On the Origin of Good Moves: A Skeptic's Guide at Getting Better at Chess

[email protected].

PREFACE

A small quiz to begin with

Let’s throw you in at the deep end: play over the following game and try to figure out:

• How strong are these players?

• Where did Black go wrong?

• Approximately when was this game played?

• Who might be the players?

1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.d4 exd4 4.♗c4 ♗c5 5.c3 ♘f6 6.e5 d5 7.♗b5 ♘e4 8.cxd4 ♗b4+ 9.♗d2 ♗xd2+ 10.♘bxd2 0-0 11.♗xc6 bxc6 12.0-0 f5 13.♖c1 ♕e8 14.♕c2 ♖b8 15.♘b3 ♖b6 16.♘fd2 ♕h5 17.f3 ♘xd2 18.♕xd2 f4 19.♘c5 ♕g6 20.♖fe1 ♗e6 21.♖c3 ♕e8 22.♖a3 ♗f5 23.b3 a6 24.♖xa6 ♖xa6 25.♘xa6 ♕c8 26.♘c5 ♗e6 27.a4 g5 28.a5 ♖e8 29.a6 ♕b8 30.♖a1 ♕a7 31.♕b4 ♔f7 32.♕b7 ♕b6 33.a7 ♕xb7 34.♘xb7 ♖a8 35.♘d8+ ♔e7 36.♘xe6 ♔xe6 37.b4 1-0

The game of chess has a rich history. Of all the different interesting aspects of this history, this book will focus on the development of our knowledge of the game and our capability to play it well.

This is a book about the history of improvement in chess – about the improvement of the chess-playing species as it were – but I hope it might contribute to the improvement of the chess-playing individual (i.e. you, the reader). In biology there is a theory summarized as ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, meaning that the development of the individual resembles the development of the species. Today this old theory has few adherents left in the science of biology and I am not so sure about its worth for chess, but it is an interesting starting point. For one thing Garry Kasparov opens the first chapter of his major work My Great Predecessors with this perspective: ‘The stages in the development of chess resemble the path taken by everyone who proceeds from a beginner to a player of high standard.’¹ Kasparov stands in a tradition at this point. For example, his predecessor Max Euwe wrote: ‘The development of a player runs parallel with the development of the game of chess itself, and that’s why the study of the history of the game of chess has great practical value.’² And, to add one more version of this idea, Richard Réti wrote: ‘We perceive after a careful consideration of the evolution of the chess mind that such evolution has gone on, in general, in a way quite similar to that in which it goes on with the individual chess player, only with the latter more rapidly.’³

The above seems to suggest that there is agreement on what ‘the stages in the development of chess’ consist of, and indeed, there is a view that almost all those writing about the history of our game adhere to.

In this generally approved view, William Steinitz plays a central role. He is supposed to have been the first to understand the laws of positional chess and also the first to present this knowledge in his writings. The period before Steinitz is often described as ‘romantic’, with ‘attacking at all costs’ as its main characteristic. With his concepts of balance and of making plans based on the elements of the position, Steinitz more or less brought science and enlightenment into chess thinking.

There were players and writers in the romantic period already anticipating a more positional approach. Often mentioned is François-André Danican Philidor, and sometimes Howard Staunton and Paul Morphy are added to this list. As typical representatives of the romantic school we have Gioacchino Greco and his Italian compatriots. Later on, Adolf Anderssen and Mikhail Chigorin are supposed to stand for the Romantic ideals.

However, I believe that if you take a closer look at this history, it seems rather strange that we have ended up with this ‘official’ version of how chess developed. The story of what did happen is a fascinating one and at first it was my intention to shape this book as a whodunnit. While describing all the battles that have been fought in the history of chess between different schools of thinking and styles of playing, and all the discussions and controversies that went along with it, somewhere near the end it should become clear how the crime was committed. Unfortunately, this asks too much of my writing abilities. So I may just as well give it away right here: Emanuel Lasker did it!

