Alexander Alekhine's Best Games: Algebraic Edition

306 Pages·1998·5.84 MB·English

by  Alexander Alekhine

Alexander Alekhine's
Best Games

Alexander Alekhine

Additional material by C.H.O'D. Alexander and John Nunn

Foreword by Garry Kasparov
Games selected by Raymond Keene

Algebraic Classics Series
Series Editor: Dr. John Nunn GM

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

The material in this book was first published
in three volumes by G. Bell and Sons:
My Best Games of Chess 1908·1923 (1927)
My Best Games of Chess 1924·1937 (1939)
Alekhine's Best Games of Chess 1938·45 ( 1949)
First Batsford Edition 1989

This selection of algebraicised games © B. T. Batsford 1996
Additional material © John Nunn 1996

ISBN 0 7 134 7970 1

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
A catalogue record for this book is
available from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.

Typeset by John Nunn
and printed in Great Britain by
Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts
for the publishers,
B . T. Batsford Ltd,
4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London WIH OAH

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK
Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, John Nunn, Jon Speelman
General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE

Commissioning Editor: Graham Burgess

Contents

1
Vygodchikov-Alekhine, Corr., Russia 1908-9
8
2
Alekhine-Levenfish, St. Petersburg Chess Society
Winter Tournament 1912
10
3
Nirnzowitsch-Alekhine, All-Russian Masters, Vilna 1912
12
4
Alekhine-Duras, Masters' Quadrangular, St. Petersburg 1913
14
5
Znosko-Borovsky-Alekhine, Masters' Quadrangular,
St. Petersburg 1913
16
6
De Roszynski-Alekhine, Paris 1913
19
7
Mieses-Alekhine, Scheveningen 1913
20
8
Alekhine-Nimzowitsch, All-Russian Masters, St. Petersburg 1914
23
9
Alekhine-Marshall, St Petersburg International 1914
25
10
Alekhine-Tarrasch, St. Petersburg International 1914
27
11
Alekhine-Fahrni, Mannheim 1914
30
12
Alekhine-Isakov, Moscow Championship 1919
31
13
Rabinovich-Alekhine, All-Russian Masters', Moscow 1920
34
14
Alekhine-Teichmann, Match (2) Berlin 1921
37
15
Selezniev-Alekhine, Triberg 1921
39
16
Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Triberg 1921
44
17
Alekhine-Sterk, Budapest 1921
46
18
Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Budapest 1921
49
19
Steiner-Alekhine. Budapest 1921
51
20
Alekhine-Rubinstein, The Hague 1921
54
21
Tarrasch-Alekhine, Pistyan 1922

58

22
lohner-Alekhine, Pistyan 1922
60
23
Alekhine-Wolf, Pistyan 1922
62
24
Torres-Alekhine, Exhibition Game, Seville 1922
65
25
Alekhine-Yates, London 1922
67
26
Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Hastings 1922
70
27
Alekhine-Reti, Vienna 1922

73

28
Alekhine-Slimisch, Exhibition Game, Berlin 1923
77
29
Griinfeld-Alekhine, Karlsbad 1923
78
30
Alekhine-Rubinstein, Karlsbad 1923
82
31
Alekhine-Maroczy, Karlsbad 1923
86
32
Alekhine-Chajes, Karlsbad 1923
87
33
Alekhine-Reti, New York 1924
92
34
Alekhine-lanowski, New York 1924
95
35
Alekhine-Opocensky, Paris 1925
97

36
Tarraseh-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925

99

37
Reti-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925
100
38
Alekhine-Treybal, Baden-Baden 1925
103
39
Sir G. Thomas-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925
105
40
Alekhine-Marshall, Baden-Baden 1925
107
41
Alekhine-Sehwartz, Blindfold Exhibition, London 1926
109
42
Rubinstein-Alekhine, Semmering 1926
III
43
Rubinstein-Alekhine, Dresden 1926
113

44
Euwe-Alekhine, Second Exhibition Game, Amsterdam, 1926
115
45
Alekhine-Euwe, Third Exhibition Game, Amsterdam 1926
118
46
Alekhine-Nimzowitseh, New York 1927
121
47
Alekhine-Marshall, New York, 1927
124
48
Alekhine-Tartakower, Keeskemet 1927
125
49
Kmoeh-Alekhine, Keeskemet 1927
127
50
Capablanea-Alekhine, Buenos Aires Weh (1) 1927
129
51
Capablanea-Alekhine, Buenos Aires Weh (11) 1927
131
52
Capablanea-Alekhine, Buenos Aires Weh (21) 1927
136
53
Alekhine-Capablanea, Buenos Aires Weh (32) 1927
138
54
Alekhine-Capablanea, Buenos Aires Weh (34) 1927
142
55
Marshall-Alekhine, Exhibition Game, New York 1929
145
56
Alekhine-Steiner, Bradley-Beach 1929
149

