If, on the other hand, Black takes the Pawn d4 with his Bishop,
White continues with (9) P-c3, B-c5; (10) Ra1- d1, again
preventing the interception of the Bishop c4 and threatening R-
g1. The consequence could then be: (10) ..., K-h8; (11) R-g1, Q-
e7; (12) R-d3, R-g8; (13) R-h3, Ktxh4; (14) Qxh7+ and (15) Rxh4
mate, or: (13) ..., R-g7; (14) R-f3, Ra8-g8; (15) Bxf6, Q-d7;
(16) R-h3 and the mate on h7 can only be avoided by the sacrifice
of the Queen for the Rook.

The foregoing variations show conclusively that the position of
Diagram 47 is lost for Black. The attack which White obtains
after creating a weakness on f6 by the removal of the Pawn g7
cannot be effectively countered. The question arises, whether
Black was at fault when disregarding White's threat to place his
Knight on d5 and developing his Queen's Bishop or whether he had
a chance to improve on one of the two following moves which led
to the position of Diagram 47. Indeed, it lies near to try the
same attack which White threatens to initiate by Q-d2 one move
earlier by playing Q-d7 instead of B-c5. The fact, however, that
this Bishop is not cooperating with the pieces on the King's wing
makes a big difference and the most Black can obtain is
apparently a draw. The continuation could be: (1) Ktxf6+, Pxf6;
(2) Bxf6, P-h6; (3) P-c3, Ktxf3+, (4) Pxf3, B-h5; (5) K-h1, K-h7;
(6) R-g1, R-g8; (7) R-g3. If Black's Bishop were on c5 instead of
b4, White could not play R-g3 on account of Bxf2. He would have
to make the preparatory move Q-e2 and he would be lost after R-
g6, just in the same manner which was demonstrated in one of the
above variations with attack and defense reversed. As it is Black
cannot enter on h3 with his Queen without exchanging Rooks and so
he is unable to take advantage of the weakness on f3. After (7)