Mechanics' Institute Chess Club Newsletter #439

Louis Paulsen: “The Father of Hypermodern Chess”

By Imre König

Part I

Would Nimzovitch turn in his grave if he heard that the title he fought so hard to earn had been given to Louis Paulsen, whose chess career pre-dated his own by more that half a century? Paulsen’s career started with that of Paul Morphy, who beat him in a match in 1857. After that he slowly climbed to success, but never did he gain full recognition and he was not even considered to belong to Steinitz “Modern School.” Nimzovitch’s career started well before the first World War but it was not until 1924 that Dr. Tartakover called him “The Father of Hypermodern Chess.” Can this title be disputed by a man who lived long before him, and long before the “Hypermodern School” was even thought of?

And how is it that Louis Paulsen’s name remained so long in obscurity? It is because we still labor under preconceived ideas, and in the beginning of his chess career – when the “Romantic School” flourished – he stood apart, preferring defense to attack. He did this when Morphy and Anderssen lived, when brilliant combinations and fierce attack characterized the mode of play. The principles of modern chess had not yet been laid down, and to be on the defensive meant to wait for the unexpected onslaught. In Paulsen’s time a player who worked hard over the board to cope with the problems of position in a game was considered the antithesis of a genius. Paulsen therefore never recovered from the prejudice of his contemporaries even after he became successful against Anderssen, with whom he drew one match and from whom he later won two short ones.

Schools of chess, to characterize a period of chess thought, are no new invention; and when the “Romantic School” represented by Morphy and Anderssen was superseded by the “Modern School” founded by William Steinitz, there seemed a new chance for Louis Paulsen. Some of his opening ideas were at last adopted – his defense to the King’s Gambit Accepted appeared to have dealt a death blow to this most favored opening of those times. Yet all he gained was the title “Master of Defense”; he still was not recognized as a founder of a new school. Was it a consolation to him that even Steinitz was recognized only much later after having a long unsuccessful fight for recognition? How could Paulsen have expected to win fame when even Steinitz misjudged him? Not until 31 years later did the latter pay tribute to Paulsen’s genius, when in his obituary of Paulsen he wrote:

 “Herr Louis Paulsen was a genius of an order which is now becoming generally recognized after having passed through the usual transition period of public derision and depreciation. He was one of the chief pioneers of the modern school which has been so much decried during its advance, but has established itself victoriously after a hard struggle against a sort of sentimental opposition. So far from my wishing to be intolerant against the adverse critics of the modern principles, I freely beg to state that in the early part of my chess career I myself was an absolute believer in the old system, and I well recollect that when I first met Kolisch and Anderssen I expressed myself in very derogatory terms about Paulsen’s style of play. But both those players warmly defended Paulsen against my general criticism and this set me thinking.”

Steinitz at least gave posthumous credit to Paulsen’s pioneer work – but how about his other contemporaries? Dr. Tarrasch paid tribute to his deep play but did not recognize him as an inventor of new ideas in chess. The main inheritance left to us is the Paulsen variation of the Sicilian Defense, but this was possible as much the invention of his brother, Wilfred Paulsen, as it was his own. On the other hand his contribution to the French Defense (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6) later adopted by Steinitz and Nimzovitch, has only lately been credited to him by the resurrection of his old forgotten move 6.a3! -- giving new life to this variation.

Time passed; the “Modern School” too became obsolete; the “Hypermodern School” arrived and in its turn was transformed. Two world wars left their marks on chess and when a new unprejudiced approach to the game came into being, the Russians announced the birth of a new defense: The Boleslavsky Variation of the Sicilian Defense. Such antipositional looking moves as 6. …, P-K4 had been played before but they were usually refuted and no further attention was paid to them. This time, however, Botvinnik came to the support of the move, calling it “one of Boleslavsky’s shrewd opening inventions.” The fact that the move was played frequently by Paulsen 50 years ago was forgotten. The Tarrasch-Louis Paulsen game, Breslau 1899 was published in Tarrasch’s 300 Schachpartien and is well know. It was perhaps thought that a single game gave a player no right to claim authorship of the variation – but Paulsen repeatedly adopted it with success, and that fact should have provoked some thought.

 Was this variation a momentary impulse on the part of Louis Paulsen or was it the outcome of a new approach to the openings? Steinitz may have given us the answer when he wrote: “Morphy with all his mighty powers never ventured on a single experiment in the early part of the game, and he faithfully followed the track laid out by his predecessors. Paulsen, on the other hand, struck at the root of the game in different openings, and in an original manner paved the way to the development of principles in the middle game and in the ending which generated position judgment and helped to dispense with mere combination tactics.”

 The fact that these games were played between 1883 and 1889, all within six years, should have indicated that during the last decade of his chess career Louis Paulsen had arrived at conclusions on opening problems far ahead of his time and if understood, these could have given rise to new opening thought. Alas, his conclusions were not recognized and the chess world had to wait another fifty years to catch up with such advanced thought.

Tarrasch - Paulsen

Sicilian Boleslavsky B58

Breslau 1899

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 d6 6.Be2 e5  

Tarrasch remarked that this move created two bad weaknesses (on Black's d6 and d5) while Botvinnik in commenting on his game against Boleslavsky (Sverdlovsk 1943) claimed this to be one of Boleslavsky's shrewd opening innovations.

