Category Archives: Attack and Defence

The Theory of Steinitz

Posted on by
  1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in
    equilibrium.
  2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads
    to a drawn game.
  3. Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error
    made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning
    move.)
  4. As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack, however
    skilful, cannot succeed against correct defence. Such a defence
    will eventually necessitate the withdrawal and regrouping of the
    attacking pieces and te attacker will then inevitably suffer
    disadvantage.
  5. Therefore a player should not attack until he already has an
    advantage, caused by the opponent’s error, that justifies the
    decision to attack.
  6. At the beginning of the game a player should not at once seek
    to attack. Instead, a player should seek to disturb the equilibrium
    in his favour by inducing the opponent to make an error – a
    preliminary before attacking.
  7. When a sufficient advantage has been obtained, a player must
    attack or the advantage will be dissipated.”

From David HOOPER, Steinitz’ Theory, British Chess
Magazine Vol. 104, p.370 Sept 1984.

 References:

  • Steinitz’ International Chess Magazine
  • Steinitz’ Modern Chess Instructor
  • Lasker’s Manual of Chess
  • Euwe’s The Development of Chess Style

Notes

  1. The theory is the antithesis of the previously held view, that
    inspired play might of itself create a winning position;
    rather, (3) winning positions can come about only through errors by
    the opponent. Creativity and ingenuity still have a role, in the
    setting of problems for the opponent that they may fail to
    solve.
  2. The point (4), that, if a defender played correctly, then any
    attack commencing from an equal position can be refuted, was first
    indicated by Louis Paulsen. He declared (unfashionably) that all
    gambits can be defended, and practised what he preached; in this
    way Paulsen was the progenitor of the fully formed theory of
    Steinitz. Defensive play has its own principles:
    The defending side must be prepared to defend and make
    concessions, e.g making a weakening pawn move. However, the
    defender should avoid making concessions until forced, and then
    should make only the minimum concession necessary to meet the
    threats.

     

  3. The last point (7) is attributed by Lasker to Steinitz; DH
    cautions that he was unable to find such a statement in Steinitz’
    works. Lasker’s version goes on to say:
    The right to attack belongs only to that side which has a
    positional advantage, and this is not only a right, but also a
    duty, otherwise there is the risk of losing the advantage. The
    attack is to be directed against the weakest spot in the opposing
    position.
  4. DH was prompted to write this article after reading Purdy’s
    “The Great Steinitz Hoax”, Chess Player’s Quarterly, 1978
    [which is, according to BCM, reprinted in No.2 of Lasker and
    his Contemporaries    ], in which Purdy apparently argues that
    Lasker was more the author of the theory than Steinitz.

    Purdy and Hooper disagree on what constitutes the theory.

  5. Lasker certainly was the principal pedagogue and advocate of
    (his version of) Steinitz’ theory through his Manual.
    Lasker’s presentation was coloured to some extent by the principles
    of his own general philosophy of Struggle (Work, Economy
    and Justice); Lasker also offered extensions to the Steinitz
    theory, viz. principles of Cooperation and of Justice (in the
    sphere of chess).
  6. The influence of the theory is so substantial that instances
    need hardly be found, but a couple interested me recently:

    1. Jon Speelman’s introduction to his Best Games
      1970-1980       collection, where he refers to the “story” style of
      annotation – where was the crucial error by the loser? This of
      course assumes that the loser must have made at least one mistake, and Speelman quite explicitly
      signs up to the theory that there is Justice in chess, and that to
      lose you must have made a mistake – or two, really, and maybe three
      if you are White.
    2. An annotation in Chess Monthly where the GM
      reluctantly admitted that despite a series of brilliant moves by
      Black, White was at no disadvantage. This is the corollary of the
      same point; in a balanced position, even brilliant play, correctly
      met, will lead only to another balanced position.
  7. What is the significance of Steinitz’ theory for the club
    player? Different aspects have different importances.

    1. Defensive play may be so poor that an attack undertaken with
      insufficient means might well succeed in practice.
    2. So, defensive play, as modelled by Paulsen and Steinitz, must
      become a strength of yours.
    3. Moreover, while winning combinations may theoretically be
      available principally (if not
      only      ) in advantageous positions, in practice tactical
      opportunities and especially oversights can appear at any time, so
      at each move you should routinely check for combinational blows for
      each side.
    4. It may not be so important to decide who has the advantage as
      to decide what to do, and then do it well!
      “The question that matters to you in actual play is simply,
      ‘What is my best move?’, and if you can decide without being sure
      who has the theoretical advantage, so much the better      ” —
      PURDY

When and where to attack

Posted on by

Steinitz became World Champion (more or less) in 1866 by beating Adolf Anderssen in a bloodthirsty match (+8 -6 =0).  His style was very much in the tradition of the Italian school, playing for attack from the word go.  He was awarded the brilliancy prize for this Rook sacrifice:

  • Romantic Steinitz (up to and including 1872) (304)
    • Steinitz W. – Mongredien A. [B01]

His play in the of 1872 was still in this style, but his play in the tournament of 1873 was in marked contrast, playing for small positional advantages in the opening and early middlegame, and converting to a win only later.  Converting to a win might still be a brilliant attack, but it was more likely to be scooping up a few pawns.

  • Scientific Steinitz (after 1973)
    • Steinitz – Fleissig [C00]

    (305)

Steinitz was World Champion for 20 years — because, he said, he was 20 years ahead of his time!  His theories diffused into the chess world through lots of little pieces in newspapers and magazines, as never produced a book or a summary of his theory during his life (he died before he completed The Modern Chess Instructor). Lasker undertook to explain Steinitz to the world after he died, and Tarrasch also wrote a lot about Steinitz’ theories.

  • Scientific Steinitz didn’t forget how to attack! (307)
    • Steinitz – tchigorin [C65]
Steinitz’ elements (after Lasker) Steinitz’ rules of attack
Permanent advantages

1. Material advantage
2. Bad king position
3. Passed pawns in the middlegame
4. Weak pawns for the opponent
5. Strong and weak squares
6. Pawn islands
7. Strong pawn centre
8. Control of a diagonal
9. Control of a file
10. Bishop pair
11. Control of a rank

Temporary advantages

12. Bad piece position
13. Inharmoniously placed pieces
14. Advantage in development
15. Concentration of pieces in the centre (centralization)
16. Space advantage

 ”

  1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium.
  2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game.
  3. Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning move.)
  4. As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack, however skilful, cannot succeed against correct defence. Such a defence will eventually necessitate the withdrawal and regrouping of the attacking pieces and the attacker will then inevitably suffer disadvantage.
  5. Therefore a player should not attack until he already has an advantage, caused by the opponent’s error, that justifies the decision to attack.
  6. At the beginning of the game a player should not at once seek to attack. Instead, a player should seek to disturb the equilibrium in his favour by inducing the opponent to make an error – a preliminary before attacking.
  7. When a sufficient advantage has been obtained, a player must attack or the advantage will be dissipated.”

From David HOOPER, Steinitz’ Theory, British Chess Magazine Vol. 104, p.370, Sept 1984.

Now, where to attack may be obvious, but just in case not: you attack where you are strongest or where your opponent is weakest.

Here’s a quick example:

 Marshall = Kline

weak pawns: creating holes
1913

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. e3 O-O 7. Rc1 b6 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Qa4 Bb7 10. Ba6 Bxa6 11. Qxa6 c6 12. O-O Ne4 13. Bxe7 Qxe7

 

    • w – – 0 13 If we compare pieces and pawns, the inequalities are:

 

White’s plus points Black’s plus points
  • White’s Queen’s Rook on c1 is more active than Black’s Queen’s Rook on a8.
  • White’s Queen on a6 is more active than Black’s Queen on e7
  • Black has a weak pawn on c6 — in fact, Black has a few weak light squares around on the Queen’s-side.
  • Black’s Knight on e4 is more active than White’s Knight on e4

 

    • This all suggests that White can, should and even must attack on the Queen’s-side.

 

      • (306)
        • Marshall – Kline [D63]

      • The continuation is also a good example of Lasker’s famous maxim:

 

“No combination without a considerable plus, no considerable plus without a combination […]”
“In the beginning of the game ignore the search for combinations, abstain from violent moves, aim for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having attained these ends search for the combination – and then with all the power and will of intellect, because the combination must exist, however deeply hidden.”
LASKER

The Very Slow King’s-side Attack

Posted on by

I often talk about “clockwork attacks”. They are characterised by:

  • closed or at least stable centre
  • King’s-side attack based on stereotyped attacking plan
  • attack based not so much on domination of space and time but on lack of opponent’s counterplay.

These attacking lines are to be found in many openings

You may be able to think of other “system” openings which often yield an easy-to-play attack, like the Colle System, London System and perhaps the Torre system. To some extent the standard h-file attack against a King castled behind a fianchettoed Bishop also fits into this category, as seen in the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian and the Pirc Defence.

  As an attacker, the idea is to keep moving pieces up to the King’s-side until you checkmate your opponent. The reason these often work so well in club play is that the defending side will often play sensible-looking solid moves until is is far to late to stop the defences collapsing. A much more vigorous approach is required in defence.

  So, as defender, you must do at least one of the following:

So, as the attacker, you must keep an eye on your opponent’s counterplay.

