CHAPTER IVTHE OPENINGThe only pieces available on the first move are the Knights. In order to develop other pieces as well, it is necessary to move pawns first, and such pawn moves will be best as give an outlet to as many pieces as possible. For quick development is of the utmost importance, and he who succeeds first in placing all his pieces, from their initial awkward positions, to such places as give them command of the greatest possible number of squares, has the better chance of concentrating a superior force on some important point.It follows that White, having the first move, is, so to speak, always morally justified in attacking, whilst Black should assume the defensive. It is a step in the right direction, to appreciate the truth of this proposition. Unfortunately most beginners fail to realise it, and so pave the way, from the first, to the loss of the game.There are not many developing pawn moves to choose from. Apparently from the point of view of quick development only P-K4 and P-Q4 need be considered, since they free both Bishop and Queen, whilst other pawn moves liberate one piece only. Generally speaking it is only required to move two or three pawns to allow all pieces to be developed, and it is good, on principle, to make only such pawn moves in the opening, which are necessary for the development of pieces. To play other pawns really means the loss of a move. To “lose a move” means to make a move which is not essential to the attainment of a desired position. Thus the “loss of a move” results also from playing a piece to a given square in more moves than necessary.I shall now give a few games showing the far-reaching consequences of losing moves. The first one is a typical though glaring example, which is very instructive and came to my notice some time ago:1. P—K4P—K42. P—Q4P×P3. Q×PKt—QB34. Q—K3Kt—B35. P—KR3?I will not discuss the system of development adopted by White in his first four moves. The last move, however, can at once be recognised as faulty. It is the loss of a move such as occurs in the vast majority of games played by beginners. It was unnecessary to prevent KKt-Kt5, since the Knight could not hold that square permanently. In any case B-K2 would have had the same effect, and developed a piece at the same time.5. …B—K26. P—QR3??This, of course, is very bad. The consequences of this loss of a second move are swift and deadly.6. …Castles7. B-B4At last a developing move.7. …R-K18. Q-QKt3Another Queen’s move. The attack on the Bishop’s Pawn may be very tempting, but must necessarily be incorrect—and why? Because White is much behind with his development. It is useless to analyse any kind of attack in face of this fact. The beginner finds it hard to get used to this way of thinking. He prefers to try to unravel a long string of variations and combinations, in which he will mostly lose his bearings. Even stronger players obstruct their own powers by refusing to see the value of judging a position on general merits. They lose valuable time in thinking out endless variations, to maintain positions which could be proved valueless by general and logical deductions.[Illustration]Diag. 15Then, as in the present position, retribution comes swiftly.8. …P-Q4White should have considered this move. It was obvious, since the opening of the K file for the Rook is most dangerous, for the White King.9. BxPKtxBBlack could have played QxB at once.10. QxKtQxQ11. PxQB-Kt5 double ch12. K-Q1R-K8 mateA further example in which the loss of moves occurs, though not so glaringly, is the following famous game, which Morphy played against the Duke Karl of Brunswick and Count Isouard in the Royal box at the Paris opera-house.1. P-K4P-K42. Kt-KB3P-Q3According to the principles set out above, Kt-QB3 would have been better, since the text move shuts out the King’s Bishop.3. P-Q4Now the King’s Pawn is attacked twice. It would be bad to support it with Kt-QB3, as White would exchange pawns and then Queens. Black would thus forfeit his chance of castling and lose much time in bringing the King into safety and the Rooks into play. P- KB3, of course, is impossible, as it is not a developing move, and moreover blocks the natural development of the King’s Knight. Protecting the pawn with the Queen would also block other pieces, and QKt-Q2 cannot be good, as it blocks the Queen’s Bishop.Since it seems impossible to protect the King’s Pawn, the only alternative would be to exchange it; indeed it is on the whole the best course, although it allows a White piece to take up a dominating position in the centre. Wishing to avoid this, Black plays3. …B-Kt5and, by pinning the opponent’s Knight, indirectly protects the King’s Pawn. This manœuvre is, however, ill-advised, as Black is forced to exchange the Bishop for the Knight. The Bishop will have moved twice, the Knight only once, therefore White will have gained a move for his development.4. PxPBxKtShould Black play PxP at once, White would exchange Queens, release the pin, and win the pawn.5. QxBPxP6. B-QB4White has now two pieces more in play than Black, instead of only one, and the mobility of the White Queen, which Black himself has brought out, begins to have a threatening effect on Black’s game.6. …Kt-KB37. Q-QKt3Q-K2Black cannot cover his King’s Bishop’s Pawn with Q-Q2 because 8. QxP wins the Rook, whilst now Black could play 8. … Q-Kt5ch in reply, forcing the exchange of Queens. The text move, which is forced, blocks the Bishop, and at the same time prevents the development of the King’s Rook, all of which is the direct consequence of the loss of one move.8. Kt-B3White rightly disdains the gain of the Knight’s Pawn, but prevents the exchange of Queens in developing a piece. He proves the superiority of his position much more convincingly in that way. Black must now lose yet another move to protect his Knight’s Pawn.8. …P-B39. B-KKt5P-Kt4Black must try to develop his Queen’s Knight at last. He cannot play QKt-Q2 at once, since his Knight’s Pawn would again be unprotected; therefore he plays the move in the text, probably thinking that now White also must lose a move to withdraw his Bishop. But in view of the fact that Black’s game is wholly undeveloped, and that he plays practically several pieces down, White sacrifices his Knight for two pawns: he foresees the position which occurs a few moves later, when Black is hemmed in on all sides.10. KtxPPxKt11. BxKtPchQKt-Q212. Castles QRR-Q1This is the only piece available to cover Q2, for the King’s Knight is pinned. White has another piece in reserve, his King’s Rook, and against this Black is defenceless.[Illustration]Diag. 1613. RxKtcompare Diag. 12.13. … RxR 14. R-Q1 Q-K3This releases the King’s Knight. Now White could win by playing BxKt and BxRch, but he prefers to end up with a magnificent sacrifice.15. BxRch KtxB 16. Q-Kt8ch!! KtxQ 17. R-Q8 mateThe final position shows in a striking manner how a few well- developed pieces can be worth more than many undeveloped ones, and the whole game is an example of the fatal consequences which can follow the loss of a move, since it often leads to the compulsory loss of further moves in the course of the game.“This is the curse of every evil deedThat propagating still it brings forth evil.”The logical sequence of the moves in this game, as pointed out in the commentaries to it, is borne out by the curious coincidence that I once had the opportunity of playing a game in exactly the same sequence of moves, against a player to whom Morphy’s “brilliancy” was unknown.The leading principle of all opening moves is made clear by the foregoing pages, namely, rapid development of pieces, and consequently the avoidance of the loss of a move in any shape or form.Before treating of the various systems of openings, I will say a few words on the principles of PAWN PLAY.Each opening is characterised by a well-defined pawn formation, and concurrently a certain method in the development of the pieces. Naturally the formation of a pawn skeleton is not an independent factor, but must be evolved with a view to facilitating the favourable development of pieces. But when considering the form of a pawn position and that of the pieces, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that pawn formation must necessarily be the dominant consideration in our mind. Pawn formation is of a more permanent character than that of the pieces, in consequence of the latter’s greater mobility. When we have made a rash move with a piece, to which our attacking disposition may have tempted us, we may still have a chance of retrieving the position by timely retreat. Once a pawn has moved it cannot turn back, and only after the greatest deliberation should we embark on changes in our pawn formation in order not to disturb the balance of this “static element” of the game. But we shall see that the pawn skeleton which was formed in the opening often weathers the storm and stress of the middle game, and frequently preserves its character right up to the end-game. I will therefore make pawn formation my starting-point in an attempt to show the way through the maze of the openings on the basis of general strategical principles.If our pawn skeleton is to promote the freedom of all the pieces, we must not build it up with the narrow view of developing minor pieces only, but must consider from the very first in which way it will enable the Rooks to get into action. We can unite these tendencies in making the CENTRE OF THE BOARD the main field of action for all our forces. This means for both sides K4 and Q4, and also in a lesser degree QB4 and KB4. We shall get a clear insight into the positional advantage of having command of the centre later on, when discussing the middle game. At present I will only touch the subject in a general way, explaining it in an elementary form, which will be sufficient to develop an understanding for pawn strategy in the opening. In the course of further deductions, after the grasp of this difficult stage of the game has become stronger, I will go into details which will allow the subject to be stated in a more precise form.Placing the pieces in the centre is of value, because there they have more mobility than near the edge, which, of course, limits their range of action, and also because from the centre a concentration of forces on a given point can generally be effected in the quickest way.In most cases two centre squares become inaccessible at once, through the opponent placing one of his pawns in the centre; therefore it would seem a good plan to lure that pawn away, and this is rendered feasible by playing P-K4 or P-QB4 when the opponent has a pawn on his Q4, and P-Q4 or P-KB4 when he has a pawn on K4. In the following we will consider such manœuvres as could apply either to White or Black, from the point of view of White, to whom the initiative is, as pointed out above, a sort of birth-right. Naturally, should White lose a move, as, for instance, 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. P-QR3? the position is reversed, and Black is bound to obtain the initiative which is White’s birthright.The pawn moves mentioned above also have the tendency of giving the Rooks an opportunity for action. A Rook standing behind an advanced pawn may support its further advance, or, if the pawn should be exchanged, might get an open file.The damage we wish to inflict on our opponent we must, of course, try to avoid ourselves. Thus we will not easily give up a centre pawn unless we can obtain some other advantage in doing so. This advantage may be, that in exchanging the centre pawn we open up lines of attack for our pieces, or that we are able to place one of our pieces in a commanding position in the centre of the board.The following example may serve as an illustration. Supposing White plays after1. P-Q4 P-Q4 2. P-QB4His aim is to tempt Black’s centre pawn away and to make his QB4 and K4 accessible for his own forces. Black might be justified in taking the pawn, if he really could hold the pawn thus gained. We shall show later on that this is not so, and that White can win it back easily and advantageously. Therefore Black is more likely to play 2. P-K3. Not 2. … Kt-KB3; for after 3. PxP, KtxP; 4. P-K4 would open White’s game and drive the Knight away at once, gaining a move. Supposing, however, Black plays 2. … B-B4; should White now think mechanically, “I will take his centre pawn and consequently have the better game,” his deduction would be wrong. For after exchanging his Bishop for the Knight, which otherwise would drive his Queen away, Black brings the latter into a dominating square in the centre.[Illustration]Diag. 173. PxP BxKt 4. RxB QxPBlack’s Queen cannot easily be driven away from her commanding position, particularly as White must lose a move to save his QRP. Meanwhile Black gains time for concentrating his forces for an attack which wins the Queen’s Pawn.5. P-QKt3 Kt-QB3 6. P-K3 Castles QR 7. Kt-B3 P-K4and wins the QP, or5. P-QR3 Kt-QB3 6. P-K3 Castles QRand P-K4 is again a threat hard for white to meet.This position shows, that to bring one’s opponent’s centre pawn away and to keep one’s own, does not under all circumstances mean the command of the centre, but that the opening up of files and diagonals for one’s pieces towards the centre is an important moment in the fight for positional advantage.Considerations of this kind will help to improve our judgment in many of the various openings treated in the following pages.We will class the openings in this way:A. White 1. P-K4.(a) Black 1. P-K4 (b) Black 1. Any other moveB. White 1. P-Q4.