Attack together with Paul Keres part two
Attack in a view of Keres' games, part two
In the previous text, we discussed attacking play in general and provided an example of an attack against a king that had not castled. Due to the importance of this theme, the entirety of this article is dedicated to the subject of attacking an uncastled king.
As we have mentioned earlier, even strong players will occasionally delay or forego castling for various reasons. Most often, they either believe that their king is not in immediate danger, or they knowingly accept the risk—usually in exchange for material—believing that their opponent lacks sufficient resources to mount a serious threat. And this is where problems begin.
When launching an attack against a king stuck in the center, the attacking player must understand the critical importance of pursuing the initiative with energy and determination, without wasting a single tempo—even if this requires sacrifices, which are common in such positions.
As a rule, the attacking side should avoid exchanges—except in concrete cases, where the reasons for doing so are clear and justified.
It must also be emphasized that such attacks are rarely simple, especially when the opponent has not significantly compromised the safety of their king's position.
It is also worth mentioning that Paul Keres left behind many fine examples on this theme, and I have selected three games that illustrate both how such attacks should be conducted, and how challenging they can be to carry out effectively.
In the first example, Stahlberg (Black) voluntarily declined to castle. His idea was to undermine White’s center and thereby achieve dynamic counterplay. However, it became clear that this plan was unsound. Let us examine the game:
In this game, we observed two instances of exchanging pieces during the course of the attack. The first occurred with 11.Bxf6, where White exchanged his active piece in order not to lose a tempo. The second came with 16.Ng6, where White traded off a well-placed opposing piece. As we can see, in both cases, Keres had a specific reason for exchanging pieces.
The second game is particularly interesting, as White sacrifices a pawn for long-term positional pressure—something commonly seen in modern chess. The position itself was not objectively better for White, but the nature of the pressure made it psychologically difficult for Black to defend for an extended period. Let us examine the game:
It is especially fascinating to observe how masterfully Keres built up the initiative, constantly finding new avenues for applying pressure. The game concluded with a small combination—a hallmark of well-conducted attacking play.
Our third game may well be the most striking of the three. Black was only one move away from equalizing and achieving a playable position, but White, through a positional pawn sacrifice, prevented Black's natural development. Step by step, White steered the game toward a winning endgame. Let us take a look:
In conclusion, it should be said that Keres had a particular fondness for launching attacks through the center—something that has been evident in all the examples we have studied so far.
To be continued...
