Chess
By PHILIDOR 257. C. MANSFIELD
(1st Prize, Hampshire Telegraph, 1919)
BLACK men)
NVI Ira to play and mate in two moves : solution next week. Solution to No. 256 (Vetter) : Kt—B 7, threat Q—K B . . . K—Q 3 ; 2 Q-,-K 6. x . . . K—K 5 or Q 5 ; 2 Q—K B 4. In this charming miniature, compare the actual play i Kt—B 7, K—Q 5; 2 Q—B 4 with the set play 1 . . . K—K 5 ; 2 Q—K 6. The geometrical arrangement of B K, W Q, W Kt in the mates is essentially the same, rotated through a right ,angle—one mate is an echo of the other.
A Nliw CLASSIC
Some weeks ago I wrote on books on the middle game-1 had not then seen The Art Airesek in Chess
(by V. Vukovic, translated by A. F. Bottrall ; Per- gamon Press, 4os.) : if I had, 1 should certainly have included it near if not at the top of the list. An exhaustive and illuminating treatise on the attack against the castled king, it is one of those rare books from which a comparatively weak player and a very strong one will each benefit.
To give a couple of examples chosen at random : in the introduction there is a categorisation of attacks against the king in three levels of intensity (with examples) which was new to me : (a) the main action not against the king, but a possibility of such attack latent in the position (e.g. a threat of mate combined with attack on an undefended piece prevents an enemy move that would otherwise be good), (b) the action is against the king, but can be defended at cost of Weakness elsewhere—leading to a transfer of attack, (e) the attack is a mating attack. The other example is a comment on the game Pillsbury—Wolf, where Black, playing P—Q B 5, gives up pressure on Q 4 to get three pawns to two on the queen's wing. Vukovic says : 'It was an error of judgment of a bygone period to resolve the important central tension for the sake of the dim chance of a slowly advancing Q-side pawn majority.... Modern knowledge of the importance of tension in the centre is the main deterrent against K-side attacks nowadays.'
In addition to its other merits, there are thirty-seven profoundly, indeed brilliantly, annotated, games. It is not just the loser who is criticised; the winner frequently comes under heavy fire too, and so do previous annotators—even the most distinguished. For example, (Alekhine—Asgeirrson) in a game won by and annotated by Alekhine himself, Vukovic ques- tions the handling of the attack at one point and says : 'Alekhine the player and Alckhine the commentator failed to see that Black could have saved himself after this move.' How refreshing this is :Met the monotonous aclulation of the winner's moves one normally suffers firm(and, alas, indulges in). Buy it.
Previous page
