
Black correctly seeks to transfer the queen to the most threatened sector of the front. If he manages to
carry out the manoeuvre ...Qe7-e5-g7, then White’s attack will be beaten back.
It was possible to play neither 26...Ng7 on account of 27.a3 and then 28.Nd5 and 29.Nf6†, nor 26...f5
on account of 27.a3 and 28.Bd5†.
How though is the manoeuvre of the black queen to be prevented? Clearly, fast-acting measures are
necessary. White’s decisive combination demanded accurate calculation.
27.Nd5!
On 27.a3 Black would have replied 27...Qe5!.
27...Qe5
After 27...Nxd5 28.Bxd5 the f7-square cannot be defended. Now Black has seemingly achieved his
aim, but...
28.Qxf8†! Kxf8 29.Rxf7† Kg8 30.Ne7† Kh8 31.Rf8† Kg7 32.R1f7† Kh6 33.Ng8† Kg5
126
34.Kh2!
Threatening 35.h4† and 36.Bf3#.
34...Qxe2 35.h4† Kg4 36.Rf4† Kh5 37.Kh3!

A second quiet move decides the battle. The calculation of such quiet moves is a fundamental
difficulty of combinations.
37...g5 38.g4†
Black resigned in view of the variation 38...Kg6 39.h5† Kg7 40.R4f7† Kh8 41.Nh6#.
1–0
127
3rd USSR Championship
The directorship of chess matters passed to the Committee of Physical Culture and Trades Unions. N.V.
Krylenko* became chair of the All-Union Chess Section. He rapidly prepared the organization of a
third championship.
[*Translator’s note: Nikolai Vasilievich Krylenko (b. 1885) was an old Bolshevik who became
Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army after the October Revolution of 1917. He was later
appointed to the posts of People’s Commissar for Justice and Prosecutor General of the RSFSR. One of
the organizers of mass repression, he fell out of favour and was executed in 1938.]
Despite the fact that the make-up of the participants included Bogoljubow (who had returned from
Germany), I was in a highly optimistic mood, and altogether wrongly. I lost two games and shared third
and fourth places. In both games I suffered on account of the opening. Bogoljubow employed against
the Réti Opening a new system that he had worked out in detail, and immediately put me under
pressure. In the game against I. Rabinovich I employed a variation of Alekhine’s Defence
recommended by Tartakower. The variation proved to have a hole in it, and already in the opening I
lost a piece. Bogoljubow took first place without any particular trouble. It became clear that Soviet
masters, cut off from foreign chess life, had been left behind both in opening study and in technique.
GAME 26
Boris Verlinsky – Grigory Levenfish

3rd USSR Championship, Moscow 1924
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Nc3

This continuation was considered by Tarrasch to be the strongest.
128
5...Be7 6.0-0 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.d3 0-0 9.Nd5
Stronger is 9.a4.
9...Na5 10.Nxe7† Qxe7 11.Ne1

White’s plan – to prepare the advance of the f-pawn – is badly thought out, and poorly implemented,
since it hinders the bringing into play of the rook at a1. At any event 11.Nd2 ought to have been
preferred.
11...Nxb3 12.axb3 Nd7

Black’s intended advance of the f-pawn is perfectly logical in connection with the later ...Bb7.
13.f4
129
13...f5! 14.exf5 Rxf5 15.Nf3
White tries to correct the mistake. A better continuation is not evident.
15...Bb7 16.Bd2
Sacrificing a pawn, White intends a drawing combination.
Still worse is 16.fxe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe5 Rxe5 with the threat of ...Re2.
16...exf4 17.Nd4 Rg5 18.Nf3 Rg4! 19.h3

White has achieved his aim. On the retreat of the rook there follows 20.Bxf4, and he equalizes the
play. But Black at the previous move had planned a far-calculated combination.
130
19...Rxg2†! 20.Kxg2 Qg5† 21.Kh1 Ne5
Not 21...Qg3 in view of 22.d4.
22.Qe2
Or 22.Be1 Qh5 23.Kg2 Re8 24.d4 Nxf3 25.Rxf3 Rxe1 26.Qxe1 Qxf3†.
22...Qg3 23.Qg2 Nxf3! 24.Bc3

The other branch is 24.Qxg3 fxg3 25.Rxf3 Bxf3† 26.Kg1 g2, and the endgame is hopeless for White,
despite the opposite-coloured bishops.
24...Nd4! 25.Qxb7 Qxh3† 26.Kg1 Ne2† 27.Kf2 Qe3† 28.Ke1
131
Or 28.Kg2 Qg3† 29.Kh1 Qh3#.
28...Nxc3#
This game received the first prize for beauty.
GAME 27
Grigory Levenfish – Solomon Rosenthal

3rd USSR Championship, Moscow 1924
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7
Simpler is the immediate 6...c5, but the move in the game is also not bad.
7.Ba3 0-0 8.Qb3 b6 9.Bd3

More logical is 9.Rd1, preventing ...c7-c5.
9...c5 10.Ne2
10...Ba6
The exchange of the bishop, which stands poorly at d3, is illogical. Correct is 10...Nc6.
11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.0-0 cxd4 13.cxd4 Qd7 14.Rad1 Rac8 15.f4 Qb7 (see page 267)
A positional manoeuvre. Black aims to weaken the light squares. However, Black has an offside
knight, while he also removes the queen from play. Strategy is now replaced by tactics – White begins
132
a headlong attack on the weakened king’s flank.
Deserving attention is 15...b5 with the threat of 16...Rc4 (or 16...b4 17.Bxb4 Qb5).
16.e5 Rc7
17.f5 gxf5 18.Ng3! Rd8 19.Nxf5 e6 20.Nxg7 Kxg7 21.Qg3† Kh8 22.Qh4 Rg8 23.Qf6† Rg7 24.Rf3!
Leading to interesting complications. On 24...Kg8 White would have replied 25.Rdd3 [Translator’s
note: White has mate in one with 25.Qd8] 25...Rg6 26.Rg3 with the threat of 27.Rxg6† hxg6 28.Rh3.
24...Rc2!
133
25.Bf8! Rcxg2† 26.Kh1 R2g6 27.Bxg7† Kg8 28.Qf4 Rxg7 29.Rg1 Nb4
The only move. On 29...Rg6 there follows 30.d5! exd5 31.e6.
Now Black threatens 30...Rg6 or 30...Nd5 with chances of a draw in view of the open position of the
white king.
30.Rxg7† Kxg7 31.Qf6† Kf8 32.Qd8† Kg7
33.d5!
A spectacular concluding blow. In the composition of chess problems this idea is known as the
Novotný theme. 34.Rg3† and 35.Qh4# is threatened, while on 33...Qxd5 there follows 34.Qf6† Kg8
35.Qxf7† Kh8 36.Qf8#.
1–0
***
I had for a long time been interested in chess instruction, and in particular with the training of
beginners. The primers of Lasker and Capablanca, which appeared at that time, were useful for
qualified chessplayers, but were not entirely suitable for beginners. As a result of my research there
appeared The Chessplayer’s First Book, published with the assistance of Vainshtein. Thus, in 1924 my
chess instruction work began.
134
4th USSR Championship
The All-Union Chess Section had planned the 4th All-Union Championship for August 1925, as a
result of which in June the Leningrad organization decided to hurriedly hold the championship of the
city. It concluded very unexpectedly – in a tie. First place was shared by Ilyin-Zhenevsky, Rabinovich,
Romanovsky and me.
I present one game from the tournament.
GAME 28
Ivan Golubev – Grigory Levenfish

4th Leningrad Championship 1925
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bf4 g6 4.h3 Bg7 5.c3 0-0 6.Nbd2 Nbd7 7.e3
White constructs a solid position and temporizes. Indeed, it is not easy for Black to find any sort of
promising plan.
7...b6
Weakening the light squares. 7...c5 is probably better.
8.Qa4 c5 9.Ba6
White immediately takes aim at the opponent’s weak points, but forgets about the backwardness in
his development.
135
9...cxd4 10.exd4 e5!
This is the refutation of White’s manoeuvre. 11.dxe5 is impossible on account of 11...Nc5, while
11.Bh2 leads after 11...exd4 to the loss of castling.
11.Bxc8 Rxc8 12.Be3 e4 13.Nh2 Nd5 14.Nxe4

On 14.0-0 Black would have replied 14...f5 and then 15.Qb3 N7f6 16.Bg5 Kh8.
14...Re8!
White had reckoned on 14...Qe7 15.0-0! Nxe3 16.fxe3 Qxe4 17.Qxd7 Qxe3† 18.Kh1 and the
advantage is on his side.
15.Nxd6 Rxe3† 16.fxe3 Qh4†

If now 17.Kf1, then 17...Qf6†, while if 17.Kd1 there follows 17...Qf2.
17.Ke2
136
17...Rxc3!
A necessary link in the combination begun at the 14th move. Both the rook and the knight are
indirectly defended. White finds the best defence.
18.Ng4 Qg3
If now 19.Qxd7, then 19...Qxg2† 20.Nf2 Rc2† 21.Kd3 Nb4 mate.
19.Nc4! Nf4†!
Only this new sacrifice leads to the goal, whereas after 19...b5 20.Qxb5 Rc2† 21.Nd2 Qxg2† 22.Nf2
Rxd2† 23.Kxd2 Qxf2† 24.Qe2 White is out of danger.
20.exf4 Qd3† 21.Ke1
137
21...Rc2!
Threatening mate. White has to give up the queen for two rooks, but further losses are inevitable.
22.Qxc2 Qxc2 23.Nd2 Bxd4 24.Ke2 Nc5 25.Ne5 Bxe5 26.fxe5 Qd3† 27.Ke1 Qe3† 28.Kd1 Nd3
29.Rf1 Nf2† 30.Kc1 Ne4 31.Rd1 Qc5† 32.Kb1 Nxd2†
0–1
***
In 1925 I was approached by L.I. Kubbel with the request to write the foreword for a collection of his
studies. I agreed to his request with pleasure. I had a great liking for the gifted Kubbel. The whole
Kubbel family gravitated towards chess composition. The oldest brother, Arvid, played at master
strength, but at the same time created many studies. The youngest – Evgeny – was fascinated by two-
move problems. The middle brother – Leonid – possessed exceptional, many-sided talent. He created
an enormous number of three- and multi-move problems and studies. From the number of first prizes
won by him in national and international competitions, L. I. Kubbel had no rival and could rightly have
been considered World Champion in chess composition. In studies Leonid Ivanovich aimed to create a
full-blooded struggle by both sides, where sharp, hidden combinations led to the win. Chess is a
complicated nexus, into which come elements of science, struggle and art. In chess composition the
elements of science and struggle recede into the background, but on the other hand decisive
significance is taken on by the element of art, and above all by the beauty of ideas. Kubbel’s ideas were
filled with finesse and grace. By profession Kubbel was an economist, and worked for his whole life in
a Leningrad chemical factory, where he was very much appreciated. Excellently mannered and always
reserved, Leonid Ivanovich was an obliging person. His inventions in the area of composition were
phenomenal. I recall that one time we were somehow travelling together in a full-to-overflowing
tramcar. We were pressed against one another and holding on to the handrail. Suddenly, Leonid
138
Ivanovich addressed me, saying, “An interesting idea has occurred to me.” And he began to list the
pieces and the squares occupied by them. By the time we left the tramcar the study was ready to be
passed to his family for testing. In general this was carried out extremely carefully, and errors in
Kubbel’s work are encountered very rarely. Tall and with thick blond hair, Kubbel was distinguished
by enviable good health and withstood relatively favourably the miseries associated with famine. But
during the Great Patriotic War he became ill with dysentery, and in the conditions of the blockade it
was difficult to cure oneself of this illness*. Before his death he brought all his notebooks of studies
and problems into perfect order. Part of his rich legacy was published, but a book worthy of this
remarkable chess artist has still not appeared.
[*Translator’s note: In Russia, the Second World War is referred to as the ‘Great Patriotic War’. The
city of Leningrad was besieged from September 1941 until January 1944 in what became known as
‘The 900 Days’. The resultant famine caused the deaths of up to 1.5 million soldiers and civilians.]
***
I started the fourth All-Union Championship as I had begun the Olympiad, with two losses – the result
of insufficient preparation. But then I began to ‘wring out’ points and took second place, behind
Bogoljubow. A significant role was played by the fact that the tournament was held in the beautiful
building of the Leningrad House of Scientists. The large, bright halls with windows overlooking the
Neva, the clean air, the silence – all these facilitated the peaceful flow of chess ideas. For me personally
these elementary conditions for normal chess creativity play a great role, but unfortunately, very often
they are not present.
[Translator’s note: The St Petersburg master and historian Vadim Faibisovich has published a chess
directory of the city in a series of articles, entitled Eschyo Est’ Adresa, on the website www.e3e5.ru.
According to the first of these articles, around 1925 Levenfish was living in an apartment at No. 9,
S’ezdovskaya Linia (known today as Kadetskaya Linia) on the city’s Vasilievsky Island.]
139
Chapter 4
The Years 1925-36
The Moscow International 1925
The fourth All-Union tournament had finished in September, but already on 9th November the opening
of the International Tournament took place. The organizing committee did not repeat the mistakes of
the Petersburg tournament of 1914. 10 Soviet and 11 foreign masters were admitted. The preparatory
work had begun already in April. The organizing committee succeeded in securing the participation of
World Champion Capablanca, ex-World Champion Lasker, Rubinstein, Réti, Marshall, Tartakower and
Spielmann, so that the make-up of the tournament was very strong.
The ‘Fountain Hall’ of the Hotel Metropol was chosen for play. This hall is not directly connected
with the outside air. The ventilation was based on the usual 200 restaurant visitors, but the spectators
packed in in their thousands. The fountain only worsened the situation – the climate of the humid
tropics was created. Capablanca, who was accustomed to the heat of Havana, told me that he would not
have objected if the participants had decided to play in bathing costumes. The order was given to
increase the power of the ventilator, but this took more than a week, and meanwhile we had to play in
stuffy, noisy conditions. Rubinstein and Spielmann proved to be unable to adapt. On the other hand,
Bogoljubow, who radiated health, felt fine. In the second half of the tournament I had acclimatized to
some extent, but it was too late. I ended the tournament in 15th place and obtained a prize for the best
result in the last five rounds, and also one for the best result against the prizewinners.
I was struck by the adaptability of Lasker. At the age of 57 he played the tournament with great
energy and took second place.
The tournament passed off very successfully. Crowds of people besieged the box office in search of
tickets, and mounted police were required to bring about order.
GAME 29
Carlos Torre – Grigory Levenfish

1st Moscow International 1925
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.Ne5 Nbd7 6.f4

A clearly antipositional move.
140
6...e6 7.e3 Nxe5 8.fxe5 Nd7
In order on 9.Bxc4 to reply 9...Nxe5.
9.Qg4 f5 10.Qg3 b5 11.Be2 g6 12.h4 Be7 13.h5 g5 14.h6
14...0-0
Black reacts calmly to the attacking efforts of the young Mexican.
15.a4 b4 16.Nb1 Nb6 17.Nd2 c3 18.bxc3 bxc3 19.Nf3 Kh8 20.a5! Nd5 21.e4! f4!
Not 21...fxe4 in view of 22.Nxg5 e3 23.Nxe6 Rg8 24.Qg7†.
22.Qg4 Ne3 23.Bxe3 fxe3 24.0-0
141
24...Bd7?
Black has beaten back the opponent’s lightweight attack and now, when it was necessary to realize
the strength of the c3-pawn, he commits a mistake that can only be explained by fatigue.
The immediate 24...Rf4 25.Qg3 Rxe4 would threaten 26...g4 and 27...Qxd4.
Or 24...Rb8 and then 25...Rb2 would have decided the game within a few moves.
25.Rac1 Rf4 26.Qg3 Rxe4 27.Rxc3 (see page 269)27...Qg8?

A further mistake. Here too, after 27...Rb8 Black has a satisfactory game.
28.Rb1 g4
The best defence was 28...c5 29.dxc5 Bc6. The remainder is clear.
142
29.Bd3 gxf3 30.Qg7† Qxg7 31.hxg7† Kxg7 32.Bxe4 e2 33.Kf2 Rb8 34.Rxf3
And Black soon resigned.
...1–0
GAME 30
Grigory Levenfish – José Raúl Capablanca

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 e5 5.g3 Be7

This leads to a solid but cramped position. The development of the bishop at g7 is preferable.
6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Rd1 Qc7 10.h3 Nf8 11.Be3 Ne6 12.Rac1 exd4
The surrender of the centre is, in my view, a serious positional mistake. Better is 12...Bd7 and
13...Rac8.
13.Nxd4 Bf8
143
14.b4! Bd7 15.b5 Nc5 16.bxc6 bxc6
White’s pressure on the queen’s flank has become very perceptible. With the following manoeuvre
the grip is strengthened still further.
17.Bg5! Nh5 18.g4 h6 19.Be3 Nf6 20.Bf4 Rad8 21.Bg3

A loss of time! It was necessary to immediately remove the only black piece that is covering the
queen’s flank – the knight at c5 (21.Nb3!).
21...h5! (see page 258)

Black seeks complications, in order to deflect the opponent from operations on the queen’s flank.
144
22.g5 h4!
A well thought-out pawn sacrifice. On 23.Bxh4 there could follow 23...Nh5 24.e3 Qc8 25.Kh2 d5!
with the threat of 26...Bd6†.
23.Bh2! Nh7 24.g6 Ng5 25.gxf7† Nxf7

On 25...Kxf7 there would have followed 26.Nf5.
26.Nf5?
A lapse. White had the possibility of beginning a headlong attack on the king by means of 26.Qg6,
for example:
26...Ne5 27.Qh5 Be7 28.Nd5!, or 26...Be7 27.Nd5 cxd5 28.Bxd5 Rf8 29.Rc3 Be8 30.Nf5 Bf6 31.Re3
with the irresistible threats of 32.Rxe8 and 32.Re7, or 26...Be7 27.Nd5 Qc8 28.Nxe7† Rxe7 29.Bxd6
Nxd6 30.Qxd6 Bxh3 31.Qxe7 (or 31.Nxc6).
White could also successfully continue operations on the queen’s flank: 26.Nb3 Nxb3 27.Qxb3 Qc8
28.Ne4 etc.
Now Capablanca manages to free himself.
145
26...Qc8! 27.e4 Bxf5 28.exf5 Be7 29.Re1 Bf6 30.Ne4 Nxe4 31.Rxe4 Nh6 32.Rce1 Rxe4 33.Qxe4
Nxf5 34.Qxc6 Qxc6 35.Bxc6 Bd4 36.Bf4 Rf8
½–½
GAME 31
Emanuel Lasker – Grigory Levenfish

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 a6 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3
From his tournament position, in order to fight for first place Lasker had to win this game. Therefore
he goes in for a pawn sacrifice. True, to win it involves the loss of three tempos for Black.
146
9...cxd4 10.Nxd4 Qb4 11.Nde2 Qxb2 12.0-0 Qb6† 13.Kh1 Nc6 14.Qe1 g6 15.Nd1 Qb4 16.Qg3 b5
17.a4
Much stronger was 17.Ne3 and then Ng4.
17...bxa4 18.c3 Qe7 19.Bc2 Nc5 20.Nf2 h5 21.Nd3 a3 22.Nb4 Nxb4 23.cxb4 Ne4 24.Qxa3 Bb7
25.Bxe4
White regains the pawn but falls into a bad position.
25...dxe4 26.Nc3 0-0 27.Rfe1 Rfd8 28.Nxe4 Bxe4 29.Rxe4 Rd2 30.h3 Qb7 31.Rae1 Rc8 32.R4e2
Rcc2 33.Rxd2 Rxd2 34.Qg3
147
If 34.Rg1 then 34...Rd4.
34...Qxb4 35.Rc1
Not 35.f5 on account of 35...Rd3! 36.Qf2 gxf5.
35...Qd4 36.Qg5
Offered a choice between a queen and a rook endgame, Black prefers the latter.
36...Qd8 37.Qxd8† Rxd8 38.Rc4 Ra8 39.Kh2 a5 40.Ra4 Kg7 41.Kg3 Kh6
White finds himself in zugzwang. On a king move there follows 42...g5. In forcing the move h3-h4,
Black closes the route of the white king to f6 via h4-g5-f6.
42.h4 Kg7 43.Kf3 Kf8 44.g4
148
44...hxg4†?
Bad and inconsistent, since it opens the path for the white king that Black has only just closed.
Correct is 44...Ke7 45.gxh5 gxh5 46.f5 exf5 47.Kf4 Ke6 48.Kg5 Kxe5 49.Kxh5 Kf6 with inevitable
mate. Black believed that by posting the rook at a7 for the defence of the f7-pawn, he could quietly
proceed to b5 with the king. In this reasoning there lies a serious mistake, as the continuation of the
game shows.
45.Kxg4 Ke7 46.Kg5 Ra7 47.Kh6 Kd7 48.Kg7 Kc6

Truthfully speaking, I was surprised that Lasker did not resign, but meanwhile at this point White can
save the game!
149
49.Kf6?
As Lasker explained after the game, the loss of a tempo was provoked by the instinctive fear of a
check. It is clear that White’s salvation consists in the creation of a passed pawn. By continuing 49.f5!!
exf5 50.e6! fxe6† 51.Kxg6 White achieves a draw, since the h-pawn becomes very dangerous.
49...Kb5 50.Ra1 a4 51.f5! exf5 52.e6 fxe6 53.Kxg6 f4

Also now Black must play accurately in order not to let slip victory.
54.h5 f3 55.h6
55...e5! 56.Re1
Or 56.Kf5 Rh7 57.Rh1 f2 58.Kxe5 Rxh6.
56...a3 57.Rxe5†
Or 57.h7 Rxh7 58.Kxh7 e4 59.Rxe4 f2.
57...Kc4 58.Re1 a2 59.h7 Ra8!

The hasty 59...Rxh7 60.Kxh7 Kb3 61.Rf1, or 60...f2 61.Rf1 Kd3 62.Ra1 led to a draw.
60.Kg7
On 60.Ra1 Black would have replied 60...f2 61.Rxa2 Rxa2 62.h8=Q Ra6† 63.Kg5 f1=Q.
60...f2 61.Ra1 Kb3 62.Rf1
150
62...a1=Q† 63.Rxa1 Rxa1 64.h8=Q Rg1†
0–1
***
Thus, Bogoljubow achieved the greatest success of his chess career. For some time Bogoljubow
considered it necessary to ‘flirt’ with Soviet chess organizations, although he had lived continually in
Triberg since 1914. But when the All-Union Chess Section proposed that he hold back from
participating in certain foreign events, he refused to obey and was excluded from the ranks of Soviet
chessplayers.
Above, I recalled the unusual pull that the tournament had on the public. Despite the high entry fee, it
was not easy to get tickets. Nonetheless, among the public one could make out many overdressed
‘NEP-ers’*, who understood nothing about chess, but considered it essential to show themselves at
such a fashionable and busy gathering. Particular popularity among the ladies was enjoyed by the
handsome Capablanca, who after the tournament could tell more than one story in the style of The
Decameron.
[*Translator’s note: NEP – the New Economic Policy had been introduced by Lenin in 1921 in an
attempt to reinvigorate the Soviet economy, which lay in ruins as a result of the Civil War (1917-22).
Following the harsh policy known as ‘War Communism’ (1918-21), restrictions on private enterprise
were partially lifted, and some individuals made considerable sums of money.]
In the year 1921 Alekhine had emigrated. From that moment on, all of his thoughts and efforts were
directed at the preparation and organization of a match against Capablanca.
The non-invitation of Alekhine to the Moscow International was absolutely understandable and
justified politically, although it was clear that his participation would have been very interesting.
Not long before the beginning of the international tournament I received from him a letter, sent from
Paris. Since it contains several little-known facts regarding Alekhine, I consider that it should be
151
published.
Greatly respected Grigory Yakovlevich!
I was very happy to receive your letter and I too am sorry that I will not get to see you at the Moscow
International Tournament. However, perhaps we will meet at some international tournament or other
abroad in the coming year! I do not doubt that with advance notice your participation would be
guaranteed in any international tournament, firstly because you are personally liked and appreciated,
and secondly because at this moment Russian chess art is quoted particularly highly on the
international chess market. Then, I hope, we will manage to see one another in person after a long
interval.
I will very gladly send you an article for chess publications; you need only indicate approximately
when you should need it. I could send it, for example, in the first half of September from Nice, where I
will be going with my wife for two weeks’ rest from work, during the French championship.
At the present time (until the end of the year) I am literally overloaded with all kinds of work and
business – I am preparing for doctoral examinations in December and, besides this, I absolutely have
to write on chess matters in order to maintain the balance of the monthly budget. Materially, my life is
not so bad, but it is not as good as I would like it to be, since with chess alone it is not easy to somehow
secure the capital to successfully save. I will have to arm myself with patience and gradually broaden
my field of activities.
Of course, the main help for me is the circumstance that my life fits into a solid framework, since it is
only with a certain minimum of calm and peace of mind that productive work is possible.
One should not count on a match with Capablanca in France; after all, the value of the currency is
very low, and moreover in general here there is no custom of giving even the smallest amounts to chess.
The match will consequently have to be held either in some other European state or in America, to
where I may perhaps go in the spring, if my projected match with Marshall is organized. My
impression from previous stays in the United States is such that if the Americans are convinced that
some player or other indeed has a serious chance of defeating Capablanca, then the money will be
found without particular difficulty. Thus, for example, in January 1924 my match with Capablanca was
underwritten with a couple of thousand dollars. My agreement to give this amount to the match-
tournament was a serious practical mistake, since I could not count on playing at full strength after an
exhausting five-month tour of California, and indeed never in recent years has the quality of my play
been so bad as it was there. Only, perhaps, the convincing win against Marshall (in Baden-Baden) will
again prompt the American public to become interested in the idea of the match, the more so since
Lasker is doing nothing, and time is against him. Capablanca is very popular in America, except
among a few friends of mine. I am very interested as to whether he will play in Moscow. I would be
very obliged if you would write regarding this. I will follow the tournament with interest. Bogoljubow is
the only one who can compete with Lasker. Réti is exhausted, while one cannot speak seriously of the
remainder (however, Torre is very interesting).
From the heart, I wish you every success.
With sincere respects,

Aleksandr Alekhine
152
The failure in the international tournament naturally disappointed me, but there was no time to grieve
for long. I moved to Moscow and went to work in the glassworks department.
In December of 1926 in Leningrad a match between the co-operative workers of Leningrad and
Moscow was held. With great difficulty I managed to carve out three days for the trip with the team.
But this time I was playing on the first board for Moscow, and I again had to cross swords with
Romanovsky! I present this game.
GAME 32

Leningrad v. Moscow ‘Sovtorg’ match Leningrad 1926
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.exd6 exd6 6.Be3 Be7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Ne2 Nc6
9.Nd2
Neutralizing the threat of 9...Nb4, on which there follows 10.Bb1, and the c4-pawn is defended.
9...Be6
Black renews the threat of 9...Nb4, but this move is not in keeping with the spirit of the position. On
9...Bg4 White would have replied 10.Qb1. Best of all was 9...d5.
10.Rc1 d5 11.Nf4 Nb4 12.Bb1 dxc4 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.0-0!

Clearly, not 14.Nxc4 Nxc4 15.Rxc4 on account of 15...Qd5 and 16...Qxg2.
153
14...N4d5
Black had intended 14...Nd3 15.Nxc4 Nxc1 16.Qh5 Ne2† 17.Kh1 g6 18.Bxg6, and matters end in
perpetual check. However, White can play more strongly: 14...Nd3 15.Rc3 Nxb2 (or 15...Bb4
16.Nxc4!) 16.Qc2 Nd3 17.Nxc4 winning.
15.Qg4 Qd7 16.Qh3 Nf6
17.Ne4!
A strong move. On 17...Bd6 (or 17...Nbd5) there follows 18.Ng5 and 19.Nxe6; while in the case of
17...Nxe4 18.Bxe4 g6 19.Bxb7 the black pawns are broken up.
17...g6 18.Ng5 e5 19.Ne6 exd4!

A perfectly correct exchange sacrifice. After 20.Nxf8 Qxh3 21.gxh3 Rxf8 Black stands perfectly
safely.
20.Bxd4 c5 21.Bc3 Rad8

As previously, the sacrifice is justified. Black’s manoeuvres have prevented the dangerous invasion
of the white rooks along the d-file.
154
22.f4!
Very strong, since 23.f5 is threatened.
22...Nbd5 23.f5 Nxc3 24.bxc3 g5 25.Qh6 Rf7 26.Qxg5† Kh8 27.Nxd8 Qxd8 28.Rcd1 Qa5 29.Rf3
Rg7 30.Qf4 Qa4 31.Re1 Qc6 32.Be4 Qd7 33.Qb8† Rg8 34.Qxb7 Qd2 35.Rfe3
35...Bd6!
In a difficult position Romanovsky resourcefully seeks counter-chances. 36...Bxh2† 37.Kxh2 Ng4†
is threatened.
36.Bf3 Bf4 37.Re6 Qxc3 38.Qf7 Bg5 39.Rd1 Qb2
155
With the dangerous threat of 40...c3 41.Rxf6 c2!.
40.Re7!
The only path to victory. 41.Rd8 is threatened.
40...Bh4 41.Qxc4 Bf2† 42.Kh1 Bd4 43.Rxa7 Qf2 44.a4 Re8 45.Qf1 Qh4 46.g3 Qg5 47.a5 Qxf5
48.Bc6
48...Bf2!
An awkward move to face in time trouble. The expected exchange of queens does not take place. On
49.Bxe8 White is mated in three moves.
49.Bg2 Ng4
Leading to a rapid loss. Stronger was 49...Ne4!.
156
With the threat of 50...Nxg3†.
The natural 50.Bxe4 Qxe4† 51.Qg2 Qe1† 52.Rxe1 Rxe1† 53.Qf1 Rxf1† 54.Kg2 Ra1 55.Kxf2 Ra2†
gave good drawing chances.
Leading to a draw is 50.Rdd7 in view of 50...Nxg3† 51.hxg3 Qh5† 52.Bh3 Qf3† (53.Qg2? Re1†
54.Kh2 Bxg3†! 55.Qxg3 Rh1#).
The win is achieved with 50.Rad7, but still stronger is 50.Qe2!. Then no good is 50...Nxg3† 51.hxg3
Rxe2 in view of 52.Rd8†. However, to find this in time trouble is not so simple.
50.Rdd7 c4 51.Rf7 Qc5 52.Rxh7†

There could follow 52...Kg8 53.Rag7† Kf8 54.Rf7† Kg8 55.Rhg7† Kh8 56.Rxg4 Re1 57.Qxe1 Bxe1
58.Be4.
1–0
***
The main event of 1927 was the World Championship between Alekhine and Capablanca. The majority
of masters predicted an easy victory for Capablanca, taking account of his brilliant result in the match-
tournament in New York (1927). In a letter to me, Alekhine explained the reasons for his relative
failure in the tournament. I was one of the few who believed in the mighty talent of the Russian
grandmaster. In the magazine Shakhmatnyi Listok on 10th September 1927 I wrote: “If Alekhine’s
turbulent, lively energy permits him to rediscover his old form, I do not doubt that he will prove to be a
worthy opponent for Capablanca.”
This historic duel ended in the decisive victory of Alekhine, the first Russian World Champion.
Together with P.A. Romanovsky, I gave a detailed analysis of the games of the match in the book
Alekhine-Capablanca Match.
157
In 1928 I returned to Leningrad and participated in the championship of the city. First place was taken
by I. Rabinovich, picking up 12½ points; I was second with 11½ points. Ravinsky and Romanovsky
shared third and fourth place with 9½ points. Shakhmatyni Listok wrote regarding this: “Despite being
overworked with official duties, to gain 11½ points in such a tournament without losing a single game,
and yet not to take first place – is this not a vexing accident of fate?” But the victor must be given his
due. In this tournament Rabinovich played excellently, demonstrating fine positional understanding and
high technique.
I present a game from this championship.
GAME 33
Grigory Levenfish – Grigory Ravinsky

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Ng3 g6

In the Caro-Kann Defence Black aims to develop the c8-bishop, not blocking it in with the move
...e7-e6. Therefore this move by Black appears logical. However, the voluntary weakening of the pawn
position gives rise to the idea of an immediate attack on the king’s flank by White. Better is 6...Nb6
and then 7...Bg4.
7.h4 h5 8.Bc4 Bg7 9.Qd3 e6

Castling is impossible on account of 10.Qxg6, while after 9...Nb6 10.Bb3 no useful moves for Black
are evident.
10.Bg5 0-0 11.0-0 Re8 12.Rad1 Qc7 13.Rfe1 b6
158
Black has a cramped but solid position, which it is not easy to break down.
14.Qd2! Bb7
An automatic move, after which the black rook at a8 is for a long time excluded from play.
14...Nf8 15.Bf4 Qe7 16.Ne5 Bb7 ought to have been preferred.
15.Bf4 Qc8 16.Ne5 c5

Black aims to free himself, but the opening of the game is always to the advantage of the better-
developed side.
17.Bh6 cxd4
After 17...Nxe5 18.dxe5 Qc6 19.f3 Nd5 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Ne4 Black’s position is hopeless.
18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Bb5 Rd8

Now White manages to carry out a spectacular sacrificial combination.
Black ought to decide on 19...Nxe5 (see page 275) 20.Bxe8 Nc4 21.Qxd4 e5 22.Qc3 Nxe8 23.b3 Na5
24.Qxe5† Kg8 25.Qg5, although here too White’s advantage is undisputed. The threat is 26.Nxh5. If
25...Qc5, then 26.Rd8, while if 25...Ng7, then 26.Re7 Nc6 27.Rdd7!.
159
20.Bxd7 Nxd7 21.Nxh5†! gxh5 22.Qg5† Kf8 23.Ng6†! fxg6 24.Rxe6
Both 25.Qe7† and 25.Qh6† are threatened. The black pieces are not in time to come to the help of
the defenceless king.
24...Qc5
If 24...Qxc2 then 25.Rde1!.
25.Qh6† Kf7 26.Qxg6† Kf8
27.Rde1!
160
1–0
Combinations with ‘quiet’ moves present not a few difficulties in calculation, but on the other hand
there is no doubting their aesthetic effect.
***
At the end of the 1920s in Leningrad there emerged a group of talented youths: Alatortsev, Batuev,
Lisitsyn, Ravinsky, Ragozin, Chekhover. Perhaps the most gifted was Pavel Ostrovsky, a pupil of the
master Romanovsky. He was a many-sided person.
Already at the age of ten years he revealed an outstanding musical talent. On finishing middle school
he entered the physico-mathematical department of Leningrad University while simultaneously
engaged at the Leningrad Conservatory. His professor at the conservatory saw in Ostrovsky a future
first-class virtuoso. His professor of mathematics expected the highest successes from him. His
engagement in two higher schools did not hinder Ostrovsky from also successfully advancing in the
field of chess: he rapidly approached the class of master. His fate was tragic. In the summer of 1929
Ostrovsky drowned. Thus the life of an exceptionally gifted youth was prematurely broken off.
I loved chess too much, and did not want to be away from practical play for too long. A drop in class is
inevitable in the absence of practice and cannot be compensated for by analytical work at home. My
two attempts to combine official work with competitions both ended in failure. I had to withdraw from
the Leningrad Championship of 1929 after five rounds. With great effort I completed the 1930
Leningrad Masters’ Tournament, but by losing two games and winning one I finished in seventh place
with 3½ points. For the first time in a tournament game I met the young Botvinnik, a chessplayer
whose talent was developing ‘in seven-mile steps’. The game ended in a draw.
I was forced to decline to participate in the 6th (Odessa 1929) and 7th (Moscow 1931) All-Union
Championships. From this point there essentially began the ‘Botvinnik era’; in the seventh
championship he took the honoured title of Champion of the Soviet Union for the first time.
Circumstances began to change for me in 1932. It turned out that I had a lot of free time*.
[*Translator’s note: Levenfish’s cryptic remark that he suddenly “had a lot of free time” requires
some explanation. According to Sosonko in Russian Silhouettes, around this time he was effectively
forced to give up his professional activities in the glass manufacturing sector. To set this time in
context, the early 1930s was the time of the first Five-Year Plan (1928-32), with which Stalin hoped to
industrialize the Soviet economy at breakneck speed. Failures to achieve the frequently unrealistic
targets was routinely blamed on the activities of saboteurs and ‘wreckers’, and for anyone labelled as
such the consequences could be extremely serious. Sosonko relates that a rail crash resulting from a
faulty signal was treated as an act of sabotage, and a defective piece of glass was identified as one of
the causes. Levenfish was apparently arrested the same day and released only after being “interrogated
for several hours by the secret police”. It seems that he had been saved by a technical report detailing a
change in the manufacturing process. He had escaped prison (or worse), but for how long?
It was against this background that his decision to resume his chess career on a ‘professional’, full-
time basis was made. This soon had an effect on his play; as we shall see, during the mid-1930s
Levenfish achieved the best results of his career.]
At my request there was organized a training tournament with the participation of the youth –
161
Lisitsyn, Ragozin, Rokhlin and Shneideman-Stepanov. We had to play each other twice. I won a few
games, but the tournament was not played to a finish.
I present a game from this tournament.
GAME 34
Viacheslav Ragozin – Grigory Levenfish

Training Tournament, Leningrad 1932
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2

At one time this was considered almost to be a refutation of the Nimzo-Indian Defence. Now more
often played is 4.e3 or 4.a3.
4...d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 Be6 7.e3 Nbd7

This system of defence later became very popular. Black intends to play ...c7-c5.
8.f4
Threatening to win a piece.
8...h6!
The continuations 8...g6 or 8...Nb6 are clearly unfavourable.
9.Bh4 g5!
This counterblow reveals the weakness of the manoeuvre begun with the move 8.f4. If now 10.fxg5,
then 10...Ne4.
162
10.f5 Bxf5 11.Qxf5 gxh4
The extra, doubled, pawn at h4 does not play any particular role. Much more important is the
weakness of the e3-square. 12...Ne4 is threatened. On 12.0-0-0 there follows 12...Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qe7
with the threat of ...Qa3†.
12.Bd3 Qe7 13.Nf3!

My enterprising opponent finds a way to muddy the waters. The passive defence 13.Qf3 led after
13...0-0-0, ...Re8 and then ...c5 to very difficult play for White.
13...h3
This is characteristic of the dogmatism of which I could not rid myself for many years. I had
calculated as favourable for Black the variations:
1) 13...Qxe3† 14.Kf1 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Ne4 16.Bxe4 dxe4 17.Re1 Qd3† 18.Kf2 0-0-0 19.Qxe4 Qxc3
20.Rb1 Nb6 21.Rhc1 Qa3! (but not 21...Qa5 in view of 22.Rxc7†! Kxc7 23.Qf4† Rd6 24.Rc1† etc.)
And White’s attack is repulsed, while he has few pawns.
2) 13...Qxe3† 14.Kf1 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Kf8! 16.Re1 Ng4! 17.Ne5 Ndxe5 Here is why Black did not
castle long at move 15 – this knight would have been pinned. 18.dxe5 Re8 19.h3 Qxe1† 20.Kxe1
Rxe5†
The second variation appealed to me very much, and I began to seek a way to strengthen it, and found
the following improvement:
3) 13...Ng4 14.Qxg4 Qxe3† 15.Be2 Bxc3† 16.bxc3 Qxc3† 17.Kf2 Nf6! and then 18...Ne4†, winning.
However, this spectacular combination meets with a refutation: 13...Ng4 14.0-0! Qxe3† 15.Kh1
163
Bxc3 16.bxc3 Nf2† 17.Rxf2 Qxf2 18.Re1† Kd8 19.Qxf7 with the threat of mate in three moves.
There now remained to find an improvement for Black in order to avoid the last variation, and it
seemed to me that the move 13...h3 was such an improvement, since after the move 14.g3 there would
later be the threat of mate at g2. Therefore I played 13...h3.
14.0-0!
What a cruel disappointment! Now 14...Qxe3† loses on account of 15.Rf2! followed by 16.Re1.
14...hxg2 15.Rf2 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Rg8

Black has again conceived a complicated combination and has again miscalculated. After 16...0-0-0
17.Rb1 Kb8 he would have all the same retained an advantage.
17.Rb1 0-0-0 18.Ne5

Not 18.Rfb2 on account of 18...Qxe3†.
Black had prepared the following variation: 18...Rg5 (see page 275) 19.Nc6! Qa3! 20.Qh3 bxc6 21.Rfb2
Ng4 22.Bf5 Rxf5 23.Qxg4 Rf1†
At the last moment I noticed Ragozin’s insidious idea: 18...Rg5
164
19.Ba6!! bxa6 20.Nc6 Black is defenceless against the three mates. The queen sacrifice is indeed
spectacular.
18...Qe6
The only move – it is essential to free the knight at d7.
19.Qf4 Ne4 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Qxe4 Nb6 22.Qf3

Stronger was 22.Rxf7 with the threat of 23.Qh7. Black would have replied 22...Rgf8.
22...f6!
This pawn is inviolable: 23.Qxf6 Qxf6 24.Rxf6 Nd5 and then 25...Nxc3.
165
23.Nd3
Threatening 24.Qxb7†!.
23...Qg4 24.Qxg4† Rxg4 25.Nc5 Re8 26.Rxf6

Correct is 26.e4 Nd7 27.Nxd7 Kxd7 28.Rxg2 Rxg2† 29.Kxg2 Rxe4 30.Kf3, and the game should
end in a draw.
26...Nd5 27.Rf2
If 27.Rxh6, then 27...Nxc3 28.Rb2 Rf8 29.Rxg2 Ne2†, and mate in two moves.
27...b6 28.Nd3 Rxe3 29.Ne5 Rg8 30.Rxg2 Rxg2† 31.Kxg2 Re2† 32.Kg3 Nxc3 33.Rf1 Rxa2
0–1
166
It was decided to hold the next USSR Championship in Leningrad. The make-up of the tournament was
very strong. The ‘old guard’ – I. Rabinovich, Romanovsky, Verlinsky, Duz-Khotimirsky, Zubarev,
Freiman – was opposed by a galaxy of emerging youths, headed by Botvinnik and Riumin. I began the
tournament uncertainly – losing a drawn position against Goglidze, but all the same picked up 5 points
from the first 7 games. After 12 rounds I had 8 points. Then the pace slowed – I lost to the first-
prizewinner, Botvinnik, and to the last-placed Kirillov, and as a result shared third place with Lisitsyn
and Rabinovich. I played uneasily, and suffered from time trouble – the result of physical
unpreparedness. Perhaps my creative results were better than the sporting ones. In a few games I
managed to carry out some interesting ideas.
GAME 35
Grigory Levenfish – Mikhail Yudovich

8th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1933
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2

Tarrasch’s continuation. I was not up to date with the developments in the variation 3.Nc3 Bb4.
3...c5 4.exd5 exd5

The Moscow master Chistiakov plays the variation 4...Qxd5, not without success.
5.Ngf3 Nc6 6.Bb5

The usual and better continuation here is 6.Be2.
6...Nf6
Black ought to prefer 6...Bd6 and 7...Nge7.
7.0-0 Be7 8.dxc5
167
8...0-0
Black sacrifices a pawn, counting on obtaining sufficient compensation in the form of active piece
play.
Also possible was 8...Bxc5 9.Re1† Be6 10.Nb3 Bb6 11.Nbd4 Qc8, but after 12.Ne5 Bxd4 13.Qxd4 0-
0 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Qc5 White has the better game.
9.Nb3 Ne4 10.Be3 Bg4 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Qd3 Bxf3 13.gxf3 Ng5 14.f4 Qd7 15.f3! Ne6 16.Kh1
16...f5
White’s broken pawns devalue the material advantage and Black, by continuing 16...Bf6 17.c3 g6
168
18.f5 Ng7 19.fxg6 fxg6, would have obtained fully equal play. The move in the game weakens the e-
file.
17.Rg1 a5 18.a4 Bf6 19.Rad1! Rab8

After 19...Bxb2 20.c3 Qb7 21.Nd4 Nxd4 22.Bxd4 g6 23.Rb1 Rab8 24.Rg2, or 20...Rab8 21.Qc2 Qb7
22.Nd4 Nxd4 23.Bxd4 g6 24.Rb1, Black does not avoid difficulties.
20.Nxa5 Rxb2 21.Nb3 Qe8 22.Bc1 Ra2
23.Rde1!
A blow against the fundamental weakness of Black’s position.
23...Bh4 24.Re2 Rxa4 25.Qe3!

White intends 25...Nc7 26.Bb2!, and if 26...g6 27.Qc3, while on 26...d4 there follows 27.Bxd4.
25...Kf7 26.Bb2
Threatening 27.Qxe6† Qxe6 28.Rxg7†.
26...Rg8
Nor is Black saved by 26...Bf6 in view of 27.Bxf6 gxf6 28.Rge1! Ng7 (or 28...Nc7 29.Qe7†)
29.Qg1! Qd7 30.Re7†.
27.Qe5 (see page 267) 27...Bf6

On 27...g6 decisive is 28.Rge1.
169
28.Rxg7†!!
The rook is under four-fold attack.
28...Bxg7 29.Qxf5† Ke7 30.Rxe6† Kd8 31.Rxe8†

1–0
GAME 36

1.Nf3 e6 2.b3 f5 3.Bb2 Nf6 4.c4 b6 5.e3 Bb7 6.Be2 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nc3 Qe8 9.d3 a6
Better is the immediate 9...Qg6, on which there would have followed 10.Ne1. Now the white knight
transfers to a more active position.
170
10.Nd2! Qg6 11.Bf3 d5
Perceptibly weakening the e5-square.
12.Ne2 Nbd7 13.cxd5 exd5 14.Nc4

This move would have significantly gained in strength after 14.Rc1 Bd6, e.g. 15.Nc4 dxc4 16.Bxb7
cxd3 17.Qxd3 The counterattack 17...Bxh2† 18.Kxh2 Ng4† 19.Kg1 Qh5 does not achieve its aim after
20.Rfd1 Qh2† 21.Kf1. Black would have been obliged to limit himself to the modest 14...Rac8.
14...Rad8! 15.Ne5 Qh6

[Translator’s Note: “With the threat of ...Bd6, which prevents White’s plan of Rc1 and Nc6.”
Levenfish, 1935]
16.Ng3
171
16...Ne8!
Now Black successfully consolidates his position. The move in the game covers the pawns at c7 and
f5, as well as the square c6.
17.Nxd7 Rxd7 18.Be5 Bd6 19.Bxd6 Rxd6 20.Ne2 g5?

Insufficiently patient. Black is rushing to attack. With the last move White is clearly preparing 21.g3
and 22.Bg2. Therefore Black ought to continue 20...Qg5 21.g3 h5, and if 22.h4, then 22...Qh6 followed
by 23...g5. The attacking chances would then have significantly increased.
21.g3 Ng7 22.Rc1 Ne6

On 22...Rf7 unpleasant is 23.b4 with the threat of 24.Qb3.
23.Kh1
White prepares the transfer of the knight via g1 and f3 to e5.
23...Qg7 24.Qd2
172
24...c5!
A timely changing of the front. Renouncing a hazardous attack on the castled position, Black begins
operations on the queen’s flank. 25...d4 is threatened; White’s reply is forced.
25.d4 Qd7 26.Bg2 Rc8 27.Ng1 c4 28.Nf3 b5 29.Ne5 Qe7 30.Bh3

Black’s grip on the queen’s flank forces White too to change his strategic plan. Under the cover of
the strong knight at e5 he undertakes active operations on the other side of the board. The situation
becomes more acute, and exceptionally complicated variations arise.
30...Ng7 31.g4
173
31...Rh6 32.Bg2 fxg4
There was threatened, on 32...Rh4, the dangerous opening of the f-file, for example: 33.f4! fxg4
34.fxg5 Qxg5 35.Qf2 with the threat of mate.
33.Nxg4 Rh4 34.Ne5 Rf8

Now on 35.f4 Black would have replied 35...Nf5!.
35.f3 Qd6 36.Rg1 Bc8 37.Bf1 Qh6 38.Re1

White prepares the break e3-e4. On 38.Qg2 Black intended 38...Bf5 with the threat of 39...g4 and
then ...Be4.
38...c3!
This passed pawn will be a major trump for Black in the coming tactical complications. Gradually
Black’s advantage has become clear.
39.Qg2 Bf5 40.e4 Be6 41.Bd3 Rff4 42.Re2
42...Rxh2†
Leading to head-spinning complications.
Stronger was 42...g4 43.fxg4 Bxg4 44.Nxg4 Rfxg4 45.Qxg4 Rxg4 46.Rxg4 Qh3! 47.Reg2 Qxd3
48.Rxg7† Kf8 49.Rg8† Ke7, and the h7-pawn prevents perpetual check.
43.Qxh2 Rh4 44.f4!

