Attack Together with Paul Keres – Part Seven

Attack Together with Paul Keres – Part Seven

Attacking in the Style of Keres’ Games – Part Seven

Before we begin today’s article, here are direct links to the previous installments of the series:

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6

In the previous articles, we focused on attacking the king in same-side castling positions, where the attacker (in our case, Keres) typically relied on the action of the pieces alone, or at most advanced the rook pawn. This type of assault carries relatively little risk—if the attack fails, the position remains structurally intact.

In today’s article, however, we turn to a more complex and double-edged scenario: an attack conducted by both pieces and pawns. Unlike the earlier model, here advancing pawns in the direction of the enemy king simultaneously weakens the position of one’s monarch. This tension between offensive potential and defensive vulnerability forms the core of our discussion, which we will explore through two instructive examples.

Our first example is fascinating. Keres was facing the young and talented Boris Spassky—at the time, one of the great hopes of Soviet chess, and later World Champion in 1969. As the more experienced player, Keres entered the game as the clear favorite. Following a quietly played opening, Keres seized the initiative with the thrust 13.d5!?. He believed this move yielded serious attacking chances—an evaluation which, strictly speaking, is not entirely accurate. It was only after Spassky’s inaccurate reply 13...a6 that White obtained a real opportunity to play for an advantage.

On several occasions, Keres missed stronger continuations—for instance, 19.Ng6 or 20.Bg6 would have increased his advantage significantly, and he might have secured victory with a piece-only assault. However, the position that truly aligns with our thematic focus arises after Black’s 22...Nf6.

The position following 22...Nf6 is of particular interest. Keres continued his offensive with 23.Ng6, a principled move. Nevertheless, stronger was 23.g4!, initiating a combined attack using both pawns and pieces—the very theme of today’s discussion. What follows is a highly complex phase of play, where inaccuracies and oversights are all but inevitable. At the moment when Spassky appears to have equalized, he commits a decisive mistake. Keres capitalizes with a relatively straightforward tactical sequence and brings the game to a victorious conclusion.

Let us now examine the second part of the game:

From beginning to end, this was a combative and spirited encounter—a game that does credit to both players. To Keres, who won the game, and to Spassky, who resisted until the end. It is through such tenacious battles that great games are created.

Our second game will be considerably more complex.

Perhaps Two of the Greatest Never to Become World Champions: Bronstein and Keres Face Off. When two giants like Bronstein and Keres meet over the board, the game already carries a certain gravitas. Bronstein came within a whisker of the world title, while Keres, despite multiple second-place finishes in Candidates Tournaments, was never granted the opportunity to play a World Championship match — hence his nickname, “The Eternal Second.” Both players were uncompromising fighters, and their games are always a delight to study. The encounter we’ll examine here is no exception. It was played at the 1959 USSR Championship.

Fully aware of Bronstein’s profound expertise in the King’s Indian Defence, Keres opted for a line that was rarely seen at the time: 1.d4 followed by 2.Bf4 — a precursor to what we now recognize as the London System. Interestingly, the opening soon transposed into a Caro-Kann structure rather than the expected King’s Indian, but this hardly mattered. Both players were so versatile and theoretically prepared that they could navigate virtually any opening with confidence.

The early middlegame became a subtle strategic duel revolving around key squares — a phase of the game well worth detailed study for those looking to deepen their positional understanding. As Mikhail Tal once famously remarked, “We are as far from the ideal game as Earth is from the Moon.” Naturally, some inaccuracies appeared, but identifying and understanding these is itself a path to chess improvement.

Of particular interest are the moves 13…g5!? and 17…e5, which Bronstein refrained from playing. With 19…Bf5, the first phase of the game, concludes — White has achieved a clear positional plus and now faces the challenge of converting this into something more tangible.

The second phase of the game brings the shift from positional pressure to active kingside aggression. With 20.Nh4, White reveals his intentions to launch an attack on the kingside — the central theme of this article. His advance 22.g4 signals the start of a combined offensive with both pawns and pieces aimed at the Black monarch. One must admire Black’s resilient defense, particularly the timely resource 22…h5!, which complicates White’s attacking ambitions.

Still, shortly thereafter, Bronstein faltered with the move 25…Bf6, inviting positional problems. Throughout my commentary on this game, I have pointed out several instances where Bronstein played indecisively — something uncharacteristic for him.

A highlight is Keres’s multipurpose move 27.a4!, an example of whole-board play reminiscent of Alekhine’s style — not limiting the battle to one sector, but striving for control everywhere. Later, Keres missed the powerful 34.f4!, playing instead the inferior 34.Ne5?!, which let some of his advantage slip. Likely under time pressure — although we lack precise time records — he also failed to play 38.f5!, a natural continuation in keeping with the article’s theme.

Both sides committed inaccuracies during this phase, and the second part of the game reaches its conclusion after 43…Nxe4.

Even with queens off the board, White continued to pursue the Black king. It’s a common misconception that an attack can only succeed with queens present. On the contrary, this segment of the game demanded precise calculation and deep understanding, showing that an attack can very well survive and even flourish in queenless positions. Keres concluded the game with a picturesque combination that crowned this complex struggle.

From the opening to the final move, this was a rich and instructive game, filled with strategic and tactical moments that offer much to the discerning student, not only in the art of attack but also in the science of defense.

To be continued…