Heroes of Classical Chess Learn from Carlsen, Anand, Fischer, Smyslov and Rubinstein

Craig Pritchett

EVERYMAN CHESS www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2009 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT

Copyright© 2009 Craig Pritchett

The right of Craig Pritchett to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

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.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN: 978 1 85744 619 7

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, North burgh House, 10 North burgh Street, London EC1V OAT. tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everymanchess.com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc.

Everyman Chess Series

Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.

Contents

Bibliography 4

Acknowledgements 7

Introduction 9

1 Akiba Rubinstein (1882-1961) 12

2 Vassily Smyslov (1921-) 51

3 Robert Fischer (1943-2008) 91

4 Viswanathan Anand (1969-) 138

s Magnus Carlsen (1990-) 182

Index of Openings 222

Index of Players 223

3

Bibliography

Chess is fortunate in having a rich and extraordinarily diverse written record. I would encourage anyone interested in any of the players in this book and the development of ideas in chess history more generally to read widely. By all means be guided by the sources I cite below, but do not feel that they remotely exhaust the field. They are simply the books, DVDs, periodicals and online resources that I most consulted while writing this book.

I have loosely grouped the titles in the books section according to which chapter they most directly contributed, with a final sixth group of books that more generally cut across all chapters.

Books

Chapter 1, Rubinstein

Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie, Savielly Tartakower (Edition Olms 1981} Masters of the Chess Board, Richard Reti (Batsford 1993) Modern Ideas in Chess, Richard Reti (Dover 1971) Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces, Hans Kmoch (Dover 1960} The Four Knights, Jan Pinski (Everyman Chess 2003) The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein, Vo/.1, John Donaldson & Nikolay Minev (Russell Enterprises 2006}

4

Bib liog raphy

Chapter 2, Smyslov

125 Selected Games, Vassily Smyslov (Cadogan Chess 1995) My Best Games of Chess 1935-1957, V.V.Smyslov (Routledge & Keegan Paul 1958) The Battle of Britain, Tony Miles, Craig Pritchett & Nathan Goldberg (Chess Express 1983) The Chess Struggle in Practice, David Bronstein (Batsford 1980) The World Chess Championship 1948, Harry Golombek (BCM Classic Rep rint 1982)

Chapter 3, Fischer: Bobby Fischer goes to War, David Edmonds & John Edinow ( Faber & Faber 2004) Bobby Fischer Rediscovered, Andrew Soltis (Batsford 2003) Chess Praxis, Aron Nim zovich (Dover 1962) Das New Yorker Schach Turnier 1927, A.Alekhine (Walter de Gruyter 1963) Fischer: His Approach to Chess, Elie Agur (Cadogan Chess 1992) Fischer versus Spassky, Harry Golombek (Barrie & Jenkins 1973) Hypermodern Chess, Fred Reinfeld (Dover 1958) My 60 Memorable Games, Bobby Fischer (Simon & Schuster 1969) My System, Aron Nim zowitsch (Batsford 1994) Nimzo-Larsen Attack, Byron Jacobs & Jonathan Tait (Everyman Chess 2001) Russians versus Fischer, Dmitry Plisetsky & Sergei Voronkov (Everyman Chess 2005)

Chapter 4, Anand:

My Best Games of Chess, Vi shy Anand (Gam bit 1998) Viswanathan Anand: My Career {Vols. 1&2), Viswanathan Anand (ChessBase DVDs 2008) World Chess Championship 1995: Kasparov vs. Anand, Daniel King (Cadogan Chess 1995)

Chapter 5, Carlsen:

Wonder Boy, Simen Agdestein (New in Chess 2004)

General Works

Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess {Parts 1-3}, Garry Kasparov (Everyman 2007-2009) Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors {Parts 1 -V}, Garry Kasparov (Everyman 2003-2006) Lasker's Manual of Chess, Emanuel Lasker (Dover 1960) The Best of Chess Life & Review {Vols. 1&2}, ed. Bruce Pandolfini {Simon & Schuster 1988)

5

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Class ica l Chess

The Golden Dozen, Irving Chernev {Oxford University Press 1976) The World's Greatest Chess Games, Graham Burgess, John Nunn and John Emms (Robinson Publishing 2004) The Oxford Companion to Chess, D.Hooper & K.Whyld {Oxford University Press 1984)

Periodicals & Online Resources Chess, Chess Informant, ChessBase Magazine, Europe Echecs, New in Chess Magazine

and Schach Magazin 64, as well as the ChessBase, ChessCafe and The Week in Chess websites.

6

Acknowledgements

Above all, I would like to acknowledge my debt to the creative achievements of all the players and commentators mentioned in this book. In putting my own stamp on the work, I hope that I have both added value and given due credit to others, where appropriate.

I would also like to thank the Everyman editorial team, particularly John Emms, who encouraged me to consider writing this book, and Richard Palliser. Once again, I owe a very special debt to Elaine, Katie and Sally for their unfailing family support and forbearance. I dedicate this book to my mother, I s abel Pritchett.

7

Introduction

This book celebrates the play of five great heroes of classical chess. In doing so it aims both to entertain and instruct the reader in the art of playing "classically direct'' chess, as it has developed over the last hundred years or so.

"Style" is an elusive quality in chess. By "classically direct" chess I imply a kind of universality of play that embraces all styles, in a sense, and transcends narrow boundaries - a style that is based on such overarching attributes as clarity, energy, toughness, ambition and a fundamental sense of analytic "correctness".

My heroes are all supreme in the art of divining and following the strategic and tactical threads of a game. They see chess primarily as an organic whole, not as a series of artificial phases. They don't attack or defend for the sake of it, but only when the position demands it, and they are equally at home whether playing the opening, middlegame or endgame.

My heroes have also all made a significant historical impact. Chess hori zons expand and develop through time, and so I have chosen my heroes, not just because I admire their great chess, but also because each was an acknowledged giant in a given time period.

All of my heroes are great symphonists of the chessboard. They have all managed to produce many grand, persuasive statements that are both part of their time and look forward.

My Five Heroes My earliest hero is Akiba Rubinstein, who played in the early 1900s during the

9

Ch ess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Ch ess

immediate post-Steinit z era. Without Steinit z, who contributed so much to our understanding of the game, there could scarcely be any serious discussion of the classically direct playing style in the way I've described it.

Rubinstein built on a discernibly Steinit zian foundation. He rejected all dogma, battled energetically and always sought new paths. He revitalised our understanding of what Emanuel Lasker called Steinit z's "method", turning it into an art-form. In Rubinstein's hands, the ideas of Steinit z were infinitely adaptable, deadly, subtle and sharp - truly aesthetic.

My next hero is Vassily Smyslov, a colossus whose career spans almost a full seven decades from the 1930s. A child of the Soviet chess revolution, Smyslov took the liberated thinking of its spirit to the giddiest heights. There were no rules for Smyslov, only limitless ideas to discover and try out on the chessboard. Truth depended ultimately in a game on whether things worked or not.

My third hero is Bobby Fischer, who, in mid-century, radically shook up the chess world. Fischer outdid the Soviets. He had a colossal capacity for work, matchless creative powers and a visceral energy. He took greater risks than his peers and with his genius for calculation, anticipated the computer age and its inexorable drive towards grounding ever-more ideas in ever-more precise variations.

My fourth hero is Vishy Anand, who, as I write, is the current World Champion. Anand's career began in the pre-computer age, in the 1980s. Through the 1990s and into the 21st Century, he and other top players had to adjust to the advent of increasingly powerful chess engines. Anand has thrived on this challenge, tamed the computer and shown how to make its analytical power bow to our own individualism.

My final hero is Magnus Carlsen, only 19 years -old and yet world number two, as I end this book. He has superb all-round skills, complete mastery of the com puter and can play virtually any kind of position with equal virtuosity : Having already produced many fine games that can match any in this book, he fully merits his inclusion in my classic pantheon.

The Style and Format of this Work This book can be enjoyed purely as a great games collection, but I hope that it is more than that. Indeed, I hope this work appeals to a wide audience of readers interested in improving their own chess, while being entertained and introduced to both the development of chess ideas and the classically direct playing style.

I present this work in historical order as the play of each hero can only be fully understood and appreciated by an awareness of the legacy of the great players that preceded them. Each chapter includes brief but I hope sufficient biographical

1 0

In troduction

information to enable the reader to get an idea of what made each player tick as a person. However, my main aim is to focus on each player's greatest achievements and games.

I have resisted trying to be overly reductive in dissecting each player's playing style and drawing precise comparisons between their games or "typical" elements in them. In a game such as chess, I fear that this kind of approach doesn't really chime with the way we ourselves play and reflect on our own styles, so that it can easily become artificial. Thus Mikhail Tal was a great attacker, but at the same time, in very many of his games, he displayed an outstanding universalism. I consider style in chess to be a matter of nuance and tendency rather than anything absolute. Indeed, I have concentrated on seeking to draw out nuance and tendency, as well as the essential spirit of the classically direct playing style.

In the end, that hoary old conundrum about the "true" nature of chess just won't go away. No matter how maddeningly, chess remains at one and the same time inextricably a science, a sport and an art-form. That's good enough for me and, I hope, my readers. Enjoy it !

Craig Pritchett, Dunbar,

November 2009

1 1

Chapter One

Aki ba Rubinstein (1882-1961}

Rubinstein has created the most perfect games of the epoch since Steinitz ... the most perfect demonstration of Steinitz's teachings.

Richard Reti, Masters of the Chess Board

Without the considerable example of the games and ideas of the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinit z (1836-1900}, it is probably fair to say that the basis for what I have in mind when I use the term classically direct chess, would not have been developed by Rubinstein's time.

Steinit z is largely credited with laying the ground rules for "correct" positional play, particularly in closed positions. His main insight was to develop an idea of "balance" in chess, and the notion that winning depends critically upon accumulating advantages sufficient to upset the natural balance in any game between peers in favour of successful rather than quixotic attack.

Steinit z subjected positional factors, particularly pawn structures, to close scrutiny. He emphasised the value of sound pawn chains, with strong points in the centre (generally based on pawns on e4/e5 or d4/d5}, manoeuvrability and an absence of unprotected weak squares. Steinit z was ahead of his time in understanding how pieces and pawns might best work together both in the attack and defence of strong and weak points.

On top of this, the tireless Steinit z was also one of the earliest truly professional, openings-investigative chess players. Unusually for his time he created and deeply investigated many whole new game plans. Steinit z worked out much more than how he might simply open a game. His systems were based on ideas de-

1 2

A kiba Rub instein (1 882 - 1 9 6 1)

signed to carry him successfully through typically arising middlegames and into the endgame.

Steinitz built on a chess past that had to a large extent shown how to handle attack and defence in open positions. Where kings were in danger, rapid development, the creation of open lines and sound combinations were all at a premium. Steinitz didn't overthrow such ideas. He rather incorporated and adapted them into new ways of thinking about planning in all kinds of position.

The second World Champion, Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941), who gained the world title from Steinitz in 1894, greatly admired Steinitz's achievements. In a warm and lengthy eulogy in his Manual of Chess (1923), he argued that Steinitz's ideas point to a flexible and extremely fruitful, new and essentially scientific "method" of play. At its core, Lasker considered that "the teaching of Steinitz demands from us an accurate valuation." Steinitz's ideas help us better evaluate positions and therefore generate good plans. They help deepen our understanding of what truly works in a game and our ability to generate guiding principles or rules that can be refined, following test against actual outcomes achieved in competitive play.

In Masters of the Chess Board, Richard Reti observed about the post-Steinitz era that "the theory of Steinitz could be further developed in two directions ... philosophically, as a general theory of the fight ... or with the idea of finding that form of the theory ... most suitable for the practical execution of a chess game."

