April 5, 2017 | Author: Aleksandar Urosevic Zenica | Category: N/A
Download Quality Chess Odds & Ends (Quality Chess2012)...
July 2011 Newsletter By
The QC Team
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Preface Puzzles Sreeves - Gupta, London Chess Classic 2010; [A11] [J. Aagaard] Oehmichen - M. Rasmussen, Danish Championship 2011; [A12] [M. Rasmussen] Reinderman - Rublevsky, Aix-les-Bains 2011; [A29] [J. Aagaard] McShane - Carlsen, London Chess Classic 2010; [A37] [J. Aagaard] Xzibit - Sergey82, ICC 3 0 2010; [A37] [Xzibit] Aagaard - Bryson, Glasgow League 2011; [B01] [J. Aagaard] A. Rombaldoni - Dvirnyy, Italian Ch. Siena 2010; [B01] [J. Aagaard] Hartvig - M. Haubro, Danish Championship 2011; [B43] [J. Aagaard] Bologan comparison; [B51] [A. Greet] Moscow Variation - 5...£g4; [B52] [A. Greet] Bezemer - Burg, Dutch Championship 2011; [B94] [J. Aagaard] Gharamian - Navara, European Championship, Aix-les-Bains 2011; [B94] [J. Aagaard] Hector - Berg, Swedish Championship, Vasteras 2011; [B94] [J. Aagaard] Hector - Volokitin, Schachbundesliga, Essen 2011; [B94] [J. Aagaard] L. Milov - Gashimov, Mainz (rapid) 2010; [B94] [J. Aagaard] Radjabov - Nakamura, Medias 2011; [B94] [J. Aagaard] Wang Yue - Zhou Jianchao, Danzhou 2011; [B94] [A. Greet] Aronian - Sutovsky, 8th World Team Championship, Ningbo 2011; [D85] [J. Aagaard] Vachier Lagrave - Morozevich, Biel 2011; [D87] [J. Aagaard] Giri - Swinkels, Dutch Championship, 2011; [D98] [B. Avrukh] Improvement according to Giri-Swinkels 2011 game; [D98] [B. Avrukh] Antonsen - Kristiansen, Danish Championship 2011; [E32] [J. Aagaard] Solutions to Puzzles
3 4 5 6 8 8 9 13 14 16 17 19 20 23 26 28 28 29 31 32 36 37 38 39 40 41
Key to symbols used ² ³ ± µ +– –+ = © „ ÷
White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality with compensation with counterplay unclear
? ?? ! !! !? ?! #
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate
The Grandmaster Battle Manual explains how to be a more competitive chess player. Chess grandmaster Vassilios Kotronias has been a professional player for two decades and now he explains the secrets of his success. As a writer, Kotronias has the skill to explain in words what other top players can only express in long lists of chess moves. Improve your chess with a grandmaster guide. Vassilios Kotronias is a chess grandmaster and 9-time Greek Champion. He is a key member of the Greek team as both a player and coach. On the international tournament circuit he is a feared competitor who is particularly noted for his profound opening preparation. ISBN - 978-1-906552-52-7
Preface After seven months of blissful holiday, we return with a monthly newsletter with a few games with relevance to our books. We will aim to have regular contributions from our authors, but with four grandmasters and one excellent IM in the office, we will mainly draw from personal exploits. This newsletter will mainly focus on the recent developments in the Grünfeld Defence and in the Blood Diamond variation of the Najdorf. But there will also be material relating to the English, Experts on the Anti-Sicilian and Play the Scandinavian. We hope you will find this material informative and useful.
On the next page follows six puzzles. Solutions can be found at the end of the newsletter.
Puzzles
1222222223 t+ +lV T5 +vW +o+o5 o+ O P +5 +o+ O + 5 m+ +p+ B5 P + +n+b5 Pp+q+ P5 +k+r+ +r5 79
1222222223 M T +l+5 T + WoOo5 o+ + +v+5 + +qN +p5 + + +p+5 + + P + 5 p+ + Pb+5 + R K +r5 79
Black to play
White to play
1222222223 +t+l+ T5 + W + Vo5 o+ Ob+ +5 + + + + 5 O +p+ +5 + + + + 5 pPpQn+pP5 + Kr+ + 5 79
1222222223 t+wT +l+5 +v+m+oOo5 oO +oM +5 + + + + 5 pVbN + +5 + N PpB 5 + +q+pP5 + Rr+ K 5 79
Black to play
White to play
1222222223 t+ +l+ T5 W + +o+ 5 o+ + + +5 +oVoN +o5 + +m+oP5 +p+ + B 5 Pp+ Pp+5 R +qR K 5 79
1222222223 +t+ Tl+5 +w+ +o+o5 m+ Vo+ +5 O +oNoP 5 +p+ P B5 + + + + 5 pP + +qP5 +k+r+ +r5 79
White to play
White to play
Games Sreeves - Gupta London Chess Classic 2010 [A11] [J. Aagaard] No chess publisher can honestly say that their books are without flaws. Some don’t even seem to care much. We do, and we try to show this by being honest about them, and point them out to our readers, especially through these newsletters. In this game White followed Mihail Marin’s recommendations in GM4 to the letter; unfortunately there was a better move to be found on the way. 1.c4 ¤f6 2.g3 c6 3.¥g2 d5 4.¤f3 dxc4 5.0–0 ¤bd7 6.¤a3 ¤b6 7.£c2 £d5 8.¤e1 £f5 8...£h5 9.¤xc4 ¤bd5 10.e4 ¤b6
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 Oo+ OoOo5 Mo+ M +5 + + + +w5 +n+p+ +5 + + + P 5 pPqP PbP5 R B NrK 5 79
11.¤d3 11.d4!± 11...¤xc4 12.£xc4 e5 13.£c3 ¥d6 14.f4² ¥h3 15.¥xh3? 15.fxe5 ¥xg2 16.¢xg2 £e2† 17.¤f2 ¤xe4 18.£d4! would have won a piece. 15...£xh3 16.¤f2 £h5 17.fxe5 ¥xe5 18.d4 ¥c7 19.£b4 ¥b6 20.¥f4 0–0–0 21.¦ad1 ¦he8 22.¥e5 ¦xe5 23.dxe5 ¦xd1 24.exf6 ¥xf2† 25.¢xf2 £xh2† 26.¢e3 £xg3† 27.¦f3 ¦d3† 28.¢xd3 £xf3† 29.¢c2 £xf6 30.£f8† ¢c7 31.£b4 £e5 32.£c4 £e6 33.£d4 g6 34.b3 h5 35.¢d3 0–1 Chigladze - Shalamberidze, Batumi 2001.
9.e4 £h5 10.¤xc4
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 Oo+ OoOo5 Mo+ M +5 + + + +w5 +n+p+ +5 + + + P 5 pPqP PbP5 R B NrK 5 79
10...¥h3?! 10...e5! was introduced by Balogh. It is not obvious that White has a clear path to an advantage here, although he has a number of ideas at his disposal. 11.¤e3 ¤g4 12.¤xg4 ¥xg4 13.¤d3 Thiede Stranz, Graz 2011. 13...¥e2!?N 14.¦e1 ¤d7„ 11.¤f3 ¤xc4 12.£xc4 ¥e6 13.£c3 ¥d6 14.d4 ¤xe4 15.£e1 f5= Siebrecht - Bok, Wijk aan Zee 2011. 11.d4!? exd4 12.¤d3 ¤xc4 13.£xc4 ¤g4 14.h3 ¤e5³ P.H. Nielsen - Balogh, Eppingen 2010. 11.b3!N is my favourite. It looks most natural. 11...¤xc4 (11...¥g4 12.f3 ¤xc4 13.bxc4 ¥c5† 14.¢h1 ¥e6 15.¦b1 ¦b8 16.¤d3 ¥d6 17.f4²) 12.bxc4 ¥d6 (12...¥g4 13.¦b1!²) 13.¥b2 ¥e6 14.c5 ¥c7 15.¤f3 0–0 16.d4² 11.¤f3 ¤xc4 12.£xc4 ¥g4 12...e6!? 13.£b3 0–0–0
Games So far this is all according to Marin’s dreams. However, at this point he completely missed the chance to bust Black’s opening play. Had it been in the book, Gupta would have found the experience very disheartening for sure...
1222222223 +lT V T5 Oo+ OoOo5 +o+ M +5 + + + +w5 + +p+v+5 +q+ +nP 5 pP P PbP5 R B +rK 5 79
14.¦e1?! 14.d4!! Ne6 (Taking the pawn with 14...¤xe4 15.¤e5 ¤d6 is not survivable: 16.¥e3+-) 15.¥f4± Black will soon be under a fierce attack. 14...e5 15.d4 exd4 16.¤g5?! At the board Sreeves lost faith in Marin’s recommendation of 16.e5, as the best move,
1222222223 +lT V T5 Oo+ +oOo5 +o+ M +5 + + P +w5 + O +v+5 +q+ +nP 5 pP + PbP5 R B R K 5 79
16...¤e8!?N was not considered in the book. After 17.¦e4! ¥e6 18.£a4 ¥c5 19.¦h4 £f5 20.¤xd4 ¥xd4 21.¦xd4 ¦xd4 22.£xd4² White is still better though. But this is not
7
easy to work out. The remains of the game is fantastic: 16...d3 17.¥d2 ¥c5 18.¦ac1 ¤d7 19.e5 ¥b6 20.¤xf7 ¦hf8 20...¦df8 leads to equality after a suspeciously flashy computer line: 21.e6 ¤c5 22.£b4 ¤xe6 23.¤d6† ¢b8 24.¥e3 £a5 25.£xg4 d2 26.¥xd2 £xd2 27.¦cd1 £c2! 28.¢h1 ¦xf2 29.¦c1 £xb2 30.¤c4 £xa2 31.¦a1 £c2 32.¦ac1 £a2= 21.e6? White finally loses his way. He had to play: 21.¥xc6! bxc6 21...¢b8 22.e6 bxc6 23.e7± 22.¦xc6† ¢b8 23.¤xd8, when he is ready to take on b6 if needed. Here Black has to find a fabulous defence:
1222222223 L N T +5 O +m+ Oo5 Vr+ + +5 + + P +w5 + + +v+5 +q+o+ P 5 pP B P P5 + + R K 5 79
23...£xh2†!! 23...¦xd8 24.e6 ¥f3 25.e7 ¦e8 26.£e6 ¥xf2† 27.¢xf2 ¥xc6 28.£xc6 £xh2† 29.£g2 £xg2† 30.¢xg2² leads to a favourable ending for White.) 24.¢xh2 ¦xf2† 25.¢g1 ¦f1†!!= with perpeptual check. 26.¢xf1?? ¥h3# 21...¤c5!µ 22.£b4 ¤xe6 23.¤xd8 ¦xf2! 24.¥e3 24.¢h1 ¦xg2 25.¢xg2 £h3† 26.¢h1 ¥f3#
8
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
1222222223 +lN + +5 Oo+ + Oo5 Vo+m+ +5 + + + +w5 Q + +v+5 + +oB P 5 pP + TbP5 + R R K 5 79
1222222223 t+ +l+mT5 Op+ VoO 5 + + + +5 + O O + 5 +pO + +5 + +p+nPw5 p+nBp+vP5 +r+q+rK 5 79
24...¦xg2† 25.¢xg2 £d5† 26.¢g1 ¥h3 27.£d2 ¤g5 28.¤xc6 bxc6 29.¦xc6† ¢d7 30.¦c7† ¢xc7 31.¥xb6† axb6 32.£f4† ¢b7 33.¦e7† ¥d7 34.¦xd7† £xd7 35.£xg5 d2 0–1
16...¥xf3!! 17.bxa8£† ¥xa8 18.¦f2 £xg3†! 19.¢f1 19.hxg3?? ¦h1#
Oehmichen - M. Rasmussen Danish Championship, 2011 [A12] [M. Rasmussen (trans. J. Aagaard)] This game won the Quality Chess sponsored best game prize for an under 1900 rated player at the Danish Championship. 1.c4 c6 2.¤f3 d5 3.b3 d4 Grabs a bit of centre space and closes the long diagonal. 4.g3 c5 5.¥g2 ¤c6 6.0–0 e5 7.d3 ¥e7 8.¤a3 ¥f5 9.¤c2 h5 Angriff! 10.¥d2 h4 11.¦b1 hxg3 12.fxg3 £d7 13.b4 ¥h3 14.b5 ¥xg2! 15.bxc6 £h3 16.cxb7
19...¦xh2 20.¦xh2 £xh2 There is no salvation for White; I think everything loses. 21.¥e3 21.¦b8† ¢d7 22.¦xa8 £h1† 23.¢f2 ¥h4# would have been nice. 21...£h1† I do not think I found the fastest mate, but it is nice to see the opponent suffer. 22.¥g1 ¥g2† 23.¢e1 23.¢f2?? ¥h4# 23...£xg1† 24.¢d2 ¥g5† 25.e3 £f2† 26.¢c1 ¥f3 27.£e1 dxe3 28.¦b8† ¢d7 29.£a5 £d2† And White resigned. 0–1 Reinderman - Rublevsky European Championship, Aix-les-Bains 2011 [A29] [J. Aagaard] Chess books are still used by strong players. Marin is an author with many fans: here is a game by Dutch GM Reinderman, who clearly
Games has read the GM Repertoire books on the English. 1.c4 e5 2.¤c3 ¤f6 3.¤f3 ¤c6 4.g3 ¥b4 5.¤d5 ¥c5 6.¥g2 d6 7.0–0 ¤xd5 8.cxd5 ¤d4 9.¤xd4 ¥xd4 10.e3 ¥b6
1222222223 t+vWl+ T5 OoO +oOo5 V O + +5 + +pO + 5 + + + +5 + + P P 5 pP P PbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
11.a4!? Following Marin’s strategic concept. 11...a5 12.d3 0–0 13.¥d2 ¥d7 14.£c2 c6 15.£b3 ¦b8 16.f4 ¥c5 17.¦ac1 £e7 18.¢h1 cxd5 19.¥xd5 ¥c6 20.e4 exf4 21.¦xf4 ¥xd5 22.£xd5 £e6 23.£xe6 fxe6 24.¦xf8† ¢xf8 25.¥xa5 ¦a8 26.¦f1† ¢e7 27.¥c3 ¦xa4 28.¥xg7 ¥d4 29.¥xd4 ¦xd4 30.¦d1± ¢f6 31.¢g2 ¦b4 32.¦d2 ¢e5 33.¢f3 ¢d4 34.g4 d5 35.g5 e5 36.h4 ¦b3 37.exd5 e4† 38.¢f4 exd3 39.h5 ¢xd5 40.g6 hxg6 41.h6 ¦b4† 42.¢g5 ¢e4 43.h7 b6 1–0 McShane - Carlsen London Chess Classic 2010 [A37] [J. Aagaard] I am at times asked how reliable our books are, and at what level they can be used. I have to bite my tongue, because what I really wanted to say in such a situation is that player X, rated 2700+ has just bought the books on
9
our website - and most likely not to put under the Christmas three. Peter Heine Nielsen said about some of our books that they were “of use even at the highest level.” He is the chief second of the World Champion, so it is easy to read things into such a statement. One player who has openly said that he has read our books is English Grandmaster Luke McShane. In this game he follows the recommendation of GM Mihail Marin in Grandmaster Repertoire 5 as a stepping stone to beat the World number one. Whatever I say hereafter, I feel I can say it with full confidence. (For more, read Luke’s review of the Marin books in NIC Magazine). 1.c4 c5 2.g3 g6 3.¥g2 ¥g7 4.¤c3 ¤c6 5.¤f3 d6 6.0–0 ¤h6 A sideline, but still a serious option.
1222222223 t+vWl+ T5 Oo+ OoVo5 +mO +oM5 + O + + 5 +p+ + +5 + N +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
7.d4! cxd4 8.¥xh6! ¥xh6 9.¤xd4 Marin thinks White is better here. Carlsen does not manage to prove otherwise. 9...¤e5!?N 9...¤xd4 10.£xd4 0–0 11.¦fd1 ¥g7 12.£e3 ¥xc3 13.£xc3 £c7 14.¦ac1 ¥e6 15.£e3!N This is Marin’s improvement in GM5. 15.c5 £xc5 16.£xc5 dxc5 17.b3 ¦ad8 18.¥xb7 ¦xd1† 19.¦xd1 c4 20.¥d5 ¥xd5 21.¦xd5 cxb3 22.axb3 ¦b8 ½–½ LoginovStanec, Aschach 1994.
10
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
15...¦ac8 16.¦d4 £b6 17.b3 ¦c7 18.£d2² 9...¥d7 10.c5 ¥g7 11.¤xc6 ¥xc6 12.¥xc6† bxc6 13.£a4 ¥xc3 14.£xc6† ¢f8 15.bxc3 ¦c8 16.£a4 ¦xc5 17.£xa7 £c7 18.£xc7 ¦xc7
1222222223 + + L T5 + T Oo+o5 + O +o+5 + + + + 5 + + + +5 + P + P 5 p+ +pP P5 R + +rK 5 79
19.¦fb1! Marin’s improvement. 19.¦fc1 ¢g7 20.a4 ¦a8 21.¦a3 ¦c4 22.a5 ¦a6 and White was unable to convert his avantage in Loginov-Csom, Budapest 1993. 19...¢g7 20.a4 ¦a8 21.¦a3 ¦c5 22.¦b4 ¢f6 23.¢g2 ¢e6 24.h4 h5 25.¢f3± ¦ac8 26.¦bb3 ¦f5† 27.¢e3 ¦cc5 28.f4 ¦fd5 29.¦b7 ¦a5 30.c4 ¦d1 31.¦b5 ¦a6 32.a5 f5 33.c5 dxc5 34.¦xc5 ¢f7 35.¦e5 ¦a7 36.¦b5 ¦a6 37.¦b6 ¦a8 38.a6 ¦d7 39.¦c3 ¦d5 40.¦cc6 ¦g8 41.¦b7 ¦a5 42.¢d4? This makes the job much harder - maybe impossible. 42.a7! ¦a2 43.¦cc7 would have allowed White to win quite easily. A possible plan is: 43...¦e8 44.¢d4 ¦a4† 45.¢c3 ¦a3† 46.¢b2 ¦a6 47.¦c3+42...¦d8† 43.¢e3 43.¢c4 ¦d2 is suddenly very complicated. 43...¦a3† 44.¢f2 ¦d4! 45.a7 ¦e4 46.¦c3 ¦a2 47.¦e3 Good technical play from Mihail, but Black keeps the rook here, hoping to have access to the kingside via f5 later. The win appears to be elusive. 47...¢f6 48.¢f3 ¦aa4 49.¦c7 ¢f7 50.¦d7 ¢f6 51.¦b7 ¢f7 52.¦c7 ¢f6 53.¦b3 ¢f7 54.¢f2 ¦a2 55.¦e3 ¢f6 56.¦xe4 fxe4 57.¢e3 ¦a4
58.¢d2 e6 59.¢c3 ¢f5 60.¢b3 ¦a1 61.¦c5† ¢f6 62.¦c7 ¢f5 63.¢b4 ¢g4 64.¦c5 64.¢b5 ¢xg3 65.¢b6 ¦b1† (65...¢f2 66.¦c5+-) 66.¢c6 ¦a1 67.¢b7 ¦b1† 68.¢c8 ¦a1 69.¢b8 ¢xh4 70.a8£ ¦xa8† 71.¢xa8 ¢g3 72.¢b7 ¢xf4 Black makes a draw. 64...¦xa7 65.¦g5† ¢h3 66.¢c4 ¦a4† 67.¢b3 ¦a1 68.¢c2 ¦a2† 69.¢d1 ¢g2 70.¦e5 ¦a4 71.¦xe6 ¢xg3 72.¦xg6† ¢xf4 73.¢e1 ¦a1† 74.¢f2 e3† 75.¢g2 ¦e1 76.¦f6† ¢g4 77.¦g6† ¢f4 78.¦f6† ¢e4 79.¦e6† ¢d4 80.¦d6† ¢e4 81.¦e6† ¢f4 82.¦f6† ¢g4 83.¦g6† ¢f5 84.¦h6 ¦xe2† 85.¢f3 ¦h2 86.¦xh5† ¢g6 87.¦g5† ¢h6 ½–½ Marin-Illescas Cordoba, Sanxenxo 2004.
1222222223 t+vWl+ T5 Oo+ Oo+o5 + O +oV5 + + M + 5 +pN + +5 + N + P 5 pP +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
10.£b3! A logical answer. Black is behind in development, so White quickly brings his bits in. 10...0–0 11.¦fd1 It is not so easy for Black to free himself here, thus he decides to lose extra time with the knight. 11...¤d7 11...¥d7 12.£xb7 ¦b8 13.£xa7 ¦xb2 14.c5! and White appears to be a pawn up for nothing.
Games 12.£a3!? This is a very combative attempt, but White could also play more classical with: 12.£c2 ¥g7 13.¦ac1 , when again it is not so easy to be Black. For example: 13...a5 14.¤a4! ¤b6 15.c5² 12...a5
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 +o+mOo+o5 + O +oV5 O + + + 5 +pN + +5 Q N + P 5 pP +pPbP5 R +r+ K 5 79
13.b4!? Probably a bit too much. 13.e3 underscores that Black has no good logical moves. For example: 13...¤c5?! (13...¦a6 14.¤a4²) 14.¤b3! ¤xb3 15.axb3 ¦a6 16.c5!² e.g. 16...¥g7 17.cxd6 exd6 18.¦d5 ¦c6 19.¦xa5 ¥xc3 20.bxc3 ¦xc3 21.£b2 £c7 22.¦a7 ¦c2 23.£d4 ¦c1† 24.¦xc1 £xc1† 25.¥f1 £c7 26.h4² and Black never truly frees himself. 13...¦a6 13...¤b6 14.c5 ¤c4 15.£b3 ¤d2 was indicated as playable somewhere, but after 16.£c2! Black has not solved his problems: 16...axb4 17.¤d5 e6 18.¤e3 dxc5 19.£xc5 e5 20.¦xd2 exd4 21.¦xd4 £a5 22.£xa5 ¦xa5 23.¦xb4 ¥g7 24.¤c4 ¦a7 25.¦d1 ¦xa2 26.e3 and the typical “English” pressure continues. 14.b5 ¦a8 15.e3
11
15.¤c6 bxc6 16.bxc6 ¤b6µ 15...a4! 16.¦ab1 ¥g7 17.¤e4 £b6 17...£a5 18.¦bc1 ¦e8 appears just as natural, but there is still a lot of play in the position even though Black is probably equal. 18.¤c6! A nice tricky move.
1222222223 t+v+ Tl+5 +o+mOoVo5 WnO +o+5 +p+ + + 5 o+p+n+ +5 Q + P P 5 p+ + PbP5 +r+r+ K 5 79
18...¦e8 18...bxc6!? 19.bxc6 £a5 20.cxd7 ¥xd7 21.c5 ¥g4 22.¦dc1 dxc5 looks sort of playable, but White continues to exert pressure on the black queenside after 23.¤xc5² 19.¤b4 f5? I thought this move looked horrible when played, but apparently it is positionally ok but tactically is another matter. 19...£a5 20.¤d5 ¤b6 21.¤xb6 £xb6 22.c5 dxc5 23.£xc5² was better, but not solving all problems. 20.¤c3? Missing a big chance. 20.¤d5!
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
12
1222222223 t+v+t+l+5 +o+mO Vo5 W O +o+5 +p+n+o+ 5 o+p+n+ +5 Q + P P 5 p+ + PbP5 +r+r+ K 5 79 20...£d8™ (What both players must have missed was that after 20...£a5 White wins in one go with: 21.b6!!+- fxe4 22.¦b5 £a6 23.¤c7 . But as 21.¤g5 is strong too, it is puzzling that Luke did not play like this.) 21.¤g5 ¤c5 22.b6± Black should probably think about giving up the exchange, as after 22...¦b8 23.¤c7 ¦f8 24.¦b5! his position sort of collapses. 20...£c5? This appears to be a simple blunder. Carlsen is not starting well in this event. 20...£a5 21.¦bc1² and it is still not so easy for Black to free himself, but the position is playable. He needs to try 21...e6 and ...¥f8 to fight for the light squares. 21.¤xa4! £a7
1222222223 t+v+t+l+5 Wo+mO Vo5 + O +o+5 +p+ +o+ 5 nNp+ + +5 Q + P P 5 p+ + PbP5 +r+r+ K 5 79
22.¤a6! bxa6 Delaying the capture only makes things worse. 23.b6 ¤xb6 24.¦xb6 ¦b8 25.c5!± The pressure is substantial. 25...¥e6 Probably a better defence was the miserable 25...dxc5 26.£b3† c4 27.£xc4† ¢h8 28.¦xb8 £xb8 29.£f7 ¦f8 30.£xe7 £e5± with some chances in the ending. 26.¦db1! dxc5?! This loses by force, but the prospects after 26...£c7 27.c6 are not really better. 27.¦b7 ¦xb7 28.¦xb7 £a8 29.¤xc5 £c8 30.£xa6 ¥f7 31.¥c6! ¦d8 31...¦f8 32.a4+-
1222222223 +wT +l+5 +r+ OvVo5 q+b+ +o+5 + N +o+ 5 + + + +5 + + P P 5 p+ + P P5 + + + K 5 79
32.¤d7!! A nice finish. The threat is 33.£b6, with the ideas a2-a4-a5-a6-a7-a8=£ and simply ¦c7. 32...¦xd7 32...¥e6 33.£b6! ¥xd7 34.¥xd7 £c1† 35.¢g2 ¦f8 appears equally hopeless: 36.¥e6† ¢h8 37.¦b8 h5 38.¦xf8† ¥xf8 39.a4 33.¥xd7 £c1† 34.£f1 £xf1†
Games As if resigning, but there is no hope left. 35.¢xf1 ¥c4† 36.¢g1 ¥xa2 37.¥a4 e5 38.f3 ¥h6 39.¥b3† 1–0 Xzibit - Sergey82 ICC 3 0 2010 [A37] [Xzibit] This game follows Marin’s GM Repertoire quite far, so we asked for Xzibit’s permission to use the notes he had put on the Chess Publishing noticeboard. 1.c4 My opponent here is an IM presumably born in 1982 and has a blitz rating on ICC of 3200, best of 3300 so obviously he is a very strong player! 1...c5 2.g3 g6 3.¥g2 ¥g7 4.¤c3 ¤c6 5.¤f3 e6 This is one of the lines I always couldn’t remember what to do. Originally I wanted to play the 6.e3 Nge7 7.d4 line but it’s rather dry. I have never tried 6.d4 so I looked in Marin’s book. 6.d3 ¤ge7 7.¥g5
1222222223 t+vWl+ T5 Oo+oMoVo5 +m+o+o+5 + O + B 5 +p+ + +5 + Np+nP 5 pP +pPbP5 R +qK +r5 79
13
The move suggested by Marin, aiming to improve on Petrosian-Fischer by provoking ...h6. This is based on some games by Jobava mostly as has been established in the long thread about the Marin books on Chesspub. 7...h6 8.¥d2 d5 9.a3 b6 10.0–0 ¥b7 11.¦b1 0–0 12.b4 cxb4 13.axb4 dxc4 14.dxc4 ¦c8 15.£c1 All according to plan and here is the move that makes sense of Bg5-d2. The tempo is recovered since the h6 pawn is attacked and white has time for Rd1 etc. 15...¢h7 16.¦d1 £c7 17.¤b5 £b8
1222222223 Wt+ T +5 Ov+ MoVl5 Om+o+oO5 +n+ + + 5 Pp+ + +5 + + +nP 5 + BpPbP5 +rQr+ K 5 79
18.¤d6! A novelty from Marin and this I could all play really fast which is obviously fairly important in a 3-minutegame! 18...¦c7 19.¤xb7 ¦xb7 20.b5 ¤d8 21.¥b4 Marin’s line ends here as much better for white. I rememered this all and could play it fast and indeed white stands significantly better. 21...¦e8 It’s hard to suggest moves here. 22.¥d6
14
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
22.¤e1 might be the simplest way. White wins an exchange as the rook has no squares. 22...Rc7 23.Bd6 22...£c8 23.¤e5 ¤f5 24.¥xb7 ¤xb7 24...£xb7 at least defends the f7 pawn but white is still in control up the exchange for little compensation if any. 25.¤xf7 ¢g8 26.g4 26.e4 must be better, not weakening the king! I must have been afraid of ...Nd4 type moves which is just seeing ghosts. 26...¢xf7 27.gxf5 gxf5 28.¥f4 I might not have selected the best way to realize the advantage. But my position is much better and should be winning. In a 3-minute game it’s easy to go wrong and in time trouble I allowed him a perpetual check after some clumsy moves. So the end of this game is not important but we’ll give it anyway. 28...¦g8 29.¢f1 ¤c5 30.¥xh6 £b7 31.f3 ¥f6 32.¥f4 ¢e8 33.¥g3 £g7 34.£f4 ¢f7 35.£c7† ¢g6 36.£xg7† ¦xg7 37.¦d6 ¦h7 38.¦bd1 ¥g5 39.¢g2 ¢f6 40.¥f2 ¥f4 41.¥xc5 ¦xh2† 42.¢g1 bxc5 43.¦d7 ¦h6 44.¦xa7 ¥e3† 45.¢g2 ¦g6† 46.¢h3 ¦h6† 47.¢g3 ¦g6† 48.¢h2 ¦h6† 49.¢g2 ¦g6† 50.¢h1 ¦h6† 51.¢g2 ¦g6† 52.¢h3 ¦h6† 53.¢g3 ¦g6† 54.¢h4 ¦h6† Game drawn by mutual agreement ½–½ Aagaard - Bryson Glasgow League 2011 [B01] [J. Aagaard] This game was played with one hour to the first 30 moves (and in theory 15 minutes to the end). Douglas and I play 1–2 times a year, and because of the tricky league system, where a draw of lots are held, I am White in
almost all games. This spring I won twice in the Scandinavian. One of them was interesting and relates to Christian Bauer’s Play the Scandinavian - page 172. 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 £xd5 3.¤c3 £a5 4.d4 ¤f6 5.¥c4 ¥g4 6.f3 ¥f5 7.¥d2 £b6 7...¤c6? 8.¤d5 ¤xd5 9.¥xa5 ¤e3 10.£d2 ¤xc4 11.£f4± 8.¤ge2 e6 8...¤c6? 9.¤a4+-
1222222223 tM +lV T5 OoO +oOo5 W +oM +5 + + +v+ 5 +bP + +5 + N +p+ 5 pPpBn+pP5 R +qK +r5 79
9.g4 9.a4! is an interesting idea that might lead to an edge. There are a few points to it. One in particular is that ...a5 gives White the b5square. 9...a5 Guizar - Hynes, e-mail 2006. 10.g4!N ¥g6 11.h4 h5! 11...h6?! 12.¤f4 ¤c6 (12...¥h7 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 ¥xc2 15.¦xh8 ¥xd1 16.gxf6 gxf6 17.¦xd1 ¤d7 18.¤fd5!!+-) 13.¤xg6 fxg6 14.¤b5! The point. 14...¤xd4™ 15.¤xd4 £xd4 16.£e2© £xb2 17.£xe6† ¢d8 18.¦d1 ¥d6 19.¥b5 ¦a6 20.£c4 12.g5 ¤fd7 13.¤f4 ¤c6 14.¤b5 ¤xd4 15.¤xg6 fxg6 16.¥c3 ¤f5 17.£e2 0–0–0 18.0–0–0 ¥c5 19.£xe6 c6 20.¤a3 ¥b4 21.£xg6 ¥xc3 22.bxc3 £c5 23.¢b2 ¤e3
Games 24.¦d4² Obviously such a long computer line will contain at least 50% bullshit. 9...a6N 10.a5 £d6 11.¥f4 £d7 12.d5 exd5 13.¥xd5!?² 9...¤c6N 10.a5 £xb2 11.¤b5 0–0–0 11...¥xc2 12.£c1 £xc1† 13.¦xc1 0–0–0 14.¦xc2 a6 15.¤bc3² 12.¦a2 ¥xc2 13.¦xb2 ¥xd1 14.¢xd1 a6 15.¤bc3² 9...c6 10.a5 £c7 Koshtenko - Moroz, Alushta 2002. 11.¤g3N ¥g6 12.¤ge4² …¥e7 13.0–0 0–0 And now 14.¥e1! is the idea. 9...¥g6 10.h4 h6 Although Black has made three moves with the queen, the opening is probably ok for him. I don’t see anything concrete... 11.¤f4 ¥h7? This is a big mistake it seems. Bauer correctly points to 11...¤c6! as the best move, although I don’t think he has the best reply as his main line: 12.¥b5! 12.¤xg6 fxg6 13.¤e2 e5 14.c3 exd4 15.£b3 £xb3 16.¥xb3© ½–½ Movsesian - Azarov, Dresden 2007. Overall Black cannot be unhappy about the outcome of the opening. Probably he should have played on. 12...0–0–0 13.¥xc6 £xc6 14.¤xg6 fxg6 15.£e2 The position here holds advantages and possibilities for both players. 15...¢b8 15...¤xg4 16.¦g1 ¤f6 17.0–0–0 ¦xd4 18.¤b5 ¦a4 19.¦xg6÷ 16.0–0–0÷ ¦xd4?! 17.¥xh6 ¦d7 17...¥a3!? 18.¤b1!² 18.¥g5² ¥d6 19.¢b1 e5 20.¦he1 ¦f7 21.£d3 ¤d7 22.£xg6 £xf3 23.¦e3 £f2 24.¤e4
15
¤f8 25.£xd6 cxd6 26.¤xf2 ¦xf2 27.¥e7 d5 28.¦xe5 ¤g6 29.¥d6† ¢c8 30.¦exd5 ¦xh4 31.¥g3 1–0 Zelcic - Boettger, Dresden 2007. Nice, but White was the much stronger player.
1222222223 tM +lV T5 OoO +oOv5 W +oM O5 + + + + 5 +bP NpP5 + N +p+ 5 pPpB + +5 R +qK +r5 79
12.g5!?N Not the best move, but in a league game you often go for the most fun. 12.d5! e5 13.£e2 ¤bd7 14.0–0–0 0–0–0 15.¤d3 £d4 Thuesen - N.J. Fries Nielsen, Copenhagen 1991. And now 16.¤f2!N with a clear edge for White (Bauer). 12...hxg5 13.hxg5 ¥xc2? I was afraid of 13...£xd4 , but White has a strong move (I never considered).
1222222223 tM +lV T5 OoO +oOv5 + +oM +5 + + + P 5 +bW N +5 + N +p+ 5 pPpB + +5 R +qK +r5 79
14.¥xe6!! £e5† 14...fxe6 15.£e2 e5 16.0–0–0+-
16
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
14...¥xc2 15.¦xh8 ¥xd1 16.¥xf7†!! ¢xf7 17.¦xf8†+15.£e2 £xe2† 16.¢xe2 fxe6 17.gxf6 gxf6 18.¦h5+However, 13...¤c6! was the best move. 14.g6! (14.gxf6 ¤xd4) 14...0–0–0 (14...¤xd4 15.gxh7 ¦xh7 16.¦xh7 ¤xh7) 15.gxh7 ¦xh7 16.¦xh7 ¤xh7÷ e.g. 17.¥e3 ¤xd4 18.¢f2 £xb2 19.¥xd4 ¥c5 20.¥xc5 ¦xd1 21.¦xd1 £xc3 22.¤xe6 £xc2† 23.¢e1 £c3† 24.¢f2 £c2†= 14.¦xh8 ¥xd1 15.gxf6 £xd4?! Too many moves with the queen. 15...gxf6 16.¦xd1 ¤d7 was the best defence, but White is better:
1222222223 t+ +lV R5 OoOm+o+ 5 W +oO +5 + + + + 5 +bP N +5 + N +p+ 5 pP B + +5 + +rK + 5 79
17.¤fd5!! I had not seen this, I was thinking of 17.¤fe2 at first (when I played 12.g5) or to play 17.d5!? e5! (I believed he could play 17...0–0–0 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.¥xe6 ¦e8 , but had missed 20.¦xf8!+-) 18.¤g2 0–0–0 19.¤e3²) 17...exd5 18.¤xd5 a) 18...£d6 19.¥f4 £e6† 20.¢f2 0–0–0 21.¥xc7 £c6 (21...¦e8 22.¤b6†+-) 22.¥b3 ¦e8 23.¥f4 ¢d8 24.¦c1 £a6 25.¥c7† ¢c8 26.¥g3† (26.¤f4 £b5 27.¦c3+-) 26...¢d8 27.¥c4 £a4 28.¥c7† ¢c8 29.¥f4 ¢d8 30.¤c7 ¦e7 31.¤b5+-
b) 18...£c6 19.¦c1 0–0–0 20.¦xf8 £e6† 21.¤e3 £h3 22.¦xd8† ¢xd8 23.¢e2+c) 18...£e6† 19.¢f2 0–0–0 20.¥a5! £f5 (20...¤e5 21.¤b6† axb6 22.¥xe6† fxe6 23.¥c3+-) 21.¦xf8 £c2† 22.¦d2 £xd2† 23.¥xd2 ¤xf8 24.¥c3±; 15...g5!? 16.¤h5 ¤c6 17.¤g7† ¢d7 18.¦xd1 ¤xd4 19.¥xg5± 16.¦xd1 ¤d7 16...g5 17.¤b5 £e5† 18.¤e2 ¤d7 19.¥c3 £c5 20.¤xc7† £xc7 21.¥b5 0–0–0 22.¥xd7† ¢b8 23.¥a4+16...£xf6 17.¤e4! (I had planned 17.¤b5?! ¤a6 (But 17...£e5†! 18.¤e2 ¤a6± is not crystal clear.) 18.¤xc7†! ¤xc7 19.¥b4+-) 17...£xb2 18.¥xe6! fxe6 19.¤xe6+16...gxf6 17.¦xf8†! I only had the second winning option, 17.¥xe6!?, but this is of course the way to go. 17...¢xf8 18.¤xe6†+17.¤b5 £e5† 17...£g1† 18.¢e2 £c5 19.¤d3 £xc4 20.¤xc7† £xc7 21.fxg7+18.¤e2 0–0–0 18...g5 19.¥c3 £c5 20.¤xc7† £xc7 21.¥b5 0–0–0 22.¥xd7† ¢b8 23.¥a4+19.¤xa7† ¢b8 20.¥c3 £g5 21.¦xd7 ¦xd7 22.fxg7 1–0 A. Rombaldoni - Dvirnyy Italian Ch. Siena 2010 [B01] [J. Aagaard] This game, played in the 70th Italian Championship last year. It is relevant to page 126 in Christian Bauer’s Play the Scandinavian by a very minor transposition.
Games
17
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 £xd5 3.¤c3 £a5 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.d4 ¥f5 6.¥c4 e6 7.¥d2 ¥b4 8.0–0 Christian does not really consider this move, but the position is quickly back on track. [Christian’s move order is 8.a3 ¥xc3 9.¥xc3 £b6 10.0–0 ¤c6!.
Fedorchuk - Prie, Nantes 2009. Black has come from the opening in less than an optimal way.
8...¤c6 9.a3 ¥xc3 10.¥xc3 £b6 By transposition we are back in Christian’s book.
12...¤e7 12...¤e4!? 13.bxc6 (13.¥b2 ¤a5 14.¥d3 ¤d6=) 13...¤xc3 14.£e1 ¤d5 15.cxb7 £xb7 16.¦b1 ¤b6=
11.b4 Christian does not consider this move, which looks like an omission (although you cannot cover everything, of course). However, he does consider: 11.a4 a5 12.¥b5 0–0 13.¤d2 ¤b4 14.¤c4 £a7 15.¤e3 ¥g6= Bruned - Strikovic, Pamplona 2005. 11.£e1 0–0 12.b4 ¥e4 13.¤g5 ¥f5 14.¤f3 ¥e4= 15.¤d2? ¥xc2 16.¥e2 a6 17.¤c4 £a7µ Naiditsch - Papaioannou, Novi Sad 2009.
1222222223 t+ +l+ T5 OoO +oOo5 Wm+oM +5 + + +v+ 5 PbP + +5 P B +n+ 5 +p+ PpP5 R +q+rK 5 79
11...0–0!N This logical move looks best. A previous game went: 11...¤e4 12.¥b2 0–0 and now White can play to advance the c-pawn with reasonable hopes of an advantage: 13.¥e2 ¦fd8 14.c4 a6 15.£c1 ¤e7 16.¦e1²
12.b5 12.¦e1 ¥g4!=
13.¥b4 ¦fe8 14.£e1 14.¤e5! seems to be the most challenging approach. Still Black should be ok with 14...c6! 15.a4 ¤ed5 16.¥c5 £c7=. 14...¤d7™ 15.a4 a5 15...c5!? 16.bxa6 bxa6 17.a5 £a7÷ As far as I can see, Black has left the opening with a decent position. 18.¥b3 18.¥xe7 ¦xe7 19.£e2 c5 20.d5 ¤f6= 18...c5 19.¥c3 ¦ec8 20.¥a4 ¤d5 21.¥xd7 £xd7 22.¥b2 c4 23.£e2 £b5 24.¥a3 c3 25.£d1 £a4 26.¤e1 £xa5 27.¤d3 ¥xd3 28.£xd3 £b5 29.£g3 £e2 30.¦ac1 £e4 31.¥d6 a5 32.¦fe1 £g6 33.£f3 ¦a6 34.¥a3 ¦b6 35.g3 h6 36.¦e5 ¦cb8 37.£d1 a4 38.h4 f6 39.h5 £e8 40.¦e4 £d7 41.£e2 ¤c7 42.¢h2 ¦b1 43.¦e1 £d5 44.£d3 £xh5† 45.¢g1 £d5 46.¥c1 ¤b5 47.£e3 ¦b6 48.¦g4 g5 49.¢h2 ¢g7 50.f4 £f5 51.d5 ¤c7 52.fxg5 £xg4 53.gxf6† ¢f7 54.£xh6 £g6 55.£f4 £xc2† 56.¢g1 ¤xd5 0–1 Hartvig - M. Haubro Danish Championship 2011 [B43] [J. Aagaard]
18
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
Winner of the Quality Chess sponsored prize for the best game over 1900 at the Danish Championship 2011. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.g3 b5? Moving the e-pawn is standard here. I am a bit dubious about this move. 7.¥g2 ¥b7 8.0–0 8.a4!? has a great score in the databases. It looks like a normal reaction. 8...e6 9.¦e1
1222222223 tM WlV T5 +v+ +oOo5 o+ OoM +5 +o+ + + 5 + Np+ +5 + N + P 5 pPp+ PbP5 R BqR K 5 79
9...£c7 9...¤bd7? 10.e5 ¥xg2? 10...dxe5 11.¥xb7 exd4 12.¥xa8 £xa8 13.£xd4± is not enough compensation, but necessary. 11.exf6 ¥b7 12.¤xe6! fxe6 13.¦xe6† ¢f7 14.fxg7 ¢xg7 14...¥xg7 15.¦xd6+15.£g4† ¢f7 16.£f5† 16.¥g5! 16...¢g8 16...¤f6 17.¤d5 ¥xd5 18.¦xf6† £xf6 19.£xd5†+17.¤d5 ¤e5 18.¦xe5 1–0 Herb -Nikolaidis, France 2002. 9...£d7! is perhaps the best move, but the
position is dodgy. 10.a4 b4 11.¤a2 a5 12.¤b5 ¤c6 13.c3² Kalegin - Rychagov, Kazan 2007. 10.a4! bxa4 11.¤d5! exd5 11...¤xd5 12.exd5 e5 13.¦xa4+12.exd5† ¢d8 13.¥g5 13.¦xa4!? 13...¤bd7 14.£e2 14.¤c6†± 14...¢c8?! 14...£c5 15.¤c6† ¢c7 16.¥e3 ¦e8! 17.£d2 ¦xe3 18.¦xe3 ¥xc6 19.¦c3 ¥b5 20.¦xc5† ¤xc5± 15.¦a3 15.¦xa4!? 15...¢b8 16.¦xa4 ¤b6
1222222223 tL + V T5 +vW +oOo5 oM O M +5 + +p+ B 5 r+ N + +5 + + + P 5 Pp+qPbP5 + + R K 5 79
17.¥xf6! gxf6 17...¤xa4 18.£e8† ¥c8 19.£xa4 gxf6 20.£b4† £b7 21.¤c6† ¢c7 22.£c3!+18.£e8† 18.¦b4!? is probably stronger, but an effective attack does not have to be mathematical flawless to be appreciated. 18...£c8 19.£xf7 £c7?
Games
19
20.¦e8† ¥c8 21.¤c6† ¢b7 22.¤d8† White finds an elegant win and it is no reduction of the greatness of the game that there was a beautiful double rook sacrifice winning as well. 22.¤a5†!? ¢b8 23.¦xc8†! ¤xc8 24.¦b4† ¤b6 25.¦xb6† £xb6 26.¤c6† ¢c8 27.¥h3† f5 28.¥xf5#
1222222223 t+ WlV T5 O + OoOo5 +o+ M +5 + O + +p5 + + + +5 + N +q+p5 pPpP P +5 R B +rK 5 79
22...¢b8 23.¦b4! White’s attack is even unstoppable in the endgame.
a) 11...£d7 Tiger gives this as a second option. 12.d3 g6 13.h6 ¤d5 14.¤e4 £f5 15.£g2² according to Bologan.(Tiger only mentions 15.£xf5 gxf5)
23...¦a7 23...£xf7 24.¤xf7 ¦g8 25.¦xb6† ¢a7 26.¦b3 ¥b7 27.¤d8! is equally hopeless.
b) 11...¦c8 is mentioned by Tiger but not by Bologan.
19...£d7! 20.£e8† (20.£xf6 20...£xe8 21.¦xe8† ¥c8±
¥g7!=)
24.£h5 ¥g7 25.¤c6† ¢b7 26.¦e7 ¥d7 27.¦xg7+- ¦aa8 28.¥h3 ¢c8 29.¦xb6 £xb6 30.¦xd7 1–0 Bologan comparison [B51] [A. Greet] A recent double-review of Experts on the AntiSicilian and Bologan’s The Rossolimo Sicilian came out to Tiger Hillarp-Persson’s advantage. The full review can be found here: http://www. chessvibes.com/reviews/having-fun-with-theanti-sicilians We did a small comparison of the two books: 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 d6 4.0–0 4.¥xc6† bxc6 Coverage starts in p78 of Experts. 5.0–0 ¥g4 6.h3 (6.c3 ¤f6 7.d3 p42 Bologan. Not in Experts at all. [7.¦e1 see Experts p81]) 6...¥h5 7.e5 dxe5 8.g4 e4 9.gxh5 exf3 10.¤c3 ¤f6 11.£xf3
c) 11...¤d5 Experts p81; not considered by Bologan. 4...¥d7 5.¦e1 ¤f6
1222222223 t+ WlV T5 Oo+vOoOo5 +mO M +5 +bO + + 5 + +p+ +5 + + +n+ 5 pPpP PpP5 RnBqR K 5 79
6.c3 6.h3 g6 7.c3 ¤e5 8.¥xd7† ¤fxd7 9.¤xe5 dxe5 This was a last-minute addition in Experts. Bologan cites the following game: 10.d3 ¥g7 11.¥e3 0–0 12.¤d2 £c7 13.£b3 ¦fd8 14.¦ad1 a6 15.a4 ¦ab8 16.£a3 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.¦a1 (According to Bologan the game
20
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
continued 18.c4² see page 69) 18...e6 19.c4² ½–½ Predojevic - Jankovic, Pula 2005.
£c7 33.£xa6± ½–½ Akopian - Tregubov, Kemer 2007
6...a6 7.¥a4 7.¥f1 ¥g4 Tiger gives more thorough coverage than Bologan here, for instance 8.d4!? p88; 7.¥xc6 (p93 Tiger) is not mentioned by VB.
Tiger’s main illustrative game continues 17...¦c8 18.¤e2 b4 19.¥d3 bxc3 20.bxc3 £a5 21.¥d2 cxd4 22.cxd4 ¥b4 23.¥xb4 ¤xb4 24.a3 ¤xd3 25.£xd3 ¦c4 26.¦eb1 ¤b8 27.¦b3 ¤c6 28.¦ab1 ¦c8 29.g3 ¤a7 30.¢g2 ¤b5 31.¦1b2 ¦a4 32.£f3 ¦cc4 33.h4 £d8 34.£e3 £c7 35.£d3 £c6 36.¢h2 £c7 37.¢g2 £e7 38.£e3 ¦c8 39.¤c3 ¤xc3 40.¦xc3 ¦ac4 41.¦bc2 £c7 42.¦xc4 dxc4 43.¦c3 £c6† 44.¢h2 £d5 45.¦c1 ¢f8 46.£c3 a5 47.¦b1 ¦d8 48.¦d1 g5 49.hxg5 ¢e7 50.¢g1 ¦h8 51.f3 g6 52.¦c1 ¦c8 53.¢f2 £b5 54.¦c2 ¢f8 55.g4 ¢g7 56.¢g3 a4 57.¦b2 £d5 58.¦b4 £c6 59.¢g2 ¢g8 60.¢g3 ¢g7 61.¢g2 ¢g8 62.¢f2 ¢g7 63.¢g3 ½–½ Pavasovic - Petkov, Zadar 2005
7...b5 p83 Bologan 8.¥c2 ¥g4 9.d3 e6 10.¤bd2 ¥e7 11.h3 ¥h5 12.¤f1 0–0 13.¤g3 ¥g6 14.¤h4 d5 15.¤xg6 hxg6 16.e5 Bologan mentions 16.f4!? d4 17.a3 £c7 18.e5 ¤d5 19.c4 bxc4 20.dxc4 ¤b6 21.¥d3 ¥h4 22.¢h2 a5 23.£g4 ¥xg3† 24.¢xg3² 1–0 Pikula - Agopov, Novi Sad 2009. 16...¤d7 17.d4
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 + +mVoO 5 o+m+o+o+5 +oOoP + 5 + P + +5 + P + Np5 pPb+ Pp+5 R BqR K 5 79
17...b4 Tiger mentions this move on p100, without any further comment. Bologan gives it as his main line, focusing on the following game: 18.¤e2 £c7 19.a3 bxc3 20.bxc3 ¦fc8 21.¥d3 cxd4 22.cxd4 £a7 23.¥e3 ¥d8 24.¦c1 ¤b6 25.¤f4 ¤e7 26.£g4 ¦xc1 27.¦xc1 ¦c8 28.¦xc8 ¤bxc8 29.¥xg6 fxg6 30.£xe6† ¢f8 31.¤xg6† ¤xg6 32.£xc8
Moscow Variation - 5...£g4 [B52] [A. Greet] It was pointed out by readers that I did not cover 5...£g4 in his article in Experts on the Anti-Sicilian. This was by no means an omission - the book is not a repertoire book and is not trying to cover everything. This does not mean that we cannot give a quick guide to how White should play against this move :-). 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.¥b5† ¥d7 4.¥xd7† £xd7 5.c4 £g4
1222222223 tM +lVmT5 Oo+ OoOo5 + O + +5 + O + + 5 +p+p+w+5 + + +n+ 5 pP P PpP5 RnBqK +r5 79
Games This pawn-grab is extremely risky. Even a boring git like me is happy to sacrifice and attack from here! 6.0–0 £xe4 7.d4 cxd4 This has been the most popular choice, so I will take it as the main line. Objectively I am not sure what the best move is, as Black just seems to be struggling everywhere. This variation has only occurred once in my own practice. The game continued as follows: 7...¤d7 8.¤c3 £c6 9.d5 9.¦e1 is also good, but I decided to gain space and close the centre. 9...£b6 10.¦e1
1222222223 t+ +lVmT5 Oo+mOoOo5 W O + +5 + Op+ + 5 +p+ + +5 + N +n+ 5 pP + PpP5 R BqR K 5 79
10...h6?! A bit slow. Black should prefer 10...¤gf6 as seen in Barinova - Y. Ivanova, Dagomys 2004. Here I think White should play the simple 11.¦b1 intending to open the queenside, just as I did in the game. Black is still unable to castle due to ¤g5. 11.¦b1 g6 Black’s development is painfully slow. 12.b4 cxb4 13.¥e3 £a5 14.¤b5 ¢d8 15.a3! There were other good moves, but I like the idea of opening even more lines. 15...bxa3 16.¦a1 a6 17.¦xa3 axb5 18.¦xa5 ¦xa5 So far everything has gone smoothly and had I played something sensible like 19.£d2N
21
Instead I tried to be too clever and played 19.¥b6†? ¤xb6 20.£d4 , after which 20...¤d7 21.£xh8 ¤gf6 22.cxb5 ¦xb5 gave Black some chances to survive in Greet - Formanek, Hastings 2008, although I did manage to win eventually. 19...¦a8 20.£b2 ¤gf6 21.£xb5 The win would have been close. 7...£c6 8.¦e1 8.¤c3 allows Black to contemplate 8...cxd4 9.¤xd4 £xc4!? which looks terribly risky but might just be playable.
