Lasker's Spanish Inquisiton (part eight)

IT is always interesting to see who varies first when two players repeat a variation, especially in a match.
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.

Lasker's Spanish Inquisition (part seven)

THIS game is labelled in ChessBase's 2020 Mega database as a "casual" encounter between Lasker and David Janowski.
But it was actually part of a 10-game match in Paris in 1909, following on from a four-game match between the same opponents earlier in the year that finished with two wins apiece.
Lasker won the second match by seven wins to one with two draws.
A year later they played another match, this time with Lasker's world championship title at stake. The result was even more one-sided - Lasker scored eight wins while conceding just three draws.
Emmanuel Lasker - David Janowski
Paris 1909, Match 2, Game 3
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Bg4!?
Very much second in popularity to 6...Qxd4, but Black scores 57% with it in Mega20, compared with 53% for the normal move.
7.Nc3 Qxd4
According to Andrew Soltis in Why Lasker Matters (Batsford, 2005), Black's plan in this line is to quickly exchange queens and castle long.
8.Nxd4 0-0-0
I imagine both players were pleased with the opening - Janowski revelled in having the bishop-pair; Lasker, on the other hand, could be satisfied at having got queens off against a much-feared tactician.
9.Be3 Bb4 10.Ne2 Bxe2!?
Soltis does not like this move, but it is the choice of Stockfish10 and Komodo10. Incidentally, it suggests Janowski was not such a worshipper of the bishop-pair as is sometimes thought.
11.Kxe2 Bxc3 12.bxc3
It is unusual, to say the least, for White to end up with the only bishop in the Exchange Variation of the Spanish. Stockfish10 reckons Black is better; Komodo10 rates the position as level. Soltis does not commit to an opinion, but implies victory is likely to go to the player who can create a passer, and that this is easier for White.
12...Nf6 13.f3 Nd7 14.Rad1 Ne5 15.Rd4 b6
Soltis says Black "in theory" should avoid ...b5 because White can blockade on the c5 square, but he says 15...b5 was nevertheless right as it sets up 16...Nc4. Komodo10 likes Soltis's suggestion; Stockfish10 prefers the text.
16.f4 Nd7 17.Rhd1 c5 18.R4d3 Nb8?! 19.Kf3!?
The engines prefer a mass exchange of rooks, leaving an ending of bishop versus knight with rival pawn-majorities, which nearly always favours the bishop.
19...Rde8!?
Janowski seems to have concluded his 18th move might have been a mistake.

Can you guess Lasker's next?

*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
20.f5!?
Lasker's trademark move in the Exchange Spanish. The engines very much dislike it, but Soltis awards an exclamation mark. He explains: "A fundamental endgame rules holds that the way to create a passer is to advance the unopposed pawn first. Here that means 20.e5. However because Black retained rooks, 20...Re7 and ...Nc6 would be a solid defence."
20...f6!?
The engines like this move; Soltis gives it a question mark. He reckons it gives White an extra resource he would not have if the pawn stayed put.
21.g4 Re7
The engines at first claim 21...g5!? gives Black a substantial advantage. Given time, they very much downgrade their evaluations, while still slightly favouring Black. One line, given by Stockfish10, runs 22.h4 h6 23.Bf2 Nc6 24.Bg3 gxh4 25.Bxh4!? (25.Bf4 h5 26.gxh5 Rxh5 is a serious alternative) Ne5+ 26.Kf4 Nxd3+ 27.cxd3, when the engines agree White has almost full compensation for the exchange.
22.Bf4 Rhe8 23.Re3 Nc6 24.g5?
Soltis says - and the engines agree! - that 24.h4 is best. It certainly seems the normal way to proceed.
24...Na5?!
Soltis and the engines give 24...fxg5 25.Bxg5 Ne5+ 26.Kf4 Rf7. "Even though this grants White a passed pawn," Soltis writes, "he has trouble meeting 27...h6 28.Bh4 g5+."  The engines give 27.Rd8+! Rxd8 28.Bxd8 Nxg6+ 29.Kg4 Kxd8 30.fxg6 hxg6, when White has chances to hold the pawn-down rook-and-pawn ending.
According to the engines, 24...Rf7 is also OK for Black. The text seems to be somewhat irrelevant as it neglects the kingside, where the game is likely to be decided.
25.h4 Nc4 26.Re2 Rf7 27.Rg1 Kd7?
Soltis gives best play as 27...g6! 28.h5! gxf5 29.g6! hxg6 30.exf5 Ne5+! (his punctuation throughout) 31.Bxe5 fxe5, the point being that after, say, 32.hxg6 Rxf5+ 33.Ke3 Kd7 34.g7 Rg8 35.Rg6 Ke7 36.Reg2, the position is deadlocked.
28.h5 Nd6
If 28...Ne5+, then 29.Bxe5 Rxe5, when Soltis's 30.gxf6 gxf6 31.h6 "followed by Rg8 or Rg7" is just one way to win.
29.h6 fxg5 30.Rxg5 g6
Or 30...gxh6 31.Rh5 Rf6 32.Rd2 (not 32.e5? Rxf5) Kc6 33.e5 Rcf5 34.Rxd6+ etc.
The game finished:
31.fxg6 hxg6 32.Rxg6 Ref8 33.Rg7 Rxg7 34.hxg7 Rg8 35.Rg2 Ne8 36.Be5 Ke6 37.Kf4 Kf7 38.Kf5 1-0