57
Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Wiesbaden Weh (1) 1929
151
58
Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Wiesbaden Weh (5) 1929
152
59
Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Wiesbaden Weh (8) 1929
154
60
Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Amsterdam Weh (22) 1929
156
61
Alekhine-Nimzowitseh, San Remo 1930
158
62
Alekhine-Maroczy, San Remo 1930
160

63
Alekhine-Tartakower, San Remo 1930
164
64
Ahues-Alekhine, San Remo 1930
167
65
Alekhine-Kmoch, San Remo 1930
169
66
Stithlberg-Alekhine, Hamburg tt 1930
171
67
Alekhine-Andersen, Prague tt 1931
173
68
Alekhine-Nirnzowitseh, Bled 1931
175
69
Pire-Alekhine, Bled 1931
176
70
Alekhine-Flohr, Bled, 1931
178
71
Alekhine-Maroczy, Bled 1931
180
72
Alekhine-Winter, London 1932
183

73
Alekhine-Koltanowski, London 1932
185
74
Alekhine-Tartakower, London 1932
187
75
Alekhine-Sultan Khan, Berne 1932
189

76
Alekhine-Flohr, Berne 1932
191
77
Alekhine-Steiner, Pasadena 1932
192
78
Alekhine-Kimura, Blindfold Exhibition on 15 boards, Tokyo 1933
194

79 Alekhine-Mikenas, Folkestone tt 1933.
196
80 Znosko-Borovsky-A1ekhine, Paris 1933
199
81 A1ekhine-Bogo1jubow, Baden-Baden Weh (2) 1934
202
82 Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Pforzheim Weh (9) 1934
204
83 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Bayreuth Weh (16) 1934
207
84 Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Kissingen Weh (17) 1934
210
85 Bogo1jubow-Alekhine, Berlin Weh (25) 1934
212
86 A1ekhine-Em. Lasker, Zurich 1934
215
87 Alekhine-Euwe, Amsterdam Weh (1) 1935
216
88 A1ekhine-Euwe, AmsterdamWeh (3) 1935
218
89 Euwe-Alekhine, The Hague Weh (4) 1935
220
90 A1ekhine-Euwe, Utrecht Weh (7) 1935
224
91 Ahues-Alekhine, Bad Nauheim 1936
227
92 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Dresden 1936
229
93 Alekhine-Frydman, Podebrad 1936
233
94 A1ekhine-Foltys, Podebrad 1936
235
95 Winter-Alekhine, Nottingham 1936
238
96 A1ekhine-Alexander, Nottingham 1936
240
97 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Nottingham 1936
242
98 Alekhine-Fine, Hastings, 1937
245
99 Alekhine-Reshevsky, Kemeri 1937
248
100 Alekhine-Fine, Kemeri 1937
252
101 A1ekhine-Bogoljubow, Quadrangular Tournament,
Bad Nauheim 1937
255
102 Alekhine-Sil.misch, Quadrangular Tournament,
Bad Nauheim 1937
258
103 Alekhine-Euwe, Rotterdam Weh (2) 1937
261
104 Alekhine-Euwe, Haarlem Weh (6) 1937
263
105 Alekhine-Euwe, Leiden Weh (8) 1937
266
106 A1ekhine-Euwe, Zwolle Weh (14) 1937
268
107 A1ekhine-Euwe, Delft Weh (22) 1937
271
108 A1ekhine-Euwe, Rotterdam Weh (24) 1937
276
109 Euwe-Alekhine, The Hague Weh (25) 1937
279
110 Alekhine-Book, Margate 1938
282
111 Alekhine-Euwe, AVRO 1938
284
112 Alekhine-Flohr, AVRO 1938
287
113 A1ekhine-Capablanea, AVRO 1938
289
114 A1ekhine-Keres, Salzburg 1942
291
115 Keres-Alekhine, Salzburg 1942
294
116 Alekhine-Keres, Munich 1942
296
117 Alekhine-Junge, Krakow 1942
298
118 A1ekhine-Junge, Prague 1942
299

