Info

m m

m m

m m

Right: (tarlc or enveloping attack

Right: (tarlc or enveloping attack

In order to understand the association of ideas, it will be good to examine more closely the germcell of a flank, or an enveloping attack. In Diagram 104 (left side) we see ihe Rook in a frontal attack, in which the objective is bombarded at White's leisure. On the right a frontal attack is out of the question. The maneuver Rg6-Rxf6 or Rg7-Rf7-Rxf6 is planned. It is important for our purpose to emphasize the fact that the White f-pawn in this position is a necessary element of the problem, for if it were absent, a frontal attack against the Black f-pawn would not only be possible, but by far our easiest course. Moreover, the attack against the point 16 if it had not been pinned down, would have no strategic sense, in conformity with the principle: the objective must first be reduced to immobility. It follows that the position shown in Diagram 104 (right side) represents the true prelude to the flank or enveloping attack.

This being established, the plan of action shown in Diagram 10G is seen to be logically justified. Its end is a preparation for such an attack as we have seen In the making on the right side of Diagram 104, and if this operation can be called an attack, as indeed it is. we can with good conscience ascribe to the maneuver e5 (chain building) followed by f4-f5 an attack as well. In (his vein we can say that the Black pawn on e6 may be considered a second theater of war.

To recapitulate: By White's move e5, the formation of a pawn chain, always creates two theaters of war, of which the enemy wing, cramped by the advance, forms one, and the base of the enemy pawn chain the other. Furthermore, e5 is inspired by the desire to attack. The attack on the Black d5 pawn (present before the pawn moved to e5) has been transferred to the Black e6 pawn, which has been reduced to immobility by our pawn on e5, so as to be exposed to a flar.k attack by f4-f5.

sterol war. Both players a respective hases ol Ihe pawn chain. Rooks are on alert ready forbreak-

sterol war. Both players a respective hases ol Ihe pawn chain. Rooks are on alert ready forbreak-

There was a time, before 1913, when it was the firm conviction that a pawn chain, with the disappearance of one of its links, must give up all pretension to a happy existence. To have shown this conviction was based on pure prejudice is a service 'or which I may take credit, since as early as the year 1911 I had proved by some games (against Saiwe, Carlsbad 1911, Game No. 46, against Levenfish, and against Dr. Tarrasch, in 1912, Game No. 20) that I was inclined to conceive of the pawn chain as a purely cramping problem. The question is not whether the links of the chain are complete, but simply and solely whether the enemy pawns remain cramped. Whether we effect this by pawns or pieces, or by Rooks and Bishops at long range, is immaterial. The main thing is that the enemy pawns should be cramped. This conception of mine, to which I had arrived through an intensive study of the blockade problem, did not fail, in those days, to arouse a storm of protest. Today, however, everyone knows that all the things which I then said about the pawn chain are incontestable truths.

It was disputed at that time that after 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5, any attack on Black's d-pawn existed at all. The friendly readers of this book know well that such an attack dues very much exist. We know from his article in the Wiener Schachzeitung, in 1913, that Alapin did not know it, since he was not acquainted with the theory of the open file, which I originated. To take another disputed point, everyone now recognizes that in positions characterized by the advance 3.e5 (at the third move or later), the thrust f4-f5 may well be, and often is, the logical sequence. We can learn much by a closer investigation of the question, why after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 the Black attack 3...C5 should hold the field rather than an immediate White attack by f4-f5. As we have already insisted, the disposition of both the White and Black links in the chain is directed towards cramping the opponent. The White pawns wish to blockade the BlacK and vice-versa. Now after 1 ,e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5, it is the Black pawns who are held up on their road to the center, whereas the corresponding White pawns have already outstripped the middle of the board ^compare the relative positions of the two e-pawns). We are justified in regarding the White as the cramping and the Black as the cramped pawns. Since the pawns' desire to expand is naturally greatest when directed towards the center, we see that Black is more justified in the attack ...c5 than White is in the corresponding thrust on the other wing (f4-f5). The threat of the advance of the f-pawn exists, however, in spite of all this, and when Black's attack has bumcd itself out. White's turn then comes for the thrust with his f-pawn.

