The Kibitzer
by Tim Harding

The Openings at New York 1924 (Part II)

The Closed Openings 

THIS IS THE SECOND and last of my two columns devoted to
the openings played in the great New York 1924 tournament and it
covers the openings other than 1 e4.

In my previous column, which introduced the New York 1924
event and discussed the 1 e4 openings played there, I mentioned
"the limited palette with which 10 of these 11 artists, as we may
call them, were employing to compose their masterpieces. It is as if
the ten greatest painters of an era were asked to have an art
competition and agreed amongst themselves that there would be a
special prize for the best use of ultramarine (i.e. the Reti Opening)
but they would not employ orange, pink and green."

Of course that is a "view from the future" and the players
themselves did not see it like that. Alekhine wrote the principal
annotations in the tournament book edited by Hermann Helms,
with an opening survey at the back of the book. He summarised,
"Although the New York tournament brought into prominence but
few tactical innovations (few variations), yet looking back into
chess history and the evolution of opinions concerning the
handling of the opening, it marks a very significant stage in this
evolution".

The presence of Reti in the field, and his success with 1 Nf3 as
early as round five against the almost invincible Capablanca,
undoubtedly made a big impact on the other players, as well as the
chess world in general. In the early rounds, only Reti himself was
playing the opening, but later some of the others also gave it a try.
(In round 3, Bogoljubow did play 1 Nf3 against Marshall but after
1...d5 he replied 2 d4 instead of the characteristic Reti move 2 c4
with its oblique challenge to the centre.)

Reti v Capablanca and Reti's other games with his opening was the
subject of Richard Forster's March column at the Chess Caf‚
(available in The Chess Caf‚ Archives), so I will just look at the
employment of 1 Nf3 by the other players at New York.

The "ultramarine competition" largely took place in the second half
of the tournament. Evidently the masters had other openings
prepared which they wished to employ, and needed time to study
Reti's ideas as they evolved in various games, but in round 11 we
see Alekhine open 1 Nf3 against Bogoljubow and play a true Reti
opening, 1...Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 followed by b3 and d3. White
obtained a good position from the opening but missed some
opportunities and a draw resulted.

Then in round 14, Tartakower   who played the most varied
openings of all the grandmasters at New York   employed the
Reti to defeat Marshall, in the variation 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 b3
with a subsequent g3. 

The following round saw Capablanca employ the weapon that had
earlier defeated him against Janowski: the world champion opened
1 Nf3 and after 1...d5 he played neither 2 d4 nor Reti's own 2 c4
(as in Reti-Yates, round 6) but instead the very hypermodern 2 g3:
he immediately fianchettoed his king's bishop, inviting his
opponent to grab as much pawn center as he wanted. 

This invitation was accepted by 2...c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 0-0 e5 and only
now, when Black had revealed his intentions, did Capablanca
advance 5 c2-c4. Now that ...e6 and ...c6 are no longer available to
support the d5-pawn, Black has less choice than after 2 c4 and
Janowski decided to play 5...d4 with a sort of reversed Benoni.
Capablanca's handling of the opening largely anticipates the way
the King's Indian Attack is played nowadays, except that 5 d3 is
usually preferred (as indeed Alekhine recommends in his notes)
while a reversed Gruenfeld with 4 d4 is also possible.
Capablanca's 5 c4 is nowadays considered a premature
commitment, allowing Black too firm a grip on the centre.

Alekhine's openings survey comments that Capablanca's opening
was "well defended by Janowski, who obtained a promising game".
Nevertheless this game is an interesting clash between the old ideas
and the new; let's look at it.

1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6 4 0-0 e5 5 c4 d4 6 d3 Bd6 7 e3 Nge7 8
exd4?!

Capablanca himself said that 8 Nbd2 was correct, threatening Ne4.
Then if 8...f5 White can continue 9 exd4 and 10 Re1 so 8...Bc7 is
best.

