It is Black's move, and no doubt thinking that drawing such a position (that was all Black played for) would be easy, he contented himself with a waiting policy. Such conduct must always be criticised. It often leads to disaster. The best way to defend such positions is to assume the initiative and keep the opponent on the defensive.

The first move is already wrong. There is nothing to gain by this move. Black should play P - Q R 4; to be followed by P - Q R 5; unless White plays P - Q Kt 3. That would fix the Queen's side. After that he could decide what demonstration he could make with his Rooks to keep the opponent's Rooks at bay.

This move not only prevents P - B 5 which Black intended, but threatens P - Kt 3, followed, after P × P ch, by the attack with one or both Rooks against Black's Q R P.

probably with the idea of a demonstration on the King's side by R - Kt 3 and Kt 7.

R - Q R 1 should have been played now, in order to force Black to defend with R - K 2. White, however, does not want to disclose his plan at once, and thus awaken Black to the danger of his position, hence this move, which seems to aim at the disruption of Black's Queen's side Pawns.

This is a mistake. Black is unaware of the danger of his position. He should have played P - Kt 4; threatening R - R 3, and, by making this demonstration against White's K R P, stop the attack against his Queen's side Pawns, which will now develop.

He could not play K - Q 3, because P - Q B 4 would win at least a Pawn. This in itself condemns his last move K - K 3, which has done nothing but make his situation practically hopeless.

Now forced, but it is a little too late. He could not play 8...K R - B 2, because P - K B 4 would have left his game completely paralysed. Black now finally awakens to the danger, and tries to save the day by the counter-demonstration on the King's side, which he should have started before. Of course, White cannot play R × R P, because of R × R, followed by R - R 3, recovering the Pawn with advantage.

Black is now in a very disagreeable position. If he played 9...P × P; 10 R × P would leave him in a very awkward situation, as he could not go back with the King, nor could he do much with either Rook. He practically would have to play 10...P - K R 3, when White would answer 11 P - Kt 4, threatening to win a Pawn by P - Kt 5, or, if that were not enough, he might play K - Q 4, to be followed finally by the entry of the King at B 5 or K 5.

Again he cannot play P - K R 4, because P - K B 4 would leave him paralysed. The advance of his K R P would make White's K R P safe, and consequently his K R would have to retire to K B 2 to defend the Q R P. That would make it impossible for his King to go to Q 2, because of the Q R P, nor could he advance a single one of his Pawns. On the other hand, White would play P - Kt 4, threatening to win a Pawn by P - Kt 5, or he might first play K - Q 4, and then at the proper time P - Kt 5, if there was nothing better. Black meanwhile could really do nothing but mark time with one of his Rooks. Compare this bottling-up system with the ending in Example 57, and it will be seen that it is very similar.

Probably wrong. P - Kt 4 at once was the right move. The text move gives Black good chances of drawing.

This could never have happened had White played 12 P - Kt 4, as he could have followed it up by P - Kt 5 after Black's K - Q 3.

Not good. P - K B 4 offered the best chances of winning by force. If then 14...R - Kt 2; 15 P - R 5, R - Kt 7 ch; 16 K - Q 3, R - K R 7; 17 R × P, R × R; 18 R × R, R × P; 19 R - R 6, with winning chances.

Black misses his last chance. P - B 5 would draw. If then 15 P × P, R (Kt 2) - K 2 ch !; 16 K - B 1, R × P; 17 R × P, R - K 6 !

R (Kt 7) - Kt 2 would have offered greater resistance, but the position is lost in any case. (I leave the student to work this out.)

Nothing would avail. If 21...R - Kt 8; 22 R - R 6 ! R - Q 8 ch; 23 K - B 2, R - K R 8; 24 P - Kt 5, R × P; 25 R × P ch, K - Q 2; 26 R - Q R 6, and White will win easily.

Black is desperate. He sees he can no longer defend his Pawns.

Example 61.—From the game Capablanca-Janowski, New York National Tournament of 1913.

