Dvoretsky
I
Yusupov
•
Secrets of Positional Play
PmgressinCriess
Volume 25 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 Positional Play School of Future Champions 4 Edited and translated by Ken Neat
2008 EDITION OLMS
m
4
Books by the same authors:
Mark Dvoretsky. 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
Available
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
Mark Dvoretsky.
School of
Chess
Excellence
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
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. 1 0
·
CH 861 8 Oe1wil 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 Loningen Cover: Eva Konig. D-22769 Hamburg ISBN 978-3-283-00518-4
5
Contents P reface (Mark Dvoretsky) PART I
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prophylactic Thinking (Mark Dvoretsky) A Novelty is born (Max Dlugy)
. . . .
. . . .
.
. . .
.
. . . . . . . . . .
6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
27 57 61
WAYS OF LOOKING FOR POSITIONAL SO LUTIONS
Manoeuvri ng (Artur Yusupov)
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How to draw up a P l a n (Aiexey Kosikov) Sensing the Tempo (Aiexey Kosikov)
. . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transformation of a Position (Mark Dvoretsky)
. . . . . .
. .
.
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
.... . .
.
.
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
.
. . . .
. . .
. . .
. .. . .
. . .
.
.
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
.
.
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
71 84 98
113
T Y PICA L POSITIONS
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . .
You can't get by without a Combination ! (Mark Dvoretsky)
. . . .
..
. .
. . . . . .
.
.
. .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. . . . .
. . .
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence (Igor Khenkin, Vladimir Kramnik)
PART IV
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Positional Exercises (Mark Dvoretsky)
PART Il l
. . .
METHO DS OF IM PROVING IN POS ITIONAL P LAY
The Improvement of Positional Mastery ( Mark Dvoretsky)
PART II
.
.
.
. . . . .
. . . 1 30 .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 57 1 62
COM P LICATED STRATEGY IN PRACTICE
Crux of the Position (Artur Yusupov)
. . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Strategy in Grandmaster Games (Evgeny Bareev) Whose Strategy will triumph? (Mark Dvoretsky) .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 83 1 94 216
PARTV
From Games by Pupils of the School (Artur Yusupov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 I ndex of Players and Analysts . Index of Openings
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . .... .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
.
. . .
.. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
238 240
6
Mark Dvoretsky
P reface
I the series based on
am pleased to present the fou rth book in material from the Dvoretsky-Yusupov school for talented young players. For those who are not familiar with the previous volumes ( Secrets of Chess Training, Secrets of Opening Preparation and Secrets of Endgame Technique), I should explain that we held several thematic sessions of the schoo l , devoted to the most important directions of chess improvement. We did not have sufficient time to pass on all the necessary specific knowledge, and in deed , th is could not have happened - the process of chess development is practically without limit. We set ourselves the aim of disclosing the deficiencies in the pupils' play, helping them to eliminate them , demonstrat ing the most effective ways of studying chess, and acquainting them with the most general mechanisms, ideas and methods of playing. All the books in this series are based on th is approach , the one before you being no exceptio n . It is devoted to the improve ment of positional mastery. Even adults sometimes naively bel ieve in the existence of some mysterious key to rapid success. The authors of many books happily exploit this delusio n , asserti ng that they know of such a single correct way - new, original , and also h itherto secret. I n fact there are many ways to the goal , but not one of them is easy. You need to master various methods of working on chess , and skilfully combine them depending on your tastes and individual traits, strength and style of play. I hope that the present book, like the previous ones, will help you to do this. I n the first and second parts of the book the authors acquaint the readers with various
aspects of positional play, approaches to the development of positional mastery, and methods of looking for positional solutions. You will see that sometimes it even makes sense to consider one and the same problem in different ways - like , for example, the conceptions of play on opposite wings i n the lectures of Artur Yusu pov and Alexey Kosik ov. Among the ideas developed in my own lectu res , I advise you to pay particu lar attention to the topic 'Prophylactic thinking ' . Why this topic i s exceptionally important for the over-the-board player is someth ing you will understand after read ing the correspond ing lectu re. Chess is a practical ski l l . Here theory alone is i nsufficient - pu rposefu l tra i n i ng work is also necessary (a very important principle of effective work on chess ! ) . The prog ram of each session of the school invariably includ ed not only lectu res, but also training exercises. You will find a description of these exercises in the first and th ird parts of the book. The session of the schoo l , on which the material i n the g iven book is based , was held i n early 1 992. Among those who took part in it were the talented young masters (soon to become grandmasters) Vladimir Kramnik and Igor Khenkin . They not only attended many classes, but also themselves read a lecture. At first sight their lecture seems to be purely about the opening. However, while explaining the theory of certai n variations of the Dutch Defence, at the same time Kramnik and Khenkin expressed their under standing of the situations a rising here , and the in herent strateg ic ideas. This is how
Preface
modern players master typical positions, characteristic of the openings they employ. Another approach to the study of typical middlegame positions is employed in my lecture, included in the same th ird part of the book. The fou rth part is devoted to the purely practical implementation of various princi ples of positional play. In it an analysis is given of some strategically complicated games, played in top-level events. Here too it is interesting to compare the ways of th inking and the approaches to the taking of deci sions of such outstanding g rand masters as Artur Yusupov and Evgeny Bareev. Incidentally, I should mention that Yusupov, who in 1 99 1 took up residence in Germany, was unfortunately unable to take part in the final sessions of the school . His lectu res were written later - when the book was being prepared for publ ication . This factor allowed Artu r to make use of games played two or three years later, and in particular, two brilliant wi ns by Viswanathan Anand over Gata Kamsky in the Final Candidates Match , and some impressive games played by Yusu pov hi mself at a tou rnament in Switzer land in 1 994 . As for Bareev's material - this is indeed a lecture given at the schoo l . It made a strong impression on the pupils, not only through its purely chess virtues, but also its u nusual presentation - ironic, at times even caustic. In my view, such a manner of del ivery, fully reflecting the character of the g randmaster, was an embellishment to the lectu re. It could be perceived as being offensive only by a person totally lacking a sense of humour.
7
After a l l , Bareev's irony is not at all malicious, and in add ition it is di rected not only at his opponents or l isteners, but also at hi mself. Many years ago I saw a cartoon in which a g rand mother was saying to a l ittle boy: 'And now, g randso n , let's repeat some words which you should never say. ' I remembered it, when I looked through the traditional concluding material by Yusu pov, analysing fragments from games played by pupils of the schoo l . On this occasion the g rand mas ter focused his attention on instructive positional mistakes made by the young players. In chess teach ing such a n approach is q u ite appropriate. Not without reason do they say: ' Learn from your mistakes. ' I n conclusion I have given several opin ions expressed by legendary chess players, emphasising the exceptional importance, for any player, of the problems considered in the book: A sensible plan makes heroes of us all; the absence of a plan makes us faint-hearted fools. ( E m . Lasker) Contrary to general opinion, generated by ignorance, Morphy's main strength was not his combinative gift, but his positional play and general style. After all, a combination can be carried out only when the position permits it. (J . R . Capablanca) The ability to evaluate a position is just as necessary as the ability to calculate varia tions. ( M . Botvinnik) Endeavour to memorise as few variations as possible! Positional feeling should become your release from the slavery of 'variations '. And therefore: try to develop your positional feeling. (A. N imzowitsch )
8
PART I Methods of Improving in Positional Play
Mark Dvoretsky
The Improveme nt of Pos ition a l Maste ry Whereas by combination values are transformed, they are proved and confirmed by 'position play'.
Emanuel Lasker '
H game' - this is how we usually cha e has a subtle understanding of the
defin itely be studied. And above all Aaron N imzowitsch 's remarkable book My System.
racterise a strong positional player. It is very flattering to hear such a comment about our own play, but, alas, not all of us can boast of th is. And yet positional understanding is a very important condition for our com petitive success. What should be studied by a player wishing to ach ieve serious prog ress in this field , and what are the main directions and forms of such work? These are the questions that will he answered in this lecture.
Recently I looked at some of the games played in my youth , when I had fi rst category rati ng, and I was staggered by the great number of crude, obvious positional mis takes. But at the time they weren't obvious to me. On the contrary, I was sure that I was playing q u ite strongly - the only th ings that h i ndered me were 'accidental' oversig hts, and a lack of opening knowledge. For a time I was qu ite unable to make any prog ress . And then , on the advice of my trainer (Alexander Roshal) I stud ied My System. I didn't read it, but studied it, and I even copied out the most importa nt ideas and exam ples. This work qu ickly told on both the qual ity of my play, and my resu lts - I won several fi rst category tournaments , became a candidate master, and then ach ieved the master norm .
You , of course, know that grandmaster Yusu pov is renowned as a skilful strateg ist. I will illustrate these thoug hts with some examples from his games. I . Some genera l recommendations
A number of books have been written about positional play. By no means all of them deserve attention, but some of them should
I also recommend the study of collections of games played by outstanding positional
l[j
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
players, preferably with their own com ments. You will realise, of course, that d ifferent players have their own way of playing - a universal positional style does not exist. Some grandmasters ('strateg ists') are char acterised by their logical manner of th inking (for example: Rubinstei n , Botvinnik, Par tisch ), while for others it is intu itive (Ca pablanca, Smyslov, Karpov). Also present in their play are other disti nctions: they may adhere to an attacki ng or defensive style, they may aim for classical (with seizu re of space) or less orthodox set-ups, and so o n . Study the games o f a player w h o is closest to you in style, or, on the contrary, one who is especially skilled in what you are not good at. I should like to remind you of the method with which you should record the episodes that are the most interesting and usefu l for you 'positional sketches'. We recommended it in the first session of our school (cf. the book Secrets of Chess Training). Draw a diagra m , and write a commentary expressing the essence of the position , the minimum neces sary for the understanding of its moves and variations. As a result, the ideas and evalua tions related to this instance will be fi rmly engraved in your memory. In exactly the same way you can record instructive exam ples from your own games. II . Positional operations
When assessing a position , an experienced player never tries straight away to take account of all its featu res, and does not compile a complete list of all its pl uses and minuses (although this is what is called for in some books). If such work is done, then it is done subconsciously. The Russian master Ben iamin Blu menfeld, who made a deep investigation of the problems of chess th inking, wrote: 'Evaluation relates to per ception of the position and is largely a subconscious action, in the sense that, to a significant degree, if not fully, the intermedi-
g
ate links do not pass through the centre of consciousness. '
The art of evaluation is the abil ity to pick out the essence of a position - those and only those featu res of it, which should be taken i nto consideration when search ing for the strongest move. In training sessions it is useful to express in words you r perception of the essence of a position , i n order to note and subsequently correct mistakes in posi tional understanding, After picking out the most important assess ment considerations (most often - sub consciously) and checking the variations, we find the move (or a small number of moves) which corresponds to our perception of the situation . Usually this move pursues some defi nite aim, i . e . it is part of a specific operation. Of cou rse, often our decisions prove to be difficult and complex, based on the calcula tion of lengthy variations and on numerous different evaluative considerations. But nev ertheless, at the basis of any strateg ic decision are simple positional operations, and it is very important to be able to fi nd them q u ickly and confidently. You can assi milate them , by studying commentaries by grand masters, and it is very useful also to try solving special exercises (for example, the form of training games for the development of intuition , which was discussed in a previous session of the school - it will be described in the next book). We will pick out the basic types of positional operations. Improving the placing of the pieces, manoeuvres, regroupings
Yusu pov - Ke ngis
Moscow 1 983
(see diagram)
10
w
The I mprovement of Positional Mastery
White has excellent prospects on the king side. The attack will become irresistible if the queen's rook, cu rrently out of play, can be included in it. 2 1 .l:.a3 !
'it>h8
22 .l:.g3
Th reatening 23 ltJxh6 gxh6 24 'iWh5 . If 22 . . . .ltf8 , then 23 ltJxh6 gxh6 24 'i!i'g4 , while 22 . . . .lta6 is hopeless i n view of 23 'ii'e4 . 22 . . .
.l:!.g8
23 ltJc4
.ltd5
23 . . . .lta6 24 'iie4 . 24 .Uh3
.ltf8
25 b3
i.xc4?
26 bxc4
dxe5
27 'ii'x e5
Black resigned . Djuri c - Yusupov
Sarajevo 1 984 (see diagram)
At first sight the situation is not easy to assess. Black is more active, but his d5pawn is under attack. Both sides' pieces are somehow chaotically placed . Yusupov finds a regrouping which coord i nates his small force and enables him to create real threats.
36 . . .
l:te8!
37 .l:lxd5
If 37 .l:tb7+ there follows not 37 .. .f6? 38 .l:tb6 , but 37 .. . g8! 38 �h6 ltJf5 39 �g5 .l:.a8. 37 . . .
ltJe4
38 �e1
l:i.h8
The operation carried out by Black has secured h i m a n obvious advantage. His minor pieces have occupied active and at the same time invul nerable posts, and his rook is intending to i nvade the opponent's position . 39 'it>f1
Better practical chances of saving the game were offered by the piece sacrifice suggest ed by Robert H ubner: 39 ltJf3!? gxf3+ 40 'it>xf3 .l:.e8 41 b5. bpk 39 . . .
.l:!.h2
40 b5
.l:lb2
A standard elementary operation: the rook is placed behind the passed pawn . 41 ttJe2
.l:tb1 !
Zugzwang! If 42 .l:lf5 , then 42 . . . i.g3 . 42 b6
.Uxb6
43 .lth4
.l:. b 1 +
44 'it>g2
.l:.b2
The rook has again retu rned to its position of maximum activity. It only remains to i nclude the king i n the play.
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
45 \t>g1
\t>g6 g3!
46 l:ta5 47 l:ta8 48 .Jtxg3 49 4Jxg3
�h5 4Jxg3+ �xg3
50 .l:!.c8
�g4
51 .l:txc4 52 .l:tb4
�f3 llh2
53 'it>g1
l:th8 l:.e8
54l:ib2
White resigned in view of 55 .Ub 1 �f2+ 56 'i!tf1 l:!. h8. Pawn play; the formation of a favourable pawn structure Many years ago, when Yusu pov was stil l just a candidate master, I commented in my notebook, that 'Artu r finds it hard to decide on sharp changes in the character of the play, and in particu lar on sharp pawn moves and changes in the pawn structu re. ' To try and correct this deficiency of his, we careful ly analysed every such episode from his games. Gabdrakhmanov - Yusu pov Podolsk 1 976
11
move made by Black, but the assessment behind it. If 25 'ii'e 3 A rtu r was planning 25 . . . 4Jxe6 (not changing the pawn struc ture), yet after 26 'ii'x g5 hxg5 27 4Je2 the position is roughly equal. Meanwhile Black has the right to fig ht for an advantage, by playing 24 . . . fxe6! (and possibly . . . e6-e5) or 24 . . . 4Jf4 25 'i!ke3 fxe6 ! with the threat of 26 . . . h5. However, the other, tactical idea, concealed behind 24 . . . 4Jf4 , was com pletely correct. This was the 'bait' that Rafik Gabdrakhanov swallowed . He was tempted by the possibili ty of winning a pawn . 25 .Ue8+?
l:!.xe8
26 'i!Vxa6
h5!
Yusupov correctly judged that Black's attack would become extremely dangerous. l:te6
27 'ifxc6
27 . . JJ.e7 was perhaps stronger, since now Wh ite could have played 28 'ifxc7 ! h4 29 �h2. After 29 . . . hxg3 30 fxg3 4Jxh3 31 gxh3 lie2+ (or 31 . . . 'il¥d2+) Black is guaranteed a d raw, but it is not clear whether he can hope for more. 28 h4
'i!Vxh4
29 'ii'a 8+
�h7
30 b5?!
'ii'g 5
Wh ite resigned . Of course, Artu r g radually rid h imself of the weakness mentioned , and his play became more dynamic.
(see diagram)
24 .l:txe6
4Jf4?!
In the given instance the 'dubious' sign reflects not the objective strength of the
12
�
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
Timman
-
Yusu pov
Candidates Match , 4th Game, Tilburg 1 986
l:tc5?
25 . . .
How should the position be assessed? For the knight Black has a sufficient equivalent three pawns. But if White should succeed i n consolidating (l"Llf3 , 0-0 etc . ) , he w i l l have an obvious positional advantage. Someth ing must be urgently done. 19 . . .
g5!
An excellent counter! If 20 g3 there follows 20 . . . gxf4 21 gxf4 l1g8. Both black rooks become extremely active, and in addition the opponent constantly has to reckon with . . . f7f6. 20 0-0 21 l:txf4
A vexing mistake. By playing 25 . . . l:te3! Black would have retained his extra pawn. For example: 26l"Llf1 l"Llf3+ ! 27 'itf2 l:.e5 28 l:tad 1 (28 l"Lle3 l:tgg5 ! ) 28 . . . l:txd5 29 l:txd5 l:lg5 ! , or 26 .U.c1 'ite7 (26 .. .f6 ! ? ) 27 l"Llf1 .l:te2 28 l"Llg3 'iti>e6! 29 .U.cd 1 .l:.e 1 + ! . 26 l:.xc5
bxc5
27 l"Lle4
'ite7
28 l"Llxc5 And the game soon ended in a draw. Spraggett
-
Yusu pov
Candidates Match, 9th Game, Quebec 1 989
gxf4 l"Llx e5
The wh ite centre has been completely destroyed . 22 l:txd4
l:tg8
23 l"Llb4
l:!.c3
In the event of 24 .U.e 1 f6 Wh ite's position is worse. In the endgame a knight which has no strong points often proves to be weaker than pawns. Therefore Jan Tim man hurries to return the piece.
24 l"Llxd5!? 25 i.ixd5
exd5 25 . . .
b5!
ctJ
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
13
A typical blow at a centre with hanging pawns. After the removal of the c4-pawn Yusupov's pieces will dominate on the light squares.
26 axb5
axb5
27 c5 In the event of 27 cxb5 Black has a pleasant choice between 27 . . . �d5 and 27 .. J�xc2 28 'i'xc2 lZ:lxb5 . ltJc4
27 . . . 28 .l:ta2 28 i.f2 �xf3 .
28 . . .
"iix a2 ! !
29 'iVxa2
ltJxe3
The positional q ueen sacrifice has enabled Black to destroy the wh ite centre. If now 30 'i'a5, then 30 . . . �xd4! . 30 l:r.c1
�xd4
31 �h 1
ltJxc5
32 ltJxc5
J:txc5
33 J:txc5
�xc5
On the board it looks al most completely black, and soon Kevi n Spraggett curtailed his resistance. The win i n this game brought Yusupov overall victory i n their Cand idates match . Exchanges
In our analysis of the preced ing examples we have already encountered elementary ex chang ing operations. Even the positional queen sacrifice made by Yusupov against Spraggett was also essentially an exchange, although an unusual one. G h i nda
-
Yusu pov
Olympiad , Dubai 1 986
(see diagram)
17 . . .
�b41
1 8 �g1 ?1 If 1 8 ltJe2 , then 18 ... 'ii h 4 1 9 �g 1 'il'e4 is u npleasant, but 18 ltJa2 or 18 'ii'd 2 should have been preferred . 18 . . .
�xc3 !
1 9 bxc3
a5
What has Black achieved , by exchanging his bishop for the opponent's knight? Firstly, his backward a6-pawn has been transformed i nto a dangerous passed pawn . At the same time the problem of his other backward pawn on c7 has been solved since now the c-file is closed . Secondly, the remai n i ng black bishop is obviously stronger than its white opponent. It will soon be switched to e4 and will help to create th reats to the enemy king (with opposite-colour bishops, playing for an at tack is the correct strategy). By contrast, the wh ite bishop is ru nning up agai nst its own pawns and is not capable of attacking anyth ing. 20 'iid 3?! A loss of time - all the same it is not possible to prevent the activation of the black bishop. 20 . . .
'il'd7
21 �c1
�f5
22 'ii'd 2
h6
23 �a3
.l:.a6!
14
�
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
Black has an obvious advantage. Unfortunately, after 24 l:l.f1 Yusupov commit ted a serious inaccuracy: 24 . . . .l:.g6? (24 . . . �e4! was correct, and only then . . . l:!.g6). His opponent promptly exchanged the rooks: 25 l:.f3! �e4 26 l:tg3 llxg3 27 hxg3, and thereby sign ificantly improved his chances of savi ng the game. However, su bseq uently in the endgame he nevertheless went wrong and lost. In the next example the problem that had to be solved combined the problems of ex changing and the choice of pawn structure. Yusu pov - Spasov European Team Championship, Skara 1 980
1 6 'ii'xe4 Ilea 1 7 Ilac1 with an obvious positional advantage. U nfortunately, i n the game Yusu pov did not play so dynamically, and did not change the pawn structu re (perhaps he suffered a recu rrence of the afore-mentioned 'child hood ill ness'). t'Lld7 13 Ilc1 ? ! 1 4 �c4
t'Ll f6
1 5 'i!i'a4 1 6 �xd5
a6 t'Llxd5
1 7 .l:r.c2
h6?
Now Wh ite's idea is justified - he gains control of the c-file. Without wasting precious time, Black should have prepared to ex change the heavy pieces: 1 7 . . . b5! 1 8 'ii' b 3 'iVd7 1 9 Ilfc1 .Ufc8 . In this case Black could have cou nted on eq ualising . b5
1 8 .l:.fc1 1 9 'ii' b 3 1 9 'ii'a 3!?.
l:tf7
19 . . .
Now if 1 9 . . .'it'd7 Wh ite has the un pleasant 20 t'Lld2! l:.fc8 2 1 e4 . 20 t'Lle1 ! This manoeuvre emphasises Wh ite's advan tage. The knight goes via d3 to b4 or f4 , in order to exchange the knight on d5 - the mainstay of the opponent's defences. Wh ite went on to win . Yusu pov plan ned to exchange the bishop on d5 - the opponent's only well-placed piece. But the way he chose to carry out this exchange was not the best. He should have opened l ines in the centre, in order to widen the front and press on the vulnerable e6-pawn . The strongest conti nua tion was 1 3 'ii'e 2 ! t'Lld7 (after 1 3 . . . �xf3 1 4 'ii'xf3 d 5 1 5 l:tfc1 the white pieces control the entire board) 14 e4 ! fxe4 1 5 �xe4 �xe4 ( 1 5 . . . t'Llf6 1 6 �xd5 exd5 1 7 'ii'e 6+ 'it>h8 1 8 t'Llg5 'it'd7 1 9 .l:.fe 1 also offers Black l ittle joy)
I should mention that the inaccu racy on the 1 3th move was d iscovered in home analysis by Yusu pov himself. It is very important to instil in you rself a critical approach even to your won games, to analyse them carefu lly and, without being flattered by the decisive result, look for errors in your own actions. This will help you to avoid similar mistakes in the futu re. Prophylaxis
In previous sessions of the school I have already emphasised several times the very
lZ:J
The I mprovement of Positional Mastery
important role of prophylaxis, 'prophylactic thinking' in positional play. In this discussion about elementary positional operations it also cannot be avoided . After a l l , moves may be aimed not only at carrying out you r own ideas ( manoeuvres, exchanges, and so on), but also at preventing the opponent's ideas.
15
1 8 e5! A positional pawn sacrifice typical of such positions. Otherwise the opponent would have gained a comfortable game by . . . 'file? and . . . tt:Jc5. 18 . . .
dxe5
1 9 d6
.l:.c8
20 f5 Yusu pov - Ti mman Candidates Match , 5th Game, Tilburg 1 986
20 'ika4? would have been a mistake in view of 20 . . . exf4 ! 2 1 gxf4 (2 1 i.. xf4 tt:Jc5) 21 . . . .l:.xe3 ! . It was also bad to play 20 tt:Jd5?! tt:Jc5 21 tt:Je7+ l:Ixe7 , but 20 l::t a d 1 ! ? came i nto consideration. tt:Jc5
20 . . . 21 ..txc5!
Of course, the knight can not be allowed to go to d 3 . 21 . . . 22 tt:Je4
.l:txc5
22 l:tad 1 was also possible. By skilfully combining offensive actions with prophylax is, Wh ite has obtained a promising position . N u n n - Yus u pov Linares 1 988 Yusupov is plan ning a pawn offensive in the centre. However, he sees the manoeuvre planned by the opponent in reply to e2--e4 : . . . l2Jf6-g4--e5 , and the knight gains control of the d3- and c4-squares. This manoeuvre must be prevented . tt:Je5 1 3 h3! An important improvement for Black was demonstrated in the game Gelfand-Kasparov (Novgorod 1 997): 1 3 . . . b5! 1 4 e4 'ikc8 ! ! , and the threat of 1 5 . . . b4 is highly un pleasant.
1 4 tt:Jxe5
.l:lxe5
.l:te8 1 5 e4 lt:Jd7 1 6 .i.e3 The knight again dreams of going to e5. 1 7 f4!
c4
Black is a pawn u p , but the enemy pieces are threateningly trained on the kingside. Both wh ite rooks ca n q u ickly end up there. Now 1 9 i.. h 7+ is threatened .
16
�
The I mprovement of Positional Mastery
The first desire is to remove the q ueen from the danger zone by 1 8 . . . 'it'c7 . But then there follows 1 9 'ifh5, and the white q ueen joins the attack on the king. 20 .l:tg3 or 20 .l:.g4 is threatened , and 1 9 .. .f5?! is dangerous: 20 .l:tg3 iixe5 2 1 ltJf3 'i!i'c3 22 'ili'xh6. Black is forced to retu rn the pawn: 1 9 . . . ltJf5 20 .ll xf5 exf5 2 1 'ifxf5 ltJc4 , but in this case too Wh ite retains the better chances. 'ith8! 18 . . . Of course, on c3 the queen feels uncomfort able, but from there, by attacking the knight on d2, it restricts the mobil ity of the wh ite queen and in general it rivets the opponent's attention, diverting him from the kingside. Remember: this defensive idea - restraining the opponent's activity with a far-advanced queen - was recommended in a lectu re by Mikhail Shereshevsky, which he read at the first session of the school ( Secrets of Chess Training). 19 g4? 1 1 9 ltJf3 was better. 19 . . .
ltJac6!
By attacki ng the e5-pawn , Black prevents the opening of lines on the kingside by g4g5. 20 ltJf3
!:tabS !
Again prophylaxis - this time against the threat of 21 .ll c4 'ii'b 2 22 l:tb3. And if 21 g5 there follows 2 1 . . . l:tb4 ! . 21 ..tc4! 22 .ll b3
'ifb2 ltJg6!
23 l:ta2 The black queen is nevertheless trapped , but the compensation for it will be more than sufficient. 23 . . .
l:txb3
24 l:txb2
.:!.xb2
25 'ii'c 1 ?! .l:.b3 25 was better. 25 . . .
l:tb4!
Yusupov sees through the trap set by the
Engl ish g ra n d master: after the n atu ral 25 ... l:tfb8?! there follows 26 l:tb3! l:t2xb3 (forced ) 27 cxb3, and the wh ite q ueen obtains use of the c-file. 26 h3
l:tfb8
Now 27 l:.b3 is pointless - Black replies 27 . . . a5! . Less convincing is 27 . . . ltJgxe5 28 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 29 'it'e3. 27 'ith2!
a5
28 'itg3 But what does White want now? Obviously, h3-h4-h5. 28 . . .
.l:.c4!
29 h4? is no longer possible in view of 29 . . . l:tbb4. 29 c3 Another trap: the tempting 29 . . . d4 is refuted by 30 ltJxd4 ltJxd4 3 1 'ii'f 1 ! . Even so, 29 ltJd2 was more tenacious. 29 . . .
a4!
30 ltJd2
ltJcxe5! !
3 1 1lla 1 3 1 ltJxc4 ltJxc4 3 2 l:te2 a 3 i s hopeless for Wh ite. 31 . . .
l:!.c7
32 1t'xa4
.l:tbc8
33 'ifa5
ltJc4
34 ltJxc4
.U.xc4
Black clearly has a g reat advantage and subseq uently be successfully converted it. Ill. Typical Positions
In our games we constantly reach positions with the same pawn structure , the same material balance and roughly the same arrangement of the pieces , as i n n umerous games played earlier. It is useful to know how strong players handled such positions, what plans they carried out and what ideas they implemented . Many rules, relating to particular types of positions, are well-known and are clearly
lZJ
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
formulated . For example: 'in open positions, bishops are stronger than knig hts'; 'the presence of opposite-colour bishops in the middlegame strengthens an attack' ; 'the side fighting against an isolated pawn i n the centre should aim for simplificatio n , to transpose into an endgame . ' However, i n the arsenal o f grandmasters a n d masters there are also nu merous more subtle, non-formal assessments. We under stand that 'in this type of position you should act in this way' , but sometimes we fi nd it hard to formulate what exactly is 'th is type' of position. The question of working on typical middle game positions has already been touched on in the second session of the school (cf. Secrets of Opening Preparation). There an important principle was emphasised : nowa days such work is unthinkable without linking it with the theory of the open ing from which the typical position arises. The reverse is also true: open ing studies will be effective only if a deep acquaintance is made with the ideas of the forthcoming middlegame. Taimanov - Yusu pov Len ing rad-Moscow Match 1 982 English Opening
1 d4
tt:Jf6
2 c4 3lt:\ f3 4lt:\ xd4 5lt:\ c3
c5 cxd4 b6 i.. b 7
6 f3 7 e4
e6 d6
8 i.e2 9 i.e3
a6 tt:Jbd7
10 0-0
Ji.e7
1 1 11i'd2
0-0
1 2 l1fd 1
l:r.c8 'iic 7
1 3ltac1 1 41i.f1
l:tfe8
1 5 �h1
17
'ii' b 8
The opening stage has developed log ically. Wh ite has constructed a powerfu l pawn piece centre, and in reply Yusupov has chosen a flexible set-up known as the ' Hedgehog ' . In his position there are no weaknesses, and all the time the opponent has to reckon with the undermining pawn moves . . . d6-d5 and . . . b6-b5. The chances are roughly eq ual, and the outcome of the su bsequent struggle depends on the strate gic skill of the two players. A year earlier Yusupov obtained the same position with Wh ite in a game against Vitaly Tsesh kovsky (49th U S S R Championship, Fru nze 1 98 1 ). The events in it took a rather instructive course: 1 6 i.g 1 i.f8 1 7 b4! ? tt:Je5! ( 1 7 . . . d5? 1 8 cxd5 i.. x b4 1 9 dxe6 fxe6 20 'ii' b 2 is u nfavourable for Black) 1 8 tt:Ja4 tt:Jfd7 1 9 a3 Ji.a8 20 tt:Jb3 (20 'ike3!?). Now Tsesh kovsky should have chosen between 20 . . . 1i.c6 and 20 . . . tt:Jxc4!? 21 Ji.xc4 b5. But he was tempted by the thematic advance 20 . . . b5?, which in the given situation proved bad and led to a clear advantage for Wh ite after 2 1 cxb5 axb5 22 tt:Jc3 tt:Jc4 23 'ii'a 2! (th reatening 24 tt:Jxb5 ! ) 23 . . . tt:Jde5 24 tt:Jd4. Yusupov's success in this game was due in no small measure to the fact that he carefully watched for . . . d6-d5 and . . . b6-b5, and always had a worthy reply to the m . 1 6 'iif2
i.. d 8!? An u nusual bishop manoeuvre. More often in such positions Black retreats it to f8 and then after . . . g7-g6 develops it at g 7 . 1 7 tt:Jb3? A passive move , which makes it hard for Wh ite to carry out the usual plan of play on the q ueenside: b2-b4, tt:Jb3 and at some point c4-c5. True, the i m mediate 1 7 b4?! was prematu re because of 1 7 ... tt:Je5 18 tt:Ja4 d 5 ! . But it was possible, for example, to play 1 7 'iig 1 tt:Je5 ( 1 7 . . . 1i.c7 1 8 b4) 1 8 b3 h6 1 9 tt:Ja4, nevertheless i ntending to play b3-b4! at a convenient moment. I n the game
18
�
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
An ikaev-Merkulov (USSR 1 982), where Wh ite made these moves, Black carried out the central break 1 9 . . . d5? (Yu ri Anikaev recommends 1 9 . . . tt:Jfd7 20 b4 g5!? 21 a3 'i!tg7). Alas, like the advance on the q ueen side made by Tsesh kovsky, it proved prema ture. After 20 exd5 exd5 21 c5 b5 22 tt:Jb6 ..txb6 23 cxb6 'i!Vd6 24 'ii'f2 'iVxb6 25 tt:Jxb5 .l:.xc1 26 .l::tx c1 'ii'd 8 27 .i.b6! Wh ite gained the advantage. 17 . . .
..tc7
18 'ili'g1
24 tt:Jf2 was better. 24 . . .
g4!
25 fxg4
e5
26 ..te3
tt:Jxg4
27 tt:Jd5? This natural move is i n fact simply a loss of time, helping the opponent to include his dark-square bishop in the assault. 27 tt:Jf2 was correct, aiming for simpl ificatio n . 27 . . .
.i.d8
28 tt:Jf2
.i.h4!
29 :ee2 29 tt:Jxb6 tt:Jxb6 30 .i.xb6 tt:Jxh2 ! . 29 . . .
tt:Jxe3
30 tt:Jxe3 30 !txe3 ..tg5. 30 . . .
.i.xf2
3 1 'ii'xf2
..txe4
The game is decided - Black has both an extra pawn , and an attack.
18 . . .
'it>h8 ! !
The start of a flexible plan of attack on the king side. 19 .U.c2
.l:.g8!
20 .l:tcd2
g5!
21 ..td4
:g6
21 . . . h5 was probably more accu rate . 22 tt:Jc1 ?! Wh ite underestimates the danger facing h i m . He should have halted t h e black pawns by playing 22 g4! . 22 . . .
.l:tcg8
23 tt:Jd3 23 g4 h5! 24 gxh5 :h6. 23 . . . 24 .l:te1
'ili'f8 !
32 tt:Jts
tt:Jcs
33 tt:Jg3
.i.a8
33 .. .f5 ! , prepari ng 34 . . . tt:Jd 3 , was more ener getic. The inaccuracies by both players in the concluding stage of the game a re explained by the time scramble. 34 l:r.d1
tt:Je6!
35 'ili'xb6
tt:Jf4
36 .l:tf2
'il'h6?!
Sergey Shipov recommends 36 . . . h5! 37 .l:txf4 (forced ) 37 . . . exf4 38 'ii'd 4+ 'it'g7 39 'ii'xf4 'ii' e 5! 40 'ii' h 4 .l:!.g4 41 'i!i'h3 h4 and wins. 37 'i!t g1
'ii' h 4
38 'ii' b 3? If 38 l:.xd6 Yusupov had prepared 38 . . . tt:Jh3+! 39 gxh3 �g3+ 40 hxg3 �xg3+ 4 1 .i.g2 ..txg2. However, as S h i pov pointed out, instead of 4 1 .i.g2? Wh ite can play 41 .ll g 2! ..txg2 42 'iif2 ! .i.xf1 + 43 'ili'xg3 .l:lxg3+ 44 'i!t xf1 with an u nclear rook endgame.
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
38 . . .
llh6
39 I:i.xf4
exf4
40 'ir'c3+
f6
41 tiJf5
.l:.xg2+!
42 i.xg2
'ifxh2+
White resigned . Would it have been easy at the board to devise such a plan: . . . h8, . . . .l:tg8 and g7g5 ? Of course it wou ldn't, but in the g iven instance there was also no need . Yusupov was well familiar with a game by Bobby Fischer, in which such a plan was apparently carried out for the first time. Fischer - Andersson Siegen 1 970 Simagin-Larsen Opening 1 b3 e5 2 i.b2 tLic6 3 c4 tiJf6 4 e3 i.e7 5 a3 0-0 6 'i'c2 .l:te8 7 d3 i.f8 8 lLif3 a5 9 i.e2 d5 10 cxd5 tLixd 5 11 tLibd2 f6 12 0-0 i.e6
After playing the open ing of the game experimentally, Fischer has set up (with reversed colours) the same 'Hedgehog' construction . Incidentally, this is a good illustration of the u niversal natu re of many strategic ideas - after studying the m , you will be able to use them in the most varied open ing lines.
lZJ
19
1 3 'it>h1 !! 'ii'd 7 1 4 .l:lg1 ! .l:tad8 1 5 ttJe4 'iff7?! 16 g4! g6?! ( 1 6 . . . t'Db6) 17 .l:tg3 i.g7 1 8 llag 1 t'Db6 1 9 t'Dc5 i.c8 2 0 t'Dh4 t'Dd7 21 t'De4 t'Df8 22 t'Df5 ! i.e6 23 t'Dc5 t'De7? (23 . . . i.c8) 24 t'Dxg7 'it>xg7 25 g5! t'Df5 26 llf3 b6 27 gxf6+ 'it>h8 28 t'Dxe6 llxe6 29 d4! exd4 30 i.c4 d3 31 i.xd3 llxd3 32 'ikxd3 l:.d6 33 'ii'c4, and soon Black resig ned .
IV. Typical Situations
Typical positions are cha racterised by a purely chess pattern - by a particular balance of force and its arra ngement on the board , whereas typical situations are charac terised by the content of the forthcoming struggle, derived from a general evaluation of the position. For example, you can study the laws of attack and defence, the convert ing of an advantage or manoeuvring in a roughly equal position , playing for a block ade, the struggle for the in itiative . . . Also of i nterest is the analysis of purely competitive situations, such as playi ng for a win or for a d raw, time-trouble, the encounteri ng of a su rprise in the openi n g , the avoidance of oversig hts, and so o n . I n previous sessions we have already discussed many such situations, and some of them have been very thoroughly stud ied - for example, the prob lem of converting an advantage. The rules and regularities that we set for ou rselves in such an analysis are no longer purely chess , but are rather concerned with chess psychology and behaviour. Remem ber, for instance, the need to fi nd a concrete solution at a key moment in the conversion of an advantage and the essentially contradic tory recommendation 'do not h u rry' . Such principles do not tell us directly what move should be made, but they suggest the correct direction of the search and help to create the frame of mind which is most appropriate to the situation .
20
�
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
Yusupov - Timoshchenko Kislovodsk 1 982 Caro-Kann Defence
1 c4 2 e4
c6
This game was played in the USSR Team Championsh ip, and the first challenge, in volvi ng the choice of open ing weapon , arose before it began. When in his preparations Yusupov looked to see how the opponent repl ied to the English Opening, he noticed that there was a possibil ity of transposing into the Caro-Kan n Defence. Sergey Dolma tov, who was playing for the same team as Artur, had played successfu lly aga inst this open ing, he had h is own prepared l i nes in the Panov Attack, and he was prepared to share them with his friend . The problem was that Yusupov hardly ever played 1 e4 and he had no experience in the resulting positions. Yet he had made a deep study of chess as a whole and had analysed games played with all the openings. If you possess a broad chess erudition , you can permit you rself (and sometimes it is even usefu l ) to take a risk in the open ing. 2 . . .
d5
3 exd5
cxd5
4 d4
l2Jf6
5 l2Jc3
l2Jc6
6 l2Jf3
.ig4
7 cxd5
l2Jxd5
8 'ikb3
.ixf3
9 gxf3
l2Jb6
Another possibility for Black is the endgame arising after 9 . . . e6 1 0 'i!i'xb7 l2Jxd4 1 1 .ib5+ l2Jxb5 1 2 'ikc6+! rl;;e 7 1 3 'ii'x b5 'i!i'd7 1 4 l2Jxd5+ �xd5. 1 0 d5
l2Jd4
11 .ib5+
l2Jd7
1 2 'iia 4
e5?
In his preparations Yusupov had only reck oned with 1 2 . . . l2Jxf3+ and 1 2 . . . l2Jxb5 1 3
'i!i'xb5 g6. A new situation now arose - the search for the correct response to an opening novelty by the opponent. 1 3 dxe6
l2Jxe6
1 4 .ie3? A normal developing move - this would probably have been played without th inking by almost everyone. But now Black gains time, by attacking the bishop on b5, to force favourable exchanges. Cast an unprej ud iced glance at the position doesn't it remind you of anyth ing? Wouldn't you agree that we have seen someth ing similar in the old games of Paul Morphy and Adolf Anderssen? The centre is ope n , the black king is stuck in the centre (true, at the moment Wh ite's is also there), and there is a pin on the a4-e8 diagonal as in the famous Morphy-AII ies game. But do you remember what you should do i n such situations? Sacrifice if necessary, i n h ibit the opponent's development and at the same time complete your own development as quickly as possi ble, bring you r rooks to the open files in the centre and create a mating attack on the enemy king . Alas, such opening strategy is someth ing that we have now half-forgotten , since in modern set-ups the play is usually in a q u ite different key. I am in no doubt that without
ctJ
The Im provement of Positional Mastery
thinking Morphy would have played 1 4 � g5! ! , i n order t o place his rook on d 1 a s quickly as possible. Black's position would immed iately have become hopeless: 14 .. .c8 . For exam ple, 1 8 .l::tfd 1 ? ! I1ac8 ! 1 9 lLle4 I1c6 20 I1 ac1 .l:1d8! , and Black successfully com pletes his development. 1 8 lLld5! The g randmaster frustrates the suggested arrangement of the forces. As you see, even when fig hting for the i nitiative , prophylactic operations are sometimes g iven preference over attacking ones. 18 . . .
A new situation has arise n , one that is rather difficult to play. Yusupov worked it out splendid ly.
1 7 0-0 ! I t i s wel l known that t h e favourable factors operati ng in a position can be sub-divided into constant (end uring) and temporary. It is obvious that Wh ite has no constantly operat ing advantages - on the contrary, his pawn structure is worse than the opponent's. His
.l::!. a d8
What to do now? In the event of 1 9 .i.b6 after 1 9 . . . .l:!.c8 Black will nevertheless play his rook to c6 . And if 1 9 .l:i.fd 1 , then 1 9 . . . rJ;;c8 20 .i.b6 (20 �a7 b5!) 20 . . . �de8! (20 . . . l:!.d7? 2 1 l:!.ac1 + 'it>b8 22 lLle3 ! , a n d lLlf5 o r l:Ic2-d2 is threatened ) 21 .i.a7 b5! 22 lL:l b6+ 'it>b7 23 l:txd6 ctixa7, and Black, at the least, stands no worse. I n stead of 21 �a7 it is preferable to play 2 1 lLlf6 ! ? gxf6 22 l:Ixd6 or 21 . . . .i.xh2+ 22 'it'xh2 gxf6 23 l:Iac 1 + 'it>b8 24 nd7 '
22
�
The I mprovement of Positional Mastery
retaining some pressure, but to Yusupov this evidently seemed insufficient. 19 l:tac1 1 Again prophylaxis: Wh ite prevents the re treat of the ki ng. Now it does not have the c8square, while if 1 9 .. .e6
Perhaps at last it is time to place a rook on d 1 ? No, it is still too early - Black will then consolidate his position with 21 . . . g5! fol lowed by . . . f7-f6 and . . . �e5. 21 llfe1 ! I n the event of 2 1 f4 !? Wh ite would have had to reckon with 21 . . . 'lt>f5 22 .l::tfd 1 l2Je6 23 lld5+ 'lt>g4, and the f4-pawn is attacked . 21 . . .
'iii> f5
22 .l::te d1 23 .U.xd6 l:txd6 24 .l:txc7 is threatened . 22 . . . 'lt>e6? is bad in view of 23 I:.xd6+! �xd6 24 �f4+, while after the knight moves the wh ite rook invades with gain of tempo on d 5 . 22 . . .
l2Je6
'it>f6 23 lld5+ 23 . . . 'lt>g6!? or 23 . . . ii.e5 !? 24 l2Jd7 f6 came into consideration . 24 l:tcd 1 �c7 25 l2Jd7+
'lt>e7
The battle to retai n the i n itiative has conclud ed successfully for Wh ite. With a series of precise prophylactic moves Yusupov has cramped the opponent's pieces and gained a defin ite spatial advantage. Now the character of the play changes there comes a phase of manoeuvring with the aim of accu mulating add itional positional pluses and g radually breaking up the enemy defences. I should mention that for the moment Wh ite's advantage is not yet decis ive and for success he requ i res a certai n 'cooperation' on t h e p a rt o f t h e opponent. But, of course, he won't go wrong of his own free will - i n this he must be hel ped . 26 b4! The plan is clear: a2-a4 and then at an appropriate moment b4-b5-b6 . Of course, this is not fata l , but it is rather u n pleasant. I n cidentally, the attempt to win a pawn did not work: 26 ii.c5+? t2J xc5 27 t2Jxc5 l:.xd5 28 .l::tx d5 .l::td 8 29 .Uxd8 ii.xd8 30 t2J xb7 ii.b6. 26 . ..
f6
27 a4
g5?!
By strengthening his control of the f4-point, Timoshchenko fights against the advance of the b-pawn . If 28 b5 he had prepared 28 . . . axb5 29 axb5 l:lhe8 30 b6 �f4 . Howev er, the cure proves worse than the ail ment in Black's position there is now a real weakness: the f6-pawn . The restrai ned 27 . . . l:.he8 followed by . . . 'lt>f7 was better. 28 ii.c1 ! ? The th reat o f 2 9 �b2 i s highly u npleasant, and in some cases .ta3 is also possible. However, 28 ii.d4!? also deserved serious consideration , forcing an advantageous ex change of minor pieces (28 . . . .:txd7? is not possible on account of 29 llxd7+ 'lt> xd7 30 .txf6+ and 31 �xh8). 28 . . .
l2Jf4?
Another mistake, provoked by Yusupov's last move. 28 . . . .l::t h g8! was essential, preparing to defend the f6-pawn with the rook from g6.
CtJ
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
29 i.xf4
.ixf4?!
N ow Black loses a pawn. But also after 29 . . . gxf4 White has a clear positional su peri ority. 30 l2Jxf6 !
The concluding phase of the game is the conversion of the adva ntage already achieved . .l:tc8?!
30 . . .
30 . . . h6 was more tenacious. 3 1lLlh5
3 1 ltJxh 7 ! ? was also possible. 31 . . .
.ic7
32l:Ie 1 +
�f7
33l:Id7+
'itt g 6
34l2Jg7 ! ?
34 ltJg3 . .idS
34 . . .
34 . . . l:!.hf8 would have lost q u ickly: 35 .l:te6+ J:l.f6 36 .l:!.xf6+ �xf6 37 .l:txc7 l:txc7 38 tLle8+ . 3 5 .l::Lx b7 36.l:l.e6
.if6 .l:.hf8
36 . . . .!:!.b8 37 .l:!.xb8 (37 .l:.a7! ? ) 37 . . . l:!.xb8 38 ltJe8 'iitf7 39 .l:txf6+ 'it>xe8 40 l:txa6 was also hopeless. 37l:Ixa6
And Wh ite won easily. V. Planning
There is a widely-held opinion that the highest strategic skill is the abil ity to encom pass virtually the enti re game with in a deep and integ ral plan, and that is how the lead ing grandmasters th ink. Of course, this is a delusio n . It is pointless to decide on an ultra long program of actio n , when the very next move may completely change the situation on the board and g ive the play a q u ite different directio n . I t can happen that a position reached from the open ing has been studied in detail by chess theory and that we do indeed have a
23
good knowledge of what to do in it. Also in the endgame a complicated plan may be put into effect - if we know how the theoretical reference books recommend playing it. But a multi-stage program of action found directly at the board is a g reat rar;•y. How then in fact do players plan their play? Usually they decide only on a direction, a very general cou rse of action. For example, we real ise that the position req uires an offensive on the q ueenside, and we draw up an approximate outline of such an offensive. I n d ividual (as a rule - small) strategic opera tions are plan ned in more deta i l . If the operations carried out are timely and good , and they contribute to eventual success, when we look through the game in our eyes they unite into a consistent plan. Here is what grand master Alexander Kotov writes about this i n his book Think like a Grandmaster. 'A unified plan in a game of chess is a series of strategic operations, following one after another and each time carrying out a separate idea which arises from the de mands of the position on the board. '
I n the game which we will now examine, at first sight the outline of a un ified plan is visible: Wh ite closed the centre and the q ueenside, after which he successfully con ducted an attack on the king . How such a plan is in fact constructed is someth ing that I will endeavour to demonstrate in the notes. Yusu pov - Rubi netti I nterzonal Tournament, Toluca 1 982 Old Indian Defence tLlf6 1 d4 2 c4 d6
3 tLlc3
tLlbd7
4 tLlf3
c6
Black is intending the development scheme . . . e7-e5, . . . .ie7 and . . . 0-0 . In carrying out his ideas, a player usually endeavours to take i nto account, and if possible prevent the
24
�
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
opponent's plans that are u npleasant for him. Jorge Rubinetti did not play 4 . . . e5 immediately, in order not to al low a well known (and rather dangerous) wh ite devel opment scheme: 5 �g5 �e7 6 'ifc2 followed by e2-e3 and �d3. Now if 5 ..ig5 he has the good reply 5 . . . h6 6 ..ih4 g5 7 �g3 l2Jh5. 5 e4
e5
6 ..ie2
..ie7
7 0-0
0-0
8 h3 The first small strategic idea (not cou nting the choice of arranging the pieces in the opening). Wh ite prepares �e3, in order then to play d4-d5 and after the reply . . . l2Jc5 to defend the e4-pawn by l2Jd2 , without sh ut ting in the bishop. It is with such operations that any experienced competitor plans his play. But, of course , this is not the only possible approach to the position - accord ing to theory, the immed iate 8 d5 is also strong. 8 . . .
logical (to defend it by f2-f3 with the pawn already on h3 is very u ndesirable). Yusu pov would most probably have replied 1 2 'ii'c 2 , 1 3 l:tad 1 (with the threat of 1 4 l2Jxc6 bxc6 1 5 ..ixc5), and then either f2-f4 followed by �f3 , or l2Jf5 . Again I would not ventu re to judge which is more important: Wh ite's spatial advantage or the opponent's control of the dark squares . 1 1 d5
Fully consistent (White has prepared this move) and also in the style of Yusupov, who l i kes positions with a spatial advantage. 11 . . .
"ikc7
1 2 l2Jd2
l2Jc5
a6
Black wants to play 9 . . . b5, creati ng the th reat of 1 O . b4 . Should White forestall the oppo nent's activity by 9 a4 , in retu rn conced ing to him the c5-point, or is the simple 9 ..ie3 b5 1 0 a3 better? I don't know the correct answer to this question. Chess is a complicated and imprecise game, and the choice is often a matter of a player's style and tastes. . .
9 a4
a5
Otherwise Wh ite would have seized space on the queenside with 1 0 a5. 1 0 �e3
In the event of 1 0 d5 l2Jc5 1 1 'i¥c2 Black replies 1 1 . . . 'ikc7 , creating the th reat of 12 . . . cxd5 1 3 cxd5? l2Jcxe4 . 10 . . .
lieS
A questionable move. It is useful in the event of the pawn exchange on d4, but after White's intended d4-d5 the rook would do better to remain on f8 . 1 0 . . . exd4 1 1 l2Jxd4 l2Jc5, attacking the e4-pawn , looks more
Wh ite has largely completed the develop ment of his pieces; now the time has come to decide what to do next. With the pawn on a2 the usual plan is an offensive on the q ueenside: l:. b 1 , b2-b3, a2-a3 and b3-b4. But the pawn is on a4 and there is no play on the q ueenside. The other standard advance f2-f4 will further weaken the dark squares, g ranting the opponent the excellent central square e5. The grand master found what was probably the only promising plan (or more precisely next strategic operation ). The preceding operations of both sides were standard ones, and the only d ifficulty was choosing between
lLJ
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
various possibil ities. But the idea fou nd now by Yusupov was very u n u su a l , and wou l d appear n o t t o have occu rred before in similar positions - it is this that makes the game special. 13 'it>h2!
..tdB
an obviously u nsou n d idea . The suggestion of Vlad i m i r Kra m n i k was fa r stronger: 14 . . . 'ii'd 7 ! , not only cleari ng the way for the bishop to g o to b6, but also preventi ng g2-g 3 for t h e m oment and intending to meet 1 5 g4 with 1 5 . . . lt:Jh5! . 1 5 llb1
1 4 l:tg1 ! ! Wh ite prepares g2-g3 and then f2-f4 . (After the immediate 1 4 g3 there was the reply 14 . . .'ii' d 7, whereas now it will be possible to defend the h3-pawn with the bishop from f1 . ) I n the event o f the exchange on f4 , witho u t conced ing any central sq uares Wh ite i n creases his spatial advantage, and his r o o k is excellently placed o n t h e newly-opened g file. And i f Black avoids t h e exchange o f pawns, there follows f4-f5 and g3-g4-g5 , and again t h e roo k stands where i t i s needed . This is the main plan of action , but Yusupov also envisaged another deve l opment of events. Wh ite can also play g2-g4 , and then either o rgan ise a pawn storm on the king side with g4-g5 and h3-h4-h5 (the rook will support it from g1 ), or manoeuvre his knight via the vacated f1 -square to f5 . In the event of the exchange on f5 the rook will end up on an open file. We see that again o n e is not talking about a clear-cut plan, since depending o n his opponent's reactio n Wh ite can choose this or that line of play. But at any event we are right to ad mire the versatil ity of Yusupov's idea the moves he has made will prove u sefu l whatever the development of events. For h is part, Black did not manage to cou nter his opponent's excellent play. However, the plan , beg u n with his last move , of playing his bisho p to b6 is q u ite logica l . Also after 1 3 . . ..tf8 1 4 l:tg 1 !! or 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 l:.g 1 !! lt:Jh7 1 5 g3 Wh ite would have stood better. .
14 . . .
25
'it'b6?
It turns out that, i n o rder to prepare . . . ..tb6, Black has decided to play his q ueen to a7 -
As the general plan is put into effect, the placing of the individual pieces is made more precise. 1 5 'il'c2 is weaker - from d 1 the q ueen threatens the d6-pawn , and in addi tion it may later be needed on the d 1 -h5 diagonal . 15 . . .
'iia 7
In order to carry out his pla n , Black has had to s h ut his q u een o ut of the game - a clear sign that his idea is faulty. 1 6 g4! Taking into account the poor placi ng of the opponent's pieces, Yusupov chooses the more agg ressive of his two plan ned offen sive o ptions. 16 . . .
l:tf8?
Too passive (Black wants to support his d6pawn with his knight from e8). 1 6 . . . ..tb6 1 7 g 5 li:Jfd7 was more consistent. Apparently, Rubinetti was afraid of losing a pawn after 1 8 li:Jf1 li:Jf8 1 9 dxc6 bxc6 20 'ii'x d6, but even by playing simply 20 . . . ..tb7!? followed by . . . :ad8 , . . . lt:Jce6 and . . . lt:Jg6, Black would have gai ned fi ne cou nter-chances, and with 20 . . . Itd8 ! 21 'i¥xc6 (2 1 'ii'x e5 ..tc7) 21 . . . ..td7 he would have trapped the enemy q u een . Yusupov was intending to prevent the ap pearance of the knight at g6 by 1 8 h4! li:Jf8 1 9 h 5 , and if 1 9 . . .lt:Ja6, then 20 l:.g3, preparing an attack on the kingside and intending, of cou rse, to captu re on e3 with the f-pawn . 1 7 li:Jf1 ! 1 7 g5?! lt:Je8 was now inadvisable - Black would have advanced his f-pawn , obtaining cou nterplay. We once again see how flexibly you should vary you r plans, depending on the opponent's actions.
