Mechanics' Institute Chess Club Newsletter #440

Louis Paulsen: Father of Hypermodern Chess

By Imre König

Part II

The Scheveningen Variation of the Sicilian Defense has long been considered the invention of the Hypermodern School, deriving its name from the Schevenington Tournament of 1923 where it was adopted for the fist time in a major event. The idea of developing the Queen Knight to c6 instead of d7, as in the Paulsen Defense, gave new life to the Sicilian, since it was soon recognized that the Knight exerted more control on the center from c6. Later Capablanca and Lasker successfully adopted this variation. However, Louis Paulsen played it as early as 1889, 34 years before the Scheveningen tournament!

On the basis of one lone game, perhaps no one can be called the inventor of an opening. Yet this game of Paulsen’s may well be the exception since he handled the Defense quite in the modern style.

Gossip - Paulsen

Sicilian Scheveningen B85

Breslau 1889

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 d6 6.Be2 e6 7.Be3 a6 8.0–0 Be7 9.Qd2

Up to this point the game is similar to the Maroczy-Euwe, Scheveningen 1923 game where Kh1 was played, a move hailed at that time as an important innovation, but now obsolete. After 8...0–0 9.f4 Qc7 10.Nb3 White, with a4 prevented Black from playing ...b5, thus obtaining the superior game. It is interesting to note that even contemporary annotators recommend a4 followed by Nb3 and a5, a maneuver made use of by Tarrasch against L. Paulsen at Nuremberg 1888.

9...Qc7 10.f4 Bd7 11.Rad1 Rc8 12.Kh1 0–0

Up to here the game is similar to the Lasker-Capablanca game, Moscow 1936, in which Capablanca adopted the important defensive strategy of delaying castling and thus preventing White from attacking on the Kingside by g4. But this delay is also a feature of Paulsen's game. Another important feature is his omission of ...Na5, which for Black was considered very strong until the contrary was demonstrated by Boleslavsky in his game against L. Steiner in Saltsjobaden 1948.

13.Bf3 b5 14.Nxc6

Gossip tries to evade the problem of the position by simplification. Better was14.Nb3 after which Black could not play 14...Na5 because of 15.Nxa5 Qxa5 16.Nd5 .He would have had to prepare for ...Na5 by ...Kh8.

14...Bxc6 15.e5 dxe5 16.Bxc6 Qxc6 17.fxe5 Ne4 18.Nxe4 Qxe4 19.Qd3 Qxe5 20.Bd4 Qc7 21.c3 e5

By this move Black aims at simplification by exchanging Rooks, a maneuver condemned by Metger, who considers ...Rfd8 followed by ...Rd5 better for Black. Yet it will be seen that Paulsen, in spite of the reduced material, will be able to maintain the initiative, and his procedure is more in accord with present-day technique of simplification into a won endgame.

22.Be3 Rcd8 23.Qf5 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Rd8 25.Rxd8+ Bxd8 26.Kg1 Be7

This looks like an oversight, yet giving back the pawn is the quickest way of demonstrating Black's superiority. Instead, 26...h6 27.Qe4 Qd6, would produce a long drawn out ending.

27.Qe4 h6 28.Qa8+ Kh7 29.Qxa6 Bc5 30.Kf2

In the tournament book Metger gives 30.Bxc5 as the right move leading to a draw. This is doubtful, however, as 30...Qxc5+ 31.Kf1 (31.Kh1 Qf2 32.h3 e4) 31...Qc4+ 32.Ke1 Qe4+ 33.Kf2 Qc2+ 34.Kg3 Qd3+ 35.Kf2 e4 forcing his e-pawn.

30...e4 31.g3 Qe5 32.Qc6? Qf5+ 0–1

Even without White’s last mistake the game was lost, as on 32. Ke2, Qh5+ wins.

This game is a strategic masterpiece that even with our present knowledge of technique cannot be improved upon, especially in respect to Black’s handling of the opening. An important point to note is Paulsen’s realization that it is useful to delay castling and thus prevent White from starting an attack with P-KKt4. His timing of the moves on the Q-side is very accurate, and he did not try to play …Kt-QR4 at an early stage, a maneuver which became very popular later, but which today is considered good only in certain positions. The self-confident manner in which he simplifies into an endgame, and his handling of it, confirms Louis Paulsen’s reputation as a superb endgame player.

