Lovers of curiosities will have noticed the common square (g6 or g3) on which the queen is sacrificed on all three occasions. The curious side of these examples should not distract one from noticing what is typical in them: in all these cases the attacker has a number of other pieces at his disposal, all in the strongest aggressive positions, while only his queen is somehow ‘underemployed’. As a result, it is given the task of breaking up the position by sacrificing itself. The situation is that although the pieces are in very aggressive positions, they cannot settle the issue by themselves since, if they are sacrificed, their aggressive formation also disappears. It is therefore left to a less committed piece to carry out the work of destruction, and in these cases this is none other than the queen. Usually, however, the reverse applies: the other pieces are sacrificed, while the queen reaps the harvest.
The heavy pieces in the attack
The examples in chapters 4-7 have shown us various kinds of operations on the part of the rook, the bishop, and the knight on lines and focal-points, and no further illustrations of the use of these pieces in an attack on the castled king need be given. Only one special case remains to be dealt with, and that is the attack on the castled king carried out by the heavy pieces (queen and rooks) alone. The main feature of this kind of attack can be summed up as the task of overcoming the clumsiness of the rooks. The attacker must aim to make his own rooks active and force his opponent’s into passivity. A rook’s mobility depends essentially on its ability to switch its control suddenly from one file to another and, in particular, from a file to a rank. Or, in the terminology used in my Introduction to chess (2nd ed., p. 171), the rook must have corresponding strong squares at its disposal.
Here are a few examples:
This position is from the game Winter-Capablanca, Ramsgate 1929. Black, to move, played:
1 ... Kh8
Black threatens ... g5, which would not have been good at once 1 ... g5 because of 2 Rg2. White is now obliged to weaken his pawn position by moving his h-pawn.
2 h4 Rh5 3 Rh2 Rhf5
After ‘feeling about’ a little Black reverts to the former position.
4 Rhf2 Qd6 5 Qe3 Qd8 6 Qxe6
A disagreeable exchange, but White has nothing better. If 6 Rh2, then 6 ... Qf6, while if 6 Qg3, then 6 ... Qf6 followed by ... c5.
6 ... Qxh4 7 Qe3
On 7 Qe4, which would have provided better resistance, Black would have replied 7 ... Qg3+ followed by 8 Qxc3, but not 7 ... Rg5+? because of 8 fxg5 Qxe4 9 Rxf8+ and White mates.
7 ... Rh5
It is patently clear that Black’s rooks are active and White’s passive.
8 Rg2 Qh1+ 9 Kf2 Qh3! 10 Qg3
White has no satisfactory defence. If he exchanges queens, he loses a pawn, while if 10 Rg3, then 10 ... Qh2+ followed by 11 ... Qxa2.
10 ... Qe6 11 Kg1 Qxc4 12 Re1 Qf7 13 Rf2 Rf5 14 Re4 g5 0-1
This position is from the game Rubinstein-Alekhine, Dresden 1926.
JN: In the original book, this position was incorrectly given with Black’s bishop on c8 instead of b7. The analysis has been modified to take account of this correction.
Black played:
1 ... gxf4 2 Rxf4
2 exf4 is no better, since Black can continue 2 ... Qh4 with the double threat of 3 ... Rxg2+ and 3 ... Qxh3.
2 ... Qg5 3 Bf1 Qg3!
Black compels the king to go to h1 so that he can play ... Qg3 with gain of tempo on the sixth move!
4 Kh1 Qg7 5 Qd4 Ba6! 6 Rf2 Qg3! 7 Rc2 Bxf1 8 Rxf1 Rac8
By threatening to break through at c4, Black gains a tempo for doubling rooks. Alekhine now uses his heavy pieces to force home the final attack.
9 b3 Rc7 10 Re2 Rcg7 11 Rf4 Rg6!