1222222223 tM +lVmT5 Oo+ OoOo5 +wO + +5 + O + + 5 +pP + +5 + + +n+ 5 pP + PpP5 RnBqR K 5 79
8...cxd4 Taking the pawn is too risky now. Another game continued 8...¤a6 9.¤c3 £d7 10.¤b5!? ¤c7 11.dxc5 ¤xb5 12.cxb5 dxc5 13.£b3 ¤f6 Tolentino - Halay, Manila 2007. Here 14.¥f4 looks right, for instance: 14...e6 15.¦ad1 £c8 16.£a4 b6 17.¤e5 ¥e7 18.¤c6 £b7 19.¤xe7 £xe7 20.¥d6 £b7 21.£c4 Black is unable to castle, and White will soon open more lines with b4. 9.¤xd4 £xc4?! 9...£d7 looks like the lesser evil, although Black is still struggling: 10.¤b5! e5? Too weakening. (10...e6 11.¥f4 regains the pawn while keeping some initiative for White, but still Black had to try this.) 11.¤1c3 a6 12.£a4 ¤c6 13.¤d5 ¦c8 14.¤b6 White won material in C. Garcia - T. Davis, Los Angeles 1996.
22
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
10.¤a3 £c8 11.¥f4 White has a huge initiative, as demonstrated by the following two games:
1222222223 tMw+lVmT5 Oo+ OoOo5 + O + +5 + + + + 5 + N B +5 N + + + 5 pP + PpP5 R +qR K 5 79
11...£d7 12.¤ab5 e5 13.¥xe5 dxe5 14.¦xe5† ¥e7 15.¦d5 £c8 16.¤f5 ¢f8 17.¤xe7 ¢xe7 18.¦e5† 1–0 Browne - Quinteros, Wijk aan Zee 1974. 11...e5 12.¥xe5 dxe5 13.¦xe5† ¤e7 14.¤ab5 £d7 15.¤f5 ¤bc6 16.¤fd6† ¢d8 17.¤xf7† ¢c8 18.£xd7† ¢xd7 19.¦d1† ¢c8 20.¦e6 g6 21.¤xh8 1–0 Medeiros de O - Clerici, corr. 1986. 8.¤xd4 8.¦e1 seems slightly less accurate, as after 8...£g4 White cannot take on d4 without allowing a queen exchange. 9.h3 £d7 The queen has escaped to a safe location, and White has expended a tempo in a less than ideal way with h2-h3. 8...¤c6 9.¤b5 0–0–0 10.¥e3 It is obvious that White has more than enough play for a pawn. Black has tried a number of moves here, none of which solve his problems.
1222222223 +lT VmT5 Oo+ OoOo5 +mO + +5 +n+ + + 5 +p+w+ +5 + + B + 5 pP + PpP5 Rn+q+rK 5 79 10...a6 10...b6 Maciaga - Kosturkiewicz, Wysowa 2003. 11.£a4N ¢b7 12.¤1c3 White has a huge attack, with ¤d5 coming next. Black ignored the threat with 10...¤f6 in Barnsley - Stimpson, corr. 1973. For some reason White refrained from capturing on a7 here, but actually both 11.¤xa7† and 11.¥xa7 would have given him a great position. 10...£xc4 Ungure - Belakovskaia, Simferopol 1992. 11.¤1a3N £b4 12.¦c1 Black is about to get mangled on the queenside. 10...¢b8 11.£a4 (11.¤d2) 11...a6 This was Pernigotti - Passoni, Italy 2004, and here 12.¤1c3N £h4 13.¦ad1 would have given White a powerful initiative. 11.¤1c3 £xc4 12.b3 £h4 12...£b4 was played in Velker - Limayo, e-mail 1998. White should simply have played 13.a3N forcing 13...£h4, after which 14.¤a7† is virtually identical to the main game. 13.¤a7† ¢b8 13...¤xa7 14.¥xa7 ¤f6 15.¦c1 ¢d7 16.¤d5 is winning, as pointed out by Baburin. 13...¢d7! is mentioned as the best try by
Games Baburin. He is probably right, although the simple 14.¤xc6 bxc6 15.£d3
1222222223 + T VmT5 + +lOoOo5 o+oO + +5 + + + + 5 + + + W5 +pNqB + 5 p+ + PpP5 R + +rK 5 79
leaves Black with a rotten position and it is hard to believe his king will survive for much longer. 14.¤xc6† bxc6 15.£d3 ¢b7 Meier - Haroutjunian, Plovdiv 2008.
1222222223 + T VmT5 +l+ OoOo5 o+oO + +5 + + + + 5 + + + W5 +pNqB + 5 p+ + PpP5 R + +rK 5 79
16.¤e4!N This improvement was noted by Baburin. Here are a few illustrative lines: 16...¤f6 16...e5? 17.¥g5+-; 16...£h5 17.¤c5†+17.¤c5† ¢c7 18.¤xa6† ¢d7 19.¦ac1 Black is busted.
23
Bezemer - Burg Dutch Championship 2011 [B94] [J. Aagaard] I found this game in ChessVibes weekly magazine. It has quite an original idea; but Black seems to be ok after accurate play. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.¥c4 £b6 8.¥b3 e6 9.£d2 ¥e7 10.0–0–0 ¤c5 11.f3 0–0 12.¢b1 £c7 13.g4 b5 14.a3 I have spent (too much/a terribly lot of time) on this line. It is really very inspired and it seems that only very accurate play can save Black.
1222222223 t+v+ Tl+5 + W VoOo5 o+ OoM +5 +oM + B 5 + Np+p+5 PbN +p+ 5 PpQ + P5 +k+r+ +r5 79
14...¥d7! 14...¦b8?! turns out to lead to a bit of a bother. 15.h4 ¥d7 15...¤xb3 does not look to be enough. Black has no obvious follow-up after 16.¤xb3! (16.cxb3 seems weakening. If Black did not have time for ...b4, I would like this. But not if he actually can play it... 16...b4 17.axb4 ¦xb4 18.¤f5 ((18.¤d5 ¤xd5 19.exd5 ¦b6÷)) 18...exf5 19.¥xf6 ¥xf6 20.¤d5 £c5 21.gxf5 ¦xb3 22.¤xf6† ¢h8 23.¦hg1 ¥xf5!„ Palliser in Chess Publishing.) 16...¦d8 (16...¥d7? 17.e5+-) 17.h5!
24
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
1222222223 TvT +l+5 + W VoOo5 o+ OoM +5 +o+ + Bp5 + +p+p+5 PnN +p+ 5 PpQ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79 17...h6 (17...b4 18.axb4 ¦xb4 19.h6 g6 20.¥xf6 ¥xf6 21.¤d5±; 17...a5 18.h6 b4 19.axb4 axb4 20.¤d5! exd5 21.hxg7± ¥b7 22.¥xf6 ¥xf6 23.¦xh7 ¥xg7 24.¦dh1 f6 25.g5 ¦d7 26.£h2+-) 18.¥h4 d5 19.e5 £xe5 20.¤e2 £d6 21.g5 hxg5 22.£xg5‚)
1222222223 T + Tl+5 + WvVoOo5 o+ OoM +5 +oM + B 5 + Np+pP5 PbN +p+ 5 PpQ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
16.h5!N 16.¥xf6 ¥xf6 17.g5 ¥d8 18.h5 a5 19.g6 was Shirov - Dominguez Perez, Wijk aan Zee 2010. Here many commentators, including Ftacnik, has pointed out that 19...¥f6!N would give Black a good game.) 16...a5 16...h6 17.¥xh6! gxh6 18.£xh6‚ 17.h6!N 17.¥e3? b4 18.axb4 axb4 19.¤a2 e5 20.g5 exd4 21.¥xd4 ¤xb3 22.cxb3 ¤d5 23.g6 h6 24.gxf7† ¦xf7 25.¦hg1 ¥g5 26.¦xg5 hxg5 27.£xg5 ¤f4 28.h6 ¤e6 29.£g6 ¤xd4 30.¦c1 ¥c6 31.h7† ¢h8 0–1 Van HengelBezemer, Amsterdam 2011
17...g6
1222222223 T + Tl+5 + WvVo+o5 + OoMoP5 OoM + B 5 + Np+p+5 PbN +p+ 5 PpQ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
18.¤f5! gxf5?! (18...exf5™ 19.¤d5 ¤xd5 20.¥xe7 ¤xb3 (20...¤xe7 21.£d4+-) 21.£xd5± Bezemer) 19.¥h4! ¢h8 20.£g5 ¦g8
1222222223 T + +tL5 + WvVo+o5 + OoM P5 OoM +oQ 5 + +p+pB5 PbN +p+ 5 Pp+ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
21.£xf6†! ¥xf6 22.¥xf6† ¦g7 23.hxg7† ¢g8 24.¦xh7 ¢xh7 25.gxf5 exf5 26.¥xf7+15.h4
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 + WvVoOo5 o+ OoM +5 +oM + B 5 + Np+pP5 PbN +p+ 5 PpQ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
Games 15...£b7? This comes close to being lost by force. 15...¦fb8!N This seems to be the only move. 16.h5! The critical try. White can of course go for 16.¥xf6 ¥xf6 17.g5 ¥e7 18.h5 ¤xb3 19.¤xb3 ¥e8÷, but this is hardly something for Black to fear. 16...a5 The most natural move. 16...h6!? This is very risky, but might be playable. 17.¥e3 a5 18.g5 hxg5! (18...b4?! 19.¤cb5! ¥xb5 20.¤xb5 ¦xb5 21.gxf6 ¥xf6 22.a4 ¦b6 23.¥xh6 ¢h7 24.¥f4 ¦d8 25.¥g5‚) 19.h6 g6÷) 17.h6 g6™ Avoiding this move does not work. 17...¤xb3 18.cxb3 b4 19.¤d5 exd5 20.hxg7 £d8 (20...bxa3 21.¥xf6 ¥xf6 22.¦xh7+-) 21.£h2 h5 22.¥f4+18.¤f5!! Obviously this is the critical idea. 18.£f4!? e5 19.¥xf6! exf4 20.¤d5 ¥xf6! (20...£a7 21.¤xe7† ¢f8 22.¥d5±) 21.¤xc7 ¦a7 22.¤d5 ¥g5=) 18...gxf5 19.¥h4
1222222223 tT + +l+5 + WvVo+o5 + OoM P5 OoM +o+ 5 + +p+pB5 PbN +p+ 5 PpQ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
19...¢f8!! Only this prophylactic works. 19...¤xb3 20.£g5† ¢f8 21.£g7† ¢e8 22.¥xf6 ¥xf6 23.£xf6 £d8 24.£g7 fxg4 25.cxb3‚;
25
19...b4 20.e5! (20.£g5† ¢f8 21.£g7† ¢e8 22.¥xf6 bxc3 23.¥xe7 ¢xe7 24.£g5† ¢e8 25.gxf5 ¥b5) 20...dxe5 21.£g5† ¢f8 22.£g7† ¢e8 23.¥xf6 ¥f8 24.£h8 bxc3 25.¥xe5 £xe5 26.£xe5 a4 27.¥c4 ¦xb2† 28.¢a1 ¦xc2 29.¦b1+20.£g5 20.e5 ¤xb3! 21.£g5 ¢e8 22.exf6 ¥f8 23.¤d5 £b7 24.gxf5 b4‚ 20...¢e8 21.£g7 b4 22.£h8† ¥f8
1222222223 tT +lV Q5 + Wv+o+o5 + OoM P5 O M +o+ 5 O +p+pB5 PbN +p+ 5 Pp+ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
As far as I can see White cannot do more than force a draw. 23.¥xf6 bxc3 24.exf5 ¦xb3 25.cxb3 c2† 26.¢xc2 ¥c6 27.¦hf1 £b7 28.¢b1 ¥xf3 29.¦xd6 ¥e4† 30.¢a1 ¤xb3† 31.¢a2 ¥d5 32.fxe6 ¤d2† 33.¢a1 ¤b3† 34.¢a2 fxe6 35.¥g7 ¤d2† 36.¢a1 ¤b3† 37.¢b1 ¤d2† 38.¢c2 ¥b3† 39.¢xd2 £g2† 40.¢e1 £e4† 41.¢f2 £f4† 42.¢g2 £xg4† 43.¢h2= 16.h5! a5 17.h6 g6
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 +w+vVo+o5 + OoMoP5 OoM + B 5 + Np+p+5 PbN +p+ 5 PpQ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
26
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
18.¤f5! gxf5 18...exf5 19.¤d5 ¤xd5 20.¥xd5 ¥xg5 21.£c3!+19.¥h4 19.gxf5! ¢h8 20.£xd6! is even easier. 19...¤fxe4 19...¢h8 20.£g5 ¦g8 21.£xf6† ¥xf6 22.¥xf6† ¦g7 23.hxg7† ¢g8 24.¦xh7 ¢xh7 25.gxf5 exf5 26.¥xf7 and mate follows Bezemer.
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 +w+vVo+o5 + Oo+ P5 OoM +o+ 5 + +m+pB5 PbN +p+ 5 PpQ + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
20.fxe4?! 20.¤xe4! ¤xb3 (20...¤xe4 21.fxe4 ¥xh4 22.¦xh4) 21.cxb3 f6 22.gxf5 ¢h8 23.¦hg1 exf5 24.¤xd6 £xf3 25.¦de1+- Bezemer. 20...¤xb3 21.cxb3 f6 22.gxf5 b4
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 +w+vV +o5 + OoO P5 O + +p+ 5 O +p+ B5 PpN + + 5 P Q + +5 +k+r+ +r5 79
23.£g2†? 23.fxe6! ¥xe6 24.¤d5 ¢h8 24...¥xd5 25.£g2†! ¢f7 26.£g7† ¢e8 27.exd5 25.¤xe7 £xe7 26.£xd6 £xd6 27.¦xd6 ¦ae8 28.¦g1+- Bezemer. 23...¢f7 24.£g7† 24.fxe6† 24...¢e8 25.fxe6 bxc3 26.exd7† ¢d8? 26...¢xd7 27.£g2? 27.¦d3 27...£xb3? 27...¦b8 28.e5 c2† 29.£xc2 £xc2† 30.¢xc2 dxe5 31.¦hg1 ¦a7 32.¦g7 ¦xd7 33.¦xh7 ¦xd1 34.¢xd1 ¢e8 35.¥e1 ¦g8 36.¦g7? 36.b4 36...¦h8 37.h7 ¢f8 38.¦g8† ¦xg8 39.hxg8£† ¢xg8 40.¥xa5 ¢f7 41.¥d2 ¢e6 42.b4 ¢d5 43.a4 ¢c4 44.a5 ¢b5 45.¢e2 f5 46.¢f3 ¥f8 47.¥c3 ¥d6 48.¢e2 ¥c7 49.¢d3 ¥b8 50.¢e2 ¢c4 51.¥d2 ¥a7 52.¥e3 ¥b8 53.a6 ¢xb4 54.a7 ¥xa7 55.¥xa7 ¢c4 ½–½ Gharamian - Navara European Championship, Aix-les-Bains 2011 [B94] [J. Aagaard] Not fully up to date - but anyway, here are some material on the Blood Diamond Variation. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.f4 £c7 8.£f3 h6 9.¥xf6 ¤xf6 10.f5
Games
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +oW OoO 5 o+ O M O5 + + +p+ 5 + Np+ +5 + N +q+ 5 pPp+ +pP5 R + Kb+r5 79 10...£c5! 10...g5?! 11.fxg6 fxg6 12.0–0–0N 12.£g3 ¦g8 13.0–0–0 e5 14.¤b3 ¥e6 15.¤d5 ¥xd5 16.exd5 h5 17.¥d3 ¥h6† 18.¢b1 0–0–0 19.¥xg6 ¢b8 20.£d3 £g7 21.¥f5 £xg2 22.¤a5 ¦g7= Andriasian Kohlweyer, Balaguer 2010. 12...¥g7 12...¥g4 13.¤d5± 13.¤d5 £a5 14.¢b1 ¤xd5 15.exd5 ¦f8 16.£e4 ¥f5 17.¤xf5 gxf5 18.£c4² 10...e5 11.fxe6 fxe6 a) 12.0–0–0 ¥d7 (12...¥e7N 13.g3 0–0 14.¥h3 ¤d5 15.¤xd5 exd5 16.¥f5 £c4 17.£b3 £xb3 18.axb3 dxe4 19.¥xe4²) 13.g3 0–0–0 14.¥h3 ¦e8
1222222223 +l+tV T5 +oWv+ O 5 o+ OoM O5 + + + + 5 + Np+ +5 + N +qPb5 pPp+ + P5 + Kr+ +r5 79
15.¤ce2!N (15.¦he1 ¤h7 16.£e2 ¤g5
27
17.¥g4 g6 18.h4 h5 19.hxg5 hxg4÷ Negi Yilmaz, Chotowa 2010.) 15...£c4 (15...¢b8 16.¤f4 e5 17.¥xd7 £xd7 18.¤g6 ¦g8 19.¤f5²) 16.¢b1² b) 12.¥d3 ¥d7 13.e5?! dxe5 14.¥g6† ¢d8 15.¤de2 ¢c8 16.0–0–0 ¢b8 17.¤g3 ¥b4 18.¤ce4 ¤d5³ Nemeth - Szabo, Szombathely 2010. c) 12.g3 e5 (12...£e7 Pluzyan - Krzyzanowski, Batumi 2010. 13.0–0–0²) 13.¤f5 g6 14.¤e3 ¥g7 15.0–0–0 0–0÷ 10...¥d7 11.0–0–0 ¦c8 12.¢b1 £c5 13.¤d5² Swiercz - Nyzhnyk, Wijk aan Zee 2011. 11.0–0–0 g5 12.e5!?N
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +o+ Oo+ 5 o+ O M O5 + W PpO 5 + N + +5 + N +q+ 5 pPp+ +pP5 + Kr+b+r5 79
12...£xe5! 12...dxe5 13.¤db5 e4 14.¤xe4 ¤xe4 15.£xe4 ¥g7 (15...axb5 16.¦d5+-) 16.¤d6† ¢f8 17.¤xc8 ¦xc8 18.¦d7² 12...g4 13.£g3 £xe5 14.¥b5† axb5 15.£xe5 dxe5 16.¤dxb5 e6 17.¤c7† ¢e7 18.¤xa8 exf5 19.¦he1 e4² 13.g3 g4! 13...¥g7 14.¥g2 £c5 15.¦he1²
28
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
14.£f2 h5! 14...£c5 15.¥g2 ¥d7 16.¦he1 h5 17.£e2 0–0–0 18.¤e4² 15.¢b1 15.¥g2? ¥h6† 16.¢b1 ¥e3–+
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +o+ Oo+ 5 o+ O M +5 + + Wp+o5 + N +o+5 + N + P 5 pPp+ Q P5 +k+r+b+r5 79
15...¥h6?! 15...h4!?N 16.gxh4 ¥h6 17.¦e1 £f4 18.£e2 £e5 19.£f2 £f4= 15...£c5 16.¥g2 ¥d7 17.¦d3 (17.£e2 0–0–0 18.¤e4 ¤xe4 19.£xe4 £b6! 20.¦d3 ¥g7³) 17...¥h6 18.¦e1 ¦b8 19.£e2 0–0÷ 16.¦e1 £c5 17.¥g2² ¥d7 18.£e2 0–0 19.¤b3 £xf5?! 19...£c7 20.£xe7 ¥g7 21.¤e4 ¤xe4 22.¥xe4² 20.¦hf1 £g5?! 20...£g6 21.£xe7 ¦ae8 22.£xd6 ¥c8² 21.£xe7 ¦ae8 22.£xd6± ¦xe1† 22...¥c8!? 23.¦xe1 ¦e8 24.¦xe8† ¥xe8 25.¥xb7+£e3 26.a4 £g1† 27.¢a2 ¥g7 28.£e7 ¥d7 29.¤d5 £f2 30.£d8† ¢h7 31.¤xf6† £xf6 32.£xf6 ¥xf6 33.¤c5 1–0
Hector - Berg Swedish Championship, Vasteras 2011 [B94] [J. Aagaard] This game was played just before we finished the newsletter. It shows a nice idea for White against a bad idea for Black. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.f4 £c7 8.£f3 h6 9.¥xf6 ¤xf6 10.f5
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +oW OoO 5 o+ O M O5 + + +p+ 5 + Np+ +5 + N +q+ 5 pPp+ +pP5 R + Kb+r5 79
10...¦g8?! 11.0–0–0 g5 12.e5! dxe5 13.¤db5 axb5 14.¤xb5 £b8 15.£c3+- ¥d7 16.¤c7† ¢d8 17.¤xa8 £xa8 18.¥b5 £c8 19.£a5† £c7 20.£a8† £c8 21.£a4! ¢c7 22.¦d3 ¥xf5 23.¦c3† ¢b8 24.¦xc8† ¥xc8 25.¦f1 g4 26.£c4 ¥e6 27.£c5 h5 28.£xe5† ¢a8 29.¢b1 ¥g7 30.¦f4 ¢a7 31.£c7 1–0 Hector - Volokitin Schachbundesliga, Essen 2011 [B94] [J. Aagaard] As always Jonny Hector finds a poisonous idea in his favourite 6.¥g5 Najdorf. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.f4 £c7 8.£f3 h6 9.¥xf6 ¤xf6 10.f5 £c5 11.0–0–0 g5 12.fxg6!? ¥g4 13.gxf7† ¢xf7 14.£d3 ¥xd1 15.¤xd1
Games
1222222223 t+ + V T5 +o+ Ol+ 5 o+ O M O5 + W + + 5 + Np+ +5 + +q+ + 5 pPp+ +pP5 + Kn+b+r5 79 15... e6?! 15...h5!? 16.g3 ¦c8 17.¥h3 ¤g4 18.e5! £xe5 19.¥g2© 15...¦c8N 16.g3!² (16.¤e3 £e5 17.£b3† e6 18.¥c4 d5 19.exd5 £xd4 20.dxe6† ¢e8 21.¦d1 (21.e7 ¥xe7 22.¥f7† ¢f8 23.¥g6 ¦h7 24.¥xh7 ¤xh7 25.£e6 ¦e8 26.£xh6† £g7 27.¦f1† ¥f6÷) 21...£e4 22.£c3 (22.¤d5 ¤xd5 23.¥xd5 £f4† 24.¢b1 ¦c7÷) 22...¥e7 23.¥b5† ¢f8 24.£xc8† ¢g7 25.¤f5† £xf5 26.£xb7 £xe6 27.£xa6 £e3† 28.¢b1 ¦d8„) 15...£e5! seems to be the way to go.16.¤c3 (16.£b3† looks dangerous, but Black weathers the storm. 16...d5! 17.¤f3 £xe4 18.¥d3 £f4† 19.¢b1 e6 (19...b5 20.£c3©) 20.£xb7† ¥e7 21.¦e1 £b4 22.£c7 £d6 23.£c3 ¤d7 Black might be holding his own.) 16...¥g7!N (16...¦c8 17.g3 e6 18.¥h3 ¦e8 19.¦f1 £c5 Schaffarczyk - Meissner, Werther 2011. 20.¤ce2!+-) 17.¤f3 (17.g3 ¤d7!„) 17...£e6÷ 16.g3! ¥g7 The following should simply transpose: 16...¦e8 17.¥h3!N (17.¤c3 was played in Kokarev - Kovalyov Mumbai 2010, but looks far less dangerous.) 17...£h5?! 18.¤f2± ¥g7 19.£b3+17.¥h3 ¦ae8 18.¦f1² ¦e7 19.¤e3 ¦he8 20.¤g2 £e5?
29
The only defence was: 20...b5™ 21.c3 £c4 22.£xc4 bxc4 23.e5 dxe5 24.¤c6² 21.¤f4± £xe4 22.£xe4 ¤xe4 23.¥xe6† ¦xe6 24.¤fxe6† ¥f6 25.¦f4 25.¤c7!? ¦e5 26.¦f3± 25...¤c5 26.¤xc5 dxc5 27.¤f3± ¦e2 28.¢d1 ¦g2 29.a4 ¢e7 30.b4 ¥c3 31.bxc5 ¦f2 32.g4 ¢d8 33.h4 ¢c7 34.g5 hxg5 35.hxg5 ¦g2 36.¦c4 ¥a5 37.¦e4 ¢c6 38.¦e5 ¥c3 39.¦e2 ¦xe2 40.¢xe2 ¢xc5 41.¢d3 ¥h8 42.c3 b5 43.axb5 axb5 44.¤d4 ¢b6 45.g6 ¢a5 46.¤c6† ¢a4 47.¢c2 ¢a3 48.¤b4 ¥g7 49.¤d3 ¥f6 50.¤c5 ¥h8 51.¤a6 ¥g7 52.¤b4 ¥h8 53.¢d3 ¢b3 54.¤c2 ¢a4 55.¤d4 ¥f6 56.¢e4 ¥h8 57.¢d5 ¥g7 58.¢c5 ¥f8† 59.¢c6 b4 60.cxb4 ¢xb4 61.¤f5 ¢c4 62.¢d7 ¢d5 63.¢e8 1–0 L. Milov - Gashimov Mainz (rapid) 2010 [B94] [J. Aagaard] 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.£e2!? This way of playing has lately become fashionable.
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 +o+mOoOo5 o+ O M +5 + + + B 5 + Np+ +5 + N + + 5 pPp+qPpP5 R + Kb+r5 79
7...h6
30
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
White certainly had some chances in this game: 7...£a5 8.h4 h6 9.¥d2 £b6 10.¤b3 e6 11.g4 ¤e5 12.f4!? 12.¥h3² 12...¤exg4 13.e5 dxe5 14.fxe5 £c7 15.exf6 £g3† 16.¢d1 ¤f2† 17.¢c1 ¤xh1 18.¤e4 £xh4 19.£c4 g5? 19...£h2 20.¤bc5 ¤f2 21.¤xf2 £xf2 22.£a4† b5 23.¥xb5† axb5 24.£xb5† ¢d8 leads to a perpetual check 20.¤bc5 ¤g3? 20...b5™ 21.£d4 £h2 22.a4!± 21.£a4† b5 22.¥xb5† axb5 23.£xb5† ¢d8 24.¥a5† ¦xa5 25.£xa5† ¢e8 26.£b5† ¢d8 27.£b6† ¢e8 28.¤d6† 1–0 Vallejo Pons - Papaioannou, Aix-lesBains 2011. The entire point of White’s play is to go for 7...e6 8.f4 with a transposition to fashionable stuff. However, also 8.0–0–0!? is interesting. 8.¥h4 £c7 8...g5 9.¥g3 e5 has been played, but looks absolutely wrong. 8...e5 9.¤f5 g6 10.¤e3 ¥e7 11.0–0–0 b5 12.f3 ¥b7 13.a3 ¦c8 14.¥e1 ¤c5 15.¢b1 ¤e6 16.h4² N. Kosintseva Bodnaruk, Moscow 2010. 9.0–0–0 g5 10.¥g3 e6 11.h4 ¦g8 12.hxg5 hxg5
1222222223 t+v+lVt+5 +oWm+o+ 5 o+ OoM +5 + + + O 5 + Np+ +5 + N + B 5 pPp+qPp+5 + Kr+b+r5 79
Is this playable for Black?
13.£d2 13.¢b1 ¤e5 Fercec-Mazi, Zadar 2010 14.¤f3!? was suggested by Van Delft and Riis. After 14...¥d7 15.£d2 ¤xf3 16.gxf3 ¥c6 (16...e5 17.¥h3 ¥e6 18.£e3 ¥e7 Black might be ok!?) 17.£d4 (17.¥xd6 £xd6 18.£xd6 ¥xd6 19.¦xd6 ¢e7 20.¦d1 ¦h8©) 17...¤d7 18.¥e2 ¥e7 Rybka thinks that White is better, but that does not make a lot of sense to me. 13...¤e5 14.f3 ¥d7 15.¢b1 ¦b8 16.¥d3 b5 17.¤ce2 £b6 18.¢a1 ¥e7
1222222223 T +l+t+5 + +vVo+ 5 oW OoM +5 +o+ M O 5 + Np+ +5 + +b+pB 5 pPpQn+p+5 K +r+ +r5 79
19.¦b1 Strange. 19...¦c8 20.¥f2? ¤xd3 21.£xd3 e5 22.¦h6 £c7 23.¤b3 £xc2³ 24.£e3 £c7 25.¦hh1 £b8 26.¦bc1 ¥d8 27.¦xc8 ¥xc8 28.¦c1 ¥e6 29.£c3 ¢f8 30.¦d1 ¢g7 31.£d2 ¤e8 32.¤g3 ¦h8 33.¤f5† ¥xf5 34.exf5 £c8 35.g4 ¦h2 36.¦c1 £b7 37.£e3 ¤c7 38.¥g1 ¦g2 39.¦d1 £c6 40.£d3 ¥f6 41.¦c1 e4 42.¦xc6 exd3 0–1
Games
31
Radjabov - Nakamura Medias 2011 [B94] [J. Aagaard]
19.¤xd6† ¢f8 20.e5 gxf4 21.exf6 ¥a6 22.¥f2 ¢g8 23.£xf4© ¤f8 24.£g4† ¤g6 25.c4 ¥xc4 26.¤xc4 ¢h7 27.¥e3 ¦a6=
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.f4 e5
11...h6! 11...£c5 12.fxe5 dxe5 13.¥e3 £c7 14.0–0 ¤c5 Kanovsky - Dydyshko, Frydek Mistek 2011.
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 +o+m+oOo5 o+ O M +5 + + O B 5 + NpP +5 + N + + 5 pPp+ +pP5 R +qKb+r5 79
This is not in GM6, but I found this game quite interesting and thought I had a bit to add. 8.¤f5 £b6 9.£d2 £xb2 10.¦b1 £a3 11.¥e2 11.¥d3 h6 12.¥h4 exf4 13.0–0 also appears to be quite interesting. Probably best is 13...£a5!?N.(13... g6 Matejovic - Hoelzl, Zadar 2009.)
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +o+m+oO 5 o+ O M O5 W + +n+ 5 + +pO B5 + Nb+ + 5 p+pQ +pP5 +r+ +rK 5 79
14.¦xf4!N b5 (14...g5 15.e5!÷) 15.¥xb5 axb5 16.¤xb5 £xa2 17.¦e1 g5 18.¤fxd6† ¥xd6
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +oW +oOo5 o+ + M +5 + M On+ 5 + +p+ +5 + N B + 5 p+pQb+pP5 +r+ +rK 5 79
Here White missed a great shot: 1 15.¤xg7†!!N ¥xg7 16.¦xf6± ¥xf6 17.¤d5 £d6 17...£d8 18.¥xc5 ¥e6 19.¥b6+18.¦b6 ¤xe4 19.¦xd6 ¤xd2 20.¤c7† ¢f8 20...¢e7 21.¦xd2+21.¦xf6+12.¥h4 exf4 12...g6 13.¤e3 exf4 14.¤ed5 ¤xd5? 14...g5!N 15.¤c7† ¢d8 16.¥f2 ¦b8 (16...¢xc7 17.¦b3±) 17.e5 dxe5 18.¥b6 £d6 19.¤7d5† ¢e8 20.¥c7 £c6 21.¥xb8 ¤xd5 22.¤xd5 ¤xb8 23.¦b6 £c5= is a computer line that needs to be checked. I feel Black is living a dangerous life here; but it might be right that White has no improvements. 15.¤xd5 ¥g7 16.¤c7† ¢f8 17.¦b3 £xa2 Espinosa Aranda - Idani, Porto Carras 2010. Here, instead of the (reasonable) capture of the rook on a8, White could have gone for the kill with: 18.0–0!N ¦b8
32
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
18...¥e5 19.¤xa8± 19.£xf4 ¤e5 20.¥f6 £xc2 21.¥xe5 £xb3 22.¤d5 ¥e6 23.¥xd6† ¢g8 24.¥xb8 ¥xd5 25.exd5 £xd5 26.¦d1 £b3 27.¦d7+-
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +o+m+oO 5 o+ O M O5 + + +n+ 5 + +pO B5 W N + + 5 p+pQb+pP5 +r+ K +r5 79
13.0–0N 13.¥f2 ¤c5 (The critical line here might be: 13...£a5N) 14.0–0 g6 15.¤xd6† ¥xd6 16.£xd6 £xc3 17.¥d4 £xc2 (17...£c6 18.£xf4© …0–0?! 19.£xh6! ¦e8 20.¦f4 ¦xe4 21.¥c4!!‚) For example: 18.¦fc1 £xe2 19.¦b2 £xe4 20.¦bc2 £xd4† 21.£xd4 0–0÷ 14.0–0 ¥xf5 15.exf5 ¥e7 16.¥d4 0–0 17.¦f3 (17.£xf4©) 17...£a5 18.£xf4 ¦ae8 19.¦g3 ¢h7 20.a4 ¥d8 21.£xd6 ¤xa4 22.¤e4 ¥e7
1222222223 + +tT +5 +o+ VoOl5 o+ Q M O5 W + +p+ 5 m+ Bn+ +5 + + + R 5 +p+b+pP5 +r+ + K 5 79
23.¥xf6!! ¥xd6 24.¦xg7† ¢h8 25.¤g5 ¥xh2† 26.¢h1 1–0 Ganguly - Spoelman, Wijk aan Zee 2011.
13...g6 14.¦xf4 g5 15.¦b3 £a5 16.¤xd6† ¥xd6 17.£xd6 gxf4 18.¦a3 £b6† 19.£xb6 ¤xb6 20.¥xf6 ¦g8 21.¦b3 ¤d7 22.¤d5 ¦g6 23.¥d4 Apparently this is where Nakamura’s preparation stopped. 23.¤c7† ¢f8 24.¥b2 ¦a7 25.¥a3† ¢g7 26.¤e8† ¢h7 27.¤d6 ¦a8 28.¥h5 ¦g7 29.¥xf7 ¤e5 30.¥d5 f3 31.g3 ¥h3 32.¥b2 ¦f8 33.¤f5 ¦e7 34.¥g8† ¢h8 35.¥d5 ¢h7= 23...¦c6 24.c4?! 24.c3÷ 24...b5! 25.cxb5 axb5 26.¤c3? 26.¦b2 ¦a3 27.¢f2 ¥a6³ 26...¥a6 27.¢f2 ¦d6? 27...b4! 28.¦xb4 ¥xe2 29.¢xe2 ¦a3 30.¦b3 ¦xb3 31.axb3 ¤f8µ 27...¤c5!?± 28.¦b4 f6 29.¢f3 ¦c8 30.¤xb5 ¥xb5 31.¥xb5 ¢e7 ½–½ Wang Yue - Zhou Jianchao Danzhou 2011 [B94] [A. Greet] In this game White succeeds with a hyperaggressive approach which was not considered in Lubomir Ftacnik’s “Grandmaster Repertoire 6” book on the Sicilian Najdorf. The game was annotated for ChessPublishing by Richard Palliser, who I have referenced where appropriate. 1.¤f3 c5 2.e4 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 Recommended in Chapter 22 of GM 6. Ftacnik also considered 6...e6 in Chapter 21. 7.¥c4 £b6!?
Games 7...e6 is the other big move.
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +o+mOoOo5 oW O M +5 + + + B 5 +bNp+ +5 + N + + 5 pPp+ PpP5 R +qK +r5 79 8.£d2!? The book mainly focused on 8.¥b3 , but this ‘Modified Poisoned Pawn’ variation must be White’s most ambitious approach. I should mention that at the time when GM 6 was published, this whole line was pretty experimental, so it is hardly surprising that many new ideas have surfaced. The GM Repertoire books tend to be at the cutting edge of present theory, and in some cases they have even influenced subsequent theoretical trends as prominent players sought to test and refine the authors’ recommendations. 8...£xb2 9.¦b1 £a3 10.0–0 e6 This was proposed as a novelty in GM 6. It has since been tested in four games (including the present one), with Black scoring a mere half point! Zhou Jianchao decided to try the text move after suffering an unpleasant reversal with 10...£c5 the previous month: 11.¥d5 ¤xd5 (Palliser mentions 11...¤b6!? as a possible improvement although Black’s position looks risky in any case.) 12.¤xd5 f6? 13.¤e6 £c4 14.¦b4 £xa2 15.¤ec7† ¢f7 16.¤xa8 1–0 Li Chao - Zhou Jianchao, Xinghua Jiangsu 2011.
33
10...£a5 was mentioned in GM 2, where it was noted that White had the option of forcing a draw: 11.¤d5 (11.¥d5!? Lagarde - Guttulsrud, Batumi 2010.) 11...£xd2 12.¤c7† ¢d8 13.¤de6† fxe6 14.¤xe6† ¢e8 15.¤c7† ¢d8 16.¤e6† ¢e8 ½–½ Luther - Bischoff, Austria 2002.
1222222223 t+v+lV T5 +o+m+oOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + B 5 +bNp+ +5 W N + + 5 p+pQ PpP5 +r+ +rK 5 79
11.¥xe6!? Repeating an idea which had previously been used by Cheparinov. 11.¦b3 £a5³ was mentioned in GM 6. 11.¢h1 ¥e7 11...¤c5!? 12.f4 b5 12...¤c5!? is mentioned by Palliser. 13.¥b3 ¤c5 14.¥xf6 ¥xf6 15.e5 This led to wild complications in Andriasian - Raykhman, Kalamaria 2010. 11...fxe6 12.¤xe6 £a5 12...¢f7!? may be playable although it looks a bit fishy. 13.¤d8† ¢e8 14.¤xb7 ¥xb7 15.¥xf6 gxf6 (15...¤xf6 16.¦xb7©) 16.¦xb7 ¦b8 17.¦xb8† ¤xb8 18.¤d5© (analysis by Palliser) White has ongoing compensation, and I can’t imagine many players lining up to take Black’s side of this position.
34
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
13.f4 ¢f7 14.e5! Surely the most dangerous and consistent move. In a previous game, which reached this position via a different opening sequence, White went for a slower approach: 14.f5?! ¥e7 15.£e3 ¦e8 16.£g3 (16.¤d5!? ¤xd5 17.exd5 ¤f6 18.c4 Palliser) 16...¤c5 17.¤xg7 ¦g8! 18.¤e6 h6 White’s attack ran out of steam, Robson - So, Lubbock 2010. 14...¢xe6
1222222223 t+v+ V T5 +o+m+ Oo5 o+ OlM +5 W + P B 5 + + P +5 + N + + 5 p+pQ +pP5 +r+ +rK 5 79
15.¢h1!? How to assess this move? Wang Yue certainly scores top marks for coolness, tucking his king into the corner while two pieces behind, even if the idea was prepared at home. Still, I cannot help but feel sceptical about White’s play, and I would be surprised if he repeats it. First, it should be noted that 15.exf6?! is premature, and after 15...¤xf6 16.£d3 ¢f7 17.¥xf6 gxf6 White’s compensation is dubious, as pointed out by Palliser. Cheparinov preferred 15.¦be1! and after 15...¢f7 16.¢h1 the same position was reached - see the note to Black’s 16th move below. It seems to me that Cheparinov’s move
order is the better one, as Black is denied the option mentioned in the note to the next move. 16.e6†!? ¢g8 17.e7 is another idea; 17...h6 looks like the right response. Maybe this will prove the most important direction for future investigations... 15...¢f7 15...dxe5 This was another way to question White’s idea. There are two main replies: 16.¥xf6 gxf6! Palliser gives 16...¤xf6 17.fxe5 ¤d7 (Palliser mentions that 17...¤e4? is dangerous due to 18.£f4! £xc3 19.£xe4 £xe5 20.£d3‚) 18.¦bd1 and questions White’s compensation. He may well be right, but the text move looks even better.) 17.fxe5 ¦g8! 18.exf6 ¦g5! Despite the exposed king position Black seems to be doing well, for instance 19.£d3 ¢f7! 20.£xh7† ¢e8 White does not have enough for the two pieces. 16.fxe5 ¤e4! but not 16...h6? 17.exf6 hxg5 18.¦be1† ¤e5 19.£xg5 with a strong initiative) 17.£f4 ¤xg5 18.¤e4!! A fantastic shot, but ultimately even this is insufficient. Palliser mentions 18.£f5† ¢e7 19.£xg5† ¢e8–+ when Black should win relatively easily 18...¤xe4! 19.£f7† ¢xe5 White has two ways to win the enemy queen, but Black’s four(!) extra pieces ensure him of the better chances, despite his ‘active’ king position! 20.£f5† 20.¦f5† ¢d6 21.¦xa5 (21.¦d1† £d2!–+) 21...¤ec5 Black has good winning chances. 20...¢d6 21.£xa5 ¤ec5 The powerful knights control enough
Games important squares to enable Black to survive. Here is one possible line: 22.¦b6† ¢c7! 23.¦bf6† 23.¦xa6†? b6–+ 23...¢b8 24.¦xf8 ¦xf8 25.¦xf8 b6 26.¦xc8† ¢xc8 27.£e1 ¢b7µ 16.¦be1 White can regain one piece at any time of his choosing, so it is logical to bring another piece into the attack and keep Black guessing. 16...h6! Improving over a previous game. 16...¤b6? 17.exf6 gxf6 18.¥xf6! ¦g8 18...¢xf6?? 19.¤e4† 19.¥d4 ¤a4? A mistake in a difficult position. 20.£e2! ¥d7 20...¥f5 21.¤xa4+- £xa4? 22.£h5† with mate to follow. 21.f5 Black has no good defence against £h5†. 21...¦xg2 21...¦g5 22.¤e4+22.¢xg2 ¤xc3 23.£h5† ¢g8 24.£g5† ¢f7 25.£f6† ¢g8 26.£h8† 1–0 Cheparinov - Kadric, Aix-les-Bains 2011. 17.¥h4
1222222223 t+v+ V T5 +o+m+lO 5 o+ O M O5 W + P + 5 + + P B5 + N + + 5 p+pQ +pP5 + + Rr+k5 79
35
17...¤b6? Palliser quite rightly points out that 17...dxe5! would have put White’s compensation in doubt. 18.fxe5 Or 18.¥xf6 gxf6 19.fxe5 ¤xe5 - see 18.fxe5 ¤xe5 19.¥xf6 gxf6 below. 18...¤xe5 19.¥xf6 19.¦xf6†!? gxf6 20.¥xf6 ¤f3! (20...¢xf6?? 21.¤d5†+-) 21.gxf3 ¦g8 Black should be able to win with his extra material, as shown by Palliser’s analysis. 19...gxf6 20.¦xf6† ¢g7 21.¦ef1 21.£f4 £xc3 22.¦f1 £c7! 23.¦f7† ¤xf7 24.£xc7 ¥e6 Black has too much for the queen - Palliser. 21...¥e7 22.£f4 ¥f5!! 23.¦xf5 ¦af8 Black keeps an extra piece and should go on to win. 18.exf6 g6 Objectively the position is still unclear, but over the next few moves Black’s position goes downhill. The remainder of the game is not so important for our study of the opening, so I will limit myself to a few brief comments. 19.£e3 19.¥f2!? may have been better. 19...¥d7 20.f5 g5?! Black should have preferred 20...gxf5!? 21.£f3 h5! - Palliser. 21.¥f2! g4? 22.£g3! 22.£e4!? ¦e8 (22...£xc3 23.¥xb6 £c6 24.£xg4) 23.£xg4! £xf5 24.£xf5 ¥xf5 25.¦xe8 ¢xe8 26.¥d4 was given by Palliser as better for White, but the game continuation is even stronger. 22...¦c8? Better was 22...¦e8 although 23.¦xe8 ¢xe8 24.£xg4 £xc3 25.¥d4 should win for White.
36
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
23.¥xb6 23.£xg4! was a quicker route to victory: 23...£xf5 24.¦e7†! ¥xe7 25.£g7† ¢e6 26.£xe7# 23...£xc3 24.£xg4 £xf6 25.¥d4 £g5 26.£e4 ¥e7 27.¥xh8 ¦xh8 28.£d5† ¢g7 29.¦xe7† To conclude, the theoretical jury is still out on 11.¥xe6!?. Black missed at least one opportunity (17...dxe5!) to obtain the advantage in the present game, although White also has other avenues to explore, such as 15.¦be1 ¢f7 16.e6† as noted at move 15. 1–0 Aronian - Sutovsky 8th World Team Championship, Ningbo 2011 [D85] [J. Aagaard] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤f3 ¥g7 4.¤c3 d5 5.cxd5 ¤xd5 6.e4 ¤xc3 7.bxc3 c5 8.¥e3 £a5 9.¤d2 cxd4 10.¤c4!?
1222222223 tMv+l+ T5 Oo+ OoVo5 + + +o+5 W + + + 5 +nOp+ +5 + P B + 5 p+ + PpP5 R +qKb+r5 79
Avrukh said that this move was found after the writing of the Grunfeld books - “or it would of course have been in there.” Furthermore it was only good for one game in his opinion. It is a bit sad that he then failed to get great benefit as White, when he introduced it, and that his player lost subsequently against it in
the World Team event, where Avrukh is present as a second for the Israeli team. 10...dxe3?! Typical Sutovsky, but not very practical. Black is playing for a draw only. 10...£d8 11.cxd4 f5! This seems best. 11...0–0 12.¦b1! f5 is probably a bit less accurate. 13.exf5 (13.¤e5!?N f4 14.¥c4† ¢h8 15.¥c1 £c7 16.£d3 ¥xe5 17.dxe5 ¦d8„ 18.£c2 ¥e6 19.¥b3 £xc2 20.¥xc2 b6=) 13...¥xf5 14.¦xb7 ¤c6 15.d5 (15.¤e5!? ¤xe5 16.dxe5 £xd1† 17.¢xd1 ¥xe5 18.¥c4† e6 19.¦xa7²) 15...¥c3† 16.¥d2 ¤d4! 17.¤e3 £a5 18.¥xc3 £xc3† 19.£d2 £a1† 20.£d1 £c3† 21.£d2 £a1† 22.£d1 ½–½ Avrukh - Kovchan, Mulhouse 2011. 12.¦b1 fxe4 13.¥e2 0–0 14.0–0 b6 15.¤e5 ¥e6 16.£a4 ¥d5 17.f3
1222222223 tM W Tl+5 O + O Vo5 O + +o+5 + +vN + 5 q+ Po+ +5 + + Bp+ 5 p+ +b+pP5 +r+ +rK 5 79
The question is if White has a slight advantage here or not. My guess is that if there is an advantage, it is very slight. 17...exf3 18.¥xf3 ¥xf3 19.¦xf3 ¦xf3 20.£c4† ¢h8 21.¤xf3 £g8 22.£c7 £e8 23.£b7 ¤d7 24.¦e1 £c8 25.£e4 ¥f8 26.¦c1 £d8 27.¥g5 ¤f6 28.£c6 ¥g7 29.h3 h6 30.¥xf6 exf6 31.d5 £e8 32.¢f1 ¢g8 33.¤d4 ¦d8 34.£xe8† ¦xe8 35.¦c7 f5 36.¤e6 ¥f6 37.¦xa7 ¦c8 38.¤f4 ¦c1† 39.¢e2 ¦c2† 40.¢d1 ¦f2 41.g3
Games g5 42.¤h5 ¥c3 43.¦c7 ¥e5 44.¦e7 ¥c3 ½–½ Deep Fritz 12 T4 - Deep Rybka 4 x64 T4, Antalya 2011. 11.¤xa5 ¥xc3† 12.¢e2 ¥xa5 13.¢xe3²
1222222223 tMv+l+ T5 Oo+ Oo+o5 + + +o+5 V + + + 5 + +p+ +5 + + K + 5 p+ + PpP5 R +q+b+r5 79
It seems to us as if Black is struggling to find compensation here. The computer says White is a bit better; but probably it is over-valuing Black’s counterplay. The king seems to be safe. 13...0–0 14.¥b5 a6 15.¥a4 b5 16.£d5 ¦a7 17.¥b3 ¥g4 18.£g5 ¥b6† 19.¢f4 ¥e6? 20.¥xe6 fxe6† 21.¢g3± ¤c6 22.¢h3 ¤d4 23.¦hd1 ¦c7 24.¦ac1 ¦xc1 25.¦xc1 ¤e2 26.£e5 ¥d4 27.£xe6† ¦f7 28.¦c8† ¢g7 29.g3!+- ¤g1† 30.¢g2 ¦xf2† 31.¢h1 ¤f3 32.£xe7† ¢h6 33.£f8† ¢h5 34.¦c5† ¤g5 35.¦xg5† ¢xg5 36.£d8† ¥f6 37.£d3 ¢g4 38.£e3 1–0
37
Vachier Lagrave - Morozevich Biel 2011 [D87] [J. Aagaard] 1.c4 ¤f6 2.¤c3 d5 3.cxd5 ¤xd5 4.e4 ¤xc3 5.bxc3 g6 6.d4 ¥g7 7.¥c4 c5 8.¤e2 ¤c6 9.¥e3 0–0 10.0–0 £c7 11.¦c1 b6 12.£d2 ¥b7 13.¥h6 ¦ad8 14.¥xg7 ¢xg7 15.f4! This aggressive move was not covered in GM9 and certainly requires accurate preparation. There should be several playable moves for Black, but the Rybka favourite 15...£d7 looks a bit dodgy.
1222222223 + T T +5 OvW OoLo5 Om+ +o+5 + O + + 5 +bPpP +5 + P + + 5 p+ Qn+pP5 + R +rK 5 79
15...£d7?! 15...¤a5N 16.¥d3 £d6 17.f5 17.£e3 e6 18.f5 exf5 19.exf5 ¦fe8 20.f6†? £xf6! 17...¤c6 18.¦f3 cxd4 19.¦h3 h5 20.cxd4 20.¤g3 ¦h8 21.fxg6 fxg6 22.£g5 ¢f8 23.¦f1† ¢e8÷ 20...¤xd4 21.¤f4 ¦h8 (21...h4 22.¤h5†!!+-) 22.fxg6 ¥xe4 23.gxf7‚ 15...cxd4N 16.cxd4 £d6 17.d5 ¤a5 18.¥d3 e6 19.¤d4! exd5 20.e5 £e7 21.f5! £xe5 22.f6† ¢h8 23.£h6 £xd4† 24.¢h1 ¦g8 25.¦f3 £g4 26.¦h3 £xh3 27.£xh3²
38
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
15...£d6!N This looks best - in the spirit of Avrukh. 16.d5 16.¦cd1 cxd4 17.cxd4 £b4!= 16...f5!? 17.¥b5 17.e5?! £c7! 17...fxe4 18.c4 ¢g8 19.£e3 ¤d4 20.¤xd4 cxd4 21.£xe4 d3 22.£xd3 e6 23.£e3 exd5 24.c5 bxc5 25.¦xc5 d4„ 16.¥b5! Securing that the correct material is left on the board. 16...£e6 16...a6 17.¥xc6 £xc6 18.d5 £c7 19.c4² Degardin - Giroyan, Montlucon 2011. 17.f5! £d6 17...£xe4 18.¦f4 £e5 18...£d5 19.¦h4 h5 20.¦xh5! gxh5 21.£g5† ¢h7 22.¤f4+19.¤g3! cxd4 19...f6 20.¦e1± 20.¥xc6 ¥xc6 20...dxc3 21.£xc3 £xc3 22.¦xc3 ¦d1† 23.¢f2 ¦c8 24.¥f3 ¦d2† 25.¢e3 ¦xa2 26.¦xc8 ¥xc8 27.fxg6 hxg6 28.¦c4 ¥e6 29.¦c7² 21.cxd4 ¥a8 21...¥b7 22.¦c2! £d5 23.¦h4+22.¦c2 £f6 23.fxg6 £xg6 24.¤f5† ¢h8 25.¤xe7 £e6 26.¦c7 ¦d7 27.¦xd7 £xd7 28.£e3 f6 29.¦f2² 18.¥xc6 18.¦f3!? Golubev. 18...¢h8 (18...cxd4? 19.¦h3 h5 20.¤g3! ¦h8 21.fxg6 fxg6 22.£g5 ¥c8 With a clear edge for White - Golubev. 23.¦xh5 dxc3 24.¦xh8 ¦xh8 25.¥xc6 £xc6 26.£xe7† ¢h6 27.£e5 ¦f8 28.¦xc3 £e6 29.¤f5†! gxf5 30.£xe6† ¥xe6 31.¦c6±) 19.¥xc6 ¥xc6 20.d5 gxf5 21.¦xf5 ¥d7 22.¦h5 ¥g4 23.¦h4 ¦g8 24.¦f1 ¦g7²
1222222223 + T T +5 Ov+ OoLo5 ObW +o+5 + O +p+ 5 + Pp+ +5 + P + + 5 p+ Qn+pP5 + R +rK 5 79 18...¥xc6 19.d5 ¥d7 20.c4 £e5 21.¦c3² ¦h8 22.¦h3 f6 23.£f4 b5 24.£h6† ¢f7 25.¤f4 ¦dg8 26.¤e6 26.¦e3 ¢e8 (26...£d4 27.¤e6+-) 27.cxb5 ¥xb5 28.¦c1ƒ 26...bxc4 27.¦a3 £xe4 28.¤g5†? 28.fxg6† ¦xg6 29.¤g5† ¦xg5 30.£xg5 ¦g8 31.£h5† ¢f8÷ 28...fxg5 29.fxg6† ¢e8–+ 30.¦xa7 hxg6 31.¦a8† ¥c8 32.£xg5 ¢d8 33.d6 £d4† 34.¦f2 £d1† 35.¦f1 £d4† 36.¦f2 £d1† 37.¦f1 £xd6 38.h3 £d4† 39.¢h1 ¦f8 40.¦e1 ¦f6 41.£g3 ¦hf8 0–1 Giri - Swinkels Dutch Championship, 2011 [D98] [B. Avrukh] One of the Quality Chess blog readers declared that the repertoire given in GM8 was refuted by Giri. Although he played a nice game, it seems a good deal over the top to speak of refutations... 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.£b3 dxc4 6.£xc4 0–0 7.e4 ¤c6 8.¥e2 ¥g4 9.d5 ¤a5 10.£b4 ¥xf3 11.¥xf3 c6 12.0–0 £b6 13.£a4 ¤d7 14.¦d1 ¦fd8 15.g3!?