Reti considered that Lasker took Steinitz's theory in the first direction, while Lasker's contemporary and rival, Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934), took it in the second. Lasker battled the player and considered that the game was mainly a struggle of wills; Tarrasch battled the board, considering that chess favoured the player who best understood the game.

Here matters stood when Akiba Rubinstein took his first international steps in the game in the early 1900s. Rubinstein was to develop a fresh style that steered a middle course between the out-and-out fighter, Lasker, and the dispassionate, professorial-like Tarrasch, and was even more discernibly mainstream Steinitzian in spirit than either of them.

Rubinstein's game developed the classical legacy in ways that were not just original but also a breath of fresh air in the 1900s. Again, according to Reti, "it took an entire generation of chess masters to derive from (Steinitz's) theories all that they contained ... for practical playing. Rubinstein was the keystone of this generation."

By 1912, Rubinstein's practical successes had established him clearly as the natural world championship challenger to Lasker. Then at the height of his powers, Rubinstein may have won such a match. Like Steinitz at his best, Rubinstein

1 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

was profoundly creative, played many subtle openings and possessed a flair for beautiful combinations as well as technical accuracy. Sadly, while negotiations for a Lasker-Rubinstein match reached an extremely advanced stage by 1914, the Great War intervened, destroying its prospects completely.

Biographical facts about Rubinstein's early life are sketchy. Born into a large family in the small town of Stawiski, near Bialystok, he seems to have learned chess in his mid-teens, eventually settling in Lodz, probably by about 1903, when the very active Lodz Chess Society was formed, of which he became a member.

Rubinstein soon made a mark in the Russian Empire and abroad. In 1907 he shared first place at Ostend and won outright at Carlsbad in the two top events of that year. At the turn of 1907-08, he then won the fifth All-Russian Championship. One of his wins in this event has since become his historical calling-card and popularly known as his "Immortal Game".

Rubinstein's final combination in this game spectacularly demonstrates his considerable tactical skills, but the game as a whole perhaps even more tellingly emphasizes how much Rubinstein had absorbed from Steinitz. Black sets his concluding fireworks alight, only after having first accumulated sufficient of those small, Steinitzian advantages to support a strike that derives squarely from the logic of the position.

Game1 Ci.Rotlewi-A.Rubinstein

Fifth AII'-Russian Championship, Lodz 1907

TarraschDejFence

1 d4 ds 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 e3 cs 4 c4 lt:Jc6 s lt:Jc3 ct:Jf6 6 dxcs .i.xcs 7 a3 a6 8 b4 .i.d6 9 .i.b2 0-0 10 'ifd2?!

White commits his queen prematurely to a square that it may have to vacate in a few moves. More to the point is 10 cxds exds 11 .i.e2, with chances for both sides. White will seek to exploit the weak squares surrounding Black's isolated queen's pawn (IQP) and eventually to undermine the pawn

1 4

itself; Black has plenty of space and good piece play. 10 ... 'ife7 11 .i.d3?

This, however, is a poor move that simply allows Black to develop his queenside with tempo (and it also has further time-loss consequences on White's 14th move). White should still play 11 cxdS exds 12 .i.e2, but accepting the gambit by playing 12 lt:Jxds?! ct:Jxds 13 'ifxds leaves White significantly behind in development and would instead be risky. Graham Burgess thought that White might escape with a draw after 13 ... .i.e6 14 'iid3 �ac8 15 .i.e2 �fd8 16 'iih1 .i.ds 17 o-o .i.€4 18 'ifa2 .i.ds (his main line only), but there can easily be hidden im-

provements in such lines.

11 ... dxc4 12 �xc4 bs 13 �d3 .Md8 14 �e2

White effectively loses another tempo, as his queen could clearly have reached this square in one move. Due to the black rook's latent opposition on the open d-file, however, White scarcely had anything better. 14 ... �b7 15 o-o tt:Jes

This is a common manoeuvre in such positions. Black aims to exchange White's defensive knight on f3 and open his bishops' kingside attacking diagonals. Here the idea has extra force because of the tempi Black has won in

A kiba Rub instein (1 882 - 1 9 6 1)

the opening. 16 tt:Jxes �xes 17 f4

White must break Black's threats along the b8-h2 diagonal and has no safe way to complete his development without playing this rather committal and possibly weakening pawn move. Both 17 .Mfd1 �c7 18 .Mac1 �xh2+ 19 Wh1 �8 and 17 .Mac1 �xh2+ 18 �xh2 �d6+ 19 '>t>g1 �xd3 lose material, while Razuvaev gives 17 h3 .Mac8 18 .Mac1 �b8 19 .Mfd1 �c7, again forcing 20 f4, to Black's clear advantage. 17 ... j,c7 18 e4

White must also play this move now, or he will be vulnerable to an ... es break, opening lines for Black's queen and bishop. Black wins, for example, after 18 .Mfd1 es 19 .Mac1 (or 19 fs e4) 19 ... exf4 20 exf4 �b6+ 21 Wh1 �e3 22 fs �f4, threatening . . . tt::lg4. 18 • • • .Mac8 19 es?

But this is a bad error, which fatally opens the a7-g1 and a8-h1 diagonals for Black's bishops. White should have endured the central tension at least one move longer by bringing his queen's rook into play. Black remains clearly better after, say, 19 .Mac1 es 20 fs �b6+ 21 Wh1 �d4, due to his extra space, better development and chances to undermine White's stretched e4/f5 pawns, but White can still fight. 19 ... �b6+ 20 'lt>h1 tt::lg4!

White must surely have seen this move, but missed something later, possibly either or both of Black's 22nd and 23rd moves.

1 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

21 .ie4 Our thanks must go to Rotlewi for

playing this move and allowing Rubinstein to demonstrate his combination over the board in its fullest glory. The prettiest of several other forlorn tries is 21 ctJe4 'iVh4 22 h3 l:!.xd3 23 �xd3 .ixe4 24 �xe4 �g3 25 hxg4 'iVh4 mate.

After 21 �xg4 White loses more mundanely to 21 ... l:!.xd3 22 CiJe2 l:!.c2 23 .ic1 g6, threatening . . . h5 . Black also wins after 21 .ixh7+ 'itxh7 22 �xg4 l:!.d2 and 21 h3 'iVh4 22 �xg4 �xg4 23 hxg4l:!.xd3. 21 ... �h4 22 g3 l:!.xc3!

23 gxh4 l:!.d2!

1 6

Black offers a second rook, forcing White to abandon his pivotal defensive bishop on e4 and reaching one of the most justly famous positions in chess history. White will be mated. 24 �xd2

Mate also follows after 24 .ixb7 l:!.xe2 25 .ig2 {or 25 .ixc3 l:!.xh2 mate) 25 ... l:!.h3 26 .ixh3 l:!.xh2 mate, or 24 l:!.ae1 .ixe4+ 25 �xe4 l:!.xh2 mate . 24 ... .ixe4+ 25 �g2 l:!.h3! 0-1

Black's final, quiet rook move leads to a mate on h2 that can only be postponed by fruitless rook and bishop sacrifices. If 26 l:!.f3 .ixf3 27 �xf3 l:!.xh2 mate.

1908 was a good year for Rubinstein, during which among other successes he took on and defeated the American champion, Frank Marshall, 41/2-31/2, in a match in Warsaw. As Marshall had just lost a world title challenge match against Emanuel Lasker the previous year, though by a much larger 111/z-31/2 margin, this was particularly encouraging.

Early in 1909 Rubinstein tied with Lasker to win the great St Petersburg tournament of that year. Both finished on 141/z/18, a full 31/2 points ahead of Duras and Spielmann tied in 3rd. Rubinstein deservedly defeated Lasker in their individual game and, given the emphatic nature of his achievement at St Petersburg, he now started to be taken seriously as Lasker's rightful challenger.

It was not just Rubinstein's result that impressed in St Petersburg, but also the magisterial, yet apparently effortless way he played in his best games. At about this time Rubinstein was beginning to get a reputation as a particularly strong endgame player, but in fact his chess always had a much more universal quality. Rubinstein played the opening, middlegame and endgame with equivalent power and a mastery of strategy and tactics that was second to no one.

In his game at St Petersburg against Jacques Mieses (186S-19S4}, a romantic of the old school, Rubinstein nursed a hard-earned opening edge through to

A kiba Rub ins tein (1 882 - 1 9 6 1}

a win in an outstanding endgame. Mieses' entry in The Oxford Companion to Chess attracts the unfair and certainly exaggerated comment that "he never assimilated the positional ideas of Steinitz and Tarrasch." Be that as it may, he certainly got a lesson in the art of playing classically direct chess in this game.

Game2 A.Rubinstein-J..Mieses

St. Petersburg 1909 Queen's Gambit

1 d4 dS 2 lt:Jf3 cS 3 C4 lt:Jf6!? The classical and safer response is

3 . . . e6, transposing to a main l ine Tarrasch Defence. Mieses, however, generally preferred open positions, even if, as here, he risked losing a half-tempo or so to achieve his desired objective.

Shortly after St Petersburg, the same two players met in a match played in Berlin, Hanover and Frankfurt. Mieses switched to a different but not dissimilar line with Black in that match, 3 ... cxd4!? 4 cxdS �aS+ S �d2 �xds 6 lt:Jc3 �as 7 lt:Jxd4. As in St Petersburg, Black trades time for free piece play and no pawn weaknesses. Rubinstein won the argument in that line too and took the match 6-4. 4 cxdS cxd4 s lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxds 6 e4 lt:Jf6!?

Today Maxim Dlugy's 6 .. . lt:Jb4 receives more attention. White has two good replies in 7 i.bS+ (Garry Kas-

1 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

parov's choice) and 7 .ie3 (favoured by Jose Raul Capablanca). Lasker recommended 6.Jbe7 in the tournament book, and if 7 .tf4 'Lld7, but 8 �a4 preventing ... es, as in Z.Varga-J.Horvath, Budapest 2000, still poses some problems for Black. 7 'Llc3 es!?

Black forces a queen exchange, but weakens ds. Lasker preferred 7 ... e6, but White then kept an edge, almost 90 years later, in O.Cvitan-R.Huch, Passau 1997, after 8 .llbs+ 1ld7 9 es .txbs 10 'Lldxbs 'Llfd7 11 o-o 'Llc6 12 1lf4 a6 13 'Lld6+ .llxd6 14 �xd6 �e7 15 �C7 'Llcs 16 �xe7+ �xe7 17 .tUd1llhd8 181lg5+ f6 19 exf6+ gxf6 20 .ie3. s .llbs+ ltd7 g 'Llfs!

White maintains the better game with this fine gambit idea. Black's king will suffer in the centre if he accepts the pawn, after 9 ... i.xb5 10 �xd8+ li?xd8 11 'Llxbs 'Llxe4?! 12 i.e3 ! 'Llc6 13 f3. 9 ... .:Uc6 10 'Lld6+ i..xd6 11 �xd6 �e7 12 �xe7+ 'Llxe7

Black's weakness on ds tells imme-

1 8

diately after the incautious 12 .. . \i?xe7?! 13 .llgs ! , and if 13 . . . i..e6 14 f4 with a clear advantage. 13 i.e3 a6 14 .txd7+ 'Llxd7 15 'ii?e2 lieS 16 .tlhd1 'Llcs 17 i..xcs!

White has the better development, but Black is well placed to regroup his knights to contest d4. Lasker suggested 17 .tlac1 'Lle6 18 'Llds, retaining White's bishop, but after 18 ... .tlxc1 19 .tlxc1 'Llc6 Black appears to have a very firm grip on d4.