(a) Black 1. P-Q4 (b) Black 1. Any other moveC. White 1. Any other moveWe shall find that openings classed under C generally lead to positions treated under A and B.A. We have already come to the conclusion that after 1. P-K4, P- K4 White does well to try to force the exchange of Black’s centre pawn on Q4 or KB4, and that Black will try to counteract this, unless by allowing the exchange he gets a chance of exerting pressure in the centre by means of his pieces.We will first see what happens when White undertakes the advance in question on his second move. Superficially the difference between 2. PQ4 and 2. P-KB4 is that in the first case the pawn thus advanced is covered, while in the second it is not. An opening in which a pawn sacrifice is offered, is called a “gambit”; 2. P-KB4 is therefore a gambit.2. P-Q4 is only a gambit if after 2. … PxP White does not recapture the pawn. Nevertheless this opening has been called the “centre gambit,” and though the denomination is not correct we will adhere to it, as it is in general use.A very considerable difference between the centre gambit and the King’s gambit lies in the fact that in the former acceptance is compulsory, whilst in the second it may be declined.For: 2. P-Q4 threatens to take the King’s Pawn. To defend it by means of 2. … P-Q3 is unwise, since White exchanges pawns and then Queens, by which Black loses his chance of castling and impedes the development of his Rooks. 2. … Kt-QB3 is also bad, since after 3. PxP, KtxP; 4 P-KB4, White drives the Knight away, gaining a strong hold on the centre, and Black has no compensation for giving up his centre pawn. It may be mentioned here that after 2. … Kt-QB3, 3. P-Q5 would be a useless move, as to begin with it would be inconsequent, since P-Q4 was played in order to clear the centre, and moreover it would block up a diagonal which could be most useful to the King’s Bishop.We conclude now that Black cannot hold his pawn at K4. He must relinquish the centre by 2. … PxP. He will now either attempt to bring away White’s King’s Pawn by advancing his own QP to Q4, or try to utilise the King’s file, which was opened by his second move, and operate against White’s KP. The Rooks are indicated for this task. We shall refer to the execution of these plans later on.In the King’s gambit, White’s attempt to bring away Black’s King’s Pawn may be safely ignored.The move 2. P-KB4 does not threaten to take the King’s Pawn, as Black would win White’s KP by Q-R5ch. Black can therefore develop in security with 2. … B-B4, and if then White prevents the Q check by Kt-KB3, there is no objection to Black protecting his King’s Pawn with P-Q3, as the King’s Bishop is already developed. After 4. B-B4, Black has still no need to protect his KP with Kt- QB3, but can play Kt-KB3 first, because after 5. PxP, PxP; 6. KtxP would be answered by 6. … Q-Q5 winning a piece. Black keeps the upper hand in these early encounters because he has made a developing move with a piece, whilst White has played a pawn move which is useless for the purpose of development.[Illustration]Diag. 18Diagram 18 shows the position which results from the following plausible moves:2. P-KB4 B-B4 3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3 4. B-B4 Kt-KB3 5. P-Q3 Kt-B3 6. Kt-B3 B-KKt5If White wishes to castle on the K side, which must have been his intention when playing 2. P-KB4, he will have to play Kt-QR4 and KtxB.Though this is of no disadvantage to Black, he could avoid the exchange of his KB by playing 2. … P-QR3 instead of B-KKt5. If then White plays P-B5 in order to hinder the development of Black’s QB and to bring out his own, the pressure on Black’s KP is relieved permanently, and sooner or later Black will break through on the Q file, as his QP is no longer needed at Q3 for the support of the centre pawn.A different pawn formation is the result if White enforces the exchange of Black’s centre pawn at once. This he can do by playing P-Q4, e.g.:2. P-KB4 B-B4 or 4. P-B3 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3 5. P-Q4 PxQP 4. P-Q4 PxQP 6. PxP B-Kt3 5. KtxPHere Black can get an early advantage by attacking White’s KP, taking possession of the K file after castling on the K side.All things considered, the student should in my opinion decline the gambit, as in doing so he can get an easy and satisfactory development. The treatment of the “King’s Gambit accepted,” which aims at holding the gambit pawn, is most difficult and leads early in the game to such complications as none but an expert can hope to master.[Footnote: As an example of the difficult play which ensues when Black defends the pawn in the King’s Gambit, I give the latest variation of an attack introduced by Professor I. L. Rice, and called the “Rice Gambit”:1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. P-KB4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3, P-KKt4; 4. P-KR4, P-Kt5; 5. Kt-K5, Kt-KB3; 6. B-B4, P-Q4; 7. PxP, B-Q3; 8. Castles! BxKt; 9. R-K1, Q-K2; 10. P-B3, Kt-R4; 11. P-Q4, Kt-Q2; 12. PxB, KtxP; 13. P-QKt3, Castles; 14. B-R3, Kt-B6ch!; 15. PxKt, QxP; 16. R-K5! B-B4!!; 17. Kt-Q2! Q-Kt6ch; 18. K-B1, Q-R7; 19. BxR, P-Kt6; 20. B-B5, P-Kt7ch; 21. K-K1, Q-R5ch; 22. K-K2, Kt-Kt6ch; 23. K-B2, Kt-K5ch; 24. KxP, B-R6ch; 25. K-R1, K-R1; 26. KtxKt, R-KKt1; 27. R-Kt5, with interesting possibilities.Numberless interesting variations are possible, but their discussion does not lie within the scope of this work. They will be found in books treating of the analysis of the openings.]It is therefore unwise for the beginner to accept the gambit, unless there be a chance of compensation for the disappearance of his centre pawn, by forcing the exchange of White’s centre pawn as well. The following line of play would fulfil this condition:1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. P-KB4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3, Kt-KB3; 4. Kt-B3, P-Q4! Black thereby abandons the gambit pawn.On principle, and when he has the choice, the beginner should give preference to simple and clear development in the opening, rather than to the gain of a pawn, when this involves difficult and intricate play. This principle must also guide us in other openings.A good example is to be found in the so-called “Danish gambit,” [Footnote: The names of the various openings, which I mention for the sake of completeness, are generally derived from towns or countries in which they were first extensively played and analysed.] which will lead us back to those openings in which White plays P-Q4 on his second move. After 2. P-Q4, PxP, White has the option of sacrificing two pawns to obtain a very rapid development 3. P-QB3, PxP; 4. B-QB4, PxP; 5. QBxP. It may now be just possible for Black to avoid the many threats which White can bring to bear with his beautifully placed forces, perhaps by giving back one or both of the pawns gained. But this question can only be of interest to us if there is no opportunity of adopting a simple line of development at the outset. As it is, this opportunity is not wanting. All that Black needs to do is to push on his Queen’s Pawn as soon as possible, thus freeing his own Queen’s Bishop.2. P-Q4 PxP 3. P-QB3 P-Q4[Illustration]Diag. 19After 4. KPxP, QxP, Black’s position is at least as easy of development as White’s. In the position set out in Diagram 19, White cannot play P-K5, because Black wins a pawn by PxP without hindering his own development in the least. The equalising power of Black’s P-Q4 in all KP openings where White has played P-Q4 can be noticed in many variations. I shall now give a few typical examples, which will show the line of play that can be adopted in many similar cases, and which can often be evolved one from the other by altering the order of the moves.I. CENTRE GAMBIT2. P-Q4 PxP 3. QxP Kt-QB3 4. Q-K3 Kt-B3 5. Kt-QB3 B-K2 6. B-Q2 P-Q4!II. KING’S BISHOP’S OPENING2. P-Q4 PxP 3. B-QB4 Kt-KB3 4. P-K5 P-Q4!III. SCOTCH GAMBIT2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. P-Q4 PxP 4. B-B4 Kt-B3 4. P-B3 P-Q4! 5. P-K5 P-Q4!IV. SCOTCH GAME2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. P-Q4 PxP 4. KtxP Kt-B3 5. Kt-QB3 B-Kt5 6. KtxKt KtPxKt 7. B-Q3 P-Q4!In no case should Black forfeit his chance of playing P-Q4. It is tempting after 2. P-Q4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3 to cover the pawn at Q5 by P-QB4, but in that case White would sacrifice a pawn by P-QB3, by this means opening the Queen’s file for himself, and so preventing Black from ever playing P-Q4. Thus, for the loss of a pawn, White has a paramount advantage in position.For after 4. … PxP, 5. KtxP (Diagram 20) White has developed both Knights, and his Bishops are free, whilst Black has none of his pieces out. P-Q3 must also be played in order to mobilise the Queen’s Bishop, leaving K2 as the only square for the King’s Bishop; finally the “backward” pawn [Footnote: A pawn is said to be “backward,” when it cannot move into cover by another pawn.] at Q3 is open to constant attacks and is difficult to defend.[Illustration]Diag. 20The best plan for Black is to decline the doubtful gift of the pawn and to bring about one of the positions, as sketched above, in which, by playing P-Q4 early in the game, Black is sure of the free development of all his forces.Black is able to play P-Q4 early in all such openings, where White does not force the defensive move P-Q3 by attacking Black’s King’s Pawn. For instance, in the King’s gambit, since the move 2. P-KB4 does not threaten PxP, Black can reply at once by 2. … P-Q4 (Falkbeer Counter Gambit). After 3. PxQP, P-K5 (to permit of Kt-KB3, which at present is not feasible on account of 4. PxP); 4. P-Q3, PxP; 5. QxP, White is a pawn ahead, but his Queen obstructs his KB; therefore Black has better developing chances and should be able to win the pawn back at the very least.A second example is the Vienna game, which proceeds as follows:2. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 3. P-B4 P-Q4 (Diagram 21)If White plays 4. PxQP, Black can play P-K5, as in the Falkbeer gambit mentioned just now. In answer to 4. PxKP, on the other hand, Black can play KtxP without having the slightest difficulty with his development. For instance,5. Kt-KB3 B-K2 6. P-Q4 P-KB3 7. B-Q3 KtxKt 8. PxKt Castles 9. Castles Kt-B3 or B-KKt5and Black also will soon have an open file for his Rook, with no disadvantage in position.[Illustration]Diag. 21There is, however, one opening in which Black has the utmost difficulty in preventing White from getting a positional advantage in the centre. It is called the Ruy Lopez, and is held by many to be the strongest opening for White. The initial moves are: 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. B-Kt5. With this move White at once attacks the Black KP, though indirectly, by threatening to exchange the B for the Kt. To make the capture effective, however, White must first protect his own King’s Pawn, which would otherwise be lost after 4. BxKt, QPxB; 5. KtxP, Q- Q5!. At first, therefore, Black need not provide against the threatened exchange.I shall treat at some length the various defences from which Black can choose, and in studying this most important King’s side opening, we shall have occasion to note many points of general interest for operations in the centre.Broadly speaking, two entirely different systems of defence can be distinguished: either Black will try to maintain his centre pawn, or else, giving up the centre, try to gain some other advantage as compensation.Black can only maintain his centre pawn if he can prevent his QKt from being exchanged. As is readily seen, White can attack Black’s KP a second time with P-Q4, whilst after Black’s P-Q3 any other defensive move would hinder development. These considerations lead to the first main line of defence in which Black plays 3. … P-QR3. After 4. B-R4 Black has the option of releasing the pin by playing P-QKt4 at some opportune moment. If White elects to exchange his Bishop for the Kt forthwith, he can remove the Black centre pawn after 4. … QPxB by playing 5. P- Q4, but the exchange of the B for the Kt gives Black a free development and in consequence a good game. (Compare note to move 4 in Game No. 12.)Diagram 22 reproduces a typical position in this defence. The more usual continuation for White is 4. B-R4, Kt-B3;[Illustration]Diag. 225. Castles; he does not trouble to protect his KP as its capture would allow his Rook an open file on which to act against the opposing King (compare Games Nos. 14 and 17) 5. … B-K2. Now Black can capture the KP without much risk, as the Bishop is on the King’s file. 6. R-K1, White covers his pawn, and thereby threatens to win a pawn by BxKt. Therefore Black must not delay playing 6. … P-QKt4.After 7. B-Kt3, P-Q3; (Diagram 22) White cannot yet execute the manœuvre which underlies the whole tendency of the Ruy Lopez, namely P-Q4, maintaining the pressure in the centre, because after KtxQP, 9. KtxKt, PxKt; 10. QxP? White loses a piece through 10. … P-B4, etc. It is therefore necessary to play P- QB3 first. White could also obtain a rapid development by Kt-B3, P-Q3, B-K3 or Kt5, but this arrangement is not popular, because Black can play Kt-QR4 and exchange the valuable KB. The pawn at QB3 supports an advance in the centre, and also provides a retreat for the KB. The QKt can be developed in this way: Kt-Q2- B1-Kt3 or K3. Black, however, must try to round off his pawn position on the Queen’s side, by moving his QBP into line. Black’s pawns at K4 and QB4 then exert a pressure on White’s Q4. And this pressure threatens to be reinforced by B-Kt5. From these considerations the following development seems to be natural: 8. P-B3, Kt-QR4; 9. B-B2, P-B4; 10. P-Q4, Q-B2 (to support the KP); it leads to the position in Diagram 23.