Chigorin -- Davidov 1874

Early this summer, I faltered in my 2015 goal to work through one game each week from the selection in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov. To some extent my training shifted when Chess Informant 124 arrived, but I also have wasted far too much time playing bullet and blitz. Last Sunday, I resumed my course through Ziyatdinov's book.

I spent several hours Sunday morning going through Chigorin -- Davidov, St. Petersburg 1874. Chigorin played a Muzio Gambit, quickly brought all of his pieces to bear in the attack, and succeeded in checkmating his opponent's king. Davidov's queen's rook was a spectator. Despite White's knight sacrifice, he always had a material advantage in the battle.

Chigorin,Mikhail -- Davidov,Mikhail [C37]
St Petersburg, 1874

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5

How many White moves are playable here? Is one better than the others? 4.Bc4 Seems sensible as it directly attacks f7. It usually leads to the Muzio Gambit with a knight sacrifice, however.

4.h4 has lots of theory.
4.Nc3 is recommended by John Shaw for players seeking a line with less theory.
4.d4 seems playable.

4...g4

4...Nc6 is recommended by John Shaw, The King's Gambit (2013). He thinks that White should not play 4.Bc4, and that Black should not reply 4...g4.

5.0–0

White gives up a knight for rapid development.

5.Ne5 Qh4+ (5...d5) 6.Kf1 saves the piece. (6.g3 fxg3) 6...Nh6.

5...gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6

6...Qe7

7.e5 Qxe5

White to move

8.d3

8.Bxf7+ is considered the principled move in the Muzio. However, the text is favored by 1/2 pawn by Stockfish 6, and more than 1/2 pawn by Komodo. 8...Kxf7 9.d4 Qf5 and Black is better, according to Shaw.

Shaw gives a reference game that I found in my database and also identified as of theoretical interest: 10.g4 Qg6 11.Nc3 Nf6 12.Bxf4 d6 13.Bg3 Kg7 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Nc6 16.Qc4 d5 17.Qxd5 Be6 18.Qb5 Be7 19.Qxb7 Qe4 20.Rae1 Qxd4+ 21.Rf2 Bd7 22.Qxc7 Bc5 23.Kg2 Qd5+ 24.Rf3 Rhf8 25.Bf4 Rac8 26.c4 Qxf3+ 0–1 Showalter,J--Taubenhaus,J, New York 1889.

8...Bh6 9.Nc3

9.Bd2 was also popular in the nineteenth century.

9...Ne7 10.Bd2 Nbc6 11.Rae1 Qf5

All of White's pieces are mobilized.

White to move

12.Nd5

In my database is a reference game that led to a long struggle and eventually a victory for Black. 12.g4 Rg8 13.h3 Nd4 14.Qf2 Ne6 15.d4 c6 16.Bd3 Qf6 and Black won in 81 moves, Anderssen,A--Neumann,G, Berlin 1866.

12...Kd8

Forced.

13.Bc3 Re8

13...Rg8 was played in two earlier games, and it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Chigorin knew these games. Davidov, too, probably had studied them. 14.Bf6 Bg5

(14...Bf8 led to catastrophe 15.Qe2 Qe6 16.Nxe7 Qxe2 17.Nxc6+ Ke8 18.Rxe2+ 1–0 Cochrane,J--Mahescandra, Kolkata 1854)

15.Rxe7 Bxf6 16.Re4 Bg5 17.g4 Qg6 18.h4 Bxh4 19.Qxf4 d6 20.Qxf7 Qxf7 21.Rxf7 Ne5 22.Rxh7 Nxc4 23.Rxc4 c6 24.Nc7 Rb8 25.Rf4 Be7 26.Rff7 Kxc7 27.Rxe7+ Kb6 28.Rhg7 Rxg7 29.Rxg7 Be6 30.Rg6 Bxa2 31.Rxd6 Rg8 32.Kf2 Rxg4 33.Ke2 Rg2+ 34.Kd1 Bb1 35.c3 Rxb2 0–1 Kolisch,I--Paulsen,L, London 1861.

14.Bf6 Bg5

Perhaps Davidov was remembering the Paulsen win above, but the position is different. Paulsen played 14...d6 is this position. That game went on 15.Bb5 Be6 16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Bxe7+ Rxe7 18.Nxe7 Qc5+ 19.d4 Qxd4+ 20.Kh1 Kxe7 21.Qxc6 Rc8 22.c3 Qb6 23.Qe4 Rg8 24.Qxh7 Rg6 25.Re2 Qc5 26.Qh8 Kd7 27.Qa8 Qc6 28.Qxc6+ Kxc6 29.b3 Kd7 30.c4 Bf5 31.Rfe1 Re6 32.Kg1 Bg4 33.Re4 Bf5 34.R4e2 Bd3 35.Rxe6 fxe6 36.Kf2 e5 37.g3 fxg3+ 38.hxg3 e4 39.Rh1 Bd2 0–1 Schallopp,E--Paulsen,L, Berlin 1864.

White to move

The game has reached one of the middlegame positions in Ziyatdinov's text.

15.g4 Qg6 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.h4 Qxh4 18.Qxf4 d6 19.Nf6

Black to move

Ne5?

19...Rf8 defends against White's short-term threats.

20.Rxe5

With the exchange sacrifice, White falls further behind in the material on the board. However, he maintains an edge with the material in the battle balanced and Black's pieces tied down. Despite the absence of a pawn shield for the White monarch, Black's king is the one under pressure.

One of my students was able to find 20.Rxe5 rather quickly, although he credited the understanding that came from my suggestion that Black should have played 19...Rf8. In training, we often know that a decisive position has been reached in the game we are examining. While playing, these moments are less clear.

20...dxe5 21.Qxe5 Bxg4

21...Bd7 may hold.

22.Qd4+ Kc8

White to move

This position also appears in GM-RAM.

23.Be6+ Kb8

23...Bxe6 24.Qxh4.
23...fxe6 24.Qd7+ Kb8 25.Qxe8+ Nc8 26.Nd7#.

24.Nd7+ Kc8 25.Nc5+ Kb8

25...Bxe6 26.Qxh4.

26.Na6+ bxa6 27.Qb4# 1–0

I found some tactical positions in this game that I was able to use with my students, advancing their knowledge as well as my own. Cochran's miniature and Paulsen's two games offer additional study material and training positions.

The next in the series is Steinitz -- Blackburne, London 1876, first match game.

Solve This

As I am working through Anderssen -- Paulsen, Vienna 1873, which is in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge, I came across a reference game from a simul conducted by Alexander Alekhine in 1933.

White to move

Alekhine found the winning tactical shot here.