8...cxd4 9 a3 a5 10 Nbd2 Ng6 11 Re1 0-0 12 Qc2 Re8 13 b3 h6?!

DIAGRAM

13...f6 (soon necessary anyway) was the right way to prepare
...Be6, not only preventing Ng5 but also supporting the center. As
Golombek observed in his book of Capa's games, Black has a
good position "but does not know what to do with it"!

14 Rb1 Be6 15 h4 Rc8?

This move is the principal cause of Black's defeat; with 15...Qe7
(Alekhine) Black could stand better since 16 h5 Nf8 17 c5 doesn't
work after 17...Bxc5 18 Nxe5 Nxe5 19 Rxe5 Bd6 after which the
queen's rook can come to c8 with a tempo. Now Capablanca is
able to develop an initiative on both wings.

16 c5! Bb8 17 Nc4 f6 18 Bd2 Kh8 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 Na7 21
Qc1 Nb5 

DIAGRAM

Janowski sets a trap: he will meet the intended 22 Bxh6 by
22...Nc3 23 Ra1 e4! (Alekhine). It seems that 23 Rb3 might still be
good for White (23...e4 24 Nxd4 since the c3-knight is twice
attacked) but Capablanca probably spent little time analysing such
complications when safety play gets him a clear advantage.

22 Nh2 Qe7 23 Ra1 Rc7 24 Ra5 Bd7 25 Nb6 Bc6 26 Qc4 Na7 27
Nd5 Bxd5 28 Qxd5 

Now White's light-squared bishop is dominant and Capablanca
won comfortably

28...f5 29 Qf3 Qf6 30 h5 Ne7 31 g4 f4 32 Qe4 Nec6 33 Raa1 Rce7
34 Qg6 Qf8 35 Nf3 Re6 36 Nh4 Rf6 37 Be4 Qg8 38 Bd5 Ne7 39
Qxf6 gxf6 40 Bxg8 Rxg8 41 f3 f5 42 Bxf4 Nec6 43 Ng6+ Kh7 44
Bxe5 Nxe5 45 Rxe5 Bxe5 46 Rxa7 1-0

Poor Janowski   out of form and the most unreconstructed "old
thinker" in the field   was now a clear mark for Reti opening and
he lost two more games against it. In round 16, Tartakower-
Janowski began 1 Nf3 d5 2 c4 d4 3 b4 a5

Nowadays 3...f6 is considered best, to fight for the center by ...e5,
while 3...c5 is a superior way to contest the queenside, and 3...g6 is
also playable.

4 b5 c5 5 e3 g6 6 exd4 cxd4 7 d3 Bg7 8 g3 Nd7 9 Bg2 Nc5 10 Ba3
Qb6 11 0-0 Bf5 12 Nh4 Bc8 

Now White has two strong bishops, whereas Black has one driven
back home and the other obstructed by its own pawns. Janowski
decides to exchange that one for a knight that is becoming a
nuisance but it's a crazy plan that is rapidly punished. 

13 Qe2 Bf6 14 Nd2 Bxh4 15 gxh4 Ne6 16 Qe5 f6 17 Qg3 Nh6 18
Be4 Nf5? 

Now Tartakower is willing to exchange one of his bishops to
obtain an attack against a king stuck in the center.

19 Bxf5 gxf5 20 Qf3 Nf8 21 Qh5+ Ng6 22 Rae1 e5 

It looks mad but Rxe7+ was threatened. In this game it is clear that
Janowski was totally disorientated when faced with the Reti
Opening. In the final round, he chose 2...dxc4 against Reti himself
and of course he lost again.

23 f4 Kd8 24 fxe5 Rg8 25 Qxh7 Be6 26 Kh1 Nxe5 27 Qe7+ Kc8
28 Bc5 Qd8 29 Qxe6+ Kb8 30 Rxe5 fxe5 31 Qxe5+ Kc8 1-0.

