The King Bishop File

Fred Reinfeld wrote a small series fro "Chess Review" called :

Elements of Combination Play in Chess

This installment was called:
The King Bishop File

      The attack on the King Bishop file usually takes place where both players have played P-K4 (1.e4 e5) and one of them is able to advance P-KB4 (either f4 or ...f5); or where a piece has been captured on the King File (say K3 or K5), so that it can be recaptured with the King Bishop Pawn; or where, White having a Pawn on K5 (e5) and Black a Pawn on K3 (e6), White plays e4-e5 or Black plays ...f6. In post-war tournaments, the attack on the King Bishop File as first lost some of its significance, because of the prevalence of Queen Pawn openings; but witht he introduction of Indian Defense in which both sides eventually play P-K4, it is now seen more frequently once more, although not so often as in the good old days when the fifty-seven varieties of the King's Gambit were the order of the day.
      The attack on the King Bishop File is generally based on one of two motifs:
1) concentrated pressure against KB7 (f7 or f2), usually with the help of a Bishop posted on the diagonal a2-g8, or of a Knight at KN5 or K5;
2) concentrated pressure on KB6, with the object of breaking up the hostile Pwn formation in front of the hostile King. When the object of attack is a pinned Kinght at KB6, the attack is of course doubly ferocious.

Spielmann-Gebhard (Munich, 1926)

This example is not particularly complicated; but it illustrates in an impressive way how decisive the command of the King Bishop File may be, especially when the opponent's forces are scattered.

Canal-Johner (Carlsbad, 1929)
The King Bishop File is the basis for an attack which must succeed because (1) Black's advance of the King Knight Pawn and King Rook Pawn has exposed his King; (2) both the Queen and Bishop can operate on two diagonals, striking at the KN8 or KR7; (3) Black cannnot dispute the King Bishop File; (4) Black's Bishop is useless for defensive purposes.

Anderssen-Alexander (Hamburg, 1869)
White could strengthen his grip on the King Bishop File decisively by Qf3, threatening Rxf7; but Anderssen hits on a more forceful method!

Note how White's attack on the file was enhanced by the circumstance that f6 is a hole.

Gunsburg-Tschigorin (Match, 1890)

Black's pieces are all concentrated for action, while White's have purely defensive functions or none at all. In view of this distressing state of affairs, Gunsburg has placed his Rook on c1, aiming at the weak c5. But this proves his undoing:

Johner-Steiner (Berlin, 1928)

The evident superiority of White's position leads to a quick finish.

Black resigns. He is helpless. If 15...gxh6, 16.Bxh6 Qxh6 (forced) 17.Qxf7, etc.
If 15...Kh8 16.Nxf7+ Kf8 17.Qg3 Qe7 18.Nh6+ Kh8 19. Rf7 wins.

Love these classic games! 

I find the introduction paragraph quite interesting as I cannot write in terms of what I assume to be FEN nor visualise the layout as I fail to understand FEN entirely. This is besides the point. Its interesting that people can interpret FEN. Or perhaps Im misinformed.

I believe you are confusing descriptive notation with FEN. 

I used to confuse Rudolph Speilmann with Jon Speelman 

Morning batgirl. Nice post - the Anderssen game is an old favourite - one of the first games of his I studied. Barcza gives it in his 2 volume work on the world Champions, but have not seen it in any other game collections, so brilliant spot! This is a topic you could spend a whole year writing stuff on - Spielmann on the f-file would be a book in itself!. Nice cheery note to start the weekend on. Many thanks for brightening my day.

Thanks for the Fine Historic Perspective Presentation. in my own play i prefer to keep the King's Bishop over the Queen's as long as possible.  and.... give it up for Tschigorin, Chessmates

I tried to eliminate the descriptive where practical and just left in the instances that made more sense than algebraic.

and I used to confuse Rudolph Speilmann with Rudolph Spielmann  :-D

You're welcome.   Reinfeld is a fount of interesting topics.

It's probably a shame that Reinfeld's books seem to be going the way of the dodo. From my experience, they seemed excellent for helping out the advanced beginner to mid-level player. A solid foundation with an eye for some tricks and traps. All easy to read without over complication. Seems tough to find the same mix in more contemporary offerings.

Also, descriptive notation does have some benefits. For positional ideas stuff like P-K4, P-KB4, N-KB3 with ideas for square KB7 obviously indicate K-side is where the action will likely be. Notation like R-B7 can also help emphasize ideas like rooks on the 7th. It might also more likely describe how one visualizes a game without looking at a board. Or maybe that's just me.

Thanks for giving Reinfeld some attention again.