fUR

with special articles

by
Mrs. Anne Purdy and John Hanks
previously compiled and edited as
CJS Purdy
Hi Li, Hi Games, and Hi Writings
by
John Hammond & Robertjamieson
recompiling editors
Ralph Tykodi & Bob Long
Tiers' Press, Inc.
Davenport Iowa
1997
Copyright 1997 by Thinkers' Press, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo
copying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system,
except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in
writing from the publisher.
First Printing
July 1997
ISBN: 0-938650-78-5
Originally titled "CJ.S. Purdy His Life, Bis Games
ad His Writings" wit two new sections added.
This editon is in algebraic notation.
n:
Typos and omissions have been cor
rected, ad claifcations have been
added in places to frther increase te
value to the reader on what is arguably
the best "How To" chess book ever
written in English. Previous 1982 by
John Hammond and Mrs. Nacy (Anne) Purdy.
Reproduced and edited with permission.
Requests for permissions and republication rights should be addressed in writing to:
Thinkers' Press Inc.
Editor, Bob Long
P.O. Box 8
Davenport lA 52805-0008 USA
CJSO Prdy-His Writings
CONTENTS
Foreword oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo v
Acknowledgments ooooooo000000000000 000000000000000 iv
Biographical Details 00000000 O o ooooooo0000ooooooo0 viii
Tournament and Match Record 0 oo000000 viii
1 CJ.So Purdy - His Life ooooooooooooooo 00oo000000000 1
2 CJ.So Purdy - The Writer oooooooooooooooooooo 28
Purdy Library of Chess 00 0000000 0000000 Ill
3 CJ.So Purdy - The Player 0 ooooooooo ooooooooo 217
Colophon 0 00000000oo000000000 000000 00ooooooo00ooooooooo 306
Index of Games ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 307
Index of Openings 0 00ooooo 000 00ooooo oo000000000 00 308
Index of Artcles 00000000000000 00ooo 00000000ooo 0000 309
Cataog 0 00 ooooooooooooooooo 0000000000 0000 back of book
-iii-
The Search fr Chess Perction
Acknowledgments
The publisher would like to thank Mrs. Anne
Purdy for permission to republish CJ.S. Purdy's
writings, and also Mr. John Hammond for his
permission to reproduce and modif his 1 982
work CJS Prdy: Hi Li, Hi Games and Hi
Writings, acclaimed by many to be the best chess
improvement book ever written.
Thans are also due to Prof. Ralph Tykodi
for initiatng the Purdy Library Project as well as
for his superb job in co-editing this book.
This book is in algebraic notation. The
previous edition has been corrected; we regret
any remaining errors.
Ten thousand copies of the previous edition
in descriptive notaton were sold to lovers of
good chess writing the world over. Even world
champion Bobby Fischer said no chess library
should be without this book.
Two new artcles have been added to the
previous edition.
-iv-
CjS. Purdy-His Writings
FOREWORD
CJ.S. Purdy was an unforgettable character to all who knew him. For many
years he was, together with Garry Koshnitsky, Australian chess, and through his
writing, a world figure as well.
From his teens onwards, to his death at the age of 73, he was an inveterate
writer. His journalistic activity covered 40 years, during which he wrote 12 issues
each year of Australasian Chess Review, Check, and later Chess Worl from cover to
cover. Besides this, he wrote books of importance. In Cec's case, writing was a
chosen profession in which he was allowed to involve himself from an early age
through the generosity of his father. Capital for his frst venture was provided by
Purdy senior, and the world of chess must be gratefl for this.
Purdy took his writng very seriously. His humorous articles are very funny
to this day, as any reader will be able to testif. Cec had a sense ofhumor, but this
is not enough to make a writer ofhumor. I once lent him a satirical novel, Margaret
and the Devil, translated from the Russian. He took great pains to analyze how the
author obtained his effects. His teaching articles are superb.
Whenever I open an old volume of his jourals, I never fail to fnd it
completely fresh and worth reading with great attention. As an analyst he was on
his own until about 1 950, when other chess writers started to catch up with him.
His analysis is notable for accuracy, insight, and readability. About a year before
his death I sent to him a position from an obscure opening and another in which
White was supposed to have an advantage, though I could not even after lengthy
analysis see this.
I paid his fee, which was always very low. I received the answer to one of the
queries in a few days, but the other one took him a month. He showed that White
did have an advantage, as was proven by an extremely difficult analysis. Truly a
labor of love.
Cecil was also the first after Lasker to classif various types of combinational
and positonal motifs, thereby contnuing and extending what Lasker started. He
was very proud of this achievement but never received recognition for it. This is
not hard to understand, as very few of his predecessors in chess history fared any
better in this respect.
Purdy's 40 years of activity produced superb writing of very even quality and
of lasting value. A selection of his writings is contained in this volume. These
artcles are tmeless in their appeal, and it is hoped that the younger generation
of players will read this book and their interest will be aoused in the rest of the
Purdy output. In addition to these articles, CJ.S. Purdy's output comprises Amon
Tese Mates, How Euwe Won, How Ficher Won, The Return ofAlkhine, Chess Made
Eas, and Guide to Good Chess, all of which are out of print except the last one.
V
The Search fr Chess Perction
He also planned a frther book on
Fischer's games and a teaching book
comprising most of his correspondence
games.
The compiler of this book feels sure
that the readers will derive as much
enjoyment from it as he did from its
compilaton.
Organizaton of te Material
One of the difcultes of this com
pilaton appeared soon after the frst
steps were taken, namely the enormous
output oflastng value ofPurdy's nearly
60 years of chess. Ruthless culling was
necessary, and it was achieved in the
following manner.
Tourament Results
John van Manen, who assembled
statistics relating to all of Cec's appear
ances and results in touraments, ad
vised me that he was maing alternative
arrangements for their publication. It
was therefore necessary to include only
the most importat of these in this vol
ume.
Correspondence Games
Frank Hutchings undertook the task
of assembly. When looking through
Cec's papers he found that Cec had
practcally completed a projected book
containing all of his correspondence
games. It was therefore decided that
this posthumous work of Cec's be pub
lished separately.
Collecton of His Best Games
Robertjamieson undertook to as
semble Purdy's best games. It would
have been easy enough to select severa
times the number eventually decided
on, but prudence prevailed. The choice
is his. The games canot fail to enter
tain, and also show the varied facets of
Cec's chess style. John Hanks has pro
vided an appreciation of Cec's playing
skills as an introduction to the games
secton. The notes to the games are by
Purdy, unless otherwise indicated.
Artcles are fom
Autralasan Chess Riw, Check
and Chess Worl
Maurice N ewman is te fortunate
owner of copies of all ofCec's published
writngs and intended to select the best.
He struck immediate difculties. The
tota would have occupied well over a
thousand pages on varied subjects of
equal quality ad interest. There was
nothing in this outut unworthy of re
printing. Aer some consultaton it was
decided that we should include one
artcle only for each year from 1929 to
1967. This at least introduced some
method into the selecton and possibly
will show development of his writng
style and of his chess ideas.
It is said that no one who ca read
should undertake to clean up an attc.
Yet I am not sorry that I undertook to
look through this treasure tove, and te
reader who will look at the samples
presented here without pretense of se
lecton will agree. Cec was a bor writer.
Everything he wrote was interestng,
and once one starts reading any of the
articles it is hard to put it down. His
writing is plain ad staghtforward, fee
from ay artfciality of style whatso
ever, yet beguiling. Reading, I felt his
presence at my elbow and I relived the
enchatng moments of past encounters.
vi
CJS. Prdy-His Writings
His good-natured natural wit, always
inofensive, is ever-present and comes
through as the essence of his persona
ity, a quality one encounters in the great
letter writers of literature.
Purdy, tough extremely modest,
was nevertheless completely self-confi
dent and always certain that what he
had to say was importat and of interest
to all and sundry. And so itis. Few oter
chess writers had actual teaching expe
rience with moderately talented play
ers. Accordingly, their books were
written above the heads of teir in
tended public. Where else but in Aus
traia, a chess backwater, would a great
chess intellect be constrained to actual
teaching ofbeginners through economic
necessity. However, Purdy was vitally
interested in expressing and also sys
tematizing his chess thought, a great
deal. of which was new or at least not
expressed before. Previous attempts,
such as the works of Nimzovich and
other chess writers', were quite in
comprehensible to an ordinary club
player.
Even books after Purdy's pioneer
ing effort, such as those of Euwe or
Pachma, fell far short in value as teach
ing manuals. There are two personali
tes only who, in this writer's opinion,
were equal to Cec as teachers; they are
Philidor and Dr. Tarrasch. There are
marvelous teaching books, such as for
instance Renaud and Kahn, The Art of
Checkmate ad Theor ofRook Endgames,
but each of those deals only with one
particular aspect of the game, whereas
Purdy's writngs encompass the whole
spectrum of chess.
In addition to the contibutors men
toned under the various headings, our
thanks ae due to Mrs. Anne Purdy for
the biography as well as the assembler
ad printer, Mr. W.Jamieson.
1982
J. Hammond
vii
The Search fr Chess Perction
BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS
CeciJohn Seddon Prdy
Bor March 27, 1906
Began playing chess 1922
Editor of A. C. R. !CheckChess Worl 1929-67
Australian Champion 1935-38, 1949-52
Australian Correspondence Champion 1940, 1948
Australasian Co-Champion 1952
Interational Master 1953
Word Correspondence Champion 1953-58
Awarded "Order of Australia" 1976
Died November 6, 1979
TOURNAMENT & MATCH RECORD
Mr. John van Manen, to whom chess lovers in Australia are greatly indebted for his
patient and diligent research, has collected details of CJ .S. Purdy's chess career, and with
his permission I give the following statistics from his work.
Summar
y
CJ.S. Purdy's chess career as recorded above includes:

1 39 touraments (including three team touraments) ;

1 4 matches (not including nine play-off matches) ; and

43 games played in telegraphic matches.

In these events, spanning a period of 57 years ( 1923-79) , he played 1 ,586 games,
scoring 1099- 1 12 points, i.e., 69%.
In the 136 tournaments proper, he won 3 7 frst prizes (or shared first prizes), 26 second
prizes, and 1 9 third prizes. Of the 14 matches recorded, he won eight and drew one.
In title contests he became:

Correspondence Chess Champion of the World (in first event) ;

Champion of Australia four times;

Correspondence Chess Champion of Australia twice;

Champion of New Zealand twice;

viii
CjS. Purdy-His Writings

Champion of New South Wales eight times;

City of Sydney Champion twice; and

Champion of the Pacifc and Sout East Asia.

Of Austalian chess players he was the greatest, and it is to be regretted that during
his most successfl period he had no opportunities to play in interatona touraments.
His interational fame now rests mainly on his publications and his success in the frst
interational correspondence chess championship.
State Chapionships
Purdy played in 36 N.S.W. Championships fom 1923 to 1979, finishing first on eight
occasions ( 1929, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1939, 1960, 1962, and 1968) and second seven times.
He also won the South Australian Championship in 1937.
Austaian Chapionships
1926 Sydney
1928129 Perth
1930131 Melboure
1932133 Sydney
1934135 Melboure
1936137 Perth
Play-off:G. Koshnitsky
M. Goldstein
1938139 Sydney
1945 Sydney
1946147 Adelaide
1948149 Melboure
1951 Brisbane
1956157 Melboure
1958159 Sydney
1960 Adelaide
1962163 Perth
1964165 Hobart
Play-of:D. Hamilton
1967 Brisbane
1973/74 Cooma
* Steiner won the tourament but was ineligible for the title.
-ix-
7- 112 I 10
7-1/2 I 10
10 I 12
8 / 1 3
1 2 I 1 3
7-1/2 I 1 1
8-1/2 I 1 4
4 1 6
10 I 13
10-112 I 15
1 1 I 1 3
1 1- 1/2 I 1 3
12 I 15
7-1/2 I 1 4
8-1/2 I 1 6
9 1 15
8 I 1 3
1 1 I IS
1- 1/2 I 8
9-112 1 15
8 / 15
68%
3
3
2
1
2-5*
1
2-3
2-3
2
1-2
2
The Search fr Chess Perction
Asian and Austaasian Chapionsip
In 1952 Purdy and Sarapu ted a match for the Australasia Championship. In 1960
Purdy won the Pacifc and South East Asian Zonal Championship held in Sydney;
however, the following year he lost a play-of match 0-3 against M. Aaron {India) for the
All-Asian Zonal Championship.
New Zeaand Chapionships
Purdy played in six New Zealand Championships between 1924 and 1970, winning
the 1924/25 and 1935/36 touraments.
Corespondence Chess
Purdy only competed in three correspondence championships, winning the frst two
Australian Correspondence Championships and the World Correspondence Champion
ship in 1953.
x
Al this was a long
An I woul do it again,
But set down thi -
Set down this ...
- The joure of the Magi, T.S. Eliot
T Search for Chess Perfecon
T
he Magus in Eliot' s poem
followed the Star unquestion
ingly because it was ordained, but
at the end of his life he wondered sadly
whether the journey, which to others would
seem so great and adventurous, had really
been worth the sacrifces involved. Cecil
Purdy, the subject of this biography, fol
lowed his own particular star with equal
devotion, and I have sometimes wondered
whether, at the end of his life, the same
doubts troubled him.
Looking into the past is like holding up
the wrong eld of a telescope-everything
seems very small and far away, but incred
ibly clear and sharp. One of the earliest
pictures I can see is of a small girl in a pink
frock swinging on a gate, and a youth, re
splendent in a gray suit and a felt hat wit
the Cranbrook badge (my uncle, much the
same age, was still wearing knickerbockers
and cap) coming slowly along the road. He
was looking for "Newbiggin," my grand
father's home, where I was staying for the
holidays. It was a big, rambling house set in
several acres ofbushland - my grandfather
did not believe in wasting his time on gar
dening-near the cliffs at Manly, opposite
St. Patrick's Seminary. It had an uninter
rupted view of the coastline-there were
very few houses then so far from Manly
Wharf-and was an ideal holiday place for a
child whose home was in the less attractive
suburb of Balmain. It was during one of
these holidays that I frst met "the Cranbrook
schoolboy," as Cecil was known to his dis
gust many years after he had left school.
It would be nice to be able to report that
it was love at first sight. However, he opened
the conversation by advising me not to fall
off the gate. I had not intended to do this
anyway, and immediately placed him as
one of the ofcious and illogical race of
grown-ups. He was nine and a half years
older than I was. He told me later that I had
not made much of a hit with him either. I
started to have a gloomy foreboding that
this would be a fine weekend wasted - no
pony rides, no surfng, no scrambling aound
te rocks with my grandfather, listening to
his marvelous stories. In this newcomer I
already saw a real menace.
Earlier in the day I had heard my grand
father complaining that "some young pup
who thought he wanted to play chess" had
been "wished on to him" by a certain Dr.
Purdy, whose wishes could not be ignored.
Like me, he deplored the waste of a beauti
ful, sunny weekend. I had already learned
how this insidious game could keep two
otherwise reasonable adults chained indoors
for hours, rebufing all attempts to organize
a decent game of ball or hopscotch with
cries of"Sh-h!!" or "Do go away! " Like most
only children, I was very dependent on
adults for company, and I early decided
that I would have to learn to play their
game. My father, Spencer Crakanthorp,
taught me the moves when I was four. He
was champion of New South Wales, and
was soon to become Australian champion.
He had been a child prodigy, playing in an
interstate match at the age of ten-his dis
gruntled victim, at the end of the game, sent
a message "Take that child home and put
him to bed." Fortunately, my father never
seemed disappointed that I did not reach
this standard, as long as I was willing to join
in the four-handed games and other light
hearted types of chess which he enjoyed.
Why had my grandfather been chosen
to nurse along the budding chess genius?
-2 -
CJS. Prdy-Hi Wrtns
Col. (Dr.) John Prdy
Cecil tells the story in the Australasian Chess
Review for January 1930. It goes back to
1916, when Cecil was ten and had never
even thought of chess. My grandfather, a
man with courage, enterprise, and an insa
tiable thirst for adventure, had enlisted in
the army at the outbreak of war, giving his
age as 40. He was in fact 59. He was on
active service in France for two years. Just
afer the battle of Messines he was resting
with his pack beside him when he was
spotted by Colonel Purdy, who was being
driven past in a staf car. The Colonel was
well known as a martinet, but being also
kind-hearted he offered the weary Corporal
a lift. My grandfather politely demurred.
"Get in, man," barked the Colonel, "that's
an order." Corpora Crakanthorp obedi
ently climbed in and was driven to the next
village, where he gravely thanked his bene
factor and watched the car out of sight. He
then picked up his pack and set out to walk
back five miles. He had been going in the
opposite direction.
Some five or six years later, the two met
again-this time at a Health Conference. Dr.
Purdy was now City Health Ofcer for
Sydney, and my grandfather was Health
Inspector at Manly. My grandfather re
minded Dr. Purdy of their earlier meeting
and, the chronicler assures us, "they both
laughed heartily." I imagine my grandfa
ther laughed the more heartily of the two,
but he soon had the smile wiped from his
face when Dr. Purdy brought up the matter
of his elder son, who had just learned the
moves of chess and would be gratefl for a
little practce and perhaps a few hints. My
grandfather, as Dr. Purdy had apparently
found out, had been for many years the
unoficial country champion, and was now
a leading fgure in Sydney chess. Grandfa
ther, who didn't sufer fools gladly and felt
that he was about to be lumbered with one,
was unentusiastic but hardly in a position
to refse; later it was Dr. Purdy who regret
ted the suggestion.
Cecil's family was not one which seemed
likely to produce a great chess fgure. Cecil
was bor in 1906 in Port Said, where his
father was the British port doctor. When he
was a year old the family moved to New
Zealand, then to Tasmania, then to New
South Wales-back to Tasmania during the
war years, when both Dr. and Mrs. Purdy
were overseas, finally settling in Sydney
when Cecil was about 12. In Hobart he had
been for a while a pupil at the famous Old
Hutchins School. Here he had as a class
mate the future film star Errol Flynn, whom
Cecil remembered as a sad little boy, the
neglected and unwanted child of two bril
liant, handsome, and erratic parents. In
Sydney he was enrolled at Edgeclif Prepa
ratory School, and later at Cranbrook, in its
first year of existence. It was here that he
met Wilfed Wallace, son of A.E.N. Wallace,
then New South Wales champion and an
ex-Australian champion, who was later to
have a great infuence on his chess career.
Strangely, Cecil (according to his own ac-
-3 -
T Search for Chss Perecon
count) does not seem to have realized what
a treasure trove of chess knowledge was
buried in his own backyard until he was
aready quite an advanced player. Had he
done so, I don't suppose tat bright day in
March 1922 would have found him toiling
up te hill at Manly aer the long trip from
Bellevue Hill, and this story would never
have been written-or at any rate not by me.
Spencer Craantorp
As it was, my worst fears for the week
end were realized. The visitor, so far fom
being like WS. Gilbert's lady "who doesn't
think she dances, but would rather like to
try," showed himself just the kind of protege
my grandfather could welcome. Cecil had
taught himself the moves, as he tells us, by
copying them from the Encclopedia Britan
nica during a rainy holiday down te South
Coast, and as a reward for his industy had
been given a set of chessmen.
He tells the story himself in a "Game
Book" which he started in October 1922,
about seven months after the frst visit to
Manly.
The first game I record was played against
Mr. L.S. Crakanthorp in October 1922
on which I played four even games, win
ning 2 and drawing 2. A month before we
played at pawn and two. I had then been
playing chess eight months, having be
gun the game in the Christmas holidays
of that year. My uncle sent me a chess
board and men fom the Malay States,
which st me on te game. In 2 monts
I was a rook, pawn and move player. I
improved by leaps and bounds ["more or
less," he adds with an uncharacteristic
burst of modesty], my chief leap being
afer reading E. Lasker's Chess Strateg.
There is even a record of these interven
ing eight months. Cecil, so undisciplined
and ill-organized in so many ways, brought
from the very beginning a single-minded
dedication to the study of chess which Dr.
Purdy later came to feel would have been
much better expended in training for some
paying profession. With it went a keen ana
lytical mind and a tremendous amount of
industry and enthusiasm, to a extent which,
in its youtfl eaestness, seems strangely
toucing all these years later. To quote once
again fom the "Game Book":
"Details of Wyncrest Sports Club
Chess Tourament {American System)
held at Hillcrest, Bellevue Hill, Sydney.
Commenced April 2nd 1922."
Then follow, careflly recorded and an
notated, the moves of some of the most
execrable gmes ever to have disgraced a
chessboard, which would lead the reader to
believe the Tourament should have stated
a day earlier-on April 1st.
Round 1: Game 1 - C. Purdy v. R.
Simpson {odds 1, l, 4, f and move).
Won by C. Purdy after a short gae.
Opened by Fianchetto de Re. At fnish of
-
4
-
CJS. Prdy-Hi Wrins
game pieces knocked off wit broom by
Dr. J.S. Purdy.
Anyone playing through the games would
entrely sympathize wit Dr. Purdy, but
apparenty he later gave Brilliancy prizes of
sixpence each to four contestats, tereby
indicatng his forgiveness and a just appre
ciation of the merits of the play. An epic
struggle between the club secretary ad his
11-year-old sister is reported:
lsabel v. C. Purdy-C. Purdy gives ,
), . 2 moves and wins. C. Purdy lost a
rook early. His opponent was playing
well untl after the adjourment. C. Purdy
changed his tactcs of waitng for a mis
take tat never came and advanced boldly,
sacrifcing pawns right and left. If the
pawns had been refsed, C. Purdy's posi
ton would have been hopeless. His com
binaton, of course, was unsound ...
"1. Purdy's relentess accuracy before
the adjourment certainly contrasts mys
teriously with her indiscreet pawn-grab
bing subsequenty," he later added.
Cecil early showed the administratve
acumen which later made him a respected
fgure in the chess world:
As examination of his score sheet will
show, the preliminary tourament elimi
nated all but Wallace [who had a clean
score], Addison ad the secretary [Cecil
himself], who managed to get third. In
stead of considering this placing fnal, a
fnal match (triangular) was played. Each
played each of the others three games.
This tme Cecil managed to win. As he was
"generously" (as he himself put it) donatng
the frst prize of fve shillings, I have a feeling
that the tourament would have gone on
untl te right person won.
By this tme Cecil was frmly committed
to the love afair with chess which was to
last the rest of his life, and it was clear that
he needed something a little more challeng
ing tan the oppositon ofered by te "W yn
crest" Sports Club. I don't think that his
father-a practcal and successfl man who
naturally desired his own kind of success
for his sons-would have encouraged Cecil
by sending him to Manly if he had realized
how strong his obsession was becoming.
He could hardly have chosen a better way
to confrm it. My grandfater, then 65, was
stll a very impressive man, dashing, witty,
and cultured, and Cecil immediately be
came, as most people did, his devoted ad
mirer. As he himself said in his touching
obituary of L.S. Crakanthorp (A.C.R.Ja.
1930),
"He loved chess, and one felt that if he
loved chess, ten chess was a game worth
playing.
"
Their constant attaction was mutual. L.S.,
as he was usually known, and as Cecil al
ways called him, found the new pupil mod
est, intelligent, and eager to lea-what
more can a teacher ask? He gave him Rook,
pawn, and move and a trouncing, but also
encouragement and advice. Cecil went away
thoughtfl and determined. Mter that he
spent many weekends and sometimes a
week or a fortight in Manly-I suppose
when L.S. had holidays. The presence nearby
of a carming family, the Corords, wit
several pretty daughters, was also an attrac
ton-Millie, the eldest daughter, became
the frst woman champion of New South
Wales. They were friends of my grandfater's
and had a tennis court; Cecil was a keen and
skillfl tennis player, and had already devel
oped an appreciation of pretty girls, so the
holidays must have gone quite nicely. But
-5
-
Te Search for Chss Perecon
youthfl frivolities were never allowed to
crowd out the real purpose of the visits. He
studied chess assiduously (his school studies
had to take second place, much to his fami
ly's dissatisfaction), wrote down each game
he played, and annotated it painstakingly.
Within a year he was regularly playing L.S.
on even terms and winning a majority of
games. By the tme he met A.E.N. Wallace
over te board (December 1922), he was
able to score a win, a draw, and a loss out of
three games-a remarkable achievement
even if, as the games seem to show, Wallace
was not taking his young opponent too
seriously.
By 1923, when he was 17, he seems
already to have decided on his career as a
chess writer, though he probably had not
yet confded this ambition to his family. In
carefl schoolboy handwriting and with
spelling which in later years would have
made him blush, he drew up a plan for a
book of instructon on chess. And a very
sensible, logical plan it is too. Many of the
ideas, in fact the general system, he used
later in his books and articles. There is also
a dauntingly long list of "titles for book(s) or
artcles, etc." I wonder what he had in mind
for the "etc."? One of the titles is "How To
Win Chess Touraments," which as he had
never played in one (except the Wyncrest
Sports Club) seems rather presumptuous.
However, he was looking to the future with
a confdence which was not misplaced.
Some of the titles he listed were used
afterwards-"Chess Made Easy" and "Se
crets of the Chessboad," for example. There
is also "Purdy's Way," with the note "Only
suitable if happen to become very well
known player." When he did become a
very well-known player he had also be
come more modest. There is a page of
"Chess Notes-Positions for Book," in which
"Purdy-Wallace (off-hand) 1923" rubs
shoulders incongruously with "Lasker-Ca-
pablanca, St. Petersburg 1914." There are
also pages on "Method of Thinking in
Chess" (substantially the basis for his book
Guide to Good Chess), "Method of Studying,"
and "Method of Teaching." I suppose this
was the method he used to teach the mem
bers of the Wyncrest Sports Club, and it
could hardly be improved upon. That it
should have been devised by a 16-year-old
who had only just leaed the moves him
self is incredible; it shows his extraordinary
gift for gettng to the heart of the problem,
and for orderly and logical analysis-a gift
which unfortunately he rarely exercised in
practcal afairs. But in his world these did
not really matter, and so were not worth
wasting much tme on; it was chess that
mattered, and on that he was to spend the
rest of his life.
Before this, he had privately determined
tat his career must be jouralism of some
kind-partly because of his love of writing,
but partly also because of the handicap,
fom which all the children in the family
suffered, of a noticeable stammer. As adults
they had all practically overcome this
through therapy and speech exercises, and
also through the confdence engendered by
success in their chosen felds (High became
a civil engineer with te Water Board), and
many people who only met Cecil in later
life would be unaware that such a problem
ever existed. It is only worth mentioning
insofar as it influenced his choice of profes
sion, and perhaps was a factor in his enor
mously powerfl will to win. He liked his
sports to be competitive-grade tennis, tour
nament chess, duplicate bridge. If he played
faily bridge, absurdly small sums of money
had to change hands just to prove that one
pair had either won or lost by a certain
margin. (I think he got this point of view
from my father, who stoutly maintained
that the only immoral thing about cards was
to play for nothing.) On the other hand, no
-
6
-
CJS. Prdy-Hi Wrins
L.S. Craatorp
one could have accepted defeat more grace
fully. He accepted philosophically the idea
that there would be another time, and he
was prepared to wait for it.
I don't think his stammer ever caused
him embarrassment, and it certainly didn't
stop him making fiends, but he found it
fustatng and limiting, and was thoroughly
relieved when he got rid of it. Today, with
his mathematcal and analytical ability, he
would seek a career in C.S.I.R.O. or in
private industry; in those days there were
no such opportunites. Teaching or Univer
sity lecturing were the only careers open to
those whose abilities were solely academic,
and these were plainly barred to him. Even
when he was very young he had a gift for
writing, and a great humorist was lost to
Austalia when he decided to channel his
talents into chess jouraism.
Meanwhile, however, he was still at
Cranbrook, which he had attended from
te year of its incepton, and schoolwork
and chess were in sore compettion. While
most of the games in his score book are stll
with L.S.C. or Wallace, his horizons were
broadening. He was a member of the Manly
A-grade team, and also occasionally played
the Mocha stalwarts-Amadio, Crane, and
Tonkin, for example. Also, at about this
tme he started to visit regularly at my fater's
home. I was surprised to fnd fom his games
record book that he had met my father as
far back as September 1922, at Manly, and
had played a game with him: "Played 1
game wit Spencer Crakanthorp, who came
3rd in Aust. Champ. and 4th in Britsh
Champ., obtained drawn position in end
ing" -here follows a careflly drawn dia
gram, and beneath it the not uncommon
hard luck story-"Actually Black sleepily
moved K-B2 and lost." Black, of course,
was Cecil, and presumably he leaed at
least not to play while sleepy.
They did not meet again for a couple of
years. Like L.S., my father did not like
being bothered with learers, but L.S. per
suaded him that the young man was worth
encouraging, and that there was no more he
could learn at Manly. I remember my
mother being rater indignant and pointing
out tat my father was being asked to train
a rival who would eventually topple him
from his throne. Of course, in a sense this
was true; but, as she should have known,
real lovers of chess are never troubled by
these petty jealousies. Cecil in later years
was delighted to give encouragement and
support to promising juniors, some at least
of whom he knew were destined to replace
him. So Cecil became a regular visitor at
my parents' home at Balmain, where tere
was open house every Sunday, and where
any interstate players who happened to be
in Sydney and most of the strong local
players would drop in. J.A. Erskine, the
New Zealand player and problemist, was
my father's closest friend, Gundersen and
Watson were often up from Melboure,
and Wallace, Crane, Harrison, Spedding,
Tonkin, and Bignold were all regular visi-
-7-
T Search for Chss Perecn
CJ.S. Prdy, ag 17
tors. The chess was not usually very seri
ous-mostly kriegspiel, blindfold chess,
three-dimensional chess, and two-handed
or team games. I was ofen brought in for
this kind of chess-as a hadicap for the
strongest player, as I now reaize. I a sure
I was very eficient in tis role.
Cecil frst started to visit with Wallace,
who was one of my favorites. It was a rule of
the house that if I had been a good girl until
tea-time (which meant i I had been reading
quietly and not worrying anyone), the com
pany would then play any game I cose. It
was remarkable with what good hum or these
often portly middle-aged men would dis
port themselves for an hour at marbles,
chasings, handball, and French cricket. I
think Cecil was taken aback by the frivo
lous nature of the chess, and although he
got on so well with his seniors he certainly
had no knack with children; however, he
did enjoy the "literary chess," in which each
move had to be accompanied by a suitable
quotation, sometimes fom Shaespeare or
sometimes of one's own choice. I think this
may be the origin of his habit of accompa-
nying his annotations with quotations.
Maurice Goldstein, a few years later, had a
great liking for this diversion, and was eru
dite and witty. I think Cecil was stll rather
intense about his chess and preferred the
hard slogging at Manly, where he stll fre
quently visited.
In 1924, when he was 18, his father
fnanced a tip to New Zeaand which en
abled him to play in the championship at
Nelson. This was his frst real experience of
travel, and he loved every minute of it.
After chess, it became his second passion.
He was an excellent sailor and he loved
ships, he enjoyed the romantic fiendships
so easily made at sea; he gloried in the
tension ad excitement of the touraent,
the sense of importance, and above all the
adulaton and lionizing which followed suc
cess. He was reaizing the deligts of being
a big fsh, and very sensibly he did not
allow te smallness of the pool t diminish
his satsfacton. His victory in New Zeaand
was hailed with a degree of publicity which
seems quite absurd today, when schoolboy
chess is encouraged and we see younger
champions, such as Murray Chandler, win
ning against much stronger felds. The mere
fact that a young man could succeed against
veterans aroused the astonishment of the
newspapers-now it is fa more surprising i
the veteran ever wins. One reason for this,
of course, is that in tose days there was
very little chess literature, so that skill could
to a fair extent be equated with experience.
Wallace ad my father had both won state
championships at 19, but these had been
isolated cases and had been quite a long
time earlier. Chess news in the Twentes
received a coverage which would make any
modem chess jouralist green with envy,
and columns appeared in Sydney ad New
Zealand papers extolling the "boy prodigy"
( Cecil was almost 19). A interview with Dr.
Purdy on the subject of his son's success
-8 -
CjS. Prdy-Hi Wrins
concluded with unconscious irony: "There's
a 30 prize goes wit the N.Z. Chapion
ship, and Dr. Purdy seems a bit aamed for
fear Cecil will want to make chess his pro
fession!"
It must have been a let-down to go back
to school, and Cecil did not intend to let it
interfere with the important things of life.
His "Chess Record Book" (a kind of chess
diary) shows that he played many friendly
gaes aganst L.S., Wallace, Amadio, and
Tonkin, as well as representing Maly in
the grade matches and coming third in the
State Championship. All the games ae cae
fully copied out and annotated. His father
was sufcienty impressed with his chess
results to finance another trip to New
Zealand to play in the championship, which
was being held in Dunedin concurrently
with the Great Exhibition of 1925-26.
A party of us went fom Sydney- Cecil,
my grandfather and his second wife, my
father and mother, and myself. We had four
days on the "Maungaui" and it was great
fn. We had not been long at sea when my
father, who was eaily recognized as "the
chess player" because of his unusual name,
was approached by the usua ship's bore
and chalenged to a game. My father hastily
found some excuse for not playing at the
moment, but felt sure that his young fiend
would like a gae, ad perhaps some ad
vice, as he was only a beginner. Cecil looked
much younger than his age, and had a
beguiling air of innocence and candor. He
bumbled his way through several games,
getting frightful openings, giving pieces
away, and at one crucial stage apparently
forgetting how to castle. I was watching and
wanted to remind him, but my father
wouldn't let me, which I thought was very
unkind. Somehow at the end, though
greatly to his astonishment -he aways ended
by matng his opponent. The newcomer
was bemused but undaunted. "Never mind,"
said my father encouragingly, "you've had
bad luck. Have a game with my wife." My
mother was one of te strongest woman
players in New South Wales (though in
tose days that was not saying much), and
she had no dificulty in winning. "Well, how
about playing my daughter?" Father ten
suggested. But when the would-be giant
killer saw a small, curly-haired girl beaming
at him agreeably and preparing to seat her
self at the chessboard, he fled and was not
seen again. I think my father was disap
pointed, as he had several more tricks up
his sleeve for occasions such as tis. He was
a great prankster, and Cecil was a willing
stooge.
Cecil did not do well in this tourament,
which my father won, but once again he
had a marvelous tme, and the Exhibiton
was spectacular-splendidly organized and
presented, and quite a new idea at that tme.
I loved prowling round the gadens ad the
splendid graite buildings of the Universit
of Otago, where the games were being
played. I did not see much of Cecil, though
we were staying in the same house. To me
he stll belonged to a diferent generaton,
ad I always called him "Mr. Purdy."
Unfortunately, shortly after this my
mother became very ill and remaned so for
more tan two years. We moved to Baks
town, which was a county distict and very
isolated, and I lost all contact with the chess
world. For a while I missed my old fiends
and playmates, but I was at High School
and I put chess right out of my mind for the
next fve years. My father continued to play
in chess events, in spite of the difcultes of
taveling, and he met Cecil frequently at
Manly, where he went once a mont to visit
L.S.
At te end of the year Cecil sat for te
Leaving Certcate for the second time. He
had aways been a brilliant student, but no
one could have served two masters to quite
- 9-
Te Search for Chess Perecon
the extent he had attempted over the last
two years, and his frst attempt had resulted
in a pass which his family did not consider
satisfactory. The second time he obtained
the outstanding results his parents and the
school expected of him, and, with his career
stll ofcially undecided, he started his course
at the University in the Faculty of Arts, with
the possibility of eventually doing Law.
In April 1926 the Chess Championship
of Australia was played in Sydney. Cecil
naturally put in an entry, but greatly to his
surprise and indignation the N.S.WC.A.,
who were running the tourament, were
reluctant to accept it on the grounds that it
would mean excluding older players. Cecil
did not endear himself by remarking pub
licly that he understood their sympathy for
the veterans, because "they had been old
men themselves once, and knew what it felt
like." Both my grandfather and my father
espoused his cause warmly-my father, as a
young man, had just the same dificulty
being accepted. Cecil justified their support
by taking third place, behind my father and
Severin Woinarski. In fact, Cecil secured
first place for my father by defeating
Woinarski, then the leader, in a crucial gae.
Woinarski was the same age as Cecil and
was a player of remarkable talent who un
doubtedly would have reached the very top
rank had he continued to play; but he came
of a well-known legal family who persuaded
him to give up chess in favor of the study of
law. He did well at his profession and later
becae a Supreme Court Judge. He did not
lose his interest in chess, thoug he never
competed again. Cecil always kept in touch
with him and visited him when he was in
Melboure.
The newspapers continued to be dazzled
by Cecil's youth and featured headlines like
"Boy Chess Genius" (Daily Guardian) and
"Chess Podigy" (Daily Tlgraph). He was
referred to as "the Cranbrook schoolboy,"
and the cricketer-cartoonist Arthur Mailey,
who always covered the chess touraments
in Sydney, drew him as "the Purdy infant,"
in a pram! He was then 20.
During his frst year at the University he
formed the University Chess Club, with
himself as Secretary. Professor Vonwiller
( Professor of Mathematcs) was President.
Cecil had started an Honors course in Math
ematics and became very fiendly with the
professor, who was a strong player and
sympathetic to Cecil's ambitions, though, I
suspect, not as sympathetic as Cecil imag
ined he was. On one occasion when Cecil
was late with an assignment he commented
sweetly, "Of course, we mustn't let Math
ematics interfere with your chess." Cecil
was fond of quoting this as an example of
his tolerance and goodwill, but I often won
dered.
THE AUSTALASIAN CHESS
REVIEW IS BORN
In his final year at the University (1929), the
chance came which he had been waiting for.
In 1928-29 he had competed in the fourth
Australian Chess Championship at Perth.
Once again my father won, and Cecil came
third. He had had a good press contact and
had made most of his expenses through
journalism, at which he now had consider
able experience. So when Mr.J ames Prowse,
who had run the chess magazine Te Austral
for many years, decided that he could no
longer afford the burden of constant losses,
Cecil persuaded his father to put up the
money to get it started again. My grandfa
ther had said that if Prowse ever gave up, he
himself would take the magazine on -but he
was now dying. I often wondered whether
Cecil's decision was made partly because
L.S. desired it. Everyone felt that i Te
Austral were allowed to go, chess in Australia
would go with it, but no one except Cecil
was prepared to risk the money and energy
- 1 0 -
CJS. Prdy-Hi Wrins
to save it. It needed a young man's courage
and enthusiasm, and Cecil had plenty of
both. He ran the magazine from the back
room of the family home at Bellevue Hill
and everything had to be done by hand,
including the addressing of the envelopes.
There were, unfortunately, not many needed.
The magazine was printed at Parramatta,
which was fairly inaccessible in those days
of steam trains and infrequent services, and
Cecil keeping a fatherly eye on
his younger brother ad sisters.
for a long time the magazine meant a lot of
work for little retur. If Cecil had not been
living at home, very inexpensively, he could
never have kept it going. In the hope of
creating a new circle of readers ( Te Austral
had been rather dreary), the name was
changed to The Australsian Chess Review.
However, whatever else went short,
money was always found for chess tips,
and in December 1929 he played in te
New Zealand Championship at Wanganui,
tying for second and third behind Gun
dersen. Then in 1930 a merry company
took of once again fom Sydney, this time
to Melboure for the ff Austalian Chess
Congress.
The group consisted of Cecil, my father
and mother and myself, and two very wel
come additons to the chess scene, Maurice
Goldstein and Garry Koshnitsky. We drove
down to Melboure in Maurice's car, with
Maurice and Garry alternating as drivers. It
was a leisurely trip (as far as Garry's driving
could ever be considered leisurely), and we
stopped everywhere that might be of inter
est, including at Canberra, a very new town
ship of marked-out but nonexistent roads
and quantities of tiny trees with large labels
fapping fom them. My father and mother
looked on indulgently, and we four younger
people found laughter in everything. I had
just fnished school, and it was wonderful to
be free and grown-up at last! I was 15, and it
was evident that Cecil now found me a
great deal more interesting than he had in
Dunedin. When we got to Melboure he
found it a pleasant duty to show me te city,
which I thought the most beautiful and
glamorous place in the world. I had fn
ished with school uniforms and acquired
some becoming clothes, and I was being
squired by a young man who, it appeared,
was going to be the next Australian cham
pion.
But some unkind Fate seemed deter
mined to keep this particular prize-so much
longed for!-out of Cecil's reach. By the last
round he had met every one of his strongest
opponents, and had the impressive score of
10 points out of 11. His only loss had been
to my father in the first round. He had to
play Coultas, who was not one of the highly
ranked players; Watson was half a point
behind. Coultas chose this round to play
the game of his life. Cecil struggled desper
ately for a draw, while oficials waiting to
organize the prize-giving chewed their fn
gerails, and spectators standing on chars
and tables fell off in their excitement. At 10
PM he had to resign and see Watson take the
- 1 1 -
T Search for Chss Perecon
coveted tte. I never admired Cecil so much.
I realized how bitterly disappointed he must
have been, especially as a huge crowd had
gathered to cheer and congratulate him, but
he preserved perfect good huor-on the
surface at any rate-and shook hands with
his opponent with hearty goodwill. He ad
mired and liked Watson, and no one could
have been a more worthy victor.
From this tme on, Cecil's life and mine
became interwoven. I was studying at te
Universit and had started to play chess
again. I was very sympathetic to Cecil's
ambitions, the more so because I had been
brought up in a chess household and was
used to seeing a man's life dominated by 64
squares and 32 pieces. In 1931-32 he went
again to New Zealand, this time to the Con
gress at Napier, where he came third. Soon
aferwards, he asked my father for permis
sion to marry me. I was then 16.
I could not say that the suggestion was
greeted by either set of parents with great
enthusiasm, Cecil' s paents considering that
Cecil was in no position to support a wife
(he was not yet able to support himselfj,
and mine, that I was far too young. Both
arguments were entrely sound. I was in my
second year at Sidney University, and al
though I had won a State Exhibition my
parents found it quite a fnancial burden to
keep me there; they expected me to work
for at least a few years to justf the expense.
For a woman to work afer marriage was
almost unthinkable-indeed almost impos
sible, since most jobs, including teaching,
for which I was training, were completely
barred to married women. My parents did
not see why I could not complete my course,
get my Diploma of Educaton, ad then
teach wit the Department of Educaton for
the required six years before thinking of
marriage. It was a reasonable sugestion,
for even then I would have been only 25.
However, people in love are rarely reason-
able; and as Cecil pointed out, by that tme
he would have been 35, which to us seemed
positvely middle-aged. My parents were
both very fond of him, and had always
encouraged our friendship-hoping, I sup
pose, that it would remain friendship untl
they had decided the tme was ripe for
marriage-and they valued his qualites of
honesty, sincerity, and kindness ahead of
wealth. Our engagement was announced in
March 1931, on the same day the Sydney
Harbor Bridge was opened. The latter event,
in my view, paled into insignifcance.
In December 1932 Cecil played in the
Austalian Championship i Sydney, and
At M. Craathorp's home at
Woolwch
for the frst time failed to gain a place. The
title was won by Gregory Koshnitsky, the
reckless chaioteer of 1930-now somewhat
more mature and mellow, but no less hand
some and charming. He was a little younger
than Cecil, and their early lives had been
very diferent, but they formed a friendship
that lasted for almost 50 years. I think Garry
really understood Cecil better than anyone
else ever has; he was an example of the
- 1 2 -
CJS. Prd-Hi Wrns
fiend "who knows you well, but likes you
just the sae."
Garry's win was a great thing for te
Sydney chess community and, incidentaly,
for Cecil. In June of that year Anthony
Horder's, then Sydney's leading depart
ment store, had started the Metropolita
Socia Chess Club, making available spa
cious and comfortable premises and the
services of Garry Koshnitsky as manager.
His new title was quite a boost, and before
long there were more than 300 members.
With such a manager (unmarried too! ),
women's chess, especially, fourished as it
never had before. Cecil, like most of the
other Sydney players, was a fequent visi
tor, and new subscribers to the magaine
were enrolled almost daly. Only a few
months afer he had started the Autralian
Chss Riew the Great Depression hit Aus
talia, but altough it ruined many other
businesses, chess seemed to fourish. People
who could no longer afford more expensive
pastmes tured to it for occupaton and
companionship, and one had to be very
hard-up not to be able to aford te few
pence necessary to buy te chess magaine.
Cecil was also getting quite a lot of chess
reporting, including a column in the Daily
Tlegaph, and a few months after I gradu
ated my parents agreed that Cecil's fnan
cial prospects were fairly bright. Accord
ingly, we were married in June 1934, a few
days after my 19th birthday, and departed
happily for a fortnight's honeymoon in the
snow at Kosciusko (total cost 20).
In December of this year ( 1934) we both
went down to Melboure, where Cecil com
peted in the Australian Championship. To
make our happiness complete, this time he
achieved the goal he had striven for so long.
He won the tourament from a very strong
feld, with a record margin of two points. As
a young and pretty bride, the daughter of a
faous player, and the wife of the new
champion, I shared in the limelight and
basked in reflected glory.
I am looking, as I write, at a photogaph
of Cecil taen at about that time. He was a
very personable young man, wit a thought
fl, sensitve face, expressive brown eyes,
and sof blond hair with a slight wave in it.
He was of medium height, slender and ath
letc-all his life he was a much more power
f man than he looked, and even as an old
man he could lif and carry quite amazing
weights. A good runner and an A-grade
tennis player, he was light and quick on his
feet and gracefl in al his movements. I
tink what I found most attractve about
him was the aura of freshness and good
health which he exuded. He neither smoked
nor drank, and for preference lived on a
very simple diet, which probably contib
uted to tis, but it was even more something
within his own personality-a kind of child
like enjoyment of the day and a refsal to
concer himself too early with the prob
lems of the morrow. I was later to fnd out
that tis carefree attitude could have its
disadvantages.
From the magazine and other sources,
Cecil's income at the tme was 5 per week.
We paid 1 a week rent for a moder two
bedroom flat close to the beach at Maroubra,
allowed 30 shillings a week for housekeep
ing (when that ran out we descended on the
parents), saved 1 a week, and had the
balance for emergencies. Our fture, such
as it was, was paid for, and we lived very
happily. The next year we were able to use
our savings, our wedding cheques, which
we had been keeping for such an occasion,
and generous presents from our parents
(my father had given me 100 on conditon
that I didn't demand any fripperies such as
a wedding reception) ad paid a deposit on
a house at Lurline Bay, Coogee, almost on
the clifs, with a beautifl view up the coast.
A few months later a fne healthy baby boy
- 1 3 -
T Search for Chss Perecton
was bor, both sets of grandparents were
delighted, and the whole picture looked
like one of the rosier fade-outs of the silent
movie days.
Fate, however, as is its usual practce,
was waiting behind the door with a rubber
cosh in its hand, ad the scenario now
tured into something more like the mod
er gloomy kitchen-sink drama. It was un
derstandable that the baby, the house, and
the interests which now filled my life so
pleaantly were not really enough for Cecil
(at heart a most undomesticated man), and
at te end of the year he went of again to
play in the New Zealand Championship at
Wellington followed by a tour of several
months through New Zealand, giving si
multaneous exhibitons and lectures. While
he was away the Dail Tlgraph had a change
of ownership, and the new management, as
usual, started looking round for ways to
save money by cutting down on "features."
The ax fell on the chess column, whose
incumbent wa not there to protect his in
terests. Dr. Purdy did his best to save it for
us, but in this field his influence was worth
nothing, and Cecil came back to find him
self with a new baby, a house to be paid of,
and his income cut by almost half. Had our
families been able to give us fnancial help,
I a sure they would have done so; but one
disaster was followed by another, much
worse one-or, in fact, two. In 1936 Cecil's
father and mine both died in te same
week, in eac case of pneumonia, and it was
obvious that we would have to ty to man
age for ourselves. Cecil worked very hard at
the only things he could do; he got chess
reporting whenever he could, he strove un
ceasingly to make the Australsian Chess R
view a magazine of world standard, and he
wrote and published two small books on
the world championship matches, How Euwe
fn and Te Retur of Alkhine [Ed. These
work wil be reprinted by Thinkers' Pess}.
These were a great success and sold out
very quickly, but of course we did not have
the capital to produce any worthwhile num
ber.
We managed to stuggle on for a while,
living close to the breadline. Looking back
now, I often wonder how we managed at
al, except that food was very cheap, and
healthy young people can live on almost
anyting. But it became obvious now that,
instead of saving, we were getting into debt.
The fnal blow came one day when I dis
covered by accident a letter from the bank
threatening to foreclose the mortgage on
the house.
It is hard to describe what a shock this
was to me. I had never had to think of
fnancial matters before in the whole of my
life, beyond the price of a new blouse or a
pound of chops, and the money the bank
was talking about terrified me. Had I been a
little older or more experienced, I would
have looked at the matter more calmly,
remembering that banks are never as fierce
as they sound and are very reluctant to
throw respectable young couples out into
the snow. But I was only a little over 20 and
had no one to go to for advice; my father
was dead, I had no brothers or sisters, and
my mother had been left poorly provided
for, and was working in a solicitor's ofce in
the county. So I did what I suppose was not
unusual for girls in those days-burst into a
flood of tears, packed up a case and te
baby, and rushed up to join Mother.
Fortunately for both of us, the law did
not encourage young people to make rash
decisions about matrimony-or at least not
about getting out of it. "For better or for
worse" meant what it said, and if the "worse"
only meant having to make some fairly
basic financial adjustments, the law didn't
really consider that to be very bad. My
mother was a sensible, well-balanced
woman, and I think she realized better than
- 1 4
-
CJS. Prdy-Hi Wriins
I did that I might not be terribly happy with
Cecil at te moment, but I certainly wouldn't
be happy without him-nor did she think I
was likely to be happy with anyone else, in
which she was probably correct. Anyway,
she set about puttng matters to rigts. She
resigned fom her job, came down to Syd
ney, and spent most of the remains of her
capital on buying an old rambling house in
Woolwich which was selling very cheaply;
it was still the tme of te Depression, when
houses could be vacant for monts or even
years, awaiting a buyer with some ready
cash. It was in a pleasant situation, close to
the ferry, and had enough rooms for people
to be able to get away fom each oter when
they felt they had to. We settled down to
gether, she looked afer the baby, whom
she adored, and I got a job. Here, after she
had done some preliminary "smoothing
over" business, Cecil joined us.
It was obvious to me now, as perhaps it
should have been earlier, that if we were to
have a successful life together I would have
to undertake the financial responsibilities
for it. Cecil still had all te admirable quali
ties for which I had married him-he was a
man of high principles, he was kind, afec
tonate, intelligent, amusing, a good com
panion; and I loved him. He was not
equipped to battle with the world, even for
himself, much less for a wife and child. I
admired him more than any man I had ever
known-1 stll did, after 46 years of mar
riage. The decision was an easy one-it was
how to implement it that posed difculties.
I easily obtained casual work, but it was of
the "superior clerk" nature since I was en
tirely untained, and I found it boring and
unchalenging. I dare say I wasn't very good
at it either, so although we had no crippling
debts, we were only just keeping our heads
above water. The house at Lurline Bay,
which had been my pride, of course had to
go.
At frst Cecil continued to run te maga
zine from Woolwich, but he started, with
considerable enterprise but very little capi
t, to develop a modest mail-order busi
ness, mainly in boards and sets, and this
demanded more storage space. Providen
tially, at this moment Mr. E.A. Dunstan, a
fellow chess enthusiast, ofered Cecil a share
in his rooms at 1 Bond Street, Sydney. The
building, a scruf four-story relic of by
gone days, stood where Austalia Square is
today. Cecil's new ofce consisted at this
time of one tiny room which he shared with
a friendly mouse. Mouse was soon accepted
as his secretary and general help, and was
left in charge when Cecil had occasion to be
out-as he quite often did. Mouse was not
good at opening the door, but callers leaed
to be tolerant, and sat on the stairs waiting
for the Editor's retur. The building was
dilapidated, the lift hardly ever worked,
and Cecil lost no time in creating around
himself the kind of nightarish mess which
he considered essential for his comfort and
well-being. It is extraordinary how, in the
midst of such confsion, writings which are
masterpieces of lucidity and organization
could have frst seen the light of day.
Cecil was able to spend a lot of time at
the Metropolitan Chess Club, where he
often gave lessons, and the list of subscrib
ers to the magazine grew steadily as its
value was realized, especially overseas. His
chess career was flourishing. He had won
the state championship tree years running
(1934, '35, and '36) and the Austalian title
at Perth (1936-37) after a maraton play-of
with Goldstein and Koshnitsky, and in 1939
he won the state ttle agan. Then once
again our world, and this time everyone
else's as well, was ted upside down. In
the frst place, I discovered that I was going
to have another baby.
Cecil wa far too nice a person to ex
press any opinion, but he was certanly not
- 1 5 -
T Search for Chss Perecon
going round handing out cigas and asking
to be congratulated. My moter was prob
ably horrified, but as usual she made the
best of it, ad I was secretly pleased. I had
longed for anoter child, however ill-ad
vised it might be, ad, as far as my job was
concered, I felt sure that eventually some
thing would tur up. I was right-it did. In
the shape of World War 11.
When I heard the announcement over
the air that "a state of war exists . . . " I burst
into tears again. This sounds as though it
were my routne way of deaing with prob
lems, which was not really the case. But the
prospect ahead seemed tuly fightening;
one small child and another on the way, a
husband of militay age and almost certan
to be called up, our only living at the mo
ment a small business just shakily stuggling
to its feet, and the whole world about to
burst into fames, with heaven knew what
horrors ahead! And yet, paadoxically, the
war which brought gief and disaster to
millions, and which I thought would ruin
us, ultimately set us on the way to a moder
ate degree of prosperity. Fate, which had for
some time regarded us as its favorite foot
ball, now decided to relent and toss a few
goodies from the corucopia. Perhaps it
had enough on its hands now, dealing with
other people.
In the frst place the baby, a gir, proved
not only to be fat and healthy, but of such
an incredibly placid nature that one would
almost have thought she knew we were
living in someone else's house on sufer
ance and that she could get us all trown
out. She was named afer my moter, who
fell an immediate victim to her charms,
which was just as well, for we certanly had
nowhere else to go. As I ha expected,
Cecil received a cal-up notce and passed
his medical examinaton Al. He was duly
received into the Army, but with more sense
than one usually gives them credit for, the
Ceci at 25
authorities realized, afer interviewing him,
that if they wanted to win the war they had
better find some other place to put him -
unless of course he could be induced to join
the enemy forces, in which case his ability
to sabotage any piece of machinery merely
by looking at it would be worth a battalion
to the Allies. They decided to use him in
Security, and he started off in the Depart
ment of Censorship.
Cecil could work untringly when some
thing was importat to him, ad saving his
magazine, for which he had already made
such great sacrifces, wa important. So he
set out to virtually do two jobs. He liked the
work in Censorship and did quite well there,
though he was always in clock trouble, just
as over the chessboard. He was never really
comfortable under the discipline of work
ing to someone else's rules. At the same
time he wa trying to keep the paper going
in spite of paper ratoning, printing and
delivery toubles, and all sorts of other
troubles, some of which were unavoidable
in watime and others which stemmed from
pett bureaucracy. He was stll writing most
- 1 6 -
CJS. Prdy-Hi Wrins
of it himself, but Lajos Stein er ad Maurice
Goldstein proved themselves true fiends
by contibuting artcles and sometmes an
notations, for which I am sure they could
not have been paid very much. Graeme
Stewart, a young man with a very keen
interest in chess who was not eligible for
military service, acted as "business man
ager," which meant attending to sub
scriptions, looking after the ofce gener
aly, ad supervising the sending of ac
counts and the posting of the magazines.
He also made a valiant attempt at book
keeping, but he made just about as much
mess of it as Cecil himself could have done,
which caused al kinds of problems and
nasty talks with the Taxation Department
when the war was over and they had time to
think about such things. In all other matters
he was invaluable, and witout his help I
doubt whether the A. C.R. could have sur
vived.
As far as I was concered also, Fate was
kind. Of course with two young children I
could not be directed into employment, but
I longed for some kind of paying occupa
ton. My chance came when the young man
who ran the Council Bats on the Lane
Cove River was called up; the Council were
at their wits' end to find someone to replace
him. I had been a long-distance swimmer of
very moderate distinction in my University
days, ad our house was almost next door
to the baths, so I was asked to carry on for
the duraton of the war. It was an extraordi
nary job for a girl to be doing in those days,
but Australia was getting used to seeing
women do things they had never done be
fore-like working on tams and buses.
The job suited me ideally. Our little boy
had just started school, but he was very
happy to spend all his non-school hours
wit me at the baths, and I took the baby
down wit me in a clothes-basket, in which
she contnued to behave herself with im-
peccable propriety. It was the best paid
work, proportionately, that I ever did, for I
was receiving exacty the same emolument
as the young man would have done, almost
an unknown thing in those days, when
"equal pay" was a dream-or nightmare-of
the fture.
Mter two years of this, an opportunity
arose to manage the baths at Greenwich
under the same conditions; for example
they had a kiosk (which meant extra rations
of tea and butter, and an allowance of to
bacco and chocolate, bot as precious as
gold). They also had their own residence,
which meant we had to leave the house at
Woolwich where we had all lived together
happily and comfortably. My mother was
sorry to leave it, but she packed up and
followed us, partly to help me and patly
because by this time she could not bear to
be separated from the children. We all
squashed somehow or oter into a tny
substandard dwelling which would have
been condemned if it had not been wartme
(and if te house had not belonged to the
Council). However, we settled in there and
managed surprisingly well. It was pleasant
living right on the river-in fact on one
occasion when there was a king tide we
found ourselves actually in it wit te wa
ter almost lapping at the door. Cecil was
away a great deal of the tme, in Melboure
or Canberra, which made things easier, as
we were so crowded, but in the summer
season we worked temendously hard do
ing everything, including cleaning and re
pairs, and had a lot of fn. On summer
weekends when he was in Sydney even
Cecil would help in the kiosk, with a slightly
bemused expression.
Afer a short tme in te Censorship he
had caught someone's eye as being too
good for the job he was doing, and he was
seconded to Mr. (late Sir) John McEwan as
private secretary. Cecil admired his new
- 1 7
-
T Search for Chss Perecon
boss enormously, and they got on very
well, but Mr. McEwan obviously consid
ered that Cecil needed to have a secretary
rather than to be one (in fact on some
occasions he found himself running round
fnding tings for Cecil) and they parted
with mutual expressions of goodwill after
about three months. Cecil then went into
Decoding, where the work was interesting
and challenging, and where he made a num
ber of good friends.
During these years, organized chess was
at a low ebb, but strangely the game grew in
popularity and the A. C.R. 's subscription list
contnued to grow with it. This was largely
due to the work of Gregory Koshnitsky,
who was statoned in New Guinea with the
Army Education forces, with the rank of
lieutenant. He did an enormous amount to
popularize chess in the army, and most of
The Purdy's frst home
Maroubra 1937
the new players we met immediately afer
the war told us tey had leared chess fom
"Koshninsky," as they insisted on calling
him. Cecil played in the state champion
ships several tmes during those yeas, but
considering the pressures he was under it is
not surprising that he did not do partcu
larly well. Rereading those wartme A. C.R.s
I realize how hard he must have worked to
keep up the standard of the magazine.
At last the war ended-we found it hard
to believe tat it ever would-and in 1946
another adjustment became necessary for
us, as for so many other families. A young
man came to replace me at the Council
baths, and we had to fnd another home.
Now we were in a much better position. Not
only had we both been earing more than
ever before, but of course we had been
living rent-fee, and besides, there had been
nothing to spend money on. So with what
we had saved from our eaings during the
war years and the little I had managed to
salvage fom the equity in the house at
Lurline Bay, we were able to buy a very
pleasant house at Greenwich.
We moved there in 1946 and stayed 26
yeas. We planted small slips and saw them
grow to great trees; we brought up two
children, who went to local schools; saw
them leave school, get jobs, travel, marry
and leave home, and then bring their chil
dren back to visit us. I think the best years of
our marriage were passed there.
CHANGE TO CHESS WORLD
When the wa ended, Cecil was released
from the Defense Department. If he had
wanted to, he probably could have stayed
on in Government employment, but he had
been longing for the tme when he could
once again expend all his energies on his
brainchild, which was now startng to wilt a
little-not so much through deficiencies in
contibutons or management as through
constant wartme shortages of one kind or
another. These, of course, were to continue
for quite a few years; but chess was still
beneftng fom the fllip it had received,
- 1 8 -
CJS. Prdy-Hi Wrins
and the magazine eventually rode out its
difculties.
In 1944 the name had been changed
from The Australsian Chess Review to Check,
which had a less parochial sound (by this
time there were many overseas subscribers,
particularly in America), and in 1946 it
became Chess Wrl. This was because of
the shortage of back numbers of ealier
magazines, which are now as hard to get as
the phoenix egg. After this, aple stocks
were printed so that complete back issues
would always be available, and very popu
lar tey proved to be.
He also greatly expanded the ofce in 1
Bond Street (Dunsta had lef some time
ago) and set about importing books and
chess goods. After a few years he had estab
lished quite a thriving business, and the
shop became a meeting place for Sydney or
visiting players, especially schoolboys in
the afternoons or on Saturday morings,
te proprietor being only too accessible to
anyone who had an interesting position to
discuss.
Whatever he made was used to buy the
one thing valuable to him-time to pursue
his chess interests. As the fnancial retur
became greater, he put on more people to
do the jobs he didn't want to do himself,
which soaked up much of te proft. He had
not really the temperament to be a good
businessman, though he always took a very
active part in the printing and distributon
of the magazine. The writng was what he
enjoyed and did superbly well; he spent
hours of patient reseac on every artcle he
wrote-checking, revising, rewriting. He
could not give up his search for perfecton
simply to meet a deadline. It was a maga
zine for connoisseurs (tere is a fle of letters
to show how widely it was read and appre
ciated), but I think it wa wasted on many of
his readers, who would have enjoyed it just
as much with a little less perfection and a lot
more punctuality.
It would have been an ideal arrange
ment if I had been prepared to run the
business side of Chess Wrl for him. Theo
retically we could have made a fne hus
band-and-wife team, especially as I was play
ing a lot of chess at this time. I had made
many sacrifces for chess, but this was one I
was not prepared to mae. I had no liking
or talent for commercial work, and though
I found Cecil quite possible to live with (I
don't think anyone could have described
him as easy), I knew he would be quite
impossible to work with. After she left
school, our daughter Diana went in to man
age the ofce for him, and apparently en
joyed it, though Cecil sometimes made her
wat to beat her-or preferably his-head on
the wall. She was a great help to him, and it
was one of the few wholly unselfsh acts of
his life when he gave his support to her idea
of a working holiday in New Zealand-from
which she came back engaged to be mar
ried. However, this brought a new chess
player into the family in the person of the
New Zealand expert Frank Hutchings, who
later became one of Cecil's closest friends,
so perhaps it was a matter of casting your
bread upon the waters and having it re
tured made up into ham sandwiches.
I had to work at something, so shortly
after the war I found an excellent job as
editorial assistant in the CSIRO Division of
Radiophysics. It was very interesting work
with congenial people, and the salary
seemed to me so generous that I wondered
what I could possibly be asked to do that
would deserve so vast a reward. There were
a number of keen chess players there, and
we formed a club under the presidency of
Doctor, later Pofessor, Berard Mills, a
chess master and the designer of the Mills
Cross Radio Telescope. He occasionally
looked in on our lunch-hour games, and
then shuddered away, groaning.
- 1 9 -
T Search for Chss Perecon
Cecil was always very generous in his
attitude to my career, and never worried
whether my earings were greater than his
nor did he attempt to dictate to me about
how to spend them. He obviously consid
ered my taste for buying small home com
forts, rater than taveling, to be extremely
odd, but he was prepared to let me alone
with my little eccenticities, as I was with
his. He was always interested in my work,
whatever I was doing, and in this case he
was also proud of my associaton-a very
tenuous one-with geat scientfc projects.
He liked to meet my friends, and enjoyed
talking with and listening to them. If he
resented my preferring academic work to
joining him in Chss Wrl, he never showed
it. He probably realized that at any rate it
was much better paid.
Not long afer we went to the house at
Greenwich, we started a chess club there.
There was a big lounge room, and at a
pinch we could squeeze in two grade match
teams. The club lasted for 17 years, until I
felt that the extra work it entailed was be
yond me. Althe members were roughly in
the same age group, except for the junior
Purdys, and both socially and fom the
chess angle it was a great success. I made
pleasant fiendships throug it, some of
which have lasted to the present day, and
have brought me great comfort in widow
hood.
This club was the nursery in which our
son John's talents were developed, for there
were several strong players there, though of
course it was Cecil who taught and coached
him-sometimes rater more than John re
ally wanted. Cecil had absolutely no feeling
of rivalry towads his son-they were the
proudest moments of his life when John
won frst te Austalian Junior and then, in
1954-55, the Australian Championship. He
gloried in the idea of a chess dynasty, and
never tired of boastng about it. Neverthe-
less, when he and John met in touraments,
it was a matter of "no quarter asked or
given." I was at frst annoyed, and ten
aused, by a suggeston that in toura
ments they should be drawn against each
other in the frst round to assure an honest
result! Knowing them both, I felt sure they
would fght harder against each other than
against ayone else.
One of the letters which I appreciated
most aer Cecil's death came fom a very
old fiend in Melboure, John Hanks. I
quote part of it because it seems to me to
sum up the essence of Cecil's greatess as a
person.
One aspect of his play that I have
always admired was that he played every
game and tourament right out. There
was never the least suggeston of a care
less or uninterested atttude, even on those
rare occasions when he was well out of
the running.
Though all of us who grew up in the
A. C.R. era were notceably influenced in
our play, it was perhaps Cecil's personal
conduct which influenced me more, and
my own atttude has always been similar.
By a rather unjust quirk of Fate, we each
unhappily damaged the other at critcal
tmes by this otherwise admirable trat.
So fa fom either of them resenting this
unfiendly behavior, it increased their mu
tual liking and respect. Playing by the same
code, Cecil and the son whom he had taught,
and in whose exploits he took such pride,
battled to the last pawn to put each other
out of prizelists.
This was a most actve and creatve pe
riod of Cecil's chess life, but it is not my
intenton to give data about the events he
played in; all this has been done by more
competent people in countless biographies
- 20 -
Diana's wedding to te New Zealand player Frank Hutchings
congratulated by Ortvin Sarapu (1960)
and newspaper atcles. There were, how
ever, some events and achievements which
warant individua attenton because of their
special importance to him. In Brisbane
( 1951}, he won the Austalia Champion
ship again (for te fourth time} against the
stongest feld which had ever competed up
to that time. In 1952 he played a match with
the Estonian-bor master, Ortvin Sarapu,
for the Australasian Championship, which
was drawn; they were declared joint cham
pions. In 1960, when he was 54, he won the
championship of South-East Asia and the
Pacific, which was played in Sydney, aganst
representatives from New Zeaad ( Sarapu
agan), Indonesia, Malaya, and Singapore.
Happily, this victory coincided with our
daughter's marriage to the New Zeaand
player, Frank Hutchings, so we were able to
invite al the visitors, togeter wit many
others of our chess fiends, to a double
celebraton. Cecil contibuted greatly to his
own and every one else's enjoyment by
making a witty speech, ad I had vicaious
pleasure in te "fippery" of the wedding I
had missed out on when I was a girl.
Perhaps inevitably, fom our tally of tree
gradsons and two graddaughters tere
has not yet appeared a champion to carry
on the dynasty, though as the youngest is
two yeas old there is stll hope, if tat's the
right word. In 1958 John maried Miss Fe
licity Stapleton, a girl who had achieved
considerable academic distincton. Their
elder son, Colin (CJ.S. Prdy II), was a
promising chess junior; but at 19 his inter
ests are diversifed, and he seems likely to
seek other, perhaps more proftable, felds.
In 1956 Cecil's moter died, and he
inherited a small but welcome life pension
fom a family trust she had set up. This
came too late to do any good to the family,
John and Diaa having bot left school and
launched themselves into the job market
and independence wit praseworty speed.
It did, however, allow him te luxury of
overseas travel-the only thing he ever
wanted tat money could buy. In 1961 he
played a All-Asian Zonal match at Ma
dras, India, against Manuel Aaron, which
- 2 1 -
Te Search for Chess Perecton
he lost-partly, I tink, because he found it
hard to adapt to the weather and the strange
food. In spite of his love of travel, he was a
most unadventurous eater, and must be the
only person who has run around in the heat
of Madras trying to find a hotel where he
could get oatmeal porridge for breakfast.
He loved India and the Indian people, ad
always intended to revisit them someday.
In 1964-65 he played in the Australian
Championship in Hobart, the town of his
childhood, and proudly took me to see the
elegant colonial manor, built in 1840, in
which he and his family had lived. He was
sad to see that the ivy had been removed
and the orchard and much of the grounds
had been absorbed by other dwellings. As
more than 50 years had passed, it was not
surprising. In this tournament, at the quite
astonishing age of 59, he tied for frst, losing
the playoff to Hamilton.
I think he felt that the high point of his
career-at least as far as over-the-board play
was concered-had been reached when he
was chosen as one of the team to play in the
Chess Olympiad in Siegan ( West Germany)
in 1970, when he was 64; he notched up the
very creditable score of four wins, four losses,
and one draw. The team, bolstered up by
[Ed. :Walter] Shawn Browne at Board 1,
achieved much their best result up to that
time. In 1974 he went again, this time to
Nice, as non playing captain, though he did
play one game, which he won. This time I
accompanied him and we had a wonderful
time, especially as the ICCF as usual held
their conference immediately afterwards,
so that we had the pleasure of meeting
people who before that had only been
names, to me at least.
At Nice, Cecil received an invitation to
compete in an Interational Masters Tour
nament at Bienne ( Biel), Switzerland, ad
we spent a fortnight very pleasantly there,
Cecil battling away every aferoon and
evening, and quite often in the moring
too, while I happily explored the Neufchatel
Lakes. Cecil distnguished himself, and cer
tainly won my admiration, by conducting a
long, heated, and technical argument in
German, a language of which he only un
derstood a few words, on the subject of a
breach of the rules by one of his opponents.
He won the argument of course-on any
point concering the rules of chess he was
likely to be right, seeing that he had helped
to formulate them-and was grudgingly con
ceded his point, the ofcials obviously con
sidering it was somehow unfair for a man
who had to do his arguing with a dictionary
in his hand to end up talking them down.
His fnal result was very good, considering
the strength of the opposition; he came
23rd (I think) in a field of well over 40, all of
IM strength.
Menton of the I CCF ( Interatonal Cor
respondence Chess Federation) brings me
to what was probably the climax of Cecil's
chess career, and certainly the title which
brought his fame overseas. This was his win
of the first Correspondence Chess World
Championship in June 1953. He had not
played a great deal of correspondence chess
previously, but he had won the Australian
Championship in 1940 and 1948. How
ever, when he embarked on the World
Championship in 1947 he certainly had no
idea that he would be the ultimate winner.
The contestants were divided into 11 sec
tions of seven each, the winners of each
section to meet in the final- "not a very fair
arrangement," Cecil commented in Chess
Wrl for August 1948.
The tournament was immensely time
consuming; it cut very much in to his work
ing hours and left no time at all for social
life. The reason he gave for playing was that
he would be able to make the time pay for
itself with the book he intended to produce.
He started work on it, but unfortunately
- 22 -
John ad Cecil at the Chess Club i our Greenwich home 1952.
pushed it aside for 25 years, and then wrote
half of it. Had his health been more reliable,
he might have lived to see it published. His
real reason for playing was the challenge
and excitement, the sheer mental pleasure
it brought him. He considered it as close to
a "pure" form of chess as it was possible to
get. Even here, though, accidents could oc
cur. Cecil was diligent and organized over
this as he was in few other things, but the
whole family went through a dreadfl pe
riod when he discovered that he had made
a clerical error against Mitchell and thrown
away what he had expected would be a
drawn game. The house was fll of boards
set up with current games and with note
books containing columns of hieroglyph
ics, and it was a miracle that such things did
not happen more often.
Disaster was narrowly averted on one
occasion when Cecil had actually posted a
move and ten discovered that he had made
an oversight. What was to be done? Only
Cecil could have dealt with the problem.
He stationed himself firmly outside the
mailbox-1 think he would have chained
himself to it if necessary-and waited for the
postan to come to clear it. Then he told
such a heartbreaking story that the postman
allowed him to fossick through the letters
till he found his own, open it, alter the
move, reseal it, and put it in the bag. The
postman doubtless dined out on this story,
though not when his superiors were about,
believing that this was the move that won
the tourey-as, for all I know, it may have
been.
As the tourament drew to its close, and
it started to look as though Cecil might
actually become the frst Australian to win a
world title at chess, excitement in the Purdy
household fairly bubbled over. We could
hardly believe it when at last, afer Cecil
had agreed to a draw with the Swedish
player Malmgren, victory became certain,
hats could be thrown in the air ad cham
pagne opened. The media certainly did
well by him, and for weeks pictures and
articles appeared, giving him, and inciden
tally Ches Wrl, all the publicity he could
-
23 -
Te Search for Chess Perecton
possibly desire.
He never played in the Championship
again, though after his retrement I urged
him to consider it. He had reached the top,
and there was no frther challenge. It gave
us both great pleasure to fnd that he was
still remembered 25 years later, when we
received a postcard from Munich signed by
ofcials of the ICCF, addressed to Grand
master CJ.S. Purdy, O.A., saying "Greet
ing to you upon this the 25th anniversary of
the 1st World Correspondence Chess Cha
pionship. "
Although the much publicized book of
the correspondence games did not come
out during his lifetme, he did produce three
other books which met with considerable
success: Chess Made Eas, in collaboration
with Garry Koshnitsky, Guide T Good Chess,
and How Fischer Wn. The frst of these has
gone through 24 editions and sold almost
half a million copies. I have often wondered
how many households where no one plays
chess must have a copy lurking somewhere,
possibly bought in the hope that some child
would lea to play in the school holidays,
as Cecil had done so long ago.
In 1976 he received the award of Mem
ber of the Order of Australia (A.M.) in
recogniton of his services to chess in Aus
talia as a player of international standing,
an administrator, and a writer. This public
acknowledgment of what he had meant to
chess in the past helped to sweeten a little
the bitter pill he found so hard to swallow
the realization that time was dulling his
concentration and weakening his splendid
mental powers, and that the moments of
glory would never come again. He raced
desperately against old age right to the end,
and I don't know whether he ever, except
in occasional bouts of depression, accepted
the fact that it had caught up with him.
Although things on the whole had gone
well with him in the Fifties and Sixties, a
few nasty little clouds were gathering. In
Chess Wrl for March-April l967 there ap
pears an article headed "No Bitteress," but
it is obvious that when he wrote it, he was in
fact quite bitter. In 1948 the NSWCA had
started to produce their own publicaton,
which gave local news, local games, and
dates of forthcoming events. Unfortunately,
it was no use these being advertised in Chess
Wrl, whose dates of publicaton were no
toriously unreliable. The event was likely to
be over before the issue advertising it had
come out. Cecil had to acknowledge the
logic of this, and he accepted the new pub
lication with a good grace and did what he
could to help it along, with the Council's
assurance that it was not intended to be a
competitor. But as time went on, the mem
bership on the NSWCA changed, and so
did their policy in this matter, so that by 1967
they were producing a riva magazine, ex
pensively printed and produced, and fea
turing overseas news and games with anno
tatons. They were able to do this because
they did not have to make the magazine
pay for itself, much less make a profit. Sub
scripton was automatic when a player reg
istered with the Association, as of course all
active players, including Cecil, had to do,
and the costs came out of registration fees.
The fnal blow came when they started
printing more copies than were needed and
selling the surplus to Gordon and Gotch at a
loss. No privately owned paper could stand
up to this kind of competition, and Chess
Wrld appeared for the last time in Sept.
Oct. 1967. Cecil had made a last desperate
bid for a compromise, but the "gentlemen's
agreement" of 1948 did not bind the new
Association members, and apparently they
did not consider that horor bound them to
anything, either. I think this was what Cecil
felt most, for he himself was incapable of
behaving in any ungenerous way.
His own attitude was not a very sensible
-24 -
Wilfed Wallace, Lajos Steiner, Cecil and Beriejohnson
one. He would have been wise to simply he did it so innocently that he was always
hand Chess Wrl over to the Association forgiven, usually without ever realizing that
and retire with a good grace, for it had not he had been in disgrace.
for many years paid for the time and efort In a brief editorial note ( Chess Wrl,
he had put into it; but this he simply could Mayjune 1967, p. 104), he disclaimed any
not bring himself to do. He had brought the personal animus against individual mem
magazine into the world, nurtured it as a bers of the Association. A Association, as
sickly infant, seen it grow to robust matu- he realized, has no heart to touch and not
rity, and now he had to stand back and much reason to appeal to; it has no regard
watch it die. For him, nothing could really
for the past or responsibility for the fture.
take its place. Cecil himself, who had been part of the
Sore though he had obviously been in chess world for so long, was rather in the
March-April l967, by the next issue (May- position of the monarch who sees parlia
June 1967) he had found it expedient to ments come and go-or as he, a devotee of
hold out a cautous olive branch. His life "Mr. Chips," put it:
was still bound up in playing chess and
selling chess goods, and he was hardly in a
position to pursue the kind of merry ven
detta that had been accepted in the chess
life of 50 years earlier. Besides, he was
never a ma to cherish a grudge. He never
really disliked ayone, and, even in the face
of fairly pointed evidence to the contrary,
he found it hard to believe that anyone
disliked him-and in fact very few people
did. He could irritate and hurt people, but
The Editor of C.W. stands in much te
same position in the N.S.W.C.A. as a
veteran schoolteacher, who sees one lot
of pupils ater another pass through the
school. Each lot thinks of itself as being
the school, whereas to Mr. Chips the
school is largely memories, and the present
pupils merely the cast that happens to be
performing a play whose run is so long
that it outlasts them.
-25 -
The Search for Chess Perecon
Order of Austalia 1976
The NSWCA did compromise to the
extent of giving up the grossly unfair system
of "remaindering" below cost for casual
sales, and with the latest (and present) edi
tor, a friend of long standing, Cecil always
had the most cordial relations; he had the
pleasure of continuing to annotate games
and drive printers into hysterics of rage and
fustration with his late copy right up to the
tme of his death. Of all the many bodies
which paid tribute to him after his death,
none did so more handsomely or gener
ously than the Association with which he
had been joustng since he had entered the
lists as a brash youth of 18.
Mter Chess Wrl ceased publication, he
carried on for a while with the shop and
importing business, but he was not realy a
business man. Writing was what he liked
doing, and what he did superbly well. Why
didn't he now write the books which had
aways been waitng "untl he had the time"?
Mainly, I think, because athough he could
discipline himself to meet the dateline de
manded by a magazine (even though he did
not always meet it very punctually), he could
never discipline himself to producing a set
amount of material when there was no set
time. He still did so much writing, rewrit
ing, correcting, and startng all over again.
In the search for perfection he wasted an
incredible amount of time and, over the last
years, achieved very little.
It was part of his temperament that he
would fling himself into anything which
took his interest and work at it friously,
doing with very little sleep and stimulatng
his flagging mental powers with cafeine;
these periods of feverish, often rather aim
less activity would be followed by weeks,
even months, of profound depression, when
he would withdraw entirely from his sur
roundings, and his exhausted body and
brain would be given a chance to recuper
ate-just in tme to be hurled into another
round of fantic activity.
In his old age he was able to pursue
many of his interests with all the enjoyment
of a young man. He played bridge, chess,
and tennis (he had been playing in a regular
-26 -
CJS. Prdy-Hi Writins
four the Saturday before he died). Only a
few months before his death he had been
joyously dashing around South America, in
the wae of the Australian Chess Olympic
team. He contributed regularly to the maga
zine Chess in Australia and did quite a lot of
private coaching, which he enjoyed and at
which he excelled. Happily for those count
less friends who remember him, it was dur
ing one of these active periods, when he
was having great fun playing in a chess
tournament in Sydney, that he sufered a
massive heart collapse and died within half
an hour. He was actually playing a game
when he collapsed, and his last words to
John, who was also competing, were, "I
have a win, but it's going to take time. " He
didn't realize how fast his time was running
out.
One of the rules of tourament play
which he had always impressed on his fam
ily was "The only thing which justfes with
drawal from a tourament is death-and
even then only with a medical certficate. "
For himself, even this was not enough. He
had to have a number of expert witnesses
present to testif that his withdrawal was
indeed unavoidable.
- 27 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Cecil Prdy's interational reputation did not rest on his World Corre
spondence Championship victory, but on his writings in A. C.R./Check
Chess Wrl, which eared him recognition as one of the world's best chess
jouralists.
His secret was that his magazine was the only one in the world that set
out to actualy teach its readers how to play better chess. Each volume is a
gold mine of instructional artcles that give advice on al phases of the
game.
These days every time a promising junior asks me how he can
improve, my frst advice is to read through all the articles in Chess Wrl.
Fortunately, back issues of the magazine are still readily avalable, and one
can only shudder to think how low would be the standard of Australian
chess had each decade of aspiring players not had Cecil to teach tem
through the pages of Chess Wrld.
In the folowing pages we have selected one article fom each volume of
A. C.R.!CheckChess Wrl, presented in chronological order, as a sample of
Cecil's teachings. Anyone who reads through them cannot fail to improve
their chess.
- 28 -
His Wrtings
EXCHANGING
To swop or not to swop. I n chess this problem is often an extremely nice one, beset
by all sorts of complex questions. But there is one simple aspect of it, extraordinarily
important, which is usually not fully understood and which ha never, as far as I know,
been specifically dealt with in any book. That is the time aspect.
The general rule is: An exchange loses time for the player exchanging first if the
opponent can retake with a developing move. (A developing move is one which brings or
helps to bring a piece into better play, or brings you nearer to attainment of a special
objective.)
An obvious example from Morphy's
famous game against the Duke of Brunswick
and Count Isouard, played in a Paris opera
box: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf d6 3. d4 Bg4? 4. de5
Bx.
This exchange is forced, but it loses a
move; for before te exchange, White and
Black each had one piece in play, but after
White has played 5. OJ White will have
one piece in play and Black none.
The tagedy oflosing a move is brought
home to us when we realize that to be three
moves aead in development is, other things
being equal, almost invariably a sufcient
advantage to win the game. And Morphy
was now two moves ahead, for being White
gave him one at the start.
Had White been compelled to retae
by 5. gxj, a nondeveloping move, each side
would have lost a move in development,
and things would have balanced. The point
is that if both pieces exchanged are equally
in play, te player exchanging frst never
advances his development because he virtu
ally takes his own piece of te board as well
as his opponent's, for it will go into the box
next move. The second player will or will
not gan a move, according as he retakes
wit a developing or a nondevelopingmove.
Most players realize all this only vaguely, so
that tey often forget it.
But suppose the first capturer was in
play, and the captured not. Then the frst
player will actually put his own develop
ment one move back! If then the opponent
retakes with a developing move, he gains
not one move but two! The most striking
example I can fnd is from a game Purdy
Gundersen, Melboure Christma Tourey,
1927 The position was:
White played 1. R, and Black replied
1... R which, of course, lost a move,
since White's 4 was brought one move
nearer the capture of the f, its objective. It
would actually have paid Black to play the
absurd-looking move 1... RcB! This is not
merely a nondeveloping move, but a retro
gressive move. But it would have made
White exchange himself, thus capturing a
piece out of play with a piece in play, and
himself putting back his development a
move a explained above. Then Black would
- 29 -
The Search for Chess Perection
have retaken with ... KcB, developing his
. He would thus have saved a move, and
analysis showed that this would probably
have made all the difference between los
ing and drawing.
One often hears a player say, "Well, i
I don't exchange, he will, so here goes!" But
allowing the opponent to exchange will
often save two clear moves. E.g., a game
sent by a Victorian county correspondent:
1. e4 c5 2. b4 (the Wing Gambit) cb4 3.
a e6. Now White, probably reasoning as
above, played 4. axb4? which, of course, is
a move-losing exchange since Black retaes
by 4 ... Bxb4, a developing move. Had he
lef Black to exchange fs, White would
have gained a move by retaking with his
own .. This would have made a difference
of two moves, and White would have had
some compensation for his f . Such cases
arise in nearly every game, most fequently
with . exchanges.
A marked chaacteristic of the style of
the 1929 Australian Champion was his will
ingness to allow opponents to exchange of
their .s for his As. He relied on the gain of
time outweighing the small diference in
the value of these pieces. Here is an out
standing example from a gem of a game
played at board 1 in the N.S.W.-Victoria
match of 1923:
S. CrakanthorpG. Gundersen
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 c
4. Nf
Nc6
5. Bf4 Nf6
6. e3 Be7
7. dxc Bxc
8. Bd3 0-0
9. 0-0 Nb4
A very plausible exchanging maneu
ver, but it was fatal
10. Rc1 Nxd3
1 1. Qxd3
Let us take stock. White needs but one
move to complete his development, namely,
with his - .. But Black needs fve, one
with a f to free his light-squared A, one
with his light-squared A, one with his 1to
free the .s, and two with his .s. He is
therefore four moves behind instead of one!
How has Black lost three moves? First of all,
he lost a move by 2 ... e6 for it prevented his
developing his ligt-squaed A in one move.
Then his exchanging maneuver lost him
two more moves, for 9 .. . N4 was moving a
piece already developed and 10 ... Nxd3was
a move-losing exchange, since White re
took with a developing move. White won
instctively a follows: 11 . . . dxc4 1. Qxc4
Be7 13. Bc7! Qe8 14. Nb5 Nd5 15. e4 a6
16. Nd6 b5 17 Qb3 Bxd6 18. Bxd6 Ne7
19. Rc7 Qd8 20. Rd1 Ng6 21. Qc2 h6 22.
Bx Qx 23. Rcl Ne7 24. Qc5 1-0.
- 30 -
His Writings
HOW TO IMPROV AT CHESS
COMBINATIONS
The Motif of Function
Some players have a habit of saying: "If your Rook wasn't there, I could mate you."
This is irritating, but nevertheless, it is by observing things of this sort that an enormous
number of combinatons are found.
The : in such a case has the "fnction" (Lasker) of defending his r from mate. Now
any piece which is burdened wit a "fnction" (defensive task) is thereby enfeebled. Its
power in other directions is curtailed or perhaps nil; though it may have a whole ocean of
squares to which it can legally move, one must see through all its sham and treat it just as
if it did not command those squares at all.
For instance, an undefended enemy :
is confined to its back rank to prevent a
mate by our :. Now we can put our , say,
en prie to that : and chase it to another
square on the rank, and by this means we
may gain some other piece or a tempo. Yet
the average player does not readily grasp
such opportunities; the mere visual effect of
the : apparently commanding those
squares is too much for him.
In the Lasker-Capablanca positon dia
grammed after the moves 1. Bx6 Nx6?
White wins, as Breyer pointed out, by 2.
Ng6! The motif of fnction gives the idea
for this move. The f- i ha the function of
defending the point e6, and the can be
put en prie to it with impunity. But note also
that two motifs we discussed in our last
article are also present. The geometrical
motif gives the idea of forking the : and
the "loose" A on e7 with the
'
and the
encircling motif is really the most impor
tat of all, for the real theme of our combi
nation is the attack on the castled r, which
as we said is to be included under the "en
circling" heading. Now in nearly all middle
game combinations, these three motifs all
occur together. In this instance, any one of
them would give a good player the idea for
te combination.
In his Manual, Lasker gives a position
from one of Alekhine's games which is a
perfect example for our purposes.
L. Kubmann
Alekhine (to move)
- 3 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
It is clear that combinations are in the
air, so we naturally search for possible mo
tifs. The geometrical motif appeals at once
white Y and black W and the 4s on the
same open file! But we must not make the
mistake of seeking at once for moves to
exploit this. If we do, we may waste much
valuable time or even forget to look for
other motifs.
Lear as much as you can about a
position before working out any particular
line of play.
So we look for the second motif-any
pieces with very few squares to move to.
The black 4, of course, is one, because he
is practically pinned; but the black < has
but one free square. This automatically sug
gests a mate, and surely we cannot help
noticing that Nf6 would mate but for the
black Y! Motif of function! The black Y is
confined to the sixth rank. Insist to yourself,
therefore, that it has no control over any
other square; imagine it off the board ex
cept that it prevents Nf6, and now what
move is suggested? Surely 1. Qb5t! This is
the sort of move that is difcult to find
without some such reasoning, for it takes
the Y away from its apparently deadly post
on the file occupied by the black W-just as
the hardest chess problems are "change
mates." But once we see the move at all, its
merits quickly suggest themselves. The re
ply is forced, 1. Nd7. Now the geometrical
motif suggests 2. Rel! Can Black take our
Y or 4? No, because of Nf6#. (Note dis
covered check and double check as geo
metrical motifs.) The only reply, therefore,
is 2 ... Be7. Now we could win a piece after 3.
Qb6, or play as Alekhine did, 3. Ned6t!
K 4. Rxe7 Qxb5 5. Rxft Kg8 6. Ne7#.
Now we have our three main motifs for
middlegame combinatons. Lasker gives a
number of others which really all fall under
one of the three main heads, and if we are to
apply the method of motifs to practical
play, which Lasker does not suggest, we
must have a conveniently small number.
Under the geometrical motif, for instance,
we must consider "loose" pieces which sug
gest forks, e.g., the "loose" at e7 in the
Breyer combination referred to above. And,
as we have already indicated, the motif of
the castled W may be considered one of the
"encircling" variety.
The student in playing through games
should search for tese three motifs, and
work out all the combinations he can fnd
which are not obviously unsound. Plenty of
practice at combinatons is most important.
But there are three more entirely dis
tinct combination motifs which belong
rather to the endgame. So that in the end
game we have more combination motifs
than in the middlegame! These additional
three are the motifs of f promotion, zug
zwang, and stalemate.
The Motif of Promotion
The advance of a passed f is first a
matter of position play. We methodicaly
play to gain control of the squares through
which the f must pas, and to drive away
blockaders. But when it is on the seventh/
second rank, we can ofen aford to fling
our pieces away wit the utmost abandon
in order to wrench fom the enemy the
long-withheld coronet.
An example follows:
White: f/a7 attacked by a ., /a8.
Black: W I c 7
White wins by R8f, sacrificing his
to enable his f to queen.
Here are two remarkable examples
which show that promotion combinations
- 32 -
His Writings
are not altogeter confned to the endgame.
A game, Schlechter-Perlis, began: 1.
d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e3 Bf5? 4. Qb3 Qb6 5.
cxd5 Qxb3? 6. axb3 Bxb1 7. dxc6!! Be4?
8. Rxa7 Rxa7 9. c7 4- moves 10. c8=Qt
1-0; five moves out of White's ten are
made with one f !
C. L. R. Boyce-Purdy, Australian
Championship, Sydney, 1926.
g

.

