[blind-chess] Annotated Game 001: Pillsbury-Tarrasch, Hastings 1895
- From: Roderick Macdonald <rmacd@xxxxxxxx>
- To: Blind Chess Mailing List <blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:50:47 -1000 (HST)
Annotated Game #001:
Harry Nelson Pillsbury - Siegbert Tarrasch
Hastings International Tournament 1895
Adapted and Condensed from
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
Contents:
++1 Pillsbury
++2 Tarrash
++3 the Game
++1 Harry Nelson Pillsbury
Harry Nelson Pillsbury was Born December 5, 1872, in Somerville,
Massachusetts, United States. He died June 17, 1906, at the age of
33.
At age 22, Pillsbury won one of the strongest tournaments of the
time (Hastings 1895 chess tournament), but his illness and early
death prevented him from challenging for the World Chess
Championship.
++1.A Early life
Pillsbury was born in Somerville, Massachusetts, moved to New York
City in 1894, then to Philadelphia in 1898.
By 1890, having only played chess for two years, he beat noted
expert H. N. Stone. In April 1892, Pillsbury won a match two games
to one against World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, who gave him odds
of a pawn. Pillsbury's rise was meteoric, and there was soon no one
to challenge him in the New York chess scene.
++1.B Hastings 1895
Harry Pillsbury
The Brooklyn chess club sponsored his journey to Europe to play in
the Hastings 1895 chess tournament, in which all the greatest
players of the time participated. The 22-year-old Pillsbury became
a celebrity in the United States and abroad by winning the
tournament, finishing ahead of reigning world champion Emanuel
Lasker, former world champion Wilhelm Steinitz, recent challengers
Mikhail Chigorin and Isidor Gunsberg, and future challengers
Siegbert Tarrasch, Carl Schlechter and Dawid Janowski.
The dynamic style that Pillsbury exhibited during the tournament
also helped to popularize the Queen's Gambit during the 1890s,
including his famous win over Siegbert Tarrasch.
++1.C St. Petersburg 1895
His next major tournament was in Saint Petersburg the same year, a
six-round round-robin tournament between four of the top five
finishers at Hastings (Pillsbury, Chigorin, Lasker and Steinitz;
Tarrasch did not play). Pillsbury appears to have contracted
syphilis prior to the start of the event. Although he was in the
lead after the first half of the tournament (Pillsbury 6= points
out of 9, Lasker 5.5, Steinitz 4.5, Chigorin 1=), he was affected
by severe headaches and scored only 1=/9 in the second half,
ultimately finishing third (Lasker 11=/18, Steinitz 9=, Pillsbury
8, Chigorin 7). He lost a critical fourth cycle encounter to
Lasker, and Garry Kasparov has suggested that had he won, he could
well have won the tournament and forced a world championship match
against Lasker.
++1.D U.S. Champion 1897
In spite of his ill health, Pillsbury beat American champion
Jackson Showalter in 1897 to win the U.S. Chess Championship, a
title he held until his death in 1906.
++1.E Decline and death
Poor health would prevent him from realizing his full potential
throughout the rest of his life. The stigma surrounding syphilis
makes it unlikely that he sought medical treatment. He succumbed to
the illness in 1906.
Pillsbury is buried in Laurel Hill Cemetery in Reading,
Massachusetts.
++1.F Lifetime records
Pillsbury had an even record against Lasker (+5-5=4). He even beat
Lasker with the Black pieces at Saint Petersburg in 1895 and at
Augsburg in 1900. (however this was an offhand game, not played in
a tournament):
Lasker - Pillsbury, King's Gambit Declined
1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Qe2 Bd6 6. d3 O-O 7.