The best move.
174
Weaker is 44.Qxh4 in view of 44...Qxh4† 45.Rh2 Qf4 46.exd5 Bf5!, or 44.Ng4 in view of 44...Bxg4
45.Rxg4 Rxh2† 46.Rxh2 Qf6.
44...dxe4
Bad is 44...gxf4 on account of 45.Nf3! Rxh2† 46.Rxh2 Qf6 47.e5 Qf7 48.Ng5 Qe7 49.Nxh7, and
White should win.
45.Bxe4
45...Qh5
With the threat of 46...Qxe2!. The best continuation for White was 46.Nf3! Rxh2† 47.Rxh2 Qf7
48.Nxg5 Qxf4 49.Bxh7† Kf8 50.Be4. Now on 50...Bg4 there follows 51.Rh4!. Therefore 50...Bf5,
which is evidently all the same to Black’s advantage.
46.Qxh4 Qxh4† 47.Rh2 Bh3

Of course, after 47...Qxf4 48.Bxh7† Black loses his queen.
48.Bd5† Kf8 49.Nf3

On this White’s calculations concluded. He wins the bishop at h3. However, a better move is not
apparent.
175
49...Qxf4!
It now becomes clear that after 50.Rxh3 c2 White has to give up a whole rook for the pawn.
50.Nxg5 Bf5 51.Nxh7† Bxh7 52.Rxh7 Qxd4

Premature is 52...c2 on account of 53.Rh8† Ke7 54.Rxg7† Kf6 55.Rf7† Kg6 56.Rg8† with a draw.
53.Rh8† Ke7 54.Bf3 c2

This little pawn, which had awaited its turn for 15 moves, now decides the game.
55.Rc8 Qh4† 56.Kg2 Nf5

Threatening, in addition to 57...Qg3†, the problem-like mate 57...Ne3#.
176
57.Kf1 Qf4
White resigned, since on 58.Kf2 there follows 58...Qd2† 59.Be2 Qe3†.
0–1
GAME 37
Boris Verlinsky – Grigory Levenfish

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 g6 6.g3 d6 7.Bg2 Bd7 8.0-0 Bg7 9.b3 Qc8 10.Bb2
Deserving attention is 10.Re1, preventing the exchange of the bishop at g2.
10...Bh3 11.Nd5 Bxg2 12.Kxg2
12...Nxd5
Worse is 12...0-0 in view of 13.Nxc6 Qxc6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Kg1! and then 16.Nxf6, or 12...0-0
13.Nxc6 Nxd5 14.cxd5! (not 14.Bxg7 on account of 14...Ne3†) 14...bxc6 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Qd4†
Kg8 17.Qe4!.
13.cxd5 Nb4
Possible was 13...Ne5, but after 14.Rc1 Qd7 15.h3 there arises the threat of 16.f4. In provoking
14.e4, Black hopes to later exploit the weakening of the light squares.
177
14.e4 Qd7 15.Qd2 Na6
16.b4
Leading to an interesting struggle was 16.Ne6 and now 16...Bxb2 17.Qxb2 Rg8 18.Nd4 0-0-0, or
16...fxe6 17.Bxg7 Rg8 18.Bd4 exd5 19.exd5 Qf5 20.Be3.
16...0-0 17.a3 Rac8 18.Rac1 Qg4

White is forced to weaken the pawn position; on 19.Qd3 there would have followed 19...Nc5!.
19.f3 Qd7 20.Nb3 Bxb2 21.Qxb2 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Rc8 23.Na5 Rc7 24.Kf2 Qh3 25.Kg1 Qc8 26.Rxc7
Nxc7
In reply to the automatic 26...Qxc7 White transfers the king to d3 and then plays Qc3.
27.Qc3 f6 28.Kg2 Kf7 29.a4 Qb8 30.b5
178
30...Na8 31.Nb3 Nb6 32.a5 Nd7 33.f4 Qd8 34.Kf3 Nc5!
Now it is possible to summarize the positional manoeuvres of both sides. The advance of the a- and
b-pawns has only weakened them. The white king is poorly covered. Black has gradually freed himself
and now seizes the initiative.
35.Nd4
After 35.Nxc5 dxc5 36.Qxc5 Qxa5 the queen endgame is favourable to Black. He threatens 37...a6,
and if 37.Qc4, then 37...Qa3† 38.Kg2 Qd6 and then ...a5.
35...Qd7
179
Threatening the invasion of the queen, for example: 36.Qd2 Qh3 37.Qe2 h5, and then ...h4, the
exchange at g3, and ...Qh1†. White ought to play 36.f5.
36.g4 h5! 37.h3 hxg4† 38.hxg4 Qd8

Threatening 39...Qh8. White’s reply is forced.
39.Qe1 Qh8 40.Kg2

Better than 40.Kg3, since then the black knight arrives at e4 with check. White has prevented the
invasion along the h-file, but not along the diagonal a1-h8.
40...f5 41.e5 fxg4 42.exd6!

The best defence. 42...Qxd4 leads to perpetual check after 43.Qxe7†.
42...exd6 43.Ne6 Qb2† 44.Kg3 Qb3† 45.Kxg4 Qxd5 46.Ng5† Kf8 47.Qa1
Bad is 47.Nh7† in view of 47...Kg7 48.Qe7† Qf7 49.Qxd6 Qf5† 50.Kf3 Kxh7.
The extra pawn with the open position of the king far from guarantees success. After a half-hour’s
thought I found a combination, to carry out which the white queen has to be lured to f6.
180
47...Kg8 48.Qf6
There is nothing better. If 48.Qe1, then 48...Qf5† 49.Kg3 Qd3† (the spectacular 49...Qxf4† leads to
a draw) 50.Kh4 Qxb5 51.Qe7 Qd7.
48...Qd1†
At this moment in an adjoining hall a lecture by N.D. Grigoriev was concluding, and the audience
applauded him so loudly that I lost my train of thought. The combination is concluded by 48...Qg2†
49.Kh4 Qh2† 50.Kg4 Qh5† 51.Kg3 Qxg5†!, or 50.Nh3 Qg3†!(see page 260)51.Kxg3 Ne4†.
49.Kg3 Qg1† 50.Kf3!

Now the white king does not stand at h4, and Black is forced to agree to a draw.
½–½
181
The first half of the year 1934 was for me a failure in the sporting respect. In the Leningrad
Tournament of Masters I played nervously, experimenting unjustifiably, and with difficulty shared 4th-
6th places. The situation was still worse in the ‘Tournament with the Participation of Euwe’.
In December of 1934 there began the 9th All-Union Championship. The make-up of the participants,
notwithstanding the absence of Botvinnik and Romanovsky, proved very strong. [Translator’s note:
Botvinnik was making his international debut in the tournament at Hastings.] The ‘old guard’ was in
excellent sporting form, but the youth too, progressing from competition to competition, had a strong
say in things. Belavenets, Kan, Lisitsyn, Riumin, Chekhover and Yudovich participated actively in the
battle for the leadership. Only in the final round were the victors determined.
The tournament was played in Leningrad with the help of the chess club, which was unfortunately
not spacious enough to accommodate all of those who wished to come to the tournament. The final
round was transferred to the House of Scientists. Not only the Leningrad press, but also the central
press regularly shed light on the course of the tournament, while the radio stations of Moscow and
Leningrad gave detailed information.
The tournament was a qualifying one. The first eight would be included in an international
tournament. [Translator’s note: This was scheduled to take place in Moscow early in 1935.] The
struggle to be included among the eight created very tense circumstances. There were few draws – all
of 33% – and the struggle in the majority of games was conducted with unprecedented bitterness. For
the first time a single time control was employed – after 45 moves – which also had a beneficial effect
on the quality of play.
Before the final round I was in first place, but against Panov – who was already out of things – I drew
with difficulty, whereas I. Rabinovich defeated Ilyin-Zhenevsky. As a result Rabinovich and I shared
1st-2nd place. My creative results were also decent. The young masters passed their difficult test with
honour: among the eight qualifiers were Riumin, Alatortsev, Lisitsyn, Ragozin and Chekhover.
Grigory Levenfish – Peter Dubinin

9th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934/35
182
In the diagram is the position after Black’s 19th move.
20.Rfe1!
The acquisition of the e-file is stronger than the stereotyped attack on the d6-pawn.
20...Re6
Not 20...Be7? on account of 21.Rxe7.
21.Nf4 Rxe1† 22.Rxe1 Ba5

Black tries in vain to connect the rook to the defence. If 22...Bf6, then 23.Nh5 Rf8 24.Rd1 d5 25.Qd3
d4 26.Qc4†.
183
23.Nd5! Bd8
Obviously, the only move.
24.h4! Rb7 25.c4 Kf7 26.Qf3 Kg8 27.Qe2 g6

27...Bxh4? 28.Qh5 and White wins.
28.h5 Kf8 29.h6

Much stronger is 29.hxg6 hxg6 30.Nf4 Kg7 31.Qf3, and no defence against the numerous threats is
apparent.
29...Bg5?
Leading to swift ruin. But 29...Qf7 30.Qb2 Kg8 31.Qa3 a5 32.Qa4 Qd7 33.Re8† Kf7 34.Rh8! Ke6
35.Qa3 should also have led to the same result.
184
30.Qb2 Kg8 31.f4 Bd8 32.Nf6†
32.Re7 Qxe7 would have drawn out the struggle.
32...Bxf6 33.Qxf6 d5
34.Re6 was threatened.
34.cxd5
1–0
GAME 38
Grigory Levenfish – Ilya Rabinovich

1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3.e4 d6 4.Nd2 f5

Whether it pays to undermine the centre by weakening the square e6, it is difficult to say.
5.Ngf3 Nh6
At any event, the preparatory 5...a6 should have been played, and only on 6.a4 then 6...Nh6.
6.Bb5† Bd7 7.Bxd7† Qxd7

Bad is 7...Nxd7 in view of 8.exf5 Nxf5 9.Ne4!, and White has mastery of the e6-square.
185
8.Ng5 Na6 9.Ne6 Nc7 10.Nxc7† Qxc7
11.Nf3! fxe4 12.Ng5 Nf5 13.Qg4 Qd7 14.Qxe4 g6 15.0-0 0-0-0

Black has managed to remove the king to the queen’s flank, but there too it soon comes under attack.
16.a4 Re8 17.Be3 Be7 18.Ne6 Bd8 19.b4 Nd4

Liquidating the threats along the diagonal g1-a7, but on the other hand, leaving the e6-knight in an
impregnable position.
20.Bxd4 exd4 21.Rab1 Re7 22.bxc5 dxc5 23.Rb5 Qd6

On 23...b6 there would have followed 24.Rfb1 and 25.a5.
186
24.Qg4
Winning a pawn. All the same, 24.Rxc5† Qxc5 25.Nxc5 Rxe4 26.Nxe4 deserved preference, for
example: 26...Bb6 27.Rb1 Rd8 (see page 261) 28.d6 Kd7 (28...Re8? 29.d7†!) 29.Kf1 Kc6 30.Ke2 Re8
31.Kd3 Re5 32.Rb4, and White should win. I had overestimated the opponent’s drawing chances in this
variation.
24...Kb8 25.Rxc5 Rhe8!

Of course not 25...Rxe6 26.Qxe6 Qxc5 on account of 27.Qe5†.
Now there is threatened 26...Rxe6, and if 26.Rb5 then 26...a6.
26.Qg3 Qxg3 27.hxg3 Rd7 28.Rb1 a6 29.Nxd4 Ka7!

The d5-pawn is now lost, and the realization of White’s advantage will not be easy.
187
30.Rc8 Rxd5 31.Rd1 Rde5 32.Rxd8 Rxd8 33.Nc6† bxc6 34.Rxd8 Kb6 35.Rd7 Ka5 36.Rxh7 Kxa4
37.f4 Rc5 38.Rg7 a5 39.Rxg6 Kb4 40.Re6 a4 41.Re4† Rc4 42.Re8 Rc5!
Black defends in the best way and does not permit an attack on the a-pawn from the rear. Now on
43.Ra8 there follows 43...Ra5.
43.Re4† Rc4 44.Re1 a3
45.Rb1† (see page 283)

It might seem that White missed a study-like win: 45.f5 a2 46.f6 Rd4 and now not 47.f7 in view of
47...Rd8 48.g4 Rf8 49.Rf1 Rxf7, but 47.g4! Rxg4 48.f7 Rf4 49.Re4†! Kb5 (or 49...Rxe4 50.f8=Q† c5
188
51.Qb8†) 50.Rxf4 a1=Q† 51.Kf2 Qa7† 52.Kg3 Qa3† 53.Kh2 Qf8 54.g4 followed by g4-g5-g6-g7.
However, after 47.g4 Rf4! 48.g5 Rf5 49.Kh2 Rxg5 50.Rf1 a1=Q 51.Rxa1 Rf5 Black achieves a draw.
45...Kc5 46.Ra1 Ra4 47.Ra2

Evidently, at this point White let slip the chance of victory. Correct is 47.Kf2. Black can win the rook
for the a-pawn by means of ...a2 and ...Kc4-c3-b2, but during this time the g- and f-pawns advance.
Better is 47...Kd5 48.Kf3 Ke6 49.Kg4 Kf6, but then decisive is 50.Ra2 Kg6 51.c4 Kf6 52.Kf3 Kf5
53.g4† Kf6 54.g3 and the march of the king to b3.
47...Kd4! 48.Kf2
48...Ke4! 49.Ke2 Ra8 50.Kd2 Rd8† 51.Kc1 Ra8 52.Kd2 Rd8† 53.Kc3 Rg8 54.Kc4 Rxg3 55.c3 Kxf4
56.Rxa3 Rxg2 57.Ra6 Rg6 58.Kc5 Ke4!
Just in time!
59.Ra4† Kd3! 60.c4 Kc2 61.Ra3 Rg4 62.Rh3 Rf4 63.Kb4 Rf5 64.c5 Rf8! 65.Rh6 Rc8
189
66.Rd6
Also failing to give a win is 66.Ka5 Kc3 67.Kb6 Kc4 68.Rxc6 Rb8† 69.Kc7 Rh8 70.Kb7 Rh7†
71.Ka6 Rh1 72.Rc8 Rb1 73.c6 Kc5 etc.
66...Rb8† 67.Kc4 Rc8 68.Rh6 Kb2 69.Rg6 Ka3 70.Rg3† Kb2 71.Rb3† Kc2 72.Ra3 Kd2 73.Rd3†
Ke2 74.Rd6 Ke3 75.Kb4 Rb8† 76.Kc4
½–½
The exceptionally tenacious defence by my opponent saved him a half-point, which came in very
useful at the finish.
GAME 39
Grigory Levenfish – Ilya Kan

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4
Up to this point – the standard variation of the Orthodox Defence.
9...a6
Normally played is first 9...b5 and then 10...a6, but it all comes down to a transposition of moves.
10.a4 b5 11.Bd3
190
11...Bb7
Stronger is 11...bxa4 12.Qxa4 Nc5; or 12.Nxa4 Qa5† 13.Nc3 Rb8 14.Qc2 c5.
[Translator’s note – In this case 15.Bxh7† is strong. Black should therefore have interposed the move
...h7-h6 before embarking on this operation.]
12.0-0 b4
Correct was 12...h6 13.Bh4 and only now 13...b4. Then on 14.Ne4 there can follow 14...Nxe4
15.Bxe7 Nxf2.
13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7

On 14...Nxf2 there follows 15.Bxh7† Kh8 16.Rxf2 Qxe7 17.Bb1, to White’s advantage.
15.Bxe4 Rac8
191
16.Nd2!
The knight is transferred to c4, and the advance of the c-pawn is held up. A small inaccuracy in
handling the opening has led to a cramped position for Black.
16...e5 17.Qc2 Nf6 18.Bf3 Rfd8 19.dxe5 Qxe5 20.Nc4?

This stereotyped move deprives White of his positional advantage. Much stronger is 20.Nb3 and then
21.Nc5. On 20...Nd7 there can follow 21.Bg4.
20...Qc5 21.e4 Rd4 22.e5 Ne8

Forestalling 23.Nd6.
23.Rfe1 Rcd8 24.e6 fxe6 25.Rxe6 Nc7 26.Re5
192
26...Nd5!
The strongest reply. The situation has become tense.
On 26...Qa7 White had prepared 27.Na5 Rd2 28.Qc4† Kh8 29.Nxb7!.
27.h3 Rf4 28.b3 Rdf8 29.Qd2 h6 30.Rce1 Rd4 31.Qc2 Rdf4 32.Qg6 R4f6 33.Qh5 Qd4
Kan is manoeuvring well. Black has freed himself from the pin and threatens ...Nf4-d3.
34.Re8 Nf4 35.Rxf8† Rxf8
36.Qe5!
193
Parrying the threat of 36...Nxh3† in view of 37.gxh3 Qxe5 38.Nxe5.
Unfavourable for Black is the continuation 36...Qxe5 (see page 261) 37.Nxe5 Re8 38.Kf1 Re6 39.g3
Nd5 40.Bxd5 cxd5 41.Nd3, and the endgame is lost for Black.
36...Qc3!
Again the strongest retort. 37...Nh3, as well as 37...Qb3, is threatened. The exchange at c3 is
favourable to Black after 38.Rc1 Nxh3† 39.Kf1 Ng5 40.Be2 Ne4.
The following move by White is the result of a very tense piece of thought. And both the difficult
combination and, principally, the endgame arising from it, demanded lengthy calculation. This is
particularly difficult in conditions of counter-blows by the opponent.
37.Nd6!
37...Nxh3†
On 37...Ba8 White would have replied 38.Qe7 with the threat of 39.Qxf8†.
38.Kh2 Ng5!
In order on 39.Nxb7 to reply 39...Rxf3!.
39.Bg4! Qxe5†
Forced. On 39...Ba8 there would have followed 40.f4 Rxf4 (after 40...Qxe5 41.fxe5 the e-pawn will
cost Black a piece) 41.Qe8† Kh7 42.Bf5†.
40.Rxe5 Ba8
194
41.f4!
Some masters, watching the game, considered this move to be a mistake.
41...Rxf4 42.Bf5!
Here is the key to the whole combination. Mate is threatened, and also the loss of the bishop at a8.
The idea of the combination is deflection and interference.
42...Rxf5?
Unfortunately, the unexpected turn of events prevented my opponent from finding the best defence –
42...g6. Then the following illustrative variation was possible: 43.Re8† Kg7 44.Rxa8 gxf5 45.Rxa6 c5
(or 45...Ne4 46.Nc4) 46.a5 Ne4 47.Ra7† Kf6 (47...Kg8 48.Ra8† Kg7 49.a6 Nxd6 50.a7) 48.Ne8†
Ke6 49.a6 Rf1 50.Rh7 Ra1 51.a7 Ke5 52.Re7† Kf4
195
53.Nc7 Nf2 54.Nd5† Kg5 55.Rg7† and mate in two moves. Also in other branches the a-pawn should
decide the outcome of the game.
43.Nxf5 Kf7 44.Nd6†

Now the bishop at a8 is lost, and Black resigned. One of my best games.
1–0
GAME 40
Grigory Levenfish – Viacheslav Ragozin

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 Ne7

The usual variation 4...c5 5.a3 Bxc3† 6.bxc3 leads to a weakening of the dark squares and many
grandmasters, for example Smyslov, assess this as favourable for White. The system of defence chosen
by Ragozin retains the dark-squared bishop. It has not been encountered again in later tournaments.
5.Bd2 0-0 6.a3 Ba5 7.Bd3 Nd7 8.Nf3 f6

A timely undermining of the pawn chain.
9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Qe2 Re8?

A serious loss of time. By continuing 10...Nf5 11.0-0 Bb6, Black obtains a good position.
196
11.g4! (see page 258)
The signal for an immediate attack. The g4-pawn cannot be taken on account of 11...Nxg4 12.Bxh7†
Kxh7 13.Ng5†.
11...c5 12.g5 Nh5

Losing is 12...cxd4 in view of 13.gxf6, for example: 13...dxc3 14.f7†! Kxf7 15.Ng5† Kf8 16.Nxh7†
Kg8 17.Nf6† gxf6 18.Rg1†
13.Ne5 g6 14.dxc5 Nf5 15.0-0-0

By returning the pawn, White retains an attack.
15...Bxc3 16.Bxc3 Qxg5† 17.Kb1 Nf4 18.Qf3 Nxd3 19.Qxd3

Black’s game is strategically lost. The dark squares in his camp are indefensible, and the g-file is
opened for the attack.
197
19...b6 20.Rhg1 Qe7 21.c6 a5 22.Qf3 Qh4
The sacrifice at g6 was threatened.
23.Rg4 Qh5 24.Rdg1 Kf8

In the hope of 25.Rxg6 Qxf3 26.Rf6† Ke7 27.Rf7† Kd6 28.Nxf3 Kxc6, and the worst for Black is
over.
25.Qf4! Ra7 26.Rg5 Qh3

All of White’s preparations are completed, and he delivers the concluding blow.
27.Nxg6† hxg6 28.Rxg6 Qh7 29.Qg5 e5 30.Bxe5 Be6
198
The bishop is invulnerable; on 30...Rxe5 there follows 31.Qd8†.
Finally Black has managed to bring all his pieces into play, but they are too late.
31.Qf6† Bf7
32.Rg8†! Qxg8 33.Rxg8† Kxg8 34.Qh8#
[Translator’s Note: Prior to the following game, with three rounds remaining, Levenfish was trailing
Bohatirchuk, Rabinovich and Chekhover. This game was therefore vital to Levenfish in a competitive
sense; by winning it and the following encounter against Ilyin-Zhenevsky, he was able to take the lead
in the tournament prior to the final round.]
GAME 41
Vladimir Makogonov – Grigory Levenfish

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Nbd7 6.Nbd2

Stronger than 6.0-0, on which there could follow 6...dxc4 7.Bxc4 Bd6 followed by ...e5.
Now on 6...Bd6 there follows 7.e4!.
6...Be7 7.e4 dxe4 8.Nxe4 c5

This is no worse than the recommendation of theory, 8...0-0 9.0-0 b6.
199
9.dxc5
One of the small mistakes committed by White in the present game. Correct is 9.Nxc5.
9...Nxe4! 10.Bxe4 Nxc5 11.Qxd8†

On 11.Bc2 there follows 11...Qxd1† 12.Bxd1 Nd3†.
11...Bxd8 12.Bc2 Bf6 13.Rb1 Bd7

Intending on 14.b4 to reply 14...Ba4! 15.bxc5? Bxc2 16.Rxb7 0-0-0 winning, or 15.Bxa4† Nxa4
16.0-0 Nb6.
14.Bg5 Bc6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Nh4 0-0-0

With the threat of 17...Rd4.
17.Rd1 Rxd1† 18.Kxd1 Rd8† 19.Ke2 Rd4 20.Nf3!
200
20...Rg4!
After 20...Rxc4 21.Bxh7 f5 22.h4 the h-pawn becomes dangerous.
Now there is threatened 21...Rxg2, while on 21.Bxh7 there follows 21...f5 and ...Rg7.
21.Rg1 Be4 22.h3 Rf4 23.Ke3

An oversight, but the loss of a pawn was already impossible to prevent.
23...Rxf3†
0–1
GAME 42
Grigory Levenfish – Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Qd2 N7b6
201
Becker’s idea. Black threatens the exchange at c3 followed by ...Nd5 or ...Na4.
In the game Levenfish – Euwe, Leningrad 1934, I had played 9.Rc1 Nxc3 10.bxc3 and after 10...Nd5
(threatening 11...Nxc3 and 12...Bb4) had to reply 11.Kd1. In the case of 11.Bc4 unpleasant is 11...Ba3
12.Rb1 Nxc3 13.Rb3 b5 14.Bd3 b4.
Alekhine, in the 25th game of the 1935 match against Euwe, continued 9.Bd3, and after 9...Nxc3
10.bxc3 Nd5 11.Rc1 Nxc3 12.0-0 Bb4 13.a3 Qxa3 14.Ra1 Qb3 15.Bc2 Euwe could have immediately
decided the game with 15...Ne4!. All the same Alekhine’s move 9.Bd3 is good, but after 9...Nxc3
10.bxc3 Nd5 White should continue 11.0-0! with an attack for the pawn.
9.a3 Bb4
Black accepts the challenge and takes the pawn. Simpler is 9...Nxc3 10.Qxc3 Qxc3† 11.bxc3 c5.
10.Rc1 Bxc3
Losing a piece is 10...Nxc3 in view of 11.axb4.
11.bxc3 Qxa3 12.e4 Ne7 13.Bd3 f6 14.Be3 Ng6 15.0-0

More energetic was 15.h4.
15...Qe7
202
16.Qa2! Nd7
There was the threat of 17.d5 with an attack on the knight at b6.
17.Rb1 e5 18.Bc1 Ndf8 19.Re1 Bg4
This move and the next by Black, while apparently very active, are the cause of his further
difficulties. It was necessary to think of the king: 19...Be6 20.d5 (otherwise 20...Kf7) 20...Bc8
[Translator’s note: Here Levenfish states that “even in this case after 21.Nc4! White’s attack is very
strong”. This would appear to be a misprint, or confusion on the part of the author – the white knight is
still at f3. Annotating the game in the Tournament Book of the 9th USSR Championship, Levenfish
instead continues this variation: 21.dxc6 bxc6 22.Ba3 Qf7 23.Qc2 Ne6 etc.]
20.Nd2 Nf4 21.Bf1 Be6
203
22.Qa5! N8g6 23.Ba3
Black has to give up a pawn, since on 23...Qd7 decisive is 24.d5 and 25.Nc4.
23...Qd8 24.Qxd8† Rxd8 25.Rxb7 exd4 26.Nc4 Rd7 27.Nd6† Kd8 28.cxd4
Despite the equality in force, Black’s situation is cheerless. His pawns are disturbed, and White’s two
bishops begin their destructive work.
28...Rxb7 29.Nxb7† Kc7 30.Rb1 Bc8 31.Nd6 Rd8 32.Nxc8 Rxc8 33.Ba6 Rb8
This costs the exchange, but otherwise 34.Rb7† is decisive.
34.Bd6† Kxd6 35.Rxb8 Ne6 36.Rb7 Nxd4 37.Rxg7 Ne7 38.Rxh7 Nb5 39.f4 Nc7 40.e5† fxe5
204
41.fxe5† Kd7 42.Bc4 a5 43.h4 a4 44.h5 a3 45.h6 Ncd5 46.Rg7 Ne3 47.Ba2
1–0
I annotated all of the games for a book of the tournament.

[Translator’s note: That book, IX Vsyesoyuznoye Shakhmatnoe Pervenstvoe, was published by the
state publishing house, Fizkultura i Turizm, in 1937.]
205
2nd Moscow International 1935
A great international tournament was to begin a month after the end of the 9th USSR Championship.
To the eight qualifiers were added Botvinnik, Romanovsky, Kan and Goglidze. Twelve Soviet and
eight foreign masters – such was the final make-up of the 2nd Moscow International Tournament.
The organizing committee overcame some difficulties in finding a suitable venue for play. Taking the
experience of the international tournament of 1925 into consideration, a huge influx of spectators was
to be expected. Even the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions was not sufficiently spacious. Finally
the organizing committee settled on the Museum of Fine Arts. This did not pass without incident. The
director of the museum could not agree to such a ‘desecration’ of the temple of art and indicated that
only over his dead body would chess get into the museum. But the chief of the organizing committee,
Krylenko, soon convinced him of the benefits of the game of chess, and the director soon became an
ardent chess fan.
The interest of the Moscow public in the tournament was exceptional. The sign ‘Tickets Sold Out’
could be seen at the entrance the whole time. Those who were unsuccessful in obtaining tickets
crowded into the gardens around the museum. The police had to work at full force to restore order.
The draw brought me up against the Women’s World Champion, Vera Menchik, in the first round. In
the course of my life I have seen hundreds of female chessplayers, but Vera alone played at undisputed
master strength. Her poor result in the tournament is explained by its strong make-up and the
nervousness of the women’s champion. In a number of games she achieved winning positions, but let
slip her chances.
A Czech by birth, as a child Menchik lived in Moscow, but then her family moved to England. She
spoke Russian fairly well. The ample, round-faced girl proved to be a very pleasant companion. In
England her life was not easy; her mother and younger sister were in her care. To work at chess for a
living was impossible even for a Women’s World Champion, and Menchik tutored young girls from
well-off families in how to play bridge... Before long she was married, and her life took a turn for the
better, but towards the end of the war Menchik perished in the bombardment of London.
I began the tournament fairly successfully. Although I lost to Botvinnik and in better positions lost
half-points in the games against Flohr, Ragozin and Pirc, nonetheless until the 13th round I was in one
of the top places.
I present some games.
GAME 43
Grigory Levenfish – Gideon Ståhlberg

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3 Be7

Ståhlberg has chosen the Orthodox Defence (via a transposition of moves), in which he is considered
an expert.
206
7.Bd3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Nd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Qc2 Nxc3
On 10...0-0 White would have replied 11.Ne4.
11.Qxc3 0-0 12.0-0 b6 13.e4 Bb7 14.Rfe1 Rac8 15.Rad1 Rfd8
16.h3
A colourless move. White has a lot of space; for Black to free his game he has at his disposal two
paths: ...c5 and – in the future – ...e5. White ought to play 16.b4!, in order on 16...c5 to reply 17.dxc5
bxc5 18.b5 with the advantage.
16...a5 17.a3 Qf6 18.Qe3

Now 18...e5 is impossible in view of the loss of the pawn at b6.
18...h6
Perfectly possible was 18...c5 19.e5 Qg6 20.d5 Bxd5 21.Bxd5 exd5 22.Rxd5 Nf8.
19.Rd2 Qe7 20.Red1
207
20...c5
With this move Black equalizes the game, and he threatens 21...cxd4 22.Rxd4 e5.
21.Ba2 Nf8 22.Bb1 cxd4 23.Rxd4 Rxd4 24.Qxd4 Qc5 25.Qxc5 Rxc5 26.Nd4 g6
For the preparation of ...e5 and ...Ne6-d4.
27.f3!
White first of all reinforces the e4-pawn and brings his king into the battle.
27...Ba6
It transpires that the move 27...e5 is premature in view of the variation 28.Ne2 Ne6 29.Nc3 Nd4
30.f4! f6 31.fxe5 fxe5 32.Ba2† Kg7 33.Rf1.
28.Kf2 e5 29.Nc2 Bc4

In the endgame difficulties have appeared for Black – the invasion of the rook at d6 is threatened.
Black wishes by means of ...Bb3 to exchange the knight and to gain mastery of the dark squares.
208
30.Ne3 Be6
Also bad is 30...Ne6 in view of 31.b4 axb4 32.axb4 Rc7 33.Rc1 Bb3 34.Rxc7 Nxc7 35.Ng4.
Somewhat better was 30...Bb3 31.Rd3 a4, on which White intended to continue 32.Rc3 with the
threat of exchanging rooks and winning a pawn with the move Ng4.
31.Rd6 b5
It is possible that Black had intended to reply 31...Rb5, but then became convinced that 32.b4! axb4
33.Bd3 Ra5 34.axb4 led to the loss of a pawn.
32.Bd3
209
32...Nd7
Losing a pawn. However, nor does 32...b4 33.axb4 axb4 34.Rb6 b3 35.Rb5 Nd7 36.Rxc5 Nxc5
37.Bb5 promise Black anything good (White brings his king to c3).
33.b4 axb4 34.axb4 Rc1 35.Bxb5 Nf6 36.Bd3 Kf8 37.b5 Ke7 38.Ra6 Rc3 39.Ke2 Rb3 40.Kd2 Nd7
41.Rc6 Nb8 42.Rc3 Rb4 43.Ra3 Nd7 44.Kc3 Rd4

[Translator’s Note: In the tournament book, Levenfish comments: “By drawing a rectangle with his
rook, White has now achieved the displacement of the black rook from the b-file.”]
45.Bc4 Nc5
Also losing is 45...Nb6 46.Bxe6 Kxe6 47.Ra6 Rd6 48.Nc4, etc.
46.Ra7† Kd6 47.Bxe6 Kxe6 48.Rc7! Rd3†

Forced, since 48...Na4† 49.Kb3 Kd6 50.Rc6† Kd7 51.Nc2 leads to the loss of a piece.
49.Kc4 Rxe3 50.Kxc5 Re2 51.b6 Rxg2 52.b7 Rc2† 53.Kb6

1–0
GAME 44
Grigory Levenfish – Nikolay Riumin

210
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3
Once again the standard variation of the Orthodox Defence. The exchanging operation carried out by
Black was regularly adopted by Capablanca in the match with Alekhine.
8...dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0-0 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 e5
13.Qc2
Introduced into tournament practice by Vidmar in Bled in 1931.
The other continuations are hardly stronger than the move in the game:
a) 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 15.f4 (Rubinstein).
b) 13.Qb1 exd4! 14.exd4 Nb6 15.Re1 Qf6 16.Bb3 Be6!
c) 13.Bb3
13...exd4
After 13...e4 14.Nd2 Nf6 White can choose the ‘minority attack’: 15.Rc1 Bf5 16.a3 Rad8 17.b4; or
instead begin play in the centre: 15.Bb3 Bf5 16.f4 If Black defends the pawn with the move 14...Re8,
then the opening of the centre 15.f3! exf3 16.Rxf3 Nf6 17.e4 promises White a strong attack.
14.exd4 Nf6
After the present game, reference books recommended 14...Nb6 15.Re1 Qf6 as leading to equality.
However, in Trifunović – Vidmar (3rd Yugoslav Championship, Ljubljana 1947) there followed
16.Bb3 Bf5 17.Qe2 Rad8 18.Qe7 Qxe7 19.Rxe7 Rd7 20.Rce3 Nc8 21.Rxd7 Bxd7 22.Ne5 Be8
23.Nd3, to White’s advantage.
15.Re1 Qd6
211
White has outstripped the opponent in development, but Black has no evident weak points, and the
isolated pawn at d4 can easily prove to be weak. How is the pressure to be increased; how are the
freeing moves ...Bd7 or ...Bg4 to be prevented? The move 16.Qb3 suggests itself, but after 16...b5
17.Bd3 Be6 18.Qc2 Bd5 19.Ne5 Rfe8 20.Rc1 h6 Black has sufficient counterplay. All of the
requirements – both logical and aesthetic – are met by the move that I found at the board. Later it was
employed by Alekhine and other masters.
16.Ng5!
16...Qf4 (see page 276)

We consider the other branches:
a) 16...Qxd4 17.Rf3, threatening not only 18.Rxf6, but also 18.Nxf7.
b) 16...g6 17.Qb3 Qc7 18.Rce3 Ng4 19.Bxf7† Rxf7 (or 19...Kg7 20.Rh3) 20.Re8† Kg7 21.g3±
c) 16...h6 17.Nxf7 Rxf7 18.Qg6 Qf8 19.Rf3 Nd5 20.Rxf7 Qxf7 21.Re8† White was winning in
Alekhine – Carlsson, Orebro 1935, played three months after the Moscow tournament.
d) 16...Bd7 17.Qb3 Ng4 18.Bxf7† Kh8 19.Rh3± Pirc – Tartakower, Noordwijk 1938.
e) 16...Bg4 (the recommendation of Alekhine) 17.Qb3 (Possible is the continuation found later: 17.Rg3
Bh5 18.Rh3 Bg6
212
19.Qxg6!! hxg6 20.Bxf7† Rxf7 21.Rh8†! With a transposition to a better endgame.) 17...Bh5 18.Qxb7
Rab8 19.Qxa7 Rxb2 20.Qa3!±
17.Nxf7! b5
Leading to a speedy rout is 17...Rxf7 18.Qb3 Nd5 19.Rf3 Qd6 20.Re8†.
18.Bb3 Rxf7 19.Re7 Nd5 20.Bxd5 cxd5
21.Rxc8†
Unfortunately, White overlooks the possibility of concluding the game consistently. 21.Rxf7! forced
Black’s immediate capitulation (21...Qxf7 22.Rxc8† reaches a winning pawn endgame).
213
21...Rxc8 22.Qxc8† Rf8 23.Qe6† Kh8 24.Qe3 Qf5 25.g3 h6 26.Kg2 a6 27.Re5 Qc2 28.Qe2 Qc4
There is nothing better. On 28...Rc8 there would have followed 29.Qg4.
29.Qxc4 dxc4
The slip at the 21st move has led to a rook ending, with the drawing chances typical of these.
30.Rc5! Kg8
Or 30...Rd8 31.d5, and then White brings the king to the centre.
31.a4! Rd8 32.axb5 axb5 33.d5 Rb8

The black rook is forced to take up a passive position. In rook endings this circumstance often has
decisive significance.
34.Kf3 Kf7 35.Ke3 Ke7 36.Kd4 Kd7 37.Kc3 Kd6 38.Kb4 Rf8
Or 38...Re8 39.Rxb5 Re2 40.Kxc4 Rxf2 41.Rb6† Ke5 42.Re6† Kf5 43.b4 Rxh2 44.Re3 with an easy
win.
39.f4 g5 40.fxg5 hxg5 41.Rxb5 Rf2 42.Kxc4 Rxh2 43.Rb6† Kd7
214
44.Rg6 Rxb2 45.Rxg5 Rb1 46.Rg6 Rd1 47.Kc5 Rc1† 48.Kd4 Re1 49.g4 Ke7 50.g5 Rd1†
Otherwise White plays Ra6, g5-g6 and then transfers the king to g7.
51.Kc5 Rc1† 52.Kb6! Rd1 53.Re6† Kd7 54.Kc5 Rc1† 55.Kd4 Rg1 56.g6
1–0
GAME 45

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nc3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4
Black has chosen the Meran Defence, which was first employed by Rubinstein in the Meran
tournament of 1924. Its main line is obtained after 9...c5. Seeking to avoid home analysis by my
opponent, I chose a different continuation, recommended by Pirc.
9...b4 10.Na4 c5
215
11.e5
On 11.dxc5 there could follow 11...Bxc5 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Qe2 Be7 14.Bg5 0-0 15.Rfd1 h6 16.Bh4
Nh5 with a level game.
11...Nd5 12.0-0 cxd4

A serious loss of time. Correct is 12...Bb7 and 13...Rc8.
13.Re1 Nc5
After 13...Be7 14.Nxd4 Bb7 unpleasant is 15.Qg4.
14.Bg5 Qa5
Mistaken is 14...Be7 in view of 15.Nxc5 Bxg5 16.Qa4†.
15.Nxc5 Bxc5 16.Rc1 h6

Not 16...0-0 on account of 17.Qc2. Also insufficient is 16...Bb7 on account of 17.Nd2!.
17.Bh4 Be7 18.Bxe7 Nxe7
216
19.Nxd4
Stronger is 19.Be4! (19...Rb8 20.Qxd4 0-0 21.Qa7 and White wins). If 19...Nd5, then 20.Nxd4 0-0
21.Nc6 with advantage for White.
19...0-0
The opening mistake at the 12th move has led to a difficult game for Black: he is behind in
development, and his king’s flank is poorly defended.
20.Qg4
Tempting is 20.Qf3 Ra7 21.Qe4 g6 22.Qh4. However, after 22...Rc7! 23.Rxc7 Qxc7 24.Qxh6 Rd8
25.Re4 Qc5 26.Rh4 Qxe5 White achieves nothing.
20.Bb1 Bb7 21.Qc2 Ng6 (not 21...g6 on account of 22.Qc7!) 22.h4 Rac8 23.Qd3 Rfd8 only helps
Black.
20...Bb7 21.Re3
217
21...Rfc8!
Bad is 21...Rfd8 on account of 22.Nxe6 fxe6 23.Qxe6† Kf8 24.Rc4.
22.Rce1 Qd8!
Hurriedly transferring the queen to the defence of the king’s flank.
23.Rg3
Better appears 23.Rh3 Kh8 24.Qf4 Qf8 25.g4. However, after 25...Rc7 26.g5 Rd8 27.gxh6 g6, it is
not apparent how the grip can be strengthened, while the threat of ...Rcd7 has become real.
23...Qf8 24.Ne2 a5 25.Nf4 Kh8 26.Nh5 g6 27.Qh4

Through inertia, White follows the path of forcing attack, but he ought to have been thinking of
defence: 27.Nf6 Rc7 28.Qf4 Rac8 29.h4
27...Rc7 28.Nf6 Rac8 29.Rh3 Ng8!
218
A turning point in the game. After 30.Nxg8 Kxg8 31.Qxh6 Qxh6 32.Rxh6 Rc1 33.Kf1 Bxg2†
34.Ke2 Bf3† 35.Kd2 Rxe1 36.Kxe1 Bh5 White loses. He ought to have sought equality with the move
30.Qf4.
30.g4? Rc1 31.Rf1 Rxf1† 32.Kxf1 Rc1† 33.Ke2 Bg2! 34.Kd2 Qc8?
Unfortunately, not the only careless slip that I committed during this tournament. By continuing
34...Ra1 35.Rg3 Qc8 36.Bc2 Rxa2 37.Nxg8 Rxb2, Black achieves victory. In time trouble I saw the
queen sacrifice, but had overlooked White’s 39th move.
35.Qxh6†! Nxh6 36.Rxh6† Kg7 37.Rh7† Kf8 38.Rh8† Ke7 39.Ng8†! Kf8
The king is forced to return.
219
40.Nf6†
½–½
GAME 46
Grigory Levenfish – Georgy Lisitsyn

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 c5 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.e4

Via a transposition of moves there has been obtained the Dragon Variation with Maróczy’s move c2-
c4. White strengthens control over the d5-square. At one time the Maróczy Variation was assessed as
being so dangerous for Black that it was considered obligatory for him to provoke the move Nc3 before
the move c2-c4. However, later the follow-up discovered by Simagin showed that these fears were
exaggerated, for example: 6...Nc6 7.Be3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 Nc6 (also possible is 9...e5)
10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d6
6...d6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Be3 Nc5 10.f3
10...b6?
An altogether unnecessary weakening of the c6-square. It was preferable to continue 10...Bd7 and
11...Ne6.
11.Qd2 Bb7 12.Rfd1 Ne6 13.Rac1 Qd7 14.Ndb5 Ne8
220
14.e5 was threatened.
15.Nd5
There has been obtained Rubinstein’s set-up, which has also been met with more than once in
Botvinnik’s games. The white pieces control the centre, and he intends an attack with f3-f4-f5. Black
can do nothing but manoeuvre and await events. Any forcible attempts to free himself will only worsen
his situation.
15...N8c7 16.Nbc3 Nxd5?

The weakness of the c6-square will tell in the further course of the game. Better was 16...Rfc8,
17...Ne8 and 18...Nf6.
17.cxd5 Nc7 18.a4 Ba6 19.b4 Bxe2 20.Nxe2 Na6 21.Nd4 Bxd4
Forced in view of the threat of 22.Nc6. The capture of the pawn at a4 costs a piece after 22.Ra1.
22.Qxd4 Rfc8
221
23.Rc6! Rxc6 24.dxc6 Qe6 25.Qc3 Nc7 26.Ra1 Rc8 27.Qd3 d5 28.Rc1 f5
Black wants to seize the square d5 for the knight, which would ease his defence.
29.Bf4! dxe4 30.fxe4 Ne8

30...fxe4 loses after 31.Qd7, while 30...Qxe4 31.Qxe4 fxe4 32.Bxc7 Rxc7 33.b5 leads to a bad rook
ending.
31.exf5 gxf5 32.b5 Kf7 33.Rf1 Ng7 34.Bd2 Rf8 35.Re1 Qc8 36.Bb4 Re8
Lisitsyn has defended with his customary tenacity. White takes play into an endgame and temporarily
wins a pawn.
222
37.Qd7! (see page 262) 37...Qxd7 38.cxd7 Rd8 39.Rxe7† Kf6 40.Kf2 h6 41.g3 Ne6 42.Ke2 Nc7 43.Ba3
Nd5! 44.Re8 Rxd7 45.Bb2† Kg6 46.Re6† Kh7
Black has regained the pawn, but all the same he has not equalized. The pawn islands at f5 and h6 are
in need of defence, White’s rook is active, while the bishop is stronger than the knight. The struggle in
the following endgame unfolds very interestingly.
47.Be5!
Preventing 47...Re7, on which there follows 48.Rxe7† Nxe7 49.Bb8 Nc8 50.Kf3 Kg6 51.Kf4.
47...Nc7 48.Rc6 Nd5 49.Kf3 Re7 50.Bf4! Nxf4 51.Kxf4 Rf7!

Losing is 51...Re4† on account of 52.Kxf5 Rxa4 53.Rc7† Kg8 54.Kg6, as is 51...Re2 on account of
52.Rc7† Kg6 53.Rxa7 Rxh2 54.Ra6.
52.h4 Rg7
223
53.h5! Rg4†
Forced since 53...Rf7 can be met by 54.Re6 and 55.Re5.
54.Kxf5 Rxa4
On 54...Rxg3 decisive is 55.Rc7† Kg8 56.Rxa7 Rg5† 57.Kf6 Rxh5 58.a5! Rxb5 59.a6 Ra5 60.Rg7†
Kf8 61.a7 Ke8 62.Ke6! Kd8 63.Rg8†.
55.Rc7† Kg8 56.Kg6 Rg4† 57.Kxh6 Rxg3 58.Rxa7 Rb3

59.Rb7 was threatened.
Black has defended himself in the best way and is seemingly close to a draw. Nothing is given by
224
59.Kg6 Rg3† 60.Kf6 Rf3† 61.Ke6 Rb3. All the same White is winning.
59.Rb7!!
The idea of this study-like move consists in the deflection of the rook onto the fifth rank, from where
it cannot disturb the white king.
59...Rxb5 60.Kg6 Kf8 61.h6 Re5 62.Rb8†

1–0
GAME 47
Grigory Levenfish – Emanuel Lasker

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4
One of Lasker’s theoretical inventions.
8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Qc2

Avoiding the well-trodden path: 9.cxd5 Nxc3 10.bxc3 exd5 11.Qb3 Rd8 12.c4 Nc6 13.cxd5 Qb4†
14.Nd2 Qxb3 15.Nxb3 Nb4, and White has no advantage.
9...Nxc3 10.Qxc3 c6 11.Bd3 Nd7 12.0-0 Rd8

In the same tournament, in my game with Ståhlberg with a transposition of moves there was played
12...dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6 (see Game 43). Lasker avoids the weakening of the queen’s flank.
225
13.Rac1 Nf8 14.Ne5 Bd7
15.f4
Consolidating the outpost in expectation of an attack on the king’s flank is not justified. Black’s
weaknesses are on the other side of the board.
More logical was 15.cxd5 exd5 16.b4 and at the first opportunity – b4-b5.
15...f6 16.Nf3 dxc4

Necessary, since otherwise White would play c4-c5, while the break ...e5 is extremely difficult to
carry out.
17.Bxc4 Be8 18.Rf2 Bf7 19.Bb3 Rac8 20.Qa5 b6

In any case, 20...Ra8 was safer.
21.Qa6 Rc7 22.Rfc2 Rdc8 23.Rc3

White temporizes. In favourable circumstances he can advance the a-pawn and therefore he defends
the bishop against the possible leap ...Qb4.
226
23...c5
The shortcomings of the move 15.f4 are revealed. In the case of an exchange at d4 the central squares
will be weakened.
Worse is 23...Nd7 in view of 24.Ba4 Nb8 25.Qd3 with the threat of 26.Bc2.
24.Qa3 g5!
A timely diversion on the other flank. The creation of a weak isolated pawn at c5 is unavoidable, and
Black wants to rid himself of the f4-pawn, in order to prepare ...e5.
25.dxc5 bxc5
The exchange of all the heavy pieces would have led to an unfavourable endgame for Black.
227
26.Bc4
Threatening 27.Ba6. On 26...Nd7 there would have followed 27.Bb5!.
White avoided the tempting move 26.Nd4 (see page 276) on account of a combination in reply: 26...cxd4!
27.Qxe7 dxc3 28.Qa3 and now no28...cxb2? in view of 29.Rf1!, bu28...gxf4 29.exf4 c2!, and it is
hardly possible to demonstrate an advantage for White, since the pawn at c2 will prove to be ‘hardy’.
26...Rb8! 27.b3 Nd7 28.Be2 e5! 29.fxe5 Nxe5 30.Nxe5 Qxe5 31.Qa6
The queen must be activated. In passing, 32.Bc4 is threatened.
31...Kg7 32.Bf3 Rd8 33.Qe2
228
33...h5!
Threatening 34...g4. On 34.Bxh5 there would have followed 34...Bxh5 35.Qxh5 Rh8.
34.Qf2 g4 35.Be2 Rd2 36.R3c2 Rcd7

Intending on 37.Rxc5 to reply 37...Qb2. Lasker’s excellent defence has equalized the chances, and
White avoids further attempts.
37.Qf4 Qxf4 38.exf4 Bg6 39.Rxd2 Rxd2 40.Kf1 Rxa2 41.Rxc5

½–½
One cannot but admire the phenomenal vitality of Lasker. At 67 years of age he retained almost in full
his marvellous talent and withstood the tension of a lengthy tournament, taking third place and the prize
for the best game (won by him against Capablanca).
GAME 48
Fedor Bohatirchuk – Grigory Levenfish

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Nf3

The move 6.Qb3 presents Black with serious problems. Black intended to sacrifice a pawn,
continuing 6...Bg7. After 7.cxd5 0-0 8.Be2 White retains, for the time being, the extra pawn. An
analogous variation occurred in the Botvinnik – Levenfish match, of which more later (see Game 70).
229
6...Bg7 7.c5
White obtains a perceptible advantage on the queen’s flank, but permits counterplay in the centre.
7...Nc6 8.Bb5 0-0 9.0-0 Bg4 10.Be3 Ne4! 11.Be2

There was the threat of 11...Bxf3 and, moreover, 11...e5. However, better was 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.h3.
11...Nxc5! 12.dxc5 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 d4 14.Na4

No better for White is 14.Qb3 Na5, or 14.Bd2 dxc3 15.Bxc3 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Qa5. [Translator’s note:
Interestingly, this position arose with colours reversed in Flohr – Maróczy, London 1932. There the
continuation was 16...Qc7.]
On 14.Nd5 there follows 14...dxe3 15.Nxe3 Qa5 16.Qc1 Rad8.
14...dxe3 15.fxe3 Qc7 16.Qb3
230
16...Be5
Provoking a weakening of the dark squares. On 17.g3 there follows 17...h5.
17.h3 Rad8 18.Rad1 Bg7!