' ..


i "
P
i "


. .. . '

"
C.L.R. Boyce-Purdy (to move)
Black here initiated a combination
which at frst sight appears premature, in
view of his incomplete development. 1 ...
b4! 2. Ne2 b3! 3. Nxd4.
Here Black faltered and played 3 ...
Qxd4? thinking that afer his originally in
tended line of play, to wit, 3 ... bxa2! 4. Nb3
RhB! White could spoil the combination by
the simple 5. Na 1; but Black had over
looked a resource later pointed out by the
Australsian: 5 . . . Q3!
Encircling motif-immobility of '! Or,
if you like, "functon"-. . . Q3. White again
cannot tae the Y. He has no defense;
indeed, Black must ultmately even queen
his f! E.g., 6. Kd1! Rxb2 7 Ke2! Rh 1 8. Rdd1
Oa 1 9. Kd2 (Black threatened . . . Rxd1 10.
Rxd1 0d1 t!) Q2, ad the f must queen.
The Motif of Zugzan
Zugzwangis the glorious untranslatable
German word meaning "the plight of hav
ing to move." It is sometmes disadvanta
geous to have to move. Your position is as
perfect as you can make it, and any move
must create a fatal loophole. Zugzwang is
very frequent in f endings. A example
from a game won by Tarrasch (White) :
White, to play, sees that an impetuous
invasion with his ' is in vain: e.g., 1. Ke6
KeB 2. jt KJ3. Kf6stalemate; or 1. KjKj
2. Ke5 (forced) KJ! and we are back again.
White is at his wits' end, till he suddenly
notces that if Black had to move, White
would win at once, e.g., 7 . . . Kj2. K and
Black must allow him fatal entry at g6, or 1 . . .
KeB 2. Ke6 KJ3. j This sets White looking
for a means of bringing about the same
position with Black to move. This is easy: 1.
Ke4 ( 7. Kf4) Ke8 ( 7 . . . KgB; if 1 .. . K ?, 2. Kj
wins at once) 2. Kf4 (2. Ke4!) K (still not
2 . . . Kj?) 3. Ke5! ad the deed is done.
In genera, the point of a zugzwang
combination, as in the example above, is to
change the move. In endgames, therefore,
keep an eye open for such chances.
The Stalemate Motif
The secret is simply to think of stale
mate. If you do, and there is a chance for
one, it is seldom possible to miss it. You
notice that your ' has few or no moves,
and that otherwise you have but one mov
able piece. You then seek a chance to fling
this piece away and produce the stalemate.
The opponent is tricked, as Lasker phrases
it, "by the wording of a rule;" stalemate is
quite foreign to the spirit of chess.
- 33 -
The Search for Chess Perection
The Motif of Desperado
Lasker's motf of"desperado" is of slight
practical importance, because whenever it
occurs it is quite obvious. It simply cannot
be missed; you see you must lose a piece, so
you let him run amok before he dies and
sell his life as dearly as possible.
A example from the French Defense:
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d 3. Nc Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5.
Bd? de4 6. Nxe4 Nxe4 7 BxeZ Now Black
must save his 1, so the is doomed.
Therefore, the black has become a "des
perado," so Z .. Nxj!Blackcomes out of the
melee a f up.
Summar
Chess technique-as opposed to chess
art-is in the last resort simply the avoid
ance of oversights. Now the way to reduce
oversights is by having, a far as possible, a
set method of thinking. I mean, if we just
look vaguely for "a combination" we are far
more likely to miss one than if we narrow
down our search to six different sorts of
combinations in tur. So we do strongly
advise the student in his play to run through
in his mind at every tur the diferent mo
tifs we have discussed. Most of these will
generally be dismissed in a mere fash of
thought, of course.
Let no one think that this amounts to
mechanizing chess. The real mechanical
player is the man who devotes all his days
and nights to chess and acquires a sort of
chess sense. Surely there is more fn for the
amateur who can attain the same results by
less practce but more thought, just as it
gives us more pleasure to solve a math
ematical puzzle by methodical reasoning
than by making intuitive springs at it. In
actual practice, it is very, very hard, how
ever, to remember to be methodical. At any
rate, the present writer, although convinced
of the eficacy of a set method, has never
had the patience to apply one consistently.
THE PURDY MYSTIQUE
In May 1992 we published Ralph Tykodi' s compilation
CJS. Prdy's Fine Art ofChess Annotation and Other
Tought. The U.S. Chess Federation tured down
ofers to retail it! In the meantme the whole printing
has been sold in bookstores throughout the country.
This volume is the first of 5 (!) of some very impressive
notes and ideas. A very few copies are available directly
from Thinkers' Press at $20.00 + $2.00 S&H.
-34
-
His Writings
A SYSTEM TO REDUCE ERRORS
Playing by System
This is something quite original in chess literature, and needs a preface. I have called it
"Playing by System," and by "system" I do not mean a system of strategy like that of
Nimzovich (which I have already summarized), but a system of thinking to be applied at
every move-a sort of chess Pelmanism. A new system of chess strategy (like that of
Nimzovich) would not be listened to unless it came from a great master of the game, but
te value of a system of thinking can, I think, be demonstrated merely by an appeal to
common sense. The amazing thing is that nothing of the sort has ever been put forward
before. J ames Mason catches a glimpse of a rudimentary system of thinking in his Art of
Chess, p. 355. He says:
Chiefly in avoidance of oversights,
question yourself, move by move, some
what as follows: 1. Object, what? or what
does he threaten? 2. Can I let him do it (if
anything), or must I stop his little game?
3. What will be the position (generally)
immediately [after] I have made this
move? In other words, can he take any
thing not intended by me, or in a manner
not intended; can he check, menace an
unsupported force or important uncom
manded point; or can he make any move
surprising me in any of these respects?
These are leading questions, put in a mo
ment, and upon the completeness of the
answers to them the precision of your
play will depend.
This is only a glimpse, nevertheless.
Most chess players arrive at their moves
by a series of clumsy jumps rather than by
following a chain of reasoning. It is quite
otherwise, for instance, with the chemist
analyzing an unknown salt. He has definite
tests laid down for him to apply to any and
all salts, and a defnite order in which to
perform them. He, too, will make jumps
sometimes, because his experience tells him
that certain tests will be useless, but he
always follows the set system as a guide.
That system has been designed to give the
maximum saving of tme and energy and
the minimum of error. Why should some
thing approaching this not be possible in
chess?
The system I am going to put forward
consists of a more or less elaborate series of
questons which one is to ask oneself. It
does not follow that the mere asking of
these questions produces the correct an
swers, but it makes the correct answers
more likely than if the questions are not
asked at all. It does not enable one to avoid
errors due to an insuficient or faulty knowl
edge of chess, but it enables one to play
with the maimum strength that is possible
for one with that insuficient or faulty knowl
edge-that is, it should enable one always to
play at one's best! It is only fair to confess
that I myself have never had the patience to
apply the complete system consistently, al
though I have sometimes drawn up a list of
te mistakes I have made during a toura
ment, and have proved every time defi
nitely-to my own satisfaction-that the "sys
tem" would have saved me from more tan
-
35 -
Te Search for Chess Perection
half of them!
When Not To Use the System
Part of the sstem i to know when not to use
it. When one is following book moves in
the opening, or when there is obviously
only one good move, there is clearly no
need for the system.
If, however, there is a very obvious
move, we should ask ourselves, before play
ing it:
Question 1: Have I anything better, or can
I with advantage make any other move frst?
A example to show the desirability of
this: 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc d 3. exd Nxd 4. Bc4
Nxc?Here the average player would auto
matically retake the
'
but if he always
forced himself to ask the question above, he
would have a chance of seeing that 5. Q!
should be played first. This forces 5 ... e6
and makes it hard for Black to develop his
light-squared A. lf at once 5. bxc3,then 5 . . .
e5!
Though no single move may be obvi
ously best, the choice may be obviously
limited to two or three moves between which
it is quite easy to decide, and here again
there is no need for the system; only mae
quite sure that the choice is as limited a it
appears!
But suppose, as happens nearly always,
that the choice is not obviously limited to
two or three moves, or that if it is so limited,
it is nevertheless not easy to decide between
them. Then we begin applying the system.
First comes the reconnaissance.
The Reconnaissance
In warfare, the frst step is always the
reconnaissance or survey. No move of any
sort is considered before that. So it should
be in chess. We should not allow ourselves
to go tacing out the consequences of any
move that may strike our fancy until a
reconnaissance or general survey has been
carried out.
Its advantages are as follows:
( 1) It gives a general valuation of the
position as a whole. It is tremendously im
portant to know if one has the superior or
the inferior game, and by how much, and
also precisely in what the superiority or
inferiority lies. It is otherwise impossible to
make correct plans or to avoid blunders. To
take the most obvious instance, the mo
ment one is at a disadvantage one should
cease to play for a win, and should seek a
draw, unless circumstances compel other
wise; but how can one perceive when that
moment has arrived without examining the
position as a whole at every move?
(2) It facilitates the calculation and
analysis which is to follow, and prevents
"chess blindness." For afer a proper recon
naissance you already know what squares
each piece commands, so that their possible
moves are, as it were, already at the back of
your mind, and do not have to be sought so
laboriously.
(3) It has a special psychological vaue
in enabling one to avoid "chess hypno
tism." It is dangerously easy to fall in love
with some move which has struck the fancy,
so that it becomes harder and harder to
refrain from playing it, even in the face of
clearly indicated objections; a preliminary
general valuation of the positon helps one
to see things clearly and see them whole,
and so remain sane.
A still more frequent error is to be
come so intent on a certain plan formed
some moves back that one overlooks a fresh
opportunity which has arisen through an
alteration in the position. The position
changes at every move; hence, a plan should
be revised at every move. If one keeps
revaluing the position at every move, one
can tell when the moment has arrived to
alter a plan.
For an example, see Capablanca-
- 36 -
His Writings
Blanco, in Question 3.
What Are His Threats?
Practically every player in the world,
however unmethodical, follows a set sys
tem at one point in his thinking at every
move; as soon as his opponent has made his
move, he immediately looks for any threats
it may contain. The question to oneself
should be put in the form:
Queston 2: Mat are hi threats?
Certainly not, "What is his threat?"
How ofen does a player, having found a
threat, forget to look for others! That, of
course, may lead to fatal blunders. Mason
puts the question in the form "What does he
threaten?" This again does not emphasize
suficiently the dangerous possibility of there
being more than one threat. The universal
custom of putting this question first is a
good one. This may seem to contradict the
previous statement that the general recon
naissance should come before any particu
lar moves are considered. But we meant
particular moves on our own part. The
search for threats is itself part of the recon
naissance. It is not, theoretically, the frst
part, but in practical play most of the recon
naissance has already been carried out at
previous moves (see later), and perhaps
partly during the time one's opponent has
been considering his move. And the ques
tion "What are his threats?" may enable
one to see at once that the choice of moves
is very limited, and so save the bother of
applying the system at all.
On the other hand, it may not. It may
be very difcult to decide if a certain appar
ent threat is a real threat, i.e., if its execution
would actually harm us, and to solve this
problem much calculation may be neces
sary. This should not be embarked on till
the reconnaissance has been carried fr
ther. Again, on finding a threat one should
not at once set about searching for ways of
parrying it. Where there is any difculty
whatever about seeing the best move, this
problem should also be postponed until
one has valued the positon as a whole. You
may then find that the threat or threats can
be ignored. A weak player, on seeing a
threat, seeks automatically for a defense
against it, while a strong player seeks auto
matically for a way of ignoring it, i.e., he
looks frst to see if he can afford to allow the
execution of the threat and continue with
his own designs.
How To Treat a Threat
One of the most difcult problems I
have found in evolving the system is how to
treat threats. Till recently, my idea was that
one should first ask "Is the threat real?" and
answer this by seeking to discover what
would result on its execution. This, how
ever, involves a waste of thought, for even if
the threat is real, there may be some attack
ing move on the board for you which will
make it unreal, and you are taking no ac
count of this.
The following illustration shows how
Capablanca made this mistake in his game
with Bogoljubov at Carlsbad, 1929. The
moves (Capablanca played White) were: 1.
d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 0-0 5. e4
d6 6. Ne2 Nbd7 7. 0-0 e5 8. d5 Nc5?
Before making his last move, Bogol
jubov should have adopted the precaution
usual in similar positions of playing 8 . . . aS!
to prevent the 4 being displaced by b4, but
- 37 -
The Search for Chess Perection
in this case he thought he could transpose
the moves because of te threat to the e- f .
Capablanca tought the same, ad so
defended the e- f by 9. Nbc3? and Bogo
immediately established his 4 by 9 ... a.
Cap a had missed a splendid opportunity, as
was pointed out by Znosko-Borovsky, who
contibuted a list of Carlsbad "howlers" to
L'chiquier. Capa should have played 9. b4,
for if then 9 . . . Ncxe4 White wins the piece by
10. f, so that Black would have had to retire
his 4 to d 7 with probable fatal loss of time.
What would be the best process of
reasoning for the discovery of this? The
queston "Is te threat ( . . . Nxe4) real?" would
be useless, for in the positon as it stands the
threat is very real; it is only the move b4
which, by preventing the 4's retreat to cS
after capturing the f , makes the threat
unreal. I therefore believe that the proper
treatment is:
Imagine the threat could not possibly
be executed. Then what would be my best
move? Try out each candidate separately:
imagine the position as it would be after this
move, and then and only then work out
whether the opponent would gain by carry
ing out the threat.
Making the Reconnaissance
How is the reconnaissance to be car
ried out? In what follows we assume, for
convenience, that the student is confronted
with a position that is altogether new and
unfamiliar to him. In an actual game tis is
not so, for each position is usually identical
in most of its characteristcs with the one
preceding. Therefore, it is usually not nec
essary to go through the whole process
afresh, but only to ask:
Queston 3: How has that move changed
the position ?
This general question comes after the
more particular question "What are his
threats?"
Example (Capablanca-Blanco, Ha
vana, 1913) : 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf Ngf6 6. Nxt Nx 7
Ne5 Bd6 8. Qf c6? 9. c3 0-0 10. Bg5 Be7
11. Bd3 Ne8 12. Qh3! White pursues his
attack on the black r;. Here Black played
12 ... 5.
Now the average player, with White,
would be likely to seek for some way of
continuing his attack on the r;, merely
because that is the plan he has been follow
ing, and the chances are that by patient
search he would find a way, and duly lose
the game. If, however, he asked himself the
queston above, he would realize, more or
less clearly according to his strength, that
Black's last move has completely changed
the position, that the attack on the r; is
over, but that a new weakness has arisen in
the backward e- f , and that the attack must
now be concentrated on that instead. Capa
now exchanged As, castled (0-0), doubled
his )s on the e-file, and played c4 and d5,
and very soon he was wiping Blanco on his
shoes.
A complete reconnaissance, however,
must be carried out quite frequently. The
frst one should be made, of course, in the
opening as soon as known paths are left.
Again, at any stage of the game, a series of
two or three forced moves, or even a single
exchange of pieces, may so cange the posi
ton that a complete revaluation becomes
necessary.
Let us assume that Questions 1, 2, and
3 have proved inadequate, and that a com
plete new reconnaissance is to be made.
1. Mateal
First, we count up the material. This is
very easy, and it is the frst thing that any
player does when confronted with a new
positon.
Besides the mere counting, however,
one should take special note under this
- 38 -
His Wrtings
heading, "Material," of two things:
( 1 ) minor pieces; and
(2) f majorities.
To elaborate this: One should note any
of the various possible combinations of mi
nor pieces:
(a) two As+4 vs. two 4s+ A;
(b) two As versus A +4;
(c) two As versus two 4s;
(d) A versus 4; and
(e) As on opposite colors.
If (a) or (b) obtains, for instance, one
always has to consider the possibility of one
of the two 4s exchanging itself for a A and
so producing As on opposite colors, which
combinaton has powerful drawing tenden
cies in the endgame. Also, one should see
how the value of each minor piece is af
fected by the f formation. E.g., in blocked
positons the 4 is usually the superior piece;
i there are a great many fs on dark squares,
a dark-squared A is usualy too immobile
to be of much use; while on a fairly open
board, especially if the fs are numerically
unequal on one or both wings (so that a
passed f can be forced by one party or
both), a A is usually much superior to a 4,
both in the middle- and endgame.
And as to f majorities: "The majority
of fs on the '-side" is a familiar parrot
cry, but few players know just when and
why it is a real advantage. It is of no advan
tage unless both s are castled on the
-side. If both are catled on the i-side,
the majority on the -side is an advantage.
There are two reasons:
( 1) A majority in front of a castled
cannot advace before the endgame with
out exposing the
'
so that the player with
the majority on the other wing gets a big
start with his passed f ; in fact, his oppo
nent is debarred from gettng one unless
and until the endgame arrives.
(2) And when the endgame does ar
rive, our is all ready to stop the enemy
passed f, while the enemy is on the
wrong side to stop ours (te is much
better at stopping fs tan helping them on,
for the latter duty forces him to move a long
way, and he is so painfully slow).
If the s are castled on opposite wings,
each is similarly placed as regards his
own and his opponent's majority, so it is not
in itself an advantage to have te majority
on one wing or the other.
Of course, a majority on either of the
two wings is always an advantage if the
opponent has not a majority on the other.
This can occur even with equal fs, e.g., in
the exchange variaton of the Ruy Lopez
aer 7. e4 e5 2. NJ Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc
d. Black ha four fs to three on the
i-side, but has not a majority because he
can never get a passed f . This is because
he has no f on a fle not occupied by an
enemy f. Black can, however, force a
passed f with a formation like that result
ing, also in the Ruy Lopez, after 3 d6 4.
Bxct bxc 5. d4 ex4 6. Nx4. This is
because, in spite of his doubled fs, he has
one f (here, the d- f) on a file unoccupied
by an enemy f , and in a f ending this can
be forced through, though not a eaily as
with all four fs united.
Having finished with material, the sec
ond thing to consider in the reconnaissance
is . . .
2. Te King Poston
The conclusion to be drawn from the
mere counting of material may have to be
considerably modified because of the ex
posed position of one of the s. An ex
posed may be worth a piece to the other
side, ad so throw into insignifcance such
weaknesses as isolated fs, which otherwise
loom large.
A castled positon is usually weak if
-3
9
-
The Search for Chess Perection
one of the fs in front of it has been moved,
more particularly the b/g- f or a/h- f, as it
then invites exposure by a pawnstorm.
There is another way a r can die
besides by exposure, and that is by the
reverse ill of suffocation-that is, when he is
castled and so hemmed in by his own sup
porters that he falls victim to a sacrifcial
matng net.
3. Weaknesses and Strenghs
Thirdly, we make a mental list of all
the weaknesses and strengths of each side.
Of course, one might include both under
the heading of weaknesses, for a strength to
one side is a weakness to the other; but a 4,
say, entrenched at d6/d3, or s on the
seventh/second rank, and so forth, are much
more conveniently considered as strengths
to the possessor than as enemy weaknesses.
The term "strength" is unusual, but it is the
only way to avoid a circumlocution, the
word "disadvantage" having drawbacks.
Briefy, the various kinds of wea
nesses are, in general:
( 1 ) weak fs (isolated, backward,
doubled, or even merely unprotected, as a
tempo may be gained by attacking them in
this case, even though they may be able to
move into safety) ;
(2) weak points or "holes," i.e., squares
on one's own side of the board which can
not be protected by fs, and which are open
to occupation by an enemy piece;
(3) confined pieces;
(4) a generally cramped game.
Stengs are:
( 1) larger terrain (more than half the
board for one's pieces) ;
(2) greater elasticity or freedom of
movement;
(3) well-posted pieces (commanding
open files or diagonals, or seventh/second
rank, occupying weak points, or blockading
enemy fs in the center) ;
( 4) command of centra squares.
4. Development
Lastly, we carry out the simple process
of calculating how many tempos either side
is ahead of the other in development. This
is done not by countng up all the moves
made by each side as Znosko-Borovsky
rather absurdly does-for some of these may
have been completely lost moves, e.g., a 4
which has taken three moves to get from
bl lb8) to g3/g6 is not necessarily better
developed than at c3/ c6, where it could
have got in one move-nor even by count
ing up developing moves, in our opinion,
but by counting up the minimum number
of moves each side needs to complete its
development. Our reasons will appear later.
We have not so far considered combi
nation motifs. The reconnaissance is merely
a survey of the position considered stati
cally. Its objects are:
( 1) to enable us to tell who, if either,
has the advantage on the whole, in what it
lies, and how great it is; and
(2) to help us to form a plan if it be
comes necessary.
The Reconnaissance: Example
Blackburne
Alekhine (to move)
This position is Alekhine-Blackburne,
- 40 -
His Wrting
St. Petersburg 1914.
Let us first apply, in order, the tree
preliminary questions.
Question 1: This does not arise, as
there is no obvious move, or if there is,
Alekhine missed it!
Question 2: What are his threats? A-
swer: 1 ... Q5 winning te A, for i 1. a4,
then 1 . . . a6, etc. This leads White to the
correct move at once, and here we have an
example of how tese preliminary ques
tions will often save all the boter of carry
ing out the system in its entrety.
Alekhine, however, did miss te threat
and played Nd2??, and duly lost the .!
If Aekhine missed it, perhaps some of
our readers might have too. But need tey
therefore fail to find the correct move in the
end? Not a bit of it! Provided they follow
the system right out, the danger simply
must come to light!
Qyestion 3: How has his last move
changed the position?
This queston assumes that te player
has been examining the position of previ
ous moves and so does not need to carry
out a complete new reconnaissance, but
only to revise his last one. Actually, Black's
last move was K (in answer to Bb5t),
and this should have made Black
'
s threat
very obvious.
However, let us assume that we have
not made any reconnaissance at previous
moves. Then let us make one now-we also
assume that we have not yet seen Black's
threat.
1. Mat-Equa; and as to minor
pieces and f majorities, each player has
two As and
'
and the fs balance numeri
cally on each wing. These observations have
not helped us materially so far, but, in other
cases, they may give the key to the whole
situaton.
2 Kin Psion-The white is pretty
safe, we note, so long as the two diagonals
g1-a7 and h1-a8 remain closed by the black
center fs; but te black will certainly
have to expose himself somewhat to let his
develop, unless the comes out very
awkwardly by . . . h5, etc.
3. faknesses and Strehs-Running
through the list of all the possible types of
weanesses and strengths, we see that our
own (White's) weaknesses are the back
ward c- f (and, indeed, the b- f, for if it
moves the square c3 becomes a "hole") , the
"hole" at e3, and the lack of mobilit of the
light-squared .. This piece ha only one
free square, which fact should at once sug
gest danger to us and, incidentally, show us
Black's threat of ... Q5 if we had not already
seen it. As a matter of fact, this point really
belongs to "combination motfs," for the
reconnaissance does not deal with partcu
lar moves. But we must not obey such rules
with such imbecile slavishness as to neglect
particular moves during the reconnaissance
if they insist on slapping us in the eye.
Athough even te feeblest player could
now see that Ba4 is White's only move, let
us complete the reconnaissance as an illus
tration.
To continue: White has no partcular
"strength" except that he can control the
e-file.
Black's weaknesses are the isolated
doubled fs and, of course, the weak
positon; his strengths are his light-squared
. controlling so many important dark
squares, and his control of the center squares
given by the isolated doubled fs! Thus the
latter is simultaneously a strength and a
weakness. In any case, it does not look like
being a very vulnerable weakness for quite
a long tme.
4. Development-This position, like al
most ay possible position in chess, is a
good example of the uselessness, even as a
preliminary, of Znosko-Borovsky's idea of
counting up all the moves of any kind made
- 4 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
by each side; for instance, we should have
to count Black's . . . Kf, which is really a
minus move.
It also shows, in our opinion, that it is a
mistake to rely on counting up even the
purely developing moves by each side. For
this would give us four for White (the initial
moves of the two center fs, the sortie ofthe
light-squared ., and 0-0), and three for
Black (the two initial moves of his center fs
and the move of the dark-squared A). But
this method takes no account ofthe number
of moves Black will need to develop his
h- l=
No, the only sound way, as we have
said, is to count up the number of moves
each side needs to complete its develop
ment. This method has the advantage of
applying to all stages of the game instead of
only the opening. For instance, in the
middlegame (or the endgame) we can often
count up the number of moves each side
needs to attain a special objective it hap
pens to be striving for; the simplest ex
ample is the familiar one of counting the
minimum number of moves each side needs
to queen a f .
Let us apply our method to the posi
tion before us. It is not a easy as it might
appear. The minimum number of moves
required by White, we might say, is fve
two with the 4, one with the dark-squared
A, one with the 'f to free the a- , and one
with the a- E. An experienced player, how
ever, would see that the answer for White is
at least six, owing to the clear necessity for
expending a move on the safety of the light
squared ..
The minimum required by Black is
also six-one with the 4, one with the light
squared ., at least two to free the h- E, and
one with each , but not necessarily one
with the 'f, as the 'f can, if desired, de
velop at b6 with gain of tme by its threat to
the b- f (subtletes like this must be searched
for) . Thus the first method gave an advan
tage of 1- 1/2 tempos to White, while ours
gives only half a tempo to White-we give
half a tempo to the player having the move.
The objects of te reconnaissace were:
( 1) to enable us to tell who, if either, has the
advantage on the whole, in what it lies, and
how great it is; and (2) to help us form a plan
if it becomes necessary.
Now, although in the difcult position
I have chosen it would not be possible for
the average player to give an exact answer
as regards ( 1), he would certainly get nearer
the mark after a reconnaissance on the lines
suggested than without it, and similarly, as
regards (2), he would have a much better
chance of conducting his game along logi
cal lines; for he knows now where his own
weaknesses are that he must try to cover,
and where the opponent's weaknesses are
that he must try to exploit.
Is There a Combination?
Having carried out the preliminary re
connaissance, the next question we ask our
selves in any position is: Have I any sound
and correct combination?
We consider it of enormous impor
tance that this should come before any
search for a plan. Not until we have an
swered the question above either with "No"
or "Not sure" should we begin looking for
positional lines of play, i. e. , plans.
Most writers insist that we should al
ways have a plan. This is a very mischie
vous doctrine. How often does one see a
young player of the studious type evolve
the most grandiose plan of campaign after
long and intensive thought, when quite a
simple combinaton beginning, say, with
Bxh7t (Bxh2f) has been all the tme staring
him in the face?
The ultimate aim, after all, is simply to
fnd the best move in each position, and if
we can fnd it without going to the trouble
-42 -
His Writings
of making a plan many moves deep, which
may have to be thrown by the board at the
very next move, why not do so?
A player who always sets out to form a
plan automatically would never see a com
bination at all, either for himself or his
opponent, and would never win a game!
The missing of a combination either way is
usually a most serious thing, whereas be
tween one plan and another it is usually
more a matter of hair-splitting.
It was only after reading Emanuel
Lasker's Manual that I made this discovery,
namely, that one should always look fr combi
nations bere plns, and though like most
players I had usually done so all along
instinctively, I worked out that if I had
made it a invariable rule I should have
avoided about 20 percent of my blunders in
match games. That is, provided I had also
looked for combinations in the right way.
We must take that now as read, and
pass on to planning. But we shall retur to
combination "motifs" in the final examples
referred to above.
But a word on the criteria by which
combinations are to be judged. A combina
tion, leaving out of account wild ventures
embarked on a "the only chance," must be
not only sound, but correct. A combination
may be sound, meaning that it cannot be
refuted, and yet incorrect because it does
not make the most of the position.
The reconnaissance helps us here. It
has enabled us to form a rough estimate of
the amount of our advantage, and if for
example we are a . up with the better of
the position, we should not embark on a
combination to win a second . if it would
sacrifce our positional advantage and give
the enemy the initiative. A combination
which will not yield the advatage that our
position entitles us to expect should be dis
carded in favor of a positional line or plan.
Here is an example from the second
game of the match between Sultan Khan
and Tartakover:
Mir Sultan Khan (to move his 1 6th)
Tartakover
Tartakover's admirable note in LEchi
quier reads:
Black's game is already materially su
perior . . . . White's last move, 16. a, invites
Black to win a pawn by the combination
76 .. . Bxa3!? 1Z Nxb5 axb5 78. bxa3 Rxc2
79. Rh7 Rc5 {if 20 . . . Ba6?, 27. Rd6!) 20.
Be2 Rxe5 (if 20 ... Ba6?, a4) 27. Bxb5. White,
however, would have recovered a feld of
acton and even the initiative.
That is why Black wisely rejects this
gift, and chooses by his following tree
moves a positional plan which consists in
undermining White's advance-post at e5
and placing his own Bishop on a very
efectve diagonal.
16. Be7!
17. Rd2
To free his Knight.
17. ... f6!
Following up the plan mentioned
above, whereas the new combination 7Z . .
b4!? 78. Ne4! {more enterprising than 78.
Nb7, etc.) bxa3 79. bxa3 Bxa3 20. Rb1!,
etc., would have presented for Blac, in
spite of the pawn won, much embarrass
ment.
18
. ex6 Bx6.
-43 -
The Search for Chess Perection
We now leave Tartaover' s notes. Black
has realized his plan. This was the positon
he visualized on his 16th move. White's
great strength, the f I e5, with its cramping
efect on Black's game, has disappeaed,
and Black is bearing down on White's wea
-wing. White is now forced to waste time
with 1d1 and c3, and ten Black, after . . . 0-0
and ... d5, is ready to prepare an ultimate
breakthrough on the -wing by a f ad
vance.
Sultan Kan realized that White's f/e5
was the key of the whole position. That is
how plans are made: the reconnaissance
has told you what are the weaknesses and
strengths of each side, and you then set
about looking for a feasible method of ex
ploiting the enemy's weaknesses while re
moving your own, and of removing the
enemy's strengths while establishing your
own, or at least doing as many of these four
things as possible.
Here White's weakness was his
wing, Black's his backward c- f; White's
strength his f/e5, and Black's his two .s,
which wanted open lines. See how all these
four items have been at least partially at
tended to.
And the main point is that Black, in
visualizing the present positon, reckoned
that it would give him better winning
chances than the temptng combinaton 16 ...
Bxa3!?
One more sermon from this stone: note
once agan te diference between the work
ing out of combinations and plans. With the
combination, what we saw first was the
initial move 16 ... Bxa3. It hit us, or should
have, in the eye, and we then followed out
its consequences. This could be done be
cause of the numerous forced moves, the
essential of combinations.
N.B.-If the combination did not "hit
us in the eye," we could still find it easily by
the "motif" method. The motif of function!
We look for any unit burdened with more
ta one defensive task or fncton. The
white b- f ! This tells us that the a- f's pro
tection is illusory, and 16 ... Bxa3 is sug
gested automatically.
But with the plan, what Sultan Khan
saw frst was the future positon, and he
then sought to bring that position about.
His opponent had many possible replies,
too numerous for calculation, but all that it
was necessary to see was that White had no
way of preventng the execution of the plan.
Planning
In the last example, we gave an illus
trative position in which a very tempting
combinaton was rejected by a master player
for a positional line or plan, and we detailed
at some length the working out of the plan.
This time, we give frther examples of
planning. In each case it is understood that
we have already searched for possible com
binations, and have found none worth con
sidering.
What Is A Plan?
One of the favorite questions of the
heathen to his chess friend is, "How many
moves do you see ahead?" Reti's answer to
these irritating people was, "As a rule not a
single one."
Allowing as few as even three reason
able possibilities at each move, to see three
moves ahead would involve holding in the
mind 243 different variations, and four
moves ahead would bring the number to
2187.
Exact calculaton more than two moves
aead is possible only when we can make
threatening moves which practically force
our opponent's replies; that is combinative
play.
How then do we usually think in chess?
The answer is that most players evolve the
majority of their moves without thinking at
-
44
-
His Writings
all. They rely on their "instinct" or "chess
sense"; this is really the product of accumu
lated experience. Just as the cricketer in
stantly selects without conscious thought a
more or less correct way of playing each
ball bowled at him, so the practced club
skittler selects in a twinkling a more or less
correct way of treating each position that
arises in a game of chess. Such players are
doomed to permanent mediocrity-in chess
we mean, not in cricket.
Of course all players develop a "chess
sense" in some degree, but only those who
make it their servant instead of their master
can reach the stage of the second-class ama
teur.
The other way of evolving moves, apart
from combinations, is by planning. The
essence of planning is the visualization of a
future position of some or all of your pieces.
You then seek to play for that position; you
do not worry much about your opponent' s
replies except to mae sure that your plan is
feasible, and also that you are not leaving
any opening for a combination; these ex
ceptions are naturally of vital importance.
A simple example of playing by plan is
the book mate with W and . You visualize
the fnal position with the enemy W on the
edge of the board, your own W in "opposi
tion" to it, and your smugly administer
ing the coup de gace. The position takes
quite a number of moves to obtain, but the
obtaining of it, once the position is seen in
the mind, is ease personifed.
We now give a more difficult example,
and we select this one frst to show how
impossible it is to arrive at the same moves
by "instinct" as by planning.
Capablanca (to move)
janowski
In this position 999 players out of 1000,
assuming they had never seen it before,
would play 1 ... e6; Capablanca's move was
1. .. Bd7, and . . . e6 only on his next move!
Absurd on the face of it! Black has carefully
developed his 1-, before playing . . . e6,
and now deliberately uses up a move to put
it back where the e- f will block it. This is a
great illustration of a fallacy beloved of
chess logicians; that because we did such
and such some moves ago, we must do thus
and thus now. Actually, we should try to
wipe all previous moves in the game from
our mind, and plan anew if necessary at
each tur, for the position is constantly
changing.
Capablanca looked for the tings in
the position that really mattered. What were
the weaknesses on each side? His own were
the doubled b- fs, which were immobile
and likely to become fixed nuisances.
White's was the a- f. How could Black
remove his own weaknesses and exploit
White's?
He decided to use the b- f as a support
for a battering ram. He visualized it at bS
supporting his 4 at c4. If then White drove
the 4 by b3, the a- f would be backward.
Otherwise, White could only relieve the
pressure of the well-posted 4 by exchang
ing it of. That would undouble the b- fs,
and the rear member of the previously im-
- 45 -
The Search for Chess Perection
mobile unit could then advance down to
b4, fxing the a- i or, if the latter had then
advanced one square, making use of it as
part of a -side attack.
But frst Black must develop his pieces
by . . . e6, . . . Bd6, etc. If, however, he were to
play . . . e6 at once, not only would he be
unable to advance his b- i (because of
White's '-.), but his could also be
prevented fom going to a and c4 by the
pin (Bb5). Hence te plan was quite impos
sible without first preparing the way by 1. ..
Bd7!! White's harmless reply was 2. Be2.
Janowski had failed to fathom Capablanca's
ideas. He could have put a nasty spoke in
Capa's wheel by 2. Bb5. 2 ... e6 3. 0-0 Bd6
4. Rfc1 Ke7! The ' is quite sae here and
much better developed than afer castling.
5. Bc3 Rc8. Note that Capablanca care
fully completes his development before
embarking on his rea plan. 6. a Na5! At
last the real business begins. Note tat Capa
blanca careflly completed the whole of his
development first. To have played . . . Na5,
etc., earlier would have been childish-an
assault by one piece against an army! 7
Nd2 f5. White threatened f4 opening the e
fle on the black '. 8. g3 b5 9. f Nc4 10.
Bxc4 bxc4. The pressure of the was
intolerable to White, as Black had foreseen.
11. e4 K 12. ex5 ex5 13. f4 b5.
"All as the weird sisters promised."
Black now formed a new plan, to fx White's
pieces on te -side by threatening ... b4
(by doubling the s on the a-file), and then
to break up the '-side by . . . g5 in due
course, and to occupy the g-file through the
greater mobility of his s.
For remember that it is usually quite
easy to defend against an attack concen
trated on one side of the board only. The
fnal assault is nearly always a switch-over,
bringing in the element of time. Black car
ried out this plan and won the game.
We do not ask the student to study this
example wit great care. What is wanted is
for the initial move, the surprising . . . Bd7, to
grip his imagination and inspire h to tae
a delight in maing real plas of his own.
We now give a very famous example.
Capablanca again. It is Black's move. He is
a i down. How is he to gain compensa
tion? White's weanesses are the a- i and
b- i . Capablanca therefore visualized the
following position: s/ a8/b8, . where it is
on g7, and /c4 supported by the - With
the combined pressure of all these forces
against the two weak is, he expected "to
regain the material lost while at the same
time keeping the initiative."
Capablanca (to move)
Nimzovich
White, however, threatens to complete
his development in a very few moves. It is
therefore necessary to impede him by com
bining the carrying out of our plan with
direct threats against merely temporary
weaknesses, e.g., the e- i. So: 1 ... Qe6!!
This makes room for the to proceed
to c4, and at the same tme forces White to
lose time with a defensive move. Not 1 . . .
Q7, for the is needed to support the /
c4. 2. f Nd7 3. Bd2 Ne5 (another direct
threat en route) 4. Qe2 Nc4 5. Rab1 Ra8 6.
a4.
White should have let the a- i go by 6.
b3 Nxd2 7 Qd2 RJ. He was greedy. 6 ...
Nxd2 7. Qxd2 Qc4! 8. Rfd1 Reb8 9. Qe3
-46 -
His Wrtings
Rb4 10. Q5 Bd4t 11. Kl Rb8.
Black's plan has succeeded. Clearly he
must at least regain his f, and also retain
the initiative.
It wlbe seen that Black hardly needed
to take a single one of his opponent's replies
into consideration when making his own
moves. Nor would it have profted him to
do so.
The subject of planing in chess is
much too important to be hurried over; we
give another illustrative position.
Lasker
Tartakover (to move)
The position diagrammed arose be
tween Dr. Tartakover and Dr. Emanuel Las
ker in the New York tourament of 1924.
Mark this! The plan executed by Las
ker here is a perfect example of"prophylac
tc" play, yet tis conception is not sup
posed to have been unleashed on the chess
world until the publication of Mein System
by Nimzovich two years later! It gives me
much pleasure to illustrate the main thesis
of the "feakish" Nimzovich by a specimen
of the play of Lasker, the apostle of "com
mon sense."
We are to see how 'Thrtakover came to
grief through defing Nimzovichian Prin
ciples, and how Lasker triumphed by em
ploying them.
It is White ('Thrtakover) to move. Stu
dents of Nimzovich will recognize that the
center is occupied by two f chans; the
white chain consists of the fs/e4/d5, and
the black chain consists of the fs/e5/d6,
the bases being respectively at e4 and d6.
White's obvious plan, to this student, is
terefore to attack the base of the black f
chain by c5, and the inital preparatory move
is at once suggested, namely, b4. It will then
remain to bring frther support to the square
c5 by Be3 and Rc1, for Black, afer . . . b6, will
have three units protecting that square.
Alekhine says in the book of the tour
ney, "To be sure, the breach by c5 would not
easily have been carried out; nevertheless,
it would have been a plan to accord with the
position which might have been prepared
without risk."
For the benefit of those to whom the
"pawn chain" is Greek or worse, it may be
pointed out that once the white c- f arrived
at the fifth rank, White would be constantly
holding over Black's head the treat of open
ing the c-fle; White could double his s on
that fle, while Black, before he could do the
same, would have to wait till the fle was
opened. This would clearly put the initia
tive in White's hands, a far as the i-wing
is concered.
Black's obvious counter-plan would be
to prepare an attack on the base of the white
f chain by .. .j. But this would be an even
more difcult process. To free the f- f Black
would frst need to play . . . h6 and . . . Nh7, or
something equally anemic, and, frther
more, his pieces are by no means ready to
mae use of the f-fle even then. Alekhine
suggests that Black might try at once 1 ...
Nf4, "to assure himself of two Bishops." But
then afer 2. Bxf4 exf4 3. Njfollowed by
Rf1 and Bf (a change of plan dictated by
the change in the f position), he notes tat
Black would have been confronted with a
triple task, "first and second, to reckon with
the possibilities bound up with c5 and e5,
and third, to guard the f-pawn."
-
47
-
The Search for Chess Perection
Actually, White indulged in a tempting
course of playing for a <t-side attack by 1.
4! ? Black naturally replied 1. .. ex4, for this
gave his only chance of counterplay; White's
e- f , the base of the f chain, is now a
permanent weakness, and if Black can
weather the attack on his <-wing he will
have a telling pull. The procedure against
an isolated or backward center f is, in the
words of Nimzovich, "First restrain, then
blockade, then destroy! "
To restrain a f means to guard the
square in front of it, so that it canot ad
vance without being lost; to blockade it is to
place a suitable piece on that square, so as
to stop it advancing at all. The weakness is
then fixed irrevocably, and the fnal pro
cess, destruction, is ready to begin.
2. Bx4 Nx4! Naturally! The A was
an "anti-blockader," besides being a mobile
unit for attack. Alekhine remarks, "White
has temporarily extended his range but in
retur has surrendered to his adversary per
manent advantages, such as the control of
the dark squares and the weakness at e4."
That is the point: Black's advantages
are permanent, while White's is temporary.
If, terefore, White's attack should fail, he is
doomed.
3. R4 Be7!! Here is the beginning of
the "prophylactic" maneuver. The piece to
be used as te blockader at e5 is clearly the
4; it must go there via d 7; for this the -A
must get out of the way. Meanwhile, Wite
is massing against te undefended f- f ; this
point must be protected before the 4 can
begin its maneuver.
Both aims, the defense of the f- f and
the removal of the -. to make way for
the 4, can be accomplished by placing the
<t- ) at f and the -A at e8. Black's last
move makes room for the ), and also
develops the A for the purpose of making
use of the weakened dark squares.
In actual play it would be extraordi-
narily dificult to conceive such an appar
ently retrogressive regrouping, for it is only
a few moves since Black played his <- ) to
e8 and his <-. from f to e7! This proves
my contenton tat previous play should be
ignored, and one's plan thoroughly over
hauled at every move, since te position is
always changing.
It looks at first sight as though Black is
not taking adequate measures to restrain
the e- f. Can White not play now 4. N
(threatening e5) ?No, because of . . . Nh5!trap
ping the ).
4. R R!! 5. Qd3 Be8!! (Com
pletely shutting in his )! According to
copybook stategy, Black has already lost
about six tempi in the opening.) 6. Qg3
Qd8!! (Not at once .. .Nd7 because of Bg4
pinning the would-be blockader.} 7. Ndl
Nd7! (On the previous move, this would
have led to the pin Bg4.) Now at last the full
meaning of Black's pitfl-looking shufling
is clear. Black's <t is absolutely safe, and
Black has complete contol of the dark
squares. His <t-A, having no enemy A to
challenge him, is terrifc; his 4 is ready to
occupy e5. The weaknesses created by
White's plausible 14th ( l. f4! ?) are stangely
brought to book. White should now have
played 8. Njor 8. h4, remaining, however,
with a potential disadvantage afer 8 . . . Bf6,
as Alekhine points out. Instead, White goes
for tactcal chances.) 8. Ne3 Bg5!! [Ed.:
Much of this paragraph was revised based on an
obituar notice and eulog fr Lasker in the 7947
ACR to correct errors in the original September
7937 ACR article.]
A combination! And not the obvious
.. .Ne5, even though Black has been playing
for that move from the start. This shows
how important it is to look frst for possible
combinations at every move, and not to
become obsessed by a plan, however artis
tic it may be. A chess player must be an
opportunist as well as a planner.
- 48 -
His Writings
The positional play ends here, but we
continue for the student's interest.
The motif for the combinaton here is
the "enclosing motif," the motif of a piece of
small mobility and therefore liable to be
trapped. Such a piece is the l/f4.
9. Rg4. If 9. R4f, . .. Bh4. If 9. R4f,
. . . Ne5. If 9. R, .. . Bh4 followed by ... Ne5 or
... g6. White must lose the Exchange: 9 ... f!
10. Qf h5 11. Rg3 h4! (not ... Bh4, 72.
Rg7f! with chances) 12. Rg4 Bh5 13. Nf5
Bxg4.
And the game is decided. Black's play
is al wonderfl, ad the morals drawn from
it above will be of great value to the student
if he will store them in his memory.
Playing by System
Before completng the discussion on
planning, I propose to set out the complete
system whose various parts I have been
explaning.
As you have seen, the system consists
of a series of questions which a player is to
ask himself at every move. Of course, if he
fnds the correct move with certainty before
he has asked all the questions, he does not
need to complete them.
Here are te questons. The student
might copy them out onto a single sheet of
paper, and keep the sheet standing up fac
ing him when playing over master games,
on which he should practice the system.
I might remak that it is vain to imag
ine that one can keep the system for impor
tant match games and not bother to use it at
other times. Unless he practiced using the
system slavishly for a long tme, it would be
quite impossible for anyone with blood in
his veins to keep it up throughout a single
game. As remarked before, altough the
writer has proved the efcacy of te system
beyond doubt-he has never been able to
tain himself to use it consistently through
out a game.
Curiously enough, the writer evolved
a simple form of the system-without any
menton of combinatons, for example-very
soon after leaing the moves. Then he
merely kept on elaboratng it as he imbibed
the views of various writers, chiefy Lasker,
until it took its present shape .
It is to be understood that you do not
use the system in the opening while the
game contnues along a line familiar to you,
that is assuming tat you are quite certain
that the "book" moves are the best avail
able. As soon as the stage is passed-it may
be on the third move or the thirteenth-you
begin using the system.
Te System
(t i my tur to move.)
1. Is tere an obvious move?
If so, have I anying better, or can I
with advantage mae any other move frst?
2. Or i the choice clarly limied to a
ver few altatives which I can
dcie between most easily without
usin the sstem?
3. Wat are hi threat?
Consider each threat as follows: Can I
ignore it? To answer this, imagine the threat
could not possibly be executed. Then what
would be my best move? Imagining that
move played, would my opponent then
gan by executing te threat?
4. Wo, i either, has the advantage?
In what does it lie, and how great i
it?
If Queston 4 does not tell us this, we
must carry out a complete reconnaissance
of the position, 5.
5. Mak a reconnaisance, con
in:

( 1) material, including minor pieces
-
49
-
The Search for Chess Perection
and f majorities; (2) positions.
Weaknesses and strengths. Wea
nesses are ( 1) weak fs, (2) wea squares, (3)
confined pieces, ( 4) a generally cramped
game. Strengths ae ( 1) larger terrain; (2)
greater elasticity, (3) well-posted pieces, (4)
command of central squares.
Development, counting the num
ber of moves each side needs to complete
its development.
6. Now answer 4.
(Our answer to 5 (What are te weak
nesses and stengths of each side?] is to
serve as a criterion for judging the value of
combinations or of plans.)
7. Have I a sound and correct combi
nation?
To help in answering this, look for the
presence of the following motifs.
I. The geometrical motif (pieces on
the same line, pins, pieces liable to a fork,
loose pieces, etc.).
2. Motf of conined pieces, including
the castled .
3. Motif of fnction. See i any unit is
burdened with more than one defensive
task.
The next three motifs are endgae
motifs.
4. . promotion.
5. Zugzang.
6. Stalemate.
Having hit upon the initial move of a
combination, visualize the positon after that
move, see what are all his possible replies,
what I could do then, and so forth.
8. I not satifed that the answer to 7
i yes, what i my correct plan?
To help in answering this, use the re
connaissance. What are all the weaknesses
ad strengths of each side? How can I best
exploit his weaknesses and establish my
strengths, remove his strengths and my
weaknesses, or do as many of these things
as possible? What fture position (of all the
pieces) should I visualize? Can I attain it?
9. Wat fnally, are all the moves I
have to consier?
About each, ask "What could he do ifl
did this?" looking for combination motifs
from the other side.
(t is his move.)
Spend your time in making a general
reconnaissance. Then when he has moved,
Question 4 will be suficient to aswer Ques
tion 5.
Look for combination motifs, as in
Question 7
Carry the reconnaissace (7) even fr
ther by examining what squares are com
maded by each piece on the board.
A general examination of the position
pays much more than calculation based on
his possible moves, unless one is in the
midst of a combination and is fairly certain
of the opponent's next move, or is short of
time and one's only chance is to have one's
reply ready.
In such cases, or where you have re
connoitered to saturation point, imagine
him to have played a move, and then tn
as though it were your tur to move.
- 50 -
His Writings
THE SNARE OF THE ODD PAWN
One of the least questioned of all that horde of litte maxims beloved of the pious
woodshifter is, "When a pawn up, exchange at every opportunity."
Yet we venture to say that it has turned many a won game into a draw. A striking
illustration occurred in a vital game in an Australian Championship, Koshnitsky-Crowl.
F.A. Crowl (to play his 1 4th)
G. Koshnitsky
In the diagrammed position, Crowl
did what almost anyone would do without
hesitating. Being a f up, he simplifed by
14 ... cd4 15. cxd4 Qxd2 followed by 16 ...
Nxd4; it seemed such a clear case for fol
lowing the maxim. Yet, as will be seen fom
the full score of the game, Crowl found
himself face to face in a few moves with
almost a dead draw. By simplifing, Crowl
threw away his chance of making te odd
f tell!
The objection to the course he took is
simply that it loses a clear tempo, as the
exchange of s immediately opens up the
way for White's other . to develop.
A exchange where both pieces are in
play loses a tempo for the exchager if the
second player recaptures with a developing
move.
Here 16. Rxd2 is certainly a develop
ing move, as it helps White to double .s
or to develop his - . elsewhere.
Black would have obtained far better
winning chances-in our opinion a defnitely
winning position-by 14 . . . 0-0! This simple
ad straigtorward move immediately pro
duces equilibrium in development, the op
posing . s being exactly similarly placed,
and, forgetting about the f plus, would be
the one a stong player would naturally
choose. Therefore, we maintain, it should
have been chosen anyway. Our theory might
be stated thus:
A f plus frequently proves insufi
cient for winning an endgame if it is accom
panied by a disadvantage in position other
wise. Therefore a single f plus in the mid
dlegame does not justf us in playing for
exchanges where it involves submitting to
the slightest positional disadvantage.
But we must examine 14 . . . 0-0further.
Does it not lose a tempo too, for cannot
White, by 15. @2, force Black to retreat his
lt
thus keeping back his development one
move? No, because White's @2 is equally
non-developing; his was already in play,
just as Black's . was already in play.
This move, 15. @2!, is clearly the only
one we have to fear; it has a double threat
(de5 ad 0b7) while keeping the c- f
protected. Therefore, let us examine the
variaton to corroborate our general re
marks. 14 . . . 0-0! 15. @2 cxd4 16. cxd4Bf6 1Z
Ob Z What else? Black threatened .. . R7,
etc., and while the /b2, the c- f is pinned
and forms a fne target.
7Z .. Nxd4 18. Bxd4 Bxd4! Better than
-
5 1
-
The Search for Chess Perection
getting off a pair of .s, for now Black is able
to threaten . . . RBon Move 20. With .s on
opposite colors, exchanges for their own
sake are wrong.
79. QeZ (If 79. R7, . . . e5 20. Re2 RhB;
and if 27. Qd5, say, ... Rh5, doubling on the
b-file with great efect.) The f at e5 estab
lishes Black's .l where it dominates the
board.
79 ... Qa2 (afer 19. Qxe7) 20. Q2. Pac
tically forced, for Black threatens . . . RB,
and White's - cannot develop while the
f- f is menaced. 20 . . . Qe2 27. Bxe2 Rd6.
White is now at a distinct disadvantage,
apart fom his f minus, for he cannot
double s (if R2, . .. Bxjt; and if R,
. . . RB!, also winning) . .s on opposite col
ors come nowhere near ensuring him against
loss, for all the .s cannot be got of. We
give one possible contnuation just as an
example. 22. Rh 7 a5 23. Rh3 a4 24. Ra3 Ra8
25. Rh 7 Bc5 26. Ra2 (if 26. Rc3, ... Rd2 2Z Bf
Ra5) a3 2Z Rh3 Rh6!
This exchange is ofered to fee the .,
which ams at b2. Black should then w,
owing to the superior mobility of his .
Wile development stll remains un
completed the habit of thinking in tempos
is a valuable one to acquire, for during that
phase of the game a tempo has a pretty
constant value, varying roughly between a
third and a half of a f . For the beneft of the
beginner, we explain that a tempo is the
tme-value of a move. It is what you lose if
your development is held up for a move
(while your opponent's goes ahead), or what
you gain if you yourself make a developing
move and he does not.
As an illustraton of what a tempo can
do, let us see what a diference it made to
Koshnitsky's game against Crawl.
Afer 14 ... cxd4 15. cxd4 Qxd2 16.
Rxd2 you see that Wite has gained a
tempo? We have the original positon with
the same player to move (Black), with the
difference that the two c- f s
and the s are of (cancel them out, as the
s were both developed pieces), and White's
. is on d2 instead of d 1. This difference
means that White will need only one move
to double .s instead of two. He has been
presented with a clear tempo.
There followed 16 ... Nxd4 17. Bxb7
0-0 18. Rd1 Rd7 19. Bxd4 Bxd4 20. Bc6
Rd6 21. Rxd4 Rxc. Now White draws by
Rd7 ( . on the seventh rank), but had White
not had tat extra tempo, and played the
same way, Black would have captured first,
and would forestall Rd7by . . . RBthreaten
ing . . . Rc7, winning. In other words, Black
would be able to keep equilibrium in devel
opment, and this, as usual, would make the
f plus decisive.
In conclusion, we invoke Alekhine.
The observant student of Alekhine's games
can see that his favorite way of exploitng a
f plus is to seize an opportunity of retur
ing the f for an equivalent positional gan.
He just goes on remorselessly making the
most of his position, and only exchanges for
the endgame where he can do so without
making any positonal concessions.
- 52 -
Hi Writings
THE SNARE OF THE SWOP
This article shows the evil of a time-losing exchange.
In the diagrammed position, the very natural but time-losing exchange 10 ... Bxc4?
decided the Victorian Championship!
A.A. Faul (to play his I Oth)
G.R. Lamparter
The position is very instructive. First of
all, tere may still be some new readers
who do not see that a tempo is lost: the
point is that after one move on each side
(10 ... Bxc4 11. Nxc4) a developed A on
each side has left the board, and a white
has moved into play-net result, White has
gained a tempo in development on Black.
Any exchange of two equally devel
oped pieces loses a tempo if the opponent
recaptures with a developing move. If he
recaptures with a non-developing move, no
time is lost or gained; such an exchange
would be Bxe6 in this positon if it were
White's move, Blac replying with .. .6, a
non-developing move (as it helps no piece
into play) .
Black was tempted to exchange by the
prospect of quickly playing . . . Nd5-the
must move to allow the dark-squared A to
come out, and d5 is clearly the 's right
square. And he saw that if 10 . . . Nd5 at once,
White would answer Ng5, forcing an ex-
change of for A which would be unfa
vorable to Black.
And perhaps Black thought, "Why
should I worry about te rights and wrongs
of this when I can dispose of the burden
some Bishop at once simply by exchanging
it?" He took the lazy way, the way of "sim
plifcaton." But fequently the wages of
simplification is death, and so it was here.
Black did not "think in tempos," as we
want our students to do. That is, he did not
refect that after 10 . . . Nd5 1 1. Ng5 White
himself lost a tempo in development by his
move of an already-developed . There
was tus a diference of two whole tempos
between this way and the way chosen, and
the unfavorableness of partng with the A
for a & and getting a slightly weak f (at e6)
could never be as unfavorable, in te open
ing, as the loss of two tempos (the equiva
lent of a whole fank f) . Thus, without any
analysis at all, Black could have dismissed
10 . . . Bxc4 as inferior to 10 . . . Nd5.
However, some analysis will be very
instructve.
Demonstration by Analysis
After 10 ... Bxc4 1 1. Nxc4, some readers
may wonder why Black should lose. If we
count up the number of moves each side
needs to complete its development, we fnd
that White needs only four ( d3, A moves,
- moves, '- ) moves-his - ) is already
on an efective fle), while Black needs no
fewer than six. It is Black's move, so we take
of half a tempo, leaving White 1- 112 ter-
-
53 -
The Search for Chess Perection
pos ahead. That is, White is only one tempo
off a winning advantage already. White also
has two spatial advantages, his threat of
posting a 4 in Black's vitals at d6 (after
Ng5-e4 if necessary) and his mobile ad
vanced .s. Black has some advanced .s,
too, but they are not so mobile, as White is
going to blockade them by d.
What a different tale there is to tell
after 10 . . . Nd5, the straightorward develop
ing move! White is only half a tempo aead,
for he now needs an extra move to com
plete his development (his '-4 cannot
count itself developed on te miserable
square a). A corollary is that the possibility
of postng a White 4 at d6 is "of." Further
more, White's advanced e- . is blockaded.
Let us see what would have happened:
70 . . . Nd5 77. Ng5 b5 (the student should see
how ... Q7?? would lose the game, ad
... Be7? a .) 12. Nxe6 fe6 73. Bd3! This
threatens Qh5f and is the only move to
cause Black any worry. Now that Black's
light-squared has vanished, White's is a
great force. However, White is backward in
development, his '-4 being especially
feeble, and Black has equal cances-better
than a forced loss, which 10 . . . Bxc4 gave
him! Aer 13 ... g6 (practcally forced), Black's
right course wlbe ... Q7, ... Be7, ad ... 0-0-0
followed, as soon as may be, by . . . g5! to
break White's . center or open the g-flle
for attack. Note that '-side castling is safe
enough, for Black will answer a4later with
. . . b4, blocking the '-wing completely, e.g.,
13. Bd3 g6 14. Be4 Q7 15. d3 Be7 16. Q4 0-
0-0 17 h4!? (to stop .. . g5) RdgB! 18. Nc2 h6
79. a4? (if Bxg6?, ... Bxh4) b4, followed by
... g5, which White can no longer stop.
Thinking In Tempos
Thinking in tempos helps to make chess
easy, but remember it is not always exact,
for a "developing" move that puts a piece
on its second-best square is not as good as
one that puts it on its best square; some
rough allowances have to be made. Still,
our rule of counting a tempo as worth a
third of a center . and half a fank . -in
the opening only-will be found a usefl
guide. Remember, it is only in the opening
that a tempo can be given a standard value .
When both sides have developed their
forces, the value of a tempo usually tends to
diminish, at least temporarily, for one's big
job for the time being is complete, and as
Nimzovich puts it, there is a diference in
going to sleep over your work, and after it!
Indeed, you cannot strictly be said to lose
or gain a tempo at all unless there is some
job on hand which asks to be done in good
time, e.g., development, an attack, a defen
sive maneuver, getting a . to the queening
rank, etc.
-
54
-
His Wrtings
GENERAL ENDGAME STRATEGY
The endgame starts when the forces are so reduced that mating attacks are of. That
being so, it is virtually impossible for either side to win without ultimately queening a f.
Therefore, the object of mate is replaced by the object of queening a f. Why does this
object rarely engage our attention in the middle game? Well, the great number of moves
necessary and the assistance required from pieces-first of all to make a passed f, and
then to get it to the queening rank-would give the opponent time for a vital attack, owing,
directly or indirectly, to the vulnerability of our '. With that vulnerability removed, we
are fee to concentrate on queening.
Nevertheless, just as we don't open the
game with the idea of checkmating-see
"Law of Combat" [Ed.: wil be reprinted in
"CJS. Prdy's Fine Art of Chess Annotation
Vl. 2 '}-neither do we start of in the end
game with the idea of rushing fs forward
before everything else. If we do, the fs will
simply be cut off and foully murdered. No,
we must "develop," i.e., get all our fghting
pieces in as good positons as possible.
And now the ' is a fightng piece.
This follows fom our definition of the end
game. He is no longer vulnerable to mate,
except by easily avoidable accidents-and
should therefore be used to the full.
If you already have a passed f, how
ever, it is occasionally good to advance it
even with "development" incomplete, in
order to draw away enemy pieces. But if
you have only a majority of fs, which must
all advance before a passed f can be made
at al, it is the height of folly to move them
without developing as flly as possible frst.
fs, of course, are real acquisitions in
the endgame, whereas in the middlegame
they were only obstructions ad valuable
merely on account of the prospect of an
endgame. But even in the endgame, f
sacrifces to gain time, especially time for
advancing a passed f, are very frequent.
In "The Law of Combat" it was men-
tioned that the most important squares in
the endgame, apart from center squares,
are squares in front of passed fs. Note here
that it does not always require a superiority
of force to help on a passed f. If you have
a passed f on e5/e4 and want to play it to
e6/e3, you only need to have the same
number of pieces commanding e6/ e3 that
your opponent has. This tells us that the
efcient way of stopping a passed f is to
"blockade" it, i.e., place a piece right on
e6/ e3 itself, provided it cannot easily be
driven off.
For example, white passed f at a4,
white E behind it at al, black E some
where. Now it will pay Black to play his E
to a, if possible, for ten he not only block
ades the f itself, but ensures that the white
E will command only three squares of the
a-fle, i.e., only three raks, while Black
commands four. Reducing the mobility of
enemy s, and increasing tat of one's own
s, is the main secret of endings.
The position diagrammed occurred in
a challenge match in Sydney.
-55 -
The Search for Chess Perection
J. Cornforth (to move)
A.E. )eater
Black is two is up, and should win.
Cornforth, becoming careless, decided to
offer exchange of .s in order to play . . . a5,
etc., and get two united passed is. The play
went 1 ... Re5? 2. Rd6 a 3. g5 K5? Thus,
Black reasoned, I shall get i for i . But this
maneuver contavenes a cardinal maxim of
r play: Don't play the King to the side of the
board. Rarely does a i pay for the time lost.
4. gx6 K4? 5. K4! And White
wins, owing to his threats of mate, e.g., 5 ...
ReB 6. f threatening R6 mate. Or 5 . . . Rh5
6. Rd1 !, etc. If 5 . . . e3, 6. Ke5 e2 7 Rd4t, etc.
Black lost because he evolved a plan
out of his own fancy instead of out of the
nature of endgames. His plan was too slow.
Black had an advanced passed i, and
his frst thought should have been to use it,
just as in the middle game a mass of pieces
round your opponent's r makes you look
first for a mating attack. Clearly 7 ... c3 fails.
Therefore you look at ... Rc6first, and quickly
see that you can paralyze White's .. We
have 7 . . . Rc6! 2. Ke4 c 3. Rd1 c2 4. Rc1.
This is a good time to mention
Tarrasch's Rule once again: Wether an ad
vanced pawn i your own or the enemy s, your
Rook i best plced behind it.
The reason is that the frther the i
advances, the more squares on the file are
given to the . behind it. The point that an
enemy . in front of a i stops it advancing
altogether is of relatively small importance.
If the .s were transposed in this posi
tion (the position afer 4. Rcl), Black could
win by checking, but White could have
played in such a way as to avoid this. With
no safe check available, the black ./cl
would be powerless.
As it is, the passed i is stopped, but
the white . is paralyzed while the black .
has the freedom of the board. Black wins
either by . . . Rc3 or . . . Rc4f
This ending illustrates two principles
( I) that the lord of the endgame is the
passed i ; (2) that . endings are largely
decided by the number of squares com
manded by the respective .s.
Note the word "advanced" in our ver
sion of Tarrasch's Rule. If the passed i is
only at a4/a5, an enemy . is obviously
best placed on the square immediately in
front of it, i.e., "blockading it." For then te
supporting . is confned to his three back
ranks. If the i is at a3/a6 or a2/a4, the
blockade is still better. It is not the blockae
of the i that matters; it is the blockade of
the supportng .! The principle of i -block
ade in the middlegame is just the same.
BOOK STUDY
During his tour in the Norther Dis
ticts, Mr. Koshnitsky emphasized that while
it paid to devote a little study to the open
ings, study of the endgames paid better.
"Don't talk disparagingly of 'book' play
ers," he said; "it is only book players that
are any good!"
Endgames are themselves of immense
practical importance. But for beginners and
average players, the study of endgames has
an added value. It helps your middlegame
play. In the middlegame, the basic prin
ciples are at frst obscured by a multitude of
pieces; in the endgame, they shine out
clearly. If you want to lea juggling, you
start with two oranges-not a snooker set.
- 56 -
Hi Wrtings
SOME VITAL PRINCIPLES ILLUSTRATED
The Rook
The following simple but most instuc
tive little endgame occurred in the simulta
neous exhibition given by the writer at the
Metropolitan Social Chess Club.
Mr. H.F. Pike, one of the heroic 60-odd
who braved flood-rain and cyclone, proved
invulnerable tll the following ) ending
was reached, when he fell into an error
which not many players could have avoided.
It illustrates the following three vital
principles of endgame strategy:
1. In Rook endings, become the agressor at
al cost. Two fs up will frequently not win a
) ending, while no fs up with a stong
initiative nearly always will.
2. The W is a champion f blockader.
Therere, prer to have passed pawns on the side
where the enemy King does not stand. Two
united passed fs on te sixth/third rank
win unaided against ), ' or in any
positon, but a W in front of them stops
them easily.
3. Rook and pawn on the seventh/second
rank with the enemy Kin conned to his back
rank, two fls or more away, win against prac
ticaly any power on earth.
As always, cover the moves below the
diagram with a card-otherwise you derive
less benefit. Then look at the diagram.
H.F. Pike
Purdy (to play)
White is a f up, but cannot keep it.
Black's ) has an open board, while White's
has not. White's frst care is therefore to
open up an avenue of attack. This is easy.
How?
1 . h5
Still cover the moves below. Black now
ha two ways of captung a f ; either . .. Rxc4,
which leaves him still a f down after 2.
hxg6 and makes his f- f isolated, or else
. . . Rt, which regains te f and leaves
White's ) still "bitng on graite." Which?
And why?
1. . . .
R4t?
Like 99 players out of a hundred in
over-the-board play, Black is tempted by
the bait of equalizing the material; but this
move loses the game. For the Ws are both
on the w-side, so that pased fs on the
w-side will be easily blockaded, whereas
i-side passed fs will be deadly. Also, the
black ) is taken out of play (at h4) for one
move, whereas at c4 he would still be free as
the mountain air.
Black should have disarmed White on
the i-side by 1 . . . Rxc4. Then 2. hxg6 Kg7 3.
Rxj Kg6. Black is now a f down, but his
) is so mobile (threatening both . . . Rc2 and
. .. Re4) that he draws easily.
2. Kg
l R5
3. Rd2
So White gets an avenue just the same!
3. . . . f4
4. Rd7
White should win, for he gets passed
f s on the i-side and has the additional
advantage of "Rook on the seventh/second
rank absolute. " That is, he not only has the
glorious seventh rank, but he confnes
Black's W to the eighth-see Rule (3) above.
If Black had a sheltering f on f or g7, he
could emerge, but now his confnement is
"absolute. "
4. . . . Re5
Feeble would be 4 . . . a5; White would
-
57
-
The Search for Chess Perection
get a passed f all the sooner by Rh 7 In E
versus- E endings, where you have the
choice, take or attack rather than attempt to run
away or dend. Pawns cannot escape fom Rooks
by running away.
5. Rxa7
6. b4
7. K
g5
g4
Re3
To play . . . g3fwithout White answering
Kj. This f race is no use, because of Rule
(2); but any attempt to disarm White on the
-side comes too late. See next note.
8. a4 g3t
9. K
9. . . . Re4
Instructive is . . . . Rc3 10. a5! bxa5 17. b5
Rb3 12. c5! Rxb5 13. c6 Rc5 14. c7 The f
must queen, because Black's r is confned to
his back rank. See why that makes all the
difference? If 9 . . . Rb3, 10. c5 wins.1
10. Rc7?
10. a5, maing a passed f quickly,
wins much sooner.
10. h5
1 1. a5
bxa5
12. b5!
On principle, it is best to have your E
on the fle adjacent to the passed f. For
when both E and f are on the seventh,
suppose Black has his E on his back rank.
In order to queen his f, White must play
his ) to the eighth rank, and he cannot do
this until his E is on the file adjacent to the
f.
12. h4
13. b6 h3
14. gh3 f
15. b7 Resigs
For if . . . g2f, 16. KfRe2f 17 Kjg1=Q
18. bB=Qand mates.
Emphasis has been laid on the impor
tance of attacking in E endings, even at the
cost of material. The general reason is that a
E is too valuable a force to waste on de
fense. A defensive task tes him down.
But another reason is that a E has a
special advantage not possessed by a A or a
1: he moves in the same direction a a f . This
makes him very good at:
1. attacking enemy fs;
2. backing up non-blockaded passed
fs on their way to queening.
For once a E gets on a f's file, he
commands every square along that f's
route. Consequently, an isolated f cannot
escape from a E , and a passed f backed
up by a E can keep advancing even though
every square on its route is under fre, so
long as it is not blockaded, i.e., walled up by
a piece directly in font of it.
Te Passed Pawn
That the endgame begins and ends
with the passed f cannot be too often
reiterated. Mere superiority in material goes
for nothing when there is a dangerous passed
f in the ofing. Below is a classical ex
ample.
1 Ed.: It's not quite so obvious to most of us, but in lieu of Purdy' s remarks two paragraphs
down, it would seem that the win is in: 10 . . . bxc5 1 1 . b5! Rb4 12. Rc7 c4 13. a5 Rxb5
1 4. a6 Ra5 15. a7 +-; if l l . . . c4 12. Rc7 c3 13. Ke2 Rb4 14. Rxc3 Rxa4 15. Rb3 Ra2t
1 6. K Rft 1 7. Ke4 f 18. b6 fxg2 19. b7 Re2t 20. Kf5 Re8 21 . b8=Q
-
58
-
His Writings
By the way, a few striking examples
flly discussed are much better than a large
number that soon flit from one's mind. I
fnd that what helps me most in endgame
play is the memory of a few such positions
which have seized my imagination; the prin
ciples which they have impressed on me
have come to my aid in endgames quite
unlike the actual positon remembered; in
deed, I would usually be quite unable to set
up the "remembered" position exactly. And
I think most people have this sort of vague
picture-mind.
It will be interesting to compare
Alekhine's notes fom the Book of the New
York Tournament 7924 with Ret's in Masters
of the Chessboard.
Tartakover
Capablanca (to play his 27th)
Each side has a , so it is a question of
who can attack frst. If it were Black's move,
he would have time for the fle-opening
move . . . c5, followed by depredations with
his .. But White has the move. What is his
corresponding fle-opener? Clearly another
fle must be opened, for the e-fle ofers little
prospect; te black defends the end of it,
and eS would be a feeble post, as Black
would easily secure himself with . . . c6.
Notes ending (R) by Reti; notes ending
(A) by Alekhine.
2 7. h5!
This is te calamity-the . now enters
the hostile camp (A) .
2 7. Rf6
28. hxg6 hxg6
29. Rl
White plays logically to utlize his ad
vantage on the -side, and very properly
does not concer himself with the weaness
of his -side. Black, on the other hand,
makes a defensive move which he could
perhaps have omitted (R).
29. R
30. Rh7
Rc6
31. g4!
Anxious natures might have moved
the towards the -side, but Capablanca
adheres to the principle of aggression that
governs . endings (R).
31. . . Nc4
32. g5!
He gives his opponent the opportunity
of winning a f. But Capablanca has conf
dence in the passed f which he obtains
(R).
Threatening Rh6 followed by f, and
against it there is nothing to be done (A).
32. . . . Ne3
t
33. Kf Nf5
Or 33 . . . Ndl 34. Rh6 Kj35. f Rc 36.
fg6f KB 3Z Ke2 N2 38. Bf wit an easy
win (A).
34. Bx5
Simple and compelling (A).
34. . . . gxf5
35. Kg3!!
It is extremely instuctive to see how
Capablanca is no longer in the least con
cered about material equality, but thinks
only of supporting his passed f (R) .
Decisive! White sacrifces material in
order to obtain the classical position with
lf6, f/g6, and ./h7, whereupon the
black fs tumble like ripe apples (A) .
35. Rxc3
t
36. Kh4! R
37. g6 Rxf4t
-
59
-
Te Search for Chess Perection
38. Kg5
Re4
39. Kf6!
It is a frequently available finesse in
such positions not to capture hostile fs, but
to pass them by in order to be protected in
the rear against checks by the ) (R) .
39. Kgl
40. Rg7t
Kh8
41. Rxc7 Re8
42. Kxf5
Again the simplest. Kjwould not yet
have been disastrous because of RB, etc.
(A) .
42. Re4
43. Kf6 Rf4t
44. Ke5 Rg4
45. g7t
Kg8
Mter exchanging )s, White would win
still more easily (R).
46. Rxa7 Rgl
47. Kxd5 Rcl
48. Kd6 Rc2
49. d5
Rcl
50. Rc7
Ral
51. Kc6 Rxa4
52. d6 Resigns
In the words of Ret, Capablanca's
management of tis endgame . . .
.. . gives the impression of being so
natural that one eaily forgets the
dificulty of such precise play. The
difculty is chiefly psychological.
In chess, as in life, one is so accus
tomed to place value on the mate
rial factors that it is not easy to
conceive the idea of indulging i
pawn sacrifces when there is so
little available material.
- 60 -
His Writings
PLA WITH THE PIECES
We all play a great deal of rotten chess-some more than others-and one of the roots
of the trouble is the tyranny of the ..
There are stll many players whose idea of winning a game of chess consists in
grabbing a . and stuggling through somehow to an endgame-where, they fondly
believe, a . plus is a automatic win. Here we see the tyranny of te . in its vilest and
most nauseatng form. But there are degrees, and even in master play we find weak moves
being made through an insufcient contempt for .s.
To get away from te tyranny of the ., you need to start looking at chess from an
entirely new angle. Picture the game more as a hand-to-hand struggle between the pieces.
The woodshifer, as te name implies, sees the pieces as blocks of wood, whereas the real
player, whose eye "in a fne frenzy rolling, coth glance from heaven to earth, from earth
to heaven," sees tem as units of energy which he can combine in beautiful ways, just as
the musical composer can build up bewitching melodies out of a scale of mere sounds,
each in itself no more interestng than a wooden chess fgure.
Don't look at chess in this way because it is romantc. It is, but look at chess this way
because it is the way to win. Contrary to the general notion, a positional advantage-that
is, a better dispositon of your forces generally-is always easier to exploit than an
equivalent advantage i material, even for the weakest player. Even in the endgame, a
positonal advatage will more readily win. If your pieces are poorly posted in an
endgame, a . plus is fequently insufcient to win. On the other hand, the very slightest
positional advantage in an endgame will often grow and grow like a snowball-without
any mistakes by the opponent-until a win is easily forced.
Thus we see that a . + is not the ideal sort of advatage even for an endgame. And
in the middlegame, it is usually no help at all. So by winning a . at a heavy cost in
positon, you are deliberately making the middlegame hard for yourself, for the sake of
something that should not tur out to be of much use even if you get to an endgame,
assuming that your opponent retains his positional advatage. Surely a silly, as well as
despicable, way of playing chess!
We can now see why Alekhine was always so anxious, after winning a ., to retur it
for an advantage in positon. One ofen hears about Alekhine's "dynamic" style. "Dy
namic" is just a clever way of saying that he plays with the pieces.
A DYAMIC MOVE
I ca illustrate what I mean by "play
ing with te pieces" or "dynamic chess"
with a single move. It was made by Capa
blanca against Lasker at St. Petersburg, 1914.
The diagram shows te positon with Capa
blanca to play.
-
6
1 -
Te Search for Chess Perection
Lasker
Capablanca (to play his 1 9th)
Before reading past this paragraph,
think what move you would play here, or
rather, what you would have played if you
had not been told there was something
special.
Tarrasch says in the book of the tour
ney that 99 players out of a hundred would
have played 19. Nj, and his computation
cannot be far out. It looks so obvious! In
one move, the 4 can develop himself, free
the @, and protect a f which Black is
threatening to capture.
The fallacy in this reasoning-truly a
popular one-is that the f needs defending.
Capablanca rebelled against the tyr
anny of the i and looked at the position
from the viewpoint of the pieces. Undoubt
edly the 4 should move, thus freeing both
himself and the _, but where to? What
square gives him the most power? Thus
Capablanca was led to play:
19. Ne4!!
At e4 the 4 has a far better range than
at f. Most important, he counters Black's
natural developing move . . . Bc5, and threat
ens, after defending the e- f by f4, to win a
f himself by Nc3. And if Black takes the
e- f at once, he loses a valuable tempo in
development, enabling White to get al his
pieces into beautifully aggressive positions.
The game continued:
19. . . . Re5
Played only because anything else loses.
20. Rd1 Be7
21. f!
This quiet move shows how silly i t i s to
lose your head just because you have given
up a f . Some players think they have to
institute a desperate attack. Here White
simply supports his 4 on its center square,
fees the back line from mating threats,
prepares the way for development later,
and threatens Bf4-the last being, of course,
the most important.
21. . . . Rf52
22. Rc8
And Black must give up the c- f,
... c5would lose by 23. RcxdBfand 24. Nd6f.
When you have a strong initiative in
pieces, you will always arrive at a position,
like this one, where the opponent is forced
to disgorge his ill-gotten gains, ofen with
interest.
A FAMOUS EXAMPLE
There i s no better illustration of "play
ing with the pieces" than Capablanca's 15th
to his 25th moves in his game against Nim
zovich at St. Petersburg, 1914. We give the
play leading up to the crucial stage, as it
bears on the discussion.
Nimzovich-Capablanca
1. e4 e5
2. Nf
Nc6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bb5 d6
Black submits to temporary cramp in
order to avoid a drawish symmetry.
[Ed.: Black caves in. Even moves like 21 . . .
c6 or 21 . . . 0-0, in spite of White's Bf4,
seem more survivable than 21 . . . Rf5.
21 . . . c6 22. Bf4 Rd5 23. Rel (23. Rcl ?! f5
24. Nc3) 0-0 24. Real +.]
- 62 -
Hi Writings
5. d4 Bd7
6. Bxc6!? Bxc6
7. Qd3
exd4
8. Nxd4
g6!?
More solid was .. . BeZ
9. Nxc6 bxc6
10. Qa6 Qd7!
Pobably Nimzovich hoped that Capa
blanca would play 10 . . . c5? to save a f.
Then White would get a positional advan
tage instead, by 1 1. Q6f Nd7 12. Bg5!
Rather than submit to a marked posi
tional disadvantage, always give up mate
rial. The loss of a f ; the Exchange for a f ;
or for , A and f : al these cause
absurdly disproportionate alarm to the ma
jority of players. So long as you have a little
positonal superiori
t
ucompensaton, tere
is not the slightest need to become timorous
or desperate.
1 1. Qb7 ReS
12. Qxa7 Bg7
Let us take stock. How many tempos
for te f ? The white has so far lost three
moves, and will have to lose another in
getting back to safety. The black has lost
one, and will have to retur to a8, maing a
total of two moves gone West. Thus Black
has gained two tempos for the f. This is
quite enough for a flank f in general, in the
opening, but here we must remember that
White has gained the very definite advan
tage of a passed f . Furthermore, White's
fs are nearly all unmoved, displaying few
weaknesses. All in all, any woodshifter

Co8u BBlOLLa
Z.. 6l 0
h Wt 0 l0
0B t0tlbgu00
w t
0gOuD u OD h OgO
BBl8u 00 00cess w0C
d fI l0 cBU ch
w0duo860NOudh0 u
l euD gtOb l0
lh Z. g 4
4 Z.b. . . dI0wO
B uOL 08D 0
IK0 UVI m UV
O 8 0 w
yblI 0C
2.g0wD 8VdOU
tddUwVI08 Z
0t8 DOZ. . . O
Dd 0 1U dy O lU
tB 0 I
OV g0N
cBU08!b:0B!bgtcVOug u0
UBj b6uV
M 0BU 0XD0C
QJZ001bU,gObcD8lh
[uU6
J J V08bO 0
mgZ..O 2.XC
m Z.. . O \b m 0t\
.. 8Dd .. . . 0 g
Y: Zlh OVh'
g Uw0, fI bb
hd ht0 [0D0 0u
0O Ot Q0w B Im
0 W Ddca\
ODQO1wOOO
l SD8 e W h0S0
Ou1dgp8tD
10 j VDUwgO00
OL0NB08I
00Ob0u l0
mu8tCI.
lUt
-63 -
The Search for Chess Perection
would consider himself in clover in White's
position.
In what follows, we are not concered
with improvements that might have been
made in White's defense. All we want to
show is that Nimzovich played quite rea
sonably all the time, and yet found himself
with a dead loss in a dozen more moves.
The point that needs emphasizing is that,
no matter whether you are a f up or not, it
is always very dificult to play correctly
when the enemy has the initative. This is
simply because he calls the tune; you have
to allow for a hundred and one things that
he might possibly do, and under a time
limit this is a very serious handicap. You
may feel you ought to win, but you are
playing against loaded dice. So it is here
with White.
13. 0-0 0-0
14. Qa6 Re8
It will now be seen why White chose to
bring back his Qvia a6. At e3 (the altera
tive square), it would have been badly
placed, and would have had to shift any-
way.
15. Qd3
With the quite sensible idea of killing
two birds with one stone-defending the
e- f and centralizing the .
Now, how is Black to proceed? It is
eaily seen that he has no combination avail
able. Therefore, he must depend on a plan.
To do this, he enumerates the weaknesses
and strengths of each side. This reconnais
sance should show him that he has but one
advantage that is at all permanent-his com
mand of the long dark diagonal. He must
try to make White move his -fank
forward so as to accentuate this advantage.
Above all, Black must achieve this design
with a succession of smites if possible, else
White will complete his development, leav
ing Black with no advantage at all.
15. . . . Qe6!
16. f Nd7
17. Bd2 Ne5!
18. Qe2 Nc4
If now 19. b3?, . . . Bd4f 20. Kh1 Nxd2
followed by . . . Q5, winning a piece.
19. Rab1 Ra8
20. a4
Playing to save the precious passed f,
which would be lost afer 20. b3 Nxd2 21.
(d2 RJ. But this greed seals White's doom.
20.
Nxd2!
21. Qxd2 Qc4
22. Rd1 Reb8!
Not satisfied with merely regaining his
f with advantage, Black puts on more
pressure.
23. Qe3
If 23. Q3, 05fand then . . . Rh4!
23. Rb4
24. Q5 Bd4
t
25. Kh1 Rab8!
White is now completely jammed. In
desperation, he decides to give up the Ex
change.
26. Rxd4
27. Rd1
28. h4
Qxd4
Qc4
Rxb2
Unlike most f -hunts in the opening,
this one of Nimzovich's was quite sound
and correct. And yet it led to disaster. Fail
ing to start off correctly, with 14. f!, which
would have given his a retreat at f when
needed, he just drifted imperceptibly to
perdition. How much more likely are you
to lose when the f -grab is of a more doubt
ful character!
Therefore, when in doubt, don't!
- 64 -
His Writings
THE PLA FOR POSITION AFTER THE OPENING
It is extemely dificult to play a perfect opening, but quite easy to play a reasonably
good opening. To play a reasonably good middle game is far less easy.
The reaon is that in the opening your object is always the same-development. But
when development is completed you have to find a new object, and tat object depends
on the positon.
Having discovered a good object-say the posting of a on c5/ c4-you seek moves
that will ft in wit your object. This is planning, or position play.
But-tis is where the books fail to war the student-before you begin looking for a
plan, make sure tere is no good combination available, i.e., a forcing line of play starting
with a threat. You ca do so much more with a combination than a plan; therefore, at
every move in every game you play, look first for a combination.
List of Combination Motifs and the
Normal Ways of Taking Advantage of
Them
1. Eposed Kin. Expose him more.
2. Castld Kin without a protecting piece
(such as a on f3/f6/c3/c6) . Quick sacri
fice of a piece to bring about mate.
3. Any undended unit. Fork it, pin
something on the line of it, or attack it to
gan a tempo.
4. Forkabl unit. Fork them.
5. Masked batter. Unmask.
6. Big pieces on some fle, rnk, or diago
nal. Pin.
7. Pinned unit. Attack it.
8. Any tied unit, e.g., piece protecting
another piece or back row from mate, etc.
Attack it or put something en prise to it.
Assuming that there is no sound com
bination available-there rarely is one early
in the game, unless your opponent has done
something rather silly-and also assuming
that you have no more pieces to be devel
oped, your problem is to find a plan-a
good plan, and if possible the best plan.
The first step in fnding a plan is to
enumerate the weaknesses ad strengths of
each side.
List of Possible Weaknesses and the
Normal Way of taking Advantage of
Each
1. Wak squares. Post pieces on them.
2. Wak pawns. Fix them, and then
make the opponent use pieces to defend
them.
3. Pawn moved in front of castled King.
pawn storm, provided stormer's W is not
endangered.
4. Conned pieces. Prevent freeing.
5. Generally cramped game. Keep
cramped; prevent freeing moves.
6. Backward development without cramped
game, i.e., pieces as yet undeveloped but
with good squares free to them (no disad
vantage in space, only time). Look again to
see if there is a combination; if not, use your
temporary superiority as best you can.
List of "Strengths" and
Normal Ways of Removing Each
1. Wll-posted piece. Exchange.
2. Greater terrain. f -advance to gain
space.
3. Greater elasticit. Loosen your own
position.
4. Control of center. f -challenge.
-
65
-
The Search for Chess Perection
AI M OF PLAN
A plan will aim at one or more of the
following four objectives, according to rela
tive importance and feasibility, and accord
ing to which side has the initiative. For
example, if you have a strong initiative you
do not, for preference, set about trying to
remove your own weaknesses, if any, but
rather to exploit the opponent's.
The four possible objectives:
1. Exploiting enemy weakness(es).
2. Removing enemy strength(s).
3. Removing your own weakness(es) .
4. Establishing your strength(s).
PRACTICAL EXAMPLE
In actual practice, planning always
works out much more simply than these
lengthy tables and lists would make it ap
pear. As a rule, only two or three of the
listed phenomena will occur in any one
position.
Our frst example is from the match
Capablanca-Lasker, Havana 1921, for the
world's championship.
Ca
p
ablanca-Lasker
1. d4 d5
2. N e6
3. c4 Nf6
4. Bg5 Nd7
5. e3 Be7
6. Nc3 0-0
7. Rcl Re8
The score stood at 3-0 against Lasker,
which accounts for his anxiety to avoid the
beaten track.
8. Qc2
9. Bd3
10. Bxc4
1 1. Bxe7
12. 0-0
c6
dxc4
Nd5
Rxe7
N
13. Rfd1 Bd7
Observe that at every stage where it
was feasible to make a developing move,
White has done so-with the sole exception
of 3. c4, which, however, is a move made for
the ultimate purpose of development (by its
aid, White gets usefl files for both .s) .
We advise all players who are not ex
perts to follow this principle always-except
where the opponent, by a bad move, gives
the opportunity for an early combination.
True, Reti mentions a case where he
was partnering Capablanca in a consulta
tion game, and Capablanca refused to play
the natural developing move "which Mor
phy would have played as a matter of
course." Well, a move Morphy would have
played cannot be very bad. In short, the
natural developing move in a position is
always a good move, even if not perfect,
while any other move is usually bad.
As for Black, it is obvious that he is
deliberately giving himself a cramped game
in the desperate hope of inducing White to
overreach himself.
White has now completed his develop
ment. His next move is the one most play
ers would make, and requires no comment.
14. e4 Nb6
It is now time to think. First of all, it is
obvious that no combination is possible.
What then? The has a coice of four
squares. As none of these four possible .-
moves would carry a threat, none is obvi
ously better than the others. It would only
-66 -
His Writings
be waste of time to
t
to calculate the
possible results of each in turn. The thing to
do is to discover what is our correct plan of
campaign, and then make whatever move
fts the plan best.
We frst proceed to enumerate the
weanesses and stengths. In te frst place,
White has no weaknesses, and has a pro
nounced strength in his greater control of
the center. Evidently he has to look out for a
f challenge by ... c5 or . .. e5 at some stage.
Black's castled W is well protected,
and there is no f moved in front of it. Nor
has Black any weak fs.
He has weak squares, at d6 and cS. The
only way to tae advantage of these would
be by e5 and Ne4, but, as the position now
stands, this would give Black a splendid
post for his -4 at dS. Therefore, such a
plan belongs to the future rather than the
present, and we must
t
to drive away
Black's 4 by a4-a5 frst, if possible.
Finally, Black has a generally cramped
game.
To this last fact our reaction should be:
Can I keep him cramped? What freeing
moves might he am at? Answer: ... c5 or
... e5. Can I prevent them?
We can prevent ... c5by answering ... RcB
with b4.
Thus we have already ruled out one
plausible A move, namely 15. Bb3.
What about te other feeing maneu
ver, ... Ng6 followed by . .. e5? Most players
would reason that the only way to stop . . . e5
is to meet . . . Ng6by e5 (after all). If this plan
is chosen, then 15. Bd3 seems the move, in
order to use the diagonal if we have to open
it by e5. This idea is quite good, and there is
no reason for a student to become discour
aged because Capablanca chooses a differ
ent plan and plays 15. Bfl. Fine shades only
count in master play. The important thing is
to choose a reasonable plan, and play the
move that seems best to fit it.
15. Bf
Capablanca's choice of this move sim
ply shows that he did not intend to meet
15 . . . Ng6by e5 (not caring to give Black dS
grats), and therefore his A would be merely
an obstruction at d3. Far better at fl, where
it can obstruct nothing.
Capablanca may have intended to al
low Black to play ... e5, knowing that he
would be able to reap a little advantage
from the opening of lines, being better de
veloped. More probably, he intended to
stop it by answering 15 . . . Ng6 with 16. h4!,
which indirectly prevents 16 ... e5because of
1Z h5 exd4 18. hxg6 dcx3 19. gxh7f, since 19 . ..
Kh7 would lose by 20. e5f KgB 21. Ng5
(threatens mate because White's is not
obstructed by the Bihop!) g6 22. e6!, etc.
But do not get te idea that it is neces
sary to look so deeply to play chess well. As
already stated, 15. Bd3, intending to meet
. .. Ng6 with e5, is quite a good plan, and
should retain an advantage.
15. . . . Rc8
16. b4 Be8
We could now proceed at once with
our plan of driving the black -. away
from the command of the square d5, by 1Z
a4, and, once again, this would be quite
good. However, it is a good principle in
chess to consolidate every advance-leave
nothing undefended.
17. Qb3
18. a4!
19. a
Rec7
Ng6
Nd7
Now our course is obvious.
20. e5 b6
21. Ne4 Rb8
We are now right into the middlegame,
and to go any frther would trespass on the
preserves of this article. However, it may
cheer the student to know that Capablanca
did not conduct the entire game like a ma
chine. Here he should have played either
22. a6 (logical, to prevent all freeing maneu-
- 67 -
The Search for Chess Perection
vers) or 22. Q3; but he made what is really
quite an elementary slip, with 22. Qc3?
This enables Black, after 22 ... Nf4, to come
into d5 with a gain of tempo. Black thus
obtained quite a playable game, and only
lost through mistakes frther on.
So much for the "machine-like accu
racy" myth, and there is comfort here. Chess
is too big for any man to play perfectly; all
that any player can aim at is to do his best.
The next example is from the 1 1 th
game of the Alekhine-Capablanca match
of 1927, possibly the greatest game of chess
ever played.
It illustrates the most difcult type of
position play-that is, the management of
equal positions.
Our aim will not be to show how the
precise moves chosen by Alekhine and Ca
pablanca could all be worked out by an
ordinary player, but simply to show how to
think in such positions. If the student can
lea to plan logically, he will avoid serious
errors and recognize such errors when made
by his opponent.
Again, one must warn the student
against becoming discouraged when, in spite
of his best efforts, he fails sometmes to play
exactly the same move as a master. It so
often happens that one move is almost, if
not quite, as good as another; the thing is to
avoid moves that are really against the spirit
of a position.
Don't play this game just for instruc
tion. It is really quite thrilling to watch how,
without any but the most infinitesimal er
rors by Capablanca, who plays the game
splendidly, the balance of power edges by
almost imperceptible degrees against him,
and how Alekhine ultimately forces a win
by black magic.
Capablanca-Aiekhine
Cambride Springs Dense
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Nbd7
5. e3 c6
6. Nf
The natural developing move. Many
players now consider it a shade better to
prevent the Cambridge Springs by 6. cxd5
followed by Z Bd3. But that is by the way.
6. . . . Qa5
7. Nd2
As is well known, Wite must inter
rupt development here owing to Black's
strong threat of ... Ne4. Particularly rotten is
Z Bd3 ?? as Z .. Ne4 then wins off hand.
7. . . . Bb4
8. Qc2 dxc4
Here Black interrupts his development
voluntarily. In compensation for the time
lost, he forces White to exchange a strong
. for a .
But the natural developing move 8 . . .
0-0 is quite playable, and was adopted by
Alekhine in a previous game of the same
match.
9. Bx6
10. Nxc4
l l. a
Nx6
Qc7
"Putting the question" to a A does not
count as an interruption in development,
unless, of course, the opponent can ex
change off the A without suffering disad
vantage.
1 1. . . .
Be7
12. Be2
Here Bd3 is not a bad move, but there
is no justification in this position for plan
ning a -side attack. Much better to put the
on the fianchetto diagonal, as Black is
bound to play for . . . c5 sometime, and then
that diagonal will come open. The rule for
- 68 -
His Wrtings
close games is:
Post your pieces where the will become
usel i the enemy breaks through in the center.
This plan can never fail, for i you thus
deter the opponent from breaking through,
that is itself a gain.
But the better method of fianchettoing
was, as usual, g3 and Bg2 instead of Be2-Bj.
For it decreases one's mobilit or elsticity
to place a piece in font of pawns, especially in or
near the center.
True, weakening f moves can also be
dangerous, but here Black must himself
castle on the w-side, and so could hardly
make anything out of the "weakness."
12. . . . 0-0
13. 0-0 Bd7
It would be a mistake to fianchetto
here, as Black will have great dificulty in
enforcing ... c5, ad until then his 1 -A woud
be a prisoner. If 13 ... c5 at once, he would
get into trouble through 14. Nb5. The text
prevents this, and therefore threatens . . . c5.
Now let us take White's side. His de
velopment is not complete, but White has
at least attained the important stage where
his )s are "connected," i.e., have nothing
between them.
Wen your Rooks are connected, i there is
no open fle fr one of them to take it is quite
permissible to postpone completion of develop
ment in favor of some other usel maneuver.
In other words, one can consider one
self in the middlegame when the opening
has got to that stage, and plan accordingly.
Going through the lists given in the
previous article, we soon come to the con
clusion that Black has only one weakness-a
generally cramped game.
Automatically, we look for possible
freeing moves by Black. Obviously, .. . c5.
This suggests:
14. b4!
Even here, however, it would have
been quite good to continue development
simply by 14. Rfd1 or 14. Rac1 on the prin
ciple that:
The opening of lines should favor the better
developed army.
14. . . . b6
This move will have to be played some
time if . . . c5 is to be enforced. However, )
development first was equally good. The
order of moves is fequently vital, but here,
a toss-up.
15. Bf
16. Rd1
Rc8
Rd8
17. Rc1 Be8!
At last development is completed by
both sides. This is where many players be
gin to feel "bushed." But this apparently
complicated position all centers around one
simple issue-Black's freeing move, ... c5.
The move is not threatened at the mo
ment because of the reply dc5 bxc5, b5!
Black would then have a passed f, but
eficiently blockaded and therefore value
less for the middlegame, whereas White
would have a potential passed f that would
be very hard indeed to blockade.
Has Black any other feasible freeing
move? Possibly .. .Nd7 and . . . e5, but this is
obviously feeble, as White could answer
. .. Nd7by e4, and if then ... e5, d5!
Any other freeing move?
Yes, .. . Nd5, threatening an exchange.
Any exchange i feeing to a cramped game.
This suggests 18. e4, which was White's
simplest and possibly best move. If then
18 . . . Q4, threatening to dominate the
- 69 -
The Search for Chess Perection
-side, certainly White would be virtually
forced to offer the exchange of 's by 19.
Q2, but Black's other pieces would remain
cramped.
Capablanca evolves a more subtle and
elaborate plan. He decides to permit . .. Nd5,
which will give him time for a regrouping
maneuver by which he hopes to prevent
. . . c5, and also be able to open a battery onto
the f/c6. He cannot do this while his /c4
is in the way.
18. g3
The fll point of this will soon come to
light. In a way, it lends weight to our note
on Move 12.
18. . . .
Nd5
There is a special point in this threat
ened exchange. Mter it, White could no
longer play b5, so that it renews the threat of
.. . c5.
19. N2!
Now ... c5 is again prevented, e.g., 19 .. .
c5? 20. Nxd5 and White wins a f ; or if frst
19 . . . Nxc3, 20. Qc3 c5. White has time to
utilize the pin of the c- f by doubling , s
onto it.
But if White had not played g3, Black
could throw a negro [Ed: of course Prdy i
rerring to one of Blck's chessmen.3] into the
woodpile (preferable to a spanner) by .. .Bd6.
This would unpin the c- f by defending the
', and White would have to lose a move in
protecting his h- f.
As it is, Black is confned to a passive
unpinning of his c- f , and Capablanca is
thus able to execute his regrouping plan.
19. . . . Qb8
3 [Ed.: Ralph (compiler) and I debated
whether we should leave this in and be
accused of being racist. Neither of us are
racists, but I am not a PC history-revision
ist. To see Purdy's true conviction on the
subject see the opening remarks of Game
#44.]
20. Nd3
Now . . . c5 is directly prevented. Capa
blanca has played wit his customary single
ness of purpose.
What is Alekhine to do? His plan of
playing ... c5 has been frustated.
He therere turns to the possibilit of ex
ploitin some weaknesses in Wite's position.
The ordinary player would see none,
but Alekhine hat an eagle eye. He sees a
weakness in the point e3!
20. . . . Bg5!
This threatens a combination. The
threat is easily parried, but thereby White
must to some extent become fettered. A
very instuctive conception!
21. Rb1
White parries the threat by removing
his l fom danger. If now 21 ... Nxe3!?
Black merely loses a piece for three fs.
But the vacating of the c-file is itself a
concession to Black. So would have been
21. Q2- using a for a menial task!
21. . . . Qb7
Aiming at a regrouping by . .. Q7, or in
some variations even . . . Q6.
White now becomes irritated by the
potential combination hanging over him. It
might be described as a drawing-pin of
Damocles. White decides to get clear of it
forever.
22. e4 Nxc
23. Qxc
Thus Black has induced White to cre
ate a rather more defnite weakness in his
position, in the undefended c- f [Ed. : That
i, it is no longer protected by the e- f . This, in
a measure, makes up for Black's wea c- f.
Had White played e4 on Move 18, it
would have had the advantage of keeping
Black's in bondage. Now, with the
exchanged, the cramping effect of e4 is very
slight, and the weakening of the c- f is the
only real result obtained. However, there
was certainly provocation for the advance.
- 70 -
Hi Wrting
23. . . . Qe7
24. h4!?
This seriously weakens White's W-side,
but White feels tat something has got to be
done. His pieces do not cooperate; the 4,
which is preventing .. . c5, is at the sae time
obstructing a B and will have to move
sometme to provide support for the d- f.
Capablanca therefore decides on a bold
plan for eliminating one of Black's ls.
24. . . .
Bh6
25. Ne5 g6
Forced.
26. Ng4 Bg7
2 7. e5 h5!
Black is bound to play this to avoid
Nf6f after . . . c5, etc.
28. Ne3 c5!
At last!
29. bxc5 bxc5
30. d5 exd5
31. Nxd5 Qe6
A grisly blunder would be 31 ... Qe5 ??
32. Nf6
t
Bx6
33. exf6
Thus White completes his plan.
Let us take stock. The f /f6 is a thor
i Black's flesh, but Black has lessened its
efect by providing a flight square for his
W/h
7
Black has a powerful passed f . Can
he force a w? By magnifcent chess, he
did, and although the rest of the game is
outside the bounds of this article, we are
sure most of our readers will want to see it.
The rest of our notes will be very brief.
33. Rxd1
t
34. Rxd1 Bc6
35. Re1 Q5
36. Re3 c4!
37. a4 a5!
If 37 . . Bxa4?, 38. ReS! wit an attack.
38. Bg2 Bxg2
39. Kxg2 Qd5t
40. Kh2 Q5
41. R Qc5
42. Rf4 Kh7!
If 42 . . . @4, 43. Q3 c3 [Ed.: Surely a
Prdy tpolerror since 44. Rxb4 Kh7 45. Q7!
KgB 46. Rb7 and Wite wins; 43 . . . @3? 44.
Rxc4!] 44. R!!
43. Rd4 Qc6!!
44. Qxa5 c
45. Qa7 Kg8
46. Qe7 Qb6!
Work out 46 . . . c2? 47 RdBt, etc.
47. Qd7 Qc5
48. Re4
Only move!
48.
49. Kh3
50. Qc6
51. Kh2
Qxft
R
Q1
t
Kh7!
We have ignored some repetitions.
52. Qc4 Qft
53. Kh3 Qg1
54. Re2 Qflt
55. Kh2 Qx6
56. a5 Rd8
57. a6 Qfl
58. Qe4 Rd2
59. Rxd2 cxd2
60. a7 d1=Q
6 1. a8=Q Qg1t
62. Kh3
Qdf1t
White resigned, as Black mates prettily
by . . . Qhlfnext move.
The four s make a picturesque f
nale.
- 7 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
COMMON ROOK ENDINGS
White w anywhere legal.
Black draws with the move.
Either moves.
White wins.
White w anywhere legal.
Black draws with the move.
1
2
3
The three positions just given are vital
to the understanding of the most commonly
occurring type of endgame:
a- or h-pawn with its own Rook in front of
it.
It is easy to see why the aggressor )
should so often find itself in this awkward
place, i.e., in front of the f. It has come
down and grabbed some fs, and is then
forced to defend its own passed f . If that
f is attacked laterally, the ) has no alter
native but to go in front of it; if the f is
attacked from the rear, the ) may be able
to defend the f laterally, but there is no
advantage in that unless the f has crossed
the middle of the board. By going in front of
the f, the ) enables it to advance.
It is when the f has advanced to the
seventh/second rank that the ) really feels
the awkwardness of its position. Its mobility
is reduced to a minimum.
Diagram 1 illustrates this. If the ) has
a safe check, White would win at once if he
had the move. Also, if Black's W were at f7,
e7, or d7, White with the move would win
by 1. RhB! Rxa7 2. R7f, winning the
enemy's ).
But as long as Black's W remains at h7
or g7, White can do nothing. As soon as his
W plays up to b6 or b7, defending the f,
Black simply checks till the W leaves the f,
and then resumes his vigil on the a-fle.
In such endings a beginner is often
amazed to see an expert scuttling his W
away for dear life, taking it out of play
instead of into play. He wants to reach the
safe squares.
Evidenty, i the defender's W can reach
the safe squares we should bring our f to a
- 72 -
Hi Writings
halt on the sixth rank. This enables our
to shelter from vertcal checks at a7, at the
same time defending the f; thus the ag
gressor t is freed.
Diagram 2 tells when we ca win in
this positon. This time, Black's would
like to be close up; but we must assume that
he has been forced to stay at g7 until a7was
no longer a threat. So he has been able to
get no closer than f. Black's last move was
obviously . . . Rb 1 f, driving the in front of
its f ; if Black had let the stay at b7,
White could have freed his t witout hav
ing to block the f with the at all.
It is now Black's move again, and he
fnds his is just one square too far away.
Thus, 7 ... Ke7 2. RbB R moves 3. Kb7 Rbl f 4.
KaB! R moves 5. a7and wins easily, either by
Kb 7 or, if the stops that, by RhB and KbB.
But in Diagram 3 we see that Blac, by
some crafy device, has transferred his
from the a-fle to the sixth rank. He is still
attacking the passed f, and instead of ver
tical checks he can give lateral checks. Now
our can fnd no shelter at all.
I the pawn were not an a-pawn, he could,
by getting to leeward of it.
But an a- f has no lee side. So in
Diagram 3 you can put White's any
where legal, and Black wll either check it (if
necessary) or take some oter suitable squae
on the sixth rank.
For example, if the white /b5 Black
must immediately start checking. And here,
note that it is of vital importance for the
black t to be at safe checking distance. If
he were at d6 instead of further along, and
the white could go to b5, all would be
over, e.g., 7 . . . Rd5f 2. Kc6, and there are no
more checks.
Would e6 do? Yes, 1 . . . Re5f 2. Kc6Re6f
3. Kd7, and Black has time for 3 . . . R6!,
getting into the diagrammed position. But
g6 or h6 would not! The white could not
then be checked on the eighth rank. The
f-fle is the perfect one.
In Diagram 3, suppose the white at
d5. Then it would be fatal to check because
of Ke6. But the could safely play to b6,
and if Kc5, back to f6. Or he could preserve
the status quo with . . . KhB.
We tus see that Tarrasch's rule, that
either the attacker's or the defender's t is
always best placed behind a passed f, is
subject to at least one important exception.
Sometimes the rak is better. Note that if
White plays Ra8f and a7 in Diagram 3,
Black can resume his vigil on the a-file
behind te f . This might be important.
Now for Endgame 243!
With Diagrams 1, 2, and 3 to help us,
we can now very easily fathom the extraor
dinarily subtle endgame, No. 243, which
has baffed every one of our solvers. We
reprint the diagram.
Black plays, draw.
White plays, win.
With te move, Black can immediately
obtain Diagram 3: 1. .. Ra5! 2. Ke3 Re5t!
3. Kd4 Re6! Easy draw.
Note that Black had to reach the sixth
rank by means of a check. If he leaves the a
file without a check, White wins wit ridicu
lous ease by Rb7 and a7 (the seventh rank
absolute! ). Incidentally, this shows the merit
of keeping our at a7 as long as possible
rather than at aS. Do not unnecessarily give
up the seventh rank absolute.
-
73 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Now the hard part, White to move!
Not 1. Ke3? as Black again obtains Diagram
3 by 1 ... Re1 t! and 2 ... Re6. But 1. Ke2!!
Now Black's only way to reach the
sixth rank with a check is by 1 . . . Ra5 2. Kd3
Rd5t 3. Kc4 Rd6. But then 4. Kb5, and we
have seen that the is not at a safe check
ing distance. He must go back behind the
f and abandon any attempt to take the
sixth rank.
The only problem that remains is: can
White produce Diagram 2? He can.
There are two ways he can get his W to
a7 The obvious one is to play RaBt and
then simply bring the W up.
I Wite's King is ditant, thi method
should not be used unless it becomes necessar, a
it involves giving up the seventh rank.
It does become necessary if Black plays
his W to f, for he then threatens . . . Ke8!,
when RaBt and a7 would come too late;
Black's W would get right up to the passed
f
,
Example: 7. KeZ!! RaJ 2. Kd KgB 3.
KcZ K 4. KbZ Ra5 5. RaBt! (now forced)
Kg7 (not . . . Ke7??, as explained under Dia
gram 1) 6. Kb3 Rf!, and now White has to
win by 7 RbB! Ra5 8. Rb6! His W can just
get round before the black W can head him
off.
The less obvious metod, which should
be used where possible, as it avoids tricks, is
to play the W down to b8. There he is safe
from a vertical check, and his would
interpose at b7
After 1. Ke2!! it is so easy to force the
white W to b8 (as long as Black does not
play his W to f) that we need not give all
the play. Just imagine that White has trans
ferred his W from f to b6, and it is Black's
move. Black' s W is at g8, let us say.
Playing from that situation, we have:
1 . . . Rb1 t 2. Kc7 Rc1t. (If 2 . . . Ra1, we use the
Ra8 method, as White's W is no longer
distant, e.g., 3. RaBt K7 4. Kb7 If now 4 . . .
Ke7, trying to steal a march on us with his
W, we win by 5. a7! The black W is out of
his crease, and if the white W is checked, he
simply retreats until the checks end.)
3. KbB Ra 1. Now the W and change
places. 4. RaB Kj (If 4 . . . Rh 1 t, 5. Ka 7t, and
if 4 ... R elsewhere, 5. Kb7t, and the same
thing comes about.) Common sense tells us
that we should not play the Win font of the
f until driven to. 5. Kb7! Rb1 t! 6. Ka7 And
we have Diagram 2.
There is some interestng play if Black
immediately forces us to play RaBt. Start
ing from the diagram as it stands, we have:
1. Ke2!! K8 2. Kd3 K 3. RaBt! Kg7 4. Kc4
Rf1!? 5. Re8 Ra 1 6. Kb5 K 7 Re4. And wins
easily by the well-known device of inter
posing the , and then playing it behind
the f .
Either plays, White wins.
7. Kd3Rb4(or 1 ... Kh7) 2. e6Rb63. Re1
Rb8 4. e7 Re8 5. Kd4 Kg7 6. Kd5 K7 7 Kd6
Ra8 8. R t Kg7 9. Ra 1! and wins.
If Black plays first, he cannot materi
ally alter the position, as his must stay on
its rank, trying to keep out White's w.
-74 -
His Wrtings
A METHOD OF TINKING IN CHESS
It has taken me many years to evolve a good method of tinking in chess.
Almost as soon as I had leart the moves, I conceived the idea that a player's
consistency in chess would be greatly enhanced by his following a set system in thinking
out his moves. My original system was extremely rudimentary. It consisted of the
following pair of obvious questions:
1. What is his threat?
2. What can he do if I do this?
As years went by, the system developed into the quite ponderous series of questions
given in the A. C.R. of December 1931, at the cost of the main part of our series "How to
Improve at Chess," which ran through 1930 and 1931.
The system made a considerable impression on thinking players in various parts of
the world. In England in 1934 someone started a correspondence chess school, which
announced that it was based on the following three things. I quote in fll because it will
help our discussion.
(a) The "Steinitz System," as explained by Dr. Lasker in his Manual, which
advocates positional play and the accumulation of small advantages as opposed to
the constant search for winning combinations. As Dr. Lasker puts it, "When the
position warrants it, the combination will present itself." This helps to avoid
premature attacks, and the waste of tme and energy in huntng for possibilities that
do not exist.
(b) How Not to Ply Chess, written by Znosko-Borovsky, where constant analysis
of the position as a whole is the main theme.
(c) A series of aticles on "How to Improve at Chess," by CJ.S. Purdy in Te
Australasian Chess Review, in which he suggests among other things a number of
questions which the player should constantly ask himself. These soon become
automatic, and so waste very little time, as they can usually be done whilst waiting
for your opponent to play. This habit once acquired will enable the player to avoid
many oversights and mistakes, and save much tme, besides being an aid to the
development of "chess sense."
The above is well put, for the most
part. However, as regards (c), it is an exag
geraton to say that the questions can "usu
ally be done while waiting for your oppo
nent to play." It is very true that you can
often carry out a very fll reconnaissance
(the most important part of the system)
during that time, which will be of great
service if, when he does move, you ask
yourself in what ways his move has altered
the position. But the system itself is based
on te idea that your opponent has just
made a move.
As regads (a), this sounds very well,
but it is an example of how small parts of a
book can be quoted in such a way as to give,
quite unintentionally, a wrong impression
of the work as a whole. Quite rightly, "The
Steinitz System" is put in inverted commas.
It should be called te Steinitz-Lasker Prin-
-
75
-
The Search for Chess Perection
ciples. Lasker has been much too modest in
giving so much credit to Steinitz. One will
search in vain in Steinitz's own writings for
anything like the exposition in Lasker's
Manual.
I am, however, unable to fnd that
either Steinitz or Lasker made a fetish of
discouraging the search for combinatons,
which a player should never omit. It is true
that a combination will arise naturally only
out of a positional advantage. But it may
arise through an error by your opponent at
any time, and you must ever be on the alert
for such errors.
Steinitz himself was a master of combi
nation, and so is Lasker. Steinitz won more
brilliancy prizes than most of his "brilliant"
rivals.
True, Steinitz concentated on the po
sitional side of the game in his writings,
because the players of his own day searched
for combinations automatically. They did
not need to be told to take this side of the
game seriously. Moreover, it was not then
thought possible to give any instructon
about combinations.
Lasker in his Manual devotes a whole
section to combination, and all subsequent
books on combination are merely develop
ments of it. The command to look for these
"combination motifs" is really implicit in
Lasker's book. But it is not explicit. There
fore, it did not help players as much as it
might have.
I say all this because I do not want
students to think my ideas are in defiance of
Steinitz and Lasker. They only contradict
subsequent writers who have studied
Lasker's book witout devoting any origi
nal thought to it. If Lasker had seen any of
my own writings on the subject, I do not
think he would disagree with any of them.
A valuable artcle bearing on some of
these points was published by G.F. Mcln
tosh, the Sydney correspondence player, in
the 1937 booklet of the Correspondence
Chess League of Australia.
Mclntosh advocates, for correspon
dence players, a positional reconnaissance
taking in the following fve points:
1. material;
2. development;
3. space;
4. weaknesses and strengths;
5. possibilities for a breakthrough.
Furter on, he writes:
But besides the fve factors we men
toned, there are other factors which may
modif your judgment of a position, al
though they always arise out of the posi
tion. They are the tactcal possibilities.
Some players prefer to look for them first.
But it is better in the long run always to
look at the position first; because then,
when you do fnd tactcal maneuvers, or
combinations, as they are called, you will
imperceptbly lear what type of position
they arose out of; and after a while you
will almost automatically know whether
there is a combinaton to be found in a
certain type of position and, if so, of what
type it is likely to be.
So always seek to grasp the essentials
of the position first. Then look for
combinative possibilities arising out of
the position, such as:
{a) Forks . . . ;
{b) Attacks along lines . . . ;
{c) Loose pieces . . . ;
{d) Confned pieces . . . {especially
King) . . . ;
{e) Pieces which have a double func
tion . . . .
In over-the-board play, the positional
reconnaissance can be carried out during
your opponent's turn to move. And at that
time it is not possible to make an exact
tactical reconnaissance, because your op-
- 76 -
His Writings
ponent's move will probably upset any tac
tical possibilities there are. A positional re
connaissance deals, in its nature, wit the
static elements of a positon, and a single
move does not radically upset it, as a rule.
Consequently, Mr. Mclntosh's remarks
apply to over-the-board play even more
cogently than to correspondence play. Your
positional reconnaissance must come frst.
Then, when your opponent has moved,
you first fnish your positional reconnais
sance by asking yourself how his move has
changed the position. You then examine his
move for threats and objects.
The next step, assuming that the posi
tion is not so simple that your move can be
chosen without it, is the tactical or
combinative reconnaissance, to see if there
is a good combination available.
If there is none-and there usually is
none-you must be resigned to trying for
some small, unambitious objective (only a
combination can give a substantial gain),
and must make a plan.
That is my system, put broadly, and
the only remaining problem is to boil it
down to a series of simple questons that
can be memorized without effort. The se
ries published in December 1931 was too
unwieldy for convenient use.
Let us be quite clear. First comes the
rough "positional" reconnaissance, then the
tactcal or combinatve reconnaissace-ten
the search for possible combinations, and
fnally, if no good one is found, the forma
tion of a plan, for which we use data found
in our original "positional" reconnaissance.
Before leaving the citaton fom Mr.
Mclntosh's artcle, I would suggest that,
after having seen my articles on "jump
moves," he would probably be willing to
scrap "(e)" in his tactical reconnaissance in
favor of a search for "jump mates," etc. For
it is not possible to see that a piece is pre
venting a certain move unless you have frst
visualized that move. At the same time,
"jump moves" help in the search for the
other kinds of combinations as well.
Mr. Mclntosh states that the article in
queston was developed from my own se
ries published in 1930 and 1931. His devel
opment consists partly in a simplification
for memorization. It is a well-known psy
chological fact that the mind can keep fve
units before its attention at the same time,
but rarely more than fve. Hence the desir
ability of grouping points into groups of not
more tan five.
But he has made a defnite addition to
the positional reconnaissance by making
the possibility of a "breakthrough" a special
feature. One should certainly know the
points on the board where a breakthrough
may take place, as they are of immense
strategical importance.
In no game does "form" vary more
than in chess. Some "Rook" or "Knight"
players will occasionally break loose and
play a game tat, i published witout names,
might be credited to a frst-class player. You
can never safely bet on a game of chess. If a
player is in Class 3, say, it means that his
form varies between Class 2 and Class 4,
while a Class-4 player is one whose form
varies from Class 3 to Class 5. When these
two meet, the Class-3 man may play in his
Class-4 form, and the Class-4 man in his
Class-3 form. Then the Class-4 man will
win.
"Form" in chess depends partly on
health and the other external factors, as in
other games. But it varies chiefly through
sheer accident. We all make oversights at
times, which are not only avoidable by us
but are unworthy of players many classes
below us. Sometimes fortune smiles on us,
and we play a whole game without any such
oversight; other tmes, we make several.
Why is this? It is simply because in
chess we have to keep so many things before
-
77-
The Search for Chess Peiection
our attenton. In tennis, tere is just one
thing for a good player to attend to-the
ball. All his actons in hittng the ball are
mechanical; and he has already decided
where to hit it. Even in bridge, a little analy
sis will show that there are far fewer things
to attend to than in chess.
The greater number of things we have
to dea with-assuming all the things are
diferent-the greater the chance of a mis
take. In business, mistakes are reduced to a
minimum through card indexing, double
enty bookkeeping, and systems of all sorts.
Witout such order and method, a business
of any magnitude would rapidly fall to bits.
But in chess, most of us use no method
or system at al. It stands to reason that no
system can make a bad player into a good
one-only the acquirement of frther skill
can do that. But might not a good system
enable that Class-3 player always to play in
either his Class-2 or Class-3 form, and avoid
those graver blunders that put him some
tmes i Class 4? Of course it might, and
thus put him automatically in Class 2- 112.
Might it not even enable him always to play
in his Class-2 form, and thus raise him a
whole class? Certainly it might; more than
that, it actualy has done that, and more.
To quote one example with a favor of
romance about it: a young girl of 15 who
played in the Women's Championship of
New South Wales some years ago was at
tended by a young man who informed me
tat they had taken up the game only a few
months before, and had been studying it
together-entirely from the "How to Im
prove" series in the A. C.R. and Znosko
Borovsky' s little work, How Not to Ply Chess.
The young man had slightly simplified the
system given in the A. C.R. of December
1931-thereby showing a commendable ini
tiative so often lacking in students-and the
girl was religiously following the system in
her games in the tourey, which was her
frst attempt at playing against other oppo
nents than her friend.
There were 14 players, most of whom
had been playing for many years, and I was
anxious to see if the girl could manage to
break 50 percent. She gained fourth prize,
wit 10 points out of 13! It was an example
of a player strting of on efcient lines,
without first having to "unlear." Sad to
say, chess has seen no more of either the girl
or the eficient young man, though when I
saw tem bot accidentally some years later,
stll together, tey expressed a hope that
they might someday retur to it.
After one game, which the heroine of
this tale played in a nice, combinative style,
and which a newspaper found good enough
to publish, it was amusing to hear her in
quiring of her friend, with girlish enthusi
asm, "And did you notice all the fction
motifs?" Terminology that gray-beard play
ers would have thought sheer gibberish
though familiar enough to students of
Lasker's Manual, which formed the founda
ton for my system.
Students will remember that the idea
of "fnction" may be proftably replaced by
my new idea of ')ump moves."
By a system, I do not mean here a
system of chess strategy, such as that put
forward by Nimzovich in My System, but just
a set order of dealing with the problems that
arise i chess positions generally. Such a
system was given me by my schoolmaster
in an elementary chemistry class for analyz
ing an unknown salt. First one applied the
physical tests of sight, smell, and taste-then
tested for flame calor in a Bunsen burer
then applied certain chemical tests- all i a
certain order.
Being convinced of the value of method
is a diferent thing fom being naturally
methodical. And I must confess that, being
unmethodical by nature, I have never been
able to train myself to use my own system
- 78 -
His Writing
throughout a game! However, as I said in
the A. C.R. of February 1931, "I have some
times drawn up a list of the mistaes I have
made during a touament, ad have proved
every time defnitely-to my own satisfac
tion-that the system would have saved me
from more than half of them!"
The new, simplified system put for
wad in this article, however, will be found
quite usable. I admit that the one given in
1931 would be found irksome to 95 percent
of players.
The system consists of a series of ques
tions which a player is to ask himself at
every move. Of course, if he fnds the best
move with certainty before he has asked all
the questions-as he often will-he does not
need to complete them.
It goes without saying that you do not
use the system in the opening while you are
following a predetermined line.
I might remark that it is van to imag
ine that one can keep the system for impor
tant matc games and not bother to use it at
other times. One must train oneself to use it.
The questions now follow. The student
might copy them out on a sheet of paper,
and keep the sheet standing up facing him
when playing over master games, on whic
he should practice the system.
The questions or self-commands are
given in italic type, ad explanatory matter
in regular type. Of course, fll explanations
can only be found by reading previous ar
ticles in the series.
THE SYSTEM
(I: M
y
tr to move.}
1. Wat are all the moves I have to con
sider?
This may seem a strange queston to
ask frst, because it is usually unanswerable
at this stage. lt is very useful, however, if the
choice is clearly limited to two or three
possible moves, as you may be able to
"spot" a commonsense way of choosing the
right move without following out the rest of
the system or going into much analysis. Or
there may be only one possible move, ap
parently; in that event, look hard for some
thing else you might do first, e.g., after 1. e4
N6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nxc3. Now
don't impulsively play the apparently forced
recapture 5. bxc3, but frst 5. Q!, which
gains White a bit of advantage. Most play
ers would see this move if they looked for it,
but 95 percent of players would not look.
In most cases, the queston is supposed
to reman incompletely answered for the
tme being, to be retured to after Question
5.
2. How has his lst move chaned the
position? Wat are his threats? Wat are his
objectives?
If you have carried out a full reconnais
sance while he has been thinking out his
move, the frst part of this queston enables
you to bring it up to date. The other two
parts are also important. It is obviously vital
to be aware of any threats. But if there are
no actual threats, don't leave it at that. Still
try to fathom your opponent's objects in
playing the move. Capablanca, in an inter
view, attached the utost value to this.
Don't forget, of course, that if you see a
threat, your frst reaction should not be to
search for a defense to it but rather for a way
of ignoring it.
3. Complete your reconnaissance i not al-
ready done:
a. material;
b. positons;
c. weanesses ad stengts;
d. development;
e. Where could either side break
through?
In countng material, notce such things
as "two Bishops," As on opposite colors, f
- 79 -
The Search for Chess Perection
majorities.
Notice everything you can about the
positions of the \s-is either exposed, or
does it suffer the reverse disability oflack of
fight squares?
Weakness are: weak fs, weak squares,
confned pieces, a generally cramped game.
Strengths are: larger space or terrain,
greater mobility, well-posted pieces, com
mand of central squares.
To compare development, count the
number of moves needed by each army to
complete its development. Credit one tempo
to the player whose tur it is to move. We
have written several times on the value of a
tempo in the opening-roughly, it may be
rated at a quarter to a third of the center f ,
and up to half a flank f .
Breakthrough points afer, say, 7. e4 e6
2. d4 d5 3. e5 are f5 for White, and c5 and f6
for Black. Both players' plans in the open
ing often hinge on such points.
4. Have I a good combination? T hel in
this, look fr possible combination moti:
a. geometical;
b. nets;
c. jump moves;
d. zugzwan;
e. stalemate.
Of course, (d) and (e) apply only to
endgames. f promotion is omitted for sim
plicity, as being always obvious where it is
present at all.
5. I not satisfed that the answer to (4) is
yes, what is my best pln?
For this, you use the reconnaissance.
What are all the weaknesses and strengths
of each side? How can I best exploit his
weaknesses, establish my strengths, elimi
nate my weaknesses, and reduce his
strengths, or do as many of these things as
possible?
Now return to (1)
.
(1: I am considering a certan move.)
1. Visualize the move as though made,
frmly.
2. Does it leave me vulnerable to any
combination?
(m: It is his move.)
1. Make a reconnaissance, as described
in (I), to be completed when he has made
his move.
2. Visualize the position afer this or
that likely move, and proceed as in (I).
THE SYSTEM I N BRIEF
(I: It is m
y move.)
1. My moves.
2. Changes? Threats? Objects?
3. Reconnaissance (a, b, c, d, e).
4. Combinaton (a, b, c, d, e)?
5. Plan?
6. My moves.
(1: I I do tis . . . )
1. Visualize.
2. Combination?
(m: It is his move.)
1. Reconnaissance.
2. Visualize.
The skeleton system is te one to use in
actua play. It is assumed that you have so
mastered the system that the various points
omitted spring rapidly to the mind.
Conclusion
I believe that the system as given above
will so commend itself to most players that
no further remarks in support of it are nec
essary.
-80 -
His Writings
THAT ISOLATED dPAW
We alhear a lot about the "isolated d- f ", but even today there are not many players
who know much about it.
In the frst place, why only the "cl-pawn"? Why doesn't the "isolated e-pawn" get its
share of abuse? Simply because an that occurs so rarely. It involves the advance and
exchange of the f- f of both armies-an unusual occurrence in the opening. The King's
Gambit and allied openings ae played rarely, and when they are, Black usualy keeps his
f- f at home for fear of exposing his '.
The "isolated c-pawn", on te oter hand, ases frequently-and not only from
Queen's Gambits. It is well worth a special study. We refer the reader to Nimzovich's
chapter on the subject in My System.
In a single article it is hopeless to attempt to cover the whole subject, and just now I
am going to deal only with the most difcult case (not discussed in Nimzovich's chapter
referred to) . That is, the case where the player fighting against the "isolated cl-pawn" has
not yet developed his ''s .l.
The particular case that inspired this artcle was the game between F.L. Vaughan
(White) and WJ. Greenfield in the New South Wales Championship. The opening was a
Caro-Kann, but the same position could have arisen in a Queen's Gambit. The moves:
1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. exd5 cxd5
4. c4 e6
5. Nc3 Nf6
6. N Nc6
7. Be2 Be7
8. 0-0 0-0
9. Bg5 dxc4
10. Bxc4
(Black to move)
The same position can easily arise fom
te old-fashioned Queen's Gambit Declined,
which is still seen in master play: 7. d4 d5 2.
c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. e3 Nf6 5. NjNc6 6. Bd3
dc4 Z Bxc4 cxd4 8. exd4 Be7, etc.
Theoretically the opening is favorable
to Black, for he has the Queen's Gambit
Accepted (itself a playable opening) with a
valuable move in hand, White having
moved his '-.l twice. But if Black is to
demonstrate even a slight advantage, he
must display great fnesse. In the present
example, Black actually obtained a losing
position afer the following moves:
10. h6
11. Bf4 Bd6?
12. Ne5 Nxe5
13. Bxe5 Bxe5?
14. dxe5 Nd7
Black has now eliminated the "isolated
cl-pawn" altogether-a course which would
have been excusable if he had thereby
-8 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
caught up in development, but he is actu
ally frter behind than ever. It was his 1 1 th
move, plausible enough, that started him
on te downward path. This suggests a car
dinal rule:
W plyin aaimt an "isolted d-pawn ':
avoid ... Bd6.
The reason for this rule is not only that
. . . Bd6 releases the pressure on the "isolated
d-pawn" itself, but that it makes it harder to
establish a piece (a blockader) on dS.
Inexperienced players will need this
explained. The "isolated d-pawn" is not in
itself weak, as a rule, until the endgame.
Untl that stage, it is rather the square just in
font of the "isolated d-pawn" that is weak.
The opponent seeks to occupy it with a
piece, which will be powerflly posted be
cause it cannot be hit by a f . Before he
succeeds in doing this, he must be con
stantly on te lookout for d5, by which te
isolated f might be dissolved. He must
always be sure that he has some good reply
to d5.
On al these counts, it is importat to
keep the line from d8 to dS unobstucted.
Passing the frst moves without com
ment ( 10 . . . h6 11. Bf4), let us now ty to fnd
a better 1 1th move for Black. The "routne"
move would be 11 . . . N4, for the purpose of
preventing d5 and shortly occupying dS
with a 4. All very fne i Black
'
s '-. was
already developed at b7! It is such easy
positions that one usually sees in books.
Then Black, by ... N4, obtains an impreg
nable position and usually works up gradu
ally to a winning one.
Here, however, Black has the double
problem of restaining te "isolated d-pawn"
and developing his '-.. If at once 11 . . .
N4 12. Ne5, he fnds that 72 . . . b6 would be
answered by 13. a3 Nd5 14. Nxd5 Nxd5 15.
Nc6! Qmoves 16. Bxd5 exd5 17 Nxe7f Qe7;
and White has forced Black to plug dS with
a f, and has obtaned not only equality but
a little advantage.
It seems, then, that 77 .. . N4 is not
good; Black should evidently retain his pres
sure on the "isolated d-pawn" for the mo
ment, thus preventing Ne5.
Consider, then, 11 ... b6.
This is a fairly good move, as 12. d5
can be refuted by 12 . . . Na5! White, how
ever, has a subtle answer in 12. a3! Bb7 13 .
Ba2! Black cannot now play ... N4, so that
te threat of dissolving the "isolated d-pawn"
by d5is "on." If 13 ... RB, 14. Rl (the threat
of d5is better tha its execution here). Black
is faced with the problem of what to do with
his '. Of course ... Nd5 at once allows White
to exchange 4s and plug the key square
with a f -still worse now because it would
obstruct Black's fanchetto ..
We conclude that the fianchetto by
. . . b6 has certan disabilites, and this ex
plains why in this type of opening Black so
often prefers to fanchetto by . .. a6 and . . . b5
(where the latter move gans tme by hitting
a ,/c4). This way of fianchettoing gives
Black more space; as we shall see, the possi
bility of ... b4 is usefl, for one thing.
Now let us ty (after 10 . . . h6 and 11. Bf4
in the diagram) 11 ... a6. We've got "some
thing" now.
If White ties 12. a3 as he did against
... b6, Black comes at him with 72. .. b5 13.
Ba2 b4!! 14. axb4 Nxb4. Black ten has the
position he wants (see diagram).
By playing ... a6, ... bs, and ... b4, Black
has obtained a satisfactory position.
-82 -
His Writings
The dS-square is completely controlled,
and his is ready to develop.
So it appears that if 77. . . a6, White
should prevent . . . b5by 12. a4.
But once White has played a4 Black
can plonk his '-4 onto b4 without fear of
a3, e.g., 11 ... a6! 12. a4 N4! 13. Ne5 b6! (see
next diagram). In this, if 73. a5? (to stop
. . . b6), Nc6! (back again) and wins the i ( 14.
Q4 Bd7).