[Illustration]Diag. 2311. P-KR3One of the few instances in which this pawn move is justified. It deprives Black’s QB of its only good square, and saves the K Kt, the co-operation of which is urgently needed in the centre.This system of opening will receive more exhaustive treatment under the heading of “Middle Game.” (Compare Game No. 12.)In the second main line of defence, of which I shall treat now, Black renounces the maintenance of his KP, and makes an attempt to find compensation by attacking White’s King’s Pawn. The King’s file, opened by the disappearance of the Black pawn, offers opportunities for that purpose. After the first few moves we arrive at the following position, which[Illustration]Diag. 24may be reached thus: 3. B-Kt5, P-Q3; 4. P-Q4, B-Q2; 5. Kt-B3, Kt- B3; 6. Castles, B-K2; 7. R-K1, PxP; 8. KtxP, Castles. The exchange on the seventh move is compulsory, because the loss of a pawn after BxKt is in effect threatened, now that the White KP is supported by the Rook.Black’s intention of exerting pressure on the KP is now difficult of execution, because his pieces are very cramped and hinder one another in a restricted area. The KB in particular cannot be brought into action without great difficulty, for instance by: R- K1, B-KB1, P-KKt3, and B-Kt2. It is therefore advisable for White to develop his QB at Kt2 instead of at Kt5, in order not to give Black a chance of exchanging his troublesome Bishop. (In a game Bernstein-Emanuel Lasker, Moscow, 1914, there happened 9. BxKt, PxB; 10. B-Kt5, P-KR3; 11. B-R4, Kt-R2; 12. BxB, QxB with a good game for Black.)The defence has a totally different trend, if Black gives up his own KP, but captures the White KP at once. I have already pointed out that White would not mind his KP being taken, in view of the attack on the open King’s file. Let us now consider in which way this attack can be planned. There are two essentially different lines, according to whether Black interpolates P-QR3 or not.After 3. B-Kt5, Kt-B3; 4. Castles, KtxP; 5. R-K1, Black gets out of it comfortably by playing Kt-Q3, B-K2 and Castles, and White cannot permanently prevent Black’s game from being freed by the advance of the QP. P-Q4 for White on the fifth move is therefore stronger. Black cannot very well exchange the pawns, leaving the King’s file quite exposed, and must submit to White playing PxP, maintaining the pawn at K5 and preventing Black’s P-Q4 for some time to come.The opening might continue in this way: 5. P-Q4, B-K2; 6. Q-K2, Kt-Q3; 7. BxKt, KtPxB (to make room for the Kt); 8. PxP, Kt-Kt2 (Diagram 25).[Illustration]Diag. 25The whole of the manœuvres now centre round Black’s endeavours to force his P-Q4, and White’s attempt to prevent it. Black ultimately gains his point, as will be seen, but at the expense of such disadvantages in the pawn position that it is questionable whether the whole variation (called the Rio de Janeiro Defence) is playable.9. Kt-B3, Castles; 10. R-K1, Kt-B4 (the Knight is to be posted at K3 to bring the White KKt away from his Q4, whence he prevents the advance of Black’s QP by attacking QB6); 11. Kt-Q4, Kt-K3; 12. B-K3, KtxKt; 13. BxKt, P-B4; 14. B-K3, P-Q4; 15. PxP e.p., BxP. This is the critical position in the Rio de Janeiro defence. Black has succeeded in eliminating the White centre pawn, and sweeps long diagonals with his Bishops, but the advantage cannot be maintained. White exchanges the Bishop at Q6, and there remains a backward pawn, which Black will hardly be able to hold permanently. In practice it has been shown that the end-game should be won by White in spite of Bishops of opposite colours, as Black’s pawn at his QB4 is difficult to defend.16. Kt-K4, B-Kt2; 17. KtxB (not BxP because of BxB; 18. KtxB, BxP followed by Q-Kt4ch), PxKt; 18. Q R-Q1 and P-QB4.The game is much more favourable for Black if he first plays 3. … P-QR3, and retains the option of driving the White KB away by P-QKt4, after which P-Q4 can be enforced very soon. 3. B-Kt5, P- QR3; 4. B-R4, Kt-B3; 5. Castles, KtxP; 6. P-Q4, P-QKt4; 7. B-Kt3, P-Q4; 8. PxP, B-K3, 9. P-B3.Now Black’s pieces are more mobile, and that is the reason why this system of defence is becoming more popular than any other.On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Black’s pawn formation on the Q side is weak, and that his centre is less secure. Whilst White has a pawn firmly posted in the centre, Black has a Knight there which will soon be driven away. White’s Q4, the basis of his centre, is entirely in his hands, whilst Black’s Q4 is exposed to a steady pressure by the White pieces. Finally Black’s QKt is unfavourably placed, obstructing as it does the QBP and preventing its falling into line with its fellows.Diagram 26 shows the position after 9. P-B3. The latter move prevents the exchange of the B after Black’s Kt-R4, an exchange which would allow Black to round up his pawn formation with P- QB4. The experts are not yet agreed as to the best continuation for Black in this critical position. To be considered are the moves B-QB4, B-K2 and Kt-B4. B-K2 is preferred nowadays to B- QB4, as QB4 should be kept free for the KKt in case the latter is driven from his dominating position, e.g. 10. R-K1 and 11. Q Kt- Q2. For if in that case Black exchanges the Knights, he only furthers White’s development without doing anything towards strengthening his Q4.If Black covers the Knight with P-B4, White plays PxP e.p. and Kt-Kt5, rids himself of Black’s QB, and thereby weakens Black’s QP still more.Kt-B4 would therefore seem to be the best choice, as the QB becomes mobile again after White’s B-B2, nor can White[Illustration]Diag. 26play P-Q4 as yet. The position in the diagram therefore leads to the following variations:A. 9. … B-K2; 10. R-K1, Castles; 11. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 12. B-B2, B-KKt5. This manœuvre was introduced by Em. Lasker (Petrograd, 1909. For further particulars see Game No. 15).B. 9. … Kt-B4; 10. QKt-Q2, P-Q5 (Capablanca-Em. Lasker, Petrograd, 1914); or 9. … B-K2; 10. R-K1, Castles; 11. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 12. B-B2, P-Q5 (Em. Lasker-Tarrasch, Petrograd, 1914).Capablanca believes that the early advance of P-Q5 can be refuted by Kt-K4, e.g. 9. … B-K2; 10. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 11. B-B2, P-Q5; 12. Kt-K4, PxP; 13. KtxKt, BxKt; 14. B-K4, Q-Q2; 15. Q-B2 or PxP.The openings as sketched out up to this point give a sufficiently clear idea of the possibilities of combining sound development with an attempt to capture the centre after the opening moves 1. P-K4, P-K4. In most cases, Black’s centre pawn being open to attack by White’s P-Q4, we find an early break-up of the centre, and concurrently the opening of the Ks or Qs file for the Rooks. That is why games opened in this fashion have been classed very generally as “open,” whilst all the other openings are called “close games.” Lately the distinction has been abandoned, and very rightly, since in the latter openings, too, the centre can be cleared occasionally. We attain typical close positions when Black does not play 1. … P-K4 in answer to 1. P-K4, but relinquishes all claim on his K4 and takes possession of his Q4 instead, leaving White the option of interlocking the pawns in the centre with P-K5.On principle it does not seem advisable for Black to play P-Q4 on the first move in reply to 1. P-K4. Although White’s centre pawn disappears after 2. PxP, QxP, Black loses a move through 3. Kt- QB3, and his Queen has no place from which it cannot be driven away very soon, unless it be at Q1. This, however, would amount to an admission of the inferiority of the whole of Black’s plan.There are two moves which deserve consideration as a preliminary to P-Q4, namely, 1. … P-K3 (French Defence)[Illustration]Diag. 27and P-QB3 (Caro-Kann defence). After 2. P-Q4, P-Q4, we attain the positions set out in the Diagrams 27 and 28, to which we must devote a good deal of attention.These openings are worthy of study as being especially interesting examples of the struggle for the centre.As early as the third move, White has to take an important decision. Is he to play P-K5 and prevent the opening of[Illustration]Diag. 28the K or Q file for a long time to come, or should he proceed to develop his pieces, and leave Black the option of anticipating the blocking of the centre by playing PxP himself?I shall first turn my attention to those games in which White plays P-K5, starting with the French Defence, after which the Caro-Kann Defence will be easily understood.The position which ensues in the centre after 1. P-K4, P-K3; 2. P-Q4, P-Q4; 3. P-K5, divides the board diagonally, and it is easy to recognise roughly the main lines of play which will govern the game. White has more scope on the King’s side, where his pieces will have greater mobility, and prospects of attack. Black’s chances are on the Queen’s side. Both sides will have to advance more pawns in order to obtain openings for their Rooks, and use them for the attack, since they have no future on the K and Q files, as was the case in the openings mentioned hitherto.The obvious moves to this end are: for White the advance of the KBP, for Black that of the QBP and sometimes even of the QKtP, that is when the QBP has not been exchanged for the opposing QP, but has pushed on to B5.In Diagrams 29 and 30 we see the chains of pawns formed by these manœuvres.White’s pawn attack is more dangerous than Black’s,[Illustration]Diag. 29because it involves a direct assault on the King. And we shall see that Black will usually be compelled to suspend operations on the Queen’s side temporarily, to ward off the storm by the[Illustration]Diag. 30White Pawns on the King’s side. He will attempt this either by P- KB3 attacking White’s centre or by P-KB4 preventing White from playing P-B5. In the latter case White can only make a breach in the Black barrier by playing P-KKt4 as well. These manœuvres result in the pawn formations given in Diagrams 31 and 32.[Illustration]Diag. 31We must now turn to the development of the pieces corresponding to these pawn skeletons. If White plays P-K5[Illustration]Diag. 32on his third move, he prevents the Black KKt from reaching KB3, whence he might have moved to Q2. This is a desirable position, from which he could support the advance of P-QB4. But the Knight has other chances of development, to KR3 and B4, whence he can take his share in the attack on the White Pawn at Q4. In consequence White must postpone P-KB4 in order not to intercept the action of the QB on R6. Now, in that case White’s Pawn at his K5 has not sufficient support against the attack by Black’s P-KB3 (Diagram 31), and the latter move gives Black the advantage. The two main variations illustrative of these considerations are:I3. P-K5 P-QB4 4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3 5. P-KB4 PxP 6. PxP Q-Kt3 7. Kt-KB3 Kt-R3II3. P-K5 P-QB4 4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3 5. Kt-B3 P-B3In both cases the initiative falls to Black, in the first through the attack on White’s Q4, the mainstay of White’s centre; in the second through attack on White’s K5, the White centre itself. We must therefore consider White’s advance of P-K5 on the third move as premature. Let us now find out whether it is advantageous to effect the same subsequently. A developing move can be interpolated, e.g. 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3. If White plays P-K5 now he gains time for his advance of P-KB4, as Black’s Knight must retreat. On the other hand he cannot now maintain his pawn at Q4, as he has blocked his QBP. We arrive at the following plan of development:3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. P-K5 KKt-Q2 5. P-B4 P-QB4 6. PxP Kt-QB3If Black were to play BxP at once, White could play Q-Kt4 with an attack on the Knight’s Pawn. That is the object of Black’s waiting move. White must either play 7. Kt-B3, which prevents his Q-Kt4, or 7. B-Q3, after which Black would take the pawn on B4 with his Knight, getting rid of the White Bishop. 7. Q-Kt4 at once would be answered by P-B4.7. Kt-B3 BxP 8. B-Q3 P-B4Black cannot castle yet, on account of the following threat, which I give in full because it occurs frequently in practice: 8. … Castles; 9. BxPch, KxB; 10. Kt-Kt5ch, K-Kt1: 11. Q-R5, R- K1; 12. QxPch; 13. Q-R5ch; 14. Q-R7ch; 15. Q-R8ch; 16. QxP mate.