I hope that after this journey we can end up with some alternative points of view and some different heroes. But I would also like to take on a new perspective, concentrating not solely on the great players and the big ideas, but also on the small innovations and pieces of new knowledge that, in my opinion, form the real motor of improvement – to give away the second part of the plot.

Finally – if I manage to make a case for this evolutionary point of view – the question arises again as to what this means for the individual, aspiring to master our game.

This perspective connects the present book to my first one, Move First, Think Later, subtitled ‘Sense and Nonsense in Improving Your Chess’. That book dealt with the nature of improvement in chess, and some of its main themes and questions will return from a more historical point of view.

Exercises

In my first book I used a set-up with exercises at the start of each chapter. Those positions then returned in the actual chapter. This structure is used again in this book. It is my conviction that, if you want to learn something from a position, you first have to think about it for yourself and decide upon your move, preferably without any clues. Also, to be able to form an idea of how chess was played in the past and how they handled different positions, it is essential to think about these positions yourself, to see how you relate to their way of thinking and their playing strength.

I hope that every so often you will be surprised and add some new bits to your knowledge of chess.

The exercises range from very easy to very difficult. I guess the stronger club player won’t have an easy time solving them. They are a mix of strategy and tactics. Mostly, but not always, there is a clear best move. And usually you are just asked to give a move – hopefully you can back it up by some variation or idea. Sometimes a different question is asked – for example, your opinion on who is better.

The exercises follow the line of the story, which means that simple ones can be followed by difficult ones, without any warning. Just as in your own games.

The minimum I hope for you to do is to take a good look at the position and decide on the move you want to play.

An anachronistic game!?

Years ago in my chess club’s magazine there was a regular quiz that looked a bit like the one I presented to you at the start. This was in the pre-computer era. Of course, I hope you tried my quiz without computer help. Nowadays we are used to having engines running almost all the time. That makes it easy to forget how difficult chess is.

While I was writing this, the World Championship match between Carlsen and Caruana was going on. I read the following witty comment on Twitter: ‘In my opinion, computers didn’t ruin the game of chess, but they did ruin the spectators.’ It is indeed difficult to escape: if you tune in to the live broadcast of any match or tournament today, in most places you get the actual position presented together with a computer evaluation of the position. This already spoils half of the fun. It’s not the same as presenting the score during a soccer match.

Let’s have a look at the questions I posed. Your first impression might well be that they are at least decent players. They play opening theory for some time and don’t blunder material. The opening itself doesn’t give much of a clue. This line was already played long ago and is still played today, though maybe not at the highest levels.

1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.d4 exd4 4.♗c4 ♗c5 5.c3 ♘f6 6.e5 d5 7.♗b5 ♘e4 8.cxd4 ♗b4+ 9.♗d2 ♗xd2+

More often 9…♘xd2 is played.

10.♘bxd2

10….0-0

If Black wants to avoid getting his pawn structure damaged he can play 10…♗d7.

11.♗xc6 bxc6 12.0-0

If 12.♖c1 White has to reckon with the …♗a6 idea, either directly or after 12…c5 13.dxc5 ♗a6. Later in this book we will see some more examples of this idea, aiming to keep the king stuck in the centre.

The weaknesses on the c-file are Black’s major problem and now is his last chance to address this with 12…c5!, after which White is only slightly better. Black’s next move not only doesn’t help with his problems on the c-file, but also gives White a protected passed pawn and blocks his bishop on c8. Surely, White is not going to help Black by taking on e4. So Black’s only big mistake in this game is already the decisive one. Well done if you noticed this.

12…f5? 13.♖c1 ♕e8 14.♕c2 ♖b8 15.♘b3 ♖b6 16.♘fd2 ♕h5

17.f3!

Much better than 17.♘xe4 fxe4, which would greatly improve Black’s possibilities on the kingside.

