Masters of the Chessboard

1889-1929

Part I

The Older Masters

Adolf Anderssen

A knowledge of combination is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chessplayer.

A beginner should avoid the Queen’s Gambit and the French Defense and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game.

There were position-players even in the remote past, outstanding among whom was André Danican Philidor, who was perhaps the greatest chess thinker of all time. He had this in common with all his predecessors and contemporaries, that combination was not his strong point. The master who by his example developed the power of combination of the entire chess world to such an extent that it became ripe for position play was Adolf Anderssen.

Anderssen was born in Breslau, Germany, on July 6, 1818. But little is to be said about his life and career. He studied philosophy and mathematics and taught at the gymnasium of his native city until his death on March 13, 1879.

While yet a student he became engrossed with chess, although his powers developed but slowly. His winning of the first prize at the First International Masters Tournament in London in 1851, with which he began he modern age in chess, therefore came as a surprise to both German and international chess circles. This triumph was followed by others, notably in London in 1862 and at Baden-Baden in 1870.

To the students we would like to recommend an analysis of the following Anderssen games, not only for their own pleasure, but in order to develop powers of combination. It is a mistake to think that combination is solely a question of talent and that it cannot be acquired. The same elements, as double attacks, pins, obstructions, etc., occur here again and again in more or less complicated associations. The more one sees of them, the easier it becomes to conceive and follow through such combinations oneself.

A thorough study of the following games will at the same time give us a better understanding of the so-called theory of openings. The opening of the following game is the King’s Gambit. A gambit is an opening in which a pawn is sacrificed in order to obtain an advantage in development or some other gain. The oldest gambit known in chess literature is the King’s Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.f4. The idea underlying this gambit is twofold: In the first place it opens the f-file, on which the king’s rook can quickly become active, as for example after castling. In the second place it offers the possibility, after elimination or exchange of the black e-pawn, of forming a strong pawn center eventually by means of d4. We shall learn more about the strength of such a pawn center later. Of course after 2...e×f4, White cannot very well play 3.d4 at once, but has to guard first against the threatening Qh4+.

The student as well as the more experienced player will improve his play considerably if he makes it a rule to treat each opening systematically in accordance with its basic idea. Consequently, in playing the King’s Gambit, he will keep in mind the two aims this opening, namely pressure on the f-file and the formation of a pawn center. If he allows himself to be tempted into by-paths however, he deprives his first moves of al meaning, and inconsistent play cannot fail to bring retribution.

How is Black now to reply to the King’s Gambit? In former times the rule was to accept the sacrifice offered by the adversary. The King’s Gambit was therefore accepted almost without exception by means of 2...e×f4, with g5 following, in an endeavor to defend the pawn on f4. Apart from its material value, this defense has also a positional purpose. The defense of the f4-pawn effectively blocks the f-file. In order to carry out the attack on the f-file, which is in accordance with the underlying idea of the opening, White generally will have to sacrifice a piece in order to remove the black gambit pawn.

Another reply to the King’s Gambit is the counterattack in the center, 2...d5; usually continuing 3.e×d5 (it would be a serious mistake to play 3.f×e5 on account of 3...Qh4+) with 3...e4. The gambit is here played by Black and is called the Falkbeer Counter Gambit after its inventor, the Austrian chess master Ernst Karl Falkbeer, born in Bruenn in 1819, died in Vienna in 1885.

What does Black gain by making this pawn sacrifice? Above all it achieves the complete defeat of the aims inherent in White’s gambit move. The opening of the f-file, as well as the intended establishment of a pawn center are thoroughly thwarted. The position of the pawn on f4 seems now devoid of meaning. Moreover, Black’s pawn at e4 exerts a certain amount of pressure on the position of White which obstructs his development. Black is decidedly superior in the center. For this reason, the Falkbeer Counter Gambit has come of late to be considered almost as the refutation of the King’s Gambit.

