The ''Little-known masterpiece'' shown in Logical Chess Move By Move.

So this game was shown on page 206 on the book called Logical Chess Move By Move in which Irving Chernev explains the duel between the genius of attack and a virtuoso of defense.

Does anyone think this game should be the underrated masterpiece as Irving puts it? Or does it not?

It was quite a battle. It is perhaps difficult for non-masters to appreciate without reviewing Chernev's instructive comments. Please post a screenshot of the page.

justbefair wrote:

Jacobshinn wrote:

So this game was shown on page 206 on the book called Logical Chess Move By Move in which Irving Chernev explains the duel between the genius of attack and a virtuoso of defense.

Does anyone think this game should be the underrated masterpiece as Irving puts it? Or does it not?

It was quite a battle. It is perhaps difficult for non-masters to appreciate without reviewing Chernev's instructive comments. Please post a screenshot of the page.

I don't have a online screenshot, but I do have this picture of the page I'm talking about in this book.

I found this about the Marshall Tarrasch match:

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=82363

Don’t know about the game, but that’s one of the best chess books ever written 

Very interesting.

Oh cool I have this book, haven't gone through it yet...

White made a big mistake in the opening with 8. Nf3? (8. e4 Nxc3 9. Bd2 is Capablanca's improvement) allowing 8...Bb4 with a big initiative right away. Tarrasch was able to snatch a clean pawn without much compensation. Had Marshall been able to get the queen to the kingside, then maybe there would have been some counterplay connected with the b1-h7 diagonal and Bxh6 in the air. Even then, I imagine that ...Bc2 at some point stops the whole thing. However, he couldn't do that. Then this neat tactic with 23...Nc3 followed by 24...Na5-b3 wins an exchange by force and showcases just how bad White's position is; there was no way to punish Black for decentralizing both knights. After that it was easy enough that I could have converted

Tarrasch's technique was very good, but I feel like Marshall dug himself a hole so deep that he couldn't even attempt a real swindle. Not quite enough resistance to give Tarrasch a chance to show a "masterpiece" level performance

I see. Speaking of 8. Nf3,  I've noticed that Tarrasch said something about it like this: ''In his anxiety, to guard the threatened bishop, white makes a decisive mistake.'' Irving also mentioned that this is an interesting example of the value of accurate timing in chess, so I believe the development of the knight came in too late.

In my opinion, the most instructive thing that Tarrasch did in this game was to not use his pawn majority right away, instead hammering at the weak squares in White's queenside. Imagine if after 21. Bc1 Black had gone 21...b5 22. Qa2 a5 23. Qe2 Rc8 24. Qe4 Nf6 25. Qh4 Qd8 (the threat was Bxh6) 26. g4. Things would get dicey real quick. In fact, I'm not sure Black would even be better in that case.

Instead, by active piece play to the queenside, he occupies positions that give White no chance to get an attack off the ground, and force the trade of White's best pieces

Ah, so using the pawn majority too early would've been a major mistake, I'd imagine. I also noticed that in that book, Irving called Tarrasch the ''Virtuoso of defense'' but all I saw from that game is Tarrasch being a master of attack. Do you agree with Irving?

Presumably Irving anoints Tarrasch as a "virtuoso of defense" on the basis of his career, not just on one game. Also, technically all games are won by attacking. A defender wins by eventually becoming the attacker. Though I would agree that this game was less "defense" and more "pre-emptive strike"

hi

Hi! Glad you're here to witness the game that was in the Logical Chess Move by Move book.

Guess Tarrasch should've been called the Virtuoso of pre-emptive strike. lol