Nov-11-08
 | | Honza Cervenka: 16...c6 is hard to understand. I see no reason why not 16...Bxb2 and on the other hand why not 17.Bxd6. |
|
Nov-11-08
 | | beatgiant: Maybe 16. Rc1 is a misprint for 16. Bc1 here? |
|
| Jan-29-19 | | zydeco: It must be 16.Bc1.
The game in general is a triumph for the two Jans. At the time, variations with Nc3 were the theoretical mainline in the Ruy Lopez, which suited Janowski marvelously - with black, he could always pick up the bishop pair with ....Na5. 37.Nd2 is natural. I guess Teichmann figured that after 37....g5 and ....Bf4 he’ll lose the b-pawn anyway, but at least he’d get some kingside loosening as compensation. |
|
| Jan-29-19 | | zydeco: By the way, this game determined third place in the tournament (and must have been especially important to Janowski, who by this point faced severe gambling debts). |
|
Feb-15-25
 | | KEG: As <zydeco> has pointed out, this game determined third place at Monte Carlo 1902. Going into the 21st and final round at this tournament, the top four on the leader board were: Maroczy --- 14.25
Pillsbury--- 13.50
Teichmann-- 13.25
Janowski --- 13.00
The remaining 16 competitors had no chance to join this elite group. Theoretically, Teichmann had a chance to tie Maroczy (if the latter lost his 21st round game) and even surpass Pillsbury if Pillsbury failed to win his final game), and Janowski had a chance to catch or pass Pillsbury. In fact, Pillsbury defected Marshall in this round while Maroczy drew both his initial game and the replay against Tarrasch. For Teichmann and Janowski, therefore, the only remaining question was whether Janowski would win their game(as he did) or the replay. Janowski outplayed Teichmann for much of the game, but he only won after Teichmann blundered on move 37. After that error by Teichmann, Janowski had a easily won game. And as was all too common with Janowski, once he achieved a winning position here, he delayed administering the coup de grace for several moves, seemingly enjoying prolonging the agony 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6
5. 0-0 Be7
6. Nc3
A sound alternative to 6. Re1 in the Ruy Lopez that was popular at the time but later went out of fashion. 6... b5
7. Bb3 d6
click for larger view8. d3
Declining to preserve his b3 Bishop with 8. a3 or 8. a4. 8. Nd5 has been a popular alternative in this position for White. 8... Na5
Janowski liked Bishops, so his choice here was predictable and probably best. 9. Ne2
Not my personal cut of tea, but a known Ruy Lopez idea for White; e.g., arranging his Knights to operate in tandem on the King's side. 9... NxB
10. axN Bb7
Janowski loved to activate his Bishops; hence he decided not to play the indicated 10...c5 here. The text left: 
click for larger view11. c4
Hoffer in his notes on this game faulted this move for weakening the d3 pawn. While I think Hoffer overstated his case concerning the text, he was (somewhat) vindicated by the fact that Queen-side pawn weaknesses ultimately lost the game for Teichmann. 11... Nd7
"Preventing Nd5"--(Hoffer). 11...0-0 or 11...b4 are arguably more precise moves for Black. 12. Ng3
Following his plan.
12... g6
A needless (albeit small) weakening. 12...0-0 or 12...b4 look slightly stronger. The position after 12...g6 was:
click for larger viewAs is obvious, the game was still very much in the balance with ample prospects for both sides. |
|
Feb-16-25
| | KEG: Post II
Janowski had the two Bishops and might have had the better game if not for his questionable and weakening 12...g6, The position was now unbalanced and very difficult for both players (and also for Hoffer, who had all the time in the world before preparing his commentary but still seems to have been bewildered at several key moments). Unfortunately, there are doubts about the accuracy of the score. For purposes of my analysis, I will assume the reported score was correct through move 15. 13. Ne1
Teichmann was obviously eager to attack beginning with f4. Fortunately, Janowski's own impulses allowed (if we can trust the game score here) to get away with this small inaccuracy. Far stronger was 13. Bh6, precluding castling for Black. For some reason I cannot fathom, Hoffer suggested 13. b4 which Black could answer in any number of ways (e.g., 13...0-0; 13...bxc4; 13...h5). After Teichmann's actual move, Janowski could get the better game by castling (and perhaps by 14...b4 or eveb 14...h5). But Janowski, always having the Bishops in mind, decided to prepare for f4 by playing the questionable: 13... Bf6
This gave Teichmann another chance to play Bh6, but--playing into Janowski's hands-- he trudged on with: 14. f4
click for larger view14... exf4
Unleashing his f6 Bishop. Did Teichmann really miss this? 15. Bxf4?