Foreword by Garry Kasparov

Ask any chess fan to give a short list of his favourite games and it is sure to in­
clude games by Alekhine. Perhaps Reti-Alekhine, from Baden-Baden 1925, or
Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Hastings 1922. These two games are generally reckoned
to be amongst the most brilliant on record. But Alekhine's reputation was not
built solely on the wonderful quality of his games, nor, simply, on his longevity as
World Champion (he held the title from 1927-35 and again from 1937-46, when
he died as World Champion, sadly destitute, in Portugal). It was also Alekhine's
outstanding diligence as an annotator of his own masterpieces which has helped
to establish his place in the history of chess. No serious student of chess can af­
ford to ignore Alekhine's notes to his games, and the most important of these are
assembled here in this volume.
Alekhine's games and writings exerted a great influence on me from a very
early age. I wished to emulate the dynamic style of the first, great, Russian-born
champion, who wrested the crown from Capablanca in 1927. I fell in love with
the rich complexity of his ideas at the chessboard. Alekhine's attacks came sud­
denly, like destructive thunderstorms that erupted from a clear sky. Max Euwe ,
who briefly took the world title from Alekhine between 1935 and 1937, wrote of
him:

Alekhine is a poet, who creates a work of art out of something which would
hardly inspire another man to send a picture postcard. The wilder and more in­
volved a position the more beautiful the conception he can evolve.

A similar view was expressed by Dr. Emanuel Lasker:

Alekhine loves making experiments ... delighted to think that his own skill and
his own imagination are the cause of all that what happens on the board.

This style of Alekhine' s was what I admired and wanted to develop in my own
games. I had a natural feeling for it. I hope readers of this book will feel similarly
inspired by Alekhine's masterpieces.

Garry Kasparov
Baku 1989

Introduction by John Nunn

I first came across Alekhine's collection of games when I was about 11 years old.
Up to that point, I had been quite successful in junior events and I had the feeling
that chess wasn't really a very difficult game. After playing over all 220 games in
the first two volumes (covering the periods 1905-23 and 1924-37), I thought
"How can anyone play like this? It's just impossible to see so much during a
game". I was particularly struck by his game against Rubinstein from Semmer­
ing, 1926 (game 42 in this book), and the move IS ... ltJx12! in particular. It seemed
incredible that there might be a stronger move than the obvious recapture on c3,
but after having checked the analysis several times, I had to admit that taking on
12 was a forced win. But how did this move even enter Alekhine's head? Today,
finding this combination doesn't seem so totally impossible as it did then, but it
remains an enormously impressive game. In my opinion Alekhine's special gen­
ius lay in his ability to discover unexpected twists in positions where a lesser
player would have made an automatic, conventional move. Other examples of
such twists, in addition to the IS ... .!bxf2 mentioned above, are the move 19 'fIc7!
in game 31 and the idea of IS dxe5 and 19 'i'f4! in game 47.
In view of my early acquaintance with Alekhine 's books, I was excited when
the idea arose of producing an algebraic edition of the cream of Alekhine's
games. This gradually became a major project. Apart from the conversion to alge­
braic, I have corrected a surprisingly large number of notational errors in the
original books, rearranged the games in chronological order, edited the text and
checked the analysis. I have not commented on minor flaws in the analysis, but
major errors and omissions are pointed out in footnotes (except for game lIS,
where the new analysis was so extensive that it had to be embedded in the text).
These terse footnotes should be studied carefully, as in many cases they indicate
fundamental reassessments of famous games, for example Reti-Alekhine,
Baden-Baden 1925 and Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Nottingham 1936. Some readers
may find it surprising that so many major analytical errors exist in Alekhine's
notes-after having worked on this book, my respect for Alekhine's games has
increased, but I have come to recognise that his annotations are influenced by the
"I won the game, so I must have been winning all the way through" syndrome
(which, it must be said, afflicts many annotators).
A few additional points: games 1-109 were originally annotated by Alekhine
himself-the remaining games were annotated by C.H.O'D. Alexander. All foot­
notes are mine, except where they are marked (GB), in which case they were writ­
ten by Graham Burgess. Alekhine uses the symbols '±' and '=F' to mean 'clear
advantage for White' and 'clear advantage for Black' respectively.