Overworked Defenders

Adolf Anderssen found that Black's pieces were stretched thin in their efforts to hold everything together.

White to move

From Anderssen -- Paulsen, Vienna 1873.

Play Like Louis Paulsen

A couple of days ago, I was reflecting that Louis Paulsen is one of those players whose play I know principally from his losses. A rare exception is one win against Paul Morphy at the First American Chess Congress. But, for the most part, I seem to be looking at Paulsen's games because they were important victories for Morphy or Adolf Anderssen or Wilhelm Steinitz.

My game of the week for the seven days that began this morning, thus, offers a welcome exception. The game is Paulsen -- Rosenthal, Vienna 1873. Paulsen won with a nice combination from this position.

White to move

What would you play?

Anderssen's Checkmate

This position arose in Anderssen -- Zukertort, Barmen 1869.

White to move

Trapped in a Castle

During the War Between the States, often called the Civil War in the United States, Paul Morphy returned to Paris for a visit. While there, he played a few games of chess. One of his games against Jules Arnous de Riviere did not start particularly well. Morphy seized the initiative for the cost of a pawn, but only a tactical oversight by his opponent gave him the edge that he needed.

Black to move

After 14.O-O

Morphy had Black.

14...Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 f4

Morphy sacrificed a second pawn.

16.Qxe4 Ng5 17.Qd4?

Black has little to show for the two pawns after 17.Qd3.

Black to move

Here the game reached position 178 in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov. This position may be the sole reason this game is worth remembering.

17...Nf3+!

Down two pawns, Morphy sacrificed a knight.

18.gxf3 Qh4

White king is in danger, trapped in his own fortress.

19.Rh1 Bxh3< The only winning move. Indeed, the only move that does not leave Black worse. 20.Bd2 Rf6

White to move

White has no defense against Rg6 and Bf1.

21.Bxf4 Rxf4 0-1

Wednesday Morning

Training Priorities

My personal chess training has suffered the past couple of weeks. Although I continue to go through my Game of the Week from the selection in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge, my understanding of the past few games has been superficial. Other priorities have both limited my time and disrupted my focus.

Welcoming Distractions

Our Shirt Design

I am the tournament director for the Washington State Elementary Chess Championship, and the head director for an event that includes the state middle school championship, and two side events: I Love Chess Too, an event open to all, and the Friday Bughouse tournament that takes place the night before the championship. The Washington State Elementary Chess Championship is a one day tournament that has run annually since 1990. As far as I know, in terms of number of participants it is the largest state tournament in the United States. The event kicks off tomorrow evening with a lecture by GM Irina Krush at the Spokane Chess Club. The main event is Saturday. One of the middle school sections plays Saturday and Sunday. I'll sleep Sunday night.

This year is my second time running the event. I wrote about the first in "Advice for Organizers" (April 2009).


The Training

My Game of the week over the past seven days has been Steinitz -- Mongredien, London 1862. This morning, I have scheduled myself to move on to Rosanes -- Anderssen, Breslau 1862. A couple of months ago, I went through the Anderssen game with three of my students individually. All three are playing this weekend. One is in the top ten in fifth grade, another is playing in sixth grade, and one is playing in the two-day middle school championship.

The key notable feature of Steinitz -- Mongredien is a successful attack on Black's king initiated by a rook sacrifice.

White to move

Steinitz played 16.Rxh7!

I have played through the game a dozen times this past week, have conducted some of my own analysis, and checked some of that analysis on the computer. I have not memorized the game. I have not met the training standard with this game. My head has been in chess organizer mode far more than chess player mode.

A Magnet Sacrifice

Chess vocabulary varies and can be colorful. This morning, as I was reading S. Tartakower and J. Du Mont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1975 [1952]), I came across an old term for the maneuver that is usually called decoy these days. The term attraction is also used by some, such as Chess Tempo.

White to move

This position came about in a miniature played by Henri Delaire against an opponent whose name was omitted from the records. It appears in the annotations to G. A. MacDonnell -- Anderssen, London 1862, which is my current Game of the Week.

The move 14.Qxf5+! is called "a magnet sacrifice" by Tartakower and Du Mont. Black's king is lured or attracted to a vulnerable square where it suffers additional assaults. Accepting the sacrifice leads to checkmate.

Some Miniatures

Playing Against Steinitz

Wilhelm Steinitz offered a pawn to Serafino Dubois in their game during the London International Chess Congress,  1862. Johann Lowenthal comments in the tournament book that Dubois "was not to be tempted" (The Chess Congress of 1862 [1864], 102). I was less keen to the dangers while I was reviewing Dubois -- Steinitz in the early morning last week and proceeded to play this move against Hiarcs on the iPad. I lost, but not in a manner that confirms the general consensus concerning the dangers.

Dubois -- Steinitz begins:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc4 4.O-O d6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5?! h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3

At this point, we have Middle Game Position 168 in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov, which I have been working through since December (see "Game of the Week").

Black to move

GM-RAM Position 168

8...h5!

Steinitz offered a pawn here.

Nineteenth century commentators and Stockfish 6 agree that 9.h4 is best, and that is what Dubois played. ChessBase database has eleven games with 9.Nxg5--all Black wins. The statistics certainly seem grim for snatching the pawn.

The earliest game is Knorre -- Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1874.*

Knorre,Victor -- Chigorin,Mikhail [C50]
St Petersburg, 1874

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0–0 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3

Diagram above.

8...h5 9.Nxg5 h4 10.Nxf7 hxg3 11.Nxd8 Bg4 12.Qd2 Nd4

White to move

13.Nc3

There are two games in the ChessBase database with 13.h3. Another game referenced in T.D. Harding and G.S. Botterill, The Italian Game (1977) is absent from this database.

13...Nf3+ 14.gxf3 Bxf3 0–1


Ashley -- Tollit, Birmingham 1923 continues from the diagram with 13.h3

13.h3 Ne2+ 14.Kh1 Rxh3+ 15.gxh3 Bf3# 0-1

This is the game played more recently on at least two occasions (1996 and 2005).

Perhaps, 14.Kh1 is the critical error, however, in this last example. White could have played

14.Qxe2!.

Black to move

After 14...Bxe2 15.Ne6, Black still appears to have an edge, but checkmate no longer seems imminent.

Although the database offers only losses for White after 9.Nxg5, engine analysis of these miniatures and of my play against the iOS version of Hiarcs leaves me wondering whether capturing the offered pawn is a mistake, as asserted by Lowenthal.