17…♘xd2 18.♕xd2 f4 19.♘c5

The good knight versus bad bishop dream position has been reached. In the rest of the game White cashes in on his advantage in an exemplary way.

19…♕g6 20.♖fe1 ♗e6 21.♖c3 ♕e8 22.♖a3 ♗f5 23.b3 a6 24.♖xa6 ♖xa6 25.♘xa6 ♕c8 26.♘c5 ♗e6 27.a4 g5 28.a5 ♖e8 29.a6 ♕b8 30.♖a1 ♕a7 31.♕b4 ♔f7 32.♕b7 ♕b6 33.a7 ♕xb7 34.♘xb7 ♖a8 35.♘d8+ ♔e7 36.♘xe6 ♔xe6 37.b4 1-0

On closer consideration of this game you might come to the conclusion that it looks like a typical example of ‘master beats amateur’. It could have been played long ago, but also very recently. White seems to be a reasonably strong player. He outplays his opponent in a purely positional manner – a model game on the theme of weaknesses in the pawn structure and a good knight on a strong square versus a (rather) bad bishop.

Since the laws of positional chess were discovered, as the story goes, by Steinitz, around the 1880s, this game must have been played after that. Maybe it was even Steinitz himself, you might think, playing with white.

Although this game was given to you without any information, the fact that it is in this book probably gave you a clue that it is not a very recent game. And indeed it isn’t. It is a game by Adolf Anderssen against Daniel Harrwitz, the first of their match played in Breslau in 1848. Harrwitz was at the time considered to be one of the world’s top players, and drawing this match 4-4 was Anderssen’s first notable result.

Adolf Anderssen (1818-1879), the great protagonist of the so-called Romantic chess era, playing purely positional chess years before this was invented? That raises a few questions. Is this game some sort of anachronism, an occasional lucky shot? Or is there more to be found in the history of chess that challenges conventional views?

Years ago I stumbled upon this game by accident and it was an inspiration for further investigations of games from the past – and not only the small number that recur in every textbook.

So let’s start our journey into the forgotten days. At our first stop we will meet a player who has much more to offer than his reputation as a primitive tactician would suggest.

Exercises for Chapter 1

1

Footnotes to Greco

Gioacchino Greco

Admirers of the Greek philosopher Plato somewhat jokingly like to describe the complete history of philosophy that followed as footnotes to Plato. All major themes had supposedly been dealt with already, or even handled sufficiently, in Plato’s work.

As far as I know nobody has paid this honour to Gioacchino Greco, one of the earliest players in the history of chess to have left behind a collection of games. Does he stand comparison with Plato, or are we witnessing just the first small steps on a long and winding road?

Not much is known for sure about Greco (1600?-1634?). He was born in southern Italy and travelled a lot, beating the strongest players from Italy, France, England and Spain. Greco wrote several manuscripts that were later collected and republished. They contained complete games, which was a novelty, though it is not sure if they were really played or were partly, or completely, constructed. Some of them he probably ‘borrowed’ from others: in his day, Italy was the centre of the chess-playing world and Greco built on the knowledge of earlier and contemporary players like Boi, Leonardo, Polerio and Salvio. They found fame as the Italian school, which later was opposed to the Philidorian school, to which the 16th century Spanish player and writer Ruy Lopez might be seen as a forerunner.

On looking at Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors, the first player on the list is of course Steinitz, but Part I starts with an overview of chess before Steinitz. Kasparov does pay attention to Greco and values his contributions, but also characterizes him as a representative of ‘the manner of play in the 16th and 17th centuries: never missing a chance to give check, bring the queen immediately into play and, not thinking about the development of all the pieces, launch a dashing attack on the king. The combination either succeeds, or suddenly turns out to be completely incorrect. The level of defense is terrible and there is a complete absence of any deep plan. This style, inspired by the talent and imagination of the performers, became known in chess as the Italian School.’ After giving some examples of Greco’s fine miniatures, Kasparov quickly proceeds to Philidor as the first theoretician to lay out some of the positional fundamentals of chess.