The English Opening, 1 c4, had the longest pedigree of the flank
openings, having been favoured by Howard Staunton in the first
half of the 19th century. However in New York it was rarely seen,
doubtless in part because it was rare anyway, but largely because
the Reti was in vogue. In the game Tartakower-Em. Lasker, a true
English Opening (or reversed Sicilian) did arise after 1 c4 e5 but
then Tartakower played 2 a3 which was premature and proved
useless in the context of the game. When Black hasn't played ...a5
or ...c5 the move a2-a3 rarely has point in the flank openings.

Alekhine opened 1 c4 against Edward Lasker, perhaps hoping for
some extravagant experiment from his opponent, but 1...Nf6 and a
transposition to the King's Indian then occurred. There were five
true King's Indians in the tournament, as well as several games
with the line 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 which Alekhine categorised as
reversed a Reti. I won't bother with them here.

The "E" classification of openings occurred in just six games, none
of which were from the first half of that classification (E00-E49).
Nowadays (or even in the 1950s) a 110-game master tournament
with no Catalan, Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian or Bogo-Indian
games would be most unusual. See what I mean about the limited
palette? Moreover, the Gruenfeld Defence had recently been
introduced in the early 1920s but was not seen in New York. 

The reason for the absence of Nimzos and the like is rather curious.
Several games did begin 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 but then White
invariably played 3 Nf3 and Black replied 3...d5 with transposition
to the QGD as we shall see later in this article. I cannot find any
explanation for this move order quirk.

As for defences against 1 d4 that are categorized under A in ECO,
there was no Modern Benoni or Benko Gambit in those days and
the Budapest Defence was a rare novelty. Tartakower did play the
Dutch Defence three times but scored only half a point; there was
no Leningrad Variation then.

Returning to the King's Indian, this defence was evolving and
actually featured in all five "E" gamesit was played by Reti,
Marshall, Lasker and Yates but they only mustered three draws
between them. The King's Indian as we know it know was
developed in the 1940s by Boleslavsky and Bronstein, and then
developed into a major opening by Geller. The players of 1924,
even Reti, were floundering in the dark.

For example, Marshall-Reti (round 1) began like a modern
Classical King's Indian but on move 6 White put his king's bishop
on d3; Black drew that game. Alekhine correctly stated that d4 is
weak after 6 Bd3 Bg4 which is the main reason for choosing the e2
square.

More interestingly, Alekhine-Reti began 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 g3
Bg7 4 Bg2 0-0 5 Nc3 d6 6 Nf3 Nc6. 

DIAGRAM

This looks like an anticipation of the modern Panno Variation (7 0-
0 a6) but Alekhine writes"his plan of development has nothing to
recommend it". In the true na‹ve style of those pioneering days,
Alekhine advanced 7 d5 and Reti retreated 7...Nb8 whereas the
sharper 7...Na5 (attacking the c-pawn) 8 Nd2 c6 is considered
critical nowadays, 

It's not as if Reti was the first to play 6...Nc6; he was actually
trying to improve on a line which two English masters had played
against Alekhine the previous year! After 7 d5 Nb8 8 0-0, Sir
George Thomas had got a bad game with 8...e5 9 dxe6 fxe6 10 Bg5
(Carlsbad 1923) and in the same event Yates fared little better after
8...a5 (with the idea of securing the c5 square for the knight) 9 e4.
In 1926 Reti had White against Yates in this line and preferred 9
Nd4, also obtaining some advantage. All these players must have
been hidebound by the fear of putting their knight on the rim!

The other three King's Indians at New York involved Alekhine on
the white side of the Four Pawns Attack, 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3
Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f4 0-0 6 Nf3. 

DIAGRAM

Nowadays, this mucho-macho system would normally met by the
insolent 6...Na6!? or by 6...c5 but remember there was no Modern
Benoni in the 1920s! In his survey Alekhine wrote, "In this
position Black must absolutely carry through the 'clearing-up'
advance ...e5 before the pawn formation of the opponent becomes
overpowering upon the completion of his development". Alekhine
claimed that 6...c5 is disadvantageous because of 7 dxc5 dxc5 8
Qxd8 "to be followed by e5, Nd5 etc." 