  As you see from the links above, you can find examples of these clockwork attacks throughout the Openings handouts, but the examples here should give you the idea:

Kortchnoi,Viktor – Fischer,Robert J (blitz) [E97] 1970

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Nd2 c5 10. a3 Ne8 11. b4 b6 12. Rb1 f5 13. f3 f4

 

t+lDsTj+
X-+-S-Lx
-X-X-+x+
+-XpX-+-
-Pp+pX-+
P-N-+p+-
-+-Nb+pP
+rBq+rK-

The centre is completely blocked, and so all the play is going to be on the wings. Any pawn move by White on the King’s-side will leave him with further points of attack for Black , so White persists on the Queen’s-side.

14. a4 g5 15. a5 Rf6 16. bxc5 bxc5 17. Nb3 Rg6 18. Bd2 Nf6 19. Kh1 g4 20. fxg4 Nxg4 21. Rf3 Rh6

 

t+lD-+j+
X-+-S-Lx
-+-X-+-T
P-XpX-+-
-+p+pXs+
+nN-+r+-
-+-Bb+pP
+r+q+-+k

22. h3 Ng6 23. Kg1 Nf6

 

t+lD-+j+
X-+-+-Lx
-+-X-SsT
P-XpX-+-
-+p+pX-+
+nN-+r+p
-+-Bb+p+
+r+q+-K-

24. Be1 Nh8 25. Rd3 Nf7 26. Bf3 Ng5 27. Qe2 Rg6 28. Kf1

 

t+lD-+j+
X-+-+-Lx
-+-X-St+
P-XpX-S-
-+p+pX-+
+nNr+b+p
-+-+q+p+
+r+-Bk+-

28… Nxh3 29. gxh3 Bxh3+ 30. Kf2 Ng4+ 31. Bxg4 Bxg4 0-1

 

It is easy to understand the appeal of the King’s Indian after such a game.

Fischer,Robert J – Miagmarsuren, Lahmsuran (Sousse) 1967

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. g3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. e5 Nd7 9. Re1 b5 10. Nf1 b4 11. h4 a5 12. Bf4 a4

 

t+lD-Tj+
+-+sLxXx
-+s+x+-+
+-XxP-+-
xX-+-B-P
+-+p+nP-
pPp+-Pb+
R-+qRnK-

This is the same idea, with White. There are differences:

  Black has adopted a more modest central posture than White does in the King’s Indian Defence

  the central pawn structure is more fluid

  Black has gone hard on the Queen’s-side and is starting to make real gains; so, White must pause for a defensive move. White’s next was seen as innovative at the time:

13. a3! bxa3 14. bxa3 Na5

  [14… Nd4 15. Ne3 Ba6 16. c4 dxc4

[Fritz gives 16… Nb3 17. cxd5 Nxa1 18. Qxa1 exd5 19. Nxd5 Bxd3 20. e6 Nf6 21. Nxe7+ Qxe7 22. Ne5 Bg6 23. Nc6 Qb7 24. Bd6]

  17. Nxd4]

15. Ne3 Ba6 16. Bh3 d4

 

t+-D-Tj+
+-+sLxXx
l+-+x+-+
S-X-P-+-
x+-X-B-P
P-+pNnPb
-+p+-P-+
R-+qR-K-

Which way should White jump?

17. Nf1 Nb6 18. Ng5 Nd5

  White’s Queen has access to h5, which makes Black decide to concede B for N. This leaves White with the idea of assaulting the dark squares.

19. Bd2 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qd7 21. Qh5 Rfc8 22. Nd2 Nc3

 

t+t+-+j+
+-+d+xXx
l+-+x+-+
S-X-P-Bq
x+-X-+-P
P-Sp+-Pb
-+pN-P-+
R-+-R-K-

23. Bf6 Qe8

  [23… gxf6 24. exf6 Kh8]

24. Ne4 g6 25. Qg5 Nxe4 26. Rxe4

 

t+t+d+j+
+-+-+x+x
l+-+xBx+
S-X-P-Q-
x+-Xr+-P
P-+p+-Pb
-+p+-P-+
R-+-+-K-

They think it’s all over…

26… c4 27. h5 cxd3 28. Rh4 Ra7 29. Bg2 dxc2 30. Qh6 Qf8 31. Qxh7+ 1-0 …it is now.

 

Psakhis – Kasparov (La Manga) 1990

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 d6 5. Nf3 e5 6. d3 f5 7. O-O Nf6 8. Rb1 h6

 

t+lDj+-T
XxX-+-L-
-+sX-SxX
+-+-Xx+-
-+p+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
pP-+pPbP
+rBq+rK-

The mutual control of d4/d5 means that although the central pawns are not locked, the centre is likely to remain closed. So we have a battle on each wing.

9. b4 O-O 10. b5 Ne7 11. a4 Be6 12. Ba3 Rc8 13. Nd2 b6

 

-+tD-Tj+
X-X-S-L-
-X-XlSxX
+p+-Xx+-
p+p+-+-+
B-Np+-P-
-+-NpPbP
+r+q+rK-

Again, a prudent measure. White will have to re-arrange to get in a5, so changes tack

14. e3 g5 15. d4 exd4 16. exd4 f4 17. Re1 Bg4 18. Nf3 Qd7 19. c5 Rce8 20. Rc1 Nf5 21. Qd3 Kh8 22. cxd6 cxd6 23. Rxe8 Qxe8 24. Rf1 Qh5

 

-+-+-T-J
X-+-+-L-
-X-X-S-X
+p+-+sXd
p+-P-Xl+
B-Nq+nP-
-+-+-PbP
+-+-+rK-

There is a dark storm cloud over White’s King.

25. Ne4 Nxe4 26. Qxe4 Bh3 27. Ne5 Bxg2 28. Kxg2 g4 29. Bxd6 Rf6 30. Bb8

Qh3+ 0-1

 

Rogers,I – Carton,N [A26] London

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2 Nc6 7. d3 O-O 8. O-O

  This is an interesting formation, kin to the Closed Sicilian. White clamps the centre shut and goes creeping up on the King’s-side. Black’s prospects of successful Queen-side counterplay are less than in the Closed Sicilian because of the pawn on c4. Here Black decides to slug it out toe to toe on the King’s-side, but in this game White’s initiative prevails.

8… Nh5 9. f4 f5

 

t+lD-Tj+
XxX-+-Lx
-+sX-+x+
+-+-Xx+s
-+p+pP-+
+-Np+-P-
pP-+n+bP
R-Bq+rK-

10. Be3 Be6 11. Nd5 Qd7 12. Qd2 Rae8 13. Rae1 Nf6 14. Kh1 Rf7 15. b3 fxe4 16. dxe4 Bh3 17. Nxf6+ Rxf6 18. Nc3 exf4 19. gxf4 Bxg2+ 20. Qxg2 Rfe6 21. Bd2 Nd4 22. Rd1 b5 23. f5

 

-+-+t+j+
X-Xd+-Lx
-+-Xt+x+
+x+-+p+-
-+pSp+-+
+pN-+-+-
p+-B-+qP
+-+r+r+k

1-0

The Queen’s-side Attack

Posted on by

Pawn Majorities, Pawn Rollers,
blockade and restraint

I will give several illlustrative games here – fairly
straightforward games from Capablanca, Alekhin, Korchnoi and
Karpov showing pawns mobile and dangerous, and the others (e.g.
Nimzovitch’s) showing them stuck and vulnerable.

“The most important feature of the chess position
is the activity of the pieces. This is absolutely fundamental in
all phases of the game (opening, middlegame and
especially endgame). The primary constraint on a
piece’s activity is the Pawn structure.“

— Michael STEAN, in Simple Chess.

Pawn
majorities

If you have a pawn majority – say, three pawns to your opponent’s
two on one side of the board – you should be able to create a
passed pawn. By advancing the pawn, you should be able to create
enough pressure to win. Steinitz was the first great exploiter of
pawn majorities, particularly on the Queen’s side where they can
often advance without fear of exposing the king. Some people regard
the Queen’s side majority as an advantage in itself, but
realistically it depends on where and what the other pieces are.
Here’s how it’s done, by the man whose chess Lasker regarded as the
perfect expression of Steinitz’ theories. Capablanca makes it all
look so smooth:

marshall-capablanca, 1909

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Be6 7.Bg2 Be7
8.O-O Nf6 9.Bg5 Ne4 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Ne5 Nxd4 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.e3
Nf3+ 14.Nxf3 exf3 15.Qxf3 O-O 16.Rfc1

 

t+-+-Tj+
Xx+-DxXx
-+-+l+-+
+-X-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-PqP-
pP-+-PbP
R-R-+-K-

“He should have advanced his K-side pawns at once to
counterbalance the advance of Black on the Q-side. White’s
inactivity on his stronger wing took away all the chances he had of
drawing the game.” CAPABLANCA

  16…Rab8 17.Qe4 Qc7 18.Rc3 b5 19.a3 c4 20.Bf3 Rfd8
21.Rd1 Rxd1+ 22.Bxd1 Rd8 23.Bf3 g6 24.Qc6 Qe5 25.Qe4 Qxe4 26.Bxe4
Rd1+ {!} 27.Kg2 a5 28.Rc2 b4 29.axb4 axb4 30.Bf3 Rb1 31.Be2 b3
32.Rd2 Rc1 33.Bd1 c3 34.bxc3 b2 35.Rxb2 Rxd1 36.Rc2 Bf5 37.Rb2 Rc1
38.Rb3 Be4+ 39.Kh3 Rc2 40.f4 h5 41.g4 hxg4+ 42.Kxg4 Rxh2 43.Rb4 f5+
44.Kg3 Re2 45.Rc4 Rxe3+ 46.Kh4 Kg7 47.Rc7+ Kf6 48.Rd7 Bg2 49.Rd6+
Kg7 0-1

 

Now, that’s not all there is to be said. At risk of putting poor
Frank Marshall in the stocks again, here is Alekhin showing how to
play when you have a King’s side majority, and using it for attack.

