April 2, 2017 | Author: Ahthos Arouriss | Category: N/A
Download 3 Secrets of Endgame Technique...
Dvoretsky
I
Yusupov
·
Secrets of Endgame Technique
Pgress iifCtiess
Volume 24 of the ongoing series
Editorial board GM Victor Korchnoi GM Helmut Pfleger GM Nigel Short GM Rudolf Teschner
2008 EDITION OLMS
m
Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov
Secrets of Endgame Technique School of Future Champions 3 Edited and translated by Ken Neat
2008 EDITION OLMS
m
4 Books by the same authors :
Mark Dvorelsky, Artur Yusupov, School of
Future
Champions
Vol. 1: Secrets of Chess Training
ISBN 978-3-283-00515-3
Available
Vol. 2: Secrets of Opening Preparation
ISBN 978-3-283-00516-0
Available
Vol. 3: Secrets of Endgame Technique
ISBN 978-3-283-00517-7
Available
Vol. 4: Secrets of Positional Play
ISBN 978-3-283-00518-4
In Preparation
Vol. 5: Secrets of Creative Thinking
ISBN 978-3-283-00519-1
In Preparation
Vol. 1 : Endgame Analysis
ISBN 978-3-283-00416-3
Available
Vol. 2: Tactical Play
ISBN 978-3-283-00417-0
Available
Vol. 3: Strategic Play
ISBN 978-3-283-00418-7
Available
Vol. 4: Opening Developments
ISBN 978-3-283-00419-4
Available
Mark Dvoretsky, School of Chess Excellence
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.
© 2008 Edition Olms AG Willikonerstr. 10
·
CH-8618 Oetwil a. S./Zurich
E-mail:
[email protected] Internet: www.edition-olms.com All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not. by way of trade or otherwise. be lent. re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. Printed in Germany Editor and translator: Ken Neat Typeset: Arno Nickel
·
Edition Marco, D-1 0551 Berlin
Printed by: Druckerei Friedr. Schmucker GmbH, D-49624 Lbningen Cover: Eva Konig, D-22769 Hamburg ISBN 978-3-283-00517-7
5
Contents Preface (Mark Dvoretsky)
PART
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
EN DGAME THEORY
How to Study the Endgame (Mark Dvoretsky)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings (Mark Dvoretsky, Artur Yusupov)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
38
From the Simple to the Compl icated : The Theory of Endings with Opposite-colour Bishops (Mark Dvoretsky)
64
The Arithmetic of Pawn Endings (Mark Dvoretsky)
82
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PART
II
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EN DGAME ANALYSIS
Typical Endings with Connected Passed Pawns (Vladimir Vulfson) Adventures on Adjournment Day (Mark Dvoretsky) Solo for a Knight (Artur Yusupov)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
More about the 'Montaignian' Knight (Mark Dvoretsky)
PART
Ill
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
88 97
1 02 1 08
TEC H N IQUE
Converting a n Advantage (Mark Dvoretsky)
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Technical Proced u res i n a Grandmaster Battle (Artur Yusupov) Lessons from One Particular Endgame (Mark Dvoretsky) Grandmaster Tech nique (Mark Dvoretsky)
. . . . . . . . .
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. .
.
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of a Game (Artur Yusupov, Mark Dvoretsky)
PART
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
112 1 53 1 58 1 65 1 99
IV
From Games by Pupils of the School (Artur Yusupov) .... ....... ........... ............. ................. 2 1 2
I ndex o f Players and Analysts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 225 .
.
6
Mark Dvoretsky
P reface
Pfamiliar with the fi rst two books, based
erhaps, dear reader, you are already
on material from the Dvoretsky-Yusu pov school for talented young players (Secrets of Chess Training and Secrets of Opening Preparation). Then you will already know the main principles by which we are g u ided . We have held several thematic sessions of the school, devoted to a particu lar aspect of improvement in chess. The aim of the sessions was not to convey specific infor mation - for this we had too l ittle time. It was fa r more importa nt to discover the deficien cies in the pupils' play and to help them to eradicate them, to demonstrate the most effective ways of studying chess , and to acquaint them with general mechanisms, ideas and methods of play. You now have before you the th i rd book (there are five i n all). It is based on our work at the th ird session of the school , devoted to the problem of improving endgame and tech nical mastery. During recent years the reg ulations for tournaments and matches have changed sign ificantly - now games are hardly ever adjourned . Previously, after taking play i nto an end i n g , you could investigate its subtle ties in home analysis, whereas now you have to act directly at the board . Without an excellent knowledge and, what is even more important, understanding of the laws of the endgame, it is not easy to cope with this task, especially if account is taken of accu mulated fatigue from the preced ing battle. And yet endgame mista kes are the last in the game - it is no longer possible to repair them! It is clear that today the importance of endgame and tech n ical mas tery has grown sharply.
I n my bookcase there are nu merous weig hty tomes devoted to the theory of endings. Is it conceivable to assi milate and remember all the information conta i ned i n them? It turns out that it is not at all necessary to do this. After read ing the fi rst part of this book, you will see that 'your' system of endgame knowledge can and should be compact, easy to assi milate and remember, and you will learn how to develop it, by making the acquai ntance of certa in i m po rta nt sections of the theory of rook and minor piece endings. The second part of the book is devoted to an analysis of complicated practical endings. Such an analysis helps to deepen and consolidate endgame knowledge, and aid the development of traits of character and thinking necessary to every player. The tech n ique of converti ng an advantage is a stu mbli ng-block for many players. To raise your tech n ical mastery req u i res developing i n yourself certa in importa nt skills i n seeking and ta king decisions, moreover not purely chess , but, so to speak, 'psycholog ical chess' decisions. The question of how to improve your tech n ique is exam i ned i n the third part of the book. Here a re both the 'theory' of this question, and its practical application - both by a critical analysis of games played by young players , and at the very hig hest grand master level . By trad ition , the final part is devoted to an analysis of games by the pupils of the school. This book was fi rst publ ished i n the 1 990s. During the preparation of this new edition I checked all the games and endings on a computer, which , natu ral ly, gave rise to
Preface
numerous improvements and additions. I n addition , a qu ite large chapter has been added , one which was written many years after the fi rst edition was publ ished . I n it some instructive examples of the successful or unsuccessfu l solving of complicated tech nical problems a re analysed - they will help you to understand more deeply the tech nique of converting a n advantage, a
problem which is exceptionally i mportant for every player. Practically all the players whom I have trai ned have possessed good tech nique and an excellent u n derstanding of the endgame. This means that the working methods described in this book have stood the test of time. I hope that they will also prove su itable for you .
8
PART I Endgame Theory
Mark Dvoretsky
How to Study the E n dgame
Mcomes to playing endings. They would
All endgame positions can be arbitrarily d ivided i nto 'exact' and 'problematic' . Posi tions which are familiar to us, i n wh ich we know beforehand the evaluation and correct plan of action, we cal l 'exact' . Note that they are familiar to us, and not to the theory of endings in genera l . Different players have d ifferent stores of exact positions.
Two main ways of improving in the endgame can be disti ngu ished :
All rema i n i n g positions belong to problem atic. I n them we do not demonstrate our knowledge, but fig ht, seek the best moves , and calculate variations - in short, we play.
any young players 'flou nder' when it
not be averse to improving their endgame mastery, but they don't know exactly how to do this. I n chess l iteratu re practically noth ing is said about methods for the i ndependent study of endgame theory. We will now endeavour to partly fi ll this gap.
I . The study of theory (development of erudition, en richment of the store of end game knowledge). I I . Improvement in the general tech nique of endgame play. It stands to reason that these two d i rections are closely inter-connected , and prog ress in one of them i nvariably leads to progress i n the other. However, let us nevertheless consider them separately. I. THE STUDY OF THEORY To expand your store of knowledge you need to make a systematic study of various types of endings. Here the traditional divi sion by material is q u ite appropriate. By successively exami n i n g , for example, pawn, knight and queen endings we assimilate the specific featu res of these types of endgame.
A na"ive opinion is prevalent, identifying the mastery of endgame theory with a knowl edge of nu merous exact positions. But is a large store of specific knowledge really necessary? After a l l , exact positions (apart from the most elementa ry) occur rather rarely i n practice . More often a player has to fig ht in problematic situations. He should study the general endgame laws which apply in them and the most com mon reg ularities, playing methods and typical eval uations. All this, together, of cou rse, with the most important exact positions, is what comprises the i nteg ral system of our endgame knowledge. I must once again emphasise: the store of positions which you need to know exactly is
CLJ
How to Study the Endgame
comparatively smal l . Only in rook endings do you need to have a firm knowledge of several dozen specific positions; in other types of endings - much fewer. When studying them it is often not necessary to delve into complicated analyses - it is sufficient merely to remember the main conclusions. Take, for example, rook endings with f- and h-pawns. They occu r q u ite rarely, but never theless they do occu r, so that it would be useful to obtain some impression of the m . However, i t is hardly advisable t o study the entire theory of this type of endgame - it is just too complicated . What, the n , from this theory should the practical player add to his armoury? Above all, the i nformation that such endings are normally d rawn . It is useful to examine a practical ending , demonstrating the main defensive ideas.
g
1 . . . Wh7 would also not have lost, but in this case the defence would have been much more d ifficult. 2 l:Ig5
.l:!.b1 !
A typical rook move i n such situations - from here it retains the possibil ity of checking the enemy king both along the file, and along the rank. 3 l:!.c5 If 3 h6 it is wrong to play 3 . . l:tg 1 +? 4 Wf5 .i:.h 1 5 l:tg7 + , when Black's king is forced back onto the 8th ra n k and this leads to a loss. He is saved by the waiting move 3 .. Jla 1 !, for example: 4 .Uh5 (4 'it>f5 .Ua5+ ; 4 h7 .l::i. g 1 + 5 Wf5 .l::i. h 1 ) 4 .. . Wg8 5 f5 '>th7. .
3 . . .
'>tf6
4 .l:!.c6+
�g7 !
The main danger for Black is having his king forced back onto the 8th rank. This would have occu rred after 4 . . . Wf7? 5 Wg5 .U.g 1 + 6 'it>f5 .l::i. h 1 7 .Uc7 + .
Gl igoric - Smyslov
5 Wg5
.Ug1 + !
Moscow 1 947
6 'lt>f5
.U a 1
7 .l:lc7+ 7 .l:.g6+ Wf7 . 7. . .
Wh6
8 .l:!.e7
.l::i. b 1
9 .Ue8
'it>g7
1 0 l:!.e5
l:!.a1
1 1 .Ud5
l:!.f1
Not a bad move , although it was qu ite sufficient to keep the rook in the corner.
The black rook is excellently positioned on the 5th rank, preventing the wh ite king from advanci ng. If 1 f5 there follows 1 . . . .U b 1 , threatening a series of checks from the rear. 1 .Ug6+
'lt>f7 !
1 2 :d4
.U.a1
1 3 l:!.d6
:as+
1 4 �g4
l:!.a1
14 . . . l:!.b5 is also possible, retu rn ing to the position with which we beg a n . 1 5 l:!.e6
.l::i. g 1 +
1 6 'it>f5
.l:!.a 1
1 7 h6+
'lt>h7!
1 8 .l::i. d 6
l:!.a2
10
�
How to Study the Endgame
19 'iii g5
.l:.g2+
20 'iii f6
'iii xh6!
21 'it>e7+
'it>h7
22 f5
.l:!. e2+
23 l:l.e6
.l:ta2
24 f6
!:. aS!
25 'Ot>f7
'.t>h6
An important theoretical position has arise n , one which should have been included in o u r system o f precise knowledge a t a n ea rl ier stage - in the study of endings with rook and pawn against rook. 26 .l:.e1
l:!.a7+
27 .l:!. e7
l:!.a8
It is simplest to keep the rook on the eig hth rank, not allowing the wh ite king there. B ut also possible is 27 . . . l:l.a 1 28 Wf8 'iiig 6 29 f7 'iiif6! 30 g8 .l:tg 1 + ! with a d raw.
1 f6
l:!.a1
2 l:l.g7+
'it>h8
2 . . . 'it>f8 3 h6 followed by the u navoidable h6-h7 . 3 'it>g6
.l:!. g 1 +
4 'Ot>f7
.l:.a1
28 .l:td7
'iii h7
29 .l:td1
.l:!. a7+
5 .l:!. g8+
'Ot> h7
30 e6
.l:.a6+
6 .l:!.e8
l:!.a7+
31 l::!. d 6
.l:!.a8
32 .Ud4
'Ot> g8
33 .l:!.g4+
'it>f8
Draw. An examination of such an ending helps us to draw certain general concl usions. We now know where Black should place his rook. And the king, as was shown by l lya Maizelis, is best kept at f7 u ntil there is a danger of it being driven onto the back ran k . Then i t can stand a t g7 and su bsequently even at h6, attacking the wh ite pawn. It stands to reason that by no means all positions with f- and h-pawns are d rawn . The most important exception has already been mentioned several times - when Black's king is cut off on the back rank, he normally loses.
7 f8 The next move will be 8 f7 (the h5-pawn deprives the black king of the g6-sq uare). It is sufficient to play through th is variation just once on the board - there is no need to memorise it, especially since Wh ite also has other ways to win. This is probably a l l that the practical player needs to remember about the g iven type of ending. As you see , not really so m uch and not really so d ifficult! Let us see how another, rather more ex tensive section in our system of endgame knowledge is constructed - the theory of endings, in which a rook fights against pawns. A basis for study can be provided by any endgame manual , for example, l lya Maizelis's monograph Ladya protiv peshek (Rook against pawns), published in 1 956 (in contrast to opening books, those on the endgame hardly date at a l l ) . Here some 400
ltJ
How to Study the Endgame
positions are examined . Clearly we are not able to study and remember all this i nforma tion . We need to select the most impo rta nt key endings for practical purposes.
11
C utti ng off of the king
But how to choose the most important material? This is the main problem . What tells here is the player's i ntel lect, and his abil ity to work with books , to general ise, and to draw conclusions. He is also helped by the knowledge (even if incomplete) that he already has, and by his own practical experience in the g iven field . The play i n endings with rook against pawns is dynamic in character, and every tempo has a decisive i nfluence on the outcome. It follows that here there is no large-scale strategy, battle of plans, or deep regularities (as, say, in endings with opposite-colour bishops). There a re also hardly any exact positions, by relying on which we could avoid the need for concrete calculation. The main role is played by a knowledge of typical techniques, which help the correct move to be found more qu ickly and variations to be calculated more certa i n ly.
Wh ite wins, by playing 1 .l:tg5 ! . When the pawn reaches a3, it ca n be eliminated by llg3 (or with the pawn on a2 - by l:.g 1 and l:r.a 1 ) . If it is Black to move , then 1 .. .'it>b5(c5)! leads to a d raw - as it is easy to see, cutti ng off the king along the 4th ran k by 2 l:tg4 does not ach ieve anyth ing. Promotion of the pawn to a knight
The procedu res a re best mastered with the help of elementa ry positions, in which they are employed and where their action is not obscured by extraneous analytical details. Su bseq uently the exact pattern of the position my be forgotten , but the impression of the tech n ique will remain . Sometimes such a position - the conveyor of the technique - is simu lta neously an exact position which is i mportant for us; in this case, of cou rse, we should memorise it. So, using some very simple schemes, let us examine the main ideas which apply i n endings with rook agai nst pawns. 1 l:.h2+ 'it>c1 2 'it>c3 b 1 lD+ ! 3 'it>d3 lb a3 4 l::ta 2 lbb1 1 with a d raw, but not 4 . . . lbb5? (in endings with knight against rook, the knight should not be separated from the king). A d raw also results from 1 . . . 'it>b1 2 'it>b3 'it>a 1 ! 3 l:txb2 - stalemate. But with a
12
�
How to Study the Endgame
bishop's pawn or a central pawn only the promotion to a knight saves Black. However, with a rook's pawn this idea no longer helps.
1 'it>b4(c4) a2 2 'it>b3 a 1 4J+ 3 'it>c3, and Black is in zugzwang. It is useful to note that if Black also had a pawn on b5, all the same this would not save him: 3 . . . b4+ 4 'it>xb4 4Jc2+ 5 'it>c3 tt:Je3 6 'it>d3 4Jd5 7 .Uh4 'it>b2 8 .Ud4, and the knight, which is separated from the king , is soon lost. 6 l:.h4! (instead of 6 �d3) wins even more quickly: 6 . . . �a2 (6 . . . 4Jd 1 + 7 'it>d2 4Jb2 8 .l:i.b4 'it>a2 9 �c2 'it>a 1 1 0 l:.b8 ; 6 . . . 4Jd5+ 7 �b3 'it>c 1 8 .l:!.c4+ �b 1 9 .Ud4) 7 .l:.a4+ �b 1 8 .Ue4 4Jf5 9 .Ue5 4Jd6 1 0 b3 c1 1 1 .i.:i.c5+ 'it>b 1 1 2 .Ud 5.
It is hopeless to play 1 . . . a2? 2 .l:.b8+ 'it>a3 3 'it>c2 ! a 1 4J+ 4 'itc3 'it>a2 5 .Ub7 with zugzwang. The only way to save the game is 1 ... 'it>b2! 2 .l:!. b8+ (2 .l:.h2+ 'it>b3 ! , but not 2 . . . 'it>b1 ? 3 'it>c3) 2 .. . 'it>c 1 ! 3 .l:ta8 'it>b2 4 'it>d2 a2 5 ktb8+ �a 1 ! . As you see, when learning new ideas one can sometimes repeat material that has been covered earlier (in this case - promo tion of the pawn to a knight). An i ntermediate check to gain a tempo
Stalemate We have already examined one very impor tant practical instance of stalemate . Here is another example (wh ich , incidentally, consti tutes one of the few 'exact' positions that it is useful to memorise). The diagram position a rose in the game Korchnoi-Kengis (Bern 1 996). Black re sig ned , after calculating the fol lowing forced variation .
tZJ
How to Study the Endgame
1 ...'it12 2 .l:tf8+! 2 'it>d3? g3 3 l::tf8+ 'it>e 1 ! leads to a d raw. 2... 'it>e2 3 l::tg 8! 'it>f3 Thanks to the intermediate check, the king has been driven one square back - from f2 to f3. 4 Wd3 g3 5 l:!.f8+ 'lt>g2 6 'lt>e2 etc.
13
1 . . . a5? does not work i n view of 2 .l:!.h5! - we already know this idea. But 1 . . . 'it>b5? is also bad : 2 W a5 3 'lt>e6 'it>c4 (3 . . . a4 4 'it>d5) 4 .l:ta8 ! 'lt>b4 5 'it>d5 a4 6 'it>d4 'lt>b3 7 'it>d3 a3 8 .l:tb8 + . The only saving move is 1 . . . '1t>c5! , preventing the approach of the enemy king to the pawn. Outflanking
'Shoulder-charge'
The ideas of 'shoulder-charge' and 'out flanking' are vividly expressed in a famous study by Richard Reti ( 1 928) .
1 l:!. h2+ 'lt>a3!
By not allowing the enemy king to approach the pawn , Black gains a d raw. It is i ncorrect to play 1 . . .'1t>b 1 ? 2 'lt>b3 a 1 lD+ 3 'lt>c3. Now let us examine a slightly more compli cated example.
1 l:td2(d3) 1 ! d 4 2 .l:i.d1 ! 'it> d 5 3 'it>d7 ! , and Black is i n zugzwang: if 3 ... '1t>c4 4 'lt>e6, or 3 . . .'1t>e4 4 'lt>c6. 1 .l:td 1 ? is a mistake : 1 . . . d4 2 'it>d7 (2 'lt>f7 'lt>e4 3 'it>e6 d3) 2 . . . '1t>d5! (Black prevents the outflanking) 3 �c7 'it>c5! (3 . . . '1t>c4? 4 'it>d6! d3 5 'it>e5) , and it is Wh ite who ends up in zugzwang . Let us now turn to positions in which a rook fights against two con nected passed pawns. Mate th reats to the opponent's king If the pawns a re far advanced (two black pawns on the 3rd rank, or one on the 2nd ran k and the other on the 4th ) , then the rook is unable to stop the m . However, sometimes
14
�
How to Study the Endgame
it is possible to save the game, by pursu ing the opponent's king when it is pinned to the edge of the board . B. Horwitz, J. Kling 1 85 1
In this position Herman Fridstein resig ned against Anatoly Luti kov ( Riga 1 954 ) . He considered the variation 1 �xb3 c2 2 l:.b4+ 'it>d5 3 .l:tb5+ 'it>d6 4 .U.b6+ �c7 , but did not notice the saving i ntermediate check 1 .U.b4+ ! . I should mention, i ncidentally, that d ifferent players can single out d ifferent ideas and ru les, depending on their experience and knowledge. I n the above example attention should be paid to the manoeuvre with which the black king escapes from the checks (after 1 l:.xb3? ) . But you can also disregard it, if this idea is a l ready wel l known to you . The best position for the rook i s beh i nd the more advanced pawn
1 �f5 �h4 2 'it>f4 �h3 3 �3 'it> h 2 4 'it>e3 ! 'it>g2
After 4 . . . �g3 5 l:tg 1 + �h4 6 Wf4 Wh3 7 'it>f3 bad is 7 . . . Wh2?? 8 l:.b1 , when Black loses because of zugzwang. 5 Wd3 Wf3 6 Wc3 a2 7 'it>xb2 (or 7 .S.f1 + ) with a draw. Intermediate check before the captu re of a pawn 1 .S.g6 ! Wd7 2 .S.g4! g2! 3 .S.xg2 'lte6 4 l:!.g5 ! , winning thanks t o the fact that the black king is cut off from the pawn along the 5th ra nk.
I n Maizel is's book he g ives a position by Sozi n , wh ich d iffers only in that the wh ite king is on a7. In this case after 1 l:.g6! Wd7 there is a second solution: 2 'it>b6 'it>e7 3 'it>c5 'it>f7 4 .S.g4 �f6 5 �d4 ! (5 .S.xf4+? 'it>g5 6 l:!.f8 'it>g4 7 �d4 g2) 5 . . . Wf5 6 .S.g8 and wins. But with the king on a8 the analogous variation no longer works: 1 l:.g6 ! Wd7 2 �b 7? rtie 7 3 rtic6 'it>f7 4 l:.g4 'it>f6 5 Wd5 'it>f5 6 .l:l.g8 f3 ! 7 Wd4 (7 l:.xg3 'it>f4 8 .l:tg8 f2 ; 7
ctJ
How to Study the Endgame
.l:!.f8+ Wg4 8 'it>e4 f2 9 'it>e3 �h3 with a d raw)
7 .. .f2 8 'it>e3 f1lt:l+ ! .
Which pawn to advance? Mar6czy - Tarrasch
15
Some of the ideas mentioned operate not only in endings of the g iven type. Thus, for example, the rook should be placed to the rea r of the more advanced pawn in nearly every case, when it is fighting against two con nected passed pawns.
San Sebastian 1 9 1 1 Alekh ine - Tartakower Vienna 1 922
There was a n easy win by 1 l:t x h 2 'it;xh2 2 'it>a6! (the i m med iate 1 'it;a6! is also possi ble) 2 �g3 3 b5 �f4 4 b6 'it>e5 5 b7 .l:tb1 6 Wa7 �d6 7 b8�+. Note the move 2 'it>a6 ! . Firstly, Wh ite advances the pawn behind wh ich the rook is not standing. Secondly, his remaining pawn is fu rther away from the enemy king, which does not manage to attack it. ...
2 a6? is a mistake in view of 2 . . . 'it;g3 3 'it;b6 Wf4 4 a7 'it;e5 5 �b7 'it>d5 6 b5 'it>c5 , when
the black king succeeds in ' locking on' to the b-pawn . Or 4 b5 'it>e5 5 'it>a7 'it>d6 6 b6 .l:!.b1 ! 7 'itb7 (7 b7 'i;;c ?) 7 . . . 'i;;c 5. The game went 1 'i;; c 6? �c1 + 2 'it>b6 �c4! (threatening the interference 3 ... .l:!.h4) 3 .l:!.xh2 l:txb4+ 4 'i;;c5 .l:!.a4 5 �b5 �xa5+ with a draw. It wou ld be possible to expa nd fu rther the store of typical ideas, but for a start it is sufficient to l i m it ou rselves to these, the ones most used .
Alexa nder Alekh ine analyses the natural conti nuations 36 'it>c2 , 36 �c4. 36 g5 and 36 l:th2, and shows that they a re sufficient for a d raw at best. There is only one way to win. 36 .ti.d5 ! ! Wh ite's fantastic move fi nds a precise explanation , from the standpoint of typical ideas for such endings. The variations springing from this rather unlikely move (it attacks one solidly de fended pawn and allows the immediate advance of the other) are quite simple when we have descried the basic idea: The black pawns are inoffensive: 1) When they occupy squares of the same colour as their bishop, for in that case White 's king can hold them back without difficulty, by occupying the appropriate white square, for example 36 . .f2 37 l:!.d1 e4 38 'it;c2 j)_f4 39 �f 1 and 40 'it>d1. .
16
w
How to Study the Endgame
2) When the rook can be posted behind them, but without loss of time, for example 36...e4 37 'af5 Ji..g3 38 g5 e3 39 'ii.xf3 e2 40 .U.e3 (Aiekh ine).
It makes sense to also examine endi ngs which are closely linked to those being stud ied . I n the given instance - sharp rook endings, transposing into endings with rook against pawns. In them we encou nter ideas with which we are already familiar. Alekh ine - Bogolj u bow World Championship Match , 1 9th Game, 1 929
This position could have occu rred i n the game Lapin - Utyatsky (Bryansk 1 965). 1 .
.
.
2 .l:i.c7+
'it>c2 'it>b2 ! !
Only this paradoxical move , suggested by Utyatsky, leads to a win. It i nvolves the idea of i nterference. For example, if 3 'it>g4 B lack decides matters with 3 . . . .l::t a 5! 4 .l::t c6 'it>a3! 5 .l:r.xg6 b2 6 :b6 l:ta4+ and 7 . . . l:tb4 . 3 .l::tc 6 4 .U.xg6
.l:i.a4! 'it>a3
4 . . . 'it>c3 or 4 . . . 'it>a2 is also not bad . 5 l:tb6 5 l:tf6 b2 6 l:tf1 l:Ic4 7 l:tb1 l:tc1 . 5. . . I n the game there followed 70 ... 'it>g4? 71 b7 f5 72 b8'ik l:Ixb8 73 l::t x b8 and White won easily by approach ing the pawn with his king . But Efim Bogoljubow could have saved the draw by employing the 'shoulder-charge' . 70 . . .
'it> e4!
b2
Threatening the interference 6 . . . .l::t b 4 . 6 l:txb2
'it>xb2
7 g4 8 'it>h4
'it>c3
9 'it>g5
'it> e5
1 0 h4
'it> e6
'it>d4
The black king must be placed in the path of the opponent's king.
And B lack wins easily.
Of cou rse , we will also meet new ideas which operate in sharp rook endings. The most important of them is inteference. We have already encountered it in the analysis of the Ma r6czy-Ta rrasch ending. Now we will examine a far more complicated exam ple.
Thanks to the threat of i nterference, B lack forced his opponent into hurrying to give up his rook for the pawn. In the event of the rou tine 2 . . . 'it>b1 ? , interference no longer occurs and White can wait until the pawn reaches b 1 . From there, incidental ly, it takes longer for the king to reach the opposite wing.
How to Study the Endgame
3 'it>g4 b2 (3 . . . �a5 4 �c6 b2 5 .l::tx g6 Wa2 6 J:(b6 with a d raw) 4 �g5 �a 1 (4 . . . .l::i. b 3 5 'it>xg6 or 5 g4) 5 �b7 b 1 'iV 6 �xb 1 + 'iti>xb 1 .
Thus we should build u p our theory of the endgame in the most econom ical way, by singling out the most generally u sed tech n iques and the most i mportant exact posi tions. How best to assimilate and consoli date this material is a nother matter. Here one cannot get by without a familiarity with additional examples, i ncluding complicated practical endings (such as the one we have just been analysin g ) . It is useful to try and solve a series of tra i n i ng exercises on the given topic. And above all, I recommend that you analyse i ndependently those endings which you happen to encounter. What does an i ndependent analysis of endgame positions g ive us?
Wh ite can now ach ieve a d raw i n various ways. It is useful to examine the resulting variations, since i n this way we will repeat and consolidate our knowledge of endings with rook against pawns. I n the analysis extreme care has to be taken - despite the apparent simplicity, here one can easily go wrong . 1 ) 7 'it>xg6 'it>c2 8 g4 'iti>d3 9 h4 'iti>e4 1 0 h5 h6 �a6+ 12 'iti>h5! with a d raw (shoulder-charge). It is amusing that Utyatsky suggests 1 2 'iti>g7? 'it>g5 1 3 h 7 .l:f.a 7 + 1 4 'it>g8 '.t>g6 1 5 h8tt:J+ 'it>f6 1 6 g5+ 'it>xg5 1 7 tt:Jf7 + , but we already know that, accord ing to theory, after 1 7 . . . 'it>f6 1 8 tt:'Jd6 .l::t a 5 (or 18 . . . We6) Black wins. 'it>f4 11
2) 7 Wxg6 'it>c2 8 h4 (in Utyatsky's opinion, this move loses) 8 . . . .l::t x g3+ 9 'it>f6 .l::i. h 3 1 0 'it>g5 Wd3 1 1 h5 'it>e4 1 2 h6 �e5 1 3 'iti>g6 '.t>e6 14 'it>g7! (but not 1 4 h 7? l:tg3+ 1 5 'it>h6 'it>f7 1 6 h8tt:J+ 'iti>f6 ) 14 . . . 'iti>e7 ( 1 4 . . . l:tg3+ 1 5 'it>f8!) 1 5 h7 l:tg3+ 1 6 'it>h8 ! , savi ng the game thanks to stalemate.
3) 7 g 4 Wc2 8 h4 .Ug3 9 'it>f4! .l::t h 3 1 0 'it>g5 '.t>d3 11 h5 gxh5 1 2 gxh5 'it>e4 1 3 h6 'it>e5 1 4 'lt>g6 'iti>e6 1 5 'it>g7! with a d raw, a s i n the previous variation .
1 ) We learn new ideas and methods, expa ndir;�g our system of knowledge, and we refine the i nformation we a l ready have. 2 ) After analysing a large amount of mate rial , we have a better u nderstanding of what featu res are typical and i mportant and should therefore be i ncluded i n the 'system' , and which are accidental i n character. As a result we form o u r endgame impressions most clea rly, economical ly, at the same time without om itting anyth ing i mporta nt. 3) It improves our analytical mastery. 4) At times some players gain the impres sion that they largely u nderstand the secrets of chess and that to fi nd the best move in the majority of cases is no problem . They only need not to blu nder, and to obta i n the open ings they want. Analysis helps to rid themselves of such ill usions, and shows what an enormous wealth of ideas is sometimes concealed in the seemingly most modest position. It guards against superficial ity, and aids the development of such important traits as precision, accu racy, industriousness, and so o n . 5) A n analysis o f you r own games enables deficiencies i n you r play to be objectively diagnosed .
18
�
How to Study the Endgame
6) Analysis sometimes leads to interesti ng results, afford ing creative pleasure . Once when I was looking through Chess lnformator, an ending annotated by one of my pupils, Alexey Dreev, caught my eye. Dreev - Moskalenko USSR Young Masters Championsh i p , Lvov 1 985
U nfortunately, this entire variation is a comedy of errors, at the basis of wh ich is Dreev's natura l , but in the g iven instance i ncorrect striving to defi n itely place his rook behind the opponent's passed pawn . After 9 g5 B lack saves the game by 9 . . . l:th 1 ! (the place for the black rook is to the rear of the more advanced pawn ) 1 0 g6 llh5+! (remember the Fridstei n-Lutikov ending), or 1 0 '1tg6 '1td7 1 1 '1th7 '1te6 1 2 g6 llg 1 ! (and this we have already seen in one of the variations of the Mar6czy-Tarrasch ending). Wh ite should not g ive up his rook. I n stead of 5 h5? he wins by 5 .l:te 1 ! a2 6 l:r. a 1 '1tc7 7 h5 '1td7 8 h6. But before this B l ack went wrong : he could have d rawn by 4 . . . a2! (instead of 4 . . .l:.a4? ) 5 l:ta3 l:.b5+ 6 '1tg6 l::l.a 5 7 :Xa2 .l:!.xa2 8 h5 '1tc6 . Even so, the ending is won . On ly, the rook should not be p laced on e3.
A draw resu lts from 1 l:!.e 1 ? a2 2 lla 1 '1td7 , or 1 .l:l.e3? .l:.b4+ 2 '1tf5 l:.a4 3 .l:.e 1 a2 4 h5 (4 .l:ta 1 'it>d7) 4 . . . a 1 'ii' 5 .l:txa 1 l:txa 1 . 1 l:te6+ ! The black king faces a choice . I n the game it moved towards the kingside, but by placing his rook beh ind the passed pawn Wh ite won easily: 1 . . . '1td7 2 lla6 a2 3 g5 '1te7 4 '1tg4 '1tf7 5 '1th5 llh2 6 .Ua7+ '1te6 7 '1tg6 l:tb2 8 h5 .l:tb8 9 h6 l:tg8+ 1 0 'it>h5 '1tf5 1 1 l:.a5+ B lack resig ned . '1tb5 1 . . . In lnformatorthe following analysis is given: 2lie5+ 1 ! '1tb6 (2 ... 'it>b4 3 l:te8 '1tb5 4 J:tb8+ ! and 5 .U.a8) 3 .l:te3 ! (all the exclamation marks are by the annotator) 3 ... .l:!.b4+ 4 c;tf5 l:.a4 5 h5 a2 6 l:Ie1 a 1 'ili' 7 .l:txa 1 l:.xa 1 8 h6 '1tc7 9 g51 '1td7 (9 . . . lih 1 1 0 g6! l:txh6 1 1 g7 l:lh5+ 12 c;tf4 lih4+ 1 3 'it>f3 l:.h3+ 14 'it>g2 ) 1 0 h7l::!. h 1 1 1 g 6 a n d wins.
2 l:te1 !
a2
3 .l:.a1
'1tc6
4 h5
'1td6
5 h6
lih2
5 .. .'.ti>e6 6 h7 .l:.b8 7 llxa2 '1tf6 8 l:.h2 llh8 9 l:Ih6+ '1tg7 1 0 '1tg5 . 6 '1tg5(f5) Also possible is 6 h7 l:txh7 7 :Xa2 .l:th8!? 8 l:.a4! or 8 l:ta6 ! followed by 9 'i.t>g5, but not 8 g5? '1te6 and not 8 l:te2? lif8+ 9 '1tg3 l:tg8 with a d raw. 6 . . .
'1te7
7 '1tg6 7 h7 is also strong . 7 . . .
'1tf8
8 h7 And Wh ite wins. It remains to analyse the rook check at e5, which i n fact deserves not two exclamation marks, but more probably one q uestion. mark. Let us verify 2 :e5+?! '1tb4 ! ? .
l2:J
How to Study the Endgame
If 3 J:le8? Black plays not 3 . . . 'it>b5? , but 3 ... a2 ! . Then 4 l:ta8 .l:!.c2 ! with the threat of 5 . . . l:lc4+ , 6 .. Jk5(c3)+ and 7 . . J:ta5(a3) leads to an immed iate draw. And if 4 l:tb8+, then 4...Wc4 (or 4 . . . 'it>c3) 5 l:ta8 l:tb4! (threaten ing interference: . . . '.tb3+ and . . . .l:ta4) 6 �a2 '.tb3+ 7 '.t>f5 'it>xa2 8 h5 .l:!.b5+! (the king must be driven to the u nfortu nate h4square - this is not difficult to ach ieve, using the rook's long range) 9 �g6 l:!.b6+ 1 0 �g5 l:lb5+ 11 Wh4 l:i.b 1 ! (and now the rook moves to the rear of the pawns) 12 h6 ( 1 2 g5 'it>b3 13 g6 l:tg 1 ! ) 12 ... .l:!.h 1 + 1 3 'it>g5 'it>b3 1 4 'it>g6 'lt>c4 1 5 g5 �d5 1 6 'lt>h 7 'it>e6 1 7 g6 J:lg 1 ! with a draw. After 2 J:le5+?! 'it>b4!? all the same the rook has to be retu rned to the first ra nk. But then it is clear that the check was poi ntless White is forced to calculate the lengthy variation 3 .l:te 1 a2 4 .l:ta 1 'it>b3 5 h5 l:!.b1 6 l::!.x a2 '.txa2. Now it is incorrect to play 7 h6? J:lh 1 8 g5 '.tb3 with a d raw. B ut as yet the win has not been missed : 7 g5! .l:th 1 8 g6! or 7 .. J:tf1 + 8 'lt>g4! (8 'it>e5? l:th1 ! ) 8 . . . 'it>b3 9 g6. In 1 976 the USSR Championship was held in Moscow. I n the very fi rst round my friend Boris Gulko adjourned his game against grandmaster Tai manov in a complicated rook end ing. Before the resumption h e asked m e to join in the analysis. In order to figure out precisely some very intricate variations, we had to turn to the theory of the rook endgame with f- and h pawns. The elementary information a bout these endings, wh ich was given above, was not sufficient for us. However, the necessary positions could not even be found i n books on the endgame, so that we had to sup p lement 'official' theory with our own analyses. Here is a very important key position that we found (see diagram). White's king is cut off on the back rank. Does th is mean that he is bound to lose? It turns
19
out that the answer is no. After a l l , the black king too is not well placed - it is cut off on the h-file. 1 'lt>g1 ! h4 2 l:tg8 f3 3 llf8 'lt>g3 (or 3 . . . l:i.g2+ 4 'it>f1 'lt>g3 5 l:tg8+ 'lt>h2 6 l:If8 ) 4 l:tg8+ 'it>f4 5 l:tf8+ 'lt>e3 6 l:te8+ 'it>d3 7 l:td8+ 'it>e2 8 l:te8+ 'it>d 1 9 l:tf8(e3) with a d raw. However, if it is Black to move he wins, by depriving the enemy king of the i m porta nt g 1 -square. 1 . . . Wh2! 2 l:!.g8 ( i n the event of 2 l:!.f7 or 2 J:th7 Black wins by 2 . . . �g3 ) 2 . . . h4 3 l:!.g7 (3 .l:tg4 h3 4 l:txf4 'lt>g3 5 .Uf8 .l:t b 1 + 6 �e2 h 2 ) 3 . . . h3 4 l:tg8 f 3 ( o r 4 . . . l:tg2 ) and wins. Taimanov - G u l ko 44th U S S R C h a mpionsh ip, Moscow 1 976
20
� 42 . . .
How to Study the Endgame
'it>e3
The sealed move. 43 l:ie2+
'it>xf3
44 gxhS
gxhS
45 l:ie5
�g4
Weaker is 45 . . ..l:txb2 46 ltxh5! 'it>e4 47 �h8, and Wh ite should gain a d raw. 46 l:txd5
�xb2
47 'it>e1 After 4 7 .Ud4+ 'lt>g3 48 'lt>e 1 f5 49 l:id5 f4 50 �g5+ (50 l:ixh5 .Ub 1 + 5 1 'it>d2 f3) Black does not play 50 . . . 'it>f3? 5 1 l:ixh5, but simply 50 . . . Wxh4 ! 5 1 �g8 'lt>h3 52 'it>f1 �h2 ! , achieving a winning position, since h i s king succeeds i n reach ing h2. But now we have reached the cu l m i n ation of the entire endgame.
48 .Ud7? We assu med that 48 .Uf5 also did not help in view of 48 . . . �b7 49 'it>f1 (49 'it>f2 'it>g4 50 l:tf6 h4) 49 . . . 'itog4 50 ltf2 .l:!.b 1 + ! 5 1 'it>g2 f5 . To prevent the king from being pushed onto the back rank, the wh ite rook must guard the 2nd rank, where it is too passively placed . Black wins easily, by advancing his pawns. Alas, a mistake crept i nto our a nalysis. By conti n u ing 49 .Ua5! (instead of the losing king moves) Wh ite exploits the long-range power of his rook and d raws by d riving the opponent's king to a less good position: 49 ... 'it>g4 50 �a4+! 'it>g3 5 1 lta3+ 'it>g2 52 �a2+ 'itg 1 53 'ite2 ! (now i n a n u mber of variations it becomes possible to shut the king on the edge of the board after playing the rook to the g-file) 53 . . . '1t>g2 54 'ite 1 + ! . 48 . . .
The natural move 47 .. .f5? is a m istake. After 48 Wf1 .Uh2 49 �g 1 .Uxh4 50 �g2 f4 51 l:id3 a ' normal' (i.e. drawn ) position with f- and h pawns is reached , and with the black rook bad ly placed . If 48 .. .f4 there follows 49 �g5+ 'it>xh4 50 l:ig8 'it>h3 51 'it>g 1 with a draw, si nce the wh ite king has reached g 1 . And if 49 . . . �3 (instead of 49 . . . 'it>xh4) , then 50 �g 1 l:ib1 + 5 1 'it>h2 'it>f2 52 �xh5 f3 53 lta5 'it>f1 54 �g3 f2 55 .Ua2 �b3+ 56 �g4 , and White gives up his rook for the f-pawn . 47 . . .
'itoxh4!
f6!
We thought that this subtle move was the only correct one, since i n the event of 48 . . . f5 49 .Ug7 'itoh3 50 'it>f1 the wh ite king succeeds i n reach ing g1 (50 . . . 'ith2 does not work i n view o f 5 1 .Ug5). B u t here too w e were wrong! After 50 . . . h4! 51 �g 1 Black has the winning resou rce 51 . . . .Ub4 ! , which he did not have i n our basic position - there the pawn was a l ready sta n d i ng at f4 . 51 .Ug8 'it>h2! is hopeless, as is 51 �g5 f4 52 'it>g 1 f3 52 l:if5 'it>g4 (the rook is placed too close to the king and is u n able to give checks) . A good illustration of how carefully and cautiously one should use theoretical knowledge: a slight change in the position , and wel l known procedu res and eval uations may prove invalid . 49 �1 49 .Ug7 does not help in view of 49 . . . �b5! 50 �f2.l':lf5+ 5 1 'it>e3 ( 5 1 'it>g2 l:ig5+) 51 . . . 'it>h3 with a n easy win. Black simply adva nces his king and his h-paw n , and then blocks the g fi le with his rook, and the wh ite king proves to be too far away from the rook's pawn. 49 . . .
'it>g4
How to Study the Endgame
White's position is hopeless, since his king is cut off on the first rank, and he has been unable to shut in the opponent's king on the h-file. 50 .Ug7+
g1
h4
57 .Ug7
'it'e4
58 .Ua7
'it>f3
59 .Ua3+
�g4
We h ave already met this position , when we were discussing the basic ideas of endings with f- and h-pawns. 60 .Ua8
'lt>g3
61 .Ug8+
�f3
62 .l:!.h8
.Ub1 +
63 'it>h2
�f2
64 .Uxh4
f3
65 .Ua4
�f1
Wh ite resigned . After 66 Wg3 f2 67 l::!.a 2 .l:!.b3+ 68 �h2 G u l ko wanted to win in the q u i ckest way 68 . . . .Uf3!. The 'scientific' 68 . . . .U.e3 69 .Ub2 .Ue8 70 .l:!.b1 + �e2 71 .l:!.b2+ �f3 72 .l:!.b3+ .l:!.e3 73 .l:!.b1 .U.e 1 is also good , only not 69 . . . �e 1 ?? (instead of 69 . . . lle8 ! ) , as Jose Raul Capablanca once played in a similar position . After 70 llb1 + �e2 his opponent Vera Menchik could have d rawn with the obvious 71 'it>g2 ! . But there followed 7 1 .Ub2+?? g5 51 �d3 ( 5 1 l:!.d8 is also possible) 51 .. Jbb2 52 'it>e3 h4 53 �f3 h3 54 .l:!.g4+? The only way to d raw is 54 .l:!.d5+! f5 55 l:td8 h2 56 .l:!.g8 + ! �f6 57 l:!.h8, or 54 . . . 'it>g6 55 'it'g4 ! h2 56 .l:!.g5+ �f6 57 l:!.h5 'it>e6 58 'it>f4 . 54 . . . 'it>f5 55 llf4+ 'iii e 6 55 . . . �g6! wins: 56 f5 .l:!.b5+. 56 .U.h4 h2? (Black should go back with his king: 56 . . . �f5) 57 11h6+? (57 .U.h5! is essenti a l , a i m i ng to provoke . . . f7-f5 in a situation where the black king has not yet occupied the e5-sq uare) 57 . . . 'it'e5 58 .Uh8 .l:!.c2 59 .Uh4 (the threat was . . . 'it'e5-d4-c3b2-c1 etc . ) 59 .. .f5 60 'iit g 3
22
�
How to Study the Endgame
The move that suggests itself, 60 .. .f4+?, does not win : 6 1 �f3 l:c3+ 62 �g2 �e4 63 �xh2 (63 l:th8 ! ) 63 . . . l:!.c2+ 64 �h3! (64 'it>g 1 ? �e3 65 l:.h8 l:.c1 + 66 c;t>h2 f3 67 l:.e8+ �2 68 l:ta8 c;t>f1 ) 64 . . . �f3 65 l:th8 .l:.c7 66 l1h6 (66 �h2? 'it>f2 ) 66 . . . l:te7 67 l:.h8 'it>f2 68 l:ta8! f3 69 l:.a2+ l::te 2 70 l:ta 1 (or 70 .Ua8 'it11 7 1 �g3 f2 72 �f3 ! �g 1 73 lig8+) with a draw.
69 �g4
�f1
70 �g3
�g1
The king has a rrived just in time! Th i rty years later I d iscovered the possibility of a more tenacious defence. I n stead of 66 l:th8 it makes sense to play 66 l:td 1 !? .
Let us imagine that it is Wh ite's tu rn to move . He will be forced to play 6 1 .l:!.h8 (6 1 �f3 is not possible on account of 61 . . . .l:tc1 ! 62 l:!.xh2 l:tc3+ ), and the black king can ad vance, bypassing its rook, in order to approach the h-pawn along the first rank. Note that it is the c2-sq uare that the black rook should occu py. If it is on d2 or e2 , the white rook is no longer obl iged to leave the 4th rank (there is the move 'it>f3 ! ) . With the rook on b2 the king's route via the q ueenside around its rook becomes too long . I n other words, the position is one of mutual zugzwang. Wh ite must be given the tu rn to move . 60 . . .
l:td2
61 c;t>t3
l:ta2
61 . . . l:td 1 ? 62 l:.xh2 l:td3+ 63 �e2 . 62 c;t>g3
l:tc2 ! !
63 l:th8 63 �3 l:tc 1 ! . 63 . . .
�e4
64 l:te8+
�d3
65l:ld8+ 65 l:th8 l:!.e2 ! , intending 66 . . . �d2 . 65 . . .
�c3
66l:lh8 66 l:tc8+ �d2 or 66 . . . 'it>b2 66 . . .
.l:te2!
In the event of 66 . . . �b2? 67 �f4 �c 1 68 c;t>xf5 �d 1 69 c;t>g4 the black king is too late. 67 'it>f4
'it>d2
68 'it>xf5
�e1
To win, it is sufficient for Black to return with his king to the f-pawn while the enemy rook is tied to the 1 st rank. But how to ach ieve this? If 66 . . . c;t>c4 the opponent repl ies 67 .U.a 1 (67 l:tf1 .l:!.d2 ; 67 'it>f4 l:tf2+ 68 �g 3 l:td2 ), after which it is pointless to play 67 . . . 'it>d5 68 l:a5+ c;t>e6 (68 . . . �e4 69 %1a4+ �e5 70 .l:!.h4) 69 .l:.a6+ �e5 70 l:lh6 (intending 71 .l:.h4) 70 . . . �e4 71 .l:.e6+ �d3 72 .l:td6+ �c3 73 .l:td 1 !, a n d so on . Before bringing the king back, it is important to place the rook on d2. Then the ma noeu vre of the wh ite rook to h6 (by analogy with the variations just considered ) loses its strength - Black again advances his king , and the wh ite rook ca n no longer reach d 1 . The most accu rate is 67 . . . l:ta21 (not i m medi ately 67 . . . l:td2 68 l:ta4+ �d5?! 69 l:th4, and it is necessary to sta rt all over aga i n ) 68 l:tb1 lld2 69 �3 (69 l:ta 1 �d5) 69 ... �d5 (th reatening . . . 'it>e5-f6-g5 ) 70 l:tb5+ �e6 7 1 lib6+ �e5 72 .l:r.h6 c;t>d4 73 .l:ld6+ �c3 7 4 lic6+ �b2 75 .l:!.h6 �c1 , and Black wins.
ttJ
How to Study the Endgame
Now let us again remember the ending with which we beg a n : Gl igoric-Smyslov. In the note to Wh ite's 3rd move the variation 3 h6 J:la1 ! was analysed .
23
.Ud 1 + 1 0 'itc6 .Uh 1 ! . With the king on f6 Wh ite does not have the i mporta nt move 1 1 .Ue 7 , and i n the event of 1 1 l::td 7 (or 1 1 'it>b 7) 1 1 . . .'itf5 the black king succeeds, after elimi nating the f4-paw n , in retu rning to g6 in ti me. I I . I M P ROVI N G YO U R TEC H N I Q U E
However, we did not consider the attempt, by playing 4 l:!.g7+ �f6 (the retreat to the 8th rank is hopeless, of cou rse) 5 l:!.c7 , to reach the position which we have just been d is cussing . Knowing of the impending danger, Black can avoid it without great d ifficulty the defensive resources are q uite sufficient.
I w i l l now talk about how you c a n improve you r tec h n i cal mastery. For this you need to study problems which a re common to a l l (or to many) types of endings. Problems, such as the enhanced role of the king in the endgame, zugzwa ng (and a very importa nt specific instance of it - mutual zugzwang, and correspond ing sq uares), the advisabil ity of this or that exchange, and so on. It is especially i mportant to sense the spirit of the endgame, to develop the optimal mood for playing it, and to understa nd the psychologi cal chess laws which apply here. All this is best studied by analysing practical endings, played by g reat masters of the endgame. As an example, let us look at a game by gra n d master Ulf Andersso n .
5 . . . 'it'g6
Andersson - Franco
5 .. J::tg 1 + 6 �f3 l::t h 1 is also good .
Buenos Aires 1 979
6 h7 .l:i.h 1 !
But here it is wrong to interpose a check: 6 . . . l::tg 1 +? 7 'it>f3 l':Lh 1 8 'it>e4 . 7 'it'f3 Noth ing is g iven by 7 f5+ 'itf6 . I n reply to the waiting move 7 l':Lb7 Black can also wait: 7 . . .l::th 2, not fearing 8 l::t b 5 'it>g7 ! 9 l:tg5+ �h8! . Also good is 7 . . . l:tg 1 + 8 'it>f3 .Uh 1 9 'it'e4 l:i.e 1 + , since with the rook on b 7, as we know, the king's route to outflank the rook is too long : 1 0 �d5 .Ud 1 + 1 1 'it>c6 l:tc1 + ! 1 2 �b6 l:i. h 1 with a d raw.
English Opening
1 tDf3
tDf6
2 c4
g6
3 lDc3
d5
4 cxd5
tDxd5
5 e4
lDxc3
6 dxc3 Andersson likes and knows how to play the endgame, and so already in the open ing he happily exchanges the queens. 6 . . .
'i!t'xd 1 +
7 . . .�5!
7 'it>xd 1
f6
The simplest way of demonstrating that the position is d rawn . B ut Black also does not lose after 7 . . . 'it>f6 ! ? 8 'it>e4 l:te 1 + 9 'it>d5
8 i£.e3
e5
9 tDd2 9 i£.c4 ! ? .
24
�
How to Study the Endgame
9. . .
i.e6
1 3lt:Ja5!
0-0-0+
1 0 i.c4
i.xc4
14 'itc2
i.e7
1 0 . . . 'it>f7 looks more logica l , but here too after 1 1 '>t>c2 lt:Jd7 1 2 b4 Black experiences certa in difficu lties: 1 2 . . . lt:Jb6 1 3 i.b3 or 12 . . . h5 1 3 g3, intending 14 f4 . 1 1 lt:Jxc4
lt:Jd7
Now if 1 4 . . . h5 Wh ite would have repl ied 1 5 .l::i. h d 1 .l:ixd 1 ( 1 5 . . . i.e7) 1 6 .l:ixd 1 i.h6? 1 7 i.xh6 .l::i.x h6 1 8 c4 .l::i. h 7 1 9 c5 lt:Jd7 20 c6 with advantage. Even so, 1 4 . . . h5 was a useful move - the exchange of rooks would have eased Black's defence. 1 5 a3! Andersson prepares an offensive on the queenside with c3-c4-c5 . This positional th reat provokes the opponent into d u bious activity. 15 . . .
f5? !
1 2 b4! I n the endgame one should carefu lly watch for the opponent's ideas and if possible frustrate his plans. Here Black wanted to equalise the game completely with 1 2 . . . i.c5. 12 . . .
lt:Jb6?!
An inaccuracy! The only defect of Black's position is that his bishop is more passive than the opponent's. He should have tried to exchange it, by playing 1 2 . . . h5!? followed by . . . i.h6. The game Andersson-Mestel (Hast ings 1 978/79) continued 1 3 f3 i.h6 1 4 i.f2 lt:Jb6 1 5 i.xb6! ( 1 5 lt:Ja5? 0-0-0+ ) 1 5 . . . axb6 1 6 b5 'it>e7! (in the endgame the king is best placed in the centre of the board - therefore Black avoids queenside castl ing) 1 7 a4 l:thd8+ 1 8 '>tc2 'it>e6 , and Jonathan Mestel managed to retain the balance. Wh ite acted more d i rectly in the game Log inov-Sideif Zade (Aktyu binsk 1 985 ): 1 3 'it>c2 i.h6 1 4 i.xh6 .Uxh6 1 5 .l:thd 1 0-0-0 1 6 lt:Ja5 l:thh8 1 7 l1d3, and retained slightly the better chances. 1 2 . . . f5!? came into consideration .
1 6 i.xb6! ! The 'automatic' 1 7 f3 wou ld have allowed the opponent to gain cou nter-cha nces , by attacking the e4-pawn ( . . . lt:Jb6-d7-f6). An dersson makes a timely correction to his plan. A move earlier the exchange of minor pieces would not have g iven anyth i n g : 1 5 i.xb6?! axb6 1 6 lt:Jc4 b5, but now the e5pawn comes under attack. 16 . . .
axb6
1 7lt:Jc4
i.f6?
Black defends too passively. He should have thought about 1 7 . . . .l::i. h f8 ! . If 1 8 l:tae 1 , then 1 8 . . . b5! 1 9 lt:Jxe5 fxe4 20 .l:hf1 i.g5. After 1 8 exf5 l:lxf5 1 9 f3 Black has a choice
lLJ
How to Study the Endgame
25
between the i nteresting, althoug h q uestion able piece sacrifice 1 9 . . . e4? ! 20 .l:.he1 exf3 21 I:!.xe7 fxg2 22 I:!.g 1 .l:tf2+ 23 'itb3 b5 24 ttJe5 h5! (with the idea of 25 . . . c6 and 26 . .l:i.dd2 ) and the q u ieter conti nuation 19 i.g5!? (th reatening 20 . . . e4 or 20 . . . b5) 20 l:the 1 b5 21 tt:Je3 i.xe3 with a n inferior, but tenable double-rook ending (2 1 . . . .l:.ff8 , intending 22 . . . e4 , also comes i nto consid eration ). Little is changed by 1 9 .l:.hf1 i.g5 (weaker is 1 9 . . . .l:.df8 20 f3 e4 21 I:!.fe 1 .l:i.g5 22 g4! .l:i.xf3 23 .l:.xe4 .ltf6 24 ki.d 1 ! with the threats of 25 .l:!.e8+ and 25 h4) 20 .l:!.ae 1 b5. . .
. . .
As was pointed out by Maxim Notki n , a similar double-rook ending a rises after 1 7 . . .fxe4 ! ? 1 8 l1ae 1 .l:f.hf8 1 9 .Uhf1 .1L.h4 ! ? 20 g 3 .ig5 21 llxe4 (2 1 a4 ! ? ) 21 . . . b5! 22 tt:Je3 .be3 23 .l:!.xe3. 18 a4! Wh ite not only consolidates the position of his knight at c4 , but also beg ins a n offensive on the queenside. 1 8 b5 was less accu rate on account of 1 8 . . . fxe4 and 1 9 . . . 11d5. 18 . . .
.1L.g7
19 .l:!.he1
.l:.he8
20 b5! 20 a5? b5 was less good . The target (the b6pawn ) should be fixed , and only then attacked . 20 . . .
f4
21 aS
bxa5
22 .Uxa5
b6
23 .l:.a7 Threatening 24 tt:Jxb6+. .ltf6
24 .l:!.ea1
.l:!.e6
25 .l:!.1 a6!
.1L.d8?!
It was this that Andersson was waiting for! 27 I:l.a8+
'it>d7
28 .l:.a2 !
Creati ng the strong th reat of 26 tt:Ja5 and 27 tt'lc6 . .l:f.de8 (see diagram)
26 �b3! This u n h u rried manner of play is typical of Andersson . J ust in case he improves the position of his king and awaits a conven ient moment for the fu rther strengthen ing of his position. This is the way to convert an advantage in the endgame - by doing everything possible to restrict the oppo nent's possibil ities, and then, without hu rry ing, look for new breaches in his defences. To many the rule 'do not hurry' may seem paradoxical, but in fact it is seen in practi cally all the endings of games by the great masters of the endgame. Look carefully at the endings of Capablanca and Flohr, and you will see with what slowness, sometimes bordering on tedium, they convert an advan tage (Sergey Belavenets). 26 . . .
23 . . .
25 . . .
With his active play on the a-fi le Wh ite has tied down the opponent's forces and forced his rooks to move off the open file.
A convenient moment has arrived for a reg rouping of the forces : exploiting the poor position of the bishop on d8, Wh ite seizes control of the d-file. But Alisa Galliamova's suggestion 28 ll6a 7 ! , with the idea of 29
26
w
How to Study the Endgame
l:tb8 and 30 tLlxb6+, was possibly even stronger.
39 . . .
ii.g7
40 f3
.l:tb8
28 . . .
ii.f6
41 tLle6
ii.f6
29 .Ud2+
ci;e7
42.l:lc6
30 l:ta7 ! Of cou rse , there is no point in Wh ite exchanging his active rook for the oppo nent's passive rook. 30 . . .
llc8
31 l:.d5 32 h3 In such positions Andersson loves to make waiting moves. 32 . . .
ci;e7
33 tLlb2! The knight has done an excellent job at c4 , and now it moves to d3, from where it will support the advance of the c-pawn, and from where it can itself advance fu rther via b4. Note that Wh ite did not play this a move earlier, since he was afraid of the reply 32 . . . c6 - he waited u ntil the opponent's king had gone to e7. 33 . . . 'it>e8 33 . . . .l:!.d6 was more tenacious, after wh ich it was best to reply 34 J::[xd6 ! �xd6 35 c4 , intending 36 tLld3, 37 c5+ and 38 �c4 . ii.g7 3 4 tLld3
Black resigned , since 42 . . . l:!.b7 43 .l:td8+ leads to mate, while if 42 . . . l:tc8 , then 43 b6 is decisive. A classic example of virtuoso endgame play! The study of such endings assists the development of taste for the endgame and improves tech n ical mastery. From the methodological point of view it is usefu l to see the same problems d isplayed in a negative form - by exa m i n i ng exam ples in wh ich typical endgame m i stakes a re made. The fol lowing game was played on the women's board i n a com petition for Moscow higher education establishments i n 1 972/73. Sicilian Defence
1 e4 c5 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tLlxd4 tLlf6 5 tLlc3 e6 6 tLldb5 ii.b4 7 tLld6+?! ci;e7 ! 8 ii.f4? ! e5! 9 tLlf5+ 'it>f8 1 0 ii.g5 d5! 1 1 ii.xf6 gxf6?! ( 1 1 . . . 1ixf6! suggests itself) 1 2 exd5 i.xf5 1 3 dxc6 ii.xc3+ 14 bxc3 'ii'x d 1 + 1 5 .l:.xd 1 bxc6 1 6 ..1d3 ( 1 6 l:.d6 ! ? )
34 . . . c6 35 l:.dd7! cxb5 36 tLlb4 . 35 c4
i.f6
36 c5
bxc5
37 tLlxc5
.l:.e7
37 . . . .l:r.b6 38 tLld7 ! . 38 I:r.a6 ! Systematic play! With gain of tempo Wh ite gains control of the 6th ran k - he prevents . . . c7-c6 and obtains the e6-square for his knight. 38 . . .
ii.h8
39 ci;c4! Agai n , just in case , Andersson improves the position of his king .
16 . . .
e4?
QJ
How to Study the Endgame
After achieving the better endgame. Black immediately makes a positional mistake she places a pawn on a sq uare of the same colour as her bishop. 1 6 . . . .ie6 1 7 .ie4 �e7 18 i.xc6 .l:tac8 1 9 .ie4 l:txc3 suggests itself. 1 7 �c4
.l:!.g8?
Again a fu ndamental mistake - the player with Black does not pay attention to her opponent's possibil ities. Of cou rse, 1 7 . . .'ite7 followed by 1 8 . . . .ie6 was correct.
28 'it>xd2
rtle7
29 'ite3
f5
30 'itd4
'itd6
31 c4
f6
32 c5+
'itc6
33 .id5+
�c7
34 'itc4
h6
35 'itd4
�h5
36 'it>e3
'itd7
1 8 l:td6!
�e7
37 h 3
�e7
19 .l:txc6
.l:i.gc8
38 'itf4
.ig6
20 l:txc8
.l:i.xc8
21 .ib3
.l:i.xc3
22 rtld2
.Uc8
23 l:te1
.ti.g8
24 g3
l:td8+
25 'itc3
27
39 g4 A slight inaccu racy. In accorda nce with the principle 'do not h u rry ' , before changing the pattern of the play Wh ite should have strengthened her position to the maxi m u m . I n t h e g iven position - b y movi ng t h e a2pawn off a light square (a square of the same colour as the bishop). Perhaps after 39 a3! Wh ite was concerned about the reply 39 . . . h5. But after this Black, with nearly all her pawns on squares of the colour of her bishop, would undoubted ly be lost. 39 . . .
fxg4
40 hxg4
h5!
When defending an inferior endgame it is usefu l to exchange as many pawns as possible. 41 gxh5
The advantage is now with White, who is th reatening 26 f3 . 25 . . .
�f8?
Moving the king away from the centre in the endgame is nearly always a mistake . 25 . . . �g6 26 f3 f5 was preferable. 26 Ite2
.ig6
27 �d2
l:txd2?
An incorrect evaluation . The bishop end game is lost. 27 . . .Itc8+ was more tenacious.
With the pawn on a3 Wh ite would have played 41 .ixe4 .if? 42 g5! , elimi nating the f6-pawn, wh ich hinders the wh ite king. 41 . . .
�xh5
42 'it>xe4
�g4
43 'it>f4
.ih3
44 .ie4
SL.e6
45 a3
.id7?
After 45 . . . .ic8 it was stil l possible to put up a ten acious defence . The move i n the game loses i m mediately. 46 c6!
�e8
28
�
How to Study the Endgame
Otherwise 47 �f5 . 47 c7
'>t>d7
48 �c6+ ! Black resig ned . A player's endgame tech nique is based on a mastery of the whole arsenal of ideas he has accu mulated - from u nderstanding the spirit of the endgame and its most general laws, to minor tech niques which he encounters when studying his own or other players' games. To illustrate this, I will acquaint you with one ending of my own , broken up into elementary components . First we will examine fou r ' i ntermed iate prod ucts', which , incidentally, a re q u ite instructive in themselves . 1 ) It is wel l known that in the endgame the role of logical thinking increases . One must be able to compile plans, outl ine a scheme for arranging the pieces, and so on. A classic example is provided by the following ending. Capablanca - Ragozin Moscow 1 936
c-pawn (after which the b-pawn could become weak) and to control the entire board up to the fifth rank. This is achieved by moving the king to e3 and by placing the rook at c3, the knight at d4, and the pawns at b4 and f4. A fter he has attained such a position, White will be able to advance his queenside pawns.
The following moves a re easy to understa nd - Capablanca consistently carries out his pla n . 33 ttJd4
.l:tb7
34 b4
�d7
35 f4
�e7
36 �f2
.l:ta7
37 .l:tc3
�d6
38 .l:td3
'>t>e7
39 '>t>e3
.l:ta4
40 .l;tc3
'it>d6
41 ti.d3
'>t>e7
42 ti.c3
�d6
The req u i red a rrangement of the pieces has been ach ieved . Now Capablanca wants to regroup his forces, by playing h i s knight to c3 (or c5 ). 43 ttJe2
g6
44 .l:td3+
�e6
45 �d4? In win n i ng positions even highly experi enced players someti mes involu nta rily relax and make tactical oversights, riski ng losing the fru its of their correct strategy. That is the case here : Wh ite's last move is a serious inaccuracy (45 f5+ ! gxf5 46 ttJf4+ or 46 . . . 'it>e7 46 ttJc3 ! was correct), which cou l d have been exploited by 45 . . . �b5 ! . I n the event of 46 .l:te3+ �d6 Black creates the th reat of 47 . . . c5+ , while after 46 ttJc3 �xd3 47 ttJxa4 �f1 he regains his pawn. This is what Jose Raul Capablanca writes about this position :
45 . . .
.l:ta6?
46 .l:te3+
�d6
White 's plan is to prevent the advance of the
47 ttJc3
.Qj
How to Study the Endgame
The queenside pawns a re now ready to advance. I n passing 48 4Je4+ is threatened .
54 .Ud6+
'it>b7
55 fxg5
hxg5
47 . . .
f5
56 .ll g 6
l:i.f8
48 b5
It aS
57 l::i. x g5
f4
48 . .ll x a3 49 4Je4+ fxe4 50 .ll x a3 SLxb5 5 1
58 4Jd4
:l.c8
.l::i.g 3 .
59 .ll g 7+
�b6
. .
49 'it>c4
i.e6+
50 'it>b4
c5+
51 bxc6
i.g8
52 4Jb5+
'itxc6
60 l:tg6+
'itb7
61 lLlb5
.U.f8
62 4Jd6+
'it>b8
29
63 h4 Black resig ned . 2 ) You will have noticed, of cou rse , that when playing the endgame Capablanca twice repeated moves. Here is what Sergey Belavenets writes about this:
53 .U.d3! Take note : Wh ite does not advance his passed pawn , but switches to a n attack on the enemy kingside pawns. This is fu lly in the spirit of an importa nt principle in the conversion of a n adva ntage - the 'principle of two weaknesses' . After creating a second weakness in the opponent's position , by playing against it and then , in case of necessity, again switching the attack to the first weakness, you convert you r adva ntage i n the most methodical way. I n the broad sense of the word , a wea kness i n the opponent's position can be not only a vulnerable pawn or a badly placed piece, but also our own passed pawn, which he is forced to blockade, o r a n invasion square , which he has t o cover. 53
.
.
•
g5
The repetition of moves in the endgame plays an important role. Disregarding the fact that it gains time for thinking, it can be mentioned that, by repeating moves, the active side acquires certain psychological gains. The defender, whose position is inferior, often cannot withstand it, and he creates a further weakening which eases his opponent 's task. In addition, repeating moves enables the position to be clarified to the maximum extent. We know that some upholders of 'pure ' chess will severely criticise us for this advice. But we cannot refrain from advising players: sometimes repeat moves in the endgame. In the struggle every chance has to be exploited, and there is nothing ugly or unethical in repeating moves.
3) Let us exa m i n e an exa mple from one of my own games. (see diagram)
Wh ite has a n obvious advantage, but for the moment the invasion poi nts a re secu rely defended .
30
�
How to Study the Endgame
Dvoretsky - Kikiani Kiev 1 970
noeuvring, the opponent does not know what he should fea r i n the fi rst instance . Kikiani decided t o prevent f3-f4 , which in fact was hardly a threat, since it wou ld have weakened the e4-pawn . 41 . . .
g5?
42 tt'lbc5! There will no longer be a more convenient moment for the plan ned i nvasion at c5: the black rook is not defending the b7-pawn, and the bishop is stuck at d 8 .
35 . . .
i.d8
I did not even beg in to examine 36 tt'lbc5 seriously, since I noticed an opportu n ity to gain a tempo by a simple triangulation manoeuvre with the bishop. 36 i.a7 !
42 . . .
l:tb8
43 tt'ld7
tt'lxd7
44 .l:!.xd7+
.l:!.e7
45 tt'lc5
'itoe8
46 l:!.xe7+
cJ;; x e7
47 l:Id7+
'it>e8
48 l:!.xh7
tt'lc7
49 h4
gxh4
50 gxh4
.l:!.a8
Black resig ned .
i.e7
4) Let us examine a nother endgame by Capablanca.
37 i.e3 Th reatening 38 tt'lbc5 . 37 . . . 38 i.b6 If now 38 . . . i.d8 the move 39 tt'lbc5 gains in strength - the b7-pawn is not defended . 38 . . .
Capablanca - Yates New York 1 924
.l:!.ab8
We have reached the position with which we began, but with Wh ite to move. 39 g3 The 'do not h u rry' principle in action: while the opponent is unable to do anyth ing, all the even slightly usefu l moves should be made. Why not, just in case, take away the f4-sq uare from the knig ht? 39 . . .
i.d8
40 i.a7
.l:!.a8
41 i.e3 Wh ite is not averse to repeati ng his manoeuvre. Faced with such u n h u rried ma-
Note the pretty knight circuit, than ks to
ctJ
How to Study the Endgame
which White won a pawn.
