CAPÍTULO 3. ANÁLISIS TÉCNICO ECONÓMICO DE LA EJECUCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
3.6 Consideraciones finales del capitulo
W. STEINITZ M. CHIGORIN 1. e4 e5 2. NfJ Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 9. Nh3
It is theoretically proven that if the Knight retreats to f3 , Black is sufficiently compensated. The controversial move of Nh3, which Steinitz defended, is still disputed. Robert Fischer revived it and made use of it in several games.
Steinitz considered Nh3 the best move, but Chigorin did not agree.
9 ... Bc5 (the Knight on h3 is so poorly placed that there is no sense in exchanging it, even if this weakens the position of White's Pawns . As Fischer
pointed out, here 9 . . . Bd6 also deserves attention in order to reply to 10. d4 with 10 . . . e4)
10. d3 0-0 11 . Nc3 Nd5 12. Na4 Bd6 13. Ng1 f5
DIAGRAM 8
We should point out, by the way, that Fischer interprets the position after the Knight's move to h3 otherwise , in a more mod
ern fashion, without placing great hopes on his wall of Pawns. This is how his game with Arthur Bisguier (Black) proceeded in the 1963 New York Championship after 9 . . . Bc5 : 10. 0-0 0-0 1 1 . d3 Bxh3 1 2. gxh3 Qd7 1 3 . Bf3 (in the case of 1 3. Bg4 Nxg4, fol
lowed by f5, Black is in a good position to attack) 1 3 . . . Qxh3 14. Nbd2 Rd8 1 5 . Bg2 Qf5 (as Fischer pointed out, by playing 16. Qf3 White gains some advan
tage).
14. c3 Bd7 15. d4 e4 16. c4 Ne7!
Black does not want to close
the f -file and is preparing to advantage in development should prove decisive.
20. Qc2-a disaster is imminent.
but there are no longer any satis Qxa2. Also unsatisfactory is 25 . Bxe4 Rxf2+ 26. Qxf2 Qxe4
Chigorin's attack was perfect, and this is one of the most noteworthy games of the 1 9th century.
Chigorin' s victory over Steinitz made a great impact. "Steinitz's primacy in chess has been shaken for the first time in 25 years for all the world to see," claimed the Russian magazine Shashechnitsa, echoing a widely held opinion.
27
No wonder then that by the end of 1 89 1 the second world championship between Steinitz and Chigorin was already ar
ranged. Again Chigorin had to traved to Havana, and once more Russian chess enthusiasts col
lected money for the trip.
The second Steinitz vs. Chigo
rin match was one of the most dramatic in the history of chess competition. Both of the oppo
nents made their favourite open
ing lines and conducted a relent
less, uncompromising game.
People in Russia waited with excitement for news from Cuba.
"I am unable to overcome my chess patriotism and I hope that the Number 1 chess player will be the Russian" , stated Leo Tolstoy.
In a number of the games in the match Chigorin made success
ful use of the bold Evans Gambit, which was a formidable weapon in his hands. Steinitz used closed opening systems .
It is interesting that the Evans Gambit was often discarded, only to be revived, whereupon its op
ponents would discover another Achilles' heel. At the end of the 1 800s things had gone so far that a spiritualism session was held in Vienna, at which the admirers of the gambit tried to call up the spirit of the famed French chess player Louis Charles de Labour
donnais to ask for his opinion on this controversial variation.
The spirit, alas, was unpre
pared for such consultations, and the chess spiritualists, headed by Master Kolisch, had to content themselves with an analytical check of the position.
Chigorin himself, without re
sorting to the supernatural, disco
vered truly extraordinary poten
tial in the Evans Gambit and other gambit systems and was able to attack in such a way that even Steinitz was unable to parry.
By the finishing game the score was 9:8 (with five draws) in Steinitz's favour. In the conclu
sive ( 1 8th) game Chigorin (White) quickly gained a decisive advan
tage. Here is the position after Black's 3 1 st move.
DIAGRAM 10
Chigorin had plenty of time for consideration. The control time had just passed (the match was played with a time control of 15 moves an hour). The simple 32. Rxb7 would have led to vic
tory. Chigorin pondered for 20 minutes and made a suicidal move: 32. Bb4??, and after the obvious 32 . . . Rxh2+ he resigned.
This is one of the most drama
tic examples of chess blindness.
Steinitz himself called his wm a Pyrrhic victory.
