Author: Problemist
In his excellent new book,
Rudolf Spielmann-Master of Invention (2006), Neil McDonald notes that not only are Spielmann’s wins of value, but one could also learn much from studying his losses. I have long been a Spielmann fan; his games are models for learning attacking techniques, especially for players without a lot of experience – as opposed to a player like Alekhine, who could also attack with the best of them, but had a style that is much more difficult for the average player to pin down.
Usually, when one finds a “TN” or technical novelty in chess, it is deep in the Sicilian or some other modern opening. Often this leads to many finding GM games “played out” or “boring.” However, I think there is still much to be learned from and improved on in the games of the old masters.
It was very rare for Spielmann to lose a King’s Gambit, although he did later give it up, writing a famous article,
“Am Krankenslager des Koenigsgambits” – “On the sickbed of the King’s Gambit.” However, as we know, modern players such as Bronstein, Spassky, Fischer, and the Polgar sisters have all had their tries at the famous gambit, and I am one who does not think it is dead yet. Here is one of Spielmann’s rare losses with his beloved Bishop’s Gambit, in a variation that is essentially the Schliemann defense to the Ruy Lopez, up a tempo, for white (if you search a chess database for the position after Black’s 5th move, you’ll find a number of King Gambits and Schliemanns).
Spielmann, R - Szekely, J Opatija, 1912
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.0–0 0–0 7.e5 d5 8.Bb3 Ng4 9.Nxd5 Ngxe5 10.Nxb4 Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 Qd4+ 12.Kh1 Qxb4 13.c3 Qd6 14.d4 g5 15.g3 Bh3 16.Rg1 Bf5 17.gxf4 g4 18.Rg3 Rae8 19.Qf2 Be4+ 20.Kg1 Bf5 21.Be3 h5 22.h3 h4 23.Rxg4+ Bxg4 24.hxg4 Na5 25.Re1 Nxb3 26.axb3 Re4 27.Qxh4 Rfe8 28.f5 f6 29.Qh3 Qe7 30.Kf2 Rf4+ 31.Ke2 Qe4 32.Kd2 Rxg4 33.Re2 Qxf5 34.Rh2 Kf7 35.Qh6 Reg8
0–1
There is not a lot of theory here – after Black’s 6. … OO, White has three main choices, 7. d3, which led to equality in Romanovsky-Bogoyulbow, Triberg 1915; 7. e5 (Spielmann’s choice, which was also played in Spassky-Korchnoi St. Petersburg 1999, 7. … d5 8. Bb3 Ng4 9. d4 Bxc3 10. bxc Ne3 11. Bxe3 fxe3 12. Qd3 Na5 11. Rae1 c6= According to Johansson (
The Fascinating King’s Gambit, 2004), after Nxd5 9. …Be6 is the best move, leading to equality.
This summer my opponent, in an email game, instead chose the variation of Szekely, perhaps because (at least in my databases), the only game given is Spielmann’s, which he lost. However, it seemed to me that Spielmann’s 12. Kh1 had to be the move that provided his opponent with more chances than he deserved. In such positions, the black k-side is often broken up by g3 and h4 by white – in such cases it would seem that the white king does not belong on h1 and the white rook is vulnerable to the Bh3 attack by black. In some positions in the King’s Gambit, the exchange can be sacrificed in this manner, but it seemed dubious to me here – as it apparently did to Spielmann as well.
I present below my analysis of my technical novelty – over 90 years later!, which I feel leads to a solid plus for white, and will conclude with my game – warts and all. My opponent, a friend of mine, is rated 2200 by the ICCF.
[12.Rf2 Qxb4 13.c3
A) 13...Qe7?
A1) 14.Qxf4± Be6 (14...Qe1+ 15.Rf1 Qe7 16.d4) 15.Bc2; A2) 14.d4± ;
B) 13...Qd6 14.d4 g5 (14...Bf5? 15.Bxf4 c7 is a good target, if Qe7? Bxc7 or Qd7 16. Qd5! 15...Qd7 16.Qd5 Rfd8 17.Qxd7 Rxd7 18.Bxc7 Rxc7 19.Rxf5 now f7 is also a good target, as well as Rook shifts to the other "bishop file" Rc5. Fritz sees this as a winning game for white +1.75.....) 15.h4! This seems very consequential and consistent of strategy in the KG 15...h6 Now the difficulty seems to be in deciding between the immediate capture and Qh5, or whether there is a difference..... 16.hxg5 hxg5 17.Qh5 Qf6 much better than in the Spielmann game, since no tempo, is to be gained with Bh3, this now seems to divide into two variations..... 18.g3 Ne7 (* for a different move, see the game at the end) 19.gxf4 g4 (19...gxf4?? 20.Rg2+ leads to mate...... 20...Bg4 21.Rxg4+ Ng6 22.Rxg6+ Qg7 23.Bxf4 Rae8 24.Rxg7+ Kxg7 25.Bh6+ Kh7 26.Bxf8+ Kg8 27.Qg6+) 20.f5
Ba) 20...g3 21.Rg2 (21.Rf3 Nxf5 22.Bc2 Qg6 23.Rxf5 Bxf5 24.Qxf5 Rae8 25.Bf4 Re2 26.Qxg6+ fxg6 27.Bb3+ Kh7 28.Bxc7 Rff2 29.Bd5 Rxb2 30.Re1 Rfc2 31.c4 Rxa2 32.Bxg3+-) ;
Bb) 20...Nxf5 21.Rh2 Qg7 22.Bf4+- Nxd4 23.cxd4 g3 24.Be5 gxh2+ 25.Kxh2 Bg4 26.Rg1 Rae8 27.Rxg4 Rxe5 28.Rxg7+ Kxg7 29.Qxe5++-;
The game:
18...Bf5 19.gxf4 g4 20.Qg5+ Qxg5 21.fxg5 Ne7 22.Bf4 Rac8 23.Re1 Ng6 24.Bxc7 Rxc7 25.Rxf5 Nh4 26.Rf6 Nf3+ 27.Rxf3 gxf3 28.g6 Kg7 29.gxf7 a6 30.Kf2 Rh8 31.Rg1+ Kf6 32.Rg8 Rc8 33.Kxf3 b5 34.Bd5 Ke7 35.Ke4 Rf8 36.b3 Rh4+ 37.Kf3 Rh3+ 38.Rg3 Rfh8 39.Kg2 Rxg3+ 40.Kxg3 1–0 Problemist--Fereven (2220), CC 2006
Not perfect by any means, and I think my technique needs a little polishing. But the idea that one might improve on one of the greats, well for us amateurs, probably the closest we’ll come to the limelight!
Comments ()
Comments ()
Comments (2)