In the early 1900s a series of three tournaments were held there: 1907, 1911 and 1923. Today’s game comes from the one in 1911 from August 20 to September 24.
Twenty-six players took part including established greats Rubinstein, Schlechter and Marshall and rising stars Alekhine, Nimzovich and Rotlevi.
The latter, Gersz (Georg, George, Gersh) Rotlevi (Rotlewi, Rotlevy) (1889 – 1920) was a Polish master of great promise and Karlsbad 1911 was probably his greatest success. He finished 4th and could have done even better except for the misfortune that befell him in his last three games.
According to the Russian GM Grigory Levenfish, the young Rotlevi played excellent chess and defeated the likes of Schlechter, Nimzovich, Marshall and Spielmann and after round 17 rounds he shared the lead along with Teichmann and Schlechter with Rubinstein a point and a half back.
At that point his younger brother, Tietz, loaned him some money based on his anticipated prize money. Rotlevy spent the money on new clothes and the next day he was strutting around in them and was unrecognizable as he got sidetracked by what the resort had to offer.
Not long after Karlsbad Rotlewi, who previously had contracted tuberculosis, began suffering mental problems which forced him to give up serious chess and he died in 1920 at the age of 31.
As the tournament progressed the name of Richard Teichmann became prominent and this event turned out to be his greatest success.
Writing in his book Chess Praxis (published in 1928) Nimzovich said of centralization that, “The reason is that up until now it has not been well known that under all circumstances the control of the central squares is a strategic necessity; quite often even experienced
players simply run away from the center. But in each individual case we must make absolutely sure that any neglect of the central area by the opponent is really punished.” That’s what Nizovich does here...he punished Levensfish for neglecting the center.
In this game Levenfish acquired two Bishops for two Knights plus he had a central Pawn majority and every reason to feel confident of his chances. But, Nimzovich proceeded to demonstrate that black’s center was a liability because the squares in front of it were weak, inviting invasion by blockading Knights. The result was Levenfish’s Bishops were locked behind the Pawns and were unable to be used to any effect.
However, in a ticklish position where white had no more than a slight positional advantage, Levenfish engineered a dubious plan that allowed his Bishops to escape. Still, Nimzovich still managed to dominate them with his Knights even on the open board!’
As with most games, the theme, here blockading the center and the domination of the Knights over the Bishops, is not so clear cut as the books would have you believe. That’s because Stockfish, Komodo, et al, find hidden resources in the millions of positions they examine...something humans simply cannot do. That does not take away from the game’s instructional value though because humans, not engines, were playing the game.
Aron Nimzovich–Grigory Levenfish1–0C02Karlsbad15.09.1911Stockfish 15.1
C02: French: Advance Variation 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 A Nimzovich favorite.
The generic idea is for white to gain space in the center. By blocking
black’s Pawns on light squares, the Bishop on c8 will have a hard time
playing a part in the game. It is considered a solid, yet ambitious option
against the French. c5 4.c3 c6 5.f3 f6 This is strategically wrong
according to Nimzovich who taught that Pawn chains should only be attacked at
the base ...here d4, so correct move is 5...Qb6 5...b6 6.a3 h6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 f5 9.b2 d7 10.g4 fe7 is equal. 6.b5 This move which
prepares to exchange a B for a N is a natural move. It's a natural because the
position is blocked. d7 7.0-0 White already has a nice position. Nimzovich
incorrectly claimed 7...Nxe5 would be wrong and his analysis was absolutely
horrible! 7.exf6 is strategically wrong. xf6 8.0-0 d6 9.dxc5 xc5 10.c4 Black has a slight advantage. Blomqvist,E (2508)-Lopez Perdomo,J (2020)
chess.com INT 2023 1 7...b6 7...c7 8.f4 ge7 9.g3 b6 10.a4 cxd4 11.exf6 gxf6 12.xd4 xd4 13.cxd4 xb5 14.axb5 h5 with equal chances.
Thipsay,P (2446)-Rathnakaran,K (2428) New Delhi 2009 7...xe5 8.xe5 xb5 9.h5+ g6 9...e7 This gross blunder was given by Nimzovich 10.f7+ d6
Black is dead lost, but Nimzovich's analysis had black walking into a helpmate
in 4 with 11.dxc5+ xe5 12.e1+ f5 13.h5+ g5 14.g4# 10.xg6 hxg6 11.xh8 xf1 12.xg8 d3 White is slightly better after 13.xe6+ e7 14.xe7+ xe7 15.dxc5 xc5 16.e3 xe3 17.fxe3 7...xe5 This is still black's
best move if it's followed up correctly. 8.xe5 8.dxe5 favors black after xb5 9.e1 f5 8...fxe5 9.h5+ g6 10.xe5 xb5 11.xh8 xf1 12.xh7 d3
Black is slightly better. 8.xc6 The beginning of his plan to blocjafe
black's center Ps. bxc6 Equally playable was 8...Qxc6 9.exf6 xf6
Ninzovich would have played 9...gxf6 9...gxf6 10.e5 fxe5 11.h5+ e7 12.g5+ f7 13.h5+ e7 14.g5+ f7 15.h5+ e7 ½-½ (15) Krainski,S (2120)
