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 onhttp://www..gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=9315&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'?

Help-bot has already answered that correctly.

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

Evidently because in the 10.P-Q4 line, White has weakened c3 by
advancing his b- and d-pawns. However, Lasker's comment strikes me as
a bit strange, because normally one uses such terms when describing a
more or less permanent, organic weakness, for example if the c-pawn
were left backward on a half-open file, where it is subject to
pressure by the rooks and is hard to defend. In this case the weakness
is not an enduring feature, it's a temporary artifact of the
vulnerable white knight on e5, the strong posting of the black knight
on e4 bishop on b6, and the exposed position of White's king on the
open e-file or, if he castles, the diagonal of Black's bishop. In
static terms, Black's doubled, isolated c-pawn is actually the greater
weakness, but Black's better development renders the white c-pawn a
much greater temporary, dynamic weakness.