#### (1) Anderssen,A - Dufresne,J [C52]

Game 4, p.26: Berlin 'Evergreen', 1852

* [Kasparov, Garry]*

**
**

1.e4
e5
2.Nf3
Nc6
3.Bc4
Bc5
4.b4
Bxb4
5.c3
Ba5
6.d4
exd4
7.0-0
d3
8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5
Qg6
10.Re1
Nge7
11.Ba3
b5
12.Qxb5
Rb8
13.Qa4
Bb6
14.Nbd2
Bb7
15.Ne4
Qf5
16.Bxd3
Qh5
17.Nf6+
gxf6
18.exf6
Rg8!
19.Rad1!
[ Lasker's recommendation 19.Be4!?
In Volume 1 I gave the variation 19...Qh3
20.g3
Rxg3+
21.hxg3
Qxg3+
22.Kh1
Bxf2
23.Bxe7!
* ( 23.Re2?
Nd4!!
) *23...Qh3+!
24.Nh2
Bxe1
25.Rxe1
Qh4!
26.Qd1!
Nxe7
27.Bxb7
Qxf6
28.Qg4
"with the initiative". It turns out that this position had been studied some time ago by Murey and Fridstein (in 64, 1975 No.38) and after them also by Zaitsev, who thought that after 28...Kd8! White has nothing real. * ( *Better is, according to Zaitsev, *28.Bd5!?
Qxc3
** ( 28...Rb6?
29.Qh5!
; *less clear is *28...Rb2
29.Qh5
c6
30.Ng4
Qf4
) *29.Qe2
* ( 29.Bxf7+?
Kxf7
30.Qh5+
Kg8
*with a draw.*) *29...Qb4
* ( 29...Qc5?!
30.Qe5!
) *30.Ng4
* ( 30.a3?!
Qd6!
) *30...Kd8
* ( *Apparently *30...Kf8!
*is more accurate. In short, a vicious circle arises, where it is hard to find a draw, but, in view of the limited material, even harder to demonstrate a win!*) *31.Qe5!
c6
* ( 31...Qxg4?
32.Qxe7+
) *32.a3!
Qxg4
* ( 32...f6?
33.Nxf6
Qh4+
34.Kg1
*and wins*) *33.Qxb8+
Nc8
34.Qe5!
Qh4+
35.Kg1
cxd5
36.Qe8+
Kc7
37.Rc1+
Kd6
38.Rxc8
) 28...Kd8!
]

19...Qxf3?
[ 19...Rxg2+?
20.Kxg2
Ne5
21.Qxd7+!
would also have lost; but 19...Rg4
(Lipke) was much stronger. The main line is 20.Bc4
* ( *More consideration should be given to *20.Re4!?
Rxe4
21.Qxe4
d6
22.Re1!
Qg6!
*and Black's defences hold.*; *Now after *20.c4?
Bd4!?
*with the threat of ...Rxg2+ (Zaitsev) is not bad* ( *instead of *20...Rf4?
21.Bg6!
*(Hoppe, Heckner) winning* ( *or *21.Qb5
*(Neishtadt) winning*) *; but in my opinion, the immediate 20...Rxg2+!
is even better: 21.Kxg2
Qg4+
22.Kf1
Qxf3
23.c5
* ( *Zaitsev's move *23.Rxe7+
Nxe7
24.Qxd7+
Kxd7
25.Bf5+
Ke8
26.Bd7+
Kf8
*and wins*) *23...Qh3+
24.Kg1
* ( 24.Ke2
Ba5
25.Bb5
Nd4+!
) *24...Ne5
with a decisive attack.) ) 20...Qf5!
21.Rxd7
and here, fearing the variation * ( *Then he tried to improve White's play with *21.Rd2
*but he himself parried it with the thematic move *21...Bd4!
) *21...Kxd7
* ( *Zaitsev suggested *21...Rxg2+!?
22.Kxg2
Qg4+
23.Kf1
Qh3+
24.Ke2
Qxd7
25.fxe7
*or * ( 25.Bxe7
Nd4+!
) *25...Nd4+
26.Nxd4
Qxa4
27.Bb5+
Qxb5+
28.Nxb5
Ba6
29.c4
c6
30.Rg1
Kd7
31.Rd1+
Ke8
32.Nd6+
Kxe7
with a draw.) 22.Ne5+
Kc8
23.Nxg4
23...Nd5
24.Qd1
Nxf6
* ( 24...Nd8?
25.Bd3!
) *25.Bd3
Qxg4
26.Qxg4+
Nxg4
27.Bf5+
Kd8
28.Rd1+
Nd4
29.Bxg4
Bd5
30.cxd4
Bxa2
with equality); In addition Zaitsev found that after 19 Rad1 good was 19...Bd4!
20.cxd4
* ( 20.Nxd4
Rxg2+
21.Kxg2
Nxd4+
) *20...Qxf3
21.Be4
Rxg2+
22.Kh1
Rxh2+
23.Kxh2
Qxf2+
24.Kh3
Qxf6
with a draw.
It only remained to check once again Lasker's recommendation 19 Be4!?.; Tim Shackel: Hi. This is in regard to the position Garry gave the follow-up for. Is it
just me or can black just play in response to Anderssen's 19. Rad1?! 19...Qh3!?
threatening mate, and 20.Bf1
is the only move, then 20...Qf5
threatening to pick off the f6 pawn and much of the e7 threat dangers, and
then 21.Bd3
* ( 21.Kh1
Bxf2
22.Re2
Bb6
23.h3
Rg3-/+
) *21...Qxf6
22.Bxh7
Kf8
23.Bxg8
Kxg8
24.Rxd7
Ng6
looks very
playable for black! I would love that nice attacking position.]

20.Rxe7+!
Nxe7!?
Another proof that chess masterpieces require the generous cooperation of the loser! Nowadays a professional player and, of course, a computer, would have without hesitation resorted to [ 20...Kd8
21.Rxd7+!
Kc8!
22.Rd8+!
Kxd8
23.Be2+!
etc. is more prosaic]

21.Qxd7+!!
Kxd7
22.Bf5+
Ke8
[ 22...Kc6
23.Bd7#
]

23.Bd7+
Kf8
24.Bxe7#
1-0