Rubinstein's 17th move seeks to contest Black's control of d4 with a little more bite. He would have seen that his 19th move was promising and he probably also foresaw the threatening situation arising after his 2 5th move. Rather than directly playing to prevent Black's knight from occupying d4, he plays to undermine Black's es support, while at the same time creating play on the f-file. 17 ... .tlxcs 18 llac1 'Llc6

Lasker preferred 18 ... lle7 (and not 18 ... 0-0? 19 'LldS !) , but after Hans Kmoch's recommendation, 19 'Lla4!

ltJc6 20 '>te3 o-o 21 ltJc5 ltJd4 22 itJd3, Black's e5-point comes under serious threat, and if 22 ... l:i.xc1 23 l:i.xc1 f6 24 l:i.c7 l:i.f7 2 5 l:i.c8+ l:i.f8 26 l:i.xf8+ 'itxf8 27 ltJc5, winning a pawn. 19l:i.ds!

Rubinstein presents Black with a difficult choice between playing down his main line and Lasker's 19 ... l:i.c4. Neither equalizes. After 19 ... l:i.c4 Lasker recommends 20 b3 l:i.d4 21 '>te3 f6 22 ltJa4 '>te7 23 lLlc5 l:i.xd5 24 exd5 ltJb4 25 d6+ as best for White. Although material remains equal, White has a clear queenside initiative and the better king. Play might continue 25 ... 'itxd6 26 ltJxb7+ '>td7 27 a3 ltJc6 28 b4 l:i.a8 29 'ite4 ltJd4 30 g3, with the idea of f4 and good chances.

19 ... l:i.xds 20 exds ltJd4+ 21 'itd3 '>te7 22 f4!

White isolates and seriously weakens Black's e-pawn. White's king will be able to attack it, while at the same time giving extra support to his potentially dangerous passed d-pawn from the excellent blockading square e4.

A kiba Rub ins tein (1 882 - 1 9 6 1 }

2 2 . . .f6 2 3 fxes fxes 24 'ite4 'itd6 2 5 l:i.f1!

White's rook will now penetrate to the seventh rank with threats against virtually all of Black's pawns, including Black's shaky pawn on e5. 2S ... l:i.c8 26 l:!.f7 l:!.c4 27 '>td3 l:!.b4 28 l:i.xg7!

This thematic and aesthetic move is also almost certainly stronger than the alternative winning try, 28 b3 lLlb5 29 ltJxb5+ l:i.xb5 30 l:i.xg7. 28 .•• l:!.xb2 29 l:i.xh7 l:i.xg2 30 l:i.h6+ '>td7

Black keeps his king in front of White's menacing passed d-pawn. He might also try 30 .. . �c5 31 ltJe4+ 'itb5 (but not 31 .. . 'itxd5? 32 l:i.d6 mate), and if 32 d6 'itc6. However, the gambit alternative 32 a4+ 'itxa4 33 d6 looks more dangerous. Then if 33 ... 'itb5 34 d7 l:i.g8 3 5 itJd6+ 'itc6 36 ltJe8+ 'itxd7 37 itJf6+ 'ite6 38 ltJxg8+ 'itf7, while White can't save his knight, he still seems to win after 39 l:i.b6 'itxg8 40 l:i.xb7 lLlf3 41 h3 ltJg5 42 h4 itJf3 43 h 5. Here White also achieves an apparently winning bind after 33 ... l:!.g8 34 d7 ltJc6 35 lLlc5+

1 9

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

bs 36 l2lxb7 '2ld8 37 '2ld6+ c6 38 '2le8+ b7 39 '.te4, and if 39 . . . as 40 xes! a4 41 d6! a3 42 M.h3 winning. Or if 33 ... '2lc6 34 d7 '2ld8 35 M.h8 '2lc6 36 M.c8 M.g7 37 '2lf6 bs 38 h4, and White wins by advancing his h-pawn. 31 M.h7+ d6 32 M.h6+ d7 33 '2le4 M.xa2 34 M.h7+ ds 3 S d6!

The downside to Black's king position is that White can now close in by creating mating threats. White threatens an immediate 36 '2lf6 and M.h8 mate, and if 3 S ... M.a3+ 36 c4 M.a4+ 37 ds .Mas+ 38 lLlcs, White again threatens mate on h8, winning at once. 3s ..• l2lbs 36 c4 .Mas

This is Black's only way to prevent White's king from decisively joining in the attack via ds. If now 37 ds '2lc7+ holds. 37 .l:!.xb7'2la3+ 38 b4 .l:ibS+

This is also forced, but it leads to a lost knight and pawn ending. 39 M.xbs lLlxbs 40 cs d7 41 ds as 42'2lcs+ es 43 xes f7 44'2lb7 1-0

White's d-pawn costs Black his knight, and after 44 ... '2lxd6 45 '2lxd6+

2 0

g 6 46 f 4 h 5 4 7 g 3 a4 48 '2lc4, White's king and pawn will chase Black's king to h8, followed by l2leS-f7 mate.

1910 was a relatively quiet year both for chess and for Rubinstein. But he did meet and defeat a very young Alexander Alekhine on a visit to Moscow. 1911, however, opened with the superbly strong San Sebastian tournament. Lasker didn't play, but Capablanca took part, determined to defeat the European old guard on his Old World debut.

San Sebastian was a very close-run battle between Rubinstein and the 22 year-old Cuban. Capablanca eventually finished first, on 9V2114, but was only a half-point ahead of Rubinstein and Milan Vidmar, tied on 9 points, with a fairly bunched field close behind these two. Capablanca lost only to Rubinstein, who was also the only undefeated player. Indeed, Rubinstein would have tied with the Cuban if he hadn't missed a clear last round win

against Spielmann. Taken together, Rubinstein's results

at San Sebastian and at St Petersburg two years earlier, including his two impressive wins against Capablanca and Lasker in these events, essentially established his effective world number two reputation. But the newcomer Capablanca had clearly set down a marker that he might overhaul him in a few years' time and from now on the Cuban came to be seen as the longerterm man of the future.

Rubinstein's San Sebastian win against Capablanca was every bit as deserved as his win against Lasker at St Petersburg. Rubinstein took advantage of some diffidence in Capablanca's opening play to gain an edge in the early middlegame. Capablanca then went quite seriously wrong, allowing Rubinstein to pull off an ingenious small combination to gain a pawn and eventually win a difficult endgame.

Remarkably, the key winning idea against Capablanca involved exactly the same queen move (�c1) as against Lasker, at St Petersburg in 1909.

Game3 A.Rubinstein-J.Capablanca

San Sebastian 1911 Tarrasch Defence

1 d4 ds 2 lZ:lf3 cs 3 c4 e6 4 cxds exds s lZ:lc3 lZ:lc6 6 g3

First played in C.Schlechter - F.Duz-

A kiba Rub instein {1 882 - 1 9 6 1}

Khotimirsky, Prague 1908, Rubinstein deserves most of the credit for fashioning this move into a modern system. Steinitz had earlier investigated positions in which White (or Black) laid siege to an IQP based on the development e3 and .te2 ( ... e6/ ... jLe7), (usually) reinforced by a queenside bishop fianchetto.

Steinitz laid stress on controlling the blockading square in front of the IQP. Having thereby contained the IQP, Steinitz sought to centralize and exchange pieces to exacerbate the vulnerability of the weak squares around the IQP and of the IQP itself, which often proved decisive in the endgame.

Tarrasch (and others), however, increasingly found ways to exploit the space, free development and attacking prospects that the IQP afforded, and fashioned the Tarrasch Defence into a particularly successful system. Rubinstein radically improved the range of possible plans and dynamic opportunities available to White, redressing the balance.

2 1

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

6 ... .ie6!? Capablanca had already success

fully used this move in his match in 1909 against Frank Marshall. Nowadays, however, Black usually first completes his kingside development before committing his queen's bishop to this solid but essentially defensive square, as it may sometimes be more actively developed to fs or g4.

Rubinstein also already had a lot of impressive experience in this line with both colours. In A.Rubinstein-G.Salwe, 3rd matchgame, Lodz 1908, for example, White achieved a model bind on the dark squares after 6 ... tt:if6 7 .ig2 cxd4!? 8 tt:ixd4 iib6! ? 9 tt:ixc6 bxc6 10 o-o .ie7 11 tt:ia4! iihs 12 .ie3 o-o 13 .l:!.c1 .ig4!? 14 f3 ! .ie6 15 .ic5 .l:!.fe8 16 .l:!.f2 ! tt:id7 17 .ixe7 .l:!.xe7 18 'i¥d4 .l:!.ee8 19 .if1! .l:!.ec8 20 e3 iib7 21 tt:ics tt:ixc5 22 .l:!.xcs .l:!.c7 23 .i:!.fc2 iib6 24 b4 a6 25 .i:!.a5 .l:!.b8 26 a3 .l:!.a7 27 .l:!.xc6 'Yi'xc6 28 'i¥xa7, and White won. 1 .ig2 .ie7 8 o-o .l:!.c8?!

But this riskier move probably takes Black's plan of delaying kingside devel-

2 2

opment a bit too far. Capablanca was trying to avoid his opponent's "theory", but now White has chances to develop a serious initiative in the centre while Black's king side development lags.

Better is 8 ... tt:if6, after which A.Rubinstein-G.Salwe, 8th matchgame, Lodz 1908, witnessed another impressive demolition of Black's game with 9 .igs o-o 10 .l:!.c1 cxd4 11 tt:ixd4 tt:ixd4 12 'i¥xd4 'Yi'd7? (12 . . . 'i¥as is critical) 13 e4! dxe4 14 'i¥xd7 .ixd7 15 tt:ixe4 .ic6 16 lZJxf6+ gxf6 17 .ih6 .l:!.fc8 18 i..xc6 .l:!.xc6 19 .l:!.xc6 bxc6 20 .l:!.c1 .l:!.c8 21 .l:!.c4, and White converted his clear endgame advantage. 9 dxcs .ixcs 10 CZJgs!?

White plays for the two bishops and a long-term initiative on the light squares. But it may be that the more straightforward 10 tt:ia4 .ie7 11 i..e3, playing for control of the dark squares, was a more straightforward way to assure White a comfortable plus. 10 ... tt:if6 11lbxe6 fxe6 12 .ih3

Rubinstein bases his plan on the black rook's position on c8. This way of playing for White is far less convincing if Black's rook has not yet been moved from a8. Then Black can quickly consolidate in the centre, by playing ... 'Yi'e7, ... 0-0 and ... .l:!.ad8 or ... .l:!.ae8. Here, however, Black is soon likely to have to move his queen's rook again with an effective time-loss. 12 ... 'iVe7 13 .igs o-o?

White's plan works well after this move. 13 . . . .l:!.d8 was better when White

A kiba Ru b instein (1882-1 961)

no longer has the combinational op- 16 �g2 .l:cd8 17 Ylic1! tion he has in the game. Indeed, chances for both sides may be no more than balanced. 14 �xf6! Ylixf6?

Capablanca's positional instincts and his calculating powers both let him down in this game. Rubinstein now wins a pawn by force and so Black had to play the ugly 14 ... gxf6. Kasparov and others then assess the promising position arising after 15 lbxd5! exd5 16 �xc8 .l:xc8 17 Ylixd5+ �h8 18 e3 .l:d8 19 Ylif5 as clearly better for White, but Black may still be able to fight. 1slLixds! Ylih6

Capablanca had relied on this, but completely missed White's reply and further intention on his 17th move. He had only reckoned with 16 �g2? allowing 16 ... lLie5 ! , followed by ... lbg4, with an obvious advantage to Black.

It was, however, too late to draw back. White wins immediately after either 15 ... exd5? 16 Ylixd5+ �h8 17

Capablanca had, of course, seen this beautiful refutation of his play by now, but that doesn't detract from its subtle impact. The white queen's almost casual, one square shift to the left on the first rank not only allows it to escape the black rook's pin on the d-file, but also to set up winning, double threats against c5 and e6.

The same queen move also dealt the telling blow in A.Rubinstein-E.Lasker, St.Petersburg 1909, in which the fol lowing position arose after 15 ... .l:he8.