Games
1222222223 t+ T +l+5 Oo+mOoVo5 Wo+ +o+5 M +p+ + 5 q+ +p+ +5 + N +bP 5 pP + P P5 R Br+ K 5 79 White makes useful move, waiting for Black activity. 15...¦ac8 Black quickly faced unexpected difficulties in the game. 15...¤c5 is less good, in view of 16.£c2 ¤c4 17.¦b1 £b4 18.¥g5². 16.¥g4! Black went down very quickly after: 16...¤c5?! 17.£c2 e6 18.¥g5 ¦e8 19.¤a4! ¤xa4 20.£xa4 cxd5 21.exd5 ¤c4 22.dxe6 fxe6 23.¦ac1 ¤e5 24.¥e3! 1–0 Improvement to Giri-Swinkels 2011 [D98] [B. Avrukh] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.£b3 dxc4 6.£xc4 0–0 7.e4 ¤c6 8.¥e2 ¥g4 9.d5 ¤a5 10.£b4 ¥xf3 11.¥xf3 c6 12.0–0 £b6 13.£a4 ¤d7 14.¦d1 ¦fd8 15.g3!? White makes useful move, waiting for Black activity. Here my recommendation will be: 15...h5N In my opinion quite useful move, Black covers g4-square and ready to continue with ¦ac8. In the game Black continued with natural:
39
16.£c2 I don’t see what White can benefit from insertion of g3, h5 to compare with lines I examined in the book after 16.¥e2 ¤c5 17.£c2 £b4 18.¥e3 ¥xc3 19.¦ac1 b6 (19...£b6) 20.¥xc5 £xc5 21.£xc3 £xc3 22.¦xc3 cxd5 23.¦xd5 ¦dc8 and this endgame looks pretty much the same like in my book. 16...¦ac8 17.¥e3 Black has nothing to worry about after 17.¥g5 cxd5 18.exd5 ¦e8, or 18...¥f6. 17...£c7 18.¦ac1 cxd5 19.£a4 In this line I found some difference to compare with position without g3, h5 moves. 19...¤c5 Black has some problems after 19...d4 20.¤b5 £b6 21.¦xc8 ¦xc8 22.¤xd4 ¤c5 23.£c2² 20.¥xc5 £xc5 21.¤xd5 This idea is possible. White has luft for his king, thanks to g3-move, but this hardly pose problems: 21...£xc1 22.¤xe7†
1222222223 +tT +l+5 Oo+ NoV 5 + + +o+5 M + + +o5 q+ +p+ +5 + + +bP 5 pP + P P5 + Wr+ K 5 79
22...¢h7! Black also make use of h5-move, Black king
Quality Chess Newsletter - July 2011
40
is more comfortable there to compare with h8square, as he shouldn’t worry about check on the back rank. 23.¦xc1 ¦xc1† 24.¢g2 ¤c4 Most probably Black should hold also after 24...¤c6 25.¤xc6 bxc6 26.£xa7 ¦d2. 25.¤d5 In case of 25.¥e2 Black has beautiful 25...¦d2! 26.¥xc4 ¦cc2 and now according to machine the only move, which allows White to escape 27.¢f3 ¦xf2† (27...¥xb2!?) 28.¢e3 ¦cd2! 29.e5 ¥xe5=. 25...¤e5 26.£xa7 ¦dc8!©
1222222223 +t+ + +5 Qo+ +oVl5 + + +o+5 + +nM +o5 + +p+ +5 + + +bP 5 pP + PkP5 + T + + 5 79
Black’s activity is fully compensates his material deficit. Antonsen - Kristiansen Danish Championship 2011 [E32] [J. Aagaard] My initial favourite (before I checked the details) for the best game prize at the Danish Championship was the following game: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.£c2 0–0 5.e4 d6 6.a3 ¥xc3† 7.bxc3 e5 8.¥d3 ¤c6 9.¤e2 b6 10.0–0 ¤d7 11.¥e3 ¥a6 12.¤g3 ¤a5
13.£e2 £e8 14.f4 f6 15.¤f5 ¢h8 16.¦f3 g6 17.¤g3 c5 18.dxe5 dxe5 19.f5 g5 20.¤f1 £f7 21.¤d2 ¦fd8 22.g4 ¢g7 23.h4 h6 24.¦h3 ¤f8 25.hxg5 hxg5 26.¦f1 ¦d6
1222222223 t+ + M +5 O + +wL 5 vO T O +5 M O OpO 5 +p+p+p+5 P PbB +r5 + Nq+ +5 + + +rK 5 79
27.¦ff3!! ¦ad8? Black fails to spot White’s concept. 27...£d7! 28.£h2 (28.¥xg5!? was Antonsen’s idea. 28...fxg5 29.£h2 ¤c6 30.¦h8 ¥b7! 31.¦fh3 ¦xd3 32.¦xd3 £xd3 33.£h6† ¢f7 34.¦xf8† ¦xf8 35.£e6† ¢g7 36.£g6†=) 28...¦xd3 29.¦h8 ¦xe3 (29...¥xc4 30.£h6† ¢f7 31.¥xg5 ¦d6 32.¥e3±) 30.¦xe3 ¥xc4 31.¦eh3 ¥g8 32.¦3h6 £d3 33.£h5 £xd2 34.¦g6† ¢f7 35.¦gxg8† ¢e7 36.¦g7† ¢d6 37.£f7 £e1†= 28.£h2!+- ¦xd3 28...£g8 29.¥xg5! fxg5 (29...¤h7 30.¥h6† ¢f7 31.¦fg3!+-; 29...¢f7 30.¥h6+-) 30.£xe5† ¢f7 31.£h2!+29.¦h8! £d7 30.¦fh3 Black is mate in three. 1–0
Solutions to Puzzles 1. Can - Guliev Konya 2011 20...£c3!! 21.bxc3 ¤xc3† 22.¢b2 ¤xe2µ 23.¤xe5!? dxe5! 24.¥d7† ¢d8 25.¥g4† ¢c7 26.¦d7† 26.¥xe2 ¥xe4–+
5. Nyzhnyk - Mirzoev Konya 2011 19.¤xe6!! fxe6 19...¦e8 20.¤g5 ¦f8 21.¤ce4+20.¥xe6† ¢h8 21.¤e4! £xc1 21...¥c5 22.¤d6!+-
26...¢c6 27.¦xf7 ¤f4 28.¥d7† ¢b6 29.a4 ¥c5 30.¥f5 ¥c8 31.¦d1 bxa4 32.¥xc8 ¦axc8 33.¦dd7 ¢c6 34.¥e1 ¦hd8 35.¦xd8 ¦xd8 36.¦xh7 a3† 37.¢a2 ¤e2 38.¥a5 ¦b8 39.¦c7† ¢d6 40.¦e7 ¦b2† 41.¢a1 ¤d4 0–1
22.¦xc1 ¤xe4 23.fxe4 ¤c5 24.¥d5 ¥xd5 25.exd5 ¤e4 26.¥e5 ¥f8 27.£g4 ¤c5 28.¦f1 ¦a7 29.a5 bxa5 30.¥d4 ¦b7 31.£g5 ¦e8 32.d6 ¤e6 33.£d5 ¦bb8 34.d7 1–0
2. A. Hunt - Cheparinov European Club Cup, Plovdiv 2010
6. Salgado Lopez - Acs Paks 2011
20...¥h6! 0–1 3. Aveskulov - Shabala Ukranian Ch. semi-final Alushta 2011 22.¦xe4! dxe4 23.¦xa6! 1–0 4. Gharamian - Slobodjan Schachbundesliga 2011 23.hxg6! ¦xd5 24.gxh7† ¢h8 25.¤xf7†! 25.¦c8†?? £d8!² 1–0
25.g6! fxg6 25...¥xe5 26.gxh7† ¢xh7 27.fxe5 (27.¥f6 £xb2†–+) 27...¦g8 28.£h3 ¦g6 29.¥g5† ¢g8 30.¥f6 ¢f8 31.¦hg1 ¦xg1 32.¦xg1 ¢e8 33.£h7!+26.¤xg6 £g7 26...hxg6 27.£xg6† £g7 28.£xe6†–+ 27.£e2!! hxg6 28.£xe6† ¢h7 29.£xd6+¤c5 30.cxd5 ¦fe8 31.£f6 ¦e2 32.¦he1 £xf6 33.¥xf6 ¦xe1 34.¦xe1 ¤e4 35.¦xe4 fxe4 36.d6 e3 37.d7 e2 38.dxc8£ e1£† 39.£c1 £e4† 40.¢a1 1–0
November 2011 Newsletter By
The QC Team
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used 3 Preface 4 Puzzles5 Games 6 Solutions to Puzzles 31
Key to symbols used ² ³ ± µ +– –+ = © „ ÷
White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality with compensation with counterplay unclear
? ?? ! !! !? ?! #
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate
The Grandmaster Battle Manual explains how to be a more competitive chess player. Chess grandmaster Vassilios Kotronias has been a professional player for two decades and now he explains the secrets of his success. As a writer, Kotronias has the skill to explain in words what other top players can only express in long lists of chess moves. Improve your chess with a grandmaster guide. Vassilios Kotronias is a chess grandmaster and 9-time Greek Champion. He is a key member of the Greek team as both a player and coach. On the international tournament circuit he is a feared competitor who is particularly noted for his profound opening preparation. ISBN - 978-1-906552-52-7
Preface After three months of working hard, we return with a “monthly” newsletter with a few games with relevance to our books. We will aim to have regular contributions from our authors, but with four grandmasters and one excellent IM in the office, we will mainly draw from personal exploits. This newsletter will mainly focus on the recent developments in the Grünfeld Defence. We hope you will find this material informative and useful. On the next page follows six puzzles. Solutions can be found at the end of the newsletter.
Puzzles
White to play
Black to play
White to play
White to play
White to play
White to play
Games S. Brunello - Brunner Mitropa Cup, 2011 [A29] [S. Brunello] It still pays off to study Marin’s books on the English. Enjoy Sabino’s quick comments to his great win. 1.c4 ¤f6 2.¤c3 e5 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.¥g2 ¤b6 6.¤f3 ¤c6 7.0–0 ¥e7 8.a3 0–0 9.b4 ¥e6 10.¦b1 f6 11.d3 a5 12.b5 ¤d4 13.¤d2 ¥d5 14.¤xd5 ¤xd5 15.¥b2 a4 16.¥a1!
A deep idea, forcing Black’s queen to reposition herself to a less favourable square before exchanging Black’s strong d4-knight. However, I can’t receive any praise for that, as I was copying it from GM3 by Mihail Marin. 16...£d7 17.¥xd4 exd4 18.£c2 ¢h8N From here I couldn’t remember what Marin’s analysis was, but the positional ideas are very clear: White is playing for lightsquare domination. 18...¦f7 19.£c4 c6 20.bxc6 bxc6 21.¦a1± Marin - Moldovan, Predeal 2007.
19.£c4 ¤c3 20.¥xb7 ¤xb1 21.¦xb1 ¥xa3 Black decides to give back the exchange as Black’s rook doesn’t look stronger than the light-squared bishop. 21...¦a7 22.¥c6 £d6 23.¦a1± Marin, The English Opening, volume one, p.325. 22.¥xa8 ¦xa8 23.¦a1 £e7
24.£c2 To my surprise, it is only here the game deviated from the book! The given line is 24.£c6 ¦g8 (Black couldn’t find a better square for his rook, for instance 24...¦d8 25.¤c4 ¥c5 26.¦xa4 £xe2 27.£xc7 and the rook is attacked) 25.¤f3 with a clear advantage. 24...h6 25.¤c4 ¥c5 26.¦xa4 ¦xa4 27.£xa4 £xe2 28.£a8† ¢h7 29.£d5 In spite of a slight inaccuracy, White retains a dominating position. Black didn’t find any plan and the rest of the game was a matter of technique. 29...£e7
Games Probably Black’s best try was 29...£e1† 30.¢g2 £b4 with a depressing position after 31.£c6±. 30.h4 ¢h8
31.h5 ¢h7 32.¢g2 ¢h8 33.¢f3 £f8 34.g4 ¥a7 35.£b7 £c5 36.£c8† ¢h7 37.£f5† £xf5† 38.gxf5 ¢g8 39.¢e4 ¢f7 40.¢d5 ¢e7 41.¢c6 ¢d8 42.¤d2 ¥b6 43.¤b3 ¢c8 44.f3 ¢d8 45.¤c1 ¢c8 46.¤e2 ¥a7 47.¤f4 ¥b6 48.¤e6 1–0
7
Move orders in the Tarrasch [A34] [J. Aagaard] The Tarrasch book starts with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6, but on our blog I was asked to talk a bit about move orders. This is what I came up with: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.¤f3 e6 3.e3 d5 4.c4
In this position it seems sensible to play 4...a6 5.¤c3 c5 In order to enter a main line from the book. After 4...c5 then maybe 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥b5†. Black is not worse, but maybe don’t want the position much either. 1.¤f3 d5 2.g3 2.c4 e6 3.g3 3.d4 c5 3...¤f6 4.¥g2 c5 5.0–0
8
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
5...¥e7! It is imprecise to play 5...¤c6 6.d4 ¥e7 because of 7.dxc5! ¥xc5 8.a3 and after 8... dxc4 9.£xd8† ¤xd8 10.¤bd2 we have a position similar to the Catalan. It would be better to take back with the rook on d8. 6.b3 ¤c6 7.¥b2 d4 8.e3 e5 This looks like a move order Marin would not have allowed? 2...¤f6 3.¥g2 e6 4.0–0 ¥e7 5.d3 c5 Because we have not come from the Sicilian, White has not been able to play those annoying systems with £e2 followed by either c3 or e5 and c2-c4 with ¤c3. 6.¤bd2 ¤c6 7.e4 0–0 8.¦e1 b5
This is known to be ok for Black if he knows what he is doing. It will be interesting to see if Avrukh recommends this in his book. 1.c4 e6 2.¤c3 2.¤f3 c5 3.¤c3 (3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 d5 5.b3 this is of course the English.) 3...¤f6 4.e3 (4.e4 ¤c6 transposes again.) 4...d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.d4 a6
2...c5 I like this move order for specific reasons, as we shall see below: 2...d5 3.d4 c5 is possible, but the other move order disallows some of White’s most challenging systems, based on 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.dxc5!. 3.e4!? 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.d4 cxd4 5.¤xd4 d5 is a line with good play for Black, actually covered in the book. 3...¤c6 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.¥e2 5.d4 cxd4 6.¤xd4 ¥b4 7.¤xc6 bxc6 8.e5?! (8.¥d3 e5 9.0–0 0–0 10.¥e3 ¥xc3! 11.bxc3 d6= Kasparov. 12.h3 ¥e6 13.f4 exf4 14.¥xf4 £b6† 15.¢h1 £c5 16.¥c2 ¦ad8³ Chandler - Emms, Hastings 2000.) 8...¤e4 9.¥d2 ¤xd2 10.£xd2 0–0 11.a3 £a5 12.¥e2 ¥e7 13.f4 ¦b8 14.¦d1 f6 15.¤e4 £xd2† 16.¦xd2 fxe5 17.fxe5
Games
17... ¦f5! 18.¤d6 ¦xe5 19.¤xc8 ¥g5! 20.¦xd7 (20.¦c2µ) 20...¦xb2 21.¦f1 ¦exe2† 22.¢d1 ¦xg2 0–1 Lilja - Aagaard, Copenhagen 1992. 5...d5 5...£b6!? 6.0–0 ¥e7 7.a3 is another interesting line possible here. 6.e5 ¤d7 7.cxd5 exd5 8.¥b5 And we have a complete main line from the Sicilian or English. Personally I like Black fine. The following game won the Quality Chess sponsored prize at Politiken Cup in August.
9
J. Hector – D. Fridman Politiken Cup, Denmark 2011 [B12] [Hector] In chess sometimes you can be lucky and sometimes you can be very lucky. This happened to me in my game against Daniel Fridman in the Politiken Cup this year. In my preparation I happened to stumble on an interesting position very early in the opening. Although neither of us had ever entered the exact line I still thought it might be possible to reach it ... and guess what happened. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3
If I had to give this move a Informantsymbol I would probably award it ?! . I clearly feel it is not the best move in the position, but on the other hand few games consist of only the best moves available. The main point of the move, when I am playing it, is that it can easily transpose to a non-typical position for a Caro-Kann player. I have only used it in a handful of games and after Fridman’s next move we have a position that neither of us have ever had before, at least not to my knowledge.
10
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
3...£b6 In one of my games in this line I was outplayed and lost without much fight to Peter Heine Nielsen. It was only afterwards when the computer had a look at the game that it became amazing. Or at least one particular position occurred that deserves to be mentioned. 3...e6 4.¤c3 ¤f6 5.¥e3 dxe4 6.fxe4 ¥b4 7.£f3 £a5 8.¤ge2 c5 9.d5 exd5 10.exd5 ¥g4 11.£g3 ¥xe2
Most of my pieces are hanging. I tried to hold the position together with £e5†
followed by ¥xe2 but it was all in vain. The position is simply not healthy – at least not for humans. Being a piece down already and with more pieces around the board also in danger, the computer comes up with a “stunner”: 12.¥h6!! And says the position is equal! And as if that were not enough, it now suggests that one of Black’s best answers is 12...¥d3! Chess today is a very different game than when I learned to play. Back to the game. I had found four games in which Daniel had had to meet 3.f3. In all of them he came up with a new answer but so far never 3...£b6; so I guessed it was time for that. 3...£b6 is also the move that has chosen lately by what you might call the more theoretical Caro-Kann players. Friedman is of course also very strong in the opening but his style is more to accept a slightly worse position and then slowly outplay his opponents, rather than to know everything ever played. 4.¤c3
Games The experts in this line prefer to push the a-pawn here. 4...dxe4 This together with the next move is the plan initiated with ...£b6, but I am not sure it is a good idea. Whenever I play this line the pawn on f3 usually ends up irritating me because it is a bit in the way of rapid development . Now the position changes and White knows what to do; he has to hit quickly before his weak squares start to tell. By playing 3.f3 White wishes to keep a big centre, but the next best thing is actually when the centre disappears altogether. Now it will all be about rapid development, open lines and diagonals. 5.fxe4 e5 6.¤f3 exd4 7.¤xd4 ¤f6 8.e5 ¤g4 9.e6! Thematic, but not in the usual way since when the bishop takes the pawn White cannot recapture. 9...¥xe6
10.¥c4!
11
For me this is the most beautiful move of the game. The black bishop was forced to develop and now it can be attacked. White exchanges the bishop on f1 for one of the few developed black pieces. This is where I was lucky. Firstly I had looked at this in my preparation. But when you look at maybe twenty different positions during two hours of preparation, even if you find yourself in that very position, you do not always remember how you should continue; it can be a mess. A move like 10.Bc4 however sticks out. Furthermore my opponent had used quite some time after 9.e6. When he is then hit by the bishop move after forty seconds it is a heavy blow to his morale. That is when you know that you are in trouble. It is also a problem in that situation that you realize that you have to find the best moves to stay in the game, but on the other hand if you do then your opponent will still continue to play his prepared (computer) moves. 10...¥xc4 11.£xg4 ¤d7? The computer, cold as ever, says that 11...¤a6 is the right move. The queen check on e5 will hurt, but it is more important to have the d7-square for the king than to have the knight to hide the king behind. It seems likely that the computer is right. Finally I had to start playing the game on my own, but now I was on a roll and the moves came easily. 12.£e4† ¢d8 13.¥g5† f6 14.0–0–0 To me the position felt like a Sicilian by now – a good place to end up against Caro-Kann players. 14...fxg5
12
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
15.¤f3!? The engine prefers 15.¤e6† with the line 15...¥xe6 16.£xe6 £c7 17.¦d3 I saw this, but I was then frightened by 17...¥d6 18.¦hd1 (18.¦xd6 ¦e8) 18...¦e8 I thought that I would get his queen and a couple of pawns for my two rooks. Sometimes that wins, but not always if the defender can get his troops organized. Now I understand that it may not be necessary to ever take on d7; instead White can maintain the pin on the d-file. However the way I play I could see that the attack would continue. 15...¢c7 The only try was 15...£c5 when I would have to choose between promising continuations 16.¤e5 (16.¦d4 is also good, but after analysing some variations I prefer the knight move) 16...¥e6 17.¦xd7† ¥xd7 18.¦d1 ¥e7 19.¦xd7† ¢e8 and now simply 20.¦xb7 when the natural 20...¦d8 can even be met by 21.£xc6† £xc6 22.¤xc6 ¦d7 23.¦b8† ¥d8 24.b4 Black has a lot of headaches, but at least the game would still be going on.
16.£xc4 £c5
17.£d3! 17.£f7 felt tempting, but it is much better to keep it simple and let Black keep his problems. Now it will soon be time for my knights to enter the fight. 17...¤f6? Black’s position is going from bad to worse. But in difficult positions it is hard to
Games come up with good moves, especially when the defending player has already been in trouble for almost three hours. 18.¤d4 £e5 When playing his previous move, Daniel had planned 18...¦e8 but now realized that 19.¤e6† leaves the d8-square inadequately defended. For the rest of the game Black will be forced to play moves that he does not want to make. 19.¦he1 £xh2 20.¤e6† ¢b6 21.£d4† ¢a6
Of course black is now losing. Still, I had some problem finding a clear-cut line. Fortunately I could reason with myself, and the fact is that while Black is defending with a bishop and two pawns, White is attacking with queen, two rooks and two knights; this made me optimistic about my chances. 22.£c4† ¢b6 23.¤a4† ¢a5 24.¤ac5 b5 25.¤b3† ¢b6 26.£d4† ¢a6 27.¤bc5† ¥xc5 28.¤xc5† ¢b6 29.¤d3† ¢c7 30.¦e7† ¢c8 31.£c5 £xg2 32.£d6 1–0
13
Newsletter Caro Analysis [B19] [J. Shaw & K. Arakhamia-Grant] We had a look at a line that has been suggested a few times, just to see the value of it. It should interest Caro-Kann players, we think. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7 9.¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥d2 ¤gf6 12.0–0–0 ¥e7 13.¤e4 ¤xe4 14.£xe4 ¤f6 15.£d3 0–0 16.g4 ¤xg4 17.¦hg1 Two games have been played after the timid 17.£e2 ¢h8
18.c4 f5 19.¦hg1 £e8 20.¥f4 ¦d8 21.¤e5 ¤xe5 22.¥xe5 ¦f7 23.¦g6 ¢h7 24.¦dg1 ¥f8 25.£f3 ¦e7 26.c5 ¦d5 27.£g3 £f7 28.¥d6 ¦d7 29.¥xf8 £xf8 30.¦xe6 ¦e7 31.£g6† ¢g8 32.¦ge1 ¦dd7 33.a3 £f7 34.¦xe7 ¦xe7 35.¦xe7 £xe7 36.£xf5 £e1† 37.¢c2 £e2† 38.¢c3 £e1† 39.¢c2 £e2† 40.¢b3 £d1† 41.¢c3 ½–½ Negi Adhiban, New Delhi 2010. 18.¦hg1 18...¤f6 19.¤e5 £d5 20.£e3 £e4 21.£g3 ¤xh5 22.£h2 £h4 23.£xh4 ¥xh4 24.¦h1 g5 25.¤f3 ¤g7 26.¤xh4 gxh4 27.¥xh6 ¦g8 28.¥g5 ¤f5 29.¥xh4 ¤xh4 30.¦xh4† ¢g7 ½–½ So - Vidit, Mashhad 2011.
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
14
17...¤xf2N Analysed a lot but never played. The analysis by Sasa Veliskovic in his comments to the game Leko-Topalov, Nice 2009, 105/39 suggests grabbing on f2 leads to a draw. 17...f5 This is the only move played and is the main recommendation in Lars Schandorff book, Grandmaster Repertoire 7, The Caro- Kann. 18.£e2 ¢h7 19.¤e5 The exchange 19...¤xe5 was suggested by Schandorff as an improvement instead of: 19...£d4 20.dxe5 ¦f7 21.¥xh6 £a5 22.£c4 £xe5 23.¦ge1 £f6 In the game Kulaots - Schroll, 2011, White played:
24.¥d2!?
Schandorff analyses 24.¦xe6 £h4 25.£xh4 ¥xh4 with equality. 24...e5 Better is 24...¦d8 bringing the last piece into the game. 25.h6 g5 26.£b3 e5 27.¦xe5 ¦d7 28.¦de1 ¥d8 29.¥c3 £d6= 25.f4! With the advantage for White. 25...b5 26.£b3 a5 27.fxe5 a4 28.£g3 £e6 29.¢b1 ¦d8 30.¦g1 ¢g8 31.h6 ¥f8 32.hxg7 ¥xg7 33.£h4 ¦d5 34.¥f4 ¦xd1† 35.¦xd1 ¦d7 36.¦g1 £c4 37.£g3 £e2 38.¥c1 £g4 39.£e1 £e4 40.£g3 £g4 41.£h2 £e4 42.a3 b4 43.axb4 £xb4 44.¦h1 £e4 45.£h7† ¢f8 46.¦f1 ¦f7 47.¥h6 £xe5 48.£h8† ¢e7 49.¥g5† ¢d6 50.£d8† 1–0 Kulaots - Schroll, Aix-les-Bains 2011. 18.£e2 Interesting alternative, not mentioned by Veliskovic, is 18.£e3 once more is sufficient only for a draw 18...¤xd1 19.£xh6 ¥f6
20.¥f4! ¥xd4 21.¥e5 ¥e3† 22.£xe3 ¤xe3 23.¦xg7† ¢h8 24.¦xf7† ¢g8 (24...£f6? 25.¥xf6† ¢g8 26.¦g7† ¢h8 27.¦g6† ¦xf6 28.¦xf6²) 25.¦g7†= 18...¤xd1 19.¥xh6 ¥f6 Inferior is 19...¢h7?! due to 20.¥xg7 ¦g8 21.£e4† f5 22.£xe6 ¦xg7 23.¦g6!±
Games 20.¥xg7 20.£xd1? ¢h8! 20...¥xg7 21.h6 £f6
White can easily draw but the win remains elusive.
15
22.¦xg7† 22.£h2 Black has to find four only-moves to draw: 22...£xf3 23.hxg7 £e3† 24.¢b1 ¤c3†! 25.bxc3 £xg1† 26.£xg1 ¦fe8= Various other moves by the f8-rook will also be level. 22.hxg7 Probably dubious, but it’s a winning try: 22...£h6†™ 23.¢b1 ¦fd8 24.£xd1 ¦d5!? 25.¤e5 ¦ad8 26.£f3 f5 27.c3 ¦xe5!? 28.dxe5 ¦d2÷ Messy, but Black is fine and may take over the initiative. 22...¢h8 23.¤g5 £xh6 24.¦h7† £xh7 25.¤xh7 ¢xh7 26.£h5† ¢g7 27.£g5†= Black looks safe in this line.
16
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
The following game won the u2200 Best Game Prize at Politiken Cup. L. Meier – T. Rostgaard Politiken Cup Helsingor DEN (2), 31.07.2011 [B22] [Meier, Lars] 1.e4 c5 2.c3 ¤f6 3.e5 ¤d5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 d6 6.¤f3 ¤c6 7.¥c4 ¤b6 8.¥xf7†
This move is usually marked with a “?” in the books – if it is mentioned at all! According to theory, it is supposed to be
inexact or just bad. 8...¢xf7 9.e6†! In my opinion this is a better sequel to the sacrifice than 9.¤g5†. 9...¢g8 10.d5! Black has an extra piece, however he has paid a high price! The rooks on a8 and h8 cannot be developed, and the bishops on f8 and c8 can hardly be developed either. 10...¤e5 11.¤xe5 dxe5 12.¤c3 h6!?
Games An interesting move in the position; Black’s plan is to play ...¢h7, ...g6 and ...¥g7. However the move weakens the h5e8 diagonal. 13.0–0 Preparing to open the f-file with f2-f4. 13...¤c4 14.£h5 The weakness of the h5-e8 diagonal becomes very obvious now. 14...¤d6 15.f4 exf4 This helps White to develop his pieces very quickly. 15...e4 would be followed by 16.f5 with an unclear position, because Black cannot control g6 any longer and therefore has big problems with his development. 16.¥xf4 ¢h7 17.¥xd6 exd6
18.¦f7 White threatens £f5† followed by ¦f1, which is the reason for Black’s next move. 18...¦g8 19.¦af1 ¥e7 20.¤e4 ¥g5
17
Black tries to prevent £f5† followed by £g6. 21.h4! White insists on forcing through £f5† and £g6 in order to keep up the pressure. 21...¥xh4 22.£f5† ¢h8 23.£g6 £b6† Black makes some final attempts to counter the white attack, but they are not successful at all. 24.¢h1 ¥xe6 25.dxe6 £d4 26.g3
26...d5 After 26...¥d8 27.e7 White wins a piece.; White can meet 26...¥xg3 with 27.¤f6!! £h4† 28.¢g2 £h2† 29.¢f3 and Black is soon mated. 27.¤d6 ¥g5 28.¦7f4 The threat of ¤f7# means that White wins the queen and the game. 1–0
18
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011 M. Adams – A. Delchev European Club Cup 2011 [B65] [K. Arakhamia-Grant]
12.¥xb5 Described as the most principled and best capture by Kotronias.
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¥g5 e6 7.£d2 ¥e7 8.0–0–0 ¤xd4 9.£xd4 0–0 10.f4 £a5 11.¥c4 b5?!
12...¦b8 13.e5 dxe5 14.fxe5 ¦xb5 15.exf6 ¦b4 16.£e3 ¥c5 17.£g3 ¥f2 18.£xf2 £xg5† 19.¢b1 In the book Kotronias analyses mainly his game against Kasimdzhanov and gives the fascinating insights of what is going on in grandmaster’s mind during the game and the preparation before the game. 19.¦d2 ¦d8 20.¦hd1
Kotronias in the second chapter of his book ‘’The Grandmaster Battle Manual’’ discusses this continuation in detail. His general assessment that this move cannot be recommended was proved in the present game. 11...¥d7 is the main line.
20...¦bd4?? 21.¤e4 £h6 22.g4 ¦4d5 23.c4 ¦5d7 24.g5 £g6 25.¦xd7 ¦xd7 26.¦xd7 ¥xd7 27.£xa7 h6 28.£b8† ¢h7 29.fxg7 1–0 Kasimdzhanov - Kotronias, Germany 2007. Later Vassilios tried: 20...gxf6 21.b3 ¦bd4 22.¤b1 ¥b7 23.g3 ¢g7 24.¢b2 ¦xd2 25.¦xd2 £e5† 26.c3 ¦a8 27.¤a3 ¥d5 28.¦e2 £h5 29.c4 ¥f3 30.¦e3 ¥c6 31.£d2 f5 32.£d4† ¢g6 33.h4 £g4 34.£xg4† fxg4 35.b4 ¢f5 36.¤c2 e5 37.b5 ¥f3 38.a4 ¦c8 39.¦e1 ¥e4 40.¤e3† ¢e6 41.¢b3 f5 42.¢b4 ¥f3 43.c5 ¢f6 44.¤c4 f4 45.c6 ¥xc6 46.bxc6 ¦xc6 47.¤xe5 ¦b6† 48.¢c5 ¢f5 49.¤c4 ¦e6 50.¦f1 f3 51.¢d4 ¢g6 52.¤e3 ¦b6 53.¦c1 h5 54.¦c5 ¦b4† 55.¦c4 ¦b1 56.¦c6† ¢f7 57.¦c5 ¦b4† 58.¢c3
Games ¦xa4 59.¦xh5 ¦a3† 60.¢d4 ¦a4† 61.¢e5 ¦a5† 62.¤d5 ¦a3 63.¦f5† ¢g6 64.h5† ¢h6 65.¦f6† ¢h7 66.¦g6 1–0 Lindberg Kotronias, Sweden 2008. 19...£xf6 20.£c5 The exchange on f6 is considered to be best by Kotronias. 20.£xf6 gxf6 21.¦d3 20...¦b7 21.b3 Another game went: 21.¦d2 £e7 22.¤e4 £xc5 23.¤xc5 ¦e7 24.¦e1 e5 25.b4 f5 26.g3 ¦fe8 27.h4 ¢f7 28.¦d6 e4 29.¦e3 ¥e6 30.¢b2 g6 31.a4 ¢f6 32.¢c3 ¢e5 33.¦c6 ¦c8 34.¦a6 ¥d5 35.¢d2 ¦ec7 36.¦a5 ¦d8 37.¦c3 ¦f7 38.¦e3 ¦c7 39.c3 ¥c4† 40.¢e1 ¦d5 41.¢f2 ¦d2† 42.¢e1 ¦d5 43.¢f2 ¦f7 44.¦e1 a6 45.¢e3 h6 46.¦h1 ¢d6 47.¦h2 ¦e7 48.¦f2 h5 49.¦b2 ¦d1 50.¦c2 ¢c6 51.¤xa6 ¦d3† 52.¢f2 ¦f3† 53.¢g2 ¥f1† 54.¢g1 e3 55.¤c5 ¥c4 56.¢g2 e2 57.¦xe2 ¥xe2 58.¦a8 ¦xc3 59.¦c8† ¢d5 60.¦d8† ¢c4 61.¦d2 ¢xb4 62.¤d7 ¦d3 0–1 S. Sjugirov - Vidit, Kemer 2007. 21...£e7 22.£e3 h6 23.¦d3 ¦d7 24.¦xd7 £xd7 25.¦d1 £c7 26.g3
Despite the computer’s assessment of this
19
position as equal, White went on to win the game in an instructive manner. According to Kotronias, Black’s disadvantages in this variation with 11...b5 are long term: by steering the game towards the endgame White will enjoy slightly better chances as he will often have a 3–1 pawn advantage on the queenside, granting him an easier game. 26...¥a6 27.¢b2 ¦c8 28.¦d2 ¥f1 29.a4 a5 30.¤b5 £e7 31.¤d6 ¦d8 32.£e5 ¦d7 33.¤e4 ¦xd2 34.¤xd2 ¥g2 35.¤c4 ¥d5 36.¤xa5 £a7 37.£c3 £f2 38.¤c6 ¢h7 39.¤e5 f6 40.£d3† f5 41.h4 ¥e4 42.£c3 £e2 43.¤d7 e5 44.£c7 £f2 45.h5 1–0 A. Fier - Wang,Yue FIDE World Cup 2011, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 [D17] [J. Shaw] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 dxc4 5.a4 ¥f5 6.¤e5 e6 7.f3 c5 8.e4 ¥g6 9.¥e3 cxd4 10.£xd4 £xd4 11.¥xd4 ¤fd7 12.¤xd7 ¤xd7 13.¥xc4 ¦c8
14.¥b3N There is not a big reason for us to feature
20
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
this (based on our own books and so on), but it looks like a major novelty in this famous line, so we wanted to include it none the less.
22.¤d6† ¥xd6 23.¥xd6 Since and including the novelty, all White’s moves have been Rybka’s first choice - excellent computer-aided prep.
14.¥b5 was played in the match between Topalov and Anand, while the main line is; 14.¥a2.
23...g4 24.¢f2± 24.¥c4!?
Another example is: 14.¥e2 a6 15.¦c1 f6 16.0–0 ¥c5 17.¥xc5 ¤xc5 18.¥c4 ¢e7 19.b4 ¤d7 20.¥e2 ¦hd8 21.a5 ¥e8 22.b5 ¤b8 23.bxa6 ¤xa6 24.¤a2 ¤c5 25.¤b4 ¤b3 26.¦xc8 ¦xc8 27.a6 bxa6 28.¥xa6 ¦b8 29.¤c2 ¤c5 30.¥c4 ¥d7 ½–½ Grischuk Wang Yue. Ningbo 2011. 14...a5 15.¢e2 ¦g8 16.¤b5 ¥c5 17.¥c3 b6
18.¥e1! Challenging Black’s plan of ...¢e7 and ...f7-f6. 18...¤e5 19.¥h4 ¥h5 20.¦hd1 g5 21.¥g3 ¤c6 21...g4 22.f4 (22.¥xe5 gxf3† 23.gxf3 ¦g2† 24.¢d3 ¥xf3 25.¦e1 ¦d8† 26.¤d4 ¦xb2 27.¦ab1 ¥xd4 28.¥xd4 ¦xh2) 22...¤d7
24...gxf3 25.gxf3 ¦g6?! 25...¤b4±
26.¥c4! ¦f6 27.¦a3 ¤a7 28.¦c1 e5 29.¥xe5 ¦fc6 30.¦ac3 ¢e7 31.¥d5 ¦xc3 32.¦xc3 ¦xc3 33.¥xc3 f6 34.¥d4 ¤c8 35.¥b7 ¤d6 36.¥a6 ¥e8 37.¥xb6 ¥xa4 38.¥xa5 ¥b5 39.¥xb5 ¤xb5 40.¢g3 ¢f7 41.¢f4 h5 42.e5 ¢e6 43.exf6 ¢xf6 44.¥c3† ¢g6 45.¥e5 ¤a7 46.b4 ¤b5 47.¢e4 1–0 N. Vitiugov – B. Ostenstad European Club Cup 2011 [D70] [K. Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤b6 6.¤c3 ¥g7 7.¥e3 0–0 8.£d2 ¤c6 9.0–0–0 f5 10.e5 ¤b4 11.¤h3 ¥e6 12.¢b1 £d7 13.¤f4
22
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
13...¦fd8N Avrukh suggested this new idea, as he believes that Black is facing some problems after 13...¥f7. ‘’The Grünfeld Defence’’, volume one, p.35. 14.h4 ¥f7 Transposing to a position that has been played before. 15.a3N The improvement over previously played: 15.¥b5 c6 16.¥e2 c5 17.e6 17.£c1 allows Black to play a strong sacrifice:
17...¤xa2! 18.¤xa2 ¥xa2† 19.¢xa2 £a4† 20.¢b1 cxd4 21.¥f2 ¦ac8 22.£d2 ¥h6 23.g3 ¦c5! 24.£d3 ¦xe5ƒ
17...¥xe6 18.dxc5 ¥xc3 19.bxc3 £a4 20.£xd8† ¦xd8 21.¦xd8† ¢f7 22.¦f8† ¢xf8 23.¤xe6† ¢g8 24.cxb4 £xb4† 25.¢c2 ¤d5 26.¥d2 £a4† 27.¢b2 ¤b4 28.¥xb4 £xb4† 29.¢c2 ¢f7 30.¤g5† ¢g7 31.¢d3 £a3† 32.¢d4 £xa2 33.¥c4 £d2† 34.¢e5 £c3† 35.¢d5 h6 36.¤e6† ¢f6 37.¤d4 e6† 0–1 Salem - So, Olongapo City 2010. 15...a5 16.£c1 ¥b3 17.¦d2 e6 I think Black had to play 17...¤c4 18.¥xc4† ¥xc4 when the interesting 19.b3 is met by 19...¤d5! 20.¤cxd5 ¥xd5 21.¤xd5 £xd5 22.£c4 £xc4 23.bxc4 c5=. 18.¤d3 White can start an attack on the kingside 18.h5!? g5 19.¤d3 ¤xd3 20.¦xd3 h6 21.¥xg5! hxg5 22.£xg5 ¢f7 23.h6 ¥h8 24.h7 ¥c4 25.¦h6! it looks like White has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed material if not more. 18...¤xd3 19.¥xd3 ¤c4 20.¥xc4 ¥xc4 21.h5
21...b5?! Black could prevent the opening of the
Games h-file by taking on h5. 21...gxh5 22.¦xh5 b5 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.¥g5 ¦f8 24.¤a4 £d5 25.¤c5 ¢f7 26.£c2 26.¤d3! was promising an advantage.
If Black replies 26...a4 then 27.¤f4 £c6 28.d5! is very strong 28...exd5 29.e6† ¢g8 30.£e1†-. 26...a4 27.¤d3 ¦h8 28.¦c1 c6 29.¤f4 £d7 30.g4 ¥h6 31.¥xh6 ¦xh6 32.gxf5 gxf5 33.¦h2 ¦ah8 34.¦xh6 ¦xh6 35.£g2 £d8 36.¦g1 £h8 37.¢c1 ¢e8 38.£g5 ¦h1 39.¢d2 ¦xg1 40.£xg1 ¢d7 41.¢c3 ¢c7 42.£g5 £h2 43.£e7† ¢b6 44.£d8† ¢b7 45.£d7† ¢b6 46.¤xe6 ¥xe6 47.£xe6 £f4 48.£g8 £e3† 49.¢c2 £e2† 50.¢b1 £xf3 51.£b8† ¢a6 52.£a8† ¢b6 ½–½
23
L. Fressinet – S. Feller [D76] French Championship, Caen 2011 [K. Arakhamia-Grant] Avrukh’s books on 1.d4 have been read by many, but not all... 1.¤f3 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.d4 ¥g7 4.g3 0–0 5.¥g2 d5 6.cxd5 ¤xd5 7.0–0 ¤b6 8.¤c3 ¤c6 9.e3
9...e5 9...¦e8 This is more popular. 10.¦e1 This is Avrukh’s choice in Grandmaster Repertoire, volume 2. 10...a5 This move continues to be fashionable: 11.£e2 Despite a couple of crushing defeats by White in this line at the last Olympiad, Gelfand employed this move on two occasions this year. 11...¥e6 However his opponents did not risk to try the critical 11...¥e6, instead it was: 11...¥g4 12.h3 ¥e6 13.b3 a4 14.¦b1 axb3 15.axb3 £c8 16.¢h2 ¦a5 17.¦d1
24
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
¦h5 18.¤h4 ¥f6 19.f4 ¦d8 20.£f2 ¥xh4 21.gxh4 ¤d5 22.¤xd5 ¦hxd5 23.¥b2 ¦b5 24.£e2 ¦h5 25.e4 ¥xb3 26.¦dc1 ¤a5 27.d5 b6 28.¥e5 c5 29.dxc6 f6 30.¥a1 ¦c5 31.¦xc5 bxc5 32.£b5 £c7 33.¦xb3 ¤xc6 34.e5 ¤d4 35.£c4† 1–0 Gelfand - Grischuk, Kazan 2011. 11...¥f5 12.¦d1 a4 13.d5 ¤a5 14.¤d4 ¤ac4 15.¤xf5 gxf5 16.£c2 ¤d6 17.¦b1 ¦a5 18.e4 fxe4 19.¤xe4 £c8 20.¥f4 h6 21.¦bc1 ¦b5 22.b3 axb3 23.axb3 £g4 24.£d3 ¦b4 25.¥f3 £g6 26.¤xd6 cxd6 27.£xg6 fxg6 28.¥g4 g5 29.¥e6† ¢f8 30.¥e3 ¦xb3 31.h4 ¥f6 32.hxg5 hxg5 33.¢g2 ¦b4 34.¦h1 ¢g7 35.¦h5 ¦h8 36.¦xh8 ¢xh8 37.¦h1† ¢g7 38.¦h5 ¤c4 39.¥xg5 ¢g6 40.f4 ¢xh5 41.¥f7† ¢g4 42.¥e6† ¢h5 ½–½ Gelfand - Topalov, Monaco 2011. Nyzhnyk suffered a defeat following the Leitao - Caruana game, 2010 Olympiad. 12.¦d1 ¥c4 13.£c2 ¤b4 14.£b1 e5 15.a3 exd4 16.axb4 dxc3 17.¦xd8 ¦axd8 18.£c2 axb4 19.¤d2 cxd2 20.¥xd2 ¦a8
Here Nyzhnyk deviates with 21.¦d1 But Black is still better after: 21...¦a2 22.¥c1 b3 23.£d2 ¥e6 24.¥f1 ¤a4 25.£b4 ¦a1 26.¥e2 c5 27.£b5 ¦a8 28.¢g2 ¤xb2 29.¥xb2 ¥xb2 30.¦xa1 ¥xa1 31.£xc5 ¥g7 32.¥d3 b2 33.£b5 h5 34.£xb7 ¦d8 35.¥e4 ¥f5 36.¥xf5 gxf5 0–1 Nyzhnyk - Mecking, Bahia Feliz 2011. 10.d5 ¤a5 11.e4 c6 12.¥g5 f6 13.¥e3 cxd5 14.¥xb6 14...£xb6 15.¤xd5 £d8
Games
25
16.¦c1 ¦f7 Main move is 16...¤c6 as in Laznicka Salem, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.
All as predicted by Avrukh in his Grandmaster Repertoire 1.d4, volume two, page 324.
17.b4 ¤c6 18.b5 ¤a5 19.¤c7
22...¤c4 23.¦xc4 ¥e6 24.¦xb8 ¥xc4 25.¥f1 ¥xa2 26.¤d2 ¢h8 27.¥c4 ¥h6 28.¥xa2 ¥xd2 29.¥d5 a6 30.b6 ¥a5 31.¥xb7 ¥xb6 32.¥xa6 ¥d4 33.¦c8 1–0
19...£xd1?N 19...¦d7 20.¤xa8 ¦xd1 21.¦fxd1 £f8 22.¤c7± ¢h8 23.¦c3 b6 24.¤d5 ¥e6 25.¦c7 £b8 26.¦e7 ¥g8 27.¥h3 f5 28.exf5 gxf5 29.¤e3 f4 30.¤g4 ¤c4 31.¦ed7 h5 32.¦d8 £c7 33.¤h6 ¥xh6 34.¦1d7 £xd7 35.¥xd7 1–0 Tatenhorst - Zylla, Germany 1993. 20.¦fxd1†- ¦b8 21.¦d8† ¦f8 22.¤e8!
L.D. Nisipeanu – R. Kasimdzhanov[D80] FIDE World Cup 2011, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 [D80] [K. Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¥g5 ¤e4 5.¥h4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 ¥e6 8.¤f3 ¥g7 9.¥e2 0–0 10.0–0 c5 11.¦b1
This line was successfully used by Gelfand against Kamsky in the Candidates matches. 11...b6 Avrukh recommends: 11...cxd4 As a path to equality. 12.¤xd4 ¥d5 13.f3 13.£c2 £d7 14.¦fd1 ¥xd4 15.cxd4 £e6 16.¥f3 ¥xf3 17.gxf3 ¤d7 18.£e4 b6
Games 19.¦dc1 ¦ac8 20.¦b4 c3 21.¦b3 ¤f6 22.£xe6 fxe6 23.¥xf6 ½–½ Gelfand Kamsky, Kazan 2011. 13...b6 14.e4 ¥b7 15.¥xc4 ¤c6 16.¥d5 Vuckovic - Sanikidze, Aix-les-Bains 2011.
16...£e8!N With the idea ...¦d8 solves all problems. 17.¤b5 17.¤xc6 ¥xc6 18.¥xc6 £xc6 19.¥xe7 ¦fe8 20.¥b4 a5= 17...¦d8 18.£b3 ¦d7 Preparing for moves like ...£c8 or ...¤a5 with a better structure. 12.£c2 ¤c6 13.¦fd1 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.¤g5 ¥f5 15.e4 ¥d7 16.¥xc4 ¤e5 The alternative way to play is 16...¦b8!?N 17.f4 h6 18.¤f3. 17.¥d5 An unbalanced position can arise after: 17...h6!?N 17...¥c6 Kazhgaleyev - De Jong, Wijk aan Zee 2011. 18.¥xc6!?N ¤xc6 19.f4² 18.¥xa8 18.¤xf7 ¤xf7 19.¥xa8 £xa8 20.¥xe7 ¦c8 21.£d3 £c6 22.£e3 ¥e6³ 18.¤h3 ¥xh3 19.f4 ¥e6 20.¥xa8 ¤c4 21.¥d5 ¤e3 22.£b3 ¥xd5 23.exd5 ¤xf1 24.¦xf1= 18...hxg5 19.¥xg5 £xa8 20.¥xe7
27
a) 20...¦c8 With approximately even chances. For example: 21.f4 ¤g4 22.£d2 £c6 23.¦bd1 ¥e6 24.e5 ¦e8 25.¥d6 ¤h6 26.£f2 ¦c8 27.h3 ¥c4 28.¦fe1 ¤f5 29.g4 ¤xd6 30.¦xd6÷ b) Very complicated is 20...¦e8 21.¥xc5 £c6 22.¥xa7 £a6 23.¥d4 ¥b5 24.c4 ¥xc4 25.¦b6 £a5 26.¦d1 ¥d3 27.£c3 ¤f3†!? (27...£xc3 28.¥xc3 ¥c2=) 28.gxf3 £g5† 29.¢h1 ¥e2 (29...¥xd4 30.£xd4 ¥e2 31.¦b3 £h5 32.¦c1 ¥xf3† 33.¦xf3 £xf3† 34.¢g1 £g4† 35.¢f1 £h3† 36.¢e1 £xh2=) 30.¥xg7 £h5 31.¦b3 ¥xd1 32.¢g2! (32.¦a3 £h3–†) 32...£g5† 33.¢f1 ¥xb3 34.axb3 £b5† 35.¢g2 £g5†= 13...cxd4 14.cxd4 ¥f5 15.e4 ¥g4 16.d5 ¤a5 17.d6 ¥f6 18.¥xf6 exf6 19.¤d4 ¥d7 20.¤b5 ¦c8 21.¤c7 ¹21.¤xa7 ¦c5 22.a4= 21...¤b7 22.¦d4 ¤xd6 23.¤a6 £e7 24.¦bd1 ¥b5 25.¤b4 ¤e8 26.¤d5 £a3 27.¥xc4 ¢g7 28.£d3 £xd3 29.¥xd3 ¤c7 30.¤xc7 ¥xd3 31.¦d7 ¥e2 32.¦e1 ¥g4 33.¦e7 ¦fd8 34.h3 ¢f8 35.¤d5 ¥d7 36.g4 b5 37.¢g2 ¦c2 38.a3 a5 39.¢g3 ¦c5 40.¦e3 b4 41.axb4 axb4 42.¦xd7 ¦xd7 43.¤xb4 f5 44.gxf5 gxf5 45.f3 ¦d4 46.¤d5 ¦cxd5 0–1
28
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
I.R. Ortiz Suarez – I. Nepomniachtchi FIDE World Cup 2011, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011 [D85] [J. Aagaard] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.£a4† ¤d7 8.¥e3 c5 9.¦c1 0–0 10.¤f3 £c7 11.¥e2 This was not covered by Avrukh in his book. He only covered 11.¥d3.
11...e5 11...a6 12.0–0 b5 13.£a3 ¥b7 14.d5 ¦ac8 15.c4 b4 16.£a4 ¤b6 17.£c2 a5÷ Litinskaya - Veroci, Subotica 1991. My recommendation would be 11...¤f6!N 12.e5 (12.¥d3 does not make a lot of sense: 12...b6 13.0–0 ¥b7= 14.d5 c4! 15.¥c2 e6³) 12...¤d5 13.¥d2 ¥d7 14.£b3 ¤b6 with good play for Black. 12.0–0 b6 13.¦fd1 ¥b7 14.d5² a6 15.£b3 ¤f6 16.¤d2 ¥c8 17.a4 ¥d7 18.d6!?