Today White normally meets ...c5 by transposing to the Benoni
with d4-d5; answering 7 dxc5 by 7...Qa5 either didn't occur to
Alekhine or else he was keeping it under wraps. In my large
database I have over 250 games with 6...c5 7 dxc5 Qa5, the earliest
being Opocensky - Sir George Thomas, Marienbad 1925, which
continued 8 Bd3 Qxc5 9 Qe2 Na6 10 Be3 Qa5 11 0-0 Bd7 12 a3
Qc7 13 b4 Rac8 14 Rac1 Qb8. Despite wasting a huge amount of
time with his queen, Black somehow drew that game. (It still isn't
clear that Black gets equality in that 8 Bd3 line, but note that Black
can also play 5...c5 and again if 6 dxc5 Qa5.)

Returning to Alekhine's games from the diagram position,
Marshall chose 6...Bg4 (and drew eventually) while Yates tried to
prepare ...e5 by 6...Nc6 and lost. Alekhine writes (page 260 of the
tournament book) that"Black discovered for the first time in the
game between Alekhine and Ed. Lasker that 6...e5 can be played
immediately!" 

Let's take a look at this. After 1 c4 Nf6 2 d4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6
5 f4 0-0 6 Nf3 e5 Alekhine continues his assessment: "White must
decide upon the manoeuvre appropriate to the position, 7 fxe5 dxe5
8 d5, as the acceptance of the pawn sacrifice would lead him into a
disadvantageous position." While Alekhine's continuation is still
considered acceptable, modern theory doesn't agree that Lasker's
pawn sacrifice is correct.

The variations given by Alekhine (page 178) as his reason for
rejecting the pawn offer are 7 fxe5 dxe5 8 Nxe5 (8 dxe5? Qxd1+ 9
Kxd1 Ng4 10 Nd5 Na6 etc.) 8...c5! 9 d5 Nxe4 with advantage for
Black. However, he does not seem to have considered the
possibility 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 Qxd8 Rxd8 9 Nxe5. 

DIAGRAM Black has two main possibilities then

a) 9...Re8 10 Bd3! and now 10...Nxe4? was brilliantly refuted by
an analysis from the late grandmaster Geller11 Bxe4! f6 12 Bd5+!
Kh8 (12...Kf8 13 0-0) 13 Bf7! Rf8 14 Nxg6+ hxg6 15 Bxg6+-. So
Black must settle for less by 10...Na6 with insufficient
compensation for the pawn as in a game played in Estonia, cited in
the theory books.

b) 9...Nxe4 10 Nxe4 f6 was proposed as an improvement in ECO
but White can keep a safe edge by 11 Nxf6+ Bxf6 12 Nf3 as given
by John Nunn in the new NCO. An interesting tactical alternative,
11 c5!?, was mentioned by Graham Burgess in his book King's
Indian For The Attacking Player. This has in fact been played in a
correspondence game11...Re8 12 Bb5 c6 13 Nd6 fxe5 14 Nxe8
cxb5 15 Nxg7 Kxg7 16 fxe5 Na6 17 0-0 Nxc5 18 Be3 Nd3 19
Rad1 1-0 H. Schulze (GER)-J.A. Moles (ESP), semi-final ICCF
Cup VI/VII 1991. The complications in these lines make an
instructive and entertaining topic for home analysis.

However, now we must return to New York 1924 and consider the
openings classified under "D" which were featured 28 times; all
were forms of the Queen's Gambit or Queen's Pawn games. White
had no Trompowsky but what later became known as the Torre
Attack was seen in Marshall-Bogoljubow. Along with the Reti and
the Ruy Lopez (Spanish), the Queen's Gambit Declined was one of
the three main openings contested in this tournament but I don't
want to bore readers by going on at great length about the lines
which arose.