Freeing the way for the queen to g3.
19.Bxc6 Rxd1 20.Rxd1 Qxc6 21.Kh1 Rc8 22.Nc3 e6 23.Rd3 Be5

Threatening both 24...Qxc5 and 24...Bb8.
24.Qb4 Qxc5 25.Qxb7 Rb8 26.Qf3 Rxb2 27.Rd7 Qf8
231
28.e4
A crafty move. 29.Rxa7 is threatened. If now 28...Bxc3 29.Qxc3 Rxa2, then 30.Qf6 is decisive.
28...Rc2!
White was also prepared for this move. The knight cannot move away in view of 30...Rxa2 with the
threat of ...Ra1.
29.Qd1
Now the rook is under attack and 30.Rd8 is threatened. But it turns out that Black has calculated
further.
29...Rf2!
This is the essence of the matter. On 30.Rd8 there follows 30...Rf1† 31.Qxf1 Qxd8 followed by the
invasion of the queen at d4 or d2.
The tempting combination 29...Rxc3 30.Rd8 Bf4 is refuted by 31.Rxf8† Kxf8 32.Qd8† Kg7 33.Qd4†.
30.Kg1 Qc5 31.Na4 Qe3

0–1
There could still have followed 32.Rd3 Qf4 33.g3 Qf6 34.a3 Ra2. This game was awarded a prize for
beauty.
After the thirteenth round the position of the leading group was as follows: Botvinnik – 10 points, Flohr
– 9½, Levenfish – 9, Lasker – 8½, Capablanca – 8, Kan & Romanovsky – 7, Lilienthal, Rabinovich,
Ragozin & Spielmann – 6½. There were six rounds remaining until the end of the tournament. The
fourteenth round began in conditions of the highest sporting tension. I was faced with an encounter
232
with the master Chekhover.
GAME 49
Grigory Levenfish – Vitaly Chekhover

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 c5 5.dxc5 Nc6

The most logical continuation is the waiting 5...0-0, not immediately determining his plans and,
depending on the following move by White, replying 6...Nc6 or 6...Na6. If White plays 6.Nf3, then
6...Na6! 7.e3 Nxc5 8.Be2 b6 etc.
6.Nf3 Bxc5
7.Bf4
On the habitual 7.Bg5 there is the retort 7...Nd4 8.Nxd4 Bxd4 9.e3 Qa5!.
7...0-0 8.Rd1 b6
Doubtful is 8...d5 9.cxd5 exd5 on account of 10.Nxd5 Bxf2† 11.Kxf2 Nxd5 12.Qc5.
9.e3 Bb7 10.Be2 Rc8 11.0-0 Be7 12.e4 Na5 13.e5

This leads to difficult complications and is psychologically incorrect. At that time Chekhover was
known to be a good tactician, and therefore I ought to have directed the game along the path of strategic
manoeuvring and played 13.b3. In the case of 13...b5 possible is 14.Nxb5 Bxe4 15.Qb2 with advantage
233
to White.
13...Nh5 14.Be3
14...f5
If 14...Nxc4 then 15.g4 Nxe3 16.fxe3 Bg5 17.Qe4, or 15...Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Nxe5 17.Be2 (see page 259).
Here the piece is more valuable than the three pawns.
15.b3 Qe8 16.Nb5 Nc6 17.Nd6 Bxd6 18.Rxd6 Rc7 19.Rfd1 Ne7 20.Nh4
Again, after 20.Bc1 f4 21.Qd2 Bc6 22.Nd4 White could obtain a positional advantage, for example:
22...f3 23.Nxc6 Nxc6 24.Bxf3 Nxe5 25.Bxh5 Qxh5 26.f4 Nf7 27.Rd3
20...f4 21.Bc1 g5 22.Nf3 Nf5!

The sacrifice of a pawn is Black’s best chance – on 22...g4 there follows 23.Ng5, while if 22...h6
then 23.Nd4.
23.Nxg5 Qg6
A fierce skirmish is beginning.
234
24.h4
The exchange sacrifice is justified, for example: 24...Nxd6 25.Qxg6† hxg6 26.exd6 Rcc8 27.Nf3
Bxf3 28.Bxf3
24...Bxg2! 25.Kh2!
The only move. 25.Kxg2 Nxh4†, or 25.Rxd7 Rxd7 26.Rxd7 h6 27.Qd1 f3 28.Bxf3 Bxf3 29.Qxf3
hxg5 is in Black’s favour.
25...f3!
26.Bxf3
235
In such a confusing situation, perhaps there should have been preferred: 26.Nxf3 Bxf3 27.Bxf3!
Nxd6 28.Rg1 Qxg1† 29.Kxg1 Rxf3 30.Qd1! I had overlooked this move in my calculations. 30...Rf5
31.Qxd6 Rb7 32.Qe7± (variation by Chekhover).
26...Bxf3 27.Nxf3 Nhg7

A natural move, but not the best. Correct is 27...Nxh4 28.Qxg6† Nxg6 29.Kg2 Nhf4† 30.Bxf4
Nxf4† 31.Kf1 Ng6 with a probable draw.
28.Rg1 Qh5
29.Qe4! Nxd6 30.exd6 Rcc8

If 30...Rxf3? then 31.dxc7 Rxf2† 32.Kh1 Rf8 33.Bb2.
31.Bb2 Rf7
Also now 31...Rxf3 is bad, in view of 32.Rxg7† Kf8 33.Rxh7 with a transposition to a better
endgame.
32.Qd4 Qh6 33.Ng5 Rcf8

On a move by the rook, 34.Ne6 is decisive.
34.Nxf7 Rxf7
236
Having withstood a brutal hand-to-hand fight, I had finally brought the game to an easily won
position. There only remained to exchange all the pieces and to transpose to a pawn endgame:
35.Rxg7† Rxg7 36.Qxg7† Qxg7 37.Bxg7 Kxg7 38.Kg3 Kf6 39.Kf4 e5† 40.Ke4 Ke6 41.h5! Kxd6
42.Kf5 etc. I saw this variation. Why I did not go in for it, I cannot remember. I was not in time
trouble, and to notice Black’s two-move threat was a simple matter. However, as the Roman proverb
says: “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they take away their reason.”
35.b4??
I thought that Black could not avoid the exchanges, and decided to win a tempo to reinforce the pawn
at d6.
35...e5!
There is no saving White’s game. On 36.Qxe5 he is mated, while on 36.Qg4 there follows 36...Rxf2†
37.Rg2 Rxg2† 38.Kxg2 Qd2†.
36.Rxg7† (see page 259)36...Qxg7

And White soon resigned.
...0–1
This absurd defeat was one of my most important sporting failures. A win would have taken me to
second place, together with Flohr and a half-point behind Botvinnik. Subsequently, I could have fought
for one of the first places. But more importantly, I suffered such a trauma that I was unable to recover
until the end of the tournament. As a result – a share of sixth and seventh prizes.
237
GAME 50
Grigory Levenfish – Salo Flohr

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Qb3 c6 5.Bg5 Bg7 6.e3

6.Bxf6 dxc4 7.Bxe7 Kxe7! 8.Qxc4 Qxd4 gives White nothing.
6...0-0!
Again offering a pawn sacrifice: 7.Bxf6 dxc4 8.Bxe7 cxb3 9.Bxd8 Rxd8 10.axb3 By continuing
10...b5 11.Be2 Na6 12.Bf3 Nb4 13.Kd2 Be6 14.Ra3 Rac8, Black obtains sufficient compensation for
it.
7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 cxd5
9.Ne2!
The knight is transferred to c3, strengthening the pressure on the queen’s flank.
9...Qa5†
If 9...b6 then 10.Nc3 Bb7 11.Be2, and the black queen lacks a convenient square, while after castling
White threatens to begin operations on the c-file.
10.Nc3 e6 11.Be2 Nc6 12.0-0 f6

It is not easy for Black to complete development. The immediate 12...Qb4 will not do on account of
238
the exchange and Be7.
13.Bh4 Rf7
But now Black ought to play 13...Qb4.
14.Bg3 Bf8 15.Rfd1 f5

Preventing the break e3-e4.
16.Rac1 Qd8 17.Na4 Bd6 18.Nc5 Rc7
With simple moves White has achieved a positional advantage and now by means of 19.Bxd6 Qxd6
20.Bb5! followed by 21.Bxc6, 22.Nd3 and 23.Ne5 he could have put Black in a positional bind, from
which he would not have managed to escape.
19.Bb5?
White overlooks a two-move combination, which rids Black of the threats that are hanging over him.
19...Nxd4! 20.exd4 f4 21.Re1 fxg3 22.hxg3 Qe7 23.Qe3 a6 24.Ba4 b6 25.Nd3 Rxc1 26.Rxc1 Bd7
27.Bxd7 Qxd7
239
28.Ne5
Leading to a rapid draw.
Black has somewhat greater difficulties after 28.Re1 Re8 29.Ne5 Bxe5 30.Qxe5 Kf7 31.g4 Rc8 32.g5.
28...Bxe5 29.Qxe5 Rc8 30.Rxc8† Qxc8 31.Qf6 Qc1† 32.Kh2 Qh6† 33.Kg1 Qc1†
½–½
***
In the years following the tournament, Lasker lived in Moscow. When coming to Moscow for work and
chess matters, I always visited Lasker and his wife. Among the Moscow chessplayers he was often
visited by A. Rabinovich, Grekov and Maizelis [Translator’s Note: author of The Soviet Chess Primer],
the editors of the second edition of his handbook. In Germany Lasker used to rise late, spending the
evenings in a chess café until two to three o’clock in the morning. Lasker considered a game of bridge
to be good entertainment. In Moscow such a way of life was not feasible, but at 67 years of age it is
difficult to change one’s habits. Visits by chessplayers broke the monotony of life in Moscow, and
Lasker was always happy to see them.
It was very interesting to analyse with Lasker. How many different and often unconvincing
characterizations of Lasker’s style I have had to read and hear in my lifetime! The theme is too broad
and serious for it to be dealt with in passing in the present book. I will note only a couple of undoubted
features of Lasker – his scepticism and his faith in defence. We would be examining some opening
variation or other, in my opinion bad for Black. And here Lasker would begin to resourcefully root out
hidden counter-chances, and it would turn out that the variation proved to be acceptable, while attempts
to refute it would fail.
Lasker valued chess creativity highly, particularly when it achieved the highest degrees of mastery. In
his games Lasker invested enormous natural talent and a high intensity of sporting struggle, and created
240
in them examples of virtuoso chess art.
***
The Leningrad Chess Section had conceived an interesting event. A team comprising Goldberg,
Gotthilf, Levenfish, Lisitsyn, Romanovsky and Chekhover was directed along the route Moscow –
Gorky – Saratov – Stalingrad – Mineralny Vody – Baku – Tbilisi – Batumi – Kiev to take part in
matches, to deliver simultaneous displays and to carry out work in popularizing chess.
I present one game, played on this journey.
GAME 51

Moscow 1935
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4

This defence leads to a rather cramped game for Black.
5.Nxe4 Be7
The aim of the previous move becomes clear. After the retreat of the knight, or its exchange, Black
obtains a satisfactory position. To maintain even a slight advantage there remains only one option:
6.Bxf6
Dogmatic supporters of the bishop pair would not approve of this exchange, but the centralized
knight at e4 acts on both flanks and is worth a bishop.
6...Bxf6
6...gxf6 leads to a double-edged game. However, as was shown by the 18th match game Bogoljubow
– Alekhine (1929), 7.Nf3 f5 8.Nc3 c6 9.g3 is not at all to Black’s advantage.
7.Nf3 Nd7 8.Bc4 0-0 9.Qd2
241
9...e5
This is better than 9...b6 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.Qe3 Qe7 12.g4.
10.0-0-0 exd4 11.Nxf6†

No other way to maintain the slight advantage is apparent. After 11.Nxd4 Ne5 12.Bb3 Bd7 Black
completes his development without hindrance.
11...Qxf6 12.Qxd4 Qxd4 13.Rxd4 Nb6 14.Re1 c5

The best defence against the invasion of the rook at e7.
15.Rf4 Nxc4 16.Rxc4 b6 17.Re7 Be6 18.Ra4 a5 19.Rf4 Rad8

On 19...Rfe8 there could have followed 20.Rb7 Rab8 21.Rxb8 Rxb8 22.Ng5 Bd5 23.c4 Bxg2
24.Nxf7! Rf8 25.Nh6† gxh6 26.Rg4†.
Giving Black a level game was 19...h6!.
20.Ng5 Bd5 21.c4 Bxg2 22.Rg4! Bc6

The only defence against the following combination.
242
23.Ne6! Rde8!
Now the bishop at c6 prevents the very dangerous variation 24.Rxg7† Kh8 25.Rgxf7.
24.Nxg7 Rxe7 25.Nf5† Kh8 26.Nxe7 Bb7 27.Rf4 f6 28.Nf5 Rd8

Riumin is defending tenaciously, but all the same does not equalize.
29.Ng3
29...Rf8
Also after 29...Kg7 (see page 276) 30.Nh5† Kg6 31.Nxf6 Rf8 32.Nd5 Rxf4 33.Nxf4† Kf5 34.Nh5 the
243
endgame is favourable to White.
30.Nh5 f5 31.Rh4 Kg8 32.Rh3 Rf7

Hastening defeat. Better is 32...Ba6 33.Rg3† Kh8 34.b3 a4, but also then after 35.Re3 Black’s
situation is unenviable.
33.Rb3 f4 34.Rxb6 Rf5 35.Nf6†

1–0
***
In events of 1936 I played with varying success. In the Leningrad Championship I took fourth place. I
present two games from the championship.
GAME 52
Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky – Grigory Levenfish

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4

Leading to a sharp struggle. The quiet 5.exd6 does not give White any advantage.
5...dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Nf3

Theory considers this move to be bad, and recommends 7.Be3. But my opponent had prepared a
novelty, shown to him by the Tbilisi master Sorokin.
7...Bg4 8.e6?!
244
8...fxe6
The sacrifice of a piece for three pawns by 8...Bxe6 9.d5 Nxd5 10.cxd5 Bxd5 11.Nc3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3
Nd4 13.Qe4 is unfavourable for Black.
9.c5 Nd5 10.Bb5 Qd7 11.Nbd2!

Up until this point I had assessed White’s antipositional manoeuvre sceptically, but now saw the
serious tactical threat of 12.Qa4 and 13.Ne5. Accurate counterplay is required.
11...g6! 12.Qa4 Bg7 13.Ne5 Bxe5 14.dxe5

The g4-bishop is in danger. On 14...h5 there could follow 15.h3 Bf5 16.0-0 with the threat of 17.g4,
or instead 16.Nf3 with the threat of Nd4.
14...Ne3! 15.Qe4
On 15.Kf2 Black intended 15...Nd1† 16.Kg3 0-0! 17.h3 Nf2 18.Rf1 Qd5 with a strong attack.
245
15...Qd4!
This is the essence of the defence begun with the 11th move. Both black pieces are defended, the
attack is repulsed, and White is forced to simplify the game.
[Editorial note: Later a brilliant winning line was found: 15...0-0! and if 16.Qxe3 then 16...Nb4!, as
in Kiley – Hewitt, corr. 1961.]
16.Bxc6† bxc6 17.Qxd4

Clearly, not 17.Qxc6† on account of 17...Kf7, and White stands badly.
17...Nc2† 18.Kf2 Nxd4 19.Nb3 Nc2!

After 19...Nxb3 the opposite-coloured bishops guaranteed White a draw, despite the loss of a pawn.
Black therefore complicates the struggle.
20.Rb1 Bf5 21.Bd2
246
21...Rf8?
Carelessness. Having defused the novelty, I began to rest on my laurels and play inattentively. Black
ought to have remembered the old rule “the threat is often stronger than its execution”, and continued
21...Rd8 (not 21...0-0-0 on account of 22.Bg5) with the threat of 22...Nd4. If now 22.Rbc1, then 22...0-
0 23.Bh6 Rf7. White does not manage to bring the rook into the game, and no satisfactory defence
against Black’s threats is apparent, for example: 24.Kg3 Rd3† 25.Kh4 Rd5 26.Rhd1 Be4 27.Nd2 Rxe5
22.Kg3 0-0-0 23.Rbf1! Rd5 24.Bc3 Rfd8 25.h3 Ne3

The beginning of an inconsistent manoeuvre, leading to simplification.
Correct is 25...h5 and then 26...Be4.
26.Re1 Nd1 27.Bd4 Bc2 28.Rxd1 Bxb3 29.axb3 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Rxd4
Matters have reduced to a rook endgame. Black’s extra pawn is devalued by the poor pawn structure.
247
31.Rf1! Rb4
A leading role in rook endgames belongs to passed pawns. Black decides to clear the path of the a-
pawn.
32.Rf7 Rxb3† 33.Kh2 Re3

The variation 33...Rxb2 34.Rxh7 a5 35.Rg7 a4 36.Rxg6 a3 37.Rg3 a2 38.Ra3 Kd7 39.Ra8 gives Black
at most a draw. Stronger appears 36...Rb5, although after 37.Rg8†! Kb7 38.Rg4 Ra5 39.Rg3 the
following branches are possible:
a) 39...a3 40.Rb3† Ka6 41.Rb1 a2 42.Ra1 Kb5 43.h4 Kb4 44.h5 Kb3 45.g4! (not 45.h6 in view of
45...Ra8 46.g4 Rg8 47.Kg3 Rg6 48.Rh1 Rxh6), and the two connected passed pawns are stronger than
248
the rook.
b) 39...Rxc5 40.Ra3 Rc4 41.g3 Kb6 42.h4 Kb5 43.h5 Rc2† 44.Kh3 Rc1 45.Kh2 Rc2† with a draw.
Taking account of the impending time trouble, Black should have been satisfied with a drawn outcome.
34.Rxh7 Rxe5 35.Rg7 g5 36.Kg3 Rxc5 37.Kg4
37...Kd7
For the last few moves Black had only a few seconds remaining. Correct was 37...Rc2 38.g3 Rxb2
39.Rxg5 Rb4† 40.Kf3 Rb5! with a guaranteed draw.
38.Rxg5 Rxg5† 39.Kxg5 e5?

This move loses. Stronger is 39...Ke8! 40.Kg6 e5 (otherwise the advance of the g- and h-pawns
decides) 41.Kf5 Kf7 42.Kxe5 a5 43.h4 a4 44.h5 c5 45.Kd5 c6†! 46.Kxc5 e5 47.g4 Kf6 48.Kc4 Kg5
with a draw.
40.Kf5 Kd6 (see page 262)

Ilyin-Zhenevsky thought that Black still had a draw here, and gave the following variation: 40...e6†
41.Kxe5 Ke7 42.h4 a5 43.h5 a4 44.h6 Kf7 45.g4 c5 46.g5 c4 47.Kd4 e5† 48.Kxc4 c6
249
However, there follows 49.h7 Kg7 50.g6 Kh8 51.Kc5 Kg7 52.Kd6 e4 53.Ke7 e3 54.h8=Q† Kxh8
55.Kf7 etc. In the previous variation Black was in time to hold the pawns at the 5th rank.
41.h4 Kd5 42.h5 e4
43.Kf4 e3
Black had hoped for the variation 43...Kd4 44.h6 e5†, but only now noticed that after 45.Kg3 e3
46.h7 Kd3 47.h8=Q he has to resign.
44.Kxe3 Ke5 45.h6 Kf6 46.g4 a5 47.g5† Kg6 48.Ke4 c5 49.Ke5 c4 50.Ke6 c3 51.bxc3 a4 52.h7
Kxh7 53.Kf7 a3 54.g6†
250
1–0
An entertaining game.
GAME 53

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4

In this variation White should not forget about the weakness of the squares d3 and d4.
3...d5 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4

By replying 5.cxd5 exd5 6.d4, White obtains a good game. The continuation chosen by him leads to
difficulties.
5...dxc4!
Intending 6.Bxc4 Nxe5!.
6.Nf3
If 6.Qa4 then 6...Nc6 7.Qxc4 Nb6 8.Qe4 Bd7 9.Nf3 Nb4.
6...Nb6
The pawn at c4 restricts White, and therefore he eliminates it, but at the cost of a further worsening of
the position.
251
7.Bxc4 Nxc4 8.Qa4† Nc6 9.Qxc4
9...Nb4!
A very strong manoeuvre. The square d3 has become indefensible.
10.0-0 b6! 11.a3 Ba6 12.Nb5 c6 13.axb4 Bxb5 14.Qc3 c5! 15.bxc5
White prefers to give up the exchange, since the variation 15.Re1 cxb4 16.Qb3 Bd3, with 17...Bc5 to
follow, left him with no hopes at all of saving the game.
15...Bxf1 16.Kxf1 bxc5 17.d4

An attempt to provoke complications.
17...Rc8 18.d5 Qxd5 19.Rxa7 c4 20.b4 Be7 21.Ba3
252
21...Ra8 22.Rc7 Bd8 23.Rc5 Qd1† 24.Ne1 Qb3
The remainder does not present any interest. There followed:
25.Qxb3 cxb3 26.Bb2 Be7 27.Rc3 Bxb4 28.Rxb3 Bxe1 29.Kxe1 0-0 30.Bc1 Rfb8 31.Rd3 Rd8
32.Rb3 Ra1 33.Rc3 Ra2 34.Rg3 Rc2 35.Be3 Rd3
0–1
253
3rd Moscow International 1936
The second Moscow International Tournament had provoked uncommon interest in chess not just in
Moscow, but over the entire country. The ensuing championship of the RSFSR and the championship
of the VTsSPS* showed that chess had become a favoured form of entertainment, in particular among
the youth.
[*Translator’s note: ‘Vsesoyuznyi Tsentral’nyi Sovet Professional’nykh Soyuzov’, the All-Union
Central Council of Trades unions. An umbrella organization for the various individual trades unions,
this was one of the largest public organizations in the Soviet Union.]
The success of Botvinnik and other masters had put on the agenda a new test of strength in a more
difficult event. The inexhaustible chess enthusiast Krylenko managed within a year to secure the
holding of the next international tournament, organized along the lines of a grandmaster event. To it
were invited the ex-World Champions Capablanca and Lasker, grandmasters Lilienthal and Flohr and,
in place of Reshevsky and Fine (who declined to participate), the Austrian champion Eliskases. The
Soviet representatives were grandmaster Botvinnik, the prize-winners of the previous tournament,
Levenfish and Kan, and also Ragozin and Riumin, who had achieved excellent results in their meetings
with foreign masters. The tournament was a double round-robin, and consequently each Soviet
participant was faced with ten meetings with foreign grandmasters. A difficult, responsible task.
The organization of the tournament was at the required level. The Hall of Columns of the House of
Unions is one of the best in Moscow, but it could not accommodate all those wishing to come to the
tournament. Alongside it there were held regular lectures and simultaneous displays. Enormous
demonstration boards were placed on the stage. On them, young chessplayers indicated the moves
played. Later international tournaments followed the model of the 3rd Moscow event.
Unfortunately, very tough regulations were envisaged for the tournament. Play took place from 4:30
in the afternoon until 9:30 in the evening, and after an hour’s interval – a further two hours. The time
control was at the 40th and 56th moves. A seven-hour burden is in general too great, while an interval
of no more than an hour only made the situation worse. Instead of a rest the players spent it in analysis
of the adjourned position. Dinner was postponed until the night hours.
The difficult regime took its toll in the second half of the tournament. It was too much for the 67-
year-old Lasker. After the first cycle he stood level with Botvinnik on 5 points. In the second cycle
Lasker picked up 3 points and for the first time in his life finished without a prize, in sixth place.
Capablanca played the whole event strongly and evenly. Each cycle brought him 6½ points, and with
13 points he won first prize. True, luck accompanied Capa in more-than-doubtful positions against
Botvinnik, Ragozin and Flohr. Botvinnik was the only one of the Soviet participants who was well-
prepared physically, picking up 7 points in the second cycle and finishing in second place. The others
lost ground in the second cycle, collecting around 3-3½ points and ceding third and fourth places to
Flohr and Lilienthal, who were more adapted to the tough regulations.
I played the event, as in the Leningrad Championship, nervously and unevenly. Here, for example, is
the finish of my game with Riumin.
254
I thought for 15(!) minutes and did not find the simple combination 27.Nf6† gxf6 28.exf6. Against
the two mating threats – 29.Qg3† and 29.Qxf8†! – there is no defence. Instead 27.Ng3? was played,
and the game ended in a draw.
As a result I gathered 7½ points and shared 7th-10th place with Kan, Riumin and Eliskases. The only
consolation was the prize for the best endgame in a game from the first cycle against Eliskases, and the
second prize for the game against Flohr from the second cycle.
Prior to the final round a tense situation had arisen in the struggle for first place. Botvinnik was a half-
point behind Capablanca, and he was paired against me, while Capa was to face Eliskases. In the
morning, as usual, I had gone for a walk in the gardens by the Kremlin wall and there I found
Capablanca.
“Your situation is difficult,” said Capablanca to me. “All of Botvinnik’s supporters are craving your
defeat.”
I assured Capablanca that all non-sporting considerations were alien to me, but Capablanca added:
“Do not worry, I will help you out and win against Eliskases.”
Indeed, Capablanca defeated the Austrian champion in good style. My game with Botvinnik ended in
a draw.
The victory in Moscow was the last major achievement of the Cuban grandmaster, one of the most
outstanding grandmasters of all time. In our personal dealings, Capablanca made an excellent
impression on me: always restrained, polite and cheerful.
Late in the evening after play the participants would meet for dinner in the restaurant of the National
Hotel. A chessboard would again appear, and the games that had been played would be animatedly
discussed. In the presence of partners, Lasker and Capablanca happily played bridge. On one of the
evenings there appeared in the restaurant our famous study composer, Honoured Artist A.A. Troitsky.
255
He had come from Leningrad to watch the tournament. He knew Lasker and Capablanca and first of all
showed them his latest studies. The ex-champions quickly solved them. Then Troitsky decided to
demonstrate his main ‘calling card’ – the endgame with two knights against pawn. As is well known,
two knights can only stalemate a lone king. But if the king has a pawn and it is blocked by a knight,
then in some cases mate can be achieved. The king and the other knight restrict the king in a corner,
while the second knight comes to their help and is in time to force mate while the pawn advances to
promote to a queen. The method of driving the defending king into the corner with the action of only
one knight is very difficult and had been worked out in detail by Troitsky. This endgame is encountered
in practice (it has even occurred twice in grandmaster Lilienthal’s games), but no-one had been able to
find the win according to Troitsky’s method. This endgame was a favourite ‘hobby horse’ of Troitsky,
and he was ready to explain the mechanism in detail to any chessplayer, but here, to his fortune, these
famous listeners had turned up.
Troitsky’s explanation continued for around an hour; the ex-champions attentively followed it and
finally confirmed that “now everything is clear”. To test this, Troitsky proposed that they solve a
position and, to the pleasure of the attendant audience, the ex-champions became confused as early as
the fifth move. It seems to me that of all the masters, only Chekhover has completely perfected
Troitsky’s mechanism, probably because he has specialized in knight endgames.
I present some games from the tournament.
GAME 54
Erich Eliskases – Grigory Levenfish

1.c4 e5
Now the Sicilian Defence, with colours reversed, is obtained. The advantage of the move plays an
important role, and it is not easy for Black to equalize. More cautious is 1...e6 or 1...Nf6.
2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3

Stronger is 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Bb4 6.Bg5.
4...Be7
Premature is 4...d5 in view of 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Bb5 and Black has difficulties with the defence of the
e5-pawn. In the event of 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3 e4 8.Nd4 Bd7 9.Qa4 material loss is unavoidable.
5.d3 0-0 6.Be2
256
6...d6
Now 6...d5 was also possible, although after 7.b3 Black’s central pawn is in need of defence.
7.a3
White does not determine his strategic plan for the time being and prepares in some cases b2-b4-b5.
7...Bf5 8.0-0 Re8

Premature is 8...e4. There could follow 9.Nh4 exd3 10.Nxf5 dxe2 11.Qxe2 and then 12.Nxe7. The
move in the game opens a shelter for the bishop.
9.e4
At first sight – a weakening of the d4-square. The point of the move is revealed later.
9...Bg4 10.Be3 Bf8 11.Ne1

[Translator’s Note: Annotating this game in the tournament book of the 3rd Moscow International,
Levenfish comments: “White cannot delay, since Black threatens to increase the pressure on the d4-
square by ...g7-g6 and ...Bg7.”]
11...Bxe2 12.Nxe2
Not 12.Qxe2 on account of 12...Nd4. White reinforces the centre and threatens the direct attack f2-
f4-f5.
257
12...Ne7!
Preparing 13...c6 and 14...d5.
13.Ng3 c6 14.d4 exd4 15.Bxd4 Ng6 16.f3 d5! 17.cxd5

Doubtful is 17.exd5 cxd5 18.c5 in view of 18...Rc8 19.b4 Nf4.
17...cxd5 18.exd5 Nxd5

The exchange of pawns has led to the weakening of the central squares in White’s camp.
19.Qb3 Ndf4 20.Rd1 Qg5

A correct pawn sacrifice.
258
21.Ne4
After 21.Qxb7 Rad8 22.Ne4 Qh5 both 23...Re4 and 23...Rd4 are threatened.
21...Qh5 22.Bf2 b6 23.Nd3 Re6 24.Nxf4 Nxf4

Threatening mate in 4 moves: 25...Ne2† 26.Kh1 Qxh2† etc.
25.Rfe1 Rae8 26.Bg3 Qf5 27.Kh1 h6 28.Rd2 Kh7 29.Red1
29...Nh5 30.Bf2 Qg6

Black prepares ...f5, in order to drive the knight from its dominating position.
31.Qc2 f5 32.Ng3 Nxg3† 33.Bxg3 Bc5

Threatening the win of a piece after 34...f4 35.Qxg6† Kxg6 36.Bh4 Kh5 37.g3 g5.
34.b4 f4
On the tempting 34...Be3 there could follow 35.Rd7 f4 36.Qxg6† Kxg6 37.Be1 Bd4 38.Bd2 Re2
39.h3, and Black has achieved nothing.
35.Qxg6† Kxg6 36.bxc5 fxg3 37.hxg3 bxc5

The game has passed into a double-rook endgame, which is somewhat better for Black. He has a
passed c-pawn and an active king. Eliskases, having tenaciously defended a difficult position in the
course of the preceding 20 moves, again finds the best continuation.
259
38.Rd7! R8e7 39.Rxe7 Rxe7 40.Rd6† Kf5 41.Rc6
In this way White eliminates the main danger: now the black rook cannot stand behind the c5-pawn.
41...Re1† 42.Kh2 Rc1

This was the position that Black had in view when he transposed into the endgame. He threatens to
advance the pawn as far as c3 and then to approach it with the king. On the king’s flank White cannot
for the time being undertake anything, while waiting passively leads to ruin.
43.Rc7! g5!
It is important to retain the g-pawn, which hinders the creation of a passed pawn by White.
260
44.Rxa7 c4 45.Ra5†?
The only mistake by Eliskases. He had counted on 45...Kg6, when after 46.Rc5 the advance of the a-
pawn leads to an easy draw.
As was pointed out in the book by Levenfish & Smyslov (Rook Endgames), in such positions it is
essential to cut off the enemy king from its passed pawn, and therefore the correct defence consists in
45.Re7!, for example: 45...c3 46.a4 Ra1 47.Rc7 Ra3 48.a5 Ke5 49.a6 Kd4 50.a7 Kd3 51.f4 c2
52.Rd7†! with a draw.
[Translator’s Note: In the tournament book, Levenfish credits this line to N. D. Grigoriev.]
45...Ke6!! 46.Ra6† Kd5 47.Rxh6 c3 48.Rh8 Ra1 49.Rc8 Rxa3

White has an extra pawn, but he cannot save the game.
50.Kh3
Interesting is the variation 50.f4 g4 51.f5 Ke5 52.Rc5† Kd4 53.Rc8 Ra1 54.f6 Rf1 55.Rc6 Kd3
56.Rd6† Kc4 57.Rc6† Kb4! and White, finding himself in zugzwang, loses the f-pawn. Another
variation is 54.Rd8† Ke3 55.Re8† Kf2 56.Rc8 Ra7. Finally, 51.Kg1 Kd4 52.Kf2 Ra2† 53.Kf1 Rd2
54.Rd8† Ke3 55.Re8† Kd3 56.Rd8† Kc2 57.Rc8 Kb2 58.Rb8† Kc1 59.f5 c2 60.f6 Kd1 61.f7 c1=Q
62.f8=Q Kc2#.
50...Kd4 51.Kg4 (see page 280)

Losing immediately is 51.f4 gxf4 52.gxf4 in view of 52...c2† and 53...Rc3.
261
51...Ra5!
An example of a ‘shield’, as examined in the above-mentioned reference book, which often
determines the outcome of the struggle in rook endgames.
52.f4 Rc5 53.Rd8† Ke3 54.Rd1

Of no help is 54.Re8† Kf2 55.Ra8 c2 56.Ra1 gxf4 57.Kxf4 c1=Q† 58.Rxc1 Rxc1 59.g4 Rc4† 60.Kf5
Kg3! 61.g5 Kh4 62.g6 Kh5 63.g7 Rg4.
54...c2 55.Rc1 gxf4 56.gxf4 Kd2 57.Ra1 c1=Q 58.Rxc1 Rxc1! 59.Kg5 Ke3 60.f5 Ke4 61.g4 Ke5
62.Kg6 Rc6† 63.Kg7
262
63...Ra6!
On 63...Kf4 there follows 64.f6, and a draw. Now White is in zugzwang and must block the path of
the f-pawn. On 64.Kh7, 64...Kf6 decides.
64.Kf7 Kf4 65.Kg7 Kg5

0–1
This game was awarded the prize for the best endgame of the tournament.
GAME 55
Salo Flohr – Grigory Levenfish

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5

After 5...exd5 the Schlechter-Rubinstein variation is obtained: 6.g3 and then 7.Bg2. Tarrasch
considered it not to be dangerous, but many years of tournament practice have proved otherwise.
However, in recent years it has been willingly played by Keres, who has found new defensive paths.
6.e3
6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Bb4† 9.Bd2 Bxd2† 10.Qxd2 0-0 does not give White an advantage.
6...Nc6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.a3

Preparation for e3-e4, on which Black at the moment would have replied 9...Ndb4.
263
9...Nf6
Probably strongest of all is 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 Qc7 11.Bb2 e5, similarly to the wayIlyin-Zhenevsky
played against me in the 10th USSR Championship (Tbilisi 1937).
10.dxc5! Bxc5 11.Qc2 h6 12.b4 Bd6 13.Bb2 Qe7

I had planned to play 13...Ne5, but noticed in time that after 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Rad1 Qe7 16.Ne4!
Bxb2 17.Qxb2 Black is unlikely to save the game.
14.Ne4! Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Bd7 16.Rad1 Rad8!

The only defence. 17.Qd2 was threatened.
Bad is 16...Rfd8 on account of 17.b5 Na5 18.Qc3.
17.b5 Nb8 18.a4

It transpires that 18.Bxb7 Bxb5 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Qb2† f6 21.Qxb5 Bxa3 22.Nd4 Rd7 gives White
nothing.
18...Bc8 19.Ne5 (see page 273) 19...Nd7 20.Nxd7 Rxd7
264
21.g3
On 21.Rd2 there follows 21...Bxh2† 22.Kxh2 Rxd2 23.Qxd2 Qh4† 24.Kg1 Qxe4.
21...Rfd8 22.Bd4 Bb8

Mistaken is 22...Bc5? in view of 23.Bxc5 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Rxd1† 25.Qxd1 Qxc5 26.Qd8† Qf8
27.Bh7†.
23.Kg2 e5 24.Bb2 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 Rxd1 26.Qxd1 Bd6

Preventing the move 27.Ba3.
27.Qd5 Kf8 28.f4 f6!

Continuing to restrict the activity of the bishop at b2.
265
29.a5 Bc7
Threatening not only 30...Bxa5, but also 30...Qb4.
Black did not fear the move 30.Bh7 in view of 30...Be6! (not 30...Qf7 on account of 31.Ba3† Ke8
32.Bg6 Qxg6 33.Qg8† Kd7 34.f5!) 31.Qxb7 Qc5! 32.Ba3! Qxa3 33.Qxc7 Qa2† 34.Kf3 Qd5† 35.Be4
Qd1† with perpetual check. If White wishes to avoid this variation and plays 34.Kg1 Qa1† 35.Kf2
Qa2† 36.Qc2, then there follows 36...Qxa5 with a level game.
30.a6?
Avoiding the drawing variations, White initiates a mistaken combination.
30...bxa6 31.bxa6
266
31...Qd6!
Not 31...Bxa6 in view of 32.Bh7.
The exchange of queens is not unfavourable for Black on account of the weakness of the a6-pawn and
the poor position of the b2-bishop.
32.Qa8 Qxa6 33.Ba3† Kg8 34.Kf2 Kf7 35.Bd5† Kg6 36.Bf3 Kh7 37.Be4† f5 38.Bd5 Bb6
This should have led to a rapid win, for example 39.fxe5 Qxa3 40.Qxc8 Qxe3† 41.Kg2 Qxe5 with
two extra pawns.
39.Bb2
267
39...Qa5?
Immediately decisive is 39...exf4 40.gxf4 Qd3 41.Qxc8 Qxe3† and mate in two moves. The mutual
mistakes are explained by terrible time trouble.
40.Kg2?
Losing is 40.Qxc8 Qd2† 41.Kf1 Qd3† 42.Ke1 Qxe3† 43.Kd1 Qd3† 44.Ke1 Ba5† 45.Kf2 Qd2†
46.Kf1 Qd1† 47.Kf2 Bb6† 48.Kg2 Qxd5†.
Correct is 40.Bg8†! Kh8 41.Qxc8 Qd2† with perpetual check.
40...Qd2† 41.Kh3
268
41...Qc2!
The time trouble has concluded. Black offers a pawn sacrifice, in order on 42.Bxe5 to begin a mating
attack: 42...g5 43.Bg2 Qe2
42.Bb3! Qxb3
If 42...Qxb2, then 43.Bg8†.
43.Qxc8 Qd3 44.Bxe5 Bd8!

Threatening mate at f1. On 45.Kg2 there follows 45...Qe2† 46.Kg1 Qxe3†.
45.Qb7 Qf1† 46.Qg2
269
46...Qd1
I lost a lot of time, trying to assess the bishop endgame after 46...Qxg2† 47.Kxg2. (see page 263) Later,
Fine in a detailed analysis tried to demonstrate a win for Black, but Averbakh refuted Fine’s analysis
and showed that White achieves a draw. I decided to adjourn the game and to study the position in
detail at home.
47.Qb2 Qf1† 48.Qg2 Qd1 49.Qb7 Qg4† 50.Kg2 Qe2† 51.Kh3 Qh5† 52.Kg2 Qe2† 53.Kh3 Qh5†
54.Kg2 Qe2† 55.Kh3 Qf1† 56.Qg2 Qd1
The rule regarding three-fold repetition of the position was not then in force.
57.Qf2
White does not permit the exchange of queens, in case a win should be found in home analysis.
57...a5
The sealed move. I considered the best continuation for White to be the pawn sacrifice 58.e4! fxe4
59.Qa7 Qh5† 60.Kg2 Qg6.
58.Bd4 a4 59.Kg2
270
59...Qb3!
Preventing both 60.Qb2 and 60.Qa2, and preparing the exchange of bishops.
60.Qe2 Bb6 61.Bxb6 Qxb6 62.Qd3 Qa5 63.Qa3 Qd2† 64.Kh3 Qd1 65.Qc5 Qd3 66.Qa5 Qe4!
White is placed in zugzwang.
Not 66...a3 in view of 67.e4!
67.Qa7 Qb4 68.Qf7 Qa5

Since White cannot prevent the advance of the a-pawn, he is forced to undertake a desperate saving
attempt.
271
69.e4 fxe4
Premature is 69...a3 on account of 70.exf5 Qa6 71.g4 a2 72.f6! with a draw.
70.Qe8 Qf5† 71.Kg2 Qd5??

A mistake in time trouble. Winning is 71...a3 72.Qa8 e3!.
Now on 73.Kf3 there follows 73...Qd3, while on 73.Qxa3 decisive is 73...Qe4† 74.Kf1 Qf3†, and
mate in two moves.
72.Qxa4 e3† 73.Kg1! Qd3 74.Qe8 Qb1† 75.Kg2 Qc2† 76.Kh3 Qf5† 77.Kg2 Qd5† 78.Kh3 Qf3
79.Qe6 Qf1† 80.Kh4
272
½–½
GAME 56
Grigory Levenfish – Emanuel Lasker

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d4 d5

Transposition to the Symmetrical Defence of the Queen’s Gambit is very doubtful, as the
continuation of the game shows.
4.cxd5 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nc3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 a6

Forced in view of the threat of Ndb5. It is not easy to exploit White’s lead in development, since
Black has no weak points.
8.g3
On 8.Bg5 Black best of all replies 8...Nbd7 9.0-0-0 e6 10.e4 Bb4.
8...e5 9.Nc2 Nc6 10.Bg2 Be6 11.0-0 Rc8

Preventing 12.Na4, on which there follows 12...Na5.
12.Be3 Be7 13.Rfc1 0-0 14.Na4 Nd5 15.Nb6 Rcd8 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Bb6 Rd6
273
18.Rd1
After this stereotyped move White’s slight positional advantage evaporates. It was possible to retain
it by continuing 18.Bxd5 Rxd5 19.Ne3!, and if 19...Rd2 (or 19...Rb5), then 20.Nc4. On 19...Rd7 there
follows 20.Rd1, and White seizes the d-file.
18...Bxg2 19.Rxd6 Bxd6 20.Kxg2 Rc8! 21.Rd1 Bc7 22.Bxc7 Rxc7 23.Nb4 Kf8
Simpler is 23...Nd4 24.f4 f6 25.fxe5 fxe5 26.e3 Ne6 27.Rd5 e4 28.Re5 Rc4! with equality.
24.Rc1 Ke8
25.Kh3
274
The attempt to break through with the king, 25.Nxc6 Rxc6 26.Rxc6 bxc6 27.Kf3 Ke7 28.Ke4 Ke6
29.g4 f6!, leads to a drawn endgame.
25...Rd7
Intending 26.Nxc6 bxc6 27.Rxc6 Rd2 28.Rxa6 Rxb2 with a simple draw.
26.Nxc6 bxc6 27.Rc2 Rd6 28.Kg4 Kd7 29.Kf3 Rh6

On 29...Rd5 there could follow 30.Ke4 Kd6 31.Kf5 with the threat of 32.e4 Rd3 33.f4.
30.Rc5
It was not worth deviating from the basic plan. Stronger was 30.h4.
True, White obtains a passed a-pawn, but it is not so dangerous as it seems at first sight. At this point
Lasker offered a draw. With every respect for the eminent World Champion I declined it, since I
considered the rook endgame to be advantageous for White.
30...Kd6!
After 30...Rxh2 31.Rxe5 Black loses a pawn.
31.Ra5 Rxh2 32.Rxa6 Rh1 33.Ra7 Ke6 34.Rc7

Again the most natural, but not the strongest, continuation.
Correct is 34.a4 Ra1 35.b4 with the threat of 36.a5 and 37.Ra7. If 34...Rb1, then 35.Rb7 Ra1 36.b3. On
34...c5 there can follow 35.Ke4 f5† 36.Kf3 g5 37.a5 h5 38.a6 h4 39.gxh4 gxh4 40.Rh7 Kd5 41.a7 Ra1
42.Kg2 winning the h4-pawn.
275
34...Rc1 35.a4
35...Rc2!
An excellent defensive manoeuvre. On 36.b4 Black replies 36...Rc4 37.Rb7 c5! (a move I had not
taken account of). After the exchange of one of the pawns the endgame is drawn, since the rook stands
behind the remaining pawn.
36.Rb7 Rc4 37.b3 Rc2 38.e3

Or 38.b4 Ra2 39.a5 c5.
38...h5 39.Rc7 Rc3

Simpler than 39...g5 40.a5 h4 41.gxh4 gxh4 42.a6 h3 43.a7 h2 44.Kg2 Rxf2† 45.Kxf2 h1=Q
46.a8=Q, and the white king cannot shelter from the checks.
40.Rb7 Rc2 41.Rc7

½–½
This game is rather boring, although it also demonstrates Lasker’s brilliant defensive mastery. I
included it in the book not so much because of its content, as for what occurred after play. When a
drawn result had been agreed, Lasker apologized to me: “I did not have the right to offer a draw, since
there were real chances for you, but I had not seen all the dangers of my position.”
I advise young readers of this book to think about Lasker’s statement. To save a game one may set
traps or think up clever combinations; these are actions involving moves on the board. But any trickery
away from the board is not worthy of genuine sportsmen. To offer a draw in an inferior position
belongs to just such a category of ruse. It may be understood when the opponent, fearing time trouble,
offers a draw, having the better or even only a level position. This is just. Chess is the noblest of games,
276
and the opponents should have chivalrous relations with one another. The greatest masters of the past
and the present, in the majority of cases, adhered to, and continue to adhere to, this rule.
Today, unfortunately, the great majority of events are of a qualifying nature: the winners proceed to
the next tournament, gain the next category, retain the old one, etc. Tournaments of masters or
candidate masters where play is ‘for its own sake’ are very rare. The pursuit of points at any price is
unfortunately encountered in our tournaments.
In my practice there was a case when master L., having a pawn less, offered me a draw six times and,
of course, always at moments when I was thinking over a move. He achieved his aim – I became
enervated and... lost the game.
Master A. was in time trouble and, in a hurry, forgot to write down a move. In fact, he had played 39
moves, but had written down 38. His opponent intentionally wrote his reply at the 38th move. Perhaps
the opponent would rush to play an extra move and blunder...
Another master, in a difficult position, intentionally wrote down a losing move and did everything to
ensure that it was seen by the opponent. The intent was as follows: the opponent would begin to think
about the consequences of the last, mistaken, move. However, the move would be crossed out and a
different one played. The surprised opponent would perhaps not find the correct defence.
Master K. had achieved an advantage, but captured with a knight and at the last moment noted that
his intended move led to defeat. Putting the knight back, he began to look for other moves with the
knight. Alas, these were also ruinous for him. During this time his opponent was walking around,
looking at other games. Then an idea came into the head of master K. – he would approach the
opponent and offer him a draw. Thus a draw was agreed. When both had signed the scoresheet, master
K. advised the opponent, “If you had declined the draw, I would have been forced to resign the game.”
He was delighted with his clever idea, having saved a half-point, without any conception of the squalid
nature of his behaviour.
In tournaments one can witness the following picture. One opponent is thinking over his move, but
his opponent is strolling around. About Tal it is said that during a game, he walks twenty kilometres.
But during his walks Tal is thinking about his game, and never discusses with others the position on his
board or anyone else’s. Meanwhile some participants necessarily want to know of others’ assessments
of the situation on their board. This ostensibly gives them courage. I consider such conversations,
whether on the stage or in the rest areas, to be unsporting.
The game is approaching the finish. The position of master A. is hopeless; it is time for him to resign.
He seals a move and the game is adjourned. The opponent comes to the resumption. Master A. is
missing. The arbiter starts his clock. After an hour, a loss on time is recorded. In my practice such a
trick has occurred more than once. One of my opponents even boasted on the sidelines that he had
‘cleverly’ repaid me for the defeat. He had essentially deprived me of a day’s rest, while fully making
use of it himself. When I drew the attention of the arbiters to the unworthy behaviour of my opponent,
he limited himself to an expression of sympathy for me. He had no right to do anything more...
Questions of sporting ethics are important educational ones. Chess ethics ought to be impeccable.
But we return to the games.
GAME 57
277
Andrei Lilienthal – Grigory Levenfish
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3† 6.bxc3 Ne7

Also possible are 6...Qc7 and 6...Qa5.
7.Qg4 cxd4
The opening move of an interesting manoeuvre involving the positional sacrifice of a pawn. It was
first employed by Botvinnik against Ragozin a year before the present game, in the 2nd Moscow
International tournament. In that game there was played 8.cxd4 Qc7 and Black gained good play.
Lilienthal chooses a stronger continuation.
8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7
278
9...Qc7!
Much weaker is 9...dxc3 10.Qd3 d4 11.f4 Nbc6 12.Nf3 with the threat of Ng5-e4-d6.
10.Ne2 Nbc6 11.f4

On 11.cxd4 there follows 11...Nxd4!.
11...Bd7 12.Qd3 dxc3 13.Nxc3 a6

Forestalling the manoeuvre Nb5-d6. The idea of the pawn sacrifice now becomes clear. The white
king is stranded in the centre. For example, 14.g3 Na5 15.Bg2 Rc8 16.Bd2 Nc4, and castling is all the
same impossible.
14.Rb1!
279
14...Rc8!
Clearly, not 14...0-0-0 on account of 15.Qxa6!.
15.Bd2
Also after 15.Ne2 Nf5 16.h3 Na5 17.g4 Ba4! 18.c3 Qe7! Black’s attack is worth the pawn.
15...Na5 16.Qh3 b5 17.Bd3 Nc4 18.Rb3

This ought to have led to a loss. However, other continuations too are unsatisfactory, for example:
18.Bxc4 Qxc4 19.Rb4 Qc5
18...Nxd2 19.Kxd2 Qa5!
280
How is the threat of 20...d4 to be repulsed? If 20.Qe3 then 20...Rxg2† 21.Be2 Nf5 22.Qh3 (counting
on 22...Rxe2† 23.Kxe2 Nd4† 24.Kd1 Nxb3 25.Qh8† with perpetual check) 22...Rg8 23.Kd1 Nd4.
Therefore White undertakes an attempt to confuse the opponent.
20.Bh7 d4??
A completely incomprehensible mistake. After 20...Rh8 White could quietly resign. If, for example,
21.Kc1 then 21...b4 22.axb4 Qa1† 23.Nb1 Ba4.
21.Bxg8 Nxg8 22.Ke2 Rxc3?