Finally Black may attempt to ignore the gambit move of White to some extent and to continue his development. In doing so, Black does not necessarily have to play the protective 2...d6 at once which would shut in the black king’s bishop. The attack on the e5-pawn is illusory as 3.f×e5 would prove abortive on account of 3...Qh4+. Black therefore can well afford to play first 2...Bc5 and to defend the pawn on e5 later on with d6 without limiting the freedom of action of the bishop.

We shall of course have more to say concerning the King’s Gambit during discussion of the games. But we would ask the student not to pass lightly over the general ideas concerning openings which we shall develop here and later. It seems unfortunate that most chessplayers appreciate only exact variations. The opposite would be more to the point. There is more real chess truth in ideas than in variations. Although these are to be found in black and white in voluminous books of scientific aspect, they are usually after a few short years found to be incorrect, sometimes almost as soon as they are off the press. Anyone with a correct understanding of the real intent and meaning of openings need never fear for his game, even without a knowledge of the variations.

(1) Rosanes–Anderssen

Breslau, 1862

Falkbeer Counter Gambit [C32]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.e×d5 e4 4.Bb5+

This move is characteristic of the old-time player. The game was played without consideration of the fine positional qualities and the player was concerned mainly with obvious material advantages or mating attacks. Today we know that the primary object of the struggle in the opening is the control of the center. A modern player therefore aims first of all at the removal of the oppressive e4-pawn and for this reason naturally plays 4.d3 In this game White as was customary at that time attempts to establish first his preponderance in pawns, even at the expense of his development and therefore plays 4.Bb5+, in order to exchange the d5-pawn which otherwise might become weak, after c3.

4...c6 5.d×c6 N×c6

The exchange of the pawn was here usually accompanied with 5...b×c6.

6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Qe2

White would have done better to move the d-pawn in order to make up as much as possible for his rather backward development. White instead continues to play for material gain, namely the capture of a second pawn, the e-pawn. Black is quite justified in not defending this pawn, but to continue his development instead. The more pawns are eliminated from the board and the more lines are opened thereby, the greater will be his advantage in development.

7...Bc5 8.N×e4 0-0 9.B×c6 b×c6 10.d3 Re8 11.Bd2

In castling on the queenside, White is attempting to guard his king against possible danger. Black, however, has too many open lines on the queenside.

11...N×e4 12.d×e4 Bf5 13.e5 Qb6

After 13...B×c2 and 14.Qc4 Black would have to exchange one of his valuable bishops, but in view of White’s undeveloped position, even this continuation would be advantageous for Black.

14.0-0-0 Bd4

This move weakens White’s castled position.

15.c3 Rab8 16.b3

16...Red8

A quiet waiting move quite in the Anderssen manner and preparing a brilliant combination, which is completely overlooked by his opponent.

17.Nf3

Had White seen through his adversary’s plan, he would have played 17.Kb2, although Black would have won speedily with 17...Be6, threatening 18...B×b3.

17...Q×b3! 18.a×b3 R×b3 19.Be1 Be3+! and mate next move. 0-1

(2) Rosanes–Anderssen

Breslau, 1863

King’s Gambit [C39]

1.e4 e5 2.f4 e×f4 3.Nf3

This constitutes the so-called King’s Knight Gambit. Other current continuations are 3.Bc4, the Bishop’s Gambit, and 3.Be2, the Lesser Bishop’s Gambit. More recently; 3.Qf3, the Breyer Gambit, has occasionally been played. We shall say more about these continuations later.

3...g5

As far back as three centuries ago it was known that the gambit pawn can only be protected in the long run by making this defensive move without delay. As we have already mentioned in the opening of the first game, it is fairly obvious that this endeavor to maintain the advantage gained was the prevailing manner of play in Anderssen’s time.

White now has two fundamentally different continuations. He can continue his development with 4.Bc4 and 0-0, on the next move. Such naive tactics might be used by superficial players whose only aim is the attack at all cost and who are not aware that this is not in accordance with the spirit of the King’s Gambit. We know that the idea of the King’s Gambit is to attack on the f-file, where the f6- and f5-squares have become weak as a consequence of g5, as this pawn can no longer protect these squares or drive off hostile units from them.