18.f3 ¦fb8 19.£a3 ¤e8÷ 18...£xd6 19.¤c4 £b8
20.¦b1?! 20.¤xb6! ¥xa4 21.£xa4 £xb6 22.¦b1 £c7 23.f3© 20...b5 21.¤d6 ¥e6 22.£a3 ¤d7 22...¦d8 23.¥xc5 ¥f8÷ 23.¥xc5 £c7 24.¥e3 bxa4 25.£xa4 ¦fd8 26.¦b7 £xc3 27.¦c1 ¤c5 28.£c6 ¦xd6 29.£xc5 £xc5 30.¦xc5 h5 31.¦a5 ¥f6 32.h3 ¥d8 33.¦xe5 a5 34.¦eb5 ¦c6 35.¦b8 ¦c8 36.¦xc8 ¥xc8 37.¦b1 ¥e6 38.¥c5 a4 39.¥a3 ¥b3 40.¥d1 ¦b8 41.¥xb3 ¦xb3 42.¦a1 ¥f6 43.¦a2 ¦b1† 44.¢h2 ¦a1 45.¦xa1 ¥xa1 46.¢g3 ¥g7 47.¢f3 ¥f8 48.¥b2 a3 49.¥c3 f5 50.e5 ¢f7 51.¢e3 ¢e6 52.h4 ¥c5† 53.¢e2 f4 54.¢f3 ¢f5 55.g3 fxg3 56.¢xg3 ¥f8 57.f4 ¥h6 58.¢f3 ¥xf4 59.e6 ¥d6 0–1
Games T. Koch – A. Areshchenko European Club Cup, 2011 [D87] [K. Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥c4 c5 8.¤e2 ¤c6 9.¥e3 0–0 10.0–0 ¥g4 11.f3 ¥d7 This is also Avrukh’s recommendation as an alternative to the well-known 11...¤a5. 12.¦b1 £c7 13.¥f4 £c8 14.d5 ¤a5 15.¥d3
15...e6N New idea in this position. Black challenges the White’s pawn centre. Avrukh in his book ‘’The Grünfeld Defence’’ volume two, p.227, is suggests 15...e5 16.¥e3 c4 17.¥c2 b6 18.f4 f6 19.¤g3 ¤b7 20.¥a4 exf4N (20...¥xa4 21.£xa4 ¥h6 22.¦be1 ¤d6 Ivanov - Koziak, La Roda 2007.) 21.¥xf4 ¦e8. 16.c4 After 16.¥e3 exd5 17.exd5 Black can play 17...¦e8 18.£d2 b5!? 19.¤g3 c4 20.¥c2 f5 restricting the white knight and planning ...¤a5-b7-d6. 16...exd5 17.exd5 b5!= 18.£c1
29
18.cxb5 c4 19.¥e4 £c5† 20.¢h1 f5 21.¥c2 ¥xb5= 18...a6 18...bxc4 19.¥xc4 a6² 19.¥h6 ¥xh6 20.£xh6 £c7 Areshchenko avoids 20...bxc4 21.¤f4 cxd3 22.¤h5=
21.¢h1?! 21.¤f4 £e5!³ 21.£d2 ¤xc4 22.¥xc4 bxc4 23.d6 £c6 24.¦bc1 was possible the best way to stay in the game. 21...¤xc4 22.¥xc4 bxc4 23.¤g3 f5!µ
30
Quality Chess Newsletter - November 2011
The knight is dominated and Black is a pawn up. 24.¦fe1 ¦f7 25.£c1 £d6 26.¦d1 ¥a4 27.¦d2 ¦e8!? 27...¥b5µ 28.£xc4 ¥b5 29.£c2 ¦fe7 30.¦dd1 ¦e3 31.¢g1 c4 32.a4 £c5 33.¢h1 ¥d7 34.¦bc1 34.d6 c3–† 34...£b4 35.¦f1 ¥xa4 36.£f2 ¦d3 37.h4 0–1
Solutions to Puzzles Cabrera - Matnadze, Spain 2010 18.¤xg7! ¤h7 18...¢xg7 19.£g5† ¢h8 20.£h6† ¢g8 21.¥xe4 ¦e8 22.¥h7† ¢h8 23.¥f5† ¢g8 24.¥xd7 19.£h6 ¤df6 20.¤f5 ¤e8 21.£g6† 1–0 Movsesian - Piorun European Rapid Chess Championship, Warsaw 2010 15.¤xf7 ¢xf7 16.£xe6† ¢f8 16...¢g6 17.¥c1 ¤c5 18.¥h5† ¢xh5 19.¦e5† ¢g6 20.¦g5† ¢h6 21.£f7 17.¥h5!! ¤e5 17...¤xh5 18.¥xe7† ¦xe7 19.£xe7† ¢g8 20.¤e4! £d8 (20...£e8 21.¤d6†-) 21.¤d6†- 18.£xe5 1–0 Johannessen - Ker Queenstown, 2009 16.¦xd6!! Black resigned because of 16...cxd6 17.¥b5! £xb5 18.¤xd6† and the double attack decides. 1–0 Hernandez - Gonzalez Cruz Spanish Championship 2010 12...¥xe3! White resigned in the view of 13.fxe3 £h4† 14.¢d1 ¤f2† 15.¢e1 ¤xh1† 16.¢d1 ¤f2† 17.¢e1 ¤xh3† 18.¢d1 ¤f2† 19.¢e1 ¤e4† 0–1 Kulaots – Antonsen Denmark 2010 21.¦xa7! ¦xa7 22.¥g5!! Resigns. 22...£xg5 23.¤xf7† ¦xf7 24.¦e8† 1–0 Bischoff – Meijers Germany 2010 23.¥e6!! ¦xc3 23...fxe6 24.¦c7! ¦xc7 25.¦xc7 £xc7 26.¤xe6† 24.¥xd7 ¦xc1 25.£xc1 ¦xd7 26.£c4 ¥a6 27.£c3 ¥b7 28.£c4 ¥a6 29.£c3 ¥b7 30.d5† ¢g8 31.£e5 ¢f8 32.d6 f6 33.£xf6† ¢g8 34.¤e6 1–0
(2) Anand,Viswanathan (2811) - Carlsen,Magnus (2826) [D85] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (7), 23.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4.cxd5 xd5 5.e4 xc3 6.bxc3 g7 7. e3 c5 8. d2 cxd4 9.cxd4 c6 10. d1 0– 0– 0 11. f3 g4 12. e2 c8 13.0– 13.0 – 0 a5 14.h3 xf3 15. xf3 xd2 16. xd2 a5 The simple plan of bringing the knight to c4 offers Black good counterplay- Avrukh, the Grandmaster Repertoire 9, page 142. 17.e5N 17.e5N Anand deviates from the 17.Bg5, as was played previously in all three games that reached this position. [17. g5 c4 18. d3 ... ½–½ Melkumyan,H (2582)-Areshchenko,A (2670)/Rijeka 2010. ] 17... c4 It feels natural to exchange one of the White's bishops. 18. 18 . d3 xe3 19.fxe3 c7= 20. e4 [One attempt to complicate the position could be to attack Black's pawns on the queenside 20.a4 b6 21.a5 bxa5 22. a1 However Black can counter-attack White's pawn weaknesses. 22... fc8 23. xa5 c3 24. xc3 xc3 25. xa7 h6!=] 20... fc8 21. b3 b6 22. f2 f6 23.exf6 xf6 24. e2 g7 25. d1 c3 26. d3 c2+ 27. d2 2c3 28. d3 c2+ 29. d2 2c3 ½– ½– ½
(3) Anand,Viswanathan (2811) - Nepomniachtchi,Ian (2730) [D97] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (3), 18.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4. f3 g7 5. b3 dxc4 6. xc4 0– 0 – 0 7.e4 a6 This move is a most popular choice. Avrukh in his book recommends 7...Nc6 as a viable alternative to the more common lines. 8. e2 b5 9. b3 c6 It was very interesting listening to Sutovsky's comments on the tournament website. At this moment he predicted that Black on the next move can offer three pieces for a queen. The acceptance may lead to very complicated and unbalanced position with mutual chances. Some players prefer to have a piece play, when the others, including computers like to keep the queen. 10.e5 e6 11. d1 [The World Champion agrees with the computer's assessment and prefers to keep his queen on the board. The alternative 11.exf6 xb3 12.fxg7 xg7 13.axb3 xd4 14. xd4 xd4 15.0–0 b4 is unclear.] 11... d5 12.0– 12.0 –0 xc3 13.bxc3 d5 14. e3 a5 15. d2 c5 It looks like Black managed to solve his opening problems and now equalises comfortably. 16. f3 cxd4 17.cxd4 c4 18. xc4 bxc4 19. c1 e6 20. a4 xf3 21.gxf3 d5 22. xc4 xf3 23. fc1 g4+ 24. h1 e4+ 25. g1 g4+ 26. h1 e4+ 27. g1 ½– ½–½
(4) Aronian,Levon (2802) - Svidler,Peter (2755) [D93] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (8), 24.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4. f4 g7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 a5 7. c1 dxc4 8. xc4 0– 0 – 0 9. f3 xc5 10. b3 c6 11.0– 11.0 – 0 a5 12.h3 f5 13. e2 e4 14. xe4 xe4 15. fd1 h5 16. c2 [16. d7 given as a main line by Avrukh. 16... ac8!] 16... xc2 [I was very surprised to find on the page 217 in Avrukh's book the quote to my own game. 16... xf3 this well-timed exchange completely solves Black's opening problems, according to Avrukh. 17. xf3 xf3 18.gxf3 ad8 19. e4 xb2 20. xd8 xd8 21. c2 a3 22. xc6 bxc6 23. xc6 f6 24.e4 a5 ½–½ Portisch,L (2595)-Arakhamia Grant,K (2420)/Roquebrune 1998. However in his comments after the game Aronian points out that Svidler played all the right moves until maybe move 19.] 17. xc2 b5 18.a4 b4 19. e1 e5 20. g3 fd8 21. d3 e7 22. c5 d6 Aronian describes this move as overly ambitious. He is suggesting instead 22...f6, first restricting white's bishop and maybe exchanging queens on c5 next. 23.b4 ad8 24.b5 d5 25. c2 e4 [Maybe it was better to play 25... a5 26.e4 d4 27. b2 b6= (27... h6 28. xd4 exd4=) ] 26. f4 xd1+ 27. xd1 xd1+ 28. xd1 b4 29. c1 f6 30. c8+ g7 31. b8 a6 32.b6 [32. xg6?! xg6 33. d6 d8 34. xd8 xd8 35. xb4 axb5 36.axb5 f5 37. f1 e6 38. e2 d5 39. d2 c4 40. d6 xb5] 32... c6 33. c8 h5 34. e2 d8 35. c7 e6 36. b8 d7 [36... a2! 37. f4 xa4 38. xd8 d1+ 39. h2 xd8 40. xb7 d6=] 37. e5 e6 38. c3 c6 39.a5 h4 40. xf6+ xf6 41. h8+ f5 42. xh4 xc3 43.g4+ e5 44. h8+ f6 45. b8+ d5 46. xb7+ c6 47. b8 c5 48. g8+ e6 49. xg6 c4 50.h4 d3 51.h5 e2 52.h6 c4 53.h7 e1 54. xf6 1– 1– 0
(5) Banikas,Hristos (2620) - Caruana,Fabiano (2727) [D85] 18th European Teams Porto Carras GRE (9.8), 11.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4. f3 g7 5.cxd5 xd5 6.e4
xc3 7.bxc3 c5 8. e3
a5 9. d2
c6 10. b1 a6
11. c1 g4 12.d5 d8 13. e2 0– 0 –0 14.0– 14.0 –0 e6 [Avrukh believes that move to be inferior to the recommended by him in the Grandmaster Repertoire 9 14... xf3 15. xf3 e6] 15. fd1 [The point is that White has a strong reply here 15. g5 GR 9, p.119, 15...f6 (in case of 15... d7 16. f4 xf3 White has an intermediate capture 17.dxc6!) 16. f4 and White has a better chances.] 15... xf3 16. xf3 exd5 17.exd5 e5 Now games transposes into a variation given by Avrukh on page 120. 18. e2 c4 According to Avrukh that move gives Black a good play. 19. b1 b5 20.a4 d3 21.axb5 axb5 22. xd3 Draw was agreed as the following exchanges lead to more simplifications and equality. ½– ½
(6) Braun,Arik (2560) - Naumann,Alexander (2546) [D98] Schachbundesliga 2011–12 Muelheim GER (2.7), 15.10.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4. f3 g7 5. b3 dxc4 6. xc4 0– 0 – 0 7.e4 c6 8. e2 In the Grandmaster Repertoire 8, Avrukh discusses this line in a chapter number 28! 8... g4 9. e3 xf3 10.gxf3 e5 11.dxe5 xe5 xe5 12. b5 h5 13. d1 h4 14. xb7 ab8 [Attacking the queen is a good option, but looks like Avrukh's recommendation on page 330 is even stronger 14... f4! 15. xf4 xf4 16. d5 ab8 17. d2 xf3+ 18. xf3 xf3 19.0–0 e5–+; 14... h3 15. xc7 xf3+ 16. xf3 xf3 17.0–0 ae8 18. d7 f6 19. d3 g4+ 20. h1 f3+ 21. g1 ½–½ Kaufman,L (2427)-Winer,S (2306)/Washington DC 1999.] 15. xc7 xb2 16. d5 h6?! [Black missed the opportunity to get the overwhelming advantage with 16... h3 17.f4 g3!–+] 17. d2 White now is in time to neutralise Black's initiative 17... b1+ [Black could try to play on with 17... h3 but he does not have sufficient resources to carry out successful attack. 18. xb2 xf3+ 19. xf3 xf3 20. b4 xh1+ 21. e2=] 18. d1 b2 19. d2 b1+ 20. d1 b2 21. d2 b1+ ½–½
(7) Carlsen,Magnus (2826) - Nepomniachtchi,Ian (2730) [B52] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (8), 24.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.e4 c5 2. f3 d6 3. b5+ d7 4. xd7+ xd7 5.c4 Experts on Anti- Sicilian p.122, 142. Commentating after the game Carlsen mentioned that he did not get anything special out of opening. 5... c6 Greet considers 5...Nf6 to be the more accurate move order. 6.d4 cxd4 7. xd4 g6 8. c3 g7 9. e3 f6 10.h3 This way White avoids Agdestein's move discussed on p.142. [10.f3] 10...0– 10...0 – 0 11.0– 11.0 – 0 a6 [11... fc8 12.b3 a6 13. d5 xd5 14.exd5 xd4 15. xd4 xd4 16. xd4 b5 17. fe1 bxc4 18.bxc4 c7 19. h4 ac8 20. e4 f5 21. ae1 f6 22. g4 h5 23. e2 c3 24. xe7 xc4 25. e3 f6 26. f3 f4 27. e2 g7 28.g3 f5 29.h4 c5 30. d3 e5 31. d2 xe1+ 32. xe1 c2 33.a3 f5 34. d4 f3 35.a4 e2 36. f1 a2 37. e1 a5 38. f4 xd5 39. c3+ g8 40. d4 e5 41. g2 g7 42. c4 a1 43. f4 d5 44. a6 d1 45. a7 e6 46. h2 d4 47. xd4 f1 48. g2 a1 49. xa5 c6+ 50. d5 xd5+ ½–½ Howell,D (2611)-Anand,V (2804)/London 2010.] 12.a4 fc8 More often Black develops the a8-rook on c8. 13.b3 e6 14. c1 d5 15. xc6 bxc6 16.e5 e8 17.f4 [White has an interesting resource 17.a5!? sacrificing a pawn and hoping to win an exchange in return. 17... xe5 Black has to accept the pawn, otherwise he will be struggling for space. 18. a4 d4 (18... c7 19. b6 d6 20.f4 xb6 21.axb6 e7 22.c5 The strong passed pawn and weakened dark squares around Black's king guarantee compensation for the pawn, perhaps more.) 19. b6 d8 20. d2 c5 21. xa8 xa8 22.b4 cxb4 23. xb4 Black definitely has some play for the exchange but it will take time to coordinate his pieces. White must play precisely but it seems to me that White's position is preferable. ] 17...a5 18. e4 f8 19. f3 d8 20. c5 cb8 21. f2 c7 22. e2 b4 23. h2 e7 24. c2 f8 25. d7 d8 26. c5 f8 27.cxd5 xd5 28.g3 c8 29. e1 b6 30. c4 ab8 31. d1 xc5 32. xc5 f8 33. c2 b4 34. xb4 xb4 35. xa5= [White can try taking a different pawn 35. xc6 d4 36. c5 d2+ 37. g1 d8!? (37... xc5+ 38. xc5 b2) 38. d6 e7 39. c3 b2 40. c6 d8 Black has sufficient recourses to hold the position.] 35... d8 36. c5 xb3 37. xb3 xb3 38. xb3 d2+ 39. h1 e1+ 40. g2 e2+ ½– ½–½
(8) Carlsen,Magnus (2826) - Svidler,Peter (2755) [D87] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (6), 22.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4.cxd5 xd5 5.e4 xc3 6.bxc3 g7 7. c4 c5 8. e2 c6 9. e3 0– 0 – 0 10.0– 10.0 – 0 In this position Avrukh, The Grandmaster Repertoire 9, page 212, recommends two main options for Black 10...Bg4 and the
little-explored line 10...Qc7 11.Rc1 b6. 10...b6 Despite been played very rarely, this continuation came to the attention after being employed by Anand in his World Championship match against Topalov in 2010. Next time it was Grischuk who tried it against Aronian in the Candidates matches, 2011. Since Grischuk and Svidler are good friends it is safe to suggest that this variation would have been analysed by them in depth. 11.dxc5 The most principled reply. Topalov choice was less commital 11.Qd2. 11... c7 12.f4N [Carlsen accepts the challenge and deviates early with his own novelty. The other above mentioned game continued 12. d4 e5 13. b5 b8 14. e2 bxc5 15.f4 g4 16. xc5 a6 17. a3 c7 18. d4 e5! 19.fxe5 xe5 After an intense battle the opponents shared a point on move 70, Aronian,L (2808)-Grischuk,A (2747)/Kazan 2011] 12...bxc5 13. b1 d8 14. a4 a5 [Also possible is 14... d7 15. b5 (15. a6 a5 16. d5 ab8 17.f5 xb1 18. xb1 c8) 15... d4 16.cxd4 xb5 17. xb5 cxd4 18. c1 b7] 15. d5 d7 [Deserves attention 15... a6 16. fe1 (16.c4 xd5 17.exd5 xc4 18. xa6 xe3 19. fc1 xd5 ) 16... ab8 17. xb8 xb8 18.f5 b5 19. c2 c4 20. f4 e5] 16. a3 ac8 17.f5 e6 18. f4 e5 19.fxe6 [White had an interesting alternative to sacrifice a piece with 19. xe6!? fxe6 (19... xf4 20. xf7+ xf7 21.fxg6+ g7 22. xf4 f8 23. d5+-) 20.fxg6 In my analyses after the accurate defence Black can equalise, but maybe there is an improvement for White or both sides. Anyway somehow intuitively I feel that White's position is very promising. (Although obviously Carlsen is not sharing this opinion since in the game he retreated with his bishop.) 20... c4 is the best defence (20...hxg6 21. xe5 xe5 22. xa5 ; 20... xf4 21.gxh7+ xh7 22. xf4 c4 23. c1 White queen gets quickly sent to the kingside where black king is feeling rather vulnerable without the pawn cover. Black pieces are helpless against White's attack. For example 23... g8 24. f3 e5 25. h3+ g7 26. d3 f6 27. b7+-; 20... c6 21.gxh7+ xh7 22. g3 xf4 23. xf4 b7 24. b3 e8 25. bf1+- White mobilises all his forces to achieve the overwhelming attack on the kingside.) 21. a6 (21.gxh7+ h8 22. a6 b6) 21... xf4 (21... f8 22. b7 c6 23.gxh7+ h8 24. xc4 xf4 25. xf4 xf4 26. bb1±; 21... b6 22. d3±) 22. xf4 e5 23.gxh7+ (23. xe6 xe6 24. xe6+ h8 25.gxh7 e8 26. f6+ g7 27. xg7+ xg7 28. b7+ h8=) 23... h8 24. e2 b8 25. h5 (The idea of keeping more pieces on the board with 25. bc1 looks a bit too slow, but probably is not so bad, but still after 25...c4!? 26. h5 e8 27. g5 f7 Black holds the position.) 25... xb1 26. xb1 e8 27. g5 f7 28. f1 xh7 Unfortunately I can't find anything more that to take the perpetual with 29. xe6 xe6 30. h4+ g8 31. g5+ h7=] 19...fxe6 20. b3 xb3 21.axb3 f8 22. c1 c4 23.b4 b6+ 24. h1 g7 Black keeps two bishops and has a comfortable position. 25.e5 c6 26. d4 d5 27. a1 b7 28. c2 c7 29. g3 cf7 30. xf7 xf7 31. e2 g5 32.h3 h5 33. g1 h4 34. h2 g6 35. d1 g4 Feels like Black is overextending. White's resources should not be underestimated, especially when it is Carlsen who plays with white pieces. At this tournament we had few opportunities to witness his incredible resilience and creativity, just think of his game against Kramnik! 36.hxg4 g5 37. f5! exf5 [After 37...h3 Black does not achieve much when White replies corectely 38. d4 with the idea to play Bf4 (38. xg7 xg7 39. xd5 exd5 40.gxh3 g6 Black is winning due to an exposed situation of White's king and awkwardly placed bishop on h2.) 38...exf5 (38...hxg2 39. f4 d8 40. xd5! exd5 41.e6±) 39. xd5 fxg4 40. g3!=] 38. xd5 fxg4 39. h1 h3 40.gxh3 gxh3 41. d4 [41. d1] 41... c1+ 42. d1 xc3 43.e6 b2 44. e4 g2+ 45. xg2 hxg2+ 46. xg2 e8 47. d6 f8 48. c6 xb4 49. xc4 a5 50. c6 g7 51. f3 f6 52. e4 xe6+ 53. e5+ f7 ½– ½– ½
(9) Galyas,Miklos (2458) - Naumann,Alexander (2546) [D90] Schachbundesliga 2011–12 Solingen GER (5.6), 11.04.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4. f3 g7 5. a4+ d7 6. b3 dxc4 7. xc4 0– 0 – 0 8. f4 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 e6 [Avrukh considers only 10... h5 in his first volume on page 96, followed by 11. e3 cxd4 12. xd4 c6 13. e2 a5 14.0–0 xf3 (The decision to give the dark squared bishop to win a pawn did not succeeded in the following game. Despite losing the game White had an advantage out of the opening. 14... fd8 15. h4 xe5 16.b4 c7 17. xe5 xe5 18.b5 xc3 19.bxc6 xc6 20. f3± d6 21. ab1 ac8 22. xh5 gxh5 23. b5 ( 23. xb7 f6 24. xh5±) 23...h6 24. xb7 .... 0–1 Zhukova,N (2443)-Mikhalevski,V (2584)/Aix-les-Bains FRA 2011.) 15. xf3 xe5 16. d5 xd5 17. xd5 fe8 18.g4!? This move mentioned by Avrukh as a possible improvement over previously played(18. ac1 ... ½–½ Sokolov,I (2695)-Van Wely,L (2654)/Belgium 2003.) ] 11.exf6 [Black has a comfortable play if White decides to keep a queen. 11. a4 d5 12. xd5 xd5 13. xa6 bxa6 14.dxc5 xc5 15.0–0 b5] 11... xc4 12.fxg7 xg7 [In the only other game that reached this position Black mistakenly captured the bishop on f1 12... xf1 13.gxf8 + xf8 14. xf1 cxd4 15. xd4 c8 (It is better to play 15... c5 16. de2 d3 17.h4 but White's chances are still preferable)
16. de2 f5 17. d1 e5 18. e3 b4 19.h4± ... 1–0 Horvath,C (2546)-Flumbort,A (2493)/Budapest HUN 2004.] 13. xc4 cxd4 14. d1 a5 [The move played in the game is stronger than 14... b6 suggested by Ftacnik in his analyses of the game Horvath,C-Flumbort,A 15. e5+ f6 16. xd4 xb2 17.0–0 ac8 18. b1 Ftacnik] 15. e5+ [15. xd4 leads to exchange of one pair of rooks but the queen and a pawn still are stronger than three pieces. Black has no weaknesses and his king is safe. 15... ad8 16.0–0 xd4 17. e5+ f6 18. xd4 c8 19. e6 d8 ] 15...f6 16. xd4 e5 17. e3 fd8 18.0– 18.0 – 0 b4 19.a3 c2 20. d2 d4 21. xd4 xd4 22. e2 ad8 23. e3 [23.b4!? xa3 24. b5 b2 25. xd4 xd4 26. e3 xd1 27. xd1 xb4 28. xa7?! b6 29. f3 a5 30. b8 b5 31. d1 b4–+ 32. d7+ h8 33. c7 a4 34. d6 e4] 23... xd1 24. xd1 b5 25. a2 d2! 26.b4 [26. xd2 xd2 27. b4 xb2 28. c2 a5–+] 26... d8 27. b3 [27. xd2 xd2 28. b3 e4 29. c1 b2–+] 27... d3 28. c1 xe3! 29.fxe3 d2– d2 – + 30. d1 xe3+ 31. f1 e4 32. d5 f5 33. e2 xa3 34. c6 xb4 35. d7+ f6 36. xa7 e3 37. a1 d6 38. xb5 xh2 39. a3 b8 40. b3 h5 41. c4 e5 42. d3 h4 43. b6+ g7 44. b4 h3 45.gxh3 d5 46. d4 f4 47. g1 f3 48. xf3 xf3 49. b2 xh3 50. g2 d7 51. c2 d4 52. f1 f4+ 53. e2 g5 54. b3 g4 55. e6 f3+ 0– 0–1
(10) Gelfand,Boris (2744) - Nepomniachtchi,Ian (2730) [D91] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (5), 20.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4. g5 e4 5. h4 xc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 e6 8. f3 g7 9. e2 0– 0 – 0 10.0– 10.0– 0 c5 11. b1 b6 b 6 This continuation was already played by Nepomniachtchi previously, all but in the blitz game, never the less no doubt Gelfand was prepared for it. [The immediate capture on d4 is recommended by Avrukh 11...cxd4 12. xd4 d5 13. c2 d7 14. fd1 xd4 15.cxd4 e6 in a later game White has tried a different plan of preparing to advance his central pawns 16. c3 (Gelfand continued 16. f3 xf3 17.gxf3 d7 18. e4 b6 19. dc1 ac8 20. b4 c3 21. b3 f6 22. xe6 fxe6 23. xf6 ½–½ Gelfand,B (2733)-Kamsky,G (2732)/Kazan RUS 2011) 16... d7 17.f3 b6 18. b5 f5 19. db1 ac8 20. d1 a8 21. c2 c7 22. a5 a6 23.e4 fxe4 24.fxe4 b5 (I am not sure Black had to give the piece just yet, but also after 24... g4 25. e1 c6 26.d5 b5 27. xe7 White has an advantage.) 25.exd5 g4 (after 25... xd5 26. e1 b6 27. a3 xd4+ may have three pawns for a piece, but White's pair of bishops is very strong in this position. 28. f2 f6 29. e4±) 26. g3 xd5 27. d2 c3 28. d3 c4 29. b3 c2 30. xc2 xd4 31. d1 f5 32. xf5 gxf5 33. b3 e6 34. xa6 e8 35. a7 f4 36. f2 d2 37. e1 f3 38. xd5 1–0 Kazhgaleyev,M (2618)-Vakhidov,J (2348)/Tashkent UZB 2011.] 12. g5N [Previously White tried Qc2 and capture on c5. For example 12.dxc5 d7 13.c6 (In case of 13.cxb6 xb6 14. d4 d7 looks like Black equalises.) 13... f6 14. d4 d5 15. f3 c8 16. g3 (Deserves attention 16. xf6 xf6 17.e4 e6 18. xe6 fxe6 19.e5 xd1 20. fxd1 xe5 21. d7 c7 22. e1 xc3 23. xe6 despite being a pawn down White has some chances in the ending.(or 23. c1 e5 24. xc4 d6 25. a4 a5 26. d4) ) 16... e4 17. b5 (17.c7!? e8 18. b4 xg3 19. xd5 xd4 20.hxg3 c5 21. b1 xc7 22. xc4=) 17... xg3 (why not to take the c6 pawn 17... xc6 18. c2 f5 19. xa7 c5∓) 18.hxg3 xf3 19. xf3 a6 20.c7 e8 21. d4 e5 22. c2 e4 23. f4 b5 24. d4 e5 25.a4 xf4 26.gxf4 xd4 27.exd4 xc7 28.axb5 axb5 29. xb5 a8= although White went on to win the game, 1–0 Delchev,A (2625)-Le Roux,J (2512)/France 2010] 12... d5 13.e4 b7 14.d5 [Closing the centre looks stronger than entering the complications after 14. xc4 cxd4 15.cxd4 h6 16. xf7 xf7 17. g4 g5 18. g3 d7 19. xf7+ xf7 20.d5 f6 ] 14...h6 [The alternative was to take a pawn on c3 and hope to survive White's initiative. 14... xc3 15. xc4 f6 16.f4 h6 (Reducing the number of pieces on the board doesn't solve all the Black's problems. 16... a6 17. xa6 xa6 18.e5 xg5 19. xg5 d7 20.f5!) 17. f3 xh4 18. xh4 e6 19. f3 exd5 20.exd5 d7 (20... d6 21.f5 g5 22.f6!?) 21. e5 xe5 22.fxe5 h4 23. d3 White has a compensation for a pawn, but Black should be able to hold.] 15. f3 g5 16. g3 f5 17.exf5 xd5 18. a4 xf5 19. xc4+ h8 20. be1 This is a very interesting position. Black managed to illuminate White's strong pawns centre, but fall behind in development. White's pieces are controlling the centre and Black's king's weakened position offers him good chances for an attack. 20... c6 [20... c6 21. b5 (21. b3 xf3 22. e6 g6 23.gxf3 c6 24. d5) 21... d7 22. e5 xb5 23. e4 c6 24. g6+ g8 25. xe7+ h8; 20... xf3 21.gxf3 f6 22. e3 d7 23. b5 b7 24. d3+-] 21. e3 ad8 [in case of immediate 21...e5 White starts dangerous attack after 22. d3 d7 23.h4±] 22.h4 [Stronger is 22. c7!? de8 23. e6 g6 24. fe1 a8 25. g4±] 22...e5 The point here is that White doesn't have Bd3 now and is unable to stop e5-e4. 23.hxg5 e4 24. h4 [24.gxh6 xh6 25. h4 h7 26. fe1 (26. e2 g5 and suddenly white knight has nowhere to go.) 26... xe3 27. xe3 ] 24... xg5 25. b5 [Black is fine after 25. xe4 xc3 26. e6 f6; It was better to exchange the light-square bishops 25. a6 xa6 (25... a8 is bad because White just takes the e4 pawn with the queen. 26. xe4)
26. xa6 fe8 27. e2 d5 28. e1] 25... a5 26. fe1 c4 Just in a few moves the assessment of the position changed. It is now Black who has an initiative. 27. xc4 c6 28. b4 xc4 [White could find himself in the difficulties after 28... f6 threatening Bf8-c5. The best for White could be to give an exchange now but he would not have sufficient compensation. 29. xe4 xe4 30. xe4 f8 31. b2 xc4 32. xc4 c5∓] 29. xc4 d5 30. a4 f7 31. xe4 I am not sure if it was already necessary to take such measures, as I don't believe that White has full compensation for an exchange. 31... xe4 32. xe4 d5 33. h2 b5 34. c2 h5 35.c4 bxc4 36. xc4 fd7 37. c5 d5 38. xd5 xd5 39. c8+ h7 40. c2+ g8 41. c8+ f8 42. h3 f7 43. a6 d4 44. h2 b4 45.a4 e4 46.a5 e6 47. c8 a6 48. f3 h5+ 49. g1 e8 50. c4 c6 51. b3 g7 52. f4 h7 53. e3 e4 54. d4 e7 55. xg7 xg7 56. c3 b1+ 57. h2 f5 58. g1 d7 59. e1 b7 60. h2 g7 61. h4 c2 62. e6 c7+ ½– ½–½
(11) Ivanchuk,Vassily (2775) - Carlsen,Magnus (2826) [D82] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (5), 20.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4. f4 g7 5.e3 c5 6.dxc5 a5 7. b3 a6 [According to my database this move has been played only twice before. Avrukh in the Grandmaster Repertoire 8, on page179, considers 7...dxc4 to be Black's best continuation.] 8.cxd5 xc5 9. b5+ xb5 10. xb5+ d7 11. d1 h5 12. xd7+ xd7 13. g3 [Why not just develop the knight? 13. f3!? it is not clear to me if Black has sufficient compensation for a pawn. 13... xf4 14.exf4 xc3+ 15.bxc3 f6 16. d4 ] 13...b5! 14.d6 e6 15. f3 b4 16. b5 xg3 17.hxg3 ab8 18. bd4 h5 19. h4 f5 20. e2 e5 [20... e4 21. d2 xd2 22. xd2 hc8] 21. c4 hc8 22. f1 e4 23. c7+ [ 23. cc1] 23... xc7 24.dxc7+ xc7 25. d2 xd2+ 26. xd2 a5 27.b3 a4 28.bxa4 a8 29. c1 e4 30. e2 xa4 31. f4 c3 32. c2 d6 33. e2 g5 34. xh5 d5 35.f3 g4 36. f4+ c4 37. e6 a6 38. f4 h6 39.fxg4 fxg4 40. c1 a6 41. c2 h6 42. c1 d6 43. c2 a6 44. f2 h6 45. e2 h1 46. g6 e1+ 47. f2 a1 48. f4 b1 49. e6 d1 50. f4 d6 51. e2 c6 52. c1 b5 53. d5 c5 54. f4 c6 55. d5 c5 56. f4 a4 57. e6 d5 58. c2 a3 59. d4 c5 60. b3 d5 61. d4 xd4 62. d2 c3 63. xd5 xa2 64. d1 b3 65. b5 b2 66. b8 f6 67. d2 c3+ 68. d1 f6 69. f8 c3 70. e8 a2 71. a8+ b1 72. a4 b2 73. a6 a5 74. xa5 ½– ½–½
(12) Ivanchuk,Vassily (2775) - Svidler,Peter (2755) [D80] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (1), 16.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4.e3 Quiet continuation, although in Ivanchuk's hands just as dangerous. 4... g7 5. b3 e6 6. a3 a5 7. f3 c6 [Avrukh is suggesting a different route for a knight via a6. He plays first 7...c6 to defend the a5 pawn.] 8. d2 b4 Svidler's idea seems very sensible since sometimes Black wants to play c7-c5. 9. a4+ [9. b3 c5 10.a3 c6 was played in the game Suba-Shirov, 2001] 9... d7 10. b3 dxc4 11. xc4 c6 [The pawn sacrifice deserves the attention 11...c5 12.dxc5 c6 13. b5 0–0 14. xb4 axb4 15. xb4 d7 two bishops and lead in development compensate two missing pawns 16. e2 e7 17.0–0 xc5 18. xc5 xc5 ] 12.a3N [Most principled as it is challenging a bishop on c6 strait away. Previously played 12. e2 0–0 13.0–0 bd5 14. e5 xc3 15.bxc3 e4 16. xc6 bxc6 17. ad1 ½–½ Farago,I (2507)-Ftacnik,L (2579)/Hamburg 2004] 12... bd5 [After 12... xf3 13.gxf3 bd5 White can maybe even take a pawn 14. xb7 0–0 15. xd5 xd5 16. c6 ] 13. e5 0 – 0 14. xc6 bxc6 15. c2 White has a slight long term advantage of two bishops and better pawn structure. 15... e7 16.0– 16.0 – 0 c5 17. e2 cxd4 18. xd4 c5 19. b5 fc8 20. fd1 [It is tempting to push the d5-knight from his central square, but than the other knight might be heading for the d4 square 20.e4 c7 21. c3 g4 22.h3 e5 23. e2 c6=] 20... g4 21.h3 e5 22. e2 c4 23. ac1 h5 24. c3 b6 25. e4 d5 26. c3 b6 27. e4 d5 28. e1 ab8 29. h1 d7 30. b1 c5 [I am not sure why Svidler decides to give a pawn, he could still continue manoeuvring after 30...a4 ] 31. xc4 b6 32. b5 d5 33.a4 a6 34. e2 ab4 35. bc1± c7 36. c3 bc8 37. xd5 exd5 38. xc7 xc7 39.b3 c3 40. c1 f6 41. f3 e5 42. g3 xg3 43.fxg3 e5 44. 4 4. xc7 xc7 45. g1 c2 46. d2 b6 47. f2 d4 48.e4 d3+ 49. f1 e3+ 50. e1 xg2+ 51. d1 h4 52.gxh4 xh4 53.b4 axb4 54. xb4 f3 55.a5 d4 56. e7 f5 57.exf5 gxf5 58. d8 f7 59. b6 e6 60. xd4 xd4 61. xd3 1– 1– 0
(13) Javakhishvili,L (2464) - Cmilyte,V Cmilyte,V (2525) [D85] 16th ECC w Rogaska Slatina SLO (5.1), 29.09.2011
[Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4.cxd5 xd5 5.e4 xc3 6.bxc3 g7 7. e3 c5 8. f3 a5 9. d2 c6 10. b1 a6 11. c1 g4 12.d5 d8 13. h6N According to Avrukh this move was suggested by Krasenkov, but if I can trust my database has not been used in practice prior to this game. 13... xh6 14. xh6 xf3 15.gxf3 d4 16. g2 e6! 17. d2 [It must be too dangerous to take a pawn on h7 when white king remains in the centre and position is likely to open. 17. g7 f8 18. xh7 exd5] 17... c6 [17... b5 is the continuation suggested by Avrukh, on page 116 of the Grandmaster Repertoire-9, followed by 18.0–0 (I think White should play the ending after 18.c4 xd2+ 19. xd2 d4 20.f4 e7 21.e5 b6 22. b1 b8 23.h4 f6 24.h5 and White has his own pluses like passed d-pawn and centrally placed king.) 18...0–0 ] 18. e3 [The difference between knight's retreats is prominent in case of 18.c4 Black has an option of keeping queens on the board 18... a4 19.0–0 d4 20.f4 0–0 dominant knight in the centre and queen coordinate very well and offer Black better chances.; If White is castling that Black can relocate the knight to a blockading d6-square after 18.0–0 0–0 19.f4 exd5 20.exd5 d4 21. fe1 f5] 18... e5 19.0– 19.0 – 0 0– 0 – 0 20.c4 d7 [Deserves attention the attempt to eliminate white's strong pawn centre 20...b5!? 21.cxb5 (21.dxe6 fxe6 22.cxb5 d3 ) 21...axb5 22. xc5 d7 23.dxe6 (23. c2 exd5 24. d2 (24.exd5 b6 ) 24...b4 25. b2 dxe4 26.fxe4 e5=) 23... xc5 24.e7 e6 25.exf8 + xf8 26. b1 xa2 27. xb5 a1+ 28. f1 c8=] 21.f4 [White could try a pawn sacrifice 21.e5!? xa2 22. fd1 I think White has an initiative thanks to mobile pawn centre and better coordinated pieces. 22...exd5 23.cxd5 fe8 24.f4] 21...b5 22.f5 gxf5 [22...exf5 23.e5 fe8 24.e6 b6 25.cxb5 axb5 26. fd1] 23.exf5 [23. fd1] 23...exf5 24. h1 [At a first sight the immediate check with the queen looks stronger, but Black should be able to hold 24. g5+ h8 25. xf5 b6 26. b1 b4=] 24... b6 25. g1 h8 26. c3+ f 6 27. xf6+ xf6 28.cxb5 axb5 29. xc5 b4 30. d1 fe8 31.d6 e6 32. xf5 exd6 33. xd6 xd6 34. f3 ½– ½–½
(14) Kramnik,Vladimir (2800) - Nakamura,Hikaru (2758) [E04] 3rd London Chess Classic London ENG (1), 03.12.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1. f3 f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 3. g3 d5 4.d4 dxc4 5. g2 c6 6. a4 b4+ 7. d2 d5 8. xb4 dxb4 9.0– 9.0 –0 b8 10. a3 0 – 0 11. b5 b6 12. xc4 a6 13. b5 d5 14. xd5 xd5 15.a4 a5 16. e5 bd8 17. xa7 b4 That move was Kramnik's choice when he played this position with black pieces. Avrukh also examines this continuation in the first volume of the Grandmaster Repertoire, page 146, but gives 17...Nb3 as a main line. 18. ac1 xd4 19. b5 [19. xc7 xe2 20. fc1 f6 21. ec6 axc6 22. xc6 xc6 23. 7xc6 fd8 24.h3 8d6 25. xd6 xd6 26. c6 xc6 27. xc6 e5 28.f4 exf4 29.gxf4 f7 30. f2 c4 31.b4 g5 32.fxg5 fxg5 33.h4 gxh4 34.a5 ½–½ Anand,V (2800)-Kramnik,V (2780)/Bilbao 2010.] 19... xb5 20.axb5 Avrukh comments that White's light-squared bishop gives him an edge. 20...f6 21.e3 dd8 22. f3 f7 Nakamura seems to be following Romain Edouard's analyses to the Anand- Kramnik game. In his comments Edouard mentions that variation as an improvement over previously played 21...Rd2 in the game Prohaszka-Csonka 2010. 23. h3 e7 24. c3 f7 25. a1 d3= 26. f1 xc3 27.bxc3 d5 28.c4 c3 29.c5 d7 30. d4 e4 31.cxb6 cxb6 32. c1 c5 33.f4 e7 34. c6+ xc6 35.bxc6 a7 36. d1 c7 37. g2 e5 38.fxe5 fxe5 39. b1 e4 40. xb6 d6 41. b4 d5 42. d4+ e5 43. c4 d5 44. d4+ e5 45. c4 d5 ½– ½ –½
(15) Leko,P (2720) - Topalov,V (2768) [D85] European Team Championship Porto Carras GRE (9.3), 11.11.2011 [Jacob Aagaard] This line of the Grunfeld was not included in Avrukh's repertoire, but is fascinating in its own right. It seems to us that Leko won a good game here. 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4.cxd5 4.cxd5 xd5 5.e4 xc3 6.bxc3 g7 7. e3 c5 8. c1 a5 9. d2 0– 0 – 0 Avrukh recommends to take on d4 and exchange queens in his book. 10. f3 d8 11.d5 e6 12. g5 f6 13. e3 c6 14. d3 exd5 15.exd5 c4 16. xc4 e6 17. d1 e7 18.dxe6 xd2 19. xd2 xc3 [19... f5 20. d3 h8 21.0–0 is untested and also a bit uncomfortable for Black.] 20. b3 c1+ [20... a1+ 21. d1 f5 22.0–0 c3 23. b3+- Lupulescu - Bukavshin, Aix-les-Bains 2011.] 21. d1 c3+ 22. d2 c1+ 23. d1 c3+ 24. e2 a5 It seems to me that this move brings Black in trouble. The solution has already been played. [Previously played was: 24... b4 25. d3 (25. d4!N is my guess of what Leko was intending. After 25... b5+ 26. c4 c6 the computer gives (26... a4 27. hd1 e8 28. 1d3 ) 27. c1 c8 28. d3 e4 29. d5 xd5 30. xc8+ f8 31. xd5 xd5 32.e7 b5+ 33. e1 b1+ as equal, but the feeling is that everything is very dangerous for Black around here, and any improvement (or just
deviation from what you remember) could be catastrophic.) 25...a5 26. c1 a4 27. c4 b5 28. c5 b4 29. c4 b5 30. c5 b4 Here White should take the draw. 31. c4? b8? (31... h6!! 32.a3 b2+ 33. d2 xd2 34. xd2 b8∓) 32. d7 f8 33. cc7 b5 (33... b2+ 34. d2 b5=) 34. d3 a3 35. d2 (35. c2 ) 35... xa2 36. xe7 xe7 37. xe7 a3 38. d4 f8 39. c5 g8 40. d4 f8 41. c5 g8 42. e3? f5? (42... a1!–+) 43. d4 f8 44. c5 g8 45. d4 f8 46. f6 b6 47. f7+ e8 48. e7+ f8 49. f7+ e8 ½–½ Pashikian - Cornette, Aix-les-Bains 2011.] 25. d7 a4 26. c1 b2+ 27. c2 b1 28. d2 axb3 29. xb1 bxc2 30. c3 f5 31. d2 h5?! Only this is new, but already here Black is worse. [White also has a lasting pressure after 31... e8 32. d3 (32. xb7 d4+ 33. d3 xe6 is not so bad, thus the move order.) 32...b6 33.g4 h6 34.h3 xe6 35. xc2 f5 36.g5 f7 37. d5 e5 38. b7 f3 39. e7+!N (39. e3 d6 40. xb6 f4 41. b8+ f7 42. b7+ g8 43. b8+ f7 44. b7+ ½–½ Potkin,V (2646)-Svidler,P (2722)/Moscow 2010/CBM 140) 39... f8 40. b4 e8 41. d5 c6+ 42. b3 d4 43. e7+ d8 44. xh7 xf2 45. e7+ c8 46. g7 g3 47. a4 d6 48. f6 d2 49. c3 b5+ 50. a5 c4+ 51. xb5 c5+ 52. b4 c7+ 53. b3 xg7 54. xg7 d2+ 55. c2 f3 56. f6±] 32. d3± b5 33.e7 e8 34. d5 f7 35. xc2 c8+ 36. c7 xe7 37. b4 f8 38. b3 b8 39. d5 e6 40. d6+ e5 41.f4+ 1– 1–0
(16) Nakamura,Hikaru (2758) - Adams,Michael (2734) [C36] 3rd London Chess Classic London ENG (9), 12.12.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 The choice of the opening would not come as a surprise to Adams, because of Nakamura's reputation as a very original player and the fact that he played the King's Gambit before. 2...exf4 3. f3 d5 [It is actually great to see the romantic openings played by top players in our pragmatic age. In the following game we see Shirov in action behind the white pieces. 3...h6 4. c3 d6 5.d4 g5 6.g3 g7 7.gxf4 g4 8. g1 f8 9. e3 c6 10.d5 b4 11.a3 gxf3 12.axb4 h4+ 13. g3 f6 14. xf3 h5 15. e2 xg3 16.hxg3 d8 17. d2 d7 18.e5 dxe5 19.f5 b6 20.d6 e8 21.f6 xf6 22. f1 g5 23. c4 xd6+ 24. e2 xe3 25. xa8 d2+ 26. f3 f5 27. c8 g7 28. xc7+ f8 29. xe5 h5+ 30.g4 xg4+ 31. g3 d4 32. b8+ g7 33. c7+ g6 34. f7+ g5 35. e7+ 1–0 Shirov,A (2709)-Alekseev,E (2673)/Lublin POL 2011/The Week in Chess 863; 3...g5 4. c4 g7 5.h4 h6 6.d4 d6 7.c3 c6 8.0–0 g4 9. e1 xh4 10. xf4 f6 11.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 g3 13. xg3 xg3 14.exf6 f8 15. d3 d6 16. h5 g4 17. xf7+ f8 18. g6 h2+ 19. f2 g3+ ½–½ Nakamura,H (2733)-Ivanchuk,V (2754)/Cap d'Agde FRA 2010/CT-3646/[Mikhail Golubev (www.chesstoday.net)]] 4.exd5 f6 5. c4 [Nakamura deviates from his own game where he gave a check on b5. 5. b5+ bd7 6.c4 e7+ 7. e2 xe2+ 8. xe2 a6 9. xd7+ xd7 10.d4 h5 11. f2 0–0–0 12. c3 h6 13. e5 e8 14.g4 fxg3+ 15.hxg3 f6 16. f3 g5 17. d2 g6 18.g4 g7 19. ae1 e8 20. xe8+ xe8 21.c5 ½–½ Nakamura,H (2701)-Ivanov,A (2516)/Ledyard 2009/CBM 129 Extra] 5... xd5 6.0– 6.0– 0 e6 [The other popular continuation is to quickly finish development of the kingside, for example like in the next encounter on the top level: 6... e7 7. xd5 xd5 8. c3 d8 9.d4 0–0 10. xf4 f5 11. e2 d6 12. xd6 xd6 13. b5 d8 14.c4 a6 15. c3 d7 16. ad1 g6 17. f2 e8 18.h3 c8 19. fe1 xe1+ 20. xe1 c6 21.d5 f6 22. d4 cxd5 23. xd5 xd5 24.cxd5 d6 25. e5 e8 26. e3 d8 27. c4 f6 28. e5 h6 29.d6 f5 30. b6 e6 31.d7 h8 32.a4 g6 33. c3 g7 34.a5 h5 35.h4 xd7 36. xd7 xd7 37. d4 c6 38.b4 b5 39. h2 a4 40. d5 c6 41. xf6+ xf6 42. c5 e6 43. g3 f6 44. f2 d5 45.g3 g5 46.g4 hxg4 47.h5 e4 48. c7 f5 49.h6 f4 50.h7 g3+ 51. e1 f3 52.h8 f2+ 53. e2 d3+ 54. e3 1–0 Carlsen,M (2813)-Wang Yue (2752)/Medias ROU 2010.] 7. b3 c5 [More common is 7... e7 ] 8. h1 [The attempt to complicate the game. The alternative 8.d4 may lead to the following simplifications 8...cxd4 9. xd4 c5 10. h1 xd4 11. xd4 0–0 12. xd5 c6 13. xf4 xd5 14. c3 as in the game Lyell,M (2187)-Haslinger,S (2468)/Great Yarmouth 2007, where Black went on to win, although not because of the opening.] 8... c6 [8... e7 9.d4 0–0 10.c4 e3 11. xe3 fxe3 12.d5 g4 13. d3 d7 14. c2 g6 15. xe3 d6 16. bd2 ... ½–½ Fier,A (2471)-Saralegui Cassan,M (2196)/Turin 2006] 9.d4 c4!? [The move in the game is stronger than the capture on d4. Maybe this option escaped Nakamura's attention when he played his 8th move. 9...cxd4 10. xd4 e3 11. xe3 fxe3 12. h5 a5=] 10. a4 [If bishop takes the c4 pawn, White loses the exchange without the reasonable compensation. 10. xc4 e3 11. xe3 xc4 12. xf4 xf1 13. xf1 d6 ] 10... d6 Black succeeds in finishing his development and still keeps his extra pawn for a little while without compromising his position. In fact the f4- pawn greatly restricts White's from harmoniously developing his pieces. 11.b3 c3 12. d3 0– 0 – 0 13. xc6 [In case of immediate capture on c3 White loses c2-pawn due to the open c file. 13. xc3 cb4 14. d2 xc3 15. xc3 c8–+] 13...bxc6 14. xc3 e8 15. xd5 xd5 16.c4 e4 17. c3 a5 18.a3 f6 19. b2 a7 20. ad1 ae7 21.b4 axb4 22.axb4 22.axb4 h8 23. b3 b7 24. c3 b8
25.b5 cxb5 26.c5 b4 27. d2 f8 28. de1 g5 29. c4 g4 30. h4 f3 31.d5 fxg2+ 32. xg2 f3 33. g1 c8 34.c6 b5 35. f4 c5+ [Stronger is to push the passed pawn now 35...b3 since, if 36. c3 like in the game, Black still has the bishop on f8 sufficiently defending his king. 36...b2 37. e6 e7!–+] 36. e3 xe3+ [The unfortunate mistake by Adams, who played really well until now. Although it is not losing the game yet, as it often happens, it is followed by even bigger error. Black keeps his advantage with 36... b6 37. c1 xe3+ 38. xe3 xe3+ 39. xe3 b3∓] 37. xe3 b6 38. fe1 b3? [More resilient is 38... a5 39. f1 a1 40. e7 xe1+ 41. xe1 xd5!? transposes into an ending where White has an extra piece but reduced number of pawns suggests that Black might have some practical chances. 42. xd5 xc6 43. xc6 xc6 44. xb4 d6] 39. c3 f8 40. e6 b2 41.c7 1– 1–0
(17) Nakamura,Hikaru (2758) - Svidler,Peter (2755) [D87] 6th Tal Memorial Moscow RUS (3), 18.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4.cxd5 xd5 5.e4 xc3 6.bxc3 g7 7. c4 c5 8. e2 c6 9. e3 0– 0 – 0 10.0– 10.0 – 0 g4 11.f3 d7 12. b1 c7 13. d3 fd8N [At the press conference Svidler avoided explaining his choice of the rook move. Avrukh suggests to develop the queen's rook. 13... ad8 14.d5 e5 15.c4 f5 16. f4 e6 17. b3 c8 18.exf5 gxf5 19. c3 e7 20. bd1 g6 21. g3 e5 22. c2 g5 23. h1 h5 24. e2 h4 25. f2 b6 26. de1 h5 27.f4 exf4 28. g1 e5 29. f3 g4 30. xh4 de8 31. e7 f7 32. d6 e3 33. xe3 fxe3 34. g1 h6 35. b8 b7 36. g3 f4 37. h4 e5 38. xe5 xe5 39. d3 g7 40. e4 h5 41. d1 g4 42. xg4 xg4 43. g3 e2 44. e1 fxg3 45. xe5 gxh2+ 46. xh2 d4+ 0–1 Antonsen,M (2438)-Avrukh,B (2641)/Helsingor DEN 2009.] 14. d2 The natural developing move. In the Avrukh's book it is met by the bishop's retreat to c8, applying pressure on the pawn centre. However since Svidler left a rook on a8 to play bishop d7 to c8 now looks odd. Instead retreating bishop to e8 seems to be a reasonable option. 14...a6 [14... e8!? 15. fc1 e6 16.f4 b6 ] 15.f4 e6 16.dxc5 a5 17. d4 e5 18.fxe5 xe5 19. b2 [White can take advantage of black's 13...Rfd8, by moving a queen from the d-file to f2 with tempo, attacking on f7 and indirectly defending the c5 pawn. 19. f2 e7 (in case of 19... e8 White regroups his knight on to d5 20. bd1 ac8 21. e2 c6 22. f4 with the advantage.) 20.h4 e8 21.h5 (winning the exchange cannot be recommended since Black gets a good compensation for it 21. g5 xc5 22. xd8 xd8) 21... ac8 22. b6!? c7 23. e2 dc8 (23... xe4 24.h6 f8 25. e6!±) 24.h6 h8 (24... e5 25. e6! c6 26. f4 xf4 27. xf4±) 25. g4 ] 19... ac8 20. b4 [Nakamura underestimates Black's next move. He could play 20. bc1 e8 (Neither of the pawn captures works for Black now 20... xc5 21. f2 with a double attack on f7 and c5 21... e8 22. f5!; in case of 20... xc5 21. f5 f8 22. xg7 xg7 23. b6± Black will suffer without the dark-square bishop.) 21. f3 e7 22. d4 c6 23. f2 White still is holding on to his extra pawn and keeps a slight advantage.] 20... xc5! 21. xc5 xc5 22. e2 [Maybe Nakamura was planning to play 22. f5 xc3 23. b6 c6 24. xg7 and noticed too late that Black doesn't have to recapture on g7 and just moves the rook 24... c8! as the knight is now trapped on g7.] 22... c6 23. b6 xb6 24. xb6 c6 All black's pieces are harmoniously placed, even the knight is useful on a5 restricting the d3 bishop. 25. f3 [I wonder if White should admit his oversight and immediately return the exchange 25. xc6 xc6 26. c4 e5 27. d5 he is maybe still slightly worse but active bishop and the different colour bishops promise good chances to equality, in my opinion.] 25...f5 26. b4 [also possible here 26. xc6 xc6 27. c4+ h8 28. d3 e8 29. d5] 26... f8 27. d4 c5 28. e3 [More resilient 28. f4 but White is still facing ungrateful task of defending in a worse ending 28...fxe4 29. xe4 b5 30. h1 xd4 31. xd4 c4 ] 28... e8!∓ e8! 29.e5 d5 30. f2 xa2 31. a4 xe3+ 32. xe3 xe5+ 33. f4 b3 34. xe5 xa4 35. d6 c6 36.g3 g7 37. d4 e4 38. xe4 fxe4 39. c2 c4+ 40. d5 d2 41. c5 f6 42. b6 e5 43. xb7 d5 44. e3+ c5 45. xa6 b1 46. b7 xc3 47. c8 d4 48. g2 e5 0– 0–1
