Dr. E.H. Staples, of Boorowa, writes:
Am pleased to see you are coming round to the idea that chess has a lot in common with military strategy .... One thing I have always believed in, in chess, as in other things, "Counter attack is the best defense." (I understand you do not endorse this maxim. Perhaps it is a case of "not always.") I believe in it partly for psychological reasons, and after all, psychological considerations are important both in war and chess.
This excerpt will serve as a peg on which to hang a little chess instruction, if nothing else. In the A. C.R. of November 1939 we wrote:
The aphorism, "The best defense is attack," is absurd if regarded as a general truth. When faced with the threat of attack, a good chess player does not depend on aphorisms. He takes stock of his position and decides whether to employ defensive, counterattacking, or "prophy lactic" tactics.
This old saw, "The best defense is attack," sacrifices exactitude for effect. Our correspondent will see that we agree with him if we put his thought to the shape of the following maxim: Play defensively only when necessary. This is not for psychological reasons. It is a law of struggle. But psychological reasons may sometimes lend it added weight.
Before dealing with counterattack proper, we must warn the inexperienced against confusing it with "cross-attack." If a ft , say, attacks a piece, and the opponent in reply makes an equivalent attack on an enemy piece, he is indulging in a "cross-attack." In general, this is an elementary error, for if both players have equivalent reciprocal threats, the advantage lies with the one who has the move. Unless the "cross-attack" has some ulterior purpose, it should be avoided; instead, the threatened piece should move.
Now for counterattack proper. To be of any use, a counterattack must be either: A. Aimed at an objective of superior value to the objective of the original attack (e.g., counterattack against '11 in answer to 'l!'1-sider).
B. Or, if aimed at an objective of equal value, must get home first (e.g., reciprocal attacks against 'lls castled on opposite wings).
C. Or, if aimed at an objective of inferior value, must be assured of getting home well before the original attack, and of drawing enemy force away from that attack (e.g., 'l!'1-side or central counterattack in answer to threatened attack on '11).
EXAMPLE OF "A" An attack on the wing remote from the enemy '31 is the most vulnerable to counter attack, and is therefore seldom embarked upon by good players unless they think themselves pretty well impregnable in other parts of the board.
Such an attack may have for its object either the creation and advance of a passed ft (a "majority" attack) or merely the gain ing of space. In the latter case, even a ft minority may be advanced, as in the Carlsbad Attack in the Queen's Gambit Declined. This may come about after the following moves: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 0-0 6. N£3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 a6 (the Argentine Defense, so called because of its adoption by both players in the famous Alekhine-Capablanca Match, Buenos Aires 1927) 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Bd3 c6 10. Qc2 Re8 11. 0-0 N£8.
Because the ft position in the center is fixed for a long time, White is justified in embarking on a �-side push to gain space, starting with b4 and a4 (after which the possibility of a break by b5 always hangs over Black).
What should be Black's policy? White's '3/-side has no ft advanced to provide a target for an assault, and it has been customary for Black, after freeing his game a little by exchanges provoked by ... Ne4, to continue placidly trying to free his game a little more, with a view to an ulti-
mate draw, the idea being that White's gain of space on the �-side ought not to be decisive-or at least Black hopes not.
This sort of thing is evidently anath ema to our correspondent, and it is equally so to us. In ElAjedrezEspanol, October 1934, Dr. Tartakover analyzed the variations at length, and proposed that in spite ofWhite's apparent impregnability on the '3/-side Black should go "hell for leather" at him. Tartakover developed his theme with the following, apparently a purely imaginary game but one which will well repay study. The article was never published in English as far as we know.
12. a3
Merely a temporary measure to sup port b4-played by Capablanca. Other play ers have suggested 12. Rh 1, as the a- ft wants to go to a4. Tartakover would still reply as in the text.
12. ... Nh5!
A point of this is to avoid the simplifi cation produced by ... Ne4, as Black wants plenty of pieces for his attack on White's '3/.
13. Bxe7 Qxe7
14. b4 g5!
15. Bf5
A very reasonable simplification.
15. g4
1 6. Ne5 Qg5
1 7. Bxc8 Raxc8
18. Na4
Tartakover mentions that 18. Ne2 would display more circumspection, but would renounce the initiative.
18. 19. Nd3 20. Nb6 21. a4 22. b5 f6 Ng6 Rc7 Nh4 Kh8!
Black must continue to build his coun terattack carefully, for if 22 ... Nj3f, simply 23. Kh 1! and Black must retreat.
24. Nb4
Or 24. Nf4 Nxf4 25. exf4 Q::f4 26. Nxd5 Nf3f!! 2Z gxf3 Qg5! 28. f4 Q::d5 with a superior game for Black (Tartakover). [Ed.: Master Ron Wieck points out an error by Tartakover, viz. 28. Ne3! wins. If28 .. . gxf3t, then 29. Kh1.]