Kasparov follows other writers in this view on Greco. Often his great combinational play gets praise, but sometimes his games are characterized as just a useful collection of opening traps. Euwe uses the phrase ‘toying with pieces’ to summarize Greco’s play.⁴ And Vladimir Vukovic in his classic Art of Attack in Chess speaks about ‘some combinations, though new then, now strike modern minds as nothing more than elementary tricks.’ Vukovic gives one fragment of Greco, and tries to correct Greco here and there, but the editor of the reissue of this classic, John Nunn, points out that more often than not Greco had it right, noticing ‘Perhaps those old analysts knew a thing or two after all!’⁵

If you play over all the games by Greco you cannot but be amazed by the enormous strength of this player and by the importance and variety of his ideas. These games were played around 1620, in the early days of chess as we know it, with not much existing knowledge to build on.

Most of Greco’s games are King’s Gambits and Italian Games, often short struggles ending with a deadly attack on the king in the middle of the board. The struggle in the centre, rapid development of the pieces and all kinds of tactics directed at the enemy king are the central themes. A few examples:

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.♗c4 ♗c5 4.c3 ♘f6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 ♗b4+ 7.♘c3 ♘xe4 8.0-0 ♘xc3 9.bxc3 ♗xc3

10.♕b3 ♗xa1 11.♗xf7+ ♔f8 12.♗g5 ♘e7 13.♘e5 ♗xd4 14.♗g6 d5 15.♕f3+ ♗f5 16.♗xf5 ♗xe5 17.♗e6+ ♗f6 18.♗xf6 ♔e8 19.♗xg7 1-0

This line is Greco’s most important contribution to theory. Also notable is the fact that White plays perfectly from beginning to end. Quite a few other games by Greco do withstand the scrutiny of today’s engines, which is a clear indication of the strength of his play:

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.♘f3 g5 4.♗c4 ♗g7 5.d4 d6 6.♘c3 c6

7.h4

Attacking pawn chains was a main weapon in Greco’s repertoire.

7…h6 8.hxg5 hxg5 9.♖xh8 ♗xh8

10.♘e5?!

Typical of Greco’s sacrificial style, but this one is rather dubious.

10…dxe5 11.♕h5 ♕f6 12.dxe5 ♕g7 13.e6 ♘f6 14.exf7+ ♔f8?

After 14…♔e7 White’s attack runs out of steam. But now his audacity gets rewarded with a brilliant finish, quite understandably missed by Black.

(Exercise no 1)

15.♗xf4! ♘xh5

Or 15…gxf4 16.♕c5 mate.

16.♗d6 mate.

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.♗c4 ♗c5 4.c3 ♕e7 5.0-0 d6 6.d4 ♗b6 7.♗g5 f6 8.♗h4 g5

Again Greco takes up the gauntlet, this time more justified than in the previous game, although the quiet continuation 9.♗g3 was not bad at all.

9.♘xg5! fxg5 10.♕h5+ ♔d7

There is one more game in Greco’s collection with this position in which Black decided on 10…♔f8 (analysis diagram):

(Exercise no 2)

Greco continued with 11.♗xg5, missing a nice killer blow. After 11.f4!! the f-file will be opened with devastating effect.

11.♗xg5 ♕g7?

After the only move 11…♘f6 White is winning as well, but the position is a bit messy with ample opportunity to go wrong. Now White decides the game with a nice mating combination.

(Exercise no 3)

12.♗e6+! ♔xe6 13.♕e8+ ♘ge7 14.d5 mate.

Many of these Italian Games and King’s Gambits were important contri-butions to theory or even the starting point of theory, and these lines and the ideas in them remained influential for centuries to come. But I think the games in Greco’s collection with other openings are even better evidence of his strength and inventiveness.

There are a few games with 1.e4 b6. Today this is known as Owen’s Defence, but the English vicar John Owen lived more than two centuries later, so he was not the first to use this opening. However, he did play it regularly and once managed to beat Morphy with it.