Black threatens ... Rh6, ... Rxh3+ and ... Qg1#. If White plays 12 Rf1 the plan of 12 ... Rh6 followed by sacrificing at h3 is again in order, for the rook on f1 is unprotected; moreover, if it is moved (e.g. to Ra1) then 13 ... Rxh3+ still succeeds 14 gxh3 because the queen can follow up with a decisive check at f3.
In his book, My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937, Alekhine mentions another reply, 12 Qd1, and claims that 12 ... Rh6 leads to an original zugzwang position; this is not correct (because Black has the strong threat of 13 ... Qg7 14 Qd4 Rxh3+, etc), but it is true inasmuch as White’s rooks cannot move; they provide a perfect illustration of ‘the rook’s clumsiness’.
After 12 Qd1 Rh6 White would have to play 13 Qa1 (not 13 c4 because of 13 ... d4!), in which case the strongest reply is 13 ... a6! (creating another threat, i.e. ... b5-b4 followed by ... d4; if 13 ... Qg7, then 14 c4 is possible). Now White’s front e-pawn is lost, but he can still offer some resistance by 14 Rf1. Black, however, must not take the e-pawn while White’s queen is on a1; he does better with 14 ... b5 15 axb5 axb5, after which one can speak of a type of zugzwang position, since White cannot prevent the situation of his pawn on e5 from deteriorating still further. If 16 b4 (or 16 Qd1 or 16 Qe1), Black takes the pawn on e5, after which he should win.
In the actual game White gave up a pawn in a different way and lost as follows:
12 Qb4?! Rh6 13 h4 Qg7!
Stronger than the prosaic 13 ... Rxh4+. The black queen retires and at the same time creates the threat of ... Rg6, a typical case of a tripled formation with a rook in front of the queen. The reader should note the mobility of Black’s heavy pieces, which allows such rapid and useful regroupings to be made. In the course of the game and its variations up to this point two pairs of corresponding strong squares for Black stand out, namely, g6 and h6 for the rook, and g3 and g7 for the queen.
14 c4 Rg6 15 Qd2 Rg3!
After all the different formations on the squares described, here is yet another: the rook now tries out the square g3 and threatens ... Rh3+.
16 Qe1 Rxe3 0-1
If 16 Kg1 Black had planned to play 16 ... d4! 17 exd4 e3 18 Qc2 Rh3, and White is helpless against 19 ... Qg3.
Alekhine won the Brilliancy Prize for this game. How light those heavy pieces were in his hands!
After these examples, which are typical of the style of the two world champions, here is a little light entertainment.
It is the finish of the game
Bernstein-Kotov. Groningen 1946 . Black, having greedily and needlessly snapped up a pawn (he had just played ... Re4xb4 instead of the correct ... Rc4) lost as follows:
1 Rcc8 Qe4 2 Rh8+ Kg6 3 f5+ exf5 4 Qxh6+! gxh6 5 Rag8#
The sacrifice in the attack on the castled king
Before we turn to the role of the pawns in the attack on the castled king, a few general remarks must be made about sacrifices in the castling area. Certain combinative elements are present in the case of every sacrifice, though these sacrifices may be of widely diverging types. However, the typical sacrifice in the castling area is the one which is closely influenced by the special characteristics of that area, namely the castled king and the pawns in front of it. The typical sacrifice either changes the structure of the pawns, or aims to draw the king on to a square where it can be attacked, or else helps to create a focal-point. We have already met examples of the last two types in the course of discussing focal-points, particularly in the case of the classic bishop sacrifice. Here our principal interest is the pawn structure and the possibility of altering it by means of a sacrifice. A sacrifice can either simply annihilate one of the pawns in front of the king, or it can deflect the pawn on to another file, or finally it can cause it to be blocked.
The main use of the sacrifice in the attack on the castled king is to eliminate the pawns in the castling area, and a number of examples will be devoted to this. But first of all, let us examine two examples where the emphasis is on spoiling the pawn structure by deflecting or blocking the pawns.