The games in this book represent the distillation of the life work of one of the
greatest chess geniuses of all time. As I discovered myself, it is possible to learn
a great deal from them.

8 Corr., Russia 1908-9

Game l
Vygodchikov - Alekhine
Corr., Russia 1908-9
Ruy Lopez

1 e4
e5

2 lM.3
lDc6
3 J.b5
a6
4 J.a4
ll)f6
5
0-0
J.cS
This move, suggested in 1 908 by
the Danish master MlIlller, is in my
opinion much better than its reputa­
tion as, up to the present, it has in no
way been refuted and the few games
in which it has been adopted rather
tend to militate in its favour.
6 lDxe5
White could also play 6 c3 to
which the best reply is 6 ... J.a7 as in
a game Yates-Alekhine (Hastings
1922), which continued as follows: 7
d4 (interesting would be 7 Ite1 lDg4!
8 d4 exd4 9 cxd4 lDxd4! 10 lDxd4
1i'h4! with a winning attack)7 ... lDxe4
8 1i'e2 f5 9 dxe5 0-0 10 lDbd2 d5 1 1
exd6 lDxd6 1 2 J.b3+ Wh8 1 3 lDc4
f4 14 lDce5 lDxe5 15 lDxe5 1i'g5 1 6
J.d2 J.h3 17 J.d5 Itae8 18 Itfe 1
Ite6! 1 91i'd3, and now Black, who
played the surprise move 19 ... J.e3!?,
finally obtained only a draw, whereas
he could have won a pawn simply by
19 ... J.xg2 followed by 20 ... Itxe5.
6
lDxe5
7 d4
lDxe4!

8 Ite1
After 8 dxc5 lDxc5 91i'd4 (9 1i'd5
is similar) 9 ... 1i'e7! 1 0 J.f4 f6 (Dr.
Groen-Alekhine, Portsmouth 1 923)
White has insufficient compensation
for his pawn.
If 8 1i'e2 (as in Takacs-Alekhine,
Vienna 1 922), then 8 ... J.e7 9 1i'xe4
lDg6 10 c4 0-0 1 1 lDc3 f5 with good
attacking chances. The continuation
of this interesting game was 12 1i'f3
lDh4 1 3 1i'd3 b5 14 J.b3 Wh8 15
J.f4 lDg6 1 6 J.d2 J.b7 17 Itfe1
bxc4 1 8 J.xc4 d5 19 J.b3 c5! 20
dxc5 d4 2 1 lDa4 J.e4 22 1i'c4 J.g5
23 1i'c1 J.xd2 24 1i'xd2 lDh4 25 f3
J.xf3 26 g3, and now Black could
have won at once by the sacrificial
combination 26 .. .f4 27 gxh4 1i'xh4,
for if28 J.c2, then 28 ... d3! 29 J.xd3
l%ad8 is decisive.
8
9 Itxe4

10 lDc3

11 lDd5

J.e7
lDg6

0-0
J.d6!
It was most important to preserve
this bishop. Now that Black has
overcome most of the opening diffi­
culties, he must in the sequel obtain
at least an equal game.

12 1i'f3
To 1 2 c4 Black had the powerful
reply 12 .. .f5 13 Ite1 c5 !1.

12
...
f5
But here this advance is prema­
ture. White gains an important tempo

However, at the end of this line 14 dxcS .i.xcs I S b4 .i.a7 l61i'hS, threatening the
deadly 17 .tgS, gives White a near-decisive advantage, since Black must also
take into account the possibility of .i.b3 followed by cS. Therefore 1 2 c4 should
be met by 1 2 ... bS, with approximate equality.

by playing his light-squared bishop
to b3 and B lack loses the chance of
... c5. The correct plan was 12 ... b5 1 3
R.b3 R.b7, with very good chances
for Black.
13 R.b3!
�h8
Evidently the rook could not be
captured because of mate in four: 14
!iJe7+ c;t>h8 15 tLlxg6+ bxg6 16 'iWh3+
'iWh4 17 'iWxh4#.
14 .!:te2
f4
In preparation for 15 ... c6. If Black
plays 14 ... 'iWh4, then 15 h3 'iWxd4 1 6
c3 'iWc5 17 R.e3 'iWc6 18 R.d4, with a
strong attack) .
15 c4
c6
Aiming for the rook sacrifice on
move 17. 15 ... c5 would be met by 16
R.c2, a move which is threatened in
any event, and 1 5 ... 'iWg5 16 c5 tLlh4
would be insufficient because of 1 7
'iWg3 !.