�xc8 or 15 ... �xf2+? 16 �g2 Ylif7 17 Here Black threatens ... .l:xe3 and lLif4. appears to have considerable compen-

2 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

sation for his sacrificed pawn, but White coolly defended by playing 16 .Mc1 .Mxe3 (or if 16 ... 'it>b8 17 .Mcs �f4 18 dS .Mxe3 19 �c1 .Me4 20 dxc6 bxc6 21 �c3, with a clear advantage) 17 .Mxc6+ bxc6 18 �c1! .

Now while Black can wriggle, White wins material and Lasker failed to defend after 18 ... .Mxd4 19 fxe3 .Md7 20 �xc6+ �d8 21 .Mf4! fs (if 21 ... .Md1+ 22 �f2 .Md2+ 23 �e1 �xg2 24 l':.d4+ and wins) 22 �cs �e7 (or 22 ... .Md1+ 23 �f2 .Md2+ 24 �e1 �xg2 2 S �aS+) 23 �xe7+ �xe7 24 .Mxfs .Md1+ 2S �f2 .Md2+ 26 �f3 .Mxb2 27 .Mas .Mb7 28 .Ma6 �f8 29 e4 l':.C7 30 h4 �f7 31 g4 �f8 32 �f4 �e7 33 h s h6 34 �fs �f7 3 S es .Mb7 36 .l:;!.d6 'it>e7 37 .Ma6 cJ?f7 38 .l:;!.d6 cJ?f8 39 .Mc6 �f7 40 a3 ! 1-0.

White's final move in this game prevents .. . .Mb4, after which White can advance his e-pawn and his king to g6, without losing his g-pawn. Both Black's g- and h-pawns then fall, and White wins quickly.

Returning to the 17 �c1 of Rubinstein-Capablanca:

2 4

11 ... exds Black has no choice. He loses after

either 17 ... �xc1 18 ..txe6+ �h8 19 .Maxc1 or 17 ... .Mxds 18 �xh6 gxh6 19 .i.xe6+. 18 �xes �d2 19 �bs l2'ld4 20 �d3 �xd3 21 exd3 .Mfe8 22 .i.g4!?

White still has some difficult work to do, as Black's pieces are active. Rubinstein covers e2, but Capablanca probably correctly considered that White's most accurate continuation would have been 22 .Mfe1 l2Jc2 23 .Mxe8+ .Mxe8 24 .Mel (Kasparov's 24 .Md1, and if 24 ... l2'ld4 25 ..tg4 or 24 ... hs 2S d4, also seems good), and if 24 ... .Me2 2S �fl l2'ld4 26 .Mc8+ �f7 27 .Mc7+ .Me7 28 .Mcs, and White should win fairly quickly . 22 •.. .Md6 23 .Mfe1 .Mxe1 24 .Mxe1 .Mb6 25 .Mes!?

And here Razuvaev's 25 b3 .l:;\,a6 26 .Me5 ! .l:;!.xa2 27 .Mxd5 may be better. Black would, of course, then lose a piece after 27 ... l2Jxb3? 28 .i.e6+ �f8 29 .Mfs+. 2s • • • .Mxb2 26 .Mxds l2Jc6 27 .i.e6+ �f8 28 .Mfs+ �e8 29 ..tf7+ �d7 30 .i.c4 a6?!

Now Black goes wrong. Capablanca pointed out that 30 ... c;tod6! gains an important tempo to advance Black's queenside pawns. He thought that Black might then draw. However, in the modern age, aided by powerful computers, Kasparov considers that White can still hope to win after 31 l:!.f7! . Nevertheless any win is far from straightforward and Black should have played this way. Kasparov's most complex line continues 31 .. /t:Jes 32 l:!.xg7 bs 33 ii.b3 as 34 d4 lt:Jd3 35 c;tof3 lt:Jc1 36 .ltg8 lt:Jxa2 37 l:!.xh7 lt:Jc3 38 l:!.h6+ c;toe7 39 l:!.a6 a4 40 h4etJd1 41 dS l:!.xf2+ 42 c;toe4, with a probable win for White.

31l:!.f7+ c;tod6 32 l:!.xg7 bs 33 .igs as 34 l:!.xh7 a4 35 h4 b4 36 l:!.h6+ c;tocs 3 7 l:!.hs+ c;tob6 38 ii.ds?!

Having been involved in a tense race on opposite sides of the board, the players now reach one of the most famous positions and talking points in chess history. Did Rubinstein, as many commentators have asserted over the last 100 years, let Capablanca off the hook here?

A kiba R ub instein (1882 - 1 961}

As pointed out at the time, White could have won quite easily by playing 38 .ltc4 b3 (or if 38 ... l:!.xa2? 39 l:!.bs+!) 39 axb3 a3 40 l:!.bS+ c;toc7 41 b4. Now Black has a chance.

38 ... b3? Capablanca misses an historic op

portunity. Both sides overlooked the resource 38 ... l:!.xa2 !, and if 39 ii.xa2?? b3 40 ii.xb3 axb3, Black wins. How would Rubinstein have reacted? Could he still have won the game?

Kasparov and his computers are among the doubters. Kasparov analysed 38 ... l:!.xa2! 39 l:!.h6 ! ? l:!.c2 40 hs ! ?, but after 40 ... a3 41 l:!.e6 l:!.cs ! , found that only Black has chances. Perhaps 40 l:!.e6 is a better try, but after 40 ... b3 41 h s l:!.cs ! play transposes into one of Kasparov drawing lines, in which after exchanges on c6, both sides' b- and hpawns queen simultaneously, reaching a drawn queen and pawn endgame.

Kasparov also considered whether White could revert to 39 ii.c4!?, but after 39 ... l:!.c2 40 l:!.bS+ c;toc7 41 ii.g8 a3 42 h S a2 43 .ltxa2 l:!.xa2 44 h6 l:!.a6!, and

2 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classica l Chess

if 4S h7 (or 45 g4 Ci'Je7 46 g S .l:tb6!) 45 ... .l:ta8! , followed by . . . .l:th8, this is also unconvincing. But there may nevertheless still be a vindication of Rubinstein's 38th move, in a little-known analysis by Vladimir Vukovic, apparently unknown to Kasparov and not investigated by him.

Vukovic's deep and beautiful main line, given by Donaldson and Minev, may need more powerful computer checking, but subject to that reservation, it has a convincing feel to it: 39 llh8 !

39 ... b3 (or 39 ... llc2 40 .l:ta8 a3 41 h 5 llc5 4 2 .if7) 40 h 5 .l:tal (after either 40 ... Ci'Jb4 or 40 ... .l:tc2, 41 h6! wins) 41 .ixc6 c!lc7 (or if 41...c!lxc6 42 .l:tb8 c!lc7 43 .l:tb4 followed by h6) 42 .ie4 b2 43 d4 a3 44 llh7+ c!ld6 4S llb7 a2 46 .l:txb2 llgl+ 47 c!lxgl al�+ 48 llbl �xd4 49 .if3, and White wins. 39 axb3 a3 40 .ixc6 .l:txb3

Now, however, White's task is once again easy. White's rook will reach the a-file and stop Black's a-pawn from behind, say, after 40 ... a2 41 llb5+ c!la6

2 6

42 .l:tb8, followed by .l:ta8. 41 .ids a2 42 llh6+ 1-o

Black's king must move to the a-file, after which .l:th8-a8 wins.

Rubinstein's fine form continued throughout 1911. He finished the year in shared 2nd with Schlechter, on 17/25, at Carlsbad, behind Richard Teichmann, who played the event of his life to win on 18 points. However, 1912 was truly stellar. Rubinstein won three events outright, at San Sebastian, Pistyan and at the Russian National Tournament in Vilnius, and shared 1st place with Ossip Duras at Breslau.

Rubinstein's 1912 results confirmed his claim to be Lasker's rightful challenger. A credible argument might also be made for a challenge by Capablanca, but he did not play at all in Europe that year and had recently been somewhat inactive. Rubinstein's recent record and current form put him well ahead of any other possible European or New World contender.

Rubinstein defeated Carl Schlechter, Lasker's most dangerous recent challenger, twice at San Sebastian. In 1910, Schlechter and Lasker had tied an extremely hard-fought world championship match, 5-5, with Lasker only scrambling a win and levelling the score in the final game. In 1912, Schlechter was no match for Rubinstein, who achieved the following outstanding endgame win against him in their first game at San Sebastian.

Throughout his career, Rubinstein mainly defended against 1 e4 with 1...e5, answering the Spanish Opening with a range of sound closed lines and also the Open Defence. However, as against Schlechter, he also frequently played what later became known as the Rubinstein Variation of the French Defence. Rubinstein worked out many of Black's main counter-attacking ideas in this line, which is based on an early .. . dxe4. Although conceding White a half centre, with an unopposed pawn on d4 and some extra central space, Rubinstein showed that Black could nevertheless hope to complete his development and strike back hard at d4 with an eventual ... c5.

At San Sebastian, Schlechter prematurely tried to dominate the queenside light squares in the early opening, allowing his opponent to drive White's pieces back and emerge with a very slight middlegame edge. Rubinstein manoeuvred well in the middlegame, achieving a series of small but tangible positional gains. The surprise win came in a cleverly played rook and pawn endgame.

Game4

C.Schlechter-A.Rubinstein San Sebastian 1912

French Defence

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ds 3 'bc3 'bf6 Rubinstein usually preferred the

Akiba Rub instein (1882 - 1 961}

move order 3 ... dxe4 4 'bxe4 'bd7 5 'bf3 'bgf6, but the lines can transpose after 6 .ig5. The game S.TarraschA.Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1911, a good example of how he played this line, continued 6 .id3 .ie7 7 o-o o-o 8 'bxf6+ 'bxf6 9 'be5 c5 10 dxc5 Wio 11 Wie2 .ixc5 12 .ig5 'bd7 13 'bxd7 .ixd7 14 l:i.ad1 .ic6 15 Wih5 g6 16 Wih4 l:i.fe8 17 l:i.fe1 .ie7 18 .ixe? "flxe7 19 "flxe7 l:i.xe7, and was eventually drawn. 4 .igs dxe4 5 'bxe4 'bbd7

Rubinstein invariably played this way, aiming for a careful strategic resolution of Black's opening problems. Black can also invite entry into the sharper Burn Variation after 5 ... .ie7, and if 6 .ixf6 gxf6, with double-edged play. 6 'bf3 .ie7 7 'bxf6+ 'bxf6 8 .id3 b6

If, as here, he felt he could do it safely, Rubinstein always played a queenside fianchetto quickly. Black faces three main opening challenges in this line: to find a good square for his queen's bishop, to connect his major pieces effectively and to hit back in time with ... c5. Here the immediate queenside fianchetto is Black's clearest way to begin such a plan, and Black's 8th move was a recent novelty. 9 'bes!?

Schlechter's attempt to force matters on the light squares may have come as a surprise to Rubinstein, as he had already successfully defended against this line at San Sebastian, a year previously. Nowadays, White

2 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

would normally seek to maintain his slight space and time advantage by quieter means, such as 9 �e2 i.b7 10 o-o-o (or possibly 10 0-0 o-o 11 J:Iad1). Note that Black has no problems after either 9 i.bs+ i.d7 or 9 i.xf6 i.xf6 10 i.e4 l:Ib8 11 CZJes i.xes 12 dxes �xd1+.

9 ... i.b7 10 i.bS+ c6 11 i.xc6+?! This doesn't work out well for

White. Black also stands well after 11 CZJxc6 �dS ! and White may have nothing better than to play the unambitious 11 i.e2, but this is already quite level.