(18) Robson,Ray (2583) - Dominguez Perez,Leinier (2710) [B96] 5th SPICE Cup GpA Lubbock USA (7), 22.10.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.e4 c5 2. f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. xd4 f6 5. c3 a6 6. g5 e6 7.f4 h6 8. h4 b6 Ftachnik in the Grandmaster Repertoire 6 concentrates his attention on 8... Be7. But recently the move with the queen, reminiscent of the Poisoned Pawn variation became fashionable. 9. d2 xb2 10. b1 a3 11.f5 [11.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 g5 13.exf6 gxh4 14. e2 a5 15.0–0 d7 16. h1 g5 17. f4 e5 18. d5 exd4 19. xd4 d8 20. d1 h3 21.g3 d6 22. e4 e8 23. b6 xe4 24. xe4 c5 25. xa8 xf6 26. d3 e7 27. f3 h5 28. e2+ e6 29. xb7 g4 30. f1 h4 31.gxh4 xh2 32. g1
f8 33. g5 b4 34. e4 b1+ 35. g1 f1 36. c6 g3+ 37. h2 f1+ 38. h1 d1 39. f3 d2 0–1 Nisipeanu,L (2673)-Wojtaszek,R (2711)/Aix-les-Bains FRA 2011.] 11... e7 12.fxe6 fxe6 13. c4 xe4 14. xe4 xh4+ 15.g3 g5 16. xg5 hxg5 17.c3N [Robson deviates from previously played capture on e6, but unfortunately very quickly goes wrong. The other game that reached this position continued 17. xe6 xe6 18. xe6 xg3+ 19.hxg3 xh1+ 20. e2 h2+ 21. e1 xd2 22. xd2 a7 23. d5 d7 24. xb7 xb7 25. xb7 c5 26. f3 d7 ½–½ Vallejo Pons,F (2698)-Morozevich,A (2700)/Reggio Emilia ITA 2011]] 17... c5 18. xe6 e5+ 19. f2? [The other king's retreat is not any better 19. d1 e4–+; Instead White can offer the queen exchange where chances are about equal. 19. e2 c6 20. d5 xe2+ 21. xe2= xd4+ 22.cxd4 b8 23.h4] 19... xe6– xe6 – + 20. be1 0– 0 –0+ 21. g1 h3 0– 0–1
(19) Robson,Ray (2583) - Le,Quang Liem (2717) [B99] 5th SPICE Cup GpA Lubbock USA (9), 24.10.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.e4 c5 2. f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. xd4 f6 5. c3 a6 6. g5 e6 7.f4 h6 8. h4 e7 9. f3 bd7 10.0– 10.0– 0 – 0 c7 11. e2 b5 12. xf6 xf6 13.e5 b7 14. g3 dxe5 15.fxe5 d5 16. xe6 fxe6 17. g6+ d7 18. g4 xe5 19. xd5 g5+ 20. xg5 [To understand what was happening in the opening stage of this game one must really read the chapter 18, variation D32 of Grandmaster Repertoire 6. Here Ftacnik thinks that White's best chance to fight for the advantage is 20. e3+ c7 21. xe6 c5 22. d7+ b8 23. xb7+ xb7 24. e1 b8 25.b4 xe3+ 26. xe3 f6 27. xf6 gxf6 28. f3 a7 29. e6 a5 30.a3 Ftacnik (I was curious about this position and wondered if White can try 30.a4!? bxa4 31.b5 a3 32. b1 d8 33. xf6 e7 34. a6 (34. b6+ c7 35. xh6 d6 36. xd6 xd6 37.b6 e1+ 38. a2 c1 39.b7 xc2+ 40. xa3 c7=) 34... d2 35.b6 b7 36.h4 a2+ 37. xa2 xc2+ 38. b3 c5 39. a4 h5 40.g3 and most likely it will be a draw) 30...axb4 31.axb4 a4 32. b6+ a7 33. xb5 b8 34. xb8 xb8 35.b5 c7=] 20... xg5+ 21. b1 xd5 22. xd5+ c7 23. c5+ [23. e5 he8 24. he1 ad8 25. xe6 xe6 26. xe6 d6 27. e4 f6 28. f3 d2 29.c3 a5 30.a3 f2 31. e2 xe2 32. xe2 b4 33.cxb4 ½–½ Hansen,T (2423)-Nguyen Huynh Minh,H (2477)/Budapest 2008.] 23... b6 [Keeping the king central and defending the week e6-pawn looks like a more natural reaction 23... d6 24. c3 ac8 25. a3 c6 26. f3 b6 27. d1+ e5 28. d7 d8 29. xg7 d2 30. c3 b4 31. b3 b5 32.a3 bxa3 33. xa3 c5 34.c3 b5 35. a2 a5 36. b7 xb7 37. xb7 d8 38.h3 f2 39. f3 f5 40. a4 e5 41. g4 g5 42. a4 d8 43. c4 e7 44. c7 f6 45. a7 d8 46. d7 g5 47. d5 f1+ 48. a2 f4 49. xa5 e4 50. a4 xf3 51.gxf3 xf3 52.c4 e3 53. b3 ½–½ Balutescu,M (2213)-Evans,D (2413)/ICCF 2010] 24. e5 he8 25. he1 ac8 White will win the pawn, but with the opposite-coloured bishops Black's drawing chances are high. 26. f3 c7 27.a4 ce7 28. h5 c8 29. f3 ce8 30. h5 c8 31. xe6+ xe6 32. xe6+ c6 33.a5+ c5 34. e4 c7 35.c3 e7 36. d4 f6 37.b4+ c6 38. f3+ c7 39. d5 e5 40. d3 e8 41. c2 e5 42. b3 e1 43. g4 e4 44. f5 f4 45. e6 e4 46. f5 f4 47. h3 c4 48.g3 e4 49. d7+ b8 50. d6 c4 51. d3 e4 52. f5 e5 53. g4 c7 54. d7+ c6 55. d3 [It is interesting to notice that all the white pawns are placed on the dark squares (opposite colour of his own bishop) and if in the middle game and closed structures that what we are told to do, here it works to White's disadvantage! In the endgame with the opposite-coloured bishops that rule almost could be reversed. In that case bishop can defend his pawns better! We can see that clearly after 55. a7 e3 Black attacks the base of the dark-squared pawn chain and the light-squared bishop can't defend it. 56. xa6+ c7=] 55... c7 56. c2 e4 57. d7+ b8 58. f5 e2+ 59. b3 xh2 60. d6 f2 61. e4 e2 62. d3 d2 63. b6+ c7 64. e4 e2 65. d3 d2 66. e4 e2 67. d3 d2 ½– ½–½
(20) Short,Nigel D (2698) - McShane,Luke J (2671) [C34] 3rd London Chess Classic London ENG (7), 10.12.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. f3 In this position Black has a choice of few options like 3...g5, 3...d5, 3...d6, 3...Be7, 3...Nf6. The continuation in the game is not played as often, but has been tried on the top level as well. 3...h6 4.d4 g5 5. c3 d6 6.g3 fxg3 [It is amazing to see that White can sacrifice a piece for a pawn if Black decides to return the pawn at once. 6... g7 7.gxf4 g4 8. g1 (8. e3!?) 8... f8 9. e3 c6 (If Black accepts the sacrifice the position remains unclear and very sharp. However I suspect that players have agreed that it is more difficult to defend it with black pieces, since White has a clear plan of mobilising all his forces, doubling rooks on the open g-file and advancing his central pawns. It is interesting that engines indicate that White is doing fine here despite the material deficit. 9...gxf3 10. xf3 ) 10.d5 b4
11.a3 gxf3 12.axb4 ... 1–0 Shirov,A (2709)-Alekseev,E (2673)/Lublin POL 2011] 7.hxg3 [We have few games where White played 7.h4 It is probably not the best but dos look very brave.] 7... g7 8. e3 [The other game on the top level continiued 8. c4 f6 9. d3 c6 10. b3 g4 11. f1 a5 12. a4+ d7 13. d5 c6 14. e3 e6 15.c3 b5 16. c2 c4 17.b3 xe3 18. xe3 b6 19. f2 d5 20.e5 f8 21. g1 e7 22. f2 d7 23. e1 h5 24. f1 h4 25.g4 h3 26. f5 g8 27. h2 a5 28. d3 c7 29. e2 a4 30. af1 axb3 31.axb3 a3 32. c1 a1 33. f3 d7 34. 1f2 a8 35. b2 a2 36. c1 a7 37. d3 a3 38. xa3 xa3 39. xe6 fxe6 40. g6 g8 41. c2 h7 42. b2 ha8 43. f7 e4 44. d2 xg4 45. g7 a1 46. ff7 d8 47. xg5 e4 48. f4 b1 49. g1 da8 50. f7 e4 51. f2 d8 52. e1 g6 53. g1 e4 54. e1 g6 55. g1 e4 ½–½ Morozevich,A (2748)-Leko,P (2725)/Frankfurt 2000] 8... f6 9. d3N [9. d2 c6 10.0–0–0 g4 11. g1 0–0 12. e2 a6 13. e1 d7 14. d3 b5 15. d5 e7 16. e3 e8 17. f1 g6 18. xg4 xg4 19. e3 xf3 20. xf3 c5 21.c3 c8 22. c2 b4 23. b3 e7 24. hf1 bxc3 25.bxc3 c4 26. c2 c7 27. f5 b8 28. e2 b7 29.a4 b6 30. f3 b7 31. d5 d7 32. e2 e7 33. a5 c7 34. f2 c6 35. d5 b2 36. xd6 a2 37.e5 b2+ 38. d1 xc3 39. c1 a5 40.g4 h3 41. f5 xc2 42. xc2 f8 43. g6+ h8 44. xc6 b3+ 45. d2 xc6 46. e1 c3+ 47. e2 c7 48.e6 e7 49.d5 g7 ½–½ Nightingale,D (2506)-Marczell,I (2559)/ICCF 2009] 9... g4 10.0– 10.0 – 0 – 0 c6 11. e1 [Why not to save the bishop first 11. g1 and then slowly build up the pressure, since the Black weaknesses are more of the long term.] 11... d7 12.e5 dxe5 13. h3 [Deserves attention to simply take back on e5 13.dxe5 xe3 (13... gxe5 14. d4 e7 15. e3 f6 16. c4 ) 14. xe3 b6 15.e6 xe3+ 16. xe3 fxe6 17. xe6+ ] 13... xe3 14. xe3 [Maybe the best option for White now is 14. xd7+ xd7 15. xe3 e6 16. xe5 0–0 Black manages to consolidate his position, but White also has some play for a pawn.] 14...0– 14...0 –0 15. e4 [15. xd7 is met with 15...exd4! 16. xc8 xc8∓] 15... f6 [Black had a nice move available here 15...g4! 16. xg4 exd4 17. xd7 (17. ee1 c5 18. xc5 xg4∓ The position simplified a little. Two bishops, two extra pawns and relatively safe king suggest that Black is close to having a decisive advantage. For example 19. e5 g5+ 20. d2 xd2+ 21. xd2 c8–+) 17... xd7 (also possible is 17...dxe3 even if the position around the black king looks a bit worrying 18. eg5 f5 19. b3+ h8 20. xc8 xc8 21. e6 d5–+) 18. ee1 d5–+ White does not has sufficient compensation for two pawns] 16. xc8 [More resilient is 16. xf6+ xf6 17.dxe5 g6 18. xc8 axc8 Black is better, but White has some practical chances. ] 16...exd4 17. xb7 dxe3 18. xa8 xe4 19. xe4 b6 20. e5 xa8– xa8 – + 21. xc6 xc6 22. xc6 e8 23.c3 e6 24. xa7 e5 25. b5 e2 26. d2 xg3 27. e1 xe1+ 28. xe1 h5 29. d4 a6 30.a3 h4 31. xe2 g4 32.c4 h3 33. f2 h2 34. g2 h6 35. h1 g3 36. f5 g2+ 0– 0 –1
(21) Thorfinnsson,Bragi (2421) - Borisek,Jure (2541) [D76] 18th European Teams Porto Carras GRE (2.14), 04.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f 6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 g7 4. g2 d5 5.cxd5 xd5 6. f3 b6 7. c3 c6 8.e3 0– 0 – 0 9.0– 9.0– 0 e8 10. e1 a5 11. e2 Despite the turbulent time White experienced recently in this line Avrukh, according to our sources, stands by his recommendation and believes this move is still very much playable. 11... e6 12. d1 c4 13. c2 c8N [The most principled here is 13... b4 14. b1 e5 and now the critical try would be Caruana's suggestion 15. xe5 (15.a3 exd4 16.axb4 dxc3 17. xd8 axd8 18. c2 axb4 19. d2 cxd2 20. xd2 a8 21. xa8 xa8 22. xb7 a1+ 23. c1 b3 24. d1 xb2 0–1 Leitao,R (2624)-Caruana,F (2700)/Khanty-Mansiysk RUS 2010.) 15... xe5 16.b3 d3 17. xd3 xd3 18. xd3 where the opinions divide, some players believe that White has sufficient compensation and maybe even more, whilst others disagree.] 14.e4 [The following alternatives may offer White a slight edge 14.b3 b4 15. b2 a6 16.a3 d3 17. c2 xc1 18. axc1 c6 19. e4 with some pressure on the queenside.; Also deserves attention 14.a3 a4 15. xa4 xa4 16.b3 xb3 17. xb3 f5 18. d2 White has two bishops and can slowly improve his position.] 14... a6 [Black can play more actively 14... b4!? 15. b1 a4 with equal chances.] 15.d5 d8 16. e3 c4 17. d4 f6 18. e2 [Stronger is 18.b3 d6 19. e3 d7 20. ac1 c8 21. d4±] 18...e5 19.dxe6 xe6 20. c3 c5 21.b3 [It is possible to stop the knight from retreating to e5 21. f4 but White compromises his pawn structure. 21... xf4 22.gxf4 22...b5 23.e5 fxe5 24. xe5 xe5 25. xe5 a7 ] 21... e5= 22. f4 xf4 23.gxf4 c6 24. d5 g4 25.f5 gxf5 26.exf5 e2 [26... ad8=] 27. d1 ae8 28.h3 [28. xc5!? h8 29.h3 f4 30. d5 g8 31. c1 ] 28... f4 It looks to me that the position is still too complicated to agree a draw, but I suppose the team competition has its own strategy. ½–½
(22) Topalov,Veselin (2805) - Anand,Viswanathan Anand,Viswanathan (2787) [D17]
WCh Sofia BUL (8), 04.05.2010 [Jacob Aagaard] Karsten Muller wrote to us to point out that Kotronias missed out on a win for Topalov in the following game, given on page 264 in THE GRANDMASTER BATTLE MANUAL. Kotronias did not really study the game seriously and was more focussed on an earlier chance to get an advantage, but still it is interesting for us to check (and had Vassilios known about it, he would definitely have included it). 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3. f3 f6 4. c3 dxc4 5.a4 f5 6. e5 e6 7.f3 c5 8.e4 g6 9. e3 cxd4 10. xd4 xd4 11. xd4 fd7 12. xd7 xd7 13. xc4 c8 14. b5 a6 15. xd7+ xd7 16. e2 f6 17. hd1 e8 18.a5 e7 19. b6 f8 20. ac1 f5 21.e5 g5 22. e3 f4 23. e4 xc1 24. d6+ d7 25. xc1 c6 26. d2 e7 27. c1+ d7 28. c3 xd6 xd6 29. d1 f5 30.h4 g6 31. xd6+ c8 32. d2 d8 33. xf4 xd6 34.exd6 d7 35. e3 [The surprising 35. d2!! would have prevented the black regroupment by dominating the bishop and thus won. Timman gives the following main line: 35...e5 (There is also 35... b1 36. c3 e8 37.b3! Prophylaxis aimed against delaying ... c2-a4-d7, making it possible for the White king to make it to f6 "quickly. 37... f7 38. g5 e8 39. d4 c2 40. e5 xb3 41. f6 d7 42. f4 c2 43. e5 h5 (43... d3 44.g4 c2 45.g5 d1 46. g7 xf3 47. xh7 h5 Black is hanging on, but will inevitable end up in a deadly zugzwang. 48. g7 d8 49. f8 d7 50. f7 d8 51. f6 d7 52. g3+-) 44.g4 d3 45. g5 e8 46.gxh5 gxh5 47. xh5 f7 48. g5 e2 49.h5 xf3 50.h6 e4 51. f6 e8 52. c3 f7 53. f4 h7 54. e5 g6 55. b4+-) 36. xe5 e6 37.g4 b1 38. c3 a2 39.b3 b1 40. g3 d7 41. d4 e6 42. c5 d7 43. d5 d3 44. e5 e2 45. f6 xf3 46.g5 White wins the h7-pawn and will win through zugzwang once again.] 35... c2 36. d4 e8 37. e5 f7 38. e3 a4 39. f4 b5 40. c5 f6 41. d4+ d4 + f7 42. g5 c6 43. h6 g8 44.h5 e8 45. g5 f7 46. h6 g8 47. c5 gxh5 48. g5 g7 49. d4+ f7 50. e5 h4 51. xh4 g6 52. g4 b5 53. f4 f7 54. g5 c6 55. h6 g8 56.g4 e8 57.g5 c6 58. g7 e8 59.f4 c6 60.g6 hxg6 61. xg6 e8+ 62. f6 c6 63. xe6 xg7 64.d7 1– 0
(23) VachierVachier-Lagrave,Maxime (2710) - Sutovsky,Emil (2696) [D85] 18th European Teams Porto Carras GRE (3.6), 05.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3. c3 d5 4.cxd5 xd5 5.e4 xc3 6.bxc3 g7 7. f3 c5 8. b1 0– 0 – 0 9. e2 cxd4 10.cxd4 a5+ 11. d2 xa2 12.0– 12.0 –0 g4 13. g5 h6 14. h4 g5 15. g3 a5 Here we have Sutovsky trying to improve on Avrukh! [15... c6 16.d5 ad8 17. xb7 e6 is the variation studied in the Grandmaster Repertoire 9, p.196.] 16. xb7 a4 17.h3 xf3 18. xf3 c6 19.e5 [The alternative 19.d5 is analysed by Dominguez in his comments to his game against Van Wely.] 19... c4 20. b2 xd4 21. xa8 xa8 22. d2 f5N [Here comes the novelty. 22... e6 was played in Van Wely,L (2625)-Dominguez Perez,L (2717)/Wijk aan Zee 2009.] 23. f3 c8 24.e6 [Interesting is 24. fd1!? with the idea of transferring the game into an ending after 24...e6 25. xa8 xa8 26. d8+ xd8 27. xd8+ with a clear advantage for White. 27... h7 28. a8+-] 24...fxe6 25. c7 a6 [Black can try 25... d6!? to prevent White's bishop from returning to e5 later.] 26. e4 a3 27. e5 xe5 28. xe5 c6 29. a1 f7 30. h2 [Black's harmoniously placed pieces and far advanced a- pawn compensate for the exchange. 30. da2!? a4 31. h2 d6 32. h8 f5 Black manages to defend his passed pawn with the tactical means and his knight provides a good cover for the king against the attacks of the somewhat lonely white queen.] 30... a4 31.f3 Objectively the position is well balanced, but I can't help feeling that the game finished prematurely. It would be great to learn how to play such non-standard position from the top level players. I am not sure if Sutovsky's idea will find many followers. One thing I am certain that he prepares thoroughly and his novelties usually have a long life. That makes me to believe that he has some improvement after 24.Rfd1. ½– ½
(24) Williams,Si1 (2513) - Jones,G (2635) [B10] 4NCL 2011–12 Staverton Park ENG (1.15), 12.11.2011 [Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. b3 dxe4 4. h5 g6 5. h4 g7 6. c3 a5 7. xe4 a4 8. c4 b5 9. e2 h6 10.g4?! a3 11. b1 d5 12. c3 [12. d3 xa2 13.c3 xg4–+] 12... xh1 13. f1 e5 14. f3 [14. xh6 xh2–+] 14... xh2 15. h3 xg4 16. xg4 f6 0– 0–1
(25) Tikkanen,Hans (2586) - Solak,Dragan (2629) [D12] XLI Rilton Cup 2011–12 Stockholm SWE (6.2), 02.01.2012
[Keti Arakhamia-Grant] 1.d4 c6 2. f3 d5 3.c4 f6 4.e3 f5 5. c3 e6 6. h4 g6 7. e2 bd7 8.0– 8.0 – 0 e4 9. xg6 hxg6 10.cxd5 exd5 11. xe4 dxe4 12.d5 d6 13.g3 c5 [Not surprising it is also a first choice of the computer. Avrukh in his book Grandmaster Repertoire 1, 1.d4-volume 1, on the page 336 considers 13... f6 suggesting that White is better due to Black's week pawns and White's pair of bishops after 14.dxc6 bxc6 15. a4 which is a fair assessment.] 14. b3 [In the following example Black won a spectacular game, all but White's 15th move is a clear mistake. 14. a4 e7 15. b5 0–0–0 16. d2 f6 17. xa7 b8 18. a3 xd5 19. fc1 g4 20. a5 xh2 21. d1 e6 22. ac1 f3+ 23. f1 h1+ 24. e2 d4+ 25.exd4 g4+ 26. d2 xd1+ 27. xd1 xd4+ 0–1 Hillarp Persson,T (2596)-Malakhov,V (2707)/Helsingor DEN 2009] 14... g5!? An imaginative pawn sacrifice. [Safe alternative of defending a pawn with a queen is also seems to be playable, although personally I would prefer more active continuation in the game. 14... c7 15. d2 0–0 16. ac1 fe8 White has two bishops, however the position is relatively closed at the moment and I think Black is fine.] 15. xb7 b8 16. a6 [Another retreat is not promising for White either 16. c6 e7 (The main point is that in case of 16... h6 like in the game, after 17.h4 g5 18.h5 the knight is pinned and Black can't play Ne5.) 17. a4 f5 nevertheless Black has sufficient treats on the kingside to compensate the material deficiency. Also White has diffuculties with developing his queenside. For example 18. d1 h3 19. g2 bh8 20. h1 h6 21. g1 White pieces look very sad, all on the back rank.; If White takes a second pawn 16. xa7 Black's attack on the king develops very quickly 16... h6 17.h4 g5 18.h5 g4! 19. xg4 f6 20.f3 g5 21. f2 0–0! despite missing three pawns harmoniously placed pieces give Black an upper hand.] 16... h6 [Deserves attention 16... e7 17. c4 f5 18. d2 h6 19.h4 g5 20.h5 e5 ] 17.h4 g5 18.h5 g4 19. xg4 e5 20. a4+ f8 21. d1 xg4 [The ending that happened in the game seems favourable for Black, but I think he also has an alternative of keeping position more complicated by means of 21... g5 22. e2 c4 23. g2 d3 ] 22. xg4 xh5 xh5 23. xh5 xh5 24. d1 e7 25. d2 xb2∓ xb2 26. c3 c2 27. dc1 xc1+ 28. xc1 xd5 29. xg7 f6 30. c4 h5 31.g4 h7 32. xe4+ f7 33. xf6 xf6 34. f1 b7 35. a4 b4 36. xa7 xg4 37.f4 g3 38. f2 h3 39. a6 e7 40. e2 d7 41. a4 e6 42. a6 d7 43. a4 c7 44. a6 h6 45. a7+ b6 46. f7 c4 47.e4 h2+ 48. d1 0– 0–1
(1) Lizak,P (2418) - Varga,Zo (2452) [A11] FSGM February Budapest HUN (4.6), 07.02.2012 [J. Shaw] 1.c4 ¤f6 2.g3 c6 3.¤f3 d5 4.¥g2 dxc4 5.0–0 This line has had a revival lately, not least because of Marin's work on it in the Grandmaster Repertoire series. 5...¤bd7 6.¤a3 ¤b6 7.£c2 £d5 8.b3!? The new trend. [8.¤e1 was Marin's move, which GM Jan Timman (see below) also considers promising.] 8...cxb3 9.axb3 It looks very likely that White has sufficient compensation for the pawn here. Why not? 9...£f5 [A wonderful recent game by Timman (as White) continued: 9...¥e6 10.b4N £b3 11.£xb3 ¥xb3 12.b5 c5 13.d3© White doesn't need a queen to build an attack... 13...¤fd7 (In New in Chess, Timman suggested 13...g6 but then 14.¤g5 looks promising. e.g. 14...h6?! (14...¥g7 15.¥xb7 ¦b8 16.¥c6+ ¤fd7 17.¥f4 ¦c8 18.¦ac1²) 15.¥xb7 hxg5 16.¥xa8 ¤xa8 17.¤c4!± For the moment, White has only a rook for two minor pieces, but with g5 and a7 hanging, some pawns will soon be added to the kitty. In particular, Black is in trouble on the queenside where the soon-to-be-passed b5-pawn is a monster. Note that 17...¤c7?! 18.¥xg5 ¤xb5?! 19.¦fb1 ¤d4 20.¦xa7+- is crunching.) 14.¤d2 ¥d5 15.e4 ¥e6 16.f4 f6 17.e5 ¥d5 18.e6! Beautiful; losing the e-pawn is the key idea. 18...¥xe6 19.¥xb7 ¦b8 20.¥c6 g6 21.¤ac4 ¤c8 22.¤e4 ¢f7 23.¤e5+! Exploiting the vacated e5-square. 23...¤xe5 (23...fxe5 24.¤g5+) 24.fxe5 ¥f5 25.¤xc5 ¥g7 26.d4 ¦d8 27.¦xf5! gxf5 28.e6+ ¢g6 29.¤d7 ¤d6 30.¤xb8 ¦xb8 31.¦xa7 ¤xb5 32.¦xe7 ¥h6 33.¥e8+ 1–0 Timman S.Ernst, Wijk aan Zee 2012.] 10.d3 e5 11.¥b2² ¥d6?! Stepping in front of a pawn roller is A Bad Idea. As Marin mentions in his books, 1.c4 may be a flank opening, but White would still love to slam his d- and e-pawns straight through the middle (Mihail probably phrased it more elegantly). [Safer was 11...¤fd7 12.e4ƒ but White still has plenty of play.] 12.e4 £h5 13.d4± ¤fd7 Black goes into full grovel mode, as [13...exd4 14.e5 ¥xa3 15.¥xa3 traps his king in the centre.] 14.d5 cxd5 15.¤b5 ¥b8 16.¥a3 The black king now has the same problem as in the previous variation, but at least he has two pawns for the trouble. Now there is some pressure on White not to botch his winning attack; he passes the test with plenty to spare. 16...dxe4 17.£xe4 ¤f6 18.£b4!+- ¤bd5 19.£c5 ¥e6 20.¦fe1 Everything wins: [20.¦ad1; 20.¤c3; 20.¤d2] 20...a6 21.¤fd4 [A punchy finish was 21.¤xe5! ¥xe5 22.¥xd5 ¤xd5 23.¦ad1] 21...¥a7 Now it's all over at once, but it was going anyway. e.g. [21...axb5 22.¤xe6 fxe6 23.£c8+ ¢f7 24.£xh8+-] 22.¤c7+ [22.¤c7+ Black resigned as 22...¢d8 23.£d6+ ¥d7 24.¤xd5 wins a few pieces and then mates.] 1–0
(2) Short,N - Jones,G [B20] Bunratty, 20.02.2012 [J. Shaw] "The last couple of times I've played Nigel he has chosen the English but this time he reverted to 1.e4. I responded with the Sicilian and he surprised me with 2.b3. I couldn't really remember any theory on this other than a line recommended by Peter Heine-Nielsen in the Experts vs the Anti-Sicilians book. Therefore I chose 2...g6 and we had a crazy game! I was lost at various points but with little time Nigel failed to find the most convincing path and in the end I managed to grovel a draw in another rook and pawn endgame a pawn down." GM Gawain Jones on his blog gawainjones.co.uk 1.e4 c5 2.b3 g6 3.¥b2 ¤f6 4.£f3 ¥g7N A novelty suggested by GM Peter Heine Nielsen in Experts on the Anti-Sicilians. 5.e5 ¤g8 6.e6 ¤f6 7.exf7+ ¢xf7 8.g4 h6 9.¤c3 [The line in the book continued: 9.h4 ¤c6 (9...d5 might also be interesting) 10.g5 hxg5 11.hxg5 ¦xh1 12.£xh1 (12.gxf6 ¥xf6!) 12...¤h5] 9...d5 10.h3 With g4 defended White looks to be threatening Nxd5. 10...e6 [10...¤c6? allows the trick: 11.¤xd5 £xd5 12.¥c4 Black is not quite dead, though after 12...¥e6™ 13.¥xd5 ¥xd5 14.£e2 ¥xh1 15.f3±; 10...¥d7!? is a logical try, planning 11.0–0–0 ¥c6÷] 11.0–0–0 ¤c6 12.¦e1 ¤d4 [12...¦f8!?] 13.£g2 ¥d7 14.¤f3 ¤xf3 15.£xf3 ¥c6 16.¥d3 £d6 17.h4 g5 18.£e2 a6 19.f4 gxf4 20.g5 ¤e4? Short has played superbly, and now has his first big chance: [A better defence was 20...hxg5 21.hxg5 ¦xh1 22.¦xh1 ¤e8] 21.g6+ Good but not best: [21.£h5+! ¢f8 22.gxh6 ¦xh6 23.¤xe4!+-] 21...¢e7 [The ugly 21...¢g8± was required] 22.¤xd5+! Now Black's position should be falling apart; Jones holds it together with will power. 22...¥xd5 23.¥xg7 ¤g3 24.£g4 ¤xh1 25.¥e5 £d8 26.g7 [26.£xf4 ¦f8 27.£xh6+-] 26...¦g8 27.£xf4 ¢d7 28.c4 ¥c6 29.¥e4 [29.¥f5! £e7 30.¥c3+-] 29...£e7 30.¥xc6+ ¢xc6 31.¦g1 [31.d4!] 31...£d7 32.£f3+ ¢b6 33.£xh1 ¦ad8 34.£h2 £f7 35.£e2 £f5 36.h5 ¦d7 37.¦g6 ¢a7 38.¦xh6 ¦dxg7 39.¥xg7 ¦xg7 A nasty decision for move 40: can White take on e6? 40.£e3 [The answer is "Yes". The white king escapes after 40.£xe6! ¦g1+ 41.¢b2 £b1+ 42.¢a3 £c1+ 43.¢a4 Black has a clever try but it's not enough: 43...¦g8! 44.£xg8 £xd2 With threats on b4 and h6: 45.¦xa6+! ¢xa6 (45...bxa6 46.£f7+ ¢b6 47.£e6+ ¢a7 48.a3+-) 46.£e6+ ¢a7 47.a3+-] 40...¦g5 41.¦xe6 ¦xh5 42.¢b2 ¦h1 43.¢a3 ¦h3 44.£e5 £xe5 45.¦xe5 ¦h2 46.¦d5 ¢b6 47.b4 cxb4+ 48.¢xb4 ¢c6 49.a4 b6 50.a5 b5 51.¦c5+ ¢b7 52.¢c3 [52.cxb5 ¦xd2 53.b6 looks passive for Black, but White has no way to improve his position: 53...¦d4+ 54.¢c3 ¦d7 The black rook "passes" by chosing semi-random squares on the 7th.] 52...bxc4 53.¦xc4 ¦h5 54.¢b4 ¦d5 55.d4 ¢b8 56.¢a4 ¢b7 57.¦b4+
¢c7 58.¦c4+ ¢d7 Don't be fooled by all the (computer-assisted) improvements above: both players fought brilliantly, especially considering the rather quick time control. ½–½
(3) Molner,Mackenzie (2449) - Parligras,Mircea-Emilian (2650) [B94] Tradewise Gibraltar Chess Festival 2012 (9.22), 01.02.2012 [J. Aagaard] 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.f4 £c7 8.£f3 h6 9.¥xf6 ¤xf6 10.f5 £c5 11.0–0–0 g5 12.e5!? This pawn sacrifice continues to interest the masses. 12...£xe5 13.g3 g4 14.£d3 h5? This is too slow. It was necessary to violate all known principles in order to fight for the h1–a8 diagonal. [14...¤d5!N 15.¤xd5 (15.f6 ¤xf6 16.¥g2 ¥g7 17.¦he1 £g5+ 18.¢b1 d5÷ looks better for Black, but needs further investigation.) 15...£xd5 16.£a3! Protecting a2 and preparing Bb5+. 16...¦b8 17.£b4 (17.¥e2 h5³; 17.¥b5+ axb5 18.£a7 £c5 19.£xb8 ¥g7 20.¤b3 £e3+ 21.¢b1 0–0 22.£c7 ¥xf5 23.¦he1 £a7!³) 17...£c5 18.£xc5 dxc5 19.¤b5 ¥d7 20.¤c7+ ¢d8 21.¤e6+ ¢c8!? (21...¢e8=) 22.¤xf8 ¥c6! 23.¤d7 ¥xh1 24.¤xb8 ¥f3 25.¦d7 ¢xb8 26.¦xe7 ¦d8=] 15.¥g2 ¥h6+ 16.¢b1 ¥e3?! [16...£c5²] 17.¤c6! £c5?! Better, but entirely unattractive in practice was: [17...bxc6 18.¥xc6+ ¢f8 19.¥xa8 ¥xf5 20.£xa6 ¢g7 21.¦he1±] 18.¤xe7?! [White missed his chance to win the game quickly with: 18.¤a4! £xf5 (18...¥xf5 19.¤xc5 ¥xd3 20.¤xd3 and wins.) 19.£xe3 bxc6 20.¥xc6+ ¥d7 21.¥xa8 ¥xa4 22.b3 0–0 23.¦hf1 and the rest is over.] 18...¢xe7 19.¦he1 ¥xf5 20.¦xe3+ ¢f8 21.£xd6+ £xd6 22.¦xd6± White still has big chances in the ending. 22...¤e8 23.¦d4 ¦b8 24.¦e5 ¥e6 25.¤e4 [25.¤e2!] 25...b6 26.¤g5 ¦h6 27.h3 gxh3 28.¥xh3 ¥xh3 29.¤xh3² ¦b7 30.¤f4 ¦e7 31.¦xe7 ¢xe7 32.¤d5+ ¢f8 33.c4 ¤g7 34.¢c2 [34.¦f4!?] 34...¤f5 35.¦d3= ¦c6 36.b3 b5 37.¢c3 bxc4 38.bxc4 ¤d6 39.¤f4 ¤xc4 40.¦d8+ ¢e7 41.¦h8 ¤d6+ 42.¢d3 ¤f5 43.¤xh5 ¦g6 44.¢e4 ¤xg3+ 45.¤xg3 ¦xg3 46.¦h2 ¢e6 47.¢f4 ¦a3 48.¦d2 ¦a4+ 49.¢f3 ¢e5 50.¦e2+ ¢f5 51.¦c2 ¦a3+ 52.¢f2 ¢g4 53.¦c4+ ¢g5 54.¦c2 f5 55.¢g2 ¢g4 56.¢f2 f4 57.¢g2 a5 58.¢f2 a4 59.¢g2 ¦d3 60.¢f2 a3 61.¢e2 ¦h3 62.¢f1 ¦h1+ 0–1
(4) From the blog [D12] www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog, 31.01.2012 [J. Aagaard] One of our blog readers shared the following game he won as Black. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.e3 ¥f5 [4...¥g4 5.¤c3 e6 6.£b3 £b6 7.¤h4 ¥h5 8.h3 is an Avrukh main line, which since has been played 100s of times.] 5.¤c3 e6 6.¤h4 ¥g4?! This mixes up two ideas and leads to an inferior position. 7.£b3 £b6 8.h3 ¥h5 9.g4 White is a tempo up on the Avrukh line and should be said to have won the opening battle, but certainly not the game! 9...¥g6 10.¤xg6 hxg6 11.g5 Apparently this is what Avrukh gives. I think it is a bit too direct, but there you go. We think differently. [11.¥g2 is a bit more flexible and would be my choice, but the text move is the favourite of the computer.; 11.¥e2 is not liked by R4, but would probably be my choice over the board. I want to play h4-h5 and when gxh5 comes, I want to play g5 and Rxh5. This is just a plan and probably not best. I am just sharing my spur of the moment thoughts.] 11...¤h5 The knight cannot easily rejoin the game here, but White also no longer has any h4-h5 plans. This is one reason I would not have advanced the g-pawn too early. It loses flexibility. 12.c5 Again I don't like this move. It was better to keep the options open with [12.¥d2] 12...£c7 13.e4 White is neglicting his development - and weakening the f4-square. 13...¤d7 14.exd5 exd5 15.¤e2?! Finally White is losing it. When are the pieces supposed to get out. The position might still be equal, but Black has taken over the initiative with his next move. 15...b6! 16.£e3+? Who does this check help? 16...¥e7 17.b4?! Creates another aim for the black attack. White is handling his pawns awfully. [17.cxb6 axb6 18.¥d2 was more prudent. A typical positional idea here is: What is the worst placed piece? For Black it is the king, but castling is not easy. So we need to protect the bishop. This can be done with two ideas. ...b5 and ...Nb6 or ...Nf8-e6. Our other positional question - where are the weaknesses? - would help us decide there. The knight should be at e6 to target d4 and f4 as well as prepare ...c5. On the other hand the advance of the b-pawn would ruin the flexibility of the black pawns and make c6 a weakness. R4 is not much help here. After some minutes it is still rating ...Qd6 and the two other options within 0.07 of each other, all with even chances. In reality ...Nf8! should be the best move for positional reasons, and the position already greatly in Black's favour.] 17...a5! Black is better. White's pawn structure is falling apart. 18.b5 bxc5 19.bxc6?! [19.¥g2 was better. Why should White clarify the situation in the centre? 19...cxb5?! 20.¤c3! ¤b6 21.0–0 would give White some activity and a chance to fight for equality.] 19...£xc6 20.¥a3?! [20.¥g2 was better, but Black has a clear advantage already. Note that White is made a fool of after 20...0–0! because of 21.£xe7? ¦ae8 trapping the queen.] 20...£e6! Black is now a pawn up and White's position is falling apart. 21.¥g2 cxd4!? Objectively this is the best move, but Black would have been better off playing safe with [21...£xe3 22.fxe3 ¥xg5 23.¥xd5 ¦c8 and Black should win with his extra pawn.] 22.£xe6?! This enters a plea of no-contest. [22.£xd4! would have
demanded Black play accurately to keep his advantage. 22...¥xa3! 23.¥xd5 ¤e5!! (23...£a6?! 24.£e4+ ¢d8 25.¥xa8 ¦e8 26.¥b7 £d6! and ...Nf4 is also better for Black, but not to the same extent.) 24.¥xa8 (24.£e4 f5 25.gxf6 ¤xf6 26.£a4+ £d7 27.£xd7+ ¢xd7 28.¥xa8 ¦xa8 and Black should win) 24...¥b2 25.£d5 ¥xa1 26.0–0 £xh3 27.¦xa1 ¤f4] 22...fxe6 23.¥xe7 ¢xe7 24.¤xd4 ¤f4 25.¥f1 e5 Black is just winning. 26.¤f3 ¦ab8 27.¦d1 ¦hc8 28.a4 ¦b2 29.¥b5 ¦cc2 30.¤d2 ¤c5 31.h4 ¤cd3+ [31...¤b3! was a nice finish, but the game is quite simple of course. 32.¤xb3 ¤g2+ 33.¢f1 ¦xf2+ 34.¢g1 ¤e3 35.¦h3 ¦g2+ 36.¢h1 ¤xd1 and wins everything.] 32.¥xd3 ¤xd3+ 33.¢e2 ¤xf2 34.¢xf2 ¦xd2+ 0–1
(5) Laznicka,Viktor (2704) - Howell,David (2603) [D23] Gibraltar (8.8), 31.01.2012 [J. Aagaard] This game reminded me of Chess Tactics from Scratch and the work we did for it on candidate moves and calculation. There is a very nice tactical moment that Howell calculated accurately and won a pawn. Subsequently Laznicka did not play the best way and drifted into a worse position. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.£c2 dxc4 5.£xc4 ¥f5 6.g3 e6 7.¥g2 ¤bd7 8.e3 ¥e7 9.0–0 0–0 10.¦d1 ¤e4 11.£e2 £b6 12.¤c3 ¦fd8 13.¤e1 ¤xc3 14.bxc3 ¥g6 15.e4 c5 16.¥e3 £a5 17.¤d3 £xc3 18.dxc5 ¦ac8 19.¦ab1 This is the moment I was thinking of. Black would love to take on c5, but there appears to be various variations with Rc1, attacking the queen and winning material. However, Howell looked deeper and saw the refutations to both of them. 19...¤xc5!! 20.¦bc1 Played without full control of the tactics, it turns out. [20.¤xc5 ¦xd1+ 21.£xd1 ¥xc5 gives us another important moment. Here White apparently is winning after 22.¦c1? , but Black has a brilliant riposte in 22...£xe3!! , winning a piece. Instead White can exchange on c5 and take on b7 with a quick draw. Probably this was the way he should have played.] 20...¤a4!! 21.¤f4! [21.¦xc3? would give White a worse position after 21...¤xc3 22.£e1 ¤xd1 23.£xd1 ¦c3! where the two rooks are better than the queen, not to speak of the extra pawn.] 21...£b4 22.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 23.¤xg6?! [Laznicka starts drifting. The way to prove compensation for the pawn was to penetrate with the queen to c7. For my book on calculation I am working on the method of comparison, among others. Here it appears that the Qc2-c7 manoeuvre is worse when there are no back rank mate ideas. 23.£c2! was the strong move (candidates!). The threat of Rb1 helps create sufficient counterplay. The amusing best play of both seems to be: 23...¤b6 24.£c7 ¤a8 25.£c2 ¤b6=] 23...hxg6 24.e5?! [White was still in a position to play 24.£c2 ¤b6 25.£b3! with the idea of exchanging queens and then take on b6 to enter a drawish ending a pawn down. Notice that(25.£c7 is no longer very good. Black takes the initiative after: 25...¦c8 26.£xb7 ¦xc1+ 27.¥xc1 £e1+ 28.¥f1 ¥c5!³) ] 24...¥c5³ 25.¥g5 ¦d7 26.£c2 b5 27.h4 a6 28.¥f3 ¦d4 29.£b3 £a5 30.¢g2 £b6 31.¦h1 ¦b4 32.£d3 ¦b2 33.¢h3 ¦xf2 34.¥e4 £c7 35.h5 £xe5 36.£d8+ ¥f8 37.¦d1 f6 38.¥xg6 fxg5 39.¦d7 ¦f3 0–1
(6) Mamedyarov,Shakhriyar (2747) - Akobian,Varuzhan (2617) [D34] Gibraltar (9.4), 01.02.2012 [J. Aagaard] When I was playing the European Team Championship in Greece I talked to a friend about the Tarrasch. He was very surprised that we had relied on ... h6-lines instead of "his" ...Qa5 move, which he found to be fully ok. We both had some concrete reasons (given in the book) and a bad feeling in general. The following game is the kind of thing I did not want to experience with Black - nor convince others that they should endure. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 ¤f6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.0–0 0–0 9.¥g5 c4 10.¤e5 ¥e6 11.¤xc6 bxc6 12.b3 £a5 [12...h6 13.¥xf6 ¥xf6 14.bxc4 dxc4 15.e3 £a5 is the main line from Grandmaster Repertoire 10 - The Tarrasch Defence.] 13.£d2 ¥b4 14.¥xf6 gxf6 15.¦fc1 ¦ad8 [15...¦ac8 16.bxc4 dxc4 17.a3 ¥xc3 18.£xc3 £xc3 19.¦xc3 ¦fd8 20.e3 c5 21.d5 ¥xd5 22.¥xd5 ¦xd5 23.¦xc4² Zhou Jianchao - Akobian, Beijing 2008, is probably something Black should draw, even if it is a bit uncomfortable.] 16.bxc4 dxc4 17.e3 c5 [17...f5?! has a bad reputation: 18.¥xc6 f4 19.a3 fxe3 20.£xe3 ¥xc3 21.¦xc3 ¦d6 22.¥e4 ¦fd8 23.d5 ¥xd5 24.£g5+ ¢f8 So - Akobian, Wijk aan Zee 2010. Here So for some reason did not play: 25.¦xc4!±] 18.d5 ¥xc3 19.¦xc3! The ending is more dangerous for Black with the queens on the board. 19...¥xd5 20.¥xd5 ¦xd5 21.£c2 ¦b8 22.¦xc4 ¦b4 23.¦b1 ¦xb1+ 24.£xb1 £b6 25.£c2² f5 This is the position Black has been happy to enter. I am not really sure about the last move. Personally I would never advance the f-pawn unless it was absolutely forced. Still I think it is fair to say that White is a bit better and can press on for another 79 moves should he think so. 26.¦f4 £c6 27.h3 h6 28.¢h2 a6 29.a4 ¢g7 30.a5 £e6 31.£c3+ £e5 32.£c4 £e6 33.h4 ¢g8 34.£c2 ¢g7 35.e4 fxe4 36.¦xe4 £f5 37.£b2+ ¦d4 38.¦xd4 cxd4 39.£xd4+ f6 40.£b6 h5 41.¢g1 £d3 42.£b7+ ¢g6 43.¢g2 £c4 44.£b1+ ¢g7 45.£f5 £c6+ 46.¢h2 ¢h6 47.¢g1 £c1+ 48.¢g2 £c6+ 49.£f3 £d6 50.¢f1 ¢g6 51.£e4+ ¢g7 52.£f5 £c6 53.¢g1 ¢h6 54.¢h2 £d6 55.¢h3 £c6 56.f3 £c3 57.g4 hxg4+ 58.¢xg4 £b2 59.£f4+ ¢g7 60.£c7+ ¢g6 61.h5+ ¢h6 62.¢f5 £b5+
63.¢xf6 £g5+ 64.¢e6 £e3+ 65.¢d7 ¢xh5 66.f4 ¢g4 67.¢c8 £b3 68.£e5 £b4 69.¢c7 £b3 70.¢c6 £b4 71.£g5+ ¢f3 72.£h5+ ¢g3 73.£g5+ ¢f3 74.¢c7 £b3 75.£f6 £b4 76.£e5 ¢g4 77.f5 ¢g5 78.¢c6 £b3 79.£c5 £b8 80.¢d7 £b7+ 81.¢e6 £b3+ 82.¢d7 £b7+ 83.¢d6 £b3 84.¢c7 £f7+ 85.¢b6 £e8 86.¢xa6 £a8+ 87.¢b6 £b8+ 88.¢c6 £c8+ 89.¢d5 £d7+ 90.¢c4 £a4+ 91.¢c3 £a1+ 92.¢b4 £b2+ 93.¢a4 £a2+ 94.¢b5 £b3+ 95.¢c6 £a4+ 96.¢c7 £f4+ 97.¢b7 £e4+ 98.¢a7 £e8 99.£d5 £e7+ 100.¢b8 £e8+ 101.¢c7 £e7+ 102.¢c8 £a7 103.f6+ ¢xf6 104.£d8+ 1–0
(7) McKay,Roddy - Aagaard,Jacob [D34] Glasgow League New in Chess, 31.01.2012 [J. Aagaard] The following game was played on board one in the local league where I live. Rod is a talented IM who decided to just play for fun on rare occasions. Many times I have been in trouble with him, just to make up for it in time trouble. Recently I seem to have gotten the best of him. The game was played with 1 hour for 30 move and another 15 to the end. I played a bit fast while Roddy got into time trouble, accelerating his downfall. Most of the game it was just unclear, I think. 1.¤f3 d5 2.g3 c5 3.¥g2 ¤c6 4.d4 ¤f6 5.0–0 e6 6.c4 ¥e7 7.cxd5 exd5 8.¤c3 0–0 9.¥e3 c4 10.¤e5 ¥f5 [10...h6 is interesting, in order to play ...Bf5, but I was ready for the main line a moment ago and I am ready now. Such options are more important for people who wants to play 9.Bg5 cxd4. The main point is to avoid; 10...¥e6?! 11.¤xc4! dxc4 12.d5² .] 11.¥g5 ¥e6 12.e3 h6 13.¥xf6 ¥xf6 14.f4 ¤e7 15.¦f2 This has been played twice in the database. My response is obvious, but still a novelty. Knowing the typical ideas of the positions helped me a lot during this game. [15.g4 is Khalifman's idea, but is neutralised with: 15...b5!N as can be seen in Chapter 4 of Grandmaster Repertoire 10 - The Tarrasch Defence.] 15...¦b8!N 16.£h5 g6! [I could not resist the temptation of hitting the queen back and playing this standard regrouping. Especially after calculating the consequences of Qxh6 accurately. However, in the cold light of day, one it tempted to ask what the White idea is after 16...b5 . Maybe it was 17.f5 planning planning 17...Bc8 18.Ng4. But what about 17...¥xf5 18.¦xf5 g6 . Here the computer gives the amazing line: 19.¤xd5!? ¤xd5! (19...gxh5 20.¤xf6+ ¢h8 21.¦xh5 ¢g7 22.¦f1 with compensation.) 20.¤xg6 ¤xe3 21.¦f3 £xd4 22.¤xf8 ¦xf8 23.¦b1 and allegedly the position is equal - though I prefer Black in a practical setting. 23...¤d1+ 24.¢h1 ¦e8 25.£f5 ¦e1+ 26.¥f1 ¢g7©] 17.£e2 [17.£xh6?! is refuted by 17...¤f5 18.£h3 ¥xe5! The move order is important. a) 18...¤xd4?! 19.¤g4!; b) 18...¤xe3?! 19.g4 ¥xe5? (19...¤xg4!÷) 20.£xe3±; 19.fxe5 ¤xe3³ 20.g4? ¤xg4 21.¦f4 ¤xe5 22.£h6 ¤g4!µ] 17...¥g7 18.g4 f5 This is not how you normally play and here it is just a bit inaccurate I think. [I played quite quickly throughout the game, not wasting time on seeing that 18...b5 was ever so slightly more accurate and that White did not have 19.f5 gxf5 20.gxf5 because of 20...¤xf5! 21.¤c6 £g5ƒ .] 19.h3 A bit slow. [19.gxf5! ¥xf5 20.£f3 (20.e4!? dxe4 21.£xc4+ ¢h7÷) 20...¥e6 21.£g3 ¥f5 22.£f3=] 19...b5 20.¥f3 b4!? Preparing to sacrifice the exchange, if allowed. [20...£d6 21.¦g2÷] 21.¤a4 ¦c8 22.¦g2 [22.¤c5 ¦xc5 23.dxc5 ¥xe5 24.fxe5 £c7©] 22...¥xe5 23.fxe5 f4 [23...£a5 24.b3 c3÷ was also possible. The computer says Black is just better, but I personally find the position rather unclear. I was only too happy to protect my queen a bit.] 24.£d2 [24.¤c5? certainly does not work now. After 24...¦xc5 25.dxc5 fxe3 26.£xe3 d4µ White's position is unbearable.] 24...£d7 I quite liked this move, even if the details were lost on me. There are other good moves such as [24...c3!? , but the main question is of course why I did not play; 24...£a5 . What I saw was that my usual idea does not work here: 25.¤c5 ¦xc5 26.dxc5 fxe3? (26...g5!?©) 27.£xe3 d4 fails to get compensation on account of 28.£xd4! ¦xf3 29.£d6 ¢f7 30.¦f1± and White keeps his extra exchange without having to face an avalanche of pawns.] 25.b3 [I did not have full control over 25.£xb4 fxe3 26.¦f1 ¤c6 27.£c3 ¤xe5 28.dxe5 £xa4 29.£xe3 ¢h7³ , but Black is doing ok here.; 25.¤c5 is still met with 25...¦xc5 26.dxc5 fxe3 27.£xe3 d4© , although the position is not nearly as clear as I imagined during the game (and I still found it pretty unclear). The main point is that it is unpleasant for White.] 25...c3 26.£e1? [I expected 26.£d3 which I found stronger because of the ...Ne7-h4 manoeuvre. It was to become apparent that my opponent had not anticipated this idea at all.] 26...g5! The attraction of putting the knight on h4 is just too great to miss. [26...¤c6!?µ with the point of 27.¤c5?! ¤xe5! was something I did spot during the game, but I did not see the point of it. The point is to play ...Qe7-g5, force White to take on f4 and with the d4-pawn. Too deep for my wrists I must say.] 27.a3 Seeking counterplay. [27.h4? ¤g6 28.hxg5 hxg5 would only favour Black as he is the one on the attack.] 27...bxa3!? [I refrained from playing 27...¤g6!µ , because I did not see what to do after 28.axb4? ¤h4 29.¦f2 ¤xf3+ 30.¦xf3 ¥xg4 31.hxg4 £xg4+ 32.¢f2 fxe3+ 33.£xe3 Admittedly I did not look very hard either. Or I would have seen 33...¦xf3+ 34.£xf3 ¦f8 winning at once. Again I was a bit restless and playing too fast.] 28.¤xc3 Maybe there is some difficult improvement here, but practically there was nothing better for him with 40 seconds on the clock. 28...¤g6µ 29.¦xa3?“ [After 29.¥d1 ¤h4 30.¦f2 my intention had been to play 30... Qe7, which is actually quite a good move it turns out. But even stronger would have been 30...h5! 31.exf4 hxg4 with a devastating attack.]
