My Best Games
of Chess
1905-1954
by
Savielly Tartakower
Foreword by
Andy Soltis
2015
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
Milford, CT USA
1
My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954
My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954
by Savielly Tartakower
© Copyright 2015 Russell Enterprises, Inc. and Hanon W. Russell
All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used, reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form
whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written
permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles or reviews.
ISBN: 978-1-936490-89-9
Published by:
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 3131
Milford, CT 06460 USA
http://www.russell-enterprises.com
info@russell-enterprises.com
Cover design by Janel Lowrance
Editing and proofreading by Taylor Kingston, Nick Luker
and Peter Kurzdorfer
Printed in the United States of America
2
Table of Contents
Editor’s Preface by Taylor Kingston 6
Foreword by Andy Soltis 9
Author’s Preface by Savielly Tartakower 12
Translator’s Foreword by Harry Golombek 13
Introduction 15
Notes on My Chess Career 17
Tournament and Match Record 19
Chapter I: Barmen 1905 to Vienna 1908 23
Chapter II: St. Petersburg 1909 to Vienna 1919 56
Chapter III: Göteborg 1920 to London 1922 98
Chapter IV: Copenhagen 1923 to Hastings 1924/25 135
Chapter V: Paris 1925 to Moscow 1925 153
Chapter VI: Semmering 1926 to Hastings 1926/27 172
Chapter VII: Lodz 1927 to Berlin 1928 196
Chapter VIII: Scarborough 1929 to Budapest 1929 224
Chapter IX: San Remo 1930 to Liège 1930 241
Chapter X: Match with Sultan Khan, 1931, to Rotterdam 1931 261
Chapter XI: London 1932 to Paris 1934 281
Chapter XII: Sitges 1934 to Lodz 1935 302
3
My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954
Chapter XIII: Hastings 1935-36 to Parnu 1937 321
Chapter XIV: Ljubljana 1938 to Paris 1940 342
Chapter XV: Hastings 1945-46 to Groningen 1946 353
Chapter XVI: Hastings 1946-47 to Venice 1947 369
Chapter XVII: Budapest 1948 to Match vs. Yugoslavia, 1950 383
Chapter XVIII: Dubrovnik 1950 to Paris 1954 404
Index of Openings 432
ECO Codes 434
Player Index 436
Computer-assisted Supplement
(free PDF download):
http://russell-enterprises.com/excerptsanddownloads.html
4
Savielly Tartakower
1887-1956
5
My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954
Editor’s Preface
If, with the literate, I am
Impelled to try an epigram,
I never seek to take the credit;
We all assume that Oscar said it.
- Dorothy Parker, on Oscar Wilde
To those familiar with chess history and literature, Savielly Tartakower oc-
cupies a unique place, rather analogous to Oscar Wilde, as the game’s foremost
wit and aphorist. His pungent observations have become so ingrained in common
chess parlance that when one is used (e.g., “The winner of a chess game is he who
makes the next-to-last mistake,” or “Dubious, therefore playable,” or “Any open-
ing is good if its reputation is bad enough,” to mention only three of many) chances
are the speaker is not aware that he’s quoting Tartakower.
And, on the other hand, as with Dorothy Parker’s above quip about Wilde,
when a bit of chess wit is credited, chances are it’s assumed to be Tartakower’s,
whether it is or not. His cosmopolitan breadth of intellect, his sophisticated vo-
cabulary, his erudite allusions, his talent for eloquence, satire, irony, paradox,
epigram, and sardonic drollery make his writings among the most sparkling and
enjoyable in all of chess literature, and they stand in sharp contrast to the usual
dry “if … then” recitation of analytical variations so common to modern game
collections.
Yet, well deserved though this widespread recognition of Tartakower’s lit-
erary talent is, it has involved a certain injustice (or at least imbalance) because it
has tended to overshadow his talents as a chess player. In this regard, I present
myself as Exhibit A. While a half-century’s immersion in chess literature has
enabled me to recite from memory dozens of Tartakower witticisms and anec-
dotes – of course, I knew he was one of the greatest players of all time – until
editing this book, I had, except for some of his losses to more famous contempo-
raries such as Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine, played through probably no
more than a half-dozen of his games.
Working on this book has corrected that imbalance in my chess education.