The apotheosis (I prefer to say "nadir") of the trend seen in New
York 1924 was the world championship match three years later,
when Alekhine apparently decided that the only way to beat
Capablanca was by being better than the Cuban at what he did best.
One of the early games was a French, another a Queen's Indian,
both with decisive results; this evidently frightened the champion
and challenger too much. So in 34 games in the 1927 match, there
were 32 Queen's Gambits of which 25 were drawn. This kind of
attrition chess fortunately started to go out of fashion after that, but
it was not really until after World War II that great variety entered
the chess scene.

Let's just try and pick out the most significant Queen's Gambit
games from the pack. Obviously Alekhine-Capablanca was a
significant encounter although it became a relatively short draw.
After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e3 Bf5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 Qb3 Bc8
7 Nf3 e6 8 Bd3 Nc6 9 0-0 Bd7 Black was able to equalise, as
White could not carry out his planned e3-e4. Afterwards Alekhine
indicated that "White should have utilized his extra tempi to build
up a pressure by 8 Ne5! followed by f4". That suggestion is still
viable today, as many games in my database show, when Black
develops his queen's knight on d7 so he must find a way to bring it
out on c6.

Forms of Exchange Slav also arose in Marshall-Em.Lasker (rd. 9)
and Capablanca-Em.Lasker (round 14). In the former game,
Marshall played an inferior line with Qb3 too early and only drew.
So it I surprising to see that Alekhine (page 152) liked the plan
adopted by Marshall but his prediction that it would catch on was
not realised. Nowadays, rather than try to force Black to hem in his
bishop by ...e6, White often waits until ...Bf5 and ...e6 have both
been played and then attacks the b7-pawn by Qb3.

The Capablanca game was one of the most significant of the
tournament. It was Lasker's one and only loss; he had held a two-
point lead so the Cuban's win kept the event alive. 

The game began 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 cxd5 5 Nf3
Nc6 6 Bf4 e6 7 e3 Be7 8 Bd3 0-0 9 0-0 (9 h3 is nowadays
preferred, to retain the bishop) and now Lasker played to obtain the
two bishops by 9...Nh5. A critical position arose after 10 Be5! (See
diagram.)

DIAGRAM

In the tournament book, Alekhine is scathing about Lasker's
chosen 10...f5 which is given as equalising in many books today.
Alekhine recommended 10...f6 giving the variations 11 Ng5 Qe8
12 Bxh7+ (or 12 Nxh7 fxe5 13 Nxf8 Bxf8 14 Nb5 Qf7) 12...Kh8
13 Qb1 f5 as good for Black. However, 12 Nb5!? (Euwe-Landau,
Netherlands 1939) may be good for while 11 Bf4 may also be
strong since Black's e-pawn is weak if he captures on f4. Also 11
Bg3 may be good. The conclusion is that Alekhine was wrong and
Lasker was right; the cause of his loss was later in the game, with
serious mistakes at moves 23 and 37.

The Queen's Gambit Accepted featured in two games of no great
significance, involving the back-marker Janowski. 

The Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined featured in numerous
games, none of which would be considered really critical in the
light of today's theory. The main reason is that nowadays the main
line is 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 but in New York it didn't
occur even once. As I already observed, many of the QGDs came
about via 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 and some of the others involved 1
d4 d5 2 Nf3. 

The move order 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 was seen in Alekhine-Em. Lasker
but instead of 3 Nc3 the future world champion opted for 3 Nf3. At
least he followed up with Bf4, which shows some logic in
deferring Bg5, but Black won that game.

In his recent book The System, Hans Berliner (US Master and fifth
Correspondence Chess World Champion) makes a very plausible
case for playing the Queen's Gambit with the 3 Nc3 and 4 Bg5
move order, and whatever the merits of some of his other
recommendations, I think this section of his book is rather
convincing. In fact this vogue for an early Nf3 by White just seems
to have been a temporary thing, because the 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 line
had been seen in the Lasker-Capablanca world title match and was
again the principal move order in the 1927 contest.