29...¤h4 30.¥e2 [I was expecting 30.¦f2 ¤xf3+ 31.¦xf3 ¥xg4 32.hxg4 £xg4+ 33.¢f2 fxe3+ 34.£xe3 Here I had looked at ideas such as ...Qxf3 and ...Rxc3 afterwards, but the computer points to a simple solution I would have found for sure, had I gathered my thoughts. 34...¦xf3+! 35.£xf3 and now either 35...Qxd4+ or 35...¦f8 , but winning.] 30...¤xg2 [30...f3 also won of course, but I saw a simple way to win a rook and went with it.] 31.¢xg2 f3+! 32.¥xf3 £f7 White resigned. The point is of course that after 33.¥e2 Black wins with 33...¦xc3! 34.£xc3 £f2+ 35.¢h1 £xe2 36.¦a1 ¦f2 and mate is near. 0–1
(8) The Kaufman Repertoire - for Black and White [D34] New in Chess New in Chess, 30.01.2012 [J. Aagaard] "The Kaufman Repertoire for Black & White" was published by New in Chess just a few days ago. The book has some interesting features in it, but also some I doubt that have come to stay (here I specifically talk about having a front page in each end, so you have to turn the book over to read the 'other' half of the book. Beyond the first 10 seconds light appreciation of this gimmick, I just found the idea annoying.). We quite like his approach to the repertoire, based on simplicity, which we think a lot of readers will like. This is also what we are aiming for in our Playing 1.d4 and Playing 1.e4 books out this spring. I would personally be a bit afraid to play some of the very sharp lines he recommend with only 1–2 games in my memory database. But for many this is exactly the place to start. Obviously the most interesting aspect for us is how the book reacts against our recent publications. It was with delight I noticed that we were clearly ahead when it comes to the Tarrasch. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 ¤f6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.0–0 0–0 9.dxc5 ¥xc5 10.a3! Nikos and I suggested this move as the most dangerous in our book: Grandmaster Repertoire 10 - The Tarrasch Defence. We also came up with a very interesting and non-compliant way to meet it: Kaufman's main attention is drawn to the following line: 10...¥e6? This is a very passive move. I am surprised that Kaufman did not realise that this is not how Black wants to play this opening. [10...¤e4! was our reaction. The fight for the e4- and d4-squares are in general the positional topics of this opening. If Black takes on d4 without controlling the square, White appears to be better. And in this line (as other places), White will be better if he controls the e4-square comfortably, as it prevents activity. 11.£xd5 (11.¤xd5N ¥e6 12.¤c3 is the other critical variation. We claim that Black has enough compensation for the pawn in more than one way. This has yet to be tested it seems.) 11...¤xc3 12.£xc5 ¤xe2+ 13.¢h1 ¤xc1 14.¦axc1 £f6 15.b4 (15.¦c3 ¦e8 16.£b5 Tokarev - Bezgodova, Kazan 2010. 16...h6! 17.¦d1 ¦b8=) 15...¥g4 16.¤g5 ¦ad8 17.¥xc6 bxc6 18.f3 ¥f5 19.¤e4 ¥xe4 20.fxe4 £b2„ 1/2–1/2 Hiarcs 13.1 T4-Thinker 5.4D x64 T4, Antalya 2010.] 11.b4 ¥e7 12.¥b2 ¦c8 I cannot remember exactly what we had against Kaufman's suggestion 13.¦c1 [because we ditched the entire variation for Black on account of 13.£b1!!± , which controls the e4-square. Only one game was played with this and it was a pure smacking: 13...£d7 14.¦d1 ¦fd8 15.¤g5 d4 16.¤b5 ¥f5 17.£a2± ¤d5? 18.¤xd4+- ¥xg5 19.¤xf5 £xf5 20.¦xd5 ¦xd5 21.£xd5 £xd5 22.¥xd5 b5 23.f4 ¥f6 24.¥xf6 gxf6 25.¦c1 ¤e7 26.¦xc8+ ¤xc8 27.¢f2 f5 28.¢e3 ¢f8 29.¢d4 ¢e7 30.¢c5 ¤d6 31.¥c6 a6 32.¢b6 ¤c4+ 33.¢xa6 ¤xa3 34.¥xb5 ¤c2 35.¢a5 ¤e3 36.¥d3 ¤f1 37.¥xf5 1–0 Wieczorek - Olenderek, Suwalki 1999.] 13...h6 [The other line given by Kaufman is: 13...£d7 14.e3 ¦fd8 15.¤e2 ¤e4 16.¤f4 a6 17.£e2 ¥d6 18.¤xe6!?N (The computer's suggested improvement on 18.¦fd1 ¥xf4 19.exf4² Mikhalchishin - Halkias, Terme Zrece 2003, though it should be said that White was close to winning this game as well.) 18...fxe6 Slightly unnatural to me, I would take with the pawn, but it is fair to say White is a bit better anyway. 19.¤d4²] 14.¤d4 ¤xd4 15.£xd4² a5? 16.¤xd5!± and so on, Hera - Kostic, Graz 2011. Line
(9) Catalan analysis - GM Rep 1 [E04] 29.02.2012 [J. Shaw] It was pointed out to us that the following line is less clear than was first thought in Grandmaster Repertoire 1 - 1.d4 Volume 1. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3 dxc4 5.¥g2 b5 6.a4 c6 7.axb5 cxb5 8.¤e5 ¤d5 9.¤c3 f6 The critical move, though more common is [9...¥b4 when White scores heavily after 10.0–0] 10.¤g4 ¥b7 11.e4 ¤xc3 12.bxc3 ¥e7 [12...¥d6!?] 13.¤h6 Avrukh's spectacular idea. [White could play in simple dull style with 13.0–0 0–0 14.¤e3 and plausibly claim his centre compensates for the missing pawn.] 13...a6 14.£h5+ ¢d7!N A wild idea that makes sense the more one looks at it: the king steps away, creating the threat of ...Qe8, exchanging queens. [14...g6 is the move mentioned in the book 15.£e2 e5!? A new idea suggested by a reader, but... 16.0–0! White should keep the centre open and thus avoid d4-d5. The question is: what happens if Black grabs the pawn? 16...exd4 (16...¤d7 17.¦d1) 17.cxd4 £xd4 (17...¤c6 18.¦d1©) 18.¥f4© Black's passed queenside looks impressive, but his king will face the wrath of White's entire army. We shall offer a few lengthy but sensible sample lines: 18...¤d7 (18...£d3 19.£g4 £d7 20.¤f5 £c8 21.¦ad1 ¢f7 22.£h4 gxf5 23.£h5+ ¢g8 24.¥h3! ¥xe4 25.¦fe1+-) 19.¦fd1! The other
rook is needed to take on a6 in some lines. (19.¦ad1 £b6 (19...£a7 20.¦xd7 ¢xd7 21.£g4+ ¢e8 22.£e6 £d4 23.¥f3!+-; 19...£c3 20.¦xd7 ¢xd7 21.¦c1 £a3 22.¦d1+ ¢e8 23.e5+-) 20.e5 (20.¤f5 ¤e5) 20...¥xg2 21.exf6 (21.¦xd7 ¢xd7 22.exf6 £xf6 23.¦d1+ ¢e8 24.¦d6 ¥f3 25.£xf3 ¥xd6 26.£xa8+ £d8=) 21...£xf6 22.¢xg2 0–0–0 23.¦xd7 ¦xd7 24.£f3 ¦a7 25.¦e1„) 19...£b6 20.e5 ¥xg2 21.exf6 ¤xf6 22.¢xg2 ¢f8 23.f3 ¦e8 24.£b2 £c6 (24...¢g7? 25.¦d7) 25.¦xa6 (25.¦d6 c3 26.£b3 £c4³) 25...£xa6 26.¦d6 £xd6 27.¥xd6 ¢g7 28.¤g4 ¦hf8 29.¥f4²] 15.¤g4 Saving the knight allows Black to play chase-the-queen, but sacrificial ideas simply do not work: [15.¥h3 gxh6 16.0–0 (16.£f7 f5 17.d5 £g8 18.dxe6+ ¢d8µ) 16...¢c7 17.¥xe6 ¥d6µ; 15.¤f7 £e8 16.d5 g6 17.£h3 £xf7 18.¥e3 ¥d8–+] 15...£e8 16.£h3 h5 17.¤e3 g5! Two large pieces could be in trouble: the white queen and the black king. One "star" move could change everything, but so far it seems roughly level in a messy difficult position. 18.f3 The best defence. [The problem with 18.g4 hxg4 is that recapturing looks bad: 19.£g3 (19.£xg4?! ¦h4 and ...Bxe4) 19...¤c6µ; 18.¥a3? allows Black to demonstrate his threat: 18...g4 19.£h4 ¥d8–+] 18...¢c7! 19.£xe6 [19.0–0 £g8 (19...¥c8!?) 20.f4 ¤d7 slightly favours Black.] 19...¥b4 20.£xf6! White must go for it. [The simplifying 20.£xe8 ¥xc3+ 21.¥d2 ¥xd2+ 22.¢xd2 ¦xe8 leaves White "just" a pawn down, but it's a big pawn.] 20...¥xc3+ 21.¢e2 ¥xa1 White has decided to be a rook down rather than a pawn down, and yet he seems to be equal this way! 22.¥d2! This leads to a draw. I tried and failed to find a win with two alternatives. I will mention the troublesome defences in case someone else can do better: [22.¥a3 ¥c3 23.¥d6+ ¢c8 24.£xg5 ¥c6; 22.¤xc4 bxc4 23.¥xg5 ¥c6 24.¦xa1 ¤d7] 22...c3 [There is no time for 22...¥b2?? 23.¥a5+ ¢c8 24.¥h3+ g4 25.¤xg4 hxg4 26.¥xg4+ ¤d7 27.£d6+-] 23.£xg5 cxd2 24.£c5+ ¤c6™ 25.¤d5+ ¢b8 26.£d6+ ¢a7 27.£c5+ ¢b8= A dull and disappointing draw... Line
(10) Bakshi,Gyorgy - Mate in 3 Sakkelet, 1998
White to play: mate in 3
(11) Berezhnoi,Yuri - Selfmate in 2 Chervony Girnik, 1966
White to play. Selfmate in 2 (that is, White forces Black to mate him, while Black tries to avoid mating White)
(12) Bakshi,Gyorgy - Mate in 3 Sakkelet, 1998 [C. McNab] It is natural to look for some way to use the set-up on the d-file. This will involve White moving the knight with discovered check, in reply Black captures the checking rook, and then the knight delivers mate. There are three obvious routes for the knight: e2-c3 or c2-b4 or f5-e7. However at present all of these fail: 1.Ne2+ Rxd3 defends c3; 1.Nc2+ Nxd3 defends b4; and 1.Nxf5+ Bxd3 pins the knight. But if White can entice one of these three black pieces away.. . 1.£g2 White threatens 2.Qg8#. 1...¥xg2 The other variations are [1...¤xg2 2.¤c2+ ¦xd3 (or 2...¥xd3 ) 3.¤b4#; 1...¦xg2 2.¤e2+ ¤xd3 3.¤c3#; 1...¤c7 Many solvers failed to include this defence against Qg8# in their solutions, thereby dropping a point. 2.¤e6+ ¦xd3 (2...¥xd3; 2...¤xd3) 3.¤xc7#; 1...¤b6 2.£g8+ ¢c5 3.£c4#] 2.¤xf5+ ¦xd3 [or 2...¤xd3 ] 3.¤e7#
(13) Berezhnoi,Yuri - Selfmate in 2 Chervony Girnik, 1966 [C. McNab] Many players have difficulty getting their heads around this type of problem, in which White's task is to force Black to deliver mate, while Black tries to avoid doing so. Here Black's only move with the bishop, 1...Bxg2, would be mate, so White's aim is to somehow force that. Black has just three other legal moves (with the knight), although currently White is ready for them. After any of 1...Ne2 2.Qd3 or 1...Ne4 2.Qxe4 or 1...Nxf5 2.Rxf5, Black is forced to play 2...Bxg2#. However, there is no white first move which maintains these variations. Instead, after the solution, the response to each of the three knight moves is changed. 1.¦e3 ¤e2 [1...¤e4 2.¦xe4 ¥xg2#; 1...¤xf5 2.£xf5 ¥xg2#] 2.¦xe2 ¥xg2#
¤
¥ ¤
¤
¥
¤ ¤
£
¤
¤
¥ ¤
£ ©
¥
¤
¥
¤
²
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqk+-tr0 7zppzp-+pzpp0 6-+-+-+-+0 5+-snpzP-+-0 4-+P+n+-+0 3+-+L+N+-0 2P+Q+-zPPzP0 1tR-vL-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¥ ¤
£
¤ £ ¤ £ ¥ ¥ ¤ ¦ ¤ £ ¥ £ ¤ £ £ ¤
£
¤ ¦
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqk+-tr0 7zppzppsnpzpp0 6-+-+-+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+-+P+-+0 3+-zP-+N+-0 2P+-+-zPPzP0 1tR-vLQmKL+R0 xabcdefghy
¥ ¤
£ ¦
£
¥ ¤
¤
£
¥ ¤
¥
¥
£
¥ ³
¦
£
™ ¤ ¥
¤
¤
¤
¥
¦
¥
¥
¤
£
£
¤
£
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqk+-tr0 7zppzpp+pzp-0 6-+-+-+-+0 5+-+-sn-zp-0 4-+-+P+-+0 3+LzP-+-+-0 2P+-+-+PzP0 1tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¤
¦
¢
£ ¦
¤
¢ £
¢ £
£
¥ £
£ ¢ ¦
£
¦ ¢
£ £
¢
¥
¢
¢
¥ £
£
¦
¤
³ £
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwq-trk+0 7zppzppsnpzpp0 6-+-+-+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+L+P+-+0 3+-zP-+N+-0 2P+-+-zPPzP0 1tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xabcdefghy
¤
¦
¥
¥
¤ £ ¦ ¥
¤ ¦ ¥
¥
¤ ¥ ¦ µ
¥
£
¥
¥
¦
¥ £
¥
¤
£ ³ ³ ¥
¤
¥
£ ³
£
¥
¤ ³
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsn-wq-trk+0 7zppzp-snpzpp0 6-+-zp-+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+L+P+l+0 3vL-zP-+N+P0 2P+-+-zPP+0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¥ £
¤ ¤
¥ ¤
£
£ ¤
£ ¥
¤ ¤
¦ ³
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwq-trk+0 7zppzp-snpzpp0 6-+nzp-+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+L+P+-+0 3+-zP-+N+-0 2P+-+-zPPzP0 1+RvLQtR-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
³ ¤
¥
¥
¥
¤
¥
¤
¥
¤
÷
¥ ³
¤ ¤
¤
£
¤ ¥
¤
¥ ¥
¤ ¤
£
¤
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+-trk+0 7zpp+-+-zpp0 6-+nwqp+-+0 5+-+p+-+-0 4-+-zP-+n+0 3+-sNL+NzP-0 2PzP-+-zP-zP0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¥
£ ¤
¤
¤
¤
¥
¤ ¥
¥ ¤
¢
£
£ ¤ ¤
¥
¥
£
¢
£ ¤
¦ ¦
£ © ¤ £
¦
²
²
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+-trk+0 7zpp+-+-zpp0 6-+n+-+-wq0 5+-+-sn-sN-0 4-+-zp-+-zP0 3+-sNL+-zP-0 2PzP-+-zP-+0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¥
¤
¥
¢
¤ ¤ ÷
¦
¥
¥
£
¦ ¥
¦
¤ ¤ £
£
²¤
¤
£
©
£
¢
¦
¦ ¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-tr-tr-mk0 7zpp+-+-zpL0 6-+n+-+-wq0 5+-+-+-sN-0 4Q+-zpNzPlzP0 3+-+-+RzP-0 2PzP-+-+-+0 1tR-+-+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
£
¢
¤
£
¤
£ µ
¦
¦
£ £
¤
¤
£ ¥ ¦
÷
¤
£
£
¤
¤
¤
£
¤
£
£
¤
¦
¥
¦
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-tr-+-mk0 7zpp+-+-zp-0 6-+-+-+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+-sn-zP-wq0 3+-+Q+l+N0 2PzP-+-sN-mK0 1+-+-tR-+-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¥
¦
¦
£
¦
¦ ¦
£
¤
¢
¤
¦
£ ¢
µ
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-mk0 7+p+r+-zp-0 6p+l+-+-+0 5+-+-+-+q0 4-+-sn-zP-+0 3wQ-+-+-tRN0 2PzP-+-sN-mK0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¦ £ ¤
¢
¦ ³
¦
¦
¦
¤ ¤
¤
¥
¥
¤
£
£
¥
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-trk+0 7+lwq-vlpzpp0 6pzpnzppsn-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+PsNPzP-+0 3+P+L+-+-0 2PvL-sNQ+PzP0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¤
¥
¢
¤
¤
¤
¥
¤ ¤
¦
¢ ¦
²
¦ ¥
¢
¥
¥
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-trr+k+0 7+lwqn+pzpp0 6pzp-zppvl-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+PsNPzP-+0 3+P+R+-+-0 2PvL-+Q+PzP0 1+L+-+R+K0 xabcdefghy
¤
¤
¤
¦
¦ ¥ ¥ ¢
¦
¢
£
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-trr+k+0 7+lwqn+pvlp0 6pzp-zpp+p+0 5+-+-+P+-0 4-+PsNP+-+0 3+P+-+-tR-0 2PvL-+Q+PzP0 1+L+-+R+K0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤ ¦
²¦ ¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-trr+k+0 7+lwqn+-vlp0 6pzp-zpp+p+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+PsNP+-+0 3+P+-+R+-0 2PvL-+Q+PzP0 1+L+-+R+K0 xabcdefghy ¤
¦
¥
¢
¦
¢
£
¦
£
¦
£
¦
£
£
¦
¥
¥ £
¦
²
¦ £
£
£
¦
¤
¦
¦
¥
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+r+k+0 7+lwqntr-+p0 6pzp-zpp+p+0 5+-+-vl-+-0 4-+PsNP+-+0 3+P+-+R+-0 2PvL-+-wQPzP0 1+L+-+R+K0 xabcdefghy ¥
‚
£
¦ ²
¥ ¥
£ £
¦
¥ ™ ¦
¥
£
£
£
¦
¥ ¤
¤ £
¥
¦
¤
¥
¦
£
£
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+r+k+0 7+lwq-vL-vlp0 6pzp-zpp+p+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+PsNP+-+0 3+P+-+n+-0 2P+-+-wQPzP0 1+L+-+R+K0 xabcdefghy
¦ ¥
£
¤ ¥
£
¢
¤
£
¤
¢ ¤ £
¥ ¤ ¢
¢ ¤
¤ ¢
¤ £
¤ ¢
¢ ¤
¤ ¢
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+r+-+0 7+l+-wq-mkp0 6pzp-zp-+p+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+P+P+-+0 3+P+-+P+-0 2P+-+-wQ-zP0 1+L+-+R+K0 xabcdefghy £ ¢ ¢
£
¢
¤
¦ ¢
¤
¦ ¢
¤
¥ ¥
£
¤
¥
¥
£
¦
¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqkvl-tr0 7+-+n+-zpp0 6p+-+psn-+0 5+p+-+-+-0 4-+p+P+-+0 3+-sN-+N+-0 2PzPL+-zPPzP0 1tR-vLQmK-+R0 xabcdefghy
¢
¥
¢
¢
¤
£ £
£ ¤
¢
¥
¢
¦
¥
¤
¤ ¢
¥
£ ¥ ³ ¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqkvl-tr0 7+-+-+-zpp0 6p+-+psn-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-zp-+P+-+0 3+-sNpwQN+-0 2PzP-+-zPPzP0 1tR-vL-mK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤
¤ ³ ¤ ¥
¤
£
µ
¤
¤
¥
¦ ¥
£ ¦
¤ £ £ ¤
¥ ¦
¦
¤
¦
£
¦
¥
¤
¥ ¥
¥
¦
¤
£
¤
¦
¤
£
¤
¢
µ
¥
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+k+-tr0 7+l+qvl-zp-0 6p+-+p+-+0 5+-+-zP-+p0 4-zpr+-+n+0 3+-+p+N+Q0 2PzP-vL-zPPzP0 1tR-+N+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¦ ¦
¤
¤ ¤
¤
¥
£ £
¥ ¢
¦
¦ ¤ ¥
¥
¤
¦
¥
¤
¦ ¦
¦
¦
£
¤
¤ ¤
¦
¤
£ ¤
¤ £
¥ ¤
¤
¦
£
£
¥
£
¤
¥
¦
¤ £ £ ¢
£
¥
¢
¤ ¥ ¤ ¤ ¥ £ ¥ ¦ £ £ £ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¦
£
¤
¥
¥ ¦
£ £ ¦ ¦
¤ ¦ ¢ ¦
¢
¤ £ ¦
¥
¥ ¥ £ ¢
¦ ¥
¦
¢
¦
¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
¢
¢
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7zp-+-tR-+p0 6-zp-+-+p+0 5+-mkr+-+-0 4-+-+-zPP+0 3+-+-mK-+-0 2P+-+-+-zP0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¦
¥
¦
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7+-+-+-+-0 6-zp-mk-+p+0 5zp-+-+-zPp0 4P+-+-zP-+0 3+-+-mK-+-0 2-+-+-+-zP0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy
¢
¦
¦ ¦ ¢
¥ £ ¦ ¦
¢ ¢
¢
¤ ¤
¢ ¢
¢
£
¤
¤ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ £ ¥ ¤ £ ¦ ¦ £ £ ¢ ¤ £ £ ¢ £ ¦
£ £ £
¥
£
£
¥ ¦
£ ¤
£ ¢
¦ £
£
¥
£ ¦ ¥ ¦ £ £ £ ¦ £ £ ¢ £ ¢ ¦
£ ¥ ¦
¢ £ ¦
£ ¦
¦
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-mk0 7+-+-+-zp-0 6n+Q+-+-zp0 5+-+-trP+-0 4-+-sN-+q+0 3+-+KzP-+-0 2-+-+-+-zP0 1+R+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¢ £ ¦
£
£
£
¢
£ £ ¦
£ ¤
£
¦ ¤ ¢ ¤ ¤ £ ¢ ¦ ¢ £ ¤ £ ¢ ¤ ¤ £
¤
¥
¤
¥
¥
¦
¢
¤ ¤ £ £ £
¤
£ ¢ ¤
¦
£ £ ¦
¦
£ ¢
¦ £
£ £ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¤
£ ¢ £
£ £ ¤
¤ ¤
¤
¥
¤
£
¤ £
¥ ¥
£
¥
£ ©
£
¤
¥
£
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+k+-tr0 7+-wq-vlpzpp0 6p+lzppsn-+0 5+p+-+-vL-0 4-+-wQP+-+0 3+-sN-+-zP-0 2PzPP+-zPLzP0 1+-+RtR-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦
¤ ¥
¥
£
¦
¥
¢
¥
£
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+k+-tr0 7+-wq-vlpzpp0 6p+-zp-sn-+0 5+p+Pzp-vL-0 4-+-+-+-+0 3+-+-+-zP-0 2PzPPwQ-zPLzP0 1+-+RtR-mK-0 xabcdefghy £ ¦
£
¦ ²
¦
¦
£
¦ ¥
¥
£
£
£ ¦ ¤
¥
¥
¤
£ ³
¥ £
¥
£
£
£
¤
¥
¥ ¤
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+-trk+0 7+q+-+pzpp0 6p+L+p+-+0 5+-+-zP-vl-0 4-zp-+-wQ-+0 3+-sN-tR-zP-0 2PzPP+-zP-zP0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy £
£
¥
¤
£
¦ ¥
¦ ¦
£
£
¢
¦
¥ ¥
¥ ¢
³
¢
¥
¢
¦
¥
¦ ¥
£ ³ ¦
¢
£
£
¦
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+k+0 7vl-+-+-zpp0 6-+-+p+-tr0 5+-+-+-+-0 4Nzp-+Q+-+0 3+P+L+KzPq0 2P+P+-+-zP0 1+-+-+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¦
£
¦
£
£
¤ ¤
¤
¤
¤
£
¥
£
¤
¥
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+-trk+0 7+-wqpvlpzpp0 6p+n+p+-+0 5+p+-+-zPn0 4-+-sNP+-+0 3+-sN-vLP+-0 2PzPPwQ-+-zP0 1+K+R+L+R0 xabcdefghy ¤
¤
¥
¤ ¦
²
¥ ¦ £
¤
¤ ¥
¥ £
¤
¥
£
£
² ¦
¥
¥
¢
¦ £
¦ ¤
¥
£
¦
¥ ¤
£
¤ ¤
¦ ¦ £
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-trk+0 7+-wqpvlpzpp0 6p+-+p+-+0 5+-+-zP-zPn0 4-zp-sNQzP-+0 3+-+-+-+-0 2PzPP+-+-zP0 1+K+R+LtR-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¦
£ ¥
£
¥
¤ ³
¥
¦ ¥
£ ¦
¥ ¦
¦
²
¦
¤ £
¦
¥
¤ ¦
£
¦
¤ ÷ ¤
¦
£
¦
¦
£ ¦
£
£
¥
¥
¦
¥
¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+-trk+0 7+-wqpvlp+p0 6p+-+p+p+0 5+p+-+-zPn0 4-+-wQP+-+0 3+-sN-vLP+-0 2PzPP+-+-zP0 1+K+R+L+R0 xabcdefghy £ ¥ ¤
¦ ¥
¤ ¤
¥
¦
£ ¥
£
¥ ¦
¦ ¤
¤
¤ ¦
¥
¤ ¥ ¦
¥
¥
¥
¦
£
¥
¤
¦
¦
¦ ¥ ¦
£ ¤
£
¦
¤
¥ ¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trltr-+k+0 7+-wqpvlp+p0 6p+-+p+p+0 5+p+-+-zPn0 4-+-+P+-+0 3+-sNLvLP+-0 2PzPP+-wQ-zP0 1+K+R+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¦
¥
¦
²
¤ ¦
¥ ¦
£ ¤
¦
¦
¥
¤ ¥
£
¦
¥
¥
¦
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+-vlk+0 7+l+r+p+p0 6p+-+p+p+0 5+-+-+-zPn0 4-zp-vLNwq-zP0 3+P+L+P+-0 2P+P+-wQ-+0 1+K+RtR-+-0 xabcdefghy ¦
¦ ¥
¥ ¥
¥
¥
¥
¦
¦
£ ²
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-tr-+k+0 7+l+-trp+p0 6p+-+p+p+0 5+-+-+-zPn0 4-zp-+Nwq-zP0 3+P+L+P+-0 2P+P+-wQ-+0 1+K+RtR-+-0 xabcdefghy £
¥
¦ ¦
¦
¢
£
¦
¦
¥
£
£
¦ ¥
¢
¥
¦
¦
¦
¥
¤
£ ²
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-tr-+k+0 7+l+r+p+p0 6pwQ-+p+p+0 5+-+-+-zPn0 4-zp-+Nwq-zP0 3+P+L+P+-0 2P+P+-+-+0 1+K+RtR-+-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¥
¤
£
¦
¤
¦ ¥
¦ ¦ £
¤
¥
¥
¦
¥
¦
¢
£
¥
¥
¤
¥
¥
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqk+-tr0 7+lzp-+pzpp0 6p+-zp-sn-+0 5sn-vl-zp-+-0 4Pzp-+P+-+0 3+-+P+N+-0 2LzPP+NzPPzP0 1tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xabcdefghy
¤
¤
¥
¦ ¥
¤ ¤
¥
¥
¥
²
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wq-trk+0 7+lzp-+p+-0 6p+-zp-sn-zp0 5+-vl-zp-zp-0 4P+-+P+-vL0 3+P+P+N+-0 2-zP-+NzPPzP0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¥
¢ ¤
£ ¥ ¤
¥
¤
£ £
¦
¥
¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-trk+0 7+lzp-+p+-0 6pvl-wq-sn-+0 5+-+pzp-vL-0 4P+-+P+-+0 3+P+P+-sN-0 2-zP-+-zPPzP0 1+-tRQ+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¥
£
¥
£
£
¢
¦
¦
¥ ¥
¤
£
¥
£
£
¢
¦ ¤
£
¥ £
£
£ ¤
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-tr-mk0 7+lzp-+p+-0 6p+-+-wq-+0 5vl-+pzpN+-0 4-+-+P+Q+0 3+P+P+-+-0 2-zP-+-zPPzP0 1+-tR-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¦ £
¢
¤
£
£
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwq-trk+0 7zp-+-zpp+-0 6-+-+-+p+0 5+psnN+-sN-0 4-+L+P+-+0 3+-+-+-+-0 2Pvl-+-zPP+0 1tR-+Q+K+R0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7+-+-+-+-0 6-+-+-+p+0 5+-vl-+p+p0 4-zp-+pzP-zP0 3+P+-mk-zP-0 2P+-+L+-+0 1+-+-+K+-0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trlwq-trk+0 7zp-+-vl-zpp0 6-snnsNp+-+0 5+-+pzP-vL-0 4-+pzP-+-+0 3+-+-+N+-0 2PzPPwQ-+PzP0 1+-mKR+L+R0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trl+-trk+0 7+-+n+psnp0 6p+-+p+p+0 5+-zp-+-zPP0 4-+-+N+-+0 3wqL+-zPN+-0 2P+QzP-zP-+0 1tR-+-mK-+R0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+r+k+0 7+lwqnvlpzpp0 6p+-+p+-+0 5+-zppzP-+-0 4-+-+-zP-+0 3+PsNL+-+-0 2PvLP+Q+PzP0 1+-+-tRR+K0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-tr-mk0 7+-tr-+-zp-0 6-+-zp-+-zp0 5+p+P+P+-0 4-zP-wQnzP-wq0 3+-+-tR-+-0 2-vLR+-+-zP0 1+-+-+-mK-0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-tr-+0 7+l+-wqpmkp0 6p+-zp-snp+0 5+pzpPsn-+-0 4-+-+P+-wQ0 3+-sN-+-zP-0 2PzP-sN-zPLzP0 1+-+RtR-mK-0 xabcdefghy
¤ ¥
¥
¤
¢
¦
¥
£
¢
£
£
²
¢
¥
£
¢
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwq-tr-+0 7zp-+-zppmk-0 6-+-+-sNp+0 5+psn-+-sN-0 4-+L+P+-+0 3+-+-+-+-0 2Pvl-+-zPP+0 1tR-+Q+K+R0 xabcdefghy ¤
¢
¤
¢
¤
¥
¥
£
£
£
£
¢
²
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trlwq-trk+0 7zp-+-vl-zpp0 6-snnsNp+-+0 5+-+pzP-vL-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+-zp-+N+-0 2PzPPwQ-+PzP0 1+-mKR+L+R0 xabcdefghy ¢
¹ ¤
£
¥
¥
£
¥
¢
¤
¢
¥
¥
¢
¥
¢
¥
¥
¢
¥
¢
¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7+-+-+-+-0 6-+-+-+p+0 5+-vl-+p+p0 4-zp-+pzP-zP0 3+P+-+-zP-0 2P+-mkL+-+0 1+-+-+K+-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¥
¤ £
¥
¤
¥
¥
¤
¦
¤
¦
£
¢
£
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+r+k+0 7+lwqnvlpzpp0 6p+-+-+-+0 5+-zppzPp+-0 4-+-+-+-+0 3+PsNL+-+-0 2PvLP+Q+PzP0 1+-+-tRR+K0 xabcdefghy ¦ £ ¦ ¥ ¥
£ ¦ ¤
¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¤
¤ ¦
£
¥ ¦
¢ ¤ ¥ £ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¦ £
¥
£ ¤
¥ £
¤ ¤ ² £ £ ¦
¥
¥
£ ¦ ¥
¦ ¦ ¦
£
¦
£
¦
£
¦
£
¦
¦
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+-+-mk0 7+-tr-+-zp-0 6-+-zp-+-zp0 5+p+P+P+-0 4-zP-wQnzP-wq0 3+-+-tR-+-0 2-vLR+-+-zP0 1+-+-+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦ ¦
£ £
¦ ¦ ¦ £
¥
¦ ¢ ¥
¢ ¢
¦
¢ ¦ £
¦ ¦ ¦
£
¦
¢
¦
¦ ¢
¢ ¦
¤ ¥
£
¦ ¦
¤
¦ ¦
¦
¤
£
¤
£
£
£
£
¤
¦ £
£ ¢
¦
£ ¢
¢ ¦
£ ¦
¢
£
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-tr-+0 7+l+-+pmkp0 6p+-zP-+p+0 5+pzpP+n+-0 4-+-+-zP-+0 3+-sNn+-zP-0 2PzP-sN-+LzP0 1+-+RtR-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦ ¥ ¤ ¦ ¥ ¢
¦ ¦ ¦ ¥ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¤ ¢ ¦
¦
¢ ¤
¢ ¢
¦
¢
¦ ¦ ¤
¢ ¤ ¢
¦ ¦ ¢ ¢
¤ ¤ ¤ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¦ ¤ ¦ ¤ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¥ ¤ ¢ ¤ ¦ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥
¥
¤ ¤
¤ ¥ ¤
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wq-trk+0 7+l+n+pzp-0 6-+-+psn-zp0 5zp-+-+-+-0 4-zpPzP-+-+0 3+-+LzP-+-0 2-vL-sN-zPPzP0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥ £ ¦
£
¤ ³ £ ¤
¥
¦
¢
¥
÷
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-+k+0 7+-wqntrpzp-0 6l+-+-sn-zp0 5zp-+Pzp-+-0 4LzpP+-+-+0 3+-+-zPP+-0 2-vL-sN-+PzP0 1tR-+Q+R+K0 xabcdefghy
¥
¦
²
¦ ¥
¦
£ ¦
¥ ²
¥ ¦ ²
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-+k+0 7+l+ntrpzp-0 6-wqL+-sn-zp0 5zp-+P+-+-0 4-zpP+-zP-+0 3+-+-+-+-0 2-vL-sN-+PzP0 1tR-+Q+R+K0 xabcdefghy ¤ £
¥
¥
£ £
¢
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-mk-+0 7+l+-trp+-0 6-wqL+-zp-zp0 5zp-snP+-+-0 4-zp-+-zP-wQ0 3+-+-+-+-0 2-+-sN-+PzP0 1tR-+-+R+K0 xabcdefghy ¢ ¥ ¦
¦
£
¢
¤
£
£
¤
£ ¦
¦
¢
¢
¤
¥
¤
£
£
£
¦
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqkvl-tr0 7zp-zpp+pzpp0 6-+p+-+-+0 5+-+-zP-+-0 4-+-+n+-+0 3+-+-vL-+-0 2PzPP+-zPPzP0 1tRN+QmKL+R0 xabcdefghy £ ¤
¤ ¤
¦ £
¦ ¥
¥
¦
¥
¦
¥
¦
¦
¥
£
¦
²
£
£ ¤ £
¥
¤
¤
£ ²
¤ ¢
¤
¢
¥
²
¥ ¤
¥
¥
²
¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+k+-tr0 7zp-zpp+pzpp0 6-+p+-+-+0 5+-+-zP-+-0 4-+-+n+-+0 3+-+-+-+-0 2PzPPvL-zPPzP0 1tR-+-mKL+R0 xabcdefghy £
¤
¢
¦
¥
¦
²
¥
¢
¦ ¦
¦
²
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+-tr0 7zp-zpk+-zpp0 6-+-zpl+-+0 5+-zp-zPp+-0 4-+-+-zP-+0 3+P+L+-+-0 2P+PmK-+PzP0 1+-+-tRR+-0 xabcdefghy
¥ ¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
¥
¥ ¦
¥ ¦
¥
¢
¦
¦
¥
¦
¦
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-tr-tr0 7zp-zp-tR-+p0 6-+kzp-zpl+0 5+-zp-+L+-0 4-+-+-zP-+0 3+P+-+-+-0 2P+PmKR+PzP0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¥
¢ ¥ ¥ ¦
¥
¥ ¦
¦ ¦
¥ ¥
¦
¢
¦
¦
¢
¦
¢
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
¢
¦
¦
¦
¢
¦
¦
¥
¦
¥
¦
¦
¦ ¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7zp-+-+r+-0 6-+kzpR+-+0 5+-zp-+-+-0 4-+-+-+-zp0 3+P+-+-+K0 2P+P+-+PzP0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¦
¦
¦
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-tr-+0 7+-+-+-+-0 6-+-zp-+-zP0 5+-zp-+-+-0 4p+Pmk-+K+0 3+P+-+-+-0 2P+-+R+-+0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy
¢ ¢
¦
¢
¢
¢
¦
¦
¦
¢
¦
¢ ¦ ¦
¦
¢
¦
¦
¢
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-tr-+0 7+-+-+-+-0 6-+-+-+-zP0 5+-zpP+-+K0 4p+-+-+-+0 3+P+-tR-+-0 2k+-+-+-+0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¢
¦ £
¦
¦
¤
¢
¦
¦
¤
¦
¢
¦
¢
¤
¥
¦
£
£
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqkvl-tr0 7zpp+-+p+p0 6-+-zp-snp+0 5+-zpP+-+-0 4-+-+-vL-+0 3+-sN-+N+-0 2PzP-+PzPPzP0 1tR-+QmKL+R0 xabcdefghy ¥
£
¥
£
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsn-wqk+-tr0 7zp-+l+pvlp0 6-+-vL-snp+0 5+pzpP+-+-0 4-+-+-+-+0 3+QsN-+N+-0 2PzP-+PzPPzP0 1tR-+-mKL+R0 xabcdefghy £ £
£
¥
¤
£ ¤
£ ¥
¥ ¤ ¤
¥ ¥ ¤ ¦ ¥ ¤ ¥ ¤ £
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¤ ¤ £
¥ ² ¥ ¦ ¦
¤
¤
¥ ¤ ¤ ¥ ¦
¤ ¤
£
£ ¥ ¦ ¤ ¦
¥
¥ ¥ ¥ ¤ ¤ £ ¥ ¥ ¦ ¦ ¦
¤ ¤ ¦ £ £
£ ¤ ¥ ¤
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsn-+-trk+0 7zp-+l+pvlp0 6-wq-+-snp+0 5+-+PvL-+-0 4-zpp+-+-+0 3+-sN-zPN+-0 2PzP-+-zPPzP0 1tR-+QmKL+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¤ ¦ ¥ ¤ ¥ £ £ ¤ ¢ ¥ ¤
¥ ¤ ²
¥
£ ¤
¤
¥
£
£
¤
¦
¥
¥
¢
¤
¥
¥
¢
¥
¥
¤
¤
¤ ¤
¤ ¦ ¦
¤ ¦
£ ÷ ¦
¦ ¥
£
¥
¤
£ ²
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqkvl-tr0 7+p+-+p+p0 6p+-zp-snp+0 5+-zpP+-+-0 4-+-+-vL-+0 3+-sN-+N+-0 2PzP-+PzPPzP0 1tR-+QmKL+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¥
¤ ¥ ³
¥
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
£
¥ ¤
¥
£ ¦ ¥
¥ ¥
¥
£ ¤ ¤
¦
¦
¥ ² ¤ ¤ ¤
¥ ¢ ¥
£ ƒ £
¤ ¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqkvl-tr0 7+p+-+p+p0 6p+-zp-snp+0 5+-zpP+-+-0 4P+-+-vL-+0 3+-sN-+N+-0 2-zP-+PzPPzP0 1tR-+QmKL+R0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¥
¥ ¤
¥ ¥
¥ £
£
£
¤
¦
¦
¤ ¦ £
¦
¥ ¤
¤ ¤
¤ £ ¤
¤ £ ¤
¦
¤
¥
¥
¥ ¤
£
¦ ¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trl+ntrk+0 7+-+nwq-vlp0 6pzp-zp-+p+0 5+-zpP+p+-0 4P+N+-vL-+0 3+QsN-zP-+P0 2-zP-+LzPP+0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy
¤ ¥
¥ ¤
¥ ¥
¥ ¦ ² ¤
¤
¥
¥
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqntrk+0 7+p+n+pvlp0 6p+-zp-+p+0 5+-zpP+-+-0 4P+-+-vL-+0 3+-sN-zPN+P0 2-zP-+LzPP+0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy £ ¤ ¤
¤ ¦
£
£
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqr+k+0 7+p+-+pvlp0 6p+-zp-snp+0 5+-zpP+-+-0 4P+-+-vL-+0 3+-sN-zPN+P0 2-zP-+-zPP+0 1tR-+QmKL+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¤ ¥ ¤
¥ ¥
¤
¥
¤
¤ ¤ ¦ £ ¤
£
¦ ¤
„
£
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqr+k+0 7+p+n+-vlp0 6p+-zp-+p+0 5+-zpPsnp+-0 4P+-+-vL-+0 3+-sN-zP-+P0 2-zPQsNLzPP+0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¥
¦
¤
£
¦
³
¦
÷ ¤
¥
¦
¤ ¤
¤
¤
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqk+-tr0 7zp-+-+pvl-0 6-+p+p+-zp0 5+p+-zP-zpn0 4-+pzPN+-+0 3+-+-+NvL-0 2PzP-+LzPPzP0 1tR-+QmK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤
¤
¥
£
¦
£ ¦ ¦ ¥
¥
£
£ £
¢
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnltr-+k+0 7zp-+-wqpvl-0 6-+p+p+-+0 5+p+-zP-zpQ0 4-+LzPN+-+0 3+-+-+-zP-0 2PzP-+-zPP+0 1tR-+-mK-+R0 xabcdefghy £ ¥
÷
¦ ¥ ¤ ¤ ¢
¤ ¥
£
¤ £
¢
£
¢ ¥ £
¤ ¤ £
¦ £ ¦
¦ £ ¢
£ ¦
£ © ©¦
¦
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnltr-mk-+0 7zp-+-wqpvlQ0 6-+p+p+-+0 5+-+-zP-+-0 4-+pzPNzPp+0 3+-+-+-zP-0 2PzP-+-+P+0 1+-mKR+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¦ ¦ ¥
¤
£
¦
¤
¦ ¤
¤
¦
¦
£ ¦
£
¢
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+ltr-mk-+0 7zp-+n+pvlQ0 6-+p+p+-tR0 5+-+-zP-+-0 4-wqpzPNzPp+0 3+-+-+-zP-0 2PzP-+-+P+0 1+-mK-+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ £ ¢
£ £
¢
¤
¦
¢
¦
¥
¦
£
¢
£
¤
¤
¤
¥
¤
¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsn-wqk+-tr0 7+l+-+pzpp0 6p+p+p+-+0 5+p+nzP-sN-0 4PvlpzP-+-+0 3+-sN-+-zP-0 2-zP-vL-zPLzP0 1tR-+QmK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤
£ ¤ ¥
¥ ¤
£ ¥ £ ‚¥
£
¤ ¤
¥
£
¥
¢ £
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wq-mk-tr0 7+l+nvlp+-0 6p+p+p+p+0 5+p+-zP-+p0 4P+pzPN+-+0 3+-zP-+-zPQ0 2-+-vL-zPLzP0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
²
¥
¥
¤
¤
¤
£ ¢
©
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-mk-tr0 7+l+qvlp+-0 6psnp+p+p+0 5+p+-zP-sNp0 4P+pzP-zP-+0 3+-zP-+-zPQ0 2-+-vL-+LzP0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy
¥ ¦ ¥ £ ¥
£
¦
¦
¦
¦ ¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-mk-tr0 7+l+q+p+-0 6psnp+rtRp+0 5+p+-zP-vLp0 4P+pzP-+pwQ0 3+-zP-+-+-0 2-+-+-+LzP0 1+-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy
¥
¥
¤
¤ ¢
¦
£
¦
£
¥
¥
¤ £
¤ £
¥
¥ ¥
¤
¦
¦
¥
¥ ¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-vl-trr+k+0 7zpp+nwqpzp-0 6-+p+-sn-+0 5+-zP-+-+p0 4-zP-+p+-+0 3zP-sN-+-zPP0 2-vLQ+PzPL+0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy £ ¤ ¤
¦ ¦
£ ¦
¢ ² ¦
²
XIIIIIIIIY 8-vl-+rsnk+0 7zpp+-wqpzp-0 6-+p+-sn-+0 5+-zP-+-+p0 4-zP-+-zP-zP0 3zP-sN-zp-zP-0 2-vLQ+P+L+0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy
¥ ¤
¥
¥
¤
¤ £ £
¢
¤
¤
£
£
£
£
¤
£ ÷
£ £
£
¢
£
¥
¤ µ
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+rsnk+0 7zpp+-+pzp-0 6-+p+-+-+0 5+-zP-+P+p0 4-zP-+N+nwq0 3zP-+-zp-+-0 2-vLQ+P+L+0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦
£
£
£ ¦
£
£ ¢ ¤ ¥ ¤
¢
£
¢
¤ ¤
£
¢
¢ ¥ ¥
£
¢
¤ ¢
¥ ¢ ¤ ¥
¤
¤
¤
¥
¤
¥
¤
£
¥
¤ ¢
¥ ¥
¤ ¢
¥ ¥
¤ ¤
¢ ¢
¤ ¤
¥ ¤ ¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqkvl-tr0 7zpp+-+pzpp0 6-sn-+p+-+0 5+-+-sN-+-0 4-+-zp-+-+0 3+LzP-+-+-0 2PzP-+-zPPzP0 1tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¤
¥
¤ £
£
¥
¦ ¦ £ ¦
£ ¦
£ ¥
¥
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+rwq-trk+0 7zp-+-vlpzpp0 6-snp+p+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+lzP-+-+0 3+PsN-+Q+-0 2P+L+-zPPzP0 1tR-vLR+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
£
¦
¦
¥
¦
¦
¥
¦
¥
¥
£
¤
¦
¥ ¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+nwqr+k+0 7zp-+r+p+p0 6-+p+pvlpvL0 5+-+l+-+-0 4-+-zP-+Q+0 3+PsN-+-tR-0 2P+L+-zPPzP0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¤
¥ ¤ ¥
³
¤
¥
¤
¦
¥
¤
¤
¦ ¥
£
¥
¥
¥
¥
¦
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-wqr+k+0 7zp-+r+p+p0 6-+p+pvlpvL0 5+-+l+n+-0 4-+-zP-sNQ+0 3+P+-+-+R0 2P+L+-zPPzP0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¥ ¤