26
�
The Improvement of Positional Mastery
17 . . .
tt:Je8
1 8 lt:Jg3
f6
1 9 ttJf5
il.xf5
Positional capitu lation, but all the same Black's position was already difficult. 20 gxf5 Ji.b6
fxg6 does not work because of 23 .. .f5 . The sacrifice can be prepared by 22 Wg4 l:td7 23 'i!i'h4 . Yusu pov was afraid that after 23 . . . ttJd3 24 Ji.g6 the opponent would prolong the resistance by giving u p the exchange: 24 . . . hxg6 25 fxg6 .Uff7 . However, as was shown by g randmaster Patrick Wolff, Wh ite wins by force with 26 'ilfh7+ 'it>f8 27 'ii' h 8+ 'it>e7 28 gxf7 'it>xf7 29 l:txg7+! tt:Jxg7 30 .ll g 1 . The winning method chosen in the game is in no way worse. 22 il.h6!
.ll d 7
23 Ji.xe8
:xeS
24 'it'h5 There was no need to calculate the i m medi ate sacrifice on g7, since the q ueen can be brought u p with gain of tempo. 24 . . .
'it'b8
25 Ji.xg7! Black resigned . 21 Ji.h5! Rubinetti has only just completed his planned bishop manoeuvre, but Yusupov is already embarking on the final attack. His bishop itself attacks something and at the same time clears the way for the q ueen . lidS 21 . . . Now a concrete path to the goal has to be chosen. For the moment 22 Ji.g6 hxg6 23
The entire game is an excellent, textbook example on the theme of 'strategy'. The events in it were explained not by variations, but by the plans of the two sides. Wh ite's rapid success was determ ined , on the one hand, by the deep plan found by Yusupov on the 1 3th move, and on the other hand - by the fau lty strategic idea, which his opponent began carrying out at the same time.
l2J
27
Mark Dvoretsky
P rophylactic Thi n ki n g he idea of prophylaxis was put fo �ard
Tby Ni mzowitsch . He defines the a 1 m of
prophylaxis as being 'to blunt the edge of certain possibilities which in a positional sense would be undesirable. ' I n his famous book My System Aaron N imzowitsch makes a detailed exam ination of forms of prophylax is such as the over-protection of strateg ically important poi nts and the prevention of freeing pawn moves. In N imzowitsch's opinion , the role of prophy laxis in chess is extremely important. He writes: 'Neither attack nor defence is, in my opinion, a matter properly pertaining to position play, which is rather an energetic and systematic application of prophylactic measures. ' This opinion seems paradoxica l . I n position al play there are so many different aspects is it admissible to reduce it to just one element, even though a very important one? Nimzowitsch's idea became closer and more understandable to me after I stud ied the following example.
Many years ago, when I was still a school boy, g randmaster Simagin set u p this posi tion and invited me to fi nd a winning move for Wh ite . After some thought, I said that the problem had no solution . Vlad imir Pavlovich retreated the bishop to a2. 'Can such a move really be winning?' I asked in perplexity. Try and fi nd a satisfactory reply. ' I tried , but I couldn't fi nd one. I remember that this episode made a very strong impression on me - for the first time I was able to sense the power and beauty of qu iet positional moves. A few years later, tu rning over the pages of the book by Paul Keres on the 1 948 World Championship Match-Tournament, I came across the familiar position . It occu rred there in two of the games. The initial moves were 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tt:'!f3 tt:'!f6 4 ttJc3 c6 5 e3 tt:'!bd7 6 i.d3 i.b4 7 a3 ..tas 8 'ilc2 'ile7 9 i.d2 dxc4 1 0 ..txc4 e5 1 1 0-0 0-0. Reshevsky-Euwe : 1 2 d5 c5? 1 3 d6! with adva ntage to White , since 1 3 . . . 'ii'x d6? 1 4 tt:'!b5 'ii' b 6 1 5 b4 i s bad for Black. However, as Keres pointed out, Black could have ach ieved an acceptable game in at last th ree ways: a) 1 2 . . . ..tc7 1 3 dxc6 bxc6 ; b) 1 2 . . . ..txc3 1 3 ..txc3 cxd5 1 4 i.b4 tt:'!c5 1 5 i.xd5 tt:'!xd5 1 6 i.xc5 'ii'c 7; c) 1 2 . . . tt:'!b6 1 3 ..ta2 i.xc3 1 4 ..txc3 tt:'!bxd5 1 5 i.xe5 i.g4 . I n the fi rst two cases Wh ite's position would nevertheless have remai ned preferable, but i n the th ird one the chances are roughly eq ual. Botv i n n i k-Euwe : Wh ite chose the logical move 1 2 llae 1 , prepari ng the advance of his e- and f-pawns, which is typical of such
28
�
Prophylactic Thinking
positions (after the exchange on e5). The opponent replied 1 2 . . . ..ic7, th reate n i n g 1 3 . . . e4 . Now Wh ite ca n try to conti nue his plan with 1 3 ..id3 .l:te8 14 dxe5 tt:'lxe5 1 5 tt:'lxe5 'i!lxe5 1 6 f4 , but then 1 6 . . . 'ii' h 5, and Black is alright. The prophylactic move 1 3 h3!? deserved serious consideration, in order after 1 3 . . . e4 1 4 tt:'lg5 to parry the th reat of 1 4 . . . ..ixh2+. Black would have repl ied 14 . . . tt:'lb6! 1 5 ..ia2 'i!Vd6 or 15 . . . �f5 with a complicated game. Mikhail Botvi nnik chose 1 3 tt:'le4 tt:'lxe4 1 4 'ii'xe4 , and after 1 4 . . . a5? ! 1 5 �a2 tt:'lf6 1 6 'ii'h 4 e4 1 7 tt:'le5! he seized the in itiative . Sounder was 1 4 . . . �d6 1 5 ..ic3 exd4 1 6 'ii'x d4 tt:'lf6 or 1 4 . . . tt:'lf6 1 5 'ii' h 4 e4 1 6 tt:'le5 ..ie6 with roughly equal cha nces. Thus in neither of these two games did Wh ite demonstrate a convincing way to ach ieve an advantage. The strongest continuation was pointed out by Keres. 12 �a2 ! ! How can i t b e arrived at? Let us ask ourselves what Black wants, and how he is now intending to play. Obviously, not 1 2 . . . e4? 1 3 tt:'lxe4 . 12 . . . �xc3? is also clearly bad : 1 3 ..ixc3 e4 1 4 tt:'le5 with the th reats of 1 5 ..ib4 or 1 5 f3 . The open ing of li nes in the centre by 1 2 . . . exd4?! 1 3 exd4 ! is also to Wh ite's advantage - he qu ickly develops dangerous pressure by .l:tfe 1 and tt:'le5 (or tt:'lg5). After 1 2 . . . .l:te8? the f7-point is weakened , while in the event of 12 . . . h6? there is the un pleasant reply 1 3 tt:'lh4, when the knight goes to f5 or g6. The only sensible move is 12 . . . �c7 ! , which prepares 1 3 . . . e4 and thereby provokes the opponent into releasing the tension i n the centre. If it were possible to prevent this move, Black would encou nter serious prob lems. Now we can appreciate the true worth of the modest bishop retreat. It is usefu l as regards Wh ite's subsequent plans (the bishop is not
attacked after . . . tt:'lb6, and it can possibly go to b1 ). But the main th ing is that now in reply to 1 2 . . . �c7 he has 1 3 tt:'lb5 ! . For example, 1 3 ... �b8 14 �b4 c5 1 5 ..ixc5 ! , winning a pawn . At the same time Wh ite creates the positional threat of gaining the advantage of the two bishops by 1 3 tLld5 and 1 4 ..ixa5. If this is parried , say, by 1 2 . . . ..ib6, then he strengthens his position with 1 3 l:.ae 1 , when what Black should do is not clear. Perhaps it makes sense to nevertheless try 1 2 . . . ..ic7 ! ? ('if i t is impossible, b u t you very much want to , then you can ! ' ) 1 3 tt:'lb5 ..ib6! 1 4 ..ib4 c5. However, after 1 5 dxc5 ..ixc5 1 6 l:tfd 1 ! and the u navoidable tt:'ld6 his position is unenvi able. The strong impression made by the g iven example induced me to make a serious study of the problem of prophylaxis in genera l . Soon I switched my attention from actual prophylactic moves to the process of search ing for them - from the practical point of view this seemed more important. It became clea r that there was the need to develop an approach to the position, which I call 'prophylactic thinking' - the habit of constantly asking yourself what the oppo nent wants to do, what he would play if it were h i m to move, the abil ity to find an answer to this question and to take account of it i n the process of coming to a decisio n . Developing t h e skill o f prophylactic th i n king enables a player to make an enormous step forward , and to g reatly raise his standard of play. Why? I will single out two main reasons. 1 ) The range of positions in which prophylac tic th inking can be used is extremely broad. Any sign ificant positional decision is bound to combine the implementation of your own plans with actions against the opponent's (th is is how I understand the sense of N imzowitsch 's statement g iven above about the role of prophylaxis). The main principle of converting an advantage is the restriction of the opponent's possibilities; it is clear that
lLJ
Prophylactic Thinking
here one can n ot manage without prophylac. tic th inking . By developing this trait, you also become stronger in tactics and you make fewer blunders. When defending a d ifficult position, you must all the time see with what you are th reatened ; and when attacking you must reckon with the opponent's defensive resou rces. Thus a possession of the skill of prophylactic th inking exerts a favourable influence o n practically all aspects of your play. 2) Chess is a battle between two players with equal rights, and your opponent's ideas may be no worse than yours. It is logically clear that the o ptimal strategy should harm o n i ous ly combine the implementation of your own ideas and the preventio n of your o pponent's. Of course, it is bad to remain passive and merely destroy, but the opposite tendency is also extremely dangero u s , and liable to lead to constant failures. Meanwh ile, players often forget to th i n k about their opponent's p l a n s . T h i s is under standable: concentration on o ne's own feel ings is typical of human natu re . After a l l , sometimes i n life too , u nfortunately, w e d o not take t o o much account of t h e tho u ghts and feelings of others. Thus it is not a matter, of cou rse, of giving priority to destructive actio n s over creative ones, but simply that the important skill of prophylactic thinking is most probably insuffi ciently well developed i n us. By improving this aspect i n which we are backward , and making our th inking more harmonious, we will certainly raise sign ificantly our overall standard of play. Of my own games on the theme of prophy laxis, the o n e that left the strongest impres sion was my encounter with Vitaly Tseshko vsky from the 1 975 USSR Spartakiad .
29
This was a famous match , in which the Moscow team lost to Russia with a score of %-8Y:z! A certai n folklore even developed aro u n d it. 'We will g ive u p M oscow, but save Russia', the spectators q uoted M . I . Kutuzov* after the end of the match . And g rand master Bukh uti Gurgen idze spread his hands in astonishment: ' E ight and half, was this deliberate? After all, there is a fi l m of this name by Fel l i n i . ' With Wh ite against Lev Polugayevsky, the Moscow team captain Vasily S myslov made the opening moves 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d 5 . After losing the game, Vasily Vasil ievich lamented : ' I was wrong to play 3 d 5 ; I got carried away and over-rated my positi o n . I should have played 3 lLlf3 ! ' . B u t a t a team meeti ng after t h e match Smyslov tried to reassure everyone: ' Never m i n d , the most important thing is that everyone is still alive . ' I a l s o made my 'contribution' to the defeat of the M oscow tea m , but alas, it was my opponent who demonstrated the strength of prophylactic th inking . Tsesh kovsky - Dvoretsky Riga 1 975 French Defence
1 e4 2 d4
e6
3 lLld2
c5
4 lbgf3
lbc6
5 exd5
exd5
6 ..tbS
i.. d 6
7 dxc5
..txc5
d5
8 lbb3
..td6
9 0-0
lbge7
In 1 974 I spent several days at a training session with Victor Korch n o i , who was
*Russian a rmy com m ander M i khai l Kutuzov, po pu l arl y cred ited with saving Russia a g a i nst N a poleon's invasion i n 1 8 1 2 . (translator's n ote)
30
�
Prophylactic Thinking
preparing for his final Candidates match against Anatoly Karpov. I remember that we were analysing a similar position from the same open ing variation, and I asked Victor Lvovich why he developed his knight at f6, and not at e7. The grandmaster looked at me in su rprise. 'Let's stop and th ink about th is. How should the pieces be arranged when you have an isolated pawn? The place for the knight is at f6 , and later - at e4 . And the bishop is best kept on the g 1 -a7 diagonal - from there it puts pressure on the f2-poi nt. In the main variation Black plays 8 . . . ii.d6 and 9 . . . tt:'le7 simply on account of concrete factors (if 9 . . . tt:'lf6 there is the un pleasant reply 1 0 .l:r.e 1 + , while in the event of 8 . . . ii.b6 Wh ite will immediately offer the advantageous ex change of bishops: 9 l:!.e 1 + and 1 0 ii.e3). But if you can develop the pieces on their lawful sq uares without being pun ished , you should do so . ' Such evaluations, heard from the lips (or read in the commenta ries) of top players, sometimes help you to sense the subtleties of opening strategy far better than lengthy articles and specialised books . 1 0 .l:te1
0-0
1 1 ii. g 5
ii. g 4
Many years later Artur Yusupov played this in the first game of his Candidates match against Vasily lvanch uk (Brussels 1 99 1 ). lvanchuk repl ied 12 i.. h 4, preparing 13 i.. g 3. After the game Korch noi asked Yusupov: 'What, old chap, did you al low the bishops to be exchanged? Back in 1 974 I realised that 1 1 .. .'ii' c7 should be played . ' However, in the 1 8th game of the Karpov Korch noi match (Moscow 1 974) Wh ite was able to demonstrate what is in my view a convincing plan for gaining an advantage: 1 2 c3 ( 1 2 i.. h 4? tt:'lf5) 1 2 . . . .ig4 1 3 h 3 ii.h5 1 4 ii.e2 h6 1 5 .ixe7! tt:'Jxe7 (the drawback of the queen 's position at c7 is felt - the knight has to be placed in a passive position ; with the
queen on d8 Black would have captu red with the bishop and the d5-pawn would have been defended ) 1 6 tt:'lfd4 ii.xe2 1 7 Vxe2 a6 1 8 'ii'f3 llad8 1 9 .l:!.ad 1 . By carrying out advantageous excha nges, Karpov has em phasised the weakness of the d5-pawn . He now plans to i ntensify the pressu re on it, by doubling rooks on the d-file and playing his knight to e3. 12 h3
ii.h5
13 ii.xc6 Tseshkovsky 'takes the bull by the horns' he immediately tries to refute the opponent's opening set-u p. Other, more restrai ned pos sibilities , are 1 2 i.. e 2 and 1 2 i.. h 4 (without the inclusion of 1 2 h3) . 13 . . .
bxc6
1 4 tt:'lbd4
l:tcB
1 5 c4
l:teB
Black prepares . . . f7-f6 . Later, also against Tsesh kovsky (Sochi 1 975), Boris Gulko played 1 5 . . . h6, and after 1 6 .ih4 g5 ( 1 6 . . . 'i!i'c7 ! ? ) 1 7 ii.g3 .ixg3 he obtai ned a good position . Wh ite chose a more critical conti nuation in the game Peters-Ervin (Lone Pine 1 978): 1 6 i.. x e7 !? i.. x e7 1 7 g4 ii.g6 1 8 tt:'le5 . 1 6 l:tc1 ? ! It was probably better t o exchange pawns on d5. S ubsequently the black bishop migh1 have been able to go to d 5 . 16 . . .
f6
1 7 .ie3
'ii'd 7
1 8 'ifa4
i.. f7
1 8 . . . dxc4!? followed by . . . ii. h5-f7-d5 came into consideration . 1 9 c5
i.. b B
20 b4
i.. h 5 ! ?
I n t h e event o f 20 . . . tt:'l g 6 (intending . . . tt:'l e 5 ) was concerned about the reply 2 1 b5. (see diagram)
I
t2J
Prophylactic Thinking
31
Having coped successfully with my opening problems and seen how badly th ings were going on the other boards, I decided to play for a wi n . I thought that Tseshkovsky's main strength was in a fight for the in itiative, in dynamic, attacking play, and that in positional play he felt less confident than me. But he demon strated that he had a splendid mastery of all types of chess weapons. 2 1 ..td2 ! !
I took an optimistic view of this position . By playing 21 . . . lZ:lf5 Black intends to develop pressure on the opponent's kingside. If 22 lLlxf5 there follows either 22 . . . ..txf3 23 lZ:ld4 .te4 (intending 24 .. .'ii' c 7), or 22 . . . 'ii'xf5 23 lLld4 'ii'e 5 24 g3 (24 f4 'ii' c 7 with the th reat of 25 . . .l:be3) 24 . . . ..tg6 ! ? 25 lZ:lxc6 'i¥h5 . I will make a slight digression . I g reatly respected my opponent Vitaly Tsesh kovsky. He was a deep, creative player, and the first encounters with him in championships of the country did not go my way. Tseshkovsky played better, saw more and constantly outplayed me. But our most recent meeting in the Premier League of the 1 97 4 U S S R Championship h a d followed a d ifferent sce nario. There I shared fifth place, but I could even have fi nished th ird if in the last round I had beaten Tseshkovsky with Black. And , it has to be said , I was close to success. I n a complicated strategic battle I outplayed h i m . In a n overwhelming position and with m y opponent in severe time-trouble, i t was only a vexing, over-hasty move, involving an oversight, which prevented me from achiev ing my goal (cf. the lectu re Transformation of a position ' ) . After this g a m e I decided that t h e era o f his superiority over me had ended and that now we were fig hting as equals. At the Spartakiad I was no longer afraid of my opponent.
A n excellent prophylactic move. Now 2 1 . . . lLlf5?! i s pointless because of 2 2 l:txe8+, when Black has to recaptu re with the bishop (22 . . . l:txe8? 23 'ifxc6 , or first 23 lLlxf5). Black's idea is frustrated , and he has to readj ust and develop a new pla n . I n such situations the probability of a mistake usually increases sharply. I probably should have played 2 1 . . . ..tg6! followed by . . . ..te4 . But I conceived another plan , involving the manoeuvre of my knight to c4 . U nfortunately, I often used to carry out my ideas too hastily, without due verification. 21 . . .
..tf3?!
22 lZ:lxf3
lLlg6
22 . . . lLlf5 ! ? . 23 .l:i.xe8+
l:.xe8
24 lLld4
lZ:le5?
A serious mistake, which effectively decides the game. The correct move order was 24 . . . l:.c8 ! , intending . . . lZ:le5-c4 followed by . . . ..te5, or, if the knight manoeuvre does not prove feasible, then 25 . . . ..te5. (see diagram)
However, even now it is not immed iately apparent how to forestal l Black's plan (25 . . . lZ:lc4 , then 26 . . . l:tc8 and 27 . . . ii.e5). 25 ..tf4? fails to 25 . . . lZ:ld3. There is a pretty reply to 25 f!c2 - 25 . . . lZ:lc4 ! 26 'ii'x c6? lZ:lxd2 ! . If 25 l::te 1 , then 25 . . . f!c8 . It is probable that here
32
�
Prophylactic Thinking
27 'ii' b 3
a6
28 l:te1
g6
29 ..tg3
ctm
30 'iWe3 There is no defence against the i nvasion on the e-file. 30oo .'ii'd 7 31 f4 ttJc4 32 We6+ 'ii'x e6 33 l:lxe6 lLlb2 34 1:lxc6 .Uxc6 35 ttJxc6 �c7 36 f2 a5 37 bxa5 ttJd3+ 38 �e3 ttJxc5 39 d4 ttJe4 40 xd5 ttJxg3 41 a6 �b6 42 a4 �e8 43 a5 �f2 44 ttJd4 Black resigns. - position after 24 lL:Je5? . . .
too White retains the better chances after 26 'ii'a 6! (but not 26 �f4? tLld3) 26 . . . f7 (26 . . . ttJc4? 27 .l:.e 7 ! ) 27 ..tf4 tLlf3+ 28 ttJxf3 ..txf4 , but the conti nuation found by Tseshko vsky is far more convincing. 25 .l:.d1 ! ! A second brilliant prophylactic move! The bishop is defended , and if 25 . . .ttJc4 there follows 26 'ii'xc6. But perhaps I should nevertheless have gone into the rook ending a pawn down , which arises after 26 .. .'ii' xc6 27 tt:Jxc6 ttJxd2 28 ttJxb8 l:txb8 29 11xd2 .U.xb4 30 .l:Ixd5 i1c4 . 25 o o o
l:tc8
26 ..tf4! Now 26 . . . lLlc4 is bad in view of 27 �xb8 tLlb2 (27 . . . .l:.xb8 28 'i!Vxc6) 28 'i!Vb3 ttJxd 1 29 �g3 ttJxf2 30 �xf2 . 26 . . . tLlf3+ 27 ttJxf3 �xf4 28 b5! is also unfavourable for Black. Thus my plan has been disrupted , and White can calmly strengthen his position. Apart from the objective difficulties , one should not forget about the psycholog ical effect of your own plans being wrecked . It is not surprising that Black loses without a fight. 26
0
0
0
'ii' b 7
Probably Black should have looked for counter-chances in the variation 26 . . . g5!? 27 �g3 f5 .
How can you develop prophylactic th inking? I n the first instance it is important simply to pay attention to this problem . Remember instructive episodes from your own play, and from the games of other players; look for them in books and magazines. Try to think prophylactically in you r coming tou rnament battles. Concentrati ng your attention on a pa rticular problem helps you to g radually resolve it, and ach ieve serious prog ress in the given field . I remember how, after attending a lectu re of mine about prophylax is, Boris Gelfand beca me interested in this topic and later he proudly showed me some su btle prophylactic moves which he had been able to fi nd at the board . In 1 988 Smbat Lputian won the second prize at an excep tionally strong international tou rnament i n S a i n t Joh n . He admitted that d u ring t h e play he had repeatedly used the idea of prophy laxis, about which he had been chatti ng with me before the event. Clearly, it is very usefu l to study the games and commentaries of g reat players, who are especially skilled in the sphere of prophyl axis. In particular - Tigran Petrosian and Anatoly Karpov. In contrast to the majority of their colleagues, it would appear that from natu re they were endowed with highly developed prophylactic thinking . The followi ng game by Ka rpov (and to no lesser extent his comments on it) vividly
4:J
Prophylactic Thinking
illustrate the style of play and way of th i n king of the then world champion. It should be said that when I saw the game for the fi rst time it did not make much of an impression , because Black lost without a struggle. And only later, when I read Karpov's comments, did I real ise how much su btle work was concealed beh ind outward simplicity. Karpov - Ti mman Montreal 1 979 Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence d6 1 e4
2 d4
tZ'lf6
3 lZ'lc3
g6
4 g3
.ig7
5 i.. g 2
0-0
6 lZ'lge2
e5
7 0-0
lZ'la6?!
Theory recommends 7 . . . lZ'lc6 or 7 . . . c6 . After 7 . . . c6 the usual reply is 8 a4 (preventing . . . b7-b5, a useful move for Black), but then the development of the knight at a6 becomes more justified , since the b4-square is availa ble to it. 8 l:te1 9 h3
c6
'A typical prophylactic move i n such situa tions,' writes Karpov. 'Wh ite restricts the opponent's bishop, and at the same time he also creates a ' no-go' area on the kingside for the remaining minor pieces . '
33
This is a l ready prophylactic th inking. Karpov i m med iately defines the opponent's main idea , on which he will keep a careful watch th roughout the entire game. 10 i.. g 5 A standard idea - Wh ite provokes . . . h7-h6, i n order to then develop his q ueen at d2 with an attack on the h6-pawn. 10 . . .
h6
1 0 . . . exd4 1 1 lZ'lxd4 h6 is tempti ng, hoping for 1 2 i.. e 3 lZ'lc5 , when it is awkward to defend the e4-pawn ( 1 3 i..f4 tZ'lh5). But Wh ite replies 1 2 .if4 ! g5 1 3 .ic1 , and the weakness of the f5-square will su bsequently tel l . 'After 1 0 . . . 'i!Vb6 Wh ite could have gained a n advantage b y the simple 1 1 .l:!.b1 , since 1 1 . . . exd4 1 2 lZ'lxd4 lZ'lc5 1 3 b4 lZ'lcxe4 is clearly unsatisfactory in view of 14 i.. xe4! lZ'lxe4 1 5 lZ'lxe4 i.. x d4 1 6 lZ'lf6 + . ' A not altogether convincing comment! Of cou rse, the e4-pawn should not be captu red - the normal reply is 1 3 . . . lZ'le6 . Besides, instead of 1 2 . . . lZ'lc5 Tim man could have tried either 1 2 . . . d5, or 1 2 . . . lZ'lg4 !? 1 3 hxg4 i.. x d4 1 4 i.. e 3 i.. x e3 1 5 l:txe3 d5! with unclear play. This variation has its i n ner logic: the bishop at g5 is hardly participati ng in the battle for the centre , and Black exploits this factor. 1 1 i.. e 3
The remaining pieces' - this obviously means the knight on f6 . The wh ite bishop wants to got to e3, and it must be safeguard ed against the attack by . . . lZ'lg4 . The advance of the pawn to h3 is typical in such positio n s , and it is played without even thinking about the opponent's possibilities . 9 . . .
.l::!. e 8
'All Black's hopes of obtaining counterplay are associated with pressure on the e4pawn . '
Wh ite obviously wants t o complete his
Prophylactic Thinking
development by 1 2 'ili'd2 (with gain of tempo! ) 1 2 . . . 'it>h7 1 3 l:lad 1 . Is it possible to hinder the implementation of his plan? I n the event of 11 . . . exd4 12 i.. x d4 ! �c5?! ( 1 2 ... �c7 is better) there is the u npleasant 1 3 e5! �h7 1 4 exd6 'ii'x d6 1 5 b4 (or 1 5 i.. x g7 'ii'x d 1 16 l:.axd 1 'iti>xg7 1 7 b4 �a6 1 8 b5) 15 . . .�a6 16 b5 cxb5 1 7 �xb5 with advan tage to White. The prophylactic move suggested by Karpov - 1 1 . . . 'iti>h7 ! ? , defending the h6-pawn in advance, deserved serious consideration . The point is that if 1 2 'ii'd 2 there follows 1 2 . . . exd4! 1 3 i.xd4 ( 1 3 �xd4 �c5 1 4 f3 is stronger, and if 1 4 . . . d5, then 1 5 �xc6) 1 3 . . . �c5 , and 1 4 e5? i s not possible because of the pin on the bishop after 1 4 . . . dxe5. By conti nuing 1 2 g4 (instead of 1 2 \\Vd2), Wh ite would have retained the better chanc es. But at the least Black would not have lost anything: while making a useful move , he has hindered the most natu ral arrangement of the opponent's pieces, and set him a problem. A good example of the solving of a strategic problem in the opening on the basis of prophylactic th inking . 11 . . .
"ikc7?
Jan Timman does not even try to fight against his opponent's plans. I n addition , the black queen takes away a square from the knight, which is now stuck on the edge of the board . 'iti>h7
1 2 'ii'd 2
After 12 . . . exd4 1 3 �xd4 Black has to spend a tempo on parrying the th reat of 14 i.. x h6. i.d7
1 3 llad 1
1 3 . . . i.e6 came into consideration, and if 1 4 g4 l:tad8 1 5 f4 i.. c4 1 6 �g3 (Karpov), then 16 . . . exf4 1 7 i..xf4 c5. (see diagram)
Wh ite has successfully consolidated . Now 14 f4 or 14 g4 suggests itself. How did Karpov make his choice?
- position after 1 3
. . .
i.d7 -
'On the threshold of the midd legame it is always useful to weight u p the resou rces of the two sides, and to make adj ustments to one's initial plans. Here I sank into thought, and I soon came to the conclusion that straightforward play in the centre would not get me anywhere . Now, with the aim of seizi ng fresh territory, the kingside pawns must be advanced . But I did not want to play 1 4 f4 i m mediately. It would be illog ical to increase the tension straight away - all the same White will subsequently have to play g3-g4 , so why not fi rst utilise a resou rce for strengthening the position, such g3-g4 and �e2-g 3 . At the same time Wh ite also solves his main strategic problem - in the event of the centre being opened , he supports his e4pawn . ' I n cidentally, the game i s an excellent illustra tion of N imzowitsch 's idea of the over protection of strategically important points. Karpov all the time remembers about this, endeavouring to g ive maximum support to his central e4-pawn . 1 4 g4
l:tad8
1 5 �g3
i.c8
16 f4
b5
Knowing Karpov's style, it is very easy to guess his next move . 1 7 a3!
b4? !
l2J
P rophylactic Thinking
Timman is an active player, sometimes excessively active . It was hardly good to weaken the q ueenside pawns. lt'lxb4
18 axb4 1 9 lt'lce2
'Black's idea was to . . ' For heavens' sake, what does it matter about Black's idea! On a first glance at the position it is clear that White has gained a solid positional advan tage, and we would probably have been thinking about how to exploit it as soon as possible - whether to play f4-f5, prepare g4g5, and so o n . But Karpov th inks completely differently - even in such situations he fi rst of all mon itors the opponent's possible inten tions and endeavours to forestal l them . .
So, once more: 'Black's idea was to some how bri ng his pieces together, by playing . . . a7-a5, . . . ..tc8-a6, . . . e5xd4 and . . . c6-c5. But this is a lengthy process, and Wh ite succeeds in h indering his opponent's pla n . ' N ow i f 1 9 . . . a5 there follows 20 c3 , d riving away the knight and supporting the centre. Black also has a bad position after 1 9 ... c5 20 fxe5 dxe5 2 1 d5. 19 . . .
exd4
20 lt'lxd4
aS
'White's su bsequent play essentially reduc es to preventi ng the opponent's pieces from coming into play. ' 21 c3
lt'la6
35
Karpov's next move is probably the best in the game. How did he find it? Obviously he asked himself what the opponent wanted . The answer is clear: to bring the knight into play via c5. How can this be prevented? 22 'ii'c 2 ! 1 'A subtle move, which, firstly, prevents the black knight from moving to c5 (in view of the reply b2-b4 ! ) , and secondly, continues the previous strateg ic policy - the supporti ng of the e4-pawn . ' A s you see , here two forms o f prophylaxis mentioned by N imzowitsch are combined prevention of the opponent's plans and over protectio n . It is curious that Ka rpov does not even examine 22 lt'lxc6!? 'i¥xc6 23 e5 - a continuation which players nowadays would certainly seriously consider. Why? - in this case the enemy pieces would have become active. However, after 23 . . . 'ilkc7 24 exf6 .i.xf6 25 lt'le4 followed by .i.d4, or 23 . . . d5 25 exf6 , Wh ite would still have retained t h e better chances. 22 . . .
.i.d7
Agai n Black wants to play . . . lt'lc5 (23 . . . lt'lc5 24 b4 axb4 25 cxb4 lt'le6, and the c6-pawn is defended ), and again Wh ite prevents th is. 23 lt'lf3 !
l:l.e7?!
If 23 . . . lt'lc5! ? Ka rpov had prepared 24 e5. Timman bel ieves his opponent, but he was apparently wrong to do so. In difficult positions you should ca refully check any possibil ity of sharpening the play. I do not see how 24 . . . lt'ld5 is refuted . If 25 exd6 'ilkxd6 26 'ilkf2 (26 c4? lt'lxe3 ), then 26 . . . l:!.xe3! 27 l:l.xe3 'ii'xf4 28 l:tee 1 lt'le6, and Black has defi n ite compensation for the sacrificed exchange. Wh ite would probably have had to restrict himself to the qu iet 25 .i.xc5 dxc5, but here too it is not easy for him to demonstrate his advantage: 26 lt'lh5 (Adian to) 26 . . . ..th8, or 26 'i¥c 1 ( N u n n ) 26 . . . c4 27 lt'le4 f6 28 lt'ld6 l:!.f8 .
36
�
Prophylactic Thinking
Karpov's recommendation 23 . . . cS was also preferable to the move in the game.
make? Probably 24 ..tf2 - it would not be bad to defend the e4-pawn once more , and also the th reat of the e4-eS breakthrough (after 2S 'ili'd3 ) gains i n strength . ' A s you see , prophylactic th i n king is by n o means synonymous with passivity; i t i n volves simultaneously taking account o f both the opponent's, and you r own resou rces, with the accu rate calcu lation of short varia tions. Opposing such a manner of play is not easy - you must be not inferior to the opponent i n abil ity to g uess the other side's plans. I n this respect Timman was not fu lly Karpov's equal . 24 . . .
�e8?!
24 . . . .tea was more tenacious. 24 �f2 ! 'One of the last prophylactic moves. Prior to his decisive offensive, Wh ite places his pieces in the most harmonious way possible, and . . . once again reinforces his central outpost at e4! 24 'ii'd 3 is premature in view of 24 . . . �c8 . ' Here i t i s perhaps t h e last com ment by Karpov that for me is the most informative. Using it, I will try to reconstruct his approxi mate train of thought:
25 'ii'd 3 1
'ii' b 7
2S . . . tt'lb8 26 eS! . 26 l:ta 1 ! The modest manoeuvres of the wh ite pieces with i n their own territory have led to material gains - the aS-pawn ca nnot be defended . 26 . . .
tt:J c 7
27 .l:lxa5
.l:ldd7
27 . . . 'ii'x b2? 28 .l:lb1 . 28 b4
tt'le6
'The double attack 24 'ii'd 3 is tempting, but after 24 . . . �c8 2S eS ttJdS 26 exd6 l:Ixd6 the move 27 c4? does not work because of 27 . . . l1xe3! (but not 27 . . . tt:Jxe3? 28 'ifxd6 tt'lxd 1 29 'ii'x e7 ) 28 lhe3 tt:Jxe3 29 'ifxd6 tt'lxd 1 (poi nted out by N u n n ) . No, there's no point in going in for such adventures! 'But what does Timman want to play; why did he make his last move? It can hardly be 24 . . . .l:tde8 - then simply 2S 'iid 3 , and he loses a pawn . Perhaps 24 . . . i.e8, to support the d6-pawn , and vacate the d 7-square for his knight or rook. But then 2S 't!fd3, and the bishop is no longer defending the knight. If 2S ... 'ii'b 7 it is possible to attack the aS-pawn . 'Well, th is means that for the moment I should simply wait. What useful move can I
Now, of course, 29 fS? ltJf4 is not good for Wh ite. He must defend his f4-pawn , but how? Karpov is vigilant right to the end.
ftJ
P rophylactic Thinking
The position is completely won for White, but a certain accu racy is stil l requ i red . Thus, after 29 'iid 2 d5!? Black could have obtained someth ing resembling cou nterplay: 30 e5 ttJe4 31 ttJxe4 dxe4 32 t2Jd4 c5, with complication s . ' 2 9 �e3 !
c5
30 f5
tiJdB
31 b5 Of cou rse, the knight should not be allowed to go to c6 . ' For "complete happiness", it only remains for Wh ite to play c3-c4 , in order to achieve domination over the entire board . '
31 . . .
'it>h8
32 .llf2 The bishop has done its work on e3 and it again retreats, in order to support the e4point. 32 . . .
'ili'c7
33 lla4
'ii b 8
34 c4 Apart from his material advantage, Wh ite also has an enormous positional advantage - the opponent's pieces are completely starved of oxygen. The decisive break through is not far off. 34 . . .
.l:.a7
35 .l:.xa7
I:!.xa7
36 e5
dxe5
37 ttJxe5 38 .ll x c5
.l:la2
Black resigned . I repeat once more: on a superficial exami nation the game does not attract attention, and the impression is created (generally speaking, justified ) that the play was 'all at one end ' . And only after a serious study do you beg in to sense the g reat mastery behind Wh ite's seemingly modest moves, a mastery largely con nected with prophylactic th inking . And now we will analyse a game by another legend in the field of prophylaxis - ligran
37
Petrosi a n . I n their manner of play Karpov and Petrosian have much in common, but even so it seems to me that Karpov is a more aggressive player. For h i m prophylactic th i n king was always a reliable weapon in playing for a wi n , whereas Petrosian usually ai med above all to safeg uard h imself against defeat and his prophylaxis sometimes looked excessive . Petrosian - G ufeld 28th USSR Championship, Moscow 1 96 1 King's Indian Defence
1 c4 2 d4
g6 .ll g 7
3 ttJc3
ttJf6
4 e4
0-0
5 �g5
d6
6 'ili'd2 Wh ite has chosen an u n usual move order in the opening. Once I was observing a joint analysis by Petrosian and Gufeld . The former world champion was constantly outplayi ng his opponent. ' How come , ' asked Eduard Gufeld i n per plexity, 'surely I have the better position?' 'Yes, but I have the better bra i n , ' Petrosian explai ned . lig ran Vartanovich did not attach too g reat importance to opening theory and he often took certa in l iberties , in order to take his opponent away from familiar paths and make use of his 'better bra i n ' . I ndeed , why allow the young Gufeld , who was considered an expert on the King's I ndian Defence, to demonstrate his knowledge? Wouldn't it be better to test his positional understanding, in which he was su rely lacking? Especially since Petrosian himself had an excellent feeling for such situations: as he himself put it, he 'fed his family for many years thanks to King's I ndian set-ups. '
38
�
Prophylactic Thinking
6. . .
c5
7 d5
'ii'a 5
This position can also be interpreted i n other ways: 7 ... e6 (after which Petrosian was planning 8 dxe6 followed by ..td3 and tLlge2), 7 . . . b5!? 8 cxb5 a6, or 7 . . . a6 8 a4 'ifa5. 8 ..td3
a6
9 tLlge2
9. . .
I n other words, there w i l l hardly b e a conven ient opportun ity to play . . . b7-b5 or . . . f7-f5. Whereas White can easily prepare play on the q ueenside with a2-a3 and b2b4. What then should Black have played? The logical consequence of his preced ing moves was the active 9 . . . b5! . After 1 0 cxb5 the position can be handled like a Volga Gambit: 1 O . . . tLlbd 7 ! ? , but the more forcing 1 O . . . axb5!? 1 1 ..txb5 tLlxe4 also comes i nto considera tio n . Petrosian examines the variation 1 2 ttJxe4 'i!kxb5 1 3 ..txe7 l:te8 1 4 ttJxd6 'ii'x b2 1 5 'ilfxb2 ..txb2 1 6 lib 1 ( 1 6 ttJxe8 ! ? ..txa 1 1 7 tLlc1 tLld7 ) 1 6 . . . llxe7 1 7 ttJxc8 l:lb7 1 8 tLld6 .l:tb4 1 9 tLlc4 , and reckons that here Black faces a struggle for a d raw. In fact after 1 9 . . . .l::tx a2 it is exactly the other way rou n d . 1 0 0-0
tLlbd7
11 a3
tLlh5
e5?
A serious positional mistake . By blocki ng his bishop's diagonal, Black deprives h imself of any counterplay, and now Wh ite's spatial advantage guarantees h i m an enduring initiative. Petrosian gave an instructive as sessment of the situation: 'Outwardly the position appears highly prom ising for Black. By blocking the pawn chain in the centre he has transferred the weight of the struggle to the wings, and the possibility of playing . . . b7-b5 and . . . f7-f5 would seem to give him the better chances. But if Black, in reasoning this way, was attaching the greatest importance to the mobil ity of his pawn structu re on the wings, he should not have forgotten that it is the job of the pawns to clear the way for the pieces. Then he would not have overlooked the fact that White's pieces are much better placed i n the event of the position being opened . '
Black is prepari ng 1 3 .. .f5. Of cou rse , he is not afraid of 1 3 ..te 7?! l:te8 14 ..txd6?? 'ii' b 6, while 1 3 g4 allows a standard pawn sacrifice: 1 3 . . . tLlf4 14 tLlxf4 exf4 1 5 ..txf4 tLle5 1 6 ..te2 ..td7 followed by . . . b7-b5. And in genera l , sharp moves such as t h i s are not in Petrosian's style. 12 f3 ! 'A good prophylactic move , d irected in particular against . . . f7-f5. It transpires that
ltJ
Prophylactic Thinking
12 .f5 is bad in view of 1 3 exf5 gxf5 14 'ii'c2 ! , when there i s n o conven ient way of defend ing the f5-pawn . ' ..
White's move not only i n h ibits the oppo nent's cou nterplay, but is also useful in itself - now the idea of g2-g4 has to be more seriously reckoned with . 12 . . .
ii.f6
1 3 i.h6
tt:'l g7
It was probably better to retreat the bishop to g7. Then Wh ite has a choice: a ) 1 4 ii.e3; b) 14 i.g5 i.f6 1 5 i.e3; c) the exchange of bishops (in one version or a nother). Since if he wishes Wh ite can repeat moves, he had no need to come to a decision beforehand it is required only when (and if) the position arises on the board . S uch reasoning is typical and important for the practical player, enabling him to save time on the clock. I am sure that Petrosian will have played 1 3 i.h6 quite qu ickly. After a l l , perhaps (as in fact happened in the game) this problem will not have to be solved at a l l , or it will be possible to do this during the opponent's time, while he is considering which piece to place on g7. 14 g3!? I t was perhaps o n l y Petrosian w h o used to play in this man ner. The point of this move is not easy to understand without his own explanation. 'White's position is so good that he can choose between different plans. The ad vance of the g-pawn by two squares is for the moment replaced by the more modest g2g3, but now Black has to reckon with a possible f3-f4. I n situations where one side has no possibility of active cou nterplay, whereas the other, with a sign ificant spatial advantage, has several ways of strengthen ing his position, such a method of play is sometimes more u npleasant and dangerous than direct action . After a l l , it is hard for the defender to guess from which d i rection danger will stri ke. '
39
I t is clear that with the bishop on g7 there was no point in even thinking about f3-f4 . But here Black i ntends to retreat his bishop to e7, and then he will have to reckon with this advance . However, in the game things do not come to this. 14 . . .
.l:!.b8
What does Black want? Most probably, 1 5 . . . b5. But is he prepared for the opening of the position? Let us check: 1 5 . . . b5 1 6 cxb5 axb5 1 7 b4! cxb4 ( 1 7 . . . 'ii'a 6 1 8 tt:'lxb5! l:txb5 1 9 a4) 1 8 axb4 , and 1 8 . . . 'ii'x b4 1 9 i.e3 followed by 20 l:tfb 1 is bad for h i m . T h u s 1 5 . . . b5 is n o t a threat. B u t does the opponent real ise this? He must be helped to go wrong, by making some neutral move. Say, 1 5 'it>h 1 , especially since if l i nes are opened it will be useful to remove the king from the g 1 -a7 d iagonal . Take note: prophylactic th inking impl ies constant mon itori ng of the opponent's ideas, but this by no means sign ifies that they should defi n itely be disru pted . Sometimes (as i n the g iven instance) it makes sense, on the contrary, to provoke activity, if you j udge its consequences to be i n your favou r. 1 5 'it>h1 1 ?
iic7
But now White seriously has to reckon with 1 6 . . . b5 1 7 cxb5 c4 . 16 b3!
40
�
Prophylactic Thinking
'A continuation of the same unhurried strate gy. Before playing his pawn to b4 Wh ite prepares to double rooks on the b-file, which sooner or later will be opened . At the same time another problem is solved : it is no longer necessary to watch out for . . . b7-b5 . ' When studying the present game (and also the previous one) you should not attach too much sign ificance to individual moves, or try to establish whether or not they were objectively the strongest - this is not the point. It is more important to follow and sense how the taking of decisions was approached by these great players, with whom prophylactic thinking was fully devel oped (in the case of Tigran Vartanovich , perhaps even slightly more than neces sary!). 16 . . .
..ie7
1 7 .l:!.ab1
h1 !
t'Dg6
After 12 . . . h6 1 3 i.. h 4 (or 1 3 i..f4) the knight can no longer go to g6.
1 5 i.. x e7
43
lhe7
1 6 t'Dg3 'Wh ite does not h u rry to advance e3-e4 , remembering Tarrasch's sayi ng that the threat is stronger than its execution . But it is not put off for long , only to a time when Black will not have any active replies . ' As you see, while converting his advantage Botvinnik is th i n king prophylactically. 16 . . .
t'Df6
1 7 'ii'f2
i.. e 6
1 8 l'Df5
i.. xf5
Otherwise 1 9 g4. 19 i.. xf5
'ii' b 6
20 e4
dxe4
21 fxe4
.l:td8
22 e5
13 f3 ! ! This move practically wins the game, since it frustrates Black's plans. If now 1 3 . . . h6, then 14 .bf6 ( 1 4 i.. x h6 gxh6 1 5 i.. x g6 fxg6 1 6 'lxg6+ �h8 1 7 'ii'x h6+ t'Dh7 is u nconvi ncing) 14 . . 'i'xf6 1 5 e4 with the terrible th reat of 1 6 e5 - it transpires that all the black pieces are badly placed and are very vul nerable. .
13 . . .
i.. e 7
An admission of the faultiness of Black's preceding strategy. But what else could he do? - the th reat of e3-e4 was too serious.
1 4 l:l.be1
22 . . .
It is probable that Botvinnik avoided the immediate 1 4 e4 because of 1 4 . . . dxe4 1 5 fxe4 tt:':lg4 . Now Black should have played 14 . . h6, provoking his opponent i nto unclear compl ications after 1 5 i.. x h6 gxh6 1 6 i.. x g6 fxg6 17 'i!lxg6+ �h8 or 1 5 i.. xf6 i.. xf6 1 6 .bg6 fxg6 1 7 'it'xg6 l:txe3 1 8 t'Df4 i.. x d4 1 9 J:Ue3 i..x e3 20 .l:te 1 d4. Keres opts for passive tactics and comes under terrible positional pressure. .
14 . . .
t'Dd7
t'Dd5
The prophylactic move 22 . . . t'De8 was more tenacious, preventing the manoeuvre of the wh ite knight to d6. 23 t'De4 It should be said that, against Yusupov, lvanchuk managed to obtain roughly the same position far more q uickly. 23 . . .
t'Df8
24 t'Dd6
'ii'c 7
25 i.. e 41
44 �
Prophylactic Thinking
White prepares to exchange the opponent's only decently-placed piece - the knight on d5, and simultaneously he vacates the f5sq uare for his own knight. 25 . . .
lt'le6
26 'i!Vh4
g6
26 . . . h6 27 lLlf5 .l:red7 28 lt'lxh6+! gxh6 29 'it'xh6. 27 .11.. x d5
cxd5
28 l:!.c1 !
M iddlegame
I n order to improve i n a certai n aspect of chess, it is useful to study the games of players who are masters of this particular field . Therefore I a m going to show you two extracts from the play of Anatoly Karpov, one of the 'classics' in the field of prophylaxis. Ka rpov - Bag i rov 38th U S S R Championship, Riga 1 970
It is useful to wrest control of the c-file and at the same time prevent the exchange sacri fice on d6. 28 . . .
'ii'd 7
29 .:c3
.l:rf8
30 lLlf5 ! Of course, Wh ite does not allow the freeing advance 30 . . . f5! . Now 30 . . . gxf5 3 1 �g3+ lt'lg7 32 'i!Vf6 1eads to mate, while if 30 .. J:tee8 the simplest is 31 lLlh6+ 'it>h8 32 'ji'f6+ ltJg7 33 lt'lxf7+. 30 . . .
.l:i.fe8
31 lLlh6+!
'it>f8
32 'iVf6
lt'lg7
33 .l:i.cf3 The f7-point can not be defended . 34 'i!Vxf7+ ! i s th reatened . 33 . . .
.l:i.c8
34 lLlxf7
�e6
35 'iVg5
lLlf5
36 lt'lh6
l1Vg7
37 g4 Black resig ned . I was impressed by the strength of the seemingly modest move 1 3 f3 ! , which refuted Keres's strategy. It should be men tioned that in such positions play i n the centre with e3-e4 is the best response to the plan of . . . .l1.. d 6, . . . lt'lg6 and . . . h7-h6. Wh ite's knight could have been on f3 - then f2-f3 is no longer possible, of course, but there is .l:i.ae1 (or .l:i.fe1 ) followed by e3-e4 .
Wh ite has an undisputed positional advan tage. He controls more space, and the knight on b7 has nowhere to go. But if it were Black to move he would play 27 . . . a 5 ! , and if 28 b5 a4 , obtaining the c5-sq uare for his knig ht. Wh ite also has to reckon with . . . f7-f6 . After 27 .l1.. b 1 a5?! 28 'iVd4! 'iVxd4 29 lLlxd4 axb4 30 axb4 Wh ite's advantage increases. However, the opponent can play more strongly: 27 . . . .l:i.fc8! ? (followed by a possible . . . .l:i.c4 ) , or 27 .. .f6 ! ? . 27 llfd2 looks q u ite good , b u t then too Black has the reply 27 .. .f6, giving him some cou nterpl ay. Karpov found the opti mal solution . 2 7 'ji'g4! Wh ite gains firm control of the central sq uare d4 and at the same time he creates the th reat of 28 .11.. x h7+ 'it>xh? 29 �h4+ 'it>g8 30 'ir'xe? .
tLJ
P rophylactic Thinking
Now 27 . . . a5 no longer achieves its aim i n view o f 2 8 'ifd4 , or even simply 28 b5, when 29 . . a4 is not possible (here 28 ..txh7+?! 'Ot>xh7 29 'ii'h 4+ ..ti>g8 30 1Vxe7 is less strong: 30 . axb4 3 1 'ilfxb4 'ii'x b4 32 axb4 tt'ld8;l; ). .
.
.
After 27 . . .f6 there fol lows 28 'ii' h 4 tt'lg6 (28 . . . h6 29 l:tfe 1 ) 29 ..txg6 hxg6 30 'ii'g 3, while if 27 ... tt'lg6 28 ..txg6 - in both cases with an obvious advantage for White . 27 . . .
f5
28 'ii'd4 28 exf6 Uxf6 29 'it'g3 J:.bf8 is not so convincing.
28 . . .
l2'ld8
Black is hoping to place his knight at c6 . 29 b5! Karpov has achieved his favou rite domina tion - the opponent's pieces are deprived of any active possibilities. White is free to carry out a pawn offensive on the q ueenside. 29 . . .
g5
The opponent is hoping to attack the e5pawn , but he is not able to create any real counterplay. 30 a4
tt'lg6
31 'i!i'a 1 ! From here the q ueen defends the e5-pawn and supports the offensive on the q ueenside. Therefore on the previous move it would have m ade sense for Black to exchange the queens: 30 .. .'ii' x d4 31 tt'lxd4 tt'lg6, although after 3 2 .Ufe 1 his position would have remained difficult. In tu rn , Wh ite also could have retreated his q ueen a move earlier. 31 . . .
'ili'b7
32 l:tfe 1
1i'g7
Karpov easily forestalls the threat of 33 . . . tt'lf7 by attacking the weak e6-pawn . 33 tt'lc5
lif7
34 a5
.l:te7
Again 35 . . . tt'lf7 has to be parried . 35 tt'la6!
l:ta8
45
36 ..tf1 ! The bishop withdraws beforehand from a tempo-g ain in g attack (after . . . tt'lxe5 or . . . tt'lf4). 36 . . .
tt'lf7
37 tt'lc7
l:td8
Or 37 . . . .l:.b8 38 b6 axb6 39 a6! tt'ld8 40 a? l:ta8 ! ? 41 tt'lxa8 l:txa7 42 l:.c8 ! and wins. 38 llc6 Now the point of the knight manoeuvre to c7 becomes clear. The e6-pawn is attacked , and therefore the knight is forced to defend it, instead of captu ring the e5-pawn . Mean while, White is ready to create a passed pawn on the q ueenside. 38 . . .
l2'lf8
39 b6
axb6
40 a61
tt'lh6
40 . . . d4 41 a? (4 1 ..tc4 ! ? ) 41 . . . tt'lxe5 does not help i n view of 42 a8'it' (42 .l:r.xe5? l:txc7 ; 42 tt'lxe6?! l;lxa7 43 'ii' b 1 tt'lxe6 44 l;lxe6 tt'lg6) 42 . . . l:.xa8 43 'ii'x a8 tt'lxc6 44 tt'lxe6 . 41 :ec1 41 'ii'c 1 !? . 41 . . .
tt'lg4
42 a7
tt'lxe5
42 .. .'ii' x e5 43 'it'xe5 tt'lxe5 44 l:lxb6 was eq ually hopeless. 43 .l:!.6c2
tt'lc4
44 a8'fi
l::t x a8
45 tt'lxa8
b5
46 .U.a2 Black resig ned .
46
�
Prophylactic Thinking
23 h4!
Karpov - Hort
Black was hoping for 23 c2? t'Lle7! 24 .i.e3 l:.xh2 or 24 .i.g5 'ii'f5+ . But now neither 23 . . . 0-0-0 nor 23 . . . t'Llxh4 is possible because of 24 �g5.
Moscow 1 97 1
23 . . .
'iff5
24 .l:!.b4!
�f6
Again castling is impossible (24 . . . 0-0-0?? 25 �g4), but 24 . . . t'Lle7 was more tenacious, or 24 . . . .i:!.g8 25 �d3 (25 .i:!.xb7? t'Llf4) 25 . . . 'ii' h 3!, not conced ing the important f4-square to the opponent ( Kasparov). t'Lle7 25 h5 25 . . . t'Lle5? 26 l:tf4 . 26 llf4 I n contrast to the previous example, here the situation is very tense. Both kings are stuck in the centre. Black's main threat is 22 . . . \!Vh4 ! , a n d i t was for t h i s reason that Karpov rejected the natu ral move 22 'it>c2 . Black's activity can be prevented by 22 �g5!?. Karpov was concerned about 22 . . . 'ii'b6 2 3 .i.e3 'ii'c7 (the h2-pawn i s attacked , and Black wants to castle queenside, i nclud ing his queen's rook in the game). But why retreat the bishop? - there is the simple 24 .l:r.g2 !?, while Kasparov recommended the energetic 23 'it>c2 ! .i:!.xh2 24 l:l. h 1 'tlff2 25 .l:!.xh2 "i!i'xh2 26 .l::!.f 1 .
'ife5
The culmi nating moment of the battle! As Kasparov remarked , playing the rook to f2 , f1 or even a4 would have retai ned a g reat advantage, whereas the move in the game is sign ificantly weaker. However, Vlastimil Hort failed to exploit his opponent's mistake. 27 l:.f3?
However, the cou rse chosen by Karpov is also very strong. 22 .l:r.g4! ! A multi-purpose move . The rook takes control of the important h4- and f4-sq uares, prevents the black queen from going to h4, and prepares the advance h2-h4 . I n add ition it can be switched to the queenside along the 4th rank. 22 . . .
"i!i'f6 !
After 22 . . . .i.xh2 23 'it>c2 Black's position is difficult. He loses a piece after 23 . . . t'Lle5 24 .:!.g2! (24 . . . 'tlt'h4 25 .l:.xh2 'i!i'xh2 26 �b5+), while if 23 .. .'it'd7, then 24 Itf1 or 24 .l:.e4+ is strong .
For the first time Black has gained an opportunity to castle, and he should defi n ite ly have made use of it. After 27 . . . 0-0-0 ! the outcome would have remai ned unclear. How should Wh ite reply? 28 'it>c2? is a mistake because of 28 . . . l:.xh6 29 'i¥xh6 'ii'x e2 + . If 28 l:.d3 there follows 28 . . J�dg8 29 .i.f4 'ii'f5 with the un pleasant threat of 30 . . . .i:!.g2. 28
lZJ
Prophylactic Thinking
i.e3 is unconvi ncing: 28 . . . lZJxd5 29 .i.d4 "le6. 28 i.f4 is tempti ng, hoping for 28 . . . '�xd5? 29 l:td3 'ii'h 1 + 30 'itc2 ! Wxa 1 31 .i.g4+ (31 J:Ixd6? 'ii'g 1 ! ) 3 1 ... '1tb8 32 llxd6 llxd6 33 'i'xd6+ 'ita8 34 'ii'xf6 and wins. In the event of 28 . . . 'ife4?! Wh ite does not play 29 l::t d 3 on account of the pretty reply 29 . . . ltJg6! ! , poi nted out by Utut Ad ianto , but 29 'i'd3 ! , retaining the advantage. But it is not evident how to cal l i nto q uestion the simple 28 . . . 'ii' x h5 ! . 27 . . .
lZJxd5?