The threat was 64 tt:Je8+ 'it>h7 65 lZ'lf6+ 'lt>g7 66 g5 with mate.
40 t'Llc3
�c5
41 t'Lle4
.l::t b 5
64 fxg5
hxg5
42 t'Lled6
.l::t c 5
65 hxg5
..ltg2
.l::t c 7
66 .l:!.e8
l::. c 7
43 t'Llb7
66 . . . .l:txe8 67 lt:Jxe8+ Wf8 68 g6 ! .
44 t'Llbxa5 The rest is accu rate , Capablanca-style conversion of the advantage. Wh ite's first objective is to improve the placing of his pieces: first his knig hts, and then his rook.
6 7 :ds
tt:Jc6
68 tt:le8+
'it>f8
69 tt:Jxc7
lt:Jxd8
70 'it>c3
44 . . .
..ltb5
45 tt:ld6
..itd7
70 . . .
..ltb7
46 t'Llac4
.i:!a7
7 1 'it>d4
ii.c8
47 t'Lle4
h6
72 g6
tZ'lb7
48 f4
ii.e8
73 tt:Je8!
lt:Jd8
49 t'Lle5
.l:!a8
74 b5
'it>g8
50 l:!.c1
ii.f7
75 g5
'it>f8
51 l:tc6
..ltg8
76 g7+
'it>g8
52 t'Llc5
J::. e 8
After strengthening his position to the maximum and tyi ng down the opponent's forces, White beg ins to prepare the advance of his passed pawn . 53 .l:ta6
31
l:te7
54 'it>a3
ii.f7
55 b4
t'Llc7
56 .l:!.c6
t'Llb5+
57 'it>b2
lt:Jd4
58 .l:ta6
ii.e8
Centralisation of the king .
77 g6 Black resig ned . And now see how a l l this i nformation enabled the following ending to be won . Dvoretsky - Privorotsky Kiev 1 970
59 g4! Aga i n , as in the game against Ragozi n , Capablanca operates in accordance with the principle of two weaknesses . For a time he defers the advance of his passed pawn and lau nches an attack on the kingside. 59 . . .
'it>f6
60 lt:Je4+
'lt>g7
61 lt:Jd6
..ltb5
62 .l:ta5
..itf1
63 .l::t a 8
g5
29 .l:!.a5
b4
32
�
How to Study the Endgame
29 . . .c4 30 i.xd4 was no good , but 29 . . . 4Je6 was worth considering. After the move in the game Black will no longer have any counterplay.
44 . . .
4Jc3?
Belavenets was right - Black could not withsta nd the pressure, and he h i mself avoids the repetition of moves.
Now, following the example of the Capa blanca-Ragozi n ending, Wh ite outlined a scheme for the deployment of his pieces. Obviously, the knight must be played to e4 , the king brought up to f3 , the rook placed on a6 and the bishop on the c1 -h6 diagonal, and , final ly, the pawn advanced to f5 . 30 4Jd2 31 4Je4
i.e7
32 .l:ta6
4Jd7 'i;f7
33 'i;f3
4Jb8
34 l:ta8
4Jd7
35 i.c1
4Jb6
36 .l:!.a6
4Jd5
37 f5
gxf5
38 gxf5 The plan has been successfu lly carried out. 38 . . .
�d7
Here I saw that the triangulation method for gaining a tempo, found two rounds earlier i n the g a m e against Kikia n i , m i g h t a g a i n come in usefu l . The only d ifference is that here the tempo is won not by the bishop, but by the rook. 39 l:Ic6
�c7
40 .l:!.h6!
'it>g7
41 l:Ia6
�f7
It is now White's turn to move . 42 i.h6
.l:!.c8
42 . . . l:td7 is now bad because of 43 l:Ia8 and 44 �h8, winning the h7-pawn . 43 �a?
Now Wh ite carries out a curious ci rcu lar manoeuvre with his knight, resembling that which Capablanca made against Yates. 45 4Jd2 !
4Jd5
46 ttJc4
�f6
47 4Je5+ was th reatened . 47 4Jd6+
�e7
48 4Je4 After making four successive moves, the knight has retu rned to where it beg a n . But Black's defences are now com pletely d i sor ganised . The threat is 49 4Jxf6 4Jxf6 50 �g5. If 48 . . . �f7. then 49 �d6 is decisive . 48 . . .
�h8
49 �e6+
�d8
50 i.g5+ Black resig ned .
�c7
44 �a6 If 44 �a8 there is the reply 44 . . . .l:i.c6 , and so the rook returns to a6. I n the event of 44 . . . l:Ic8 Wh ite would probably have played 45 i.g5 ! ? , but it did not prove necessary to weigh up this move.
Thus by reflecting on the games of g reat players and the recommendations which they give in their commenta ries, and by considering your own competitive experi ence, you can sharply improve you r tech ni cal mastery.
lb
How to Study the Endgame
In conclusion I offer several exercises, i n which a rook fig hts against opposing pawns. The process of trying to solve them will offer
33
you tra i n i n g in the practical application of the theory of this type of endgame.
Exerc ises
1 . Wh ite to move
2. Wh ite to move
3 . Wh ite to move
4. Wh ite to move
34
How to Study the E ndgame
5. Wh ite to move
6. Wh ite to move
7. White to move
8. White to move
ctJ
How to Study the Endgame
35
Sol utions 1 . Yu . Averbakh ( 1 980). 1 �e6!
e4
2 l:i.g5! ! The only winning move, the point of which is to place the rook beh ind the passed pawn with gain of tempo, and the n , after ascertain ing the position of the enemy king , to send the wh ite king i n the opposite d i rection, on an outflanking manoeuvre .
'>tg4 h 1 'if leads only to a d raw, since 5 �g3?? 'ifh8 is not possi ble. The g7 -pawn must be kept on the board . 1 'it.>h7 ! !
h4
1 . . . g5!? 2 ..tg6 g4 is a nother try, hoping for 3 Wxh5? g3 4 'it>g4 g2 5 ..th3 � h 1 ! with a d raw. To avoid stalemate, the h5-pawn must be left al ive : 3 Wg5 ! ! . 2 'it>g6
h3
2 . . .'lt>d2(d3) 3 l:i.d5+! �c2 4 l::t e 5! 'it> d 3 5
3 'it>g5
h2
Wf5!;
4 ..tg4
h 1 'if
2 . . . 'lt>f2(f3) 3 l:i.f5+! 'it>g2 4 I:te5! 'it>f3 5 'it>d5 ! ; 2 . . . 'lt>e2 3 �e5 e 3 4 �e4 . The hasty 1 l:i.g5? leads to a d raw in view of 1 . . . �f4 ! 2 Wf6 e4 . Both 1 �d6? e4 2 J:tg5 �d3{d2 )! and 1 �f6? e4 2 :g5 Wf3(f2 )! a re also incorrect, since the outfl a n king ma noeuvre becomes u n realisable.
4 . . . g5!? also fa ils to save Black: 5 'it>g3 h 1 �+ 6 'it>f3 g4+ 7 'lt>xg4 tLlf2+ 8 'lt>f3 tLld3 9 J:ta4 (or 9 'lt>e3 tLle5 1 0 l:i.a4 ), and the knight will soon be caught. 5 Wg3
4. V. Bron ( 1 929). 1 l:!.c8+!
2. E. Kolesni kov ( 1 989) . 1 'lt> f7 suggests itself, b u t after 1 . . . ..txd4!
W hite cannot win: 2 ..te6 ..te3 3 l::tf5 d4 4 l:\.e5+ Wf2 5 l:i.d5 We3 (6 �d5 ! is not possible), or 2 J:tf6 We3 3 l::t e 6+ Wf3 4 :d6 We4 5 �e6 d4 (6 Wd6! is not possible).
'it>e7!
1 . . . �d7 2 :f8 ; 1 . . .�f7 2 :c4 . 2 I:tc7+
�e6
3 .l::i.c 6+
..te5
4 .Uc5+
'it>e4!
If 4 . . . 'it>d4 , then 5 J:tf5 ..te3 6 Wg5 g3 7 'it>g4 g2 8 l:!.xf3 + .
1 l:!.f8 !
�xd4
2 �f7
'it>e4
3 l:!.e8+!
Wf3
4 �d8!
'it>e4
5 ..te6
d4
6 �xg4!
f2
6 ..td6!
d3
7 l:l.g3+
'it>e4
7 'it.>c5
'it>e3
8 l:l.g4+
�e5
8 ..tc4
d2
9 �g5+
'it>e6
1 0 .l:i.g6+
..te7
9 'it.>c3 The king has a rrived just in time. 3. J . Moravec ( 1 9 1 3).
The direct 1 Wxg7? h4 2 �g6 h3 3 'it.>g5 h2 4
5 l:!.c4+
'it>e3
The checks a re at an end: if 6 l:!.c3+, then 6 . Aid2 is decisive .
1 1 I:tg7+
..tf8
1 2 l::t g 5 !
f1 'if
1 3 �f5+
'ifxf5
Stalemate .
36
�
How to Study the Endgame
5. V. Sokov ( 1 940).
8 c:Ji;d6
The routine 1 c:Ji;e7? throws away the win in view of 1 ... c:Ji;b4! 2 l:.e 1 (otherwise 2 ... c:Ji;c3) 2 . . . a5 3 c:Ji;d6 a4, and the black king 'shoulder-charges' White's. The move . . . c:Ji;b4! must be prevented . 1 .:.b1 1 !
c:Ji;a2
2 .l:te1 !
aS
3 c:Jl;e7
c:Ji;b3
3 . . . a4 is hopeless : 4 c:Ji;d6 a3 5 c:Ji;c5 c:Ji;b2 6 l:.e2+ (6 c:Ji;b4 a2 7 l:te2+ c:Ji;b1 8 c:Ji;b3 is also good , or 7 . . . c:Ji;c 1 8 l:.xa2 c:Ji;d 1 9 c:Ji;c3) 6 . . . c:Ji;b1 (6 . . . c:Ji;b3 7 l:.xe3+ ) 7 c:Ji;b4 a2 8 c:Ji;b3. 4 c:Ji;d6!
8 . . . c:Ji;e8 9 l:te7+ and 1 0 l:.e 1 . 9 c:Ji;c6
c:J; b8
1 0 l:lg8+
c:Jl;a7
11 l:.g7+
c:Ji;a6
12 l:.g8
c:J;as
1 3 c:Ji;c5 The black king is u nable to escape from the pursuit. 7 . V. Pachman ( 1 960/6 1 ) . 1 .l:tf1 !
c3
2 lih1 + ! !
Only not 4 lbe3+? �b4 5 c:Ji;d6 a4 6 l:te4+ c:Ji;b5! with a d raw (again a 'shoulder charge' ). 4. . .
c:Ji;c8
a4
4 . . . c:Ji;b4 5 �d5 a4 6 c:Ji;d4 a3 7 l:.b 1 + . 5 c:Ji;c5
a3
6 l::txe 3+
c:Jl;a4
6 . . . c:Ji;b2 7 c:Ji;b4 a2 8 l:te2+ c:Ji;b1 9 c:Ji;b3 . 7 c:Jl;c4
a2
8 l:te1
'it>a3
9 c:Ji;c3 6. J. Peckover ( 1 960).
It i s very i mportant to place the rook on g 1 with gain of tempo. White loses after 2 c:Ji;f?? c:Ji;h6 3 �f6 c:Ji;h5 4 c:Ji;f5 c:Ji;h4 5 c:Ji;f4 �h3 6 c:Ji;e3 c:Ji;h2 ! , when he ends u p i n zugzwan g : 7 l:ta 1 �g2 or 7 l:td 1 c2 8 c:Ji;xd2 cxd 1 'ii' + 9 c:Ji;xd 1 e3 (9 . . . c:Ji;g2) 1 0 c:Ji;c2 c:Ji;g2 1 1 c:Ji;c3 c:Ji;f1 ! 1 2 �d3 c:Ji;f2 . 2. . .
c:Ji;g6
2 . . . c:Jl;g7 3 .l::l. g 1 + �f8 4 l:tf1 + c:Ji;e8 5 l:.h 1 . 3 Itg 1 +
�h5
4 c:Ji;fS
� h4
5 'it>t4
c:Ji;h3
6 'it>e3
c:Ji;h2
7 .l:.f1 1
1 c:Ji;d5 ! !
The same zugzwang position has now a risen with Black to move.
Everyth ing else loses : 1 :b8+? c:Ji;a5 2 llg8 c:Ji;a6;
7
1 c:Ji;e3? c:Ji;c5 2 .l:tc8+ c:Ji;b6! 3 c:Ji;f2 g 1 'iW+ (or 3 . . . c:Ji;b7);
8 l:la1 !
c:Ji;g3
9 .:.g1 +
c:Ji;h2
1 !tg7? c:Ji;b3! 2 c:Ji;e3 �c4 3 .l::l.c 7+ �b5 ! . 1
•
.
•
c:Ji;b3
•
•
•
c:Ji;g2
9 . . . c:Ji;h3 1 0 .U.h 1 + c:Ji;g2 1 1 .:.a 1 ! or 1 0 . . . c:Jl;g4 1 1 l:.g 1 + c:Ji;f5 1 2 .:.f1 + c:Ji;e5 1 3 l:td 1 .
2 l:r.g3+
c:Jl;a4
3 l:tg4+
c:J;as
4 .l:.g8
�b5
5 l:tg7!
c:Ji;b6
8. V. Hortov ( 1 982 ).
6 l:.g6+
�c7
7 l:r.g7+
'it>d8
Which pawn should be advanced? This q uestion ca n only be solved by a deep
1 0 l:.f1 ! Black is u n able to win .
ctJ
How to Study the Endgame
calculation of the variations. 1 g7!
l::r b 8
2 'it>g 1
'it>g3
3 'it>f1
'iii> f3
4 'it>e 1
1 8 'it> b 7 l::rg 8 1 9 a6, also does not work. Black repl ies 1 4 . . . �c6! 1 5 a6 .l:te8(d8) 1 6 h7 .l:te7(d7)+ with perpetual check. 14 . . .
ltb8+
'it>e3
1 5 Wa6!
'it>c6
5 'it>d 1
'it>d3
1 6 Wa7
l:tg8
6 'it>c1
.l:.c8+
1 7 a5
'it>d6
7 '>t>b2
.l:b8+
8 'it>a3 8 'it>a 1 ? 'it>c2 .
8. . .
'it>c3
9 'it>a4
�c4
1 0 'it>a5
'it>c5
11 'it>a6
'>t>c6
1 2 'it>a7
.l:tg8!
1 3 a4
'it>d6
14 'it>b6! If 1 4 �b7?, then 14 . . . 'it>e6 1 5 a5 ( 1 5 '>t>b6 l:'tb8+ 1 6 We? l::rg 8; 1 5 Wc6 .l:!.c8+) 1 5 . . . 'it>f6 1 6 a6 �g6 1 7 a7 Wxh6.
14 a5?, hoping for 14 . . .�e6? 1 5 'it>b6 l:tb8+ 16 'it>c7! .l:tg8 1 7 'it>c6! lieS+ ( 1 7 .. .f6 1 8 h7)
37
1 7 . . . 'it>c7 1 8 h 7 . 1 8 'it>b7 !
'it>e6
1 9 a6
'it>f6
20 a7
'>t>g6
2 1 a8'if The black king was only just too late. With the pawns on g6 and h7 the king is able to attack them a move earlier. 1 h7? .l:tb8 (or 1 . . . 'it>g3 2 Wg 1 .l:Ib8) 2 'it>g 1 'it>g3 3 'it>f1 Wf3 4 'it>e 1 'it>e3 5 Wd 1 'it>d3 6 Wc1 l:tc8+ 7 'it>b2 .l:i.b8+ 8 'it>a3 'it>c3 9 'it>a4 Wc4 1 0 Wa5 Wc5 1 1 'it>a6 'it>c6 1 2 �a 7 l:th8! 1 3 a4 Wd6 14 'lt>b6 l:ib8+ 15 'lt>a6 Wc6 1 6 'it> a 7 llh8 1 7 a 5 'it>d6 1 8 'it>b 7 We6 1 9 a6 'it>f6 20 a7 'it>xg6, or 1 8 'it>b6 I:Ib8+ 1 9 Wa6 'lt>c6 20 'lt>a7 .l:.h8 2 1 a6 .l:.e8(d 8 ) ! .
38
cj{ Mark Dvoretsky, Artur Yusu pov
The Theory and P ractice of Rook E n d i n gs M a rk Dvoretsky
Oendings which demand the most inten
f all the types of endings, it is rook
sive study. Why is this?
Fi rstly, they occu r more often than other types. A good half of all the endings that occur in practice are rook endings. Second ly, here there exists a fai rly deta i led theory of positions with a small amount of material (for example, rook and pawn agai nst rook), which may also be repeated in our games. This theory should be mas tered . I n other types of endgame the situations with a min imal number of pawns are either qu ite simple, or not very importa nt. This means that there a knowledge of exact positions is hardly ever req uired - it is l i kely that you will never need it. It is sufficient to know the typical ideas and methods. But in the rook endgame you can not get by without studying a considerable n u mber of exact positions. I offer for you r attention one of the sections of rook endgame theory - endings with a pawn on the rook's fi le. As usual , we will begin our analysis with the simplest cases . And in genera l , we will not delve too deeply into theory - we will merely pick out the most important positions and the ideas involved with them. 1) Stronger side's king i n front of the pawn
A d raw is inevitable. The only way to try and free the king from i mprison ment is by playing the rook to b8. But then the black king will stand guard in place of the rook. 1 l::t h 2 'it>d7 2 l::t h 8 �c7 3 .l::i. b 8 �c1 (of cou rse, 3 . . l::t h 1 is also possi ble) 4 �b2 �c3, and White ca n not strengthen his position. .
Let us move the king and rook one file to the rig ht.
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
Now Wh ite wins, since the black king does not succeed in reach ing c7.
1 .l:!.h2 b 7 .l:!.b1 + 5 'it>c8 l:!.c1 + 6 'it>d8 l::!. h 1 7 .U.b6+ �c5
This is the only su btle moment. It is hopeless to play 8 .l:!.e6? .l:!.a 1 or 8 .l:!.a6? .Mh8+ 9 Wd7 l:th7+ 1 0 �e8 l:th8+ 1 1 �f7 J::!.a 8 with a d raw. 8 l:!.c6+ ! �b5 (8 . . . �d 5 9 lia6 .Uh8+ 1 0 �c7 l:.h7+ 1 1 'it>b6) 9 l::!. c 8 lih8+ 1 0 'it>c7 lih7+ 1 1 'iii b8
2) Stronger side's rook in front of the pawn ; pawn on the 7th ran k
ctJ
39
shadow' of its wh ite opponent (say, at c3) , or, with t h e black rook on t h e 7th rank - 'in the shadow' of its own rook. We merely mention these ideas, but we will not study the m . Sometimes they a re sufficient for a d raw, sometimes not. Let us add a wh ite pawn on h5. Noth ing has changed . B lack does not pay any attention to it. It is also a d raw with a wh ite pawn on g5. But with a pawn on f5 White wins. After 1 f6+ �f7 ( 1 . . . '1t>xf6 2 :fa+ ; 1 . . . �h7 2 f7) 2 .l:!.h8 Black loses his rook. It is no accident that I have 'chewed over' these elementary cases in deta i l . You should have a very clear impression of them , and should always remember and make use of them when considering more complicated positions. Kha u n i n - Fridman Len ingrad 1 962
This is a standard defensive scheme: Black's rook is beh ind the enemy pawn, and his king is on g7 (or h7). The wh ite rook is tied to the pawn and ca n not move from a8. If 1 'it>b6 , then 1 ... ltb1 + . The king has no shelter from the vertical checks. After d riving it away, the rook retu rns to a 1 . I should mention that other, more com p l i cated and less rel iable systems of defence also exist: the black king may hide ' i n the
In the game there followed 1 . . . hxg3 2 hxg3? g4+ ! 3 fxg4, when a d raw was inevitable, since Wh ite was left with a knig ht's pawn (whether one or two is of no particu lar importa nce). He cou l d have won by 2 g7 4 'itc4 �f7 5 'it>b4 .Ua 1 6 'it>b5 l:tb 1 + 7 'itc6 .l:!.a 1 8 'it>b 7 .l:!.b 1 + 9 'it> a 7 'ite7 1 0 l:tb8 �c1 1 1 'it>b7 (but not 1 1 .Ub6? 'itd7) 1 1 . . .l:tb 1 + 1 2 'it>a8 .l:!.a 1 1 3 a 7 , and a situation that is familiar to us arises: the black king does not reach c7 in ti me. I n view of this analysis, Siegbert Ta rrasch considered this position to be won . But later (in 1 924) a saving plan was fou n d . It is based on the fact that the a6-pawn provides the king with a shelter against vertical checks, but not against horizontal checks. The rook must be transferred to f6 . 1 . . . .Uf1 +! 2 'it>e4 .Uf6 ! It is important to attack the pawn , in order
not to release the rook from a8. The resulting position is known in endgame theory as the 'Vancura position' (from the name of its d iscoverer - Joseph Va ncu ra ) . What can Wh ite d o ? If a6-a7 there always follows . . Jla6 (of cou rse, the black king will not move from g7 and h7). If the pawn is defended by the king, there fol lows a series of checks , and then the rook returns to f6 . For example: 3 'it>d5 l:tb6 4 �c5 l:tf6! (the best square for the rook ! ) 5 �b5 .l:!.f5+ ! etc. If in the d iagra m we move the wh ite king to f4 , we obtain a position which was analysed in 1 950 by Pyotr Romanovsky. 1 . . . .l:i.f1 + ? 2 'it>e5 .l:lf6 is now bad because of 3 .l:!.g8+ ! . But all the same there is no other plan - only the switching of the rook to the 6th rank. Therefore let us play 1 . . . l:tc1 ! . If 2 'it>e5 there follows 2 . . .lk6 - and we reach Va ncura's d rawn position . Wh ite must take the oppor tun ity to remove his rook from a8: 2 l:tb8 .l:!.a 1 3 .l:r.b6 (weaker is 3 .Ub7+ 'it>f6 4 a7 'it>e6 ). With the rook on a8 Black's king was tied to the kingside, but now it ca n head towards the pawn . But this must be done cautiously: he loses after the hasty 3 . . . �f7? 4 . 'it>e5 �e7 5 . .l:!.b7+ 'it>d8 6 . a 7 . Correct is 3 . .. .l:r.a5! 4 We4 'it>f7! 5 'it>d4 (if 5 .l:!.h6, then 5 . . . 'it>g7 ! , but not 5 . . . cl;e7? 6 a7 Wd7 7 l:th8 ! ) 5 ... 'it>e7 6 'it>c4 �d7 7 ci;b4 Ua1 , and the d raw is obvious. Note that the kings had a race to reach the queenside. If the wh ite king had been closer to the pawn , Black's king might not have a rrived in time. This means that the attempt to switch the rook to the 6th ra n k can not be delayed - this plan must be carried out as soon as possible. The system of defence exam ined by us is very important. In particular, th is is how the defence should be a rranged when the opponent has two extra pawns - 'a' and ' h ' .
ltJ
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
3 . . .
41
.l:!.b6
Strangely enoug h , i n books on the endgame this position is not a nalysed . It had to be stud ied independently. White wins. The main reason is that the black rook does not have the i mportant f6-square , and the 6th ran k proves too short. 4 �5 Again threatening 5 l:Ia7 + . 4. . .
�b5+
5 �6
l:f.b6+
6 'it>e5 The h-pawn does not help White - the d raw is just as elementary as in the previous example. If 1 'it>b5 there follows 1 ... .l:.f5+. After driving away the king, the rook contin ues its watch of the 6th rank. If the wh ite pawn is repositioned at a5, the black rook would be placed on the 5th rank, and so o n . Now let us analyse a position with a- and g pawns.
1 . . .
'it> h 7 !
2 �h5 Threatening 3 .l:!.a7+ �g8 4 g6 and 5 'it>h6. 2 . . . 3 'it>g4 3 gxh6? - stalemate!
.l:!.h6+!
6 'it>f7 .:tb7+! is pointless. 6 . . .
.l:!.c6
Of cou rse, B lack does not have time to captu re the g5-pawn: 6 .. J:tb5+ 7 'it>d6 (7 'it>d4) 7 .. J:txg5 8 .l:!.e8 .l:!.a5 9 .Ue7 + 'it>g6 1 0 a7. He also loses q u ickly after 6 . . . 'it>g7 7 'it>f5! .l:!.b5+ 8 �g4 .l:tb6 9 'it>h5 and 1 0 .l:la7+. 7 'it>d5
l:f.b6
8 'it>c5
l:te6
8 . . Jig6 9 .l:!.a7+ 'it>g8 1 0 'it>d4 .
9 .l:.a7+!
�g6
In the event of 9 . . . 'it>g8 the white king returns to the kingside. 1 0 'it>b5
.l:!.e5+
1 1 'it>c6
.U.e6+
1 2 'it>c5!
42
�
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
The decisive zugzwa ng! I n stead of 9 l:!.a7+ Wh ite also wins by 9 'it>bS .l:!.eS+ 10 'it>c6 .l:!.e6+ 1 1 'it>cS! (but not 1 1 'it>c7? .l:.g6 1 2 a 7 .l:!.g7+ ! with a d raw). Here too Black is in zugzwang! The variation 1 1 . . . lieS+ 1 2 �d6 .UxgS 1 3 .Ue8 is a l ready
familiar to us, while after 1 1 . . . 'it>g7 the rook is deprived of an impo rtant square, from where it could g ive a check. N ow the wh ite king boldly advances: 1 2 'it>bS lieS+ 1 3 Wc6 lie6+ 1 4 �c7 'it>h7 (there is no longer the reply 1 4 . . . .l:!.g6) 1 S a7! l:!.a6 ( 1 S . . . .l:!.e7+ 1 6 'it>d6) 1 6 'it>b7 and wins.
Artu r Yus u pov
Aonfidently find his way in typical rook practical player should be able to
endgame positions. See how, making use of the ideas we have just exami ned , I was able to save a difficult ending against an ex-world champion. Karpov - Yusupov Linares 1 99 1
On prophylactic g rounds it makes sense to remove the king beforehand from the first rank: 4 1 'lt>g2 ! ? . Now after the exchange of q ueens the black rook does not come to the rea r of the passed pawn . Even so, Black gains sufficient cou nterplay, by conti n u i ng 4 1 . . . cS 42 �c4 'ifxc4 43 .l:!.xc4 �c7 followed by . . . �f7-e6-dS, or 42 a6 lia7 43 'i!VaS (43 l:!.a4 f4) 43 . . .'ir'c6(d6). 41 a6
'iia 2
The pawn has to be halted . In the g iven insta nce it is not the rook that is placed behind it, but the q ueen . I thought for a long time about the possibil ity of conti n u i ng the fight in the middlegame, but I did not fi nd anyth ing convincing and I decided not to avoid the exchange of q ueens. 42 'ii'c 4+ Anatoly Karpov did not th ink for long over this move. He had to reckon with the threat of a cou nterattack by 42 .. J�d 1 + and 43 . . . 'i!Vb 1 .
It i s Karpov to move. What possibil ities does he have? Black must seriously reckon with 'it'c3-c4 (immediately, or after the preparatory 4 1 a6). But, after exchang i ng queens, h e can give a check on d1 and place his rook beh ind the passed pawn - this is a very important defensive resource, typical of rook endings.
42 . . .
'iixc4
43 .l:.xc4
.Ud 1 +
Of cou rse, the rook i s switched to the rea r of the passed pawn . This very i mportant device is merely a pa rticular insta nce of the general principle of rook endings, which says that the rook should be active . 44 Wg2
lia1
45 l:.c6 When a pawn is attacked from the rea r, it is
43
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
usually preferable to defend it with the rook from the side, rather than by standing in front of the pawn . The rook on c6 is very active - it is controlling the 6th ran k and attacking the c?-pawn . 45 . . .
�f8
Sooner or later the wh ite king will try to break through on the queenside. Black begins a cou nter-plan - he plays his king to d7, in order to activate his c7-pawn or ach ieve the exchange of several pawns. 46 f4 If 46 'it>g3, then 46 . . J:i.a4 . 46 . . .
.Ua3 !
Subsequently every tempo may prove deci sive - therefore the wh ite king's passage to the queen side must be h i ndered as much as possible. 47 �f1
l:ta2
48 �e1
'it;e8
49 �d1
�dB!
An accu rate move . 49 . . . Wd7 suggests itself, but I was concerned that after 50 .Ug6 the g7-pawn would be captu red with check. Of cou rse , 49 . . . .Uxf2? was premature in view of 50 a7 l:ta2 51 l:txc? , and with his king cut off along the 7th rank, Black loses qu ickly. But now the captu re on f2 is th reatened . 50 .l:!.g6
c5
Not 50 . . . .Uxf2? 51 l:txg7 l:ta2 52 l:tg6 . Therefore Black activates his passed pawn . 51 Wc1 In such situations one somewhere has to stop making common sense moves a n d , after accu rately calculating a way t o d raw, force events . Such a moment has now arrived .
51 . . .
'it>c7 !
52 .Uxg7+
'it;b6
53 l:tg6+
Wa7
54 .l:i.c6 Ka rpov aims to elimi nate as many black pawns as possible. In the event of 54 l:txh6 l:txf2 followed by 55 . . . l:txf4 the d raw is obvious. 54 . . .
.Uxf2
55 .l:!.xc5
.Uxf4
A text-book position with a- and h-pawns is reached . Of cou rse, 55 . . . Wxa6 was possi ble, but it was more method ical to play 'by the book' , especially since I was short of time on the clock. 56 l:tc6
.l:!.g4
57 �d2
�g5
58 .Uxh6
f4
59 �e2
f3+
Black does not need this pawn . If you know for certa in that a position is d rawn , you should try to ensure that extraneous details (like a 'non-theoretical' pawn ) do not acci dentally h inder you . 6 0 �xf3
.Uc5
61 l:th8 Here , just in case, I adjourned the game. To my surprise, Karpov tu rned up for the resumption and made a few more moves.
44
�
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
61 . . .
�g5
62 'it>e4
l:!.c5
63 'it>f4
�c4+
64 'it>e5
.Uc5+
65 'it>e6
.Ug5
66 �f7
.Uc5!
Therefore Black must first g ive some checks: 68 . . . l:tc7+! 69 '1t>f6(e6) .l:lc6+ with a d raw. But on the d-file the rook would be too close to the king , and after 68 . . . .l:ld7+ 69 'it>e6 Black would lose. 67 l:!.h7
In such positions the c-file is the best place for the rook. If now 67 h6 l:c6 68 h 7, then the rook should be placed beh ind the pawn , but the immediate 68 . . . l:!.h6 loses to 69 'it>g7 .
�xa6
Only now, when the rook has gone to h 7, ca n the a6-pawn be taken . But with the rook on h8 it should be ignored . 68 h6
l:!.c7+
Draw.
M a rk Dvorets ky
1\ lthough the ideas that we have been ./"\d iscussing are elementary, by no means all players are familiar with them . Even grandmasters sometimes 'flounder' in stand ard theoretical endings. Here is a tragic comic example. Szabo - Tu kmakov Buenos Aires 1 970
7 1 l:!.b3 �c4 72 .l:lf3 �b4 73 l:!.f4+! etc. When you know the plan of defence, the moves make themselves - here there is noth ing cu nning. However, the highly experienced grandmas ter Laszlo Szabo had no idea of how to play these types of endings, and he lost a completely d rawn position . Apparently Vladi mir Tukmakov also did not know them , since he commented on the cou rse of the play as follows: 'Theory considers this endgame to be drawn , but I seemed to win q u ite convincingly. ' 6 6 'lt>g2?!
Wd6
67 '.tf2?!
l1a2+
68 'it>e1 ? 68 'it>g 1 ! would sti l l have led to a d raw. 68 . . .
.l::t a 1 + !
6 9 'it>e2 69 Wd2 l:i.h 1 ! 70 .l:!.xa5 h3 7 1 l:!.h5 h2 and 72 . . . l:i.a 1 . 69 . . . For Wh ite it is sufficient simply to wait, keeping the a5-pawn under fi re , in order not to release the rook from the a-file. For example, 66 l:!.b5 �d6 67 l:!.f5 .l:i.a 1 68 'it>h2! a4 69 l:!.f4 ! a3 70 l:!.f3 ! 'it>c5 (70 . . . a2 71 l:!.a3)
a4
70 l:!.h6+ 70 l:!.xh4 a3 7 1 .l:!.a4 a2. 70 . . .
'it>e5
7 1 .Uh5+
'it>f6
72 �f2
a3
l2J
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
73 'it>g2
.Uc1
48 . . .
'it>g6
74 l1a5
l:Ic3
49 h5+
�f7
White resigned . I found another, similar example i n the magazine New in Chess, i n an article by Tony Miles about the 1 989 U SA Champion ship. He analyses the ending of a game by the winner of the championship, Stua rt Rachels, against g randmaster Dmitry G u re vich . It would appear that none of the m , includ ing the commentator, w a s fam i l i a r with the ideas of the g iven endgame.
45
A clear demonstration of Black's ignorance of theory: G u revich , l i ke Szabo i n the previous example, incorrectly moves his king to the opposite wing. 50 Wf4
�c6
51 'it>e5
'it>e7
52 'it>d5
.Uh6
53 Wc4
�h8
54 l:te5+
'it>f6
55 l:tc5
rt;e7
56 rt;b4
.l:!.h6
Rachels - G u revich
57 �a5
Wd6
U SA Championship, Long Beach 1 989
58 l:tg5
�c7
59 a4
Wd7 Wc8
60 .l:!.g7+ 61 .Ug5
Here the game was adjourned . In home a nalysis it is i mportant to look i n a book and fam i l i a rise you rself with the theory of the endings that may a rise d u ring the resump tion - i n the g iven instance, with the theory of the endgame with two extra a- and h pawns. But G u revich d i d not do this. 61 . . .
Miles writes: 'Si nce rook and a- and h pawns vs rook is often d rawn , it is hard to believe that Wh ite should win this. The defensive task is not simple, though . ' O f course, i t is not essential to give u p the pawn , but from the practical point of view this is the best cou rse. Subsequently you no longer have to think, since you will be acti ng in accordance with theory. Remember: this is h ow Yusu pov acted i n his game agai nst Karpov. Otherwise you will be forced to act independently in a position which , although drawn , is unfamiliar, and it will be easy to make a mistake .
62 .ti.c5
c.t>d7 Wd8
63 .ti.d5+
rt;e7
Black changes his plan of defence and returns his king to the kingside. I n the event of 63 . . . eS
.l:tc6
80 l:.d7
71 . . .
l:tc6
71 . . . 'it>g7! 72 .l:.xa6 'it>h7 would have forced a draw. I n principle, delaying this is now not without its dangers - after a l l , Black has to reckon with the following plan: the wh ite pawn goes to a5, the rook defends every thing along the 5th rank, and the king heads for b7. 72 'it>gS
'it>g7
73 .U.d5
�c4
74 aS
l::i. c 6
75 �d7+
'it>g8
76 l::i. a 7? After 76 �e7! Wh ite's position is appa rently now won . For example: 76 . . . �c5+ 77 'it>g6 .U.c6+ 78 'it>f5 l::i. c 5+ 79 �e5, or 76 .. .'it>f8 77 .l:!.b7! (with the deadly th reat of 78 .l:l.b6) 77 . . .l:tc5+ 78 'it>g6 .l:!.c6+ 79 'it>h 7. 76 . . .
�d6?
It was essential for Black to exploit his opponent's mistake, by playing 76 . . . �c5+ 77 'it>f6 �c6+ (neither 77 .. Jbh5? nor 77 . . .lba5? is possible, in view of 78 'lt>g6) 78 'it>e7 l:k5 (or - as recommended by M iles - 78 . . . .Uh6) 79 l:txa6 .l:txh5 (or 79 . . . 'it>h7) with an obvious d raw. 77 'it>fS
.l:!.dS+
78 'it>f6
.l:.d6+
Here M iles makes an amusing com ment: 'If 80 . . . 'it>f8 , then 8 1 l::i. d 6 l:!.c5+ 82 'it>f6 'it>g8 (or 82 . . . '1t>e8 83 h6} 83 �a6 wins.' But 83 .U.xa6?? 'it>h7! leads to an i m mediate d raw, whereas 83 'it>g6! wins. 80 . . . 'it>h8 could have been tried , i n the hope of 81 .l:.d6 l:tc5+ 82 .l:!.d5 (82 'it>f6 'it?h7!) 82 ... �c6 83 'lt>f5 'it>g7 84 .l:.e5 (with the threat of 85 l::i. e 7+ and 86 .l:!.e6) 84 . . . 'it>f7 ! . But the subtle move 81 �e7 ! enables Wh ite to win: after 8 1 . . . '1t>g8 82 'it>f5! �c5+ (82 . . . 'lt>f8 or 82 . . . �h6 - 83 �e6 ! and 84 'lt>g6) 83 .l:.e5! (only not 83 'it>f6? l::i.x h5 84 'it?g6 'it?f8 ! ) he wins. This position occu rred later i n the game . 80 . . .
.l:th6
8 1 'it>fS The sealed move . Here the game was again adjourned . 81 . . .
�c6
In the event of 81 . . . 'it>f8 ! ? (not allowing 82 .Ue7 ) 82 c.t>g5 l:tc6 Wh ite wou l d have won by 83 �b7 ! . 8 2 .Ue7 !
l:tc5+
83 l:i.e5
.Uc1
After 83 . . . l:i.c6 84 �e6 �c1 Wh ite has a pleasant choice between 85 c.t>g6 and 85
47
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
l::tx a6 �f7 (u nfortunately, 85 . . . 'it>h7 is not possible because of 86 .l:.e6) 86 l:!.a7+ 'it>f8 87 .!::!. a 8+ 'it>f7 88 a6 �c5+ 89 t>e4 �c6 90 a? l::!.a6 9 1 .l:!.h8. The fla n k attack on the rook's pawn only works if the king is on g7 or h?.
Baku l i n - Dvoretsky Moscow Tea m C h a m pionship 1 974
84 'it>e6 ! The king heads towards the a6-pawn. Black can no longer save the game. 84 Wg7 85 'it>d6 Wh7 86 l:!.c5 l:!.b1 87 Wc6 'it>h6 88 l:!.d5 .Ub2 89 l:!.d7 l:tb5 90 .Ud6+ 'it>h7 91 .Ud5 l:!.b1 92 l:!.d7+ Wh6 93 l:!.b7 l::ta 1 94 'it>b6 t>xh5 95 'it>xa6 'it>g6 96 l:!.b5 00 97 'it>b7 .Ue1 98 a6 l:!.e7+ 99 Wb6 l:!.e6+ 100 �a5 Black resig ned . ...
In these last two examples both the moves and the comments made by g randmasters make a comic i mpression , for one simple reason - they were not sufficiently fam i l i a r with the basic theory o f rook endings. Our next step should probably be an analysis of positions that a re closely l i n ked with the type of endgame a l ready stud ied namely, endings in which each side has two or th ree pawns on the kingside and one has an extra passed pawn on the q ueenside (usually a rook's pawn ). Such a situation often occu rs in practice . But th is is a l ready another topic, and here we will merely mention it. I will restrict myself to one example, in which the same idea was used as we saw in the Karpov-Yusupov game, but did not see in the Rachels-Gu revich end ing : the sacrifice of a pawn to transpose into a theoretically d rawn position .
Reckoning that if 1 8 . . . �e6 the reply 1 9 tt:Jc5 was u n pleasant, I wa nted to play 1 8 . . . tt:Jc6. But my sense of da nger operated and I began to have dou bts about the position arising after 1 9 c4 d4 20 tt:Jc5 b6 21 tbd3. Wh ite creates a pawn majority on the queenside, he secu rely blockades the d4pawn , and he controls the e-file. The adva ntage is on his side: perhaps not a g reat advantage, but an enduring one. When I showed this ending to Rafael Vaga n i a n , an expert on the French Defence, he assessed the position as unfavourable for Black. By accu rately defending, one can probably avoid defeat, but this is a d ifficult and than kless task. Being an active player, I usually avoided this type of passive de fence , and endeavoured to fi nd a way of sharply changing the cou rse of the play, of forcing events , either with the aim of clarifying the situation, or, on the contra ry, of compl icati ng the play as much as possible. Returning to the rook move to e6, I q u ickly fou n d the forcing variation which occu rred in the game. 18 . . .
l:!.e6 ! ?
1 9 tt:Jc5
�xe1 +
48
� 20 l:ixe1
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
�c8!
20 . . . lt:Jg6 21 lt:Jxb7 .l::t b 8 22 lt:Jc5 �xb2 23 l:te8+ lt::lf8 is not worth considering - the pin on the knight is extremely dangerous. For example, Wh ite ca n play 24 g3 f6 25 lt:Jd7 �f7 26 l:txf8+ 'it;e7 27 �b8 . 21 l:l.xe7
'it>f8
As you see, combinative vision sometimes helps even when playing 'ted ious' end games. 22 .l:f.xb7 In the event of 22 l:ie2 l:l.xc5 the position is roughly eq ual. 22 . . .
.l:txc5
23 c3
d4
24 �f1 24 l:tb3?? d3 25 'it>f1 .l:te5 ! . 24 . . .
dxc3
25 bxc3
�xc3
26 l:.xa7
Uc2
I knew for sure that this was a d raw, and a fairly simple one, and so without hesitation I went in for the exchanging combination. Of cou rse , had I not made a previous study of this type of endgame, I would hardly have decided to give up a pawn . Who knows how the game would have ended after 1 8 . . . lt:Jc6 , whereas as it was I easily made a d raw.
Thirty years later I realised that endings of this type were by no means as harmless as I then thought. In 2003 in the theory of rook endings with an extra pawn on the wing a revolution occurred, and positions which had seemed completely drawn proved to be won or at the least very dangerous. You can find these new ideas in my articles or those of grandmaster Carsten Muller in the ar chives of the internet site Chesscafe. com, and also in my book Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual from the same publisher. If I had known about the future discoveries, I would perhaps have rejected the combination (in favour of 1 8. . . l:l.e8!? followed by 1 9 . . . 'it>f8), and at the least I would have played the endgame more carefully.
However, my decision to sacrifice a pawn was taken not only on purely chess g rounds - it was i nfluenced , as wel l as the subse quent play, by certain extraneous factors . At that time I was teaching in the chess department of the I nstitute of Physical Cu ltu re. We were planning to hold a tou rna ment on the Scheveningen system : stu dents (candidate masters) against masters, and I had to fi nd some opponents for our students. The Moscow Tea m Champion ship, held in the Centra l Chess Club, attracted nearly all the Moscow masters , and this was the most convenient place to hold discussions. After transposing i nto a comparatively simple ending soon after the start of play, I gai ned the opportun ity, by making my moves without much thought, to rush to the other boards and press players who were strolling about to take pa rt in our tou rnament. Because my attention was d ivided , some of my moves were not the most accu rate , but I nevertheless gai ned a d raw. 27 g3 g6 28 e3 �c3+ 31 . . . We6 or 31 . . . '>i>e5 ! ? was simpler, keep ing the f-pawn under attack.
ctJ
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
32 �e4 �c2 33 f3 .l:I.e2+
With the a-pawn stil l on its i n itial sq uare, Black could have permitted himself 33 . . .lk4+ 34 �d3 �c1 , intending to attack the g3pawn by 35 . . . �g 1 . 34 �4 Ub2 35 .l:!.a6+ 'it>g7
The confining of the king at g7 is rather unpleasant for Black. However, i n such situations he has ava ilable q u ite a good plan of cou nterplay: .. .f7-f6 and at the first conven ient opportu n ity . . . g6-g5. For exam ple, 36 a3!? .l:I.b3 37 'it>e4 f6 ! ? . And it is not easy for the opponent to decide on 36 a4 in
49
view of 36 ... .l:!.b4+ 37 'it>e3 .l:I.b3+ 38 'it>e4 .l:tb4+ 39 'it>d5 l:tb3, a lthough someti mes (but, I th ink, not in the g iven instance) the resulting complications favou r Wh ite . 36 .l:!.a3 'it>f6 37 .l:ta6+ 'it>g7 38 .l:!.a4 'it>f6 (38 . . . f6 ! ? ; 38 . . . .l:l.f2 ! ? ) 39 g4 hxg4 40 fxg4 �f2+ 41 'lt>g3 .l:I.c2 42 .l:tf4+ (42 g5+ 'it>e5 is not dangerous for Black) 42 ... 'it>e6 43 a4 (43 .l:I.f2 .l:I.c3+ 44 Wf4 f6 ) 43 ... f5 44 gxf5+ gxf5 45 .l:I.f2 .l:l.c4 46 .l:l.a2 .l:I.c3+ 47 'it>f4 lk4+ 48 'l.t>g3 (48 'l.t>g5 .l:l.g4+ 49 Wh5 'it>f6 50 a5?? .l:l.g8 ) 48 ... .l:l.c3+ 49 'it>g2 .l:l.c4 50 h5 .l:!.h4 Draw.
Artu r Yus u pov
I extracts from my games, in which practical ,
shou ld now l ike to show you several
rathe r than purely theoretical rook endings arose. However, initially the first example does not resemble an endgame at a l l .
fice - a procedure which has a l ready been mentioned here severa l times. In the given instance the pawn is g iven up for the sake of activating his own forces. 2 1 .i.xf5
tt:Jxf5
22 tt::lxf5
'i!Vxf5
Lj u bojevic - Yus u pov
23 'ifxc5
.l:!.xd2
Linares 1 99 1
24 �xc7
.l:!.c8
25 1t'd6
.l:I.xc3
26 'i!Vxa6
.l:!.cc2
Of cou rse, the extra passed a-pawn is da ngerous, but Black correctly calculated that the pressu re of his rooks along the 2nd ran k would enable him to mai ntain the bala nce. 27 ifb6 If 27 �a7 , then 27 . . . d4 28 'iia 8+ 'it>h7 29 a6 (29 1i'f3 �xf3 30 gxf3 Ua2 is roughly the same as that which occu rred in the game) 29 . . . .l:txf2 30 a7 �xg2+ 31 ifxg2 .l:I.xg2+ 32 'it>xg2 �g4+ with perpetual check. 20 . . .
.i.f5!
Black carries out a tactical exchanging operation, involving a positional pawn sacri-
27 . . .
d4
28 iVd8+
'it>h7
29 'ii' h 4
g5
50
�
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
As Dvoretsky pointed out, 29 . . . iixe5 30 a6 l:ta2 was simpler, since if 31 a7?! Black has 31 .. J:txa 1 32 l:txa 1 .l:i.a2 ! , and he remains with an extra pawn.
The fol lowing example is also devoted to rook activity. Genera l ly speaking , the main principle in rook endings is that the rook should be active!
30 'i¥h3 I n the event of 30 il'g3 Black would have conti nued 30 . . J:td3 31 f3 l:td2 with the dangerous th reat of 32 . . . '1Wf4 . 30 . . .
Yusu pov
-
Barbero
Mendoza 1 985
iixh3
31 gxh3
Things seem to be bad - after all, the wh ite rook is positioned beh ind the passed a pawn . However, thanks to a tactica l su btlety Black nevertheless succeeds in stopping the pawn from beh ind. 31 . . .
.tr.a2
32 a6
.l:.xf2!
33 l:txa2 Forced . 33 . . .
.l:!.xa2
34 .tr.xf7+
�g8
35 .l:.d7 35 .Uf6 d3. 35 . . .
l:txa6
36 .l:.xd4
'i;f7
37 h4 Draw.
Wh ite has a slight advantage thanks to the fact that his rook is more active , and also as a result of the rather un usual position of the black king at h6. Now the most natural try seems to be the activation of the black rook by 28 . . . l:td8 29 l:te7 b5 30 l:txa7 .U.d2 31 b3 c4 32 bxc4 bxc4 . If the king were not at h6, Wh ite would i mmediately have to agree to a d raw in view of the unavoidable exchange of the queen side pawns. But here he can stil l play for a win by 33 h4! c3 34 'lt>g2 c2 35 .l:!.c7 c 1 'ii (35 . . . g5 is simpler, obtaining a theoretically d rawn ending with h-pawn against f- and g pawns ) 36 llxc1 .l:.xa2 37 .l:.c7 with the th reat of 38 g4. Gera rdo Barbero carried out an operation which also makes sense. Exploiting the fact that the pawn endgame is satisfactory for Black, he decided to secure the 7th ran k for his rook. 28 . . .
l:tg8
lZJ
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
29 �1
l:.g7
36 hxg6+
30 'it>e2
l:r.d7
37 f4
31 h4 The immediate 31 l:.e5 came i nto considera tion . 31 . . .
'it>g7
32 l::te 5!
b6
33 l:te6
51
hxg6
Wh ite now has a serious advantage. B lack's king is tied to the g6-pawn, and his rook has to defend the 7th ran k - its activity will lead to the loss of a pawn . And against passive defence Wh ite is free to strengthen his position . 37 . . . 38 b3 39 'it>e3
'it>g7
40 'i;e4
'it>t7
41 'i;f3 4 1 We5 is also good . 41 . . .
.l:!.e7
42 'i;g4
l:r.d7
43 Wh4 Th reatening 44 g4 and 45 'it>g5 , when after a check on the 5th ran k there follows f4-f5 or 'it>h6. 43 . . . 33 . . .
'it>f7?!
Black should have deprived the wh ite rook of the i mportant c6-square. After 33 .. Jk7! 34 l::t d 6 Wf7 35 h5 'i;e7 the position would have remained roughly equ a l .
34 .l:lc6 The white rook is very wel l placed . It cuts off the enemy king along the sixth ran k and prevents the advance of Black's q ueenside pawns. 34 . . .
'it>e7?!
It was better to take active measu res to divert Wh ite from his plan ned offensive on the kingside: 34 . . .l:.e7+ 35 Wd 3 l::td 7+ 36 'it>c3 l::te 7, intending . . . .l::!. e 2 .
35 h5!
'i;f7?
Again passively played . 35 . . . gxh5! 36 .l:!.h6 'it>d8 was essentia l . After playing his king to c7, Black could then have advanced his b and c-pawns.
l:.d2
Black decides to play actively, but it would have been better to do this a few moves earlier. 44 .l:!.c7+
Wf6
45 .l:!.xa7
b5?
45 . . .Wf5 was more tenacious. 46 .l:!.c7?! After 46 .l:la5! 'itf5 47 '>t>h3 a second pawn would have been lost. 46 . . .
c4
47 I!.c6+ !
cJ;ts?
47 . . . Wf7 was more tenacious, but this too would not have saved the game: 48 bxc4 bxc4 49 a4 ! .l:!.d4 50 'it>g5 .l:!.d5+ 51 'it>g4 l:Id4 52 l:tc5! 'it>f6 (52 . . . c3 53 a5 .l:!.a4 54 'i;g5) 53 a5, and B lack is in zugzwang (53 .. J::t e4 54 .l:!.c6+ 'it>f7 55 'it>g5). 48 l::tc 5+
'i;e6
49 l:!.xb5
c3
50 l::tc 5
c2
52
�
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
51 b4
g5+
52 fxg5
.l:.d4+
53 'it>h5
l:txb4
54 l:txc2 Black resigned . I n itially the ending was al most eq ual . What was the reason for Black's defeat? Fi rstly, he defended very passively, and was too late in activating his rook. And secondly, he was caused a mass of problems by the excellent position of the wh ite rook. Note the intermed iate move 32 .Ue5 ! , wh ich secu red the ideal square c6 for the rook. From here it tied down l iterally all the opponent's pieces and pawns. Yusu pov - Tsesh kovsky Moscow 1 98 1
but he also loses after 48 'it>g4? 'ifi>d3 49 h5 'it>e4 50 'it>g5 'it>e5 5 1 'it>g6 'it>e6 52 h6 l:f.g 1 + . From f4 the wh ite king 'shoulder-cha rges' Black's, not al lowi ng it to approach the pawn . 48 . . . 'itd3 49 h5 .Uh1 50 'itg5 'it>e4 51 h6 'Wte5 52 'itg6 'Wte6 53 'lt>g7 ! (but not 53 h7? l:tg 1 + 54 'ith6 cJilf7 55 h8lt:J+ 'it>f6 56 'ith 7 l:tg2 , and Black wins) 53 . . . 'it>e7 (53 . . . l:.g 1 + 54 'it>f8 ) 54 h7 l:tg 1 + 55 'it>hB! with a d raw. U nfortunately, my opponent fou n d a much stronger possibil ity. 43 . . .
.l:.f1 + !
44 'it>g4
hxg3
Now after 45 'it>xg3 'it>d3 46 :ta2 c3 4 7 h4 c2 48 l:1xc2 'it>xc2 Wh ite can no longer save the game, since his king cannot go to f4 . 45 .l:td2+
'it>e3
46 l:tg2 46 l:tc2 would not have hel ped in view of 46 . . . l:r.f8 ! (46 . . . l:tf4+! 47 'it>xg3 l:td4 fol lowed by 48 . . .d3 is no less strong) 47 'it>xg3 l:!.g8 + , and the king on the h-file is extremely badly placed . For example, 48 'it>h4 'it>d3 49 l:t.a2 c3 50 'it>h5 c2 51 lla 1 'it>d2 52 h4 c H i 5 3 .:txc 1 'it>xc1 5 4 'it>h6 'it>d2 5 5 h5 'it>e3 56 'it>h 7 l:tg 1 57 h6 'it>f4 58 'it>h8 'it>g5 59 h 7 'itg6. Or 48 c;i;>h2 'it>d3 49 .l:.a2 c3 50 h4 c2 5 1 l:ta 1 'it> d 2 5 2 W h 3 c 1 'ili' 53 l:txc1 'Wtxc 1 5 4 h5 'it>d2 55 'it>h4 'it>e3 56 h6 Wf4 57 'it>h5 .l:Ig5+ in both cases Wh ite loses.
A typical situation : soon I will have to give u p m y rook for the c-pawn and an endgame with rook against pawn will be reached . Every tempo may have a decisive infl uence on the outcome. The d irect 43 ... hxg3? (43 . . . 'it>d3? 44 l:.f2 ! or 44 l:tg2! comes to the same thing) 44 'it>xg3 'ifi>d3 45 l:.a2 al lows White to save the game. The main variation is q u ite instructive. 45 . . . c3 46 h4 c2 47 l:txc2 Wxc2 48 'it>t4! Of cou rse , 48 h5?? l:td4 ! is bad for Wh ite ,
46 . . .
.Uf4+1
47 'iitx g3
c3
48 h4
.l:Ic4
49 l:.c2
$>d3
But now the fact that the wh ite king is cut off along the 4th ra n k proves decisive. 50 l:lc1
c2
51 h5
'it>d2
52 l:th1
c 1 'ji'
53 J:txc 1
'lt>xc1
Wh ite resigned .
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
Two ideas , typical of such endings, were clearly seen d u ring the cou rse of the play: 1) th e cutting off of the king along the 4th rank - thanks to this, Black won the game; 2) the 'shoulder-charge' - Wh ite was hoping to save hi mself by employing this device , b u t with an i ntermed iate check Vitaly Tseshkovsky disru pted my plan. In the following, more complicated ending, similar motifs occu rred .
Yus u pov
-
Timman
Candidates Match , 5th Game, Ti lburg 1 986
The eval uation of the position is not in question - Wh ite has a big adva ntage. The logical move was 38 a4! - it is i mportant to advance the passed pawn as soon as possible. Black's passed pawn is not dan gerous - to . . . e4-e3 there is always the reply 'it>f1 . ·
How could the game have developed? 38 l:i.d3 39 a5 c3 40 bxc3 e3 (th reatening 41 . . .l:i.d 1 + 42 'it>g2 e2 ) 41 'it>f1 .l:l.xc3 42 a6 :t:l.a3 43 .l:l.b6 � (43 . . . g5 is bad : 44 Ug6+ rttf7 45 .l:i.xg5 l:i.xa6 46 .Ue5 l:i.a3 4 7 'it>e2 :t:l.a2+ 48 'iin3 l:th2 49 'it>g3 l:.e2 50 'it>f4) 44 g5. ...
If Black stays passive,
he ends u p i n
ltJ
53
zugzwang (for exa mple, 4 4 . . . .l::!. a 2 45 h4 ). He is forced to excha nge pawns: 44. . . e2+ 45 'it>xe2 .Uxh3. N ow, after slightly improvi ng the position of his rook in a typical way: 46 l:i.f6+! 'it>g7 47 l:i.c6 (threatening 48 l:i.c7+ 'it'f8 49 a7) 47 . . . 'it'f7 , Wh ite plays 48 'it'd2. If 48 . . . l:i.a3 there follows 49 'it'c2 lla5 50 'it>c3 .l:!.xg5 51 'it>b4 .U.g 1 52 'it'c5 g5 53 a7 l:i.a 1 54 'it'b6 g4 55 Wb7 and wins (the black king is cut off from its passed pawn ). And if 48 . . . .Ug3, then 49 a7 .Ua3 50 l1c7+ 'it'e6 51 'it>c2 Wf5 52 '1t>b2 l1a6 53 'it'b3 'it>xg5 54 Wb4 (th reatening 55 .l:lc5+ and 56 .l::!. a 5) 54 . . . 'it>h6 (the only defence) 55 'it'b5 .l::!.a 1 56 'it'b6 .
Look in Mark Dvoretsky's book School of Chess Excellence 1: Endgame Analysis there in the chapter ' Rook against Pawns' a very similar position is analysed . The best defence - 56 .. Jib1 + (if 56 . . . g5 the most accu rate is 57 .l::!. c8 ! ) 57 'it>c6 .l::!. a 1 58 'it>b7 IIb1 + 59 'it'c8 .l::!. a 1 - all the same does not help: 60 'it'b8 'it>g5 61 a81i' I:Ixa8+ 62 Wxa8 'it'f4 63 .Uf7+ ! (a typical i ntermed iate check to gain a tempo; the hasty 63 Wb 7? g5 leads to a d raw) 63 . . . 'it>e4 64 .l::!. g 7 ! 'it>f5 65 'it>b7 g5 66 'it>c6 g4 67 �d5 ..t>f4 68 'it>d4 ..t>f3 69 Wd3 g3 70 .l::!.f7 + and 71 'it'e2. Or 60 . . . g5 6 1 a81i' l:txa8+ 6 2 'it'xa8 Wh5 (62 . . . g 4 6 3 .Uc5! - cutting off the king ! ) 63 'it'b7 'it'g4 64 'it>c6
54 �
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
'it>f3 65 .l:if7+! We3 66 .l:ig7! 'it>f4 67 Wd5 etc.
40 . . .
l:!.xc3?
Incidentally, now you will see why on the 46th and 47th moves White replaced his rook at c6 - i n order to free the b6-square for his king. Such 'trifles' sometimes decisively affect the result of the game, and on no account should they be disrega rded .
On the last move before the time control Jan Ti mman makes a decisive m i stake. He thought that he wou l d always be able to advance his pawn to e3, but he d i d not take account of the strong i m peding reply 41 .l:ie5 ! .
Unfortunately, in a time scramble I com mit ted a sign ificant i naccu racy.
If Ti m man h a d seen th is, the n , even without delving i nto variations, simply by the method of com parison he would have preferred 40 . . . e3+ ! 41 'i.t>e2 .:xc3 . Here the black rook is slig htly more active , and the wh ite king is slig htly fu rther from its kingside pawns than in the game. After 42 g5 l:!.a3 43 a5 '>t.>f7 44 l:!.e5 '>t.>f8 the position wou l d apparently have been d rawn . For example: 45 l:!.e6 .l:i.xa5 (45 . . . l:!.a2+ followed by 46 . . J::t x a5 is even more precise) 46 I!.xg6 .l:te5 4 7 h4 'it>f7 48 Itf6+ 'it>g? 49 .l:.f3 .l:!.e4 50 h5 .l:ih4 51 h6+ Wg6 .
38 Wf2
.:d3
Of course, the king must not be allowed to go to e3. 39 a4
c3
39 . . . .l:ixh3? would have lost: 40 l:!.c5 l:!.b3 4 1 .l:ixc4 .l:ixb2+ 4 2 We3 . After the inevitable fal l o f t h e e4-pawn Wh ite ach ieves a n ideal construction - his rook defends both pawns along the 4th rank, not al lowi ng any counterplay. The king can cal mly approach the a-pawn. There was also the i nteresting move 39 . . . Wf7 with the idea after 40 .l:ic5?! 'i.t>e6! of supporting the passed e-pawn with the king . 40 a5 c3 4 1 b4 ! is stronger (but not 4 1 bxc3 .l:ixc3 with a draw). After 4 1 . . J::t d 4 42 \t>e3 ! l:.c4 4 3 l:.c5 l:.xb4 4 4 .l:ixc3 l:.a4 45 .:c5 the same winning position, as occu rred later in the game, is reached . 40 bxc3
41 l:.e5 ! Here t h e g a m e w a s adjou rned . Analysis showed that Wh ite wins without d ifficu lty. 41 . . .
l:!.c4
The situation arising after 4 1 . . .l:!.xh3 42 .l:ixe4 has a l ready been d iscussed . In the event of 42 . . .'>t>f7 (with the idea of bri nging the king to g5) the strongest is 43 g 5 ! . 42 a5
.l:i.a4
43 'it>e3
�g7
44 g5
'it>f7
45 h4
'it>g7
46 'it>f4 Also good is 46 .l:!.e 7 + 'it>f8 4 7 .l:!.e6 .l:!.a3+ 48 �f4 (or even 48 �xe4 .l:!.xa5 49 .l:.xg6 .l:!.a4+ 50 '>t>f5 .l:.xh4 51 .l:!.a6). 46 . . .
f8 49 .l:i.b6 .l:i.xa5 (49 . . . '1t>f7 50 a6) 50 .l:i.xg6 with an easy wi n . I n the last variation
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
we clearly see the d ifference i n the position of the black pawn - with the pawn on e3 there would have been no w i n .
47 . . .
e3+
48 Wxe3
�e6
The only active chance - in reply to the rook check the king can now go to f5. 49 l:tb6+
�f5
50 a6
'it>g4
What would have happened after the cap ture of the h4-pawn? Of cou rse, 51 .l:!.b5+ and 52 .l:!.a5 - how can one not exploit an opportun ity to place the rook behind the passed pawn! 51 l:f.xg6 51 .Ud6? was less good in view of 51 .. .h5 and 52 ....ttx h4 .
51 . . .
�xh4
52 �d3
� h5
53 .l:!.c6
'it>xg5
54 'it>c3
'it>f5
55 �b3
l::t a 1
56 'it>c4
� e5
57 �c5!
LtJ
55
Moreover, the alternative 38 a4 ?! would in fact have thrown away the win. The variation considered by Yusupov - 38...'iJ.d3 39 a5 c3 40 bxc3 e3 4 1 �f1 l:f.xc3 42 a6 .l:!.a3 43 l:!.b6 Wf7 44 g5 e2+ 45 Wxe2 11xh3 46 .l:tf6+ 'it>g7 4 7 .l:i.c6 �f7 48 �d2 l:!.g3 49 a 7 'iJ.a3 50 .l:!.c 7 + 'it'e6 5 1 Wc2 Wf5 52 Wb2 etc. is unconvinc ing. Instead of the incorrect 5 1 ...Wf5? Black should hold his ground: 5 1 ...�d6! 52 �g7 Wc5 53 �b2 l:f.a6 54 Wb3 .:ta 1 , and White is unable to strengthen his position. He in turn could have successfully forced events ear lier: 4 1 a6! (instead of 4 1 �f 1) 4 1 ...'1J.d1 + 42 Wg2 e2 43 a7 l:f.a 1 (43...'ii g 1 + 44 �f3) 44 l:f.e5 l:f.xa7 45 l:f.xe2. But this happened only as a result of Black's mistake 40...e3?. According to Kuzmin's analysis, by playing 40...'1J.xc3! 4 1 a6 'iJ.a3 42 .l:!.b6 Wf7 43 h4 e3 he would have gained a draw.
I n concl usio n , here is a very complicated , purely a n alytical ending. Yusu pov - Mestel Esbjerg 1 980
The final touch - a 'shoulder-cha rge' . 57 . . .
I1a2
58 �b6 Black resigned . The 1998 No.5-6 issue of the magazine Shakhmaty v Rossii published an extensive article by Alexey Kuzmin, in which the grandmaster pointed out a number of mis takes in the analysis of the Yusupov Timman ending. It turns out that 40... e3+ would not have saved Timman. White suc ceeds in breaking through decisively with his king: 41 ..ti>f3! 1hc3 42 l:!.e5 l:ta3 43 �f4! .!:!.xa4+ 44 �g5, and the resulting ending with two pawns against one is won. This means that there is no reason to criticise his choice on the 38th move.
This interesti ng position with a n u n usual wh ite pawn configuration on the kingside a rose immed iately after the adjou rnment. Only a win offered me chances of taking first place in the tou rnament and achieving the
56
xc4 , and the a-pawn will be lost. Black cannot defend in this way - he is clearly too late with his counterplay. The best chance was 43 . . . e5! . Jonathan Mestel did not play this, because he was afraid of 44 .l:td2 'i¥te6 45 'it>xc4 . But after 45 . . . .l:i.c8+ 46 'it>b5 l:ta8! (46 . . . a3? loses to 47 '.ta4 .l:!.c3 48 b5) 47 'iil c6 (47 l:ta2 'iil d 5! 48 .l:i.xa4 .l:!.b8+) 47 . . . a3 48 .l:!.a2 .l:i.c8+ 49 '.tb7 .l:!.c3 50 b5 'iild 5 51 b6 'it>c4 Black saves the game. 52 '.taB 'it>b3 53 .l:!.xa3+ 'iil x a3 54 b7 .l:!.b3 leads to a d rawn pawn ending, while if 52 Wa6 , then 52 . . . 'it>b3 53 b7 Wxa2 54 b8'ik .l:!.b3 55 'ii'xe5 'it> b 1 56 'iVe 1 + 'it>b2 57 �e2+ 'lt>b 1 58 Wa5 a2 59 'it>a4 .l:.xf3 ! (59 ... .l:.b7 ! ? 6 0 'it'e4+ 'lt> c 1 6 1 'il¥c6+ 'it>d2 is also possible) 60 'ii' d 1 + 'it>b2 6 1 'Yi'xf3 a 1 'ti'+ 62 'it>b4 iVa? with a drawn queen ending. I was intending 44 .l:!.a7 ! , but then Black activates his rook by 44 . . J!d8 ! . After 45 b5! (weaker is 45 'iilxc4 .l::t d 2 46 b5 l:tc2 + ! ) 4 5 . . . 'iil e 6! (45 . . . .l:i.d3+? is bad : 4 6 Wxc4 l::txf3 47 b6 .l:!.xf2 48 .l::t x a4 , or 47 . . . .l::t b 3 48 b7 Wf5 49 'it>c5 ) 46 'i¥txc4 (46 b6? .l:.b8) 46 . . . .l::td 2 47 b6! (47 .l:.xa4 .l:.c2 + ! ) Black would have had to make a difficult choice between 47 . . . .Uc2+, 47 . . . Uxf2 and 47 . . . '1¥td6.
1 ) 4 7 ... .l:.c2+ 48 'i¥tb5 .l:i.b2+ 49 '.tc6 .l:!.c2+ 50 'it>b7 .l:!.xf2 (note that Black has employed a typical procedu re - he has fi rst d riven the king onto the sq uare in front of its own pawn , and only then captu red a pawn) 5 1 'i¥ta8 .l:!.xf3 52 b7 l:!.b3 53 llxa4 ! (all the same the pawn has to be captu red , so it is better to do this i m mediately, in order to halt the passed e5-pawn, even if only for a �oment) 53 . . . f5 54 b8'ii' .l:.xb8+ 55 'i¥txb8 . The resulting sharp position would appear to be won , for example: 55 . . . e4 56 .l::t a 5! (it is i mporta nt to cut off the black king ) 56 . . . h6 (56 . . . e3 57 .Ua3 f4 58 gxf4 'it>f5 59 llxe3) 59 .l:.a6+! '>td5 60 llxg6 e3 6 1 l:!.g8 '.te4 62 'iil c7 'it>f3 63 'it>d6 e2 64 l:te8 'it>xg3 65 .l:!.xe2 f4 66 'it>e5 or 66 h5. 2 ) 47 ... .l:!.xf2 48 l:!.xa4 (48 b7 llb2 49 'i¥tc5 does not work in view of 49 . . . a 3 ! ) 48 . . . Wd7?! (what happens after the strongest move 48 . . . '1¥td6! will be seen in the analysis of the followi ng variation) 49 .Ua7+ 'it> c6 50 .l:.xf7 'i¥txb6 5 1 'i¥td5, and Wh ite must win, since the black king is too far away from the kingside pawns. 3 ) 47 . . . '1¥td6 48 llxa4 (48 :Xf7 a3 49 .l:.xh7 a2 50 l:!a7 .l::txf2 leads to a d raw) 48 . . . .l:.xf2 Black loses after 48 . . . 'it>c6? 49 .l:!.a7 f5 50 .l:!.xh7 'i¥txb6 51 .l:!.h6 .l:!.xf2 52 .l:!.xg6+ 'it> c7 53 'i¥td 5 .l:!.xf3 54 'iilx e5. 49 .l:!.b4 l:!.c2+ 50 'iil b 5
ltJ
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
43 . . .
l:tb5?