James Stripes -- HIARCS [C50]
Spokane, 31.03.2015

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0–0 d6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 h5 

Position from Dubois -- Steinitz, 1862

9.Nxg5

Black to move

9...Bg4

9...h4 is the critical line in most commentaries. 10.Nxf7 Qe7 11.Nxh8 hxg3 12.Kh1 with an advantage for Black

10.Qd2 Qe7

10...h4

11.Bxf7+ Kd7 12.h4

12.Bh4 might be better.

12...Raf8 13.Bb3

13.Bc4

13...Kc8 14.Nc3 Bb6 15.a4 Bc5

White to move

16.a5

16.Nd5 with a two pawn advantage, I should seek to exchange pieces.

16...Nd4 17.Kh1 Nxb3 18.cxb3 Rhg8

White to move

19.f4

19.a6 may be better, as is 19.f3.

19...Bd7 20.fxe5 dxe5 21.Bf2 Kb8 22.Na4 Bxf2 23.Rxf2 Ng4 24.Rxf8+ Qxf8

White to move

25.Qe2?? Qf4 0–1

Difficult positions provoke errors. On the other hand, a move cannot be deemed an error merely because it invites difficulties. It may be possible to learn to defend such a position. Having an advantage of two pawns often is worth something.


*See Edward Winter, "Confusion," Chess Notes (updated 14 March 2014) for another early instance of this game, and for discussion of problems regarding the game score of Dubois -- Steinitz 1862.

Building upon Morphy

Ten games won by Paul Morphy are the source for nineteen middlegame positions in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov. These games have provided a core for my chess study the past ten weeks. Today, I am moving on to Anderssen -- Steinitz, London 1862, game 16 in GM-RAM. See "Game of the Week" and "To Know a Position" for detailed discussion of my training program with this book.

I am not finished with Morphy. Two more of his games crop up in Ziyatdinov's list as games 22 and 23. Morphy's eighteen games from the First American Chess Congress have become part of my teaching curriculum for youth players receiving individual instruction. Three of these are among the selections in GM-RAM. I have a yearning, but not yet a firm commitment, to work through all of the available Morphy games along with the annotations in Philip Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess; Macon Shibut, Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory; and Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective.

Studying Saint Amant -- Morphy, Paris 1858 this past week drove me to my bookcase where an old text had been accumulating dust.

White to move

From this position, Saint Amant played 17.Kh2, and the game continued 17...Rad8 18.Rad1, resulting in position 165 in GM-RAM. It is at this point that Philip Sergeant offers, "White's feeble play, which is not what one would have expected from St. Amant, gives Morphy an opportunity for a neat combination" (Morphy's Games of Chess, 150).

I spent some time exploring 17.Rad1 as an alternative for White. Three Black replies seemed worth examining.

a) 17...Bxh3 as in the game, fails. 18.gxh3 Nxh3 19.Kg2 Nf4+ 20.Kg1 Qg5 21.Qg3 and Black's attack has been parried. Materially, three pawns for the piece may give Black some endgame chances, but with all the major pieces on the board, White is better. Black could eliminate the queens with 21...Qxg3, but the rooks remain and White's pieces are more active.

b) 17...Nxh3 seems promising. 18.gxh3 Bxh3 19.Rfe1 Bg4+ 20.Kg2 Bxd1 21.Rxd1 and Black has a material advantage, while White's king remains vulnerable to attack.

c) 17...Rad8 seems best. After 18.Nb3, Black can sacrifice the knight on h3. 18...Nxh3 19.Rxd8

Black to move

19...Nf4+ is better than 19...Rxd8 because of 20.gxh3.

After mulling through these possibilities, it occurred to me that additional work would be useful on h3/h6 sacrifices. I remembered that Laszlo Polgar, Chess Training in 5334 Positions (1994) has a section in the back of the book devoted to such sacrifices. Pulling it off the shelf, I discovered that positions 4663-4762 are h3/h6 combinations. Polgar presents entire games with a diagram in each case immediately prior to a sacrifice on h3 or h6. There is plenty of study material there to occupy my time.

The Opera Game

H.R.H. the Duke of Brunswick is a thorough devotee to Caissa; we never saw him but he was playing chess with some one or other. We were frequent visitors to his box at the Italian Opera; he had got a chess-board even there, and played throughout the performance. On our first visit "Norma" was performed. The Duke's box is right on the stage; so close, indeed, that you might kiss the prima donna without any trouble. Morphy sat with his back to the stage, and the Duke and Count Isouard facing him. Now it must not be supposed that he was comfortable.
Frederick Milnes Edge, Paul Morphy: the Chess Champion (1859), 172.

A casual reader of Frederick Edge's Paul Morphy, could easily surmise from this passage that Vincenzo Bellini's Norma was performed on stage when Paul Morphy played his "most famous game".* However, David Lawson, who researched matters thoroughly, asserts that the game was played during a performance of Barber of Seville by Gioachino Rossini.

On the second of November they heard the Barber of Seville, during which Morphy played his most famous game, the Duke again consulting with Count Isouard. In his games with Morphy, the Duke always had a partner, sometimes two, Counts Isouard and Casabianca consulting against him.
Lawson, Paul Morphy: the Pride and Sorrow of Chess (2010), loc. 3271 Kindle ed.

Lawson's documentation is not on par with his research. Verifying his claims, and the counter-claims of many writers before him, has proven vexing. Edward Winter's outline of several unknown details and the contours of disagreement is well-worth reading (citation below).

It seems clear from these two passages in the books by Edge and Lawson that Morphy played several games against the Duke of Brunswick in consultation with one or more Counts. Several of these games were played at the opera as a guest of the Duke. Yet, it seems, only one record of these games remain.

This one recorded game was a stellar performance by Morphy. It is included by Rashid Ziyatdinov in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge as game 14. It was my study game a week ago, and this past week comprised my "lesson of the week" for youth chess players. It is an instructive illustration of effective and ineffective pins. My annotations were written without sight of a chess board, giving me confidence that I am beginning to understand this game.

The Game

Morphy,Paul  -- Duke of Brunswick, Count Isouard [C41]
Paris, 1858

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4

The inadvisability of this pin is addressed in "Lasker's Rules".

4.dxe5

Black to move

The rapid conclusion of this game may give the impression that the Duke and Count were weak chess players. But, here, they demonstrate understanding of zwischenzug--something many of my young chess students need to learn.

The immediate 4...dxe5 loses a pawn.

4...Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4

This simple checkmate threat is far too effective against scholastic players. Even at the Washington State Elementary Chess Championship, games will end quickly with Scholar's Checkmate.

6...Nf6

The Duke and Count block access of White's queen to f7.

7.Qb3

Morphy renews the threat against f7, adding an attack on b7. From b7, the queen may snatch the rook.

Black to move

Thinking that many of my students could quickly find the answer, I asked: How can Black protect both the pawn on f7 and the rook on a8? I was disappointed at the answers.