 

[event “?”][site “?”][date “1993.??.??”][round “?”]

[white “Alekhin, alexander”][black “marshall,
frank”][result “1-0”]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 {?!}
(hasty)4…Nf6 5.Bd3 e5 {!} 6.dxe5 Ng4 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bg5 {!}
8…Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nc3 Ncxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 {?} 12.h3 Nf6 13.Qd2
{!} 13…Bd7 14.Qe3 {!]

t+-+j+-T
XxXl+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+-+-D-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-NbQ-+p
pP-+-Pp+
R-+-K-+r

(stops 0-0-0) 14…Bc6 15.O-O-O O-O 16.f4 Qe6 17.e5 Rfe8
18.Rhe1 Rad8 {?!] (better …Nd7) 19.f5 Qe7 20.Qg5
Nd5 21.f6 Qf8 22.Bc4 {!} 22…Nxc3 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.fxg7 {!}
24…Nxa2+ 25.Kb1 {!} 25…Qe8 26.e6 {!} 26…Be4+ 27.Ka1 f5 28.e7+
Rd5 29.Qf6 Qf7 30.e8=Q+ 1-0

Pawn
mobility

A group of pawns that isn’t a majority but has the potential to
advance is sometime called a qualitative majority,
that is, is has the quality if not the substance of a majority.
Some games seem to illustrate how the whole pawn front of one side
can act as a majority.

 

[event “pawn mobility?”][site “”][date “1963.??.??”][round “?”]

[white “korchnoi”][black “szabo”][result “1-0”]

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bc5 4.Bg2 O-O 5.e3 Re8 6.Nge2 Nc6 7.O-O d6
8.d4 Bb6 9.h3 Bf5 {?} 10.d5 Nb8 11.g4 Bd7 12.Ng3 h6 13.Kh2 a5 14.f4
exf4 15.exf4 Nh7

tS-Dt+j+
+xXl+xXs
-L-X-+-X
X-+p+-+-
-+p+-Pp+
+-N-+-Np
pP-+-+bK
R-Bq+r+-

16.g5 Na6 17.gxh6 Qh4 18.hxg7 Nf6 19.f5 Be3 20.Nce4 {!} 20…Nxe4
21.Nxe4 Bxc1 22.Rxc1 Nc5 23.Qg4 Rxe4 24.Bxe4 Qxg4 25.hxg4 Nxe4
26.Rce1 Nc5 27.f6 Re8 28.Rxe8+ Bxe8 29.Re1 Ba4 30.Re3 (threat Rh3)
1-0

This game made a very powerful impression on me as a young player –
for years I never put a piece in front of a pawn, and instead
developed as Korchnoi did. Here’s a direct parallel to the Szabo
debacle:

  [Event “?”][Site “Cambridge”][Date “1981.??.??”][Round
“?”]

[White “dodd, n.”][Black “regis.d”][Result
“0-1”]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 Bb7 6. Bf4 d6 7.
e3 Nd7 8. Nf3 Qe7 9. Be2 Ngf6 10. O-O Ne4 11. Bd3 O-O-O 12. Qc2 f5
13. h3 h6 14. Nd2 Nxd2 15. Qxd2 g5 16. Bg3 h5 17. f3 Rdg8 18. Kf2
g4 19. Bf4 gxh3 20. Rg1 e5 21. Bh2 hxg2 22. Bg3 h4 23. Bh2 e4 24.
fxe4 fxe4 25. Be2 h3 26. Ke1 Nf6 27. Kd1 Qd7 28. Kc1 Ba6 29. Kb2
Qa4 30. Bd1 Qxc4 31. Bb3 Qe2! 32. Qxe2 Bxe2 33. Bxg8 Rxg8 34. Bf4
Bf3 35. Rac1 Rh8 36. Bh2 Ng4 0-1

Here’s Karpov in the driving seat of a mean set of pawns: this is
the classic central pawn roller, often associated with Botvinnik.

[karpov-miles]

1 c4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.d5 e6 4.a3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bd6 6.Nf3 exd5 7.cxd5 O-O
8.Bg5 Re8 9.e3 Be7 {!?} 10.Bc4 {!} 10…h6 11.Bf4 Nh5 12.Be5 Bf6
13.Bd4 Ba6 14.Bxa6 Nxa6 15.O-O c5 16.Bxf6 Nxf6 17.Qd3 Qc8 18.Nd2 d6
19.Nc4 Rd8 20.e4 Nc7 21.b4 Na6 22.b5 Nc7 23.a4 Qd7 24.f4 Re8
25.Rad1 Rad8 26.h3 Qe7

  The pawn formation is like a Benoni, without a shred of
counterplay for Black. In the Benoni Black can usually get the
Q-side majority going if there are no tactical chances on the
K-side.

 

-+-Tt+j+
X-S-DxX-
-X-X-S-X
+pXp+-+-
p+n+pP-+
+-Nq+-+p
-+-+-+p+
+-+r+rK-

27.e5 dxe5 28.d6 Qf8 29.fxe5 Nh7 30.Qf3 Ne6 31.Qb7 Ra8 32.Nd5 g6
33.Ne7+ Kg7 34.Nc6 1-0

Immobile pawns

The Nimzo-Indian is named for its founder, Aaron Nimzovitch. His
idea was to play the move …Bb4, usually following up with
…Bxc3, bxc3 when White has doubled pawns. The front c-pawn may be
attacked, and if White cannot generate some activity elsewhere
risks having the whole position grind to a halt. Against
unsuspecting opposition Nimzovitch made his ‘defence’ look more
like an ‘attack’!

[White “mattison”][Black “nimzovich”][Site
“carlsbad”][Date “1929.??.??”][Result “0-1”]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6. Qc2 Qe7 7.
Ba3 c5 8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Bb7 10. O-O O-O 11. Nh4 Bxg2 12. Kxg2 Qb7+
13. Kg1 Qa6 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Rfd1 Na5

t+-+-Tj+
X-+-+xXx
dX-XxS-+
S-X-+-+-
-+pP-+-N
BqP-+-P-
p+-+pP-P
R-+r+-K-

16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 The doubled pawn have gone but the weaknesses
remain.

  17…Nc4 18. Bc1 a6 19. bxa6 Rxa6 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Ng2
Nd5 22. Rd3 Rfa8 23. e4 Ne5 0-1

Against more aware opponents you won’t find it so easy. While
you’re busy winning the c-pawn White can create attacking chances
with the two bishops on the other side.

 

[Event “?”][Site “budapest ct”][Date “1950.??.??”][Round “??”]

[White “bronstein, David”][Black “najdorf, M.”][Result
“1-0”]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 c5 6. e3 Nc6 7.
Bd3 O-O 8.Ne2 d6 9. e4 Ne8 10. O-O b6 11. f4 Ba6

t+-DsTj+
X-+-+xXx
lXsXx+-+
+-X-+-+-
-+pPpP-+
P-Pb+-+-
-+-+n+pP
R-Bq+rK-

12. f5 e5 13. f6 Kh8 14. d5 Na5 15. Ng3 gxf6 16. Nf5 Bc8 17. Qh5
Bxf5 18. exf5 Rg8 19. Rf3 Rg7 20. Bh6 Rg8 21. Rh3 1-0

Let’s see these two plans in opposition, by two opponents who know
each what they’re doing, and more to the point, what the other is
trying to do. Spassky-Fischer illustrates a popular modern line,
popularised by Hubner. Black reverts to the original Nimzo formula,
refraining from early castling but investing the tempo in …Bxc3.
White then strikes back with an advance of the e- and f-pawns. The
game is decided strategically when Black immobilises the K-side
pawns, making weak points of his own but in a position where White
cannot attack them and can only sit tight. In the event, White
blunders on #27.

[Event “?”][Site “rekjavic world ch”][Date “1972.??.??”][Round “?”]