After 22...dxc3 Black all the same retained winning chances. But as a result of some kind of
blindness, he takes play into a doubtful ending.
23.Rxc3 Qxc3?
After 23...dxc3 24.Qh8 Kf8 25.Rd1 Bc6 26.Qh4 Ke8 White is forced to take the draw.
24.Qxc3 dxc3 25.Kd3 Ne7 26.g3 Nd5
281
27.h4!
With material equality (the rook and pawn are equivalent in an endgame to knight and bishop) the
positional advantage is on White’s side. The black king must watch over the h-pawn, while White will
take over the d4-square, creating the threat of f4-f5-f6.
27...Kf8 28.Kd4 a5
An attempt to organize counterplay on the other flank.
29.Re1? (see page 269)

A loss of an important tempo. Immediately decisive is 29.f5 b4 30.axb4 axb4 31.f6, and 31...Ba4 fails
t32.Ra1.
29...Kg7 30.f5 Kh6 31.g4 Ne7 32.f6 Nd5

Worse is 32...Ng6 in view of 33.Rh1 b4 34.axb4 axb4 35.h5 Nf4 36.Kc4 Bc6 37.Rh2.
33.Rh1 b4 34.axb4 axb4 35.Ra1!

On 35.h5 there would have followed 35...Ba4! 36.g5† Kxg5 37.h6 Bxc2.
35...Bb5 36.Ra8
282
36...Be2?
Greater chances were given by 36...b3 37.cxb3 c2 38.Rc8 Nb4 39.Ke3 Bd3 40.Kd2 Be4! (not
40...Na2 on account of 41.Kxd3 c1=Q 42.Rxc1 Nxc1† 43.Kc4 Ne2 44.b4±) 41.Rc4 Na2 42.b4!
c1=Q† 43.Rxc1 Nxc1 44.Kxc1 Bf3 45.g5† Kg6, but the game is all the same lost: 46.Kd2 (see page 264)
46...Kf5 47.Ke3! Bc6 48.Kd4 Ba4 49.Kc5 Kxe5 50.h5 Kf5 51.h6 Kg6 52.b5 Bd1 53.b6 Bf3 54.Kd6
Bg2 55.Ke7 Bd5 56.Kf8 Kh7 57.Kxf7 e5† 58.Ke7 e4 59.f7 etc.
37.Rh8† Kg6 38.h5† Kg5 39.Rg8† Kh6 40.g5† Kh7 41.Rg7† Kh8 42.g6 Bxh5 43.gxf7 Bxf7 44.Rxf7
Kg8 45.Rb7 Kf8 46.Kc4
1–0
GAME 58
Emanuel Lasker – Grigory Levenfish

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4

3.g3 is usually played. The choice by Lasker of the continuation of the Danish analyst Krause is
evidence of his aggressive tendencies. White aims to concentrate a nexus of pieces on the right flank
behind a pawn barrier, while adhering to passive tactics on the other side of the board.
3...e6 4.Be2 d5 5.d3 Nge7

Preparing 6...Nd4 and 7...Nec6.
283
On 5...b5 White would have replied not 6.a3 but 6.Qd2 b4 7.Nd1.
Deserving attention is 5...dxe4 6.Nxe4 Nf6.
6.Nf3 Nd4 7.0-0 Nec6
8.Qd2!
The shortest path to the intended regrouping.
8...Be7 9.Bd1 0-0 10.Qf2 a6 11.Re1 Bf6

There was the threat of 12.exd5 exd5 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Nxd5 Qxd5 15.Rxe7.
12.Ne2 dxe4 13.Nexd4

On 13.dxe4 there could follow 13...Nxf3† 14.Qxf3 e5 15.f5 Bg5.
13...e3! 14.Bxe3 cxd4 15.Bd2 Qd5

Black has rid himself of the pawn pair at e4 and f4, thereby weakening White’s attacking
possibilities, and threatens by means of ...e5 to achieve a favourable opening of the game.
284
16.Qg3 Bd7 17.Ne5 Rfd8
Black intends to regroup in the spirit of Steinitz: 18...Be8, then 19...Rac8 and 20...Qb5 with a grip on
the weakened queen’s flank. Lasker finds a clever way to enliven the attack on the king.
18.c4 dxc3 19.bxc3 Be8 20.Bc2 g6!

Necessary prophylaxis. There was threatened 21.Ng4 Be7 22.f5.
21.d4 Bg7 22.h4 Rac8 23.Be4 Qd6 24.Rad1

24...Nxe5 25.fxe5 Bxe5 was threatened.
24...b5 25.h5 b4! 26.hxg6 hxg6
285
The position in the diagram is evidence of the collapse of White’s strategic plan. His centre is
destroyed, while the flank attack is too late. In Lasker’s practice such difficulties occurred many times,
and it was then that he became a dangerous tactician. Here too, correctly assessing the circumstances,
Lasker sacrifices a pawn and complicates the game. Everything else lost without a fight. For example:
27.cxb4 Nxd4 28.Be3 Ne2†, or 27.Bxc6 Bxc6 28.cxb4 Qxd4† 29.Be3 Qxd1 30.Rxd1 Rxd1† 31.Kf2
Bd5.
27.Re3! bxc3 28.Bxc3 Nxe5 29.fxe5 Bxe5 30.Qh4
Many paths lead to Black’s victory. Simplest of all was 30...Bg7 31.Rh3 e5, winning a second pawn
and defending the g6-pawn. The desperate attempt 32.Qh7† Kf8 33.Bxg6 (with the idea 33...Qxg6
286
34.Bb4†) is refuted by 33...Rxc3!.
But still more energetic is 30...Qb6! and if 31.Rh3, then 31...Rxc3 32.Rxc3 Rxd4! concludes the
struggle. Also after the best reply 31.Kh1 there follows 31...Bxd4 32.Rh3 (threatening 33.Qh8†)
32...Rxc3 33.Rxc3 Bf6! 34.Rxd8 Qxd8, liquidating the attack and remaining with two extra pawns.
However, entering the scene was the companion to fatigue – time trouble – and I decided to simplify
the game, intending later to give up the queen in exchange for rook, bishop and two pawns.
30...Rxc3? 31.Rxc3 Bxd4† 32.Kh1
Only now did I see that I had committed an oversight. The intended combination 32...Bxc3 (with the
idea 33.Rxd6 Rxd6) is refuted by 33.Qxd8! Qxd8 34.Rxd8 Kf8 35.Bc6.
I therefore decided to remove the e8-bishop from a future pin.
32...Ba4 33.Rdd3 Bb5

The combination with the queen sacrifice was now possible: 33...Bxc3 34.Qxd8† Qxd8 35.Rxd8†
Kg7 36.Ra8 a5, and the two pawns for the exchange guarantee Black a draw, but the move played
seemed to me to be stronger.
34.Bxg6!
Giving White greater practical chances than 34.Rd1, after which Black sacrifices the queen and
guarantees the draw.
34...fxg6 35.Rh3 Qd7
287
Naturally, not 35...Bxc3 in view o36.Qh7† Kf8 37.Rf3† Ke8 38.Qf7#.
36.Rcg3
36...Bd3??
There remained only ten seconds for the four moves until the time control.
Leading to a draw was 36...Rf8 37.Rxg6† Kf7 38.Rf3† Ke8 39.Rxf8† Kxf8 40.Qf4† Ke7 41.Qh4†
Kf8 42.Qf4†. After other continuations the chances would rather be on the side of Black. [Translator’s
Note: In the tournament book, Levenfish attributes the above variation to Rovner.]
37.Rxd3
1–0
Lasker skilfully exploited my time trouble.
GAME 59

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5

Another system of this defence is 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qe2 Ne4 (or 9...Nbd7).
6...Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Bf4 Nfd7 11.Bg2 Rd8 12.Qc1 f6 13.0-0 Be6
288
This whole variation was encountered more than once in the match Alekhine – Euwe (1935) and was
studied in detail by Euwe and his trainer Flohr. The strongest continuation for White was found later –
14.Ne4!. After 14...Bxc4 15.Qxc4 Nxc4 16.Bxc7 Rc8 17.Bf4 White has good prospects in the
endgame.
I employed this variation since an analysis by Euwe, published in the press, seemed to me to be
unconvincing.
14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.Ne4 Qa5 16.Bd2 Bb4 17.Bxb4 Qxb4 18.Qf4 Qe7
19.Nxf6† was threatened. Flohr believed that Black’s last move guaranteed a sufficient defence.
19.Qe3!
289
Forcing a weakening of the queen’s flank.
19...a6
Evidently, Black chose the greater of the two evils. But 19...b6 20.Ng5! Bd5 21.Bxd5 Rxd5 22.Nh3
0-0 23.Nf4 and then 24.a5 also had its inconvenience.
20.Nc5 Bc8 21.b4 Nf7

Flohr offers the exchange of queens, wishing to leave the king in the centre in the anticipated
endgame.
On 21...0-0 there follows 22.b5 axb5 23.axb5 cxb5 24.Qb3† and 25.Qxb5 followed by a siege of the
b7-pawn.
22.Ra3! Nd6 23.Rd1 Qxe3 24.Rxe3† Kf7 25.Red3 Ke7 26.Re3† Kf7 27.Red3 Ke7
White had repeated moves in order to gain time.
28.f4!
White opens an exit for the king and proceeds to the realization of the pawn majority on the right
flank.
28...Nc4 29.Kf2 Rxd3 30.Rxd3 Rd8 31.Rxd8 Kxd8 32.Be4!

An important win of a tempo for the entry of the bishop into the game. In passing, a new weakness in
the pawn structure is provoked.
32...h6
Unfavourable for Black is 32...f5 33.Bd3 Nb2 34.a5 Nxd3† 35.Nxd3, as is 33...Nb6 34.e4 fxe4
290
35.Bxe4, and White soon creates a passed pawn.
33.Bd3
33...Nb6
Flohr considers that the equality in material guarantees him a draw.
It was preferable to continue 33...Nb2 with the threats of 34...Nxd3† and 34...b6. There could follow
34.a5 Kc7 35.Ke3 Nxd3 (see page 266) 36.Kxd3 b6 37.axb6† Kxb6 38.Kc4 a5! 39.Na4† Ka6 40.Kc5
axb4 41.Kxb4 Bg4 42.e3 Kb7, and as shown by analysis, Black achieves a draw. Therefore stronger is
37.Na4! bxa5 38.bxa5 Kd6 39.Kd4 with good chances for White. At any rate, a difficult endgame
would be in prospect, whereas now Black perishes without a fight.
291
[Translator’s note: In the tournament book of the 3rd Moscow International, Levenfish analyses this
position further: 39...Bg4 40.e3 Be2 41.Nc5 Bf1 42.e4 Be2 43.e5† fxe5† 44.fxe5† Ke7 45.h4 Bf1
46.Ke4 Kf7 47.Kf5 Bh3† 48.g4 g6† 49.Kf4 Bf1 50.g5 h5 51.e6† Ke7 52.Ke5 Bc4 53.Nd7! Bxe6
(53...Bb5 54.Nb6 and 55.Nc8†) 54.Nb8 Bc4 55.Nxc6† Kd7 56.Nb4 Ke7 57.Kd4 Bf1 58.Kd5 Be2
59.Nc6† Kf7 60.Ne5† Kg7 61.Kc6, and White wins.
In the same source he also analyses the variation 33...Nb2 34.a5 Nd1† 35.Kf3 Nc3 (35...Kc7 36.e4
h5 37.e5 fxe5 38.fxe5 Bg4† 39.Ke4) 36.Bc4 Kc7 37.e4 b6 38.axb6† Kxb6 39.e5 fxe5 40.fxe5 Nd5
(40...a5 41.e6) 41.Bxd5 cxd5 42.e6 Kc7 43.e7 Bd7 44.Nxa6† Kd6 45.Ke3 Kxe7 46.Kd4 Kd6 47.Nc5
Bb5 48.Nb7† Kc6 49.Nd8† Kd6 50.Nf7† Ke6 51.Ne5 Kd6 52.Ng6 Bc6 53.Nf4, with an eventual
win for White in each case.]
34.e4 Na8 35.Ke3 Nc7 36.a5 Ke7 37.Bc4 Kd6 38.Kd4 Ne8 39.e5† fxe5† 40.fxe5† Ke7
Black is in a permanent bind and finds himself in zugzwang.
292
41.h4 Nc7
Or 41...g5 42.hxg5 hxg5 43.Ne4 g4 44.Nc5 followed by Kd4-e4-f4.
42.Ne4 Be6
On 42...Ne8 decisive is 43.Kc5 and 44.Kb6.
43.Nd6 Bxc4 44.Kxc4 Ke6 45.Nxb7

The game was adjourned, and Flohr resigned it without resuming, convinced of the hopelessness of
the continuation 45...Kxe5 46.Kc5 Nd5 47.Nd8 Ke4 48.Nxc6 Nc3 49.Nb8 Kf3 50.Nxa6 Kxg3
51.Nc7.
1–0
This game was awarded a second prize, since in the opinion of the jury, it stood out for its logical
value. [Translator’s Note: It placed 2nd for the best endgame prize. As we saw earlier, Levenfish also
took 1st prize, for his win versus Eliskases.]
Capablanca congratulated me on the victory and declared that this game was to his taste.
293
Chapter 5
My Best Achievements
Tournament with the Participation of Fine

The young American grandmaster Fine, after success at home, set off at the end of 1935 to ‘conquer’
Europe. First prizes in Hastings and Zandvoort brought him to the attention of the whole chess world.
Fine finished the Nottingham tournament in third place, a half-point behind the winners – Botvinnik
and Capablanca. In Sweden, he won a match against Ståhlberg and easily won first place in the
Stockholm tournament. From Sweden, Fine went on a tour of the USSR. In March 1937 he took part in
tournaments in Moscow, and then in Leningrad.
In the Leningrad tournament there played I. Rabinovich, Rauzer, Ilyin-Zhenevsky, Budo and I.
I conducted the important game against Fine with impermissible nonchalance. Having obtained the
freer game from the opening, at the 17th move I underestimated a one-move manoeuvre by Black, and
then instead of tenacious defence, recklessly sacrificed a pawn, after which Fine easily realized the
material advantage. But since he drew with Rabinovich and Rauzer, there was the chance for me to
catch up with the American. However, a curious event took place in my game with Ilyin-Zhenevsky. I
won a pawn and at the 31st move achieved a winning position.
At this moment Ilyin-Zhenevsky placed his queen under attack from my rook. I could have taken the
queen unhindered, since there was no mate of any sort, but from surprise I began to think over the
reply. Possibly I would have found the correct move, but at this point one of the spectators lost
patience, and he cried out across the whole room: “Take the queen!” I was forced to play another move.
The position remained winning, but I was unsettled and two moves later blundered a pawn. As a result
– a draw.
In the tournament I took second place.
I present the game versus Budo.
GAME 60
Alexander Budo – Grigory Levenfish

‘Tournament with the Participation of Fine’
Leningrad 1937
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 d5 4.Bg5 Bb4† 5.Nc3 dxc4 6.e4 c5 7.e5 cxd4 8.Qa4† Nc6 9.0-0-0
With a transposition of moves one of the main branches of the Vienna Variation has been obtained.
294
9...Bd7
Evidently, the best defence.
10.exf6
10.Ne4 leads to very confused and unclear play.
10...gxf6 11.Nxd4 Bxc3 12.bxc3 fxg5 13.Qxc4

White has played the opening without finesse, and the initiative is already with Black. But how can it
be maintained? On 13...0-0 there can follow 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.h4, while on 13...Rc8 14.Nb5 0-0 White
can force a draw – 15.Nd6 Rc7 16.Nb5.
295
13...Qf6!
Only this manoeuvre, found after a half-an-hour’s thought, reveals the vulnerable points in White’s
position.
14.Nb5 0-0!
It now becomes clear that 15.Rxd7 Ne5 16.Qd4 Nxd7 17.Qxd7 Rfd8 18.Qc7 Rac8 is ruinous for
White.
15.h4 Ne5 16.Qd4 Qf4†

The exchange of queens guarantees Black somewhat the better endgame.
17.Qxf4 gxf4 18.Rd4
18...Rac8 19.Kb2 Bxb5 20.Bxb5 Rc5 21.Be2 Rfc8 22.Rh3 Nc4† 23.Bxc4 Rxc4 24.Rhd3 b5 25.Rd8†
25.Rd7 gave greater chances of salvation.
25...Rxd8 26.Rxd8† Kg7 27.Rd7
296
27...Re4 28.Rxa7
On 28.Rd2 there follows the invasion of the black king, ...Kh6-h5.
28...Re2† 29.Kb3 Rxf2 30.a4 bxa4† 31.Rxa4 e5 32.c4 Rxg2 33.c5 f3 34.Ra1
Or 34.c6 Kf6 35.c7 Rg8.
34...e4
35.Rf1
Nor are other moves of any help.
297
35...f2 36.c6 Rg6 37.Rxf2 Rxc6 38.Rf4 e3 39.Re4 Re6 40.Rxe6 fxe6 41.Kc3 Kg6
0–1
298
It was decided to hold the following championship of the USSR in the capital of Georgia. The
experience of holding an important chess event in one of the republics completely justified itself. The
tournament provoked huge interest and facilitated a significant revival of chess life in Georgia.
The spring months – April and May – are very fine in Tbilisi. There is no oppressive heat, but it is
warm; one can walk without a coat, and from the 1st of May, according to an unwritten law, people
dress in white linen clothes.
The congenial hosts had planned the organization of the tournament well. Play took place in the
concert hall of the Rustaveli Theatre. The hall was beautifully decorated. Everywhere there were
masses of flowers. Carpets drowned out the noise. Large demonstration boards displayed the course of
the battles.
With the exception of Botvinnik and Riumin, all of the strongest players of the country participated.
Georgia was represented by two masters – Goglidze and Ebralidze. The public of Tbilisi followed their
games with particular interest. Ebralidze played poorly, but the shared fifth place of Goglidze upheld
the reputation of Georgian chessplayers.
The tenth championship demonstrated the further growth of our young masters. They took all of the
prizes, starting from second. I proved to be the only one who managed to defend the honour of the ‘old
guard’. I played the whole championship with élan and already in the penultimate round guaranteed
myself first place. As the reader may verify from the games given below, my creative achievements
were also not bad.
On the free days our congenial hosts drove us through the picturesque surroundings of the city – to
Kodzhor and Mtskheta, and the Georgian Military Highway. I, however, loved to walk through the
unfamiliar town. I had not been in Tbilisi for twelve years. The old town had changed little, but during
this time the new town had grown, with magnificent buildings, parks and embankments.
On one occasion I wandered into a quiet lane and noticed that by some warehouses there were ox-carts
with large barrels. To the question of what cargo had arrived, the caretaker replied with pride: “Three-
year-old Khvanchkara wine, from the state farm.” I was not familiar with Georgian wine, but had
already heard such flattering reviews of Khvanchkara that I immediately bought a dozen bottles. When
two hours later I reached the hotel, the manager, who happened to be passing, asked me: “What wine
have you bought?” I replied carelessly: “Three-year-old Khvanchkara.” The manager suddenly jumped
as if he had been given an electric shock, and pandemonium broke out. The manager, his deputy, the
manager of the restaurant and the head chef hurriedly ran to the warehouse to buy the wine. The duty
administrator, too, begged them to buy his share. When I asked this poor fellow, forced to remain at his
post, why such a commotion had begun, he looked at me as if at a child, and replied: “Katso! Good
wine is to a Georgian man what a beautiful woman is to a Frenchman.” Everything became clear;
further questions were superfluous.
At the tournament in the capacity of press correspondent was Tolush, who had only just gained the
master title. We decided to return home via Vladikavkaz, along the Georgian Military Highway. In
Vladikavkaz we successfully gave simultaneous displays, with pleasure ate trout from the River Terek,
299
and then returned to Leningrad.
GAME 61
Grigory Levenfish – Vladimir Makogonov

10th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1937
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6

The Scheveningen variation. Black obtains a cramped but solid position.
6.Be2 a6 7.0-0 Qc7 8.a4
8...Nc6
Also possible is the development of the knight to d7 followed by its transfer to c5.
9.Be3 Be7 10.f4 0-0 11.Nb3 b6

Preventing 12.a5 and 13.Bb6.
12.Bf3 Bb7 13.Qe1 Rfe8

Better is 13...Rfd8 and then 14...Rac8.
14.Rd1 Nd7 15.Qg3

In place of the usual pawn storm g2-g4-g5, which does not promise White much, I chose a different
plan – piece pressure on the castled position.
300
15...Bf8
16.Rf2!
This move defends the c2-pawn and prepares the doubling of rooks on the f- or d-files.
16...Nc5 17.f5 Ne5

There was the threat of 18.Nxc5 bxc5 19.Bxc5.
The preliminary exchange at b3 did not suit Black: 17...Nxb3 18.cxb3 Ne5 19.f6 Ng6 20.Rc1 Qd8
21.h4 with the idea 21...Qxf6 22.e5.
18.Nd4 Kh8 19.Bg5 Be7

The exchange of dark-squared bishops weakens the defence of the d6-pawn. The lesser evil was
19...exf5 20.exf5 Nxf3† 21.Nxf3 f6 22.Bf4 Rad8.
301
20.Bh5! Qd8
21.fxe6 was threatened.
Now 20...exf5 is too late, since after 21.exf5 it is difficult to forestall the threat of f5-f6.
21.Bxe7 Rxe7
Or 21...Qxe7 22.fxe6 Nxe6 23.Nf5.
22.fxe6 fxe6
23.Nf3!
302
The liquidation of the strong point of Black’s defence – the square e5 – rapidly clarifies matters.
23...Nxf3†
Also bad is 23...Qc7 in view of 24.Nxe5 dxe5 25.Rdf1.
24.Bxf3 e5 25.Rfd2 Re6

Or 25...Rd7 26.Bg4.
26.b4! Nd7 27.Bg4 Rf6 28.Rxd6

1–0
GAME 62
Vladimir Alatortsev – Grigory Levenfish

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Bb4† 4.Bd2 Bxd2† 5.Nxd2

More natural and better is 5.Qxd2 and then Nc3.
5...Nc6 6.Ngf3 d6 7.Bg2 e5 8.d5 Ne7 9.0-0 0-0 10.e4 Nd7
303
Via a roundabout path there has been obtained a position from the King’s Indian Defence with a
favourable difference for Black – the exchange of the f8-bishop, which in this variation finds itself out
of things for a long time.
11.Ne1 f5
This move ought to have been prepared by means of ...g7-g6.
12.Nd3?
White was obliged to exchange at f5. After 12.exf5 Nxf5 13.Ne4 Nc5 14.Nd3 b6 White has mastery
of the e4-square, Black that of d4. A balanced struggle would have resulted, whereas now Black seizes
the initiative.
12...f4! 13.gxf4
Presenting Black with the key square e5.
The continuation 13.f3 g5 14.g4 h5 15.h3 b6 also led to a position that is difficult for White to defend.
13...exf4
304
14.Nf3
White does not sense the danger.
White ought to have immediately engaged in a battle on the other flank: 14.c5! Nxc5 15.Nxc5 dxc5
16.Qb3 Kh8 17.e5 c6! 18.d6 Nf5 19.Qc3 Nh4 20.Be4 In the complicated, double-edged position the
loss of a pawn does not have particular significance.
14...Ng6
A struggle is in progress for the square e5.
15.Rc1 Qe7 16.Re1 Nde5

Threatening the unpleasant pin ...Bg4.
17.Nfxe5 Nxe5 18.f3 b6 19.Nxe5 Qxe5
305
20.Qd2
A loss of time.
Only the counter-blow c4-c5 can deflect Black from operations on the kingside – therefore White
should continue 20.b4. After 20...a5 21.a3 axb4 22.axb4 the invasion 22...Ra2 is repulsed by means of
23.Rc2.
20...Bd7 21.Qc3
Simplification of the game does not ease White’s situation.
21...Rfe8 22.Qxe5 Rxe5 23.a3 a5 24.b3

Preventing ...a5-a4.
The opening of the a-file after 24.b4 axb4 25.axb4 Ra4 26.Rb1 Rg5 was clearly unfavourable for
White.
24...Kf7 25.Kf2 Kf6 26.Ke2 Rh5 27.Rh1 Ke5
306
The battle for the square e5 has ended in Black’s favour. The king occupies this square and threatens
in some cases to invade at d4. The white king has to prevent this. The bishop at g2 also plays a passive
role. White’s game is strategically lost. He has no counterplay and must switch entirely to defence.
However, a tactical solution for Black is hindered by the closed character of the position, with blocked
pawn chains – the black rooks do not have enough space. A breakthrough of the defensive lines is
possible only with ...g7-g5-g4.
28.Kd3 h6
An inaccurate implementation of the plan. Black ought to continue 28...g5, forcing 29.h3, and then to
transfer the other rook to h6. To defend the pawn White would have had to place his rooks at h1 and
h2, after which the break ...g5-g4 decides.
29.h3?
White voluntarily creates a weak square in his camp at g3 and thereby facilitates destructive work by
the black rooks.
If White had continued 29.h4, then 29...Rh8! and 30...g5.

Most tenacious of all was 29.Rc2. Black would have had to carry out the manoeuvre ...Ra8-f8-f6-g6 and
...Rh5-g5. Then there would follow the exchange of one pair of rooks at g1 and, finally, the pawn break
...g7-g5-g4. Thus, it should be recognized that also after other moves White could not save the game.
29...Rg5! 30.Rh2 Rg3
307
31.h4 Rg8 32.Ke2
32.h5 Bg4 loses a pawn (33.Ke2 Bxh5). [Translator’s note: This is not so; after 34.Rxh5† Black is in
check.]
32...g5 33.hxg5 hxg5 34.Kf2 g4

Threatening 35...Rxf3† and 36...g3†.
35.Rh5† Kd4 36.Rd1†

Also of no help is 36.Rh7 in view of 36...gxf3 37.Bxf3 Bg4 38.Bxg4 R8xg4 39.Rxc7 Rh4.
36...Kc3 37.Rh7 gxf3 38.Bf1

On 38.Bxf3 there follows 38...Rxf3†.
38...Kc2 39.Rd3
Or 39.Ra1 Bg4 40.Rxc7 Rh8.
308
39...Bh3 40.Rxf3 Rxf3† 41.Kxf3 Bxf1 42.Rxc7 Rf8
Black plays for mate.
43.Rc6 Kd3 44.Rxd6 Be2† 45.Kf2 f3

With the threat of 46...Rg8.
46.Rh6 Rg8 47.Rh2 Kxe4 48.Rh4† Kd3 49.Rh2 Rg6 50.b4 axb4
0–1
GAME 63
Grigory Levenfish – Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e3 Nc6 7.Bd3
Possibly 7.Bc4 makes Black’s defence somewhat more difficult.
7...Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.a3

White prepares 10.e4, but loses a tempo. Better is 9.Ne4, forcing Black to determine his plan.
9...cxd4!
After 9...Nf6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Qc2 h6 12.b4 Bd6 13.Bb2 White has a promising position.
309
10.exd4 Bf6 11.Bc2
A loss of yet another tempo. Better is 11.Be4.
11...Nxc3 12.bxc3 e5!

Black is playing the opening excellently.
13.d5
In the case of 13.Be3 White obtains a weak isolated pawn at d4.
13...Ne7 14.Be4
After 14.Ng5 Bxg5 15.Bxg5 f6 White loses a pawn without sufficient compensation.
310
14...Bf5! 15.Bxf5 Nxf5 16.Qb3 Nd6
A good positional move: it defends the b7-pawn, blockades the d5-pawn and takes aim at the square
c4.
On 16...e4 there would have followed 17.Nd2 e3 18.Ne4 Be5 19.f4.
17.Be3 Qc7 18.Nd2

It is essential to prevent 18...Nc4.
18...Rfc8
Black has energetically refuted White’s sluggish play in the opening and has achieved a clear
311
positional advantage: on 19.Rac1 there follows 19...b5. Therefore White gives the game a different
direction.
19.c4!
An unexpected sacrifice of a pawn, which must be accepted. On the timid 19...b6 there follows
20.Rfc1 followed by a3-a4-a5.
19...Nxc4 20.Ne4 Qe7?

The unexpected change of scenery on the chess stage had taken my opponent by surprise.
The variation 20...Nxe3 21.Nxf6† gxf6 22.fxe3 Qc3 23.Qxb7 Qxe3† 24.Kh1 did not suit him.
After 20...Be7 21.Rfc1 Black comes under an unpleasant pin.
Evidently, correct was 20...Nxe3 21.Nxf6† gxf6 22.fxe3 Qb6 with transposition to a drawn double-
rook endgame (if 23.Qd3, then 23...Kh8 24.Rf3 Rg8).
21.d6 Qe6
Better is 21...Nxd6 (see page 277)22.Bc5 Rxc5 23.Nxc5 b6 24.Na6 Nf5, and Black can successfully
fight for a draw.
22.Nc5 Qxd6 23.Qxc4 Be7

It is possible that Black had hoped to regain the piece after 23...b6, but overlooked the saving move
24.Ne4.
24.Qe4 Rxc5 25.Bxc5 Qxc5 26.Qxb7
312
White’s material advantage rapidly decides the outcome of the battle.
26...Rc8 27.a4 f5 28.Rad1 Bf6
29.Rd7 a5 30.Qd5† Kh8 31.Rd1 Qb4 32.Qb5 Qc3

White gives mate in three moves: 33.Rd8† etc.
1–0
GAME 64
Grigory Levenfish – Vitaly Chekhover

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

Black worsens his pawn structure. Better is 4...Nd7 and then 5...Ngf6.
5.Nxf6† exf6
The value of the pawns at f7 and f6 is little, while White obtains an extra pawn on the queen’s flank,
which can be converted into a passed pawn. In an endgame this advantage will become perceptible.
True, the endgame is still far off, but in the middlegame Black must avoid simplification. The move
5...gxf6 also has its negative sides.
6.Bc4 Be7 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.0-0 Nb6 9.Bb3 0-0 10.Be3
313
10...Nd5
A loss of time. Better is 10...Be6.
11.Bd2 Bg4 12.c4 Nc7 13.Be3 Bd6 14.h3 Bc8

On 14...Bf5 there follows 15.Nc3 and 16.Qf3.
15.Nc3 Re8 16.c5!

Worse is 16.d5 on account of 16...c5!, and the pawns are blockaded, while White’s bishops prove to
be out of things.
16...Bf8 17.d5 cxd5 18.Nxd5 Be6

18...Bd7 and 19...Bc6 ought to have been preferred. The move played leads to further exchanges.
314
19.Nf4! Qxd1 20.Rfxd1 Bxb3
Now for White too, doubled pawns appear. Possibly it was this that prompted Black to exchange
pieces.
21.axb3 a6 22.Rd7 Re7 23.Rad1 Rae8 24.Kf1 g6 25.Rxe7 Rxe7 26.Nd5 Nxd5 27.Rxd5 Kg7 28.Ke2?
With each exchange White’s advantage has grown. After 28.b4 and the transfer of the king to c4, and
then b4-b5, Black would not have been able to save the game. The plan begun with the move 18...Be6
would have proved to be incorrect. The move played represents a serious mistake. In the 24th match-
game Alekhine – Euwe (World Championship, Netherlands 1935), Alekhine also committed such an
error. In his commentary to that game he wrote that this mistake was a cause of his loss in the match.
315
28...Re5!
At the previous move, White on 27...Re5 would have replied 28.Rd8 with the threat of 29.Bh6. Now
Black forces the exchange of rooks, undoubles his pawns and obtains the possibility in his turn of
creating a passed pawn.
29.Rxe5 fxe5 30.Kd3 Kf6 31.Kc4 Ke6 32.b4 f5 33.b5

A slight consolation for White consists in the active position of his king and the ease with which a
passed pawn can be created, whereas for Black such a goal is still several moves away. Black cannot
exchange at b5, since the king invades at b6.
33...f4!
Usually it is considered bad to place a pawn on a square of the same colour as its bishop, but on
33...Be7 there would have followed 34.b6 with the threat of 35.c6 bxc6 36.b7 Bd6 38.Ba7. Moreover,
Black intends a little combination.
34.Bd2 Bh6!
Threatening 35...f3! The tempting 35.f3 does not prevent Black’s cunning invention: 35...e4! 36.fxe4
f3! 37.Bxh6 f2
35.Be1 e4 36.bxa6
36.b6 f3 37.g3 Bg7 38.b4 Be5 led to a straightforward draw.
36...bxa6 37.b4 Bg5?

Black displays an enthusiasm for tactical tricks: 38...Bh4 and 39...e3 is threatened.
316
By continuing 37...Bg7 38.b5 axb5† 39.Kxb5 Kd7, Black achieves a draw.
38.Kd4! e3 39.fxe3 fxe3 40.h4! Bh6 41.Ke4 g5

Forced in view of the threat of g2-g4-g5.
42.Kxe3 gxh4† 43.Kd4

Thus, the previous situation has again arisen. On the queen’s flank White has a passed pawn, while
on the king’s Black has devalued, doubled pawns. But there is little material remaining and the win is
still far off.
43...Bg5 44.Kc4 Bd8 45.Kd4 Bf6† 46.Ke4 Bd8 47.Bd2

The time-control was 48 moves in 3 hours. Fatigued by six hours of play, I decided to adjourn the
317
game and to analyse the bishop endgame at home. As will be shown by the following, the immediate
47.Kf4 was stronger.
47...Kd7 48.Kd5 Kc7 49.Be3 Bf6 50.Bf4† Kc8!

50...Kd7 loses due to 51.c6† Kc8 52.Kc5 Bd8 53.Bd6!, and Black is in zugzwang.
51.Bd2!
The move ...Bc3 must be prevented.
51...Kc7!
51...Kd7 as before loses on account of 52.c6†.
Now however 52.c6 Be7 53.Bf4† Kc8 54.Bd6 Bg5 55.Kc5 Be3† leads to a draw. Black’s manoeuvre
...Ke6-d7-c8 has justified itself; it is impossible to achieve a decision on a single flank.
52.Be1 Bg5 53.Ke5 Kc6 54.Kf5 h6

An important achievement by White.
If 54...Bd8 then 55.Kg4 a5 (otherwise Kh5-h6) 56.bxa5 Kxc5 57.Bf2† Kc6 58.a6 Kc7 59.a7 Kb7
60.Kh5. White then wins the pawn at h7 and returns with the king to g4, after which the capture Bxh4
and the advance of the g-pawn is decisive.
55.Ke5 Be3 56.Ke4 Bg5 57.Kd4 Bf6† 58.Kc4 Bg5 59.Bf2 Bf6
318
60.Be3! Bg5
If 60...Bg7 then 61.Bd2 Bf8 62.Kd4, then the king goes to g4 and h5 and wins one of the pawns.
61.Kd4 Bf6† 62.Kd3! Kb5 (see page 266)

Black can resist for longer with 62...Bg5 63.Ke2! (threatening 64.Bxg5 hxg5 65.Kf3) 63...Be7 (or
63...Bf6 then 64.Bxh6 Bc3 65.Bd2) 64.Bxh6 a5 65.bxa5 Kxc5 66.Kf3 Kb5 67.Bd2 etc. Then the white
king goes to h5 and the bishop to e1. After Bxh4 the a5-pawn is lost, but the g-pawn promotes to a
queen, since the black king is too far away.
63.Bxh6 Kxb4 64.c6 Be5 65.Ke4

1–0
GAME 65
Grigory Levenfish – Victor Goglidze

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2

In those years this was considered the strongest continuation. Now more often played is 4.e3 or 4.a3.
4...0-0
Leading most simply to equality is 4...d5. Goglidze choses the so-called Leningrad system of
319
defence.
5.e3 d6 6.a3 Bxc3† 7.Qxc3 Nbd7

The reinforcement of the e5-square is the basic idea of the defence.
8.Bd3 b6 9.Ne2 Bb7 10.0-0 e5

The exchange of light-squared bishops by 10...Be4 11.Ng3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 would have been
associated with a loss of time.
11.Ng3 Re8 12.b3 d5

Black begins operations in the centre but weakens the diagonal a1-h8.
13.Bb2 c5?
This leads to an opening of the game, which is clearly to the advantage of White, whose bishops
begin their destructive work.
The only correct way is 13...e4 14.Be2 c6, limiting the possibilities of the white bishops.
320
14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Rfd1!
The first link in the plan conceived by White. The bishop is transferred to f1 for the defence of the
g2-pawn.
The exchange at d3 would lead after 16.Rxd3 to the loss of the d5-pawn.
15...Qc7
As the continuation of the game shows, the queen should have been transferred via e7 to f8 for the
defence of the vulnerable point – the pawn at g7. Now White’s attack grows with each move.
16.Bf1 Rad8 17.cxd5 Rxd5

The continuations 17...Nxd5 18.Rxd5 Bxd5 19.f4, or 17...Bxd5 18.e4 Bxe4 19.Rxd8 Qxd8 20.Re1
led to material loss.
18.e4 Rxd1 19.Rxd1 Ng6 20.Nf5
321
Threatening 21.Nxg7.
20...Rd8 21.Qg3!
This combination had become possible thanks to the move 16.Bf1.
21...Rc8
On 21...Qb8 White would have continued: 22.Nh6† Kf8 23.Bxf6 gxf6
24.Rd7! Ne7 25.Bb5! with the decisive threat of 26.Qg8†! Nxg8 27.Rxf7#.
On 21...Qc8 decisive is 22.Ne7† Nxe7 23.Bxf6 g6 24.Rxd8† Qxd8 25.Qg5 Kf8 26.Qh6† Ke8
322
27.Bb5†.
22.Be5! Qc6
Losing is 22...Qxe5 on account of 23.Qxe5 Nxe5 24.Ne7† Kf8 25.Nxc8 Bxc8 26.Rd8† and 27.Rxc8.
23.f3 c4
24.Rd6 was threatened.
24.Bxc4 b5 25.Bf1 Qc5† 26.Bd4 Qc2 27.Re1 Ne8 28.Bxb5 Qxb3 29.Bxe8 Rxe8 30.Nxg7 Rd8
31.Nf5 Qc4 32.Qg5
On 32...Rxd4 there follows 33.Qf6.
1–0
323
The Match versus Botvinnik
Immediately after the conclusion of the 10th USSR Championship I received a challenge from
Botvinnik. Since Botvinnik had not participated in the championship, he had the right to challenge me
in a match for the honourable title of champion of the country.
I was faced with a very difficult test. The results of my previous encounters with Botvinnik were of
little comfort to me – two defeats and three draws. In the opening and in manoeuvring struggles
Botvinnik’s supremacy was undeniable. My prospects appeared to me to be more auspicious in tactics
and in the endgame. But the most important thing was that I should avoid the sort of collapses that I
had suffered in the games versus Chekhover and Lilienthal analysed above, and to retain my strength
for a lengthy struggle with my opponent, who was younger than me by 21 years. For this some rest and
preparation was necessary.
I immediately confirmed my agreement to the match. The prospect of crossing swords with the
winner of the 2nd Moscow International and the Nottingham International tournaments was so
tempting that other considerations withdrew to the background. The beginning of the match was set for
the 15th September 1937. The winner would be he who scored 6 points, with draws not counting. With
a score of five wins each the match would be considered drawn, the title of champion would rest with
me and I would be assigned the title of grandmaster.
The first half of the match was played in Moscow. The sporting society Zenit proved to be of
considerable help to me. I gained the possibility of two months’ rest and preparation, one month of
which was with a trainer. To fulfil this role I invited the gifted young master Sergei Belavenets, whose
style was somewhat reminiscent of Botvinnik’s. The Union of Leningrad Writers kindly offered us two
permits to their rest home in Koktebel, and soon we set off for Crimea.
The wonderful Koktebel beach consists of small, finely-polished pebbles of fantastical shapes. One
even encounters agate and cornelian. Holidaymakers enthusiastically collected these. The ‘stone’
disease at first takes on a sharp character, but towards the end of the holiday it involuntarily weakens.
Suitcases cannot hold the heavy cargo, and with a heavy heart one has to choose only the best
specimens.
This picturesque corner of Crimea was in its time ‘opened’ by the poet Maksimilian Voloshin. A
museum is still maintained in his home. For bathing and swimming, Koktebel is the best place on the
Crimean littoral. The rest home was excellently organized, while the brotherhood of writers was
interesting and cheerful: Zoshchenko, Lavreniev, Marvich, Chukovsky jr., Rakhmanov and others.
Belavenets soon gained their general liking.
During the day we would settle down on the beach and take to analysis. During breaks we plunged
into the waves of the sea.
In such a setting there could be no question of ‘dry’ analyses.
In the main I sought to find a defence for Black against the Queen’s Gambit – Botvinnik’s principal
weapon. Of course, in one month it is difficult to ‘darn’ all the holes, of which in my game there were
more than enough, but the joint work proved useful both for me and for the trainer. Belavenets would
undoubtedly have grown into a strong grandmaster, but sadly in the first months of the Great Patriotic
War he died a hero’s death, defending the motherland. [Translator’s note: Recent research by Evgeny
324
Solozhenkin, published on the website of the Russian Chess Federation, has established that Sergei
Belavenets was killed in battle near Staraya Russa (Novgorod region) on 6th March 1942.]
From Koktebel I travelled straight to Moscow for the match. During the journey I suffered
unpleasantness – I lost my wallet with my money and passport. I borrowed money from the writers who
were travelling with me. Matters were worse with the passport. It was needed for me to register in the
hotel. Fortunately, articles regarding the start of the match had been placed in the Moscow newspapers.
The police chief greeted me very graciously, telephoning the hotel, and in two days my passport was
replaced.
The match proceeded in a sharp struggle.

In the first game I played the opening and middlegame lethargically. Botvinnik manoeuvred
excellently, obtained an advantage and gained victory.
In the following game I resolved to add as much tactical spice as possible. This game was one of the
best in the match. I carried out an interesting combination with the sacrifice of a piece and achieved
victory. The effect of this game was felt by my opponent throughout the whole match.
In the third game my opponent manoeuvred too methodically on the kingside and did not react in
time to the threats that had arisen on the other side of the board. Botvinnik’s desperate counterattack
was unsuccessful.
In the fourth game I employed a defence that had been worked out together with Belavenets. On the
21st move matters concluded in a draw.
The following game ended in the same result.
A turning point came in the sixth game. I played the opening inaccurately and fell behind in
development. Botvinnik could have obtained strong pressure on the queen’s flank, but chose a plan –
uncharacteristic of his style – of attack on the castled position. The attack was beaten back, and White
obtained a weak isolated pawn at d4, which was soon lost. I could have led the game into a technically
straightforward rook endgame. I spent a lot of time on a difficult defence and fell into serious time
trouble. After a few weak moves the game was adjourned in a drawn position. The thought that I had let
slip a win, and that a third defeat for my opponent could prove decisive, deprived me of my mental
balance. Although I still retained the draw from a position of strength, I was already unsettled. After a
restless night, at the resumption I without any justification tried to complicate the play, fell into time
trouble and lost this long-suffering game...
The seventh game ended the same way.
The struggle unfolded in still worse fashion for me in the eighth. Botvinnik manoeuvred
unsuccessfully in the opening stage, and towards the 20th move Black obtained an overwhelming
position, from which it was possible to decide the game in a variety of ways. Again following a series
of weak moves the advantage passed to White, and after the resumption I suffered a third consecutive
loss. The score in the match, four wins to two, appeared highly disconcerting for me. However, in a
match an advantage in points is not so important as how one feels. The games played in the match had
showed me that I could successfully compete with Botvinnik, if I could free myself from the
psychological shock delivered by the defeats. I was helped by the interval resulting from the transfer of
the match to Leningrad.
I began the ninth game already in a fighting mood. Against the French Defence I chose the sharp
325
Advance Variation, involving the sacrifice of a pawn. This set-up proved unexpected for Botvinnik, but
nonetheless he played the opening with his habitual mastery. Leaving the king in the centre, Black
occupied the key squares in the position. The crisis came at the 25th move. White offered the sacrifice
of two minor pieces for a rook. Botvinnik wrongly avoided a complicated, but favourable, combination,
and the game ended in a draw.
In the Leningrad Chess Club I encountered Alatortsev. The conversation touched upon the eighth
game of the match, and Alatortsev drew my attention to the possibility of the move 8...c5. At home I
analysed this move, found it to be acceptable and employed it in the tenth game. The element of
surprise had its effect; Botvinnik’s reply doomed him to a difficult defence, and he suffered defeat.
In the eleventh game Botvinnik chose a sharp variation of the Grünfeld Defence. To avoid home
preparation I went in for an early exchange of queens. Losing two tempos on this operation, I with
difficulty achieved equality. The last move before the time control proved to be a mistake; Black
overlooked a straightforward combination and lost a pawn. Soon the game transposed to the ending
‘rook and two pawns against rook and pawn’. The limited material created not a few technical
difficulties, but this time I did not let slip my chances and at the 78th move achieved victory.
In the twelfth game I chose a difficult defence and already at the sixth move committed a serious
inaccuracy, which Botvinnik exploited masterfully. He obtained two active bishops and pressure on the
king’s flank. White conducted the middlegame and the concluding attack with great strength. This
game was Botvinnik’s best achievement in the match.
In the thirteenth game Botvinnik again chose the Grünfeld Defence. I had found an improvement of
the opening variation, but Botvinnik too was prepared for it and sacrificed a pawn. I accepted the
sacrifice, repelled Black’s attempts to regain the pawn and in passing weakened the pawn cover of
Black’s castled position. The critical moment came at the 30th move, when there followed an exchange
sacrifice, presenting Black with a difficult choice between two evils. The acceptance of the sacrifice
would have given White formidable pawns and an attack. Refusal led to the creation of a strong passed
pawn, and then a hopeless endgame for Black. The game was adjourned, but then Botvinnik resigned it
without resumption.
The match concluded in a draw with the score of +5, –5, =3 and I managed to retain the title of
champion of the country. [Translator’s note: And with it, as stipulated in the regulations for the match,
the coveted title of Soviet Grandmaster.]
GAME 66
Mikhail Botvinnik – Grigory Levenfish

2nd match-game, Moscow 1937
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 g6

With a transposition of moves a variation of the Grünfeld Defence has been obtained.
5.Nf3 Bg7 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 e6 8.b3 Nbd7 9.Qe2 Re8 10.Bb2
326
10...b6
The opening of the game with 10...e5 is premature, since White is better developed, for example:
11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Rxe5 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Ne4 Re8 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Qb2† f6 17.Rad1
11.Rad1 Bb7
The development of both sides is complete, and White has to choose a plan of further action. 12.e4
dxe4 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Nf6 15.Bc2 Qc7 and then 16...c5 leads to a level game. Therefore White
occupies e5.
12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Nd7 14.f4
327
14...Qe7
Was it possible, without losing time, to begin the undermining of the white centre? I feared after
14...f6 the continuation 15.cxd5 exd5 16.e6 Rxe6 17.f5 gxf5 18.Bxf5 Re8 19.Qh5 Nf8 20.Ba3 Qc7
21.e4 dxe4 22.Nxe4 with a strong attack.
15.cxd5 exd5 16.e4!