dxe4 Nxe4 8. Nxe4 Re8 9. Bd2 Bf5 10. O-O-O Bxe4 11. Qg4 f5 12. Qg3
Nd7 13. Bc3 Nf6 14. Nh3 Ng4 15. Be2 Be7 16. Bxg4 (see diagram) Bh4
17. Bxf5 Bxg3 18. Be6+ Rxe6 19. dxe6 Qe8 20. hxg3 Bxg2 21. Rhe1
Bxh3 22. Rd7 Qg6 23. b3 Re8 24. Re5 Bxe6 25. Rxc7 Qxg3 26. Kb2 h6
27. Rxb7 Rc8 28. Bd4 Qg2 29. Rxa7 Rxc2+ 30. Kb1 Qd2 0-1
Diagram #1:
White: King at c1, Queen at g3, Rooks at d1 and h1, Bishops at
c3 and g4, Knight at h3, Pawns at a2, b2, c2, d5, f4, g2,
h2
Black: King at g8, Queen at d8, Rooks at a8 and e8, Bishops at
e4 and e7, Pawns at a7, b7, c7, f5, g7, h7
The position after 16. Bxg4
Pillsbury also had an even score against Steinitz (+5-5=3) and
Tarrasch (+5-5=2), but a slight minus against Chigorin (+7-8=6) and
against Joseph Henry Blackburne (+3-5=4), while he beat David
Janowski (+6-4=2) and Giza Marsczy (+4-3=7) and crushed Carl
Schlechter (+8-2=9).
++1.G Blindfold skill
Pillsbury was a very strong blindfold chess player, and could play
checkers and chess simultaneously while playing a hand of whist,
and reciting a list of long words. His maximum was 22 simultaneous
blindfold games at Moscow 1902. However, his greatest feat was 21
simultaneous games against the players in the Hannover Hauptturnier
of 1902--the winner of the Hauptturnier would be recognized as a
master, yet Pillsbury scored +3-7=11. As a teenager, Edward Lasker
played Pillsbury in a blindfold exhibition in Breslau, against the
wishes of his mother, and recalled in Chess Secrets I learned from
the Masters:
But it soon became evident that I would have lost my game even if
I had been in the calmest of moods. Pillsbury gave a marvellous
performance, winning 13 of the 16 blindfold games, drawing two, and
losing only one. He played strong chess and made no mistakes
(presumably in recalling the positions). The picture of Pillsbury
sitting calmly in an armchair, with his back to the players,
smoking one cigar after another, and replying to his opponents'
moves after brief consideration in a clear, unhesitating manner,
came back to my mind 30 years later, when I refereed Alekhine's
world record performance at the Chicago World's Fair, where he
played 32 blindfold games simultaneously. It was quite an
astounding demonstration, but Alekhine made quite a number of
mistakes, and his performance did not impress me half as much as
Pillsbury's in Breslau.
++2. Siegbert Tarrasch
Siegbert Tarrasch (March 5, 1862 - February 17, 1934) was one of
the strongest chess players and most influential chess teachers of
the late 19th century and early 20th century.
Tarrasch was born in Breslau, Prussian Silesia. Having finished
school in 1880, he left Breslau to study medicine in Halle. Later
he lived most of his life with his family in Nuremberg, Bavaria,
and later in Munich. He had five children. Tarrasch was Jewish,
converted to Christianity in 1909, and a patriotic German who lost
a son in World War I. Yet he faced antisemitism in the early stages
of Nazism.
Tarrasch was a highly esteemed chess writer. It was Tarrasch who
wrote in his Preface to The Game of Chess (1931) that oft repeated
line: " Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men
happy. "
++2.A Chess career
A medical doctor by profession, Tarrasch may have been the best
player in the world in the early 1890s. He scored heavily against
the aging Steinitz in tournaments, (+3-0=1), but refused an
opportunity to challenge for the world title in 1892 because of the
demands of his medical practice. Soon afterwards, Tarrasch drew a
hard-fought match against Steinitz' challenger Mikhail Chigorin
(+9-9=4). Tarrasch also won four major tournaments in succession:
Breslau 1889, Manchester 1890, Dresden 1892, and Leipzig 1894.