Had I realized what I was missing, it would have been corrected long ago for
Tartakower’s play is, if anything, more sparkling, pungent, and enjoyable than
his writing. And, like his erudition, it is both broad and deep. He is capable of
wild flights of tactical fantasy; see, for example, his games against Schlechter at
St. Petersburg 1909 (game 16), Maróczy at Teplitz-Schönau 1922 (game 43),
Lazard at Paris 1929 (game 89), Sultan Khan (11th match game, 1931; game
104) or Wood at Southsea 1949 (game 182). Yet, he was also a master of posi-
tional play, as his games against Asztalos at Budapest 1913 (game 23), Thomas at
Hastings 1945-46 (game 162), and Benkner at Paris, 1953 (game 198) attest. His
endgame technique was truly that of a world-class grandmaster, as demonstrated
by his games against Rosselli at Semmering 1926 (game 67), Réti at Hastings
6
Editor’s Preface
1926-27 (game 74), Keres at Warsaw 1935 (game 135), and Klein (Position
XXVIII); bearing special mention in this vein is his remarkable zigzag queen
maneuver against Lowcki at Jurata 1937 (game 150).
He was also a master of psychology, always varying his opening and style to
put his opponent off-balance. See, for example, how he discomfits Schlechter
with a new twist on the Old Indian Defense (game 31), or Rubinstein with the
Blumenfeld Counter-Gambit (game 45), or Tarrasch with the Nimzovitch Sicil-
ian (game 87), or Pilnik with the Barry Attack (game 189). On the other hand, he
could also neutralize over-eager ambition with solid play, as against Takacs at
Budapest 1926 (game 69).
In openings, Tartakower had one of the most varied repertoires ever seen.
He was as comfortable in romantic gambits (King’s, Vienna, Evans, Falkbeer,
etc.) as in ultra-closed lines (e.g., the Réti and Catalan Systems). He was fond of
eccentric and experimental lines (e.g., the Orangutang, the Basque, 2.g3 against
the both the French and Sicilian), and games 20 to 23 practically constitute a
primer on Bird’s Opening (1.f4). He had a well-deserved reputation as a leader of
the Hypermodern movement, even coining the term and playing, besides the Réti
and Catalan as White, just about every Indian Defense there is as Black, often
fianchettoing both bishops with either color. Yet, he loved reviving dusty old
double king pawn lines (e.g., the Ponziani, Philidor’s Defense, and 3.Be2 in the
King’s Gambit), and one of the most frequently seen openings in both volumes is
the decidedly un-hypermodern Orthodox Defense of the Queen’s Gambit De-
clined.
The games are highly instructive. The notes explain opening theory, strate-
gic ideas, and tactics in a manner very accessible and helpful to the average player.
A recurring theme throughout is energy. Tartakower always strove to make his
pieces active, to give them scope, to keep the game alive; seeing how he does this
cannot help but improve one’s play.
Another recurring theme is the struggle for the center, in particular the e4-
and e5-squares. Over and over, we see Tartakower striving to control them, espe-
cially in order to post a knight on e5 as White or on e4 as Black. As he says in his
game against Lajos Steiner at the 1935 Warsaw Olympiad (game 136), “The art
of chess is simple: You play Ne5 and then, sooner or later, Nxf7 is decisive.” Of
course, it’s not that simple, but the complexity becomes comprehensible as one
watches Tartakower’s skillful handling of such knight outposts.
While modern versions of some chess classics (e.g., Capablanca’s Chess
Fundamentals or Fischer’s My 60 Memorable Games) have suffered consider-
able alteration (if not harmful defacement), we have kept this edition true to the
original. The main differences compared to the British editions of 1953 and 1956
are:
— Combining and collating both volumes and indices into a coherent whole
— Conversion to figurine algebraic notation from English descriptive
— Modern opening nomenclature and ECO codes
— Additional diagrams (at least twice as many as before)
— American spelling and punctuation
7
My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954
— Explanations for Tartakower’s Latin sayings
— Correction of typographical errors in notation and text (without, one
hopes, introducing new ones!)
— Modern annotation symbols
To explain the last item, we see that the British editions used but two evalu-
ation symbols, y and u, whereas today we have a broader range (r, y, i, t, u,
o); these have been substituted for the originals as indicated by computer analy-
sis. Also, the British editions used “?!” and “!?” in the exact opposite of their
current sense (i.e., “?!” to mean interesting and probably good, and “!?” to mean
dubious and probably bad). This has been reversed.