24. ... Rg8
And Black threatens ... Nj3f.
25. Khl Rcg7
Again threatening ... Nf3.
26. Qe2 g3!!
And if 2Zfxg3, ... Q::g3!!This may work even if the enemy has advanced no ft in front of his castled et;.
27. f4 Qf5!
28. h3
If 28. Q_d3, ... gxh2 is sufficient. If 28. e4, ... gxh2!! 29. exj5 Ng3f, etc.
28. ... Qxh3t!!
Black has such a concentration of force that whatever White did would allow some winning sacrifice.
29. gxh3 g2t
30. Kh2
Wins against other defenses are quite easy and should be worked out as an exer cise.
30. gxfl=Nt
3 1. Rxf1 Rg2t
32. Qxg2 Rxg2t
33. Khl Ng3#
Of course, this brilliant imaginary game, though logical from start to finish, proves nothing, nor would it be possible ever to demonstrate that Tartakover's idea was or was not sound. Such considerations do not matter in practical chess. Ideas are what matter. The player who has a good idea and gets a chance to execute it is likely to win, other things being equal.
The important thing about this example is to see how Black was able to develop an attack on White's et; without any organic weakness in that quarter. The only weak-
ness was a shortage of pieces, which, after all, is more important. A more balanced game would have developed had White played 18. Ne2 instead of 18. Na4.
Students of the opening will notice that Tartakover's idea enhances the merit of the Argentine Defense ( Z .. a6in reply to Z Rc1 in the Pillsbury Attack, Orthodox QG.D.). Note that the move ... a6is not wasted, because after White has played b4 and a4 in this system Black plays ... a6 in any case, so as to answer b5 with ... axb5, thus avoiding a
weak ft at a7.
King-Sider Countered by Queen-Sider We have seen a "i;Y-side attack by White countered by a ct;-side attack. Black made no attempt to defend his i;Y-side. There was no need. White's objective was the unambi tious one of gaining space. White could be allowed to achieve that in full provided Black could achieve something elsewhere.
Quite different is the problem of an swering an attack on one's own et;. If the attack has any force at all, it stands to reason that counterattack (unless against the en emy et;) cannot be a complete answer, sim ply because mate wins. Some protective moves will be necessary. The problem is to discover an effective defensive plan requir ing the minimum number of moves, so that as much attention as possible can be de voted to counterplay.
Let us assume both ct;s are castled on the ct;-side. Your counterplay will be either in the center or on the i;Y-side. For prefer
ence, of course, the center. Counterattack in the center can be combined with defense on either flank. Also, counterattack in the center can readily be turned into attack on the attacker's own et;.
Strong players rarely embark on any flank attack unless they have the center either blocked or well controlled. In that ev,�nt, the counterplay has to be on the
'l;¥-side.
The objective of a 'l;¥-side counterat tack may be any of the following:
a. To create and advance a passed ft , as in the example to be discussed.
b. To wreck the opponent's ft posi tion with a view to having an endgame advantage ready-made after ending the
enemy's attack.
c. To gain mobility for one's pieces, e.g., opening of c-file and doubling of �s therein, followed by seizure of the seventh/
second rank.
If the defender does not try for coun terplay at all, but overprotects his )tl-side, the attacker may use his initiative to switch his attack to some other quarter. The war analogy is obvious.
Let us be quite clear before proceed ing. When one's )t1 is attacked, and the enemy )t1 is not itself vulnerable, counterat tack cannot possibly be an adequate de fense. But counterattack must be linked with defense if possible, and as soon as possible. The ideal number of defensive moves is the minimum necessary, but it is fatal to fall below the minimum, so that a slight amount of overprotection (remember, your )t1 is the target) is a good fault. What exactly is the minimum necessary has to be left to the player's judgment, which is developed mainly by studiously playing over published games.
As an illustration of the foregoing, it would be sacrilege to pick any game but Pillsbury-Tarrasch, Hastings 1895. Those who know this game "back to front" will be saved the trouble of playing it over, and need just read through our notes.
Pillsbury's )tl-side attack was handi capped throughout by an early loss of two tempi. Tarrasch's counterattack on the 'l;¥-side was completely adequate, but Pills bury got home. How did it happen?
Pills bury-Tarrasch Q_GD-Orthodox Defense 1. d4 2. c4 3. Nc3 4. Bg5 5. Nf3 6. Rcl 7. e3 8. cxd5 9. Bd3 d5 e6 Nf6 Be7 Nbd7 0-0 b6 exd5 If 9. Bb5 (Capablanca's move), ... Bb7 10. 0-0 c6! and Black has a fair game, though his 'l;¥-.ll is imprisoned for some time. The text move is still considered White's best by many.
