Inside Chess 1988-09

Inside Chess 1988-09, Chess, Inside Chess

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
//-->$2.00BI-WEEKLYMAY 4,1988EDITORoIN-CHIEF -IGM YASSER SEIRAWANVOL. 1ISSUE9IThe Lost MatchMay 4, 1988FEATURESVolume 1, Issue 93 THE LOST MATCH: RUBINSTEIN-MARSHALL1MNikolay Minev has succeeded in unearthing a forgotten classic.All the games of this unknown battle of the giants are analyzed inthe light of modern theory.9 THREE-WAY TIE IN NEW ZEALAND INTERNA-TIONALPeter Stuart reports on a three-way tie in the land of the Kiwis bySpassky, Gufeld, and Chandler.11 ANNOTATED GAMES FROM AROUND THEWORLDJonathan Berry, John Donaldson, and Zoran Ilic presentannotated versions of some of the best games of the last year.18 SVETOZAR GLIGORIC'S GAME OF THEMONTHInside Chess is proud to announce the return of GM Gligoric'sfamous Game of the ~onth to American readers. Gligo puts theExchange variation of the Grunfeld under his microscope.28 GAMES FROM RECENT EVENTSThe best games from GM tournaments at Akureyri, Reggio Emilia,and Banco di Roma.DEPARTMENTS16 INSIDE NEWS18 INSIDE BOOK REVIEWS31 TOURNAMENT CALENDARCoverbyMary LasherThe Lost Match: Rubinstein - Marshall, 1908by 1M Nikolay MinevThere are many famous and fascinat-ing matches in chess history. This is thestrange story about one of them: Thematch between Akiba Rubinstein andFrank Marshall, held in Warsaw, October25-November 14, 1905-a match notmentioned anywhere at that time andeven now, after 80 years, one which stillremains in shadows.That a match between these two all-time greats is virtually unknown maystrain credulity. The facts-rather, thelack of facts - prove otherwise. Thematch is not reported inThe Year-Bookof Chess(London, 1907-1917); nor doesit appear in the extremely popular seriesby Mieses,Das Buch der Schachmeister-partien(Volume 4, 1906-1912). Eventhe well-known bookClassical ChessMatches 1907-1913,by F. Wilson, makesno mention of it. If this seems puzzling,then consider also that not a word aboutthe match appears in Marshall'sautobiography,FrankJ.Marshall's BestGames of Chess.~A±r.o~EWorse, what facts have surfaced arereported incorrectly.TheAmericanChess Bulletin(Volume 25, Number 3,March 1928) claims that Rubinstein wonthe match with 4 wins and 2 losses. But asthe crosstable above shows, Rubinsteinactually won the match by a score of 4.5-3.5.The games themselves have not faredwell, either. For all practical purposes,they are impossible for the casual obser-server to track down. One will search invain for them even in the latest bookpublished in the Soviet Union about thechess career of Rubinstein (Razuvaevand Murakhveri, Moscow 1980).I have been fortunate enough to find allthe games of the match. During theseveral months I worked on this article, Ilived buried in old magazines and bookswith the games of Marshall andRubinstein. I uncovered 31 of the 36The two opponents could not have hadmore disparate styles, and the matchproved to be a dramatic battle between agreat tactician and, in my opinion, thefinest strategist of all time. This contestwas truly a classic