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.e4 b6 2.d4 ♗b7 3.♗d3 f5? 4.exf5 ♗xg2 5.♕h5+ g6 6.fxg6 ♘f6?

With 6…♗g7 Black can still pose some tricky problems.

(Exercise no 4)

7.gxh7+! ♘xh5 8.♗g6 mate.

There is a fair chance you have seen this game before. But it is very relevant for this line, so discovering this at a moment when the opening had only just come into existence is a feat that can easily be underestimated.

The other game with this opening is also noteworthy:

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.e4 b6 2.d4 ♗b7 3.♗d3 g6 4.f4 ♗g7

A hypermodern set-up avant la lettre by Black.

5.♗e3 ♘c6 6.♘f3 ♘f6 7.c4 0-0 8.♘c3

In a subsequent chapter we will take a closer look at Philidor’s ideas. ‘Move your pawns before your pieces, and afterwards bring out the pieces to support them’ can be considered to be his central axiom.⁶ If you look at the white position you might think Philidor was strongly inspired by Greco at this point. There are other games of Greco that show a similar preference.

One difference might be that Greco played this way only when given the opportunity, whereas Philidor tried to enforce this ideal, no matter where or how.

8…e6 9.e5 ♘e8 10.g4 d5 11.cxd5 exd5 12.h4

White’s h-file mating attack on this kingside fianchetto will not shock any present reader, but very likely this was the first one in history.

12…a6 13.h5 b5 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.♕e2 b4 16.♕h2 bxc3 17.♕h7 mate.

Regarding the absence of deep plans in this period: the attack starting with 10.g4 and culminating in 17.♕h7 mate seems to be a rather deep plan.

To modern eyes this was a fairly standard kingside attack, so let’s proceed to a more sophisticated example.

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 d6 3.♗c4 ♗g4 4.h3 ♗h5 5.c3 ♘f6 6.d3 ♗e7 7.♗e3 0-0

Not having castled kingside himself yet, the following attacking plan makes sense.

8.g4!? ♗g6 9.♘h4 c6 10.♘xg6 hxg6 11.h4

Black should seek counterplay and he does so on the opposite wing. However, in this case counterattacking in the centre seems a more appropriate answer to White’s aggression on the flank. There is an old proverb promoting this, which, strangely enough, some author dared to discuss a few years ago.⁷ How old exactly is this wisdom is not clear, but probably it did not exist in Greco’s day.

After the better 11…d5 things remain unclear. For example after 12.♗b3 dxe4 White has 13.h5!, still posing Black some problems. White threatens 14.hxg6 and after 13…gxh5 14.g5 is strong.

Apart from Black’s action being a bit too slow, this whole game makes a modern impression regarding pawn play.

11…b5?! 12.♗b3 a5 13.a4 b4 14.h5!

Advancing the h-pawn starts a tactical operation that had to be calculated well.

14…gxh5

(Exercise no 5)

15.g5!

Capturing the h-pawn with 15.gxh5 is not bad, but after 15…d5 Black is still in the game.

15…♘g4 16.♖xh5 ♘xe3 17.♖h8+!

The point, which had to be foreseen at move 15. If White first takes back with 17.fxe3, Black is perfectly safe after 17…g6 followed by …♗xg5 and/or …♔g7.

17…♔xh8 18.♕h5+ ♔g8

19.g6!

To be the first person to discover this mating combination is undoubtedly a real accomplishment, and any modern-day chess player would be justifiably proud to play the combination starting with 14.h5. I know that I would.

19…♖e8 20.♕h7+ ♔f8 21.♕h8 mate.

The next mating attack will be more familiar to the reader, to use an understatement, but again – someone had to be first. I know I’m becoming a bit repetitive, but Greco’s legacy is really impressive.