Chigorin was far superior to Steinitz in his understanding of correctness, strength and beauty in the art of chess. But Steinitz unquestionably had more stami
na, endurance and composure, and was more able to spread his strength in the long run, and take into account the psychological aspects of the game.
Just as the Steinitz vs. Chigorin matches were of epic quality, so Mikhail Chigorin's match in 1 893 with the famed German Grand
master Siegbert Tarrasch, Steinitz's follower, made chess history. This match , which took place in St. Petersburg, produced a number of excellent games .
Chigorin, who competed i n many international contests, was always a worthy representative of Russian chess. He travelled to London, Paris, Prague, Berlin, New York, Budapest and Vienna, where his talent was admired.
A study of the past shows us that each generation discovers Chigorin in its own way. His contemporaries saw him as the main figure in a romantic trend, a talented improviser. However, a thorough study of Chigorin' s leg
acy reveals that the Russian champion was considerably ahead of his time.
Although Mikhail Chigorin never became world champion, his role in the development of chess thought is difficult to over
estimate. Chigorin's profound ideas, opening inventions and en
dgame analyses have come down to us and are now an important part of tournament practice.
Chigorin emerged as a major chess player when Steinitz's theories, later developed by Tar
rasch, reigned throughout the world. 19th century: positivism, mechanicism, rationalism in philosophy, naturalism in litera
ture. Steinitz was a true son of chess strategy and tactics dictat
ing correct behaviour in all
Chigorin revolted against this narrow approach; he thought that the progress of chess theory would inevitably refute many old conceptions. "What theory recog
nises today it refutes tomorrow,"
he wrote in 1 90 1 . Chigorin strove in his research for concrete, 29
exact analyses, avoiding the hazy general arguments that were so dear to the hearts of the "new school" ideologists.
"General notions made their appearance in chess literature comparatively recently, some 1 0 years ago", wrote Chigorin in 1 893 , "probably with the emergence of the so-called new school proclaimed by Steinitz, and took root for a very obvious reason: anyone, so to speak, can occupy himself with this matter if he is the least bit capable of dialectics , even when he has in
sufficient knowledge of chess and experience in analysis.
"We should point out that many of those who see them
selves as followers of this new school interpret Steinitz's princi
ples completely inaccurately."
Note Chigorin's last comment.
He always had a high opinion of Steinitz as a chess theoretician , although he disagreed with him on creative principles.
"In chess books and memoirs, just as in conversation , one hears: theoretically, more theoret
ically, etc. What is usually under
stood by that are the generally accepted, commonly made moves, whose only advantage is to have been studied in greater depth," wrote Chigorin and, de
veloping his idea, he added: "In actual fact in almost all openings you can find moves which are not inferior to the theoretical moves if they are used as the initial point of a whole combination of moves by a good and experienced player. Chess as a game is much richer than one might suppose from the existing theory, which
attempts to contain it within cer
tain narrow forms."
These ideas deserve some thought, for they were the basis for new opening designs and what seemed to be "incorrect" struc
tures. An important feature of the Russian school was to discover not just separate moves, but sys
tems in which these moves were the important link.
Typical of Chigorin' s view of opening problems is his explana
tion of the move. 2. Qe2 (after 1 . e4 e6) which he employed in his match with Tarrasch . For many years the critics regarded this use of the Queen in the opening as eccentric.
DIAGRAM I I
Chigorin wrote:
"Move 2. Qe2 in the first four games of the match with Dr.
Tarrasch caused the French De
fence to lose its usual character, and it gave the others a certain originality . . .
"It can, in any case, be discus
disputably right in asserting that the opening cannot be viewed as fashionable structures of the King's Indian Defence and other similar patterns.
Chigorin systematised many opening patterns in which the loss Chigorin' s interpretation of tempo was completely different from that of Tarrasch and some other theoreticians. Now many leading chess players share Chigorin 's point of view .
This difference in approach to tempo can be seen in the short discussion between Chigorin and Tarrasch in 1 90 l .
Tarrasch considered that since White had played his Knight on
rasch, "this variation, despite its erroneousness, was often met in tournament practice."
Chigorin wrote: "The people must not have ceased using it (the variation) because, among other things, they cannot understand the wise arguments of the hon
ourable doctor about lost tempos , nor his arithmetic, for Black, by White has better opportunities for play than in the case of 7. Nd6+
As we know, modern theory sees the move 7. a3 as the strongest in the given position.
