DAVID R. SANDS: The double-edged immortality of your own chess opening

To the pioneers go the spoils — or at least the naming rights.

When world champion Magnus Carlsen sits down to defend his crown early next year, it’s a near certainty he won’t be trotting the “Carlsen Opening,” or even the “Carlsen Variation” against his still-to-be-determined challenger.

It’s far more likely the champ will be playing an opening named after a Vienna-born leader of the 1920s ’hypermodern school” (the “Ernst” Grunfeld Defense), a 19th century Lithuanian master (the “Semyon” Alapin variation of the Sicilian Defense), or even an obscure 16th century Spanish priest (the enduringly popular Ruy Lopez “de Segura” Opening). Not one of those players could pose much of a challenge to Carlsen at the chessboard, but because they got there first, he plays their openings rather than the other way around.

And perhaps Carlsen should count himself lucky, for playing an opening line that bears your name has a surprisingly checkered record in world title matches.

In the first of his two unsuccessful challenge matches against world champion Wilhelm Steinitz in 1889, Russian great Mikhail Chigorin trailed by just 5-4 after nine games when he decided to break out his trademark Chigorin Defense to White’s Queen’s Gambit. The result: three straight losses with Black as Steinitz pulled ahead for a hard-fought 10½-6½ victory.

That Chigorin would keep going back to the defense is a puzzle, considering the drubbing he took in Game 10, with the opening a major factor in the defeat. Modern exponents of the defense, notably Russian GM Alexander Morozevich, prefer a more positional approach, but here Black opens up the game early with 4. e3 e5!? 5. Qb3 Bxf3 6. gxf3 exd4?! (Nge7 7. Nc3 exd4 8. Nxd5 Na5 9. Qa4+ Nac6 10. e4 Ng6 is more solid) 7. cxd5 Ne5?, when already Black had to try 7…Nb4 8. e4 Nf6 9. a3 Nbxd5 10. exd5 Qxd5 11. Qxd5 Nxd5 and hope to survive.

White’s pawn structure may be ruined, but far more important are the open lines Steinitz can use for his queen and rooks, and with 15. Rhg1 g6 (no better was 15…0-0 16. Bh6 Ne8 17. Qe4 Bf6 18. Kb1 Nb6 19. Bc2 and White’s pieces are all trained on the Black king) Bh6!, Black’s king is firmly stuck in the center.

Chigorin was a brilliant attacking player, but here it is the great strategist Steinitz who gets to show off his tactical chops, methodically picking off every Black defensive piece on the way to checkmate: 21. Bg5 Ng8 (Rhe8 22. Rxe7+!, and if 22…Kxe7, White has an amusing win on 23. Ne4 Nbd7 24. Nxf6 Nxf6 25. Qc5+ Kd7 26. Qc6+ Ke7 27. Qxf6+ Kd7 28. Qc6 mate) 22. Bxe7 Nxe7 23. Ne4 (with one threat now being 24. Nc5+ Kd6 25. Nb7+) Rb8 24. Nf6+ Kd8 (see diagram) 25. Rxe7!, and Black’s defenses collapse

After 25…Kxe7 26. Qxc7+ Nd7 (the point is that 26…Kxf6 27. Qe5 is mate) 27. Qxa5, and Chigorin resigned facing a hopeless material deficit.

The 1889 match was notably fighting affair, with 16(!) straight decisive games before Steinitz finally clinched the win with the match’s first and only draw in Game 17.

—-

The one time German master Siegbert Tarrasch employed his still-popular QGD Tarrasch Defense just once in his lopsided loss to world champ Emanuel Lasker in their 1908 match, and once again things did not work out, though Tarrasch’s loss here can hardly be blamed on the opening.

In fact, Black is doing just fine through 17. Ba1 Bb8 18. Re1 Qd6 — the signature Tarrasch isolated d-pawn is blocked but well-defended, and Black even can claim a marked spatial edge. But the mental edge Lasker always enjoyed over his great rival pops up once again here on 19. g3 Rfd8 20. Nb1 Nb6?!, a small but telling retreat that suggests Black isn’t quite sure how to press his advantage.