44 'it>xc4
l1d5
45 lla7
l:td2
57
46 b5 In essence, Black has s i m ply lost a tempo. In the analogous positio n , wh ich we have a l ready ana lysed , the pawn stood at e5 and the king cou l d be brought i nto play with . . . 'it>e6. Now this resou rce is not available, and therefore Black has no defence. If, for example, 46 . . . l:!.xf2 , then 47 b6 l:.b2 48 b7 a3 49 'it>c5 a2 50 'it>c6 . Initially I thought that the pawn ending arising after 50 ... 'it>d71 51 b7 'it>c7 52 l:.c4+ l:!.xc4 53 'it>xc4 'it>xb7 54 'it>d5 was won i n view o f 54 . . . 'it>c7 55 'it>xe5 'it>d7 5 6 'it>f6 'it>e8 57 'it>g7 h5 58 g4. But Black can defend more strongly: 54 . . . f6 ! . Now it does not help to play 5 5 'it>e6 'it>c6 S 6 �xf6 'it>d5 57 'it>g7 'it>d4 58 'it>xh7 'it>e3 59 'ittxg6 'iit xf3 60 h5 e4 or 57 g4 'it>d4 58 h5 gxh5 (58 . . .'it>e3 is also possible) 59 gxh5 e4 ! 60 fxe4 'it>xe4 6 1 'it>g 7 'it>f5 62 'it>xh 7 'it>f6 ! with a draw. If instead 55 g4, then 55 . . . h5! (55 ... 'it>b6? 56 g5! or 55 . . . 'it>c7? 56 'it>e6 'it>c6 57 g5! ) 56 gxh5 gxh5 57 'it>e6 'it>c6 58 'it>xf6 �d5 59 'it>g5 e4! , and again it is a d raw. As you ca n see , to find the n arrow path enabling Black to hold on is extremely difficult, even i n home a n a lysis. In any event, Black was obl iged to play 43 . . . e5! . The conti nuation in the game loses without a fight.
46 . . .
.l:tc2+
47 'it>b4
e5
47 . . . l:!.xf2 48 l:!.xa4 ltxf3 49 b6. 48 b6
l:txf2
49 b7
'it>f5
49 . . . l:.b2+ 50 'it>c5, threatening 5 1 l:ta6+ and 52 l:.b6 . 50 g4+ ! 51 l:txa4 B l ack resig ned . This game also g ives an opportun ity for d iscussion a bout the tech n ique of playing the endgame. Every tempo, even a seem ingly insignificant one (such as . . . e6-e5! ), can have a sign ificant and possibly decisive i nfluence on the outcome of the game. You should always choose carefully the most accu rate way of putting your plans i nto practice .
58
�
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
Exercises
1 . White to move
2. Black to move
3. Wh ite to move
4. Wh ite to move
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
5. Wh ite to move
7 . Black to move
9. Black to move How would you eval uate the position?
6 . Black to move Is 59 . . . �g4 possible?
8 . Wh ite to move
1 0 . B lack to move Is 1 . . . a2 good or bad?
CZJ
59
60
�
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
Sol uti ons 1 . A . Rinck ( 1 906). 1 f6
3 'it'd? .ll xe2
1 . . . 'it>b5 2 �h8 .l:i.d7 3 �e8 , or 1 . . . lld4 2 l:!.e7 �e4 3 .ll e 8 and wins. 2 .l:th5+! 2 .l:!.h8? .l:!.f2 3 �f8 'it>b6 4 f7 'it>b7 5 'it>c4 .l:tf5 . 2...
�b6
3 .Ua7+ �g8 4 l:!.f7 �a5 5 .l:ta7 l:th5 ! . 3 . . .
l:th6!
4 �c7
�f6!
The d raw becomes obvious, for example: 5 a7 .l:!.f7+ ! (5 . . . .l:!.a6? 6 'it>b7) 6 'it>d6 .l:tf6+ 7 �e5 l:ta6 .
3 .l:tf5 ! ! 2. Trabattoni-Barlov (Valetta 1 979). It is not enough to find a good idea ; you must also choose the most accu rate way of carrying it out. Wh ite has two moves: 1 �e6 and 1 �g5. Which of them is correct? 1 :C.e6!
�g2+
2 'it>h1 !
.Uxg3
3 .l:!.xg6! The game went 1 :C.g5? :C.g2+ 2 � h 1 .l:tf2! (2 . . . .l:!.xg3? 3 :C.xg6!) 3 'lt>g 1 .l:tf6. Wh ite found himself in zugzwang and resig ned a few moves later. 3. P. Romanovsky ( 1 950). The rook must be switched to the 6th ra nk, but how can this be achieved? 1 . . . �f1 +? 2 �e5 .l:!.f6 3 l:tg8+ is not possible, and 1 .. J1b 1 ? 2 .l:ta7+ 'it>h6 3 .l:!.b7 .l:!.a 1 4 a7 also loses . 1 . . .
�a5+!
2 'it>e6 If 2 'it>e4 , then 2 . . . l:!.b5 3 .l:!.a7+ (3 .l:!.c8 lla5 4 :C.c6 'it>f7) 3 . . . 'it>g6 4 .l:!.b7 .l:!.a5 5 a7 'it>f6 6 'it>d4 'it>e6 7 'it>c4 'it>d6 8 'it>b4 Ita 1 (or 8 . . . 'it>c6) with a draw. 2 . . .
.l:!.h5! !
The only way! 2 . . J::tb5? is bad in view of 3 .l:ta7+ and 4 l:!.b7 . If instead 2 . . . .l:!.g5?, then 3 .l:ta7+ 'it>g8 4 �f6! .l:!.a5 5 .l:ta8+ �h7 6 'it>e7.
4 . Vaisser-Martinovic (Vrnjacka Banja 1 984 ). 1 'it'd 1 ! !
gxh4
2 �xh4+
'it>xf3
3 .l:!.h5 3 .l:!.h3+ �g2 4 l:i.h5! l:.f2 5 'it>e1 is also possible. 3 . . .
'it>g4
4 l:Ib5
f5
5 We1 And the game soon ended i n a d raw. All other king moves lead to a loss: A) 1 'it>d3? gxh4 2 .l:!.xh4+ 'it>xf3 3 .l:!.h5 'it>g4 and 4 . . .f5. The wh ite king is stuck on the 'long side' of the pawn . B ) 1 'it>e1 ? 'it>e3! 2 'it>d 1 gxh4 3 .l:txh4 f5! 4 f4 .l:!.a 1 + 5 �c2 .l:!.f1 6 .l:!.h3+ .l:!.f3 7 l:th8 .l:!.xf4. C) 1 'it>f1 ? 'it>xf3 2 'lt>g 1 (2 'it>e 1 .Ua 1 + 3 'it>d2 gxh4 4 .l:!.f5+ ..t>g3 5 .l:!.xf7 h3 6 .l:!.g7+ �f4 7 .l:tf7+ �e5 8 llh7 h2) 2 . . . .Ug2 + ! Not 2 . . . gxh4? 3 .l:!.f5+! (3 .l::i.x h4? Wg3) 3 . . . �g3 4 .l:txf7 or 2 . . . g4? 3 .l:!.f5+ �g3 4 h5! .l:!.g2+ (4 . . . .l:!.a 1 + 5 .l:tf1 ) 5 �f1 l:th2 6 �g 1 with a d raw. 3 �h 1 (3 'it>f1 tlh2 4 l:i.xg5 .l:!. h 1 + 5 .l:!.g 1 l:::tx g 1 + 6 �xg 1 �g4 ) 3 . . . g4 4 l:!.f5+ 'lt>g3 5 h5 (or 5 .l:!.xf7) 5 . . . .Uf2 ! , and Wh ite can resign. 5. Dorfman-Khol mov (Saratov 1 98 1 ) . 43 .l:!.d5!
.Ue4
l2J
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
61
43 .. J1b8 44 .l:txd7.
44 .Uxb5 And White retains excellent winning chances, for example: 44 . . . d5 45 .Ub7 ! , cutti ng off the king on the 8th rank, or 44 .. :;itt? 45 �e2 ! and 46 Wd3 . The game conti nuation 43 l1xd7? w a s a mistake because of 43 .. J1e4 ! . The point is that if 44 l:td4 Black can go i nto the pawn ending: 44 . . . l:Ixd4! 45 exd4 )!;>f7 , and if 46 d5 rt:ie7 47 'it>e3 , then 47 . . . Wd 7 ! 48 d6 (48 Wd4 rt:id6) 48 . . . 'it>c6 ! 49 Wd3 c.t>d7 ! 50 'it>d4 'it>xd6. White's comparatively best chance is to go into a queen endgame by 46 )!;>g2 (instead of 46 d5} 46 . . . )!;>e6 47 �h3 )!;>d5 48 )!;>h4 rt:ixd4 49 'it>g5 'it>c4 50 'it>xg6 �xb4 51 'it>xf5 rt:ic4 52 'it>g5! (52 We5 b4 53 f5 b3 54 f6 b2 55 f7 b 1 'iV 56 f8'ii' 'ife 1 +) 52 . . . b4 53 f5 �d5 ! 54 f6 'it>e6 5 5 �g6 b3 5 6 f7 b 2 57 f8'if b 1 'iV+ 58 \t>g5 (58 Wg 7 it'b2+ 59 �g8 'ir'f6 ! ) - i n this case t h e opponent is stil l req u i red to defend accu rately, although objectively the position is a d raw.
I n t h e g a m e Black preferred t h e cautious 59 ... We6 and after 60 'it>c5 he made a decisive mistake : 60 . . J1c2+? (60 . . . Wd7! was necessary, with good d rawing chances). There followed 61 c.t>b5 Wd6 62 'it>a6 'itc6 63 l1a1 l:Ic4 64 b7 l1b4 65 l1c1 + �d7 66 lieS B lack resigned .
g4 fxg4 45 l1d4 g3+! 46 'itxg3 (46 Wf3 g2) 46 ... l1xe3+ 47 'itg4 l:r.b3 48 f5 � 49 rt:Jf4 gxf5 50 'it>xf5 'ite7 51 )!;>e5 l:Ib1 52 )!;>d5 .!:!.c1 Draw.
As was shown by Igor Zaitsev, the active king move wou l d have secu red a d raw, but only if Black had fou n d a far from obvious defensive idea .
44
An interesting attempt to play for a win was suggested by Viorel Bolog a n : 43 �f3?! I1e4 44 g4 ! .l:txb4 (44 . . . Wf7 45 .Uxd7+ We6 46 .!:!.g7 �f6 47 l1b7 .l:txb4 48 g5+ We6 49 l:Ig7 ) 45 gxf5 gxf5 4 6 .l:txd7. (see diagram)
Black can apparently hope to save the game after 46 . . . l:!.c4 47 .ti.d5 .l:Ic7 48 .ti.xf5 (48 .ti.xb5 .M.f7) 48 . . . .ti.b7, for example: 49 l:td 5 b4 50 J::i.d2 b3 51 .l:tb2 Wf7 52 'it>e4 )!;>e6 53 '.t>d4(d3) 'it>f5 , or 49 'ite2 b4 50 )!;>d2 b3 51 rt:ic1 .l:te7 52 .l:tg 5+ 'it>f7 53 l:tg3 Wf6 .
6. Portisch-Petrosian (Ca n d idates Match , 1 2th game, Palma de Mallorca 1 974) .
59 . . .
'it>g4!
60 I1a4! Threatening 6 1 Wc3+ . 60 . . .
c.t>h3 ! !
6 0 . . . Wg3? i s hopeless: 6 1 Wc5 f5 6 2 l:!.b4 .l:tc2+ 63 c.t>d6 lk8 64 b7 .l:tb8 65 Wc7 .l:th8 66 b8'iV .l:txb8 67 .l:txb8 �xh4 (67 .. f4 68 Wd6 f3 69 We5 f2 70 .l:tf8 Wxh4 71 We4) 68 )!;>d6 'lt>g3 69 )!;>e5 h4 70 Wxf5 h3 71 l:tb3+ Wg2 (7 1 . . . 'it> h4 72 �f4 h2 73 .l:tb 1 ) 72 'it>g4 h2 73 lib2+ 'itg 1 74 'itg3 , or 68 . . . �g4 69 )!;>e5 h4 70 �d4! (70 .l:tb4+? f4! 71 I1xf4+ Wg3) 70 . . . h 3 (70 . . . f4 7 1 'it> d 3 'it>f3 72 l1h8 ! ) 71 )!;>e3 h2 72 .l:tg8+ �h3 73 �f2 h 1 4J+ 74 Wf3 . 61 'it>c5
f5
62 .l:tb4
.l:Ixb4!
62
�
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
63 �xb4
f4
64 b7
f3
65 bB'iV
f2
Wh ite needs to obta i n the same position , but with Black to move . 1 l:ta2 ! !
Wh5
1 . . . 'it>g5 2 l:tg2+! 'it>h5 3 .i':lh2, or 2 ... Wf5 3 .llf2+ 'lt>e4 4 .l:!.f6 ! .
And Wh ite cannot wi n . 7. Petrosian-Karpov (44th USSR Championsh ip, Moscow 1 976).
2 .l:th2
.l:!.h6
3 .l:l h 1 !
51 ... 'it>h6? 52 f7 �h7 (52 .. J1a 1 53 'it>g8) 53 h6 'lt>xh6 (53 . . . .l:!.a 1 54 .l::t xc2 also does not help) 54 'lt>g8 leads to a position from Emanuel Lasker's famous study. Wh ite wins by grad ually pushing back the opponent's king: 54 .. J:ig 1 + 55 �h8 .i':lf1 56 .i':lc6+ Wh5 57 'it>g7 l:r.g 1 + 58 'it>h7 .l:!.f1 59 l:lc5+ 'it>h4 60 'it>g7 .l:!.g 1 + 61 'it>h6 l:tf1 62 .l:!.c4+ 'it>h3 63 �g6 l:tg 1 + 64 Wh5 l:tf1 65 l:tc3+ �h2 66 l:txc2+. 51 . . .
'it>h8!
52 f7
tl.a1 !
53 'it>e7 I n the game there followed 53 l:i.xc2 .l:!.a8+ 54 'it>e7 .l:ta7+ 55 'it>f6 .l:ta6+ 56 'lt>g5 .l:ta5+ 57 Wg4 .l:ta4+ 58 'it>g3 .l:ta3+ 59 Wg2 'lt>g7 60 .l:tf2 'it>fB 61 .l:!.f5 l:ta6! (6 1 . . . .l:la7? 62 h6 .l:!.xf7 63 h7 or 62 . . . l:ta6 63 .l:!.h5) 62 �g3 .l::t h 6 63 'it>g4. Draw agreed in view of 63 . . . .l:lh7. 53 . . .
l:te1 +
54 'it>f6
tl.f1 +
55 'it>g6
.Ug 1 +
56 'it>h6
c1 "ii'+ !
57 .l:!.xc1
.l:lg6+ !
Either captu re leads to stalemate. 8. Makarychev-Vasyu kov (Vilnius 1 980/8 1 ; variation from the game). Black will win if he can manage to advance the h-pawn just one step more. After the obvious 1 .l:la 1 ? �h5 (th reatening 2 . . . h3) 2 l:th 1 l:th6! Wh ite ends up in zugzwan g : 3 'it>e7 'it>g4 4 .l:lg 1 + �f4 with the th reats of 5 . . . 'it>xe5 and 5 . . . h3, or 3 tl.h2 'it>g4 4 l:tg2+ 'it>f3 5 .l:!.h2 �g3 and 6 . . . h3.
Now it is Black who is in zugzwan g . He is unable to win . 3 . . . 'it>g4 4 .l:!.g 1 + �f3 5 .l:tf1 + �g2 6 .Uf6 .l:!.h8 7 l:txe6 h3 8 l:tg6+ 'it>f2 9 l:lf6+ We2 1 0 .l:!.g6! h2 11 .l:!.g2+ 'it>f3 1 2 l:lxh2 .l:txh2 1 3 e6. 9. Larsen-Kavalek (7th match game, Solingen 1 970). Wh ite wants to play .l:.c4 . If Black is forced totally onto the defensive with . . . .l:!.a7, then Wh ite's extra pawn together with the pas sive black rook should ensure him a straig htforward win. That is what happened i n the game: 1 . . .'it>g7? 2 .l:!.c4 .l:ta7 (2 ... .l:tb3 3 l:lxa4 l:txg3 4 tl.g4+) 3 'it>c3 h5 4 Wb4 'it>g6 5 .Uc6+ 'it>g7 6 tl.c5 Wh6 7 'it>b5 l:le 7 (otherwise 8 .l:!.c4) 8 'it>xa4 l:te3 9 g4 hxg4 1 0 hxg4 .l:te4+ 1 1 �b5 .Uxg4 1 2 a4 .l::!.g 1 1 3 a5 l:lb1 + 1 4 Wc6 .l:la 1 1 5 'it>b6 l:tb1 + 1 6 .l:tb5 .l:lf1 1 7 a6 tl.f6+ 1 8 'it>a5 :tf7 1 9 .l:lb6+ 'it>g5 20 tl.b7 .l:lf1 21 a7 'lt>h6 22 .Ub6+ 'it>g7 23 .l:la6 Black resigned .
ctJ
The Theory and Practice of Rook Endings
1 . . .Wf7 , suggests itself, i n order to meet 2 :!:ic4 with the counter-attack 2 . . . �b3 ! . But White plays 2 g4! , intending 3 h4 and only then 4 l'ic4. After 2 . . . �e6 3 h4 'it>d5 Wh ite's threat is parried , but 4 g5! creates a new threat: 5 �g3 followed by 6 �g4 or 6 h5 (rook behind the passed pawn ) . Black's position becomes critica l .
1 . . .
3 �h2
63
'lt>h5
h5! !
The only way to save the game! I n the event of 2 �c4 .ti.b3! 3 .UXa4 .l:t.xg3 there is no check o n g4 - the position is d rawn . If 2 h4, then 2 . .l:l.g7 and 3 . . . .ti.g4, if there is noth ing better. The rook on g4 is very active - it attacks the white pawn , defends its own and restricts the mobility of the wh ite king . Finally, if 2 g4 there is the reply 2 . . . h4! , fixing the white h3-pawn as a target for a cou nter-attack along the 3rd rank (in the event of .l::t c4 ). . .
1 0. Moiseev-Bagi rov (Moscow 1 956).
Sooner or later Black will have to play . . . a3a2 (the march of the king to the a2-square is obviously u n real). The only question is whether at the same time he can obta i n a secon d passed pawn on the f-file. There was a stra ig htforward win by 1 . . . g5! 2 hx g 5 'it>g6 3 .l:Ia7 a2! 4 'it>h2 'it>h5! 5 'it>g2 g6 6 �a4 'it>xg5. Then Black moves his king and plays . . . g6-g5 and . . . f5-f4 , achieving his a i m . I n the game he chose a different, far less successfu l move order.
1 . . .
a2?
2 .Ua6!
'it>h6
I n the event of 2 . . . g5 3 hxg5 the king can n ot approach the g5-pawn.
Can a nyth ing be done agai nst the th reat ened . . . g6-g5 ? 4 .Ua4!
'it>h6
5 l1a6!
'it>h5
6 .Ua4!
g5
7 g4+ ! ! This is the whole point - Black can no longer obta i n a passed pawn on the f-file. The game concl uded : 7 ... 'lt>xh4 8 gxf5+ g4 9 'lt>g2 .l:!.b1 1 0 llxa2 .l:!.b4 1 1 .i:tc2 g3 1 2 .Ua2 'it'g4 1 3 llc2 .l:!.f4 1 4 llc8 After 1 4 .Uc7 .Uf2+ 1 5 'lt>g 1 .Ua2 Wh ite ca nnot play 1 6 .Uxg7? 'it>f3 . It was for the sake of such variations that Black left the f5pawn al ive . 1 4 . . . .Uf2+ 1 5 'it>g1 .l:!.e2 1 6 .Ua8 'it>f3 1 7 .l::!.a 3+ .Ue3 18 .Ua1 g2 ( 1 8 . . .'it>g4 1 9 .Ua8) 19 'lt>h2! ( 1 9 .l:!.b 1 ? 'it>g3 20 .l::!. a 1 .Uf3 2 1 .Ub 1 l'if1 +) 19 ... 'it>f2 20 .l:!.a2+ .l::!. e 2 21 .l::!.x e2+ 'it>xe2 22 'it>xg2 Draw.
64
� Mark Dvoretsky
F rom the S i m ple to the Com p l i cated The Theory of E n d i ngs with O p pos ite -co l o u r B i s h o ps
Wendgame the most important thing is
hen trying to master any type of
after a bishop check), then 'it>e5 and f5-f6 . I n order to cou nter this pla n , Black must take control of the e6-sq uare. But from where , d 7 or b3? We will consider both possibil ities.
to lay a firm foundation: to pick out the most importa nt theoretical positions, ideas and tech niques, which u nderlie our notions of the endgame in question . As a rule, the necessary basic knowledge is made up of a small nu mber of rather simple positions, but they must be understood i n every detail and firmly remembered .
After 1 . . . i.. b 3? the position is lost. First Wh ite gives a verifying check with his bishop, i n order to determine the position of the enemy king . I n so doing it is important
A successfu lly developed system of basic endgame knowledge provides a rel iable guide in the analysis of more complicated situations and helps them to be more successfu lly understood . How this occu rs , I will show using an example of endings with opposite-colou r bishops.
Next the white king makes a by-pass manoeuvre to the aid of the e-pawn, on the opposite side to where the oppo nent's king has moved. For exa mple:
Connected passed pawns Let's discuss in detail the followi ng elemen tary ending.
that the bishop should prevent the king from wedging itself between the pawns after White plays e5-e6. Hence , 2 i.. g 5+ ! .
2 . . . 'it>f7 3 'it>d4 i.. a 2 4 �c5 i.. b 3 (4 . . . i.. b 1 5 e6+ and 6 f6 ) 5 �d6 and 6 e6+ . Or 2 . . . 'it>d7 3 �f4 i.. a 2 4 i.. h 4 i..f7 5 �g5 �e7 6 �h6+ �d 7 7 �g7 i.. c4 8 'it>f6 and 9 e6+ . After the pawns have reached e6 and f6 , even if the th reat of f6-f7+ is parried , Wh ite repeats the same proced u re : a verifying check with the bishop and a by-pass by the king . It is incorrect to play 2 il.b4 + ? �f7 ! (Black's only hope is to provoke a prematu re e5-e6+ and wedge his king between the pawns) 3 �d4? i.. c2 ! 4 e6+ �f6 5 e7 i.. a 4 with a d raw. As soon as the pawns are blockaded on squares of the same colour as their bishop, the draw becomes obvious.
Thus, with his bishop on b3 Black loses. On the other hand , 1 i.. d 7! 2 i.. g 5+ �f7 1eads to a n easy d raw. Su bseq uently Black waits, movi ng his bishop between c8 and d7. I n order t o prepare e5-e6 , Wh ite wou ld need to make a by-pass with his king from the left, . . .
Wh ite is threatening to play e5-e6 (perhaps
From the Simple to the Complicated
l2J
65
but this is impossible, since the king is tied to the defence of the f5-pawn. The following ru le suggests itself: the bishop should be positioned such that, while preventing the advance of one pawn, it simultaneously attacks the other.
We will use the ideas from the basic position just examined for an analysis of other positions. First some com paratively simple ones. Let us shift all the pieces one ra nk forward . What has changed?
After a l l , with the king on f8 White's only plan - a by-pass with the king from the right - is impossible: the edge of the board prevents it. But it is Wh ite to move , and he shuts the opponent's king in the corner by 2 .il.. c4 ! and then carries out the standard manoeuvre the by-pass with the king from the left: 'it>h5g4-f5-e6-f7 . After 1 if..f8 ! the by-pass is no longer possible, but what about the threat of zugzwang? I n order to put the opponent in zugzwang, Wh ite must deprive the king of the g8-square by playing 2 if.. c 4. But after 2 .i.xh6! 3 �xh6 things end in stalemate . . . .
In the event of 1 . . . .i.b4 there is no d ifference. Wh ite wins in exactly the same way (a check and a by-pass by the king); moreover, here, as it is easy to see , both checks at b6 and b5 are equally good .
. . .
After 1 .1i.d8 2 if.. g 6+ (or 2 .i.b5+) 2 �f8 3 Wf5 Black loses because of zugzwang - in contrast to the previous position , he no longer has a waiti ng move with his bishop. . . .
. . .
(see diagram) The proximity of the edge of the board introduces new featu res i nto the evaluation of the positio n . Let us verify 1 . . . if.. b 2. If Black could also manage to play 2 . . . Wg8 and 3 . . . 'it>f8 , the d raw would become obvious.
I n all the situations exam i ned earlier the
66
�
From the Simple to the Complicated
weaker side was a1m1ng to g ive up his bishop for the two pawns . Here, of cou rse, this familiar plan of defence will no longer save him. Does this mean that Black is doomed? It turns out that he is not - wing pawns can sometimes be stopped without resorting to the bishop sacrifice . 1 . . i.d1 ! 2 �h4 (otherwise g4-g5 cannot be played ) 2 . . . � 3 g5 �e6 ! 4 g6 'itf5 ! Wh ite cannot advance either his king (the edge of the board prevents this), or his h-pawn . And if 5 g7, then 5 . . . .ib3 and 6 . . . .ig8 , with a secu re l ight-sq uare blockade of the enemy pawns. .
The followi ng example is much more d iffi cult.
M. Henneberger 1916
'Accord ing to the ru les' Wh ite should give a check on h5, to control the g6-square . The black king should move to e7, forcing the wh ite king to make a by-pass to the right, where there is little space for ma noeuvri ng. 1 i.h5+ �e7 ! (after 1 . . . 'it>g7? 2 �e4 there is noth ing to prevent the by-pass by the king from the left) 2 'it>g4 .ib2 3 .ig6 (otherwise the king can not advance, but now the i mporta nt g6-sq uare is i naccessible to the king) 3 . . . .ic3 4 �h5 (th reatening 5 �h6, 6 .ih5 and so o n ) 4 . . . ..tg7 ! 5 .ih7 �f7 ! 6 .ig6+ �e7, and Wh ite has been u nable to ach ieve his a i m - to prepare f5-f6+ . A s w e know from the basic position , the check from the other side also does not ach ieve a nyth i n g : 1 .ic4+ �g7 ! 2 �e4 .id2! 3 f6+ �g6 . Even s o , t h e resources for playing for a win are not yet exhausted . The black king can fi rst be l u red to g7, and only then the bishop switched to the e8-h5 d iagon a l , preparing a by-pass by the king from the left. 1 �g4
.ib2
2 �h5
'it>g7!
The threat was 3 �h6; 2 . . . .ig7? is bad in view of 3 .ic4+ and 4 'it>g6. 3 .ib5
i.c3
4 i.e8
.id4
4 . . . �f8 5 .ig6 �g7 is equally good . 5 .ig6
The black bishop i s not i n its best position (the place for it is at e7 or dB). In the basic theoretical position , with which we beg a n , agai nst such a bishop Wh ite won easily. I f we reason logical ly, o n l y o n e factor, d isti n guishing the given position from the basic one, can prevent the implementation of the standard winning plan - the proxim ity of the edge of the boa rd . Let us see!
In the event of 5 'it>g4 (th reatening 6 .ih5, 7 'it>f3 , 8 �e4 and so o n ) the black king succeeds i n switch ing to e7: 5 . . . �f8 ! 6 i.h5 �e7 , tra nsposi ng i nto the fi rst of the va riations we exa m i ned . 5. . .
.ic3
6 �g4 Wh ite's plan appears to have tri u mphed: 6 . . . �f8 7 f6 is bad for Black, and otherwise Wh ite plays 7 i. h 5 . But at this moment the black bishop succeeds in switch ing to its lawfu l place.
From the Simple to the Complicated
6. . .
i.a5! !
Because of the position of the bishop on g6, 7 f6+ is not possible. 7 i.h5
i.d8
Black has set u p the d rawn position which is basic to this type of endgame.
At one of our tra i n i ng sessions Sergey Dolmatov and Vad i m Zviagintsev tried to solve a study by Jan Ti mman, composed in 1 989.
ctJ
67
After 4 . . . d3 5 i.g6 f5 8 �d6 il.. a 6 9 �c6 ! �f6 10 Si.c3+ �e7 1 1 il.. e 1 ! , or immed iately 1 0 i.e1 ). 3...
I phoned Zviagi ntsev and told h i m about the plan I had fou n d . Half an hour later Vadim phoned me back and reported that the position was nevertheless d rawn !
.Jli.g4
ct>g6 ! !
The o n l y chance o f saving the game is the bold manoeuvre of the king to f5 . After the incorrect 7 . . . ii.c8? 8 'it>e4 ! B lack unexpect edly ends u p i n zugzwa ng and loses: 8 . . . 'it>g6 9 e6 or 8 . . . ii.h3 9 'it>d4 . It is curious that the zugzwang here is mutu a l ; if it is Wh ite to move he ca n not win - 9 �d4 �g6! transposes i nto the m a i n variation , analysed
CZJ
F rom the Simple to the Complicated
below, wh ile in the event of 9 ii.e1 ii.h3 1 0 'it>d4 the black king retu rns to the queenside: 1 0 'it>e7 1 1 ii.b4+ �d7 1 2 �e3 �c7 ! ! etc.
69
Berger - Kolterma n Arkhangelsk 1 948
...
8 'iite4
Threatening 9 e6. 8. . .
ii.f5+ !
9 'iit d4
.tc8 !
1 0 'i.t>c5
�f5
11 'i.t>d6
.ta6
12 e6
.tc4
Or 1 2 . . . ..ltb5 - Wh ite can n ot w i n . A s you see, t h e a nalysis proved t o be rather difficult, and fu l l of by no means obvious manoeuvres by both sides. But even so, at the basis of the analysis were ideas which we derived from the basic theoretical posi tion.
Separated pawns Generally speakin g , the fu rther apart the pawns are, the more d ifficult the defence. When I was young I lea rned a h u morous rule for assessing such endings: if you can reach both pawns with the fingers of one hand , then the position is d rawn ; if you can't (the distance between the pawns is too great) the position is won ! Alas, such a g u ide is too imprecise to be trusted . In fact, here there exist many different situations which it is not at all necessary to study and remember. The outcome usually depends on the possibil ity of a breakthrough by the stronger side's king to the pawn being stopped by the bishop, i n order to queen it. But the fol lowing ending should defin itely be included in our system of basic knowledge.
1 �e2
b3
2 'it>d1
'i.t>b4
3 .th7
'iit a 3
4 ii.g6 If now 4 . . . b2 (with the threat of 5 . . . 'it>a2), then 5 ii. b 1 ! �b3 6 'it>e2 . 4. . .
'i.t>b2
5 .tf7 ! The threat was 5 . . . � a 1 and 6 . . . b2 . By attacki ng the b3-paw n , Wh ite forestalls the opponent's pla n . 5 . . .
'it>a2
6 ii.e6
�a3
With the th reat of 7 . . . b2 8 ii.f5 �a2 . 7 .tf5! Draw. Let us consider a more complicated ending.
70
�
From the Simple to the Complicated
Yu . Averbakh 1 954
But if it is Black to move he saves the game - he can prevent the opponent's king from going to the kingside and set up a secure defence on the queenside. 1 . . .
'it>d7!
2 'it>c3
�e6
3 �d4
.ltb7
4 'it>c5
'it>d7
5 �b6
i.f3
6 a6
�c8!
The threat was 7 'ita? 'lot>c8 8 d7+! �xd7 9 'it>b8 7 'it>a7 N ow the threat of 8 d7+ must be parried by the bishop, but from which square , c6 or g4? I n the first edition of the monograph on chess endings ed ited by Averbakh, the analysis of this endgame conta i ned a seri ous mistake - it was discovered by Yusupov, when I i nvited h i m to try and solve th is position . However, Averbakh himself cor rected the mistake i n a su bsequent ed ition . 1 'it>c3 i.f1 2 'it>d4 .lte2 3 �e5 'it>d7 Now it is wrong to play 4 'lot>f6 i.d3 5 a6? i.xa6 6 �xg6 'it>e8 , when the familiar Berger-Kolterman ending is reached (with reversed colours). The correct plan is to play for zugzwang. From d3 the bishop defends the g6-pawn along one d iagonal, and along the other it prevents the advance of the a-pawn ; there fore it has no moves. The wh ite king must not be allowed to reach e 7 - this means that, apart from d7, the black king also has two other squares: e8 and d8. The fi rst can be taken away from it by placing the white king on f7, and the second by moving the bishop to c7. 4 .ltc5 i.f1 5 i.b6 .te2 6 .tc7 i.d3 7 'it>f6 'it>e8 8 'it>g7 'it>d7 9 'it>f7 , and Black is i n zugzwang.
7 . . .
.ltg41
After 7 . . . i.c6? 8 i.b4 Black ends up in zugzwan g : 8 . . . i.d7 9 'it>b6 .lli.f5 1 0 d7+! 'it>xd7 1 1 'it>b7 or 1 0 .txd7 1 1 a7. . . .
8 'it>b6
i.f3 !
8 . . . 'it>d7? 9 'it>b7. 9 'it>c5
'it>d7
1 0 Wd4
'it>e6!
And Wh ite ca n not wi n . Endi ngs with many pawns After studying for many years the theory of endings with opposite-colour bishops, I observed several rules which , as it tu rned out, apply in nearly all such endings and g reatly help in confidently fi nding you r way in them. Before tu rn ing to a description of my theory of endings with opposite-colour bishops, I will show an example i n which , despite its simplicity, nearly all the rules that we will be talking about a re displayed .
From the Simple to the Complicated
Textbook ex ampl e
71
tion of an impreg nable position , in which it is sufficient to stick to waiting tactics si nce everything is secu rely blockaded and de fended . The main theme in endings with oppo site-colour bishops is the theme of the fortress. The weaker side aims to con struct a fortress, while the stronger side aims to prevent its construction or (if it has already been constructed) find a way of destroying the opponent's defences.
If it is Wh ite to move he saves hi mself by 1 c5! i.. x c 5 2 �b3 e5 3 �e6 'l,;c7 4 'it>e4. Later he s i m ply plays h i s bishop up and down the h3-c8 d iagonal. 1 . Drawi ng tendencies. This i s perhaps the best-known property of endings with opposite-colour bishops. Here it is some times possible to save the game when you are 2-3 pawns down (as, for instance , i n the example just exa m i ned ). And remember the endings with two con nected passed pawns - in what other type of endgame may such an enormous material and positional advan tage prove insufficient for a win?
The consequences of this rule a re obvio u s : the stronger side should be extremely careful both when transposing into an ending with opposite-colour bishops, and when playing such an ending - here it is easy to run into a drawing counter chance. And for the weaker side, trans posing into an ending with opposite colour bishops is sometimes a last resort here the chances of a draw are sharply improved. -
II. Fortress. A fortress is a system of passive defence, consisti ng in the construe-
I n the textbook example the concl uding position constitutes a fortress. Wh ite does not seek any active cou nterplay, but simply wa its , and the opponent is u nable to do anyth ing. When playing endings, an abil ity to analyse positions logical ly, by th i n king i n plans and schemes, is very important. The role of logical th i n king is especially great in endi ngs with opposite-colour bishops. In the majority of cases they should not be 'played ' , but 'constructed' - fi rst look for the a rrangement of pieces and pawns which makes the position impreg nable, and only then verify by calcu lating variations whether it is possi ble to achieve the plan ned set-up and whether it is i ndeed impregnable. The following mech a n i s ms constitute either the most i mportant general methods of constructi ng and destroying a fortress , or featu res of the most typical and freq uently occu rring types of fortresses. I l l . Arrangement of the pawns. There is a wel l-known principle which prescribes that pawns should be placed on sq uares of the opposite colour to those on which you r own bishop moves. In endings with opposite colou r bishops this principle remains valid for the stronger side (it is especially i mpor tant with regard to con nected passed pawns). But, contrary to the general rule, the weaker side should keep his pawns on
From the Simple to the Complicated
squares of the colour of his own bishop
in this case it is usually possible to ensure that they are securely defended . I ndeed , a pawn defended by the bishop can be attacked only by the enemy ki ng, wh ich means that it rema ins invul nerable. In other types of endings such a pawn may be attacked not only by the king, but also by another piece (knight or l i ke-colour bishop).
-
I n the textbook example the weaker side's pawn is on a l ight sq uare - the colour of its own bishop, and this factor ensures the solid ity of the fortress constructed by Wh ite . I n the i n itial position the stronger side, with his da rk-sq uare bishop, has only the one pawn on e6 correctly placed on a lig ht square. If Black were able to approach it with his king , he would then play . . . f6-f5 and easily convert his material advantage. The only way to d raw is to force the e-pawn to move onto a sq uare of the colour of its own bishop. IV. Nuances i n the position are more important than material. I n endings with opposite-colour bishops the nu mber of pawns on the board is often of fa r less importa nce even than seemingly insign ificant cha nges in the placing of the pieces or pawns. Therefore in endings with opposite-col our bishops, positional pawn sacrifices constantly occur. Thus in the textbook
example Wh ite happily sacrifices a third ( ! ) pawn in order t o achieve a 'trifle' - shift the black e-pawn one step forward .
and stops the two enemy pawns on f6 and g5. But i n the Averba kh position analysed earlier the bishop defends the g6-pawn along one diagonal and restrains the passed a5-pawn along another. Such a situation is u nfavourable for Black. In the solution and the false trail you saw two typical ways of exploiting the defects of a 'torn ' bishop: zugzwang and diversion.
VI.
Pawns ' u nder attack'. A typical defensive procedure is an attack on the opponent's pawns by the bishop. I n thi s
way either they are forced t o move onto less favou rable squares of the colour of their own bishop (as i n the textbook example), or the opponent's king is tied to the defence of the pawns (as in the basic position with two con nected passed pawns or the Berger Kolterman ending). Endings very often occur where the stronger side has a passed pawn . It must be blocked by the king (fi rst system of defence) or the bishop (second system of defence). VII. First system of defence - the weaker side's king blocks the opponent's passed pawn , and the bishop defends its own pawns. This is the basic and usually the most rel iable method of defence. Attempts to destroy the first system of defence always involve creating a sec ond passed pawn, often by means of a pawn breakthrough.
stronger, and the weaker side it is very important that the bishop should defend its own pawns and restrain the enemy pawns 'without being torn', along one and the same diagonal. In the concl uding
VI I I . Second system of defence - the bishop stops the passed pawn (or some times two , along the same d iagon a l ) , while the king , expressed i n footbal l language, engages i n 'zonal defence' - it protects its pawns and restricts the activity of the opponent's king.
position of the textbook exa mple the bishop on the h3-c8 diagonal defends the h3-pawn
Attempts to destroy the second system of defence always involve breaking
V. Principle of one diagonal . Both for the
ttJ
From the Simple to the Complicated
through with the king to its passed pawn (sometimes after a preparatory diver sionary attack on the opposite wing).
We wil l now do some tra i n i n g i n the employment of this theoretical foundation for the analysis of specific endings. We wi l l try t o approach them in a logical way: w e will point out which system of defence has been employed or should have been employed by the weaker side and i n what way it may be possible to try and destroy this fortress, whether the pawns a re correctly placed , whethe r it isn't possible to put the oppo nent's pawns ' u nder attack' , whether, in order to carry out some idea, it is possible to sacrifice a pawn or two , and so o n .
F u c h s - Khol mov Dresden 1 956
73
I n a book h e wrote on the endgame, N i kolai Krog ius considered th is outcome to be perfectly logica l . I n fact the position is, of cou rse , d rawn - this is clear at first glance, it being sufficient only to remember the d raw ing tendencies with opposite-colour bish ops. How can one explain such a bad mistake in eva luation , made by a player who at one time was q u ite a strong g randmaster? I n my view, by a change of professio n : one by no mea ns fi ne day Krog ius decided to ' re qual ify as a manager' , first in his native Saratov, and then in Moscow - he became head (and, it should be mentioned , a very nasty head ) of the Chess Ad ministration of the U S S R Sports Committee . Apparently Caissa is a jealous woman who seeks vengeance when she is betrayed . 43 . . . 44
f6!
'it>d2
Wh ite's objective is to defend the kingside with his bishop and not a llow the opponent to create a second passed pawn there. For the moment the move i n the game does not yet spoil anyth i n g , but it was simpler to play 44 d5! 'it>xd5 45 'it>d3(d2) followed by i.e3b6-d8 (the f6-pawn ' u nder attack' ). The d raw would then be obvious - after moving his king to f5 and playing . . . g6-g 5 , Black would be u nable to make any fu rther progress. 44 . . .
'it>f5
45 .if4? Black wil l probably obtain a passed pawn on the queenside, but it will be blockaded by the opponent's king (fi rst system of de fence). The only wi n n i ng chance is to create a second passed pawn . For this Black needs to play . . . f7-f6 , . . . 'it>f5 and g6-g 5 , then exchange on h 4 and win t h e h-pawn. I n t h e game Ratmi r Khol mov successfu lly carried out this plan and won .
Now the opponent inevitably obtains a passed pawn on the kingside. Meanwh ile the 'pawns u nder attack' proced u re could also have operated successfu l l y here: 45 .ih6! g5 (45 . . .'1t>g4 46 .ig7 f5 47 .ih6 or 47 d5) 46 i.g7 ! , preventi ng 46 ... '1t>g4 . 45 d5! i.xd5 (45 . . . g5 46 d6 i.c6 47 .id4) 46 i.d4 or 46 i.b6 g5 47 .id8 was also good . It is evident that proced u res i n the playing of endings with opposite-colour bishops, such
74
�
F rom the Simple to the Complicated
as the sacrifice of one's own pawns or attacks on the opponent's, were u n known both to the national master Fuchs, and to grand master Krog ius. 45 . . .
g5
46 i.c7
'it>g4
47 i.d8
gxh4
48 gxh4
'it>xh4
49 i.xf6+
'it>g4
50 'it>e3
i.d5
51 i..e 7
b5
Wh ite resigned - in the opin ion of Krogius, because of the variation 52 i.. d 8 h4 53 f3+ i.xf3 54 'it>f2 h3 followed by the switching of the king to the queenside (on the h3-c8 diagonal the black bishop defends its own pawn and restrains the wh ite d-pawn). I n fact 53 . . . i..xf3? i s a mistake , of cou rse, i n view of 54 i.xh4 ! ; Black should play 53 . . . 'it>g3! . Meanwh ile, even after 4 5 i..f4 a d raw is stil l possible. A s was shown b y grandmaster Sergey Shipov, by conti n u i ng 47 'it>e3! (instead of 47 i.d8) 47 . . . gxh4 48 gxh4 'it>xh4 49 'it>f4 'it>h3 50 i.d8 Wh ite would have saved the game. And also later, just two moves before capitu lation, it was possible to gain a d raw by choosing 50 �c3 ! (instead of 50 'it>e3?) 50 . . . h4 51 'it>c4 h3 52 i.. e 5 �3 53 d5 'it>xf2 54 'it>c5 i..f3 55 d6 i.. c6 56 'it>b6 �g2 57 d7 (Carsten Muller, Frank Lamprecht). And yet Wh ite's 45th move was a fu nda mental mistake: instead of fi nding and erecting a secu re fortress, he allowed the opponent to complicate the play advanta geously.
Bogolj ubow - Ed. Lasker New York 1 924
Wh ite should win tha n ks to his powerfu l pair of con nected passed pawns. It was simplest to bring the king to the centre : 36 �f2 . Apparently Efim Bogoljubow was striving to play as safely as possible - he wanted to prevent . . . a7-a5 and with this a i m he decided to exchange the rooks. I n the game his plan proved justified . 36 '/J.c7 �f7 37 '/J.xe7+ �xe7 38 i.d2! (foresta l l i ng Black's cou nterplay on the q ueenside) 38 . . . We6 39 'it>f2 Wd6 40 We3 �c5 41 i.. a 5 , and Wh ite won easily. Remember the need to exercise caution when transposing into an ending with oppo site-colour bishops , in view of the i n herent d rawing tendencies. As was shown by Alexander Alekh ine, Black could have saved the game. 36 'fJ.c7?
.Uxc7 !
37 i.. x c7
b4!
The sacrifice of a pawn is a com mon phenomenon in endings with opposite colour bishops. 38 axb4
i.a6!
39 d4
i.d3!
This is also a standard defensive procedure - an attack on the enemy pawns. They are
ttJ
From the Simple to the Complicated
forced to move onto sq uares of the colour of their bishop, where they completely lose their strength , since they can easily be blockaded . 40 e5
ii.c4
41 �2
a6
When defending, pawns should be kept on squares of the colour of the bishop. 42 'ite3
'itf7
43 �4
h5
The position is d rawn . Taking into account the principle 'nua nces i n the position are more important t h a n mate rial', we should a lso check 38 'it>f2 ! ? (instead of 38 axb4 ), in order not to al low a blockade ofthe central pawns. However, after 38 . . . bxa3 there is no win for Wh ite - the a-pawn diverts the bishop from its control of the squares in front of the con nected passed pawns. Here is an approximate variation, suggested by Igor Bondarevsky: 39 t>e3 a2 40 .te5+ �f7 41 ii.b2 �e6 42 d4 ( 42 �f4 h6) 42 . . . 'it>d6 43 d5 h6 44 'it>d4 ii.a8 45 e5+ �d7 46 'it>c5 (46 e6+ 'it>d6) 46 . . . ii.b7 47 e6+ �e7, and Wh ite is not able to strengthen his position . Kharlov - Khenkin Copen hagen 1 993
75
The game concl uded : 44 ... a6? 45 'ifa7+ 'it>h6 46 'i!Ve3+ 'lt>g7 47 �g5 ! (Black u nder estimated the strength of this move) 47 . . . 'ikd4 48 c7! ii.xg3+ 49 �xg3 Black resigned . It is not my i ntention to g ive a detailed analysis of the ending. I will merely show one way (I would not assert that it is the only one, but i n my view it is the simplest) of gaining a d raw. Why not i m mediately elimi n ate the main enemy - the c6-pawn ? 44 . . .
ii'xc6!
45 "it'xa7+ Noth ing is given by 45 'i!t'f7+ 'it>h6 . 45 . . .
"iVc7 !
The bishop and the g3-pawn are attacked , and therefore the exchange of q ueens is practically forced . 46 'ii'x c7+
ii.xc7
Transposing i nto an ending with opposite colour bishops is an important defensive procedu re, with the help of which one can sometimes save a d ifficu lt position , and therefore, of cou rse, the suggested plan deserved serious consideration . Grand mas ter Igor Khenkin was afra id that the end game was lost, since Wh ite has two extra pawns. I n fact it is a simple d raw, and i n establishing t h i s w e are helped , apart from the general g u ide ('drawing tendencies' ) by a qu ite specific one. If Wh ite g ives up his g3pawn, we obta i n the wel l-known d rawn situation from the Berger-Kolterma n game. But if he advances it to g4, Black replies . . . g6-g5, and blocks all the enemy king's approaches to the upper half of the board . Here is an approximate variation: 47 �xh3
�6
48 �g4
ii.d6
While there is time, it is useful to force the opponent's pawn to stand on a square of the colour of its bishop. 49 b5
i.. c 7
50 �d5
ri;e7
76
�
From the Simple to the Complicated
51 �c6
f6
52 �f3
�e7
53 g4
g5
54 'it>e3
�b6+
55 �d3
'it>d6
56 �c4
�e5
The draw is obvious - there is nowhere for the wh ite king to break throug h .
Vakhidov - Timoshchenko Tashkent 1 982
It appears that White is out of danger - his bishop has defended his pawns, and his king is blocking the opponent's passed pawn . But the bishop is really very passive soon it will not have a single waiting move. If the king can also be deprived of its mobility, a zugzwang situation could result. This aim, strangely enoug h , is q u ite ach ievable: the wh ite king is g radually pushed to b3 and the black king will occupy the d 3-square , from where it conti nues to tied down the oppo nent's bishop and at the same time th reat ens to support its passed pawn . But if the pawn were slig htly fu rther away - on the a file - a d raw would become inevitable. 5 ..td1 'it>g3 6 �f3 'it>f2 7 'it>c2 b4 8 �b3 ..tc3 9 �c4 h6 1 0 �d3 ..te1 1 1 �c4 ..td2 12 �d3 �c3 (zugzwan g ! ) 1 3 �c4 �e3 (again zugzwan g ! ) . If 1 4 � b 3 , t h e n 1 4 . . . �d3 (the decisive zugzwang ! ) 1 5 �a2(a4) �c2 and wins. The game went 14 'it>d5 b3 and Wh ite resigned .
For the moment Black is not threatening to play 1 . . . g3 in view of 2 g5! and 3 �g8 - he is plan ning 1 . . . g5! and only then 2 . . . �g3. Now White has to decide how he will defend his kingside pawns and which piece will hold back the enemy passed pawn on the queenside. In the game he chose the fi rst system of defence: he switched his bishop to the defence of his pawns, and kept his king on the queenside. 1 .i.b3 g5! 2 .i.d1 2 h4 gxh4 3 g5 does not work: 3 . . . �g3! (but not 3 . . . 'it>xg5? 4 .i.e6 f4 5 .i.f5 'it>g3 6 .i.h3 with a draw) 4 ..tg8 'it>xg2 5 ..txh7 ..tc5 ! , and Black wins. 2 ... a6 3 ..tf3 b5 4 axb5 axb5
Now let us try to set up the second system of defence - use the king for the defence of the kingside. But this plan too is not altogether rel iable - after a l l , the bishop will have to perform two tasks: not only conta i n the enemy passed pawn , but also defend its own e4-pawn , and along a d ifferent d iago n a l . This means that here too a zugzwang position is q u ite l i kely. 1 ..td5 g5! 2 'it>e2 h6 3 ..tb7 ..tc5 4 ..td5 a6 5 ..tc4 (5 ..tb7 b5 6 a5 b4 7 ..txa6 �xe4 is no better) 5 . . . b5! 6 axb5 a5 (Black happily sacrifices a pawn for the sake of creating a passed pawn ) 7 ..td5 a4 8 ..tc6 a3 9 ..td5 ..tb6. Zugzwa ng! The wh ite bishop has no moves, si nce it is 'torn ' between two d iagonals. I n the event of 1 0 Wf1 (e 1 ) 'it>e3 the black king breaks through to its passed pawn , while if 1 0 'it>d 3 , then 1 0 . . . Wg3 1 1 '>t>e2 (as i t i s easy to see , 1 1 'i!i>c3 'it>xg2 1 2 b3 'i!i>xh3 1 3 .i.e6 also does not help)
ltJ
F rom the Simple to the Complicated
1 1 . . .'it>xg2 1 2 ii.e6 �xh3 1 3 �f3 'it>h4 1 4 ii.f7 ic? (again zugzwang because of the bishop being 'torn ' ) 1 5 ii.e6 h5 1 6 gxh5 �xh5 17 'it>g3 'it>g6 1 8 �g4 'it>f6 1 9 ii.d5 �e7! 20 'it>xg5 �d6, and Black fi nally carries out the main idea for destroying the second system of defence - the breakthrough with his king to the passed pawn .
77
ing it let us be prepared to sacrifice a pawn ! 1 g5! !
�xg5
2 ii.g8!
h5
2 . . . h6 comes to the same th i n g . 2 . .t>f6 3 �c4 also does not achieve anyth ing. .
3 ii.f7
h4
4 'it>c4
Is the initial position really lost for Wh ite? Let's use our knowledge of opposite-colour bishops to guess where a saving line might nevertheless be concealed .
The d raw is obvious, since now the bishop easily copes with the defence of the king side. White's moves can be transposed : 1 �g8 h6 2 g5!! �xg5 3 iLf7 .
First of all one should usually check the basic system of defence - the fi rst. But how to securely defend the kingside with the bishop, and prevent there the creation of a second passed pawn? The ma noeuvre of the bishop to f3 solves this problem , but it inevitably leads to zugzwa ng. I s there no other way? Remember the procedu re ' pawns under attack' and for the sake of implement-
I n conclusion I offer a few exercises, in the solving of which you will train you rself in the practical appl ication of your theoretical knowledge. I advise you a lso to look at the instructive endings with opposite-colour bish ops, analysed i n my book School of Chess Excellence 1 - Endgame Analysis.
78
w
F rom the Simple to the Complicated
Exercises
1 . Black to move
2. White to move
3. White to move
4. B lack to move
LtJ
F rom the Simple to the Complicated
79
Sol uti ons 1 . S . Tarrasch ( 1 92 1 ).
1 . . .
It is not possible to prevent the advance of the pawns to the 5th ra nk (for this the bishop would have to be switched to c6) . But how should the black pieces be deployed agai nst pawns on the 5th ra nk? Obviously, bishop on f7(g8) and king on d7. It is this set-up that must be prepa red . 1 .. .
Si.c4!
1 . . ..ib5? is incorrect: 2 Si.b4+ ! (but not 2 ig3+? 'it>e7 ! 3 d5 Si.e8 4 e5 Si.f7 ) 2 . . . �c7 3 d5 .ie8 4 e5 jLf7 5 e6 - Black is one tempo short. Or 2 . . . 'it>e6 3 d5+ 'it>e5 4 Si.c3+ �d6 5 litd4 .ie8 6 e5+ , and the bishop has not managed to reach f7 . 2 i.. g 3+
�c6!
Of cou rse , not 2 . . . �e6? 3 'i!.>d2 and 4 'it>c3 .
3 �f4
.i.g8
4 �es
'it>d7
5 d5
ii.h7!
'Pawns under attack' - Black does not al low the o pponent's king to go to f6 . However, the less accurate 5 . . . Si.f7 6 'it>f6 We8 ! 7 Si.f4 3i.g8 was also sufficient for a d raw. 6 �f4
ii.g6
7 e5
.il.f7!
A basic drawn position has been reached . 2. V.
C hekhover ( 1 950).
If W h ite should succeed in winning the d7pawn, this will lead to a familiar position from the Berger-Kolterman game. But if he doesn't? Then he must at least force the b pawn to take a step forwa rd , onto a square of the colour of its bishop, so that the black king will be unable to break through via b2 . 1 i.. e 8! 'Pawn under attack!'
'it>c6
2 'it>e2 ! 2 3i.f7? d5. 2. . .
�c1
While Wh ite is tied down , the black bishop is switched to a better positi o n . 3 �d1
3i.b2
4 'i!.>e2
.il.d4
5 �d1
'it>d6
5 . . . �c7 is answered in the same way. 6 .il.f7! Again attacki ng a pawn! 6. . .
b2
7 i.. g 6
�cs
8 'it>e2
dS
9 i..f5
�b4
1 0 3i.g6
�a3
11 3i.b1 !
'it>b3
12 'it>d1
'it>c3
1 3 'i!.>e2
ii.c5
14 'it>d1
d4
1 5 �e2
'it>b3
The last hope : 1 6 �d 1 ? d 3 ! is bad for Wh ite . 1 6 �d3 ! Black ca nnot make a n y progress . 3. A. Norl i n ( 1 922 ). The typical plan is to march the king to the pawn which is being stopped by the bishop, i.e. to f8 . But then Black will advance his a pawn , d iverti ng the bishop from the defence of the c7 -pawn. The only winning chance is to switch the bishop to a5, from where on the same a5-d8 diagonal it will defend its own pawn and stop the opponent's. But fi rst the c7-pawn must
80
�
F rom the Simple to the Complicated
be defended with the king, without allowing . . . a7-a5-a4 . If the black pawn should reach a4, the position will become d rawn , for example: 1 �c5? a5! 2 �b5 a4 3 �b4 �c8 . 1 �c3 !
Jl.. f7
2 �b4
Jl.. e 6
3 Jl.. e 5! It is important to vacate the d6-square for the king beforehand. 3 �c5?! is inaccu rate in view of 3 . . . Ji.. b 3! with the threat of 4 . . . a5. 3...
�c8 ! ?
I f 3 . . . JI..f7 , then 4 �c5 Ji.. b 3 ( 4 . . . a5 5 'it> b 5 ) 5 �d6 (th reatening 6 �d7) 5 . . .'it>c8 6 Jl.. c3 ! , or 4 ... �c8 5 �c6! (th reatening 6 Jl.. c 3) 5 ... JI.. e 8+ (5 . . . a5 6 d6 Jl.. f7 7 Jl.. c 3! and 8 Jl.. a 5. 4 �b5! The variation given by the author is slig htly longer: 4 �c5 Ji.. b 3! 5 'it>b5! 'it>b7 6 b7
5 'it>a6 was threatened . 5 'it>c5
Ji.. b 3
6 �d6
�c8
7 Jl.. c3 The next move will be 8 .Jta5, after which the king will fi nally be able to win the bishop for the g-pawn .
4. Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch (Kissingen 1 928). Black must decide how to combat the threatened attack by the king on his kingside pawns. The 'active' 39 . . .f4? is hopeless: 40 Jl.. g 5 e3 (40 .. .f3 41 g4 ), and Wh ite has a pleasant choice between 4 1 fxe3 and 4 1 f3 e2 42 Ji.. h4 followed by �g 1 -f2 . Fi rst let us see what happened in the game. 39 ... c4? Moving the pawn onto a sq uare of the colour of its own bishop is, in genera l , a sound
positional idea (imagine that Wh ite were to play c2-c4 , b2-b3 and a2-a4 - then the b6· pawn would be transformed into a serious weakness). The move made by Black is not bad in itself, but for the reason that it does not help to solve the main problem of the position - the defence of the kingside pawns. 40 'it>g3 �c8 41 'it>f4 'it>d7 42 j;_b4 �e6 43 Jl.. c 3 Ji.. d 7 If Black keeps his bishop at g6 and uses his king to stop the futu re passed pawn on the q ueenside (first system of defence), at an appropriate moment Wh ite will attack the bishop by h3-h4-h5 and obta i n a second passed pawn. For example, 43 . . . ii.g6 44 g5 �d5 45 g3 b5 46 h4 �c6 4 7 b3 cxb3 48 cxb3 'it>b6 49 a4 bxa4 50 bxa4 'it>a6 51 a5 �b5 52 h5 ii.e8 53 �xf5 ii.xh5 54 �xe4 with an easy wi n . Therefore Black leaves his bishop on the queenside. U nfortunately for h i m , his king can not simultaneously defend the h7- and f5-pawns, and therefore his bishop will be 'torn' between the defence of the f5-pawn and the struggle agai nst the opponent's passed pawn . 44 g3 b5 45 �g5 �f7 46 h4 Jl.. c 8 47 �h6 �g8 48 b3 cxb3 49 cxb3 f4 This is already desperation in a hopeless position. If 49 . . . j;_d7 Aaron N i mzowitsch gave the fol lowing variation : 50 ii.b2 ii.c8 (50 . . . JI.. e 8 51 �g5 j;_d7 52 'it>f6 , and the wh ite king breaks through on the queen side) 51 a4 bxa4 52 bxa4 j;_d7 53 a5 ii.c8 54 ii.a 1 , and Black i s i n zugzwa ng (54 . . . ii.a6 55 �g5 ii.c8 56 'it>f6). 50 gxf4 j;_d7 51 �g5 'it>f7 52 f5 j;_c6 53 �f4 (the standard plan: the king heads towards the passed pawn wh ich is being combated by the bishop) 53 . . . e7 54 'it>e5 ii.e8 55 g3
.ib5!
81
40 g4 fxg4 41 hxg4 i.e2 42 'it>g3 i.f3 . 40 . . . 41 h4
.if1 ! h5!
42 �4 Otherwise it is not possible to strengthen the position . 42 . . .
.ixg2
The black bishop easily copes with the defence of the kingside pawns.
82
� Mark Dvoretsky
The Arith meti c of Pawn E n d i ngs A rapid eval uation rule
Ppawns and an outside passed pawn for ositions with a pair of blocked rooks'
one of the sides occu r qu ite often in practice. Therefore it is usefu l to be able to evaluate them quickly and accu rately. The winning plan is obvious: march the king over to the rook's pawn . The opponent has to elimi nate the pawn on the other wing and then rush with his king to the corner, in order to stop the rook's pawn . I n which cases does he manage to do this? It is easy to see that the position has become d rawn : 1 '>t>d5 'iM6 2 'it>c5 'it>xf5 3 'it>b5 '>t>e6 4 'it>xa5 'it>d7 5 'lt>b6 '>t>c8. If, say, the kings and the f-pawn are sh ifted one rank down or to the left, Black again loses . But what happens if the queenside pawns a re also sh ifted down?
Here White wins: 1 'it>d5 'it>f6 2 'it>c6 'it>xf5 3 'it>b6 'it>e6 4 'it>xa6 'it>d7 5 'it>b 7. Now let us shift the queenside pawns back by one rank.
Of course, if you have the position in front of you , it is easy to g ive an answer to any such q uestion . But i n practice such situations often a rise at the end of lengthy variations, which you have to calculate , and to lengthen the calculation by several more moves may prove d ifficult. It would be desirable to learn to determ ine the evaluation of the position i mmed iately, on first looking at it. A simple method of rapid evaluation was suggested by Walther Bahr in 1 936. To me this ru le seems not altogether conven ient, and besides it does not extend to cases where the king is not to the side of the passed pawn , but in front of it. I n con nection with th is I should l i ke to offer a somewhat
lLJ
The Arithmetic of Pawn Endings
83
different method of rapidly evaluating such positions. 1 ) The first rule coincides with Bahr's analogous ru le: if the rook's pawn of the stronger side has crossed the middle of the board, the position is always won. It
follows that from a single glance at the first diagram it may be concluded that the position is won . 2 ) We will call the position i n the second diagram 'norma l ' . This is what makes it such :
a) between the queenside pawns there passes the i nvisible demarcation line, sepa rating the u pper and lower halves of the board ; b) the black king , which is aiming for the c8square, reaches there without loss of ti me. This happens because the passed pawn has already crossed the key h3-c8 d iago nal , or is on this diagona l . A
With Wh ite to move , it is a w i n : 1 a5! (the pawn has crossed the middle of the board ) . With Black t o move , i t is a d raw: 1 . a5! , a n d a 'normal' position a rises. . .
'normal' position is drawn.
3) Each sh ifting of the kingside pawn one square down from the h 3-c8 d iagonal is equivalent to a tem po i n favou r of White. For example, the pawn on f4 g ives one tempo in favour of Wh ite , and the pawn on e4 g ives two. One fu rther tempo for the stronger side may be given by having his king not to the side of the passed pawn, but in front of it. But each shifting of the q ueenside pawns one square down compared with the 'nor mal' position g ives the defending side a tempo. With the pawns on a3/a4 Black has one tempo in his favou r, and with the pawns on a2/a3 he has two . White wins only if the sum of tempi, calculated in this way, is in his favour.
The formulation suggested by me looks rather complicated and cu m bersome, but if you learn it thoroughly you will find it very easy to use.
Wh ite wins: he has two tempi (the g2-pawn is two squares lower than the g4-sq uare), while Black has only one. But if the queenside pawns a re sh ifted down one ran k , the score becomes 2-2 and the position is now d rawn .
84
\t>
The Arithmetic of Pawn Endings
Accord ing to the afore-mentioned rule, this should be a d raw. And i ndeed : after 1 . . �5 2 'ith5 (2 'itg3 'itg5 - a 'normal' position) B lack does not play 2 . . . 'iii>f6? 3 'itg4 , when Wh ite acq u i res an extra tempo, since his king is in front of the pawn , but 2 . . .'itf4! 3 h4 (3 'itg6 'itg3) 3 . . . 'itf5 4 'ith6 'itf6 5 �h7 'itm(f5) 6 h5 'itt6 ! etc. .
N ow let us examine some more complicated endings, i n which a mastery of the rule suggested by me sign ificantly eases the calculation of variations. Here, of cou rse , it is White to move (with Black to move he has to concede the opposition and Wh ite can queen his f-pawn ) . Wh ite wins, since t h e score is 3-2 in his favour (two tempi a re g iven by the pawn on f3 and another one by the position of the king in front of the pawn ). He wins by 1 'ite4! 'ite6 2 'itd4(d3). It would be a blu nder to play 1 'ite3? 'ite5(f5), since then a position with a tempo ratio 2-2 is reached (the wh ite king is no longer in front of the pawn , but to the side of it), and this means a d raw.
P rivorotsky
-
Peterson
Riga 1 967
One more useful deta i l . Let us suppose that White's passed pawn is a rook's pawn , and his king is in front of it, but the enemy king is confining its opponent to the h-file. This situation is equivalent to the one in which the king is to the side of the pawn.
Black's positional adva ntage is obvious. His plan is clear: . . . 'itg6-f5-e4 and then an attack by his bishop or king on the q ueenside pawns. This plan can be prevented by offering an exchange of bishops, but this demands precise calculation . 1 ..td4!
..txd4+
1 . . . ..th6 2 'iii>f2 ..tc1 3 'itxf3 ..txb2 4 a4 with equal ity. 2 cxd4
'iii> f5
3 'itf2
'ite4
4 d51 Otherwise 4 . . . 'itxd4 5 'itxf3 'itd3 .
l2J
The Arithmetic of Pawn Endings
4. . .
'it>xd5
5 'it>xf3
'it>d4
6 'it>e2
c3
85
Matanovic - Botvin n i k Belg rade 1 969
If 6 . h4 7 'it>d2 a5 there follows 8 'it>c2 or 8 . .
a4, but not 8 'it>e2?? c3 9 bxc3+ 'it>xc3 , and Black wins.
7 bxc3+
'it>xc3
8 h4! ! The only way! Otherwise Black h imself would have played 8 . . . h4! , then picked up the a3-pawn and won , since his pawn on the other wing has crossed the m iddle of the board . But after the move in the game a 'normal' position a rises, and this means a draw.
8. . .
'it>b3
9 'it>d3
'it>xa3
10 'it>c3 We have reached the last of the textbook examples that we analysed .
10 . . .
a5
11 'it>c4!
'it>a4
12 'it>c3
'it>b5
13 'it>b3 Draw. In the calculation of this ending, d ifferent versions of this type of position a rose. If White does not evaluate them ' mechani cally' , by using the rule g iven above , but tries to work out the variations to the end, he each time has to calculate some ten more moves, and this is not at all easy. The players in the fol lowing ending faced even more complicated problems.
In his notes Mikhail Botvinnik analyses two cou rses of action for Wh ite : 43 .l:td5 and 43 l::td 6+ 'it>e7 44 l:f.a6. In fact there is also a third : 43 'it>f2 ! , for example, 43 . . . exd3 44 'it>e3 l::.a 1 (44 . . . .l::!. g 1 45 'it>f2 ) 45 l::.x d3 .l::i. x a4 46 l:td6+ followed by 47 l::. a 6, and Wh ite should gain a d raw. But let's forget about this possibil ity and try to choose the more accu rate of the two possible rook moves. First, after analysing some short variations, we must try to disclose the d ifference between them, and compa re their virtues and d rawbacks . I n the event of 43 .l:td6+ 'it>e7 44 .l::i. a 6 a clear d raw resu lts from 44 .. J1xd3 45 .l::i. x a5 or 44 . . . .l:!.d2+ 45 lt:Jf2 e3 46 'it>f3 ! (46 l:txa5 .l:!.xf2+ 47 'it>g 1 is also possible) 46 . . . e2 (46 . . . exf2 47 'it>g2) 47 l:1a7+. However, the captu re on d3 with the pawn is un pleasant: 44 . . . exd3! 45 .l:!.xa5 'it>d6. N ow 46 'it>f2? is bad in view of 46 .. J1g 1 !; Wh ite is forced to play 46 .l:!.a8 , allowing the black king to approach its passed d-pawn . I s this rook ending lost or d rawn? You can't say i m medi ately, and this means it is time to cut short the calculation and switch to a verification of the alternative possibil ity.
86
� 43 l:td5!
The Arithmetic of Pawn Endings
.l::t d 2+!
Now the rook ending arising after 43 . . . exd3 44 .UXa5 is not dangerous for White : 44 . . . d2 45 l:Id5, or 44 .. .'it>e6 45 .l::t e 5+ �d6 46 �f2 d2 (46 . . .l:tg 1 47 .l::t e 3) 47 e3 or 51 '.t>e2 , should be made? Let us refer to the rule g iven above . After Black wins the h3pawn , accord ing to our a rithmetic he will have one extra tempo, since the f-pawn is one square higher than the key c1 -h6 diagonal. Wh ite will d raw only if he can force the pawn to adva nce to f4 . bpk It becomes clea r that 5 1 �e2? loses : 51 . . .'it>g3 (zugzwa ng) 52 h4 (52 �1 'lt>xh3 53 'it>f2 'it>g4 , and Black has even two extra tempi) 52 . . . �xh4 53 �f3 �g5 54 'lt>g3 'it>f6 55 '.t>f4 'it'e6 56 �f3 'it>d5 and so o n .
lLJ
87
46 l:ta8 �c7 (Black repeats moves, to gain time for thought) 47 l:ta5 'lt>c6 48 l:ta8 �c5 49 'it>f2 l:ta 1 ! 50 l:td8 The only saving chances were offered by 50 �e3 !? .l:!.g 1 ! 51 g4 fxg4 52 hxg4 l:txg4, and now, probably, 53 f5 . 50 . . . '1t>c4 51 'it>e3 I:.e1 + ( 5 1 . . . .l:!.g 1 ? 52 l:.d4+) 52 'it>f2 �e2+ 53 'it>f3 .l:!.e6 ! 54 a5 'it>c3 55 �c8+ 'it>d2 ! (only not 55 . . . �b3? 54 a6! d2 55 .l:!.d8 'lt>c2 56 a? or 54 . . . lixa6 55 �e3 .l:!.d6 56 �d2 ) 56 h4
52 . . .
f4
53 �1
�xh3
Accord ing to analysis by Botvinnik, Wh ite would also have failed to save the game by 56 Uc7 h5 (56 . . . Ue1 ? 57 a6 l:!.a 1 58 a?) 57 'it>f2 �d 1 58 �f3 d2 59 �f2 l:te2+! 60 'i!tf1 lie3 61 a6 (61 �f2 l:ta3 followed by . . . Ua 1 c1 ) 6 1 . . . �xg3 62 a ? Ua3 6 3 'it>f2 h 4 64 'it>f1 l:ta4 65 'it>g2 'i!te2 66 lie?+ '1t>d3 67 l:!.d7+ 'it>e3.