B

16 c5
R.b8
17 tLlb6 (D)

Vygodchikov - Alekhine 9

17
• • •
d5!!
This rook sacrifice is absolutely
sound, and White would have been
better advised not to accept it and to
play instead 18 tLlxc8! (not 1 8 R.c2
immediately because of 18 ... 'iWg5 ! )
18 ... 'iWxc8 19 R.c2! with a slight ad­
vantage.
It is easy to understand that White
was tempted to capture the rook,
considering that the strong black at­
tack which follows was not obvious.
18 �a8
tLlh4
19 'iWc3
Naturally not 1 9 'iWh5 because of
19 ... g6 20 'iWh6 tLlf5 followed by
21...tLlxd4. If 19 'iWd3 ! there would
have been interesting complications.
The probable line of play would
have been: 1 9 ... R.f5 20 'iWc3 (if 20
'iWdl , then Black replies 20 ... 'iWg5 !)
20 .. .f3 2 1 .!:te3 ! (if 2 1 gxf3, then
2 1 . ..'iWf6 22 f4 R.g4) 2 1 ...fxg2 22
f3 ! 'iW g5 ! (threatening ... R.xh2+) 23
.!:te5 R.xe5 ! 24 R.xg5 R.xd4+ 25
'iWxd4 tLlxf3+ 26 c;t>xg2 tLlxd4 27
tLlb6 R.e4+ 28 c;t>g3 l:tf3+ 29 �h4
R.f5 ! and mate in a few moves.
The text move in some ways fa­
cilitates Black's attack, as he now
has a serious threat based on a queen
sacrifice.
19
•••
f3
20 .!:te5
Compulsory. After the plausible
reply 20 l:te3 the continuation would

In this line Black's queen doesn't need to be banished to the queenside; 1 6
... 'ifh4
is a big improvement, when White must prove that he has enough compensation
for the pawn.

10 St. Petersburg Chess Society Winter Tournament 1912

be 20 ... 1Wg5 ! 21 g3 �xg3 ! 22 hxg3
1Wxg3+ 23 fxg3 f2+ 24 �f1.th3+
and Black wins.
20
• • •
�xe5
21 dxe5
tDxg2!
Threatening ... 1Wh4-h3.
22 'ti'd4
'ti'd7
Black could also win by 22 ... tDf4!
23 �xf4 1Wh4 !, but the variation
adopted is equally decisive.
23 e6
A desperate move, but after 23
t;Ph 1 1Wh3 White would have no de­
fence against 24 ... tDel!.
23
• • •
'ti'xe6
24 �d2
'ti'g6!
Stronger than 24 ... 1Wh3 25 �c3
:'g8 26 1We5 tDf4 27 1Wg5, and Black
cannot play 27 ... �g4 because of28
�xg7+ ! with perpetual check!.
25 �c2
Black wins after 25 'it>hl tDel or
25..tfl �h3.
25
26 'it>hl
27 :'gl
The only resource.

'ti'xc2
'ti'g6

27
�3
28 tDb6 (D)
28
•••
tDf4!
This manoeuvre, prepared by
Black's last few moves, is immedi­
ately decisive, for after the queen
exchange White's game remains ab­
solutely without resource.
29 :'xg6
�g2+
30 :'xg2
fxg2+
31 'it>gl
tDe2+

B

32 'it>xg2
tDxd4
0-1

Game 2
Alekhine - Levenftsh
St. Petersburg Chess Society
Winter Tournament 1912
Queen's Pawn Game

1 d4
c5
The advance of this pawn is
rightly considered inferior even when
prepared by 1.. .tDf6 2 li)f3. On the
first move it constitutes, in my opin­
ion, a grave positional error, for
White at once obtains a great posi­
tional advantage by simply advanc­
ing the centre pawns.
2 d5
tDf6
3 tDc3
d6
4 e4
g6
If instead of the text move Black
replies with 4 ... e6 White's answer
would be 5 �c4, and the sequel
would not be satisfactory for Black
because of the weakness at d6.
5 f4

1
In this line '1J .•. 1D forces instant resignation.

Already threatening 6 e5.
S
•••
tDbd7
6 tDf3
If now 6 ... �g7 then 7 e5 dxe5 8
fxe5 tDg4 9 e6 tDde5 10 �b5+. This
is why Black plays:
6
a6
dxeS
tDg4
7 eS
8 fxeS
9 e6!
This move demolishes Black's
variation.