Additionally, in the process of conversion to algebraic notation, each game
was subjected to computer analysis. Since even great grandmaters, being human,
make mistakes, this inevitably reveals them. These have been compiled in an
analytical appendix, which the publisher is making available to all buyers of this
book. It may be downloaded at: http://russell-enterprises.com/
excerptsanddownloads.html.
Along with his reputation for wit, Tartakower was also regarded as rather a
cynic. If so, one could hardly blame him; losing one’s parents in a pogrom and
struggling to survive two world wars (in both of which he saw military service,
first with Austria-Hungary and then with the Free French) could embitter anyone.
He occasionally brings out a poison pen in these pages; see, for example, the
sarcastic barbs aimed at Lasker in game 17, or his comments about the “Yugoslav
variation” in game 64. Yet, taking the book as a whole, it is clear that whatever
cynicism Tartakower felt hardly made him a misanthrope, quite the opposite. Any
such tendencies were more than balanced by genuine joy: joy in life in general,
and joy specifically in the thrills, beauty, infinite variety, depth, and mystery chess
offers. We invite the reader to explore with him.
Taylor Kingston
San Diego
November 2014
8
My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954
With the aim of getting some com- reply 29...Bxb5 because of 30.Qd6+
pensation in the event of 22.Nc8 Rxc8 Kf7 31.Qb6, attacking three enemy
23.Bxc8 Nxc5, but White is not going units at the same time. And, if 29...Ke7,
to be content with so little! 30.Qd6+. So,
22.Bxe4 dxe4 23.Rfd1! f6 29...Ke8 30.Qg8+ 1-0
24.Qb3+ Kf8 For, after 30...Ke7 31.Qb8, the
If 24...Bf7, 25.Rxd8+ Qxd8 sad lot of Black’s rook is accomplished.
26.Rd1! Qc7 27.Qc2 Be6 28.Rd6 Kf7
29.f3 exf3 30.gxf3 a4 31.Rxe6! Kxe6 (43) Maróczy – Tartakower
32.Qc4+ Kf5 33.Qg4#. Teplitz-Schönau 1922
All these variations, and others Dutch Defense [A85]
like them, illustrate the throes afflict- Massive Sacrifices
ing Black, and this always because of
the imprisoned queen’s rook. “Revenge for Pistyan!” It was with
25.Rxd8 Qxd8 26.Rd1 Qc7 this idea that I came to the tournament
(D)cuuuuuuuuC at Teplitz-Schönau in 1922. Indeed, my
initial dash in this tournament was wor-
{wDwDbiwD} thy of the utmost praise, since not only
{4p1wDw0p} did I win the first four games, but I also
{wHwDw0wD} found myself at the head of the table
{0P)w0wDw} on the eve of the last round!
{wDwDpDwD} However, losing this last encoun-
{)Qdw)wDw} ter to Teichmann, through playing too
impetuously, I was not only outstripped
{wDwDw)P)} by a half-point by Réti and Spielmann,
{DwDRDwIw} but also was overhauled by Grünfeld,
vllllllllV
If 26...Qe7, 27.Nc8 (or even with whom I consequently shared third
27.Rd6) 27...Qxc5 28.Nxa7 Qxa7 and fourth prizes.
29.b6, and Black is harassed without My style at Teplitz-Schönau was
respite. He still has hopes of deliver- a vigorous one, as is shown by the fol-
ance after the text move (e.g., in the lowing victory, gained in the fourth
event of 27.Qc4 a4 28.Nxa4 Qa5), but round, when I was still being carried
this hope is cruelly deceived. along by my initial impetus!
27.Nd7+! 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5
A most disagreeable surprise, but, With this delayed Dutch Defense,
to tell the truth, it would be rather a sur- Black avoids the Staunton Gambit (1.d4
prise if such an eventuality were not f5 2.e4), but allows the adversary, if he
possible in a situation so cramped as likes, to transpose into the French De-
Black’s. fense (1.d4 e6 2.e4).