Black's game has the disadvantage of his double Q B P, which, to make matters worse, he cannot advance, because as soon as Black plays P - Q Kt 3, White replies P - Q Kt 4. It is on this fact that White builds his plans. He will stop Black's Queen's side Pawns from advancing, and will then bring his own King to K 3. Then in due time he will play P - Q 4, and finally P - K 5, or P - K Kt 5, thus forcing an exchange of Pawns and obtaining in that way a clear passed Pawn on the King's file. It will be seen that this plan was carried out during the course of the game, and that White obtained his winning advantage in that way. The play was based throughout on the chance of obtaining a passed Pawn on the King's file, with which White expected to win.

already preparing to play P - K Kt 5 when the time comes.

Black wants to play P - Q B 4, but White, of course, prevents it.

This King should come to the King's side, where the danger lurks.

With the object of playing K - Kt 3 and P - Q R 4, followed by P × P, and thus have an open file for his Rook and be able to make a counter-demonstration on the Queen's side in order to stop White's advance on the right. White, however, also prevents this.

Of course if P × P; Black will have all his Pawns on the Queen's side disrupted and isolated, and White can easily regain the lost Pawn by playing either Rook on the Q R file.

He still wants to play P - Q B 4, but as it is easy to foresee that White will again prevent it, the text move is really a serious loss of time. Black should bring his King over to the other side immediately.

The first part of White's strategic plan is now accomplished. Black's Pawns on the Queen's side are fixed for all practical purposes.

If R × R; Kt P × R would have given White a very powerful centre. Yet it might have been the best chance for Black.

The second part of White's strategical plan is now accomplished. It remains to find out if the advantage obtained is sufficient to win. White not only has a passed Pawn, but his King is in a commanding position in the centre of the board ready to support the advance of White's Pawns, or, if necessary, to go to Q B 5, or to move to the right wing in case of danger. Besides, White holds the open file with one of his Rooks. Altogether White's position is superior and his chances of winning are excellent.

to prevent P - Q 4. Also Black fears to keep his Rook in front of his two King's side Pawns which he may want to utilise later.

White threatens P - R 5, which would finally force Black to take, and then White would double his Rooks against the isolated Pawn and win it, or tie up Black's Rooks completely. The text move, however, only helps White; therefore Black had nothing better than to hold tight and wait. R - K 4 would not help much, as White would simply answer R - B 8, R - K 1; R (Kt 5) × R, and whichever Rook Black took, White would have an easy game. (The student should carefully study these variations.)

K - Q 2 would not help much, but since he made the previous move he should now be consistent and play it.

The winning tactics in all these endings have merely consisted in keeping the opponent's Rooks tied to the defence of one or more Pawns, leaving my own Rooks free for action. This is a general principle which can be equally applied to any part of the game. It means in general terms—

Keep freedom of manœuvre while hampering your opponent.

There is one more thing of great importance, and that is that the winning side has always had a general strategical plan capable of being carried out with the means at his disposal, while often the losing side had no plan at all, but simply moved according to the needs of the moment.

30. ROOK, BISHOP AND PAWNS v. ROOK, KNIGHT AND PAWNS

We shall now examine an ending of Rook, Bishop and Pawns against Rook, Knight and Pawns, where it will be seen that the Rook at times is used in the same way as in the endings already given.

Example 62.—From the first game of the Lasker-Marshall Championship Match in 1907.

In this position it is Black's move. To a beginner the position may look like a draw, but the advanced player will realise immediately that there are great possibilities for Black to win, not only because he has the initiative, but because of White's undeveloped Queen's side and the fact that a Bishop in such a position is better than a Knight (see Section 14). It will take some time for White to bring his Rook and Knight into the fray, and Black can utilise it to obtain an advantage. There are two courses open to him. The most evident, and the one that most players would take, is to advance the Pawn to Q B 4 and Q B 5 immediately in conjunction with the Bishop check at R 3 and any other move that might be necessary with the Black Rook. The other, and more subtle, course was taken by Black. It consists in utilising his Rook in the same way as shown in the previous endings, forcing White to defend something all the time, restricting the action of White's Knight and White's Rook, while at the same time keeping freedom of action for his own Rook and Bishop.

This forces P - Q Kt 3, which blocks that square for the White Knight.

bringing the Rook to attack the King's side Pawns so as to force the King to that side to defend them, and thus indirectly making more secure the position of Black's Queen's side Pawns.