47
even mentioned . As a result, such ga mes receive a one-sided coverage and a non objective assessment. It is probable that at some stage of chess study this even has a defi n ite pedagogical point. But when 'at a matu re age' you again turn to them and look with q u ite d ifferent eyes, you easily notice a certain naivety of such examples and their book interpretation . Gottschall - N i mzowitsch Hannover 1 926
27. . .'ii'x h5? would have lost to 28 llxf6 'ii' h 1 + 29 .if1 ltJg8 30 'ii'e 1 + , but the captu re of the central pawn is l ittle better. llxh6
28 lld3 28 . . . tt:\e7 29 .i.f4 .
29 l:txd5! 29 'i'xh6? �g5 and 30 . . . lZJe3+
29 . . .
'ike4
30 .l:i.d3 ! The rook's manoeuvres have d isru pted the oppon ent's defences.
30 . . .
'ii' h 1 +?
Kasparov's suggestion 30 . . . 'ii h 7 was much more tenacious - here Black would still have retai n ed chances of a successful outcome.
Endgame
It is Black to move . How should the position be assessed? N i mzowitsch 's chances are certainly better thanks to his superior pawn structu re - his one pawn on a4 is holding back two of Wh ite's. To j udge by the grandmaster's com ments, his win was the logical outcome. In fact, with correct play the game shou l d , of course, end in a draw. After a l l , material is equal with opposite-colour bishops, and in addition Wh ite controls the only open file.
The fol lowi ng ending is taken from N imzo witsch's My System. Old books give nu mer ous positions in which one of the players, much weaker than the other, fails to put up a worthy resistance. I n the com mentary all the attention is usually focused on the play of the w i n n e r, and defensive possibil ities are not
Every player is obl iged at ti mes to try and 'squeeze' a microscopic advantage, or on the contrary, defend in a slightly i nferior end ing. Therefore it is instructive to follow the actions of N imzowitsch , who completely outplayed his opponent, and to understand why this happened .
31 'it>c2
'i!Vxa1
32 'ii'x h6
�e5
33 1i'g5 Black lost on time.
48
�
P rophylactic Thinking
How can Black strengthen his position? It would not be bad to play his king to f5. However, if 28 . . . �g6 Wh ite has 29 g4! hxg4 30 hxg4 f1h8 31 �g3. Generally speaki ng, g3-g4 is a move which Black has to reckon with . Is it not possible to prevent it? 28 . . .
.l:th8!
An excellent prophylactic move. Now Black is th reatening to play 29 . . . �g6, and if 30 g4 30 . . . hxg4 3 1 hxg4 l:th2+ or (after 29 l:ld2 or 29 .l:!.b4) - 3 1 . . . .l:!.h3. Regarding this N imzow itsch writes: 'To demand of a piece only direct attacking activity is the stamp of the mere "wood sh ifter" . The keener chess mind qu ite rightly demands of the pieces that they also undertake preventive action. The fol lowing situation is typica l : a freeing action (usually a pawn advance) plan ned by our opponent would in the result give us an open file. This potential file, to open which does not lie in our power, we nevertheless seize, and in advance, with the idea of g iving our oppo nent a distaste for the freeing action . The "mysterious" rook move is an ind isputable ingredient of a rational strategy . . . I will take the liberty of asserti ng that the prevention of freeing moves by the opponent is far more important than considerations about whether the rook is fu nctioning at a g iven moment or is occupyi ng a passive position . ' B u t now let's reason for Wh ite . Black i s obviously preparing to play h i s king t o f5 . How can this be prevented? Very simply - by the prophylactic move 29 l:l.d6! . The king is now tied to the e6-pawn , and in the event of 29 . . . i.d5 the rook occupies the 7th rank. It is not apparent how Black can strengthen his position. 29 l:td 1 ? !
xh4 55 b4 ! axb3 56 a4). However, by playing 48 �1 ! , Wh ite would have retai ned quite good drawing chances, for example, after 48 . . . 'it>g4 49 �g7+ 'it>f3 50 .tf.g3+ 'it>f4 51 l:tc3. 48 . . .
..tg4+
49 'it>e1
'it>f3
Fischer - Donner Olympiad , Varna 1 962
In Hubner's opinion , 49 . . . � h 1 +! 50 'it>d2 .tf.d 1 + and 5 1 . . . I:::!.d 3 was stronger. 50 k!.f7+
'it>g2
51 ;t>d2? Now the game concludes quickly, whereas after 51 ..td4! �h 1 + 52 'it>d2 �d 1 + 53 �e3 it is possible that Black might not have been able to wi n . 51 . . .
'it>f1 !
52 'it>e3
�f3
53 �g3
l:Ixb2
54 �d6
�b3+
55 'it>d4
'it>f2
56 l:tg7
e3
57 Ji.g3+
�f1
58 .l:!.f7
e2
59 l:te7
..tc6
White resig ned . Take note: at the board (in contrast to his comments in the book) N imzowitsch thought prophylactically - he took account of the opponent's resou rces and endeavoured to forestal l them. This factor ensured the grandmaster an enormous playing superiori ty over his opponent, who did not even think about prophylaxis and as a result allowed Black to carry out his plans. C o m b i nation Here, it wou ld seem, there is altogether no place for prophylactic thinking, and what proves decisive is imagination and specific calculation. But take a look at the following example.
The exchange of q ueens on a7 or e3 (24 tt::l d 6 'ifxe3 25 fxe3 Ji.xd6 26 �xd6 f6 27 b3) leads to a roughly equal end i n g . What alternative does Wh ite have? Only the knight sacrifice on h6. Let's try to calculate its consequences . 24 tt::l x h6+ ! ?
gxh6
There is no direct way to g ive mate, but the rook can be incl uded in the attack via d4 . Before calculating variations, let's ask our selves how Black will defend . Obviously it is very important for h i m to advance his f-pawn . to i nclude his q ueen in the defence along the 7th rank. Alas, Bobby Fischer underestimated this factor and played 25 l:Id4? , when after 25 .. .f5! Black parried the attack. The game continued: 26 .l:Ifd 1 tt::l c 5 27 �d8 'iff7 28 .l:txe8 'ifxe8 29 �d4 tt::l e4 30 f3 e5! 31 fxe4 (31 Ji.b6 l:txb6) 31 . . . exd4 32 'ii' g 3+ �g7 33 exf5. Now 33 . . . c5! would most simply have decided matters, but the q ueen exchange 33 ... 'ii'e 3+ also proved sufficient for a wi n . The key to the success o f Wh ite's attack l ies in prophylaxis - he must prevent . . . f7-f5. 25 'ii'g 3+ 26 h5! !
'it>h7
ltJ
Prophylactic Thinking
Now 26 . . . f5? is no longer possible because of 27 'ii'g 6 mate. The black pieces are huddled together on the q ueen side, whereas White is intending 27 l:td4 followed by l'::tfd 1 or I!.g4 . Bad , for example, is 26 . . . lt:'lc5(b6) 27 l:td4 lt:'ld7? 28 'ii'd 3+. If 26 . . . c5, then 27 lld3 'le7 28 f4! (again prophylaxis - it is important not to allow 28 .. .'il'g5) 28 . . . lld8 29 l:.ff3 o r 29 l:ta3 , preparing 'iig 4 and .Ug3 .
26 . . .
'ii'e 7
27 1::t d4
tt'lc5
28 l:tf4! Not 28 l:tg4? f6. 28 l:tfd 1 ? ! l:ta7 is also inaccurate, si nce if 29 .l:.f4 Black now has 29. . .tt::ld 7! 30 �d6 'ii'g 5.
28 . . .
.Ua71
28. . .tt::\d 7 is hopeless: 29 �d6! 'iig 5 (29 . . l'xd6 30 �+ �h8 3 1 'ikg6) 30 :Xf7+ �g8 3 1 'i'xg5+ hxg5 32 .l:.xd 7 . .
'ifd6
2 9 �f6 30 'ii'g 4! (see diagram)
An attacking and simulta neously prophylac tic move! After parrying the th reat of 30 . . . e5 (31 'ii'f5+ ), Wh ite prepares l:td 1 or l:.f4-f3g3. If 30 . . . lt:'ld7 he has the decisive 3 1 .ltd4 ! . White's attack looks i rresistible, a n d here, I have to admit, my i n itial analysis came to an end . But in fact the battle continues.
51
- position after 30 'ifg4! -
30 . . .
'ifd3 !
A n excellent prophylactic move, pointed out by John N u n n . The immediate th reats are parried : 3 1 l:!.f3? 'ii'e4! 32 l:tf4 'ii'c2 , or 3 1 l:td 1 ? 'ii'c2 3 2 �e5 f6 . However, Wh ite's play can be improved . 3 1 l:l.e1 ! Aga i n Black's position seems hopeless. 32 l:te3 or 32 l:.f3 is th reatened , and it is bad to play 3 1 . . . l:td7? 32 l:tf3 'ii'd 2 33 l:tg3! or 3 1 . . . 'ifd2? 32 l:te3 l:td7 33 l:tg3 'ild 1 + 34 �h2 'ii'x g4 35 l:tfxg4, when the only way of preventing the deadly 36 l'::t g 8 is to return the piece by 35 . . . lt:'le4 . It seemed t o me that after 31 . . .e 5 ! 32 l:te3 ! Wh ite's attack should also ach ieve its goa l . However, t h e German analysts Klaus Dieter Mayer and Karsten Mu ller thoroughly chec ked this position with a computer and established that with accu rate defence Black can hope to save the game. I will g ive the i n itial moves of their analysis: 32 ... 'ili'b1 +! 33 �h2 lt:'le6! (33 . . . exf4? 34 .l:txe8 lt:'ld7 35 'ii'x d7! l:txd7 36 l:txf8) 34 l:tfe4! ? (34 .:tg3 tt'lg5) 34 . . . .ltg7! 35 'iff5+ �h8 36 .:tg3 l:tg8 (but not 36 . . . tt'lg5? 37 l:txg5! hxg5 38 h6). Their variations extend for a fu rther dozen moves, but we will d raw the line here.
52
�
Prophylactic Thinking
The exami nation of interesting examples on the theme of prophylaxis could have been continued . But for the mastery of prophylac tic thinking (as also, in genera l , any practical skill) theory alone is i nsufficient - i ndepend ent training is required . I i nvite you to solve
several exercises of d ifferent types, some easy and some more d ifficult. They are u nited by just one factor: everywhere the key to the solution is one and the same q uestion: 'What does my opponent want, and what would he play if it were h i m to move?'
Exercises
1. Wh ite to move
2. Black to move
3. Wh ite to move
4. White to move
ttJ
P rophylactic Thinking
5. White to move
6. Black to move
7. White to move
8. Black to move
53
54 �
Prophylactic Thinking
Sol utions 1 . Kholmov-Geller (Vilnius 1 957).
White needs an escape square for his king , and in addition it is important to prevent the exchange of queens 21 . . . iff5! 22 'ii'xf5 gxf5 which would favour the opponent. 2 1 g4!
This move solves both problems and reta ins somewhat the better chances for Wh ite . 21 .. .'ii' b4 22 'iti>g2 "ike7
Now Wh ite has to reckon with 23 . . . ii.g5(g7) and 24 .. .f5. Therefore Ratmir Khol mov opens the centre. 23 d5! exd5? (23 . . . cxd5 24 cxd5 b6 was essential) 24 'ii'x e7 lbe7 25 g5! (25 ii.xa7?
was weaker: 25 . . . l:la8 26 ii.c5 l:te4 with equal ity) 25 ... ii.e5 26 ii.xa7 ii.c7 27 cxd5 l:ted7 28 h4, and Wh ite gai ned the advan tage. 2. Ti mma n-La rsen (Mar del Plata 1 982).
23 ... ii.xc5? 24 lt::l e4 lt::l xe4 25 ii.xe4 is unfavourable for Black. If Wh ite should occupy the e4-square u n h indered , by play ing 24 lt::le4 , his chances will be much better. Simple prophylaxis comes to Black's aid . 23 . . .
'iti> h 8 !
Now i f 2 4 lt::l e4? ! t h e pin 2 4 . . . ii.f5 i s un pleasant. After 2 4 e3 .l:tbc8 25 lt::l e 2 'ii'f7 Black seized the initiative . I should mention that his attack on the kingside could also have been begun imme diately, without resorting to prophylaxis: 23 . . . iff7! 24 lt::le4 lt::l g 4 followed by . . . 'ii' h 5. 3. Hort-Mestel (London 1 982).
I n choosing a way of defending his f4-pawn , White has to reckon with the freeing advance . . . e6-e 5 ! . 25 .l:.f1 ? is wrong in view o f 25 . . . e5. 25 g3!? suggests itself, but in this case too the
opponent repl ies 25 . . . e5!? 26 fxe5 fxe5 27 l:txe5 l:!f8! (of course, not 27 . . . 'ii'f7? 28 'ii'x c6 ! , and not 27 . . . .l::t x c5? 28 l:te8+ 'iti>f7 29 l:tf3+ 'iti>g6 30 .l:f.e6+ or 30 'ika6+ ). Black is threatening both 28 . . . .l::t x c5 , and 28 . . . 'ii'f7 with dangerous pressure on the f-file. Wh ite probably sti ll has the right to go in for this variation , if he finds a set-up enabling him to parry the opponent's immediate th reats : 28 'it'b5! 1i'f7 29 'ii'e 2 .l:tf6 30 .l::t b 2. But even here Black retains defi n ite counter chances, by conti nuing 30 . . . ifg6 3 1 'iti>g2 (31 'i!i'g2? 'ii'd 3 ! ; 3 1 l:td2 ! ? ; 3 1 l:te7 ! ? ) 3 1 . . . h5!? 32 'ii'x h5?! (32 h4) 32 . . . ifd3. After 25 g3!? e5!? an i nteresting idea was suggested by grandmaster Matthew Sadler: 26 l:!.be3! ? exd4 (in the event of 26 . . . e4 27 l:tb3 the position favou rs Wh ite) 27 l:.e7 'i!Vb8 (27 . . . ifd8 28 �e8+) 28 'it'd 1 ! (th reatening 29 'i!Vg4 or 29 ifh5) 28 . . . 'iti>h8 29 'ii' h 5 .l::tg 8 30 .l:l.xg 7 ! ! . Let us conti nue the variation: 30 . . . .l::tx g7 31 .l::t e 8+ l:.g8 32 l:txb8 .l:txb8 33 'ii'x d5 l:tbc8 34 'ii'x d4 'iti>g7. Wh ite has a clear advantage, but is it sufficient for a win? Vlastimil Hart preferred a prophylactic move, enabling h i m to avoid complications. 25 .:tf3 ! ?
From the practical point o f view this decision is very sensible - White maintains a position al advantage, without the risk of miscalcu lat ing in complicated variations. For example, if 25 . . .'ii' b 8! (with the idea of 26 . . . e5!) he can reply 26 'ii' b 3!? 'ikxb3 27 :Xb3 with the better endgame (27 . . . .l:l.a6 28 .l:tb7 or 27 . . . .l:f.8c7 28 a4!?). After 25 . . .'ii' b 7?! 26 'ii'd 1 ! (with the idea of .l:l.fe3 and 'ii'e 2 ) Black should have defended against the threatened breakthrough on the e-file by 26 . . .f5 ! . 2 6 . . Jla6? 2 7 l:tfe3 1i'd7
After 27 . . . l:txa2 28 l::t x e6 'ii' b 2 White would
lZJ
Prophylactic Thinking
55
have won by 29 l:16e2 ! 1Wa3 30 .:te7! 'ii' b 2 3 1 'fg 4 'i'xd4+ 3 2 'it> h 1 f5 33 1Wxf5 .:tf8 3 4 .:tea 'ff6 35 'i'xd5+ 'it>h8 36 1Wxa2.
1 8 l:e3 (with the threat of 1 9 lbxh5+) in view of 1 a . . . :ha.
28 'i'e2 lia4 (28 .. .'ii' a 4 29 ::txe6 'ilfxd4+ 30 �h1 ; 28 .. J:tcc6 29 f5) 29 .l:!.xe6 .l:!.xd4 30 c6! (31 J:te7 'i'f5 32 g4 ! was another way to the goal) 30 . . .'i'f7 31 .Ue8+ Uxe8 32 'ii'x e8+ 'ilff8 33 'i'xf8+
1 8 . . . lbd8 1 9 f5 .
Black resigned in view of 33 . . . 'it>xf8 34 :c1 . 4. Tai-Ribli (European Team Champion ship, Skara 1 980). 23 'ii' b 5!
But not 23 'ii'a4?! i..f8 . 23 . . .
a6
23 .if8 24 llxf6! 'ii'xf6 25 'ii'd 5+ and 26 'fxa8. ...
24 'i'd5
'ii'x d5
25 cxd5
By preventing the development of the knight on b8, White achieves a winning position . 23 'i'd 1 ? ! is far weaker in view of 23 . . . lbc6 24 l::!. d7 l::!. d 8! . The conti nuation in the game was also unsuccessfu l : 23 lbd2? ! lbc6 24 tt:le4? (24 'ii'a4 'ii'e 8 25 lbe4 f5 26 lbg5 was stronger) 24 . . . lba5 25 'ii' b 5 lbxc4 (th ree moves earlier could the knight have dreamed of such a fate? ! ) 26 .l:tc6 (26 l:r.d7? lbxe3!) 2 6 . . l:l.xc6 27 'ii'x c6 .U d 8 , and Black equal ised . .
5. Makarychev-Be l l i n
(Hastings 1 979/80).
Black wants to play 1 8 . . . lbd8 and 1 9 . . . f6 , driving away the menacing knight on g5. White also has to reckon with the manoeuvre . . . tt:ld7-f6-h7 and with 1 8 . . . 'ii'f6 . 1 8 .l:tf1 lbd8 19 f4 f6 20 lbh3 (with the th reat of 21 'ii'x h5!) is not bad , but in this case Black can successfully defend : 20 . . . exd4 21 cxd4 f5 . It would be desirable to find a more active way of playing, after which the opponent does not succeed in implementing his plan ned defen sive constructio n . But noth ing is given by
18 f4! 1 9 lbe2
exf4 lbd8
Little better was 1 9 .. .f3 ! ? 20 gxf3 lbf6 21 lbf4 lbh7 22 lbd5 'ii'd 8 23 'ii'd 2 with advantage to White. 20 lbxf4
By taking control of the e6-sq uare at just the right time, Sergey Makarychev has prevent ed the important defensive move . . . f7-f6. Now the attack develops of its own accord . 20 . . . c6 21 'iid 3 .l:.h8 (2 1 . . . lbf6 22 e5! ) 22 l:te2 ! f6 23 lbge6+ lbxe6 24 lbxe6+ 'it>h7 25 .l:tf1 lbf8 26 e5! dxe5 27 dxe5 lbxe6 28 exf6 'ii'c 5+ 29 'it> h 1 ltJfB 30 .l:te7+ 'itr>h6 31 'ii'e4 lbd7 32 f7 .l:tf8 33 �c2 Black resig ned .
Of cou rse, it would be strange to call the attacking move 1 8 f4 ! prophylactic. But at any event it was found with the aid of prophylactic thinking , suggesti ng the need to prevent the opponent from strengthening his position .
6. Psa khis-Speelman (Hasti ngs 1 987/88).
Black is the exchange u p , but his knight is in danger. Wh ite is th reatening �b7-a6-d3. If 29 . . . lld2 30 �xd2 l:!.xd2, then 31 'it>e1 .l:1d7 is u nclear, but 3 1 1Ic1 ! is very strong. 29 . . .
g5! !
30 �a6
f4
3 1 i.. d 3
The waiting move 31 i.. b 5 (or 3 1 �c4) came into consideration . 31 . . .
.l:lxd3
32 exd3
llxd3
3 3 'it>e2
.l:td5!
It becomes clear why the kingside pawns were advanced : if 34 l:.xd 1 ? Black now has 34 . . .f3+ . 34 i.. d 2? also does not work in view
56
e2 , creating the th reat of 36 gxf4 gxf4 37 i.. d 2!. And 34 . . . tLlc3 35 i.. x c3 .l:f.d3+ 36 'iot>g4 .l:f.xc3 37 �xg5 leads to an unclear rook ending. Lev Psakhis chose 34 gxf4 gxf4 35 .l:tc1 ? (here too 35 'iot>f3 was necessary). After 35 . . . tLlb2 36 .ic3 tiJd3 Black went on to win . 7. Stei n-Keres (Moscow 1 967).
It would appear that there is noth ing to th ink about here, and that Wh ite must defend his e5-pawn with 19 f4 . But let's ask ourselves what Black will do then . And we establish that he is plan ning to defend his d5-pawn by 19 .. Jlad8 and then play 20 . . . c4! , including his knight via c5 and hoping at some point to advance . . . d5-d4. Leonid Stein finds a way of forestalling the opponent's idea . 1 9 a4! !
Now after 1 9 . . . .l:tad8 Wh ite has the strong reply 20 axb5 axb5 21 .Ua6. If 1 9 .. .'ii' x e5 , then 20 I1e 1 ! 'ifd6 (20 . . . .ic7 2 1 i.. g 1 ) 2 1 axb5 axb5 2 2 l::tx a8 l::tx a8 23 i.. xf5 , a n d the opening of the position is clearly to the advantage of White, who has the two bishops. It is no better to play 1 9 . . .f4 20 .if2 'ii'x e5 2 1 axb5 axb5 22 'i!kd 3 ! . The game continued : 1 9 . . .tLl a 5 2 0 i.. f2 ! 'it>h8 (20 .. .f4 21 b4 ; 20 . . .'i1Vxe5 21 l:.e 1 ! 'ii'd 6 22 axb5 axb5 23 b4 ! ; 20 . . . tt::J c4 21 b3! tt::J x e5 22 axb5 axb5 23 l::tx a8 llxa8 24 Iie1 or 24 i..xf5!?) 2 1 .f:.e1 .l::[ a 7 22 'ii'e 2! b4 23 cxb4 cxb4 24 i.. x b6 'ii'x b6 25 l:1ad1
'i¥c5?
(25 . . . b3 26 .ib1 'iie 6 was more tenacious) 26 .id3 ! , and soon Wh ite converted his advantage.
8 . Kozu i-Ma rja novic (Yugoslav Champion
ship, Novi Sad 1 985, variation from the game). It is clear that Black has to play for zugzwang. White will have to sacrifice his knight on f5, since if it moves anywhere else the rook will invade on the 2nd rank. After 64 tt::Jxf5 .llxf5 Wh ite has two possibili ties: 65 e4 and 65 g4. Before turning to calculation , let's see whether it is possible to prevent at least one of them, i n order to deny the opponent a choice. 63 . . .
�g 1 ! !
I n the event of 6 3 . . . .l:f.a5? 64 tt::J xf5 Itxf5 65 g4 ! hxg4+ 66 �xg4 Wh ite would have easily gained a d raw: 66 .. J:lf8 67 f5 'ii?e 2 68 �f4! 'ii? d 3 69 'ii? e 5! 'ii? x e3 70 f6. 64 tt::Jxf5
.l:f.xf5
And 65 g4 is not possible because of 65 . . . h4! 66 gxf5 h 3 . Now let us analyse the conseq uences of 65 e4 . 65 e4 .l:f.a5 66 f5 .l:f.a3+ 67 'ii?t4 'iiff2 68 f6
Other continuations also do not help: 68 'ii? g 5 'ii? e 3 (68 . . . 'ii?x g3 is also good ) 69 e5 'ii?e4 70 e6 .Uxg3+ 7 1 'ii? h 4 l:.g4+! 72 �xh5 'ii?xf5; 68 e5 .l:f.f3+ 69 �e4 (69 'ii? g 5 'ii? e 3 70 e6 �e4 7 1 f6 .l:f.f5+ ! , transposing into the main variation 68 f6) 69 . . . �xg3 (69 . . . l::t x g3 70 f6 .l:f.f3! is also possible; if 70 e6 Black has both 70 . . . h4 7 1 f6 h3 72 f7 .l:f.f3 73 e7 h2 and 74 . . . h 1 'ii' , and 70 . . . l::tf3 71 �e5 h4 72 e7 h3) 70 e6 .l:.f1 ! 71 'ii? d 4 .l:.e 1 72 'ii? d 5 'ii?f4 (72 . . . h4) 73 f6 l:le5+ ! 74 'ii? d 6 'ii? f5. 68 . . . I:If3+ 69 �g5 'ii?e 3!
Not 69 .. .'�xg3? 70 e5! (70 'ii? x h5? �f4 ! ) 70 . . . h 4 7 1 e 6 h3 72 e7 h2 73 e8W h 1 'it' 74 We5+ with a d raw. 70 e5 �e4 71 e6 l:tf5+! 72 'ii? g 6 �e5 73 e7 l:.xf6+ 74 'ii? g 7 .l:!.e6 75 'ii?f7 'ii?tS , and Black
wins.
tZJ
57
Max D l u g y
A Novelty i s born
W arrives in the mail, I really get excited !
hen the most recent Chess Informant
Now I can look at some of my favou rite openi n g variations and see what novelties the world came u p with , i n the last few months. Now I ' l l be both armed with new excitin g ideas and forewarned against un pleasan t surprises in my next tou rnament. I can look in the Queen's Gambit Accepted section and see that the line I started playing with Black in 1 985 is all the rage now, but that I am still safe there. Skipping back to the Richter-Rauzer Sicilian B66 variation I 've been playing since 1 983, I find that Serper's novelty in the previous Informant has been virtually refuted by Ralf Lau's excellent 1 4 Wb1 ! . Good thing I did some work o n that line before and that's not going to be a problem either. If I only knew how to handle that GrOnfeld Defence!
Gaj i c - Dl ugy
New York Open 1 985 Caro-Kann Defence 1 e4
c6
2 d4
d5
3 ltJd2
dxe4
4 ltJxe4
ltJ d7
5 ltJf3
ltJgf6
6 ltJxf6+
ltJ xf6
7 ..ie2
g6
8 0-0
..ig7
9 c3
9 c4 is the topical line assessed as ';!;' in EGO. But more on that later. 9 . . .
0-0
1 0 ltJe5
Novelty, innovation, new idea , improvement - what are we talking about here? How is a novelty born? This is a story about the evolution of one seemingly unimportant improvement i n a . . tt:'ld7 variation of the Caro-Ka n n . It's only been played once on a GM level, but it was enough to put Wh ite's set-up out of com mis sion . .
The story starts with a game I played in the 1 985 New York Open agai nst loran Gajic, a player I felt I had to beat to have a shot at the top prizes i n that first class Swiss.
A well known and popular set-up back in 1 985. After the usual 1 O . ..ie6 11 l:te1 White maintains the centre and although Black doesn't have particu lar d ifficulties, it's ex. .
58
�
A Novelty is born
tremely hard to complicate the game. After some thought I came u pon an i nteresting, if somewhat artificial knight manoeuvre in the attempt to mix it up. 10 . . .
ttJe8 1
1 1 ..tf4
ttJd6
1 2 .l:.e1
..te6
1 3 ttJg4?!
My opponent is already confused by the new set-up and he begins an artificial knight manoeuvre of his own in the hope of attacking my king. 13 . . .
'ilfb6
1 4 b4
a5
1 5 tLlh6+
'iti>h8
1 6 a3
'ili'd8
1 7 ..td3
tLlb5
18 'ii' d 2
axb4
1 9 axb4
.l:ixa1
20 .l:.xa 1
'it'd5
21 I:.e1
tLld6
22 h 3
32 'i!i'e3+
'iti>h51
33 ..tg3
..td7
34 ..tc7
'iti>g6
35 ..td8
l:.a8
36 'ii'g 3+
'iti>f7
And Black, armed with an extra piece, won easily. So the risky play paid off ( I even managed to tie for fi rst in the tou rnament), and I remembered the . . . ttJe8-d6 manoeuvre as a distinct possibil ity in this variation . Along comes the following: Gertler - Dl ugy
Long Island Open 1 985 Caro-Kann Defence 1 e4
c6
2 d4
d5
3 tLld2
dxe4
4 ttJxe4
ttJd7
5 tLlf3
ttJgf6
l:ta8
6 ttJxf6+
ttJxf6
23 ttJg4
l:!.a2
7 ttJe5
..te6
24 'ii'c 1
1t'b3
8 ..te2
g6
25 ..tg5
tLlf5
9 0-0
..tg7
26 ..txf5
gxf5
1 0 c4
0-0
1 1 ..te3
27 tLlh6
The knight comes back for more but this time he doesn't come home. 27 . . .
f6
28 i.. h 4?
After 28 ..tf4! ..tf8 29 'i!fe3 ..td7 30 'i!i'g3! Wh ite could have put Black's 'win at all costs' strategy to the test. 28 . . .
..tf8
29 'ili'e3
'iti>g7!
The start of an unlikely king manoeuvre which is especially hard to stop in view of Wh ite's mounting time pressu re. 30 'ii'f4?
'iti>g6!
31 'ii' g 3+
'iti>xh6
This, of course, is the main line favou red by
ltJ
A Novelty is born
ECO. I stopped to think. Once again I need to complicate the game and make an effort to solve my open ing problems at the same time. EGO g ives 1 1 . . . lt:'ld7 , 1 1 .. .'ii' c 7 and 11 . 'i'c8 as the possible moves , evaluating the position as somewhat better for Wh ite in all lines. Remembering my experiment from earlier in the year I started contemplating 11 . ttJe8. And the more I looked - the more I liked it! The knight on d6 will be threatening the c4-pawn , the d4-pawn and e3-bishop via f5, while the open ing of the long diagonal will make the break . . . c6-c5 all the more plausible. I n fact, I didn't really see what White could do to get any kind of play going . And so I played . . . . .
.
I n the ending only Black will have win n i ng chances. 1 7 ii.e3
'ii'x d4
1 8 ii.xd4
e6!
The simplest way - Black completes his development. 19 dxe6
.
�xe6
20 .U.fd 1
l:tfdB
21 b3
f5 !
22 gxf5
lt:Jxf5
23 �b2
.U.acB?!
23 . . . lt:lh4 with an advantage was stronger. 24 .i.f3
b6
25 �b7
l::. b B
li::l e B!
26 �e4
li::l d 6
1 2 li::lf3
li::l d 6
27 �d5
�xd5
1 3 b3
lt:'lf5
28 l:txd5
li::l f7
lt:Jxe3
29 l:.xdB+
l:txdB
30 li::l x f7
�xf7?
11 . . .
14 'ikd2
Black is already equal and eventually he won a messy and somewhat lucky game. In October of the same year I played i n a GM tournament and once again encountered the same variation, this time against a tougher opponent.
Black's last chance to play for a win was 30 . . . �xb2 3 1 li::l x d8 �xa 1 .
Gruenfeld - D l u gy Manhatta n Chess C l u b l nternational 1 985 Caro-Kann Defence (from previous diagram) 11 . . . lt:JeB !
1 2 �f4 White prepares to strike i n the centre, but the attem pt backfires as Black is extremely solid. 12 . . .
li::l d 6
13 d5
cxd5
1 4 cxd5
�f5
15 g4
�cB
White has gai ned some time at the cost of seriously compromising his pawn structu re . 1 6 'ii' d4
'ii' b 6!
59
31 .i.xg7
�xg7
32 llc1
.l:td7
33 a4
�f6
34 a5!
bxa5
35 l:tc5
l:tb7
36 l:txa5
l:txb3
Draw. Is this story over? Is the novelty born? In the same tou rnament Yehuda Gruenfeld put my novelty to a real test with an in novation of his own . G ruenfeld - Lei n New York 1 985 Caro-Kann Defence ( from previous diagram) 11 . . . lt:JeB 1 2 'ii' b 3! Wh ite targets the b7-pawn , tying Black's knight to its defence.
60
w 12 . . .
A Novelty is born
ltJd6
1 3 .l:!.ad 1 ! White successfully defends his centre and keeps a comfortable edge. 13 . . .
'ii'c B
1 4 'ii'c 3
l:.d8
1 5 h3
f6? !
1 6 ltJf3
'ii'd 7
1 7 l:.fe1
lieS
1 8 .if1
.if7
1 9 .ic1
a5
20 a4
b6
21 b3
c5
1 3 dxe5 ltJd2 ! 14 .ixd2 "ii'x d2 with full equal ity, and all other moves transpose to 1 1 . . . ltJe8 lines as Black safely reaches the d6-square with his knig ht. The novelty is born ! Over a year later someone else caught up with me. It seems the g reat practitioner of prophylactics did his homework. Behold ! A.Sokolov - Karpov
22 .if4
'ii'c 6
23 g3
.l:!.adB
Candidates Match 1 987 Caro-Kann Defence ( from previous diagram) 11 . . . ltJe4! ltJd6 1 2 'ili'c2
24 .ig2
'ii'c B
1 3 b3
c5!
25 dxc5
'ii'x c5
1 4 liad 1
ltJf5
26 .ie3
'ii'c 7
1 5 d5
.ixe5
27 ltJd4
f5
1 6 dxe6
'ii'c 7
28 'ii'c 1
f4
1 7 exf7+
.l:lxf7
1 8 g3
.l:laf8
1 9 .ig4
ltJxe3
20 fxe3
l:txf1 +
29 gxf4 And Wh ite eventually converted his extra pawn i nto a full point. I mmediately after this game I started looking for improvements for Black after 1 2 'ii' b 3, but the longer I looked the more convinced 1 became that Wh ite had the upper hand . The tournament was over and I was off to Montpellier to watch the Candidates Tou rna ment, to play in an Open there and to take lessons from Mark Dvoretsky. Mark's approach to teaching chess is d iffer ent from all other trai ners; he teaches methods of thinking over anyth ing else. We concentrated on prophylactics - or the prevention of your opponent's ideas, and when I came back to New York, I found the answer I was looking for. I n stead of reacting to 12 'ii'b 3, Black has to prevent it! So I need the knight to go to d6, while preventing 1 2 'ii'b 3. The answer - 1 1 . . . ltJe4 ! ! . The un iversal move. Now if 1 2 'ii' b 3 Black plays 1 2 . . . .ixe5!
2 1 .l:!.xf1 Draw. You hardly see this once fashionable set-up for Wh ite against the . . . ltJd7 Caro-Kan n . It's been replaced by 5 ltJg5 and 5 .ic4 . Yet when the new revised edition of EGO comes out I am sure the assessment of the line will revert from ';!;' to ' = ' . It takes q uite a bit to erase a l ittle plus sig n , doesn't it? P. S . Grandmaster Yu ri Razuvaev reports having played 1 1 . . . ltJe4! in nu merous blitz games over 20 years ago against Karpov. He was su rprised to see Karpov remember this move for his match against Sokolov. It seems there is noth ing new under the s u n , or is there?
61
Mark Dvoretsky
Pos ition a l Exercises
Yted with various aspects of positional
ou have to solve ten exercises, con nec
play (manoeuvres, excha nges, prophylaxis etc.). Time for the taking of the decisions will be limited - from 5 to 1 5 minutes. In my view, this is q u ite sufficient - after a l l , you don't have t o calculate any lengthy a n d complicated variations. You merely have to approach the position correctly: try to gain a feeling for it, recogn ise the main problem facing you , and q u ickly point out the promis ing possibil ities for you and you r opponent.
When you solve a study or try to find a forcing combinatio n , on verification it is not difficult to ascertain (if, of cou rse, the exercise is correct) that the solution devised is the only correct one, and that other continuations are sign ificantly weaker. With
1 . White to move (1 0 mins.)
positional examples things are more compli cated - here the situation sometimes al lows d ifferent approaches. In comparing their strength , we base this not on precise variations, but on general evaluatio n , about w h ich arg u ments are possible. Even so , I hope that in the exercises offered to you there will be no particular arg u ments - they have been carefu lly checked and already solved earlier by many of my pupils. For each correct reply you receive two poi nts, and for an i ncorrect one you score zero . If the reply is only partially correct, and you fail to g ive some important variations, then you receive one point. I assume that in some cases I will have to use i ntermediate values: a half or one and a half points.
2 . Black to move (5 m i ns.)
62
�
Positional Exercises
3. Wh ite to move ( 1 0 mins.)
4. Black to move (1 0 m i ns.)
5. White to move (1 0 mins.)
6. Wh ite to move (5 m i ns.)
7. Wh ite to move (1 5 mins.)
8. Black to move (1 5 m i ns.)
Positional Exercises
9. Wh ite to move (1 0 mins.)
ctJ
63
1 0. Black to move (1 0 mins.)
Sol utions 1 . Knaak-Geller (Moscow 1 982).
White has good attacki ng chances, but for the moment some of his pieces are not taking part in the activity on the kingside. He must first consolidate his position . 22 ..tc2 ! An excellent reg rouping . The bishop goes to b3, intensifying the pressure on the d5-point and simultaneously covering its own pawn on b2. Then the rook at b 1 will defend the d4pawn from d 1 , after which the knight will occupy the very i mportant f4-point, once again attacki ng d5 and at the same time approach ing the enemy king . Black is u nable to oppose this plan of action. For example, in the event of 22 . . . llc4 there is the strong reply 23 l:.h4! followed by 24 ..tb3. 22
...
i.f7 23 ..tb3 .l:.ce8 24 .l::!. b d1 lDg5
In the event of 24 . . . lle3 25 lDf4 'ifd6 Wh ite wins by 26 lDfxd 5 ! l:ie2+ 27 lDxe2 l::t x e2+ 28 lt>xe2 'i!i'xg3 29 lDe7+ 'iti>h8 30 ..txf7.
t2Jf4 'ii'd 6 (25 ... l:te3 26 lDfxd5) 26 l:td3! (intending 'ii'g 4 followed by lDcxd5 ) 26 ... b5 27 'i'g4 l:td7 25
Wh ite has a decisive advantage. The con cluding moves were made in severe time trouble. 28 h6 (28 lDcxd5 was simpler) 28 ... g6 29 lDcxdS (29 lDxb5! ? ) 29 ... a5 (29 . . . 'iti>h7!?) 30 h7+ lDgxh7? (30 . . . 'iti>h8! was essential) 31 lDxg6 Black lost on time. His position is hopeless, as is apparent from the variation 31 . . . lDxg6 32 lDe7+ l:texe7 33 1i'xg6+ 'iti>f8 34 'ii' h 6+ 'iti>e8 35 'ii'x h7 'iti>d8 36 ..txf7 l:.xf7 37 'ii'f5.
64 �
Positional Exercises
2. Zil berman-Taimanov (Moscow 1 979). White is th reatening to gain an advantage by advancing his c-pawn . This must be prevent ed . 17 . . .
�a6!
A good prophylactic move - it was suggested by nearly all the participants in the competi tion ( 1 8 c5? is not possible in view of 1 8 . . . bxc5 1 9 dxc5 lllxc5!). But Black had to reckon with the following reply by the opponent: anyone who did not see it receives only half a point. 1 8 'i!t'a4 Now the plausible 1 8 . . . b5? is i ncorrect i n view of 1 9 'it'b4 ! with a b i g advantage for White. Those who wanted to play this each lost a point. Vova Baklan earned one and a half points: he saw the refutation of . . . b6-b5, but he did not manage to fi nd the correct cou rse, which , unfortunately, was suggested only by Sasha Chernosvitov. 18 . . . i.b7! The captu re of the a7-pawn is dangerous the queen risks becoming trapped in the enemy position . Wh ite should reconcile himself to the roughly equal position arising after 1 9 'ii' b4 'Wic7 20 d5 (20 tt:'!f4? �xg2 2 1 'it>xg2 'ili'b7+ 2 2 'it>g 1 e5! ) 20 . . . tt:'!c5 2 1 l:.d 1 . I n the game there followed 1 9 'i¥xa7? �xg2 20 �xg2 ii'c6+ 21 d5 (21 'it>g1 l:ta8) 21 . . . exd5 22 tt:'!d4 'ii'd 6.
White is in serious d ifficulties, for example: 23 'iia 4 tt:'!e5! 24 cxd5 Wxd5+ 25 f3 (25 'it>g 1 'ii'x d4) 25 . . . b5. He should probably have sought salvation i n the variation 23 tt:'!b5 'ii'e 6! 24 l:te 1 'ili'c6 25 tt:'!d4 'ili'xc4 26 tt:'!e6! (26 1i'xd7 'i!Vxd4 27 l:tad 1 'i!kc5 is less good) 26 . . . fxe6 27 'i!Vxd7 . 23 l:td1 ? tt:'!c5! (th reatening . . . l:t b 7 or . . J:ta8; it does not help to play 24 tt:'!b5 'ii'g 6 25 'ilie7 dxc4) 24 tt:'!f5 'i!i'e5! 25 tt:'!e7+ 'ith8 26 Ite1 (26 tt:'!c6 'ii'e 4+ 27 �g 1 l:tb7) 26 .. .'ii' d 6 27 tt:'!f5 'ii'f6 Wh ite resig ned . 3. Pinter-Adorjan (Prague 1 985). 17 tt:'Jxe4!
dxe4
1 8 i.xb4! 1 8 i.xe4? �xe4 1 9 l:txe4 is much weaker; Black can choose between 1 9 . . . 'ii'd 5 20 'ilie2 tt:'!xa2 and 1 9 . . . tt:'!d3 20 l:tc3 tt:'Jxf2 21 'it>xf2 il.xd4+ . 18 . . .
exf3
1 8 . . . cxb4 1 9 i.xe4 leads to the loss of a pawn without any compensation . The game went 1 8 . . . e3 1 9 .l:.xe3 i.xf3 20 'ii'c 2! g6 2 1 dxc5 �g5 22 .l:.d3 'ii'c 8 23 'ii'c4+ 'itg7 24 'ii'c 3+ 'ith6 (24 . . . i.f6 25 'ii'd 2) 25 h4 Black resig ned . 1 9 dxc5 1 9 . . . bxc5 20 il.xc5. 20 c6
'i!i'c8
ltJ
Positional Exercises
This variation had to be calculated by Wh ite when he embarked on his operation. His position is won , for example: 20 ... .ltxc6 (20 . .'i'h3 21 'ii'xf3) 2 1 'ii'c 2 'ii' h 3 22 'ii'x h7+ 'fxh7 23 ..txh7+ xh7 24 ..txf8 . .
Jozsef Pinter found a purely concrete way of achieving an advantage. Only by a great stretch of the imagination can this example be called 'positional' (Wh ite carried out a series of favourable exchanges). But equal ly, White's solution can not be called combi native - after all, noth ing was sacrificed . It would perhaps be more correct to cal l it tactical . Tactics a re an immeasu rably broader con ception than combinations. When we say that Emanuel Lasker was a great tacticia n , we don't mean that he was constantly sacrificing something. No, simply the world champion was excellent at fi nding the strong est resources for both sides - accurate moves , precise variations. Tactical skil l plays an enormous role i n chess , and b y no means o n l y in sharp combinative situations. With its help a player can tenaciously hold difficult positions, con stantly erecting new barriers i n the oppo nent's path , or on the contrary, he can find the quickest way to convert an advantage . Even the solving o f purely strategic problems in quiet positions can not be done without tactical elements - after a l l , our plans can only be carried out by means of specific moves, which have to be seen and, if necessary, calculated . 4. Lisitsyn-Tolush (Len ingrad 1 938).
What does Wh ite want? Without exceptio n , a l l the participants in t h e competition correct ly decided that Black should be thinking not about the defence of his c7-pawn , but about parrying the th reat of the q ueen exchange ('fg5). It is incorrect to play 1 8 . . . c6? (or 18 . b6?) 1 9 'ii'g 5! lt:Jg6 ( 1 9 .. .'i!i'xg5 20 fxg5 lt:ld7 2 1 tt:Jxe4) 20 'ii'x h4 lt:Jxh4 2 1 f5! . .
.
65
But, u nfortu nately, most of you chose a resou rceful , but not very successful way of parrying the opponent's main idea - 1 8 . . . b5?! (for it only half a point is awarded ). After 1 9 cxb5! followed by 2 0 lt:Jc4 Black does not have sufficient compensation for the sacri ficed pawn . Less convincing is 1 9 'iix b5? ! , hoping for 1 9 . . . .l::ta b8 20 'iig 5 'ii'x g5 2 1 fxg5 l:txb2 22 gxf6 l:txd2 23 fxe7 .l:txe7 (or 23 . . . .l::tx a2 24 .l::t a 1 ) 24 .l::tf2 , when in the rook ending the l im it of Black's dreams is a draw. It is stronger to i nterpose 1 9 . . . lt:Jg4 ! , and only after 20 h3 - 20 .. Jlab8 (but not 20 . . . l:teb8? 21 'iig 5 'ii'x g5 22 fxg5 .l:r.xb2 23 tt:Jxe4 ).
The reply 21 �a4? suggests itself, but it is prettily refuted by 2 1 . . .lt:Jf5! 22 hxg4 lt:Jh6! with irresistible threats. Wh ite's position also looks anxious after 21 'ii' a 5?! :xb2 22 hxg4 'ii'x g4 23 :f2 lt:Jf5! 24 lt:Jxe4 l:tb6 followed by 25 . . . l:th6. He is forced to play 21 'ii'g 5! 'i!i'xg5 22 fxg5 l:txb2 23 tt:Jxe4 ! lt:Jg6 24 lt:Jc5 lt:Jh4 25 hxg4 or 24 . . .lt:Jxe3 25 .l:r.f2 with roughly equal chances. The strongest is a cool-headed prophylactic move. 18 . . .
h6!
After 19 'ii'x c7?! lt:Jf5 there is no satisfactory defence against the threat of 20 . . . lt:Jg4 . For example: 20 l:!.e2 lt:Jg4 21 g3 lt:Jxg3 (2 1 . . . 'ikh3
66
�
Positional Exercises
also looks tempting, intending either to captu re the e3-pawn with the knig ht, or to play . . . h6-h5-h4, or at an appropriate moment to nevertheless sacrifice the knight on g3) 22 hxg3 'ifxg3+ 23 'it>h 1 'ifh3+ 24 'it>g2 tt:Jxe3 25 .l:tff2 l:tac8 with advantage to Black. After 20 h3 tt:Jg3 Georgy Lisitsyn had to accept the loss of the exchange, since if 2 1 l:.f2 there follows 2 1 . . . tt:Jg4! . 2 0 . . . 'i!r'g3 ! ? , attacking the e3-pawn, also came into consideration. Remember: a queen together with a knight (and the more so, with two knights) in the
- position after 23 f5 -
vicinity of the enemy king constitutes a powerful force!
5.
B el i avs ky-H erzog
(Mexico 1 977).
White has an excellent position. It can be strengthened either by the q uiet move 18 g3, or by 18 tt:Je2 or 18 'iot>h2(h 1 ), prepa ring g2g4. This is all not bad , but rather slow. The position lends itself to more energetic meas ures. The only one to suggest the correct way was l lya Makariev. tt:Jf4 1 8 g4! 19 tt:Jxe5
.txe5
20 .txe5
tt:Jxh3+
21 .txh3 21 'i!r'xh3 .l:f.xe5 22 f4 l:tee8 23 f5 (or 23 e5!? h5 24 'i!r'h4 ! ) was eq ually good . 21 . . .
l:.xe5
22 f4
.:t eeS
23 f5 (see diagram)
The exchanging operation has enabled Wh ite to beg in a very da ngerous pawn storm . The f5-pawn has restricted the mobil ity of the opponent's bishop and knight. Things are bad for Black - Wh ite is threaten ing 24 f6 or 24 e5 followed by tt:Je4 .
23 . . . f6 24 l:.d6 .tea 25 .l:txd8 (25 l:txf6?! is weaker in view of 25 . . . tt:Jd7 and 26 . . . tt:Je5) 25 . . . l:txd8 26 e5 fxe5 27 'ilfxe5 'ilff7 28 tt:Je4 l2Jd7 29 'i!r'c3 gxf5 30 tt:Jg5 'i!r'd5 31 tt:Je6 tt:Jf6 32 'i!r'xf6 Black resigned . Why did this example prove so difficult? The sharp transformation of the position carried out by Alexander Beliavsky is somehow not in keeping with our usual approach to such favou rable situations - i n them we prefer to manoeuvre q u ietly, g rad ually improving the placing of the pieces. And sometimes we will miss favourable concrete possibilities. Gen erally speaking, the transformation of an advantage is a psychologically d ifficult pro ced u re, demanding at the same time both dynamic th inking , and subtle positional eval uation . Later the American player Maurice Ash ley suggested another, also very concrete way of playing for Wh ite : 1 8 .tc4 ! ? . The pressure on the f7 -point is rather u npleasant, and also the strateg ic threat 1 9 g4 tt:Jf4 20 tt:Jxe5 remains in force. The critical reply is 1 8 . . . ..te6. Then follows the unexpected 1 9 ..txf8 ! .l:i.xd 1 20 .l:txd 1 ..txc4 (20 . . . ..txf8 2 1 tt:Jxe5 is no better) 2 1 ..txg7 tt:Jxg7 22 tt:Jxe5! :xe5 23 'ii'd 4. However, this clever idea can be cal led into question by 20 . . .'it>xf8 ! 2 1 ..txe6 l:.xe6 22 tt:Jg5 (22 Il.d8+ 'iit e 7! , but not 22 . . . I!.e8? 23
lD
Positional Exercises
'i!i'd2 ) 22 . . . lle8 23 ltJxh7+ 'it'g8 24 ltJgS .i.h6, when the position remains unclear. 6. Hort-Karpov (Amsterdam 1 98 1 ).
Black obviously wants to play . . . b6-bS , supporting his c4-pawn and preparing . . . ltJe4 or . . . ltJb6 . The same reply 1 4 . . . bS! follows both after the attempt to undermine the pawn chain by 14 b3, and after the tem pti ng 1 4 tt:'le5. 1 4 a4! An important prophylactic move. Now 1 S b3 and 1 5 ltJeS are dangerous positional th reats for White. Anatoly Karpov played badly and was soon in serious d ifficulties. 1 4 . . i.c6?! (in order to answer 1 S b3 with 15 . . . b5) 1 5 ltJe5 \!Vc7 1 6 ltJxc6 'i!i'xc6 1 7 i.f3 .
s1
The solution that you are looking for does not necessarily lead to i m med iate success. lf the opponent also rises to the occasion and finds the best response, the outcome often re mains u n clear. That is the case here: although 14 a4 ! was u ndoubted ly correct, if Black had replied 1 4 . . . ltJe8! he would have retai ned a defensible position. I ncidentally, 1 4 . . . ltJe4?! was weaker in view of 1 S i.xe7 'i!i'xe7 1 6 ltJxe4 dxe4 1 7 ltJd2 bS 1 8 b3!. 7 . Geller-Fischer (Curac;ao Cand idates 1 962). Wh ite has to reckon with the threat of 29 . . .'it'xaS. He doesn't want to put his roo k on a 1 - this is too passive. Noth ing is ach ieved by 29 'ii' b 6 'i¥xb6 30 l:.xb6 (30 axb6 'ili>f8 ) 30 .. .'.ti>f8! (of course, not 30 . . . .l::!. x aS? 3 1 l:td6) 3 1 d6 .l::!.x aS 32 h3 .l:!.cS , a n d he is also u nsuccessful with 29 l:td 1 'i!i'xaS 30 \!VxaS l:!.xaS 31 d6 i.. d 7 32 l:tb 1 bS. But if he were able to play his rook to b6 . . . This would solve the problem of the aS pawn , and Black's central blockade would prove insecure. 29 'ii'a 4!
i.d7
29 . . . 'it'f8 30 l:tb6. 30 \!Val !
After the exchange of Black's bishop his dS pawn has become weak. 1 8 ltJxdS is threatened . After 1 7 . . . .l:tfe8 Wh ite has the strong reply 1 8 i.xf6 ltJxf6 1 9 e4 , while if 1 7 . . .l::!. a e8 , then 1 8 b3! bS 1 9 axbS axbS 20 'i'f5!. .
1 7 ... i.b4? 1 8 ltJxd5! ltJxdS 19 �fS (but not 1 9 li'xc4? �xc4 20 l:txc4 in view of 20 . . . bS followed by . . . ltJ7b6) 1 9 . . .'il¥xa4 20 .i.xdS .l:!.ac8 21 b3! cxb3 22 l:lxc8 llxc8 23 'i!i'xf7+ '.t>h8 24 .i.xb3 'ii' b S 25 i.e6 l:.f8 26 i.xd7! (not 26 'ii' x d7?! 'i!VhS ! ) Black resigned.
31 .l:.xb7 is th reatened, and if 30 . . . i.c8 there follows 3 1 l:tb6 with a decisive positional advantage. Black is forced to captu re the aS pawn with his rook, al lowing the cou nter stroke on b7. 30 . . . 'ii'x aS 3 1 'ii'x aS .l:!.xaS 32 .l:!.xb7 is totally bad for h i m . 30 . . . 31 .l:!.xb7!
.l:!.xaS
Diana Darchiya and Sergey Movsesian suggested 3 1 "ii' e 7? ! , which is much wea ker - because of this they each lost half a point. The completely correct solution was found by Vova Baklan and Vad i m Zviag intsev. 31 . . .
'i!i'xb7
31 . . . .l::!.x a3 is hopeless: 32 .l::!. x c7 .:a 1 + 33 .i.f1 i.fS 34 g4! (34 f3 hS 3S 'ittf2 l:ta2+ is fa r less
68
�
Positional Exercises
convincing) 34 . . . i.xg4 35 h3!? (35 'it>g2) 35 . . . .txh3 36 'it>h2 - after the exchange of bishops, the con nected passed pawns in the centre decide the outcome. 32 'i\Vxa5 White has achieved a decisive positional superiority. 32 . . .
g6
33 h3
'iVb1 +
35 . . .'i!Ve4 36 i.f3 �d4?! (36 . . . �d3 was more tenacious) 37 'ii'x d4 exd4 38 g4! ii.c8 38 . . . a5 39 gxf5 a4 40 d6 '.tf8 41 c5 or 38 . . . i.. c2 39 c5 d3 40 c6 i.a4 41 d6 was no better. 39 c5 aS 40 c6 �f8 41 d6 Here the game was adjourned , and Fischer resigned : 41 . . . 'it>e8 42 i.d 1 , 41 . . . d3 42 d7 i.xd7 43 cxd7 'it>e7 44 i.c6 d2 45 i.a4 , or 4 1 . . . . a4 42 c7 a3 43 i.c6 a2 44 d7 i.xd7 45 i.xd7 a 1 'iV 46 c8'ii' + . 8. Karpov-Lerner (Moscow 1 983). Black is a pawn down . Should he exchange rooks? At first sig ht it may seem that his hopes of cou nterplay i nvolve creating an attack against the wh ite king , which is stuck in the middle of the board , which means that the rooks should not be exchanged . That is how Konstantin Lerner reasoned , in choos ing 41 . . . .l:te8? .
34 �h2? As Garry Kasparov pointed out, 34 iLf1 ! was correct: 34 . . . 'iVb7 35 1!Vd8+ 'it>g7 36 "iile 7 or 34 . . . ..l1Lf5 35 d6 i.d3 36 d7. The move in the game allows Black a savi ng chance. 34 ...
i.f5?