9. Bb7
10. 0-0 c5
1 1. Re1
A "mysterious Rook move" played to discourage Black from opening the e-file. White has no time for such a finesse; prob ably best is 11. �2, or perhaps 77. Bb 1.
1 1. ... c4
Black voluntarily releases his pressure in the center, thus leaving White free for a )tl-side attack, but at the same time creating a 'l;¥-side majority and so preparing 'l;¥-side counterplay.
12. Bb1 a6
Preparing ... b5 to get his counterpush ready before White gets going.
13. Ne5 b5
14. f4 Re8
Preparing his next move for protection ' of his castled )tl, at the same time develop
ing.
15. Qf3 Nf8
Frequently a valuable protective move for a castled )tl. Compare its mobility on this square with that of the � previously.
16. Ne2 Ne4
White has momentarily withdrawn a piece to transfer it to the )tl-side, so Black
leaps in and forces a simplification to end his cramp.
17. Bxe7 Rxe7
18. Bxe4
The A is useless to White with the long diagonal permanently obstructed.
18. ... dxe4
19. Qg3 f6
Black continues to try to weaken White's potentialities on the �-side. He pushes away a well-posted 4), and guards well in advance against f5f6.
20. Ng4 Kh8
Again defensive; the threat was obvi ous. There were other parries, but a perma nent one, as the text move is, was much the best on principle (unpinning the g- ft ).
21. f5 Qd7
22. Rf1 Rd8
No one has fathomed just what Tar rasch had in mind here.
23. Rf4 Qd6
24. Qh4 Rde8
Making ready against Nj2 and Nc3. 25. Nc3
Apparently a loss of time, but White is concerned to obviate the counterstroke ... Qg4.
25. ... Bd5
26. Nf2 Qc6
The object of the fourfold attack on the ft is achieved: simply to get the black "IJJ where it can't bite. This difficult part of the game was never explained by annotators.
27. Rf1 b4
Note that Black launches his counterat tack only when he has all his pieces posted in readiness for �-side defense.
28. Ne2 Qa4
29. Ng4 Nd7
Against Nxf6.
30. R4f2 Kg8!
The threat of the ft capture is, as usual, stronger than its execution. By taking the ft you give the attack free rein, whereas by
using the move to protect your � and retaining the threat of the ft capture, you make the enemy withdraw a piece to pro tect the ft .
31. Ncl
Thus the counterattack has accom plished an essential objective, the withdrawal of a potential attacking piece. Unless a coun terattack succeeds in this, it is normally a failure. 31. 32. b3 33. h3 c3 Qc6
White must start a pawnstorm to re new his attack.
33. ... a5
As White's pawnstorm needs several moves for its execution, Black has time for similar activity on the "'JJ-side.
34. Nh2 a4
35. g4 axb3
36. axb3 Ra8!
Black sees his way to win the b- ft and win with two advanced united passed fts.
37. g5 Ra3 38. Ng4
�
.ft
.. 38 . .. . Bxb3?At the eleventh hour, Black fails through over-finessing. It was not really necessary to embark on deep calculation to discover whether the text move was play able. The correct reasoning was:
1. After 38 ... Bxb3 39. Nxb3 Rxb3, I (Black) will have lost one of my �-side defenders-the A. This will certainly im-
prove White's chance of pushing his attack through.
2. If I give up the Exchange by 38 ... Rxb3 39. Nxb3 Bxb3, I retain the Bishop, still bearing on my �-side, and White's attack is more likely to be stopped. In that case, the two .ft.s must win despite the loss of the Exchange.
Black, however, worked out by dead reckoning that he could hold up the attack even after the text move. Such calculation is always unreliable, as an attack so often has some hidden resource hardly fathomable under a time limit.
In a nutshell, Black's mistake was to strengthen (unnecessarily) his i!i'-side coun terattack at the expense of his �'s safety.
39. Rg2 Kh8 40. gxf6 gxf6 41. Nxb3 Rxb3 42. Nh6 Rg7 43. Rxg7 Kxg7 44. Qg3t! Kxh6
A grim awakening. Black must take the 4:), as Qg-Bfwould win the )==! . But even now he may hope to escape, as 45. Rf4 would allow perpetual check. White's next move is the one that makes the finish memorable.
45. Khl!! Qd5 46. Rgl Qfl 47. Qh4t Qh5 48. Qf4t Qg5 49. Rxg5 fxg5 50. Qd6t Kh5 51. Qxd7 c2?
Presumably an oversight due to fa tigue, shock, etc. After 51 ... Rbl f 52. Kg2 Kh6White must play accurately to win.