-Zielinski,W (2008) Kolobrzeg POL 2010 10.e5 d6 11.dxc5 xc5 12.g5
Nimzovich points out that this move, which leads to a total blockade of
black's center Ps and is the point behind white's moves 8-12. d8 13.xf6 xf6 13...gxf6 14.h5+ e7 is completely even. 14.h5+ GM Raymond
Keene called this move a common device in Nimzovich's games. The idea is to
weaken black's K-side. g6 15.e2 d8 After this white gradually begins to
improve his position. The idea is to defend the B so he can play ...O-O
was a better option. 15...d6 16.f4 e7 Defending the B so he can castle. 17.g3 0-0 Neither side can claim any advantage. 16.d2 0-0 17.ae1 fe8 17...d6 18.xd7 xd7 19.xe6+ wins a P 18.h1 d6 19.f4 c5 20.c4
Nimzovich was critical of this move because at the cost of a P, black now gets
his Bs into action. Instead he recommended 20. Qa6, but that does not seem to
lead to any advantage. Both Stockfish and Komodo indicate that white is just
slightly better here, but neither engine indicates a line where white can
greatly improve his position. Thus, in reality, Nimzovich's move is probably
as good as any. 20.a6 Getting sidetracked with this inviting move
actually takes the pressur eoff black. e7 21.xa7 xe5 22.xe5 a8 23.c7 ec8 24.b6 ab8 and black has fully equalized. 20...f8 In an attempt
to gain counterplay Levefish makes a practical decision.Nimzovich comments-
Black loses a P, but the loss is rather pleasant because now the Bs come into
play and white will not find it easy to suddenly change his own game which has
been based on blockading. Actually, the move is not that great! 20...xe5
This is counter intuitive because it leaves black with the bad B, but white's
well positioned N is eliminated. After this move black has equality. 21.fxe5 h4 22.f3 c6 Intending to open the diagonal. White's best is probably 23.f6 dxc4 24.ef1 d5 with complete equality. 21.cxd5 c8 Black gives up
a P to smash the blockade and bring his Bs to life, but white maintains the
upper hand. 22.e4 g7 23.dxe6 23.d6 Technically there is absolutely
nothing wrong with Nimzovich's move, but practically speaking, as Nimzovich
himself pointed out, 23.d6 would have kept the Bs at bay, but his claim that
it would have won is a bit opimistic. He also claimed that he wanted to
"evaluate the P sacrifice." xd6 24.c6 d7 25.d1 e7 White is better,
but hardly winning. 23...xe6 Black';s Bs now have some open diagonals,
but white has a clear advantage. 24.a6 h8 25.d1 g8 26.b3 d4 27.xd4 cxd4 28.a5 White avoids provoking the mighty Bs by some sort of diversion
with a Knight (e.g. 28.Ng5). With the text move he prevents ...8d8, but allows
the occupation of the c-file. The struggle now becomes very dramatic. -
Nimzovich 28.g5 Actually the move played gives black near equality while
this move keeps a solid advantage/ d8 29.d1 b4 30.c6 d6 31.c8 c3 32.e4 d7 33.e5 with the advantage. 28...c8 28...b7 Would have
equalized. For example... 29.f6 c8 White has two plausible moves to keep
the attack going, but neither one accomplishes much because black has
sufficient resources. 30.xg8 30.f5 c2 31.f3 b6 32.xb6 axb6 equals 30...c2 31.f3 xg8 32.f5 c6 with equal chances. 29.d1 Another slip.
29.Qd2 was better. 29.d2 d8 30.d1 with a positional advantage. 29...c2 Natural...and wrong...naturally! 29...b7 and whit's adwvantage has
evaporated. 30.e1 b4 31.f7+ xf7 31...g7 loses at once. 32.e5+ f8 32...xf7 33.f6+ e8 34.d6+ 33.fd6 32.e5+ g8 33.f6+ f8 34.xh7+ g8 35.f6+ f8 36.h7+ g8 37.f6+ f8 38.h7+ 30.h3 Or 30.Qd8 Rxa2 31.Qxd4 b7 30...g5 is interesting. 31.fxg5 e7 32.b5 g7 33.d3 xa2 34.g4 a3 35.gf6 and white's greater piece activity should prevail. a1 36.xa1 xa1+ 37.h2 b2 38.xg8 e5+ 39.g1 c1+ 40.f2 xg8 41.g3 White is
clearly better, but there is no forced win. 31.xd4 c5 Nimzovich
commented that black's attack now seems very-powerful. He has some serious
threats and manages to make threats against the g2-square. 32.d8 Nimzovich
observed that this move has a surprising point...black cannot take the R. He
made the philosophical observation that this is not the result of mere chance.,
Instead, it's a result of a typical procedure if your opponent manages to
break your central blockade by means of a Pawn sacrifice, In that case he
advises that you should just sit tight in the center and wait for the
opportunity to use a central blockading diagonal for a return sacrifice. This
return sacrifice will then be decisive in its effect.] 32.a4 attacking
the a-Pawn does not allow black quite as much as Nimzovich indicated. b6 33.e1 c7 and white still dominates the position. 32...e7 32...xd4
White now gets a series of forks. Raymond Keene asks, Can a system' really
teach you to spot variations like this one? 33.xd4 g7 34.d6 c7 35.e8 d7 36.c3 and wins. 33.d7 What follows now is a rout. a6 34.d3 f8 This allows a mate in 9 moves, but there was no way of saving the game. 35.f7+ xf7 36.xf7 c8 37.d7 Black resigned. 37.d7 c1+ 37...f1+ 38.h2 xf4+ 39.xf4 g7 40.f6 c1 41.xc1 xf6 42.c8+ d8 43.xd8# 37...e7 38.xe7 f1+ 39.h2 h1+ 40.xh1 c1+ 41.h2 h1+ 42.xh1 g5 43.xh7# 38.h2 h1+ 39.xh1 f1+ 40.h2 h1+ 41.xh1 e7 42.xe7 g8 43.e8# 1–0
No comments:
Post a Comment