7...Qe7 8.Nc3

8.Qxb7 Qb4+ 9.Qxb4 Bxb4+ 10.c3

8...c6 9.Bg5

Morphy's pin of the king's knight is vastly more effective that when his knight was pinned, although he, too, violates the letter of Lasker's Rule.

9...b5?

9...Nbd7 seems better.

White to move

10.Nxb5! cxb5 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7

White to move

Morphy has managed to pin both of Black's knights.

12.0–0–0

Both White rooks will come to d1 for the battle of d7.

12...Rd8 13.Rxd7

It was important to capture with the rook, temporarily sacrificing an exchange when already down material, because this capture keeps a Black piece pinned on d7.

Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6

White to move

White is down a rook for two pawns, and yet has more force in the battle. If Black is able to mobilize their bishop and other rook, this game will become one of Morphy's rare losses.

15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Qb8+

Forcing Black's response and leading to checkmate. This queen sacrifice is the essence of the Opera Checkmate, a combination that leads to a more elementary bishop and rook checkmate.

16...Nxb8 17.Rd8# 1–0



*Frank Marshall called Morphy's opera game, "the most famous game of all time" (Comparative Chess [1932]). See Edward Winter, "Morphy v the Duke and Count," Chess Notes (updated 20 March 2014).

Wasting Time

We are past the Ides of March,* and I am still pursuing my project for the year that began in early December. Each week, beginning Wednesdays, I am going through one game from the 59 in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov. These games comprise the source for 120 middlegame positions that represent significant tactical and positional understanding to aspiring players if each is understood thoroughly.

This week's game is Saint Amant -- Morphy, Paris 1858. It is the fifteenth game in GM-RAM, and the tenth Morphy game. Today's post concerns only the opening moves.

De Saint Amant,Pierre Charles Fourier -- Morphy,Paul  [C54]
Paris, 1858

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+

The moves so far are fairly standard in the Italian Opening. Two moves are equally popular in this position.

7.Bd2

Yesterday, I posted a position from a reference game that continued: 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0–0 Bxc3 (8...Nxc3 is familiar from the games of Greco) 9.d5 Ne5 10.Qe2 0–0 11.bxc3 Nxc4 12.Qxc4 Nd6 13.Qd3 Qf6 14.Re1 b6 15.Bg5 Qf5 16.Qxf5 Nxf5 17.g4 f6 18.Bf4 Nd6 19.Bxd6 cxd6 20.Nd4 Bb7 21.Nf5 g6 22.Ne7+ Kf7 23.Re3 Ba6 24.Rae1 Rae8 25.h4 Bc4 26.a3 Rh8 27.Kh2 b5 28.Kg3 a5 29.h5 Bb3 30.f4 Bc2 31.f5 g5 32.h6 Bb3 33.Kf2 Rhf8 34.Re4 Bc2 35.R4e3 Bb3 36.Re4 Bc2 37.R4e3 ½–½ Gashimov,V (2740) -- Dominguez Perez,L (2713) Nice 2010.

7...Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.0–0

10.Qb3 is more popular, and may be stronger.

10...0–0

White to move

11.h3

Looking through this game, my initial thoughts at seeing this move was recollection of Philip W. Sergeant's comment on the third match game between Paul Morphy and Alexander Meek at the First American Chess Congress, 1857. Sergeant wrote, "In nothing was Morphy so fortunate as in the frequency with which his opponents played P-R3" (Morphy's Games of Chess [1957], 44).

However, Sergeant's comment was instantly tempered in my mind by a comment I read last week in a more recent book. In this case, the reference game is Morphy -- de Riviere, Paris 1863, where Morphy played 9.h3.

Morphy himself was more apt to play this move than would be a modern master. So we have here a concrete example of evolution in strategic understanding; today, beginners are warned against such "wastes of tempo." But as we shall see, such "inaccuracies" don't render the ensuing play transparent.
Macon Shibut, Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory (1993), 9.

Moreover, in some situations, even modern masters will play h3 or h6. When is such a move a useful or even necessary prophylactic move? When is it a waste of tempo? General statements such as Sergeant's substitute facile principles for concrete evaluation.

John Watson offers a balanced view in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch (1998).

Whether in closed, semi-open, or open positions, flank pawn moves are regularly employed for a variety of reasons, ... Pieces are moved any number of times, if necessary, to achieve strategic goals. And the number of pawn moves in the opening can range from one to eight or more, depending on the requirements of the position. (15)

Several moves are more popular from the diagram than 11.h3, but the best move is not well established yet.

Perhaps, we can say that it would be better for White if he develops one of the rooks. 11...Bg4 does not appear to represent a credible threat worthy of expending a tempo to prevent. As the subsequent course of the game demonstrated, the advanced h-pawn could become a target.


*See William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (1599).

The Sentinel

A lonely sentinel stands on the forward point of a fortress. He cannot be removed by the enemy, but nor can he retreat. As long as he stands there, the forces back home are safe from attack.

White to move

This position is from Gashimov -- Dominguez Perez, Nice 2010. It arose via a Greco Gambit in the Italian Opening. I was looking at the game this morning as a reference game to this week's new "game of the week": Saint Amant -- Morphy, Paris 1858.

Gashimov put his rooks on e3 and e1, then advanced his pawns on the kingside. Everything became closed. Black's rooks could not enter the game via the e- or c-file. White's rooks could not leave the  knight unsupported.

Hitting the Books

Context

A distinctive element of GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) draws in some readers and pushes many others away. Rashid Ziyatdinov's book contains diagrams without analysis. The author explains that the book is more of an exam than an instructional book. As such, it is an open book exam that can be taken and retaken until the desired score is achieved. Co-author Peter Dyson suggests that GM-RAM, "can be thought of as both a study outline and as an evaluation tool" (9).

Fifty-nine "classic games" are the source for 120 middlegame positions. Ziyatdinov addresses the definition of "classic". Games are not classic merely because they were played a long time ago. The games in GM-RAM:

...have been analyzed in great detail by many strong players from different periods, different schools of chess, and different ages and generations. It is only after a game has withstood these many different perspectives--these "tests of time"--that it can be considered a classic. (77)

Ziyatdinov directs his readers to analysis of these games by other writers. Alternately, he writes, "a chess trainer can help teach the necessary knowledge" (13). He provides a list of references. This list offers a secondary curriculum. Most, if not all, of the the endgame positions in GM-RAM can be found in Yuri Averbakh's Comprehensive Chess Endings, which comprises the bulk of the texts listed for endgame study.