34 .. .'it'c2 35 'iVd8+ �g7 36 't\Vxd7 't\Vxe2 was necessary. The variation by Braslav Rabar: 37 't\Vc7 a5 38 f4! a4 (38 . . . exf4 39 11Vxf4) 39 fxe5 a3 40 e6 a2 41 'iVxf7+ 'it>h6 42 'iVf6 contains many weak points. For example, instead of 37 . . . a5 Black ca n consider 37 . . .'iVe4!? 38 g3 1!Vd4 39 '.tg 1 e4 , and on the next move 37 . . . 11Ve3!? g ives a d raw. Finally, instead of the 'cooperative' 40 . . . a2? there is 40 . . . 11Vf2 ! 4 1 e7 (4 1 'iVe5+ f6! ) 4 1 . . . "iile 3, and Black saves the game, 35 "ifc3! White has consolidated and his central pawns have become a powerful force.
But after 42 .l:tg2! (42 .l:th2?! f6! was less accu rate) there was the terrible th reat of exchanging the q ueens: 43 'iVg4 ! . I n the rook ending White's extra pawn and centralised king would give h i m an easy wi n . B u t i f the exchange i s avoided , he is the first to beg in an attack on the enemy king: 42 . . .'ii' d 7 43 h5 �dB 44 hxg6 'ii'd 4+ 45 '.tf3 'iVd 1 + (45 . . . iVd5+ 46 'it>g4 '.tg7 was more tenacious) 46 l:i.e2 'it'f1 47 '.te3 f5 48 l:i.e1 'iVbS 49 'i!Vh3 'ii'c 5+ 50 '.tf3 Black resigned . A similar picture arises after 4 1 . . . lta8? 42 l:th2! (better than 42 l:lg2 lta1 ! ) . If 42 . . . lta1 , then 43 h5, but otherwise Wh ite offers the advantageous exchange of q ueens: 42 .. .'ilt'h5 43 �f3 or 42 . . . lta2 43 11Vg5 . It turns o u t that t h e rooks should have been exchanged . 41 . . .
ltxd2!
4 1 ... ltd5? is much weaker in view of 42 ltxd5 cxd5 43 'ii'g 2! d4+ 44 'it>xd4 'ifxf4+ 45 'ii'e4 , and Wh ite should win the q ueen ending. All his pawns are securely defended by the
ttJ
Positional Exercises
queen, whereas the black b7-pawn is weak and will soon be won . 42 'iti>xd2
'ii'e4
43 'ii'e 3 43 h5 'it'd4+ 44 'iti>e2 'ii'e4+ .
43 . . .
'ii' h 1
After 44 'iff2 'ii'e4 ( o r 4 4 . . .'iti> h 7 ) t h e material advantage is not felt i n view of the activity of the black queen and the vulnerabil ity of the white pawns. Black retains excellent d rawing chances .
Korchnoi-Geller (Candidates Match , 7th Game, Moscow 1 97 1 ).
9.
Black is more actively placed . I n particular White has to reckon with a pawn offensive on the queenside: . . . b7-b5-b4. How can this be opposed? The correct solution was found by Maxim Boguslavsky and Vad i m Zviagintsev. 1 7 a3 ! ! A subtle prophylactic move. I f 1 7 . . . b 5 Wh ite intends 1 8 lt:Ja2 ! and then lt:Jb4, exploiting the weakness of the c6-sq uare. At the same time he plans to evict the powerful knight from c4 by 'ii'a 2, tt:Jce2 and b2-b3.
Yefim Geller was unable to devise an effective cou nter-pl a n , and as a result White soon completed the development of his pieces and seized the in itiative. Black should have opted for a change of the pawn
69
structure, by advancing his e-pawn: 1 7 . . . e6!? 1 8 dxe6 fxe6 (recommended by Alexander Shabalov), or 1 7 . . . b5 1 8 tt:Ja2 e5! 1 9 dxe6 fxe6 . 1 7 . . . 'ii'c 5 1 8 'ii' a 2 .l:tc7 1 9 tt:Jce2 ! l:l.bc8 ( 1 9 . . . lt:Jxd5? 20 lt:Jb3) 20 b3 lt:Je5!? (20 . . . lt:Jb6 21 e4 with an obvious advantage to White)
21 ..ltd2 ! ? With t h e opponent's pieces s o active, White has to be extremely carefu l . I n the event of 2 1 f4? ! 'ifb6(a7) the immediate captu re of the knight is clearly bad - 22 fxe5? dxe5 (with the th reat of the rook invasion at c2 ), while after 22 l1b 1 (or 22 'ili'b 1 ) 22 . . . ..te8 it also looks risky. But 2 1 e4! ? followed by 22 ..lte3 deserved serious consideration . 2 1 . . . ..lte8 (2 1 . . .tt:Jxd5? 22 b4) 22 l:tac1 'iib6 23 .l::!.x c7 .l::tx c7 24 .tel ..tb5 25 'iid 2 ..txe2 26 ..lta5! 'ii'a 7 27 tt:Jxe2 .l::!. c 8 28 .l:!.c1 'ii b 8 29 .l:!.c2 (29 .l:!.xc8+!? 'ifxc8 30 'ii'c 1 ) 29 ... lt:Jed7 30 'ii' c 1 .l:!.c5 31 .l:!.xc5 tt:Jxc5 32 'ii'c 2 11i'e8 33 lt:Jd4, and Wh ite stands clearly better - he has the two bishops and more space. An example typical of Victor Korch noi's play. He aimed for positions with a spatial advan tage, even if this involved a certain risk. By cool-headed actions he usually managed to exti nguish the opponent's activity and, by exploiting his strategic trumps, seize the in itiative.
70
�
Positional Exercises
1 0. Gavri kov-Vitolins (Severodonetsk 1 982). Black is a pawn down , and his opponent is intending f2-f3 . He must act with the utmost energy. By resou rceful play Alvis Vitolins succeeds in emphasising the insecure posi tion of the enemy king . 17 . . .
g5!
18 'it'h3 1 8 'ii'h 6 is completely bad : 1 8 . . . g4 with the threat of 1 9 . . . l:lh5 20 'iWf4 e5. 18 . . .
g41
1 9 �xg4
ltJxg4
20 'i¥xg4+
l1g5
At the cost of another pawn , Black's bishop and rook have establ ished coord ination they are both attacking the g2-point. But the calculation of the variation should probably be continued for a couple more moves . 21 'i!i'h3
'Ot>h8
22 f3
llfg8!
After 23 fxe4 .l:txg2+ Black retains a danger ous attack. It is impossible to calculate all its consequences in advance, but it is clear that there is practically no risk of losi ng, whereas a win may well be found (although it also may not). I , incidental ly, do not see one. Here is a possible variation : 24 'ii'x g2 �xe4 (24 . . . l:lxg2+!? 2 5 'Ot>xg2 'ii'g 5+) 25 lDf3 (25 llf2 ; 25 'ii'g 3!?) 25 . . Jixg2+ 26 x g2 'it'g5+ (26 . . . 'i!i'h4 27 h3) 27 f2 'iff5 28 xg7. .
.
.
21 tLlf1 The knight has no futu re on d2, and so Wh ite transfers it to the kingside. The routine 2 1 '1b2 would merely have eased the oppo nent's defence, but now in the event of Kamsky's plan ned exchange of dark-square bishops the wh ite q ueen will exert un pleas ant pressu re along the c1 -h6 diagona l . 21 . . .
tt::l h 7 The knight on h7 proves to be out of play. 2 1 . tt::l h 5 is also du bious: 22 .i.xg7 �xg7 23 t2Je3 followed by tLlg4 (but not Ludek Pachman's recommendation 23 g4? in view of 23 . . . 'ikf6 ! ) . It looks better to play 2 1 . . . tLld7 . .
73
22 .i.xg7 �xg7 23 axb5 axb5 24 J:.a7 l:tb8 25 tLle3 h5, although in this case too Wh ite holds the i n itiative. 22 .i.xg7
�xg7
23 tLle3 This knight causes Black serious anxiety. The th reat is 24 tLlg4. He is forced to weaken somewhat his castled position. 23 . . . h5 Anand also analyses other possibilities for Black: 1 ) 23 .. .'it'f6 24 tLlg4! 'ii'x a 1 25 'ii'x h6+ �g8 26 e5! .l:.xe5 (26 .. .'ii' c3 is weaker: 27 .i.xg6 fxg6 28 lLlf6+ tLlxf6 29 'ii'x g6+ �f8 30 1i'xf6+ �g8 31 .l:te4 ! ) 27 tLlgxe5! dxe5 28 .i.xg6 1i'xe 1 + 29 ttJxe 1 fxg6 30 'iix g6+ with advantage; 2 ) 23 . . . tLlg5 24 ttJxg5 hxg5 (or 24 .. .'ii' xg5 25 axb5 axb5 26 f4 ! 'with strong prospects on both wings' - Anand) 25 axb5 axb5 26 l:r.a5! 'ilkc7 27 lla7 .l:ta8 (if 27 . . . 'ii' b 6, then 28 tLlf5+ gxf5 29 1i'xg5+ 'it>f8 30 'ikh6+ 'it>e7 31 e5!) 28 tLlf5+! gxf5 (28 . . . 'iitf6 29 .l:.xb7 'i!Vxb7 30 ttJxd6) 29 'ii'x g5+ 'iitf8 30 'ili'h6+ 'it>e7 31 e5! with a very strong attack. 24 'ii'd 2 One of many su btle positional moves in this game. Wh ite method ically strengthens his position, exploiti ng the fact that the opponent has no active counterplay. Now Black has to reckon with a possible tLld4 . 24 . . .
'it>g8
24 . . . tLlf6 is dangerous in view of 25 lLlh4 , while if 24 . . . 'ii'f6 Wh ite has 25 l:ta3. Possibly, if Black had foreseen the following manoeu vre by his opponent, he would have chosen the lesser evil - 24 . . . bxa4 ! ? , although i n this case the wh ite knight would have gai ned an excellent post at c4 . 25 axb5! Wh ite has waited for a long time before opening the a-file, but now, when the opponent has focused his attention on the kingside, Anand suddenly switches to the queenside.
74
� 25 . . .
Manoeuvring
axb5
arise n , one that is typical of certai n variations of the Benoni Defence. 29 . . .
l2Jxb5
30 ..txb5
.l:ted8
31 ..tc4 After this seemingly modest move there is the strong threat of a breakth rough in the centre. 31 . . . I n the event of 3 1 . . .f6 the line recommended by Pachman is i nteresting: 32 e5 fxe5 33 l::tx e5 'Wf6 (33 . . . dxe5 34 d6+ 'it>g7 35 dxe7 Jb:d2 36 l2Jxd2 ..tc6 37 .l:r.a7 .tea 38 l2Je4) 34 l:.ee 1 l:.e8 35 l:ta7. 26 lDd1 ! ! An excellent and timely manoeuvre, consoli dating Wh ite's advantage. He prevents the defence-relieving move . . . l2Jg5, and the opponent now has to reckon with the central breakthrough e4-e5. But, above a l l , it tran spires that in the enemy position there is a serious weakness - the b5-pawn . The same manoeuvre, but without the preliminary exchange on b5, would have been weaker in view of 25 . . . bxa4 ( cf. the note to Black's 24th move). The following stage of the game can serve as a textbook illustration of how to manoeuvre agai nst enemy weaknesses. 26 . . .
l2Ja6
Black is forced to defend passively. If 26 . . . .Ua8 Wh ite has the u npleasant 27 l:.xa8 .:.Xa8 28 l2Jc3 'ii'd 7 29 e5. 27 l2Jc3
b4
28 lDb5 28 l2Ja4 with the idea of lDb6-c4 also looks good . 28 . . .
l2Jc7
29 .i.d3 Even the exchange of knights does not bring Black any rel ief. The light-square bishop moves with gain of tempo to an active position. A structure favourable for White has
32 'ii' h 6! Wh ite makes use of all the space on the board and all the resou rces of the position to d isrupt the coordination of the opponent's forces. Now the threat is 33 e5 dxe5 34 d6 and 35 'ii'x g6+ . 32 . . .
'ii'f8
The only move. The su icidal 32 . . . l2Jxe4? is meet by the simple 33 .Ua2 with the irresistible threat of 34 l:tae2 . 33 'ii'g 5 33 1i'f4 is also good . 33 . . .
'ii'g 7
If 33 . . . l2Jh7 34 1i'f4 , and the black pieces are even more badly placed . 33 . . . 'ife7 is no
ltJ
Manoeuvring
better in view of 34 J:la7 ! .
but his opponent is vigilant to the end.
34 .l::t a 7
44 .l::t b 1
For nine moves Wh ite has patiently been awaiting the most conven ient moment to invade with his rook. After the white queen's diversionary raid on the kingside, the tu rn has come for active play on the q ueenside.
34 . . .
l:tc7
34 . . . l:!. d7 is strongly met by 35 e5! tt::l e 8 (35 . . . tt:Jxd5 36 e6 fxe6 37 lixe6 , or 35 . . . dxe5 36 tt:\xe 5 .l:.dc7 37 d6 and wins) 36 e6 l:[dc7 37 exf7 + 'ii'xf7 38 .l:!.e6 (Anand).
35 ..ta6
.Ub8
35 . . .l:i.dd7 also loses to Anand's suggestion 36 .bb7 .l:!.xb7 37 .Ua8+! �h7 38 'ilkf4 tLlg8 39 e5 dxe5 40 J:lxe5 with complete domina tion. .
36 e5! Now, when the opponent's forces are tied down both on the queenside, and on the kingside , the breakthrough i n the centre finally destroys his defences.
36 . . .
tt::l e 8
36 . . .dxe5 is bad because of 37 d6 .l:!.d7 38 tiJxe5.
37 J:lxb7
J:.cxb7
38 ..ltxb7
.l:.xb7
39 'ii' d 8
'ii'f8
The cleanest solution , securing Wh ite a decisive gain of material. The plausible 40 e6 fxe6 41 :Xe6 is less clear in view of 41 . . .tt'lg7, when Black acq u i res some saving chances.
tt::l c 7
40 . . . 'i!i'e7 1oses to 41 J:la8.
41 'ii'd 7
Anand chooses the safest way, althoug h he could also have won with the direct 44 tt::lg 5 b2 45 J:lb1 .l:l.a7 46 �h2! (but not 46 %:txb2 'it'xb2 47 'i!fd8+ tt::l e 8! 48 'ii'x e8+ 'it>g7) 46 . . . Iia 1 47 l::r.x b2 'ii'x b2 48 'iVd8+ �g7 49 'ii'f6+ �h6 50 tLlxf7+ �h7 5 1 'ii' h 8 mate. 44 . . .
b2
45 'iVc5 !
l1b3
46 'ii'd 4
'ii' b4
47 tLlg5 The weakness of the f7-sq uare qu ickly decides the outcome.
'ii b 8
41 . . . 'i'e8 is also hopeless because of 42 l'c6 ! . 4 2 'ii'x d6
c4! ?
43 bxc4
b3
Kamsky finds the best saving opportun ity,
.U.c3
47 . . . 48 'ii'f4
The final stroke, showi ng how defence and attack should be combined . 48 . . .
f6
49 exf6
tLld5
50 f7+ Black resigned . Here is a nother example from the same match , splendidly illustrating the importance of a 'second front' . Anand
40 lla1 !
40 . . .
75
-
Kamsky
3rd Match Game, Las Palmas 1 995
76
Manoeuvring
Black's castled position is weakened , and Anand immediately exploits this factor. He begins a crafty knight manoeuvre, the aim of which is to establish control over f5 . 20 l2J3h2! Threatening 2 1 'ii' h 5 followed by l2Jg4 . 20 . . .
'iff&
21 l2Jg4
'it'g7
22 l2Jge3
l2Jxe3
23 l2Jxe3
l:.f4
25 axb5
aS
25 . . . axb5 is completely bad i n view of 26 l:!.a7. 26 l:lf1
i.c8
27 g3
.l:l.4f7
It is curious that in the event of 27 . . . l2Jf6 28 gxf4 gxf4+ 29 �h2 fxe3 30 fxe3! (30 l:tg 1 ? l2Jg4+ ! ) 3 0 . . . 'i!i'g5 Black's counterplay is suppressed by the inclusion of the rook in the defence along the 4th rank: 3 1 l:la4! (Anand). 28 b4 This emphasises Wh ite's advantage, al though it is possible that Anand's suggestion of 28 i.e4! l2Jc5 29 i.g2 e4 30 l2Jc4 would have been more accu rate. S ubseq uently, despite Kamsky's resou rceful play, White converted his adva ntage into a wi n .
Although White has made prog ress in carrying out his plans, as yet he has not managed to gain complete control of the f5square. Little is promised by 24 l2Jf5 'it'f6 , 24 g3 Iif7 (24 . . . .l:.f6!?) or 24 i.f5 l:.f8 . In tu rn , Black wants to set up pressure on the f-fi le. White wou ld very much like to exchange a pair of rooks and at the same time bri ng his queen's rook into play. A 'second front' is needed ! 24 a4! ! This move secu res a clear advantage. Since Black could not be satisfied with either 24 . . . b4 25 g3, or the more natu ral 24 . . . bxa4 25 llxa4 .l:!.af8 26 .uxf4 Iixf4 (no better is 26 . . . exf4? 27 l2Jf5 'ii'f6 28 .ll e 6 or 26 . . . gxf4 27 l2Jf5 1i'f6 28 'ii' h 5) 27 i.f5! (variations by Anand), he decides on a pawn sacrifice, but he does not gain sufficient compensation . 24 . . .
.l:!.af8
2 8 . . . e4! 2 9 i.xe4 l2Je5 3 0 i.g2 axb4 3 1 cxb4 l2Jf3+ 3 2 i.xf3 .l:.xf3 33 lla8 i.xh3 34 'iWxf3 l:.xa8 35 l:!.c1 ltf8 36 'i¥e2 i.d7 37 .l:!.c7 I1f7 38 .l:!.b7 'ii'a 1 + 39 l2Jf1 'i.t>g7 40 .l:!.xb6 'it'd4 41 .l:tb8 'ii'x b4 42 l2Je3 h5 43 b6! h4 44 g4 i.b5 45 'ii'd 1 'ii' b 2 46 l2Jf5+ l:.xf5 47 gxf5 i.e2 48 'ilfa4 (48 'ii'e 1 ! ) 48 . . . i.f3 ! 49 'i!Vd7+ (49 f6+! ) 49 . . . 'i.t>h6 50 'ili'e6+ �h5 51 'ii'e 8+! 'it>g4 52 1i'e1 i.xd5 53 .l:!.e8 i.f3 54 f6 ! f2
h6
26 J:te1
�c8
27 �f3
.l:i.ef7
28 'ilt'd5
g5
29 .l:!.e7
gxf4
30 gxf4 Black resig ned .
78
g2 �d? 27 'ii"x b6 �xa4 28 'ii"x a6 �d? 29 tt'lg5 Wg8 30 'iWe2 ; 2 ) 2 4 'it'c4 'it>g8 (24 . . . 'iWe7 25 tt'le5 l"::i.d 6 26 �g6 ! ) 25 .1i.c6 l"::i. c 7 26 l"::i.fd 1 'ii"e ? 27 �d3 ! . I n fact the second way is unconvincing in view of 26 . . . l::i.xc6! (instead of 26 . . . ii'e7?) 27 �xc6 'ii"xc6 28 l:txc6 ii.b? 29 �c3 i£.xb4 (John N u n n ). 24 tt'lg5! Wh ite does not al low his opponent a mo ment's respite . The th reat is 25 tt'lxf?+. 24 . . .
There are two vul nerable poi nts in Black's defensive lines: 1 ) with the loss of the h 7pawn his castled position is weakened ; 2 ) there i s a lack o f harmony in t h e placing of his queenside pieces, and they may come under attack. With energetic action against the queenside Alekh ine forces the opponent onto the defensive there, after which he unexpectedly switches to an attack on the king. 21 b4!
�f8
The only reply, since other bishop moves would have allowed the decisive 22 'iWxc8 . 22 'iWc6 In view of the double attack on the rook at e8 and the b6-pawn , Black's reply is forced .
l::i. e d8
25 i£.g6! ! With gain of tempo Wh ite clears the way for his q ueen to the kingside , and the black pieces , tied down to the defence of the opposite wing , simply do not have time to come to the aid of their king . Thus if 25 . . . fxg6 (25 . . . �b7 26 'ii"c4 ) there follows 26 'ii"e4 �xb4 27 'ii" h 4+ 'it>g8 28 'ii" h 7+ 'it>f8 29 'ii" h 8+ 'it>e? 30 'iWxg?+ 'it>e8 31 'ii"g 8+ ii.f8 32 ii'xg6+ We? 33 'ii'x e6 mate (Aiekh ine). To avoid being mated i m mediately, Black g ives up material.
80
�
Manoeuvring
25 . . .
�e5
26 tt:lxf7+
�xf7
27 .txf7
'i*'f5
28 l:!.fd 1
.l:i.xd 1 +
29 .Uxd 1
"ifxf7
30 'it'xc8
Wh7
31 "it'xa6
'i!Vf3
32 "t!Vd3+ Black resigned . I n the following game Wh ite was able to win a roughly equal end i n g , by consistently employi ng the principle of two weaknesses. After creating targets to attack on opposite wings, White began manoeuvri n g . In this example the process of creati ng weakness es in the opponent's position was perhaps more interesting that the manoeuvring against them. Yusu pov - Wirthensohn Hamburg 1 99 1
6 . . . tt:lc6 7 c3 'i!Vh5 came i nto consideration, as in the game Log inov-Karpeshov (Volgo donsk 1 983). 'ii'x d2+ 7 "t!Vxd2 8 'iit> x d2 An endgame has a risen i n which Wh ite has a purely symbolic advantage. At the given moment he is slightly ahead in development, but there are no weaknesses in Black's position . Wh ite's first objective is to trans form his slight i n itiative i nto someth ing more concrete, by creati ng a target in the oppo nent's position . 8 . . . .tf5 9 e3 If 9 .tg3!? Black does not reply 9 . . . tt:ld7? because of 1 0 tt:lh4, but simply 9 . . . c6 10 e3 e6 or 1 O . . . tt:ld7 with a solid position . 9 . . .
e6
1 0 .te2
.td6
If 1 0 . . . .te7 1 1 ii.xe7 'iit> x e7 1 2 tt:lh4 and Wh ite exchanges knight for bishop (an achievement, if only a slight one). 1 O . h6 came i nto consideration . In this case I would have continued 1 1 �hc1 followed by c2-c4. h6 1 1 .tg3 . .
Torre Attack
1 d4
tt:Jf6
2 tt:lf3
d5 tt:Je4
3 .tg5
A good move , casti ng dou bts on the early bishop sortie. 4 .th4
"t!Vd6
Another tempting plan involves the standard advance . . . c7-c5 followed by the develop ment of the queen on b6. 5 tt:lbd2
"ifh6
If I am not mistaken this manoeuvre was first employed by Vlastimil Hort. Black has created the un pleasant threat of . . . g7-g 5 . With the queen on h6 the retreat o f the bishop to g3 looks extremely unappealing, since after the captu re on g3 White is forced to spoil his pawn structure and recapture with the f-pawn . tt:Jxd2 6 "t!Vc1 ! ?
The threat was 1 2 tt:lh4 with the exchange of the bishop. But what should Wh ite do now? Natural play, involving c2-c4 , promises little , since after the exchange on c4 the black bishop will be splendidly placed to defend the q ueenside from e4 . After a long think I found a way of maintaining my in itiative . 1 2 .txd6
cxd6
(see diagram)
1 3 a4! In this way Wh ite becomes active on the q ueenside: his rook obtains the promising route a 1 -a3-b3 . For the moment Wh ite is accu mu lating barely perceptible pluses : he has the more flexible pawn structu re and the potentially better bishop.
lD
Manoeuvring
a1
20 llca 1 ! 20 axb6 was weaker in view of 20 . . l:.xb6 2 1 b 3 li:Jb8 ! , and White has merely a m i n i mal advantage. .
20 . . .
b5
21 a6 Thus, Wh ite has finally succeeded in creat ing a first real target - the b-pawn . 21 . . .
b4
22 l:ta5
.l:tc6
23 f3 - position after 1 2
. . .
cxd6 -
13 . . .
r3ile7
14 aS
li:Jd7
If 14 . . .:!.c8! ? 1 5 l:thc1 lt:Jc6 1 6 l:ta4 b6 1 7 axb6 axb6 1 8 .:!.ca 1 with a minimal i n itiative for White. 15 .l:.hc1 l:thc8?! .
1 5. . .ttlf6 was more logica l , forcing the retreat of th e king to e 1 .
1 6 lt:Je1 ! Active prophylaxis! The knight had no pros pects on f3 , and therefore it aims for b4 . I n addition, now i f 1 6 . . . lt:Jf6 there will b e the good reply 1 7 f3 .
16 . . .
.l:.c7
17 li:Jd3
.i.xd3
This exchange is practically forced - the knight would have been too u npleasantly placed at b4 . But now, although for the moment the position is a closed one, the white bishop is stronger than the opponent's knight, since it will be able to take an active part in the play on both wings.
18 ..txd3
.l:1b8?!
19 l:ta3
b6
This attempt to play actively, which was planned on the previous move, in fact leads merely to the creation of weaknesses on the queens ide.
It is not normally possible to win a game by attacking one single weakness. Therefore Wh ite's next objective is to i n itiate play on the kingside, with the aim of exploiting the power of his long-range bishop and the mobility of his rooks. 23 . . .
.l:tcb6
24 h4
li:Jf6
25 g4
l:th8
Black real ises the danger and takes precau tionary measures on the kingside. Therefore I exchange a pair of rooks, after which the weakness of the b-pawn will be more keenly felt. 26 .l:tb5
.l::!. h b8
27 .l:txb6
.l:txb6
28 g5
82
�
Manoeuvri ng
Acting in accordance with the 'two weak nesses' principle, White changes the d i rec tion of the attack, shifting the emphasis to the kingside. 28 . . .
hxg5
29 hxg5
ltJd7
29 . . . ltJe8 30 Ith 1 ltJc7 is bad because of 3 1 .l:!.h7! 'it>f8 3 2 .l:.h8+ 'it>e7 3 3 'it>c1 ! , a n d if 33 . . . ltJxa6 Wh ite has 34 l:r.a8 . 30 .:th1 31 .l:th7
l:ib8 .l:lg8
Better defensive chances were offered by 31 . . . 'it>f8 .
[Black incorrectly restricts himself to passive defence. He should have tried 34 . . . e5!, intending the manoeuvre . ltJf�6 - Dvoret sky.] . .
34 'it>b4 35 'it>a5
'it>c7 ltJb6
If 35 . . . ltJb8 , then 36 .i.b5 ltJc6+ 37 i.xc6 'it>xc6 38 b4 is strong , with a won rook ending. 36 .l:lh2 After the immediate 36 b3 I did not l i ke the reply 36 . . . ltJc8 with the idea of . . . ltJe7-c6 . 36 . . .
l:tcB
37 b3
'it>d7
38 lth7
.l:lg8
39 f4 A useful move, since now Black has to reckon with a possible f4-f5 . 39 . . .
'it>e7
40 .i.b5 The tempti ng 40 'it>b5 does not promise any immediate gains, in view of the u nexpected resou rce 40 . . . ltJa8 ! , and if 41 'it>c6??, then after 4 1 . . . .l:tb8 Wh ite is mated. 40 . . .
32 c31 Now, when the black rook has taken u p a passive position on the kingside, Wh ite again changes the d i rection of the play and activates his king . I n the process the weak b pawn is exchanged , but this is not so important, since Black remains with a real weakness on the queen side - he has to take measures against the breakthrough of the king to the a7-pawn . 32 'it>c1 (with the idea of playing the king to b3) was less accu rate , since Black would have succeeded in gain ing counterplay after 32 . . . ltJb6 33 'it>b1 ltJc4 .
ffi
Fearing the manoeuvre of the bishop to b7, Black tries to i n itiative cou nterplay on the kingside. But this attempt is parried by White, who reverts to his i n itial plan - the advance of his king i nto the opponent's position via b5. 41 .i.e2 42 fxg5
fxg5 ltJd7?!
It is possible that the best defence was 42 . . . ltJa8 ! ? , trying to prevent the wh ite king's manoeuvre. 43 'it>b5 After the activation of the king Black's defences begi n to creak.
32 . . .
bxc3+
44 .l:lh2
ltJf8 ltJd7
33 'it>xc3
'it> dB
45 'it>c6
.l::r. c 8+
43 . . .
t2J
Manoeuvring
46 'it>b7
.l:r.b8+
47 'it>xa7
l:txb3
83
with d rawing chances after both 5 1 a7?! :Xd 1 52 aS 'if l:tb 1 + 53 'it>c6 l:tc 1 + , and 51 l:tg8 l:txd 1 52 .l:r.xg7+ 'it>e8 53 a7 l:tb 1 + (or 53 . . . l:ta 1 54 a8'iV l:txa8 55 'it>xa8 e5) 54 'it>c6 .l:.a 1 . [However; 51 .i.a4! is very strong Dvoretsky.] -
I n stead of 50 'it>b7 the more cun n i ng move 50 'it>b6! is possible, and if 50 . . . l:ta3 51 'it>b5 followed by 52 .i.a4. .l:.c4 50 �c2 52 �d3
.l:.b4
After gaming an important tempo, Wh ite again changes the direction of the offensive, strengthening his position on the kingside. 52 g6 Black appears to have gained cou nterplay, but White has a nother attacking resou rce, which he had to foresee i n advance .
48 .l:th8! With my small army I create th reats to the opponent's king! It transpires that 48 .. J::txe3 is bad because of 49 .i.h5 ltJf8 50 l:tg8 g6 5 1 l:.g7+ 'it>d8 5 2 �xg6. Black i s torn i n two: he has to keep watch over the dangerous passed a-pawn and at the same time repel the invasion of the white pieces on the kingsi de .
48 . . .
ltJf8
49 .i.d1
l:tb4
49 J:txe3 was more tenacious. If 50 'it>b7 Black has an u nexpected defence: 50 . . . .U.e 1 ! . .
e5
If 52 .. J1b3 there would have followed 53 �c2 lhe3 54 'it>b7 .l:te2 55 l:txf8 ! and wins. The move i n the game also fails to ease Black's position. 53 .i.f5!
exd4
54 exd4
l:txd4
55 'it>b6
l:ta4
Or 55 . . . l:tb4+ 56 'it>a5 .l:tb2 57 l:th4 and the a pawn decides matters. 56 l:tg8! The simplest and most thematic solutio n , illustrating t h e strength o f p l a y against two weaknesses. 56 . . . 57 a7 Black resigned .
ltJe6
Alexey Kosikov
How to d raw u p a P l a n
W opponent is able to parry them without hen we create simple threats , the
particular difficulty. The secret of success often lies in the abil ity to create several th reats simultaneously. I will illustrate this idea with a study by Richard Reti which will be well known to all of you .
ing an advantage, you will have met the 'principle of two weaknesses'. I think that this principle is also usefu l for the compiling of a strategic plan in the middlegame. I n the broad sense of the word , a weakness is a long-term strategic threat. That is, not only a vulnerable enemy pawn , but also the threat of promoti ng you r own pawn , the th reat of i nvad ing along an open file, a mating net, and so o n . Botv i n n i k - Zagoryansky Sverd lovsk 1 943 Reti Opening
After 1 'it>g7 h4 2 'it>f6 'it>b6 (2 . . . h3 3 'it>e7 ) 3 'it>e5! Wh ite saves the game only because he simultaneously has two threats: to stop the enemy pawn by 4 'it>f4 and to support his own pawn by 4 'it>d6. Black can easily parry either of these threats, but not both of them . The idea of simultaneously creating two threats will serve as our starting point for understanding the process of compiling a plan. The plans which we make pursue the aim of creating th reats , but not simple, tactical threats, as in the example we have just analysed , but long-term strategic threats. In trying to master the technique of convert-
1 l"Llf3
d5
2 c4
e6
3 b3
l"Llf6
4 .1i.b2
.1i.e7
5 e3
0-0
6 t"Llc3
c5
7 cxd5
t"Llxd5
8 t"Llxd5
exd5
don't wish to dwell on the opening subtleties. I will merely remark that it would have been more promising for Black to capture on d5 with his quee n , and if with the pawn, then a move earlier. 9 d4
cxd4
1 0 ii'xd4
.1i.f6
1 1 ii'd2
l"Llc6
1 2 .1i.e2
.1i.e6
Black plays too passively. I would have preferred to develop the bishop at g4. 13 0-0
.1i.xb2
1 4 ii'xb2
ifas
ctJ
How to d raw up a Plan
85
22 e4 was th reatened . 22 �b2
.l::. c 8
23 'i!i'e5
l:tcd8
By repeati ng moves Wh ite has gai ned time on the clock. 24 l:!.d4
aS
Up to here it would have been premature to talk about drawing u p a pla n , but now the position is ripe for th is. Of cou rse, to foresee to the end everything that will happen is not possible, but nor is it necessary. All you need to do is correctly imagine to you rself the character of the forthcoming play and decide what should be done now. White obviously stands better. He has a target to attack - the weak d5-pawn, the black bishop is passive, and the opponent has no cou nterplay. In the first instance Mikhail Botvinnik con centrates his forces against the enemy weakness.
1 5 l:tfd 1
l:tfd8
1 6 .t1d2
.l:i.d7
1 7 .t1ad 1
.l:i.ad8
18 h3
h6
19 tDe5! The black knight was controlling the blockad ing d4-square and restricting the white queen, so Botvin n i k happily excha nges it. At the same time the f3-square is vacated for the bishop, which will join the attack on the d5-pawn .
19 . . .
tDxe5
1 9 . l:td6 20 tbc4 ! . . .
20 �xe5 21 �f3
iic5 b6
The first part of the plan - the attack on the enemy weakness - has been completed . All the wh ite pieces are ideally placed , whereas the opponent's pieces are passive and restricted i n their movements . But even so Wh ite has not managed to win the d5-pawn , which is not surprising - an attack on only one weakness rarely proves successfu l . A new target is needed , and Botvi n n i k finds it on the kingside. 25 g4! 'At the cost of weakening the position of his own king (which is possible only thanks to the fact that the enemy pieces are tied d own ), Wh ite opens up the play on the kingside. It soon transpires that Black is unable simu lta neously to defend his king's fortress and the ill-starred d5-pawn . ' Botvinnik. 25 . . .
�c6
26 g5
hxg5
27 'i!Vxg5
f6
I n principle, in such cases it is better to keep
86
�
How to draw up a Plan
the pawns on their initial squares. But in view of the threatened attack on the h-file (.l:.h4 and 'i¥h5) all the same Black can not avoid pawn moves. 28 'ii'g 6
.fl..f1
29 'ii'g 3
f5
'An impulsive move, assisti ng the develop ment of Wh ite's in itiative , although the inevitable transference of the rook from d 1 to g1 would in any case have set Black insoluble problems . ' - Botvinnik. Evgeny Zagoryansky essentially sig ned his positional capitulation . Now all the dark squares in his position are hopelessly weak. 30 'ii'g 5
'ii'e 6
31 'iit h 1
'i¥e5
32 l:tg1
.l:.f8
33 'it'h6
llb8
Both 34 .l:h4 and 34 'it'xb6 were th reatened . If 33 . . . .l:td6 34 .l:xg7+, while after 33 . . . g6 Wh ite decides matters with h3-h4-h5. 34 l':th4
'iii f8
35 'i¥h8+
i.g8
37 l:Ig5
.l:.f7
38 'i¥h5
'it'a1 +
39 'iit g 2
g6
40 'i¥xg6
.fl.. h 7
41 'ii'd 6+
�be7
42 'ii'd 8+ Here the game was adjou rned . Black re sig ned without resu ming. Let us remind ourselves how events devel oped . After creating a weak d5-pawn in the enemy position , White then assailed it with all his forces. However, his aim was not to win this pawn (the opponent is always able to defend one weakness), but merely to tie the enemy pieces to its defence. Then Wh ite located a second target and successfully attacked it. The principle of two weaknesses i n action! Of course, i n such positions Botvi n n i k was not the first to employ plans based on the principle of two weaknesses. Before h i m too, lead ing players consciously or sub-con sciously made use of the same weapo n . We will now examine another classic game, and follow how the g reat strategist Akiba Rubin stein provokes the creation of weaknesses in the opponent's position and then exploits them.
Rubi nstein - Takacs Budapest 1 926 Queen 's Gambit 1 c4
36 .l:If4 As the attack has developed , new weak nesses have appeared in Black's position . Wh ite now turns his attention to one of these weaknesses - the f5-pawn . 36 . . .
.l:.bb7
lLlf6
2 d4
e6
3 tLlc3
d5
4 .fl.. g 5
lLl bd7
5 e3
.fl.. e 7
6 lLlf3
0-0
7 .U.c1
c6
8 'i¥c2
a6
9 cxd5
exd5
l2J
How to d raw up a Plan
1 0 .ltd3
lle8
11 0-0
lll f8
1 2 l:!.fe1
.ltg4? !
1 3 tt::l d 2
tt::l 6 d7?!
Black's desire to simplify the position is q u ite understandable, but the move in the game does not achieve its a i m . 1 4 .ltf4
.ltg5
1 5 h3!
.lth5
The bishop is forced to retreat, since after 1 5 . . . � xf4? 1 6 exf4 it is trapped . Sandor Takacs apparently overlooked this tactical subtlety. As a result Wh ite has retained his important dark-square bishop, and the oppo nent's last few moves have merely led to a loss of time and to his pieces being badly placed . 1 6 .lth2
.ltg6
17 .ltxg6
hxg6
1 8 'ii' b 3!
87
'ii' b 6
Black really doesn't want to play 1 8 . . . l:r.a7. 19 tt::la 4
'ifxb3
Maxim Boguslavsky suggested a good de fence: 1 9 . . . 'i¥b5 ! ? . Wh ite would probably have replied 20 tt::l c 5, but then an exchange of minor pieces eases Black's defence: 20 . . . tt::lx c5 21 lbc5 'ii'x b3 22 tt::l x b3 tt::le 6 and 23 . . . a5 . 20 tt::l x b3
tt::l e 6?
Now Black's position becomes difficult. What does White want to play next move? That's right, 21 llla 5 ! . This defi n itely should have been prevented : 20 . . . a5! 2 1 tt::l b c5 tt::lx c5 22 tt::lx c5 l:ta7. 2 1 tt::la 5!
l:ta7
22 'it>f1 1 A good prophylactic move. Wh ite prepares to tra nsfer his rook to b3 (the immediate 22 .Uc3? is not possible because of 22 . . . tt::lx d4 ). The opponent prevents this manoeuvre. 22 . . .
.ltd8
23 b4
f5
24 lll b 2 At d3 the knight will be better placed than at a4 .
White stands better and it is now time for h i m to decide on a p l a n o f further action . With the light-sq uare bishops no longer on the board , the routine minority pawn attack is u npromis ing, since in this case the important c4-point is weakened , and the enemy knight will aim for there ( . . . b7-b5 and . . . tt::l b6-c4). Let's select a target in the opponent's position, which it will be possible to attack. Of course, this is the b7-pawn .
24 . . .
g5
25 tt::l d 3
'it>f7
26 .lic2
..tb6
27 .ltd6!
tt::l d 8?!
Wishing to free his rook on a?, Black weakens his control of c5, and Rubinstein i mmed iately exploits this. 28 lllc 5!
tt::l x c5
29 .txc5
.ltxc5
30 bxc5 The weakness on b7 has been fixed . Now (as in the Botvinnik-Zagoryansky game) as many attacks as possible should be concen trated on it, in order to tie the opponent's pieces to its defence. 30 . . .
c:l;e7
88
�
How to draw up a Plan
exchange the terrible rook on a7?
31 l:r.b2
�d7
32 .l:teb1
�c8
41 . . .
fxe3
33 �e2
l:te7
42 fxe3
�d7
34 �f3
.Ue4
43 .l:tg2 44 l:!.xh4
r!e8
45 .ll h 8
�c7
46 l:lgg8
l:!.d7
lle7
47 lDb3! The knight has completed its work at a5 and it is now switched to a more active position the e5-square. 47 . . . 48 lDc1 49 lDd3
a5 .l:ta8 b5
Against passive defence Wh ite could, for example, have placed his rook on e8 and his knight on e5, and then played his king to f6. White has strengthened his position to the maximum. Now, in accordance with the principle of two weaknesses, he opens a 'second front' on the kingside. 35 g4!
g6
36 l:!.g1
lDf7
37 h4! The open ing of lines emphasises the unfor tunate position of the rook on a7, which is taking practically no part in the play. 37 . . .
gxh4
38 gxf5
gxf5
If 38 . . . g5, then 39 lDc4! is very strong . 39 J:tg7 Strategically the game is decided . Wh ite has created a second weakness in the oppo nent's position - the g-file for an i nvasion , and h e confidently exploits it. 39 . . .
liJd8
40 .l:tg8
f4
41 .l:th8 I think that Rubinstein did not even seriously consider regaining the pawn by 4 1 lDxb7 :Xb7 42 llxd8+ �xd8 43 llxb7 - why
50 cxb6+
�xb6
51 lDc5
.Ud6
52 a4! ' Do not hurry!' Black is deprived of any moves at all on the q ueenside, and in addition his king finds itself i n a mati ng net. lieS 52 . . . 53 'it>g4! Black resig ned . The march of the king to e5 is threatened , and if 53 . . . �c7 there follows 54 l:tg7+ �b6 (54 . . . �b8 55 .Uhh7) 55 .l:txd8 l:txd8 56 llb7 mate . A wonderfu l positional game! I will once again remind you i n what order our strategy develops in such cases. 1 ) Creation of the first weakness. This is perhaps the most difficult thing - to be able somewhere to 'latch on' to the opponent. 2 ) Attack on the weakness (not with the aim of destroying it, but in order to tie the opponent's pieces to its defence). 3) Creation of a weakness on another part of the board . 4) Break through the opponent's defences.
l2J
How to draw up a Plan
The games which we have exam ined were played rather a long time ago. Of cou rse, modern players have assi milated the les sons of the past and successfu lly make use of the same strategy. S h i rov - Kinsman Paris 1 990
It is Wh ite to move . He has an obvious advantage. How best to exploit it?
The first part of the standard plan has already been completed . In this commentary on the game Alexey S h i rov writes: 'One weakness (the b7-pawn) is securely fixed . It is also important that the black rooks are tied down . . . But back i n my child hood I was taught that to win you need at least one more weakness. And it turns out to be - the g7-pawn . '
3 0 h4
gxh4
In the event of 30 . . . .ltf7 31 hxg5 fxg5 Wh ite will at some point play f3-f4 (but, of cou rse, not immed iately 32 f4? gxf4+ 33 gxf4 e5!), when the pattern of the game remains roughly the same.
31 gxh4
Ji..f7
32 e5! The point of Wh ite's idea. When he begins attacking the g7-point, the b7-pawn will no longer need to be defended ; this means that
89
the other weakness should be the e6-pawn . ' (Shirov) 32 . . .
f5?
This makes things easier for the opponent. 32 . . . fxe5 33 dxe5 Wf8 was stronger, but here too after 34 .l:!.g2 Black's position remains d ifficult. For example: 34 . . . .l:!.e7 35 �d 1 ! ..tg8 (35 . . . l:lcd7 36 l:td6) 36 l:lgd2 (note that White immed iately switches to exploiting the new weakness which has a risen - the d-file) 36 . . .We8 37 Wf4 followed by Wg5 and f3-f4f5 with a n easy wi n . Or 34 . . . ..tg8 35 .l':Ibg 1 , intending h4-h5-h6, and the weakness of the e6-pawn does not allow Black to play his bishop to f5. 33 l:tg2
g6
34 l:tbg1
l:tc8
35 .llx g6
f4+
36 Wd3
licd8
37 l:tf6
I!.xd4+
38 �c3
lld1
39 l:tg7
�c1 +
40 Wb3
.l:i.b1 +
41 '.t>c2 Black resig ned . I n positions without cou nterplay for the opponent, such as those we have examined , each of us would feel very comfortable. But i n practice th ings are usually much more complicated and it is not often that the principle of two weaknesses can be put i nto practice in such pure form . To d raw up a plan in sharper situations one also has to be g uided by other pri nciples. One of these pri nciples, wh ich , i ncidentally, is by no means well known , will now be described . Ka l i kshte i n - Vysoc h i n C I S J u n ior Championship, J u rmala 1 992 Slav Defence 1 c4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lc3
c6
90
How to draw up a Plan
3 d4
d5
4 li'lf3
dxc4
5 e3
b5
6 a4
b4
7 li'lb1 The knight more often retreats to a2, in order after the capture of the c4-pawn to conti nue .td2 and li'lc1 -b3. The player with Wh ite is obviously not aiming for an opening advan tage and is intending to transfer the entire weight of the struggle to the midd legame. 7 . . . 8 li'lbd2
.ta6
9 li'lxc4 1 0 .i.d3
.te7 0-0
1 1 0-0
li'lbd7
e6?! Theory recommends 8 . . . c3 with equal ity, but the game continuation is also q u ite possible.
1 2 b3? ! A superficial move! 1 2 li'lce5 is more logica l , a n d after 1 2 . . .'ii'c8 Wh ite's position remains slightly preferable. 12 . . .
c5
1 3 ..ib2
l:tc8
14 .l:tc1
cxd4
1 5 exd4? There was no need for Wh ite to g ive h i mself an isolated pawn . However, Black would also have been excellently placed after 1 5 li'lxd4 li'lc5 followed by . . . li'ld5. White feels the weakness of his c3-square, which he incautiously weakened with his 1 2th move. 15 . . .
li'ld5
16 'ii'd 2
li'l7f6
1 7 li'lfe5
.tb7 (see diagram)
1 8 f4? Another positional mistake , which puts White in an extremely difficult position. What are the defects of the pawn advance? The h 1 -a8 diagonal is weakened . With the
- position after 1 7
. . .
�b7 -
pawn on f2 it is always possible to place a barrier in the path of the opponent's bishop by f2-f3 , but now this becomes impossible. The e4-point is weakened . The c 1 -h6 diagonal is blocked , and the bishop on b2 is now altogether without prospects . I n positions with an isolated d4-pawn the move f2-f4 is sometimes made, but only when there is a hope of playing f4-f5. But here Black immediately prevents the further advance of the pawn . 18 . . .
g6!
19 .U.f2 Wh ite's active moves have come to an end and he beg ins marking time, whereas the opponent consistently strengthens his posi tio n . 19 . . .
li'le8
20 l:tcf1
li'ld6
21 'iit h 1
li'lf5
2 2 ..ixf5? The decisive strategic mistake. Now there is nothing with which to oppose the bishop on b7. 22 . . .
exf5
23 .l:tc1 What would you have now played for Black?
l2J
How to draw up a Plan
Let's first see what happened in the game, and then return again to this position . 23 . . .
tt'lf6
Of course, a very natural move - the e4square itself is as though inviti ng the knight to go there.
24 'i*'e3
tt'le4
25 .Ufc2
'it'd5
26 tt'ld3
l::!. fe8
27 �e1 Black seems to have played well , but his actions have not been systematic. Whereas White, who j ust now was losing, has sudden ly gained cou nter-chances. The b4-pawn is attacked , and 27 . . . a5 28 tt'lb6 is bad for Black. 27 . . .
tt'lc3
Practically forced . 28 i.xc3
i.f8
Black prepares to play his bishop to g7.
91
with an u n usual material balance. That is also the case here: 29 tt'lxb4! .ll x e 1 + 30 .llx e 1 deserved very serious consideratio n . F o r t h e q ueen Wh ite has rook, knight a n d pawn - al most a sufficient equivalent. I f 30 . . . i.xb4 3 1 �xb4 it'xd4, t h e n 3 2 i.d6 ! . I would like to play �e5 and then exploit the d file for an attack (�d2, .Ued 1 ). Of cou rse, White has to reckon with the cou nter-stroke 32 . . . �xc4 , but it leads only to a draw: 33 �e8+ 'it>g7 34 �f8+ 'it>f6 35 �e7+ 'it>g7 (if 35 . . . 'it>e6?, then 36 i.c5+! is strong) 36 �f8+. [I do not agree with this evaluation. After 32 i.d6 f6! Black does not allow the bishop to go to e5. The e-file can always be blocked by . . . i.e4, and switching to the d-file requires too much time. Meanwhile, the b3- and g2points are vulnerable. I do not see what there is to prevent Black from converting his material advantage. - John N u n n . ]
I n t h e g a m e Wh ite missed his chance a n d lost without a fig ht. 29 tt'lde5?
bxc3
30 'ilt'xc3
i.h6
Despite Wh ite's extra pawn , his position is d ifficult. Black has two powerfu l bishops, and his pieces control the entire board . 31 tt'ld3 If 31 .l:!.f1 , then 31 . . . i.xf4! 32 .Uxf4 .l:!.xe5! . [32 tt'lxg6! is White's best chance in this variation - N u n n .]
A very interesting moment. Here it is appropriate to remember a procedure which is constantly employed by Mark Dvoretsky. In unfavourable situations he recommends looking for a way of rad ically changing the character of the struggle. Sometimes it is possible to complicate the play by means of a positional sacrifice (for example, of a pawn or the exchange) or by going i nto a position
31 . . .
.Ued8
32 tt'lc5?!
�a8
33 b4
�xf4
34 .l:!.d1
.l:!.e8
35 'ir'd3
.l:!.cd8
36 l:!.e2
.l:!.xe2
37 'it'xe2
'it> g 7
Black prepa res 38 . . . l:Ie8. 38 tt'lb2?
Ite8
39 'ir'f1
.tc7
40 b5
92
�
How to draw up a Plan
This loses immed iately. 40 tZ'lc4 was more tenacious.
In positions with strategic manoeuvring (when the time factor is not of decisive
40 . . .
'ii'd 6
importance) look for the piece which is
41 11'g1
.i::t e2
worse placed than all the others. The
42 tZ'lc4
'i¥d5
White resig ned . Let's now return to the situation after Wh ite's 23rd move and consider whether it wasn't possible to convert Black's advantage in a more convi ncing way, without allowing the opponent any counter-chances.
For myself I have formulated a rule, which I call 'the principle of the worst piece ' . I n chess literatu re you will not find such a formu latio n , although , o f course, lead ing players make use of this principle. I magine that you are a designer, and you have to improve a machine which consists of ten parts. Nearly all of them are operati ng at 90% of their power, but one is only at 1 0% . It is clear that if you can find a way of raising the efficiency of the 'backward' part, this will be the best way of improving the operation of the mach ine as a whole. In order to extract the maximum from your position (wh ich is a kind of chess machine), you must first of all raise the efficiency of all the pieces which for the moment are taking no or hardly any part in the play.
activation of this piece is often the most reliable way of improving your position as a whole.
Let's analyse the placing of the black pieces. The knight at d5 and bishop at b7 are operati ng, if not at 1 00 % , then at least 90%. The rook at c8 also stands well , and in one move the other rook will be able to occupy an excellent sq uare at e8 or d8. The q ueen is a mobile piece , and it is not hard to move it to where it is required . But for the moment the bishop on e7 is not taking part in the play. How can it be included in the attack? By . . . �f8-h6 (after the preparatory 23 . . . l:te8!). At the same time the way for the q ueen to h4 is vacated . I n cidentally, in choosing such a plan we are also acting in accordance with a principle discussed earlier - the principle of two weaknesses. The fi rst weakness , the d4pawn , has already been fixed , and Black beg ins looki ng for new targets - the white king and the f4-pawn . S ubseq uently (with his bishop on h6 and q ueen on h4) he will be able to consider playing his knight from d5 to g4 or e4 to strengthen the attack on the king. The fol lowi ng game was played i n the same tournament. M i rumian - Baklan CIS J u n ior Championsh i p , J u rmala 1 992 French Defence
1 e4
e6
2 d4
d5
3 tZ'lc3
.i.b4
4 e5
tZ'l e7
5 .i.d2
b6
A comparatively rare move (5 . . . c5 is usual).
ttJ
How to draw up a Plan
6 'iig4
lt:Jf5
If now 7 i.d3, then Black exploits the vulnerabil ity of the d4-pawn to force the advantageous exchange of q ueens by 7 . . . h5 8 'lf4 g5! (the game Leko-Panno, Argentina 1 994, went 8 . . .it'h4 9 'i!Vxh4 lt:Jxh4 1 0 g 3 lt:Jf5 1 1 lt'lb5 i.xd2+ 1 2 �xd2 tt:Ja6 1 3 tt:Je2 with the better chances for Wh ite) 9 'ii'x g5 'i!Vxg 5 1 0 .bg5 lt:Jxd4 (Martin Gonzalez-Psakhis, Benasque 1 995).
7 lt:Jge2 A thematic move, even though it looks rather awkward . Wh ite defends his d4-pawn and prevents the opponent's plan ned exchange of the lig ht-sq uare bishops after . . . i.a6. The exchange of the bishop for the knight on e2 is not so advantageous for Black.
7...
h5
8 'it'f4
93
to me, because I am in fact a dog matist. I n o n e instance out of ten , such violations of the chess laws by Vova prove successfu l , in a fu rther five he gets away with it, but in three or fou r cases out of ten he is punished . However, on this occasion Black's u n usual decision is justified . The threat of 9 . . . g5 is very u n pleasant, and it provoked the oppo nent into making a sharp reply, which proved unsuccessfu l . I would recommend 9 0-0-0 gS 1 0 'iif3 g4 1 1 Wf4 , and if 1 1 . . . l:tgB 1 2 h3. tt:Jxh4 9 h4?! tt:Jc6
1 0 0-0-0
Black h u rries to bring his pieces into play. Generally speaking his position is rather dangerous - after a l l , the opponent has a lead in development and the open h-file for an attack. lt:Jg6
11 g4 1 2 We3? !
A n over-optim istic decision. I n an analysis of the game we decided that it would have been better to retreat the q ueen to g3, in order to provoke . . . h5-h4 , and only then play 'iie 3 with the strateg ic threat of f2-f4-f5 . 1 3 .l:.xh8+
hxg4 lt:Jxh8
14 lt:Jf4
i.g5
12 . . .
By p i n n i ng the knig ht, for the moment Black does not allow it to go to h5. ..ib7
15 i.d3 1 6 l:th1 If I had been playing Black, without th i n king for long I would nevertheless have played B .ia6 - after all, this was the reason for the move . . . b7-b6. The rapid development of the pieces is a basic principle of opening play. But our Vova Baklan is not a dogmatist, he does not often remember about general principles, and he always seeks his own way. . . .
8 . . .
i.e7 ! ?
This second move with an already devel oped piece would simply not have occu rred
The evaluation of the position depends l iterally on one tempo. I magine that the queen were already on d7 - then Black would castle and the opponent would have no compensation for the two missing pawns. But Black does not have this tempo and the situation remains rather tense. 16 . . .
i.h6
Now someth ing must be done, as otherwise Black will prepare to castle. (see diagram)
94
How to draw up a Plan
25 'iff5 What would you play now?
17 .l:.xh 6 ! ?
gxh6
1 8 lDfxd5! If 1 8 lDh5 there was the good reply 18 ... 'ili'h4 . 18 . . .
exd5
1 9 'ifxh6 Wh ite's attacking looks menacing, but don't forget that for the sake of it he has sacrificed a whole rook. In such cases the opponent usually has an opportunity to buy his opponent off, by g iving u p part of his extra material . 19 . . .
lDxd4!
20 'ii'x h8+ Nothing was given by 20 lbb5 lbxb5 2 1 �xb5+ c6 2 2 �xc6+ i.xc6 2 3 'ii' x c6+ 'it>f8 24 'ii'h 6+ 'iti>g8 25 �g5 'ii'f8 . [Instead of 22 �xc6+ ? White maintains the balance by 22 �g5!, for example: 22. . 'ii'xg5+ 23 'ili'xg5 cxb5 24 'ili'f6! 'it'd7 25 "iVd6+. The same move 20 �g5! was also not at all bad immediately, instead of capturing the knight - Dvoretsky.] .
