10. Qd2 a6

Now we enter the middlegame. What gives? It looks like a typical set-up that must have occurred in thousands of offhand, rapid, blitz, and classical Dragon games all over the world. (I have played out this kind of early middlegame position from both colors many times myself.)

What gives is that at this point in time not many Dragon games have been played. AAA probably had never played one himself on either color.

The way Alekhine slays the Dragon is just so archetypal. First he makes the common White Knight jump 11. Nd5

This eliminates Black's King Knight, which was defending g4 and h5, squares that White often thematically attacks in the Dragon set up, in order to open the h-file and degrade the Black King's pawn cover.

11... Nxd5 12. exd5

Later AAA does precisely the above mentioned attack on g4 and h5, typically throwing pawns at them.

15. g4! hxg4 16. f4! (disdaining recapture, knowing that throwing another pawn into the attack without loss of tempo is the right way to attack) Nf3 17. Bf3 gf3 18. h5

The Dragon slaying then continues to proceed in the exact thematic manner so well known to Dragon players. AAA swings his Queen over to the h-file, thus occupying the h-file with his R and Q, and he attacks Black's DSB by challenging it with his own (usually on h6 or d4, on d4 in this game)

20. Qh2 Qd7 21. Qh7 Kf7 22. Rh6 Rh8 23. Qg6 Kg8 24. Ne6 Be6 25. Bd4 1-0

How many White players have done this kind of thematic attack against the Dragon anyway?

Hundreds, maybe thousands. But not in 1918!

It just goes to show that basic chess rules and principles if followed correctly will often result in thematic lines of play. Alekhine probably had never played or even seen such an attack in his life before, yet given the appropriate positions, and using his inherent skills and adherence to basic chess principles, he concocted a thematic attack that later on was to be followed by thousands of other games.

Even the likes of Bent Larsen was dismissive of great players from that epoch in a 1972 interview:

<Lasker? He would lose terribly; he would always find himself in types of position he had never seen before--because of course none of us would play a simple Queen's Gambit or a Steinitz Defence to the Lopez against him. It is true that he had no difficulty against the hypermoderns in 1924 though he expected it [...] But the best theorists were not the best players--Réti, for example, was weak tactically. No, I think he would lose terribly to the ten best players of today. If he could get into positions with which he was familiar--then of course he would be a great player; but I think he would not be able to. Even Alekhine would have had to study for a year first; I am not sure, but I believe the man had never seen an exchange sacrifice on c3 in the Sicilian. Imagine that!>

At any rate let us examine his statements.

<Lasker? He would lose terribly; he would always find himself in types of position he had never seen before--because of course none of us would play a simple Queen's Gambit or a Steinitz Defence to the Lopez against him.>

'Simple' QGD is still in the vogue and is still being played more than ever IMO, with the trend toward unpretentious openings nowadays. True Steinitz defense is not anymore, but that is not proof that Lasker can't play against other closed Ruy systems. It's as if Larsen is saying, 'Because Steinitz defense isn't being played, Larsen would play terrible'. A nonsensical statement.

<It is true that he had no difficulty against the hypermoderns in 1924>

Larsen unwittingly gives proof that Lasker can and did adapt to new opening systems instantaneously. I call it 'theory generational leveling phenomenon', the observation that all masters, young and old, regardless of age quickly learn to play whatever new opening is in the vogue. Or is he saying 'Because Lasker adapted to the hypermoderns, he cannot adapt to 'modern' KIDs and Sicilians?' I can't even make sense of what Larsen is trying to say. There is no logic in his statements.

<But the best theorists were not the best players--Réti, for example, was weak tactically.>

What the crap is this? Maybe Larsen should have taken a look at these games first. (Reti does the ultra rare double rook sacrifice against a future World Champion, in the same year. Twice!)

Reti vs Euwe, 1920

Euwe vs Reti, 1920

Good strong tactics I must say. I wonder, has Larsen ever done two double rook sacrifices in serious classical competitions in his career?

<Even Alekhine would have had to study for a year first; I am not sure, but I believe the man had never seen an exchange sacrifice on c3 in the Sicilian. Imagine that!>

E Schultz vs Alekhine, 1914

My post in Jose Raul Capablanca

Larsen IMO was a victim of the 'narcissistic generation syndrome'. Same as Watson, and his followers here in CG. People who have been infected by this attitude see everything in the here and now as better than in the past just because it's in the here and now. That's not necessarily true.

I have commented before that Larsen of all people should have thought twice before saying such a thing, given his own personal record against two of the greats who honed their skills pre WW2 and during WW2.

First against Botvinnik:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

After a decade and a half of trying to beat a Botvinnik on the decline, Larsen finally won two games in 1970, the year Botvinnik retired.

Against the archaic Keres, Larsen never won a game.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Note that most of the games he played against these old masters were played when they were way past their peaks, and Larsen was on his own peak in the 1960s and early 70s. Yet they were still good enough to beat him. I think at their peaks (1938 to 1943 for Keres and 1941 to 1948 for Botvinnik IMO), they would have beaten Larsen even more resoundingly.

The interviewer should have asked Larsen 'What would Botvinnik and Keres have to say about your opinion, given that they are essentially 1930s masters whose careers crossed into the 1970s, and you could hardly beat them in their old age?" And then before Larsen can answer, reveal that Botvinnik and Keres were in the next room listening to him say that they are obsolete, and then invite them in to hear Larsen's reply. He would have to answer then in front of two of the greatest of the 1930s generation. I would have loved to see what reply Larsen would have to stutter out.