54 �2
'lt>g4
56 ... .l:!.e1 ! 57 a6 lia1
51 'it>e3 !
'lt>g3
52 'it>e2 Now it is Black who is in zugzwang and he is forced to advance his pawn .
55 �g2 A 'normal' d rawn position has arise n . Alexander Matanovic d i d n o t m a n a g e to calculate the pawn ending exactly and he preferred to retai n the rooks. Let us see what this led to . 43 .l::!. d 6+? 'it>e7 44 l:!.a6 exd 3 ! 45 �xa5 'it>d6
Now if 58 ltc6 Black decides matters with 58 . . . '1t>e 1 59 l:.e6+ 'it>f1 60 l:td6 (60 We3 l:te 1 + ) 60 . . . d2 61 l:txd2 �a3+ , and Wh ite is mated ! 58 l:ta8 'i!te 1 59 a? d2 60 l:!.e8+ 'it>f1 61 .l:!.d8 .l:!.a3+ leads to the same fi nish. 58 lic7 �e1 59 'it>g2 l:txa6 60 l:te7+ 'it>d1 61 �xh7 l:ta2+ 62 Wf1 d2 63 .l::!. c 7 l:ta1 64 'it>f2 lic1 Wh ite resigned .
88
� PART I I Endgame Analys i s Vlad i m ir Vu lfson
Typica l E n d i ngs with Con nected Passed Pawns
I complicated analysis of an ending of one
should l i ke to show you the rather
of my games. After studying it you will have a better understanding of the theory of rook endings with connected passed pawns. Zlotni k - Vu lfson Moscow 1 983
Black wants to tie the enemy rook to the defence of the g3-pawn . 2 l::t h 4 is obviously hopeless, and therefore I stud ied , in the m a i n , 2 hxg4 .l:i.xg4 . Things are difficult for Wh ite : noth ing is g iven by 3 .l:i.h6+ l:i.g6, and so he is forced to play 3 l:th3, but here the rook is exceptionally passive . But here Boris Zlotnik unexpectedly made a move which I had overlooked in my analysis. 2 'it>b2 The idea is clear - to avoid the capture of the g3-pawn with check.
The adjourned position ; it is my move . The national master Anatoly Donchenko sug gested an excellent idea for Black. Usually with an advantage you are recommended to avoid pawn exchanges, but this is an exception to the rule. 1 .. .
g4!
The move is an interesting one, and during the game it seemed to me to be very stro n g . B u t after a thorough analysis I began to have doubts about its strength . The point is that when Black elimi nates the g-pawn and obtains a position with con nected passed pawns, the basic method of defence is to try and wedge the king between the pawns a n d blockade the m . B u t here the king , in solvi n g a pa rtial problem (i nvolving t h e g3-pawn ), volu ntarily moves away from the queenside pawns. 2. . . 3 �xh3
gxh3 .l::t g 4
4 l::t h 8 With his rook on h3 Wh ite , naturally, can not hope for success, and so he activates it.
Typical Endings with Connected Passed Pawns
Black's reply is forced , since if 4 . . . .Uxg3? there follows 5 .l::!. a 8 with an i m med iate d raw. 4 . . .
aS
Passed pawns must be pushed . S .l::!.c 8 Aga i n it is not possible to captu re on g3 because of 6 .l:!.c6+ followed by 7 l:tc5 . I also reckoned with 5 .l:!.a8 , to force one of the pawns to advance and allow the king more quickly to wedge itself between them. But I think that in this case too Wh ite would not have been able to save the game.
5...
.l:f.g5
The roo k defends the pawns from the side. I n such situations this is the best place for the roo k . Now the black king is free to go where it wants.
6 g4!?
CZJ
89
My opponent was the national master Zlotn ik, a chess teacher in the I nstitute of Physical Cultu re. I g reatly respected h i m , and t o me he w a s a n expert. When you play such a person , a defi n ite complex appears , you beg in t o fea r everyth i n g , and therefore i t can b e d ifficult t o make an active move. Besides, I did not consider that the position was one where every tempo cou nted , I thought my king would always be able to go over and captu re the g4-pawn , and for the moment it would not be bad to help the queenside pawns . What would have happened after 6 . . . rJ;e5 ? Let us try to provoke the advance of one of the pawns: 7 l:!.a8 . Black replies 7 . . . a4 , and if 8 �a3(c3), then simply 8 . . . .l:txg4. The king has not managed to reach b4 and after 9 l1b8 l1g3+ 1 0 �a2 .l:!.b3 Black wins. If 8 �b8 (instead of 8 �a3 ) , then 8 . . . �d4 9 �a3 �c5 1 0 lk8+ �b6 1 1 llb8+ �c6 1 2 lk8+ �b7 and 1 3 . . . I:txg4 with a wi n . The fact that his king is cut off along the 6th rank does not concern Black - his rook will free the king by . . . l:tc4-c6 . Thus, 6 . . . 'it>e5 was a very good move, but I played differently. 7 l:tc1 Wh ite wants to place his rook behind his passed pawn . �d 6 ?
7 . . . 7 . . . �d5 was far stronger. Now the captu re of the pawn leads to a typical drawn position with connected passed pawns, one which occu rs q u ite often : 6 . . . .!::!.xg4? 7 .l:!.c6+ rJ; e7 8 .l:!.c5 l:tb4+ 9 'itta 3 a2 . Black cannot strengthen his position , since his king has n o shelter from the side checks.
6. . .
� e6 ?
6 . . .cj;>e5! suggests itself. Why did I reject this move? The reason was a psychological one.
8 .l:f.g 1 I should l i ke t o dwell on this position in more deta i l . (see diagram)
Wh ite has succeeded in sign ificantly activat ing his rook. If his pawn were on g 5 , he would u ndoubtedly be able to d raw. B ut with the pawn on g4 his rook has not so many squares for manoeuvri n g . Black now has two plans for playing for a w i n :
90
�
Typical Endings with Connected Passed Pawns
1 ) play his king to the help of the queenside pawns; 2) first captu re the g4-pawn with the king, and only then return to the queenside. We will first examine the simpler plan, involving 8 ... 'it>c5. It is obvious that if Black can place his pawns on a4 and b4 he will win easily. Therefore White's objective is to hinder the advance of the pawns, l u re the rook away from g5 as soon as possible and begin advancing his passed pawn . First let us analyse 9 Wb3 . If 9 . . . b4 (with the threat of 1 O . 'i!i>b5) there follows 1 0 'it>a4 'it>b6 1 1 .l:!.f1 .l:!.xg4 1 2 .l:!.f5 ! with an i m mediate draw. .
.
Let us verify 9 . . . a4+ 1 0 'it>a3 'it>b6! 1 1 'it>b4 (preventing 1 1 . . . 'it>a5) 1 1 .. Jie5 ! . Against the threat of 1 2 . . . l:te3 Wh ite has two defences: 12 l:tg3 and 12 'it>c3 ( 12 'it>a3 .l:te2 is unsu itable, since the king remains in a mating net). After 1 2 .l:!.g3 .l:!.e4+ 1 3 'i!i>a3 'i!i>a5 (with the th reat of 14 . . . .l:!.e2 ) 14 'i!i>b2(a2) b4 the black pawns reach their goal sooner than the g pawn . No better is 1 3 'i!i>c3 b4+ 14 'it>d3 a3! 1 5 'it>c2 .l:!.e2+ etc. Let us examine 1 2 'i!i>c3. Here the win for Black is not obvious.
I n lessons devoted to the tech nique of converti ng an advantage, an important principle has been mentioned : to make use of any opportun ity to improve even slightly you r own position and weaken the oppo nent's. Here Black can move his king forward , but in this case the wh ite pawn advances and there is no longer a win. The only way to the goal is to interpose the check 1 2 . . . .l:!.c5+ ! . If 1 3 Wb2, then 1 3 . . . .l:!.g5, and the b-pawn advances to the 4th rank. I n the event of 1 3 'it>d4 Black can either advance his pawn i m med iately, or fi rst play 1 3 . . . .l:!.g5. There only remains 13 Wb4 l:tc4+ 1 4 'it>a3 . The d i rect 1 4 . . .a5? does not achieve anyth ing: 1 5 'i!i>a2 b4 1 6 g5 b3+ 1 7 'it>a 1 ! a3 1 8 g6 b2+ (for 1 8 . . . a2 and . . . 'i!i>b4-a3 Black is just one tem po short) 1 9 'i!i>b 1 Wb4 20 g7 'it>b3 2 1 .l:!.g3+ 'i!i>b4 22 .l:!.g 1 . The correct move is 1 4 . . . .l:!.c2 ! (with the th reat of 1 5 . . . 'it>a5) 1 5 'it>b4 .l:!.b2+ ! (nothing is g iven by 1 5 . . . l:tf2 1 6 'it>c3 ; fi rst the position of the wh ite king must be clarified ), and 1 6 Wa3 l:tf2 1 7 Wb4 .l:!.f3 is bad for Wh ite , while after 1 6 Wc3 there follows 1 6 . . . a3 1 7 g5 b4+ 1 8 Wc4 a2 1 9 lla1 ( 1 9 g6 .l:!. b 1 ) 1 9 . . . b3 20 g6 l::t b 1 2 1 g7.
Typical Endings with Connected Passed Pawns
lZJ
91
"ilixc6+ "Y/Vc3 32 "Y/Va4+ 'it;b2 3 3 ikb5+ 'it;c 1 34 "YIVf 1 + 'lt;c2. 26. . . 'lt;c5 27 "ilia3+ (27 'flc2+ 'it;b4 28 "iie 4+ 'lt;a3 29 'ii'e 7+ �b3 30 'ilif7+ 1Ic4) 27.. .'ild4! 28 "iib 4+ 'it>e3 29 ii'e7+ 'it;f3, and Black blocks the next check with his queen or rook - Dvoretsky.]
As you see , the win is very compl icated . Besides, Wh ite's defence can be improved at the very start of the variation . I nstead of 9 Wb3?! we can play more cu n n i ngly - 9 Wa3 ! , so that the pawn should move to a4 without check. 21 .l:i.xa1 22 g8 'ii' .l:tc1 + 23 'it>xb3 a 1 "i'i. . . .
[Nowadays, for the analysis of both opening and endgame positions, increasing use is made of computers. John Nunn and Graham Burgess checked the concluding position of this variation on a computer, and it tran spired that after 24 "YIVb8+ Black cannot avoid perpetual check. For example, with the king on h7 there follows 1 "Y/Ve4+ 'lt;g7 2 'le 7+, and with the king on c8 - 1 'ii'g 4+ rtt b 8(b7) 2 'ii'b 4+.
9 a4 (no better is 9 .. .a4. Threatening 1 7 . . . b3+ with mate . Wh ite loses after 1 7 .l:. g 1 b3+ 1 8 'it>a 1 a2, but he finds the defence 17 Zig4! l:te2+ 18 'it>a 1 ! . And now 18 . . . a2 is dangerous only for Black: 1 9 g7 'it>a3 20 .l:!.g3+ b3 21 .l:!.xb3+! 'it>xb3 22 g8'it'+. Thus we have established that in the event of 8 . . . '1t>c5 Wh ite gains a d raw.
10 . . .
a4+?
1 1 'it>b4
'it>xg4
1 2 .l:!a3?! My opponent embarks on a ru inous course. He probably thought that he would be able to restrict my king along the 3rd rank, but in fact his rook is badly placed here . 12 . . .
'it>f4
1 3 .Uc3?? Any move along the 3rd rank loses - the rook should have moved off it. 13 . . .
.Ug3
In the game I moved my king the other way. 8. . . 'it>e5
My rook goes to b3, after which the pawns queen of the i r own accord . Black won easily.
You see , the king has nevertheless reached e5, but instead of going there immed iately it has wasted time, by wandering about on the e6- and d6-squares. 9 'it>b3
But how should my opponent have de fended? Let us assume that we do not know the theory of endings with such a pawn a rrangement - let us try acting simply by using common sense .
White intends by Ua 1 to force the advance of one of the pawns, and then to establish his king between the m . 'it>f4 9. . . 1 0 Ita 1
Let us ask the q uestio n : 'What does Black want?' U ndoubtedly, to take his king to b2, after which it will be possible to give up the b5-pawn and queen the a-pawn . Let's try and hinder the movement of the king, by cutting it off along a file. 12 .l:!.f1 .l:!.f5 1 3 .l::!. e 1 'it>f4 1 4 1:te2 .l:!.e5 1 5 1:td2 �e3 1 6 ltd 1 .l:t.g5 1 7 .l:!.d8 �e4 1 8 .:td 1 1:tf5. It is important not to place the rook on e5 then a check on e 1 will d rive the king away. 1 8 . . . l:td5 is prematu re in view of 1 9 Ite 1 + . Black must play for zugzwang. The white king on b4 is ideally placed , so the position of rook must be improved . 1 9 �d2 Itd5 20 .Uc2 (now 20 11e2+ 'it>d3 is hopeless for White) 20 . . . 'it>d3 2 1 .l:tc8 (21 l1h2 is also not bad ) 2 1 ... 'it>d2 22 l:tc7 'it>d 1 . (see next diagram)
Here I did not bother to ponder over which pawn to advance , and this was a mistake one pawn move leads to a win , and the other to a draw. Let us first see what happened in the game.
U p to this point Wh ite has not been in any particu lar danger, and he could have de fended in various ways . But here he must make an accu rate move (23 .:tc3 or 23 l:f.h8), since Black has created the concrete threat
Typical Endings with Connected Passed Pawns
ttJ
93
(it is important to control the a3-square) 3 . . . �b2 . At first sight Wh ite is i n trouble Black intends 4 . . . .l:1d4+ and 5 . . . a3. But let us verify: 4 .l:.g3 l:td4+ 5 �c5 ! (5 �xb5? a3 6 .l:.g2+ �c3 7 .l:.g3+ .l:ld 3 ) . If the rook goes to e4 , it is now possible to captu re the b5-pawn and after 6 . . . a3 to begi n side checks. The king has to step onto the d-file, but then the rook attacks the a-pawn and this leads to a d raw. This was Kasparian's conclusion.
23 l:.d2 . For example, 23 'R.c7? l:td2 24 l:.c3 (24 �xb5 a3 25 �b4 a2 26 l:ta7 �c1 ) 24 . . .U.b2+ 25 �a3 .l:. b 1 . After 26 l:th3 there follows 26 . . . �c2 with the threat of 27 . . . .l:.b3+, while if 26 l:tc8 , then 26 . . . �d2 , and the king approaches the pawns. It has acq u i red an excellent shelter from the side checks at a5. This is one of the i mportant winning posi tions. . . .
.
And now - the main d rawn position , which it is also essential to know.
H. Kasparian
I n this position I d iscovered another curious subtlety: B lack can try 5 . . . :1d 1 ! . Again it is not possible to captu re on b5, and 6 �b4 is necessary, but then there follows 6 . . . l:. b 1 . Now it is essential to take the pawn: 7 �xb5! a3 8 �a4 a2 9 l:tg2+ , and the king is deprived of the important b 1 -square - d raw! [ There is another way to draw: 6 .l:t g2 + �b 1 7 1:tg3 or 6 . . . � c3 7 �xb5 a3 8 � a4 Dvoretsky.) Let us retu rn to the position after Wh ite's 1 Oth move. We have seen that 1 O . . . a4+? leads to a d raw. Let us now analyse 1 O . . . b4! 1 1 �a4 ( 1 1 'R.g 1 .l:.x:g4 is hopeless) 1 1 . . . � x g4. This pawn configuration is obviously stronger than a4-b5, since after the sacrifice of the a5-pawn the remaining b-pawn is more da ngerous than the a-pawn , and affords more wi n n i ng possibil ities. For the moment the black king is free to approach the q ueenside ( 1 2 .l:.f1 1:tf5 etc. ) . Let us see what methods of defence Wh ite has agai nst pawns on b4 and a5. The first: playi ng for stalemate. (see diagram)
Could we have reached this position? Quite possibly. Wh ite could always have placed his rook on the 3rd rank. The only plan to play for a win is 1 . . . �c2 2 l:th2+ l:td2 3 l:th3!
If the black king goes to c3 , there follows llc2 + ! . But this mechanism is easily de stroyed - playing the black rook to the 2nd rank proves decisive.
94
�
Typical Endings with Connected Passed Pawns
The second: the attempt by Wh ite to place his own king in the way.
What is the simplest way to win here? Let's improve the position of the rook: 1 . . . l:!.e5. The threat is 2 . . . .l:.e3+ , lifting the blockade of the pawns . Both 2 l:.d 1 + 'it>c5 3 'it>a4 .l:!.e3 and 2 'it>a4 'it>d3 (not i m mediately 2 . . J:te3? 3 'it>xa5 b3 4 'it>b4) 3 .l:tc8 (or 3 'it>b3) 3 . . . 1:!.e3 4 l:.c7 'it>d2 a re hopeless for Wh ite. You see that the key sq uare for the king in this type of ending is d4 - it is very i mportant to occupy it! And after this - accord ing to ci rcum· stances : if the wh ite king is at a4, the route . . . 'it>d4-c3-b2(c2 ) becomes possible. With the king on b3 it comes under check and the black king can then go to c5 and b5. It all seems to be very simple, but look at the following position:
The drawback to the position of the king on b3 is that it comes u nder check along the 3rd rank. 1 . . . 'it>d4 2 1:!.a2 l:te3+ 3 'it>a4 (forced) 3 .. .'�c3, or 2 l:!.a4 l:!.e3+ 3 'it>b2 'it>c4! 4 .l:.xa5 l:!.e2+, and a won position, well known in theory, is reached . Black wins in roughly the same way with the enemy rook on a8 (instead of a 1 ) : 1 . . . 'it>d4 with the idea of . . . .Ue3+ .
The third : t o cut off the black k i n g along the file.
What is the eval uation? Draw! The king
Typical Endings with Connected Passed Pawns
cannot break th rough anywhere. We arrive at a general ru le for this type of ending: I f the black king is cut off i n its own half of the board , the position is d rawn ; -
- But if it breaks th rough into the opponent's ha l f of the board , the position becomes won . A general conclusion for this type o f ending also suggests itself:
ltJ
95
The nu m ber of mistakes that the two players made in this endgame! The reason was an inadequate knowledge of the theory of rook endings. They had no ' beacons' by which they could be g u ided . Thus in the game the moving of the king to the kingside (alas, rather belatedly) should have led to a d raw. Then I again retu rned to the position after 8 . . . 'it>c5 9 'lt>a3.
Black's plan of moving his king towards the white pawn and captu ri ng it leads to a wi n , whereas the plan o f playing the king to the help of the queenside pawns only d raws.
However, later analysis sometimes intro duces serious corrections into seemingly establ ished conclusions. On one occasion I looked more carefully at the position after 8.. .�e5.
We have seriously stud ied only 9 . . . a4 , but there is also another idea : 9 ... b4+ ! 10 �a4 l':!.d5! . The th reat is 1 1 . . .�d3. There is no point in retu rn ing with the king : 1 1 �b3 �b5 (with the th reat of 1 2 .. J:td2 ), and Wh ite loses. In the event of 1 1 .U.c1 + �b6 1 2 l:tf1 l:td3 1 3 l:tf6+ �c5 1 4 l:tf5+ �c4 1 5 �xa5 ( 1 5 l:tf4+ l:td4 and 1 6 . . . l:txg4) 1 5 . . . b3 Black wins, since his passed pawn advances more q u ickly than the opponent's, and also it is supported by the king . Why did White play 9 �b3 ? The im mediate 9 J:ia1 ! was far more logica l . N ow the reply . . . b5-b4 is no longer possi ble, and after 9 . a4 1 0 'lt>a3 (not 1 0 �c3 .l:!.xg4 1 1 .l:!.b 1 l:ic4+ ) Wh ite need not fear 1 O . . . l:!.xg4 1 1 .l:!.b1 with an immediate d raw. Black replies 1 0. . .'it>d5 , but 11 'it>b4 �c6 1 2 l:Lg1 leads to an already familiar d rawn position .
Let us verify 1 1 �xa5 l':!.d3 1 2 �a6 (otherwise mate ; 1 2 l:!.c1 + l::tc 3 is bad for White ) 1 2 . . . b3 1 3 g5 .
..
(see diagram)
96
�
Typical Endings with Connected Passed Pawns
The direct 1 3 . . . b2? (with the idea of 1 4 . . . .l:!.a3+ and 1 5 . . . .l:!.a 1 ) leads only to a d raw in view of 1 4 .l:!.b 1 .l:!.a3+ ( 1 4 . . . .l:!.d2 1 5 g6) 1 5 �b7 .l:!.b3+ 16 cJi;c? 'it>b4 1 7 'it'd?! 'it>a3 1 8 'it>e6(e7) , and the white king, paradoxically, succeeds in uniting with its pawn . 1 3 . . . 'it>b4? is hopeless: 1 4 g6 b2 1 5 g7 lld8 1 6 g8'ii' l:txg8 1 7 l:.xg8, and if 1 7 . . . b 1 �? 1 8 ltb8+. After 1 3 . . . 'it>c4? both 1 4 g6 b2 1 5 g7 l:td8 16 l:tg4+ and 14 'it>a5 b2 1 5 g6 'it>c3 1 6 'it>a4 are possible [this last move is a mistake in view of 1 6.. .'i:J.d8 1 7 g7 :aB+ 1 8 cJi;b5 l:tg8; a draw is given by 16 g7 .l:!.d8 17 .l:!.g3+ 'it>c4 18 .l:!.g4+ 'it>c5 19 .l:!.g5+ 'it>c6 20 l:tg6+ 'it>c 7 2 1 .l:!.g1 - Dvoretsky.] However, Black finds a subtle solution: 13 . . . �d7 ! ! 1 4 g6 �g7 . I n this way the mobil ity of the wh ite king is restricted - now it can neither approach the b-pawn , nor move to the kingside. After 1 5 .l:!.g5+ 'it>b4 1 6 'it>b6 ( 1 6 .l:!.g4+ 'it>a3 1 7 'it>b5 b2) 1 6 . . . b2 1 7 .l:!.b5+ 'it>c3 1 8 .l:!. c5+ (in the hope of d riving the king to b 1 and retu rn ing to g5) B lack replies 18 . . . 'it>d4! 19 l:tb5 .l:!.xg6+ and wins. [In fact this way to win from the last diagram is not the only one: in all the alternative variations Black's play can be improved. A) 13 . . . 'it>b4 ? 14 g6 :dB! (instead of 1 4. . . b2) 15 g7 (see diagram)
In the event of 1 5. . . .l:!.g8 White saves himself by continuing 1 6 .l:!.g4+ (or 1 6 .l:!.g2) 1 6 . /ila3 17 .l:!.g3 1;; a2 18 .l:!.g5! b2 19 .l:!.a5+ �b3 ( 1 9 . . . cJi;b 1 20 .l:!.g5) 20 .l:!.b5+ cbc3 21 .l:!.c5+ 'it>d4 22 1lb5. If instead 15 . . . .l:!.a8+, then 1 6 'it>b7 (or 1 6 'it>b6 b 2 1 7 'it>c6) 1 6. . . 'J:.g8 1 7 'it>c6 b 2 1 8 'it>d5 ( a very important tempo; Black cannot reply 1 8. . . 'IDa5 b2 1 5 g6 the simplest win is by 1 5 . . . .l:!.a3+!, but 15 . . . .l:!.g3 16 .l:!.xg3 b 1"ik is also possible in view of the unfortunate position of the white king) 1 4. ..1:l..d8! 1 5 g7 l:!a8+! (we already know how a draw is gained after 1 5. . . l:!gB?) 1 6 'it>b7 ( 1 6 'it>b6 b2 is no better) 1 6. . . 11g8 17 'it>c6 b2 18 'it>d6 'fJ.xg7! (with the king on b4 this move would not be possible), and Black wins. -
C) 1 3. . . b2 1 4 .l:!.b 1 .l:!.d2! 1 5 g6 1:!g2 16 gl r!g6+!, and on the next move Black will capture on g7 either with check, or with a threat of mate - Dvoretsky.]
Thus our i n itial concl usion has been re versed : the plan of moving to the help of our pawns proves to be stronger than the march of the king to the g4-pawn .
tb
97
Mark Dvoretsky
Adventu res o n Adj o u rn ment Day
I always l ucky. From the examples demon
t is said that winner of the first prize is
strated below, you will see that i n the U S S R C u p (the cl ub tea m championship o f the country) in 1 976 in Tbilisi our Burevestn ik team was indeed l ucky. But when you have by no means the most impressive l i ne-u p , competitive good fortu ne alone is not enough to win by an enormous marg i n (before the last round we were a l ready T'h points ahead of our nea rest rivals). Our success was largely secu red by the friendly atmosphere reigning in our team , the benevolence and mutual help. An important role was also played by our su periority i n the a nalysis of adjourned positions (although from the exam ples g iven below you would probably not say this) - when they were resumed the results of a good dozen games came as a pleasant surprise to us. On the even ing before the adjournment day our leader Vasily S myslov adjou rned his game against Mikhail Tal in what was a dangerous position for h i m . At a tea m meeting he said that the fol lowing day he would need help with the analysis. ' O f course, of cou rse, let's look at the
position together, ' grandmaster Ta i m anov offered his services. 'Thank you , Mark Evgenevich , but I would like to work with Mark lzrai levich , ' S myslov replied . Of course ,
it is flattering to have the reputation of being a good ana lyst, a lthough at times it is slig htly onerous - after all, my game was also adjourned . But the fol lowing morning Smyslov and I sat down to look at
his position. After three hours of exception ally i ntensive work my head was l iterally spl ittin g , but on the other hand it appeared that we had found a way to save the game. Tal
-
Smyslov
Tbilisi 1 976
Of cou rse, it is u nfavou rable to play 42 g5? .l::i.x h5 43 tt::l f6+ �g6 , and therefore Tal's sealed move was obvious. 42 tt::l x d6
cxd6
Now the captu re of the b6-pawn allows Black to activate his king : 43 .l::i.x b6 �h6! 44 .l:!.xd6+ (44 f4 ! ? exf4 45 .l:!.xd6+ also does not wi n ) 44 . . . �g5 45 f3 e4 ! with counterplay sufficient for a d raw, for exa mple: 46 .l:!.g6+ 'it>f4 47 fxe4 a4. Wh ite must play more sharply. 43 .l::i.x d6! We have a choice between 43 . . . b5 44 .l::!. a 6 a4 and 43 . . . .l::i. b 1 . In both cases the opponent sends his king forward . The queenside
98
�
Adventures on Adjourn ment Day
pawns do not advance very qu ickly - d u ring this time danger impends over the black king. The following variation is an instructive one, illustrating the typical ideas in the position and the difficulties facing Black. 43 .. J�tb1 44 'it>f3! (44 g5? .l:tg 1 is prematu re) 44 . . . a4 (44 . . . .l:tb4? 45 'it>g3 and 46 g5) 45 'it>e4 a3 46 .l:td7+ 'it>h6 (46 . . . 'it>g8 47 .l:ta7 .l:tb3 48 'it>f5 or 48 g5 is completely bad for Black) 47 \t>f5! (th reatening 48 g5+ \t>xh5 49 .l:!.h7 mate) 47 . . . .l:!.g 1 48 .l:!.a7 .l:tg2 49 f4 ! exf4 50 .l:!.xa3 .l:!.g3 5 1 .l:!.a 1 ! f3 (not 5 1 . . .llc3 52 g5+) 52 'lt>f4 �g2 (52 . . . �h3 53 �b1 f2 54 IDb6+ 'it>h7 55 �b1 �b3 56 �f1 'it>h6 57 .Uxf2 also does not help) 53 'it>xf3 �c2 54 .Ub 1 , and Black is short of the one tempo which wou ld enable him to block the pawns securely and set up a familiar d rawn position with king on g5 and rook on c5.
44 �a6
a4
45 'it>e3 We considered 45 'it>f3 to be more accurate. Tal was concerned about the reply 45 a3, but in this case Black loses: 46 c.t>g2 .Ua 1 47 g5 b4 48 g6+! (not 48 �a7+? Wg8 49 g6 Iic1 50 h6 l:!.c8) 48 . . . Wh6 49 .l:!.a7 with the decisive th reats of 50 l:th7+ or 50 g7 'it>h7 51 h6 and 52 l'la8 . Therefore Smyslov would have played as in the main variation of the analysis - 45 . . Jlc1 ! . But after the move in the game Black acq u i res an add itional possibil ity. . . .
45 . . .
lle1 +
4 6 'it>f3
Even in such sharp endings, where every thing can depend on a single tempo, someti mes it is not worth immed iately delving into the mass of variations. You should first logically weigh up the situation and look for a plan, a general idea , which should be carried out. What, do you think, is this idea? It turns out that Black should switch his rook to the 8th ra nk. Fi rstly, from here it covers the king - to checkmate it the opponent will have to bring forward his king and both pawns, and this demands time. Secondly, it may be possible to place the rook behind its own pawn and advance it, while giving u p the other. So, the general plan has been fou n d . It is merely necessary to firid the most accu rate way of implementing it. 43 . . .
b5
As Tal commented after the game, 43 . . . .Ub1 was nevertheless possible, but only in connection with the plan indicated above : after 44 'it>f3 a4 45 'it>e4 Black should play 45 . . . .l:tb4+ ! 46 'it>f5 .l:!.f4+ 4 7 'it>g5 .Uf8 .
46 . . .
�c1
46 . . . e4+ 4 7 'it>f4 �e2 was also q u ite possi ble. We analysed sharp variations such as 48 'it>g5 �xf2 49 �a7+ 'it>g8 50 h6 e3 51 'it>g6 �f8 and did not see how Wh ite could win. But on the other hand the main plan of defence a lso seemed sufficient for a d raw, so that it was not easy for Smyslov to make a choice . He real ised perfectly wel l that, in view of the lack of time for analysis, in any branch a mistake could creep i n . The only q uestion was, where was this more prob able? 47 c.t>e4
�c4+?!
C2J
Adventures on Adjournment Day
This was how we intended to switch the rook to the 8th rank. True, in this way the position of the wh ite king is improved , although the e5-pawn remains invul nerable. We rejected 47 . J:!.c8 ! , because we considered that Black was lost in the position arising after 48 'it>xe5 .l:!.b8 49 g5 b4 50 .U.a7+ 'it>g8 51 �a4 b3 52 l1a 1 b2 53 l:!. b 1 . .
.
Not long before the resumption Vasily Vasilievich came up to me. 'You know, ' he said , 'it would appear that White's th ree pawns do not win . '
'That can't b e s o ! ' I said in su rprise , a n d I tried to refute his conclusion , but without success. Here is the key position .
l:tb3+ 2 'it>d4 ( 2 'it>d2 .U.b4 3 f5 .i:i.b5) 2 J:.b4+ 3 Wc3 l:txf4 4 l:txb2 .U.h4! with a draw. 1
99
is 9 Wd5! (but not 9 �c5 ? .U.g8!) 9...l:!.b4 10 �e5 (because of zugzwang Black is forced to allow the king into the lower half of the board) 10 ... l:!.b5+ 1 1 �f4 l:!.b4+ 12 �g3 f!.b5 13 '>t>g4 .i:i.b3 14 �h4 with a decisive zugzwang.]
To the grandmaster's question, which plan of defence it would be better to choose, in reply I merely shrugged my shoulders. Without waiting for advice, he said that he would th i n k about it once more at the boa rd . And he made h i s choice in favour of the main variation, which we had plan ned from the very start. Alas, it was here that a mistake had crept i n . 4 8 'it>f5
.l:!f4+
49 'lt>g5
l:i.f8
. . .
...
The discovery made by S myslov is instruc tive and pretty, and I th ink that it is of
considerable importance for the theory of rook endings. But we no longer had time to verify it thoroughly. {Many years later grandmaster Carsten winning plan for White. He suggested 2 '>t>e4 l:!.b4+ 3 �f5 l:!.b5+ 4 '>t>e6 (4 �g4 l:i.b4 is hopeless) 4 1:!b6+ 5 �d5 l:!.b5+ 6 �c6 l:!.b4 7 f5 tlg4 8 h6+ rtlh7 9 l:!.xb2 l:i.xg5 10 l:!.f2 etc. If Black waits: 7 . .U.b8 8 h6+ �h 7, the most accurate Muller nevertheless found a
. . .
. .
50 h6! Here it all became clear to S myslov. I n o u r analysis w e h a d somewhere given a check on a?, after which there is no win . In sharp endings such as this, every tempo is precious - Wh ite leaves the king on h7, in order to advance his pawn to g6 with check. 50 . . .
b4
51 l:txa4? An unexpected amnesty at the very last moment. Wh ite could have won by 51 �h5! b3 52 g5 l:tb8 53 g6+ 'it>h8 54 h7 'it>g7 (54 . . . b2 55 'it>h6) 55 l:ta7+ Wf6 56 g7.
1 00
�
Adventures on Adjournment Day
51 . . .
.l::tb8
5 2.l:.a7+
It is now pointless to play 52 �h5 b3 53 g5 b2 54 g6+ 'it>h8!. 52 .. .
'it>h8
53l:ta2
b3
54.l:.b2
e4
55 'it>f4
'it>h7
Draw. That same day I too resumed by game (also a sharp endgame with passed pawns for both sides). It was adjourned before Smys lov's game, and so I had managed to look at it, although , obviously, I no longer had time to check the variations. V . Kozlov- D voretsky
Tbilisi 1 976
43 tt:lb3
If 43 g6 I was intending 43 . . . hxg5 44 hxg6 .l::txa 1 45 .ih6 .l::t a 7! 46 f7 .l:.xf7 47 gxf7 b3. 1t later transpired that after 48 tt:lxe5 b2 49 tt:lc4! b 1 1i' 50 tt:lxd6 Wh ite does not lose, for exa m ple, 50 . . .1i'a2+ 5 1 'it>g3 ( 5 1 'it>h3? 'iie 6+ and 52 . . .'iVxh6) 5 1 . . . 'iVf2+ 52 'it> h 3 (52 'it>g4? tt:le3+) 52 . . .'ii' f3+ 53 'it>h4 'ii'f6+ 54 'it>h5. Apart from 45 .ih6, also possible is 45 tt:lh6 l:ta7 46 g7+ .Uxg7 47 fxg7+ 'it>xg7 48 tt:lf5+ 'it>g6 (48 . . . 'it>f6 49 tt:lxd6 b3 50 tt:le4+ 'it>f5 5 1 .ib4 b2 52 tt:ld2) 49 tt:lxd6 b3 50 lt:Jc4 b2 5 1 tt:lxb2 tt:lxb2 52 'it>f3 tt:lxd3 53 'it>e4 or 52 . . . 'it>f5 53 'it>e2 . 43 ...
l:ta3
44 g6
hx g6
45 hx g6
.itS
46 tt:lx e5!
The simplest way to d raw. 46 tt:lc1 b3 47 tt:lxb3 :txb3 48 .ih6 tt:le3+ 49 .ixe3 dxe3 50 'it>f3 was also possible. I merely wanted to check whether my opponent might mix up the move order by choosing 46 .ih6?. In this case after 46 . . . tt:le3+ 47 .ixe3 (47 tt:lxe3 .ixh6 48 tt:lf5 .if8 49 g7+ .ixg7 50 fxg7+ �h7 5 1 tt:lc5 b3) 47 . . . dxe3 48 tt:lc 1 Black does not play 48 . . . b3? , but 48 . . . .U.c3!. 46. . .
Analysis showed that, amazi ngly enoug h , the position was a forced d raw. 41l:tx d1!
The sealed move . 41 . . .
tt:lx d1
4 2 f6
.l:.a8
After 42 . . . tt:le3+ 43 .ixe3 dxe3 44 'it>f3 lla8 45 tt:lb3 .Ua3 46 tt:lc 1 b3 47 tt:lxb3 llxb3 48 g6 .if8 49 tt:lxe5 Black is u nable to convert his extra rook.
47 tt:lf7+
.l:tx b3
ltJ
Adventures on Adjournment Day
I was expecting 4 7 i.. h 6 �b2+ 4 8 'it h 3 (after 'it>g3 there is the u npleasant reply 4 8 .. �d6!, and if 49 lt::l g 4, then 49 . . . �g2+! 50 �xg2 i.xf4) 48 . . . I:i.f2 49 i.. xf8 .l:.xf6 50 .iL.xb4 with a drawn endgame. I n my analysis the move made by Wh ite i n the game was not even made on the board , since I thought that after 47 . . .g8
48 lt::lh6+
i..xh6??
48 . . . d6
The more accu rate 64 . . . �b7 will be ana lysed later. 65 tt::l g6
'it>d5
66 'it>f4
W h ite's plan takes shape. The winning idea is to occu py the key e5-square with the knight. F rom there it not only covers the d3and c4-squares, but also aims for d7 or f7. 66...
'it>c5
In the event of the natural 66 . . . Wc4 White would have won by 67 tt::l e 5+! 'it>c3 68 "2ld7!. The threat is 69 tt::l c 5, after 68 . . . �c4 there is the fork 69 tt::l b 6+ , while if 68 . . . 'it>b4, then simply 69 tt::lf6 . 67 tt:Je5!
�b7
Or 67 . . . 'it> b4 68 tt::ld 7 , and Black loses. 68 tt::lf7!
Since there is no satisfactory defence against the threat of 69 tt::l g 5 (if 68 . . . 'it>c4 69 tt::ld 6+ ) , Black resigned . Let us return to the position after 64 ttJe7. I nstead of 64 . . . 'it>d6 Black had the more cunning 64 . . . �b7. If now 65 tt::l g 6+ 'it>d5 66 �f4 , then 66 . . . �c4 67 tt::le 5+ 'it>c3 .
Black keeps his bishop on the b7-a8 squares, and when his king is evicted from e5 it aims for d 3 . 63 tt:Jts
�as
Of cou rse, not 63 . . . 'it>d5 because of 64 tt::le 7+ . 64 tt::le7!
Wh ite must prevent the passage of the black king to d3. For example, 64 tt::l h 6? leads to a
This is a position of mutual zugzwang. With Black to move he would be lost: 68 . . . �d2 69
Solo for a Knight
ti:ld7, 68 . . . i.. a 8 69 lZ'ld7 '01tc4 70 lZ'lb6+, or 68 .. .'01tb4 69 tt:J f7 '01tc3 70 lZ'ld6 . But it is White to move and he is u nable to win : 68 ti:lf7 'it>d3 , or 68 lZ'ld7 '01tc4 69 'iti>e5 i.c6 .
The natural 66 '01tf4? was a m i stake; Wh ite can win by 66 '01tf5!! '01tc4 (66 . . . i.. c 8+ 67 '01tf4 ib 7 68 lZ'le5 i.a8 69 lZ'ld7, and Black has no defence) 67 lZ'le5+ '01tc3 68 '01tf4 , and the situation analysed by us is reached , but with Black to move. It remains to clarify what would have happened if Black had carried out hi s plan more accu rately, i.e. obta ined the position i n the last b u t o n e diagram with his bishop on aB (with the bishop on b7 White wins by 1 ti:lf5, and if 1 . . . '01td5 , then 2 '01tf4 with the irresistible threat of 3 lZ'lg3 ) . In this case 1 ti:lf1! leads to a wi n . After 1 . . . 'it>d5 there follows 2 lZ'ld2 'it>e5 (3 '01tf4 was threatened ) 3lLlc4+ '01te6 (3 . . . '01td5 4 lZ'lb6+) 4 'it>f4 and 5 ti:ld2, while if 1 . . . i.. b 7 - 2 tZ'lh2 '01td5 3 lZ'lg4 'it>c4 4 lZ'le5+ 'iti>c3 5 '01tf4 , and aga i n a familiar position is reached (cf. the last diagram).
Thus the system of defence with the bishop on b7-a8 ru ns i n to a far from obvious refutation .
lZJ
1 05
Here Wh ite wins irrespective of the tu rn to move. 1 lZ'lg 6+ '01td5 2 'it>f4 i.f1 If 2 . . . i.. e 2, then 3 lZ'lf8! i.. f3 4 lZ'lh7 '01tc4 (lZ'lf6+ was th reatened ) 5 lZ'lg5 . 3 tt:Je7+ '01te6
3 . . . 'it>d6 loses i m med iately in view of 4 lZ'lg8! i.. g 2 5 lZ'lf6 . 4lZ'lc8!!
This at fi rst sight ridiculous move becomes u nderstandable, if the goal of the knig ht's u n usual route is noticed - the c3-sq uare . 4... i.d 3
Other continuations also fai l to save Black: a ) 4 . . . i.g2 5 lZ'lb6 '01td6 6 lZ'la4 '01td5 7 lZ'lc3 + ; b ) 4 . . . '01td7 5 lZ'lb6+ '01tc6 6 lZ'la4 and 7 lZ'lc3 ; c) 4 . . . i.. b 5 5 '01txe4 '01td7 6 lZ'lb6+ 'it>c6 7 lZ'ld5; d ) 4 . . . 'it>d5 5 lZ'lb6+ '01tc5 6 lZ'le7+ 'it>d6 7 lZ'lf6 . 5lZ'lb6 i.. c 2 (otherwise lZ'lb6-a4-c3) 6lZ'lc4
Although Wh ite has not i n fact managed to transfer hi s knight to c3, his achievements a re very considerable: the black bishop has been forced onto the b 1 -h 7 diagonal , where it is less well placed . 6...'it>d5 7lZ'ld2 i.d 3
Black could have stuck to another line of defence with his bishop on g2-h 1 . We will examine the fol lowing important positions.
8 'it>f5
Black is in zugzwang and is forced to allow the knight to go to f1 (8 . . . i.e2 9 lZ'lxe4 i.d3 1 0 f3) .
1 06
�
Solo for a Knight
8...�c2 9 tL'lf1 �d1
If 9 t2Jg4, then 9 . . . �e6 .
Or 9 . . . �c4 1 0 tL'lg3 �d5 1 1 tL'lh 5 and wins.
9 �c4 10 tL'lf1! �d5 ( 1 0 . . . 'it>d3 1 1 tL'lg3 ) 11 tL'lg3 followed b y tL'lh5, tra nsposing into a
10 tL'lh2 �c2 1 1 t2Jg4 'it>c4 12 tL'lf6�d3 13 t2Jx e4�e2 14�f4, and White wins.
Here I should make a slight digression and refer the reader to the start of th is i nteresting endgame, where the author praises the 'enthusiasm of the white knight' . In order to eliminate the last bulwark of Black's defence - the e4-pawn , the wh ite knight had to complete a veritable round-the-world jour ney (f4--g6--e 7-c8-b!H;4-d2-f1 -h2--g4-f6e4).
•.•
win n i ng position which is a l ready familiar to us.
I n the position from the last but one d iagra m it could have been Black t o move. 1...Sl.f1 2 tL'lg6+ �d5 3 �4 Sl.g2 4 tL'lh4! Sl.f1
If 4 . . . .th 1 , then 5 �g3 ! �c4 6 �h2 , forcing the exchange of bishop for knight. 5 tL'lf5 Sl.g2 6 t2Jg3
Although the bishop is at g2, a l l the same Wh ite is able to win . 1 tL'lf5!
Noth ing is g iven by 1 tL'lh5 .tf3 ! (but not 1 . . . .t h 1 2 t2Jf4 .tf3 because of 3 tL'lg6+ '.t>d5 4 �f4 .th 1 5 tL'lh4 �c4 6 �g3 �d3 7 '.t>h2 �e2 8 �xh 1 �xf2 9 t2Jf5) 2 t2Jf4 .t h 1 ! . 1...�d5
Or 1 . . . .tf3 2 tL'lh4 .td 1 3 tL'lg6+ �d5 4 'ii'f5 Sl.f3 5 �f4 , similar to the main variation. 1 . . . Sl.h 1 2 tL'lh4 ! is bad for Black. 2 tL'lh4! .tf1 3 �f5! �e2 4 tL'lg6 Sl.f3 5 �f4 .tg2
A very important position of mutual zug zwang . If it is Black to move he is forced to occupy the f3-square with his bishop, allowing the knight to go to f1 . 6...Sl.f3 7 tL'lf1 Sl.d1
7 . . . Sl.g2 is bad because of 8 tL'ld2 ! Sl.h 1 9 �g3. 8 tL'lh2 Sl.c2 9�f5
Black a lso loses after 5 . . . .te2 6 tL'le7+ �e6 7 t2Jf5 �d5 8 tL'lg3 .tf3 (the position of mutual zugzwang from the last but one d iagra m has been reached ) 9 tL'lf1 etc. 6 tL'lh4 Sl.f1 7 t2Jf5 .tg2 8 tL'lg3
Agai n a fam i l i a r mutual zugzwang position. Wh ite wins. It is more d ifficult to win when Black moves first: 1...Sl.h3! (preventing the i mportant manoeu vre t2Jg3-f5-h4) 2 �h4! (White tries to give
Solo for a Knight
his opponent the move) 2 .i.c8
5 lt:Jh5 .i.f3
Or 2 . . . .i.g2 3 'it>g4 .i.f3+ 4 'it>g5 .i.g2, reaching the position from the last diagra m with Wh ite t o move.
If 5 . . . � h 3 , then 6 lt:Jf4 is possible.
...
3 'it>h5! .i.d7 If 3 . .i.h3, then 4 'it>g5 , and White has succeeded i n giving his opponent the move . 4 i.c8 5 lt:Jh5 .i. h 3 6 lt:Jf4 followed by lt:Jg6+ and r.t>f4 transposes i nto variations analysed earlier. . .
. . .
4 'it>g6!
.i.g4
Or 4 . �c8 5 lt:Jh5 Wd5 6 tt:Jf6 +. . .
C2J
1 07
6 lt:Jf4 .i. h 1 7 'it>g5 ..tf3
This position has a l ready occu rred i n the notes. I will remind you of the win n i ng method : 8 lt:Jg6+ 'it>d5 9 'it>f4 .i.h 1 1 0 lt:Jh4 'it>c4 1 1 'it>g3 'it>d3 1 2 'it>h2 'it>e2 1 3 'it>xh 1 'it>xf2 1 4 lt:Jf5 . With this the a uthor concludes his analysis of this interesti ng endgame. I will be very indebted to readers for any corrections, refi nements or refutations.
1 08
� Mark Dvoretsky
More about the 'Montaign i a n' Kn ight
W Yusupov
hen I saw t h e analyses b y Artu r in the previous chapter I was reminded of several stud ies on the same theme , which i n their time made a strong impression on me. I hope that they will also appeal to you . Their beauty l ies in the unusual amount of work carried out by the wh ite knight, the paradoxical manoeu vres of the wh ite pieces, and above all the precision and depth of logic behind these manoeuvres. Before enjoying the solutions, try to fi nd the answers you rself. I should warn you before hand: the problems are very difficult, and you will most probably have to move the pieces on the board (perhaps only the second example might be solved i n you r head ). But even so, don't b e i n a h u rry to make moves - first reason to you rself about the fi nal and i ntermed iate aims of both sides, the plans they will carry out, any important intermediate positions, and so o n . N. Grigoriev
1 932
A knight can stop a rook's pawn, if it succeeds in 'touching' any square in its path (apart from the corner square h1). In the g iven i n stance it is clear that the knight will aim for the h2-sq uare . H ow to reach it seeing as the black king stands in its way?
Here are some logical considerations, which will make it easier to fi nd the solutio n . The knight can reach h2 via g4 or f1 . Each of these routes can be control led sepa rately by the black ki n g . It is necessary to create a 'double attack' - by th reatening to go to h2 by both ways . The knight ca n reach f1 via d 2 , and g4 via e5. Do you see the i ntersection point of these two routes? 1 tt'lb4!
h5
2 tt'lc6!
Not 2 tt'ld5+? 'itof3 ! , and the pawn can not be stopped . Note that a king restricts a knight most effectively when there is one square between them along a diagonal, or two squares between them along a rank or a file.
2...
'it>e4!
Of cou rse , not 2 . . . h4? 3 tt'le5 , when the g4square can be covered only by 3 . . . Wf4 , but then there follows 4 tt'lg6 + . 3 tt'la5!!
Only in th is way can the knight reach the key c4-sq uare , from where it ca n ai m for both f1, and g4 . 3 tt'ld8? would have lost after 3 . . . h4 4 tt'le6 'it>f5 ! 5 tt'ld4+ 'ltog4 . 3...
h4
4 tt'lc4!
4 tt'lb3? �e3 . 4. . .
'itof3! ?
lLJ
More about the 'Montaignian' Knight
The last tra p . 4 . . . h3 5 lZ'ld2+ and 6 lZ'lf1 leads to an immed iate d raw. 5 lDe5+!
5 liJd2+? (hoping for 5 . . . f2 , and B lack wins. I n this variatio n he is able to deflect the knight from its route to h 2 , a n d , as you can see , 'touchi n g ' the h 1 -sq u a re with the knight does not help Wh ite . 5. . .
'it>g3
Forced: the g4-sq u a re m ust be guarded , but if 5 . . 'it>f4 , then 6 ltJg6 + . .
6lZ'lc4!
h3
7lZ'le3!
White has achieved h i s a i m : If 7 . . . h2 8 lZ'lf1 + , while after 7 . . . 'itf3 there follows 8 lZ'lf1 g2 1 0 ltJg4 b5! and lbc4 , but 2 .. . '�f2 ! leads to a wi n . D . Gurgenidze
1 970
1 09
king: 1 ..t>b3(a3) 'it>f7 2 'it>b4 'it>g7 3 'it>xb5 'it>xh7 4 'it>c4 , and the king enters the sq uare of the h-paw n . What, then , is the problem? It turns out that Black can save a very i mportant tempo by avoiding the attack on the knight and satisfying h imself with merely restricting its mobil ity: 1 .. .e6 Wh ite must i m medi ately tackle the h-pawn with his knight. In a p ractical game without much hesitation many players would play 1 'it>b3 'it>e6 2lZ'!f8+ 'it>f5 3 ltJd7 h 5 , and only now th i n k about where next to d i rect the knight. The pa ra doxical featu re of the position is that here such a generally-accepted way of acting does not work - it is necessary to th i n k earlier! 1 'it>a3!!
f5
3lZ'ld7
h5
4 ltJc5
h4
5lZ'lb3!!
This is why it is important to calculate all the variations as early as the fi rst move - the b3sq ua re m u st be left free for the wh ite knight. 5 lZ'ld3? woul d have lost after 5 . . . h 3 6 lZ'lf2 h2 7 xb5 f4 7 ltJf1 leads to a fa miliar d rawn position . 7 lZ'lf1
h1�
8lZ'lg3+
(see diagram)
1 ltJg1
This study is a n a rtistic adaptation of a position by N i kolai Dmitrievich Grigoriev. The threat of wi n n i ng the k n ight is easily parried by approach ing the b5-pawn with the
I n contrast to the previous position , here the fi rst move can be made without th i n ki n g . But what n ext - how to d rive away the e nemy king? For a start we at least need some idea . Let's see where the k n ight should a i m for, i n order to create d ifficu lties for the opponent.
1 10
�
More about the 'Montaignian' Knight
R. Reti, A. Mandler
1 924
The knight's circular journey has enabled White to achieve h i s a i m - he has given the opponent the move . The rest is al ready familiar to us. 8 ...
'it>e3
9 tt'le1
'it>d2
10 tt'lc2!
'it>d1
11 tt'lb4!
'it>d2
12 tt'ld5
R. Reti,
A. Mandler
1 924
We find the square c2 . From here the knight takes away the important e3-square , and it is itself invulnerable i n view of the reply 'i!te2 . The black king has to be at d2 or d 1 . But with the king on d1 Wh ite has the decisive tt'lb4! followed by tt'ld5. It is clear that here we beg in to have mutual zugzwang positions. Black has to play accu rately from the very start. 1 . . . 'it>d3? is bad in view of 2 tt'lf3 'i!te3 3 tt'le 1 ! Wd 2 4 tt'lc2 ! Wd 1 ( 4 . . . 'i!td 3 5 'it>e 1 ! '>t>xc2 6 �e2 ) 5 tt'lb4! Wd2 6 tt'ld5. 1...
'iit>d2!
2 tt'lf3+
�d3!
Now it is pointless playing 3 tt'le1 + 'it>e3 ! 4 tt'lc2+ '1t>d2 5 tt'lb4 'it>e3 6 tt'ld5+ 'it>e4 7 tt'lf6+ 'ite3. To wi n , the opponent must be given the move. But how can this be ach ieved? 3 'iit>e 1!
'it>e3
4 tt'le5
'it>e4
In the event of 4 . . . 'iit>d 4 Wh ite wins by 5 tt'lg4! 'it>d3 6 'it>d 1 , breaking forward with the king, since 6 . . .f3 fails to 7 tt'le5 + . 5 tt'lc4!
'.t>d3
5 . . .f3 6 tt'ld2+, or 5 . . . 'it>d4 6 'it>e2 ! . 6 tt'ld2
'it>e3
7 tt'lf3
'it>d3
8 'it>f1!
Here Wh ite's task is even more d ifficult than in the previous study. The winning plan suggested there (wh ich in itself was not at all obvious) does not work here: the left edge of the board i nterferes. After a l l , the knight has no sq uare equ ivalent to the i m portant b4sq ua re in the previous example. True, a new possibil ity has a ppea red - the activation of the king along the route d 1 -e 1 f1 -g2-f3 . It is obvious that Wh ite h a s no other win n i ng pla n . Black will try to prevent it by attach ing h i s king to the e2-pawn from d2 or d 1 . It is easy to imagine that here too mutual zugzwa ng positions ca n n ot be avoided . Let's try to work th i ngs out! Let's suppose that Wh ite's knight is on d3, his king on f1 , and the black king on c2.
ttJ
More about the 'Montaignian' Knight
Then Black loses after 1 . . . 'it>d2? 2 lt:Jf4 (2 tt'le5 �d 1 3 lt:Jf3 is also good ) 2 . . . 'it>d 1 3 Wg2 . He must play 1 . . . 'it>d 1 ! 2 lt:Jf4 (2 lt:Je5 lt>d2 3 lt:Jf3+ �c3) 2 . . . 'it>d2 ! , and if 3 'it>g2 , then 3 . . . d 3 ! with a d raw.
111
A s you remember, 4 . . . �b3? 5 �c1 ! �xa2 6 'it>c2 is bad for Black. He is forced to move his king along the 1 st ran k , away from the c3- a n d c4-squa res. 4...
�b1
5 lt:Jb4
'it>b2
6lt:Jd5
'it>b3
From this the fol lowing conclusions can be drawn : if Wh ite plays We 1 , then with the knight on d3 Black must reply . . . 'it>c2 ! , while with the knight o n f4 , e5 or c5 the correct reply is . . . 'it>c3 ! . The position with the knight on c5, black king on c3 and wh ite king on e 1 is one of mutual zugzwan g .
6 . . . 'it>b 1 ? loses i m mediately to 7 lt:Jc7 �b2 8 lt:Jb5.
The followi ng step i n our logical a nalysis of the position is to clarify the importance of the e4-square for the knight. Let us su ppose that the knight stands on e4 , the wh ite king on d 1 , and the black king on b3. Then if it is White to move 1 �c1 ! is decisive. But things are no easier for Black if it is him to move : if 1...Wb2 there follows 2 tt:Jc5 ! 'it>c3 (2 . . . � b 1 3 tt'le6 ) 3 �e 1 ! , and the afore-mentioned position of mutual zugzwa ng is reached with Black to move .
Here 7 . . . 'it>c4 8 'it>c2 is now pointless.
Thus the knight m ust be brought to the e4square. This is not at all easy to ach ieve , seeing as Wh ite consta ntly has to watch out for . . . d4-d3 . 1lLle1
�b2
2lt:Jd3+
�c3
Noth ing is changed by 2 . . . � b 1 3 tt:Jc1 �b2 4 tt'la2 , while 2 . . . �b3 shortens the solution : 3 tt'lf4 Wb2 (3 . . . 'lt>c3 4 �e 1 ! 'it>c2 5 lt:Jd3 , and Black is i n zugzwa n g ) 4 tt:Jd5 �b3 5 lt:Jc7 ! etc.- cf. the main variation . 3 lt:J c1!
7...
�c3
8lLlb5+
�c4
9lt:Jd6+
'it>c3
9 . . . �d5 1 0 lt:Jf7 . 10 lt:Je4+
�b2
1 0 . . . c3
12 'it>e1!
Wh ite has ach ieved his a i m - he has set u p t h e requ i red position o f mutual zugzwang with his opponent to move . 12 . ..
'it>c2(c4)
13 lt:Jd3
Aga i n zugzwan g ! 1 3. . .
�c3
14 �f1
'it>d2
15 lt:Jf4
But not immed iately 3 lt:Jf4 because of 3 . . Wb3 ! , and if 4 lt:Jd5 there is the reply 4 ...'.t'c4 ! . .
3...
7lt:Jc7!
The shortest route to e4 is via f6 . H owever, the d i rect 7 tt:Jf6? is refuted by 7 . . . �c4 ! ! 8 'it>c2 d 3 +! 9 exd3+ �d4 and 1 O . . . e2. There fore the knight chooses a more i ntricate route : d 5-c7-b5-d6-e4 .
� b2
4 lt:J a2!
A manoeuvre , found in the solving of the previous study, also comes in usefu l here .
The fi n a l , decisive zugzwa n g . 1 5 lt:Je5 �d 1 1 6 lt:Jf3 is equally good . 15 .. .
'it>d1
16 � g2
Thanks to the lengthy knight manoeuvre , t he wh ite king has fi nally gai ned t h e opportu n ity to break free.
1 12
� PART II Technique Mark Dvoretsky
Converti ng a n Advantage
C ments . One of the most common and
hess players suffer from many ail
serious is poor tech n ique i n the conversion of an advantage. Even champions some times suffer from th is ill ness - it is sufficient to remember the 1990 match for the world championship between Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. How frequently after an unsuccessfu l game do we state with vexation to o ur opponent, trainer, or a casual spectator: 'I had a completely won position ! ' But it is poi ntless complaining about fate - it is better to th i n k about the causes o f t h e mistakes made, a n d endeavour t o understand what playing o r personal deficiencies are behind you r er rors. I will now dwell briefly on the main factors which h i nder the normal conversion of an existi ng adva ntage .
time and energy on solvi ng the problems wh ich confront h i m i n the fi rst half of a game. But for its later part he often l acks strength, and here he makes serious errors . It was only for this reaso n , for example, that he did not win his Candidates semi-final match in 1989 agai nst Karpov. Yusu pov constantly outplayed his form idable opponent, but was u nable to convert this i nto wins on account of tired ness towards the end of a game. Here is one of the most a n noying examples. Karpov- Yusupov
Candidates Match , 6th Game, London 1989
I. Tiredness to wards the end o f a game It is clear that after several hours of intensive struggle a player becomes tired . But some become more tired than others. It is in the last few min utes that the fate of a game is often decided , and therefore many additional poi nts ca n be gai ned by a player who retains a sufficient reserve of energy towa rds the end of a rou nd . Th e play of grandmaster Yusupov is always deep and i nteresti n g , and he spends much
Yusu pov saw that i n the variation 38 . . a3? .
ttJ
Converting an Advantage
39 .l:la6 .Uf2+ 40 'it>e1 a2 41 f5 he would not have time to win the rook: 4 1 . . . .Uxh2 42 f6 l:ih 1 +? 43 'it>e2 a 1 'i!V 44 .l::!.x a 1 .l::!.x a 1 45 f7. Therefore he played 41 . 'it>d7 , and after 42 f6 'it>e6 43 .l:ta8 ! 'i.t>xd6 44 f7 .l::!.x f7 45 .U.xa2 lt>e5 46 lla6 the players ag reed a d raw. ..
Yet Black could simply have captu red the pawn: 38 . . .
l:txh2!
39 .l:.a6
1 13
the board . But it is not everyone's nervous system that is ready for such prolonged tension . Often a player com poses h imself only at especially important moments of the strugg l e , but when the main problems seem to h i m to be resolved , he loses his vig ilance and beg i n s acting ca relessly. It is here that m istakes usually occu r. Mestel
-
L. Popov
Olympiad , Malta 1 980
39 f5 .Uf2+ and 40 . . . .l:txf5.
39 . . .
l:.f2+
40 'it>e1
.l:txf4
41 'i.t>e2
.U.e4
With an easy wi n , for example: 42 .l:ta5 (otherwise . . . h6-h5-h4) 42 . . . '1t>d7 43 l:.d5 h5! 44 IIxh 5 'it>xd6. Why didn't Artur play this? By h i s own admissio n , at that moment his mind had simply switched off, and he did not see any other possibilities apart from 38 . . . a3?. If you are let down by ti red ness, perhaps it means that all is not well with you r physical preparation? The prescri ption i n such cases is clear - you m ust do more physical exercise and devote more time to sport, i n particular exercises for stamina (for exam ple, slow but long-dista nce ru n n i n g ) . Con sider devising a rational daily reg ime d u ring a com petitio n , enabling you to relax p roperly and regain you r energy before a new game. Finally, also d u ring a game you ca n husband your strength , by using for relaxation those brief min utes of respite when it is you r opponent's turn t o move . H owever, a l l these are fai rly serious questions, demanding a special d iscussion , and not just a brief mention . II.
Insufficiently stable nervous system
Throughout a game it is very important to maintain ful l concentration and u n broken attention to everything that is happening on
Wh ite is a sound pawn to the good , but he now has to resolve a d ifficult problem: what position to go i n for, so that the opponent will have the least i n the way of counter chances. The following possibil ities suggest themselves: a ) 25 .l:te 1 .l:I.d2 (25 . . .'it'c5 is less accu rate i n view o f 26 'iWa6 ! .U d 2 27 .l:.e2 ); b ) 25 'i�Nxc6 .l:.xd 1 + 26 .i.xd 1 'iVxa2 (stronger than 26 . . . 'i�Nxe5 27 'ifa6! ) 27 'ifb5 'iVa 1 28 �e2 a 5 , and it is not easy for Wh ite to strengthen his position ; c ) 25 .Uxd8+ 'i!Vxd8 26 'ii'xc6 'i�Nd2 ; d ) 25 .l:I.xd8+ 'i!Vxd8 2 6 �xa7 'iVd2 . I n every case Black retains cou nterplay, and the outcome remains unclear. Jonathan Mestel foun d an excellent solu tion . 25 .l:.xd8+!
'i�Nxd8
1 14
�
Converting an Advantage
26 i.c4! ! The bishop will secu rely defend the king from f1 . For the moment the queen remains on b?, from where it defends the b2-paw n . The a?- and c6-pawns are weak, and soon White is sure to create a passed pawn on the queenside. 26 . . .
�d2
27 i.f1
'lt>g7
a8'6'+ 'it>g? 40 'ii'a 6 "ii'x c3 Black gains q uite good saving chances - at any event, a lengthy struggle stil l l ies ahead. 34 'ii'b ?! was stro n g , ensuring the advance of the pawn while reta i n i ng the option, in case of necessity, of defending the bishop from a6. 34 g 3 ! also came i nto con sidera tio n , after which Black does not have a single sensible move . 34 'it'b6
27 .. .'ti'c2 was more tenacious, preventing the following strong move by the opponent. 28 a4!
aS
29 'ir'b6
h5
Black's last fai nt hope is to break u p the wh ite king's defences by the advance of his g- and h-pawns. He no longer has any other possibilities. 30 'ii'x a5
i¥xb2
31 'ir'b4
li'a1
32 a5
g5
33 a6
g4
h4
35 a7?! Was it worth al lowi ng the open ing up of Wh ite's own king position? 35 g 3 ! would have g iven a n elementary w i n . 35 . . .
g3!
36 ii'a6? Here it is - relaxation when only one step away from victory! 36 fxg3 hxg3 37 h3 would have won , for example, 37 .. .'i!Va2 38 'lt>h1 tt'lh4 39 ii'a6 'ii'f2 40 a8'ii' tt'lf3 41 'i!V8a7 c5 42 'i!Vxf? + ! 'i£txf7 43 'ii' b ?+ and 44 'i!Vxf3. H owever, such a variation is too compli cated for a player i n time-trouble. In any case , with more accu rate preceding play the game could have been concluded far more simply. 36 . . .
gxf2+
37 'i£txf2 I n the event of 37 Wh 1 'ii' c 1 38 a8'it'? White, paradoxical ly, even loses - after 38 . . . tt'lg3+! 39 hxg3 hxg3 there is no defence against mate by the queen on h6. 37 . . .
i¥xc3
Aga i n mate is th reatened . It is clear that Black's position is completely hopeless. But it is very dangerous, in believing th is, to weaken you r attention and stop checki ng variations. For example, if Wh ite plays 34 'ii'b 8 'ii'c 1 35 a?? (35 'ii'b 6! is correct), then after 35 .. .'!"i'le3 ! 36 fxe3 'ii'x e3+ 37 'it>h 1 "it'c1 (e1 ) 38 'it'h8+ (38 'ii'b 6 �xf1 + 39 �g 1 li'a6 with equal ity) 38 . . . 'it>xh8 39
38 i.d3
'i!Vd2+
39 i.e2
'iid 4+
40 We1
i¥c3+
41 Wf2 D raw. How can the nervous system be tra i ned to endure prolonged tension? Here too it is probably not possible to get by without
ttJ
Converting an Advantage
physical preparation ('healthy in body, healthy in mind ! ' ) ; self-tra in in g exercises or even yoga are probably usefu l . Specific chess training is also possible. You can p ractice playing specially selected exercises, i n which you have t o find a long series o f the only correct moves. Try conducting indi vidual games or even entire tournaments with the aim of concentrating to the maxi mum throughout the entire game. Ill. Time-trou ble Nearly every player can remember depress ing instances of time-trouble adventu res, in which the fru its of all the p reced ing work were ru ined. But even so I will show you one more example, together with a n i nstructive assessment of his own actions, which was given in his notes by an ex-world champion . Alekh ine - Tylor Notti ngham 1 936
1 15
An awful move, the fact that White was very short of time is, to my mind, as little to be considered as an excuse, as for instance the statement of the law-breaker that he was drunk at the moment that he committed the crime. The inability of an experienced master to deal with the clock should be considered as grave a fault as a miscalcula tion. Wh ite would h ave won by 47 i..x a4 .U.Xb 1 48 '.i?xb 1 '>i'xd5 , and now, if there is nothing better, 49 �e8 ! ? We5 50 h5 Wf4 (50 . . . gxh5 5 1 �xh5) 5 1 hxg6 hxg6 52 i..d 7 (Aiekhine). 47 . . .
'it>xd5
48 i.. c 4+
'>i'd6
49 l:!.xb7
tbc5+
50 We3
tbxb7
Soon the players ag reed a d raw. Aga i n I will not speak in deta i l about how to combat time-trouble. I will merely mention two main methods: 1) 'anti-time-trouble' games;
2)
time-study of games, with a
subsequent analysis of the reasons for getting into time-trouble.
Poi nts are lost not only in you r own time trouble, but also in the opponent's. This happens because a player often disregard s a well-known principle o f h o w t o act i n such s ituation s . If you have the better position, never play on the opponent's time trouble. A ct exactly as you normally would, not even remembering about your opponent's lack of time. Why? By
Black's position is, of cou rse, completely hopeless. If 46 . . . '>i'xd5 there follows 47 ::l.d1 + '>i'e6 (47 . . . '.i?e5 48 i..c 6) 48 '>i'c3 . Tylor tries his last ti me-trouble chance . 46 . . .
tbxa4
47 '>i'd3?? Regarding this Aiekhine writes i n the tou rna ment book:
playing q u i ckly, so as not to allow the opponent to th i n k over his moves, you essentially d rive you rself i nto the same time trouble as h i m . But in a d ifficult situation the opponent is fu lly composed and mobilised , whereas you , by contrast, l u l led by your advantage i n time and positi o n , a re awa iting the fal l of his flag and a re u nable to play at fu ll i ntensity.
116
�
Converting an Advantage
I n the hope of exploiti ng this psycholog ical effect, in d ifficult situations some players deliberately get themselves i nto time-trou ble, and there they often change the unfavourable cou rse of the play. Mark Tseitlin - Makarychev Krasnoya rsk 1 98 1
1 6 h3 Before placing his rook on c1 , Tseitl in wants to d rive away the knight. I n the event of the i mmed iate 1 6 l:.ac1 h e was concerned about the reply 1 6 . . .'ilt'f5 , when Black ac q u i res tactica l ideas associated with the wea kness of the f2-point. The fol lowing combinative variation is i nteresti n g : 1 7 e4! tt::lx e4 1 8 tt::lxe4 'ifxe4 1 9 tt::ld 4 (the bishop at c4 is u nder attack) 1 9 . . .'iVe5 20 ..tf4 'ifh5 21 h 3 tt::lf6 ( 2 1 . . . tt::lxf2 is worse: 22 �xf2 e5 23 g4! 'iih 4+ 24 ..tg3 �f6+ 25 �g 1 ) 22 g4! tt::lx g4 23 hxg4 'ifxg4 24 'it'g3 'ii'x g3 25 .bg3 ..txa2 (25 . . . ..ta6 26 b4 .l:.ad8 27 tt::l b 3) 26 ..txb7 .l:1ad8 27 tt::l c6 . The concl uding posi tion is undoubted ly i n W h ite's favou r, but the outcome is stil l not clear - too many pawns h ave been excha nged . 16 . . .
tt::l xf2 ! ?