¦
¥
£ ¥
¤ ¥
£
¥
¤
¢
¥ ¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-wqr+k+0 7zp-+r+-vl-0 6-+p+p+QvL0 5+-+l+-+-0 4-+-tR-+-+0 3+P+-+-+R0 2P+-+-zPPzP0 1+-+-+-mK-0 xabcdefghy
¦
¥
¦
¥ £
¦ £
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-wqr+k+0 7zp-+r+-vl-0 6-+p+p+Q+0 5+-+l+-vL-0 4-+-sn-+-+0 3+P+-+-+R0 2P+-+-zPPzP0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¦
¢
£
¢
¥
¤
¦
¤
¤
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqkvl-tr0 7+p+-zppzpp0 6p+nzp-sn-+0 5+-+-+-+l0 4-+L+PvL-+0 3+-sN-+N+P0 2PzP-+-zPP+0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy
¥
¥
¥
£ ¥
£
¥ ¦
¦
²
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqkvl-tr0 7+p+-+pzpp0 6p+nzp-snl+0 5+-+-zp-+-0 4-+L+PvLP+0 3+-sN-+N+P0 2PzP-+QzP-+0 1tR-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¤ £
¥ ¦
¤
¤
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqkvl-tr0 7+p+n+pzpp0 6p+ntR-+l+0 5+-+NzP-+-0 4-+L+-zpP+0 3+-+-+N+P0 2PzP-+QzP-+0 1tR-+-+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦ £
£ ¦ ¤ £ £
¦ ¤ £
¥ £
¥ ¥
¤ ¢
¢ ¥
¢
¦
¤ £
¤
¥ ¦ ²
¥ £
£
¦ £
¥ ¦
¤ ¢
¥ ¢
£ ²
£ ¤
¦ £ £
¢ ¤ ¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqk+-tr0 7+p+-vlpzpp0 6p+nzp-snl+0 5+-+-zP-+-0 4-+L+-zpP+0 3+-sN-+N+P0 2PzP-+QzP-+0 1tR-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¤ £
¥ £
¤ ¤ ‚
¤ £
¢
¥
¤
¦
¥
£
¥
£
¦
£
£
¥
²
£ ÷
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqkvl-tr0 7+p+n+pzpp0 6p+nzp-+l+0 5+-+-zp-vL-0 4-+L+P+P+0 3+-sN-+N+P0 2PzP-+QzP-+0 1tR-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤
¦
¥ ¥ ¤ ¢
¦
¤ ¦
¥ £
¦ ¤ ¤ ¥
¤ ¢
£
¦ ¥
£
£ £
¦
¥
¢
¥
£
¢
£
£
£
¥
¥
¤
£
£
¦
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+k+r+0 7+p+N+-zpp0 6p+q+P+-+0 5+-+NwQPvll0 4-+-+-+-+0 3+L+-+-+P0 2PzP-+-zP-+0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¢
¢
£ ¦ ÷ ¥
¦
¤
£
¥
¤
£
¥
£
¢
¤ ¦
¤
£
¤ ¦
¤ ¢
¤
¤
¦
¥ ¤
£
¥
£
¥
¤
¢
¤ ¦
¢
¥
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqntrk+0 7zpp+-vl-zpp0 6-+-+-zp-+0 5+-+-zp-+-0 4-+Pzp-+-+0 3+P+-+-zP-0 2PvL-zP-zPLzP0 1tRN+QtR-mK-0 xabcdefghy
£
¢
¥
¥
¤ ¥
¦
¤
£
¤
¦
¢ £
¦
¤
¤
£
¤
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trlwq-tr-mk0 7zpp+-+-zpp0 6-+nsN-zp-+0 5+-zP-zp-+-0 4-+Qzp-+-+0 3+P+-+-zP-0 2P+-zP-zPLzP0 1+-tR-tR-mK-0 xabcdefghy £
¤
¥
£
¤
£ ¥
¦ £
¥
¦
¤ ¢
¦
¦
¢ ¦
¥
£
¤ ¦
¦
¤
¤
£
¥
¤
¤
¦
¤ ¢
¦
¥
¤
¢
¥
¦
¢
¤
¢
¥
¦
¦
¢
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqkvl-tr0 7+p+-+pzpp0 6p+nzp-sn-+0 5+-+-zp-+-0 4-+L+PvL-+0 3+-sN-+N+-0 2PzP-+-zPPzP0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¥
¤
£
¤
¤
£
¥ £
¦
£
¤
¦
¥
¦ £ £
÷
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+kvl-sN0 7+p+-+-wqp0 6p+-zp-snp+0 5+-+-sn-+-0 4-+-+Pzp-+0 3+-sN-+-+-0 2PzP-+LzPPzP0 1+-tRQ+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¤ ¤ £ ¦ ÷ £ ¥ ¥ ¦ ¥ £ ÷ ¦ ¤ £ ²£ ¦ ƒ ¤ ¥ £ ¤ £ ¤ £ ¥ ¦ ¥ £ ¤ ¦ ‚
£
¦
²
÷
£
£
£ ²
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqkvl-tr0 7+p+-+pzpp0 6p+nzplsn-+0 5+-+-zp-sN-0 4-+L+PvL-+0 3+-sN-+-+-0 2PzP-+-zPPzP0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤
¦
¤
¤ ¥
£
¤
²
¤ ¤
¤
¤
¥ ¤
¥
¥
£
¥ ¤
£
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rwq-+k+-tr0 7zpp+lvlpzpp0 6-+-zppsn-+0 5+N+-sn-+-0 4-+L+PvL-+0 3+-+-+N+-0 2PzP-+QzPPzP0 1tR-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¥
¦
£
¤
£
¦
¤
¤
¥ ²
¤
¦
¥
¥
£
¤
¦
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqk+ntr0 7+p+lvlpzpp0 6p+nzpp+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+L+P+-+0 3+-sN-+N+-0 2PzP-+QzPPzP0 1tR-vLR+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤
¥ ¥ ¥
¦
¥
¤
¥
¦
¥ ¦
¥ ³ ¤
¥
¥ ©
¤
²
©
¦ ¤ £
¥
¥ ©
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+qtrk+0 7+-+-vlpzp-0 6p+nzplsn-zp0 5+p+-zp-+-0 4-zP-+P+-+0 3zP-sN-vLN+P0 2L+-+QzPP+0 1+-tRR+-mK-0 xabcdefghy £
¤
¤
¤
¥
¥
¦
¤
£ ¦
¦ £
¥
¤ ¤
µ
¦
£
¢
¤
¤
¦
£
¦
¤
¦
¥
¤
¤
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-trq+-+0 7+-+-vl-zpk0 6pvL-tr-+-zp0 5+p+Rsnp+-0 4-zP-+-sN-+0 3zP-wQ-+-+P0 2-+-+-zP-+0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦ ¦
¦
¦
¤
¤
£
¤ £
¥
¥
¤ ¤
¤ £
¤
¥
£
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+kvl-tr0 7+-+-+p+p0 6p+-zppzp-+0 5wq-sn-+-+-0 4-sN-sNlzP-+0 3zP-+-wQ-+-0 2-zPP+-+PzP0 1+-mKR+L+R0 xabcdefghy
¤
¤ £
¤ ¢
¥ ¦
¢
¤ ¥
¤
£
¦
£
¤
¤ ¢
¤
¥
¥
£ ¥ ¥
¤ ¦
£
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqkvl-tr0 7zp-+-+p+-0 6-+p+psn-zp0 5+-sN-vL-zp-0 4-zp-zP-+-+0 3+-zp-+N+-0 2PzP-+LzPPzP0 1tR-+QmK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¥
£
¤ ¥ ¤ ¤
¤
¤ £
¥ ¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+-trk+0 7+-+q+p+-0 6-+p+p+-+0 5zp-zPnvL-+p0 4-+-+-+pzP0 3+Q+-+-+-0 2P+-+LzPP+0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy
¢
¥
£ £
¢
£
¢
£
¥
¤
¤
¦
¤
£
¥
¦
¦
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnl+kvlr+0 7zp-+-+p+-0 6-+p+pvL-zp0 5+-sNq+-+-0 4-+-zP-+p+0 3+Qzp-+N+-0 2P+-+LzPPzP0 1tR-+-mK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ £ ¥ ¦ ¥
¤
¤ £
¢
¥ ¢
£
¢
¦
¦
¢
£ £
£
¦
¢
¢
£
£
¦
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqkvl-tr0 7zp-+n+p+-0 6-+p+psn-zp0 5+-sN-vL-zp-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+Qzp-+N+-0 2P+-+LzPPzP0 1tR-+-mK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¤ ¥
¤
¥
£
£
¥
¢
¥
¦
¦
¦
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+-+k+0 7+-+-+p+-0 6q+-+-+-+0 5zp-+p+-zp-0 4-+-+-snP+0 3+-vL-tRPmK-0 2P+-+-wQ-+0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¥
£ ¥
£
£
¦
¦ ¢
£
¤
£
¢
¦
¦
¢
¢
£
£
£
£ ¤
¢ ¦
£ £
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+-+k+0 7+-+-+p+-0 6-+-wq-+-+0 5zp-+p+-zp-0 4-+-+-snP+0 3+-vL-tRPmK-0 2P+-+-wQ-+0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¥
£ £
£
£
£ ¦
£
¦ £
£
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+-+k+0 7+-+-+p+-0 6-+-+-+-+0 5zp-+p+-zp-0 4-+-+-snP+0 3+-vL-tRP+-0 2P+-+-+-mK0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy
¦ £
¢
¥
¦
¢
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7+-+-+p+k0 6-+-+-+-+0 5vL-+p+-zp-0 4-+-+-snP+0 3+-+-tRP+-0 2P+r+-+-+0 1+-+-+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦ ¦ ¥ ¢
¢ ¦ µ ¢ ¢
¦ ¦
¤ ¢
¢ ¢
¤ ¤
¥ ¦
¦ ¢
¢
¥
¥
¦ ¢
¦
¢ ¢
¦
¥ ¢
¤
¤ ¦
¦
¢ ¢ ¥
¢
¦
¢
¦ ¦
¢
¢
¦ ¢
¢
¦
¢
¦
¥
¤
¢
¢
¥
£
¥ ¥
¤
¤
¤
£
¥ ¤ ¥
£
£
¥ £
¥
¤ ¥
¥
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsn-+k+-tr0 7zppzp-+pzpp0 6-wq-+psn-+0 5+-+-+l+-0 4-+LzP-+-+0 3zP-vL-+N+-0 2-zPP+-zPPzP0 1tR-+QmK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ £ ¥
¦
¤
¤
¤ ¥
¥
£
¤
¥
¥ ¥
¥
¤
¥
¦
£ ¥
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+ktr-+r+0 7zppzp-+p+p0 6-+n+p+-vL0 5+-wqn+-+-0 4-+-+-+-sN0 3zP-+-+-+-0 2-zPP+QzPPzP0 1+-mKR+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤ £ ¤
¤
£ ¤
£ ¤
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+k+-tr0 7zppzp-+pzpp0 6-wqn+psn-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+LzPl+-sN0 3zP-vL-+-+-0 2-zPP+QzPPzP0 1+-mKR+-+R0 xabcdefghy £
¦
¦
¦
¦ ¥ ¥
£
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+k+-+r+0 7zppzpr+pzp-0 6-wqn+psn-zp0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+LzPl+-sN0 3zP-vL-+-wQ-0 2-zPP+-zPPzP0 1+-mKRtR-+-0 xabcdefghy
¥
¥ ¥
¥
¦
¢
¤ ¦
³
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+k+n+r+0 7zppzpr+pzp-0 6-wqn+p+-zp0 5+-+l+N+-0 4-+-+-+-+0 3zP-vLL+-wQ-0 2-zPP+-zPPzP0 1+-mKRtR-+-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¥
¦
¦
¢
¢
¦
¥
¤
£
¢
£
¢
¥ ¥
£ ¦
¥ ¥
¢ ¢
¦ ¦
¥
£
£ ¢
¢
£
¦ ¢
¥
¤
¦
¢
¦
¥
¤
¤
¢
¦
¥
¦
¦
¥
¥
¤
¦
¢
¦
¤
¥
¦
¢
¦
¥
¢
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7+pzp-trn+-0 6p+-+k+p+0 5+-+-+p+p0 4PzPPtR-zP-zP0 3+-+L+-zP-0 2-+-mK-+-+0 1+-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¦ ¢
¥
¤
¤
¢ ¢
¤ ¢
¤
¥
¦ ¢
¢
¥
¥
¤
¢
¤
¢
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqk+-tr0 7+p+-sn-vlp0 6-+nzp-zpp+0 5zp-zp-zp-+-0 4-+P+-+-+0 3zP-sNP+NzP-0 2-zP-vLPzPLzP0 1tR-+QmK-+R0 xabcdefghy
¥
¥
¢
¦
¦
¤ ¦ ¥
£ £
¥
¤
¦
¤
¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-wq-trk+0 7+-+-sn-vlp0 6-+-zplzpp+0 5+-+-zp-+-0 4QvL-+-+-+0 3+-+P+-zP-0 2-+-+PzPLzP0 1tR-+-sNRmK-0 xabcdefghy £
¤
¤
¦
¤
¦
¦
¥
£
£
¥
¢
¥ ¦
£
¦
£ ¥ ¦
¤
£
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trn+q+k+0 7+r+-+l+p0 6-+-+-+p+0 5+-vL-+p+-0 4-+-+p+-zP0 3+-+-sN-zP-0 2-+-+PzPLmK0 1wQ-+R+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤
¦
¤
¢
¤
¦
£
¤
¦ ¦
£ ¤
£
¤
¥
¦
£
¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+k+0 7snr+-+q+p0 6-+-+-+pzP0 5+-vL-+p+-0 4-+-+L+-+0 3+l+-sN-zP-0 2-+-+PzP-mK0 1wQR+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¤ £
¤
£
¦
¥
¢ £
£ ¥
£
¦ £
¦
£
¤
£
¢
¢
¦
£
¢
£
£ ¦
¤
¢
£
¢
£
¢
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7snr+-+k+p0 6-+-+-+pzP0 5+-+-+-+q0 4-+-+N+-+0 3+-+-+-zP-0 2-+-+PzP-mK0 1wQ-+-+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¢ ¢
£
£
¢
¤
¢
¤
¤ ¤
¢
¥ £
£
¤
£
¢
¤ ¥
¤
¤
¢
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
¢
¤
¤
¢
¦
¥
¢
¥
¤
¤
¦
¦
¦
¦
©
¦
¥
¥ ²
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqk+-tr0 7zppzp-vl-zpp0 6-sn-+-zp-+0 5+P+-zp-+-0 4-+l+-+-+0 3+-sN-zPQzP-0 2P+-zP-zPLzP0 1+RvL-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy £ ¦
¥
¥ ¥
¦
£
¥
¤
²
¢ ¦
£
¢
¤
¤
¥
¥
¤
¤
£
²
£ ¦ ¤
¤
¢
¢
¥ ¥ £
¤ ²
£
¢
¢
¦
£
£
¦
£
£
¥
£ ¤ ² ¢ ¥
¦ £ ¦
¥ ¥ £
¥ ¦
¤ £ ¥
¥ ¥ £
¤ £ £
¥
¤ ¢
¤
¥
£ ¥
÷ ¥
¢ £ £
¤ ¤ £ ¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-+-tr0 7zpQzp-vlkzpp0 6-sn-+-zp-+0 5+P+-zp-+-0 4-+-+-+-+0 3+-sNqzP-zP-0 2P+-zP-zPLzP0 1+RvL-mK-+-0 xabcdefghy ¦
¥ ¦ £
¦
¤
¥ ¤
£
£ £ ¦
£
£
¤
£ ¤
¦
¥ ¦
¤ ¦
¢ ¤
£ ¤
¤
¥ £
£
¥ ¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-tr-+-+0 7wQ-zp-vlkzpp0 6-sn-+-zp-+0 5+P+-zp-+-0 4P+q+L+-+0 3+-sN-zP-zP-0 2-+-zP-zP-zP0 1+RvL-mK-+-0 xabcdefghy ¥ £
¥
¥
¦
¥
¥
£
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-tr-+-+0 7zpQzp-vlkzpp0 6-sn-+-zp-+0 5+P+-zp-+-0 4P+q+L+-+0 3+-sN-zP-zP-0 2-+-zP-zP-zP0 1+RvL-mK-+-0 xabcdefghy ¦ ¤ £ £ £ ¥
¥
¦
¦
£
£ ¤
£
¤
£
¤
¥
¦
¤
£¦
¥
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8ntr-tr-+-+0 7+Rzp-vlkzpp0 6p+P+-zp-+0 5zP-+-zp-+-0 4-+-+L+-+0 3+-sN-zP-zP-0 2-+-zP-zP-zP0 1+-vL-mK-+-0 xabcdefghy
¥
£
¦
¦
¤ ¦
¥
¦
¥ ¥ ™ ¤ ¢ ¥
¢
¢
¥
¤
¥
¥
¥
¥
¢
¤
¦
¥
¤
¥
¢ ¥ ¥
¦
¢
¥
¤
¢
¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8ntr-tr-+-+0 7+Rzp-+-zpp0 6p+P+kzp-+0 5zP-vlNzp-+-0 4-+-+P+-+0 3+-+L+-zP-0 2-+-zP-zP-zP0 1+-vL-mK-+-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¥ ¦
¥ ¥ ¢ ¦
¦
¢
¥
¦ ¥
¥
¥ ¤
¤
¦ ¤
¥
¦
¤
¥
¦
¥
¦ ¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8n+-+rtr-+0 7+Rzp-+-+-0 6p+Pmk-zPp+0 5zP-vlNzp-+p0 4L+-+P+-+0 3+-+-+-zPP0 2-+-+-+-+0 1+-vL-mK-+-0 xabcdefghy
¥
¢
¦
¦
¢
¦
¥
¥
¤
¦
¢
¦
¥
¦
¤
¥
¤
£
¤
¤
¤
¥
¤
¥
£
¤
£
¤
£
£
£
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+k+-tr0 7zp-zpp+pvlp0 6l+p+-+p+0 5+-+nzP-+-0 4-+P+-+-+0 3+-+-+N+-0 2PzP-vL-zPPzP0 1tR-+-mKL+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¤
¥
¥
¦
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-trk+-tr0 7zplzppsnpvlp0 6-+-+-+p+0 5+-zp-zP-+-0 4-+P+-+-+0 3+-vL-+-+-0 2PzP-sN-zPPzP0 1+-mKR+L+R0 xabcdefghy ¤
¦
¦ ¦ ¤ ¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-trk+r+0 7zplzp-snpvlp0 6-+-zp-+p+0 5+-zp-zP-+-0 4-+P+-+-zP0 3+NvL-+-+-0 2PzP-+-zPP+0 1+-mK-tRL+R0 xabcdefghy ¦
¥ ¦
¥ ¥ ¤
¦ ¥
¦
¥
¤ ¥
¥
¦
²
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-trk+-+0 7zp-+-+ptr-0 6-+nzpl+p+0 5+-zp-+-+p0 4-+P+-+-zP0 3+-+R+-zP-0 2PzP-sN-zP-+0 1+-mK-tRL+-0 xabcdefghy
¤
¤
¤
¦
¦ ¢
¥
¦
¦
¢
¦
¦
¦
¢
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8R+-+-+-+0 7zp-+ktrptr-0 6-+-zpl+p+0 5+-zp-+-+p0 4-+P+-+-zP0 3+-+-+-zPL0 2PzP-+-zP-+0 1+-mK-tR-+-0 xabcdefghy ¢ ¦
¥
¢
¦
¢ ¢
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+r+0 7+-+lwqp+k0 6p+-zp-sn-vl0 5+pzpPzpP+p0 4-zPP+P+pzP0 3wQ-vLL+-zP-0 2P+-+-tRNmK0 1+-+-tR-+-0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqr+k+0 7zpp+-vlpzp-0 6-+pzp-sn-zp0 5+-+-sn-+-0 4P+-wQP+-sN0 3+-sN-+-+P0 2LzPP+-zPP+0 1tR-vL-tR-mK-0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+k+-tr0 7+p+-+pzpp0 6p+-+p+-+0 5+-+-zP-vLQ0 4-+-+l+-+0 3+P+-+-tR-0 2P+q+-zPPzP0 1+-+-tR-mK-0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+r+0 7+-+lwqp+k0 6p+-zp-sn-vl0 5+pzpPzpP+p0 4-zPP+P+pzP0 3wQ-vLL+-zP-0 2P+-+-tRNmK0 1+-+-tR-+-0 xabcdefghy £
¦ ¥
£
¦
£
¦
£
£
£
£ £
£
£
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+r+0 7+-+l+p+k0 6-+-wq-sn-vl0 5wQ-zPPzpP+p0 4-+-+P+pzP0 3+-zpL+-zP-0 2P+-+-tRNmK0 1+-+-tR-+-0 xabcdefghy ¦ £
¥ ¦
£ £ £
¦ ¦
¦
¥
£
£
¦
£
¦
£
¦
£
¦
¦
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+-+0 7+-+l+p+k0 6-+-+-sn-vl0 5+-wQPwqP+p0 4-zpP+P+pzP0 3tr-+L+-zP-0 2P+-+-tRNmK0 1+-+R+-+-0 xabcdefghy £
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqr+k+0 7zpp+-vlpzp-0 6-+pzp-sn-zp0 5+-+-sn-+-0 4P+-wQP+-sN0 3+-sN-+-+P0 2LzPP+-zPP+0 1tR-vL-tR-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤ ¥
£
£
¤
¤
¤ ¤ ¦ ¥
¦
¤ µ
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+k+-tr0 7+p+-+pzpp0 6p+-+p+-+0 5+-+-zP-vLQ0 4-+-+l+-+0 3+P+-+-tR-0 2P+q+-zPPzP0 1+-+-tR-mK-0 xabcdefghy £ £
¥ ¥ £
¥
£
¥
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+k+-tr0 7+p+-+pzpp0 6p+-+p+l+0 5+-+-zP-vL-0 4-wQ-+-+-+0 3+P+-+-tR-0 2P+q+-zPPzP0 1+-+-tR-mK-0 xabcdefghy £
¦
£
¦ ¥
¦
£
£
1
¤
¤
¤
¥
£
£
¥
£ £ £
¥
£ ¤
¥
£
¥ ¥
¢
£
¥
£
¥
£
¥
¥ ¥
2
¤
£
£
¤
£
³
¥
¤
£
¤ £ ¥ ¦ ¦
¥
¦ ¤
¤ £ ¤
¦
¤
¥
¥
£
ƒ
£
¤
¥ ¤
¦
¥
¦ ¥
£
£ ¤ „
¤
¥ ²
¦ ¦
¤
¤ £
£ ¤
¤ ¦
¥
¥
¦
¤
£
¥
¤
¤
¦
¥
¥
¥ £
¦
¥
¤
¥
¤
¤
¦
¦
¦
„
3
¥ ƒ ¥
¥
¤
¤
¤
¥
¥
¤
¤
¤
¤
£
¥
¤
¥
¥
£ ¥ ¦
¤ ¤ ¥
¦
£ £
¥
¥
¢
¤ ¦ £ ¢
£
¢
¦ £
¥
£ ¢
¦
¢
¦
£
¦
¤
£ ¢
£
£
¢ £
4
£
£
¢
¦
¤ ¦
¤ £
£ ¢
¤
£
¤ £
¦ ¢
¤ £
¤
¤
¤
¥
£
¤
£
¥ 5
£
¦
£
6
¤
¤
¥
£
¤
£
¥
¦
¦
¤
¥
£
£
¥
¤
¥
¤
¤ ¥
¥ ¤
¥
¥
¦
£
¤
¤
¥ ¤
¦
£
£
¥ £
¤
£ ¥ ¤
¦ ¥
¢
¥
¦
¥ ¤
¥
¤
¥
¤
¥
¤ ¦ ¥
¤ 7
¤
£
¤ ¥
¦ ¤
¤
¤ ¤
¤
¤
¦
£
¤
¤ ¤
£
¤ £
£ ¥ µ
¦ £
£ ¦
£ ¥
¦
¤
¦ £
£
£
¤
£
¤
£
¦
£
£
¤ ¥
¤
¦ ¤
£ £
¤
¥
¤
£
¥ ¤
¦
¥
£
¤
¥
¤ ¤
¤ ¤
¢ ¤ ¤ £
¥ ¢ ¤ ¢ £ 8
¥
¥
¢
¢
¤ £
¢
£
µ
¢
¥
¦
£
£
¦
£
£
¤ ¥ £ ¦
¦
£
£
¥
£
¤ ¦ £
¤ ¤
¥
¥
¥ £ ¦
¤
¥
£
£ ¦
¥
£
¤
¤
¤
©
¤
¢
£
¢
£
ƒ
¤
¤
¥
¥
£
¤
¢
¢
¦
¥ ¥ ¥
¢
¥ ¢
¥
¢
¦
¦
¢
¥
¥
¢ ¦
¢
¢
¦
¢
¦
¦
¦
9
¥
¥
¥
¢ ¦
¦
¥ ¢
¦
¢
¥
¥
¥
¤
¤
¥
£
¤
£
¥
£
¦
£
¤ ¤
¥ ¤
¥
¤ ¤
¤
¥
¥
£
¥
10
¦
¥
¥
¤
¦ £
¤
¤
£
¥ ¤
¥
£ ¤
£
¦ ¦
³ ¤ ¥ ¤
¤ ¤ £
¥
¦ ¥ ¦
¤ ³
¥
¥
¤
¥
¤ ¤
¤
¤
¤
¥ £
¤
¤
¤
£
¤
¥ ¥
¤
£
¤
£
¥
¤
¦
¤ £
¤
¦ µ
£
£
¥
¦
¤
¤ £
³
¥
¤ ¥
¥
¥ „ £ £ ƒ
¥ ‚
¦
¤ ¦
11
¤
¥
¦ ¤ ¦
¥ £ £ ¥ ¤ ¦ ¢ ¦
¥
¦
£
¦ ¥ ¤ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¤ ¢ ¢
¤
¥
¦
¦ ¦
¤ ¥
¤ ¢
¦ ¢
¦
¤ ¤
¤ ¤ ¢ ¦
¥ ¦
¦ ¥ ¤ ¢
£ ¤ £ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¥ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¦ ¤
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¢
¤ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
£
¥
£
¤
¢
¤ ¤ ¥ ¥
¢
¤
¥ ¥ ¤
¦
¤
¤
¥
¤
£
µ
£
¤ ¤ ¦ £
¤
¦
¥
¤
¤
¦
¦
£ ¤
¥
¦
¥
¥ ¥
¦
£
¥
£
¥
¥
12
¦
¥
¦ ¢
¦ £
¦ ¦
¦
¥
¦
¢
¦
13
¦
£
¦
¦
¢
£
¦
¤
¤ ¤
¤
¥
£
¤
£
¥
£
¦
£
¥
¥
¥ ¤ ¤
¤ ¥
£ ¥
¤ ¥
¤ ¥
¥
¤
£
¥ £
¢
¤
¥
£
¤
¤
¤ ¤
¤
¤
£
¦
£ £
¤
¤
¥
£
¥ ¤
¦
¥
¥
¤
14
¦ £
¦
£
¥
¢
¦
¦
¥
£
¢
¤ ²¥
¤
¦
¦
¢
¥
¤
£
¦
£
¥ ¥
¥
¤ ¦ ¦
¦
¥
¥ ¥
¦ ¥
¤
¦ ¦
£ ¦ ¦
¢
¥
£ ¤
¥ ¥
¦
£
¥
¤
¢
¥
£
¥
£
£
¤
¥ ¦
£ £
¤
¤ ¢
¤ ¥
¥
¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¦ ¦
£ ¥
£ ¥
¦
¥ ¦ ¦
£
£ ¦
¦ ¦
¥
¦
¦
¦
¥
¢
¤ ¦
¦
¥
¦ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¥
¦
¢ ¦ ¦ ¥ ¥ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¦ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥ ¦ ¢
¥ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¦ ¥
¥
¦ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¢ ¦ 15
¥
¦
¥
¦ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¦ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¥ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¦
¢ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¦ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¦ ¢ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥
¥
¢ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¢
¢ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¢ ¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¥ ¦ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
16
¦ ¦ ¦ ¥ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¥
¢ ¢ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¥
¦ ¥ ¦ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¦ ¥
¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¥
¦ ¥ ¦ ¥ ¦ ¢ ¥ ¦
¢ ¥ ¢ ¥ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¢
¤
¤
¤
¤
¥
¥ ¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwq-trk+0 7zppzp-+pvlp0 6n+-zp-snp+0 5+-+Pzp-+-0 4-+P+P+-+0 3+-sN-vLN+P0 2PzP-+-zPP+0 1tR-+QmKL+R0 xabcdefghy £
¤
¤
¥ ¤
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+qtrk+0 7+p+-+pvlp0 6-+pzp-snp+0 5zp-snPzp-+-0 4-+P+P+P+0 3+-sN-vL-+P0 2PzP-sNLzP-+0 1tR-+QmK-tR-0 xabcdefghy ¢
¤
£
¥
¤
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+qtrnmk0 7+p+l+pvlp0 6-+-zpn+-+0 5zp-+Nzp-zpP0 4-+P+P+P+0 3+-+-vL-+-0 2PzPQsNLzP-+0 1+-mKR+-tR-0 xabcdefghy ¢
¥
£
¥
¦
¤
¤
¤
¦
¦
£
£
¤
¥
£
¦ ¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-tr-+-mk0 7+p+-+-vl-0 6-+lzp-sn-zp0 5+-+NzpPzpq0 4-wQP+Psn-+0 3+P+-vLP+-0 2P+-sN-+-+0 1+K+-tRLtR-0 xabcdefghy £
¦
¥ ¤
¤
¥
¥
£
¤
£
¤ ¤
¥
£ £
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-tr-+-mk0 7+p+-+-vl-0 6-+-zp-sn-zp0 5+-+nzpPwq-0 4-wQ-+P+-+0 3+P+-+P+-0 2P+-sN-+-+0 1+KtR-+LtR-0 xabcdefghy ¦
¤
¦
¤ ¦
¦
¤
¤ ¦
¥ ¢
¦ ¦
¦ ¤
¥ ¦
¤ ¦
¢ ¤
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
¤
¤ ¤
¦
¤
¤
¥
¥
£
¢
¥
¦
£ ¥ ¥ £ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¥
£ ¤
¤
¥
¦
¤ ¤
¥
¤
¦ ¥
¥
¦
¥
¥
¤
¥
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqkvl-tr0 7zpp+n+p+-0 6-+p+l+-zp0 5+-+p+-zpn0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+-sNLzP-vL-0 2PzPQ+-zPPzP0 1tR-+-mK-sNR0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¤
¥
¦
£
¦
¤
¥
¥
¢
¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwqk+-tr0 7zppzp-vlpzpp0 6-+-+-sn-+0 5+-+p+-vL-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+-sN-+-+-0 2PzP-+PzPPzP0 1tR-+QmKLsNR0 xabcdefghy £
¤
¥
¤
¤
¤
¥
¤
£
¥
¤
¥
¢
¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+k+-tr0 7zpp+-wqp+p0 6-+p+nsnp+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+-zPL+-+0 3+-sN-+-+-0 2PzPQ+NzPPzP0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤
¥
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+k+-tr0 7zpp+-wqp+p0 6-+p+-+p+0 5+-+P+l+-0 4-+-+N+-+0 3+-+-+-+-0 2PzPQ+-zPPzP0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy £ ¦ ¥
¢ ¦
¤ £
¥
¦
£
¤
£
¦
£
£
¢
£
¦ ¤
¦
£ £
£ £ ¥
£
£ ¦
¢
¢ ¥
¦
¦ ¦ ¢
¢
¢
£ ¥ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¥
¢ ¢ ¢ ¥
£
¦
£ ¢ ¦ ¥
¦ ¦ ¦
¢ ¢ ¥
£ ¦ ¦
¢ ¢
¢ ¦ ¢
¢
¥
¢ ¦
¢ ¢
¤ ¥
¥
¤ ¥
¥ ¥
¦ ¥ ¦ ¢
¤
¦
¥ ¥
¥ ¢
¤
¦
¢
¥
¦
¤ ¤ ¤ ¦
¤
¦ ¢
¤
¤
¢ ¢
¦ ¥
¥
¥ ¢
¦ ¢
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+rwq-trk+0 7+p+nvlpzpl0 6-sn-+p+-zp0 5zp-zp-+-+-0 4P+-zPP+-+0 3+-sNN+P+-0 2-zP-+LvLPzP0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¤
¤
¦ ¤ ¢
¤
¥
¥
¦
£
¦ ¥ ¥
¤ ¦ ¤ ¦
¦ ¤
¦ ¢
¥ ¦
¦
¤
¦ ¦
¦
¦
¦
¦ ¥ ¤ ¦ ¢ ¦ ¤ ¦ ¤ ¦ ¤
¤ ¥ ¢ ¢
¦ ¤
¥ ¦
¤
¤
¥
¤
¥
¤
¥
¤
¥
¥
¤
£
¤
¥
¤
£
¥ £
¥
¥
£
¥
¢
¤
£
¥
£
¥ ¢
¤
¦
£
¤ ¦
¢ ¥
¤ ¥ ¥ ¤
¥
£ £
¦
£
¦
¥
¦ ¦
£
¦
£
£
¥
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+q+kvl-tr0 7zppzp-zppzpp0 6-snn+-+-+0 5+-sNlzP-+-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+-+L+P+-0 2PzP-vLN+PzP0 1tR-+QmK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¦
¤
¥ ¦ ¤
¤
¦ ¤ £ ¥
¥
£
£ £
£
¤
¥
¤
£
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqkvl-tr0 7zppzp-zppzpp0 6-snn+-+-+0 5+-+-zP-+-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+-+LvL-+-0 2PzP-+-zPPzP0 1tRN+QmK-sNR0 xabcdefghy ¤
¥
¤
£ £
¥
¤
¤
¤
¥ ¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+kvl-tr0 7zppzp-wq-zpp0 6-sn-+l+-+0 5+-+-+p+-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+-sN-zPN+-0 2PzP-+-+PzP0 1tRL+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤ £
¥
£
¤
¤
¥
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+ktr-vl-tr0 7+pzp-+-zpp0 6-sn-+l+-+0 5zp-+-sN-+-0 4Pwq-zPL+-+0 3+-sN-+-+-0 2-zP-+-+PzP0 1tR-+Q+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
£ £
¢
£
£ £
¤
¥
¥ £
¥
¦ £
¤
£ ¦
¥
£
¢ ¦
£ £
¢
£
¥ ¥
¦
¥
¦ ¢
£
¦ ¢
¦ £ ¦
¥
¥
¤ £
£ ¥ ¦
¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsn-wq-trk+0 7zpl+-+pzpp0 6-zp-+psn-+0 5+-+p+-+-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3zP-zPLzPN+-0 2-vL-+QzPPzP0 1tR-+-mK-+R0 xabcdefghy
¥
£
¤
¤
¥ ¥ ¦
¥ ¦
¥ ¦
¤
¥
¤ ² ¥ £ ¤
£ ¦
¤
¦
¢ ¦ ¤
¦ ¥
¤ ¤
¤ ¤
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsnlwq-trk+0 7zp-+p+pzpp0 6-zp-+psn-+0 5+-zp-+-+-0 4-+PzP-+-+0 3zP-sN-zP-+-0 2-zP-+-zPPzP0 1tR-vLQmKL+R0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤ ¥
¥
¤ ¦
¥
£ ¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8rsn-wqr+k+0 7zp-+-+pzpp0 6-+-zp-sn-+0 5+pzpP+-+-0 4-+-+P+-+0 3zP-sN-+-+-0 2-zP-+QzPPzP0 1tR-vL-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy
¥
²
¤ ¤
¢ ¤
¤ ¥
£
¤
¦
£
£
¦
¦
¤ ¤
¦
¥
¤ ¦
¤
£ ¢
¤ ¤
¥ ¦
¦ ¦
¢
£
¤
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+n+-+0 7+-+-mkpzpp0 6-+r+-+-+0 5+-+-zp-+-0 4-sN-+-+-+0 3zP-+-+-+-0 2-zP-+-zPPzP0 1+-+-tR-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦ ¤ ¢
¤ ¦ ¢
¢ ¤
¦ ¤ ¤
¢ ¤
¢ ¢ ¢
¤ ¦ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¦
¦ ¤ ¤ ¢
¢
¤ ¢ ¢ ¢
¢ ¢
¢
¤ ¤ ¤
¤ ¤
¥
¤ ¤
¤
¤
¤
¤ ¤
¤ £
¥
£
£
¤ ¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+kvl-tr0 7zppwq-+pzpp0 6-+n+p+-+0 5+-+pzP-+-0 4-+-zP-vL-+0 3+QzP-+N+-0 2P+-+-zPPzP0 1tR-+-mKL+R0 xabcdefghy
£ ¢
£
¤
¥
¥ ¥
¥
¤ ¥
£
¥ £
£
¦
¤ ¥
¤ ¥
¤ £
£ £
¥
£
¥
¥
£
¤ ¤
¤ ²
¤ ¥
¥
¥
²¤
£ ¤
¤
¥
¥
¤
¤
¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqk+-tr0 7zpp+-zppvl-0 6-+p+-sn-zp0 5+-+-+-zp-0 4-+-zP-+-vL0 3+-+L+N+P0 2PzPPwQ-zPP+0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¥
¤ ¥ ¥ ¦ ²£ £ £ ¤ ² £ ¢ ¦ ¦ ² £
¤
¤ ¤
£
£
¥ ¤
¦
¦
¥
¥
£
£
¢
¤ £
£
¦ ÷
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+r+-tr0 7+p+-zpk+-0 6p+p+-zp-zp0 5+-+q+-zp-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+PzP-wQP+P0 2P+-+-+P+0 1+-+-tRRmK-0 xabcdefghy
£
£
£
£
£ ¦
¦
²
¦
£ ¦
¦
£
£ ¢
¦
¢
¦
¦
¢
¦
¦
£
£
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-mkr+0 7+p+-+-tr-0 6p+pwq-zp-+0 5+-zP-zpQ+-0 4-+-zPR+-tR0 3+P+-+-+P0 2P+-+-+P+0 1+-+-+-+K0 xabcdefghy £ £
¦
¦ ¦
£
£
£ £
£ ¢
£
£
¦
£
¦
£
¢
¢
£
£
£
¦
¦
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+-+0 7+-+-mkr+-0 6-+p+-+-+0 5+-zP-wqp+-0 4-+-+pwQ-tR0 3+P+-+-+P0 2P+-+-+P+0 1+-+-+-+K0 xabcdefghy £ £ ¢
¦ ¢
¢ ¢
¦
¢ ¢
¦ ¦
¦
¢ ¦
¦
¦
¢
£ £ ¦ ¢
¢ ¢
¦ ¦
¦
£
¦
£
¤ ¥
¢
¥
¢
¥ ¦ ¦
¦
¦
£
¦
¢
¢
¦
¢
¦
¤ ¤ ¤
¥
£
¤
¤
¥ ¤
¥
¦ ¤
£ ² £ ¦
²
¥
÷ £
¤
¤
¥
¤ ²
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-tr-+k+0 7zp-+-wq-zpp0 6l+-+p+-+0 5+p+pzPp+-0 4nzPrvLn+-+0 3+-+NzP-zP-0 2P+-+QzPLzP0 1+-tR-+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¦
¤ ¦
¦
¦
¤
¤
¢
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+r+-trk+0 7zp-+nwq-zpp0 6lzppvlp+-+0 5+-+p+p+-0 4-+PzPnsN-+0 3+P+-zPNzP-0 2PvL-+-zPLzP0 1+-tRQ+RmK-0 xabcdefghy ¤
¦
£
£
¤ ©
¦
¤
¤
¦
£ ¦ ¦ £ ¥ £ ¢ ¦ ¤ ¦ ¦ ¥ ¥ ¤ ¤ £ ¦ ¤
¤
¦
¦
¥ ¥
¦
¥ ÷ £
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+l+-+k+0 7zp-wq-+-zp-0 6-+r+p+-zp0 5+p+pzPp+-0 4nzPrvL-+-zP0 3zP-+NzPPzPL0 2-+-wQ-+-mK0 1+ntR-+R+-0 xabcdefghy £
¦ ¤
¤
¤
¤
µ
¦
¦
£ ¥
¦
¤
¤ £ ¤
¥
¤
¤
¤
¦
¤
¥
£
¥ ¤
¥
¤
£
¤ £ £ £
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wq-trk+0 7zpp+n+p+p0 6-+-vlpzp-+0 5+-+P+l+-0 4-+-+-+-+0 3+-+-+N+-0 2PzP-vLLzPPzP0 1tR-+QtR-mK-0 xabcdefghy
£
£ ²
¤
¥ £ ²
¤ ¤
¥ ¥
¥
¤ £ ¥
£
¦
¤
¤ ¥ ¦ £
¤
¤ £
¦
¤
£ £ ¦
¦
¤
¦ ¤
¥
¦ ¦
¦
¦
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wq-vlk+0 7zpp+-+p+p0 6-sn-zP-zpl+0 5+-+-+N+-0 4-+-+Q+L+0 3+-+-+-+-0 2PzP-vL-zPPzP0 1tR-+-+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¥ ¤ ¥ ¥ ¥
¥ £ ¥
¥
£
£
£
¦
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-+k+0 7zpp+-+p+-0 6-snr+-wq-+0 5+-+-zpN+Q0 4-+-+-+-+0 3+-+-+-+P0 2PzP-+-zPP+0 1+-+R+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¦ £
¢
£
¦
£
¢
£ £
¦ ¢
¤
¦
£
£
¦
¢
¦
¤ ¥
£
¤ ¢
¤ ¤
¤ ¤
¥ ²
¤
¥
¥ ¢
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+-trk+0 7zppzp-wq-vl-0 6-+-zp-+pzp0 5+-+Pzpp+n0 4-+P+P+-+0 3+-sN-+P+-0 2PzP-wQ-vLPzP0 1+K+R+L+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¤
¥
¤ £ ¤
¥
¤
¥
¤ ² ¦
£
£ ¦ ²
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trl+-trk+0 7+-+-+-+-0 6psN-zp-vlpzp0 5+-+Pzp-+-0 4-zp-+P+-wq0 3+-+QvL-+-0 2PzP-+-+PzP0 1+K+R+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¦
¥ ¦
¥
¦ ¥
¥
¥ ¤
£
£ £
£
¤
¤
£
£
£ ¦
¢ ¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+k+0 7+-+-+-+-0 6-sN-tR-+pzp0 5zp-+Pzp-wq-0 4-zp-+Ptrl+0 3+-+-+-wQ-0 2PzP-+-+PzP0 1+K+-+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤
¦
£ ÷ ¤ ¥ ¦
£
£
¤
¢
¤
¦
¤
¦
¦
¦
¦
£
¢
£
¤
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-tr-+-+k+0 7+-+l+-+-0 6-+RzP-wqpzp0 5zp-+-zp-+-0 4-zpNtr-+-zP0 3+-+-+-wQ-0 2PzP-+-+P+0 1mK-tR-+-+-0 xabcdefghy £ ¦
¥
¦ £ ¤ ¢ ¢ ¥
£ ¦
¦
¥
¤
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
¤ ¥
¤ ¥
¥ ¤
¤ ¢
¥
¤
¤ ¤
¥ ¦
¥ ¥ £
¦
¤ £ ¤ ²
¦
¤ ¥
¥
¥ ¤
¤ ¦
¥ ¤
¥
¦
¦
¦
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+rwq-trk+0 7zp-+-zppvl-0 6-+-+-snpzp0 5+-+P+-+-0 4-zp-+N+-+0 3+-+Q+-vLP0 2PzP-+-zPP+0 1+-+RtR-mK-0 xabcdefghy £ £ ¦
¤
¥
¥
¥
¦
¦
£
£
¦
£
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-tr-+k+0 7zp-+-+p+-0 6-wq-+-+pwQ0 5+-+ptR-+-0 4-zpr+-zP-+0 3+-+R+-+P0 2PzP-+-+P+0 1+-+-+-mK-0 xabcdefghy ¢
£ ¦
¦
¦
£
£
£
£
¢
¦
¦
¦
¦ ²
¥ £
¤
¥ ¥
¤ ¤
¥
¤
¤ ¥
¤
¤
¤ ¤ ²
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+k+-tr0 7zppzpq+-vlp0 6-+nzp-+pvL0 5+-+-zpp+n0 4-+P+P+-zP0 3+-sNP+PzP-0 2PzP-wQN+L+0 1tR-+-mK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¥
£
¥
£
¤ £
¤
¤
²
¤
¥
¤
µ
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+l+-trk+0 7zppzpq+-vlp0 6-+-zp-+pvL0 5+-+-+-+n0 4-+PzpP+-zP0 3+-+-+PzP-0 2PzP-wQN+L+0 1+-mKR+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ ¥ ¤ ¤
µ ¦ ³
¤
¤
¥
£
¤
¤
¦
¤
¥
¥
£
£
£
¢
¥
¤
¥
¥
¤
£
¥
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-wqk+-tr0 7zpp+nzppvlp0 6-+pzp-snp+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+PzP-+P+0 3+-sN-vLP+-0 2PzP-wQLzP-zP0 1tR-+-mK-+R0 xabcdefghy £
¢
¦ ¤
¦
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trr+-+kvl0 7zp-+nzpp+-0 6-+pzp-snpvL0 5wqp+-+-+-0 4-+PzP-+P+0 3+-sN-+P+-0 2PzP-wQLzP-+0 1+K+R+-+R0 xabcdefghy
¤
£ £ ¤ £
¢
¦
¤
¥
¤ ¦
¦
¢
£
¢
‚
£
¦
£
¤ ¥
¦
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trr+-+kvl0 7zp-+nzpp+-0 6-+pzp-+pvL0 5+P+n+-wQ-0 4-wq-zP-+P+0 3+-sN-+P+-0 2PzP-+LzP-+0 1+K+R+-+R0 xabcdefghy £
£
™ ¤
£
¤
¢
¥
£ £ £ £
¥ £
¥
¥
¥
¢
¥
¤
£
¤
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trr+-+kvl0 7zp-+nzpp+-0 6-+pzp-snpvL0 5wqp+N+-+-0 4-+PzP-+P+0 3+-+-+P+-0 2PzP-wQLzP-+0 1+K+R+-+R0 xabcdefghy
¤
¦
¦
¢
£
™
¤
¥
¥
£
£
¥
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trr+-+kvl0 7zp-+nzpp+-0 6-wqp+-snpvL0 5+-+p+-+-0 4-+-zP-sNP+0 3+-+L+P+-0 2PzP-wQ-zP-+0 1+K+R+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¥
¤ £
¢ ¦
£
£
¤
¤
¤
XIIIIIIIIY 8-trr+-+-vl0 7zp-+nzpk+-0 6-wqp+-+-vL0 5+-+pzP-+-0 4-+-+-+P+0 3+-+-+P+-0 2PzP-wQ-zP-+0 1+K+R+-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤ £
¢
¤ ¦
¦
£
£
£ ¤ ¥ £
¢ £
£ £
£
¥
¦
¢
¤
£
¢
£
¢
¢
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+-+-+-+0 7+ktr-+-+-0 6-+p+P+-+0 5+-+p+P+-0 4-vL-+-+P+0 3+p+-+P+-0 2PmK-+-+-+0 1+-+R+-+-0 xabcdefghy ¢
¦
¢
¦
¦ ¦
¢
¦
¢
¦
¢
¦
¢
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-tr-tr0 7+p+-+-+-0 6-+-zp-+kzp0 5zp-zp-+-zpN0 4qsnPzpP+P+0 3+-+P+-+R0 2-wQ-mK-+-+0 1+-+-+-+R0 xabcdefghy
¢
¦
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqk+-tr0 7+pzp-+p+-0 6p+nzp-+-zp0 5+-vl-zp-zpn0 4-+L+P+-+0 3+-zPP+NvL-0 2PzP-sN-zPPzP0 1tR-+QmK-+R0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-trk+0 7+-+-tRNvl-0 6-wq-zp-+p+0 5+-+Pzp-+p0 4-+-+P+-+0 3+-+-+-zP-0 2-tr-+l+LzP0 1+-wQ-+R+K0 xabcdefghy
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-tr-tr0 7+p+-+-+-0 6-+-zp-+kzp0 5zp-zp-+-zpN0 4qsnPzpP+P+0 3+-+P+-+R0 2-wQ-mK-+-+0 1+-+-+-+R0 xabcdefghy
¢
¦
¦
¢
¢
£
£
¤
¦
¤
¦
¦
¦
¢
¦
XIIIIIIIIY 8r+lwqk+-tr0 7+pzp-+p+-0 6p+nzp-+-zp0 5+-vl-zp-zpn0 4-+L+P+-+0 3+-zPP+NvL-0 2PzP-sN-zPPzP0 1tR-+QmK-+R0 xabcdefghy ¤
¤
¥
¢
¤ ¦
¢
¤
¢
£
£
£
¥
£
¢
¥
¢
¥
XIIIIIIIIY 8-+-+-trk+0 7+-+-tRNvl-0 6-wq-zp-+p+0 5+-+Pzp-+p0 4-+-+P+-+0 3+-+-+-zP-0 2-tr-+l+LzP0 1+-wQ-+R+K0 xabcdefghy ¤ £ ¢
¥ ¦
¥ £
¥
¤
¥ ¥
£
¦
¥
¥
¥
¥
¤
Quality Chess Puzzle Book By
John Shaw
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Sources
4 5
Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 2 – Contributions from our Readers Chapter 3 – Thematic Combinations Chapter 4 – Simple but not Easy Chapter 5 – Missed Opportunities Chapter 6 – Ivanchuk Chapter 7 – Blitz Games Chapter 8 – Winning the Endgame Chapter 9 – European Team Championship 2009 Chapter 10 – Drawing the Endgame Chapter 11 – Puzzles with Two Solutions Chapter 12 – Defence Chapter 13 – Puzzles with Pawn Promotion Chapter 14 – More Missed Opportunities Chapter 15 – Brain Crushers
7 19 31 79 127 145 159 167 187 201 213 223 241 257 277
Index of illustrative positions Index of Players in the Puzzles
343 344
Chapter 2 Contributions from our Readers In this chapter all the puzzles were generously sent to us by our readers. I hope this will create a new business model in chess publishing where our readers do all the work and I reap the benefits. Naturally, the positions demonstrate a range of themes. In general, the level of difficulty is lower than later in the book, so this chapter is a useful warm-up for what is to come. The first example was sent by Manfred Herbold of Germany. The tactic lands on move 8, but the opening moves are weird enough to be worth a look. Herbold – Mayer, Lampertheim 2002 1.¤c3 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.¤xe4 £d5 Black was determined to play a Scandinavian. 4.¤c3 £a5 5.b4 £xb4 6.¤b5 £a5 7.¥c4 c6? 7...¤f6 would have seriously challenged the soundness of White’s opening play.
1222222223 tMv+lVmT5 Oo+ OoOo5 +o+ + +5 Wn+ + + 5 +b+ + +5 + + + + 5 p+pP PpP5 R BqK Nr5 79
8.¥xf7†!! ¢xf7? Black really should decline the piece, even though 8...¢d8 9.¤c3± is unpleasant. 9.£h5† It was probably at this point that Black realized it is his queen not his king that is in trouble. 9...¢f6 In avoiding a knight check with a discovered attack on the queen, the black king sacrifices himself. The thematic line was 9...g6 10.¤d6† exd6 11.£xa5+–. 10.¥b2† e5 11.¥xe5† ¢e6 12.¤c7† ¢d7 13.£e8# The next position was supplied by Rui Marques of Portugal. It is White to play. There is no forced win, but there is definitely a correct way to play.
