Введение
Шахматная тактика
Тактика промежуточного хода
the move interposition tactic
Цвишенцуг (нем. zwischenzug, "промежуточный ход"; также называемый вставным ходом) — это шахматная тактика, в которой игрок, вместо ожидаемого хода (обычно взятия), сначала делает другой ход, создающий непосредственную угрозу, на которую противник должен ответить, и только затем выполняет ожидаемый ход. Этот ход обладает высокой степенью инициативы. В идеале, цвишенцуг меняет ситуацию в пользу игрока, например, обеспечивая выигрыш материала или избегая сильного продолжения для противника. Такой ход также называют интермеццо или вставным ходом. Если промежуточный ход – это шах, его иногда называют промежуточным шахом, цвишеншахом или вставным шахом. Как и в случае любой распространенной шахматной тактики, невозможно точно установить, когда был сделан первый цвишенцуг. Три ранних примера: Лихтенхейн – Морфи, Нью-Йорк 1857; Розенталь – Де Вер, Париж 1867; и Тартаковер – Хосе Рауль Капабланка, Нью-Йорк 1924. Однако первое известное использование термина "цвишенцуг" произошло в 1933 году, когда американские шахматные авторы Фред Райнфельд и Ирвинг Чернев использовали его в своей книге «Шахматная стратегия и тактика».
История
Никто не знает, когда был сделан первый междузуг, но он был очевиден задолго до появления самого термина. Одним из ранних примеров является партия Лихтенхейн – Морфи, Нью-Йорк, 1857 год. На диаграмме белые только что взяли коня черных на e4 и, вероятно, ожидали ответа 10...dxe4 11. O-O, после чего король белых будет в безопасности, а их пешечная структура – лучше. Морфи, сильнейший игрок того времени, вместо этого сыграл междузуг 10. Qh4! с угрозой 11. Qxf2#, и белые не могут спасти слона (11. Bf3?? Qxf2#). Белые правильно ответили 11. Qe2 (заставляя черных ослабить пешки), но затем допустили ошибку 11. dxe4 12. Be3? (после 12. O-O! у черных лишь небольшое преимущество) Bg4! 13. Qc4? Bxe3!! и Морфи выиграл.
Rosenthal–De Vere, Paris 1867, is another 19th century example of a zwischenzug. De Vere (Black) had earlier sacrificed a piece for two pawns. White has just played 16. Bxb4. Instead of recapturing with 16 Qxb4+, De Vere first played the zwischenzug (specifically, a zwischenschach) 16 Rc1+! After 17. Kd2 Rxf1 18. Qxf1 Qxb4+ 19. Ke2 Qxf4 20. Qg1 Nxe5, De Vere's zwischenzug had netted him two more pawns, leaving him with the of four pawns for a knight. White resigned after twelve more moves. Another prominent example that brought the concept of zwischenzug, albeit not the term itself, to public attention was Tartakower–Capablanca, New York 1924. This was a game won by the reigning World Champion at one of the strongest tournaments of the early 20th century. In the position in the diagram, Tartakower (White) has just played 9. Bxb8, thinking he has caught Capablanca in a trap: if 9 Rxb8, 10. Qa4+ and 11. Qxb4 wins a bishop. However, Capablanca sprang the zwischenzug 9 Nd5!, protecting his bishop and also threatening 10 Ne3+, forking White's king and queen. After Tartakower's 10. Kf2 Rxb8, Capablanca had regained his piece and went on to win in 20 more moves. Note that after 10. Bf4 (instead of 10. Kf2), Black would not play 10 Nxf4? ?, which would still allow 11. Qa4+, winning a piece. Instead, after 10. Bf4 Black would play a second zwischenzug, 10 Qf6!, attacking the bishop again, and also renewing the threat of 11 Ne3+. After a move like 11. Qc1, Black could either take the bishop or consider yet a third zwischenzug with 11 Bd6. Alekhine, Reinfeld, and Tartakower and du Mont do not call 9 Nd5! a "zwischenzug" in their books (originally published in 1925, 1942, and 1952, respectively). Instead, they refer to it as, respectively, "a bit of finesse", a "sly interpolation", and an "intermediary manoeuvre". The earliest known use of the term zwischenzug did not occur until after all of these games. According to chess historian Edward Winter, the first known use was in 1933. Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev, annotating the game Max Euwe–Gyula Breyer, Vienna 1921, called Breyer's 27th move, 27 Nge3!, "an important Zwischenzug". The game can be played over here.