T h i s p iece sacrifice is Black's best practical chance . If 1 6 . . . i.xc3 the simple 1 7 hxg4 ..tg7 1 8 l:tac1 would h ave followed . Only 1 4 moves h ave been made, but Black's position is difficult, and i n addition h e had already spent nearly all the time on his clock - he had just 6 ( ! ) min utes left for 26 moves.
1 7 �xf2
i.xc3
1 8 bxc3
tt::le4+
Obviously it is important for W h ite to develop h i s rook at c1 as soon as possible, in order to create pressu re on the c-file. However, after the immediate 1 5 l:tac1 h e h a s to reckon with 1 5 . . . h 6 . 1 5 h 3 ! ? looks strong , and after t h e retreat of the knight - 1 6 l:tac1 . Black would probably h ave repl ied 1 5 . . . h6, i ntending to create compl ications after 1 6 ..tf4 cxd4 ! . But W h ite can very well waste a tempo: 1 6 ..ltc 1 ( 1 6 hxg4 hxg5 1 7 l:lac1 i s also not bad ) 1 6 . . . tt::lf6 1 7 ..lte3 cxd4 1 8 tt::l x d4 followed by .l:!.ac1 . An unhurried method of playing, when you simply strengthen your position without
1 9 �g1 ?
allowing any counter-chances, is the
T h i s is what Sergey M a karychev had to say:
most unpleasant for an opponent who is
Such a disdainful attitude to one's own material can be explained only by the opponent's time-trouble. In the event of 19
in time-trouble.
1 5 dxc5
tt::l x c5
lZJ
Converting an Advantage
117
l'Dxg3 (19. . . 'iic7 20 il..f4 e5 21 l'Dxe5! 22 Jl..xe4 favours White) White would have had some difficulty in consolidating his position, but Black would not have full compensation for the piece. Perhaps Tseitlin preferred- at any price- attack rather than defence, reckoning that the only significant factor was the difference in the clock times?! e4
�f6
53 l:ta7+
'it>g8
54 g4! At last! 54 . . .
It is qu ite possible (although not i nevitable) that Black will lose his e-pawn , and therefore it is useful to have some i nformation about endings with two pawns agai nst two on the same wing. The most important concl usion is this: by placing his pawns on h5 and g6, Black sets u p an impreg nable fortress - the opponent's king is u n able to approach his pawns.
�c3
Why g ive up the e6-pawn without a fight? 54 . . . h6 55 .l:tb7 �f8 suggests itself. 55 l:!.e7
i..f6
56 l:lxe6
'it>f7
57 Ua6
(see diagram)
It obviously makes sense for Wh ite to prevent the erection of th is defensive sys tem , by playing g3-g4 ! But if it is Black to move, he should play . . . h7-h 5 ! . But, alas, neither player knew this position . 50 'it>g2?!
�d4? !
51 �f3?!
g6?
A strange move, wh ich sign ificantly worsens Black's position . His king is now forced to
57 . . .
�c3?
Black should have placed his bishop on h4
lZJ
Converting an Advantage
1 19
and played . . . h 7-h6 . If Wh ite's pawn were at h3, there would be a ltogether noth ing that he could do ( I once fou n d this fortress i n the course of a joint analysis with Boris G u l ko of one of his adjourned positions). With the pawn on h2 it is possible to march the king to h3 followed by 'it>g3 and h2-h4 . H owever, this plan is not easy to carry out, and also i n reply to h2-h4 Wh ite has t o reckon with the strong reply . . . h6-h5! 58 .l:i.a7+
'it>g8
59 l:Id7? If during the game Patrick Wolff had known about the system of defence with the bishop on h4 , he would u ndoubted ly have played 59 h4! followed by 60 h 5 .
59 . . .
.if6
60 'it>f4
.ib2?
60 . . h6! . .
61 �c7?! 61 h4! .
Another i m portant theoretical position! Black loses, if his king will be shut in the corner (with a l ig ht-sq uare bishop, by contrast, it would be a d raw). As is not d ifficult to see, fleeing from the dangerous corner does not work in view of the u nfortunate position of the bishop: 73 . . . �f8 74 �f6 'it>g8 (74 . . . �e8 75 'it>e6 ) 75 l:!.g7+ �h8 (75 . . . �f8 76 l:!.d7) 76 Wg6 and wins .
61 . . .
.if6
69 h6
�
62 g5 63 h4
.id4
70 .Uc4
i.e5
.ib2
71 �3
i.d6
64 �g4
.ie5?!
72 .l::!.c 8
'it>e6
73 .t!.h8!
�5
74 l:!.xh7
�xg5
64 . . .i.a3 ! 65 h 5 gxh5+ 66 �xh 5 .ib4 was more tenacious. For many years this posi tion was considered d rawn , but i n 1 99 3 the chess composer Noam El kies nevertheless found a wi n n i ng plan . .
65 l:tc6!
.ii. b 2
66 l:!.a6
.ii. c 3
67 .t!.a4!
.ie5
68 h5!
.ic3
No better is 68 . . . gxh5+ 69 �xh5 i.d6 (the threat was 70 .Ua8+ 'it>g7 71 l:!.a7+ 'it>g8 72 �h6) 70 .Ua8+ �g7 (70 . . . i.f8 71 g6) 7 1 .!:!.a?+ Wg8 7 2 g 6 hxg6+ 7 3 'it>xg6. (see diagram)
75 lid7 Black resigned . I n the second issue of the American Chess Journal grandmaster Wolff gave an excel lent commenta ry on this endgame. By studying his analyses, you , for example, will learn how Wh ite wins if he remains with a pawn on h5 or g5 against a black pawn on h 7 . All this is very i nteresting and usefu l , but nevertheless not essenti al . Whereas the fortress with black pawns on g6 and h5 should defi n itely enter you r store of end game knowledge. Why i n particular this position? F irstly, here it is sufficient to learn the assessment of the
1 20
�
Converting an Advantage
position and the basic idea of the defence (not to allow the king to approach the pawns) - you don't have to remember any complicated variations. Second ly, this as sessment (draw ! ) is automatically trans ferred to positions with a wh ite h- or g-pawn agai nst a pawn on g6 (after a l l , Wh ite ca n play g3-g4 and captu re on g4 with the pawn or a piece). And above a l l , this position is the most u n iversal and i nformative . Very often the pawns of both sides have not advanced fu rther than the 2nd or 3rd ran k , and then it is clear that Black should aim to play . . . h7(h6)-h 5 ! , and Wh ite - g2(g3)-g4 ! .
extra pawns , which , of cou rse , is a lso good enough to w i n . Why then should his decision be criticised? Wel l , because after 78 'it>g5! the game would have concluded - theory, wel l known to Larse n , would have begun. Here it would no longer be possible to go wrong. But after the move chosen by him, play conti n ues i n a n u nfam i l i ar position , which means that t h e probabil ity of a mistake remains.
One of the methods of converting a n advantage is to transpose i nto a n endgame position that is known to be theoretically won .
And here is the decisive mistake , which leads to a d raw. Wh ite should have played either 81 lle6+ Wf7 82 c6 , or 81 .Ud5 .
Larsen - Torre I nterzonal Tou rnament, Leningrad 1 973
78 . . .
�d8
79 .l:!.c6
c.t>d7
80 .l:!.d6+
'it>e7
81 f6+?
81 . . . 82 c6
�f7 'l.t>g6
83 'i.t>f3
l:.e1 !
This is the whole point - the king cannot break through to either of its pawns . 84 �f4 .Ue2 85 .l:t d5 .l:!. c 2 86 .l:!. d6 .l:!.e2 87 f7 'i.t>xf7 88 c.t>f5 c.t>e7 89 .l::!.d 7+ 'it>e8 90 'iiif6 .Ue1 91 .l:!.d5 .l:!.c1 92 .l:!.d6 .l:!.f1 + 93 �e6 l!e1 + 94 �d5 .l:!.d 1 + 95 c.t>c5 .l:!.xd6 96 �xd6 'i.t>d8 D raw.
V. Poor tec h n ique in the conversion of an advantage
The simplest way to win is to sacrifice the c5-pawn. After 78 'i.t>g5 ! .Uxc5 79 'it>g6 followed by 80 l:!.h8+ we reach an elemen tary theoretical ending, which is completely hopeless for Black, since his king is on the 'long' side of the pawn . 78 .U.c7?! Bent Larsen decided to keep both of his
We will consider this problem in more detail. G randmaster Igor Zaitsev once suggested a deep and valid idea : Tech nique is the art of the past' . If this is so, then a rel iable way of improving you r tech nique is to study classic models, a n d , above a l l , examples from the games of players who were famed for their mastery in this field . Players, such as Akiba Rubinste i n , Jose Raul Capablanca , Alexan der Alekh i n e , Tig ra n Petrosi a n , U lf Anders son . . . When playing through their games, th i n k about why they were able so easily and
t2J
Converting an Advantage
121
naturally to exploit even a seemingly imper ceptible advantage, and you will g rad ually beg in to notice their approach to such situations, those principles of converting an advantage which they consciously or sub consciously followed , and the tech niq ues wh ich they employed . We will now examine the most general of these principles and methods.
nent has a bad dark-sq uare bishop, and as a conseq uence - weaknesses on the light squares. How can I strengthen my position? The plan of playing the knight from d2 to d5 suggests itself: f2-f3 , i.e3-f2 and tt:'ld2-f1 e3. It would seem that it ca n be beg u n with either 22 f3 , or 22 tt:'lf1 . It also makes sense to play 22 g 3 , depriving the enemy knight of the f4-square . Wh ich of these th ree conti nuations is the most accu rate?
Maximum restriction o f t h e opponent's cou nterchances
Wh ite m ust carefu lly look to see what active resou rces the opponent has, and how he is intending to play. The move 22 . . . tt:'lf4 should not con cern us too much - after 23 g3 tt:'le6 the knight does not create any th reats from e6 and does not control the weak d5-sq uare, for which Wh ite is a i m i n g .
It is very important for every player to possess 'prophylactic thinking' - the
ability to constantly ask yourself: 'What does my opponent want, and what would
he do now if it were his move?' But the role of prophylactic thin king i ncreases par ticularly when converting an advantage, when the maxi m u m restriction of the oppo nent's possibilities, the e l i m i nation of the slightest cou nterplay or any usefu l opera tions to improve his own positi o n, becomes probably the main principle. I will show two examples from my own games .
Dvoretsky - B utnoris Kiev 1 976
Of cou rse, Wh ite stands better. The oppo-
The attem pt t o create cou nterplay on the kingside with 22 . . . 'ife6 ! followed by 23 .. .f5 looks more serious. For example, 22 g3 'ii'e 6 2 3 'it'b3 f5 ! , and there is no time for 24 'ilt'xb7? i n view of 24 .. .f4 . Or 22 tt:'lf1 'it'e6 (with g ai n of tem po ! ) and 23 . . .f5 . I n the second variation White h a s an i nteres ting tactical resou rce : 23 'il:Vb3 f5 24 exf5 gxf5 25 i.xh 6 ! jLxh6 26 .l:!.d6 �f7 27 .l:!.xh6, althou g h after 27 . . . tt:Jdf6 his rook is stuck in enemy territory, and 28 tt:'lfe3! f4 29 tt:'lf5 'ike6 30 tt:'lh4 e4 leads to a rather tense situati on . And in genera l , when you have such a solid positional advantage, why calculate such complicated variations? After 22 f3 'YWe6 23 �b3 the captu re on b7 is now seriously threatened , and Black is forced to d ivert either his rook, or his queen, to the defence of the pawn . It is th is move order, therefore , that enables Wh ite to be fu lly prepared for the opponent's cou nterplay. 22 f3 !
tt:'lf4
23 g3
tt:Je6
24 tt:'lf1 25 'i!tg2!
f6? !
Another accu rate move . 25 i.f2? is premature in view of 25 . . . tt:Jg5 followed by . . . 'iie 6,
122
�
Converting an Advantage
when 26 h4 does not work because of 26 . . . tt:Jxf3+ 27 'it>g2 tbd4 28 cxd4 exd4.
33 tt:Je7 !
i.xe7
34 ii'f7+
'it>h8
25 . . .
'it>h7
35 'ifxe7
'i!Vd6
26 i.f2
tt:Jc7
36 'i!Vf7
g5
37 i.xc5!
'iid 2+
38 'it>h3
tt:Jd7
39 il..e 7
.l:!.g8
40 tt:Jd5!
.l:!.g7
27 tt:Jfe3
40 . . . g4+ 41 fxg4 'iig 5 42 tt:Jxf6 . 41 'iie 8+ Black resigned . Zakharov - Dvoretsky Ordzho n ikidze 1 978
Wh ite has carried out his plan and i ncreased his advantage. Usually, when w e look a t a g a m e , w e do not pay any attention to modest moves such as 22 f3 ! and 25 'it>g2 ! . And yet it is thanks to them that events have developed in the desirable, qu iet way for Wh ite , and the opponent has not gai ned the slig htest opportun ity to activate his game or compli cate the play. But few are happy to defend passively without any counterchances, and in such cases new mistakes or inaccuracies are l ikely, making it easier for the stronger side to convert his advantage. 27 . . . 28 tt:Jb6
tDb8
29 ii'a4!
tt:Jb5
30 .l:!.d5 31 tt:Jexd5
l::tx d5
'iie 6
Threatening 32 c4 tt:Jd4 33 'i*'xe8 ! . 31 . . .
.l:!.d8
32 'ii'c4
�c6?
32 . . . 'ifd6 was more tenacious. Now Wh ite lands a decisive blow.
Black clearly has a great positional advan tage. When I ask, how he should conti nue in this position , usually either 29 . . ..l:!.c2 or 29 .. .f6 and 30 . . ..l:!.c4 is suggested . And i ndeed , why not - seeing as Wh ite has no cou nterplay? But nevertheless, th i n k how you would play if it were Wh ite to move. And then you will fi nd a n idea which promises q u ite good cha nces of a successfu l defence - the ma noeuvre tt:Je5-g4-e3 with the aim of exchanging the mighty knight on d 5 . This knight dominates the position , cementing together Black's q ueenside and making the rook at b5 a passive, inoperative piece . But
ttJ
Converting an Advantage
in the event of the knight exchange, the rook wil l immediately be transformed - after all, it is attacking the b6- and g5-pawns. It becomes clear what the best move is. 29 . . .
h5!
Black retains all the advantages o f h i s position and prevents the opponent's o n l y promising idea .
1 23
endgame tech nique, some of which we will encou nter i n the fol lowi n g examples. 'Do not hurry!' does not imply that you can carelessly squander tempi. On the contrary, every opportunity to gain a tempo should definitely to taken into account and exploited.
The game did not last long . 30 �d2
f6
3 1 tt:'lf3
l::tc 4
32 b3
l:lc6
Leonhardt - Spielmann San Sebastia n 19 12
The wh ite rook h a s ended up in a tra p . 33 h 4
g4
34 tt:'le1
tt:'lc7
35 l:!.xh5
'it>g6
Wh ite resigned . 'Do not h u rry! '
The inherent a im wh ich a player should follow when trying to convert a n advantage is not to win as q u ickly as possible. As yet no one has offered p rizes for the smallest number of moves. You should endeavo ur to play with the utmost safety, exploiting a l l the resou rces of you r position and completely restricting the active possibil ities for you r opponent. I t is n o t a misfortune i f you h ave to make an extra dozen moves on the board , if thanks to this you make your task easier and reach you r goal more su rely. In a sharp middlegame you may be tempted by the i mage of tiger, swiftly h u nting down its quarry and tea ring it a part , but when converting an advantage i n the endgame you should rath er imitate a pytho n , slowly suffocating its victi m .
One must possess great presence of mind, to not seize the booty immediately, but do this after several strong preparatory moves. The anticipation of victory often hinders the objection evaluation of a position. It is to this factor that I prescribe the loss of a half point in what was a very important game for me - the most annoying instance in my chess career. This was at the finish of the San Sebastian tournament of 1 91 2, at a moment when I had excellent chances of winning first prize. For me it was sufficient to win against Leonhardt . (Rudolf Spielmann). . .
The pri nciple ' d o not h u rry! ' was fi rst formulated (but not explai ned to a sufficient degree) i n instructional material o n the endgame prepared by the Soviet master Sergey Belavenets . I n fact, beh i n d this brief formula are concealed various aspects of
The game went: 46 . . .
c;t> xd4?
47 g6 It transpires that Black is i n zugzwan g . I should mention that he re the zugzwang is
1 24
�
Converting an Advantage
mutual - any move by Wh ite worsens his position . 47 . . .
'it>d3
48 l:td7
d4
Reti
-
Romanovsky
Moscow 1 925
49 g7 After advancing his passed pawn to the 7th rank, Wh ite easily parries all his opponent's attempts. For example: 49 . . . '1t>c3 50 .l:!.c7+ '1t>b3 5 1 ki.d7 , or 49 . . . .l:!.g 1 + 50 Wb2 'it>e3 5 1 'it>b3 ( 5 1 �e7+ 'it>d2 5 2 ki.d7 d3 5 3 �e7 'it'd 1 54 �d7 d2 55 :I.e? is also possible) 5 1 . . . d3 52 'it'xb4 d2 53 'iit>c3 . 49 . . .
�g6
50 'it>b2
Itg1
51 'it>b3 Draw.
28 .l:!.c4!
Of cou rse, Black should have played 46 ... 'it>c3 ! . If 4 7 'it>d 1 , then 4 7 . . . l::.g 1 + 48 'it>e2 b3 is decisive . After 47 .l:!.c7+ 'it'xd4 Black captu res the pawn with gain of tempo, thanks to the attack on g5. Since 48 .l:!.b7? .l::!.x g5 49 .l:txb4+ 'it'c3 is bad for Wh ite , he has to reply 48 .l:i.g7 . Now another tempo can be won by 48 .. .'it>c3 ! 49 ki.c7+ 'it>d3. Look at the position after 50 ki.g7 : as yet Wh ite has not done anyth ing usefu l , whereas Black has eliminated the pawn and placed his king on d 3 .
Wh ite is planning 'it'f3 and e2-e 3 . It is very importa nt that, after the black bishop moves, the c5-pawn remains en prise. It will have to be defended by the rook, but then the white bishop will occupy a n active position on d5, the king will obta i n the excellent square e4, and the rook may be switched along the 4th ran k to the kingside.
A nd yet, contrary to Spiel mann's o p i ni o n, even here he apparently did no t have a win . For example: 50 ... d4 5 1 g 6 .l:tc2+! ( 5 1 . . . b3 52 'it>b 1 !, but not 52 �b7? b2+ 53 'it'b 1 .l:txg6 54 'it'xb2 'it'd2 ) 52 'it'b1 ! (52 'it'd 1 ? .l::!.c6 53 l:tg8 'it>c3 54 g7 Itc7) 52 ... .Uc6 53 'it>b2! 'it>c4 54 l:!.g8 (54 'it>c2) 54 . . . d3 55 llg7 ! (but not 55 g7? �c7 with zugzwang), and Black is not able to strengthen his position .
It would have been better to play the bishop to b2.
Ifthe opponent is deprived of counterplay, before changing the pattern of the play and initiating decisive action you should first strengthen your position to the maximum, by making all moves that are even slightly useful.
28 . . .
'iit>f8
29 'it>f3
lieS
30 e3
.i.c3
ctJ
Converting an Advantage
3 1 a4! Method ically played ! This move does not come d i rectly i nto Wh ite's pla n , but in itself it is useful - it is clear that the pawn sta nds better at a4 than at a2. The opponent will no longer have cou nterplay i nvolving the switch ing of his rook to a6, and if Wh ite should somehow be able to capture the a 7 -pawn he will obta i n a passed a-pawn . I t is not clear whether these considerations will play any role, but this is not important. Any opportu nity to strengthen the position even slig htly should be exploited . 31 . . .
�e7
32 �d5
l1c7
1 25
Pyotr Romanovsky tries to solve the prob lem by tactical means, but the combination he has prepared meets with a spectacu lar refutatio n . 36 g4 Of cou rse, not 36 h4? g6 and the wh ite rook is tra pped . 36 . . .
g6
37 .Uxh6!
Wg5
38 l1h7
�xg4
33 l:i.h4! The black king is ready to go to d6, defending the c5-pawn , and therefore there is no longer any point in keeping the rook at c4 . It is switched to the kingside to support the pawn offensive on that pa rt of the board . 33 . . .
h6
34 'it>e4
�f6
35 l1h5 Now Black must do someth i n g , since g3-g4, h2-h4 and g4-g5+ is threatened . He should probably have played 35 . . . g6! 36 fxg6 (36 l:lxh6? ;t>g5) 36 . . .'it>xg6 37 l1f5 a5! (prevent ing a4-a5-a6 followed by l1f5-f2-a2-a5b5). The outcome would have remai ned unclear, althoug h Wh ite could have devel oped his i n itiative by h2-h4-h 5+ and .Uf5f1 -h 1 -h4-g4. I checked a pretty attempt to prevent the closing-up of the queen side by 37 a5? ! . The captu re of the rook leads to a n immediate m ate: 37 . . . �xh5?? 38 Wf5 . Black has a d ifficult position after 37 . . . .l:td7 38 g4 .Ud6 39 .tc4 . U nfortunately, there is a spectacul a r refutation : 37 . . . c4! ! , and 38 dxc4? is not possible i n view of 38 . . . 'it>xh5 39 �f5 e4 40 .txe4 .Uc5+.
35 . . .
l1d7?!
Now it is clear what Romanovsky had i n m i n d . I n t h e event o f 39 fxg6?? f5 or 39 �e6 fxe6 40 .Uxd7?? gxf5 Wh ite is u nexpectedly mated . If 39 f6 Black was i ntending 39 . . . �g5 . H owever, after 40 �xf7! �xf6 4 1 �xg6 .l:lxh7 42 �xh7 he most probably is u nable to save the ending with opposite-colour bish ops. Wh ite attacks and captu res the a7pawn (perhaps after fi rst playing his bishop to c4 ) , after which one of the two passed pawns , a- or h-, is bound to decide the outcome. But with the pawn on a2 such a n e n d i n g would certainly be d rawn . Richard Reti found a prettier and more convincing solution . 39 �e6 !
fxe6
39 . . . .l:te7 40 .l:lxf7 .l:lxf7 4 1 fxg6+ . 40 fxg6!
l1d8
41 .l:lxa7
'itg5
1 26
Converting an Advantage
42 g7
'it>h6
43 a5 The passed a-pawn comes decisively i nto play. Now we can assess the true worth of the move 3 1 a4 ! . With his pawn on a2 Wh ite would have been unable to w i n .
'Why didn't you immediately try to convert your material advantage?' I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. My companion condescendingly smiled: 'It was more practi cal to wait. '
43 . . .
'it>h7
Dvoretsky - Cooper
44 a6
.l:td6
P h i ladelph i a 1 990
The threat was 45 llb7 and 46 a ? . 45 h4 White's last reserve joins the battle. 45 . . .
..te1
46 h5
..th4
47 h6 Black resigned . In cases when one side's advantage is insufficient for a direct win, it makes sense to manoeuvre, without changing the pattern of the position, in order to set
the opponent various problems, even if they are not too complicated . And only when , after failing to withstand the prolonged pressu re , he blu nders or makes some error, can you then turn to decisive action. Such tactics of setting the opponent an endurance test ca n sometimes also make sense in positions with a big advantage. By provoking h im i nto making a mistake , you can make it sign ificantly easier to convert your advantage. Mikhail Botvin n i k remembers: In 1936 in Moscow during the 3rd Interna tional Tournament I witnessed the resump tion of the Capablanca-Ragozin game. The ex-world champion had an extra pawn and hence a won endgame. To my surprise, however, Capablanca did not undertake any positive action, but stuck to waiting tactics. Finally his opponent made an inaccuracy, and the Cuban won a second pawn and soon the game.
Wh ite u ndoubtedly has a n appreciable positional advantage. H e fi nds a convincing plan to exploit it, i nvolvi ng the creation of th reats on the dark sq uares on the kingside. 1 8 ..txg7 1 8 ..tg5 was also not bad . H owever, 1 8 lt:ih2? would have been a serious i naccu racy in view of the strong reply 1 8 . . . f5 ! . 18 . . .
'it>xg7
1 9 tt:ih2
h5
I also had to reckon with cou nterplay on the c-fi le. If 1 9 . . . .Uc2 there was the strong reply 20 lt:ig4 �h4 21 .Uac1 ! .UacB (2 1 . . . .l:txb2 22 lie? ..te8 23 llec1 is equally cheerless) 22 .l:.xc2 .Uxc2 23 g 3 ! (23 l:l.c1 .Uxc 1 + 24 �xc1 is also not bad , when the wh ite queen breaks i nto the opponent's position along the c-file) 23 .. ."it'xh3 24 "ii'f6+ 'it>gB 25 "ii'd 8+ 'it>g7 26 tt:if6 . 20 .Uac 1
llxc1
2 1 .Uxc1
llc8
ttJ
Converting an Advantage
22 l::!.x c8
..txc8
23 g4! This is the whole poi nt! Now 2 3 . . . hxg4 24 tt:lxg4 , and if 24 .. .'it'h4 - 25 'ii'f6+ (of cou rse , it is also possible to delay this check) 2 5 . . 'it'xf6 26 exf6+ is completely bad for Black. He does not want to allow the exchange of pawns on h5, while if 2 3 . . . 'i!Vh4 there follows simply 24 '.t>g2 and 25 lLlf3 . .
23 . . .
g5
24 '*'e3
h4
After 25 f4 ! ? the h4-pawn is, of cou rse, doomed . But i n this case the wh ite king becomes somewhat exposed , which may give the opponent some counter-cha nces . For the moment I p referred not t o change the pattern of the position and I tried to ach ieve success in positional manoeuvri n g , b y tying t h e black pieces t o t h e defence of the weak g5-pawn . Especially, since the possibil ity of f2-f4 will never ru n away. 25 ltJf3
'it>g6
26 'ikd3+
'it>h6
Here I noticed that I could win a pawn by 27 'id2 (with the threat of 28 ltJxh4) 27 . . . 'it>g6 28 'i'c2+ Wh6 29 'ir'c 1 �g6 30 ltJxg5 'i!Vxg5 31 'ir'xc8 . The queen endgame is al most certainly won , but again I did not want to force matters and I tried to obta i n benefit
1 27
from the fact that my opponent's pieces were tied down . 27 'ii'a 3
aS
28 1i'c5
'it>g6
29 '.t>g2 A useful prophylactic move, which in some variations prevents the black queen from giving a check on c1 . 29 . . .
b6
30 �c2+ 30 'it'd6? does not work in view of 30 . . . ifxd6 31 exd6 f6! . But if Black should play his bishop to a6, then by placing his queen on d6 Wh ite will i mmed iately decide the out come. It makes sense to check whether the opponent will go wrong. 30 . . .
'.t>h6
31 �c6
..ta6?
H e does! Of cou rse , 31 . . . 'it>g6 was correct. Then I would probably have nevertheless ag reed to win a pawn by 32 l\Vc2+ 'it>h6 33 'i'c1 �g6 34 tt:Jxg5 "ikxg5 35 'i!kxc8 , although fi rst I would certa i n ly have pondered over whether I had extracted everything possible from the type of position now on the board . 3 2 'it'd6 !
'ifcB
33 "ilie7
'ii'g 8
34 'ilff6+ Black resigned . See how more easily (not more q u ickly, but more easily) I was able to win , thanks to the fact that I did not h u rry to force matters . (see diagram)
Wh ite has the advantage. But what is it better to play: 38 ..lkxd4 or 38 f6 ? When you have a choice between advan tageous positions with different material balances, all other things being equal you should choose the one in which the material balance is the most usual, the most standard. Here you will have more
1 28
�
Converting an Advantage
Dvoretsky - Bai kov Moscow Championsh i p 1 972
it, of cou rse, but I wondered whether it wouldn't be possible to ach ieve even more. After notici ng that 40 b3? is refuted by 40 . . . ttlxe5 , I for some reason completely forgot about the same possibil ity in reply to 40 .l:Ie4 and I considered only 40 . .'�xc2. After discovering 41 �xc7+! and calculating its consequences, this is what I played . .
40 �e4??
ttlxe5
Wh ite's incorrect move could also have been refuted i n a d ifferent way: 40 . . . ttld2 !? 41 .l:Ixa4 ttlxf3 , and after the bishop moves Black has the decisive 42 . . . h 3 .
experience and hence there is less chance of a mistake in the evaluation of the position or the subsequent play.
41 l::tx e5
�xc2
42 nds
�c1 +
43 Wh2
�xb2+
44 Wh3
l::tx d5
45 .ltxd5
c6
I n the event of 38 f6? �e3 39 f7 'iVxe6 40 fB'iV l::txf8 41 'il*'xf8+ tLleB or 41 �xf8 ttle4 Black, with a pawn for the exchange, complicates the play. Moreover, on a more careful exami nation of the resulting position it becomes clea r that the advantage has now passed to the opponent.
Here the game was adjou rned . The situation has completely cha nged - Wh ite's position is absol utely hopeless, not only because of the opponent's extra pawn , but also in view of the dangerous position of the wh ite king. However, on the resumption I managed to confuse matters and save the d raw.
The simple captu re on d4 is much safer.
I regarded my blu nder on move 40 as merely an i nexplicable 'eccentricity' . But when I showed the game to ex-world champion Tig ra n Petrosia n , he took a quite d ifferent view of things.
38 �xd4
iVa4?
38 . . . ttlb5! was much stronger. In reply 39 �c8? does not work in view of 39 . . . 'iVc6 , while after 39 �e5 ttld4 40 �xd4 .l:Ixd4 Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn deficit. Possibly Wh ite should reply 39 �d5 ! ? , when i n the event of 39 . . . �d 7 40 �e3 ! �xe3 41 l::tx e3 tt:ld4 42 iVe4 ttlxc2 43 l::te2 or 43 l::!.d 3 he retains the advantage. However, after 39 . . . tt:lxd4 40 l::tx e8 ttlxf3 41 l::tx d8+ �xd8 the ending with opposite colour bishops is probably d rawn . 39 �e5
ttlc4
Now the simple move 40 'iVe4! would have forced the transition into an absol utely won endgame (40 . . . ttlb6 41 'ii'x a4 ) - Black's position would have been resig nable. I saw
' H ow do you explain why you avoided tra nsposing into the endgame? You were in no doubt that it was won . But if you see an elementa ry solution , why then calculate variations and get i nvolved in an excha nge of blows?' The moral of this sad episode is obvious. Always give preference to the simplest way of converting your advantage, in which case the probability of a making a mistake will be minimal. Avoid unneces sary complications, and never play 'for brilliancy'.
'2J
Converting an Advantage
Any 'trifles', capable of facilitating the conversion of an advantage,
should
without fail be taken into consideration.
If, for example, you do not h ave much time left to the time control , make use of every opportun ity to repeat moves. And after the time control has been reached , defi n itely adjou rn the game, if you h ave a wi n n ing position. If you don't do this, because of tired ness you may make a m istake and spoil your position .
This last piece of advice has ceased to be topical i n view of the change i n the rules of chess competitions - games a re no longer adjourned . The fol lowing example is never theless still instructive: it shows that over confidence in success, combined with a certain haste and i naccu racy, is capable of having a negative effect on the play of even such a player, deserved ly famed for his fine tech n ique, as Anatoly Karpov. Karpov - Korchnoi World Championship M atch , 22nd Game, Baguio 1 978
1 29
squandered his entire advantage. 41 .l:l.xd6
lt:lxd6
42 .Jtc7?! Wh ite avoids the obvious 42 .l:txa4 because of the reply 42 . . . h 5 , which of cou rse, however, does not change the evaluation of the positi o n . In pri nciple, the desire to fi nd the most accu rate way of exploiti ng your advantage is commendable, but i n so doing you must accu rately check the variations, which Karpov did not do. I n cidental ly, a similar mistake was made in h i s commen tary by M i khail Tal , who recommended 42 .l:ld4 lt:lc8 43 .Jtc5 . I n stead of 42 . . . lt:lc8? Black plays 42 . . . .l:l.e 1 + 43 �c2 .U.e2+ 44 �c1 (44 �d3 llxb2 45 l:!.xd6 .l:lxa2) 44 . . . a3! 45 l:txd6 .l:lxb2 , casting doubts on whether Wh ite can wi n . So that the simple captu re of the a4-pawn is the most rel iable way to win . 42 . . .
lle1 +
43 �c2
lt:le8
Karpov simply m issed this straightforward reply. Now, to avoid fu rther mistakes , it was essential for h i m to ask the a rbiter for an envelope and to seal his move. But the world champion contin ued in the same vei n . 4 4 .ta5
a3
45 llb8
Ite7
45 . . . lle2+ 46 'it>d3 l:!.xb2 d id not work in view of 47 llxe8+ 'it>h7 48 lle2 .
White's position is absol utely won . Karpov should have sealed h i s next move , after which his opponent would probably not have bothered to resume the game. But for some reason the world champion made a few more moves at the board , and i n the end he
1 30
�
Converting an Advantage
46 i.b4??
j u st been discussing - 'do not h u rry! ' . If the
Through inertia Karpov decided that now too the check on e2 was not da ngerous for h i m . Of cou rse, 4 6 bxa3 ( o r 46 b4 ) would have given an elementary win . 46 . . .
.l:i. e2+
47 'it>d3? Showi ng the same inertia. 4 7 i.d2 ! axb2 48 a4 was essential, stil l reta i n i ng excellent chances of success. It is hard even to understand what exactly Karpov overlooked , since now both captu res on b2 enable Black to save the game. Sensing this, Victor Korch noi decided to adjourn the game at this precise moment, so that the opponent would not know which choice he had made. 47 . . .
opponent is condemned to passivity, don't try to achieve success at one point alone - to hold it the defensive resources may prove quite adequate. Play more widely, and try to exploit weaknesses (and if possible - create new ones) on different parts of the board - then it will be much more difficult to defend.
Alekh ine - Samisch Baden-Baden 1 925
axb2
I n the variation 47 . . . .l::!.x b2 48 .l:i.xe8+ 'it>h7 49 .ltxa3 (49 �c3 .l:i.xa2 50 l:!.f8 f6 or 50 'JJ.e 7 'it>g8) 49 . . . .l:i.xa2 Black then plays . . . f7-f6 and . . . h6-h5 , obta i n i ng a d rawn position there are too few pawns left on the board . 48 i.d2 If 48 .ltc3 , then 48 . . . b 1 'ii'+ ! 49 l:I.xb 1 l:I.xa2 50 l:I.b8 l:I.g2 51 l:I.xe8+ 'it>h7, and roughly the same drawn situation arises as in the 47 . . . l:I.xb2 variation . There can follow 48 l:I.e4 h5 49 gxh5 l:I.h2 50 l:I.g4 f6 5 1 'it>e4 l:I.xh5, and to avoid . . . g7-g6 the wh ite rook has to stay on the g-file. 48 . . .
l:I.e7
49 a4 l:I.d7+ 50 'it>c2 'it>h7 51 l:I.xb2 h5! 52 gxh5 tt:ld6 53 l:I.a2 tt:lxf5 54 a5 tt:ld4+ 55 �c3 (55 'it>b1 tt:lb3, then giving u p the knight for the a-pawn ) 55 . . .tt:lc6 56 a6 l:!.d5 57 ii.f4 l:I.f5 (57 . . . .l:i.xh5? 58 l:I.h2 ! ) 58 i.d6 l:I.d5 59 ii.. g 3 l:I.g5 60 i.f2 l:I.xh5 61 'it>c4 tt:la5+ 62 �c3 tt:lc6 63 l:I.a4 'it>g8 64 'it>c4 tt:la5+ Draw. Th e pr i n ci p l e of two wea knesses This principle is essentially one of the conseq uences of the more general ru le of converting an advantage, which we have
H ow to convert the extra pawn? Advance it to the queening square? But B lack will set up a blockade on the b6-squa re , the white king will be exposed and there will be a danger of perpetual check. I should remind you that queen and knight form a rather dangerous duo, if they are in the vicin ity of the enemy king . Only in the event of the queens being excha nged will the wh ite king be able to advance fearlessly to the help of its passed pawn . 34 l\Yd4! With this move and the next one White finds the correct winning plan, which is to ad vance his kingside pawns. The passed b pawn must not advance until later, once the danger of perpetual check has been re moved by the exchange of queens. A
t2J
Converting an Advantage
concrete and clear eval uation of the posi tion , typical of Alekh ine - i n his commenta r ies one can fi nd n u merous i n structive features such as this. 34 . . .
"ike7
36 g4!
�f7
37 h4
tt:'!b6
38 h5
gxh5
tt:'!c8
Black resigned .
35 il.d31
'ii'c 7
'ii'x d3
44 ..txd3 45 il.xh7
Kotov
Perhaps the most difficult move in the game. Its purpose is to prepare an attack on the point h7. The winning method which follows leaves Black powerless to resist. (Aiekhine) 35 . . .
43 'iVd3
1 31
-
Pachman
Ven ice 1 950
39 gxh5 On the kingside Black has been saddled with a second weakness, and a very serious one (I should remind you : the fi rst 'weak ness' is the opponent's passed pawn , and Black con stantly has to reckon with the threat of its advance). If now 39 . . . �g7 , then 40 h6+ ! . 39 . . . 39 h6 was more tenacious. . . .
40 Jl.e4! Of cou rse, not 40 ..txh7? "ikxf3 4 1 'ilt'xb6? 'ld 1 + with perpetual check. If Wh ite de sired , he could now h ave exchanged the queens and after 40 'ii'e 4 'i!i'xe4 41 ii.xe4 h6 42 'it>c2 g radually won the m i nor piece ending. H owever, the move in the game is far stronger, since it enables h i m to fix the weakness on h 7 . 40 . . .
"ikb5
41 h6
'it'b3
Wh ite's positional adva ntage is determ ined by his better pawn structu re , by the weak ness of the c6-pawn . But this factor alone would have been insufficient for a win , if Black had now played 42 . . . h 5 ! . 42 . . . 43 g4! A typical move . Wh ite fixes a second weakness i n the opponent's position - the h7-paw n . This was why it should have been adva nced to h5. I should mention that 42 .. .f5?! was much weaker i n view of 43 h3 followed by g3-g4 , and if Black replies 43 . . . h 5 , then he again acq u i res a second weakness - this time on g6.
42 ..tc2 !
43 . . .
Now that the pawn on h7 has been blockaded, the next step is to force the exchange of queens. (Aiekh ine) 42 . . . 42 . 'ii'e 6 43 'i!Ve4 . . .
'itb5
�f6?
�e6
43 . . . �g5 44 h3 h5 45 f4+ �h4 46 'it>g2 . 44 'it>g2 In the endgame you should never forget about improving the position of your king.
1 32
Converting an Advantage
44 . . .
l:i.b7
45 .l:!.e8+ Before attacking the h-pawn it is useful to lure the black rook to a more passive position . 45 . .
.Ue7
46 .Uh8
f6
47 h4
l:tb7
48 'it>f3
llf7
49 .Ue8+
.l:i.e7
.
52 . . .
�xc5
53 dxc5
rJii d 7
54 .Uh8
'it>e6
N ow 54 . . . l:i.a5 55 l:txh7+ �e6 (the king can not go to f8) 56 l:lg7 is bad for Black. Such 'trifles' play a very i m po rtant role in the conversion of an advantage. 55 .:td8
50 l:!.d8! White wants to place his knight on c5. It is important that after the exchange of minor pieces the black rook should be tied to the defence of the c6-pawn . Passivity of the rook is a very serious drawback in rook endings.
50 . . .
.Ua7
51 lt:Jc5+
rJii e7
Alexander Kotov has successfully carried out his plan of tra nsposing i nto a favourable rook ending. In h is commentary he judged the resulting endgame to be won for White. H owever, in Jonathan Speel man's book Endgame Preparation· this evaluation was called i nto q uestion .
52 .Uc8 ! A method ical move . 52 .Uh8 was incorrect i n view o f 5 2 . . . �xc5 5 3 dxc5 .Ua5! 5 4 .Uxh7+ Wf8 . Now the c6-pawn is under attack and Black does not manage to activate his rook. Thus if 52 . . . .Uc7 there now follows 53 .Uh8. Do you sense how uncomfortable it is to simu ltaneously defend two weaknesses c6 and h7, and how much easier it would be to defend the weak c6-pawn alone?
The English grandmaster's conclusion ap pears not be to com patible with the logi c of the preced ing play - after a l l , White has consistently outplayed his opponent and, it would appear, has the right to count on success. But what can be done - the defensive resou rces in chess a re g reat, especially i n rook endings, wh ich according to Tarrasch a re not usually won . The work done by Kotov was not in vai n - al most out of noth ing he has developed a dangerous i n itiative and posed serious problems for the opponent, which at the board the latter was u nable to solve. 55 . . .
W e7?!
Converting an Advantage
lZJ
1 33
Consideration should have been g iven to 55 . . J:tc7! 56 .Ud6+ 'it>e5 57 'it>e2 g5 58 hxg5 fxg5 , and if 59 'it>d3 , then not 59 . . . .Uc8? 60 l:td7 h6 61 l:td6 ( Kotov) , but 59 . . . .U.f7! 60 l:txc6 .Uxf2 61 .l:tc8 'it>e6 ! (Speelm a n ) . I n stead of 56 .Ud6+ Wh ite can try 56 'it>f4 ! ? , but after 56 . . . .l:!.d7 ! 57 .Uc8 d4 58 .l:i.xc6+ 'it>e7 (58 . . . 'it>d5? 59 .l:!.d6+ ) 59 exd4 (59 .Ud6? d 3 ) 59 . .l:!.xd4+ Black again retains real d rawi ng chances. . .
56 .l:td6
.l::i. a 6
57 g5! Wh ite clears a way i nto the enemy position for his king. 57 . . .
fxg5
58 hxg5
Wf7
59 'it>g3 Not immediately 59 Wf4 .Ua4+ 60 'it>e5?? l:te4 mate. 59 . . .
'it>e7
60 f3
.l:!.a3
61 'it>f4
.Ua4+
62 'it>e5 It would have been a mistake to play 62 e4? dxe4 63 fxe4 .l:!.c4 64 .l:txc6 Wd7 65 .Ud6+ We? 66 .l::i.d 5 .Uc3 ! 67 'it>e5 .l:tc4 . The rook on d5 is too passive and therefore it is not possible to convert the pawn advantage. 62 . . .
.Ua3!
63 J::!.x c6 ! ? Serious consideration should also have been g iven to 63 .Ue6 + ! ? 'it>d7 (63 . . . 'it>f7 64 Wd6) 64 'it>f6 , for example, 64 . . . d4 65 .Ud6+ We? 66 .Uxd4 .Uxe3 67 f4 , and Black's position is very dangerous. 63 . . . 64 �xd5
.Uxe3+ .Ud3+
64 . . . .Uxf3 65 .l:!.c7+ and 66 .l::i.x h7 is hopeless for Black. 65 'it>e4
.l::i. c 3
66 f4
.l:!.c1
67 .l::i.c 7+
�dB?
In Speelman's opm1on , even now, two moves before resignatio n , it was sti l l possi ble for Black to save the game, a n d , moreover, very prettily: 67 . . . 'it>e6! 68 Uxh7 iic4+ 69 Wf3 l:txc5 70 l:tg7 .Uc6 ! ! . Now 70 .UXg6+ 'it>f5 71 .Uxc6 leads to stalemate , and 70 'it>g4 'it>d5 to a straightforward d raw ( 7 1 .Uf7 .U a 6 72 .l::i.f6 llxf6 73 gxf6 'it> e 6 74 Wg5 'it>f7 ) . And yet Wh ite's position would appear t o be won . Having seen through the opponent's stalemate tra p , he should 'take a move back' - 68 .l::i. c 6+ ! 'it>e7 , then play his king to the queenside: 69 'it>d5 Ud 1 + 70 'it>c4 .Uc1 + (70 . . Jif1 7 1 .Uf6) 7 1 'it>b5 li b 1 + 72 'it>a6 (with the th reats of 73 .Uc7+ or 73 .Ub6) , and after 72 . . . Wd7 bring it back, exploiting the fact that the i m porta nt f6-sq uare is now accessi ble for i nvasion: 73 .Ub6 .Uc1 74 'it>b5 .Ub 1 + 75 �c4 .Uf1 (75 . . . .Uxb6 76 cxb6+ �c6 77 �d4 ) 76 Wd5 etc. (suggested by Sergey Dolmatov). 68 .Uxh7 69 .Uf7 Black resigned .
.Uxc5
1 34
w
Converting an Advantage
Spassky - Korchnoi Candidates Match , 5th Game, Kiev 1 968
outside passed pawn by . . . g7-g6 and . . .h6h5. 29 . . .
h5?
30 'it>h2
hxg4
3 1 hxg4
g6?!
32 g5! Now a draw becomes the most probable result: the pawn position is fixed on both the queenside, and the kingside. ( Korch noi). The game ended in a d raw on the 5 1 st move . Exchanging
This is what grandmaster Korchnoi had to say: Despite the occasional inaccuracies com mitted, I consider my play in the middle stage of this game to be my best achieve ment in the match. But I wasn't quite able to complete the strategic picture - at the decisive moment I failed to display the necessary know-how. What was the prob lem facing Black? I will allow myself to quote Bondarevsky: 'White's pieces are tied to the weakness at c2, but a single weakness he is able to defend. Korchnoi was faced with the problem of starting play on the kingside, so as to create a new weakness in the enemy position. ' I realised that the move of the h-pawn appeared too routine to be the best. And 1 rejected 29. . . g5 on account of the concrete variation 30 "illd2 f6 31 "ille1 !, when White neutralises his opponent's advantage. But the best move- 29. . . f5 (suggested by Flohr) completely escaped my attention! The point of the move is not only that after the exchange on g4 White's f- and g-pawns will be further weakened; a/so of considerable importance is the fact that, after the ex change of queens, Black can create an
G rand master Kotov remembered for a long time the advice given to him by the experienced master Vlad i m i r M akogonov at the i nternational tournament in Venice in 1 950. Don't sharpen the play - what for? Ex change the queens, and arrive at a position where each side has a rook and two or three minor pieces left. Which piece should you exchange, and which should you keep ? There are few modern players who can solve this question correctly. They under stand tactics, but in this you are superior to them. When trying to convert an advantage you consta ntly h ave to th i n k about the advisabil ity of this or that exchange. One of the most general g u ides is given by the fol lowing rule: Having a material advantage, the stronger side should aim to exchange pieces, whereas the weaker side should aim to exchange pawns.
(see diagram)
ltJ
Converting an Advantage
Vidmar - Thomas Notti ngham 1 936
1 35
Now it made sense to switch the knight to e5: 38 tbd7 + ! �e7 (38 . . . �f5 39 lbb6! is bad for Black) 39 tbe5 . I n stea d , Wh ite for some reason retu rns his knight to the rear. 38 tbe4+
We 7
39 lDf2
llg8 !
40 �f3 If 40 tbd3 , then 40 . . . l:i.f5 ! , preventing 4 1 tbe5 . 40 . . .
lbb5
41 �c5
.l::!. c 8
After the exchange of the e5-pawn , the passed c6-pawn has been sign ificantly wea kened , since Black has acq u i red the opportu n ity to attack it with his king from d6. Wh ite has a decisive advantage. H e should now move his knight from c5 and then play J:l.c5 , aiming to exchange the active black rook . 32 tbe4 �ad8 33 .l:!.c5 (the prophylactic move 33 g3!? is also strong) 33 . . . �d3+ 34 'iite2 �3d4 35 l::t 1 c4 is possible. 32 tbd7 (with the threat of 33 lbb6) and 33 .l:!c5 is even simpler. Milan Vidmar tried to carry out the same idea , but he did it i n a very i naccu rate way, overlooking the opponent's counterplay in volving a n exchange of pawns. 32 lbb7?
g5!
33 g3
gxf4+
34 gxf4
l::tg 8
The first u npleasant conseq uence of Wh ite's mistake - the h itherto passive rook at a8 has come i nto play. 35 .l:!4c2
f6!
Another pawn exchange, and moreoever the strong wh ite e-pawn is forced off the board . 36 exf6+
�xf6
is obvious that the last exchanges have considerably increased Black's drawing chances. (Aiekh ine)
It
37 tbc5
l:::. g 4
42 .l:txd5?!
exd5
43 .l:!.c5
tbd4+
44 'it>e3
tbf5+!
Much worse was 44 . . . t2Jxc6? 45 J:.xd5 with a sign ificant advantage for Wh ite . 45 'it>d3
�d6
46 ti.xa5
.l:.xc6
47 l:i.a7
.l::!. c4
48 �xh7
.l:!xf4
Black has managed to exchange a fu rther two pai rs of pawns, and all his remaining pieces and pawns a re excellently placed . A d raw is now the most probable outcome. 49 'it>e2
.l:!.c4
50 'it>d2
l:i.d4+
51 'it>e2
.l:!.c4
52 �d1
d4
52 . . . l:td4+ 53 Wc2 .i:lc4+ was simpler, seeing as 54 �b3? will not do i n view of 54 . . . tbd4+ 55 �a4 b3+ 56 'it>a3 l::ta 4+! 57 �xa4 bxa2. 53 �d2
b3!
George Thomas forces the exchange of a nother pai r of pawns . 5 4 axb3
.l:!.b4
55 tbd3
.l:!.xb3
56 l:td7+?!
1 36
�
Converting an Advantage
56 h4 was stronger, but even then Black would have successfu lly defended by acti vating his rook: 56 . . . .l:!.b8 followed by . . . .l::i. g 8 . 56 . . .
�xd7
57 lLlc5+
�d6
58 lLlxb3
lL:le3!
There are too few pawns left on the board for Wh ite to hope for success in the knight ending. 59 h4 lL:lc4+ 60 'it>c2 'it>e5 61 lL:lxd4 'it>xd4 62 b4 'it>e4 63 'it>c3 lL:lb6 64 b5 'it>f5 65 Wd4 'it>g4 66 'it>c5 lL:la4+ D raw. It should be remembered , however, that the rule we have just formu lated is too general to be trusted uncond itionally - in chess such universal laws do not exist. This is merely one of the gu ides; the concrete featu res of the position often dictate a completely different cou rse of action . Eh lvest - Andria nov Tal l i n n 1 98 1
The passed a-pawn promises Black defin ite counter-chances, but even so Wh ite's mate rial adva ntage should be sufficient for a w i n . However, not with t h e plan chosen b y Jan Ehlvest. 36 �g6?
'it>c7 !
37 �e4?
�c6
38 �xc6
'it>xc6
The exchange of bishops was bad , since now the wh ite rook is forced to take up a passive position i n front of the enemy pawn. 39 'it>f1
a4
40 'it>e2
a3
41 'it>d3
a2
42 .l:ta1
'it>xc5
The d raw has become obvious (if 43 'it>c3, then 43 . . . l:tg8 44 g3 .l::!. f8 ) . I n stead o f t h e incorrect exchange, White could have activated his kingside pawns: 36 g4!? (threatening g 5-g6-g7). But it was safer first to central ise the king: 36 f3 ! a4 37 'it>f2, and only then play g2-g4 . Such strategy would have been in accordance with a principle of endgame play, formulated by Aaron N imzowitsch : 'The advance must be a collective one/ '. VI.
Lack of concrete action at the decisive moment
Let us su ppose that you r opponent has no real cou nterplay and that you , i n accordance with the principle 'do not h u rry! ' , are accumu lati ng advantages l ittle-by-little . But against tenacious resistance by the opponent you will probably be unable to win the game by tech nique alone - at some point you will certainly have to switch from positional manoeuvri ng to the precise calculation of variations, and seek a concrete way to the goa l . Many players stumble at this point, with various factors playi ng their part. There is carelessness, arising in a nticipation of a q u ick w i n , about which we have a l ready spoke n . There is the fu lly u nderstandable aim to act 'with every comfort' , not exces sively exerting yourself, and not subjecting you rself to the risk of making a mista ke in forcing play. There is the d ifficulty of deter m i n i ng that turn ing point, when you have
ctJ
Converting an Advantage
already extracted the maxim u m from play ing accord ing to the principle 'do not h u rry! ' , which mea n s that i t i s time to find a concrete variation, one which exploits the advantage gained and advantageously changes the character of the play. I have noticed that brill iant positional players such as, for example, Salo Flohr or Anatoly Karpov, would successfully convert a n ad vantage against opponents i nferior to them in class. They manoeuvred , suppressed all active possibilities by their opponents , and when the latter failed to withstand the pressu re , they made mistakes and them selves broke u p their positions. But agai nst opponents of equal class they often did not manage to convert even a big advantage . F o r t h e reason that, w h e n faced with tenacious resistance, you can n ot afford to miss an appropriate moment for concrete and precise actio n , and this is by no mea ns the strongest aspect of such positional players .
1 37
1 0 . . . i.xf3 ! ? 1 1 i.xf3 lt'lc6 came i nto consid eration . 1 1 .l:tad 1
.l:i.c8?
A serious mistake , after which Black falls sign ificantly beh ind i n development and ends u p i n a d ifficult positi o n . H e should have castled . 1 2 'iVa3 !
lt'la5
1 2 . . . cxd4 really was better. 1 3 b3
ii.e7
1 4 dxc5
ffi
It is a bad sig n , if moves such as this have to be made. But if 1 4 . . . bxc5 there follows 1 5 tt:Je5 i.xg2 1 6 �xg2 d6 1 7 'ifa4+ 'it>f8 1 8 lt'ld7+ �g8 1 9 lt'lxc5. 1 5 ii.h3
'i;;f7
1 6 i.xe6 was th reatened , and if 1 5 . . .'iVc7 , then 1 6 cxb6.
Flohr - Keres 1 8th USSR Championsh i p , Moscow 1 950 Queen's Indian Defence 1 lt'lf3
c5
2 c4
lt'lf6
3 g3
b6
4 i.g2
i.b7
5 0-0
e6
6 lt'lc3
i.e7
7 d4
lt'Je4?!
A dubious move , which could have been called into q uestion by the energetic 8 d5! tt:lxc3 9 bxc3 , and if 9 . . . i.f6 , then 1 0 e4! .bc3 11 i.g5 (Udovcic-Kovacevic, Zagreb 1 969). The usual conti n u ation is 7 . . . cxd4. 8 'i!Vc2
lt'Jxc3
9 'iWxc3
i.f6
1 0 i.e3
tt:Jc6
Wh ite has a n und isputed adva ntage . H e is a pawn u p , the black king is stuck in the centre , and the d7- and e6-poi nts a re obviously weak. But note that all these factors are not constant, but temporary. I magine that Black plays . . . bxc5 and . . . d7d6 - then h e will consolidate his position . This means that Wh ite m ust act swiftly and decisively. 1 6 li.d2? An i nstructive commenta ry on the move
1 38
�
Converting an Advantage
made by Flohr was g iven by g rand master Isaak Boleslavsky:
After the move made by White, the picture changes amazingly rapidly.
In this position could White really not find anything better than the strictly positional doubling of rooks? If White really wanted to play positionally, he should have continued 1 6 li:Jd4 ii.. xc5 17 'ika4 ( 1 7 'ir'c1 ! ? Dvoretsky), and to avoid the worst Black must exchange on d4. But the position demanded other measures, and after the energetic stroke 1 6 b4! White would have gained an irresistible attack. Here are some sample variations:
I should also add that after 1 6 b4 ! li:Jxc4 the move 1 7 'ir'xa 7 is the strongest - 1 7 'i'b3 (hoping for 1 7 . . . b5? 1 8 ii.xe6 + ! 'it>xe6 19 li:Jd4+ an d 20 li:Jxb5) is much worse in view of 1 7 . . . li:Jxe3 1 8 fxe3 ii.xf3 . However, also after 1 7 . . . i.d5 1 8 �xd5 exd5 1 9 'ii'd 3 lbxe3 2 1 fxe3 'lti>e8 compared with the analogous variation with 1 7 'ikxa7 the a7-pawn would have remai ned al ive.
1) 1 6. . . Chc6 17 cxb6 ( 1 7 l:td2 is also not bad - Dvoretsky) 17 ... axb6 18 'ikb3 li:Jxb4 (if 1 8 . . . ii.. xb4 both 1 9 c5 and 1 9 a3 are strong, and even 19 ii.xe6+ ! 'lti>xe6 20 ii.xb6! 'ii'e 8 21 c5+ cj;;e 7 22 a3 ii.. a 5 23 ii.xa5 li:Jxa5 24 'ii'b4 - Dvoretsky) 19 ii.xe6+! cj;; xe6 20 ii.xb6 'i!lixb6 (20. . . 'fle8 21 c5+ li:Jd5 22 e4) 21 c5+ ii.d5 22 1J.xd5 (22 'ir'e3+ - Dvoretsky) 22. . . ii.xc5 23 1J.fd1 ! (of cou rse, 23 1J.xc5+ is also good enough to wi n ; generally speak ing, you should not conti nue calculating variations, if the evaluation of the conti nua tion being analysed has become obvious Dvoretsky) 23. . . ii.xf2+ 24 �g2 li:Jxd5 25 'iVxd5+ 'lto>e7 26 'ii'xd7+ cj;; f 8 27 't!Vxc8+, and wins. 2) {6. Jhxc4 17 'iVxa7 liJxe3? 1 8 fxe3 ii.xf3 19 'fud7. 3) 1 6. Jhxc4 17 fixa7 ii.. c 6 1 8 ii.xe6+! (or 1 8 cxb6 l:ta8 1 9 ii.xe6+ ! - Dvoretsky) 1 8. . . 'lto>xe6 19 li:Jd4+ rtJfl 20 li:Jxc6 .:txc6 21 '!J.xd7 'ike8 22 cxb6 li:Jxe3 23 fxe3, and White, with four pawns for the piece and an overwhelming position, wins without difficulty. 4) 1 6. . . li:Jxc4 17 'flixa7 ii.d5 1 8 �d5 exd5 19 'ikb7 cj;; e 8 20 'iixd5 li:Jxe3 21 fxe3 'Wic7 22 1J.d1 'i:J.d8 23 cxb6 'iic 6 (23 . . . 'ii'x b6 24 ii.xd7 + ..tis 25 li:Jd4 ii.xb4 26 li:Je6+ cj;; e 7 27 li'e4! - Dvoretsky) 24 b7 'iixd5 25 1:.xd5 rtJfl 26 b5, and White's powerful pawns decide the game.
16 . . .
bxc5
1 7 I!fd 1
d6
1 8 lLle1 Another passive move . 1 8 ii.f4 suggests it self, forcing the uncomfortable reply 1 8 . . Jk6 ( if 1 8 . . . .i.xf3 1 9 exf3 li:Jc6 , then either 20 .i.xd6 li:Jd4 2 1 .i.xe6+ ! , or 20 �xd6 �xd6 2 1 �xd6 'file 7 22 .i.xe6+ ) . 18 . . .
'i!lib6
The d6-point is easily defended , and there is noth ing more with wh ich to attack it - the f4square will be ta ken away from the white bishop by . . . g7-g5. 1 9 'ir'c1
h5!
Black has a l ready seized t h e i n itiative. I f 2 0 li:Jd3 , t h e n 20 . . . g5 2 1 b 4 ii'c6 . Possibly Wh ite should have tried 20 ii.g2 h4 2 1 b4!? - after 21 . . . 'ii'x b4 22 .Ub2 'it'a4 23 �xb7 (23 ii.xb7? �b8) 23 . . . li:Jxb7 24 ii.xb7 l::t bB followed by 25 . . . hxg3 26 hxg3 'it'xa2 the resulting position is d ifficult to eval uate . 20 f3? !
h4
21 g4
li:Jc6
22 li:Jg2? 22 li:Jc2 was better. 22 . . .
li:Jd4
23 1J.xd4 The time for combi nations was earl ier. In the subsequent play Black converted his ex change advantage , although the opponent did not exploit a l l his chances.
CtJ
Converting an Advantage
23 ... cxd4 24 i.xd4 'iii'a 6 25 g5 fxg5 26 f4 g4! 27 i.xg4 h3 28 'ii'e 3 l:Ih6 29 tt:Je1 l:tg6 30 'ii'x h3 'ifc6 3 1 ti:Jf3 'ii'e 4 32 'iVg3? (32 f2 llh6 33 'ii'g 3 ) 32 ... 'it>g8 33 .l:r.d3 l':tf8 34 .ie3 e5 ! 35 'ii'g 2 exf4 36 i.d2 i.d8 37 h3 l:te8 38 'iti>f1 d5 39 l:td4 'ii' b 1 + 40 i.. e 1 dxc4 41 l:.xc4, and Wh ite resig ned in view of 41 . . . i.h4! (but not 4 1 . . . i.a6? in view of 42 tt'ld2). The entire game convincingly illustrates a well-known aspect of Stein itz's theory - the player with an advantage must attack, as otherwise he risks losing his advantage.
I n th is clea r formula the word 'attack' must be interpreted broadly - often it is necessa ry to fi nd some precise variati o n, forci ng combination etc. , i n short - a concrete and e nergetic way to exploit you r advantage . Petrosian - Spassky World Championship Match , 1 2th Game, Moscow 1 969
23 l:.c1 A natu ral move, reta i n ing for Wh ite a serious positional advantage. I ndeed , the c6-pawn is weak, the knight has an excellent sq uare at c5 , and the bishop at h5 is out of play. But couldn't Wh ite h ave played more accu rately - 23 i.h3 ? After all , after 2 3 . . . l:.b7 24 l:tc1 .l:.c7 compared with the game Wh ite
1 39
has gained a tempo - he has brought out his bishop to a more active position . If i n stead 2 3 . . J1c7, then 24 i.e5 i.d6 25 i.. x d6 tt:Jxd6 26 e4 , exploiti ng the fact that the rook has remained on d 1 . But it ca n also be exploited by Black! By giving u p two minor pieces for a rook: 26 . . . tt:Jxe4 ! 27 fxe4 (27 g4 tt:Jg5) 27 . . . i.xd 1 28 l:.xd 1 dxe4 , he retai n s excellent chances of saving the game. There is no point in Wh ite going i n for such a n exchange, and the move made by Petrosian m ust be deemed the strongest. 23 . . .
l:.c7
24 i.. e 5
i.d6
25 i.. x d6
tt:Jxd6
26 l:tfd 1 T hreatening both 27 l:.xd5 , and 27 e4 tt:Jxe4 28 g4 . 26 . . .
ti:Jb5
Wh ite's advantage has crystall ised . H e now has numerous tempti ng conti n uations, but it is not so easy to choose the strongest. If 27 tt:Jc5 (with the threat of 28 tt:Ja6) , then 27 . . . a5 28 ti:Jd3 (th reatening 29 ti:Jf4 , then 30 a4 and 3 1 tt:Jxd5) 28 . . . a4 29 ti:Jf4 i.. g 6, and no d i rect win is apparent. To 27 l:.c5 Black repl ies 27 .. .f5 (defending against 28 e4) 28 l:tdc1 l:te7 ! ? (28 . . . ti:Jd4 29 'iii>f2 l:tac8 ) 29 'iii>f2 i.e8
1 40
�
Converting an Advantage
or 29 .l:!.xc6 tt:'ld4 . The strongest was 27 g4! .tg6 2a f4 , relying on a tactical subtlety: 2a . . .f6 (or 2a .. .f5) is not possible because of 29 l:!.xc6 ! . I n the event of 2a . . . .te4 29 .txe4 dxe4 30 �f2 Black's position is hopeless i n view of the weakness of his c6- and e4-pawns. But 2a . . . .th7 is also no better: 29 f5 (29 tt:'lc3 ! ? ) 2 9 . . . g 6 3 0 e 4 dxe4 3 1 .txe4 .Uea 32 tt:'lc5 with an overwhel ming advantage than ks to the trag i-comic position of the black bishop and the terrible threat of 33 a4 .
sive move 33 . . . .tea (34 tt:'le6+ and 35 tt:'ld4) and created the th reat of 34 tt:'ld7 + . 33 . . .
.Uaa7
Wh ite also had a nother promising possibil ity: 27 tt:'lc3 ! ? , emphasising the vulnerabil ity of the opponent's central pawns. The idea of g3-g4 and f3-f4 could have been put i nto effect slightly later. 27 '.t>f2
f6! ?
2 8 e3?! Petrosian conti n ues strengthening his posi tion , but now his advantage is somewhat reduced , since the black bishop is i ncluded in the defence of the q ueen side pawns . But meanwh ile White still had a concrete way of achieving a won position: 2a tt:'lc5 ! .l:!.e7 (or 2a . . . a5 29 tt:'le6 l:!.cca 30 .th3 with the u navoidable 31 tt:'ld4) 29 tt:'la6 .tea 30 a4! tt:'ld6 3 1 e4, and Black loses a pawn . 28 . . . 29 .tf1
.tf7 tt:'ld6
30 l:!.c3 30 .ta6!? came i nto consideration. 30 . . .
�f8?
A far from obvious mistake . Black should have taken control beforehand of the i m por tant f4-square, by playi ng 30 . . . g5! . After 3 1 tt:'lc5 a 5 3 2 l:!.dc1 .l:te7 followed b y . . . .tea it would not be easy for Wh ite to strengthen his position . 31 tt:'lc5 32 l:!.dc1
a5 .l:!.e7
33 .th3 Wh ite has prevented the important defen-
Black is only just holding o n . One senses that it is time to fi nd a concrete way to break through the opponent's defences. And there is such a way. After 34 tt:'ld3 ! .tea 35 .!Llf4 Wh ite is threatening both 36 tt:'le6+ followed by 37 tt:'ld4 or 37 tt:'lda , and 36 l:!.xc6 .txc6 37 tt:'lg6 + . I n the event of 35 . . . �f7 he decides matters with 36 l:!.xc6! .txc6 37 .l:!.xc6 tt:'lb5 3a .te6+ l:!.xe6 (forced) 39 tt:'lxe6 , and the conversion of the extra pawn is not too d ifficult ( if 39 . . . a4 there follows 40 b4). H owever, we nevertheless do not have the right to say that Wh ite's position is defin itely won . Even in a seem ingly d ifficult situation one ca n usually fi nd resou rces , enabling defeat to be avoided or at least the opponent's task to be sign ificantly compli cated . That is also the case here . For example, there is a clever exchange sacri fice: 35 . . . l:!.a6 ! ? 36 tt:'le6+ l:!.xe6 37 .txe6 f5 3a g4 g6 39 gxf5 gxf5 40 .Ug 1 �e7, and the u nfortunate position of White's bishop mean s that t h e conversion o f h i s material advan tage is problematic. I n stead o f 3 6 tt:'le6 + , i t is p robable that 36 a4! is stronger - subse quently the knight may be switched to d4 not only via e6, but also via e2.
lZJ
Converting an Advantage
Often t h e best defence is active defence. I recommend checking 35 . . . a4 ! . Here is a n approximate variation : 36 .:.xc6 .i.xc6 3 7 t:Llg6+ (37 l:txc6 axb3 3a axb3 .l:. a 2 + 39 'i!tg 1 :xe3 ) 37 . . . 'i!tea 3a CiJxe7 'i!txe7 39 l:!.xc6 axb3 40 axb3 .l:ta2+ 4 1 'i!tg 1 d4!? 42 exd4 t:Llb5. For the moment the outcome of the game remains unclear - B lack's counter attacking resou rces should not be under estimated . Even so, the manoeuvre of the knig ht to f4 was the correct p l a n . Petrosian played a weaker move .
g41 gxf3
40 .txf3
ttJe4+
41 .i.xe4
fxe4
42 CiJd4
.l:r.f7+
43 'i!tg2
lif6
Black now has some i n itiative in con nection with the strateg ic th reat, after the exchange of a pai r of rooks, of playing h i s king to d6. On the resumption the game ended i n a d raw. Transformation of an advantage
34 a4? ! The position can be u n h u rriedly embell ished , if during this time the opponent is not able to do anything to strengthen his defences. This is not the case here. It is dangerous to abuse the principle 'do not h u rry! ' . Apparently Petrosian w a s i ntending 35 tiJd3 .iea 36 CiJf4 'i!tf7 37 tiJe2 followed by CiJd4 and he wanted to prevent the opponent from replying 37 . . . tiJb5. Generally speakin g , it is usefu l to fix the black pawn on a5 and to deprive the knight of the b5-square . But if this is played , it should be after the switching of the knight to f4 , and therefore now Boris Spassky forestal l s the main danger. 34 . . .
38 . . . 39 .i.g2
141
The best way of exploiting an advantage sometimes i nvolves a favourable change in the character of the positi o n , giving u p some advantages that you already have i n favour o f others . S uch a method is cal led 'transfor mation of an advantage' . Tai manov - Ste i n 34th U S S R Championsh i p , Tbilisi 1 966/67
g51
T h e f4-sq uare is taken u nder contro l . 35 l:.d1 An exchange sacrifice came i nto considera tion - 35 tiJd3 .tea 36 .llxc6 .i.xc6 37 llxc6 tOea 3a tiJc5 . Petrosian wants to play h i s knight t o d 4 v i a a lengthy route - d 3-c 1 -e2 , but d u ring this time Spassky is able to activate his forces. 35 . . .
'i!tg7
36 tiJd3
.tea
37 CiJc1
f5
38 tiJe2?! 3a .i.g2 g4 39 f4 was better, with a p robable draw.