Instead R.Spielmann-A.Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1911, had continued 11 �f3 �ds 12 i.xf6 cxbs 13 ..txg7? ! �xf3 14 gxf3 l:Ig8 15 i.h6 f6 16CLJd3 i.xf3 17 .l:!.f1 .l:!.g4 18 i.f4?! .l:!.d8 19 C3 eS 20 i.e3 e4 21CLJb4 i.d6 22 h3 l:Ih4 23 l:Ig1 Wf7 24 Wd2 .l:!.xh3 25 a4 fs 26 l2lc6 .l:!.d7 27 dS f4 28 i.d4 e3+ 29 fxe3, and now Mieses suggests Black could have won by playing 29 ... l:Ih2+! 30 We1 .i.xds 31 axbs f3 32 l:If1..1e4. 11 ... i.xc6 12 l2lxc6 �ds!

This powerful queen move leaves

2 8

White with a difficult choice. H e must either allow the queens to be exchanged and play into a slightly disadvantageous endgame, with split f- and h-pawns, as in the game, or offer a speculative gambit, with queens on the board, by playing 13CLJxe7 �xg2 14 l:If1 Wxe7 15 i.xf6+ gxf6 16 �d3 �xh2 17 0-0-0.

13 CZJes �xg2 14 �f3 �xf3 15 l2lxf3 J:Ic8 16 o-o-o

Having entered the endgame, White can do little with his split kingside pawns except continue to defend them. Ideally he would like to make his queen side pawn majority work for him, but after 16 c3 CZJds 17 i.xe7 Wxe7 18 a4 (planning as), Black himself plays 18 ... as, making it hard for White to make any further progress on that flank. 16 ... CLJd5!

Black has a structural advantage, but it certainly isn't easy for him to make anything of it. So he takes things gradually. By exchanging bishops, he brings his king to a good central square

and helps to increase his influence on the central dark squares. 17 i..xe7 c.i;xe7 18 c.i;b1 l:!.hd8 19 l:!.hg1 g6 20 tZJes t2Jb4!

Black takes a second small step. He can only hope to make progress by challenging White's best posted defensive piece, his knight on e5. 21 c3 t2Jc6 22 t2Jxc6+

White eventually loses this game because he stays passive too long and some commentators have unfairly criticised this exchange as being part of that slippery decline. The move is fine. White could also hope to hold by playing 22 f4, and if 22 .. .f6 23 t2Jg4 l:!.d5 24 t2Je3 l:!.h5 25 l:!.d2, or by the immediate 22 t2Jg4, followed by t2Je3. 22 ... l:!.xc6 23 l:i.d3 l:!.ds 24 l:!.h3

Black's rooks have obtained a degree of activity and the game is nearing a critical juncture. White correctly plays to force Black's reply, after which Black's rooks won't have h 5 as a possible attacking post. 24 ... hs 2s l:!.f3?

But this move is definitely wrong. It

A kiba Ru binstein {1882 - 1 961)

has the virtue of covering f5, but overlooks the force of Black's reply. White must have missed something, or he would surely have played the much better 25 f4!. Then after 25 .. . l:!.f5, White can resolutely play 26 l:!.h4!, followed by centralizing his king on d3. White has plenty of space and should probably draw. Play might, for example, proceed 26 ... l:!.d6 27 c.i;c2 l:!.dd5 28 c.i;d3 b5 (or 28 ... g 5 29 l:!.xg5 l:!.xg5 30 fxg 5 l:!.xg5 31 a4) 29 b3, and White defends.

Note that White can no longer safely defend in any other way. Black's rooks invade on the kingside after 25 l:!.e3 l:!.f5 26 l:!.e2 l:!.d6 27 l:!.d1 l:!.f4 28 l:!.dd2 l:!.d5, threatening . . . l:!.h4, and if White's pawn moves to f3, Black has ... l:!.f5. 2s ... es!

This stunningly simple move opens the game for Black's rooks and king to swarm all over key space in the kingside and centre. White's rooks lack space and White's king is too far from the centre and kingside to do much about it.

29

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

Could it be that Schlechter had now intended to play 26 l:!.gs, but then saw Igor Zaitsev's (presumably also Rubinstein's) wonderful refutation? Zaitsev gives 26 ... l:!.f6 ! 27 l:!.xf6 �xf6, and if 28 f4 exf4! 29 .Mxds f3, Black's f-pawn wins. Black also wins the king and pawn endgame, due to his powerful king and 3-2 kingside pawn majority, after 28 l:!.xes l:!.xes 29 dxes+ �xes, and if 30 �c2 �e4 31 c4 gS 32 �c3 fs 33 b4 h4 34 a4 g4 3 S as f4, followed by ... g3 . 26 dxes .Mxes 27 l:!.e3?!

Perhaps White's last practical chance was 27 .Mel, hoping to create a diversionary passed c-pawn, but after 27 ... .Mf6 28 .Mxf6 �xf6 29 c4 .Me2, and if 30 .Mc2 .Mel+ 31 .Mel .Mxcl+ 32 �xcl �es 33 �c2 �d4 34 b3 g s 3 S �d2 fs, Black must again win the king and pawn endgame, due to his powerful king and advanced kingside pawns. 27 ... l:!.xe3 28 fxe3 .Me6 29 .Mel

White fights a losing battle against Black's active king, remaining rook and dangerous kingside pawn majority. White's rook also hits buffers, though, if it tries to stay active on the kingside, after 29l:!.g3 h4 30 l:!.f3 g S 31 �c2 g4 32 .Mf4 .Mxe3 33 .Mxg4 .Me2+, followed by ... .Mxh2. 29 ... l:!.f6!

Black threatens 30... .Mf2, forcing White's reply, after which Black's king heads for e4 with a crushing bind. 30 l:!.e2 �e6 31 �c2 �es 32 c4

With White's rook on e2 completely

3 0

stymied by the need to defend his chronically backward e-pawn, White makes a last attempt to defend by creating a passed queenside pawn, but it is all too slow. Black can easily defend on the queenside, while at the same time forcing a win by combining direct threats against White's e-pawn with the speedy advance of his g- and hpawns.

32 ... �e4 33 b4 gS 34 �c3 g4 35 cs h4 36 Mg2 Mg6 37 �C4 g3

Black's passed g-pawn will cost White his rook. White's king and cpawn present no threat at all on the queen side. 38 hxg3 hxg3 39 �bs bxcs 40 bxcs �f3 41 .Mg1 a6+ 0-1

Rubinstein appears to have played little or no chess in 1913. Rubinstein's English language biographers, John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, could not discover any Rubinstein game from that year or any reasons for this . The historical record does, however, clearly indicate that serious negotiations con-

tinued throughout 1913 and into 1914 on the terms of Rubinstein's proposed match with Lasker.

Plans for the match do not appear to have been derailed by Rubinstein's relative failure at the great St Petersburg tournament in 1914. Perhaps paying for his long absence from top-class chess, Rubinstein failed, albeit narrowly, to qualify for the five-player final of that event. Lasker won at St Petersburg, on 131/2118, ahead of Capablanca 13, Alekhine 10, Tarrasch 81/2 and Marshall S.

Rubinstein's star certainly dimmed at St Petersburg. He languished a point behind the five finalists in the tight, single round, eleven player preliminary. The five finalists played a doubleround final (with the results of the games played in the preliminary added to their scores). Lasker only just caught up and overtook Capablanca in the last few rounds. Indeed, the young Cuban now seemed the world champion's true heir apparent, although Rubinstein's right to a challenge remained strong. But then, in the summer of 1914, far bigger lights went out all over Europe. The Great War broke out in August and all top-class chess ceased abruptly. The Rubinstein-Lasker match, which had been scheduled to start in October 1914, was cancelled.

The years 1914-18 saw no more than sporadic local chess activity in war-torn Europe. Donaldson and Minev could establish very little about Rubin-

A kiba Rub instein (1 8 8 2 - 1 961}

stein's circumstances during the war. Of course, for Rubinstein and others who lived through these difficult years in German-occupied central Europe, particularly towards the end of the war, which saw the Russian Revolution and the collapse of Germany, we can be certain that life couldn't have been easy.

In his late thirties at the end of the war, Rubinstein was certainly no longer quite the same player as he had been before it. Many observers considered that his play lacked its earlier consistency and noted that he was beginning to make many more errors. Sadly Rubinstein's mental health also seems to have deteriorated and played its part.

According to Hans Kmoch, in a sympathetic obituary in Chess Review (June 1961), Rubinstein had developed a condition known as anthropophobia, an extreme, pathological form of shyness or timidity. This problem appears to have grown increasingly in severity in the post-war years, but Kmoch suggests that its earliest indications went back at least to 1911.

Kmoch considered that it was "a miracle that a man thus handicapped could still maintain a place among the best for many years." He went on to write that "many an anecdote could be told about Rubinstein; but, reflecting on an afflicted mind, these stories are actually more sad than funny ... he was sick."

3 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

Donaldson and Minev speculate that Rubinstein's health may have been adversely affected by some severely traumatic experience during the war years, but we simply do not know enough to be certain. Happily we do know that in 1917 Rubinstein married Eugenie Lev and that with the support of his wife and family, Rubinstein was able to offer the chess world a further 15 years of top-class chess until his effective retirement.

Rubinstein even issued a second world championship challenge after a series of outstanding tournament results in the early 1920s, including 1st place at Vienna in 1922, ahead of Alekhine and Efim Bogoljubow, the two most credible young aspirants for the world title. Having defeated Lasker, in 1921, Capablanca was now World Champion. Nothing came of Rubinstein's challenge, however, due to a lack of financial backing.

Rubinstein remained one of the game's giants. In his large work on the modern age in chess, Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie (1925), Dr Savielly Tartakower could still write that "Rubinstein remains more often able than most great players to achieve great works of art, wrought from a single, deeply unified strategic idea, proof of which is evident in the many brilliancy prizes he has won ... in TeplitzSchonau [1922] alone, four of these."

Inevitably, with increasing age and new ideas in the game, quite apart

3 2

from his mental problems, Rubinstein gradually began to slip down the chess rankings. Tartakower noted this decline, but in another nod to Rubinstein's achievements, he made the further (and very modern) point that Rubinstein, having jointly with Spielmann and Reti edited a new post-war edition of Co1lijn's Uirobok, may have given away too many of his openings secrets cheaply. Rubinstein nevertheless retained much of the physical strength of his youth in the 1920s. He always enjoyed robust physical health and continued to contend robustly, playing some of his greatest games in these years. At Carlsbad in 1923, he fashioned yet another strategic masterpiece in a 6 g3 anti-Tarrasch variation, this time against the inventor of the defence, Dr Tarrasch.

Games A.Rubinstein-5. Tarrasch

Carlsbad 1923 Tarrasch Defence

1 d4 ds 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lc3 cs 4 cxds exds s tt:lf3 tt:lc6 6 g3 tt:lf6 7 i.g2 i.e7

By the 1920s black players were beginning to delay the early ... i.e6, typically played in this line in many prewar games, and feeling their way towards the modern main line by first completing Black's kingside development. Rubinstein's successes against early ... i.e6 lines and other Black diver-

gences contributed hugely towards this trend.

