Battles Royal of the Chessboard Collected and presented by R. N. Coles Cadogan Books London © R.N. Coles 1948 This edition published 1995 by Cadogan Books pic, London House, Parkgate Road, London, SW11 4NQ ISBN 1 85744 182 6 Printed and bound in Finland by Werner Söderström Oy CO N TEN TS PAGE INTRODUCTION .. .. ix GAMES * An asterisk signifies the winner. No asterisk signifies a drawn game. 1. McDonnell— *de Labourdonnais, 47th match game, London, 1834 ......................... .. 11 King's Bishop's Opening 2. *de Labourdonnais— McDonnell, 78th match game, London, 1834 ........................ •• x4 Queen’s Gambit 3. Boncourt— *Saint-Amant, Paris, 1839 .. .. 18 Giuoco Piano 4. Staunton— Saint-Amant, 2nd match game, London, 1843........................................................... .. 20 King's Bishop's Opening 5. *Bird— Horwitz, London tournament, 1851 .. 23 Ruy Lopez 6. von der Lasa—"'Staunton, 2nd match game, Brussels, 1853 .. .. .. .. .. 26 King's Bishop's Opening 7. Anderssen— Morphy, 2nd match game, Paris, 1858 28 Ruy Lopez 8. Anderssen— *Steinitz, 3rd match game, London, 1866......................................................................31 Evans Gambit 9. Zukertort—*Steinitz, ist match game, London, 1872......................................................................34 Giuoco Piano 10. Mason—*Zukertort, London tournament, 1883 .. 37 Queen's Gambit Declined 11. Burn—*Mackenzie, 4th match game, London, 1886 41 Queen’s Pawn Game 12. *Tarrasch— Gunsberg, Frankfort tournament, 1887 44 French Defence 13. *Mackenzie—Blackburne, Bradford tournament, 1888.................................... .. .. .. 46 Queen's Pawn Game 14. Weiss—Tchigorin, ist tie-match game, New York tournament, 1889................................................49 Ruy Lopez 15. *Pillsbury—Tarrasch, Hastings tournament, 1895 52 Pillsbury Attack 16. *Steinitz—Pillsbury, St. Petersburg tournament, 1896......................................................................54 Petroff Defence 17. Pillsbury—Tchigorin, St. Petersburg tournament, 1896......................................................................57 Tchigorin Defence CONTENTS 18. Charousek—Pillsbury, Nuremburg tournament, 1896............................................................... 60 Falkbeer Counter-Gambit 19. Steinitz—Lasker, 5th match game, Moscow, 1896.. 63 Pillsbury Attack 20. Lasker—*Blackburne, London tournament, 1899 65 Ruy Lopez 21. Janowski—Burn, Paris tournament, 1900 67 Ruy Lopes 22. ^Marshall—Marco, Monte Carlo tournament, 1904 70 Scotch Gambit 23. *Lasker—Napier, Cambridge Springs tournament, 1904 ..................................................... 75 Sicilian Defence 24. ♦Duras— Teichmann, Ostend tournament, 1906 .. 78 Ruy Lopes 25. ""Rubinstein— Lasker, St. Petersburg tournament, IQOQ •• •• •• •• •• •• 81 Tarrasch Defence 26. Marshall— *Capablanca, nth match game. New York, 1909 ........................................... 84 PUlsbury Attack 27. Schlechter— Lasker, 7th match game, Berlin, 1910 87 Sicilian Defence 28. Mieses—♦Capablanca, Exhibition game, Berlin 1913 90 Centre Game 29. *Capablanca—Marshall, New York tournament, 1918 ..................................................... 93 Ruy Lopes 30. Rubinstein—* Alekhine, London tournament, 1922 95 Slav Defence 31. ♦Reti—Becker, Vienna tournament, 1923 .. 98 Reti System 32. Znosko-Borovsky—Alekhine, Paris tournament, 1925 ........................................................... 100 Alekhine Defence 33. *Tartakower—Bogolyubov, London tournament, IQ27 •• •• •• •• •• •• 102 Ponsiani Opening 34. Alekhine—Capablanca, 22nd match game, Buenos Aires, 1927 ........................................... 105 Pillsbury Attack 35. Capablanca—Nimzowitch, Kissingen tournament, 1928 ..................................................... 109 Nimso-Indian Defence 36. Euwe—Bogolyubov, 8th match game, 1928 112 PUlsbury Attack 37. *Vidmar—Euwe, Carlsbad tournament, 1929 114 Queen's Pawn Game 38. Alekhine—Bogolyubov, 11th match game, Weis- baden, 1929 .. •* •* . * •» 116 PiUsbury Attach 39. Spielmann—♦Stoltz, Bled tournament, 1931 120 Queen's Gambit CONTENTS 40. Colle— *Kashdan, Bled tournament, 1931 123 Colle System 41. Stoltz— *Colle, Bled tournament, 1931 .. 126 Alekhine Defence 42. Euwe— Yates, Hastings tournament, 1932.. 