[White “spassky, b.”][Black “fischer, rj”][Result
“0-1”]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Bd3 Bxc3+ 7.
bxc3 d6 8. e4 e5 9. d5 Ne7

t+lDj+-T
Xx+-SxXx
-+-X-S-+
+-XpX-+-
-+p+p+-+
+-Pb+n+-
p+-+-PpP
R-BqK-+r

10. Nh4 h6 11. f4 Ng6 12. Nxg6 fxg6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Be3 b6 15.
O-O O-O 16. a4 a5

t+lD-Tj+
+-+-+-X-
-X-+-SxX
X-XpX-+-
p+p+p+-+
+-PbB-+-
-+-+-+pP
R-+q+rK-

Another Black weakness but the last opportunity for White to
develop any activity. 17. Rb1 Bd7 18. Rb2 Rb8 19. Rbf2 Qe7 20. Bc2
g5 21. Bd2 Qe8 22. Be1 Qg6 23. Qd3 Nh5 24. Rxf8+ Rxf8 25. Rxf8+
Kxf8 26. Bd1 Nf4

-+-+-J-+
+-+l+-X-
-X-+-+dX
X-XpX-X-
p+p+pS-+
+-Pq+-+-
-+-+-+pP
+-+bB-K-

27. Qc2 Bxa4 0-1

In fact modern GM games often don’t feature the classic doubled
c-pawns, or White may quickly undouble them. The play in the main
lines is rich and subtle – in fact, it is the Queen’s-side
equivalent of the Ruy Lopez in terms of its depth and variety of
plans available to each side. Typical main lines are 1 d4 Nf6, 2 c4
e6, 3 Nc3 Bb4, 4 e3 c5, 5 Bd3 d5, 6 Nf3 O-O, 7 O-O Nc6, 8 a3 Bxc3,
9 bxc3 dxc4, 10 Bxc4 Qc7 when White’s pawns are OK but …e5 and
…Bd7-c6 leaves Black solid, or an even more solid approach 1 d4
Nf6, 2 c4 e6, 3 Nc3 Bb4, 4 e3 b6, 5 Bd3 Bb7, 6 Nf3 O-O, 7 O-O d5, 8
a3 Bd6. Here’s a game illustrating modern trends.

  The game shows White using a move order which avoids Nf3
to allow f3/e4, to which Black responds by making a run with the
e-pawn to slow up White in the centre. The general tension around
the mobility of White’s pawns has thus given rise to vigorous plans
from both sides. Black grabs the c-pawn, and in successfully
defending against White’s initiative returns the material with
minor disadvantage. Determined play with White increasingly
frutsrated brings the game right round for a Black victory in the
endgame.

[event “riga ch-su”][site “?”][date “1958.??.??”][round “?”]

[white “spassky”][black “tal, mikhail n.”][result
“0-1”]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 c5 6. e3 Nc6 7.
Bd3 e5

t+lDj+-T
Xx+x+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-X-X-+-
-+pP-+-+
P-PbP-+-
-+-+-PpP
R-BqK-Nr

8. Ne2 e4 9. Bb1 b6 10. Ng3 Ba6 11. f3 Bxc4 12. Nf5 O-O 13. Nd6 Bd3
14. Bxd3 exd3 15. Qxd3 cxd4 16. cxd4 Ne8

t+-DsTj+
X-+x+xXx
-XsN-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-P-+-+
P-+qPp+-
-+-+-+pP
R-B-K-+r

17. Nf5 d5 18. a4 Nd6 19. Nxd6 Qxd6 20. Ba3 Nb4 21. Qb3 a5 22. O-O
Rfc8 23. Rac1 Qe6 24. Bxb4 axb4 25. Kf2 Qd6 26. h3 Kf8 27. Rc2
Rxc2+ 28. Qxc2 g6 29. Rc1 Qd7 30. Qc6 Qxc6 31. Rxc6 Ra6 32. a5 b3
33. axb6 b2 34. b7 b1=Q 35. Rc8+ Kg7 36. b8=Q Ra2+ 37. Kg3 Qe1+ 38.
Kh2 Qxe3 39. Rg8+ Kf6 40. Qd6+ Qe6 41. Qf4+ Qf5 42. Qd6+ Qe6 43.
Qg3 Qe3 44. h4 Re2 45. Qd6+ Qe6 46. Qf4+ Qf5 47. Qh6 Ke7 48. Qf8+
Kf6 49. Qg7+ Ke7 50. Ra8 Qd7 51. Qf8+ Kf6 52. Ra6+ Re6 53. Qh8+ Ke7
54. Ra8 Re1 55. Kg3 h5 56. Kf2 Re6 57. Rc8 Rd6 58. Qf8+ Kf6 59. Re8
Re6 60. Qh8+ Kf5 61. Qh6 Kf6 62. Qh8+ Kf5 63. Rd8 Qc6 64. Rc8 Qa6
65. Kg3 Qd6+ 66. Kh3 Re1 67. g3 Rg1 68. f4 Re1 69. Rc2 Qe6 70. Rf2
Rh1+ 71. Kg2 Qe4+ 72. Rf3 Kg4 73. Qc8+ f5 0-1

Last two doubled pawn games: one from me, about a month after
reading Nimzo’s My System, the second a classic
blockading game from that book by the man himself. Once I’d read
about doubled pawns and outposts, I could suddenly beat 120+ grade
players without doing more than applying the rules in positions
that I understood and my opponents didn’t.

[Event “march vs st.neots ‘b’,1978”][White “pope, m.
“][Black “regis, d”]

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. e3 Bb4 4. a3?! Unnecessary, particularly
since Black has a good central stake.

  4…Bxc3 5. bxc3 d6 6. d4 Nf6 7. d5? A reflex move, but
creates horrid weaknesses.

  7…Nb8 8. f3 Nbd7 9. Bd3 b6 10. Qc2 Nc5 11. Ne2 Nxd3+
12. Qxd3 Qe7 13. e4 Nd7 14. O-O Nc5 15. Qc2 Ba6 That’s about it.
Black will win a pawn and White hasn’t any counterplay organised in
the centre or K-side. In fact, …f5 looks good for Black. 16. Be3
Bxc4 17. Bxc5 Bxe2 18. Qxe2 dxc5 19. Qb5+? Qd7 20. Qxd7+ Kxd7 21.
c4 a6 22. a4 Rad8 23. f4? Another weakness appears on e4. 23…exf4
24. Rxf4 f6 25. Raf1 Rde8 26. h4 Re5 27. Kf2 Rhe8 28. Kf3 c6
{Clocks: 60,15} 29. Rd1 cxd5 30. Rxd5+ Rxd5 31. exd5 Re1 32. Re4
Ra1 33. Re6 Rxa4 34. Rxb6 Rxc4 35. Rxa6 Rxh4 36. Ra7+ Kd6 37. Rxg7
Kxd5 38. g3 Rh1 39. Kg4 c4 40. Rf7 c3 41. Rc7 Kd4 42. Rd7+ Ke3 43.
Rc7 Kd2 44. Rd7+ Kc2 45. Rd6 Rd1 46. Rxf6 Rd4+ 47. Kh3 Kc1 48. Ra6
c2 0-1

[johner-nimzovich]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.O-O Bxc3
8.bxc3 d6 9.Nd2 b6 10.Nb3 e5 11.f4 e4 12.Be2 Qd7!?

 

t+l+-Tj+
X-+d+xXx
-XsX-S-+
+-X-+-+-
-+pPxP-+
+nP-P-+-
p+-+b+pP
R-Bq+rK-

Here’s the tricky bit, a mysterious Queen move. White’s natural
plan is to play g4. White wouldn’t dare if there was a Black rook
on the h-file. There isn’t, but Black moves his Queen(!) to h7,
slowing up White’s plan until Black takes the initiative on that
wing for himself.

  13.h3 Ne7 14.Qe1 h5 15.Bd 2 Qf5 16.Kh2 Qh7!? Told you.
17.a4 Nf5 18.g3 a5 19.Rg1 Nh6 20.Bf1 Bd7 21.Bc1 Rac8 22.d5 Kh8
23.Nd2 Rg8 24.Bg2 g5 25.Nf1 Rg7 26.Ra2 Nf5 27.Bh1 Rcg8

-+-+-+tJ
+-+-+xTd
lX-X-S-+
X-Xp+s+x
p+p+xP-+
+qP-+-Pp
r+-+-+-K
+-B-+nRb

White’s #28

  28.Qd1 gxf4 29.exf4 Bc8 30.Qb3 Ba6 31.Re2 Nh4 32.Re3 Bc8
33.Qc2 Bxh3 34.Bxe4 Bf5 35.Bxf5 Nxf5 36.Re2 h4 37.Rgg2 hxg3+ 38.Kg1
Qh3 39.Ne3 Nh4 40.Kf1 Re8 0-1

Three opening themes that are all about pawns

1. Let’s look at majorities first. Lasker and
Fischer have both employed the apparently tame Exchange Variation
of the Ruy Lopez. 1 e4 e5, 2 Nf3 Nc6, 3 Bb5 a6, 4 Bxc6. Black
replies 4…dxc6 so as to be able to answer 5 Nxe5 with 5…Qd5!
Instead White goes 5 d4 exd4, 6 Qxd4 Qxd4, 7 Nxd4. White has a
clear Q-side pawn majority, but Black has no corresponding way to
make a passed pawn on the other side. Black isn’t lost in this
position – it’s not so much an ending as a queenless middle-game,
and Black can put the bishop pair to active use. But White’s
advantages in the position are easy to understand and make use of.
There is a comparable line of the Caro-Kann: 1 e4 c6, 2 d4 d5, 3
Nc3 dxe4, 4 Nxe4 Nf6, 5 Nxf6 exf6 (?!), where Black has only a
defensive slog to look forward to.