1'

'

.
-
j

.
-

.

,, ,

Similar to the previous diagram, i n that

the black 4:/4 cannot be driven away
by a3. Both ds and Nc6 are prevented.
We conclude tat 77 .. . a6! is the right
move and enables Black, in any variation,
to reap a slight advantage from the "isolated
d-pawn".
Now, going back again to the diagram,
suppose that in reply to 10. . . h6! White
plays 77. Bh4, more logical than Bf4.
This does not afect the positon vitally.
Black's best is still 77 ... a6! But afer 12. a4
N4 White has a good move in 13. @3!,
threatening to give Black doubled- is by
Bxf6.
So in this line it would be better for
Black not to play 12 . . . Nb4, but simply 12 ...
b6!
White's '- is better posted (e.g., if
... 4b4, 'b3 threatens x/6!), so Black
permits ds. The "isolated d-pawn"
disappears, but the resultant position
is favorable to Black.
True, this permits White to dissolve the
"isolated d-pawn" by 13. d5 Na5 14. Ba2
exd5 15. Nxd5 Nxd5 76. Bxd5 Bb7 JZ Bxb7
Nxb7; but te situation of White's Alh4 is
now slightly disadvantageous, in that White
is forced to lose time in some way, either by
a tempo-losing exchange (Bxe7) or by re
treating. White's is are more disjointed
than Black's, and therefore weaker, so tat
Black ha the advantage, though it may be
slight. Aganst the plausible line 18. QdB
BxdB 79. Bg3 Bf6 20. Bc7, Black replies
simply 20 . . . b5! with clear advantage.
This line would have been good also
against 17. Bf4 (as played), but te shade of
diference would prevent Black fom achiev
ing more tha equality.
Aer studying all these subtletes with
cae, and making sure that he understands
the underlying principles in every case, the
reader wl at last master the "isolated cl
pawn" problem. He will know how to take
advantage of the "isolated d-pawn", and
how to exploit the opponent's errors when
he has an "isolated d-pawn" himself. And in
playing over master games, he will be able
to lea more ad to critcize intelligently.
Compare now the ordinay Queen's
Gabit Accepted, and see how White ca
-83 -
The Search for Chess Perection
utilize the extra tempo if Black isolates his
d- f. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. NfN6 4. e3 e6 5.
Bxc4 c5 6. 0-0 cxd4!? Z exd4 Nc6 8. Nc3 Be7 9.
Q2!
Stronger than 9. Bg5. It threatens R1,
after which d5 becomes more menacing,
and if 9 ... Nxd4 10. Nxd4 Qd4 White ob
tains a temendous attack either with 11.
R1 or N5.
From this we conclude that i the player
with the "isolated d-pawn" has a big advan
tage in development, the "isolated d-pawn"
is not a real weakness. It is only where there
is something like equilibrium that the "iso
lated d-pawn" can be proved weak. One
tempo can mean almost the diference be
tween victory and defeat.
TE PURDY MYSTQUE
In 1983 a small publishing f
in Austalia called Castle Books
published a terrifc book: "The
Correspondence Chess Career
of a World Champion."
I don't think very many readers
or players can have ay sense of
what it is like to be the world
champion of anything let alone
chess!
In early 1998 Thinkers' Press
will republish tis book in a new
forma algebrac notaton, and
reedited. We are extremely excited about all the Purdy projects,
ad thak efsively Rlph Tykodi for rekindling the interest I
once had in reading te best anotatons I have ever come across
in my 30 years of reading chess literature. (Our cover will be
diferent.)
Bob Lng, edtor
-84 -
His Writings
COMPENSATION FOR A PAWN
The average player must often be puzzled when an annotator tells him that "White
has fll compensation for the f sacrifced"-or, contrariwise, "White's compensation for
the f is insuffcient."
What consideratons lead a reliable annotator to vote one way or the other? That
depends on the type of position. The verdict may sometimes be based on purely
positiona considerations. Usually, however, such consideratons must be supplemented
by anaysis.
The problem is very important, for it is one that a player himself is set in nearly every
game he plays.
More puzzling still is such a statement as ''And White has some compensation for his
pawn."
"Some," i.e., partial compensation. What is partal compensation? Suppose a player
is a f down, but two tempi ahead in development. He may then be said to have partial
compensation; yet if his opponent has no weakness in his position, the chances are that he
will not be able to utilize his two tempi, and that the player with te f plus will before long
bring about equilibrium between the fghting forces, so that his f plus should win.
In such circumstances, the "partial compensation" is theoretically nothing. But in
practice it means something: it means that it needs only a slight error by the player with
the f plus to tr the "partial" or unreal compensation into complete or real compensa
tion-for instance, speaking generally, the loss of one frther tempo should do the trick. As
over-the-board chess contains about ten percent of errors even among pretty strong
amateurs, and say 20 to 40 percent among ordinary club players, the value of "partial
compensation" is obvious.
The following diagram is a positon
that would have come about in the game
McNabb-Burry in a New Zealand Cham
pionship had McNabb answered Burry's f
sacrifice correctly. In annotating the game,
I said, "And we arrive at an endgame in
which Black's compensation is not suf
cient."
1
White to move.
Incidentally, the position shows how
an endgame can begin before te opening
is finished; neither side has completed its
development. Black is already one tempo
-
85
-
The Search for Chess Perection
ahead, and as White must now lose a tempo
in saving his c- f, Black is actually two
tempi ahead. But when we consider the s,
we notce a point in White's favor: his
has aready a fight fom the back rank, and
can develop.
There is also a point against White. His
f /f4 obstructs his '-!, which therefore
may have dificulty in developing without
the expenditure of a frther tempo by f.
Also, the advanced fs may themselves be
regarded as slightly weak, though this is
ofset by their 's ability to defend them at
g3 (developing himself at the same tme) .
On the whole, Black's advantage might be
assessed at "between one and two tempi." It
is not enough. With carefl play, White
should soon restore positional equilibrium
and ultimately win.
And here let me state (for the frst time)
a general chess theorem of great impor
tance:
Were one side i only slightl superior in
development or mobilit, and the inrior side h
no organic weakness, the weaker side shoul be
abl to restore equilibrium.
In other words, the natural tendency is
towards restoration of equilibrium rather
than the increase of a slight advantage where
that advantage is not, in its nature, lasting.
If the "weaker" side has a f +, as here,
the "weaker" side should in such circum
stances ultimately win. Let us now make a
few more moves.
l. c3
1. Bb3? would be bad, for it terribly
handicaps a piece to be used for the defense
of a f , and it is of primary importance to
increase, rather than diminish, the mobility
of the pieces. That is elementary. Of course,
1. Bd3? would be worse still ( 7 . . . Bxd3 2.
cxd3 RadB forcing a white ): into a menial
station at once).
1.
Rad8
2. Rel
The simplest way of ensuring a square
for the imprisoned ! is 2. f, but the text
conforms more to general rules.
2. . Re8
3. K2
Against . . . Bxg2f.
3. . K
4. Be3!
The validity of this depends on a tacti
cal point. Otherwise, f would still be nec
essary.
4. . . .
Bxe3
Actually better is 4 ... Bc6, but it is clear
ten tat White had brought about approxi
mate equilibrium in position, so that his
f + should win.
5. Rxe3 Rd2
6. Rael!
The point. Black cannot take the f
and must play 6 ... Bc6 Z Rxe8f BxeB, when
8. Re2 ruins his game completely.
Now change Diagram 1 into Diagram
2 by giving Black an exta tempo-his '- ):
aready at d8:
Wite to play
Black's total advantage should now be
between two and three tempi. Can White
hold the position now? Let us try.
1. c3
Re8
2. f5
Now the only way, as 2. Rel would be
met by ... Bxg2f. Now White threatens to
gain a tempo by Bg5, and again it seems
impossible to prevent White from getting
-86 -
His Writings
his pieces developed safely. If Black
'
s
had a fight square, i.e., if Black had played
... h6, he could win by 2 ... Bxf; but that now
fails, thus: 2 ... Bxf? 3. Rxf Re7 f 4. Kh2
Rdd7 5. Rd5!
The sae trouble occurs if 2 ... Bd3 3.
Bxd3 Rxd3 4. Bf4Re2. Now 5. R7!
In Diagram 2, make the slight alter
ation of giving White a . /h3 instead of g4.
White to play
As White
's . position has improved,
one would expect Diagram 3 to be at least
as good for him as Diagram 2. It is not.
1. c Rfe8
2. f5
What else? If 2. Kh2, ... Bd3 3. Bxd3
Rxd3 4. f Re2.
2. . . . Re5!
And the f- . proves a weakness, be
cause deprived of its support. If 3. f6, ... gxf6
4. Rxf6 Rd7f 5. Kh2 Bd5!
Thus Black had insuficient compensa
tion in Diagram 3, but not in Diagram 2,
thoug in both positions his advantage in
development was te same. The diference
in Black's favor could be found only by
analysis. This only goes to show that gen
eral rules, however usefl, can never be
more than a rough guide. Otherwise, of
course, amateurs could play as well as the
World Champion.
The general rule that two tempi ahead
are doubtfl compensation for a ., but
three tempi practically always fll compen
sation, is worth remembering, nevertheless.
- 87 -
The Search for Chess Peiection
TRNSITION FROM
TE OPENING TO MIDDLEGAME
The transiton from opening to middlegame, while not inherently a more dificult
stage of the game than others, is one in which most players feel their deficiencies very
keenly. For it is here that they take the plunge from known paths into the jungle.
After having started with a cut-and-dried strategical aim-development-they have to
find a new aim, and that aim depends entirely on the position.
But stop a minute! Have you really completed your development? What about that

'
s ):still on fl/f8? He's not doing anything there, and you can
'
t open the f-fle. You say,
"Oh, but there's no good file to put him on." What about the cl-file? "But my own pawn
is in the way on d4/d5; what could the Rook do on dl/d8?"
The answer is that he can't do anything. But the idea is to place him in the position
of maximum readiness; to be more specific, place him on the file that is most likely to
become open. For example, in the Queen
'
s Gambit Declined a good player with White
knows that Black is bound to want to play . . . c5 sooner or later, so that he can look forward
to the c-file becoming open in the fllness of time. Therefore White usually plays his 's
): to dl ; the other ): has normally gone to cl, because te c-file already becomes
openable afer the move c4 against . . . d5.
As a general rule, the player who gets his ):s ready for the fture, restraining himself
from premature attack, is very wise. Time and again you will see masters break this rule,
but it is best not to break it yourself without a clearly good reason. Don't break it just
because there are no open fles.
Certainly it does sometimes happen that the opening makes no good places for the
):s. In the Giuoco Piano, for instance, with the 4s on c3/c6/f3/f6 both sides are blocked
from playing either d41d5 or f4!. One player has to undertake the business of opening a
fle up for himself and his opponent, and that is why, in such an opening, the first move
ceases to be an advantage. Pefer an opening that makes the provision for a f exchange
in the center (as nearly all openings do).
Well, let us suppose that you really have developed your ):s, or else you have a really
good reason for interruptng that development; in other words, the middlegame may be
said to have started.
The thing to do now is to discover a good strategical aim. Is it? No, any reader who
has paid any attention to my effsions in the past will know that the frst ting at every
move is a look round the board for any possibilities of a combination (a forcing line of
play) , and if any appear, to examine them to see if any of them is sound.
For a combinative possibility may arise at any time. Your opponent is a fallible
human being like yourself, and altough his positon may look strategically quite good,
his last move may have some hidden faw, punishable by a bold coup like .x f t.
And the gain possible by a combination is almost unlimited. By a combination, you
may win a or force mate; by a plan, you cannot hope to gain more than a tny plus.
-88 -
His Writings
COMBINATION MOTIFS
Any of te following nine things should
inspire you to look for a combinaton:
1. Exposed
2. Castled without a protecting
piece.
3. Any undefended unit.
4. Forkable units.
5. Masked battery (e.g., possibility of
discovering "check" to 1with a .) .
6. An enemy piece without a reteat,
or with only one retreat which can be cut
off.
7 Big pieces on same rank, fle, or
diagonal.
8. Pinned unit.
9. A tied unit, e.g., piece protecting
another piece.
Any of these things will, if some mecha
nism for taking advantage of it happens to
exist, be much more important than a posi
tional weakness such as an isolated f .
Among good players, the existence of
such possibilities is rather the excepton
tan te rule, but woe betide him who
overlooks the excepton.
WEAKNESSES AND
STRENGTHS
Assuming that combinatve possibili
tes are wiped out, you have to make a plan.
The frst step in planning is to examine the
weaknesses and strengths of eac side.
Weanesses are:
1. weak squares;
2. wea fs;
3. f moved in font of catled
'
especially the g- f;
4. confined pieces;
5. generally cramped game;
6. backward development.
Strengths are:
1. well-posted piece;
2. greater terrain;
3. greater mobility;
4. control of center.
AIM
Your plan may have any or some or all
of the following four objectives:
1. Taking advantage of enemy weak-
ness(es) .
2. Establishing your own strength(s) .
3. Removing your own weaness(es).
4. Removing enemy strength(s).
This looks rater involved. But in prac
tice, only one or two of the four items listed
are likely to crop up in any given position.
EXAMPLE
An example must needs be disappoint
ing-one would need a great many to illus
tate all the points. However, the following
should be of some little help.
We take te 29th Game of the Ale
khine-Capablanca Match of 1927
Capablanca-Aiekhine
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Nbd7
5. e3 c6
6. Nf Qa5
7. Nd2
The reason for this interrupton of de
velopment is Black's threat of .. .Ne4.
7. . . . Bb4
8. Qc2
dxc4
A quite voluntary loss of time, in re
tr for which Black has the satsfaction of
- 89 -
The Search for Chess Perection
In the 1 1th Game, Capablanca had
fianchettoed by means of Be2 and Bjwith
the idea of avoiding the slight weakness that
g3 creates. The text move is a little better,
but the subtlety need not concer us here.
The point to notice is that White takes the
trouble to fianchetto at all, when he could
develop in one move on an apparently
more effective diagonal (Bd3). The rule for
development in close games is:
Post your pieces where the will become
usel i the enemy makes a breakthrough in the
center.
The beauty of this scheme is that it
cannot fal; for if the enemy is deterred
from breaing through by your move, that
is itself a gain, as you retain command of the
center.
Here, Black is bound to break through
sooner or later by ... c5; he will not try to
force . . . e5, as White could prevent it. There
fore White sees the light fanchetto diago
nal as though already open. What we said
before of a : developed on a partialy
closed fle applies equally to the here.
12.
Bd7
13. Bg2 0-0
14. b4
An interruption in development such
as we wared the student against-unless he
has a really good reason. Here White has a
good reason. Before Black plays ... c5, White
wants to make him open the light diagonal
frther by playing ... b6.
14. . . .
b6
15. 0-0 a
Virtually a developing move, as it
makes the 's : potentally effective on its
original fle.
White' s problems now are tactical
rather than stategical. There is a simple
threat to attend to. The obvious 16. b5would
fall into a trap, as 16 ... Rac8would get White
into serious trouble with three pieces ex
posed on the openable c-file. In accordance
wit the correct method of dealing with
threats, White first seeks a way of ignoring
the threat, with an attacking move.
16. Ne5! ab4
17. ab4 Rxa1
18. Rxa1 Rc8
If 18 ... Bxb4, 19. N5! (a combination)
forces an advantage. Black now threatens to
obtain a solid defensive position with ... Be8.
There is an obvious plan to foil this, requir
ing only one move.
19. Nxd7 Qxd7
Black takes this way in order to block
the long diagonal wit ... Nd5. The key to
the position now is the weaness of Black's
-side fs. It is just a queston of the best
means of turing tem to account.
20. Na4
Qd8
21. Qb3 Nd5
22. b5! cxb5
23. Qxb5
And the weak f is a big hadicap to
Black. Against superb maneuvering by Ca
pablanca, Alekhine found it insuperable.
- 90 -
His Writings
WHEN ATTACK IS THE BEST DEFENSE
Counterattack on King
Dr. E.H. Staples, of Boorowa, writes:
Am pleased to see you are coming round to the idea that chess has a lot in common with
military strategy .... One thing I have always believed in, in chess, a in other things, "Counter
attack is the best defense." (I understand you do not endorse this maxim. Perhaps it is a case
of "not always.") I believe in it partly for psychological reasons, and after all, psychological
considerations are important both in war and chess.
This excerpt will serve as a peg on whic to hang a little chess instruction, if nothing
else. In the A. CR. of November 1939 we wrote:
The aphorism, "The best defense is attack," is absurd if regarded a a general truth. When
faced with the threat of attack, a good chess player does not depend on aphorisms. He takes
stock of his positon and decides whether to employ defensive, counterattacking, or "prophy
lactic" tactics.
This old saw, "The best defense is attack," sacrifices exactitude for efect. Our
correspondent will see that we agree with him if we put his thought to the shape of the
following maim: Play defensively onl
y
when necessar
y
. This is not for psycological
reasons. It is a law of stuggle. But psychological reasons may sometimes lend it added
weight.
Before dealing with counterattack proper, we must warn the inexperienced against
confusing it with "cross-attack." If a f, say, attacks a piece, and the opponent in reply
makes an equivalent attack on an enemy piece, he is indulging in a "cross-attack." In
general, tis is an elementary error, for if bot players have equivalent reciprocal threats,
the advatage lies with the one who has the move. Unless the "cross-attack" has some
ulterior purpose, it should be avoided; instead, the threatened piece should move.
Now for counterattack proper. To be of any use, a counterattack must be either:
A. Aimed at an objectve of superior value to the objectve of the origina attack (e.g.,
counterattack against '1i answer to '-sider).
B. Or, if aimed at an objective of equal value, must get home frst (e.g., reciprocal
attacks against 'ls castled on opposite wings).
C. Or, i aimed at an objective of inferior value, must be assured of gettng home well
before the original attack, and of drawing enemy force away fom that attack (e.g., '-side
or centa counterattack in answer to threatened attack on '1).
- 9 1 -
Te Search for Chess Perection
EXMPLE OF "A"
A attack on the wing remote from the
enemy ' is the most vulnerable to counter
attack, and is therefore seldom embarked
upon by good players unless they think
themselves pretty well impregnable in other
parts of the board.
Such an attack may have for its object
either the creation and advance of a passed
f (a "majority" attack) or merely the gain
ing of space. In the latter case, even a f
minority may be advanced, as in the
Carlsbad Attack in the Queen's Gambit
Declined. This may come about after te
following moves: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3
Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 0-0 6. N Nbd7 7
Rc1 a6 (the Argentne Defense, so called
because of its adopton by both players in
the famous Alekhine-Capablanca Match,
Buenos Aires 1927) 8. cd5 exd5 9. Bd3 c6
10. Qc2 Re8 11. 0-0 N.
Because the f positon in the center is
fixed for a long time, White is justifed in
embarking on a -side push to gain space,
starting with b4 and a4 (after which the
possibility of a break by b5 aways hangs
over Black) .
What should be Black's policy?
White's '-side has no f advanced to
provide a target for an assault, and it has
been customary for Black, after freeing his
game a little by exchanges provoked by
... Ne4, to continue placidly trying to free his
game a little more, with a view to an ulti-
mate draw, the idea being that White's gain
of space on the -side ought not to be
decisive-or at least Black hopes not.
This sort of thing is evidently anath
ema to our correspondent, ad it is equally
so to us. In ElAjedrezEpanol, October 1934,
Dr. Tartakover analyzed the variatons at
length, and proposed that i spite ofWhite's
apparent impregnabilit on te '-side Black
should go "hell for leather" at him.
Tartakover developed his theme with the
following, appaently a purely imaginary
game but one which will well repay stdy.
The article was never published in English
as far as we know.
12. a
Merely a temporary measure to sup
port b4-played by Capablanca. Other play
ers have suggested 12. R 1, as te a- f
wants to go to a4. Tartakover would stll
reply as in the text.
12. . . . N5!
A point of this is to avoid te simplif
caton produced by . . . Ne4, as Black wants
plenty of pieces for his attack on White's '.
13. Bxe7 Qxe7
14. b4 g5!
15. Bf5
A very reasonable simplifcaton.
15. g4
1 6. Ne5 Qg5
17. Bxc8 Raxc8
18. Na4
Tartakover mentons tat 18. Ne2 would
display more circumspecton, but would
renounce the initiatve.
18.
19. Nd3
20. Nb6
21. a4
22. b5
f6
Ng6
Rc7
N4
K8!
Black must contnue to build his coun
terattack careflly, for if 22 ... Njf, simply
23. K 1! and Black must reteat.
23. bxc6 bxc6
-92 -
His Writings
24. N4
Or 24. Nf4Nxf4 25. exf4 Q: f426. Nxd5
Nff!! 2Z gxf Q5! 28. f4 Q: d5 with a
superior game for Black (Tartakover) . [Ed.:
Master Ron Wieck points out an error by
Trtakover, viz. 28. Ne3! wins. I28 . . . gxft,
then 29. Kh1.]
24. . . .
Rg8
And Black threatens . . . Njf.
25. Kl Rcg7
Again threatening . . . Nf.
26. Qe2 g3!!
And if 2Zfg3, . . . Q: g3!!This may work
even if the enemy has advanced no f in
front of his castled e.
27. f4 Q5!
28. h3
If 28. Qd, . . . gxh2 is suficient. If 28. e4,
. . . gxh2!! 29. exj Ng3f, etc.
28. . . .
Qxh3
t
!!
Black has such a concentraton of force
that whatever White did would allow some
winning sacrifice.
29. gxh3 gt
30. Kh2
Wins against oter defenses are quite
easy and should be worked out as an exer
cise.
30. g=N
t
31. R Rg2t
32. Qxg2 Rxg2t
33. Kl Ng3#
Of course, this brilliant imaginary
game, though logical fom start to finish,
proves nothing, nor would it be possible
ever to demonstate that Tartakover's idea
was or was not sound. Such considerations
do not matter in practcal chess. Ideas are
what matter. The player who has a good
idea and gets a chance to execute it is likely
t w, other things being equal.
The importt ting about tis example
is to see how Black was able to develop an
attack on White's e without any organic
weakness i tat quarter. The only wea-
ness was a shortage of pieces, which, after
all, is more important. A more balanced
game would have developed had White
played 18. Ne2 instead of 18. Na4.
Students of the opening will notice that
Tartakover's idea enhances the merit of the
Argentine Defense ( Z .. a6in reply to Z Rc1
in the Pillsbury Attack, Orthodox QG.D.).
Note that the move . . . a6is not wasted,
because after White has played b4 and a4 in
this system Black plays . . . a6 in any case, so
as to answer b5 with . .. axb5, thus avoiding a
weak f at a7
King-Sider Countered by Queen-Sider
We have seen a "-side attack by White
countered by a c-side attack. Black made
no attempt to defend his i-side. There was
no need. White's objective was the unambi
tous one of gaining space. White could be
allowed to achieve that in fll provided
Black could achieve someting elsewhere.
Quite different is the problem of an
swering an attack on one's own e. If the
attack has any force at all, it stands to reason
that counterattack (unless against the en
emy e) cannot be a complete answer, sim
ply because mate wins. Some protectve
moves will be necessary. The problem is to
discover an effective defensive plan requir
ing the minimum number of moves, so that
as much attenton as possible can be de
voted to counterplay.
Let us assume both cs are castled on
the c-side. Your counterplay will be either
in the center or on te i-side. For prefer
ence, of course, the center. Counterattack in
the center can be combined with defense
on either fank. Also, counterattack in te
center can readily be tured into attack on
the attacker's own e.
Stong players rarely embark on any
flank attack unless they have the center
either blocked or well contolled. In that
ev, nt, the counterplay has to be on the
- 93 -
-
The Search for Chess Perection
'-side.
The objective of a '-side counterat
tack may be any of the following:
a. To create and advance a passed f,
as in the example to be discussed.
b. To wreck the opponent's f posi
ton with a view to having an endgae
advantage ready-made afer ending the
enemy's attack.
c. To gain mobility for one's pieces,
e.g., opening of c-file and doubling of s
therein, followed by seizure of the seventh/
second rank.
If the defender does not t for coun
terplay at all, but overprotects his )-side,
te attacker may use his initatve to switch
his attack to some other quarter. The war
analogy is obvious.
Let us be quite clear before proceed
ing. When one's ) is attacked, and te
enemy ) is not itself vulnerable, counterat
tack cannot possibly be an adequate de
fense. But counterattack must be linked with
defense if possible, ad as soon as possible.
The ideal number of defensive moves is the
minimum necessary, but it is fatal to fall
below te minimum, so that a slight amount
of overprotection (remember, your ) is te
target) is a good fault. What exactly is the
minimum necessary has to be lef to the
player's judgment, which is developed
mainly by studiously playing over published
games.
As an illustration of the foregoing, it
would be sacrilege to pick any game but
Pillsbury-Tarrasc, Hastings 1895. Those
who know this game "back to front" will be
saved the trouble of playing it over, and
need just read through our notes.
Pillsbury's )-side attack was handi
capped throughout by an early loss of two
tempi. Tarrasch's counterattack on the
'-side was completely adequate, but Pills
bury got home. How did it happen?
Pills bur-Tarrasch
QGD-Orthodox Dene
1. d4
2. c4
3. Nc3
4. Bg5
5. Nf
6. Rcl
7. e3
8. cxd5
9. Bd3
d5
e6
Nf6
Be7
Nbd7
0-0
b6
exd5
If 9. Bb5 (Capablanca's move), . . . Bb7
10. 0-0 c6! and Black has a fair game, though
his '-.lis imprisoned for some time. The
text move is stll considered White's best by
many.
9. Bb7
10. 0-0 c
1 1. Re1
A "mysterious Rook move" played to
discourage Black from opening the e-file.
White has no time for such a finesse; prob
ably best is 11. 2, or perhaps 77. Bb 1.
1 1. . . . c4
Black voluntarily releases his pressure
in the center, thus leaving White fee for a
)-side attack, but at the same tme creating
a '-side majority and so preparing '-side
counterplay.
12. Bb1 a6
Preparing . . . b5 to get his counterpush
ready before White gets going.
13. Ne5 b5
14. f4 Re8
Peparing his next move for protecton
'
of his castled ), at the same time develop
ing.
15. Qf
Nf
Frequently a valuable protective move
for a castled ). Compare its mobility on
this square with that of the previously.
16. Ne2 Ne4
White has momentarily withdrawn a
piece to transfer it to the )-side, so Black
- 94 -
Hi Writing
leaps in and forces a simplifcation to end
his cramp.
17. Bxe7 Rxe7
18. Bxe4
The A is useless to White with the long
diagonal permanently obstucted.
18. . . . dxe4
19. Q3 f6
Black continues to try to weaken
White's potentalities on the -side. He
pushes away a well-posted 4, and guards
well in advace against ff6.
20. Ng4 Kh8
Again defensive; the threat was obvi
ous. There were oter parries, but a perma
nent one, as the text move is, was much the
best on principle (unpinning the g- f ).
21. f5 Qd7
22. R Rd8
No one has fathomed just what Tar
rasch had in mind here.
23. Rf4 Qd6
24. Qh4 Rde8
Maing ready against N and Nc3.
25. Nc3
Apparently a loss of time, but White is
concered to obviate the counterstroke
. . . Q4.
25. . . . Bd5
26. Nf Qc6
The object of the fourfold attack on the
f is achieved: simply to get the black "J
where it can't bite. This difcult part of the
game was never explaned by annotators.
27. R b4
Note that Black launches his counterat
tack only when he has all his pieces posted
in readiness for -side defense.
28. Ne2 Qa4
29. Ng4 Nd7
Against Nxf.
30. R4f Kg8!
The threat of te f capture is, as usua,
stronger than its executon. By taking the f
you give the attack fee rein, whereas by
using the move to protect your and
retaining the threat of the f capture, you
make the enemy witdraw a piece to pro
tect the f.
31. Ncl
Thus the counterattack has accom
plished an essental objectve, the withdrawal
of a potental attacking piece. Unless a coun
terattack succeeds in this, it is normally a
failure.
31.
32. b3
33. h3
c3
Qc6
White must start a pawnstorm to re
new his attack.
33. . . . a
As White's pawnstorm needs several
moves for its execution, Black has time for
simila activity on the "J-side.
34. Nh2 a4
35. g4 axb3
36. ab3 Ra8!
Black sees his way to win te b- f and
win with two advanced united passed fs.
37. g5 R
38. Ng4

4 r

..

r. ?. .
- "

L.r
38 . .. . Bxb3?
At the eleventh hour, Black fails
through over-fnessing. It was not really
necessary to embak on deep calculation to
discover whether the text move was play
able. The correct reasoning was:
1. After 38 ... Bxb3 39. Nxb3 Rxb3, I
(Black) will have lost one of my -side
defenders-the A. This will certainly im-
- 95 -
The Search for Chess Perection
prove White's chance of pushing his attack
through.
2. If I give up the Exchange by 38 . . .
Rxb3 39. Nxb3 Bxb3, I retain the Bishop, still
bearing on my -side, and White's attack is
more likely to be stopped. In that case, the
two .s must win despite the loss of the
Exchange.
Black, however, worked out by dead
reckoning that he could hold up the attack
even after the text move. Such calculation is
always unreliable, as an attack so often has
some hidden resource hardly fathomable
under a time limit.
In a nutshell, Black's mistake was to
strengthen (unnecessarily) his i-side coun
terattack at the expense of his 's safety.
39. Rg2 Kh8
40. gxf6 gxf6
41. Nxb3 Rxb3
42. Nh6 Rg7
43. Rxg7 Kxg7
44. Qg3t!
K6
A grim awakening. Black must take the
4, as QBfwould win the )=. But even now
he may hope to escape, as 45. Rf4 would
allow perpetual check. White' s next move
is the one that makes the finish memorable.
45. Kl!! Qd5
46. Rgl Qf
47. Qh4
t Qh5
48. Q4
t Qg5
49. Rxg5 fg5
50. Qd6t
Kh5
51. Qxd7 c2?
Pesumably an oversight due to fa
tigue, shock, etc. After 51 . . . Rbl f 52. Kg2
Kh6White must play accurately to win.
52. Qxh7#
Flank Attack Countered in Center
We have seen a i-side attack coun
tered by a -side attack; in that case, coun
terattack alone was suficient; and a -side
attack countered by a i-side attack; in that
case, the counterattack cannot possibly be
sufcient-some defensive measures are nec
essary.
We are now to see a fank attack coun
tered by a central attack. When counterat
tack in the center is possible, the fank at
tack breaks down almost automatcally, even
though made against the . That is the
general rule, and it is so well-known nowa
days that good players do not begin fank
attacks unless they have established control
of the center or unless the center is well
blocked by .s (e.g., 7. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5).
We can, however, fnd examples in
master play if we go back to the days before
the principle had been discovered. Take the
fourth game of the Anderssen-Morphy
Match of 1858. We start fom the begin
ning, because it is interesting to see how,
even in the opening, Anderssen was firmly
bent on a -side attack.
Anderssen-Morphy
Ruy Lopez: Morphy Dene
1. e4 e5
2. N Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6
5. d3 Bc5
6. c b5
7. Bc2
The imaginatve Anderssen already has
in mind the attack on the point h7 which
actually comes to pass.
7. d5
The average player will more easily
learn to play commonsense chess from the
games of Morphy than any other player.
The present writer played over Morphy' s
games before he even met an opponent,
and we commend them to all who find
moder games too complex to understand.
Steinit objected to the text move because it
left some . weaknesses. But Morphy
- 96 -
Hi Writings
thought it worthwhile for the sake of freeing
his game-and that is a lesson which the
average player should take well to heart.
8. exd5 Nxd5
9. h3
Again based on the motf of \-side
attack! Anderssen reasons that if he allows
. . . Bg4 ad ten drives the , to h5 by h,
Black will have a to defend his \-side.
Morphy rarely made such moves, be
cause he realized intuitively the importance
of rapid development.
9. . . . 0-0
10. 0-0 h6
In order to play .. . Be6 witout having
to fear Ng5-a precaution fequently taken
as a matter of routine even today.
1 1. d4 exd4
12. cxd4 Bb6
13. Nc3
Ndb4
14. Bb1 Be6
Black could have taken the f , but it
would have given White the opportunity he
wats, to stat attacking. So ofen a weak f
is better left as a burden to the opponent!
15. a Nd5
16. Be3
If 16. Nxb5, . . . Nf6! [Ed. : In the event of
16 . . . axb5?, Wite creates a double attack with
17 Q2.}
16. . . . Nf6
17. Qd2 Re8
Obvously White can start an attack by
18. Bxh6. Black cannot prevent this, but he
is so well situated centrally, especially after
the text move (seizing the open fle), tat he
knows White's attac would not succeed,
e.g., 18. Bxh6!? Nxd4 19. Nxd4 (not 19. Q5
Nj! Qd4 20. Q5 Nd7 and the attack has
broken down.
18. Rd1
Now White really threatens Bxh6. Also,
he has set a clever trap. White wants Black
to play 18 . . . Bb3, when follows 19. Rc1. If at
once 18. Rc1, simply 18 . . . Ne7, when 19.
Bxh6 gxh6 20. Qh6 fails because of 20 . . .
!But if Black's can frst be lured to b3,
this last resource would be impossible.
What is Black to do? He could, it is
true, parry White's threat by 18 ... Ne7 But
Morphy fnds a much better move.
18. . . .
Bd5!
Counterattack in te center! Nearly 70
years later, Nimzovich stated the general
principle that centralization was the normal
method of forestalling or defeating a \-side
attack.
If now 19. Bxh6?, . . . 8x]20.x]Nx11
completely smashes the "attack." Or if 19.
Nxd5, . . . Qd5 20. Bxh6 gxh6 21. Qh6 Ne4
with the sae efect. Note the great power
of the centalized pieces as compared with
the pseudo-attackers on the wing.
19. Ne5 Qd6!
Black could "win a f" by 19 ... Nxe5
20. dxe5 Rxe5, but 21. Bxb6 cxb6 would
render it of no account.
20. Qc
Now White has his long-sought attack
on the point h7 He could have played Q3,
but prefers to force Black's hand by threat
ening Nxd5, etc. If Black accepts the ofered
f, he must permit White's 1to enter at h7.
20.
Nxd4!
21 . Bxd4 Bxd4
22. Nxd5
Qxe5
- 97 -
The Search for Chess Perection
23. Nxf6
t
Qx6
24. Qh7
t
K
Black ca easily stand the ceck at h7,
after all. It is well to remember that it is
nearly always harmless if the g- f is pro
tected, as here. White's attack collapses like
a pricked balloon. Centralization has de
feated it quite efortlessly.
25. Be4 Rd8
26. Kh1 Bxb2
27. Rab1 Rxd1t
28. Rxd1 Qxf
29. Qh8t
Ke7
30. Qh7
And Black could now have cut short
Wite's agony by 0 . . . RdB!, as l. RxdB
would lead to mate. Observe how all
Anderssen's ingenuity was wasted, because
he was all the time isolating what is now
known as a leading principle of chess strat
egy: that a flank attack must fail if the oppo
nent stands better in the center.
WHEN COUNTER
ATACK IS WRONG
fail if the opponent can counterattack in the
center.
In the 1941 New York State champion
ship, grandmaster Reuben Fine violated the
rule just given. Fine's counterattack was
exceedingly plausible; yet is was wrong, as
he himself pointed out afterwards.
The diagram shows the position after
White's 16th move, j.
Fine
Reshevsky
White threatens to secure a mobile
pawn-center by e4. Black has an obvious
parry which develops a piece at the same
time.
When we presented our three-part ar- 16. . . . Re8
tide on "When Attack Is the Best Defense," 17. Ng3
(theprecedingarticle) , we promised to cap the White again threatens e4. Black can
series with an article on "When Attack Is again parry the threat, improving the posi
Not the Best Defense"-this is it. tion of one of his pieces at the same time.
We do not attempt to show all the That is quite different fom a purely defen
possible circumstances in which counterat- sive move which does nothing to improve
tack is wrong. Naturally, it must always be one's striking power.
left to a player's own judgment whether he 17. . . . Ne6!
will rely wholly or partly on counterattack. Of course l/. . . RadB would not pre-
These articles can do no more than mold vent e4 at all. The text-move does: for ex
the player's judgment. ample, 78. e4? de4 l5.fe4 Nc5!-and Black
There is a general case, however, for wins a f .
which counterattack is against principle; 18. Re1! Rac8!
and tat is the case where the attack is in the Black develops his other . . Quite right,
center. as l5.e4 is still defeated as in the last note-
That follows at once from the principle try it out. Do not make a defensive move
(already stated) that a flank-attack should unnecessarily.
- 98 -
His Writings
White's possibility of starting an attack by
30. Q. Command of the center nearly
always gives a good chance of successfl
fank attack.
30. cdl c
h
5
31. g3 g6
Black plays this weakening move for
fear of f4!5 which would give White an
overwhelming command of space-al based
on White's command of the center.
32. f4 f5
33. cf Rd8
34. g4 N8g7
35. g5 Nxf5
As 35 . . . gxf would leave Black tied
So far Black has played perfectly, each up.
time stopping e4, a move which if it could 36. Ng4 R
once be played safely would give White a
clear initiative. Black should now have per
sisted in that sound policy by 21 . . . Red8!,
with a balanced position.
Instead, Black decides to permit White's
advance in the center and to rely on coun
terattack in the c-file. That plan is so ex
ceedingly plausible that it is highly instuc
tive to follow it out and to see how it fails.
21. ... c
h
3
22. Nf5 Rc7
Doubling on the open fle-certainly
the most mobile position for Black's .s.
But sometimes it may pay better to hamper
the enemy's pieces rather than to give rein
to one's own.
23. e4 Rec8
The issue is now clear: White's cental
attack ofset by Black's complete control of
an open fle on the flak.
24. Rd3 ca4
Not . . . 2??Why?
25. e5 Ne8
26. Ne3 c
h
5
27. Rd2 c
h
3
28. Rd3 c
h
5
29. Rd2 ca5
Black fears to repeat . . . @3 because of
37. Nft
And by thus establishing a in the
enemy camp, for which Black will probably
have to give up a ., White demonstrates a
clear advantage.
Precisely this position will of course
never occur in the student's own play. Nev
ertheless, the memory of how Fine tried
such an apparently strong counterattack
against a central push-and failed-should
be a valuable guide to the student when
dealing wt ay kind of central operation
at all.
eme
e66. lnme
apear6 a me5 ln
... 0 n
ofntatlono 5
to e 06.
- 99 -
The Search for Ches Perection
THOSE "TWO BISHOPS"
The "two Bishops" are the reason for the old advice not to be too ready to excange
a 1 for a in the opening. Beginners naturally fnd this advice difcult to understand
when, at the same time, they are told that the A and are approximately equal. The
point is, however, that the exchange of 1 for early in the opening will deprive you of
"the two Bishops" while leaving your opponent with them. If, however, one A on each
side has already been exchanged, it does not matter about partng with the other, and an
exchange must be judged on its merits.
Before smugly congratulating oneself on the possession of two As, or before gleefully
playing for the possession of them, there are two questions to be asked:
1. Are they both mobile?
2. Has the enemy a very powerfl ?
Considering the first queston, remember that a A cannot be mobile if the squares on
which he moves are clogged by his own fs, and those fs are blocked. Perhaps the chief
disadvantage of an isolated f on d4/ d5 is that it considerably enfeebles the '-A by
obstructing both the long diagonals which intersect on that square. A couple of ls like
best of all to see no f of any sort on e4, d4, e5, or d5. On the other hand, one can't pander
to these dignitaries to the detriment of one's forces as a whole, and the value of a pawn
center is well known.
The second question is equally important. A f -supported, unassailable on e6/e3
or d6/d3 is well known to be so powerful that it usually pays the enemy to give up a to
get rid of him (provided a f is obtained into the bargain). It follows that such a must
be stronger than any A -barring freak positions. So if you have two As and the enemy has
such a
'
you can write the two As of, as one will have to be used to exchange off the .
That is, unless you yourself have a for the purpose.
A
f -supported, unassailable on e5/e4 or d5/d4 or f5/f4 is usually not quite as
strong as on e6/e3 or d6/d3-except on f5/f4 against an exposed . But much the same
principle applies: the usually has to be got rid of, so if you have two As and no other
minor pieces you are likely to have to part with one A.
But positions arise where, even though the enemy's s do not appear to be well
placed at the moment, they can get the upper hand of the two As. The following opening
play from the New South Wales Championship of 1930, which showed the high strategical
ability of M.E. Goldstein, is a remarkable case in point.
M.E. Goldstein-Purdy
1. d4
Nf6
2. Nf e6
3. c4 d5
- 1 00 -
4. Bg5
5. e3
6. Nc3
7. Rcl
Nbd7
Be7
0-0
Thus we arrive at the "normal posi-
His Writings
tion" in the Queen's Gambit Declined.
7. . . . b6
Old-fashioned, though not by any
means bad. The noncommittal . . . c6 is usu
ally preferred.
8. cxd5 exd5
9. Bb5
Capablanca's move.
9. Bb7
10. 0-0 a6
11. Ba4 c5
This was the "book" move until my
suggestion of transposing with 77 ... RcB was
adopted. Mterwards, I suggested an alter
native in 70 .. . c6instead of 70 . . . a6. The final
verdict has not been given.
12. Bxd7!
This was original here. White breaks
the old maxim about not making a volun
tary early exchange of A for l.
Chess players may be divided into three
classes: those who don't know the prin
ciples, and are therefore very weak; those
who know the principles, and are less weak;
and those who know how weak the prin
ciples are, and are strong.
12. . . . Qxd7
Not 72 ... Nxd7 73. Bxe7 Qe7 74. dxc5
Qc5 because Black then has ( 1) an isolated
d- f ; and (2) a A obstructed by it.
13. dxc5
bxc5
Black now has the "hanging pawns,"
which are often well described as "both
weak and strong." They are weak because
they need pieces to protect them, and strong
because they form a phalanx that controls a
lot of the center. If it were Black's move, he
would have a good game with his two As,
but it is White's move, and a certain tactical
possibility turs the scale the other way.
Hence the fallacy of judging a positon on
its general appearance without looking to
see if the side whose tur it is to move has
some special opportunity.
14. Na4! Qb5
White had a double threat: a fork and a
f capture.
15. Bxf6! g6
White has parted with his other A.
Evidently wisely, as he wrecks Black's
side in compensation. True, there is danger
of Black building up an attack per medium
of the opened g-file if permitted, but he will
not be permitted.
16. Nh4!
Truly a remarkable position. White has
both ls in their traditionally worst situa
tion (edge of the board), and Black has the
taditonally powerfl two As, and yet White
has the advantage. Black's disabilities are
six weak fs and a weak .
16. Bc8!
17. Nc3! Qxb2
18. Rc2 Qb7
19. Nxd5
And now the point. Black cannot even
retain his two As, White's ls having be
come so menacing. The sequel was slightly
amusing: 19 ... Kh8 20. Nxe7 Qxe7 21.
Qh5 Be6, and now the plausible 22. Rc?
White should have been content with 22.
Qc5, getting a superior endgame, for now
Black had an opportunity-which he missed
of turning the tables and gaining a winning
advantage by 22 ... Bg4! 23. Q5 RfdB!
One cannot too frequently point out
the moral that the price of success in chess is
eternal vigilance. On this occasion, how
ever, Black missed the chance and White
went on to win.
- 1 0 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
MORE ON THOSE TO BISHOPS
Almost every other time he plays through an annotated game, the student will come
across some glib remark about "the two Bishops." The purpose of this article is simply to
tell him what it al means if he is a beginner, and to clarif his ideas on the subject if he is
a little more advanced.
When you say a player has "the two Bishops," you nearly always mean that he has
them and his opponent hasn't-te poor fellow has to struggle along with a . and ', or
two ds.
It is easy enough to see why the two .s should be strong. The cief weakness of a .
is that it commands squares of only one color. If its fellow . is on deck, each covers up the
other's weakness. A less obvious strength is that two .s never overlap. Neither of them is
ever wastng its stength in commanding squares held by the other. Like a good doubles
pair in tennis, they never clash.
In an endgame where you have only one ., you try to keep your fs on the opposite
calor, in order that . ad fs may command the maximum number of squaes between
them. With two .s, obviously you do not have to worry about that.
Just how good are two .s? This depends largely on two main factors:
( 1) whether they have or can get open diagonals;
(2) what possibilities the enemy has of exchanging them.
The first factor is obvious. In a very blocked positon, the two .s can easily be
inferior to two ds. You don't have to be a master to see that when two .s are shut in they
are below pa in value.
The second factor is also easy to understand. The exchange of one of your .s means
the end of the team, so if the enemy has several minor pieces, and you have to avoid
certain moves because they would mean the exchange of one of your .s, your two .s
cannot spring around with the same freedom as when the enemy's minor pieces are all
gone.
A astonishing illustration of the power of two .s when free fom exchange was
provided by the game Crakanthorp-Woinarski. Here both sides had two Es, and the
other pieces were two .s versus t. The side with the was unable to win. Suppose that
side had possessed three minor pieces (say two ds and .) instead of two E s. Then the
great possibilities of exchaging off one of the enemy .s would have made the win
absurdly easy.
What value can we give to two mobile, unswappable .s? Certainly they would very
rarely be worth a Y-but it is safe to say they are worth a E and ', say a t less 1 - 112 fs.
Cheron, in his Taite Complet d'checs, quotes Teichmann as saying, '' Rook and two
Bishops are as strong as two Rooks and a Knight."
- 1 02 -
His Writings
This appears to mea tat the two forces
can actually oppose each other on equal
terms. As te enemy has a
'
the As are
not completely "unswappable," so that
Teichmann' s claim goes slightly frter than
mine.
If the enemy has a A, the value of the
two As goes down more than if his only
minor piece is a
'
because the A's threat
to exchange is harder for a A to evade.
But supposing the enemy does not flly
reaize the importance of playing for the
exchage. Then the two As may retain
their maximum value.
A excellent illustration is provided by
the Walace-Gundersen game.
A.E.N. Wallace-G. Gundersen
Black played 17 Qe7, thereby miss
ing his chance. His material advantage of
the Exchange ( for A) is purely an illu
sion while White has the two highly mobile
As.
Therefore Black should have played in
te positon diagrammed 1Z.. Be7!For ... Bf6.
This would not absolutely force te ex
change, but if White's -A has to leave its
good diagonal it comes to the same thing.
The phrase "two mobile Bishops" implies
that the As have or can get just te diago
nals they want.
True, after 7Z .. Be7White can win a f,
but with his attack gone, his own 's expo
sure would become fata. Black would then
have a slight material advantage (Exchange
for f) plus a considerable positional ad
vantage, ad should win ultimately.
Having warned the student against
thinking the two s are always strong ipso
facto, we re-wa him that they usually are
a distnctly valuable pair. It is nearly always
good play to sacrifce a tempo in develop
ment in order to secure them. A example
is White's play against te Nimzo-lndian
Defense to the d- f.
1. d4
2. c4
3. Nc3
4. Qc2
5. cxd5
6. e3
7. a
8. bxc3
Nf6
e6
Bb4
d5
Qxd5
c5
Bxc3t
Or 8. c3. White has given up two
tempi altogeter, because he has made three
nondeveloping moves-his 5t, 7th, and 8th
while Black has made only one, his 7th.
Actually, Black has a level game, as his gain
in development compensates for the depri
vation of beneft of clergy.
The player of te black pieces, how
ever, must be wary of giving up two clear
tempi for the s, for he is already behind in
development and may get suffocated be
fore his As can blossom out.
A case in point was the Crakathorp
Gundersen game in the New South Wales
Victoria Match of 1923.
S. CrakanthorpG. Gundersen
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 c5
4. N Nc6
5. Bf4 Nf6
6. e3 Be7
7. dxc5 Bxc5
8. Bd3 0-0
9. 0-0 Nb4
- 1 03
-
The Search for Chess Perection
A very common maneuver. The oppo
nent usually makes a withdrawal with his
-. to evade the exchange. Crakanthorp
sees a possibility, however, of overwhelm
ing his opponent by sheer weight.
1 0. Rc1 ! Nxd3
1 1. Qxd3
One may say that Black has lost only
two clear tempi, i.e., with his 9 ... N4 and
70 . . . Nxd3, both nondeveloping moves.
However, notce that White has developed
his Y-. in one move, whereas Black will
need two moves to develop his satisfacto
rily, e.g., . . . b6and . . . BbZ So White has really
gained three tempi in development since
the game began, and this, with his original
move ahead, should mean a win. It did,
very rapidly, thus: 11 .. dxc4 12. Qxc4 Be7
13. Bc7! Qe8 14. Nb5 Nd5 15. e4 a6 16.
Nd6 b5 17. Qb3 Bxd6 18. Bxd6 Ne7 19.
Rc7 Qd8 20. Rd1 Ng6 21. Qc2 h6 22.
Bx Qx 23. Rcl Ne7 24. Qc5 resigns.
THE PURDY MYSTIQUE
There is someting amost undefnable about Purdy's writng . . . I
get excited even when I proof his body of work because I am
learing something (and it's not aways about chess) in te process.
It might have been that Cecil had a way of conveying usefl
inforaton which strong players often took for grated or were
unable to write down. While there are many good writers on
chess today most are not willing to go out on a callted limb to
give us the necessary insight for real improvement.
Purdy's exaples were first class. They were thought out,
apropos, and not necessaily from his own play yet, aways stored
in his own memory baks for fture use.
He didn't have the beneft of chess aaysis machines yet his
own combinative flair was aways present. Aways look for com
binatons was his motto.
When I read his notes to Fischer-Stein 1967 I was captvated.
The same was tue for Ret-Alekhine 1925. How ca people play
chess like this? Purdy could too, see Game 49 on page 302 ofthis
book. It is unbelievable ... so were his writings.
Bob Long, editor
- 1 04 -
His Writings
ROOK AGAINST TO MINOR PIECES
Very few players are confdent in struggles of dissimila forces, e.g., against minor
pieces, or 1against and minor piece ( .s on both sides).
Undoubtedly the key to correct stategy in such stuggles is a true knowledge of the
average relative values. Without knowing te average relatve values, you cannot even
begin to judge the special relative values in te positon before you.
And te textbooks are usually vague. Take the subject of this article, the case of
versus two minor pieces. It is usual to say that a minor piece (A or 4) is worth three .s,
and a fve .s. In that case, a plus . ought to equal two minor pieces. But the books
go on to tell you that two minor pieces are worth plus two .s. This, again, is grossly
misleading as a general statement, for in an endgame the ) ad two .s normally w!
The true facts are:
In the openin, two minor pieces (excludin two Bishops) are normall equivalnt to Rook and
two pawns.
In the endame, two minor pieces (excluding two Bishops) are normall equivalent to Rook and
one pawn.
As te endgame approaches, ls and .s increase in value. The simplest way of
expressing the facts arithmetically is to say that te ) equals fve .s at all stages, but a
minor piece equas three and a half .s in te opening and only three .s in the endgame.
Observe that the .'s value goes up, and the 's value goes up with it, so tat its value
in .s is roughly constant. On the other hand, the minor piece's value stays the same; but
it is worth three and a half opening .s, but only three endgame .s.
Where does the endgame start? For these purposes it starts when te forces are so
reduced that direct mates are ruled out and . promoton becomes the grand objective.
This answers very simply the question as to why the .'s value goes up.
The ) 's value goes up because of its new possibilities of (a) coming safely into mid
board, and (b) penetrating the enemy camp and attacking .s from rear or fank.
We can now formulate general rules of strategy for playing with aganst two minor
pieces or vice versa.
1. I you have Rook (with or without extra pawns) against two minor pieces, ply fr an
endgame.
2. I you have two minor pieces against Rook, and are a pawn or pawns down, or have equal
pawns, avoid exchanes as much as you reasonably can.
You may remember we have so far excluded the two As from our valuations. We can
best get an idea of their effect by taking an example. At New York 1924, the game Yates
Reti, a Caro-Kn, reached the positon now diagrammed.
- 1 05 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Reti
Yates
Black apparently regarded Bxe6 as a
threat, for he now played 11 ... Nd5, which
Alekhine critcized. Alekhine states that Bxe6
is "only an apparent threat," for supposing
it to be White's move in the diagram, 72.
Bxe6 fe6 73. fe6f R (forced) 74. Ng5 Bj,
etc., gives Black "a good game," as Ale
khine says and as anyone can soon verif.
White gets . and two .s for and
4:, but his positon is most awkward. What
causes this? Is it his minus of one tempo in
development? Hardly, for i we put his a-.
on dl , say, thus puttng him ahead in devel
opment instead of behind, his position will
still be awkward. The student ought to verif
this by experiment. We must conclude that
White's man trouble is Black's terrific horde
of minor pieces. The ! and . s cannot
assume aggressive roles or they will merely
become targets for minor pieces, but par
tcularly the two s. To prove that this is so,
imagine in the diagram that White's
were at f4 instead of at home, and it were
White's move. Then, after 72. Bxe6 fe6 73.
Qe6f Rf 74. Ng5 Bj(the moves already
suggested) White could play 75. Bd6!, forc
ing an exchange of s. Thus, 75 ... Bxd6 76.
Nxf Bxf 7Z Qd6 and now White must be
conceded at least a level game. His !is safe
on dark squares, and Black has to guard
against permitting too many frther ex
changes, as White would have the better
endgame.
Pobably it is fir to say as a general rul
that in the opening, i there has been no previous
exchane of pieces, two minor pieces shoul hardly
ever be gven up fr Rook and two pawns; that i
one enemy Knight h been exchaned of the
exchane is more likel to be a fair one; while i
one enemy Bishop h been exchaned of (or can
be), the two pieces coul always be yieled with
out far. I there have been two exchanes, includ
ing an enemy Bishop, then the Rook and two
pawns woul be rather the stronger combination,
other things being equal. Tis woul be because
of the better possibilit of reaching an endame.
Whether the player giving the . and
two .s is lef with the two s or not is of
more than usual importance, because the
two s in such circumstances are a greater
advantage than normally. The reason is
simply that the enemy, being two minor
pieces down, will usually have little chance
to force an exchange of s. Normally, where
each side has an equal number of minor
pieces, the possibility of a fture exchange
decreases the two s' value.
The two s will be dealt with more
flly in a special artcle on them alone. For
just now, the following rule will serve.
Wen the enemy h no minor pieces, two
mobile Bishops are worth at least a pawn more
than the normal value of two minor pieces, either
in middlgame or endgame.
Where the enemy has one or more
minor pieces, so that there is some possibil
ity of one of the two s being exchanged,
the superiority would usually be less than a
., ranging down to half a . .
Obviously it makes a difference if, in
the process of exchanging the pieces for the
. and .s, one side gets a weak . or an
exposed . But if the .-loser gets the
exposed it may not hurt him much, for
the opponent has given up two attacking
pieces and is not likely to be ready at once
to take advantage of the exposure.
- 1 06 -
His Wrtings
ENDGAME
The relative values in the endgame are
well summed up by Fine in Basic Chess
Endings:
In this ending, two pieces are approxi
mately equivalent to a Rook plus one
pawn. When there are a number of pawns
on the board, two pieces plus one pawn
versus Rook always w. With even pawns,
the ending will usually be a draw, but the
two pieces win more often than the Rook.
Rook plus one pawn versus two pieces is
usually a draw. Rook plus two pawns
always win.
In all this, we must understand two ,s as an
exception.
Read tat again caeflly, especially
the third sentence. It indicates that nor
mally the vaue of the two minor pieces is a
little less than and one f , rather than a
little more. Even with no difference in fs at
all, observe that the succeeds i drawing
as ofen as not, and sometimes will win!
These tmes are when the 's side pos
sesses a "remote passed pawn" and the
opponent has terribly weak fs.
Now that we know the high value of
the in the endgame, we shall read with
some surprise te following note by Dr.
Tarrasch i the Book of te St. Petersburg
Tourney of 1914, concerning the dia
grammed position from the first game be
tween Capablanca and Lasker. It is Black's
move.
Lasker
Capablanca
"Black," writes Dr. Tarrasch, "cannot
avoid material loss. He has the choice be
tween 1 . .. Bxd2 2. Rb3, leading to a stuggle
with the Exchange down (, and ' against
and '), and 1 Bet 2. Rxc Nxc 3.
Nxc, leading to a struggle of against A
and '. With excellent perspicacity Lasker
chooses the second alteratve, much the
more favorable to Black."
This last sentence leads the reader to
think that as far as materia was concered,
there was nothing to choose, and that it was
Lasker's superfne judgment that decided
him. Actually, it was a clear choice between
almost certain defeat-Exchange down
should lose, even with all the fs on one
wing, as a rule-and an assured draw.
Why "assured"? Because all the fs are
on one wing. Here is a general rule.
Were there are pawns on one win only,
the advantage of one pawn or its equivalent i
normally insufcient to win.
Many students will find this artcle of
great help, even though space for illustra
tive examples is lacking.
- 1 07 -
The Search for Chess Perection
MINOR PIECES FOR A ROOK
There is very little in the chess literature on the diference in value between two
minor pieces and -other than very brief observations.
Reuben Fine deals with the endgame values very informatively in Basic Chess Endins
(BCE), but te only expositon of the relative values at vaying stages is-as far as we
know-in the Australsian Chess Review of January 1944 (see the preceding article) .
The main facts ae:
1) In the opening, two Minor Peces (excluding two s) are normall
y
equivaent to + two f, 'o s, + 2-1/2 f,
2) I an end-game with fs but no additonal pieces bar te 's, the
superiorit of the two Minor Pieces (excluding two s) over te is less than one
f, For two mobile s, add nearly a f.
So the diference in value (except for two s) decreases by more ta a f as
exchanges proceed!
The has least worth in the opening because he is hard to develop. To induce the
enemy to give up two pieces for and two fs is usually fairly good business in the
opening.
But the biggest jump occurs with te last exchange of pieces just before the ending
described in 2) is reached. In other words, add even one piece to each side and the minor
pieces's faculty for combining with other forces will appreciably increase their value.
Indeed, Fine says in Basic Chess Endings:
"Three pieces versus two Rooks (equal pawns) is normaly a draw, but in favor of the
pieces because they have more play. "
That is true for two s and <, the only combination that Fine gives by way of
illustration. Two <s and are not quite so good; but even if they are barely equal to two
s in an endgame, that shows that the third piece strengthens its fellows by appreciably
more than the endgame value of one minor piece (three fs). In other words-and this is
the great point to remember-
i and < or two <s, without oter pieces, are usually a poor team. Te two
Minor Pieces are much beter in combinaton with at least one other piece.
In BCE Fine maes the following statements which do not quite tie up.
A) "In the ending, two minor pieces are approximately equivalent to Rook and one
pawn."
B) "Rook vs. two minor pieces (equal pawns) will usually be a draw, but te two pieces
will win more often than the Rook."
- 1 08 -
His Writings
If the diference were really about equa
to a . on the average, Fine would have to
say the ending is usually a win for the
pieces. Clearly, a draw might occur fairly
often; but a win for the would be so
infrequent as to make the second clause of
B) a manifest understatement.
Which statement is slightly out, A) or
B)? Probably both-i.e. A) slightly overstates
the value of the pieces, whereas B) slightly
overstates the value of the . All of Fine's
other remarks and his illustrative positions
would te up better had he changed A) and
B) to A) and Bx) . Thus:
A): Substitute our Proposition 2) at
the beginning of this article.
Bx) : vs. two minor pieces (exclud
ing two As) with equal .s ( .s on both
wings) ends in a draw or in a win for the two
pieces with about equal frequency. The
may win in very favorable circumstances.
Fine goes into these circumstances in
detail in BCE
One cannot, of course, reduce chess to
arithmetic. In all this, we are speaking in
averages. Weak .s on either side, badly
placed pieces, and so forth, are likely to
turn the scale; but nevertheless, a knowl
edge of the average values is a necessary
starting point for forming a judgment in any
given position.
Even masters occasionally stray
through not flly appreciating the sharp
drop in value the .1and 4 or two 4s sufer
with the transiton from mid-game to end
game. Here is the game Ozols-Crowl from
the Australian Open tourey in which Ozols
threw away a fairly comfortable win by
exchanging Ys. We give the whole game.
Ozols played the frst half in his best vein,
maing his lapse all the more remarkable.
Crow!, never noted for his endgame play,
played this ending with great skill.
Ozols-Crowl
Queen 's Pawn (Chigorin Dense)
1. c4 e5
2. Nc3 d6
3. g3 Nf6
4. Bg2 c6
5. d4 Qc7
6. e4 Nbd7
By transposition, we are in te Chi
gorin or Old Indian Defense to the Queen's
Pawn. It is more cramped than the King's
Indian ( W-.1 in fianchetto) which gives
Black opportunities of counterplay with
. . . exd4 at some stage, a line which here
would only result in worse cramp.
7. Nge2 Be7
8. 0-0
Nf
9. b3
Or h3 and Be3.
9. Ng6
10. Bb2 Bd7
11. Qd2
Rd8
12. Rad1 Qc8
13. 4! Bh3
As White did not choose the h3 line on
move 9 (after which he could have met
... Bwith Kh2) , it was logical to permit this
swap. Although his light squaes are weak
ened, Wite gains time and gets great con
trol of the board.
14. f5! Bxg
15. Kxg2
Nf
16. Qe3 Ng4
A ingenious bid for freedom.
17. Qf h5
18. h3 exd4
19. hxg4 dxc3
20. Bxc3 hxg4
21. Qxg4 Ng6
22. Rh1 Rg8
23. Qf! Ne5
24. Q4
B6
25. c5! g5
26. Qcl! d5
- 1 09 -
Te Search for Chess Perection
27. Qb2 Qc7
28. exd5 cd5
29. Rel d4
Bold tactics in dificulties. Black opens
lines to expose White's ', Black's ' being
exposed anyway. If now 30. Bxd4?, then
30 . . . Q6f starts rufianly behavior.
30. Nxd4! Qxc5
31. Nf Rxdl
32. Rxdl Ng4
33. Relt Ne3
t
34. Rxe3t
Qxe3
35. Bx6 Kd7
dddP