[Illustration]Diag. 33The position in the diagram seems favourable to Black as White cannot castle for some time.For that reason another line of play has come to the fore in which White exchanges his inactive QB for Black’s troublesome KB.3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 5. P-K5 KKt-Q2 6. BxB QxB[Illustration]Diag. 34White has now the choice of two lines of development. He can either prepare for P-QB3 to support his QP. or he can develop his King’s side, holding the P at K5 onlyI7. Kt-Kt5 Kt-Kt38. P-QB3 P-QR39. Kt-QR3 P-QB410. P-KB4 Kt-B311. Kt-B2 Castles12. Kt-B3 B-Q213. B-Q3 P-B4The sacrifice BxPch, as mentioned above, was threatened.14. Castles Kt-R5 15. R-Kt1 P-QKt4If White does not wish to lose so many moves with his Kt, he can effect the intended protection of his QP as follows:7. Q-Q2 P-QR3not P-QB4 at once, because of Kt-Kt5.8. Kt-Q1 P-QB4 9. P-QB3II7. P-B4 Castles8. Kt-B3 P-QB49. B-Q3 P-B410. Castles Kt-QB3and so on.In both cases White has an easy development, whilst Black has no convenient square for his Queen’s Bishop.To avoid this drawback Rubinstein has evolved the following variation, in which provision is made from the first for the freedom of action of the Queen’s Bishop:3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. B-Kt5 PxPto open the diagonal for the Bishop at QKt2, e.g.:5. KtxP QKt-Q2 6. Kt-KB3 B-K2followed by P-QKt3 and B-Kt2.We will now leave the French defence and turn our attention to the Caro-Kann, of which the initial position was shown in Diagram 28. Here also we find two essentially different systems of development, according to whether White plays P-K5 or gives Black the option of exchanging pawns by 3. Kt-QB3. In the first case a very noticeable difference from the French defence is, that Black can bring out his Queen’s Bishop. Here the process of development may be:3. P-K5 B-B4 4. B-Q3 BxBNot B-Kt3, because White could play P-K6! and paralyse the whole of Black’s game by preventing his playing the King’s Pawn.5. QxB P-K36. Kt-K2 or KR3Through this the move P-KB4, which fits into this pawn formation, is kept in reserve.While White’s development is easy and natural, Black has difficulty in finding good places for his King’s side pieces. The game can proceed generally speaking on the lines of the French defence. Only Black can hardly attack White’s centre with P-B3, since the Pawn at K3 would be weak in the absence of the Queen’s Bishop. On the other hand, Black would be a move behind with an attack on the Queen’s side, since to reach QB4 his pawn would have made two moves instead of one as in the French defence. A certain compensation lies in the fact that White’s attacking King’s Bishop has been exchanged.In practical play it has nevertheless been shown that White’s attack is more likely to succeed, and for this reason a variation introduced by Niemzowitsch has been tried several times; it aims at the exchange of Queens in order to weaken and retard White’s threatened attack, and to gain time for Queen’s side operations.6. … Q-Kt3 7. Castles Q-R3 or Kt4But after 8. Kt-B4, QxQ; 9. KtxQ, White is so much ahead with his development that Black’s chance of equalising the game would seem questionable.If White plays Kt-KR3 on his sixth move, he foils at once Black’s attempt of forcing an exchange of Queens, as he could play 8. Q- KKt3.On the whole we can conclude that in the Caro-Kann defence White obtains a good game by 3. P-K5.A line of play which used to be in vogue, namely, 3. Kt-QB3, PxP; 4. KtxP, Kt-B3; 5. KtxKtch, KPxKt or KtPxKt, gives Black an even chance, for although he loses his centre pawn he obtains a good development, and later in the game he has opportunities of exercising pressure on White’s QP through his open Q file.Except the French defence and the Caro-Kann, there is no game in which an irregular reply to White’s 1. P-K4 necessitates any special considerations either in development of pieces or pawn formation. In all such cases it is sufficient to maintain the pawn centre and to occupy such squares with the pieces, whence they cannot be driven away with the loss of a move. Just one example: If Black plays 1. … P-QB4 (Sicilian defence), White will not play his King’s Bishop to B4, because Black can reply P- K3, and gain a move by P-Q4.B. Let us now consider the openings in which the first move is 1. P-Q4 on either side. Here the centre cannot be cleared as early as in the openings beginning with 1. P-K4, P-K4. The advance of a second centre pawn, which there led to a clearance, is not feasible in this case. White does not command his K4, and for some time to come he will be unable to advance the K pawn beyond K3. In consequence the K file does not seem a likely opening for the Rooks, and another file must be found for them. The conclusions arrived at for Black in the French defence hold good for both sides in the opening now under consideration, and accordingly the QB file is that most advantageous for the Rooks. The advance of the QBP strikes at the opposing centre, and, that being of paramount importance, the Queen’s Knight must not be developed at B3 before the QBP has been pushed on. Another development might be conceivable for the Rooks; viz. on the KB file, and also the KKt or KR file; here, as we shall see, an occasion may arise for storming the opposing King’s side by a pawn attack. But in this case, too, although it seems unnecessary to play the QBP, it is advisable to develop the Knight via Q2, as there is a constant threat of the QB file being forced open subsequently by the opposing forces.We will start with the games in which the QB Pawns are played in the earliest stages of the opening, so that the pawn skeleton in Diagram 35 forms the basis of development. The sequence of moves is of moment, because the advance of the KP, whether forced or not, determines the possibility of bringing out the Q Bishops. The simplest process of development based on Diagram 35 is the following, in which both sides block up the QB.[Illustration]Diag. 352. 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. CastlesThe 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 manœuvre:6. PxBP BxP 7. P-QR3 Castles 8. P-QKt4 B-Q3 9. B-Kt2If 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.[Illustration]Diag. 36When 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[Illustration]Diag. 37If 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.[Illustration]Diag. 38Quite 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.After5. BPxP KPxPthe 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[Illustration]Diag. 39retains 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 of6. B-Kt5 B-K2 7. BxB KtxBwhich 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 after8. … P-Q5 9. Kt-K4 Castlesfollowed 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-K34. P-K3 Kt-KB45. Kt-K5 Kt-B3[Illustration]Diag. 40White 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 of the “Stonewall” in the formation of the centre pawns. White develops his Queen’s side just as Black did in the opening shown in connection with Diagram 38.2. Kt-KB3 P-QB4 3. P-K3 Kt-QB3 4. B-Q3 Kt-B3 5. P-QKt3 P-K3 6. B-Kt2 B-Q3 7. QKt-Q2 PxP 8. PxP Castles[Illustration]Diag. 41White can now settle his Knight at K5, and initiate a violent King’s side attack after castling, by P-KB4, Q-B3, which could be continued with P-KKt4, K-R1, R-KKt1, and so on. Once the position in Diagram 41 has been reached, Black’s resources against the dangerous onslaught of the White forces are scanty. Yet he can retaliate, not by making the simplest and most obvious developing moves, as mentioned before, but in the following way:If White plays 5. P-QKt3 before castling, Black exchanges pawns and checks with the Queen. Now White has the disagreeable choice between B-Q2 and P-B3. The former must be bad, being contrary to the plan of development as intended by P-QKt3. The latter blocks the very diagonal on which the Bishop was meant to operate. White can open up the diagonal by playing P-QB4 after castling, nor would it really imply the loss of a move to have played the BP twice, since Black must move his Queen again from R4, where she has no future. But in any case there remains the disadvantage that White was forced to play the BP, whilst before he had the option of withholding its advance until a more opportune moment.Another possible subtlety in Black’s sequence of developing moves would be to withhold the advance of his KP until White has played P-QKt3, and then to play the QB to Kt5. For, as I have already remarked, the objection to developing Black’s Queen’s Bishop lies in White’s threat to attack Black’s QKtP with Q-Kt3. That possibility disappears after P-QKt3.Before bringing the discussion of the Queen’s Pawn opening to a close, I may remark that in tournaments it has become usual for White not to play P-QB4 at once, but to play Kt-KB3 as a preliminary, in order to avoid the complications of the Queen’s counter gambit: 2. P-QB4, P-K4.If White plays 3. PxKP, Black’s reply is P-Q5, and the obvious move 4. P-K3 fails on account of the following pretty combination: B—Kt5ch; 5. B—Q2, PxP; 6. BxB, PxPch; 7. K-K2, PxKtch!!; 8. RxKt, B-Kt5ch, etc.Instead of 4. P-K3, White should play P-KKt3 and develop his KB at Kt2. Black could now try to regain his pawn with Kt-K2-Kt3, but he can also sacrifice a pawn by P-KB3, with a view to rapid development.It now only remains for us to discover whether Black has any other answer to P-Q4 which would necessitate close analysis on White’s part.Here must be mentioned: 1. … Kt-KB3, 1. … P-QB4, and 1. … P-KB4. The former move prepares P-Q3, followed by P-K4. In this opening there is no reason why White should play P-QB4, as there is no prospect of opening the QB file for the Rooks. Furthermore, Black has relinquished the square Q4 and made K4 the basis of operations. It will be more advisable to prevent Black from playing P-K4 as far as this can be achieved in conformity with a logical development, e.g. 1. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3. Not 2. Kt- QB3, because Black could then lead into the Queen’s gambit by playing P-Q4 and P-QB4, after which White has the disadvantage of not being able to open the QB file. 2. … P-Q3; 3. B-B4, QKt-Q2; 4. P-K3. Now Black can only enforce P-K4 after P-B3 and QB2. Meanwhile White mobilises all his pieces, whilst Black’s QB remains blocked and the Kt must remain at Q2 to cover the KP. If, on the other hand, Black exchanges pawns in order to free the Knight, there is no Black centre left.With regard to the second irregular reply to 1. P-Q4, namely, 1. … P-QB4, two ways are open to White. One is to turn the opening into an ordinary Queen’s gambit by playing P-K3, on which Black can play P-Q4. The second is to play 2. P-Q5. Black will then develop his King’s side with P-KKt3 and B-Kt2. The Bishop is well posted here, and can frequently take up an attacking position at K4 or Q5. (See Game No. 45, Rubinstein v. Spielmann.)If White plays 2. PxP, we have after 2. … P-K3 a Queen’s gambit accepted by White, and, as pointed out before, this line of play is not commendable.The last of the three irregular answers mentioned above: 1. … P-KB4 leads to two entirely different plans, according to the second move chosen by White.White can confine himself to a simple development such as: Kt- KB3, B-Kt5, P-K3, QKt-Q2 (Kt-B3 would only be good if preceded by P-B4, because Black would again lead into a Queen’s gambit with P-Q4 and P-QB4). The other possibility is the following: in view of the fact that 1. … P-KB4 does absolutely nothing to aid development, White can initiate a violent attack by giving up his King’s Pawn (P-K4) and thus accelerate his own development. The play might be as follows: 2. … PxP; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B- KKt5, P-B3 (P-Q4? 5. BxKt followed by Q-R5ch); 5. P-B3. If Black takes the pawn he lays himself open to an attack hard to meet. It seems best to play 5. … P-K6, which calls back the White QB and leaves White’s BP as a hindrance to the development of the KKt.IRREGULAR OPENINGSMany openings in which neither P-K4 nor P-Q4 is the first move lead to well-known positions by a simple transposition of moves. For instance, a Queen’s gambit may well have the following opening moves: 1. P-QB4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3, P-K3; 3. Kt-B3, P-B4; 4. P-K3, P-Q4; 5. P-Q4, or a French defence these: 1. Kt-QB3, P- Q4; 2. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 3. B-Kt5, P-K3; 4. P-K4.There are, of course, systems of opening which deviate absolutely from those which have been proved sound and are in general use, and it is those openings that puzzle the beginner most of all. He says: What is the good of learning correct openings, if my opponent plays incorrectly and wins all the same? This line of thought is wrong from its inception. The student is not supposed to “learn” openings by heart, but to UNDERSTAND how the general principles of Chess Strategy are applied to any opening. Such knowledge can never be obtained from a tabulated analysis, but can only be arrived at by the application of common sense. If a player succeeds in winning in spite of an inferior opening, it only proves that subsequently he has played a stronger game than his opponent, who, after playing the opening according to the book, did not know how to proceed further. And herein lies the weakness, and not in the absence of knowledge of the analysis of openings. The latter is rated far too highly. Any player will hold his own in the opening, as soon as he has grasped the real meaning of those principles which I cannot repeat often enough, viz.: 1st, quick development of pieces and avoidance of lost moves; 2nd, the maintenance of a pawn centre, hampering the development of the opposing forces, and the avoidance of pawn moves that do not contribute to the development of pieces.How to conduct the middle game and end-game is not entirely a matter of deduction from such general rules. In order to play the end-game correctly, one must know certain things and positions which arise from and may be said to be peculiar to the purely arbitrary rules of chess. The same applies to the middle game, as in most cases it must be played with a view to the end-game which ensues, unless there be a chance of mating the opponent before. The student should have, therefore, a knowledge of the end-game before he can hope to be able to conduct the middle game efficiently. For this reason I have decided to treat of the end- game first.