That this threat fails in many games to be translated into action only goes to prove that White has plenty on his hands in meeting the attack ...c5, or else that he has chosen the first of the two theaters of war (Black's cramped Kingside) for his operations.

Concerning the transfer of our attack from d5 to e6, the student will soon see how wide is the bearing of this proposition of mine. But let us proceed systematically.

♦ 3. Attack on the "base" a strategic necessity. The clearing away of the links in the enemy chain is only undertaken with the idea of freeing our pawns which they had been cramping-The problem of the chain is essentially reduced to one of blockade.

To recognize an enemy pawn chain as an enemy and to go for it is one and the same thing. We may thus formulate: Freeing operations in the region of a pawn chain can never be started soon enough.

This war of liberation will, however, be conducted thus - We first direct our operations against the base, which we attack with a pawn, ard, by threats or otherwise, seek to cut off the base from its associates in the chain. This done, we turn our attention to the next opponent, namely the link which has now become the new base. For instance, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5, the Black pawns (e6, d5) are cramped. The attack on the cramping White chain should, by our rule, be launched without any delay, by 3...C5 rather than 3...f6, for the White e-pawn corresponds to an architectural adornment to our building (the chain), whereas the White d-pawn is the very foundation of the whole structure. If we wished to destroy a building, we would not begin with its architectural ornaments, but we would blow up its foundations, for then the destruction of the ornaments with all the rest will follow automatically.

White has several replies to 3...c5. The plan of the second player will stand out clearest if White plays ingeniously, as if he had no conception of the problem of the pawn chain. For example, 4.dxc5 Bxc5 5.Nc3? f6! Events have taken their logical course. The base, the d4 pawn was first put out of action, and then the e5 pawn got it in the neck. We must always begin with the base of the pawn chain. To continue our game: after 5...f6! there would follow 6.exf6? (as artless as ever. 6.Nf3 was certainly better). 6...Nxf6 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bd3 e5! Thanks to White's faulty strategy, Black's freeing operaiions wiiich as a rule take up to 20-25 moves have already been completed. Black first caused the links in White's chain voluntarily to disappear one after the other, beginning with the base (by the captures 4.dxc5 and 6.exf6) and thereupon let his own pawns advance in triumph with 8...e5l This advance, so eagerly sought after, affords the explanation of the energetic measures taken by Black with his 3rd and following moves, namely the recovery of mobility for his cramped pawns. This was all that Black sought or desired. It often happens that pawns so advanced are filled with a particularly war-like spirit. We get the impression that they wish to take bitter vengeance for the humiliation they have suffered by being hemmed in.

Diagram 106 shows another example. Here White's c-pawn and not his b-pawn, is the base of the chain, be it well noted, for this pawn has not yet been attached to the association in the Black and White pawn chain, since a Black colleague, is lacking at b3. Against this base Black sends forward his b-pawn to storm it

Correct lor Black Is 10 attack the chain by -bS*b4 In ordar to provoka cxM. Hie Inrnediata-« would tie

Correct lor Black Is 10 attack the chain by -bS*b4 In ordar to provoka cxM. Hie Inrnediata-« would tie

(...b5-b4). Having provoked White's cxb4, the d4 pawn is now promoted to the base, but, unlike his predecessor, is not protected. The unprotected base (unprotected by a pawn) is a weakness, anJ therefore gives occasion for a lasting siege, such as we will propose in ♦ 5. In the above example ...f6 (instead of the correct ...b5-b4) would have to be labeled a mistake, for after the fall of the e-pawn. White's pawn chain would remain intact.

We are now on the road to a true undemanding of the matter. The freeing operations in the domain of tne pawn chain are analogous to the fight against a troublesome blockader (Chapter 4) and accordingly our present problem is reduced to one of blockade.

