20 ... Bxd4?!
Satisfied with the centralization he has achieved, Black too now becomes rather presumptuous and opens up the c-file prematurely. 20 ... f5 followed by a quiet positional plan based on ... b5-b4 was probably best. In that event simplification by 21 Nxc6 Bxf2+ 22 Kxf2 Bxc6 would give Black the better ending, while if 21 Be3, then 21 ... Bxd4 22 cxd4 Nb4 would be perfectly agreeable.
The move suggested, 20 ... f5, signifies that Black is satisfied with a small advantage, whereas Capablanca’s idea aspires to dynamic play on the c- and f-files. However, the preconditions for this are insufficient, for counterattacks too demand preconditions and entail commitments just as attacks on the king do. The laws which determine the connection between the two types of action dictate the form, timing, and tempo of the counterattack in accordance with the state of the attack. Thus, the degree to which the attacking units have been diverted conditions the extent and force of the counterattack. In this case, therefore, direct defence by 20 ... f5 would have been better than 20 ... Bxd4.
21 cxd4 Rac8
The immediate 21 ... f6 did not work on account of 22 Qh4 Rf7 23 Bxg6.
22 Bd1!
Other moves by the bishop are defeated by 22 ... Qxc1+. 22 Qh4 is also inadequate; for example, 22 ... Nf6! 23 Rg3 Qxc2 24 Be3 (to prevent ... Qd1+) 24 ... Ne4 25 Rh3 h5 and Black wins.
22 ... f6!
This much-praised move of Capablanca’s is very economical in that it both attacks and defends in equal measure; it is probably Black’s best, now that he has embarked on 20 ... Bxd4. It is also true that an attack generally collapses when the pawns in front of the king begin to ‘bite’, but in this case the question is no longer one of attack but of the overall state of the position. Black has in fact awoken possibilities for White on the c-file, and in the event of the game being opened up White’s two bishops could come into their own.
23 Qh4?
This gains a tempo for Bf3 but neglects the development of his c1-bishop and a1-rook. The correct move was 23 Bd2!. Capablanca’s intention in that case was 23 ... Nxf4!? 24 Bxf4 fxe5 25 Bf3 e4, but the combination has a flaw: White does not play 26 Be2? (when 26 ... e3! wins) but 26 Qh4! and Black finds himself in difficulties. Moreover, 23 Bd2! cannot be met by 23 ... fxe5, e.g. 24 Rc1 Qb5 (24 ... Qxc1 would not succeed against correct play by White) 25 Rxc8 Bxc8 26 Qh4, whereupon 26 ... Rf7 27 Qd8+ leads to a draw, 26 ... h5 is not good due to 27 Qg5, while the complications following 26 ... Nf6 27 fxe5 Ba6 28 Rf3 seem full of uncertainty. Against 23 Bd2! Black would probably have to play 23 ... d6 24 Rc1 Qd7, when 25 Rxc8 Bxc8 26 Rf3 results in a complex struggle in which White’s dark-squared bishop derives pleasure from every exchange on e5. This represents an analytical proof of the assertions made in the note to the twentieth move.
23 ... Rf7 24 Bf3 Qc4
Since 25 Qf2 does not work (because of 25 ... Qxc1+) White is now lost.
25 Be3 Nxe3 26 Bxb7 Nf5 27 Qe1 Rc7 28 Be4 Qxd4+ 29 Kh1 fxe5 30 Bxf5 exf5 31 fxe5 Re7 32 Re3 Qxb2 33 e6 dxe6 34 Rxe6 Kf7 0-1
Teichmann-Schlechter, Carlsbad 1911
Tolush – Kotov USSR Championship, Moscow 1945
Tolush-Renter, Estonian Championship 1945
Toth-Szigeti, Budapest 1946
Treybal.K-Wolf.H, Teplitz-Schönau 1922
Tylor-Koltanowski, Hastings 1930
Vuković.V-Endzelins Munich Olympiad 1936
Vuković-Dr Vajda, Debrecen 1925
Vygodchikov – Alekhine Correspondence Game, 1908/9
Alekhine – Lasker Zurich, 1934
Winter-Capablanca, Ramsgate 1929
Yates-Marco, The Hague 1921
Yates-Takacs, Kecskemet 1927
This game is very instructive for the purpose of studying the complex connection between attack and indirect defence; the decisive points illustrating this were shown in their correct light only by a thorough revision of the commentary.