20 . . .
'it>d7
21 'ii' h 5
'ili'g8
22 �e3
lbe6
It is apparent that the worst for Black is over, and the attack should be parried . 23 i.f5
'ii'g 7
24 �xg4
.l:th8
Let us employ the principle of the worst piece . It is q u ite obvious that Black's worst piece is his king . If it were to be removed from the centre and placed at b8, the opponent would have to resig n . Therefore 25 . . . 'it>c8! followed by 26 . . . 'it>b8 suggests itself. National master Telman (the trainer of Seryozha Ovseevich , who was playing in the same tou rnament) suggested another, tacti cal solution : 25 . . . l:th4 26 f3 d4! 27 .ixd4 �xf3 , achieving simpl ification adva ntageous to Black. Also not bad , although the march of the king away from the centre appeals to me more. It was a pity that, as a consequence of tiredness and approach ing time-trouble (of course, this is not a j ustification , but merely an explanation ) , Vova did not fi nd the correct path and m issed an almost certain win . 25 . . . 'it>e7? 26 lDe2
�c8?
A clear waste of time - the bishop stood better at b 7 . 27 lDg3
'i!kg6
28 'ii'f3
�b7?
[ The logical continuation of Black's preced ing moves would have been 28 . lbg5! 29 .
.
L'iJ
How to draw up a Plan
lf6+ (29 'ikf4 �xg4 30 'ikxg4 l'De4) 29 . . . 'Wixf6 30 exf6+ �xf6 3 1 ii.d4+ cJ;g6 32 �xhB �xg4 with an extra pawn and definite winning chances, despite the opposite-colour bish ops - Dvoretsky.]
29 c4 Black's position has become dangerous. After th inking for al most all his remaining time, Baklan took the correct decision - to force a draw.
29 . . .
d4
30 l'Df5+
'it>d8
31 'it'xb7
'Wixg4
32 'Wia8+
'it>d7
33 'it'd5+
'it>e8
34 'Yi'c6+
�d8
35 'ir'a8+ Draw agreed .
Rememberi ng the turning point of this game, we see that any of our pieces can be the 'worst' , including the king . Now I will illustrate the principle of the worst piece in a game not between two young candidate masters, but between two experi enced grandmasters.
Dorfman - Balashov Tal l i n n 1 983
A rather passive pla n . Theory recommends 11 . . 'ika5 . .
1 2 IIc1
e6
1 3 dxc6 In the event of 1 3 f4 Black could have i nitiated compl ications not unfavou rable for h i m by 1 3 . . . l'Dxc4 1 4 ii.. xc4 exd5. Here in reply to 1 3 . . . bxc6? the move 14 f4 would now be much stronger. 13 . . .
l'Dxc6
1 4 ii'b3
'ii'e 7
1 5 �fd 1 Wh ite sees a weakness in the opponent's position - the d6-pawn , and he concentrates his attacks on it. 15 . . .
�ed8
1 6 �d2
.l:i.d7
1 7 l::tc d1
1Iad8
18 'ir'a3
.ltf8?!
For the moment the d6-pawn was adequate ly defended , so was it worth retreating the bishop to a passive position? 19 .ltg5 With the bishop on f8 this pin is especially u npleasant. 19 . . .
h6
20 ii.. h 4
g5
Otherwise 21 f4. 21 �g3
King 's Indian Defence
1 l'Df3
l'Df6
2 c4
g6
3 l'Dc3
�g7
4 e4
d6
5 d4
0-0
6 �e2
� g4
7 .lte3
l'Dc6
8 d5
.ltxf3
9 .ltxf3
l'De5
10 ii.. e 2
c6
11 0-0
�e8
95
a6
In ' H edgehog'-type positions this is a normal move, taking away the b5-square from the white knig ht. But i n the g iven instance it is not too successfu l and l ossif Dorfman subtly exploits its d rawback - the weakening of the b6-square. 21 . . . b6 was preferable.
(see diagram)
96
�
How to d raw up a Plan
25 'ii'e 3
'ii'f6
26 tt:lb6
�c7
It's done - Wh ite has switched his q ueen and knight to more active positions. Now he clarifies the situation i n the centre (if it were the opponent to move, he would happily play 27 . . . ..tf4). tt:lxe5
27 ..txe5
If 27 . . . 'i!Vxe5, then 28 c5 with the th reat of 29 tt:lc4 . And if 27 . . . dxe5 there fol lows 28 �xdB tt:lxd8 29 tt:ld7 and 30 tt:lxe5 .
Let's approach this position from the stand point of the 'worst piece' principle. White's rooks and bishops are excellently placed . For the moment his knight is not very strongly involved - it would not be bad to transfer it to b6. But fi rst the e4-pawn must be defended . How? I n the event of 22 f3 the opponent acquires not only the . . . tt:lh5-f4 manoeuvre, but also 22 . . . d5, which , it turns out, Yuri Balashov had prepared by playing 2 1 . . . a6. It could not be played immediately: 2 1 . . . d5? 22 'i!Vxe7 tt:lxe7 23 cxd5 exd5 24 ..lli. b 5! . But what can b e said about the wh ite queen? It has already fulfilled its function on a3 lured the enemy bishop to the passive square f8 . But now there is noth ing for it to do here: to attack a well-defended pawn is a rather pitiful role for Wh ite's strongest piece. Where would he like to play it to? Of cou rse, to e3 - from here the queen defends the e4pawn, releasing the knight, and has the possibility of taking part in an attack against the opponent's kingside, which has been weakened by . . . g7-g5. 22 'i!Vb3 !
28 g3! 'This and especially the next move came to me with great difficulty. After investigating the position, I realised that the exchange of queens (after 28 . Wif4 or 29 . ."ikg5) would be advantageous to the opponent, since the knight on b6 would become vulnerable. ' Dorfman. .
.
.
-
The problem of which pieces to exchange is an i n separable component of chess strate gy! 28 . . .
g4
29 h4!
Wh ile intend ing the manoeuvre 'i!Vb3-b6-e3, White simu ltaneously prevents . . . d6-d 5 . 22 . . .
..tg7
23 'ii' b6
tt:le8
24 tt:la4
..te5
After 29 . . . gxh3 30 f4 Wh ite's adva ntage is obvious. 29 h3?! is weaker: 29 . . . 'ii'g 5! 30 'ii'x g5 hxg5 3 1 hxg4 �c6 , and Black regains his pawn . 29 . . .
�b8
ltJ
How to d raw up a Plan
What should Wh ite do now? We a re not able to intensify the pressure on the weak d6pawn . Accord ing to the principle of two weaknesses, our attention should be switched to new targets. Black's kingside pawns are weakened and demand attention . His king is unlikely to be mated , but it will feel uncom fortable. But also on the q ueenside Wh ite can make progress. It makes sense to place the pawns on a5 and b4 , after which the opponent will have to reckon with the breakth roughs b4b5 or c4-c5. 30 b4
�g7
31 a4
aS
Balashov does not want to al low a4-a5 , with a bind on Black's q ueenside. .l:.c5 32 bxa5 33 llb1 Of cou rse, not 33 l:txd6? tt:Jxd6 34 'ili'xc5 4Jxe4.
33 . . .
lba5
34 llb5
.l:ta6
In the event of 34 . . . l:txb5 35 cxb5! Wh ite acquires a menacing passed pawn on the a file.
97
35 c5! Wh ite's pieces are very active, whereas the opponent's forces are disun ited - with the exception of the knight on e5, he has no good pieces. In such cases it makes sense to q u ickly open the position, and come into d i rect contact with the opponent, before he has coord inated his forces. 35 . . . 3 5 . . . dxc5 36 'ili'xc5 was also bad for Black. 36 �g2
dxc5
37 l:.xd8
'ilfxd8
38 Wxc5 [38 a5!, intending 39 l:.xc5, was more accurate, since after the move in the game Black could still have put up a tough defence by playing 38 . 4Jc6! - Dvoretsky.] .
.
38 . . .
'iid 6
39 'ili'c3 39 'ili'e3! ? . 39 . . .
l:txb6
40 llxb6
'ili'xb6
41 'iix e5+
f6
42 'ii h 5 Black resig ned . Of cou rse, chess strategy does not red uce merely to the two principles we have considered . But even so, I hope that, by using them, you will find it easier to plan your actions at the board .
98
� Al exey Kosi kov
Sens i n g the Tem po
Tby th ree main factors : material, placing he evaluation of a position is determi ned
of the pieces and pawns (king safety, the existence of weaknesses etc. ) and time. The role of time i n chess is not clearly defined . In tactical positions every tempo is of decisive importance, whereas in situations of strategic manoeuvring the time factor someti mes fades into the background. I n many types of sport the concept of a 'sense of rhythm' exists. I n its best years the Dynamo Kiev football team played at an irregular tempo - fi rst quietly, d u l l i ng the vigilance of the opponents, and then sudden ly with a sharp increase in speed . This ski lful organisation of the play (of cou rse, i n combination with h i g h individual skills) helped the team to become one of the strongest in Europe.
Like other practical chess skills, sensing the tempo can be developed by solving specially selected exercises with a tactical content, which demand sharp combinative vision. I recommend that, when a nalysing games, both you r own and those of other players, focus you r attention on this problem . And, of course, of g reat help here is a general g rowth in you r erud ition , you r chess culture. Today we will analyse various situations, in which the time factor plays a g reater or lesser role. Korneev - Kos i kov Smolensk 1 99 1
Another example. A long-distance ru nner has to control his speed . He supposed ly should ru n as qu ickly as possible, but nevertheless not too q u ickly - otherwise he won't have enough strength for the entire distance. It is very important for h i m to seek his optimal running rhythm . I n chess too we can talk about a similar feeling. It may relate to expend itu re of time in the direct meaning of the word (abil ity to decide when moves can be made q u ickly, and where one should stop and have a good think). This is a sepa rate , very importa nt topic, but today we are talking about some thing else - about 'sensing the tempo ' . This is what I call the ability to sense how important the time factor is at a g iven moment, and at what tempo one should be acting: qu ietly, even wa iting, or very specifi cally and energetically.
Black's position i s won , of cou rse. However, the simple variation 56 . . . � c3 57 b5 'ii'x a3 58 b6 'ii' b 2 59 b 7 did not completely satisfy me the far-adva nced pawn on b7 makes the win rather difficult. The question is, doesn't Black have a more reliable way to win? The wh ite queen is overloaded , si nce it simultaneously has to defend the f2- and a3pawns. There immed iately comes to mind
ttJ
Sensing the Tempo
the idea of zugzwang - a device with the help of which nu merous endings a re won . 56 . . .
..td4!
If now 57 'iif4, then 57 . . . ..tc3 58 'ii'f3 'ii'x a3 59 b5 i.b2 (or 59 . . . ..tb4), and the pawn does not succeed in advancing to b7.
57 'it>g1
.tc3
57 'i!t'c3 would also have won easily. . . .
58 b5
.td4!
The b5-pawn is attacked , and if 59 a4 there follows 59 . . ."ii' a 1 + and 60 . . . Wxa4 . This is why Black lured the king onto the 1 st rank! White has only one reply. 59 'ii'f4
.te5
60 'ifc4 Otherwise 60 . . . 'i!kxb5. 60 . . .
.td4!
The bishop has moved to this sq uare three times, and each time with increasing effect. 61 'ii'f1
'iVxa3
62 'it>g2
'ii' b 2
63 'i!tf3
'it>fB
6 cxd5
99
exd5
7 .te2
a6
8 0-0
c4
The Tarrasch Defence to the Queen's Gam bit has been played . But the ideas of different openings sometimes i ntersect. Tel l me, does this position remind you of anyth ing? That's rig ht, we've reached the Panov Attack against the Caro-Kan n Defence with colours reversed and an extra tempo for Wh ite . There the plan i nvolving c4-c5 is not considered very favou rable for Wh ite. And this applies even more here - with a tempo less, it is hardly good to advance the c-pawn . 9 lLle5
'ii'c 7
Now 1 0 f4 , supporting the knight on e5, suggests itself. But this move has a position al defect - it weakens the e4-poi nt. Black completes his development with 1 O . . . .tb4, and later at some point he will captu re on c3 and invade at e4 . 'it'xc6 1 0 lZ:lxc6 1 1 b3
White resigned . Thus a zugzwang position is one of the situations where the time factor tells, and i n a highly d istinctive form . In the opening stage your forces must be quickly developed , and here any loss of tempo may prove fatal . N u merous games have been lost merely because one of the players neglected his development. I will restrict myself to one example on this theme.
Petrosian - Sueti n 27th USSR Championsh i p , Len ingrad 1 960 Queen 's Gambit 1 c4 c5 2 lLlf3
lZ:lf6
3 lLlc3
lZ:lc6
4 e3
e6
5 d4
d5
The danger of Black's position begins to be felt, and he must be extremely carefu l . His king is still i n the centre and the opponent is already taking the in itiative and creating concrete threats. He should complete his development as q u ickly as possible by playing 1 1 . . . .tb4 (with gain of tempo ! ) and at
1 00
�
Sensing the Tempo
the fi rst convenient opportun ity - castle. But that which I cal l 'sensing the tempo' appar ently betrayed Alexey Sueti n . 11 . . . b5? bxc4 1 2 bxc4 1 3 e4! If Wh ite wants to pun ish the opponent for neglecting his development, he must delay it, come into direct contact with h i m , and sharpen the play. 13 . . . dxe4 The lesser evil was 1 3 . . . tt:Jxe4 (exchanges usually favour the defending side), but even here after 14 tt:Jxe4 dxe4 1 5 d5 'ii'g 6 1 6 Ji.h5! (a recommendation by Yuri Razuvaev) 16 . . . 'ii'f5 1 7 lle 1 Wh ite has the advantage. �f5 1 4 .ll g 5 The middlegame is in full swing, but Black is still not in a hu rry to develop his kingside. Good or bad , he had to play 14 . . . �e7. 15 d5 1 6 �xf6 1 7 �g4!
"ilc7 gxf6
The last accu rate move , exchanging the opponent's only developed piece - the bishop which is defending the e4-pawn (if 1 7 . . . �g6 Wh ite wins by 1 8 tt:Jxe4 �xe4 1 9 .l:!.e 1 'ii'e 5 20 'il'a4+ with mate). The outcome is now not in doubt. 17 . . . 1 8 'ifxg4 1 9 tt:Jxe4 20 'ii' h 5 21 tt:'ld2 22 tt:'lc4 23 'ii'xf5+ 24 tt:Je5
�xg4 'iie 5 f5 0-0-0 c3 'il'd4 .Ud7
Black resig ned . It is not only neglect of development that can be the cause of failure. The same conse quences can follow from a superficia l , ill judged handling of the opening.
Soloviov - Kosi kov Smolensk 1 99 1 French Defence
1 e4
e6
2 d4
d5
3 e5
c5
4 c3
tt:'lc6
5 tt:'lf3
'ili'b6
6 a3
�d7
7 �e2 The combination of 6 a3 and 7 �e2 is hardly good ; the latest word i n fashion in this variation is 7 b4 . However, when playing Wh ite one can take some liberties without being pun ished . 7 . . .
tt:'lh6
8 b4
cxd4
9 cxd4
tt:'lf5
1 0 �b2
�e7
1 1 0-0
0-0
White has problems with the completion of his development - he can not bring out his knight i n view of the loss of the d4-pawn . The move b4-b5 is anti-positional , since it seri ously weakens the q ueenside. 12 'ii'd 2? 1 2 Ji.d3 and then �xf5 was necessary, with roughly equal chances. What would you now have played as Black?
ltJ
Sensing the Tempo
101
You suggest playing for the exchange o f the light-square bishops? It is too slow. With his last move the opponent began carrying out what is general a sensible idea : he is planning 1 3 l:td 1 and 1 4 ltJc3. To frustrate his plan, you must play more energetically. Let us check specifically: 1 2 . . . ltJb8? 1 3 ltJc3 or 12 . a6?! 1 3 .l:.d 1 ltJa7 1 4 ltJc3 , and Wh ite is excellently placed . . .
Another suggestion is 1 2 . . . g5. You know, I like playing . . . g7--g5 in the French Defence, but here this is really too sharp ! There is a nother possibil ity: 1 2 . . .f6 . B u t , i n suggesti ng i t , did you m i s s 1 3 g4 ltJ h 6 1 4 exf6 followed by the fork g4--g 5 ? You missed it? But even so, that's what I played . 12 . . .
f6!
The tactical idea associated with this move is wel l known - it is analysed i n Aaron Nimzowitsch's famous book My System. 1 3 g4
ltJh6
14 exf6
.l:.xf6
1 5 g5
.:txf3
16 ..txf3 Black also has the advantage after 1 6 gxh6. 16 . . .
ltJf5
The positional exchange sacrifice has g iven Black a splendid position . It is amusing that at this point my opponent offered a d raw. 'ii'd 8!
The g5-pawn is lost. The next few moves are forced . 1 8 ..tg4
..txg5
1 9 f4
..tf6
20 ..txf5
exf5
21 'ilr'f2
Wb6
Wh ite wanted to develop his knight, but I prevent this by tying h i m to the defence of the d4-pawn . 22 l:td3
22 . . .
a5!
23 bxa5
l:lxa5
But not 23 . . . ltJxa5 because of 24 ltJc3. The black rook comes i nto play, and Wh ite still cannot move his knight. 24 a4
1 7 l:id1
17 . . .
The i n itiative is on my side, but the position is one where every tempo is important. If Wh ite should succeed in playing ltJd2-f3--e5 or ltJd2-b3-c5, I will have to forget about any hopes of an advantage. Sensing the tempo suggests that Black should urgently 'latch on' to the opponent, using concrete threats to divert him from the completion of his devel opment.
Here I stopped to th i n k and I found what I believe is a good solutio n . I was helped by the ' principle of the worst piece'. The bishop on d7 is not taking any part in the play. The standard route for the bishop is via e8 to h5, but from there it will be fi ring i nto empty space. It is most probably better to attack the a4-pawn with it, i . e . move the knig ht. 24 . . .
ltJd8!
The knight goes either to e6, or via f7 to d6. If Black should captu re the a4-pawn , he will already have two pawns for the exchange. 25 ltJc3
ltJe6
The d4-pawn is again under fi re. 26 ltJd1
1 02
�
Sensing the Tempo
Here the knight is not much better placed than on b 1 . Now I could have simply captured with my rook on a4 with an advantage, but in such cases it is important not to sell yourself too cheaply. You should check whether or not there is someth ing stronger. And indeed , if you see Black's next two moves , it immediately becomes clear that this is what should be played . 26 . . .
'it'd&
30 . . .
The f4-pawn is attacked . 27 �c1
b5!
The pawn is won in a version that is more advantageous to Black. His passed pawn will be much more dangerous on the a-file than on the b-file. 28 �e3
for decisive action - it was not tempo dependent. For a time Black needs to maintain it, to manoeuvre. Such manoeu vring, on the one hand, enables the position to be strengthened to the maxi m u m , by making all moves that will be usefu l in the futu re, and on the other hand, it allows the most appropriate moment to be chosen for switching to positive action , when the oppo nent goes wrong and makes the task easier.
bxa4
29 l2'lc3 A new question : how would you characterise the resulting situation (from the standpoint of our topic - 'sensing the tempo') and what wou ld you suggest playing?
h6!
Now the king will feel more secu re, and . . . g7-g5 is also a possibil ity. 31 .:d2
'i!i'b4
32 l2'la2
'ii'd 6
33 lt'lc3
'it>h8
As you see, in non-tempo positions the principle 'do not hu rry' comes to the fore. I very much did not want to play . . . g7-g5 (the opponent is condemned to passivity, so why sharpen the play? ), and yet now Wh ite has to reckon with this move. You see, after 34 . . . g5 35 fxg5 hxg5 36 "ii'xf5 I have the reply 36 . . . lt'lxd4, which would not have been the case with the king on g8. And in general, the king stands slightly better at h8 than at g8, even if only marginal ly. Note that my last few actions ( . . . h7-h6, . . . 'i!i'b4 , . . . 'it>h8) have not involved the slightest risk. But the opponent has to be constantly on the alert, since any move of his may tu rn out to be a serious mistake. It is very d ifficult to defend in such situations. 34 .Ub2
I thought that I had already gai ned a decisive advantage (two pawns for the exchange, dangerous passed a-pawn , weaknesses on d4 and f4) and I spent some time looking for concrete ways to break through the oppo nent's defences. But gradually I realised that the defensive resou rces were qu ite consid erable, and that the position was not yet ripe
'ii'c 7
Advancing the pawn to a3 is prematu re - this move should be held over Wh ite l i ke a sword of Damocles and made only with decisive effect. But for the moment Black should prolong the manoeuvring, trying with minor th reats to d isrupt the coordination of the wh ite pieces. 35 'iid 2
'iia 7
36 .l:td1 36 lt'le2 is bad in view of 36 . . . i.b5, when the
l2J
Sensing the Tempo
bishop comes very strongly i nto play. But after the rook has moved , the advance of the a-pawn will crack the opponent's defences. We see the principle of two weaknesses in action - Wh ite is u nable simultaneously to defend the d4-pawn and to combat the passed a-pawn . 36 . . .
a3
37 l:ta2
�a4
After both a move of the roo k and the excha nge o n a4, the d4-pawn is lost. The game is practically decided . In such situations the opponent usually 'goes berserk' , trying at any cost to create some counter-chances, and here one should be especially carefu l .
3 8 l:lxa3
i.xd 1
39 ltJb5 A clever reply. But since Black's previous strategy was correct, the tactical compl ica tions should tu rn out to his advantage. 39 . . .
l:txa3
40 ltJxa7
l:txe3
41 ltJc6 41 'i'xd 1 �xd4 was totally bad .
41 . . .
Iie4
42 'i¥xd 1
ltJxf4
Of cou rse, 42 . . . ltJxd4 would also have won , but why exchange the wh ite knight when i t is shut out of the game? 43 'iVa4 43 'iff3 .l:!.e 1 + 44 'it>f2 �h4+ .
43 . . .
�h4
White resigned . We have seen what sort of approach a player should adopt i n non-tempo positions (the principle 'do not hu rry' etc . ) . The fol lowi ng examples will be devoted to the problem of the initiative .
1 03
I n the previous game no particular imagina tion was demanded of Black - self-control and patience were more necessary. But for seizing and retaining the in itiative, accurate and resou rceful play is requ i red , and the value of each move is usually extremely high.
Roma n i s h i n
-
Farago
E u ropean Tea m C h a mpionsh i p , Skara 1 980 R e ti Opening 1 liJf3 ltJf6 2 g3
d5
3 i.g2
c6
4 0-0
�g4
5 c4
e6
6 d4
liJbd7
7 ltJe5
i.. f5
8 ltJc3
i.. d 6
9 �f4
'iWb8
Black is slig htly slow in castling. Oleg Romanishin tries to exploit this factor by sharpening the play. 1 0 ltJxd7
ltJxd7
11 cxd5
exd5
1 1 . . . i.xf4? 1 2 dxc6 . 1 2 e4!
dxe4
1 3 i.. x e4
i.. xe4
1 4 �xd6
"ii'x d6
1 5 ltJxe4
'ii'g 6
Here is the position , for the sake of which we are a nalysing this game. What would you suggest?
(see diagram)
1 04
�
Sensing the Tempo
If Wh ite does have any advantage, it is clear that after the slig htest inaccu racy it will instantly evaporate. After all, there are no weaknesses in Black's position, and the only straw at which one can clutch is the tempo which the opponent will have to spend on castl ing. But how to exploit it? 1 6 lDc5? is incorrect in view of 1 6 . . . 0-0-0, and Black already stands better. Grandmaster Igor Za itsev pointed out the strongest conti nuation : 1 6 'i¥b3 ! . Now 1 6 . . . lDb6 1 7 lDc5 0-0-0 1 8 a4 i s clearly advanta geous to White , which means that kingside and queenside castl ing must be examined . I t i s good i f after 1 6 . . . . 0-0-0 you instantly saw the tactical motif 'ifxf7 ! . But the immed iate 1 7 'iixf7? does not work because of 1 7 . . . 'iixe4 . 1 7 llfe 1 suggests itself, but Black replies 1 7 . . . I1he8, when 1 8 'ifxf7? .:Xe4 1 9 'ii'x g6 .l:txe 1 + is not possible. Therefore 1 7 .l:tae1 ! must be tried . Now after 1 7 . . . .l:the8 1 8 'i!i'xf7 Wh ite wins a pawn . If 1 7 . . . lDb6, then 1 8 lDc5 , intending 1 9 a4 or 1 9 .U.e7 , for example: 1 8 . . . .l:txd4 1 9 .l:l.e7 'ifd6 20 'ifxf7 'ii'xc5 2 1 'i!Vxg7! and wins, or 1 8 . . . 'iff6 1 9 'ii'a 3! 'it>b8 20 .l::!. e 7! . Finally, if 1 7 . . . 'it>b8 Wh ite can reply 1 8 .l:te3 ( 1 8 a4? ! l:lhe8 is less accu rate) with the better chances. In the 16 . . . 0-0 variation White can fight for an advantage, only by fi nding after 1 7 11¥xb7 'ii'xe4 1 8 'iVxd7 l:.fd8 ( 1 8 . . . .l::!. a d8 1 9 Vxa7)
the i ntermediate move 1 9 .l:!.ae 1 ! . How should Black defend? He loses his q ueen after 1 9 . . . 'it'xd4? 20 .l:!.e8 + ! , while 1 9 . . . 'ii'xe 1 20 'ifxd8+ .l:txd8 2 1 .l:txe 1 leaves Wh ite a sound pawn to the good . Wh ite also has the advantage after 1 9 . . .'ii' f3 20 'i!i'b7 followed by l:te3 or l:te7. It remains to check 1 9 . . .'ili'c2 20 'ii' b 7 l:tdb8 (20 . . . .l:tab8 21 'i!i'xa7 'iVxb2 22 .l:r.e4) 21 11¥a6 'ii'x b2 (2 1 . . . .l:tb6 22 'ili'e2; 2 1 . . . lhb2 22 l:tc1 'ilfe2 23 'i!i'xc6 or 22 . . . 'ii'e4 23 .l:!.xc6, retaining the extra pawn) 22 'ii'xc6 'il'xd4 23 .:r.e7. Although material equality has been restored , the i n itiative undou btedly remains with Wh ite (analysis by Zaitsev and Dvoretsky). Romanishin is a player with an original, dynamic style, and even so he missed this opportun ity. However, the move made by him looks very natu ra l . 1 6 d5? !
0-0 !
1 7 l:te1 ? ! 1 7 dxc6 ! 'ii'xc6 1 8 l:te1 followed b y l:t c 1 was stronger, when Wh ite still retains some in itiative, although not as promising as after 1 6 'ii' b 3! . I n chess, you know, mistakes often come in series. Romanishin was apparently oppressed by the subconscious feeling that somewhere he had not exploited all the advantages of his position. In trying to mai ntain his fading advantage, he lost his objectivity and soon encou ntered serious difficulties. .l:tad8 17 . . . 1 8 d6? Here too he should have captu red on c6, although now after 1 8 . . . lDe5! (with the idea of 1 9 . . . lDxc6 ) the in itiative would have passed to Black. 18 . . .
f5!
Apparently Roma nishin overlooked or un derestimated this move. The pawn on d6 becomes a real weakness and will soon be lost. 19 'ii' b 3+
'it>h8
Sensing the Tempo
20 tbc3
tbc5
21 'i!Vc4
'ii'x d6
22 .l:!.ad1
tbd3
23 l':!.e2
28 .Uxd 1
"it'xc3
29 'ii'xf5
'it'f6?
Only by retaining the q ueens (29 . . . 'it'a3 ! ) could Black h ave contin ued playing for a win . 3 0 'ir'xf6
23 .Ue3? lbxb2 .
23 . . .
1 05
b5!
gxf6
3 1 .l:!.d7 Now W h ite is no worse , i n view of the activity of h i s rook and the u nfortunate placing of the opponent's pieces .
24 �h4
31 . . . c5 32 �xa7 �c8 33 �b7 (33 \it.Jf1 !?) 33 . . . b4 34 'it>g2 \it.Jgs 35 h4 h5 36 'lt13 �as 37 �b5 �a3+ 38 \it.Je4 .l:f.xa2 39 l:!.xc5 .l:i.xf2 40 l:tb5 'it>g7 Draw.
Black has an obvious advantage. However, because of the pin on the knight at d3 there is still some tension in the position, making it tempo-dependent, and forcing h i m to look for a clear, concrete solutio n . After saying ' a ' , h e should h ave said 'b' - advanced h i s b5-pawn further, disru pting the coordination of the enemy pieces. After 24 . . . b4 ! 25 tba4 'i!t'd5 26 J::l.e3 (26 �ed2 i¥f3 with the threat of 27 . tbe 1 !) 26 . . . iib5 (but not 26 . . . 'ir'xa2? 27 ILleS) Wh ite's position would h ave become extremely dangerous. For example: 27 b3 f4 ! or 27 'ir'e7!? .l:!.g8! 28 b3 f4 29 gxf4 l:!.d5 (analysis by Dvoretsky). . .
Ivan Farago found another way, also very concrete - a forcibly simpl ifying operation, which , h owever, seems to me to be less convincing.
The game we h ave analysed , in w h ich from the very start W h ite's in itiative h u ng by a thread, shows h ow d ifficult it can be in such situations to find the only conti nuations, someti mes far from obvious, which do not allow the flame of the i n itiative to be extinguished . Sensing the tempo should help you to decide on that moment, when the maximum concentration is required in search ing for the correct solution . l l i nchenko - Kosi kov Kiev 1 99 1 English Opening
1 d4
tbf6
2 tbf3
c5
3 c4
cxd4
4 tbxd4
e5
5 lbb5
d5
6 cxd5
.iLc5
The 'Vaganian Gambit' . For the pawn Black obtains an end u ring in itiative , which is not at all easy to extinguish . 7 tb 1 c3? A poor move. The c3-sq uare should h ave been occu pied by the other knig ht.
24 . . .
iic5?!
25 �ed2
l:td4
7 . . .
0-0
26 'ii' h 5
lbxb2 !
8 e3
a6
27 .l:i.xd4
tbxd 1
9 tba3
b5
1 06
� 1 0 lDc2
Sensing the Tempo
.if5
Although Black is a pawn down , for the moment he can play without particu lar thought - so natu ral is the development of his pieces . He is not th inking about regaining the material , but is planning . . . lbbd 7 , . . . e5e4 and . . . lbe5 . From e5 the knight will exert pressure on both wings. 11 �d3 My opponent was apparently afraid of me regaining the pawn by 1 1 . . . .ixc2 and 12 . . . lbxd5, which did not come into my plans at all. However, after 1 1 . . . lbbd7 and 1 2 . . . .Uc8 the threat of the exchange on c2 would indeed have become real . 11 . . .
e4
1 2 �e2
�g6
This is not yet a tempo-position , and so I decided to spend time on a prophylactic move. After the immed iate 1 2 . . . lbbd7 1 would have had to reckon with 1 3 g4! ? . 1 3 b4? ! The start of an over-sharp pla n , which in the end led to my opponent's defeat. 13 . . .
.id6
1 4 a4 A continuation of the same faulty strategy. With the wh ite king still stuck in the centre, the opening of lines on the queenside is to Black's advantage. Wh ite would have done better to 'let sleeping dogs lie'. 14 . . .
bxa4
1 5 l:.xa4
'ii'c8
I did not like 1 5 . . . lDbd7 because of the manoeuvre lDc2-d4-c6 . 1 6 .ib2
lbbd7
If now 1 7 lDd4 , then 1 7 . . . lDb6 followed by 1 8 . . . lbbxd5, 1 8 . . . lbc4 or 1 8 . . . �xb4. 1 7 b5 1 8 lta2 How should I now contin ue?
lDc5
If the opponent should succeed in removing his king from the centre, he will obtain an acceptable position . Moreover, his slight delay in castling will then acq u i re a logical basis. In fact, if Wh ite had castled a few moves earlier, then by placing my knight on e5 I would have beg u n an attack on the kingside. But now, when the open ing of the play on another part of the board has diverted my pieces, the king will feel com pletely safe on the kingside. Thus, I am obl iged to undertake something. 1 8 . . . lDd3+ suggests itself, but how should one assess the position arising after 1 9 �xd3 exd3 2 0 lbd4 axb5 2 1 .l::tx a 8 'ii'xa8 22 lbdxb5 (or 22 lbcxb5)? Of cou rse , Black retains the i n itiative , and this cannot be bad for him. But nevertheless it is pity that at the end of the variation the opponent has a choice - he can captu re on b5 with either knight, 22 lbdxb5 apparently being the stron ger option. And I found a transposition of moves, which denied Wh ite this possibil ity. 18 . . .
axb5
1 9 llxa8
'ii'x a8
20 lbxb5 [20 0-0 was better - Dvoretsky.]
20 . . .
lbd3+
21 �xd3
exd3
22 lbcd4
lZJ
Sensing the Tempo
1 07
'Da7 l:.xc3 27 'Dxb5 .Uc1 mate . 26 . . .
'Dxd5
26 . . . 'De4 was also strong . Here Black was able to terminate his calculations, since it was now obvious that the opponent's de fences were collapsin g . 27 'Da7
'ii'x b4
28 'Dxc8 28 'iVxb4 Itc1 + 29 'it>d2 I1c2+ . 28 . . .
In aiming for this position , I did not see a concrete solution , but I sensed that some thing shou ld be fou n d . It is now possible to latch on to the wh ite king , by checking with the queen at a5 or the bishop at b4 , and the
d3-pawn is very dangerous. I d e l ve d into the position , and i n the end I found and calculated a forced way to win .
22 . . .
�b4+
23 i.c3 23 �1 was more tenacious, but then Black simply captu res on d5 with an overwhel ming advantage. [ There is a quicker way to win: 23 fia2! 24 �c3 tDe4 - Dvoretsky.]
29 'it'd 1
d2+!
30 'iii> x d2
'iVb4+
Wh ite resig ned . We have talked about the development and use of the i n itiative, but this is only part of the story. Before that you have to be able to seize it. The fight for possession of the in itiative (as well as subsequent actions to exploit it) is usually of a tempo-dependent nature, demanding accu racy and resou rce fu l ness. llyin-Genevsky - Ragozin 3rd Match Game, Len i n g rad 1 929/30 French Defence
. . .
23 . . .
'iVa5
24 "ii' d 2 If 24 ..ltxb4 Wxb4+ 25 'ii'd 2 I had prepared 25 'i'b1 + 26 'i!Vd 1 d2+! 27 'it>xd2 'De4+ 28 lt>e 1 (28 'iii> e 2 'it'b2+) 28 .. .'ii' x d 1 + 29 'iii> x d 1 liJxf2+ and 30 . . . 'Dxh 1 , winning the rook. . . .
24 . . .
l:.c8!
The key move, which , of cou rse , had to be
seen beforehand . If now 25 �xb4 , then 25 .'i!i'a 1 + 26 'ii'd 1 l:.c1 27 'Dc3 l:r.xd 1 + 28 liJxd 1 tt:lxd5 29 �d2 Wa2 - Black's material and positional advantage ensure h i m a n easy win . ..
25 'Dc6
'iVxb5
26 �xb4 26 tt'lxb4 'De4 was bad for Wh ite , as was 26
'ii' b 1 +
1 e4
e6
2 d4
d5
3 'Dc3
�b4
4 �d3
c5
4 . . . dxe4 5 'Dxe4 'Df6 is also good . 5 a3 Many years later the Soviet master Pavel Kondratiev i ntroduced an interesti ng gambit line: 5 exd5 'ilfxd5 6 �d2 �xc3 7 ..txc3 cxd4 8 �xd4 'iix g2 9 1i'f3 Wxf3 1 0 'Dxf3 f6 1 1 l:.g 1 'it>f7 1 2 0-0-0 . For the sacrificed pawn White has a lead in development and the two bishops. 5. . .
�xc3+
6 bxc3
c4
7 �e2
1 08
�
Sensing the Tempo
7 ..tf1 ! was stronger, in order to answer 7 . . . dxe4 with 8 'iig 4. 7. . .
dxe4
8 ..txc4
"ilc7
9 "ile2
tLld7
1 0 ..tb2
tLlgf6
11 f3
0-0
1 2 ..tb3 Give some thought to the situation that has arisen.
arranged his pawns on light sq uares, to give scope to the dark-sq uare bishop, wh ich has no opponent. But the opposite has happened - the pawns are fixed on dark squares and the bishop at b2 has been transformed i nto a 'large pawn ' . 14 . . .
tLld5
1 5 tLlf3 1 5 1i'xb5? ttJxc3 (the g2-pawn is under attack) 1 6 'iff1 'ii'a 5 is clearly bad for White. 15 . . .
ttJxc3
Black has restored material equality and seized the i nitiative. This happened because Ragozin correctly recognised the moment when it was necessary to delve deeply into the position and find the correct solution ( 1 2 . . . b5! ) . 1 6 "ild3
As yet the evaluation of the position has not been determined - now is the time when it will be decided which of the two players will seize the in itiative. White is threatening not only the captu re 1 3 fxe4 , but also 1 3 c4, activating his dark-square bishop. 12 . . .
b5!
An excellent solution . If 1 3 'ii'x b5 there follows 1 3 . . . a5! (intending 1 4 . . . ..ta6 or 1 4 . . . a4! 1 5 ..txa4 .l:!.b8) 14 'i!fc4 'ii' b 6, creating dangerous th reats with the wh ite king caught in the centre. Incidentally, it would have been very good to play this a move earlier: in the 5th game of the match Vyacheslav Ragozin chose 1 1 . . . b5! . 1 3 fxe4
..tb7
1 4 e5 With the two bishops White should have
16 . . .
..txf3 !
The routi ne 1 6 . . . .l:!.ac8? would have allowed Wh ite to launch a counterattack by 1 7 tt:\g5! g6 1 8 0-0 with the th reat of 1 9 'ii' h 3, and if 1 8 . . . h6 there follows 1 9 ttJxe6 . The in itiative is a fragile th ing - it does not last long, and it ca n be lost after the very first i naccu racy. 1 7 "ilxf3 1 8 0-0
l:!.ac8 tLl b6
Black is excellently placed . Now he is intending to advance his a-pawn .
ltJ
Sensing the Tempo
1 9 l:r.ae1
aS
20 'ilkh5 20 'i'g4 !? came into consideration , althoug h
after 20 . . . lt:'lbd5! 2 1 lif3 a4 22 ..txd5 lt:'Jxd5 23 l:ig3 g 6 24 c3 "ike? Black would have retained the advantage.
20 . . .
'ii'd 7!
But not 20 ... a4? 2 1 .Uf3 .
21 l:tf4
a4
22 .l:th4
h6
23 .l::t e 3 23 l:tg4 axb3 24 'ii'x h6 did not work because
of 24 . 'ii'x d4+ ! . .
.
23 . . .
axb3
24 l:tg3
f5
25 ..txc3 How does Black best exploit his advantage?
1 09
soon come to an end. [ This note contains a flaw. After 25 ... 'iit h 8 26 cxb3 f4 White can play 27 .l:!.g6. In order to prevent a deadly sacrifice on h6 (which wins against 27 . . . I!xc3, for example) Black must defend by 27 . . . .l::t f7. After the continuation 28 h3! ltJd5 29 .i.d2! White undoubtedly has some advantage, since Black is a pawn down. In view of the lavish praise bestowed on Black's moves throughout the game, it would appear that a reassessment is in order. - John N u n n .] [It seems to me that the entire game does not need a reassessment, but only the recom mendation 25. . . 'iit h 8: cf. the note to White 's 2 7th move - Dvoretsky.]
Alas, the concl uding stage of the game was far from fau ltless . Black won , but not without the help of his opponent. 25 . . .
1J.xc3
26 .l::t x c3
b2
27 'ifd 1 ? 27 l::t b 3 was necessary, since now 27 . . . b4! would have i mmediately decided the out come: 28 axb4 l:.a8 or 28 l:.b3 bxa3 29 l:ixa3 lt:'Jc4 .
There is no time for 25 . . . bxc2? in view of the threat of 26 "ifxh6, and 25 . . . f4 26 'ii'x h6! fxg3 27 'i'h8+ �f7 28 .l::t f4+ is also bad for Black. [In fact this leads to a draw after 28 .. . h 1 tt::l g 4 (or 26 . . . tt::lx h2 27 tt::l x h2 tt::l g 4 ).
I t i s quite obvious that if the knight should reach g5, Black's threats will become ex tremely dangerous, and probably even irre sistible. White must forestall his opponent and undertake something before the appearance of the knight on g5. He should have played 22 tt:le1 ! tt::le 6 23 f3 . Then 23 . . . tt::l x h2 24 I/Jxh2 'iNxg3+ 25 'it>h 1 tt::l g 5 (which Tu kmakov feared, apparently) does not work i n view of 26 l:tc2 exf3 27 tt::l exf3 ! tt::lxf3 28 e4 , when the pin a long the 3rd ra nk proves decisive. And
25 f4
exf3
26 e4??
'i!Vg2 mate
Wh ite's last move shows that he was completely unprepared for the sharp change in the situation on the board . However, his position had already become difficult. To 26 l:td2 there is the strong reply 26 . . . tt::l e4 , while if 26 l:tc2 , then 26 . . . l:!.xc4 27 l:!.f2 (27 b 7 l:!.xc2 28 'i!Vxc2 tt::lfg4) 27 . . . tt::le4 28 tt::l xf3 tt::lxf2 29 tt::l x e5 dxe5 30 'it>xf2 'iNf5+ followed by 31 . . . l:!.c2 . [In fact in the final position it would appear that White could have parried the attack and e ven claimed an advantage. Here is a sample variation: 26 l:!.c2! l:!.xc4 27 b 7! l:txc2 28 'iNxc2 tt:lfg4 (28. . . ttJe4 29 l:!.a 1 ; 2B. . . 'Wid7 29 'iNb3 l:!.bB 30 l:!.a 1) 29 l:ta 1! f2+ 30 'iii> h 1 tt:lxh2 3 1 tt:lxh2 tt:lg4 32 tt:lf3 f1'Wi+ 33 l:!.xf1 ttJxe3 34 l:!.a 1 ! ttJxc2 35 l:!.aB and wins.
1 12
�
Sensing the Tempo
I think that in this game Black attacked really too recklessly, too riskily. At some point he should have captured the a5-pawn (for example, on the 22nd move). And instead of the clever, but objectively not fully correct queen manoeuvre ( 1 8 'iid 7?!) he had the . . .
much stronger 1 8 . b5! 1 9 cxb5 1kxb5 20 axb4 axb4. Black stands better - all the opponent's pieces are cramped, and in addition he constantly has to reckon with the switching of the queen to the kingside by . ."ilb5-h5 - Dvoretsky.] .
.
.
l2J
113
Mark Dvoretsky
Tra nsformation of a Position
W problem, which in one form or another e w i l l now discuss a complicated
we invariably encounter in every game - the transformation of a position.
What is understood by transformation is a sharp change in the position , lead ing to a change in the character of the play, which usually occu rs with a n exchange of pieces (often several pieces) and/or a significant change in the pawn structu re. During the cou rse of a game the position changes repeated ly, but by no means every change is perceived as a transformation . Sometimes such changes are beyond our control and depend completely on the will of the opponent, but at other times they are so natural , so self-evident, that they are not perceived as any specific chess tech nique. In my analysis of various instances of trans formation of a position, I should like to beg i n with a classic example. Fischer - Petros ian Final Candidates Match , 7th Game, Buenos Aires 1 97 1
Wh ite's positional superiority i s obvious. He has n umerous tempting conti nuations. He can place his quean's rook on the open file, bring his king towards the centre by 22 �2 . or play 22 g4 , creating a th reat against the d5-pawn . But if we employ prophylactic th inking , and ask ourselves about the opponent's inten tions (and this is how we should th ink i n such situations), Wh ite's choice is immed iately narrowed . It is clear that if it were Black to move he would play 22 . . . i.b5. It is not hard to prevent the exchange of bishops by 22 a4 , but then there follows 22 . . . i.c6 , th reatening to exchange knights by 23 . . . lt:'Jd7 . After this exchange Black gains the opportun ity to attack the b4-pawn with his rooks. Robert Fischer found a wonderfu l solution to the position , which came as a complete su rprise to the experts gathered in the press centre. 22 lt:'Jxd7+ ! !
l:r.xd7
23 .Uc1 Commenting on this episode, grandmaster Lev Polugayevsky remarks: 'Very typical of the present-day Fischer. He often resorts to the possibility of transforming one type of advantage into another. '
Why did Wh ite g ive up his fi nely-placed knight for the passive black bishop? First of a l l , he eliminates the opponent's hopes of counterplay. His rooks control the open files and the enemy rooks do not have anyth ing to attack. The b4-pawn is invul nerable: . . . .Ub7 is always met by a2-a3; if . . . a6-a5, then b4b5. The wh ite bishop remaining on the board is much stronger than the black knig ht. Both
1 14
�
Transformation of a Position
24 i.xa6 and 24 :c6 are th reatened , and if Black defends the 6th rank with his rook, the wh ite rook will i nvade on the 7th rank. All these advantages are q uite sufficient for a win . 23 . . .
.l::t d 6
24 l:tc7
lZJd7
Charush i n - F ra n ke European Correspondence Championship 1 979/83
25 l:te2 If the knight moves from d7 there is the un pleasant reply .l:tee7. There is l iterally noth ing that Black can move. 25 . . .
g6
26 'iiii2
h5
27 f4
h4
27 . . . lZJb6 28 l:.ee7 !tf6 was more tenacious. 28 �f3 !
f5
29 �g4 was threatened . 29 �e3
d4+
30 �d2 Zugzwang! Any move will worsen Black's position. 30 . . .
lZJb6
31 .l::te e7
tt:Jd5
32 .l:tf7+
�eB tt:Jxb4
33 l:tb7 34 i.c4 Black resig ned .
Transformation is one of the methods for converting an advantage. The example we have examined (like some of those that follow) illustrates this particular case. But one also has to resort to transformation in other situations, for example, in the defence of difficult positions.
White's position is d ifficult. Both 39 .. .l:tg4 and 39 . . . tt:Jxg3 40 hxg3 J:txd4 are th reatened. If 39 lZJf4+? Black does not reply 39 . . .g5?! in view of 40 tt:Jxe4+! .l:Ixe4 41 tt:Jxh3+ 'itg4 42 �g2 with a probable d raw, but 39 . . . i.xf4!, tra nsposing i nto a favou rable rook ending. For example, 40 l:txf4 tt:Jxg3 41 hxg3 .l::txf4 42 gxf4 �5 followed by 43 . . . �e4 , and the i nvasion of the king is bound to win . Or 40 exf4!? l:tg4 (if 40 . . . � there is the strong reply 4 1 � h 1 ! ) 4 1 f1 tt:Jxg3+ 42 l:txg3 .l:txg3 43 Iixe7 l::tg 2 44 l1xb7 l:txh2 . Here the outcome is still not altogether certa i n , but it is clear that Wh ite is in serious danger. Such a transformation of the position did not satisfy the player with Wh ite, and he found a more favou rable series of exchanges. 39 tt:Jf5!
!:tg4+
40 �h1 ! Of course, not 40 �f1 ? l:.f7 . 40 . . .
.l:r.f7
41 tt:Jxd6
.l:.xf3
42 tt:Je5+
�h5
43 tt:Jxf3
tt:Jxd6
44 lZJg1 !
This move certa i n ly had to be foreseen when
ttJ
Transformation of a Position
the exchanging operation was beg u n otherwise the opponent could have played 44 .. Jie4 and 45 . . . t:Df5. However, 44 t:De5! ? l:te4 4 5 'it'g 1 w a s nevertheless possible (45 . . . t:Df5 46 'it'f2). Black would probably have changed the pattern of the play by 45 . . . t:Dc4!? 46 t:Dxc4 l:tg4+! 47 'it'f1 dxc4 (now White has to reckon with 48 . . . .l:tg2) 48 e4 \ot>g5! , retaining some chances of success in a sharp rook ending. But now it is awkward for Black to defend the h3-paw n : 44 .. . h4 45 t:Df3+ or 44 . . . l:th4 45 l:if2 lbe4 46 l:tf3 'it'g4 47 l::tf4+ 'it'h5 48 l:tf3 . 44 . . .
.l:.e4
45 t:Dxh3
t:Df5
46 t:Df2 1 White would have lost after 46 t:Df4+? 'it'g4 (but not
47 l::tg 2+ 'it'f3 48 l:.g5 t:Dxe3 48 . . . .l:!.xe3? 49 t:Dg2 ! ) .
46 . . .
.Uxe3
47 l:lxe3
t:Dxe3
48 g1
t:Dc2
49 t:Dd3 The knight ending is d rawn. 49 . . .
'it'g4
50 'it'f2
t:Dxd4
51 t:Dc5
'it'f4
52 t:Dxb7
t:De6!
After 52 . . . t:Dc2 53 'it'e2 t:Dxb4 54 t:Dc5 'it'e5 55 'it>d2 it is now Black who has to exercise caution: 55 . . . 'it'd4? loses to 56 h4! . 5 3 'it'e2
'it'e4
54 t:Dc5+ ! ? Yet another transformation ! 54 . . .
t:Dxc5
55 bxc5
d4
56 h4
'it'e4
57 d2
'it'f4
58 'it'd3
'it'g4
59 'it'd4
'it'xh4
60 'it'e5
'it'g5
61 d6
115
d4
62 xc6
d3
63 'it'b7
d2
64 c6
d1 'ii'
65 c7
'ifd5+
66 'it'a7
'it'c5+
67 'it'b7
'ii'x a5
68 c8'i¥ Draw. In each of the endings exam ined it was not easy for Wh ite to take the correct decision, but these d ifficu lties were of a d ifferent natu re. In the Fischer game the problem was to overcome a psychological prejudice ('good' knig ht, 'bad' bishop) and to assess the advisabil ity of the u nexpected exchange. I n the second example an accu rate calculation of the variations is required , and the evalua tion of the final positions is made difficult by the fact that it is not easy to picture them in your mind - they d iffer so much from the i n itial one. (However, in this particular in stance this did not cause any particular problem , since the game was played by correspondence and it was possible to move the pieces). From this discussion it is apparent how diverse are the qualities (both chess and psychologica l ) wh ich you have to develop, i n order t o be a b l e t o transform a position to your adva ntage at the appropriate moment. Now let us examine a n example of an unsuccessful transformatio n .
1 16
Transformation of a Position
Kupch i k - Marshall New York 1 9 1 5
leads t o a d ifficult rook e n d i n g : 4 1 .l::tx h3 .l::tx g6 . It is the same after 40 l:.g 1 (g5)? l:r.g8 or 40 lig4? lih8! 41 .l:tg 1 l:.g8! . 40 . . .
l:th8
Noth ing was ach ieved by 40 . . . .l::tg 8 4 1 ..th5 (or 4 1 i.d3 .l:tg2 42 �c3) 4 1 . . . l:.g2 42 ..tf3. 41 .l::te 1 ! 42 .l::t h 1
h2 .l:.g8
4 3 i.h5! At d3 the bishop is less well placed : 43 .id3? l:.g2+ 44 �c3 �c7 , and the march of the black king to g3 is th reatened . .l:.g2+ 43 . . .
Black is a sound pawn to the good and he has excellent winning chances after the simple 35 . . . .l:tf8 or 35 . . . 'ii'e 5 36 l:.f6 'ife2+ ! . Frank Marshall took a different decision - he carried out a complicated combination in volving a piece sacrifice, by which he hoped to obtain a won ending. 35 . . .
'ii'x h2?!
36 ..te4!
'ii'g 3!
After 36 . . .'ti'g 1 37 l:tf8 ! Black again has to give a check on h2, since after 37 . . .'i!Vxd4? 38 l:.xd8+ �c7 39 cxd4 �xd8 40 ..txg6 he remains a piece down . 36 .. .'ifd6 37 .l::tf6 also leads to a repetition of moves. 37 .l::t g 2
'ir'f4!
38 ..txg6 The variation 38 lhg6 'ti'xe4+ 39 "ii'xe4 dxe4 40 l:.h6! (but not 40 l:lg4? .l:th8) was also sufficient to casts doubts on Marshall's idea . I n my view Wh ite has significant drawing chances here, and in any case better than after 35 . . . l:!f8 or 35 . . . 'ii'e 5. 38 . . .
'ifxd4
39 cxd4
h3
40 l:l.e2 ! Only this move (as wel l as 40 .l::t d 2 ! ) enables White to retain his extra piece. 40 .l::t h 2? i:.g8 !
Marshall was aiming for this position when he began his combination . He obviously considered it to be won . This evaluation really is too bol d , especially if one considers that it had to be made nine moves earlier, when the material balance and the arrange ment of the pieces were completely d ifferent! Now 44 �c3 suggests itself, followed by the removal of the q ueenside pawns from the second rank. I n his commentary Marshall g ives this variation : 44 . . . '1t>c7 45 a4 �d6 46 b4 'i!t e6 47 'i!t d3 'iiif5 48 �e3 .l:!.g3+ 49 'it>f2 l:th3 50 ..td 1 �f4 5 1 �g2 l:l.h8 52 l:txh2 .l::tx h2+ 53 �xh2 �e3 54 �g2 �xd4 55 �f3 'iit c4 , when Black, i n his opinion , should win. I am not convinced that this is so (56 b5!), but there is no need to study the concluding
Transformation of a Position
position , since the entire variation is uncon vincing. Instead of 49 �f2 Wh ite plays 49 if3! .l::th 3 50 .ti.b 1 and he is out of danger.
117
Tsesh kovsky - Dvoretsky 42nd U S S R Championsh i p , Len ingrad 1 974
Abraham Kupch ik was apparently too frig ht ened by the powerful pawn on h2 and he hurried across to it with his king , abandon ing his queenside pawns to their fate . 44 �d3?
.ti.xb2
45 ..te2
.t!.xa2
46 .l::!. x h2 Here the th ree pawns are stronger than the bishop, and this means that the transforma tion carried out by Wh ite has worsened his position . His defence is difficult - he has to try and halt the advance of the opponent's pawns and at the same time not forget about the defence of his weak d4-pawn. I don't know whether this problem can be solved , but at any event Kupchik failed to cope with it. 46 .ti.a3+ 47 �c2 a5 48 �b2 .ti.e3 49 �c2 b5 50 i..d 3 �c7 51 l:!.h8 a4 52 .t!.a8 .tl.g3 53 J::!.a 7+ �b6 54 .tl.a8 'it>b7 55 .tl.f8 b4 56 l:!.f7+ 'it>b6 57 .U.f8 .ti.g2+ 58 �c1 a3 59 .tl.b8+ �c7 60 J::!.a8 (60 .ti.xb4 .l::tg 1 + 61 �c2 a2) 60 . . . l:!.g4 61 'it>c2 .l::t x d4 62 ..te2 .tl.e4 63 ..td3 .tl.e3 64 J::!.a 4 c5 65 '.td2 l:!.g3 66 l:!.a5 c4 67 ..tf5 �d6 68 � c8 a2 69 ..tb7 b3 Wh ite resig ned . ...
Marshall's clever although insufficiently justi fied decision is explai ned to some extent by his romantic natu re - he simply could not resist the temptation to put into effect a deep and pretty idea . Very often players commit similar mistakes due to lack of composure. They aim to pick the fru it as soon as possible, not sensing that it is not yet fully ripe. Such haste once cost me very dearly.