Gioacchino Greco NN

(Exercise no 6)

7.♗xh7+! ♔xh7 8.♘g5+ ♗xg5 9.hxg5+ ♔g6

Or 9…♔g8 10.♕h5 f5 11.g6.

10.♕h5+ ♔f5 11.♕h7+ g6 12.♕h3+ ♔e4 13.♕d3 mate.

The bishop sacrifice is called the ‘Greek Gift’ and that (probably) refers to Greco, although the other explanation, linking this name to the Trojan Horse, looks quite plausible as well. Had it been ♘xh7, I would be inclined to favour the second idea.

The next attacking mechanism is again an original; the game, though, looks a bit like a construction. It’s an important line-opening device, to be found in numerous openings and games since. Later on we will see some of these more refined applications.

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.♗c4 ♗c5 4.c3 ♘f6 5.♘g5 0-0 6.d3 h6

7.h4!?

The applause is for the idea, since if Black doesn’t take the bait but plays something else, 7…d5 for example, he is doing fine. But this black NN is very cooperative:

7…hxg5? 8.hxg5 ♘h7 9.♕h5 1-0

Exercises for Chapter 2

White has just played 11.bxc4 and Black now has to make a principled decision: 11…bxc4 or 11…dxc4 ?

Choose between 7…♘d5 and 7…♘xd4.

2

The Nimzowitsch of the 17th century

After our small digression on kingside attacking mechanisms, let us return to the openings that were not mainstream in Greco’s day. There are some French Defence games in his manuscripts, and Greco preferred the Advance Variation.

Taking into account that there was no theory on this opening whatsoever, the next game is a remarkable positional walkover. It is true that Black should not exchange his dark-squared bishop on c3, but apart from that White’s play is very convincing. And, as in the earlier game with Owen’s Defence, Greco’s pawn play essentially shows what was later claimed by Philidor as his own novelty.

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 ♗b4+ 6.♘c3 ♗xc3+ 7.bxc3 ♘c6 8.♗d3 ♘ge7 9.f4 ♘f5 10.♘f3 0-0 11.g4 ♘h4 12.0-0 ♘xf3+ 13.♕xf3 ♗d7 14.♕h3 g6

(Exercise no 7)

15.f5!

Simple and strong; other ideas like 15.♗a3 or a combination of ♖f3 and ♕h6 make sense as well, but they are not as straightforward as the text move.

15…exf5 16.gxf5 gxf5 17.♖xf5 ♗xf5 18.♗xf5 1-0

The other game with the French Defence sees Greco playing Black. It is by far the longest game (most of the games recorded by Greco are miniatures). It also looks like a real game, not a constructed one, although you do get the feeling in the opening that White as well as Black is playing in ‘Greco style’.

There is a lot happening in this game, I’m not going to analyse everything in detail, but I’ll pick out just some moments of special interest.

NN – Gioacchino Greco

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 ♘c6 5.♘f3 ♗d7 6.♗e3 c4

An early …c5-c4 is still a major idea in today’s handling of the Advance Variation, most often played after 5…♕b6 6.a3. This last move makes 6…c4 a little better than in the present game because of the weakness of the b3-square.

White’s next two moves, attacking Black’s pawn chain, look very modern and propel us three centuries forward into Nimzowitsch’s day. Also, Black’s answers, keeping his pawn chain intact, are completely sound.

7.b3!? b5 8.a4!? a6 9.axb5

Maintaining the tension with 9.♗e2 looks better.

9…axb5 10.♖xa8 ♕xa8 11.bxc4

(Exercise no 8)

11…dxc4!?

The other option, 11…bxc4, is a more solid choice and is certainly not worse (1 point for everyone), but on this occasion Black is more ambitious.

12.♗e2?!

12.d5! was the only move to avoid the looming positional disaster, leading to a complicated position.

12…♘ge7 13.0-0 ♘d5

Black now has a beautiful knight on a strong square, blockading White’s central pawn majority. This diagram would not have been at all out of place in My System. Later on in the game Black’s queen and bishop will take over the blockading duties on d5, forming a powerful battery on the long diagonal. This is also in line with the ideas set forth by Nimzowitsch in the 20th century.