The middlegame books listed are another matter. Most of the games are from the nineteenth century, but the recommended middlegame books include the two volumes of My Best Games of Chess by Alexander Alekhine; and Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games. Also listed are Averbakh, Chess Middlegames: Essential Knowledge; Paul Keres, and Alexander Kotov, The Art of the Middle Game; and Hans Kmoch, Pawn Power in Chess. There is minimal analysis of the games of Adolf Anderssen and Paul Morphy in these books.

Practice

For the past few months, I have been systematically working through Ziyatdinov's fifty-nine games at the rate of one each week. This past week, my game has been Bird -- Morphy, London 1858 (chessgames.com link). I have not done well on my study of this game. The week has been filled with activities that interfere with personal study, and an exciting new book arrived as well, Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations, 5th ed. (2014), putting my chess study time on another course. Hence, my study of this game will carry over another week. I will press on, though, adding this week's game: Morphy's Opera Game.

I have print editions of three good books on Paul Morphy: Philip W. Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess (1957); Macon Shibut, Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory (2004); and Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). In addition, I have the Kindle edition of David Lawson, Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess, new. ed. (2010) and access to older books, such as Frederick M. Edge's 1859 Paul Morphy: The Chess Champion, via GoogleBooks. Other books that contain analysis of Bird -- Morphy include Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, part I (2003); and Max Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1968).

Kasparov's book offers a good entry point to the most important historical analysis and sometimes modern computer evaluation of this analysis. It behooves me to invest the time to work through the analysis of this week's and last week's games in all of these books.

Analysis

Ziyatdinov's GM-RAM contains two essential middlegame positions from Bird -- Morphy. These are separated by a single move. The positions are before 17...Rxf2 and after 17...Rxf2 18.Bxf2. Studying Kasparov's analysis last night focused my attention much earlier in the game.

White to move

After 5...d5

Kasparov credits Johannes Zukertort with having pointed out the improvement from this position that refutes Morphy's dubious opening choice. Bird could have gained an advantage had he properly applied knowledge from the ancient work of Pedro Damiano.

Euwe does not offer a source, but notes, "Nowadays it is known that the answer to Black's chosen variation is 6.Nxe5! dxe4 7.Qh5+, White getting an irresistable attack in return for the sacrificed piece" (29).

Initiative

Morphy -- Lowenthal, London 1858

The fourteenth match game between Paul Morphy (1837-1884) and Johann Jacob Lowenthal (1810-1876) is an instructive game that highlights Morphy's positional understanding, which was decades ahead of his time. As Valeri Beim notes, this game is a "treasure even by modern-day standards" (Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective [2005], 108).

Over the past week, I have played through this game several times. First, I looked through without any assistance and found the zugzwang. Then, I probed the database for some perspective on the opening.* Third, I entered variations that highlight tactical and strategic alternatives. Variations were expanded and contracted as I read through Beim's comments on the game (106-108). Finally, a couple of lines were checked with Stockfish.

Morphy,Paul -- Loewenthal,Johann Jacob [C77]
London m London (14), 21.08.1858

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d4

This game was the first one recorded with this sharp line.

5...exd4 6.e5

6.0–0 is also possible, and is vastly more popular.

6...Ne4 7.0–0 Nc5

7...Be7 is also popular.

8.Bxc6

8.Bb3 Nxb3 9.axb3 Be7 10.Re1 0–0 11.Nxd4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 was drawn in 52 moves in Lochte,T (2165) -- Hiermann,D (2190), Germany 1996.

8...dxc6

8...bxc6 appears twice in the database, played only by relatively weak players (albeit close to my level). Lowenthal's choice to activate the queen must be the correct idea.

9.Nxd4

It is interesting that this position has been reached a few times with White on the move, that is, via a different move order that excludes Bb5-a4.

9...Ne6 10.Nxe6 Bxe6 11.Qe2

Black to move

11...Bc5

"This natural looking move is the root of all Black's troubles" (Beim, 106). He suggests 11...Qd4.

12.Nc3 Qe7 13.Ne4 h6

The first time that I played through this game, this move looked strange. But a few seconds of analysis revealed that it was necessary to prevent Bg5.

13...Bb6 14.Bg5

a) 14...f6? 15.exf6 Qf7 (15...gxf6 16.Bxf6 Qf8 17.Rad1+-) 16.fxg7 Qxg7 17.Bf6+-.

b) 14...Qd7 15.Rad1 Qc8 would be awkward for Black.

14.Be3

"A outstanding positional decision" (Beim, 106). Beim notes that depriving Black of the bishop pair gives White the advantage on the dark squares.

14...Bxe3 15.Qxe3 Bf5

15...0–0–0? 16.Qa7.

15...b6!? 16.f4 0–0–0.

16.Ng3!? 

"Morphy bravely sacrificed a pawn for a small, but lasting initiative" (Beim, 106).

16.f4 Bxe4 17.Qxe4 0–0–0 gives White a slight advantage

16...Bxc2 17.f4

Black to move

17...g6

Alternatives:

a) 17...Bg6? 18.f5 Bh7 and White is clearly better.

b) 17...Bh7!?

c) 17...0–0 18.f5 Qg5 19.Qc3 Ba4 20.e6 with an initiative for White.

d) 17...Qb4 is Stockfish's choice.

18.e6!

White threatens to play 19.Qc3

Hypothetical Position

18...Bf5

I looked at some alternatives to this move.

a) 18...Ba4 is easily refuted. 19.exf7+ Kxf7 20.Qc3 Bb5 21.Rfe1 Qf6 22.Qb3+ Kg7 23.a4.

b) 18...0–0 leads to a maze of complications that mostly seem better for White.
19.Rf2 Bf5 20.Nxf5 gxf5 21.Qb3

b1) 21...b6 22.Re1

b2) 21...fxe6 22.Qxb7 Rfb8 23.Qxc6 Rb6 24.Qc3

b3) 21...Qxe6 22.Qxb7 Qd6 (22...Rfb8 23.Qxc7) 23.Qb3.

c) 18...0–0–0 19.Rac1 Bd3 20.Qa7 Qxe6 21.Rcd1 (21.Rfd1?! Beim points out that this is the wrong rook 21...c5 22.Qa8+ Kd7 [Beim's line continues 23.Rxd3+ Ke7 24.Rxd8 Qe3+–+] But the computer offers 23.Qxb7 when White seems slightly better) 21...Qc4 22.Rf3 with a clear advantage for White.

19.Nxf5 gxf5 20.exf7+ Kxf7 21.Qh3 Qf6

21...Rad8 22.Qxf5+

22.Rae1 Rhe8 23.Re5

Morphy simply puts his rook on a secure square on an open file.

23...Kg6 24.Rfe1 Rxe5 25.Rxe5 Rd8

Lowenthal grabs the other open file for his rook.