The only pieces available on the first move are the Knights. In order to develop other pieces as well, it is necessary to move pawns first, and such pawn moves will be best as give an outlet to as many pieces as possible. For quick development is of the utmost importance, and he who succeeds first in placing all his pieces, from their initial awkward positions, to such places as give them command of the greatest possible number of squares, has the better chance of concentrating a superior force on some important point.
It follows that White, having the first move, is, so to speak, always morally justified in attacking, whilst Black should assume the defensive. It is a step in the right direction, to appreciate the truth of this proposition. Unfortunately most beginners fail to realise it, and so pave the way, from the first, to the loss of the game.
There are not many developing pawn moves to choose from. Apparently from the point of view of quick development only P-K4 and P-Q4 need be considered, since they free both Bishop and Queen, whilst other pawn moves liberate one piece only. Generally speaking it is only required to move two or three pawns to allow all pieces to be developed, and it is good, on principle, to make only such pawn moves in the opening, which are necessary for the development of pieces. To play other pawns really means the loss of a move. To “lose a move” means to make a move which is not essential to the attainment of a desired position. Thus the “loss of a move” results also from playing a piece to a given square in more moves than necessary.
I shall now give a few games showing the far-reaching consequences of losing moves. The first one is a typical though glaring example, which is very instructive and came to my notice some time ago:
I will not discuss the system of development adopted by White in his first four moves. The last move, however, can at once be recognised as faulty. It is the loss of a move such as occurs in the vast majority of games played by beginners. It was unnecessary to prevent KKt-Kt5, since the Knight could not hold that square permanently. In any case B-K2 would have had the same effect, and developed a piece at the same time.
This, of course, is very bad. The consequences of this loss of a second move are swift and deadly.
At last a developing move.
Another Queen’s move. The attack on the Bishop’s Pawn may be very tempting, but must necessarily be incorrect—and why? Because White is much behind with his development. It is useless to analyse any kind of attack in face of this fact. The beginner finds it hard to get used to this way of thinking. He prefers to try to unravel a long string of variations and combinations, in which he will mostly lose his bearings. Even stronger players obstruct their own powers by refusing to see the value of judging a position on general merits. They lose valuable time in thinking out endless variations, to maintain positions which could be proved valueless by general and logical deductions.
[Illustration]Diag. 15
Diag. 15
Then, as in the present position, retribution comes swiftly.
White should have considered this move. It was obvious, since the opening of the K file for the Rook is most dangerous, for the White King.
Black could have played QxB at once.
A further example in which the loss of moves occurs, though not so glaringly, is the following famous game, which Morphy played against the Duke Karl of Brunswick and Count Isouard in the Royal box at the Paris opera-house.
According to the principles set out above, Kt-QB3 would have been better, since the text move shuts out the King’s Bishop.
Now the King’s Pawn is attacked twice. It would be bad to support it with Kt-QB3, as White would exchange pawns and then Queens. Black would thus forfeit his chance of castling and lose much time in bringing the King into safety and the Rooks into play. P- KB3, of course, is impossible, as it is not a developing move, and moreover blocks the natural development of the King’s Knight. Protecting the pawn with the Queen would also block other pieces, and QKt-Q2 cannot be good, as it blocks the Queen’s Bishop.
Since it seems impossible to protect the King’s Pawn, the only alternative would be to exchange it; indeed it is on the whole the best course, although it allows a White piece to take up a dominating position in the centre. Wishing to avoid this, Black plays
and, by pinning the opponent’s Knight, indirectly protects the King’s Pawn. This manœuvre is, however, ill-advised, as Black is forced to exchange the Bishop for the Knight. The Bishop will have moved twice, the Knight only once, therefore White will have gained a move for his development.
Should Black play PxP at once, White would exchange Queens, release the pin, and win the pawn.
White has now two pieces more in play than Black, instead of only one, and the mobility of the White Queen, which Black himself has brought out, begins to have a threatening effect on Black’s game.
Black cannot cover his King’s Bishop’s Pawn with Q-Q2 because 8. QxP wins the Rook, whilst now Black could play 8. … Q-Kt5ch in reply, forcing the exchange of Queens. The text move, which is forced, blocks the Bishop, and at the same time prevents the development of the King’s Rook, all of which is the direct consequence of the loss of one move.
White rightly disdains the gain of the Knight’s Pawn, but prevents the exchange of Queens in developing a piece. He proves the superiority of his position much more convincingly in that way. Black must now lose yet another move to protect his Knight’s Pawn.
Black must try to develop his Queen’s Knight at last. He cannot play QKt-Q2 at once, since his Knight’s Pawn would again be unprotected; therefore he plays the move in the text, probably thinking that now White also must lose a move to withdraw his Bishop. But in view of the fact that Black’s game is wholly undeveloped, and that he plays practically several pieces down, White sacrifices his Knight for two pawns: he foresees the position which occurs a few moves later, when Black is hemmed in on all sides.
This is the only piece available to cover Q2, for the King’s Knight is pinned. White has another piece in reserve, his King’s Rook, and against this Black is defenceless.
[Illustration]Diag. 16
Diag. 16
13. RxKt
compare Diag. 12.
13. … RxR 14. R-Q1 Q-K3
This releases the King’s Knight. Now White could win by playing BxKt and BxRch, but he prefers to end up with a magnificent sacrifice.
15. BxRch KtxB 16. Q-Kt8ch!! KtxQ 17. R-Q8 mate
The final position shows in a striking manner how a few well- developed pieces can be worth more than many undeveloped ones, and the whole game is an example of the fatal consequences which can follow the loss of a move, since it often leads to the compulsory loss of further moves in the course of the game.
“This is the curse of every evil deedThat propagating still it brings forth evil.”
The logical sequence of the moves in this game, as pointed out in the commentaries to it, is borne out by the curious coincidence that I once had the opportunity of playing a game in exactly the same sequence of moves, against a player to whom Morphy’s “brilliancy” was unknown.
The leading principle of all opening moves is made clear by the foregoing pages, namely, rapid development of pieces, and consequently the avoidance of the loss of a move in any shape or form.
Before treating of the various systems of openings, I will say a few words on the principles of PAWN PLAY.
Each opening is characterised by a well-defined pawn formation, and concurrently a certain method in the development of the pieces. Naturally the formation of a pawn skeleton is not an independent factor, but must be evolved with a view to facilitating the favourable development of pieces. But when considering the form of a pawn position and that of the pieces, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that pawn formation must necessarily be the dominant consideration in our mind. Pawn formation is of a more permanent character than that of the pieces, in consequence of the latter’s greater mobility. When we have made a rash move with a piece, to which our attacking disposition may have tempted us, we may still have a chance of retrieving the position by timely retreat. Once a pawn has moved it cannot turn back, and only after the greatest deliberation should we embark on changes in our pawn formation in order not to disturb the balance of this “static element” of the game. But we shall see that the pawn skeleton which was formed in the opening often weathers the storm and stress of the middle game, and frequently preserves its character right up to the end-game. I will therefore make pawn formation my starting-point in an attempt to show the way through the maze of the openings on the basis of general strategical principles.
If our pawn skeleton is to promote the freedom of all the pieces, we must not build it up with the narrow view of developing minor pieces only, but must consider from the very first in which way it will enable the Rooks to get into action. We can unite these tendencies in making the CENTRE OF THE BOARD the main field of action for all our forces. This means for both sides K4 and Q4, and also in a lesser degree QB4 and KB4. We shall get a clear insight into the positional advantage of having command of the centre later on, when discussing the middle game. At present I will only touch the subject in a general way, explaining it in an elementary form, which will be sufficient to develop an understanding for pawn strategy in the opening. In the course of further deductions, after the grasp of this difficult stage of the game has become stronger, I will go into details which will allow the subject to be stated in a more precise form.
Placing the pieces in the centre is of value, because there they have more mobility than near the edge, which, of course, limits their range of action, and also because from the centre a concentration of forces on a given point can generally be effected in the quickest way.
In most cases two centre squares become inaccessible at once, through the opponent placing one of his pawns in the centre; therefore it would seem a good plan to lure that pawn away, and this is rendered feasible by playing P-K4 or P-QB4 when the opponent has a pawn on his Q4, and P-Q4 or P-KB4 when he has a pawn on K4. In the following we will consider such manœuvres as could apply either to White or Black, from the point of view of White, to whom the initiative is, as pointed out above, a sort of birth-right. Naturally, should White lose a move, as, for instance, 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. P-QR3? the position is reversed, and Black is bound to obtain the initiative which is White’s birthright.
The pawn moves mentioned above also have the tendency of giving the Rooks an opportunity for action. A Rook standing behind an advanced pawn may support its further advance, or, if the pawn should be exchanged, might get an open file.
The damage we wish to inflict on our opponent we must, of course, try to avoid ourselves. Thus we will not easily give up a centre pawn unless we can obtain some other advantage in doing so. This advantage may be, that in exchanging the centre pawn we open up lines of attack for our pieces, or that we are able to place one of our pieces in a commanding position in the centre of the board.
The following example may serve as an illustration. Supposing White plays after
His aim is to tempt Black’s centre pawn away and to make his QB4 and K4 accessible for his own forces. Black might be justified in taking the pawn, if he really could hold the pawn thus gained. We shall show later on that this is not so, and that White can win it back easily and advantageously. Therefore Black is more likely to play 2. P-K3. Not 2. … Kt-KB3; for after 3. PxP, KtxP; 4. P-K4 would open White’s game and drive the Knight away at once, gaining a move. Supposing, however, Black plays 2. … B-B4; should White now think mechanically, “I will take his centre pawn and consequently have the better game,” his deduction would be wrong. For after exchanging his Bishop for the Knight, which otherwise would drive his Queen away, Black brings the latter into a dominating square in the centre.
[Illustration]Diag. 17
Diag. 17
3. PxP BxKt 4. RxB QxP
Black’s Queen cannot easily be driven away from her commanding position, particularly as White must lose a move to save his QRP. Meanwhile Black gains time for concentrating his forces for an attack which wins the Queen’s Pawn.
5. P-QKt3 Kt-QB3 6. P-K3 Castles QR 7. Kt-B3 P-K4
and wins the QP, or
5. P-QR3 Kt-QB3 6. P-K3 Castles QR
and P-K4 is again a threat hard for white to meet.
This position shows, that to bring one’s opponent’s centre pawn away and to keep one’s own, does not under all circumstances mean the command of the centre, but that the opening up of files and diagonals for one’s pieces towards the centre is an important moment in the fight for positional advantage.
Considerations of this kind will help to improve our judgment in many of the various openings treated in the following pages.
We will class the openings in this way:
A. White 1. P-K4.
(a) Black 1. P-K4 (b) Black 1. Any other move
B. White 1. P-Q4.
(a) Black 1. P-Q4 (b) Black 1. Any other move
C. White 1. Any other move
We shall find that openings classed under C generally lead to positions treated under A and B.
A. We have already come to the conclusion that after 1. P-K4, P- K4 White does well to try to force the exchange of Black’s centre pawn on Q4 or KB4, and that Black will try to counteract this, unless by allowing the exchange he gets a chance of exerting pressure in the centre by means of his pieces.
We will first see what happens when White undertakes the advance in question on his second move. Superficially the difference between 2. PQ4 and 2. P-KB4 is that in the first case the pawn thus advanced is covered, while in the second it is not. An opening in which a pawn sacrifice is offered, is called a “gambit”; 2. P-KB4 is therefore a gambit.
2. P-Q4 is only a gambit if after 2. … PxP White does not recapture the pawn. Nevertheless this opening has been called the “centre gambit,” and though the denomination is not correct we will adhere to it, as it is in general use.
A very considerable difference between the centre gambit and the King’s gambit lies in the fact that in the former acceptance is compulsory, whilst in the second it may be declined.