27...Qxd7 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.a3
Desperation, but, if 27...Bxd7, This little move, advocated by
28.b6 Qxc5 29.bxa7 Qxa7 30.Rxd7. Steinitz in his time, prevents a counter-
28.Rxd7 Bxd7 29.Qd5 attack by ...Bb4 and prepares for even-
Relentless pursuit. Black cannot tual queen’s wing operations by b4; but,
on the other side, it sacrifices a quite
118
Göteborg 1920 to London 1922
Teplitz-Schönau 1922
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total
1 Réti * 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 0 0 9
2 Spielmann 0 * ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 9
3 Tartakower 0 ½ * ½ 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 8½
4 Grünfeld ½ 0 ½ * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 8½
5 Rubinstein 0 ½ 0 ½ * 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 8
6 Kostic 0 0 0 0 1 * 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 6½
7 Teichmann 0 ½ 1 ½ 0 0 * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 6
8 Treybal 0 0 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ * 1 0 1 0 1 0 5½
9 Wolf 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 5½
10 Maróczy ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ * ½ 0 1 1 5½
11 Tarrasch 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ * 1 ½ ½ 5
12 Sämisch 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 1 0 * 0 1 5
13 Mieses 1 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 * 1 5
14 Johner 1 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 1 0 0 ½ 0 0 * 4
precious tempo that might have been layed stonewall, which Black has just
spent in piece development. created, comprises many attacking
Therefore, modern strategy advo- ideas.
cates here 4.g3, so as to forestall Black 7.Nf3
in the occupation of the long white di- If 7.Nge2, 7...c6 8.f3 Bd6 9.c5
agonal. More precisely, this should be Bc7, and White is still unable to arrive
played on the previous move, 1.d4 e6 at the e4-advance.
2.c4 f5 3.g3, and, if 3...Bb4+, 4.Bd2 7...c6
Bxd2+ 5.Qxd2!, followed by Nc3 etc.; The thematic 7...Ne4 is, as yet,
or even on the second move, 1.d4 e6 premature because of 8.cxd5 exd5
2.g3, and, if 2...f5, 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nh3! 9.Qb3, with double attack on d5 and
Be7 5.0-0 etc., when White has some e4.
useful positional advantages. 8.0-0 Ne4 9.Qc2
4...Be7 Pursuing a waiting policy. To the
The first strategic objective: the counter-stonewall 9.Ne5, Black can
king’s security. Also playable is 4...b6, reply 9...Nd7 (and not 9...Bd6 10.f4)
but, if immediately 4...d5, then 5.Bf4! 10.Nxd7 Bxd7 11.f3 Nxc3, with a
c6 6.e3 assures White, in this prema- shade the advantage since White’s
ture stonewall, the advantage of suc- queen wing is somewhat weakened.
cessful development of his queen’s 9...Bd6 10.b3 Nd7 11.Bb2
bishop, whereas Black’s remains shut Full of confidence in the scientific
in. basis of his play, White treats the game
5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 d5 from a purely positional point of view,
To prevent the central advance whereas Black regards the given posi-
7.e4, which would follow after either tion as a vast problem: Mate in 25
6...b6, or 6...d6. In addition, this de- moves!
119
My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954
cuuuuuuuuC
11...Rf6 12.Rfe1
With a view to clearing f1 for the
{sIB$Rdsd}
king’s bishop, or eventually for the f3- {)s)sHQGs}
knight, when the royal rampart would {s)s)sdP)}
be impregnable. {dpdp)Pds}
12...Rh6 {sdsdpdsd}
Forcing the adversary to parry the {4s1pgpds}
immediate threat 13...Bxh2+ 14.Nxh2
Qh4.
{pdsdndp0}
13.g3 {dkdsdbdr}
White thinks he can rest content vllllllllV
with this waiting strategy since the little opment. The question that presents it-
text move not only meets the above- self to Black is, therefore, the follow-
mentioned threat, but also completes the ing: “Prepare or pillage?”
plan for defense by Bf1-g2. 17...Rxh2!!
13...Qf6 14.Bf1 This sacrifice of a major piece
But not 14.Nd2? because of without immediate, striking conse-
14...Nxf2 15.Kxf2 Rxh2+ 16.Kg1 quences exacted the most elaborate cal-
(16.Kf3 Qg5) 16...Bxg3, followed by culation. Positively, Black has to fore-
...Qh4. see if he would succeed in carrying out
14...g5 15.Rad1 certain essential quiet moves (...Nf6-
Too many preparatory moves! The h5-g3 as well as ...Bd7) before the ad-
direct defense by 15.Bg2, followed by versary can throw his rescue troops into
Nd2-f1, was in order. However, Black the fight. Negatively, Black had to work
could reply to 15.Bg2 not with 15...g4 out that a slow and methodical rein-
(which would close the critical sector), forcement of his attack (by 17...Nf8 and
but with 15...Qg6, followed by ...Qh5 then ...Bd7, ...Ng6, ...Rf8) would also
and ...Ndf6-g4, with a fierce attack. allow his opponent to consolidate, e.g.,
15...g4 16.Nxe4 17...Nf8 18.Bg2 Bd7 19.Nf1 Ng6
This preliminary capture opens up 20.Bc3! a5 21.Qd2, and White is try-
another attacking line for the opponent, ing to displace the center of gravity of
but it is clearly necessary for, if at once the struggle in the direction of the
16.Nd2, there again follows 16...Nxf2 queen’s wing.