Black has a great positional advantage. He has securely blocked the opponent's central pawns, the bishop at g2 is 'bad ' , and the wh ite knight also lacks mobil ity. The most natu ral plan , which Leonid Stei n undoubt edly had in m i n d , i nvolves the advance of the q ueenside pawns.
1 42
�
Converting an Advantage
34 lLlxf2
26 'it>f1 Wh ite intends to reinforce his central pawns by taking his king to e3 and if necessary placing his bishop on f1 . H i s rooks would then be freed to take action against Black's queenside pawn offensive. At this moment it probably seemed to Stei n that the conver sion of his adva ntage by normal methods would not be so easy. If the opponent makes an unexpected move, hindering the implementation of your plans, it is useful to ask yourself: 'What may be the drawback to the opponent's move?' But even after asking
you rself such a question , it is not easy to come to the decision found by Stei n - it is very much not in keeping with the u n h u rried character of the preced ing play, and with Black's intended pla n . 26 . . .
f5 ! ?
B y opening the f-file, on which t h e wh ite king stands for a moment, Black creates a th reat to the d3-pawn . Of cou rse , such a move , freeing Wh ite's bishop and knight, could only be made by a highly dynamic, non routine player. 27 exf5
�xf5
28 'lt>e2 I would have preferred to part with a pawn immediately, by retu rning with the king to g 1 . 28 . . .
lbg4!
Threatening 29 . . . lbxf2 30 ;t>xf2 �g4+ 3 1 ;t>e3 i.xd 1 . 29 l:i.b2
lbxh2
The conversion of the extra pawn is not difficult. 30 'it>e3
l:i.a4
31 �e4
�xe4
32 lbx e4
lbg4+
33 'it>d2
lLlf2 !
Remember: with a material advantage it is advisable to exchange pieces.
lbf2+
35 '>t>c3
I:!.a3+
36 .J::f. b 3
l:i.axa2
37 .l:tb5
�g6
38 l::t d 5
l:i.f5
39 I:!.d6+
l:i.f6
40 l:i.d7
l:i.g2
41 d4
l:i.xg3+
Wh ite resigned. Stein's energetic actions were crowned by complete success. But it seems to me that what mainly told here was the psychological effect of Black's un expected operation there a re nevertheless some doubts about its objective strength . Serious consideration should have been g iven to the reply 27 � h 3 ! ? suggested by G rigory Kaidanov. After 27 . . . g4 28 i.g2 Black ca n not play 28 . . . lbxd3? 29 �xd3 l:i.xd 3 30 lbxd3 fxe4+ 3 1 lLlf4 , and nothing particu lar is promised by 28 . . . fxe4 29 i.xe4 or 28 . . . f4 29 gxf4 l:i.xf4 30 '>t>e2 . I n stead of 27 . . . g4 combinations involvi ng a sacrifice on d3 look tempti n g . However, if 27 . . . l::t x d3 there follows 28 lbxd3 fxe4+ 29 lbf2 �xh3+ 30 '>t>e2 . 27 . . . lbxd3 is stronger, hoping for 28 �xf5?! lbb4 ! ! 29 l:i.xd4 tt:lxc2 30 �xe6 .Uxf2+ 31 ;t>xf2 lbxd4 with a won minor p iece ending (32 i.f5 is bad in view of 32 . . . lbxf5 33 exf5 g4! 34 We3 ;t>f6 35 Wf4 h 5 ) . Wh ite defends by 28 exf5 ! tt:lxf2 (28 . . . i.xf5 29 i.xf5 l:i.xf5 30 'it>g2 or 28 . . . tt:lb4 30 I:!.xd4 lbxc2 3 1 fxe6 l:i.xf2+ 32 'it>xf2 tt:lxd4 33 'lt>e3) 29 I:!.xd4 lbxh3 30 g4 with a n u nclear ending. I th i n k that i n reply to 27 �h3 Black should move his bishop: 27 . . . �d7 ! . H owever, here too Wh ite retains some saving chances in a position where he is the exchange down : 28 �xf5 �a4 29 I:!.dd2 �xc2 30 l:i.xc2 , or a pawn down after 30 . . . lbxd3 3 1 l:i.d2 lLlxf2 32 .J::f.x d4 lbxe4 33 g4. The strongest response to 26 . . . f5 would
ltJ
Converting an Advantage
seem to be the cool-headed 27 'it>e2 ! . I n the event of 27 .. .f4 28 gxf4 gxf4 there is the satisfactory reply 29 ..th3 ! , while after 27 .. .fxe4 28 ..txe4 ltJg4 , as shown by P h i l i p p Schlosser, Wh ite has t h e s i m p l e move 29 l:tf1 ! (29 . . . ltJxh2 30 l:th 1 ) . The tra nsformation of a n advantage - giving up some benefits that you a l ready have for the sake of achieving other benefits - is a rather complicated tech nique, accessible only to players with a subtle u nderstanding of the game. After a l l , you have to assess the situation correctly, and precisely weigh up the pluses and m i n uses of the decision being take n , i n order not to 'buy a pig i n a poke'. And psychologica l ly it is not easy in a favourable position to ta ke sharp decisions, depriving you rself of some advantages gai ned earlier. Petrosian - Ban n i k 25th U SSR Championsh i p , R i g a 1 958
1 43
'for ' and 'against'. It looks illogical, since White voluntarily exchanges his 'good' bishop for the opponent 's 'bad ' bishop, instead of exchanging it for the knight (1 8 ..txb6+) and consolidating his advantage. But on a deeper investigation of the position it be comes clear that after the possible ex change of rooks on the d-file and the transfer of his king to e6, Black covers his vulnerable points and sets up an impregna ble position. In this case his 'bad ' bishop would play an important role. For my part I should comment that after 1 8 g4 .l:xd 1 + 1 9 l:txd 1 l:td8 20 l:txd8 'it>xd8 2 1 it.xb6+ axb6 22 Wc2 Wh ite also retains excellent chances of success. He plays his king to e4 and his knight to d 3 , with the idea of a pawn offensive on the queenside, and in some cases even e2-e3 and f2-f4 . 18 . . .
l:txd 1 +
Petrosian recommended the pawn sacrifice 1 8 . . . ..txc5 1 9 ltJxc5 .l:Ihe8 20 I!.xd8 'it>xd8 2 1 ltJxb7+ 'it>c7 2 2 ltJc5 e 4 (with the threat of 23 . . . a5 and 24 . . J::t e 5), but it is i ncorrect in view of 23 ltJa6+ 'it>b7 24 liJb4 followed by ltJc2 . 1 9 l:txd 1
..txc5
20 ltJxc5
l:te8
2 1 ltJe4
.l:.e6
2 1 . . . Itf8 was no better: 22 g4 .l:.f7 (22 . . . ltJc8 23 liJc5 .l:.f7 24 liJe6+) 23 .l:l.d6 . 22 g4
a5
23 l:td3
liJd7
24 'it>c2 24 'it>d2 ! ? . 24 . . . Wh ite unexpectedly offered a n excha nge of bishops. 1 8 it.c5! Why? Here is Petrosian's explanati o n: Before deciding on this move, i t was essential to thoroughly weigh up everything
b6
Anatoly B a n n i k hopes to ease his defence by exchanging knig hts with 25 . . . ltJc5 . Wh ite prevents this. 25 l:tf3 !
'it>d8 (see diagram)
1 44
�
Converting an Advantage
enced players often resort to repeating moves, not only to gain time on the clock, but also in the hope that the opponent will try to change the unfa· vourable course of the play and, by avoiding the repetition, worsen his own position. However, this should be done carefully, avoiding the th ree-fold repetition of the position which occu rred in the present game. It is stra nge that neither Petrosian, nor his opponent, noticed that after 39 . 'it>e8 the position woul d be repeated for the third time and Black had the rig ht to cla i m a draw. Most probably this a l l h appened in a severe time scramble. .
26 a3! Again Petros ian takes measures agai nst the threat of an exchange - if 26 . . . ..t>e7 (intend ing 27 . . .l2Jc5) he had prepared 27 b4 axb4 28 axb4 . Then there follows c4-c5, when the opponent is altogether unable to breath . 26 . . .
c5
27 �c3
�e7
28 Ild3
40 a4
.
lDd8
41 lDh6! N ot al lowi ng 41 . . . l2Jf7 . 41 . . .
l2J e6
42 l2Jg8
lDf8
42 . . . 'it>f7 43 �d7 + ! 'it>xg8 44 'it>d5 is an elegant variation .
After provoking . . . c6-c5, which has weak ened the d5-poi nt, Wh ite retu rns his rook to the d-fi le. 28 . . .
.Uc6
29 Ild5
tt:'lf8
30 l2Jg3
l2Je6
31 lDf5+
..t>e8
32 e3
l2Jc7
32 . . . lDd8 and 33 . . .l2Jf7 was more tenacious. 33 l::!.d 1
l2Je6
34 �d3! The time has come to activate the king . 34 . . .
.Uc7
35 �e4
l::!. c 6
36 l2Jd6+
rt;e7
37 tt:'lf5+
'it> e8
38 l2Jd6+
rt; e7
39 l2Jf5+
'it> e8
When converting an advantage, experi-
Now 4 3 'it>d5 rt;d? i s pointless, while i f 4 3 �f5 there follows 43 . . . 'it>f7 44 tt:'lh6+ rt;g? 4 5 �d8 l2Je6 46 l::!. e 8 tt:'lc7 , and Wh ite loses h i s knight. How then ca n he break through the enemy defences? When the opponent is con demned to passivity, one is very often
ctJ
Converting an Advantage
aided by a very important endgame device - zugzwang.
43 l:td2 !
�f7
variation 48 . . . tt:Jf8 49 'it>f5 'it>e7 50 tt:Jc3 tt:Jd7 51 tt:Jd5+ '.t>f7 52 e4 h6 53 f3 . 49 h6
tt:Je8
In the event of 43 . . .'�Jd7 Wh ite wins by 44 lttf5 Wd8 45 e4 '.t>e8 46 f3 �d8 47 l:.xd7+! lttx d7 48 tt:Jxf6+. Note that, before sacrific ing the exchange, it makes sense, i n accordance with t h e principle ' d o not h u rry! ' , to make two preparatory pawn moves, strengthening the position to the maxi m u m .
50 'it>d5
f5
5 1 '.t>xe5
fxg4
52 tt:Jc3
�e7
53 tt:Je4
'.t>f7
54 �f5
g3
55 fxg3
g4
If 4 3 . . . ne6 there also follows 4 4 Wf5 �f7 45 �d8 �c6 46 tt:Jh6+ �g7 4 7 �e4! tt:Je6 48 �d7+! '.t>xh6 49 '.i?d5 .
56 tt:Jg5+
'lt>g8
44
tt:Jh6+
45 tt:Jf5
57 �e6
tt:Jc7+
58 '.i?d7
tt:Ja6
�e8
59 e4
tt:Jb4
tt:Je6
60 e5
tt:Jd3
46 �d6!
1 45
61 e6
The exchange of rooks, strengthening the threat of an i nvasion by the wh ite king, leads to a won knight ending. 46 . . .
�xd6
47 tt:Jxd6+
�d7
48 tt:Jb5
tt:Jg7
This leads two moves later to zugzwa n g , but that is also how things conclude i n the
Black resigned . An excellent ending - i n it Wh ite used many of the principles for converti ng a n advantage that we have been d iscussing. I n concl usion I offer a few exercises, i n each of which you have to choose the most methodical way of proceed i n g .
1 46
�
Converting an Advantage
Exercises
1 . Black to move
2. Wh ite to move
3. White to move
4. Black to move
tD
Converting an Advantage
5.
Black to move
7. Wh ite to move
6. Wh ite to move
8. Wh ite to move
1 47
1 48
�
Converting an Advantage
Sol uti ons
1 . Koberl - Szabo (Budapest 1 95 1 ) 23 . . .
a5!
24 tt:'lc1
a4!
By advancing his a-pawn , Black has pre vented the equalising manoeuvre tt:'le2-c1 b3, prepared the development of his rook by . . . l:ta8-a6-b6 or . . . a4-a3 followed by . . . l:!.a4, and, finally, created the precond itions for an attack on the opponent's queenside. If now 25 tt:'ld3, then 25 . . . l:!.d8 26 �f1 l:td4 ! . The game concluded a s follows: 25 'it>f2 a3 26 'it>e2 �b2! 27 .Uc2 (27 tt:'ld3 tt:'la4 ! ) 2 7 . . . l:r.d8 2 8 �f1 tt:'la4 2 9 tt:'ld3 tt:'lc3+ 30 �e3 tt:'lxa2! 31 tt:'lxb2 tt:'lb4 32 �c1 axb2 33 l:!.b1 tt:'lc2+! 34 'it>f4 (34 'it>e2 tt:'la3 35 �xb2 tt:'lxc4) 34 . . . g5+ 35 'it>e5 l:td6! 36 c5 l:!.e6+ 37 'it>f5 tt:'le3 mate.
25 l:tg5! b6 26 .Uxh5 e5 27 �xeS! bxc5 28 i.. f6 �e8 29 .Uh8+ 'it>d7 30 l:txd8+ l:txd8 31 �xd8 'it>xd8 32 �3 (Wh ite's outside passed pawn ensures h i m an elementary win) 32 . . . 'it>e7 33 �e4 �e6 34 'it>f4 f5 35 h4 'ittf6 36 h5 We6 37 Wg5 Black resigned . 3 . M i les - N i kolac (Wij k aan Zee 1 979) Noth ing is given by 48 l:!.f5 l:tg5. 48 a4! With th is u n h u rried move Wh ite forestalls the opponent's only sensible plan of . . b6b5-b4 and puts h i m in zugzwa ng. After any move by the knight from e4 , 49 l:tf6+ is decisive. 48 . . . l:!.g5 49 .Uh7 is bad for Black, while if 48 . . . l:!.h4, then 49 tt:'lg6 ! and 50 tbe5, but not 49 .Uf5? because of the pretty reply 49 . . . l:!.h 1 + ! . .
2. Bastri kov - Kiselyov (Sverd lovsk 1 946)
48 . . .
Noth ing is g iven by 22 l:tg 1 + 'it>h 7 2 3 l:tg7 + 'it>h6 or 23 l:!.g5 f6 (23 . . . Wh6? 24 ..te3) 24 Ir.xh5+ Wg6 . Black's importa nt defensive move . . .f7-f6 must be prevented .
49 l:tf5!
22 �e1 !
l:tfe8
If 22 . . . e6 or 22 . . . l:tae8 , then 23 tt:'lc5 is strong . 23 l:!.g1 +! 23 ... 'it>h7 24 l:!.g7+ 'it>h6 25 l::i. xf7 is now bad for Black. There followed : 23 ... Wf8 24 tt:'lc5 1:1ed8. As was poi nted out by g randmaster Matthew Sadler, 24 . . . Ir.ec8 ! ? was more tenacious, when Wh ite should conti nue 25 tt:'ld7+! (less good is 25 .l::t g 5 b6 26 .Uxh5 f6 or 25 tt:'lxb7 .l:l.ab8 26 ..tg7+ ! WeB 27 l:!.b 1 f6 28 il.h6 'it'd?) 25 . . .�e8 26 tt:'le5 'it>f8 (26 . . . 'it>d8 27 tt:'lxf7+; 26 . . . e6 27 l:tg8+ �e7 28 l:tg7) 27 ..te3 e6 28 �c5+! .Uxc5 29 tt:'ld7+ 'it>e7 30 tt:'lxc5 .
�c6
It transpires that 49 . . . .Ug5 no longer defends the pawn i n view of 50 tt:'lxd 5 ! l::i. xf5 5 1 tbe7+ and 52 tt:'lxf5. 49 . . .
tt:'ld6
50 l:!.f6
.Uh4
51 g3
Itg4
52 �g2 Black's position is now completely hopeless. Tony M iles q u ickly converted his advantage. 52 . . . h5 53 tt:'lxh 5 �d7 54 'it>f3 .Ug8 55 tLlf4! .Uxg3+ (55 . . . tt:'le4 56 tt:'lxd 5 ! ) 56 'it>xg3 tt:Je4+ 57 �g4 tt:'lxf6+ 58 'it>f5 tt:'le4 59 tt:'lxd5 tt:Jd6+ 60 �e5 tt:'lf7+ 6 1 'it>f6 B lack resig ned . 4. Skembris - Torre (Olympiad , Luzern 1 982) Wh ite's pieces have hardly any active possibilities. H owever, he nevertheless has
Converting an Advantage
one chance to become active : 'iie 2 ! , i ntend ing 'ii'b 5! . For example, 30 . . . h6? (generally speaking, this pseudo-prophylactic move is usefu l , but it does not parry the opponent's concrete threat) 31 'iie 2 ! 'ikxb3 (in the endgame Wh ite gains a d raw without d iffi culty) 32 'ikb5 b6 33 lt:Jf3, a n d the weakness of the f7-point ensures Wh ite sufficient counterplay. 30 . . .
a6!
The opponent's only active idea is pa rried , and Black will soon create th reats on the queenside by moving his knight across to there . 31 g4 lt:J e7 32 lt:Je2 .i d 2 33 lt:Jg1 lt:Jc6 (threatening 34 . . . lt:Ja5) 34 i... c 7 lt:Jb4 35 i... a 5 lLJc2 36 i... x d2 'ikxd2 37 �g3 lt:Jxe3 ! 38 'ii'a 3 lLJd 1 39 lt:Jf3 'ii'xf2+ 40 �4 g5+ Wh ite resigned .
5.
Gragger - Barcza (Olympiad , Varna 1 962 , variation from the game)
tZJ
1 49
6. Smirin - Vogt (Saltsjobaden 1 988/89) In the event of 33 .l:.xa5? .l:i.f3 34 l:t.h5 l:txg3 35 .l:lxh7+ �g8 the passed g-pawn ensures Black sufficient counter-chances. The attack on the g3-pawn must be forestalled , and the move 33 i... e4! ? , made by l l ya S m i ri n , looks a sensible solution to the problem . There followed 33 . . . i... x a4? 34 l:txa5 i... e 8 (34 . . . i... c6 35 i... x c6 bxc6 36 l:tg5) 35 i... x b7 ltf1 + 36 �d2 i... g 6 37 c4 l:tf2+ 38 �c3 �g7 39 l:tg5 ! , a n d Black, finding no way out, lost on time. Lotha r Vogt could have excha nged either the roo ks , or the bishops. Try to estimate (I mean esti mate - to ca lculate everything is not possible and you have to trust you r i ntu ition ) whether o n e o f t h e excha nges (or both ) offers realistic chances of saving the game. If you r a n swer is positive, this gives g rounds for seeking an a lternative move to the one chosen by Wh ite in the game. F i rst let us examine the bishop ending: 33 . . J:te8 34 ltxe8+ i... x e8.
If a passed pawn is blocked by a bishop, the winning plan usually i nvolves breaking through with the king towards the passed pawn . But doing this i mmed iately does not work: 1 . . . �e4? 2 �e2 .ih5+ 3 �f2 �d3 4 i.e? ! a4 5 i... d 6 �c2 6 i... a 3 with a d raw. Black must first tie the wh ite king to the defence of the queenside pawns, and only then break through with h i s king on the opposite wi n g . 1 . . .
�c4!
2 i... c 7
a4
3 i... e 5
� b3
4 �c1
i... c 2!
4 . .ih5 also wins. .
.
5 i... d 6 Or 5 c4 b6. 5 . . .
a3
6 bxa3
�xc3
Then . . . .ia4, . . . b7-b5 and . . . �d3-e2-f3-g2 .
In the magazi ne 64 - Shakhmatnoe oboz renie ( 1 996 No. 1 2), grandmaster Igor Zaitsev suggested a clever breakthrough pla n : 35 b4! ? b6 (Black loses immediately after 35 . . . axb4? 36 aS or 35 . . . i... x a4? 36 bxa5 followed by 37 i... x b7) 36 b5 i...f7 1 (it is important to forestall Wh ite's main th reat c4-c5) 37 �d2 �g7 38 �d3 , restricting
1 50
�
Converting an Advantage
hi mself to the variation 38 . . . h6 39 c4 'it>f6 40 c5 'iite 5 4 1 cxb6 'iit d 6 42 'iit e 3 �b3 43 �c6 �xa4 44 b7 'it>c7 45 b6+ 'iit b 8 46 �xa4 . Here I do not agree with h i m - Black's resou rces are not yet exhausted . To say nothing of the attempt, by sacrificing the h7pawn with 38 . . . 'it>f6 , to bring the king to the queenside as q u ickly as possible i n order to hinder c4-c5, he can also play more accu rately in the cou rse of the plan exam ined by Zaitsev. 38 . . . h5 39 c4 'iit f6 40 c5 'it>e7 ! (but on no account 40 . . . 'it>e5? - the place for the king is not in the centre, but in front of the pawns) 41 cxb6 'iit d 8 ! . How can Wh ite win here? It is not possible to queen a pawn : 42 �f5 �b3 43 'iit d 4 �xa4 44 'it>c5 �d 1 45 �d6 �f3 - the bishop has a rrived just in time. And the position arising after 42 'it>e3 �b3 (42 . . . 'it>c8 ) 43 �c6 'it>c8 44 b7+ 'it>b8 45 b6 .ii. d 1 is drawn . The main contin u ation is 35 �xb7 �xa4 36 c4. Black avoids an i mmed iate loss by playing 36 . . . i.b3 37 c5 �g7 .
43 . . . 'it>d6(d8)? 44 «t>b6 h4 45 c7 or 43 h4 44 gxh4 g3? 45 c7! (now it is clear why the king avoided the d4- and c5-sq uares - so that after 45 . . . g2 the pawn should not queen with check), but Black continues 43 . . . h4! 44 gxh4 «t>d6 ! , l u ring the king to b6 where it will be checked , and then 45 . . . g3 (analysis by Zaitsev) . . . .
I n t he event o f 38 �c8 ! Black h a s two possibilities: a ) 38 . . . h 5 39 c6 h4 40 gxh4 g3 41 �h3 �e6 42 �g2 'it>g6 43 �d2 �h5 44 'it>e3 'it>xh4 45 'it>d4 'it>g5 46 Wc5 �f4 4 7 'it>b5 'it>e5 (after 47 . . . 'it>e3 48 'it>xa5 Wf2 49 �h 1 the king does not manage to return to the q ueenside i n time) 48 'it>xa5 'iii>d 6 49 b4 , and White should appa rently w i n . b ) 38 . . .f6 39 i.xg4 'it> e 5 ( i n t h i s way i n Zaitsev's o p i n i o n , Black g a i n s a d raw) 4 0 'it> d 2 W d 5 4 1 'ito>c3 i. a 2 42 b 4 axb4+ (or 42 . . . «t>c6 43 i.f3+ 'ito>b5 44 �e2+ 'ito>c6 45 bxa5 'ito>xc5 46 'it>d2 ) 43 'it>xb4 'ito>c6 44 .ii.f 3+ 'ito>c7 45 'it>c3 , and there is noth ing to be done against the decisive breakth rough of the king to the king side. And th is means that the exchange of rooks most probably would not have saved Black. ,
H ow can the defence be improved? The best saving chances i n such situations are usually prom ised by transposing i nto a rook ending (everyone knows the sayi ng: ' rook endings are never won'). And so, 33 ... �xe4!? 34 .l::txe4 . H owever, after 34 . . . .l:!.g8? (34 ... h5? 35 l::t e 5) 35 Wd2 ! ? with the idea of 'it>e3-f4 Black is condemned to complete passivity and should certainly lose. In rook endings you should aim to
If 38 c6 , then 38 . . . i.d5! 39 �a8 �e6 ! . I n the event of 38 'iit d 2 'iit f6 39 'iit c3 Black fi nds the excel lent manoeuvre 39 . . . �d 1 ! with the idea of . . . i.f3 . It is not apparent how Wh ite can wi n . For example, after 40 c6 �f3 4 1 'iitc4 h 5 4 2 �a8 �e7 4 3 'it>b5 i t i s bad to play
activate the rook. After 34 . . . .l::t f 1 + 35 'it>d2 .l:!.f2+ 36 Wd1 (36 �d3 .l::tf3+ 37 .l::te 3 .l::tf2 38 b3 'it>g7) 36 . . . h 5 ! 37 .l::t e 5 .l::t h 2 38 .l::t x a5 'it>g7 followed by . . . 'ito>f6(h6) and . . . h 5-h4 Black gains cou nterplay, but is it sufficient to save the game?
There is also another way of transposing
LtJ
Converting an Advantage
into a rook ending: 33 . . .l:tf1 + 34 �d2 l:tg1
35 i.. xc6 bxc6 36 l:txa5 l:tg2+ 37 'it>d3 l:'l.xg3+ 38 �e4, and now either 38 . . . l:tg 1 39 l:'l.c5 .Uf1 ! (38 . . . g3? 40 �f3 g2 41 b3 ! ) 40 l:'l.xc6 �g7 41 a5 h5, or 38 ... I:tg2 ! ? 39 �c5 l:'l.f2 ! 40 a5 g3 41 'it>e3 ! (4 1 a6 g2 42 a7? g 1 'i' 43 a8'ii'+ �g7 44 'ii' b 7+ �f7 or 42 .Ug5 l:'l.xc2 43 a7 .Uc4 + ) 41 ... 'it>g7 ! ? (4 1 . . .�f1 would appear to be worse : 42 I:tg5 c5 43 l:'l.xg3 .Ua 1 44 '.te4 I:txa5 45 'it>d5 , and Wh ite is threatening 46 c4 followed by 'it>c6-b6 ) 42 a6 l:f.f1 , and the position is most probably drawn . I n the rook endgame Black would h ave retained good d rawing chances. This factor casts doubts on the plan beg i n n i n g with 33 ..ie4 , and forces us to seek other ideas. Here is a suggestion by grandmaster Viorel Bologan . 3 3 .Ug5! I n the first insta nce , as we know, 33 .. J:U3 must be prevented . 33 . . .
�xa4
34 I:txa5! An u n expected change of d i rectio n ! I n his commentary Smiri n considered only 34 l:'l.xg4 �c6 with a probable d raw.
34 . . .
�c6
34 . . �e8! ? would seem to be more tena cious, aiming at the fi rst conven ient opportu n ity to play . . . h7-h5 . .
35 �g5! The rook resembles a n a n noying fly. 35 . . .
�f3
35 .. ..!:!.g8 36 l:f.h5 is no better.
position by adva ncing his queenside pawns . I n reply t o 37 . . . �c6 noth ing is g iven by 38 b4 .i::tf2+ (but not 38 . . . .Uf3? 39 b5) 39 �e 1 �g2 40 b5 �f3 41 .Uxh7+ 'it>g8, but 38 �h4! is not bad . Such a plan for converting an advantage (domi nation and the absence of cou nterplay for the opponent) is fully i n the spirit of Anatoly Ka rpov. From the viewpoint of the practical player, it is very important that here practically nothing needs to be calculated (in contrast to the 33 �e4 variation , where one has to delve both i nto the bishop, and the rook endgame), and this means that the probabil ity of mistakes is reduced . I ncidental ly, the fi nal conclusion about there being only one solution to the i n itial end game position (and also about there being only one winning method i n the bishop ending) is fu lly i n accordance with Zaitsev's view: My many years' experience of analysis have convinced me that in tense, balanced positions there cannot be two ways to win. The same thought was also expressed by a nother experienced analyst, i nternational master Gavri i l Veresov: In positions on the border between a draw and a loss, we normally find there is only one solution. 7 . Smyslov - Botv i n n i k (World Champion ship Match , 3rd Game, Moscow 1 954 ) Although Black has th ree pawns for a piece, his position is difficult. Vasily Smyslov could have decided the outcome in the middlegame, by breaking u p the opponent's pawn chai n and open ing lines for his pieces b y h2-h3. 27 Wkg2 !
36 l:f.h5 The immediate 37 'it>d2 ! ? �f6 38 b4 is also good . 36 . . .
1 51
I:tf7
37 �d2 After skilfully tying down the enemy pieces , White now wants simply to strengthen his
Threatening 28 .Ue5 . 27 . . .
.Ufe8
28 h3! I n t he ga m e there followed 27 �e6+? �xe6 28 .Uxe6. Usually piece exchanges are the easiest
1 52
�
Converting an Advantage
way of converting a material advantage. But here, fi rstly, material is nominally balanced , and secondly (and this is more important), the fewer the pieces remai n i ng on the board , the greater the role played by the pawns. 28 . . .'it>f7 29 Itfe1 . If 29 l:te5, then 29 . . . Itfe8, when 30 Itfe 1 i.. c7 1eads to roughly the same position as in the game. And if 30 Itxd5 there follows 30 . . . Ite3 31 i.. b 1 ( 3 1 �d 1 'it>e6) 31 . . . .l:!.e2 with sufficient cou nterplay for Black. 29 ... �fe8 30 .l:!.xe8 .l:!.xe8 3 1 l:txe8 (31 l:td 1 l:!.e3 32 'it>f2 l:th3) 31 .. .'lt>xe8. White is not able to convert his extra piece , since his k i n g h a s nowhere t o break through - the black pawns prevent this. But what a wonderfu l target they presented in the middlegame! 32 i.. c 3 'it'd? 33 a5 i.. d 8 34 i.. b4 b6 35 a6 i..f6 36 i.. c 3 'it>e6 37 'it>g2 g5 38 �e2 g6 39 i..d 1 i..e 7 40 ii.. d 2 i.. d 8 41 ii.. e 3 . Here the game was adjourned , and the players ag reed a draw without resuming. 8. Dvoretsky - Zil berstein (Ordzhonikidze 1 978) To where should the rook move , e2 or d 1 ? But isn't it all the same - after a l l , i n both cases Wh ite remains a sound pawn to the good? But you should not approach the conversion of an adva ntage so frivolously otherwise very often disappointment will await you . You should try to d iscover the difference between moves and choose the one which is i n some way better, more accu rate than the other. If 26 l:!.e2 there follows 26 . . . �c8 , when 27 .l::!.e 6 .l::!. c2 is pointless . Having an obvious advantage, you don't want to compl icate the
play and weaken you r q ueenside pawns by 27 a3 i..f8 . The normal contin uation is 27 g3 Wf7 . We note that the black king prevents o ur rook from becoming active on the e-file, whereas the black rook on the c-file, a long way from the wh ite king, is very active and it restricts the wh ite pieces . I myself wanted t o seize t h e c-fi le, Therefore I began checki ng 26 l:td 1 . 26 �d1 !
'it>f7
Black hardly has the right to sacrifice a second pawn by 26 . . . I:tc8 27 ..ll. xf6 M.c2 28 a4 bxa4 29 bxa4 (29 . . . i.. c5 30 i.. d 4; 29 .l::ia 2 30 .l:i.a 1 ) . In reserve I also had the transition i nto a bishop e n di n g: 27 l:!.c1 M.xc1 + 28 i.. x c1 f5 (28 . . . 'it>f7 29 'it>e2 'it>e6 30 Wd3 '.iid 5 31 g4) 29 'it>e2 'it>f7 30 'it>d3 'it>e6 31 '.ii d 4, and i n all probabil ity Wh ite should gradually wi n . . . .
27 l:!.c1 ! Now 27 . . . i.. d 2 is poi ntless in view of 28 .l:!.c7+ and 29 g3. White wants to calmly strengthen his position by g2-g3, l:!.c2 , and Wg2-f3 ; his rook is consta ntly th reatening to break i nto the opponent's position along the c-file. The resulting situation is more com fortable for Wh ite than after 26 l:i.e2 . The fu rther course of the game confi rmed that my eval uation was correct - the conversion of the advantage proved to be an altogether easy matter. 27 . . . .l:!.d8 28 .l:!.c2 .Ud 1 + 29 'it>e2 l:!.e1 + 30 Wf3 llb1 3 1 i.. d 4! .l:i.d1 32 e4 a5 33 g4 i.. d 6 34 l:!.c6 �e5 35 i.. x e5 (35 �e3 followed by f2-f4 is also strong) 35 .Me1 + 36 'it>d3 .l:!.xe5 3 7 f4 l:i.d5+ 3 8 'it>e4 l:i.d 2 39 h4 Itxa2 (39 . . . h 5 40 g5 fxg5 41 hxg5) 40 Wf5 Itf2 41 Itxf6+ 'it>g8 42 .l:!.a6 Black resig ned . . . .
ltJ
1 53
Artur Yusupov
Tech n i ca l P roced u res i n a G ra n d m aste r Battle
Twas played
he g a m e which I would l i ke t o show you in a g randmaster tou rna ment in the Spa n ish town of Linares. In its i n itial stage the two players engaged i n a difficult manoeuvring battle in a roughly equal position . Then a n ending, slig htly better for Black, was reached . It is i n struc tive to follow those typical endgame proce dures, tha n ks to wh ich I was able fi rst to increase, and then successfu lly convert my advantage. Salov - Yusu pov Linares 1 99 1 Reti
1 l2lf3
Opening l2lf6
2 g3
d5
3 i.. g 2
c6
4 0-0
ii.g4
5 c4 A normal position for the Reti Opening has arisen. In my view, 5 l2le5 ! ? i.. f5 6 c4 is interesting , since i n the game after Black's reply the active knight advance is no longer possible. 5 . . .
l2lbd7
6 d3
e6
7 b3
i.. d 6
8 tt'la3 An unusual pla n . Now i n the event of . . . e6e5 the manoeuvre l2la3-c2-e3 will hi g hl ight a certain weakness in Black's central pawns; however, if he avoids occu pyi ng the centre , Wh ite's idea does not present any danger. 8 . . .
0-0
9 l2lc2
l:te8
Black is not in a h u rry to disclose his plans. 1 0 i.. b 2
a5
Realising that for the moment the adva nce . . . e6-e5 is unfavourable, I ca rry out another idea that is typical i n such positions, trying to ' latch on' to the opponent's queenside. If now 1 1 a3 �b6 , and Wh ite has problems with the defence of his b3-pawn . 1 1 l:tb1 ! A deep prophylactic move . I n reply to 1 1 . . . a4 , a pa rt from 1 2 b4 Black also has to reckon with 1 2 bxa4 ! ? J::t x a4 1 3 i.. xf6 and 1 4 l:txb7. 11 .
.
.
i.. h 5
11 . . . e5 is prematu re i n view of 1 2 cxd5 cxd5 1 3 tt'le3 (attacking the bishop) 1 3 . . . i.. h 5 1 4 l2lh4 . So why not retreat the bishop i n good time? 1 2 l2le3 Aga i n Wh ite prevents . . . e6-e5. For both sides it is difficult now to do anyth ing active . As is usual in such situations, ma noeuvri ng beg i ns without any clearly defi ned pla n . The two players merely operate with 'short' positional or tactical ideas. 12 . . .
i.. c 5
1 3 �d2 After 1 3 d4 i..f8 the e4-point is wea kened . 13 . . .
�b6
1 4 a3!?
�a7
Black i ntends in some cases to play . . . a5a4. For example, if 1 5 l:tfd 1 there can follow 1 5 . . . a4 1 6 b4 i.. x e3 1 7 fxe3 dxc4 .
1 54
� 1 5 lLlc2
Technical Procedures in a Grandmaster Battle
ii.f8
The bishop moves away from the tempo gaining b3-b4 . 1 6 ii.d4 1 6 lLle5 with equal ity came i nto considera tion. 16 . . .
�b8
1 7 i.a1 Wh ite thought that he had slig htly improved the position of his bishop and worsened the position of the opponent's queen .
20 tL:lh4
..th5
2 1 lLlf5
ii.g6
22 i.h3?! The 'grandmaster d raw' after 22 lLlh4 would have been the logical outcome. In his desire to play o n , Valery Salov comm its a sign ifi cant inaccu racy - he loses control of the e4point. I was able to exploit the 'hanging' position of the wh ite pieces . 22 . . .
a4!
The long-awaited advance! 23 cxd5 I had reckoned with this possibil ity and I had prepared a simple i ntermediate operation. But White had no choice: it was bad to play 2 3 bxa4? dxc4 24 dxc4 tt:Je4 (with the threat of 25 . . . lLlg5 ) 25 'ir'xd7 'ir'xd7 26 lLlh6+ gxh6 27 i.xd7 .:.e7 28 .:.xb7 tL:lc5 , or 23 b4? dxc4 24 dxc4 lLle4 25 'iYxd7 (25 'ii'e 3 tL:lg5) 25 .. .'ifxd7 26 lLlh6+ gxh6 27 ii.xd7 .:.e7 28 i.h3 (28 .:.bd 1 lLlf6) 28 . . . lLld2 (28 . . . tL:lg5). 23 . . .
axb3 !
24 �xb3
17 . . .
e5!?
After all these clever ma noeuvres I decided it was time for activity in the centre, since the move lLlc2-e3 does not have to be feared the a3-pawn demands constant concern . Even so, this adva nce also has defi n ite min uses - it weakens the d5-pawn and the f5-square. 1 8 lLlh4
1i'd8 ! ?
The opposition o f the queens is advanta geous to Black - in some cases the undefended state of the wh ite queen may tel l .
24 . . .
tL:lc5
25 .U.bb1
tL:lxd5
Now Black's position is preferable - the opponent has a weak pawn on a3 . 26 lLlfe3 If 26 J:ifd 1 Salov was apparently concerned about 26 . . . e4! 27 d4 e3 ! . 26 . . .
The position is roughly equ a l . The slight pressu re of the wh ite pieces is neutralised by Black's superior pawn formatio n. ..tg6
'it'g5
Black contin ues the idea of exploiting the slight superiority of his pawn structu re. 26 . . . tL:lc7 ! ? 27 tL:lc4 f6 , mainta i n i ng the tensio n , was also possible. 27 ii.g2
1 9 lLlf5
19 . . .
24 dxc6 bxc2 25 �xb 7 did not work in view of 25 . . . tt:Jc5 26 c7 itd5 .
tL:lxe3
28 �xe3 28 h4!? ca me i nto consideration . In the event of 28 . . . 'ir'h6 29 tL:lxe3! .l:i.xa3 Wh ite's pawn deficit would have been compensated
a
Technical Procedures in a Grandmaster Battle
by the bad position of the black q uee n , while after a d ifferent retreat he would have captu red on e3 with his q uee n , avoid i ng a further spoiling of his pawn structure .
28 . . .
'i!Vxe3
29 fxe3
37 �e1
1 55
tt::'l c 5
All the same the knight ca n not be main ta ined at b3, and Black switches it to a4, intending to advance h i s queenside pawns. 38 .Ub4
tt::'l a 4
39 �d2? ! A natu ral move , b u t n o t t h e best, since it does not prevent Black from ca rrying out his pla n . 39 lldb 1 ! ii.a2 40 .Ua 1 ii.e6 4 1 .U ab 1 w a s stronger, w h e n t h e pressure on b7 does not al low . . . c6-c5 to be played . 39 . . .
c5
40 Ubb1 ? A time-trouble error. After 40 .Ub5! .i.e8 4 1 l:tbb 1 b 5 Wh ite could have i ncluded his bishop i n the defence: 42 ..lli. d 5 ! .
Of cou rse, the endgame is more pleasant for Black, but it is not easy for him to increase his adva ntage. 29 . . .
f6
Black rei nforces his e5-pawn and prepares . . i.f7. .
40 . . .
l:i.d7!
41 l:tdc1
c4
Here Salov spent a lot of time, appa rently weig h i ng u p wh ich was the lesser evi l - the loss of a pawn or passivity, - and he chose the latter. In the variation 42 Ub5 cxd3 43 tt::'l b 4 (or 43 exd3 ..lli. c4 44 .Uxb7 .Uxd3+) 43 . . . dxe2+ 44 �xe2 Wh ite does not have ful l compensation for the pawn .
30 ..lli. c 3!
Ua7
42 tt::'l b4
31 �b4
..lli.f7!
43 .Uc3
32 �f2 Salov defends in accordance with all the rules of the endgame - he covers his weaknesses and brings h i s king towa rds the centre . 32 . . .
tt::'l b 3
33 .i.xf8
�xf8
34 1:i.b2
Ue7
When short of time it is usefu l to over protect the important b7-pawn . 35 �fb1
tt::'l d 2 !
I n time-trouble Black gains t i m e on t he clock by repeati ng moves. 36 Ud1
tt::'l b 3
tt::'l c 5
Now 43 . . . tt::'l b 3+ 44 �e 1 Uxa3 is u nfavou r able because of 45 dxc4 .
1 56
�
Technical Procedures in a Grandmaster Battle
43 . . .
e4!
Formally the move made by me is against the ru les (pawns are supposed to be kept on sq uares of the opposite colour to you r own bishop), but in fact it is very strong , since it shuts in the bishop on g2. 44 d4 Forced . h5!
44 . . .
44 . . .'�Jb3+ 45 'it>e 1 �xa3 46 .lli. x e4 l:!.a4 also looks good , d riving back the knight and then adva ncing the pawns. But i n th is case the wh ite pieces would have become active . I preferred to play for a second weakness in the opponent's position - sh utti ng the bishop out of play (the fi rst weakness is the a3-pawn ).
52 l:tf1 followed by l::tf4 . I n the event of 50 lZJc3 lZJxc3 5 1 l::tx c3 b5 (and then . . . l::td a?) Black is effectively a piece u p . 50 . . .
�g7
51 .l'::f.f1
.i.e6
I decided not to defend the h4-pawn with the king , fearing that after 5 1 . . . �h6 52 .l:If4 �g5 53 gxf5 gxf5 54 I::f. c 1 it would be attacked by the rook from g 1 . I n stead of this Black exploits the departure of the white rook from the q ueenside and beg i n s decisive action there . All fully in accordance with the principle of two weaknesses. 52 l:tf4
ctJb6
53 gxf5
gxf5
54 .l:!.xh4
45 'it>e1 45 h3 was better, in order after 45 . . .f5 to have the reply 46 g4 (or 46 .:f1 g6 47 g4). 45 . . .
lZJa4
46 .l:i.c2
f5
The bishop on g2 has ended up on a square from which it is unable to escape. After the game Salov heated ly exclaimed that it wou ld have been better if it hadn't existed at all - then he could at least have tried to obtain some cou nterplay on the kingside. 47 h3 Trying to activate the bishop. 47 . . .
g6!
54 . . .
c3+!
The q u ickest way of converti ng the advan tage. The pawn moves i nto a th ree-fold attack, but noth ing can captu re it. For example, if 55 ttJxc3 , then 55 . . . lZJc4+ 56 �c1 lZJxe3 is decisive .
The last black pawn the same colour as rules, but concrete first! It is important to g4 with . . . h5-h4!
occu pies a square of its bishop. Rules a re considerations come be able to answer g3-
48 lZJa2
l::. a 5
55 '.t>c1
.lli. b 3
49 g4
h4
56 lZJxc3
.lli. x c2
57 '.t>xc2
.l:!.xa3
The trap has snapped shut! 50 'it>d2 Probably the only chance . Wh ite i ntends play against the h4-pawn with 5 1 gxf5 gxf5
I was expecting my opponent to capitulate, but unexpectedly Wh ite sacrificed his knight. 58 ttJxe4
fxe4
lZJ
Technical Procedures in a Grandmaster Battle
59 .i.xe4
l:txe3
60 .i.d3
l:tg3
61 c3 the th reat of c4-c5 has become more serious, since now the c5-pawn may be defended by the king . However, it is not hard to forestal l Wh ite's plan: 41 . . . .l:!.h8! 42 h3 .l:!.h5 (42 . . . .l:!.h4 also comes i nto consid eration). The rook is wel l placed on the 5th rank - it controls the c5-sq uare (if 43 'it>b4 a5+) and is able to attack any of the enemy pawns. It is evident that Wh ite has not ach ieved much . It remains to verify 39 h4. The reply 39 . . . .l:!.h8! suggests itself (39 . . . f5? 40 exf5+ is bad for Black). Wh ite plays 40 g3, preparing 4 1 l:!.h2 and 42 g4 . How can this plan be countered? Black is saved by the same rook manoeuvre: 40 . . . llh5! 41 llh2 l1a5 ! . Now 42 g4? is u nfavourable because of 42 . . . 'it>e5 43 h5? l:.a3+ and 44 . . . l:Ixa2+, and if 42 �f4 there follows 42 .. .f6 ! , prepar ing in the event of g 3-g4 to exchange the opponent's most dangerous pawn by . . . g6g5+ ! . We have establ ished that Wh ite does not achieve anyth ing with the d i rect i m plemen tation of any of our i ntended plans. H ow can he nevertheless conti nue playing for a win? Note that everywhere Black was saved by the switch ing of his rook onto the 5th rank. Let's remember about prophylaxis and try to
fi nd a way to prevent the opponent's main d efensive idea. Alekh ine suggests the surprising move 39 h 3 ! ! . Now if 39 . . . l:Ih8 the h-pawn is not hanging and Wh ite replies. 40 c5. After 40 . . . I:th4 the reply 4 1 .l:!.d6+ 'it>e5 42 l:Ixc6 .l:!.xe4+ and 43 . . . .l:!.a4 is unconvincing, but 4 1 l:Id8 ! is very strong. A t t h e s a m e time Black must now seriously reckon with 40 'it>d4 , for example: 39 . . . .l:!.b 1 (b4) 40 '>t>d4 '>t>d6 41 e5+, or 39 .. .f6 40 'it>d4 .ll d 8+ (40 . . . '>t>d6 4 1 c5+ 'it>e6 42 Wc4 ) 41 �c3 .Ub8 42 c5 'it>e5 43 l:Id6 with an obvious advantage. 39 . . . 'it>e5 is d a ngerous because of 40 l:Id7 . There only remains 39 . . . c5 40 l:Id5 ( if 40 h4, then 40 . . . .ll b4 ! , but not 40 . . . l:Ih8 41 g3 l:Ih5 42 .l:!.h2 , and the 5th ra n k is too short) 40 . . .l:!.b2 41 g4 (4 1 .l:!.xc5 .l:!.xg2 42 l:Ia5 is also good ) 4 1 . . . .l:i.xa2 42 l:!.xc5 .l:!.a3+ 43 'it>d4 .l:!.xh3 44 .l:!.a5 with excellent winning chances for Wh ite. .
It is significant that Jose Raul Capablanca a player with bri l l iant i ntuition - was unable to come to the correct decision , suggested by Alekh ine - a player with a totally different way of th i n k i n g. A move such as 39 h3!! can n ot be called i ntu itive, based on 'general considerations' - it could be fou n d only after a deep and very concrete penetration i nto the secrets of the position . Many years ago I was helping Botvinnik by giving some lessons at his schoo l . On one occasion , at the request of Mikhail Moisee vich , I prepared an extensive endgame lesson for the young Ga rry Kasparov, which included in particular a n independent analy sis of the Capablanca-Aiekhine ending. Garry fou n d a nother way of forestall ing the switch ing of the black rook to the 5th rank the move 39 g3! ! . It appeals to me perhaps even more than Alekh ine's recommenda tio n , since it contains an add itional active idea : 40 h4 ! . And there do not appear to be any d rawbacks : for example, if 39 . . . g5 there
ctJ
Lessons from One Particular Endgame
i s a pleasant choice between 4 0 h 4 a n d 40 l:.f2 with the threats of 41 .l:.f5 or 4 1 f6) 66 . . .'it>g6! . With what topic should the ending of the Capablanca-Aiekhine game be linked? Af ter a l ittle thought you will see that there is no clear a n swer - i n the process of studying the ending various aspects have come to lig ht, identically important for the practical player. Let's remember what we have seen:
Wh ite has done everything possible to strengthen his position and now is the time for decisive action . The logical consequence of his preced ing strategy would have been the variation 56 'it>e3 ! .ti.c3+ 57 'it>d4 .l:!.xg3 58 .ti.xa5 cj;;f7 (in the event of 58 .. J:tg4 noth ing is given by 59 .ti.a7 .l:!.xh4 60 a5 .ti.h5! , but the reply 59 h5 is unpleasant) 59 .ti.a8 or 59 h5. I n Alekhine's opinion, Black is able to hold the position , but at any event he would have had to defend accu rately. Unfortu nately, Capablanca did not want to sharpen the play and he chose a d ifferent plan, which leads by force to a d raw. 56 g4
g5+!
57 hxg5
l:txg5!
Of cou rse, not 57 . . . fxg5+? 58 We3 - there is
1 ) Excellent example of a practical rook endgame. Among the n u merous evalua tions and methods typical of this type of ending, with which the two players operated, I will single out a comparatively less trivial idea , which is very clearly expressed here. An open line, for wh ich a rook should aim, may be not only a file, as usual, but sometimes also a ra nk. 2) Model example of accu rate defence. It is i nstructive to follow how Alekh ine, without losing his presence of mind in a difficult situation , move by move patiently resolved the problems facing h i m . 3) Various aspects o f t h e problem of converting an advantage. Here we can mentio n : the i m porta nce of looking for a n d forestalling t h e opponent's cou nter-chances (at the very start of the ending); the maxi m um strengthening of Wh ite's position before changing the pattern of the play; the timely tran sformation of an adva ntage (the
Lessons from One Particular Endgame
5 1 st move) ; fi nally, the need at some point (the 56th move) to abandon positional manoeuvring and choose a concrete cou rse, involving precise calcu l ati o n. 4 ) Demonstration o f t h e i mportance of prophylactic th inking. Without it, of cou rse, it is not possible to fi nd the brill iant solution to the position on the 39th move . And subsequently too Alekh ine's defence was based on taking account of all the oppo nent's active plans and forcefully opposing them.
5) Grounds for reflection about chess players with an i ntu itive way of th inking. We have seen which decisions a re d ifficult for them or altogether i naccessible. The conclusion suggests itself, that even if you possess splendid i ntuition, you should de velop in you rself the abil ity to consta ntly delve into the concrete details of the position and if necessary to accu rately calculate variations. For a chess player it is very importa nt to evaluate objectively the strengths and weak nesses of a forthcoming opponent. A sou rce of such evalu ations is provided by an analysis of games played by him. Some of the m will prove especially i nformative. I n the 1 920s Alekh ine was preparing for his duel for the world crown against Capablanca . This is what he recorded for h i mself after the New York tou rnament of 1 924: took home with me from this tournament one valuable moral victory, and that was the lesson I learned from my first game with Capablanca, which had the effect of a revelation on me. Having outplayed me in the opening, having reached a won position in the middlegame and having carried over a large part of his advantage into a rook ending, the Cuban then allowed me to neutralise his superiority in that ending and finally had to make do with a draw. That made me think, for Capablanca had cerI
lZJ
1 63
tainly been trying very hard in this game, so as to draw nearer to Dr. Lasker, who was in the lead, and who had won against me the previous day. I was convinced that if I had been in Capablanca 's position I should certainly have won that game. I had finally detected a slight weakness in my future opponent: increasing uncertainty when con fronted with stubborn resistance! Of course I had already noticed Capablanca committing occasional slight inaccuracies, but I should not have thought that he would be unable to rid himself of this failing even when he tried his utmost. This was an exceedingly impor tant lesson for the future! Later, in a fa mous a rticle 'The 1 927 New York tou rnament as a prologue to the battle i n Buenos Aires for the world championsh i p ' , Alekh ine once again emphasised t h e role that the game with Capablanca had played for h i m : This game, incidentally, was the starting point for my understanding of Capablanca 's chess individuality. I will also g ive some other assessments by Alekh ine of the style of his historic oppo nent, wh ich a re confi rmed by the ending we have examined . They may seem exces sively sharp, but to some extent th is is explai ned by the very tense personal rela tions which developed between the two champions. But objectively these assess ments seem to me to be just (of course, only 'on a g rand scale' - ta king i nto account the very high sta ndard of play in questio n ) . . . . Capablanca is by no means an excep tional master of the endgame; his skill in this stage of the game is mainly of a technical character and other masters in certain fields of the endgame surpass or used to surpass him (for example, Rubinstein in rook end ings). . . . In Capablanca's games with the years one observes increasingly less delving into
1 64
�
Lessons from One Particular Endgame
the details of the position, and the reason for this is his unshakeable (I am talking all the time about the period before Buenos Aires) confidence in the infallibility of his intuition. The saddest thing for Capablanca is that this system of his of operating with 'good' moves almost without exception proved sufficient, since to a great extent he was opposed in the positional sense by a more or less
helpless weapon. On account of this 'lack of punishment' in employing not the best moves, he, on the one hand, got out of the habit of that concentration of thought during a game, which alone can give a guarantee against possible elementary oversights, and on the other hand- his self-confidence grew immeasurably and turned almost into self worship . . .
ltJ
1 65
Mark Dvoretsky
G ra n d m aster Tech n i q ue
I London Chess Centre and showed the n August 2005 I gave a lectu re in the
fol lowing position, ta ken from the magazine 64 Shakhmatnoe obozrenie - the ending of the game was publ ished there with notes by the winner Evgeny N ajer. Yandem i rov - Najer Russian Club Champions h i p , Dagomys 2004 11 ... d 5 ! A clever blow i n t h e centre , fi rst employed , I th i nk , by Vasily lvanch u k against Alexander Delchev i n the 2003 European Champion s h i p . In this way Black solves his opening problems - i n fact, it is now his opponent who has to act ca refully, to avoid getting i nto d ifficu lties. 12 exd5 ( 1 2 e5 is d u bious i n view of 1 2 . . . tt:leB 1 3 tt:lxd5 e6 1 4 tt:lc3 .1Lxe5) 1 2 ... tt:lxd5 1 3 tt:lxd5 e6 14 .i.h6 exd5 1 5 .1Lxg7 'it>xg7 1 6 cxd5 ( 1 6 tt:lb5 ! ? ) 1 6 . . . 'iVxd5 1 7 tt:le2 Grandmaster Jonathan Rowson , who was present at the lectu re , su rprised me by remarking that this position is reached more or less by force in one of the modern open ing variations, and that he h imself had once played it. 1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 d6 3 .i.b5+ .i.d7 4 .1Lxd7+ 'i'xd7 5 c4 tt:lf6 6 tt:lc3 g6 7 0-0 .i.g7 8 d4 cxd4 9 tt:lxd4 0-0 1 0 f3 IreS 1 1 b3
Here peace was concluded in the game Gdanski-Kempi nski from the 2004 Polish Championship, and a move (and a year) earlier i n a game Yandemirov-Biryu kov. And in genera l , looking i n a computer database, I saw that in most of the games where th is variation occu rred there was effectively no play - the contesta nts ag reed a d raw somewhere between the 1 1 th and 23rd moves.
1 66
�
Grandmaster Technique
In the summer of 2003 I publ ished an article in the Russian newspaper Shakhmatnaya nedelya and on the Chesscafe site (it was also publ ished somewhere else on the I nternet) with a suggestion that a ru le should be introduced forbidding conversations be tween players d u ring play a nd , hence, prematu re d raw agreements . Two years later my suggestion was successfully adopted at the super-tournament in Sofia. Its un iver sal adoption would, I am sure, not only lengthen games, but also lower the percent age of draws. As we will now see , even i n such a q u iet and seemingly l ifeless situa tion, where a draw is indeed the most probable outcome, it is possible to seek resou rces and pose problems for the oppo nent.
After the game Valery Yandemirov sug gested that he should have played 21 f4. Of cou rse, advancing the f-pawn is not some thing that one wants to do - one ca n decide on this move only after employing prophy lactic thin king and clearly appreciating the d anger th reatening Wh ite. 21
.
.
.
22 .l:r.xc1
.l:r.xc1 .l:r.d8
17 .. .'it'e5 1 8 'it'd4 tt:Jc6 1 9 'ifxeS+ tt:Jxe5 20 �ac1 We have reached the position in the fi rst diagram. The at first sight mysterious move found by grand master Najer is the strongest - it was thanks to it that he won the game. 20 . . .
b6! !
Let us try and reprod uce Black's logic. Fi rst he probably checked 20 . . . tt:Jd 3 and real ised that after 21 .l:r.xc8 .l:r.xc8 22 .l:r.d 1 the position was eq ual. Then his attention was d rawn to the possibil ity of 20 . . . .l::.x c1 21 �xc1 �d8 with the idea of 22 . . . �d2 . Najer is an experienced player and he knows that i n the first insta nce you must check active replies by the opponent - in the given case 22 �c7 . There appears to be noth ing better than 22 . . . .l:r.d2 23 �f2 .l:r.xa2 24 .l:r.xb7, but here Black's advantage is of a purely academic natu re, and he has practically no chances of success. As was confi rmed by the game Li Ruofan-Rowson , 2004 . But after . . . b7-b6 in this variation Black would remai n a pawn up, since from a2 his rook defends the a7-pawn . 21 .l::tfd 1 ? !
Now after 23 �c7 .l:r.d2 the only way of avoiding the loss of a pawn is 24 tt:Jc3 (bad is 24 tt:Jc1 ?? .l:r.d 1 + 25 �f2 �xc 1 ), wh ich allows the u n pleasant pin 24 . . . .U.c2 . The situation after 25 tt:Jb5 .t!.xa2 26 �xa 7 �b2 looks dangerous for Wh ite: the b3-pawn is u nder attack, and he has to reckon with the ma noeuvre . . . tt:Jd3-f4(e 1 ) . He sho ul d probably have restricted himself to the accu rate move 23 .l:r.c2 . But one does not want to place the rook passively, especially since after 23 . . . .l:r.d 1 + 24 'it>f2 tt:Jd3+ the king has to be moved to the side 25 'iit g 3, since in the event of 25 'it>e3?! tt::le 1 26 .l:r.c7 tt:Jxg2+ 27 'it>f2 .U.d2 28 .t!.xa7 ctJf4 29 'it>e3 .l:r.xe2+ 30 'it>xf4 l:!.xh2 Wh ite comes out a pawn down . It is q u ite probable that after 23 �c2 , and perha ps also after 23 l:!.c7 , the position would objectively have remai ned d rawn . But it is one th ing to calmly analyse at home,
ttJ
Grandmaster Technique
and with the aid of a computer, a nd q u ite different to take a decision at the board . A forced d raw is not apparent, defending is unpleasant - i n such a situation it is easy to lose you r bea rings. 23 tt::l c 3? A serious mistake! Wh ite wants to exchange the rooks, but fails to take acco unt of the fact that the black king will be the first to reach the centre . In a knight ending a more active king is a very important factor. 23 . . .
�d2
1 67
�e 1 tt::l x a2 32 �d2 tt::l b 4 (and 33 . . . tt::l d 5) with an appreciable advantage. 24 . . .
tt::l d 3
25 .Ue2
l:txe2
26 tt::l x e2
�6
27 tt::lc 3
'it>e5
28 �f1
a6
Fro m the previous note it follows that 28 . . . �d4 was also possible, but i n this situation the move i n the game is, of cou rse, more accu rate. 29 �e2
tt::lf4+
30 �d2 If 30 �2 . then 30 . . . �d4 is strong, as is the suggestion of Ca rsten M u l ler: 30 . . . f5 ! ? , and if 31 g3? �d4 ! . 30 . . .
tt::l x g2
3 1 tt::la 4
tt::l h 4
32 'it>e2
b5
33 tt::lc 5
24 .Ue1 ? ! Obviously, w h e n he m a d e h i s previous move , Wh ite was intending the manoeuvre .l::!.e 1 -e2 . Of cou rse , the enemy rook on the 2nd ran k can not be tolerated , but he should have exchanged the rooks i n a slig htly more favourable way: by 24 �f1 (with the same idea : �e 1 -e2) 24 . . . tt::ld 3 (24 . . . f6? 25 tt::l e 4) 25 .l:td 1 .l:txd 1 + 26 tt::l x d 1 �f6 27 tt::lc 3 �e5 . I n the game this same position was reached with Black to move . White can make use of his extra tempo by playing 28 g3 (28 'it>e2 is evidently weaker: 28 . . . tt::lf4+ 29 �f2 a6 30 g3 'it>d4! 31 tt::l e4 l2Jd5). But here too Black has a pleasant choice between 28 . . . a6 29 'it>e2 'it>d4 30 Wd2 tt::le 5 31 tt::le 2+ �c5 32 �e3 �b4 a nd 28 ... �d4 ! ? 29 tt::l b 5+ �c5 30 tt::l x a7 tt::l c 1 3 1
33 . . .
a5!
N ajer was not satisfied with the variation 33 . . . �f4 34 tt::lx a6 tt::l xf3 35 tt::l c7 tt::l x h2 36 tt::lx b5, i n which the play becomes sharper. I n advancing his a-pawn he undoubtedly foresaw the tactical subtlety o n the fol lowing move , which sign ificantly facil itates the conversion of his advantage .
168
Grandmaster Technique
34 a4
'it>d5!
Stean - Hort
I n this way Black ensures the safety of his important a5-pawn . 35 tt:Jb7
Biel 1 98 1
'it>c6
36 tt:Jd8+ 36 tt:Jxa5+ Wb6 37 b4 bxa4 was completely hopeless for Wh ite. 36 . . .
'it>c5
37 tt:Jxf7
bxa4
38 bxa4
'it> b4
39 tt:Je5
'.txa4
Black is a sou nd pawn to the good . The outcome is decided . 40 'it>d3 'it>b3 41 tt:Jc4 a4 42 tt:Ja5+ Wb4 43 tt:Jc6+ 'it>c5 44 tt:Je5 'it>d5 45 tt:Jc4 tt:Jxf3 46 tt:Jb6+ We5 47 'it>e3 tt:Jxh2 48 tt:Jxa4 'it>f5, and Black won . It was pleasant for m e to read the fol lowing comment by Najer about the move 20 . . . b6! ! : A useful move, from which one can identify a pupil of Mark Dvoretsky or at least a careful reader of his books. Evgeny Najer twice pa rticipated in my training sessions and has stud ied my books - obviously, his work has not been in vai n . I th ink that the g randmaster's com ments were evoked by the close similarity of this ending with one of the examples g iven i n my book School of Chess Excellence 3 Strategic Play, which I should now l i ke to show you . (see diagram)
Black's positional advantage is determ i ned by the active placing of his pieces. But it is rather frag ile: the slig htest inaccu racy, and it wil l evaporate. Which is what happened i n the game: 2 8 . . . h 5 ? 29 '.tc1 ! l::tf5 3 0 l::t xf5 tt:Jxf5 31 tt:Je4 g4 32 tt:Jc5+ We5 33 tt:Jxb7 tt:Je3 Draw. A very important principle in the conversion of an advantage is the maxi mum restriction
of the opponent's possib i l ities, and the suppression of a ny cou nterplay, any useful operations a i med at improving his own position . To put this principle successfully i nto effect, use m ust be made of 'prophylac tic th inking ' . Let us a s k ourselves what Wh ite wa nts to play. H i s choice is l i m ited . There is no point in attacking the knight: 29 �d2 lle1 + 30 'it>b2 �e5 . Obviously the only sensible operation is to bring the king to the centre : �b1 -c1 d2-d 3 . It is t h i s that s h o u l d be prevented . 28 . . .
l::t e 1 + !
29 'it>b2
h5
Grandmaster Technique
ltJ
1 69
Having forestalled the opponent's i ntention, Black can now calmly strengthen h i s posi tion . It is not easy for Wh ite to defend. For example, if 30 �f8 there follows 30 . . . .l:!.g 1 3 1 .!:!.f2 �e5 32 ll'le2 � e 1 33 ll'lxd4 'i£txd4, and the dominating position of Black's king guarantees h i m a g reat advantage i n the rook ending .
And now 36 . . . �f4 , 36 . . . ll'lf3 or 36 . . . h 5 . The concl uding position of the variation is very p romising for Black. But is it won? Couldn't Wh ite have played more accurately some where earlier? It is clea r that here everything hangs by a thread : the slig htest add itional improvement to the defence, and the game will end i n a d raw.
But a completely d ifferent interpretation of the position is also adm issible. The black king is far more active than its wh ite opponent, which can be especially percepti ble in a pawn or knight ending (Mikhail Botvin n i k once remarked : 'A knight end game is the same as a pawn endgame' ). Artur Yusupov suggested 28 . . . .l:i.f5 ! ? . Wh ite replies 29 �xf5 (29 �d2 .l:i.f1 + 30 �b2 '.te5 is u nfavourable for h i m ) .
Black's play can be improved . One is struck by the fact that he delayed slig htly - his knight did not i mmediately reach the neces sary sq uare f5. Of cou rse, it is desirable to captu re on f5 with the knight. It is this that explains the recommendation by Vad i m Zviagintsev: 28 . . . h 6!? (a mysterious move at first sight, wouldn't you ag ree! ) 29 �c1 .l:i.f5.
Now Black would l i ke t o captu re with the knight, but after 29 . . . ll'lxf5 30 lbe4 ! g4 3 1 lt:Jc5+! (weaker i s 3 1 lbg5+ �e5 3 2 lbxh7 lt:Je3 33 �c 1 lbxg2 3 4 'it> d 2 �f4 35 �e2 tt:lh4) 31 . . . '.te5 32 ll'lxb7 he can hardly hope to wi n . This means that he must play 2 9 . . . �xf5 ! , intending 3 0 . . . 'it>e5 a n d 3 1 . . . ll'lf5. Events can then develop roughly as follows : 30 '.tc1 We5! 3 1 'it>d2 ll'lf5 32 Wd3 (if 32 �e2 or 32 g3, then 32 . . . �d4 is strong ) 32 . . . lbh4 33 g3 tt:lf3 34 h3 ll'lg 1 35 h4 gxh4 36 gxh4. After 30 llxf5 l2Jxf5 3 1 'it>d2 ( 3 1 l2Je4 is now poi ntless - the g5-pawn is defended) 31 . . . ll'lh4 Black must wi n . However, the exchange on f5 i s not essen tial - 30 lbd 1 ! (but not 30 lbe4 We5) is far more accu rate for White . For example: 30 . . . .l:i.xf2 3 1 ll'lxf2 ll'lf5 32 ll'ld3, i ntending 33 lbc5+ or 33 �d2 ll'lh4 34 ll'le1 . Little is changed by 30 . . . We5 31 �d2 �xf2+ 32 lbxf2 lbf5 33 �d3, since if 33 . . . lbh4 there is 34 lbg4+ or 34 g3 followed by lbg4+. We see that the position of the pawn at h6 is fa r from idea l .
1 70
�
Grandmaster Techniq ue
And yet Zviagintsev's idea is logical - simply it must be put into effect slightly d ifferently. I suggest another mysterious move - i nciden tally, the same one that Najer made. 28 . . .
b6 ! !
29 Wc1
llf5!
knight ending - is much more concrete and req u i res carefu l checkin g . The q uiet pawn move on the queenside, preparing the exchange of rooks in the most favourable version , can be fou n d only as a result of delving thoroughly i nto the secrets of the position . There a re two aspects to the process of converting an advantage. On the one h a n d , it demands accu ract and methodical play, and on the other hand - an abil ity some where to cut short the manoeuvri ng , and fi nd and calculate a concrete way to the goal . It is not easy to sense which is more correct at a particu lar moment. I n the g iven example both approaches seem to me to be equally good , but th is does not often occur. II
Wh ite's position is d ifficult: 30 llxf5 tt'lxf5 or 30 tt'ld 1 llxf2 31 lbxf2 tt'lf5 32 tt'le4 h6, th reatening either to attack the g-pawn (33 . . . tt'lh4 or 33 . . . tt'le3 ), or to penetrate with the king onto the 4th rank. As you see, the similarity with the Yande mirov-Najer endgame is not restricted to the fact that in both cases the key to the position was an impercepti ble pawn move. Here there was also the identical nature of the material and the pawn structu re , and also the highly important role played by the activity of the king i n a knight ending - a recu rrent theme of Black's play in both examples. However in the Stean-Hort game fu nda mentally different approaches to exploiting the advantage were possible. Which one do you l ike more? The fi rst is purely tech n ical (restriction of the opponent's pla n ; u n h u rried improvement of the position ), but it does not demand deep calculation and therefore it enables time and energy to be saved . The second approach - the transition i nto the
I t can happen that a position looks (and i ndeed is) completely won , and yet a pl ayer does not manage to convert it i nto a win. Very often (if of course, things do not occur in severe ti me-trouble) the cause is a l oss of concentration and insufficient attention to those few resou rces wh ich a re stil l available to the opponent or which suddenly occur. A very i mportant ski l l , enabling this type of mistake to be avoided , is prophylactic th inking, about which I write in l iterally every book of mine. The essence of it is that you need to put you rself in you r opponent's place , consta ntly asking you rself the ques tion : what can he u ndertake , and what would you do i n his place if it were him to move? I n some of the examples g iven below the employment of prophylactic th i n king ena bled a player to fi nd the opti mal ways of exploiti ng an advantage, which at first sight were fa r from obvious. I n others, by con trast, such possibilities were not exploited and the adva ntage evaporated .