This advance is forced in view of the threat of ...f6. The play has become sharper. Black obtains a
protected passed pawn at d4, but in return the white knight invades at the square d6.
16...d4 17.Nb1 c5 18.Nd2
Everything has been considered in all its subtleties. The break 18...f6 is still impossible in view of
19.e6 and 20.f5, while the invasion of the knight via the square c4 is inevitable. I again reviewed the
moves played by Black and did not find any among them to be bad. From this there arose automatically
the conclusion that Black should have counter-chances.
18...g5! 19.g3 gxf4 20.gxf4 Kh8 21.Nc4 Rg8 22.Kh1 f6 23.Nd6
328
23...fxe5!
A sacrifice that was planned in advance, but one that is also forced. Bad is 23...Bc6 in view of 24.Bc4
Rgf8 25.Qh5 (or 25.Nf5).
24.Nxb7 exf4!
Black can regain the piece, but after 24...Rgb8 25.Bc4 Rxb7 26.Bd5 Rab8 27.Bxb7 Rxb7 he is left
minus an exchange and the attack passes to White.
The move in the game is much stronger. Black already has two pawns for the piece, the b7-knight is cut
off, and 25...Ne5 is threatened. For example: 25.Rxf4 Ne5 26.Ba6 Bh6 27.Rf5 Ng4 with strong threats.
25.e5!
The best defence. By giving up a third pawn, White prevents the blockading manoeuvre ...Ne5 and
opens the square e4 for his pieces.
329
25...Bxe5
Not 25...Nxe5 on account of 26.Qe4.
Now on 26.Qe4 there follows 26...Nf6.
26.b4
If 26.Bf5, then 26...Rae8 followed by 27...Nf6.
Somewhat better was 26.Be4, on which there would have followed 26...Bc7.
26...Nf6 27.Qf3 Ng4

Threatening 28...Nxh2.
28.Rd2 Rab8 (see page 267)29.Be4
330
29...d3!
A far-calculated combination.
30.Qxd3
Forced. 30.Bxe5† Nxe5 31.Qf2 Rxb7 costs a piece.
30...Rxb7 31.Bxb7 Qxb7† 32.Qf3 Qxf3† 33.Rxf3 Bxb2 34.Rxb2 Ne5

This is the essence of the combination! 35.Rxf4 Nd3 36.Rbf2 cxb4! leads to a rook ending with two
pawns less for White.
35.Rf1 Nd3 36.Rg2

Nor is White saved by 36.Rd2 c4 37.b5 Re8 38.Rc2 Re4 39.Kg2 Kg7 40.Kf3 Re3† 41.Kg4 Kf6!.
36...c4 37.Rc2 b5 38.a3
331
38...f3
A concluding combination.
39.Rd2 Rg2! 40.Rxg2 fxg2† 41.Kxg2 c3 42.Kf3

Of no help is 42.Rf8† Kg7 43.Rc8 on account of 43...c2! 44.Rxc2 Ne1†.
42...c2
The game was adjourned, and White resigned it without resuming. There could follow 43.Ke3
c1=Q† 44.Rxc1 Nxc1 45.Kd2 Na2 46.Kc2 Kg7 47.Kb2 Nxb4 48.axb4 Kf6 etc. One of my best
games.
332
0–1
GAME 67
Grigory Levenfish – Mikhail Botvinnik

3rd match-game, Moscow 1937
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2

The tournament at Nottingham (1936), the match Alekhine – Euwe (World Championship,
Netherlands 1937) and the games of the present match have shown that in this variation Black easily
equalizes. In our time more often chosen is the continuation of Rubinstein, 4.e3, or that of Sämisch,
4.a3, but no-one has succeeded in demonstrating the weakness of the Nimzo-Indian Defence.
4...d5 5.cxd5 Qxd5 6.e3

Euwe played this way against Botvinnik at Nottingham.
6...c5 7.a3 Bxc3† 8.bxc3 b6 9.Nf3 Nbd7
10.c4
White obtains a pair of connected pawns in the centre. Their advance could restrict Black. On the
other hand, they can prove to be the object of assault by the black pieces.
10...Qd6 11.Bb2 Bb7 12.Be2 cxd4

In Nottingham Botvinnik continued 12...Rc8 13.0-0 Be4? 14.Qc3 0-0 15.Rad1 Rfd8, and after 16.d5!
333
White seized the initiative.
13.exd4 0-0 14.0-0

Intending 15.Ne5, but Black prevents this manoeuvre.
14...Ng4! 15.h3
On 15.g3 I feared 15...e5 16.h3 e4 17.Ng5 Ne3!.
15...Bxf3 16.hxg4 Bxe2

Worse is 16...Bb7 in view of 17.g5 Qf4 18.Bd3 Qxg5 19.Bxh7† Kh8 20.Be4. Instead Black deprives
the opponent of the advantage of the two bishops and weakens the c4-pawn.
17.Qxe2 Rac8 18.Rfd1 Rc7
334
19.d5!
Opening the diagonal of the b2-bishop. To weaken its effect Black constructs a pawn barrier. On
19...Rfc8 there would have followed 20.a4 exd5 (not 20...Rxc4 on account of the loss of a piece after
21.dxe6) 21.cxd5 Rc2 22.Rd2 Qg6 23.Rad1, and the d5-pawn has become formidable.
19...e5 20.Re1 f6
Black falls in with the opponent’s plans. The move ...f6 restricts the mobility of the queen and creates
the grounds for tactical complications with g4-g5.
Correct was 20...Rfc8. If 21.Rac1, then 21...f6 and White lacks the possibility of beginning an attack
on the queen’s flank. The move ...f6 restricts the strength of the bishop on the diagonal a1-h8, but for
the bishop there opens up the no less important diagonal a3-f8. True, in reply to 20...Rfc8 White can go
into a level endgame: 21.Bxe5 Nxe5 22.Qxe5 Qxe5 23.Rxe5 Rxc4 24.Re7 But at this point Black
considered his position to be the more favourable.
335
21.a4! h6
A rare case in Botvinnik’s practice of an incorrect assessment of the position. He prevents the
possibility g4-g5, not noticing the danger on the other flank.
22.a5 bxa5
Or 22...Rfc8 23.Ba3 Nc5 24.axb6 axb6 25.Rab1.
23.Ba3 Nc5 24.Reb1 a6

On 24...Qa6 there follows 25.Rb5 Rfc8 26.Bxc5 Rxc5 27.Raxa5 Qxa5 28.Rxa5 Rxa5 29.d6 Rd8
30.Qb2 etc.
336
25.Qe1! Rfc8 26.Qxa5 Qd7 27.Rb6
With the threat of 28.d6 Rc6 29.Rxc6 Qc6 30.Bxc5 Qxc5 31.d7.
If 27...Ne4 then 28.f3 Ng5 29.Rd6 Qf7 30.c5. Black finds the best practical chance.
27...Nd3! (see page 269)28.d6 Nf4

Otherwise 29.Qd5†.
29.dxc7 Qxg4 30.g3 Ne2† 31.Kh2
31...Nf4
The white king is faced with a dangerous journey to the other flank. Therefore I decided to adjourn
the game and to analyse the position at home. The now-accepted FIDE rule regarding a draw in the
event of three-fold repetition was not in effect at that time in the Soviet Union.
32.Kg1 Ne2† 33.Kh2 Nf4 34.Kg1 Ne2† 35.Kg2 Nf4† 36.Kg1 Ne2† 37.Kg2 Nf4† 38.Kg1 Ne2†
39.Kh2 Nf4 40.Kg1 Ne2† 41.Kg2 Nf4† 42.Kg1 Ne2† 43.Kh2 Nf4 44.gxf4 Qxf4† 45.Kg2 Qg4†
46.Kf1 Qxc4† 47.Ke1 Qe4† 48.Kd2 Qd4†
337
49.Kc2!
The only winning move. The capture by Black of the rook loses: 49...Qxa1 50.Qd5† Kh7 51.Qd3†
e4 (otherwise 52.Rb8 or 52.Qd7) 52.Qxe4† Kh8 53.Rb8 Qa2† 54.Kd1 Qg8 55.Qb7
49...Rxc7† 50.Kb1 Rc3

Or 50...Qd3† 51.Ka2 Rc2† 52.Bb2 Qc4† 53.Rb3.
But now there is threatened the perpetual check ...Qd3† and ...Qc4†.
51.Rb4! Qd3† 52.Ka2 Rc2† 53.Bb2 Rxf2
Four passed pawns are insufficient compensation for a rook and a bishop. However, the bishop is
338
pinned and the white king is in need of cover. White still has technical difficulties to overcome.
54.Rc1 Kh7
55.Rc8† Kh7 56.Qd8 was threatened.
55.Rb3 Qe4 56.Qxa6 h5 57.Rc7 Rg2

58.Rxg7† Kxg7 58.Qa7† was threatened.
58.Qd3 Qxd3 59.Rxd3 Kh6 60.Kb3 h4 61.Rc2 Rg4

Otherwise the white king penetrates to d5.
62.Rf2 Kh5 63.Kc2 Rg1 64.Ba3 e4 65.Re3 Kg4 66.Rxe4† Kg3 67.Ref4
1–0
GAME 68

6th match-game, Moscow 1937
1.Nf3 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.b3 Be7 5.Bb2 0-0 6.Nc3 c5 7.cxd5 Nxd5
An illogical move. If Black feared the creation of an isolated pawn at d5, then he ought to have
played 6...Nbd7 or 6...b6.
By continuing 7...exd5, Black obtains a free and enterprising game.
339
8.Nxd5 Qxd5
Also now 8...exd5 ought to be preferred.
9.Bc4 Qd8
On 9...Qh5 White could choose the sharp continuation 10.g4! Qh3 11.Bf1 Qh6 12.h4.
10.0-0 Nc6 11.Qe2 Bf6?

Black is playing the opening lethargically. He ought to have hurried to complete development:
11...b6 and 12...Bb7.
12.Bxf6 Qxf6 13.Rac1 b6

Still worse is 13...Ne5 on account of 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 15.f4 Qf6 16.Bd3 b6 17.Rf3, and White already
threatens the sacrifice at h7.
340
14.Bb5?
It was possible to exploit Black’s delayed development by means of 14.d4! cxd4 15.Bb5 Ne5
16.Nxd4 Bd7 17.f4 Bxb5 18.Qxb5 Ng6 19.f5.
14...Ne5 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 16.d4 cxd4 17.exd4

In this lies the essence of the manoeuvre begun with the move 14.Bb5. The pawn sacrifice is correct:
17...Qxd4 18.Rfd1 (not 18.Rc7 on account of 18...e5! 19.Rd1 Bg4) 18...Qf4 19.Rc4 Qb8 20.Rh4 with
an attack.
Also bad for Black is 17...Qxe2 18.Bxe2 and then Rc7.
17...Qd6 18.Qe5
This looks like the decisive move. The exchange of queens leads to the invasion of the rooks. In
addition, 19.Bc6 is threatened.
341
18...Qa3!
Parrying the main threat, 19.Bc6, on which there follows 19...Ba6 20.Bxa8 Bxf1 21.Rxf1 Rxa8, and
the advantage is on the side of Black.
19.h4
Botvinnik, commentating on this game in the newspaper 64, considers this plan of attack on the black
castled position to be incorrect. He suggests instead of the pawn storm a piece attack by 19.Rc3 and
gives the following variation: 19...Bb7 20.Rg3 g6 21.h4 Rfd8 22.Bc4 Qd6 23.Qg5 However, after
23...Bd5 it is not apparent how to continue the attack.
19...Bb7 20.h5 h6 21.Rc3 Rfd8 22.Rg3 Qf8 23.Qc7

The pawn at d4 is incurably sick. White seeks complications, in particular aiming to provoke the
move ...Bb7-d5, in order to weaken the pressure on the isolated pawn.
342
23...Rab8!
Threatening 24...Qd6.
24.Qf4 Qd6 25.Qxd6

Forced. If 25.Qxh6? then 25...Qxg3, or 25.Qe5 Qxe5 26.dxe5 Rd5.
25...Rxd6 26.Rc1 Rxd4 27.Rc7 Rd1† 28.Kh2
28...Rd5?
Unfortunately the chess clocks showed that time trouble was approaching, and I made several bad
moves.
343
I ought to have continued 28...Rd2 29.Bc4 Bd5 (30.Bxe6 was threatened) 30.Rxa7 Rxf2 31.Bxd5 exd5
32.Rd3 (or 32.Rd7 Rf5) 32...Re8!, and Black should achieve victory without particular technical
difficulties.
29.Be2
I had overlooked this move.
29...Rd2 30.Bf3 Bd5 31.Rxa7 Rxf2 32.Kg1 Rd2 33.Bxd5 Rxd5 34.Rf3 Rf8
The next mistake – the rook occupies a passive position. Correct is 34...Rf5.
35.a4 Rd4 36.Rb7 Rb4 37.Kf2 e5 38.Ke2 e4 39.Rc3 Rd8 40.g4
40...Rf8
The last move before the time control. The mistakes committed have deprived Black of winning
chances, and simplest of all was to force a draw with the move 40...Rd3. For example: 41.Rb8† Kh7
42.Rcc8 g6, or 41.Rc8† Kh7 42.Rxf7 Rbxb3 43.Rcc7 Rb2†.
41.Rbc7 f5 42.Re7 f4 43.Rcc7 f3† 44.Kf1 Rd8

The entire series of the last four moves by Black was senseless, since White is always guaranteed
perpetual check. Botvinnik acts correctly in trying to confuse the opponent.
45.g5!
344
45...Rd1†?
A final mistake. 45...e3 led to a draw. In view of the threat of mate White would have been forced
either to give perpetual check, or to go in for the continuation 46.Rxe3 Rf4 47.g6 f2 48.Rc1 Rf5 etc.
46.Kf2 Rd2† 47.Ke1 Re2†

Also of no help is 47...f2† in view of 48.Kxd2 f1=Q 49.Re8† Qf8 50.Rxf8† Kxf8 51.Kc3.
48.Kf1 hxg5 49.Rxg7†

Mate follows after 49...Kf8 50.h6.
1–0
GAME 69

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 b6 8.b3 c5! 9.dxc5?
Leading to complications that are favourable for Black. Correct is 9.cxd5, 9.Bb2, or 9.Ba3.
345
9...Ne4! 10.Bxe4
Other continuations are no better, for example 10.Nxd5 Nxc5! 11.Rb1 e6 12.Nf4 e5 13.b4 Nxd3
14.Nxd3 e4, or 11.Nd4 e6 12.Nb4 a5 13.Nbc2 e5.
10...dxe4 11.Qxd8!
The only move. 11.Nd4 bxc5 12.Nde2 Qxd1 13.Rxd1 Bg4 leads to the loss of the exchange.
11...Rxd8 12.Nd4 bxc5 13.Nde2 Bg4
14.f3
The creation of a weakness at e3 creates new difficulties in defence.
346
White feared the variation 14.Rb1 Rd3 15.Bb2 Rd2 16.Rfe1 Bxe2 17.Rxe2 Bxc3. However, by
continuing 14.Rb1 Rd3 15.h3! he obtains a somewhat worse, but quite defensible, position.
14...exf3 15.gxf3 Bh3 16.Re1

If 16.Rf2, then 16...Nc6 17.Ba3 Ne5 (or 17...Nb4).
16...Nc6 17.Ba3 Nb4

Also giving Black the advantage is 17...Ne5 18.Red1 Nxf3† 19.Kf2 Ne5 20.Bxc5 Nd3† 21.Kg3
Bf5, but the move in the game is still stronger.
18.Rab1
18...Bh6!
Forcing a weakening of the light squares.
Worse is 18...Nc2 in view of 19.Bxc5 Nxe1 20.Rxe1 Rd7 21.Nf4.
Now on 19.Bxb4 there follows 19...Bxe3† 20.Kh1 cxb4 21.Nd5 Bc5.
19.f4 Nc2 20.Bxc5 Nxe1 21.Rxe1 Bf8!

Preventing the move 22.Nd4, on which there follows 22...e5! 23.Bxf8 exd4.
Also depressing is 22.Nd5 e6 23.Bxf8 Kxf8 24.Ndc3 Rd2.
22.Kf2 Bg4 23.Rd1 Rxd1 24.Nxd1 Rd8 25.Ndc3 Rd2
347
26.Ke1
Not 26.Bxa7 on account of 26...e5! 27.c5 (27...Bb4 was threatened) 27...exf4 28.exf4 Bxe2 29.Nxe2
Rxa2 30.Bb6 Rb2 31.c6 Rc2 32.c7 Bd6.
26...Rc2 27.Kd1
An attempt to complicate the play.
On 27.Bxa7 there follows 27...e5, while on 27.a3 there is 27...a6.
27...Rxc3 28.Kd2 Bxe2 29.Kxc3 a6 30.a4 e5 31.Bxf8 Kxf8 32.b4 Ke7 33.fxe5 Kd7 34.Kd4 Kc6
35.b5† axb5 36.axb5† Kb6 37.Kd5 Bg4 38.Kd6 Be6 39.c5† Kxb5 40.c6 Kb6
0–1
Grigory Levenfish – Mikhail Botvinnik (see page 269)

348
40.Ke3 Rcc8
Black prevents the threatened 41.Nd5† Ke6 42.fxe5 fxe5 43.Rf2, but does not notice another
combination.
41.Nd5† Kf7 42.Nxf6! exf4†

The best attempt in the situation that has arisen.
42...Kxf6 43.fxe5† Kxe5 44.Rxd4 Rxd4 45.Rxd4 Rc2 46.Rd5† Ke6 47.Rxb5 Rxh2 48.a4 leads to an
uncomplicated victory for White.
43.gxf4
349
43...Nf5† 44.exf5 Rxd3† 45.Rxd3 Kxf6 46.fxg6 hxg6 47.Rd6† Kf7 48.Rd5 b4 49.axb4 (see page 281)
In rook endgames one should achieve transposition to familiar schemes.
More accurate would have been 49.Rxa5 Rc2 50.axb4 Rxb2 51.Rb5 Rxh2 52.Rd5 Rb2 53.Rd4.
The black king is cut off, the pawn at f4 is invulnerable, the white king passes over to the queen’s
flank, and the pawn advances.
Another possible variation is: 49.Rxa5 bxa3 50.bxa3 Rc2 51.h4 Rh2 52.a4 Rxh4 53.Rd5 Rh3† 54.Kd2
Ra3 55.Rd4 Kf6 56.Kc2 g5 57.fxg5† Kxg5 58.Kb2 Rf3 59.a5 Kf5 60.a6 Ke5 61.a7 Rf8 62.Ra4 Ra8
350
63.Ra6 Kd5 64.Kb3 Kc5 65.Ka4 Kc4 66.Ra5 Kc3 67.Kb5 White wins.
49...axb4 50.Rd4 b3 51.Rd3 Rh8 52.Ke4 Rxh2 53.Rxb3 Re2† 54.Kd3 Rf2 55.Ke3 Rg2 56.Rb5 Rg1
57.Kd3 Rf1 58.Rb4
58...Rf2!
The best defence, preventing the manoeuvre Rb4-d4.
If 58...Kf6 then 59.Rd4 Kf5 60.b4! Rxf4 61.Rxf4† Kxf4 62.Kd4! Kf5 63.Kd5 Kf6 64.Kd6 Kf7 65.b5
and wins.
351
59.b3 Rf3† 60.Ke4 Rg3 61.Rb5 Rg1 62.Rd5 Rb1 63.Rb5
Only not 63.Rd3 on account of 63...Kf6, and there is no win.
63...Kf6 64.Rb6† Kf7

I have ignored a few repetitions of moves before the time control.
65.b4 Re1† 66.Kd4 Rf1 67.Ke5! Re1† 68.Kd6 Re4
69.b5!
The only path to victory.
69...Rxf4
If 69...Kf6, then 70.Kd5† Kf5 71.Rf6†.
70.Rc6!
An effective concluding blow. On 70...g5 there follows 71.b6 g4 72.b7 Rb4 73.Kc7 g3 74.b8=Q
Rxb8 75.Kxb8 g2 76.Rc1 and then 77.Rg1.
1–0
GAME 70
Grigory Levenfish – Mikhail Botvinnik

352
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0-0 6.Qb3
Stronger than 6.Nf3, which was played in the 11th match-game.
The win of a pawn – 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Bxc7 Na6! – does not give White an advantage.
6...c5
An interesting pawn sacrifice – the fruit of home preparation.
After 6...c6 7.Nf3 Qa5 8.Nd2 Black obtains a cramped game.
7.cxd5
On 7.dxc5 there could follow 7...Na6! 8.cxd5 Nxc5 9.Qc4 b6 with a dangerous attack; or 8.Qa3 Ne4
9.Nxd5 e6 10.Nc3 Naxc5 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Rd1 Qb6. Less clear is 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Rd1 Qe8 11.Ne2,
but in this case too after 11...e5 12.Bg3 f5 Black has the initiative.
7...cxd4 8.exd4 Nbd7 9.Be2 Nb6 10.Bf3
353
10...Bf5
In the same gambit style.
After 10...Bg4 Black regains the pawn, but after 11.Bxg4 Nxg4 12.Nf3 Nf6 13.d6! exd6 14.0-0
White’s position is preferable.
Black now threatens 11...Bd3 and 12...Bc4.
11.Rd1 Qd7
Threatening 12...Rfd8, regaining the pawn.
12.h3 h5
Necessary in view of the threat of g2-g4.
354
13.Be5 Rfd8 14.Bxf6 exf6
White has managed to retain the d5-pawn. After 14...Bxf6 15.Nge2 both black bishops stand badly.
Therefore Black wants to post the knight at d6 and to blockade the doubled d-pawns.
15.Nge2 Rac8
Preparation for the manoeuvre ...Nc4-d6.
16.0-0 Nc4 17.Ng3 Nd6 18.Rfe1 Bf8

Black has constructed a solid defensive position. The exchange at f5 leaves opposite-coloured
bishops on the board and could lead to a dead draw. The following move by White represents the first
link in an interesting strategic plan.
355
19.Be4! Bxe4 20.Ngxe4 Nxe4 21.Nxe4 Kg7 22.Qf3!
Forcing a new weakening of Black’s pawn cover and, still more significantly, the square e5.
22...f5
Not 22...Be7 on account of 23.d6.
23.Nc3 b5 24.a3 a5
Seemingly, the tense struggle to regain the pawn at d5 has been crowned with success for Black.
How is ...b4 and ...Qxd5 to be prevented?
25.Qg3! b4
356
On 25...Bd6 there follows 26.Qg5.
26.axb4 axb4 27.Ne2! Kh7

On 27...Rc2 there follows 28.Qb3 Rdc8 29.Nc3!, while after 27...Qxd5 28.Nf4 the h5-pawn is lost.
28.Nf4 Re8
With the threat of 29...Re4.
On 28...Bh6 there is the reply 29.Re5.
29.Qf3 Rcd8 30.Re5
30...Bg7
On 30...Bd6 White had prepared a combination: 31.Nxh5! Bxe5 32.dxe5 gxh5 33.Qxh5† Kg7
34.Qg5† Kf8 35.Qh6† Kg8 (or 35...Ke7 36.d6†)
357
36.Rd3! f4 37.Qxf4! Black has an extra rook, but he is defenceless.
31.Rde1!
The concluding link in the plan begun at the 19th move. The sacrifice of the exchange is correct, as is
seen from the variation 31...Bxe5 32.dxe5 Qc7 33.Qe3 Qc4 34.e6 fxe6 35.Qa7† Kh6 36.Nxe6. After
the acceptance of the sacrifice it is difficult for Black to defend against the manoeuvre Qd4, d5-d6 and
Nd5. But declining the sacrifice is no better.
31...Rc8
32.d6! Rf8
358
33.Re7 was threatened.
33.Rd5 Rfe8 34.Rxe8 Rxe8 35.Nd3 Rd8 36.Nc5 Qc6 37.d7!
37...Bxd4
37...Bf8 could have led to the following finale: 38.Rxf5 Qxf3 39.Rxf3 Bxc5 40.Rxf7† Kg8 41.dxc5
Kxf7 42.c6 Ke7 43.c7 Kxd7 44.cxd8=Q† and wins.
38.Rxd4 Qxc5 39.Qd5 Qxd5

Prolonging the struggle, but not changing the result of the game, is 39...Qe7.
Interesting is the variation: 39...Qc1† 40.Rd1! Qxb2 41.Qxf7† Kh6 (or 41...Qg7 42.Qe8 Qf6 43.Re1)
42.Qe7 Qc2 43.Qxd8 Qxd1† 44.Kh2 Qd6† 45.g3 Qd4 46.Qf8† Kh7 47.Qe7† Kh6 48.Qe3† and wins.
40.Rxd5 Kg7 41.Kf1
359
There could follow 41...Kf6 42.Ke2 Ke6 43.Rd4 Rxd7 44.Rxd7 Kxd7 45.Kd3 Kd6 46.Kc4.
Therefore Black resigned the game.
1–0
The match provoked great interest not only in the USSR, but also abroad. Many games were assessed
highly in the foreign chess press. In Hungary, a book of the match was produced in the German
language.
360
Chapter 6
The Pre-War Years

In December 1937 and January 1938, at the invitation of the Ukrainian Committee of Physical Culture
and Sport, I twice visited Ukraine. I delivered lectures and simultaneous displays in Kiev, Kharkov,
Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye. In the great Ukrainian cities, chess life had always been in
full swing, but I was struck by the huge interest in chess in the ‘stoker’ of the Ukraine – the Donbass. In
the towns and even in the smallest mining villages large audiences gathered for my speeches. I was
questioned with fervour on the details of the matches of Alekhine with Euwe and of my own match
with Botvinnik.
In the summer of 1938 in the chess press there appeared news of a coming tournament of
grandmasters in the Netherlands. The tournament was organized by the Dutch radio company AVRO. I
considered that my victories in the 9th and 10th USSR Championships, and the drawn result of my
match against Botvinnik, gave me the right to participate in the AVRO tournament. However, despite
all my hopes, I was not sent to this event.
My situation could be defined as a moral knock-out. All the efforts of the preceding years had been in
vain. I had felt confident in my powers and would undoubtedly have fought honourably in the
tournament. But I was 49 years old, and it was obvious that the coming years would tell negatively on
the strength of my play, and that I had lost the final chance to show what I was capable of. I had
reached the peak of my career and, although I later took part in some events, only in rare cases did I
play with enthusiasm and with sporting interest.
***
The idea of creating a theoretical encyclopaedia had occupied me for some time.
The Leningrad subsidiary of the publishing house Fizkultura i Sport was headed by the active S.O.
Vainshtein. He supported the idea of creating a Soviet chess encyclopaedia under the title Sovremennyi
Debyut [Translator’s note: ‘The Modern Opening’], and I set to work in the capacity of principal
editor. First of all a card index had to be assembled. Vainshtein put at our disposal his unique chess
library, while the group of card index compilers began to occupy themselves with cards of opening
variations. The full encyclopaedia was envisaged as being in three volumes. We worked on the first
volume – Open Games. In total there were more than 10,000 cards, which included everything that we
could extract from Soviet and foreign books and journals. As opening analysts we attracted Belavenets,
Sokolsky, Lisitsyn, A. Rabinovich and Konstantinopolsky. The card index was sorted and distributed to
the co-authors. The young co-workers were making the first use of their analytical skill in a study of
this scale. The testing of the analysis demanded a good deal of my time. In general, the team members
coped well with their work, although they did not get by without serious oversights.
Then there began the final stage of the editorial work – drawing up the layout. In some foreign
361
opening reference books (Fine, Griffiths) the annotations were not placed together with the tables and
had to be looked for in later pages, which involved great inconvenience for the reader. To avoid such a
serious defect, I sat down together with M.N. Volkovsky.
The work on the layout proved to be labour-intensive tailoring work. Variations had to be shortened
on one page and added to on another; sometimes variations in the table had to be transferred to the
commentary, sometimes the reverse was the case. Finally everything was in place, and the typographic
drudgery began.
In Leningrad there is a mighty printing base, but the typesetting of Sovremennyi Debyut proved to be
a far from simple matter. The printers lacked a chess font for a book of the required size. We had to
switch to a linotype set. The first pages to be typed proved to have so many misprints that they could
not be corrected. Only when one of the young linotypists learned to play chess, and figured out the
notation, did things go well. More than 18 months passed on typesetting and correction; the book was
published in 1940 with a print run of 4000. Sovremennyi Debyut became the reference book of Soviet
chessplayers of all categories.
362
The Training Tournament
In January of 1939 in Leningrad there began an interesting tournament, in which there participated the
champion of the USA, Reshevsky, and the champion of Estonia, Keres, together with Flohr and
Lilienthal. Leningrad was represented by I. Rabinovich, Ragozin, Romanovsky, Tolush and me.
Alatortsev, Belavenets, Kan, Panov and Smyslov upheld the honour of the capital. Also participating in
the tournament were Bondarevsky (Rostov-on-Don), Goglidze (Tbilisi), Konstantinopolsky (Kiev) and
V. Makogonov (Baku).
The first seven rounds were held in Leningrad, the remaining nine – in Moscow.
The winner of the AVRO tournament, Keres, suffered a serious failure. He finished in twelfth place.
Flohr played well, winning first place. Reshevsky finished in second place. He lost four games and was
lucky to avoid defeat in a further four. One of these the reader will find below. Together with
Lilienthal, Makogonov and Ragozin, I shared 3rd-6th place.
The most colourful figure among the foreigners was undoubtedly Samuel Reshevsky. A native of
Poland, already in his early childhood he displayed phenomenal chess talent. At seven years of age
Reshevsky was successfully giving simultaneous displays.
When the boy turned twelve years of age he was placed in a school where the children had a strict
religious upbringing. Reshevsky returned to chess only after finishing university and was soon among
the leading players in the USA. By profession he is a financial expert.
School left a deep impression on Reshevsky’s psyche. He scrupulously performs all of the required
rituals and in so doing creates many difficulties for tournament organizers.
Reshevsky’s piety co-exists with great mastery in play. An aggressive style, deep ideas, accurate
calculation and original chess thought have helped him to produce many great chess creations. But
many of Reshevsky’s games are spoiled by time trouble – he thinks ponderously and does not cope
well with the clock. Reshevsky’s main employment does not leave him time for the study of openings,
and his opening repertoire was fairly poor.
My game with Reshevsky took a very tense course.
GAME 71
Samuel Reshevsky – Grigory Levenfish

‘Training Tournament’, Leningrad 1939
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.0-0
On 7.a3 Black would have replied 7...cxd4 8.axb4 dxc3, or 8.exd4 dxc4!.
7...Nc6 8.a3 Ba5

More logical than 8...Bxc3 9.bxc3, and after 10.cxd5 White obtains two bishops in an open position.
363
9.Na4
9.dxc5 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Qa5 gives White nothing.
White wants to force the exchange at d4, to open the path of the bishop at c1. However, the knight
proves to be out of things at a4.
9...cxd4 10.exd4 dxc4 11.Bxc4 h6

Not permitting the pinning of the knight at f6.
12.b4 Bc7 13.Bb2

Preparation for the invasion of the knight at e5.
Deserving attention is 13.Nc5, and if 13...b6 then 14.Na6, while if 13...a5 then 14.b5 Ne7 15.a4 b6
16.Nd3 Bb7 17.Nde5.
364
13...b6!
Holding back the white knight at the edge of the board.
14.Ne5 Bb7 15.Rc1 Rc8

This manoeuvre is possible, since on 16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.Ba6 there follows 17...Qd5 18.f3 Bb7
19.Nc3 Bxh2† 20.Kxh2 Qh5† and 21...Ba6.
16.Bb5
A loss of time. Black, naturally, does not exchange at e5 but improves the position of his pieces.
Better is 16.Qd3.
365
16...Ne7 17.Qe2 Qd5 18.f3 Nf5 19.Rcd1 Bb8
20...Qb3 and 20...Rfd8 are threatened. Reshevsky is forced to seek counter-chances and tries to
confuse the play.
20.g4 Nd6 21.Bd3 Qb3 22.Nc5! bxc5 23.dxc5
23...Nd5!
A decisive invasion.
24.cxd6 Nf4 25.Qe3!

Reshevsky finds the only acceptable move. Losing is 25.Qd2 Nxd3 26.Nxd3 Rc2, on which there
now follows 27.Qd4.
25...Qxb2 26.Qxf4
On the intermediate move 26.Rd2 there would follow 26...Nxd3 27.Rxb2 Nxb2.
26...Bxd6 27.Bh7† Kxh7 28.Rxd6 Rc2 29.Qg3

There was threatened 29...Rg2† 30.Kh1 g5.
29...Bd5
White’s position is lost. The doubling of rooks is threatened, as well as the destruction of the pawns
on the queen’s flank. White’s last chance is to play for traps.
366
30.g5 hxg5
Of course, not 30...Qxa3 on account of 31.Nxf7 Rxf7 32.g6†.
31.Kh1
Reshevsky had a few seconds remaining until his flag would fall, while I still had 15 minutes in
reserve, but fate took pity on my opponent. At this moment Belavenets resigned against Smyslov, and
the youths gave the young Moscow master a deafening ovation. I lost my train of thought, and
committed an oversight.
31...f6??
Leading most simply of all to the win is 31...Rc1, or 31...Kg8 and then ...Rfc8.
367
32.Rxd5! exd5 33.Qh3† Kg8 34.Qe6† Kh7 35.Qh3†
½–½
368
After a short break, the 11th USSR Championship began in Leningrad on 15th April. I played poorly in
it. In the tournament book Botvinnik wrote: “After seven rounds Levenfish had only two points... His
physical condition was completely unsatisfactory (he was suffering from headaches). In the remaining
rounds he picked up 6½ points – given his state of health, this was undoubtedly a brilliant
achievement.” I can only add that I was helped by the ophthalmologists. It turned out that my eyesight
had deteriorated, and that I needed new lenses for my glasses.
I present one game from the championship.
GAME 72
Grigory Levenfish – Alexander Chistiakov

1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 d5 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Qa5 7.Qc2 Bb4 8.Nd2 dxc4 9.Bxf6 Nxf6
10.Nxc4 Qc7 11.a3 Be7
Via a transposition of moves the Cambridge Springs Variation has been obtained. Its choice by
Chistiakov was explained by psychological considerations – as we will see below.
12.g3
12...c5!
369
In the 29th match-game Capablanca – Alekhine, Black carried out this freeing manoeuvre after
significant effort. In the book on the match Romanovsky and I pointed out that the move 12...c5 is not
dangerous for Black, thus: 13.Nb5 Qb8 14.dxc5 Bxc5 15.b4 Be7 16.Ncd6† Bxd6 17.Qxc8† Qxc8
18.Nxd6† Ke7 19.Nxc8† Raxc8, and Black has at least a level game. Chistiakov wanted to establish
how I would fight against my own variation.
13.Bg2 Bd7 14.Ne5

At any event, 14.dxc5 is safer. Now White obtains an isolated pawn at d4.
14...cxd4 15.exd4 0-0 16.0-0

From my tournament situation I was least of all interested in drawing variations such as 16.Nxd7
Qxd7 17.Rd1 Rac8 18.Qb3.
16...Bb5 17.Rfe1 Rfd8 18.Qb3 Ba6

Defensive aims were met by 18...Be8, but Black considered his position to be sufficiently secure and
was aggressively inclined.
19.Rad1 Rd6 20.d5 Rb6 21.Qa2 Bd6
White’s position appears to be lamentable. 22.f4 loses a pawn after 22...Bxe5 23.fxe5 Bc4 24.Qb1
Nxd5 25.Nxd5 Bxd5 26.Bxd5 Qc5† 27.Kh1 exd5. But he has prepared a sharp retort.
22.dxe6! Bxe5 23.exf7†! (see page 269)

The automatic 23.Nd5 Nxd5 24.exf7† Kxf7 (not 24...Kf8 in view of 25.Qxd5 Bf6 26.Re8†)
25.Qxd5† Re6 26.Bh3 Rae8 leads to Black’s advantage. It is not clear how White can strengthen his
position.
370
23...Kf8
Chistiakov is a resourceful tactician. He has prepared a dangerous combination.
After 23...Qxf7 24.Qxf7† Kxf7 25.Rxe5 Rxb2 26.Rc5 or, still more strongly, 24.Rxe5 Qxa2 25.Nxa2
Rxb2 26.Nb4 Re8 27.Ra5, Black obtains a bad endgame.
In the tournament book Botvinnik* expresses the opinion that 23...Kh8 saved Black, and gave the
following variation: 24.Nd5 Qxf7 25.Rxe5 Ng4! 26.Nxb6 Qxf2†! 27.Kh1 Qxb6 28.Rf5 Nf2† 29.Rxf2
Qxf2 30.Qd5 Re8
White, however, intended after 24.Nd5 Qxf7 to continue 25.Nxb6! Qxa2 26.Nxa8. Black loses the
bishop and comes under a strong attack.
[*Translator’s note: in fact, the notes to this game were written by Ragozin, Botvinnik’s co-author.
Interestingly, Chistiakov, in an article written many years later (‘Encounters with Levenfish’, from the
magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR, No. 2, 1990) continues this variation as follows:
371
26...Qxb2! 27.Rd8† (or 27.f4 Bd4† 28.Kh1 h5) 27...Ng8 28.Bd5 h5! 29.Bxg8 Bd4 The bishop is not in
fact lost and White himself comes under attack: 30.Be6† (or 30.Rf8 Bc5!) 30...Kh7 31.Bf5† g6
32.Re7† Kh6! The black bishop and queen decide the outcome of the struggle. So Ragozin’s
conclusion was correct! 23...Kh8 does save Black.]
24.Nd5 Qxf7 25.Rxe5 Ng4!

Here is what Chistiakov had in mind. White has calculated more deeply.
26.Nxb6! Qxf2†
After 26...Qxa2 27.Nd7† Kf7 28.Bd5† White is left with an extra exchange.
372
27.Kh1 axb6
Or 27...Qxb6 28.Rf5†.
28.Re4 Qc2 29.Rf4† Nf6

The remainder does not present any interest.
30.Re1 Bb5 31.Qe6 Bc6 32.Bxc6 Qxc6† 33.Qxc6 bxc6 34.Re6 Rc8 35.Rc4 Rd8 36.Rc2 Rd1† 37.Kg2
Nd5 38.Rf2†
1–0
373
The Match versus Alatortsev
At the beginning of 1940 I was called on to play a match against Alatortsev. In the case of a drawn
result, Alatortsev would be assigned the title of grandmaster. My young opponent had justification for
the challenge: not long before he had drawn a match against Lilienthal, who achieved this result with
difficulty.
I gave my consent. The positive and negative sides of Alatortsev’s play were well known to me. To
the former I had to attribute his diligence in working out opening schemes, in which connection he
preferred solid set-ups without weak points, aiming at the manoeuvring struggles which he conducted
with great understanding.
In tactical battles and in the endgame it was easier to find a vulnerable spot. The question consisted in
whether or not I would manage to impose on my opponent a complicated, sharp struggle, or whether I
would instead have to conduct heavyweight ‘trench warfare’.
In the first game (a Four Knights’ Opening), Alatortsev played the opening stage excellently and
obtained the better game. Black’s assertive pressure did not encounter sufficient counter-measures on
my part, and Alatortsev deservedly achieved victory. In the second game, in the Nimzo-Indian Defence,
I chose a continuation recommended by Fine; Alatortsev significantly improved the variation and
obtained two bishops in an open position. By defending resiliently I equalized the position. In the
endgame Alatortsev did not find the way to a draw and after some weak moves suffered defeat. In the
third game Alatortsev, despite the loss of a pawn, achieved a draw by tenacious defence. What occurred
in the following game, we will now see.
GAME 73

4th match-game, Leningrad 1940
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 d5 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Bd3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.dxc5
Botvinnik annotated this game in detail in the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR, from where I have
borrowed his comments (given in quotation marks).
“Now 8.a3 after 8...cxd4 9.axb4 dxc3 10.bxc3 Qc7 led to play with unclear chances. White plays for
the isolation of the pawn at d5; in this case the bishop definitely stands better at e2 than at d3;
consequently, the loss of a tempo is inevitable and the initiative passes to Black. Black’s free piece play
plus the large number of pieces on the board makes White’s task – the exploitation of the isolated pawn
at d5 – so difficult that in this game Alatortsev does not manage to solve it.”
8...Nbd7 9.0-0 Nxc5 10.Be2 Nce4

“Black has overtaken White in development, but in return White has a good base for his pieces at d4,
374
so that he can quietly await the further development of events.”
11.Nb5 Bd7 12.Nbd4 Qb6 13.Ne5 Be8 14.Nd3 Bd6 15.Bd2 Bd7
Any exchange of minor pieces would have facilitated the creation of pressure on the d5-pawn.
16.Be1 Rfe8 17.Qb3 Qc7 18.Nf3 a5

Parrying the threat of Bb4 and preparing the return of the queen to the good stance at b6.
19.Rc1
19...a4 20.Qd1
20.Rxc7 axb3 21.Rxb7 bxa2 is bad for White.
375
20...Qb6 21.a3
“Renewing the threat of 22.Bb4, but weakening the b3-square. Black immediately exploits this.”
21...Nc5 22.Nxc5 Bxc5

Preventing the move 23.Bc3, on which there follows 23...Bxe3!.
If 23.Kh1, then 23...Ne4.
23.Rc2 Bf5 24.Bd3 Be4 25.Bc3!

“Alatortsev is defending very calmly. If 25...Bxe3, then 26.Bxf6 gxf6 27.Bxe4 dxe4 28.fxe3 Qxe3†
29.Kh1 exf3 30.Rxf3, and the extra pawn is of no significance. Levenfish therefore increases the
pressure on the diagonal a7-g1.”
25...Ng4
26.Bd4!
“It seems that Black can advantageously continue 26...Bxd4 27.exd4 Qh6 28.h3 Ne3, or 28.Bxe4
dxe4 29.h3 exf3 30.hxg4 fxg2 31.Kxg2 Rad8. In fact, after 27.Bxe4! Nxe3 28.Qxd4 Qxd4 29.Nxd4
Nxf1 30.Bd3 Black obtains nothing.”
26...Qh6 27.Bxe4!
After 27.h3 Nxe3 28.Bxe3 Bxe3 29.Bxe4 dxe4 30.fxe3 Qxe3† White loses a pawn.
27...dxe4 28.Rxc5 exf3 29.h3 fxg2 30.Kxg2 Nf6

“The numerous exchanges have simplified the position. The pawn cover of White’s king has been
376
spoiled, but on the other hand, the g-file with the bishop at d4 can become unpleasant for Black.
Nonetheless, if Black manages to post the knight at e4, then he will have greater attacking chances than
White. Therefore White ought to continue 31.Bxf6 Qxf6 32.Qd4 with level chances.”
31.Rg1 Ne4 32.Rh5

32...Ra6 was threatened.
32...Qe6
Botvinnik correctly pointed out that after 32...Qc6! 33.Qf3 Re6 it is not so easy for White to defend.
Now this fighting game rapidly concludes in a draw.
33.Qg4 Qxg4† 34.hxg4 Rac8 35.Rb5 Rc2 36.Rf1 Nd2 37.Rd1 Ne4
½–½
GAME 74

6th match-game, Leningrad 1940
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nf3 c5 7.a3 Ba5
This was first employed by me in the game against Reshevsky (Game 71).
8.Qc2 Nbd7 9.0-0 Bc7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.dxc5 Nxc5

Thus, again play against an isolated pawn at d5. Relying on the strong point at d4, White proposes a
377
manoeuvring struggle.
12.Nb5 Bb6 13.b4 Nce4 14.Bb2 Bg4 15.Rfd1

A bold move. White immediately takes aim at the d5-pawn, not fearing the exchange at f3. The
weakening of the king’s flank led Black to carry out an unexpected idea.
White did not like the quiet 15.Be2 on account of 15...Bf5 16.Qb3 a6 17.Nbd4 Bg6.
15...Rc8 16.Qb3 Bxf3 17.gxf3
17...Nxf2! 18.Kxf2 Ng4†

Sacrificing his entire cavalry, Black destroys the pawn cover of the white king. White was obliged to
378
accept the sacrifice. He is not mated: 19.fxg4 (see page 277) 19...Qh4† 20.Kg2! All other moves are bad.
20...Qxg4† 21.Kf2 Qf4† 22.Kg2 This leads to a draw. The attempt 21...Bxe3† 22.Kxe3 Qg2 is not
justified after 23.Nd6.
19.Kg3? Nxe3
Threatening 20...Qg5†.
20.f4 Rc6
Threatening 21...Rh6. Of no help is 21.Rh1 in view of 21...Rh6 22.h4 Qd7.
21.Rg1
21...Qd7!
Not 21...Rh6 on account of 22.Kf3!.
22.h3 Rh6 23.Rh1 Rxh3†! 24.Rxh3 Qg4† 25.Kf2 Qg2† 26.Ke1 Qxh3
Three pawns for a piece and an unceasing attack should have guaranteed Black’s victory.
27.Nd4
379
27...Qg3†
I had thought of the following continuation: 27...Re8 28.Kd2 Bxd4 29.Bxd4 Qh2† 30.Kc1 Qxf4 But
then forgot that the move 27...Re8 had still not been played.
28.Kd2 Qxf4
An oversight. Also now 28...Re8 won without difficulty, for example: 29.Ne2 Qf2 30.Re1 Ng2
29.Bxh7† Kxh7 30.Rh1† Kg8 31.Qxe3 Qxe3†

Forced in view of the threat of Qh3.
32.Kxe3 f6
Black’s position is lost.
380
33.Kd3 Re8 34.Nc2 Kf7 35.Rh5 g5 36.Rh6
Correctly renouncing the b7-pawn, for example: 36.Rh7† Kg6 37.Rxb7 g4 38.Bd4 g3 39.Ne3 Bxd4
40.Kxd4 Re4† 41.Kd3 f5 with the threat of ...f4.
36...Re6 37.Bd4?
It was essential to retain the bishop for the fight against the passed pawns. Correct is 37.Bc1.
37...Kg7 38.Rh1 Kg6 39.Bxb6 Rxb6 40.Ne3 Ra6 41.Ra1 f5 42.Nxd5 f4

The knight is an unsuitable piece in the struggle against the passed pawns.
43.b5
381
If 43.Ke4 then 43...Re6† 44.Kf3 Kf5 45.Rg1 Re5.
43...Re6 44.Rc1 Re5!

In order on 45.Kd4 to reply 45...Re2 and then 46...f3.
45.Rc5 f3 46.Nf4† Kf5 47.Rxe5† Kxe5 48.Nh5 Kd5 49.a4 Kc5 50.Kc3 Kd5 51.Kd3
½–½
The seventh game took a very stormy course. At the start I committed a serious positional mistake, and
Alatortsev could have achieved victory, but then he fell into a hidden combination and soon lost.
In the eighth game Alatortsev employed an interesting novelty against my chosen Orthodox Defence
to the Queen’s Gambit, achieved an advantage and exploited it well.
In the ninth game I again emerged from the opening with a bad position. I was forced to sacrifice an
exchange. In the endgame Alatortsev committed a series of mistakes, and I achieved a draw.
GAME 75

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 d5

Evidently, stronger is 4...0-0, not determining the pawn structure for the time being.
5.a3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Bd3 c5 8.0-0 Nc6 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.b4 Bd6 11.Bb2
382
11...a5
Tarrasch recommended play in this way. However, the weakening of the queenside pawns could lead
to undesired consequences.
It was necessary for White to continue not 12.b5, on which possible is 12...dxc4! 13.Bxc4 Ne5, but
12.c5 axb4 13.axb4 Rxa1 14.Bxa1 Bb8 15.b5 Ne7 16.Na4, and it is not easy for Black to oppose
White’s pressure on the left flank.
12.cxd5
Thus, once again, play against the weakness of the isolated pawn at d5.
12...exd5 13.bxa5
After 13.b5 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Na4 Qd6 White achieves nothing.
13...Bg4
383
14.Nb5 Be5 15.Bxe5 Nxe5 16.Be2 Bxf3 17.gxf3
After 17.Bxf3 Rxa5 18.Nd4 Qd7 the a3-pawn, rather than the pawn at d5, proves to be vulnerable.
17...Rxa5 18.a4 Qd7 19.Kh1 Rfa8 20.Rg1 Nc6 21.Ra2 g6

Forestalling 22.Qa1.
22.Ra1
White believes that “All is quiet on the Western front” and occupies himself with waiting
manoeuvres. Correct is 22.Nd4, blockading the d5-pawn.
22...d4!
384
A positional pawn sacrifice. White is forced to take with the pawn, and Black obtains strongpoints for
his pieces at d5 and f4.
23.exd4
After 23.Nxd4 Nxd4 24.Qxd4 Qxd4 25.exd4 Rxa4 the endgame is favourable for Black.
23...Nd5 24.Bc4 Rd8 25.Qb3 Qf5 26.Rg4 Kg7 27.Bxd5

If 27.Rag1 then 27...Nf4 28.Rg5 Qf6, and White stands badly.
27...Rxd5 28.Rd1
There was threatened 28...Rdxb5, which would have followed also on 28.Rf4.
28...Rxa4! 29.Qxa4 Qxf3† 30.Rg2 Rxb5

For the sacrificed exchange Black has obtained a promising attack. The position on the board has
been subjected to numerous analyses. The best defence was recognized as 31.Qxb5 Qxd1† 32.Rg1
Qxd4 33.Qxb7 Qd5† 34.Rg2 Qd1† 35.Rg1 Qf3† 36.Rg2 h5 37.Qb2† Kh7 38.Qd2 Ne5 39.Qd4, and
White achieves a draw.
31.Kg1? Ra5!
Not 31...Rb4 on account of 32.Qa1.
32.Qc2 Nxd4 33.Qd2 Ne2†

On 33...Rd5 White would have replied 34.Kh1 (mistaken is 34.Kf1 in view of 34...Nc2).
34.Kf1
385
34...Re5!
A decisive move. On 35.Qd3 decisive is 35...Qxg2†!. Nor is White saved by 35.Re1 in view of
35...Nf4 36.Rg3 Qh1† 37.Rg1 Rxe1† 38.Qxe1 Qd5! with irresistible threats.
35.Qb2 Ng3† 36.Rxg3 Qxd1† 37.Kg2 Qd5† 38.f3 f6 39.Rg4 Qb5 40.Rb4
This oversight already does not spoil anything.
40...Re2† 41.Qxe2 Qxe2† 42.Kg3 Qe1†

0–1
The first half of the match was played in Leningrad in the club of one of the factories on the Vyborg
side. The hall was full. I began the ninth game with the move 1.d4. Alatortsev chose the Nimzo-Indian
Defence. The game concluded in a draw. According to the conditions the match was played over 14
games. After the eleventh game the score had become 7–4. The match was decided in the twelfth game,
which I consider to be the best.
GAME 76

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Be7 5.d4 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7
386
On the eve of the game I had given a lecture to Moscow first-category players regarding the Catalan
Opening. In the case of 7.0-0 there follows 7...dxc4 8.e4 c5 with double-edged play. White best of all
continues 7.cxd5 or 7.b3. The move chosen by White leads to the loss of two tempos and with this, the
initiative.
7.Qb3 dxc4 8.Qxc4 a6 9.0-0 b5 10.Qb3 Bb7

Black has prepared 11...c5 and in some cases 12...c4. Wanting to prevent the manoeuvre 11...c5,
White makes still another move of little use, which moreover fails to achieve its aim.
11.Rd1 c5! 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Ne5

The logical consequence of the preceding move. White intended the continuation 13...Qc8 14.Bxb7
Qxb7 15.Nxd7 Nxd7 16.Bf4 and then Bd6.
387
13...Qb6!!
Improbable! The game has only just emerged from the opening stage, and on the board a
combinational storm breaks.
We examine the following variations:
1) 14.Bxb7 Bxf2† 15.Kf1 Qxb7 16.Nxd7 Qh1† 17.Kxf2 Ng4#!

2) 14.Bxb7 Bxf2† 15.Kf1 Qxb7 16.Rxd7 Qh1† 17.Kxf2 Qxh2† 18.Kf1 Qxg3 19.Rd3 Qxe5 Black
has three pawns for a piece and the white king lacks cover; Black’s advantage is obvious.
3) 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.Rxd7 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Qc6†
White ought to continue 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.Rf1 Bxg2 16.Kxg2. In this case he avoids material loss
although after 16...b4 17.Nd1 (not 17.Ne4 on account of 17...Qc6 18.Qf3 Ne5) he is somewhat behind
in development.
14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.Bxb7?

