On Mar 20, 7:41 pm, Albert wrote:

I'm reading Edward Lasker's Chess Strategy currently and in Part II,
Illustrative Games From Master Tournaments, Game No. 1, White:
Tartokower, Black: Burn, King's Gambit Declined there is some
commentary I don't follow. All of the commentary can be found on
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/wor...315&pageno=116
(and on 117)
but here I'll just copy and paste the game moves to the point where I
do not follow

1. P-K4 P-K4
2. P-KB4 B-B4
3. Kt-KB3 P-Q3
4. PxP4 PxP
5. P-B3 Kt-QB3
6. P-QKt4 B-Kt3
7. B-Kt5 Kt-B3
8. KtxP Castles!
9. KtxKt

Here he writes: After 9. BxKt, PxB; 10. KtxP, Q-K1 wins;
10. P-Q4 would also lose
because Black gains two pawns after KtxP; 11. O-O, KtxP. It is
interesting to note how speedily the weakness at White's QB3 is
brought to book.

My questions: 1. How does 'Black gain two pawns after KtxP'?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Very simply, Black demolishes the defender
of d4, forking just about every piece White has
left.

1. e4 e5

2. f4 Bc5

3. Nf3 d6

4. fe de

5. c3 Nc6

6. b4 Bb6

7. Bb5 Nf6

8. Nxe5 O-O

9. Bxc6 bxc6

10. d4 Nxe4

11. O-O Nxc3

12. Nxc3 Bxd4+

13. Kh1 Bxc3 (forking the Knight on e5,
and the Rook at a1, and that is just the
half of it!)

----------------------------------------------------------


2. How is there a 'weakness at White's QB3'?


There isn't, really; the real weakness is
White's exposed King, which /in this
particular variation/, allows a sacrifice on
that square to demolish a key defender
of the d4 pawn.

Note that Mr. Lasker did not even come
close to giving the "best defense" for White
in his analysis. For instance, there is no
need for White to castle into this sacrifice,
though he is lost in any case.


-- help bot