B

9
tDdeS
10 �f4 (D)

10
..•
tDxf3+
Or 1 0 ... �g7 1 1 �e2 tDxf3+ 1 2
gxf3 tDf6 1 3 exf7+ �xf7 14 0-0-0,
with an overwhelming advantage for
White!.
After the text move Black prob­
ably hopes for the reply 1 1 �xf3
upon which he would obtain a play­
able game by 1 1 ...fxe6!.
1 1 gxf3!
tDf6

Alekhine - Levenfish 1 1

1 2 �c4!
This is preferable to the immedi­
ate capture of the f7 -pawn, a capture
which the text move renders much
more threatening.
12
• • •
fxe6
13 dxe6
'i6
The alternative was 1 3 ... 'fixdl+
1 4 l:txdl �g7 1 5 �c7 0-0 1 6 �b6
and White wins a pawn, at the same
time maintaining all his pressure.
1 3 ... �b6, threatening two pawns at
the same time, is shown to be insuf­
ficient by an unexpected sacrificial
combination.
14 fie2!
The initial move.
14
•••
'ixb2 (D)
At first sight there appears to be
little danger in this capture, for the
reply 15 �d2 would be frustrated by
15 ... tDh5 16 �e5 �h6+ 17 �d3
�xe6 18 �xe6 l:td8+, but White had
a different scheme in mind.

w

In this line 1 2 ... .txc3+ 1 3 bxc3 1i'xd5 is more testing, although 14 fxg4! 'it'xh1 1 5
0-0-0 1i'c6 1 6 exf7+ �xf7 17 .tg2 gives White an enormous attack. White could
also play I I h3ibxf3+ 1 2 1i'xf3ibf6 1 3 exf7+ �xf7 14 .tc4, which gives him a
clear advantage at no risk.

12 All-Russian Masters, Vilna 1912

15 lC!b5!
This attack by the knight (which
cannot be captured due to I S ... axbS
1 6 �xbS+ rJi>dS 17 ':dl +) decides
the issue in a few moves. Black has
nothing better than to accept the sac­
rifice and to capture both rooks.

15
�xal+
16 'if2
�xhl
17 tDc7+
'itd8
18 �d2+
�d7
19 exd7
1-0
The threat is 20 lC!e6#, and if
1 9 ... eS (19 ... lC!xd7 20 �e6), then
White replies 20 lC!e6+ �7 21 dS�+
':xdS 22 �xdS+ �f7 23 lC!xfS+
�g7 24 �e7#.

Game 3
Nimzowitsch - Alekhine
All-Russian Masters, Vilna 1912
Queen's Pawn Game

1 d4
d5
2 lC!f3
c5
3 �f4
lC!c6
4 e3
lbf6
Here 4 ... 'i!t'b6 would be premature
on account of S lC!c3.
5 lC!c3
Now, however, this move is out of
place. The usual line of play, S c3
followed by 6 �d3, is certainly bet-
ter.
5 ...
�g4
Equally satisfactory would be
S ... a6 followed by 6 ... �g4.
6 �b5
e6
7 h3
�h5
This move gives White the chance
to weaken the enemy position on

both wings. Black had two ways of
obtaining a good game, 7 ... �xf3 S
�xf3 a6 9 �xc6+ bxc6 and 7 ... cxd4
S exd4 �hS 9 g4 �g6 10 lC!eS �b6
1 1 a4 �b4.
8 g4
9 lC!e5
�g6
�b6
Of course not 9 .. JlcS, because of
10 lC!xc6 followed by 1 1 �a6. How­
ever, 9 ... �cS would have been more
prudent.
10 a4!
Very strong, as Black has no time
to continue 10 ... cxd4 followed by
1 1 ...�b4, because of 1 1 as. There­
fore he is compelled to yield the bS­
square to his opponent.
10 ...
as
1 1 h4
h5
This move is relatively better than
1 1 ... h6, as it forces White to make an
immediate decision on the kingside.
12 lDxg6
fxg6 (D)

13 gxh5
The variation 1 3 gslC!gS 14 �d3
�f7 I S lth3 looks stronger than it
really is, as Black can resist the at­
tack by bringing his gS-knight to e7
and then fS. The text move makes

things easy for Black. His g7-pawn,
it is true, is weakened, but, on the
other hand, he obtains excellent pros­
pects in the centre.
13
• • •
14 "it'e2
gxh5
0-0-0
The king's position on the queen­
side will be quite safe as the white
bishop can easily be eliminated.