52. Qxh7#
Flank Attack Countered in Center We have seen a i!i'-side attack coun tered by a �-side attack; in that case, coun terattack alone was sufficient; and a �-side attack countered by a i!i'-side attack; in that
case, the counterattack cannot possibly be sufficient-some defensive measures are nec essary.
We are now to see a flank attack coun tered by a central attack. When counterat tack in the center is possible, the flank at tack breaks down almost automatically, even though made against the �. That is the general rule, and it is so well-known nowa days that good players do not begin flank attacks unless they have established control of the center or unless the center is well blocked by .ft.s (e.g., 7. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5). We can, however, find examples in master play if we go back to the days before the principle had been discovered. Take the fourth game of the Anderssen-Morphy Match of 1858. We start from the begin ning, because it is interesting to see how, even in the opening, Anderssen was firmly bent on a �-side attack.
Anderssen-Morphy Ruy Lopez: Morphy Defense
1. e4 e5 2. N£3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 Bc5 6. c3 b5 7. Bc2
The imaginative Anderssen already has in mind the attack on the point h7 which actually comes to pass.
7. • • • d5
The average player will more easily learn to play commonsense chess from the games of Morphy than any other player. The present writer played over Morphy's games before he even met an opponent, and we commend them to all who find modern games too complex to understand. Steinitz objected to the text move because it left some .ft. weaknesses. But Morphy
thought it worthwhile for the sake of freeing his game-and that is a lesson which the average player should take well to heart.
8. exd5 Nxd5
9. h3
Again based on the motif of \tl-side attack! Anderssen reasons that if he allows ... Bg4 and then drives the ,il to h5 by h3, Black will have a � to defend his \tl-side.
Morphy rarely made such moves, be cause he realized intuitively the importance
of rapid development.
9. ... 0-0
10. 0-0 h6
In order to play ... Be6 without having to fear Ng5-a precaution frequently taken as a matter of routine even today.
1 1. d4 exd4
12. cxd4 Bb6
13. Nc3 Ndb4
14. Bb1 Be6
Black could have taken the ft , but it would have given White the opportunity he wants, to start attacking. So often a weak ft is better left as a burden to the opponent!
15. a3 Nd5
16. Be3
If 16. Nxb5, ... Nf6! [Ed.: In the event of 16 .. . axb5?, White creates a double attack with 17. Qs2.}
16. ... Nf6
17. Qd2 Re8
Obvously White can start an attack by 18. Bxh6. Black cannot prevent this, but he is so well situated centrally, especially after the text move (seizing the open file), that he knows White's attack would not succeed, e.g., 18. Bxh6!? Nxd4 19. Nxd4 (not 19. Qg5 Nj5!) Q:d4 20. Qg5 Nd7 and the attack has broken down.
18. Rd1
Now White really threatens Bxh6. Also, he has set a clever trap. White wants Black to play 18 ... Bb3, when follows 19. Rc1. If at once 18. Rc1, simply 18 ... Ne7, when 19. Bxh6 gxh6 20. Q:h6 fails because of 20 ... Nf5!But if Black's � can first be lured to b3, this last resource would be impossible.
What is Black to do? He could, it is true, parry White's threat by 18 ... Ne7. But Morphy finds a much better move.
18. ... Bd5!
Counterattack in the center! Nearly 70 years later, Nimzovich stated the general principle that centralization was the normal method of forestalling or defeating a \tl-side attack.
If now 19. Bxh6?, ... Bxf3 20. gxj3 Nxd4
completely smashes the "attack." Or if 19. Nxd5, ... Q:d5 20. Bxh6 gxh6 21. Q:h6 Ne4 with the same effect. Note the great power of the centralized pieces as compared with the pseudo-attackers on the wing.
19. Ne5 Qd6!
Black could "win a ft " by 19 ... Nxe5 20. dxe5 Rxe5, but 21. Bxb6 cxb6 would render it of no account.
20. Qc2
Now White has his long-sought attack on the point h7. He could have played Qj3, but prefers to force Black's hand by threat ening Nxd5, etc. If Black accepts the offered
ft , he must permit White's ¥11 to enter at h7.
20. Nxd4!
2 1 . Bxd4 Bxd4
23. Nxf6t Qxf6
24. Qh7t Kf8
Black can easily stand the check at h7, after all. It is well to remember that it is nearly always harmless if the g-ft is pro tected, as here. White's attack collapses like a pricked balloon. Centralization has de feated it quite effortlessly.
25. Be4 Rad8 26. Kh1 Bxb2 27. Rab1 Rxd1t 28. Rxd1 Qxf2 29. Qh8t Ke7 30. Qh7
And Black could now have cut short White's agony by 30 ... RdB!, as 37. RxdB would lead to mate. Observe how all