Index
Alekhine – Asgeirsson Reykjavik Simultaneous Display, 1931
Alekhine – Asztalos Kecskemet, 1927
Alekhine – Botvinnik Nottingham, 1936
Alekhine – Drewitt Portsmouth, 1923
Alekhine – Kmoch San Remo, 1930
Alekhine-E. Cohn, Stockholm 1912
Alekhine-Feldt, blindfold simultaneous display, Tarnopol 1916
Alekhine-Gilg, Semmering 1926
Alekhine-Weenink, Prague 1931
Alekhine-Weenink, Prague 1931
Alexander-Pachman, Hilversum 1947
Alexander-Szabo. Hilversum 1947
Averbakh-Kotov, Zurich Ct 1953
Belavenets – Chistiakov Semi-finals, USSR Ch 1938
Bernstein-Capablanca, Exhibition Game, Moscow 1914
Bernstein-Kotov. Groningen 1946
Boden-Bird, London 1869
Bogoljubow-Przepiorka. Pistyan 1922
Bogoljubow-Réti, Carlsbad 1923
Boleslavsky-Ufimtsev, Semi-finals USSR Championship, Omsk 1944
Botvinnik-Chekhover, Moscow 1935
Botvinnik-Rabinovich, Leningrad 1934
Burn-E. Cohn, Breslau 1912
Byrne D-Fischer, New York Rosenwald 1957
Capablanca – Kan Moscow, 1935
Capablanca - Molina Carranza Buenos Aires, 1911
Capablanca – Ragozin Moscow, 1935
Capablanca – Schroeder New York, 1916
Capablanca-Nimzowitsch, Bad Kissingen 1928
Capablanca-R. Illa, Buenos Aires 1911
Chigorin – Burn Ostend, 1906
Chigorin – Caro Vienna, 1898
Clemens – Eisenschmidt St. Petersburg, 1890
Colle – Capablanca Carlsbad, 1929
Colle - O’Hanlon Nice, 1930
Colle-Tartakower, Niendorf 1927
Coria-Capablanca, Buenos Aires 1914
Euwe – Rubinstein The Hague, 1921
Euwe-Colle, Amsterdam 1926
Euwe-Flohr, Amsterdam 1939
Euwe-Maróczy, Zandvoort 1936
Field-Tenner, New York 1933
Flohr-Stoltz, Warsaw 1935
Fox-Bauer, Washington 1901
Geller-Kotov, USSR Championship (Moscow) 1955
Gligorić-Kostic, Zagreb 1947
Gligorić-Petrosian, Belgrade 1954
Hamppe – Meitner Vienna, 1872
Hansen-Lundin, Oslo 1928
Janowski and Soldatenkov - Lasker and Taubenhaus Consultation Game, Paris 1909
Johner.P– Rubinstein Teplitz-Schönau, 1922
Keller-Rohaczek, Vienna 1937
Keres – Fine Ostend, 1937
Keres – Kotov Budapest Ct, 1950
Keres – Winter Warsaw OL, 1935
Keres-Petrov, Estonia-Latvia Match 1939
Keres-Reshevsky. World Championship Tournament, The Hague/Moscow 1948
König – Weiss USSR Championship, Moscow 1919
Kotov-Bondarevsky, Leningrad 1936
Kotov-Keres, Budapest Ct 1950
Kottnauer – Kotov Match, Prague vs Moscow, Moscow 1946
Krogius-Niemcla, Lovisa 1934
Lasker – Marshall St. Petersburg Final, 1914
Lasker-Bauer, Amsterdam 1889
Lewitzky-Marshall, Breslau 1912
Lilienthal-Bondarevsky, USSR Absolute Championship, Leningrad/Moscow 1941
Lilienthal-Najdorf, Saltsjöbaden 1948
Lundin-Tartakower, Groningen 1946
Marshall-Burn, Paris 1900
Marshall-Mieses, Cambridge Springs 1904
Meesen - H. Muller Correspondence Game, 1928/9
Michelet – Kieseritzky Paris, 1845
Mikenas-Maróczy, Folkestone 1933
Morphy – Barnes Simultaneous Display against Five Masters, London 1859
Najdorf-Ivkov Mar del Plata 1955
Najdorf-Julio Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 1948
Nimzowitsch – Tarrasch Preliminary event, St. Petersburg 1914
Nimzowitsch-Capablanca, New York, 1927
O’Kelly-Castaldi, Hilversum 1947
Pillsbury – Tarrasch Hasting
s, 1895
Pillsbury – Wolf Monte Carlo, 1903
Pillsbury-Maróczy, Paris 1900
Pilnik – Najdorf Mar del Plata, 1942
Potemkin – Alekhine St. Petersburg, 1912
Rabinovich-Romanovsky, Moscow 1925
Rauzer – Botvinnik Leningrad, 1933
Ravinsky-Panov, Moscow 1943
Reshevsky-Botvinnik, World Championship Tournament, The Hague/Moscow 1948
Réti - H. Wolf Teplitz Schönau, 1922
Richter-Abramavicius, Hamburg 1930
Rödl-Sämisch, Swinemünde 1931
Rossolimo-Pachman, Hilversum 1947
Rubinstein – Teichmann Vienna Match (4), 1908
Rubinstein-Alekhine, Dresden 1926
Rubinstein-Maróczy, Gothenburg 1920
Schlechter-Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1903
Shumov-Jaenisch, St. Petersburg 1849
Smyslov – Florian Moscow-Budapest Match, 1949
Stahlberg-Alekhine, Hamburg 1930
Steinitz - Von Bardeleben Hastings, 1895
Steinitz-Golmayo, Havana 1888
Steinitz-L. Paulsen, Baden-Baden 1870
Steinitz-Lasker, London 1899
Stoltz-Guimard, Groningen 1946
Szabo-Kotov, Groningen 1946
Szabo-van Scheltinga, Hilversum 1947
Szilagyi-Szabo, Budapest 1946
Tarrasch – Alekhine Bad Pistyan, 1922
Tartakower-Euwe, Venice 1948
Varein-NN
Vuković.V-Endzelins Munich Olympiad 1936
Vuković-Dr Vajda, Debrecen 1925
Vygodchikov – Alekhine Correspondence Game, 1908/9
Winter-Capablanca, Ramsgate 1929
Yates-Marco, The Hague 1921
Yates-Takacs, Kecskemet 1927
Art of Attack in Chess Page 31