However, after Emmanuel Lasker became world chess champion in 1894,
Tarrasch could not match him. Fred Reinfeld wrote: "Tarrasch was
destined to play second fiddle for the rest of his life." For
example, Lasker scored much better against common opponents, e.g.
vs. Chigorin, Tarrasch had +2 over 34 games while Lasker scored +7
in 21; vs. Akiba Rubinstein Tarrasch was -8 without a single win,
while Lasker scored +2-1=2; vs. David Janowski Tarrasch scored +3
compared to Lasker's huge +22; vs. Giza Marsczy, Tarrasch was +1
over 16 games while Lasker scored +4-0=1, vs. Richard Teichmann
Tarrasch scored +8-5=2, while Lasker beat him all four tournament
games. However, Tarrasch had a narrow plus score against Harry
Nelson Pillsbury of +6-5=2, while Lasker was even +5-5=4. However,
Tarrasch remained a powerful player, demolishing Frank Marshall in
a match in 1905 (+8-1=8), and winning Ostend 1907 over Schlechter,
Janowski, Marshall, Burn, and Chigorin.
There was no love lost between the two masters. The story goes that
when they were introduced at the opening of their 1908 championship
match, Tarrasch clicked his heels, bowed stiffly, and said, "To
you, Dr. Lasker, I have only three words, check and mate" -- then
left the room. When Lasker finally agreed to a title match in 1908,
he beat Tarrasch convincingly +8-3=5.
Tarrasch continued to be one of the leading players in the world
for a while. He finished fourth in the very strong Saint Petersburg
tournament of 1914, behind only World Champion Lasker and future
World Champions Jose Razl Capablanca and Alexander Alekhine, and
ahead of Marshall, Ossip Bernstein, Rubinstein,
Nimzowitsch, Blackburne, Janowski, and Gunsberg. His win against
Capablanca in the 19th round, though much less famous than Lasker's
win against Capablanca the round before, was essential to enable
Lasker to achieve his famous come-from-behind victory over
Capablanca in the tournament. This tournament was probably
Tarrasch's swan song, because his chess career was not very
successful after this, although he still played some highly
regarded games.
++2.B Chess teachings
Tarrasch was a very influential chess writer, and was called
Praeceptor Germaniae, meaning "Teacher of Germany." He was editor
of the magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1897 and wrote several
books, including Die moderne Schachpartie and Three hundred chess
games. Although his teachings became famous throughout the chess
world, until recently his books had not been translated into
English.
He took some of Wilhelm Steinitz's ideas (e.g. control of the
center, bishop pair, space advantage) and made them more accessible
to the average chess player. In other areas he departed from
Steinitz. He emphasized piece mobility much more than Steinitz did,
and disliked cramped positions, saying that they "had the germ of
defeat."
Tarrasch stated what is known as the Tarrasch rule, that rooks
should be placed behind passed pawns - either yours or your
opponent's. Andrew Soltis quotes Tarrasch as saying
" Always put the rook behind the pawn.... Except when it is
incorrect to do so."
++2.C Clash with hypermodern school
He was a great target of the hypermodern school, led by Richard
Reti, Aron Nimzowitsch, and Savielly Tartakower, all of whom
criticized his ideas as dogmatic. However, many modern masters
regard Tarrasch's actual play as not dogmatic. For example,
Tarrasch annotated his victory on the Black side of the Advance
French against Paulsen (Nuremberg 1888):
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 cxd4
(Tarrasch gives this an exclamation mark, and points out that 6 ...
Bd7 allows 7. dxc5 with a good game. However, most accounts credit
Nimzovitch with such anti-dogmatic hypermodern inventiveness when
he played 7. dxc5 against Gersz Salwe almost a quarter of a century
later (Karlsbad 1911) in this game) 7. cxd4 Bd7 8. Be2 Nge7 9. b3
Nf5 10. Bb2 Bb4+ 11. Kf1 Be7 12. g3 a5 13. a4 Rc8 14. Bb5 Nb4 15.
