Max Euwe vs Savielly Tartakower (1921)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Max Euwe vs Savielly Tartakower
The Hague (1921), The Hague NED, rd 3, Oct-28
Dutch Defense: Staunton Gambit. Lasker Variation (A83) · 0-1

White to move.

ANALYSIS [x]

0-1

rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

FEN COPIED

explore this opening	find similar games	17 more Euwe/Tartakower games
	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: The Olga viewer allows you to get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" link on the lower right.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE. [CLICK HERE]

Mar-03-03		drunknight II: Euwe and the Dutch. Another staunton gambit too. Tartakover liked to play the Dutch. In this case Euwe is behind in material (it's a gambit of course) and then goes on exchanging. This does not seem right in theory. If according to theory the player who is behind should attack as soon as possible, then 7 Bd3 is wrong. Should be 7 Bb4 at least if theory is correct. on the 11th move, white allows exchanges, this does not seem right if white is behind in material. A better move seems hard to find here but perhaps 11 Nxd5 N(4)xd5 12 Bc4 Kh8 and now 13 Ne5 looks like a better time to put the N there; at least we are attacking the K. Again on the 13th move white is effectively exchanging material which cannot be right. White gives up R for B but he isolates the h pawns and grabs the f pawn. AN equal material transaction in my book and also not right in theory since white is behind in material. Perhaps he had the right idea on the 13th move and grabbing the pawn on the 14th was the mistake. What if 14 Qg3 Nh5 15 Qh4 Nf6 16 Nf3 this looks like more of an attack since putting the Q on the open g file aligns it with the black K. If white can follow this up with Re5 he can either gain back a pawn and equalize or continue his attack. I dunno it is difficult to find strong moves because white has already decided to exchange instead of attack, he may have already messed it up.

Apr-15-05		paladin at large: <drunknight II If according to theory the player who is behind should attack as soon as possible, then 7 Bd3 is wrong. Should be 7 Bb4 at least if theory is correct. > I assume you mean he should have played 7. Bb5+. I agree this would have been better than 7. Bd3 which as a developing move would be ok, except that white is under pressure to develop with attack, or lasting gain of better position, if at all possible. (The attack need not be imminent.) If after 7. Bb5+ Bd7 then 8. Qe2 to keep up the pressure, followed by 9. Ne5 looks better for white.

Apr-15-05		Shams: what's wrong with 7.Bd5 c6 8.Bd3 Bg4 and snapping off the knight at some point?

Apr-15-05		Kangaroo: Poor Max Euwe! He lost playing Black with R. Reti (see < Reti vs Euwe, 1920 > and also playing White with Tartakower!

Apr-15-05		paladin at large: <Shams>I assume you mean 7. Bb5+. I am not arguing in favor of the gambit. In general, it must be important for white to open up the position, especially the pawns around the black king. I do not know that c6 would be good for black just yet. White would have to be careful not to have pieces essential to whatever his middlegame attack plan were, exchanged off by black. In this light, Bg4 may or may not be a problem for white.

Apr-15-05		keypusher: 7 Bd3 is an attacking move, hitting g6. Presumably that's why white played 7 Bd3 the three times this position came up in the database. 7 Bb5+ is a waste of time after either 7...c6 or 7...Nbd7 8 Ne5? c6

Apr-17-05		paladin at large: <keypusher> Oops - thanks for the correction.

Feb-11-16		TheFocus: This game was awarded the Second Brilliancy Prize. See <American Chess Bulletin>, April 1922, pg. 71.

Aug-15-17		fredthebear: From my point of view, White fashionably sacrificed the exchange (twice) to maintain the initiative because this was an easy response, recouping one pawn immediately (5 points to 4 1/2 points is quite plausible if one's queen has a good location...call it an investment in expedience). Trading seems more comfortable than retreating the queen and reconfiguring one's battle plan around an active minor piece outpost. True, the White rook is off the board, but so is the minor piece and it's pawn support leaving more room to roam in the center (although the second Black pawn was never recovered). The idea has merit; the actual results failed. Keep in mind that at this level, most successful mating attacks involve some sort of sacrifice. White had four eager pieces just past the equator on 15.Nb5 but that move does not pan out. Euwe surely thought his knights would wreck more havoc than they actually did. White was unable to occupy the glaring hole on e6 until the very end when it no longer mattered. Once the Black queen gets in the White camp dealing convenience checks, it's all but over. Tartakower played well! He constantly interfered with White's plans. Tactically winning the center pawn with his dark-squared bishop took the wind out of White's sails.

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.