This position comes from an analysis of the game Capablanca-Nimzowitsch, Bad Kissingen 1928. White mates as follows:
1 Nfg5! fxg5
Deflecting the pawn from f6.
2 Nf6!
Blocking the f7-pawn.
2 ... Bxf6 3 Be4
and Bla
ck has no way of stopping mate on h7.
White here overcame the resistance of Black’s f-pawn on the diagonal b1-h7 by making sacrifices which deflected one pawn and blocked the other.
This position arose in the game Steinitz-L. Paulsen, Baden-Baden 1870. It is White’s move, and he is faced with the task of finding the most effective attacking plan against Black’s castled position. To this end he played:
1 b6!
White gives up a pawn in order to weaken Black’s castled position and open up the a- and b-files. This kind of pawn sacrifice is instructive and typical. Its advantage lies in the fact that Black has no way of blocking the pawn structure but is forced to capture in order to avoid getting into worse difficulties.
1 ... axb6 2 Rxf6!
The castled position has been effectively weakened and the situation is ripe for the further thrust a5, that being the logical method of following up 1 b6!, but Steinitz sees that, before playing a5, he can strengthen his attack still further by sacrificing the exchange.
2 ... Qxf6 3 Bg4+ Kb8 4 Nd5 Qg7 5 a5
Now the force of this move is even greater than before.
5 ... f5
If 5 ... b5, then 6 a6 b6 (or 6 ... bxa6 7 Qa5 Qxd4+ 8 Bf2) 7 a7+ Kb7 8 Nxc7 Kxc7 (or 8 ... f5 9 Ne6) 9 Qc3+ Kb7 10 Bd7 with a decisive attack.
If 5 ... c5, then White plays 6 axb6 Qxd4+ 7 Qxd4 cxd4 8 Nc7 followed by 9 Ra8#.
6 axb6 cxb6 7 Nxb6 Ne7
Black must parry the threat of 8 Qc3.
8 exf5 Qf7 9 f6! Nc6
Or 9 ... Qxf6 10 Qc3 Nc6 11 Ra8+ Kc7 12 Nd5#.
10 c4 Na7 11 Qa2 Nb5 12 Nd5 and White won after 12 ... Qxd5 13 cxd5 Nxd4 14 Qa7+ Kc7 15 Rc1+ Nc6 16 Rxc6#
One further remark must be made before passing on to the destructive sacrifice: a sacrifice and the operations following it must have the aim of creating a focal-point, especially if the opponent has some active counterplay at his disposal. The next diagram shows an example where the attacker wrecks his opponent’s castled position and regains the material he has sacrificed, but is still unsuccessful because he cannot create a focal-point.
This position is from the game Colle-Tartakower, Niendorf 1927. White is excellently placed here and ought to continue with 1 Nh3, but Colle, the lover of sacrifices, cannot resist the temptation and offers material in a position which is still insufficiently prepared.
1 Nexf7? Rxf7 2 Nxe6 Qc8 3 Bg6 Nf8 4 Bxf7+ Kxf7 5 Nxg7
All these captures have been made on different squares, none of which qualifies as a candidate for a focal-point. No wonder that Black develops a counterattack that ensures sufficient counterplay.
5 ... Ba6 6 c4 Qg4 7 Qxg4 Nxg4 8 Nf5 Bxc4 9 Rd1 h5
The position is balanced and the game ended in a draw after a further 17 moves.
The destructive sacrifice
We have already referred to the annihilation of the pawns in front of the castled king as the most important or at any rate predominant result of sacrificial operations. It would be more exact to say that the destruction of these pawns is the most common combinative element of sacrifices in the castling area. Most players tend to pay more attention to the material aspect than to the temporal one, but the most decisive consequence of the destruction of pawns is that the departed pawns can no longer affect the game. This is a permanent positional factor by means of which many combinations are sustained, even when all may not have been in order on the temporal side. It is very important to spot the opportunities for making a destructive sacrifice, and in many positions the attacker is shown the way by simply calculating what would happen if his opponent were not to have a certain pawn.