match - an interesting,important, and, for reasons hard to un-derstand, forgotten part of chess history,particularly in the United States. Itdeserves to be known.The annotations to the gamespresented below are mine. My intentionin these notes is to build a bridge betweenpast and present chess theory; further, Iwish to make known the undercurrents ofthe match, both away from and over theboard. I acknowledge that this task maywell be impossible, but the importance ofthe match to chess history is such that Iam honorbound to attempt it.Now, let the games speak!:.~.:.:;:.:.::.:':',"::.:~.: .:..: '..:::~.:{::::.;.:;::':'::....:',/.... .:::GamelFour Knights C49GM Akiba RubinsteinGM Frank MarshallMatch,1908tI•l.e4 e5 2.Nt3 Nc63.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb45.0-00-0 6.d3 d6 7.Ne2 Bg4It is an incredible, but undeniable,truth that in every new book, the theory ofthe Four Knights is getting smaller andsmaller! By way of apology, the authorsof such books say that more space isgranted to the other openings because (Iquote from a recent example): "In theFour Knights, with a working knowledgeof theory, Black can work his way throughto a very comfortable equality."Perhaps. But did you pay attention tothe game Spassky-Gligoric, Sarajevo1986,Infonnant411371?In 1986,Spasskyplayed several games with the FourKnights as White, and was successful! Orglance through recent evidence of this il-lusory equality, bound up here with7...Ne7 (instead of 7...Bg4) S.c3 BaS9.Ng3 c61O.Ba4 Ng611.d4.May4, 1988INSIDE CHESS-3-Taimanov inECOgives 1l ...ReS12.Bb3 h613.h3 Be6 (13 ...exd414.Nxd4 isslightly better for White according toDvorecki, as 14...Nxe4? fails to 15.Nxe4Rxe416.Bxf7!) 14.Rel Bb6 15.Be3 Oc7,and assesses the position as equal on thebasis ofSveshnikov-Yusupov,USSR (ch)1979.The game continued 16.0d2!? exd4,and here 17.Bxd4 is given by Dvorecki asa slight edge for White. On the otherhand, the sacrifice16.Bxh6!? dxc3(16...gxh6?17.Qxh6 and Nf5) 17.bxc3 dSis very interesting and completely unclearafter 17.exdS or 17.e5 Ne4, and now18.Nxe4 dxe4 19.Rxe4-seeInformant28/254. But where is the convincingequality?Botsford Chess Openingsoffers some-thing else: 1l ...dS (with an exclamationmark) and ... equality!? Do you believethat a symmetrical position with White tomove is always equal? How many moretimes can Black repeat White's moveswithout some damage? Why don't theyshowhereDvorecki'ssuggestion12.BgS!?, which beyond a doubt arousessuspicion about 11...dS? I think that this"equality" does not have both feet on theground.Let's return to our game and 7...Bg4, atthat time considered the weaker con-tinuation.S.c3 BcSToday's theory also is well advanced inyears: 8...Bxf3 9.gxf3 Bc5 10.d4 Bb611.BgSh6 12.Be3 Nh5 13.Ng3 Nxg314.hxg3Of615.Bxc6 bxc616.Kg2 Oe6=,Honfi-Byvshev, Budapest 1959. Some ofthe moves which deserve investigationand probably promise more for White are10.Ng3!? followed by f3-f4. Or Whitemight try I1.Bxc6 bxc6 12.dxe5 dxe513.BgS or13.Ng3.9.Ng3 NhS 10.NfSPillsbury's idea, recently considered asWhite's best.10•••Bb6So far as I know, this is Marshall's in-novation, and a tricky one at that. If now11.h3 then 11...Bxf5 12.exf5 Ng3, winninga pawn. The game Nimzowitsch-Shories,Ostend 1907 (a tournament participatedin by Rubinstein and Marshall) continued10...Bxf511.exf5 Nf6 12.d4 ("This move isthe only one to counteract Black's ad-vantage in the opening" - Nimzowitsch.This is an interesting opinion, rejectedcompletely later on.) 12...exd4 13.cxd4Bb6 14.h3 Ne4?! 