Thezwischenzug (German:pronounced[ˈtsvɪʃənˌtsuːk], "intermediate move";[1] also called anin-between move[2][3] orintermezzo[4]) is achess tactic in which a player, instead of playing the expected move (commonly arecapture), first interposes another move posing an immediate threat that the opponent must answer, and only then plays the expected move.[5][6] It is a move that has a high degree of "initiative". Ideally, the zwischenzug changes the situation to the player's advantage, such as by gainingmaterial or avoiding what would otherwise be a strong continuation for the opponent. When the intermediate move is acheck, it is sometimes called anin-between check,[7]zwischenschach,[8] orzwischen-check.[9]
As with any fairly common chess tactic, it is impossible to pinpoint when the first zwischenzug was played. Three early examples are Lichtenhein–Morphy,New York 1857;Rosenthal–De Vere, Paris 1867; andTartakower–José Raúl Capablanca,New York 1924. The first known use of the term zwischenzug, however, did not occur until 1933, when the prolificAmerican chess authorsFred Reinfeld andIrving Chernev used it in their bookChess Strategy and Tactics.
| 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 | ||
No one knows when the first zwischenzug was played, but it was evident long before the term itself existed.[10] One early example was Lichtenhein–Morphy, New York 1857.[11] In the diagram, White has just captured Black'sknight on e4 and surely expected the recapture 10...dxe4 11.0-0, when White's king is safe and he has the betterpawn structure. Morphy, the strongest player of the day, instead played the zwischenzug 10...Qh4! with the threat 11...Qxf2#,[12] so White cannot save the bishop (11.Bf3?? Qxf2#).[12] Moreover, 11.0-0 would be met by 11...Qxe4 12.Nc3 Qg6 (not 12...Qh4? 13.Nxd5!), when "Black has thetwo bishops and a compact position without serious weakness".[13] Instead, White correctly played 11.Qe2 (forcing Black to weaken hispawns), but then erred with 11...dxe4 12.Be3? (after 12.0-0!, Black has only a slight advantage)[14] Bg4! 13.Qc4? Bxe3!! and Morphy went on to win abrilliancy.[11][12][15][16]
| 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 | ||
Rosenthal–De Vere, Paris 1867,[17] is another 19th-century example of a zwischenzug.[18] De Vere (Black) had earliersacrificed apiece 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 thematerial advantage offour pawns for a knight. White resigned after twelve more moves.
| 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 prominent example that brought the concept of zwischenzug, albeit not the term itself, to public attention was Tartakower–Capablanca, New York 1924.[19] This was a game won by the reigningWorld Champion at one of the strongesttournaments of the early 20th century.[20] 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 abishop.[21] However, Capablanca sprang the zwischenzug 9...Nd5!, protecting his bishop and also threatening 10...Ne3+,forking White'sking andqueen. 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+.[22][23] 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".[24][25][26]
| 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 earliest known use of the term zwischenzug did not occur until after all of these games. According to chess historianEdward Winter, the first known use was in 1933.[27] Fred Reinfeld and Irving Chernev, annotating the gameMax Euwe–Gyula Breyer, Vienna 1921, called Breyer's 27th move, 27...Nge3!, "an importantZwischenzug".[28] The game can be played overhere.
| 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 another example. Black, on move, plays
expecting White to play 2.Qxh4, when Black retains a material advantage. However, White has a zwischenzug:
which is followed by
and White has won arook, leaving him with a winning position.[29]
| 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 zwischenzug occurred inMieses–Reshevsky, Margate 1935.[30] From the position in the diagram, play continued:
White must have expected 30...Qxd4 31.Qxc4 Re1+ and then 32.Kg2 gets him out of trouble, but Black has a zwischenzug:
Making adouble attack 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.[31]
| 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 | ||
L. Steiner–Helling, Berlin 1928,[32] provides another example of the zwischenschach (in-between check). Black has just captured White'spawn on f2 with his knight (diagram). White responded with
expecting theskewer 16...Bg3??, which he would refute with 17.Qxf7+! Rxf7 18.Re8#. Instead, Black first played the zwischenschach
Now 17.Kxh2 Qxf2 loses White's queen. The game continued
Not seeing the point, White blithely continued with his plan:
Now White realized that he is in check (that was the point of 16...Bh2+!), so his intended 19.Re8# is illegal. The forced 19.Bxf7+ Kxf7 would leave Black with queen for rook, an easily winning material advantage, so White resigned.[33][34]
| 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 | ||
In the game Zlatozar Kerchev–Emil Stefanov Karastoichev, 1965 (diagram), Black moved
discovering an attack on White's queen.
If White moves the queen to another square, Black's knight captures White's rook on f3, winningthe exchange. Instead of immediately recapturing the queen, Black played
and White must get out of check. After
Black had won the exchange.[35]
| 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 | ||
Ingame 5 of the2013 World Chess Championship match,Carlsen had captured a bishop with 20.cxb6, andAnand maintained material balance by capturing a knight with 20...fxe4, also attacking White's bishop (diagram). Instead of immediately taking the pawn with 21.Bxe4, which would have given Anand the opportunity to fix his queenside pawn weaknesses with 21...axb6, Carlsen played the zwischenzug
After the necessary
Anand's a- and c-pawns remainedisolated. Black's weaker pawn structure was an important factor to Carlsen's initiative in this first decisive game of the match.
{{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)| Outline | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | |||||||||
| History | |||||||||
| Rules | |||||||||
| Terms | |||||||||
| Tactics | |||||||||
| Strategy | |||||||||
| Openings |
| ||||||||
| Endgames | |||||||||
| Tournaments |
| ||||||||
| Art and media | |||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