Playing in accordance with the real meaning of the gambit, White therefore would have to aim first of all at the opening of the f-file and at the elimination of the f4-pawn. The continuation leading to positional advantage is therefore 4.h4, undermining the defenses of the gambit pawn. It was no accident therefore that typical positional players like Steinitz and Rubinstein are of the opinion that this variation of the King’s Gambit is in favor of White. It should also be noted that on this fourth move White must determine his further course of action. If he plays 4.Bc4, Black can answer with 4...Bg7, which would deprive h4 of its purpose, since Black now has the possibility of maintaining his chain of pawns through h6.

4.h4 g4 5.Ne5

This opening variation is called the Kiesertizky Gambit. Another continuation is the Allgaier Gambit with 5.Ng5, which gives White a very dangerous attack, though he has to sacrifice the knight after Black’s move 5...h6, with 6.N×f7.

5...Nf6

We have here an excellent opportunity of demonstrating the advantage of a proper understanding of the real meaning of an opening and of showing how much more important this is than a mere memorizing of variations. The average player, looking for the obvious attacking moves, would probably play 6.Bc4. But even the chess student who has taken the trouble of studying Bilguer’s famous textbook would probably make the same move and soon be at a disadvantage, if his adversary played correctly.

It is not astonishing that this great work contains many flaws in regard to the analysis of the King’s Gambit. In the first place, almost every analysis based only upon variations has proved erroneous in the course of years, because a knowledge of variations is after all only sham knowledge. It is further to be considered that the King’s Gambit is not a modern opening, most of its variations having originated at a time when positional thinking was relatively rare.

Keeping in mind the underlying idea of the opening, the elimination of the gambit pawn on f4 and the opening of the f-file, 6.d4 would seem to be of primary importance. This is the move which was favored by the oldest of the great masters of positional play, Philidor, and which recently has been demonstrated by Rubinstein as being advantageous for White. It is true that after 6.d4 d6 7.Nd3 N×e4 8.B×f4, Black is a pawn ahead, but his position is far from enviable, because of the irreparable weakness of the now open f-file. It is not surprising that White in the following game made the more obvious, but weaker move.

6.Bc4 d5 7.e×d5 Bd6 8.d4 Nh5

We readily see that it is not so easy now for White to open the f-file, though he should have persevered, preferably with 9.0-0 in spite of the possible answer 9...Q×h4. As in the previous game, however, Rosanes again plays not for position, but for material advantage.

9.Bb5+ c6 10.d×c6 b×c6 11.N×c6 N×c6 12.B×c6+ Kf8 13.B×a8

White to be sure now has the advantage of a clear rook, but on the other hand a quite undeveloped game and an endangered king’s position.

13...Ng3 14.Rh2

It seems almost superfluous to mention that White here should have tried to throw a sop to Cerberus by sacrificing the exchange with 14.Kf2 instead of wasting his rook on h2. As Anderssen has shown in a long analysis, he would however even then have obtained a sufficient attack.

14...Bf5 15.Bd5

A better defense would probably have been 15.Bc6 in order to prevent the black rook from occupying e8.

15...Kg7! 16.Nc3 Re8+ 17.Kf2 Qb6

With this move, Black threatens to bring about a decision by means of Be5.

18.Na4 Qa6

Threatening mate in four moves: 19...Qe2+ 20.Q×e2+ R×e2+ 21.Kg1 Re1+ 22.Kf2 Rf1#.

19.Nc3

White cannot parry this threat with 19.c4, since Black would answer with 19...Q×a4 and after 20.Q×a4 would mate again with 20...Re2+, etc.

19...Be5! 20.a4

Black announced mate in four moves.

20...Qf1+! 21.Q×f1 B×d4+ 22.Be3 R×e3! 23.Kg1

Any other move is followed by Re2#.