15.0c2 ReS 16.Bxc6bxc6 17.Rel (17.0xc6?! Of6!) 17...Ne418.BgS Od7 19.Bxf6 gxf6 2O.g4 Rxel +21.Rxel ReS 22.Re4! and White even-tually won, though the position in theopening was unclear.Another game, Nimzowitsch-W.Cohn,Ostend 1907, is more interesting for us:1O...0f6 11.h3 Bxf5 12.BgS Oe6 13.exf5Oxf5 14.g4 Oe6 15.gxh5 0xh3. As weshall see, Marshall adopted this sacrifice,improving it with 10...Bb6, which gains atempo.1l.Be311.d4 (Canal-Euwe,Venice 1948),with an advantage for White, is the fmalconclusion inECO.Note that 1l ...exd412.cxd4 (if 12.N5xd4 then Nxd4 13.cxd4Of6) 12...Bxf513.exf5 Nf6 transposes intoNimzowitsch-Shories above.1l •••Qf612.h3 BxfSl3.BgS Qe614.exfS.QxfS IS.g4 Qe6 16.gxhS Qxh3 17.Be3Bxe3 IS.fxe3 QxhS 19.Kt219•••e4!?Tempting, but probably premature.20.Bxc6 bxc6 21.dxe4 Rab8Necessary.If 21...f5 then 22.0b3+Kh823.Rhl.22.b3rs23.Rhl Qg6 24.eS f4 2S.e4Qg3+ 26.Kf1 dxeS 27.Qe2 RbdS 2S.Rdlh6Maybe 28 ...Rd6 is better.29.RhS! gS 30.Rxh6 g4 31.RxdS RxdS32.Qc4+32 ..•RdSThere is nothing else. The try 32 ...Kg7fails to 33.Rh7+!Kxh7 34.0f7 + :f91835.0f6+.33.Nel Kg7 34.Qxc6 Rd6 3S.Qxc7 +Kxh6 36.Qxd6 + Kh7 37.Qe7 + Kg63S.Qe6 + Kh7 39.QxeS Qh3 + 40.Ke2rs+ 41.Kt2 Qh4 + 42.Qg3 QdS 43.Qxg4Qd2 + 44.Kxt3 Qdl + 4S.Kf4 Qd2 +46.Kf5 Qxe1 47.Qg6+ KhS 4S.Ke6as49.Kt71-0Game 2Queen's Gambit, TarrascbGM Frank MarshallGM Akiba RubinsteinMatch,1908l.d4 dS 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 cS 4.cxdS exdSS.Nt3 Nf6?!Even at that time, it was clear that5...Nc6 was the most accurate reply. OnlyRubinsteintenaciouslyventuredtodefend the doubtful standing of 5...Nf6.6.BgS Be7 7.dxcS Be6We are again in a critical juncture forrecent theory. There is no doubt thatEuwe-who no doubt did not know of thisimportant game - many years later estab-lished White's best line on the basis of theearlier game Marshall-Rubinstein,LodzForrecent theory, we are in new ter-ritory. White has won a piece for threepawns, but has to submit to a dangerousattack-an appropriatepositionforMarshall's style, but Rubinstein'sac-curate defense proves triumphant.i-4-INSIDE CHESSIssue 91908: 8.Rel0-0 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.e311.a3 Nc612.Bd3.oasThe plan used by Marshall in thismatch game looks better. Instead of thequestionable exchange 9.Bxf6, he keepsthe Bishops andincreasesthe pressureagainst the isolated d-pawn.S.e3 0-0 9.Bd3 BxcS 10.Rc1 Ne611.0-OBe7 12.Bb1 ReS 13033 Qa5 14.Qd3 g615.Ba2Euweassesesthe position as ad-vantageous forWhite.His assessment,adoptedbyKasparov, can befoundin thelatest edition ofECO.For more than 40years, this evaluationhas beenhypnotiz-ing people!Theremainderof thistheoreticalex-ample, withMarshall'soriginalnotes,shows quitea different pattern: 12...0xc5{we haven't com-pletely appreciated thefeatsof these two greatplayers. Despite theexistingbooks withselectedgames or per-haps because of themft ••••••"13.h4 (13.0-0Oe7gives nothing to White)13...0e7 14.Ng5 (14.Bxh7 +?Kxh715.NgSKg6) 14...h6 15.Nxe6fxe616.Bb1Bxh4! 