For: 2. P-Q4 threatens to take the King’s Pawn. To defend it by means of 2. … P-Q3 is unwise, since White exchanges pawns and then Queens, by which Black loses his chance of castling and impedes the development of his Rooks. 2. … Kt-QB3 is also bad, since after 3. PxP, KtxP; 4 P-KB4, White drives the Knight away, gaining a strong hold on the centre, and Black has no compensation for giving up his centre pawn. It may be mentioned here that after 2. … Kt-QB3, 3. P-Q5 would be a useless move, as to begin with it would be inconsequent, since P-Q4 was played in order to clear the centre, and moreover it would block up a diagonal which could be most useful to the King’s Bishop.
We conclude now that Black cannot hold his pawn at K4. He must relinquish the centre by 2. … PxP. He will now either attempt to bring away White’s King’s Pawn by advancing his own QP to Q4, or try to utilise the King’s file, which was opened by his second move, and operate against White’s KP. The Rooks are indicated for this task. We shall refer to the execution of these plans later on.
In the King’s gambit, White’s attempt to bring away Black’s King’s Pawn may be safely ignored.
The move 2. P-KB4 does not threaten to take the King’s Pawn, as Black would win White’s KP by Q-R5ch. Black can therefore develop in security with 2. … B-B4, and if then White prevents the Q check by Kt-KB3, there is no objection to Black protecting his King’s Pawn with P-Q3, as the King’s Bishop is already developed. After 4. B-B4, Black has still no need to protect his KP with Kt- QB3, but can play Kt-KB3 first, because after 5. PxP, PxP; 6. KtxP would be answered by 6. … Q-Q5 winning a piece. Black keeps the upper hand in these early encounters because he has made a developing move with a piece, whilst White has played a pawn move which is useless for the purpose of development.
[Illustration]Diag. 18
Diag. 18
Diagram 18 shows the position which results from the following plausible moves:
2. P-KB4 B-B4 3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3 4. B-B4 Kt-KB3 5. P-Q3 Kt-B3 6. Kt-B3 B-KKt5
If White wishes to castle on the K side, which must have been his intention when playing 2. P-KB4, he will have to play Kt-QR4 and KtxB.
Though this is of no disadvantage to Black, he could avoid the exchange of his KB by playing 2. … P-QR3 instead of B-KKt5. If then White plays P-B5 in order to hinder the development of Black’s QB and to bring out his own, the pressure on Black’s KP is relieved permanently, and sooner or later Black will break through on the Q file, as his QP is no longer needed at Q3 for the support of the centre pawn.
A different pawn formation is the result if White enforces the exchange of Black’s centre pawn at once. This he can do by playing P-Q4, e.g.:
2. P-KB4 B-B4 or 4. P-B3 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3 5. P-Q4 PxQP 4. P-Q4 PxQP 6. PxP B-Kt3 5. KtxP
Here Black can get an early advantage by attacking White’s KP, taking possession of the K file after castling on the K side.
All things considered, the student should in my opinion decline the gambit, as in doing so he can get an easy and satisfactory development. The treatment of the “King’s Gambit accepted,” which aims at holding the gambit pawn, is most difficult and leads early in the game to such complications as none but an expert can hope to master.
[Footnote: As an example of the difficult play which ensues when Black defends the pawn in the King’s Gambit, I give the latest variation of an attack introduced by Professor I. L. Rice, and called the “Rice Gambit”:
1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. P-KB4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3, P-KKt4; 4. P-KR4, P-Kt5; 5. Kt-K5, Kt-KB3; 6. B-B4, P-Q4; 7. PxP, B-Q3; 8. Castles! BxKt; 9. R-K1, Q-K2; 10. P-B3, Kt-R4; 11. P-Q4, Kt-Q2; 12. PxB, KtxP; 13. P-QKt3, Castles; 14. B-R3, Kt-B6ch!; 15. PxKt, QxP; 16. R-K5! B-B4!!; 17. Kt-Q2! Q-Kt6ch; 18. K-B1, Q-R7; 19. BxR, P-Kt6; 20. B-B5, P-Kt7ch; 21. K-K1, Q-R5ch; 22. K-K2, Kt-Kt6ch; 23. K-B2, Kt-K5ch; 24. KxP, B-R6ch; 25. K-R1, K-R1; 26. KtxKt, R-KKt1; 27. R-Kt5, with interesting possibilities.
Numberless interesting variations are possible, but their discussion does not lie within the scope of this work. They will be found in books treating of the analysis of the openings.]
It is therefore unwise for the beginner to accept the gambit, unless there be a chance of compensation for the disappearance of his centre pawn, by forcing the exchange of White’s centre pawn as well. The following line of play would fulfil this condition:
1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. P-KB4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3, Kt-KB3; 4. Kt-B3, P-Q4! Black thereby abandons the gambit pawn.
On principle, and when he has the choice, the beginner should give preference to simple and clear development in the opening, rather than to the gain of a pawn, when this involves difficult and intricate play. This principle must also guide us in other openings.
A good example is to be found in the so-called “Danish gambit,” [Footnote: The names of the various openings, which I mention for the sake of completeness, are generally derived from towns or countries in which they were first extensively played and analysed.] which will lead us back to those openings in which White plays P-Q4 on his second move. After 2. P-Q4, PxP, White has the option of sacrificing two pawns to obtain a very rapid development 3. P-QB3, PxP; 4. B-QB4, PxP; 5. QBxP. It may now be just possible for Black to avoid the many threats which White can bring to bear with his beautifully placed forces, perhaps by giving back one or both of the pawns gained. But this question can only be of interest to us if there is no opportunity of adopting a simple line of development at the outset. As it is, this opportunity is not wanting. All that Black needs to do is to push on his Queen’s Pawn as soon as possible, thus freeing his own Queen’s Bishop.
2. P-Q4 PxP 3. P-QB3 P-Q4
[Illustration]Diag. 19
Diag. 19
After 4. KPxP, QxP, Black’s position is at least as easy of development as White’s. In the position set out in Diagram 19, White cannot play P-K5, because Black wins a pawn by PxP without hindering his own development in the least. The equalising power of Black’s P-Q4 in all KP openings where White has played P-Q4 can be noticed in many variations. I shall now give a few typical examples, which will show the line of play that can be adopted in many similar cases, and which can often be evolved one from the other by altering the order of the moves.
2. P-Q4 PxP 3. QxP Kt-QB3 4. Q-K3 Kt-B3 5. Kt-QB3 B-K2 6. B-Q2 P-Q4!
2. P-Q4 PxP 3. B-QB4 Kt-KB3 4. P-K5 P-Q4!
2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. P-Q4 PxP 4. B-B4 Kt-B3 4. P-B3 P-Q4! 5. P-K5 P-Q4!
2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. P-Q4 PxP 4. KtxP Kt-B3 5. Kt-QB3 B-Kt5 6. KtxKt KtPxKt 7. B-Q3 P-Q4!
In no case should Black forfeit his chance of playing P-Q4. It is tempting after 2. P-Q4, PxP; 3. Kt-KB3 to cover the pawn at Q5 by P-QB4, but in that case White would sacrifice a pawn by P-QB3, by this means opening the Queen’s file for himself, and so preventing Black from ever playing P-Q4. Thus, for the loss of a pawn, White has a paramount advantage in position.
For after 4. … PxP, 5. KtxP (Diagram 20) White has developed both Knights, and his Bishops are free, whilst Black has none of his pieces out. P-Q3 must also be played in order to mobilise the Queen’s Bishop, leaving K2 as the only square for the King’s Bishop; finally the “backward” pawn [Footnote: A pawn is said to be “backward,” when it cannot move into cover by another pawn.] at Q3 is open to constant attacks and is difficult to defend.
[Illustration]Diag. 20
Diag. 20
The best plan for Black is to decline the doubtful gift of the pawn and to bring about one of the positions, as sketched above, in which, by playing P-Q4 early in the game, Black is sure of the free development of all his forces.
Black is able to play P-Q4 early in all such openings, where White does not force the defensive move P-Q3 by attacking Black’s King’s Pawn. For instance, in the King’s gambit, since the move 2. P-KB4 does not threaten PxP, Black can reply at once by 2. … P-Q4 (Falkbeer Counter Gambit). After 3. PxQP, P-K5 (to permit of Kt-KB3, which at present is not feasible on account of 4. PxP); 4. P-Q3, PxP; 5. QxP, White is a pawn ahead, but his Queen obstructs his KB; therefore Black has better developing chances and should be able to win the pawn back at the very least.
A second example is the Vienna game, which proceeds as follows:
2. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 3. P-B4 P-Q4 (Diagram 21)
If White plays 4. PxQP, Black can play P-K5, as in the Falkbeer gambit mentioned just now. In answer to 4. PxKP, on the other hand, Black can play KtxP without having the slightest difficulty with his development. For instance,
5. Kt-KB3 B-K2 6. P-Q4 P-KB3 7. B-Q3 KtxKt 8. PxKt Castles 9. Castles Kt-B3 or B-KKt5
and Black also will soon have an open file for his Rook, with no disadvantage in position.
[Illustration]Diag. 21
Diag. 21
There is, however, one opening in which Black has the utmost difficulty in preventing White from getting a positional advantage in the centre. It is called the Ruy Lopez, and is held by many to be the strongest opening for White. The initial moves are: 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. B-Kt5. With this move White at once attacks the Black KP, though indirectly, by threatening to exchange the B for the Kt. To make the capture effective, however, White must first protect his own King’s Pawn, which would otherwise be lost after 4. BxKt, QPxB; 5. KtxP, Q- Q5!. At first, therefore, Black need not provide against the threatened exchange.
I shall treat at some length the various defences from which Black can choose, and in studying this most important King’s side opening, we shall have occasion to note many points of general interest for operations in the centre.
Broadly speaking, two entirely different systems of defence can be distinguished: either Black will try to maintain his centre pawn, or else, giving up the centre, try to gain some other advantage as compensation.
Black can only maintain his centre pawn if he can prevent his QKt from being exchanged. As is readily seen, White can attack Black’s KP a second time with P-Q4, whilst after Black’s P-Q3 any other defensive move would hinder development. These considerations lead to the first main line of defence in which Black plays 3. … P-QR3. After 4. B-R4 Black has the option of releasing the pin by playing P-QKt4 at some opportune moment. If White elects to exchange his Bishop for the Kt forthwith, he can remove the Black centre pawn after 4. … QPxB by playing 5. P- Q4, but the exchange of the B for the Kt gives Black a free development and in consequence a good game. (Compare note to move 4 in Game No. 12.)
Diagram 22 reproduces a typical position in this defence. The more usual continuation for White is 4. B-R4, Kt-B3;
[Illustration]Diag. 22
Diag. 22
5. Castles; he does not trouble to protect his KP as its capture would allow his Rook an open file on which to act against the opposing King (compare Games Nos. 14 and 17) 5. … B-K2. Now Black can capture the KP without much risk, as the Bishop is on the King’s file. 6. R-K1, White covers his pawn, and thereby threatens to win a pawn by BxKt. Therefore Black must not delay playing 6. … P-QKt4.
After 7. B-Kt3, P-Q3; (Diagram 22) White cannot yet execute the manœuvre which underlies the whole tendency of the Ruy Lopez, namely P-Q4, maintaining the pressure in the centre, because after KtxQP, 9. KtxKt, PxKt; 10. QxP? White loses a piece through 10. … P-B4, etc. It is therefore necessary to play P- QB3 first. White could also obtain a rapid development by Kt-B3, P-Q3, B-K3 or Kt5, but this arrangement is not popular, because Black can play Kt-QR4 and exchange the valuable KB. The pawn at QB3 supports an advance in the centre, and also provides a retreat for the KB. The QKt can be developed in this way: Kt-Q2- B1-Kt3 or K3. Black, however, must try to round off his pawn position on the Queen’s side, by moving his QBP into line. Black’s pawns at K4 and QB4 then exert a pressure on White’s Q4. And this pressure threatens to be reinforced by B-Kt5. From these considerations the following development seems to be natural: 8. P-B3, Kt-QR4; 9. B-B2, P-B4; 10. P-Q4, Q-B2 (to support the KP); it leads to the position in Diagram 23.
[Illustration]Diag. 23
Diag. 23
One of the few instances in which this pawn move is justified. It deprives Black’s QB of its only good square, and saves the K Kt, the co-operation of which is urgently needed in the centre.
This system of opening will receive more exhaustive treatment under the heading of “Middle Game.” (Compare Game No. 12.)