Bxd7+ Kxd7 16. Nc3 Nc6 17. Nb5 Na7 18. Nxa7 Qxa7 19. Qd3 Qa6 20.
Qxa6 bxa6 21. Kg2 Rc2 22. Bc1 Rb8 23. Rb1 Rc3 24. Bd2 Rcxb3 25.
Rxb3 Rxb3 26. Bxa5 Rb2 27. Bd2 Bb4 28. Bf4 h6 29. g4 Ne7 30. Ra1
Nc6 31. Bc1 Rc2 32. Ba3 Rc4 33. Bb2 Bc3 34. Bxc3 Rxc3 35. Rb1 Kc7
36. g5 Rc4 37. gxh6 gxh6 38. a5 Ra4 39. Kg3 Rxa5 40. Kg4 Ra3 41.
Rd1 Rb3 42. h4 Ne7 43. Ne1 Nf5 44. Nd3 a5 45. Nc5 Rc3 46. Rb1 Nxd4
47. Na6+ Kd8 48. Rb8+ Rc8 49. Rb7 Ke8 50. Nc7+ Kf8 51. Nb5 Nxb5 52.
Rxb5 Ra8 53. f4 a4 54. Rb1 a3 55. f5 a2 56. Ra1 Ra4+ 57. Kh5 Kg7
58. fxe6 fxe6 59. Rg1+ Kh8 60. Ra1 Kh7 61. Rg1 a1=Q 62. Rg7+ Kh8
0-1
++2.D Contribution to opening theory
A number of chess openings are named after Tarrasch, with the most
notable being:
* The Tarrasch Defense, Tarrasch's favorite line against the
Queen's Gambit.
* The Tarrasch Variation of the French Defence (3. Nd2), which
Tarrasch considered refuted by 3...c5, although this is
certainly not thought so today.
* The Tarrasch Variation of the Ruy Lopez, also sometimes known
as the Open Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Nxe4).
++2.E Famous Tarrasch combinations
Diagram #2:
White: King at g1, Queen at f3, Rooks at c1 and c2, Bishop at
e5, Pawns at a5, b3, d3, f4, g2, h2
Black: King at b5, Queen at d7, Rooks at c8 and g8, Bishop at
h6, Pawns at a6, b4, c5, d4, h7
Tarrasch versus Allies, Naples 1914
In the game Tarrasch versus Allies, Black seems to be holding here
(at least against immediate catastrophe), because the black queen
guards against Qb7+ (followed by Kxa5 Ra1#), while the black rook
on c8 defends against Rxc5#. Tarrasch played the ingenious
interference move 31. Bc7! (known as a Plachutta interference
because the pieces both move orthogonally). This blocks off both
defences, and whatever piece captures becomes overloaded. That is,
if 31. ... Rxc7, the rook is overloaded, having to look after both
the key squares, since the queen is blocked from b7. So White would
play 32. Qb7+ Rxb7, deflecting the rook from defence of c5,
allowing 33. Rxc5#. But if Black plays instead 31. ... Qxc7, the
queen blocks off the rook's defence of c5 and becomes overloaded:
32. Rxc5+ Qxc5 deflects the queen from defence of b7, allowing 33.
Qb7+ Kxa5 34. Ra1#. Black actually resigned after this move.