26.Qg3+

This check gains a tempo to make possible White's next move.

26...Kh7 27.h3 Rd7

Lowenthal might have held the position with 27...Rd5 28.Re8 Qg7 29.Qh4 Rd1+ 30.Kh2 Rd2 31.Re7 Rxg2+ 32.Kh1 Rg1+=.

28.Qe3 b6 29.Kh2

"Morphy, always energetic, proceeds to straightforwardly strengthen the position, knowing that the necessary level of coordination between his pieces has not yet been attained" (Beim, 107). The italics are Beim's. Throughout Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective, he emphasizes Morphy's understanding of dynamic play, piece coordination, and development. He contends that focus on Morphy's play against weak opponents has led to a distorted view of his strengths. His play against the top players of the day, including Lowenthal, show that he possessed an intuitive understanding of many concepts that would be articulated over the course of the next century. Morphy anticipated not only Steinitz, but also Nimzovich.

Black to move

29...c5 30.Qe2 Qg6 31.Re6

31.Qxa6?

31...Qg7

31...Qg8! might hold 32.Qe5 Rf7 33.Re8 Qg7 and no White breakthrough is in sight.

31...Qf7? 32.Qe5 c4 33.Re8+-.

32.Qh5 Rd5 33.b3

This is the position that I posted in "Zugzwang!" earlier this week.

33...b5

33...Qf8 34.Qg6+ Kh8 35.Re8+-
33...a5 34.a4 and still zugzwang.

34.Rxa6 Rd6 35.Qxf5+

35.Rxd6 cxd6 36.Qxf5+ Kh8 37.a4 bxa4 38.bxa4 should be winning.

35...Qg6 36.Qxg6+ Kxg6

White to move

37.Ra5

Beim gives a long line that Morphy could have calculated leading to certain victory:

37.Rxd6+ cxd6 38.Kg3 b4 39.Kf3 d5 40.g4 Kf6 41.h4 Ke6 42.h5 Kf6 43.Ke3 Ke6 44.g5 hxg5 45.fxg5 Kf5 46.g6 Kf6 47.Kf4 d4 48.Kg4 Kg7 49.Kg5 d3 50.h6+ Kg8 51.Kf6 d2 52.h7+.

37...Rb6

37...c6 38.a4 bxa4 39.Rxa4 Rd3
(39...Rd4 40.Rxd4 cxd4 41.Kg3 h5 42.h4 c5 43.Kf3 Kf5 44.g3 Kf6 45.Ke4 Ke6 46.b4+-)
40.Rc4+-.

38.g4 c6 39.Kg3 h5 40.Ra7 hxg4 41.hxg4 Kf6 42.f5 Ke5 43.Re7+ Kd6 44.f6 Rb8 45.g5 Rf8 46.Kf4 c4 47.bxc4 bxc4

White to move

48.Kf5 c3 49.Re3 Ra8 50.Rd3+ Kc7 51.Rxc3 1–0

I will need to go through this game again and again. I may return to it in a few weeks or months.

Tomorrow morning, I begin a week on Barnes -- Morphy, London 1858, first match game.


*I was able to spend a few minutes discussing the first few opening moves with FM Jim Maki, who has recently moved to our area and offers game analysis to youth players at area scholastic tournaments. I direct these tournaments. For the first few minutes each round, before any games finish, Jim and I get a few minutes to talk. Then children arrive with their notated games to get superb instruction and a raffle ticket.

Zugzwang!

Black is ahead one pawn and has everything defended against White's threats. There is just one problem. Black must move. Every possible move produces weaknesses.

Black to move

From Morphy -- Lowenthal, London 1858.

Two moves later, White was ahead a pawn.

Morphy's Immortal

Game of the Week

This week, I am working on the sixth match game between Louis Paulsen and Paul Morphy. Some commentators have called this game "Morphy's Immortal". The decisive combination that begins with a queen sacrifice is the first problem in Anthology of Chess Combinations.

I have been reading several chess books, and also watching YouTube videos to get a sense of what others say about this game. In addition, I read through A.J. Goldsby's annotations and all of the comments on chessgames.com.

This game is number ten in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000).

Paulsen,Louis -- Morphy,Paul  [C48]
USA–01.Kongress New York (4.6), 1857

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bc5 

Morphy's move is still a popular choice among some Grandmasters today.

4...Nd4 was first played by Emil Shallop against Paulsen. 5.Nxe5 (5.Ba4 Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 c6 1–0 in 42 moves, Paulsen,L -- Schallopp,E, Berlin 1881) 5...Qe7

4...Bb4 is most popular.

5.0–0

5.Nxe5 Nxe5 (5...Bxf2+? 6.Kxf2 Nxe5 7.d4±) 6.d4 Bd6.

5...0–0 

5...d6 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Nf5 0–0 9.Bg5 Bxf5 10.exf5 Nd4 11.Bd3 d5 12.Bxf6 gxf6 (12...Qxf6  is better 13.Nxd5 Qg5) 13.Na4 1–0 in 26 moves, Paulsen,L -- Zukertort,J, Leipzig 1877.

6.Nxe5

Black to move

6...Re8

6...Nxe5 is an interesting possibility 7.d4 Bd6 8.f4! (8.dxe5 Bxe5) 8...Nc6 9.e5 Be7 10.d5 (10.exf6 Bxf6) 10...Nb4

6...Nd4 7.Be2 d5 ½–½ is 32 moves. Marco,G -- Marshall,F, Monte Carlo 1904

6...Bd4 7.Nf3 Bxc3 8.dxc3 Nxe4 9.Bd3 d5 ½–½ in 33 moves, Tarrasch,S -- Schlechter,C, Monte Carlo 1903.

7.Nxc6?!

7.Nf3 "gives an advantage" (Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part I, 33).

7...dxc6 8.Bc4 b5

8...Nxe4? 9.Nxe4 Rxe4 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qf3++-.

9.Be2

9.Bb3?! Bg4 10.Qe1 b4 with a slight advantage for Black, according to A.J. Goldsby 11.Nd1 Rxe4 12.Ne3 "is hardly advantageous to White" (Kasparov, 33).

9...Nxe4 10.Nxe4

10.Bf3? Nxf2 11.Rxf2 Qd4 12.Ne4 Rxe4–+.

10...Rxe4 11.Bf3

11.c3 is playable here Qh4 12.d4 Bd6 13.g3 Qh3 (with the idea 14...Rh4) 14.f4 Bd7 15.Bf3 Re7 and White has chances for advantage.

11...Re6

Forced.

White to move

12.c3

"A simply hideous move: who would think of allowing the queen in at d3?" (Kasparov, 33)

12.d3 has been suggested by most commentators, including Ray Keene.