g

'
:l:l)
,

36. Qd4t?
Time pressure obviously. Yet, even in
clock touble, it was a strange choice. Ozols
canot have realized what a task he was
settng himself. He could have safely played
36. Ne5 f even if he only had a few seconds
lef (time limit: 36 moves in 2 hours), and
that must win with care. For example, 36.
Nxe5f Kc8 3Z Q2t Kb8 38. Nxfl g439. Ne5.
White has all he had before, and a passed
f+.
36. ... Qxd4
37. Bxd4 g4
Most adjudicators would adjudicate this
position as a win for White-and probably
correctly so. Yet the fact that Ozols did not
win is evidence of the difcultes inherent
in the positon.
38. Ne5t
39. K
Ke7
Rg5
40. Ke3
To avoid simplificaton ty 40. f6f. For
example, 40. f6f Ke6 47. Nd3 Kj 42. Ke3
R5 43. Nf4 R7 (if .. . R, then a4 helps
White) 44. Kd with better winning chances
for White than in the game.
40. R5
41. Nxg4 Ke6
42. Nf b6
43. g4 Rd5
44. Nd3 Rd7
45. Nf4t Kd6
46. Ke4 Ke7
47. g5
Rd6
48. a4
Kd7
49. b4 Rc6
50. Kd5 Rd6
t
51. Kc4 Rc6
t
52. Kb5? a6t!
This forces a draw. The interestng point
is that, according to Kruger, it was generally
assumed at the tme that i White had not
slipped with 52. Kb5? he could have won.
This is frter evidence that the two pieces
are overvalued even by masters. The possi
bilities are too numerous for demonstra
ton; but we have tried over several lines
ad compared the resulting positons with
some given by Fine, and our conclusion is
that a draw would be the correct adjudica
tion even had the white ' gone elsewhere.
53. Kxa6
Rc4
54. Ne2
Rxb4
55. a5 bxa5
56. Kxa5
Rbl
- 1 1 0 -
His Writing
Easy now- is on one wing only. In
addition, White's W is out of play.
57. Nc R
58. Bf6 R6
59. g6
Ke6
Drawn
A mine of instrcton.
Purdy Library of Chess
Each volume of the Purdy Library is a stand-alone selection of material from the
published writings ofCJ.S. Purdy. There are 72 acles of a genera nature (41 in
item 2 and 3 1 in item 7) which amply illustrate the theme Purdy retured to tme
and again. The Library contains more than 800 annotated games. Included is
Purdy's 10 Hours series of articles on the openings (item 6), and it has his thoughts
on the end-game (item 9).
Pblished Tites
1. Guide to Good Chess, 1 1t editon, 1996.
2. CJS. Prdy: The Search fr Chess Perction, 1997.
3. How Prdy Won: Te Correspondence Chess Career of a Worl Champion,
1 983, presently out of print. .
4. CJS. Prdy 's Fine Art of Chess Annotation and Other Tought Vol. 1: 100
Annotated Games, Purdyisms, The Purdy Player, 1992. Limited stock.
Tites Under Consideraton (all in algebraic notaton)
5. CJS Prdy Annotates the Worl Championshis: Alekine-Euwe I 1935;
Alekhine-Euwe 11 7937; Fischer-Spassk I 1972. (An all-in-one-volume
reissue of Purdy's books How Euwe Won, Te Retur of Alekhine, How
Ficher Won).
6. CJS. Prdy's "Starter Set" Openin Repertoire. A edited version of the
series of articles Te Openins in 10 Hours plus material on the Colle
System.
7. CJS Prdy's Fine Art of Chess Annotation Vol. 2: 1 20 Annotated Games
plus 3 1 Artcles and Studies.
8. CJS. Prdy 's Fine Art of Chess Annotation Vol. 3: Purdy on Purdy, Annota
tions to 70 over-the-board games of CJ.S. Purdy and to 30 games of
John Purdy, Purdyisms (revised), The Purdy Player, The Road to
2000 (How to Become an Expert) .
9. CJS. Prdy on the End-Game.
10. CJS. Prdy's Fine Art of Chess Annotation Vol. 4: 200 Annotated Games
( 1 5 Championship, 40 Master, 145 Austraia ad New Zealand).
1 1. CJS. Prdy's Fine Art of Chess Annotation Vol. 5: Annotated Games fom
1 938-1945 and 1976- 1979.
1 2. CJS. Prdy: Caissa Remembers. Artcles on the History of Chess, Obituary
Notices for 14 Chess Maters (appreciaton of each master's chess
career plus a few of the master's best games) .
- I l l -
The Search for Chess Perection
WEAK PAWNS AND WEAK SQUARES
By far the most important thing about weak is and weak squares is not to overrate
their importance. Always the main difculty in chess is to estimate the relative importance
of different factors, and this is where the books often fail the student.
I have seen a player give up a piece rather than submit to a very bad i formation
round his w-side-castled w (isolated doubled is on f: f/f7:f6 and i on h2/h7!) .
This player had read a book or two, and he had acquired a horror of such a i
positon. But the big question was, what could his opponent do wit it? Unless the
opponent could at once insttute a crushing attack, almost anyting was preferable to
giving up a whole piece (or it may have been a piece for a i -the same applies). As there
was no immediate attack, the drawbacks to the position were relatively slight. Indeed, if
the player himself was ahead in development, he might have time to get his W to h llh8
and his s doubled on the g-fle, and become the attacker himself.
I recommend the student to tur up the game Klass-L. Steiner, 1946, in which Klass,
as White, deliberately allowed Steiner to give him that position because i order to do so
Steiner would have to exchange one of his two As for a .. Steiner, who had previously
had a fairly safe i plus, found himself too poorly developed to make the slightest use of
White's "weakened" w-side, and was lef with an insecure game.
This preamble will serve to remind the student that a theoretical weakness must be
assessed according to the advantage, if any, which the opponent can take of it.
If no immediate advantage can be taken, that does not mean no advantage can ever
be taken.
A endgame weakness matters in the middlegame, because the opponent knows that
you don't want an endgame and can harass you by invitng exchanges.
Once again, however, let us keep a sense of proportion. The books rightly stress the
importance of weak squares and isolated and backward is because such weanesses are
lastng. You cannot easily get rid of them. But the books do not emphasize that, even so,
such weaknesses are of smaller account than the purely evanescent weaknesses of pieces,
e.g., a "loose" (undefended) piece in an exposed situation, a Y on the same fle, r, or
diagonal as her W, or a piece with insufcient means of retreat and therefore liable to be
caught in a "net."
Such disabilites can usually be rectifed in one move; but if it is your opponent's
move, that vital one move is lacking, and you may lose a piece-whereas even te weaest
weak i is rarely a worse evil tha losing a i .
We have all noticed te moderate sort of positional compensation a stong player is
satsfed with for a i minus. Naturally, still less compensaton is needed for a wea i or
a weak square.
Mter these necessary warings, let us now examine this question of wea is and
weak squares, for I know that many players have only very hazy notons about them.
The most familiar type of weakness is te isolated i, i.e., a i that has no fellow i
- 1 1 2 -
Hi Wrting
on either adjacent fle. Of the same ilk is the
"backward" . . This . has a fellow . on at
least one adjacent fle, but the fellow is in
front of it, and the "backward" . is pre
vented by adverse weather conditions from
moving up into line with it. This . is to all
intents and purposes isolated, i.e., it cannot
be supported by a . if attacked.
That is te obvious disadvantage of a
weak . : that it may need the protection of
pieces, whose feedom of acton is thus
resticted.
The weaness is seldom very serious
unless the fle on which the . stands is
open onto it. I do not say simply "open,"
because by defnition a . cannot possibly
stand on an open fle; an open file is one
unoccupied by a . (it can have a crowd of
pieces on it, but is stll open). But if all that
part of a file in front of a weak . is clear of
.s, it means that enemy ts can easily bear
down upon it, and that usually makes all the
difference.
In an endgame this factor is much less
important, because ts can then hop about
more and are likely to attack the . from
flank or rear; or else there are no ts at all.
In either case, the "weak" . is really wea,
irrespective of the other occupants of its
fle.
So a weak . is specially to be de
plored in an endgame.
The queston of weak squares is inex
tricably interwoven with that of weak .s.
Note that a weak squae or weak point
(same thing) is also called a strong point
for the opponent.
A weak square, just like a weak . , is
one which cannot be guarded by a .. In
other words, a piece can occupy it without
fear of being driven of by a .. 4s are the
specially good pieces for occupying such
points.
Look now at Diagram 1.
Here we have the famous "isolated c
pawn". This almost always refers to a . on
the fourth/fifth rank, i.e., at d4/d5. If on d3/
d6 as in Diagram 2, the weakness is consid
erably greater, and if on d5/d4 it is ofen
less.
This is easily explained.
A plan to gain a weak . outright is
usually not feasible of execution, and there
fore bad. The normal use to be made of
weak .s is to put pressure on them to tie up
the opponent's pieces.
Even in the endgame this is the main
use of weak .s, and a very big use it is.
But in the early stages, as a rule, not
much tying up can be done in this way.
More certain of success is the policy of
taking advantage of the weak square or
squares just in front of the .. For if the .
itself is isolated, i.e., there is no fellow . on
an adjacent file, the same applies to the
other squares on the file. Thus, in Diagram
1, a white 4 on d4 would be very well
posted. This d4-square is known as the
"blockade" square (Nimzovich), since a
- 1 1 3 -
The Search for Chess Perection
piece there completely blockades the weak
. . Nimzovich showed how te blockade of
a single . migt exert a cramping infu
ence on a whole army. And the blockading
at the same time radiates power from the
blockade square. The should, however,
have the support of a . .
So te routine play in Diagram 1 is 1.
N5! This can then be posted on d4,
secure i the knowledge that i he is ever
exchanged, aother will take his place. If
not a
'
there should at any rate always be
some piece ready to recapture, rather than
a . ; for once the square d4 is plugged with
a ., obviously the two opposing isolated d
fs cancel out. Not altogether-for the new
. on d4/ dS acts as a support for a on eS/
e4, ad then the queston is, which player is
ready to post a 4 on his eS/ e4? That player
should have the initative, other things be
ing equal.
In Diagram 2, Black is much worse of,
for now te blockade square is i his own
camp; a 4 on dS in Diagram 2 will be a far
worse thor i Black
'
s side tha a on d4
in Diagram 1.
An even more important aspect is tat
a ./d6 is a worse obstructon to Black's
pieces than the one on dS.
In Diagra 3 the same square ( dS) is
stll weak, even though it actually can be
protected by a . ; for . .. c6 will leave Black's
. on d6 weak-not as weak as if it were
completely isolated or backward, but obvi
ously weak all the same, since it can only
attain security by going to dS, and White
may be able to prevent that. Therefore a
white is well posted on dS, if only to
induce ... c6.
The positon of Diagram 3 commonly
arises in te Ruy Lopez, through Black,
sometmes more or less under compulsion,
playing ... exd4, and thus giving White the
major shae of the center. It is in general
slightly disadvantageous to Black unless, in
his tur, he can prove White's . on e4 also
weak.
Next we come on to the important
question of moving .s in font of the castled
. The beginner is told to keep them un
moved, and ten sees that experts move at
least one of them in almost every game they
play!
- 1 1 4 -
His Writings
ON CASTLE WALLS
This artcle was to have been entitled, "Moving pawns in Front of a Castled King,"
but as that is too long for the page we have commandeered a half-line fom Tennyson
which serves our purpose equally well.
With all the vast literature there is on chess, it is remarkable how easy it is to find new
subjects. One would think tat since at least one player castles in nealy every game of
chess played, someone would have ere now written an article on the lines of te present
one, but to the best of our knowledge nobody has.
To simplif discussion, we shall deal at frst only with '-side castling, adding a
section on -side castling near the end.
lt All Depends
We are all familiar with the time-honored advice not to move fs in front of a castled
'. Rigid adherence to this rule would be about equivalent to imposing on oneself the
handicap of f and Move at the very least. If we had a dollar for every player who has
been mated through not moving a f in front of his castled ', we should be enormously
wealty.
Everything depends on circumstances. To move one of the fs of the castle wall may
be extremely helpfl; to move another may be suicide. Again, moving it one square is
usually far less risky than moving it two squares. It is vitally important whether your
opponent has castled or can castle on the opposite wing. If so, a break in your castle wall
is likely to be so much the more dangerous, because the opponent can embark on a
pawnstorm without spoiling his own castle wall.
The frst six diagrams illustrate the six different f moves in font of the castled ': h4,
g4, f4, h
,
g3, f.
On h4
1
White has played M!
The move h4 aer '-side castling is
usually nothing short of insane, but in Dia-
gram 1, fom a game Koshnitsky-Purdy in
the Austalian Correspondence Champi
onship, it was te best move on the board.
For that to happen, its attacking efect must
be more important than the weakening ef
fect on the player's own position.
With few pieces on te board, a f is a
proportionately greater fighting unt than in
a crowded middlegame; and Koshnitsky, in
his eforts to draw wit a f down (they
were successfl), had to make use of every
available unit of force. With his 26. h4!, te
move just played, White threatens h fol
lowed either by h6 for a mating net or else
by a f exchange reducing the black 's
- 1 1 5 -
The Search for Chess Perection
security.
If Black's were nearer the -side,
Black might be able to tur White's sortie to
his own advantage; but it isn't, and he can't.
The move also has some defensive
value, in that White's now has two fight
squares (g2 and h2) instead of only one-a
decided asset.
Strength of Unmoved f-Pawn
And here note a important general
rule. White's i position in Diagram 1 is
almost the ideal one for a shelter i a Y
versus-Y ending-with or without other
pieces. We say "almost" because fom a
purely defensive viewpoint it is better to
have the h- i on h3 tha on h4. But the
main features of the shelter are the un
moved f on f and the f on g3. The f on
f prevents check on the rank, while the i
on g3 prevents checks on the file. And if
driven to g2 and then checked diagonally,
the can escape perpetua check by going
to h2.
No other shelter is 'just as good." Don't
be fooled by substitutes. Imagine the re
verse i chain (h2, g3, f4) and howl with
laughter. Or Diagram 3 or 6. Anoter leaky
shelter consist of is on g2 and h3 (Dia
gram 4 wit the f- i ficked away), for it is
highly vulnerable to perpetual check.
Te main thin to remember is that against
a Oeen an unmoved Bishop-pawn i a great
blessin.
On g4 (Worst of Al )
:
'
.i .. . i
2
Diagram 2 shows a position almost
always miserably unfavorable to the castled
. It usually arises through overanxiety to
get rid of a pin. Almost always, the correct
teatent of a J which pins a on f/f6 is
frst to drive it to h4/h5 by h/6, and then
think. It is extremely usefl to know that in
a emergency you can end the pin by g4/g5,
but that move should not be made except as
a last resort-unless it gains material. As
may be seen from Diagram 2, te squares
f, f4, h3, and h4 are al left indefensible by
is, and there is great scope for enemy As
on the long dark and light diagonals.
Onf4!?
Diagram 3 is a failiar sight. The ad
vance of the f- i ofen opens up possibili
tes for the castled .
At the moment the only square seri
ously weakened is e3, but one must reckon
on having to play Khl in answer to a diago
nal check, and aferwards h to avoid mate
on the back rank. The square g3 will then
be weakened.
Thus one may say that f4, while it can
be very stong, is ofen risky; if one's attack
is unsuccessfl, the move may contibute to
one's own downfall.
On h (Of Good)
Diagram 4 is a positon that is usually
quite safe. No squares are immediately weak
ened, as g3 is still protected by the f- i. The
gains a valuable flight square at h2.
Trouble arises only if:
- 1 1 6 -
His Writings
( 1) the enemy can castle on the other
wing and can advantageously rush down
. . . g5 and . . . g4, opening an avenue for an
attack on the ';
(2) the enemy can advantageously sac
rifce a piece by taking the . on h3.
As a general rule, one can at least say
that if h3 hits a piece away-so that one can
play it without losing a tempo-it is nor
mally a good move.
5
Diagram 5 is in general a very bad one
unless there is a A in fachetto, and in that
case, provided the A cannot be exchanged
of, it is usually a very stong defensive
position! Without the said A, the weaken
ing of f ad h3 is ofen fata.
This explains why masters mae such
strenuous eforts to exchange of enemy
fanchetto As. A pawnstorm against such a
position by . . . h5-h4 is often tempting, but is
usually futle unless the fanchetto A ca
first be liquidated.
On J (Sometmes Ba)
6
,:
- L.
Diagram 6 shows te f- . moved one
square-usually to support the e- . . This
formaton has te same objecton as Dia
gram 3. If White has a .l on dark squares
and the enemy has not, it is usually pretty
safe; but if te opposite state of af airs pre
vails, it tends, of course, to be highly vulner-
able.
Long Castling (0-0-0)
7
Castling on the i-side, sometmes de
scribed as "long castling," is usually less
secure than short castling for two reasons
(see Diagram 7) :
1. The point a is defenseless.
2. The point c2 is protected only by a
King.
The frst drawback can be remedied at
the cost of one tempo by Kb 1, but not the
second (it would be ludicrous to castle on
te -side and then play both Kb1 and
R1). Therefore, before castling "long" one
should investigate whether the weakness of
c2 is likely to tell.
Once having castled "long," the points
for and against moves of the a-, b-, and c- .s
are the same as those for and against moves
of the corresponding .s after short castling,
with these main diferences:
a. The move a3 does not create a flight
for the ' unless he moves to b 1.
b. The move c4 is wholly weakening,
unlike f4 ater '-side castling which may
give mobility to the castled ..
A Teasing Problem
One often finds it necessary or desir
able to create a flight for one's casted ',
ad has to decide between h3/6 and g3/g6.
From what has been said, it is clear that
h3/6 will nearly always prove the better
move, but here is a positon which shows
how teasing the problem ca be. It oc
curred in the radio match between Austra
lia and France. M.E. Goldstein (White) had
- 1 1 7 -
The Search for Chess Perection
to move in Diagram 8 against R. Daniel.
White to play
White has reached one of those posi
tons in which nothing very progressive can
be done, so that one may as well do some
thing that is certain to be necessary sooner
or later-here, make an escape for te .
The routine h3has the objecton that Black's
runs on dark squares; also, White's
'
if
ever driven to h2, would no longer protect
f.
Thus Goldstein was led to play g3,
despite the weakening efect on his light
squares. Was he right? It is hard to say.
Many players would select h3, and not g3
unless obliged to later on.
A third possibility was R 1 followed
by Kfl. This is ofen well worth consider
aton if an endgame is in sight; but the
enemy may be able to make something out
of the exposure of the .
We do not attempt to reach any con
clusion. What we have done is to point out
the general issues involved to assist players
when similar problems arise in their own
games.
TO TAKE OR NOT TO TAKE
The beginner frequenty declines a sacrifce merely because he thinks his opponent
"must have something up his sleeve," even though he himself cannot see it. That is no way
to play chess. If te position is too complicated for you to work out, the following
consideratons will prove helpfl.
1. If the piece or pawn ofered can play a part in the attack if not taen, always take
it if you cannot see a clea objecton.
2. This is more likely to obtain where the unit sacrifced is a piece than where it is a
pawn. To decline a piece is usually more dangerous than taking it, but this is not true of
fs-except advanced passed fs.
3. Where the Exchange is ofered ( . for or 4), much depends on wheter the .
is mobile. It is ofen bad to give up a mobile or 4 and f for an immobile ., despite
the smal gain in materia.
4. Where the material ofered is " for ! and piece, and you are winning, make sure
you haven't a stronger move before accepting, as this small advantage is deceptve ad the
game is ofen drawn.
- 1 1 8 -
His Wrtings
HOW TO AVOID TRAPS
A player of average strength asked us how to avoid traps in the opening. We gave him
four rules.
1. Move nothing beyond the fourth/ffth rank till all your pieces are developed
(except a f , if it hits a piece or takes something) .
2. When Black, develop your -A at e7.
3. Avoid h3/h6 or a3/a6 unless it hits a piece.
4. Castle as early as possible (first making sure the enemy hasn't a quick mating
attack starting with Bxh2f!Bxh7f).
These rules will not enable you to play masterly chess, but they will avoid almost all
the stock opening traps. If your judgment tells you to break a rule in any partcular
instance, break it.
Rule 1 stops you fom playing Bb5/Bb4, often a good move but a fruitfl source of
trouble. Yes, it forbids the Ruy Lopez, but the Lopez is a pointless opening unless backed
by much study.
An example of Rule 2 is 1. e4 e5 2. N Nc6 3. Bc4. Here either the Two Knights
Defense (3 ... Nj6) or the Giuoco Piano (3 . . . Bc5) is risky without study, whereas the
Hungarian Defense (3 ... Be7) is comparatvely safe. See Moder Chess Openings.
Once your development is completed, forget the rules. No rules will enable you to
beat a better player. But they can show you how to avoid trouble in the early stages.
LOPEZ SUBTLEnES AND STEAMROLLERS
Although I have written over a million words on chess, I do not remember ever
having written much about f majorities in the middlegame. My reason in days gone by
was that Nimzovich's My System was so widely read that there was not much need. But for
years this book has been out of print, and we must reprimand Messrs. G. Bell and Sons for
giving priority to reprints of other books, seeing that My System is the most important chess
work of the century. That Nimzovich carries his system to excess is of little consequence;
he discovered and brilliantly expounded basic chess truths.
Another thing I have been meaning to do for some time is to give a few thoughts on
the Ruy Lopez. Znosko-Borovsky's article in our December 1946 number was admirably
provocative, but was clearly a piece of special pleading. In this article I shall not answer
Z-B directly, but merely give an idea of some of the subtleties of the Ruy Lopez from
White's viewpoint.
I can accomplish both objects by discussing the extraordinarily interesting opening
play in the game L. Steiner-B.Y. Mills, Australian Championship, Adelaide 1946-47
Stein er lost the game from a superior position, but what we are concered with is the
frst part of the game; how Mills acquired an inferior position and why it was inferior.
- 1 1 9 --
The Search for Chess Perection
Purpose of the Lopez
The Ruy Lopez cannot guarantee
White an advantage, but neither is it a suit
able subject for ribaldry, as the popular
Znosko-Borovsky implied in the final para
graph of his article.
Admittedly, it is a bad opening to adopt
against a stronger player. Its virtue is that it
avoids any favorable simplifcation and sets
all kinds of positional problems for both
sides. This will be very clear as we proceed.
L. Steiner-B.Y Mills
Ruy Lopez-Steinitz Dense
1. e4 e5
2. N Nc6
3. Bb5
Nf6
The Berlin Defense, now used mainly
to transpose favorably into the Steinitz De
fense. Here we quote R.F. Combe, the Scot
tish master and 1947 British Champion.
B.Y. Mills, by the way, is the grandson of a
Scottish champion, D.Y. Mills, who played
for Great Britain in eight matches against
the U.S.A., ending up at Board 3 Qust below
Blackbume), and never lost.
Combe, commentng on 3 .. Nf6 in
one of his own games (B. C.M., January
1947), writes,
Though it may be heretcal to say so, I
cannot affirm any faith in the Ruy Lopez
as an efective line of play for White.
Almost any defense can be developed
satisfactorily, although Black's usual re
ply, 3 .. . a6, tends to obscure the defcien
cies of White's Plan.
We do not agree with the "almost any,"
but we do think the defense adopted here is
good, and certainly simpler than 3 . . . a6.
4. 0-0 Be7
The more usual way of transposing
into the Steinitz is 4 . . . d6 5. d4 BdZ The text
may have a virtue in giving White less
option, since an immediate 5. d4 would be
met by 5 ... exd4 with ... Nxe4 a threat. Mills
had evidently given the matter plenty of
tought; he told me beforehand that he
intended to play this line.
5. Rel d6
6. c
More usual is 6. d4 Bd7 and now mostly
Z Nc3, but sometimes Z c3 to avoid the
simplifing line Z .. exd4. As Stein er intends
the latter, he plays c3 first, thus avoiding
. . . exd4 even on Move 6. We called this line
"theoretically ineffectve," meaning inefec
tive according to "book theory," but that
means very little. Mter all, "theory" main
tains that Black should obtain a satisfactory
game in any event, and the queston here is:
can Black equalize more easily aganst en
ergetic moves that obey the elementary
principle of quick development, or against
a subtler line which foregoes development
in order to keep Black's game resticted? In
practice, the answer is that an opponent will
usually fnd more dificulty with the less
familiar line.
And we should remind new readers
who have not studied our old A. C.R. ar
ticles tat "opening theory" in chess really
means "fashionable opening practice." In
spite of the vast literature of chess, there is
still no real opening theory. Analysts are
constantly making new discoveries which
upset current ideas.
6. . . . 0-0
7. h3
As Black has not been forced into an
early . . . Bd7, he could now aswer d4 with
. .. Bg4, or . . . exd4 and then . . . Bg4; and in te
Lopez White should never permit that. One
is tempted to say that the necessity for tis
loss of time condemns White's sixth move,
but play on to Move 10.
7. . . Bd7
Again virtually preventing d4, which
- 1 20 -
Hi Writings
would enable Black to exchange of two
pars of minor pieces and thus eliminate the
restriction, e.g., 8. d4 Nxd4! 9. Nxd4 exd4 10.
Bxd7 Qd7 71. cxd4 d5 72. e5 Ne4 73. Nc3 f!
with a good game. Therefore, to prepare d4
White must lose aother tempo in remov
ing his -.
8. Bf!
Combe's opponent also did tis, tough
in a diferent variant: 5. Nc d6 6. d4 Bd7 Z
Kexd4 (the line Steiner avoided) 8. Nxd4
0-0; and now 3. Bf. But Combe's note to
Bl could apply in eiter case. Combe writes:
Tarrasch' s recipe-to profit by the sup
posed advantage of greater "lebensraum."
If this line is really best, it shows that b5 is
too sensitive a spot for the King Bishop,
and Black has here revealed this fact by
the simplest of developing moves.
While we admire Combe's wittily pre
cise style, seen also in the frst note we
quoted, his reasoning is questionable. The
opposing argument is that the has al
ready accomplished good work at b5, in
inducing Black to adopt a resticted posi
tion. It is now justifed in moving away to
preserve that resticton.
Note that White has not lost two tempi
with Bb5-, but only one, because in re
turg home the A has not undeveloped
itself, but merely moved to another square
where it is still developed; for it obstructs no
oter White piece and is in play.
To see how litte Blac's "development"
helps him, note that his position would be
far easier with his - still undeveloped,
for he could then play .. . d5 with a clear
advantage! As it is, he could play it as a .
sacrifce, as in the Marshall Gambit, but
here White's A/fl afords additional pro
tection to the -side, and h is already
played; we doubt if even Harry Klass could
get away with it.
Black has various continuatons which
should be adequate.
One is 8 . . . Re8 9. d4 Bf!, and if 10. d5,
... Ne7 If then 71. c4, . . . h6 12. Nc3 Nh7! and
Black can enforce . . .f with the better game.
But Wite could forestall this with 12. Nh2!
himself, and if then 12 ... Nh7, 73. f4! 0r, in
this, if 12 . . . g5, then 73. g4 and both players
would get <s to their respective f5/f4-
squares. White could try to keep the -side
blocked and hope to make something of his
extra space on the -side. It would be fair
to say "equal chances."
Or, again, the Kecskemet System, with
8 . . . Be8followed by . . . Nd7, ... Kh8, and .. f6.
But neither of these plans tries to make
anything of Black's plus in development;
more logica was the one adopted by Mills,
which was to answer White's coming d4
with ... exd4 and then . . . d5. This does not
mean complete freedom, but Black's pieces
will look less silly tha at present.
8. . . . h6
Black had to choose some move which
could be of use in the coming positon;
originally we thought . . . Be6 better, but as
we shall see, the move played is excellent.
9. d4 exd4
White now reaps the reward of his
sacrifice of tme. He acquires a strong .
center. In chess, one does not sacrifice only
materia. Here White has sacrificed time for
space, i.e., has retaded his own develop
ment in order to keep Black restricted.
10. cxd4 d5
- 1 2 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Stop a moment to see what Black would
play if White had omitted h3: naturally 70 . . .
Bg4 (even though this . has previously
moved once) . White's center fs then be
come weak as well as strong. Thus we see
that White's h3 was not a mere forced loss
of time through a transposition of moves,
but a strategical necessity in White's plan of
keeping Black cramped.
1 1. e5 Ne4
12. Nc3 Nxc3
In such positions one plays usually .. .j
if possible, but obviously not here. Black
could play 72 ... Bf 73. Bd3 (best) Nxc3 74.
bxc3 Bxd3 (or . . . Q7) leading to the same
position as in the next note.
13. bxc3 Be6
Far simpler was 73 ... Bf at once, al
though, as we shall see, it does not necessar
ily save a tempo. White could not reply 74.
c4?because of ... N4.
14. Bd3
15. Bc2
Qd7
f5?
Black's one and only mistake, but a
very serious one. He could have played
75 . . . Bf, and the extra move of this . is
balanced by White's exta move with his
(Bc2). Black would come out with essen
tally the same position as he could have
obtained by playing . . . Bf on Move 12 or
13. Mills thought 75 . . . Bf would lose a f,
but Steiner pointed out that after 76. Bxf
0f 77 @3 6! there is no . to win. "A
easy game for Black" (our verdict, not
Steiner's) might be improved by substtut
ing "equal" instead of "easy," the latter be
ing rather meaningless. Is a balanced chess
positon ever "easy"?
Mter 75 ... Bf! 76. Bxf 0f a better
line for White might be an attempt to mobi
lize his '-side starting with 77 Nh2. Then
77 .. Na5 78.f4 (say) 6 79. Qd3 (or Q4) f!
This last move is most important, in order
to prevent White's .s fom turing into a
steamroller by J, but it should not be played
too soon-certanly not till White has moved
his _, else he could play exf and step into
e5 at once, as in the game.
Note that in all these variatons the
move ... h6 is quite good for Black, as it
absolutely prevents Ng5 or Bg5 at any stage.
16. ex6 R6
17. Ne5 Nxe5
18. dxe5 Rf
Te "Steamroller"
White's advantages in this positon are,
frst and foremost, his '-side majority of
fs-he threatens to obtain a steamroller of
fs with f4, g4, and f, which would tur
Black's pieces into a lot of weak-kneed
crocks-and secondly, his command of the
mating diagonal bl-h7 In all this, the main
trouble for Black is his .. . h6. Aer 'f-side
castling, it is usualy safe enough to move
the f- f or the h- . (one square), but not
bot of these fs, as a "hole" is created at
g3/g6. This is why Black's 15th move was so
harmfl. Mills, of course, realized it was
harmful, but it was the only alterative to
what he thought was the loss of a clear ..
In the diagram, picture Black's . stll
on h7. The steamroller threat is then much
milder, as Black can wait for f and g4 and
then play ... g6. Black would have time to
initiate ' -side counterplay.
PAWN DEVELOPMENT
Note careflly that White's advantages
which we have just detailed are structural,
- 1 22 -
His Writings
i.e., lastng. Black's partial compensation
lies solely in his plus of two tempi in piece
development. I say "piece" because, where
an advancing f majority is involved, the
passed f and its adjacent supportng f
can be counted as fighting units, so that one
can introduce the conception of f devel
opment; and in that, White is well ahead.
Moreover, Black cannot readily tur his d
f and c- f into a steamroller, because his
d- f is not yet a passed f ; to make a
steamroller, he would have to advance al
four of his fs on the '-side and play . .. /
a very slow process for which Black has no
time, because White's operatons include a
mating threat at h 7
Again, in the middlegame the most
effectve steamroller is one that can assist an
attack on the enemy -
In the endgame, of course, the more
remote a passed f is fom the enemy
'
the better.
Pseudo-Development
The student taught fom infancy to
respect the principle of quick development
of pieces may ask in horrified tones: is
Black's plus of two tempi to count for noth
ing at all?
I reply that, especially if there is no
open file for Es, there is always a danger of
a plus in development silently steaing away.
If one cannot increase it-the ideal-it is
usually best to try to exchange it for some
more lasting advantage, or to destroy some
advantage of the enemy. Suppose you are
two tempi ahead and merely try to keep
them, ten you may be like the man who
ties to follow the subtle ironical counsel of
Gilbert:
Take a pair of sparkling
ees . . .
Take and keep them-i
you can.
You will be beaten by Father Time, if
nothing else, and so in chess; a plus in
development tends to decrease in value as
development on each side progresses. It is a
simple statement of rato-that to have two
pieces out to your opponent's none is more
advantageous tha to have eight pieces out
to your opponent's six. But there is more in
it than that; if your opponent has an advan
tage in space, and there is no open fle (as in
the game before us), you will not be able to
develop efectvely and may end up with
eight ineffectively developed pieces; ten
you can do nothing much, and your oppo
nent can effectively develop his oter two
pieces and have a clear advantage.
WHEN AlACK I S
THE BEST DEFENSE
But the second part of my answer is: an
advantage in development can always, or
almost always, be used somehow.
In the position diagrammed after
Black's 18th, Steiner tied for too much.
Wishing to control te matng diagonal com
pletely, he played 19. g4, because he wrongly
thought he could stand Black's counterat
tack (19 ... Bc).
But if 79. f4!, again, not a "developing"
move, be it noted (i.e., not piece-develop
ing), Black is on the brink of a precipice.
White threatens g4, acquiring the dreaded
steamroller, all te more deadly because of
the additional threat of Q.
Desperate ills demand desperate rem
edies, hence my idea of answering 79. f4
wit 79 ... Bc5f 20. Kh2 g5! This guards the
matng square h7 with the ' and, above all,
nips the steamroller in te bud (if an editor
cannot m his metaphors, where is our
much vaunted freedom of speech?).
With the simple 79 ... Bj (afer 79. f4)
Black could eliminate the mating threat ( 2 0.
- 1 23 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Bxj Rxj), but then afer 20. g4 Rj 21. f!
the steamroller foats in fll bloom.
The plan based on . . . g5 ofers a f and
exposes Black's ,and these are very good
substtutes for the advantages White has to
give up, but lines are opened so that Black's
advantage in development has at least a
chance of making itself felt.
I thought at first that Black might be
able to get satisfactory counterplay in all
variatons, but my analysis was one-sided;
in some variations, Black does get "brilliant
counterchaces," but if White plays with
care, attending both to defense and attack,
he can show a clear advantage.
Nevertheless, the risky counterattack
is Black's best chance. The old saw "The
best defense is attack" does not necessarily
apply if you are actually being attacked; but
it almost always applies if you are in dager
of serious cramp. The reason is that no
great precision is required to win aganst a
badly cramped game, since the tme factor
ceases to matter much, but precision is re
quired where the opponent has counter
chances.
Some Difficult Analyses
After 1 9. f4
Before proceeding, I mention the im
mediate 19 . . . g5!? (my "second sting") . In
reply, not 20. fg5 because of the "brilliant
counter-chance" 20 ... Bxh3!!, for if then 21.
gxh3, ... Qh3 22. Qd5f Kh8and White has
to allow a draw. But 20. @5 Bj 21. e6! Bc5f
22. Be3! Bxe3f 23. Rxe3, and if 23 . . . Q8it is
White' s tur to be brilliant, with 24. Qh6!
(Steiner) . White gives up a piece but gets
three fs and an attack. [Ed.: Tu, 24 . . .
Bxc2 25. Qg5f Kh7 26. Qd5, hence the three
fs; i25 . . . Bg6, then 26. g4!; i25 . . . Q6, then
26. e7!]
So we retur to:
19. f4 Bc5f 20. Kh2 (not Kh1, . . . Bxh3)
g5!
Now our main line ran as follows:
21. @5 Q7 22. fg5 R 23. Bg6 hxg5
24. Bxg5 Bj 25. O1.
Here we became over-exuberant with
25 ... Qg6? 26. Qd5f Be6 2Z Qc5 Raf 28.
h4 Q2 with a win for Black, but we missed
28. Re3! (Steiner), which breaks the attack
and leaves White with a win on material.
So Black must fall back on 25 ... c6 26.
Bxj Qg5 2Z Be6f (forced) Kg7 28. Q4
Qg4 29. Bxg4 Raf (and if 30. e6 . . . Rc2, as
31. e7? would just lose the f) . In his supe
rior )s and White's weaknesses at a, c3,
and g2, Black has fair compensaton for the
f. Steiner proceeds with 30. Rad1! Rc2 31.
Rd R 32. R3, when 32 . . . Kh6 continues
the indeterminate struggle.
However, White can improve on this.
Instead of te obvious 23. Bg6, he can play,
more solidly, 23. Bd1 !; and if 23 . . . Raf, not
24. Qh6 but 24. Bg4! (Steiner) . If Black
exchanges (what else?), White's passed f is
unblockaded, ad White's positon becomes
virtually impregnable (25. hxg4is probably
White's best way to recapture, though Qg4
is also good) .
Going right back to Move 21 (after 19.
f4 Bc5f 20. Kh2 g5 fom the diagram),
Koshnitsky suggested the simple 21. fxg5.
Then comes the sacrifice, 21 . . . Bxh3! White
cannot accept, nor does the obvious 22.
@5 promise much (22 . . . Bj 23. Bb3 Bf!,
and if 24. Rd1, ... Be4 and we believe Black
can draw in all variations); but the quieter
- 1 24 -
His Writing
developing move 22. Be3! (Steiner) is suf
cient to rob Black's counterplay of most of
its force; then Black' s exposed ' becomes
a very clear disadvantage, and White's e- l
is menacing.
To retur to the diagra, although 19.
f4 is the sharper move, White's positional
advantage is fairly clear if simply 19. Be3.
Thus 19 .- Bf (our preliminary ... Q6 has
little point afer 20. R1!, suggested by
Steiner) 20. Bxf Rf21. f4 Q6 (and if 22.
g4, ... R). When necessary to hold up f,
Black will play . . . g6 and probably double
s, in certain eventualities even threaten
ing ... g5. The steamroller can be halted, but
White retains a clear initiative which can
not be wrested fom him if he plays with
due care.
Nothing "Just As Good"
In the position diagrammed after
Black's 18th, some students may still be
skeptical. Has Black really nothing better
against 19. f4than the desperate sortie dis
cussed? Well, a plausible move is 19 ... Q6,
which certainly delays g4. White plays 20.
Q. Then if 20 ... RadB(say) , 21.f!(Steiner),
for if 21 .. . Bxf, 22. Bxf g6 23. g4 gxf 24.
gxf and the steamroller blossoms again. If
24 . . . Q6t, 25. Q4!
So we say yes, Black's best chance is
the risky line we suggested, and the chief
morals are:
1. Mter '-side castling, look for dan
ger if you leave the square g3/ g6 without
protection, especially if the enemy has his
w-.
2. Consider the steamroller, how it
grows.
A enemy supported passed on
eS/ e4 is not necessarily strong at all. If, in
the diagram, Black had a f on fS, White's
passed i on eS would be no menace; it is
only the advance of the supporting to fS
that makes a steamroller.
eW a a
e
pev e eeoev
ae B wa
Boe e

Wo


,
e c

o
'

,

,'
'
c

- 1 25 --
The Search for Chess Perection
THE TRUE ELEMENTS OF CHESS
Fifty years ago, the idea that combinations might be classifed logically had never
entered anyone's mind. Writers concentrated on the positional side of chess, not because
they thought combinations didn't matter, but because no way of discussing them had been
thought of.
Thus, in any book dealing with positional play, you saw, and still see, notes like this
interspersed: "White cannot yet play Re7 because of 28 . . . Bxh2f, " etc. Thus the writers
always tacitly admitted-even if they were not conscious of it-that every positional idea is
subject to combinative sanctons. When the tyro came to apply the ideas, he would fnd
himself overlooking combinations, and would wonder why the books were not helping
him as much as he hoped.
The writers, however, could do nothing about it. If a player kept missing combina
tions, all he could be advised to do was to keep on practcing-or he might play through te
various combinations Uust given higgledy-piggledy) in excellent works such as Mason's
Art of Chess. You could either see combinatons or you could not-just as you can either
juggle three oranges or you can't.
Then, frst in German and later in English, came Emanuel Lasker, the thinker, with
his Manual, in which he showed that combinations could be classifed according to the
kind of "motif' which gave rise to them. Lasker was followed by Tarrasch, the teacher;
although an old man in the last years of his life, Tarrasch rapidly absorbed Lasker's ideas
and tured them to his own ends in his famous book, Te Game ofChess.
After studying the other articles in this series, most of my readers will now see fairly
clearly the difference between positonal and combinatve ideas. But some of them, I am
sure, would like to see it more clearly still.
Take, for example, an attack against the enemy . Here, the main positional
principle is just this:
Superior frce conquers.
Thus, if you have four pieces posted for attack on a castled , and te enemy has
only three pieces on that wing (including the himself, who must be counted as a
defender), that's a rough indicaton that an attack on that wing may have a chance of
success.
But in any particular case, the actual possibilities and te methods of procedure must
be determined by calculation based on visualized moves.
A famous writer began a book with the proposition that the "elements" of chess were
force, space, and time. That is not true. Force, space, and time come into many things
besides chess; the things that go to make up chess must be the things that go to make up
the whole chess and nothing but the chess, and these are:
unit of force, the 64 point in whic the oerat, and the rls under which the
oerat.
If we look into these rules closely, we shall fnd that all combinative ideas are based
directly on them-a thing never pointed out before, except by the present writer in 1938,
- 1 26 -
His Wrtings
but less clearly then.
A huge majority of combinations, for
instance, are based mainly on tat simple
little rule which we all tae so much for
granted while appreciating so little of its
signifcance. This is Rule 4, clause ii(F.I.D.E.
Code) :
"Ipersons shall ply alttly, one
move at a time. "
See what a huge gulf this fxes between
chess and war, though chess was invented
a a war game-in the days when war was
comparatively civilized. In war, each side
just makes as many moves a it can, while it
can. The idea of fairess is ludicrous in war.
But a contest of pure skill has to be fair
hence the artifcial rule of moving in tur
and one thing at a time.
What do we deduce from this key rule?
That we should at all tmes be on the look
out for an opportunity of placing our oppo
nent un the necessi of makn two move
at once, and should avoid getting into such a
jam ourselves. A vast majorit of games of
chess are won and lost b the oeration of
thi rl.
Reuben Fine, in a praiseworthy effort
to simplif chess for the tyro, goes to te
length of saying, "All combinatons are baed
on a double attack." This is not true, but
what I want to emphasize just now is that it
would be true with "most" substituted for
"all."
There are four types of combinaton
that fall decidedly under te heading of
"double attack." They are:
1. "Geometical" combinations (forks,
pins, skewers).
2. Discovered attack.
3. Desperado combinations.
4. Ties-our short term for combina
tions based on a tied piece, i.e., a piece
defending anoter piece or defending, say,
the back rank against mate. Lasker called
them combinations based on the motif of
"fnction."
"Geometrical" Motif
Don't let "geometrical" worry you. It is
merely the term applied to any attack by a
single unit against two enemy units simulta
neously. Very ofen, the three units con
cered stand on the corers of a triangle;
with a
'
the two forked units stand on two
corers of a regular octagon; and with a pin,
the three units stand in one straight line. A
pin may be regarded as merely a particular
case of a fork. The same applies to a
"skewer," which occurs when two pieces
are caught in the same line, with the more
valuable one in front-instead of in the rear,
as with a pin.
Picture a white ) and a black and
1on the same rank or fle, no obstructions,
Qnever in danger of capture. If the Qis in
the middle, you have a fork. With 1in the
middle, a pin. Wit in the middle, a
skewer. But the effect is always the same:
double attack on the and Y, even though
in two cases only one unit is actually en prie.
There is another and much commoner
kind of pin, where the front piece is not
attacked at all, but only pinned. This is
more of a "tie." We'll come to that.
Before passing on, let me give an ex
aple of how easy it is to miss a fork more
than one move ahead. The diagram shows
the position just before the winner's fnal
move in the game Keres-Smyslov, 1948
World Championship, second round.
- 1 27 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Do you see any move here to induce
Black to resign? The solution is 2Z h4! Bh6
(if 2Z .. Bxh4, 28. Q4Bg5 29. Qb8f) 28. Q3
Kp 29. Bxf6 Rh7 30. @3f, etc.
Discovery Motif
Now for 2, Discovered Attack. Here
one piece unmasks an attack by an ally, at
the same time attacking something itself.
Discovered check is one case of it. This is
obviously a double attack.
Desperado Motif
That's easy. Now for 3, Desperado. To
show that a desperado combination is also a
double attack, let us take an example. See
the diagram below, which occurs after the
moves 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 N6 4. Bg5 dxe4
5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bd3? Nxe4 7 BxeZ
Black plays Z . . Nxf! This is called a
desperado combinaton, the being the
desperado-he is doomed to die, so he sells
his life for a rather than give it away. It
amounts to a double attack on and ..
Never mind that both the attackers ( and
l) are en prie themselves. White can take
only one of them under Rule 4(iii) . You could
not have a more striking example of the
rule's importance over all others.
Tie Motif
No. 4, the Tie Combinaton, is essen
tially different from all the other attacks,
because one attack was already there and
you merely add another to it. Suppose your
Qis bearing on an enemy [ supported by
a - No effect. All right, now attack the
with something else. Now you have a double
attack, and it's efective. Your opponent
needs to move the [ to free the
'
and at
the same time to move the from danger.
And again Rule 4(iii) inexorably bars him.
A piece may be ted (and therefore
vulnerable to a combination) in other ways
than by having to defend an ally. It may be
guarding a matng square, or a matng line,
or it may be pinned, e.g., A pins to
and then comes e5 hitting the with great
effect, unless the pinning A can be driven
off before the blow falls.
There is no point in giving special ex
amples of such everyday occurrences, but
here is a more subtle example of a "tie"
which I have never forgotten, because
through not seeing it I missed tying for the
Australian Championship at my first at
tempt (Sydney 1926).
Purdy
C.L.R. Boyce
After 22. N(e2)xd4
Two moves earlier, Black had em
barked on a combination which he had
now intended to contnue with 22 . . . bxa2!
23. N3R8(threatening . . . Rxb3). Now Blac
saw that White would then play 24. Na 1,
and he reasoned that White would then
have a piece for two fs and a surely defen
sible position, seeing that Black himself is
- 1 28 -
Hi Writings
not yet developed, while White has three
pieces tastefully arayed around his yfor
defense. So Black sadly played 22 ... Qxd4,
with a poor game but at any rate getting
back his piece.
That was common sense, in its way,
but chess is a game of romance.
Black missed that, aer the moves in
dicated up to 24. Na 1, he could reply by
putting his 1en prie with 24 . . . Q3!!1t gives
a forced win in all variatons-which it would
have been unnecessary4 to calculate in ad
vance, the move 24. .. Q3 being so obvi
ously strong once seen.
But that's the catch, to see it. And that
is what I have always concentrated on in
writing about combinations-what you
should look for in every position to avoid
missing combinatons.
The double attack here is, frst, the
masked attack on the mating square b 1, and
then the second attack on the ted or pinned
b- f . By what kind of search would you be
likely to see, severa moves ahead, a move
like this?
There are two diferent ways in which
the combinaton might be found, and I
suggest to each student that he pick the way
4 [Ed.: Ralph says that both Chess Worl
1 948, p. 268, and te Hammond&Jamie
son reprint give "unnecessary." He be
lieves this word is required by the sense of
the sentence. Experience has shown that
H&J did little, if any, serious editng, of
the original articles. While I may be in
correct in what Purdy wants to say, I
believe the word he should've used is
"necessary," especially in light of his fol
lowing paragraph. That is, seeing some of
these combinatons can be very dificult,
hence it is ofen necessary to do hard
calculaton first. If, however, one is "lucky"
to fnd the right move quickly, then the
"hard" calculaton becomes wmecessay.]
that appeals to him and employ it consis
tently.
The frst way would be the mechanical
one of looking at all moves that threaten
something (no matter how absurd-looking) ,
just as one looks at al checks and all cap
tures. Thus, in addition to visualizing the
obvious 24th move . . . Q6, also attacking
the b- f, you would force yourself to visual
ize . . . Q3 ad . . . Q3, even though they put
the 1en prie.
The second way would be always to
look for any squae, file, rank, or diagonal
under a masked threat of mate. Here, the
square b 1 is under a masked threat of mate
from te t , and tat should immediately
suggest a sacrifice, since any material can
be given up for mate.
The second way is preferable, because
it is more logical. By forming such a habit
you would soon develop a valuable intu
ition in attack. But perhaps one should em
ploy bot metods.
I have now dealt briefy with the types
of combination based on double attack.
They are the ones in which Rule 4(iii) is te
main ingredient, though actually it comes
into almost all combinations.
Note: Of course other board games
have the rule of alterate moving. The rea
son that these other games do not have
combinations comparable with those of
chess is because the chess pieces have spe
cial moves, and each piece a different one.
One result is that most attacks in chess are
nonreciprocal, i.e., the attacker attacks with
out being himself en prie to the thing at
tacked, and this of course greatly multiplies
the combinative possibilities.
The special moves of the chess pieces
are part and parcel of all chess combina
tions, whereas other rules come into some
combinations and not into others, e.g., the
rule that a piece cannot occupy or leap over
an already-occupied square.
- 1 29 -
The Search for Chess Perection
W A PAWN CENTER?
Don't be too puzzled by what the books say about the center. It's partly nonsense.
A
'
A, or Y radiates more power from the center (e4, d4, e5, d5), and can be
rapidly tansferred fom there to any other part of the board.
But it is useless to put pieces in or near the center i they can be driven away, e.g., a
common blunder by raw beginners after 7. e4 e5 2. /4 exf4 3. Nfis 3 ... B5?
Then, of course, comes 4. d4 and Black must lose a clear tempo (move) in develop
ment. Being already behind White, he now has a position so bad that, between two
masters, it would almost always mean defeat.
In the opening, all one can do is to push .s forward into the center, which at any rate
gives you a fee run of the space behind them and prevents your opponent from getting
too much cental space himself.
Mere number of .s in the center means nothing, however. Take these three
positions.

Z
o
In the frst one, White has a central .
majority of 2-0. In the second, he has nu
merical equality. In the third, he has a mi
nority.
But the first position is as good for
Black as for White, while the other two are
to White' s advantage.
There is a simple test:
Have I fls for my Rook?
If I have, I a sure to have freedom for
my other pieces as well.
Applying this test to the first diagram,
we find that both sides have a fairly free
game. Black will ultimately develop his . s
on the c- and cl-files, where they will be
- 1 30 -
His Writings
rather better placed than White's, since they
have the ofensive. White's center fs are
targets.
In the second diagram Black has just
been induced to play . . . exd4. This is called
"giving up the center," and you can see this
tells the story quite well. White has the run
of one fle up to d5, and he can aso develop
a [ in the e-fle without making it look
absolutely silly. Black, however, has only
one fle on which a [ could even pretend to
be developed. All this confers on White a
slight advantage (don't imagine that Black
is necessarily lost) .
In the third diagram, White obviously
has the freer game. Black would stand bet
ter if he were free to open up a file with . . . c5.
Now we come to the part where the
books Lnonsense. What is the idea of the
King' s Gambit ( 7. e4 e5 2. f4), the Queen's
Gambit ( 1. d4 d5 2. c4 ), the Center Game ( 1.
e4 e5 2. d4), and the allied Scotch Game ( 1.
e4 e5 2. NjNc6 3. d4)?
All these openings ae characterized
by:
( 1) the advance of one of the two cen
ter fs, followed by
(2) the advance of an adjacent .
The purpose of the adjacent is sim
ply to produce the possibility of an ex
change of is (not necessarily at once) . Thus
provision is made at the outset for the open
ing or semi-opening of a fle so that the ts
may be developed.
Fundamentally different is such an
opening as te Giuoco Pianissimo: 1. e4 e5
2. NjNc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6.
Neither side can now advance either
its d- i or f- two squares, so that te
development of the s will be long post
poned. Thus, the "advantage" of the move
tends to disappear.
In oter words, the openings we looked
at frst are attempts to make something of
the advantage of the move.
There are more subtle openings, such
as the Ruy Lopez, in which the push of the
adjacent is held for a long time in re
serve.
For beginners, perhaps the most telling
point is this: if the possibility of develop
ment of ts plays such a big part in opening
theory, how important it must be to de
velop the ts as soon as possible.
And yet in "simuls" one still meets
such play as the following:
Mter 1. e4 e5 2. Nf Nc3 3. Bc4 (see
diagram), a tyro will often tamely push 3 . . .
h6?
He wants to play out his , and frst
stops Ng5. He doesn't realize that in retard
ing his development by one move he is
doing more damage tan his opponent could
do to him by Ng5 (after 3 . .. Nf6).
As Ng5 is not yet threatened, he should
simply develop his free A (at c5 or even
e7), then move out his 4 to f6. And then if
White is mad enough to waste time playing
Ng5, which would retard his own develop
ment, Black can simply castle. This will
completely protect his f- (for A and 4
are worth more than a [ and while
other pieces are on the board).
Interlude in the Center
The Editor,
Dear Sir,
Forgive me for being crtca {We don't
- 1 3 1 -
Te Search for Chess Perection
forgive, we thank.-Ed.). Re "Why A Pawn
Center?" by CJ.S. Purdy.
Well, why a pawn center? No fner
example than the game Tarrac-Ale
khine, Pistyan 1922, Blumenfeld Coun
tergambit, can be found to support the
theory that there is something in a strong
center other than the development of
Rooks, which Mr. Purdy is so strong for.
Since this game, no attempt has been
made to accept the gambit. In the progress
of that game Tarrasch had plenty of
squares for his Rooks! I personally do not
think it is a good way to introduce a series
for novices, as the first article could be
very controversial. Far better would it
have been to state that "the object of a
gambit is twofold" -in the first place, e.g.,
King's Gambit, it opens up the f-file, on
which the h-Rook can be quickly devel
oped {if accepted). In the second place, it
offers the possibility, after elimination or
exchange, of forming a STRONG CEN
TER, wherea in the Queen's Gambit,
which after all is not a true or real gambit
since Black cannot take and keep the
pawn . . . (Our correspondent breaks of
here, evidently leaving us to fill in the
blank.-Ed.)
Even if the Giuoco Piano is funda
mentally different (as Mr. Purdy contn
ues), it can hardl
y
be said that it is a good
contnuation, viewed in the light of mod
em chess concepton. The move 3. Bc4
by White contnues his development, to
be sure, but does not advance his posi
tionally indicated attack against Black's e
pawn. This, I think, explains why this
opening has pretty well disappeared from
tourament play. Whereas the Ruy Lopez
does, as Mr. Purdy will be well aware.
So I would say that the approach in
the artcle could very likely confuse the
novice just as much as the weight oflitera
ture concering pawn centers, and tend
to start him off on the wrong foot.
I sincerely hope you will accept my
notes in the spirit ofered.
Yours faithfully,
J. Hibbert.
Our answer to the last paragraph is
contained in parentesis in the frst.
Mr. Hibbert's is more or less the voice
of the orthodox student who has read a
good deal about chess and is naturally in
clined to rebel at having his icons shattered.
Let us deal frst of al with the criticism
which is merely a misunderstanding. Since
this reader has misunderstood us, perhaps
others have. By the way, students would do
well to run through the article before pro
ceeding-it is very short.
We were not writing on the relative
merits of openings. We simply picked out
the Giucco Pianissimo (both sides playing
Bc4/5, both .s to f/c6, and d3) as the
opposite kind of opening to the King's or
Queen's Gambit, since in it there is no early
provision for developing s.
It is interesting for average players to
know why some openings are in fashion
among the masters and some out of fashion,
but such knowledge will not improve their
own play. Any opening one is used to is a
good opening.
Our Test
The second criticism we answer is that
we began with something controversial. It
may have been controversial, but we be
lieve that we are right. We believe that we
can best help beginners by simplifing the
problem of the center down to the problem
of developing s. We said:
"There is a simple test (of whether a
central position is favorable).
"Have I .ls for my Rook?
"If I have, I a sure to have feedom
for my other pieces as well."
- 1 32 -
Hi Wrtings
Our correspondent would like us to
have said, "It offers the possibility . . . of
forming a strong cnter . . . "
All right, what is a strong center? We
don't know anything vaguer in chess. For a
start, there is a general confusion between
the terms "center" and "pawn center. " The
center, strictly speaking, is "the four squares
which enclose the midpoint of the board,
i.e., the squares e4, d4, e5, d5 for both sides"
(Nimzovich, My System). A f center I have
never seen defined, but it is generally un
derstood as consisting of one or more fs in
the center, the enemy having no j in the
center, or he may have one if the "pawn
center" contains two, e.g., after 1. e4 e6 2. d4
d5 White has, temporarily at least, a f
center (two versus one), and after 3. Nc3
dxe4 4. Nxe4 he still has a f center (one
versus zero), Black's "center pawn" being
only on e6 and therefore not in the center
proper. Rather confusing, we agree. On the
other hand, afer 3. exd5 exd5 we have equal
ity of fs in the center, and it is not custom
ary to speak of either side as having a .
center then.
The thoughtfl beginner may ask, why
should a f center be strong? Why indeed?
Quite often, it isn't strong.
Nimzovich Lashes Out
As far back as 1913, in the Wiener
Schacheitun Aron Nimzovich was already
attacking prevalent notions about the cen
ter. He then wrote:
If in a batle I seize a bit of debatable
land with a handful of soldiers, without
having done anything to prevent an en
emy bombardment of the position, would
it ever occur to me to speak of a conquest
of the terrain in queston? Obviously not.
Then why should I do so in chess?
It dawns upon us then, that control of
the center depends not on a mere occupa-
tion, i.e., placing of pawns, but rather on
our general efectiveness there.
Here we interpose, how is that efec
tiveness to be measured? We have given a
very simple test, which even beginners can
apply intelligently. Namely, have we effec
tive provision for developing s?
For preference, the provision should
be on central or near-central (c-, f-) files. To
see this, play through again the correspon
dence game Purdy-Goldstein Uune 1948,
Chess Wrld). Here White allowed his oppo
nent to double s on the only open file, but
it was the b-fle, which had little bearing on
the center. In an endgame, the s would
have been strong; in the middlegame, they
were not.
Nimzovich went on to give several ex
amples where one player had a f center
and yet his opponent had the better control
of the center.
Again we quote Nimzovich:
''All this teaches us that by counting
the heads of the pawns in the center,
nothing, literally nothing, is gained."
Rescue from Chaos
Again, then, comes the question, what
are we to substitute? Counting heads was
easy for beginners. Are they now simply to
be told, "That's bunk," and given no substi
tute? Our substitution is rough, but it is easy
and will be found reliable, and the reason is
always this: if the s have scope in the
center, the other pieces are sure to have.
Test for Our Test
Now let us examine the game quoted
by our correspondent, Tar ac-Aeke,
Pistyan 1922.
1. d4
Nf6
2. N e6
- 1 33 -
The Search for Chess Perection
3. c4 c
4. d5 b5
5. dxe6 fe6
6. cxb5 d5
7. e3 Bd6
8. Nc3 0-0
9. Be2 Bb7
10. b3 Nbd7
1 1 . Bb2 Qe7
12. 0-0 Rd8
13. Qc2 e5
14. Rfe1 e4
15. Nd2 Ne5
On Wedges
Black has more than a . center now.
Once a . gets into the enemy side of the
center, it acts as a wedge; the wedge is
doubly effective if on the square nearer the
enemy castled ', i.e., on d5/d4 with en
emy ' castled "-side, or e5/e4 with en
emy ' castled '-side, as here. In general,
the defender cannot af ord to ignore it.
Either he must undermine its support (which
cannot be done here because White has no
c- . left to attack the supporting c- .) , or
else he must challenge the outpost itself
(with j) or push past it l4), a procedure
which also weakens the outpost's effect.
Unfortunately for White, either 16. j
or 16. f4is too unsafe here, and that is why
White has a losing game, e.g., 16. f4? exj
e.p. 17 gx Neg4!, a winning sacrifce. Or in
this, 17 Bx Neg4 and again the attack wins.
Before we leave the diagram, let me
explain that the effectiveness of the wedge
is due to the well-developed pieces behind
it. They are poised for a swoop. So don't
start driving a wedge into Bill Brown's posi
ton next time you play him without having
support ready. A wedge without proper
support is easily broken up, and then the
would-be attacker's position often collapses.
On the other hand, don't be scared.
Here is an example of an early wedge that is
quite good:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 4. d5!
Here the wedge can be frther sup
ported by e4 (if 4 . . . Bf, then 5. g3 and Bg2
first), and Black's undermining move, .. .j,
is obstructed by his '-{, while . . . c6will do
nothing worse than open the c-fle for both
sides, White being lef with the major share
of the board.
The notion of wedges goes rather be
yond the question of mere . centers. In a
. center, the . or .s merely guard impor
tant squares. A wedge, on the other hand,
also acts as an obstructon. It tends to divide
the enemy forces, i.e., it prevents them from
crossing readily from wing to wing.
Having once got on to the subject of
wedges, we give the rest of the game, with
which Alekhine won a brilliancy prize, just
as an example of the effect a wedge may
have. Then we retur to the part of the
game which concered te . center before
it became a wedge.
One queston? At what stage has White
had "plenty of squares for his Rooks"? Not
for one moment so far has White had an
effective fle available for a E. We had to
mention this, as our correspondent makes
such a point of it.
Now we finish the game:
16. Nd1
Nfg4
17. Bxg4
Nxg4
18. Nfl Qg5!
19. h3 Nh6
20. Kh1
Nf5
21. Nh2 d4!
- 1 34 -
His Writings
22. Bel d3
23. Qc4t Kh8
24. Bb2 Ng3t!
25. Kgl Bd5
26. Qa4 Ne2t
27. Khl R!
28. Qa6 h5!
29. b6 Ng3t
30. Kgl axb6
31. Qxb6 d2!
32. Rf1 Nxl
33. Nxl Be6!!
34. Khl Bxh3!
35. gxh3 R
36. Ng3 h4!
37. Bf6 Qx6
38. Nxe4 Rxh3t
39. Resigns
Were You Right?
Now we retur to the opening.
Tarrasch-Aiekhine
1. d4
Nf6
2. N
e6
3. c4 c5!?
4. d5!
The correct answer to Black's attempt
to usurp the initiative. White seizes the
chace of driving a wedge. This move would
not have been good against, say, 3 . . . b6,
because the wedge would have been too
vulnerable. In general, the "wedge" move
d5 is good only if the enemy has already
challenged the d- f with either . . . e5 or . . . c5.
For example, 7. d4 c5 2. d5! Or 7. e4 e6 2. d4
c5? 3. d5! An excepton is where d5 hits a
piece, e.g., 1. d4 Nc6 2. d5!
4. b5! ?
Blumenfeld Countergambit. A f is
ofered for the purpose of undermining the
wedge.
5. dxe6
White, however, has no need to let
himself be sidetacked. Simply 5. Bg5!, mak
ing e4 possible, keeps his grip. Instead, White
chooses to barter his grip for a f . This idea,
too, was entrely sound, though not com
mendable for players wishing to avoid difi
culties.
Annotators commonly attibute play
ers' defeats to moves which were not bad at
all.
5. fe6
6. cb5 d5
According to orthodox noton, Blac
has what might be described as a "fearsome
pawn center." Its main strength, however,
lies in the fact that there is no open fle on
the boad. White's problem is simply to
open a fle, preferably in or near the center,
or at least to threaten to-nothing more than
that. For this, it is quite obvious that White
must somehow contive to play e4. As Black
can guard the key square with three units
(by ... Bb 7), White must also get three units
onto the square, or else play it as a f
sacrifce.
For this plan, a logical frst move would
have been 7 Nd2. Alekhine suggested fol
lowing that up with b3 and Bb2, delaying
the challenge in the center.
7. e3!
This, however, is also an excellent
move, probably the best. The trouble was
that Tarrasch played it as part of a wrong
plan.
7.
Bd6
8. Nc3 0-0
- 1 35 -
The Search for Chess Perection
The Real Crisis
This was where Tarrasch made a mis
take-in our opinion his only one! He played
9. Be2? He should have played 9. Bd3! for
e4.
The objection-why play e3 frst if e4
was the objective?-is superfcial.
To have played e4 in one move would
also have involved an interpton in devel
opment and would have meant returing
the ., e.g., 7 Nd2 Bb7 8. e4!? dxe4 9. Ng5
Q5!
The idea of e3 for Bd3 for e4 is well
known to addicts of the Colle System.
In reply to 9. Bd3, Black could upset
White's immediate intenton (e4) with 9 . . .
c4. No matter. That move itself makes Black
vulnerable in a new place and renders e4
unnecessary. Mter 10. Be2 followed by cas
tling, simply b3 forces open a file. And
Black's . . . e5-e4 this time permits the . to
take the central square d4. If 9 . . . Bb7, then
70.Q2 reinforces the threat of e4. True,
Black can prevent e4 by . .. Ne4, but again
this allows White to open a fle (Bxe4, afer
castling) .
If (ater 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. Q2 as above)
10 .. . e5, 11. e4 d4 12. N1 with a solid posi
ton.
It is then the c-fle which White's ,s
can use, bearing on the backward c- . .
Black has a supported passed l , but it is
completely blockaded. Of course Black stll
has some compensation for his l minus,
but nothing like what he obtained in the
actual game.
Finally, if 9 ... e5 ?, 10. Nxd5!
The Two Ways Home
Now there is surely no question that
White should have played for e4.
The question is rather this: Is e4 aimed
at Black's center .s, or is it aimed at getting
freedom for White's pieces, including his
,s?
The answer is that both paths lead to
the same place (e4).
Nimzovich would undoubtedly have
stressed the idea that it was important to
halt Black's "pawn roller"-see my article
"Lopez Subtletes ad Steamrollers." Black's
three center is constitute a very powerful
"roller" indeed. Note how it came on. First
the three .s abreast on c5, d5, eS. Then,
later on, the two abreast on e4 and d4.
However, a center l roller is rather a
rarity. I wanted a general idea which would
cover any closed kind of opening position
at all.
My solution wa this:
Ply your pawns in such a way a wil give
feedom to your pieces.
However, nearly every learer in try
ing to accomplish this would forget about
his poor old ,s. Even Tarrasch did that!
Instead, if the learer thinks always of
his . s, he will find good squares turning up
for his other pieces anyway.
And even in the exceptonal case of a
central . roller, and a case dificult enough
to bafle the great Tarrasch, I have shown, I
hope, that thinking about ts would have
sufced to point the way to White's right
general plan. Not necessarily 7 e3, 8. Nc3,
and 9. Bd3 precisely, but the general idea of
playing in some way for e4.
- 1 36 -
Hi Writings
WAT IS POSITION PLA
I have long been conscious of a missing ln in chess theory. Just what is positon
play?
Nimzovich rightly sneered at the old idea that every chess move was either "attack
ing" or "defensive."
Well within the last quarter-century, this crude conception was still current. I well
remember a conversation I had as a schoolboy with the Yugo-Slav master, Boris Kostich,
on his visit to Austalia in 1924. It was his last night in Sydney, and I asked him whom he
considered Austalia's best player. "Viner," he said. Keeping up my bright chatter, I asked
where Viner's special stength lay-in attack or defense? But he brushed these words aside.
"He just seems," he said, "to have a better sense of position than the others" -and added
hopefully a few minutes later, as he waved me into a tram, "Well, try and improve." I
sensed vaguely then tat the master and the amateur viewed chess from diferent planes
as though te one were a bird and the other a fsh.
I knew that Kostch, fluent though he was, could not have explained just what he
meant by a "sense of position." Evidently, as soon as one becae a strong player one
automatically abandoned crude ideas without necessarily being able to put one's new
ideas into words. One became more intuitve oneself without necessaily being able to
explain chess to other people one whit the better. Vague phrases like "a sense of positon"
would serve well enough among masters to convey what tey all felt in common-felt
rather than knew.
The master thinks mostly in moves and is impatent of words. The amateur wants
words, because moves fog him. He lacks the master's mechanical ease and skill. To reduce
chess to words-that is a hard task. All the thousands of chess books have not quite
accomplished it.
Steinitz, Nimzovich
What is position play? Steinitz, seeing
tat chess could not be reduced to the simple
concepts of attack ad defense, saw posi
tion play as the "accumulaton of minute
advantages."
Concering this, Nimzovich wrote as
follows in My System:
Another erroneous conception may
be found among masters. Many of these
and numbers of strong amateurs are un
der the impression that position play
above all is concered with the accumu
lation of small advantages, in order to
exploit them in the endgame . . . . We are
inclined rather to assign to this plan of
operaton a very subordinate role . . .. There
are quite other matters to which the atten
tion of te positional player must be di
rected, and which place this "accumula
tion" wholly in the shade.
What are these things, and in what do
I see the idea of true positon play? The
answer is short and to the point: in a
prophylactic . . . .
Position play . . . is an energetic and
systematic application of prophylactic
measures. What it is concered with above
all else is to blunt the edge of certan
- 1 37 -
The Search for Chess Perection
possibilites which in a positonal sense
would be undesirable. Of such possibili
ties, apart from the mishaps to which the
less experienced player is exposed, there
are two kinds only. One of these is te
possibility of the opponent making a "free
ing" pawn move.
What the other possibility is, Nimzo
vich never clearly tells us; but as he goes on
to advocate the overprotection of strategi
cally important points, one assumes that the
second possibility is connected therewith.
But it is not clear how the phrase "blunting
the edge or' could be properly applied to
this possibility.
Just here, then, Nimzovich's attempt to
put position play into words breaks down.
A little frther on, Nimzovich says:
In the last resort, position play is noth
ing other than a fight between mobility
{of the pawn mass) on the one side and
efforts to restrain this on the other. In this
all-embracing struggle the intrinsically
very important device of the prophylac
tic is merely a means to an end.
Even this idea of position play is not
wide enough. It is one kind of position play
rather than position play in general.
Going back over these quotatons, note
first of all that Nimzovich is not quite fair to
Steinitz in limiting his purpose (in accumu
lating advantages) to the endgame. Some
times the advantages might bear fuit ear
lier. On the other hand, Steinitz's concep
ton is too narrow, if only because it ex
cludes the player trying to improve an infe
rior positon. The player is trying to lessen
or eliminate disadvantages, or reduce en
emy advantages, rather than to accumulate
advantages. Yet he is playing positionally
that is quite certain.
Nimzovich's idea that positon play
consists in prophylactc measures is also too
narrow to cover position play in general.
Take any game of chess: nearly all the moves
will be positional, but there will be many of
these which cannot be called "prophylactic
measures" except by straining the language
beyond all reason.
In any case, we are in a sorry state if we
have to resort permanently to a metaphor
to explain position play. Nimzovich had a
fanciful mind, and, up to a point, his pictur
esque notions help the student to under
stand his ideas. They are all very well in a
book, where the author can devote plenty
of space to explaining his meaning. But for
a current expression that will make sense
even to players who have not read Nimzo
vich, we must abandon metaphor and seek
some self-explanatory word or words in the
same category as "attack" and "defense."
It must not be a word that is merely a
substitute for "prophylactic." For, as we
have seen, that idea is too narrow. But it
should certainly be capable of including it.
The Solution
I believe I have found the solution. Try
it out on every possible kind of position
play, and you will fnd it satisfactory. This is
it.
Position play is the treatment of posi
tons in which sound attacking play is not
possible, and purely defensive play is not
necessary. It means eh stein one's
own position or weakenin the enemy's.
"Strengthening" and "weakening" are
the simple words that sum up position play.
The word "weakening" is very familiar to
all chess students. The words "strengthen"
and "strengthening" are used very little,
and they could be used more with advan
tage. The average player fnds many moves
in master games which he cannot under
stand; some of them, I am sure, would be
clearer once the student got hold of the
- 1 38 -
His Wrtings
general idea that the master was tying to
stengthen his position.
In a note to one of his games with
Boleslavsky, Botvinnik says, "White is try
ing to strengthen his position to the maxi
mum." That, I maintain, is te comonsense
idea at the back of positonal play in gen
eral.
A military leader, at times when cir
cumstances do not favor an attack, and, on
the other hand, he is not compelled to
concentrate on the defense of certain threat
ened points, stll has plenty of things to
keep him busy-improving lines of supply
and communication, fortifying various
points, and also planning air-rads and bom
bardments, not necessarily as preparation
for a specifc attack but simply to weaken
the enemy generally. Even in Caesar we
read such things as, "The Gauls have been
driven back, our troops busied themselves
in fortfing their camp."
When there is nothing you can accom
plish by force and nothing you are forced to
do, what logical course can you possibly
follow except one of these two-to stengthen
your position or weaken the enemy's?
And yet the average player is rarely
guided by this simple idea. If he cannot
force something, and is not himself forced
to defend, he flounders about-looking, as
likely as not, for some "trap" to set. If the
opponent makes a certan silly reply, the
result will be delightful; but it may be that
some other reply will leave the trapper in a
worse situaton tan before. Thus, the tappy
move may have been positonally a bad
one.
Position play, unlike combination, is
not concered with calculated lines of play-
1 go there, he goes there, I go there, he goes
there, and so forth. If your move is not
forcing, i.e., if it is positional, tat is the
same as saying that the enemy ha a fairly
wide choice of reply. Therefore your move
must be of a sort that will serve you well in
every possible eventuality. Developing
moves in the opening are always of this
kind.
How are we to select such a move? We
cannot do it by calculation-except that we
must, before playing any move, be sure we
are not inadvertently gving the enemy the
chance of a sound combinative reply. Apart
from that, we must rely not on calculaton
because there would be far too much for
any human brain to calculate-but on judg
ment ad knowledge.
This is where the playing over of mas
ter games helps us particularly. They build
up in us something of the intuitive judg
ment which guided the master we are fol
lowing.
Emanuel Lasker
A writer who has said a great many
valuable tings about both combinaton and
position play is Emanuel Lasker. Yet he
seems to equate position play to the busi
ness of planing. Even if that were true, one
would then ask, planning for what? But is it
true? Plans are of course highly important
in positon play, as a rule, but not invariably
necessary.
For instance, looking at a certain type
of position, any strong player will quickly
decide without making any pla that White
should play h to make a "blow hole" for his
'. There is no specific threat, but the move
will free the ts from the task of guarding
the back rank. It is certainly a positonal
move, but no plan was necessary. The player
has simply made the most strengthening
possible move.
Lasker, speaking of the gaps in Steinitz's
theory, writes:
Steinit, after his advice to both the
attacking and defending partes, does not
speak of the strategy that a player should
- 1 39 -
The Search for Chess Perection
follow who feels that he is neither the
attacker nor the defender. What plan has
the player to follow in a balanced posi
ton? Of course, none with te immediate
intenton of winning, none which embod
ies the fear oflosing, none that would not
develop the pieces-these answers to the
query may be anticipated, but they are
not decisive. I should say that besides al
of the above he must play-to maintan
the cooperation of his pieces.
one which it will pay him best to tae ad
vance measures against, say the enemy fee
ing move .. .j. Not all positonal moves are
like that. For instance, most developing
moves in the opening are rather a prepara
tion for any kind of eventuality at al, either
ofensive or defensive. Certainly if we can
pick out certain eventualities as specially
important to provide against, our play will
gan in precision; but it is not always pos
sible to do this. But the point just now is that
a "prophylactc" move is, in fact, one kind
This is not convincing. Some positional of stengtening move.
operations in balanced positions do not ft Let it be clearly understood that I a
into the idea very well, e.g., te removal of not attemptng to upset Nimzovich's con
a . weakness in your own position or the ception, but only to ft it into a wider one.
attempt to induce the enemy to advance a Following Nimzovich, a student might try
f and thus create a weakness. On the other to make every noncombinatve move a "pro
hand, the simple concepts of stengthening phylactic," and become rather puzzled at
and weakening will include these ideas and fnding it not always possible to fit the idea
Lasker's idea of maintaining cooperation of in.
pieces as well. Moreover, the concepts of
strengthening and weakening apply to su
perior and inferior positions as well as bal
anced ones. That is important, because the
ordinary player is fequently uncertain as to
whether his position is superior, equal, or
In Guide to Good Chess I said, "Positon
play is the art of improving your positon in
small ways when no sound combination is
possible."
That is quite true. It does not contra
dict anything I have said here. But perhaps
it lays emphasis rather on the strengthening
of one's own positon than on weakening
the enemy's, whereas the emphasis should
be equal. It depends purely on te circum
stances of any particular position which of
the two it is best to try to do. On the other
hand, the proviso "when no sound combi
naton is possible" is one always to be borne
in mind. To make a positional move when a
sound combination was possible is a serious
lapse. One is then on a par with the tennis
player who has the opportunity for an over
head kill and, instead, feebly puts the ball
back into play. That sort of tennis, and that
sort of chess, just doesn't make sense.
inferior, on the whole.
Back to Nimzovich
Returning to Nimzovich, let us see if
"strengthening" includes Nimzovich's idea
of"prophylactic" play. A prophylactic might
be roughly defined as a drug or chemical
aimed at combating this or that particular
germ or virus which has not actually at
tacked the subject as yet. In other words,
the subject is strengthening, in advance, his
resistance to a possible attack of some par
ticular kind. So it is a strengthening not for
any eventuality, but for one kind of even
tuality.
In chess this means that, from among
the numerous possible eventualities, the
player has selected that one or that kind of
It is aiomatic that position play is
concerned only with small advantages and
disadvantages. Big ones, naturally, occur
- 1 40 -
His Wrtings
only through forcing moves, i.e., combina
tons. But because the great majority of
chess moves have to be positonal, positon
play is, taken all round, of roughly the same
importance as combinaton.
If we admit that position play means
strengthening our position or weakening
the enemy's, of course that does not enable
us to find te best positional moves. No, but
it must be a help to know what we should be
trying to do.
THE SPIRIT OF
POSITION PLAY
This is a sequel to "What Is Positon
Play?" That is an importat article, and I
suggest going over it again.
The magazine presentation has this ad
vantage over the book-that the author has
the opportunity of making amendments as
he goes along, whereas a book enshrines
everything its author writes for all time. He
may dearly wish to have changed some
thing, but there's nothing he can do about
it. A omission in my article has been
pointed out by Mr. Edward Krisch of Cleve
land, Ohio, and tis has led me to nose out
a still more important omission. Mr. Krisch,
in an airmail of October 23rd, writes:
Dear Mr. Purdy:
The August issue of Chess Wrld is at
hand; I'm intigued by your highly origi
nal artcle, "What is Position Play?" It is
the only articulate thesis on the subject
that I have ever read or even heard of.
Please don't judge me extremely pre
sumptuous for suggesting that a third al
teratve is possible rather than simply
two. Your rhetorical question on page
171-"What logical course can you possi
bly follow except one of these two-to
stengthen your position or weaken your
enemy's?"
I suggest a third: maintaining the sta
tus quo-thereby placing the enemy un
der compulsion to move. James Mason
puts it neatly:
"Obliged to move, he will make that
move by which his positon is least modi
fied or disturbed-will stand a he is, until
he gets some idea of where he is going.
When he can fnd no good way to better
his situaton, he will stop short of trying
and wait for light. This his adversary's
very next move may furish."
Psychological chess? Yes, and sound
logical chess! Since neither of your two
logical courses covers the foregoing, is
your soluton 100% correct all of the tme?
Yours truly,
Edward Krisch
There is no argument. Mr. Krisch is
quite correct. There are positions in chess
which ae unimprovable, and at the same
time tenable-positions in which the best
play for both sides is to maintain the status
quo, and where if either party assumes the
initiative he should suffer for it, although it
may happen to be less risky for one than the
other. Naturally it is a part of position play
to judge such positions and to avoid activity
that may compromise them. A draw is the
result, unless one player is tempted into
indiscreton.
In such cases, whoever has the slightly
inferior position has the better winning
chances! For instance, I owed my win against
Bruno Strazdins in the 1949 New South
Wales Championship to his having the pref
erable positon at the adjourment. My only
sound play was to move a ) up and down
between f1 and f, whereas he had a wide
choice of moves-and the two s-hut could
not force an advantageous breakthrough.
Naturally I offered a draw, but he was
tempted into declining; and indeed, after
- 1 4 1 -
Te Search for Chess Perecton
te breakthrough he could stll have drawn
easily, but he pressed for a win, ad lost.
Amended Definition
We are here dealing with situatons in
which one can neither strengten one's own
position nor weaken the enemy's, but in
which it is possible to maintain te status
quo. But there is a fourth and very fre
quently occurring possibility-that you are
forced to weaken your position. Only rarely
does tis happen through zgzang;it nearly
always happens because of a enemy threat
or capture. And yet your problem may not
be one of pure defense, so that it can be said
to belong to position play; examples will
crop up. So I would amend my defnition of
position play thus:
Psion play i the treatment of posi
tons in whih sound combinative play i not
possibl. It means strenthenin one's own
posiion or weaknin the eney's, or, i
n course i possibl, a minimum weak
ein of your own posion.
If te minimum is zero, we have the
particular case instanced by Mr. Krisch.
While on the job, I have altered the
frst part, for I believe that the fndamental
contast is not so much between attack and
defense on the one hand and positon play
on the other, but simply between combina
ton play and positon play. Attacking moves
may be combinatve or-as with the pre
liminary i advances to open lines-posi
tional. Again, a player may utilize a
combinative point in selectng a defense.
Thus, my new defniton is more like
my simpler one in Guide to Good Chess.
"Positon play is the art of improving your
positon in small ways when no sound com
binaton is possible." Only, here again, we
have the failure to allow for positons that
must be weakened, ad where the problem
is to weaken them as little as possible. "The
principle of defense," says Emauel Lasker
somewhere, "is to make the smallest pos
sible concession to the opponent."
In any event, it ought not to be pos
sible to class every possible chess move as
undeniably positonal or undeniably com
binative. Chess just isn't made tat way,
and whatever defnition you gave, you
would always fnd borderline cases.
An Illustrative Game
At the end of my last artcle, I prom
ised to go through a game to illustrate how
strengtening and weakening are the root
ideas of positon play. Now I keep that
promise. As you go through, see if it would
be possible to ft the moves into Steinitz's,
Lasker's, or Nimzovich's defnitons or de
scriptons of position play, and you will fnd
that some would ft one or other of them al
right, but that many would not. And yet the
moves are positional. These great writers
had in mind some aspects of positon play
rather tha the whole of it. Pobably it is
impossible to arrive at any form of words
which will fit every positional move like a
glove. At one tme it was thought that ev
eryting could be defned; now it is sus
pected that hardly anything can be defned,
except those tings which are temselves
determined by defniton, like a circle, a
geometrical progression, etc. Positon play
is complex and probably not absolutely
defnable. But it should be possible to get
near enough to it in words to assist players
to get something of the real spirit of it, and
that is all that my attempt claims to do.
Now here is the illustatve game, which
was played in the sextangular quadruple
round tourey for the Absolute Champion
ship of the U.S.S.R., 1941. I make use of the
voluminous and excellent notes by Reuben
Fine in Chess Marches On, and the also excel
lent notes by Botvinnik in Championhi
- 1 42 -
His Writing
Chess. Yet I have an idea that even these two
action is slightly limited by a threat.
great annotators have not plumbed the gae 3. Nd
to its depths, and I doubt if it is possible to A very controversial move. Botvinnik
do that with any highly positional game.
would never be so foolish as to attempt to
Botvinnik-Boleslavsky
French Dense
1. e4 e6
Are opening moves positional? Of
course. Very much so. For in te opening,
very few moves are combinative. Is 7. e4
stengtening? Naturally, since it contrib
utes towards te mobilizaton of White's at
present imprisoned and therefore weak
forces. Both Tarrasch and Nimzovich agreed
tat a cramped game was itself a weakness.
I know that Breyer, the apostle of "hyper
modemism" -an ironic word, for the school
was outdated long ago, though it made
valuable contributions-declared that afer
1. e4 "White's game is in the throes," but
this was a dramatic exaggeraton of the kind
to which pioneers in thought have to resort
in order to force people to take notice of
them, e.g., Bemard Shaw at one tme. Ob
jectively, Breyer's saying is nothing but an
obvious untruth.
But for Black to answer 7. e4 with 7 . . .
e5, while it may in fact be the most
strengthening move, can be objected to on
te grounds that it leaves the taditionally
weak point f vulnerable-when it is consid
ered that White has the frst chance to at
tack it-and this is one of the arguments for
1 ... e6, the French Defense. It is often impos
sible to say tha one move is better than
another, but at least there is nothing about
these moves to upset the idea tat each side
is tying to stengthen his position.
2. d4 d5
These moves play themselves, as they
obviously effect the maximum possible
stengthening of bot positons. Now we
have a positon where White's choice of
demonstate tat it is stronger than te ob
vious 3. Nc3, but the point is that at least a
case can be made out for its being more
stengthening-or, to put it another way,
less weaening-than 3. Nc3. The question
is whether . positon or quick develop
ment is te more important, for 3. Nd2
certainly hampers White's development.
3. . . . c
The most aggressive possible move,
which virtually forces a disturbance of
White's . center, though not necessarily
immediately. Black says, in efect, "White
has deliberately slowed up his development
(by obstuctng a .), so I can aford what I
oterwise could not, an isolated center . ,
in ret for which I get a slight stat in
development. "
4. exd5
Here White has the choice of strengt
ening his own position (by 4. Ng) or weak
ening-or trying to weaken-his opponent's.
In general the tendency of modem chess is
to choose te latter where feasible; there is
something attactve about a fxed weak
ness in an enemy positon, and always the
hope that the rather intangible compensa
ton of a slightly better development may
dwindle away. Nevertheless, 4. Ngis ofen
preferred.
4 . . . . exd5!
Here is a case where Black is forced to
weaken his positon sligtly, either by sub
mittng to an isolated d- . or (by 4 . . . Q: d5)
making his a target, which will enable
White not only to catch up to Black in
development but to overtake h. You'll
fnd that afer a few more moves White is
1 - 1/2 tempi aead, and the . Black can
win is regained without trouble.
It is clearly not logical to accept such a
- 1 43 -
The Search for Chess Perection
disadvantage without compensation merely
to avoid "complicatons." This way of han
dling the black pieces-"inferiority com
plex" -does not pay in the long run, though
Fine sanctions 4 . . . Qd5. In the wide sense,
backwardness in development must cer
tainly be classed as a weakness.
5. Bb5t
Having opened the e-file, naturally the
first consideration of both sides is quick
castling. Hence this check is very logical, as
it moves a '-side piece and prevents Black
fom doing likewise. Thus it has a slightly
weakening effect on the opponent and ful
fills the requirements of sound positon play.
5. . . .
Nc6
A self-pin, but only temporary, and
based on the idea that the white , itself is
not ideally placed at b5. The alterative 5 . . .
Bd7, though preferred by Fine, is another
example of the "inferiority complex" policy
with the blac pieces. The text move is
more optimistic, and, in a sense, therefore
more logical! Nimzovich says: "In chess in
the last resort optimism is decisive. I mean
by this that it is psychologically valuable to
develop to the greatest lengt te faculty of
being able to rejoice over small advantages."
Thus, Black is sorry that White has
gained in the race to castle, but can secretly
chortle over having induced White to place
a piece on the square where it is unlikely to
reman usefl permanently.
6. Ngf
A very subtle positional problem here!
Whether it is worth a tempo to avoid a
"isolated d-pawn" by 6.. . c4. There is a
strong note in M. C. 0. in which two varia
tions are given afer 6. . . c4 Z 0-0, one in
which White is credited with a slight advan
tage and the other with only equality, al
though in the second one Black is a tempo
behind the frst one! Obviously, one of the
verdicts is wrong, and the consensus seems
to be that it's the second-in other words,
after 6 . . . c4 White's position is slightly pre
ferred by leading practicians.
6. . . . Bd6
It is characteristic of the Russian mas
ters to eschew a move that slows up devel
opment -for instance, 3. Nd2 is not typically
Russian at all. Apart from 6 . . . c4, the text is
the only move. For Black must be ready to
cope with R 1, so that . . . Ne 7 is indicated, but
naturally the must emerge first. This is
where calculaton of actual moves is neces
sary. White's threat of castling and then
checking taes precedence over oter con
siderations.
The superiority of 6 . . . Bd6 over 6 . . . c4
is deducible only fom a very precise ap
praisa of the position aer the "isolated
d-pawn" is isolated, so let us go on to that.
7. dxc5
Overanxiety to isolate Black's d- f
might have induced an amateur to play
dc5 before Black had moved his '-..
That, of course, would have lost a clear
tempo, and Black's game would be appre
ciably easier than now-indeed, thoroughly
comfortable.
7. . . . Bxc5
8. 0-0 Nge7
The eighth moves on both sides are
obviously the most strengthening possible.
Lke 2. d4 d5, they shriek to be played. But,
apart fom forestalling R 1 f, the develop
ment of Black's J/e7 has an important
bearing on the "isolated d-pawn" question,
which I doubt if one player in a hundred
- 1 44 -
Hi Wrtings
has ever realized. We
'
ll come to that.
9. N3
Of course-assistng White's develop
ment while retarding Black
'
s-Black having
to move te . agan. Not necessarily, some
one might say: Black could develop his Y
and protect te .. But time would stll be
lost, as Be3 would afterwards hit the Y.
9. Bb6
Besid, when both plyers have both
their Bihos in a fairly oen game, it i
ually well worth a tmpo to preserve one
fom echane b a Kniht
10. Be3
One of the most surprising positional
experiments in modem chess. The routine
positional play against an "isolated d-pawn"
is the establishment of a .-assuming you
have one-on the blockade square d4, so
that here one would expect 10. c3 or per
haps 10. h, frst eradicating the possibility
of a pin, since the -4 is wanted for the
support of his fellow on d4. The question is
whether such a blockade is maintainable
here, e.g., 10. h 0-0 11. Nd4 Bd7 12. Be3
(what better?) Nj!
You'll observe that White's plan tends
to break down because Black can get too
many pieces onto te command of the key
square, d4. Hence te virtue of ... NeZ Bot
vinnik's move is to remedy this right at the
start. Neither Botvinnik himself nor Fine
gives a very coherent positional explana-
tion of the move. Fine says that White "is
going to set up a majority of pawns on the
Queen-side." Botvinnik says that the move
"enables White to provoke the exchange of
the black Bishop, after which Black has a
weak d4-square."
The real point is tat White, having
decided that a quieter attempt to control d4
is not quite satisfactory (see the analysis
above) , is prepared to purchase that control
at the price of submittng to an isolated f
himself.
It would be a great mistake to laud the
idea to the skies just because Botvinnik won
the game. In positional matters, common
sense reigns, and common sense indicated
that Botvinnik
'
s idea is-just an idea. White
gets a grip on the dark squares, but his weak
e- f should balance it; let people analyze
and analyze as they like-if you just hold on
to simple realities like this, you need not
fear shadows. Fine suggests that Black might
more safely have castled instead of ex
changing As. However, if Black cannot
aford 10 . . . Bxe3 here, there is something
wrong with chess! That is quite a satisfac
tory way to reason in many situations, ad
ofen saves wastng tme on vain cogita
tions.
10. . . .
Bxe3
11. fe3
Fine passes this move over, as Botvin
nik himself did when frst annotating the
game for Chess in the U.S.S.R. But in Cham
pionship Chess, Botvinnik points out that by
playing this way he obtained "no tangible
advantage whatever" (p. 107), and that the
better play was 11. Bxc6f frst, which he
played against Boleslavsky later on. Botvin
nik also won that game, but for the sake of
substantiating te commonsense theory tat
the game is even, I will digress and suggest
a method by which Boleslavsky might, it
appears, have equalized. The game in ques
ton went: 1 Bxc6t bxc6 12. fx3 0-0 13.
- 1 45 -
The Search for Chess Perection
After 1 4. Qc3 in the other game
This 14 . . . RB is pased by Botvinnik
without criticism. It delays Nc5 but only
temporaily, and after 15. Rabl Re8 76. Nc5
(which Botvinnik did not play but says he
ought to have), it is a slight but appreciable
handicap to Black tat his A has to keep on
its original diagonal to stop the fork by NdZ
Worse still, Black is unable efectvely to
answer White's b4with . . . a5, as he ca if he
leaves the Y- ) on its original fle. There
fore, try simple development i the dia
gram by 14 . . . Bj15. Nc5 Rfd8 16. Nd4 Bg6.
Once Black's "bad" . becomes a "good"
A, like this, White has no frther claim to
superiority. One feels sure that Botvinnik
himself would have no objection to tang
the Black side. Furthermore, tourament
players sometimes deliberately avoid point
ing out a player's frst error (like 14 . . . RB
here), preferring to hoad up te secret for
personal use. Chess in Russia must be hard
enough without telling your opponents all
you know.
To sum up, we have a case of a posi
tona stuggle. One position is not substan
tally better than the other: it is rather a
question of which ca make the most of the
good points of his own positon and te bad
points of his opponent's. This was so even
in the second game referred to above, and
stll moreso i the present game.
11. . .. 0-0
12. Qd
Pointless now is 12. Bxc6because of the
simple reply . . . Nxc6 (previously answerable
by the pin Re1, recapturing the ./e3 with
the ) . That's a tactica point. Anyting
that belongs to calculaton of specific forced
play-feasible when simple forcing captures,
checks, or threats are involved-is tactics.
You cannot get away from tactcs.
White's grip on d4 is absolutely firm,
and he can attend to development.
12. . . .
Qb6
Once again, a move that shrieks-de
veloping while hampering White's devel
opment by a threat.
13. a4 Bf5
The excellent move which Boleslavsky
made impossible for himself in the subse
quent game through his ill-considered 14 . . .
RB already dealt with.
Boleslavsky "Simplifies"
14. Nfd4 Nxd4
Players ofen make doubtfl moves in
the interests of "simplifcation." To remove
an opponent's weakness is as bad as giving
yourself one. Botvinnik calls the move "a
positional mistake increasing White's supe
riorit." Fine says 14 . . . Be4was "far better."
We fear that students ofen get wrong im
pressions because writers use condemna
tory words about errors that are really ex
tremely slight. If we weigh up 14 ... Nxd4, we
find two "pros": i White retakes with the
., he ca no longer occupy the "blockade"
square d4 with a piece, nor can the isolated
d- . ever be attacked fontally; in other
words, the "isolated d-pawn" becomes much
less weak; secondly, Black saves time by
not having to move his A again. But there
are also two "cons": White's own weakness
is entrely eliminated; secondly, White's re
maining 4 gets a fine post at c. All in all, a
small net gain to White.
Besides 14 . . . Be4, afer which Botvin-
- 1
46 -
His Wrtng
n admits te game would be "almost even,"
there is 14 . . . Bg6. If 15. aS, . . . Q7 16. a6 Ne5
and the weaknesses on both sides balance.
15. exd4
Capablanca coined an instructive term
which is well worth remembering when
dealing with f positons. In this game,
before 14 ... Nxd4, he would have said that
each side had three "pawn islands," i.e.,
three diferent groups of fs. The middle
"islands" consisted, of course, of only one
f each. Now, afer 74 . . . Nxd4 15. exd4,
Black still has three islands but White has
only two, as the middle island, the e- f ,
joins up with the wester island (now con
sistng of four united fs). It is good to have
two islands for winning purposes, as a single
islad is drawish, but three are a liability:
their proprietor is vulnerable in three quar
ters.
15 . . . . Rc8
When first annotating the game Bot
vinnik suggested 75 . . . Q6, but Fine consid
ers that White retains a clear superiority
after 76. R! Be4 (Botvinnik's idea) 7Z Nc5
Rac8 18. c3. In Championship Chess, Botvin
nik passes over 15 . . . Rac8 without adverse
comment. Yet I believe this was a crisis.
Boleslavsky's previous move has made his
game difcult, but that only means that it is
easy to drift into disadvantage, not that
disadvantage is inevitable.
I suggest that the diagrammed position
illustates rater well a dictum in Guide to
Good Chess which a gratefl reader rang me
up about, chortling gleeflly that it had
enabled him to win an important game.
This wa it.
"Where tere is a completely open file,
and only one, it is no use trying to sidestep
it. The game must be decided on it, whether
you like it or not."
Of course, as with all generalizatons in
chess, you could easily concoct a queer
position in which it would not apply, but it
will be found reliable a a guide. It enables
you frequently to shear trough complica
tons and arrive at the simplest and best
plan.
Here, in order to occupy the e-fle Black
must evict the -. So, try 15 . . . a6. This is
slightly weakening, certainly, but not nearly
as weakening as conceding the open file to
the enemy. Fortunately, there is a very
simple proof that 75 . . . a6 was better than
the text play, witout going into a mael
strom of analysis: simply that Black did
play . .. a6 next move, when, as we shall see,
it was obviously less effective. However,
just as an illustrative line, look at 75 . . . a6 16.
Bd3 (if White tries Re7 as in the game,
simply . . . axb5 7Z Rxe7 bxa4 in reply, and if
then 18. Nc5, . . . Q6 with a relatively easy
game) Bxd3 7Z Qd3 Nc6. Now let White
play his most aggressive move, 18. Nc5, and
suppose Black, avoiding all risks, simply
plays for a safe position, 78 . . . Rf8 19. Q
Re7 20. c3 (if Qd5, . . . Rd8) Rae8 (doubling
on te open fle) 21. b4 Q8. Despite White's
initiatve on the i-side, you will find he can
never do anyting serious in the face of
Blac's command of the open fle in the
center.
That Black has oter playable lines
after 15 . . . a6 shows that his game has eased.
16. Nc5 a6
This no longer accomplishes the ob
jective aimed at. As so ofen in chess, Black
fnds that his interpolation of quite a natural
developing move ( . . . Rac8) has marred his
- 1
4
7 -
Te Search for Ches Perection
chances. Capablanca tells us to "bring out
our pieces as fast as possible and put them
in the right places." Well, you'll fnd tat as
development advances, the rapidity be
comes slightly less important, and selectng
the right places becomes slightly more im
portant. Black has developed a ! , but has
got no nearer to placing a ! in the right
place, te central open fle.
17. Rae1
Played when Black can neither move
te 4 or protect it by ... R8, taking the
open fle. And of course . . . axb5 is no longer
playable now that the white 4 has moved.
Thus Black must cede the open fle entirely.
Is Boleslavsky's game still tenable, or
can Botvinnik push through to victory?
My opinion is that White now has suf
ficient pressure to assure a win; for this I
blae Black's 15th move, ... Rac8.
Summing up positionally-wait a
minute, before you can sum up any positon
"positonally" you must frst examine any
forceful continuatons: captures, checks, and
oter direct threats. Otherwise you wlprob
ably be wasting time. But here we can
quickly see that 7Z .. ab51eads to disadvan
tage ( 78. Re7, and if 78 . . . Rc5, 79. dc5
Qc5f 20. Q3), and all other violent moves
can be dismissed quite quickly as unsound.
That means we can treat the position as a
quiet, statc one where positional pros and
cons can be weighed up.
Al right, what's the frst great point?
That White holds the open fle (e-fle). Add
to that, White's pieces in general, other
than his en prie ., are better posted than
Black's, especially White's 4; also, White
has obvious pressure-the black 4 is ted to
the defense of a . -and fnally, White's .
position is superior because White has only
two "pawn islads" while Black is burdened
with three. Against althese small inferiori
tes, Blac can show no compensatng supe
riority aywhere. All he can do is to mae a
stenuous resistance and hope White will
commit a slight inexactitude somewhere
which White does, in fact, even though he is
Botvinnik.
17. . . . Rc7
18. Bd3
Here Botvinnik devoted much calcula
ton to 78. Bd7, fnally discarding it. This
gets right into tactcs-combination. The or
dinary player is well advised to save tme
on his clock by quickly playing the move
that must be good, rather than one which
leads to no clear gain and requires much
calculaton even to show that it is not disad
vatageous-advice easier to give than tae!
Of course the exchange of .s untes the
black 4, but that cannot be helped; clearly
78. Be2 is not very good.
18. Bxd3
19. (xd3 (d6

..

W :; W

.

.

Z Y<
"

,, ,
This has two worthy positional aims:
(a) to evict the white 4 from its strong
post by . . . b6 ( . . . a5 frst) ;
(b) to create a possibility, at any rate, of
challenging the open fle by ... R7 after
- 1 48 -
His Writings
moving the . No need to fear the "fxing"
move 20. a5, as that would be absolutely
refted by . . . Nc6.
As this article is on position play, we
shall not go into the complications of 19 .. .
0b2. Sufce it to say that you'd expect it to
be too risky, and it is. A f is too small a
compensation for such insecurity.
20. c
Eampl ofa purely strenthenin move
not necessarily a part ofa specfc plan. It
secres both the d- and c-awn and thus
maks Wit's pices freer generally. I per
mitted Wit may follow wih a to estab
lish the Kniht frly, thus stenthenin
himsel stll frher
20. . . . a
White is now going to be forced to
move his
'
it seems. He must provide a
good square for it.
21. Qf!
A example of combination interwo
ven with position play. Not only is . . . b6
delayed, but Ne6! is an immediate threat.
How would one most easily get onto this
possibility? I still tink the most reliable
method is to run quickly through all te
aggressive moves on the board, no matter
how absurd. Thus you would be forced to
look at Ne6, from which it would be no great
step to think of Q.
21 . . . . Ng6
This certainly seems more strength
ening than . .. Nc6, as it helps to protect the
castled t and also guards both eS ad f4
fom White's .
22. Re3 b6
The 4 's reign is ended. But now White
retains his major advantage, contol of the
only open fle. That is traditionally decisive.
23. Nd3 Rd7
If . . . Re7, 24. Rxe7 Nxe7 25. Re1 and
White regains complete control of te fle.
What now? Of course White's position
is much too strong for him to consider such
absurd woodshifting as 25. R 1 ?to save the
threatened f . But I think most players
would content themselves wit the simple
line 25. Ne5 Nxe5 26. Rxe5 f6 2Z Re6, gettng
f for f and remaining with a substantal,
but not crushing, positonal advantage. You
must not expect an acle to tell you how to
play quite as well as Botvinnik.
25. g3! ! Rd6
If 25 ... 0a4, 26. h4 RdB 2Z h5 Nf28.
h6! is the idea. Botvinnik, refraining from
exaggeraton-as we wish all chess writers
would-says it would then be "difcult for
Black to defend the many weak spots in his
positon." All in all, te f sacrifice seems to
give better winning chances than the more
conservative line indicated above. This is a
case of weakening White's t in order to
weaken Black's more-positionally quite
sound.
26. h4 f6
27. Q5!
Positonal again. Instead of playing at
once h, White frst strengthens his posi
ton; either Black will now accept the f ,
ad ten the attack will come in more
strongly, or else the threat to the f will end,
giving White a peaceflly advantageous
endgame. However, te immediate h wa
also good.
27.
28. Qxc8
Qc8
Rxc8
- 1 49 -
The Search for Chess Perection
29. h5 Nf
White is happier wit the 1s of, be
cause now the exposure of his own mat
ters very little.
30. Re7 Rcd8
To prevent the horror of two enemy
s on the seventh rank.
31. Nf4 R8d7
32. g4
Here Botvinnik's splendid positonal
intuition deserts him temporarily. He points
out that 32. Kf was better. And note its
much more consolidatng, coordinatng-in
short, stengthening-efect. The text move
gives his forces a dangerously separated
look. With Kf, everything would be linked.
32. Fe7
33. Fe7
g5!
34. hxg6
Ad here a rater serious error, a
Botvinnik admits. He should have kept the
4s on with 34. Ng2.
Endings with Rook and pice ves
Rook and pice are slihtly more winnable
than Rook ves Rook because there are
such possiilts ofcoordinaton ofpieces.
In versus , the cooperation of
and is often ruled out because a too
venturesome advance by either permits
a marauding raid by te enemy . An
additonal 4, however, may guad a vt
squae and permit the coordination of all
three pieces.
After 34. Ng2, say .. . Re6. Then 35. R7,
and if 35 . . . Re4 36. Rxb6 Rxg4, White would
win because his majority of .s is on te
wing remote from the enemy .
From here we are decidedly in the
realm of endgame technique. That's stll
positon play, it's true, but endings are a
special feld. I could continue to discuss te
moves from the strengtening and weaken
ing aspect, but the article is already long
enough. For a real understanding of end
ings without too much labor, I recommend
Pa Ill of Guide to Good Chess-this is a
genuine tip, not an advertisement.
However, I hate half-finished games,
and I think most players are the same, so I
give the rest fairly briefly.
34. Nxg6
35. Nxg6 hxg6
36. Rb7
Black had a specific drawing threat,
. . . b5!
36. K
37. K Ke8
38. Ke3
38. . . . g5
Fine says that the entry of White's at
f4 would otherwise be decisive. But Botvin
nik-or rather his translator-tautologically
dubs the text move "an unnecessary waste
of tme" and says Black should have played
38 . . . Kd8, which he implies would have
given good chances of a draw. If then 39.
Kf4, presumably . . . Re6, and if 40. R7, ... Re4f
41. K g5 42. R7 (or 42. R) Re6, and now
- 1 50 -
His Writings
the white ' is held on the wrong side for
winning purposes.
39. Kd3
40. b4
41. cb4
42. a
Re6
ab4
Kd8
Kc8
The trouble with ... bxa5 is that White
can aferwards attack the d- f by Rb5. It
might have been the smaller evil. Had Black
not lost a tempo on Move 38, he could have
driven te from the b-file frst, and then
a5 could have been answered with . . . bxa5
safely.
43. a6
44. Rb5
45. Rd5
46. Rc5t
47. d5
b5
Rxa6
Ral
Kb7
Rfl
48. Rc4 f5??
The game ends with a curious blunder
which Boleslavsky "prepared" during ad
jourment analysis, reckoning on 49. gxj
Rxj with a probable draw. However, White
should win anyway, e.g., if 48 . . . R1, 49.
R4.
49. Ke2 Resigs
Summar
Well, that was an exceptionally posi
tional game, i.e., there were few, if any,
combinative moves. Actually, both players
certainly calculated out numerous combi
natve variations before discarding certan
moves that we have barely touched on. So,
just because we have discussed the game as
an illustration of our ideas on position play,
don't imagine that anybody can play good
chess by principles alone. Combinations
must be watched-for and against-at every
tur. Don't forget, I mean litle combina-
tons, not deep "brilliancies." People persist
in misunderstanding me on this point.
How did my definition of position play
stand up to the strain? Any form of words
will come up against trouble in chess, and
all I claim is that my defniton comes up
against less touble than any oter yet at
tempted. I am sure those simple notions of
strengthening and weakening are funda
mental, ad will help many players in com
plex situations.
Run over the various crises:
1. With the surprising 10. Be3, Botvin
nik purchased, as it were, some strength at
the cost of some weakness, i.e., he gained
control ofthe dark squares (and the f-file) at
the cost of isolatng his e- f .
2. On Move 14, Boleslavsky made a
slight error with 14 ... Nxd4. This exchange
did strengthen his own positon a little, but,
on the whole, it strengthened his opponent's
a little more.
3. On Move 15, Boleslavsky missed a
way of stengthening his positon by secur
ing the single open fle-always vt. In the
sequel, Botvinnik won by dominating that
file.
4. After forcing a winnable endgame,
Botvinnik, on Move 32, failed for once to
play the stengthening move, and a follow
ing error of endgame technique (Move 34)
gave Boleslavsky good drawing chances,
which he let slip by the single error on
Move 38.
The chess was of an accuracy rarely
excelled. Any famous chess struggle turs
out to contain mistakes on both sides when
annotated as searchingly as this game has
been.
- 1 5 1 --
The Search for Chess Perection
AN AMAZING LESSON ON THE CENTER
Nimzovich in My System lays some stress on the fallacy of counting .s in the center
to see who stands better there, but in actual practice we so often see a preponderance of
.s i the center doing well for the possessor that Nimzovich's wisdom gets blunted in our
minds, and we are ready to fall into error. Perhaps everyone ought to brush up My System
every few years, but even in Nimzovich's own book you will find nothing to bring the
truth home to you as sharply as the really wonderfl game I hereby introduce.
It was played in the world correspondence championship between the present
leader, Dr. Mario Napolitano, and the player who started as favorite, Dr. Edmund Adam.
It was Napolitano's only loss.
These two are colossi of the correspondence chess-playing world. Dr. Adam won the
correspondence championship of Europe when it was last held-before the war. Dr.
Napolitano crushingly won his section in the current world championship, the same
section in which interational master Barcza only notched three draws in six games.
The winner's play has all the polish, precision, and depth that the best correspon
dence play should have.
The comments are ours, but we have the beneft of Dr. Adam's own notes from
Caisa.
Napolitano (ltaly)
Adam (Germany)
Sicilian Dense (in ef ct)
1. Nt c
2. c4 Nf6
3. b4
Napolitano's opening play is rich in
ideas, and in this tourament they have
paid good dividends; this is his only defeat
so far. Here Napolitano aims at a Wing
Gambit in which his c- . will be already at
c4, helping him to command the center.
Only by extraordinarily deep play-virtu
ally impossible over the board-does Adam
refte the idea.
3.
4. d4
5. cxd5
cxb4
d5!
Nxd5!
Subtly stronger than 5. .. Qd5, which
White probably expected. White ten con
tinues with 6. Nd2 and e4, afterwards play-
ing his - , strongly to c4. It is that last
move that Black is concerned to prevent; it
would just make all the diference to White's
-side attack. White's next move makes
the game essentially a "Sicilian."
6. e4 Nb6!
Black's -side is weakened in a sense
by the 4's fight, but White's attack is also
weaened: (a) for the reason mentioned; (b)
because White's e- . will not have a 4 to
hit if it ever goes to e5.
7. d5
Apparently very cramping, as it virtu
ally prevents 7 .. e6 (8. Bb5f Bd7 9. de6!
with a powerful attacking positon). White's
game could easily become overwhelming
against routne play.
7. e5!!
This deeply tought-out retur of the
. looks almost suicidal by old-fashioned
standards because of the huge preponder
ance of .s granted to White in the center.
- 1 52 -
His Writing
8. Nxe5
9. Bb5t
Bd6
N8d7
Not ... Bd7, presenting White with "the
two Bishops" ( 10. Nxd7).
10. Nd3 0-0
11. 0-0
f5!
Black must do this before White plays
f4 himself with steamroller efect. Remem
ber .. .j as the normal anti-roller move.
12. Bf4
A sad renunciation. White dreamed of
Bb2, but if 12. j to prepare that, . . . Q4!
Ne6.
12. . . . Qc7
If 12 . . . Bxf4, the recapture threatens
13. Bxd6
14. f
Qxd6
a6
Having immobilized White's center
the chief need-Black now forces White to
develop Black's pieces for him.
If 15. Ba4? Black wins the h- f by an
obvious sequence.
15. Bxd7
16. Nd2
Bxd7
Rac8
Perhaps you'll admit without dispute
that Black has the advantage, but how do
you account for it? If you say he has it in
spite of White's "strong center," you land in
a complete morass. No, the truth is that
Black is stronger in the center than White,
though he has no fs there to White's two.
Indeed, if one of Black's fs were in the
center, say on e5 or d6, Black would not
stand quite so well. Complete absence of
fs in the center sometimes makes for great
feedom of movement, always provided that
if the enemy has fs there they can be
absolutely fixed, like White's here.
Let us tur now to Nimzovich's My
System, p. 160.
It dawns upon us then, that control of
the center depends not on a mere occupa
tion, i.e., placing of pawns, but rather on
our general efectveness there . . . . Certainly
pawns, as being the most stable, are best
suited to building a center. Nevertheless,
centrally posted pieces can perfectly well
take their place.
Obstruction! that is the dark side of
occupation of the center by pawns. A
pawn is by nature, by his stability, his, so
to speak, conservative spirit, a good cen
ter building, but alas, he is also a ob
struction.
Here, a different piece setup could eas
ily make White's game superior. If instead
of one of his s he had a dark-squared
'
his deplorable weakness on the dak squares
would vanish. Yet note also that if Black's
itself were on dark squares instead of light,
his game would be even better than it is.
And yet his light-squared is far from
"bad," despite the white fs, because it can
get an excellent diagonal by going behind
them, as it were, with . . . Bb5.
It is the fixity of White's fs that is his
trouble. Of course, as the board is now, a
phalanx ( fs abreast) could not be main
tained, but one can see now that White
made an error in voluntarily breaking the
phalanx he once had; his Z d5 was wrong,
even if there was but one way, and a very
surprising way, to refute it.
17. Re1 fe4
Well-timed, now the ) has left that
file. It did so to forestall the pin, ... Bb5.
18. fe4
Na4
19. Nfl Qb6t
- 1 53 -
Te Search for Chess Perection
20. Kl
Forced; if Ne3, .. .Nc3 wins the e- f .
20. Qd4!
This move is curiously decisive. It
proves that Wite must have had some
more resistant 19th move, but there was
probably nothing to save him permanently.
Black now has two threats: frstly . . . Bb5
winning a piece(!) because the 4 has no
escape, and the support Re3 would be a
broken reed because of . .. Rxfl f; secondly,
. . . Nc3 winning the e- f . Wite is reduced to
a desperate throw.
21. d6
22. Qb3t
23. e5
Nc3!
K8
Black would refute 23. Nxb4 by 23 ...
Nxe4!Philidor' s Legacy, which is then threat
ened starting wit . . . Nff, cannot be stopped
by 24. Rxe4, since then 24... fa 1 wins,
-
while 24. h3 would lose after . .. Rc3! (E.A.)
[Ed. Note: But frst 24 . . . Njf 25. Kh2 a i
24 . . . Rc3, then 25. Rxe4 fe4 (25 . . . Rxh3f
26. fh3 fa1 27 fd7 Rxf! f 28. Kh2 Rhl f
29. Kg3 Q3f 30. Kf and nothing happens)
26. fc3}.
23 . . .
24. e6
Qxd3
Rce8!
If now exd7?, it's soon mate. And if 25.
Rd1, ... Nxd1 26. fd3 Nfregaining the
with overwhelming interest.
25. Ng3 Qd2!
Threat .. . Bc6. If 26. Rad1 Nxd1 27 Rxd1,
the reply is 27 .. Rxe6!Everthing dovetails.
26. Resigns.
Kmoch calls the game "a dream of the
Sicilian." Dr. Adam's other results in this
event have not done him justce. A bout of
ill health afected him, and he was a little
too daring in a few of his openings.
- 1 54 -
His Writings
MORE ABOUT PAWN CENTERS
The books generally tend to exaggerate the value of a . center as such. If a . center
really hampers the enemy pieces, it is advatageous; otherwise not. Things that count
against a . center are: (a) ample maneuvering space for enemy pieces, even though on a
wing; (b) a completely open file, which at any rate means feedom for s; and (c)
exchages of pieces, especially minor pieces. Real control of the center is always
advantageous, e.g., 4s posted there and not vulnerable to . s. But a . center does not
always guaratee such control; all one can say is that it usually helps.
Much of the talk about "attacking the center" or "challenging in the center" is
claptap, i the sense that the main motive of such moves in the opening (e.g., . . . c5, very
ofen) is not understood; it is simply to make provision for developing .s. If .s can
develop otherwise, such moves are often unnecessary.
This 70-mover from the Australian Correspondence Championship frther illus
trates how the value of a . center can be almost nullifed. As a game, its length is excused
by its sheer excellence. Raely does one see a 70-mover entrely free fom obvious errors.
K. Ozols-H. Klass
Catalan Opening (in ef ct)
1. c4
Nf6
2. g3 e6
3. Bg d5
4. Nf dxc4
A move that forces the opponent's Y
out is seldom bad. Watch how this little
disability always mars White's position a
little. This is not to say that White's game is
inferior-just that there is "a little rift within
the lute" to give Black consolaton i a
rather backward position.
5. Qa4t Bd7
6. Qxc4 Nc6
A idea favored by the American Mas
ter Kevitz-in place of the usual . . . Bc6. With
"crude development," Black may have bet
ter chances of harrying White's exposed Y.
7. d4
Making it a "Catalan" (constituted by
the moves d4, c4, ad g3, etc.) .
7. . . . Be7
8. a b5!
The crisis. If Black permitted b4 with
out a blow, White's command of space in
the center and one wing, taken together,
might give White a decisive advatage. In
stead, Black himself takes the initiative on
te Y-side. If 9. Qb5, ... Nxd4 10. Q4 Bc6!
and Black has sufcient freedom.
9. Qd3
b4!
Black is now saddled with the respon
sibility of playing for . . . c5 to eliminate a
weakness that might be fatal. But he knows
he can enforce it. Meawhile, he has gained
his objectve-namely space, terrain, or fresh
air, a frequent strategical motf in top-line
chess.
10. a4 Rc8
The frst step. Incidentally, Black in
vites 77. Q6? when . . . NB would be a
sound . ofer. [Ed. Note: Prdy i rerring to
12. Qa7 c5!}
1 1. Nd
12. b3
13. Bb2
Na
c
Bc6
- 1 55 -
The Search for Chess Perection
14. 0-0 0-0
15. Racl Qb6
16. e4 Rfd8
As yet White's f center consists of the
e- f only, since the d- f can be liquidated
whenever Black chooses. And the e- f,
though it does a vital job in guarding d5, is
a target for pieces. White can seek only to
hold the positon. Black has the initiative.
Note that conditions (a) and (b) are both
satisfed-inasmuch as the c-file can be
opened any tme eiter side chooses. The
one thing favoring a f center is tat all the
pieces remain on the board.
17. Rfd1
Bb7
18. h3 h6
White's h was on compulsion. White
must move his , and wishes to continue
defending the b- . to avoid tying his <.
Black's . .. h6 was a far-sighted provision of
sanctuary for his against check on the
back rank, made at a moment when the
time factor is not vital-White being unable
to do anything much.
19. Qe3 Ba6!
20. Rc2 c4!
This leaves White in undisputed pos
session of the ideal f center ( .s on e4 and
d4), but Black gains a passed f on the 1-
side and additional maneuvering space
there; also, he forces some exchanges. The
remote passed . of course is the main
factor.
21. bxc4
22. Nxc4
23. Rxc4
24. Rc1
25. Nd2
26. Nb3
27. Qxcl
28. f!
29. Kh2
30. Nxa5!
Nxc4
Rxc4
Bxc4
Ba6
Rc8
Rxclt
Bb7
a5
Bc6!
A resource not available had White
played Q3 on Move 28 to protect his e- f.
Of course 30. Ql ?is too cramping. Note
that White, not Black, is in danger of cramp.
30. . . . Bxa4
31. Qc8t Kh7
See note to 18th.
32. Nc4
33. Qxc6
34. Ne5
Qc6
Bxc6
Bb5!
Fine play. White has no time to take
the f- f, because then . . . Nd7-b6-a4, seeming
a slow maneuver, cannot be stopped and
would force White to yield his -. for the
passed f. White's next move looks fair
enough. Who would dream that it could
bring him into serious trouble?
35. f4 Kg8