23...Re1# 0-1

Following the trend of the times, Anderssen in later years turned more and more to positional play. We shall add one of these later games, though even here Anderssen’s power of combination triumphs at the end. In consequence this game, based on positional play, obtains a character of its own.

(3) Anderssen–Paulsen, L.

Vienna (m2), 1873

Philidor’s Defense [C62]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6

The defense of Philidor. 2...Nc6 is considered the better move, giving Black the possibility of playing d5 eventually and thereby of participating more effectively in the opening fight for superiority in the center. The move d6 to a certain extent constitutes a surrender, the surrender namely of the greater freedom of action, in case the opponent should choose to play d4. Older theoreticians have mainly criticized d6 because it blocks the king’s bishop, which, though quite true, is of comparatively minor importance.

3.d4 e×d4 4.Q×d4 Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.B×c6 B×c6 7.Bg5 Nf6 8.Nc3 Be7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.Rhe1 Re8 (D)

White has completed his development, Black only as far as his cramped position will permit. The pawn position in the center, White e4, Black d6, indicates an unmistakable advantage for White. As one result White was able to place his rooks advantageously on e1 and d1 while Black has no open file at his disposal for his queen’s rook.

11.Kb1

Content with his victory in the fight for the superiority in the center, Anderssen here makes a waiting move, contributing to the safety of his position. In cases like the above where a lasting positional advantage has been achieved, such safety moves are nearly always to the point.

11...Bd7

Black wants to maneuver his bishop to e6, giving thereby his opponent however an opportunity of increasing his positional advantage, or, more accurately, of exchanging it for another, even larger and more lasting advantage.

12.B×f6 B×f6 13.e5! Be7 14.Nd5 Bf8

All the moves of Black are forced.

15.e×d6 c×d6

The point of Anderssen’s combinations, introduced with the twelfth move, lies in the fact that Black, after 15...B×d6, would lose a pawn with 16.N×c7. Thus Black is forced to see his pawn isolated on d6. This is the greater positional advantage for which Anderssen sacrificed the advantage that he had gained in the opening with his pawn on e4 against Black’s pawn on d6.

Let us say a few words here concerning the isolated pawn. Every chessplayer seems to realize that an isolated pawn is a disadvantage, but only very few really know why it is a disadvantage and how it can be turned to the best possible account. Most players believe the isolated pawn to be weak and easy to capture. This, however, is only rarely the case if the position is otherwise fairly even, because there is absolutely no reason why the opponent should not be able to defend the pawn with as many pieces as are used to attack it.

The essential disadvantage of the isolated pawn, its essential weakness, lies not in the pawn itself, but in the square in front of the pawn, here, for example, the d5-square. This square is entirely under the control of White and here White will be able to establish a piece with great and lasting effect, since on the one hand there are no neighboring pawns with which to dislodge this piece and on the other hand the isolated pawn itself is an obstruction for the black rooks which otherwise could attack the piece.

The most effective piece in such a position is a knight. The others are long-range pieces and just as effective from a distance. Only the knight increases in effectiveness if it succeeds in taking up a permanent position close to the opponent’s lines. After these remarks it is clear that Black will endeavor above all to get rid of the knight on d5, i.e., to exchange it against his queen’s bishop. The manner in which Anderssen opposes this intention and is seemingly losing time to maintain the knight on d5 at any cost, is very instructive and shows Anderssen as a positional player, just as during the whole first part of this game.

16.R×e8 B×e8 17.Nd2! Bc6 18.Ne4 f5

Now Black dare not play 18...B×d5, since thereby he would lose the d6-pawn.

19.Nec3

Thus has White secured the dominating knight position.

19...Qd7 20.a3

Just as after move 11, we see here how Anderssen, having secured his positional advantage, makes a waiting move to improve his king’s position.

20...Qf7 21.h3

Here begins a new phase of the game: the assault of the pawns on the kingside. Similar tactics are frequently observed in tea-shop games, but only rarely are they positionally justified. The attack of the pawns on the flank pre-supposes absolute safety in the center as is the case in the game under discussion. As long as the opponent has a chance of breaking through in the center, an offensive maneuver on the flank is usually a mistake.