"We can safely say that the play, as above given, was the main cause of White's disasters, particularly when contending against such a far-sighted and powerful adversary as Mr. Morphy."
Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper (28 November 1857).

A.J. Goldsby diagrees, offering: "Yet another perfectly reasonable move. (The main idea is to play d4, and block out Black's powerful dark-squared KB.)  I know Reinfeld condemned this move here, but again I am not at all sure that this criticism is either merited -- or justified. (David Lawson gives this a whole question mark, but this is completely and totally unjustified.)"

Goldsby offers the following variation: 12...Qh4 13.g3 Qf6 14.c3 Re8 15.d4 Bh3 16.Bg2 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Bd6 18.Bd2 Qf5 19.Qf3 Qc2 when Black may be a little better.

12.a3? a5 Black has a clear edge.

12...Qd3

Yikes! The cramping effect of this move reminds me of my victory over Stockfish from a set position based on analysis of Mayet -- Anderssen (see "Training with Anderssen").

13.b4

13.Re1 seems better 13...Rxe1+ (13...Rb8) 14.Qxe1 Bf5 15.Bxc6 Rd8 16.Qe5 Qc2 17.Bf3 Bd6 18.Qxb5 Bd3 19.Qc6 Kf8 "Black still has the advantage" (Kasparov, 34)

13...Bb6 14.a4

"Probably worse for White" 14.Re1 Rxe1+ 15.Qxe1 Bd7 16.Qf1 Qc2 (Goldsby).

14...bxa4 15.Qxa4

Black to move

15...Bd7

15...Bb7 may be superior. Indeed, Kasparov identifies 15...Bd7 as Morphy's most significant miscalculation. 16.Ra2 Rae8 17.Qd1 Ba6 18.Rxa6 Qxa6 19.d4 Qc4 20.Bd2 a5 and Black has a clear advantage, according to Kasparov (34).

16.Ra2? 

16.Qa6! was Paulsen's last chance.

16...Rae8 17.Qa6

Black to move

This position is the first one in the Anthology of Chess Combinations, third edition.

17.Qc2 was no good. 17...Qxf1+ 18.Kxf1 Re1#.

17...Qxf3!!

"Beautiful as unexpected. Mr. Stanley, one of the bystanders, remarked of Mr. M., on his making this seemingly rash move, that he should be confined in a lunatic asylum. No one present could fathom the meaning of this bold play, until move after move showed to the wonder-struck spectators how accurate had been Mr. M.'s calculations. Just think of this, student--seeing into a dozen moves ahead, with all its attendant variations."
Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper.

"One of the most amazing moves ever played on a chess-board." A.J. Goldsby

17...Qxf1+? 18.Qxf1 Re1 19.d4 Rxf1+ 20.Kxf1 and White has an advantage.

18.gxf3 Rg6+ 19.Kh1 Bh3 20.Rd1

20.Rg1 Rxg1+ 21.Kxg1 Re1+ 22.Qf1 Rxf1#.

20.Qd3 tests Black's calculation.

Black to move

Analysis diagram after 20.Qd3

I put this position in front of the members of a Chess.com fan page on Facebook. No one found 20...f5!

a) 20...Bg2+ was suggested 21.Kg1 Bxf3+ 22.Qxg6 hxg6 and White is materally ahead.

b) 20...Bxf2 was the best of the suggestions on Facebook. 21.Qxg6 fxg6 22.Rd1 Be6 23.Ra1 Bd5 24.Kg2 Bh4 Black has a bishop and pawn for a rook, and perhaps a slight advantage.

c) 20...f5! keeps the attack alive. 21.Rd1 Bg2+ 22.Kg1 Bxf3+ 23.Kf1 Bxd1 and Black should win.

20...Bg2+ 21.Kg1 Bxf3+ 22.Kf1

Black to move

22...Bg2+

Morphy missed 22...Rg2! 23.Qd3 Rxf2+ 24.Kg1 Rg2+ 25.Kf1 (25.Kh1 Rg1#) 25...Rg1#.

23.Kg1 Bh3+

23...Be4+ 24.Kf1 Bf5 25.Qe2 Bh3+ 26.Ke1 Rg1#.

24.Kh1 Bxf2 25.Qf1

25.Rf1 Bxf1 26.Qxf1 Re1 27.Qxe1 Bxe1 28.Rxa7 h6-+

25...Bxf1 26.Rxf1 Re2 27.Ra1 Rh6 28.d4 Be3 29.Rf2 Rxf2 30.Bxe3 Rfxh2+ 31.Kg1 Rh1+ 32.Kg2 Rxa1 33.Bxh6 gxh6 0–1

Game of the Week

I am going through one game each week with the intention of understanding it thoroughly. This labor is part of a study plan guided by Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000).

There was an earlier, privately published version of this book. It caught my eye in the USCF product catalog in 1999 or thereabouts. The catalog description, "positions only, no evaluation," intrigued me. I ordered it; it was back-ordered for a few months and then I learned that it was no longer available. Ten years later, I bought the Thinker's Press edition, which also had gone out of print.

Ziyatdinov offers some hints concerning a program of study, and his co-author, Peter Dyson, offers additional hints. Much is left to the reader.

The basic plan is simple: each of the 253 positions (133 endgame, 120 middle game) in the book, plus an additional 47 selected by the reader, must be mastered thoroughly. That is, these positions must become as letters of the alphabet. Children learning to speak struggle to master the differences between the letter m and the letter n. Most have mastered these sounds before they begin school. Within a few years, the memory of these difficulties is forgotten and the sounds and meanings are second nature.

This past Saturday morning, I was discussing and playing Diagram 2 from "Problem Solving Contest" with a young student. The student did not yet understand some of the nuances of the position. We were also looking at slight variations of the same position. The student would make a move, and then I would either respond with an instant move for Black, or I would state, "the game is drawn". Diagram 2 is a win if it is White's move. If it is Black's move, Black steps the king forward one square, producing Diagram 14 in GM-RAM. Black holds a draw.*

Another young player, observing the exercise, stated, "But, you've studied this position!" I responded with an enthusiastic affirmation and the suggestion that he should do the same. This endgame position has become second nature for me, as have a handful of others in GM-RAM.

The 120 middle game positions are sourced from 59 games that Ziyatdinov offers in his book. Beginning in December, I have been systematically going through one of these games each week (see "Training with Anderssen"). Because I have been teaching an evening class on Tuesday nights, my week begins on Wednesday.

Mastery of these middle game positions is not easy. I am far from meeting the standard that I have attained with the simplest king and pawn endings and the elementary versions of Lucena and Philidor rook endgames. Even so, I am making progress. Some games are pushing me into study of obscure and or unsound openings.

