Skittles Room

Play through and download
the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
DGT Game Viewer.

Following the publication of Gary Lane's March 2010 column, we received a response from Rick Kennedy in which he wrote "Attached is an article on the Alekhine - Marshall, Baden-Baden 1925, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 game that I wrote for Kaissiber #27 in 2008." Kennedy, along with Kaissiber editor Stefan Bücker, kindly allowed us to publish the column at ChessCafe.com. We hope you enjoy ...

Alekhine vs. Marshall's 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6!?

by Rick Kennedy

Grandmaster Andy Soltis has written (Chess Life, 12/1982) that although Frank Marshall (1877-1944) made significant contributions to chess opening theory, he sometimes was associated with a variation only after he had lost an important game with it. An example is the "Marshall Defense" to the Queen's Gambit, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6!?, which is generally believed to have been both introduced and refuted in the scintillating game Alekhine - Marshall, Baden Baden 1925: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6

3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Bd3 e5 6.dxe5 Ng4 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nc3 Ncxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.h3 Nf6 13.Qd2 Bd7 14.Qe3 Bc6 15.0–0–0 0–0 16.f4 Qe6 17.e5 Rfe8 18.Rhe1 Rad8 19.f5 Qe7 20.Qg5 Nd5 21.f6 Qf8 22.Bc4 Nxc3 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.fxg7 Nxa2+ 25.Kb1 Qe8 26.e6 Be4+ 27.Ka1 f5 28.e7+ Rd5 29.Qf6 Qf7 30.e8Q+ 1–0

As with many chess tales, this is only part of the story. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 was played at least as early as Cochrane – Mahescandra, Calcutta 1855; and was tried by many players, from Riemann, Bernstein, Taubenhaus, Gunsberg and Winawer, to Réti, Thomas, and even Alekhine. A famous loss, though, and the defense became Marshall's.

Alekhine annotated his Baden Baden game against Marshall in Shakmatny in 1925, and his notes on the opening are of interest

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd

3.Nc3 (instead of 3.cd) Bf5 4.Qb3 dc 5.Qxb7 Nbd7 Black would have obtained for the pawn an excellent development and chances of counterplay.

3…Nxd5 4.e4

As this advance could not be prevented by black, it should have been delayed, and only executed after the development of the King's side pieces. A good plan here was 4.g3 followed by Bg2, reserving e2-e4 for a more favourable moment.

4…Nf6 5.Bd3

Also after 5.Nc3 e5! 6.Nf3 (of course 6.de Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Ng4 would not cause Black even a shade of difficulty) 6…ed 7.Qxd4 (or 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Be3 Ng4+) Qxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 etc. Black would have obtained a satisfactory game.

5…e5

This new gambit, having much in common with the Budapest, is in our view absolutely correct.

6.de Ng4 7.Nf3

It is clear that after 7.f4 Bc5 8.Nh3 Qh4+ and then 9…0-0 etc. Black would have obtained more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

7…Nc6 8.Bg5

Still comparatively the best, since the attempt to defend the pawn by 8.Bf4 could have led to highly dangerous complications, for example 8…Nb4! 9.Bb5+ Bd7 (better than 9…c6) 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.Qxd7+ Kxd7 12.0-0 Nc2 13.Rd1+ Kc8! 14.h3 (or Ng5) Nh6 and it turns out that White does not have sufficient positional equivalent for the lost exchange.

8…Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nc3 Ncxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5

But here Black overestimates his development and wrongly strives, with an incomplete development, for an immediate attack. Correct was 12…Nxe5 13.0-0 0-0 14.Be2 Be6 etc. with an approximately equal game.

In 1926 Alekhine followed with The Theoretical Value of the Baden Baden Tournament, containing a condensed version of the same analysis. He did not believe that his play refuted "Marshall's try" and said of the "rarely employed defence" that it "merits, in any case, greater attention by the authorities" as it was an "impeccably correct" "new gambit."

What caused Alekhine's enthusiasm? To understand we need to back up a bit.