This game was played in the last round and a win would make me bronze prize-winner i n t h e championship o f t h e cou ntry. I had managed to outplay my opponent and gain an appreciable positional advantage. In add itio n , Vitaly Tseshkovsky was acutely short of time - for 1 7 moves he had less than 20 m i nutes left on his clock. First of all I considered 23 . . . ..txd4 . In the event of 24 ..txd4 'ifxd4 25 'ifxa7 'ife4+ Wh ite comes out a pawn down . Playing for a pin does not work: 24 .l'lad 1 ? e5 25 e3 .l'lb6 ! , a n d after the q ueen moves Black gives a check with his q ueen from b7. I was concerned about the variation 24 .l::i.fd 1 ! e5 25 ..txd4 exd4 26 �xa7. By conti nuing 26 . . . 'i!Vxa7 27 .l:.xa7 c3! Black retains an advantage, but whether it is sufficient for a win is not clear. For an opponent who is in time-trouble the most u npleasant strategy is defi n itely not forcing play, which allows h i m q u ickly to make several obligatory moves. It is better to force h i m to search, all the time maintaining the tension and posing one problem after a nother. From this point of view I should have simply played 23 . . . .l'lc7 ! .
1 18
Transformation of a Position
When short of time it is al most impossible to find the tactical variation 24 ..ta5!? 'i¥d5+ (with the idea of playing the rook to d7) 25 e4! ! 'ifxe4+ 26 f3 . At any event, several precious minutes would have to be spent on it, whereas Black would have the right to revert to the idea of captu ri ng the d4-pawn after 24 .. J:tcc8 25 .i.c3 . Wh ite would probably have repl ied 24 .l:tfb 1 , but after 24 . . . g5! things would not have been easy for him, especially in time-trouble. 25 b6 'ikc6+ leads to the loss of a paw n , and how otherwise can he parry the terrible threat of . . . l:.b8-b6-h6 ? I n the event of 25 'ii'a4 the idea of exchanging pawns by b5-b6 is no longer possible, and Black can strength en his position with 25 . . . 'i!Ve6 or 25 . . . h5 followed by 26 . . . h4. I saw the correct pla n , but u nfortu nately here I lacked composure and patience. I wanted immed iately to transform my positional ad vantage into someth ing more tangible. Alas, a mistake crept into my calculations and my winning chances promptly evaporated .
occu rred in the game. 27 .tel ! I overlooked this move, or more precisely, not the move itself, but the fact that after it I do not win a pawn , since if 27 . . . l:txe2 there follows 28 'ito>f3! and 29 llxe7. 27 . . .
e6
28 l:!.fa 1 !
.:tbb8
29 .:tc1
.:tc6
30 .l:tc3
h5
3 1 .l:ta4
l:.bc8
32 f4! Wh ite prevents . . . e6-e5 and intends �f2, f3 and e2-e4 . The i n itiative is now on his side, and I have to act carefu lly, to avoid myself ending up in a difficult position. 32 . . .
.:t6c7
33 h3
f6 ! ?
34 g4
hxg4
35 hxg4
e5
36 f5
gxf5
37 gxf5
l:te7 ! ?
23 . . .
.:r.xb5? !
38 f3
.:teeS
24 'ii'x a7
'i!Vxa7?
39 llxc4
exd4
40 l:txd4
.l:.e5
If Black had avoided the exchange of queens by 24 . . . l:!.b7!? 25 'ii'a 4 'ii'd 5+ 26 'ito>g 1 h5, he would still have reta ined the i n itiative. 24 . . . 'iie 6! was even stronger, and if 25 'it'a6? , wh ich I was afraid of (25 e3 is better), then not 25 . . . 'i!Ve4+? 26 f3! , but 25 . . . l:tb6! 26 'ir'a5 ..txd4! 27 ..txd4 'ii'e 4+ 28 g 1 'i!i'xd4 with a decisive advantage. However, I continued playing in accordance with my plan . 25 .l:txa7
l:lb3
An amusing situation : Wh ite can not streng then his position , but I do not have a single harmless waiting move - each one involves some concessio n . After 4 1 . . . .:t8e 7 there follows 42 ..tc5 l:tc7 43 .i.d4, while if 4 1 . . . ..th6 42 .l:l.g4+. 41 . . .
�h7!
The lesser evi l ! 4 2 f2
26 .i.d2! Black was hoping for 26 .l:!.c1 ? �xc3! 27 l:!.xc3 ..txd4 with an extra pawn in the rook end ing. 26 . . .
41 l:tf4
l:tb2
I could hardly have hoped to win after 26 . . . ..txd4 27 l:.xe7 , but here at least my bishop would not have remained inactive, as
This leads to an i m mediate draw, but a lso after 42 lih4+ g8 43 l:th5 .:t5e7 White can not undertake anyth ing. 42 . . .
.i.h6!
43 .l:!.c7+ The variations are easily calculated : 43 l:!.h4
ttJ
Transformation of a Position
�e3 44 l:txe3 l:txe3 45 l:txh6+ �xh6 46 �xe3 'itg5 4 7 �e4 �g4 or 43 l:r.f3 i.xe3+ 44 lkxe3 'iil h 6! with a d raw. 43 . . .
�h8!
43 . . . .l:.8e7 was worse : 44 l::t x e7+ :Xe7 45 l:tf3.
44 .l:!.h4
.l:!.xf5+
Draw. In all the examples we have exam ined the question to be decided was whether to change sharply the character of the play, or maintain the existing situation. But some times it is possible for a player to transform a position in several ways . Grandmaster Boris Gulko once said to me that he considered such problems to be the most d ifficult i n chess, making t h e most severe demands on a player's mastery, his calculating tech nique and his depth of positional evaluation . I will show how Gulko h i mself copes with such problems. In the followi ng game I remember how one of his decisions made a strong impression on me.
G u l ko - Dvoretsky Vi lnius 1 978 Slav Defence
1 c4
c6
2 tt:'Jc3
d5
3 cxd5
cxd5
4 d4
tt:'Jf6
5 .if4
'ii' b 6
In my preparations for the game I glanced i n the Encyclopaedia o f Chess Openings ( i n the first edition t h e corresponding section was written by g randmaster Alexey S ueti n ) and saw there a recommendation that after the move order chosen by Wh ite, Black should respond with 5 . . . 'ii' b 6. Generally speaking, it is dangerous to trust S ueti n's assessments - too much hack-work was produced by his pen . But I considered it
1 19
u n l i kely that my opponent would play this particular system , and so I did not bother to check the book variations, but simply accept ed them. 6 l:!.c1 ! And i m mediately I ra n into a novelty, found by Gulko at the board . The opening g u ide only considered strange variations such as 6 'ii'c2? ! lL'lc6 7 e3 i.f5! or 6 1i'b3 1i'xd4. The rook move to c1 is logical - Wh ite develops a piece, defends his knight in advance in the event of the capture of the b2-pawn , and, i ncidentally, prevents the immediate 6 . . . 'ii'x b2? because of 7 tt:'Ja4 'ii' b 4+ 8 .id2 . 6 . . .
lL'lc6
7 e3
iVxb2?!
Consistent: if Black doesn't take the pawn , it is not clear why his q ueen was developed at b6. Even so, 7 . . . i.f5 or 7 . . . i.g4 8 f3 i.f5 would have been more cautious. 8 i.d3
i.g4
There is no longer time for qu iet develop ment: 8 . . . e6? 9 lL'lb5 i.b4+ 1 0 �f1 0-0 1 1 .l:!.c2 . 9 ltJge2
.ixe2
1 0 i.xe2 !
e5
The transformation of the position caused by this move proves clearly advantageous to Wh ite. 1 O . . . e6 ! ? came into consideration , for example: 1 1 lL'lb5 'iib 4+ 1 2 �f1 .l::t c8! 1 3 tt:'Jc7+ ( 1 3 .l:t b 1 'ifa5 1 4 ltJc7+ .l:!.xc7 1 5 .l:!.b5 iVxa2 1 6 i.xc7 tt:'Je4) 1 3 . . . �d8 14 .l:!.b1 'it'e7 1 5 .l:!.xb7 g 5 ! , or 1 1 0-0 i.e? 1 2 lL'lb5 0-0 1 3 a4 (th reatening 1 4 .l:tb1 'ii'a 2 1 5 lL'lc3 'ii'a 3 1 6 l:tb3) 1 3 . . .'it'b4 ( 1 3 . . . i.b4 ! ? ) 1 4 i.e??! ( 1 4 ltJc7 followed b y l:.b 1 i s stronger) 1 4 . . . ltJe4 1 5 l:t b 1 'ii'd 2! (but not 1 5 . . . tt:'Jc3? 1 6 tt:'Jxc3 1!i'xc3 1 7 .l::t b 3). However, in these variations Black's position looks uneasy, and I recom mend the readers to look for an improvement i n Wh ite's play - I would not be at all su rprised if one should be found . 1 1 dxe5
i.b4
1 2 0-0 !
i.xc3
1 20
�
Transformation of a Position
1 4 i.f3 !
1 3 exf6 1 3 l:!.c2 1\Yb4 1 4 exf6 i.xf6 1 5 'il'xd5 is also not bad . The game Rashkovsky-Arnason (Sochi 1 980) contin ued 1 5 . . . 0-0 ( 1 5 . . . l:td8? 16 'Wf5! 0-0? 1 7 i.d3) 1 6 i.f3! (nothing is given by 1 6 i.d6 l:tfd8) 1 6 . . . l:tad8 1 7 11Yf5 ! , a n d Black experienced serious difficulties. 13 . . .
i.xf6
l:td8
The alternative is 14 . . . 0-0 1 5 i.xd5 . Here is one of the possible variations: 1 5 . . . l:tad8 1 6 e4! ( 1 6 l:. b 1 Wc3 1 7 l:txb7?! i s weaker: 1 7 . . . CiJb4 1 8 e4 CiJxd5 1 9 exd5 'i'c4) 1 6 . . . CiJb4? ! 1 7 .I:I. b 1 'ifa3 1 8 i.c1 'ii'c 3! 1 9 i.d2 CiJxd5 2 0 ..txc3 CiJxc3 2 1 'it'c2 CiJxb1 22 .l:.xb 1 , and White will most probably succeed in converting his material advantage. CiJe7 1 5 i.xd5 I was expecting 1 6 'ilka4+ b5 1 7 1\Y'e4 0-0 ( 1 7 . . . l:txd5? 1 8 .l:f.c8+) 1 8 i.b3 a5! , when it is not easy for Wh ite to maintai n his advantage. Here is a possible variation : 1 9 i.e? (the aS pawn is under attack) 1 9 . . . :c8 20 l:tc2 'i'a3 2 1 'iikd 3 (th reatening not only the b5-pawn , but also the queen) 2 1 . . . b4 22 it'd? a4! 23 1\Yxa4 Wxa4 24 ..txa4 CiJd5 with cou nterplay. To my surprise, my opponent allowed me to exchange his strong lig ht-square bishop, and i n add ition he sacrificed his a2-pawn. 16 e4!
Wh ite's superiority has become obvious. I n a n open position h e has two strong bishops, and the black king is still i n the centre. Several attractive possibilities immediately suggest themselves. For example, i.d6 is tempting, or l:tb1 followed by .l:lxb7. It is also not bad to capture the d5-pawn with the queen (after the preparatory 1 4 l:tc2), or with the bishop after 14 i.f3 . Most probably there is not just one way for White to maintain his superiority, but how does he best exploit the adva ntages of his position? Gulko had a long think, and d u ring this time I tried to find an acceptable defence agai nst the opponent's various attacking attempts. I decided that to 14 i.d6 I would reply 14 . . . i.. e 7, although after 1 5 i.xe7 tbxe7 1 6 .Ub1 or 1 6 'il'a4+ Black's position is unattractive. But 14 . . . .Ud8?! 1 5 "i!Vxd5 ap pealed to me even less - later I learned that the game Matsula-Filipenko ( Krasnodar 1 978) went 1 5 . . . i.e7 1 6 l:.xc6 0-0 1 7 i.d3! with a decisive advantage for Wh ite.
CiJxd5
1 6 . . . 0-0 1 7 i.e? ! . 1 7 exd5
0-0
1 8 d6 1 8 i.e? .U.d7 1 9 d6 also looks good . 18 . . .
'it'xa2
If I am going to suffer, let it at least be for a pawn ! 1 9 d7
tLJ
Transformation of a Position
Gulko had ai med for this position, when he took his decision on the 1 4th move. He subtly judged that, by restricting the black pieces, the far-advanced passed d-pawn would more than compensate for the lost material and prom ise him enormous winning chances. Only a player of the highest class is capable of taking such a decisio n ! The conclusion o f t h e g a m e confirmed that White's choice was correct - I don't know where Black's defence could be seriously improve d . 19 . . .
'it'e6
20 !i.e? was threatened .
20 �c7
.1l.. e 5
If 20 . . . a5, then 21 .l:i.e 1 it'a6 22 .1l.. d 6 or 2 1 ."i'b6 22 'i'd5 (22 'it'd6).
34 .l:i.1 d4
11fc3
35 l:.d6
�h7
36 �g2
'ii' b 3
37 .l:i.4d5
'it>g7
121
38 .l:i.g5 Black resigned . Attempts to rehabilitate the entire variation were made by the Soviet master Alexander Filipenko. He found new resou rces for Black and several times successful ly upheld his position i n practice. Other players, using his analyses, also began employing this system . M a n y years later, G ulko, w h o knew noth ing about these new investigations, again ob tained the same position with White, this time against a well-prepared opponent.
..
21 .1l.. x e5! Of course, not 21 .l:i.e 1 ? ! .1l.. xf4!? (2 1 .. .f6 is also possible) 22 .l:i.xe6 .1l.. x c7 , and the position becomes u nclear.
21 . . .
'i�Nxe5
22 .l:i.xb7
a5
23 g3
h5
24 h4
g6
25 l:i.e1
it'c5
26 it'a4
'.t>h7
27 .l:tb5
'i!Vc3
G u l ko - Shcherbakov Helsinki 1 992 Slav Defence
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 cxd5 cxd5 4 .1l.. f4 ifb6 5 lDc3 lDf6 6 .l:i.c1
28 .l:i.bb1 White gradually reg rou ps his pieces, movi ng them closer to the kingside and preparing a decisive attack on the king . At the same time he keeps a carefu l eye on the a5-pawn - he does not al low it to advance and, of cou rse, he is ready to captu re it at the first convenient opportu nity. 28 . . .
M.b8
29 "ii'e4
l:i.bd8
30 .l:i.bd1
li'b4
31 .l:td4
'i!Vc3
32 .l:i.ed1
"ii' b 3
33 �d5
'.t>g8
6. . .
.1l.. d 7 ! ?
A recommendation o f Filipenko, w h o consid ered this move to be more necessary for the defence than my move 6 . . . lbc6 . Wh ite must sacrifice a pawn , since after 7 'ikd2 e6 (with the threat of 8 . . . lbe4) he has noth ing. 7 e3
li'xb2
1 22
� 8 �d3
Transformation of a Position
e6
'ii'a 3!
1 0 0-0 Noth ing is given by either 1 0 ltJb5 'ii'a 5+ 1 1 'it>f1 ltJa6, or 1 0 .l:tb 1 �c6 1 1 ltJb5 'ifa5+. 10 . . .
i.e7
1 1 . . . i.. c6 1 2 i.. xf6 gxf6 1 3 e4 dxe4 1 4 i..x e4;
9 ltJf3? �b4 . 9. . .
11 i.e5 ! !
Other replies also do not bring any relief:
9 ltJg e2
a6
This is the idea of the defensive plan suggested by Filipenko.
I n the game Gleizerov-Filipenko (Kursk 1 987) Wh ite did not even try to solve the problem of the position, but chose the passive knight retreat 1 1 ltJb 1 ? , and after 1 1 . . . 'ii'b4 ! 1 2 a3 'ii' b 6 1 3 ltJec3 �d6 he did not gain any compensation for the sacrificed pawn . If 1 1 l:lb1 Black repl ies 1 1 . . . b5 1 2 �c7 �c6! (of course, not 1 2 . . . i.e7?? 1 3 .l:.b3) 1 3 lib3 'ille 7. To exploit his lead in development, it is advantageous for Wh ite to open l i nes. However, after the immediate 1 1 e4 dxe4 1 2 ltJxe4 ltJd5! he does not ach ieve anyth ing. As in the previous game, after weig hing u p the various possibil ities, Gulko chose the most promising one. He found a way of advancing e3-e4, without conced ing the central squares to his opponent.
1 1 . . . ltJc6 1 2 i.. xf6 gxf6 1 3 e4 dxe4 1 4 i.xe4 with the th reat of 1 5 d 5 . 1 2 e4! Now after 1 2 . . . dxe4 1 3 ltJxe4 the knight can not go to d5 - the g7-pawn is under attack. Wh ite also retains a dangerous i n itiative after 1 2 . . . ltJc6 1 3 �xf6 �xf6 1 4 exd5 ltJxd4 (or 1 4 . . . exd5 1 5 ltJxd5) 1 5 ltJe4 ltJxe2+ 1 6 'ii'x e2 �e7 1 7 l::t c 7. 12 . . .
�c6
1 3 exd5
exd5
A timely and skilful transformation has enabled Gulko to obta i n an attractive posi tion . But now he is again at the cross-roads. Which is better, to direct the knight via g3 to f5, or, after exchanging on f6 , attack the d5pawn by ltJf4 ? When he showed me the game, Gulko suggested that the second way would have been stronger. I ndeed : after 1 4 �xf6!? �xf6 1 5 ltJf4 0-0 1 6 ltJcxd5 (weaker is 1 6 ltJfxd5?! ltJd7 ! ) Black ca nnot play 1 6 . . . ltJd7? in view of 1 7 l::t c 3 'ii'd 6 1 8 i.. x h7+! 'it>xh7 1 9 .l:.h3+ 'it>g8 20 'ii' h 5 . 1 6 . . . �xd5? is also bad : 1 7 ltJxd5 'i!i'd6 1 8 'ili'f3 ltJd7 1 9 'ii'f5! g6 20 'ii'x d7 . There only remains 1 6 . . . 'ii'd6 1 7 ltJxf6+ 'ifxf6 1 8 1i'd2 . It is clea r that Wh ite has the advantage, but how g reat is it?
tLJ
Transformation of a Position
In my view, the conti nuation chosen by the grandmaster is no weaker. 1 4 t"Llg3 ! ?
t"Llbd7!
It is not possible to cover the fS-square: 1 4 . . g6? 1 5 t"Llxd5 ! . If 14 ... 0-0? Wh ite de cides matters with 1 5 t"Llf5 l:te8 1 6 t"Llb1 'ii' b4 1 7 a3 'i¥b6 1 8 t"Llxe 7 + l:txe 7 1 9 i.xf6 gxf6 20 'fg4+ . .
1 5 t"Llf5
g6
23 t"Llc3
i.c6
24 t"Lle2
i.b5?!
1 23
24 . . . i.a4 is more tenacious, but here too Wh ite gains an advantage by playing 25 t"Lld4 .l:r.b8 26 t"Llc6 . 25 t"Llxb5
axb5
26 i.xb5
t"Llc5
26 . . . :xa2 27 t"Llc3 .l:ta7 28 t"Llxd5 .
1 5 . . 0-0? 1 6 t"Llb1 is bad for Black, while if 1 5 ..1ib4 there follows 1 6 t"Llxg7+ �8 1 7 ltlh5. .
. . .
1 6 t"Llb1
'i¥a4
Now Wh ite restores material eq ual ity and transposes i nto a favourable end ing. G u l ko considered the strongest reply to be 1 6 . . . 'ifa5 and after 1 7 t"Llxe7 xe 7 he was intending to play 18 i.f4 h6! 1 9 t"Lld2 f8 20 t"Llf3 �g7 2 1 ltJe5. Wh ite certainly reta ins excellent com pensation for the pawn , but the outcome still remains u nclear - this is why Gulko had doubts about his choice on the 1 4th move . Later grandmaster Viorel Bologan suggest ed strengthening the attack by 1 8 'ii'f3! , for example: 1 8 . . . .l:r.he8 (in the hope after 1 9 l:tfe 1 ?! of ru n n i ng away with the king by 1 9 . . �f8 ! ) 1 9 'ii'f4 ! , or 1 8 . . . t"Llxe5 1 9 dxeS ltld7 20 .l:tfe 1 followed by 'ii'f4 , and Black's position is very d ifficult. .
1 7 t"Lld6+!
f8
If 1 7 . . . i.xd6 Wh ite would have interposed 1 8 i.c2 ! , and only then played 1 9 i.xd6. i.xa4 18 'ikxa4 1 9 t"Llxb7
t"Llxe5
20 dxe5
t"Lld7
Black should probably have tried 20 . . . t"Llg4! ? 2 1 .l:i.fe 1 (2 1 f4 t"Lle3 22 .l:r.f3 d 4 ) 2 1 . . . i.g5 22 J:tc5 i.f4 . 21 f4
.l:r.a7
Black avoided 21 . . . �g7 because of 22 t"Llc3 �c6 23 t"Lla5, but here not all is clear after 23 . . . i.b5. 22 t"Lld6
�g7
27 f5! The attack on the king is mai ntained even in the endgame. A sample variation goes 27 . . . i.gS 28 f6+ h6 29 l:.c3 i.d2 30 .l:r.h3+ �gS 31 l:Ig3+ h6 32 t"Lld4 t"Lle4 33 l:Ih3+ gS 34 t"Llf3+. 28 t"Llg3
gxf5 l:Ib8
29 t"Llxf5+
f8
30 t"Llxe7
.l:.xb5
3 1 t"Llxd5
g7
27 . . .
31 . . . t"Lld3 would not have helped : 32 .:l.c8+ g7 33 t"Llf6 t"LlxeS 34 l:l.g8+ h6 35 h4! . 32 l:lc4
l:.a4
33 t"Lle3 !
lixa2
34 t"Llf5+ After playing 34 . . . 'it>g6 in this hopeless position , Black lost on time. I should like to show you one more example
1 24
�
Transformation of a Position
from the games of Boris Gulko, connected with the topic u nder discussion. G u l ko - Kupreich i k 5 2 n d USSR Championsh i p , R i g a 1 98 5 King 's Indian Defence
1 d4
lt:Jf6
2 c4
g6
3 lL'lc3
..tg7
4 e4
d6
5 f3
a6
6 ..ie3
0-0
7 'ii'd 2
lt:Jc6
8 lt:Jge2
l:.b8
9 l:tb1 A rare pla n . Theory considers the strongest reply to be 9 . . . b5 1 0 cxb5 axb5 1 1 b4 e5! 1 2 d5 lt:Je7. 9 ..id7 0
.
.
10 b4
'ii'c 8
If now 1 O . . . b5 1 1 cxb5 axb5 1 2 dS lt:JeS 1 3 lt:Jd4 with the better chances for White . lt:Jas
1 1 b5 1 2 lt:Jf4!
c6 ! ?
After 1 2 . . . b 6 1 3 eS!? or 1 3 l:.c1 ! ? c6 1 4 bxc6 Black would have stood worse. Therefore Viktor Kupreichik i nitiates risky play - he abandons to its fate his knight on aS, which now has no retreat square. As we will see , this idea has a clever tactical basis and it is not at all easy to refute . 1 3 b6! Stronger than 1 3 eS?! lt:Je8 1 4 b6 ..ie6 ! . 13
0
.
e5
.
(see diagram)
What position should Wh ite go in for? It is clear that he must attack the knight on aS, but in retu rn he will evidently have to part with his knight on f4 - he does not want to retreat it to h3! 1 4 lt:Jd 1 exf4 1 S ..txf4 suggests itself, since both the knight and the
- position after 1 3
. . .
e5 -
d6-pawn are attacked . But take note: the position has been opened u p , and White is behind in development. In such positions one must be extremely cautious, especially when sitting opposite you is such a resource ful tactician as Kupreich ik. He will most probably play 1 S . . . l:te8 ! , i ntending to meet 1 6 ..txd6 o r 1 6 'ii'x aS with 1 6 . . . lt:Jxe4 ! . It is possible to defer winning material, by rein forcing the e4-point with 1 6 lt:Jf2 . The position after 1 6 . . . lt:Jxc4 1 7 ..txc4 is advanta geous to Wh ite. But the opponent finds a bri l l ia nt cou nterattack: 1 6 . . . d S ! ! 1 7 'i'xa5 dxe4 , or 1 7 ..txb8 'ii'x b8 ( 1 7 . . . dxe4 1 8 i.e5 exf3 can also be considered ) 1 8 'i!i'xaS dxe4 with dangerous threats. Let us now tu rn to the pawn exchange 1 4 dxeS dxeS. Perhaps here White should retreat his knight to d 1 ? Let us check: 1 5 lt:Jd 1 exf4 1 6 ..ixf4 l:te8 1 7 lL'lf2 ( 1 7 'ii'xa5 lt:Jxe4 ! ) 1 7 . . . lt:Jxc4 1 8 ..ixc4 lla8 1 9 0-0 i.e6. The next move will be 20 . . . lt:Jd7 , and White has nothing. Let us check 1 S lt:Ja4 (instead of 1 S ttJd 1 ) 1 S . . . exf4 1 6 ..txf4 . After 1 6 . . . l:e8?! 1 7 ttJc5 the wh ite knight is far more actively placed at cS than at f2 . But on the other hand, the opponent acq u i res an excellent tactical resou rce: 1 6 . . . cS! 1 7 'ifxaS ..txa4 1 8 ..txb8 ( 1 8 'iix a4 lt:Jxe4 ! ! 1 9 fxe4 'ili'g4) 1 8 . . . lt:Jxe4!?
ttJ
Transformation of a Position
( 1 8 .'i'xb8 1 9 'it'xa4 l2Jh5!? is also possible, with fine compensation for the sacrificed exchange ) 1 9 fxe4 'it'g4 , and again Black is able to in itiate i rrational complications. . .
It should also be mentioned that the modest 15 t2 ! ltJe6 48 'it>g3 'it>d6 49 h4 ri;e7 50 l:tf5 (Wh ite would have lost after 50 g5? ltJg7! ) 50 . . . ltJg7 51 .l:.a5 l:td6 52 .l:.a7+ ri;JS 53 l:ta8+ 'it>f7 54 l:.a7+ 'it>g6 55 .l:.a3 ltJe6 56 .Uc3 ltJd4 57 .l:!.a3 l:.b6 (th reatening 58 . . . .l:.b3+ ) 58 l:t.a5! ltJe6 59 l:a3 ltJc5 60 l:ta5 .l:.b3+ 61 'it>g2 l:tc3 62 .l:!.b5 llc4 63 l:lb6+ 'it>g7 64 'it>h3 ltJd7 65 .l:.b5 .l:.c5 66 .l:t.b7 lld5 67 l:l.a7 .l:.d6 68 .l:.a5 .l:.d3+ 69 'i;g2 lle3 70 l;la7 l:Ie7 71 'it>g3 rJ;;fT 72 l:ta6 l:te6 73 .l:.a7 l:r.d6 74 l:la5 'it>g6 75 'it>h3! (Wh ite does not want to allow the knight to go to f6 , and for this he must prevent it from giving a check in reply to g4g5) 75 . . . l:.c6 76 .l:.d5 ltJc5 77 l:ld4 lle6 78 :c4 ltJd3 79 l:ta4 l:te3+ 80 'iti>g2 ltJc5 81 l1c4 ltJe6 82 .l:.a4 l:id3 83 l:ta6 'it>f7 84 .l:.a7+ 'it>g8 85 .ll a 8+ 'it>f7 86 l:ta7+ 'it>f6 87 g5+ hxg5 88 hxg5+ 'it>xg5 89 l:te7 'it>f5 Draw.
3. Geller-P. Littlewood (European Team Championsh ip, Plovdiv 1 983). ltJxb6 21 ltJb6! If 21 . . . l:lbd8, then 22 'ikf3 is a satisfactory reply. 22 ..txe6
fxe6
23 axb6
.l:.xb6
24 ltJe4 With his pawn sacrifice Yefim Geller has obtai ned a nu mber of important positional gains: he has left the opponent with a ' bad' bishop and created pawn weaknesses in his position . Black faces a d ifficult defence. 24 ... ltJb8 25 'ikg4 ltJd7 26 ..th6! g6 (26 . . . ..tf8 27 l:te3 'iti>h8 28 .ll g 3 or 28 .l:.f3 gxh6? 29 l:.g3) 27 cxb4 cxb4 28 l:.ac1 'ii'd 8? 28 . . . 'i'b7 ! 29 'ikf3 .if8 30 .ie3 l:ib5 was better, although after 31 l:tc6 ! Black still experien ces serious d ifficulties.
1 28
Transformation of a Position
29 i.e3 .l:tb5 30 'ifxe6+ 'it>h8 31 'ifxa6 It is now Wh ite who is a pawn up, and in the subsequent play he successfully converted it.
it dawned on h i m - he saw a way of retu rning the extra material and forcibly transposing i nto an ending with a g reat positional advantage. 44 'ii' g 2!
4. Miles-Romanishin (Tilburg 1 985). White's best saving chance is to transpose into a heavy piece ending.
45 'i!i'g3 ! !
'ii'c 7 ! 'ii'c 1 +
45 . . . 1!i'xg3 46 fxg3 i.b7 47 l:ta4 is hopeless for Black.
'ifxe4
46 lle1
'ii'x e1 +
37 i.xg7
'it>xg7
47 'it>xe1
i.xg3
38 'iff6+
'it?g8(h7)
48 fxg3
36 ltJxe4!
39 h3 White's queen is well placed on f6 - it defends the b2-pawn and ties the rook to the defence of the f7-pawn , making it hard for Black to create an attack on the king . And in the event of the queens being exchanged , the famous formula may apply: ' Rook end ings are always drawn . ' The tempting 3 6 'ii'f4? chosen b y Tony Miles was weaker because of the reply 36 . . .'it'd6! . Now 37 ltJxe4? 'iVxf4 loses immediately, and 37 'ii'xe4?! i.xf6 is also bad for Wh ite, since after 38 'ife8+ 'it>g7 39 ltJe4 Black has the decisive 39 . . . 'ii'd 3! 40 ltJg3 h4. There only remains 37 'ifxd6 ltJxd6 38 i.xg7 'it>xg7 , but this endgame is much more difficult than the one with heavy pieces, si nce Black can improve without hindrance the placing of his pieces (in particu lar, h is king ).
lf 48 . . . i.d7, then 49 l:ta7 is strong . This move was also not bad now, but Psakhis decided to exchange the rooks, since he correctly judged the bishop ending to be won .
I n the game there followed 39 .l:.d1 l:!.e7 40 'iitg 1 (40 g4!? ltJc4 41 gxh5 g5!?) 40 . . . lLlf5 41 .l:ic1 'it>f6 42 b4 .Ue5 43 'it>f2 'it>e6 44 g3 ltJd4, and Black won .
4 9 l:txg8+ 'it>xg8 5 0 a 4 'it>f7 51 a 5 bxa5 52 bxa5 'it>e7 53 'it>d2 'it>d6 54 'it'c3 'iitc6 55 'iti>b4 i.c8 56 'it>a4! (zugzwang) 56 . . . i.b7 57 a6 Black resigned .
5 . Psakhis-Romanishin (49th USSR Cham pionship, Fru nze 1 98 1 ).
Grau-Eiiskases (Olympiad , Buenos 6. Aires 1 939).
It is not easy for White to exploit his exchange advantage. His king is exposed , his pieces are poorly coord inated , and the opponent's position is solid. For a long time Lev Psakhis was unable to find a plan which promised chances of success. And suddenly
Of cou rse, 1 8 dxc5?? 'ii'x d2 is not possible, while 1 8 lLlb3 cxd4 leads to an eq ual game. The only way of fig hting for an advantage is the critical move 1 8 lLle4 , the consequences of which must be accu rately calculated and correctly assessed .
48 . . . i.b7
Transformation of a Position
1 8 tt::l e 4!
cxd4
1 9 tt::l x d6
dxc3
20 tt::l x b7
l:td7
In the opinion of Alexander Alekhine, by attacking the knight Black refutes the oppo nent's raid. The world champion g ives the following variation: 21 tt::l a 5 tt::l d 5 ! 22 f3 �e6 23 e4 tt::lf4 24 .U.xc3 i.. xc4 25 .l:txc4 .l:.d2 with the better chances for Black.
But White can play more strongly. 21 tt::l c 5!
.l:tc7
22 l:txc3
.l:txc5
Little is changed by 22 . . ..l:.fc8 23 l:tac1 l:txc5 24 i.xf7+ g3. It is White to move. He would appear to stand better, si nce his bishop has some prospects , whereas in the immed iate future it is dou btfu l whether the enemy bishop will be able to take part in the play. However, the wh ite king does not feel too comfortable, and the opponent retains counter-attacking possibili ties on both wings. Therefore Wh ite must play accu rately and energetically.
The di rect attempt to exploit the h-file by playing 26 'it>g3 is ineffective in view of the reply 26 . . . 'ii'g 6. Perhaps Wh ite should sim ply captu re the c4-pawn? Simagin does not even analyse this move - a general assess ment is sufficient for h i m : The position is s o sharp, that the black pawn is a 'trifle ', and time should not be wasted on capturing it.
Black's position is difficult. In Simagin's opinion , he should have fanned the flame of a cou nter-in itiative , by harassing the enemy pieces. He recommends 28 . . . l:ta3 . If the bishop moves, Black captu res on g4, while in the event of 29 l:tac1 he can consider . . . b7b5-b4 . However, by playing 29 'ii'f6+ .l::t g 7 30 �b4! (weaker is 30 l:tad 1 fxg4+ 31 'it>h4 �d7 32 �b4 .l:txa2) 30 . . . fxg4+ 31 'it>h4 White creates decisive threats. 28 . . .
Itxf4
Now Simagin launches an attack on the king , and i n it a very important role is played by his bishop, which has no opponent. After all, the offensive is conducted on the dark squares, which are i naccessible to the opponent's bishop. 29 'i¥f6+
l:tg7
1 32
� 30 g3
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame
l:tc4
3 1 l:tad1 ! An important tempo! 31 . . .
i.d7
32 i.d2 ! After the disappearance of the f4-pawn , the c1 -h6 diagonal has been opened , and Wh ite skilfully exploits this factor. 32 . . .
An instructive exa m ple! Both players fought energetically for the i n itiative, willingly sacri ficing pawns. White's actions were more vigorous and pu rposefu l , and it was this that brought h i m victory. Yaku bovich-5 i magin Moscow 1 936
ct>g8
32 . . .'i!Vg6 was a tougher defence. 33 i.h6
l:tg6
34 l:!.xd7! As one of the classics said : 'A combination i n such positions is as natu ral as a baby's smile.' 34 . . .
l:txf6
35 l:tg7+
'it>h8
36 exf6
'i!fb8+
37 f4
l:tc3+
38 h4
'ii'f8
There was no satisfactory defence against the threat of 39 f7 . 39 l:txh7+
'it>xh7
40 i.xf8
ct>g8
41 i.e7
fxg4 l:th3+
42 l:tg1 43 ct>xg4 Black resigned .
Who stands better? Black, you say, since the position of the wh ite king is insecu re? B u t if I play i.f4 , intending l:txa7, l:tg 1 and i.e5 which of the kings will be in danger? The bishop at c8 is out of play, White will assail the g7-point, and the h5-pawn will help in the attack. Who is it to move? This is the q uestion which should have been asked at the start. If it were White to move, the advantage would be on his side, but in fact it is Black to move and he immed iately opens lines in the vicinity of the enemy king . 34 . . .
f4!
Of course, this pawn sacrifice suggests itself even 'on general g rounds' . But Simagin l i n ked it with a combinatio n , lead ing to a forced win . 35 i.xf4
g5! !
It is important to obta i n the g6-square for the rook. 36 hxg6
.:txf4+!
ltJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Midd legame
llf6+
37 'it>xf4 38 'it>g3
If 38 �g5 Black would have decided matters with 38 . . . �b6 39 'it'c2 �e6 (or 39 . . . l:l.f3 followed by 40 . . . it'f6+) 40 .U.xa? lif5+ 4 1 Wh6 l:th5+! 4 2 Wxh5 'it'g4+, a n d mate next move. 38 . . .
l:txg6+
39 'lt>f3
ii.g4+
40 �g3
ii. e2+
41 'it>h4
'it'b7
42 'it'x e2
'ii'e 7+ !
1 33
queenside, underesti mating the threats to his own king . U usi-Simag i n Gorky 1 954
Wh ite resigned . An attractive attack! With these first two examples I pay tribute to Vladimir Pavlovich Simag i n . Many reckon that there's Kasparov, Karpov and perhaps a few other g reats, but that all other players are weaker and therefore u n i nteresti ng. I n deed , among the g randmasters of the second and third echelon there a re some who skilfully move the pieces, but do not d isplay any striking creative individuality. However, among them one also encou nters true artists with orig inal ideas and deep conceptions, and one can learn as much from their games as from the games of the champions. Simagin was one of these a rtists. I insistently recom mend that you make a study of his games. For a time a book of his selected games was one that I constantly referred to . Attack
The correct strategy with opposite- colour bishops is an attack on the king. M aterial
or positional gains are worth little if your king is in danger. A ny opportunity to play
for an attack should be exploited.
In the episodes which we have already exami ned , the game was decided by a direct attack. I should now like to show you two more examples from Simagin's games. I n each o f them the opponent was enticed by the possibility of winning a pawn on the
Black's position is preferable. The mig hty bishop on d5 is attacki ng the a2-pawn , putting pressu re on the kingside and also, fi nal ly, blocking the d4-pawn . Even so, for the moment Wh ite is not in any real danger. For example, he can play 2 1 �a3, defending the a2-pawn and threatening 22 l2Je4. If 21 . . . 'iff4 , then 22 'ikd2 or 22 'ike5, aiming for simpl ificatio n . 21 .l:i.a3? !
a5
2 2 �c3?! Assessing the plan chosen by his opponent, Simagin writes: 'White decided to win a pawn on the queenside. Black happily gives up this pawn and, for a minimal material cost, he creates a strong attack on the kingside. ' 22 . . . e5! Exploiting a convenient moment, the pawn adva nces to e4 . Up till now it was difficult for Black to develop an offensive , since the opponent was always able to neutral ise the powerfu l bishop at d5 by f2-f3 . But now the pawn on e4 will cramp Wh ite on the kingside and the attacking possibil ities are increased. Of cou rse, it is hard to establish beforehand
1 34
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
whether the attack will be successfu l . But i n principle this is sound strategy, a n d this i s how o n e should act when there are opposite colour bishops. 23 'Yid2 White would have lost after 23 .l:ixa5? exd4 , but it would have been more accu rate to play the queen to e3 (or d1 ). 23 . . .
e4
Apart from moves that are part of a pla n , you should always be on the lookout for chance tactical resou rces such as 23 . . . ltJe4 ! ? . After 24 'ife3 ttJxc3 25 'ifxc3 'it'g6 Black's advan tage is obvious. 24 h3 White has to prevent 24 . . . ltJg4 . If 24 'iVg5 Simagin was intending 24 . . . e3! 25 fxe3 h6 26 'ifg3 'Yixg3 27 hxg3 .l:ixe3 or 26 'Yif4 li'xf4 27 exf4 lle2 , retaining an advantage in the ending. 24 . . .
lbh5
Since the knight has not been allowed to go to g4, it aims for f4 , from where together with the bishop it will threaten the g2-point. 25 l:i.xa5
.l:ixa5
26 �xa5
lLlf4
Threatening 27 . . . ttJxg2 ! . 2 7 'i!Ve3
the i m mediate th reats. The knight on f4 is dangerous, of course, but for the moment the other pieces are not able to help it: the queen can not go to g6, and the bishop is ru nning up against the e4-pawn . Has Black's strategy proved to be a fiasco? With opposite-colour bishops you must be l ieve in the attacking possibil ities of a position! Black's pressure on the kingside is, after a l l , more important than the opponent's material gains. I n order to i ncrease it, he needs to drive the queen from the blockading e3-square, and for this the pawns have to be i ncluded in the attack. 27 . . .
f5!
With the impending th reat of 28 . . .xg2 f5 with dangerous threats . 28 lbb7?! An interesting reply. I n the event of 28 ... .txb7? 29 �c7 and 30 �xf4 the attack passes to White. However, it is not essential to take the knight. Available to Gunnar Uusi was a nother clever resource: 28 �c7! 'Yixc7 29 lbd3. However, after 29 . . . ttJxg2!? 30 �xc7 ltJxe3 31 lLlf4 (31 lbb4 ! ? ) Black would have retai ned the better chances in the ending, by continuing 31 .tf7 32 fxe3 g5. . . .
28 . . .
'it'h6!
29 �d2 29 �c7? lbe2 + ! . 29 . . .
g5?
Black could have won by 29 .. .'it'g 6 ! ! 30 �xf4 e3 ( N u n n ) . 30 ttJcs 30 �c7? 'it'b6. 30 . . .
'ii'g 7
31 l::te 1
Wh ite has won a pawn and he has parried
Wh ite overlooks the knight sacrifice, which has been in the offing for a long time. But what was he to do? After 31 'lt>h2 h6
ttJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame
(31 . . . l2Jxg2? 32 'ii'x g5) 32 g3 l2Jg6 his position would have remai ned anxious. And if 31 h4 the opponent would have had a pleasant choice between 3 1 . . . gxh4 32 'ii'xf4 e3 and 3 1 . . . l2Jxg2 32 'ii'x g5 l2Jxh4 .
31 . . .
l2Jxg2 ! ?
Here too the q u iet 3 1 . . . h 6 ! ? deserved serious consideration , but Simagin is unable to resist the temptation and he forces events. 32 xg2
f4
33 'ii'c 3
e3+
34 f3? If 34 �h2, then 34 . . . g4! 35 fxe3 g3+ 36 'it>g 1 f3 (Simag i n ) . However, John N u n n has shown that this variation is unconvincing White saves h imself by 37 e4! f2+ 38 'it>g2 fxe 1 'ii' 39 �xe 1 .ltxe4+ 40 l2Jxe4 l:.xe4 4 1 'i!fb3+ .
34 . . .
g4!
35 lig1
�xf3+
36 'it>f1
g3
37 �c1
g2+
White resigned .
1 35
Simag i n-Saigin Vil n i u s 1 958
The position looks roughly equal. Black is hoping to g radually prepare . . . c6-c5. Had his pawn been not at h6, but at h7, he would indeed have been q u ite alright. 20 .i.d3! Simagin observes that the only defect in the opponent's set-up is the weak b 1 -h7 diago nal, on which he can set up a dangerous battery with q ueen and bishop. 20 . . .
l2Je7
21 �b1
c5
22 dxc5
bxc5
23 bxc5
.l:Ixc5
24 lDe2
.Uxc1
25 l:txc1
.l::t b 8
Regarding this move, Simagin writes: 'It is possible that Black could still have held the position, if he had realised that he stood worse. For example, 25. . . e5 came into consideration, in order to answer 26 "i!id3 with 26 . . . e4. But he serenely tries to win a pawn, thinking that his position is very good. '
26 'ii'd 3
�b2
27 l:i.d1
'ii'x a3
28 'ii' h 7+
'it>f7
29 lDf4 Threatening 30 �g6+.
1 36
� 29 . . .
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame
i.f6
ii.g7 35 fxg5 'ii'a 4! ) 33 . . . ii.xg5 34 'ii' h 5+ 'itf6 35 'ii'e 8. 32 i.g6+
cJi;f6
After 32 . . . ltJxg6 33 'ii'x g6+ the e6-pawn is under attack - this is the idea of the g2-g4g5 advance. 33 ltJh5+
rJi;e5
34 'ii'x g7+
rJi;d6
35 'ii'f8 White has broken through , but after 35 . . . rJi;c7 !? the outcome would still have been u nclear (pointed out by Artu r Yusupov). However, the opponent was already in severe time-trouble. The situation resembles the previous game. It may seem that Wh ite's offensive has come to a standstil l , because he achieves noth ing with 30 i.g6+? ltJxg6 3 1 'ii'x g6+ cJi;e7. I n fact, as usual, the attack compensates for the sacrificed pawn, and there are even two different ways of strengthen ing it. 30 g4! It transpires that after 31 g5 either captu re of the pawn will weaken the defence. Also good was the manoeuvre 30 ii.d3!? followed by 3 1 ii.e2 a n d 3 2 ii.h5+. Even so , against accurate defence by the opponent White can hardly hope to win - there are too few attacking pieces left on the board . 30 . . . .:tb4 30 . . . 'i!Vd6! came into consideration, for ex ample: 3 1 h4! (renewing the threat of g4-g5) 3 1 ... i.xh4 32 ii.g6+ ltJxg6! (it is hopeless to play 32 . . . rJi;f6? 33 ltJh5+ rJi;g5 34 'ii'x g7 , or 32 . . .f8? 33 .l:!.c1 ! with the th reat of 34 .:tc7 ! ) 3 3 'ii'x g6+ cifilg8 34 ltJxe6 "fie? 35 l::t x d5 'iff7 , and Black maintains the balance. 31 g5! ii.xg5 It is also not easy to defend after other continuations: 31 . . . hxg5 32 'ii' h 5+ g6! 33 ii.xg6+ ltJxg6 34 'ii' h 7+ rJi;e8 35 ltJxg6 'ifa4 36 'iig 8+ rJi;d7 37 lDf8+, or 31 . . . .l:!xf4!? 32 exf4 hxg5 (32 . . .'iff3 33 l:.d3 'ii'g 4+ 34 l:.g3 ! ) 3 3 fxg5 (weaker is 33 'ii' h 5+ g6 3 4 'ii' h 7+
35 . . .
'i!i'a4
36 .:tc1
'ii' b 5?
The decisive mistake. 36 . . . l:!.c4 ! was essen tia l . 37 ii.e8 ! 38 I1c6+
'ii'd 3 rJi;e5
39 'ii'g 7+ Black resigned . It is curious that many years later a similar strategic situation occu rred in the 4th game of the second match for the world champion ship between Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov. Karpov-Kasparov Moscow 1 985
ttJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
Black could have equal ised by playing 20 . . . �xd4! 21 l:.xd4 l:tdc8 (with the threat of 22 . . . l:tc2 ) . For example: 22 .l:tfd 1 ? ! l:.c2 23 l:!.4d2 �f5 , or 22 .l:!.d2 'ii' b4 23 l:.fd 1 (23 'ikd 1 ? l:!.c1 ) 23 . . . 'ii'x d2! (23 . . . llc1 ! ? ) 24 .:Xd2 l:.c1 + , or, finally, 2 2 �d3!? .l:lc5 23 h3 ( 2 3 f4 �d7 ! ) 23 . . . 'ii'c7 followed b y . . . .l:!.c1 . 20 . . .
:deS?!
2 1 ltJxe6! I n the event of 21 . . . 'ikxe6 ! ? the d 5-pawn is rather weak, while 21 .. .fxe6 leads to the structure with which we a re already familiar. 21 . . .
fxe6
Kasparov probably did not know the Sim agin-Saigin game, and therefore he under estimated the threatened attack on his king along the light sq uares and exaggerated the role of his pressu re on the q ueenside. Objectively speaking, Black can still hope for a draw. I n the previous game a significant role in the offensive was played by the wh ite knight, but here there are no knights on the board and therefore it is easier to defend . I n the event o f the d i rect 2 2 'it'g6? 'ii'a 5 Wh ite loses a pawn, without creating any serious threats in retu rn . Karpov resorts to more refined strategy. 'What is required of White is systematic play, the essence of which can be described as follows: the consolidation of his position on the queenside, the switching of his queen to the kingside, the opening of the position by e3-e4, and only then the mounting of an attack on the light squares, making use of the now open e-file. In the game Karpov skilfully put all these ideas into practice, but, of course, not without substantial 'help ' on my part. ' (Kasparov)
24 'ii'd 3
'i!th8?!
It is evident that Kasparov does not properly understand the position. After a l l , sooner or later Wh ite will set u p the battery on the b 1 h7 diagon a l , a n d then the king will have to exit hastily from the corner. 25 l:lfd 1
a5
26 b3!
.l:.c3
27 'ii'e 2
lif8 ! ?
2 8 �h5! At last the bishop switches to its 'lawful' diagonal. 28 . . .
b5
29 .i.g6
il.d8
30 il.d3
b4
31 'ikg4
'ili'e8
32 e4!
il.g5
To me, this move seems not altogether logica l . It would appear that, by placing his rook on f8 and bishop on dB, in reply to the inevitable e�4 breakth rough Kasparov was preparing to play . . . il.b6, to develop counter-pressure on the f2-poi nt. But sud denly the bishop occupies a completely different diagonal! The grandmaster was probably tempted by a simple trap: 33 .l:te2?? l:.f4 . 33 .l:.c2
22 .ltg4! Weaker was 22 l:ifd 1 ? 'it'b4 , intending 2 3 . . . 'ii'x d2 . 22 . . .
l:tc4
23 h3
'it'c6
1 37
33 . . .
lbc2?
1 38
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Midd legame
A serious positional mistake . By exchanging his active rook, Black submissively con cedes the in itiative to the opponent. He should have exchanged not the rooks, but the queens. Since if 33 . . .'ilkf7 there is the reply 34 l:te2 ! , he should have chosen 33 . . . 'ii'c6 o r 33 . . . 'ii'c8 . For example: 3 3 . . . ii'c8 ! ? 34 exd5 exd5 (34 . . . l:.xc2? 35 1Ve4) 35 'ii'xc8 l:tfxc8 36 l:te2 l:Ic1 37 l:l.xc1 :Xc1 + 38 'itt h 2 .l:tc8 39 .tg6 .tf6 with an i nferior, but probably tenable ending . 34 �xc2
'ii'c 6
35 �e2
'ii'c 5
36 l:tf1
'ii'c 3
37 exd5
exd5
38 Si.b1 ! The triumph of Wh ite's strategy - the queen inevitably reaches the b 1 -h7 diagona l . I will give the rema ining part of the game with brief notes. 38 ... 'ii'd 2 39 'ii'e 5 .ll d B?! (39 . . . �f6!? 40 'ii'f5 'it>g8) 40 'ii'f5 'it>gB 41 'ii'e6+ 'it>h8 (4 1 . . . 'ittf8 42 .tg6 'i¥f4 43 .l:.e 1 ) 42 'ii'g 6 'it>g8 43 1!i'e6+ 'it>h8 44 Si.f5! (43 .:f.e 1 l:tf8 ! ) 44 .. .'ii'c 3 45 'iig 6 'it>gB 46 Si.e6+ 'it>h8 47 .tf5 'itt g 8 48 g3! 'it>f8 49 'it>g2 'ii'f6 50 'ii' h 7 'ii'f7 51 h4 ..td2 (otherwise 52 l:te1 ) 52 l:td1 .tc3 53 l:.d3 lld6 54 .l:.f3! (54 l:te3? g 5 ! ) 54 ... 'it>e7 (54 . . . .:tf6 55 .l:!.e3 l:txf5 56 'ii' h 8+ 'iig 8 57 lieS+) 55 'i¥h8 d4 56 'ii'c 8 l:tf6 57 'ii'c 5+ 'it>e8 58 :t4 'i!i'b7+ 59 l:te4+ 'it>f7 (59 . . . .l:!.e6! ? would not have helped in view of 60 'S'c4! lbe4 61 'ii'g 8+ 'it>e7 62 'iixg7+) 60 'ii'c4+ 'it>f8 61 .th7! l:tf7 62 'iie6 'S'd7 63 'ii' e 5 Black resig ned .
defending all their pawns and blocking a passed pawn of the opponent, he does not have to fear the penetration by the e nemy pieces on sq uares of the opposite colour. Of course, in the m idd legame this logic does not apply. The pawns should cover the squares which are not controlled by the
It is clear that, if Kasparov's kingside pawns had been standing on l ight squares (g6 and h7), he wouldn't have had any problems. I should also mention the typical regrouping of pawns on dark sq uares (g2-g3 and h3-h4) carried out by Karpov. And here is another usefu l observation . The
bishop.
flexibility of the pawn structure and the presence of a mobile pawn chain can deci sively influence the evaluation of a posi tion. A pawn storm gains significantly in strength if it is supported by an active bishop.
Botvi n n i k-Tal World Championship Retu rn Match , 3rd Game, Moscow 1 96 1
Arrangement of the pawns The stronger side should (as in the end game) arrange his pawns on squares of the colour of the opponent's bishop. But for the weaker side, the endgame recom mendation (to place the pawns on squares of the colour of his own bishop) is no longer suitable. There this was done in order to set up a fortress. If his bishop and king are
Is it worth captu ring the b7-pawn? We have already gained sufficient experience with opposite-colour bishops to decide immedi ately: not, it is not worth it. The captu re on b7 merely leads to a loss of time, wh ich the opponent will exploit to create counterplay. For example, he can choose 35 . . . d3!? 36
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M idd legame
�xd3 (36 'i!Ve3 is stronger) 36 . . . 'ii' b 5 37 .td5 c6, and Wh ite can save his piece only by playing 38 a4 ! . Of cou rse, he has no reason to go in for such compl ications. 35 .tc4! 'It only remains for White to place his bishop at d3, after which his pawns will begin adva n cing . The capture of the b 7-pawn would merely have diverted him from this plan. ' (Botvinnik). Concise and to the point! The bishop looks to be wel l placed on d5, but that is all. By playing it to d3 (from where it will be eyeing h7) and advancing f2-f4 , e4e5 and g4-g5 , Wh ite will cramp the enemy pieces and then switch to a direct attack on the king , exploiting the open h-file.
35 . . . 36 b5 37 f4
tZJ
1 39
Bad bishop
Here the concept of 'bad bishop' has a rather d ifferent meaning than usua l . Botvinn ik's bishop was good , because it was attacki ng the kingside, whereas Tal 's bishop was bad it was not creati ng any counter-th reats. Thus the main thing for a bishop is the pros pect of taking part in an attack, and often this factor decisively influences the eval uation of the position. A pawn obstructing the action of its own bishop can be a serious defect in a posi tion.
Spass ky-Simagin 28th USSR C h ampionsh i p , Moscow 1 96 1
c5 .tf6 d3
It was for the sake of this pawn sacrifice that Black's two preced ing moves were made. Mikhail Tal wants to exchange a pai r of rooks and establish his bishop on the secu re square d4. However, this does not ease his position . The bishop on d4 is fi ring into space, whereas the white bishop is th reaten ing the kingside. 38 .U.xd3 Less good was 38 .txd3 .U.d4 , when the black rook is active . One rook is all Botvi nnik needs for his attack. 38 . . .
.U.xd3
39 .txd3
.td4
40
g6
e5
41 .U.h1
'it>g7
42 'ii' e4
b6
43 .tc4 A check on b7 is th reatened ; if 43 . . . 'i!Vd7 the simplest is 44 'i!Vc6 �xc6 45 bxc6 �c8 46 e6. If instead 43 .. .'ii' e 7, then 44 g5 (with the idea of 45 'it'c6 and 46 'ikf6+ ! ) 44 . . . .U.c8 45 f5 gxf5 46 l:.xh7+ ! �xh7 47 "it'h4+ and 48 'ii' h 6 mate. Black resigned .
How should the position b e assessed? Simagin is playing Black, and when there are opposite-colour bishops we are already accustomed to the advantage always being on his side. Firstly, he has mobile pawns - all the time the opponent has to reckon with the th rusts . . . h5-h4 and . . . e5-e4. There is also a second, exceptionally important factor: Wh ite has an obstructi ng pawn on d 5 , on a sq uare of the colour of his own bishop. It would be better if it were not there at all! It is absolutely clear that the bishop on c6 has no prospects. But replace it at g2 - and it is also doing noth ing here. How can Black strengthen his position?
1 40
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame
36 . . . h4? 37 g4 is prematu re. Simagin finds an excellent plan: he switches his bishop to c7, setting up a battery which will th reaten the wh ite king . Then the pawn breakth roughs will become more dangerous. 36 . . .
j_d8 !