Diagram #3:
White: King at g1, Queen at d3, Rooks at f2 and f4, Bishop at
b2, Knights at d2 and f5, Pawns at a4, b3, c2, g3, h2
Black: King at h8, Queen at e5, Rooks at g5 and g8, Bishops at
d5 and d8, Knight at h5, Pawns at a6, b4, c5, d4
Tarrasch versus Walbrodt, Hastings 1895
In the game against Walbrodt, Tarrasch played rather poorly, and
his opponent had the better of it for a long time. But the game is
redeemed by the following startling combination:
34. Rxd4 seems obvious, because 34. ... cxd4 allows 35. Bxd4
winning the queen. But Black has a seemingly strong counterattack
which had to be foreseen ... 34. ... Nxg3 35. Nxg3 Rxg3+ 36. hxg3
Rxg3+ 37. Kf1! Rxd3 and now the startling 38. Rg4!! with
devastating threats of 39. Rf8+ mating and Bxe5 not to mention cxd3
to follow. Black resigned.
++3: The Game
Hastings International Tournament 1895
White: Pillsbury, Harry Nelson
Black: Tarrasch, Siegbert
Result 1-0
ECO D55 - Queen's Gambit Declined, Pillsbury Variation
(Notes by R.J. Macdonald. Addtional notes from an unknown source.)
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
(The Queen's Gambit Declined. Accepting the "gambit" pawn with 2.
... dxc4 is playable, as long as black is aware that he cannot hope
to keep the pawn for very long.)
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5
(It was Pillsbury who first demonstrated the
strength of this move, which today is routine)
4. ... Be7
5. Nf3 Nd7
6. Rc1 O-O
7. e3 b6
(In order to facilitate development of the Bishop from c8 to b7.
This was the most popular way of defending the Queen's Gambit
Declined at the time of this game.)
8. cxd5
(Depriving Black of the opportunity to play dxc4 when the diagonal
b7-g2 would be open for his Queen Bishop.)
8. ... exd5
(The classical continuation more common today is 8. ... Nxd5, which
accomplishes some simplification after 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5.)
9. Bd3 Bb7
10. O-O c5
(A strategic necessity. Otherwise this pawn will remain backward
and vulnerable to White's Rook on the half open c-file.)
11. Re1
(Whatever the purpose of this move, it turns out to be a loss of
time, for the Rook later goes back to f1.)
11. ... c4
(This move releases the tension in the center in order to commence
a queenside attack. White will counter this by an attack on the
other wing.)
12. Bb1 a6
(In order to play b5. Black's plan is to advance his queen side
pawns with the ultimate aim of obtaining a passed pawn.)
13. Ne5
(The knight is aggressively posted in the neighborhood of Black's
King.)
13. ... b5
14. f4
(This move furthers White's attack in several ways. Should Black
ever play Nxe5, White will recapture with the f-Pawn and open the
f-file. The White f-Pawn may later advance to f5, threatening to
break up Black's kingside via f6. White's Rook now can advance to
Black's kingside via Rf1-Rf3 and Rg3 or Rh3. On the other hand,
White now has a backward pawn on e3. Black has an active position/)
14. ... Re8
(In order to be able to bring his knight on d7 to f8, where it is
an excellent defensive piece.)
15. Qf3
(Bringing the Queen to the attack.)
15. ... Nf8
(15. ... h6 16. Bh4 gives white a slight advantage.)
16. Ne2
(Transferring the Knight to the kingside. 16. Qg3!? gives white a
slight edge.)
16. ... Ne4!
(Black blocks the White King Bishop diagonal and exchanges off his
King Bishop. Each exchange favors Black, for they lessen the vigor
of a kingside attack. Queenside attacks, by contrast, are concerned
with obtaining a passed pawn, which is even more advantageous in
the endgame then the middle game. Black now has equal chances.)
17. Bxe7
(Black was threatening to win a piece with f6)
17. ... Rxe7
(Or 17. ... Qxe7 18. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Qg3 with equality.)
18. Bxe4
(White is not happy to give up his Bishop, but there is no way to
drive away Black's Knight at e4, and as long as it remains there it
is more effective than the Bishop, since the knight blocks the
bishop's diagonal.)
18. ... dxe4
(White now has a protected passed pawn on d4.)