Louis Paulsen is commonly credited with the invention of the Paulsen Defense, when actually it was his brother Wilfred who invented it. This misunderstanding can only be explained by the fact that it was not until after World War I that the difference between the Scheveningen and the Paulsen Defense was clearly defined. The following game exemplifies the difficulty of the distinction, for it starts like a Paulsen Defense and transposes into a Scheveningen, as Black ultimately develops his Knight to c6.

The game is remarkable for the manner in which Paulsen dares to start it. Of the first six moves, five are P moves, and the Q is developed early in spite of the preconceived laws. This completely new approach to opening problems did not cause any stir, and was overlooked at a time when Steinitz’ milder eccentricities were often bitterly attacked. Paulsen treats the following game in a modern spirit, half a century before the opening’s “invention”!

Metger - Paulsen

Sicilian Paulsen B43

Breslau 1889

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 a6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Qc7 6.g3 b5 7.Bg2 Bb7 8.0–0 Nc6 9.Nde2

This move is condemned by Metger, who recommends Be3 followed by f4. Still, 9.Be3 Nf6 10.f4 Na5 with the double threat of ...Nc4 and ...b4 could follow.

9...Nf6 10.Bf4 d6 11.Qd3

Metger recommended 11.a4 which, however, can be answered by 11...b4 12.Na2 Ne5 13.Nxb4 Bxe4.

11...Ne5! 12.Bxe5 dxe5 13.Rad1 Bc5 14.b4?

This move shows the shallowness of White's positional judgment. As he could not well have expected Black to miss 14...Bxb4 15.Nxb5, he might have thought he could restrict Black's Bs. Much later it was recognized that the two Bs, locked in by the pawns and condemned to passivity too long, are bound to come to life again.

14...Be7 15.a3 0–0 16.h3 Rfd8 17.Qe3 Nd7 18.Rd3 Nb6 19.Rfd1 Nc4

The c4 square, as usual in this variation, is now decisively in Black's possession.

20.Qc1 Qb6 21.Nb1 h6 22.h4 Rac8 23.Rxd8+ Rxd8 24.Rd3 Rc8

Quite unbiased by the prejudice that open files should not be left unchallenged. If now 25.Rd7 Bf8 26.Qd1 Qc6 with the threat of ...Nd6. Black's aim is, by exerting pressure on his c-file, to force White to play c3, thus restricting the mobility of White's Knights still further.

25.c3 Rd8 26.Qd1 Bd6 27.Qc2

27...Nb2 was threatened. How a file doubly occupied can be made useless is cleverly demonstrated by Paulsen.

27...Bb8 28.Nc1 Ba7 29.Rxd8+ Qxd8 30.Qd3 Qb6 31.Qe2 Ne3 32.Bf3 Nc4 33.Bg2 Qc6 34.Nb3 Ba8 35.N3d2 Nd6 36.Kf1

After Black has blockaded White's Q-side and the activity of the N's has been reduced, he prepares his decisive breakthrough.

36...f5 37.Ke1 Qb6 38.Bf1

Even 38.f3 , which Metger thought could have saved the game, would not have helped; 38...Qg1+ 39.Nf1 fxe4 40.fxe4 Bxe4 41.Bxe4 Nxe4 42.Qxe4 Qf2+ 43.Kd1 Qxf1+ 44.Kd2 Qf2+ 45.Kd1 Be3 46.Qa8+ Kh7 47.Qxa6 Qf1+ 48.Kc2 Qe2+ 49.Kb3 Bc1.

38...fxe4 0–1

Black threatens ...Bd5 and ...e3.

This game really consists of an opening and an endgame with the middle game cleverly eliminated, a characteristic of modern times seen, for example, in the games of Rubinstein. Paulsen was renowned for his endgame play, especially for his handling of the Bishops in an open position. The present game, however, shows a notable advance in the method of bringing to life the two Bishops confined behind a pawn chain, This technique of breaking up the opponent’s pawn skeleton afterwards became part of our general technique.

First published in The Chess Correspondent, September 1958, pp. 1-2 and later in The California Chess Reporter, August-September 1961, pp.11-15.