Game 3 already includes a number of Rubinstein's "lessons". Another occurred in A.Rubinstein-F.Marshall, Breslau 1912, in which Black snatched at the centre over-hastily with 7 .. . cxd4?! 8 lbxd4 .ics 9 lbb3 .ib4 10 o-o .txc3 11 bxc3,

and now found that 11 ... h6 to prevent the powerful pin .tgs, would allow 12 i.a3, trapping his king in the centre. Thus Marshall played 11 ... 0-o 12 .tgs .ie6, but was unable to prevent White from destroying Black's centre with four sharp blows on his 13th, 15th, 16th and 18th moves, and after 13 lbcs ! "V/Iie7 14 lbxe6 fxe6 15 c4! dxc4 16 i.xc6! bxc6 17 "V/Iid4 "V/Iid8 18 .txf6! .l::i.xf6 19 "V/Iixc4 "V/Iids 20 .l::i.ac1 .l::i.af8 21 e4 "V/Iihs 22 f4 "V/Iias 23 es .l::i.h6 24 .l::i.c2 "VJiib6+ 25 '>t>g2 .l::i.d8 26 .l::i.ff2 .l::!.c8 27 .l::i.fd2 '>t>h8 28 .l::i.d6 "V/Iib1 29 .l::i.xc6, White was winning. s o-o o-o 9 i.gs

This pin intensifies the battle for cs and ds, and after 9 ... cxd4 10 lbxd4 h6 leads to the main line in this opening

A kiba Rub instein (1882-1 961}

today. The game A.Rubinstein-S.Tarrasch,

Teplitz Schoenau 1922, had previously gone 9 a3 i.e6! ? 10 dxcs .txcs 11 b4 i.e7 12 i.b2 lbe4? ! 13 bs lbas 14 lbxe4! dxe4 15 lbd4 "V/Iids!? 16 "V/Iic2 fs 17 "V/Iic3 ! lbc4 1 8 lbxfs ! i.f6 1 9 "V/Iixf6! ? (19 lbe7+ '>t>h8 20 lbxds i.xc3 21 lbxc3 lbxb2 22 i.xe4 was simpler) 19 ... gxf6 20 lbe7+ '>t>f7 21 lbxds i.xds 22 .l::i.fd1 '>t>e6 23 .ltc3 .l::i.fd8 24 .l::i.d4 fs 2 5 g4! lbd6 26 .l::i.ad1 lbxbs 27 gxfs+ '>t>f7 28 .l::i.xds .l::i.xds 29 .l::i.xds lbxc3 30 .l::i.cs lbxe2+ 31 '>t>f1 lbf4 32 .ltxe4 .l::i.d8 33 .l::i.c7+ '>t>f6 34 '>t>e1 .l::i.e8 3 5 f3 lbds 36 .l::i.xb7, and White won.

Reti popularized the plan 9 dxcs i.xcs 10 lba4 .lte7 11 i.e3, aiming at control of the c-file and the d4- and csdark squares, but Black can consider the sharp and not unpromising gambit alternative 9 ... d4. 9 . . . .lte6 10 dxcs .ltxcs 11lbe1

White plans to strengthen his grip on the centre by redirecting this knight to d3, possibly followed by a further jump to f4, attacking ds.

3 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

Black's gth move made a brief comeback in the 1980s, but many black players are no longer happy to enter what Garry Kasparov calls a "cheerless endgame" after 11 �xf6 �xf6 12 tLlxds �xb2 13 tLlc7 .l:.ad8 14 �c1 �xc1 1S .l:.axcl, followed by tL\xe6. Black has good drawing chances, but White's chances of eventually wearing Black down by attacking the pawn on e6 and creating kingside play are much better.

In a Rubinstein-like demonstration of how to press for White, A.YusupovK.Spraggett, 3rd matchgame, Quebec 1989, continued 1S ... ..Ite7 (1S ... �b6 16 tLlxe6 fxe6 17 .l:.c4 is similar) 16 tL\xe6 fxe6 17 .l:.c4 �f6 18 e3 .l:.d6 19 h4 h6 20 .l:.e4 .l:.fd8 21 �h3

19 .. :�a6 20 'Mkb3 lbd8 Tarrasch may have been counting

on this and his next few moves to get his queen back into play in the centre while retaining the gambit pawn. He has no better alternative and must clearly avoid 20 .. /t'las? 21 'Mihs 'Mkxbs 22 !txbs when White has a winning double attack. 21 .Sd7 .Sc8 22 'Mkb2 es 23 .Sal 'Mkf6

Black must also avoid 23 ... '¥ib6? 24 .Saxa7! threatening mate and winning. 24 e3!

A k iba Rub inste in (1 882 - 1 9 61)

Tarrasch may well have seen this position, but it wouldn't have been easy to judge how hard it would be reactivate his knight and generate any real counterplay. Black retains his extra pawn but is unlikely to be able to hang on to it. 24 ... dxe3 25 fxe3 lbc6 26 'Mkd2!

White threatens both 27 .Sf1 and 27 '¥ids+, winning Black's knight, so Black's reply is forced. White is still far from having a winning advantage, but Black must now give back the gambit pawn. He is, at least, able to do so without allowing White to double his rooks on the seventh rank, which would have been crushing. 26 ... lbb8 27 .Sdxa7 .Scd8 28 'Mke2 h6 29 .lte4!

White's firm grip on the h1-a8 and b1-h7 diagonals keeps Black under pressure. White's bishop on e4 is a virtually unassailable powerhouse, whereas Black's poorly placed knight

White has a clear pull. Black's prob- remains a chronic concern. lems stem mainly from his knight's 29 ... .Sd7 30 .Sa8 .Sdd8 31 .Sf1! difficulties. Calculating at move 16, White can still only take very small

3 5

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

steps to improve his chances. But this excellent move forces Black to choose between exchanging into an inferior rook and knight against rook and bishop endgame, and keeping queens on the board in an inferior middlegame. 31 ... 'ifd6!?

Defending the middlegame is probably the correct practical choice. Despite extremely reduced and level material circumstances, White has good chances in the endgame arising after 31 ... ifxf1+ 32 ifxf1 .:xf1+ 33 �xfl .:f8+ 34 �e2 lL'ld7 3 5 :all , and if 3S .. .

sus rook and bishop endgame already discussed in the note to Black's 31st move. Black might have tried for something like 38 ... �e6+ 39 �g2 .l:!.c8 40 ·�d3, and if 40 ... .l:i.f8 41 �5 �e8 42 ·�xe8 .l:!.xe8, or 38 ... �f6 39 �c7 �fl+ (or if 39 ... �e6+ 40 g4) 40 .llg2 �fS+ 41 g4 "t!Vc8 42 �xc8 .l:!.xc8 43 �g3, but White retains winning chances in both lines. 39 �c6!

By exchanging the second pair of rooks and incidentally forcing Black's knight to retreat again to b8, this very strong move completely eliminates any possibility of counterplay and wins at least a pawn. 39 ... .l:!.xa8 40 �xa8+ tt:lb8?

Retaining queens on the board loses quickly. Black's distant knight and queen cannot hope to resist against an attack on Black's king by White's powerful queen and bishop. Black had to play a pawn down in the difficult endgame arising after 40 ... �8 41 �xb8+ tt:lxb8 42 �g4, followed by �fs, and winning Black's e-pawn. 41 �ds!

A kiba R u b instein (1 8 8 2 - 1 9 6 1}

Black suffers from fatal back-rank and light-square weaknesses. White threatens 42 �f7 with dual threats of mate on e8 or f8 or, via g6 or fs, on h7. 41 .. . �c7 42 ids!

Now White threatens 43 'i¥e6, followed either by 44 �e8+ or �g6. 42 ... tt:lc6 43 �c4!

This subtle finesse threatens 44 g4, followed by i.e4, winning Black's knight, and wins instantly. After the immediate 43 �e6, Black might still hang on after 43 ... tt:le7 44 �f7 �d8. 43 ... �d6

Black has no good move. All of 43 ... h5 , 43 ... �7 or even 43 ... g5 now clearly fail after 44 �e6. 44 �f7 �d8

Black can no longer defend against both White's mating threats. 45 �g6 1-0

The classical Rubinstein was not just a great interpreter of the Steinitzian positional past, but he was also responsive to new trends. In the early twentieth century, that meant to

3 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

ideas that were subsequently to be rather loosely summed up in the term, "hypermodernism". Many players simply began to realize that they needn't always open games by directly occupying the centre with 1 d4 dS or 1 e4 eS as in so many games played in the nineteenth century.

New hypermodern ideas emphasized flank developments and asymmetry. New hypermodern methods of play included Reti/English Systems for White, incorporating the idea that the centre needn't be occupied, but could also be controlled from the flank. They also included the full range of Indian defences for Black. Many of these new methods of play worked well, and where they did so, they influenced others.

While we don't usually consider Rubinstein to be a hypermodernist, it is not difficult to see parallel s, such as between Rubinstein's 6 g3 against the Tarrasch Defence and the newer Reti/English Systems. Rubinstein generally stuck with White to the direct 1 d4 throughout his career, but he also intuitively understood how to play fianchetto systems and contributed a great many original ideas to our understanding of them.

Rubinstein was equally innovative with Black. Never a player who simply sought to equalize and draw with Black, he always played with active intent. This was never more clear than in Rubinstein's response to the Four

3 8

Knights Opening, where in addition to embracing the main classical defences, he frequently broke the early classical symmetry with his own Rubinstein Variation, based on the bold gambit thrust 4 ... tt::ld4.

According to Jan Pinski, in his 2003 work, The Four Knights, this move "is considered the main move after 4 i.bs and clearly .. . the most dynamic route to equality." Rubinstein was already attracted to this line and played it successfully in the pre-war years, but he refined and developed many of the line's main ideas in the 1920s. In 192S, he played one of his most famous games in this line, against Rudolf Spielmann.

Game 6 R.Spielmann-A.Rubinstein

Baden-Baden 1925 Four Knights Opening

1 e4 es 2 tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3 tt:Jc3 tt::lf6 4 i.bs Writing about this move in Masters

of The Chessboard, Reti makes the point that while the "Spanish Four Knights" (or Four Knights) is less direct than the Spanish Opening (3 i.bs}, it is not without guile. Its main aim is to develop pieces early, prior to taking up the battle for control of Black's central strong point es in the early middlegame (usually by playing for d4 or f4).

Hence, Reti writes, "for this reason, the correct reply by Black ... does not lie

in mere defence. Rather Black will do best to utilise White's slow and not especially logical play to seize the initiative." 4 ... tt:ld4

Reti noted that Black's knight on d4 "takes advantage of the fact that ... White is no longer able to move c3 and [that White's] bishop now stands on bs without any purpose." Black's bold strike in the centre is, however, an extremely demanding as well as a purely logical move. Black must be prepared to continue in tactical style and unafraid to gam bit. 5 tt:lxes

This capture can lead to quite complicated outcomes, but the critical lines are nowadays considered to be 5 i.a4 and 5 i.c4, whereas other moves are less convincing:

a) After 5 i.a4 i.cs 6 tt:lxes o-o 7 tt:ld3 ! i.b6 8 es tt:le8 9 tt:lds d6 10 tt:le3, we reach a position that remains subject to major theoretical debate. White has an extra pawn and a healthy pawn structure but tangled minor pieces.

A kiba Rub instein (1882 - 1 961}

Black has a time advantage and can hope to put pressure on White's game, while he struggles to unravel his tangled pieces and complete his queenside development.

Instead after the less energetic 7 d3?! ,

Black developed an early initiative in one of the first games played in this line, S.Tarrasch-A.Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1912, which continued 7 ... ds 8 i.gs c6 9 �d2 l:te8 10 f4 bs 11 i.b3 h6 12 i.h4 tt:lxe4! 13 i.xd8 tt:lxd2 14 �xd2 l:txd8 15 tt:le2 tt:lxe2 16 �xe2 l:te8 17 �f1!? i.b7 18 C3 f6 19 4Jg4 hS 20 tt:lf2 i.e3 21 .id1 h4 22 g3 as 23 .tf3 b4 24 �g2 bxc3 25 bxc3 .ta6 26 C4 l:tad8, and Black went on to win impressively in a famous endgame.

Earlier S ... tt:lxf3+ is also possible, though far less exciting, while s ... c6 6 tt:lxes d6 7 tt:lf3 ..ltg4, and if 8 d3 dS, is a sharper alternative more in the spirit of the opening.

b) Matters are also unclear after 5 .tc4 i.cs 6 tt:lxes �e7 7 tt:ld3 dS 8 tt:lxds (the game A.Nimzowitsch-A.Alekhine,

39

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Chess

St Petersburg 1914, also went well for Black after 8 i.xd5 tt'lxd5 9 tt'lxd5 Wixe4+ 10 'Lle3 i.d6 11 o-o .lte6 12 'Lle1 0-0-0, and Black went on to win this too) 8 . . . Wixe4+ 9 'Lle3 .ltd6.

