8.Qc2This move, which was very fashionable since the Ostend Tournaments of 1905-7 and which had almost completely superseded the old move, 8. B—Q 3, will soon become quite obsolete, for every International Tournament brings a fresh and sufficient line of play for Black. In the Mahrisch-Ostrau Tournament of 1923 Wolf played against the great theorist Grünfeld the simple continuation: 8. ....Kt—K 5; 9. B×B, Q×B; 10. B—Q 3 (10. Kt×Kt obviously leads to nothing, for if White captures the Pawn on K 4 he loses his Q Kt P). 10. ....Kt×Kt, with a very defendable game which resulted in a draw. But apart from 8. ....Kt—K 5 there are available to Black at least four replies whose inadequacy has not yet been demonstrated.
8…a6In my opinion better than 8. ....P—K R 3, upon which White could have replied advantageously 9. B—B 4, e.g.: 9. ....R—K 1 (if 9. ....Kt—K 5, then 10. B—Q 3!, P—K B 4; 11. P—K R 4 followed at need by P—K Kt 3 and Kt—K 5, with advantage to White); 10. B—Q 3, P×P; 11. B×P, P—Q Kt 4; 12. B—Q 3, P—R 3; 13. P—Q R 4!, etc. The game Alekhin—Teichmann (Carlsbad, 1923) unfolded itself in the following way: 13. ....B—Kt 2; 14. Castles, R—B 1; 15. Q—Kt 3, Q—Kt 3; 16. Kt—K 5, K R—Q 1; 17. Kt—Kt 6!, B—B 1; 18. Kt×B, Kt×Kt; 19. Kt—K 4, Kt×Kt; 20. B×Kt, Kt—Q 2; 21. B—Q 6!, Kt—B 3; 22. B—Q B 5, Q—B 2; 23. B—B 3, P—Q R 4, and White by playing for example 24. K R—K 1 or 24. R—B 2, instead of accepting the Pawn sacrificed, which only led to a draw, would have retained a winning position. 8. ....P—B 4 usually results in the isolation of White's Q P, but on the other hand it allows White to undertake a rather dangerous attack on the King-side. This variation admits of a complicated and very difficult game, with nearly equal chances. Concerning 8. ....R—K 1 and 8. ....P×P, see Games No. 79 (Alekhin-Muffang) and 69 (Alekhin-Yates) respectively.
9.a4As this identical variation had yielded me a win the previous evening against Grünfeld, who played here 9. P—Q R 3 (see Game No. 81), I wished to avoid fighting against the defence which I considered then, and still consider now, the best. This is the reason which decided me in favour of 9. P—Q R 4, a move which Rubinstein, my present adversary, had adopted against me, without conspicuous success, in a similar position in the Hastings Tournament of 1922. The game continued as follows: 8. ....P—K R 3; 9. B—R 4, P—R 3; 10. P—Q R 4, P—B 4; 11. B—Q 3, B P×P; 12. K P×P, P×P; 13. B×P, Kt—Kt 3; 14. B—R 2, Q Kt—Q 4; 15. B—Kt 1, Kt—Q Kt 5; 16. Q—K 2, B—Q 2; 17. Castles, B—B 3; 18. K R—Q 1, R—B 1; 19. Kt—K 5, K Kt—Q 4; 20. B—Kt 3, B—K Kt 4; 21. P—B 4!, B—R 5; 22. Kt×B, R×Kt; 23. Kt×Kt, R×R; 24. R×R, Kt×Kt; 25. Q—K 4, P—K Kt 3; 26. B×B, Q×B; 27. P—B 5?, Q—Kt 4! and Black wins easily. It is manifest that the move 9. P—Q R 4 cannot pretend to yield any advantage, since Black can answer it by 9. ....Kt—K 5! with greater force than on the preceding move, White's Queen-side being now slightly weak. Rubinstein, however, seeks to take advantage of the weakness by a different method.
9…Re8If 9. ....P—R 3 White replies 10. B—B 4 with advantage.
11…Nd5We now realize the idea conceived by Black—a fusion of the new defensive system (....P—Q R 3) with the old system (....P×P and ....Kt—Q 4), in the hope of thus profiting by the weakening of the square Q Kt 5 created by the advance of White's Q R P.