?if"% %"%'"%

j
-

It looks now as though White should
have no dificulty at all in drawing by sim
ply developing his . However, it is not
easy. Ozols probably looked at such lines as
36. Kgl Ne8! 3Z Kf (not 3Z Bf! Bxfl 38.
Kfl Nd6 39. Nc6 Kj. For if then 40. Nxb4,
Black wins two fs for one. Or if 40. e5,
. . . Nc4 wins of hand.) Nd6 38. Ke3, f6!
From this it appears that White had not
yet quite realized on Move 35 that his posi
tion contained the seeds of danger. He
should at once have started "developing"
by 35. Kgl! to be followed by Bfl, surely
drawing. Probably Ozols was playing to the
score-that old tempter-and fshing for com
plications rather than equality. He now plays
the move evidently prepared by his 35th; it
is to open up for his As. It also gives him a
passed f, but, being in the center instead
- 1 56 -
His Writings
of remote, a vulnerable one.
36. d5 exd5
37. exd5 Bc5!
38. Bf Ne8!
39. Kg f6
40. Nc6 Nd6
41. Na5 Bb6
42. N3 K
43. g4 Ba4!
And if 44. Nd2 ?, .. .Be3.
44. Bdl
Nc4
45. Bel Ke7
Very elegantly, Black carries out the
procedure of "changing the blockaders."
The W will be able to blockade and assail
the . simultaneously, which the l can't.
Black's passed . is too remote for White to
reciprocate.
46. g5
47. Na5
48. gh6
49. Nb3
Kd6
Bb5!
gh6
Be3!
Before winning the . Black forces an
exchange, reducing White's drawing chanc
es. Two checking ls ca be very annoying
to a player trying to win.
50. K Bxcl
51. Nxcl Kxd5
52. Bc2 Nd6
53. Kg4
Be8
54. Bb3t Kd4
55. f5 Nc4
56. Kf4
Nd2
57. Be6 Bh5!
58. Na2 b3
59. Nb4 Be8!
The l, having got the . a step fur
ther, resumes its all-purposes defensive post.
Not 59 . . . b2 60. Ba2 b7=Q 67. Bxb7 Nxb7
because of 62. Nc6ffollowed by . . . Ne7 and
. . . NgB, making the win an arduous business
at best.
60. Bxb3 Nxb3
Now comes the last phase: turing the
piece plus to account. It still needs care,
with so few .s left. White's W must be
forced away from its f- ..
61. Nc2t Kc5
62. Ne3 Bh5
63. Nfl Nd4
64. Ke4 Ne2!
65. Ne3 Nc3t
66. Kd3 Nd5
67. Nfl Bf!
68. h4 Bg2
69. Ng3 Kd6
70. Kd4 Ne7!
71. Resigs
After 77. h5, . . . Bc6 and it's zgzang, the
great bugbear of ls and Ws who, if al
lowed to refrain from moving, could often
laugh superior foes to scor-highly benef
cial to the facial muscles.
The game is a fne example of sus
tained accuracy by Klass combined with
strategy of a high order. Going through the
longer games of the Botvinnik-Bronstein
match, could you match this one for excel
lence? Probably not. This exemplifies the
trut about correspondence chess: the play
ers may not be so good, but the chess is
ofen better.
- 1 57 -
-
The Search for Chess Perection
COMBINATION VERSUS PLANNI NG
Ortvin Sarapu, champion of New Zealand and joint chapion of Austalasia for
1952, wrote a most helpful series in the New Zealnd Chessplyer entitled, "Ortvin Sarapu
Coaches."
The July 1953 issue contains No. 4 of te series. Here Sarapu mentons a system
which he credits to the famous Soviet grandmaster Levenfsh, also famous as a writer and
analyst.
It is a system for evaluating a position: simply compare each white piece with its
opposite number in the Black camp. With the permission of the NZ CP we crib the
article holus-bolus.
(Sarapu takes over . . . )
Judgment
"First we examine the situaton for ma
terial.
"White has Rook for Bishop and pawn,
but Black has two powerful Bishops. So
materia is about equal.
"Second, we come to the more impor
tant part-to judge the positional adva
tages and disadvantages.
"The system of comparing every piece
and pawn individually with its riva comes,
as I know, from old grandmaster Levenfish,
who drew a match 5-5 with Botvinnik in
1937
"The system's advantages are that it
helps you to get a correct or nearly correct
understanding of the positon, to judge which
player has the better chances. It enables
avoidance of obvious blunders ad gives
directon to your efforts to discover what
you must do to improve your position.
"Its disadvantage is mainly that you
have a limited raton of time on your clock,
but you can do a lot of 'work' during the
opponent's thinking time.
Kings
"We start with the Kings. It is clear that
the white King is dangerously placed. He
has no move and is "x-rayed" by the black
Queen's Bishop. He is guarded mainly by
two pawns.
"On te contrary, the black King is
safe, far from any treats. A endgame
advantage for Black is that his King is closer
to the center.
Queens
"The white Queen protects the weak c
pawn and the weak square , but she pins
the Knight. The Queen cannot move much
without allowing . . . Nf or . . . Nxc3. There
fore she is ted to defensive tasks.
"Black's Queen protects her weak f
pawn and is unguarded; also she is indi
rectly attacked by the white Queen. But she
can move and improve her positon with
out incurring disadvantage.
- 1 58 -
His Wrtings
"Ou 'diagnosis': both passively placed. one of them. This is the only, but strong,
threat White has.
White King's Rook and Black Rook
"The King's Rook has pressure on the
f-pawn, but is pinned to defense of square
f, so his mobility is limited.
"The black Rook is actively placed,
close to the center, has pressure on White's
weak c-pawn and on the weak King-side,
but is unguarded.
"We give the black Rook superiority.
White Queen's Rook and Black's
Queen's Bishop, King's Bishop Pawn
"The Rook is undeveloped, can be de
veloped in one move, but remains passive,
and Rd1 will lose te Exchange after . . . Rxd1.
"Black's Queen's Bishop contols two
center squares and 'x-rays' White's King.
Its power will increase when the black
Knight moves. The f-pawn is backward and
under pressure, also it would be hard to
improve its position.
"At present the Bishop is stronger than
the white Queen's Rook: another plus for
Black.
The Other Two Bishops
"The black King's Bishop controls the
long open diagonal and bars the white King
from moving. In cooperation with the
Knight, it has strong pressure on White's
weak f.
"The white Bishop has merely defen
sive duty in protecting te c-pawn, is un
guarded, but controls two center squares
and supports e5 for te white Knight.
"The black King's Bishop is the supe
rior piece.
Knights
"The white Knight is unguarded, but it
has a protected squae on e5 from which it
would attack simultaneously the adverse
Rook and Bishop, and exchange against
"The black Knight is pinned and is in
the way of the Queen's Bishop. It is pro
tected, in the center, and has pressure on f,
g3, and c3.
"As the white Knight has a good threat,
we can say it has some advantage over its
rival . . . unless the black Knight has a threat
to balance.
The Pawns
"We compare a-pawn versus a-pawn,
e-pawn versus e-pawn, and so on.
"The a-pawns ae about evenly placed,
protected, but not under pressure.
"The b-pawns are te same, only that
White's is protected by the weak c-pawn
and can become weak itself.
"The c-pawns: White's pawn is twice
attacked, by Rook and Knight, and just
protected-by the valuable Queen and the
Bishop. It is a clear weakness in White's
game. (An inexperienced player as Black
would go after it, but wrongly in this case.)
"g-pawns: The white pawn is semi
pinned by the Queen's Bishop. Its value is
in covering its King. The black g-pawn is
well advanced and very dangerous for
White. It is threatening to advance and
break the white King's positon by attack
ing f and h2. Also, by advacing this pawn
to g3 Black can play his Queen to h4 with
mating threats. So there i one stron threat
aainst Wite's possil Ne5.
"Now, last, the h-pawns: Black's pawn
is advanced, and also is threatening to break
White's King's position in two moves by
going to h4 and h3. While White's g-pawn
is semi-pinned, that is another dangerous
threat against White. But it is two moves
long, during which White would have time
to play Ne5 and Nxc6. The white h-pawn is
merely protecting the King fom frontal
checks and barring enemy occupation of
- 1 59 -
The Search for Chess Perection
g3. It can be attacked by the black g-pawn.
So his h-pawn is a decided weakness in
White's position.
"By means of all this comparing, we
are able to judge the position a it i at
present on the board
"Black has a big advantage.
"Further, we know where his advan
tage lies: it is on the King-side, particularly
against White's King. Black's pieces 'aim' in
this direction; so it would be wrong to con
centrate against White's weak c-pawn. Black
must do something on the King-side, other
wise his advantage would slowly disappear
after Ne5!
Planning
"As we know White's threat and one of
Black's threats, we (as Black) have to fnd
which weakness on White's King-side can
be exploited successfully and in less time
than White's threat takes for its execution.
"Weaknesses, we know, are on White's
f, g2, and h2.
"To use f we need more pressure on it,
so we make the attempt 1 . . . g3, which also
threatens White's h-pawn and ... Qh4 and
mate on h2.
"If White plays 2. Ne5, . . . Q4 3. h3
Qh3f 4. gxh3 Nft 5. Kgl Nxh3#.
"We can disregard the threat of 1 . . . h4,
which gives White ample time to defend.
For instance, 2. Ne5 h3 3. Nxc6 and White
has avoided a quick loss.
"So attack on White's g-pawn is too
slow."
(Sarapu evidently intended to mention
the objection to 1 ... g3. We leave it to our
readers, for they would have to see it in
actual play.)
Against White's h-Pawn
"As we know, the white g-pawn is semi
pinned. Therefore perhaps we can play 7 . . .
Rh3, with the threat of mate or win of the
Queen by ... Ng3f, as gxh3 cannot be played
because of . . . Ng3f and mate.
"But the catch here is that White will
make room for his King by 2. Bd4, to play
Kgl after . . . Ng3f.
"We could continue the attack by 2 ...
g3! 3. Rf4 (of course 3. gxh3 Njt 4. Kgl
Nxh3#) Rxh2t 4. Kgl Nj! 5. Rf ( 5. Qe7
Rhl#) gxjf 6. KjRxg2f with a winning
attack. But it is too long again.
"There must be someting better. Only
the white h-pawn and the black Knight are
in the way.
"How can we remove them?
"We see it all now: 1. Ng3t!! 2. hxg3
Qh4t!! 3. gxh4 Rh3#.
"White can of course decline to die so
beautifully by playing 2. Qg3, but Black
still wins with ease.
"Combinations do not 'come to us.'
We have to fnd them. When we know
exactly where the weaknesses are in a posi
tion, we have covered the most difcult
part. The rest is what is generally called
'routine,' but care is always required. There
is no excuse for carelessness."
(End of Sarapu's article.)
Commentar
There is a great deal to be said for
Levenfish's form of reconnaissance from a
positional viewpoint. As Sarapu says, it can
usually be carried out during your oppo
nent's move-a far better way of using the
time than speculating on possible moves, of
which he can play only one. Moreover,
although it cannot give a precise estimate of
a position, nevertheless it forces you to
observe many things you could easily miss
by reconnoitering less methodically. I think
many readers will have occasion to bless
Sarapu for drawing their attenton to the
system.
- 1 60 -
Hi Writings
(article diagram repeated)
Black to move
Now note that I said, "from a posi
tional viewpoint." Look at the diagram
again, reprinted on this page. You already
know te combination that wins for Black
a very nice sacrifce of and 4. It is based
on the white 's lack of squares: one safe
check must be mate-a type of "net." Just
how much is the combination based on the
positonal valuation, or upon Black's posi
tional superiorit as estimated by that valu
ation? I say that it has very little connecton
therewith. For supposing we greatly im
prove White's position in various ways, and
make it like the next diagram.
(Hypothetical diagram)
Black to move
Here we have eliminated White's glar
ing weakness at c3; we have transferred his
undeveloped to the positionally magnif
cent square e2, where it reinforces the pres-
sure on te black 4:; and we have advanced
the other to f4 so that it threatens Re4.
If we now apply the Levenfish system,
we shall at least be in grave doubt as to who,
on the whole, comes out on the credit side.
No longer ae the black and 4: bearing
on a weak f, nor are any white pieces tied
to its defense; no longer can we claim that
Black's -. must be rated above White's
- -always remember, we are not sup
posed to have seen any combinaton yet,
for if we had, the reconnaissance would be
unnecessary. We can only judge on purely
general grounds. On those grounds, how
could we place Black on the credit side?
Indeed, if it were White's move he would
win material fortwit, and Black might
begin casting about desperately for some
way to save his 4, and consider the sorry
resource .. .j-ihe didn't see the combina
tion.
Yes, the combination is still on, and is
even stronger now! There are several other
changes we might have made in the posi
tion without eliminatng it, just as there are
numerous possible ways of ruling it out
e.g., in the frst diagram, place the white 4:
on e2, and then, although you could not say
the 4:was as well placed in a vague, posi
tional sense as on c4, yet it would be nearer
its own and would prevent Black from
making a crushing assault; and Bd4 would
become a good defensive threat.
In short, we can improve White's game
"positionally" and make him lose more
quickly: we can make it "worse" and give
him a fghting chance! No kidding? No, no
kidding!
Why did I say "even stronger"? Be
cause after 1 ... Ng3f 2. Qg3 Rg3 Black has
a en prie, and of course White cannot
tae Black's because of ... Bxg2#. So, for
the combination, White's is worse placed
when well developed (on e2) than away in a
corer doing nothing. Such paradoxes are
- 1 6 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
typical of combinations in general. General
principles count for nothing when there is a
way for one player to force certain moves
by his opponent. By a combination, as
Emanuel Lasker says, in efect, you may
twist credits into debits and debits into cred
its. Looked at positonally, combinations
are sheer "Alice in Wonderland." They up
set the logical side of chess-using "logical"
in the popular, narrow sense-with romance.
In chess, the hero really does rescue the
heroine when surrounded by brigands,
gangsters, tigers, crocodiles, and whatnot,
and the intrepid secret service agent really
does get out of prison and through the
enemy lines with the vital documents. It is
so in the second diagram-not so much in
the first, because there Black does happen
to have a positional advantage and his win
comes as no surprise.
In the second diagram, we did not
make the position nearly as bad for Black as
we might have. If you like, throw in a extra
white ., say at b3. White becomes a E up,
and his position is "overwhelming" -only it
is Black's move, and the combinaton still
wins for Black. That should convince any
body.
Conclusion
So what do we conclude? Simply that a
positional valuation is reliable only i we
can exclude combinations from our
thoughts, i.e., we are sure that the player
whose move it is cannot do anything star
tling, and that his opponent is not threaten
ing anything startling either, or that if he is,
it can be prevented without inconvenience.
Does this mean that a hunt for possible
combinations should altogether precede the
positional reconnaissance? Not necessarily.
Especially at your opponent's tur to move,
a positonal reconnaissance will pay. His
move may radically alter the situation, so
that in any case you will need to check up
for combinations after he has moved. And
even suppose your opponent moves too
soon for you to complete or even begin
your positional reconnaissance-well, still
go ahead with it if you cannot decide on
your best move easily. And then, after com
pleting it and forming a rough positional
estmate, temporarily erase that estimate
from your mind and examine the board for
possible combinations-forks, pins, nets, tes
on the one hand (see Guide to Good Chess}
and checks, captures, and threats on the
other. For two ways of looking for combina
tons are better than one-just as a detective
may miss a clue when following one line of
investigation but may pick it up when he
changes over to another.
It may seem that much tme would be
consumed over all these reconnaissances.
Not nearly as much time as most players
waste in haphazard calculaton-going over
the same ground several times and perhaps
missing something that would stare them in
the face if they searched methodically.
Let us suppose that the frst diagram
were slightly altered so as to preclude an
immediate combinaton, e.g., &/e2 as al
ready suggested. Then the Levenfish sys
tem of valuation could be very helpful to
Black. It would show him his big positional
advantage and possibly suggest a plan for
turing it to account. But it is not strictly a
combination-fnder.
In a previous article Sarapu used the
Levenfsh system i a quieter positon, where
its merit was more obvious. It is very usefl
where no combination is "on," which means
in the great majority of chess positions. But
in my opinion a player should never omit to
comb the board for combinations in the
two ways I have often written about: ( 1 )
forks, pins, nets, tes; (2) captures, checks,
and threats.
- 1 62 -
His Writings
THE STEINITZLASKER "LAW" EXLODED
Showing that the "law" stated by Emanuel Lasker does not work even for combina
tions of the grand type-also showing how Lasker lost the world championship by
following the "law" -various usefl sidelights for those already firmly convinced about the
main issue.
The scene is Baden-Baden in the merry month of May 1925. We are visitors to the
great chess tourey in progress. Just as we enter, something of an altercation is going on
at a board occupied by two of the tallest grandmasters of chess, Richard Reti, who is six
feet four inches, and Alexander Alekhine, who looks almost as tall because he holds
himself straighter.
Alekhine has falsely claimed a draw by
repetton. The director easily upsets the
claim, and the game proceeds. Mter a few
more moves we arrive at the first diagram.
White (Reti) has just played 25. b5 ab5
26. ab5.
Alekhine
Reti
From the wording of Alekhine's next
note in te book of his games ( 1924-37),
which I quote further on, it is clear that he
takes it for granted that on purely positional
criteria White's game seems preferable. He
speaks of White's "attack" and fnds it "al
most incredible" that Black should have a
move to overthrow what would appear to
be te natural order of things. Yes, sum
ming up the position in a purely positional
way, I think most experts would say White
had an edge, while granting him but faint
winning chances since he will have fs on
only one wing. Others would call it "fairly
balanced." I am making the purely imagi
nary assumption that you could fnd ma
ters who would not recognize the position,
although to confront a chess master in real
life with this position and ask his opinion
would be rather like asking a student of
English literature what would be a good
line to follow upon . . .
. . . Te blue deep thou
wing est,
And singing still dost soar
Still, making that assumption, there is
one thing certain: that nobody would claim
for Black a "considerable plus." If anyone
did so just to be "contrary," you could ask
h, "Why, ten, did Alekhine use the words
'almost incredible'?"
But Emanuel Lasker states as a law,
based on the tenets of Steinitz: "No combi
nation without a considerable plus."
This "law" is easily shown to be false as
regards "little combinations," but I said that
some people might try to defend Lasker by
- 1 63
-
The Search for Ches Perection
saying he intended to refer only to combi
nations of a more grandiose type. That is
why I now discuss one of the longest combi
natons ever played-"grandiose," i you like,
though "grand" fts it better, and "beautifl"
better still.
Here I must digress to admit to a vague
recollection of having seen the same posi
tion discussed by another chess writer, and
from the same viewpoint as mine, but ran
sack my files as I will I cannot fnd the
reference, so I hope some reader will write
and inform me so that due acknowledgment
may be made later on. Chess literature suf
fers enough already from lack of ac
knowledgment; some chess writers have no
compunction about lifting chunks of analy
sis and leaving readers to assume it is origi
nal, which is unjust both to the originator
and to the student, who has a right to know
whether the authority for the analysis or
statements is one to inspire (a) trust or (b)
doubt-though, to be sure, trust is in general
a bad attitude in a chess student, and doubt
always safe.
I suggest reconnoitering the position
by the Levenfsh scheme detaled by Saapu.
This will not give a very clear-cut verdict,
but at least it will not give a considerable
plus for Black. White's aggressive 4/cS
and the isolated f soon to appear on Black's
-side (b- f or c- f) make that impossible
on any purely positional reconnaissance.
By Znosko-Borovsky's system of positional
valuation-material equal, "time" in White's
favor, space obviously so-we get a plus for
White, but I don't press this point, as Z-B's
system of positional valuation is quite illogi
cal and a serious faw in his otherwise excel
lent work on the middlegame. Also, by
Weaver W Adams' system we at any rate
get no plus for Black. Nor by any other
system I have heard of could we arrive at an
appreciable plus for Black-let alone a "con
siderable plus."
Therefore, according to Steinitz and
Emanuel Lasker-formidable authorities,
surely, seeing they monopolized the world
chapionship for about the last four de
cades of the 19th Century and first two of
the 20th-there is no point i Black's search
ing for a combinaton in the position of frst
diagram. He will only waste time.
Now, Alekhine was once asked, "From
what player have you leaed most?" and
he replied, "Steinitz." Then he was asked,
"With what master do you feel the most
affinity?" and he replied, "Anderssen. "
It is clear that he did not despise Stein
itz, but he knew that chess was a bottomless
ocean; you can survey it and acquire knowl
edge about it, but you cannot plumb it. So
he ignored the advice of Steinitz and Eman
uel Lasker and searched, like Anderssen,
for the magic talisman. He played:
26. Re3!!!
Now I quote his very important note:
"It seems almost incredible that this spec
tacular move not only stops White's attack
but even brings him into serious trouble.
And yet it is so." He adds, "It is obvious that
the Rook cannot be taken . . . "
Yes, obvious enough once you see the
move at all, but the difculty is to see moves
that put pieces en prie-especially here, for
even if one glanced at . . . Re3 the tendency
would be to think, "Yes. White can't take
the Rook straight away, but surely he can
f things so that it will have to retreat
sooner or later, and the net result will be
loss of time."
- 1 64 -
Hi Writings
The point of . . . Re3 is that it contains a
threat, namely . . . Rxg3f, with obvious win
ning variatons. White, however, has vari
ous parries, and the dificulty is in proving
that against all of them Black can come out
all right. Note that 2Z Rd3 is answered by
2Z .. Rxe2, whereas if 26 . . . Ra3, then 2Z Rd3
is good.
27. Nf?
All immortal brilliancies require the
defender's cooperation. He must, by chance,
select the replies which allow the brilliant
sequel. Alekhine tries to make out that he
could have gained an advantage still afer
2Z Bj Bxj 28. exj, and his analysis, so far
as I know, has never been challenged. But it
is quite wrong, and the truth is that Black
has an easy draw but nothing more, e.g., by
simply extricating his . He will afterwards
lose his weak f on the '-side, and because
of White's doubled f on the '-side White
would not have a vestige of a chance to win.
This is enough to prove the combination
sound, seeing that any other line would be
at least slightly in White's favor. But Ale
khine claims an advantage for Black, and
his anaysis (after 2Z Bj Bxj 28. exj) runs
28 . . . cxb5 29. Nxb5 Q5! "still with advan
tage for Black, as 3 0. Rxd5? would lose
immediately after 30 ... Re7 f 37. Rxe7 (el f
followed by . . . Ra 7. "
That is simply not true. Mter 32. Kg2
Ra 7 White plays 33. Rd8f. If then 33 ... Ne8,
34. Rxe8f Qe8 35. Nd6. White cannot lose,
and has winning chances. Or if 33 . . . Kh7,
34. Q! Af K6 35. f4 and White wins, for
now he has a safe piece plus, and if Black
regains it by 35 ... Q7 fand 36 ... Qb5, White
wins easily by 3Z Q5fand 38. Qf, etc.
Alekhine's analysis up to 37 ... Qe7fis,
however, okay for a draw, but Black must
then play 32 ... Nxd5 before . . . Ra1, leaving
White to force perpetual check.
It only occurred to me to check Ale
khine's analysis after writing all the article
up to this point; otherwise, I'd have chosen
a more convincing combinaton and a more
convincingly "inferior" position. I'll do that.
Just to show how the Alekhine game
went, here are the moves; and observe that
the combination goes on al the tme, though
it takes turns which could not possibly have
been visualized at the outset. The better the
player, the less he needs to analyze a com
bination right through; in each variation he
stops where his judgment tells him his at
tack is suficient. How do you tell when a
combination ends? The answer is, when a
"quiet" position is reached again-even if
only for one move. In this game, violent,
forcing, or semi-forcing moves by Black
persist right from Move 26 to the end. For
full notes, see My Best Games 7924-JZ
27. cxb5
28. Qxb5 Nc3!
29. Qxb7
If 29. Q4, . . . b5.
29.
30. Nxb7
31. K2
Qxb7
Nxe2t
Alekhine shows that Kf7 also loses.
31. . . .
Ne4!
Alekhine calls this the beginning of a
new combination arising out of the first, but
that is a subjective way of regarding it.
Objectively, it is a brilliant move by which
the original combination is kept alive.
32. Rc4! Nx
33. Bg2 Be6!
34. Rcc2 Ng4t
35. K3 NeSt
36. K2 Rxf!
37. Rxe2 Ng4t
38. K3 Ne3t
39. K2 Nxc2
40. Bxf Nd4!
41. Resigns
Because of 47. Re3 (or 47. R) Nxjf
42. Rxj Bd5! and Black wins a piece.
Thus the combination was 17 moves
- 1 65 -
The Search for Chess Perection
long. In November 1948 Chess Wrl we
gave one of Botvinnik's that ran to 22
moves-believed to be the longest in the
annals of chess.
Hoist With His On Petard
Since I have demonstrated that Reti
had a saving line, thereby weakening my
case-but demonstating once again that far
more published analysis is unsound,
Horato, than is dreamed of in your phi
losophy-I shall look at another position.
And why not one ofEmanuel Lasker's own,
since it was he that announced the crazy
"law"?
In tis case Lasker obeyed his own
"law," or Steinitz' s if you like, and thereby
lost the game he could have won-and he
lost, at the same time, the world title. For
the loss put him two down against Capa
blanca, a terrible handicap against a player
whose drawing tecnique was nearly infal
lible; a win would have made the score
one-all, with the fnal result unpredictable
since Lasker would have gained new heart.
You might wonder why I didn't seize on this
dramatic reftaton forthwith-I just didn't
think of it till the Alekhine combinaton
failed to work out a hundred percent.
Capablanca
1
Lasker (to play his 1 7th)
Reasoning on purely positional lines,
Black must be conceded a slight edge.
White's move ahead in development is vit
ated by the pin of his . White has an
isolated d- .. True to his Steinitzian "law,"
Lasker thought only of equalizing the posi
ton and played, accordingly, 17 Bxd5 Nxd5
18. Bxe7 Nxe7 19. Qb3 Bc6 20. Nxc6
bxc6. White has come out quite well; his
yielding of the "two Bishops" was only tem
porary, and as against White's "isolated cl
pawn", Black himself now has an isolated e
f . The position is balanced. Lasker drifted
unaccountably, and lost, but that has noth
ing to do with the case.
The Hungarian, Breyer, demonstrated
an absolute win for White in the positon
diagrammed, by 77 Bxf6!This gives up the
two .s without any positonal compensa
tion (if simply ... Nx6in reply), and it is only
when treated as the first move of a combi
naton that it begins to make sense. Lasker
failed to do so. It seems to have been pat of
Lasker's metod-never mentioned by him
in his books-to play the opening as quickly
as possible, going mainly by principles, so
as to conserve time; if he could be well
ahead of his opponent on the clock i the
middlegame, he did not object to a slight
disadvantage; his defensive skill wa great,
and in tying to increase his slight adva
tage against a precise defense, the opponent
was liable to get still frther behind on the
clock. Of course Lasker had no chance of
getting ahead of Capablanca's clock, but at
least he did not want to get far behind, so he
would naturally pursue his normal policy.
Thus Lasker would be averse to pondering
over "anti-positonal" moves like 7Z Bxf6.
He must, however, have glanced at it; I
wonder if he considered 7Z .. Nxf6 or 7Z ..
Bxf6 as the probable reply; very likely he
pictured either of these moves as good for
Black, not seeing any compensation for giv
ing up "the two Bishops."
No doubt had Lasker thought 7Z Bxf6
worthy of a good look, he would have seen
- 1 66 -
His Writings
its merits; but a player must follow his prin
ciples in cross-board chess, as time is short.
Lasker' s results show that his principles must
have been decidedly good, by and large,
but the one he followed here let him down.
It remains now to give Breyer's demonstra
tions, afer 7Z Bxf6!!
2
After the suggested 1 1. Bx/6!!
Variation I
17 .. Nx6 18. Ng6! Re8 (If .. .fg6, 79.
Rxe6 regains the piece with a passed f
plus, therefore winning.) 19. R6!!
And again White is a passed f +, and
wins, for if 19 ... fe6? White mates prettly
i four [Ed. Note: It goes 20. Bxe6f Kh7 21.
Njt Kh8 22. Q7f Nxh7 23. Ng6#.} It is
easy to see how even Lasker, if his prin
ciples told him a combinaton was not likely
in the positon, would fail to see all this.
Variation 1 1
17 .. Bxf6! 18. Bxd ed 19. Ng4!
In annotating the game in Mein
Wttkampf mit Capablnca, I do not know
whether Lasker had as yet seen Breyer's
analysis. At any rate, he gives Variation 11
only, and at this stage 19. Q, placing Black
in difculties. But Breyer's move is stron
ger.
19 ... Bg5. Black cannot let his position
be wrecked. Nor can he guard the threat
ened with his ' because of 20. Q with
multiple threats. If 19 ... Bd8, 20. Q forks
. and f. If 19 ... Bh4, 20. g3 Bg5 21. [4
forces . . . Bd8. 20.f4! Bxf4 21. Q.
At last! Now the ' comes here with
gain of tempo because it hits a loose piece.
21 ... Bc7 (so that after Qd5 the '-is
not pinned, e.g., if 27 ... Bb8, 22. Qd5 a6 23.
a4 Rd8 24. Q g6 25. Q5 ad wins, for
. . . Re8 loses the Exchange) . [Ed.: 25. Q5
loses to 25 . . . Bxe5. On the other hand, 21 . . . Bb8
i no prize and 21 . . . Bg5 i certainly better. 24 . . .
g6 i bad because of25. Nxh6f. W don't know
what Prdy had in mind here.}
Breyer did not analyze 21 . . . Bg5 22.
Qd5 a6 23. Qb7 @4; however, after 24.
Nxb5 axb5 25. Re2 Black has a f- and
virtually no compensation.
22. Nxd K8 (White threatened mate
in tree, also a fork.) 2. Nxh6! gxh6 (Else
White has a f + and stll his attack.) 24. Nf6
and wins. (If 24 . . . Kg7, mate in three. If 24 . . .
Bd3, 25. Qxd3 with a winning attack and a
f + thrown in.)
Other Variations
If 7Z .. Nxc3, 18. Bxe7 and White will
emerge with . and two pieces for [E.
Note: Afer 19 . . . Ne2f 20. Rxe2 Rxc2 21.
Rxc2].
If 7Z .. gxf6 18. Ng6! is a simple and
decisive little combinaton, easily worked
out.
Breyer seems to have proved that 7Z
Bxf6 gives White a suficient advantage to
win in all variatons.
What then?
The logical mind must then insist that
there must have been an advantage for
Black inherent in Diagram 2. Of course!
What are we to deduce? There are two lines
of thought available.
1. That a positional valuation is valid
only on the assumpton that the player to
move has no sound combinaton and is
threatened with none.
2. That the accepted ways of evaluat
ing a position are too rough and ready-tat
- 1 67 -
The Search for Chess Perection
we ought to go further and look for
combinative "motifs" (signposts suggestng
the mere possibility of combinations) as
part of our valuation.
Now, proposition 1 is absolutely tue,
so we can let it stay put whether 2 is sound
or not.
Proposition 2, up to the dash, is also
right. In particular, none of the systems of
positional valuation sufciently emphasize
the overriding importance of the respective
s. Most of them ask you to compare the
s, but they merely treat them as a factor
without stressing that they are an overrid
ing factor. The s must be looked to from
two viewpoints:
(a) degree of exposure ( f shelter or
lack thereof) ;
(b) number of hostile pieces able to be
brought to bear quickly, relative to the num
ber of defending pieces.
If we look at Diagram 1 from these
viewpoints, we see that White is slightly
ahead in (a) and clearly ahead in (b), and
then Breyer's combination begins to look
less surprising. This reduces the romance,
but gives us a chance to become better
players. True, both (a) and (b), but particu
larly (b), are always almost impossible to
estmate with precision in the matter of
degree or extent, but that is no tragedy. It is
not so vital to decide who, on the whole, has
the better game as to decide where each
player's prospects lie.
The question that matters to you in
actual play is simply "What is my best
move?", and if you can decide without be
ing sure who has the theoretical advantage,
so much the better.
What about "motfs" for combination
other than the s-"pins," "nets," "ties,"
etc. ? Well, if you notce a tied piece you are
entitled to count it as a positional disadva
tage anyway, and the same applies to a
piece with limited or no retreat (therefore in
danger of netting) . Pieces standing on the
same fle, rank, or diagonal, or on squares
of the same calor bearing a certain ge
ometrical relation (subject to a 4 fork if a 4
is handy) , cannot always be treated as weak
nesses; so much depends on whether an
enemy piece is available to make some
thing of it.
It boils down to this-that if you try to
combine the positonal and combinative
reconnaissance and call it all positional,
your verdict will be very indeterminate.
Better to make a purely positional recon
naissance first (but including the s as para
mount) , because ten-ithere are no com
binations around, as usually there aren't
you have a reasonably precise valuation
going on. But you must remember to look
for combinative possibilities then.
The truth about combinations in gen
eral can be illustrated in a way more fantas
tic than precise-and fantastic ways are the
best because easily remembered-by a tale
of Baron Munchausen. He had only one
charge for his gun, but, for some reason I
cannot call to mind, needed quite a large
number of ducks for provisions. So he waited
patiently for days, hidden in the rushes, and
was at last rewarded by seeing the ducks,
for one instant, ranged in a straight line
passing through his post of vantage. Taking
rapid aim, he fred, and the musket ball
went clean through every duck in the pack.
That was a combinaton. Munchausen had
to wait for one particular configuraton; in
chess, there are a great many-a book which
sets out the types in full variety is Winning
Chess by Chernev and Reinfeld.
- 1 68 -
His Writings
WAT IS A COMBINATION!
In a previous article [Ed.: How to Tckle Wl Positiom, Chess World, August 1955, to
be reprinted in CJ.S. Prdy 's Fine Art ofChess Annotation Vl. 2 }, I wrote a good deal about
the investigation of threats in any position to see which ones, if any, are real.
Before proceeding with the present ar
ticle, I ask every reader of it to cast his eye
over the frst diagram. It is Black's move,
and you are asked what you consider his
best. White has a very real threat in Bg5,
winning the Y in a few moves. Black can
not play 7 ... Qbecause of 2. e4 Qh5 3. Be2
and again the Y is lost. In development,
Black is already three or four tempi behind.
But still, his position is not yet resignable.
What do you think he should play, and
why?
Don't tur over the pages yet, because
a suggested answer is given frther on, and
it is really important that the reader should
decide on his own answer first. So I will go
on to something else.
Position Play v. Combination
For many years I have been writng,
of and on, about the distinction between
combination and position play. There is no
doubt that even if the two merge occasion
ally, the broad distinction must be under
stood if anything remotely resembling sane
chess is to be played. For instance, there is
no doubt that in some positons there is a
winning combinaton to be found, and ei
ther the player fnds it and wins, or doesn't
find it and doesn't win. There is equally no
doubt that in most positions there is no such
combinaton to be found-there are prob
ably spectacular, forcing moves that have
to be looked at, but they al prove to be
unsound-and in tese positions, since not
ing can be forced and the opponent has a
wide choice, the art is to fnd, if possible, the
move, at least a move, which will give the
best results attanable no matter what the
opponent does. That is position play, and it
covers an enormously wide field. It deals
only with small improvements in a posi
tion, never with big gains; but it is just as
important as combinaton because, between
experts who can usually prevent accidental
combinations, neither player is very likely
to get the chance for a combination unless
he can build up an advantage in little ways
first.
Some authors do not explicitly differ
entiate between the two different ways of
thinking in chess-te combinative and the
positional. But they still have to use the two
diferent ways, even if they don't enable the
student to realize it or don't even realize it
themselves. For in such a book, where posi
tional ideas are being discussed in connec
tion with some illustative game, the author
will fnd himself compelled to interpolate
such notes as, "Not yet Nd6 because of the
sacrifcial reply ... Bxht"followed by a stng
of moves. Perhaps the author does not ever
- 1 69 -
The Search for Chess Perection
discuss sacrifces and combinations in the
book, but still he is unable to write a chess
book at all without bringing them in. For,
whether he likes to admit it or not, a sound
combination overrides all positional "prin
ciples" whenever it chances to crop up.
Such a book ca be informatve to ad
vanced players who understand that, but
may terribly confse those who don't.
Combination: Attempts at Definition
In this article I deal with combinations
alone, because I have lately carried my
investigation of the subject a stage frther.
Attempts to define a combinaton have
been legion. The touble is that a combina
tion can be looked at fom so many differ
ent aspects. These are some of the attempts:
Emanuel Lasker: "A variation or net of
variations which leads to a desirable issue
by force." (Manual, p. 123.)
Znosko-Borovks: "A maneuver distin
guished by surprise (usually springing from
a sacrifce) which brings about a sudden
change in the positon, and should gain
some advantage." (Art of Combination, p.
19.)
Euwe: "A short part of the game within
which a certain purpose is attained by force."
(Strateg and Tctics, p. 58.)
Romanovsk: "A vaiation (or group of
variations) in the course of which both sides
make forced moves and which ends with an
objective advantage for the active side." (As
translated from the Russian by S. Garry i
Botvinnik's 100 Selected Games.)
Botvinnik: "A forced variaton with sac
rifice." (As translated from the Russian by
S. Garry in 100 Selected Games.)
Fine: "A double attack."
Gardner: "A series of moves, with a
threat at every stage and at least one of te
threats a double threat, so that the oppo
nent is compelled to lose material or other
wise submit to disadvantage." (Lecture in
Dunedin, New Zealand, 1954.)
Prdy: "Play of which the inital move
would lead to gain in every possible varia
tion, through weakness at more than one
point." ("Secrets of the Chessboard," ACR,
March 1938.)
Prdy: "A sudden coup which brings
about a substantial gain, no matter what
reply the enemy makes." ( Guide to Good
Chess, 1950, 1952, 1954.)
The last is not an attempt at complete
definition, but at one which will be under
stood by beginners, since it occurs in Part I,
the porton of Guide to Good Chess intended
patly to introduce the game to people who
know nothing about it.
Romanovsky gives a traditional sort of
defniton, while Botvinnik "rolls his own."
Botvinnik criticizes Romanovsky's defini
tion because it would include tings which
come under the category of maneuvers
rather than combinations. It lacks the crash
bang-wallop effect that we always associate
with a combination.
Botvinnik's own definition covers most
combinations, but it does not cover a com
binaton like the one in the second diagram.
I hardly think that Botvinnik would call this
a maneuver. Even if he would, few other
people would. Then again, his defnition
fails to include a great many combinations
of the "net" type. Here we have a succes
sion of threats winding up with the capture
of the netted piece, where the netter may
have sacrificed nothing at all. Combina
tions are characterized by violent moves,
but not necessarily sacrifices, see Diagram
2, for example.
- 1 70 -
Hi Wrting
White to play, wins by 1. Bb5t Ke7 2.
Nf5t Ke6 3. Nxg7t, etc.
Fine's defnition is an obvious over
simplifcaton. It cuts down to three words
the leading idea of most combinatons, but
not all.
Dr. Gardner's definition is an excellent
one for combinations other than "nets,"
which do not necessarily contain a double
threat unless you define a threat in a very
special way merely to ft in with the defini
tion. Since mate is a particular case of a net
("encircling motif," to use Lasker's more
grandiose language), this is a serious matter.
But Gardner's definition has advantages
over the others.
Difficulty of Definition
The word combination covers so very
wide a field that it is hard to define it pre
cisely and usefully at one and the same
time. A wide defnition is likely to be too
abstract, and a less abstact one is likely to
be too narrow.
It is possible to give a good idea of
what a combinaton is in one word.
A combination is a coup.
There is no other single word that
comes anywhere near it.
Thoughtl players often wonder how
the word "combination" in chess arose. I
a certain it was merely a literal translation
of the French "combination," which can
have the meaning of "a contrivance." This
meaning is lost in the translation. A combi-
nation in chess is indeed a special contriv
ance by which an out-of-the-way efect is
achieved. To use a very crude analogy, po
siton play is like a number of people liftng
a car with their bare hands; a combination
is utilizing the special principles of physics
and jacking it up, but in chess it is only
sometimes that a jack is handy. Or, to take
another analogy, while position play is pe
destrian, a combinaton is the utlization of
a car, a plane, or a helicopter-a contrivance
in which physical laws of various kinds are
utlized to produce extraordinary speeds.
Answer to Problem with Commentary
I tied to set this problem (see diagram
at start of article) without giving the show
away. Mostly, problems from actual play
are too easy because the mere fact that an
author thinks one worth a diagram indi
cates a surprising type of key move, and the
student is thus led to examine moves which
would entrely escape him in actual play.
In the present case, for example, a
caption "Black to play ad win" would have
made the problem so easy as to destroy its
value. Black does win, ad quite easily, by
1 ... d5. This happens to be a double threat.
One of the threats is very obvious, te other
not so obvious unless you have read the
masterpiece by Kahn and Renaud, Te Art
of Checkmate. Since the second threat is mate
(in two), the frst treat cannot be parried,
so White must lose a piece, for which even
his four tempi are not nearly enough com
pensation.
White's threat of winning te by
Bg5becomes meaningless, since 7 ... d5 pro
duces a counter-threat that sends it reeling
back on its haunches. This shows how im
portant it is, once you have discovered the
opponent's threat or threats, to imagine pro
ter that he could not possibly execute tem,
and ten examine possible attacking moves
since one of these may wipe te threat out.
- 1 7 1 -
Te Search for Chess Perection
Once you become obsessed with an oppo
nent's threat, you are liable to start scratch
ing around for a defense. On te other
hand, if you don't even bother to see if he
has any, you will be constantly making
absurd blunders, because very fequently a
defensive move does happen to be neces
sary.
It is interesting to observe that the win
ning move would be much easier to see if
Black's c- f were on c6 instead of c7 For
then 1 . . . d5 would be shrieking to be played
from a purely positonal viewpoint. Not
only would it gain a refuge for the threat
ened (at e6), but it would open a line for
the -A while gaining time by hitting
White's -A. In other words, Black would
play it whether he saw it treatened mate or
not. Let us suppose that in answer to 1 ... d5
White withdrew his to f1 or e2. So far, let
us assume, neither side has seen the combi
naton. Now, with the -A's diagonal open,
Black does see it. Let's say we have started
from this position (after . . . d5, Bfl) and do
not know what has gone before. Now we
have the two-move combination 1... Qc3f!!
2. bxc3 (absolutely forced) Ba3#.
I have put the matter this way so as to
get a combination which Dr. Gardner's ot
erwise excellent defnition would not well
fit. Neither of the two moves of this combi
naton can reasonably be described as con
taining a double threat. Both are single
threats, but it just happens that there is no
defense. On te other hand, if we begin
with the actual diagram, the frst move 1 ...
d5 does happen to be a double threat.
Another Moral
Look at the diagram again in the light
ofEmanuel Lasker's erroneous proposition:
"No combination without a considerable
plus, no considerable plus without a combi
nation."
I proved the absurdity of this in my
Chess Urlarticle of November 1953 to the
satsfacton of all but a few readers who
apparently regard any disagreement with
Lasker as sacrilege. I regard Emanuel Las
ker as occupying in chess a position almost
like that of Shaespeare in literature, but
Ben Jonson was able to say of Shakespeare,
"I loved the man tis side idolatry," and still
to believe that he had written a few of the
worst plays ever published-as indeed he
had. Equally, it was quite possible for Las
ker occasionally to talk nonsense.
I have had correspondents argue that
if a player has in a given position a winning
combination, he must for that very reason
have had "a considerable plus." All right,
but they admit that very ofen it is abso
lutely necessary to see the combination be
fore you can see the plus. In that case, we
frst see the combination, then deduce that
there is a considerable plus, and from that
fact draw the marvelous conclusion that
there may be a combination!
Lasker's statement quite obviously im
plies that it is no use looking for a combina
tion unless there is a positional advantage.
Here, reasoningpositionally, White is about
four tempi ahead, and he has what is gener
ally regarded as ensuring the safety of a
plenty of pieces around him. As it happens,
the /d2 and the ./dl deprive the of
fight squares, and it is true that this should
help to give Black the clue to a mating
combination; but to call this a "consider
able plus" is to twist words in a way that
neither Lasker nor any other person could
possibly defend.
It is true that combinations are usually
brought off by the player with the clearly
superior position, but many combinations
arise entirely through an error by one side.
This is quite often made in a position which,
before the error, was much superior, and
which, even after the error, cannot be seen
to be inferior unless and until one sees the
- 1 72
-
His Wrtings
combination which the error has made pos
sible. Nobody can possibly dispute these
statements.
The conclusion is that in any position
we should be optimistc enough to look
around for possible combinations, even if
we can often cut the search down to a mere
glance, that being enough to show that the
search is hopeless. We must never be de
terred by what appears to be a general
positional disadvantage. Every part of the
board must be examined for some acciden-
I n 1 995 Thi nkers'
Press was fortunate i n
securi ng a purchased
agreement with Mrs.
Anne Purdy, and
others, to republ i sh
any or al l of C.j . S.
Purdy's chess writings.
tal feature of a sort that we know may give
rise to a combinaton. Such things override
all "positional" rules and precepts.
In the diagram, remove White's 4
fom d2 to any other square but e4, and
then it is quite correct to say that White
ought to win-on the purely positional rea
soning that he is three or more tempi ahead
in development. But if it is at d2, there is a
sound combination, and positional reason
ing is misleading.
CECIL JOHN SEDDON
lt i s her wish that the PURDY 1 906- 1 976
next vol ume i n the
Purdy li brary Series that we publ i sh wi l l be
"How Purdy Won" because she fel t it never got
the attenti on it deserved (thi s is true).
I n early 1 998 we wi l l republ i sh "How Purdy
Won" by C.j . S. Purdy, Frank Hutchi ngs, and
Kevi n Harrison. l t wi l l be done i n al gebrai c
notati on, compl etely reformatted, and reedited.
- 1 73 -
The Search for Ches Perection
HOW TO THINK IN CHESS
ON THREATS
Threats are the basis of winning chess.
In my article "What Is a Combination?" I included nine diferent defnitions of a
combination by eight diferent writers; I implied that none was flly satisfactory, and that
I was brewing a follow-up article which would attempt to throw new light. This is it.
The essential of a combinaton is an attempt to gain something by force.
What exactly does force mean? Simply limitation of choice of moves. When we have
a move that leaves the opponent a wide choice, as we usually must, our move cannot
possibly form part of a combinaton. It canot efect a substantial gain of any sort.
Limitaton of our opponent's choice is not in itself a combinaton. We may so force
him that he has only one move, but that move may be a winner! So the limitation must be
unfavorable.
How is limitaton achieved? In general, only by threats. There is one solitary
excepton, and that is in positons where if it were the opponent's move he would have to
sufer some loss. In such a case, if we can find some move which leaves the situation in
essentas absolutely undisturbed, we place him in zugzwang (literaly "move-compul
sion") . Because such a move strikes a paradoxical note (masterly inactivity as a forcing
measure!) , it is reasonable to class it as combinative. Emanuel Lasker did class zganas
a type of combination.
If we avoid doing so, ad treat zug;: an as something unique, we can say that:
Ever move ofthe attacker in ever variaton ofever combination i a threaL
That excludes the culminatng move to which every variation must lead-either a
mate, a capture, or-some authorities exclude this-a very great positional gain, such as the
establishment of two s on te seventh/second rank. That move is not part of the
combinaton, but its payof. The payof may be entrely diferent in each variation.
Combinations shade of, till you get down to such simple coups that few or no players
are prepared to dignif them wit the title of combination. For instance, I play d4, hitting
your AleS early in the opening and forcing it to move a second tme. My move had a
threat, and I have gained a clear tempo. This can be given a material equivalent. Roughly
a third of a f -a little more or less according to circumstances. So it might be agued that
it is a combinaton, though of a very rudimentary kind.
I doubt if it matters whether we call it a combination or not. Certainly general
agreement to do so would never be reached.
The important thing is to recognize the overriding importance of threats in cess.
In real life, a threat is an unpleasat thing, often punishable by law. But chess is a
game. We are allowed to stive for victory with all our powers, within the rules of the
game, and victory without threats is impossible. A threat in chess is not a threat to our
- 1 74 -
His Wrtings
opponent as a person, but a threat to his
pieces. And the pieces themselves are the
only abstractons. They are "such stuff as
dreams are made on."
As I shall be witng so much about
threats, I am at pains to dissociate the term
from any unpleasant connotaton. Chess is
a wholly pleasant game, rigtly played.
What do we mean by a threat? Assum
ing it is your tur to move:
A threat i a move the op onent coul
mk i i wee his tur to move whih
would be damain to your game.
It is most important to get this wording
clear. A threat is a move. Loosely, we ofen
say "He seems to be threatening to tap my
Queen." Or "His threat is to trap my
Queen." In such vague thinking lies the
root of many bad moves. Instead, you must
think in actual moves. Look at an actual
move that could be a threat, and try to find,
by a little calculation, whether it is a real
threat or only an apparent threat.
A threat is Rd4, BB, Qh6-not a treat
"to take my pawn," "to chivvy my Queen,"
or "to come down here and start trying to
mate." Cut out all baby-talk.
To think of threats in words will con
tinually throw you astray. Listen to experts
in a postortem, and you will continually
hear them say things like "Is R7 a treat?
Well, let
'
s see if it is." They get down to
brass tacks-moves, not words.
Having got it straight that a treat is a
move, let us remember that it is always an
imaginar move, since, by definiton, it vio
lates the laws of chess. It is a move the
opponent could make iit were his tur to
move, which it never is ("opponent" is used
in the old legal sense of "player not to
move").
An actual move made should never be
alluded to as a threat. But we may, I think,
speak of it as a threatening move, meaning
that it contans a threat, e.g., a move like
Q2 may be "threatening" because it con
tains the threat of @6. If tat threat is not
parried and @6 is played, then Q. h6 is no
longer a threat because it has been played.
Whatever is done in chess is the past and
ceases to matter. Theoretically, you are not
interested in any partcular move your op
ponent has made, but only in te total present
positon and te future. That was the view
of Alekhine, the greatest player of all time
but it
'
s not "view" at al, any more than
there can be a "view" that two and two
make four.
Mter Qh6 has been played, it may be
that Q74 is a threat.
A little point arises wit a check. To be
consistent, we must say that a check, once
made (say R7f), is not a treat, but that it
contains the threat of ) takes .
Well, tat may sound fnny, but it is
right. Every treat is an imaginary move,
and every check threatens the imaginary
capture of the . The threat is never ex
ecuted, because if the opponent fails at frst
to parry it he is compelled by te rules to
retact his move and do so-except in light
ning chess, where Re7 is perfectly legal.
But although a check, when given, is
no longer a threat, it may well be a threat
before it has occurred.
It i impossil to ply chess even pass
ably wel unlss you see all captres and
check at your own and your op onent's
diposal
Observaton must precede tought, else
the "thought" will be waste of tme.
But seein captre and chec i not
enouh. Tu must see al real threat. Tat
means you must alo see the unreali of
unreal threat.
- 1 75 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Here we come to a nice point. It is
ofen dificult to determine whether a threat
is real or unreal.
(An unreal threat is a move which your
opponent might make if it were his move
and which may appear damaging, but which
a deeper examination will prove harmless
or even suicidal.)
When in doubt, you can always save
tme by remembering tat it is really your
move. Try then the following way of think
ing.
Imane the threat coul not possily be
exectd. T what woul be my best move?
Trout each attacive move separatly, con
sierin each one a folows. Viualie the
whol position a it would be afr thi move
ofyours, and then work out whethe the
opponent would gain by executing his
''hreat "
This is not only a good way to think
when you are uncertain if a threat is real,
but even when you know it is real. For if you
know it is real, you are prone to play defen
sively, which may lose you an opportunity:
Capablanca-Bogoljubov, Carlsbad 1929.
After 8 . . . NcS
It may be a little ticky to work out
whether 9 . . . Ncxe4is a real threat. Actually,
it isn't, and it is very easy to see that 9 . . .
Nfe4 isn't. But Capablanca reasoned that
9. Nc was a developing move he wanted
to play anyway, and it would make calcula
tion unnecessary, as it gives the e- f extra
guard. So he played it.
But forcing the enemy to move a
out of play is usually even better than devel
opment. Had Capa reasoned on the lines
set out in my last paragraph in italics, he
would have considered 9. b4! This would
force the to withdraw (if 9 . . . Ncxe4?? 10.
j) and gain valuable space on the -side.
Znosko-Borovsky published Capa's
failure to play 9. b4 in a list of "Carlsbad
Blunders."
Since exaggeration in chess writing is
rife and hamful, I mention that there is
only a fne shade of position involved. After
9. b4 Ncd7 10. Bb2 a5 11. a3, Black can free
his game by a . swap, and White's advan
tage is slight. On the other hand, afer 9.
Nbc3 a5 White probably had none at all.
In your own games, I suggest you try
investigating treats (both real and doubt
ful) on the lines suggested.
MORE ON THREATS
My last article opened with the sen
tence, "Threats are the basis of winning
chess."
It is most important to reaize tis flly.
Apart from zugzwang, you cannot gain
ground in a game of chess without threats.
This is easily proved by defnition.
We defned a threat as:
' move the op onent coul make i i
were hi tr to move which woul be dam
aing to your game. "
Equally well:
' move you coul m i i wee your
tr to move whih woul be damain to
your op onet's game. "
- 1 76
-
His Writings
So if either player makes a move that
does not contan a threat, it means he could
not damage his opponent's game even if he
were suddenly given the right to make two
moves in succession. Still less can he do so if
the opponent has a move in between.
"Still less" is subject to occasiona ex
ceptions. In some positions, the opponent
has no move which will improve his posi
tion, e.g., his best course is to let his
oscillate between hl and gl. In such posi
tions, "stll less" would be the wrong words.
"No more" would be correct. But the proof
is not afected.
Finally, there is the very exceptional
case of zgzang. This is a case where the
player is under no threat, but any move will
make his position worse. So of course we
had to give this as an exception at the
outset.
We cannot always treaten, nor is a
threatening move invariably better tha a
non threatening one, since the opponent may
be able to parry the threat with a powerfl
threatening move of his own. Indiscrimi
nately selecting moves just because they
contain dangerous threats is no use; you
must pay some attenton to what the oppo
nent can do in reply. Never imagine that
you can under any circumstances dispense
with calculation, though only a very little
will sometimes sufce.
However, without regarding every
treatening move as necessarily stong, we
should search for stong ones at every move,
even when the opponent himself is stongly
threatening us.
A tennis player, when caught in a terri
bly defensive position, may startle his op
ponent with an unanswerable shot, as when
he volleys a smash and, being near the net,
easily passes his opponent. Still commoner
ae attacking resources by a defender in
chess. It is perfectly tue that a player with
an "overwhelming positon" ought theo-
retcally to win a game of chess, just as he
ought to win a rally in tennis. But attackers
rarely play perfectly; they make mistakes.
Get away fom the tme-honored con
cept of military strategy in chess, where
plans of campaign are the dominating fac
tor. Chess is better regarded as something
like a long rally in tennis. You plan, but
must not be at al surprised i you have to
discard your plan next move, either be
cause your opponent plays weakly ad gives
you a new opportunity or he plays strongly
and shows that your pla is not feasible.
All this is true for correspondence chess
at least as much as cross-board. Truer, in
fact. For adherence to plans has the advan
tage in cross-boad chess of gaining on the
clock. But correspondence chess is pure
chess, divorced from such extraneous con
sideratons, and is therefore better than cross
board chess as a startng-point for discuss
ing pure chess theory. It is here that the old
chess concepts based on military strategy
will let you down most seriously. This is the
brach of the game in which my views are
least likely to be disputed. It is quite true
that correspondence-chess methods cannot
be proftably applied to cross-board chess
in general, but correspondence chess does
teach us a lot about basic chess theory.
In cross-board chess we have to strike
a compromise between pure theory and
practcal politics. It does not pay to ponder
deeply on a search for the perfect move in
all positions, as many champions do to their
cost -they know it is unwise, but get bogged
down in such cogitations in spite of it-but it
does pay to be invariably alert for tactical
resources-more simply, moves that con
tain strong threats.
Formerly, I always put the advice in
the form "Always be on the lookout for
combinatons." The dificulty with that term
is that agreement has never been reached,
and will never be reached, as to just what
- 1 77 -
The Search for Chess Perection
kinds of series of threatening moves merit
the designation. There will always be bor
derline cases, but a series of threatening
moves may be decisive whether all author
ites are willing to call it a combinaton or
not.
In other words, my emphasis is hence
forth on threat, which are the component
parts of combinations, rather than on com
binations, since this is a controversial term.
That is the general answer to the fol
lowing valued letter from Mr. Max Salm,
whose opinions-as one of the world's best
correspondence players-ca never be teat
ed lightly.
In the course of the letter we make
interpolatons, answering the points seria
tim rather than en bloc.
Mr. Salm fails to see eye to eye with me
manly because I have not previously ex
plained my new viewpoint flly. In spite of
that, his letter is opportune, since argument
is more instuctive than monologue.
Dear Cecil,
I suppose you are invitng comment
on your artcles on treats even i you are
too busy to answer!
Actually the term "combination" is
not really defned. Your "defnition" only
describes what each move is, that is, a
threat. Ofen in games we have a series of
moves which presents the opponent at
every tur of move with a threat that
requires answering untl ultimately one
threat leaves the opponent without ad
equate counter. Is this a combinaton? It
could be only middlegame play, or could
even start right from the opening itself,
and yet by no stetch of the imaginaton
lead one into describing it as a "combina
ton." But it does meet the requirements
of your "combinaton."
Al this has been aswered above. If
you defne a combination in a way narrow
enough to suit all views, you will exclude
some kinds of forcing lines composed of
threats, just as important to see in actual
play, but too humdrum to most players'
notons to be called combinatons.
If you see all moves contaning threats,
you will inevitably see all combinations
however widely or narrowly you defne a
combination. So I am no longer vitally con
cered with the endless controversy as to
what is or is not a combination.
Mter saying "it is reasonable to class
2gzan as combinatve," how can you
leave it out of your defniton. If one does
accept your positon that it is unique,
what then do you cal 2gzan?
While it is "reasonable" to class the
producton of zugan as a kind of combi
naton, few writers do so, and I think it is
more helpfl not to. In actual play, thinking
about such a wide concept as combinatons
might help you to see you could produce a
zgan but tng about zgzanwould
be a surer help; and the clue would consist
in noticing an already existent limitaton of
moves. What do I call zugzang? Just zug
zwan. If it is unique, it cannot be classifed.
There are also drawing combinations
{with stalemate as the ultmate) which are
not covered by your defnition of a threat;
for a draw is not damaging to one's game,
even if it could be to one's ego. This
aspect you do not consider-perhaps you
doubt their existence altogether.
The executon of a treat to draw would
aways be damaging to a superior positon.
If a player in an inferior positon notces
that his opponent is "threatening" to draw,
it is up to him to decide whether it is a threat
or not. Supposing him to be much the ston-
- 1 78 -
His Writings
ger player, confdent of winning even from
his inferior position, he could regard the
threat as real and part of the combination
which, fom his viewpoint, would be a sound
one. Otherwise it would be an unreal threat
or non-threat, and part of a unsound com
bination. There are plenty of spectacular
series of moves that look like combinations,
only they lead to bad results. One can only
call these "unsound combinations." They
consist wholly or partly of unreal threats.
Theoretical writing cannot teat blunders as
combinations.
In your defniton of a threat, the word
"damaging" is very vague. One could
lose a pawn, and this would be damaging
to one's game but it would not necessarily
mean the loss of the game, for in many
types of endings a pawn minus is not
fatal. Then positionally what is damaging
to one player may not be deemed so to
another type of player {Crow!, for in
stance!)
Individual idiosyncrasies cannot con
cer a theorist. A player in his own game
may consider some fancied threat to be
real, i.e., damaging. If an annotator subse
quently can show tat, for chess players in
general, it would not have been damaging
even if executed, then that is the truth for
players in general, which is all that can
concer a writer. One can go frther-it
might pay a player, over the board, to pre
vent something rather than spend a long
time wondering if he ought to or not. Writ
ing purely objectively amounts to treatng
every position as in correspondence chess.
But the point is not of practcal impor
tance. In any situation in actual play, it rests
with the player to decide whether some
thing would be damaging.
Another thing, all threats are real, that
is, capable of being executed. The point
at issue is whether they are profitable or
not. An unreal threat just does not exist!
Exactly! A unreal treat is not a threat.
It looks as i it might be a threat atfrrst, or to
some players all the tme, but it is not a
threat. But it is convenient to speak of an
unreal threat, just as it is convenient to
speak of imitation pearls. A unproftable
threat by my defnition cannot exist. To be
real, i.e., to exist, it must be damaging to the
opponent and therefore proftable to the
threatener.
A Little Problem
In the opening, say after 1. e4 e5, can
we say Black is "threatening" to develop a
piece? No, if both sides make developing
moves with nothing else involved, we have
merely a see-saw. Neither side is "gaining
ground" -please read again the second para
graph of this artcle. Threats are concered
with upsetting the balance, e.g., gettng "the
two Bishops," forcing a weakening move,
gaining a tempo, winning a . , and so forth.
"How to Win"
The cover caption "How to Win" re
fers to this whole series rather than this one
artcle. The brass tacks are to come later.
Students must remember we are on to
new ground in chess literature, and plenty
of justifcation is needed for breaing with
traditon. Most of what has been written on
combinatons is based primarily on Eman
uel Lasker' s pioneer work, and secondarily
on my own amplificatons ad divergences
over the years 1932-55. There has been
very little other original work. So, although
it appears to many that I am chalenging
other writers' opinions, what I am mainly
doing is developing my own-and tis auto
matically involves disagreeing with writers
who have accepted my earlier ones.
- 1 79 -
Te Search for Ches Perection
EVER MOVE IS PARTLY WEAKENING!
"Except the matng move, there is no move which does not weaken some part of a
position."-Tarrasch.
Of all the pronouncements of Dr. Tarrasch, "the man who taught Europe chess," the
one just quoted has aways impressed me the most. It is not ofen that one can lay down
a rule without an exception, or what amounts to the same thing-with only one excepton,
and that clear-cut.
Moreover, Tarrasch's dictum is one that is worth bearing in mind at every move in
every game you play.
Every move you make, however strong it may be, robs something of protection;
perhaps a piece or f, perhaps some squares, or perhaps only one square.
Tarrasch's exception can be extended slightly. Not only the mating move, but every
move in a combinaton leading to a forced mate in every variation can be excepted; or, if
you like, any "weakening" efect is purely academic. This excepton is not important to
remember. Aer all, "strengthening" and "weaening" are usefl in practice only as
positional terms, ad have validity only if there is no forcing line (combination) to
supersede them in any particular position.
Whatever is weakened, it is most important to see before you move wheter the
weakening is serious. In many cases, it will not be; e.g., a moved fom captvity at all a8
onto an open file moves away fom its protection of te a- ., but usually this will be a
matter not worth bothering about. All the same, you should investigate; it might
conceivably be quite serious or even disastous, as in tis positon, C. Purdy-Awdiew,
Melboure 1956-57
After I 0. 0-0
Here Black played the plausible devel
opment move 10 ReS?, when 11. N5
gave White a big advantage ( 11 ... RB 12.
Nd6).
The weakening caused by the move of
a piece is temporary; the weakening caused
by te move of a . is permanent.
But a "temporary" weakening may be
of more importance than a permanent one,
e.g., a may vacate the back rank and
allow a mate in one. Combinatons usually
take advantage of temporary and perma
nent weaknesses at the same tme.
The conception that every move is
partly weakening helps us to understand
Nimzovich's dictum:
"There is no such thing as an abso
lutely feeing move."
In other words, an opponent with a
cramped game must aim at some feeing
move or other, but that freeing move can
- 1 80 -
His Writings
always be utlized by the opponent for his
own benefit to some extent. It follows that
Znosko-Borovsky's dictum that a proper
way to proceed against a cramped game is
to prevent freeing moves is not quite exact.
One should say not "prevent," but "provide
against."
That wording includes either direct
prevention or what Nimzovich calls, for
want of a better term, "prophylactic" play.
To mae this clear, let us examine an
example from a game between two A-grade
club players in Sydney.
White to play
White has an immensely superior po
sition; Black is very cramped. Apparently
White noticed that Black might fee his
game slightly if permitted to play . . . b5. This
induced him, on the strength of Znosko
Borovsky's dictum mentoned above, to play
the absolute preventve move a4!?
Now, such a move is really a conces
sion to te enemy. White interrupts his
development to mae a move that is in its
nature weaening. Before doing such a ting,
one should look for a move which may be
of a generally helpfl nature and which,
while allowing te "freeing" move, pro
vides for some means of taing advantage
of it.
If such a move can be found, te oppo
nent will probably be deterred from ma
ing the "feeing" move, and te efect will
therefore be the same a if you had made
the absolute preventive move, only that
you will have strengthened your position
instead of weaening it.
In this case, any developing move will
do for White, e.g., 1. Racl (the most natu
ral) . For if 7 . . . b5, then 2. cxb5 cxb5 3. a4!
Here a4 comes in as an attacking move
instead of a preventive one. Afer 3 .. . bxa4
(forced) 4. Nxa4 many lines are opened up,
and all White's pieces blossom out. This
. .. b5 proves itself most decidedly "not an
absolute feeing move."
Anoter example occurred a little later.
The play went:
1. a4 Re8
2. c
Not consistent; better on te previous
move, if done at all. Better now to omit it, as
it releases the pressure on the point d5, and
thus makes it possible for Black to manage
the freeing move . .. e5. We should have pre
ferred 2. h, providing a safe place for the
valuable -A if threatened with exchange
by . .. Nh5.
It may be objected, "But isn't h seri
ously weaening?"
When the opponent has castled on the
-side, no; the weakening efect of h is
then very slight, ad the move provides a
usefl escape for the later on.
True, ... N5 could be aswered by Bd6,
but then Black could force an exchange and
fee his game slightly by . . . dc4 Bxc4 N6.
Exchanges, especially of a mobile ,, should
be avoided, as a rule, when the opponent is
seriously cramped.
2. . . . Nf
And now White made another preven
tive move,
3. a! ?
This cery prevents Black from ever
moving his b- f . But such a move is not
worth preventng, since it would weaken
Black more than it would free him. How
ever, the freeing move that Black realy
- 1 8 1 -
The Search for Ches Perection
wants to play, and can enforce, is ... e5 (rou
tine in such positions) .
Visualizing ... e5 played, White should
see that he will have to play de5. This will
partly open the cl-fle. Therefore it will be
helpfl for him when that tme comes to
have a t on the fle. Therefore, far superior
to 3. a5 would be 3. Rd1!
Once again we come back to the value
of simple development. Don't leave ts
undeveloped merely because there are as
yet no open fles!
The game proceeded thus:
3. . . .
N6d7
4. Bd6
Necessary to defend the c- f after what
is coming.
4.
5. dxe5
6. Be2
7. Bx
8. e4!
e5
Nxe5
Nxft
Nd7
A nice f sacrifice, the only way to
keep the initiative. With 8 . . . Bxc3 Black can
win a f, but will have a very difcult game
because of the deplorable weakness of his
dark squares. But White's game would be
much better if he already had a t on dl.
Black's position in the diagram was so poor
that he should never have been allowed to
get as playable a gae as he now has.
White's f moves are to blame. Be
sides losing time, they prevented a brea-
through on the Y-side at any stage by b4,
a4, and b5.
And these preventive moves were rea
sonably in accord with Znosko-Borovsky's
advice. That advice is valuable, yet inex
actly worded.
We repeat: one should not always pre
vent freeing moves. Provide for them: but
absolute prevention may be bad if the pre
ventive move is not otherwise usefl.
Hint: Playing Oer Games
Playing over annotated games is the
best cheap way to improve at chess, but
only if you cover the moves. Get a card and
cut in it an aperture about as long and wide
as a printed move of one side of a game.
When you have decided what you would
play and wish to compare your move with
the text, slide the card down until the move
shows. Then, after making a comparison,
slide the card across untl the oter side's
move shows. Don't ponder in advance about
both side's moves-only one side's.
If you like, you can keep a record of
the number of moves you get the same as in
the text and watch it rise. It won't rise
evenly, as some games contain many obvi
ous moves-others not. But if you take an
average over ten games, your average for
the next ten games will be higher. And so
on.
- 1 82 -
His Writings
NOTES ON PLANNING IN CHESS
Planning in chess is hard because you can seldom be sure you are choosing the best
plan. The soundness or unsoundness of a combination is a matter of sheer calculation,
even though in actual practice it is not always feasible to take the necessary time. In that
case, you decide either not to risk the combination or else to take a chance; in other words,
it's yes or no-not a case of comparing one possible combinaton with another, for it is not
often you have a choice of combinations.
With planning, however, there are usually alteratves, and comparison is a matter of
shades.
Don't Always Plan
It is most important to realize that plan
ning and position play-more or less syn
onymous-are concered with positions in
which:
(a) you ae not called upon to parry
threats, and
(b) you cannot make a good forcing
move of your own.
By a good forcing move, I mean a
move that forces the opponent to make a
reply which at least incommodes him in
some way. The value of a threat is not to be
measured by its target, but by the extent to
which it inconveniences the opponent, e.g.,
a threat to win the may be parried by a
matng combination, whereas a threat to
win a f may be decisive because there is
no good reply.
If there is a "good forcing move" avail
able, it is probably the best move on the
board, or, at any rate, the only move likely
to be better is another forcing move.
Therefore, do not waste time planning
until you have frst combed the board for
good forcing moves-whether these are al
ways capable of being described as combi
nations is only a matter of definition, and
does not matter much.
How can I explain how vital this is?
Everybody has seen tennis played, ad can
see how absurd it would be for a
pla
y
er, all
set to make a kill at the net, to put the ball
tamely back into play. Yet in tennis he would
only throw away one sure point each time
he did it, whereas in chess he is often throw
ing away his chance of winning the game.
The search for good forcing moves in
volves looking at al forcing moves. These
comprise all checks, all captures, and all
threatening moves. A check is only one
kind of threatening move, but so compel
ling in its very nature that it is best looked at
separately. However, remember that you
can check a , a <, or anything-the oppo
nent may not be compelled by law to evade
the check, but may be compelled in his own
interests. And remember that most forcing
moves are silly because the opponent has
an excellent answer; but te occasional good
forcing move is so valuable that the search
must never be neglected.
So, after all, the main thing about plan
ning is to avoid planning when there is
something better.
However, planning is important, be
cause most positions in chess are of a kind
where bot (a) and (b) apply, and althoug
nothing very much can be done with them,
it is important to do what little can be done
to ; 'our advantage or to do nothing to your
- 1 83 --
The Search for Chess Perection
disadvantage.
Master chess is much concerned with
fine shades of position, but for players be
low that class, even very good players only
a little below it, it is a mistake to waste too
much clock time on them; the players will
do better to conserve the time for positions
in which calculation af forcing lines is com
pulsory, since Hanks' dictum that most
games are won and lost on tactical over
sights is truly absolutely beyond doubt.
Hanks' Theory
I once queried the oft-made assertion
that even a bad plan is better than no plan.
My reasoning was that a strong player, once
he forms a plan, may induce himself to play
moves that violate elementary principles,
whereas if he just compared the merits of
the several moves that looked feasible, he
would be less likely to select a really bad
one.
For illustration I quoted the game
Lazare-J. Purdy, Perth 1954-55, in which].
Purdy, an excellent tactician but at that time
a poor strategist-which shows the relative
importance of strategy and tactics, since he
was able to win the Australian Champion
ship, which a poor tactician could never
do-evolved a plan which was so bad as to
do little credit to a certfed lunatic. This
plan changed his positon from a level one
to a losing one, without any assistance from
his opponent -it so happened that his oppo
nent did not reap his reward, and finally
lost, but that is no argument for bad plans.
John Hanks put up the counter-argu
ment that a plan is of some use even if a bad
plan, since it reduces the possibility of tacti
cal oversights, and it is mainly tctca
oversights that lose games-I flly agree.
If, says Hanks, a player frst determines on
a certain strategical aim, good or bad, he
will have fewer moves to consider than if he
doesn't. The fewer moves he considers, the
fewer he has to check for possible com
binative replies, and the smaller chance he
has to make a blunder.
This reasoning is certainly valid for
cross-board chess below a certain level, and
possibly even for correspondence chess at a
still lower level. It was certainly not valid
for J. Purdy in the game cited; he would
have done better, seeing that no forcing
play was possible, to look for moves that
would at least avoid weakening his posi
tion.
Short Plans Best
The truth is that there is something in
both the opinions, and the problem is to
evolve some way of reconciling them.
Choose a simpl aim one that requires
extremely few moves and one that you feel
qit sure cannot make your position worse.
Still better would be "extremely few
and commonsense moves." If a plan re
quires for its execution any move or moves
that look bad on principle, it nearly always
means the plan is faulty. In my own games,
I have had this brought home to me time
and again, yet still have a tendency to hyp
notize myself occasionally into making a
move tat has an attactve object, but which,
i I could get outside the game for a few
seconds, I would unhesitatngly say "could
not possibly be good." Try to bring the cold
blast of common sense onto any moves that
are not combinatve, i.e., nonforcing. Com
binations have nothing whatever to do with
common sense, but plans have. If you can
not make a forcing move, it almost always
means that your opponent will have a wide
choice of replies, and will therefore most
likely be able to improve his positon in
some way. Therefore it is silly to think you
can achieve anything much with a pla. If
you can make the very slightest gain in
- 1 84 -
His Writing
position, you are doing very well, and you
are not likely to do this with a move that
looks bad on the face of it. Nearly alplan
moves that look bad are bad-the exceptons
are those which force the opponent to do
something that is bad for him, and then
they are essentially not plan moves, but
combinative moves.
Masters proceed by a series of short
range plans revised at every tur according
to the opponent's play. In actual war, the
plan must be the master; in chess, you can
and must revise the plan at every move,
especially when your opponent makes a
move you have not expected. It would actu
ally be an advantage in war for a com
mander-in-chief to be able to change his
plan with lightning rapidity, but it just can
not be done-large bodies of men tae time
to move, ships in one ocean cannot fit to
another like jet planes, and great organiza
tion is involved even in changing an air
campaign. In chess, on the contary, each
player moves in tur; until your move is
made, the opponent can do nothing. It
should be obvious that your opponent's
move will ofen change the position in such
a way as to make it wrong to continue wit
your plan, ad you must invariably look to
see if this has happened. A plan in chess is
something to guide you in maing the one
move you have a right to make before the
opponent's next move, and perhaps, but
not necessarily, later moves.
Confirmation by Lasker
This advice seems so contrary to what
many players have read that I will once
again quote Emanuel Lasker: the evidence
that he knew something about planning is
that he was World Champion for 27 years
ad was the world's best tourament player
for even longer. Lasker was critcizing some
remarks by Reti which gave the idea that a
single strategical plan could be followed
almost right through a game. Lasker says:
Reti's explanations, wherever they are
concered with analysis which covers a
few moves, are correct and praiseworthy.
As yet, nobody has been able to do much
more than . . . conceive plans as the game
proceeded. The reader of Reti's remarks
is led to think that an altogether new and
profound strategy has recently arisen and
is probably tempted to cast very deep
strategical plans. . . . He is in danger of
losing his sound judgment.
Reti was correct, insofar as some par
ticular motf may persist right throughout a
game; e.g., after 4 . . . dc6 in the Ruy Lopez,
White's three -side fs hold Black's four,
ad White knows that ihe can ever bring
about a . ending without this factor disap
pearing, his majority on the '-side should
win. This will make White hanker after
exchanging pieces, but will at all tmes be
only one factor in his calculations; at times,
other factors may completely override it;
White must stll proceed by short-term plans,
and must be ready to discard even these if
he has to meet threats or if opportunities for
something better crop up.
Quick Rule for Plans
I have found a certain rough-and-ready
rule extemely serviceable in choosing an
aim for a plan. It would be still more ser
viceable to players of less experience, who
ofen cast about quite vainly for a strategical
aim in "quiet" positions and end up by
doing any old move. This rule is:
Look for your last acive pice or pieces,
and then look for a plan to make them
active.
A plan really involves two things:
( 1) an aim, and
- 1 85 -
The Search for Chess Perection
(2) a series of moves for carrying it
out-and by a series, I mean a series of
moves of one side only, regardless for the
moment of possible intervening replies.
For example, you have started with a
Stonewall and have fs at c3, d4, e3, f4.
Your development is in a sense complete,
but your ./d2, very inactive and quite
unable to take part at present in any w-side
assault, which is therefore likely to be futile,
being a piece short. A good plan in such a
situation would have the aim of bringing
this . to life, and the moves envisaged
would be Be1-h4.
Naturally, before deciding on Be1 as
your next move you would comb the board
for possible strong replies, but, if you found
none, you could conclude that the plan
seemed at least not a bad one. Anoter
player, perhaps imaginative but untaught,
might waste a lot of time working out a plan
involving the advance of the w-side fs,
which might or might not be good. The
taught player would know that even if good,
it could not be very good, and that it might
be very bad since it would involve the
weakening of the attacker's W, and why
should not this lose rather than win?
Here is an example-honestly taken at
random, for if my rule is any good it should
apply in most positions that one could come
across, except of course those in which (a)
or (b) fals to apply; again see above if you
have forgotten what (a) and (b) are, as they
are about the most important things in the
article.
Reshevsky
Euwe (after 2 1 . Rdc I )
The frst thing we are called upon to
decide is whether c5 is a threat. The answer
seems to be no, as . . . R5 would be a good
counter. It is easy to see that Black has no
good forcing move. In short, (a) and (b)
apply, and Black can think up a plan. Fol
lowing my rule, we note that two black
pieces are inactive; the 1- l cannot be
come active till the o becomes actve. So a
good aim for Black is to get his o out. The
only way to do so in one move is by 21 ...
Ne7, as 22 ... Nb6 is "potasium cyanide."
However, if it weren't for the fork,
clearly the o would be much more effec
tive on b6, as he would be tying up a hostile
1. So can we make a preparatory move
which would rule the fork out? The obvious
attempt is 21 . . . c5. This we have to examine
for forcing replies, but the only forcing re
ply would be 22. bxc6 e.p., which brings
Black's 1 to bear on the wea f and is
therefore to be welcomed, not feared.
Thus, our plan will consist of te moves
. .. c5 and . . . Nb6. Where to from there? is a
question that most players tend to ask. An
expert does not worry too much about the
future. In a quiet position, if he can effect a
slight improvement in his position he is
doing the most that can in reason be ex
pected, and looking further ahead than nec
essary is waste of time. The expert is not
usually concered with what he is actually
- 1 86 -
Hi Wrting
going to do with a good position in the
future. Enough for him to get the good
positon, and he knows that it will lead to
something; what the something turs out to
be will depend partly on his opponent's
moves, and he does not care much what
these are once he makes sure the opponent
has no good forcing moves.
If Quick Rule Fails
If my quick rule turs out to be inad
equate in any given situation, as it quite
ofen will, apply the rules given on p. 77 of
Guide to Good Chess, i.e., "List of possible
weaknesses and the normal way of taking
advantage of tem," "List of enemy stengts
and normal ways of removing them," fol
lowed by formulation of a plan which does
some or all of the following things:
( 1 ) exploits enemy weakness(es),
(2) removes enemy strength(s),
(3) removes your own weakness(es),
(4) establishes your strength(s).
Circumstances will guide you as to
which and how many of the four things it
will be wise to attempt-usually you can do
only one or two at a time.
Need Not Be Sure of Success
One thing I have often written about
plans is that the aim envisaged ought to be a
feasible one, as stiving after an unattain
able object means wastage. This is true of
an objective that is absolutely attainable;
but if, in order to make it unattainable, the
opponent must weaken his position, then
your plan may be perfectly correct. The
frst exaple that stikes me will do-a simple
one from Foster-Bachtiar, Sydney 1958-59.
After 1 3 ... Qg6
Here a certain aim for White shrieks
aloud, namely to put a third attacker on the
pinned f. Foster mistakenly did it with 14.
g4?, a move that looks bad at first glance,
and therefore probably is (it lost the game).
The obvious and correct plan consists of the
moves R 1-eS, and the mere fact that Black
can make the objective unattainable by 14 . . .
d6(in reply to 14. R1} is of no importance,
for ... d6is a weakening move which permits
the forcing move 15. Re6, giving Wite a
winning positon in another way. Black could
also upset the plan by 14 . . . h6, but this also
loses-not because it creates a new weak
ness, but rather because White's 14. Rf1
has created new strength; it gives the new
possibility of Be7, which results in White's
obtaining atogether too strong a position.
Most plans are like this. Plans that are
longer than two moves are all the more
easily upset, and te only question is whether
the upsetting moves stll allow the oppo
nent some good continuation other than
the one planned.
You cannot always see whether your
opponent has a good way of upsetting your
plan or not. What you can see is whether
the inital move or moves of your plan are
of a strengthening kind or a weakening
kind. If the former, your plan is almost
certain to do you no harm-provided you
are not creating some temporary accidental
feature which permits a combination (this is
- 1 87 -
The Search for Chess Perection
somewhat diferent from a move which is in
its nature weakening, like g4). If the latter, it
is odds-on that your plan is crazy. And it is
well to remember that the vast majority of
plans made in chess are crazy by master
standard. They are evolved fom a player's
inner consciousness rather than fom the
position on the board.
Much the best advice for planing is,
keep your feet on the ground. An ambitious
pla is absurd, except with an already won
game, for it is not in the nature of plans to
achieve major gains.
Replies Must Be Considered
In the case before us White's positon
is greatly superior, so that a small gain
should mean an outight win. The initial 14.
R 1 is so strong as to fall on the borderline
between a plan move and a forcing move. It
is only reasonable to expect such border
line moves, for it is not in the nature of chess
moves to ft into pigeonholes. Nor is it
possible ever to play chess witout consider
ing possible replies. Although the series of
moves you envisage as your plan is a series
of moves on your side only, you must not
embark on them before considering pos
sible replies to the initial move. Your plan is
just a sort of working hypothesis. However,
do not make the mistake of considering all
possible replies. Only the ones that can be
classed as forcing moves need calculation;
replies that are pressing but not forcing can
do with attention in advance, but it is not a
case of absolute necessity, whereas to over
look a good forcing move may at any time
spell disaster, even though before you
moved your position was overwhelming.
THE PURDY MYSTIQUE
In August 1996 we published one of
the best books ever witten on chess
instuction! We know it's good be
cause it went through 10 printings be
fore our 1 1th! Our version has been
reformatted and converted to algebraic
notaton. No. 1 in our Gold Series.
Yes, inside you will fnd the same
lucid writing as in this book. Excellent
examples, tps, small lists of things to
remember, and a much more readable
book than was available in the earlier Australian editions.
$16.95 + $2.00 S&H (USA) .
- 1 88 -
His Wrtings
AIDS TO SEEING COMBINATIONS
The most important thing in chess is to see combinations-and by combinations, I
mean anything from the simplest l fork up to the grandest Alekhine sacrifice.
The problem of how to see combinations is really two problems.
Poblem 1: to become familiar with the many types of combination.
Poblem 2: to see them consistently in actual play.
Problem 1 is that of al beginners, but also of students who have concentrated on the
positonal side of the game, and are therefore prone to blunder. Dr. Emanuel Laker frst
tackled it in his "Lehrbuch" in 1925 (Manual, 1927). It was he who frst discovered a logical
method of classifing combinations. Mason, in his Art ofChess ( 1898), gave 177 exercises
in combination, very good practice for good players. But there was no attempt to classif,
and no explanatory matter.
Since Emanuel Lasker, te real thinker and pioneer, there have been many other
books dealing with the subject, e.g., Znosko-Borovsky's Art ofChess Combination with
about 70,000 words and 200 examples.
Spielmann's Art ofSacrice is perhaps the most interesting of all books on combina
tion, but it is just a collection of games in which combinations occur.
For the purpose of Problem 1, books with a great number of examples are best; above
all, Reinfeld's 7001 Wnning Chess Sacrices and Combinations.
Why We Siip
Problem 1 is mainly a question of giv
ing plenty of exercises for the student to
practce on. Our space can be much more
advantageously devoted to Poblem 2, which
has never been tackled seriously except by
the present writer. It is the problem of all
players-not only beginners and over-theo
retcal students, but even masters.
For we al miss combinatons that we
are capable of seeing. The tyro is capable of
seeing forks one move deep, yet he some
times misses them. Masters are capable of
seeing any combination at all, yet they of
ten miss them, and sometmes quite el
ementary ones. All players have had to ask
themselves, "How on earth can I have
missed that?"
We miss combinations that we ought
not to miss simply because we look for
them in a more or less haphazad way. In
business, oversights are avoided by system
and method. In chess, system and method
will not enable a beginner to play like a
master, but what they will do is to help
every player to be consistent. Not one player
in the world is 100% consistent.
Primary Rule
First and foremost, you must get used
to forcing yourself to:
Look around for combinatons for your
sel at ee move; and beore playin any
move, viualie the whol position with that
move md, and then look around for com
binatins for your op onent
Winter, in his Chess fr Match Plyers,
deliberately contradicts tis advice, which I
frst published in 1930, saying that it is
impossible to carry out. The context shows
- 1 89 --
Te Search for Chess Perection
that he is confsing the process of looking
for combinatons with that of working com
binations out! As Winter himself says, a
glance is sometimes sufcient to tell a stong
player that no sound combination can be
on. But woe betide him if he forgets to
glance!
My 1 93 1 System
But a glance is not always enough,
especially for players below master class;
and even a good "look around" is compara
tively useless in complicated positons if
done only vaguely.
The search should be made systemati
cally. In 1930 and 1931, I gave a system for
fnding combinations based on the classif
caton of combinations given in Lasker's
Manual. I quote the following from p. 275 of
the Austrlasian Chess Review of December
1931.
Queston 8. Have I a sound and cor
rect combination? To help in answering
this, look for the presence of the follow
ing motifs.
1. Geometrical motif (pieces on the
same line, pins, pieces liable to a fork,
loose pieces, etc.).
2. Motf of confned pieces, including
castled King.
3. Motif of function. See if any piece is
burdened with more than one defensive
task.
The next three motfs are endgame
motfs.
4. Pawn promotion.
5. Zugzang.
6. Stalemate.
The System's Fault
For such a young writer, it was prudent
to pay such heed to Lasker's classifcation-
also adopted in the main by his successors,
with a few changes in terminology.
My method was an attempt to make
practcal use of a ready-made theory.
However, I realized later that the
method does not carry out its main purpose
with maximum efciency.
That purpose is:
To break down the powe ofilun
Purdy
C.L.R. Boyce (after 3. Nexd4)
The position diagrammed occurred in
the Austalian Championship in 1926. Pe
viously, Black's b- f was on b5, he had a '
on d4, and White's ' was on c3.
Correctly thinking tat the combina
tion must be good, but without working it
out flly, I played in the previous position
just described 1. .. b4 2. Ne2 b3! Then came
3. Nxd4 (forced), and we have Diagram 1.
Here I had intended 3 . . . bxa2! 4. Nb3
RB 5. Na1. But I was now unable to see
how te combination could be followed up.
I should only have two fs for the piece,
and, as I thought, not much of an attack. So,
choosing what I thought the lesser evil, I
wrote the f of and retook the ' (3
Qxd4) with a very inferior game.
The late G. Gundersen, then chess edi
tor of the Australsian, pointed out a forced
win by the very pretty pseudo-sacrifce of
the 1afer 5. Na1, by 5 . . . Q3!!
- 1 90 -
His Wrtings
This forces 6. Kd1 Rxb2 7 Ke2 R 1 8.
Rdd1, when 8 ... f! a 1 wins.
That calculaton would not be neces
sary. One would only have to look for a
second at the one move 5 ... 3 to perceive
its obvious merit. But even the simple com
binations are sometmes hard to see a few
moves ahead. The point is, what rule could
I have followed, if ay, which would have
made it easier to see 5 . . . 3 on Move 3?
The motf is that of "fnction" (Lasker)
or "overload" (Euwe) . The white b- . has
the "fnction" of blocking the b-file against
. . . Rb1#.
But telling a player to look for units
with defensive "fnctions" or "loads" is
rather like telling a man to look out for all
fences that have bulls on his side of them. It
would be much better for him to keep his
eyes skinned for the bulls themselves.
In order to see that the b- . had te
fnction of preventing mate, I must frst see
that mate. Therefore, it would be better to
look for the mate frst. With the mate once
seen, the possibility of either . . . Q3? or
. . . 3!would suggest itself automatcally.
The mate is hard to see because of the
power of illusion. We fnd it terribly hard to
look at moves that involve jumping over
pieces. Such moves are the real motifs of
innumerable combinations.
New System
The moves of this sort that matter most
are mates, because they give rise to the
most amazing sacrifces and pseudo-sacri
fces, which are very hard to see. But strong
checks are nearly as important.
Any good player looks at all reason
able checks on the board, but I maintain
that by carrying this policy much frther,
most of us could reduce our output of blun
ders enormously.
The rule might be put thus:
In any position you are conn
present or fture, look around for all pos
sible check (owever absurd-looking; alo
all check-and above al mats-that would
be possibl i ever pice could jump over
anything in it way and could not be cap
tured
Shortened form:
In any positon present or ftre, look
around for all possibl check, all jump
check, and partiularly all jump-mates.
Nearly al combinatons that cannot be
found wit the check, jump-check, and jump
mate rule will be amenable to the follow
ing:
In any positon present or futre, look
around for all possible captures and jump
captures.
A jump-capture of the 1, for instance,
may be as important to see as a jump-mate .
But, in general, it is not so important to look
at jump-captures as to look at possible cap
tures that have an illusion of impossibility
for instance, a 1giving itself up for a ., the
prelude to many mating nets.
Needless to say, the application of these
rules involves looking at many moves that
not only look absurd, but are. However,
every such move can be dismissed in a
fraction of a second, so that the total wast
age of time is infnitesimal. It is compen
sated for many times over by the discovery
of moves that look absurd and are not!
I now give several other examples
which will illustrate the practical advan
tages of my 1938 rules over my 1931 rules.
I have selected mostly positions in which
oversights actually were made, usually by
myself.
- 1 9 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Missed by Hundreds
Diagram 2 shows a position from a
game in the Steiner Invitation Tourey,
Sydney 1937
Black to play
In the game, I correctly played 1. .. (6,
but afterwards, both in the A. C.R. and Chess,
I suggested 7 .. . f6, challenging the White .
center. Nobody wrote to either magazine
about this, so it is a fair inference that many
hundreds of readers failed to see the flaw,
which was pointed out by Steiner himself in
ChessReview(U.S.A.). Now, years later, with
the standard of play higher, a great many
readers would see the slip, but still many
hundreds would miss it.
In answer to 7 ... [6, White would sim
ply play 2. Nxd5! The combination is not
devastating, but Black's nice position in the
center is spoilt, and White obtains an ad
vantage in all variations. The variations do
not matter just now. The point is that any
player would merely need to look at this
single move, 2. Nxd5!, to see that it was
worth examination, since the cannot be
taken. The trouble is that our eyes are just
not conditioned to rest on such moves. The
d- . has the illusion of being supported,
and we are bluffed.
If we apply my 1931 rules and look for
forks, we may see that the black and -
E lie on intersecting lines, but the fact is
comparatively obscure; and if we are going
to look at everything on intersectng lines,
we shall lose ourselves in Euclidean night
mares. Again, we might very well observe
that the black c- . had te fncton of guard
ing the d- ., but that abstract truth would
not necessarily suggest a combinaton to an
inexperienced player.
But if we force ourselves to look at all
captures, that is, visualize them actually
made on the board before us, then we can
not fail to consider 7. Nxd5!, and that is as
far as any mechanical rule can take us. The
rest is up to our judgment and calculation.
Master's Oersight
Diagram 3 is from an old game, Pod
horzer-L. Steiner, Vienna 1938.
3
After 2 1 ... Qxd4
Podhorzer played 22. Rdl? He had
overlooked the combinaton. 22 Qxdl t!
23. Nxdl Rxdl t 24. K2 Bb5.
This locks up the white Y
.
It was a comparatively difcult combi
nation to see. On my 1931 rules, it might be
suggested by the motif of a confined piece,
the white Y, but in the diagrammed posi
tion the white does not look confned at
all. She only becomes so afer the sacrifce,
and what we want is something that will
make us think of the sacrifce.
I cannot find any better chance of see
ing the combination than the rule of consid
ering all captures. Had Podhorzer, before
playing 22. Rd7, seriously visualized the
move . . . Qd7 f, he would have had to carry
- 1 92 -
His Wrtings
on with the forced moves given above, and
could hardly have failed to see merit in the
combination. Mter all, the sacrifice is a
small one, about equivalent to the Exchange.
And Black would have to lose at least one
f, anyway, if he withdrew his Y. Further,
by making the sacrifce Black gains time
instead of losing it-a net difference of two
clear tempi.
An interesting point is that this combi
nation does not readily fall into any of
Lasker's pigeonholes-or any other author's.
It is not exactly based on the "encircling
motif, " for the white Y cannot be won, nor
yet is it a "desperado" combination. Funda
mentally, it is just a sacrifice of material to
save tme. But it does not matter what sort
of combinaton it is, if only you can see it.
A jump-Check
Diagram 4 shows a position from an
old correspondence game ( 1937).
G.F. Mclntosh
C.j.S. Purdy
White to play
It would be bad to accept the ofered
4. Black threatens ... Bxc3, etc. The obvious
move is 1. e4, and this would almost cer
tainly have saved the game. Thinking to
"consolidate, " however, I posted "1. Qb3,
and if 1 ... Bxc, 2. bxc3."
Black, of course, accepted the condi
tional, and then played 2 ... Qb5t!, which
wins easily.
In the diagrammed positon, White had
failed to look at this check simply because
of the illusory effect of the A on e5. Once
the check is seen, the necessity to look into
it is obvious, for it is not a sacrifice, not even
a pseudo-sacrifice. Had White followed the
rule of looking at jump-checks (I had not
invented it when this game was played), the
oversight would have been impossible.
With a few aterations, Diagram 4 turs
into Diagram 5, which is full of thrills.
Might You Miss lt?
White to play
In Diagram 5, Black has the same threat
as in Diagram 4, but intensified, because
the white r has no flight square.
Now 1. e4?would be answered simply
by 1 . . . Bxc3. Suppose with the same idea as
in Diagram 4, White played 1. @3 (or
Q4)? Bxc3 2. bxc3. Then comes a very
pretty move, 2 . . . @5!! Not a check, and the
square is not supported this tme, yet the
move is devastating. Black must get the
on his a6.
With a flash of hope, White might look
at 3. RdBf RdB 4. RaB!? And wins for
White? Joy! Well, it does, except for the
neat resource 4 . . . O#.
Although pretty, 2 .. . @5 is compara
tively easy to see because the mating threat
is obvious, and a mating threat should lead
you to expect even the wildest sacrifice.
- 1 93 -
The Search for Chess Perection
Anything can be given up for mate.
Many players might come to the con
clusion that Wite's position in Diagram 5
was hopeless, as a preliminary exchange of
: s still leaves the mating threat on.
And i 7. Rd5, stll 7 ... Bxc3!This pseudo
sacrifice of the 1is easy to find, by the rule
of looking at all captures.
However, if White keeps his nerve and
remembers to look for all jump-mates, he
can not only save the game, but win it of
hand! Thus: 1. RxdBf RxdB 2. Q5!!
The frst step in seeing this is to look at
the jump-mate, RaB. Then you naturally
look at the exchange of one pair of ;s,
which obviously brings the mate nearer.
Then it is not a dificult step to 2. Q5!! If a
player could not fnd the combination this
way, he would never fnd it.
An Absurd Fallacy
Combinations by the player who is
apparently on the defensive, like 7. RxdBf
and 2. Qd5 in Diagram 5, are often missed
for two reasons.
Firstly, having accepted the role of de
fender, a player tends to look only at defen
sive moves. Secondly, most of us are influ
enced by the utterly mad advice profered
by so many writers-even the geat Eman
uel Lasker-that it is useless to look for
combinations until you have a positional
advantage.
The fallacy is that you can only tell
whether one side has a positional advan
tage by first maing sure that there are no
combinations.
It is correct to say as a general rule that
one should not attack without an advantage,
at least in that quarter of the board, but an
attack usually involves a slow f storm be
fore any combinaton can start.
But a combination consists entirely of
forcing moves, and a player can lay himself
open to one at any time through an error,
however overwhelming his positon was
before the error. That is what gives chess its
biggest thrills.
THE PURDY GENIUS
Purdy was a bona-fde original thinker,
explorer, and discoverer, like Richard
Feynmann was in physics. Besides
writng about and playing chess, he
thought about chess, its origins, its
rules, and its best games by its best
players. Genius does what it wants,
and it often suffers as a result, yet the
interal reward must be worth it. This
book was written by a genius for budding geniuses of chess.
- 1 94 -
His Writings
THE DUAL SOUL OF CHESS
I have recently been emphasizing the combinative or tactical side of chess, rather
than the positional or strategical side.
There are special "elements" in chess that belong to chess alone. It is these unique
characteristics of chess that give rise to combinations-things that have no counterpart in
war or any other sphere, but are found in chess only.
I have emphasized, above all, that in reconnoitering a position one should always
look for combinative possibilities before making a final judgment.
But more often than not, there are no combinative possibilities. In other words, such
forcing moves as there are can be refuted with ease. Neither side has left itself vulnerable
to a bolt from the blue.
In such positions, the player's problems are more like a general's problems in war,
and more like the problems we encounter in our daily life. Chess combinations have no
counterpart in war or life; they are picturesque, almost fantastic.
As I wrote long ago, it is as though two good fairies had cast their spells on Caissa at
her birth. One, the spirit of universal truth; the other, the whimsical sprite of romance.
Two kinds of beauty whose conflict and whose union are the soul of the game.
It is in such positions-the noncombinative ones-that Lasker's principles of struggle
will guide us.
The fndamental principle of struggle is the maximum utilization of all your
resources. In an artcle in Chess Wrld of September 1956, I called it the Principle of
Economy. Here, "economy" is used in a much wider sense than merely "parsimony."
We shall now see that all the big general principles of chess are just various aspects of
the fundamental guiding principles, e.g., development in the opening, cooperation of
forces, reserve the greater option, waste as little energy as possible on defense, an
unsuccessfl attack will recoil on the head of the attacker, choose only feasible aims or
those which can be defeated only by some concession, e.g., a badly weakening move.
Development
The principle of development in the
opening is only part of a wider principle
that runs throughout the game: that it is
better to employ an inactive unit rather
than one already active.
For if you move an active piece, you
only transfer him from one job to another;
if you move an inactive piece into play, you
must gain.
In the opening, especially right at the
stat, nearly all one's pieces are inactive, so
that the principle looms very large. It pays
never to flout it unless you are sure you are
right. Exceptions occur when there is some
specific weakness which can be exploited
only by a piece already in play, or you wish
to save or gain material.
Cooperation of Forces
By cooperation is meant not overlap
ping. Except for the purpose of attack on a
single square, pieces accomplish most when
they command most squares. That is why it
- 1 95 -
The Search for Chess Perection
is usefl in the endgame to have your .s on
opposite-colored squares from that of your
A. More squares are commanded, and the
.s do not obstruct the .. It is also the
reason why it is generally better to place
your l=s on two adjacent open fles, rather
than double on one fle and leave the other
unoccupied-adjacent because their force,
while not overlapping, will be better con
centrated than if they were a long way
apart. It is also the reason why a 1and 4
cooperate better than a 1 and a .. The
perfect partners are two As, for under no
circumstances can they overlap.
This aspect of the principle of economy
is clear. Overlapping is wasteful!-uneco
nomical.
Reserve the Greater Option
The principle of reserving the greater
option is of tremendous importance. If you
waste an option, you are losing something.
Keep as many irons in the fire as possible.
The player who has the initiative can
not always exploit it by a direct attack;
usually he has to build up new threats until
the opponent is so hard pressed that he has
to create permanent weaknesses. A wide
choice of action is itself an advantage.
One reason that contol of the center is
so important is that it gives you the chance
of transferring your attack fom one part of
the board to another.
Do not Over-Defend
The principle of defense in all struggles
is to make the smallest possible concession.
Thus, a skillfl boxer tries to evade a blow
by the slightest possible movement, so that
he will be in a position to deliver a counter.
Any defensive move at all is a concession to
the opponent-a holding up of your own
forward march. A player who persistently
acts on the defensive when it is not neces
sary will gradually work himself into a posi-
tion that is indefensible. Thousands play
this way.
Since the smallest possible concession
must be made, it follows that you should, if
possible, avoid any concession at all. In
other words, always look for a way of ignor
ing a treat before you look for ways of
parrying it.
Do Not Attack Unjustifiably
Attack must always be your goal, but it
needs first a positional advantage, at least in
the sector where you attack.
Unsuccessful effort means waste-a vio
laton of the principle of economy-and must
be punished. If you attack and fail, you will
not be in the comfortable situation of being
able to start afresh; you will inevitably have
damaged your position, and will be vulner
able to a counterattack. Attack is never
justifed in a balanced position. We all know
what happens to people who try to win
drawn games. They are like a boy on a see
saw who tries to weigh the other boy down
by giving a little jump in the air. The other
boy outweighs him as soon as he jumps.
An attac must be distnished fom a
combinaton. An attack involves a plan, usu
ally startng with rather slow preparatory
moves, and a combination may never oc
cur in it, although usually it does at the end.
If it involves slow preparatory moves, such
as a pawnstorm, a big initial advantage is
necessary or the loss of time will prove fatal.
But a combination, as I always empha
size, can arise at any time, however weak
your positon may be, through an opponent's
blunder-to take a simple case, he may leave
his and 1 to be forked, though his
position before the move was overwhelm
ing.
Chess Is Logical, But . . .
Consequently, although chess may be
a thoroughly logical game when boiled
- 1 96 -
His Writings
down, you can't boil it down when actually
playing, so it is of more practical use to see
it as logic and romance in conflict. Be ready
to adjust your mind to combinative possi
bilities at every tur. Do not, as Lasker did
in a famous game in his 1921 match with
Capablanca, allow your mind to become
imbedded in "positional" channels. Think
of the positonal principles as operating only
if combinative possibilities are "off. "
It is this extaordinary confict between
purely chess principles (tactics) and the gen
eral principles of struggle that is one of the
secrets of the game's fascination.
Choose Only Feasible Aims
It is better to play with some aim than
no aim at all. But the ideal aim is one that is
feasible. If you try for a too ambitious aim,
you may by accident accomplish some
thing smaller-but you may, on the other
hand, spoil your game completely. It is all
right to have a plan the opponent can upset,
provided he can upset it only by damaging
his position more than you damage yours
by not accomplishing your aim.
Another exception occurs when you
have a losing position. In such a position, it
often pays to play unsoundly, for in any
case you cannot save the game unless the
opponent makes a mistake.
The commonest example of an unfea
sible aim is an attack on a moveable object.
Such an attack is justified if the aim is to gain
time for some other purpose, but beginners
often make it with the idea of actually win
ning the unit in question-which is ridicu
lous, unless there is a "net" combination
afoot.
In general, one's aim should have to
do with gaining command of squares. This is
the least ambitious aim you can have, and
therefore the most feasible. "Position play"
is just a fght for squares.
Prophylactic Play
When you cannot prevent the enemy
from doing something he wants to do, you
have two alternatives. The frst is counterat
tack; sometimes, however, counterattack is
useless because the enemy's attack will get
home frst. The second is what Nimzovich
calls "prophylaxis." You make a move which
merely anticipates the threatened maneu
ver, with the idea of making that maneuver
assist you as well as your opponent. For
instance, if he threatens to open a file at
present closed, you can place your E on
that fle. It is useless there just now, but if
the opponent opens the file he automati
cally brings your E into play.
By "prophylactng" you may deter your
opponent from executing his scheme, and
may then proceed with your own "counter
attack" at your leisure. Thus by prophy
lacting you can often wrest the initiative-an
important Nimzovichian paradox.
So there is nothing bizarre about
Nimzovich's ideas. They are only aspects of
the fndamental principle of economy. You
employ "prophylaxis" where both preven
tion and counterattack are uneconomical.
Conclusion
It is vital to recognize that these prin
ciples are of practical assistance only out
side the sphere of combinations. You must
aways have the two spheres of thought in
your mind, and the combinative sphere
first.
- 1 97 -
The Search for Chess Perection
HOW TO REDUCE OVERSIGHTS TO A MINIMUM
Mai n Cause of Slips
What is the most important thing in practical chess? There can be only one answer:
avoid oversights.
It is perhaps a defect in chess that a real chess connoisseur-one who has a good
knowledge of theory, appreciation of master strategy, and an insight into the true spirit of
chess-is often defeated by a banal woodshifer, one whose understanding of the game is
very limited, but who has acquired by years of club "skittling" a mechanical skill that
enables him to play with consistent mediocrity.
The answer to this is tat the connoisseur has other strings to his bow. In playing over
the games of the masters he derives keen enjoyment; here he is like a music-lover listening
to a master musician, while his friend the woodshifter listens to himself strumming on a
guitar. But even in the realm of stuggle, the connoisseur can find a suitable medium in
correspondence play. Here he can beat the woodshifter, whose defciencies are shown up
when tme is allowed for thought.
And even over the board, the connoisseur could do much better by following a few
purely mechanical rules. The same applies to the young, ambitious student who has had
more study than practice, and whose chess knowledge is always disappointingly better
than his or her chess results. Perhaps it applies to almost all chess players.
In the next decade, somebody may succeed in programming an electronic computer
to play a good game of chess. It will doubtless be inferior to human experts, but will
occasionally beat them because most experts occasionally make bad blunders. The
computer will play at a dead level of mediocrity, never below it. What a tremendous
advantage it would be to any player if he could achieve such a degree of mental discipline
as to combine a human brain's intuitions with a computer's consistency!
There are one to two must questons or, rather, mechanical operation about which
there is no option if one is to make any attempt at all to avoid absurd slips.
The frst is the search for the opponent's threat or threats.
The second is the search for possible dangerous replies ("surprise moves") to a move
you are considering. This is usually carried out, but seldom properly.
What is the proper way? To answer this, you have only to remember how ofen you
see your mistake after you have made your move-very often, the instant after.
Well, then, the solution is: before playing a move, force yourself to visualize that
move made, and while visualizing it, cast your eye over every part of the board. All this
time, you must see the position as it will be, not as it is. This requires efort.
Try doing it invariably, forcing yourself at move after move in game after game, until
it becomes a habit.
Right from the start you will notce that your oversights decrease, especially the
blatant ones. Your actual chess capacity will not improve, but the point is that all chess
- 1 98 -
His Writings
players, from masters to beginners, tend to
play below their fll capacity because they
make avoidable oversights-that is, over
sights well within their capacity to avoid,
and sometimes so bad that they can hardly
believe tey have made them. In chess, as
in real life, the great number of things re
quiring attention makes oversights inevi
table. In life, they can be reduced only by
system and method. So in chess.
Purdy
L. Steiner (to move)
Here is an example of an oversight
made by a master through failure to visual
ize. In this game, Steiner-Purdy, Sydney
1937 (invitation tourey), Black had just
played ... c4. It seems obvious that Black's
idea is to tempt Wite to take the a- f and
then trap the 4. Can the 4 get out? That is
te puzzle that Steiner must have busied
himself with for about 15 minutes, and he
finally satisfed himself that the 4 would
not be lost, for he played-1. Nxa? [Ed.:
See Part 3, Game 10.}
All this time, Black had no intention at
all of trying to entrap the 4, and he now
made the simple but efective reply 1 ... c.
This at least wins a f .
White's mistake was that he made an
assumption. Had White simply visualized
the position afer 1. Nxa5, forgetting pre
conceived notions, and looked all over the
board for possible surprise moves, he could
not have missed . . . c3. Nor could he have
wasted valuable time on irrelevant calcula
tions.
Second Cause of Slips
S
o t
h
e cause o
f
s
li
ps
i
s t
h
e
f
a
il
ure to
search properly for forceful replies te op
ponent might make to the move you are
considering.
The other main cause of slips is the
failure to search properly for threats in the
move the opponent has just made. Yet an
other cause is the common habit of treating
a threat in a defensive spirit. This sort of
error does not lead to major blunders, but
rater to missed opportunities.
So I divide this section into two parts:
( 1) the search for threats; and
(2) the way to treat threats.
Search for Threats
A move may have an object without
contaning a threat. A threat may be de
fned as a move by which the opponent
could harm you if it were now his turn to
move.
As soon as the opponent has moved,
comb the board for possible threats, look
ing frst at al checks and captures, however
fantastic.
Most of the moves you look at, you will
see at a glance are not threats at all; but
occasionaly you will fnd that one of the
moves that looks fantastic is a real threat,
and thus avoid a terrible blunder.
Other moves may need quite a lot of
calculaton to discover whether they are
real threats or not; in other words, whether,
i it were the opponent's move and he played
Bxd5f (say) , it would ultimately be to your
detriment or his.
In such calculations you may waste
much tme, because you are not allowing
for your next move. You may have a very
simple move which you want to play in any
- 1 99 -
The Search for Chess Perection
case, and which rules the threat out of court.
Here our inquiry merges into the second
part of the article, how to treat threats. For
just now, let us state this rule:
Wen in your search for threat you
come acoss a move which seems to require
considerable calclation to dicover i it i a
threat or not pieonhole it in your mind and
contnue your search for other threat. Wen
your search i over, mentally name all the
moves (usually two at most) which you know
are treat or which may be threat.
How to Treat Threats
Let us examine the usual case, in which
there is only one threat. It may be a real
threat, or you may not be sure; the teat
ment of it should be exactly the same! And
that treatment should be:
Imagine the threat coul not possibly
be eected T what woul be my best
move? Tr out each candidate separatly;
imagine the position a it woul be afer thi
move, and then (and only then) work out
whether the op onent would gain b exect
ing hi "reat"
Why this particular treatment is right
can be shown most clearly by an example.
Capablanca (to play)-Bogoljubov
At Carlsbad, 1929, Bogoljubov had just
played 8 ... Nc5. Is either ... Nfe4 or .. .Ncxe4
a real threat? That may require a little cal
culation, so don't let us bother to find out
just yet.
Capablanca played now 9. Nc. He
probably reasoned quickly somehow in this
way: I don't care if ... N(c)xe4 is a threat or
not, as there is an obvious developing move
that I'm going to play in any cae, and it
rules out the capture.
That sounds very plausible, and thus,
according to Znosko-Borovsky, Capablanca
missed a chance of forcing a clear positional
advantage. On the next move, Black played,
of course, the routine ... a, establishing the
4 on its good post. By imagining that what
ever you do Black cannot reply with
. . . N(c)xe4, you would surely examine 9.
b4, forcing the 4 to go back, and thus
showing 8 ... Nc5 as a loss of time. You then
look at 9. b4 Ncxe4 and see at once that
Black would lose a piece by f.
Znosko-Borovsky published Capa
blanca's "miss" in a list of "Carlsbad Blun
ders." This was a decided exaggeration, as
after b4Black, despite his defciency in space,
would have a fair chance of equalizing by
opening the a-file. Still, it does seem that
Capablanca missed a good move.
Another example: Suppose you were
Black in a "simul," and the game opened
thus: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc Bb4 4. e5 c
5. Q4. Many would bluff themselves into
5 . . . Kf?or 5 ... g6?Certainly 0g7is a very
real threat, but you must first ignore it and
consider such moves as 5... cxd4 and 5 ...
Ne7
The second of these can be proved
sound by quite easy calculaton (but not 5 ...
cxd4? 6. 0g7 dxc3 7 Kd1 !). After 5 ... Ne7, if
6. 0g7? . . . R8 7 0h 7 cxd4 with advantage
to Black ( 8. a3 Bxc3f! 9. bxc3 Q7).
Notice that calculation of moves can
never be dispensed with. Chess cannot be
played by rules alone; they merely help.
-200 -
His Writings
A GUIDING RULE FOR ENDGAMES
Although as a general work on endgames there is nothing to equal Euwe and
Hooper's Guide to the Chess Endins, students ought not to dispense with the endgame
secton of Guide to Good Chess, as it is te only book, as far as I know, that gives the general
principles of endgame play.
Reuben Fine, in his Chess the Ey Way, gave "ten rules for the ending," but some of
them are rather vague, and important ones are lef out. However, his sixth rule, "Do not
place your pawns in the same color as your Bishop," is an important one omitted
inadvertently fom Guide to Good Chess.
The frst and guiding rule for endgames in general, and the one this article is about,
is stated nowhere but i Guide to Good Chess and in occasional articles in this magazine
down the years. You will fnd that the masters of endgame play all follow it, but they must
do it intuitively, i.e., on the basis of unconsciously formulated experience. For those who
are not geat masters and have no such intuition, the rule ca be extemely helpfl, and
te only reason it does not appear in textbooks in general is that the writers themselves
have never tought of it and have probably not read the Guide, perhaps thinking it too
elementary.
The rule as stated in the Guide is:
Rul (-Beore ee beginnin to think ofmakin a passed pawn get al your pices
into as good posions as possil.
This presupposes that you do not already own a passed f. If you do, the rule could
have many exceptions. It might be advisable to rush the passed f quickly, even though
your pieces have not yet attained their best positions.
Where you ae likely to get sidetracked
in endgames is in excursions for winning
material. Material is certainly important in
endgames, ad yet . . . I was reminded what
a good rule this Rule ( 1) is when looking at
the end of my game with Hay in Perth. In
the positon where he resigned because he
would lose the Exchange, there was a possi
bility of a long and tedious struggle if White
made what most players would consider
the obvious moves. White to play
I am under no obligation to use the
Purdy-Hay position, and to make it slightly
-20 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
harder for White to win, I have made a
slight alteration in placing a black f on hS
instead of h7 In any case, Hay actually
resigned two moves earlier.
If confronted with this diagram, I am
sure the great majority of players below
master class would quickly play 7. R8f Kh7
2. RaB, and even some masters might care
lessly play it. True, it wins the a- f, but it
takes a very well placed E momentarily out
of play at a8, and Black can start good
counterplay with 2 ... Rd3 3. R8xa7 Rxb3. If
4. R4, . . . Rd3 5. Bb2 Nd5 6. Re4 Rb3 and the
road to victory still stretches for miles.
If White applies Rule ( 1 ) , the win is not
startlingly easy, but it makes just that little
difference that is all the diference.
How to apply the rule? White's E s are
already well situated, but White's A would
be better on the long diagonal. Then again,
Black has a threat, namely . . . Nd4.
This suggests of course 1. Bb2! We
quickly see that this leaves Black with no
progressive reply. If the black E leaves the
seventh rank, then Bxf6 and Rxa 7 threatens
mate. Or if 7 . . . Nd5, 2. Be5 places White in
so dominating a position that the win is not
in doubt. If Black plays the developing sort
of move, 7 . . . Kj7, it is at least clear that 2.
Rea 7 saves a move as compared with the
originally obvious 7. RBf, as the f is won
with only two E moves instead of three.
Again, if 7 . . . Kh7 (so as to keep the
fom check) , White could afford to simplif
by 2. Bxf6 gxf6 3. Real Kg6 4. Rxa7 Rd5 5.
Rh 7 Rxb5 6. Ra6 Rxb3 7 Rbxb6 which forces
the E off and thus gives a slow but easy win.
The analysis is not very important. It is
given only to prove what is fairly obvious.
Since 7. Bb2 improves White's positon with
out giving Black a chance to improve his, it
must be a good move, whereas 7. Rc8-a8
only amounts to an exchange of fs.
And, as Fine succinctly observes:
To win echange ofpices; to draw,
exchange ofpawns.
In the example just above where we
exchanged of the black ., we did it at the
cost of swapping all the fs on the -side.
But it was worth it. It does not matter if a
win is slow, if it is easy. With fs all on one
wing, a f up is usually not enough to win,
but the Exchange up does win. The final
winning coup is almost always to give up E
for piece and win a f , producing a winning
f ending.
In a winning endgame, if it is not a
question of racing as yet, do not be over
anxious to "do something. " The win won't
run away. See first if you can apply Rule ( 1 ) ,
i.e., improve your position without giving
the opponent a chance to improve his in
any substantial way. Of course, if the oppo
nent has threats, they must be looked after;
but if the situation is "quiet," remember a
winning position is a winning position, and
you can keep it so. Don't jeopardize it by
rushing to win weak fs. A wea f can
usually wait.
The reason for Rule ( 1) is that in the
endgame there are very few pieces, and the
fewer the pieces, the more important it is to
get the most out of each one.
(This means, in general, getting them
all into attacking types of positions. The
is ofen an exception. He is frequently bet
ter kept back to protect fs that might other
wise fall a prey to a marauding E. It is
mainly in minor-piece endings that the ad
vice to rush the out is mandatory.)
One final word. Why did I place the
black f on hS instead of h7? Had it been
on h7, 7. Bb2 would still have been the best
move, but the difference between it and the
obvious play would have been less marked.
However, the rule would have held just the
same.
-202 -
His Writings
BRONSTEIN WINS WITH THE "ISOLATED d-PAWN"
After starting to annotate Bronstein-Berger "briefly," I realized it would make quite
an article on the old "isolated d-pawn."
Bronstein gives an excellent illustration of how the player with the "isolated d-pawn"
should conduct the attack. Berger does not give an equally good illustration of how to play
against the "isolated d-pawn", so the annotator must fill in.
Just at present, "isolated d-pawn" theory rather leans toward the attacker. A proviso
is that the attacker should be White. If it is Black who has the "isolated d-pawn", and if
White has not lost a tempo somewhere, White's chances of emerging safely from the
middle game and proving the "isolated d-pawn" weak in an endgame are pretty good. The
odd tempo makes a big difference, so fnely balanced are the chances. It follows tat any
lack of precision can spoil the attacking chances of te player with the "isolated cl-pawn",
even though he opened with White.
Here, however, it is Black who lacks precision, and the "isolated d-pawn" wins in
short order.
D. Bronstein (U.S.S.R.)-B. Berger
(Australia)
Queen's Gambit Decined
1. c4 e6
2. Nc d5
3. d4
Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7
5. e3 Nbd7
6. Nf 0-0
7. Bd3
Pachman, in his monumental work on
the d- f, calls this a "colorless continuation
rarely seen now in master play." This, how
ever, was written before the current fashion
of deliberately courting the "isolated cl
pawn" took hold. If deeper study is given to
the defense, the pendulum may well swing
back.
7. dxc4
8. Bxc4 c
9. 0-0 cxd4
Must be good, as it does not have the
objecton it sometimes has of feeing White's
1-A, it being free already.
10. exd4
10. . . . Nb6
In all such positions, unless White
castles -side it is best first to "put the
question to the Bishop" with . . . h6, while
Bxf6 can still be met with . . . Nxf6. The A is
forced eiter to h4, where it can never again
threaten the sacrifice Bxh6, or else of the
semi-pin diagonal, removing the pressure
on the . which protects the matng square
h7
1 1. Bb3 Bd7
12. Ne5
The "isolated cl-pawn's" main and al-
-203 -
Te Search for Chess Perection
most sole virtue is that it supports this pow
erful 4.
12.
13. Qd3
14. Re1
Rc8
Nbd5
Bc6
By now, Black cannot af ord 14 ... h6
because of 15. Nxd5 Nxd5 16. Bc2!, and if
now 16 . . . g6 17 Nxg6 Bxg5 18. Ne7f! and
mate next move [Ed. : Al, there i no mate
here, it just look that way at frst glance. 18 . . .
Kg7 19. Q7f Kf620. Nxd5f exd5 21. f4Bxf4
22. R1 Ke7 23. Rxf4 @6 24. Raf1 gives Wite
a niglin ede; 17 Bxh6 i simplr and gves
Wite an immediate ede.]
15. Qh3 a6?
Loss of valuable time needed for safe
guarding his - When White is cooking up
a mate on h7, an excellent defensive plan is
to get the - to d8 as soon as possible to
make a fight for the at f. In order to
check on h7, Wite first has to play Bxf6,
bringing Black's . fom e7 to f6, and tis
gives Black's a further necessary fight
square at e 7
On Move 17 Berger plays ... Q6 and it
loses off hand. Had he played it immedi-
ately, for a quick ... Rfd8, he would still have
a good game, e.g., 15 . . . Q6:
a) 16. Rad1 Rd8 17 Bc2 Be8! 18. Bb1 (if
18. Nxd5, . . . Rxc2! 19. Bxf6 gxf6! 20. Nxe7f
Qe7 and Wite's attack breaks down) @4!
19. Nxd5 Rxd5 20. Bxf6 Bxf6 21. Bxh7f (or
Qh7f) Kj, and Black will regain his f
with advantage.
b) If 16. Bc2, ... Rd8! 17 Nxd5 Qd5 18.
Bxf6 Bxf6 19. Bxh7f Kj20. Nxc6 bxc6 (not
. .. Rxc6 21. Be4), and again Black will regain
his f with advantage . .s on opposite col
ors in the middlegame are an advantage to
the better A (Black's, here) .
16. Rad1
Bronstein's choice of squares for his
s is the best. It would be!
16. . . . b5
Fiddling while Rome burs. Here 16 . . .
Q6, instead of next move, was still quite
playable.
17. Bc2 Qd6??
Now a blunder losing outright. Black
cannot play 17 .. g6because of 18. Bh6 Re8
19. Nx7! He could, however, play 17 .. b4,
and if 18. Ne4, . . . Nxe4 19. Bxe4 j 20. Bxe7
Qe7 with an inferior but not lost game. In
this, if 18. Nxd5, ... Bxd5 19. Bxf6 Rxc2.
18. Nxc6 Rxc6
19. Bx6 Nx
20. Ne4 Resigs
Black must lose the Exchange. Had he
not played ... b5, the combinaton would not
have been on, as a f could have taken on
Black's c6. See note to 16 ... b5.
-204 -
His Writings
HOW TO ADVANCE IN CHESS
A cory title, but the subject is near to almost every player' s heart. Even if the player
doesn't seek to become a champion, he rightly feels he could get more fn from chess if
he played it with more facility, less tendency to spoil his games with oversights.
Oversights Psycholog
We all make oversights. Petrosian In my student days, psychology was a
makes oversights; they are few and far be- more conceited science than now. It tought
tween. At the other end of the scale, we itself adolescent. Now it seems to know it is
have a game I once saw at Sydney Univer- still a child. The once revered Macdougall
sity in which one player-of extremely high is derided as an oversimplifer. The amount
intelligence but not high skill, since I was of solid truth in Freud is variously estimated
able to give him a l-played a spectacular at anything from a faction over nil up to
handicap game against another student who who knows what. Dogma is out, groping is
knew te moves and rules and nothing m.
more. The second student was also very
intelligent, and is now a leading figure in
As applied in chess, however, psychol
ogy has advanced from wild guesses to
rudimentary science. De Groot's Thought
and Choice in Chess has shown up many
fallacies, has shown partly how chess mas
ters think and how they don't think. Be
cause of that book, what I write now about
chess must be a bit different from what I
the legal world. The frst student gave the
second student all his pieces except his '
and his eight fs. The first student won. You
don't believe it? I could bring witnesses, but
I could not descend to such unkindness to
an eminent member of the legal profession.
For there are many people who insist ab
surdly on correlating chess skill with intelli
gence, and his reputation would suffer.
Intelligence is an advantage in chess.
But intelligence and skill are entirely differ
ent things.
Can chess skill be inbor, in the sense
that certain nerve connections may be al
most ready-made in an infant's brain, so
that very little instruction is needed to es
tablish them? We just don't know. There are
infant prodigies. But who is to say whether
they might not have shown extraordinary
ability in other directions if prodded? It
might be helpful to know what was the I.Q
of Morphy, Capablanca, Reshevsky, and
Fischer, for I.Q still means something, if
not very much.
wrote many years ago.
But don't let's kid ourselves. Despite
Tought and Choice, our knowledge of how
thinking in chess proceeds is still vague.
Nor can any of us have much idea of what
innate capacity for chess we have. And
supposing we omitted to learn chess when
very young, are we justified in saying, "It's a
bit late to start now"? Certainly not. It is
helpful to lea cess in the formative years,
but not vital. Amos Bum did not take up
chess seriously till he retired from business
late in life, yet became one of England's
aces and one of the world's top 20. George
Hastings did not even lear the moves till
he was 30 or 31, yet about fve and a half
years later was runner-up for the Australian
Championship; the next time, to show it
-205 -
The Search for Chess Perection
was no fluke, he shared in the quadruple tie
for the title. ]. Kopp, the Sydney player,
leaed at 50, yet in three years was able to
cope with state champions, and would have
beaten one in Melboure but for forgetting
to stop his clock.
Evidently, if a person retains an agile
brain by constantly exercising it, his capac
it to lea new things need not be wrecked
by age. Or, alteratively, he may acquire a
sudden passion for chess, combined (either
through good or ill fortune) with a plentifl
supply of spare time, and thus the game
itself may give his mind an agility it had not
previously shown. I think that might be said
of Hastings, a man of high intelligence (I
t) but tacitur, and one whose earlier
background, insofar as I know it, did not
suggest that he had previously used that
intelligence in an intellectual sphere.
Is Tere a Panacea?
In short, few of us can gauge our ca
pacity for chess. The question I now ask is
this: Is there some recipe for improvement
which will assist everybody, no matter what
his present age or skill? That is, leaving out
prodigies and grandmasters, who need not
concer us.
To answer this question, we need to
inquire into the nature of chess skill. In the
frst place, chess is rather more like batting
at cricket than it is like tennis. In tennis, you
can stike a bad patch, but that is far from
fatal. You may lose a set. So what? But in
batting, one false step can doom you. So in
chess.
And yet chess is stll vastly diferent
from batting. Batting may be a bit like light
ning chess, but not straight chess. In staight
chess, you can ad must deliberate. There
are so many things to look at, and if you fail
to look at someting you ought to look at,
you may make a hideous oversight, after
which all the skill in the world won't save
you.
We now arrive at this:
T main dsidratm in chess i avoid
ance of oversiht.
To put it another way, if we could all
play chess always at our fll strength, we
should all play far, far better than we do.
Obviously, we all make moves below
our fll strength. "Saw it as soon as I'd done
it!" We have al said this many tmes. Evi
dently, in such cases, had we taken the
touble to visualize clearly the position as it
would be afer our proposed move, and to
look for shock replies in this visualized posi
tion instead of the positon before us, we'd
have seen the oversight before it could hap
pen.
Going a bit beyond that, we have the
Purdy system, that little series of self-ques
tons given at the end of Chess Made Eas.
Employed at every move, such a system
will cut down slips enormously. Yet in ac
tual practice, it proves hard to discipline the
mind even to that small extent. Had I used
the Purdy system every move and in every
game since I evolved it, and had the same
degree of good and bad luck that I have had
during my chess career, I believe I'd have
won about 40 touraments and matches
instead of about 30, and would often have
come second instead of third, and so on.
Making Your Best Better
Stll, let's say you are capable of the
necessary self-discipline-by practcing yoga
or whatot. You don't play as well as Boris
Spassky, or Korchnoi, or Petrosian, or Fisch
er. Why not, damn it? Because even your
consistently best chess, or mine, is not as
good as they can play with or without the
Purdy system.
So the second question is: How do you
make your best chess better?
-206 -
His Writings
Houdini was once asked, "What is your
secret?" He replied, "I haven't one, I have a
thousand."
In chess, that would be as big an exag
geraton as it was with Houdini. Yet it is tue
that in chess there is more than one road to
success. One player may be fortunate
enough to have a very good coach on tap. If
that coach wlgo through the player's games
with him, he's got it made. But good coaches
are rarer than good players.
Supposing you have no good coach.
My own case is one I can write about with
first-hand knowledge. I had nobody to give
me one word of advice.
So at 14, I had to work out a method of
leag for myself. A fiend lent me Green's
Chess, a miserable little book with a dozen
or so unannotated games at the end. I
thought that if I played over these, always
covering the moves with a card before look
ing, I must lear something. I was right. I
did not try to guess only the moves of one
side-perhaps the best idea-but both sides.
Doubtless this was because I had just had
one book, and it had very few games.
Mter that I started on Morphy's Games.
Very much more useful, of course, for al
though P.W. Sergeant's notes hardly do
Morphy justce, they are infnitely better
than no notes at all.
The scheme must have worked, be
cause a few months after leaing the moves
and teaching my brother and sisters and
young fiends the gae, I was able to win a
handicap tourament in which I conceded
odds up to
'