 7.Nf3

Botvinnik continued with 7.Nb3, followed by f4. Tarrasch considered the "natural" 7.Nf3 more effective, but even present day theory has not decided on the best move. That Louis Paulsen was also prepared to meet 7.Nb3 is proved by the game Gunsberg-Paulsen, Frankfurt 1887 which continued 7...Be7! 8.Be3 0–0 9.g4 (quite modern, aiming at taking control of his d5 square, this move has been analyzed lately.) 9...Be6 10.g5 Ne8 11.Rg1 Nc7 12.Nd5 Nb8!! 13.Qd2 Nxd5 (This explains Black's odd looking move 12...Nb8. Even today it is considered preferable to exchange the Nd5 with a Knight to the Bishop.) 14.exd5 Bf5 with the better game for Black. It is worth noting that Paulsen realized that Black must either force the freeing move ...d5 or if unable to do so because of the blockading Knight at d5, he must exchange this piece. He prepared this in a masterly fashion dispensing with the move 7...h6, which is unnecessary when the White Knight has retreated to b3, as 8.Bg5 is met by 8...Nxe4. The exchange of the Knight on d5 is prepared by the unbiased ...Nb8!!, a move not unusual today but one showing a very advanced approach for 1887!

 7...h6!

Now necessary since, on 7...Be7, 8.Bg5 cannot be answered by 8...Nxe4, because of 9.Nxe4 and White's QB is adequately protected.

 8.0–0

 In an earlier game between J. Berger and L. Paulsen, Nurnberg 1883, White continued with 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd2 Be6 10.Rd1 a6 11.0–0 0–0 12.h3 Qc7 13.Ne1 (If 13.Nh2, as played today, then 13...Na5 14.Ng4 Nxg4 15.hxg4 Nc4) 13...Rad8 14.Bf3 Bc4! 15.Nd3 d5! and Black obtained a good game.

 8...Be6

 Tarrasch praises this move which aims at preparing ...d5, and for a long time it was a standard move. At present, however, it is considered better to defer it and continue with 8...Be7 9.Re1 0–0 10.h3 a6 11.Bf1 b5 12.a3 (Now on 12.Nd5 Nxd5 can follow. This is the idea of delaying the development of the Bishop.) 12...Bb7 13.b3 Rc8 14.Bb2 Rc7 15.Nb1 Qa8 16.Nbd2 Nd8 Unzicker-Taimanov, Saltsjobaden 1952

 9.Re1 Be7

 Not 9...d5? 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Bxd5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Bb5+ winning a pawn.

 10.Be3

 According to Tarrasch, stronger was 10.Bb5 followed by Ba4 and Bb3, to exert more effective control on his d5 square. The idea of bringing the Bishop was tried out by Stoltz against Boleslavsky in Groningen 1946, without success however.

 10...0–0

 10...d5 would have equalized the game.

 11.Qd2 Ng4

 Paulsen wants to play a fighting game, believing that he will be able to force the freeing move ...d5 later under more favorable conditions. Today this move is considered too committal for Black.

 12.Rad1 Nxe3 13.Qxe3 Qa5 14.a3 Qc5 15.Qd2 a6 16.b4 Qa7 17.Nd5 Bd8

 Very important. The Bishop must be preserved to guard the important d3 and b3 squares.

 18.c4 Rc8 19.Qe3 b6!

Securing the second rank for the Queen for free maneuvering and also covering the weakness of the b6 square. Today we know that Black can afford to make such a move as White has no Black Bishop to take advantage of it, but even much later when Nimzovitch made such moves, he earned only derision.

20.Qd2 Qb7 21.h3 Ne7

At last Paulsen's fine strategy is manifest! White's strong Knight is driven away, since Black threatens ...Nxd5 and after cxd5 Black's weakness on d6 would disappear and the two Bishops would become effective.

 22.Ne3!

An effective reply.

22...Bc7

22...Qxe4 23.Qxd6 wins a pawn.

23.Bd3 Ng6 24.Nd5 Bd8 25.Kh2 Qd7!

Again a fine move! Its significance will be seen in the sequel.

26.Qe3 Bxd5!

At last Black has found the right moment for exchanging the Knight.

27.exd5

Now White cannot retake the Knight with 27.cxd5 Rc3 28.Qd2 Rxa3 29.Qb2 Qa4 30.Ra1 Rb3 would give Black the advantage. This preparation of this maneuver by ...Qd7 shows what a master of positional play Paulsen was.

 27...f5 28.Bf1 Qa4 29.Rb1 Qe8

 A mistake in time pressure.

 30.Nd4 Nf4 31.Nc6

 Stronger was 31.g3 Ng6 32.Ne6 Rf7 33.c5 b5 34.c6

 31...Bc7 32.Qf3 Qf7 33.g3 Ng6 34.a4 Ne7 35.b5 a5 36.Be2 Nxc6 37.bxc6 e4 38.Qh5 Qf6 39.Bf1 Rce8 40.Bg2 Qd4 41.Qe2 Re7

 Better was 41...f4 at once, as on 42.Bxe4 (Even the stronger 42.Rbd1 Qc5 43.gxf4 Rxf4 44.Qe3 Rxf2 45.Qxc5 bxc5 46.Kg3 e3 would have given Black the better game.) 42...fxg3+ 43.Kxg3 Rxe4 44.Qxe4 Qxf2+ 45.Kg4 Bd8 wins.

42.Rbd1 Qf6 43.Qd2 Rfe8 44.Re2 Re5 45.Rde1 g5 46.Kg1 h5 47.Qd4 g4 48.h4 Kg7 ½–½

 First published in The Chess Correspondent, September 1954, pp.97-98 and later The California Chess Reporter August-September, 1960 pp. 18-20.