Розенталь – Де Вер, Париж, 1867 год, – еще один пример междузуга в XIX веке. Де Вер (черные) ранее пожертвовал фигуру за двух пешек. Белые только что сыграли 16. Bxb4. Вместо отыгрывания 16...Qxb4+, Де Вер первым сделал междузуг (в частности, междушах) 16. Rc1+! После 17. Kd2 Rxf1 18. Qxf1 Qxb4+ 19. Ke2 Qxf4 20. Qg1 Nxe5 междузуг Де Вера принес ему еще две пешки, оставив у него преимущество в четыре пешки против коня. Белые сдались после двенадцати дополнительных ходов.
Rosenthal–De Vere, Paris 1867, is another 19th century example of a zwischenzug. De Vere (Black) had earlier sacrificed a piece for two pawns. White has just played 16. Bxb4. Instead of recapturing with 16 Qxb4+, De Vere first played the zwischenzug (specifically, a zwischenschach) 16 Rc1+! After 17. Kd2 Rxf1 18. Qxf1 Qxb4+ 19. Ke2 Qxf4 20. Qg1 Nxe5, De Vere's zwischenzug had netted him two more pawns, leaving him with the of four pawns for a knight. White resigned after twelve more moves. Another prominent example that brought the concept of zwischenzug, albeit not the term itself, to public attention was Tartakower–Capablanca, New York 1924. This was a game won by the reigning World Champion at one of the strongest tournaments of the early 20th century. In the position in the diagram, Tartakower (White) has just played 9. Bxb8, thinking he has caught Capablanca in a trap: if 9 Rxb8, 10. Qa4+ and 11. Qxb4 wins a bishop. However, Capablanca sprang the zwischenzug 9 Nd5!, protecting his bishop and also threatening 10 Ne3+, forking White's king and queen. After Tartakower's 10. Kf2 Rxb8, Capablanca had regained his piece and went on to win in 20 more moves. Note that after 10. Bf4 (instead of 10. Kf2), Black would not play 10 Nxf4? ?, which would still allow 11. Qa4+, winning a piece. Instead, after 10. Bf4 Black would play a second zwischenzug, 10 Qf6!, attacking the bishop again, and also renewing the threat of 11 Ne3+. After a move like 11. Qc1, Black could either take the bishop or consider yet a third zwischenzug with 11 Bd6. Alekhine, Reinfeld, and Tartakower and du Mont do not call 9 Nd5! a "zwischenzug" in their books (originally published in 1925, 1942, and 1952, respectively). Instead, they refer to it as, respectively, "a bit of finesse", a "sly interpolation", and an "intermediary manoeuvre". The earliest known use of the term zwischenzug did not occur until after all of these games. According to chess historian Edward Winter, the first known use was in 1933. Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev, annotating the game Max Euwe–Gyula Breyer, Vienna 1921, called Breyer's 27th move, 27 Nge3!, "an important Zwischenzug". The game can be played over here.
Еще одним известным примером, который привлек внимание к концепции междузуга (хотя и не к самому термину), была партия Тартаковер – Капабланка, Нью-Йорк, 1924 год. Это была партия, выигранная действующим чемпионом мира на одном из сильнейших турниров начала XX века. В позиции на диаграмме Тартаковер (белые) только что сыграл 9. Bxb8, полагая, что поймал Капабланку в ловушку: если 9...Rxb8, то 10. Qa4+ и 11. Qxb4 выиграет слона. Однако Капабланка сделал междузуг 9...Nd5!, защищая своего слона и одновременно угрожая 10. Ne3+, вилкой на короля и ферзя белых. После 10. Kf2 Rxb8 Капабланка вернул свою фигуру и выиграл еще через 20 ходов. Обратите внимание, что после 10. Bf4 (вместо 10. Kf2) черные не сыграют 10...Nxf4??, что позволило бы 11. Qa4+ и выиграть фигуру. Вместо этого после 10. Bf4 черные сделают второй междузуг – 10...Qf6!, снова атакуя слона и возобновляя угрозу 11. Ne3+. После 11. Qc1 черные могут либо взять слона, либо рассмотреть третий междузуг – 11...Bd6.