21...a6

The most unfortunate part of Black’s position is the fact that it is impossible for him to play g6, with Bg7 following, inasmuch as White would always counter g6 with Nf6+. This illustrates the great force of the knight at d5. Black now intends to prepare g6 with Re8-e6 and therefore secures the a-pawn from the attack by the white queen.

22.g4

The continuation of the pawn attack and at the same time a preventive measure against Black’s intention.

22...Re8 23.f4 Re6 24.g5

With this last move Black’s plan is defeated. Nevertheless we believe that the criticism which as leveled at Paulsen’s last move is unjustified. He apparently intended to provoke g5, in order to make it more difficult for White to open the g-file which otherwise would have been effected, after some preparatory moves, with g×f5.

24...b5

Black, who cannot do anything very effective, attempts a demonstration on the queenside.

25.h4 Re8 26.Qd3

Anderssen conducts his attack subtly and unrelentingly. The queen move prepares h5.

26...Rb8 27.h5 a5 28.b4!

White stops Black’s maneuver at exactly the right moment. Black’s b5-pawn now obstructs the c6-bishop.

28...a×b4 29.a×b4 Q×h5

To prevent the white pawns from getting too powerful – White for example threatened Rg1 – and even before perhaps Qf3, with g6. Another threat was h6, and if Black moves his g-pawn to g6, White would reply with Nf6+ and Qd4.

30.Q×f5 Qf7 31.Qd3 Bd7

This frees the c3-knight but Black has no other plausible reply against the threat of 32.Rh1.

32.Ne4 Qf5 33.Rh1

White, who conducts his attack with wonderful precision, now threatens 34.Ne3 Qg6 35.f5. In order to prevent this, Black scarcely has any other move but that shown below which however once again affords Anderssen an opportunity of demonstrating his power of combination.

33...Re8

34.Nef6+! g×f6 35.N×f6+ Kf7 36.R×h7+ Bg7 37.R×g7+ K×g7 38.N×e8+ Kf8 39.Q×f5+ B×f5 40.N×d6 and White wins. 1-0

Paul Morphy

The life story of this perhaps most famous of all chess masters may be told in a few words. Paul Morphy was born in New Orleans in 1837. In 1857 he won first prize at the first American chess tournament, defeating the German master Louis Paulsen. In the following years he visited Europe to compete with the greatest European masters of chess, defeating every one of his opponents. His most important matches were those against Löwenthal, Harrwitz and Anderssen, the first one of which was played in London, the two others in Paris. Shortly afterwards he retired entirely from participation in tournaments and matches and died on July 10, 1884, in his native city.

His contemporaries reproached Morphy for a certain dryness, a criticism which as been leveled against every world’s champion before and after him. His inclination to exchange queens in order to win a paltry pawn was found fault with, fundamentally the same criticism aimed at Capablanca today, except that the exchange of queens is today considered self-understood even by less advanced players and that the exchange is made by Capablanca for much smaller positional advantages. Times have changed and the numerous chess amateurs who lack a full understanding of the now prevalent and more difficult closed games are glorifying Morphy’s open play.

This is because nowadays the open game is readily understood even by less advanced players which was not the case however in Morphy’s time, since it is to him and to his games that we owe this understanding. Morphy’s superiority over his contemporaries is the consequence of the fact that he was first to understand the nature and characteristics of the open positions and had elaborated sound principles for their treatment.

A position is called open after some of the center pawns have been exchanged, so that the pieces command open lines. The openings beginning with 1.e4 e5 are more apt than others to lead to open positions, since as a rule d4 and exchange of center pawns will follow. On the other hand it is obviously more difficult to carry out the move 2.e4 after 1.d4, inasmuch as the e4-square is originally unprotected. This is the reason why d-pawn openings as a rule lead to closed positions. The open positions quite naturally lead to a lively game, wherefore – and this is Morphy’s most important