Alekhine both faced and played the Marshall Defense once each in serious games before Baden Baden. Marotti tried it in London 1922, but the game transposed to a Grünfeld Defense with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd Nxd5 4.e4 Nb6 5.Nc3 g6 and Alekhine won in twenty-seven moves. Alekine used the defense a year later at Karlsbad, taking a restrained approach 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.cd Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 followed by 6…Be7 and 7…c5, drawing in forty-one moves.

Skinner and Verhoeven's Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games, 1902-1946 (1998) shows that Alekhine met the Marshall Defense at least four times in simultaneous displays not long before Baden Baden. These games should not be overlooked, in light of Alekhine's comments in On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927 (1932)

Simultaneous games have a quite specific value for the chess master. As far as technique and opening theory are concerned they offer valuable practice for the serious individual game.

In his book on the 1924 New York International Tournament (published in 1925), Alekhine seriously analyzed the game Réti – Marshall, which transposed to the Marshall Defense after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.cd Nxd5 4.d4 Bf5 5.Nc3.

He criticized White's fourth move ("after the text-move, however, he can only count upon equality at the best"), recommending "the delaying method of 4.P-KKt3 and B-Kt2" or "taking possession of the center" with 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 followed by d4 "with advantage." Marshall won in thirty moves.

At Baden Baden 1925, in the eleventh round, Marshall defended against the Grünfeld with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.cd Nxd5 – a Marshall Defense which could have transposed to Réti – Marshall after 5.Nf3 Nc6. He drew without difficulty in twenty-six moves.

When Marshall met him in the seventeenth round, Alekhine was prepared. After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6, the future World Champion played 5.Bd3.Tarrasch had suggested the move in his Die Verteidigung des Damengambits (1924), and Modern Chess Openings 4 (1925) had assessed it as giving White an "undeniable advantage." Alekhine had tested it two months earlier in a blindfold simultaneous exhibition. Untroubled, Marshall responded with his own "theoretical novelty" 5…e5. Alekhine was impressed!

In The Theoretical Value of the Baden Baden Tournament, however, Alekhine exposed a shortcoming of 2…Nf6

[T]he move in question does not seem to have a well defined raison d'être, seeing that after 3. Nc3 (or 3.Nf3) there is nothing better for Black than to go in for one of the known variations, since if (a) (1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6) 3.Nc3 Bf5? And now (instead of 4.cxd5) 4.Qb3! on which 4…dxc4 is clearly bad for Black, because of 5.Qxb7 Nbd7 6.f3! followed by e4 etc. (b) 3.Nf3 Bf5? And not 4.Nc3 (since Black would reply advantageously by 4…e6) but 4.cxd5! Nxd5 5.Qb3 Nb6 6.Nc3 ±

Alekhine was offering his improvements to (a) Grünfeld - Marshall and (b) Thomas – Marshall, played in the twenty-first round at Baden Baden (a win for Black in thirty-five moves). Suggestion (a) also improved on Alekhine's analysis from Shakmatny, while suggestion (b) also improved on Réti – Marshall.

In his later On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927, Alekhine changed his assessment of the 3.Nc3 line from "clearly bad for Black" back to the "good counter-chances" that he had used in Shakmatny. (Perhaps he realized that 6.f3, given in The Theoretical Value of the Baden Baden Tournament could be answered by 6…e5.) He also attributed the idea of "4.g3 and Bg2, etc." in the main line to Réti.

By the time My Best Games of Chess, 1924-1937 was published (1939) Alekhine had decided that the 2…Nf6 defense itself "cannot be recommended." He questioned White's 4.e4 (after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd Nxd5) as he had done elsewhere.

After Baden Baden, Alekhine faced 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 in a tournament game only once. He played 3.Nc3 against Guimard in the Montevideo International Tournament of 1938, and after 3…e6 the game reverted to an orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined (and a draw in thirty-two moves).

In sixteen 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd Nxd5 simultaneous exhibition games played after Baden Baden, Alekhine played 4.e4 every time but one.