  2. Now let’s look at a line where
mobility is the theme. Here’s a line of the King’s
Indian in the Four Pawns variation. 1 d4 Nf6, 2 c4 g6, 3 Nc3 Bg7, 4
e4 d6, 5 f4 O-O, 6 Nf3 c5, 7 d5 e6, 8 Be2 exd5, 9 exd5. Now here
Spassky devised a plan to rob the White position of its potential.
9…Nh4! 10 O-O Bxc3! 11 bxc3 f5! 12 Ng5 Ng7. Black has effectively
restrained White on both sides, at cost of the bishop pair, and a
weakness on e6. In this blocked position the bishop pair is of no
account and the last move adequately defends e6. Chances are
equal.

  3. There are many lines where the key pawn feature is the
isolated Queen’s pawn (IQP). For example:

  QGA: 1 d4 d5, 2 c4 dxc4, 3 Nf3 Nf6, 4 e3 e6, 5 Bxc4 c5, 6
O-O cxd4 7 exd4 and White has the IQP

  QGD Tarrasch: 1 d4 d5, 2 c4 e6, 3 Nc3 c5, 4 cxd5 exd5, 5
Nf3 Nf6 and a later dxc5, Bxc5 gives Black an IQP

  French Tarrasch: 1 e4 e6, 2 d4 d5, 3 Nd2 c5, 4 exd5 exd5
and a later dxc5, Bxc5 again gives Black an IQP

  Typical manoeuvring against the IQP involves posting a
knight on the outpost in front of it; the side with the IQP will
usually try to make use of any space or attacking chances rather
than defend passively. Two examples, decades apart:

 

[Event “wch”][Site “USA”][Date “1886.??.??”][Round “9”]

  [White “zukertort”][Black “steinitz (IQP)”][Result
“0-1”]

  1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. e3 c5 6. Bxc4
cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Qe2 Nbd7 10. Bb3 Nb6 11. Bf4 Nbd5
…etc., or

 

[Event “ct final”][Site “moscow “][Date “1974.??.??”][Round “16
(part – IQP)”]

  [White “karpov”][Black “korchnoi “][Result “Q-Q”]

  1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Ngf3 Nc6 6.
Bb5 Bd6 7. O-O cxd4 8. Nb3 Nge7 9. Nbxd4 O-O 10. c3 Bg4 11. Qa4 Qd7
…etc.

4.6.3.4 The minority attack (Tough stuff-level K players
only).

BCF Certificate of Merit

Class 4 (Advanced)

BCF Certificate of Merit

Class 3 (Higher)

  This, if you like, is the opposite of a majority attack.
In positions with no open file separating the two sides of the
board (for example after 1 d4, d5; 2 c4, e6; 3 cxd5,
exd5), the side with the majority on one side cannot
advance the pawns to create a guaranteed passed pawn. The best that
can be achieved may be some open files, but the single extra pawn
may be left as a backward pawn on a half-open file. Now, if this is
true, it may be possible for the side with the minority to advance
their pawns with the hope of creating this very weakness, or some
other weak point. This is the minority attack. So, in these
positions with only half-open files, we often see each side
attacking on the side where they are supposed to be weaker – where
they have the minority – and remaining passive on the majority
side. Let’s see this in action: play over the games fairly quickly
to get a ‘feel’ for the flow of the games.

 

evans – opsahl (CHERNEV) [D51]

  minority attack in the QGD exchange, 1950

  1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Qc2
O-O 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Nf3 c6 9. Bd3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. Rab1 Ne4 12.
Bxe7 Qxe7

 

t+l+tSj+
Xx+-DxXx
-+x+-+-+
+-+x+-+-
-+-Ps+-+
+-NbPn+-
pPq+-PpP
+r+-+rK-

The classic setting for the minority attack. 13. b4 a6 14. a4 Nxc3
15. Qxc3 Bg4 16. Nd2 Qg5 17. Rfc1 Re6

 

t+-+-Sj+
+x+-+xXx
x+x+t+-+
+-+x+-D-
pP-P-+l+
+-QbP-+-
-+-N-PpP
+rR-+-K-

Drumming up some King’s-side counterplay. 18. b5 ! 18… axb5 19.
axb5 Bh3 20. g3 Rae8 21. bxc6 bxc6 22. Bf1 ! 22… Bxf1 23. Nxf1
Ng6 24. Rb6

 

-+-+t+j+
+-+-+xXx
-Rx+t+s+
+-+x+-D-
-+-P-+-+
+-Q-P-P-
-+-+-P-P
+-R-+nK-

A critical moment – if Black has to go back now he is really up
against the ropes. 24… Ne7 [24… Nh4 25. Rxc6 The Rook on c6
stops the Black Rook on e6 joining the attack. I think the White
King is safe here. 25… Nf3+ 26. Kh1 h5 27. Qb3 [27. Qd3]] 25. Qb4
h5 26. Rb8 Rxb8 27. Qxb8+ Kh7 28. Qf4 ! 28… Qxf4 29. gxf4
[The h-pawn cannot really be attacked, and with Queens
off White can use the King] 29… g6 30. Nd2 Rd6 31.
Kf1 Kg7 32. Ra1 Rd7 33. Nb3 Rb7 34. Nc5 Rb2 35. Ra7 Kf6 36. Ra6
Rb1+ 37. Kg2 Rb2 38. Ra7 Rb1 39. Rc7 Ra1 40. Nd3 Ke6 41. Nc5+ Kf6
42. Nd7+ Ke6 43. Nf8+ Kf6 44. Nh7+ Ke6 45. Ng5+ Kd6 46. Rb7

 

-+-+-+-+
+r+-Sx+-
-+xJ-+x+
+-+x+-Nx
-+-P-P-+
+-+-P-+-
-+-+-PkP
T-+-+-+-

46… f6 ? [46… f5] 47. Nh7 Ke6 48. Nf8+ Very neat 48… Kf7
[48… Kd6 49. Rd7#] 49. Nxg6 Kxg6 50. Rxe7 White has a pawn and
hopes of collecting more. 50… Kf5 51. Rc7

 

-+-+-+-+
+-R-+-+-
-+x+-X-+
+-+x+j+x
-+-P-P-+
+-+-P-+-
-+-+-PkP
T-+-+-+-

51… Rc1 52. Rc8 Kg6 53. Kg3 Rc2 54. h4 Kf5 55. Rh8 Kg6 56. f5+
Kxf5 57. Rxh5+ Now White has a passed pawn. 57… Kg6 58. Rh8 Kf5
59. Rg8 Rc1 60. Kg2 Ra1 61. h5 Ra7 62. Rg3 Rh7 63. Rh3 Kg5 64. Kf3
Offering to trade the pawn for a winning King raid. 64… Rh6 65.
Rh1 Kf5 66. Kg3 Kg5 67. Rh4 Kf5 68. Rf4+ Kg5

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+x+-X-T
+-+x+-Jp
-+-P-R-+
+-+-P-K-
-+-+-P-+
+-+-+-+-

69. Rg4+ ! Again offering the pawn, but again Black dare not
accept. 69… Kf5 [69… Kxh5 is rather like the game continuation:
70. Rh4+ Kg5 71. Rxh6 Kxh6 72. Kf4 Kg6 73. f3 Kg7 74. Kf5 Kf7 75.
f4 Ke7 76. Kg6 Ke6 77. f5+ Ke7 78. Kg7] 70. Kh4 Rh8 71. Rg7 Ra8 72.
h6 Ra1 73. Rg3 Rh1+ 74. Rh3 Rg1 75. Rf3+ Kg6 76. Rg3+

  The winning clearance 76… Rxg3 77. Kxg3 Kxh6 78. Kg4
Kg6 79. Kf4 Kg7 80. Kf5 Kf7 81. f3 1-0

vogt – andersson (STEAN) [B84]

  minority attack in the Sicilian, 1996

  1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 This is nearly
always Black’s fourth move in the Sicilian, to force the N on b1 in
front of the c-pawn. Left alone, White may play c2-c4, stopping
counterplay with d7-d5 or b7-b5, and removing danger on the c-file.
5. Nc3 e6 6. Be2 a6 7. f4 Qc7 8. O-O Be7 9. Kh1 Nc6 10. Be3 Nxd4
11. Qxd4 O-O 12. Rad1 b5 Already making use of the minority. The
move b7-b5 is sometimes a way of threatening the e-pawn, but more
often keeps the c-pawn backward on an open file. 13. e5 !? 13…
dxe5 14. Qxe5 Qb8 ! 15. Qxb8 Rxb8 16. Ba7 Ra8 17. Bb6 Bb7 18. a3
Rfc8

 

t+t+-+j+
+l+-LxXx
xB-+xS-+
+x+-+-+-
-+-+-P-+
P-N-+-+-
-Pp+b+pP
+-+r+r+k

! Chess magazines are full of quick White kills against the
Sicilian. Why do players bother with it, then? Because the longer
games where the attack founders and Black wins the endgame are too
long for magazines. Watch… 19. Ba5 g6 20. h3 ? 20… h5 21. Bf3
Bxf3 22. Rxf3 h4

 

t+t+-+j+
+-+-Lx+-
x+-+xSx+
Bx+-+-+-
-+-+-P-X
P-N-+r+p
-Pp+-+p+
+-+r+-+k

Now White has a weakness on g2 as well as c2. 23. Rd2 Rc4 24. b3
Rc6 25. a4 b4 26. Ne2 Rac8 27. c4 bxc3 28. Rxc3 The weakness has
been replaced by one on b3. 28… Nd5 29. Rxc6 Rxc6 30. Rb2 Bf6 31.
Ra2 Rc8 32. Bd2 [32. b4 Rb8] 32… Rb8 33. Nc1 Nb4 34. Bxb4 Rxb4
35. Rf2 The risks of the h2-h3 move is now clear. 35… Be7 36. Rf3

 

-+-+-+j+
+-+-Lx+-
x+-+x+x+
+-+-+-+-
pT-+-P-X
+p+-+r+p
-+-+-+p+
+-N-+-+k

36… Bd6 37. Ne2 Re4 38. Rd3 [38. Rf2 Bc5] 38… Bc5 39. Rc3 Bf2
40. Rc2 Kg7 41. Ng1 Rxf4 ….0-1 vogt-andersson 1978

In both games we saw that the end result of the minority attack was
pawn weaknesses. Once these appear, you can carry on as we’ve
already seen in section 4.3.2.1. This may go some way to explaining
(a) why such an apparently helpful exchange is so often made by
White in the Queen’s Gambit, and (b) why the half-open defences
such as the Sicilian are so popular.