Now, too, none of the theoreti
cians consider the tempo in isola
tion from the dynamics of the events taking place on the chess board. Tarrasch's counting of tempos cannot be decisive in assessing the potential of the two sides.
Another assertion by Chigorin running contrary to Tarrasch ' s main rules was of tremendous significance for modern theory.
The German theoretician and his followers held that every cramped position con
tains within it the embryo of defeat.
Imagine, for instance, that this opinion had held sway. It would have prevented not only the de
velopment of such important openings as the King's Indian Defence, the Sicilian Defence, the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence and many others, but also completely changed the entire strategy of modern chess.
Chigorin advanced the idea that
"not every cramped position is a sign of the superiority of the opponent's game". His statement that "a cramped situation, too, sometimes conceals for a certain time its advantage, affecting the outcome of the battle" is even more definite.
These words of 1 895 were Chigorin' s programme of action where opening theory was con
cerned. Credit goes to him for devising and introducing into prac
tice a number of versions of the King's Indian Defence, and some very important variations of the
Ruy Lopez and the Sicilian Defence.
Another discovery by Chigorin is also of vital significance: the possibility of putting up a suc
cessful struggle against the oppo
nent's Pawn centre by the pieces exerting pressure on the central squares . This idea was expressed in Chigorin' s defence in the Queen' s Gambit ( l . d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6).
Although this particular idea was not proved to be reliable, neither the Alekhine Defence nor the Greunfeld Defence could have developed without it. In general the idea of pressure by the pieces on the Pawn centre has become one of the chief problems of Black' s modern strategy .
Let us now examine another example of how Chigorin under
took the concrete analysis of a position.
DIAGRAM 1 3
Alexander Petrov
Sergei Urusov Karl Jaenisch
Mikhail Chigorin
Participants m the Third All-Russian
A group of members of the Organisational Committee and of participants in the All-Russian Masters Tourna
ment that was held in St. Petersburg in December 1 9 1 3 and January 1914. First row (sitting): V . P. Vertog
radov, P. A . Yevtifeyev, G. S. Salwe, Y . 0. Sosnitsky, P. Malyulin, P. A. Saburov , N. N . Cutler, G. Y. Lcvenfish , J . Taubenhaus, P. P. Saburov, S. N . Freiman . Second row (standing): M. L. Lovtsky, S . M . Levitsky, S. E. Alapin, A. I. Evenson, A. D. Flamberg, A. A. Alekhine, B. Gregori, Y. D. Bogolyubov , P. P. Potyomkin, A. A. Durdin, and F. I. Duz-Khotimirsky
Leo Tolstoy at the chessboard
V . I. Lenin (left) playing chess on Capri. Among the onlookers is Maxim Gorky
The membership card presented to V. I. Lenin by the Moscow Chess Society
EJ
Nikolai Krylenko
Nikolai Ryumin A lexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky
Chess, a game played in Central Asia for many centuries , is still popular
A poster announcing a chess match between the composer Sergei Pro
kofiev and the violinist David Oistrakh
A scene from the Oistrakh-Prokofiev match
�
H09&PI�
WAXMATtfbiA
Chess is played everywhere in the USSR
Mikhail Botvinnik
Mikhail Botvinnik and his wife
Mikhail Botvinnik at a summer resort with his coach Vyacheslav Ragozin
Mikhail Botvinnik and Jose Raul Capablanca analysing a game
Mikhail Botvinnik in Turkmenia
Sergei Dolmatov
Salo Flohr Leonid Stein
K. Y. Voroshilov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, presenting the Order of Lenin to Vassily Smyslov in the Kremlin
Isaak Boleslavsky, David Bronstein, Mark Taimanov
Yefim Geller
This was the position in the claim, "stands poorly." (Chigorin had in mind the Tarrasch rule
provised, not systematic. Soviet grandmasters and masters learned to look for new methods of play and acquired the ability to de
velop systems and variations from Chigorin.
Take a look, for instance, at how Chigorin consistently kept on improving his system during
tional tournament in London, 1 899. e5. 1904. International tournament in Cambridge Springs.
Schlechter vs. Chigorin: 1 . e4 against Taubenhaus he employed a continuation which proved to be the precedent of the famous Marshall Attack, which emerged in 1918. in the international tournament in Nuremberg ( 1 906) the Chigorin system, which is now known to 33
every chess enthusiast, took its final shape.
I. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 0-0 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 1 1 . d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2.
DIAGRAM 15
Now take a look how Chigorin interpreted another of his inven
tions, the King's Indian Defence.