Huh? Who turned off the lights? The text leaves the White pawn on b2 hanging: 
click for larger view15. Rxf4 looks obviously better. Black now has the pleasing choice between 15...Bxb2 or 15...Bd4+ (and then 16...Bxb2). But instead, Janowski played: 15... 0-0?
click for larger viewThe score already looked suspicious, but that was nothing compared with what the Tournament Book reported as Teichmann's next move: 16. Rc1 ?!?!??&$#
Hoffer, taking this duffer move at face value, criticizes it at face value. But 16. Rc1? did not get by the sharp-eyed analyists on this site, who made the undoubtedly accurate correction to: 16. Rc1
Probably 16. Qc2 or 16. Qd2 were better. The text, however, is surely possible, and fits the score as is apparent from the ensuing moves: 16... c6
A reasonable choice, though at least temporarily blocking his light-square Bishop. 17. Bh6
I would have defended the b-pawn with 17. Qc2 first, but the text is certainly a possible and rational choice. 17... Re8
click for larger viewNow that we have surmounted the textual issues, we can resume our consideration of the balance of the game. |
|
Feb-17-25
| | KEG: Post III
18. Qc2
Finally deigning to protect his threatened b2 pawn. Hoffer called 18. Qd2 "preferable," but I see little to choose from between the two options. 18... Ne5
An artificial and superficial approach (i.e., immediately targeting White's Queen-side pawns and threatening Ng4 at some point). Better for now was 18...Qb6+ followed by 19...a5. Even 18...bxc4; 18... Rb8; or maybe even 18...d5 look more promising for Black. 19. h3
Eliminating ...Ng4 as a threat by Black.
19... c5!
click for larger view20. Nf3
Whether because of time pressure or otherwise, beginning here Teichmann seemed to lose the thread of the game. 20. Qd2 (picking up on Hoffer's notion) was better. 20. Ne2 was also worthy of consideration. 20... Qe7
21. Rae1
Hoffer said that 21. NxN here would have been bad here because of 21...QxN "winning a pawn" (presumably thinking that White would then have to protect his Knight after which Black could grab the White pawn on b2. But White can simply play 22. Qf2 which saves the pawn by targeting the Black f6 Bishop after which White is actually better. I think 21. NxN is probably best, but Janowski would then surely have avoided the pitfall Hoffer overlooked and play 21...Bxe5. 21. Qd2 would also have been superior to the text, which left: 
click for larger view21... Bc8?
A strange decision by Janowski who was usually a maestro in deploying his Bishops. He could better have played 21...Rab8 or 21...NxN+ or, if he wanted to re-position his light-square Bishop, 21...Bc6. 22. Ne2 bxc4
23. bxc4 Rb8
click for larger view"Black maneuvered skillfully, always having the object of an attack on the weak b-pawn in view, without showing his hand"--(Hoffer) Teichmann's b-pawn was indeed a bit of an eye-sore, but at this point he seems--thanks to some indifferent play by Janowski--to have had adequate resources had he not begun to panic. 24. b3
Hoffer had undisguised contempt for this move. I truly can't see why. Perhaps 24. Nc3 was a tad more accurate. But Hoffer's preference for the wimpy 24. Bc1 is bizarre. Why use the White Bishop as a pawn when it can continue to harass the Black King-side? While the White b-pawn remains backward after the text, it is better off on b3 than on b2. 24... Nc6
With an new idea of bringing the Black Knight to b4. But that blocks his own Rook's attack on the White b-pawn. 25. Bd2
Another overly-cautious effort. I prefer 25. Nc3 or 25. Rb1 or even 25. Rf2 (with the idea of doubling his Rooks on the f-file and giving Janowski further concerns about his King-side). 25... Nb4
Having said "A," Janowski decided to say "B."
click for larger view26. BxN
Leaving himself with two Knights against Janowski's two Bishops doesn't strike me as a great concept, especially given the weaknesses on his Queen-side. I much prefer 26. Qb1 with the intention of opposing Janowski's dark-square Bishop with a later Bc3. After the trade initiated with the text, this would no longer be an option for Teichmann. 26... RxB
click for larger viewTeichmann of course was far from lost here. But now his Queen-side was riddled with more holes than a slice of Swiss-cheese. This is not the sort of position I would want to try to defend against the likes of Janowski. As the sequel shows--and notwithstanding the theoretical defenses still available to White--Teichmann eventually collapsed from the pressure. |
|
Feb-17-25
| | KEG: Post IV
27. Nf4
27. Nc3 with the option of Nd5)as with the text) was a good alternative, as was getting the White King off the g1..d4 diagonal with 27. Kh1. 27... Bb7
Correcting his poor 21st move and defending against 28. Nd5. 28. Kh1
This would be necessary sooner or later.
28... Rb8
"Consistently pursuing the original plan" -- (Hoffer) 29. Rb1
If he was fretting about the b3 pawn, 29. Nd2 looks better than this committal move with his Rook. 29... Bc6
Unleashing the b8 Rook was superfluous at this juncture, especially since he was likely going to trade off this Bishop after White's Nd5. It was time to attack on the Queen-side with 29...a5. 30. Nd5
Meeting the move-30 time control.