Grandmaster Technique
Xie J u n - Larsen Monaco 1 994 Pirc Defence 1 e4 g6 2 d4 �g7 3 tt:Jc3 c6 4 tt:Jt3 d6 5 h3 tt:'lf6 6 a4 0-0 7 ..ie3 tt:'lbd7 8 1i.e2 e5 9 dxe5!? In the event of 9 0-0 Wh ite has to reckon with the reply 9 . . . d 5 ! ? . 9 ... dxe5
ttJ
1 71
method of playing is too slow. He should probably have preferred 1 3 . . . �b4 , i ntending to a n swer 14 tt:'lg5 with 14 . . . .!::i.f8 , and 14 tt:'ld2 with 1 4 . . . 1i.f8 . 1 4 tt:'ld2 Wh ite i ntends to retreat the q u een to a2 and occu py the c4-squ a re with her knight. 14 .. .'ii b4 ! ? was now essential , but Bent Larsen conti n ues manoeuvring on the kingside, underestimating the strateg ic dan ger facing h i m . 1 4 . .. tt:J h 7 ? ! 1 5 'i¥b3 tt:J g 5 1 6 tt:Jc4 tt:Jc5? The last chance was probably 1 6 . . . tt:Je6 , with the idea of sacrificing the exchange i n t h e variation 1 7 tt:'ld6 tt:'ld4 ! 1 8 1i.xd4 exd4 1 9 tt:Jxe8 iixe8 . 1 7 'ii'a 3 tt:Jce6 1 8 'ii'x e7 �xe7 1 9 tt:'lb6 .:b8 20 ..ig4! .U.e8 (not 20 . . . h5? 2 1 ..ixg5)
10 0-0 Instead of this simple-minded move, 1 0 tt:ld2 ! was stronger, and if 1 0 . . . it'e7 1 1 tt:Jc4 .!::i.d 8, then 1 2 'ii'd 6! with adva ntage to Wh ite (suggested by grandmaster Vlad imir Potkin ) . 1 0 . . . 'ife7 1 1 'ii'd 3 a 5 ! ? Black forestalls t h e bind on his q u een s i d e by a4-a5. He could also have considered 1 1 . tt:'lh5 ! ?, a typical ma noeuvre in such positions, with the idea of i nvad ing with the knight on f4 , or even fi nding a conven ient opportu n ity to play . . . f7-f5 . . .
1 2 'ii'c4 .!::i.e 8 1 3 .l:.fd 1 h6 Black's last two moves a re log ically l i n ked: first the rook vacates the f8-squ a re for the knight (which has j u st been prevented from going to c5), or perhaps a lso for the bishop, and then control is taken of the g5-point, i n order t o safeg uard t h e f7 -pawn from a n attack b y t h e wh ite knight. H owever, this
The knight on b6 is cramping the opponent's position , and the pin on the h 3-c8 d iagonal is extremely u n pleasant. There is no doubt about Wh ite's enormous positional advan tage; the only q uestion is how to method i cally exploit it. The attem pt to force matters , by i nvad ing with the rook on d7, is prematu re : 21 tt:Jxc8?! l:tbxc8 22 .i:f. d 7? ( 22 1i.xg5 hxg5 23 1i.xe6 .l:i.xe6 24 .l:i.d7 is stronger, sti l l reta i n i ng a slight advantage) 22 . . . tt:Jd4! 23 .l:i.xb7 .i:f.b8.
1 72
�
Grandmaster Technique
Black has activated his pieces, and h i s position is not worse . Let us ask ou rselves what the opponent would do if it were h im to move . Obviously he would l i ke to get rid of the pin by . . . h6-h5. 2 1 h4 suggests itself, and after 2 1 . . . lt:l h7 22 lt:lxc8 !? Itbxc8 23 ii.b6 Black's position remains d ifficult. But Wh ite has to reckon with 2 1 . . . h 5 ! ? . For example: 22 hxg5 hxg4 , or 22 ii.e2 lt:lh7 followed by 23 . . . lt:ld4 - i n both cases with good chances o f equalising .
27 .Uad 1
.U.f8
Black has prepared . . . f7-f5, but he does not in fact manage to play this - White has everything ready for the decisive i nvasion . 28 lt:lxc8+
.l::i.fxc8
29 .l::i. d 7+
'it>f6
29 .. .e8, but here I realised that Wh ite would easily bring his rook i nto play by either 1 7 'iVa8+ 'it'd? 1 8 'ifa3 , o r 1 7 i.xc3 't!Vxc3+ 1 8 'it>e2 , when there would be noth ing with which to defend my king. .
Searches for a n acceptable defence proved unsuccessfu l , so Black chose 1 3 . . . ttJc6 1 4 'iWa8+ ttJd8 1 5 it'a4+ ttJc6 1 6 b 5 'it'xa4 1 7 ttJxa4 ttJa? (with the faint hope of putting u p a resistance i n t h e blocked position after 1 8 b6 ttJc6) 1 8 'it>e2 ! , and Vad i m confidently exploited his overwhelming lead in develop ment. 1 0 ... 'ii'c 6 11 i.d2 axb4 1 2 axb4 .l:!.xa1 1 3 'ii'x a1 'ii'a 6 1 4 'it'a4+ ! (the same idea a s i n t h e tra i n i ng g a m e ) 1 4 . . . 'it'xa4 1 5 ttJxa4 b 5 1 5 . . . ttJc6 1 6 b5 would have transposed i nto a positio n from the tra i n ing game. 16 ttJc3! (much stronger than 1 6 ttJc5 - as in my game with him, Vad i m aims to open l i nes) 16 . . . i.xb4 17 ttJxb5 i.e 7 18 'it>e2 lLlh6
regularly u sed to employ the French Defence with Black and I was happy if I m anaged to get rid of my 'bad' l ig ht-squa re bishop. Nowadays a spatial adva ntage has come to be val ued more highly than it used to be - White happily goes in for such positions. It is no accident that the popu larity of the 3 e5 variation in the Caro-Kan n has increased sharply - there too Black's light square bishop may be q u ickly exchanged. The diagram position occu rred i n both of my training games with Zviagintsev. Black has a choice: whether to continue q uietly, 9 . . . ttJd7!? 10 ttJc3 'ifa6 for example, or go i n for sharper play, beg i n n ing with . . . a7-a5. I n the first game the tempti ng u nderm i n i ng of the queenside was tested .
9 a5?! 1 0 ttJc3 . . .
Wh ite's solid positional advantage is deter m ined above all by the poor placing of the enemy knig hts . It is important n ot to allow them i nto play.
1 74
�
Grandmaster Techniq ue
1 9 .l::tc 1 suggests itself, but after 1 9 . . . 0-0 no progress is made by 20 l:tc7 SLd8 , and the n , depending on Wh ite's move , . . .tt:Jc6 , . . . �b6 or . . . ttJf5-e7 . If 20 ttJa7 Black plays 20 . . . .l:!.e8 (intending . . . t2ld7-b6) 21 l:tc7 �f8 followed by . . . ttJf5-e7 - he retains a defensible position. After some thought the grandmaster found a subtle pla n , enabling h im to immobil ise both knights. 1 9 ttJa7 ! ! Subsequently I examined another, also very strong method of play for Wh ite : 1 9 .l:!.a 1 ! ? 0-0 20 .l:!.a7. N o w 20 . . . 4Jc6 2 1 l:tc7 .l:!.b8 22 ttJc3 .l:!.b6 23 ttJa4 l:ta6 24 .l::t c 8+ tiJdB 25 ttJc5 .l:!.a7 is completely hopeless, while i n the event o f 20 . . . � d 8 2 1 �b4 ttJc6 (if 21 .. J1e8 the simplest is 22 .l:!.a8 ) 22 �xf8 ttJxa7 23 �xg7 Wh ite emerges a pawn u p . B u t t h e conti nuation i n t h e g a m e is appar ently even stronger. 19 . . .
0-0
1 9 . . . 'i¥td7 loses to 20 l:tb 1 . The rook is better placed on the b-file than on the c-file. .l:!.e8
If Volkov had foreseen his opponent's reply, he wou ld probably have preferred 20 . . . 4Jf5 . If 2 1 l:tb7, then 2 1 . . . l:te8? 22 g4 t2lh4 23 ttJxh4 �xh4 24 �b4 ! and 25 �d6 is hopeless for Black - his knight at b8 will be lost. However, it is possible to defend by 21 . . . h5! 22 h3 h4. Vad i m would probably have chosen 21 g4! t2lh4 22 t2lxh4 �xh4 2 3 l:tb7 , intending both �b4-d6, and f4-f5.
(see diagram)
Also u nconvincing i s 2 1 l:tb7 �f8 followed by . . . t2lf5-e7 . 2 1 g4! !
20 l:i.b1 !
20 . . .
But now Wh ite must reckon with 2 1 . . . tt'lf5, as wel l as 2 1 . . .f6 . For example: 2 1 h3?! f6!? (the knight aims for f7 , but 21 . . . t2lf5 22 g4 ttJh4 23 ttJxh4 3Lxh4 24 .l:!.b 7 �e 7 is also possible) 22 exf6 �xf6 23 .l::t b 7 (23 �f4 tt'ld7 24 l:tb7 t2lf8 ) 23 . . . 4Jf5 24 �f4 ttJxd4+ 25 ttJxd4 e5! .
The crux of Wh ite's plan! The knight at h6 remains u nder arrest, as does the one at b8. 21 .. .f6? is no longer possible on account of 22 exf6 �xf6 23 g5. Black loses after 21 . . . t2ld7 22 ttJc6 ! (22 l:tb7 tiJfB 23 ttJc6 tt'lg6 is less accu rate) 22 . . . t2lf8 (22 . . . �f8 23 .l::!. b 7; 22 . . . �a3 23 l:tb7 tiJfB 24 l:ta7) 23 ttJxe7+ l:txe7 24 l:tb8 . Possi bly Black's best practical chance was to g ive up a knight for two pawns: 2 1 . . . t2lxg4!? 22 l:tg 1 ttJxe5, but of cou rse, this too is completely hopeless. 21 . . .
�f8
22 h3
f5?!
It would have been better to wait passively. The attempt by Black to free h imself meets with a clear-cut refutati o n . 23 �xh6 24 t2lh2!
fxg4
Grandmaster Technique
tZJ
1 75
Black evidently overlooked this move . The rest is easy. 24 . . . gxh6 25 lbxg4 lDd7 26 l:I.b7 h5 27 lixd7 hxg4 28 hxg4 lib8 29 lDc6 lib2+ 30 'ii1f3 i.. a 3 31 g5 l:!.b6 32 .Uc7 i.. b 2 33 �g4 .Ua6 (33 . . . i.. x d4 34 lbxd4 l:ib4 35 lie? l:!.xd4+ 36 f4) 34 g6 .l::t a 1 35 lDe7+ �h8 36 Wg5 .l::t c 1 37 �f6 Black resig ned . Lutz - Dautov Germany, B u ndesliga 1 997
If 46 i.. d 1 ? ! , then 46 . . . l:I.c4 is u n pleasant. C h ristopher Lutz admitted that he panicked and reconciled h i mself to a d raw. There followed 46 i.f5?! f2 l:.a2 or 53 �g4 .l::t.a 2 54 ..tf1 .Uf2 . If 52 'it>e3 there follows 52 . . . .l::t. a 3+, and the king is unable to approach the rook (the vulnerable position of the bishop prevents th is), while in the event of 53 'it>f2 Wh ite has to reckon with 53 . . . .l::t. a 2 (53 . . . .l::t. a4! ? ; 53 . . . .l::t. b 3!?) 54 g4 a4 (54 . . . �g6? 55 f5) 55 �e3 .l::t. b 2.
Now a spectacular stroke proves decisive. 45 l:!.c6+ ! !
..txc6
46 bxc6 Mate is th reatened : 47 .i::t.d 7+ �xc6 48 ..tb5#, and noth ing is changed by 46 . . r.t>xc6 47 ..tb5+ �d6 48 l:!.d7#. Both 46 . . . l:!.d8 47 ..tb5 and 46 . . . e5 47 fxe5+ are also hope less. .
Black's best chance is 43 ... l:!.bf8 ! ? with the idea of 44 . . . g5. (see diagram)
Grandmaster Technique
4:J
1 77
reply 50 'i!Vd 1 !, preparing not only a check on h 5 , but also 51 'ii'g 4 . I n the event of 49 . . . lt:Jxf5?! Wh ite finds the tactical resou rce 50 ..id4 ! , when 50 . . . lt:Jxd4? 51 'ii'x d5+ is not possible, while if Black supports his d5-pawn by 50 . . . c6 , this ex poses the king and the wh ite queen breaks free: 51 �a 1 . The same reply 50 't!Va 1 ! is also good after the i mmed iate 49 . . . c6? ! .
44 .l:lc2 is unconvi nci n g : 44 . . . g5 45 fxg5 .l:lf3 46 i.h7 l:ta3 47 g6 .l:!.ff3 48 .l:lg 1 ! ? .l:lxg3+ 49 '.t>h 1 i.e8 50 g7 i.f7. However, after 44 .l:lh6 g5 45 .l:lxf6 .l:lxf6 46 fxg5 l:tf8 47 g6 .Ug8 (47 . e5 48 dxe5+ 'it>xe5 49 .l:lc7 �e6 50 .!:l.b7) 48 ..t>f3 e5 49 dxe5+ 'it>xe5 50 .l::!. c 7 Wh ite retains a sign ificant advantage. . .
Ti mman - Kasparov USSR v. Rest of the World, London 1 984
4 9 . . . h5?! i s temptin g , since the pawn is invul nerable: 50 i.xg5?? lt:Jf3 + . In the event of 50 b5 'ii'xf5 51 'ti'd 1 Black does not play 51 . . . tt:lf3+?! 52 'it>g2 g4 53 hxg4 �xg4+ 54 'it>f1 'ii'e 4 (54 . . . 'it>e6 55 it'd3 ) 55 Wg2 ! , but simply 51 . . . 'it>g6 ! with a n overwhelming advantage . A possible variation is 52 b6 l!Ve4 ! 53 'ii' h 1 'ti'e5+ 54 'it>g 1 cxb6 55 i.xb6 'ii'e 6! followed by 56 . . . g4 . Wh ite is saved by the fi ne reply suggested by Kasparov: 50 c4! ! 'i!Vxc4 (50 . . . dxc4 5 1 �c6) 5 1 ..ixg5 ( now Black does not have 5 1 . . . tt:lf3+) 5 1 . . . lt:Jxf5 52 'ii'f3 . It appears that we h ave looked at all the sensible conti n uations and have not found a solution. Garry Kaspa rov also did not find one. 49 ... tt:lxf5?! 50 i.d4! c6 51 'i!Va 1 lt:Jxd4 (5 1 . . .11if3 52 'it'a8 ! ) 52 cxd4
Black has an obvious positional advantage , but i t is not easy t o exploit. O n close examination it is d iscovered that every move has one d rawback or another. Of cou rse, he would l i ke to captu re the pawn. But if 49 . . . 'i!Vxf5 ?! there is the strong
Wh ite's pawns a re weak, but the open
1 78
\t>
Grandmaster Technique
position of the enemy king g ives h i m adequate counter-cha nces. 52 . . .'i&'d2 If 52 . . . 'ii'f3 Kasparov g ives the variation 53 "YWa7+ 'it>g6 54 'it>g 1 'ii'x h3 55 'it'b6 'iVe6 56 b5 with equal ity. I n stead of 53 . . . Wg6 it makes sense to try 53 . . . 'it>f6 ! ? , when 54 'it>g 1 ?! 'i¥xh3 is now i neffective : after 55 'ii'b 6 "YWe6 there is no pin along the 6th ran k - the queen is defended by the king . Wh ite must play 54 'it'a2 , and if 54 . . . 'ii'f4+ 55 'it>g 1 'it'xd4 , then 5 6 'i!Va8 .
'ilkh 1 'ife5+ (or, as given b y Kasparov, 5 1 . . . ltJf3+ 52 'it>g3 'it'e5+ 53 �g2 ltJh4+ 54 �f1 'ii'xf5) 52 �g 1 'ii'xf5 - the f5-pawn has been captu red , and the opponent's pieces a re stil l fastened down in the corner. Let us consider 50 �c5 .
5 3 'it'a7+ 'it>g6 5 4 �g2 �xb4 55 'ii'd 7 ! "YWxd4 5 6 �e8+ Jan Timman does not h u rry to captu re the pawn (56 'ii'x c6+ 'it>h5), hoping fi rst to worsen the placing of the black pieces . 56 . . . Wf5?! As was pointed out by Kasparov, the only way to continue to play for a win was by 56 . . . �h7 57 'ii'd 7+ 'it'g7 - however, the position arising in the variation 58 'ii'f5+ 'i!Vg6 59 'it'd?+ 'it>g8 60 'it'd8+ 'it>g7 61 'it'd?+ 'ii'f7 (6 1 . . . �f8 62 'i!Vd8+ 'i!Ve8 63 �f6+ �g8 64 �xh6) 62 �xc6 it'f5 is objectively d rawn. 57 'ii'd 7+ 'it>f4?! (57 . . . 'it>g6 ) 58 'ii'f7+ D raw. Let us return to the i n itial position . Take note: for the moment Wh ite is completely tied down , and he not only cannot improve his position , but it is hard even to suggest a move which would not worsen it. However, Black faces the same problem, since his forces are now optimally placed . It is possible to play for zugzwang , only by decid ing on a far from obvious king move . 49 . . .
Kasparov g ives 50 . . . h5 (with an exclamation mark) 51 Si.e3 'iVxf5 , overlooking a success ful defence: 51 'ikc1 ! 'it>f7 (or 51 .. .'i&'xf5) 52 'ii'e 3. Black retains a great advantage by continu ing 50 ... ltJf3+! 51 �g3 ( if 5 1 'it>g2 both 5 1 . . . 'it>f7 52 �e3 h5 an d 5 1 . . . 'it'xc3 52 'i'd 1 'i!Ve5 a re satisfactory) 51 . . . ltJd2+ 52 'it>h2 (52 Si.e3 ltJf1 + 53 'it>g2 ltJxe3+ 54 fxe3 'ii'e2+ 55 'it>g3 'ilt'xe3+, a n d the resu lting pawn ending is easily won ) 52 . . 'it>f7 . .
I n reply to 50 Si.d4 the tem pting 50 . . . 'ii'xf5 5 1 'ii'd 1 'iff4+ 5 2 'it>g 1 ltJf3+ 53 W g 2 g 4 5 4 hxg4 'i!Vxg4+ 55 �f1 'i!ke4 56 ii.e3 h 5 is not altogether convi n ci n g .
�g8 ! !
Let u s look a t the opponent's replies. I n the event of 50 f6 'it>f7 things have not become any easier for White - it is again hard to offer h im any good advice. 50 'it'a1 concedes an important central square to the enemy queen : 50 . . . 'i!ke4! 5 1
(see diagram)
ctJ
Grandmaster Techniq ue
1 79
reta i ned an enormous advantage, most p robably sufficient for a wi n .
Wh ite pa rries the th reat of the h-pawn's fu rther advance with the unexpected move 57 'it>g2 ! . 50 . . .tt:'lf3+ 5 1 Wg2 "iie 4 is fa r stronger, and after 52 i.. e 3 Black ca n play as i n the 50 'i'a 1 variation: 52 . . . tt:'l h4+ 53 'it>h2 'iVe5+ 54 Wg1 'Wxf5. It only remains to analyse the desperate attempt 50 b5 ! ? .
O f cou rse , to find such a solution to the position was extremely d ifficult, even with the classical time control which was used at that time in all serious competitions. And it would be a ltogether i m possible with the id iotically shortened control which is being p ropagated now by F I D E . If, God forbid, the officials a re successfu l , deep and subtle ideas will completely d isappear from tou rna ment chess (with the exception of cou rse, of opening fi nds, prepared beforehand with the help of com puter prog rams). And what then will there be for chess enthusiasts to admire - standard plans and tech n iques, and simple combi nations which h ave occu rred a thousand times? You don't have to be an oracle to predict severe conseq uences in the futu re both for chess l iterature , and for the popu larity of chess in genera l .
Ill When a fru it i s ripe, i t should be gathered otherwise it will over-ripen and become inedible. It is the same with the conversion of a n advantage . It is i mportant not to miss the appropriate moment for the favou rable transformation of a n advantage, lead ing to an i m med iate win or to a situation which can be played al most a utomatical ly. If you delay, su bsequently such a conven ient i n stance may not present itself agai n .
It is justified only after Kasparov's sugges tion of 50 . . . 'it>f7 (again his excla mation mark should be replaced by a question mark) 5 1 b6! cxb6 5 2 ifa 1 with counterplay. Black should be satisfied with a sou n d extra pawn after 50 .. ."Yi'xb5 51 'iWd 1 tt:'lxf5. Thus after 49 . . . Wg8 ! ! Black would have
Alas, i n overwhelming positions even very strong players sometimes enjoy l ife, stop acti ng concretely, and refuse to exert them selves or calculate variations that a re even the slig htest bit complicated , expecting that the fru it will itself fal l from the tree . The possible consequences of th is a re very wel l illustrated b y t h e following example.
1 80
�
Grandmaster Technique
Anand - Kamsky Candidates Match , 5th Game, Sanghi Nagar 1 994
the game by Viswanath a n Anand himself: 35 lLlc7 ! Ita7 36 lLlb5. Now 36 . . . lld7 37 'i'c6 leads to the loss of a paw n , while if 36 . . . .l:i:a6, then 37 'it'd 5 .i.e? 38 l:!.c1 - the opponent has practically no usefu l moves . I should mention that in such situations the knight on d5 looks fi nely placed , but that is all - it is not itself attacki ng the weak d6paw n, and is covering it from pressure on the d-file. Therefore the switch ing of the knight to c4 or b5 is a typical pla n . Anand decided not t o change t h e pattern of the position, but conti n ued his unhu rried manoeuvri n g . 35 l:!.d3?
Wh ite's position is strateg ically won , tha n ks to the overwhel ming superiority of his mig hty knight over the 'bad' black bishop. It is also important to note that at the g iven moment the white pieces are active, whereas the opponent's are disunited . If he is g iven time, Black will improve somewhat the placing of his pieces (for exa mple, . . . �d8, . . . 'it>g7, . . . 'ii'b 7, . . . llb8), which , of course, will not change the eval uation of the situation , but will improve his defensive resou rces . This means that now, before this occu rs , a concrete way of exploiting the advantages of Wh ite's position should be sought. Ljubomir Ftacn ik exami ned the plan of creating a passed pawn on the queenside: 35 llb1 !? 'i!Nd8 36 b4 axb4 37 'ifxb4 l:!.a5 - in his opinion Wh ite has only a m i n i mal advantage. I n my view, the adva ntage here is very great - for example, Wh ite ca n play 38 g3!? followed by 39 h4, practically depriving the bishop of any hopes of taking part in the defence of the queenside. However, Black's moves in this variation are not obligatory. A more convincing way was poi nted out after
'ifb7
35 . . . 'i!Nc8? was completely bad : 36 t2:lb6 'iVxc4 37 tt::lxc4 .i.e? 38 lld5 ( Ftacnik). In lnformator Anand awards the move played an exclamation mark and a ;!; sign (slight advantage for White). Of cou rse, this evalu ation is too pessimistic and was undoubt edly infl uenced by the result of the game. 36 llc3
llb8
37 'i!Nd3
'it>g7
Anand considers 37 . . . .i.d8 ! ? to be a poor reply in view of 38 l:!.c4 followed by 39 b4 (38 . . . 'i!Nxb3? is not possible on account of 39 'it'xb3 l::Ix b3 40 Itc8) . But I am not convinced that Wh ite is guara nteed a win after 38 . . . Wg7 39 b4 axb4 40 llxb4 �a7 4 1 l::Ix b8 'i¥xb8. We saw a similar situation i n Ftacnik's variation (35 llb1 ), but there the bishop was u nable to return to the queenside. The next moment seems to me to be exceptionally important a n d i nstructive.
(see diagram)
lZJ
Grandmaster Technique
181
40 . . . ir'a5 ! - the q ueen ties the knight to the d efence of the rook.
3 8 g3? I n accordance with the principle 'do not h urry' White gradually strengthens his position . Alas, the useful move made by h i m is in fact a serious mistake, which puts the win i n jeopardy. What is the poi nt? How can this be explained a n d , what is far more i m portant, recogn ised d u ring a tou rnament game? The point is that, apart from the long-term advantages of his position , here Wh ite also has one tem pora ry plus: the possibility of occu pyi ng the 7th ran k with his rook (the immed iate 38 llc7 does not work because of 38 . . 'ii'x b3, but he can fi rst sacrifice a pawn : 38 b4 ). I n combination with the su bseq uent attack of the queen on the f7-point, the idea looks tempting and therefore it should be thoroughly checked . After all, if Wh ite delays slig htly, Black will cover the c7 -point with 38 . . . ..lli.. d 8, and such an opportu n ity will not occu r agai n . All the other advantages will rema i n , of cou rse, but who knows whether they will suffice for a win? .
S o , 38 b4! axb4 39 llc7 'it'a8 . I n lnformator Anand suggests only 40 'ii'f3? ! llf8 (after 4 1 'i'b3 �dB Wh ite has noth ing special). The immed iate 40 �b3 ! is more logica l , blocking the opponent's passed pawn and a i m i ng at the f7-point. The only sensible reply is
Noth ing is g iven by 41 ltJb6 llf8 42 llc6 h 5 ! ? , and 43 ltJc4? 'i!Va8 44 .l:!.xd6 even loses: 44 . . . 'iWxe4 45 I:.d 1 I:.d8. The correct scheme of attack was suggested by Igor Za itsev: 41 g3! with the idea of 42 h4. The black bishop turns out to be at the cross roads: a move along either d iagonal will i nvolve serious concessions. I n the event of 4 1 . . . �d2? a swift mati ng attack proves decisive : 42 'ii'f3 .Uf8 43 'i!Vf6+ '.t>h6 44 ltJe 7 ! . If 4 1 . . . ..lli.. d 8 there follows 42 .Ud7 , and there is no satisfactory defence against a move by the knight: after a l l , the rook's path to f8 is blocked by its own bishop. If 4 1 . . . llf8 ! ? is played immediately, then after 42 I:.b7 Wh ite captu res the b4-pawn and ach ieves a decisive su periority on the queenside - the enemy rook is not able to help, since it is tied to the f7-point. 42 . . . ..lli.. d 2 43 'i!Vf3 ..lli.. g 5 (43 . . . 'iWd8 44 a5) 44 h4 ..lli.. d 8 45 �b3 etc. is also hopeless. Possibly the best practical chance is a bishop sacrifice: 41 . . . lla8 ! ? 42 h4 ..lli.. d 8 43 .l:td7 'iWxa4 44 'ifxa4 I:.xa4 45 .Uxd8 b3 46 ltb8 .l:txe4 47 .l:txb3. (see diagram)
1 82
�
Grandmaster Technique
(4 1 .. .'�xf7 42 li:Jb6+) 42 .l:I.xh 7+! Wxh7 43 'iVc7+ Wh6 44 'it'xb8. After 40 . . . ..td8 there follows 41 .l:d7, and i f 41 . . . b3, then 42 li:Jb4 ..t>h6 (42 . . . d 5 43 'i'xb3 - Black is tied hand and foot) 43 'it'xf7 'tixe4 44 'ii'x h 7 + 'it>g5 45 .U.xd6 with the th reat of 46 h4+ - Wh ite's attack is i rresisti ble. And in the event of 4 1 . . . 1Wxa4 Wh ite can decide mat ters with both 42 ti.xf7 + ! ? Wh8 43 .U.f8+ 'lt>g7 44 ti.g8+ Wh6 45 lt:Je3 ! and 42 li:Jf6 ! ? 'ii'd 1 + 43 Wh2 Wxf6 (43 . . . d5 44 ti.xd 5) 44 'ii'x f7+ ..t>g5 45 'ii'f8 ! (or 45 f4+ ! exf4 46 h4+ Wg4 47 'ii'x h7). For the knight Black has two pawns, which u nder more favourable circu mstances could have promised reasonable saving chances. But here, tha n ks to the mai ntai ned blockade in the centre , it seems to me that Wh ite should be able to convert his material advantage. I should mention that Wh ite also has available another, sharper way of attacki n g : instead o f 40 'i&'b3 he c a n try 4 0 'i&'c4 ! ? .
Now in t h e event o f 40 . . . 'ika5 t h e rook is defended and the knight can go to any square. On the other hand, the a4-pawn is en prise, and the way is open for Black's pawn to the queening squa re . Let us examine some variations. 40 ... 'it'xa4? is totally bad : 4 1 ti.xf7 + ! Wh6
The comparatively best cha n ces of a de fence a re g iven by 40 . . . 'i'a5 ! ? 4 1 li:Jf4 (4 1 lt:Jxb4? d 5 ! 42 lt:Jxd5 'ike 1 + ) 4 1 . . . d5, although after 42 lt:Jxd 5 b3 (or 42 . . . .U.f8 43 1Wb3 ! ) 43 lt:Jc3 .l:tf8 44 .l:I.b7 Wh ite remains a sou nd pawn to the good . Fasci nating complications a rise in the varia tion 40 . . . b3!? 41 li:Jb6 d5! 42 .l:txf7+! 'lt>xf7 43 �c7+ il.e7 44 lt:Jxa8 l:tb4 ! .
Wh ite faces a choice: he can either block the pawn with his quee n , or d isrega rd it and play for a n attack. A) 45 'it'c1 b2 46 'it'b 1 Ji.c5! (th reatening 47 . . . ..td4 and 48 . . . ti.c4 ) 47 a5! Ji.. d 4 48 tL:lb6 dxe4 ! (the position arising after 48 . . . l:tb5 49 lt:Ja4 .l:txa5 50 lt:Jxb2 .l:b5 is most probably lost) 49 ..t>f1 .i.xb6 ! ? 50 axb6 .U.xb6, and it is
i:tJ
Grandmaster Technique
not clea r how Wh ite can make any p rog ress - it would appear that the rook and the b2pawn neutral ise the queen . B) 45 lt:Jb6! b2 46 lt:Jc8 b 1 fi+ 47 'it>h2 .l:!.b7 (it is dou btful whether Black has anyth ing better - the th reats to h is king created by the queen + knight duo a re just too da ngerous ) 48 lt:Jd6+ �f6 ( 4 8 . . . 'it>e6 49 exd5+ 'it>xd5 5 0 tt:Jxb7) 4 9 'ii'x b7 'ii'c 1 ! ? ( 4 9 . . .'it'xb7 50 lt:Jxb7 d4 51 �g3 �e6 52 �3 1eads to a hopeless minor piece ending).
convert hi s advantage. For the moment Gata Kamsky prefers to retai n the rooks, hoping to tie down the wh ite pieces by the pressu re on the b3-paw n . 40 �g2 If 40 'i¥g4 there is the good reply 40 . . . 'i¥e6 ! ; i n add ition Wh ite h a s t o reckon with 40 . . . f5! ? 4 1 exf5 ir'xf5 . 40 . . .
Thus 38 b4 ! axb4 39 �c7 fia8 40 �b3! or 40 'i'c4 ! ? would have promised Wh ite enor mous winning chances . But now let us see how the game developed . 38 . . .
�d8!
Of cou rse, Black covers the c7-squa re . 39 ir'f3
'iVd7
Also after 39 . . . .l:!.c8 40 .l:!.xc8 'ifxc8 I am not sure that Wh ite would have been able to
h5!?
It is useful t o deprive Wh ite o f t h e g4-square, and i n some cases the pawn may also advance to h4. 41 .l:!.c4
Black is th reatening 50 . . . fif4+ with per petual check. I n the event of 50 'ii'b 6 d4! Wh ite again has to defend agai nst the same threat - stra ngely enoug h , he does not h ave a powerful enough d iscovered check. H ow ever, he fi nds 50 fic7 ! ! 'i¥xc7 (50 . . .'�'f4+ 5 1 h3 Black does not gain sufficient compen sation for the lost exchange. There only remains 45 . . . Wg7 46 tt'le8+ �g8, but after 4 7 ifxe5 Black's position is difficult. Here are some sample variations: 47 . . . �f8 48 ir'xg5 ife2+ (48 . . . Wxe8 49 'ii'e 5+ Wf8 50 hxg6) 49 �h3 l:!.b5 50 'ii'f6 ! .l:!.xh5+ 5 1 'it>g4 .l:l.xh 1 ( 5 1 . . . Wxe8 52 l:!.c 1 ) 52 tt'ld6 .l:i.h4+ 53 'it>xh4 ifh2+ 54 'it>g4 ifh5+ 55 'it>f4 , and the checks soon come to an end , or 47 .. .f6 48 'iVd5+ 'it>f8 49 hxg6 'ii'e 2+ 50 �h3 'iVxf3 5 1 'i!Vc5+ 'lt> g 8 ( 5 1 . . . l:!.e7 52 g 7 + 'it>g8 5 3 'i'c4+ l:!.f7 54 .l:!.f1 �h5+ 55 �g2 ) 52 �c4+ followed by 53 .l:l.f1 (there is also 52 tt'lxf6+!?).
Black has defended against the queen's
43 hxg6
fxg6
t2J
Grandmaster Technique
Now the shelter of Black's king is sign ifi cantly weakened (true, in retu rn he can hope to exploit the open ing of the f-file for a cou nterattack - but things never come to th is). Anand rejected 43 . . . hxg6 because of 44 'it'g 1 ! ? with an attack on the h-file. Perhaps he should have taken a risk. After 44 .. .f5 45 'i'h2 �f6 the offensive is not so easy to organ ise. I n the event of 46 'i¥h6 i.. g 7 47 'ii'g 5 (47 'ii' h 7+ 'iii f7 48 :a 1 l::!. a 7 with the th reat of . . J la8-h8 ) 47 . . . l:l.f7 no mate is apparent, and it is not possible to switch the queen to the opposite wing, because of counter-th reats to the king : 48 'i¥d8+ i..f8 49 'i!i'xa5? fxe4 50 fxe4? 'ii'g 4 , and it is Black who wins. Artu r Yusupov found the correct idea: 46 'iVh3! followed by the i nclusion of the g-pawn in the storming of the enemy king's de fences. For example: 46 . . . .l:.f7 47 g4! fxe4 (47 . . .f4 48 'ilfh6 is u n promising for Black) 48 fxe4 l:tb7 49 'iit g 3 l:.f7 50 'ii' h 6 �g7 51 'ii' h 7+ 'itf8 52 g5 (Black is i n zugzwang ! ) 52 . . . .Ua7 (52 . . . l:.d7 53 l:la 1 ) 53 l2Jf6 Vf7 54 .l:[f1 i.. xf6 55 'ir'h6+ 'ifg7 56 l:txf6+ l:.f7 57 1:.xg6 or 57 l:.xd6 with a n easily won rook ending. However, Polgar could also have played as i n the game: 44 c5 dxc5 45 Wxc5 , althoug h here this move is sign ificantly less strong. Black creates sufficient counterplay, by conti n u ing either 45 . . . f5 ! ? 46 'i!fxa5 iic8 ! , or as recommended by the I ndian player Sundararajan Kidambi: 45 . . . .l:tb8 ! ? 46 'i!fxa5 l:.c8 47 l:.f1 (47 l2Jxb4 'ilfd6 or 47 . . . i.. e 7) 47 . . . .l:tc2+ 48 .l:tf2 l:.xf2+ 49 'iiixf2 'iVh3. (This mea ns that i n the 43 c5? ! dxc5 44 'ii'x c5 variation Black should play not 44 . . . 'ilfa6? ! , but 44 . . Jlb8 ! ) . I t usually makes sense t o pose t h e opponent such a choice . At the board it ca n be hard to decide which contin u ation is objectively stronger, or which at least is the more promising from the practical point of view.
1 87
After 43 . . . fxg6 things a re easier for Wh ite there is no longer any reason for hesitatio n . 4 4 c5!
dxc5
45 'ilxc5
i.. d 8
Here 45 . . . l:.b8? is no longer possible be cause of the double attack 46 'iVa7(c7 ) . 46 lic1 !
On the h-file there is no longer anyth ing for the rook to do, and Wh ite switches it to the newly-opened c-file. Polgar wants to carry out the same reg ro u p i ng of the heavy pieces as in the position with which we beg a n : place t h e q u e e n b e h i n d t h e rook (Itc4 , 'ile3-c1 ), and then i nvade with the rook at c8 . 46 . . .
�?!
A loss of a tempo. 46 .. .g7 was more accu rate . 47 'ilfe3
'iii g 7
Otherwise Black would have to reckon with 48 'ifh6 . 48 .l:1c4
l:td7
49 'ilfc1
h5
50 l:r.c6
.Ud6
50 . . . 'ilff7 51 "ifc5 was no better. 51 .Uc8
'ili'd7
52 'ii'c 5
'iii h 6
1 88
�
Grandmaster Technique
58 lt:Jd5 i.d8 59 'i!Vc2 .l:td4 - Karolyi) 56 . . . .l:!.d7 (56 . . . 'it>g8 57 lt:Jxf6+ .l:!.xf6 58 'i'h6 'ii'e 2+ 59 'it>h3 iff1 + 60 ..t?h4) 57 .l:!.xd7+ 'ii'x d7 58 'it'b6 .
53 llb8 There was probably no point in White avoiding the natural move 53 lla8 ! ? (with the idea of 54 l::ta 7), since if 53 . . . i.b6, then 54 'it'c1 + �g7 55 'it'g5 is strong ( Polgar). However, this possibil ity will never ru n away. 53 . . .
i.f6
The counter-attacking attem pt 53 . . . g5?! was du bious in view of the weakening of the f5sq uare . Wh ite would have repl ied 54 .l:.a8! 'ii'e 6 (54 . . . g4 55 fxg4 hxg4 56 'iff2 ! Wg6 57 'ii'f8) 55 lt:Je3 l::t d 2+ 56 �f1 and wins (but, of cou rse , not 56 ..t?g 1 ?? i.b6).
Black's position is d ifficult: 5 8 . . . i.d8 (58 . . . i.e? 5 9 'i!Vxa5 ; 5 8 . . . 'i!Vd8 5 9 'i!Vc6 ) 5 9 'i'b8 (the e5-pawn is attacked ) 59 . . . 'ife8? 60 {jjc? and 6 1 'ti'xd 8 ! .
I n the opinion of Tibor Karolyi, who has written an i nteresting book about Judit Polgar, 53 . . . ..t?g7 was more tenacious. Then Wh ite would have had a choice between simpl ifying the position : 54 .l:!.b7 'ti'xb7 55 'i!Vxd6 and the more energetic 54 .l:!.a8 ! ? , and then by analogy with Polgar's variation considered earlier: 54 . . . i.b6 55 'ti'c1 i.d8 56 'i!Ve3 i.b6 57 'iig 5 . 54 'ife3+
i. g 5?
The move i n the game al lows the H u ngarian player to bring the game to a spectacular concl usion . 54 . . . g5? 55 lt:Jxf6 .l:.xf6 56 l:!.h8+ would also have lost immediately. 54 . . . �g7 was essentia l . Polgar g ives the following variation: 55 .l:!.a8 'ii'b 5 56 l::t a 7+ (56 lt:Jc7 is less good : 56 . . . l::td 3 57 'ti'c1 "it'd?
Now comes t h e fi nal combinati o n . 55 f4! exf4 56 Ith8+! Black resigned , not allowing h i s opponent to demonstrate the following pretty fi nish: 56 . . . �g7 57 'it'd4 + i.f6 58 �xf6 + ! ! .l::t xf6 59 l::t h 7 + ! �xh7 60 lt:Jxf6 + . Comparing t h e two games, i t c a n be
4J
Grandmaster Techniq ue
mentioned that, i n contrast to Anan d , Polgar acted fa r more pu rposefully and consistently with Wh ite. However, she encou ntered a sig n ificantly less stu bborn resistance on the part of the I ndian g randmaster than that put up by Kamsky i n the fi rst example. Wel l , all players have 'black' days. There is also another legitimate explanatio n : no one is perfect, and even outstanding g rand mas ters have situations (each have their own ) in wh ich they feel less confident. And th is means that there is still scope for fu rther creative improvement. IV
1 89
of his c5-pawn (if he ca n q u ickly capture on c6) . It makes sense for B lack t o check carefully the d i rect plan of advancing h i s pawn . And only if it transpires that this plan does not work should he seek a more s ubtle way of converti ng h i s advantage. 44 . . .
e3!
45 l\i'c4+ 45 'ili'f7+ does not help: 45 . . . "it'f2 46 �xg6 "it'f4+ 47 'it>h 1 e2 48 'ili'd3 'it>f2 49 'ii'c2 �g5 . 45 . . .
e2
46 'iif4+
'iff2
47 'iVc1 +
We will now analyse several more examples (not so large-scale), where one of the players faced the same problem : fi nding the opti mal way of converting his advantage. This can also be rega rded as a collection of tests - a l l the positions are taken from my card i ndex of exercises . Szily
-
Ostvath
H u ngarian Championsh i p 1 954
Andras Ostvath undoubtedly calculated this variation and decided that things would end i n perpetual check: 47 . . . e 1 'iV 48 'iic4+ 'iife2 49 lli'f4+ 'ii' 1 f2 50 'ii'c 1 + etc. But the perpetual check can be avoided by promoting the pawn to a knight!
Wh ite is a pawn down , and the opponent's passed pawn is very da ngerous. All he can hope for is perpetual check, or the adva nce
47 . . .
e1 tt::l ! !
4 8 'i!Vc4+
'it'e2
49 'ii'f4+
tt::lf3+ !
5 0 'iixf3+
ifxf3
51 gxf3
'it>f2
It is possible that the game can also be won d ifferently. But no d i rect way is apparent (apart from the one shown above) . B lack
�
1 90
Grandmaster Technique
failed to cope with the problem and allowed his opponent to escape. 44 .
. 'ilfc1 ? 45 'ilff7+ �e1 (in the variation 45 . . . '1t>e2 46 'i!Vxg6 'ii'f4+ 47 'it>g 1 'it'e5 a draw is g iven by 48 'ii'd 6! , but not 48 �xc6? �a 1 + 49 �h2 'it>f2 with i nevitable mate) 46 'ii'x g6 'i!Vf4+ 47 'it>g 1 'ii'f1 + 48 'it>h2 'ii'c 4 49 'i\fxc6 e3 50 'ii'd 6, and the players agreed a draw. .
Browne - Ti mman Stockholm 1 972
'it>g1 'it>g3 60 �h1 �2 Wh ite resigned. Why did Black g ive u p h i s h-pawn? Why d i d n 't he advance it (38 . . . h6 or 38 . . h5)? Obviously J a n Timman was concerned about a combination . .
38 . . .
h6!
39 gxh 6 ! ?
�xf6
40 �h3 However, Igor Zaitsev showed that the passed pawn could be stopped . 40 . . .
l:tg4+!
41 'it>f2
�f4+
42 'it>g1 42 �g3 .l::i.f3+ , or 42 �e 1 43 . . . .l::i.e 8 .
In the game 38 ... .l::i.c4?! was played , and if White had repl ied 39 ttJxh7! he would have created serious problems for the opponent with the conversion of his adva ntage, in view of the small amount of material remaining on the board . For example: 39 . . . b4 40 ttJf6 .l::i. c3 4 1 �f2 ! . Walter Browne preferred 3 9 .l::i. h 3?! , but after 39 . . . b4 40 l::tx h7+ �e6 the enemy king came into play and his position became hopeless. There followed 41 �h3 �5 42 .l::tg 3 �c3 43 .l:!.g4 b3 44 �b4 �xg5 45 lt::lg 4 .1Le4 (45 . . . �d5 would have won more qu ickly, not fearing 46 h4+ �xh4) 46 �xe4 b2 47 .l:!.b4 .l::i.c 1 + 48 �g2 b1 'ii' 49 .l::i. x b1 �xb1 50 ttJf2 .l::i. b 2 51 'it>g3 �b3+ 52 'it>g2 �5 53 ttJh3 g5 54 lt::l g 1 'it>g4 55 h3+ 'it>h4 56 ttJf3+ �xf3 57 �xf3 �xh3 58 'it>f2 g4 59
�e4+ and
42 . . .
.1Ld7 ! !
43 h7
l:tf1 +!
44 'it>xf1
�xh3+
45 �f2
'it>g7
(see diagram)
ctJ
Grandmaster Technique
191
Kunitz - Dvoretsky
S h i razi - Vasyukov
Bad Wiessee 1 997
Tirucch i rappalli 1 978
Any position with a n extra pawn prom ises Black good chances of success, but every where the struggle still continues: for exam ple, after 34 . . . l:tb5 35 'it>e2 or 34 . . . d 3 35 l:11 xc5 .l:i.xb3 36 .l:i.c1 ! . H owever, he has available a combination leading to a forced win .
Without resorting to d rastic measures, it is hardly possible to convert the advantage. A combination comes to Black's a i d .
34 . . .
d3!
35 .U.1 xc5 35 l:!.7xc5? d2 is totally bad for Wh ite. 35 . . .
.l:i.h8 ! !
3 6 'lt>g1 The rook is taboo: 36 .U.xd5 .l:i.h 1 mate . If 36 c.t>e 1 , then 36 . . . d2+ is decisive, while if 36 g3 - 36 . . . .l:i.xc5 37 .l:i.xc5 .l:i.h 1 + 38 'it>g2 d 2 . 36 . . .
.l:!.dd8!
37 l:!.c1
d2
38 .l:!.d1
.U.de8!
Of cou rse, not 38 . . . l:!.he8? 39 Wf1 . The captu re of the d2-pawn is not possible because of mate . 39 l:!.f1
.l:i.e1
40 .l:!.d7
l:th 1 +!
Wh ite resig ned .
80 . . .
g5!
This move suggests itself: the th reat is 81 . . . g4 and 82 . . . �e4 . However, this could not be played merely 'on general grou nds' , without precise calculation - Black had to reckon with the attack on h i s rook. 81 'it>f3
h2!
The exchange sacrifice 8 1 . . . l:!.xe5? 82 fxe5 'it>h4 is sufficient only for a d raw: 83 l::i. a 1 ! g4+ (83 . . . �e6 84 .l:i.a6 �d5+ 85 'it>f2 is not da ngerous for Wh ite) 84 'it>f4 �g6 (84 . . . h2 85 'it>xf5) 85 e6 g3 86 e7 h2 (86 . . . g2? even loses after 87 'it>f3 ! ) 87 .l:i.a8! 'it>h3! . Paradoxi cally, the goal is ach ieved by a sacrifice of far more material - a rook! 82 .l:i.a1 Bad is 82 .l:i.h 1 ? �e4+ 83 'it>xe2 �xh 1 84 fxg5 �f3 + . 82 . . .
g4+ ! !
Strictly speakin g , there was also a second soluti o n: 82 . . . l:!.a2 ! ? 83 l:!.h 1 g4+ (but not 83 . . . �h3? 84 'it>e3! g4 85 f5 with equal ity) 84 'it>g3 .U.a3+ 85 'it>xh2 g3+ (85 . . . �e4 is
1 92
�
Grandmaster Technique
insufficient in view of 86 l::te 1 ! l::t h 3+ 87 'itr>g 1 .l'.:th 1 + 88 'it>f2 g3+ 89 'it>e2 followed by i.d4) 86 'it>g2+ 'it>g4 87 .U.e 1 (87 l:ta1 l::t d 3 ) 87 . . . l:ta2+ 88 'it>g 1 .ti.c2 ! ? and 89 . . . 'it>h3 - the opponent can not hold this position. But if Wh ite had played 82 .ti.c1 ! ? (instead of 82 l::ta 1 ), the rook sacrifice 82 . . . g4+ ! ! would have been forced - it is now poi ntless to play 82 . . . l::t c 2? 83 l:t h 1 g4+ 84 'it>g3 , since there is no check on the 3rd rank: the c3-sq uare is controlled by the bishop.
Kra ntz
-
Yudovich
World Correspondence Tea m Championship 1 979-80
83 'it>xe2 83 'it>g3 i.e4 . 83 . . .
g3
Black can easily obta i n a queen end ing with fou r pawns agai nst th ree on one wing: 39 . . . a2?! 40 i.xe6 'ifxe6 41 "ili'a4 'ikxc4 42 'ii'xc4 a 1 'ii' . But is it possible to win it? Is there not a stronger a lternative?
The two far-advanced passed pawns prove to be stronger than the rook. If 84 l::t a 8, then both 84 . . . i.h3 and 84 . . . g2 are possible. 84 'it>f3
'it>h4
85 i.d4
'it>h3
86 i.f2 I n the event of 86 l:th 1 the switch i ng of the bishop to the a8-h 1 d iagonal would have been decisive: 86 . . . i.d7 . 86 . . .
g2
Wh ite resigned in view of 87 .l:la8 i.g4+ 88 'it>e3 g 1 'it'.
After the exchange of m i nor pieces on e6 the white queen will occupy the a-file, and it will be possible to defend the a3-pawn only along the diagonal - then White will play 'ii'a 5 and c4-c5. The idea of breaking through to the aid of the passed pawn via the cu rrently barricaded e-file is not something that i m mediately comes to m i n d . 39 . . .
e4! !
4 0 c5 40 i.xe4? loses i m mediately to 40 . . . a2 41 'ii'a 4 'ii'd 4 or 4 1 . . . 'it'b2 . I n the event of 40 i.xe6 'it'xe6 4 1 'i'a4 noth ing is g iven by 4 1 . . . 'ii'd 6 42 'ii'a 5 with the threat of 43 c5, while if 41 . . . 'ii'e 7 there follows not 42 'ii'a 5 e3! , but 42 'ii' b 3. Black decides matters with 4 1 . . . e3! 42 'iix a3 (42 fxe3 'iix e3 is completely hopeless) 42 . . . e2 43 'ii'c 3+ 'it>f8 (43 . . . 'it>g8 ) 44 'it'e 1 'it'e4+! (but not 44 . . . 'ikxc4? 45 f3 and 46 'it>f2 with equal ity) 45 f3 'ike3 , and Wh ite's position is
tLJ
Grandmaster Techniq ue
lost: his q ueen has no moves, his king is not able to come to its aid, and the c-pawn will be stopped by the black king. Roughly the same picture results from 4 1 �a? e3! 4 2 fxe3 (42 'ii'x a3 e 2 tra nsposes into the previous variation) 42 . . . 'ii'e 4+ 43 'it>h3 'ii'f5+ 44 'lt>g2 (44 g4 'ii'f 3+ 45 'it>h4 h6) 44 . . . 'ii'c 2+ 45 'it>h3 'ii'b 2, and the a-pawn queens. 40 . . .
�c7!
equally strong conti n uations: 46 . . . 'ili'a8 47 'ii'a 2 'ii'a 6+ 48 'it>g 1 (48 '1t>e 1 'it'e6+ ) 48 . . . �a4 followed by . . . 'ti'b4-b2 , or 46 . . . 'i!kh 1 + 47 'it>e2 'ii'c 1 48 'itd3 'ii'f 1 + 49 'it>e3 'ii'e 1 + 50 d3 �xf2 . 45 . . .
'ii'f2+
46 'it>h3
'ii'f1 +
47 h4
'ii'e 2
Wh ite resig ned . Petrosian - Kholmov
41 'ti'a4
Vil n i u s 1 95 1
If 4 1 i.xe6 �xd7 42 i.xd7 , then Black does not continue 42 . . . a2? 43 c6 a 1 i¥ 44 c7 with a draw (in this variation the inclusion of the moves 42 . . . e3 43 fxe3 does not change anyth ing), but 42 . . . f8! (or 42 . . . 'it>f6 ! ) 43 c6 �e7 . The c-pawn is halted , whereas the bishop is u nable to stop the a3-pawn. 41 . . .
1 93
"it'xc5
42 'ii'x e4 There is no point in playing on two pawns down . If 42 i.xe4 , then 42 . . . 'ii'd 4 most simply decides matters. 42 . . .
�d4
43 'i*'f3
lt:Jg5
44 'it'b3
tt:Je4
Ratm i r Kholmov carried out a l ittle combi na tio n , enabling him to win a second pawn . 33 . . .
'ii'x b2 1 ?
3 4 'ii' x e4 34 i.xd3 exd3 35 lixd3? ii'b 1 + was com pletely bad . 34 . . .
tt:Jxf2 ! !
35 .l:i.b7
45 f4 In the event of 45 i.xe4 'ii'x e4+ 46 'it>f1 (46 'it>g 1 'ii'e 1 + 47 'lt>g2 'ii'a 1 ) there a re two
With the fai nt hope of 35 .. ."�xb7? 36 "ilixd5 �b6?! 37 �d4 �xd4 38 lixd4, when the black knight is trapped . 35 'it>xf2 .l:i.xd 1 would have left Wh ite the exchange down , while after 35 �xd5 tt:Jxd 1 he would not have time to take the knight because of the threat of 36 . . . �b6+ . 35 . . . 3 5 . . . tt:Jxe4 was also good .
.l:i.xd 1 +
1 94
w 36 .txd 1
Grandmaster Technique
'ii'd 2
This leads to an ending that is easily won for Black.
Pigusov - Atal i k Reykjavik 1 994
37 'i!Ve2 'i!Vxd 1 + 38 'itxf2 'i!Vxe2+ 39 'itxe2 l:ta8! 40 'it>d2 a4 41 'itc2 a3 42 Wb1 a2+ 43 Wa 1 g6 44 .Uc7 h5 45 .l:tb7 'itg7 46 �d7 .lla 3 47 .l:l.e7 h4 48 .l:l.e4 g5 49 l:!.b4 f5 50 l:tb6 f4 51 l:Ib5 �g6 52 l:Ib6+ 'it>h5 53 �f6 �e3 (of cou rse, not 53 . . . .l:i.g3 54 �a6 llxg2? 55 .l:l.h6+! �xh6 - stalemate) Wh ite resigned . But now I will explain why Black's 33rd move was awarded not an exclamation mark, but a '!?' sig n , expressing some doubt. The point is that the opponent could have repl ied 34 l:!.e 7 ! . The only way to retai n the two extra pawns is by 34 . . . f5 35 .txd3 l:Ixd3 36 .l:!xd3 'i!Vb 1 + 37 'it>h2 'i!Vxd3 , but then there follows 38 'it'c5 ! , intending 39 'i!Ve5 .
A typical way of converting an adva ntage is to exchange the last pieces and transpose i nto a pawn endgame. The point is that pawn endings ca n usually be calculated right to the end. If the resu lts of the calculation are favou rable for you , it will no longer be necessary to play the position move by move (with a non-guaranteed outcome and the danger of making a mistake at any moment) - by forcing events, essentially we simply demonstrate a n arrived-at solution. In the given i n sta nce the exchange can be carried out by switching the bishop to g2. Let us check the variation s . 33 .tf1 !
'it>e8
34 .tg2
.td5
I doubt whether, with the opponent's pieces so active, Black will be able to exploit h i s material advantage. B u t t h e n t h e question arises : should he have carried out the combinatio n , and wouldn't it have been better to prefer the simple move 33 . . . .l:tfd 8 , retaining a great advantage?
34 . . . .txg2 35 'it>xg2 is hopeless - Wh ite's outside passed pawn will a utomatically decide the outcome. The attempt by the opponent to avoid the excha nge also does not pose any problems: 34 . . . .td3 35 i..c6+ ! 'it> d 8 3 6 b6 'it>c8 37 f3 followed b y 'it>f2-e3 .
The conclusion : when forcing events i n a favou rable situation , it is important to check thoroughly the variations and eval uate their consequences - otherwise you can easily squander you r adva ntage !
A d ifficult move - usually it is not recom mended to improve the opponent's pawn structure . Here this is justified by the possibil ity of a pawn breakth rough on the kingside.
35 .txd5!
Grandmaster Techniq ue
35 . . .
exd5
36 f4
gxf4
It is poi ntless to play 36 . . . 'it>d7 37 fxg5 hxg5 38 h4. 37 g4!
Wh ite succeeds i n promoti ng a pawn just in time. Some of the followi ng moves may be interposed . 37 . . .
d4
38 �1
d3
39 h4
e5
40 'it>e1
f3
41 b6
�d7
42 b7
'it>c7
43 g5
hxg5
44 hxg5
e4
45 g6
e3
46 g7
f2+
47 Wf1
d2
48 b8'i¥+
'it>xb8
49 g8'ik+ It is not so easy to find and accu rately calcu late this variation. But to eval uate the conseq uences of other ways of playing for a win is even more d ifficult. lf 33 b6 ! ? Black replies 33 . . . i.b7 (33 . . . �e8? 34 i.xe6 is bad ), for example: 34 f4 gxf4 35 gxf4 �f6 and 36 . . . e5, or 34 i.f1 e5! 35 i.g2
tZJ
1 95
e4 36 'it>f1 'it>e6 37 We2 'it>e5 38 'it>e3 i.c6 , and Wh ite is u n a ble to make any progress. Wh ite's play can be improved with the suggestion by E rnesto l na rkiev: 34 Wf1 ! Wf6 35 'it>e2 'it>e5 36 'it>e3 Wd6 37 i.d3.
I n a joint analysis with E rnesto we were unable to find a way for Black to save the game. A) 37 . . . e5 38 i.e4 i.a6 39 b7 (39 'it>f3 h5 40 h4 is also strong) 39 . . .'it>c7 40 i.c6 (or 40 i.d5 e6 41 i.c6) 40 . . . i.f1 41 h4 i.h3 42 �e4 (the same move can also be made after fi rst exchanging pawns on g5) 42 . . . i.g2+ 4 3 f3 g 4 44 'it>e3 '>t>b8 4 5 i.e4 i. h 3 46 f4 , and the wh ite king breaks i nto the opponent's position . B ) To 3 7 . . . i.g2 White does not reply 3 8 h4? gxh4 39 gxh4 e5 40 i.e4 i. h 3 ! , but 38 g4 ! . The followi ng variations arise: B 1 ) 38 . . . i.xh3 39 �f3 �c6 40 �g3 i.xg4 4 1 �xg4 �b6 4 2 Wh5 �c5 43 �xh6 �d4 44 i.e2 , and Black ca n not approach the f2pawn ; B2) 38 . . . e5 39 f3 Wc6 40 �f2 i.h 1 4 1 i.e4+ 'it>xb6 42 'it>g 1 i.xf3 43 i.xf3 'it>c5 44 �f2 �d4 45 i.b7 e4 46 'it>e2 'it>e5 47 cot>e3 h5 48 i.xe4 with a n easy w i n ; B3) 38 . . . i.d5 39 i.e4 i.c4 40 f4!
1 96
�
Grandmaster Techniq ue
39 �c5 �e5 40 �b6 i.. d 5, or 37 'iti>c5 e6 (37 . . . e4?? 38 �b6) 38 �d6 (38 �b6 i.d5 39 i.. x d5 exd5 40 �c5 d4) 38 . . . e4, and now both 39 b6 e3 40 �c7 i.. d 5 41 b7 i.xb7 42 �xb7 �e5 43 �c6 �d4 and 39 i..xe6 e3 40 i.. c4 �f5 ! ? lead to a d raw. In the final example a strong impression is made by the tech nique of Paul Keres, based on a precise calculation of variations, and typical of the Estonian grand master's play. Keres - Geller After 40 . . . ..if1 41 fxg5 hxg5 42 h4! or 40 . . . ..ia6 41 fxg5 hxg5 42 �f3 e5 43 h4 gxh4 44 g5 the passed g-pawn decides the outcome. 40 . . . e5 also does not help: 4 1 fxe5+ (4 1 fxg5 i s n o less strong) 4 1 . . . �d7 42 ..ig2 ..ia6 43 �d4 ..ib5 44 �c5 ..ia6 45 ..ic6+ �c8 46 �d5 ..if1 4 7 �e6 ..ixh3 48 �xe7 ..ixg4 49 e6 .
Budapest 1 952
The game went 33 f3? ! ..ixf3 34 �2 i.b7 35 �e3 .
Wh ite is a sound pawn to the good . The a6pawn is also attacked , and he ca n pin the bishop by 26 l:!d 1 . A big advantage is retained after practically any of the nu mer ous tempti ng conti n uations - the problem is to assess how promising they are and choose the opti mal one.
After 35 ... �e8?? 36 ..ixe6 �d8 37 b6 the position became hopeless. There followed 37 . . . i.g2 38 �d4 i..f1 39 �c5 i.. g 2 40 �b5 i..f1 + 41 �c6 , and Black resigned . But meanwh ile, by conti n u ing 35 . . . �f6 ! 36 �d4 e5+ , Black would have saved the game. For example: 37 �e3 e4 38 �d4 �5
If 26 .l:!.d 1 the opponent will reply 26 . . . .l:!.e8! 27 i.. x a6 (27 l:td2 ! ? a5) 27 . . . ..txa2 . Pawn exchanges normally favou r the defending side, which means that this way hardly deserves preference . I n t h e event o f 26 i.. x a6 .l:. a 8 Wh ite can tra nspose into a bishop ending with an extra paw n: 27 i.. e 2 .l:.xa2 28 l:lxa2 ..txa2, but his advantage may not be sufficient for a win -
Grandmaster Technique
here the assessment expressed reg a rding 26 .:td 1 is again appl icable. And after 27 c4 Black can choose between 27 . . . .i:!.xa6 28 cxd5 .l:!.a5 29 a4 'it>f8 and 27 . . . i.. x g2 28 'it>xg2 .l:f.xa6. As is wel l known , ' rook endings a re never won ' - with a deficiency of just one pawn , the opponent has the rig ht to cou nt on saving the game.
t2J
1 97
playing 29 . . . .l::!.e 4! 30 .l:!.xa5 .l:!.c4 . Only 29 f3 ! l:tc2 30 .l:!.c5 is correct, when the loss of a second pawn is inevitable. 27 l:!.d1 27 a5?! is prematu re on acco unt of 27 . . . .:tc6. F i rst the rook m ust be tied to the defence of the bishop.
There is another idea which deserves to be stud ied : to remove the a-pawn from the attack by the bishop, i n order to retai n both threats : ii.xa6 and .l:f.d 1 (as is wel l known , often 'the threat is stronger than its i m medi ate executio n ' ) . If 26 a3?! B l a c k has both 26 . . . .l:!. d 6 27 l:td 1 'it>f7 ! ? , and 26 . . . a 5 ! ? 27 .l:!.d 1 .l:f.e8 28 .l:txd5 l:l.xe2 29 'it>f1 1Ic2 30 I1c5 a4 - a second pawn is not lost and the chances of a d raw are very rea l . But i f t h e a-pawn is moved two squares forward , thi ngs will be bad for Black i n the rook ending, and also there will be the additional possibil ity of fixing the weakness at a6 by a4-a5. 26 a4!
.l:i.d6
Accu racy would also have been demanded of Wh ite in the variation 26 . . . a5 27 lld 1 .l:f.e8 28 .t!.xd5 .t!.xe2 .
I n the event of 29 g3? (or 29 Wf1 ? ) Black is able to avoid the loss of a second pawn by
28 l::i. x d5 l::i. x d5 29 ii.c4 is threatened - for this reason there is no time for 27 . . . a5. If 27 . . . 1i.b7 there follows 28 .l:!.xd6 cxd6 29 a5! , and the bishop ending is undoubted ly won : Black is not only a pawn dow n , but he has also been saddled with a wea k pawn on a6, fixed on a square of the colo ur of his bishop. I th i n k that Yefi m Geller should have tried 27 . . . I1e6 ! ? . The variations 28 �f1 �b3 29 .l::!. b 1 �d5 and 28 �g4 l:!.e8 (weaker is 28 . . . l:!.e7 29 a5) 29 f3 (29 a5 1i.b3) 29 . . . �b3 30 lld7 c6 (or 30 . . . 1i.xa4) do not seem sufficiently convincing to me - at any event, here Black can fight on. And i n the rook ending after 28 .l:i.xd5 .l:!.xe2 29 Wf1 .l:f.a2 it is not possible to win a second pawn . But nevertheless here we have a more favour able version for Wh ite of the rook endgame, compared with those exami ned earlier. By conti n u i ng 30 .l:i.a5 .l:i.c2 31 .l:txa6 .l:txc3 32 We2 Wf7 33 a5 .l:f.a3 34 .l:f.a7 Wf6 35 a6 Wh ite will most probably wi n . 27 . . .
1 98
�
Grandmaster Technique
28 a5! The th reat of 29 �xa6 has been created . 28 l::tx d5? did not work: 28 . . .l:txd5 29 �c4 c.t>e6 30 cJi>f1 cJi>d6 31 Si.xd5 c.t>xd5 32 c.t>e2 'l!ic4 33 'it>d2 cJi>b3. 28 . . .
31 . . .
lle5
32 .l:tc6
.Uxa5
.l:te6
If 28 . . . '1iie 6, then 29 f4 �c6 30 Si.g4+ is decisive.
33 .Ub6! Accu racy to the end! After 33 .l:!.xa6? llc5 the c3-pawn would have been lost.
29 .i.f1 ! Not 29 Si.xa6? .i.b3. It is also not possible to win a second pawn in the variation 29 .Uxd5?! .Uxe2 30 'iii>f 1 l:!.a2 31 .l:!.c5 c6 .
33 . . .
.i.c2
34 llxa6
.l:tc5
35 lla3
.U.d5
36 f3
Itd1
37 'liif2
llc1
38 h4
i.g6
29 . . .
Si.b3
39 Si.c4
'l!ie7
30 lld7+
cJi>f8
40 g4
h6
31 .l::tx c7 White has increased his material advan tage. Now 31 . . . .Ue1 32 f3 lla 1 33 .l:!.c5 is hopeless for Black.
41 i.d5 With his last few moves Wh ite has strength· ened his position to the utmost, and fu rther resistance is pointless. Black resigned .
CtJ
1 99
Artur Yusupov, Mark Dvoretsky
Analys i s of a Game
Dchampionship Vasya
voretsky. I n the 1 990 world u nder- 1 4 Emelin fi nished second , behind only the famous J u d it Polgar. He annotated in deta i l one of his games, played agai nst the Roman i a n player Gabriel Schwa rzma n . Today we are going to analyse this game together. Why this game in particular? Wel l , fi rstly, it is very i nteresti ng to deal with a genui nely conscientious analysis . You know, when you read a phrase l i ke 'such-and-such a move ca me i nto consideration ' , it says noth i n g . Yes, i t no doubt came i nto consideration . It is a qu ite d ifferent matter, if the com mentator tries to investigate what was correct, and what was wrong. One can agree with Emel i n 's assertions or d ispute them , but here at least there is someth ing to th i n k about. Secondly, it fits i n well with the basic theme of our session . From the open i n g , play went directly into a favourable ending for Wh ite . The problem of the tech n ical conversion of his adva ntage faced Emelin throughout the enti re game.
8 cxd4
f6
9 exf6
lt:Jxf6
1 0 ttJf3
i.. d 6
11 0-0
'Wic7
1 2 �g5
0-0
1 3 il.h4 D. Note the open ing va riati o n . Wh ite has chosen one of the most dangerous plans against the system chosen by his opponent. In particular: without the inclusion of the moves 1 2 lt:Jc3 a6. I fi rst saw it in the game Zapata-Chern i n from the I nterzonal Tou rna ment (Su botica 1 987). Wh ite is th reatening the advantageous exchange of the dark-sq uare bishops by 1 4 il.g3 , for example: 1 3 . . . lt:Jg4 1 4 .tg3 (but not 1 4 h3? .l:i.xf3 ! ) . The sta ndard reaction 1 3 . . . ttJh5 is d u bious i n view of 14 'Wic2 , when 14 . . . g6? 1 5 .txg6! hxg6 1 6 'ikxg6+ lt:Jg7 1 7 lt:Jg5 is bad for Black. All that remains is the central freeing advance . . . e6-e5, but then Black is saddled with a n isolated d5-pawn , wh ich in the approach ing endgame will become a weakness. 13 . . .
eS
Emelin - Schwarzman
1 4 dxeS
lt:JxeS
Fond d u Lac 1 990
1 5 lt:Jxe5
.txeS
French Defence
1 6 �g3
�xg3
1 e4
e6
2 d4
dS
3 ttJd2
tt:if6
4 e5
ttJfd7
5 c3
cS
6 �d3
lt:Jc6
7 lt:Je2
cxd4
Emel i n . In one of the previous rounds of the world championship I reached the same position . My opponent D.Zifroni played 1 6 . . . �g4 . He excha nged on e2 and I was soon able to press on the d 5-pawn . 1 7 'Wib3 ( D : 1 7 .l:i.c1 'Wid6 1 8 f3 i.. d 7 1 9 'Wid2 with the th reat of 20 f4 was strong) 17 ... .txe2 18 il.xe2 �xg3 19 hxg3 l:!.ac8
200
w
Analysis of a Game
(D: 1 9 . . JlVb6 ! ? ) 20 ..if3
Here my opponent sacrificed a pawn , but d id not gain sufficient compensation. 20 . . .'it'c4 2 1 1\Vxb7 �f7 22 'ii' b 3 "it'xb3 23 axb3 l:!.c2 24 l:!.ab1 l:!.b7 25 l:!.fe1 ! I ntending 26 l:!.e3 ; Black can not take on b3 because of .lii.d 1 . 25 . . . l:!.d2 26 .l:i.ed 1 .l:i.xd 1 + 27 ..ixd 1 ltJe4 Here I went wrong: 28 i.g4? I should have played 28 l:.c1 ltJd2 29 l:.c3 l'!e7 30 .ig4 .l:Ie 1 + 31 '1t>h2 lL'lf1 + 32 'it>h3 'it>f7 33 i.f5 g6 34 l:.c7+ 'it>f6 35 i.d3 with an obvious advantage . Yusupov. Why did you p l a y d ifferently i n t h e game, a n d what was t h e reason for the mistake? E. I thought that th is was better, but in my calculations I simply overlooked some el ementary deta i l .
1 977), Wh ite captu red on g3 with his kn ight, which is somewhat weaker. It was 1 7 hxg3! that at one time I analysed with Yusupov, and I remember that we did not fi nd a clear cut way to eq ual ise. Yu . Probably B lack should avoid further exchanges and keep play i n the middlegame. Say, 1 7 . . . 1Ld7 and then . . . �d6 or even 1 7 . . . 1\Ve5! ? , hoping if possible to develop an attack by . . . ltJg4 . Here too Wh ite's position is preferable. But it would appear that in the endgame h i s advantage is g reater, and in add ition the opponent has no chances of creati ng cou nterplay. 17 . . .