In the second main line of defence, of which I shall treat now, Black renounces the maintenance of his KP, and makes an attempt to find compensation by attacking White’s King’s Pawn. The King’s file, opened by the disappearance of the Black pawn, offers opportunities for that purpose. After the first few moves we arrive at the following position, which
[Illustration]Diag. 24
Diag. 24
may be reached thus: 3. B-Kt5, P-Q3; 4. P-Q4, B-Q2; 5. Kt-B3, Kt- B3; 6. Castles, B-K2; 7. R-K1, PxP; 8. KtxP, Castles. The exchange on the seventh move is compulsory, because the loss of a pawn after BxKt is in effect threatened, now that the White KP is supported by the Rook.
Black’s intention of exerting pressure on the KP is now difficult of execution, because his pieces are very cramped and hinder one another in a restricted area. The KB in particular cannot be brought into action without great difficulty, for instance by: R- K1, B-KB1, P-KKt3, and B-Kt2. It is therefore advisable for White to develop his QB at Kt2 instead of at Kt5, in order not to give Black a chance of exchanging his troublesome Bishop. (In a game Bernstein-Emanuel Lasker, Moscow, 1914, there happened 9. BxKt, PxB; 10. B-Kt5, P-KR3; 11. B-R4, Kt-R2; 12. BxB, QxB with a good game for Black.)
The defence has a totally different trend, if Black gives up his own KP, but captures the White KP at once. I have already pointed out that White would not mind his KP being taken, in view of the attack on the open King’s file. Let us now consider in which way this attack can be planned. There are two essentially different lines, according to whether Black interpolates P-QR3 or not.
After 3. B-Kt5, Kt-B3; 4. Castles, KtxP; 5. R-K1, Black gets out of it comfortably by playing Kt-Q3, B-K2 and Castles, and White cannot permanently prevent Black’s game from being freed by the advance of the QP. P-Q4 for White on the fifth move is therefore stronger. Black cannot very well exchange the pawns, leaving the King’s file quite exposed, and must submit to White playing PxP, maintaining the pawn at K5 and preventing Black’s P-Q4 for some time to come.
The opening might continue in this way: 5. P-Q4, B-K2; 6. Q-K2, Kt-Q3; 7. BxKt, KtPxB (to make room for the Kt); 8. PxP, Kt-Kt2 (Diagram 25).
[Illustration]Diag. 25
Diag. 25
The whole of the manœuvres now centre round Black’s endeavours to force his P-Q4, and White’s attempt to prevent it. Black ultimately gains his point, as will be seen, but at the expense of such disadvantages in the pawn position that it is questionable whether the whole variation (called the Rio de Janeiro Defence) is playable.
9. Kt-B3, Castles; 10. R-K1, Kt-B4 (the Knight is to be posted at K3 to bring the White KKt away from his Q4, whence he prevents the advance of Black’s QP by attacking QB6); 11. Kt-Q4, Kt-K3; 12. B-K3, KtxKt; 13. BxKt, P-B4; 14. B-K3, P-Q4; 15. PxP e.p., BxP. This is the critical position in the Rio de Janeiro defence. Black has succeeded in eliminating the White centre pawn, and sweeps long diagonals with his Bishops, but the advantage cannot be maintained. White exchanges the Bishop at Q6, and there remains a backward pawn, which Black will hardly be able to hold permanently. In practice it has been shown that the end-game should be won by White in spite of Bishops of opposite colours, as Black’s pawn at his QB4 is difficult to defend.
16. Kt-K4, B-Kt2; 17. KtxB (not BxP because of BxB; 18. KtxB, BxP followed by Q-Kt4ch), PxKt; 18. Q R-Q1 and P-QB4.
The game is much more favourable for Black if he first plays 3. … P-QR3, and retains the option of driving the White KB away by P-QKt4, after which P-Q4 can be enforced very soon. 3. B-Kt5, P- QR3; 4. B-R4, Kt-B3; 5. Castles, KtxP; 6. P-Q4, P-QKt4; 7. B-Kt3, P-Q4; 8. PxP, B-K3, 9. P-B3.
Now Black’s pieces are more mobile, and that is the reason why this system of defence is becoming more popular than any other.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Black’s pawn formation on the Q side is weak, and that his centre is less secure. Whilst White has a pawn firmly posted in the centre, Black has a Knight there which will soon be driven away. White’s Q4, the basis of his centre, is entirely in his hands, whilst Black’s Q4 is exposed to a steady pressure by the White pieces. Finally Black’s QKt is unfavourably placed, obstructing as it does the QBP and preventing its falling into line with its fellows.
Diagram 26 shows the position after 9. P-B3. The latter move prevents the exchange of the B after Black’s Kt-R4, an exchange which would allow Black to round up his pawn formation with P- QB4. The experts are not yet agreed as to the best continuation for Black in this critical position. To be considered are the moves B-QB4, B-K2 and Kt-B4. B-K2 is preferred nowadays to B- QB4, as QB4 should be kept free for the KKt in case the latter is driven from his dominating position, e.g. 10. R-K1 and 11. Q Kt- Q2. For if in that case Black exchanges the Knights, he only furthers White’s development without doing anything towards strengthening his Q4.
If Black covers the Knight with P-B4, White plays PxP e.p. and Kt-Kt5, rids himself of Black’s QB, and thereby weakens Black’s QP still more.
Kt-B4 would therefore seem to be the best choice, as the QB becomes mobile again after White’s B-B2, nor can White
[Illustration]Diag. 26
Diag. 26
play P-Q4 as yet. The position in the diagram therefore leads to the following variations:
A. 9. … B-K2; 10. R-K1, Castles; 11. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 12. B-B2, B-KKt5. This manœuvre was introduced by Em. Lasker (Petrograd, 1909. For further particulars see Game No. 15).
B. 9. … Kt-B4; 10. QKt-Q2, P-Q5 (Capablanca-Em. Lasker, Petrograd, 1914); or 9. … B-K2; 10. R-K1, Castles; 11. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 12. B-B2, P-Q5 (Em. Lasker-Tarrasch, Petrograd, 1914).
Capablanca believes that the early advance of P-Q5 can be refuted by Kt-K4, e.g. 9. … B-K2; 10. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 11. B-B2, P-Q5; 12. Kt-K4, PxP; 13. KtxKt, BxKt; 14. B-K4, Q-Q2; 15. Q-B2 or PxP.
The openings as sketched out up to this point give a sufficiently clear idea of the possibilities of combining sound development with an attempt to capture the centre after the opening moves 1. P-K4, P-K4. In most cases, Black’s centre pawn being open to attack by White’s P-Q4, we find an early break-up of the centre, and concurrently the opening of the Ks or Qs file for the Rooks. That is why games opened in this fashion have been classed very generally as “open,” whilst all the other openings are called “close games.” Lately the distinction has been abandoned, and very rightly, since in the latter openings, too, the centre can be cleared occasionally. We attain typical close positions when Black does not play 1. … P-K4 in answer to 1. P-K4, but relinquishes all claim on his K4 and takes possession of his Q4 instead, leaving White the option of interlocking the pawns in the centre with P-K5.
On principle it does not seem advisable for Black to play P-Q4 on the first move in reply to 1. P-K4. Although White’s centre pawn disappears after 2. PxP, QxP, Black loses a move through 3. Kt- QB3, and his Queen has no place from which it cannot be driven away very soon, unless it be at Q1. This, however, would amount to an admission of the inferiority of the whole of Black’s plan.
There are two moves which deserve consideration as a preliminary to P-Q4, namely, 1. … P-K3 (French Defence)
[Illustration]Diag. 27
Diag. 27
and P-QB3 (Caro-Kann defence). After 2. P-Q4, P-Q4, we attain the positions set out in the Diagrams 27 and 28, to which we must devote a good deal of attention.
These openings are worthy of study as being especially interesting examples of the struggle for the centre.
As early as the third move, White has to take an important decision. Is he to play P-K5 and prevent the opening of
[Illustration]Diag. 28
Diag. 28
the K or Q file for a long time to come, or should he proceed to develop his pieces, and leave Black the option of anticipating the blocking of the centre by playing PxP himself?
I shall first turn my attention to those games in which White plays P-K5, starting with the French Defence, after which the Caro-Kann Defence will be easily understood.
The position which ensues in the centre after 1. P-K4, P-K3; 2. P-Q4, P-Q4; 3. P-K5, divides the board diagonally, and it is easy to recognise roughly the main lines of play which will govern the game. White has more scope on the King’s side, where his pieces will have greater mobility, and prospects of attack. Black’s chances are on the Queen’s side. Both sides will have to advance more pawns in order to obtain openings for their Rooks, and use them for the attack, since they have no future on the K and Q files, as was the case in the openings mentioned hitherto.
The obvious moves to this end are: for White the advance of the KBP, for Black that of the QBP and sometimes even of the QKtP, that is when the QBP has not been exchanged for the opposing QP, but has pushed on to B5.
In Diagrams 29 and 30 we see the chains of pawns formed by these manœuvres.
White’s pawn attack is more dangerous than Black’s,
[Illustration]Diag. 29
Diag. 29
because it involves a direct assault on the King. And we shall see that Black will usually be compelled to suspend operations on the Queen’s side temporarily, to ward off the storm by the
[Illustration]Diag. 30
Diag. 30
White Pawns on the King’s side. He will attempt this either by P- KB3 attacking White’s centre or by P-KB4 preventing White from playing P-B5. In the latter case White can only make a breach in the Black barrier by playing P-KKt4 as well. These manœuvres result in the pawn formations given in Diagrams 31 and 32.
[Illustration]Diag. 31
Diag. 31
We must now turn to the development of the pieces corresponding to these pawn skeletons. If White plays P-K5
[Illustration]Diag. 32
Diag. 32
on his third move, he prevents the Black KKt from reaching KB3, whence he might have moved to Q2. This is a desirable position, from which he could support the advance of P-QB4. But the Knight has other chances of development, to KR3 and B4, whence he can take his share in the attack on the White Pawn at Q4. In consequence White must postpone P-KB4 in order not to intercept the action of the QB on R6. Now, in that case White’s Pawn at his K5 has not sufficient support against the attack by Black’s P-KB3 (Diagram 31), and the latter move gives Black the advantage. The two main variations illustrative of these considerations are:
3. P-K5 P-QB4 4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3 5. P-KB4 PxP 6. PxP Q-Kt3 7. Kt-KB3 Kt-R3
3. P-K5 P-QB4 4. P-QB3 Kt-QB3 5. Kt-B3 P-B3
In both cases the initiative falls to Black, in the first through the attack on White’s Q4, the mainstay of White’s centre; in the second through attack on White’s K5, the White centre itself. We must therefore consider White’s advance of P-K5 on the third move as premature. Let us now find out whether it is advantageous to effect the same subsequently. A developing move can be interpolated, e.g. 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3. If White plays P-K5 now he gains time for his advance of P-KB4, as Black’s Knight must retreat. On the other hand he cannot now maintain his pawn at Q4, as he has blocked his QBP. We arrive at the following plan of development:
3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. P-K5 KKt-Q2 5. P-B4 P-QB4 6. PxP Kt-QB3
If Black were to play BxP at once, White could play Q-Kt4 with an attack on the Knight’s Pawn. That is the object of Black’s waiting move. White must either play 7. Kt-B3, which prevents his Q-Kt4, or 7. B-Q3, after which Black would take the pawn on B4 with his Knight, getting rid of the White Bishop. 7. Q-Kt4 at once would be answered by P-B4.
7. Kt-B3 BxP 8. B-Q3 P-B4
Black cannot castle yet, on account of the following threat, which I give in full because it occurs frequently in practice: 8. … Castles; 9. BxPch, KxB; 10. Kt-Kt5ch, K-Kt1: 11. Q-R5, R- K1; 12. QxPch; 13. Q-R5ch; 14. Q-R7ch; 15. Q-R8ch; 16. QxP mate.
[Illustration]Diag. 33
Diag. 33
The position in the diagram seems favourable to Black as White cannot castle for some time.
For that reason another line of play has come to the fore in which White exchanges his inactive QB for Black’s troublesome KB.
3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 5. P-K5 KKt-Q2 6. BxB QxB
[Illustration]Diag. 34
Diag. 34
White has now the choice of two lines of development. He can either prepare for P-QB3 to support his QP. or he can develop his King’s side, holding the P at K5 only
7. Kt-Kt5 Kt-Kt38. P-QB3 P-QR39. Kt-QR3 P-QB410. P-KB4 Kt-B311. Kt-B2 Castles12. Kt-B3 B-Q213. B-Q3 P-B4
The sacrifice BxPch, as mentioned above, was threatened.