The manic attacking game, Z.Belsitzman-A.Rubinstein, Warsaw 1917, continued 10 0-0?! (10 f3 'i¥h4+ 11 tt'lf2 improves according to Keitlinghaus) 10 ... b5! 11 i.b3 i.b7 12 tt'le1 'i¥h4 13 g3 Wih3 14 c3 h 5 ! 15 cxd4 h4 16 Wie2 Wixh2+! 0-1.

White didn't get far either in R.Spielmann-A.Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1912, after 7 'Llf3!? d5 8 tt'lxd4 dxc4 9 'Llf3 tt'lxe4 10 0-0 o-o 11 d4 cxd3 12 cxd3 tt'lxc3 13 bxc3 i.g4 14 d4 i.d6 15 'i¥d3 .S:ae8, and Black went on to outplay his opponent. Fuzzier perhaps here is 8 i.xd5, after which O.Bernstein-A.Rubinstein, Vilnius 1912, continued 8 ... i.g4 9 d3 c6 10 i.b3 'Lld7 11 .ltg5 Wid6 12 tt'lb1 Wig6 13 .lte3 .ltxf3 14 gxf3 Wig2 15 �d2 tt'lxf3+ 16 �c1 .S:d8 17 h3 .ltxe3+ 18 fxe3 tt'lde5 19 Wifl Wigs 20 WVe2 'Lld4 21 Wid2 tt'ldf3 22 Wie2 'Lld4, with an eventual draw.

4 0

As against 5 i.a4, Black can also meet 5 i.c4 with the sharp 5 ... c6, and if 6 tt'lxe5 d5 7 exd5 .ltd6, or the less ambitious but solid 5 ... tt'lxf3+ 6 Wixf3 d6, and if 7 d3 i.e? 8 o-o 0-0.

c) Black has nothing to fear after 5 tt'lxd4 exd4 6 e5 dxc3 7 exf6 Wixf6 8 dxc3 .lte7 (or 8 ... .ltc5 9 o-o o-o) 9 o-o o-o 10 i.e3 c6 11 i.d3 d5, A.BrinckmannA.Rubinstein, Budapest 1929.

d) Likewise, Black is pretty comfortable after 5 o-o tt'lxb5 6 tt'lxb5 c6 7 'Llc3 d6, and if 8 d4 'i¥C7 9 h3 i.e? 10 i.e3 0-0.

Returning to Spielmann's 5 tt'lxe5: s . . . 'i¥e7

6 f4!? Bogoljubow prepared this sharp

move for his match against Rubinstein, in Stockholm and Gothenburg 1920. Rubinstein won the match 61/2-51/2, but wobbled with his favourite anti-Four Knights variation. One of the dangers for White and Black in this line is the scope for deep and sharp opening preparation. Get caught out and you may easily lose against better home-

work. Five years on, Rubinstein had an improvement in mind on his lOth move.

Modern theory assesses the quieter alternative 6 tiJf3 tt:Jxb5 7 tt:Jxb5 iYxe4+ 8 iYe2 iYxe2+ 9 'it>xe2 tt:Jd5 10 l:!.e1 as roughly equal, after 10 .. .f6 and possibly also 10 .. . a6. 6 ... tt:Jxbs 7 tt:Jxbs d6 8 tiJf3 iYxe4+

9 'it>f2!? This was the point of Bogoljubow's

play in 1920. Retaining queens, White takes his king on a risky journey, aiming to get his rook to the e-file quickly. Instead Black's bishop-pair may even give Black an edge after the insipid 9 iVe2 iYxe2+ 10 'it>xe2 'it>d8. 9 ... tt:Jg4+

Black continues down the critical path and White also takes up the challenge with his reply. Black should be fine after 10 'it>g1 'it>d8 (or possibly 10 ... iYc6), as in K.OpocenskyA.Rubinstein, Merano 1924, which continued 11 h3 tt:Jf6 12 d4 h5 13 tt:Jg5 iYe8 14 tt:Jc3 i.f5 15 'it>h2 tt:Jg4+ 16 hxg4 hxg4+ 17 'it>g3 l:i.xh1 18 iYxhl f6, with a

A kiba R u b instein (1882 - 1 961}

double-edged game. 10 'it>g3 iYg6!

This move, generally attributed to analysis by Richard Teichmann, improves on 10 ... 'it>d8? ! 11 h3 tiJh6 12 d4 i.e? 13 l:i.el iYg6+ 14 'it>h2 l:i.e8 15 c4, which allowed White to secure his king and achieve a comfortable spatial advantage in E.Bogoljubow-A.Rubinstein, 3rd matchgame 1920. 11 iYe2+!?

White forces Black's king to forego its right to castle, but the move also allows Black to cover his c-pawn and secure his kingside development. Much later analysis by Paul Keres, quoted by Pinski, indicates that Black also survives after the complicated alternative 11 tt:Jh4! ? 'tiih 5.

Keres' beautiful main line then continues 12 tt:Jxc7+?! 'it>d8 13 h3 tt:Jf6 14 tt:Jxa8 iYxh4+ ! ! 15 'it>xh4 tt:Je4! , and Black catches White's king in a remarkable mating net. White must give up his queen to avoid mate, but Black is better after 16 'tiih 5 i.e?+ 17 iYg5 i.xg5+ 18 fxgs h6 19 g6 fxg6 20 l:i.f1

4 1

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Class ical Ch ess

g5+ 21 Wh5 lL'lg3+ 22 Wg6 lLlxfl. If instead 13 l2Jxa8?!, Keres gives 13 ... g 5! 14 fxg5 (or 14 lL'lf3 gxf4+ 15 Wxf4 d5) 14 ... iVxg5 15 lL'lf3 'iVg7 with a winning attack.

Here Black also stands well after 12 h3 'iVxb5 13 hxg4 g5, or 12 f5 g 5 13 'iVxg4 gxh4+ 14 Wf3 'iVxg4+ 15 Wxg4 .l:i.g8+ 16 Wf3 Wd8. 11 ... Wd8 12 .l:i.e1

The earlier R.Spielmann-H.Weenink, Scheveningen 1923, had gone 12 h3 (12 lL'lh4? now fails to 12 . . . iVxc2) 12 . . . l2Jf6+ 13 �h2 l2Je4 14 'iVe1 .id7 15 l2Jbd4 f5 16 d3 lL'lf6 17 iVa5, and White was better, but Black should play 12 ... lL'le3+! 13 Wh2 l2Jxc2 14 .l:i.b1 c6!, and if 15 l2Jc3 .ie7, with advantage to Black - Pinski. 12 ... .id7 13 l2Jbd4

White has to gambit his c-pawn. If 13 c3? lL'le3+ 14 Wf2 l2Jc2, and wins with a trivial knight fork. 13 ... lL'le3+

Black can only use his discovered check to win White's c-pawn and should do this at once. 14 Wf2

42

Not 14 lLlg5?, allowing 14 ... h6!, which is to Black's advantage. 14 •.• l2Jxc2 15 l2Jxc2 iVxc2

Black has an extra pawn and probably stands better. Spielmann, an outstanding attacking player, may have expected to obtain more compensation than actually appears to be present in the position. At any rate, he fails to achieve anything concrete.

With his next move, White aims to play lL'ld4 without allowing Black's queen to pin the knight from c5. Instead after 16 Wg1 c6 17 b3 d5 18 ctJe5 .ic5+ 19 Wh1 .l:i.e8, Black stands well -Pin ski. 16 b4 as!

Black still has development problems. With this move, he battles to open the a-file to get his rook on a8 into play quickly, and after 17 ctJd4 iVa4 he maintains an active pin against b5. 17 .ia3 axb4

Not now 17 ... iVa4? because of 18 lLlg5! .ie8 19 .l:i.ab1, and the attack has switched clearly to White. 18 .ixb4 iVfs 19 iVe3 h6

Having freed his rook on the queenside, Rubinstein turns to the kingside. This move is part of a typically farsighted plan to open a second front on that flank. With his king safe and few weaknesses around it, Rubinstein wastes no time in driving forward on the kingside. Pinski's 19 .. J:i.a4, and if 20 ltJd4 �g4 21 .ic3 cS 22 ltJe2 .ic6, is also good. 20 .l::tac1!?

White might have preferred 20 ltJd4 �dS 21 .ic3, but Black still seems to retain good chances after 21 .. . cs 22 lLlf3 .l::tg8. 2o ... .:tgs 21 'it>g1 gs!

Black has made decided progress on the kingside. His rook and g-pawn battery soon sets up serious threats which present White with difficulties in finding a defence. 22 �c3 .l::tc8 23 fxgs hxgs 24 'it>hl g4 25 ltJd4 �ds!

The black queen's powerful centralization on dS secures Black's lines in all parts of the board, both in attack and defence. It was still possible to go

A kiba Rub instein (1 8 8 2 - 1 9 6 1 )

wrong by playing 2S ... �g6?, allowing 26 .tas b6 27 ltJc6+ .ixc6 28 �xc6, fol lowed by .ixb6, and White wins. 26 �e3

Not 26 ltJc6+? i.xc6 27 �f6+ 'it>d7, and White loses. 26 ... g3!

Black's g-pawn just keeps thumping down the board. White now decides to allow Black to open the g-file. If he plays 27 h3 , to keep the game closed, Black remains comfortably in control after 27 ... .l::ta8 28 lLlf3 cS 29 .iC3 'l.t>c7, and if 30 d4 c4. 27 .ic3 .l::ta8!

Black had to avoid the trap 27 ... gxh2? 28 ltJc6+ .ixc6 29 .if6+ 'it>d7 30 �e7+ .ixe7 31 .l::txe7+ 'it>d8 32 .l::teS+ 'it>d7 33 .l::te7+, and White has a draw by repetition. Now if White plays 28 h3, Black transposes into the line given in the note to White's 27th move after 28 ... cs 29 ltJf3 'it>c7. 28 lLlf3 gxh2!

With the g-file now open, Black's .. rook greedily eyes White's weak pawn

on g2.

4 3

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

29 ..ltf6+ \t>c8 30 �c3 White might try 30 �e8+ i.xe8 31

�xe8+ \t>d7 32 �xa8, but after 32 ... cs 33 �d8+ \t>c7, and if 34 ..lte7 �xg2 3 5 \t>xg2 i.xe7, Black should win. 30 ... �cs 31 �d3 �hs 32 tt:les!?

White sets a last trap, but it fails to a fine reply. However, he also surely loses after 32 �c3 c6, with two extra black pawns and continuing pressure. 32 ... �xg2!

Crash ! Black destroys White's final kingside pawn cover. Recall that Black's g-file plan began a long way back, with a modest looking step on his 19th move. Black, of course, avoids

44

32 ... dxes?? 33 �xes �g4 34 �e8+! and White mates.

White must accept Black's sacrifice. After 33 tt:lxd7 �gl+ 34 �xg1 hxgl�+ 3 5 Wxgl \t>xd7 36 �c4 c6, Black controls all possible entry points into his position and has a winning advantage. 33 \t>xg2 dxes 34 �xes �g4+ 35 �g3

White's game is bust. He loses material after 3 5 \t>xh2 �f4+ 36 �g3 (or 36 \t>g1 �xf6) 36 ... �xd2+ (but not 36 ... �xf6?? 37 �e8+! and White mates) 37 �g2 �xcl, and is mated after 3 5 \t>hl? i.c6+ 36 �xc6 �gl mate. 3S ... �xg3+ 36 \t>xg3 .ltd6 37 \t>xh2 �xa2

Black wins a third pawn for the exchange and his powerful bishops seal White's fate. 38 \t>g1 �xd2 39 �hs b6 40 .tes i.cs+ 41 \t>f1 \t>b7 42 i.g3 i.bS+ 43 \t>e1 �e2+ 44 Wd1 �g2 45 �c3

White could have resigned earlier. If 45 �gs �g1+ 46 \t>d2 �xcl 47 \t>xcl ..lte3+ or 45 �h3 i.e2+ 46 \t>e1 (46 \t>d2 .ltg4+) 46 ... i.b4+. 4S ••• i.e2+ 0-1

Richard Reti most eloquently summed up Rubinstein's playing style and legacy in his book Modern Ideas in Chess, when he wrote, "with Rubinstein all is refined tranquillity, for with him in building up his game the position given to every piece is the necessary one. It is not the matter of a fight for him, but the working out of a victory, and so his games create an impression of a great structure from which not one stone dare be shifted."