White cunningly lures Black into the kind of unbalanced, chaotic position Tarrasch distinctly disliked after 24. Bxf6! gxf6 (forced, as 24…Qxf6 25. Nc3 Qe6 26. Nxd5 Qxd5 27. Bxc4 is just bad for Black) 25. Red1 Ba7 26. Bf3!, all but forcing Black to roll the dice with 26…Nxe3!? 27. Rxc8 Qxc8! 28. b6! (a key interpolation, since White is lost after 28. fxe3?? Rxe3 29. Qxd5 Rxf3+ 30. Kh1 Qg4 31. Re1 Rf2 32. Nd2 Qh3) Bxb6?! (better was 28…Nxd1 29. bxa7 Nxf2 30. Kxf2 Qc5+ 31. Kg2 Qxa7 32. Qxd5 and the battle rages on) 29. fxe3 Rxe3 30. Qxb6 Rxf3 31. Qxa5 Qc4 — Black emerges with two pawns for the piece and real attacking chances, but he’s also facing one of the best defenders in the history of the game.

Seemingly dispirited by the turn of events, Tarrasch immediately makes a bad positional error with 32. Qd2 f5? (Rb3 33. Rf1 Qe4 34. Nc3 Qb4 makes White work for the win), needlessly exposing his own king to a strong attack. With a material edge and his king well defended, Lasker makes short work of his opponent.

Thus: 36. Rf1 Re6 (fxg3 37. Qxf7+ Kh8 38. Qf6+ Qg7 39. Qd8+ Qg8 40. Qd4+ Qg7 41. Rf8 mate) 37. Rxf4 Qd1+ 38. Kg2 b6 39. Qd7 (circling for the kill) Qe2+ 40. Rf2 Qh5 41. Nf3 h6 42. Nd4 Re5 43. Qd8+ Kh7 44. Qf8, and Black gave up facing 44…f5 45. Nxf5 Qg6 46. Nd6 Rg5 47. Rf7+ and wins.

Steinitz-Chigorin, Game 10, World Championship Match, Havana, February 1889

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Bg4 3. c4 Nc6 4. e3 e5 5. Qb3 Bxf3 6. gxf3 exd4 7. cxd5 Ne5 8. exd4 Nd7 9. Nc3 Qe7+ 10. Be3 Qb4 11. Qc2 Ngf6 12. Bb5 Rd8 13. O-O-O a6 14. Ba4 Be7 15. Rhg1 g6 16. Bh6 b5 17. Bb3 Nb6 18. Rge1 Kd7 19. Bf4 Rc8 20. a3 Qa5 21. Bg5 Ng8 22. Bxe7 Nxe7 23. Ne4 Rb8 24. Nf6+ Kd8 25. Rxe7 Kxe7 26. Qxc7+ Nd7 27. Qxa5 Black resigns.

Lasker-Tarrasch, Game 13, World Championship Match, Munich, September 1908

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. e3 Nf6 6. a3 Bd6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. b4 Bd6 9. Bb2 O-O 10. Rc1 a5 11. b5 Ne5 12. cxd5 exd5 13. Be2 Be6 14. O-O Qe7 15. a4 Rac8 16. Nd4 Nc4 17. Ba1 Bb8 18. Re1 Qd6 19. g3 Rfd8 20. Nb1 Nb6 21. Bc3 Re8 22. Qb3 Nc4 23. Nxe6 Qxe6 24. Bxf6 gxf6 25. Red1 Ba7 26. Bf3 Nxe3 27. Rxc8 Qxc8 28. b6 Bxb6 29. fxe3 Rxe3 30. Qxb6 Rxf3+ 31. Qxa5 Qc4 32. Qd2 f5 33. Rc1 Qg4 34. Qxd5 f4 35. Nd2 Re3 36. Rf1 Re6 37. Rxf4 Qd1+ 38. Kg2 b6 39. Qd7 Qe2+ 40. Rf2 Qh5 41. Nf3 h6 42. Nd4 Re5 43. Qd8+ Kh7 44. Qf8 Black resigns.

• David R. Sands can be reached at 202/636-3178 or by email at dsands@washingtontimes.com.