We shall look at a number of examples which illustrate typical destructive sacrifices.
This position arose in a match game between Loyd and Delmar in 1879. It is Black’s move, and he must act quickly if White is not to break through by b6 or Rxa7. Various attempts like ... Rg5+ or ... Rh5 meet with resistance, and only the immediate capture of the pawn at h2 ensures mate.
1 ... Bxh2+! 2 Nxh2 Rg5+ 3 Ng4 Rh5 4 Nh2 Qxh2+ 5 Kf1 Re5 and mate by ... Qh1# is unavoidable.
The destructive sacrifice on g7 (or g2) is particularly dangerous. and we shall examine one out of the rich collection of this type.
This position arose in the game Shumov-Jaenisch, St. Petersburg 1849. Black, to move, concluded the game as follows:
1 ... Rxg2+ 2 Kxg2 Qg6+ 3 Kh1 Bd5+ 4 f3 Bxf3+ 5 Rxf3 Qg1#
We shall now go on to look at cases of successive sacrifices, whereby two of the pawns in front of the castled king are eliminated. It is often easy to spot sacrifices of this kind if the position is looked at in the light of our thematic criterion; what would the situation be if the pawns were not there? Let us take the next diagram, for example.
In this position, from the game Keller-Rohaczek, Vienna 1937, it is White’s move, and he has an easy task if he imagines Black’s position without the pawns on h7 and g7 and realizes that White then mates with his queen on h5 and rook on g1. The operation is then extremely simple.
1 Bxh7 Kxh7 2 Qh5+ Kg8 3 Rxg7+ Kxg7 4 Rg1+ and mates.
This position is from a correspondence game between Luprecht and Schulz played in the United States in 1946. Here it is a question of removing Black’s pawns on a7 and b7 from in front of the king. If these pawns did not exist, a build-up with a rook on b1 and a queen on e3 would give White an irresistible mating attack. The solution is therefore simple.
1 Bxa7+ Kxa7 2 Qe3+
First, the queen is brought nearer with gain of tempo and then the second pawn is annihilated.
2 ... Kb8 3 Rxb7+ Kxb7 4 Rb1+ Kc7
Or 4 ... Kc8 5 Qa7, when either the queen mates at b7 or the rook at b8. Mate is also inevitable after 4 ... Ka8 5 Qb6.
5 Qb6+ Kd6 6 c5+ Ke6 7 Qb3#
A more complex instance of a double destructive sacrifice is provided by the finish to the game Lilienthal-Najdorf, which was awarded the First Brilliancy Prize at the Saltsjöbaden Interzonal tournament in 1948. In the above position, White continued:
1 fxg7!
This eliminates the pawn on g7 (in this case the sacrifice does not take place on that square but indirectly at f4). Black accepts the sacrifice in order not to be left a pawn down.
1 ... Rxf4 2 Nxf4 exf4 3 Bxh7+!
Eliminating the pawn on h7 as well – by a direct sacrifice. Beyond that, in fact, there is no mate in sight. However, Black’s weakness on the second rank and the power of the manoeuvre Rad1-d7, by which it must be exploited, are evident.
3 ... Kxh7 4 Qh5+ Kxg7 5 Rad1
5 ... Qf6
Black has three minor pieces for a rook and two pawns, but his knights are badly placed, whereas the position is just right for White’s rooks.
With 5 ... Qf6, Black attempts to lessen the force of the attack by returning some material, but he is unsuccessful because his knights continue to find themselves on awkward squares. Other lines were no better, e.g.:
1) 5 ... Nd4 6 cxd4 cxd4 7 Rfe1! Nf6 8 Qe5 Kf7 9 Rxd4 and White wins.
2) 5 ... Nd6 6 Qg4+ Kf7 7 Rfe1 Bc8 8 Qxf4+ also wins.