White falls into the main variation of the combination.
15...Bxf2† 16.Kf1
388
16...Nc5!
In this lies the whole point. Black is in time to pick up the white bishop while defending his own.
17.Qb4 Nxb7 18.Ne4 Bg1 19.Kg2 a5 20.Nf6†

White correctly seeks complications. After 20.Qb3 Bd4 his game is lost.
20...gxf6 21.Qg4† Kh8 22.Rxg1 Qc6† 23.Kh3 Rg8 24.Qh4 Rg6 25.Rf1 Nd6!
Black invites White to begin a tempting combination: 26.Rxf6 Nf5 27.Qf4 Rxf6 28.Qe5 Kg7 29.Bg5
But in this case Black had prepared a counter-blow: 27...Rxg3†! 28.hxg3 Qh1† 29.Kg4 Rg8†, mating.
26.Bf4 Ne4 27.Qh5 e5 28.Be3 Rag8 29.Rac1 Qe6† 30.Qf5
389
30...Nxg3
The remainder does not require explanation.
31.Qxe6 fxe6 32.hxg3 Rxg3† 33.Kh2 Rxe3 34.Rf2 Re4
35.Kh1 Rh4† 36.Rh2 Rgg4 37.Rc6 Rxh2† 38.Kxh2 Re4 39.Rc2 Kg7 40.Kg3 Rb4
0–1
The final two games of the match ended in draws after uninteresting play.
390
Chapter 7
The Great Patriotic War

After the match with Alatortsev I continued to work in Zenit. But soon I had to say goodbye to chess:
the Great Patriotic War began.
In the first days of the war I enrolled in a factory making weapons for the defence. My family was
evacuated to the Urals, and I left for the same place together with the rest of the factory in the final
echelon. We were just in time to slip unscathed across the River Mga. On the following day the railway
linking Leningrad with the rest of the country was cut... Leningraders tried to evacuate the population
on barges across Lake Ladoga, but the fascist barbarians, despite the red cross flags, sank the barges.
On one of the barges, master Ilyin-Zhenevsky perished.
[Translator’s note: According to Aleksandr Kentler, during the war years Levenfish participated in
the design, construction and reconstruction of no fewer than eighteen glass factories. Moreover, in 1945
Levenfish, at the rank of major engineer, was sent to Germany to study the glass industry of the
defeated enemy. Kentler relates that when the war had just begun, Levenfish was instructed to evacuate
a defence plant to the Urals. Subsequently, he was in the Penza region, where later his family – his
then-wife E.A. Zavarina and the children Petya (b. 1936) and Alla (who was to die in 1945 from
diphtheria) and his daughter from the previous marriage Irina (b. 1924) would join him.]
I directed the raw materials workshop. For the new production requirements, it was necessary to
increase the capacity of the workshop several times over.
It was essential to have the highest accuracy in the composition of the raw materials, and constant
inspections of the laboratory were necessary. These difficulties were overcome, and the workshop
supplied the glass smelters with the correct composition without interruption. As early as the autumn
the factory began to roll out production.
The bitter winter of 1941 was beginning. The ferocious frost of the Urals reached –52°C. The factory
had difficulty in obtaining firewood for production, and there was a shortage of wood for heating
apartments. At night, taking a sleigh, a saw and an axe, I would fell some silver birch or other in the
restricted zone and, having cut it into firewood, drag it home.
That winter I had to go to Kuibyshev. The distance to Kuibyshev – 400km – is not great, but to reach
there in a train was unthinkable. The Moscow-Tashkent train was filled to capacity already at its
starting point, and the conductors would not open the doors. The train stood at the station for a minute.
The nearest junction was 18km away. I had no valenki [Translator’s note: traditional Russian felt
boots]. Taking a loaf of bread and wrapping my legs in two layers of newspaper, I set off on foot. At
the junction, all of my attempts to get into a wagon were fruitless. Only one way remained – a classic
one for vagabonds in the USA: to hitch a lift on the braking platforms. In summer such a journey could
prove enjoyable, but in thirty degrees of frost it involved not a little risk.
...Thus, the train is approaching the stance. Conditions at the train station are well below freezing,
and there is nowhere to warm up. All of the tracks are filled with trains. While the person in charge
391
decides which ones to move further, it is necessary to wait patiently, sometimes for hours. Finally the
decision is taken, and the crew is sent to the train. Here there is no room for error; one must choose a
braking platform as soon as possible, preferably between two goods wagons, in order to be protected
from the wind from the front and from the rear. The train starts up, and one has to save oneself from the
frost – one has to remain in a state of constant motion. Fatigue begins to take over, and one wants to
fall to the floor and sleep a little. But in these conditions, sleep means death.
...In this way I spent about a day and a half, my strength coming to an end, but then I was lucky: in
one small station there stood a train holding coal that had been taken from the enemy. In the middle of
the train there was a heated goods car, and in it a flame was flickering. I knocked, and the guard opened
the door for me. At first he did not want to allow me in, but then, seeing the condition that I was in, he
helped me to climb into the wagon. This person saved me. In the wagon a burzhuika* was glowing, and
it was possible to get warmed up. [*Translator’s note: a cast-iron oven, commonly used for heating
rooms.] He gave me boiled water to drink, a piece of bread to eat and laid out a bed of a pile of
tarpaulins. I slept for around ten hours. The train arrived at Syzran, and from there I took a local train to
Kuibyshev.
The address of grandmaster Lilienthal was known to me. I knocked, and Andrei himself opened the
door. He did not recognize me, and when I said who I was, he recoiled in fright. Evidently, my
appearance was not very appealing. Having washed the dirt from myself, I was soon eating an omelette
with sausage – a dish which at home one could have dreamed of only with a rich imagination.
The Kuibyshev Regional Executive Committee needed an engineer to act as director of the local and
co-operative industry. I accepted the job, but I was first sent to a rest home. I spent two weeks in it.
Meeting the requirements of the front demanded the hard work of the Executive Committee’s
apparatus. In the morning there would be a string of visitors. At six o’clock in the evening the work of
the committee would be closed and it was possible to occupy oneself with routine matters. The
evenings were spent in conversation with Moscow. I managed to establish centres for the manufacture
of crude soap, of matches, the mechanization of the production of felt boots, footwear with wooden
soles, and many other things. There was even the organization of an exhibition of consumer goods.
A decisive turning point in the Patriotic War was reached. Soon there came the joyful news of the
breaking of the blockade of Leningrad. I was invited to work as the principal engineer in the
Torkovichsky glass factory, situated 120km from Leningrad.
In 1946 I returned to Leningrad.
392
Chapter 8
Some Games of Recent Years

International chess relations, which had been interrupted by the war, again began to build. Soviet
chessplayers won matches played by radio and over-the-board against the teams of the USA and Great
Britain.
In the summer the Estonian organization planned a tournament in the resort of Pärnu. I should have
participated in it, but I felt so overworked that I was forced to refuse, and took over an organizational
function. With the assistance of the Estonian organizers, the accommodation and food for the
participants and their families left nothing to be desired, and they retained the most pleasant memories
of their month’s stay in Pärnu.
In the autumn, in the capacity of a reserve, I went with the team to England. In England one was
aware at every step of the consequences of the many years of war. Produce and manufactured goods
were obtained by vouchers. There was a shortage of fuel. The damaged parliament building had still not
been repaired. At a breakfast given in honour of the newly-arrived chessplayers by the Culture
Minister, excellent fish was served, but not a single piece of bread. “Gentlemen,” said the minister, “if
you want bread, you will need to give ration vouchers.” We did not have any, and during the entire
course of our stay in England we ate in the Soviet Embassy, which obtained produce from the USSR.
Our team achieved an easy victory. The English invited me to annotate the games. A book was
published in England in the English language.
[Translator’s note: Among the players in the Great Britain team was Paul List, the same List against
whom Levenfish had played a match in Vilna in 1910, and who, after living in Germany during the
1920s, had finally settled in Britain in the years prior to the Second World War. According to Sosonko
(in Russian Silhouettes), Levenfish’s association with List, and their good relations during the London
event, later caused problems for the Soviet grandmaster; personal relations with representatives of
capitalist countries were frowned upon by the Soviet authorities.]
The return journey to our homeland was by a Soviet steamship, with stopovers in Stockholm and
Helsinki. Only a narrow pathway had been cleared of mines, and the ship passed between two rows of
buoys, marking out the safe passage.
We spent several days in Stockholm and Helsinki. The Swedish and Finnish chessplayers received us
very cordially.
The difficult years of the Patriotic War and the work in the factories undermined my health. Already I
could not withstand the tension of the struggle in a lengthy competition. I could play individual games
well enough, but then I would become fatigued and give away points without a fight.
I present some games and endgames from various tournaments.
[Translator’s Note: Flohr wrote about the following game: “G. Levenfish and I are old
acquaintances. Our games from international tournaments always took on a tense character... Now in
393
our encounter we played the Spanish Game. Levenfish is a great opening expert. Therefore it is
psychologically understandable that I tried to present him with something new. But at the board
Levenfish understood the position perfectly. And when I was going onto the offensive, there followed
the grandmasterly move 24.Ba3!, and my position began to deteriorate. And tenacious defence would
not have saved me from defeat, had Levenfish at the 39th and 40th moves found the strongest
continuations.”]
GAME 77

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Bb7
Variations with the development of the bishop at b7 were known after 9...Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7
12.Nbd2.
The move 9...Bb7 was developed by Flohr and Lilienthal.
10.d4 exd4 11.cxd4 d5
This move, which is associated with the sacrifice of a pawn, is part of Black’s plan.
12.e5 Ne4 13.Nc3 Na5 14.Bc2 f5 15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxe4 18.Rxe4 c5
This is the position that Black had in mind when sacrificing a pawn. He has an excellent
development. Flohr reckoned on the continuation 19.Be3, after which 19...Qd5! and then 20...Nc4
retains a lasting initiative for Black.
394
19.d5! Nc4 20.Rb1 Qd7 21.b3 Qf5 22.Qc2! Nd6
Leading to the regaining of the pawn, but the loss of the initiative. Flohr considered 22...Nb6 to be
stronger.
23.Re2 Qxd5 24.Ba3!

Until this point White has been defending with only moves, but now, having obtained a respite, he
opens fire on the weak c5-pawn. To defend it by means of 24...b4 25.Rd1 Qc6 26.Bc1 is clearly
unsatisfactory.
24...Nb7 25.Rd1 Qc6
26.Ne5! Bxe5 27.Rxe5 Rac8

Defending the c5-pawn causes Black no little inconvenience, and meanwhile clouds are gathering
over the other flank.
28.Rde1 Rfe8 29.Qf5 Rxe5 30.Rxe5 Rf8 31.Qg5! Qd7 32.Re7 Qd1† 33.Kh2 Qd6† 34.f4 Rf7 35.Re8†
Rf8 36.Re7 Rf7 37.Re8† Rf8 38.Bb2 Qg6
Unfortunately, for the last two moves there remained only a few seconds. Instead of winning a pawn
and the game by means of 39.Rxf8† Kxf8 40.Qe5 White, with the flag hanging, begins to play for
mate.
39.Qd5† Qf7
395
40.Re7
Beautiful and bad.
Here too, after 40.Rxf8† Kxf8 41.Qe5 White retained good winning chances.
40...Qxd5 41.Rxg7† Kh8 42.Rf7† Kg8 43.Rg7† Kh8 44.Rxb7† Rf6! 45.Bxf6† Kg8 46.Rg7† Kf8
47.Rc7
Here the game was adjourned and subjected to thorough home analysis. It became clear that Black
has a path to a draw.
47...c4! 48.bxc4 bxc4 49.Be5 Qd3!
396
The entry of the white king into the game would have been fatal for Black. Now he cuts off the king,
and without its participation White cannot strengthen his position.
½–½
The reader who has followed the author over the course of the whole book can justly ask the question:
Was it not the case that all too often I let my opponents escape? This is an absolutely fair reproach. The
ability to conduct a winning position to victory is essential for a strong chessplayer. In my justification
I can only note that with the modern level of chess development, to maintain one’s technique at the
necessary high level can be done only on one condition: one must occupy oneself solely with chess. I
was not able to do this.
[Translator’s note: Today Levenfish is perhaps best known for his classic work, written together with
World Champion Vasily Smyslov, Rook Endings. According to Smyslov (quoted in Sosonko’s Russian
Silhouettes) the book was largely the work of Levenfish; the role of his co-author was limited to
checking the analysis and adding occasional corrections. This book was first published by the Soviet
publishing house Fizkultura i Sport in 1956; it has since been reprinted many times in many
languages.]
GAME 78
Grigory Levenfish – Andrei Lilienthal

16th USSR Championship, Moscow 1948
1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6

Preferable is 5...Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5.
6.Nf3 Bg7 7.h3

This modest move restricts Black’s bishop.
7...0-0 8.Be3
397
8...Nc6
Black aims to obtain an outpost in the centre.
Possibly 8...Be6 9.d5 Bd7 and then 10...c6 was more likely to lead to the creation of counterplay.
9.Be2 e5 10.d5 Nb8 11.a4 a5

Clearly, a forced reply.
12.0-0 Na6 13.Qb3 Nd7

Intending 14...Ndc5 and 15...b6. Black has manoeuvred well, forcing White to exchange the light-
squared bishop, opening the b-file.
14.Bxa6 bxa6 15.Rfd1 Rb8 16.Qa2 Nb6 17.Rac1 Re8
398
18.Nb1!
White wants to take the a5-pawn.
18...Bd7 19.Bg5 Qc8 20.d6

Completely unnecessary haste. Now the play becomes more complicated.
The continuation 20.b3 Bf8 21.Bf6 Bd6 22.Qd2 Bb4 23.Qg5 led to the win of a pawn.
20...c5 21.Be3 Be6 22.b3 Nd7 23.Nbd2 Qc6 24.Nc4! Qxe4

On 24...Bxc4 25.Rxc4 Re6 there could follow 26.Qd2, and if 26...Rb6 then 27.Bxc5 Nxc5 28.d7.
25.Ng5 Qc6 26.Nxe6 Rxe6 27.Nxa5 Qb6
399
28.b4!
Already at the 24th move White had this combination in mind.
28...Qxb4 29.Nc6 Qb3 30.Nxb8!!

White obtains only rook and knight for the sacrificed queen, but the d6-pawn becomes a formidable
force.
30...Qxa2 31.Nxd7 Re8
32.Bg5!
Threatening a deadly check at f6. There is no salvation.
400
32...Ra8 33.Nb6 Ra7 34.d7 Rxd7 35.Nxd7 h6 36.Nf6† Kf8 37.Rd8† Ke7 38.Re8† Kd6 39.Ne4†
1–0
GAME 79
Grigory Levenfish – Vasily Smyslov

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3 dxc4 6.Qxc4 0-0 7.e4 Nfd7
Deserving attention is Boleslavsky’s system – 7...c6 followed by ...b5 and ...Qa5 with a counterattack
on the queen’s flank.
8.Be3 Nb6 9.Qb3 Nc6 10.Rd1 Bg4

The starting position of Smyslov’s Defence. Black has castled and brought the minor pieces into the
battle, and he is threatening the move ...e7-e5. White cannot delay.
11.d5 Ne5 12.Be2 Nxf3†

Stronger, probably, is 12...Qc8. Black does not fear 13.Nxe5 Bxe2 14.Nxg6 Bxd1 15.Nxe7†, since
the white queen is also under attack. On 14.Nxe2 there follows 14...Bxe5 15.f4 Bg7 16.e5 e6 17.d6
cxd6 18.Rxd6 Nd5.
13.gxf3 Bh5
13...Bh3 does not justify itself. After 14.Rg1 Qc8 15.f4 Bd7 16.h4! c6 17.h5 White’s attack is very
401
dangerous.
14.f4 Bxe2 15.Nxe2 Qc8

In the game Lilienthal – Bronstein (Interzonal Tournament, Saltsjöbaden 1948), there was played
15...Qd7 16.h4 c6 17.h5 cxd5 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.Bd4!, to White’s advantage.
16.Rc1! c6 17.f5!
In comparison with h2-h4-h5 White economizes on an important tempo, which plays a huge role in
double-edged positions.
17...Nd7
Botvinnik recommended 17...Qd7 “with a satisfactory position”. Unfortunately, this continuation has
not been tested in practice.
[Translator’s note: Annotating this variation in the Tournament Book of the 17th USSR
Championship, Levenfish states that “in this event it is not easy for Black to defend himself”; in
support of this statement he gives the following variations: 18.dxc6 bxc6 19.Rg1 and now:
402
a) 19...e6 20.Rd1 Qc8 21.Bc5 Re8 22.fxg6 hxg6 23.Bd6
b) 19...Rab8 20.Rd1 Qc8 21.fxg6 Nd5 22.gxh7† Kh8 (if 22...Kxh7 then 23.Rxg7† Kxg7 24.Bd4†
etc.) 23.Bb6!! and now:
b1) 23...Nf6 24.Qg3 Nh5 25.Qg5 Rxb6 26.Qxh5 and Black cannot capture at b2: 26...Bxb2
(26...Rxb2 27.Rxg7) 27.e5
b2) 23...Nxb6 24.Qg3 Bf6 25.e5 Qe6 26.exf6 Qxf6 27.Rd4! (with the threat of 28.Rg4) 27...Qg6
28.Qc3 Qf6 29.Rg8† Rxg8 30.hxg8=Q† Rxg8 31.Qh3† Kg7 32.Qg3† and White wins.]
On 17...gxf5 White should continue 18.Bd4!. For example: 18...Bxd4 19.Nxd4 fxe4 20.dxc6 bxc6
21.Rxc6 Qd7 22.Rh6! The capture of the knight leads to mate, while on 22...Kh8 there follows 23.Rg1
(with the threat of 24.Qg3) 23...Rg8 24.Rxh7† Kxh7 25.Qxf7† Kh6 26.Rxg8 Rxg8 27.Nf5† Kg5
28.h4† Kg4 29.Ne3† Kxh4 30.Qxg8, and White should win.
18.Rg1 Kh8
There was threatened 19.fxg6 hxg6 20.dxc6 bxc6 21.Rxg6.
On 18...Ne5 there follows 19.Bd4.
19.fxg6 hxg6
19...fxg6 weakens the square e6. There could follow 20.Nd4 Ne5 21.f4 Ng4 22.Ne6 Nxe3 23.Qxe3
Rf7 24.f5 gxf5 25.Rxg7 Rxg7 26.Qd4 Qg8 27.Ke2 Rf8 28.Rg1 Rff7 29.dxc6 bxc6 30.exf5 h6 31.Rg6
with an attack.
20.Bd4 Nf6
Black brings up reserves to the key point of the battle.
403
21.Rc3!
The only continuation of the attack. There is threatened 22.Rh3† Kg8 23.dxc6 bxc6 24.Rxg6. Black’s
reply is forced.
21...Nxe4 22.Rxg6 fxg6 23.Rh3† Kg8 24.dxc6† e6 25.cxb7 Qc6 26.bxa8=Q Rxa8 27.Bxg7 Kxg7
The combination begun at the 21st move has led to the win of a pawn, but with the position of the
king open the outcome of the game is far from decided. The following move by White shows that
despite the exchanges, the attack has not been weakened.
28.Qe3! Nf6 29.Nd4! Qh1† 30.Ke2 Qd5
404
Or 30...Re8 31.Nf3! Qb1 32.Qh6† Kf7 33.Ne5†.
31.Nxe6† Kg8
Or 31...Kf7 32.Ng5† Kg8 33.Qb3, transposing to an endgame with two extra pawns.
32.Rh8†! Kf7
The capture of the rook leads to mate.
33.Ng5† Kg7 34.Rxa8

1–0
This game received the first prize for beauty. From the Kazan chessplayer-artist G.I. Satonina I even
obtained an album entitled ‘A Chess Poem’. In it, the course of the battle in this game was reproduced
in verse and pictures.
405
Translator’s Postscript
The interested reader can find a beautifully-written portrait of Grigory Levenfish in the closing chapter
of Genna Sosonko’s magnificent book Russian Silhouettes (published by New in Chess in 2001).
Further interesting insights into Levenfish’s character are provided by the St Petersburg chess
historian Aleksandr Kentler in the article (in Russian) published on the website www.e3e5.com. For
example, Kentler notes that: “Quite a closed and taciturn person, Levenfish was immediately
transformed in the company of women. Grigory Yakovlevich never suffered from unrequited love –
wherever he appeared, the most beautiful women surrounded him.” Levenfish was married five times
and his descendants live on today in Moscow, St Petersburg and further afield. According to Kentler,
Levenfish’s daughter Elena (b. 1916) was well known in Leningrad. A graduate of the Historical
Faculty of the Leningrad State University, she carried out the war-time evacuation of exhibits from the
Pavlovsky Museum, and later held important positions in several other museums in and around the city.
Elena Grigoryevna died on 1st April 1992. His daughter Irina (b. 1924), graduated from the Institute of
Zoology and Phytopathology, and was a specialist in plants. She was still living in St Petersburg in
2011. Levenfish’s son Pyotr (b. 1936) died in 2009. Shortly before his death, Levenfish had married for
the fifth time, and his youngest daughter, Galina, was born in Moscow in 1960. According to Kentler, it
is said that Galina’s daughter had emigrated to the Netherlands.
As for Levenfish himself, it seems that his final years were difficult. He lived in a single room in a
communal Moscow apartment. Sosonko points out that he was the only Soviet grandmaster not to
receive a stipend from the state. In a biographical article published in the Soviet magazine 64 (No. 8,
1989) to mark the centenary of Levenfish’s birth, Aleksandr Konstantinopolsky states that Levenfish
“constantly encountered a prejudiced and even malevolent attitude on the part of the sports authorities”,
and that Levenfish “had a sharp tongue, and liked to speak his mind”, which did not go down well.
Sosonko relates Spassky’s description of a chance encounter with Levenfish in the Moscow Metro at
the end of January 1961. “Aged, pale, like an apparition, he was walking along with his head in his
hands”. He had just had six teeth removed. It seems that his visit to the dentist had revealed the
presence of a malignant blood disorder. He died on 9th February of that year, and was buried in
Moscow’s Donskoy cemetery.
406
Appendix
Additional Games
There follows a selection of other Levenfish games published in Soviet tournament books and
periodicals.
Grigory Levenfish – Max Euwe

‘Tournament of Masters with the Participation of Euwe & Kmoch’, Leningrad 1934
[Annotations by Euwe from the tournament book, Turnir Masterov s Uchastiem Eive i Kmokha
(Fizkultura i Turizm, Leningrad/Moscow 1935).]
1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5 7.cxd5
More accurate is 7.Nd2.
7...Nxd5 8.Qd2
An inoffensive variation, instead of the normal 8.Qb3, which has become widespread mainly because
the correct answer is known by few people.
8...N7b6!
First played by Becker against P. Johner at Carlsbad, 1929.
407
9.Rc1
Only 9.Nxd5 leads to the equalization of the game. The move in the text either costs a pawn or leads
to the loss of castling.
Still deserving attention is 9.a3, on which 9...Bb4 is doubtful, since after 10.Rc1 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Qxa3
12.c4! Black gets into difficulties. However, after 9...Nxc3 (instead of 9...Bb4) 10.Qxc3 (10.bxc3?
Nd5) 10...Qxc3† 11.bxc3 c5 Black stands quite satisfactorily.
9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 Nd5!

With the threat of 11...Nxc3!, for example: 11.Bc4 Nxc3 12.0-0 Bb4 13.a3 (there is nothing better)
13...Qxa3 14.Ra1? Ne4, and Black wins.
11.Kd1
The best defence. It is now difficult for Black to exploit White’s renunciation of castling.
11...Ba3 12.Rc2 f6
13.e4!
Again best! After 13.Bh4 the pawn sacrifice 13...e5 14.dxe5 Bf5 is very strong.
13...fxg5?
The quiet continuation 13...Ne7 deserved preference. After 14.Be3 0-0 followed, within a few
moves, by ...e6-e5, Black’s more solid set-up would have made itself felt.
408
14.exd5 cxd5
The position that has been obtained is far from simple for Black.
14...g4 15.Ng5 cxd5 is bad on account of 16.Bd3; still worse is 14...exd5 on account of 15.Qe3†.
15.Bd3
This is better than 15.Qxg5 0-0, or 15.Nxg5 Bd7.
15...Bd7 16.Qxg5
White has achieved a strong counterattack, which presents Black with very difficult problems. Short
castling is now unfavourable in view of 16...0-0 17.Qh5 g6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Qxg6† Kh8 20.Ng5 etc.
Also bad is 16...Ba4 on account of 17.Re1!.
16...g6!
The only defence. Now 17.Bxg6† does not work, since the black king escapes via d8 to c7.
17.Ne5 Ba4 18.Qf6

Seemingly deadly. However, the black bishops at a3 and a4 perform defensive as well as attacking
functions.
18...Rf8 19.Qxe6† Kd8

Nothing is given by 20.Nf7† Kc7 21.Qe5† Kd7, since the black bishops defend all of the squares.
409
20.Re1?
Correct was 20.Ke2!. If Black continues to carry out his plan with 20...Kc7, then after 21.Rb1! Rae8
22.Qh3 he falls into a lost position, since 22...Bxc2 will not do on account of 23.Qd7† followed by
mate. Best in this case would be for him to continue 20...Re8 21.Qf6† Be7 etc.
20...Kc7!
Now the black king escapes from all danger.
21.Ke2 Rae8 22.Qh3 Bxc2

Only now can Black win the exchange.
23.Bxc2 Qb5†
Forcing the exchange of queens, since both 24.Bd3 and 24.Kd1 are refuted by 24...Qb2(†).
24.Qd3 Qxd3† 25.Bxd3
410
Despite the win of the exchange, the endgame still involves great technical difficulties. Black,
however, had two promising plans:
1) 25...Bd6 26.Kf1 Bxe5 27.dxe5 Kc6
2) 25...Rf6 26.g3 Rb6 27.Rb1 Rxb1
25...Bb2?
Over this reply, which costs Black two tempos, he thought for 15 minutes.
26.Rb1 Ba3 27.Rb5

On Black’s suggestion – agreed drawn, in view of the continuation: 27...Rd8 28.Ra5 Bb2 29.Rb5!
Ba3 30.Ra5
½–½
Fedor Bohatirchuk – Grigory Levenfish

[Annotations by Levenfish from the tournament book, IX Vsesoyuznoe Shakhmatnoe Pervenstvo

(Fizkultura i Sport, 1937).]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6

Rubinstein’s Defence (also known as the Nimzowitsch Variation). The strongest continuation for
White, in our opinion, is 3.e5 Nd5 4.Nc3, and if 4...Nxc3 then 5.dxc3!.
3.Nc3 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.d4
411
L. Steiner’s interesting attack – 5.Ne5 – demands accurate defence; for example: 5...Nxc3 6.Qf3 f6
7.Qh5† g6 8.Nxg6 hxg6 9.Qxh8 Nd5 10.d4 leads to complications that are dangerous for Black.
Correct is 5...Qc7! 6.Bb5† Nd7 7.Nxd7 Bxd7 8.Nxd5 Qe5†, regaining the piece with a level game.
After the move in the text the doubled c-pawns represent a weakness for White.
5...Nxc3 6.bxc3 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Bb5† Bd7 9.Bxd7† Nxd7

Black’s last move cannot be called mistaken, but it does not permit the retention of the slight
advantage that Black has achieved in the opening.
Correct was 9...Qxd7 and 10...Nc6, and for White there will soon be difficulties with the defence of the
d4-pawn.
10.0-0 Rc8 11.Rb1 b6

In the absence of the light-squared bishop, the move in the text weakens the squares a6 and b5.
However, no other way to defend the b7-pawn is apparent.
Bad is 11...Qc7 12.dxc5 Nxc5 (or 12...Bxc3 13.Bd4!) 13.Bxc5 Qxc5 14.Rxb7 0-0 15.Qd7.
12.Qe2 0-0 13.Rfd1 Qc7
412
14.Qa6!
Bohatirchuk has correctly located the vulnerable point in the position and equalizes the game. Black
ought to have reconciled himself to the inevitable and continued 14...e5. After 15.dxc5 (15.d5 is
favourable to Black) 15...Nxc5 16.Bxc5 Qxc5 17.Qxa7 Qxc3 18.Qxb6 Qxc2 the game would have
soon ended in a draw.
14...cxd4 15.cxd4 Rfd8 16.Rbc1!

White has rid himself of the doubled pawns and threatens to create a dangerous passed pawn by
means of c2-c4-c5.
16...Qc4 17.Qxa7 Ra8 18.Qb7 Rxa2

On 18...Qxa2 White replies 19.c4!.
19.Ne5!
Very strong! White excellently exploits the weakening of the 8th rank.
19...Nxe5 20.dxe5 Re8

After 20...Rxd1† 21.Rxd1 Rxc2 22.Rd8† Bf8 23.h3! Black is defenceless against the threats of Bh6
and Qb8.
413
21.Qxe7!!
A very unpleasant surprise. On 21...Rxe7 there follows 22.Rd8† Bf8 23.Bh6 Re8 24.Rxe8 Qc5 25.g3
Qe7 (otherwise Black does not escape from the noose) 26.Rxe7 Bxe7 27.Rd1! with a winning endgame.
21...Raa8!
First and foremost the 8th rank must be defended.
22.Qd6 Bxe5 23.Qxb6 Rab8 24.Qc5 Rbc8!

The white c-pawn is now blockaded by the black artillery. 25...Bb2 is threatened.
25.Qa3
414
25...h5!
Threatening the attack ...h5-h4 and ridding himself of the ‘blocking’ threat of Bh6.
26.h3 Rc6 27.c3 Rec8 28.Qa5 Bf6

Preventing an exchange at d8. The capture of the c-pawn is dangerous in view of 28...Bxc3 29.Rd8†
Rxd8 30.Qxd8† Kh7 31.Bd4.
29.Rd5 Ra6 30.Qb5 Qxb5 31.Rxb5 Rxc3

½–½

[Annotations by Levenfish from the tournament book, Tretii Mezhdunarodnyi Shakhmatnyi Turnir
(Fizkultura i Turizm, Moscow 1937).]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 h6

This defence was very popular in the 3rd Moscow International tournament. White continued both
6.Bh4 and 6.Bf4, but could not achieve an advantage. Botvinnik makes a new attempt.
6.Bxf6
In association with the following exchange at d5 White transposes with tempo into the Carlsbad set-
up. The bishop at f6 for the time being lacks prospects, and at first Black has a difficult game. All the
415
same the exchange at f6 can hardly serve as a refutation of the defence chosen by Black, as the present
game shows.
6...Bxf6 7.cxd5
Consistent and necessary. Otherwise Black after castling would have replied ...c7-c5, opening the
diagonal of the bishop at f6.
7...exd5 8.Qb3 c6 9.Bd3
9...Nd7
Black delays castling, waiting for White’s plan to become clear. On White’s long castling 10.0-0-0 he
can reply, for example, 10...Qb6 11.Qc2 Qa5 12.Nf3 Nb6 and then ...Be6 and ...0-0-0, thereby
avoiding the attack g2-g4 and h2-h4 in the case of Black’s short castling.
10.Nf3 0-0
With the position of the knight at f3, White’s pawn attack on the king’s flank has little chance of
success.
11.0-0 Re8 12.h3 Nf8
416
13.Qc2
White prevents the manoeuvre ...Ng6 and simultaneously prepares the pawn attack typical of the
Carlsbad set-up, a2-a4 and b2-b4, with the aim of creating a weak pawn for Black at c6.
13...Be7 14.Rab1 Bd6
15.Rfe1!
On 15.b4 there would have followed 15...Qf6 with the threat of 16...Bxh3.
With the move in the text White prevents this move of the queen, since on 15...Qf6 White replies
16.e4! and after 16...dxe4 17.Nxe4 Qd8 18.Nxd6 Rxe1† 19.Rxe1 Qxd6 20.Re8 Black’s situation
417
immediately becomes unenviable.
15...Be6
Now 16.e4 dxe4 17.Nxe4 Bf4 leads only to the isolation of the d-pawn. Therefore White begins the
pawn attack, in accord with his intended plan.
16.b4 Rc8
Now a significant detail becomes clear. In the Carlsbad variation the black pawn stands at a6, and
therefore the break b4-b5 (after a2-a4) inevitably leads either to the isolation of the c6-pawn or to the
opening of the a-file. In the present case the black pawn stands at a7, and Black in reply to 17.b5 plays
17...c5!. After 18.dxc5 Rxc5 19.Qd2 Qa5 and ...Rec8 Black has an excellent game, and the isolated
pawn at d5 is not at all weak. Therefore White tries to weaken Black’s queen’s flank and to provoke
...a7-a6.
17.Qa4
17...Qd7!
The a7-pawn is invulnerable on account of 18.Qxa7 Ra8 19.Qb6 Bc7 20.Qc5 b6, trapping the queen.
On the other hand, 18...Bxh3 is threatened.
18.Qd1 Bb8
Now 18...Bxh3 19.gxh3 Qxh3 is insufficient on account of 20.Bf1 Qh5 21.Bg2 Re6 22.Ne5. The
attack is repulsed, and for the piece Black obtains three pawns, and so the maximum that he can hope
for is a draw.
But the move in the game is also rather weak. The bishop stood excellently at d6, serving both flanks;
418
the knight ought to have been brought into play. Therefore correct was 18...Nh7 and then ...Nf6, after
which the threat of ...Bxh3 would have again become real.
19.Nd2 Re7 20.Nf1
20...Bf5
This voluntary renunciation of the two bishops lacks any motive and only facilitates for White the
transposition to an endgame, where he can count on more rapidly carrying out the break b4-b5 with
success. Here too correct is 20...Nh7, heading to f6 or g5.
21.Bxf5 Qxf5 22.Qg4! Qxg4 23.hxg4 Nd7!

Already there was the threat of 24.b5, on which there now follows 24...Nf6 25.f3 c5.
24.f3 Nb6 25.Kf2 Nc4
419
26.a4 a5?
Black ought to fear least of all b4-b5; on this there would have followed ...Bc7 and then ...Ba5. Black
wants to forcibly carry out the bishop manoeuvre, but he has overlooked White’s 28th move. He ought
therefore to continue 26...Rce8 and then ...Bc7 and ...a5.
27.bxa5 Bc7
28.a6!
Not 28.Rxb7 on account of 28...Bg3†. But now White manages to break up Black’s pawns on the
queen’s flank. Thus he carries out, with the help of the opponent’s manoeuvre, the idea which he has
long dreamed of.
420
28...bxa6 29.Rb3 Ba5 30.Reb1 Kh7 31.Ne2 Rce8 32.Rb7?
No better is 32.Rb8, on which Black had prepared 32...Rxb8 33.Rxb8 Nb6! 34.Nc3 Nd7 35.Rb3
Nb6.
Correct is 32.Neg3, and on 32...g6 33.e4 dxe4 34.Nxe4.
32...Bc7
Now Black threatens 33...Nxe3 34.Rxc7 Nxg4† 35.fxg4 Rxc7 with a favourable endgame, since all
of the white pawns are isolated.
33.R7b3 Bd6 34.Nc1 a5

Threatening ...Bb4.
35.Rb7
35...c5!
White threatened, after the exchange at e7 and Ke2-d3, to deprive Black of any counterplay and to
gradually take over the board. The move in the text leads to interesting complications, in which the
power of the long-range bishop is revealed.
36.Rxe7 Rxe7 37.Rb5 cxd4 38.exd4 Bb4!

Now the capture of the pawn at d5 would cost a piece: 39.Rxd5 Re1! 40.Nd3 Rxf1† 41.Kxf1 Ne3†
39.Nb3 Be1† 40.Kg1 Ne3
421
Indirectly defending the pawns at a5 and d5. On 41.Nxa5 there follows 41...Nxf1 42.Kxf1 Bg3
43.Rb1 Ra7 44.Rb5 Re7, and Black can force the draw by repetition of moves.
41.g3
Giving space to the king. White is counting on the continuation 41...Nxf1 42.Kxf1 Bxg3 43.Rxd5,
and the endgame develops favourably for White, although perhaps it too would not have been winning.
41...Nd1!
The sealed move before the interval. Botvinnik thought over his move in reply for more than 40
minutes.
42.Nxa5!
The strongest reply. On 42.Rxd5 there would have followed 42...Nc3 43.Rf5 g6 44.Rc5 Nxa4, and
the passed a-pawn becomes a formidable force.
42...Bf2† 43.Kh1 Re1 44.Kg2 Re2 45.Kh1

Seemingly dangerous is 45.Rxd5 Be1† 46.Kg1 Nf2 47.Nc4 Nh3† 48.Kh1, although here too matters
conclude with the perpetual check ...Nh3-f2-h3.
45...Be1 46.Nc6 Nf2† 47.Kg1 Nh3† 48.Kh1 Nf2†
422
49.Kg1
The attempt by White to avoid perpetual check – 49.Kg2 after 49...Nxg4† 50.Kg1 Nf6 leads to an
endgame in which White’s prospects are very doubtful, for example 51.a5 Rc2 52.Rb6 Nd7 53.Ra6 f6,
and the black king threatens to actively come into the game, while the white king is cut off. Therefore
White agrees to the draw.
49...Nh3† 50.Kh1 Nf2† 51.Kg1

½–½
Grigory Levenfish – Alexander Kotov

[Annotations by Ragozin from the tournament book, Odinadsatoye Vsesoyuznoye Shakhmatnoye

Pervenstvo (Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow/Leningrad 1939).]
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.d4 d5 4.Nc3 Be7

Just previously, in the game Botvinnik – Levenfish*, this same system was played. True, Black
achieved a draw, but throughout the course of the game he was under pressure from his opponent.
Therefore now, playing with White, Levenfish willingly repeats the whole variation.
*The game Levenfish – Kotov was played at the end of the tournament in view of Kotov’s illness.
5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bf4 0-0 7.e3 c5

Also correct was 7...c6 8.Bd3 Nbd7 9.0-0 Re8, transposing to the lines of the Carlsbad Variation, but
this is a matter of taste!
423
8.Bd3 Nc6
This move appears more natural than 8...Nbd7, as Levenfish played against Botvinnik.
9.0-0 cxd4 10.Nxd4

On 10.exd4 the pin 10...Bg4 was unpleasant.
10...Nxd4 11.exd4 Be6

The opening has concluded relatively safely for Black: he is not behind in development. But White’s
pieces stand more actively, and this guarantees him a lasting advantage.
12.Rc1 Ne8
Black finds an interesting way to equalize the position. Although White now becomes still more
active, the consistency with which Black conducts the defence ultimately bears fruit.
13.Re1
Simple and strong!
Also possible was 13.Qf3, on which it would have been a mistake to reply 13...Rc8, since White
continues 14.Nxd5! Bxd5 15.Rxc8 winning a pawn, but with the move 13...Bd6 Black would have
achieved the exchange of one of the opponent’s active pieces. True, also after 13...Bd6 White can play
spectacularly: 14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Qxd5 Bxf4 16.Qf5, but there follows 16...Bxh2†, and Black retains
material equality with a safe position.
13...Bd6 14.Be5
424
If Black is aiming at simplification, then he is now forced to resort to a weakening of his king’s flank.
14...f6 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 16.Qc2 g6
17.Nb5
Very tempting was 17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.Qxg6† Kh8 (not 18...Ng7 on account of 19.Nb5 followed by
Rc7) 19.Re3, but Black defends by means of 19...Qd7 and ...Ng7.
17...Qd7 18.Qe2 Kf7!

The only defence! Losing is 18...Bf5 (or 18...Bg4 19.f3 Bf5) 19.Bxf5 Qxf5 20.Nc7! Nxc7 (also bad
is 20...Rc8 21.Ne6! Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Rf7 23.Nd8, and wins) 21.Rxc7, and there is no good defence
against Qe7.
19.Qd2
An exceptionally interesting position! If one judges from the initial impression, White should win by
an attack on the king’s flank. But it transpires that he has nothing concrete.
Interesting would have been the attempt to attack by means of 19.f4 and after 19...a6 20.f5 Bxf5
21.Bxf5 gxf5, but now on 22.Nc3 there follows 22...Ng7, and Black defends, while 22.Rc3 would
already have been simply a reckless sacrifice, easily refuted by Black: 22...axb5 23.Re3 Kg8 24.Re7
Qd6! and then ...Ng7.
19...a6 20.Qa5 Rc8

Exploiting a lull in the attack, Black simplifies the position.
21.Rxc8 Qxc8 22.Nc3 Qc7 23.Qxc7† Nxc7
425
Black’s stout defence has led to an endgame in which White’s advantage is already minimal.
24.Na4 Bd7 25.Nc5 Bc6 26.Rc1

Threatening to win a pawn by means of 27.Nxa6.
26...Rc8 27.h4 Nb5 28.Bxb5 Bxb5 29.Rc3 b6

Bold, but hardly correct. Black does not fear the difficult minor piece endgame, although the knight
proves to be more active than the bishop.
30.Na4 Rxc3 31.Nxc3 Bc6 32.Kf1 Ke6 33.Ke2 Kf5 34.Kf3 h5

The king all the same cannot be maintained at f5, and therefore the move in the text lacks point. On
the other hand, it signifies a new weakening, and White’s winning chances are increased.
35.Nd1 Bb5 36.Ne3† Ke6 37.Kf4 Be2 38.f3 Bd3 39.Nd1 Bf1 40.g3 Bb5 41.Nc3 Bd7 42.g4
Here the game was adjourned, and then resumed after home analysis.
42...Bc6 43.b3
A useful and cunning move.
426
43...hxg4?
As will be seen from the following play, a losing move.
After 43...Kf7! 44.Na4 hxg4 (this is the correct move order), Black would have led the game to a draw.
44.fxg4 Kf7
Black clearly believed that his opponent was obliged to go in for a pawn endgame. It was for the sake
of this endgame that he played 43...hxg4.
Seemingly, White wins in the pawn endgame after 45.Na4 Bxa4 46.bxa4.
For example: 46...b5 47.axb5 axb5 48.h5 Kg7 (otherwise h5-h6) 49.hxg6 Kxg6 50.a3 Kg7 51.Kf5
Kf7 52.g5+–
Or 46...Ke6! (in order on 47.h5 to reply 47...g5†) 47.g5 with the branches:
427
a) 47...fxg5† 48.Kxg5 Kf7 49.h5 gxh5 50.Kxh5 Kf6 51.Kg4 b5 52.a5!+–
b) 47...b5 48.axb5 axb5 49.Kg4! (threatening 50.h5) and now:
b1) 49...fxg5 50.Kxg5 Kf7 51.h5 gxh5 52.Kxh5 Kf6 53.Kg4 Kg6 54.Kf4 Kf6 55.a3+–
b2) 49...f5† 50.Kf3!! (only not 50.Kf4) 50...b4 51.Kf4 Kd6 52.h5 gxh5 53.Kxf5 Ke7 54.g6 h4
55.Kg4 Kf6 56.Kxh4 Kxg6 57.Kg4+–
These variations seemingly exhaust the position. However, returning to variation ‘a’ after 51.Kg4.
The members of the chess circle of the Club of Scientists at the Leningrad Industrial Institute found
that after 51...Kg6! (instead of 51...b5 above) 52.a5 bxa5 53.a4 Kf6 54.Kf4 Ke6 55.Kg5 Ke7 56.Kf5
Kd7 57.Ke5 Ke7!! (only not 57...Kc6 58.Ke6 Kc7 59.Ke7!! Kc6 60.Kd8 Kd6 61.Kc8 Kc6 62.Kb8
Kb6 63.Ka8!!) 58.Kxd5 Kd7 a draw is inevitable.
428
Thus, the adjourned position should be assessed as drawn. But now, when the h5-pawn has been
exchanged, there is no sense for White in going in for a pawn endgame. White wins very simply by
retaining the knight, since in some cases it can arrive at the important square g4.
45.Nd1 Bd7 46.Ne3 Be6
47.Nc2
White starts a strange manoeuvre; after 47.g5! Kg7 48.gxf6† Kxf6 49.a3! he would have put Black
in zugzwang, and won the game (the square g4!).True, the move in the text still does not let slip the
win, but, not seeing this plan, he gradually loses his advantage.
47...Bc8 48.Nb4 Bb7 49.g5

Seemingly, a prepared winning manoeuvre.
49...Kg7 50.Nd3
No! As previously, White does not notice that after 50.Nc2 and 51.Ne3 he wins.
50...Bc8 51.Ke3
Both now and at the following move White could have returned to the winning variation indicated
above, but his march of the king shows that he is attracted by a different, but erroneous, idea.
51...Kf7 52.Nf4 Bb7 53.Kd2 Bc6 54.Kc3 Bb7 55.b4 Ba8 56.b5
429
56...a5?
In time trouble Black lets slip the draw that was to be achieved after 56...axb5 57.Kb4 Bc6 58.a3
fxg5 59.hxg5 Kg7 60.Ne6† Kg8 etc. White cannot play 61.Nc7, in order to take at b5, since the black
king wins the pawn at g5, while after 61.Kc3 Black saves himself with the move 61...Ba8!!.
57.Kd3
Now White wins with the manoeuvre of the knight f4-d3-b2-a4, against which Black is powerless.
57...Bb7 58.Ke3 Ba8 59.Nd3 Bb7 60.Nb2 Bc8 61.Na4 Bd7 62.Nxb6 Bxb5 63.Nxd5 fxg5 64.hxg5
Bc4 65.Nc3 Ke6 66.Ke4 Kd6 67.d5 Kc5 68.Ke5 Ba6
If 68...Kb4, then 69.d6, and wins.
69.d6 Bc8 70.Nd5 Bf5 71.Ne7 Bd7 72.Nxg6 Kb4 73.Nf8

1–0

[Annotations by Levenfish, from Shakhmaty v SSSR (No.7, 1946).]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5
11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2
Up to this point, the standard variation of the Chigorin Defence. Now possible are the following
430
branches: 12...cxd4 13.cxd4 Nc6, or immediately 12...Nc6, or the ancient 12...Re8, or, finally, the
continuation in the game.
12...Bd7
A system of defence worked out by Moscow masters. Black intends to begin operations along the c-
file.
13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Nf1 Rad8 15.Qe2 Nh5!

Forestalling Ne3, as well as Ng3, and threatening to later create a grip on the position by means of
...Be6-c4, or ...c5-c4 followed by ...Nb7-c5.
16.N3h2 g6
Doubtful is 16...Nf4 on account of 17.Bxf4 exf4 18.e5, and White already threatens Qe4.
17.Bh6 Rfe8 18.Ne3 Be6

Black not only cuts off the invasion of the knight at d5, but also creates a series of threats. Besides
...Nc4, very unpleasant is ...Bf8 followed by the occupation of the square f4. Moreover, White cannot
neutralize the d-file on account of the weakness of the pawn at a2.
19.g3!
431
Over this move I thought for more than thirty minutes. It is the only way to forestall both threats. On
19...Bf8 there now follows simply 20.Bxf8, while as concerns 19...Nc4, we will talk about this later.
19...Nc4?
My opponent treated the move 19.g3 superficially and had not understood White’s idea. He saw in it
a simple trap: 19...Bxh3? 20.Nd5 Qd7 21.g4 Nf4 22.Bxf4 exf4 23.Qf3, and the bishop is caught.
The correct continuation was 19...Nb7, intending a later ...c4 and ...Nc5.
20.Bb3!
Now it transpires that after 20...Rd2 21.Nd5! Rxe2 22.Nxc7 Rxe1† 23.Rxe1 Rd8 24.Nxe6 fxe6
25.Bxc4 bxc4 Black obtains a completely hopeless endgame (five isolated pawns!).
In passing, the point of the move g2-g3 becomes clear. If the pawn had stood at g2, then Black could
have successfully continued 20...Nxe3 21.Bxe6 Nxg2 22.Bxf7† Kxf7 23.Kxg2 Kg8 with a good
game.
20...Nd6 21.Bxe6 fxe6 22.Neg4 Nf7 23.a4

In order to get at the weak black pawns, the file must be opened for the rook.
432
23...Nxh6 24.Nxh6† Kg7 25.N6g4 c4 26.Nf3 Bc5 27.Kg2 Rf8 28.axb5 axb5 29.Red1!
The open files are more important than the e5-pawn.
29...Nf6 30.Rxd8 Rxd8

If now 31.Nfxe5, then 31...h5 32.Nxf6 Qxe5, and the white knight is trapped, while if 31.Ngxe5,
then 31...h5 and the knight at e5 is in danger. At first sight Black’s affairs have seemingly recovered.
But in fact he finds himself under the threat of a mating attack.
31.Ng5! Re8 32.Ra8! Qc6

I expected the move 32...Re7 and had already anticipated the following finish: 33.Qf3 Nd7 34.Qf7†!!
Rxf7 35.Nxe6#
433
A very original, problem-like mate.
33.Qf3! Be7 34.Ra7! Nxg4

There was no other defence against 35.Qxf6†.
35.Qf7†
1–0
Grigory Levenfish – Vladimir Alatortsev

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0

The 15th USSR Championship significantly deepened the study of the Open Variation of the Spanish
Game, since important improvements were found both for White and for Black.
5...Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3
434
9...Nc5
It is interesting that in not one of the games of this tournament did Black choose the continuation
9...Bc5.
After 9...Be7 the main variation 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2 f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Nb3 was placed under doubt:
13...Bg4 14.Qd3 Ne4 15.Nbd4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 Bd6! with a strong attack (Boleslavsky – Levenfish; see
Shakhmaty v SSSR, No.3, 1947); therefore White ought to seek other paths, such as 10.Nbd2 0-0
11.Qe2 together with 12.Nd4.
The move in the text has been employed, not without success, by Makogonov.
10.Bc2 Bg4 11.Re1 Qd7

Against Bronstein, Alatortsev had continued 11...Ne6, but after 12.a4! Na5 13.axb5 axb5 14.Qd3 c6
15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.cxd4 Nc4 White could have achieved the advantage with the move 17.Bg5! (instead
of 17.Rxa8, as occurred in the game).
12.Nbd2 Bh5
Black’s plan is clear. The c5-knight prevents the undermining move a2-a4, while the bishop is
transferred to g6.
Besides the move in the text, Black can also continue 12...d4, on which I intended to reply 13.h3, and if
13...Bh5 then 14.Ne4 with great complications.
13.Nb3 Ne6
It now transpires that it is not so easy for Black to successfully carry out his intended manoeuvre. On
435
13...Bg6 there follows 14.Nfd4 with the threat of 15.Nxc5 Bxc5 16.e6. Neither 14...Bxc2 15.Qxc2, nor
14...Nxb3 15.axb3 give Black an equal game.
After 13...Bg6 the tempting 14.Bxg6 hxg6 15.Nxc5 Bxc5 16.e6 fxe6 17.Ng5 is refuted with the
simple 17...0-0!.
14.Bf5!
Only this and the following move permit White to retain the initiative.
14...Bg6 15.Bh3! Ncd8

Now Black threatens the move ...c5.
On 15...Be7 White could have continued 16.Nfd4 0-0 17.f4.
16.Be3 Nb7
The battle over the c5-square has seemingly ended in Black’s favour. Indeed, if White does not take
decisive measures, then a crisis is inevitable. Weighing up all the circumstances, I came to the
conclusion that the only correct plan for White is a swift attack, even involving the sacrifice of a piece.
The following move is the signal for such an attack.
17.Ng5! h6
Forced, since on 17...c5 White replies 18.f4.
Nor is 17...Be7 good on account of 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Qg4 Nd8 20.Nd4, and Black loses a pawn.
18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Nd4 Bf7
436
20.f4!
He who hesitates is lost. Otherwise after ...c5 White will be driven back with damaging
consequences.
20...c5 21.Nxe6! Bxe6 22.f5

In this lies the point of White’s play. Black cannot take at f5, since after 22...Bxf5 23.e6 Qxe6 24.Bf4
Bxh3 25.Qxd5! his situation is cheerless.
22...Bg8 23.e6 Qc6 24.Qh5† Kd8
25.Bg5†!
437
Decisive! On 25...Be7 there would follow 26.Bxe7† Kxe7 27.Qh4† Ke8 28.Bg4 (also good is 28.f6)
with the threat of 29.Bh5† Kf8 30.e7#.
25...Kc7 26.e7 Nd6 27.Bf4 Qe8

There was threatened 28.exf8=Q Rxf8 29.Re7†.
28.Qh4! Kc6 29.Bxd6 Kxd6
30.f6!
Threatening 31.exf8=Q† Qxf8 and then 32.Qg3† and 33.fxg7. There follows a piquant finale.
30...Qg6 31.Qf4† Kc6 32.exf8=Q Rxf8 33.Re7

1–0
Alexander Tolush – Grigory Levenfish

21st Leningrad Championship 1947
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4

Thus, it has come down to the Czech Defence to the Queen’s Gambit.
5.e4
Tolush chooses a gambit continuation, employed by him in the 15th USSR Championship (Leningrad
438
1947) against Smyslov.
5...b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 Be6

Deserving attention is the move suggested by the master Furman, 7...Nc7.
8.axb5 Nxc3 9.bxc3 cxb5 10.Ng5 Bd5 11.e6 fxe6 12.Bf4

Against Smyslov, Tolush had played 12.Qg4. The move in the text, played instantly, was the result of
home analysis.
12...Nc6 13.Be2 e5 14.dxe5 e6 15.Qb1!