Attacking the castled King

Posted on by

eighth rank
seventh rank
-------------------
|r))))Tj+|Explosions
on
|R))))xXx|f7,g7 and h7; and
|-+-+****|on e6,f6,g6 andh6
|+-+/NnNq|Knights on
e5, f5 or g5
|-+b//||||
|+///+||||f-file
|///+-||||g-file
|Bb+-+rRr|h-file
-------------------
Italian diagonal
Long diagonal
‘Classic’ diagonal

Here’s a selection of basic attacking ideas for attacking the King
castled King’s-side; the Queen’s-side stuff at the end needs
attention. These are the building blocks from which winning attacks
are made; examples from actual play are given below. Unless you are
playing a particularly unalert opponent, one idea alone will not be
forceful enough to win: rather, each decisive idea is usually
accompanied by a “supporting cast” of other features of the
position.

The toolkit

Rook on eighth rank

Example: Nielsen – Bohm,Hans [C52] cr,
1979

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 d6
7.Qb3 Qd7 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.0-0 9…Bb6 10.Rd1 Qe7 11.a4 a6 12.Ba3 Qf6
13.a5 Ba7 14.Bd5 Nge7 15.Ra2 0-0 16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Rad2 Rb8

-------------------
|-rb+-rk+|
|b-p-nppp|
|p+p+-q-+|
|P-+-p-+-|
|-+-+P+-+|
|BQP-+N+-|
|-+-R-PPP|
|+N+R+-K-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Bishop on a3-f8

18.Rd8 Bg4 19.Qxb8 1-0

 

  Perhaps its most common setting is in the late
middle-game or ending:

Example: Regis-Springall, Paignton
1996

-------------------
|-+-r-+k+|
|+pp-+ppp|
|-+-+-q-+|
|+Q+-+-+-|
|-+-+-+-P|
|P-+-+-+-|
|-PP+-PP+|
|+-+-R-K-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Queen with access to
e8

26…b6?? 27 Qe8+

 

Rook on seventh rank

Example: Bastian,Herbert – Eng,Holger [C54]
Bad Neuenahr ch-DE (10), 1984

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+
7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Nce7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfe1
Nb6 13.Bd3 Bf5 14.Rxe7 Bxd3 15.Rae1 Bg6 16.Nh4 Nc8 17.Nxg6 hxg6
18.R7e5 Qxd4 19.Nf3 Qd7 20.Ng5 Nd6 21. Qb4

 

-------------------
|r+-+-rk+|
|pppq+pp-|
|-+-n-+p+|
|+-+-R-N-|
|-Q-+-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|PP-+-PPP|
|+-+-R-K-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Knight on g5

21….f6 22.Re7 Qb5 23.Rxg7+ Kxg7 24.Re7+ Rf7
[24…Kg8 25. Qh4+-] 25.Rxf7+ Nxf7 26.Ne6+ 1-0

 

Italian diagonal

This is surely the most basic attacking theme and is present
throughout the examples below. I give two more direct exmaples:

Example: Schiffers – Harmonist [C55]
Franfurt, 1887

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+
7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Nce7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfe1
c6 13.a4 Qc7 14.Rac1 Nf4 [14…Qf4] 15.Ng5
Neg6

 

-------------------
|r+b+-rk+|
|ppq-+ppp|
|-+p+-+n+|
|+-+-+-N-|
|P+BP-n-+|
|+Q+-+-+-|
|-P-N-PPP|
|+-R-R-K-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Knight on g5, Rook on
eighth rank(!)

16.Re8 Rxe8 17.Bxf7+ Kh8 18.Bxe8 Ne2+ 19.Kh1 Nxc1 20.Nf7+
Kg8 21.Nh6+ Kf8 22.Qg8+ Ke7 23.Bxg6 hxg6 [23…gxh6
24.Qf7+ Kd6 25.Ne4#] 24.Qxg7+ Kd8 25.Qf8+ Kd7 26.Ne4 Qd8
27.Qd6+ Ke8 28.Nf6+ 1-0

 

Example: euwe – thomas [D69] (EUWE),
1934

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7
7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0-0 Nxc3
12.Rxc3 Black now plays the final part of Capablanca’s
freeing manoeuvre. 12…e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 15.f4
Qe7 White has a temporary advantage in development, which
is particularly clear in the positions of the Bishops. If White
does not sieze the moment, the advantage will vanish, and Black’s
last move gives White the chance he needs.

 

-------------------
|r+b+-rk+|
|pp+-qppp|
|-+p+-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+B+-P-+|
|+-R-P-+-|
|PP-+-+PP|
|+-+Q+RK-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Rooks on f- and
c-files

16.f5 b5 17.Bb3 b4 18.f6 gxf6 19.Rxc6 Qxe3+ 20.Kh1

  Now White can count up several advantages – good Bb3,
good Rooks, exposed enemy King. Black may still organise a defence,
given time. 20…Bb7 Now each Bishop looks good,
but the other advantages have yet to be neutralised. [20…Be6
costs a pawn: 21.Bxe6 fxe6 22.Qg4+ Qg5 (22…Kh8 23.Rc7) 23.Qxe6+
Kh8 24.Rxf6 Rg8 (24…Rfe8 25.Qf7) 25.Rf2; 20…f5 21.Qh5] 21.Rcxf6
Qe4 22.Qd2 Kh8 [22…Rad8 23.Qg5+ Kh8 24.Rxf7] 23.Bxf7
Rac8 [23…Rad8 with good drawing chances 24.Qg5 (24.Qf2
Qe7 25.Bb3 Rxf6 26.Qxf6+ Qxf6 27.Rxf6 Bd5) 24…Rg8 25.Bxg8 Rxg8
26.Rf8 Qxg2+ =] 24.R6f2 Rcd8 [24…Qg4]
25.Qg5 25…Rd6 [25…Qd4 26.Bd5 Qg7 (26…Rxf2
27.Qxd8+ Kg7 28.Qg5+ Kf8 29.Qg8+ Ke7 30.Re1+ Kd6 31.Bxb7) 27.Rxf8+
Rxf8 28.Rxf8+ Qxf8 29.Qe5+ Qg7 30.Qe8+] 26.Bd5 1-0
26…Rxf2 27.Qg8# 1-0

 

Long diagonal

Example: Fischer,Robert J – Andersson,Ulf
[A01] Siegen Exhibition Game, 1970

1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.c4 Nf6 4.e3 Be7 5.a3 0-0 6.Qc2 Re8 7.d3
Bf8 8.Nf3 a5 9.Be2 d5 10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.Nbd2 f6 12.0-0 Be6 13.Kh1 Qd7
14.Rg1 Rad8 15.Ne4 Qf7 16.g4 g6 17.Rg3 Bg7 18.Rag1 Nb6 19.Nc5 Bc8
20.Nh4 Nd7 21.Ne4 Nf8 22.Nf5 Be6 23.Nc5 Ne7 24.Nxg7 Kxg7

 

-------------------
|-+-rrn-+|
|+pp-nqkp|
|-+-+bpp+|
|p-N-p-+-|
|-+-+-+P+|
|PP+PP-R-|
|-BQ+BP-P|
|+-+-+-RK|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Rooks on g-file

25.g5 Nf5 26.Rf3 b6 27.gxf6+ Kh8 28.Nxe6 Rxe6 29.d4 exd4
30.Bc4 d3 31.Bxd3 Rxd3 32.Qxd3 Rd6 33.Qc4 Ne6 34.Be5 Rd8 35.h4 Nd6
36.Qg4 Nf8 37.h5 Ne8 38.e4 Rd2 39.Rh3 Kg8 40.hxg6 Nxg6 41.f4 Kf8
42.Qg5 Nd6 43.Bxd6+ 1-0

 

Classic diagonal

Example: Fischer,R – Benko,P [B09] USA-ch,
1963

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.f4 Nf6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Bd3 Bg4 7.h3
Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Nc6 9.Be3 e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.f5 gxf5 12.Qxf5 Nd4 13.Qf2
Ne8 14.0-0 Nd6 15.Qg3 Kh8 16.Qg4 c6 17.Qh5 Qe8 18.Bxd4
exd4

