Alekhine, Alexander VS Tarrasch, Siegbert 1922.09.11

Annotations

1. 3.Nf3 The system of play introduced by Rubinstein against Bogoljuboff in this same tournament, namely 3. Kt—Q B 3, Kt—B 3; 4. P—K 3, B—B 4; 5. P×P, Kt×P; 6. B—B 4 followed by 7. K Kt—K 2 ! is very interesting.
2. 4.Nc3 During the London Tournament a few weeks previously I had introduced against this line of play a system of defence which I consider perfectly correct: 4. ….P×P, followed by 5. ….P—Q Kt 4 and 6. ….P—Kt 5. Desiring to test its value when playing against it myself, I wished to give my opponent the opportunity here, presuming that Dr. Tarrasch, always on the watch for theoretical novelties, would be tempted to employ it in the present game. Although the struggle turned in my favour, the result does not impair the value of the variation in question. Indeed, there is reason to think that my opponent was not sufficiently versed in the particularly delicate subtleties of this defence. The system has been subsequently adopted by masters of unquestionable authority, such as Dr. Em. Lasker against Réti at Mährisch-Ostrau, 1923; and Grünfeld against Bogoljuboff at Carlsbad, 1923.
3. 5.e3 5. P—Q R 4 does not occasion Black any difficulties (See Game No. 70).
4. 6…b4 6. ….Kt—Q 4, suggested by Alapin, has fallen into disuse as a result of his game against Rubinstein in the Pistyan Tournament of 1912.
5. 7.Na2 If 7. Kt—Q Kt 1, Black can temporarily maintain his Pawn, free to give it back at a more propitious moment, e.g. : 7. Kt—Q Kt 1, B—R 3; 8. Kt—K 5, Q—Q 4 !; 9. P—B 3, P—B 4 !
6. 8.Bxc4 White has thus regained his Pawn, but his Q Kt is very badly placed. On the other hand, Black is slightly behind in his development and his Q B P, if he does not advance it in good time, runs the risk of becoming weak.
7. 8…Be7 Grünfeld played here 8. ….B—Kt 2 followed by 9. ….Q Kt—Q 2 and 10. ….P—B 4, which, in my opinion, is the only logical continuation. By delaying this manoeuvre Black enables his opponent to forestall it.
8. 10…Bb7 10. ….P—B 4 would now be dangerous, e.g. : 10. ….P—B 4; 11. P×P, B×P; 12. P—K 4, B—Kt 2; 13. B—K Kt 5 and 14. K R—Q 1 with advantage to White.
9. 12.e4 Now White’s game is clearly preferable, owing to his strong position in the centre. It is astonishing that in an identical position, Réti continued here against Lasker with 12. P—Q Kt 3 and 13. B—Kt 2, which dangerously weakens the square Q B 3. But in this variation the square Q Kt 3 should be reserved for the Q Kt.
10. 12…a5 The Q R P may become very weak, but if Black does not make this move White, after the manoeuvre Kt—B 1 and Kt—Kt 3, threatens the advance of his own Q R P to Q R 6.
11. 13…Re8 Black assures the subsequent protection of his K B by this Rook, thus freeing the Queen, which can escape from the uncomfortable opposition of White’s Rook.
12. 15.Nb3 This posting of the Q Kt is particularly strong in similar positions, as I have already found in my two games against Maróczy and Rubinstein in the Hague Tournament of 1921. Now White plays for the effective blockade of the adverse Q B P.
13. 16…Ba6 Hindering 17. P—Q 5, to which he would now reply 17. ….B×B; 18. Q×B, K P×P; 19. P×P freeing his game.
14. 19.Qf3 Defending his K P, and preparing P—Q 5 should Black later play P—B 4.
15. 20.Bf4 20. P—Q 5 at once would give Black some chances after 20. ….B×P; 21. P×P, B—Q 3.
16. 22…Qa6 An ingenious defence of the threatened Pawn, but of merely temporary efficacy.
17. 23.Rac1 Black’s Q R P could not be captured by the Kt on Kt 3, because of 23. ….B—Q 1 !, nor by the Kt on B 4, because of 23. ….P—B 5 ! But after the text-move this Pawn is defenceless. Upon 23. B—Q 1 there were several winning lines open to White, the simplest being probably 24. B—K 3 !, Kt—K 5; 25. P—Q 6 ! threatening 26. B×R P, etc.
18. 25.Nc6 Simplest, for if now 25. ….Q×P; 26. B×P !, P×B; 27. Q—Kt 4 ch and 28. Q×Kt (Q 7).
19. 25…g5 A despairing move !
20. 27…f6 Obviously the only possible reply.

Alexander Alekhine, My Best Games of Chess 1908–1923 (1927) · Public domain · source