17.Kxf2 Rxh2+ 18.Bg2 Bxg3+!, and 18.Kxh2
Black wins. White is, in any case, forced to
16...fxe4 17.Nd2 (D) accept the generous sacrifice for, if
18.Nxe4, 18...Qh6!, defending the rook
If one casts a glance over the and menacing mate.
board, it will be observed that, at the 18...Qxf2+ 19.Kh1!
moment, the white king has as its only White defends himself, and not
real defense the bishop on f1, whereas unskillfully. After 19.Bg2, Black con-
all the other pieces are mere units or tinues not with 19...Qxg3+ 20.Kg1 etc.,
even simple spectators; but that, on the nor whit 19...Bxg3+ 20.Kh1 Qf6
other hand, the entire black queen’s 21.Re2 Bf2 22.Rxf2 Qxf2 23.Rf1
wing is in an embryonic state of devel- Qxe3 24.Qd1 etc., but, on a parallel
120
Göteborg 1920 to London 1922
with the game continuation, with a quiet 23...Rf8 (because of 24.Nd2), but
move, 19...Nf6 20.Qc3 (if 20.Nxe4, 23...Qf3+ 24.Rg2 Qh3+ (if 24...Bg3,
20...Bxg3+, followed by 21...Qxc2) 25.Nd2!) 25.Kg1 Rf8 26.Nd2 Bg3
20...Qxg3+ 21.Kg1 Qh2+ 22.Kf1 Nh5 (26...Ng3? can be mastered by 27.Rh2,
23.Nxe4 (otherwise there comes and 26...Rf3 by 27.Nxf3 exf3 28.Rc2)
23...Bd7 and ...Rf8+) 23...dxe4 24.d5 27.Rxg3 Qxg3+ 28.Qxg3 Nxg3
e5 25.dxc6 Ng3+ 26.Kf2 Be6, and 29.Bc3 Nf5 30.Re1 h5, and the united
Black wins. passed pawns are worth more than the
19...Nf6! piece.
The first point of the sacrifice. 23...Qh4+ 24.Kg1
Since White’s whole second rank of Or 24.Rh2 Bxh2 25.Qxh2 Qg5!,
pieces remains paralyzed, Black has just with continued pressure.
sufficient time to bring his reserve 24...Bg3!
troops into action. Weak would be the The beginning of harvest time.
plausible line 19...Qxg3? because of Much less convincing is 24...Ng3 (be-
20.Nb1, immediately allowing the cause of 25.Rh2!), and so too is 24...g3
queen to come to the aid of the king. (because of 25.Rg2).
20.Re2 Qxg3 21.Nb1 25.Bc3
Or 21.Qc3 Nh5 22.Rg2 Qh4+ White is already forced to throw
23.Kg1 Ng3 24.Rh2 Qg5 25.Rf2 Nf5, some ballast overboard. Indeed, if
with winning and decisive threats. 25.Rg2, 25...Rf8 26.Qe2 Rf3 27.Bc3
21...Nh5 Bd6 28.Be1 (otherwise, 28...Rh3)
And not 21...Qh4+ 22.Rh2. 28...g3 29.Nd2 Qg4, followed by
22.Qd2 ...Ng7-f5, and wins. The best way of
This defends the e-pawn and in- giving up the exchange lies, however,
tends 23.Qe1. in 25.Rh2, so as to finish, eventually,
22...Bd7! (D) with 25...Bxh2+ 26.Qxh2 Qxh2+?
cuuuuuuuuC 27.Kxh2 Rf8 28.Bg2 Rf2 29.Rd2, in
{KdBdRdNd} an endgame with somewhat nebulous
{dsdR!sGs} chances.