DIAGRAM

The diagram shows the position which occurred by various move
orders in 14 games at New York, e.g. via 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3
d5 4 Nc3. One of the most important moves in this position is
4...c5, the Semi-Tarrasch, which can lead to very critical isolated d-
pawn positions which are also critical for the Panov Attack in the
Caro-Kann and the Nimzo-Indian, the kind of positions which
Karpov (for example) has made a major part of his opening
repertoire. The move 4...c5 was not unknown in 1924 (Lasker had
played it against Pillsbury at Cambridge Springs in 1904) but it
was rare.

At New York, play went from the diagram in various directions,
e.g. the Cambridge Springs (4...Nbd7 5 Bg5 c6 6 e3 Qa5) and the
orthodox variation (4...Be7 5 Bg5) while in Capablanca-Marshall
the probably inferior move 4...Bb4 was played but Capablanca
didn't reply 5 Qa4+ as Alekhine would have favoured.

DIAGRAM for Cambridge Springs (after 6...Qa5) **

So far as the counter-attacking Cambridge Springs variation (see
diagram) is concerned, Alekhine considered that the experience of
the tournament "completely confirms the conclusions of Dr.
Tarrasch in his excellent book The Defense to the Queen's
Gambit." He said two points "can now be considered as proved"

1. That 7 Nd2 ("thought for a long time the only saving move")
promises White no real advantage because of Bogoljubow's
innovation 7...Bb4 8 Qc2 0-0 9 Be2 e5! 10 dxe5 Ne4 etc. This line
did not actually occur in the tournament; nowadays 10 0-0 is
considered superior to 10 dxe5 and Black may try to pre-empt this
with the immediate 8...e5!?.

2. "As a consequence," continued Alekhine, "White must play 7
cxd5! exd5 8 Bd3 Ne4 9 0-0! (Janowski-Bogoljubow). Thus the
premature Black attack is repulsed without lasting disadvantage..."

The second of these conclusions certainly would not nowadays be
considered proved at all, since instead of 7...exd5? (with an inferior
orthodox QGD) Black has a playable game with 7...Nxd5; even
7...Ne4!? would be a better practical try. Nowadays the Cambridge
Springs is not often seen in master chess but it is a very good
choice for amateur players in my opinion.

In two games at New York, transposition to the Semi-Slav was
attempted by 4...c6. Edward Lasker permitted Tartakower to do
this and the increasingly-popular Meran variation (5 e3 Nbd7 6
Bd3 dxc4 etc.) arose. In Janowski-Tartakower, White didn't allow
it and instead played 5 Bg5. This can lead to the Cambridge
Springs (after 5...Nbd7), but Tartakower preferred 5...h6. Of course
there is another possibility, 5...dxc4 about which Alekhine remarks
"In reply to 5...dxc4 at once, advantage would be derived from 6 e4
b5 7 e5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Nxg5 etc.", citing Bogoljubow-H. Wolf,
Carlsbad 1923. 

Unfortunately I cannot find that game but most likely it featured
the inferior move 9...Nd5. The Botvinnik Variation (9...hxg5 10
Bxg5 Nbd7) which didn't really make an impression on the chess
world until Botvinnik used it to beat Denker in the 1945 USA-
USSR radio match; Botvinnik found it in a game Van Scheltinga-
Gruenfeld, played a few years earlier, and discovered the
improvement 10...Nbd7 on Gruenfeld's 10...Be7. 

To sum up, the openings in the games played at New York 1924
have largely historical interest only. The games of that event and
Alekhine's annotations have been scrutinised too many times by
too many sharp minds for there to be any hidden secrets. In several
specific instances, what were thought to be the specific lessons of
the event have been overturned by later analysis and games.

By and large, theory has moved on and not merely the specific
variations but the whole approach to playing the openings has been
transformed in the intervening 75 years. Today's masters and
experts and amateur players have a much wider choice of openings
with both colours than was comprehended even by most of the
leading players of 1924.