His opponents met 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 (Alekhine did not play 5.Bd3) with the recommended 5…e5 only three times out of ten. Six opponents chose to recapture with 3…Qxd5, however, and in the pair of games that continued 4.Nc3 Qd8 (transposing to the 2…Nf6 line), Alekine did play 5.Nf3 before e4.

Alekhine did not touch upon 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd Qxd5 in his writings about his Baden Baden game with Marshall.

It can be noted that Tarrasch gave the capture by the queen a "!" in Die Verteidigung des Damengambits, seeing similarities with the play of the Scandinavian Defense, 1.e4 d5 2.ed Qxd5 3.Nc3. A contemporary game example is Euwe – Bogoljubov, fourth match game, 1928, that continued 4.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nc6 (0-1, 45) transposing to Marshall – Lasker, 13th match game, 1907 (0-1, 58)

Early defeats of the Marshall Defense gambits 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd e6 and 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd c6 were seen in blindfold simultaneous games played by Alekhine in 1933. His strategy was to protect his d-pawn and patiently make use of the extra material.

After 1925, Marshall played his defense twice in serious competition, or four times, if you include the transposition 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4. He won once and drew three times. He faced 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 once, against Torre at Moscow 1925, but both players avoided complications – 3…Bf5 4.Nc3 e6.

Marshall lost in fifty-seven moves by misplaying the endgame.

In his My Fifty Years of Chess (1942), Frank Marshall conceded that after 1.d4 d5 2.c4, 2…Nf6 was "An inferior move which permits White to gain control of the center," giving 2…e6 or 2…c6 as better.

After Marshall, the defense found few heroes to champion it. In the 1930s and 1940s German master Paul Michel occasionally used the Marshall Defense to transpose into his favorite setup: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 c5. From 1956 to 1964, once-child-prodigy IM Rene Letelier Martinez of Chile began games with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 planning to transpose to the Grünfeld. His opponents played 3.cd Nxd5 4.e4 only two times, and he replied 4…Nb6 followed by 5…g6 and 6…Bg7. For the most part, the Marshall Defense faded away, returning to the opening repertoires of players outside (often far outside) the Grandmaster arena.

Do GMs today face the Marshall Defense? The best place to look is at games played in simultaneous displays.

According to my database, Garry Kasparov is 9-0-0 against 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 in simultaneous play, preferring after 3.cd Nxd5 to prevent 4…e5 by playing 4.Nf3 before playing 5.e4. In his main line games he built on White's greater space (pawns at d4 & e4 vs e6) to win. Two of Kasparov's opponents transposed after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cd Nxd5 4.Nf3 Nc6 to the Chigorin Defense. After 5.e4 Nfb4 one expired quickly, while after 5.e4 Nb6 6.d5 Nb8 the other expired slowly.

Likewise, Anatoly Karpov is 6-0-1 in simuls, choosing 3.cd Nxd5 4.e4. Only once did an opponent use Marshall's 5…e5. Karpov's surrendered half-point came late in a game when he appeared to be tiring in a better position.

Topalov scored 3-0-0 in his simul games, playing 3.cxd Nxd5 4.e4. One game transposed to the Grünfeld Defense after 4…Nb6 5.Nc3 g6; while Black held his own for a while, the grandmaster eventually ground him down.

Najdorf, Hübner, Kortchnoi, Ljubojevic, Portisch, Larsen, Kaidanov, Bacrot and Grischuk each had at least one simul win, with no loses and only a draw among them.

Do modern GMs play the Marshall Defense? Rarely, as one player or the other usually quickly varies from the main lines. For example, it is not clear what went through Petrosian's mind when Donner started with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 in their game in the 1965 European team championships, but after 3.Nf3 e6 there was no cause for alarm. Maybe Shirov - Bareev, Biel 1991 raise eyebrows by starting 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 - before going Slavish with 3.Nc3 c6. The 1998 Van Wely - Timman, rapid match playoff game jumped to a Grünfeld after 3.Nc3 g6, and the Hübner - Sadler Bundesliga 2002 game cooled out after 3.Nc3 e6.