37 bxc5 White cannot get by without this exchange: from c7 the bishop will be defending the e5point, and the b4-pawn will be attacked . 37 . . .
bxc5
38 �b1 ?!
j_c7
39 j_a4 Boris Spassky tries to include his bishop in the defence. Now, when the bishop is still on its way to the kingside and the black pieces have already taken up ideal attacking posi tions, it is the right time to break through the opponent's defences. 39 . . .
e4!
40 dxe4
fxe4
41 .Uxf7+
.l:txf7
attack the weak a 3- and c4-pawns. And if the wh ite rook goes to their defence, the exchange sacrifice on f3 then becomes possible. 47 .l:tb1
'it>h6
Already now it was possible to give up the exchange: 47 . . Jbf3! 48 'i!Vxf3 (48 'it>xf3 'i!Vf5+ and 49 . . . 'i!Vxb 1 ; 48 .l:tb7+ l:l.f7) 48 e2 49 .l:!.b 7 + 'it>h6 50 'ii'f8+ �g5 5 1 h4+ '.tg4 52 'i!Vf3+ 'it>xh4 53 .Uh7+ 'it>g5 and wins. Howev er, this possibility will never ru n away from Black. . . .
48 .i::f. b 3
j_d2
49 .l::t b 6
42 j_d1 42 iVxe4 'i!Vxg3 43 iVg2 'i!Ve3! is also hopeless for White - Black effectively has an extra piece, since the enemy bishop is taking no part in the play. For example: 44 .Ug 1 �h8 45 .Uf1 (defending against 45 .. J::tf2) 45 . . . .Uxf1 + 46 'i!Vxf1 'it>g7 4 7 j_d7 'i!Vd2 ! 48 'ii'g 1 'it'e2 , and Wh ite is completely helpless (variation by Simagin). 42 . . .
e3
Th reatening 43 . . . .l:tf2 . 43 �f3
h4!
Black has a decisive attack. 44 g4 or 44 gxh4 is not possible because of 44 . . . .l:txf3 . 44 l:!.f1
hxg3
45 'i!Ve2
'i!Ve5
46 'lt>g2
j_a5
Spassky has somehow managed to set up a barricade, but his position remains lost. After playing his bishop to d2, Black will then
49 . . .
.Uxf3 !
50 .Ue6 50 'it>xf3 'i!Vh5+; 50 'i!Vxf3 e2. 50 . . .
'i!Vxe6
51 dxe6
.Uf2+
52 'it>xg3 52 'i!Vxf2 gxf2 53 e7 e2 or 53 \t>f1 'it>g7. 52 . . .
l:l.xe2
53 e7
.l::f. g 2+!
54 '.txg2
e2
55 e8'i!V
e 1 'i!V
5 6 'i!Vf8+
'lt>h5
57 'i!Vxc5+
j_g5
Wh ite resigned .
ltJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
Glushniov-Sakharov U S S R 1 96 1
141
in danger of losing his weak c5-pawn , but he is hoping to develop a n attack on the opponent's king . White has a weak pawn on e5, obstructing his own bishop, knight (after 24 lt:lf3) and rook. 'We already know that an obstructing move on a square of the colour of a bishop creates nothing but problems. ' (Simag i n ) 24 lt:lf3
'ilkg4
25 b3
Here it i s more d ifficult to evaluate the position. (Simag i n was not playing either White , or Black, so we are forced to proceed from other considerations). The black bishop has more of a futu re. I n the event of a pawn exchange in the centre it will be able to press either on c2 , or on g2. There is also a resou rce such as . . . h7-h5-h4 . Of course, on no account should f4-f5 be allowed - then the opponent's bishop will be activated . But in principle it is hardly correct to try and evaluate such a dynamic position on general considerations alone - one must look specif ically to see what may result from it. Now 22 exf5 is th reatened , and if 21 . . . 'i!i'f7 there follows 22 lt:lf3 , forcing the reply 22 . . h6. .
I n the game a highly non-routine move was made.
21 .
.
.
'i!i'f6!
In the event of the q ueen exchange on f6 Black acquires a nu mber of useful moves which strengthen his position : . . . 'it>f7, . . . .ll b 8, Jig S , and . . . h7-h5-h4 . ..
22 e5 23 fxe5
dxe5 'ii'g 5
The situation has become sharper. Black is
Wh ite rejected 25 'ili'xc5 because of 25 .. .f4 26 ..tf2 ..id5, but he was wrong to do so. As g randmaster Sergey Shipov rightly pointed out, after 27 'ii'c3 he would not have stood worse - the opponent has no immediate threats, and the e-pawn is now ready to advance. For example, 27 . . . lt:lf8 28 e6! lt:lxe6 29 .l:.e5, or 27 . . . .i:te8 28 h3! 'i!i'f5 (28 . . . 'ii' h 5 29 e6) 29 lt:ld4 ! ? 'ilkg5 30 lt:lf3 . 25 . . .
h5
25 .. .f4 26 ..tf2 ..id5? does not work, because the knight on f3 is defended and White has 27 e6. The bishop must blockade the pawn for the present, and move to d5 only at the appropriate moment. 26 lt:lh4?! By tactical means Wh ite manages to ex change a couple of pieces, but this does not bring any rel ief, since the black rook breaks through to d2, strengthening the attack on the king . Here too 26 'ii'x c5 was correct, since 26 . . . h4? can be met by 27 lt:lxh4! lt:lxh4 28 .i:tf4 . 26 . . .
lt:lxh4
27 l:tf4
'i!i'g5
28 .i:txh4
.i:td2 !
Th reatening 29 . . . ..id5. 29 l:tf4
.l::t a d8
30 'ili'xc5 Now this pawn-g rabbing involves a loss of time. 30 h4 was safer. 30 . . .
h4!
3 1 lhh4
.l:r.d1 !
1 42
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
31 . . . i.d5 suggests itself, but after 32 e6! the wh ite pieces come al ive. Therefore the bishop remains on its blockading square to the end of the game. Thus the threat of . . . i.d5 remained (according to the i ronic defi n ition of Bobby Fischer) 'an eventual possibility' .
Attack on the long diagonal
We will begi n with a rather simple example. Perl is-Marshall Vien na 1 908
3 2 �b4? Wh ite parries the threat of 32 . . J:txe 1 + 33 i.xe 1 �d 1 in the most unfortunate way. Meanwhile, in the event of 32 �c3 or 32 �f1 the outcome would have remai ned u nclear. 32 . . . 33 i.f2
iVe3+
�8d2 ! ! I n this hopeless position (the black king hides from the check q ueens at g6) Wh ite lost on time. We have probably analysed all the most general principles of playing midd legame positions with opposite-colour bishops. After assimilating these ideas and getting a feel for the spirit of such positions, you will certainly be able to find you r way more confidently i n them a n d successfu lly solve specific prob lems facing you . In order to assimilate the topic better it makes sense to analyse a few more practical examples, to check whether the laws already studied apply, and to seek new ones. It is advisable also to pick out and examine the patterns which occu r most often with the given material. The chief of these are: 1 ) attack on the g7- (g2) point, as in the last example, or attack on the long diagonal in the absence of the g7- (g2) pawn , as in Simagin-Chistyakov, the fi rst game exam ined by us; 2) attack on the f7- (f2 ) point; 3) King's I ndian structure.
Both players are pressing on the long diagonals, but, of cou rse, Wh ite has a great advantage: his rook is active, and his pawns on the c-file can be used to divert the enemy pieces. 37 c4! As usual when there are opposite-colour bishops, pawns do not cou nt. It is important, if only for a moment, to free the q ueen from the defence of the g2-point. 37 . . .
�xc4
If 37 . . . i.xc4 , then 38 �d8 is immediately decisive. 38 �f6
iVa2
39 i.b2! Again th reatening 40 �d8 followed by 4 1 iVh8+ ! , a s well a s 4 0 c6 . Black can resist, only by pestering the opponent with counter threats . The i n itiative, first and foremost neither side can delay! 39 . . . �c4 40 iVe5
i.e6
41 �d8! 42 ifc7+
f6
tLJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
42 'i!fxf6 is also good . After 42 . . .'ii' xf4+ note the typical king manoeuvre, with which it diverts the enemy q ueen from the necessary trajectory and avoids perpetual check: 43 'it>g 1 ! 'ii'e 3+ 44 �h 1 ! 'i!fe 1 + 45 'it>h2.
42 . . .
l:Ig7
After 42 . . . .i.f7 White wins most q u ickly by an already familiar manoeuvre: 43 l1xg8 'it>xg8 44 'ifd8+ 'it>h7 45 'ii'xf6 'ilfxf4+ 46 'it>g 1 'ii'e 3+ 47 'it>h 1 'ilfe 1 + 48 'it>h2 'it>h6 49 h4. 43 .i.xf6 !
33 l:.e3 ! T h e rook must b e i ncluded i n the attack o n the g7-point. This can not b e done on the g file (33 l:tg3 l:.g6), and so Tigran Petrosian plans an i nvasion on the e-file (.i.d4, 'i!Ve2 and l:.e7). 33 . . .
.Ug6?
Now the black bishop is completely shut out of the game. The pawn sacrifice 33 . . . d4! suggests itself, for example: 34 .i.xd4 l:tg6 35 f3 .i.d5. 34 .i.d4!
Black resig ned .
1 43
�h7
35 �c2 Petrosian-Pol ugayevsky 4th Match Game, Moscow 1 970
In the event of 35 'i!Ve2 Black still has the defence 35 . . . �c7 ! , so therefore Petrosian threatens to seize the c-file with 36 I:tc3 . If 35 . . . l:.c6 , then 36 ike2 ike? 37 l:!.e5 l:tc2 38 'i!Ve3 is now decisive . 35 . . . l:!.e6 36 l:!.xe6 'ii'x e6 37 ike? is also bad for Black. 35 . . .
'ii'd 7
36 �h2! There is no reason to hu rry - the opponent simply has noth ing he can move. Besides, now the threat of 37 1i'e2 gains in strength , since if 37 . . ."ilc7 there follows 38 l:te5 , and there is no check on c1 . 36 . . .
.i.c8?!
37 .:tel ! 29 .i.e5! The ex-world champion readily al lows the opponent to exchange one of his bishops, since there will be no way of cou nteri ng the pressure on the g7-point. 29 . . .
l':tc8
30 'ii' b 2
ltJxd3
With the opposite-colour bishops Black has almost no chance of saving the game. But things would hardly have been any better for him after 30 . . . ltJe6 (in the hope at some point of playing . . . d5-d4) 31 'i!i'b 1 ! .
The rook fi nally breaks through onto the 7th ran k (the opponent cannot reply 37 . . . .l::t c6). A triumph of flexible manoeuvring, typical of Petrosian's play! 37 . . .
.i.a6
38 .l::tc 7
'ili'e6
39 g4! It would hardly have been possible even to contemplate this move, if Black had got rid of his d-pawn at the right time. 39 . . .
.i.f1
40 1i'xf5
11i'xf5
3 1 l:txd3
l::t c 6
41 gxf5
llg2+
32 h3
h6
42 'iit h 1
1 44
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
Black resig ned , because there is no defence against the th reats of 43 f6 and 43 l1c1 . I now wa nt to show you two of my games, played with one and the same opening variation. And although the positions arising were nearly identica l , the character of the play in them was diametrically opposite. Everything depended on which of the players was able to seize the in itiative.
better. He has been able to provoke a2-a3, and now the wh ite rook has to defend the a pawn . The knight has occupied the strong e4-poi nt and will soon be supported by . . . f7f5 . The exchange on e4 is u nfavourable for Wh ite , whereas after tLlf3-e5 he has to reckon seriously with the exchange on e5, since then Black can occu py the c5-square with his knight. Which is what happened in the game. 1 2 lLle5?
i.. x e5!
Vi kulov-Dvoretsky
1 3 dxe5
lLlxd2
Moscow Championship Semi-Final 1 97 1
14 'ilfxd2
lLlc5
Queen 's Indian Defence
1 d4
lLJf6
2 lLlf3
e6
3 c4
b6
4 e3
�b7
5 �d3
i.. b4+
The idea of this check is to lure the knight to d2, so that it should not occupy the best square c3. Theory recommends 5 . . . d5 or 5 . . . c5. 6 lLlbd2
0-0
7 0-0
d5
8 a3
..id6?!
1 5 �c2
dxc4
1 6 bxc4
.l:tfd8
1 7 �d4? ! I n the event of 1 7 'ii'e 2 ..ie4 the kn ight is stronger than the passive bishop on b2. But now Black reaches a favourable position with opposite-colour bishops . 17 . . .
lLle4!
1 8 �xe4
�xe4
19 f3
�b7
1 9 . . . �g6! ? followed by 20 . . . c5 also came into consideration . 20 'ilfc2
8 . . . �e7 is preferable. Where does this tell? Firstly, after 9 'ilkc2 ! ? lLlbd7 9 e4 dxe4 1 0 lLlxe4 the bishop would be better placed at e7 rather than d6. Secondly, after 9 b4 ! ? c5 1 0 cxd5 it is desirable to capture on d5 with the queen. 9 'ii'e 2? But now my open ing set-up proves com pletely justified . 9 . . .
lLle4!
1 0 b3 1 0 b4!? c5. 10 . . .
lLld7
1 1 �b2
'ilie7
Black can be pleased with the outcome of the opening - he already stands slig htly
Black effectively has an extra pawn on the q ueenside, but the d ifference in the placing of the bishops is even more important. My
ltJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Midd legame
bishop is pressing on the kingside, and it can also attack the c4-pawn , whereas the wh ite bishop is obstructed by its own pawn on e5 and has no prospects at a l l . In the first instance Black must prevent c4c5 and gain control of the only open file. 20 . . .
c5
21 .ltc3 22 a4
lid7
1 45
26 . . . Ii8d 7 ! . I delayed and played someth ing slightly weaker, but this did not change the character of the play. 26 . . .
j_a8 ? !
27 h3
h5
28 'ii'c 2
My opponent wants to get rid of his vulnera ble rook's pawn and g ive me a weakness on b6. But we know that, when there are opposite-colour bishops, play on the q ueen side is less effective than activity on the opposite side of the board , which Black will soon develop. I would have preferred 22 l:tfd1 , although after 22 . . . .U.ad8 23 .U.xd7 'ixd7 Black has a n obvious advantage.
22 . . .
.l:tad8
23 a5
'ii'g 5!
24 .l::!.a e1 24 f4 ? would have lost i mmed iately to 24 . . . .l:!.d2 ! .
24 . . .
�d3
I make on that I am attacking the pawn . But, of course, this is not so: it is not possible to capture on e3 in view of f3-f4 or the pin on the c1 -h6 diagonal .
2 5 axb6
axb6
If 26 j_d4 I was intending 26 . . . 1:.8xd4! 27 exd4 .l:.d2 . Of course, I overlooked the unexpected i ntermed iate move 27 h4 ! , win ning the exchange, but i n overwhelming positions such oversights are not too danger ous. After 27 . . . 'ii'x h4 28 exd4 'ii'x d4+ 29 l::.f2 ic6 ! ? (more accu rate than 29 . . . h6 30 'iWa4) White's position is unenviable. 26 'ii' b 2 Now Black would have liked to include his h pawn in the attack, but after 26 . . . h5?! 27 'fxb6 .l:!.xc3 28 'ii'x b7 l:tc2 (or 28 . . .'i!i'xe5 ) the opponent has the good defence 29 f4! . The most accu rate move was the prophylactic
Black's pressu re on t h e kingside has ena bled him to tie down the opponent, but for the moment there is no direct way to wi n . To his aid comes the principle of two weaknesses. He must stretch the opponent's defences by creating d iversionary th reats on the opposite side of the board . The new target is the c4pawn . 28 . . .
j_b7
29 .l:.e2
�8d7
30 �h1 30 'ii' b 2 j_a6. 30 . . .
j_a6
3 1 'ii'a 4 If 31 j_b2 Black can finally capture the e3pawn , which has been en prise for a long time. 31 . . .
l:.xc3
32 'ifxa6 32 'ii'x d7 j_xc4 was no better for Wh ite . 32 . . .
'ii'd 8!
The q ueen defends the b6-pawn and takes up the 'approved' position beh ind the rook on
1 46
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame
the open file. Black's position is won . If 33 'ith2 I was intend ing 33 . . . h4 followed by 34 . . . l:!.d 1 (or 34 . . . .l:.d2). 33 "ii'a 1 ? !
llxc4
3 4 l:ta2
'ili'g5
35 .l:!.a8+
'ith7
36 'ili'b1 +
'iig 6
37 g4 37 'ili'xb6 l:ic2 38 l1g 1 lld 1 . hxg4
37 . . . 38 hxg4?!
Of course, there were also no saving chances after 38 'ii'x g6+. 38 . . .
l:.c2
39 �g1
lld2
Wh ite resig ned . N isman-Dvoretsky Moscow 1 972 Queen 's Indian Defence
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e6 3 lbf3 b6 4 e3 Ji.b7 5 Ji.d3 ii.. b4+ 6 lbbd2 0-0 7 0-0 d5 8 a3 Ji.d6?1 9 'i!Ve2? ltJe4! 1 0 b3 lDd7 1 1 Ji.b2 'ili'e7
Of cou rse, 12 .. .f5 suggests itself. H owever I was not sure that the advance of the f-pawn was appropriate in the positions arising after 1 3 b4 c5 or 1 3 cxd5 exd5 1 4 Ji.a6. ,
On the basis of this, it was logical to play 1 2 . . . a5! , preventing both of these possibili ties for the opponent. But I made a less accu rate move, wh ich neutralises only the second of them. What operated , apparently, were associations with the previous g a me - I remembered that there my rooks had operat ed q u ite well on the d-file, and I hurried to occupy it. 1 3 Ji.c2
1 4 lDe5
12 .l:lfd 1
l:tad8?!
Ji.xe5?
Another move made by analogy. But where as i n the game against Alexander Vikulov the exchanges led to an advantage for Black, here the result is the opposite. 15 dxe5
ltJxd2
1 6 .:txd2
dxc4
1 7 bxc4 1 7 'ifxc4? ttJxe5! . 17 . . .
The same open ing moves have been made as in the previous game. But this time my opponent was not in a hurry to play his knight to e5.
a5
Again Black defers . . . f7-f5 because of 14 b4.
lDc5
assu med that my opponent would be unable to avoid exchanges on the e4-square or the d-file, which a re advantageous to me.
ctJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame
But I simply overlooked the following strong move by Wh ite . 1 8 .l:i.d4! The rook takes control of the e4-sq uare, at the same time creati ng the threat of 1 9 �xh7+! 'it>xh7 20 'ifh5+ 'iit g 8 2 1 l:th4 . B ut the main th ing is that now the exchange of rooks becomes practically impossible for Black, since Wh ite will recaptu re on d4 with his pawn, obtaining a mobile pawn chain in the centre , and then will soon advance d4-d 5 . Instead o f the plausible 1 7 . . . t"Llc5 i t made sense for Black to play 1 7 . . . t"Llb8, with the idea of attacking the rook on d4 with the knight. However, as Vad i m Zviagintsev point ed out, after 1 8 Ild4! g6 ( 1 9 ii.xh7+! was threatened ) 1 9 .l:!.g4 ! lid? 20 h4 lifd8 2 1 ii.c3 his position would have remained anxious. For example: 21 . . . t"Llc6 22 h5 t"Llxe5!? 23 �xe5 (less accu rate is 23 hxg6 t"Llxg6!? 24 J::l.g3 'ifh4) 23 . . . .l::r.d 2 24 hxg6! hxg6 25 .l:!.xg6+! fxg6 26 'i!Vg4 1::!. xc2 (26 . . .�f7 27 �f1 �c2 28 t'h4) 27 'it'xg6+ 'it>f8 28 'ifxc2 with advan tage to White . 18 . . .
g6
19 'i!Vg4 1 9 a4 !?.
19 . . .
a4!
The only counter-chance! By placing his kn ight on b3 Black will most probably provoke the advantageous exchange of the dangerous bishop on c2 . The far-advanced pawn on b3 will promise tactical cou nter chances, or for a certain time will at least divert the opponent from his attack. 20 liad 1
t"Llb3
21 ii.xb3
axb3
22 h4 As is customary with opposite-colour bish ops, White attacks on the kingside. It is important to note that his rook can not be driven from the d4-square by . . . c7-c5 - it will occupy an even more powerful position at d6. Exchanging it there will be altogether
1 47
impossible - then the terrible d iagonal for the b2-bishop is opened . I n cidentally, precisely such a structu re occu rred in the highly i nter esting game Taimanov-Averbakh , which I insistently recommend that you look at - you will find it in David Bronstein's famous book, devoted to the 1 953 Candidates Tournament. 22 . . .
h5
23 'ii'f4
What do you think, whose bishop is better? It may seem that the comparison is in favour of Black - after a l l , his bishop is pressing on g2, whereas its opposite nu mber is obstructed by the pawn on e5. But let us look a l ittle more deeply. Not one of my pieces is supporting the bishop, so that its activity is purely superficial. Whereas the opponent has chances of penetrati ng on the weakened dark squares on the kingside (after the opening of the long diagonal, or on the c1 -h6 diagonal ) , and then my king will be in trouble. Black cannot passively mark time - the opponent will play 111 d 3 , capture the b3pawn , and then prepare either e3-e4 , or g2g4. He must try to seize the in itiative , but how? He had to decide on a very risky operation. 23 . . .
l:l.xd4! ?
24 exd4
b5!
24 . . . .l:!.d8 25 1::!. d 3 .
1 48
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
25 d5! Boris N isman correctly senses the spirit of the position and , not paying any attention to pawns, endeavours to open the diagonal for his bishop. The miserable 25 cxb5?! would have allowed me to activate my forces by 25 . . . �d7 26 a4 .:ta8 27 .:ta 1 'ifd5 28 f3 c6! ? (but not 2 8 . . ."ii' c4? 29 .:tc1 ) 29 b6 'iic4 . 'ili'c5!
25 . . .
Activity first and foremost! I n the event of 25 . . . bxc4? 26 d6 things are bad for Black, since the exchange on d6 is suicidal, and after 26 ... 'i!i'd7 27 'ii'xc4 �d5 28 'ii'f4! he has no counterplay. 26 'iff6!? Wh ite is intending to switch his bishop to h6. For the sake of this he is ready to part with his pawns and even his rook. A clever idea , but, as we will see, Black has a defence. However, all the same I do not see a direct way for the opponent to win . In the event of 26 dxe6 fxe6 27 "ii'g 3 Black has a choice between 27 . . . �e4 and 27 . . . �g7 28 l:.d7+ .l:i.f7 . If instead 26 d6, then 26 . . . 'i!i'xc4 . In the endgame it is now White who would have to find a way to save himself: 27 'ifxc4? bxc4 28 d7 lld8 followed by 29 . . . �d5, or 28 dxc7 �d5 and 29 . . . .l:!.c8 . If 27 .l:td4! Black can reply 27 . . . 'ii'c6!? (not 27 .. ."W/c2? in view of 28 d7! i.d5 29 l:!.xd5 exd5 30 e6, but 27 . . . 'ii'e 2 comes into consideration ) 28 'ifg5 'i¥d7 and 29 . . . c5. Here Black's position is uneasy, but nevertheless his queenside pawns guaran tee him counter-chances. 26 . . .
'i!i'xc4
27 �c1 !
'it>h7
Of course, not 27 . . . 'ii'c2? 28 i.h6! 'ifxd 1 + 29 �h2 with unavoidable mate. 'i¥e2
28 'ife7 29 l:[f1
How should Black defend? 29 . . . �g7? 30 i.h6+ and 29 . . . �g8? 30 i.h6 .:ta8 31 'i'f6 are completely bad . Only two possibilities remai n : 29 . . Jig8 and 29 . . . b2 30 i.xb2 (30 �xf8 'ii'xf1 +) 30 . . . �g8 . It is easy to make the only possible moves, but far more d ifficult when there is a choice. The price of a mistake in such a sharp situation is extremely h i g h , and therefore a very carefu l calculation is demanded . Alas, I failed to display this. When checking the variation 29 . . . b2 30 i.xb2 g8 36 �d8+ llf8 37 e7) 35 . 'it>h6 36 e7 ll.g4 37 'ii'x g4 ! . In fact Black can save himself, by playing 32 . . . �g7! (instead of 32 . . . .:txf7?). There is an even simpler draw by 3 1 . . . ..txg2! (instead of 3 1 . . ."�xb2 ). . .
29 . . .
l:.g8?
30 ..tg5!
b2
3 1 i.f6
'i!i'xf1 +
32 �h2 (see diagram)
Black is a rook up, and his pawn is on the threshold of q ueening. And yet there is no satisfactory defence against the mating threats, created by j ust two enemy pieces.
ltJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
There you have it - the formidable strength of an attack with opposite-colour bishops. 32 . . .
'i!kc1
32 J:1g7 33 WfB .
1 49
T h e f7 (f2) point
Boleslavsky-Sterner Sweden-U S S R Match 1 954
. .
33 'ii'x f7+
'it>h6
34 �g5+? A vexing, over-hasty move just a step away from victory. 34 Wxg8? 'ii'f4+ would have led to a draw, but the modest move 34 g 3 ! ! , with the idea of 35 �g5+ Wxg5 36 hxg5+ 'it>xg5 37 �f4 mate, would have forced i m mediate capitulation .
34 . . .
'ii'x g5
35 hxg5+
'it>xg5
36 'ili'f6+ There is no longer a win : 36 g 3 'it>h6 ! , 36 c;.t>g3 h4+ ! (but not 36 . . . 'it>h6? 37 'ii'x g8 b 1 'ii' 38 'i'h8+ 'it>g5 39 f4+ 'it>f5 40 'iff6+ and 4 1 'i'xg6+ ), or 3 6 f4+ 'it>g4! 37 Wf6 g 5 ! . 36 . . .
'it>h6
37 'ii'f4+
'it>h7
38 'ii' b4
�xd5
39 'ii'x b5
c5
40 'ii'x b2
c4
41 'it>g3 White adjourned the game, after sealing this last move. On the invitation of his opponent a draw was ag reed without the game being resumed .
At first sight it may seem that a draw is i nevitable. Material is equal, and all the wh ite pawns are on one wing . Practically any endgame will be d rawn , for example the one with 'pure' opposite-colour bishops where Black has lost his c5- and f7-pawns. I n fact Wh ite has a g reat a n d , most probably, decisive advantage. Exploiting the powerful position of his bishop and the vulnerabil ity of the f7-poi nt, he condemns his opponent to passive defence. And with opposite-colour bishops we already know that the unchal lenged possession of the in itiative is usually a very important factor. First the pressu re on the f7 -pawn must be intensified , in order to tie the enemy pieces to its defence. 38 l:td1
�c7
38 . . . l:lf8 was weaker i n view of 39 .l:td7 �c7 40 g3. Now the rook cannot leave the back ran k because of the check on b 1 . 39 'ii'd 7
llf8
40 e5! A typical move. Remember: with opposite colour bishops the pawns should be placed on squares of the colour of the opponent's bishop. The bishop on c7 is now restricted by
1 50
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M idd legame
the e5-pawn , which at a conven ient opportu nity may also be able to advance further, to open up the black king's position. 40 . . .
'it'b6
A waste of a tempo. The bishop is doing nothing on c7 - its place is at d4, and Black should immed iately have begu n manoeu vri ng it there: 40 . . . 'iib 8 4 1 f4 .ta5. 41 f4
'ii' b 8
attacks the g7-poi nt: 4 6 We7 l:tb8 (46 . .'i'b8 47 h6 i.. c3 48 .l:.d7 i.. d 4+ 49 l1xd4) 47 h6 'iWc3 48 .l:id7 .l:!.b 1 + (48 . . . 1Wc 1 + 49 iJ1 ) 49 'it>h2 11h 1 + 50 'it>xh 1 Wc1 + 5 1 'it>h2 'iixf4+ 52 'it>g 1 'iic 1 + 53 .tf1 . It is better to give up the exchange: 44 . . .'ii'xc4 45 e7 'ii'e 6 46 exf8'1+ 'it>xf8 , in the hope after 47 'ii'xe6 fxe6 of putting up a stiff resistance in the endgame. B ut it is not essential to excha nge queens stronger is 47 it'a?! i.. b 6 (47 . . . 'ili'b6 48 'i'a8+ 'itt e 7 49 l:t a 1 ! ) 48 'ili'b8+ 'it>e7 49 l:r.b1 i.d8 50 'fia7+ and 5 1 'ifxc5. .
44 l:.d61 The bishop was wanting to go to d4, blocking the d-file, and so the rook h u rriedly advances to an active position . The threat is 45 h6. If 44 . . . h6, then 45 'iif5 , intending 46 .Uxh6, 46 l:td7 or 46 i.. d 3. 44 . . .
'ii b 1 +
45 'it>h2
h6
46 'ifxf7+!
l:txf7
47 J:td8+
'it>h7
48 i.. x f7 42 h4!
Black resigned .
A typical attacking resou rce in such situa tions! The pawn wants to advance to h6, breaking up the enemy king's defences. If it is met by ... h7-h6, the b 1 -h7 diagonal is weakened and White's bishop and q ueen can switch to it. The pawn on h 5 will also come in useful if the opponent plays . . . g7g6.
King's I n d i a n structu re
Levenfish-Kan Moscow 1 927
I ncidentally, in reply to 42 . . . g6 Isaak Bole slavsky suggests the spectacular break through 43 e6 fxe6 44 f5. But after 44 . . . gxf5 45 .txe6+ 'it>h8 46 i..xf5 Black has a defence: 46 . . . i.. h 2+! 47 'it>h 1 'fie? . Therefore Wh ite should prefer the simple 43 h5! or 43 e6 fxe6 44 h 5 ! . 42 . . .
.ta5
43 h5
i.. c 3
43 . . .'ii' b4 should also be considered , after which Boleslavsky was i ntending 44 e6 ! . I n the event of 44 .. .f6 45 'ifxe6+ 'it>h8 White
This a characteristic position from the King's
l2J
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
1 s1
Indian Defence (with reversed colours). The typical pawn sacrifice made by Grigory Levenfish should be i n the arsenal of every King's I ndian player. 22 fS!
gxfS
The challenge has to be accepted : weaker is 22 . . . i.f7 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 i.h6 followed by 25 i.h3. 23 i.h6
lbg7
24 exfS
lbexfS
25 lL'lxf5
i.. xfS
26 lL'lf3 By placing his knight on h4, Wh ite i ntends to seize control of the e4- and f5-sq uares. What can be done to oppose this? Probably 26 . . . i.g6 27 lLlh4 f5 should have been tried , although after 28 'ilkd2 with the idea of 29 tt:lxg6 hxg6 30 'ilkg5 Wh ite would have retained the i nitiative . 26 . . .
i.e6
27 .l:tf2
J:Lf7
28 lbh4
bS
White would have had the advantage after 28 .. .f5 29 lbf3 e4 30 dxe4 fxe4 31 'it'xe4 i.f5 32 'ifh4 (32 'i!Vd5 ! ? ) 32 . . . i.g6 33 lbe5 . 29 ILef1
i.e 7
But now 29 . . .f5! was simply essential. l lya Kan decided to keep his pawn on f6 , restricting h imself on the kingside to passive defence. Hopeless strategy! 30 i.. x g7
'iit x g7
31 lLlf5+
'iit h 8
32 i.e4
i.xfS
33 .l:txfS
- position after 33 .l:lxf5 -
advancing his g-pawn , whereas Black has no cou nterplay. 33 . . .
ILg7
34 'i¥d2 The q ueen goes to h6, to take part i n the attack. 34 . . .
bxc4
35 bxc4
�b6
Of cou rse , it would be crazy to go chasing the a3-pawn : 35 . . . It.b3 36 'ifh6 .U.xa3 37 .U.h5. 36 'it'h6
i.. d 8
37 a4 With the opponent completely deprived of cou nter-cha nces, Wh ite can even permit h imself this rather abstract move. 37 l:txe5? fxe5 38 l1f8+ l:tg8 39 lixg8+ 'it>xg8 40 i.d5+ did not work i n view of 40 . . . 'i!Vxd5+ 41 cxd5 l:txh6. 37 . . .
aS
38 i.dS (see diagram)
Th reatening 39 .l:i.xe5. 38 . . .
Levenfish has carried out his plan a n d , despite being a pawn down , he has gained an overwhelming advantage. To real ise th is, it is sufficient to compare the positions of the two bishops. Wh ite can attack the h 7 -point or undermine the opponent's pawn chain by
'it'e7
Now the thematic adva nce 39 g4! strongly suggests itself. 39 . . . �xg4 40 .U.xe5! is bad for Black. Apparently Levenfish did not find a nyth ing convincing after 39 . . . .Ug6 40 i*'h5 (40 'ilr'h3! is stronger, and if 40 . . . i*'g7 41 .U.h5) 40 . . . 'it'g7 41 g5 i.e?. He decided not to
1 52
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame
hu rry, but to keep manoeuvring and await a more convenient moment for the break throug h . 3 9 'ii' h 5
.l:tg6
40 .l:.5f2
ifd7
41 i.. e4
.l::t g 5
42 'ii' h 6
'ii'g 7
43 'iVh3
'ii'c 7
44 'ii h 6
'ili'g7
45 'iVh3
'ili'c7
46 .l::tf5 !
l:lxf5
If 46 . . . .l::t g 7 there would probably now have followed 4 7 g4 with the threat of 48 g5 l:txg5 49 l1xg5 fxg5 50 .l::tf8+ cJitg7 51 l:te8 .l:lh6 52 'iif5 'ii'd 6 (or 52 . . . i..f6) 53 i.. d 5. 4 7 l:txf5 48 g4
.l::t d 6 I:f.d7
defends them from b4 , Wh ite advances his pawn to h6, putting the opponent in zug zwang. This conclusion is not altogether accu rate in fact Black saves h i mself by sacrificing two pawns and changing the roles of his pieces: 54 .. .f5! 55 i.. xf5 e4! 56 .txe4 i.. f6 57 'it>g2 cJitg7 58 �f3 �f7 59 i..f5 �e7 60 �e4 'it>d6 with a d raw. But, of cou rse, Wh ite can easily gain the tempo that he lacks i n this variation by 52 'ii'x d7 .l::t x d7 53 i..f5! .l::t g 7 54 .l::tx h 7+ (or first 54 �g2). 50 lixe5?? I n his book of selected games and reminis cences, Levenfish lamented a serious defi ciency in his play. After outplaying his opponent and gaining a decisive advantage, he would often make a serious error and ruin the fru its of his preced ing work. This was also the case here. It is hard even to explain why Wh ite felt the need to exchange rooks. Surely not for the sake of winning the e pawn? But when there are opposite-colour bishops, pawns are of no sign ificance - you should be thinking only of attack! After 50 .l::tf8+ ! cJitg7 51 .l::te 8 Black would have had to resig n , whereas the move in the game leads only to a draw. 50 . . . 'ii'x e5 51 'iix d7 'ii'e 7 52 'ii'f5 i.. c7 53 �g2 i.. d 8 54 �f3 i.. c 7 55 h3 i.. d 8 56 'it>g4 �g8 57 i.. d 5+ �g7 58 i.. e 4 �g8 59 i.d5+ �h8 60 �f3?! 'ii'e 3+ 61 �g4 'ii'e 2+ 62 'i'f3 'ii'e 7 63 'ii'e4 h5+?! 64 �xh5 Vxe4 Draw.
49 g5!
fxg5
Kan reckons that he could have held the position by 49 . . . .l::tf7 50 g6 .l::t g 7. Romanovsky retorted that the ending arising after 51 l1h5 'ti'd7 52 l:.xh7+ l:txh7 53 'ii'x h7+ 'ii'x h7 54 gxh7 was hopeless for Black. The wh ite king invades the enemy position via e4 and goes across to the queen side pawns. If the bishop
We have mainly been studying the strategy of play with opposite-colour bishops, but for dessert I invite you to solve a few combina tive exercises. Most of them (although not a l l ) are elementary, but nevertheless useful, since they demonstrate tactical ideas typical of positions with opposite-colour bishops.
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
Exercises
1 . Wh ite to move
2. Wh ite to move
3. Wh ite to move
4. White to move
ltJ
1 53
1 54
�
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the Middlegame
5. Wh ite to move
6. Black to move
7. Wh ite to move
8. Black to move
lZJ
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
1 55
Sol utions 1 . A. Petrosian-Moldagaliev ( U S S R J u n ior Championship, Yerevan 1 969).
30 l:!.h8+!
�xh8
31 'ii' h 5+ Black resig ned .
4 0 'i!fe3 !
2. Wachtei-M ichel ( 1 953).
1 l:!.e5 ! 1 Paradoxically, it i s the exchange of rooks that leads to inevitable mate. 3. Wade-Ku ij pers (Holland-England Match 1 972).
29 .l:.xh6+ !
the hope of winning the enemy q ueen after giving a bishop check). But the cool-headed reply 40 . . . l:.d6 ! forces the exchange of rooks, after which Wh ite's success becomes prob lematic. With opposite-colour bishops, an extra pawn by no means guarantees a wi n .
..ixh6
30 '1Wxe5+
A decisive double attack - White is threaten ing not only 41 'ii'x b6, but also 41 l:!.h8+! �xh8 42 'ii'x h6 mate. 6. N N-Rossolimo (Paris 1 957). The b7-point against the f2-poi nt! Whose attack is stronger? 1 . . .
.l:td1 ! !
2 c4
Black resig ned in view of 30 . . . ..ig7 31 'fih2+ with mate.
There is noth ing else: 2 I1bxd 1 'i!i'xb2 , 2 'iix b5 (or 2 .l:r.fxd 1 ) 2 . . . ..ixf2+ 3 �h2 .l:h8 mate , or 2 ..ixb7+ 'it;>b8.
4. Hartston-Pen rose (London 1 963).
Now the conseq uences of the fol lowing two l i nes are not too clear: 2 . . . l:!.xf1 + 3 �xf1 l:txf2+ 4 'ii'xf2 'iWxb 1 + 5 �e 1 , or 2 . . . ..ixf2+ 3 'ii'xf2 l:r.xf2 4 I1 bxd 1 .l:.xf1 + 5 .:.xf1 .
1 .l:!.xf7 !
�xf7
2 ..ic4+
�fB
3 l:if1 +
..if6
4 l:xf6+
gxf6
5 'figS+
�e7
6 'iie 6+
�f8
7 'il'xf6+ Alas, Wh ite did not fi nd this combination and he offered a draw, which , of cou rse, was accepted . Karpov-H ubner (Montreal 1 979).
5.
Karpov played 39 'ii'c 4? (apparently expect ing 39 . . . 'ii' b 5? 40 llc7 �8 4 1 .l:l.xe7! �xe7 42 'i'c7+ �e8 43 ..if7+ �f8 44 ..ic4), but after 39 . Jlf6 1 40 llc7 'ii'd 6 Wh ite's advantage proved i nsufficient for a wi n . .
39 llg8+!
�h7
Now the showy 40 l:!.xg6 suggests itself (in
2 . . .
l:txf2 !
3 ..ixb7+
�b8
4 1i'xb5
.l:tfxf1 +
5 �h2
Uh1 mate
7. B l umenthai-McG u n n igle (correspond ence 1 962). The prosa ic 3 1 'iWf7 ! ? l:!.d7 32 tiJe7 is not bad , forcing the opponent to g ive up the exchange. However, after 32 . . . l:!.xe7 33 'ii'x e7 'ilfd8 Black is still capable of putting up a tough resista nce . 31 'ii' h 6! ! With this pretty move Wh ite beg ins a deadly attack on the g7-point. The q ueen is taboo: 3 1 . . . gxh6 32 ..id4+ �g8 33 tiJxh6 mate.
1 56
� 31 . . .
Opposite-Colour Bishops in the M iddlegame
lld7
32 .id4 32 ltJxg7! .l:.xg7 33 .ib6! was stronger (V.Bologan). Black could have excluded this possibility, by transposing moves: 31 . . . 'ii'c7 32 .id4 (32 .ib6 'ii'e 5) 32 . . . .l:td7 . 32 . . .
'ii'c 7
33 :1f3 By doubling rooks on the f-file Wh ite will create the th reat of ltJxg7 followed by .l:.f7 . 33 . . . ltJg6 34 l:tbf1 c5 42 'ii'x e5+ 'ifd5 43 'ii'c 7+ 'ikc6 44 'i'e7+ �b5 45 �e3! followed by b2-b3 and c2-c4+. 42 'ii'x g6+
'iti>d5?!
42 ... 'iti>c5 43 �e3+ �d5 was a much tougher defence, but even then after 44 'ii'f7 + �d6 45 c4! 'it'd? (45 . . . 'ii'c 7? 46 c5+ �c6 47 'ii'e 6+ 'it>b5 48 c6 ! ) 46 'ii'f8+ �e6 47 'ii' h 6+ �f7 48 'lh7+ Wh ite would have retained a powerful attack.
43 'iff7+ 44 'ii' b 3!
'ifi>d4 e4
The only defence against mate by the bishop from e3. 45 .i.e3+ 46 f4+
�e5
Apart from a continuing attack, White has also acquired a new 'trump' - a passed f pawn . 46 . . . 47 'i!Vg8
�f6 'ii'd 5
48 �d4+ ! 49 'ifg7+
�e7
50 b3!
�c6
�d6
51 �e5 Threatening not only a terrible check at c7, but also 52 f5. If Black advances his pawn :
51 . . .
'ii'd 7
52 'ifh6+
�d5
53 Wb6 !
'iic 6
54 'ii'd 8+
�e6
55 'ikf6+
�d7
56 'it'g7+
�e6
57 'ii'g 4+
�
58 f5
'ifh6
59 f6 Black resigned . Accord ing to the comments in the book, transposing into a position with opposite colour bishops was the only correct solution for Wh ite . However, in their analysis only two of our pupils opted for this cou rse (and on the 35th move, alas, they only considered 35 'ii'x b4? instead of 35 'ike5 ! ! ) . All the rest tried to exploit i m mediately the unfortunate posi tion of the black king and the power of the g7pawn . To my su rprise they succeeded , and, what's more, i n various ways. Let us return to the position arising after 29 e5 .U.xh8 30 exd6+ .i.xd6 . Apart from the move i n the game, N u n n also examines 31 ttJxe6+ fxe6.
1 60
�
You can't get by without a Combination!
The variation he gives is 32 'ii' b 6+ 'Ot>b8 33 'ifxd6+ 'Ot>a8 , and White has no time to captu re on h8, since his c2-pawn is attacked . Kiryakov and Baklan found the excel lent qu iet move 32 'ii'd 4! 1 . If 32 . . . l::l. h d8 Wh ite wins by 33 g8'ii' ! . If instead 32 '0t>b8, then 33 b3! 'ii'c6 (33 . . . 1\i'ea 34 1\i'xd6+ 'Ot>a8 35 gxh81\i' 1\i'xh8 36 'ii' b 6) 34 gxh8'ii' 'ii'x c2+ 35 'Ot>a1 l:.xh8 36 1\i'xhS+ i.. c 8 37 l;lc1 and wins. However, as N u n n pointed out in the 2nd edition of his book Secrets of Grandmaster Chess, Black can put up a tough defence by 32 . . . i..d 5! 33 gxh8'i!V l:.xh8 34 'iig 7+ 'ii d 7 35 'ii'x h8 i..xf3 or 34 'ili'xh8 b3. • • •
The analysis by Kadymova was less good , unfortu nately: 32 i.. b 6+ 'Ot>c6 33 gxh8'iV l:.xh8 34 i.. d4 .Uc8 35 'ii' b 6+ 'Ot>d7 . She then considered 36 'iWxb7+ l:!.c7 37 'ii'e4, but this is unconvincing in view of 37 . . . b3! 38 cxb3 'ili'xb3, and Black's chances are not worse. 36 i.. c 5! wins. However, Black can defend more accurately: 34 . . . 'ii' b 5 (instead of 34 . . . .:c8?) 3 5 i.. x h8 �c5 3 6 'ii'x c5 i.. x c5, and the most probable outcome is a draw. Another way of making a draw was later suggested by N u n n : 34 . . . l:tb8!? 35 1i'b6+ 'Ot>d7 36 i.. c 5 'ii'a 2+! 37 'Ot>xa2 i.. d 5+ 38 lixd5 l:!.xb6 .
After checking the variations we concluded that Black is helpless, for example: 30 . Ir.he8 31 i.. x e 7 l:lxe7 32 exd6+ �xd6 33 tt'lb5+ 'Ot>e5 (33 . . . '0t>c6 34 l:td6+ 'Ot>xb5 35 'iY'b6+) 34 'ii'd 4+ 'Ot>f5 35 t2J d6+ 'Ot>g5 36 l:tg 1 + 'it>h6 37 l:.h 1 + 'it>g5 38 'i!kh4 mate . N u n n agreed with our opinion , adding the i nteresting variation 30 . . . l:.hg8 31 i.. x e7 dxe5 32 tbb3 (perpetual check results from 32 t2Jxe6+ fxe6 33 .id6+ 'Ot>d7 34 i.. c 5+ ) 32 . . . 'ii' b 5! 33 tbc5 (33 .id6+ 'Ot>c6 34 'ii'e 3 is unclear) 33 . . . l:.a8 34 If.d7+ 'Ot>c8 35 'iVxb7+ 'ii'x b7 36 l:txb7 l:.xg7 37 .id6 and wins (the refinements in brackets are mine). However, here Black's defence can be improved : 34 . . . '0t>c6! (instead of 34 . . . Wc8?). Going into an ending by 35 'ifxb7+ is now u npromising, which means that White is obl iged to repeat moves : 35 :d6+ 'it>c7 36 l:td7 + '.t>c6 ! . So that, alas, the brill iant bishop move to g 5 is not good enough to win . . .
Let us retu rn t o the position with which we beg a n . Seryozha Movsesian analysed the consequences of 29 tiJb3 ! ? 'i!kb5 (29 . 'i'c6 30 tba5 'ii' b 5 3 1 l:txg8 .l:txg8 32 J:!.d4). I ncidentally, i n the game the knight had only just been at b3, and the q ueen at b5 - the last moves were 28 tbd4 'iWa4 . .
.
Perhaps the most unexpected and spectacu lar idea was found by g randmaster Sergey Dolmatov during a training game which began from the orig inal position: 30 i.. g 5!?.
30 l:.xg8 .l:txg8 31 e5! d5 Black loses q u ickly after 31 . . . Vxe5 32 ii.b6+ 'it>c8 33 ttJa5 or 31 . . . l:.xg7 32 exd6+ i.. x d6 33
ttJ
You can't get by without a Combination !
161
'i'd4 1Ve5 34 Wb6+. I f 3 1 . . . dxe5 Movsesian suggested 32 ..tb6+ ! ? 'ifxb6 (32 .. .'it>c8 33 ltJa5; 32 . . . d1 'it'd3+ Wh ite resigned . As you see , i n all the examples we have examined n oth i n g special was demanded of Black - he simply completed his develop ment and fully prepared h imself for the opponent's active possibil ities. The e3-e4 advance did not promise any particu lar benefits and was double-edged , but Wh ite does n ot appear to have any other effective pla n .
1 76
�
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
After it became clear that the set-up with i.. b2 and lt:Jbd2 does not promise anyth i n g , a new idea appeared . 8 lt:Je5 White wants to prevent the development of the bishop on b7. If 8 . . . b6? he has the strong reply 9 cxd5! cxd5 10 lt:Jc4 . I should mention that I consider the position arising after 9 . . . exd5 to be u nfavourable for Black. It leads to a structu re typical of the Queen's I ndian Defence, but with the pawn worse placed on f5 , where it is doing noth i n g . Of course, this evaluation only appl ies with the pawn on b6 - if it is still o n b7, there are no objections to the captu re . . . e6xd5 . 8 . . .
0-0
9 i.. b2 9 lt:Jd3 has also occurred , but then Black again has the opportu n ity to fianchetto his bishop. 9 . . .
i.. d 7
1 0 'ili'c1
i.. e 8
1 1 i.. a 3
lt:Jbd7
In contrast to the similar situation which we analysed earl ier, when the bishop has been moved to e8 the transition into the endgame by 11 . . . i.. x a3 1 2 'ii'x a3 'ii'x a3 1 3 lt:Jxa3 condemns Black to a lengthy and passive defence. It will hardly be possible for him to play . . . c6-c5, and Wh ite will beg i n a pawn offensive on the q ueenside. 1 2 lt:Jd3
(see diagram)
I n the game Ti mman-5hort (Brussels 1 987) the Engl ish grandmaster made the rather pointless move 12 . . . i..f7 . After 1 3 i.. x d6 'Wxd6 14 'ii'a 3 'Wxa3 1 5 lt:Jxa3 .l:!.fe8 (intend ing 16 . . . e5) 16 f4 Jan Timman reached a better endgame and later he converted it i nto a win .
- position after 1 2 tt:Jd3 -
Black acted more logically i n the following game. Kir.Georgiev-Knaak East Germany-Bulgaria Match 1 987 12 . . .
i.. h 5
If Black does place his bishop o n f7 , it will be only after l u ring the knight to f4 . 1 3 l:!.e1 Or 1 3 lt:Jf4 i..f7 1 4 i.xd6 'ii'x d6 1 5 'ii'a 3 'iic 7, and Black has the idea of . . . d5xc4 followed by . . . e6--e5. 13 . . .
.l:!.ae8
1 4 i.. x d6
'ii'x d6
1 5 'ii'a 3
'iic 7
1 6 lt:Jd2
lt:Je4
1 7 lt:Jf3
dxc4!
1 8 bxc4
c5
A transformation of the centre wh ich is typical of this variation . 1 9 l:tac1
a6
1 9 . . . cxd4 ! ? . 20 e3
i.. xf3 !
Only now, when Wh ite can n ot recaptu re with the e-pawn . 2 1 i.. xf3
e5
22 i.. x e4
fxe4
ttJ
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
23 ttJxc5
exd4
24 exd4
ttJxc5
25 'ifxc5
'ifxc5
26 dxc5
.l:tf5
27 .l:tb1
.U.e7
The double rook ending is d rawish . Later an even more convincing plan of defence was fou n d . 9. . .
tiJbd7 ! ?
1 0 tiJd2
a5
1 77
correct 12 ... a4! 1 3 ttJxd7 (in the event of 1 3 bxa4 Black now begins exchanging: 1 3 . . . i.xe5, and the pawns o n the a-file are very weak) 1 3 . . . axb3 1 4 axb3 i.xd7 Wh ite's position is in no way better. To conclude this section I should l ike to show you one of my own games.
Van Wely - Kra m n i k E u ropean J u n ior Championsh i p , Arn hem 1 990 7 b3
'ife7
8 i.b2
b6
9 tiJbd2
i.b7
1 0 ttJe5
0-0
11 tiJdf3 Apparently my opponent was not very skil led in the subtleties of the opening - he al lows Black to develop his knight at d7 without any hindrance.
An amusing situation : it is not easy for Black to continue his development (he can only aim for exchanges with . . . ttJe4), but for White too no concrete plan is apparent. It is a kind of mutual zugzwang position , immedi ately after emerging from the open ing! Adorjan-Moskalenko ( H u ngary 1 990): 1 1 a 3 ttJe4 1 2 tiJdf3 ttJxe5 1 3 ttJxe5 i.xe5 1 4 dxe5 b6 (with the idea of 1 5 . . . i.a6). Draw agreed . White has noth i n g : his bishops are so useless , that one can not talk about him having the advantage of the two bishops - rather the opposite! Ruban-Meister ( H u ngary 1 990): 11 tiJdf3 tt'le4 1 2 'ifc2 The game conti nued 1 2 . . . ttJxe5 1 3 ttJxe5 .ixe5 14 dxe5 b5 1 5 f3 tLlg5 1 6 cxb5 cxb5 1 7 .l:!.fc1 with advantage to Wh ite . But after the
11 . . .
tiJbd7
1 2 'ifc2
.l:.ac8
The . . . c6-c5 advance is in the air. 1 3 cxd5
cxd5
14 'ii'd 3
ttJe4
Now Wh ite has to reckon with 1 5 . . . ttJxe5 1 6 dxe5 i.a3 1 7 i.xa3 'ii'x a3 with a strong in itiative on the q ueenside. 15 ttJxd7
'ti'xd7
1 6 ttJe5
'fie7
1 7 f3
tiJf6
It remains for Black to play 1 8 . . . tiJd7 , distu rbing t h e knight on e5, and he w i l l n o longer have a n y problems. 1 8 .Uac1
tiJd7
19 tLlxd7
'ifxd7
20 .l:txc8
l:.xc8 (see diagram)
1 78
�
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
subsequently recaptu re on f4 with the e pawn. 0-0
8 gxf4
White has a choice between the cautious 2 1 l:k1 and the more active 2 1 e4 . Which is correct? 21 e4?! After playing this, my opponent offered a draw. If he had done this after 2 1 l:.c1 , I would probably have had to agree. 21 . . .
dxe4
22 fxe4
..txe4
23 ..txe4
fxe4
24 'ifxe4
..te7 !
A very strong manoeuvre, which was under estimated by my opponent. Here too he should have offered the exchange of rooks: 25 .Uc1 . 25 .l:l.e1 ?!
..tf6
I n the event of the e6-pawn being captu red , the black rook invades at c2 . But otherwise White is condemned to passive defence . After 2 6 11e2 I defended t h e pawn with my rook from c6 , advanced . . . b6-b5-b4 , ex changed queens by . . . 'ii'd 5, and placed my rook on a6, my king on f7 and my pawn on h5. This led to an i nteresting bishop end i n g , which I managed t o win . Plan with i.c1 -f4
7 ..tf4
..txf4
Of course, White's kingside pawns must be spoiled . Otherwise he will play 8 e3 and
A u n ified theory of this variation does not exist. The continuations which occur here - 9 lDbd2, 9 tDe5 and 9 e3 - usually transpose into the same positions. Since Wh ite's kingside has been weakened by the exchange on f4 , the bishop manoeu vre to h5, which is not very effective after 7 b3, is much stronger here. There is now the idea of opening the g-file by . . . g7-g5. Black's standard scheme of action is: his bishop goes to h 5 , knight to e4 , other knight to d 7 , then . . . 'itt h 8 and . . . g7-g 5 . Of cou rse, the opponent must try and oppose this plan. Let us make the moves 9 lDbd2 'ife 7 1 0 l:.c1 . Why is 1 O . . ..td7? a mistake here? White continues 1 1 'ii' b 3! .tea 1 2 tDe5 ..t h 5 1 3 e3, and the development of the black pieces is h i ndered . The knight cannot be played to d7, and a6 is the wrong place for it. .
1 3 . . . 'itt h 8 1 4 .l:.c3 ( 1 4 'itt h 1 ! ? ) 1 4 . . . tDa6 1 5 'ii'a 3 lDb4 1 6 c5. Black's position i s worse, since his knight is roaming about on inappro priate squares. Thus, if we want to develop our bishop at d7, we must seriously reckon with 'ii' b 3. And if we choose this pla n , we should do so immediately, without 9 . . 'ii'e 7. .
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
ttJ
1 79
Nikol ic-Salov (Leningrad 1 987): 9 tt::l b d2 ..id7 1 0 'ii' b 3 'ifb6 1 1 e3 .ie8
1 2 . . . dxe4? !
Now Black's knight wants to go to d7, and his queen , incidentally, can retreat to c7 . There fore Wh ite h u rried to exchange q ueens. 12 'ifxb6 axb6 1 3 tt::l e s ...i h5 1 4 .if3 .ixf3 1 5 4Jdxf3 tt::l a 6 In the endgame even this route is not bad . Although White's position is slig htly more pleasant, he has no real win n ing chances. The game ended i n a d raw.