Note that the White Knight's sphere of action is very limited, and that after Kt - Q 2 White's own Pawns are in his way.

This check accomplishes nothing. It merely drives Black's King where it wants to go. Consequently it is a very bad move. P - Q R 3 at once was the best move.

Getting ready to shift the attack to the Queen's side, where he has the advantage in material and position.

Notice how similar are the manœuvres with this Rook to those seen in the previous endings.

Paralysing the action of the Knight and fixing the whole King's side.

White cannot answer Kt - B 3, because B × Kt followed by K - K 4 will win a Pawn, on account of the check at K B 3 which cannot be stopped.

Now the King attacks White's Pawns and all will soon be over.

Merely to exhaust White's move, which will finally force him to move either the King or the Knight.

The quickest way to win. White should resign.

A very good example on Black's part of how to conduct such an ending.

CHAPTER VI

Further Openings and Middle-Games

31. SOME SALIENT POINTS ABOUT PAWNS

Before going back to the discussion of openings and middle-game positions, it might be well to bear in mind a few facts concerning Pawn positions which will no doubt help to understand certain moves, and sometimes even the object of certain variations in the openings, and of some manœuvres in the middle-games.

Example 63.—In the position of the diagram we have an exceedingly bad Pawn formation on Black's side. Black's Q B P is altogether backward, and White could by means of the open file concentrate his forces against that weak point. There is also the square at White's Q B 5, which is controlled by White, and from where a White piece once established could not be dislodged. In order to get rid of it, Black would have to exchange it, which is not always an easy matter, and often when possible not at all convenient. The same holds true with regard to Black's K P, K B P and K Kt P, which create what is called a "hole" at Black's K B 3. Such Pawn formations invariably lead to disaster, and consequently must be avoided.

Example 64.—In this position we might say that the White centre Pawns have the attacking position, while the Black centre Pawns have the defensive position. Such a formation of Pawn occurs in the French Defence. In such positions White most often attempts, by means of P - K B 4 and K B 5, to obtain a crushing attack against Black's King, which is generally Castled on the King's side. To prevent that, and also to assume the initiative or obtain material advantage, Black makes a counter-demonstration by P - Q B 4, followed by P × P (when White defends the Pawn by P - Q B 3), and the concentrating of Black's pieces against the White Pawn at Q 4. This in substance might be said to be a determined attack against White's centre in order to paralyse the direct attack of White against Black's King. It must be remembered that at the beginning of the book it was stated that control of the centre was an essential condition to a successful attack against the King.

In an abstract way we may say that two or more Pawns are strongest when they are in the same rank next to one another. Thus the centre Pawns are strongest in themselves, so to speak, when placed at K 4 and Q 4 respectively, hence the question of advancing either the one or the other to the fifth rank is one that must be most carefully considered. The advance of either Pawn often determines the course the game will follow.

Another thing to be considered is the matter of one or more passed Pawns when they are isolated either singly or in pairs. We might say that a passed Pawn is either very weak or very strong, and that its weakness or strength, whichever happens to be in the case to be considered, increases as it advances, and is at the same time in direct relation to the number of pieces on the board. In this last respect it might be generally said that a passed Pawn increases in strength as the number of pieces on the board diminishes.

Having all this clear in mind we will now revert to the openings and middle-game. We will analyse games carefully from beginning to end according to general principles. I shall, whenever possible, use my own games, not because they will better illustrate the point, but because, knowing them thoroughly, I shall be able to explain them more authoritatively than the games of others.

32. SOME POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS FROM A RUY LOPEZ

That some of the variations in the openings and the manœuvres in the middle-game are often based on some of the elementary principles just expounded can be easily seen in the following case:

Example 65.

So far a very well-known variation of the Ruy Lopez. In fact, they are the moves of the Janowski-Lasker game in Paris, 1912.

Let us suppose the game went on, and that in some way White, by playing one of the Knights to Q 4 at the proper time, forced the exchange of both Knights, and then afterwards both the Bishops were exchanged, and we arrived at some such position as shown in the following diagram. (I obtained such a position in a very similar way once at Lodz in Poland. I was playing the White pieces against a consulting team headed by Salwe.)