{s1s)sdP)} 25...Bxf2+ 26.Qxf2 g3
{dpdp)Pds} 27.Qg2 Rf8 (D)
cuuuuuuuuC
{ndsdpdsd} {sIBdRdNd}
{dsdpgpds} {dQdsdsds}
{pdsdbdp0} {s0s)sGP)}
{dkdsdsdr} {1sdp)Pds}
vllllllllV
The second point, consisting once {ndsdpdsd}
again in a quiet move. Not good enough {dsdpdpds}
is 22...Qf3+ (or ...Qh4+), on account {pdsdbdp0}
of 23.Kg1. {dk4sdsds}
23.Rf2
To prevent the enemy rook from
vllllllllV
At length, it can be said that
occupying this file. If 23.Qe1, then not Black’s development is more or less
121
My Best Games of Chess, 1905-1954
complete. The threat is 28...Rf2 29.Qh1 Only an illusion of preservation is
Rh2, winning the queen. afforded by the immediate capture
28.Be1 30.Bxg3 for there follows 30...Nxg3+
White’s game is already compro- 31.Kf2 Bg4! 32.Re1 Ne2+ 33.Kf1
mised, whatever he played. If (a) Kh8, and the loss of the white queen
28.Qh1, 28...Qg5 29.Re1 Rf2 30.Bg2 by 34...Bh3 remains inevitable. Also
Nf6 31.Nd2 h5 32.Nf1 h4 33.Bb4 e5! insufficient is the attempt to escape with
34.dxe5 Ng4 35.Bd6 Rxf1+ 36.Bxf1 the king by 30.Ke2 because of
Nh2 37.Bg2 Bg4, and wins; or if (b) 30...Bg4+ 31.Kd2 Qh2 32.Qxh2 gxh2,
28.Rd2, 28...Rf3 29.Re2 Qg5 30.Be1 and Black wins.
h6! 31.Bd2 Nf6 32.Nc3 Ng4 33.Nd1 30...Bg4 31.Bxg3
Nh2 34.Re1 h5 35.Be2 h4! etc. A painful but necessary decision
With the text move, White accom- for, if 31.Rd2, 31...exd4 32.exd4 Bf3
plishes the plan formed on his 25th 33.Bxg3 Nxg3 34.Qh2 Qxh2+ (the
move and, at the same time, prevents simplest) 35.Rxh2 Ne2+, followed by
the threat mentioned above (28...Rf2); ...Nxd4, and Black obtains three pawns
he even sets a pretty trap for, if Black for the exchange.
now hastens to regain his piece by 31...Nxg3 32.Re1 Nf5!
28...Qh2+ 29.Qxh2 gxh2+ 30.Kxh2 Black works with direct threats
Rxf1, then comes 31.Nd2 Rf8 32.Bh4, and unceasing bludgeoning blows.
and, White’s pieces being freed, he has 33.Qf2 Qg5 34.dxe5
the undeniable positional advantage. A slow death would result after
28...Rxf1+! 34.Kf1 Qh5 35.Qg1 Qh4 (menacing
The second assault. It is a ques- 36...Ng3+ 37.Kg2 Ne2 38.Rxe2
tion of gaining sufficient time by this Qh3+, followed by mate in two moves)
fresh sacrifice to bring his bishop, hith- 36.Nc3 Ng3+ 37.Kg2 Nh1 38.Kf1
erto inactive, into the thick of the fight. Qf6+, with mate in two moves.
Inconclusive, on the other hand, would 34...Bf3+ 35.Kf1 Ng3+ 0-1
be a preparation for the sacrifice by If 36.Kg1, 36...Nh1+. The judges
28...e5, because of 29.Rd2 exd4, and awarded this game the third brilliancy
now not, as Dr. Tarrasch thought in his prize, although the majority of them
somewhat one-sided analysis, 30.exd4 declared in peremptory fashion that
Rf4u, but 30.Rf2!, by which White gets such sacrifices are incalculable in all
rid of a dangerous enemy piece. their ramifications in advance and that,
29.Kxf1 e5 30.Kg1 (D) in consequence, they deserve no en-
cuuuuuuuuC couragement.
{sIsGRdNd}
{dQdsdsds} (44) Tarrasch – Tartakower
{s0s)sdP)} Teplitz-Schönau 1922
Caro-Kann Defense [B15]
{1sdp)Pds} Live Pawns
{nds0pdsd}
{dsdsdpds} 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3
{pdsdbdp0} Against the line that contains so
{dkdsdsds} much venom despite its seeming sim-
vllllllllV
122
