Introduction
Paul Keres (22 y.o.) played against Gideon Stahlberg (30 y.o.) in a match (Gothenburg), 20th April - 1st May 1938 which ended in a draw at +2=4-2. 1 and 2
Keres
In the late 1930's, Keres gained recognition as an up and coming great chess talent. He had been one of the top scorers in the 1935 Chess Olympiad and then come first in two elite tournaments: at Bad Nauheim (1936) where he shared first prize with Alexander Alekhine and then being the sole winner of Semmering/Baden (1937).
This match was practise against a strong grandmaster and excellent preparation for Keres for the forthcoming AVRO (1938), 6th to 27th of November 1938, a tremendously strong tournament which included Alexander Alekhine and Jose Raul Capablanca. By winning this tournament, Keres became the preferred FIDE world champion candidate.
The match was arranged by the by the Gothenburg Chess Federation, and the match referee was Helge Westerberg. 1
First meeting in 1935, prior to this match Keres and Ståhlberg had played seven times with Keres having a positive score (+4=1-2).
Ståhlberg
Ståhlberg was Sweden's strongest player in the 1930s and twice a world championship candidate (in 1950 and 1953).
He had made his name with two matches against giants of the previous generation Rudolf Spielmann (Stockholm, February 1933) and Aron Nimzowitsch, (Gothenburg, January 1934). He defeated both masters by the same margin of 5 games to 3. Nimzowitsch was impressed:
"He is in fact a brilliant technician in the opening...(and) his endgame pressure is uncommonly strong". 3
Ståhlberg was strong enough to attract the competitive interest of another young rising star Fine. Stahlberg's supporters raised the funds for a match (Gothenburg, January - February 1937) which Ståhlberg lost by +2 -4 =2. 4 5
In the late 1930's, Ståhlberg was playing consistently and successfully. His best results included: third equal at Dresden (1936), forth at Podebrady (1936), and tying for second with Keres at Parnu (1937).
Timetable
All the games were played in Gothenburg
Game 1 - Wednesday, 20th April 1938
Game 2 - Thursday, 21st April 1938
Game 3 - Friday, 22nd April 1938
Game 4 - Monday, 25th April 1938
Game 5 - Tuesday, 26th April 1938
Game 6 - Wednesday, 27th April 1938
Game 7 - Thursday, 28th and Friday, 29th April 1938
Game 8 - Saturday, 30th and Sunday, 1st May 1938 3
Photograph of the contestants
http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo...
The progress of the match
The match was close with first Ståhlberg then Keres taking the lead. It was hard fought and the general standard of the games were high.
The match was one of closed openings. Keres did not use any of his king pawn pawn openings but preferred hyper-modern systems in which he fianchettoed his King's Bishop early.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Keres 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 0 ½ - 4
Ståhlberg 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ - 4
Progressive score:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Keres 0 ½ 1 2 2½ 3½ 3½ 4
Ståhlberg 1 1½ 2 2 2½ 2½ 3½ 4
.
<The Games>
Game 1
Keres had White in the first game and opened with <1.c4>. Ståhlberg defended with a Semi-Tarrasch defence, and both players played sharply but accurately creating a book line (see Kholmov vs Antoshin, 1956 and Benko vs J Peters, 1975 for high level games which followed this game for 17 moves).
Ståhlberg had equalised, but neither player sought an early draw. Ståhlberg began to make something out of nothing in a same colour bishop and single rooks ending. Keres sacrificed a pawn for counter-play but Ståhlberg sharpened the play still further with an enterprising sacrifice of the exchange for pawn. He now had two pawns for the exchange in the ending. Keres then in winning back one pawn, pulled his Rook away from Ståhlberg's passed King-side pawns, only to find that he was then unable to stop their advance.
Game 2
Ståhlberg played a favourite line Nimzo-Indian, Spielmann Variation (E22) , which was popular in the 1930's at the highest level but which has since become a rarity in tournament practice as drawing lines were quickly discovered.
Keres equalised and began to threaten to take the initiative. Ståhlberg began to trade pieces towards a draw, but Keres avoided an exchange of Queens. Ståhlberg was now under pressure but Keres could not force any advantage. Instead, Keres now ensured a draw. He went into a Bishops of the opposite colour and pawns ending at the cost of being a pawn down but with a passed pawn on <e2>. He played accurately to hold the draw despite Ståhlberg pressing on in a long endgame.
Game 3
In the third game, Ståhlberg quickly and cleverly equalised against Keres' Catalan. By a clever pseudo-sacrifice of a Knight, he trapped Keres' Queen into a forced repetition.
So far in this match, the balance of the struggle had been with Ståhlberg.
Game 4
This could have been a superb opportunity for Ståhlberg to gain a significant advantage in the match. By winning it he would be two games up with four to play. Stahlberg as White remained faithful to Nimzo-Indian, Spielmann Variation (E22) , but once again he did not achieve any advantage from the opening.
The ensuing single rook and pawns ending should have been drawn by Ståhlberg, but inaccurate play cost him a pawn and inevitably the game.
Game 5
Keres played a topical line of the Catalan but Ståhlberg played accurately and equalised. In a long game, neither player could seize the initiative.
Game 6
Keres played a sharp defence to which Ståhlberg replied in an aggressive but not the most accurate fashion. Keres then offered an imaginative sacrifice of the exchange. Ståhlberg correctly declined to accept the sacrifice but his still left Keres with the initiative. With his King under attack, Ståhlberg made a subtle blunder and lost a pawn. Keres was then able to force through his <c> pawn to win.
Game 7
Keres played a Reti opening aggressively sacrificing his <b> pawn. His scheme proved over-ambitious and his King was left without secure shelter. Ståhlberg soon broke through winning material. This was, however, to be the longest game of the match with Keres vainly attempting to hold an endgame three pawns down.
Game 8
Ståhlberg gained no advantage with White and for a long time the game was even. He then miscalculated and Keres came close to winning this game in the endgame.
Kibitzing
