his position comes from the game/analysis Adolf Anderssen vs Max Lange played in Breslau, 1859.

   In the position on the right it is Black to move. 

 

   Answer below.

   Today I would like to share an interesting thread that I saw on reddit.com entitled "Why do people stress tactics so much?", which you can read here:  https://redd.it/3us0t3

   I really enjoyed this comment by IM Danny Rensch who writes:


   As a professional player and teacher, I've thought about this a lot actually.

   I think it's because I had a strong "Russian" training of endgames, positional chess, pawn structure, etc -- with tactics being an obvious necessity to become a good player, but not something my trainers ever "DRILLED" into me with the ruthless statements of "chess is all tactics" or "chess is 99% tactics" etc.

   Then, as I started to teach and I found myself focusing my students attention on the the bigger picture aspects that can and WILL lead to good tactics, rather than just the tactics itself, I again, was aligned with the thinking that "tactics are a part of the game but positional chess and planning is what OUTPLAYS your opponent".

   Now, all that said, and though I still believe this to be true, I've realized over time that I might have been wrong to teach chess this way.

   For a few reasons, but mainly, as someone from this thread has already pointed out, tactics eventually DECIDE every game.

   No matter what.

   At any level.

   Yes, the factors that lead to good or bad tactics are more strategically, prepositionally based, but without the pattern recognition of all the commonly requiring tactics, people WILL miss their opportunities to win.

   And isn't that what it's all about?

   We are chess players, not chess scientists after all?

   So in the end, I come back to the belief that teaching tactics first and foremost, and that tactics are SO important (drilling the patterns home) is a good idea so that your students can start winning games.

   With balance of course. I can never leave my drunkin' Russian roots behind ;) -- BUT I think if people don't win and enjoy the process of chess, they will have a harder time staying with the more advanced planning and strategical principles later.

   Even if those bigger picture concepts are what ultimately govern who GETS GOOD TACTICS, but are harder to grasp, and knowing tactics patterns like the back of your hand.

   Like masters do in BLITZ and BULLET is important.

   It's intuitive.

   It wins games.

  

   Here is the complete game:

[Event "Breslau m2"]
[Site "Breslau"]
[Date "1859.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Anderssen, Adolf"]
[Black "Lange, Max"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C61"]
[PlyCount "38"]
[EventDate "1859.??.??"]
[EventType "match"]
[EventRounds "8"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1998.11.10"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nxd4 exd4 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. e5 d5 7. Bb3 Bg4 8.
f3 Ne4 9. O-O d3 10. fxg4 Bc5+ 11. Kh1 Ng3+ 12. hxg3 Qg5 13. Rf5 h5 14. gxh5
Qxf5 15. g4 Rxh5+ 16. gxh5 Qe4 17. Qf3 Qh4+ 18. Qh3 Qe1+ 19. Kh2 Bg1+ 0-1


   You can play through this game here: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019074

 

   Answer:

   13...h5!! ignores the queen being under attack, so the h file can be ripped open and Black can deliver mate.  The best White can do is delay mate. 

   According to Edward Winter's chesshistory.com (#3885) http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter13.html#3883._How_to_annotate

   "This position (after 13...h7-h5) occurred in a game lost by Anderssen (White), but, as noted in our previous items, sources vary as to whether Black was Max Lange or Jean Dufresne, whether the venue was Breslau or Berlin and whether the date was 1859 or circa 1851. "