'
', f and Move (that's
about half your fghtng force). My oppo
nents were far from dumb but quite un
skilled, whereas I had been, by a more or
less unconscious process, acquiring just a
fraction of the know-how of the masters
whose games I had been playing through.
And that's just it. Good annotatons
help, but are not essenta. What chiefy
matters is that you put in some work your
self on each move, and then compae your
move with the text move, either confirming
tat yours was okay or discovering, if you
can or if the annotator will tell you, why it
wasn't. If you want the process to be quite
painless-and why not?-you can nowadays
make it so with Cherev' s Logcal Chess Move
by Move, with notes to every single move.
Mter that, you are ready for other books of
games.
Books and More Books
Today tere are hundreds of good chess
books, and the process of improving at
chess is much easier. But altough it is good
to read textbooks, you must not regard
them as a substitute for the playing over of
games-rather, an importnt supplement.
Reading chess theory helps you very much
in the long run. It does not produce steady
progress, but a series of occasional jumps
forward. Suddenly something clicks, and
you jump. Playing over games and solving
problems fom actual play-like in Winnin
Chess and Wn at Chess and The Art of Check
mate-is quite different. It improves you
minute by minute. You can feel it doing you
good!
Openings
Many players think they could play a
good game "if only they knew the open
ings." This idea is really crazy. You can
improve your opening play at any stage of
your career. Make the most of your early
years by using them to improve your intin
sic chess skill, which has very little to do
wit special openings. The general remarks
on openings in Guide to Good Chess are
enough until you become fairly good.
Blindfold Practice
You don't have to work hard at chess,
but if you feel like it, here is a way you can
- 207 -
The Search for Chess Peiedion
infallibly improve your chess ability. Force
yourself to play through published games
blindfold. I know it's hard when there's no
necessity. It would be a good idea to go
camping with a book of games and "forget"
to take a chess set.
It's like rowing. In my student days,
cars were a rarity for young people. There
was more hiring of rowing boats. Now, one
thing about rowing is that you may go with
the tide but come home against it; more
over, a strong wind may get up and fght
you. But you just have to retur the boat to
shore, not to mention the girl. Thus, be
cause you have to, you become an almost
tireless rower. And aferwards, rowing in
calm water is a pushover.
Same with blindfold chess. When you
have to, because you have undertaken it,
you can play quite a number of games
blindfold simultaneously. When you don't
have to, it seems irksome to play over even
one game blindfold. But if you make your
self do it, it soon gets easier. Sarapu used
this kind of practice, and it may have helped
him to become Champion of Zone 10.
Why does blindfold chess help? Be
cause a vital element of chess skill is to force
yourself to visualize positions several moves
ahead. In one way, tat is harder than blind
fold chess, because you have the present
position before your eyes to distract you. In
another way it is easier, because at least part
of your future picture is the same as now;
you have less to fll in. But if you want to
practice visualizing fture moves while dis
tracted by the position before you as in
actual games, you can do so by making a
practce of religiously ploughing through
the stings of analysis given by tough anno
tators, and making sure you really do "see"
the position as it changes move by move:
do not give up halfay through a note.
If you fnd it very had to play right
through a gae blindfold, do not be dis-
couraged. One of the very worst blindfold
players I know is John Purdy, yet a player
who has twice won the Austalian Champi
onship cannot be utterly hopeless. He seems
to find the second kind of visualization, i.e.,
unseeing the position before him and see
ing it a few moves ahead, quite easy, but he
is handicapped if he has no board at all.
If you find blindfold chess hard at frst,
begin by playing with a blank board and no
men. Another tp: when lying in bed, spend
a minute or two each moring saying the
names of squares, like c6, and immediately
telling yourself whether it is dark or light.
Koltanowski, the great blindfold expert,
leaed this way. It shows that blindfold
chess is not something you either can or
cannot do. You can lear it and improve at
it. We all know that hl and a8 are light.
Therefore, g2, , e4, dS, and b7 are light.
And of course fl, dl, bl, c8, e8, g8. From
that you can work out the rest. But with
practice you stop working them out, you
just know.
More on Books
I do not agree with "Zugzan" on all
points. He says "players of talent" do not
need many books. They do not need tem
if tey merely want to play better tan
untalented players. But if they want to im
prove their own chess rapidly, books will
help them enormously.
There are two great diferences be
tween chess today and chess in my boy
hood.
1. The number of competent players
the world over is vastly greater; I would say
it has multiplied twentyfold or even a hun
dredfold. It is impossible to be more exact
than that, because the word "competent"
itself is vague. In my boyhood, almost ev
ery player of great skill had, as far as I could
see, a rather keen mentality, and there were
very few of them. Now tere are a great
- 208 -
Hi Wrtings
many players of about their strengt, with
extemely varied mentalites.
2. The number of helpfl chess books
is also vastly greater, and ( 1) has happened
because of (2). Chess literature in my boy
hood was pitifl compared with now. The
main trouble was a general belief that the
fner points of chess were unteachable. There
were books on openings and books of re
corded gaes (with superficial notes), and
very little else. Nobody dreamed that actual
skill in chess could be taught, e.g., the abil
ity to see combinations and to make good
plans.
The Big Breakthrough
Although it is not realized now, one
single, superior intellect was responsible for
the change-Emanuel Lasker. His Manual
showed (in 1928) that both these things
could be taught. Because he himself blew
no trumpets about his pioneering, but sim
ply launched his book as though it were just
one more chess book, ad secondly be
cause he obscured his brass tacks by drag
gng in bits of idealist philosophy that were
rather boring, but above all, because he
gave the credit for his theories to Steinitz
thus disguising new lamps by calling them
old-ordinary players did not realize that a
new chess era had started. The people who
did wake up to it were writers, and the frst
was Lasker's old rival, Tarrasch. Tarrasch
had previously taught only by annotation.
Now he produced his textbook, The Game of
Chess. This was so crammed with brass tacks
and fee fom Lasker's irrelevancies that
nobody seemed to realize it was based di
rectly on Lasker and would have been im
possible without Lasker-that Lasker was
the genius, Tarrasch just a great teacher
serving up Lasker's dish in a new, and to
most people, a more acceptable form.
Lasker was not the only great pioneer.
There was also Nimzovich. Later writers do
not use Nimzovich's rather humorous ter
minology, and they avoid his exaggera
tions, but all his insights are essential ingre
dients of their works. Nimzovich dealt
mainly with special types of positions
(mainly very closed ones). Other writers try
to deal with all types, but their treatment of
the special types is still based on Nimzo
vich.
Other Pioneers
Another pioneer was Znosko-Borov
sky. Unfortunately, he started of, like the
old philosophers Descartes, Spinoza, Leib
nitz and that crowd, with an a priori theory
that the "elements" of chess were force,
space, and time. Capablanca realized that
this was bunk, but his own attempt to patch
it up was a silly one. He said that Z-B had
left out a "fourth element," namely "posi
tion." He went on to describe "position" in
such vague, complex terms that the absur
dity of calling it an element should have
been obvious to his mathematical mind-so
crystal-dear when dealing with actual chess
situations over the board.
Just as the philosophy of Descartes is
fll of good, fruity stuff despite its false
premises, so Znosko-Borovsky made an
important contributon to chess literature,
especially by showing how lucid a chess
writer could get without bursting at the
seams. The best parts of his book, The
Midlegame in Chess, are quite independent
of his force-space-time theory; they deal
extremely practically with the teatent of
superior, inferior, and equal positions. Ca
pablanca, in Chess Fundamentals, was just as
lucid, and did not hadicap himself with
any special theory at all. His criticism of Z
B's theory is merely mentioned in passing
in another book, his Pimer (out of print) ;
and here again, although he says the four
elements of chess are force, space, time, and
position (sheer bunkum), he maes no fr-
- 209 -
The Search for Chess Perection
ther menton of them, so that they don't
handicap him in the least.
Larry Evans similarly gave some mad
list of "elements of chess," but again he does
not allow it to handicap him in his intensely
practcal work New Ideas in Chess, which is
really a splendid series of practical prob
lems in strategy and tactics, with the solu
tions flly explained.
"Myself When Young"
My own pioneering work, stated in
1930, was of great practcal assistance to
those who had the chace to read it. Not
many, for it did not appear in book form
but only in the A. C.R.-now all collector's
pieces. What I did first was to explain just
how Lasker's teaching on combinations
could be utilized in practca play. At first I
used Lasker's own grandiose terminology,
ad only years later did I evolve my own
exceedingly simple one, "forks, pins, nets,
tes," and so forth. I did deal with positon
play, but I concentrated on "how to see
combinatons," and time has proved me
right. For the great lesson of De Groot's
scientific experiments detailed in Thought
and Choice in Chess is that combinatons
(tactics) are the fndaenta things in chess,
and stategy mainly derivatve, so that the
diference between rabbits and fair ama
teurs, far amateurs ad strong amateurs,
stong aateurs and masters, masters and
gradmasters, boils down almost completely
to one thing-the ability to see tactical possi
bilites and see them quickly. It's actually
had to believe, untl you read Thought and
Choice and see how scientifcally the ex
periments were conducted.
Principles
All the same, though stategy may be a
derivative of tactcs, meaning that general
principles in chess are based, deep down,
on mere practcal experience of the results
of actual moves, that is no reason why the
average player should go to all the trouble
of deriving his own strategy in that way. If
clever writers have arrived at certain fairly
reliable principles, it saves an enormous
amount of labor if you study those prin
ciples and employ them, more or less on
trust at first, rather than go through all the
labor of tying to work them out for your
self. This way, you may get in a few months
the fuit of five centuries.
Elementary, Watson
We could all think of players like C.G.
Watson whose tactics were obviously far
superior to their strategy. Watson did study
chess books, but he never bothered with
general principles. He reveled in sheer cal
culation ad probably whipped through a
dozen variations amost every move; he
saw far more, and far more quickly, than
most of his opponents, including me. Ab
stractons bored him. Yet I, for one, had a
hoodoo over him, and the reason was that I
had some faith in principles, and discarded
quickly many of the lines he took the trouble
to calculate out for many moves ahead.
It makes me wonder how Watson and
I would have compared had we been used
as guinea pigs by De Groot. Watson cer
tainly saw tactica possibilites faster tan I
did. Yet he nearly always lost to me. What's
the answer? Would De Groot say that Wat
son was potentially a more skillfl player
than I, or would he discover that, although
I looked at fewer lines than Watson, I hit the
sounder ones sooner than he did? I don't
know, because, quite fankly, I have not
fully read De Groot. Perhaps he makes
some provision somewhere for exceptonal
cases like Watson.
Te Moral
The fact remains that Watson did de
spise general principles ad did sufer for it.
-2 1 0 -
His Writings
And the moral is that the reading of general
works on the game is beneficial, even thoug
it remains true that seeing tactical possibili
ties is absolutely essential to skill in chess.
Faith in, and use of, general principles will
save you a vast amount of clock time.
Purdy, Iconoclast
My later contribution to chess theory
was to point out the bunkum inherent in a
priori theories like Z-B's force-space-time
one, and to show that the proper way to
examine chess was to start from the game
itself, not to impose something upon it from
outside. Thus I stated to examine the moves
and the rles. Above all, I pointed out that
almost the whole basis of chess is the rule
that each player must move in turn and
only one thing at a time. This makes it
entirely different from war, and explains
why such enormous advantage results if
one side can face his opponent with the
ofen impossible tak of doing two things at
once. Not impossible always, for one move
will sometimes do two things. But often,
combinations are all based on that rule.
For years I searched around for a true
defniton of a combinaton-there have been
at least a dozen attempts-and finally real
ized that a defnition was unnecessary. And
why? Because combinatons can be split up
into something simpler, namely threats.
Thus I arrived at my most important dic
tum:
Treat are th ba ofwinning chss.
Position Play
I also got down to a very basic idea of
positon play. Positon play is for when no
sound combination is "on," and it does not
necessarily involve a "plan," as other writ
ers insisted it did-including even Lasker
but primarily a much simpler thing, and
that is the idea of stengtening one's posi-
lion or weakening the opponent's.
This is evident from the fact that al
though one should usually have a plan,
sometimes it is obvious that your best move,
come what may, is simply to create a flight
for your W by h31 . . . h6, thus freeing your
Es, or Re7/Re2 to take the seventh/second
rank with a E.
If you say, "Oh, well, tat's a plan
consisting of one move only, but still a
plan," my reply is that it is bad to stetch
words beyond their accepted meanings. A
plan is rightly thought of as a series of
moves, not a single move. In either case,
you cannot dispense with an inspection of
the positon for possible shock replies; but if
you find there is none, and you have obvi
ously one good move only, and it is not a
threat nor a parry of a threat, you are play
ing positionally, and yet are not maing a
plan because there is no need for a plan.
The idea of "strengthening" or "weaken
ing" covers all position play. It usually in
volves a plan, but need not.
It was because my ideas difered so
sharply fom other writers-even my origi
nal hero, Emanuel Lasker-that I entered
for the World Correspondence Champion
ship, in which I felt that sound theories,
rather than the tactcal facility I would never
possess, should tell. It is only reasonable
that a player with unusual theories should
be expected to bring some evidence that
they can achieve results. I knew my theo
ries were at least 90% right. My winning the
event did not prove them right, but it of
fered some evidence that I was not an ec
centic crank.
In recent years I have written nothing
along these lines, but have now resumed.
Position Play Made Easy
As explained, position play is for when
no sound combination is "on," and that is
most of the tme. lt need not involve a plan,
- 2 1 1 -
The Search for Chess Perection
as most writers insist that it must, but it does
usually.
What does the average player do when
he can neither threaten anything usefl nor
has to parry some specific threat? He just
has no guide, and probably ends up making
a . move which he thinks will do least
harm, but may actually ruin him because a
. move is irrevocable; a . cannot after
wards retur.
The simplest recipe for a plan in such
circumstances is to find which of your pieces
is doing least good, and ty to utilize it.
This applies right through the game.
For example, tae the simplest case. In ty
ing to mate with 1and W aganst W, never
move the 1if the W is able to advance.
Why? Because a W is absolutely null and
void at a distance. The only exception to
this rule is that you must avoid giving stae
mate-a special tc rule in chess which
supersedes the principle that gaining squares
is always good.
Coming back to the opening, my prin
ciple applies in the well-known rule that
you should develop unmoved pieces rather
than move ones already out. In this case
you usually have a choice of pieces that ae
doing "least good," but if you have only one
piece left to develop {usually a EO , then the
choice is narrowed down to it. Remember,
this is only for when you ca treaten noth
ing useful and do not have to parry a threat,
though even then it might stll be good to
develop that last .
For the middlege, we need a spe
cifc example. Take this one fom the Aus
tralian Championship, Perth 1954-55. It
shows the difculty that nonpositional play
ers have in vague positions.
John Purdy
S. Lazare (after 1 8. Qe3)
Here Black could, indeed, have played
a mildly threatening move, 18 ... j, but it is
two-edged and falls into the category of
risky . moves. John Purdy, then aged 19,
won the national title, but he was not yet a
positona player. Floundering for a plan,
he chose the weird 18 ... K8 with the "aim"
of .. .Ne5 and ... RB. All meaningless, and it
only spoiled his level position. He later
extricated himself and won brilliantly, but
that is irrelevant.
Al he had to do was to look for the
piece that was doing least good, and mobi
lize it. That's either . The 1- is not
needed to protect the a- . , nor is there any
early prospect of attacking via ... a4. More
over, the serious weakness in Black's game
is te c- . , which has two guns trained on it
and needs te d- . to stay "backward" to
guard it. By simply placing the 1- on c8,
Black would have made an inactve piece
useful {defensively) and eliminated his only
serious weakness. No "looking ahead" was
necessary.
Here's how the game went:
18 ... K8? 19. Bb2 Ne5 20. Na4 Rg8?
21. h3 f5 22. f4 Nd7 23. Bb5 Bxb2 24.
Rxb2 Nf 25. e5! Nd5 26. Qt dxe5.
With a few swift, sharp stokes, Black
has transformed his entrely satisfactory
positon into just about a dead loss. Sim
plest now for White was 27 fe5, but he
-2 1 2 -
His Writings
chose to complicate with 27 c4, and a wild
game developed. White thought he could
play R7 after 2Z .. Nxf4, but then . . . Q5
would threaten a deadly fork.
Black probably thought for a long time
about 78 . . . Kh8, yet it made no sense. By not
thinking at all and just following the prin
ciple (activate least useful piece), he would
have saved minutes on his clock and pre
served a good game.
It's true the other l was also inactive,
but the possibility of later playing .. .j for
attack makes it potentially actve. So a move
by the - l would not have been as good
as . . . Rac8, but would have been far better
than the useless move chosen.
So you see, position play is not as hard
as you think. If a move "looks" silly, it
probably is silly, so avoid it unless you can
prove beyond doubt that it is good.
Digression
Recently I did something I have not
done for several decades-gave a lesson to a
fairly raw beginner. This pupil, age 13, was
very intelligent, and had read Chess Made
Eas, and had played some games, though
only with a girl who did not flly know the
rules.
I was surprised to fnd that i spite of
her perusal of C.M.E., evidently only a brief
one, she was still not absolutely clear about
"en passant." She knew te rules of castling
as well as Averbakh5 did before Adelaide
1960, but did not know them flly.
Furthermore, her "sight of the board"
was virtually nonexistent.
The lesson took the form of a game in
which the pupil thougt out a move each
time entirely for herself, but was only per
mitted to play it if it was not a serious error.
If it was, the error was explained and she
was asked to think again, and if necessary
again, till she found a good move.
Thus she improved by almost a whole
1 in a lesson lasting a little over an hour. If
anyone thinks this an exaggeration, we must
explan that a player who can be given a 1
by a master can easily fnd opponents to
whom he or she can give a 1, and those
opponents can find victms to whom they
could concede a or more.
What would I charge for such a lesson
normally? Well, at least $20, assuming I was
willing to give one at all. Not may begin
ners cae to pay so much for early lessons.
What is the answer? I saw it at once,
and told the pupil, who realized I would not
have time to give frther lessons.
Ten years ago, there was no answer.
Now there is. It is Chemev's Logical Chess
Move by Move.
For tis is the only book of annotated
gaes that is comprehensible to a tyro.
Every other book of annotated games leaves
some moves unexplained. The annotator
assumes that the pupil will fnd some moves
fairly obvious, whereas in fact he or she
fnds none at all obvious.
Some students are satsfed to reman
completely puzzled by some moves. Po
vided they can follow most of them, they
realize the game is doing them good. This is
te best way to be. This was how I myself
had to be, as the frst book of chess I ever
possessed had games with no notes at all.
But this is part of my nature. I am
happy to remain in complete doubt about
5 Ed.: In Averbakh-Purdy, Adelaide 1960, Purdy castled 1-side and Averbakh argued
that Purdy's l had passed over a square (b8) commanded by a white piece-so te
castling was illegal! Averbakh's misconcepton was pointed out to him by his Russian
fiends ad the game went on. See Chess Worl, Oct. 1960, p. 198.
-2 1 3 -
The Search for Ches Perection
many things.
But about 90% of us are not. These
90% or so like to understand everything
when they study something. Gaps of in
comprehensibility in a game worry them.
This is remedied by Chemev, who anno
tates every move in every game, even going to
the lengths of saying something new each
time about 7. e4 or 1. d4.
Even then, begnners will naturally fnd
a few bits of the notes not fully understand
able, but they will at least understand al the
moves of each game.
In this series, I have mentioned the
value of books mostly in a general way.
There are now so many that readers have
suggested that I offer a sort of guide to
them.
When somebody asks me what books
he should get, I need to know frst of all
what books he has already, and about what
strength he is. If he has some books aready,
I want to know his reactions to them. For
example, some students fnd Nimzovich's
My System extremely illuminating, helpfl,
and easy to understand. Others have dif
culty with him, ad if I can discover why
they have dificulty, I can pick books that
will help them.
In some cases the dificulty is simply
that they have never acquired a quick "sight
of the board." Nimzovich takes a good deal
for granted. Every now and then he men
tions that the move that would be indicated
by the "system" is no good because of . . .
and he reels of a little string of moves. A
player who is already good enough to know
that tactical possibilities must invariably
have precedence over "principles" is not
worried by this. But te player who has
come on to Nimzovich too soon is con
fsed.
As to strength (or weakness) of play, I
also need to know just where his weakness
lies. Often he thinks his weakness is in
openings, and is usually wrong. Most play
ers have one weakness in common, though
they may have others: they do not see the
"obvious" quickly. Look at the nearest dia
gam and see how long it takes you to see
White's correct move. One second? That is
satisfactory. But suppose, three moves ear
lier, you saw that you could win a piece but
would be ten faced with the position in the
diagram; might you not hastily conclude
that being faced with such a diabolical
looking fork three moves later would make
the whole thing unsound, and might you
therefore refrain from winning the piece? If
you are quite certain you would not allow
yourself to be fooled in this way, either you
are kidding yourself or you are a good
tactician. In the latter case, you need ad
vanced books on position play, having al
ready a fair grip of the mechanics of te
game.
The mechanics of the game are the
geat bottleneck with most leaers. Any
one of intelligence can understand the prin
ciples of quick development, control of the
center, and so forth, but nearly everyone, at
any age, is slow in acquiring facility in chess
geomety.
The hardest moves to see are:
(a) very long moves backwards, and
(b) the Knight's move.
Many writers describe the .'s move
as two operations. This is bad. Nobody is
ever going to get to even "Z" class i chess
until he stops seeing the .'s move as two
steps and sees it as only one. Therefore it is
best to describe it as one only from the start.
The main thing is to show it in diagrams, for
in actual play it has to be seen, not thought
about. So long as you have to think about
the .'s move, you cannot play chess.
If a leaer can stand it, it is best to give
him innumerable exercises in 4 forks, other
forks, pins, and skewers. But show him that
-2 1 4 -
His Wrtings
forks, and pins and skewers of a sort that
threaten to win material, are really all the
same thing-pins and skewers are really only
particular cases of forks, both the forked
pieces lying on the same line instead of on
diferent lines.
I spoke of Logical Chess Move b Move as
an aswer to a leaer's prayer.6
Since then, I have found that it is not
enough for most learers. They need actual
chess exercises.
How to Force Checkmate
The best book of exercises for a leaer
to start with is Reinfeld's How to Force Check
mate. Reinfeld's best books ae those with
hardly any words at all, but only diagrams,
captons, and solutons. This is one.
It starts with 36 diagrams in which the
problem is to mate in one. It is surprising
how long it takes most beginners to see
these, and this shows how much they need
them.
After whipping through these, the
learer is intoduced to 156 mates in two
not those frightlly dificult sort that are
specially composed and appear in Sunday
newspapers, but ones where the frst move
is almost invariably a check, as in real chess.
All these positions are from actual play.
When the leaer has been through
these, taking a little more time, he is intro
duced to 108 mates in three-agan, all stat
ing with a check or oter forcing move. No
mate in three in rea chess or in this book is
ever as hard to see as a cleverly composed
mate in two.
In other words, all the exercises are
either very easy or fairly easy, and this is
good. It means that you get trough 300
fairly quickly, and you are then no longer a
raw beginner-whereas if a leaer merely
reads a book that tells him some principles,
useful though they may be, his actual play
will still be ghastly because he is not yet
seeing. He is only thinking, and this is futile.
It is obvious fom lightning chess that
it is not absolutely necessary to think in
chess-though it's a help. But it is absolutely
necessary to see. A person may have a ter
rific brain, but until he starts seeing the
"obvious" in chess he will continue to com
mit the most atrocious blunders. There is
noting inherently obvious in chess. You
can get to a stage where the "obvious" is
really obvious just by playing chess for yeas
and years. Or you can get to it in a few
weeks with the right books of exercises or
books of games, but exercises give you
more specifc practice in the essentals.
"Win at Chess"
After How to Force Checkmate, there is
another good book by Reinfeld called Win
at Chess.7
These exercises are not quite so easy.
They are all combinations, but not all end
ing in forced mates. It is important to real
ize that although matng combinatons are
the most vital, they are not the commonest.
Little combinations involving loss or gain
of material come into calculaton at every
move in the game, even when it is only a
case of avoiding a certain move because it
would permit a little combinaton by the
opponent. In mater chess, a minority of
moves are actually combinative, but this is
because both players are seeing all the cor-
6 Ed.: Unfortunately, Logical Chess Move by Move by Cherev has been out of print for some
time and as of 1 997 there is no word of a reprint.
7 Ed.: Thinkers' Press, the publisher of the book you are reading, also publishes a title
called Win at Chess! by Ron Curry. Available ! rom many fne booksellers.
- 2 1 5 --
The Search for Chess Perection
binations that certain moves would give the
opponent, and are avoiding such moves.
A thing not often realized is that in
most grades of chess, when you get a chance
for a winning combination it is usually
through an error by te opponent, and
when your opponent gets one it is usually
through error by you. It follows that unfag
ging attention has to be given to checking
up at every move to see if it permits an
enemy combination. For once you have
moved, the board is at your opponent's
mercy.
Equally, since your opponent may
make an error permittng a combinaton at
any time, you must also look for possible
combinations on your own account, when
it is your move. Ever time.
Play through a game by a couple of
leaers or average players, and you will
fnd tat both of them constantly overlooked
dramatic possibilities. Their games have
few combinations because they didn't see
them. The games of masters do not, as a
general rule, contain a great number of
combinations, either. But this is for the op
posite reason that the masters see all the
ones that would arise through errors, and
avoid the errors.
Like Tennis
The diference between books of games
and books of exercises is a bit like te
difference between playing sets of tennis
and having special practice at volleying
against a wall or with the aid of an appara
tus, or even with another player across the
net. Or practice in serving by serving a
dozen balls from corer to corer several
tmes. Playing the set gives you varied prac
tce, but does not improve you rapidly in
particular shots. Volleys may be likened to
combinatons because they are the fnish
ing shots, and if you volley too feebly you
are usually vulnerable to an easy passing
shot, so you lose where you should have
won. And a good service will pay of in
aces, forced errors, and weak returs. And
volleys and serves are shots that not many
players become very good at, but they are
the ones it is possible to become very good
at more quickly than any others in the ways
described.
Books for Practice!
The main point is that practice is better
than theory, but practce aganst other lea
ers is of little use because they do not take
advantage of most of your errors, so that
you go on making such errors. And you
cannot, in common humanity, ask an ex
pert to play with you. Not only will it bore
him, but it may have a really bad efect on
his play. I have known players to go right
of their game through being inveigled fe
quently into playing weak opponents. A
book of exercises from actual play or a
book of games is practice of the very best
sort, always provided you never peep at the
solution or the text move until you have
"had a go." And provided that if you went
wrong, you try to fnd out why you went
wrong. But don't spend too long at that. As
I always say, even if you only understad
50% of the moves, you are getting some
where and your percentage will rise. Don't
expect to understand everything at frst
just forge aead.
-2 1 6 -
His Games
A
Cecil Purdy competed in his
Championship tourey in
1926, the year I was bor. Despite this generation gap, it seems that, except
for Garry Koshnitsky, I had the longest close contact with Purdy of any
current player. My frst encounter was in 1941 when, as a schoolboy who
had leart chess only the year before, I brashly wrote to A. C.R. suggesting
an analysis of an endgame was wrong. Not surprisingly, I was in error, but
I received back a pleasant letter giving more detailed analysis and offering
a book if I could refte it. Later I was taken by Steve Kruger to meet Purdy
at No. 1 Bond Street, the frst of numerous trips of mine to the offce of
incredible chaos at the top of the stairs-a habit broken only when I
graduated at Sydney University in 1945 and ten came to live in Melboure.
During my Sydney years I saw Purdy in action many times, ranging
fom some years in the same interclub team through severa N.S.W
Championships up to the 1945 Austraian Championship.
My contact was not confned to chess events. Mter our 1973 personal
distress, Cecil showed a high order of sympathetic sensitvity. When
possible, we were tennis adversaries. I ofen visited his home-Cecil was a
leaed yet entertaining conversatonaist. We were fequent correspondents.
Cecil had the great virtue of being prepared to objectively look at new
concepts and, even more unusual, at heterodox ideas challenging accepted
wisdom. We argued at lengt over abstruse areas of cess philosophy,
much more than ever was mentioned in Chess Wrld. He was always willing
to espouse any suggestion that he thought to be good for chess.
-2 1 7 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
THE PLAYER
When a player is a F.I.D.E. Intera
tional Master and is capable of winning
four Australian Championships, his ability
must be of a very high order indeed. What
then were his skills? He was a most efective
player; his genius for winning the impor
tant games and the important events, even
against innately better opponents, was un
paralleled. But above all, he was extremely
efcient in his play, more so than anybody
else I have seen. That is, he marshaled his
talents and applied them in the most efec
tive way. Never was there whimsy for the
sake of being diferent or showiness or other
forms of waste of efort. In a way, his great
skill was metodical organizaton of thought,
and systematic applicaton of one overall,
overriding concept.
I do not mean that his play was stereo
typed, only that his games (and his suc
cesses) were based on one idea. Purdy was
the perfect example of how a person's own
abilities infuenced not only his actual play,
but also his philosophy of how the game
should be played. Running through al his
writings is the theme that a bad positional
mistake may sometimes be decisive, but
almost always defeats arise fom tactical
errors, minor or major, so tat the key to
winning chess is to avoid such mistakes
oneself and take advantage of the opponent's
mistaes. Except perhaps at the very top
levels, that proposition is undoubtedly cor
rect, and Purdy's great contibuton to chess
literature was to emphasize it, to classif te
types of situation, and to provide a scheme
which could be used by players of all
strengths to at least minimize such tactical
errors. All this echoed his own merits: even
at his peak, his aims in play were modest
his successes arose fom his avoidance of
minor tactical errors, his percepton of when
his opponent so faltered, and his ability to
keep a game in channels where constant
vigilance was required. Most illuminating
was his own comment to an unexpected
loss to a tail-ender-that Tymoshenko ob
tained a position where the right moves
were straghtorward.
It can be deduced that Purdy would be
troubled by players of reasonably compa
rable standard who did not make mistakes
or, in a particular game, until they made a
mistake. I do not mean somebody who
stolidly did nothing, as the Purdy style of
constant small tactical possibilities is dyna
mite against such types. Instead I refer to
somebody who keeps the minor tactics un
der control, but who may be fertile in ideas.
In such cases deeper, long-range plans come
into play, and Purdy's advocacy and use of
merely finding the best piece-improvement
move is found wantng. Games over the
years verif this deduction.
Among Cecil Purdy's attributes have
to be placed iron nerves. If he ever got
nervous, it was certainly well concealed.
Over the board, his concentraton was re
nowned. Immersed under his famous
eyeshade (to avoid distraction), it was rae
to see him stir. Chess was a stuggle, and no
matter who the opponent, how the game
was going, what the event was, or whether
he was in the running, all games were given
full attention.
Purdy was the epitome of the fighter.
Never was he one for the casual draw, and
stll less for the pusillanimous grandmaster
draw. If you were a leader, you aimed to
beat other leaders to open up a margin;
- 2 1 8 -
Hi Games
even if you were an also-ran, you aimed to
win to improve your standing. This implies
both courage and a concern for self-respect.
As a fghter, he was never beaten until he
turned over his W. In bad positions he was
the master of finding the best chance, and
his games are full of sacrifices of a f , or of
the Exchange for a f to provide counter
play; and many a time the game thereby
swung his way. Given the great influence he
had on me, it is no surprise that we drew
only three of our 18 games, and two of these
were 80-move hairsbreadth escapes ad the
other was by forced repettion in a wild
position in which I was vast material be
hind.
In a major event, Purdy believed in
getting plenty of rest, at night or before play
as appropriate to the session times. Except
for sometime press duties, he rarely stayed
around long after he fnished his game, and
he was never one who retured to an ad
journment session merely for interest. Like
wise, he was not of those who socialized or
went to partes or "did the town" at nights
or on rest days. All tis is very wise, as a
major tourament is a test of stamina, and
he never seemed to tre in an event (or for
that matter even in a game untl advanced
in years) .
OPENING PREPARATION
Purdy placed great store in preparing
the opening, not so much for gaining a
theoretcal advantage, as his own concepts
would show how ephemeral that could be,
but rather to run the game into the type of
position he wanted and whose basic ideas
were known to him. In a major tourey, he
would ofen beforehand prepare very deeply
in one or two openings and confne himself
wholly to them. That worked pretty well,
tough occasionally he came unstuck by
running into somebody whose own pet
opening it was.
The idea behind opening preparation
is to avoid unnecessary time expenditure,
but Purdy rarely succeeded in this. His slow
ness and consequent perennial time touble
were notorious. However, he then was cool
ness personified. Nobody avoids all mis
takes in time touble, but I'd say Purdy did
better than most. So often was it a feature of
his game that he even worked out a scheme
of prior marks on the score sheet to allow a
move tally to be maintained with just one
pencil stroke. Without getting fustered, he
would work out an answer to possible moves
and reply instantly-again the systematic
app
roach. Since he used the tasmission
time to think, he was ideally suited to tele
gaphic play, and his record was superb. As
his teller, I once saw him shoot out about
ten instantaneous replies consecutively. A
most curious discrepancy was that he had
all the requirements for lightning play, yet
he was a complete flop at this: I cannot
explain it.
If the game was adjourned, Purdy
would analyze it deeper ad deeper until it
held no secrets. He seemed to be invulner
able to fatigue, and for him this approach
was very successfl; but one's physiology
plays a pat, and for others a more circum
spect approach to food needs and recupera
tion between sessions might tur out better.
His analycal ability was outstanding,
as evidenced by his correspondence achieve
ments. From the start I was impressed by
his skill in playing over an unknown game
and very rapidly locatng the critcal error
moves. His annotations were to the point
and could well be emulated in aim by most
of the present day: he amed to show where
the mistakes were, why they were in error,
and what should have been played. Of
course, he was not always correct, but when
sound analysis was provided it would be
accepted ungrudgingly and without rancor.
-2 1 9 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
It was the same in over-the-board analysis
at game completon. He could confine his
attention to critical positions, avoiding the
trivialities where a loser attempts to show
otherwise by more-or-less lightning anal
ysis. Equally, he was very rarely averse to
agreeing that he had been in error or even
losing-very unlike many players I could
name.
Cecil Purdy had the old-fashioned but
still desirable ethical attitude to play. You
do not cheat, you do not use gamesman
ship, but the rules are to be kept and you do
not allow your opponent to breach them or
otherwise take advantage of you. You do
not give up while a chace remains, but you
do not go to a frther session with a game
demonstrably past salvation. Still less do
you commit the utterly appalling act of
failing to appear at that next session. Like
wise, you play on for a win whilst any
reasonable opportunites exist, but you do
not contnue games where your only chance
is for the opponent to blunder due to fa
tgue, boredom, or annoyance.
Lest the reader feel that CJSP was a
paragon, I must now admit that he was
human and did have his imperfections. Nev
ertheless, about his conduct at the chess
board "I fnd no fault of this man," and it
was as magazine editor that some flaws
were seen. We all tolerated the incredible
unpunctuality of issues of the magazine and
soon leared to discount the promises of
fture articles, features, books, etc., so few
of which ever came to fruiton. Perhaps the
most amusing were his proclaimed retre
ments. At the Brisbane 1951 prizegiving, I
heard him declare his abandonment of all
fture competitive play! If this was the frst
time, it certainly was not the last, and what
he was engaged at when he came to his
untimely end shows how stong the attrac
ton of the battle is to the true warrior.
In his writings, he was occasionally
unduly dogmatc. One case was his reitera
ton that a position could not be judged
statically on head-countng and positional
grounds untl afer all tactical possibilites
were surveyed. This overlooks that the merit
of a tactcal furry often cannot be evaluated
without prior assessment of the existng po
sitional and material aspects; yet his own
practical successes were ofen due to his use
of that self-same reasoning. He constantly
tempted opponents to exchange great posi
ton plusses for only slight material gain.
Likewise, his dismissal of the claim that
combinations only arise in superior posi
tions was obscurantist. No writer has ever
denied that the easiest win can be destroyed
by a tactcal blunder: the real claim is that,
provided patent blunders are avoided, win
ning combinatons arise only aer the op
ponent has been pushed downhill so far
that he can no longer attend to all dangers.
The magazines always tended to be
rather Purdy-centered, and in the later years
of Chess Wrl the achievements of the Purdy
family were certainly unduly prominent.
Cecil sometmes came on rather much about
ethics and, like us all, showed his little bi
ases about certain persons and States and
incidents. He was so scrupulously fair over
the board that I was always surprised that in
his magazine writings he was sometimes
very less tan fair and distinctly ungener
ous about his strongest rivals and teir
achievements. Still, even an angel needs
some warts lest he becomes cloying.
To fnish, I have left the best till last. If
Cecil Purdy's attitude to the playing of tour
nament chess had to be summed up in one
word, I would say Integrity. In fairess to all
competitors, every game has to be treated
aike. Even if well out of the running, never
should one indulge in such disreputable
practces as not turing up, or withdrawing,
or coming very late, or playing moves at
allegro speed. Moreover, the easy draw or a
-220 -
Hi Games
casual attitude is almost as reprehensible.
Cecil had a special worry in that his son was
often a compettor in the same events. How
ever, at no time and in no event, regardless
of the scores, was there any concession
made to John P., or for that matter to friends
or proteges.
Perhaps te most notable example of
his principled attitude was the last-round
game Purdy-Rogers in the 1979 Sydney
Internatonal, the last important game that
he was fated to play. He was already last for
sure, whilst Rogers needed but half a point
for his IM norm. A quick draw? Not bloody
likely! Any score has to be eaed. The
course and eventual result of tat game is
now history, but for his honorable approach
I respect him most of all.
Val CecilJ.S. Purdy
( I
)
Austaian Championship (1931)
C. PurdyG. Gundersen
Ruy Lopez
1. e4 e5
2. Nf Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6
5. 0-0 Nxe4
6. d4 b5
7. Bb3 d5
8. dxe5 Be6
9. c Bc5
10. Nd 0-0
1 1. Bc2 f5
12. Nb3 Bb6
13. Nfd4 Nxd4
14. cd4
Nxd4 is "book."
14 . . . a
Vienna 1882). White has no more than
equal chances.
15. f Ng5
16. f4
Or Bxg5 followed by Qd with some
slight advantage.
16. Ne4
17. Be3 Qe7
18. Rc1 Rac8
If . .. a4, 19. Nd2 c5 20. Nxe4 and White
is preferable.
19. Bd3 c6
20. a
White tries for too muc. He wants to
play Nc5 without the possibility of Black
equalizing by . . . Bxc5 followed by . . . d4, and
frst moves the a- . out of range of the A.
But this . advance gives Black chances on
te wing. Nc5 at once.
20. Qa7!
21. Qc2
a4!
22. Nc5 Bxc5
23. dxc5 Rb8!
24. Bd4 b4
25. R! R
26. Qe2! Rf7
27. Ba6!
By these maneuvers White preserves
equilibrium.
27.
28. Bd3
29. Ba6
R
R7
R
More energetic was 14 ... f4 15. j Ng3!! 30. h3
16. R! Q4. This has occurred aer 14. Avoiding a draw by repetition and pre-
Nx4 B4 15. c4 (Mackenzie-Fleissig, paring possibilities of -side counterplay.
- 22 1 --
Te Search fr Chess Perction
30. l8
31. Bd3 Rb7
32. Kh2 b3
Seeing that after all he can make noth
ing out of the \-side (e.g., . . . bxa3 33. bxa3
Rh3 34. Bb2), Black decides to close it up
and seek fresh felds. This makes the game
very drawish.
33. Rf
34. Qe3
35. R
R
Qe7
White was scrambling to beat his clock,
which he had been racing for almost 20
moves.
35.
36. Rcfl
37. Bxe4
Kh8
l?
After his 36th move White has time to
think, and he prepares an entre re grouping
maneuver; he centraizes his is, which
Black fails to do.
37.
38. Rf
39. Qc3
40. Rd1
41. Rfd2
42. Be3!
dxe4
Qf
Rb5
Rd7
Qd8
Black's positon is now most difcult,
owing to the unhappy maneuver with his
\- ). White threatens Rd6.
42. . .
Bd5
43. e6!
A surprise move which opens up av
enues of attack.
43. . .
Bxe6
If . . . Re7, 44. Q5 Q! 45. Rxd5 cxd5 46.
Rxd5 with good winning prospects. But this
gave Black more chances.
44. Rxd7 Bxd7
45. Qd4 Rb7
46. Qxa4 Qe8
47. Rd6 h6
48. Qa6 Qc8
49. Bd4 Kh7
50. Be5 Be8
51. a4 Bd7
52. a Be8
Black is in zgzang.
53. Re6!
A neat stfer. Threatens RxeB, and if
. . . Bd7, Re7, or .. . Bf, Rxc6.
53. . . Qxe6
54. Qxb7 Resigs
If . . . Bd7, 55. a6 e3 56. a7 e2 5Z Bc3 Q4
58. OB, etc.
(2)
Melboure Anu Touraent (1932)
F. Crowi-C. Purdy
Polish Opening
1. b4
Having a move in hand, White can
afford almost any frea. This is the Polish,
alias Orang-Outang, Opening. The ad
vanced b- f and the ./b2 are not without
their efect, but the loss of time on Move 4
outweighs that.
1. . . . d5
If .. . e5, Bb2 compels . . . d6 or . . f6, as a
b- f is no compensation for a center f .
2. Bb2 Nf6
3. e3! e6
If . . . Bj first, [4 and the A is liable to
get hemmed in by fs.
4. b5
5. N
6. c4
7. Nc3
8. Qb3
9. d3
10. Be2
Nbd7
Bd6
Qe7
c
Nb6
0-0
Rd8!
Black wants to play . . . e5, but at present
can only do so after dc4 dxc4, which would
allow White later to post a 4 stongly at dS.
Black therefore prepares ... d4 to drive away
the 4 frst.
1 1. 0-0 Bc7!
12. ladl
Best was Rac7 or e4.
- 222 -
Hi Games
12. d4
13. exd4 cxd4
14. Nb1
If Ne4, Black gets a passed f by ex
changing ls.
14 . . . .
15. Rfe1
e5
Nbd7!
Nimzovich was screaming for Black to
put tis 4 on the blockade square (c5) .
16. Bfl Nc5
17. Qc2 Bg4
18. Nbd2 Qd7
White threatened Bxd4.
19. h3 Bx
20. Nxf Re8
21. Ba3!
To induce the weakening . . . b6.
21. b6
22. g3 Rad8
23. Bg2
e4!
And the fn begins.
24. dxe4 d3
25. Qb1 Nfe4
26. Bb2
26. Bxc5 Nxc5 2Z Rxe8 Rxe8 28. Re1 to
simplif gave more chance.
26. f5
27. Nd4 Qf
28. Nc6 Rd7
29. Ba1
If 29. Nxa7, . . . Qxc4threatening ... Bxg3.
White could save his c- f by 29. Bxe4 fol
lowed by Q1, but his W position would be
left weak.
29. . . . Qxc4
30. f
Leads to exchange of two live pieces
for a dead and two fs, but exposes the
w.
30. . . . Bxg3!
. . . Nd6is bad (Ne5), and if . . . N6 31. Bxf6
Rxe 1 f 32. Rxe 1 gxf6Wite regains his f by
Ne7f.
31. fe4 Bxe1
32. Rxe1 Nxe4
Not .. .e4 33. Ne5.
33. Qb3
Primarily because of his exposed ,
White is forced to exchange s at the cost
of a tempo and doubled fs.
33. Qxb3
34. axb3 d2
35. Rd1 Rd3
'i

0 .

zra:,z

)
36. Bf
Black treatened to w i one by .. .Ng3!
36. . . Rg3t
Black saw . . . R3 won easily, but thought
he could win still more easily by driving
away White's W first; he overlooked the
ingenious idea in the next note.
37. Kh2 Re3
38. Bc4t K
Black had thought to win offand by
. . . KhB, but now sees his error: 39. R1 Nf6
40. Bxf6! gxf6 41. Rd1! and wins the passed
f !
39. Bb2!
40. Ba3t
41. Bb4
g5
Kg7
Rxh3t
Owing to his tiny lapse on Move 36,
Black's task is lengthened by about 20
moves! If ... Re1, of course simply Rxe1.
42. Kxh3 Nft
43. Kg2 Nxd1
44. Bxd2 Ne3t
45. Bxe3
Better was Kf, suggested by Mr. Wat
son, but by . . . Ng4f followed by . . . Kg6 and
.. . h5 Black wins as in the game.
45. . Rxe3
- 223 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
46. Nxa7 ReS!
47. Nc6
Kf6!
Black resists the temptation to race
ahead with the h- . and develops his ' in
accordance with correct principles.
48. Nb4 Ke5
49. Nd5
Re6
50. Ne3
Rf6
... Rd6 is not good while the fork at c4
looms.
51. K h5
52. Be2 g4
Keep your .s on the same color as an
enemy A. Then it cannot blockade them,
and they take squares away from it.
53. Ng2 f4
54. Nh4 Rd6
Aiming at . . . Kf6-g5 to unblockade.
Black wants all three to advance.
55. Bc4
Kf6
56. Ng2 Kg5
57. Nel Rd2t
58. Kgl h4
59. Bfl f
60. Nd3 g3
... h3 was more crushing; see note after
Move 52.
61. Ne5
62. Ng6t
63. Ne5
64. Kg2
65. Nft
66. NeSt
67. Nc4
Kf4
Kg5
tt
Rdl
Kg4
K5
If N, ... Rf7 and . . . h wins.
67. Ke4
68. Nxb6 R
Resigns
On Kf, mate in two.
(3)
N.S.W. Chapionship {1933)
C. Purdy-G. Hastings
Qeen 's Gambit Accepted
1. d4
2. c4
3. Nf
4. e3
5. Bxc4
6. 0-0
7. Qe2
d5
dxc4
Nf6
c5
e6
a6
The i-< is reserved for d2 in case of
. . . b5, a5, . . . b4 .
7 Nbd7
8. a4
White now prefers to stop . . . b5 alto
gether, seeing that Black cannot fll the hole
at b4 by .. .Nc6-b4.
8.
9. Nc3
10. Rdl
1 1. Bd2!
b6
Bb7
Qc7
At least as good as b3. White's idea is to
utlize the c-file rapidly in order to avoid
having to play h3.
1 1. Bd6
12. dxc5!
Nxc5
13. Racl Qe7
If 73 . . . 0-0 (threatening . . . Bxj and
. . . Bxh2f), 74. b4! Ncd7 75. e4Bxb4 76. Bxe6!
fe6 7Z Nd5, regaining the . with advan
tage.
14. b4 Nce4
15. Nxe4 Nxe4
16. Bel! 0-0
If 76 ... Bxb4, 7Z @2 Bxe7 18. Nxe1 ad
White recovers the piece with advantage.
17. Bd3!
Rfd8
Not 7Z .. Bxb4? 18. Bxb4 Qb4 19. Rc4.
White had always to try to avoid b5, which
would release the pressure.
18. Rc4 f5?
Weakening, . . . Nf6 should equalize.
Thus, in spite of the utmost fnesse, White
has been unable to force an absolute advan
tage; this indicates that 8. Rd1 !(allowing b5)
is a shade better than 8. a4.
Afer the text, however, White should
win.
- 224 -
Hi Games
19. Nd4 K8
20. f
But here, less impatently, Rdc1!
20. Nf6
21. e4 fe4
22. fe4 Nd7
23. Nc6 Bxc6
24. Rxc6 Bxb4
25. Bxb4 Qxb4
26. Bxa6 Ne5!?
27. Rxe6 Qxa4
28. Rxd8t Rxd8
29. h3 Ng6
30. Qb5! Qd1t
Black is again in a quagmire; exchange
ofs gave some chance. Both players were
now fghting their clocks.
31. Kh2 R
32. Qxb6 Qe1
33. Qd6 Qf
34. Qg3 Qa2
35. Rb6 Qa5
36. Rd6 Qa1??
Through time pressure, Black loses in
one, but te f up would win.
37. Rxg6 Resigns
If . . . hxg6, checks, A checks, Q7!
forces a won f ending.
(4)
Match (1934)
G. Koshnitsk-C. Purdy
Bird's Openin
1. f4 c
Black refains from . . . d5, as it means
playing Wite a move behind.
2. e3
e4 gives Black a favorable variation of
the Sicilian, while b3 could be met aggres
sively by ... d5-d4!
2. g6
3. Nf Bg7
4. Be2 Nf6
5. 0-0 0-0
6. d3
Adopting the formation which had
worked well in te previous game, but per
haps better was Nc3, for b3, etc.
6.
Nc6
7. Nc3 d6
8. Bd2 Rb8
Preparing to build up command of the
-side. In close games, the object is to get
command of space where you can, and
keep equilibrium where you can't.
9. a b5
10. Qe1 a5
1 1. Nd1
To make ... b4 stingless, but Qh4 at once
seems better.
11. Qb6
12. Qh4 d5
To keep Wite cramped, and deliber
ately ofering him a tempting pseudo-fee
ing maneuver which will result in open
lines favorable to the better developed side
Black.
13. Ne5
14. fe5
15. Qxe7
16. Nc3
Nxe5
Nd7
Nxe5
Hardly consistent, but White's game is
dificult.
16. . . . Bb7
17. Qh4
To save the .
17. . .
Rfe8
Prophylactic against e4.
18. Rae1 b4
- 225 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
Now that White has left the a-fle.
19. axb3 axb3
20. Na4 Qc6
21. b3
Nd7
White has at least induced a temporary
retreat-he threatened d4.
22. Bf f5
23. c4
Temptng, but creates fatal weaknesses.
Bel at once for Bb2 to challenge Black's
most dominating piece offered good resis
tance.
23.
24. Bel
25. Qf4
Qd6
Ne5
If 25. Be2, ... dc4 26. dxc4 Be4, winning.
25. Nx
ft
26. R Be5
27. Qh4 Bf6
Anti-clock.
28. Q4
Be5
29. Qh6?
Loses immediately. White was some
what clock-pressed. But after 29. Qh4 Black
wins by 29 . . . dc4 30. Rh3 (if Q: c4t, ... Bd5
wins) cxd3!! 31. Q: h7f Kj. If now 32. Bb2,
. . . Bd5!, and White's attack dwindles to a few
"spite checks."
29. dxc4
30. Rh3
Re7
31. dxc4
Be4
Threatens . . . Bc2. White's game is hope
less, and his next move is a desperate red
herring, his opponent being mildly pressed
for time.
32. g4?
33. Rh4
34. Nb2
35. R
fg4
Bf
Bg3
Bxh2t
Black mates in two more moves.
(5)
Match {1934)
C. Purdy-. Koshnitsk
Oeen ' Gambit
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 d5
4. Bg5 Nbd7
5. cxd5 exd5
6. e3 c6
7. Bd3 Be7
8. Qc2 h6
9. Bh4 0-0
10. Nge2 ReS
1 1. 0-0-0
Made popular by Alekhine.
1 1. . . . b5
This, aiming ultimately at . . . b4 after
preparation by .. . a5, ... a4, and . . . Q5, is the
most energetic counter.
12. h3 Ne4?
All right on the previous move, but
now inconsistent.
13. Bxe7
14. Bxe4
15. g4
Qxe7
dxe4
Prepared by White's 12th, this strength
ens Ng3.
15. . . . Nf6
16. Ng3
a6
Black's idea is to play . . . Be6 as soon as
White plays Kbl (allowing . . . Bxa2f), but
had Black properly visualized the ensuing
endgame he would have chosen . .. a5! as his
waiting move, and drawn.
17. Kbl Be6
18. Ncxe4
Ngxe4 is wrong. Why?
- 226 -
Hi Games
18 . . . . Nxe4
19. Qxe4 Bxa2t
20. Kxa2 Qxe4
21. Nxe4 Re4
22. Rcl Re6
23. Rc5 Rf6
24. f4 Re6!
25. Re5 Re5
Black had not foreseen his danger in
this ending. Had he played . . . aS on Move
16, he could draw by ... Rae8 (followed by
. . f6), met by the terrible b4!, which now
holds three fs with one. And if . .. aS first,
26. Rc1 forces . . . Ra6 or ... Rc8, and the ag
gressive .s should win.
26. fe5 c5
If . . . aS, 2Z Rc1 Ra6(if . . . Rc8, 28. dS) 28.
e4 Kf 29. dS.
27. dxc5 ReS
If ... aS, 28. Rc1 followed by c6, ReS, and
then W development, winning.
28. b4 a5?
... Kj gave more fght.
29. bxa5 Rc5
30. Kb3
Rxe5
31. a6 Rxe3t
32. Kb4 Re4t
33. Ka5
A valuable shelter!
33. . . . Ra4t
34. Kb6 b4
35. Rb1
Ending resistance.
35. R
36. a7 Ke7
37. Kb7
38. gf5
39. a8=Q
40. Kxa8
41. Rxb4
42. Kb7
43. Kc6
44. Rb5t
45. Rxh5
46. Rh4t
47. Rg4
48. Rg
5
K6
Ra8
Kx5
g5
h5
g4
K4
g3
K
g2
Resigs
(
6)
Match (1934)
G. Koshnitsk-C. Purdy
English Opening
1. c4 e5
2. Nc3 Nc6
3. Nf f5
4. e3 Nf6
5. d4 e4
6. Nd2
g
Losing a tempo, but . . . Bb4 is well met
by NdS, while ... Be7 is obstructive. And 6 ...
d6 is refted by Z b4! with a big gain in
space for White.
7. Be2 Bg7
8. 0-0
0-0
9. b4
Not so good now. Black emerges with
the preferable game .
9. Nxb4
10. Ba3 a5
11. Qa4 d6
12. Bxb4 Bd7
13. Nb5
axb4
14. Qxb4 c5!
Black wants to open the long diagonal
for his w-..
15. Qb3
16. Nc3!
17. Nxb3
Qb6
Qxb3
R
Gives strong pressure.
-227 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
18. Racl Bc6
19. dxc5
Opening the diagonal, but correct.
19. dxc5
20. Nxc5 Nd7
21. Nb3!
For in order to regain the f Black has
to exchange the powerfl ., and White
should be able to draw.
21.
22. Rxc3
23. Nd4
24. Rb1
25. Rc2
26. Nxc2
27. Nd4
28. Bfl
Bxc3
Rxa2
Nc5
Rfa8
Rxc2
Ra2
K
But this fatally hinders the develop-
ment of White's .
28. Ke7
29. h4 Kd6
30. Nxc6 Kxc6
31. Rd1 Rc2
Playing for . .. Nd3 and .. . Rxc4 in order
to get a remote passed f .
32. h5 gxh5
33. Rd5 b5!
34. R5 b4
If . . . bxc4, 35. Bxc4! draws.
35. Rf6t Kc7
36. Rf5 Nd3
37. f! b3
38. Rb5! b2
39. Kh2!
R
40. Bxd3??
A marvelous instance of mental aber
raton. White forgot his could go back!
After 40. Kg1 Rd2! 41. Kh2, Black has only
one clear-cut win, namely, 41 ... N! (threat
ening . . . Nd1-c3). If then 42. fe4, ... Nxe4
wins, and if 42. Rh3 (say) , . . . h4!, threatening
. . . Rd1, . . . Rxf1, and . . . Rh1#.
40. exd3
41. Kg3
Rc2
Resigs
(7)
Match (1934)
C. Purdy-. Koshnitsk
Nimo-Indian Dense
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4
e6
3. Nc3
Sharper than Nf, i riskier. White was
not playing for a draw.
3. . . . Bb4
4. Qc2
The only correct move!
4. d5
5. cxd5 Qxd5
6. Nf
c5
7. Bd2 Bxc3
8. bxc3 Nc6
9. e3 0-0
10. Be2
A casual suggestion of Tartakover's.
Capablanca played c4. The text preserves
the threat, thus inviting complicatons by
. . . c4.
10. b6
11. 0-0 c4
12. Ne1!
Black's last was infuenced by his score.
White's reply is knife-edged. Can Black
exploit his opponent's cramp, or will White
regroup in time? If White does, his com
mand of the center will be demoniacal.
12. e5
13. f exd4
- 228 -
Hi Games
Loses. Koshnitsky suggested . . . Be6
much better, but then 16. Nc2 threatens
both a4 and e4, e.g., 16 . . . Q6 17 a4! a6 18.
axb5 axb5 19. @2!, or 16 . . . a5 17 e4 Q7 18.
Bg5! b4 19. Q3 b3 20. Bxf6 gxf6 21. d51eads
to White's advantage.
16. a4!
17. Ne2
1S. axb5
19. Na3
20. Bxe4
21. Nxb5
22. Bb3
23. Qb2
24. d5
25. e4
26. Bf4
27. Rfcl
2S. Qd4
29. Qc3
30. Qd4
Ba6
RabS
Bxb5
a6
Qd7
axb5
RdeS
Ne8
Ne7
Nd6
Rb7
Ne4
Ne6
Ne7
Ganing on his clock.
30. Ne6
31. Qc3 Ne7
32. Bg3!
h6
33. Qd3 Ra7
34. Rxa7 Qxa7t
35. Bf Qa3
36. Rb1 Qd6
37. g3 f5
3S. Bd4 fe4
39. fe4 Ng6
40. Bxe4 Rxe4!
By gving up a second f , Black gets
fighting chances. Koshnitsky's play is a les
son in how to fght a losing game.
41. Rxb5 Rcl t
42. Kg2 Qd7
43. RbSt Kh7
44. h3
Took White half an hour, leaving him
14 minutes for ten moves. Black threatened
. . . Q4, or .. .Nh4ffirst.
44 . . . .
45. Rb2
46. Bxe5
47. Re2
Forced.
Qe7
Ne5
Qxe5
47. . . . Re1
4S. d6!
Qa1
Black has obtained the old -and-
attack with the correctly in front, as
explained by Reti.
49. e5t g6
50. Re7t KhS
51. ReSt Kh7
52. Re7t Kh8
53. ReSt Kh7
54. d7
Although pressed for time, White still
refrains from securing the championship
with a draw.
54 . . . .
55. K
56. Kg4
57. Rh8t
58. d8=Qt
59. Q3d4
and White won.
Rg1t
Rf1t
Qxe5
Kxh8
Kg7
The fnish was instructve: 59 ... h5t
60. Kh4 Qxd4 61. Qxd4t Kh7 62. Qa7t
K6 63. Qe3t Kh7 64. Qe7t K6 65.
Qe5 R 66. g4 hg4 67. hxg4 Rg8 6S.
Q6 Rg7 69. g5t K7 70. Qf! Ra7 71.
Qh6t Kg8 72. Qxg6t K8 73. Qe8t Kg7
74. Kh5 R 75. Qxt Resigns.
- 229 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
(
8
)
Match (1934)
G. Koshnitsk-C. Purdy
Reti s Opening
1. Nf d5
2. c4 e6
3. b3
Not correct, but played to avoid the
simplifing . . . dxc4 (if 3. g3!). But "playing
for complications" is two-edged!
3. c
4. g3
Nc6
5. Bg2
Nf6
6. Bb2 d4
7. 0-0 Be7
8. d3 0-0
9. e4 e5
10. h3 Qc7!
The game hinges on the possibility of a
White break by f4.
1 1. Qe2
Bd7
12. Nbd2 a6
Prepares for a break on the '-side.
13. Kh2 b5
14. N4? g6
Proves White's last move a mistake, as
the . is now only a target. But even after
14. Ng1! Black prevents /4 by .. . Bd6 and
. .. Nd8-e6.
15. Nhf
Black can force this anyway by . .. NeB,
which helps the -. into g7-its goal. White
considered this move for half an hour. His
game is paralyzed, since f4 is ruled out
forever-of course not 15. f4, because of
. . . exf4and . .. Nh5.
15.
16. Ng1
17. Rcl
Nh5
Nd8
In a very cramped game, any plan
must tr out to be bad! For example, if 17
Rae1 and Bel Black could attack on the '
side, playing . . . bxc4 as soon as White moved
his '-..
17. . . . Ne6
18. Rc2 b4
Changing over to .. . a5-a4.
19. Bel Bg5
20. Ngf Be7
21. Ne1
a
22. Bf Ng7
23. Ng
Bc6
24. Re1
Bd6
25. g4
For air! By courting the opening of the
g-file, White utilizes his 13th move. Black
must now abandon the '-side temporarily
and try to put the opening up of the -side
to his own advantage.
25. . . . f5
26.
g
5
27. Nfl
28. Bg4
29. Nd2
30. Rgl
31. Nf
32. Ngh4
33. Rxg4!
g
5
f4!
Kh8
Be7
Be8
Bh5
Bxg4
White's recovery is rather illusory: the
and A out of play must tell. Very plau
sible was 33. hxg4 (for Nj), but Black wins
nicely by 33 ... Bxh4 34. Nxh4 Q7 35. Nj
Nxf 36. exf (forced) Rxj!!
33. . Rf6!
For . . . Raf and . . . Rh6 followed by
... Bxh4 and ... Q7 or ... Q8--to force White
either to play Njand lose a f or to retire
into his former seclusion.
34. Ng5
- 230 -
Hi Games
To make room for the V- , per f.
34. Nxg5
35. Rxg5 Rh6
36. Rxg7 Rxh4
37. Rg4
Qd7!
38. f
Best, since Rxh4?only helps Black's .
into g3 when f comes. Not 3 8. Rxh4 Bxh4
39. Qh5??because of . . . Q7!! [E: Perhaps
an hallucination. Aer 40. Qx4 Rg8 Black
gets stopped with 41. Q4, forever.]
38. Rxh3t
39. Kxh3 h5
40. Qh2
If, say, 40. Q1 (for R2), . . . hxg4f 41.
fg4 Bh4!, etc.
40. hxg4t
41. Kgt Kg7
42. Qh5 Qe6
43. fg4 Rh8
44. Q5 Qx5
Or . . . Q6!, forcing Wite to exchange
(to avoid Black's . . . Qh4!); but the ending is
won for Black anyway, owing to White's
irremediable cramp. Not 44 . . . Qh6?because
of e5fand Q5.
45. gx5 Bh4
46. Re2 Bg3
47. Rd2
The lost tempo maes no vital difer-
ence.
47. Kf6
48. K Rh1
49. Bb2
Kg5
50. a Rf1t
51. Kg2 Re1
52. f6
Taking the one chance-that Black, who
was in clock trouble, might play . . . K4 (cor
rect) and then not see the win afer 53. R
(a problem for beginners). Black, being hur
ried, took the slower way.
52. . . . K
and Black won.
The finish was 53. ab4 ab4 54. K
Kg5 55. Bel (for a stalemate joke) R t 56.
Kg2 Rcl 57. K3 Rl t 58. Kg2 R2t
59. K Rt (not . . . Rxd2 ??) 60. R Bx
61. K Kh4, White resigns.
(9)
Austalian Championship (1937)
C. Purdy-G. Koshnitsky
Qeen s Gambit
The following was about Purdy's only
good game in the tourament. It was played
in the ninth round, when he had to win, as a
draw was enough to mae Koshnitsky al
most a certainty.
1. d4
Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 d5
4. Bg5 Be7
5. e3
0-0
6. Rcl
A transposition, the idea being to take
the game out of the normal lines if Black
plays the somewhat drawish Lasker De
fense, . . . Ne4.
6.
7. Nf
8. Bd3
c6
Nd7
Refsing to "play the score," White
chooses a line that allows simplifcation in
preference to the more complicated Q2. It
sometimes pays to let an opponent with
drawish intentions "have his head" i his
style is not normally drawish.
8. dxc4
9. Bxc4 Nd5
10. Bxe7 Qxe7
1 1. 0-0
Alekhine's Ne4, to avoid simplifcation,
has lost all its stng. White must permit the
simplification and have faith in his superior
development.
1 1. . . .
12. Rxc3
Nxc3
c
Koshnitsky had intended to play this
- 23 1 -
Te Search fr Chess Peiction
in the 77. Ne4 variaton ( 1 Ne4 N5f6 12.
Ng3 c5! Euwe-Fine, Nottngham 1936) ad
had got "mixed." But the text has been
played in this positon, and may be safer
than 12 ... e5, which allows White such a
wide choice of reply.
13. Qc2
This works out all right, but Q2 is
probably sounder. The ' should nearly
always go to e2 in this opening. White's
idea was to storm the c-file.
13. cxd4
14. Nxd4 Nb6
15. Rcl! Bd7
To exchange would help White to the
seventh rank.
16. Qe4! Rf8
The other seems better.
17. Bb3
Much better than Bd3, when Black's 4
has access to dS; Black now has only one
move . . .
20. R7c3
White had a pretty combination, start
ing with 20. Nxe6!! It looks dubious, as it
leaves the 4 pinned and the en prise. Of
course, Black cannot take either of these
worthies at once, nor can he play 20 . . . RcB,
as White wins a . by exchange of s
followed by Q5! And if 20 . . . KhBto get the
' off the line of the ., White wins delight
fully by 21. Ng5!! White's immediate threat
is simply to unpin by 21. Q4.
But the defense that made White worry
was 20 . . . RdB! White must then give up his
"f by 21. NxdB! Qe5 22. Rxd7 Now the
crushing answer to either 22 . . . Nd6 or 22 . . .
Qb2 is simply 23. Rcd1. The point is to
reserve the option of taking at f7 with ., 4,
or . Black could avoid immediate loss by
22 ... h6, but 23. Rxf7! Kh7 24. Ne6, threat
ening mate by Bc2f and Rj, is probably
decisive. Or 22 . . . h5 23. Nxf7! Qb2 24. Rcd1
Kh7 25. Ng5ffollowed by h4, and again the
attack should be hot enough to win.
However, White could be excused for
"fnking" such complicatons, even afer 40
minutes' thought!
Black had played 19 . . . NeB with the
idea that the combination was unsound.
Otherwise 19 . . . RcB, leaving White with
pressure but nothing clear. That is what
White still has.
20.
21. Qa5
22. Qb6
23. Rxc3
Rc8
a6
Rxc3
e5?
Black is too impatient to free his game.
He gives himself a weak . and opens the
white .'s diagonal. Open lines beneft the
better-developed army. Of course White
must not play 24. Qb7??
24. N Bc6
Black is lost. If 24 ... Bg4 or ... Bj, 25.
Nxe4!! wins. If 24 . . . RbB, 25. Q5wins.
25. Qc5
Qxc5
26. Rxc5 e4
27. Ne5 Rd8
28. Nxc6!
Simpler than 28. Nx7 Rd2, etc., as
White can now force the exchange of s,
or else have two remote passed .s. .s on
the '-side are comparatively useless.
28. . . . bxc6
29. Rxc6 K
The point! Black has to lose his tempo,
and White keeps his b- . .
- 232 -
Hi Games
30. K Rd2
31. Bc2 f5
32. Ke1 Rd5
For some reason Black tought this
less hopeless than . . . Rd6, allowing the ex
change of s. The continuation was 33.
Ra6 Nf6 34. Ra8t Ke7 35. Ra7t K 36.
Bb3 Rc 37. R Ke8 38. Rxg7, and after
a few more moves Black resigned.
( 1 0)
Austalian Championship (1937)
L. Steiner. Purdy
Sicilian Dense
The feature of the game is an all-con
quering passed . which Ys in the face of a
whole army.
1. e4
2. N
3. d4
4. Nxd4
5. Nc3
6. Be2
7. Be3
8. f
c5
d6
cxd4
Nf6
g6
Bg7
Nc6
0-0
Black cannot yet play . . . d5 because of
Bb5! Black assumed that White's idea was
to induce him to catle and now play 9. g4!
for a '-side attack, cental counterattack
by . . . d5 being impossible on account of g5;
and Steiner afterwards admitted that this
would have been his most energetic proce
dure. But he contnues in a more positional
style.
9. Qd2 d5
10. Nxc6 bxc6
1 1. e5
Steiner's favorite move!
1 1. . . . Nd7
12. f4 e6
Have you not sometimes rebelled at
Nimzovich's insistence on centralization,
e.g., the necessity for dislodging a . I e5 by
.. f6, and wondered what would happen if
you just left it there? Here, Black is tempted
to take that very course, partly because after
12 . . . f6! 13. exf6Bxf6 14. O-Oe5 15. fe5Nxe5
White's Y-A is freed. Black wanted to
keep that A blocked by its own . /f4. But
Black in the 12 . . . f6! line would have a free
game and a good hold on the center-at
least an equal position.
Black also had another, more logical
reason to ignore Nimzovich. He thought he
could gain the initiatve in the center with
. . . c5. But he finds he can't, and is left with
extremely difcult problems to solve.
The moral is: Don't ignore a ./e5!
13. 0-0 Qe7
Aer long thought, Black regretflly
decides not to play . .. c5 after all, because
White could compel either the c- . or d- .
to advance a step frter, creatng a weak
ness, e.g., 13 ... c5 14. Na4 Q7 15. Q3! c4 16.
b4! with a potential passed .. Or 14 ... d4
15. Bjand White threatens b4, and if 15 . . .
a5, 16. c3!
14. Na4! a5!
15. Qc3
Leads to tricky play requiring very ex
act calculation by the defense; but Black
was more afaid of the quieter 15. c4. It
would carry no threat, but seems to give
White a useful initiative.
15. Ba6
16. Bxa6 Rxa6
17. Nc5
Raa8
18. a4
To fix the isolated .. Not 18. N7?
Nxe5! nor 18. N3 a4 19. Nd4 R8!
18. Rfc8
19. Nb3
Too ambitious. White should have
maintained the blockade by 19. Nxd7 Od7
20. Bc5 Bj 21. R, but this seemed too
barren of winning chances. Not 19. Nxd7
Od7 20. Bb6?, as Black wins a piece by
20 ... c5!, etc.
19. c5
- 233 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
20. Qel c4!
A deceptive move, as the ostensible
idea is simply to cut of the 's retreat afer
21. Nxa5. In making prolonged calculatons
on this basis, Steiner forgot to search for
any other devilry te move might contain,
and thus overlooked its real purpose alto
gether.
21. Nxa?
The only move was 21. Nd4 with a
shade of advantage for Black after .. .Nc5.
21. c3!
22. Nb3 cb2
23. R?
An attempt to keep the a- f and thus
maintain equal material. Who would dream
that the move loses ofhand? But it does.
After 23. Rh 1 Rxc2 24. Nd4 (best) Rc4 25.
Rxb2 Raxa4 Black is a passed f up, but the
game would not be easily won.
23. . . Rc2
Three s on the board as early as te
25th move ae quite an uncommon sight.
25. Nxcl
bl=Q
26. Rf2 Qe4
And Black won: 27. a f6 28. ex6
Bx6 29. Re2 Bd4 30. Nb3 Bxe3t 31.
Rxe3 Q4b4 32. Rd2 Nc5 33. Nd4 Qd6 34.
Nf Qdx4 35. g3 Qf6 36. Qe2 Ne4 37.
Rc Qxa5 38. Kg Qa6 39. Qd1 R 40.
Rb3 Ng5 and White resigned.
) ( I I )
Austalian Corespondence
Championship (1938)
C. Purdy-F. Crowl
Nimo-lndian Dense
1. d4
Nf6
2. c4
e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. e3 0-0
5. Nge2 ReS
Purdy favors 7. e4 in correspondence
play, but played 7. d4 against Crawl in
anticipation of this variaton (a Nimzovich
one). Better is 5 ... d5.
6. a Bf
7. e4!
The point! Against Con don in te Sout
Australian Championship ( 1937), Purdy
played 7 g3, which did not give much.
A paradox! Black has only one piece 7. e5
actively in play, while all of White's are White had expected . . . d6 first, and
available for defense. Yet White has not a would then have answered . . . e5 with d5. His
single move on the board to avoid immedi
ate disaster! Can a passed f have such
power? White pondered for 30 minutes in
vain.
24. R Rcl!
This was the pretty threat, which White
could have parried in only two ways: 24.
Q3? losing a l forthwith, or 24. Q 1 ?,
when Black wins a piece by 24 ... Rc3! The
loose pieces, therefore, were the deciding
factor-the lt the ' and the )/a.
a3 would have assisted the 1-side push
Q4, etc. But now 8. d5 would be met by 8 ...
aS and 9 . .. Bc5.
8. dxe5 Ng4
9. Ng3 Qh4?
With the good idea of sacrificing a f
to get an attack, but overlooking a tactical
point.
10. Be2 d6
Hoping for 71. exd6, which would give
Black a strong initative.
- 23
4
-
Hi Games
1 1. Nb5! Na6
12. exd6 cd6
If 12 . . . R8, probably 13. Bd2; and if
then 13 ... c6, 14. NcZ
13. (c2 d5!
Black has a losing positon, but this
sacrifice of a second . gives him counter
chances.
14. cxd5 Nxh2! ?
Creates weird complicatons, Black's
only hope.
15. Be3 Bd7
16. (d2
Gets White's ' of the exposed fle
and threatens to win Black's. Black has a
reply tat seems to save him.
16. . . . Rxe4!
17. 0-0-0
White could not af ord either Nxe4 or
Rxh2, but now these are threats, ad Black
must lose at least the Exchange in all varia
tions, e.g., 7Z .. Re5 18. Q Qd4 19. Bxd4
Rxe2 20. Nxe2 Bxb5 21. Nc3 and Black must
lose one of the two pieces he has for his t .
Black decides to make a virtue of necessity.
17. Rxe3
18. (xe3 Bc5
19. Nd4 Re8
20. (d3! g6
There was a masked threat to Black's
h7, and Njwould also become a threat.
21. Kb1
White must evade . . . Q4f before he
can exploit the pinned 4.
21. ... Bd6!
It is amazing how, despite his pinned
4, Black continues to maintain a fght by
tactical fnesses. If now 22. N, . . . Qg3!!
22. Ka2
White rightly chose this in preference
to KaT to give less encouragement to ... Nc5.
22.
Nc7
23. Nf
Finding it stangely dificult to exploit
the pin, White now releases it, having
worked out a combination to win more
material; but that should have made the
w very had. White's worry was that Black
was threatening . . . Nxd5!, as a white recap
turer would be subject to a pin by ... Be6. To
obviate this the right move was 23. Kal!!!,
leaving Black helpless. Having already
played Kb 1-a2, however, this third move
was extraordinarily dificult to see.
23. (a4
24. Rxh2
Bb5
In this positon White had counted on
playing 25. Q4, which enables him to re
main at least a clear up in all variatons.
Now, however, he saw tat Black would
sacrifce stll more material afer 25. Q4
with 25 ... Rxe2!!! 26. Nxe2 Bc4f(not on with
White's /al) 2Z Kb1 N5!Then White is a
and 4 up, but is faced with a terrific
concentration of force on his , by which
Black should at least draw.
A wonderful lesson in the ftlity of
mere material in chess!
Baulked of his planned prey, White
has yet a resource that gives a steady win.
25. Rh4!
By intoducing his hitherto dead ,
White eliminates danger and keeps enough
material plus to win despite the two s.
Black could have made a lengthy resis
tance, but preferred to keep complicatons.
25. (a6
26. (d2 Bxe2
- 235 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
27. Rcl! Nb5?
White has deliberately played to in
duce this meretricious move. He allows his
own to be caught in a mating net, but
wins the game before the net can close.
28. Qh6 Bxa3
29. Qxh7t
K
30. Qh8t
Ke7
31. Re4t
Kd6
32. Qf6t Resigns
( 1 2)
Austaia Correspondence
Chapionship (1938)
C. Purdy-R. Condon
Ruy Lopez
1. e4
2. Nf
3. Bb5
4. Nc3
e5
Nc6
Nge7
Not 4. d4, when Black gets a compara
tvely easy game by 4 . . . exd4 5. Nxd4 d5!
4. . . .
g6
5. d4
Must be good. The customary move is
5. Nd5, but its merit is uncertain.
5. exd4
6. Nxd4 Bg7
7. Be3
A point in White's system is that hav
ing developed his -4 at e7, Black can
never threaten to hit this A by .. . Ng4.
7. 0-0
8. Qd2 d6
9. 0-0-0
a6
10. Bxc6!
Although this exchange fees Black a
little and concedes the two As, a valuable
tempo is gained for White's attack. Besides,
the A had no very good square (Ba4 or Bc4
would have encouraged .. . b5).
10. . . . Nxc6
If 10 ... bxc6 11. Bh6 Bxh6 12. Qh6 f
(else comes Nj-g5!) 13. Nj! R7 14. Ng5
R7 15. e5 with a decisive attack.
1 1. h4
Be6
12. h5 Qf6
13. hxg6 hxg6
14. Nxe6 fe6
Preventng Bh6. Rather than lose a
tempo to make that move feasible, White
abandons it in favor of a new plan of attack.
15. f4! Rad8?
A oversight, but in any case White
has a winning attack starting with g4.
16. f5 Nb4
This merely trappy move ultimately
loses Black a tempo. His next move, giving
up the exchange for a . in preference to
having his -side completely wrecked,
should have been played at once.
17. Kb1
Not Bg5? Nxa2f.
17. ex5
18. Bg5 Qf
19. Bxd8 Rxd8
20. ex5
g
5
Of course not . . . Bxc3?? 21. Qc3 Qa2f
22. Kc1, as Black then has no move.
21. Qg5 R
22. Rh4!
This, instead of the obvious a, gains a
tempo for doubling s.
22. Nc6
23. Nd5
ReS
24. Rdh1 Qxd5
25. Qg6! K
26. Rh8t Bxh8
27. Rxh8t
Ke7
- 236
-
Hi Games
28. Qxe8t Kf6
Kg5
Kf4
Ke3
29. Rh6t
30. Qh5t
31. Qh4t
32. Re6t?
White's last seven moves were posted
as a series of conditionals with his 25th, and
32. Re6f was inserted as a subvariation,
White having forgotten that the 4 could
interpose. This slip prolongs the game, of
course.
32. Ne5
33. Qe1t
Kf4
34. g3t Kg4
35. Re7 Qg2
36. Rxc7 Nf?
A oversight in a lost game.
37. Rg7t
Kh5
If 3Z .. Ng5, 38. Q1! If 3Z . . Kh, 38.
R7fand 39. Q4f
38. Qe8t Kh6
39. Qg6#
( 1
3)
Pvate Matc (1938)
C. Purdy-F. Crowl
Ruy Lopez
Notes marked (G) are by Goldstein,
from the "West Australian."
1. e4 e5
2. Nf Nc6
3. Bb5
Nf6
4. 0-0
d6
5. d4 Bd7
6. Re1
Be7
7. c4
"Apparently new at this stage. White
prevents for all time Black's freeing maneu
ver in the center, . . . d5"(G).
7. 0-0
8. Nc3 Re8
9. Bxc6
The black 4, bearing on the cental
squares e5 and d4, is an important piece in
this opening, and often worth the white
. Here, with the center so clogged by fs
on light squares, that had little fture.
9. . . .
Bxc6
10. h3
A little calculation will show the stu
dent that neither here nor on the next move
could White win the e- f without losing his
own and getting behind in development.
The move played is better than it looks, but
simple and strong was 10. Nd5!If 10 ... Bxd5,
11. cd5 and Black has a backward c- f.
10. . . .
h6
Black prepares for . . . BJby frst pre
ventng the pin.
1 1. Qc2
12. b3
Bf
Bd7
A good point about White's exchange
on Move 9 was that this would sooner or
later have to retrace its steps in order to
have any play, with consequent loss of time.
Also, the merit of 10. h is now clear, as
. . . Bg4 would threaten to exchange of the 4
that bears so powerflly on e5 and d4.
13. Bb2 c6
14. Rad1 Qc7
Black now has te well-known Hanham
formation, which Crowl likes. In addition,
Black has the two s. Strangely enough,
however, the absence of Black's -4 turs
out to be worse for him than the absence of
his - does to White. In such positions,
one usually sees a white lounging life
lessly on e2 or somewhere while the black
-4 either supports the point e5 from d7
or else meanders into e6 or g6 and pulls his
weight.
15. Rd2 Rad8
16. Red1
- 237 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
The positon is interesting. Crowl was
under te impression that he had a excel
lent game, while Purdy felt rather mystified,
tng that Crowl's game looked good on
general considerations but not seeing any
satsfactory move for Crowl. If 76 . . . BB
White wins a f, and if 76 . . . Nh7 (suggested
by Crowl), then 7Z c5! Ng5 78. Nxg5 hxg5 79.
cxd6 Bxd6 20. dxe5 Bxe5 27. N5! with ad
vantage. Crowl's optimism fnds expres
sion in a wild '-side pawnstorm.
16. . . . g5?
The best answer to a fa attack is an
attack in te center if possible. So . . .
17. c5! g4
18. cd6 Bxd6
19. dxe5
g
20. exd6
Q
a5
21. Rd3 Nxe4
22. Nxe4 Rxe4
23. R
"White is now a strong passed pawn to
the good. Black's only chance of saving the
game rests on 'Bishops on opposite colors' "
(G).
23. Bf5
24. b4!
Q
d5!
25. Rxd5 Re1t
26. Kh2 Bxc2
27. Rd2 Bg6
28. Bf6 Rd7
29. h4 Re6
30. Be7 Re4
31. b5
"Decisive, opening a fle for one of his
Rooks to enter te eighth rank" (G). The
ending is lost for Black because one of his
):s is ted.
31.
32. Bf6
33. Rc3
34. Re3
35. Rg3t
36. Rg5
37. f
38. Kg3
39. Be7
40. Rxh5t
41. Rh8
42. R
43. K
44. g4
45. fg4
46. h5
cxb5
h5
Rc4
Be4
Kh7
a6
Bb1
Rc6
f6
Kg6
Kg7
Bg6
f5
fg4
Bf
Rcd6
Black blunders, but his game was past
hope.
4 7. Bxd6 Rxd6
48. Rt Resigs
(
1
4)
Austaian Corespondence
Chapionsip (1938)
C. Purdy-A. Harris
Sicilian Dinse
One of the most interestng games fom
this tourey is one that did not count! Ha
ris wrote down a move he did not intend,
and resigned on the following move. Purdy
claimed that he had a winning advantage in
any case, and the game was played out as a
fiendly challenge. Its interest lies in the
unusual but very successfl metod of coun
tering the Paulsen system.
1. e4 c5
2. N e6
3. d4 cd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 d6
6. g3!
- 238 -
Hi Games
Recommended by Becker, but we have
never before seen it tried. The . usually
fnds its way to te fanchetto diagonal ult
mately, via e2 and f, but there it is some
tmes in the way of other pieces.
6. . . . a6
7. Bg2 Qc7!
First point: . . . b5 is held up because of
e5. Black's last move crosses White's fell
design of fianchettoing the other .l also,
when his two .s would rake te center.
8. 0-0 Nbd7
9. Qe2 Rb8
10. a4
b6
Unfortunately, Black wrote down
16. h3!
White found this te hardest move in
the game. All the aggessive lines failed,
and he reluctatly decided that he must
quietly fee his Y fom the defense of te
g- f .
16. Nc5
17. Nd2 Rd8
18. Qc4! d7
Better to bring the . back to c8, but
such a doddering policy did not appeal to
Black. He hopes now for 19. b4?, when
comes 19 . . . Nxa4!
19. Qb4!
Apparently places te Yfin jeopardy,
but she is all right. If 19 . . . Q7, 20. Nc4.
Black decides to give up feely tat which
must fall.
19.
20. exd5
21. d6
Important.
21.
22. Qxb6
23. Qxb7
d5
Nce4
Bxd6
Nxc
" . . . b5, "a clerical error that lost him a f ad
positon as well. Afer 71. axb5 he resigned on.
at once. The game that should have been
Without d6, this would not have been
23. Qxb7
Ncd5
then proceeded.
Wite tought he should win because
of his better command of space in almost all
parts of the board and the stength of his
forthcoming advace of the f- f. And yet
Black has played quite in accordance with
the Paulsen system!
1 1. f4 Bb7
White threatened e5.
12. f5! e5
Black thought he could stand the back-
ward d- f.
13. Nb3
14. g4
15. Be3
Be7
h6
Rc8
If Black castled tere would be touble
fom h4, etc.
24. Bxb7
25. Bf
and won. Black's game was now lost, and he
ceased work, fnishing up with an oversight
or two: 25 ... R8 26. Bxa6 Rxb2? 27. Nc4
Resigs.
( I S)
N.S.W. v. Victoria (Telex Matc 1943)
C. Purdy-. Lamparter
Benoni Dense
1. d4 e6
Lamparter is always keen to play some
ting unortodox. Therefore White chooses
a second move ( e4) to which te only good
reply is orthodox (2 . . . d5).
- 239 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
2. e4
c
Transposing into the Benoni Counter
Gambit, but ... e6 doesn't ft in well.
3. d5
Nf6
4. Nc3 exd5
This could be met by 5. Nxd5! (if 5 ...
Nxd5, 6. Qd5 ), giving Black a "strategically
lost game" with a backward . on an open
file. White's actual reply gives him less ad
vantage.
5. exd5 d6
6. Nf
Be7
7. Bd3
To prevent the good development of
Black's 1-A at f5. Also, White rater hoped
that Black would now fachetto his 1-A,
attacking White's d- . but gettng his A
cramped. This did happen.
7. a6
8. a4 b6
9. Bf4
Bb7
10. Bc4 Qd7!?
White has three loose units (two ,s
and the g- .) and . .. Q4 is a deadly threat.
However, the move violates a principle,
and White fnds a way to tur its edge
against the violator.
11. h3 Qf5
12. Bh2 h5
Without this, Black is always threat
ened with g4 if ever he plays .. . Nd7
13. Qd2
And Black still can't play .. . Nd7 be
cause Bd3 wins his . Nor does he cae to
castle -side afer ... h5. Having no invitng
move, a player ofen hypnotizes himself
into a blunder, ad so here.
13. . . . Ne4??
14. Qd3 Rh6!
Black has no move to save his , and
therefore does not try, but plays the only
move to give White a chance to go wrong. If
now 15. Nxe4, Black was fnished. However,
White had consumed a long time weaving
his nets, and now erroneously thought he
had six moves to make in fve minutes.
15. Qxe4? Re6!!
The Lamparter touch. White has a
counter, however, which enables him to
come out at least te Exchange up in all
variations.
16. Ne5
Q
5
.