 

-------------------
|r+-+qr-k|
|pp+-+pbp|
|-+pn-+-+|
|+-+-+-+Q|
|-+-pP+-+|
|+-NB+-+P|
|PPP+-+P+|
|R-+-+RK-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Rook on f-file

19.Rf6 Kg8 20.e5 h6 21.Ne2 1-0

 

Open f-file

Example: Spielmann R – Tarrasch, S [C30]
Karlsbad, 1923

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3 Bg4 5. fxe5 dxe5 6. Qa4+
Bd7 7. Qc2 Nc6 8. b4 Bd6 9. Bc4 Nf6 10. d3 Ne7 11. O-O Ng6 12. Be3
b5 13. Bb3 a5 14. a3 axb4 15. cxb4 O-O 16. Nc3 c6 17. h3 Qe7 18.
Ne2 Bb8 19. Kh2 Ba7 20. Bg5 h6 21. Bxf6 Qxf6 22. Nfd4 Qd6 23. Nf5
Bxf5 24. Rxf5

 

-------------------
|r+-+-rk+|
|b-+-+pp-|
|-+pq-+np|
|+p+-pR+-|
|-P-+P+-+|
|PB+P+-+P|
|-+Q+N+PK|
|R-+-+-+-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Bishop on Italian
diagonal

24… Nf4 25. Rf1 g6 26. R1xf4 exf4 27. e5 Qe7 28. Rf6 Kg7
29. d4 Bxd4 30. Bxf7 Bxe5 31. Qxg6+ 1-0

 

Open g-file

Example: Tarrasch – von Scheve, Leipzig
[D37] 1894

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 Nbd7 7.h3
Ne4 Tarrasch says: White will now pull the d-pawn to e4,
attack it with f3, recapture with gxf3, attack down the g-file, and
win. 8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Nd2 Bb4 10.a3 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 0-0 12.Qc2
f5 13.Bd6 Re8 14.0-0-0 Nf6 15.Be5 Bd7 16.f3 exf3 17.gxf3 b5 18.Rg1
Rf8 19.Rd2 Rf7 20.Rdg2 All predictions fulfilled!

 

-------------------
|r+-q-+k+|
|p-+b+rpp|
|-+p+pn-+|
|+p+-Bp+-|
|-+PP-+-+|
|P-+-PP+P|
|-PQ+-+R+|
|+-K-+BR-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Queen on h-file

20…a5 21.Qf2 Ne8 22.Rg5 Qe7 23.Qh4 Nf6 24.Qh6 Ra7 25.Bd6
Qxd6 26.Rxg7+ Kf8 27.Rxh7+ Ke7 28.Rxf7+ Kxf7 29.Rg7+ Kf8 30.Qxf6+
1-0

 

Open h-file

Example: Alekhin – Van Mindeno, NLD [C62],
1938

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 exd4 5.Qxd4 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6
7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.h4 h6 White has an
advantage in space. The following Bishop offer is well known,
sacrificing a piece to open the h-file against the King.
11.Nd5 hxg5 12.Nxe7+ but that’s the mark of the
master: exchanging a defender of the King’s-side, when the
recapture hxg5 will remove the other12…Qxe7 13.hxg5 Nxe4
14.Rh5 Qe6 15.Rdh1 Threatening mate.
15…f5

 

-------------------
|r+-+-rk+|
|ppp-+-p-|
|-+bpq+-+|
|+-+-+pPR|
|-+-Qn+-+|
|+-+-+N+-|
|PPP+-PP+|
|+-K-+-+R|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Knight on e5, Pawn on
g5

how does White finish? The three pieces that can hit the f7 square
and threaten mate all seem stymied (g5-g6, Nf3-e5, Qd4-c4)…
16.Ne5 [16.g6 Qxg6 17.Qc4+ d5] 16…dxe5
17.g6 A marvelously energetic display.[17.g6 Qxg6 18.Qc4+]
1-0

 

Knight on e5

Example: Pillsbury,H – Winawer,S Budapest,
1896

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Bd6
7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 Nf6 11.Bc2 h6 12.Be3 Re8
13.Qd3 Qc7 14.c5 Bf8 15.Ne5

 

-------------------
|r+b+rbk+|
|ppq-+pp-|
|-+p+pn-p|
|+-P-N-+-|
|-+-P-+-+|
|+-+QB-+-|
|PPB+-PPP|
|R-+-+RK-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Queen and Bishops on
diagonals

15…Bxc5 16.Bxh6 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 gxh6 18.Qf4 Nd5 19.Qxh6 f6
20.f4 Re7 21.Ng6 1-0

“The master places a Knight on e5; mate follows by
itself” – TARTAKOWER

 

Knight on f5

Example: yates – rubinstein, budapest [C77]
1926

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Qe2 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5
7.c3 0-0 8.0-0 d6 I don’t know this line, but the active
…Bc5 looks inconsistent with this solid defensive move
9.Rd1 Qe7 [9…Bg4] 10.d4 Bb6 11.Bg5 Nd8
12.Nh4 So often the f5 square is the forward post for a
King’s-side attack in the open games with e4/e5.
12…Ne6

 

-------------------
|r+b+-rk+|
|+-p-qppp|
|pb-pnn-+|
|+p+-pNB-|
|-+-PP+-+|
|+BP-+-+-|
|PP-+QPPP|
|RN+R+-K-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Bishop on Italian diagonal,
Queen

13.Nf5 Qe8 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Bxe6 resigns 15…fxe6
16.Qg4+ Qg6 17.Ne7+ 1-0

 

Knight on g5

Example: littlewood(blindfold) – paish [C54]
1993

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+
7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3 Nce7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfe1
c6 13.a4 Fritz knows about several alternatives here: h6,
Qb6,Qb7, Rb8, b6 and so on Littlewood’s opponent found a new one,
but the decentralising …Qa5 does little towards getting Black’s
position sorted 13…Qa5 14.Ne4 Rd8 15.Ne5 Nf5 16.Qd3 Be6
17.Ng5 g6

 

-------------------
|r+-r-+k+|
|pp+-+p+p|
|-+p+b+p+|
|q-+nNnN-|
|P+BP-+-+|
|+-+Q+-+-|
|-P-+-PPP|
|R-+-R-K-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Queen on h-file

18.Qh3 Nd6 19.Qxh7+ Kf8 20.Nxe6+ fxe6 21.Bxd5 and Nxg6+
1-0

 

Explosion on e6

Example:(45) stean,m – browne,w [B94]
sacrifice on e6 by knight in Sicilian, 1974

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 Nbd7
7.Bc4 e6 8.0-0 h6 9.Bxf6 Nxf6 10.Bb3 b6 11.f4 Bb7 12.Qd3
Be7

 

-------------------
|r+-qk+-r|
|+b+-bpp-|
|pp-ppn-p|
|+-+-+-+-|
|-+-NPP-+|
|+BNQ+-+-|
|PPP+-+PP|
|R-+-+RK-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Bishop on Italian
diagonal

13.Nxe6 a common theme in these
Paulsen/Scheveningen Sicilian positions 13…fxe6 14.Bxe6
b5 15.e5 Qb6+ 16.Kh1 dxe5 17.Qg6+ Kd8 18.Qf7 Qc5 19.fxe5 Bxg2+
20.Kxg2 Rf8 21.Rad1+ Kc7 22.Qxg7 Rg8 23.exf6 Rxg7+ 24.fxg7 Bd6
25.Rf7+ Kc6 26.Bd5+ Kb6 27.Bxa8 Qg5+ 28.Kh1 Be5 29.b4 a5 30.Rb7+
Kc6 31.g8Q Qxg8 32.Rb8+ Stean won the brilliancy prize for
this game 1-0

 

Explosion on f6

Perhaps the commonest is the sacrifice Rf1xNf6 to eliminate the key
defender of h7. But there is another that should be in every
player’s repertoire:

Example: Karpov,An (2700) – Kortschnoj,V
(14) (2695) [C80] Wch30-Merano, 1981

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5
7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 d4 11.Bxe6 Nxe6 12.cxd4 Ncxd4
13.Ne4 Be7 14.Be3 Nxf3+ 15.Qxf3 0-0 16.Rfd1 Qe8

 

-------------------
|r+-+qrk+|
|+-p-bppp|
|p+-+n+-+|
|+p+-P-+-|
|-+-+N+-+|
|+-+-BQ+-|
|PP-+-PPP|
|R-+R+-K-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Pawn on e5

17.Nf6+ Bxf6 18.exf6 Qc8 19.fxg7 Rd8 20.h4 c5 21.Rac1 Qc7
22.h5 Qe5 23.h6 Qxb2 24.Rd7 Rxd7 25.Qxa8+ Rd8 26.Qxa6 Qe2 27.Rf1
Rd1 28.Qa8+ Rd8 29.Qc6 b4 30.Qa4 Qd3 31.Rc1 Qd5 32.Qb3 Qe4 33.Qc2
Qxc2 34.Rxc2 f5 35.f4 Kf7 36.g4 Rd5 37.gxf5 Rxf5 38.Rd2 Rf6 39.Rd7+
Kg8 40.f5 Rxf5 41.Re7 Nxg7 42.Rxg7+ Kh8 43.Rc7 Kg8 44.Bxc5 Rg5+
45.Kf2 Rg6 46.Be3 1-0

