18. Bxf7+!

If the king takes the bishop, there is a forced draw. If the king simply moves, then:

19.Bf4 Qh3+ 20.Bh2 Ne3 (forking White's rook and queen). Now if White moves the queen, say 21.Qd2 then 21...Qg2#. No doubt there are other lines, all leading to similar predicaments.

As an aside, I've seen a lot of really bad criticisms of Chernev from others at this database, of a nature which suggests that they either haven't read his book and are mindlessly parroting fashionable criticism of him, or else that they are acting in bad faith. And that, too, raises the issue of why such criticism is fashionable. The book in question is one of the best on the market. Very easy to follow, for beginners, not because it is simple-minded but because it is so well written. It has some weak points, but so do its competitors.

Kriegspiel

Kriegspiel

If, in this line, 19…Qh3+?, the best move however is 20.Nh2, with a double attack on the knight on g4, instead of 20.Bh2, though even 20.Bh2 holds.

A) 20.Bh2 Ne3 the only reply is 21.Rxf2! and then 21…Nxd1 22.Rxd1 with three minor pieces for the queen and White has the initiative, for instance Junior’s line 22…Ke7 23.e5!.

B) 20.Nh2!

B1) 20…g5 21.Bxd6+! cxd6 22.Qxg4 Qxg4 23.Nxg4 Kxf7 24.Rxf2+

B2) 20…Kxf7 21.Qxg4 Qxg4 22.Nxg4 Ba7 23.Bxd6+

B3) 20…Nxh2 21.Bxh2 Kxf7 22.Rxf2+

This game contains neither.

"Kriegspiel: I don't have Chernev's book in front of me (have you read it?)"

The comments above yours (have you read them?) as well as a very deep analysis by Fritz show that this position is drawn by a very clever combination beginning with Bxf7+. The analysis in Chernev's excellent book is flawed, big deal. Theres always going to be someone picking on past masters for missing something subtle, but it is still there. Please don't troll and be rude to people without reading their comments first.

if Kf6, that's a mate in 4, if Kg6, that's a mate in 1.

It gives reference to St Petersberg, 1914, Gunsberg-Alekhine. Alekhine reached the above position until he played 8...Nxa5 9.Rxa5 Bxa5 10.Qa4+ b5 (Oops!) 11.Qxa5 bxc4 and White doesn't have enough compensation for the exchange. So 7.a5? was possibly a blunder which Chernev fails to mention in his book.

I'm currently reading Logical Chess and, as a novice, I'm finding it to be very instructional, educational and a joy to read despite its obvious flaws and oversights. I try to focus on the lessons that it is trying to teach from the games.

He makes no mention of the 18. Bxf7+! line in his book leading one to conclude that he either did not analyze the games in his book, or, if he did, he simply didn't see it. Either way, it reflects poorly on him.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate Mr. Chernev's enthusiasm for all things chess. In many ways, he made chess more accessible and popular in the US prior to Fischer winning the World Championship than any other figure. However, and let me be clear on this point, his analysis, like his play, was sadly, regrettably, lacking.

Chernev writes about move 8: "Should black, after 8 a5 play 8...Nxa5, the continuation 9 Rxa5 Bxa5 10 Qa4+ nets White two pieces for a rook." This is an obvious error because Black can play 10...b5! as did Alekhine. This line isn't even mentioned and wasn't hard to spot even for a novice like myself.

I saw this as it was. Chernov's chapter title was "Kingside Attack" & not "Checkmate Patterns" or something of that nature. So, it is what it is. Agreed, his wrap up for game was shaky but the guy resigned and as I stated above.

@Jackiemoon22 I believe you answered your own 2 questions 7. a4 was bad because... it was too early of an attack as you and Chernov said. To go further White had too many unaddressed attacks & threats of his own that he was not meeting. His a4's only support could arguably have been his rook. Anyway, still a solid book with respect to well explained grandmaster ideas behind moves and obviously a power player in chess promotion.

Cheers!!