19. Qg3
(Black is not the only one who has gained something from these
exchanges. Now that Black's c-Pawn no longer has the support of a
d-Pawn, black is much less free to advance his queenside pawns, and
his attack on the queenside is thus slowed. White's backward e-
Pawn, which previously was indirectly under pressure from Black's
Kingside Rook, now has shelter behind Black's Pawn on e4.}
19. ... f6
(This slightly weakens Black's kingside, but it is worth it to
prevent White's f-Pawn from ever advancing to f6.)
20. Ng4
(Threatening 21. Nxf6+.)
20. ... Kh8
21. f5
(Cramping Black's kingside and vacating f4 which can now be
occupied by a Rook or a Knight.)
21. ... Qd7
(Threatening f5.)
22. Rf1
(See note at move 11.)
22. ... Rd8
(Preparing Qd6 to defend the f6 pawn a second time.)
23. Rf4
(White is embarking upon a plan to attack Black's isolated e-Pawn,
and tie up Black's pieces to defend it. 23. Qh4 Bd5 would lead to
equality.)
23. ... Qd6
(The position is now even.)
24. Qh4 Rde8
(Or 24. ... Nd7 25. Rf2 and equality.)
25. Nc3
(25. Rf2 Rc7 gives white a slight advantage.)
25. ... Bd5
(To be able to guard the e-Pawn again via Qc6. The black bishop is
well placed on d5. 25. ... Nd7!? appears to give black a slight
advantage.)
26. Nf2
(Putting heavy pressure on e4.)
26. ... Qc6
27. Rf1
(White must be careful now about removing any pieces from the
queenside, because Black can then play b4, followed by Qa4,
menacing White's queenside pawns.)
27. ... b4
28. Ne2?
(28. Nxd5 Qxd5 29. Nh3 Qb5 would have been better, with equal
chances.)
28. ... Qa4
(If Black tries to advance his c Pawn with 28. ... c3 there follows
29. bxc3 Qc4 with a solid advantage for black. (29. ... bxc3 30.
Nd1 c2 31. Ndc3 Bc4 32. d5 Bxd5 33. Rc and Black loses his c-
Pawn.))
29. Ng4
(Black has the advantage.)
29. ... Nd7
(29... Rf7!? is an interesting alternative that appears to favor
black. 29. ... Qxa2? 30. Nxf6 g7xf6 31. Qxf6+ Kg8 (31. ... Rg7 32.
Rg4) 32. Rg4+ winning for white.)
30. R4f2!
(Defending the a-Pawn by a clever combination. The position now
appears even.)
30. ... Kg8
(30. ... Qxa2 31. Nf4, Bf7 32. Ng6! Bxg6 33. f5xg6 h6 (33. ... Nf8
34. Nxf6 g7xf6 35.Rxf6 Kg8 36. Rf7 forces mate.) 34. Nxh6 g7xh6 35.
Qxh6+ Kg8 36. Rf5! and black is defenseless against 37. Rh5 and
Qh8)
31. Nc1??
(Guarding his Queen Rook Pawn. If he had done this on move twenty-
nine, Black would have had the crushing reply Qc7. As it is, white
releases the pressure on black's position with thsi move. Better
woudl have been 31. Nf4 Qb5 32. Ng6 giving equality.)
31. ... c3
(Black gets a passed Pawn and a decided advantage.)
32. b3 Qc6
(Both sides now have clear cut plans. Black will advance his Queen
Rook Pawn to a4, exchange pawns and bring a Rook to a3 winning
White's Queen Knight Pawn. White will counter by advancing his King
Knight Pawn to g5 and opening up his King Knight file.)
33. h3?
(Making room for the Knight at h2. However, the maneuver seems too
slow given that black is also attacking. Comparatively better would
have been 33. Ne2 Ra8 34. Nf4 a5 35. Ne6 Qd6 36. Nf4 a4 37. Qg3 Qc6
38. Rb1 axb3 39. Nxd5 Qxd5 40. Rxb3 Ra4 41. h3 h5, with a probable
win for white.)