14.♗d2 ♗e7 15.♘g5 ♗xg5 16.♗xg5 0-0 17.♗f3 ♘a5 18.♗xd5 ♕xd5 19.f4 ♗c6 20.♕d2 ♘b3 21.♕c2

(Exercise no 9)

In the previous phase, a few dubious things happened, but by now Black is firmly in control again. I gave this position as an exercise, although there is no clear best move (and a lot of attractive ones). The engine likes the odd-looking 21…♖e8 best, which incidentally might have been Nimzowitsch’s choice, as a prophylactic measure against White’s manoeuvre ♗g5-e7-b4 to blockade Black’s majority. That would have been very sophisticated.

The most obvious move is taking control of the only open file with 21…♖a8, maybe followed by …♖a1. Black is much better, although he has to keep an eye on White’s attacking chances on the kingside. Greco must have contemplated this last possibility, but he chose adventure by sacrificing a piece for two far-advanced and well-supported passed pawns. Did you consider this option?

As we will see in the next chapter, Philidor is commonly identified as the one ‘who taught us the power of passed pawns’, but evidently Greco was well aware of this already. Some more of his games show him advancing two passed pawns towards promotion.

21…♘xd4!? 22.cxd4 ♕xd4+ 23.♔h1 ♗e4 24.♕c3 ♕c5 25.♘d2 ♗d3 26.♖c1

26…♖c8

Both sides have back-rank issues, but 26…♖a8 would have given Black good winning chances; 27.♕xd3 fails to 27…cxd3 28.♖xc5 ♖a1+.

After the move played, White might have saved himself by blockading the black pawns with another tricky move, 27.♗e7!.

27.♘b3 cxb3!?

Deep tactics, but 27…♕a3 might have been a bit better.

28.♕xc5 ♖xc5 29.♖xc5 h6 30.♖c3 b2 31.♖b3 b1♕+ 32.♖xb1 ♗xb1 33.♗e7 ♔h7

The smoke has cleared and the resulting opposite-coloured bishops endgame should be a draw, but Greco finally manages to outplay his opponent with some fine manoeuvres. Considering that this is the first endgame (of this type) from practical play ever to be recorded, the level of Black’s play is impressive.

34.g4 ♗e4+ 35.♔g1 ♗f3 36.h3 h5 37.g5 ♔g6 38.♔f2 ♗d5 39.♔e3 h4 40.♔f2 ♔f5 41.♔e3 ♗g2 42.♗f8 g6 43.♗b4 ♗xh3 44.♗e1 ♔g4 45.♗d2 ♗g2 46.♔f2 h3 47.♗c1 ♗d5 48.♔g1 ♔g3 49.♗e3 h2+ 50.♔f1 h1♕+ 0-1

It has been said about various different players in the history of chess that they were well ahead of their time: it was said about Philidor and Morphy, and even about Chigorin, although he was often characterized as a Romantic player (meaning someone from the past), and of course about Steinitz. Actually, Steinitz himself, not awaiting the verdict of chess historians, at the end of his career claimed to have been twenty years ahead of his time.

Looking at the remarkable game above, I’d like to add Greco to this list, being some three centuries (!) ahead of his time.

There are only a few Queen’s Pawn games in this collection, but how relevant they are.

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5? 4.a4! c6

(Exercise no 10)

5.axb5 cxb5 6.♕f3 1-0

In my database no fewer than 251 players have followed in the footsteps of NN’s 3…b5?, and 83 of them failed to see 6.♕f3 coming until it was too late.

The next Queen’s Gambit sees Greco, despite his quick success in the previous game, varying with another important move.

Gioacchino Greco – NN

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5

This position is still played in today’s practice, with 6.♘c3 as the main move. Greco’s next move is probably not the best, but is again