17.g3Bxg3! 18.fxg3 OgS19.0d3and now, accordingtoMarshall, 19...Ne5!(instead of19...0xg3+? 20.Kd2 Rf2 +21.Ne2 Ne5 22.0h7 +Kf723.Rc7 + Kf624.Rxh6 +!1-0)and Black's attackshould succeed- for example, 20.0h7+Kf721.R£1+ Ke7, and Whitehas no goodmove.I thinkMarshall isright,andthe recenttheoreticalposition diagrammedabovemustbe reassessed asbeing equal, or atleastunclear, with a double-edgedsitua-tion.May4,1988It seems that White has a slight edge.Rubinstein's following miscalculationloses a pawn without compensation.15.•.Ne4?15...Rfd8 is the correct continuation.16.Bxe7 Nxe717.Nxe4dxe4 1S.Qxe4Bxa2 19.Qxe7 Bd5 20.Rxe8RxeS21.Qe5!The remainder is playedbyMarshallwith instructive accuracy.21.•.Qe5 22.e4 Be623.Qxe5 Rxe524.Nd4a525.f4 b526.Rd1 Kf827.Kt2 Ke72S.Rd2 h5 29.Ke3 a4 30.Rc2! Bc4 31.Nt3ReS32.Ne5 Be633.Rxe8 Bxe834.Kd4 Bb735.h3 f5Seeking counterplay in a lost endgame.36.Nxg6+ Kf6 37.Ne5fxe4Or 37...Bxe4 38.g4.3S.g4 h4 39.Nd7+Ke7 40.Ne5Kf641.Ke3 Ke6 42.Ng6 Kd543.f5 Ke4 44.Ne7!1-0Game 3Dutch StonewallA 84GM Akiba RubinsteinGM Frank MarshallMatch,19081.d4d5 2.Nt3 e6 3.e4 e64.e3If White doesn't know howtoescapewith a whole skin fromthe 4.Nc3dxc4"jungle," the text is one of many alterna-tives, e.g., 4.0c2, 4.cxdS, 4.g3, etc.4••• d6 5.Nc3f5BINSIDE CHESSAn actual variation! Before compar-ing this completely forgotten game withthemost recent example I know of, Specl-man-Seirawan, (5), St. John 1988, weneed a short trip inthebooks.According to existing theory, thisvariation is OK for Black. The main lineruns as follow: 6.Bd3 Nf6 7.0-0 0-0 8.0c2Ne4 9.Ne5 Nd7, etc.=,ECOA 85. It isclear from this line that White's hope forsome advantage depends on his Knightjumping to e5, but 8.Ne5 (instead of8.Qc2) gives Blacktheadvantage after8...Bxe5! 9.dxe5 Ng41D.f4 dxc411.Bxc4?(11.Be2!?'-Euwe) 0h412.h3 Nxe5!.Hence, the g4 square must beprotected: Sothe ideaof Ne5 goestogether with Be2!.Now let's see briefly the Speelman-Seirawan game mentioned above: 1.d4 dS2.Nf3c63.c4 e6 4.e3 f5 5.Be2! (my mark)Nf6 6.0-0 Bd6 7.b3 Oe7 8.Bb2 Nbd79.Ne5! (Yasser's mark). For the rest ofthe game, withSeirawan's remarkable an-notations, seeInsideChess, Issue 5(March 9, 1988), page 13.It is more interesting for us that insteadof the theoretical line with Bd3, Speelmanplaced his Bishop on e2, followed by Ne5.The right plan, inadifferent move order,is demonstrated by Rubinsteinin thisgame.An old, indisputable truth: When aplayer at the top plays a book line, heknowsmore thantheexisting theory.6.Ne5!?Bxe5If 6...Nf6thenWhite can play 7.f4Bxe58.dxe5 Ng4 9.Be2! or, maybe better,7.Be2!?followedwith f2-f4.7.dxe5Nh68.f40-0 9.Be2! b6After 9...Qh4 +10.g30h3 11.B£1Og412.0xg4, White has anadvantagebecauseof Black's dark-squared weaknesses.-5- [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]