3) 5 ... Qc8 (if 5 ... Qe7, then 6 Rfe1, while if 5 ... Qc7, then 6 Qg4+ and 7 Rd7) 6 Rfe1 Nf6 7 Qg5+ Kf7 8 Rd6 Qh8 9 Ree6 is also decisive.
6 Rd7+ Kf8 7 Rxb7 Nd8
Or 7 ... Nd6 8 Rh7 Nf7 9 Rxf7+ Qxf7 10 Qh8+ Qg8 11 Qf6+ followed by 12 Qxc6 and White wins.
8 Rd7 Nf7 9 Qd5 Rb8 10 Re1 f3 11 Re3! 1-0
If 11 ... Ng5, then 12 h4 Nh3+ 13 gxh3 Qg6+ 14 Qg5 is decisive.
Of the various sacrificial devices to eliminate two pawns in front of the castled king, the sacrifice of both bishops on h7 and g7 is particularly worth noting. One of the oldest examples of this occurred in the game Lasker-Bauer, Amsterdam 1889. The opening moves were:
1 f4 d5 2 e3 Nf6 3 b3 e6 4 Bb2 Be7 5 Bd3 b6 6 Nc3 Bb7 7 Nf3 Nbd7 8 0-0 0-0 9 Ne2 c5 10 Ng3 Qc7 11 Ne5 Nxe5 12 Bxe5 Qc6 13 Qe2 a6?
In this position, after Black’s mistaken last move, Lasker worked out a combination which involved the sacrifice of both bishops; to this end he first of all forc
ed the deflection of Black’s knight.
14 Nh5! Nxh5
14 ... c4 also results in a quick finish, e.g. 15 Nxf6+ Bxf6 (or 15 ... gxf6 16 Qg4+ Kh8 17 Qh4 cxd3 18 Bxf6+ Bxf6 19 Qxf6+ followed by Rf3-g3, etc) 16 Bxh7+ Kxh7 17 Qh5+ Kg8 18 Bxf6 gxf6 19 Rf3 with a quick mate.
15 Bxh7+! Kxh7 16 Qxh5+ Kg8 17 Bxg7!
The dark-squared bishop gives itself up just like its colleague on the light squares, and it is left to White’s queen and rook to make use of the files thereby opened. If now 17 ... f6, then 18 Rf3 wins.
17 ... Kxg7 18 Qg4+ Kh7 19 Rf3 e5
To prolong the game by sacrificing his queen; clearly, there is no other possibility.
20 Rh3+ Qh6 21 Rxh6+ Kxh6 22 Qd7 Bf6 23 Qxb7 and White won the game in a few moves.
Here are two more examples of this type.
Nimzowitsch - Tarrasch
Preliminary event, St. Petersburg 1914
Queen’s Gambit Declined, Tarrasch Defence
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 c4 e6 4 e3 Nf6 5 Bd3
Correct here is 5 cxd5.
5 ... Nc6 6 0-0 Bd6 7 b3 0-0 8 Bb2 b6 9 Nbd2 Bb7 10 Rc1 Qe7 11 cxd5 exd5 12 Nh4 g6 13 Nhf3 Rad8 14 dxc5?
Better is 14 Re1 and then Nf1.
14 ... bxc5 15 Bb5 Ne4 16 Bxc6 Bxc6 17 Qc2 Nxd2! 18 Nxd2 d4 19 exd4
19 ... Bxh2+!
The beginning of the sacrificial combination.
20 Kxh2 Qh4+ 21 Kg1 Bxg2 22 f3
If White accepts the second sacrifice by 22 Kxg2, then 22 ... Qg4+ 23 Kh2 Rd5 is decisive.
22 ... Rfe8 23 Ne4 Qh1+ 24 Kf2 Bxf1 25 d5 f5 26 Qc3 Qg2+ 27 Ke3 Rxe4+ 28 fxe4 f4+ 29 Kxf4 Rf8+ 30 Ke5 Qh2+ 31 Ke6 Re8+ 0-1
Art of Attack in Chess Page 16
