Zwischenzug
The zwischenzug (German for "intermediate move", IPA: [ˈtsvɪʃənˌtsuːk]) is a common chess tactic in which a player, instead of playing the expected move (commonly a recapture of a piece that the opponent has just captured) first interpolates another move, posing an immediate threat that the opponent must answer, then plays the expected move. Ideally, the zwischenzug changes the situation to the player's advantage. Such a move is also called an intermezzo, intermediate move, or in-between move.
Examples
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |           | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
The diagram shows an example. It is Black's turn to move and Black moves
- 1. ... Rxh4
expecting White to play 2. Qxh4, when Black retains a material advantage. However, White has a zwischenzug:
- 2. Qd8+
which is followed by
- 2. ... Kh7
- 3. Qxh4+ Kg8
- 4. Qxg3
and White has won a rook, leaving him with a winning position.
Tartakower-Capablanca
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |    | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Another example occurred in the game Tartakower-Capablanca, New York 1924,[1] which Irving Chernev christened "the Immortal Zwischenzug Game." In the position at right, 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 then either take the bishop or consider still a further zwischenzug with 11...Bd6 or 11...g5.
Mieses-Reshevsky
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
A zwishenzug occurred in this game between Jacques Mieses and Sammy Reshevsky. From the position in the diagram, play continued:
- 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 zwishenzug:
- 30... Re4!
Attacking the d-pawn twice and preventing the capture of his own pawn. Now if 31. Qxc4, 31... Re1+ forces 32. Rxe1 and White loses his queen (Chernev 1965:211).
See also
References
- Chernev, Irving (1965), The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played: 62 Masterpieces of Chess Strategy, Dover, ISBN 0-486-27302-4
- Golombek, Harry (1977), Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, Crown Publishing, ISBN 0-517-53146-1
- Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), The Oxford Companion to Chess (second ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-866164-9