Emanuel Lasker - David Janowski
Paris 1909, Match 2, Game 5
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Bg4 7.Nc3 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 0-0-0 9.Nde2
Lasker played 9.Be3 the previous time he had the white pieces in this match.
9...Bc5 10.f3 Be6 11.Bd2
This looks a rather modest development of the dark-square bishop, but Lasker wants to castle long. Normally in 5.d4 lines he kept his king in the centre, moving it to the kingside later to support his kingside pawns. But the position here of the black dark-square bishop makes that plan problematic.
11...Ne7 12.0-0-0 f6 13.Nf4 Bc4!?
This may appear strange, but the idea is to prevent White easily playing Nd3 without first having to slightly compromise his queenside pawn-formation.
14.b3 Bf7 15.Nd3 Bd6 16.Bf4 Ba3+ 17.Kb1 Ng6 18.Bc1 Bd6 19.g3 c5 20.Nd5 Rhe8 21.Bb2 Bxd5!?
Giving up the bishop-pair, but getting rid of White's kingside majority. Black also gets a rook to the seventh, although this is temporary.
22.exd5 Re2 23.Rde1 Rde8 24.Kc1 Kd7 25.Rxe2 Rxe2 26.Kd1 Re3 27.Rf1 b5!?
As in game three, Janowski follows the modern black plan of pushing his queenside pawns.
28.Kd2 Re8 29.c4 c6 30.Rc1
Keeping some life in the game, whereas 30.dxc6+ Kxc6 looks very drawish.
 |
| How should Black continue? |
*****
*****
*****
*****
30...b4!?
Gaining space but starting to make his bishop look bad. On 30...cxd5, Janowski may have feared 31.cxb5 axb5 32.Nxc5+, when Black has two isolanis and White might be able to create a passed pawn on the a file. However, Black can play 31...c4 32.bxc4 dxc4 33.Rxc4 axb5 with another very drawish position. The engines also reckon Black could have kept the pawns in tension by playing 30...Rc8. The match situation - Lasker had won three of the first four games, and drawn the other - may have influenced Janowski's choice.
31.dxc6+ Kxc6 32.Re1 Ra8!?
Giving up an open file (but White's rook does not have a good entry square) in favour of possible play down the a file.
33.Ra1 Rd8 34.Ke2 a5 35.a3 Bc7 36.a4
Now all Black's queenside pawns are fixed on the same colour complex as his bishop. This is by no means fatal, but it does mean the black bishop can only have a defensive role on that part of the board, whereas both white minor pieces have targets.
36...h5 37.Rd1 h4 38.f4 hxg3 39.hxg3
Note that while White's kingside pawns are on dark squares (as are Black's), they are not, at least as yet, fixed.
39...Rh8 40.Nf2 Ne7 41.Kf3 Nf5 42.Rd5 Ne7 43.Rd1 Nf5 44.Rd5 Nd6?!
Janowski is not satisfied with a draw. In the light of what happens, it is easy to criticise this decision, but he probably felt the need to try to change the course of the match.
45.Bc1 Bb6 46.Be3 Re8
Not 46...f5? as the white knight occupies e5 via d3, but perhaps 46...g6!? is an improvement.
46.f5 Nc8?
The engines suggest 46...Nb7, but after 47.Nd3 Black has three pieces tied to the defence of his c pawn, and he is reduced to shuffling his rook about while White is free to decide how to proceed. One line, given by the engines, runs 47...Rh8 48.Nf4 (aiming for e6) Nd8 49.g4, with a position much easier for White to play.
47.Ne4 Rh8 48.Bxc5 Bc7 49.Nf2 Rh2?
Better is 49...Nb6 50.Bxb6 Bxb6, but White should win.
50.Bf8 Bb6 51.Ne4 Rh7 52.Nc5 Bc7 53.Ne6 Be5 54.Rc5+ Kd7 55.Rxa5 Rh3 56.Rd5+ Kc6 57.Nf4 Bxf4 58.Kxf4 Nb6 59.Rd6+ Kc7 60.Rd3 1-0
In the final position, Black is losing a third pawn. Janowski's game went downhill quickly, but Exchange Spanish endgames can be deceptively simple, with management of the pawns often crucial.
No comments:
Post a Comment