" - t \UJ
l
i-
t

'"
A player ofen spends most of his time
on moves he never plays. Now, for in
stance, having leaed that he was not in
clock trouble at all, White pondered deeply
over 17 de6, because in one variant it
would produce an "immortal" (chess slang
for a sacrifce of 1 and both .s) . Thus 17
de6Bxe4 18. exj7f Kj(not . . . Kd8 19.j=Q
Bxj 20. frk); 19. Nxe4 Qxg2 ( . . . Q is
another line) 20. Bd5!! Qh1 f 21. Ke2 Qa1
22. Ng6#! or 21 . . . Q2 24. R1, etc.
Delightl, but if 20 . . . de5 (21. Nc3
then), White's win is not as clear as i the
simple line he actually chooses. On Move
18. White agan gave much time to de6.
17. h4
Q6
18. Qe2 Rxe5
19. Bxe5 dxe5
20. Qxh5 Nd7
21. Qe2
Pevents castling and threatens to castle.
21. . Qh6!
22. Rd1
White begins woodshifng. Here 22.
g4! would prevent any progress by Blac
whatsoever (if 22 ... Bxh4?, 23. g5).
22. f5!
23. Qd2

-2
40 -
Hi Games
24. K Nf6
25. Qe2 Bd6
26. h5 Qh7
27. Rd3 K!
Hatching a little plot which comes off
and enables Black to make a spirited fight.
Both players were short of time.
28. Rdh3? b5!
29. Ba2
Refsing to give Black counterplay in
the a-fle.
29. Qh6
Temptng is 29 ... c4, but 30. axb5 axb5
31. Nxb5! Rxa2 32. Nxd6f Ke7 33. @c4 [Ed.:
33. @e5 i more explicit and virtually elimi
nates cheap shot by Blck.] Ra 1 f 34. Ke2 wins.
If 34 . . . Ba6, 35. Nb5.
Inefective also is 29 . . . b4 30. Nd1, as
the c- f cannot be taken.
30. Qe3 Qh7
Black's fn is over. To regain his f he
would have to swap s. Or if 30 . . . f4, 31.
Q2! with no more troubles.
31. ab5 ab5
32. Nxb5 Ba6
33. Bc4
Bxb5
34. Bxb5 f4
35. Qcl e4 36. R Rxa 37. bxa3
Nx5 38. R3 Q5 39. Bd7 (White was
again racing his clock) Qxd5 40. Bg4 Nf
41. Qd1, adjudicated a win for White.
White's E is now mobile. With "the
Exchange" up, te remote passed f gives a
sure win. A good rough-and-tumble.
t | )
N.S.W. Chapionship (1944)
C. Purdy-L. Steiner
Sicilian Dense
(Notes by M E. Goltein.)
1. e4 c5
2. Nf b6
Klass states that there are "book" ex
amples of this move, which Steiner played
on the spur of the moment presumably to
get Prdy short of time. After considering
the miserable position reached on his 22nd
move, I doubt whether Steiner will play it
again in a hurry.
3. d4
4. Nxd4
5. Nc3
6. Be2
7. 0-0
8. Be3
9. f4!
cxd4
Bb7
8
Bg7
Nc6
Nf6
With a tremendous grip on the center.
Black's b- f blocks the normal reaction by
. . . Q6.
9. . . 0-0
10. Bf Na5
White reaps a big advantage from this,
thoug in any case Black' s position was
inferior.
11. e5
12. Bxb7
13. Qf
14. Rad1
15. b3!
16. Ne4
17. c4
18. Bxd4
19. Ba1
20. f5!
21. Qx5
22. R
Ne8
Nxb7
Na5
Nc7
Qc8
Nc6
Nxd4
Ne6
Qc6
gxf5
Rad8
Nc5
White is already in a winning positon,
and Black has only a choice of evils.
23. Nf6t! ex6
24. exf6 Bh6
25. Qh5
White later pointed out a neat win by
25. Rh3! Q6 26. @5 Be3f 2Z Kh 1 h6 28.
R 1. Stein er then intended .. . Bg5!, giving up
his ; but White's material advantage of
and f against E and must win in the
long run.
25.
26. Qxh6
Kh8
Rg8
- 24 1 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
27. Rd5
28. Bc3
29. Qh3?
Qe6
Rg6
This gives Black real chances.
29. . . Rdg8
30. Rd2
Now Black could force simplifing ex
changes by 30 . . . Ne4 31. Qe6 de6, and
Black recovers the f- f with a slightly infe
rior ending. But, seeing that Purdy was
very short of tme, Stein er preferred to keep
up the complicatons.
30
31 . R
Qe4
Nd3
Now came the succession of incidents
which made chess history. Both players,
pressed for time and evidently fustered,
omitted to record their next dozen moves.
Noticing that Stein er's fag had falen, Purdy
suggested stopping the clocks and recon
structng the play fom Move 32. Unfortu
nately, before the existng positon afer the
clock race could be recorded it was disman
tled by Purdy, sufering a natura reacton
from te excitement of the previous five
minutes. The players, afer consultng with
spectators, found that they had appaenty
completed 44 moves, with Purdy stll a f
ahead and in the better positon.
However, as players could not agree
on the fnal positon reached, it was referred
to the Games and Touraments Commit
tee. The game was ordered to be replayed
from Move 32, the times being estmated at
Purdy: one hour 56.25 minutes, ad Steiner:
one hour 55 minutes. Both players were put
on their horror not to look at the position
during the adjouent.
When the players were about to re
sume the following evening, Purdy's clock
severa times started of its own voliton,
assisted by vibraton fom the passing taf
fc. Aer frther clock adjustent, during
which time both players' nerves were on
edge, play contnued.
33. Re2
Sealed and forcing Black's reply.
33. Qh4
34. Bel Qd4t
35. Kl Nd3
The obvious reply 36. R gives Black
good drawing chances by . . . Nxe1! Ponder
ing ts, Purdy was suddenly told that his
time was up, and he spasmodically played
Re4. Purdy stated that he was intending 36.
Bf!
It was then found that te Director, in
adjustng the clock before Move 33, had let
the seconds-had r on, but had omitted
to put back the minute-hand. Mr. F. Ross
alowed Purdy one minute's grace, and play
was resumed.
The Committee aferwards pointed out
that this was Purdy's mistake. His proper
course, i he felt himself prejudiced through
the incident of the faulty clock, was to refse
to contnue play, and i then ordered to do
so by the Director, to consent only under
protest, and giving notice there and then of
an appeal to the Committee.
The game continued . . .
36. Re4 Nxdl
37. Rel! Qx6
38. Qx6t R6
39. Re7! R
40. Rxd7?
- 242 -
Hi Games
White's last move to beat his clock; a
blunder, giving Black two Es on the sec
ond. Mter the natural 40. g3, Black still has
to fght for the draw, which he should ob
tain by 40 ... R! 41. Rxd7 Rxa2 42. Ree7 RJ
(or ... R2!) 43. Rxa7 Rxb3 44. Rxf Rxf 45.
Rxf R2 and 46 ... Rc2 (Steiner) .
40. . . . Rgxg2
41. Rxf??
White was past his clock trouble but
was evidently badly rattled. The obvious
41. Rxa7 forces Black to take a perpetual
check.
41.
42. Kgl
43. Kxh2
44. Kg3
45. Re7
Rxh2t
Rxf
Rft
Ra
A miscaculation. Re3, followed by a
march, would give drawing chances. The
conclusion was: 45 ... R 46. Kf4 Rxb3 47.
Rxa7 Rb4 48. Kg5 (if 48. Rc7, . . . b5!) Rxc4
49. Ra8t Kg7 50. Ra7t Kg8 (which White
had overlooked on his 45th move) 51. Ra8t
K 52. Ra7t Ke6 53. Rxh7 b5 (leading to
a "book" win, White's being too far
away. Reuben Fine in Basic Chess Endings
gives the general rule that, for a b- or g- f
on te fourt/ffh rank, the hostle must
be cut of at a distance of three fles fom the
f , i.e., on the f-fle in this case) 54. Rb7 b4
55. Rb6t Kd5 56. Kf5 Kd4 57. Rb8 Kc3
58. Ke5 b3 59. Ra8 b2 60. R3t Kc2 61.
R Kb3 62. Resigns.
In giving these details of a curious suc
cession of incidents, I must emphasize that
bot players remaned good fiends. Bot
were at fault in not recording their last 12
moves, a duty which is laid down in the
F.I.D.E. rules. Purdy suf ered grieviously
for dismantling te positon in the heat of
the moment, but a player of his experience
should have known better.
Considering the game itself, Purdy's
stategic maneuvering and . sacrifice were
first-class, as was Steiner's defense of a very
dificult middlegame positon.
( 1
7)
Austaian Championship (1945)
C. Watson-. Purdy
French Dense
1. e4 e6
My nerveless fingers were incapable of
pushing anything more than one square.
2. d4
d5
Both hands for this.
3. Nc3
Nf6
4. exd5 Nxd5
Better than the "book" 4... exd5, as
Black's . should not be at f6 in the Ex
change Variaton. If now 5. Nxd5, Black can
quite well play 5 . . . Qd5, avoiding symme
t
.
5. Nf
Euwe, in his Teorie der Schaakopeninen,
recommends 5. Ne4, but clearly Black's
game must be satsfactory, for Black then
has the 3 ... exd5 variation with /d5 in
stead of back at g8.
5. . . Nxc3
White evidently invited this to stength
en his center. However, I hoped the doubled
fs would also prove to have a weak side.
6. bxc3 c
7. Bb5t!? Bd7
8. a4 Bxb5
9. axb5
White has prevented the natural devel
opment of Black's ./c6, while Black has
acquired hopes of obtaining a remote passed
f . But just now Black's position cries out
for development. Not 9 . . . Nd7 because of
10. d5! The game hinges on Black's next
move. By breaking a fine old maxim, Black
obtains te initatve.
9
10. 0-0
Qd5!
Nd7
Winning the ofered f would be play-
-243 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
ing into the hands of such a master of attack.
1 1. Bf4 c4
12. Re1 Be7
13. Ne5 0-0!
Now I breathed.
14. Re3 Nf6
15. Rb1
At last White is induced to vacate the
a-file to guard his f . Now is the tme to
produce the tump.
15. a5!
If White takes in passing, he only gives
the b-file to Black later on.
16. Qe2 Rfc8
17. R3 a4
18. Qf
tt
l.m ..

....

":{

l %' l .;



'?,

?
Realizing he has overplayed his hand
somewhere and should lose, White stakes
all on a long chance, i.e., that Black will
refrain fom immediately swapping 's. If
78 .. . a3 (say) , then comes the Watsonian
coup, Rg7f!
18. Qxf
19. gx? N5
Looks as if White was blind to this, but
the remote passed f confers a winning
advantage anyway.
20. Rg4 f5 21. Bg5 fg4 22. Bxe7 a
23. Ra1 a 24. Nd7 g! (best way to
dispose of the fork: be forked and get it
over) 25. Nb6 Re8 26. Bb4 Nf4! 27. Nxc4
(regaining the Exchange leaves White help
less) Nd5 28. Bc Nxc3 29. Nd6 Red8 30.
K (if Nxb7, ... Rd4!) b6 31. Ke1 bxc5 32.
dxc5 Rab8 33. White resigns.
(
1 8)
N.S.W. v. Victoria (Telex Mtch 1945)
C. PurdyF. Crowl
Ruy Lopez
This gae was fll of excitement afer
the slow opening. Critics thought Purdy
was in peril at the adjourment; all missed
his spectacular sealed move, as did Crow!.
It was not at all deep, but rather surprising.
1. e4 e5
2. Nf
Nc6
3. Bb5
a6
4. Ba4 Nf6
5. 0-0 Be7
6. Re1 b5
7. Bb3 d6
8. c Na5
9. Bc2 c5
10. d4 Qc7
1 1. a4!
A interpolaton by Keres. It aims at
disorganizing Black in some way; it must be
played just at this point to have any efect.
11. b4
12. Nd2 Be6
Better ... bxc3 followed by pinning, see-
ing that White has omitted the routne h.
13. d5
Bd7
14. cxb4 cxb4
15. b3 Rc8
16. R
0-0
17. Bd3 Ra8
The 's oscillaton has not been in
vain. Had Black not played it to c8 on Move
15, White would have developed feely by
76. Nfl and Ne3.
18. Qe2
19. Rc2
Qb7
Rfc8
Black's 4/a, though quite immobile,
tes the white 4 down. Hence White's next.
20. Bc4 Rc5
21. Bb2 Qc7
22. Reel Rc8
White's 20th was also to bar ex-
- 244 -
Hi Games
changes. Black's last three moves seem to
overlook what is coming. I expected Crow!
to move his -4 and go for .. ..
23. Nel! Nxc4
24. Nxc4 Qb8
25. Nd3 R5c7
Now the fn starts.
26. f4
27. Khl
28. Qel
29. e5
Qa7t
Bg4!
exf4
Not as powerfl as it looks, as Crowl
unearths a strong counter-combination. Be
fore Black's Y-A had a good square, White
should have seized the chance to play 29.
h!, as a sactuary would have been a
godsend to him later.
29.
Bf5!
30. ex6 Bxd3
31. fe7 Rxe7
32. Qxb4 Bxc2
And now 33. Rxc2 would lose after
. . . RcB, but White has a saver.
33. Qc3 f6
34. Qxc2 Rce8
Again White has only one move. Not
34. Q1, . . . Q.
35. Qd2! Re2
36. Bd4! Qb7
Bearing on two fs. Black should have
secured equality wit . . . Rxd2, but his attack
looked promising.
The game was now adjoured. What
move can White seal to stem the tde?
37. Qxe2!! Rxe2
38. Nxd6
Qb8
39. ReSt Qxc8
40. Nxc8 Relt
Disappointment for Black; 40... Rd2
does not win the d- f . Black can, however,
win the b- f and obtain good drawing
chaces. But he goes for counterplay, and
more excitement develops.
41. Bgl K
42. h3
Rdl
43. Nb6 K
44. Kh2 g5
45. Bc5 h5
46. d6 g4
47. hxg4 hxg4
If now 48. d7??, Black mates in a few
moves!
48. g3 f
49. d7 f5
50. b4 Rd2t
51. Kgl f4
Again White is threatened wit mate,
and 52. gxf4?is no defense. But again he has
a dramatic saver.
52. Nc4!
Rdlt
53. Kf fg3t
54. Kxg3 Ke6
Black again treatens to patch up his
mating net. White can rend it by Kg4,
giving up his passed f , but would need
about 100 moves to win. Therefore White
lets it close around him slightly again.
55. Nb6! Kf5
56. a5! Rd2
And this time the way out is obvious.
57. Bf Rdl
58. b5
Rhl
59. Bd4 Rh3t
White's last move ensures queening,
and Black's matng net is tom. The fnish
was 60. K Ke4 61. d8= g3t 62. Kel
Rhl t 63. Kd2 R2t 64. Kc f 65. Qd5t
Kf4 66. Qe5t K 67. Qd5t Ke2 68. Qe4t
K 69. Qf R3 70. Bx g; White mates
in two.
- 245 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
( 1
9)
Sydney Invtaton Touraent (1946)
C. Purdy-A. Fryda
Enlish Openin
1. c4 e6
2. g3
Nf6
3. Bg d5
4. Nf Be7
5. 0-0 0-0
6. b3 d4
Better to wait till White committed
himself to Bb2. Therefore 6. .. c5. These
"hyper-moder" openings are easy to cope
with in theory, but in practce it is stll easier
for Black to make a slight error, and then
the "hyper-moder" opening becomes bet
ter than a good opening. The term hyper
moder was given to fachetto openings
when they suddenly became all the rage
after the frst World War.
7. d3 c
8. e4
dxe3
Otherwise White would never fan
chetto his '-A at all, but use it on its
original diagonal in conjuncton with a later
/4 and a -side attack.
9. fe3
10. Bb2
ll. Nc3
12. Qe2
13. Rad1
14. d4
15. exd4
16. K1
Nc6
Qc7
a6
Bd7
Rfd8
cxd4
Be8
b5
A bold . sacrifice for liberty, if not
equality or faterity.
17. cxb5
18. Nxb5
19. a4
20. Ne5
21. Rcl
ab5
Qb6
Rac8
Nb4
Nbd5
Black's f sacrifce has justifed itself
insofar as White's As have been deprived
of most of their strength by the powerfully
situated and well-supported blockading l.
The '-side fs (which can at any time be
changed into doubled fs) are quite immo
bile. I found the positon intensely difcult,
and fnally decided on a surprising scheme
for returing the f in order to obtain an
endgame with a mobile passed f.
22. Rc2! Rxc2
Else White doubles E s.
23. Qxc2 Ne3
Here Mr. Fryda rose fom his char as
though expecting his game to be easier
from this point; the position is very decep
tive.
24. Nc4 Nxc2
Not 24 ... Qb5 or . . . Rc8 25. Q3. And
24 . . . Bxb5 merely transposes.
25. Nxb5 Bxb5
26. axb5 Nxd4
If 26 . . . Rb8, 2Z Rcl Rxb6 28. Rxc2 h6!
29. Rc8f Kh7 30. Bc6 followed by rapid
development of the . Black can be al
lowed to win the font passed f by . . . Nd5,
.. .Bb4, and . . . Nc3, but aferards the rear
one advances under royal patronage, and
White should win.
27. Bxd4
28. Nc4
Rxd4
Nd5
To shut out White's A. I expected 28 ...
Rd3, when White could probably win by
sacrifcing the rear f ; but 2. Rbl is surer,
as White can stll get his font f to the
-246 -
Hi Games
seventh and without letting Black's get
behind it, and the rear f could become an
additional weapon.
29. b6
30. b7
31. R1
32. Ra8t
33. Bxd5
34. Rc8
(2
0
)
Bd8
Bc7
g6
Kg7
exd5
Resigns
Rdio Match v. France {1946)
C. Purdy-S. Tartakover
Nimo-lndian Dense
1. d4
Had I expected to play the famous
Tartakover, I should have prepared against
Alekhine's Defense, which he has been play
ing lately, and adopted my usual e4. But I
thought he was situated harmlessly in En
gland.
create dificulties for himself. Above all, I
wanted to avoid clock touble.
5. Bd3
Bb7
6. Nf Ne4!
7. Bd2
At once eliminating the strong f, as
Z .. j would lose a f.
7 . . . .
8. Bxc3
Bxc3!
Nxc3
Black-of course-has chosen the only
way that promised him chances, as Rc7
threatened to give White a very comfort
able game. The point is that from now on
White can secure his -side from attack
onl
y
b
y
exp
osin
g
the weakness of his
doubled fs. This will be explained later.
9. bxc3 f5
Must, else e4 gives White his ideal
formation in this opening.
10. 0-0 0-0
11. Qe2 Q6!
In view of the coming e4, Black wants
1. N6 to avoid weakening his e- f by . . . d6, but not
2. c4 e6 to play ... Nc6till he can exchange .s. White
3. Nc3 Bb4 has to dance to this tune, or Black might tie
Steiner had said that Tatakover was him up with . . . Q6. Or if 72. f (moves), . . . e5!
certain to spring a surprise in the opening, 12. e4 fe4
and when I now pointed out that he had 13. Bxe4 Bxe4
played what is probably the theoretically 14. Qxe4 Nc6
most correct defense to the Yf's f, Steiner The scene has changed. Black has a
answered, "That is his surprise." vital "pivot square" at f5; you must visual-
4. e3 b6 ize a ending, and a black pirouetting
This was to me the most worrying re- on f5, then dancing of to a, battening on
ply. I had designed to play not at once White's weak fs.
Rubinstein's Nge2 followed by a3, but frst But by playing e4White has nipped in
Bd3 and then that, so that if his A retred the bud a -side attack ad created chances
when hit by a3my -f would not obstruct for central counterplay. A reliable critic-or
my A and I should have an easy develop- was he a pundit?-said I had a "bad game,"
ment. Now it was goodbye to all tat. Either but I had some faith in my freer position in
I had to play Rubinstein's way, with a cor- te center.
plicated game, or else develop in an easy 15. Radl! Q4
way, but a way which would give Black no 16. Rfe1 Rae8
difcultes at al. I chose the latter because This came through just before 2 A,
no one can make an opening difcult for and I had to seal with all the ofcials wating
Tartakover-though he sometimes likes to patiently i the cold. However, there was
-247
--
The Search fr Chess Perction
too much at stake to hurry, and I had plenty
of time on the clock for once. Tartakover
wanted the s off, and yet by accommo
dating him I could mae use of my tempo
rarily better .s and attack him. Was it
sound? At any rate, I thought it gave better
chances than trying to hold the position
intact, because the Y-side was permanently
weak.
17. Qx4 R4
18. d5
Completely wrecked my Y-side, "yet
there is method in't."
18. . . Na5
19. dxe6 dxe6
Not the obvious . . . Re6because of 20.
Rxe6 de6 21. Rd7!, for if then 21 ... Rxc4, 22.
Ne5! threatens mate and forces the . back
to f4, and then 23. Rxc7 with advantage.
And if 21 .. . R, 22. RdBf RJ 23. Rd7 forces
a draw.
20. Ng5! e5
For if 20 . . . Rxc4, 21. Rxe6 and Black
cannot take because of mate. So 21 ... RcB
(say) 22. Rd7!! Rxc3 23. h4 (to avoid mate).
Now if Black stops White's threatened Re7
with 23 ... Nc6, comes 24. Rxc7!, offering the
.. And if 23 . . . h6, 24. Ree7! at least draws.
I fear that some students, when they
see notes like this, are discouraged by think
ing the player worked them all out before
taking his plunge ( 1Z Qf4, in this case).
Over the board, that is rarely done. The
player relies mainly on his judgment of the
attacking possibilities of a position, notes a
few important tactical points (such as the
matng threats in this example), works out a
main line or two, and leaves a little to
chance. To rely on sheer calculation, as
opposed to judgment, is actually very risky.
Even Alekhine admitted that he rarely
worked out more than two or tree varia-
demonstraton. For if his . crosses to the
Y-side, 22. Rxe5!, ofering the . for the old
mate. And if 21 ... bxc5 ?, 22. Rd5 with advan
tage.
22. Ne4 Nc6
23. f Rf!
The . has outlived his useflness at f4
(if 23 . . . bxc5, not 24. Nxc5 but 24. Rd7! R
25. R5with advantage) . But why not 23 . . .
R, preventing White from taking the sev
enth rank? Because Black wants to induce
the exchange of one pair of .s; otherwise,
White can threaten to control the only open
file. Crafty!
24. Rd7 R
Now White's best course was 25. Rd5!
to double .s. Black could force an ex
chage by . . . RdB, but less favorably.
25. Red1 Rxd7
26. Rxd7
Re7
27. Rd1
The 4 ending is bad for White with
two fs isolated, but with .s on it should be
a draw.
27.
28. K
29. Ke3
K
Ke6
Rd7
The student will ask two questions.
Why has White not undoubled the fs?
Because that would open a fle for Black's
. against the isolated a- f. And why did
Black not try . . . b5, keeping the fs doubled?
Because that would give counterplay for
White's .. Thus, 29 ... b5!? 30. Rb1 a6 31.
a4! bxa4 32. Ra1 Rd7 33. c4! a5 (to answer
Rxa4with . . . Rd1) 34. Nc3! followed by N5
or Nd5, tying Black up lugubriously.
I now exchanged the .s because the
4 ending is better now, and I did not like to
leave the open fle to Black's ..
30. Rxd7 Kxd7
31. cb6 cb6
tons.
Black wants to have a passed f as
21. c5! h6 remote as possible in case he ever wins one
Black admits the success of White's of White's Y-side fs.
- 248 -
Hi Games
White's next "think" was his longest in
the game. It is bad to play for a double
attack on Black's e- . , e.g., 32. N? Ke6 33.
Ke4 Na5 34. Nd3 Nc4 followed by . . . Nd6f,
driving the W back.
32. h4! Drawn
White offered the draw. The point of
etiquette that one should not offer a grand
master a draw but wait for him to do so
would not be supported by the genial and
logical Tartakover, we feel sure, for it is
obviously unfair to deprive the weaker
player of a right possessed by the stronger.
The Final Position
Black to play his 32nd
White's move here, like his seaed move
and its sequel, follows the sound principle
of tying to create counter-weaknesses rather
than defend your own. The threat is h5,
fxing Black's g- . .
(
2 1
)
Austaia Chapionship {1946-47)
F. Crowi-C. Purdy
Nimo-/ndian Dense
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4
e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
White now chooses the Samisch At
tack, which provides immediate . support
for the d- . aginst the coming .. . c5. The
followup is pure Crow!, and sets Black un-
usual problems.
4. a Bxc3t
5. bxc3
c
6. Qa4 0-0
7. Bg5 h6
8. Bh4 d6
9. N
Nbd7
10. e3 g5
Could well have waited ( 10 ... e5!).
11. Bg3
Ne4
12. Rcl
Hallucination: 12. Bd3 offers Black
nothing better than 12 ... Nxg3 13. hxg3 Kg7
However, Black's chances remain good, as
White gets no time to attack in the h-file,
e.g., if 14. 0-0-0, .. j 15. R2 Nf6!for ... Ng4.
Or 14. e4 j 15. ex exj 16. 0-0-0 Nf6, when
17 dxc5 fails because of 17 .. Ng4 18. Q2
Q5. Or 14. g4 Nf6!
12.
13. Bd3
14. 0-0
15. Rfd1
16. h4
17. Nd2
18. fg3
19. R
20. Bxe4
f5
Ndf6
Qe7
h5
g4
Nxg3
d5
Ne4
dxe4
White has emerged with what looks at
frst a tenable positon, but his 4 is bad and
his Y is ted to the protection of the a- . .
Black can break trough by .. . e5, and if d5,
ultmately . . f4.
21. Qb3
22. Qa2
b6
Qd6
-249 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
23. Rf4? e5
24. dxe5
Qxe5
White now has too many weaknesses;
his only hope is to prepare his & for sacri
fce, which he does.
25. Qc2
Be6
26. Rcfl Rad8
27. R1f R
28. Kh2 Rd3
29. Qa4
Rfd7
The finish is exciting.
30. Nxe4 fe4
31. Qc6
Rxe3
32. Rd2 Red3
Black declines the for simplicity. If
now 33. Re2, . . . Qf4!!
33. Rd3 exd3 34. Re4 Qd6 35.
Qa8t Kg7 36. Re1 d 37. Wite resigns.
(22)
Austalian Championship (1946-47)
B. MillsC. Purdy
Nimo-Jndian Dense
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. e3 0-0
5. Bd3 c
In te A. C.R. of 1935, the sequence of
moves suggested was 5 . . . d5 6. Ne2 dc4 7
Bxc4 c5 8. a3 cxd4. I did not remember this,
but in any cae I thought Mills would an-
swer 5 . . . d5 with 6. Nj! Once Black ha
played . . . d5White no longer has to fear the
doubling of his c- fs.
6. Nge2 d5
7. a cxd4!
This and the following i capture,
nonchalantly leaving the A en prise, give
this game its special interest for opening
students. To capture the A at either move
would give White a bad i position with
only barely compensatng advatages.
8. exd4 dxc4!
And if now 9. Bxh7f, . . . Kh7 10. axb4
Nc6 with equal chances.
9. Bxc4
Be7
Now that White cannot play c5.
10. 0-0 Nbd7
Against the isolated d- i one tries, if
possible, to establish a piece on the "block
ade" square d5. This is just routine Nimzo
vich. Hence Black's rapidity.
1 1. Bg5 h6
12. Bh4 Nb6
13. Ba2 Bd7
14. Qd3 Bc6
Here again, Black forced himself not to
dawdle over calculations based on White's
mating threat at h 7, but relied on faith in the
defensive setup with Alf6 (explained be
low).
15. Rad1 Nbd5
16. Bb1 Re8
Creating a flight square at f, so that
even if his f-& is exchanged of and he ha
to recapture on f6 with the A, White cannot
mate him-Black ca aswer Q7fand QBt
with . . . Kjand . .. Ke7 This defense nearly
always works. White's best now seems 17
Rf1, when Black could also develop with
. . . Rc8 with the better position. But White
tries to force things, and fares worse.
17. Nxd5 Qxd5
18. Nf4 Qb5
White had missed the force of this, and
his whole setup is wrecked. If 19. Q2 ?,
...Be4. And if 19. Q3, the i -grab is sound.
19. Bx6 Qxd3
- 250 -
Hi Games
20. Nxd3 Bx6
21 . Ne5 Ba4!
Now, in order to preserve his advan
tage, Back proceeded to calculate almost
every move exhaustively. The obvious 21 ...
Bd5 is feeble (22. Ng4 [A moves] 23. Ne3).
22. Rd2!
Some sad White should have seized
the open file with 22. Rcl, but ten 22 ...
Rad8! wins (if . . . Red8, Be4 is annoying) .
22. . . Red8
23. Rel
Better f4at once, reserving an opton.
23. . . Rac8
24. f4 Bxe5!
A big decision: to cast aside the perma
nent advantage of the two As for a f win
extremely dificult to sheet home. This move
occupied nearly 30 minutes.
25. fe5
Rc4
26. b3?
Mills thought that afer 26. Be4! Rcxd4
2Z Rxd4 Rxd4 28. Bxb7 the ending should
be a win for Black (28 ... Rd2 and will soon
be a f up again) . A big factor would be the
weakness on e5. But the win would be very
arduous. The text move, giving up a f in a
diferent way, was a brain wave based on an
optimistc hallucinaton. But White subse
quently finds te most tenacious defense at
every move.
26.
27. Rb2
28. Be4
29. Rd2
30. Rd3!
31. Bxd3
32. Re3
33. Be2
34. K
35. Rc3
36. ReSt
37. Rc7
Bxb3
Rc3
b6
Bd5
Rxd3
Rc8
g
Rc2
Rd2
Rxd4
Kg7
a5!
The sealed move, and much te stron
gest, though . . . Ra4 was temptng. The point
is soon clea. It pays to treat winning posi
tions with exteme care if time permits.
38. Bb5 Re4!
39. Be8
Kf!
Ad Black must win a third f . 40.
Bb5 Rxe5 41. a4 R5t 42. Kgl e5 43.
ReSt Kg7 44. Rd8 e4 45. g4 Re5 46. Rd6
e3 47. K Bf 48. Rxb6 Rc5 49. Wite
resigns.
White can save his position only by
allowing mate.
(2
3
)
Austaa v. Englad
(Radio Match 1947)
C. Purdy-H. Golombek
Caro-Kann Dense
This game will interest (a) students of
the opening, and (b) players who enjoy a
hard fight even if unspectacular.
1. e4 c6
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Bf5!
Capablanca, who thought highly of the
Caro-Kann, always depended on this move.
5. Ng3 Bg6
6. Nt
Alekhine wrote in the Book of the New
York Tourey of 1924: "The formerly so
popular 'attacking' move, 6. h4, which is
suitable only for a 4 attack and weakens
the 's position without compensation, has
been discarded little by little ad rightly
so."
In later years, Lajos Steiner gave new
life to 6. h4, afterwards playing Bd2 and
0-0-0 and following with Kb 7, c4, and Bd3.
But I knew Golombek would be well primed
in that.
6. . . . Nd7
Stops Ne5.
7. Be2
A new move of my own, which I had
- 25 1 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
already tied against Brian Reilly in the
world correspondence championship. My
idea sprang fom Alekhine's favorable com
ments on Yates' 7 Bc4 in place of the usual
7 Bd3. As Bc4 hinders c4, which White
wants to play later, I was led to think of Be2.
7. . . . e6
8. 0-0
Bd6!
The Reilly game shows better the pos
sibilities of my idea: B ... Qc7 9. c4! Ng10.
Bd Bd6 11 b4, Reilly to move. I don't
know if Golombek' s move is really stonger
than Reilly's, but it keeps open the possibil
ity of .. . h5-h4. This induced me to change
my original plan, with doubtfl wisdom.
Actually, I ought now to have played, as
against Reilly, 9. c4!, and if 9 . . . h5!? 10. Bd3
h4 11. Ne4 Bxe4 12. Bxe4 h 13. g3, as the
weakening of the '-side matters little since
Black is now committed to castling on the
-side, which is also vulnerable.
9. Re1 Ngf6
10. c4 0-0
1 1. Nh4 Qc7
12. Nxg6 hxg6
13. Be3
No use tying to keep the two ,s, e.g.,
13. b3 e5, etc.
13. Bf4
14. Qd2
Bxe3
15. Qxe3 e5
16. Rad1 Rfe8
17. d5
J ,

.

.
M4t
"-

..

..

% a%

'

' ' ' ' ' "
In my axiety to play quickly and avoid
subsequent clock trouble, I played superf-
cially in a position which would have re
paid ten minutes' analysis. White acquires a
passed f , but isolated and on a light square,
an obstuction to his -.
The best chance of maintaining a slight
pull was probably 77 Rd2 for doubling s,
e.g., if 77 .. RadB, 18. Redl and White is then
threatening dxe5. If Black is lured into . . . e4,
all the better, as f would eliminate this f,
leaving White with a -side majorit while
Black's '-side fs would be immobile.
17. cxd5
18. cxd5 Qd6
19. Bb5! a6
Sealed move.
20. Ne4 Nxe4
21. Bxd7 Qxd7
22. Qxe4 Rac8!
White has rid himself of his awkward
-, but is now faced with the impossible
task of holding both the open fle and the
passed f.
23. Rc1 Qd6
24. Rc4
Tempting was 24. g4, but I thought
Black's answer would be simply . . f6! am
ing at . . . Kf7
24.
RedS
25. Rd1
b5!
26. Rxc8 Rxc8
27. h3 f5!
28. Qe3 K
Entering the " (d6) squae" of the passed
f, and thus greatly reducing tat infant's
potentialities. Now White cannot face a
ending, nor even a ending, with conf
dence, because Black's r is a force while
his own is not. And a policy of masterly
inactivity, while superfcialy it looks all
right at the moment, is amost certain to
lead to some such unfavorable exchange .
White's next move cost him 25 minutes.
29. g4 Rc4
White's sortie was open to the objec
ton tat it exposed his r, but it was logical
- 252 -
Hi Games
in that it aimed at turing Black's devel
oped into an exposed aso. And tere
was a tactcal point: if 29 . . . Rc2? 30. gxj
gxf 31. Q3! Q6f 32. Kjf4 (if . . . Rxb2 ?, d6
should win) 33. Qg6f Kg6 34. d6 and
White has te winning chances.
30. b3
Re
31. Qd3 e4
32. Qd4 Rc2
33. Rd2
Rc1t
34. Rd1
Rxd1 t
White should draw this ' ending, as
enough lines have been opened up for his
-.
35. Qxd1 e3!
An ingenious little combination to ex
pose White's and retain winning chances.
If 35 . . . fg4, simplest was 36. Qxg4 Qd5 37
QB, drawing by virtue of Blac's exposed

-
36. Qf exft
37. K Qe5
If 37 .. Qh2t, 38. Kj Qa2 39. Q3!
38. a4! b4
39. gx5! gx5
40. Qd3 Qh2t
If 40 ... a5, White's ' and passed .
cooperate and force the draw: 41. @5, and
if then Black checks and wins a . , White,
aer driving the black well away, plays
d6, when loss of .s no longer matters-a
typical drawing motf in ' endings. With
only a few minutes left for ten moves,
Golombek at last gives up his valiant eforts
to w.
41. K Qh1t
42. K Draw
Messages: "Thanks, most interesting
game." -Purdy.
"Many taks, hope to meet you over
the boad Sydney some day. "-Golombek.
(24)
N.S.W. Chapionship (1947)
C. Purdy-H. Klass
English Opening
What may happen if you try to bypass
a stong enemy 4 instead of trying to drive
it away or swap it of This.
1. c4
e5
2. Nc3 Nc6
3. Nf Bc5
Inferior to . .. Nf6.
4. e3 d6
5. d4 Bb6
6. h3
Varying from 6. Be2, played against
Lindgren in Adelaide. White is anxious to
maintain his . center.
6. . . . a
Not yet necessary.
7. Nd5
8. Be2
9. 0-0
10. b3
Ba7
Nge7
0-0
Bb8
At this, I looked up to see if my oppo
nent were Crawl in disguise. Black visual
izes an eventua . . . c6. However, White sud
denly changes the central setup entirely.
11. e4 exd4
12. Nxd4 Nxd4
13. Qxd4 Nc6
14. Qc3 Ba7
15. Be3 Bxe3
16. Qxe3 Re8
17. Bd3 Bd7
18. Rfe1 b6
19. Rad1 Ne5
20. f4 Ng6
21. Qg3 N
- 253 -
-
The Search fr Chess Peiction
This was Black's last chance to hit the
with . . . c6, but the reply would be 22. j!
cxd5 23. fg6 hxg6 24. Qd6 with a winning
advantage.
22. e5
23. fe5
24. Rl
25. N6!
The best hope.
dxe5
K8
Be6
Qe7
26. Nxe8 Rxe8
27. Be4
Nd7
28. Kl! Qc5?
A mistake which avoids slow torture.
29. Rxd7 Resigs
If . .. Bxd7, 30. Rxf7 Qe5 37. Qe5 Rxe5
32. Rxd7 and Black cannot regain the piece
because of mate. [Ed. : A slip by Prdy because
32. R i mate.]
(25) (t \
Austalian Correspondence
Championship {1948)
C. Purdy-M. Goldstein
Evans Gambit
The following Evans Gambit from the
1948 Australian Correspondence Champi
onship was considered by both players to
be unusual enough to warrat very fll
annotations, making it into an article all on
its own. The winner annotated it, but sub
mitted the notes to the loser for correcton
and amendment.
We published in the A.C.R. of Decem
ber 1937 a game, Keres-Eliskases, which
Keres won after moving the same eight
tmes in the frst 15 moves. We believe that
was a world's record for the winner of a
serious game-anyone could move a eight
times and lose.
In the game now before us, the winner
moves the same si times in the frst 15;
the then proceeds on further travels, and
his tenth and last move is the winning one
{28th) . It is an Evans gambit. Winning it
assured Purdy (holder) of frst place in the
Austalian Correspondence Championship,
either outright or in a tie with Koshnitsky.
1. e4
2. N
3. Bc4
4. b4
e5
Nc6
Bc5
Bxb4
There is this to be said for accepting
the gambit-it enables Black to select some
particular line which he may have prepared,
because White is more or less tied down to
specifc methods of countering each form of
the defense. The Gambit Declined, on the
other hand, allows White quite a variety of
choice.
5. c Ba5
6. d4
Captain Evans, the inventor, used to
castle first; but that comfortable line is quite
spoiled by the Lasker Defense.
6. . . .
b5!
Leonhardt's Counter Gambit. It is one
of the mysteries of chess that it has not been
played more often. M. C. 0. gives it as "theo
retically quite stong," which might imply
that practically it had some defect, but no
body has ever found it; and the lines given
in M. C. O. end in Black's favor, though one
of them is given wit the verdict of equality.
So, on the face of it, the Leonhardt was the
reftaton of the Evans, and naturally I had
not ventured the gambit against Goldstein
i correspondence play without looking into
the Leonhardt very careflly. My conclusion
- 254 -
Hi Games
was that the book play could be improved
on for White, though whether he could
permanently maintain an initiative was too
big a question.
7. Bd5!
M. C. 0. gives this as the weaker altera
tive, and Bxb5 as better; and Ulverstad in
his Chess Art actually gives Bxb5 as a win for
White, but both authorities are wrong. M
ter 7 Bxb5 Nxd4 8. Nxe5 Nxb5 9. Qd (here
Ulvestad ends up, assuming White wins
because he gets a ), there follows 9 ... Q!
10. Qxa8 Ne7 (as in WR. Morry-R.D. Wor
mald). The white is shut in. Wormald
won the game, and M. C. 0., which correctly
gives te line, has no justfcation for claim
ing equality; White could be said to have
"drawing chances" at best.
7. . . . exd4
Now M. C. 0. considers only the thor
oughgoing "gambit" move, 8. Q3, which is
superfcially attractve but ends disastously,
as shown by M. C. 0. itself. But White has no
need to be so rash.
8. Nxd4! Qf6
9. 0-0 Nge7
Now comes the crisis. Although the
players had left M. C. 0., they were not in
entirely uncharted waters. Both, as it turned
out later, knew Leonhardt's own analysis,
published in the B. C.M. of February 1906.
At this stage Leonhardt contnues with
10. e5 Q6 ( . . . e5? loses) 11. f4 Bb6 12. j
Nxd4 73. fg6 Ne2f 14. Khl Ng3f 15. hxg3
hxg6fand Black mates in two.
A very pretty variaton, but unsound.
IfWhite plays 12. Kh1!insteaof 12. j?, he
wins! For if 12 . . . Nxd4, 13. Bxa8 Nc2 14. g4!!
and Black canot save the game. In my glee
at this discovery, I nearly went ahead with
it, and aferwards Goldstein asked me why I
had not, for he himself had also found the
faw. My answer was that unfortunately tere
is still another flaw in Leonhardt's analysis.
Instead of 11 . . . Bb6? (which takes a usefl
fight square from his ) , Black can play
simply 77 ... Nxd4!wt advantage. For if 12.
Bxa8, ... Nc2 (as g4 is now useless) . In fair
ness to Leonhardt, one should add that his
analysis was intended as illustative only.
So I retured to the drab and unro
mantic move which I had decided was best
a year before the game started. But there
was nothing drab about the sequel.
10. Nxb5!
I know of no previous instance of this.
Yet it seemed to me that one should forget
one is playing an Evans Gambit and just
play chess. And here is a perfectly good f.
10. . . . 0-0
I ho
p
ed Black would t to regain his
f plus by 10. . . a6 11. N5a3! Bxc3; this
would eliminate my weak c- f and unde
veloped 4 and give me a strong initative
well worth the f minus. Also inefective
would be 10 . . . Ba6 11. a4.
1 1. Be3 a6
12. Nd4 Bb6
My main concer was always to be
sure, by painstaking analysis, that at each
move there was something to discourage
Black from playing .. .Nxd5, or to put it
another way, some solace to White for the
grief of parting with his "two Bishops."
It is on that idea that my variation ( 10.
Nxb5) was based. For example, 12 ... Nxd5
13. exd5 Ne5 14. Nd2! d6 (taking loses) 15.
N4b3 Bb6 76. Bxb6 cxb6 1Z f4Ng6 18. O is
in White's favor. A nice problem now faces
White. See diagram.
- 255 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
13. Nc2!
It is remarkable that with three of his
pieces still on their original squares, White's
best move should be a retrograde step with
this apparently well-posted i, which has
already moved four times. It reminded me
of Reti's words in his Moder Ideas In Chess.
From a careful study of Capa
blanca's games I leart in tbe end
that instead of applying Morphy's
principle of developing all tbe
pieces as quickly as possible he
was guided in his play by some
plan based as much as possible on
positional considerations. Accord
ing to that method, every move
not demanded by tbe plan amounts
to a loss of tme.
The natural move was 73. Bb3, pre
serving the two .s. Over the boad, one
would play it almost automatcally, and
only a great deal of calculation persuaded
me that my mysterious i move was better.
The plan itself is simple: to establish the
i/e3 commanding the vital square dS.
Black should certainly have played now
13 . . . Nxd5 before the i could get tere.
Then 74. Od5! RbB (looks best) 75. Bxb6
Rxb6 76. Ne3 d6 7Z Q (threatening Nd5,
the theme move) Be6 78. f4 ad White
threatens f and again Nd5. So in this line,
too, White would have kept the initiative
despite his retaded development. The main
secret of White's small advantage consists
in his center i , which Black cannot easily
assail.
Maims about quick development, and
all other maxims in chess, are valuable la
bor-saving devices for avoiding bad moves
rather than for finding good ones.
13.
Rb8
14. Bxb6 Rxb6
15. Ne3 d6
Goldstein considers this doubtl. Pos
sibly . . . R8 and ... Bb 7 was better. White is
behind in development by countng pieces,
but dominates the center.
16. Qc2 Be6
17. Nd2 Rf8
Black stll relies on development, leav
ing White's centa dominaton intact. How
ever, if 7Z .. Bxd5, 78. exd5 Ne5 19.[4 and the
positon of Black's 1comes into question.
18. f4
Rb2
19. Qd3 Na5
Black has reached a stage on which
White had built his hopes: Black has com
pleted his development and is at a standstill
because White stll dominates the center.
The text move stops trouble fom White's
is, but gives White a new opportunity.
20. f5
Nxd5
Virtually forced now. Black hopes for
27. fe6? Oc3 22. exjf Kj, when he is quite
safe, e.g., 23. Oc3 Nxc3 24. N Nxe4! 25.
Nd4 Nc5 26. Rac7 Nab7 (Goldstein).
21. exd5 Bc8
Mter 27 ... Bd7 White gets a winning
attack by Ne4, e.g., 22 . . . f! 5? 23. Ng4 f! 8?
24. Ne6for 22 . . . f7 2J. f6 (Goldstein).
22. Rael!
A surprising f sacrifice, as Black would
not only win a f but threaten to get two ts
on the second. However, if 22 ... Rxa2, 23.
Ng4 Q8 24. Q3! Kh8 25. f6 and the attack
should win. Black prefers a cray retreat.
22. Qd8
23. Nc2!
The peripatetic i is again drawn to
this apparently futle position, but only as a
jumping-off ground for further hops. One
could have bet that he would end up in a
W-side attack. Strangely enough, that is his
goal, but he selects an extaordinarily round
about route. Reason: he mustn't let Black
get two ts on the second.
23.
Rxa2
Just what the i wants. Black's last
- 256 -
Hi Games
fighting chace was 23 . . . BdZ
24. Nb4 Rb2
25. Nc4!
Again, a surprising move, because po
sitionally it seems bad to give Black a chance
to exchange of his miserable on the
edge. But a combination overrides all such
bloodless consideratons.
25. Nxc4
26. Nc6 Q
27. Qxc4
Bd7
The really wanted the ! to move,
ad then he could have extended his tour in
a blaze of glory, e.g., 2Z .. R8b6 28. Ne7f
K8 2. Ng6f!!!, thus completing 1 1 moves
with a sacrifce which wins in all variations.
[Ee How does White win in the variation
afer 29 . . . fxg6 30. fxg6 Qg8 ?] If 2Z .. Ra8,
however, then 28. Ne7t and 29. 0c7, win
ning less glamorously. Even as it is, the
makes ten moves, more than a third of all
White's moves to date.
28. Nxb8 Qxb8
If ... Bb5, 29. Q4!wins (Goldstein) .
29. Qxa6 Bb5
30. Qa3 Rd2
If ... Bxfl ?, 31. Qxb2!
31. c4!
Bd7
If ... Bxc4, 32. Q3, finis.
32. Re7
Qd8
Forced, as White gave conditionals to
settle the slightly longer resistance by 32 ...
h6.
33. Rxd7 Resigs
It was really a pleasure to lose this
game, in which Purdy broke all the classical
canons of development to maintain his grip
on the center. I felt my loss due in no small
meaure to the weakness of Black's c6 and
c4 squares (see White's 25th and 26th
moves), which in their tr were created by
Leonhardt's own move, 6 . . . b5.
Hence Purdy's original treatment of
the opening makes the game of exceptional
theoretcal interest (Goldstein) .
(26)
Austalia v. New Zealad
Cable Match (1948)
C. Purdy-R. Wade
French Dense
1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5
3. Nd2
Nf6
More fashionable than . . . c5.
4. e5 Nfd7
5. Bd3 c
6. c
This, of course, is the point of 3. Nd2.
Now Black sometmes plays 6 . . . b6 to ex
change his "bad" ..
6. Nc6
7. Ne2 Qb6
8. Nf f6
If 8 cd4, 9. cxd4 Bb5t 10. K! (Ale
khine-Capablanca, A.V.R.O. 1938) leaves
Black rather stranded.
9. exf6
10. 0-0
1 1. Rb1
Nxf6
Bd6
To fee te . (b3 is weakening) .
11. . . . 0-0
12. Bf4 Qc7
A old game, Canal-H.Johner, Zurich
1917, contnued 12 ... Bxf4 13. Nx4 Qc7 (if
. .. Ne4, 14. Ne2 cxd4 15. Nexd4 Nxd4 76. cxd4
with advantage [Tartakover]) 14. g3 e5 15.
de5 Nx5 16. Nxe5 Qxe5 17 Re1 Qd6 18.
Bc4! with advantage to White.
13. Bxd6 Qxd6
14. Re1?
- 257 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
White impatiently sent this rather su
perfcial move as a conditional; had he
waited until he had the position in font of
him, he might have seen that the only way
to retain any advantage was by 14. dxc5!
fc5 15. Ned4. Black could not then ad
vance his e- . (because of Nxc6), and after
15 ... Bd7 16. Re! RaeB 17 Nxc6 Bxc6 18. Ne5
White's initiative is clear ( 18 . . . Nd7? 19.
Q2).
14. e5!
15. dxe5 Nxe5
16. Nxe5 Qxe5
17. Ng3
Q
g5
The salient feature now is Black's cen
ter .. It is an asset, but also a liability
insofa as it deprives Black's A of a central
diagonal. In masters' jargon, White has a
"good" A, Black a "bad" A -fair compen
sation for Black's central majority. Black's
ambiton, after developing, will be to ex
change off the As.
18. t
19. Qcl
20. Rbxc1
21. K
22. Rxe8
23. Re1
Bd7
Qxcl
Rae8
g6
Rxe8
With only one open fle, it rarely pays
either side to avoid exchanging s.
23. K
24. Rxe8 Nxe8!
25. Ke2 Nd6
26. Ke3 Kf6
27. f4 a
28. Ne2
Bb5!
29. Bxb5 Nxb5
Black has achieved the exchange of
As, and White could now easily drift into a
loss. However, White now fnds a maneu
ver which actually reaps some benefit from
the disappearance of his A.
30. Ncl! a4
31. a Nd6
32. Nd3
Nc4t
White's 4 finds the square formerly
occupied by the A a perfect defensive post.
A balance is thus achieved, which neither
side can well afford to upset.
33. K b5
34. g4
Nd2t
35. Ke2 Ne4
36. Ke3
Ke6
37. h3
Kf6
38. K
Drawn by agreement.
(2
7)
Austaia Open (1948)
D. ArmstrongC. Purdy
Nimo-/ndian Deense
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. a Bxc3t
5. bxc3 c
6. e3 0-0
7. Bd3 Nc6
8. Ne2 d6
9. 0-0 Qc7
10. e4 e5!
If I did not do this, I was in for deadly
cramp. I therefore decided to invite the
following little combination in which White
expends his energy on winning material at
the cost of positon.
1 1. d5 Ne7
12. f4 exf4
To allow f would be fatal. If now
White recaptures, Black obtains contol of
eS ( 13. Bxf4 Ng6and 14 . . . Nd7, or 13. Nxf4
Nd7).
13. e5
14. d6
15. dxe7
dxe5
Qc6
Re8
White has gained a piece for two .s,
but has a A and 4 without fture. So fa
from exploiting his material advantage, he
must seek salvation in a counter-sacrifice.
- 258 -
His Games
16. Bc2! Bd7
17. Nx4! exf4
18. Bxf4 Rxe7
19. Bg5
Bg4
And if Qd, . .. Rae8. [Ed. : But then Uite
plays 21. Bxf6 and Black i in bad shape. Per
haps a sli of the pen.] Had White sacrifced
without first playing Bc2, Black could safely
have answered 19. Bg5 with ... Re6.
20. Rxf6! Bxd1
21. Rxc6 Re1t
22. K Re2t
23. K1 Rxc2
24. Rxc5 Be2t
25. Kg1 Rxc3
26. Rc7 b6
27. Re1 Rxc4
Better was . .. Bxc4. The two white Es
on the seventh would be inefective here,
and the A will now be pinned on e2 far
worse than it would have been on c4. The
ending is in any case very hard, with s on
opposite colors. But afer 27 .. Bxc4! 28. Ree7
h6 29. Bh4 Rd8! it is certainly a win.
28. Re7
h6
29. Bxh6 Bg4
30. Bd2 Be6
31. Rcl b5
32. Rb7 Rxclt
33. Bxcl Rc8
34. Bf4 Rc4
35. g3 a6
36. Rb6
Bc8
37. h4 Rc2
38. Rd6 Kh7
39. Rd2 Rc3
40. Bd6
White's re grouping since Move 36 was
the result of looking up Fine's Basic Chess
Endings during te adjournment.
40. Kg6
41. K Kf5
42. Bb4 Rb3
43. Rd4 Be6
44. Rf4t Ke5
45. B g6
46. a4 Bc4
4 7. axb5 axb5
Fine again! Fine says it is more drawish
in these endings to have a single passed .
than to have two .s to one, for reasons he
explains. However, Black's W is now too
near for comfort.
!.
48. Bg7t
49. Re4t
50. Rd4t
51. Rd2
52. Rc2
53. Be5
54. Rb2t
55. Rb1
56. Rcl
57. Ke2
58. Bf6
59. Bg7
Ke6
Kd5
Kc5
Kb4
Rd3
Kb3
Ka3
b4
Ba2
Rd5
Rd6!
f6
60. Rc8 Bd5
61. R b3
62. R6 b2!
63. Rxd6 Bc4 t
The point. Queening would lose the
64. Ke3
and Black won.
b1=
Q
Returing to the diagram, note that
White stll had drawing chances with 60.
BJ, e.g., 60 . . . Rd4 61. Ke3! R4 62. Kj! f
63. RcB Kb2. Black will get his passed . to
the third rank, but to get it to the second he
will have to give up his g- .. Black will win
the A, but White will have possibilities of
- 259 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
arriving at -versus- and
'
which is a
dificult book draw.
(28)
Austalian Corespondence
Championship (1948)
F. Crowl-C. Purdy
King's Gambit
The Limited Bishop's Gambit (LBG)
At New York 1924, Tartakover thrice
played the LBG, and Dr. Alekhine recom
mended against it a certain line, adding,
"Unfortunately, however, one must appar
ently wait a long tme before this interesting
defense will be played . . . " He assumed that
the LBG would not be resurrected very
often, and from that day to this we have not
seen a single game in this opening, until the
following one, played in the 1948 Austra
lian Correspondence Championship. The
LBG game given by "Chielamangus" in
Among Tese Mates was a brilliant piece of
analysis by Crowl, not an actual game.
1. e4 e5
2. f4 ex4
3. Be2
Alekhine wrote:
This unusual move is based upon
two idea: first, the white Bishop,
in case Black defends the gambit
pawn by . . . g5, can be played to ,
which makes possible the devel
opment of Ne2, thereby avoiding
the eventual attack of . . . g4. Sec
ondly, the counter move of . . . d5, if
not made at once, is less forceful
than in the ordinary Bishop's Gam
bit inasmuch as in this case the
Bishop is not directly attacked. One
consequence, among others, is that
Black cannot well play . . . N6, on
account of e5, which-with White's
Bishop on c4-would be met by
. . . d5. For all that, this backward
maneuver of the Bishop is not to
be recommended . . .
3 . . . . f5!
This was Alekhine's recommendation,
never tried at New York. It is curious how
two great masters can contadict each other
on openings. Alekhine remarks, "The reply
4. e5 cannot very well be considered on
account of 4 . . . d6, etc." Tatakover, on the
contrary, in Die Hypermodere Schachpartie,
published a year after New York 1924, says,
"The antiquated defense 3 . . . j 4. e5! d6 5.
d4, etc., gives White the advantage."
This complete contradiction called for
some patient analysis. Following on Tartak
over's moves I considered 5 . . . dxe5 6. dxe5
Qd1 t 7 Bxdl Be6! 8. Bxf4Nd7 9. Nf0-0-0.
Or in this, 8. NfNd7 9. Ng5 Ke7!; if now 10.
Bxf4, . . . h6. In either case, White's . on e5
becomes a fixed weakness, and one had to
conclude that while 4. e5 might be the least
evil for White, it should lose!
4. exf5 Qh4t
5. K1 d5
Alekhine stopped here, except to men
tion that 6. Bh5f Kd8!leaves Black standing
decidedly better, "inasmuch as it would be
easier for him than his adversay to domi
nate the f-pawn, in addition to which the
open f-flle would afford him a welcome
avenue for a direct attack on the white
King." Crowl avoids this line, but finds
none better.
6. Nc3 c6
Of course not . .. Nf6, as the i needs
that square.
7. d4 Bd6
8. Bd3 Ne7
9. Qe2
0-0
10. Nf
Q6
For White, now it is only a choice of
evils.
1 1. g4
fg3
- 260 -
Hi Games
12. Bg5 Qf
13. Bxe7 Qxe7
14. Qxe7 Bxe7
15. Re1 Bd6
16. Kg2 gxh2
17. Nh4 Nd7
18. Ne2
Nf6
19. Ng3 Ng4
20. R Bd7
21. Kh3 h1=Qt!
A surprising move which appears to
gain nothing. Better might appear simply
. . . Nh6 at once, since 22. Kh2 leaves White
pinned.
22. Nxh1
23. Kg2
Nh6
R
Now the point comes. White's W has
been virtually forced to g2 instead of h2,
blocking the retreat of his other 4, so that
Black now threatens . . . Be7, forcing the win
of the second f and thus turing White's
almost playable game into a hopeless loss.
White's next move attempts to sacrifce the
Exchange rather than the second f , as the
two central fs (after . . . Bxe5 de5) would
give White some vague counterchances.
24. Re5 Re7!!
This second surprise-a most paradoxi
cal move, yet quite correct-lifts the game to
publication standard. If 25. Rxe7, . . . Bxe7
ad wins the f- f, leaving White with no
semblance of a counterchance at all.
25. f6
Bxe5
26. fe7 Bxd4
27. Rt
R
28. Bxh 7t K
29. ex=Qt K
White has had this little jest and could
now resign, seeing that it is a correspon
dence game, but prolonged matters thus:
30. c Bf6 31. Ng6t K 32. Nf Bf5 33.
Nh8t Ke6 34. Ng6 (forced) Kd6 35. K
Bb1 36. a Kc5 37 Ke2 Bf5 38. Nf Kc4
39. Bx5 Nxf5 40. Kd2 Kb3 41. Kcl d4!
42. cxd4 Bxd4 43. Nd3 g5 44. Ne6 g4 45.
Resigns.
Crawl fell victim to his love of bizarre
openings.
(29)
Austalian Championship (1951)
L. EndzelinsC. Purdy
English Opening
When, at the opening luncheon,
Brisbane's acting Lord Mayor drew Round
15 from a hat, it meant that Roundl5 be
came Round 1. Another dive into a hat
meant that the frst-named player in every
pairing would have black instead of white.
This first (lucky dip) round is always the
most nerve-racking, at least for the writer,
whose confidence was not improved on
learning that he had to meet Endzelins, a
shade the strongest of the "new Australian"
masters on European results. This was the
first tourament game ever played between
one of these masters and a representative of
New South Wales, and merits publication
on that score.
I think Endzelins, also, was affected by
frst-round "nerves." At any rate, I hoped
so, and chose what I meant to be a surprise
defense, so that his clock would start piling
up minutes as early in the game as possible.
1. c4 d6
2. d4
e5
Exchange of fs and Ys is bad for
White now, despite Black's forfeiture of
castling, as White's c4 becomes meaning-
- 26 1 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
less and, worse still, a source of weakness.
The idea of Black's early ... e5 is to induce
Nj, after which te King's Indian Defense
( ... g6, etc.) is so much the better for the
obstruction of White's f- f.
3. Nc3!
It is Black who gets the surprise! A
quick look convinced me that in this move
of Endzelins' lay the reftaton of 1... d6
(and surely 1 . . . d6 ought not to be as good as
other more commonsense moves?) because
it keeps White's position as free as possible,
simply ignoring Black's "threat" of bringing
White's Y under fre by . . . exd4.
3. . . exd4
Or 3 ... N6, when White could still
refrain fom 4. Nj( 4 . . . Nbd7!) and play 4.
g3! Then 4 . . . exd4 would transpose into the
game.
4. Qxd4 Nc6
5. Qd2!
Suddenly I remembered I had seen
this before in the same or at least a similar
positon. At frst sight the Y is ill placed, but
she will be beautiflly posted after b3 and
Bb2, protectng the fianchetto ,-the usual
disability of a Y-fianchetto is that the A is
"loose." A few players thought Endzelins
was "losing tme" with his Y moves; some
tmes very strong players are astray on fun
damentals. White ha lost no time: he has
made two moves in developing his Y, but
Black has equally lost one move in develop
ment by . .. exd4, and-what is worse-aban
doned his f center. The position had me
worried.
5. . . .
Nf6
6. g3 Be6
Threatening to equalize by . . . d5.
7. Nd5! g6
8. Bg?
This aer very long thought-but it quite
spoils his game. Compulsory was 8. b3 and
Bb2 before it was too late. Of course he
could have played b3 on Move 6, also. I
concluded that Endzelins was nervous about
the complications that might result fom 8.
b3, but as far as I can see White always
comes out with the better game. Evidently
he did not like leaving his '-side undevel
oped so long, but he can live through it, e.g.,
8. b3 Bg7 9. Bb2 0-0 10. Bg2 R8 11. Nh3!
Thus it seems that in this instance frst
round "nerves" afected my opponent more
than me.
8. . . . Bg7
Now it's too late for b3 and White's
setup loses its point.
9. Nf 0-0
10. 0-0 Re8
1 1. Ng5 Bf5
12. Re1 h6
13. Nf Ne4
Black starts punching, and White is
already worried by his clock.
14. Qd1 Nc5
15. Be3!
Ofering the Exchange for counterplay.
I did not want this-was hoping for a steady
crush, but he would not play ball.
15. . . . Bxb2
16. Bxh6 Ne5
Clearly bad to accept the offer yet.
17. Nxe5 Rxe5
18. h4! Re6
Still wrong to take, I thought. I much
preferred to keep him dock-worried rather
than grab wood ad give him obviously
good moves. What was his best now? Would
anyone care to dig into the complications
- 262 -
Hi Games
and see if White stll had good counterplay? etc.
19. Nf4 ReS
20. Nd5 e6
21. Ne3 Be4!
22. Bxe4 Nxe4
23. Rbl Bc3
Not . . . Nc3? 24. Q2.
24. Qb3
Not 24. Rf7 ?, as Black then wins the
Exchange without parting with his .
24. . . Bxel
At last Black has won the Exchange on
his own terms. Both players were racing
now, up till Move 36.
25. Rxel
26. Rbl
27. Bf4
28. Rdl
29. exd5
30. Qd3?
Re6
b6
d5
ReS
exd5
Of course 30. Rd5 QB, when White
has a f for the Exchange. In his wild clock
scramble White was evidently under some
hallucinaton.
30. Nc3
31. Rd2 Rc5
32. Ng4
Ne4
33. Rdl d4
34. f Nc3
35. Rd2 Qd5
36. e4 Qe4
The clock race is over. White's posi
ton has deteriorated through his having to
play even faster than Black. The game again
becomes interesting at Move 41, with
White's ingenious bid for counterplay in a
losing position.
37. Nf
38. Nxd3
39. Ncl
40. Kg2
41. Kh3
Qd3
R
Ra4
Re6
Nxe4
White has ofered this f just to get
some play. Steiner suggested declining it
and simply piling ;s on with .. . Rcc4, . . . R3,
42. Re2!
43. ReSt
44. Nb3
Nc5
Kg7
Ne6
Trying to be clever. The swap was sim
pler.
45. Bb8 d3
46. g4 f6
47. Re7t K
48. Rd7 Rxa2
49. Rxd3 Ke7
50. h5 gxh5
51. gxh5 a
52. f4 a4
53. Nd2 Ree2
54. Nf
Ral
55. Re3 Rhlt
56. Kg3 ReS!
Ad if 5Z Ba7, . . . R8t 58. Kf Kf
treatening . . . Nxf4.
57. Nd4 Rg8t
58. K Rh2t
59. K Rhlt
Black hurriedly returs his ! to a light
square, for at h2 it is under a masked attack
from the .
60. K
61. Rxe6
62. Re6
63. Re7t
64. Ne6
K
Rxb8
Rxh5
Kg6
ReS
To retur the Exchange.
65. K Rh7
With two ;s against ! and 4, a !
swap is the heart's desire.
66. f5t Kh6
67. Resigs
The onlookers broke into applause,
presumably atleast patly for White's plucky
and ingenious fght in a losing positon.
- 263 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
(3
0
)
Austaian Chapionship (1951)
C. Purdy-R. Zile
King's Indian Dense
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3
Inviting the complicated Griinfeld (3 . . .
d5). Easier is 3. g3.
3. Bg7
4. e4 d6
5. g3 0-0
6. Bg2
e5!
Correct. No need for ... Nd7 first.
7. Nge2 Nc6
Perhaps better still is Z . . exd4 B. Nxd4
Nc6; and if 9. Nc2, ... Be6. Indeed, although it
is seldom played, probably the best answer
to 6 . . . e5 is an immediate Z d5!
8. d5 Nd4
Dr. Leaer, of Melboure, former Bir
mingham Champion, won two fine games
in Austaia with this Russian countergambit.
Here's one-it coul happen to you, if you
accepted the . : 9. Nxd4 exd4 10. Ne2 (i
Qd4 ?, Nxe4!) Re8 11 f c5 12. dc6 bxc6 13.
Nxd4 Qb6 14. N3 Ba6 15. Qc2 d 76. c5
Qd8 77 Bg5 de4 18.Jxe4 Bd3 19. Qd Nxe4
20. Bxd8 Nxdt 21. Kd Rax8 22. Rag1
Bc4t White resigns ( C. G. Watson-A.
Learer, Interclub, Melboure 1950).
9. h3
Obviously more precise is 9. 0-0, as it
reserves more options. However, after 9.
0-0 Nxe2f 10. Qe2 a5 White would have
played h as a preparaton for Be3 in any
case, transposing into the game.
Fine says somewhere that 8 Nd4 is
"refted" by 9. 0-0 c5 10. dc6 bxc6 11 Nxd4
ed4 12. Qxd4 as in Ragosin-Chistyakov,
Moscow 1939. The move refted is not 8 . . .
Nd4, but the reckless follow-up 9 . . . c5!??
Masters with aggressive styles, like Chistya
kov, inevitably overstep the bounds of dis
cretion occasionally. Instead, Black should
continue like Zile here, and like Dr. Learer
in Goldstein-Learer, Australian Champi
onship, Melboure 1948-49: 9. 0-0 Nxe2f!
10. Qxe2 a 11. bJ Nd7 (still better was 11 . . .
b6 keeping as long as possible the option of
.. . Ng4if Be3) 12. Be3 b6 13. a Nc5 14. R1
f 15. f J4 16. Bf Bd7; difcult game for
both sides, which Black, in this case, won.
9. . . . Nxe2
Quite simply! Black has a slightly freer
game than in a normal King's Indian.
10. Qxe2 a
11. 0-0 Nd7
12. Be3
b6
13. Qd2 Nc5
14. Bh6 f5
15. Bxg7 Kxg7
16. ex5 gxf5
This is the routine recapture in the
normal King's Indian, but here 16 . . . Bxf
was better because it carries a direct threat
( . . . Bd3), and would thus delay White's [4
and give, in our opinion, equal chaces.
17. f4 e4
Giving Black a superfcially attractive
position; but the passed . is easily block
aded, and White's . obtains a splendid
post. But if Black allows fe5, he gets "hang
ing . s" and is far fom happy.
18. Nb5! Ba6
19. Nd4 Qf6
If . . . Bxc4?? Black loses a piece: easy
exercise for students.
20. b3 Rae8
-264 -
Hi Games
21. Qe3
22. a
23. Rdl
Bc8
Nd3
h5
Bastion against an ultimate g4.
24. Bfl Nc5
Must you go, so early!
25. b4 Nb7
26. Be2 Rh8
27. Kh2 Bd7
28. Racl Ref
An instructive position. It looks pretty
hard for White to do anything. But look
more closely. White is positioned for a deci
sive breakthrough on the '-wing iBlack
moves his '. That means Black's l is ted,
so that on the -side he is a piece down.
Therefore, by patient regrouping (calling
perhaps for l=s/g2 and fl, A/dl, and /
gl), White should at last be able to break on
the -side with g4, and, having an extra
piece there, probably win.
29. Rd2 h4?
This oversight makes it easy. Zile, who
wa usually too meek in this tourey, shows
fght at the wrong moment.
30. g4 fg4
31. Bxg4 Bxg4
32. hxg4 Nd8
Of course not . . . f! f4?? That's what
Zile missed on Move 29.
33. Nf5t K
34. c5
When the eat's away! And note that
this move is the one that White keeps be
fore his eyes fom the moment he plays d5.
Though White may never succeed in play
ing it, he must try at least to threaten it.
34. Rh7
35. cxb6 cxb6
36. Qxb6 Resigns
The game was to be adjoured, and
Zile, displaying both realism and chivalry,
adjudged it too hopeless to warrant drag
ging his opponent back to fnish it.
After 36 . . . axb4 37 axb4 Kg8 the sim
plest is 3 8. Q3, winning a second i while
still retaining an attack (i 38 ... Re8, 39.
Rc4).
(3
1
)
Austaian Chapionship {1951)
J. HanksC. Purdy
Dutch Dense
This game contained some of the best
moves (if you like ' sacrifces) , and a few of
the very worst, in the whole tourament.
For sheer nervous tension, both players
would probably admit that it was the great
est nightmare of teir chess careers.
1. d4
Like Rubinstein, Hanks has always
stuck to this. It is a policy that reduces the
element of chance.
1. . . . f5
I had played this only twice in my life,
losing both times. I hoped that in the many
intervening years I had leaed how to play
it, though the aberration at Moves 8 and 9
appears to belie this.
2. g3 Nf6
3. Bg2 e6
4. Nf Be7
5. 0-0 0-0
6. c4 c6
7. Nc d5
8. b3 Nbd7
9. Qc2 Kh8
Both players sufered the same slight
mental aberration. Black has played .. . Nd7
- 265 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
prematurely, instead of . . . QB first. White,
however, both on his 9th and lOth moves,
misses Ng5 forcing the home again. Of
course White's would not be well placed
at gS, and the "gain of time" in develop
ment would be illusory, but by the immedi
ate withdrawal to h3 (best!) White would
produce a position traditionally good for
operaton against a Stonewall.
10. Bf4 Qe8
11. Rad1
Ne4
12. e3 Qh5
13. Nd2 g5
14. Bc7 Bd6
15. Bxd6 Nxd6
16. f f4
Pevents White from getting a colossal
advantage in space by e4-e5 and f4.
17. e4 Qf
Must hold dS.
18. Rfe1 Rg8
19. cxd5 cxd5
20. g4 Nf
21. e5 Ne8
This is buried alive, like a character
in an Edgar Alien Poe story. You'll see that
he has no possible fture on the W-side. I
visualized using him purely defensively, i.e.,
for guarding the important square c7, where
White might otherwise force an enty if
Black massed on the W-side. Thus he might
have pulled his weight, even though but a
corpse. White's 20th, of course, wa to bar
him from fS.
22. Bfl
23. Bd3
Ng6
Bd7
I was anxious to make up leeway in
development; but stronger was 23 ... Nh4!,
merely for the purpose of forever barring
h4, while Black could prepare his own . . . h5
at leisure.
24. Bxg6! Rxg6
25. a4 Rc8
26. Qd3
Nc7
Mter White's 25th, which looks like
part of a plan he never carried out, I changed
my plan and resuscitated the . I had
previously envisaged . . . Bc6 and ... Rd8-d7,
leading this t to the w-side by devious
paths.
27. Rc1 Rgg8
My previous plan had been simply to
protect the key squares of the c-fle (mean
ing c8 and c7, of course) with the minor
pieces. My new plan was the more ortho
dox one of challenging the fle outright.
28. Kg2?
Loss of time. The move was Kf, so
that White need not fear the opening of the
g-file. Both players were playing rapidly
now, having consumed much tme over the
very dificult earlier moves. I had the feel
ing that Hanks was losing grip slightly, and
that my positon was developing better than
it deserved.
28.
29. Rh1
30. K
h5
Qe7
Rcf
Another change of plan, perhaps opti
mistc but justified by results. Bitterly re
grettng my omission of 23 . . . N4, I had
feared I might have to close up the w-side
forever by . . . h4 to stop h4. But in view of
White's slight vacillation, it now seemed I
might make the play on that wing.
31. Ne2 Be8
32. Qc Na6
This is now in sight of a real square
at last, a thing that formerly seemed only a
dream. After playing a4, White could have
gone with b4 and kept the out. During his
race against the clock he has somehow al
lowed Black to get a footing on both wings!
33. Rcg1?
More vacillaton. White cedes his pres
sure on the c-file without giving the ): a
usefl post on the w-side. Apparently, in
his hurry, he had not yet thought of the
ingenious plan which he embarks upon next
move.
- 266 -
Hi Games
33.
Rg7
34. h3
For doubling on the h-fle in prepaa
tion for h4, or alteratively to force Black to
block the -side by . . . h4. But it's just too
late; Black now has the bit between his
teeth.
34. 4
35. Rh2 Bg6
36. Rghl Rh7
White now had to seal. Should he play
passively and hope for the best, or boldly?
Either course was risky. He chooses the
latter.
37. h4!? hxg4
38. fg4 !
Black, if he wants to win, must answer
boldness with boldness. However, my brief
adjourment analysis had not shown me
the way to follow up this f sacrifce, and
Hanks was surprised when I took about an
hour over my next two moves. Search as I
would, every line seemed to fail, until sud
denly the winning combination burst upon
me. The grandmaters see tese things quick
ly, and that's their main secret.
39. Nx Nd3t
This unpins White, and is good only
because of the combinaton involved. White
now has a choice of two moves, both need
ing calculation. One is 40. Ke3, which we'll
look at later.
40. Kg3! Be4!
For a long tme this pin had seemed
ftile because of the obvious reply, by which
White wins a second f and hits a . .
41. Nxg5
41. . . . Qxg5! !
This gets two marks only because it's
spectacular. It's not at all deep, and the play
after 42. hxg5 is easy to see when you're told
it's there, but not so easy on Move 39,
sacrifces being so rare in practical play.
The sae temporary sacrifice oc-
curs afer 40. Ke3. Thus 40 ... Be4 41. Nxg5
Bxh1 42. Q: d (if 42. Nxh7, ... Q: h7 43. Rxh1
Q4f, etc.) fg5f!!, and this time te play is
even simpler.
Feeling rather smug about the sacri
fce, I was expectng a babel of excited
whispering to burst fort among the on
lookers. But Haks-the cad!-hardly gave
them 30 seconds to begin taking it in before
his large fst crashed onto the board to steal
my thunder with . . .
42. Qxd3!
The spectators were probably puzzled
how two players who could ponder so long
over dull regroupings of pieces could fling
away their s instantaneously and with
gay abadon. (Black had made his previous
move almost before Hanks had quitted the
4
.)
However, I was so taken aback by
Haks' swashbuckling gesture that I now
failed to see that I had within my power a
means of making him gnash his teeth in
impotent rage with still a third sacrifice,
42... Qxg4f!! However, it leads only to a
winning fs' ending and requires calcula
tion at that ( 43. Kg4 R7t 44. Kh3 Bxd 45.
Ng3 R 46. R2 Be4! 4Z R1 Rxb3 and
-267 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
Black has regained his f and must win
more). So even had I seen 42 . . . Qg4f I
would not have played it, as I was short of
time and wanted a line with lots and lots of
checks in it, which I obtained with . . .
42.
Q
43. Qe3 Rft
44. Qxf Bxf
45. K Qe4t
46. K Rt
47. Kel Qblt
48. Kd2 Qb2t
49. Kel Qxb3
A sign that my brain was already crack
ing under the strain, as I missed the obvious
chance of repeatng my last two moves
before taking the f. This omission nearly
cost me the game, as things went.
50. g5 Qb4t
51. Kdl Qxa4t
52. Kd2 Qb4t
53. Ke3 Qb3t
54. Kd2 Qb2t
55. Ke3 Qa3t
56. Kd2 Qa5t
57. Ke3 Qa3t
58. Kd2 Qa2t
59. Ke3 Qc4???
A glance at the score sheet would have
shown me that I could still check again at
b3. Then, after 60. Kd2, there is a quick win
by 60 . . . R. But presupposing I was too
short of time for such niceties, and wanted a
move to change the position, moving the Y
was utterly absurd; obviously, the thing to
do was to make some move of fture value,
e.g., 59 ... b5. If 60. R7, . . . b4 with an easy
win. But of all possible Y moves, the text
was the worst, as White can now hit the Y
with a developing move, gaining two vital
tempi, certainly assuring a draw, theoreti
cally, and with winning chances. As I had
more than 1. 5 minutes, there seems little
excuse for such a panic move. But I had
made my last dozen moves, perforce, at
feverish speed, and perhaps it was hard to
pause and think.
in.
60. Rcl Qb3t
61. Rc3 Qbl
This is where the second tempo comes
62. h5 Qe4t
63. Kd2
This is where the incident occurred,
described under "Misguided Chivalry"; then
followed Black's second "panic move." Sev
eral moves give a better chance tha the
text, e.g., 63 . . . b5.
63. . . . Qf5?
64. g6
Black now sealed, in what has become
a losing position.
Although depressed after throwing
away a win and perhaps a draw, I took
enormous trouble over my sealed move,
tying to fnd one which seemed to give
least opportunity for clear-cut analysis, did
not look very good, and yet was not bad. I
have several times followed such tactics
with success when sealing in bad positions.
Theoreticaly best was probably . . . R7 I
chose . . .
64. . . . Rd7
Success crowned my efforts, insofar as
Hanks, on resuming, consumed about 35
minutes over his next two moves; they were,
however, both excellent.
65. Rhh3! b5
During the adjournment I had inexpli
cably overlooked White' s 65th move. My
-268 -
His Games
blindness at least saved me from a defeatist
outlook.
66. Rc
If it goes to g3, as was suggested, ten
. .. R7 What then?
66. .
Qg5t
67. Nf4?
This 4 does want to come here, but
the , should go in front of it first. The more
patient 67 Kd1 is a winner. Could White
still have forced a win afer the text move?
67. Rc7
68. Rhg3
Qh6
69. Kel
An annotator suggested Kd3, threaten
ing Nxe6. However, 69 . . . b4 (for . . . Rc3f)
leaves things not very clear.
69. . b4
70. Ne2 Kg8
White, realizing his mistake on Move
67, has-rather unwisely-retracted it, at the
cost of two tempi which Black has utilized
to advance a passed f dangerously.
71. Rh3 a
72. Rf6
This positon would be terrific for White
had he obtained it earlier. Now he should
not even draw, but Black, short of time,
decides to play safe. He could afford 72 .. .
a4!
72.
73. Rxb3
74. R
b3!?
Qxh5
a4
Hanks, who was "rattled" now in much
the same way as I had been near the end of
the second session, now made te move I
had hardly dared to hope for. With 75. Ra3
he had good drawing chances.
75. Rh3?? axb4
The third 1sacrifice in the game, this
tme obvious.
76. R5 b2
And Black won.
As Black had 14 moves to make in
about three minutes, White naturally played
on tll Move 90, when he was mated.
I was lucky to save this game, let alone
to win it-though had White won it, he
would have claimed to be even luckier. Of
such games one can say the loser won it
once, but te winner twice. Such a pro
longed war of nerves I have never been
through before, and Hanks felt the same.
(32)
Austaian Chapionship {1951)
C. Purdy-L. Steiner
Queen 's Gambit Decined
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 d5
In Europe it is notorious that Steiner is
less happy wit Black against d4 than e4,
hence White's choice. Steiner's third move
surprised me, as he rarely plays the Ortho
dox Defense; but it was logical enough in
the state of the score, tere being no point
in striving at all hazards for a fll point-as
Stein er usually does.
4. Bg5
5. N
Be7
h6
Sensing that this might come, I had
moved the 4 (instead of the routine 5. e3)
so as to have the option of playing e4 in one
hop. Of course, Black could have trans
posed into the normal line by castling first
( 5 . . . 0-0 6. e3 and then 6 . . . h6, when White's
best is certainly 7 Bh4). Even as it was, I
played 6. Bxf6only because of the score; it
seemed right to "mix it," to gamble, to get
out of stereotyped lines as soon as possible,
come what might.
6. Bx6 Bx6
7. e4 dxe4!
Unerringly selecting the one way to
attempt to capitalize on his two s-by
avoiding a fixed f position even though it
meant retarded development.
8. Nxe4
Be7
- 269 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
9. Bd3 Nd7
Injudicious would be 9 . . . Bh4t 10. Ke2,
puttng White stll frther ahead in develop
ment. Black would be too far in arrears to
attempt to hurt White's .
10. 0-0 b6
11. Qe2 Bb7
12. Rad1 0-0
13. Ne5 Qe8
Black is cramped. White can clam
excellent compensaton for his opponent's
"two Bishops."
14. f4 Rd8
15. Bc2 f5!
Mter long thought, Black selects by far
the best method of gettng someplace-stu
dents must have notced how ofen this idea
occurs in Botvinnik's games. If the "weak
ness" of Black's e- i cannot be tured to
account, the scheme must be good.
16. Nc3 Nxe5
The point is that i 77 Qe5, keeping
the possibility of a fontal attack on the e- i ,
17 .. Bf and White's d- i becomes at least
as wea as Black's e- i ( 18. Qc7?? would
lose the ' to 18 ... R7).
17. fe5 Kh8
18. a
In case Black answered d5 wit . . . Bb4.
18. Qf
19. d5
g