Rosenthal–De Vere, Paris 1867, is another 19th century example of a zwischenzug. De Vere (Black) had earlier sacrificed a piece for two pawns. White has just played 16. Bxb4. Instead of recapturing with 16 Qxb4+, De Vere first played the zwischenzug (specifically, a zwischenschach) 16 Rc1+! After 17. Kd2 Rxf1 18. Qxf1 Qxb4+ 19. Ke2 Qxf4 20. Qg1 Nxe5, De Vere's zwischenzug had netted him two more pawns, leaving him with the of four pawns for a knight. White resigned after twelve more moves. Another prominent example that brought the concept of zwischenzug, albeit not the term itself, to public attention was Tartakower–Capablanca, New York 1924. This was a game won by the reigning World Champion at one of the strongest tournaments of the early 20th century. In the position in the diagram, Tartakower (White) has just played 9. Bxb8, thinking he has caught Capablanca in a trap: if 9 Rxb8, 10. Qa4+ and 11. Qxb4 wins a bishop. However, Capablanca sprang the zwischenzug 9 Nd5!, protecting his bishop and also threatening 10 Ne3+, forking White's king and queen. After Tartakower's 10. Kf2 Rxb8, Capablanca had regained his piece and went on to win in 20 more moves. Note that after 10. Bf4 (instead of 10. Kf2), Black would not play 10 Nxf4? ?, which would still allow 11. Qa4+, winning a piece. Instead, after 10. Bf4 Black would play a second zwischenzug, 10 Qf6!, attacking the bishop again, and also renewing the threat of 11 Ne3+. After a move like 11. Qc1, Black could either take the bishop or consider yet a third zwischenzug with 11 Bd6. Alekhine, Reinfeld, and Tartakower and du Mont do not call 9 Nd5! a "zwischenzug" in their books (originally published in 1925, 1942, and 1952, respectively). Instead, they refer to it as, respectively, "a bit of finesse", a "sly interpolation", and an "intermediary manoeuvre". The earliest known use of the term zwischenzug did not occur until after all of these games. According to chess historian Edward Winter, the first known use was in 1933. Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev, annotating the game Max Euwe–Gyula Breyer, Vienna 1921, called Breyer's 27th move, 27 Nge3!, "an important Zwischenzug". The game can be played over here.
Алехин, Рейнфельд, Тартаковер и дю Мон не называют 9...Nd5! «zwischenzug» в своих книгах (опубликованных в 1925, 1942 и 1952 годах соответственно). Вместо этого они называют это соответственно «тонким ходом», «хитрой интерполяцией» и «промежуточным маневром».
Rosenthal–De Vere, Paris 1867, is another 19th century example of a zwischenzug. De Vere (Black) had earlier sacrificed a piece for two pawns. White has just played 16. Bxb4. Instead of recapturing with 16 Qxb4+, De Vere first played the zwischenzug (specifically, a zwischenschach) 16 Rc1+! After 17. Kd2 Rxf1 18. Qxf1 Qxb4+ 19. Ke2 Qxf4 20. Qg1 Nxe5, De Vere's zwischenzug had netted him two more pawns, leaving him with the of four pawns for a knight. White resigned after twelve more moves. Another prominent example that brought the concept of zwischenzug, albeit not the term itself, to public attention was Tartakower–Capablanca, New York 1924. This was a game won by the reigning World Champion at one of the strongest tournaments of the early 20th century. In the position in the diagram, Tartakower (White) has just played 9. Bxb8, thinking he has caught Capablanca in a trap: if 9 Rxb8, 10. Qa4+ and 11. Qxb4 wins a bishop. However, Capablanca sprang the zwischenzug 9 Nd5!, protecting his bishop and also threatening 10 Ne3+, forking White's king and queen. After Tartakower's 10. Kf2 Rxb8, Capablanca had regained his piece and went on to win in 20 more moves. Note that after 10. Bf4 (instead of 10. Kf2), Black would not play 10 Nxf4? ?, which would still allow 11. Qa4+, winning a piece. Instead, after 10. Bf4 Black would play a second zwischenzug, 10 Qf6!, attacking the bishop again, and also renewing the threat of 11 Ne3+. After a move like 11. Qc1, Black could either take the bishop or consider yet a third zwischenzug with 11 Bd6. Alekhine, Reinfeld, and Tartakower and du Mont do not call 9 Nd5! a "zwischenzug" in their books (originally published in 1925, 1942, and 1952, respectively). Instead, they refer to it as, respectively, "a bit of finesse", a "sly interpolation", and an "intermediary manoeuvre". The earliest known use of the term zwischenzug did not occur until after all of these games. According to chess historian Edward Winter, the first known use was in 1933. Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev, annotating the game Max Euwe–Gyula Breyer, Vienna 1921, called Breyer's 27th move, 27 Nge3!, "an important Zwischenzug". The game can be played over here.
