Attack together with Paul Keres - Part Eight
Attack Together with Paul Keres – Part Eight
Studying the Art of Attack through the Games of Paul Keres – Part Eight
Before we begin this installment, here are direct links to the earlier parts in the series:
In the preceding installments, we examined attacks against the uncastled king (Parts 1 and 2), as well as attacks when both players have castled on the same side (Parts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). In this article, we shall explore positions with opposite-side castling, where the position is typically open and the race to the opposing monarch becomes critical.
Such positions are among the sharpest in all of chess, and often, every tempo is of the utmost importance. As a result, it is frequently necessary to sacrifice material in order to accelerate the attack. These positions are highly dynamic, and typical motifs abound. In this installment, we will examine a few exemplary cases of such attacks. Unsurprisingly, Keres excelled in this domain and played these positions with tremendous skill and imagination.
The two principal games featured in this article were both played against the same opponent – Vladimirs Petrovs. This, however, is purely coincidental.
To the best of my knowledge, the first game we will examine is not widely known among general chess audiences. It is notable that Keres did not include this game in his canonical “100 Selected Games”. Yet it is highly instructive for understanding the nature of attacks in opposite-side castling situations and merits careful study.
In analyzing this game, I have included two additional complete games by Keres, with full commentary, thus presenting three games within one framework. The objective is to offer readers a comprehensive overview of attacking plans and defensive resources, particularly since this type of position still arises frequently in contemporary practice.
Black’s difficulties begin early in the opening with the imprecise move 5...Be7?!, which concedes an important tempo. A more accurate alternative would have been 5...Ngf6, likely leading to approximate equality. In the commentary, we will explore how Black should – and should not – handle such structures, using as a reference a lesser-known game played by Keres in a 1968 simultaneous exhibition.
Keres was universally regarded as one of the greatest opening theorists of his time, having authored numerous books of lasting value. In this particular game, however, we encounter a curious anomaly: Black plays the inaccurate 8...Nf6, while White, perhaps relying on intuition, continues with the routine 9.Bd3, overlooking the tactical shot 9.Bxb7, a motif familiar to every French Defense aficionado.
After twelve moves, we reach the key position that will serve as the foundation of our thematic discussion:
This position deserves careful consideration. At first glance, the chances appear roughly balanced. However, a closer inspection reveals that White is, in fact, significantly better. White is poised to launch a direct assault on the Black king far more quickly than Black can reciprocate. To further illustrate the dangers of Black’s position, we will also review a second game by Keres that reinforces this attacking verdict.
At this juncture, we arrive at the most critical phase of the game, especially within the context of our theme. White must begin the attack against the opposing king without delay, and if necessary, be prepared to sacrifice material in the process. This is precisely what Keres does, with impeccable judgment. From this point onward, he gives his opponent no counterplay whatsoever.
The remainder of the game is a model of clarity and force. Readers will no doubt appreciate the elegance and precision with which Keres conducts the assault. Indeed, many of his games are celebrated for their stylistic grace, one of the many reasons he continues to be revered by connoisseurs of classical chess.
The following game was played against the same opponent one year later, during the USSR Championship. It has been cited in numerous sources as a model example of a brilliantly conducted attack. In the first part of the commentary, I aim to correct certain misconceptions surrounding this game — in reality, Black held an excellent position until a single decisive mistake altered the course of the game.
Following the inaccuracy 15...h5?, Keres played with unerring precision, just as he had in the previous example. It must be emphasized that this was by no means a simple task, as it required careful and accurate calculation of the consequences of the sacrifice.
Those who study these games and their annotations attentively will find themselves immersed in the beauty of attacking chess — in the elegance, mastery, and clarity of execution. More importantly, they will have the opportunity to deepen their understanding of attacking strategies in positions with opposite-side castling.
To be continued…
