DIAGRAM 55.
The game went on as follows: (5) …, B-c7; (6) P-e4, B-b6+; (7) K-h1, Rf8-d8; (8) B-b1, Ra8-c8; (9) Rxd8+, Qxd8; (10) R-d1, Q-e7; (11) P-e5. This opens again the diagonal of the King's Bishop, but it closes that of the Queen's Bishop, and it is the advantage of the work done by his Queen's Bishop in the unobstructed diagonal which secures Black the victory, (11) …, Kt-d5; (12) Ktxd5, Bxd5; (13) Q-g4, Q-b7; (14) P-f5, R-c4; (15) Q-g3, R-f4!. White cannot capture the Rook on account of Bxg2 mate. (16) P-f6, P-g6. There is now no defense against R-f2 which attacks g2 and b2 at the same time. (17) B-a2, R-f2; (18) Bxd5, Qxd5! and White resigns as he loses his Bishop on account of the mating threat.
It remains to examine typical middle-game maneuvers with the Queen and with the Pawns. Little is to be said about the Queen. On account of her tremendous mobility she is liable at any time to initiate a dangerous attack in conjunction with one or more of the other pieces, and most of the examples given for the typical Rook's, Bishop's and Knight's maneuvers have also shown the methods by which the cooperation with the Queen can be effected. The main field of action for the Queen is the side on which the opponent has castled. In games, in which both players have castled on the same side of the board, and which, as stated previously, constitute the vast majority of cases it is dangerous to make excursions with the Queen to distant regions away from the King, as her retreat might be cut off, making impossible an adequate defense against an attack which the opponent might be able to initiate on the King's side with the help of his own Queen.
+———————————————————-+
8 | | #R | | #Q | | #R | #K | |
|———————————————————-|
7 | | | #P | | | #P | #P | #P |
|———————————————————-|
6 | #P | | | #B | #B | | | |
|———————————————————-|
5 | | | #P | | | | | |
|———————————————————-|
4 | | | | | | | | |
|———————————————————-|
3 | | | | ^Q | | | | |
|———————————————————-|
2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |
|———————————————————-|
1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | | ^R | | ^K | |
+———————————————————-+
a b c d e f g h
DIAGRAM 56.
In the position of Diagram 56 for instance, it would be very risky for White to take the Pawn a6. Black would play P-c4, cutting off the retreat of White's Queen, and then start a violent attack with his Queen in conjunction with the two Bishops. Another example is the position of Diagram 57 which occurred in a game between Capablanca and Bernstein in the San Sebastian Tournament 1911. White played (1) Kt-e2 and Black, in view of the threatening accumulation of white pieces on the King's wing, should not have risked to capture the Pawn a2, getting his Queen quite out of play.
+———————————————————-+
8 | | | | | #R | #R | | |
|———————————————————-|
7 | #P | | #P | #B | | #P | #P | #K |
|———————————————————-|
6 | | | #P | #P | #Kt| | | #P |
|———————————————————-|
5 | #Q | | | | | ^Kt| | |
|———————————————————-|
4 | | | | ^Kt| ^P | | ^P | |
|———————————————————-|
3 | | ^P | | | ^Q | ^P | | |
|———————————————————-|
2 | ^P | | ^P | | | | | ^P |
|———————————————————-|
1 | | | | ^R | ^R | | ^K | |
+———————————————————-+
a b c d e f g h
DIAGRAM 57
He underestimated the danger and lost the game very quickly. The attack developed as follows: (1) …, Qxa2; (2) Kte2-g3, Qxc2. In taking the second Pawn Black loses another move. He might have tried Q-a5, threatening to exchange Queens with Q-b6. But it is doubtful whether he would have been able to save the game. White would, of course, have avoided the exchange by playing his King into the corner. (3) R-c1, Q-b2; (4) Kt-h5; this prevents the Queen from getting back into play via f6. The threat is now R-c3, cutting Black's Queen off from g7, and then Kth5xg7 and Qxh6. Black defends himself against this threat by (4) …, R-h8 with the intention to answer R-c3 with K-g8; but White's position involves so many threats that Black cannot provide a satisfactory protection. (5) R-e2, Q-e5; (6) P-f4, Q-b5; (7) Ktf5xg7 ! and wins, as Ktxg7 is followed by (8) Kt-f6+, (9) Ktxd7 and (10) P-f5 or P-e5 with overwhelming attack.
The most difficult problem in the conduct of the middle-game is the timely maneuvering with the Pawns. Although it is impossible to give a general rule which will apply to all cases it is a good principle to avoid Pawn moves in the middle- game just as carefully as in the opening, at least in the early stages of the middle-game. In the opening the argument against Pawn moves was the time loss connected with them from the point of view of development. In the middle-game it is mainly the weakness created by the Pawn move on the squares which were protected by the Pawn before he advanced. A square may be termed "weak" if it can be safely occupied by men which help the opponent in his attack, and this is generally possible if the square in question cannot any longer be defended by a Pawn. The great danger involved in the occupation by hostile pieces of such weak squares is evident if they are situated near the King, and examples of how the attack develops in cases of this kind have been discussed in connection with Diagrams 48, 49, 50 and 52. It is less apparent why a Pawn move should create a weakness if a center-Pawn or a Pawn on the Queen's wing is concerned. In the latter case, the possibility of deriving an advantage during the middle-game is rare, indeed; but the weakness produced by the Pawn moves invariably shows itself in the ending. In the position of Diagram 58 for instance, White wins on account of the weakness of the squares a6, c6, d5 and b5 from which his King can attack the Black Pawns as soon as the Queen and the Rook are exchanged. The following play may ensue: (1) R-e8, Rxe8; (2) Qxe8, Q-f8; (3) Qxf8 , Kxf8; (4) K-d3, K-e7; (5) K-c4, K-d7; (6) K-b5, K-c7; (7) K-a6, K-b8; (8) P-a4, K-a8; (9) P-a5, Pxa5; (10) Kxa5 and wins the c-Pawn. Or: (5) …, P-a6; (6) K-d5, K-d7.