This is the prepared refutation of Black’s defence. The pawns at b5 and h7 are attacked. How is
Black to be saved? The answer was given only after a thirty-minute reflection.
439
15...Bc5!
Now on 16.Nxh7 there follows 16...Bxf2† 17.Kxf2 Qh4† and then 18...Qxh7, while on 16.Qxb5
there is 16...Bxf2† 17.Kxf2 0-0! with a strong attack.
16.0-0 Qb6 17.Bg4

After 17.Nxh7 0-0-0 Black has an overwhelming position.
17...Ne7 18.Nxh7 Qc6

Black goes in for unfathomable complications. The quiet 18...0-0-0 retained for him the better game.
19.Ng5 Bxg2 20.Nxe6
440
20...Rh4!
The ‘lynchpin’ of Black’s attack.
20...Bxf1 21.Qxf1 passed the initiative to White with the black king stranded in the centre.
On the other hand, on 20...Be4 White replies 21.Qxb5!.
21.Bf5!
Mistaken is 21.Bh5† Rxh5 22.Nxg7† Kf8 23.Nxh5 Bh3.
21...Bxf1 22.Bg6† Kd7 23.Be4 Nd5 24.Ra6! Bb6 25.Nd4
441
White attacks furiously, and Black has to defend with only moves. White’s last move appears
decisive, since the fortified point b5 falls. Black, however, had prepared a surprise...
25...Rxf4! 26.Nxc6 Nxc3!

After this intermediate move I considered Black’s game to be won, hoping to obtain three pieces for
the queen.
27.Bf5†!
A remarkable resource, saving a piece.
27...Kxc6 28.Qxf1
It transpires that the bishop at f5 is invulnerable: on 28...Rxf5 there follows 29.Qg2† Nd5 30.Qg6†.
442
28...Kb7!
Once again two pieces are under attack. If the rook moves away, then 29...Rxf2 is decisive (this will
not do immediately on account of 29.Rxb6†). All the same, White saves the piece!
29.Qg2†! Kxa6 30.Qxa8 Rxf2 31.Kh1 Nd1!

Counting the victims after the hand-to-hand fight, it has become clear that Black has rook, knight and
two formidable passed pawns for the queen, while White has a dangerous e-pawn. The outcome of the
struggle is unclear. Black threatens to win the bishop by means of ...Rf1† and ...Ne3†.
32.h4 Ka5 33.Bd7 Rb2 34.Qf8 Ka4 35.Qc8

This leads to a loss. After 35.e6 Ne3 36.Qf3 (mate in three moves after ...Rb1† was threatened)
443
36...c3 there are obtained complications that are difficult to assess.
35...Nf2†! 36.Kg2 Nd3† 37.Kh3 Nxe5

After the destruction of this dangerous pawn the fate of the game is decided.
38.Qa6† Ba5 39.Bf5 Rb3† 40.Kg2 Rb2† 41.Kg3 c3! 42.Qxa7 c2 43.Qd4†
Here the game was adjourned, but on account of my illness it was not resumed. A simple analysis
shows that Black wins easily. After 43...Nc4 44.Bxc2† Rxc2 the advance of the b-pawn is rapidly
decisive.
A very tense game.
Grigory Levenfish – Samuel Zhukhovitsky

Leningrad Team Championship 1948
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bg5 c5

Energetic but hardly correct, since it leads to the isolation of the d-pawn.
After 5...dxc4 6.e4 the complicated Vienna Variation is obtained.
Simplest of all was 5...Nbd7.
6.cxd5 exd5 7.g3 Qa5 8.Bd2 Ne4 9.Nxd5 Nxd2 10.Nxd2 cxd4 11.Bg2 Nc6
444
12.a3! Bxd2†
The bishop has no good square to which to retreat. On 12...Bd6 there follows 13.0-0 with the threat
of Nc4.
13.Qxd2 Qxd2† 14.Kxd2 0-0

As later becomes clear, correct is 14...Rb8. The departure of the king from the centre is mistaken.
15.Rac1
Not 15.Rhc1 on account of 15...Na5.
15...Bd7
445
16.Nb4! Na5
Already there was no good defence. For example: 16...Rac8 17.Nxc6 Bxc6 18.Bxc6 Rxc6 (or
18...bxc6 19.Rc5 followed by Rhc1 and b2-b4-b5) 19.Rxc6 bxc6 20.Rc1 Rc8 21.Rc5 and then Kd3.
Or 16...Nxb4 17.axb4 Rac8 18.Rxc8! (but not 18.Bxb7 Rb8 19.Rc7? Rxb7! 20.Rxb7 Bc6) 18...Rxc8
19.Ra1 a6 20.Bxb7 Rb8 21.Rxa6.
17.Rc7 Bf5
Indirectly defending the b7-pawn.
18.Bd5! Rad8 19.Rd1 Rd6 20.Ke1 d3

It is already impossible to save the pawn.
21.exd3 g5 22.Rd2 Bg6 23.Re2 Rfd8
446
24.Re5
Winning a second pawn, since on 24...h6 there follows 25.Bxf7† Bxf7 26.Rxa5. The remainder does
not present interest.
24...R8d7 25.Rxd7 Rxd7 26.Rxg5 b6 27.h4 Kf8 28.Re5 f6 29.Re6 Kg7 30.Re3 Nb7 31.Bxb7 Rxb7
32.Kd2 Rd7 33.Nc6 Kf7 34.b4 Bf5 35.Rf3 Ke6 36.b5 Bg6 37.Kc3 a6 38.Nd4† Ke5 39.Re3† Kd5
40.Ne6 axb5 41.Nf4†
1–0
Grigory Levenfish – Georgi Ilivitsky

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.g3 0-0 6.Bg2

Also on 6.Nf3 there can follow 6...e5, since 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Nxe5 Nxe4! is favourable
to Black.
6...e5 7.Nge2
Also possible is 7.d5. However, White wanted to retain the tension in the centre.
7...exd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 Be6
447
The lightning play of my opponent forced me to consider the fact that the whole variation had clearly
been well worked-out.
I recalled the game Fridstein – Aronin from the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR in 1947, in which there
was recommended in the present position, according to the game Alatortsev – Aronin (14th USSR
Championship Semi-final), the move 11.b3 with the continuation: 11...Nxe4 12.Nxe4 Bxa1 13.Bg5 f6
14.Bh6
14...Bb2 15.Qd2 Ba3 16.Qc3 d5 17.cxd5 cxd5 18.Bxf8 Kxf8 19.Nxf6 Be7 20.Nxh7† Kg8 21.Re1 Bf7
22.Qe5 Bh4 23.gxh4 Kxh7 24.Rc1! And White won.
However, at the board it seemed to me that this whole variation could be improved by Black. For
example, 14...Be5! 15.f4 Bb2 16.Qd2 Ba3 17.Qc3 Rf7 18.b4 a5 19.Qxa3 Bxc4 20.Rc1 axb4 21.Qxb4
448
Bd5 and Black’s game, due to the poor position of the bishop at h6, is at any rate no worse.
It was clear that my opponent had found some sort of improvement, since he had gone in for this
variation.
11.Qd3
Bad is 11.Qa4 Nd7 12.Qxc6 Ne5 13.Qa4 Bxc4 14.Rd1 Qb8! etc.
[Translator’s note: In the above-mentioned game Fridstein – Aronin (‘Tournament of Candidates and
Masters’, Moscow 1944), the continuation had been 11.Qa4 Nd7 12.Be3, but after 12...Rb8! 13.Nd1 c5
White proved to be in a difficult position.]
11...Nd7 12.b3 a5 13.Bb2 Qb8 14.Rab1 Qb4

Black’s pressure is very perceptible. He threatens ...a5-a4. For White it is necessary to urgently
organize counterplay.
15.f4! Nc5 16.Qc2 f5

Could Black have continued the attack with ...a5-a4? Here are some possible variations:
a) 16...a4 17.f5 and now:
a1) 17...Bd7 18.f6 Bh6 19.Bc1 Bxc1 20.Qxc1 with a mating attack.
a2) 17...Bd4† 18.Kh1 Bd7 19.Nd5! cxd5 20.Bxd4
b) 16...Rfb8 17.f5 Bd7 18.f6 Bf8 19.Ne2 a4 20.Bc3 axb3 21.axb3 Qb7 22.Nd4 is to White’s
advantage.
17.e5 Qb6
Naturally, not 17...dxe5 18.Bxc6 Rab8 19.Nd5 etc.
449
18.Qf2! dxe5
On 18...a4 there follows 19.Ba3 axb3 20.Bxc5 Qxc5 21.Qxc5 dxc5 22.axb3 with a winning position,
since both black bishops are playing a sorry role.
19.Ba3 Nd3 20.Qxb6 cxb6 21.Bxc6 e4!

This is the best chance for Black: the strong passed pawn and the two bishops compensate in definite
measure for the loss of the exchange.
22.Bxa8 Rxa8 23.Nb5 Rd8 24.Rfd1 Bd7 25.Kf1 Bf6 26.Ke2 g5! 27.Bc1 Be8 28.Ke3 Bh5 29.Rd2
Bf3
The bishop stands badly here. But how can Black strengthen the position?
30.Bb2!
Exploiting the pin on the knight at d3, White drives the black pieces back.
30...Be7 31.Bd4 Nc5 32.Nc7 Kf7 33.Nd5 gxf4† 34.gxf4 Bf8

If now 35.Nxb6 then 35...Ne6 with dangerous threats.
Therefore White first of all deprives the black bishop of the c5-square.
35.a3 b5 36.b4 axb4 37.axb4 Ne6 38.Bb6 Ra8 39.cxb5 Bd6 40.Rb3 Ra1
450
41.Bc7!
Forcing the exchange and rapidly forcing the win.
41...Nxc7 42.Nxc7 Ke7 43.b6 Rf1 44.Rc3 Bg4 45.Rxd6
If now 45...Rf3† 46.Kd2 Rxc3 then 47.Re6† and 48.Kxc3. While if 45...Kxd6 there follows 46.Nb5†
and 47.b7.
1–0
451
17th USSR Championship Semi-final
Leningrad 1949
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 d5 5.Bd3 0-0 6.Nf3

On 6.Nge2 there can follow 6...dxc4 7.Bxc4 e5 8.0-0 (8.dxe5 Qxd1† 9.Kxd1 Ng4 etc.) 8...Nc6 with
approximately level chances.
6...dxc4 7.Bxc4 c5 8.0-0
8...a6
In the spirit of the position was 8...Nc6, preventing 9.Qe2 and not fearing 9.d5 Bxc3 10.dxc6 Ba5
11.cxb7 Bxb7 – Black obtains weak pawns, but excellent piece play.
9.Qe2 Nc6 10.Rd1 Qe7 11.Bd2

Giving White nothing is 11.e4 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Nxd4 13.Rxd4 e5! 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Rxd5 Be6, and
16.Rxe5 is impossible on account of 16...Bxc4.
452
11...Bd7 12.a3 cxd4
Preferable is 12...Bxc3, not opening an exit to g5 for the bishop at d2.
13.exd4 Bxc3
Forced, since after 13...Bd6 14.Bg5 it is difficult for Black to free himself from the pin.
14.bxc3 Na5
An untimely leap, creating serious difficulties for Black. Better is 14...h6.
15.Ba2 b5
453
16.c4! Nc6
No good is 16...Qxa3 on account of 17.c5 Nb3 18.Qd3 winning the knight.
17.c5 Rfd8 18.Bf4 Be8 19.Rac1 Qb7 20.Bd6 Nd5 21.Bb1 Nce7 22.Qe4 Ng6 23.Ne5 f5
In a difficult position Black is defending in the best way. Due to the threat of ...Ndf4 the white queen
has only one retreat square.
24.Qe1! Qc8
On 24...Ndf4 White would have replied 25.f3, not allowing the other knight to h4.
25.Ba2 Nxe5 26.Bxe5 Bc6 27.Rd3 Ra7 28.Qe2 Rf8 29.Re1 Qe8 30.Rh3 Rd7 31.Qd2
Black has managed to construct a fairly solid barrier in the centre and on the queen’s flank. Therefore
White transfers the heavy pieces to the king’s flank, in order to achieve the weakening move ...g7-g6,
approximately along the following scheme: Qg5, and then Rh6.
31...Qg6 32.Rg3 Qh5

Permitting White to carry out a decisive combination. However, also after 32...Qe8 Black’s game
was hardly to be saved.
454
33.Bxg7! Rxg7 34.Rxe6 f4
Or 34...Ba8 35.c6 Rd8 36.c7 Rf8 37.Rd6 Rxg3 38.hxg3 Qf7 39.Qg5† Kh8 40.Rd8 Bb7 41.Bxd5 and
White wins.
35.Rxg7† Kxg7 36.Rxc6 f3 37.Bxd5 Qxd5 38.Qh6† Kf7 39.Qxh7†

1–0
Nikolai Kopylov – Grigory Levenfish

[Annotations by Levenfish from the tournament book, XVII Pervenstvo SSSR po Shakhmatam
(Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1951).]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4†
455
7.Nc3
A gambit variation of the Italian Game. This opening is rarely encountered in modern tournaments.
7...Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3

After 8...Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 10.Ba3 White obtains a dangerous attack. For example:
I) 10...d6 11.Rc1 Ba5 12.Qa4 a6 13.Bd5 Bb6 14.Rxc6 Bd7 15.Re1† Kf8 16.Rxd6 cxd6 with
advantage for White.
II) 10...d5 11.Bb5 Bxa1 12.Re1† Be6 13.Qa4 Qd7 14.Ne5 Nxe5 15.Bxd7† Nxd7 16.Rxa1, and
White’s position is preferable.
III) 10...Ne7 11.Qb3! d5 12.Qxc3 dxc4 13.Rfe1 Be6 14.Bxe7 Kxe7 15.d5 Qxd5 16.Rad1 Qc5
456
17.Re5 Qb6 18.Rxe6† Qxe6 19.Re1 And it is difficult for Black to save the game.
In order to avoid these variations, which are favourable to White, after 8...Nxc3 9.bxc3 Black should
play 9...d5.
9.d5!
Only this strong move makes the gambit acceptable; otherwise Black, by playing 9...d5, achieves an
advantage.
9...Ne5
The variation 9...Bf6 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Rxe4 d6 12.Bg5 leads to complications in which White with
457
correct defence achieves a draw.
10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 0-0

Also possible is 11...f5 12.Qxc4 d6 13.h4 0-0 14.Ng5 with a probable draw.
The attempt to maintain the piece leads to defeat. For example: 11...Ncd6 12.Qxg7 Qf6 13.Qxf6 Nxf6
14.Re1† Kf8 (or 14...Kd8 15.Bg5 Nde8 16.Rxe8† Kxe8 17.Re1† Kf8 18.Bh6† Kg8 19.Re5, and mate
with the following move) 15.Bh6† Kg8 16.Re5! Nfe4 (16...Nde4 17.Ng5 d6 18.Nxe4) 17.Re1 f5
18.Re7 b6 19.Nd4 Bb7 20.f3 Nf6 21.Rg7†, and White by means of a ‘windmill’, grinds Black’s entire
seventh rank.
12.Qxe4 Nd6 13.Qf4 Ne8
14.d6
A new pawn sacrifice to slow down Black’s development.
14...cxd6 15.Ba3 b6 16.Rfe1 Bb7 17.Nd4 Qf6 18.Qxf6 Nxf6 19.Nf5 Rfe8
The beginning of a freeing manoeuvre.
20.Nxd6 Rxe1† 21.Rxe1 Bd5! 22.c4 Be6 23.f4 g6

Black threatens the move 24...Ne8. Therefore White tries to complicate the game.
458
24.f5 gxf5
The continuation 24...Bxf5 25.Nxf5 gxf5 26.Re5 left White greater drawing chances.
25.Rf1 Ne4 26.Nxf5 Bxf5 27.Rxf5 Rc8 28.Rf4!
28...f5!
Naturally, not 28...Rxc4 29.Rg4† Kh8 30.Bb2† f6 31.Bxf6†, and White wins.
29.Rxf5 Rxc4 30.Rf8† Kg7 31.Rd8 Rc7

Impossible is 31...Rd4 on account of 32.Bb2.
459
32.h4 h5 33.Kh2 Kg6 34.Rg8† Kf7 35.Rf8† Kg7 36.Rd8 Nf6 37.Bb2 Kf7
Now ...Nf6-g4† is threatened.
38.Kg3
38...Rc2
If 38...a5 then 39.Rb8 Nd5 40.Bd4 with counterplay for White.
39.Bxf6 Kxf6 40.Rxd7 Rxa2 41.Rd6† Ke7 42.Rh6 Ra5 43.Kf4 Kf7 44.Rd6
In this position the game was adjourned and subjected to thorough analysis. After 38...Rc2 Black had
considered the win to be technically straightforward and intended the following plan: the king moves to
460
the queen’s flank at a6 and the rook is transferred to c5, after which the b-pawn advances. But it
transpires that in this case White has a hidden resource, securing the draw. For example: 44...Ke7
45.Rh6 Kd7 46.g3 Kc7 47.Rh7† Kc6 48.Rh6† Kb7 49.Rh7† Ka6 50.Rg7 Rc5 51.Rg5!, and if Black
replies 51...Kb5, then after 52.g4! he even loses, since after the exchange of rooks the white h-pawn
promotes to a queen, simultaneously holding Black’s a-pawn. All the same Black still has a win, but an
altogether study-like one.
44...Ke7 45.Rh6 Kf8! 46.Rf6†

Luring the black king back to the 7th rank, so that a later rook check will threaten the a7-pawn.
On 46.Rc6 there follows 46...Rc5.

46...Kg7 47.Rd6 Ra2! 48.g3
If 48.Kf3 then 48...Ra1! 49.Kf2 Ra5 and then 50...Rf5† and 51...Rf7.
Afte48.Kg3 the white pawns are slowed down, and Black achieves victory by means of 48...b5 49.Rd5
Ra3† 50.Kf4 b4 51.Rxh5 b3 and then ...a7-a5-a4.
48...Rf2†! 49.Kg5 Rf7 50.Kxh5
50...b5!
This is the whole point. The pawn moves forward, and the enemy rook cannot hold it up from behind.
51.Rg6† Kh7 52.Rh6† Kg7 53.Rg6† Kh7

Finding himself in serious time trouble, Black decided to win time with a repetition of moves, but did
not take account of the fact that the opponent could demand that the game be recognized as a draw with
461
a three-fold repetition of one and the same position.
54.Rh6† Kg7 55.Rg6† Kh7??

½–½
Winning is 55...Kf8! 56.Rc6 Rb7 57.Kg6 b4, and White cannot continue 58.Kf6 on account of
58...Rb6!. In other cases the advance of the b- and a-pawns is decisive. A vexing and unexpected finale!

[Annotations by Levenfish from the tournament book, XVII Pervenstvo SSSR po Shakhmatam
(Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1951).]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
The Evans Gambit is a rare guest in modern tournaments. The majority of masters normally prefer to
attack, not to defend, and therefore choose the Two Knights’ Defence. But meanwhile, the researches
of Chigorin and Alapin showed that this gambit leads to a full-blooded struggle with equal chances for
both opponents.
4...Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4

The only way to forestall Lasker’s variation (6.0-0 d6 7.d4 Bb6) in which Black, by giving back the
pawn, rids himself of all difficulties.
6...Qe7
462
Black reinforces the centre as in the ancient defence to the Italian Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
Bc5 4.c3 Qe7), taking account of the fact that the square c3 is inaccessible to the knight at b1 and there
is not the threat of Nb1-c3-d5. The move 6...Qe7 was encountered in the game Kopylov – Dubinin
(Semi-final, 17th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1949). There White did not extract anything from
the opening. Ragozin at once finds the vulnerable point in Black’s defence. The position of the queen at
e7 proves to be unreliable.
7.0-0 Bb6
The problem of defence would have been solved if Black had been able to play 7...d6, but this leads
after 8.d5 and 9.Qa4† to the loss of a piece.
8.Ba3
[Translator’s note: The Kopylov – Dubinin game had instead continued 8.a4 a6 9.a5 Ba7 10.Bg5
Nf6 11.d5 Nd8 12.d6 Qxd6 13.Qxd6 cxd6 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Rd1 d5 16.Rxd5 Ke7 17.Nbd2 d6 18.Nh4
Nc6 etc.]
8...Qf6
Here too 8...d6 is bad in view of 9.Bb5! Bd7 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.Nxe5 0-0-0 12.Qg4† Kb8 13.Qxg7.
9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Qb3 Nh6

Bad is 11...Qf6 12.e5!.
12.Nd2
463
12...Bc5!
It is still poor to play 12...d6 on account of 13.Bb5† Bd7 14.Bxd7† Kxd7 15.Qa4† and the black king
is displaced.
13.Nf3 Qe7 14.Bc1!

Having worked successfully on the diagonal a3-f8, the bishop transfers to a different diagonal.
14...0-0
Still 14...d6 is unfavourable. For example: 15.Bg5 Qd7 16.Rad1 0-0
17.Bxh6 gxh6 18.Ne5 Qe7 19.Nxf7 Rxf7 20.Rd3 with the irresistible threat of Rf3 or Rg3† and then
464
Bxf7.
15.e5
The sacrifice of a second pawn by 15.Bg5 Qxe4 16.Bxh6 gxh6 17.Rae1 Qg6 was unlikely to be
sufficiently justified.
15...Re8
P. Romanovsky, annotating this game in the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR (No.12, 1949) suggested
here the variation 15...d5 16.Bxd5 c6 17.Bc4 b5 and then 18...Be6. It is obvious, however, that after
17.Bg5 Qc7 18.Bxh6 gxh6 19.Be4 Black has no compensation for the weakening of the king’s flank.
For example: 19...Bg4 20.Rae1 Rae8 21.Qc4! (threatening 22.Bxh7†) 21...Bxf3 22.Qxc5 with
advantage for White.
Deserving attention is 15...Nf5.
16.Bg5 Qf8 17.Bxh6 gxh6 18.Rae1 c6

Preventing 19.Re4, in view of 19...d5, and preparing 19...b5.
Romanovsky suggests 18...d6 19.exd6 Rxe1 20.Rxe1 Bxd6. We continue this variation: 21.Ne5 Bxe5
22.Rxe5, and Black stands badly; or 21...Qe7 22.Bxf7† Kg7 23.Bh5 Bxe5 24.Rxe5!.
19.a4 Rb8 20.Nd4 d5 21.Bd3 Qg7

In order on 22.Nxc6 to reply 22...Bh3!.
On 22.Re3 there follows 22...Rxe5.
465
22.f4 h5 23.Kh1 Bb6 24.Qc2 Bc7 25.Re3 h4
26.Bf5
During the game Black feared the move 26.g4! here, when he can take neither at g3 nor at g4.
26...Kh8 27.Rh3 Bd8 28.Bxc8 Rxc8 29.Qb2

If immediately 29.Nf5, then 29...Qg6.
Now there is threatened Nf5-d6 winning the exchange. Moreover, the move 29.Qb2 prepares a hidden
blow on Black’s centre.
29...Rc7 30.Nf5 Qg4 31.Nd6 Rg8 32.c4

This is the point of the move 29.Qb2. White threatens to open the diagonal a1-h8 with e5-e6.
32...d4!
The correct reply. Now on 33.c5 possible is 33...b6!.
On 32...dxc4 there follows 33.e6† f6 34.Nf7† Kg7 35.f5 with a decisive attack.
33.Rb3
466
33...c5?
Up to this point both attack and defence had been at the necessary level. But, as often happens in
tense games, serious time trouble was setting in, accompanied by mistakes and oversights. Black has
not noticed that after the later 35...Rxb7 36.Qxb7 the queen defends the pawn at g2.
Correct was 33...b6! 34.h3 Qg7, and it is not easy for White to find a clear continuation of the attack.
34.h3 Qg6 35.Rxb7 Rxb7

Somewhat better is 35...h6.
36.Qxb7
Of course, not 36.Nxb7 Be7!.
36...Bc7 37.f5 Qg7 38.Qd5

Still stronger is 38.f6 Qg6 39.Qd5 Bxd6 40.exd6, and the d-pawn decides.
38...Bxd6 39.exd6 f6
This move White could have prevented, by playing 38.f6.
467
40.Rf4?
With the last move before the time control, White lets slip victory. Correct, as P. Romanovsky
pointed out, is 40.Re1! and on 40...Qg3 41.Qxg8†! Kxg8
42.Re8† Kf7 43.d7 Qf4 44.d8=Q, and there is no perpetual check: 44...Qf1† 45.Kh2 Qf4† 46.Kg1
Qc1† 47.Kf2 Qd2† 48.Kf1 Qd3† 49.Re2 Qxf5† 50.Kg1 Qb1† 51.Kh2
40...Qg3 41.Rg4
The sealed move. The opponents agreed on a draw without resuming play, since after 41...Rxg4
42.hxg4 Qe1† Black gives perpetual check.
½–½
468
Nikolai Kopylov – Grigory Levenfish
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d4
The position that has been created recalls the variations of the Queen’s Indian Defence. Black has
economized a tempo on the move ...e6 and has had time to develop the bishop at g7, which later tells.
Evidently, better was 7.d3, leading the play into positions obtained from the Réti Opening.
7...Ne4 8.Qd3 Nxc3 9.bxc3

White did not play 9.Qxc3, not without justification fearing the move 9...c5. After 10.Qd3 cxd4
11.Nxd4 d5 12.Nc2 Na6 13.cxd5 Nc5 14.Qd1 Qd7 Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn in
view of the delayed development of White’s queen’s flank and the difficulty in carrying out the
advance e2-e4, on which the manoeuvre ...Ba6 and ...Nd3 is unpleasant.
9...Nc6 10.Nd2 d6 11.f4

Directed against 11...e5, on which there could follow 12.fxe5 dxe5 13.d5 Na5 (or 13...Ne7 14.Ne4)
14.Nb3 to the clear advantage of White.
11...e6 12.e4 Ne7 13.Rf2
469
13...f5 14.exf5 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 Nxf5
After 15...exf5 16.d5 the weakness of the e6-square could prove to be very perceptible.
16.Nf3 Qd7 17.Bd2 Rae8 18.Re1 Qc6!
A strong and insidious move. Now on 19.Rfe2 Black would have played 19...d5 20.cxd5 exd5 with
the threat after the exchange of rooks and ...Nd6 to establish the knight on the ‘permanent’ square e4.
All the same, White ought to have gone in for this continuation. But White is tempted by an obvious
combination, and fails to notice a prepared hidden counter-blow.
19.Rxe6 Rxe6 20.d5
470
White had intended 20...Qd7 21.dxe6 Qxe6 22.Ng5 and then 23.Qd5 with the occupation of the
square e6. But a surprise awaits him.
20...Re3! 21.Bxe3 Qxc4 22.Qd2 Nxe3†

Still stronger was 22...Re8.
23.Qxe3 Qxd5 24.Re2 Bf6 25.h4 Rf7

The threat of 26...Re7 provokes White to enter the enemy camp with the heavy pieces. But the attack
is repelled, while the knight remains pinned.
26.Qe8† Kg7 27.Qc8 h6!

An accurate order of moves is required. On 27...Bxc3 28.Re8 h6 White plays not 29.Rg8†, but
29.Rh8! with a dangerous attack.
28.Re8 Kh7
White has no way to strengthen the attack, while the c- and a-pawns are doomed. Therefore Kopylov
makes a desperate attempt to provoke complications.
471
29.c4 Qxc4 30.Ng5† hxg5 31.hxg5
With the threat of mate in two moves by 32.Qh3†.
31...Qc2† 32.Kf3 Qc6†

Now on 33.Ke2 there follows 33...Re7†, while on 33.Kf2 there is 33...Bd4†.
33.Kg4 Qh1!
0–1
Viktor Korchnoi – Grigory Levenfish

VTsSPS Team Championship, Minsk 1953
[Annotations by Levenfish from the Soviet chess yearbook, Shakhmaty za 1953 g. (Fizkultura i Sport,
Moscow 1954).]
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.d4 Nbd7 7.Qb3 c6
Theory considers that in this way Black achieves an equal game. The present game, however, shows
that it is not so simple for him to overcome his opening difficulties.
8.Nc3 b6 9.cxd5
Otherwise after ...Bb7 and ...c6-c5 Black achieves a balance in the centre.
9...exd5
472
After 9...cxd5 10.Bf4 White takes possession of the c-file.
10.Bf4 Bb7 11.Rad1!

White’s strategic plan is uncomplicated: to prevent the freeing move ...c6-c5, post the rooks on the d-
and e-files and then open the game with the move e2-e4. For this White’s pieces are placed more
rationally than Black’s. The queen at d8 and the bishop at b7 stand particularly badly.
11...Re8
This does not much improve Black’s position.
It is possible that 11...Nh5 12.Bc1 Qc7 was more in keeping with Black’s task.
12.Rfe1 a5
In search of counterplay.
13.a3 Bf8
A loss of an important tempo.
Better was 13...b5 14.Ne5 a4 15.Qc2 b4 with complicated play.
14.Ne5 Nxe5 15.Bxe5 b5
473
16.Bxf6!
Consistent and strong. If immediately 16.e4, then 16...dxe4 17.Nxe4 Nd5 with an acceptable
position. In giving up one of the bishops, White advantageously opens the game.
16...Qxf6 17.e4 b4 18.axb4 axb4

Leading to the loss of a pawn was 18...Bxb4 19.exd5 Rxe1† 20.Rxe1 cxd5 21.Bxd5.
19.Na4 dxe4 20.Nc5!

Avoiding the trap 20.Bxe4? Rxe4 21.Rxe4 c5 22.Rf4 Qc6, and Black wins the knight at a4.
[Translator’s note: Unaccountably, Levenfish had overlooked the mate in three here after 23.Qxf7†
Kh8 24.Qxf8†.] Or 20.Rxe4? Rxe4 21.Bxe4 Re8 22.Re1 g6 23.Nc5 Qxd4.
20...Bxc5 21.dxc5 Bc8

Black is forced to seek salvation in tactical tricks, as otherwise he loses both of the pawns at e4 and
b4. Bad, for example, is 21...Ra5 22.Bxe4 Rxc5 23.Bxh7† Kf8 24.Qxb4.
22.Bxe4 Bh3
474
Over the following move White thought for more than half an hour. It is interesting from the
psychological standpoint that such a tactical, combinative chessplayer as Korchnoi should overlook a
straightforward but hidden combination for Black.
White ought to simply take the pawn at b4. After 23.Qxb4 Rab8 24.Bg2! Black would have been
forced to transpose to an endgame minus a pawn.
23.Rd6?
Seemingly, the first rank is sufficiently covered by the rook at e1 and the possibility of returning the
d6-rook to d1. A combination with the deflection of one rook and mate on the back rank had already
been met with more than once, but until now I had never had to deal with the deflection of two rooks.
23...Rxe4! 24.Rxe4 Qxd6! 25.Qxb4 Qxc5! 26.Qe1 g6

0–1
475
Pictures
An early picture of Levenfish at the board
476
Levenfish in the 1930s
477
A sketch of Levenfish
478
Levenfish with Mikhail Tal, probably in 1957
479
Levenfish flanked by two icons of Soviet women’s chess. On the left is Alla Kushnir, three times Challenger for the Women’s World
Championship. On the right is Lyudmila Belavenets, who became Women’s World Correspondence Champion. She was the daughter
of the talented player Sergei Belavenets, who was killed in World War II.
Levenfish in relaxed mood
480
Afterword by Jacob Aagaard
One Hundred Years Later
As said in the Publisher’s Foreword, there is little point in critiquing the analysis of a hundred years
ago with the use of an engine now. But as someone who grew up with stone-age analysis of games, it is
interesting for me to consider the lessons that can be learned when reviewing a game collection such as
the one you have in your hands. I have divided these observations up into a few sections, which are of
course heavily coloured by my own views on chess. So, while I am looking from a moment in history
where chess has progressed immensely, I am sure that people will consider my thinking antiquated
decades from now.
I have divided the themes into the following sections: Believing the intentions, Misevaluation of
endings, Making use of all the pieces, Candidates, Long variation – Wrong variation and Rook endings.
Believing the intentions

When the engines became strong in the mid-1990s they revolutionized openings, but to me the impact
on the way we looked at tactics was a bigger revolution. After playing a game where you have been
convinced about something and acted accordingly, you now will be told of your false assumptions
immediately after the game. It has changed the way we think, both during and after the game, more
than anything else in the last twenty years.
Any book from before 2000 will be filled with assumptions, especially the belief in the brilliance of a
World Champion...
1. Levenfish – Capablanca
Moscow 1925 (page 89)
481
In this position Capablanca played 21...h5 22.g5 h4. Levenfish called it a “well thought-out pawn
sacrifice,” missing that after 23.Bxh4 Nh5 White has 24.g6! followed by 25.e3 almost regardless of
what Black plays. The bishop on h4 will be well placed, but the knight on h5 is rubbish.
2. Levenfish – Ragozin
Leningrad 1934 (page 116)
Levenfish played 11.g4 instead of the more conventional 11.0-0, which would have given him a nice
advantage. It worked well in the game, but I am less convinced about the quality of this idea. We
should remember, it should not be judged solely on its effectiveness in the game.
Ragozin played 11...c5, which is a good move. But I could not help being attracted to a violent break
482
in the centre: 11...e5!
This move looks deeply surprising at first, but it immediately becomes obvious that none of the
captures are truly inspiring. Firstly, taking on e5 with the queen makes no sense.
After 12.Nxe5 Nc6 13.0-0-0 Nxd4 14.Qe3 Nxg4 15.Qxd4 Nxe5 16.Rhg1 the game is highly unclear.
More fascinating is the chaos ensuing after: 12.dxe5 Bxg4 13.exf6 Nc6
The variation Stockfish gives is unlikely to happen in a game situation, with so many options
available for both players. Also, there is a tendency for engines to prefer the safe harbour of a
perpetual: 14.f7† Kxf7 15.Be3 Kg8! 16.Rg1 Nd4 17.Rxg4 Nxe2 18.Kxe2 Bxc3 19.bxc3 Qf6 20.Rag1
Qxc3 21.Nd4 g6
483
22.Bxg6 hxg6 23.Rxg6† Kf8 24.Rg8† Ke7 25.R1g7† Kf6 26.Rg6† with a draw.
After 12.g5 in the game Levenfish missed:
12...Nd7! The knight will be ready to fight for the centre. The key point is that after the critical
13.Qxe6† Kh8 14.0-0-0 Black will play 14...c4 15.Bf1 Nc5 with a great initiative. Instead after
12...Nh5 13.Ne5 Levenfish won in style, without having to consider if his idea was as great as it felt in
the moment.
3. Levenfish – Chekhover
484
The first point in this game is a strange variation at move 14, which ends with:
“Here the piece is more valuable than the three pawns.” Clearly Levenfish missed that the pawn on
e5 has been removed and Black can play 17...Nf6, not losing a piece at all. I think this happened
because Levenfish was a bit sloppy and never put the position on the board.
Later in the game White was under pressure and succumbed without a fight.
The game continued: 36.Rxg7†?? Qxg7 and Black won easily.
There were a number of ways for White to fight back, the best being 36.Qe4! when there are no great
problems, which is not immediately obvious. A key variation is: 36...Rxf2† (Another option is
485
36...Rf4?, which looks most obvious. But it loses to 37.Rxg7†! Qxg7 38.Qxf4 exf4 39.Bxg7 and White
is a pawn up in the pawn ending.) 37.Kh1 Rxb2 (37...Qe6 38.Rg3 is also possible, with unclear play.
Things are as dangerous for Black as they are for White.) 38.Qd5†
It actually looks as if White is winning after 38...Qe6 (everything else is immediately over) 39.Qxe6†
dxe6 40.Rd1! due to the seemingly unstoppable pawn. But in reality 40...Nh5! 41.d7 Ng3† 42.Kg1
Ne2† saves Black, on account of 43.Kf2 Nd4† 44.Ke3 Nc6, leading to a drawn rook ending.
Misevaluation of endings
Continuing from the assumption theme, I want to examine some places where Levenfish misevaluated
endings. It was common to think of Capablanca and Rubinstein as the big masters of the endgame, but
with the arrival of players such as Carlsen, Matlakov and others, the technical abilities of modern
players have increased immensely. Levenfish was deeply fascinated by endings and of course wrote a
truly great endgame book (we will look at rook endings last, for this very reason).
One of the currents running through Levenfish’s book is the assumption that an extra pawn will mean
an extra point.
4. Verlinsky – Levenfish
486
Levenfish was sad he had missed 50...Qg3†! 51.Kxg3 Ne4† leading to a knight ending a pawn up.
But with the far-advanced pawns on the queenside and the activity of the knight, as well as the potential
to exchange a few more pawns, White should be able to save the game. For instance: 52.Kf3 Nxf6
53.Ng5 Kf8 54.Ne6† Ke7 55.Nd4
After this line, given by Stockfish, there is no reason to think White should lose the endgame. Further
pawn exchanges are coming, regardless of who moves their pawn to a6.
Something could still, of course, go terribly wrong for White; chess is a game after all. But it is not
very likely.
5. Levenfish – Rabinovich
487
The next position relates to a note to move 24 of this game. We will later return to the rook endgame,
which is truly fascinating and which I had already analysed.
As Douglas Griffin found out, when Levenfish annotated this game in the Tournament Book of the
9th USSR Championship, he gave the additional variation: 27...Kb8 28.Kf1 Rc8 29.Rb2 Rc4 30.a5?
(The passive 30.Ra2! is the true winning move.) 30...Bxa5 31.Rxb7† Kxb7 32.Nd6† Kc7 33.Nxc4
Levenfish evaluated the final position as winning for White, and it is easy to understand why he was
deceived. White is a pawn up, with a strong passed pawn and the potential to make another on the
kingside. Moreover, the black king cannot easily join the game. However, 33...Bb4! followed by the
rapid advance of the a-pawn offers Black counterplay, and deep analysis shows that the game is much
488
more likely to end in a draw than an advantage for White.
6. Levenfish – Kan
After 36.Qe5! Levenfish gives the variation: 36...Qxe5 37.Nxe5 Re8 38.Kf1 Re6 39.g3 Nd5
40.Bxd5 cxd5 41.Nd3, “and the endgame is lost for Black.”
I do not see this. After 41...Rxe1† 42.Kxe1 a5 I think Black will hold quite comfortably. However, I
think this returns us to looking at assumptions. Levenfish made the decision in the game based on
things he had considered and never looked deeper into them. If he had, he would have seen that there is
no advantage in this endgame, although once again we have strong knight against a lesser bishop.
However, in a game situation, I think it’s quite likely that Levenfish would have played in a less
forcing manner and added in 40.a5!, further clamping down on Black’s position. White has Nd3-c5
ideas and can also seriously consider the transformation into the knight-versus-bishop endgame, now
that ...a5 has been prevented.
7. Levenfish – Lisitsyn
489
Levenfish eventually won a nice rook ending and it may be for this reason that he was happy about
his decision to play 37.Qd7?. To me, it looks like a profoundly odd decision. Black is paralyzed and his
king is entirely open. To transpose into a good endgame from here is surely a bad mistake.
After something like 37.Bc3 the game would not have lasted another ten moves. The threats are too
many and White would not have to find anything out of the ordinary to crash straight through. I do not
think it is unfair to say that Levenfish awarded this move an exclamation mark mainly because without
it, he would not have been able to win the nice rook endgame later.
8. Ilyin-Zhenevsky – Levenfish
490
Levenfish played 40...Kd6? and lost. He also analysed 40...e6†, correctly evaluating it as losing for
Black.
But Black is not lost. There are a few possible moves that draw, like 40...Ke8 or 40...a5, all based on
the same concept: a brutal push to create a passed pawn. There are a lot of possible variations, but the
key idea is shown quite clearly in the following principled variation. 40...e4!? 41.Kxe4 Ke6 42.g4 a5
43.h4 c5 44.g5 c4 45.Kd4 Kf5 46.Kxc4 e5 47.b3 e4 48.Kd4
48...c5† 49.Ke3 c4 50.bxc4 a4 51.c5 a3 52.c6 Ke6 53.c7 Kd7 54.g6 a2 A drawn queen ending will
appear shortly.
9. Flohr – Levenfish
491
You may remember that, in commenting on his move, 46...Qd1, Levenfish wrote the following:
“I lost a lot of time, trying to assess the bishop endgame after 46...Qxg2† 47.Kxg2. Later, Fine in a
detailed analysis tried to demonstrate a win for Black, but Averbakh refuted Fine’s analysis and showed
that White achieves a draw. I decided to adjourn the game and to study the position in detail at home.”
Griffin has researched the tournament book and found the following variation given by Levenfish there
(with slightly more detail):
47...a5 48.Kf3
48.Bd6 Kg6 49.Kf3 Kf7 50.e4 Be7 51.Bc7 fxe4† 52.Kxe4 a4 53.Kd4 Ke6 54.Kc4 Kf5 55.h3 Ke4
56.g4 Kf3 57.f5 Kg2 58.Be5 Bf8! 59.h4 Kh3 60.Bxg7 Bxg7 61.g5 h5 62.f6 Bh8! and Black wins.
The above variation is not without problems, although the general direction is right. 51...a4! is a clear
improvement for Black. Also 55...h5! is a comfortable way to play. Later on, 57.Be5! draws and
57...Bf6! wins on the spot. The end of the variation, however, is a small disaster.
492
The bishop sacrifice on g7 does not work immediately, but 60.g5! changes things: 60...Kxh4 (60...h5
61.g6! Kxh4 62.f6 draws easily.) Now White draws with the elegant 61.Bxg7! Bxg7 62.f6 Bh8 and
now either 63.gxh6 immediately, or 63.f7!? Bg7 64.gxh6 followed by Kb4 when all the black pawns
will be eliminated.
Despite these oversights, it is important to underline that Levenfish’s overall evaluation of this
variation was accurate, even if the analytical details were not strictly speaking on the mark.
48...a4 49.Ke2 a3 50.Kd3 Bb6 51.Kc2
51...Bxe3?
This reveals a dramatic misunderstanding of the endgame.
51...Bc5! prevents Be5-d6, thus holding on to the a-pawn and winning in the long run. I doubt that
any modern-day GM would make this mistake.
493
52.Bd6 a2 53.Kb2 Bg1 54.h3 h5
Levenfish also gives 54...Bh2 55.g4 fxg4 56.hxg4 g5 57.fxg5! with a draw.
Here I have taken the liberty of improving on a careless slip.

55.Kxa2!
55.Be7? was a typical end-of-the-line mistake. Levenfish probably just wrote down his intention
believing Bh4 would draw, but after 55...Kg8! 56.Kxa2 Kf7 the black king wins an important tempo
against the bishop and invades via e6-d5-e4-f3, winning.
55...Bf2 56.Be7 Bxg3 57.Bg5 Kg8 58.Kb3 Kf7 59.Kc4
Black has no way to convert his extra pawn to victory.
The big mistake (based on a misevaluation) was of course on move 51 in the above variation. An
endgame with a distant passed pawn, where White can neither win it nor force massive exchanges on
the kingside, is lost.
10. Lilienthal – Levenfish

494
Towards the end of a long and accurate variation at move 36, there appear some small cracks in the
analysis, as given by the sidelines below. The additions are especially tasty! The annotations are all
mine.
46.Kd2 Kf5 47.Ke3! Bc6?