30... BxN
click for larger view31. exB
31. cxB was correct. Since Teichmann had met the move-30 time control, he had ample time to work this all out. 31... Bg7
32. Qa2 Qb7
Ganging up on the backward White b-pawn.
33. Ng5!
Defending via attack:
click for larger view33... Rf8
"Best, of course. The f-pawn has to be defended temporarily and the Knight will be dislodged by h6"--(Hoffer) 34. Rfe1 Be5
35. Nf3
click for larger view35... Bg3?
A bizarre decision to remove the Bishop from the long diagonal on which it was harassing White. 35...Bc3 or 35...Bf6 or even 35...Bh8 were all much better. 36. Re4 Rb8
click for larger viewTeichmann had seemingly survived the worst. It is therefore shocking that he now blundered away the game. <zydeco> suggests 37. Nd2, but then Black can apply serious pressure with 37...a5. Thanks to Janowski's poor 35th move, Teichmann could have solved his problems with 37. Rg4 [37...Be5 (pretty much forced) 38. NxB dxN 39. Qa1 (now that Black had his own weak pawn to defend) f6 40. Rg3 defending everything [40...Rxb3 41. RxR QxR 42. Qxa6] and now having a protected passed pawn in the center. Instead, as I will discuss in my next post on this game, Teichmann for some bizarre reason gave up on his b-pawn and was instantly lost. |
|
Feb-17-25
| | KEG: Post V
37. Qe2?
Now the b-pawn, and the game, is gone. As previously indicated, Teichmann should have played 37. Rg4. <zydeco> has attempted to justify the text: "I guess Teichmann figured that after 37....g5 and ....Bf4 he’ll lose the b-pawn anyway, but at least he’d get some kingside loosening as compensation." But had Teichmann played 37. Rg4, neither g5 nor Bf4 would have been possible. All-in-all, I fail to understand what Teichmann was thinking in playing the blunder. After this error, his game fell apart: 37... Rxb3
click for larger view38. g1
Desperation.
38... Rb2
39. Re8+
click for larger viewThe game is a clear win for Black. But Janowski, whether because he was sloppy or because he wanted to draw out the agony (my suspicion), allowed the game to last a good deal longer than it should have. 39... RxR
Good enough to win, but 39...Kg7 was far simpler and better. 40. QxR+ Kg7
click for larger viewThough theoretically lost, Teichmann could have made Janowski's task far harder with 41. d4. But--probably despondent--Teichmann played the hopeless: 41. Rf1 Rb1
Janowski pounced.
42. Ne1
Another feeble effort. If he wanted to continue, Teichmann had to try 42. Qe2. The text left an easy winning plan for Black: 
click for larger viewLooks simple, right! Black just runs with his a-pawn. Janowski, however, seems to have been enjoying himself too much to finish off Teichmann. I found what followed shameful: 42... f5
Why Janowski didn't play 42...a5 is more a question for psychology than a matter of chess analysis. 43. Kg1 a5
OK, so now was Janowski back on track?
44. Qe3
Meanwhile, Teichmann appears to have given up, else he would have tried 44. Nf3. His move left: 
click for larger view44...f4 is now a killer. As we will see, however, Janowski was not ready for this game to end, so he let Teichmann survive a while longer. |
|
Feb-18-25
| | KEG: Post VI
44... Be5
If Janowski were around to defend himself, he might say that: (a) his move threatens Bd4; (ii) he was nearing the move-45 time control so he had limited time for reflection; and (iii) his move did not blow the win. 45. Qe2
45. Nf3 might have offered stiffer resistance. But perhaps Teichmann was also short of time. 45... a4
OK. Now Janowski was serious about finishing off the way, right? 
click for larger view46. Nf3
Now surely Janowski would either push his a-pawn (46...a3) or play 46...RxR+ 47. KxR Qb1+. But: 46... Bf6
Another waiting move that keeps the win intact but also keeps the game going. Teichmann could have slowed down the a-pawn express with 47. Qa2 (prolonging but not saving the game). But he decided to go for broke: 47. d4?!
click for larger viewNow 47...a3 should snuff out all resistance, but Janowski went along with Teichmann's notion and played: 47... cxd4
Black still has the game in hand, but play could now continue for a while. 48. Qa2 RxR+
49. KxR
click for larger view49...d3 might have elicited resignation from Teichmann, but Janowski was apparently having too much fun and played: 49... Qb4
Strong, but allowing Teichmann to continue his rear-guard action with 50. Ne1. But by now Teichmann must have been losing patience and played: 50. Ke2?
This created an immediate catastrophe which not even Janowski was prepared to ignore: 50... a3
click for larger view0-1 |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