 

Explosion on g6

Example: (48) marshall – burn [D55]
1900

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 b6 7.Bd3
Bb7 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.h4 the Bxh7 theme looms –
Black adopts radical therapy 10…g6 11.h5 Re8 12.hxg6 hxg6
13.Qc2 Nd7

 

-------------------
|r+-qr+k+|
|pbpn+p+-|
|-p-+-bp+|
|+-+p+-+-|
|-+-P-+-+|
|+-NBPN+-|
|PPQ+-PP+|
|R-+-K-+R|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Rook on h-file, Queen on
classic diagonal

Marshall must have thought for SECONDS over this next one…
14.Bxg6 fxg6 15.Qxg6+ Bg7 16.Ng5 Qf6 17.Rh8+ Kxh8 18.Qh7#
1-0

 

Explosion on h6

Example:(50) blackburne – blanchard (london)
[C30] sacrifice on h6 by B, 1891

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.Nf3 exf4 ?
5.d4 Bb4 6.Bxf4 d5 7.e5 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Be6 9.Bd3 h6 10.0-0
Nge7 11.Rb1 a rook’s first duty is to sieze the open files
(or half-open ones) 11…b6 12.Qd2 0-0 optimistic

 

-------------------
|r+-q-rk+|
|p-p-npp-|
|-pn+b+-p|
|+-+pP-+-|
|-+-P-B-+|
|+-PB+N+-|
|P+PQ-+PP|
|+R+-+RK-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Bishop on classic diagonal,
Knight with access to g5

13.Bxh6 sacrifices like this don’t take much
thought… 13…gxh6 14.Qxh6 Ng6 15.Ng5 Re8
16.Rxf7 [16.Qh7+ or 16.Bxg6 both win] 16…Bxf7
17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.Qxf7# 1-0

Explosion on f7

Example:(46) botvinnik – vidmar (nottingham)
[D60] 1936

1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 Nbd7
7.Bd3 c5 8.0-0 cxd4 9.exd4 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nb6 11.Bb3 Bd7 12.Qd3 Nbd5
13.Ne5 Bc6 14.Rad1 Nb4 15.Qh3 Bd5 16.Nxd5 Nbxd5 17.f4 Rc8 18.f5
exf5 19.Rxf5 Qd6

 

-------------------
|-+r+-rk+|
|pp+-bppp|
|-+-q-n-+|
|+-+nNRB-|
|-+-P-+-+|
|+B+-+-+Q|
|PP-+-+PP|
|+-+R+-K-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Bishop on Italian diagonal,
Rook on f-file

20.Nxf7 Rxf7 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Rxd5 Qc6 23.Rd6 Qe8 24.Rd7
1-0

 

Explosion on g7

Example: (49) nn – nn (lombardy) [B18]
sacrifice on g7 by N, 1994

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.Bc4 e6
7.N1e2 Nf6 8.0-0 Bd6 9.f4 Qc7 [9…Nh5] 10.f5 exf5
11.Nxf5 Bxh2+ 12.Kh1 0-0 [12…Bxf5] 13.Qe1
Bd6

 

-------------------
|rn-+-rk+|
|ppq-+ppp|
|-+pb-nb+|
|+-+-+N+-|
|-+BP-+-+|
|+-+-+-+-|
|PPP+N+P+|
|R-B-QR+K|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Bishop on Italian diagonal,
Rook on f-file

14.Nxg7 Kxg7 15.Rxf6 Nd7 [15…Kxf6 16.Qh4+ Kg7
17.Bh6+ Kg8 18.Qf6] 16.Qh4 Rfe8 17.Bh6+ Kh8 18.Raf1 Qd8
19.Bg5 Be7 20.Rxg6 1-0

20…fxg6 21.Rf7 Nf8
22.Nf4mates in 5 I think, e.g.
22…h5 [22…Bxg5 23.Nxg6+ Kg8 24.Rxf8+ Kg7
25.Rf7+ Kxg6 26.Qxh7#] 23.Nxg6+ Kg8 24.Nxe7+ Rxe7 25.Rg7+
Kxg7 26.Bf6+ Kh7 27.Qxh5# 1-0

 

Explosion on h7

Example: nn – nn [B22] sacrifice on h7 by B,
1875

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 d6 6.Nf3 Nc6
7.Nc3 Nxc3 8.bxc3 e6 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.Bd3 Qa5 11.0-0 !?
11…Qxc3 12.Rb1 0-0 ? 13.Rb3 Qa5

 

-------------------
|r+b+-rk+|
|pp+-+ppp|
|-+nbp+-+|
|q-+-+-+-|
|-+-P-+-+|
|+R+B+N+-|
|P+-+-PPP|
|+-BQ+RK-|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Rook on h-file

(i) bN missing from f6 (ii) wN can go to g5 without losing the
attack (iii) wQ can get to g4/h5 (iv) other pieces can support the
attack 14.Bxh7+ Kxh7 15.Ng5+ Kg6 16.Rh3 Bd7 17.Ne4 f6
18.Nxd6 f5 19.Qh5+ Kf6 20.Bg5# 1-0

Creating weaknesses

Example: nn [D46] sacrifice on h6 by B,
1993

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 c6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.e4
dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Bxe4 Nf6 10.Bc2 0-0 11.0-0 c5 12.Bg5 cxd4
13.Qxd4 !

 

-------------------
|r+bq-rk+|
|pp+-+ppp|
|-+-bpn-+|
|+-+-+-B-|
|-+PQ-+-+|
|+-+-+N+-|
|PPB+-PPP|
|R-+-+RK-|
-------------------

13…Be7 14.Qh4 ! 14…h6 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.Qxh6 Qa5 17.Ng5
e5 18.Bh7+ Kh8 19.Be4+ Kg8 20.Rfe1 Bg4 21.Re3 Rad8 22.Rg3 Rd4
23.Ne6 fxe6 24.Rxg4+ [24.Rxg4+ Kf7 25.Qg6#]
1-0

 

Castling Queen’s-side

This is both more aggressive and more risky than castling
King’s-side. With O-O-O, the Rook is immediately placed for action
in the centre, but the King is one square closer to danger. The
defensive front a2-b2-c2-d2 is one square longer. The move Kc1-b1
may be necessary to secure the a-Pawn after a move or exchange of
the Nc3.

  Much else is similar: for every Rf1xNf6 sacrifice White
makes on the King’s-side there is a …Rc8xNc3 on the
Queen’s-side.

  Differences are due mostly to (a) prior movements of the
c-pawn – where we might expect the f-Pawn to be still on f2, the
c-Pawn often is out of line; and (b) Pawn storms where there is
opposite-side castling – when Pawns may more freely be used to open
lines away from your own King. [You can of course use Pawn storms
when both sides have castled King’s-side if the centre is closed or
only semi-open, as in many Sicilian positions]. These differences
have the consequence that play is much sharper and (because of the
slowness of Pawns) careful timing is needed.

  Below I give an example of the consequence of moving the
c-Pawn (Bodens’s mate) and a typical situation with mutual mating
attacks with opposite-side castling.

Example: Opposite-side castling [B75]
1993

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7
7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 a6 9.0-0-0 Bd7 10.g4 Rc8 11.Be2 0-0 12.h4
Opposite-side castling and asymmetric pawns/files usually adds up
to a race to mate the opponent’s King. Both sides may throw pawns
forward to open up lines for the attack. Black in these situations
has a head start in that the c-file is already open, but can always
have another file with …b7-b5-b4 12…Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Qa5
14.Kb1 e5 ! 15.Be3 Be6 16.a3 Rfd8 17.Bg5 Rd7 18.h5 Rdc7

 

-------------------
|-+r+-+k+|
|+pr-+pbp|
|p+-pbnp+|
|q-+-p-BP|
|-+-+P+P+|
|P-N-+P+-|
|-PPQB+-+|
|+K+R+-+R|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Rook on h-file

19.h6 Rxc3 !? 20.hxg7 R8c6 21.Bxf6 Rb6 ! exciting
stuff! 22.Bb5 !! 22…Rxb5 23.Qxd6 Rc8 24.Qf8+ Rxf8
25.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 26.Rxh7 1-0

 

 

Boden’s mate by two Bishops

Example: Schulder – Boden, London,
1853

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.c3 f5 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.d4 fxe4 6.dxe5 exf3
7.exf6 Qxf6 8.gxf3 Nc6 9.f4 Bd7 10.Be3 0-0-0 11.Nd2 Re8 12.Qf3 Bf5
13.0-0-0 d5 14.Bxd5

 

-------------------
|-+k+rb-r|
|ppp-+-pp|
|-+n+-q-+|
|+-+B+b+-|
|-+-+-P-+|
|+-P-BQ+-|
|PP-N-P-P|
|+-KR+-+R|
-------------------

Supporting cast: Queen with access to
c3

14…Qxc3+ 15.bxc3 Ba3# This is Boden delivering
“Boden’s Mate”. Vukovic gives as canonical a position from
MacDonnell-Boden, London 1869, a game also cited by Golombek’s
encyclopedia. Neither give a score, so here’s an earlier complete
game from Hooper and Whyld’s “Chess Companion”.