You get the distinct feeling that 10 moves down the line, Levenfish is simply moving the bishop out
of harm’s way to the most visually pleasing square. But looking a bit deeper reveals that the bishop is
better placed elsewhere. 47...Bh5!! 48.Kd4 White must try this, even though it no longer wins a tempo
on the black bishop. (48.b5 is not available here, as Black can take on e5 without fearing g5-g6 – the
key point behind putting the bishop on h5.) 48...Be2! A good square for the bishop. 49.Kc5 Kxe5
50.b5 Kf5 51.b6 Ba6 52.Kd6 e5 53.Ke7 This manoeuvre is coming too late this time. 53...Kg6 54.h5†
Kxh5 55.Kxf7 e4 56.g6 e3 57.g7 e2 58.g8=Q Bc4† 59.Kg7 Bxg8 60.b7 and the draw is near.
48.Kd4 Ba4 49.Kc5 Kxe5 50.h5 Kf5 51.h6 Kg6 52.b5 Bd1
495
53.b6?
At this point White can make use of his passed pawn on the kingside without allowing the black
bishop to get to the magic square d5 (see below). The winning line is: 53.Kd6! Bf3 54.Ke7 e5 55.h7
Kxh7 56.Kxf7 Bd5† 57.Ke7 Kg6 58.b6 and White wins.
53...Bf3 54.Kd6
54...Bg2?
At this point Black had a draw worthy of a study: 54...Bd5!! 55.Ke7 (55.Kc7 e5 56.Kd6 transposes)
55...e5 56.Kd6 (56.Kf8 e4) 56...e4 57.Kxd5 e3 58.b7 e2 59.b8=Q e1=Q= 60.Qg8†
496
60...Kh5!! This looks exceptionally paradoxical. The king is seemingly walking straight into h7-
h8=Q with check! But it is not so. As we shall see, choosing the right square is crucial. 61.h7 The
critical try. (61.Qxf7† Kxg5 62.Qg7† Kf5 and White cannot make progress.) 61...Qe6† 62.Kc5 Qe5†
63.Kc6 Qe6† 64.Kc7 Qe5† 65.Kd7 Qe6† 66.Kd8 Qd6† 67.Ke8 Qe5† 68.Kxf7 Qc7† 69.Kf8 Qc5†!!
Finally we can see the difference between going to f5 and h5. It is crucial for Black that after 70.Kg7
he has the follow-up 70...Qxg5† to secure the perpetual.
55.Ke7 Bd5 56.Kf8 Kh7 57.Kxf7 e5† 58.Ke7 e4 59.f7
White wins.
It is very easy to forgive Levenfish for missing these deep resources in the endgame...
497
11. Levenfish – Flohr
In the analysis to Black’s 33rd move, Levenfish goes into great depth after 35...Nxd3, which looks
like a pretty bizarre move to me. It is much more natural to play 35...b6!, where White does not have
the Na4 idea. After something like 36.axb6† Kxb6 37.Kd4 Nxd3 38.Nxd3 Kb5, Black makes a draw.
12. Levenfish – Chekhover

The last example is not a misunderstanding, although it is once again an endgame situation where the
extra pawn does not guarantee an extra point.
498
The game ended: 62...Kb5 63.Bxh6 Kxb4 64.c6 Be5 65.Ke4 1–0
Levenfish missed Black’s defensive resource: 62...Bd8! intending 63.Bxh6 a5! when Black should
hold. White would probably try 63.Kc4, but after 63...Bg5 he is lacking a serious way to make
progress.
Making use of all the pieces

In my work as a trainer I often find even grandmasters who are not paying enough attention to
activating all their pieces. There are a few cases in his annotations where Levenfish also commits this
sin.
13. Romanovsky – Levenfish

The first example is a situation where the queen on g2 seems to control a lot of squares, but is strangely
out of the game.
499
In the game Romanovsky played 36.Nc5!, after which Black could have equalized with 36...Qa1†
37.Kf2 Qa8! (not a7 as Levenfish said).
Instead White could have obtained a winning position with 36.h3!!, when he is ready to bring the queen
in through the h-file. Play could continue along the lines of 36...Qb1† 37.Kf2 Qa2 (37...Rxc2 38.Qb7†
wins) 38.Kg1 Qa8 39.Qh2! and White wins.
14. Levenfish – Rosenthal

In the game, after 15...Qb7 16.e5 Rc7 17.f5, White was completely winning.
500
Instead Black should have improved his worst piece with 15...Nc7! intending 16.f5 Nb5, when Black
has reasonable counterplay. For example, 17.Bb2 Nd6 and the knight is well placed. As it was, the
knight stayed out of the game.
15. Levenfish – Yudovich

Levenfish won in great style with 27.Qe5 Bf6 28.Rxg7†!! Bxg7 29.Qxf5† Ke7 30.Rxe6† Kd8
31.Rxe8† 1–0; a beautiful combination.
Levenfish asserted that 27...g6 would lose to 28.Rge1, but things are not that simple after 28...Qd7!.
Even though 29.Qxe6† Qxe6 30.Rxe6 Bxe1 31.Rxe1 Re8 leaves White with two minor pieces against a
rook, the endgame is not a certain win.
Looking at the worst placed piece, the knight, we can see that it would be superbly placed on e5. After
27.Nc1! Black has no defence against Nd3-e5(†). For example, 27...Bf6 28.Bxf6 or 27...Nxf4
28.Rxg7†!.
16. Botvinnik – Levenfish

Moscow/Leningrad (2) 1937 (page 181)
501
Levenfish won a good game after 28...Rab8, but it was much stronger to play 28...Ne3!. The only
decent option for the rook is 29.Rc1, in order to deal with the threat of ...c4. Black follows up with:
29...Rg4!!
Preparing to triple the heavy pieces along the g-file, with a devastating attack.
502
Candidates
It was not until after Levenfish’s death that Kotov published his famous book, Think Like a
Grandmaster, describing the concept of candidate moves, along with the famous but less effective tree
of analysis. Going through the book, I found six positions where a closer look at candidate moves could
have led to a different evaluation than that offered by Levenfish. This is your chance to shine.
In the following six positions, there were better moves available than those indicated by Levenfish.
These are not play and win positions, but rather find the surprising idea. Sometimes it is just about
saving a difficult situation. Some of the solutions are not that difficult, while others are truly inspired. I
know that a lot of readers of this book will skip the exercises and go straight to the ideas, but I hope
most will give it at least a short look, just to understand how difficult Levenfish’s task was. In other
words, no one would have avoided these type of mistakes, analysing without a computer.
17. Levenfish – Tartakower

Carlsbad 1911 (page 33)
Show/Hide Solution
White responded to Be3-h6 with 12...Kf8, which is slightly comically called “Clearly, the only
move,” by Levenfish. It is one of those situations where a player presumes something to be true, but is
not looking.
He gives 12...Nxb3 13.Bxg7 as winning, but after 13...Nxd5! Black is not worse at all. On top of
this, Black also has the artistic 12...Nf5!? as an equalizing option.
After the move played, Levenfish missed 13.Nb6!! at the board although he deserves credit for
finding this move in his annotations after other commentators missed it.
503
18. Torre Repetto – Levenfish
Show/Hide Solution
Torre played 27.Rxc3, missing a fantastic combination.
27.Bd3! Rf4 (This is the critical move. However, if Black realizes what is coming, he can choose to
play 27...e2 28.Bxe4 exf1=Q† 29.Rxf1 Qg8 30.Nh2 Rf8 31.Qxc3 when his position is just plain
awful.) 28.Nxg5!! Rxf1† 29.Rxf1 Bxg5 30.Rf7
White has an incredible attack. Obviously, it would be superhuman to calculate it to the end, but with
the assistance of a computer, we can gain confirmation of the basic human perspective, that there is no
504
way Black can resist against best play. 30...e2 31.Rxh7† Kg8 32.Kh2 c5 33.Rxd7 Qxd7 34.Qxg5† Kf8
35.h7 Qg7 36.Qh4 Qh8 (36...Kf7 37.Bxe2 is also lights out, with Bh5 coming.)
37.Bg6! Setting up a winning finish: 38.Qf6† Qxf6 39.exf6 e1=Q 40.h8=Q#
19. Lilienthal – Levenfish

Show/Hide Solution
505
Lilienthal played 29.Re1?, which Levenfish calls “A loss of an important tempo.”
29.f5 b4 30.axb4 axb4 31.f6 Ba4 32.Ra1 is offered by Levenfish as a winning line for White. This is
certainly more critical than the move played in the game, but Black has a vital resource.
32...Nb6! Setting a trap: if 33.Kc5? Bxc2 Black wins. Therefore White needs to find 33.Rb1!, and after
33...Nd5 34.Ra1 the game would end with a repetition of moves.
20. Levenfish – Botvinnik

Moscow/Leningrad 1937 (page 184)
506
Show/Hide Solution
After 27...Nd3, which for some reason has been awarded an exclamation mark, White played 28.d6
and was totally winning.
27...Qa4 leads by force to a rook endgame after 28.Bxc5 Qxa5 29.Rxa5 Rxc5 30.Rxc5 Rxc5, when
White wins due to his two connected passed pawns:
31.Rc6! Ra5 32.d6 Kf7 33.c5 Ra1† 34.Kh2 Ke6 35.Rc7 Rd1 36.Rxg7 and although more technical
work is required, I think the master of rook endings would have cruised to the end...
The only defence was 27...Ne4!, and after 28.d6 Rxc4 29.Qd5† Qf7 the rook on c4 defends the
knight. Black should hold without too much trouble.
507
Moscow/Leningrad 1937 (page 190)
Show/Hide Solution
Levenfish had truncated the game and only included the endgame in his manuscript. Earlier, in this
position, White played:
21.Rd5 and was in trouble after 21...Be6.
Levenfish claimed in the magazine 64 that White would have been better off after 21.Rd1 Ba4 22.Rd5!,
thinking White would win a valuable tempo by attacking the e5-pawn. However, Black has a brilliant
resource:
508
22...Bb3!! The rook should retreat, on account of 23.Rxe5 h5! when it is short of squares. Against any
neutral move, the sequence of 24...f6 25.Re7† Kf8 26.Rh7 Bg8 27.Rh8 Kg7 will win the exchange.
And if the rook runs away with 24.Rg5, Black exploits the uncastled king with 24...Nxe4! 25.Rb5 Bc4!
26.Bxc4 Rxc4 when he will emerge a pawn up.
22. Levenfish – Chistiakov

Show/Hide Solution
509
Levenfish was happy with his decision to play 23.exf7† but, as Ragozin pointed out in his flawless
analysis, Black could have held the game with 23...Kh8!.
At the same time, Levenfish was wrong about 23.Nd5! Nxd5 24.exf7† Kxf7 (24...Kf8 is the lesser
evil, but after 25.Qxd5 White is much better) 25.Qxd5† Re6 26.Bh3 Rae8 leading to Black’s
advantage. White even has the luxury of choosing between two winning continuations here:
a) 27.Qf3†! is the direct win, which is wonderful in its simplicity. There are two main lines:
a1) 27...Kg8 28.Bxe6† Rxe6 29.Qf5!! and Black is unable to resist all the threats. For example,
29...Qe7 30.Rd8† and wins.
a2) Black also loses after 27...Bf6 28.Rxe6 Rxe6 29.Qh5† Ke7 30.Bxe6 Kxe6 31.Re1† Kd6
32.Qd1† Kc5 33.Qd2 when the king will not be able to dance from the bullets for much longer.
510
b) The alternative win is slower. 27.Re4! Preparing to double the rooks. It may look as if White is
winning immediately, but Black has one resource: 27...b6 28.Rde1 Bb7
29.Rf4†! Bxf4 30.Bxe6† Kg6 31.Qf5† Kh6 32.Qh3† Kg6 33.Qg4† Bg5 34.h4 and White wins.
Bonus position
Here is a final example which does not really work as an exercise, as White has many good moves.
Still, it is worth considering the following position all the same.
23. Flohr – Levenfish

511
After 19.Ne5 Nd7 20.Nxd7 Rxd7 Flohr had squandered a lot of his advantage. The needless
simplification and failure to act while his pieces were so superior was a shame for White.
There are a number of strong continuations, but the most convincing is also the most beautiful:
19.Rxd6!! Rxd6 (19...Qxd6 loses to 20.Be5! picking up the knight on b8) 20.Ba3 At this point there are
two lines I found which are worth analysing:
a) 20...Qd8 21.Ne5 b6 22.Bh7† Kh8
23.Bg6! fxg6 24.Nxg6† Kg8 25.Bxd6 Qxd6 26.Nxf8 Qxf8 27.Rc1 Next comes Qc7xa7 and White
wins.
b) 20...e5 21.Rc1 Rfd8 (21...Rd1† 22.Rxd1 Qxa3 23.Nxe5 is all over) 22.h3
512
Black is totally tied up and not long for this world. For example, 22...Nd7 loses to 23.Qc7! and
22...b6 to 23.Bxd6 Qxd6 24.Qxc8!.
513
Long variation – Wrong variation
This is a famous saying from maybe the greatest human being I have ever had the chance to meet,
Danish Grandmaster Bent Larsen. When we calculate long variations and also when we analyse long
variations, we are prone to sloppiness or other categories of human error.
Like before, I am offering you the chance to exercise your mind. Below I will give the positions and the
variations in question and offer you a chance to find the mistake(s) in the variations. In the event that a
variation contains more than one error, I will make it clear. If the number is not mentioned, you should
assume you are looking for just a single mistake.
24. Alekhine – Levenfish

In his annotations to 15.Ne5, Levenfish writes: “Worse is 15.Bb1 in view of 15...Qe8 16.Qe2 a6
17.a3 Nbd5 18.bxa6 Qa4 with strong pressure.” What is wrong with this variation?
Show/Hide Solution
514
The evaluation of the variation ending in the above position is flatly wrong. After 19.g3! Black loses
...Nf4 options. A possible line goes 19...Nc7 20.Bd3 Ra8 21.Ne5 with a big advantage for White, on
account of 21...Nxa6 22.Bb5!, trapping the queen.
25. Levenfish – Ravinsky

In his annotations to 19...Rd8 Levenfish writes about the possibility of 19...Nxe5 20.Bxe8 Nc4
21.Qxd4 e5 22.Qc3 Nxe8 23.b3 Na5 24.Qxe5† Kg8 25.Qg5, concluding that “White’s advantage is
undisputed. The threat is 26.Nh5.” What did he miss in this variation?
515
Show/Hide Solution
After 19...Nxe5 20.Bxe8 Nc4 21.Qxd4 e5 22.Qc3 Nxe8 23.b3 Levenfish overlooked a useful
intermediate move:
23...Qc6! 24.f3 Qc5† 25.Kh2 Ncd6 Black is by no means worse.
26. Ragozin – Levenfish

In his annotations to 18.Ne5 Levenfish gives a number of variations. The one we are interested in is
that which Black had prepared: 18...Rg5 19.Nc6 (Levenfish points out that Ragozin was intending
19.Ba6!, which is much stronger, so no points for that!) 19...Qa3! 20.Qh3 bxc6 21.Rfb2 Ng4 22.Bf5
516
Rxf5 23.Qxg4 Rf1† This variation includes two blunders. Can you spot them both?
Show/Hide Solution
After 18.Ne5, in the variation 18...Rg5 19.Nc6 Qa3 20.Qh3, Levenfish’s 20...bxc6 is a blunder
because of 21.Rxf6. Instead Black can play 20...Rh5!, and after 21.Qf3 bxc6 22.Bf5 Rxf5 23.Qxf5 Re8
he is comfortably winning.
27. Levenfish – Riumin

This was a theoretical tabiya of the day, and in the game Black played 16...Qf4. I have some
questions about some of the lines mentioned by Levenfish:
a) Why is 16...Qxd4 a bad idea?
b) What should Black play after 16...g6 17.Qb3?
c) What should White play after 16...h6?
d) Against 16...Bd7, Pirc played 17.Qb3. Which stronger option did he miss?
e) Against Alekhine’s 16...Bg4, it would of course be nice to play 17.Rg3 Bh5 18.Rh3 Bg6??
19.Qxg6! hxg6 20.Bxf7† Rxf7 21.Rh8†!, but we should not rely on our opponents to make mistakes.
What would be a stronger way of meeting Alekhine’s move?
Show/Hide Solution
In the game White did swimmingly after 16...Qf4 17.Nxf7!. Above I asked you to consider other
options:
a) 16...Qxd4 loses to 17.Rf3, as given by Levenfish.

b) 16...g6 17.Qb3 is Black’s best option. But at this point he needs to play 17...Qf4! 18.Nxf7 (18.Nf3
517
was played in Marcussen – J. Nielsen, Denmark 1979; after 18...b5 19.Bf1 Be6 Black is fine) 18...b5!
19.Bxb5 cxb5 20.Re7 Bd7 21.Ne5† Kh8 22.Nf7† with a draw.
c) 16...h6 17.Nxf7 Rxf7 18.Qg6 Qc7 19.Rf3 is entirely over, as shown by Levenfish.
d) 16...Bd7 is refuted by 17.Rf3!! g6 18.Qb3 Nd5 19.Ne4! and we can see that the addition of ...g6 is
detrimental to the black position. 19...Qc7 20.Bxd5 cxd5 21.Nf6† Kg7 22.Qxd5 and White is winning.
An important point is of course 22...Bc6 23.Qc5! when it is game over.
e) 16...Bg4 is refuted by a simple combination: 17.Nxf7! Rxf7 18.Bxf7† Kxf7 19.Qb3† Kf8 20.Qxb7
Rb8 21.Qxa7 Rxb2 22.Rxc6 Qxc6 23.Qa3†± Klemettinen – Rissanen, Finland 1980.
28. Levenfish – Lasker

Levenfish played 26.Bc4 and mentions that he avoided 26.Nd4 due to 26...cxd4 27.Qxe7 dxc3
28.Qa3 gxf4 29.exf4 c2 “and it is hardly possible to demonstrate an advantage for White...” What is
wrong with this variation?
Show/Hide Solution
Levenfish avoided 26.Nd4 on account of 26...cxd4 27.Qxe7 dxc3 28.Qa3 gxf4 29.exf4 c2!, where he
did not feel confident that White had an advantage. But actually, after 30.Qa4 Bg6 31.g4 White is well
on his way to winning the game.
29. Levenfish – Riumin

518
Riumin chose 29...Rf8. Levenfish gave 29...Kg7 30.Nh5† Kg6 31.Nxf6 Rf8 32.Nd5 Rxf4 33.Nxf4†
Kf5 34.Nh5 as favourable for White, but what is wrong with this line?
Show/Hide Solution
Levenfish missed that 29...Kg7 30.Nh5† Kg6 31.Nxf6 does not work on account of 31...Kg5! when
White drops a piece.
30. Levenfish – Ilyin-Zhenevsky

Tbilisi 1937 (page 172)
Instead of 21...Qe6, Levenfish prefers 21...Nxd6 22.Bc5 Rxc5 23.Nxc5 b6 24.Na6 Nf5. What is
519
wrong about this variation?
Show/Hide Solution
Levenfish’s line 21...Nxd6 22.Bc5 Rxc5 23.Nxc5 b6 is better than the game, but after 24.Na6 he
should play 24...g6 rather than 24...Nf5, which drops a piece to 25.Qf3.
31. Alatortsev – Levenfish

Leningrad/Moscow (6) 1940 (page 204)
The game continued 18...Ng4† 19.Kg3?. One of the variations Levenfish gives continues: 18...Ng4†
19.fxg4 Qh4† 20.Kg2 Qxg4† 21.Kf2 Bxe3† 22.Kxe3 Qg2 23.Nd6 as a losing overreaction for Black,
but there are a few mistakes in his reasoning. Can you locate any?
Show/Hide Solution
Levenfish’s sacrifice 18...Ng4† was not accepted. His analysis of 19.fxg4 Qh4† contains some
accurate elements along with some mistakes. 20.Kg2! is accompanied by the comment that “all other
moves are bad” – which is not true, as the king is also safe on g1. Then after 20...Qxg4† 21.Kf2
Levenfish is right in claiming that this should lead to a draw, as after 21...Bxe3†!? 22.Kxe3 Qg2? the
attack is indeed too optimistic. However, Levenfish’s 23.Nd6 is not the correct refutation, as it allows
Black to make a draw in a number of ways, including 23...Rfe8† 24.Nxe8 Qg5†. Instead, White is
winning after 23.Be5! or 23.Qxd5!.
520
Rook endings
Levenfish is best known for his fabulous book on rook endings, which was the go-to textbook until the
arrival of engines, offering more accurate information. For this reason, I have chosen to end this article
with three re-analysed rook endgames from this book. I hope you will enjoy them.
32. Eliskases – Levenfish

51.Kg4?
Levenfish missed White’s option to harass the black king, forcing it away from its optimal placement
on the 4th rank: 51.Rd8†! Kc4 52.Rc8† Kd3 53.Rd8† Ke2 54.Rc8 White has prevented the winning
manoeuvre that happened in the game, and draws after: 54...Kd2 55.Rd8† Kc1 56.Kg4 c2 57.Kxg5
Rc3 58.Rh8 Kd2 59.Rh1 c1=Q 60.Rxc1 Rxc1 61.g4 Ke3 62.Kf6 Kf4
521
63.g3†! Kxf3 64.g5 and White draws. I should add that, towards the end of this line, there were a few
other ways for White to hold the draw.
51...Ra5! 52.f4 Rc5 53.Rd8† Ke3 54.Rd1 c2 55.Rc1 gxf4 56.gxf4 Kd2 57.Ra1 c1=Q 58.Rxc1 Rxc1
59.Kg5 Ke3 60.f5 Ke4 61.g4 Ke5 62.Kg6 Rc6† 63.Kg7 Ra6 64.Kf7 Kf4 65.Kg7 Kg5
0–1

Moscow/Leningrad (11) 1937 (page 190)
522
49.axb4?
Levenfish was right to dislike his choice here.
49.Rxa5! was more accurate, when there are two main lines:
a) 49...Rc2 50.axb4 Rxb2 51.Rb5 Rxh2

Levenfish was correct up to this point, but he failed to continue his analysis in the most accurate way.
52.Re5!
Levenfish’s 52.Rd5 Rb2 53.Rd4 allows a clever drawing plan: 53...Rb3†! 54.Kd2 Ke6 55.Kc2 Rg3!
56.b5 g5 and so on.
52...Rb2 53.Re4 Rb3† 54.Kd2 Kf6 55.Kc2 Rg3 56.Rc4 g5 57.fxg5† Rxg5 58.Kb3 Ke6 59.Ka4
White wins.
b) 49...bxa3 50.bxa3 Rc2
523
51.h4!
This does not save the h-pawn, but it forces Black to bring his rook to an inferior square.
51...Rh2 52.a4 Rxh4
At this point White has three winning moves: 53.Ke4, 53.Rc5 and my favourite:
53.Rb5!
Levenfish gives 53.Rd5? Rh3† 54.Kd2 Ra3 55.Rd4 Kf6 56.Kc2 g5 57.fxg5† Kxg5 58.Kb2 Rf3
59.a5, but here Black has a serious improvement:
59...Kf6!! (59...Kf5? 60.a6 Ke5 61.a7 Rf8 62.Ra4 Ra8 63.Ra6!! loses as Levenfish shows: 63...Kd5
64.Kb3 Kc5 65.Ka4 Kc4 66.Ra5 Kc3 67.Kb5) 60.Rd8!? (60.a6 Ke7! [but not 60...Ke6?? 61.Rd8!]
61.a7 Rf8 and Black draws) 60...Ke7! 61.a6
524
61...Kxd8 62.a7 Rf2†! with perpetual check.
The following is a tablebase variation.
53...Rh3† 54.Kd4 Rf3 55.Ke4 Ra3 56.a5 Kf6
Otherwise Ke5 will follow.
57.Rb6† Kg7 58.a6

White wins, but there are still moves to play.
49...axb4 50.Rd4 b3 51.Rd3 Rh8 52.Ke4 Rxh2 53.Rxb3 Re2† 54.Kd3 Rf2 55.Ke3 Rg2 56.Rb5 Rg1
57.Kd3 Rf1 58.Rb4 Rf2
After 58...Kf6 Levenfish gave 59.Rd4 followed by a plausible winning line for White, but he
525
overlooked a beautiful saving resource:
59...Rc1!! 60.b4 Ke6 61.b5 g5!! 62.fxg5 Rc5 Black is just in time.
59.b3 Rf3† 60.Ke4 Rg3 61.Rb5 Rg1 62.Rd5 Rb1 63.Rb5
63...Kf6?
This is the losing move.
Any of 63...Re1† 64.Kd3 Rd1† 65.Ke2 Rb1, or 63...Ke6 64.Rb6† Kd7! 65.Ke5 Re1† 66.Kf6 Rg1!, or
even 63...Ke7, were all holding.
526
64.Rb6† Kf7 65.b4 Re1†
A nice little line to add is 65...Ke7 66.Ke5 Kd7 67.Kd5! Kc7 68.Rxg6 Rxb4 69.f5 Kd7 70.Re6! and
White wins.
66.Kd4 Rf1 67.Ke5! Re1† 68.Kd6 Re4 69.b5 Rxf4 70.Rc6!

1–0
34. Levenfish – Rabinovich

45.Rb1†?!
Levenfish entirely misjudges the variation starting with:
45.f5? a2 46.f6 Rd4
527
White is already in a lot of trouble. Levenfish continues with:
47.g4?
47.Rf1? Rd6! 48.f7 Rd8 and Black wins with ...Rf8xf7 before the g-pawn can arrive in support.
Actually, the last chance for White for hold is the beautiful 47.c3†!! Kxc3 48.f7 Rd8 49.Re3†! when
the rook will either harass the black king perpetually, or eliminate the a-pawn.
47...Rf4! 48.g5 Rf5 49.Kh2
49.g4 is another try, but correct play does not give White any chances. 49...Rxg5 50.f7 Rxg4†
51.Kh2 Rh4†! (not 51...Rf4? 52.Re4†) 52.Kg2 Rh8 53.Re4† Ka5 54.Re7 Rf8 55.Ra7† Kb4 56.Rxa2
Rxf7 and Black wins eventually. The white king is cut off too far away.
49...Rxg5 50.Rf1
In this sharp endgame, Levenfish commits a double error.
528
50...Rg8!
He misses this move, which wins for Black.
Moreover, 50...a1=Q?? 51.Rxa1 Rf5 is not a draw as Levenfish claims, but lost for Black after 52.g4
Rxf6 53.Rg1! Kc3 54.g5 Rg6 55.Rg2 and so on.
51.g4
Other moves also lose.
51...Rxg4 52.f7 Rh4†!
53.Kg3 Rh8
And it’s all over.
White’s most dangerous winning try was actually:

45.Ra1!
Objectively it’s still a draw, but Black has a bit less room for error than after other moves.
45...c5!
This is the most convincing way to hold.
45...Rxc2 46.g4 Kb3 47.g5 forces him to be extremely accurate:
529
47...Rc3!! Preparing to take on a3 with the rook. (Instead after 47...Kb2 48.Rxa3 Kxa3 49.g6 White
wins.) 48.Kh2 Kb2 49.Re1 a2 50.g6 Rc1 51.Re2† Rc2 52.Rxc2† Kxc2 53.g7 a1=Q 54.g8=Q Black
draws according to the tablebase, but only with 54...Qd4!.
46.Kh2 Ka4 47.Kh3 Rxc2 48.g4 Kb3 49.g5
49...Rc3†!
The same key idea as above: Black gets ready to recapture on a3 with the rook if necessary.
50.g3 Kb2 51.Rg1 Rc1 52.Rxc1 Kxc1 53.g6 a2 54.g7 a1=Q
530
55.g8=Q
Black draws in more ways than one, with 55...Qa6! being the most human. Even so, 56.Qb3 would
still give White some winning chances in a practical game.
45...Kc5 46.Ra1 Ra4
47.Ra2
Levenfish misses the stronger 47.Kh2! when Black must be extremely precise to draw. There are two
main tries:
a) The strength of White’s last move is felt after:
531
47...a2? 48.Kh3 Kd4 49.g4
The difference is that a check on the third rank will not push the white king backwards.
49...Ke4
49...Kc3 50.g5! wins.
50.g3 Ra8 51.Kg2
It looks more natural to go forward with 51.Kh4 and it’s also a good move, but after 51...c5 52.g5
Kf5 White must retreat with 53.Kh3, heading for similar ideas to the main line.
51...c5 52.g5 Kf5
53.Kf3! Ra3† 54.Kf2 Ra6

54...Kg4 55.c3! (55.g6? Rf3† 56.Ke2 Rxg3 with a draw) 55...Rxc3 56.Rxa2 Rf3† (56...Rxg3 57.g6)
57.Kg1! Kf5 58.Kh2 and White wins.
532
55.c3 Ra3 56.Kg2
This is the zugzwang we are aiming for.
56...c4
56...Kg4 57.g6 Rxc3 58.Rxa2 Rxg3† 59.Kf2! and White wins.
57.Kf2
Black is caught in a lethal zugzwang, forced to allow Kf3 or g5-g6.

57...Kg4 58.g6 Rxc3 59.Rxa2 Rf3† 60.Kg1!
White wins.
b) So instead Black has to play:

47...Kd5! 48.g4 Rxf4 49.Rxa3 Rxg4
533
I was unable to find the path to a draw with the help of Stockfish, but Lomonosov’s 7-man tablebase
shows the way. For example:
50.Rd3† Ke5 51.Re3† Kd4 52.Kh3 Rg7 53.Rd3† Ke4 54.g4 c5 55.Kg3
55.Kh4 Kf4! draws.
55...c4 56.Rd2
Or 56.Rd8 Rf7! 57.Re8† Kd4 58.Re2 Rg7! and Black holds.
56...Ke3!
But not 56...c3? 57.Rd3 Rc7 58.g5! Kf5 59.Rd5† and White wins.
57.Rd1 Rb7 58.g5 Rb2 59.c3 Rb3 60.Rf1
60...Kd2!!
60...Rxc3? 61.g6 wins.
534
61.Rf3 Rxc3 62.Rxc3 Kxc3 63.g6 Kb2 64.g7 c3 65.g8=Q c2
Black survives by a tempo.
47...Kd4 48.Kf2 Ke4 49.Ke2 Ra8 50.Kd2 Rd8† 51.Kc1 Ra8 52.Kd2 Rd8† 53.Kc3 Rg8 54.Kc4 Rxg3
55.c3 Kxf4 56.Rxa3 Rxg2 57.Ra6 Rg6 58.Kc5 Ke4 59.Ra4† Kd3! 60.c4 Kc2 61.Ra3 Rg4 62.Rh3 Rf4
63.Kb4 Rf5 64.c5 Rf8! 65.Rh6 Rc8 66.Rd6 Rb8† 67.Kc4 Rc8 68.Rh6 Kb2 69.Rg6 Ka3 70.Rg3† Kb2
71.Rb3† Kc2 72.Ra3 Kd2 73.Rd3† Ke2 74.Rd6 Ke3 75.Kb4 Rb8† 76.Kc4
½–½
535
Tournament and Match Record of Grigory Levenfish
536
537
538
539
Crosstables from Key Events
540
541
542
543
544
Index of Opponents (Levenfish playing White)
Game 10 Simon Alapin, All-Russian Masters’ Tournament, Vilna 1912 39
Appendix Vladimir Alatortsev, 15th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1947 235
Game 13 Alexander Alekhine, Tournament of Four, St Petersburg 1913 44
Game 67 Mikhail Botvinnik, 3rd match-game, Moscow 1937 182
Fragment Mikhail Botvinnik, 11th match-game, Leningrad 1937 190
Game 70 Mikhail Botvinnik, 13th match-game, Leningrad 1937 191
Game 30 José Raúl Capablanca, 1st Moscow International 1925 89
Game 49 Vitaly Chekhover, 2nd Moscow International 1935 133
Game 64 Vitaly Chekhover, 10th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1937 172
Game 72 Alexander Chistiakov, 11th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1939 199
Fragment Peter Dubinin, 9th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934/35 109
Game 1 Fedor Duz-Khotimirsky, St Petersburg 1909 15
Game 22 Fedor Duz-Khotimirsky, 2nd USSR Championship, Petrograd 1923 70
Appendix Max Euwe, ‘Tournament of Masters’, Leningrad 1934 221
Game 11 Alexander Flamberg, All-Russian Masters’ Tournament, Vilna 1912 40
Game 50 Salo Flohr, 2nd Moscow International 1935 135
Game 59 Salo Flohr, 3rd Moscow International 1936 160
Game 77 Salo Flohr, 15th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1947 214
Game 65 Victor Goglidze, 10th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1937 175
Game 25 Solomon Gotthilf, 3rd Leningrad Championship 1924 77
Appendix Georgi Ilivitsky, 16th USSR Championship, Moscow 1948 241
Game 42 Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky, 9th USSR Ch., Leningrad 1934/35 118
Game 63 Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky, 10th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1937 170
Game 39 Ilya Kan, 9th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934/35 113
Appendix Alexander Kotov, 11th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1939 229
Game 47 Emanuel Lasker, 2nd Moscow International 1935 129
Game 56 Emanuel Lasker, 3rd Moscow International 1936 152
Game 6 Paul Leonhardt, Carlsbad 1911 28
Game 78 Andrei Lilienthal, 16th USSR Championship, Moscow 1948 216
Game 46 Georgy Lisitsyn, 2nd Moscow International 1935 127
Appendix Georgy Lisitsyn, 20th Leningrad Championship 1946 233
Appendix Georgy Lisitsyn, 17th USSR Championship Semi-final, Leningrad 1949 243
Game 61 Vladimir Makogonov, 10th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1937 166
Game 9 Monoszon, St Petersburg 1912 38
Game 18 Ilya Rabinovich, Tournament of Six, Petrograd 1921 61
Game 38 Ilya Rabinovich, 9th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934/35 110
Game 40 Viacheslav Ragozin, 9th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934/35 115
Game 45 Viacheslav Ragozin, 2nd Moscow International 1935 125
Game 33 Grigory Ravinsky, 6th Leningrad Championship 1928 97
Game 44 Nikolay Riumin, 2nd Moscow International 1935 122
545
Game 51 Nikolay Riumin, Moscow 1935 137
Fragment Nikolay Riumin, 3rd Moscow International 1936 144
Game 19 Peter Romanovsky, Petrograd Championship 1922 63
Game 24 Peter Romanovsky, 3rd Leningrad Championship 1924 75
Game 32 Peter Romanovsky, Leningrad v. Moscow match, Leningrad 1926 94
Game 27 Solomon Rosenthal, 3rd USSR Championship, Moscow 1924 81
Game 79 Vasily Smyslov, 17th USSR Championship, Moscow 1949 217
Game 43 Gideon Ståhlberg, 2nd Moscow International 1935 120
Game 7 Saviely Tartakower, Carlsbad 1911 32
Game 35 Mikhail Yudovich, 8th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1933 102
Appendix Samuel Zhukhovitsky, Leningrad Team Championship 1948 240
546
Index of Opponents (Levenfish playing Black)
Game 4 Simon Alapin, Carlsbad 1911 25
Game 62 Vladimir Alatortsev, 10th USSR Championship, Tbilisi 1937 168
Game 73 Vladimir Alatortsev, 4th match-game, Leningrad 1940 202
Game 74 Vladimir Alatortsev, 6th match-game, Leningrad 1940 204
Game 75 Vladimir Alatortsev, 10th match-game, Moscow 1940 206
Game 76 Vladimir Alatortsev, 12th match-game, Moscow 1940 208
Game 16 Alexander Alekhine, All-Russia Olympiad, Moscow 1920 57
Game 48 Fedor Bohatirchuk, 2nd Moscow International 1935 131
Appendix Fedor Bohatirchuk, 9th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934/35 223
Game 66 Mikhail Botvinnik, 2nd match-game, Moscow 1937 180
Game 68 Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th match-game, Moscow 1937 185
Game 69 Mikhail Botvinnik, 10th match-game, Leningrad 1937 188
Appendix Mikhail Botvinnik, 3rd Moscow International 1936 225
Game 60 Alexander Budo, Leningrad 1937 164
Game 8 Amos Burn, Carlsbad 1911 35
Game 5 Oldrich Duras, Carlsbad 1911 26
Game 54 Erich Eliskases, 3rd Moscow International 1936 145
Game 55 Salo Flohr, 3rd Moscow International 1936 148
Game 28 Ivan Golubev, 4th Leningrad Championship 1925 82
Game 52 Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky, 11th Leningrad Championship 1936 139
Appendix Nikolai Kopylov, 17th USSR Championship, Moscow 1949 245
Appendix Nikolai Kopylov, 25th Leningrad Championship 1952 252
Appendix Viktor Korchnoi, VTsSPS Team Championship, Minsk 1953 253
Game 31 Emanuel Lasker, 1st Moscow International 1925 90
Game 58 Emanuel Lasker, 3rd Moscow International 1936 158
Game 57 Andor Lilienthal, 3rd Moscow International 1936 155
Game 41 Vladimir Makogonov, 9th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934/35 117
Fragment Aron Nimzowitsch, Carlsbad 1911 31
Game 14 Aron Nimzowitsch, Masters’ Tournament, St Petersburg 1914 47
Game 17 Abram Rabinovich, All-Russia Olympiad, Moscow 1920 59
Game 21 Ilya Rabinovich, 2nd USSR Championship, Petrograd 1923 69
Game 36 Ilya Rabinovich, 8th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1933 104
Game 53 Ilya Rabinovich, 11th Leningrad Championship 1936 142
Game 34 Viacheslav Ragozin, Training Tournament, Leningrad 1932 99
Appendix Viacheslav Ragozin, 17th USSR Championship, Moscow 1949 248
Game 71 Samuel Reshevsky, ‘Training Tournament’, Leningrad 1939 197
Game 15 Peter Romanovsky, All-Russia Olympiad, Moscow 1920 55
Game 20 Peter Romanovsky, 2nd USSR Championship, Petrograd 1923 66
Game 23 Peter Romanovsky, 3rd Leningrad Championship 1924 71
Fragment Akiba Rubinstein, Carlsbad 1911 30
547
Game 12 Akiba Rubinstein, All-Russian Masters’ Tournament, Vilna 1912 42
Game 3 Alexey Selezniev, Moscow 1910 19
Appendix Alexander Tolush, 21st Leningrad Championship 1947 237
Game 29 Carlos Torre, 1st Moscow International 1925 88
Game 26 Boris Verlinsky, 3rd USSR Championship, Moscow 1924 79
Game 37 Boris Verlinsky, 8th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1933 107
Game 2 Eugene Znosko-Borovsky, St Petersburg 1910 18
548
Selected books authored or edited by Levenfish
Pervaya kniga shakhmatista (‘The Chessplayer’s First Book’).
Leningrad 1925.
Match Alekhin-Kapablanka na pervenstvo mira (‘Match Alekhine-Capablanca for the World

Championship’, co-authored with P.A. Romanovsky).
Published by Shakhmatnyi Listok, Leningrad 1928.
Tretii mezhdunarodniy shakhmatniy turnir, Moskva 1936 (‘The Third International Chess Tournament,
Moscow 1936’, edited by Levenfish).
Published by Fizkultura i Turizm, Moscow/Leningrad 1937.
IX Vsyesoyuznoye shakhmatnoe pervenstvoe (‘9th All-Union Chess Championship’; the tournament

book of the 9th USSR Championship).
Published by Fizkultura i Turizm, Moscow/Leningrad 1937.
Sovremennyi debyut (‘The Modern Opening’, edited by Levenfish).

Published by Fizkultura i Turizm, Moscow 1940.
Great Britain v. U.S.S.R. – The over-the-board chess match, London, September 1947
Edited by William Winter; games annotated by Levenfish.
Published by the Anglo-Soviet Chess Circle, London 1949.
Teoriya ladeinykh okonchanii (‘The Theory of Rook Endgames’, co-authored with V.V. Smyslov).
Published by Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1957.
549
Name Index
A
Aagaard 3, 257
Alapin 16, 24, 25, 39, 40, 41, 248
Alatortsev 5, 98, 109, 168, 179, 196, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 208, 211, 235, 236, 241, 277, 280, 288,
290, 291, 292
Alekhine 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 79, 93,
94, 96, 97, 118, 122, 123, 137, 160, 173, 182, 195, 199, 275, 276, 278
Alekhine, Aleksei 17, 19
Aronin 241, 242
Averbakh 151, 263
B
Becker 118, 222
Belavenets 11, 109, 177, 178, 196, 198, 290, 292
Bernstein 12, 13, 16, 39, 46, 49, 50, 51, 56
Blackburne 46, 49, 50
Blumenfeld 16, 19, 54
Bobrischev-Pushkin 12
Bogoljubow 16, 44, 50, 51, 58, 59, 79, 85, 87, 92, 94, 137
Bohatirchuk 51, 117, 131, 223, 224, 290, 291
Boleslavsky 217, 235
Bomze 10
Bondarevsky 196, 292, 293
Botvinnik 4, 7, 57, 99, 102, 109, 119, 120, 127, 131, 133, 135, 143, 144, 156, 163, 165, 177, 178, 179,
180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 195, 199, 200, 202, 203, 218, 225, 229, 267, 269,
271, 272, 281, 288, 291
Brazilsky 3
Bronstein 218, 236
Budo 163, 164, 292
Burn 25, 34, 35, 36
C
Capablanca 7, 8, 18, 49, 50, 82, 87, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96, 97, 122, 131, 133, 143, 144, 162, 163, 199, 258,
260, 291
Carlsson 123
Chajes 26
Chebyshev-Dmitriev 14, 289
Chekhover 98, 109, 117, 133, 134, 137, 145, 172, 177, 259, 266, 290, 291, 292
Chepurnov 21
Chigorin 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 21, 25, 50, 66, 69, 233, 248
Chistiakov 102, 199, 200, 201, 269, 272
550
Chukovsky 178
Cohn 12
D
Daniuszweski 12, 13, 54
Dopukhanov 14
Dubinin 109, 249, 290, 293
Duras 12, 26, 28, 44, 49, 287
Duz-Khotimirsky 12, 13, 15, 16, 21,
24, 54, 70, 71, 102, 287
E
Ebralidze 165, 292
Eliashev 14
Eliskases 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 162, 280
Estrin 293
Euwe 109, 118, 160, 173, 182, 195, 221, 288
F
Faibisovich 85
Fine 143, 151, 163, 164, 196, 202, 263, 288
Finkelstein 9
Flamberg 16, 36, 39, 40, 41, 44, 50, 51
Flohr 55, 120, 132, 133, 135, 143, 144, 148, 160, 161, 162, 196, 214, 263, 266, 273, 291
Freiman 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 39, 54, 102, 290
Fridstein 241, 242
G
Gelbakh 21
Geller 3
Goglidze 102, 119, 165, 175, 196, 291, 292
Goldenweiser 14
Golubev 53, 54, 61, 63, 82, 289
Goncharov 16
Gotthilf 63, 77, 137, 289
Grebenshchikov 46
Grekov 137
Griffin 3, 8, 261, 263
Grigoriev 53, 54, 109, 147
Grünfeld 58
Gunsberg 46, 49, 50
H
Hennig 23, 287
Hewitt 139
Horowitz 55
551
I
Ilivitsky 241
Ilyin-Zhenevsky 53, 54, 82, 109, 118, 139, 141, 149, 163, 170, 211, 262, 277, 279, 289, 290, 292
Izbinsky 16, 36
J
Janowski 49, 50
Johner 222
K
Kagan 24
Kan 7, 109, 113, 114, 119, 133, 143, 144, 196, 261, 290, 291, 292
Kasparian 292
Kentler 8, 9, 45, 46, 51, 211, 220
Keres 33, 148, 196
Khadrin 11
Khaikin 14
Khvilevitsky 289
Kiley 139
Kirillov 102
Kizeritsky 289
Klemettinen 279
Kmoch 221, 288
Koblencs 293
Kolisch 11
Konstantinopolsky 196, 220, 292
Kopylov 245, 249, 252, 253, 293
Korchnoi 253, 255
Kotov 7, 229, 268
Kottnauer 288
Koyalovich 21
Krause 18, 158
Krogius 293
Krylenko 79, 120, 143
Kubbel 54, 84, 289
Kuprin 14
Kuzminykh 293
L
Larsen 274
Lasker 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 25, 36, 44, 46, 49, 50, 56, 57, 71, 82, 87, 90, 91, 92, 94, 129, 131, 133,
137, 143, 144, 152, 153, 154, 158, 159, 160, 248, 276, 279, 291
Lavreniev 178
Lenin 71, 93
552
Leonhardt 28, 41
Levin 16, 17
Levitsky 36, 37, 39, 44, 45, 54
Lilienthal 133, 143, 145, 155, 156, 177, 196, 201, 212, 214, 216, 218, 264, 269, 271, 291, 292
Lipnitsky 3
Lisitsyn 98, 99, 102, 109, 127, 128, 137, 196, 233, 243, 262, 290, 291, 292, 293
List 16, 20, 213
Loran 16, 20
Lowtzky 23, 51
Lurye 16
M
Maizelis 137
Makogonov 117, 166, 196, 236, 290, 292
Maliutin 17, 21, 51
Maltsev 10
Marco 63
Marcussen 279
Maróczy 49, 127, 132
Marshall 32, 49, 50, 87, 93, 94
Marvich 178
Maugham 6
Mazel 290
Menchik 120, 291
Monoszon 38
Mund 54
N
Nenarokov 12, 16
Nielsen 279
Nimzowitsch 7, 16, 24, 30, 31, 32, 39, 47, 49, 50, 69
Notkin 3
O
Odes 20
Oistrakh 14
Ossovsky 14
Ostrovsky 98
P
Panchenko 10
Panov 109, 196, 290, 292
Pavlov 54
Pillsbury 11
Pirc 120, 123, 125, 276, 291
553
Platz 15, 21, 63, 289
Porteus 10
Potemkin 14
Prokofiev 11, 14, 15
Przepiórka 51
R
Rabinovich 16, 20, 24, 39, 51, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 69, 71, 79, 82, 97, 102, 104, 109, 110, 117, 133, 137,
142, 163, 196, 261, 283, 289, 290, 291, 292
Ragozin 98, 99, 101, 109, 115, 120, 125, 133, 143, 156, 196, 200, 201, 229, 248, 249, 258, 272, 275,
278, 290, 291, 292
Rakhmanov 178
Randviir 293
Rausch 17, 44
Rauzer 163, 290, 292
Ravinsky 55, 97, 98, 275, 278, 293
Reshevsky 143, 196, 197, 198, 204
Réti 71, 79, 87, 94, 252
Rissanen 279
Riumin 102, 109, 122, 137, 138, 143, 144, 165, 276, 278, 279, 290, 291
Rokhlin 99
Romanovsky 13, 15, 17, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 63, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 82, 94, 96, 97, 98, 102, 109,
119, 133, 137, 196, 199, 250, 251, 266, 287, 289, 291
Rosenthal 81, 267
Rotlewi 12, 13, 23, 24, 32, 36
Rovner 160
Rozanov 13
Rubinstein 8, 12, 13, 16, 24, 30, 32, 36, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 57, 87, 122, 125, 127, 182, 260
Rudnev 51
Russo 53
S
Saburov 11, 23, 46
Salwe 12, 24, 39
San-Donato 11
Satonina 219
Savitsky 290
Schiffers 10, 14
Schlechter 12, 32, 36, 41, 49, 57, 63
Selezniev 19, 20, 51, 287
Shamaev 293
Shishkin 13, 14
Shneideman-Stepanov 99
Simagin 127
554
Smyslov 7, 10, 115, 147, 196, 198, 216, 217, 237, 238
Sokolsky 196
Solozhenkin 178
Sosnitsky 11, 16, 51
Sosonko 7, 8, 99, 213, 216, 220
Spassky 220
Spielmann 12, 25, 32, 38, 87, 133, 291
Ståhlberg 120, 129, 163, 291
Steiner 224
Steinitz 11, 32, 39, 50, 158
Süchting 36
T
Taimanov 293
Tal 155
Taneev 11
Tarasov 293
Tarrasch 11, 12, 24, 36, 49, 50, 57, 62, 63, 79, 102, 148, 206
Tartakower 32, 79, 87, 123, 269, 270
Teichmann 12, 36
Tereshchenko 11, 16, 45
Tietz 23, 24, 32
Tolush 166, 196, 237, 238
Torre 88, 94, 269, 270
Traubenberg 17
Troitsky 144, 145
Tselikov 54
U
Ufimtsev 293
V
Vainshtein 51, 53, 61, 63, 66, 82, 195, 289
Veresov 290
Verlinsky 16, 20, 36, 61, 66, 79, 102, 107, 260
Vidmar 14, 32, 33, 69, 122, 123
Vladimirovna 51
Volkovsky 196
Y
Yakobson 10
Yudovich 7, 102, 109, 267, 290, 292
Z
Zagoriansky 293
Zagorovsky 293
555
Zak 14
Zamikhovsky 293
Zavarina 211
Zhukhovitsky 240
Znosko-Borovsky 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 39, 44, 51, 287
Zoshchenko 178
Zubarev 54, 102
Zverev 289
556
Table of Contents
Title Page 4
Publisher’s Foreword 3 7
Translator’s Preface 7 8
1 School and Student Years 9 10
The Tournament at Carlsbad 24 27
St Petersburg 1914 46 71
The All-Russia Olympiad 53 79
Petrograd Championship 63 97
2nd USSR Championship 66 102
3rd USSR Championship 79 128
4th USSR Championship 82 135
1st Moscow International 1925 87 140
2nd Moscow International 1935 119 206
3rd Moscow International 1936 143 254
Tournament with the Participation of Fine 163 294
The Match versus Botvinnik 177 324
6 The Pre-War Years 195 361
The Training Tournament 196 363
The Match versus Alatortsev 201 374
7 The Great Patriotic War 211 391
8 Some Games of Recent Years 213 393
Translator’s Postscript 220 406
Appendix – Additional Games 221 407
Pictures 476
Afterword by Jacob Aagaard – One Hundred Years Later 257 481
Candidates 268 503
Long variation – Wrong variation 274 514
Rook endings 280 521
557
Tournament and Match Record of Grigory Levenfish 287 536
Crosstables from Key Events 289 540
Index of Opponents (Levenfish playing White) 294 545
Index of Opponents (Levenfish playing Black) 296 547
Selected books authored or edited by Levenfish 298 549
Name Index 299 550
558

Soviet Outcast - Grigory Levenfish PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Soviet Outcast - Grigory Levenfish PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Contents

1 School and Student Years 9

2 The Master Title, Memorable Encounters 23

3 First Tournaments in the Soviet Republic 53

4 The Years 1925-36 87

5 My Best Achievements 163

6 The Pre-War Years 195

7 The Great Patriotic War 211

Translator’s Postscript 220

First English edition 2019 by Quality Chess UK Ltd

Copyright © 2019 Quality Chess UK Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

Paperback ISBN 978-1-78483-085-4

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd,

Distributed in North and South America by National Book Network

Translated and collected by Douglas Griffin

Key to symbols used

School and Student Years

Grigory Levenfish – Fedor Duz-Khotimirsky

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.Nc3 a6

7.Bxc6 Bxc6 8.Bg5

12.Nxd5 Qd7 13.c4 Nc5

14.e6! Nxe6 15.Rxe6† fxe6 16.Ne5 Qd6 17.Qh5† g6 18.Nf6†

Eugene Znosko-Borovsky – Grigory Levenfish

8...a6 9.Na3 f6 10.f4 0-0

11.Nf3 c5 12.Qd2 Nc6 13.Nc2 Bd7 14.Be2 Be8 15.0-0 Bg6

16...Nc4 17.Bxc4 dxc4 18.Ne3

18...Bd3 19.Rf2 Rad8 20.exf6 gxf6 21.Re1?

21...cxd4 22.cxd4 Qd6

23.b3 b5 24.bxc4 bxc4 25.Qc3

25...Nxd4 26.Nxc4 Nxf3† 27.gxf3 Qc5!

28.Rc1 Bxc4 29.Kg2

30.Re2 Rg7† 31.Kh1

Alexey Selezniev – Grigory Levenfish

13.Nf3 Bc5 14.Rf1 f6 15.Na4 Bxf2†

21...Qxf3 22.Qxf3 Rxf3 23.Re1 Raf8 24.Re2 R8f5?

The Master Title, Memorable Encounters

The Tournament in Carlsbad

Simon Alapin – Grigory Levenfish

1.c4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bf4

5...cxd4 6.Nxd4 Bb4 7.e3 Nge7

8.Qb3 Qa5 9.Rd1

10.Nc2 Bxc3† 11.bxc3 0-0 12.Be2 e5

13.Bg3 Be6 14.0-0 Rac8

21.Qa3 c2 22.Rc1 Qc5!

Oldrich Duras – Grigory Levenfish

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.c4

6...Be7 7.h3 0-0 8.Be3

11.Bxf4 exf4 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.0-0 Bf6!

15.Nd5 g4 16.hxg4 Bxg4

36.Kg1 Bd4† 37.Kg2 Rxe2† 38.Rxe2 Qf4

Grigory Levenfish – Paul Leonhardt

10.0-0 d6 11.h3 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5

18.cxb3 Bb5 19.Qc2 Bf6 20.Bd2 Qb6

22...cxb4 23.Qb3 Be8 24.R7a6! Qc5 25.Rc1 Qb5 26.Ra7 Kg7

34.Rg7† Kh8 35.Qa7

Thus, I became a Master.

Akiba Rubinstein – Grigory Levenfish

17.Kxb2 b4 18.Nd4! bxc3†

20.Qxd4 Rb8 21.Re3 g5

22.Rxc3 gxf4 23.gxf4 Bd7

Aron Nimzowitsch – Grigory Levenfish

31.Rxd4! Bc5 32.Qd8!