33. ... a5
34. Nh2
(White's attack looks slower than Blacks, but White has a stroke of
genius prepared.)
34. ... a4
35. g4 axb3
(35. ... h6 might be the shorter path, for after 36. Qg3 black has
a decisive advantage.)
36. axb3 Ra8
(36. ... h6!? seems even better. After 37. Ra2 black has a decisive
advantage.)
37. g5 Ra3
(37. ... fxg5 38. Qxg5 Nf6 (38. ... Qf6 39. Qg3 and 40. Ng4) 39.
Ng4 taking advantage of black's pinned Knight, Followed by 40. Ne5
when the Knight will be devastatingly powerful.)
38. Ng4 Bxb3??
(This move loses the initiative for black. At this moment neither
Tarasch nor the onlookers had any doubt that white was finished. In
the February 1971 issue of Chess Review, Frank Rhoden relates that
Mr. E.G. Taylor, a Hastings chess club member who actually
witnessed the game, told him that after Tarasch made his 38th move,
"The spectators began to drift away, thinking there was nothing
more to see." But now comes one of the most dramatic surprises ever
seen on a chessboard. With hindsight, several annotators have
advocated that black play 38. ... Rxb3 which sacrifices the
exchange for a pawn. Black would then have his Bishop available for
the defense and obtain two dangerous connected passed pawns. But
38. ... Rxb3 is no better than the move played. 38. ... Rxb3 39.
Nxb3 Bxb3 40. Rg2 Kh8 41. gxf6 gxf6 42. Ne5! Nxe5 43. dxe5 c2 (43.
... Rxe5 44. Qh6 threatening mate at both g7 and f8 wins.) 44. e6
(and black is finished. If then 44. ... Qc3 45. Qh7 These
variations were given by Horowitz and Reinfeld in their revision of
R.N. Cole's book, Battles Royal of the Chessboard. Fritz 12
suggests that black would gain the upper hand with 38. ... Qd6.)
39. Rg2
(Threatening to win a piece with 40. gxf6 Nxf6 41. Nxf6+)
39. ... Kh8
40. gxf6 gxf6?
(40. ... Nxf6 would have been much better. For example, 41. Ne5 )
41. Nxb3
(White now has a decisive advantage.)
41. ... Rxb3??
(The pressure is too much and Black's position crumbles. Also
possible was 41... Rg7 42. Nc5! (Deflection: c5) Nxc5 43. dxc5 Raa7
44. Nxf6 Rxg2+ 45. Kxg2 Qxc5 46. Nxh7 Rxh7 47. Qd8+ Kg7 48. f6+ Kh6
with a decisive advantage for white.)
42. Nh6 Rg7
(White threatened 43. Rg8#, and if 42. ... Re8 43. Nf7#)
43. Rxg7 Kxg7
44. Qg3+!!
(The move that turns the tables. If 44. ..K. f8 45. Qg8+ 46. Qxb3)
44. ... Kxh6
45. Kh1!
(Threatening 46. Rg1 and 47. Qh4#. The only way for Black to
prevent this is to play as he does.)
45. ... Qd5
46. Rg1 Qxf5
47. Qh4+ Qh5
48. Qf4+ Qg5
49. Rxg5 fxg5
50. Qd6+ Kh5
51. Qxd7 c2
(A blunder, but Black was lost. 51. ... Rb1+ was the only chance to
get some counterplay, but after 51. ... Rb1+ (51. ... Kg6 52. Qe6+)
52. Kg2 Rb2+ 53. Kg3 Kg6 54. Qc6+ Kf5 55. d5 white wins easily.)
52. Qxh7#
1-0
==========
The blind-chess mailing list
View list information and change your settings: //www.freelists.org/list/blind-chess
List archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/blind-chess
=========
Other related posts:
