Attack Together with Paul Keres – Part Nine

Attack Together with Paul Keres – Part Nine

Studying the Art of Attack through the Games of Paul Keres – Part Nine

Before we begin this installment, here are direct links to the earlier parts in the series:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

The theme of this article, once again, is the attack against the king in positions with opposite-side castling.

The game we are about to analyse is one of Keres’s most famous encounters. In addition to being annotated by Keres himself in his  "100 Games", it was also thoroughly analysed in the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR in 1955 by IM T. Florian. In a brilliant attacking display, Keres defeated the Hungarian grandmaster Szabo—then a Candidate for the World Championship (he had participated in the Candidates Tournament in 1953)—in only 23 moves.

This game has been featured in many books, typically accompanied by nearly identical commentary: Keres played flawlessly. However, such an assessment is first questioned in the book by Neustadt Paul Keres: The University of Chess (second edition, Moscow 2020), and GM Mihail Marin introduces several new variations in his Learn from the Legends 2.

Nevertheless, in this article, I present for the first time, as far as I know, certain evaluations that have not previously appeared in print. The game now appears in a different light. Its beauty remains, but it is of a different nature—not the beauty of infallibility, as it was previously regarded, but the beauty of creativity, in which errors, naturally, are part of any great struggle.

After standard moves in the Sicilian Defence (Richter–Rauzer Variation), Black plays 9...a6—a move that was unknown to Keres at the time and which he believed to be a novelty. In fact, Szabo had employed this move in one game, and he had won it.

Keres correctly assesses (and in this he was a true master) that it is essential to fight for the initiative at all costs, and immediately launches into action with the energetic 10.e5!, initiating a central assault. Black had the option to exchange queens, but (as analysis shows) that would not have helped much—his position would have remained clearly inferior in the ensuing endgame.

After the somewhat inaccurate 12...Nd7, we arrive at the following position:

In the next phase of the game, we witness the elegance, fluidity, and ingenuity that so often characterized Keres's attacking style. Special attention should be paid to the sequence of 13.h4, 15.Rh3, and 17.Rg3—all part of a coherent and purposeful plan: an attack against the black king. While such an idea might seem schematic today, it must be remembered that, at the time, this was quite a novel and imaginative approach.

We now come to the first critical moment of the game. Keres sacrifices the exchange with 18.Rxd7, even though there was no real need to do so. According to my analysis, this complicates the win considerably, although it does not throw it away. While this move has often been praised in the literature (typically awarded one or even two exclamation marks), it is, in fact, an error. The true mistake, however—the one that relinquishes the win—is 19.Bd3.

Black could have saved the game with 19...Rb4 (first pointed out in Neustadt’s book Paul Keres: The University of Chess), but such resources are nearly impossible to find in practical play. After Black's inaccuracy, we reach the following position:

From this point onward, Keres conducts the attack swiftly and energetically.

With this revised analysis, the game may prove even more instructive than previously thought. In addition to the attack itself, we can now also discuss the challenges that arise during the attack, as well as potential defensive ideas. Thus, this game still shines with undiminished brilliance and, in my view, remains one of Keres’s finest efforts.

Up to this point, we have examined games where the attack was carried out in a relatively schematic fashion. There are, however, positions where such an approach is not possible. Our next game is one such example.

This game was played by Keres near the end of his career—he passed away in 1975—at a time when he was no longer a contender for the World Championship title (formally, he remained a candidate until 1965). Nevertheless, he still possessed immense strength and deep experience. His opponent was clearly of a much lower caliber, and Keres deliberately avoided the strongest theoretical continuation in the opening (3...c5), choosing instead to steer the game into complex territory, aiming to outplay his opponent through superior understanding.

As we know all too well, it is nearly impossible to navigate complex positions without mistakes. White went wrong early with the move 8.f4?, which led directly into a lost position. However, Keres did not immediately capitalize on the error, and the game soon reached the position that is the focus of our discussion.

The kings are castled on opposite sides, and the position remains highly unclear. Following a series of mutual inaccuracies, White—rather than consolidating a promising initiative—slipped with the passive move 22.Qh1, which left him slightly worse. His next move, 23.Re1?, sealed his fate, leading to a lost position.

At first glance, White’s setup appears solid. Yet Keres, with the brilliant breakthrough 23...g5!!, launched a decisive assault against the white king.

A truly remarkable example of a direct attack on the opposing monarch.

The next installment will also be the final one dedicated to Keres and his attacking legacy. After that, we will turn our attention to Bronstein and examine how he conducted his attacks, offering a fascinating contrast between these two great players.

To be continued...