All the attributes of a classically great artist of the chessboard, as described by Reti, are on display in the last great game in this chapter. Playing his favourite Queen's Gambit, Rubinstein displays correctness, energy, economy, harmony and controlled tactics, all rooted in an ultra-sound gameplan. Every last piece and pawn contributes to White's cause. Watch White's king quietly assist at the end of this powerfully played game - all of it achieved sotto voce.

Towards the very end of his career, Rubinstein, with a magnificent 15/17 score, led Poland to victory at the 1930 Hamburg Olympiad. Within two years he effectively retired from competitive chess, his mental condition now too severe to allow him to continue. With the support of his wife and family, Rubinstein survived a terrible second world war in Europe. After the death of his wife in the 1950s, he moved into a Belgian care home, where he died, towards the end of the Botvinnik "era".

A kiba Ru b instein (1 8 8 2 - 1 9 6 1 )

Game l A.Rubinstein•S. Takacs

Budapest 1926 Queen's Gambit Declined

1 C4 ctJf6 2 d4 e6 3 ctJC3 dS 4 .igs lt:Jbd7 5 e3 .ie7 6 'Llf3 o-o 7 �c1

Rubinstein often played this move later in his career, intending to follow it up with 8 'iVc2. He preferred the immediate 7 'iVc2 in many of his earlier games.

The most famous of these was A.Rubinstein-R.Teichmann, 4th matchgame, Vienna 1908, which continued 7 ... b6?! 8 cxd5! exd5 9 .id3 .ib7 10 o-o-o c5 11 h4 c4!? 12 .if5 �e8 13 .ixf6 'Llxf6 14 g4!

14 .. . .id6 15 g5 'Lle4 16 h5 'i¥'e7 17 �dg1 a6 18 .ixh7+ �xh7 19 g6+ Wg8 20 'Llxe4 dxe4 21 h6 f6? ! (21 .. .fxg6 22 'Llh4 g5 23 'Llg6 'iVf6 24 h7+

Chess Secrets : Heroes of Classical Chess

Earlier A.Rubinstein-R.Teichmann, Carlsbad 1907, had gone 11 ... .l:!.c8 ! ? 12 �b1 .Me8 13 dxcs .Mxcs 14 'bd4 'be4 15 jLxe4 dxe4 16 lbdbS jLa6 17 'ifa4 jLxbs 18 'bxbs jLxgs 19 hxgs .Me7 20 .l:!.d4 'i¥a8 21 b4 .Mc8 22 'bd6 bs 23 'bxc8 1-0. Much later, B.Spassky-M.Bobotsov, Havana Olympiad 1966, confirmed the dangers Black runs in this line, after 11 ... a6 ! ? 12 g4 c4 13 i..fs g6 14 jLxf6 .ltxf6 1S gS jLg7 16 jLxd7 'ifxd7 17 'bes 'ife7 18 f4 bs 19 a3 .Mad8 20 h s i..xes 21 fxes 'ifxgs 22 'iff2 jLc8 23 .Mdg1 'ife7 24 'iff4 �h8 2S e4 dxe4 26 ds .Mde8 27 'i¥h6 gs 28 .Mxgs f6 29 .Mg6 fxes 30 d6 'iff7 31 'bds .Me6 32 .Mhg1 .Mxg6 33 hxg6 'ifg7 34 'ifh2 e3 3 S 'bxe3 .l:!.f4 36 'bds .Mg4 37 .Mxg4 jLxg4 38 'ifxh7+ 'ifxh7 39 gxh7 jLfs 40 'bf6 as 1-0.

Rubinstein's grand attacking plan, echoed by Spassky, has stood the test of time, causing most players to turn to the improvement 7 ... cs, and if 8 cxds 'bxds 9 jLxe7 'ifxe7 10 'bxds exds, with robust chances. This line probably explains why Rubinstein later switched away from his old favourite. 7 ... c6

Black adopts the so-called Orthodox Defence. He plans ... dxc4, followed by ... 'bds seeking relieving exchanges. Before taking on c4, Black usually waits until White's bishop plays to d3, so as to achieve this plan with gain of tempo.

The game A.Rubinstein-G.Mar6czy, Gothenburg 1920, saw the less convincing 7 ... .Me8 !? 8 'ifc2 dxc4? ! 9 jLxc4 cs 10 o-o cxd4 11 'bxd4 a6 12 .Mfd1

4 6

'ifas 13 jLh4 'bes 14 jLe2 'bg6 1 S jLg3 es 16 'bb3 'ifc7 17 'ifb1 'ifb8 18 jLf3 'ifa7 19 'bas i..b4 20 'bc4 i..d7 21 'bds 'bxdS 22 i..xds i..e6?! (22 ... i..g4! was better - Razuvaev) 23 'ife4 i..xds 24 .Mxds .Mac8 2S .Mcd1 i..f8 26 b3 bs 27 'bd6 jLxd6 28 .Mxd6 .Mc7? ! (28 ... 'ifa8 ! was necessary) 29 h4 f6 30 'ifdS+ �h8 31 h S 'bf8 32 h6 'bg6 33 'ife6 .Mf8 34 .Md7 gxh6 3S jLh4! 1-0 . 8 'ifc2

The main line of the Orthodox Defence continues 8 jLd3 dxc4 9 jLxc4 'bds 10 !Jixe7 'ifxe7, but Rubinstein liked to continue the tempo game, leaving his bishop on f1 a move longer, particularly as the reply ... cs now loses a tempo on the 7 'ife2 main lines.

Takacs replies with what is still considered to be Black's best "waiting" move. He can also try 8 ... 'be4 9 i..f4 fs, reaching a playable form of the Stonewall Dutch Defence. 8 ... a6 9 cxds

Rubinstein ends the tempo game, aiming for transposition into a line of the Exchange Variation of the Queen's

Gambit. Black can avoid the transposition by replying 9 ... 'bxd5 10 i.xe7 ·�xe7, remaining in Orthodox lines, as in A.Alekhine-J .Capablanca, World Championship (Game 2), Buenos Aires 1927, which cagily continued 11 i.e2 �e8 12 0-0 lbxc3 13 11Vxc3 e5 (Black's main freeing idea) 14 .l:!.fd1 exd4 15 -Llxd4 'bf6 16 i.f3 i.g4 17 i.xg4 'bxg4 18 l2lf5 11Vf6 19 11Vxf6 'bxf6 1/2-V2. 9 ... exds 10 i.d3 .l:!.e8 11 o-o 'bf8 12 .:i.fe1 i.g4!?

Both sides can play this type of position in countless ways. Fundamentally, White has achieved what is sometimes called a "Carlsbad" pawn structure, which is characterised by the typical White/Black 3-4 split of pawns on the a- to d-files. White's queenside pawn minority exerts a certain restraining influence on Black's queenside pawn majority; Black will not find it easy to free his game by playing .. . c5.

White's most common plan in such positions is to race his a- and b-pawns up the board to achieve b5, a classic minority attack. White is then often

A kiba R u b in s tein {1 882 - 1 9 6 1}

able to exchange pawns on c6, leaving Black with a weak backward pawn on that square that may be difficult to defend well into the endgame. Black, however, enjoys plenty of space and free play elsewhere on the board. Indeed, he can resist and exert pressure in the centre.

Here are two good examples of the minority attack in action after 12 ... i.e6, in the first of which White wins, while in the second Black defends much better:

a) U .Andersson-A.Sokolov, Reykjavik 1988: 13 a3 'bh5 14 i.xe7 11Yxe7 15 'ba4 .l:!.ad8 16 'bc5 i.c8 17 b4 'bf6 18 a4 'be4 19 b5 axb5 20 axb5 'bg5 21 'bd2 .l:!.d6 22 bxc6 bxc6 23 .l:!.a1

23 ... .l:!.h6 24 'bf1 11Vf6 25 'bg3 .l:!.h4 26 f4 'bge6 27 'bxe6 11Vxe6 28 .l:!.ac1 i.d7 29 i.f5 11Vf6 30 i.xd7 'bxd7 31 11Vf5 .l:!.e6 32 11Vxf6 .l:!.xf6 33 .l:!.c3 Wf8 34 .l:!.a1 We7 3 5 .l:!.a7 g6 36 .l:!.c7 .l:!.e6 37 .l:!.7xc6 .l:!.xc6 38 .l:!.xc6 'bf6 39 h3 'bh5 40 'be2 'bg7 1-0.

b) J .Capablanca-A.Alekhine, World Championship (Game 13), Buenos Aires

4 7

Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess

1927: 13 'Lla4 'Ll6d7 14 i.xe7 'ikxe7 lS 'Llcs 'Llxcs 16 'ikxcs 'ikc7 17 b4 'Lld7 18 'ikc2 h6 19 a4 'ikd6 20 .Mbl .Mec8 2i .Mecl i.g4 22 'Lld2 .Mc7 23 'Llb3 i.hs 24 'Llcs 'Llxcs 2S 'ikxcs 'ikf6 26 bS axbs 27 axbs i.g6 28 i.xg6 'ikxg6 29 .Mal .Mac8 30 b6 l:td7 31 .Ma7 'it>h7 32 .Meal fS 33 'ikc2 .Me7 34 g3 .Mce8 3 S .Ma8 .Me4 36 .Mxe8 .Mxe8 37 .Ma7 .Mb8 38 h4 hs 39 'it>g2 'ike6 40 'ikd3 'it>g6 v2-% 0 13 'Lld2 'Ll6d7?!

Black aims to exchange the darksquare bishops, but this plan fails. The correct way to achieve this objective was by playing the more energetic and much better 13 . . . 'Llhs!. 14 i.f4 i.gs?!

Black continues with his plan, but misses White's clever reply. Better was 14 ... i.hs, with the idea of ... i.g6, and an exchange of light-square bishops. 15 h3!

Now Black finds that he can't, as intended, play 1S . . . i.xf4?, as this loses to 16 exf4! i.hs 17 g4 i.g6 18 fs . White therefore retains his bishop on the strong h2-b8 diagonal. Black will also

4 8

have to regroup both of his own bishops, losing time. 15 ... .i.h5 16 i.h2 i.g6 17 i.xg6 hxg6 18 'ikb3!

White could also launch a more conventional and not unpromising minority attack after 18 'ba4 'Lle6 19 b4 as 20 a3 axb4 21 axb4. However, Rubinstein spots an even more promising opportunity to induce an exchange of queens and activate his knights, with gain of time on the queenside, reaching an excellent endgame. 18 ... 'ikb6 19 'Lla4 'ikxb3 20 'Llxb3 'Lle6?!

Black allows White to gain control of as and restrict him further. Although Black is likely to experience long-term difficulties on the queenside whatever he plays, he might have fought harder to control as, by playing either 20 ... as or 20 ... i.d8. 21 'Llas! .Ma7 22 'it>f1 i.d8 23 b4!

This move ensures that Black's rook remains stuck on the awful square a7, purely to defend his b-pawn. And with no visible prospect of mobilizing either his a- or b-pawn, Black struggles to

breathe on the queenside. He obtains no relief after either 23 ... ilc7? ! 24 ilxC7 lt:,xc7 25 0,c5 0,xc5 26 bxc5 or 23