128 Kings Indian Defence 43. Sultan Khan— * Alekhine, Folkestone team tourna­ ment, 1933 ................................ 131 Queen's Pawn Game 44. Spielmann— Lasker, Moscow tournament, 1935 136 Scotch Game 45. Euwe—Alekhine, 19th match game, Eindhoven 1937 ........................................................ 138 Nimzo-Indian Defence 46. Reshevsky— Botvinnik, Avro tournament, 1938 141 Nimzo-Indian Defence 47. Euwe— Keres, Avro tournament, 1938 143 Dutch Defence 48. Fine— "“Keres, Avro tournament, 1938 145 Ruy Lopez 49. *Botvinnik— Alexander, Anglo-Russian radio match, 1946 ......................................... 149 Nimzo-Indian Defence 50. Smyslov—Katetov, Moscow-Prague match, 1946. 152 French Defence Index of Op e n in g s...........................................155 INTRODUCTION I can do no better in giving my reasons for making the present collection of games than to tell the story of an incident which occulted at a British Chess Federation congress. Two moderate players were engaged in a very complicated and exciting game and a well-known master was looking on. When the game finished in a draw White said to Black, “ I enjoyed that. It was a really good game.” " Good ? ” interposed the master. “ But White could have won a piece nine moves ago, and Black three moves later missed a forced mate in six ! ” The pieces were set up again and the correctness of the master’s analysis was established. “ All the same it was a rattling good game,” said White. A look of puzzled exasperation came over the master’s face. “ The mate in six, with a queen sacrifice and a knight sacrifice, that is good, yes, but you did not see it.” “ No,” said Black, “ and I never shall see things like that though I study master brilliancies till the cows come home.” " Then the game is not good? ” “ All right,” agreed Black, “ it was not good, but it was the most enjoyable game I’ve had for months.” With a helpless shrug of his expressive shoulders the master left them. The artist is a being apart, searching ever after perfection ; the rest of us can admire works of art but we cannot create them. As with art, so with chess, the difference being that we do not leave the playing of the game to the experts; we continue to extract the utmost pleasure from the humble rough-and-tumble chess of which we are capable, and if we occasionally miss a brilliancy because our imagination will not rise to it we probably get greater pleasure from a greater number of games than the artist does who cannot appreciate anything less than perfection. So long as a game is hard fought, and especially if it is complicated and exciting, that game is enjoyable and good enough for most of us. Many collections of games have been made in which the bril­ liancies which are beyond the average player are beautifully dis­ played. We admire them but cannot relate them to our own play over the board. We watch the defeated master in the ineluctable toils, but our own opponents wriggle out of our best laid schemes and as like as not we then have to struggle to avoid defeat our­ selves ; we seek to attain supremacy only to find our opponent securing the ascendancy on some other part of the board. This is chess as we know it and as we have to play it. INTRODUCTION The present collection consists of master examples of the sort of game which White and Black enjoyed so much at the congress ; here may be seen how the masters react when a combination goes wrong or when their opponents fight back ; in these games neither player is content to be smothered by the brilliant imagination of the other, nor to allow master technique to win a won game by copybook methods ; here is complicated, fighting chess. A few of the games will be old favourites, which could not well be omitted from a collection of this nature ; such are Nos. 15 and 20, but if their presence serves to whet the appetite for more like them, well and good. Many of the others will be less well known. The notes are indebted to many sources for analyses, and these have frequently passed through so many hands that it has not been possible to acknowledge the original except in a few cases ; the few original notes are designed to throw into relief the up-and- down nature of the various battles. As for the title—the contes­ tants are all of the blood royal of chess aristocracy and the games ate in all senses Battles Royal. R.N.C. Harrow, 1948