♦ 4. The transfer of the blockade rules from the "passed pawn " to the "chain." The exchange maneuver (to bring about the substitution of a more amenable enemy blockader for a strong one) applied to the pawn chain.

It is clear to us, after studying Chapter 4, that every enemy piece which holds a pawn in check which would otherwise be mobile must be conceived of as a blockader. Nevertheless it must cause surprise that after the moves 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5, we should agree to regard the d4 and e5 pawns as proper blockaders in our sense. The surprise lies in seeing a pawn so described, for in general we think of pawns as being blockaded, and the role of a blockader we imagine to be reserved for an officer. In general this is true, but the pawns in a chain are pawns of a higher order, and in their functions differ from the common herd. To conceive of the pawns in a chain as blockaders would then appear to be qqite correct.

Recognizing this, let us now try to apply the "exchange maneuver on the blockading square," with which we became acquainted in Chapter 4, to the chain. The exchange, as we there said, could only be justified if the new blockader proved himself to be weaker than his predecessor. The same applies to the chain.

An example: After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5! 4.Nc3, Black can get the blockader (the d4 pawn) replaced by another (the Queen). In fact after the further moves 4...cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6, the Queen turns out to be a blockader whom it will be difficult to maintain at her post, and the exchange is proven to be correct. If now 6.Bb5, after S...Bd7 7.Bxc6 bxc6, Black has two Bishops and a mobile mass of pawns in the senter, and has the advantage.

This exchange maneuver, on the other hand, would be weak after 1 .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Be3, for after 5...cxd4 (5...Qb6 would be better) 6.Bxd4, the Bishop would be a tough customer to deal with, and a further exchange to be rid of him by 6...Nxd4 7.Qxd4 Ne7 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Qf4 (Diagram 106a) would lead to the driving off of the blockading troops, but only at the cost of loss of time cáused by the moves of the Black King Knight.

In Diagram 106a White stands quite well, his pieces are placed as they would be for a Kir.gskte attack, but also have a sufficient bearing on the center. For example: 9...f6 (to roll up White's chain) 10.Bb5 a6 11 .Bxr.6+ bxc612.0-0 and Black will never succeed in making his 96 pawn mobile, for if 12...fxe513.Nxe5 and Ihe establishment of the Knight at e5 follows.

With this we have gotten further towards an understanding of the pawn chain. All exchange operations in the region of a chain only take place with the object of replacing a strong enemy blockader by a weaker one. and the experience we have gotten from Chapter 4 will be of great help to us here. We have to decide in a given case whether the blockader in question is strong or weak, elastic or inelastic, and the faculty of discriminating correctly in such cases will be of enormous sen/ice to us. See for example Diagram 107. Here 1.Qc2 would be a weak move in spite of the sharp threat of 2.Bxf6 to be followed by 3.Bxh7. The mistake lies in the fact that White would have done much better in doing something towards the defense of his blockading wall. 1 .Nd2 0-0 2.Nf3 is the right course. On the other hand if 1.Qc2?, the continuation might be 1 ...0-0 2.Bxf6 Rxf6 3.Bxh7+ Kh8 4.Bg6 (or Bd3) 4...e5! White has won a pawn, but Black has overcome the blockade, and now stands ready to march in the center. White should lose.

In Diagram 108, the maneuver 15.Bd4 Qc7 16.Qe2 might be considered, with the intention of following with 17.Ne5. This plan to widen the blockading ring is, however, impracticable, for after 16.Qe2 Ng4ll 17.h3 65!, the Black pawns assert themselves. The right move is 15.Qe2 and there follows 15...Rac8 (or 15...Bxe5 16.Nxe5 Rac8 17.c4) 16.Bd4! Qc7 17.Ne5, and Black If seriously blockaded. We may say that the üne of play 15-Bd4 Qc7 16.Qe2 was bad because the reserve blockader who was keeping watch (the Nf3) would have but slight blockading effect (would never succeed in reaching e5). In the notes to my game

; m mzm /m m mm gi.fl.3g xh ■*■ m ±tm±£ mt m mtm m m mt® m

0 0

Post a comment