B

15 O-O-O! ( D)
A very pretty trap.

1 5
•••
i.d6
Black discovers in time the oppo­
nent's subtle plan: 15 ... cxd4 16 exd4
lbxd4 1 7 lhd4 1Wxd4 18 1Wxe6+
lbd7 19 "it'c6+! ! bxc6 20 i.a6#. The
text move eliminates all danger.
16 i.xd6
l1xd6
17 i.d3
White has insufficiently weighed
the consequences of this move; in
particular, he has not realised that the
knight will have no time to settle
down at b5, and consequently Black
will obtain an important advantage.

Nimzowitsch - Alekhine 13

Better would be 17 i.xc6 bxc6 1 8
l1hgl l1d7, but i n this case also
Black's game is superiorl .
17
• • •
c4!
Both dislodging the bishop and
initiating a combined attack on both
wings.
18 i.g6
Naturally not 1 8 lbb5 cxd3 19
lbxd6+ 'Oifd7, followed by ... 'Oifxd6.

w

18
lbe7
19 l1hgl
1i'b4
20 'Oifd2
l1b6! (D)

An amusing reply to White's trap
on the 15th move. Black in his turn
threatens mate by a queen sacrifice,
a Roland for an Oliver! 2 1 ...lbxg6
22 l1xg6 1Wxb2 23 l1bl "it'xc3+ 24
'Oifxc3 lbe4#. In addition the text
move allows the queen to co-operate
in a decisive action against the ex­
posed g6-bishop.
21 f3
Evading the threat.
21
•••
11h6

17 .id3 is a really awful move, which not only allows Black to attack b2. but also
results in the almost immediate trapping of the bishop!

14 Masters' Quadrangular, St. Petersburg 1913

22 i.n
Hapless bishop, with only one
square on which to shelter!
22
�5
23 .. 2
1!t'e7!
24 �b5
A desperate move. After 24 i.g6
Black would win immediately by
24 ... �xh4 since 25 "xh4 loses the
queen after 25 ... �e4+. In giving up
the bishop, White has a vague hope
of complications resulting from the
queen reaching b8.
24
25 lDa7+
26 'fi'b8
Black could have continued with
the simple 26 ... "e8. But his objec­
tive, which he indeed succeeds in
achieving, is the capture of the white
queen.
27 lIg5
�e8
28 lIdgl
l:[f6
Not, of course, 28 ..... xf3 because
of 29 l:txg7+.
29 f4
30 �c1
31 c3
32 �bl

g6
1!t'h7
1!t'f7
1!t'e7
Taking advantage of the fact that
White cannot capture the black g6-
pawn because of the resulting pin by
33 ..... h7.
33 <;Pa2
l:tf8
34 �b5
�xb5
35 axb5
�7
36 1!t'a7
1!t'd6
If now 37 :xg6 �xb5 38 l:tg7+
�c6 39 "xa5 :a6, and the queen is
exchanged.
0-1

Game 4
Alekhine - Duras
Masters' Quadrangular,
St. Petersburg 1913
Ruy Lopez

1 e4
e5
2 �f3
llJc6
3 i.b5
a6
4 i.a4
�6
5 1!t'e2
b5
This move, in conjunction with
the next one, affords Black the sim­
plest method of equalising.
6 i.b3
i.c5
7 a4!
The opening of the a-file is of
great significance in this variation.
Black cannot prevent it, for if 7 ... b4,
then 8 i.xf7+ �xf7 9 "c4+ d5 10
"xc5 "d6 11 "xc6!.
7
lIb8
8 axb5
9 d3
axb5

After 9 �c3 Black could simply
play 9 ... 0-0, for after 10 �xb5 d5!
he obtains an attack fully equivalent
to the pawn sacrificed. After the text
move White can eventually play c3
and bring his knight to e3 or g3 via
d2 and fl .
9
•••
10 i.e3
d6
i.g4
Here Black could have obtained
an even game by forcing the ex­
change of White's only well-posted
piece, the bishop on b3, by 10 ... i.e6.
It is clear that White would not have
reaped any advantage by exchang­
ing at e6 and c5, as Black would
have had command of the centre,