Footnote

In Garry Kasparov's latest simultaneous exhibition he faced the defense three times and dispatched it handily - thus answering again the question "How would a modern GM deal with the defense?". Of course, none of the players played "critical" lines for Black, only those that could be criticized:

Kasparov,G - Robrechts,J Your Next Move, 13.10.2009 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3 f6

(a relatively new line; the earliest game I have is from 1997; there is little value to the move other than novelty unless Black plans ...e5, as in the next game, which seems a bit dodgy) 5.e4 Nb4 (6...Nb6 is better; see the next game) 6.Nc3 (I think this is a friendly "pass," as 6.Qa4+ N4c6 7.d5 wins a piece) 6...e5 7.d5 Bc5 8.Bc4 Nd7 9.a3 Na6 10.Nh4 g6 11.0-0 f5 12.Nxf5 Qf6 13.Nh6 Qf8 14.Bg5 Nf6 15.Rc1 Bd7 16.b4 Bd4 17.Nb5 Bxb5 18.Bxb5+ Nd7 19.Qg4 Qg7 20.Qe6+ Qe7 21.Qxe7#

Kasparov,G - Coppens,T Your Next Move, 13.10.2009 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3 f6 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg4 7.Be2 Bxf3 8.Bxf3 e5 9.d5 c6 10.0-0 Bb4

(Black is not going to play ...f5; the bishop belongs on c5) 11.Qb3 Na6 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Rd1 Nd7 14.Bh5+ g6 15.Be2 Bxc3 16.Qxc3 Qb6 17.Be3 c5 18.Rxd7 Kxd7 19.Qd3+ Ke7 20.Qxa6 Rhd8 21.Qc4 Qxb2 22.Bxc5+ Kd7 23.Rd1+ Kc7 24.Bd4+ Kb7 25.Bxb2 Rac8 26.Qb3+ Ka8 27.Rxd8 Rxd8 28.Bc4 a5 29.Bd5+ Rxd5 30.exd5 h5 31.d6 Ka7 32.d7 1-0

Kasparov,G - Devos,K Your Next Move, 13.10.2009 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 e6 (played at least as early as Flohr -Wacker, simul Munich 1932 and Alekhine-Manning, simul Washington DC 1933)4.dxe6 Bxe6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Bd6 7.Bg5 Qd7

(there goes a piece) 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.d5 Bb4 10.dxe6 Qxe6 11.e3 Bd6 12.Qb3 0-0-0 13.Qxe6+ fxe6 14.Bc4 Rhe8 15.0-0-0 f5 16.Ng5 Kd7 17.Nf7 Rb8 18.Nb5 Rf8 19.Nfxd6 cxd6 20.Rxd6+ Ke7 21.Rxe6+ Kf7 22.Rxc6+ Ke7 23.Re6+ Kf7 24.Rd1 Rbc8 25.Nd6+ Kg7 26.Nxc8 a6 27.Rd7+ Kg8 28.Ree7+ Kh8 29.Rxh7# 1-0

Sources

Adams, Jimmy. Editor and translator. Baden Baden 1925 International Chess Tournament. (1991) Source for Alekhine's The Theoretical Value of the Baden Baden Tournament (1925) and his Shakmatny (1925) notes

Alekhine, Alexander. My Best Games of Chess, 1924-1937. (1939)

Alekhine, Alexander. On the Road to the World Championship 1923-1927. (1932)

Chessbase online games database

Helms, Herman. Editor. Annotations by Alexander Alekhine. The Book of the New York International Chess Tournament 1924. (1925)

Jerome Gambit blog

Marshall, Frank. My Fifty Years of Chess. (1942)

Skinner, Leonard M. and Robert G. P. Verhoeven. Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946. (1998)

Soltis, Andy. "Chess to Enjoy," Chess Life, 12/1982

Tarrasch, Siegbert. Die Verteidigung des Damengambits, (1924)

Watts, W.H.. Editor. Annotations by Géza Maróczy. The Book of the London International Chess Congress 1922 (1924)

Modern Chess Openings 4. (1925)

Comment on this column via our Contact Page!