An original decision ! The standard 1 2 . . . fxe4 is sounder. Then events can develop roughly as fol lows: 1 3 tt::l d 2 tt::lf6 14 f3 exf3 1 5 tt::l xf3 ...i d 7 1 6 tt::l e 5 .ie8. Black is pla n n i ng to play 1 7 . . . tt::l d 7 and after the exchange of knig hts to bri ng his bishop via g6 to f5 . If he should succeed i n doing th is, it is Wh ite who will be having to try to equal ise. 1 3 tt::l d 2?! The only way to cast doubts on the oppo nent's strategy was by 1 3 tt::l e 5. Now Black is entirely successfu l .
Kal i n ichev-Giek ( U S S R 1 987): 9 tt::l b d2 4Jbd7
1 3 . . . c5 1 4 tt::l b 3 (altogether the wrong place ! ) 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 dxcS ttJxcS 1 6 tt::lx cS bxcS
Along with . . . .ic8--d 7 , also not a bad pla n . Black aims for a n y exchanges o f knights i n the centre, after which h e usually does not have any problems.
Wh ite's position is worse . The . . . e6-e5 advance is immi nent, the g2-bishop is shut in, and if Wh ite should try to activate it by f2f3, then after the exchange of bishops the weakening of his king's position may tell .
10 .Uc1 ( 1 0 e3 and 1 1 'ii'c2 is more accu rate) 1 0 . . . tt::le4 1 1 e3 'i!Ve7 After 1 2 a3 in one game there followed 1 2 . . . 4Jdf6 1 3 tt::l e 5 ...i d 7 1 4 f3 tt::l d 6 1 5 'it>h 1 ...i e 8 1 6 �g 1 .ih5. Then Black played . . . 'it>h8 and . . . .Ug8, and after c4-c5 he retreated his knight to f7 and prepared . . . g7-g 5 . For Wh ite it is simply not apparent what he can do. As usual , the g2-bishop is no better than its opponent on h5. 12 tt::lxe4
The game which I now wish to show you ended in a crushing defeat for Wh ite in j ust 23 moves. And this is not surprising - on an examination of it one gains the impression that the player with Wh ite simply did not know where to place his pieces, or which changes i n the structu re were advantageous to h i m , and which were not.
1 80
\t>
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
Shabalov - Vyzhmanavin Tashkent 1 987 9 tbc3
lbbd7
9 . . . ..i.d7? is incorrect: 1 0 'ifb3 'ii' b 6 1 1 tba4 'i!fxb3 1 2 axb3, and Black has a d ifficult endgame. 10 tOes
tbe4
The rook on c7 1ooks well placed , but that is a l l , whereas it would seem that Black's attack on the kingside is already i rresistible. 1 a �h1
..i.hS
19 'i!Va3 20 l:tg1
..i.e2 .l:.xf2
21 ..i.xe4
lif1
22 .l:txf1
.i.xf1
23 'ii'd 6
'iVg4!
White resig ned i n view of 24 .i.xd5 .i.g2+! . I n the next example i t was Black who played inaccurately in the opening. Let us see what this led to . Beliavsky - Van der Wiel Amsterdam 1 990 9 e3
lb bd7
10 tOes
tbxeS?!
1 0 . . . tbe4 . 1 1 tbxe4?
fxe4
1 1 dxeS!
The exchange of knights on e4 is advanta geous to Black. Now comes a further position al mistake - White allows the exchange on e5. He should have played 1 2 tbxd7 .i.xd7 1 3 e3 .tea 14 f3 , although after 14 . . . exf3 and 1 5 . . . ..tg6 Black's position is preferable. 12 e3?
tbxeS
1 3 fxeS 1 3 dxe5 g5 was even worse for White. [A dubious assertion - in view of the reply 1 4 "ikg4. 13 . . . .i. d 7 is sounder - Dvoretsky.) 13 . . .
..td7
If 14 f3 , then 14 . . . exf3 followed by the manoeuvre of the bishop to g6. However, this was probably the lesser evi l . But for some reason Wh ite took his queen to the queen side - away from the the main events. 1 4 'ii' b 3? 1 S cxdS 1 6 .l:tac1 1 7 .l:tc7
b6 cxdS 1\VgS .tea
Earlier i n such situations everyone, for some reason , captured with the f-pawn , including Bel iavsky h imself. The second game of his match with Salov (Vilnius 1 987) went 1 1 fxeS?! tbg4 ( 1 1 . . . tbd7 1 2 f4 b 6 i s also good) 1 2 lLld2 .i.d7 1 3 h3 lbh6 1 4 f4 .tea 1 s 'iii> h 2 �ha 1 6 'ilke2 g5 with excellent prospects for Black.
ltJ
Modern I nterpretation of the Dutch Defence
11 . . .
lDd7
As Bel iavsky remarked , after 1 1 . . . tDe4 1 2 b4! (the knight is i n danger! ) 1 2 . . .1i'b6 1 3 a3 a5 ( 1 3 . . . dxc4 14 .i.xe4 fxe4 1 5 lDd2 with an obvious advantage) 14 c5 'ii'a 7 1 5 f3 axb4 1 6 fxe4 'ii'x c5 1 7 'ifd2 Wh ite's extra piece is more valuable than the pawns. But after the move in the game Black's position also remains sign ificantly worse. The conclusion : Black can not exchange on e5 with the knig hts on b1 and f6. This someti mes happens - you com m it just one inaccuracy, and it then becomes difficult to save the game. 12 lDd2 1 3 l:tc1 14 'ii'c 2 1 5 tDb3
'fie7 l:.d8 lDf8 lDg6
By placing his knight on h4, Van der Wiel tries to create th reats to the wh ite king . Noth ing comes of th is, because the c8bishop is too far away from the kingside. 16 17 18 19
cxd5 lDd4 ii.h3 �h1
exd5 lDh4 g5 g4
181
.i.f4 and 9 e3 against me - previously he had preferred other set-ups. 9 . . .
'ike7
I wanted a fig ht, and therefore I did not play 9 . . . .i.d7 1 0 "ii b 3 'ifb6. 1 0 lDbd2
lDbd7
11 'ii'c 2
tDe4
1 2 tDxe4 It is not clear what else to suggest for White. Whereas I was intend ing to continue 12 ... 'itt h 8 or 1 2 . . . lDdf6 1 3 lDe5 ii.d7 14 f3 lDd6 , and then to fol low the usual plan: . . . .i.e8-h5, . . . f2 l:txf5+ 28 'it>g2 i.e2 ! ) 25 . . . i.xd4 26 l:!.xd4 axb2 with an unclear game. 23 . . .
f5
24 gxf5 One of the critical moments of the game. Here the champion thought for a long time. I ncidental ly, good players also d iffer from the not so good in that, for some reason , it is at the critica l , most important moments that they th ink. Black stands worse . If he hopes to save the game, he must all the time fi nd the strongest moves, which do not worsen his position any
Dvoretsky suggested that it was because of 25 lt:lf4 . It is u n l i kely that Kasparov consid ered this, si nce he did not mention it i n our joint analysis after the game. 25 . . . gxf4 26 i.d4 is certainly dangerous for Black, but he has the simple 25 .. J::txf5. The world champion was concerned about the position arising after 25 lt:lxg5! hxg5 26 l:!.xg 5 'it>h8. But he had no need to - here at least the n u m ber of pieces is equal. For example, if 27 lt:lxe4 B lack can consider either 27 . . . i.xb2 , or 27 . . . i.e5, intending . . . l:txd5 or . . . .l:!.b5. 24 . . .
lbf5?
25 lt:lf2
.tea
Which move did I make, without any thought at all? That's correct, the pawn has to be defended - it is j ust too important. 26 l:l.h1 At this moment Kasparov's wife became anxious. Apparently she can't play chess, but she can clearly determine the situation on the board either from the expression on her husband's face , or by the movement with which he straightens his tie. Evidently at this moment he pul led his tie the wrong way. 26 . . .
i.b5+ Here I bel ieved that I was going to win . If the opponent himself gives u p such an important bishop, it means that all is not well in his position. 27 lt:lxb5
l:txb5
28 l:!.c8+
'it>h7
206
�
Strategy in Grandmaster Games
relaxed about the outcome of the game. 31 .l:.c7
l::!. x d5
32 tt:Jxe4 What should Black play?
If you can now fi nd one more correct move, you will win the game, irrespective of whom you are playing against. After 26 .l::t h 1 ! it should not have been so difficult to play again in the same style: 29 l:tb 1 ! . At the board after 29 . . . l:tfxd5 I consid ered only the reply 30 tt:Jxe4 . But it is not the strongest: after all, Black is dreaming of placing either of his rooks on h4 and picking up the h5-pawn , and the captu re of the e4pawn makes it easier to carry out this pla n . 3 0 b4! axb3 (otherwise 3 1 a3) 3 1 axb3 i s much stronger. It is true that there are few pawns left on the board , but this is unimpor tant. It only remains for me to beg in an attack - place my rook on c7 and then direct the second rook into the opponent's position . Unfortunately, I did not see as far as 30 b4. As a result I rejected 29 .l:l.b1 ! and th rew away the win . 2 9 l:td1 ?
l:txb2+
30 .l:l.d2 That day I would have been better playing draug hts, because I only calculated varia tions with captu res: 30 . . . l:txd2+ 31 .txd2 l:txd5 32 ..ic3. After the exchange of bishops there is noth ing to defend the king and my attack would be bound to succeed . 30 . . . a3! With a sigh of relief Kasparov's wife sat back in her chair - it was sensed that she was now
The correct course was 32 . . . l:tdxd2!+ 33 ..ixd2 'i!?g8 followed by 34 .. J:txa2. But Kasparov preferred to move his king immedi ately. 32 . . .
'itlg8?!
How did Wh ite reply? 33 .l:tcc2 ! This move does not change the evaluation of the position. But whereas after the exchange of rooks on d2 the position would have been simply equal, now, in time-trouble, to hold the game Black had to demonstrate everything he was capable of. To the credit of the world champio n , who was again under the th reat of defeat, he began playing with redoubled strength . Wh ite wants to exchange a pair of rooks: 34 l:txd5 l:txc2+ 35 l:td2 , and if 35 . . J�b2 - 36 'itld3, intending 37 l:txb2 axb2 38 �c2 . The h5-pawn is al ive, and the black pawns a re weak - in general I retain excellent chances of success. 33 . . .
b5!
34 l:txd5
l:txc2+
35 l:td2
.l:l.b2
lZJ
Strategy in G randmaster Games
36 c;;t> d 3 Of cou rse , not 36 tt:lxd6? �c3 . 36 . . .
d5
Now I am the one who has to exercise caution. To where should I move my knight (in my own time-trouble)? Why to c5 , rather than g3 or d6? You want to hold the b3-sq uare? I did not particularly want to play this (it would have been tempti ng to transfer the knight to f5), but I had to - the threat of . . . b4-b3 was too serious. Bad was 37 tt:ld6? d4 38 �f2 b4 39 l2lc4 b3! or 39 l:!.xb2 axb2 40 '>t>c2 d3+. 37 tt:lc5! What should Black do? 37 . . .
l:!.b4!
The No. 1 enemy is the h5-pawn , and it must be attacked as soon as possible. 38 tt:le6
I!.h4
39 tt:lxg7
'.t>xg7
40 �d4+
'it>g8
A rather strange move (not surprising - it was the fortieth ! ) . Si nce childhood we have been taught that in the endgame the king should be moved towards the centre , and therefore 40 . . . '.t>f7 suggested itself. What would you now recommend for Wh ite?
207
rook is not a problem, but the rook a n d bishop on their own can not achieve any th ing. If only the king could be included in the attack! I magine the wh ite king at e6 and the bishop at e5 - Black would have to resign even if I had no pawns left at all. Therefore I should have had the sense to play 4 1 'it>c3 ! , trying t o reach t h e d5-pawn with a by-pass via the wing . The position would probably have remai ned drawn, but Wh ite would not have risked anyth ing and he could have set his opponent some problems. 41 �e5? ! The idea is the same: 4 1 . . . I!.xh5? 42 '.t>d4. U nfortu nately, we are not playing draug hts it is not obligatory to captu re. 41 . . .
'.t>f7 !
A few more moves were made, but they were no longer able to change anything. 42 I!.e2 To stop the king from going to e6. 42 . . .
I!.xh5
43 '.t>d4
'it>e6!
Not fearing ghosts! 44 � b8+
'.ttf5
45 l:!.e3
l:!.h1
46 I!.f3+
�g4
47 I!.g3+
'>t>f5
48 I!.f3+ Draw ag reed . I n cidentally, what do you th ink, what kind of game did Kasparov and I play, positional or combinative? There was seemingly a sharp struggle, and a piece was sacrificed . But at the same time, most of the decisions were taken by the two players on purely strategic grounds. So that even I do not know!
Yes, 41 I!.c2 can be played , but what for? To activate the rook? Breaking through with the
In conclusion , I will show you my game with Anatoly Karpov.
208
�
Strategy in Grandmaster Games
Karpov - Bareev Linares 1 992 Slav Defence
1 d4
d5
2 c4
c6
A very natural move , but in my opinion , not a very good one. I n the game Nikolic-Schwartz man (Wij k a an Zee 1 995) 1 2 .ll e 1 !? 0-0 1 3 e3 was tried . 12 . . .
0-0
3 lt:Jc3 Delaying the development of the g 1 -kn ight has some point. For example, in the variation 3 . . . lt:Jf6 4 cxd5 cxd5 5 �f4 lt:Jc6 6 e3 e6 7 i.d3 .id6 Wh ite can play 8 �xd6 'iVxd6 9 f4 ! . But it i s well known that noth ing comes for free. The move order chosen by Karpov also contains a drawback: the opponent has a sharp gambit conti nuation, which has now come into fashion . 3. . .
e5!?
4 dxe5
d4
5 lt:Je4
'iVa5+
6 lt:Jd2 6 .id2 !? would seem to be stronger. But I don't want to dwell on the su btleties of the opening - it would take too much time to investigate the nu merous complicated and non-standard positions which can arise . So let's restrict ourselves to just one - that which arises on emerging from the opening in th is game. And if you want to work on the theory of the open ing, you can do that you rself. 6...
lt:Jd7
7 e6! ?
fxe6
8 g3
e5
9 �g2
lt:Jgf6
1 0 lt:Jgf3 1 0 lt:Jh3. 10 . . .
�e7
1 1 0-0
'iVc7
1 2 'iVc2
1 3 lt:Jg5 easily comes to mind. It is not very good , since after 1 3 . . ..�:Jc5 Black is threaten ing 1 4 . . . h6. All the pieces are exchanged on e4 , and the result is a d raw. You want to play 1 3 c5, placing the pawn en prise? To say the least, this is not at all a Karpov move. No other suggestions? A pity. He made his move very q u ickly. 1 3 b3
Here 7 lt:Jf3 tt:Jxe5 h a s also been played , but usually Black has managed to maintai n the balance. 7. . .
Let's beg i n from here! I wonder if anyone can suggest the move chosen by the former world champion?
It can happen that you are th inking after a move made by Karpov, and you fi nd an idea which you want to carry out. But first you have to understand his plan. He does not want to exc�ange pieces prematu rely; he will develop his bishop at b2, place his queen's rook at e 1 or d 1 , and attack the centre with e2-e3. All his pieces will be harmoniously placed . Black must somehow oppose the opponent's pla n , and fi nd a cou nter-plan. I see two ideas for Black. Neither of them is immed iately apparent.
Strategy in Grandmaster Games
The first begins with the obvious 1 3 . . . lbc5, but after 14 �b2 he needs a move which does not i mmed iately suggest itself: 1 4 . . . g 6 ! . After e2-e3 t h e bishop goes with gain of tempo to f5, and then the knight to d 3 . You suggest preparing t h e development of the bishop by 1 4 . . . lbg4 (instead of 1 4 . . . g6)? To be honest, I didn't see this move. Let's have a look: 1 5 h3 �f5 1 6 'ili'd 1 lbf6 1 7 g4 i.g6 - everything would seem to be alrig ht. Perhaps this was even stronger. I chose a different plan - an interesti ng one, but on another occasion I would not have gone in for it ( 1 3 . . . lbc5 is simpler and safer). 13 . . .
.l:leB
1 4 �b2
�f8 !
Now if 1 5 e3 there follows 1 5 . . . d3! and 1 6 . . . e4 . 1 5 lbg5
lbc5
If the e4-square is conceded to Wh ite's kn ight, he will gain an obvious advantage, and for free. My idea is first to exchange the knights, then the light-sq uare bishops, to leave the opponent with only a bishop on b2 and not to allow it to become active, by meeting e2-e3 with . . . c6-c5.
ctJ
209
When you are playing such a complicated game, you constantly have to chose from continuations that are al most equ ivalent. One move is slig htly stronger, another is slightly weaker - how do you sense this? After analysing the position later, I came to the conclusion that instead of 1 6 . . . g6 it would have been more accu rate to play 1 6 . . . a5!. The move is a sensible one, of course, but why it should be made at this precise moment - d u ring the game it was completely i mpossible to understand th is. I will explai n : after lbg5-e4 i t is important t o have t h e reply . . . a5-a4 . There is the th reat of driving away the bishop by . . . a4-a3, and if the wh ite rook is no longer at a 1 , it will be possible to exchange pawns on b3 and adva nce the rook to a2. All this is rather complicated , and I cannot condemn myself for the move made in the game, 1 6 . . . g6. But my next inaccu racy was altogether more serious.
It is impossible to guess Karpov's next move. Dvoretsky's suggestion is 1 6 a3. Close! This was the second move suggested by the ex champion after the game. 16 h3 Typical Karpov! After th i n king what he was defending against, I fi nally rea l ised what I myself want - 1 6 . . . g6 and 1 7 . . . ..if5 . I am ashamed to say that even after 1 5 . . .lbc5 I did not yet see the idea of bringing out the bishop to f5. After mentally thanking my opponent for the h i nt, I continued playi ng. 16 . . .
g6
1 7 g4 Karpov has taken control of the f5-sq uare and is continuing the fight for the light squares.
An important and rather complicated mo ment in the game. Can you work out what is happen ing here and what should be played? Often , for some reason , it is bad moves which instantly come to m i n d . However, it is easier to fi nd a bad move than to make it, because you can not bring you rself to play it and you beg i n to have doubts . And here we have the fi rst not altogether
210
�
Strategy in Grandmaster Games
successful suggestion: 1 7 . . . b6. Why weaken the c6-square? In order to combat Wh ite's plan? But what is his plan? You th ink it is to place the knight on e4? Noth ing of the sort! His main idea is the undermining move e2-e3!
1 8 . . . �h6 (instead of 1 8 . . . dxe3) hardly helps Black. Wh ite has a pleasant choice between 1 9 exd4 and 1 9 tt::lg e4 .
You would have played your bishop to g7? You have found someth ing to boast about. Many would have played this, and that's what I played . But I shouldn't have done.
How should Black defend? 1 7 . . . �h6 is better than 1 7 . . . �g7, but it involves a loss of time (the bishop is doing noth ing on h6). After 1 8 tt::lg e4 tt::l xe4 1 9 tt::lxe4 tt::l xe4 2 0 'ii'xe4 Wh ite's position is preferable i n view of the same idea of the underm i n i ng move e2-e3.
We will fi nd the correct solution if we understand why the seemingly rather natu ral move 17 . . . �g7 is bad . No, it is not a matter of 1 8 b4 tt::le 6 1 9 tt::l g e4 - after all, here I have the excellent f4-point.
The correct solution is 1 7 . . . tt::l e 6 ! . Now if e2e3 Black always has the reply . . . c6-c5. I n the event of 1 8 tt::l g e4 tt::lxe4 1 9 tt::lxe4 i.g7 we reach a position which occu rred in the game.
I ncidentally, the problem also proved to be too difficult for Karpov. He is a mig hty prophylactic player, and is especially strong in moves such as 16 h3, but here there is noth ing for Wh ite to defend against - he simply needs to fi nd an active pla n .
I will once again emphasise: sometimes i n a game a critical moment is reached . If you miss it, if you fail to fi nd an accu rate move, the game changes cou rse and may begin to go down h i l l .
After 1 7 . . . �g7? the reply 1 8 e 3 ! is very strong . If 1 8 . . . d3, then 1 9 'ii'd 1 . The idea was to support the d3-pawn by . . . e5-e4 , but now 1 9 . . . e4 is dangerous because of the ex change sacrifice 20 �xffi �xf6 21 tt::l g xe4 , or first 20 b4!?. If 1 9 . . . h6 20 tt::l g e4 , while after 1 9 . . . h5 there is the strong reply 20 b4 . I n every case the d3-pawn , lacking support by the other pieces and pawns, is lost. Black would probably have had to reject 1 8 . . . d3 in favour of 1 8 . . . dxe3 1 9 fxe3 , when White has achieved exactly what he wanted . He has deployed his forces wel l and has won the strategic battle . One of the experts suggested that, although the strategic battle has been lost, the position can be held by tactics: 1 9 . . . �h6. Let us check: 20 .l:txffi �xg5 21 .l:l.xg6+! hxg6 22 'ii'xg6+, and in whose favou r are the tactics? Of course , it does sometimes happen that a chance tactical opportun ity changes the evaluation of a position. But normally, if you are strateg ically lost, here everything col lapses and all the variations turn out not in your favou r.
T h e problems which Karpov and I were trying to solve were seemingly purely strate gic, but at the same time the play was full of tactics, little concrete variations, which need ed to be discovered and calculated . Some times you have to delve i nto a position and th ink for at least ten minutes. You can 't spend ten minutes on every move - other wise, before you know it, you end up in time trouble. But at important, critica l moments, time should be spent. The q uestion is merely to decide which moment is critica l . Anatoly Evgenevich and I did not manage to do this, and we both missed it. 17
.
.
.
Ji.g7?
1 8 tt::l d e4?
tt::lfxe4
1 9 tt::l x e4
tt::l e 6
It is now time for Wh ite to forget about striving for an advantage and to th ink about how to equalise. The underm i n i ng move 20 e3 is now pointless because of 20 . . . c5 , and the exchange on d4 will g ive me the very important f4-point. 20 b4 Apart from 20 e3, I also considered 20 c5,
l2J
Strategy in Grandmaster Games
but the move in the game did not occur to me. Meanwhile it is q u ite thematic. Why was Karpov not in a hu rry to advance his pawn to c5? To avoid conced ing the d 5-point to the bishop (20 c5 lDf4 21 e3 lbxg2 and .. .i.e6d5). 20 . . .
lDf4
21 e3
lbxg2
22 �xg2 How would you assess this position? More pleasant for Black? But it is not enough to give such an assessment - you must also demonstrate it, and this is not easy. For example, noth ing is g iven by 22 . . . .i.e6 in view of 23 lDg5. Here I engaged in some th ing rather pointless - I tried to breach the opponent's defences immediately, by analys ing 22 . . . c5 23 lbxc5 b6 24 lDe4 .i.b7. Finally I sensed : this does not work, White's position is too solid. In add ition I have an extremely stupid bishop on g7. It was very usefu l to realise that at the very first opportun ity I should try to get rid of this useless piece. 22 . . .
aS!
23 a3 Of course , I advanced my a-pawn . If you don't play this, you simply lose you r self respect! But what next?
21 1
doing noth ing, whereas from e7 it covers two important diagonals, defends the f6-square and attacks the b4-pawn . If 24 c5, then 24 . . . .i.e6 25 lDd6 .l:lf8 . It is probable that I was instinctively afraid of placing my queen at e7 because of some tactics involving .l:lae 1 - but I was wrong! 24 l::ta e1 axb4 25 axb4 'i!i'xb4 26 exd4 does not work in view of 26 . . . �e6 , or, even better, 26 . . Jla2 . Perhaps Wh ite should play 24 exd4 immed iately, but then he has to reckon with the interposition of 24 . . . axb4 ! ? . 23 . . .
l:tf8
The next problem is what to do as Wh ite. It is like th is, when you a re playing a game, and there is no time to relax - one problem after another! 24 c5 is obviously illog ical - it was against this that Black's last move was aimed : now the knight goes to d6 without gain of tempo. The correct reply was 24 f3! . White must consolidate. If Ka rpov had found it, he wou ld not have lost. But he made a move from the ra nks of 'how not to play chess'. 24 .l:lad 1 ? He wants to captu re on d4, but he plays this in the wrong order. For a start I open the file which has been conceded to me. 24 . . .
axb4
25 axb4
dxe3 !
Now the two possi bil ities available to White are of roughly equal merit, and neither gives clear eq ual ity. If he captu res 26 fxe3 , then after 26 . . . J:.xf1 27 .:f.xf1 'ii'e 7 the b4-pawn is hanging. I develop my bishop at e6 and at some point play . . . h7-h5. 26 f3
I still can't understand why I didn't make the natu ral move 23 . . . 'i¥e7 ! . At c7 the q ueen is
If Wh ite were to make another couple of moves in succession and pick up the e3pawn , he would stand better. But who is going to allow that? Can you guess what I played? 26 . . .
�e7
212
�
Strategy in Grandmaster Games
At last! 26 . . . .l:Ia2 was premature - the opponent would have replied 27 .l:Ide 1 and then driven away the rook with 28 'i!Vb3. But now the b4-pawn is hanging , and in the event of 27 c5 ..ll. e6 I am now securely controlling the a2-sq uare. 27 �c1 'What candidate moves are there?' Artu r Yusupov would have asked you here. Excellent - 27 . . . �h6 and 27 . . . 'i!Vxb4 . And which one shall we make? 27 . . .
..ll. h 6!
After 27 . . . 'ii'x b4 28 ..ll. x e3 Wh ite's position is not worse, despite being a pawn down . 28 .l:Ide1 Karpov finally real ised that his rook on d 1 was doing nothing. What should Black play now? 28 . . .
..ll. e 6
And again in the event of 28 . . . 'ii' x b4? I would have been tricked : 29 g5 �g7 30 ..ll. x e3 with equal ity. Now, however, things become bad for White - he has noth ing better than 29 �xe3, but then he will not have sufficient compensation for the b4-pawn . You wish to try 29 lt:Jc5 ? Black repl ies 29 . . . i..f7 30 i..x e3 �xe3 31 .l:Ixe3 b5, and how is Wh ite to defend? Let us continue the variation: 32 .l:Ife 1 �xc4 33 .l:Ixe5 'ii'f7(f6). There is a double attack on f3 and a2, and later I will add the bishop on d5. 32 'it'c3! (instead of 32 .l:Ife 1 ) is a cleverer idea : 32 . . . �xc4 (32 . . . .l:Ia2+ 33 .l:If2 ) 33 .l::i.a 1 , but after 33 . . . .l:Ixa 1 34 'i!Vxa 1 �d5 Wh ite stil l stands worse, a n d worse t h a n in t h e game. After all, a bishop is stronger than a knight! 29 �xe3
�xe3
30 .l:Ixe3
'ii'x b4
31 .l:!.b1 Again there are two candidate moves : 3 1 . . . "it'xc4 and 3 1 . . . 'i!Ve7. Which would you prefer?
I thought that in the endgame after 31 . . . 't!Vxc4 32 'it'xc4 ..ll. xc4 33 .l:Ixb7 I would have only a slight advantage thanks to my extra pawn , but Karpov said that it was altogether drawn. You may not bel ieve me, but you should bel ieve Karpov! 31 . . .
'it'e7 !
Wh ite's position would appear t o b e tenable, but he needs to make accu rate moves. And here Karpov had ru n i nto time-trouble. 32 lZ'lf2 This move did not even occu r to me - why remove the knight from the centre? I thought that it was i mportant for Wh ite to pick up the b7-pawn and therefore I was expecting 32 'i:Vb2 ! �xc4 33 'it'xb7. What can I do? Exchange q ueens and after 33 .. ."iVxb7 34 .l:Ixb7 attempt by 34 . . . .l:Ia2+ 35 '.t>g3 ..ll.f1 to g ive mate? This is clearly a utopian dream . It is probably better to play 33 . . . 'it'h4 (threaten ing a rook check) and then 34 . . . �d5. But how to win here, I don't know - it is extremely difficult to shake Wh ite's defences. In the game I had trouble in breach ing a similar position even though I was the exchange up. Why, thoug h , did the opponent play his knight to f2? He wanted to captu re the e5pawn , but here he was u nfortunate - I found a strong reply. What was it? No, not 32 . . . 'it'c5. Here he had something prepared - 33 'i:Vc3 or 33 .l:Ibe 1 , I don't
Strategy in Grandmaster Games
remember. But the idea i s correct: Black needs to attack the c4-pawn , to obtain the d5-square for his bishop. 32 . . .
36 . . .
213 �h8
37 llb3
'it'f7 !
Grandmaster Razuvaev very much likes moves which fulfi l two or more fu nctions. From f7 the q ueen attacks f3 and c4 , and defends the b7-pawn , so that Yu ri Sergeevi ch would have praised me here. If now 33 tt'ld3, then 33 . . . e4 ! 34 fxe4 (things are also not easy for White after the more tenacious 34 tt'le5 exf3+ 35 llxf3 'i¥g7 ) 34 . . . ..txc4 35 tt'le5 �a2 36 "i!Vxa2 .1i.f1 +. 33 't!Vb2 'Better late than never! ' 33 . . .
..txc4
34 'i¥xb7 34 'it'xe5 is hopeless - the b7-pawn is stil l al ive, and t h e weakness a t f 3 is perceptible. Now Wh ite seemingly achieves his aim, but in fact he ru ns into a blow prepared beforehand. 34 . . .
'ikf4!
An extremely u n pleasant surprise . It is said that Karpov plays very well i n time-trouble. He confi rmed this opinion i n the present game, mainly by the fact that he managed to make all his moves, on the way losing only the exchange. 35 'ikxc6 ! 35 .l:tbe 1 ..td5 (or 35 . . . .l:i.a2) is hopeless for White, and therefore the exchange sacrifice is forced . 35 .
.
.
'ikxe3
36 "i!Vxc4+ A very simple q uestion : what should Black play, 36 . . . 'it>h8 or 36 . . . .t:tf7 ? You suggest 36 . . .'�h8. Why? So as not to come under a pin? And what do the experts say? Their opinions are divided . So, 2-1 in favour of the king move - this means it must be deemed the strongest. Why? I ndeed , to avoid coming under a pin (37 'it'd5).
You may not bel ieve me, but here White has g reat d rawing chances. Enormous! U ntil I reached the time contro l , I didn't real ise this - I thought I was winning easily. Fortunately, over the remaining moves to the control Karpov managed to thoroughly spoil his position. Yet the idea of the defence is very simple. White must play his q ueen to e2 and his rook to e3 - to hold the th ird rank, to hold the second, defend the f3-pawn and th reaten a further attack on the e5-pawn by tt'ld3. 37 . . .
"i!Vd2 !
I try t o confuse my opponent - I do not allow the q ueen to go to e2 . 38 'i!Vc5
�ae8
39 .i::!. d 3 It is possible that the position is drawn even after the exchange of q ueens: 39 'it'e3 'it'xe3 40 l::t x e3 . The weakness of the e5-pawn is too serious. But if Black moves his queen, Wh ite carries out the necessary regrouping �e2 and I:te3. Here it would have been very useful for my opponent to have a reserve of time, to work out what he should be aiming for, which positions were draw, and which were not (say, after the exchange of q ueens on f4 Black takes with the pawn , and the
214
�
Strategy in Grandmaster Games
endgame is now lost). But Karpov's flag was hanging, he had no time to th ink, and for the moment he did not offer the exchange of queens. 39 . . .
'ii'f4
40 'ii'c 3?! 40 'ii'c2 ! should have been played , followed by ife2 and l:Ie3. Perhaps my opponent was instinctively afraid of 40 . . . e4 , but he had no need to be. 40 . . .
l:tc8
41 'ii' b2
Here we have the first explanation : it blocks the a2-g8 d iagonal, the king obtains the g8square, and after the inclusion of . . . h7-h5 and h3-h4 the advance . . . e5-e4 ! becomes possible. This idea is correct, but what is more important is that this advance follows if Wh ite places his q ueen on e2 (as in fact occu rred in the game). Therefore my move is prophylaxis against the reg rouping of the wh ite pieces , about which I have already spoken. I sat and came to real ise that it was necessary to defend against it - this was the main reason why Black's move was made. I n stead of 41 . . . 1lc4 Kramnik suggested playing 4 1 . . . l:r.fd8, but then 42 'i!fe2 ! .l::t d4 43 l:te3 . However, now I am ready to carry out his pla n : 42 . . . .l::td 4 followed by 43 . . . l:!.fd8. The third idea is very primitive , but it also has to be reckoned with - 42 . . . l:.fc8 with the threat of . . . l:tc2 , and if 43 .l:ld2 , then 43 . . . .l:l.c3. Karpov did not guess my idea, and he q u ickly placed his q ueen on e2 . After my reply he sat and thought for 45 min utes , but he was unable to fi nd any defence. 42 'il'e2
Benefiting from the bitter experience of the previous rou nds, after the time control I immediately thought for 25 minutes. Of course, it will not be possible for you to determine qu ickly that very strong move, which in the game I sought for so long . But nevertheless try suggesting some ideas for a playing for a win. How can the opponent's position be shaken? Yes, it is tempting to play . . . h7-h5. If Black is able to place his pawn on h4, his winning chances will be sharply improved . Therefore White is obl iged to reply h3-h4 ! . 41 . . .
lic4 ! !
A very strong move . What do you th i n k the point of it is? In fact it simu ltaneously contains three ideas (again Razuvaev would be happy).
h5!
Of course, my opponent was planning 43 h4, but now he saw the refutation : 43 . . . hxg4 44 tt'lxg4 (44 fxg4 'ii'f6 ! followed by 45 . . . 'ii'c 6+) 44 ... e4 (the breakthrough has become pos sible thanks to the rook on c4) 45 fxe4 l:txe4 46 'ifb2+ �g8 47 'ii'a 2+ l:c4. There is no time to exploit the pin on the rook, si nce the wh ite king is threatened with mate . [If 48 tt'le5!? there follows 48 . . . 1We4+ 49 �g 1 'l:.f1 +! 50 f8) 20 dxc5 bxc5 21 h3 Black has the important move 2 1 . . . �f8 , consolidating his position. 17 'ife3 !
'i!fxe3?!
1 7 ... 'ii'ffi or even 1 7 . . . '�g4 ! ? was preferable. 1 8 fxe3
lt:Jf6
1 9 l:r.ad 1
e5
1 9 . . . cxd4 20 exd4 l:.d7 came i nto considera tio n . 20 dxc5!
bxc5
21 h3
llfe8
22 i.c6!
l:txd 1
23 l:.xd 1
l:.c8
24 .l::. d 6! Wh ite stands sign ifi ca ntly better in view of the threat of retreating his bishop followed by .:!.a6.
ttJ
From Games by Pupils of the School
Exchanging
Exchanging is undoubted ly one of the most complicated elements of positional play. It was no accident that an experienced Soviet trainer offered roughly the following advice: 'If you are playing a weaker opponent, exchange a few pieces. It is probable that he will not understand which pieces he should exchange, and which he should keep on the board . '
3 1 l:txd6+ 32 l::t d 5 33 il.g3
ltJxd6 .:l.b8
33 . . .
l:tb5?!
233
Baklan (1 3) - S h iyanovsky Kiev 1 99 1
A tech nical inaccu racy. Before changing the structu re , it is usefu l to improve your position as much as possible, or worsen the oppo nent's position. As shown by Dvoretsky, Black should first have g iven a series of checks: 33 . . . l:tb2+ 34 'it>f1 .l:tb1 + 35 �2 l:tb2+ 36 'it>g 1 , and only now played 36 . . . l:tb5 with equal ity. I nstead of calmly strengthening his position by playing 20 b4! , then a2-a3, lld3, l:tad 1 and at a conven ient moment c3-c4 , White hu rries to exchange his active knight and loses nearly all his advantage. 20 ltJb7? 21 ltJc5+ 22 il.xc5 23 f3 24 ltd3
l:tab8 il.xc5 ltJcB ltJd6
34 l:txb5 35 il.f2 36 'it>d2 37 il.e3 38 'it>c2 39 h4
axb5 ltJb7 h5 g6 'it>d6 ltJc5?
When offering to go i nto a pawn ending , you must calculate the variations very accu rately. I n this case Black got it wrong! 39 . . . ltJd8 was correct.
ltJb7
40 il.xc5+
'it>xc5
25 il.f2
.:thd8 l:.d6 l:!.bd8
41 g3 42 f4 43 a41
'it>b6
26 l:tad 1 27 'it>f1 28 'it>e2
c5 c4
44 gxf4
bxa4
29 b3 30 bxc4
bxc4
45 'it>b2 And Wh ite soon won .
c5 exf4
234
�
From Games by Pupils of the School
Zviagi ntsev (1 5) - Galkin Kramatorsk 1 99 1
q ueen sacrifice: 27 l1xg6! �xc3+ 28 bxc3 with a winning attack. 26 �e2 As shown by Zviagintsev's analysis, the active 26 �e6 also came i nto consideration: A) 26 . . . �f7 27 �xf7 (White consolidates his advantage more simply with 27 l:ldg 1 !? �h6 28 �xh6 'ii'x h6+ 29 'ike3 ) 27 . . . l:lxf7 (if 27 . . . �h6?, then 28 �xh5 'it'xf2+ 29 �e2 ) 28 l:r.g5! 'iff3 (28 . . . �h6? is bad in view of 29 .UXh5 Vxf2+ 30 'it>c1 ) 29 l:lg6! with the advantage; B ) 26 . . . �h7! 27 l:.dg 1 �h6, retaining coun terplay. 26 . . .
The problem of exchanging was central to this game. Black should have retai ned and made use of his active knig hts. 1 9 . . . a4 suggests itself, after which White would have to reckon with 20 . . . l2Jb3+ . In the event of the exchange on c5 (of which , possibly, Black was afraid, but qu ite unnecessarily) White creates a weakness for himself on f2 . If 20 'ili'e 1 , then 20 . . . �h7 with good play. 19 . . . 20 l2Jgxe4
h4
If 26 . . . �h7?! Wh ite was not intending to reply 27 J.xh5 i n view of 27 . . . �h6 with chances for both sides, but 27 l::tg 5 ! . 27 l:tg4! If 27 l:tg5?, then 27 . . . �h6.
l2Jfe4? l2Jxe4
21 l2Jxe4 Or 21 'ifc2 l2Jxc3 22 'it'xc3 . 21 . . .
'ii'xe4
22 'ifc3! It is probable that this simple move was overlooked by Black. 23 �d3 is threatened . 22 . . .
'ii' b 1 +
23 'it>d2
'iff5
With the idea of 24 . . . e4 . 24 �g4 25 l:tg3
'ii'f6 h5!
A good plan: Black wants to retreat his bishop to h7 and then exchange the dark square bishops, after which he will gain counterplay on the f-file. After 25 . . . e4 26 �e6 'fie? Vadim Zviagintsev had prepared a
A critical moment in the game. 27 . . . J.h5? loses to 28 :Xg7! �xe2 29 l:tdg 1 �h5 30 l:!.xc7 . I n order to hold the position , without fail Black must ach ieve the exchange of his passive dark-square bishop for its active opponent. Therefore correct was 27 . . . J.h7! 28 l1dg 1 �h6 29 �xh6 (29 f4? ! l:tae8) 29 . . . 'ili'xh6+ 30 'iVe3 'it'f6! with a double edged game. However, as Dvoretsky pointed out, Wh ite
tLJ
From Games by Pupils of the School
would nevertheless have retained the better chances by offering the exchange of the light-square bishops: 28 ..td3 ! , and if 28 . . . ..th6 29 �c1 . 27 . . .
..tf5?
28 l:1g5
l:.f7? !
Black recog nises his mistake and tries to prepare 29 . . . i.h6 (if 30 l:th5 he has the reply 30 .. Jih7). However, he should have recon ciled himself to the loss of a tempo and played 28 . . . i.h7 29 .l:.h5! 'ilg6 . Now Wh ite easily prevents the exchange of the dark sq uare bishops and q uickly decides the game with an attack on the g- and h-fi les. 29 l::. h 5+!
�g8
30 l:tg1
�f8?!
235
Meanwh ile, Diana Darchiya could have immediately decided the outcome with an other exchange: 25 'iVb3 ! . It is important to eliminate the q ueen , the defender of the e6pawn , and thereby completely disorganise the opponent's defences. Black has no defence, for example: 25 .. ."ilkxb3 26 axb3 i.d7 27 l:tf7 . Rasted - Kadymova (1 5) Germany 1 992
3 1 ..tg5 Black resig ned . Darch iya ( 1 4) - Gedyev Moscow 1 99 1
Even in such a completely level situation one must take care over exchanges, so as not to be left in the end with bad pieces. 11 ..txf5?! Wh ite should have exchange her 'bad' g5bishop (wh ich otherwise is doomed to ru n u p against its own pawn cha i n ) for t h e oppo nent's more active knig ht. In this case the game would have remained completely level, whereas now Black gains the in itiative. Often the assessment of a position depends on slight nuances. Thus if the a5-pawn were moved to a4, Black would have a defensible position . 25 ..tg6? The exchange of bishops is anti-positional . Although Wh ite later won the game, this occurred only thanks to a blu nder by the opponent.
11 . . .
lLlxf5
1 2 l:l.fe1
h6
1 3 ..te3
l:tae8
14 lLlf1
l2Jxe3?
Retu rning the favou r. Of cou rse, Black should have played 1 4 . . . l:l.e7 followed by the doubling of rooks, and if 1 5 tLlg3 captured the knight with the bishop, aiming to exploit her knight's greater manoeuvrabil ity com-
236
�
From Games by Pupils of the School
pared with the passive bishop. Now, howev er, not a trace of Black's advantage remains and the game soon ended in a draw.
Smirnov - Emelin (1 3)
Len ingrad 1 989
Pawn structu re
Chekaev (1 3) - Goldaev USSR 1 989
Wh ite could have parried the threat of 1 3 . . . bxc4 with the simple 1 3 'i!i'c2 ! and then carried out a standard plan: l:.ae 1 , lt:Jd 1 and f2-f4 with the advantage. I nstead he ex changes pawns, which merely increases the opponent's chances on the queenside. 13 cxb5?
axb5
1 4 f4 Now Black would have obtained the more pleasant game by continuing 1 4 . . . b4! 1 5 lt:Ja4 (or 1 5 lt:Je2 lt:Jg4 1 6 .l:tf3 c4! with the th reat of 1 7 .. .'S'b6+) 1 5 . . . lt:Jd7 followed by . . . ..ta6 , . . . ..tf6 and at a convenient moment . . . c5--c4.
What distingu ishes a grand master from a master? Such a q uestion is often asked by chess enth usiasts. Many th ink that a grand master calculates variations fu rther or has a better knowledge of opening theory. I n fact this is not the real difference. One ca n pick out two important traits , in which a higher ran ked player is normally superior to one of lower rank: this is a feeling for the critical moment in a game and a more su btle understanding of various positional prob lems. The diagram position is an excel lent illustra tion of this last trait. When Sergey Dolmatov looked at the game, he gave the following assessment, which is very importa nt for such structures: 'When in Spanish positions Wh ite closes the centre, the placing of his a-pawn becomes important. If Wh ite has already played a2a4, then Black gains cou nterplay by advanc ing his pawn to c4 and occupying the c5square with his knight. However, if the wh ite pawn is still at a2, the . . . c5-c4 plan is now weaker in view of b2-b3, weakening the c4pawn . Wh ite, in tu rn , should prepare the opening of the a-file with the preparatory b2b3, and only then play a2-a4 . '
ctJ
From Games by Pupils of the School
Subtle eval uations of this type a re g radually accu mulated by a player, and make u p his store of positional knowledge. Now it will be easy for the reader to understand why the fol lowing natural move by Wh ite has a q uestion mark attached to it. 20 a4? Correct was 20 b3 followed by a2-a4 , when, in Dolmatov's opinion , Wh ite's chances are slightly better. 20 . . .
c4!
After this standard reply Black seized the in itiative . Bogus lavs ky ( 1 6) - Cherniak Moscow 1 99 1
237
1 6 f5? Excessively sharp ! 1 6 �d2 followed by 1 7 �c3 was better. 16 . . .
gxf5
1 7 gxf5 Now the simple 1 7 . . .'it'd7 followed by . . . 'it>h8 would have placed Wh ite in a critical position. Material-g rabbing
This is a common mistake: many young players, on seeing an opportu nity to win material, often do not pay due attention to the opponent's cou nterplay and disregard sound er alternatives ( remem ber the Morozov Baklan game). Here is another example on the same theme . Darch iya (1 1 ) - Welcheva World G i rls Championship, Fond d u Lac 1 990
Wh ite's pawn structu re has been spoiled . H e should have taken the opportun ity not only to rectify it, but also to open up the game, which is undoubtedly advantageous to the side with the two bishops. After the correct 1 1 f5! White would have gai ned the advantage. The natu ral castl ing move proved to be a serious mistake, and the situation changed sharply. CiJe7 1 1 0-0? 1 2 �e1
0-0
1 3 CiJe4
CiJf6
1 4 CiJxf6+
�xf6
1 5 g4
�e8
20 �xeS?! Wh ite should simply have strengthened her position with 20 f3, when against the th reat of 2 1 b4 followed by the invasion of the knight at c6 Black would have no adequate de fence. The move in the game al lows her opponent more saving chances. 20 . . .
dxc5
238
�
From Games by Pupils of the School
21 tLlb7
'ili'b6
28 'ii'e 8
22 ttJxc5
l:tc8
29 .i.xb5?
23 b4
a5
24 lLld3
%bc1 +
25 'ii'x c1
axb4
26 ttJxe5? !
It was possible to play for a win only by making the prophylactic move 29 .i.f1 ! . Wh ite was fortunate still to have a d raw after her opponent's strong reply.
White repeats the same mistake, g radually making things more difficult for herself. The modest 26 g3 was stronger. 26 . . .
ii.f6
27 'iVc8+
'it'g7
'ii'a 7
29 . . .
b3!
30 ii.d7!
ii.xe5
3 " 'i'xe5+
'it'g8
32 'ii'e 8+ Draw.
I n dex of P layers a n d Analysts 35, 47 64, 1 77 Agdestein 1 7 4 Akopian 1 72 Alburt 1 7 1 Alekh ine 76, 77, 78, 79, 1 29 Aleksa n d rov 1 90 Alexa nd ria 1 30 Anand 7 1 , 75 Andersson 1 9 An ikaev 1 8 Arba kov 232 Amason 1 20 Ashley 66 Averbakh 1 47
1 55 77 Bog uslavsky 87, 1 6 1 , 222, 232, 237 Boleslavsky 1 49 Bolog a n 1 23 , 1 56 Botvi n n i k 7, 27, 42, 84, 1 38 B u d n i kov 201
Ad ia nto
B l u menthal
Adorjan
Bogolj u bow
44 64 , 67, 70, 92, 1 57, 1 60, 231 , 233 Balashov 95 Ba ndza 1 90 Bareev 1 67, 1 94 , 1 95, 201 , 202 , 203, 208, 2 1 6 Becerra Rivero 2 1 7 Bel iavsky 66, 72, 1 80, 1 8 1 Bel l i n 55 Blumenfeld 9
Bagirov Baklan
1 44 , 1 46, 1 65, 1 82 , 1 85, 1 86, 1 97, 200, 202, 204 , 205, 209, 2 1 4 , 2 1 6, 224, 231 , 233, 234 E l i s kases 1 28 E m e l i n 236 Ervin 30 E uwe 27 F a rago
7 C h a rush i n 1 1 4 Cheba n e n ko 40 Chekaev 236 Chern iak 237 Chernosvitov 64 C h i b u rd a n idze 1 7 4 C h i styakov 1 3 1 Conq uest 1 63 Capa b l a n ca
67, 235, 237 10 Dl ugy 57, 58, 59 Dolmatov 1 60 , 1 7 1 , 1 73 , 1 74 , 236 Donner 50 Dorfm a n 95 Dvoretsky 29, 1 1 7 , 1 1 9,
Darchiya Dj u ric
1 03 42 1 20 , 1 2 1 , 1 22 1 9, 50, 67, 1 1 3, 1 42 114
Fedore n ko F i l ipenko Fischer Franke
11 57 G a l k i n 234 Gavrikov 70, 1 87 Gedyev 235 Gelfa n d 1 5, 202 Geller 54, 63, 67, 69, 1 27, 1 56 Georg iev, Kir. 1 76 Gertler 58 Ghinda 1 3 G l eizerov 1 22 Glek 1 63, 1 79 G l u s h n iov 1 4 1 Gabdra k h m a nov Gaj i c
l2J
I ndex of Players and Analysts
236 171 Gonzalez 93 Gorelov 1 62 Gottschall 47 G rau 1 28 G riffiths 1 57 G rue nfeld 59 G ufeld 37 G u l ko 30, 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 , 1 24 , 224 G u revich , M. 1 64
1 07 30, 69, 1 64 Korneev 98 Korzu bov 1 90 Kosi kov 98, 1 00 , 1 05 Kotov 23 Kovalevskaya 230 Kozul 56 , 1 67 Kram n i k 1 6 1 , 1 62 , 1 68 , 1 69 , 1 72 , 1 77 , 1 8 1 , 1 97, 200, 2 1 4 Kruppa 201 K u ij pe rs 1 55 Kupch i k 1 1 6 K u p re i c h i k 1 24 , 1 90
Goldaev
Kond ratiev
Moldagal iev
Goldin
Korchnoi
Morozov
171 Ha rtston 1 55 Herzog 66 H o rt 46, 54 , 67, 80 H u bner 1 0, 49, 50, 1 55 l l i nchenko 1 05 l lyi n-Genevsky 1 07 lvanch u k 30, 42, 1 94
Haba
Johansen Kadymova
225 1 57 , 1 60 , 230,
235 89 1 79 7 1 , 75
Ka l i kshte i n Kal i n ichev Kamsky Kan
Larsen
54
Lasker, E d . Lasker, E m .
1 27 7, 8
1 90 42 Lei n 59, 2 1 6 Leko 93 Lerner 68 Levenfish 1 50 Lisitsyn 65 Liti n s kaya 1 30 Littlewood , P. 1 27 Log i nov 80
Lautier
Laza rev
1 50
80 30, 33, 44, 46, 60, 67, 68, 72, 1 36 , 1 55, 201 , 208 Kasparov 1 5, 46, 47, 68, 1 36, 1 72 , 201 Keene 1 27 Kengis 9 Keres 27, 42, 56 Khenkin 1 62 , 1 63, 1 64 , 1 66 , 1 67, 1 96 , 1 97 , 201 , 202, 203 Kholmov 54, 1 56 Kimelfeld 2 1 7 Kingston 1 56 Kinsman 89 Kiryakov 70, 1 57 , 1 60 Knaak 63, 1 76
1 55 55 M a l a n y u k 1 64 M a rja novic 56 M a rs h a l l 1 1 6 , 1 27 , 1 42 M a rtin Gonzalez 93 Mats u l a 1 20 Matulovic 2 1 9 Mayer 5 1 Med n i s 1 27 Meister 1 77 Merku lov 1 8 Mestel 54 Meulders 225 M ichel 1 55 M iles 1 28 M i r u m i a n 92 M iton 227
Karpeshov
McG u n n ig l e
Karpov
Ma ka rychev
1 55
231
Moska l e n ko Movsesian Muller
239
1 77 67, 1 60 , 1 6 1
51 1 79 , 208 7, 27, 47, 7 1 ,
N i kolic
N i mzowitsch
101 1 46
Nisman NN
1 55
1 81 1 5, 5 1 , 79, 9 1 , 1 09 , 1 34 , 1 35, 1 57
Novi kov Nunn
73, 74 93 P e n rose 1 55 Perl is 1 42 Peters 30 Petrosia n , A . 1 55 Petrosi a n , T. 37, 99, 1 1 3, 1 43 Petu rsson 1 74 , 1 75 P i nter 64 Polugayevsky 1 1 3, 1 43 Psakhis 55, 93, 1 28 , 1 90 Pach m a n
Panno
Rabar
68 1 07
Ragozi n
1 20 235 Razuvaev 60, 1 00 , 2 1 3 Reshevsky 27 Reti 84 R i b l i 55 Roma n i s h i n 1 03 , 1 28, 1 55 Romanovsky 1 52 Rossol imo 1 55 R u b a n 1 77 R u b i n etti 23 R u b i n stei n 79, 86 Rash kovsky Rasted
54 1 35 S a k h a rov 1 4 1 Salov 1 79 , 1 80 , 1 95 Savch e n ko 1 64 Sadler
Saigin
240
�
Schm idt
Index of Players and Analysts
1 71
208 Shaba lov 69, 1 80 Shamkovich 224 Shcherbakov 1 2 1 Shereshevsky 1 6, 202 S h i pov 1 56 S h i rov 89, 225 Shiyanovsky 233 Short 1 67, 1 7 1 , 1 72 , 1 75 , 1 76 Simagin 27, 1 30 , 3 1 3, 1 32 , 1 33, 1 35, 1 39 , 1 4 1 Smej kal 72 S m i rnov 236 Smyslov 29 Sokolov, A. 60, 1 93 Sokolov, I . 225 Soloviov 1 00 Spasov 1 4 Spassky 1 39, 1 83 Speelman 55 Spraggett 1 2 Stei n 56
Schwartzman n
70, 1 1 0 89 Vyzhmanavin 1 80
Sterk
78 1 49 Suetin 99, 1 1 9
Vito l i n s
Sterner
Vysoch i n
1 7, 64, 1 47 86 Ta l 55, 1 38, 226 Ta rrasch 201 Tel m a n 94 Ti m m a n 1 2 , 1 5, 33, 54, 1 76 , 201 Ti moshch e n ko 2 0 Tol u s h 6 5 Tsesh kovsky 1 7 , 29, 30, 1 1 7 Tu kmakov 1 1 0, 1 67 , 1 73, 1 74
1 55 1 55 Wa ng Z i l i 1 83 Welcheva 237 Wilson 1 64 W i n a nts 225 W i rthen s o h n 80 Wolff 2 1 9, 220
Ta i m a nov Ta kacs
Wachtel Wade
1 32 9, 1 0, 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 5, 1 7 , 20, 23, 30, 80, 1 36 , 1 6 1 , 1 83 , 1 87, 1 90, 1 93
Ya ku bovich Yus u pov
1 72 1 33
U lybin Uusi
1 67 , 225 72, 1 57 , 1 80 Van Wely 1 77 Vasyu kov 1 66 Vi ku lov 1 44
84 1 04 Z i l berman 64 Zviagi ntsev 67, 70, 1 47, 1 6 1 , 222, 234
Va isser
Zagorya n s ky
Van der Wiel
Zaitsev, I .
I ndex of O pe n i ngs Bogo-l ndian Defence 1 1 0 , 1 95
Pi rc-Ufi mtsev Defence 33
Caro-Kann Defence 20, 57-60
Queen's Gambit 42, 86, 99, 1 90
Dutch Defence 1 62- 1 82
Queen's I ndian Defence 1 44 , 1 46
Engl ish Opening 1 7 , 1 05
Reti Opening 84 , 1 03
French Defence 29, 92, 1 00 , 1 07, 2 1 6
Ruy Lopez 7 1 , 1 83
GrOnfeld Defence 1 87
Semi-Slav Defence 27
King's I ndian Defence 37, 95, 1 24, 201
Simagi n-Larsen Opening 1 9
Nimzo-lndian Defence 224
Slav Defence 89, 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 , 208
Old I ndian Defence 23
Torre Attack 80