12.Bf4White in his turn deviates from the beaten track. The text-move is here much stronger than in the analogous position where I played it against Selesnieff at Pistyan, 1922 (see Game No. 54) for the following reasons: (1) After 12. ....Kt×B; 13. P×Kt the position of the Black Rook at K 1 is less favourable than on K B 1, where it hinders a subsequent attack on the point K B 2. (2) The manœuvre Kt—Kt 3—Q 4 which, in the game cited, allowed Black to undertake a counter-attack, loses its sting because White's Queen is at Q B 2 and he can therefore gain a tempo by B—Q 3, threatening the K R P. In addition the move P—Q R 4, unfavourable in other cases, here affords him the possibility of B—R 2 and B—Kt 1, a manœuvre analogous to the Grünfeld variation (9. P—Q R 3), but still more effective here because of the opening of the King's file. We can therefore anticipate a slight advantage in position for White, after the ensuing exchange.
14.dxc5Forced, for if 14. Castles, then 14. ....R×P.
14…Qc7The usual complement to the previous move. If now 15. P—K Kt 3, Q—B 3; 16. B—K 2, P—K 4! and Black would have freed himself once and for all.
15.O-OThe capture of the Q B P would also be insufficient to maintain equality, e.g.: 16. B—Q 3, Kt—B 3; 17. Kt—K 4!; or 15. ....Kt×P; 16. Kt—K 5.
16.Ne4This Pawn sacrifice is the only way to keep the initiative. The attempt to defend the Q B P by P—Q Kt 4 would be inadequate, for the Q Kt P could not be supported by the Q R P, e.g.: 16. Kt—K 2, Q—R 3; 17. P—Q Kt 4, P—R 4!
16…Nxc5The text-move simplifies the game and allows Black some chances of salvation.
18…b6If 18. ....B—Q 3, then 19. B×P ch and 20. K R—Q 1, threatening R—Q 4.
19…Kh8This seemingly plausible move (and not the next move, as the majority of annotators have thought) is the decisive mistake! After 19. ....K—B 1! Black's King would be less endangered than after the text-move, and it would have been very difficult for White to show how he could win, despite his positional superiority.
20…Ra7Better was 20. ....R—Kt 1, although in this case White would have obtained a decisive superiority by the following lines of play:— I.—21. P—K Kt 3, Q—B 3; 22. P—Q Kt 4, B—Q 3 (else 23. Q—B 7! follows); 23. K R—Q 1, Q—K 2; 24. B—B 6, R—Q 1; 25. R—Q 4, P—Kt 3; 26. Q—Q 2!, K—Kt 2; 27. R—Q 1 and White wins. II.—21. P—K Kt 3, Q—Q 3; 22. K R—Q 1, Q—K 2; 23. Kt—K 5, Q—B 2; 24. Q—B 3!, P—Q R 4; 25. Kt—B 6, and 26. Q—B 3, winning for White.
21.b4From this point up to the end of the game Black has not a moment's respite. Obviously he cannot capture the Q Kt P, because of 22. Q×B! and wins.
21…Bf8Therefore this retreat is absolutely forced.
22.Qc6Attacking both the Rook and the Q Kt P. Black's reply is the only way to parry temporarily this double threat.
23…Qb8The alternative was 23. ....Q—Q 3, after which White had the choice between two winning lines: I.—24. K R—Q 1, Q×R ch (or 24. ....Q×Q; 25. B×Q, R×R ch; 26. R×R, R—K 2; 27. R—Q 8 and wins); 25. R×Q, R×R ch; 26. K—Kt 2, B—Q 2; 27. Q×Kt P, B×R P; 28. Q×R P, B—Q 2; 29. Kt—Kt 5, K—Kt 1; 30. Q—K 2 and White wins. II.—24. Q—B 4, K—Kt 1 (or 24. ....Q—K 2; 25. Kt—K 5!, R—Q 3; 26. B—B 6! and wins); 25. B—B 6, R—B 2; 26. K R—Q 1, Q—K 2; 27. Q—Q 3! and White wins.
24.Ng5Threatening 25. Kt×P ch!
25.Bg6The coup de grâce. Should Black capture this Bishop, the following mating variation would ensue: 26. Q—K 4!, B×P; 27. Q—R 4 ch, K—Kt 1; 28. Q—R 7 ch, K—B 1; 29. Q—R 8 ch, K—K 2; 30. Q×P ch, K—K 1 (or 30. ....K—Q 3; 31. K R—Q 1 ch and mates next move); 31. Q—Kt 8 ch, B—B 1; 32. Q×Kt P ch, K—K 2; 33. Q×P mate. On the other hand 25. ....B—Kt 2; 26. Q—B 4! would transpose into identical variations. Black is consequently forced to sacrifice the Exchange, after which his game is hopeless.
28.Rfd1Simple and decisive.
Alexander Alekhine, My Best Games of Chess 1908–1923 (1927) · Public domain · source