- -

;:

?
20. Bb3?
White was playing unusually rapidly;
being desperately anxious not to get short
of time against Steiner-just for this once-I
tended to move with almost nervous haste.
The text move is wrong because it shuts the
A away; he can be happy only i Black
exchanges fs. White has an advantage in
space, but, with two As to cope with, it
usually pays to try and swap one of or at
least neutae it. Therefore 20. Be4!I should
then prefer White's game. As it is, the inita
tve passes to Black.
20.
21. Rfe1
22. g3
23. h3
24. Qf
25. K
26. g4
27. Re2
28. Bc2
29. gx5
30. R
31. Qf
Rfe8
Bh4!
Be7
h5!
Qg7
h4
R
Bg5
Qh6
gx5
Rg8
R7
A positon difcult to size up. Bowman
gave an excellent popular discussion of it in
the Courier-Mail. It certainly looks healthy
for Black, with his two As and White's
exposed . Against this, althat White can
boast of is his great command of space in
the center. This is always a nebulous sort of
asset, impossible to evaluate with precision.
Another example occurred in Botvin
nik-Bronstein, 1951. There, too, Black
(Bronstein) appeared to have a splendid
attack on White's
'
yet White should have
drawn. Quoting our note: "This is not sur
prising, since, despite all Black's ingenuity,
- 270 -
Hi Games
White always had a little central superiority
to offset the insecurity of his King." That
aso applies here.
Black's last move, treatening to double
Bs, looks very stong.
32. dxe6!
This undoubtedly came as a surprise to
Steiner. At frst it looks bad. White deliber
ately abandons his pretty central phalanx
and-worse stll-removes the obstruction to
Black's second . In particular, the move
invites the fairly obvious combination 32 . . .
Bg2. A postmortem showed, however, that
aer 33. Bxj Bxf7 34. Qfl White does not
stand badly; he has two fs for the Ex
change (doubled but central) and his ' ca
come in well.
The strategical idea behind White's
abandonment of his f center is that it gives
life to his two minor pieces. His 4, from
being a mere defender of a f , now has
access to d5; his
'
instead of "bitng gran
ite," bears upon a rea target. It's just a
queston of whether White can survive te
momentary insecurit, and it seems that he
can. But i White waited untl Black doubled
Bs, it would be too late. Shakespeae, as
usual, sums it up: "To jump a body with a
dangerous physic, that's sure of death wit
out it."
However, the move was not so good as
to deserve the windfall it actually produced.
32. . . Be3?
A case of "chess blindness." The
itself cannot be taen, but Black has some
how missed the obvious counter or misca
culated it, and his game is ruined.
Now to retur to the positon one more
move before te diagram, i.e., after 37. Q.
Afer a postmortem, Steiner finally con
cluded that he ought to have prevented 32.
de6 by the quiet withdrawal 37 . . . Be7! A
hard move to play, because 32. dxe6looks
at frst sight something to invite rather than
prevent. But it certainly would have given
White a terribly difcult game.
This is a good illustration of the fallacy
of judging positions on first appearances.
Afer throwing away his attractive f pha
lanx, White appeared to have made his
positon worse, whereas he had in fact saved
the situation-that's not counting Black's
blunder, which, of course, alters tings com
pletely.
33. Qx5
34. Be4
35. Nxe4
36. Khl
37. Nf6
Rdg8
Bxe4
Bglt
Bd4
Sealed. I saw a steady win this way and
was too tred to work out te prett
y
smash
tat Baay demonstrated aferwards by 37
Q6! Q5 38. Qg7f! Kg7 (afer . . . Rg7 the
win is obvious) 39. R2f Kh6 40. Rf6f Kh7
47. Rf Kh6 42. Rh7f! Kh7, and now
White wins back his B and 1with succes
sive checks.
37.
38. Nxg8
39. Nxh6
40. Kg
41. Kh2
42. Nf5
Rg5
R5
Rlt
Rglt
R
c
If 42 . . . Bc5, 43. b4!admust win the .
43. Nxh4 Rxe6
44. N
Kg7
45. Kg3 K
46. Kf4 Rh6
47. h4 Ke7
48. Kg5
Rh8
49. h5 R
50. Kg4 Rg8t
51. Kf4 Rt
52. Ke4 Rg8
53. h6 Rh8
54. Nxd4 cd4
55. Rh2 Resigs.
- 27 1 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
(33)
Austalasian Championship Match
{1952), 4th Match Game
C. Purdy-. Sarapu
Ruy Lopez
Two down and seven to play looked to
most people a gloomy prospect for Aus
traia' s emissary. Twenty years ago I had the
idea that such a disadvantage in a short
match between two masters meant certain
defeat, because the leader "only needed to
play for draws." Then, in 1934, came the
Botvinnik-Flohr match { 12 games) in which
Botvinnik was two down with only fve to
play. Did Botvinnik gamble wildly? No, he
coolly played the French Defense in Game
8. Drawn two down and four to play! Then
he won the 9th and lOth games, and, wind
ing up with two draws, halved the match.
Yet I could not understand how such a
thing could happen between grandmasters
until long afterwards, when experience of
top-line correspondence chess convinced
me that "machine-like accuracy" in over
the-board play was impossible. At last I saw
why it was so hard to "play for a draw,"
especially with Black, and saw how easily it
was for Flohr to fail to win that match.
Consequently, it was not so much the score
that worried me as the problem, could I
play better chess?
Now in the fourth game, I played good
moves, but not fast enough; a very good
save by Sarapu.
1. e4
2. Nf
3. Bb5
4. Ba4
5. 0-0
6. Re1
7. Bb3
8. c
9. h3
10. Bc2
e5
Nc6
a6
Nf6
Be7
b5
d6
0-0
Na5
c
1 1. d4 (c7
12. Bg5
Suddenly bursting fom super-ortho
doxy into the unorthodox. Usua is 12. Nd2,
with a snae-in-grass development. The idea
of the text move is "to develop the Qside
quickly and if possible to bring the Queen's
Bishop back to g3 with pressure on Black's
e-pawn."
12. . . .
cxd4
Black hypnotizes himself into an illogi
ca move, opening a fle onto his 1. It is
good play afer 12. Nd2, but not here where
White is developing quicly. In the World
Correspondence Championship Dr. Balogh
played against me 12 ... h6 13. BM Nc6
which Lajos Steiner considered to be Black's
strongest answer.
13. cxd4
Nc6
14. Nbd2 exd4
Black cannot escape the slight but tell
ing consequences of his 12th move.
Black could delay White's seizure of
the c-fle by 14 . . . N4 15. Bb 1, but his own 4
would be out of play, leaving White an
absolutely free hand in the center.
15. Racl
Developing ad thus avoiding my mis
take in Game 3, rushing to recapture a weak
.. Here if 15. N3, . . . N4 is most annoying.
15. . . . (b6
If 15 . . . Be6 16. N3 Bxb3 1Z Bxb3 Q6,
either 18. Bd5 {simplest) or 18. Rc2 regains
the . with a big advantage.
16. Nb3 ReS
17. Nbxd4
Nxd4
18. (xd4
I felt that either recapture should win,
and preferred the simpler. Sarapu feared
Nxd4 more. The text move, by the way,
follows the general principle, recapture with
a developing move.
18.
19. Nxd4
20. Bf4
(xd4
h6
Nh5
- 272 -
Hi Games
21. Be3
Gain, not loss, of time, as Black's 4
has been lured from the center.
21.
Bb7
22. Nf5 B
23. f Rac8
24. Bb3 Nf6
Theoretically, White has a winning
position, ad without any obvious errors by
Black after his 14th move. This vindicates
White's judgment on Move 18. Practically,
White did not have a winning game at all,
as he had played too slowly and now had 21
moves to make in a quarter of an hour, not
quite enough for the accurate play stll re
quired. Here I wanted to play 25. Bd4!,
clearly a powerfl centralization, but some
how 25 ... Nd7 seemed to me an adequate
reply. I failed to see that it could be refted
by 26. Bxg7!, a combination pointed out by
the backroom boys, and absolutely deci
sive, as students should verif as a valuable
exercise. Instead, I attacked the d- . . This
was less logical. The important thing is to
ensure that Black can never safely play
. . . d5; Black should thus die by slow torture.
25. Bf4 Red8!
26. Rxc8 Bxc8
27. Nd4 d5!
28. Nc6
A move hard to avoid under tme pres
sure, as the obvious 28. e5 seems so well met
by 28. .. Bc5. However, this was actually
White's last chance to win, which is very
instructve as showing the importance of
maintaining a blockader, a l Nimzovich:
28. e5! Bc5! 29. Be3 Nd7! ( . . . Re8is worse) 30.
Nc6 (now) Re8 31. Bxd5 Nxe5 32. Bxc5 Nxff
33. Bxj Rxe 1 f 34. K, and White has two
pieces for and f, which is advantageous
here because he has the As, and the three
minor pieces can combine. If 34 . . . Rc1, 35.
Bd4! Be6 36. a3 K 37 Bc3, and Black has
an extremely difcult and perhaps losing
game, with his rather bottled and his
a- f rather weak.
28. Re8
29. e5 Bb7
30. Rcl Nd7
31. Bxd5 Nxe5!
The point of Black's well calculated
defense. Although his game seems only to
hang together by bits of string, it does hold.
32. Bxe5 Bxc6
33. Rxc6 Rxe5
34. Be4 a
35. K g6!
A aateur would have played 35 . . .
Rc5 to get the s off, thinking thus to make
the draw surer; but it would in fact make it
harder, White being well ahead in devel
opment, which is more important than any
thing else in opposite-A endings, e.g., 36.
Rxc5 Bxc5 37 Ke2 Kj 38. Kd3 Ke7 39. Bc6 b4
40. Kc4 Kd6 41. Be8 f6 42. Kb5 gaining a .
and at least some excuse for continuing
play.
36. Rc8
37. a
Kg7
Be7
Drawn by agreement
It was a mistake to say, as many did,
that White "should have won." A player
who gets short of time is always taking a
risk. It is good luck if he continues to find
the best moves, rather than bad luck if he
doesn't.
-273 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
(34)
Austalasian Chapionship Match
(1952), 5th Matc Game
0. Sarapu-. Purdy
Sicilian Dene
This was the game in which I took the
advice given by CJ.S. Prdy in a lecture at
Morrinsville. The results were such that, as
Spielman said when he suddenly went
over to the d- i opening and achieved the
greatest success of his career (second at
Carlsbad 1929), "I myself was almost speech
less."
It may be of interest to some that, since
a score of two down and only six to play,
and the Black pieces to come, seemed to
demand some new form of preparaton, I
went to a cocktail party the night before the
game. It is important to tme these things
well; years of experience are necessary in
order to judge exactly at what point, if any,
in a chess event a cocktail party may be
attended with good results.
1. e4 c
2. N Nc6
3. d4 cd4
4. Nxd4 g6!
This is what I call the Uninhibited
Dragon. Normally, to avoid the Maroczy
"Bind" ( 5. c4) Black prepares the way with
4 ... Nf6to force 5. Nc3. That in t makes it
necessary for him to play . . . d6(to prevent e5
hittng the ). Yet Black wishes to play . . . d5
ultmately, so . . . d6loses time. I have always
suspected that the Maroczy Bind is a bit of a
"have."
If the Maroczy Bind is okay for Black,
quite obviously the best way of playing the
Dragon is te one adopted here.
5. Nc3
Sarapu suggested either 5. N3 or 5. f4
as better. In either case, the advantage of
delaying . . . Nf would still be evident.
5. . . . Bg7
6. Be3
Certanly N3 is better here (see note
to Move 7).
6. . . .
Nf6!
Black no longer fears 7 Nxc6 bxc6 8. e5
Ng8 because White has, in a sense, lost a
tempo, in that his Be3 does not ft in with the
defense of his outpost i. If 9. Bf4, ... Q5
just about wins. If 9. f4, ... d6.
7. f
This idea against the Dragon (Nd5 in
view) is better with the 1-A at home, pro
tectng the b- i for the tme being. Better
now was 7 Be2 and 0-0, but Black would
. . . 0-0 ad fee his game by .. . d5 with at least
easy equaity. In the Dragon, . . . d5 usually
equalizes even if played in two steps. Black's
idea i this game is to play it in one step.
7. 0-0
8. Nb3 d5!
9. exd5 Nb4
10. Qd2
Sarapu could have gained a lot of clock
tme here by playing 10. Bc4, the answer to
which I had not worked out-1 merely felt
that 8 ... d5had to be right. The only answer
to 10. Bc4 is 10 . . . BJ (I intended that any
way) 11. Nd4 Q8!This move is not obvious,
but regains the i with advantage in all
variatons, e.g., 12. Bb3 Rd8 13. g4!? Nfd5
14. Nxd5 Nxd5 15. Bxd5 Rd5 16. gxf Bxd4
17 Bxd4 Qf and Black must regain the
piece with a winning game.
White's actual plan, of-side castling,
is positonally very attactve, but all posi
tional ideas must be checked against pos
sible combinatons.
10.
1 1. Nd4
12. Nxd5
13. Nx5
Bf5
Nfd5
Nxd5
g
5
-274 -
Hi Games
14. 0-0-0??
There must be something fatally easy
about this blunder. I showed the position to
several strong players, and they all chose
castling for White! Bad luck for Saapu that
his h- f was not on h3, as 0-0-0 would then
have been, instead of a blunder, a move of
extaordinary brilliance.
A curious feature is that White has, in
ay case, no quite satsfactory move. Mter
14. c3 Q5! (Sarapu) Black is threatening to
sacrifice his 4, and White's best defense
ten is 15. Bh6, but after 15 . . . f4! (Sarapu)
16. Bxg7 Kg7 it is clear that White is at a
serious disadvantage, no longer having the
two .s as partial compensaton. In a corre
spondence game, Black could consider h
self in a winning position.
14. .
Nxe3
15. Qxe3 Bxb2t!
Obvious, of course; but before playing
it, Black had to make sure White could not
retaliate with an "immortal," i.e., routine
sacrifice of two s. Once the spectators had
seen . . . Bxb2f, most of tem probably won
dered why Black spent several minutes over
it.
16. Kxb2 Qxd1
17. g4
Rac8!
I worked out that the quickest way to
win was to compel White, now, to ty an
"immortal," having first made absolutely
sure that it was unsound. Thus, one more
principle, "destroy counterchances," goes
by the board. Very ofen the most artstc
(shortest) way to win is the one that gives
the opponent rope-to hang himself.
18. Bd3
Virtually forced, else he might as well
resign at once.
18. Qxh1
Kh8 19. Qg5t
20. Qxe7
21. Bx5
22. Bxc8
f6!
Qxh2
Qe5t
The point.
23. Qxe5 fe5
Because now White can play neither
Bxb7??, losingthe ., nor Bj??( ... Rxj and
f queens) . Therefore he must lose a f in
addition to the Exchange, and can make no
fght.
24. Be6
25. Kcl
26. Kd1
27. a4
28. Bc8
29. a
30. c4
31. Be6
32. Resigns.
(35)
R
R
Kg7
Kf6
b6
Kg5
Rf4
Rxg4
Austaasian Chapionship Match
6t Match Gae
C. Purdy-. Sarapu
Ruy Lopez
In some ways the most interestng game
of the match. It had the spectators puzzled
from start to finish; and even Sarapu, just
afer the game, confessed that he could not
see where he had started to go wrong. That
was before he had studied it, of course. For
my part, it was the best Lopez I can remem
ber playing over the board, not countng
some wins against weaer oppositon. It
takes two to make a genuinely good game.
1. e4 e5
2. N
Nc6
- 275 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 d6
5. c Bd7
6. Bb3
I had not prepared against the Steinitz
Defense Deferred, ad wished to avoid pre
pared lines. The text move has some point,
inasmuch as Black cannot immediately play
... Nf6 (because of Ng5). Nevertheless, tere
can be only one really good move, 6. d4. If
6 ... Nge7, then 7 Bb3, threatening Ng5, is
strong.
6.
7. d4
8. Bg5
9. dxe5!
g
Bg7
Nf6!
Decidedly best. It prevents Black's f
anchetto from blossoming out, and also
rules out a fontal attack on White's e- i
.
9. . . .
dxe5
There was much to be said for 9 ...
Nxe5, and here we have an additonal virtue
in 6. Bb3. With White's still on a4 Black
would certainly have played ... Nxe5, facing
White with a freeing exchange of s (fee
ing Black) .
10. Nbd2 h6!
Facing White with a difcult decision:
h4 or e3? I have not made up my mind yet,
but incline to e3.
1 1. Bh4 0-0
At least Black shoud reserve the op-
tion of . . . 0-0-0, which would make the ad-
vance ... g5 a Good Thing. Therefore 7 7 ...
Q7
12. Qe2 Qe7
13. h3
To force Black to play ... g5 at once
(with some weakening efect on his castled
<) or else to abandon it entrely, because
once White is allowed to play g4 his can
go to g3 without fea of ... N5.
13. Rfe8
14. g4! Qc5
15. Bg3
As the game goes, this appears to be a
loss of tme, but AL. Fletcher in the New
Zealnd Chessplyer showed that had Black
continued with 75 . . . Na5 instead of the way
he does, te value of the text move, puttng
pressure on the e- i , would have been evi
dent.
15. . . . Be6
16. N2!
With Black's A no longer able to go to
b4 (aer ... Na5), White embarks on a highly
Steinitzian central setup- is on e4 and c3-
an extemely difcult one to assail.
16.
Rad8
17. N b5
18. f Na5
By . . . b4, Black might give White an
isolated c- i , but as he would get a weak
a- i himself it would not help much, and
meanwhile 79. Bjwould worry Black, since
. .. Q5 would be spoiled by Nc4.
19. Bf Qc6
20. Bxe6 Rxe6
21. Ne3 Red6
The onlookers, I heard aferwards, al
most al thought Black's positon very strong
here, and Sarapu himself was inclined to
view it fairly optmistcaly. I had been un
der the impression ever since Move 14 that
my positon was superior. This seems about
right. The illusion of Black's advantage is
created by his formidable doubled ):s, as
compared with White's, which are stll in
the corers. But the latter trouble can be
rectifed in one move. Less obvious is the
- 276 -
Hi Games
feebleness of Black's minor pieces on the
-side, which now have no bearing on the
center or '-side at all, while White's minor
pieces are well centralized. The upshot is
that Black's l=s, insuficiently supported by
other units, can be held at bay while White's
l=s get into the game. White's delay in 0-0-0
is typical of this maneuvering type of game.
22. 0-0-0 b4
23. c4 Qa4
Black continues in aggressive vein.
24. Kbl b3
Which, however, only facilitates
White's task. It is indeed dificult to say just
where Black started to have a losing game,
but undoubtedly his premature 11 . . . 0-0set
him difcult problems fom then on. Even
at this stage, so prevalent was the noton of
a Black advantage tat White was expected
to close things up wit 25. a3, a bad move,
as it would enable Black's A to "t" at
once by . . . Bj, threatening a subsequent
sacrifice. I must confess that I had previ
ously thought I might have to play a3 at this
stage, and only when the positon cropped
up did I see the simple solution.
25. Nxb3 Nxb3
26. ab3 Qxb3
27. Qc2 Qb7
Now tat the l=s are doomed to ex
change, Black's only consolation is the
slightly exposed positon of White's ;
therefore Black keeps the 's on. The end
ing with 's of should be lost for Black,
because White's minor pieces and ae in
play and Black's ae not.
28. Rxd6 Rd6
29. c5! Rd8
30. Rdl Rb8
Choice of evils, but leaving White's !
on the open fle seems the greater. Saapu
had realized the inferiorit of his position
right fom the naty surprise on Move 25,
and was not "playing to win" as some
tought, but desperately tying to stem the
tide.
31. Nc4
Point of White's 27th. To play Nd5
would swap of one of Black's bad pieces.
31. . . . N7
32. Bg3 Ng5
Excitement was at fever heat now be
cause White had 13 moves to make in un
der ten minutes-stop me if you've heard
this before.
33. Bxe5 f6
Not . . . Nxj, losing a piece.
34. Bg3 Nx
35. e5!!?
It wa curious that, being now in fairly
serious clock trouble, this rather fantastc
metod of winning should occur to me,
rather than the simple win of material
pointed out by the umpire, A.E. Turer.
These umpires are cagey fellows. Had
Turer toubled to menton his idea to me
at the tme, I should have adopted it, namely
35. Na5! Any reply loses either the c- f or
te Exchange, and without giving Black
ay serious counterplay.
35. Nxe5
36. Bxe5 fe5
37. Qxg6 Qb3???
An extraordinary attack of chess blind
ness; he was only moderately short of tme.
38. Rd7 Resigs
Of course 3Z .. Q! Then 38. Q6f
followed by 39. R7 invariably won easily
in the postortem. Sarapu always answered
38. Q6f with the natural . . . KhB, ad he
would very likely have played it. But ty the
self-pin, 38 . . . Kh7! 39. R7 and now 39 ...
R4! This makes the win quite dificult, as
White cannot now check at d8 and g8 and
then fork and '. Instead, he has to play
40. Na3. This probably wins stll. White
threatens Qe5. Failing tat, RcZ And,
Black's ' must contnue to guad aganst
mate by Qf, etc. We see no defense, but
Black could make a long resistce.
- 277 -
Te Search fr Chess Peiction
This was the frst time in his life that
Sarapu had lost two successive games!
(36)
Austaasian Chapionship Match
(1952), 8t Match Gae
C. Purdy-0. Sarapu
Ruy Lopez
Saapu was one up and three to play.
This time, it was his turn to mae a mistake
in the opening. But only one, and a very
keen stuggle developed.
1. e4 e5
2. N
Nc6
3. Bb5
Most players, when badly needing a
fll point, think it necessary to play some
thing extremely unusual to avoid the "risk
of a draw." But you are not playing a ma
chine. A draw comes about only through
failure to play better than your opponent.
To play wildly in the opening certainly in
creases the element of chance, but why
should it increase it in your favor?
3. a6
4. Ba4 Nf6
5. 0-0
Be7
6. Re1 b5
7. Bb3 d6
8. c 0-0
9. h3 Na5
10. Bc2 c
1 1. d4 (c7
12. Nbd2
Completely orthodox so far. This move
initiates what I describe as the snake-in
grass development, as compared with the
unusual 12. Bg5 which I played in the 4th
Game.
12. . . . cxd4
Many years ago, this was hailed by
Flohr as almost a reftaton of the orthodox
snake-in-grass line. Because White's i-side
development is retarded, Black opens the
c-file with the idea of gaining further tme
by hitting the white <-A ( . . . RB). The inter
vening years of frther analysis have con
frmed that White can stll hope for a shade
of advantage.
13. cxd4 Bb7
This Russian idea has had a fair vogue
for some years. The idea is subsequently to
liquif the center completely by . . . d5, or
alteratively to induce White to close up
the center by 14. d5. The latter is White's
simplest, and it is not yet certain who has
the better chances. Black's intention was to
regroup by 14 ... Bc8.
14. Nfl d5
A error, though not as serious as at
frst appears. Black should play 14 . . . Rc8,
the point of playing 12 ... cxd4 in the first
place. Sarapu's reason for omitting it was
that he thought White could aford the re
ply 15. Ne3, advancing his development,
but he realized afterwads that it would be
refted by 15 ... Nxe4 since 16. Nj 0c2 17
Nxe7f Kh8 18. Nxc8 is answered nastily by
18 . .. OJf, etc. In fact, the best reply to 14 . . .
Rc8 seems to be 15. Bb1, and I had spent
some tme studying tis line before the
game, from Euwe's Archives. Aer 15. Bb1,
then 15 . . . d5, and knife-edged play follows.
15. exd5 e4
16. Ng5! Rac8
Now there is no need for White to
retard his development by Bb 1.
17. Ne3
Rfd8
18. Nxe4 Nxd5
19. Nxd5 Bxd5
-278 -
Hi Games
Black has largely rectfed his slight
error on Move 14 because, with the disap
pearance of White's from e3, White is
faced, after all, with some loss of tme over
his c-A. Therefore Black has considerable
compensation for his f -at least 2.5 tempi
in development. It was a great temptation
to me here to save some tme by 20. Nc3.
Black would then have to withdraw his A
fom d5, presumably. This, however, would
actually be a gain to him, as it would dis
close pressure on the "isolated cl-pawn"'.
But 20. Bdwould also weaken the c- f by
preventing its protection from the rear. Fi
nally, 2 0. Re2 allowed the combination 2 0 . ..
Bc4 21. R2 Bb4 22. Nc3 Be6 and apparenty
Black at least regains his f wit a good
gae.
20. Bd3
Finally I decided that as Black's pieces,
though well developed, were massed mainly
on the -side, I should play whatever move
gave the best chances of a -side attack,
even if the valuable passed f fell in the
process. Therefore the should not volun
tarily withdraw from its strong post. Over
all these problems I took 40 minutes.
20. (b7
21. Q4
Be6
22. Q3 K
White's reward is swift. Already Black
is on the defensive. Not 22 . . . Rxd4 23. Bh6
g6?because of 24. Q5. Or, in this, 23 . . . Bj,
when Nf6fis strong.
Black's choice of the text move instead
of . . .KhB reminds one of Tarrasch's dictum
that when tempted to "play for the end
gae," one must remember that "the gods
have placed the middlegame before the
endgame." One can almost always teat
. . . KhB as te lesser evil.
23. Nc5!
By means of a combination, White is
able to show in a few moves that Black's
move was wrong. Afer 22... KhB White
would have had to rely on steady play by
23. Be3, probably.
23.
24. dxc5
25. b4
26. Be4
27. Be3
Bxc5
Rxc5
Rc3
(c8
The point of the whole combinaton is
the threat of Bc5f now. Black's next move
sets an ingenious trap. Both players were
clock-pressed now.
27. Rd4!
28. Reel!
29. Rxc3
Rxe4
Nc4
The trap was that if Racl ?? on Move
28, instead of Reel, 29 . .. (}cl would wn
here, for although the would be lost,
Black would get tons of wood. But now
Black has nothing.
30. Rdl
f6
31. Rcd3 K
32. Rd8 (c6
33. Bc5
g
34. (b8
Re5
Clock trouble, but it was hopeless any
way.
35. (a7t
and Black overstepped his tme.
(37)
Australasian Chapionship
{1952), lOth Match Gae
C. Purdy-. Sarapu
French Defnse
Once again Sarapu had the lead. This
fmal game was the only one not played at
night. It was played on a Saturday after
noon, and because of big outdoor sporting
attractions and the general desire for excur
sions on te first fne weekend seen in Auck
land for a month, the attentance was ex
pected to be the lowest of all. But it was the
highest by a few heads-total 104.
The New Zalnd Chess Plyer credits
- 279 --
The Search fr Chess Perction
Chess Wrld with statng that the match cre
ated a record for attendances for any event
of the kind ever held in Australia or New
Zealand. What we said was that te match
pulled the biggest average daily "gate" of
any chess event ever held in Australasia.
"Gate" is ambiguous; we meant it as gate
receipts. For actual numbers, there was one
event that beat it, only the admission charge
was slightly lower. That event was the Aus
tralian Championship held in Sydney in
1945, organized and conducted solely by
the Sydney Chess Club. For that event,
1200 people paid a gross total of about 1 15
pounds. With 15 rounds, the average paid
attendance was 80 per day. The Auckland
average was that, or very near it, and, con
sidering that te populations are in the ratio
of something like four to one, Auckland's
figures certainly constitute a record propor
tionately.
It was indeed a momentous game
from an interatonal viewpoint te most
momentous of bot players' careers. Sarapu
had the comfort of knowing, however, that
whatever happened, he could not emerge
as the vanquished. Above all, a draw would
give him victory.
On the other hand, I had the white
pieces. This is always an advantage in prac
tice, but especially when giving "the odds of
the draw."
1. e4
e6
This was easily foreseen. I knew Sarapu
liked te French Defense, especially the
Winawer Variant, and the circumstances
favored it. He had fared badly as Black in
the Lopez.
2. d4 d5
3. Nc3
Statstcs would show, I a sure, that
fewer games are drawn with this than with
3. Nd. A draw was a loss for me. Therefore
te choice was clear.
3. . . Bb4
I knew Sarapu favored this. He does
not care for 3 ... de4, preferring if possible
to make every move stengthen his hold on
central squares. In this respect Saapu tends
towards dogmatism, but that is actually an
advantage for over-the-board play. A ten
dency to be systematic in the opening saves
time later in the gae. The one disadvan
tage is that one's moves can be more easily
foretold. For instance, had I been more
familiar with Sarapu's style in the early
stages, I would have saved a vita tempo in
Game 3 (where I played h to stop a move
he would not even have considered in that
positon, . . . Bg4).
4. e5
This is best, and yet the other moves
( 4. Nge2, 4. a3, and 4. Q4) which Alekhine
tried in his 1935 match with Euwe should
appear more often than they do; most play
ers have forgotten the correct play against
them.
4. . . . c
5. a Bxc3t
Acceptance of te f gives White ample
compensaton in positon, and is rarely tied.
As yet not fully anayzed is 5 . . . Ba5.
6. bxc3 Qc7
This move, usually credited to te Rus
sians, was frst discovered by G .H. Hastngs,
the Wester Austalia player, about 1937,
the year he shared in a quadruple te for the
Australian ttle; it was extensively analyzed
by him and played by several Australians.
About ten years later, it was reinvented by
te Russians, and occurred in the tourey
for the World Championship 1948. The
idea is simultaneous protection of g7 in
anticipation of Q4 (White's theme move in
te Winawer) and masked attack in the
c-fle.
7. Q4 f5
8. Q3 cd4
Golombek queries this move of Bot
vinnik's (Book ofthe Worl Championshi,
- 280 -
His Games
1948), and points out that 8 . .. Nc6 would
force White to play 9. Nj, losing the possi
bility of the stong maneuver Ne2f4. My
opinion is that White's superior . position,
which gives him much more maneuvering
space than Black, is his chief asset, and this
remains wherever his 4 goes. And Botvin
nik's method (witholding the '-4) en
ables Black to threaten White's c2 and thus
gain time on Move 10.
9. cxd4 Ne7
The g- . can be left undefended pro
ter, and Black himself threatens .. . Qc2
(because Bd2 in reply could now be an
swered simply by castling) . White is de
barred fom any good developing move
(Bd?? would lose a ) . Reshevsky now
played 10. Bd, which is technically a de
veloping move, but a concession, in that the
, gives up the possibility of taking its ideal
square a. Further, the d- . will still need
protection. Sarapu had closely studied Re
shevsky-Botvinnik, and believed Black
could obtain a very satisfactory game afer
10. Bd2.
10. c3!
Surely a distnct improvement on Re
shevsky's move, for although the white i is
now tied to the protection of c3, it is not for
a great many moves, while White's other
pieces are all feer. Subsequent analysis has
failed to reveal any clear equalizing de
fense.
10. . . . 0-0
This could safely be delayed stll, in
favor of ultimate i-side castling ( 10 ... Nbc6
is okay because 11. Qxg7?would lead, after
. . . RB, etc., to an obvious pseudo-sacrifice
of the i-4), but stll a4 followed by Ba3
and probably Bd6 is rather strong.
11. a4! c6
Black might exchange off one of
White's two ,s by 11 ... b6, but his own e- .
becomes a glaring weakness, e.g., 12. Ba3
Ba6 13. Bxa6 Nxa6 14. Ne2 and Black can
not stop N4, after which his position is very
uncomfortable.
12. Nh3 Ng6
To stop the powerful N4. If 12 . . . Na5,
we have the reason for the early a4. White
must play Ba3 before . .. Nc4. Mter 12 ... Na5,
13. Ba3 Nc4 14. Bxc4 (okay, because Black
cannot now recapture with his ') dxc4 15.
Bd6 QP 16. a5! and Black's cramp is pre
served. Remember i coping wit a cramped
opponent, don't attack, simply keep him
cramped.
13. Be2 f4!?
White cannot accept this . (because
of subsequent obvious sacrifces and ulti
mately 17 .. Q3f), but a new weaness is
created in Black's game. Nevertheless,
Saapu showed his usua good positon judg
ment in estimatng his plight as already
desperate enough to ty desperate remedies.
White's control of the dark squares is so
vast and permanent that there could not be
any really satsfactory defense.
14. Qd3 Bd7
15. 0-0 Rac8
16. Ba3 Nce7
17. Bh5! R
Sarapu had evidently intended ... R
here, when playing .. f4, but afer thinking
50 minutes he worked out that by extremely
precise play White could obtain a winning
positon. In such cases one ofen discards
what is really the best chance, forgetting
that passive moves involve almost certain
defeat-better to take the chance of the op-
- 28 1 -
The Search fr Chess Peiction
ponent not fnding the precise win. Sarapu
gave as the main line 7Z .. R 78. Bg4 (c3
79. (c3 Rxc3 20. Bxe7 Nxe7, and now 27.
Rf7! with a winning game. Here White's
threat of winning the Exchange is stronger
than the execution.
18. Rfc1 (c4
19. (b1 b6
Black is in a sad way. However, White
had 26 moves to make quickly, so there was
still some practical hope.
20. Bxe7 Rxe7
21. Bxg6 hxg6
22. (xg6 Be8
White has not only a f plus, but stll a
far superior position. However, much hangs
on White's next move. Is the win to be easy
or rather tricky?
23. (g5! R
The point was, if 23 ... Rec7 24. Nxf4
(d4 (offering' for mate), White obtains a
treble fork.
24. Nxf4 Rf5
25. Qg3 B
t
26. h3 (b3
27. (e3 g5
28. Ne2 Bg6
29. g4 R
30. (xg5 lg7
Black is three fs down, but he had to
contnue, as White was now gettng both
hands to his clock and moving with his
teeth, in effect.
31. (f6
32. (xe6t
33. (h6
34. (e3
35. Ng3
36. N5
37. t
38. Nf6t
39. ex6
40. R
41. Kg
42. Rh1
R
Bt
R
(c4
Be6
(c8
(d8
Rf6
(
x
(h4
Rh6
lesigns
White still had a minute or more and
only three moves to make, and no prob
lems, so that "Resigns" was sound.
{38)
Ester Suburbs Invtton
Touraent (1953}
V. WalshC. Purdy
King's Indian
(Notes by M.E. Goltein.)
1. d4
Nf6
2. c4 d6
3. g3 e5
4. d5
After exchange of center fs ad 's,
Black has a minute advantage for te end
game because White's c- f is advaced and
potentially wea when his r-A is fanchet
toed.
But psychologically, when playing
against a master like Purdy who may not be
in top form in the frst round, 4. de5 and 5.
(d8fmight be preferable. (But Walsh, also,
was not in top form. What then? -Purdy) .
4. g6
Now Black transposes into a King's
Indian in which the tension i the center
has already been resolved. White retains, as
against that, an advatage in space.
5. Nc3 Bg7
6. e4 0-0
7. Bg2 a
8. Nge2 Na6
9. 0-0 Nc5
10. h3
A line practced by Bronstein is 70. j
followed by Be3. If Black then pushes .. .J-
f4, White's '-A can withdraw to f, with a
'-side f push to follow. The '-A also
helps in the defense of his r-side.
10.
Bd7
11. Be3 b6
12. b3
Not 72. a3? a4! paayzing White's '-
-282 -
Hi Games
side fs-an artfce which should be care
flly noted by the student.
12. . . . Nh5
13. Qd2
Consistent with White's 12th would
have been 13. a3, for b4.
13. f5
14. Rad1 f4
Positonally a killer. White should have
played 14. exj gxj 15. Racl, preventing .. f4
by supporting te 4 on c3.
15. Bxc5 bxc5
16. g4
f
17. gph5 Qh4!
18. Bx
With the disappearance of the white
-. te weakness of White's light-colored
squares soon proves fatal.
18. F
19. Ng3 Bxh3
20. Nce2 Raf!
White is already dead; he now elects to
grab fs to fll in tme during his burial
service.
21. Qxa5 Bh6!
22. Qxc7 Be3!
23. fe3
Or 23. Nhl 04f 24. Neg3 Rxg3f and
mates.
23. . . . Rxg3t
24. White resigns
A good example of the venom in the
King's Indian when White fails to get his
counterattack going. Purdy gives a fne dem
onstaton of Black's possibilites in this line,
which has pitfalls for both sides.
(39)
Victoria-NSW Telex Matc {1953)
J. HanksC. Purdy
King's Indian Dense
At Board 2, Hanks opposed the King's
Indian in original style, but his 7 g4, a move
rather in tune with modem aggressive ten
dencies in the opening, proved premature
here.
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 Bg7
4. e4 d6
5. Be2
This and the next move are good. The
idea is to meet . . . 0-0 with a quick rush of the
h- f 0
5. Nbd7
6. Be3 e5
7. g4
But this is premature, Black not having
castled. I incline to the simple 7 Nf, as 7 ..
Ng4 would accomplish nothing ( 8. Bg5 [6 9.
Bel and Black has lost as much time as
White) . But there were also 7 h, 7 f, 7 d5,
7 Qd2, and even 7 f4 to be considered.
7. . . . h5
Black must keep an equal share of the
boad.
8. g5
9. Bxg4
10. d5
Ng4
hxg4
f5
White was banking on Black's inability
to play, as Black would wish, 10 . . . Nc5 {be
cause of b4). However, the text is quite sae.
Then we have a position in which the over
riding feature is White's terribly weak h- f.
1 1. gx6 Nx6
12. Qd2 Qe7
13. 0-0-0
a6
14. Nge2
If, instead, White feed his -side by
- 283 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
j it would be at the cost of giving free rein
to Black's light-squared 1.
14. Bd7
15. Kb1 Rh3
Not wishing to tell White yet whether
he will castle, Black plays the frst move of
doubling on the h-file. If 16. Ng1, at least
Black can lose no tme. Quite tempting was
15 ... b5 ( 16. cxb5 axb5) followed by a policy
of playing on both wings. However, Black's
c- f would become weak, and besides, such
strategy requires fnesse and may involve
clock trouble. In general, act on the wing
where you have the initiative (as Emanuel
Lasker impressed upon Edward, vide Chess
Secrets).
16. Ncl
Massing too obviously for an attack
against Black's castled (he hopes) 'f.
16. . . . K
This leaves White with virtualy no
option but to give up the h- f, and very
little prospect of compensaton.
17. Nd3 Rah8
18. Rdfl Bh6!
It was a wrench to part voluntarily with
"the two Bishops," but if ... Rxh2, etc., a
subsequent pin was unpleasant.
19. Bxh6 R8xh6
20. f! ?
Black's immediate threat was . . . Kg7,
making things safe. The text move is a
rather desperate combination designed to
obtain drawing chances. Black can just go
ahead and grab everything, as he cannot
lose.
20.
21. R
22. Qxh6
23. Rg1
g
R
Rxd3
Not 23. R R3. Now Black can give
back some wood, remaining only the Ex
change up for a f, but in a positon where
the is powerfl.
23. Bg4
24. Rxg4 Nxg4
25. Qh7t Ke8
26. Qxg6t Qf
27. Qxg4
Kd8
28. Kc2 R
29. h4 Rf4
30. Qg1 b6!
31. Qg3 Kc8
32. Qh3t Qd7
No need to allow ticks by Q6 at some
stage, as might occur if te 'f went away at
once.
33. Qh2 Qg4
34. h5 Qh4
35. Qxh4 Rxh4
36. b4 Rxh5
37. a4 Rh2t
38. Kb3
Or Kd3, permitting . . . R2.
38.
Rd2
39. a5 bxa5
40. bxa5 Rd4
Establishing paralysis.
41. Kb4 Kd7
42. Kb3 Ke7
43. Kb4 Kf6
44. Kb3
In vain would be 44. N5, etc. Black
takes the , then the e- f, and stll stops the
f.
But i now 44 ... K5, ten Na2-b4!would
prolong it.
44.
45. Kc2
46. Kxc3
Rd3
Rxc3t
Kg5
-284 -
Hi Games
4 7. White resigns
Black wins the e- . by the Abbe
Durand's rule of limits (see Guide to Good
Chess, Part IV)-just as in the finish to the
game at Board 1. If the c- . marches, Black
ignores it.
(4
0
)
(.

:!
World Correspon ence
Chapionship (1953)
C. Purdy-M. Napolitano
Nimo-Indian Dense
1. c4
In all games as White I opened with
the English, except two in which I played
the Lopez. Today if I had the same task
before me-which heaven forbid-my frst
thought would be to play 7. e4 in all the
White gaes, ad I should probably end
up doing so.
1. . . .
Nf6
2. d4
White has gained nothing by his tans
positon except the dubious satisfacton of
having avoided a Queen's Gambit Accepted.
My main idea, actualy, had been to lure a
few opponents into the Reversed Sicilian,
as tis gives a complex game with good
possibilites for both sides. In C. C., a simple
style won't win a world tte.
2. e6
3. Nc3 Bb4
4. a
Tis is at any rate te fercest line
against the Nimzo. In the next decade it
slipped back a little, but it is still popula.
4. Bxc3t
5. bxc3 c
6. e3
Nc6
7. Bd3 e5
8. Ne2 d6
9. e4 N5
This is the aggressive scheme that
Napolitano was playing for all along and
that I was deliberately invitng. Black could
win a ., but of course only pro ter.
10. 0-0 g5
Later on, this appeared in M.C.O. (9)
with an equals sign. That only means that
te editor did not like to assert that either
side had any advantage. Personally, I prefer
White slightly.
1 1. Bc2
This A maneuver is vital. He becomes
"good."
1 1. Nf4
12. Ba4
Bd7
13. Ng3
cxd4
The "improvement." It releases the
pressure and deprives Wite of the two As,
but it undoubles the .s.
14. Bxc6 bxc6
15. cxd4 Q6
16. Be3 h5!
17. dxe5
dxe5
18. Rb1 Rd8
In his all-out attack on the
'
Black
seeks to gain tme by sacrifcing the a- ..
He has to, really. If 18 ... h4 19. N Bxj 20.
exf, of course not 20 . . . f?Because of 21.
Q6.
19. Qc2 h4
20. Nf5 Bx5
21. ex5
0-0!
22. Rfd1 N5
The white f- . is an obstructon to
Black's . "Attack is the removal of ob
structons." (Emanuel Lasker.)
23. Bxa7
Ng7
24. a4 Nx5
- 285 --
The Search fr Chess Perction
White was now faced with a question
Tarrasch discusses in one of his books,
whether to let a f come on to h6/h3 or to
stop it in its tracks with h3/h6. Tarrasch says
that letting it come on and then playing
g3!g6is "better for the endgame." It is then
that he makes his famous crack, "But the
gods have put the middlegame before the
endgame." And he therefore concludes with
the wise general advice to bar the march by
h3/h6. Looking at the game coldly and ob
jectively now, I conclude that it bears out
Tarrasch's counsel.
True, by defing it here White gets a
passed f rapidly to the seventh rank, and
thus restricts Black's !s. But a disruption of
the castled position is in general not out
weighed by a considerable asset gained on
a far wing. Threats of mate start looming
up, and it is no use being able to ' a f in
answer to mate.
Over the board, I should recommend
25. h3 unhesitatingly, leaving White with a
small but sure advantage. Such reasoning is
also applicable to C.C., since a position of
immense complexity cannot be analyzed
right out, no matter if you spend days and
days.
25. a
26. a6
h3
R8
A compulsory retirement into obscu
rity. The trouble is, Black's "f and . will
acquire vast nuisance value unaided.
27. Bc
Re8
28. a7 e4!
And the r- !, now, is not entirely
restricted to defense.
29. Rb7 Nh4
The efect of .. . h3 begins to be felt.
Black threatens .. . Njf.
30. Qb3 Q5!
Here I analyzed and analyzed without
being able to fnd a win for White. And
indeed, many players would feel happy to
escape from such r trouble with a draw. If
31. RhB, . . . Q4 32. g3 e3!
31. Rdd7!
In playing this I almost resigned my
self to a draw. And yet I realized that a
player of Napolitano's style is usually opti
mistic, so I had good hopes of his going
after a win.
31. . . . Nft!!?
If 31 . . . Qc5, one of the sheets of analy
sis that I kept shows 32. RfQ5 33. Rd7!
Q1 f 34. Rd1 Rxa7 35. c5f KhB 36. Rhd7!!
Q3 37 Q7 and wins.
However, after 31 . . . Qc5 32. Rfwhat
I thought would draw was 32 . . . e3!, e.g., 33.
@2 exjt 34. Qf Qjt, etc. In this, White
can vary some by ! checks frst, but might
only jeopardize the draw by so doing.
It was understandable that Napolitano
should refrain fom forcing the draw, as on
all the positions as he knew them, it would
give me te ttle. Probably right. With this
game out of the way, I should almost cer
tainly not have made my subsequent
quasiclerical blunder against Mitchell.
32. g ex
33. Kl!
ThE miserly move 33. Be3 allows a
draw by <3 . . . RadB 34. Q1 Q4f 35. K!
Qc4f, ec. Each player was probably
pleased to see his opponent refraining from
forcing him to force a draw.
- 286 -
Hi Games
33. . . Qxc5
34. Qc3!
If 34. rf, ... rc4f. Or if 34. Rxf7,
... Re2.
34. . . R
Black's .s are powerless, but only tem
porarily, and the drawing threats remain if
White treads unwarily. If the i / is cap
tured, the one on h3 lives on.
35. Qd3!
Renewing the threat of Rxf7!
35. . . Qe5!
Indirectly parrying the treat and start
ing new devilment.
36. Qx Rae8!
In permitting 25... h I had slightly
overrated the effect my passed i would
have on Black's ,s. They have almost
laughed it to scor.
37. Rbl
White himself has . trouble now.
37. . Qxh2
And te h- i even becomes a potential
. At tis stage, I was covering sheet after
sheet with scrappy but useful analysis. I was
not sure White could win, but at least was
sure I was fnding the best move available
each time.
38. Rb3
39. Qxh3
Qe5
Q4!
Both 's are under attack.
I now wrote out and analyzed 20 pos
sible 40th moves for White. At first I could
not make a single one of them win. On the
sheet of anaysis, I have given No. 15 as 40.
c5, with a query and the following sequel:
40 . . . Q4t 41. Kg2 rc5 42. Q3 Q 43. RbB
rd7 44. rg5f and White can have two
s but cannot win.
However, there was a very attactive
feature about this quiet decoy move 40. c5.
After capturing on his c5 (instead of c4),
Black would be deprived of checks.
Also, it involved a beautfl variation,
namely 40. c5 Q7f 47. Kg2 Re7 apparently
winning for Black or at least drawing, but in
fact not, because of 42. Q! Rh7 43. Qf7f!!
tading in an old 1for a brand new one.
And in this, if 42 ... R7 f 43. Kh2 g4 the
same 1sacrifice wins.
Cheered up by this, I looked again at
40. c5 Q4f and now saw a curious win.
40. c5!! Qc4t
41. Kg2

- "
" "'u '

u

And now if 47 . . . rc5, the curious win
- 287 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
was 42. Qh6. If 42 ... g4 (to stop R), 43. R3
Re4 44. Qh4 (and if then 44 ... O, 45. RB).
.
41. Re4
42. Q5 Qxb3
43. Qxe4 Kg7
44. Q5 g4
45. Qxg4t Resigns
If ... Kh7, 46. Rd1 mates or gets for
When such a wild game develops in
cross-board play, even in gradmaster class,
it is usually diverted from its logical course
by inevitable miscalculations on both sides
caused by clock trouble. Moreover, annota
tors cannot afterwards afford the time
needed to discover just what the logical
course was. Only the C.C. player has both
the time to analyze deeply and the incen
tive to take that time.
Therefore it is possible to lear much
by correspondence play. But it does take a
lot of time that not all can aford.
{4
1
)
SA-NSW Telex Match (1956)
L. EndzelinsC. Purdy
Enlish Openin
1. c4
e5
2. Nc3
Nc6
3. g3 f5
This is the Tacacs, which obeys the
" Guide' rule of getting out two adjacent
center fs two squares.
4. Bg2
5. d3
Nf6
Bb4
Apparently new here. Euwe's Theorie
gives Capablanca-Bogoljubov, Nottngham
1936, which ran 5 d6 6. Bd g6 7 R 1 Bg7
8. b4 0-0 9. b5 with initative for White.
6. Bd2
0-0
7. Nh3 a
This f is for impeding a Wite !-side
push by b4, which served Bogoljubov well
against Capa (see previous note). Woinarski
always used to say that . . . a5 was "Purdy's
favorite move." Perhaps 8. Nd5 was White's
best now, virtually forcing exchange of .ls.
8. 0-0 h6!
Black now plans to answer Nd5 with
the complicating move . . . Bc5, but for that
he must frst prevent the pin, which afer
Nd5 would be deadly
9. f4
10. Nd5
1 1. e3
12. Nf
13. Rcl
d6
BeSt
Be6
Qd7
Qf
14. fe5 Nxd5
If .. . de5, 15. Nxf6f Qf6 16. Ne4.
15. cxd5 Bxd5
16. Ne4
Enables White to maintain almost
equality, but his having to play for that
shows his conduct of the opening was open
to improvement somewhere.
16.
Bb6
17. exd6 Qe6
18. Nc5
Bxc5
19. Rxc5 Bxg2
20. Kxg2 cxd6
21. Rb5 Qxa2
22. Rxb7 Ne5
23. Qb3t
White would have to lose a move some-
how, to save his from the fork.
23.
Qxb3
24. Rb3 a4
25. Rb6 Nxd3
26. Rxd6 Nxb2
27. Bc3 Nc4
28. Rd7 Nxe3t
In clock trouble-which is not fatal in
these matches because the tme lag in trans
mission allows you to calculate between
moves-1 could not make up my mind
whether this or the simple . . . R, giving
back the f , gave the better winning chances.
And now, with time to analyze, I still can't.
29. K Rfc8
- 288 -
Hi Games
Of course not . . . Nxfl ?allowing a forced
draw.
30. Kxe3?
White, in more serious clock trouble,
wastes his .-. combine that he has gone
to such trouble to get. He canot aford 30.
Rxg7f??, but the right play was 30. Rcl Ng4
31. Rxg7f Kj32. R7 and the question is,
can Black win? In te actual game, Black
could only caculate far enough to see that
he could not lose in that line and had win
ning chances.
30.
31. Kd2
32. Rel
Rxc3t
Rc5
Rc6
Black had to play too quickly to see
32 ... Kj! If then 33. Reel, . . . Rd5f!, retur
ing one f for a "book" win.
33. Ree7 Rg6
34. Ra7
It is no use "fooling about," as . . . R4,
etc., is coming anyway.
34.
35. Rxa7
36. R
37. Ra7
38. Ke3
39. K
40. Ke3
41. K
42. Ke3
(Ra5 is ftle.)
Rxa7
Rg4
g6
h5
h4
h3
Rb4
g5
42. . . . Rb3t
43. Kd4 Rxg3!
A touch of color. However, T.C. Gal-
lery, umpire in Sydney for South Australia,
afterwards pointed out that it would have
been all te better on Move 40! Black,
however, only had a few seconds then. If
White takes the ., . . . h2 and the next fve
moves on bot sides are forced; then White
must resign, his . + being useless.
44. Ke5 Rg2
45. Kf6 Rxh2
White can only play for "tricks," and
Black can calmly ignore them. The best
chance now is 46. Ra4, giving Black a
chance to go wrong with 46 . . . g4? (student
to work out draw then) . But 46 . . . R2 wins.
46. Rg7t
K
47. Rg5 a
48. R5 a2
49. Wite resigns
Interestng game. White never got clear
of his opening disadvantage.
(4
2
)
Austaian Chapionship (1956-57)
L. Endzelins. Purdy
Sicilian Dene
1. e4
2. N
3. d4
4. Nxd4
5. c4
6. Be3
7. Nc3
8. Qxg4
9. Qdl
A well-wor path.
9. . . .
c5
g6
cxd4
Bg7
Nc6
Nf6
Ng4
Nxd4
e5
- 289 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
But tis was something rather new fom
Smyslov-Botvinnik, Alekhine Memorial
Tourey, which I had just seen. Certainly
more energetic than either 9 ... Nc6 or 9 ...
Ne6 (Nimzovich) .
10. Qd2
At least more aggressive than Smyslov' s
10. Bd (Smyslov got a bad game and drew
it only because of inexact play by Botvinnik
later on) ; it makes way for the Y- ., and
thus turs Bxd4 into a threat.
10. 0-0
And if 11. Bxd4, ... exd4 72. N5 Re8.
1 1. 0-0-0 Qa5
12. Kb1 f5
13. f fe4
14. Nxe4 Qc7?
An example of how crazy a player can
get when overanxious to avoid a draw. Black
gives up a whole tempo to avoid an ex
change of Ys which he ought to welcome
with glee, since his own is more vulner
able than White's, or certainly will be with
the tempo lost. It is curious that the same
player also gambled somewhat against
Ozols, and there also it came of.
15. h4 d6
16. h5 Bf5
17. Bd3 a6
A bit slow, but in any case Black's
game is dificult.
18. Bh6
Endzelins pointed out that 78. g4 was
the way to carry on the attack, and although
there is counterplay (e.g., by 78 ... Bxe4 79.
Bxe4 Qxc4), it ought not to prove adequate.
18. b5
19. Bxg7 Kxg7
20. hxg6 Bxg6
21. Qh6t Kg8
22. Ng5 Nf5!
By sacrificing the Exchange for a i ,
Black suddenly changes from defender to
attacker.
23. Qh2
24. Ne6
25. Nx
26. Be4
27. Qg3
bxc4
Qf
R
Nd4
The natural and obvious move, and it
should have drawn. Also good enough was
27 Rc7.
27. . . . c3!
This combinaton at least draws, and
contains one very pretty variaton. This is
28. bxc3 Rb8f 29. Ka 7 Q4. Now the
problemesque point is that White's . must
defend c3 either at d3 or cl. If d3, he shuts
off his A and allows the to mate; if c l, he
unguards d5, and this allows the to sacri
fice itself at b3 without White aferwards
being able to win the Y by Bd5f. So Black
wins.
28. Bxg6 hxg6
29. Rde1??
Both sides were in clock trouble, and
White misses the draw by 29. Rxd4 exd4 30.
Od6.
In his hurry, Endzelins probably took
it for granted that Black's menacing is
- 290 -
Hi Games
would sufce to ensure a win, and I think
Pikler must have made the same assump
ton, else he would not have considered the
game seriously for the brilliancy prize. In
the actual game, I also made this assump
tion, but Black's own e is too exposed.
29. . . . Rb8
White is helpless now, for if b3, ... Rb3f.
30. Q Q5t
31. Re4 Rxb2t
32. Qb2 cxb2
33. Kxb2 d5
34. Re3 Qc2t
35. Ka1
Qd2
36. Rxe5 Nc2t
37. White resigns
(43)
N.S.W. Chapionship (1963)
C. Purdy-M. Fuller
Sicilian Defnse
1. e4 c
2. Nf Nc6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4
e6
The Taimanov, now usually answered
by simple development, 5. Nc3. Then the
system move is 5 . . . Q7, which has the im
mediate purpose of stopping e5 (after Nxc6)
before playing . . . Nf6. It all looks "artificial,"
but nobody knows enough about chess to
condemn moves on appearances. Tarrasch's
standards of"correctness" have taken many
knocks. The Meran, for example, is highly
atfcial, yet is still in vogue after 40 years
of intensive trial.
5. N5
Formerly regarded as the automatic
answer, and the reason why the line now
called the Taimanov was rarely seen in clas
sical tmes. It just appeared as a footnote,
"Not 4 . . . e6because of, etc."
5. . . . d6
Virtualy forced. Of course not 5 ... d5??
6. exd5 exd5 7 d5! "offering" the 1.
6. B4 e5
7. Be3 N6
Better than 7 . . a6 8. N5c3 N6, as White
can then transpose into the game (by 9.
Na3) but need not. The text position was
formerly thought bad for Black without
analysis because of the backward ., but
since the NajdorfVariant came in, that idea
has been laughed out.
8. N1c3
a6
9. Na3 Be6
I myself thought this an improvement
on the "book" 9 ... b5, which was thus con
tinued in a Fischer game (Fischer White) :
10. Nd Nxd (forced) 1 ed Ne7 12. c4
Nf 13. Bd Be7 14. cb5 0-0. It is hard to
see that Black has more than bare compen
sation for his . at best.
10. Nc4 b5
11. N6 Rb8
12. Nbd5 Ng4
Very complicating. Simplest was 72. . .
Bxd5, as White could not recapture with the
4 (Bb6 being no longer "on") . Black evi
dently didn't like to concede "the two Bish
ops."
13. Bd2 4
The "logical sequel," but logical sequals
sometimes only prove the original idea
wrong.
14. ex5 Bx5
15. Bd3!
- 2 9 1 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
Simple but efective. Now if 15 ... Bxd3,
16. cxd3 Nf6 1Z Bg5 Be7 18. Nxf6t Bxf6 19.
Q5f and Black must forfeit castling (in a
position where it is serious) or lose a f by
19 ... g6 20. Q Bxg5 21. Qc6t In this, if
16 ... Q7, 7Z Ne4 (threat Qg4!!) Be7 18. h
Nj 19. Nexf6f Bxf6 20. Q5f, and again
Black must forfeit castling or lose a f (20 . . .
Q7 21. Nc7f).
Again, on Move 16, . . . Qh4!? 7Z Ne4!
(threat fg4!) Be7 18. Nxe7 Nxe7 19. Nxd6f
or 19. Bg5, etc.
15. Be6
16. Be4
Nd4
17. 0-0 b4
Better 7Z .. Be7 18.J4! N6(not .. . 0-0 19.
j) 19. Nxf6t Bxf6 20. Nd5 0-0 21. Nxf6t
Rxf6, but White gets a decisive-looking ad
vantage by 22. Bc3 Nc6 23. Qd3! (two As
and an attack).
18. Ne2
Nf5
19. Nef4!
Must strike quickly or there is nothing.
19. ex4
20. Qxg4
Nd4
21. Qdl
Sometimes a crushing move!
21. Bxd5
22. Bxd5 Q5
23. Bc4 d5
When desperate, Fuller usually flings
fs away-an excellent idea.
24. Bxa6 Be7
25. c!
Nf5
26. g3 Ne3?
But finging pieces away is usualy not
so good. They are useful for "swindles."
Fuller usually shows excellent judgment in
lost games-one of the hallmarks of every
master.
27. fe3
28. Qf
29. K1
30. Qft
31. R5
32. Rxd5t
33. Rd4
34. R1!
and White won.
(44)
fg3
gxh2t
Rb6
Kd8
Qh4
Kc7
Q6
NSW Chapionship (1964)
C. Purdy-M. Fuller
Chigorin Dense
In anthropology, it is not true. But in
chess it is true, that White is superior to
Black. I have ofen quoted statistics which
prove that in master chess White scores
approximately 54 to Black's 46, in an aver
age 100 games. The percentage of draws
varies according to the standard, but the 54
to 46 remains practcally constant.
If the standard is such that about three
games in every ten are drawn, it means that
White wins almost 4 to 3. If only about one
in ten is drawn, the wins are more like 5 to
4. It boils down to this, that if two experts
are dead equal, and bets are off if the game
is drawn, you will make money, in the long
run, if you lay 6 to 5 on White. If you think
chess is a game of equal chances, you're just
a square.
I know that many players, like many
nonplayers, are impervious to simple logic,
and also to simple arithmetic. It is useless to
argue with them. If for some explicable or
inexplicable reason they dislike a fact, they
will not accept it. But the fact remains a fact.
It is particularly when an opponent is
-292 -
Hi Games
ahead of you in the score that the white
pieces are balm to the spirit. This was my
case against Ma Fuller i the 1964 New
Sout Wales Championship. He informed
me that he had spent the whole afteroon
preparing against me with the assistance of
Crowl. I replied, of course, that tis could
not fail to produce results harmful if not
fatal to his chances. But my real consolaton
was that no matter how hard he had pre
pared, he still had to play Black. In chess, at
any rate, gentlemen prefer blondes.
Let us see if the game illustrates all this.
It was about Round 5, Fuller half a
point ahead.
1. d4 d5
2. c4
Nc6
So this is what the conspirators had
plotted!
3. Nf
Pachman believes that 3. Nc3 may be
better. The text gives rein to the characteris
tic Chigorin move, . . . Bg4. Chigorin's name
is much linked with early exchanges of A
for .
3. . . . Bg4
4. Nc3
Knowing very little of the opening, I
selected a move which l-and therefore, I
hoped, my opponent-had never seen, but
which obviously could not be bad. This is a
great thing about playing White-that a
simple developing move is always adequate.
4. . . . Bxf
Pursuing the Chigorin theme-capture
while a f must recapture. White must ei
ther accept a positon where he cannot castle
safely or accept a weak d- f. White does
not hesitate, but plays the developing move,
and the one that offers safe castling.
5. exf e6
6. cxd5
exd5
7. Bb5 Nge7
At frst glace I was not rapturous about
my position, as I visualized a battery trained
on my weak d- f, forcing pieces to defend
it. Then I began to see the efect of the time
factor. Were it Blac's move now, what a
delightfl game he would have! e.g., 7 .. g6
8. 0-0 Bg7 9. Bg5 0-0. We shall see what a
vast diference te move makes.
Fuller suggested 7 .. g6 at once, but this
doesn't save him, e.g., 8. 0-0 Bg7 9. Re1 f
Nge7 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. O2! and we have a
routne type of attack against an uncastleable
w. If Black accepts the d- f, we have 11 ...
Bxd4 12. Bh6 followed by Rad1 with a win
ning attack.
8. 0-0
9. Bg5
10. Qd2
g
Qd6
Bg7
11. Bxe7!
Very simple strategy; make Black's W
move.
1 1. . . . Kxe7
12. Bxc6
Before checking, White makes Black
choose how to capture. If with f, check
will force Black to f, blocking his 1, as
... Kd7 would invite Na4-c5f.
White has sacrificed two As for two
s in retur for either an exposed black W
or retarded Black development.
12. . . .
Qxc6
13. Rfe1t Kd7
To free his ls, but the move behind
always beats him, so . . . K was the lesser
evil.
14. Q4
15. Rcl
f5
Re8
-293 -
1ze Search fr Chess Perction
16. Ne4 Qb6
17. NeSt Kc8
Black has succeeded in feeing his s
and withdrawing his , but now a new
Gorgon rears its head.
18. Ne6
Rxe6
Or 18 ... Re7 19. Nxc7 Rxe1 f 20. Rxe1,
and if .. . Oc7, Rc1.
19. Rxe6 c6
20. Reel Qxd4
Come what might, . . . Bxd4 gave the
only chance, yet not a good chance.
21. Qd6 Rd8
22. Re8 Bf6
23. g3
Qxb2
24. Rxd8t Bxd8
25. Re8 Qb6
26. Qe6t
Kc7
27. Qtt
Kc8
28. Qxh7 c5
29. Rg8 c4
30. Rxg6 Qblt
31. Kg2 c
White had to calculate careflly.
32. Rg8 d4
33. Qe7 Qb6
34. Qe5 a6
35. Qx5t
Kb8
36. Qd5?
Badly pressed for time, White missed
the obvious kill.
36.
Kc8
37. Qf5t Kc7
38. h4 Qc6
39. Qe5t Qd6
Also pressed for tme, Black indulges
his passed fs in delusions of grandeur, but
there was no defense anyway.
40. Qxd6t Kxd6
41. Rxd8t Kc5
42. K
and won.
It must be admitted that White's ad
vantage of the move persistently made itself
felt against Black's otherwise excellent strat-
egy. Any early faltering by White would
have given Black a terrifc game. Black just
had to be stopped fom getting going. And
he could be stopped.
(45)
NSW Chapionship (1964)
B. BergerC. Purdy
Ruy Lopez
The 1964 New South Wales Cham
pionship produced this interestng clash
between the then ( 1963-66) and past (1960-
63) Chapions ofF.I.D.E. Zone 10-South
East Asia and Pacifc. It provides an inter
esting illustration of the distincton between
strategy and tactcs.
1. e4
2. Nf
3. Bb5
4. Ba4
5. c
6. 0-0
e5
Nc6
a6
d6
Bd7
Strategy is the choosing of aims. You
can also speak of "a strategy," meaning the
kind of positon aimed at in a particular
case. The move c usually indicates the aim
of building an aggressive f center by d4.
But it can be part of the quieter Steinitz
system of attack ( fs on e4, d3, c3) which
aims at holding the center and slowly ma
neuvering pieces to the best advantage.
By avoiding 6. d4, White keeps the
opton of either stategy. Sounds good. But
it isn't. The more aggressive 6. d4 is the only
way White can hope for an edge against the
Steinitz Deferred (see Barden's book, The
Ruy Lopez.
6. . . . Nge7!
Reserving options is always good, pro
vided you don't lose more options than you
reserve, or concede a valuable opton to
your opponent. Having consulted Barden
just before the game, I knew that after 6. d4
the text defense is dubious, but only be-
-294 -
Hi Games
cause of either of the sharp lines Z Be3 (and
if Z .. Ng6, 8. h4) or Z Bb3 (and if Z .. Ng6, 8.
Ng5 winning) . But now White has deprived
himself of bot tese optons, since h4 would
now be absurd, and Z Bb3 is meaningless,
as Z .. Ng6 cannot be answered with Ng5.
Thus, Black has been granted the valu
able option of a very solid defense. The
strategy of .. .Nge7is the build-up . . . Ng6with
.. .Nf4 in view, or in some lines . . . Bg5 (from
e 7) in response to a < maneuver to e3 by
White.
Strategy is inseparable fom tactics.
Black knows his strategy is right only be
cause of the tactical points mentoned. The
simplest defnition of tactics in chess is "Cal
culation of moves and replies." All good
players must be good tactcally. All masters
must be good both tactically and strategi
cally. Someone who is good strategicaly
and not tactically may understand the play
of masters up to a point, but cannot possibly
play well himself.
7. d3
The Steinitz setup loses some punch if
Black can freely play .. .j. Here we have
Steinitz Attack against Steinitz Defense!
7. Ng6
8. Re1 Be7
9. Nd2 0-0
10. Nf f5
The Ruy Lopez is worthless to White
unless played with great precision. Then
perhaps it is the best of all. Here, Black has
at least equality. If now 11. Ne3, .. .fe4 12.
de4 Kh8 and Black has a solid basis for
-side play. White loses a little material if
he plays 11. @3f Kh8 12. Qb7, but I hardly
tink Berger bothered to work that out-he
would just know it could not be good, from
the "look" of the position. Is that strategy or
tactcs? Well, tactics; only a weaker player
would probably carry the move-by-move
calculaton frther and, of course, lose clock
tme.
11. exf5 Bx5
This way, White at any rate gets his <
to d5 before Black gets his to f4. But White's
Steinitz setup goes, showing that his whole
idea was faulty. Agan, probably neither
player wasted tme thinking about 12. @3f
and 13. Qb7? but it is a useful exercise (in
tactcs) for students to prove it bad.
12. Ne3 Bd7
Once again Black can ofer his b- . .
Why?
13. Nd5 K8
Earlier the pin ... Bg4 could have been
met by @3 but now it treatens, leaving
White a difcult choice. In practical play,
the question of how big or how small a
theoretical advantage one side has is not
important. If one side's moves are easy and
the oter's hard, that is important. To have
an easy game means to have a clealy good
aim or stategy (Black's is based on the
f4-square, mainly) and no difcult tactcal
problems to solve in achieving it.
14. Nxe7 Ncxe7
Easy choice, as it brings a second <
nearer the key square.
15. Ng5
With a threat, White tansfers the <
from its weak post (weak because on te
f-file) . This is strategy-defensive strategy,
though it starts with the ferce treat of Q5.
15. . . .
Bxa4
16. Qxa4
The sacrifice @5 fails.
16. . . . Qc8
- 295 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
17. Be3 h6
18. Ne4
Nd5
The pressure mounts. The immediate
threat is . . . Q4 pinning.
19. Ng3
Ndf4
20. Bx4 ex4
A interestng instance of a clash be
tween strategy and tactics. In chess, as dis
tinct from war, a plan is only something to
follow i nothing better turns up. Position
ally-or strategically-obviously it would be
decidedly better to have a 4 or on f4
than a f. But because of the tactical point
that the threat of .. .fg3 forces a 4 move,
Black has the opportunity to break up
White's castled position, and this is better
tan a mere superior placement of pieces.
21. Nfl f
It is not easy to see why 22. g3 won't
work now, yet any expert would think, "It
just can't be playable." However obscure
the knockout, it must be there. Not 22 . . . Qh3
23. Ne3 (and if . . . h5, 24. Kh1}, but 22 ... Nf4!
(threatening . . . Nh3f, ad if 23. gxf4, ... Q4f!
24. Ng3 Qh3 and mate). If 23. Ne3, simply
.. . Nxd3 wins a f and keeps the attack.
White selects possibly the least evil, as
it brings about a game of s ad four s,
traditionally drawish.
22. Qe4
23. Qxg6
24. R
25. Qe4
fg2
gxfl=Qt
Rf6
Re6!
A important decision in strategy. Shal
Black try to attack the '? Very speculative.
But the ' can't run away. He is exposed
and will stay exposed. On the other hand,
there is one flly open fle, and if Black can
get control of it, this advantage with the
exposed ' thrown in means a certain win.
26. Qg4
If White stays on the long diagonal,
Black pursues his strategy, using as tactcs
the ofer of the b- f, e.g., 26. Q Q8! 2Z
Qb7 (if Kh1 as in the game, then quietly
... c6 now the fle is secure) Rb8 28. Qa6
R6f 29. Kh 1 Q7! 3 0. j (not Q6? d5) Rxb2
with a crushing attack. Or in this, 28. Qc7
Rxb2 and wins, as 29. Rab 1 leads to mate
(two checks, then . . . Rxb1).
26. Qe8
27. K1 Qc6t!
28. f
If 28. Q2, ... Re2 and the ending is a
win. Also 28... Qxg2 first might win, but it
seems better not to lose the tempo.
28.
Rae8
29. R Qd5
30. d4 R8e7
Black now had to play fast, but reck
oned he had a winning position and only
had to hold it.
31. b3 b5
32. Rg1 Re3
33. Qf4
If 33. Rc1, swap [Ed.: i.e., 33 . . . Re1f 34.
Rxe1 Rxe1 f 35. Kg2} and . . . Rc1.
33. . . . Qf
Wins a f.
34. Qxf
35. Rcl
36. R
37. c4
38. c
R
R
R
b4
Oversight. Could be hard after 38. Re1
R 39. Re7 Best 39 ... c6! to get White of
the seventh, e.g., 40. Rc7 Rxa2 41. Rxc6 a5!
42. Rb6 (forced, else ... a4 wins with second
rank absolute, see Nimzovich's My System}
Kg8 43. c5 dc5 44. dc5 Kj7 45. c6 Ke7 and
- 296 -
Hi Games
wins easily.
38 . . . Rc3
and Black won.
White loses a second f and has no
counterplay.
(46)
Aaat (1964)
M. Fuller. Purdy
Sicilian Dense
1. e4 c5
2. Nf d6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 Nf6
5. Nc3 a6
The Najdorf, favorite of Fischer.
6. Bc4 e6
7. Bb3 Be7
8. f4! 0-0
9. 0-0 Nbd7
10. Qf
I was more worried about 10. j. Origi
nally my intention was 10 . . . Nc5, but prob
ably I'd have played 10 . . . e5 11. Nde2 (or -)
Nc5, and if 12. Bd5, . . . Nxd5 13. Od5 Bd7 for
. . . Bc6. Here Black emerges satsfactorily.
10. . . . Nc5
11. Be3
Here agan i 7 7. j, ... e5 probably. But
it was best.
11. . . . Qc7
12. Rae1 b5
13. e5
Too late now, e.g., 13. j b4 14. Nb1 (or
somewhere) e5 15. Ne2 Nfe4 16. Bd5 BbZ
White has missed the bus and is in a typical
Sicilian mess.
13. . . . Bb7
14. exd6
Best was 14. exf6, gettng three pieces
for 1and f. White's minor pieces would
be much impeded by Black's fs, but it
would be terribly dificult for Black to win.
14. Bxd6
15. Qh3 Nxb3
16. ab3
Bb4
Fuller tought 16 ... b4 simpler and bet-
ter. Right.
17. f5 e5
18. Nde2 Bc5
19. Ncl
Bxe3t
20. Qxe3 Rfe8
Better than . . . b4. The passed f is a
valuable asset.
21. Nd3
Rac8
22. b4
A alarming move; threatens Nc5.
22. . . . a5!
23. Re2
Not Nxb5? Q6. If 23. bxa5, I had not
decided whether to play 23 ... Oa5 or 23 . . .
b4 or 23 ... e4, and as Fuller was short of time
I was farly sure he would be equally uncer
tan. White's game was very hard under
time pressure.
23.
24. Nxb4
25. Nd3
26. Nf4
27. Na4
28. b3
Good f to win.
29. Nb6
30. Q3
31. Kh1
32. Qxg4
33. Nd5
ab4
Qc4
e4
b4
Qb5
Qx5
Ng4
Qc5t
Qxb6
Ba6
Curious incident here. Black picked up
his 1in mistake for the
'
to capture the
- 297 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
. Fuller just looked up from his score
sheet in time to see this and claimed Black
must move his V (no hardship as it hap
pens, Black stll wins) . However, Director
Harkin pointed out that Black had frst
picked up the . Therefore Fuller's only
claim could be that Black must take the ,
the first piece touched. Therefore,
33. . . Bxe2
34. (xe2 (e6?
Oversight in tme trouble. However,
not too serious.
35. Nxb4
36. h3
37. Nd3
38. Rf4
39. R
40. R
e3
(e4
Rc6
(e6
Ra6
Rc6
41. White resigns.
A well-judged resignation. With
White's V so tied, the win is not really
difcult, and White would only tire himself
out to no purpose. To play on against some
one floundering to beat his clock is one
thing; to play against someone fortfed with
adjoument analysis and stacks of tme is
quite another.
(47)
Austalian Championship Playof
(1965)
C. Purdy-0. Hamilton
King' Indian Dense
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 Bg7
4. e4 d6
5. f
The Samisch (pronounced Zaimish).
Just about the favorite nowadays.
5. . . 0-0
6. Be3 Nc6
This is probably best.
7. (d2 ReS
But this is outside the scheme. The
is better at f, supporting .. . in aswer to
d5. Correct is Z .. e5. If 8. Nge2, .. .Nd7 clears
the decks for .. . (in answer to d5).
8. Nge2 e5
9. d5 Ne7
10. Bh6!
The purpose of playing this so early is
to block . . . h5 a an answer to g4. White can
afford it because Blac is unable to play .. .
as yet.
10. .
Bh8
Imprecise, as White would not play
Bxg7 yet. Better 70. . . c6 at once. In that
event, more exact than 77. g4 would be 17.
0-0-0, which would also be good in the
actual game.
1 1. g4 c6
12. Ng3 cd5
Plausible is 72 . . . b5 73. dxc6 bxc4 74.
Bxc4 Nxc6, but the trouble is 75. g5! Nh5 76.
Nxh5 gxh5 7Z Nd5!with the terrible threat of
Nf6fopening the g-fle. Or if 75 ... Nd7, 76.
Q5 winning a piece. Better on Move 13 the
f sacrifce, 73 ... Nxc6 74. Nxb5 Nd4 75.
Nxd4 exd4, but it is none too bright.
13. cxd5 a6
14. 0-0-0 b5
15. Bd3
In the Samisch, it usually pays to defer
the development of this . and rush ahead
with the f storm. Here 75. h4!, etc., would
have won without allowing serious counter
play.
15. . . . (a5
- 298 -
Hi Games
16. Kb1
17. h4
18. Nce2
Rb8
b4
Nfd5!
This counter-sacrifice (impossible if
White had omitted Bd3) gives Black a rea
fight. Defensive play would be merely a
slow kind of resignaton. In games of oppo
site castling, if one pawnstorm is far ahead,
that side must win in the normal course.
19. exd5 Nxd5
20. Ne4 Be6
21. b3 Nc3t
The best chance.
22. N2xc3 bxc3
23. Qxc3 Qa4!
Threatening . . . Bxb3.
24. Bc2 d5
25. Nc5
White does not yet fnd the win, but is
given the same position again on Move 27.
25. Qc6
26. Ne4
26. . . . Qa4
Black for once makes a tactica miscal
culation. He thought 2Z Ka1 would be bad
for White. Black should have tried 26 . . .
@6, when White's task is much harder. In
criticizing a game, the man ting is that one
move is better than another, and the pos
sible sequel is of secondary interest. But
advanced players may be interested in the
following lines ater 26. . . @6, especially
tose who were present on the night. Best is
2Z Ng3! e4 28. Q2, and now Black's best t
is 28 . . . Bxg4!threatening . . . Q6. Now 29. Be3
Q630. Bd4:
(a) ... Qf31. Bxh8 Kh8 32. Rh1 Q6
(if . .. e3, Qd4fad Rdf1 wins) 33. Rdfl Q6(if
. . . Q5, Nxe4; or if 33 ... e3, 34. Qe3!!) 34.
Q4f Kg8 (if . . . Q5, swap and Nxe4) 35. R6
Q5 36. Qe5 Rxe5 3Z Nxe4 wit a piece for
two is; dificult win.
(b) If 30 . . . Qxd4, 31. Qxd4Bxd432.fg4
Be5 33. Ne2 Rhd8 34. Nd4, again a piece for
two is with a dificult win.
27. Ka1!
This is what White ought to have played
when he had te position earlier, but put
tng Y and 4 in a skewer goes against
anyone's conscience. Hamilton had calcu
lated on its being bad, but actually it wins.
27. . . . Qb5
If 2Z .. Q3, 28. Q5. If 2Z .. Qd7, prob
ably best is 28. Bg5.
28. Nd6 Qd7
29. Nxe8 Qxe8
At Move 26, Black had overlooked
that Nxe8 enabled White to meet ... e4 with
N6f
.
30. Kb1
The white ' thought al was all right
for a holiday, but he wouldn't like to live
tere.
30. . . . e4
31. Qe3 Bxg4!
The same sacrifce as in the note to
Move 26. But now it is more easily an
swered.
32. Rxd5 Bx
33. Rh2 Qe6
34. Rd Q6
35. Qd4 Qxd4
White threatened mate. White's ma
neuver is based on the good old adage,
dstro countr-chances. Small material ad
vantage and safe ' is better tan large
materia advantage and te ' wit nitro
glycerine i his shoes.
36. R5xd4
37. Rxd4
Bxd4
ReS
- 299 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
38. Be3 Re7
39. Rd6 Be2
40. Kcl f5
41. Kd2 Bfl
42. Ke1 Bd3
43. Bxd3 exd3
44. Kd2 Re4
45. Rd4 Re5
46. Kxd3 Resigns.
(4
8
)
Austaian Chapionship
(Brisbane 1967)
C. Purdy-M. Woodhams
Kin's Indian Dense
A single open file is a drawish thing,
God wot. The 14 fs keep te game closed
except for the open fle; the four s tend to
come of, then usually the ts aso, and any
attempt to win the probably balanced mi
nor-piece ending is likely to be risky. It may
happen that even a marked plus in develop
ment fails to overcome te inherent drawish
ness.
The commonest example is te Ex
change Variant of the French Defense, 1. e4
e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5. So inherently drawish
is this opening that at the age of 16 and
playing in my first tourament, the New
South Wales Championship of 1923, I suc
ceeded in drawing in 70 moves wit the
holder A.E.N. Wallace, who invariably
played the Exchange Variation against the
French.
Morphy did the same, ad usually won
because his opponents neglected develop
ment. Of late, Larsen has found a way of
twisting into a winnish game for White, and
Alekhine even did this with Black, ofen
castling -side.
A player trying to win such a game
often does best to try to tur it into a game
of 12 fs instead of 14, to remove the dead
ening infuence of the single open fle. To
bring about a second f exchange without
compromising one's position can be difi
cult.
A single-open-fle gae that became
very excitng was mine with Michael Wood
hams in the 1967 Australian Championship
in Brisbane.
1. d4
2. c4
3. Nc3
4. e4
5. Be2
6. Bg5
7. d5
Nf6
g6
Bg7
d6
0-0
c
Qa
Temptng where White has played Be2,
since 8. Bd3 would involve moving this
piece twice. White's actual reply also in
volves moving a i twice, but the tempo
will be regained some time, as Black's 1
cannot remain permanenty under a masked
threat. Perhaps . . . e6 is better.
8. Bd2
e6
9. Nf
I did not then know that in Round 6 of
the tourament Fuller had played against
Woodhams 9. f4. But after 9 .. ed Fuller
could not safely play 10. cxd5, so his gae
got out of tune. I decided to rely on quick
development, hoping to win in spite of the
drawish efect of the single open fle.
9.
exd5
10. exd5 a6
See note to Move 23.
11. 0-0 Bg4
Black gives up the light squares to get
important dark ones.
12. h3
13. Bx
14. Be2
Bx
Nbd7
Ne8!
Else f4with the possibility of f, tradi
tional '-side winner. Now Black can meet
f4with .. .f.
- 300 -
Hi Games
15. Qc2
Not yet having read my own remarks
at the top of this game, especially the fourth
paragraph, I go here for simple develop
ment, neglecting a magnifcent opportunity
for twisting the game out of its drawish
tendency, quite safely because of the black
Y's voluntary exile. Thus, 15. f4j 16. g4!
This threatens either to open the g-fle or to
play g5 and later break open the h-fle with
h4-h5. If 16 ... fg4, White has the choice of
Bxg4 or hxg4. Either is good, but hxg4 would
have the merit of again threatening g5. It is
hard to imagine how Black could defend
himself.
15. . . . f5
16. Rfe1 Qe8
Here Woodhams makes the mysteri
ous remark, "Black now has full equality."
How come? Apart from the small asset of
the . pair, White is at least 2. 5 tempi ahead
in development. More reasonable would
be a claim that it is difcult for White to
exploit his plus in development. But even
this would be wrong, as White can still
afford the attacking maneuver f4 and g4,
even though Black has . . . Q4 available now.
If 17/4!, ... Q4!? 18. Kh2 for g3.
17. Qcl
This would make more appeal had
White not moved his 1already. The idea is
that f4is going to obstruct the 1-., so get
him to gS first. Quite good, but the forth
right 17 f4! was better.
17. . . . Ne5
Woodhams queries this for a wrong
reason. It is wrong because it gives White
the chance to play f4with gain of tempo so
that he could still follow with g4 attackingly.
Woodhas gives 17 . . Nc7 18. Bg5 Nf6. But
then Black renounces eS and White keeps
the edge with the two .s. In this, if 18 ... Bf6,
19. h4.
18. Bh6
It is not a law of chess that Bd2 and Q 7
must be followed up with Bh6. It may be
done simply to hold the dark squares. In
any case, in chess opportunism comes be
fore planning. So 18. f4! But at least 18. Bg5
was preferable to Bh6. If 18 ... Bf6, 19. Bh6
Bg7 and now exchange s with gain of
tempo. And then still f4and g4.
18. Nc7
19. Bxg7 Kxg7
20. f4 Nd7
21. Qd2 Qf6
22. Rad1
h6
Now it is Black who tries to twist the
game out of its drawish character. Unjustifi
ably, since he is behind in development.
Afer 22 ... Rf8, as Woodhams says, there is
no reason why Black should lose. His 4/ c7
is poorly placed, but the game is drawish.
Having got into clock touble in some games,
White's main concern in this game had
been to keep out of it. So he played it cool,
neglectng earlier opportunities to attack.
Now White should be penalized by being
held to a draw, but he is saved by his
opponent's optimism.
23. a4
At last Black has extorted this move,
justfing his ... a6, which, however, there
was little point in playing as early as Move
10.
23. g5
24. Bfl gx4
25. Ne2! Ne5
The routne riposte is .. .f, but then 26.
Nf4threatens a fork. If 26 . . . Q5, 27 Re6! Or
- 30 1 -
The Search fr Chess Perction
if 26 ... Kh7, 2Z Ne6!
26. Nx4 Q
g5
27. Q
t Kh7
The open-fle strategem won't work,
2Z .. Rae8 28. Re3 with threats.
28. Rxe5! dxe5
The Exchange can be sacrifced more
lightheartedly than is generally supposed. I
did not spend much clock tme on this,
because (a) it was the only chace to win,
and (b) I felt at least fairly sure of not losing.
The Exchange is overrated. If the sacrificer
gets a f and can keep one ! ted a long
tme, he is compensated.
29. Qxc5 Rc8
30. d6
a

.
"
r

:-,

30. . .
Qx4?
Black underrates the attack and is
tempted by the idea of united fs. The only
chace was . . . exf4. Woodhams gives 30 . . .
exf4 31. d7 Rcd8 32. Qc7 f "and . . . R8with
winning chances." The analysis is right, but
for "winning" read "drawing." Thus, 33.
Qb7 fg2 34. Bxg2 RB 35. Kh7 and now
there are about three lines to consider:
(a) 35 . . . O3 36. Q5 with the double
threat of Qxt or c5 (for c6);
(b) 35 . . . R7 36. b4! K8(if . . . O3, again
Q5) 3Z b5 axb5 38. cxb5 O3 39. Q! and
wins;
(c) 35 ... a5 36. b4 axb4 3Z a5 and if
... O3, again Q5.
It may be possible to fnd a draw for
Black, but certainly not a win i White is
wary.
In Variaton (b), te ! sacrifce 36 . . .
Rd7, or 37 .. Rxd7, does not force a per
petual, though it takes some working out.
31. d7
Rcd8
32. Qxc7 Qe3t
33. Khl f4
34. Qxb7 e4
35. Qd5 f
36. c5
Rg8
37. Q5t Kh8
38. Q6t
Kh7
39. Qe7t
White goes to the touble of calculat
ing that Black's virtually forced sacrifce is
now unsound. Foolproof was g4.
39. Rg7
40. Qxd8 fg2t
41. Bxg2 Rxg
42. Qh8t
Kxh8
43. d8=Qt Kh7
44. Qd7t
Kg6
45. Rd6t Kh5
46. Qtt Kh4
47. Kxg2
Q
5t
48. K Kxh3
49. Qe6t
Resigns.
(49)
Austalian Championship
(Brisbane 1967)
C. Purdy-D. Hamilton
Game of a Litime
This was the most astonishing fnish in
Purdy Senior's long career, and probably
that of Hamilton's ten short one, even
though the astonishment was for Hamilton
mixed with grievous disappointment. Still,
he saw the fnny side, and congratulated
his opponent wit genuine enthusiasm.
The first diagram shows the positon in
C. Purdy-Hamilton afer the second ad
jourment.
-302 -
Hi Games
After 68. Rgd4
At first sight, it seems that Black should
win on sheer material. This was why I spent
the whole of my frst Thursday moring
(free day) analyzing 68 . . . Kc7 69. Rd7f Kc8
70. Rd4. I cae to the conclusion that be
cause of Black's bad ', White had a draw
in all variations, and covered several sheets
of paper with them.
Hailton came to the same conclu
sion, and correctly gave up his i+. He had
sealed his 68th.
68. Bg5
69. Rg4 Bd8
70. Rd4 Bb6!
This worried me, as I simply had not
had time to anayze it. will draw against
and 4 with level is all on one wing, but
this is diferent. Easy draw if Black's passed
i were a rak frther back. As it is, it's a
runner.
71. Rh4
Kb5
72. R4
The only hope.
72. a4
73. h4 Nc2
ton; (b) the ending -and-4 versus ' is at
best very tedious; and (c) most important,
Black saw an obvious way he could get a
whole 1, and White not. The gae looked
a push-over. It might have needed an Aver
bakh to see the falacy in (c) .
74. h5 a3
75. R a2
76. h6
Bd4
77. h7 Na3
Too late now for . . . a1=( but the text
move seems to force White to resign, so
what the hell.
78. Rdl
78. .
Bh8
Some oter square would be better,
but it wouldn't matter! We retur to this
point later.
79. Kf
Nbl
Looks a killer. "Very slow resigner, tis
Prdy," some onlookers thought.
80. Kg8
First shock. If 80 ... a1=( 81. Rxb1 t
forces a book draw.
80. . . . Bb2
81. Rd8!
Just the same if White's 'lwere only at
There was a simpler procedure, 73. . . f.
a3 74. h5 a2 75. R1 Bd4 76. h6 a1=Q 7Z
Rxa1 Bxa1 78. h7, and now, provided Black
makes the right tour with his 4, he can
retain both pieces and stop White queen-
81. . . . al=Q
Nothing else to be done now.
82. Rb8t Kc6
8. Rb2! Qa8t
ing.
Three consideratons, luckily for Purdy,
deterred Hamilton: (a) it took some cacula-
Taking the . would be useless even
wit the white 'l stll on f, Kg8 would
follow, with book draw.
- 303 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
86. Rg2!!
White cannot aford to keep his ! .
Nor can Black useflly avoid taking it.
86. Qxg2t
87. Kh8 Drawn
Black is a 1 and 4 up, but his r is
one square too far away ad so is his 4.
Black must allow either stalemate or pro
moton.
Now retur to the second diagram.
Instead of 78 . . . Bh8, ty 78 . . . Bb2. Then 79.
KjN 7 80. Rd8 ad the same old joke is
on, as Ra8 is one threat. Or if 78 ... Bc3, 79.
Rc7 N8 80. K a 7=Q87. Rc Qc3 82. K8
and still draws.
So the tempo lost by 78 . . . Bh8 did not
matter.
(SO)
Sydney Interatona
Touraent (1979)
C.j.S. Purdy-1. Roger
Hennig-Schara Gambit
Notes by Michael Wodhams.
This delightl little game was Purdy's
last major tourament game. His opponent,
Ian Rogers, only needed a draw to secure
his second IM norm (and equal frst place
in the touraent with English GM Ray
Keene). Cecil, at 73 yeas of age, declines
an ofer of a draw. Always a sportsma ad
a great Australian, Cecil believed that titles
are eared te hard way.
1. d4
d5
2. c4
e6
3. Nc3 c5
4. cxd5
cd4
One of Rogers' favorites, and an ag
gressive way to go for a fll or half point.
Cecil, however, was never upset by gam
bits, and in his true classical style lets the
gambit run its course.
5. Qxd4
6. Qd1
7. Qxd5
8. Nf
9. Qd1
10. e3
1 1. Be2
12. Bd2
Nc6
exd5
Bd7
Nf6
Bc5
Qe7
0-0-0
Given a ! ? (deserving attention) in En
cclopedia DCecil had obviously done his
homework.
12. g5
13. 0-0 Kb8
14. Rcl g4
15. Nd4 Qe5
If 75 . . . Nxd4, 76. exd4Bxd4 7Z BJ4t Be5
78. Qd4Bxf4 79. QJ4fKa820. R7 Rhe827.
Bf! and Wite retains a small plus.
16. Ncb5 Ne4
17. Qc2 Nxd2?
Instead 7Z .. Rhe8 protects the 1 and
contains a veiled threat against the white
.le2 (Rogers) . Not 7Z .. a6 78. Bc3!
18. Qxd2
a6
19. Qc3! Nxd4
- 304 -
Hi Games
20. exd4!
If 20. Nxd4 (threat Nc6f), ... Bd6 21. g3
h5! and Black has a big attack on the
side. After the text, it is White who gets the
attack.
20 . . . .
21. Qg3t
22. Nc7t
23. dc
Qxe2
Ka8
Ka7
ReS
Probably designed to keep White's 1
out of c7 as much as to harass the 4. 23 . ..
Qb2wou1d be too risky, e. g. , 24. Rh1 Qa2
25. Ra 1 Q2 (Black must guard against
White's Q3) 26. Nxa6!; or 24. Rh1 Q2 25.
Nxa6! (R1 Q4) Rhe8 26. N4 Q4 2Z Rh3
wins or 26 ... Qc5 2Z Q3f Kb8 28. Na6f; or
24. Rb1 Q2 25. Nxa6 Q4 26. Q7! Qa6 2Z
Rb3! wins. However 23 . . . B6 1ooks more
logical-if 24. Q3, . . . Q5!; or 24. Rc4 Rd3!
25. O4Rd8threatening . . . Rd1; or 24. R1
Qd25. Qd3 Rxd 26. Re7 Rd8and . . . Rd.
24. Nd5 Bb5
25. a4! Bc6
And Black now ofered a draw.
If 25 ... Bxa4?, 26. N6; or 25 . . . Rxc5?,
26. Nc3!
26. Rfel
27. Ne7
28. Nxc6t
29. Qxg4
30. h3
31. Q5
32. Qxh7
33. Qd3
34. Qd6?
Qxb2
Rce8
bxc6
Qb7
Qc7
Rhg8
Q4
Qc7
34. O! would have left Black para
lyzed. With his exposed and two fs
down, the game would be over. By swap
ping s, Black has a ray of hope-his passed
c- f.
34 . . . .
35. cxd6
36. Rxel
37. d7
38. Re7?
Qxd6
Rxelt
Kb6
Rd8
38. Rd1! followed by h4 looks more
logical ( ls belong behind passed fs) and
White wins easily, e.g., 38 . . . c5 39. h4 c4 40.
h5 Ka5(40 . . . c3 41. Rc1) 41. h6Ka4 42. h7 c3
43. g4 c2 44. Rc1 Kb3 45.f4and White easily
wins the race. Once fs are established on
d7 and h7, Black's ) is immobilized.
38. . . c
39. Kfl?
White is stll winning, but when an
ending develops into a f race, you can't
aford to play two plans at once ( to -
side and pushing the h- f) . 39. h4! stll wins.
39. . . . Ka5
40. h4 c4
Apart from pushing the h- f, White
could also win by gettng his ) behind the
d- f, e.g., 41. Re4 Kb4 42. Rd4 Kc3 43. Rd6
Kb2 44. h5 c3 45. h6 c2 46. Rh6f Ka 1 4Z Rc6
Rxd7 48. Rxc2 Rd6 49. Rc7 and wins. White
could also have sealed (and thus won eas
ily), but sportngly played on to allow Rogers
to catch a plane.
41. Ke2? Kxa4
42. Kd2?
White can no longer win-the last
chance was 42. h5 Kb3 43. h6 c3 44. Re8
Rxd7 45. h7 c2 46. Rc8 Rd8 4Z Rxd8 and
wins.
42. . . . Kb3
43. Kcl
a5
44. h5
An easy draw was to be had by 44.
Re5! a4 45. Rh5t Kc3 46. RbZ
44. . . a4
- 305 -
45. h6 a
46. Kbl??
The Search fr Chess Perction
47. Kal
0-1.
(seaed)
And now a draw is gone too. 47 Re5!
a2 48. Ra5 Rxd7 49. h7 RB 50. Ra7 RB 51.
Rh7t Kc3 52. Ra7 Rh7 53. Ra3t Kd4 54.
Rxa2 and the game should be drawn.
Cecil's last ten moves were obviously
af ected by tiredness, but one canot but
admire the clarity and logic of his play up to
the frst tme contol.
46. c
COLOPHON
Typeset in various fonts such as Berthhold Baskerville,
Doughboy, Goudy Sans, Huxley, and our C.R Horowit,
1 0/12.
Copy enty and editng: Pat Scoville
Cover: Rob Long
Layout: Bob Long
Proofeading: Ralph Tykodi & Bob Long
- 306 -
Back of the Book
.. 27
. 45
... 12
(
. . . . . . . . . . 43, 44, 46
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Hamilton,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 49
Hanks, ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 , 39
Harris, A . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Hastngs, G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Klass, H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Koshnitsky, G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Lamparter, G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Mills, B . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Napolitano, M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rogers, I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Sarapu, 0 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 33, 34, 35, 36, 37
Steiner, L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 16, 32
Tartakover, S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Wade, R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Walsh, V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Watson, C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Woodhams, M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Zile, R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
-307 -
Te Search fr Chess Perction
Index of Openings
Numbers refer to game numbers. The game secton begins on
page 221 .
Benoni Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Caro-Kann Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Chigorin Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Bird's Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Dutch Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
English Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 19, 24, 29, 41
Evans Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
French Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7, 26, 37
Hennig-Schara Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
King's Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
King's Indian Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 30, 38-39, 47-48
Nimzo-Indian Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 1 1 , 20-22, 27, 40
Polish Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Queen's Gambit . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 5, 9, 32
Reti's Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Ruy Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 12- 13, 18, 33, 35-36, 45
Sicilian Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 14, 16, 34, 42-43, 46
-308 -
Back of the Book
Inex of Article
Aids To Seeing Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Amazing Lesson On The Center, An . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Bronstein Wins With "The Isolated d-Pawn" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Combination Versus Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Common Rook Endings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Compensaton For A Pawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Dual Soul Of Chess, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Every Move Is Partly Weakening! . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 180
Exchanging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 29
General Endgame Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 55
Guiding Rule For Endgames, A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
How To Advance In Chess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
How To Avoid Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . 1 19
How To Improve At Chess . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
How To Reduce Oversights To A Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
How To Think In Chess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 4
Lopez Subtletes And Steamrollers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19
Method Of Thinking In Chess, A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5
Minor Pieces For A Rook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 08
More About Pawn Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
More On Those Two Bishops . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 02
Notes On Planning In Chess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 83
On Castle Wails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 15
Play For Positon After The Opening, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Play With The Pieces . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Rook Against Two Minor Pieces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 05
Snare Of The Odd Pawn, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Snare Of The Swop, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 53
Stenitz-Lasker "Law" Exploded, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
That Isolated d-Pawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Those Two Bishops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 00
To Take Or Not To Tae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 18
Transition From The Opening To Middlegame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
True Elements Of Chess, The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Wea Pawns And Wea Squares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 12
What Is A Combinaton? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
What Is Positon Play? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
When Attack Is The Best Defense/When Counterattack is Wrong . . . . . . . . . . 91, 98
Why A Pawn Center? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
- 309 -
John Hammond, one of Aus
tralia's wealthiest men, was
a close fiend of CJ.S. Purdy. Afer
Purdy's death he and IM Robert
Jamieson put together the "best"
of Purdy's writings fom his
various chess magazines and
published tem as a book in a quantity of 10,000-
al of which sold (better than most chess best sellers) !
Purdy had a knack for writing about chess which
few could equal. In his quirky language he
would always get to te "core" of the issue,
no matter how complicated. Afer
reading a Purdy essay on Rook and pawn

endgames you feel an immediate sense
of relief Chess isn't easy to play and consistenty
win, but Purdy will show you those fnesses, tricks,
kn
subtleties, and ideas which will add
signifcantly to your winning armory.
When Cecil Purdy shows how to find
combinatons, and how to avoid blunders,
and then self-efacingly admit he hasn't
always taken his own advice, you know
you have a real honest people's advocate!
When he won the frst world's correspon
dence chess championship in 1951 against
the best in the world, it was no fuke. It was
the result of a "system," a s of checks
and balances which are n ( t used in
ms. "The
illy explore
tt just theory,
ies of chess
{ou will be en
cour .. 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ . rritings live on
collection
5 2 2 0 0
(and othe1
this magnifcent
ideas, his games
championship
unabashed writngs;
quality.
play) , ar
all gem