Самое раннее известное использование термина «zwischenzug» произошло только после всех этих партий. По словам шахматного историка Эдварда Винтера, первое известное упоминание датируется 1933 годом. Фред Рейнфельд и Ирвинг Чернев, комментируя партию Макса Эуве – Гюлы Брейера, Вена, 1921 год, назвали 27-й ход Брейера, 27...Nge3!, «важным Zwischenzug». Партию можно посмотреть здесь.
Rosenthal–De Vere, Paris 1867, is another 19th century example of a zwischenzug. De Vere (Black) had earlier sacrificed a piece for two pawns. White has just played 16. Bxb4. Instead of recapturing with 16 Qxb4+, De Vere first played the zwischenzug (specifically, a zwischenschach) 16 Rc1+! After 17. Kd2 Rxf1 18. Qxf1 Qxb4+ 19. Ke2 Qxf4 20. Qg1 Nxe5, De Vere's zwischenzug had netted him two more pawns, leaving him with the of four pawns for a knight. White resigned after twelve more moves. Another prominent example that brought the concept of zwischenzug, albeit not the term itself, to public attention was Tartakower–Capablanca, New York 1924. This was a game won by the reigning World Champion at one of the strongest tournaments of the early 20th century. In the position in the diagram, Tartakower (White) has just played 9. Bxb8, thinking he has caught Capablanca in a trap: if 9 Rxb8, 10. Qa4+ and 11. Qxb4 wins a bishop. However, Capablanca sprang the zwischenzug 9 Nd5!, protecting his bishop and also threatening 10 Ne3+, forking White's king and queen. After Tartakower's 10. Kf2 Rxb8, Capablanca had regained his piece and went on to win in 20 more moves. Note that after 10. Bf4 (instead of 10. Kf2), Black would not play 10 Nxf4? ?, which would still allow 11. Qa4+, winning a piece. Instead, after 10. Bf4 Black would play a second zwischenzug, 10 Qf6!, attacking the bishop again, and also renewing the threat of 11 Ne3+. After a move like 11. Qc1, Black could either take the bishop or consider yet a third zwischenzug with 11 Bd6. Alekhine, Reinfeld, and Tartakower and du Mont do not call 9 Nd5! a "zwischenzug" in their books (originally published in 1925, 1942, and 1952, respectively). Instead, they refer to it as, respectively, "a bit of finesse", a "sly interpolation", and an "intermediary manoeuvre". The earliest known use of the term zwischenzug did not occur until after all of these games. According to chess historian Edward Winter, the first known use was in 1933. Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev, annotating the game Max Euwe–Gyula Breyer, Vienna 1921, called Breyer's 27th move, 27 Nge3!, "an important Zwischenzug". The game can be played over here.
Миесес против Решевского
Междупоезд произошёл в партии Миесес – Решевский, Маргейт 1935 года. Из позиции на диаграмме игра продолжилась: 29. Nd4 Bxd4 30. cxd4
Белые, вероятно, ожидали 30. Qxd4 31. Qxc4 Re1+ и затем 32. Kg2, что позволило бы им избежать неприятностей, но у чёрных есть междупоезд: 30. Re4! Нападая на пешку d4 и предотвращая её захват. Теперь, если 31. Qxc4, то 31...Re1+ вынуждает 32. Rxe1, и белые теряют ферзя.
29. Nd4 Bxd4
30. cxd4
White must have expected 30 Qxd4 31. Qxc4 Re1+ and then 32. Kg2 gets him out of trouble, but Black has a zwischenzug:
30 Re4! Making a on the d pawn and preventing the capture of his own pawn. Now if 31. Qxc4, 31 Re1+ forces 32. Rxe1 and White loses his queen.