Last week's "Game of the Week" is a case in point. I have not memorized the game. Nor have I come to a thorough understanding of the alternatives for both sides from the critical middle game positions. However, I have grown in my understanding of Louis Paulsen's opening ideas. In some of my blitz and rapid online games this past week, I have played Paul Morphy's move order against the Sicilian, and I have played Paulsen's defensive scheme from the Black side, albeit with improvements that I identified in my study.

Here are some of my notes on the game, the ninth in GM-RAM.

Morphy,Paul -- Paulsen,Louis [B40]
USA–01.Kongress New York (4.1), 29.10.1857

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.Nf3

Morphy's move order nuance offers Black some choices, but no refutations.

3...e6

3...e5 is interesting, when  4.c3 seems best.

a) 4.Nxe5?? Qa5+

b) 4.Bc4 Qc7

(4...Nf6 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 h6 7.Nf3 Bg4 led to interesting play in Cochrane,J -- Staunton,H, London 1842 [Staunton won in 24 moves])

(4...Nc6 [4...dxc3 5.Nxc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 d6 7.Ng5 Nh6 Bondarevsky,I -- Kasparian,G,Tbilisi 1937 (White won in 24 moves)] 5.cxd4 exd4 6.Nxd4 [6.Bc4 has scored better than the main line])

5.Bb3 Bb4+ 6.c3 dxc3 7.0–0 Nf6 appeared in Anderssen,A -- Harrwitz,D, Breslau 1848 (Harrwitz won in 30 moves).

4.Nxd4 Bc5

White to move

This move seems dubious to me, and yet a few Grandmasters have played it in recent years, especially Vladimir Epishen. Louis Paulsen played it five times in the First American Chess Congress. He won the first, and then faced Morphy. Morphy won three of the four games, and had a material advantage that he was unable to convert in the other.

After these games, Paulsen switched to 4...Nf6. His older brother Wilfried played 4...Nf6, and then tried 4...a6 in a few games.The three main moves, 4...a6, 4...Nc6, and 4...Nf6 each have their merits. All other choices must be regarded as sidelines.

5.Nb3

This move remains the main line today.

5.Be3 was Morphy's choice after the drawn game.

5...Bb6 6.Nc3 Ne7 7.Bf4

Black to move

7...0–0

7...d5 should be played 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Nxd5 exd5 (9...Qxd5!?) 10.Bb5+ Nc6 11.0–0 0–0 and Black's position was good enough for victory against the World Champion in a simul: Anand,V (2786) -- Bluesette (2155), ICC INT 2007 (Black won in 50 moves).

8.Bd6 f5 9.e5 a6 10.Be2 Nbc6 11.0–0 Rf7 12.Kh1 f4 13.Ne4 Nf5 14.Bh5 g6 15.Bg4 Ng7 16.Qf3 h5 17.Bh3 Qh4 18.Nf6+ Kh8 19.Qe4 Qg5 20.g3 f3 21.Nd2 Bd8 22.Nxf3 Qh6 23.Rg1 Bxf6 24.exf6 Ne8 25.Bf4 Nxf6 26.Qxc6 Qxf4 27.Qxc8+ Rxc8 28.gxf4 Rxc2 29.Rac1 Rxf2 30.Rc8+ Ng8 31.Ne5 Rg7 32.Nxg6+ Kh7 33.Nf8+ Kh6 34.Nxd7 Rxd7 35.Rcxg8 Rxf4 36.Bxe6 Re7 37.R8g6+ Kh7 38.Bg8+ Kh8 39.Rh6+ Rh7 40.Rxh7# 1–0

This morning, I am moving on to the sixth game of the Morphy -- Paulsen match at the First American Chess Congress even though much work remains for me to do on the first game.


*Please see a correction to this paragraph in the comments below, and also in tomorrow's post.

Flexibility

One of the hallmarks of modern opening play is to aim for maximum flexibility. That is, you want to use the move order that will achieve a position where you have excellent choices of how to proceed.
Edmar Mednis*

My study game this week is the second match game between Paul Morphy and Alexander Meek at the First American Chess Congress, 1857.** Friday morning, I played Rashid Ziyatdinov's Position 152 (GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge) against Rybka 4 and managed to win. Today, I am mulling over the initial moves in the game.

Morphy,Paul -- Meek,Alexander Beaufort [C01]
USA–01.Kongress New York (2.2), 16.10.1857

1.e4 e6 2.d4 g6 3.Bd3 Bg7 4.Be3

Up to this point, the moves are identical to those in the fifth match game between Adolf Anderssen and Howard Staunton at the London International Chess Tournament, 1851 (see Anderssen -- Staunton 1851).

4...Ne7

Is Meek's play superior to Staunton's?

5.Ne2 b6 6.Nd2 Bb7

White to move

This position offers aesthetic appeal and also anticipates the twentieth century struggles of the hypermoderns. White occupies the center, while Black seeks to contest the center from a distance.

Morphy violated the not yet formulated rule that knights should be deployed before bishops, and also posted his knights on slightly less active squares than the more usual c3 and f3. In doing so, however, his f- and c-pawns remain unimpeded.

François-André Danican Philidor considered it an error to block the f-pawn, but few chess players have agreed with him on this point. Philidor was concerned about reducing the flexibility of the pawns. In the diagram position, Morphy's f- and c-pawns are prepared to advance one square to support the center, or to advance two squares to claim more space on the chessboard.

White's bishops are also more flexible than Black's. Dan Heisman employs the term "two-way bishops" in Elements of Positional Evaluation (2010), quoting Aron Nimzovich. Nimzovich offers an example of defending pieces with "slight elasticity (capacity for maneuvering) ... in the case of a sudden attack on another wing, they will not be able to equal the attacking pieces in rapidity of motion" (My System [1947], 147).

Each of Black's bishops occupies a long diagonal and strikes towards the center. White's bishops on the other hand, occupy the center and are able to strike in either direction. As this game developed and the center closed, Black's light-squared bishop was locked out of the action. In Morphy's game against Meek, this bishop took no part in the battle. In my game against Rybka (beginning at move 19 in Morphy's game), this bishop became Black's last piece, defending a hopeless position against a knight and two pawns.

White's knights impede the mobility of the queen and are themselves less mobile on the second rank than the third. On the other hand, both knights are poised to maneuver to either wing.



*"What Price Flexibility?" Inside Chess (13 November 1995), 14; as quoted in Dan Heisman, Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power, 4th. ed. (Milford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 2010), loc. 869 (Kindle edition).

**I describe my this aspect of my current study plan in "To Know a Position."