�b6
1 8 �b3
'*'xb3
1 9 axb3
.lii. d 7
E . 1 9 . . . a5 20 b4 1eads to the loss of a pawn, for example: 20 . . . b6 21 bxa5 bxa5 (21 . . l:i.xa5 22 l:!.xa5 bxa5 23 .tf.a 1 ltJg4 24 f4) 22 b4 a4 23 ltJc3 .lii. d 7 24 b5 l:.fb8? ( D : after 24 a3 things are not so simple) 25 l:.xa4 l:.xa4 26 lbxa4 , and 26 . . . 1i.xb5? fails to 27 .l:i.b1 . .
1 7 hxg3! (see diagram)
D. Strangely enoug h , this natu ral recaptu re would appear to be a novelty! Both in the afore-mentioned Zapata-Chern i n encoun ter, and i n two earl ier games which I managed to d iscover, played by Rad ulov and Smyslov against Vaganian (Len ingrad
. . .
20 b4! E. I prevent . . a7-a 5. Yu . This is an importa nt point. If Black were able to place h i s pawn on a5 u n p u n ished , he would solve h i s problems. 20 . . .
a6
ttJ
Analysis of a Game
E. The opponent is afraid that, by playing b4-b5 , I will fix his pawn on a7. G iven the opportun ity, he i ntends to exchange the bishops on b5. It was possible to defend differently: 20 . . . l::Ifc8 , then . . . �c7 and . . . b7b6 , but a l l the same this would not h ave changed the evalu ation of the positi o n. Yu . Don' t rus h . I n the endgame it is always important how the pawns a re a rranged . Show us the variations that you analysed at home. E. 20 .. J�fc8 21 f3 .l:Xc7 22 �f2 b6 .
201
tem pting fi rst to strengthen the position on the kingside: 29 g4. H owever, the choice here is a matter of taste. Let's just go back a l ittle, to the position after 23 l:ta6 . Black also has another idea 23 . . . l:tf8 ! ? (instead of 2 3 . . . .1i.c8) . It is desir able to defend the a7-pawn with the rooks from the side. Of cou rse, here too problems remain : 24 l:tfa 1 lt:Jg4+ 2 5 Wg 1 lt:Je5 26 �xa7 �xa7 27 l:txa7 lt:Jxd3 28 l::Ix d7 lt:Jxb4. Wh ite stil l stands better - h i s rook is more active, and the opponent has more pawn weaknesses . But perhaps this is how B lack should have defended? 21 lt:Jd4 D. Wh ite blockades the isolated pawn . But, as Bent Larsen remarked i n his time, one should always also consider the more d i rect plan - the attempt to captu re it. I n the given i n sta nce: 21 l:ta5!? followed by .l:!.d 1 and lt:Jf4 . 21 . . .
llac8
22 f3
l:r.fe8
23 �f2
.l:i.eS
23 .l:i.a6 ..tc8 24 .l:i.a3 a5 25 .l:i.fa 1 .l:i.ca7 (25 . . . .l:i.b8 2 6 bxa5 bxa5 2 7 .l:i. 1 a2 .l:i.a7 2 8 .l:i.xa5 .Mxa5 29 l:.xa5 .Uxb2 30 l:.a8 and wins) 26 'it>e3 Si.d7 27 'it>d4 'it>f7 28 lZ'lc3 'it>e6 29 i.b5! - after the exchange of bishops it is not clear how to defend the pawn weaknesses . D. I n the variation found by Emelin there a re several instructive points as rega rds the tech n ique of converting a n advantage. For example, the timely centralisation of the king , and the transformation of a n advan tage at the end (the exchange of the opponent's passive bishop for the sake of 'processing' his pawns). 2 3 .l:i.a6 ! is a typica l move . The rook ca n be placed immediately on a3, but it is u sefu l fi rst to l u re the black bishop to a n i nferior square . Yu . It is not essential to p l a y 29 i.b5. It is
24 .Mfe1 ? E. I wanted to play my king to the centre . But this move is not the best; 24 l:tfc 1 ! was stronger. If 24 . . . l:tee8 , then simply 25 l:tc5 with the advantage . The attempt to gain
202
�
Analysis of a Game
counterplay with 24 . . . l:i.f8?! does not suc ceed . Wh ite repl ies 25 J::!. c7 . The check on g4 clearly does not g ive anyth i ng , and 25 . . . .ib5 26 ltJxb5 axb5 27 l:txb7 ltJe4+ 28 �g 1 ltJxg3 29 l:i.aa7 l:tg5 30 �xb5 is also bad . If 25 . . . �c8 there follows 26 l:i.ac1 , then the king retreats to g 1 , and it is not clear why Black has allowed the rook onto the 7th rank. Yu . Here a simple principle operates: i n the endgame the open fi le which is fu rther from the king is more important (in the middlegame it is just the opposite). Therefore Wh ite should have fought for the c-fi le, and not exchanged the rook on e5, which is rather stupidly placed . 24 . . .
.i:lxe1
25 'it>xe1
'it>f7
26 �d2
a rrange the pawns . The fate of the game may depend on the pawn structu re chosen by Black. If one proceeds, so to speak, from strictly structu ral considerations, then 26 . . . h5!? de serves serious considerati o n . For Wh ite it would be usefu l to stretch the opponent's defences and create a target on the kingside. In this respect the g3-g4 advance is very u n pleasant. The move . . . h 7-h5 prevents it. After . . . h 7-h6 Black has more problems in the knight endgame - after the exchange of bishops it will be hard to d rive the kn ight from f5 . P robably Wh ite should h ave advanced his pawn to g4 on the previous move , instead of 26 Wd2 . E. I n the event of 26 . . . h 5 I simply strengthen my position by 27 .l::!. e 1 with the th reat of 28 lle5 . Yu . Yes, y o u a re suggesti ng t h e m ost natural pla n . Let's have a look. Black can probably offer the exchange of rooks by 27 . . . l:r.e8 . E. Then I play 28 l:i.c1 , a n d if 28 . . . �c8 29 .l:l.xc8 .ixc8 30 .if5 . D. This is not dangerous i n view of 30 . . . �xf5 3 1 ltJxf5 ltJe8 an d then 32 . . . '1t>e6. P robably Wh ite shou l d n 't exchange on c8 29 �c5 ! is stronger. If 29 . . . We7 , then 30 .if5 now gains in strength . Black should con sider 29 . . . g 5 ! ? , removi ng his g7-pawn from a possible attack.
26 . . .
g6?!
D. Amusingly, Black has placed all his pawns on squares of the colour of his own bishop. Do you remember that at the previous session of the school we analysed the game Polugayevsky-Mecking (Mar del Plata 1 97 1 )? There Mecking defended i n the same way, and this did not turn out wel l . Yu . The position i s worthy of more thorough consideration. Here we encou nter a very important endgame problem - how to
Yu . Vasya analysed . . . h 7-h6. Let's check his analysis. E. If 26 . . . h 6, then after 27 g4 rt;e? I exchange bishops on f5 . The knight reaches f5, from where it can not be d riven away. Sooner or later Wh ite will get to the weak g? or b7-pawns. Therefore my opponent de cided to cover the f5-sq ua re immediately. D. I s it real ly all so clear? I n you r notes to the game you give the variation 28 �f5 .ixf5 29 ltJxf5+ Wf8 30 Wd3 . Let's conti nue it:
ttJ
Analysis of a Game
30 . . . .Uc4 31 b5 tt:'ld7! - Black gains cou nter play. Besides, the exchange on f5 is not essential - there is also the i mmed iate 28 . . . .Uc4 ! . Yu . I n itself the exchange o f bishops does not yet win the game, althoug h it creates dangerous threats . It also has d rawbacks vul nerable points appear in Wh ite's position ; for example, the c4-square i s wea kened .
203
rather more accu rately. Say, 28 b3 �d6 29 i.f5 . Black has to move his knight from f6 (it is not doing anyth i n g there ) , but where to? Let us sum up. After both 26 . . . h6 and 26 . . . h5 Wh ite reta i n s the better chances, but Black can defe n d . It seems to me, that out of all the possible pawn moves on the kingside, he chose the least successfu l .
D. Black has to reply 29 . . . .l:!.e8 30 .ti.c1 (30 .ti.xe8 tt:'lxe8) 30 . . . .l::!. c8 .
Note that i n m a n y variations t h e defensive plan i nvolves playing the king to the centre , to d6, or exploiting the open c-file. All these resou rces appeared as a result of the exchange of the 'wrong' rook on the 24th move!
E. But then 3 1 .l::!. xc8 i.xc8 32 i.f5 .
N ow let's retu rn to the game.
E. Wh ite should probably play more accu rately. I suggest 28 .l:!.e 1 + �d6 29 b3. The th reat of 30 �f5 is renewed .
D. Never m i n d , for the moment there is a defence: 32 . . . i.d7 33 i.xd7 'it>xd7 34 tt:'lf5 tt:'le8 .
27 g4
tt:'le8
E. After 35 'it>d3 Wh ite has an obvious advantage.
Yu . On f6 the knight has no futu re - it must be moved from there. The only question is whether to do this immed iately, or fi rst prevent g4-g5.
D. Black's position is i ndeed u npleasant, but he still has some cou nterplay. 35 . . . c6 suggests itself, with the i ntention of attack ing the wh ite pawns on the b-file.
E. Black would have d o n e better t o choose 27 . . . h6. O n h 7 the pawn is weaker than on h6. Then I was intending to play 28 .ti.h 1 'it>g7 29 tt:'lb3.
Yu . It transpires that the move b2-b3 had not only virtues! D . The exchange of bishops on f5 is a double-edged decision , since Black's 'bad' bishop is exchanged. Of cou rse, i n return Wh ite gains some important sq ua res and attacks the enemy pawns. But if Black can parry the d i rect th reats, h i s position may be improved . E. There is one more try. I will not g ive a check on e 1 , but play 28 tt:'lb3. Yu . We seem to have tal ked you out of the bishop exchange. Very wel l , let's check this. For the moment Black's actions a re obvious: 28 .. .d6 29 tt:'lc5 i.c6 , and if 30 .t:!.e 1 , then 30 . . . �e8 . If 30 i.g6 I play 30 . . . l:tc7 , i n order to have the move . . . .ti.e 7 . Even s o , the exchange o f bishops on f5 is a good idea ; only, it must be put i nto p ractice
If 29 . . . .Ue8 there follows 30 tt:'lc5 �c8 (30 . . . �c6 is bad in view of 3 1 .l:!.c1 .t!.c8 32 tt:'lxa6 bxa6 33 i.xa6 �c7 34 b5) 31 �c3 tt:'ld7 32 �d4 . In the event of 32 . . . ttJxc5 33 bxc5 i.e6 34 .l::!.e 1 the position is completely
204
�
Analysis of a Game
won (b2-b4 , l:!.e5 , i.. d 3-c2-b3). And if 32 . . . tt::lf6 , then 33 l:!.c1 followed by tt:Ja4, and the rook invades on the c-file. Yu . It is very obvious that Wh ite's advan tage has sharply increased . But active defence by Black should also be consid ered : 32 . . . tt:Je5 with the th reat of 33 . . . tt:Jc6 + . E. T h e check can b e prevented b y 33 b5 ! . Yu . Yes, after 3 3 . . . tt:Jxd3 34 tt:Jxd3 axb5 35 �e 1 Wh ite has a decisive advantage. What else ca n be devised? Let's try 33 . . . b6 ! ? 34 tt:Jxa6 tt:Jxd3 35 'it>xd3 �d7. Now 36 'it>d2 �xb5 37 tt:Jc7 l:!.e2+ is pointless. In the event of 36 'it>d4 the pawn ca n not be take n , b u t 3 6 . . . �e2 is possible. U nexpected ly Black has gai ned cou nterplay. All the time Wh ite has to reckon with active possibil ities such as th is. D. Wh ite stil l retains a g reat advantage by 36 tt::l c7 .l::i. c8 37 l:!.c1 i.. x b5+ 38 'it>d4 or 38 'it>d2 . A check on e6 is th reatened , and the d5-pawn is under attack. But if he doesn't want to go in for complications, he ca n simply play 32 tt:Jxd7 (instead of 32 'it>d4) 32 . . . i..x d7 33 'it>d4 . E. Another set-up is no better for Black 29 . . . .l:tc7 30 tt:Jc5 i.. c8 3 1 'it>e3 b6 32 tt::l a 4 . . . D . Stop, stop, you ' re overlooking 3 1 . . . a5! . Yu . I n add ition Wh ite has to reckon with 30 . . . d4 !? (instead of 30 . . . i.. c8 ) . 31 . . . tt:Jd5 is threatened . D. Remember: earlier, in the analysis of 26 . . . h6, Vasya underestimated the rook move to c4 , wh ich gave Black excellent counter-chances. When you sta nd better in an endgame, you must all the time keep an eye out for sudden activity by you r oppo nent. I th in k it is typical of Vasya to underestimate his opponent's possibilities. This is dangerous, and is l iable to cost many poi nts, especially when trying to convert an advantage. You overlook something - im med iately cou nterplay flares u p , and of your advantage noth ing remains.
E. If 30 . . . d4, then 3 1 l:!.e 1 tt:Jd5 32 lle4 is possible. Yu . Black is forced to reply 32 . . . tt:Jxb4 33 .l:i.xd4 tt:Jxd3 . I would exchange pawns - this is an achievement for Black. 33 .l:te7+! Wf6 34 .l::i. x d7 .l:!.xc5 is more dangerous for him. The rook ending after 35 .ll x b7 tt:Jxd3 36 'it>xd3 is, of cou rse, i nferior, but by no means defi n itely lost. D . And yet a nother plan of defence should be examined: 29 . . . .i.b5 ! ? . For example, 30 tt:Jc5 i.. x d3 31 'it>xd3 a5. E. Then 32 tt:Je6+ 'it>f7 33 tt::ld 4 . D. Of cou rse, after 33 . . . axb4 34 .llx h6 the position favou rs Wh ite, but 34 . . . .l:!.c1 retains some cou nterplay. True, after 3 1 . . . a5?! there is a far more u npleasant reply: 32 l:Ic1 ! . Therefore Black should try 31 . . . b6!? 32 tt:Jxa6 h 5 33 gxh5 tt::lx h5 or 33 g5 tt::l h 7 34 f4 tt::lf8 with some cou nterplay. I n difficult situations it is someti mes worth defending in this way - sharply change the pattern of the play, and go i n for material or positional concessions for the sake of activating you r forces. Wh ite ca n double the opponent's pawns : 30 i.. x b5 axb5 31 tt::lc 5. I had i n mind 3 1 . . . b 6 32 tt::le 6+ 'it>f7 33 tt::l d 4 .l:tc4 34 'it>d3 h5. Yu . Unfo rtu nately, after 35 b3! Wh ite has g reat advantage .
a
D . Yes, that's true. B u t th is means that the best p l an of defe nce is nevertheless 29 . . . .l:tc7 ! . I have some dou bts about 29 tt::l b 3. Should the knight be moved from the excellent square d4? In my view, consideration should be g iven to 29 .l:te 1 'it>f7 30 .l:te5 .l:te8 (3 1 g5 was th reatened ) 3 1 .l:txe8 and 32 'it>e3 . Yu . Whatever d ifficulties Black would have subseq uently faced , it is clear that 27 . . . h6 should have been played . The prospect of a kingside bind by g4-g5 is just too u npleas ant.
Analysis of a Game
l2J
205
D . It is good that such a n a nalysis has been made! It would be simplest to stop here and say 'Wh ite has the adva ntage ' . Yes, the advantage , but is it sufficient for a win? I n over-the-board situations there i s not usu ally any particular point i n seeking an answer to this q uestion - it is sufficient to u nderstand whether o ur position has im proved or deteriorated, and whether we have extracted the maxi m u m possible. But when there a rises a position which can be eval uated exactly, you should endeavour in analysis to establish the truth . 28 .l:ta5? ! E. I should first have played 28 g5! , fixing the h7-paw n . And then thought where to put the rook: manoeuvre it to c5 or place it on h1 . 28 . . .
�e6
E. Another possibil ity is 28 . . . tLlc7 . Then 29 g5 rJ;,;e7 , and here Wh ite does best to retreat his rook to a1 with the th reat of 31 .Uh 1 . If he plays the i naccu rate 30 .l:lc5 ? ! , then after 30 . . . rJ;;d 6 31 .Uc1 tLle6 ( 3 1 . . . 'it>e5 32 rJ;; e 3 tLle6 33 f4+ ! , and 33 . . . tLlxf4? 34 tLlf3+ is not possible) 32 .Uxc8 .i.xc8 33 tLlxe6 .i.xe6 this leads to a won bishop ending.
34 rJ;; e 3 .i.f5 35 �e2 'it>e5 36 f4+ 'it>d6 37 .i.f3 b6 E. The pawns should be moved off the light squares. 38 'it>d4 .i.e6 39 g3 a5 40 bxa5 bxa5 Now I must seize control of the h 3-c8 diagonal with my bishop and beg i n adva nc ing my kingside pawns. 41 .i.g2 (zugzwa n g) 41 . . . .i.f7 42 .i.h3 .i.e8 43 .i.c8 Yu . It would be desirable for Black to d islodge the bishop from c8 by 43 . . . 'it>c7 , but then there fol lows 44 �e6. If only this same position could be obtained with the bishop on f7 . . . But I don't see how this can be achieved . D. If 42 . . . .i.g8 (instead of 42 . . . .i.e8 ), then 43 f5! . 43 . . . .i.f7 E. The opponent has to reckon with f4-f5 . For example, if 43 . . . .i.a4, then 44 f5 .i.c2 45 f6 .i.b3 46 f7 rJ;,;e7 47 �e6 and 48 �xd5 is decisive . 44 g4 .i.e8 45 .i.b7 .i.f7 After 45 . . . .i.d7 46 .i.xd5 .i.xg4 4 7 �g8 Black loses a pawn (if 47 . . . rJ;,;e7, then 48 'it>c5 is decisive ) .
Yu . Here you have a very deep and interesting analysis. Please show us it.
46 f5 � g 8 47 � a6 .i. f7 48 .i.d3 .i.e8 49 .i.b1 .i.f7 Bad is 49 . . . a4 50 .i.c2 with zugzwa n g .
206
�
Analysis of a Game
50 i.a2 i.g8 51 .tb3 i..f7 52 .ta4 Again zugzwang. 52 . . . i.g8 53 fxg6 (53 i.. e 8 '3;e7) 53 . . . hxg6 54 i.e8 i.. e6 (54 . . . i.. h 7 55 i.f7) 55 i.xg6 i..xg4 56 Ji..f7 Ji..f3 Now 57 g6 is prematu re : 57 . . . i.h5 58 i.e8 i.g4 59 g7 i.e6 60 i.g6 i.g8 61 i.f5 '3;e7 62 �e5 d4! with a d raw. 57 i.g8! i.e4 58 b3
Black's objective is to g ive u p h i s bishop for the g-paw n . Wh ite has two moves: 61 i.xd5 and 6 1 i.f5 . A) 6 1 i.f5 i.xf5 (6 1 . . . �xb3 62 g6) 62 �xf5 d4 - the pawns promote simu lta neously. B ) 6 1 i.xd5 i.c2 (or 6 1 . . . i.g6 62 �f6 i.c2), and how can Wh ite improve his position? D . Perh a ps instead of 59 We5 Wh ite should change pla n : 59 i.f7 and 60 g6. After all, now the black bishop does not manage to go via f3 to h 5 . I n the event of 59 . . .'it>b5 I had in mind 60 i.xd5 i.g6 61 i.e4 i.f7 62 �c3 'it>c5 63 g6 i.e6 64 i.d3 and 65 i.c4 . E. 60 g6 i.xg6 6 1 i.xg6 �b4 (6 1 . . . a4 62 i.e8+ ) 62 i.c2 is even simpler. 60 . . . �b4 61 g7 i.h7 62 i.xd5 is completely hopeless the wh ite king goes to h 6 . Yu . Yes, that's true. But I ca n also change the plan of defence. If 59 i.f7 I play 59 . . . 'it>d6 ! 60 g6 �e7 61 �e5 ..tc2 with a d raw.
58 . . . i.c2 (58 . . . i.f3 59 g6; 58 . . . �c6 59 �e5 with the th reat of Ji.. g8-e6-f5) 59 i.xd5 a4 60 bxa4 Ji.. xa4 61 g6 i.c2 62 g7 i.h7 63 i.a2 '3;e7 64 'it>e5 '3;e8 65 '3;f6, and Wh ite wins. D. A remarkable analysis. The wh ite bishop marches around the entire board . The length of the main variation is more than 30 moves! Is it really all correct? In one of his a rticles Bent Larsen asserted that long variations always have some mistake in the m ; when he sees them, it awakens i n him the i n stinct of a killer, a striving to immed iately bury the entire analysis. Yu . Let's return to the position after 58 b3. The white b-pawn is vulnerable - this is suspicious. Since everything else loses, let's try allowing the wh ite king to go to e5. 58 . . . 'it>c6! 59 'it>e5 'it>c5 60 i.e6 'it>b4 ! .
It appears that here mutual zugzwang positions beg i n to a rise. Wh ite ca n try 59 i.e6 (seeing as after 59 . . . 'it>b5 60 i.xd5 we have fou n d a w i n ) 59 . . . 'it>d6 60 i.f7 . D. Black replies 60 . . . i.f3 . We have reached a position wh ich we a l ready had after the 56th move, only the wh ite pawn has moved to b3. Yu . So, as yet we have n 't fou n d a win. It has to be investigated whether Wh ite's plan can be improved . Vasya , please do this at home, to complete you r analysis. D . Later Erne/in found a simple improve ment. Let us return to the position after Black 's 56th move. (see diagram)
In the variation examined by him 57 g6 1i.h5 58 .tea ..tg4 59 g7 ii.e6 60 ii.g6 i.gB 61 ii.f5! 'it>e7 62 �e5 d4! White does not capture the pawn, but makes a waiting move with his bishop (63 i.c2 or 63 i.e4), and the opponent finds himself in zugzwang.
ltJ
Analysis of a Game
207
D . I was watch ing this game when it was played . From the side, of cou rse, you don't delve i nto details, but some general impres sions nevertheless rem a i n . It seemed to me that the wh ite rook had strayed off cou rse and was cramped among the black pieces and pawns, as a result of which the opponent later acq u i red excellent saving chances. If Black did not h ave a knight, the rook would be excellently placed on b6, tying the enemy rook to the defence of the b7-pawn . But the knight on d6 seriously restricts the activity of the wh ite rook. Now we will contin u e the analysis of the game. 29 b5? E . Here I was over-hasty. Aga i n I should have fixed the enemy pawn s by 29 g 5 ! . Yu . You began action on t h e queenside, without completing you r work on the kingside. E . I miscalculated : I considered 29 . . . axb5 30 .l:i.xb5 tt:'Jd6 3 1 l:tb6 �e7 and though that I would win a pawn by 32 tt:'Jb5. I overlooked the reply 32 . . . l:rc6 . Yu . Yes , and after 32 . . . tt:'Jxb5 a pawn is not lost (33 lixb7+? tt:'Jc? ) . 29 . . .
axb5
30 .l:!.xb5
tt:'Jd6
3 1 .l::t a 5! was m uch stronger. The rook goes either to a?, or via a1 to h 1 . First, of cou rse, it will be necessary to cover the c4-square by playing b2-b3. 3 1 . . .lk4 32 tt:'Jc2 is pointless, while i n the event of 31 . . . tt:'Jc4+ 32 li.xc4 l:txc4 33 �d3 ( i ntending 34 :b5) Wh ite has a n undisputed advantage. 31 . . .
cJ;; e 7
32 g5
..td7
33 'it>e3
.)lc6
D. Schwarzman conducts the entire game very passively. I would have preferred 33 . . . l:rc1 !? . The rook should pester the opponent, not allowing him to calmly strengthen h i s positi o n . Rook activity is one of the important principles of playing end ings. E . Wh ite would have replied 34 tt:'Je2 , prepa ring �d4 and tt:'Jf4 . 34 . . . l:rd 1 is not possible because of 35 tt:'Jc3. D. Fi rstly, th is is not so in view of 35 . . . d4+ ! , when 3 6 cJ;;x d4 tt:'Jf5+ leads t o a d raw. I n additio n , 3 4 . . .l�h 1 ! 3 5 �d4 ..tc6 3 6 tt:'Jf4 l:!.d 1 or 36 tt:'Jc3 .l:.h4+ (36 . . . .l:i.h2) is possible. You r pieces a re nicely placed , b u t it is not easy to make prog ress - the black rook h inders this. E . The check on h4 ca n be prevented by 36 f4.
31 .l:!.b6?
D . Then , say, 36 . . . .l:!.d 1 , and Wh ite does not have 37 tt:'Jc3? tt:'Jf5+.
208
�
Analysis of a Game
Yu . Here it is not a matter of specific moves. It is clear that Wh ite has strayed from the correct cou rse . His rook on b6 is i nactive , merely attacking the b7-pawn , which is secu rely defended by the m i nor pieces. If the rook had been on a 1 , none of this counterplay would have arise n ; on the contrary, it is the wh ite rook which would have created th reats from h1 or e 1 . An advantage is usually accu mulated l ittle by-little, but it can also be lost l ittle-by-l ittle . Thus here Wh ite h a s lost t h e g reater p a rt of his advantage as a result of such a 'trifle' as the poor position of his rook. I n this ending the rooks are the strongest pieces, and their activity is of enormous sign ifica nce . Both players u nderestimated the i mportance of this factor. E. It is not essential to play 35 �d4 - the rook can be brought out via b4 . D. But then you are forced to lose ti me. Besides, 'it>d4 forces the black bishop to take up a passive position on c6 . Whereas i n the event o f 3 5 l:!.b4 you constantly have to reckon with an exchange of minor pieces on f5.
D. You see, with your roo k on the a-file the bishop wou l d n 't h ave bothered you at all. Whereas here the bishop restricts the rook. But even so, you shouldn't have excha nged it. 34 . . .
l:!.xc6?
E. Good d rawing chances were offered by 34 . . . bxc6 ! . After 35 'it>d4 the most accu rate reply is 35 . . Jlc7 ! . 35 . . . 'it>d7 is weaker: 36 'it>c5 ( 3 6 'it>e5 l:!.e8+ 37 'it>f6?? lle7 and the king is in a mating net) 36 . . . l:!.c7 37 l:!.b8 . D. Even so, the king move looks natural - it frees the rook from the defence of the c6pawn . I suggest checking 35 . . . 'it>d7 36 'it>c5 tt::lf7 ! . The enemy king on c5 is too strong Black must try to evict it. If 37 .l:tb7+ , then 37 .. Jk7, while if 37 f4 1 reply 37 . . . tt::l d 8 38 f5 'it>c7 (or 38 . . . .l:ta8). Wh ite retai n s the better chances, but the play is not just in one d i rection , and the situation becomes rather tense. Yu . Perhaps Wh ite should nevertheless exchange rooks: 37 .l::I b 7+ llc7 38 l:!.xc7+ �xc7 39 f4 . D. I must play my knight to b7. But not necessarily via d8 - I will try 39 . . . tt::ld 6, restra i n i n g f4-f5 . Yu . Then 40 g4 tt::l b 7 + 4 1 'it>d4 'it>d6 42 f5 . D. The g-pawn has to be given u p , but in return Black ca n become active in the centre : 42 . . . c5+ 43 'it>e3 c4 44 fxg6 hxg6 45 ..txg6 'it>e5 followed by . . . d5-d4+. If he can manage to exchange on the queenside, the d raw will be not far off. E. I n the minor piece endgame I also considered a nother defensive idea: at the point when f4-f5 is played , to answer . . tt::lf7 , captu re on g5, and block the remaining wh ite pawn with the knight. .
34 tt::lx c6+? E. I should probably have withd rawn my rook. I was simply tired of playing against this bishop and I decided to exchange it.
Yu . A good pla n . Apparently Black does i ndeed have good d rawing chances. E. I also do not see how Wh ite can win after
CZJ
Analysis of a Game
209
35 . . . l:i.c7 . For example: 36 l:tb8 .l:tc8 37 l:txc8 tt:Jxc8 38 �c5 �d7 39 f4 li:Jd6 40 b4 xd5? l:xc2 ! is not possible. The result of the game becomes problematic. With 44 . . . .l:':.e2? the opponent really played i nto you r hands, al lowi ng you r to activate you r bishop. Had it not been for his ti me-trouble, I th i n k you would have had to pay for the positional errors made earlier: 28 .l::!. a 5?, 3 1 .l:!.b6? and 34 tt::ixc6?. 45 i.d3 46 .l:!.xh7
.l::!. x b2
46 . . .
b6+
E. 46 . . . lt:ie4+ 47 �xe4 dxe4 could also have been tried , but I have time to capture the g6-pawn and stop the passed e-pawn. For example: 48 .l:!.h6 e3 49 :!.xg6+ 'it>f7 50 .l:!.f6+ 'it>e 7 51 f5 .l:!.g2 52 .l:te6+ 'it>f7 53 g6+ �g7 54 .l:!.xe3 .l:!.xg4 55 .l:!.e7+ �f6 56 .l:!.f7+ 'it>e5 57 g7 . D. Wh ite adva nced his pawns with gain of tem p i , exploiti ng the position of the enemy king . 49 . . . 'it>d7 50 f5 .l:!.g2 should be checked. And i n stead of 52 . . . 'it>f7 Black had the more tenacious 52 . . . 'it>f8 . Perhaps here too he is lost, but perhaps not. Yu . This was certainly Black's last chance. 47 Wc6
tt::i c 8
48 f5+
'it>e5
49 fxg6
�b3
50 i.f5
.l:tc3+
51 'i!id7
b5
52 g7
tt::i b 6+
53 'it>e8
.l:!.a3
54 g8� Black resig ned . D. Wel l , what are you r impressions? Yu . The endgame turned out to be rather instructive, and in it there were several interesting poi nts. The first problem which both players en cou ntered was how to a rrange their pawns . First there w a s a clash on t h e queenside. With b3-b4 Wh ite threatened to cramp his opponent, and the latter did not find anything better than to reply . . . a7-a6. In principle, with a lig ht-squa re bishop it would have been better to keep the pawns on dark squares. Then a similar problem arose with the kingside pawns. Black should certa inly have prevented the activation of the wh ite pawns with g 3-g4 , by playing . . . h 7-h5 . But he
Analysis of a Game
chose what was probably the worst set-up and allowed h imself to be cramped . There was an interesting point i nvolving the exchange of rooks. It is importa nt to remem ber than in the endgame you r rook should aim to occupy a fi le which is remote from the enemy king , so that it does not prevent a n invasion on t h i s fi le. The game could have turned i nto a g raphic demonstration of the principle of two weak nesses, but Vasya did not fix in time the second weakness on the kingside by g4-g5 (the fi rst weakness is the isolated pawn in the centre ) . If he had done this before playing b4-b5 , he would certainly have stretched the opponent's defences more convincingly. At the same time he violated the principle 'do not h u rry ' , which demands that the position should be improved as much as possible before turn i ng to active measu res changing the character of the play. The main theme of the fu rther cou rse of the game was the activity of the rooks, which is extremely important not only i n rook end ings. Wh ite took his rook to b6, where it was hardly doing a nyth ing at a l l . In tu rn , Black delayed the activation of his rook. As usually occu rs i n the playing of endings, on several occasions there was the need to assess the advisabil ity of various piece exchanges. And by no means always did the two players act correctly. A strong impression was made by the analysis of the bishop endgame. And it doesn't matter that in it we discovered a vul nerable place. I n the solving of compli cated problems, such errors are practically i nevitable. In general the commenta ry was very in-
4J
21 1
formative , but I gai ned the impression that towards the end Vasya became a l ittle tired , and stopped d rawing attention to resou rces for the opponent. I n cidentally, i n positions of this type, when you have a slight adva ntage and the opponent has no cou nterplay, it is very important to watch for h i s possible activity, and not al low h i m to i n itiative double-edged clashes. Excellent examples of this can be found in the games of Anatoly Karpov. There is no way that he would have allowed the black rook to go to c1 . D. I n the g iven instance the underestima tion of the opponent's possibil ities was seen mainly i n the variations and less i n the game itself, possibly because the opponent played passively. But in other games from the same tou rnament this deficiency g reatly h i ndered Emel i n . Remember, for example, his game agai nst Zifro n i , the fi rst pa rt of which we have see n . A clearly better ending with an extra pawn was even lost! I n the last rou n d , after excellently outplaying his opponent, Vasya blu ndered , missed a win , and as a result he fi n ished half a point behind J udit Polgar. When I was watch ing the game, I gai ned the impression that Wh ite was trying to convert his adva ntage in a non-method ical way. But the impression could have been fa ulty, and to check it I found it very i nteresting to look at his analysis . Now we have seen that White did indeed make a number of positional errors. I n my view, the conversion of an adva ntage is one of the weakest aspects of Vasya's play, as usually happens with players who are incli ned to underestimate their opponent's resou rces . He should do some serious work on this problem.
212
� PART IV Artur Yusupov
From Games by P u pi ls of the School
Aprevious books, one of the most impor
s we have already mentioned i n our
tant resou rces for the improvement of a player is a serious analysis of his own games. The examples g iven below, a n no tated by our pupils, became a topic for discussion at joint or individual lessons. The young players' analyses were critically evalu ated , and the results of these d iscussions form the basis of the present chapter. I hope that the readers will fi nd much that is usefu l and i nteresting in these endings played by young players - they conta i n both success ful decisions, and typical m istakes.
Bai kov - Zviag intsev ( 1 4) Moscow 1 990
Opposite-colour bishops Two examples from the games of Vad i m Zviagi ntsev provide a good add ition t o the chapter on the theory of endi ngs with opposite-colour bishops. (see diagram)
49 .i.xf7+
'iit b4!
Black has to defend passively, si nce 49 . . . 'iit b 2? loses to 50 f4 a4 5 1 e4 a3 52 e5 a2 53 .i.xa2 'iit x a2 54 'iit c4 .i.a3 55 g4 'iit b 2 56 f5 gxf5 57 gxf5 �c2 58 f6 .i.b2 59 f7 .i.a3 60 e6, and Black has no defence agai nst the advance of the king to d7 followed by e6-e7. The resulting situation is rather i nteresting . It is difficult to g ive it a clear eval uation immediately. Wh ite hopes soon to obta i n two con nected passed pawns. On t h e other hand , we know about the strong drawing tendencies of such endings: a m i n i mal
material advantage may prove i nsufficient for a wi n . Let's try to point out the special features of the g iven position . Two details help Black to defend: 1 ) The passed a-pawn may d ivert the white bishop or restrict its mobil ity - thereby it will i nd i rectly defend the kingside pawns which are situated on l ight squares. 2 ) The corner sq uare h8 is i naccessible to the opponent's bishop. This factor enables Black to d raw with a lone king against king, bishop and h-pawn - a n i m porta nt resou rce in many endings. I n principle, it is a l ready possible to guess the fu rther development of events . Wh ite will adva nce his f- and e-pawns, if necessary supporti ng them with the g-pawn . Black
ttJ
From Games by Pupils of the School
must try to halt this advance and ideally set up a blockade on the dark squares. How ever, his king is badly placed and for the moment it is not taking part i n the defence . 50 f4
a4
51 e4 White is intending 52 e5 fol lowed by 'Ote4 , g2-g4 and f4-f5 . 5 1 i.. g 8 would not have given anyth ing in view of 51 . . . a 3 . 51 . . .
i.. g 1 1
A defensive idea which is a l ready familiar to the reader (from the chapter on opposite colour bishops): 'pawns under attack' . 52 h3 52 e5 looks more logica l , but after 52 . . . a3, according to a nalysis by Zviagi ntsev, Black can still hold the position . Let us look at h i s variations.
21 3
breaks through to the g8-sq uare. Black must play 56 . . . '0tc6 ! , approaching the passed pawns with his king. It transpires that even the two con nected passed pawns are insufficient for a w i n . 57 f5 'it d 7 58 'Otf4 'it d 8 59 f6 h6! 60 'Ote4 cotes 61 i.. b 3 'itd8 62 'itd5 (or 62 'itd3 i.. g 5 63 'Otc2 a2 ! ! 64 i.. x a2 i..f4 65 e6 i.. e 5) 62 . . . i.. g 5 63 'Ote6 cotes 64 i.. a 2 i.. h 4 65 i.. b 1 ! ? cotta 66 'itd7 i.. g s 67 'Otc6 'itt? 68 i.. a 2+ cotes 69 i.. b 3 'itd8 70 cotes i.. h 4 (70 . . . '0tc7? 71 f7 .i.e?+ 72 'itd5 and 73 'Ote6 ) 7 1 'Otb4 a2 ! ! 72 i.. x a2 i.. g 3 73 e6 i.. e 5 74 f7 (74 e7+ 'Ote8 ) 74 . . . '0te7 with a n obvious d raw. It is usefu l to note the d iverting pawn sacrifice, which enables Black to create an impreg nable fortress. This typical idea , wh ich occu rred i n o ur exam i nation of Timman's study, is a good illustration of the principle nuances in the position are more important than material.
52 . . .
i.. h 2?!
In the game this move fully justified itself, althoug h Black should have reckoned with the rep ly 53 f5! . If 53 . . . g5 or 53 . . . a3, then 54 'itd4 is u n pleasant. After 53 . . . gxf5 54 exf5 cotes (54 . . . i.. e 5 55 'Ote4 i..f6 56 'itd5 a3 57 'itd6) 55 'Ote4 'Otd6 there follows 56 f6 . Safer was 52 . . . a3 53 e5 cotes , transposing i nto variations considered earlier.
53 h4 h5!? 54 'Otc2 (54 'Ote4 i..f2 55 f5 gxf5+ 56 ..t>xts i..x h4) 54 . . . cotes 55 i.. x g6 i.. h 2 56 i.. x h5 i.. xf4 57 e6 'itd6 58 i..f7 i.. g 3 59 h5 i..f4 60 'Otb 3 i.. c 1 , or 56 e6 'itd 6 57 f 5 i.. g 3 58 i.. x h5 i.. x h4 59 'Otb3 cote s and 60 ... i.. e 7 with a d raw; 53 h3 cotes 54 'Ote4 i.. f2 ! (if 54 . . . h5, then 55 f5 ! is strong) 55 i.. a 2 i.. h 4 56 g4 (56 cotf3? 'itd4 ! ) . Now 56 . . . i.. e 1 ? is bad : 57 f5 i.. h 4 58 f6 i.. g 5 59 i.. b 3 i.. h 4 60 'Otf4 h6 61 f7 .i.e? 62 h4 followed by 63 h5, and the white king
53 'Ote3?!
cotes
54 i.. a 2
a3
55 g4 Better practical chances were promised by 55 'Otf3 and 56 g3 . 55 . . .
cote&!
56 e5 Neither 56 h4 h6! nor 56 g5!? was sufficient for a win. The move i n the game allows Black to simplify the position i m med iately. 56 . . .
g51
57 fxg5
i.. xe5
214
�
From Games by Pupils of the School
58 �e4
�d6
59 �f5
�g 7
60 h4
�e7
61 h5
� c3
62 g6 62 h6 �d2 ! . 62 . . .
h6
63 g5
hxg5
64 h6
�f8
And the players agreed a d raw. Note should be made of the largely compe tent actions by Zviagi ntsev, who q u ickly coord inated his forces and frustrated the opponent's plan by a timely attack on his pawns. But did Wh ite make use of all his resou rces? Let us return to the position after Black's 49th move .
Fi rstly, Wh ite has to h u rry with this attack, since with the pawn on a4 it is pointless to threaten the h 7-pawn i n view of the reply . . . a4-a3 . Here , however, there is no contra diction with the afore-mentioned principle. ' Do not h u rry' by no means sign ifies marking ti me. The essence of the principle is that before making decisive changes to the position you should try to squeeze the maxi m um out of the existi ng structure. The second comment relates to endings with opposite-colour bishops. We know that for the defending side it is normally advantageous to arrange his pawns on squares of the colour of his own bishop.
The g iven example is i nteresting for the fact that it shows: one should not blindly and literally follow rules without taking into account the features of the specific position. Wh ite's plan is to advance his
kingside pawns . The fact that the g6-pawn will be undefended will force Black to advance or exchange it, conced ing the key f5-sq uare to the opponent. This was probably that small deta i l wh ich was lacking in Wh ite's wi n n i ng mechanism. 50 ... h6 51 f4
I n the chapter 'Converti ng an advantage' Mark Dvoretsky d rew attention to the impor tant pri nciple ' do not hurry!' One of the aspects of this principle is attention to 'trifles' . Don't neglect even the slightest opportunity to strengthen your position or worsen the opponent's.
I n the diagram position Wh ite could have weakened the opponent's pawn chain by 50 �g8 ! . Here I should l i ke to make two comments:
The hasty 5 1 �f7 g5 52 �e4? was weaker in view of 52 . . . �c3 ! . But now, if Black defends as in the game, he will no longer be able to set up a fortress: 51 . . . a4 52 e4! .ig1 53 e5 a3 54 h 3 �c5 55 g4 �c6 56 f5 gxf5 57 gxf5 �d7 58 'Oti>e4 �c5 59 f6 �e8 60 'it>f5 'Oti>f8 6 1 �c4 �b4 62 e6 h5 63 ..ti>g5 etc. H i s position is also not eased by 5 1 . . . .id6 52 g3 (with the th reat of e3--e4--e5) 52 . . . g5, after which , if there is noth ing better, there can follow 53 f5 �c5 54 �e4 �c6 55 �b3 ! �c5 56 �e5! �xe3 57 �e6 a n d 58 f6 . Even so, the defensive resou rces a re not yet exhausted (again remember about the 'drawing tendencies' of endings with oppo site-colour bishops). Let us try 51 . . . 'iti>b5 ! . I n t h e event o f 5 2 �f7 g5 53 f5 �c6 the
215
From Games by Pupils of the School
black king j ust in time joins i n the battle against the passed pawns. For example: 54 f6 a4 55 'lt>e4 'it>d7 55 g4 .
The simplest way to d raw is by 55 . . . i.b6! 56 i.c4 'it>e8 ! , when Wh ite gets nowhere with either 57 'it>d3 i.dB or 57 Wf5 i.xe3 58 ..t>g6 i.d4 The routine 55 . . . a3?! is less accu rate in view of 56 i.a2! WeB (56 . . . i.b6 57 Wf5 ! i.xe3 58 ..t>g6 i.d4 59 f7 ..t>e7 60 ..t>xh6 or 58 . . . '1t>e8 59 ..t>xh6 Wf8 60 'it>h5 i.d2 61 h4 gxh4 62 Wxh4) 57 'it>d3 ! ! 'it'd? 58 e4 'it>d6 59 'lt>c4, and there is no defence against 60 e5+ . I ncidentally, after 56 i.b3? ( i nstead of 56 i.a2 ! ) a defence would have been fou n d : 5 9 . . . a2! 60 i.xa2 i. a 3 . Nevertheless, as Alexander Motylev indi cated , Black also does not lose here, if i n reply to 56 i.a2 ! he chooses a cou nter attacking plan: 56 . . . '1t>d6! 57 'it>f5 i.xe3 58 'it>g6 ..t>e5 ! 59 f7 �c5 60 Wh5 i.e? 6 1 �b3 ..t>e5 with a d rawn position . 5 2 e4! i.g1 ! 5 3 e 5 ! (53 h 3 ? i.h2) 5 3 . . . i.xh2 54 '1t>e4 a4! Otherwise 55 �f7 g5 56 f5 wins easily.
The primitive 55 g4? 'lt>c6 56 f5 gxf5+ 57 gxf5 Wd7 58 f6 'lt>eB 59 i.c4 a3 60 'lt>f5 (60 'it>d5 'lt>f7 ! ) 60 . . .'1t>f8 61 e6 i.d6 62 'lt>g6 i.b4 63 'it>xh6 �c5 leads to a d raw. The wh ite bishop can not take control of the impo rtant e8-square , and therefore the black king easily prevents any attempt by the oppo nent's king to help its pawns. P u rely study-like su btleties a rise i n the variation 55 e6? ! 'it>c6 56 'it>e5 i.g3 ! (other wise 57 e7 'it'd? 58 'it>f6) 57 �f7 �h4 58 �xg6 (58 g3 a 3 ! ) 58 . . .'it'c7! (but not 58 . . . a3? 59 �b1 'lt>c7 60 f5) . N ow after 59 i.c2 the obvious 59 . . . a3 60 �b3 '1t>d8 loses to 61 'it>f5! �g3 ( 6 1 . . . 'it>e7 62 'lt>g6) 62 'it>f6. Black should not cl ing on to the pawn - the blockade is more important: 59 . . . ..t>d8! 60 i.xa4 'it>e7 61 ..t>f5 i.e 1 62 i.b3 i.d2 with a d raw. The most da ngerous is 59 g 3 ! a3! 60 gxh4! (60 i.b1 i.xg3) 60 . . . a2 61 e7 a 1 �+ 62 ..t>f5 �b 1 + 63 ..t>f6 , but I somehow don't see how Wh ite wins after the approximate 63 . . . �b4 ! 64 f5 "iWxh4+ 65 ..t>f7 "iWc4+ 66 'lt>g7 'it'd4+ 67 f6 �d7 68 Wf8 (68 �f5 �eB 69 i.e6 '1t>d6 ; 68 �f7 �g4+ ) 68 . . . 'ifd6 69 'lt>g8 (th reatening 70 eBltJ+ ! ) 69 . . . 'ii'e 6+ (or 69 . . . '1t>b6 ) . 55 i.f7 ! a3 5 6 e6! a2 5 7 e7 a1 'i!V 5 8 e8'ii'+
(see diagram)
(see diagram)
216
�
From Games by Pupils of the School
been demonstrated - this dema nded an a nalysis 35 ( ! ) moves i n length (done together with Dvoretsky). Such lengthy variations a re rarely without mistakes, and therefore it is q uite possible that the readers will fi nd either a defence for Black, or a shorter way for White to win . [As was already mentioned earlier, it is advantageous for Black to exchange all the kingside pawns: the position with white pawns on e6 and f6 against a black pawn on a3 is drawn. This factor suggests the correct plan of defence. This position would appear to a rise by force. It is not possible to mate the black king , and therefore Wh ite's aim is to exchange the queens, then capture the g6-pawn and win the bishop for the f-pawn . This plan is q u ite realisable, although not without some d iffi culty.
50 it.gB h6 51 f4 a4 52 e4 j_g1 53 e5, and now Black should play 53. . . 'it>c5 54 h3 h5!, achieving the exchange of pawns after g2g4- Dvoretsky] . Zviagi ntsev ( 1 7) - On ischu k Berl i n 1 993
58 . . . 'it>c5 59 'ii'c 8+ 'it>b6 60 'i!Vb8+ 'it>c5 61 �c7+ 'it>b5 62 'i!Vb7+! Noth ing is g iven by 62 it.e8+ 'it>a6! 63 �c6+ 'it>a7 64 'it'c5+ 'it>b8 ! . 6 2. . . 'it>c5 6 3 'it'd5+! 'it>b6 6 4 'iWd6+ 'it>b7 (64 . . . 'it>b5 65 it.e8+ is bad for Black) 65 it.d5+ 'it>c8 66 it.e6+ 'it>b7 67 'i!Vd7+ 'it>b6 68 'it'd8+ 'it>c5 69 1\Vc7+ 'it>b5 70 it.d7+ 'it>b4 Now moving to a6 loses (as in the similar position with the bishop on e8): 70 . . . 'it>a6 71 �c6+ 'it>a7 72 'ii'c 5+ 'it>b7 73 it.c6+ 'it>c7 74 it.b5+ 'it>b7 75 'ifc6+ 'it>b8 76 'ii'd 6+ 'it>b7 77 it.c6+ 'it>b6 78 it.d5+ 'it>b5 79 ifc6+ etc. 71 �b6+ 'it>a3 72 'ir'a5+ 'it>b2 73 'ir'xa 1 + 'it>xa1 74 j_e8 'it>b2 Or 74 . . . g5 75 f5 it.d6 76 j_h5 'it>b2 77 f6 'it>c3 78 'it>d5 j_a3 79 f7 'it>d3 80 g4 followed by 'it>e6-d7-e8. 75 it.xg6 'it>c3 76 f5 �c4 77 f6 'it>c5 78 f7 it.d6 79 j_h5 it.f8 80 'it>f5 'it>d6 81 'it>g6 'it>e7 82 'it>h7 'it>f6 83 'it>g8 'it>e7 84 g4, and Black is i n zugzwang. Thus a win for Wh ite would appear to have
How should Black defend: 35 . . ..l:Ixa2 or 35 . . . .U.e3 ? I n other words, is h i s position lost after 35 . . . .U.e3 ? In the game Black replied to this q uestion in the affirmative, by choosing 35 . . . .U.xa2 3 6 .l::t d 3! .l:t a 1 + 3 7 'lt>g2 l::.a 2+ 3 8 'it>h3 i.c4 39 .l:td8+ 'it>g7 40 j_xf4 j_f1 + 41 'lt>g3 .l:tg2+ 42 'it>h4 .l:tf2 43 g 5 ! , and Wh ite retained both his extra pawns, since if 43 . . . nxf3 he wins by 44 j_e5+ 'lt>g6 45 'it>g4 . The game ended i n a win for Wh ite on the 1 OOth move.
From Games by Pupils of the School
Let us examine the consequences o f the rook exchange. After 35 .. J:te3 36 l::l.xe3 fxe3 it would be a blunder to play 37 .ltxe3?? .ltxa2 38 �f2 - despite Wh ite's two extra pawns , the position is d rawn . If he defends passively: 38 . . . i.. b 3 39 �g3 i.. d 1 ('pawns under attack' ) Black has to be aware of certa in dangers , as the follow ing variations demonstrate : A) 40 h4 �g7 4 1 h5 �h7 42 .ltd4 .lte2 43 g5 i.. d 1 44 i..f6 .lte2 45 'it>f4 i.. d 1 46 �e4 .ltc2+ 4 7 'it'e5 .ltd 1 48 �f4 .lte2 49 h6 �g6 50 'it>e4 i.. d 1 51 f4 .ltc2+ 52 �e5 i.. b 1 . Now noth ing is g iven by 53 f5+ �h7 54 i.e? .ltc2 55 �f6 i.. b 1 56 i.. b 4 .ltc2 57 i.. d 2 i.. b 1 58 �e5 .ltc2 59 g6+ fxg6 60 f6 i.. b 3 61 �d6 �g8 . 53 �d6, threatening to play the king to g 8 , is slig htly more cu n n i n g . However, Black par ries the threat by 53 . . . �h7! 54 f2 .lta6 Black places his bishop ideally and Wh ite encou nters serious d ifficu lties. Thus 4 1 g5? �g7 42 h4 'it>g6 43 �e3 is bad i n view of 43 .. .f6 ! 44 gxf6 �xf6 45 'lt,Jd4 �e6 46 �c5 'lt,Jd7 47 �b6 i.. d 3 48 a5 (48 �b7 .lte4+ 49 'it>b8 �c6) 48 . . . '1t,lc8 49 b6 e1 'iii' 56 .ltxe 1 �b8. 41 �e3 f6! ? 42 �d4 'it>f7 43 �c5 i.. b 7 44 a5 is correct, and if 44 . . . .ltg2 45 h4 �f3 46 a6! .ltxg4 47 a7 i..f3 , then not 48 �b6? �g6 49 �c7 �h5 50 .lte 1 f5 51 �b8 f4 52 a8'i!V .ltxa8 53 �xa8 f3 54 e3 �b7 50 �xe2 'it>h5 51 �e1 with an easy win - the king again heads towards the a7pawn . 44 . . . 'it>e6! is a more tenacious defence: 45 �e 1 ! (45 'it>b6? i.g2 is similar to a variation given above) 45 . . . i.g2 46 h4 i.f3 47 a6 �xg4 48 'it>d4 �f3 49 'it>e3 i.c6 50 a7 f5 5 1 'it>xe2 f4 5 2 �d3, and Wh ite stil l has to overcome some tech n ical d ifficu lties . 38 a5! is stronger: 38 . . . i.xg4 39 a6 i.f3 After 39 . . . e2 40 �f2 i.f3 4 1 i.d2 �c6 42 h4 Black has no defence agai nst the oppo nent's pla n : advance one pawn to h6, the other to a7, captu re the e2-pawn and take the king over to the queenside. It is importa nt that Wh ite's bishop defends its own pawn and prevents the advance of the opponent's passed pawn along the same
analyse recent games, and devise new ideas in order to su rprise their opponent. In modern chess, ope n i ng d isputes some times conclude only after two or even th ree dozen moves deep i n the endgame. That was also the case in the game g iven below. Kirjakov (1 5) - Svidler ( 1 4) Daugavpils 1 990 1 d4
lbf6
2 c4
g6
3 tt:Jc3
i.g7
4 lDf3
d5
5 cxd5
tt:Jxd5
6 e4
tt:Jxc3
7 bxc3
0-0
8 l:!.b1
c5
9 �e2
lbc6
diagonal.
1 0 d5
lbe5
40 a7 (40 i.xe3 is also good ) 40 . . . 'it>f8
1 1 tt:Jxe5
i.xe5
Black's only hope is to take his king across to the a7-pawn ; i n th is case it will be sufficient for h im to g ive up his bishop for the h-pawn .
1 2 �d2
b6
1 3 f4
�g7
1 4 c4
e5
41 h4 e2 (4 1 . . . 'it>e8 42 h5 �d7 43 h6) 42 'it>f2 , and Black is unable to defend against the afore-mentioned plan by Wh ite . Thus we have come to the concl usion that the exchange of rooks would have lost, althoug h it would have demanded a certai n accu racy on t h e opponent's part . From th e open ing i nto t h e endgame The following training game was played at the second session of the school, devoted to opening preparation . We suggested that the young players should ' reveal their ca rds' inform their opponents beforehand what opening variation they were i ntending to choose. Then they had to familiarise them selves with the theoretical recommenda tions on the plan ned opening variation,
1 5 i.b2 The alternative is 1 5 0-0 . 15 . . .
exf4
Another possibil ity, 1 5 . . . �d6, occu rred in the game Komarov-Smejka l , Bad Mergentheim 1 989, published i n lnformator Volume 48. 1 6 �xf4 1 6 i.xg7? is bad , since Black i nterposes 1 6 . . . �h4+, and if 1 7 g3 fxg3 1 8 'ii h 6, then 1 8 . . . g2+ ! . 16 . . .
'ille 7
1 7 0-0
.i.d7
1 8 .i.d3
.l:!.ae8
The latest word in th is variation is the immediate exchange of bishops. In the game Sakaev-Ftacn ik (Dortmund 1 992) after 1 8 . . . .i.xb2 1 9 �xb2 f6 20 .i.c2!? �ae8 ! ? (with the idea of . . . f6-f5 ) Black
tLJ
From Games by Pupils of the School
achieved equal ity. I n stead of 2 0 . . . ltae8 , Igor Stohl's recommendation i n lnformator Vol ume 48 - 20 . . . 'ii'e 5 21 �xe5 fxe5 is less accu rate, si nce after Kirjakov's suggestion 22 �fb 1 ! Wh ite retains the better prospects in view of the threat of a2-a4-a5 . 1 9 ..if6 ! ? T h i s is more accu rate t h a n 1 9 Si.xg7 'li?xg7 20 a4 f5 with equal ity, as in the game Vaisser-Stohl (Biel 1 989). 19 . . .
Si.xf6
20 'ii'xf6
'it'xf6
21 l:!.xf6
'it> g7
22 l:!.bf1 ! ? Less good is 22 .Ud6 Si.a4 23 l:!.f1 f6 - Sto h l .
219
A) 26 . . . f5 2 7 d6 'ii? x h7 28 d 7 ; B ) 26 . . . .l:!.d8 27 'liff2 .l:!.e5 28 a 4 a6 29 l:!. b 1 (Sto h l ) ; C ) 26 . . J�e5! ? (with t h e i d e a o f . . . b6-b5 or . . . f7-f5) 27 g4 b5 28 Si.f5 bxc4 29 'it>f2 ! ? . With t h e move i n t h e g a m e Black does not solve the problems facing h i m . 22 . . .
lle5
23 l:16f3 The . . . il.f5 th reat acts on Kirjakov's nerves and he incorrectly withd raws his rook from its active position . 23 l'::t 1 f4! was more accu rate , when 23 . . . Si.f5 would be simply answered by 24 l:!.c6 . 23 . . .
il. g4
Wh ite wants to beg i n play on the queenside by 24 Si.c2 , and then 25 a4 or 25 .U.a3. The main problem of Black's position is that his nominally good bishop is not taking an active part i n the game. The only target for cou nterplay is the e4-paw n . But 23 . . . f5? does not work in view of 24 g4 . Therefore he should have thought about switching his bishop to g6 with 23 .. .f6 followed by . . . g6g5 and . . . il.e8-g6. 24 ll3f2
..id7?!
Here too it was not too late for 24 . . . g5! with the idea of . . . Si.h5-g6. Black's waiting tactics might not have proved justified . I n t h e resulting e n d i n g Wh ite h o l d s the i nitiative. Of cou rse, i n itself the pressu re on the f-file is not too u n pleasant for Black. The real problem is that the opponent has a simple plan of improving his position on the queenside. By playing Si.c2 and a2-a4-a5 Wh ite wants to create a second weakness in Black's camp . Therefore serious consid eration should have been given to changing the character of the play, as suggested by Sto h l : 22 . . . ..if5 ! ? 23 exf5 'it>xf6 24 fxg6+ 'it>g7 (24 . . .'it>e5?? 25 g7) 25 gxh7 .Ue3. If now 26 ..if5 , then 26 . . . lld8 27 l:tf4 .l:!.ee8. After 26 .Ud 1 Black has a choice :
25 a4 25 il.c2 ! ? . 25 . . .
l:tee8
26 il.c2 If 26 a5 there is 26 . . . bxa5 27 lla 1 (27 l:tb1 l:tb8) 27 . . . a4 28 il.c2 lle5 . But 26 h4 came i nto consideratio n . Lul led by his opponent's und isti ngu ished actions, Kirjakov wants to play 'with every comfort ' , and he u nderesti mates a freeing breakthroug h . (see diagram)
220
�
From Games by Pupils of the School
26 . . .
f5!
A subtle solution to Black's defensive prob lems, the evaluation of which depends on a pawn ending that arises by force. 27 exf5
.i.xf5
28 i.xf5
l:txf5
29 .l::txf5
gxf5
30 l:.xf5
.l:Ie4!
31 d6!
l:td4
32 .tld5
f6!
32 .. J�xd5? 33 cxd5 f7 would have lost i n view o f 3 4 g 4 e8 35 g5 d7 3 6 h4 xd6 37 h5 xd5 38 g6 hxg6 39 h6.
39 . . . b5 40 g4 a6! ! (or 39 . . . a6 40 g4 b5! , but not 40 . . . a3?? in view of 4 1 c5! ! and wins) 41 h4 (4 1 cxb5 xb5) 41 . . . a3 , and in the queen ending arising after 42 c5 b4+ 43 d2 b3 44 c6 b2 45 c7 b 1 'it' 46 c8'it' Black should be able to avoid defeat. 35 . . .
xd6
36 d3
'it>e5!
Now 36 .. .c5? loses to 37 g4. 37 g3
h6!
38 h3
h5!
39 g4
hxg4
40 hxg4
f4 'it>xg4
33 nxd4
cxd4
41 xd4
34 f2
e6
42 d5
35 e2 Wh ite does not exploit all his chances. The opponent's task would have been more difficult in the event of 35 f3 xd6 36 e4 c5 37 d3 . After 37 . . . b4 38 xd4 xa4 39 c3 ! it appears that things a re bad for Black. However, he is saved by an unusual defence.
(see diagram)
42 a 5 f4! 43 a6 (43 axb6 axb6 44 'it>d5 e3 ) 43 . . . f5 44 d5 f6 45 '>t>c6 '>t>e6 46 b7 d7 would also have led to a d raw. 42 . . .
f4!
But not 42 . . . f5?? in view of 43 a5! bxa5 44 c5 and wins. 43 c6
e5
44 b7
d6
45 xa7
c7
And the players ag reed a d raw.
ttJ
From Games by P u pils of the School
Exchanging Should I exchange q u eens a nd go i nto a n e n d i n g ? H ow should t h e conseq uences of the rook exchange be eval uated? Similar questions often have to be answered d u ring a game. It is not surprising that i n the endgame, when there are a l ready few pieces left, it is especially i mporta nt to solve correctly the problem of what to exchange.
221
28 . . . 'it> d 7 29 .l:lxc8 'it>xc8 30 'i!tg2 � d 7 3 1 'it>h3 'it> e 7 32 'it> h 4 'it>f7 33 'it>h5 'it> g 7 3 4 f3 h 6 ! is d raw n : 35 g4 'it>h7 36 g 5 hxg5 37 fxg5 �g7 . 34 . . . 'i.t>h8? ( i n stead of 34 . . . h6 ! ) 35 'it>h6 'it>g8 36 g4 'it>h8 is i n correct i n view of 37 h 3! ( b ut no t 37 h4? Wg8 38 g 5 e5! ) 37 . . . 'it> g8 3 8 h4 (zugzwan g ) 38 . . . 'i.t> h 8 39 g5 fxg5 40 hxg5 and wins. 27 fxe5
M ugerman - Makariev ( 1 4) Moscow 1 989
Black should take accou nt of the fact that his kingside pawn structu re is spoiled , a nd i n t h e endgame t h e pawns can b e attacked by the enemy king . Therefore he should not have excha nged queens. After the correct 25 . . . 'it>a8 26 l:txd2 'i!Vc6 (intending 27 . . . 'it'c1 + , 27 . . . 'iWf3 or 27 . . . a6) Black h a s cou nterplay. 25 . . .
'iic 7?
26 llxd2
'i¥xe5?!
Aga in a poor decision . The exchange on e5 improves the opponent's pawn structu re - it u ndoubles his pawns, and moreover the wh ite e5-pawn will hold back two black pawns. 26 .. .f6 ! was stronger, when Wh ite should reply 27 'iie 3, reta i n ing somewhat the better chances. The pawn ending after 27 'ii'x c7+ 'it>xc7 28 llc2+ (28 'it>g2 ! ? )
Despite the material equal ity, Black's posi tion is critica l . H ow can he defend against the march of the wh ite king towards the weakened pawns on the kingside? In the game Black was unable to solve this problem and after 27 ... .Uc1 +? 28 'it>g2 'it>c7 29 f4 1la 1 ?! 30 a3 .l:tc1 31 Wh3 l::.c 5 32 'it>h4 l1d5 33 l1c2+ 'it>d8 34 Wg5 he fi n ished up i n a hopeless ending. The evaluation of the position largely de pends on whether Black ca n take his king to the kingside. To do th is he is forced to allow the exchange of rooks . 27 . . .
�c7
28 llc2+ 28 'it>g2? llg8 with an acceptable position for Black. 28 . . .
'it>d7
29 11xc8
Wxc8
An i nteresting pawn ending
has been
222
�
From Games by Pupils of the School
reached . Wh ite takes his king towards the opponent's pawn weaknesses , and the black king h u rries to their defence. 30 �g2
�d7
31 �h3
�e7
Active cou nterplay is too late : 31 . . . 'it>c6 32 'it>h4 �d5 33 f4 '.te4 34 �g5 �f3 35 'it>f6 'it>g2 36 �xf7 'it>xh2 37 �xe6 �xg3 38 'it>xf5 h5 39 e6. 32 'it>h4 Now Black has a choice between 32 . . . �f8 and 32 . . . f6 . 32 . . . 'it>f8 33 'it>h5 �g? 34 'it>g5 (but not 34 f3? in view of 34 . . . f6! ) 34 . . . h6+ 35 'it>h5 '.th? 36 f3 (as will become clear from later variations, it is more methodical to include the moves 36 b4 b5) 36 .. .f6 (in the event of 36 . . .'it>g7 37 g4 fxg4 38 fxg4 'it>h? 39 g5 hxg5 40 'it'xg5 the presence of the outside passed pawn decides the outcome) 37 exf6 e5 38 g4 e4 (38 . . . f4 39 g5 e4 does not save Black in view of 40 g6+ �g8 41 'it>xh6 exf3 42 g? f2 43 'it>g6 and 44 f7 - mate ! ) 39 fxe4 fxe4 40 �h4 'it>g6 41 Wg3 'it>xf6 42 �f4 e3 43 '.txe3 'it>g5 44 �f3 �h4 45 'it>f4 'it>h3 46 g5 hxg5+ 47 �xg5 'it>xh2 48 �4 'it>g2 49 'it>e5 'it>f3 50 �d6 'it>e4 5 1 We? b5 52 'it>b? ! (not 52 c.1tc6 b4 53 �b5 b3 54 axb3 Wd3 55 'it>a6 Wc2 56 b4 'it>b3 or 54 a4 Wd3 55 'it>b4 Wc2 56 Wa3 a5 - stalemate ! ) 52 . . . �d3 (52 . . . a5 53 Wb6) 53 'it>xa? b4 (53 . . . 'it>c2 54 b4 'it>c3 55 a3) 54 'it>b6 'it>c2 55 b3, and White wins. 32 . . .
f6! ?
Now noth ing is g iven by either 35 Wg5 h6+ 36 'it>h5 (36 'it>f4 Wf6) 36 . . . e5, or 35 f3 Wf6! 36 g4 fxg4 37 fxg4 We5. 35 h3 The most logical cou rse - Wh ite strength ens his position on the kingside. 35 . . .
h6
As will become clear from the variations g iven below, any advance of the black pawns on the q ueenside merely ma kes things easier for the opponent. For example: 35 . . . a5 36 a4 h6 37 g4 fxg4 38 hxg4 '.th? 39 f4 '.tg? 40 g5 hxg5 41 fxg5 e5 42 �h4 rttf7 43 '.tg3 'it>g6 44 'it>g4 e4 45 'it>f4 e3 46 xe3 Wxg5 4 7 '1td4 'it>f5 48 'it>c5 '>i?e4 49 Wb6 'iitd4 50 '>i?xb? c5 5 1 'it>a6 Wb4 52 b3. 36 g4 But not 36 f3?? e5 37 g4 f4 . 36 . . .
fxg4
37 hxg4
'it>h7
Here things are more d ifficult for White . 3 3 exf6+
'it>xf6
34 'it>h5
'it>g7
34 . . . 'it>e5 35 'it>h6 �e4 36 �xh? Wf3 37 'it>g6 'it>xf2 38 'it>f6 '>i?g2 39 'it>xe6 Wxh2 40 Wxf5 Wxg3 41 'it>e5 transposes into a variation just examined , but 36 f4 ! 'it>f3 37 'it>xh? Wg2 38 h4 wins more qu ickly.
(see diagram)
ltJ
From Games by P u pils of the School
223
From the point of view of the first plan (the creation of an outside passed pawn ) the situation has not changed . But for the second plan the strengthening of the posi tion proves sign ificant. 44 g5!
hxg5
45 'lt>xg5
Wf7
46 'it>f4 47 �e4 47 . . . e5 also does not help: 48 Wd5 'lt>f5 49 Wd6 �f4 50 �c7 'it>f3 51 'it>xb7 Wxf2 52 'lt>c6 e4 53 b7. The d i rect 38 f4? does not succeed . After 38 . . . 'it>g7 39 g5 hxg5 40 fxg5 e5 4 1 �h4 �f7 42 �g3 'it>g6 43 �g4 e4 44 'it>f4 e3 45 �xe3 �xg5 46 'it>e4 'it>f6 47 �d5 �e7 the wh ite king ca nnot break through to the queenside pawns. Now it is clear why the a7- and b7pawns should remain i n place.
48 �e5
�e7
49 f3 ! It is useful to note that Wh ite wins only tha n ks to the existen ce of two reserve tempi.
49 . . .
�d7
50 'it>f6
'it>d6
A draw also results from 38 g5? hxg5 39 'lt>xg5 �g7 40 Wf4 'lt>f6 4 1 We4 e5 42 �d5 Wf5 43 b4 (if 43 f3 Black has either 43 . . . Wf6 , or 43 . . . 'it>f4 44 We6 �xf3 45 'it>xe5 �e3 46 'lt>d6 Wd3 ) 43 . . . b5 44 �c5 a6 45 Wd5 e4 46 a3 �f4 4 7 'it>e6 �g4 ! 48 �e5 �f3 .
Or 50 . . . 'lt>c6 51 Wxe6 'lt>xb6 52 f4 We? 53 f5 'it>d8 54 �f7 b5 55 f6 b4 56 Wg8 b3 57 f7 , and the white pawn queens with check.
Let us remember about the principle 'do not hurry! and try fu rther improving the position by the advance of the queen side pawns.
After gaining the 'horizontal opposition' , the wh ite king performs an ' outflanking' manoeuvre .
38 b4! This move could also have been i ncluded earlier. 38 . . .
�g7
Black is forced to stick to waiting tactics otherwise Wh ite wins by creati ng an outside passed pawn on the kingside (f2-f4 and g4g5). 39 b5
�h7
40 a4
�g7
41 a5
�h7
42 b6
axb6
43 axb6
�g7
51 f4
'>t>d7
52 �f7
�d6
53 �e8
53 . . .
Wc6
54 We7
'it>xb6
Or 54 . . . 'lt>d5 55 'it>d7. 55 �xe6 56 f5 57 �f7 And Wh ite wins. [ Ten years later grandmaster Viorel Bologan suggested a different plan in the pawn endgame, which wins more quickly: 38 a3!? �g7 39 a4 �h7 40 Wh4!? �g6 41 �g3 (intending 42 �f4) 41 . . . e5 (41 . . . h5 42 gxh5+ Wxh5 43 �f4 �g6 44 �e5 'it>f7 45
224
�
From Games by Pupils of the School
�d6; 41 . . . �g5 42 f4+ �f6 43
