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

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

Diag. 35

2. P-K3 P-K3

3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3

4. P-B4 P-B4

5. Kt-B3 Kt-B3

6. B-Q3 B-Q3

7. Castles. Castles

The only useful square for the QB’s on either side is now at Kt2, and 8. P-QKt3, P-QKt3 are indicated. To play P-QKt3 before castling is very dangerous, because Black can play PxQP and pin the White QKt with B-Kt5, forcing B-Q2, when B-Kt2 was the move intended, e.g. 6. P-QKt3, BPxP; 7. KPxP, B-Kt5; 8. B-Kt2, Kt-K5; 9. Q-B2, Q-R4; 10. R-QB1, QxP.

In order not to relinquish the square at QKt4 to Black, White can also try the following manoeuvre:

6. PxBP BxP

7. P-QR3 Castles

8. P-QKt4 B-Q3

9. B-Kt2

If Black imitates White’s moves, viz. 9. … PxP; 10. BxP, P-QR3; 11. Castles, P-QKt4; 12. B-Q3, B-Kt2, the result is the symmetrical position in Diagram 36.

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

Diag. 36

When treating of the middle game, we shall find that even in this apparently fully equalised position the influence of the first move is still at work.

In order to obtain a more thorough understanding of the Queen’s Pawn game, we must now turn our attention very closely to the opening moves. Already on the second move White can play 2. P-QB4 and turn the game into a Queen’s gambit, which Black can either accept or decline. Black would be justified in playing 2. … PxP, and so furthering White’s object of getting his (Black’s) Queen’s Pawn away, if he could permanently hold the gambit pawn, or if the giving up of the square at Q4 fits into a reasoned system of development. The latter was, for instance, the case in the play leading to the position shown in the Diagram 36. But Black is well advised to wait until White has moved the King’s Bishop before taking the pawn on his QB5. This forces the Bishop to move twice, and Black regains the move he lost in his development, when he played PxP.

It would be quite incorrect to try to hold the pawn by P-QKt4 as follows:

2. P-QB4 PxP

3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3

4. P-K3 P-QKt4

5. P-QR4

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

Diag. 37

If now Black answers PxP, White simply plays BxP and the P at R5 is lost very soon. If Black plays instead: 5. … P-B3, White wins back his pawn with 6. P-QKt3, PxKt P; 7. PxP, PxP; 8. BxPch by QxP, and moreover is much ahead with his development.

These considerations point to the conclusion that after 2. P-QB4 there is no inducement for Black to take the pawn. On the contrary, he will cover his centre pawn, which White wishes to tempt away, either with P-K3 or P-QB3. The attempt to develop the Queen’s Bishop before playing P-K3 is not to be recommended, because the Q Kt’s pawn remains unprotected and open to an immediate attack by 3. Q-Kt3. Of the two remaining replies, 2. … P-K3 and 2. … P-QB3, I will first discuss the former, as being the more natural of the two, since P-QB3 does not fit into the scheme for opening the QB file for the Rooks. White, on the other hand, can bring out his QB before playing P-K3, in this way:

2. P-QB4, P-K3; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B-Kt5, and the game might proceed as follows: 4. … Q Kt-Q2. (Diagram 38.)

No fault can be found with this move, although it blocks the Bishop, since the latter can only be developed effectively at Kt2. Moreover, the Knight at Q2 supports the projected P-B4. White cannot win a pawn now with 5. PxP, PxP; 6. KtxP, because of KtxKt; 7. BxQ, B-Kt5ch. Therefore 5. P-K3 must be played first, and after B-K2; 6. Kt-B3, Castles; 7. R-B1, P-QKt3; 8. PxP, PxP; 9. B-Q3, B-Kt2, all the pieces have found rational development.

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

Diag. 38

Quite a different system of opening ensues, when Black does not delay pushing the P to QB4 until after his pieces are developed, but makes the advance on his third move.

Here Black has the advantage of being able to avoid the pinning of his Knight by the opposing QB.

2. P-QB4 P-K3

3. Kt-QB3 P-QB4

4. Kt-B3 Kt-QB3!

Now Black threatens QPxP with an attack on White’s Queen’s Pawn. If White plays P-K3 we get the position mentioned in connection with Diagram 35. If he wishes to bring out his QB first, he must anticipate Black’s threat by BPxP.

After

5. BPxP KPxP

the third of the typical main positions in the Queen’s gambit ensues, and is given in Diagram 39. Two continuations must now be considered. White can either develop his KB at Kt2, and concentrate on the Black QP, which is somewhat weak, or he can place the KB on one of the available squares between B1 and R6. In the first instance, the KP need not be played at all, and the QB

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

Diag. 39

retains the option of developing at Kt5, B4, and even K3. In the second, where the K must make room for the KB, White must decide at once between B-B4 or Kt5, and only B4 can be seriously considered on account of

6. B-Kt5 B-K2

7. BxB KtxB

which only furthers Black’s development. White would only be justified in this course if he could now win a pawn with 8. PxP, but Black would win it back and have the superior game after

8. … P-Q5

9. Kt-K4 Castles

followed by B-B4 and Q-R4ch. The correct move in this variation is consequently 6. B-B4, and a possible continuation would be: Kt-KB3; 7. P-K3, B-K3; 8. R-QB1 or B-QKt5 or B-Q3.

With this we will close the discussion of the variations initiated by 2. P-QB4, P-K3, and study the reply 2. … P-QB3. The first question which arises in our mind is: Which file will Black be able to utilise for his Rooks? An attempt to free the King’s file through P-K4 is conceivable. But White can prevent this by simply playing Kt-KB3.

Two other possibilities present themselves: after playing P-K3, Kt-B3 and QKt-Q2, Black could steer into a line similar to the Queen’s gambit accepted with PxP and P-QB4, or he could keep the centre closed with P-KB4 and Kt-B3, with the intention of playing Kt-K5 and using the KB file for activating his Rook via KB3. Diagram 40 gives the position reached after:

3. Kt-KB3 P-K3

4. P-K3 Kt-KB4

5. Kt-K5 Kt-B3

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

Diag. 40

White would not accomplish much with 6. P-KB4. The more or less symmetrical lineup of the pieces would most likely lead to a draw after Black properly prepares freeing his hemmed-in Bishop with P-QKt3 and B-Kt2. A better plan would be 6. P-B3, preventing Kt-K5 and preparing the eventual advance of the King’s Pawn to K4. In reply to 6. … , QKt-Q2 White would then rather play 7. Kt-Q3 than exchange Knights, as after this exchange it would not be too difficult for Black to bring his Bishop into play on the King’s wing via K1. Both of White’s Bishops would be best placed on Kt2.

This “Stonewall” opening can also be played by White, who is then a move to the good in the variation just shown. But this opening has practically disappeared from modern tournament games, simply because the QB cannot easily be brought into play.

The following variation is reminiscent