14. Castles Kt-R5 15. R-Kt1 P-QKt4
If White does not wish to lose so many moves with his Kt, he can effect the intended protection of his QP as follows:
not P-QB4 at once, because of Kt-Kt5.
8. Kt-Q1 P-QB4 9. P-QB3
7. P-B4 Castles8. Kt-B3 P-QB49. B-Q3 P-B410. Castles Kt-QB3
and so on.
In both cases White has an easy development, whilst Black has no convenient square for his Queen’s Bishop.
To avoid this drawback Rubinstein has evolved the following variation, in which provision is made from the first for the freedom of action of the Queen’s Bishop:
3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. B-Kt5 PxP
to open the diagonal for the Bishop at QKt2, e.g.:
5. KtxP QKt-Q2 6. Kt-KB3 B-K2
followed by P-QKt3 and B-Kt2.
We will now leave the French defence and turn our attention to the Caro-Kann, of which the initial position was shown in Diagram 28. Here also we find two essentially different systems of development, according to whether White plays P-K5 or gives Black the option of exchanging pawns by 3. Kt-QB3. In the first case a very noticeable difference from the French defence is, that Black can bring out his Queen’s Bishop. Here the process of development may be:
3. P-K5 B-B4 4. B-Q3 BxB
Not B-Kt3, because White could play P-K6! and paralyse the whole of Black’s game by preventing his playing the King’s Pawn.
5. QxB P-K36. Kt-K2 or KR3
Through this the move P-KB4, which fits into this pawn formation, is kept in reserve.
While White’s development is easy and natural, Black has difficulty in finding good places for his King’s side pieces. The game can proceed generally speaking on the lines of the French defence. Only Black can hardly attack White’s centre with P-B3, since the Pawn at K3 would be weak in the absence of the Queen’s Bishop. On the other hand, Black would be a move behind with an attack on the Queen’s side, since to reach QB4 his pawn would have made two moves instead of one as in the French defence. A certain compensation lies in the fact that White’s attacking King’s Bishop has been exchanged.
In practical play it has nevertheless been shown that White’s attack is more likely to succeed, and for this reason a variation introduced by Niemzowitsch has been tried several times; it aims at the exchange of Queens in order to weaken and retard White’s threatened attack, and to gain time for Queen’s side operations.
6. … Q-Kt3 7. Castles Q-R3 or Kt4
But after 8. Kt-B4, QxQ; 9. KtxQ, White is so much ahead with his development that Black’s chance of equalising the game would seem questionable.
If White plays Kt-KR3 on his sixth move, he foils at once Black’s attempt of forcing an exchange of Queens, as he could play 8. Q- KKt3.
On the whole we can conclude that in the Caro-Kann defence White obtains a good game by 3. P-K5.
A line of play which used to be in vogue, namely, 3. Kt-QB3, PxP; 4. KtxP, Kt-B3; 5. KtxKtch, KPxKt or KtPxKt, gives Black an even chance, for although he loses his centre pawn he obtains a good development, and later in the game he has opportunities of exercising pressure on White’s QP through his open Q file.
Except the French defence and the Caro-Kann, there is no game in which an irregular reply to White’s 1. P-K4 necessitates any special considerations either in development of pieces or pawn formation. In all such cases it is sufficient to maintain the pawn centre and to occupy such squares with the pieces, whence they cannot be driven away with the loss of a move. Just one example: If Black plays 1. … P-QB4 (Sicilian defence), White will not play his King’s Bishop to B4, because Black can reply P- K3, and gain a move by P-Q4.
B. Let us now consider the openings in which the first move is 1. P-Q4 on either side. Here the centre cannot be cleared as early as in the openings beginning with 1. P-K4, P-K4. The advance of a second centre pawn, which there led to a clearance, is not feasible in this case. White does not command his K4, and for some time to come he will be unable to advance the K pawn beyond K3. In consequence the K file does not seem a likely opening for the Rooks, and another file must be found for them. The conclusions arrived at for Black in the French defence hold good for both sides in the opening now under consideration, and accordingly the QB file is that most advantageous for the Rooks. The advance of the QBP strikes at the opposing centre, and, that being of paramount importance, the Queen’s Knight must not be developed at B3 before the QBP has been pushed on. Another development might be conceivable for the Rooks; viz. on the KB file, and also the KKt or KR file; here, as we shall see, an occasion may arise for storming the opposing King’s side by a pawn attack. But in this case, too, although it seems unnecessary to play the QBP, it is advisable to develop the Knight via Q2, as there is a constant threat of the QB file being forced open subsequently by the opposing forces.
We will start with the games in which the QB Pawns are played in the earliest stages of the opening, so that the pawn skeleton in Diagram 35 forms the basis of development. The sequence of moves is of moment, because the advance of the KP, whether forced or not, determines the possibility of bringing out the Q Bishops. The simplest process of development based on Diagram 35 is the following, in which both sides block up the QB.
[Illustration]Diag. 35
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 manœuvre:
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.
[Illustration]Diag. 36
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
[Illustration]Diag. 37
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.
[Illustration]Diag. 38
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
[Illustration]Diag. 39
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-K34. P-K3 Kt-KB45. Kt-K5 Kt-B3
[Illustration]Diag. 40
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 of the “Stonewall” in the formation of the centre pawns. White develops his Queen’s side just as Black did in the opening shown in connection with Diagram 38.
2. Kt-KB3 P-QB4 3. P-K3 Kt-QB3 4. B-Q3 Kt-B3 5. P-QKt3 P-K3 6. B-Kt2 B-Q3 7. QKt-Q2 PxP 8. PxP Castles
[Illustration]Diag. 41
Diag. 41
White can now settle his Knight at K5, and initiate a violent King’s side attack after castling, by P-KB4, Q-B3, which could be continued with P-KKt4, K-R1, R-KKt1, and so on. Once the position in Diagram 41 has been reached, Black’s resources against the dangerous onslaught of the White forces are scanty. Yet he can retaliate, not by making the simplest and most obvious developing moves, as mentioned before, but in the following way:
If White plays 5. P-QKt3 before castling, Black exchanges pawns and checks with the Queen. Now White has the disagreeable choice between B-Q2 and P-B3. The former must be bad, being contrary to the plan of development as intended by P-QKt3. The latter blocks the very diagonal on which the Bishop was meant to operate. White can open up the diagonal by playing P-QB4 after castling, nor would it really imply the loss of a move to have played the BP twice, since Black must move his Queen again from R4, where she has no future. But in any case there remains the disadvantage that White was forced to play the BP, whilst before he had the option of withholding its advance until a more opportune moment.
Another possible subtlety in Black’s sequence of developing moves would be to withhold the advance of his KP until White has played P-QKt3, and then to play the QB to Kt5. For, as I have already remarked, the objection to developing Black’s Queen’s Bishop lies in White’s threat to attack Black’s QKtP with Q-Kt3. That possibility disappears after P-QKt3.
Before bringing the discussion of the Queen’s Pawn opening to a close, I may remark that in tournaments it has become usual for White not to play P-QB4 at once, but to play Kt-KB3 as a preliminary, in order to avoid the complications of the Queen’s counter gambit: 2. P-QB4, P-K4.
If White plays 3. PxKP, Black’s reply is P-Q5, and the obvious move 4. P-K3 fails on account of the following pretty combination: B—Kt5ch; 5. B—Q2, PxP; 6. BxB, PxPch; 7. K-K2, PxKtch!!; 8. RxKt, B-Kt5ch, etc.
Instead of 4. P-K3, White should play P-KKt3 and develop his KB at Kt2. Black could now try to regain his pawn with Kt-K2-Kt3, but he can also sacrifice a pawn by P-KB3, with a view to rapid development.
It now only remains for us to discover whether Black has any other answer to P-Q4 which would necessitate close analysis on White’s part.
Here must be mentioned: 1. … Kt-KB3, 1. … P-QB4, and 1. … P-KB4. The former move prepares P-Q3, followed by P-K4. In this opening there is no reason why White should play P-QB4, as there is no prospect of opening the QB file for the Rooks. Furthermore, Black has relinquished the square Q4 and made K4 the basis of operations. It will be more advisable to prevent Black from playing P-K4 as far as this can be achieved in conformity with a logical development, e.g. 1. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3. Not 2. Kt- QB3, because Black could then lead into the Queen’s gambit by playing P-Q4 and P-QB4, after which White has the disadvantage of not being able to open the QB file. 2. … P-Q3; 3. B-B4, QKt-Q2; 4. P-K3. Now Black can only enforce P-K4 after P-B3 and QB2. Meanwhile White mobilises all his pieces, whilst Black’s QB remains blocked and the Kt must remain at Q2 to cover the KP. If, on the other hand, Black exchanges pawns in order to free the Knight, there is no Black centre left.
With regard to the second irregular reply to 1. P-Q4, namely, 1. … P-QB4, two ways are open to White. One is to turn the opening into an ordinary Queen’s gambit by playing P-K3, on which Black can play P-Q4. The second is to play 2. P-Q5. Black will then develop his King’s side with P-KKt3 and B-Kt2. The Bishop is well posted here, and can frequently take up an attacking position at K4 or Q5. (See Game No. 45, Rubinstein v. Spielmann.)
If White plays 2. PxP, we have after 2. … P-K3 a Queen’s gambit accepted by White, and, as pointed out before, this line of play is not commendable.
The last of the three irregular answers mentioned above: 1. … P-KB4 leads to two entirely different plans, according to the second move chosen by White.
White can confine himself to a simple development such as: Kt- KB3, B-Kt5, P-K3, QKt-Q2 (Kt-B3 would only be good if preceded by P-B4, because Black would again lead into a Queen’s gambit with P-Q4 and P-QB4). The other possibility is the following: in view of the fact that 1. … P-KB4 does absolutely nothing to aid development, White can initiate a violent attack by giving up his King’s Pawn (P-K4) and thus accelerate his own development. The play might be as follows: 2. … PxP; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B- KKt5, P-B3 (P-Q4? 5. BxKt followed by Q-R5ch); 5. P-B3. If Black takes the pawn he lays himself open to an attack hard to meet. It seems best to play 5. … P-K6, which calls back the White QB and leaves White’s BP as a hindrance to the development of the KKt.
Many openings in which neither P-K4 nor P-Q4 is the first move lead to well-known positions by a simple transposition of moves. For instance, a Queen’s gambit may well have the following opening moves: 1. P-QB4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3, P-K3; 3. Kt-B3, P-B4; 4. P-K3, P-Q4; 5. P-Q4, or a French defence these: 1. Kt-QB3, P- Q4; 2. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 3. B-Kt5, P-K3; 4. P-K4.
There are, of course, systems of opening which deviate absolutely from those which have been proved sound and are in general use, and it is those openings that puzzle the beginner most of all. He says: What is the good of learning correct openings, if my opponent plays incorrectly and wins all the same? This line of thought is wrong from its inception. The student is not supposed to “learn” openings by heart, but to UNDERSTAND how the general principles of Chess Strategy are applied to any opening. Such knowledge can never be obtained from a tabulated analysis, but can only be arrived at by the application of common sense. If a player succeeds in winning in spite of an inferior opening, it only proves that subsequently he has played a stronger game than his opponent, who, after playing the opening according to the book, did not know how to proceed further. And herein lies the weakness, and not in the absence of knowledge of the analysis of openings. The latter is rated far too highly. Any player will hold his own in the opening, as soon as he has grasped the real meaning of those principles which I cannot repeat often enough, viz.: 1st, quick development of pieces and avoidance of lost moves; 2nd, the maintenance of a pawn centre, hampering the development of the opposing forces, and the avoidance of pawn moves that do not contribute to the development of pieces.
How to conduct the middle game and end-game is not entirely a matter of deduction from such general rules. In order to play the end-game correctly, one must know certain things and positions which arise from and may be said to be peculiar to the purely arbitrary rules of chess. The same applies to the middle game, as in most cases it must be played with a view to the end-game which ensues, unless there be a chance of mating the opponent before. The student should have, therefore, a knowledge of the end-game before he can hope to be able to conduct the middle game efficiently. For this reason I have decided to treat of the end- game first.