20
Quality Chess Puzzle Book Marques – Eggert, Lisbon (rapid) 2006
1222222223 +t+ Tl+5 O + WoO 5 O +o+ O5 + + P + 5 V O + +5 + Nq+ +r5 pPp+ PpP5 + + R K 5 79 22.¤e4! The best move even though Black can hang on with accurate play. 22...¥xe1? Black had to decline the offer with 22...¦fd8! creating a square for the king on f8. 23.¤f6† ¢f8 (23...gxf6?? 24.¦xh6+–) 24.£h7 £c7! Now I cannot find a forced win, e.g. 25.¦f3 gxf6 26.exf6 ¢e8 27.£g8† ¢d7 (27...¥f8?? 28.¦xe6†! fxe6 29.£xe6† ¥e7 30.f7† ¢f8 31.£xh6#) 28.£xf7† ¢c6 29.£xe6† ¢b7 30.c3 dxc3 31.£e4† £c6 32.£xb4 c2 33.¦c3 ¦d1 34.¦xc6 ¦xc6 35.£e7† ¦c7 36.£e4† ¦c6 37.£e7† ¦c7= 23.¤f6†! gxf6 24.¦xh6 ¥xf2†! The only try. 25.¢xf2 ¦xc2† Now the game continued 26.£xc2? f5 and Black eventually lost on time. White had to avoid 26.¢e1?? £b4† 27.¢d1 ¦fc8–+. The only way to win was 26.¢f1! when Black must give up his extra rook and a few pawns. 26...¦c1† 27.¢e2 ¦c2† 28.¢d1 ¦c1† 29.¢xc1 ¦c8† 30.¢b1 Black must lose f6, f7 and e6. For example, 30...£c5 31.£h7† ¢f8 32.£h8† ¢e7 33.£xf6† ¢d7 34.£xf7† ¢c6 and now either 35.¦xe6† or first 35.a4! will win eventually. Our final example before the puzzles was sent from Glasgow in Scotland. It is Black to play. Hellegaard – Aagaard, Denmark 2010
1222222223 + +tL T5 Oo+ +oOv5 Mo+ + O5 W +m+p+ 5 + P +p+5 +pOrNqNp5 p+p+b+ +5 +k+ + +r5 79 24...¦xe3!! The tempting 24...¤b4 is less convincing after 25.¦xc3 £xa2† 26.¢c1 and 24...£a3 is foiled, for the moment, by 25.¤d1. 25.¦xe3 £a3 26.¦xc3 ¤a4! 0–1
Chapter 2 - Contributions from our Readers Snuverink – Lindam, Gent 2004
1
2
3
21
NN – Rotella, Internet Blitz 2008
1222222223 + N +l+5 + + +oO 5 o+ PtM O5 +oV + + 5 + +t+ +5 +pP + +p5 + + +pB5 R + Rk+ 5 79
1222222223 +t+l+ T5 4 + +v+o+ 5 oW OoO +5 +o+ V + 5 + +pP +5 +bNq+ P 5 pPp+ +k+5 + +rR + 5 79
Schnoor – Peterson, Dresden 2007
Rotella – NN, Internet Blitz 2008
1222222223 +t+ + T5 +q+ +oL 5 o+ +o+ +5 +v+o+ +w5 + + + +5 P +bP P 5 + R + P5 + + +rK 5 79
1222222223 v+ WtVl+5 5 + + +o+o5 M + Po+5 + O + + 5 + +p+ +5 +q+ +nN 5 B + PpP5 + + R K 5 79
De Crop – Van Vliet, Brasschaat 2007
Dabo-Peranic – Kozul, Croatia (rapid) 2007
1222222223 t+ + V Q5 Oo+ +lO 5 + + +o+5 + +oP +m5 + + + W5 + +bBp+v5 pP + + P5 R + +rK 5 79
1222222223 t+vM VmT5 6 + +lW Oo5 oB + + +5 + +p+o+ 5 pO +n+ +5 + + + + 5 Pp+qPpP5 R + Kb+r5 79
22
Solutions 1-6
(1) J. Snuverink – Ingo Lindam, Gent 2004 Black went into the ending with an extra piece and an extra pawn after a nice combination, but then failed to get the most out of his investment. 30...¤g4! A nice shot. 31.¦xe4 The only move. 31.hxg4 ¦f6† is mate. 31...¤xh2† 32.¢e2 ¦xe4† 33.¢d3 ¦e3† 34.¢d2 ¦e5 34...¦g3!–+ won easily. 35.¤b7 ¦d5† 36.¢e2 ¥xd6 37.¤xd6 ¦xd6 38.¦h1 a5? Only here is the win put in jeopardy. Black could win easily with 38...¦g6! 39.¦xh2 ¦g3 40.¢d2 b4 41.cxb4 ¦xb3 42.¦h1 ¦xb4–+ and two extra pawns are plenty. 39.¦xh2 a4 40.bxa4 bxa4 41.¦h1µ White has a fighting chance, but should probably still lose. Black however is having a bad day. 41...¦e6† 42.¢d3 ¦g6 43.g4 h5 44.gxh5 ¦a6 45.¦a1 a3 46.¢c4 f5 47.¢b5 ¦a8 48.c4 f4 49.c5 f3 50.c6 a2 51.c7 f2 52.¢b6 ¢h7 53.¢b7 ¦f8 54.c8=£ f1=£?! This is unnecessary. Black could make a simple draw with: 54...¦xc8 55.¢xc8 ¢h6 56.¢d7 ¢xh5 57.¢e6 ¢h4 58.¢f5 ¢xh3 59.¢f4 ¢g2 60.¦xa2= 55.¦xf1 ¦xf1 56.£c2† Black resigned, which is the most calamitous calamity of them all. The position is a fortress. With the rook on f6, ready to go to h6, and the king on h8 or h7, the combined might of the Quality Chess office has been unable to find a win. 1–0 (2) Ekkehard Schnoor – Eric Peterson, Dresden 2007 White played 28.¥xb5? axb5 29.£xb5² and held a slight edge for a while. (0–1, 107). Later he regretted not playing 28.g4!, when Black cannot hold the defence of f7 and White simply wins. For example: 28...£xg4† 29.¦g2 and the queen is lost. (3) R. De Crop – D. van Vliet, Brasschaat 2007 Black won an important tempo for only a rook. 20...¥c5! 21.£xa8 £g5† White is mated. 0–1 (4) NN – Tony Rotella, Internet Blitz 2008 21...¦h2†! Thematic and effective. 22.¢xh2 £f2† 23.¢h3 ¢e7 White resigned. 24.fxe5 ¦h8† 25.¢g4 f5† and mate is near. 0–1 (5) Tony Rotella – NN, Internet Blitz 2008 White is generally winning, but it is fun to end with a flourish: 23.£xf7†! ¢xf7 23...¢h8 24.¤g5 £d7 is equally hopeless. 25.£xe8! is the most effective, and also the most stylish. 24.¤g5† ¢g8 25.f7# 1–0 (6) Robert Dabo-Peranic – Zdenko Kozul, Croatia (rapid) 2007 White has played the game brilliantly, and now mated the former European Champion with a queen sacrifice. A real-life dream scenario: 17.£b5†! 1–0
Chapter 2 - Contributions from our Readers Sullivan – Rousseau, Montreal 2003
7
1222222223 LtT + +5 OoR + + 5 + + W O5 + + + O 5 +r+ + +5 + + + P 5 +pQ PpK5 + + + + 5 79 Ortkamp – Neuer, Germany 1981
8
1222222223 + + + +5 Oo+ +lOo5 +o+oTmW5 + + +o+ 5 + P + +5 +bP +pP 5 pP +q+k+5 + + + R 5 79 Wyss – Rölli, Switzerland (ch) 2008
9
1222222223 tMvT + +5 +o+mLoO 5 o+ +o+ O5 + + P + 5 w+ Nn+ +5 +r+ + + 5 p+pQb+pP5 + + K +r5 79
23
Lindam – Weber, Germany 1991
1222222223 t+v+ W T510 OoLo+nOo5 +m+ + +5 + +q+ + 5 + P + +5 + P + + 5 pP N Pp+5 + K R + 5 79 Lindam – Smithers, Correspondence 2003
1222222223 tM Wl+mT511 Oo+ VoOv5 + +o+ O5 + +oPp+ 5 + O Np+5 + N + + 5 pPp+ +b+5 R Bq+k+r5 79 Robiolle – Muneret, France 2008
1222222223 t+v+tVl+512 +oW +o+o5 o+ +o+o+5 + +m+ + 5 + + +nQ5 + Bb+ +p5 pPp+ Pp+5 + +r+rK 5 79
24
Solutions 7-12
(7) Neil Sullivan – Daniel Rousseau, Montreal 2003 White took control over the 7th and 8th ranks with the brutal 26.£d7!!, forcing immediate resignation. 1–0 (8) Hans-Georg Ortkamp – Thomas Neuer, Germany 1981 Black won with a fine shot. 27...¤f4†! 28.gxf4 ¦g6† 29.¢f2 White is lost. After 29.¢f1 Black has 29...£h3†! forcing the win of material. 29...£h2† 30.¢e3 £xe2† 31.¢xe2 ¦xg1 0–1 (9) Jonas Wyss – Sabrina Rölli, Swiss Championship 2008 With the black king in the centre it is not a surprise that there is a direct win. It is also not a surprise that it is brutal and sacrificial. 17.¤xe6! fxe6 18.£d6† ¢f7 19.¤g5†! Not the only win, but a nice way to own the light squares. White also wins after 19.0–0† ¢g8 20.¦g3! with a winning attack. For example: 20...¢h8 21.¦xg7!+– 19...hxg5 20.0–0† ¢g6 21.¦h3! Accurate till the end. Black is mated. 21...g4 22.£xe6† ¤f6 23.¦xf6† ¢g5 24.¦f5# 1–0 (10) Ingo Lindam – Michael Weber, Germany 1991 White has a promising position and can take back the sacrificed exchange. But instead he found an instant winner: 21.¦e8!! £xe8 Nothing else makes any sense. 22.£d6† ¢b6 23.¤c4† Black resigned, facing mate-in-three. 1–0 (11) Ingo Lindam – Steven Smithers, Correspondence 2003 White wins material with a neat little twist. 13.fxe6! dxc3 There is no alternative. 14.exf7† ¢xf7 15.£xd5†! The point. The rook an a8 cannot be defended after the queens come off. 1–0 (12) J.M. Robiolle – M. Muneret, France 2008 22.¥xg6! The most effective solution. White is also winning after 22.¥e5 £e7 23.¥f6!, when Black should give up the exchange. 22...fxg6 23.¦xd5! exd5 23...¥g7 was possible, but after 24.¤f6† or 24.¥xg7 £xg7 25.¤f6† Black is dead anyway. 24.¤f6† Black resigned. A possible line was: 24...¢f7 25.£xh7† ¥g7 26.£xg7†! 1–0
Chapter 2 - Contributions from our Readers Soszynski – Henderson, Nottingham 1999
13
1222222223 t+v+t+lV5 + +m+o+ 5 o+ O MoB5 Wo+pO + 5 + +p+ +5 + N + N 5 pP QbPp+5 + R K +r5 79 Ljubicic – Peranic, Croatia 2000
14
1222222223 + L T T5 +o+ +o+ 5 o+oP No+5 + + +m+o5 + P + +5 + P + +p5 pP Kr+ +5 + + +r+ 5 79 Sanchez – Semprun, Spain 2006
15
1222222223 b+ + +l+5 + + +o+ 5 v+ +o+ +5 + + + O 5 + +p+ +5 + Q + +k5 Pp+ +pP5 + W + + 5 79
25
Gardner – Scoones, Canada 1985
1222222223 + + + +516 + W + +l5 + No+oO5 + + Po+ 5 q+ + + +5 P + +tP 5 + +m+ P5 R + + +k5 79 Papatryfonos – Bibby, Calvia (ol) 2004
1222222223 t+ T +l+517 + P WoOo5 P + M +5 O M + + 5 + + + +5 Q +o+pP 5 p+p+p+bP5 R + K Nr5 79 Bemrose – Ramachandran, Australia 2005
1222222223 r+ + + +518 + W OtLo5 T M Mo+5 + + + + 5 O + + +5 + O QbNp5 Pp+ Pp+5 + +r+ K 5 79
26
Solutions 13-18
(13) Marek Soszynski – B. Henderson, Nottingham 1999 White has a promising position, but to be able to exploit the weaknesses on the kingside and in the centre at the same time requires violence. 17.¤f5! ¤xe4 Trying to make it to an ending, but there is no happiness there either. The more critical 17...b4 is best met with 18.¥f8! (although 18.¤xd6!? also wins) 18...¤h5 19.¦xh5! gxh5 20.¥xd6 and the black king lacks a defence. Black cannot take on c3, as it would allow the rook to quickly reroute to g3 with terminal effect. 18.¤xe4 £xd2† 19.¢xd2 gxf5 20.¤xd6 Complete collapse. 20...¦d8 21.¥h5 ¤f6 22.¥xf7† ¢h7 23.¥f8† ¤h5 24.¦xh5# 1–0 (14) Filip Ljubicic – Robert Dabo Peranic, Croatia 2000 34.¦xf5! gxf5 35.d7! Black is paralysed. White is in no hurry to give the check on e8, but first brings the king to f5. 35...¦hg8 36.¢e1 h4 37.¢f2 Black resigned. 37...a5 38.¢f3+– 1–0 (15) Lidia Sanchez – Fernando Semprun, Spain 2006 Black organizes a surprise mating attack with a few clever twists. 28...e5! 29.¥d5 29.£f3 loses to the nice line: 29...£e1! 30.£g4 £e3† 31.£f3 g4†!! 32.¢xg4 ¥e2–+ 29...£f4 The quickest way to mate, but Black was also winning after: 29...g4†!? 30.¢xg4 ¥e2†–+ 30.¥xf7† ¢g7 0–1 (16) David Gardner – Dan Scoones, Canada 1985 Black managed to unsettle the white pieces with a lovely punch. 46...¦xa3! White resigned. After 47.¦xa3 £c1† 48.¢g2 £g1† 49.¢f3 ¤d4† Black would win the queen. 0–1 (17) Constatinos Papatryfonos – Simon Bibby, Calvia Olympiad 2004 Black is able to give up a lot of pieces, as his opponent’s king is in trouble. 19...d2†! 19...¤ce4 20.cxd8=£† ¦xd8 21.£xd3!µ is less clear. 20.¢d1 ¤ce4! An elegant solution. Black could also win with: 20...¤d5!? 21.cxd8=£† ¦xd8 22.e4 ¤a4!!–+ 21.fxe4 Resignation. 21.cxd8=£† ¦xd8 changes nothing. 21.£e3 ¤d5! is another way to end the game. 21...£xa3 22.cxd8=£† ¦xd8 23.¤f3 £b2 0–1 (18) Trevor Bemrose – Rajendran Ramachandran, Australia 2005 White has a good position, but to win it still requires work. White did this with a nice shot. 26.¦xd6! ¦xd6 Black saw no reason to fight on with a piece less. 27.¤f5†! gxf5 28.£g5#1–0
Chapter 2 - Contributions from our Readers Lindam – Renner, Stuttgart 1995
19
1222222223 tM WlV T5 Oo+ + Oo5 +o+oM +5 + +oN + 5 + P + +5 + +q+ +r5 pPp+pP +5 RnB K + 5 79 Cooper – Stimpson, England 2004
20
1222222223 + + Tl+5 O + +oOo5 q+p+ M +5 + V Mw+ 5 + + + T5 + N + P 5 pP +bP P5 R B +rK 5 79 King – Marques, Internet Blitz 2008
21
1222222223 + + + T5 O V +vL 5 + + O +5 + Pb+ O 5 P Q + +5 + N + +p5 p+ +r+k+5 + W + + 5 79
27
Van Vliet – Roos, Belgium 2007
1222222223 t+vWt+ L522 + + +oO 5 +oO M O5 + Or+ + 5 o+p+ P +5 PpQbP + 5 B + P P5 + + K R 5 79 Swede – Hannum, Café (friendly) 2008
1222222223 + W + L523 O + + Oo5 + V + T5 + +r+ + 5 + + T +5 + Np+ + 5 pPq+ PpP5 + + +rK 5 79 Semprun – Faller, England 1983
1222222223 + + Tl+524 +o+vBo+ 5 + Oo+ +5 +w+ V +o5 + +p+o+5 +nP + + 5 pP Q + +5 + Kr+ + 5 79
28
Solutions 19-24
(19) Ingo Lindam – Kai Renner, Stuttgart 1995 White wins with a classic king hunt. 10.¦xh7! ¦xh7 11.£g6† ¢e7 12.£f7† ¢d6 13.¤c4† dxc4 14.¥f4† ¢d5 15.¤c3† ¢xd4 16.0–0–0† ¢c5 17.¥e3† The queen is not enough. The rest is a bit silly, but still fun. 17...¢b4 18.£xb7† £b6 19.¥xb6 g6 20.¥c7† 20.a3# 20...¢c5 21.¤a4# 1–0 (20) L. Cooper – P.M. Stimpson, England 2004 Black is very active, but his attack could quickly lose momentum. In the game he made sure this did not happen. 19...£h3!! 20.gxh4 ¤f3†! Blocking the f-pawn. These two great moves could of course be inverted. 21.¥xf3 ¥d6 White cannot avoid mate. 22.¦d1 ¥xh2† 23.¢h1 ¥g3† 24.¢g1 £h2† 25.¢f1 £xf2# 0–1 (21) Jens K. King – Marques, Internet Blitz 2008 Although only an Internet blitz game, Black found a wonderful combination. 32...¦xh3!! 33.¢xh3 There is no reason not to take the rook. After something like 33.¤d1, Black wins trivially: 33...¦h2† 34.¢f1 ¦xe2 35.¢xe2 £c2† 36.¢e1 ¥g3† 37.¢f1 £f5†–+ 33...£f1†! The important follow-up check. White is mated. 34.¥g2 White cannot elude his fate: 34.¦g2 is best met with: 34...¥e6†!! 35.¥xe6 £f3† 36.¦g3 £xg3#; 34.¢g4 ¥h5†! 35.¢xh5 £h3† 36.£h4 £xh4#] 34...£f5† White resigned. The next check is on h7, and it hurts. 0–1 (22) D. van Vliet – A. Roos, Belgium 2007 White needs to strike or cry. A fancy move like 19.¦h5 only leads to a perpetual check, but White can strike much harder with: 19.£xf6!! £xf6 This does not change much. 19...gxf6 20.¦h5 and Black is mated. 20.¥xf6 cxd5 21.¦xg7 ¦e4 The only way to avoid mate, but not a way to live. 22.cxd5 ¥f5 23.¦g5† ¢h7 24.¦xf5 ¦ae8 25.¥e5 1–0 (23) A. Swede – W. Hannum, Café Friendly 2008 A sudden chance, and Black created a little masterpiece. 24...¦xh2!! 25.g3 The only attempt. 25.¢xh2 is refuted by thematic means: 25...¦h4† 26.¢g1 ¦h1† 27.¢xh1 £h4† 28.¢g1 £h2# 25...£h4!! But this ends all discussion. 26.gxh4 ¦g4# 0–1 (24) Fernando Semprun – A. Faller, England 1983 White would like to play 25.£g5†, but after 25...¥g7! the queen on b5 would interfere and give Black the edge. Instead White found a tricky little deflection in 25.a4! forcing Black to resign in view of the mate. 1–0
Chapter 2 - Contributions from our Readers NN – Rotella, Internet Blitz 2008
25
1222222223 t+ Wt+ +5 OoO +lOo5 +m+ M +5 + + +v+ 5 VpP + +5 + N Bp+ 5 pP + KpP5 R +q+bNr5 79 Rotella – NN, Internet (rapid) 2008
26
1222222223 tMv+ Tl+5 Oo+ +o+o5 + P +o+5 + O + B 5 +bV + +5 W + + + 5 p+ + +pP5 + Rq+r+k5 79
Mihoci – Ziskovic, Croatia 2004
29
1222222223 t+ + T L527 Oo+m+ O 5 W +o+ O5 + + + +q5 P V + +5 P + + + 5 + B PpP5 +bR +rK 5 79
30
Solutions 25-27
(25) NN – Tony Rotella, Internet Blitz 2008 Black won with a demolition on the dark squares. 10...¦xe3! 11.¢xe3 ¥c2!! The really brilliant move, luring the queen to a worse square. 11...¤xd4!?µ is very good for Black, but not as direct. 12.£d2 12.£xc2 £xd4† 13.¢e2 ¥xc3 14.bxc3 ¦e8†–+ is hopeless. 12...¤g4†! 13.fxg4 13.¢e2 £e7† and the queen is gone. 13...£g5† The point. 14.¢f2 In blitz, who can blame him. 14.¢e2 ¦e8† 14...£xd2† 15.¤ge2 ¤xd4 16.¦e1 ¦e8 0–1 (26) Tony Rotella – NN, Internet (rapid) game 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 ¥g7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.¤f3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.¥e2 exd5 9.cxd5 ¦e8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 ¤g4 12.¥g5 £b6 13.0–0 ¤xe5 14.¤xe5 ¥xe5 15.¥c4 £xb2 16.d6 ¦f8 17.¦c1 ¥xc3 18.¦b1 ¥d4† 19.¢h1 £c3 20.¦c1 £a3 21.¦xf7!! This attack was all home preparation. However, this does not reduce the pleasure for the player in executing it. 21...¦xf7 22.£e2! The dual threat of £e8† and ¥xf7† followed by £e7† is too much to handle. The queen is by the way better placed on e2 than on e1, as was played in two games. The main difference is that the defence attempted by Black in this game would be far more successful, as White would lack £c4 in the end. 22...£a4 The other line runs: 22...¥e3 23.¥xe3 ¢g7 24.¥xf7 ¢xf7 (24...¥g4 25.£d2) 25.¦f1† ¢g7 26.¥c1+– 23.¥xf7† ¢g7 23...¢xf7 24.£e7† ¢g8 25.¥h6 is just mate. 24.¥b3! £d7 25.¦xc5!! Another great shot. 25...¤c6 Or 25...¥xc5 26.£e5† ¢f8 27.£h8#. 26.¦xc6! bxc6 27.£c4 Black resigned. 1–0 (27) Ivica Mihoci – Nikola Ziskovic, Croatia 2004 The first move is easy, but the subsequent win is very hard to find. It all ends in a rook ending where White has to show a bit of accuracy to win. 26.¥xh6! This is easy enough, and in the game Black did not make it harder than this. 26...¥xf2†? This loses quickly, as the rook can come to c3. The accurate defence was 26...¤f6, and now 27.£h3, 27.£g5 and 27.¥xg7†! all lead to the same position after a few checks. 27...¢xg7 28.£g6† ¢h8 Here White cannot do more damage with the pieces he does have in the attack, but he can bring more in. It is not possible for Black to get rid of the queen from g6. 29.¦cd1!! ¦ac8 The only defence. 30.¦d3 ¦c3 31.¦fd1 ¦fc8 It seems as if Black has managed to keep control, but the set-up of his pieces is fragile. 32.£g5!! With the threat £h4† and £xd4. Black has no easy way to meet this. 32...¤h7 The best among not many options. (32...¦d8 is well met with the curious 33.¢f1!! threatening £h4† and ¦xc3, without having any irritating ...¥xf2† interfering. And 32...e5 is refuted with 33.¦xc3 ¥xc3 34.£h6† and the opening of the a2-g8 diagonal is lethal.) 33.£h4 Here Black has a real choice for once. Probably best is 33...¥xf2† to keep some pieces on the board. (After 33...¦xd3 34.¥xd3 ¦c7 35.¥xh7 ¥xf2† 36.£xf2 £xf2† 37.¢xf2 ¢xh7 38.¦d6 White has a winning rook ending. 38...¦c2† 39.¢f3 ¦c3† 40.¢e4 ¦xa3 41.¦xe6 ¦a4 42.¦e7† ¢g6 43.¦xb7 a5 44.¦b6† ¢g7 45.¢f5 axb4 46.g4 ¦a5† 47.¢f4 ¦a4 48.h4 b3† 49.¢g3+–) 34.£xf2 £xf2† 35.¢xf2 ¤f6 36.¦e1+–, but the extra pawn still needs to be converted in practical play. 27.¢h1 ¤f6 28.¥xg7† ¢xg7 29.£g6† ¢h8 30.¦c3 1–0
Chapter 2 - Contribution from our Readers Snuverink – Lindam, Gent 2004
1
2
3
51
NN – Rotella, Internet Blitz 2008
1222222223 + N +l+5 + + +oO 5 o+ PtM O5 +oV + + 5 + +t+ +5 +pP + +p5 + + +pB5 R + Rk+ 5 79
1222222223 +t+l+ T5 4 + +v+o+ 5 oW OoO +5 +o+ V + 5 + +pP +5 +bNq+ P 5 pPp+ +k+5 + +rR + 5 79
Schnoor – Peterson, Dresden 2007
Rotella – NN, Internet Blitz 2008
1222222223 +t+ + T5 +q+ +oL 5 o+ +o+ +5 +v+o+ +w5 + + + +5 P +bP P 5 + R + P5 + + +rK 5 79
1222222223 v+ WtVl+5 5 + + +o+o5 M + Po+5 + O + + 5 + +p+ +5 +q+ +nN 5 B + PpP5 + + R K 5 79
De Crop – Van Vliet, Brasschaat 2007
Dabo-Peranic – Kozul, Croatia (rapid) 2007
1222222223 t+ + V Q5 Oo+ +lO 5 + + +o+5 + +oP +m5 + + + W5 + +bBp+v5 pP + + P5 R + +rK 5 79
1222222223 t+vM VmT5 6 + +lW Oo5 oB + + +5 + +p+o+ 5 pO +n+ +5 + + + + 5 Pp+qPpP5 R + Kb+r5 79
52
Solutions 1-6
(1) J. Snuverink – Ingo Lindam, Gent 2004 Black went into the ending with an extra piece and an extra pawn after a nice combination, but then failed to get the most out of his investment. 30...¤g4! A nice shot. 31.¦xe4 The only move. 31.hxg4 ¦f6† is mate. 31...¤xh2† 32.¢e2 ¦xe4† 33.¢d3 ¦e3† 34.¢d2 ¦e5 34...¦g3!–+ won easily. 35.¤b7 ¦d5† 36.¢e2 ¥xd6 37.¤xd6 ¦xd6 38.¦h1 a5? Only here is the win put in jeopardy. Black could win easily with 38...¦g6! 39.¦xh2 ¦g3 40.¢d2 b4 41.cxb4 ¦xb3 42.¦h1 ¦xb4–+ and two extra pawns are plenty. 39.¦xh2 a4 40.bxa4 bxa4 41.¦h1µ White has a fighting chance, but should probably still lose. Black however is having a bad day. 41...¦e6† 42.¢d3 ¦g6 43.g4 h5 44.gxh5 ¦a6 45.¦a1 a3 46.¢c4 f5 47.¢b5 ¦a8 48.c4 f4 49.c5 f3 50.c6 a2 51.c7 f2 52.¢b6 ¢h7 53.¢b7 ¦f8 54.c8=£ f1=£?! This is unnecessary. Black could make a simple draw with: 54...¦xc8 55.¢xc8 ¢h6 56.¢d7 ¢xh5 57.¢e6 ¢h4 58.¢f5 ¢xh3 59.¢f4 ¢g2 60.¦xa2= 55.¦xf1 ¦xf1 56.£c2† Black resigned, which is the most calamitous calamity of them all. The position is a fortress. With the rook on f6, ready to go to h6, and the king on h8 or h7, the combined might of the Quality Chess office has been unable to find a win. 1–0 (2) Ekkehard Schnoor – Eric Peterson, Dresden 2007 White played 28.¥xb5? axb5 29.£xb5² and held a slight edge for a while. (0–1, 107). Later he regretted not playing 28.g4!, when Black cannot hold the defence of f7 and White simply wins. For example: 28...£xg4† 29.¦g2 and the queen is lost. (3) R. De Crop – D. van Vliet, Brasschaat 2007 Black won an important tempo for only a rook. 20...¥c5! 21.£xa8 £g5† White is mated. 0–1 (4) NN – Tony Rotella, Internet Blitz 2008 21...¦h2†! Thematic and effective. 22.¢xh2 £f2† 23.¢h3 ¢e7 White resigned. 24.fxe5 ¦h8† 25.¢g4 f5† and mate is near. 0–1 (5) Tony Rotella – NN, Internet Blitz 2008 White is generally winning, but it is fun to end with a flourish: 23.£xf7†! ¢xf7 23...¢h8 24.¤g5 £d7 is equally hopeless. 25.£xe8! is the most effective, and also the most stylish. 24.¤g5† ¢g8 25.f7# 1–0 (6) Robert Dabo-Peranic – Zdenko Kozul, Croatia (rapid) 2007 White has played the game brilliantly, and now mated the former European Champion with a queen sacrifice. A real-life dream scenario: 17.£b5†! 1–0
Chapter 2 - Contribution from our Readers Sullivan – Rousseau, Montreal 2003
7
1222222223 LtT + +5 OoR + + 5 + + W O5 + + + O 5 +r+ + +5 + + + P 5 +pQ PpK5 + + + + 5 79 Ortkamp – Neuer, Germany 1981
8
1222222223 + + + +5 Oo+ +lOo5 +o+oTmW5 + + +o+ 5 + P + +5 +bP +pP 5 pP +q+k+5 + + + R 5 79 Wyss – Rölli, Switzerland (ch) 2008
9
1222222223 tMvT + +5 +o+mLoO 5 o+ +o+ O5 + + P + 5 w+ Nn+ +5 +r+ + + 5 p+pQb+pP5 + + K +r5 79
53
Lindam – Weber, Germany 1991
1222222223 t+v+ W T510 OoLo+nOo5 +m+ + +5 + +q+ + 5 + P + +5 + P + + 5 pP N Pp+5 + K R + 5 79 Lindam – Smithers, Correspondence 2003
1222222223 tM Wl+mT511 Oo+ VoOv5 + +o+ O5 + +oPp+ 5 + O Np+5 + N + + 5 pPp+ +b+5 R Bq+k+r5 79 Robiolle – Muneret, France 2008
1222222223 t+v+tVl+512 +oW +o+o5 o+ +o+o+5 + +m+ + 5 + + +nQ5 + Bb+ +p5 pPp+ Pp+5 + +r+rK 5 79
54
Solutions 7-12
(7) Neil Sullivan – Daniel Rousseau, Montreal 2003 White took control over the 7th and 8th ranks with the brutal 26.£d7!!, forcing immediate resignation. 1–0 (8) Hans-Georg Ortkamp – Thomas Neuer, Germany 1981 Black won with a fine shot. 27...¤f4†! 28.gxf4 ¦g6† 29.¢f2 White is lost. After 29.¢f1 Black has 29...£h3†! forcing the win of material. 29...£h2† 30.¢e3 £xe2† 31.¢xe2 ¦xg1 0–1 (9) Jonas Wyss – Sabrina Rölli, Swiss Championship 2008 With the black king in the centre it is not a surprise that there is a direct win. It is also not a surprise that it is brutal and sacrificial. 17.¤xe6! fxe6 18.£d6† ¢f7 19.¤g5†! Not the only win, but a nice way to own the light squares. White also wins after 19.0–0† ¢g8 20.¦g3! with a winning attack. For example: 20...¢h8 21.¦xg7!+– 19...hxg5 20.0–0† ¢g6 21.¦h3! Accurate till the end. Black is mated. 21...g4 22.£xe6† ¤f6 23.¦xf6† ¢g5 24.¦f5# 1–0 (10) Ingo Lindam – Michael Weber, Germany 1991 White has a promising position and can take back the sacrificed exchange. But instead he found an instant winner: 21.¦e8!! £xe8 Nothing else makes any sense. 22.£d6† ¢b6 23.¤c4† Black resigned, facing mate-in-three. 1–0 (11) Ingo Lindam – Steven Smithers, Correspondence 2003 White wins material with a neat little twist. 13.fxe6! dxc3 There is no alternative. 14.exf7† ¢xf7 15.£xd5†! The point. The rook an a8 cannot be defended after the queens come off. 1–0 (12) J.M. Robiolle – M. Muneret, France 2008 22.¥xg6! The most effective solution. White is also winning after 22.¥e5 £e7 23.¥f6!, when Black should give up the exchange. 22...fxg6 23.¦xd5! exd5 23...¥g7 was possible, but after 24.¤f6† or 24.¥xg7 £xg7 25.¤f6† Black is dead anyway. 24.¤f6† Black resigned. A possible line was: 24...¢f7 25.£xh7† ¥g7 26.£xg7†! 1–0
Chapter 2 - Contribution from our Readers Soszynski – Henderson, Nottingham 1999
13
1222222223 t+v+t+lV5 + +m+o+ 5 o+ O MoB5 Wo+pO + 5 + +p+ +5 + N + N 5 pP QbPp+5 + R K +r5 79 Ljubicic – Peranic, Croatia 2000
14
1222222223 + L T T5 +o+ +o+ 5 o+oP No+5 + + +m+o5 + P + +5 + P + +p5 pP Kr+ +5 + + +r+ 5 79 Sanchez – Semprun, Spain 2006
15
1222222223 b+ + +l+5 + + +o+ 5 v+ +o+ +5 + + + O 5 + +p+ +5 + Q + +k5 Pp+ +pP5 + W + + 5 79
55
Gardner – Scoones, Canada 1985
1222222223 + + + +516 + W + +l5 + No+oO5 + + Po+ 5 q+ + + +5 P + +tP 5 + +m+ P5 R + + +k5 79 Papatryfonos – Bibby, Calvia (ol) 2004
1222222223 t+ T +l+517 + P WoOo5 P + M +5 O M + + 5 + + + +5 Q +o+pP 5 p+p+p+bP5 R + K Nr5 79 Bemrose – Ramachandran, Australia 2005
1222222223 r+ + + +518 + W OtLo5 T M Mo+5 + + + + 5 O + + +5 + O QbNp5 Pp+ Pp+5 + +r+ K 5 79
56
Solutions 13-18
(13) Marek Soszynski – B. Henderson, Nottingham 1999 White has a promising position, but to be able to exploit the weaknesses on the kingside and in the centre at the same time requires violence. 17.¤f5! ¤xe4 Trying to make it to an ending, but there is no happiness there either. The more critical 17...b4 is best met with 18.¥f8! (although 18.¤xd6!? also wins) 18...¤h5 19.¦xh5! gxh5 20.¥xd6 and the black king lacks a defence. Black cannot take on c3, as it would allow the rook to quickly reroute to g3 with terminal effect. 18.¤xe4 £xd2† 19.¢xd2 gxf5 20.¤xd6 Complete collapse. 20...¦d8 21.¥h5 ¤f6 22.¥xf7† ¢h7 23.¥f8† ¤h5 24.¦xh5# 1–0 (14) Filip Ljubicic – Robert Dabo Peranic, Croatia 2000 34.¦xf5! gxf5 35.d7! Black is paralysed. White is in no hurry to give the check on e8, but first brings the king to f5. 35...¦hg8 36.¢e1 h4 37.¢f2 Black resigned. 37...a5 38.¢f3+– 1–0 (15) Lidia Sanchez – Fernando Semprun, Spain 2006 Black organizes a surprise mating attack with a few clever twists. 28...e5! 29.¥d5 29.£f3 loses to the nice line: 29...£e1! 30.£g4 £e3† 31.£f3 g4†!! 32.¢xg4 ¥e2–+ 29...£f4 The quickest way to mate, but Black was also winning after: 29...g4†!? 30.¢xg4 ¥e2†–+ 30.¥xf7† ¢g7 0–1 (16) David Gardner – Dan Scoones, Canada 1985 Black managed to unsettle the white pieces with a lovely punch. 46...¦xa3! White resigned. After 47.¦xa3 £c1† 48.¢g2 £g1† 49.¢f3 ¤d4† Black would win the queen. 0–1 (17) Constatinos Papatryfonos – Simon Bibby, Calvia Olympiad 2004 Black is able to give up a lot of pieces, as his opponent’s king is in trouble. 19...d2†! 19...¤ce4 20.cxd8=£† ¦xd8 21.£xd3!µ is less clear. 20.¢d1 ¤ce4! An elegant solution. Black could also win with: 20...¤d5!? 21.cxd8=£† ¦xd8 22.e4 ¤a4!!–+ 21.fxe4 Resignation. 21.cxd8=£† ¦xd8 changes nothing. 21.£e3 ¤d5! is another way to end the game. 21...£xa3 22.cxd8=£† ¦xd8 23.¤f3 £b2 0–1 (18) Trevor Bemrose – Rajendran Ramachandran, Australia 2005 White has a good position, but to win it still requires work. White did this with a nice shot. 26.¦xd6! ¦xd6 Black saw no reason to fight on with a piece less. 27.¤f5†! gxf5 28.£g5#1–0
Chapter 2 - Contribution from our Readers Lindam – Renner, Stuttgart 1995
19
1222222223 tM WlV T5 Oo+ + Oo5 +o+oM +5 + +oN + 5 + P + +5 + +q+ +r5 pPp+pP +5 RnB K + 5 79 Cooper – Stimpson, England 2004
20
1222222223 + + Tl+5 O + +oOo5 q+p+ M +5 + V Mw+ 5 + + + T5 + N + P 5 pP +bP P5 R B +rK 5 79 King – Marques, Internet Blitz 2008
21
1222222223 + + + T5 O V +vL 5 + + O +5 + Pb+ O 5 P Q + +5 + N + +p5 p+ +r+k+5 + W + + 5 79
57
Van Vliet – Roos, Belgium 2007
1222222223 t+vWt+ L522 + + +oO 5 +oO M O5 + Or+ + 5 o+p+ P +5 PpQbP + 5 B + P P5 + + K R 5 79 Swede – Hannum, Café (friendly) 2008
1222222223 + W + L523 O + + Oo5 + V + T5 + +r+ + 5 + + T +5 + Np+ + 5 pPq+ PpP5 + + +rK 5 79 Semprun – Faller, England 1983
1222222223 + + Tl+524 +o+vBo+ 5 + Oo+ +5 +w+ V +o5 + +p+o+5 +nP + + 5 pP Q + +5 + Kr+ + 5 79
58
Solutions 19-24
(19) Ingo Lindam – Kai Renner, Stuttgart 1995 White wins with a classic king hunt. 10.¦xh7! ¦xh7 11.£g6† ¢e7 12.£f7† ¢d6 13.¤c4† dxc4 14.¥f4† ¢d5 15.¤c3† ¢xd4 16.0–0–0† ¢c5 17.¥e3† The queen is not enough. The rest is a bit silly, but still fun. 17...¢b4 18.£xb7† £b6 19.¥xb6 g6 20.¥c7† 20.a3# 20...¢c5 21.¤a4# 1–0 (20) L. Cooper – P.M. Stimpson, England 2004 Black is very active, but his attack could quickly lose momentum. In the game he made sure this did not happen. 19...£h3!! 20.gxh4 ¤f3†! Blocking the f-pawn. These two great moves could of course be inverted. 21.¥xf3 ¥d6 White cannot avoid mate. 22.¦d1 ¥xh2† 23.¢h1 ¥g3† 24.¢g1 £h2† 25.¢f1 £xf2# 0–1 (21) Jens K. King – Marques, Internet Blitz 2008 Although only an Internet blitz game, Black found a wonderful combination. 32...¦xh3!! 33.¢xh3 There is no reason not to take the rook. After something like 33.¤d1, Black wins trivially: 33...¦h2† 34.¢f1 ¦xe2 35.¢xe2 £c2† 36.¢e1 ¥g3† 37.¢f1 £f5†–+ 33...£f1†! The important follow-up check. White is mated. 34.¥g2 White cannot elude his fate: 34.¦g2 is best met with: 34...¥e6†!! 35.¥xe6 £f3† 36.¦g3 £xg3#; 34.¢g4 ¥h5†! 35.¢xh5 £h3† 36.£h4 £xh4#] 34...£f5† White resigned. The next check is on h7, and it hurts. 0–1 (22) D. van Vliet – A. Roos, Belgium 2007 White needs to strike or cry. A fancy move like 19.¦h5 only leads to a perpetual check, but White can strike much harder with: 19.£xf6!! £xf6 This does not change much. 19...gxf6 20.¦h5 and Black is mated. 20.¥xf6 cxd5 21.¦xg7 ¦e4 The only way to avoid mate, but not a way to live. 22.cxd5 ¥f5 23.¦g5† ¢h7 24.¦xf5 ¦ae8 25.¥e5 1–0 (23) A. Swede – W. Hannum, Café Friendly 2008 A sudden chance, and Black created a little masterpiece. 24...¦xh2!! 25.g3 The only attempt. 25.¢xh2 is refuted by thematic means: 25...¦h4† 26.¢g1 ¦h1† 27.¢xh1 £h4† 28.¢g1 £h2# 25...£h4!! But this ends all discussion. 26.gxh4 ¦g4# 0–1 (24) Fernando Semprun – A. Faller, England 1983 White would like to play 25.£g5†, but after 25...¥g7! the queen on b5 would interfere and give Black the edge. Instead White found a tricky little deflection in 25.a4! forcing Black to resign in view of the mate. 1–0
Chapter 2 - Contribution from our Readers NN – Rotella, Internet Blitz 2008
25
1222222223 t+ Wt+ +5 OoO +lOo5 +m+ M +5 + + +v+ 5 VpP + +5 + N Bp+ 5 pP + KpP5 R +q+bNr5 79 Rotella – NN, Internet (rapid) 2008
26
1222222223 tMv+ Tl+5 Oo+ +o+o5 + P +o+5 + O + B 5 +bV + +5 W + + + 5 p+ + +pP5 + Rq+r+k5 79
Mihoci – Ziskovic, Croatia 2004
59
1222222223 t+ + T L527 Oo+m+ O 5 W +o+ O5 + + + +q5 P V + +5 P + + + 5 + B PpP5 +bR +rK 5 79
60
Solutions 25-27
(25) NN – Tony Rotella, Internet Blitz 2008 Black won with a demolition on the dark squares. 10...¦xe3! 11.¢xe3 ¥c2!! The really brilliant move, luring the queen to a worse square. 11...¤xd4!?µ is very good for Black, but not as direct. 12.£d2 12.£xc2 £xd4† 13.¢e2 ¥xc3 14.bxc3 ¦e8†–+ is hopeless. 12...¤g4†! 13.fxg4 13.¢e2 £e7† and the queen is gone. 13...£g5† The point. 14.¢f2 In blitz, who can blame him. 14.¢e2 ¦e8† 14...£xd2† 15.¤ge2 ¤xd4 16.¦e1 ¦e8 0–1 (26) Tony Rotella – NN, Internet (rapid) game 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 ¥g7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0–0 6.¤f3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.¥e2 exd5 9.cxd5 ¦e8 10.e5 dxe5 11.fxe5 ¤g4 12.¥g5 £b6 13.0–0 ¤xe5 14.¤xe5 ¥xe5 15.¥c4 £xb2 16.d6 ¦f8 17.¦c1 ¥xc3 18.¦b1 ¥d4† 19.¢h1 £c3 20.¦c1 £a3 21.¦xf7!! This attack was all home preparation. However, this does not reduce the pleasure for the player in executing it. 21...¦xf7 22.£e2! The dual threat of £e8† and ¥xf7† followed by £e7† is too much to handle. The queen is by the way better placed on e2 than on e1, as was played in two games. The main difference is that the defence attempted by Black in this game would be far more successful, as White would lack £c4 in the end. 22...£a4 The other line runs: 22...¥e3 23.¥xe3 ¢g7 24.¥xf7 ¢xf7 (24...¥g4 25.£d2) 25.¦f1† ¢g7 26.¥c1+– 23.¥xf7† ¢g7 23...¢xf7 24.£e7† ¢g8 25.¥h6 is just mate. 24.¥b3! £d7 25.¦xc5!! Another great shot. 25...¤c6 Or 25...¥xc5 26.£e5† ¢f8 27.£h8#. 26.¦xc6! bxc6 27.£c4 Black resigned. 1–0 (27) Ivica Mihoci – Nikola Ziskovic, Croatia 2004 The first move is easy, but the subsequent win is very hard to find. It all ends in a rook ending where White has to show a bit of accuracy to win. 26.¥xh6! This is easy enough, and in the game Black did not make it harder than this. 26...¥xf2†? This loses quickly, as the rook can come to c3. The accurate defence was 26...¤f6, and now 27.£h3, 27.£g5 and 27.¥xg7†! all lead to the same position after a few checks. 27...¢xg7 28.£g6† ¢h8 Here White cannot do more damage with the pieces he does have in the attack, but he can bring more in. It is not possible for Black to get rid of the queen from g6. 29.¦cd1!! ¦ac8 The only defence. 30.¦d3 ¦c3 31.¦fd1 ¦fc8 It seems as if Black has managed to keep control, but the set-up of his pieces is fragile. 32.£g5!! With the threat £h4† and £xd4. Black has no easy way to meet this. 32...¤h7 The best among not many options. (32...¦d8 is well met with the curious 33.¢f1!! threatening £h4† and ¦xc3, without having any irritating ...¥xf2† interfering. And 32...e5 is refuted with 33.¦xc3 ¥xc3 34.£h6† and the opening of the a2-g8 diagonal is lethal.) 33.£h4 Here Black has a real choice for once. Probably best is 33...¥xf2† to keep some pieces on the board. (After 33...¦xd3 34.¥xd3 ¦c7 35.¥xh7 ¥xf2† 36.£xf2 £xf2† 37.¢xf2 ¢xh7 38.¦d6 White has a winning rook ending. 38...¦c2† 39.¢f3 ¦c3† 40.¢e4 ¦xa3 41.¦xe6 ¦a4 42.¦e7† ¢g6 43.¦xb7 a5 44.¦b6† ¢g7 45.¢f5 axb4 46.g4 ¦a5† 47.¢f4 ¦a4 48.h4 b3† 49.¢g3+–) 34.£xf2 £xf2† 35.¢xf2 ¤f6 36.¦e1+–, but the extra pawn still needs to be converted in practical play. 27.¢h1 ¤f6 28.¥xg7† ¢xg7 29.£g6† ¢h8 30.¦c3 1–0
Advanced Chess Tactics By
Lev Psakhis
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used 4 Preface 5 1 Attacking in the Benoni 2 Attacking with Hanging Pawns 3 IQP Positions: Attacking the King with Pieces 4 IQP Positions: Attacking with the h-pawn 5 IQP Positions: Versus the c-pawn 6 Attack in the Sicilian Labyrinths 7 Attack in the Catacombs of the Caro-Kann 8 Attacking in Rare and Non-Standard Openings 9 57 Exercises Solutions
7 47 69 105 131 153 215 279 321 332
Game Index Player Index
361 362
Preface Throughout most of my life I have been a chess professional. Spending six to eight months a year at tournaments, I fully satisfied my chess hunger. Later, somewhat to my surprise, I realized that I was playing the game less and less, and teaching it more and more. Then in 2006, I finally took my leave of the game as a player. I wiped away the odd few manly tears, “hung my skates on the wall” and started leading the far from easy life of a chess coach. This gave me the chance to look at the game from the other side of the fence. I endeavoured to work only with talented players, and was quite astonished to find how even the very strong ones were lacking in classical chess education. There is a kind of blind faith in openings. A typical view is, “I’m going to learn a new line in the Najdorf, or maybe two, maybe five, and I’ll beat everybody.” This goes with an obvious neglect of other equally important aspects of the game. True, for grandmasters rated over 2650, good opening knowledge is essential – but then they aren’t reading these lines, are they? What do you need for good results in tournaments? A sensible knowledge of the openings, making use of a fair dose of common sense; an understanding of basic strategic laws (how to handle positions with various pawn structures, how to play against weaknesses, and so forth – the study of games by Petrosian, Karpov and many others is a great help here!); improvement of your tactical skill, with good precise calculation of variations two to four moves long; a flair for the attack (in this department, games by Kasparov, Tal, Alekhine and Judit Polgar will not only give you great pleasure but afford invaluable help); and of course, good play in the endgame. Material on the level of Mark Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual is in my view fully adequate for the vast majority of grandmasters, while players in a somewhat lower category can be quite content with less. The object of analysis in this book is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of chess – that sovereign entity, the attack! We may take any amount of pleasure in playing against a weak pawn or, say, against a poorly placed knight in the enemy camp; but it’s only when we conduct an attack on the opponent’s king that the blood’s adrenalin content soars and our heart tries to leap out of our chest. Such a splendid feeling! Not that I have any wish whatever to isolate the business of attack as some kind of separate component of chess. I even devised this motto: Attack is the continuation of strategy by other means. I only hope General Carl von Clausewitz won’t take me to court for plagiarism! A few words about the structure of the book: attack in chess has many facets, and several systems can be devised for classifying the examples. For instance a scheme would be possible with such headings as attacking with the two bishops, giving mate with your last remaining pawn, sacrificing a rook, and so forth. I decided to try a somewhat different scheme: attacking in various specific openings, and attacking in positions with certain typical pawn structures. How far I have succeeded in this, you must judge. As they say, you cannot get a quart into a pint pot. Naturally I am not hoping to teach you how to checkmate all your opponents in (let us say) the Sicilian Defence, within the confines of a single book. That would of course be impossible! I have simply tried to convey my views on positions that contain attacking chances – and to share my experience
6
Preface
of playing them, using typical or sometimes not so typical devices. Many splendid openings had to be left out, and this is not down to my opinion of them but merely to the shortage of space. Now, about the games: selecting them was not a simple task, considering that so many works on tactics and aggression were on the chess book market and that I was categorically opposed to repeating other people’s analyses. It is for this latter reason, and not at all out of unbridled narcissism, that I have included many games of my own. But that is not all. For several years now, inspired by Garry Kasparov’s immensely interesting work My Great Predecessors, I have been diligently studying the games of the great former generation that included Mikhail Tal, Boris Spassky, Leonid Stein, Viktor Korchnoi, Tigran Petrosian and many another illustrious names. It frankly amazed me to ascertain how many games from that era, which is not so very distant, had remained practically uninvestigated. It seemed to me quite a senseless idea to analyse the brilliant victories of Kasparov, Anand or Topalov for the thousandth time; in a country like India, for instance, where I have spent a fair amount of time coaching with delight and gratitude, these games are known in every nursery school! It therefore seemed entirely reasonable to focus primarily on games played by the giants of that earlier generation. Many of the games, naturally, are wins by Mikhail Tal, and this of course is not surprising. Few players have conducted as many brilliant attacks as the Hussar from Riga. Some games will strike you as familiar – this was impossible to avoid – but all of them are supplied with some fundamentally new analysis, allowing you to look at them from an entirely new angle. Who is this book intended for? I think (hope) that chess players ranging from 2000 to 2600 will find something useful and interesting in it. While writing it, I visualized a typical reader as a young International Master who doesn’t want to rest content with what he has already achieved. But of course, players in a considerably weaker class can also benefit from the book. There is just one proviso. I have tried to write in a lively, individual manner, but the study of the material demands quite serious work. And to this end, it is highly desirable to use that antiquated device, a chessboard. Don’t forget that improvement (and not just in chess) can result only from independent work. The best coach in the world can only help you with useful advice and a selection of important material − it is still up to you to assimilate it! A few practical hints: (1) Don’t go out of your way to calculate long variations. A capacity for precise calculation to a depth of 2-4 moves is usually quite enough. (2) An attack may be prepared over quite a long stretch of time, but when carrying it out, do so at top speed without letting your opponent get his bearings. (3) Don’t relax too soon, even if it seems to you that the goal is already attained – your opponent may take a completely different view. (4) Most importantly: constant time-scrambles are the worst sign of a poor chess education! In conclusion I would like to say that writing this book was hard work for me, but very interesting too. I hope you will enjoy it. Lev Psakhis Rishon le Zion, Israel October 2011
Chapter 1 Attacking in the Benoni
Tel Aviv 1990 My last game against the great Mikhail Tal
Chapter 1 – Attacking in the Benoni The Benoni is an opening for people with excellent tactical vision and nerves of steel. You almost always feel distinctly anxious about Black’s position: White has an advantage in space, and often in development too. Why, then, have so many strong and enterprising players included this opening in their repertoire? It is sufficient to recall the names of Tal, Fischer, Stein, Topalov, Gashimov and Ljubojevic; indeed your obedient servant himself belonged to this exclusive club for decades. The reason is simple; unlike many other openings that are a good deal safer, the Benoni enables Black to fight for the initiative (and often obtain it!) literally from the very first moves. Of course it means accepting a certain risk, but who said that that was such a bad thing? It’s hard to find any other opening in which we have so many opportunities to show our tactical and aggressive skills. Who worries about the fact that our opponent has plenty similar chances of his own? There will be a fight, and may the stronger player win. It should therefore come as no surprise at all that I have chosen the Benoni as material for my opening chapter.
Isaak Birbrager – Mikhail Tal USSR 1953
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.¤c3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.¤f3 ¥g7 8.¥d3 0–0
K +r
9
9.0–0 Interestingly, 9.h3!? at this point would give a standard position from the 1990s. After the move played, Black could have equalized with no particular trouble. 9...¤a6 According to the present state of theory, 9...a6!? 10.a4 ¥g4 is stronger. Then after, for instance, 11.h3 ¥xf3 12.£xf3 ¤bd7÷ Black can face the future with optimism. 10.¤d2 ¤b4 A strange move, but let us not forget that Tal was just sixteen at the time. In our day, players of that age are already seasoned veterans, but in 1953 it was quite a different matter! 11.¥e2 ¦e8 12.a3 ¤a6 13.¦e1 ¤c7 14.£c2
14...¦b8 A standard plan; Tal prepares to activate his queenside pawns with ...b5. Black can hardly count on adequate counterplay otherwise. 15.a4 Likewise a standard reply – perhaps too standard. White had at least two other plans at his disposal. In the first place he could have played 15.¦b1!? and answered 15...b5 with 16.b4!².
10
Advanced Chess Tactics
Secondly, he had available an interesting continuation in 15.¤c4 b5 16.¤a5 ¥d7 17.¤c6 ¥xc6 18.dxc6 ¦b6 19.¥f4 ¦xc6 20.¦ad1 with strong pressure that fully compensates for the sacrificed pawn. 15...b6 16.¤b5?! I don’t like this move much. The main defect of Black’s position is his lack of space, so practically any exchanges are in his favour – and White is only helping to bring them about. For the alternatives, see the note to Black’s 13th move in the next game (Gurgenidze – Tal). 16...a6 17.¤xc7 The optimistic 17.¤a7?! ¥b7 18.¤c6 ¥xc6 19.dxc6 d5! actually hands the initiative over to Black. White’s problems with his development make themselves felt. 17...£xc7 18.¦a2
18...£e7!? Not a bad move, subjecting White to unpleasant pressure down the e-file. But Black would also have quite a good game after the prosaic 18...b5 19.axb5 axb5. White can then choose between 20.b3!?÷ and 20.b4 c4 21.¥b2, although the latter results in a pawn structure in which he definitely misses his knight on c3.
19.f3? A risky move; the modest 19.b3!? would lead to a game with mutual chances after 19...¤xe4 20.¥d3 f5.
Black now has an interesting tactical choice. 19...¤h5! An excellent move, with the aim of seriously getting to grips with the weak dark squares in the opponent’s camp. Tal was, no doubt, strongly tempted to follow a different course, with a piece sacrifice: 19...¤xd5 20.exd5 ¥d4† 21.¢h1 White can pin no hopes on 21.¢f1?? £e3–+. 21...¥f2 It would also be interesting to try 21...f5!?, taking control of e4. 22.¤e4! ¥xe1 23.¥g5
Chapter 1 – Attacking in the Benoni 23...£f8! The outwardly active 23...£e5?! meets with the powerful retort 24.£c1!, and seeing that Black cannot be happy with either 24...¥b7 25.¦a3 ¥b4 26.¦e3 or 24...¥f2 25.¥f6 £h5 26.b3!? – defending the bishop on e2 and winning easily – there only remains 24...¥b4 25.¥f6 £h5 26.b3!?, and if 26...¦xe4 27.fxe4 ¥g4 then 28.¥xa6ƒ with a large plus for White. 24.¦a1 Approximate equality results from both 24.£c1 ¦xe4!? 25.fxe4 ¥f2 26.¥f6 ¥d4 27.¥xd4 cxd4 and 24.¤f6† ¢h8 25.¤xe8 £xe8. 24...¦xe4!? 25.fxe4 ¥b4 26.¥f6 ¥b7 27.£c1!?„
11
would want to continue with 22.¤a5 ¥d4† 23.¢f1 £h4–+) 22...¥d4, Black is threatening to play ...f5 at a suitable moment, and it isn’t entirely clear how White is going to guard the dark squares on the kingside. 20...f5ƒ 21.¥d3 f4!
22.g4! Birbrager has to keep on finding what are virtually only moves. Thus, the natural 22.¢h1 would lose quickly to 22...£h4 23.¦e2 (or 23.¥d2 ¥d4–+) 23...¥d4, when White lacks a suitable defence against the simple threat of 24...¤g3†!?.
White of course has excellent compensation for the pawn, but does he have a genuine advantage? At any rate, in all these variations Black may be risking more than his opponent. Tal was certainly right, then, to choose the move he did. (Still, it would be interesting to know which variations he worked out, and in which ones he was rather following his renowned intuition.)
22...¥d4† 23.¢h1 This time, if White wishes to lose the game in short order, he can continue 23.¢g2?. Then after the forced moves 23...£h4 24.£e2 ¥xg4! 25.fxg4 f3† 26.£xf3 ¦f8–+ he can simply stop the clock!
20.¤f1 White already has to walk on a knife edge. His knight can’t stray too far from the king, since after 20.¤c4 b5 21.axb5 axb5 22.¤e3 (I don’t think you could find many players who
There is no salvation in 24.gxh5 either. After 24...£xe1 25.¥xf4 £h4 26.¥xd6 £f6! 27.¥xb8 £xf3† 28.£g2 £xd3 29.¦a3 £xe4–+ Black’s two mighty bishops will bring him the long-awaited point.
23...£h4 24.¦e2 On 24.£e2, Black has 24...¥f2!.
12
Advanced Chess Tactics
24...£h3?! Tal’s first error in the game. At this point Black had a pleasant choice. For one thing, he could play 24...¤g3†!? 25.¤xg3 fxg3 26.¦g2 gxh2 27.£e2 ¦f8ƒ, though in this line White would retain decent defensive possibilities. Secondly, Black had the very strong: 24...¥xg4! 25.fxg4 f3! For a while I was fascinated by the variation 25...£h3! 26.¦d2 f3 27.gxh5 ¦xe4! 28.¦f2 ¦e2! 29.¥e3 ¦xc2 30.¥xc2 ¥xe3 31.¤xe3 ¦e8‚ when Black has a plus – but is it sufficient for victory?
26.gxh5 Or 26.¦f2 c4!, hitting White in the most awkward place. The weakness of his e-pawn
is his undoing: 27.¥e3 ¥xe3 28.¦xf3 £xg4 29.¦xe3 cxd3 30.£xd3 ¤f4 31.£d2 ¦xe4–+ and White’s defensive possibilities are exhausted. 26...fxe2!? 27.£xe2 c4! Once again exploiting the same motif; this is stronger than 27...¦f8 28.¥e3. 28.¥xc4 White simply has no other move; given his overall development problems, he would lose at once after 28.¥c2 ¦f8–+. 28...¦xe4 29.¥e3 29.£g2 ¦g4 30.¤g3 ¦f8–+ leaves White with no hope of salvation either. 29...¥xe3 30.¤xe3 £f4 31.¦a3 ¦be8–+ Black wins the knight, and with it also the game. 25.¦g2
25...£xf3? This second error running could have deprived Black of the victory he deserved – but as we know, mistakes never come singly. The positional 25...¤f6!? was not at all bad; with ...g5 coming next, Black would have a clear initiative. But the strongest line was the tactical solution: 25...¥xg4!
Chapter 1 – Attacking in the Benoni
26.¦xg4 26.fxg4 meets with a precise refutation: 26...f3 27.¦f2 c4! 28.¥xc4 ¦xe4 29.gxh5 ¦e2! 30.¥xe2 ¥xf2 31.¤e3 ¥xe3 32.¥d3 f2 33.£e2 ¦f8 34.£f1 £xh5 35.¥xe3 £xd5† 36.£g2 £xd3–+ This long but completely forced variation has left White in an absolutely hopeless position. 26...£xf3† 27.¦g2 £h3! 28.¦a3!? f3 29.¦f2 ¦e5! 30.¥xa6 ¦f8µ Black has a large plus. Incidentally, try not to forget the methods of attack (...c4! and ...¦e2) which crop up in several variations – perhaps you will manage to carry out something similar in your own games. 26.¤d2 White is not to be envied after 26.gxh5?, when Black is offered a wonderful choice. He can play 26...¦xe4! 27.¥e2 ¦xe2 28.£xe2 £xe2 29.¦xe2 ¥b7, successfully targeting both the king and the misplaced rook on a2. Or he may prefer 26...¥h3! 27.¦a3!? ¦xe4 28.¥xa6 ¥e3, and White obviously has to pay a high price to avoid immediate loss. Beautiful variations! Now, however, the white knight intends to persecute the black queen perpetually, and the position appears to have taken on a drawish character. In such situations we have to decide how much risk we are prepared to take in order to pay for the right of playing on; but beware – sometimes the price becomes excessive!
13
26...£e3 Avoiding the draw isn’t so simple; after 26...£h3 27.gxh5 £xh5 28.¥e2± White’s chances are already preferable. 27.¤f1
27...£f3 It seems to me that at this moment Mikhail Tal might easily have been a prey to his emotions. It’s obvious that a drawn result didn’t suit him at all. I can understand this very well – I have been in similar situations plenty of times myself – but why he didn’t choose the comparatively “normal” 27...£e1! is unclear to me. The best reply would probably be 28.¥d2!? (28.gxh5 ¥h3 29.¥xf4 c4! is unpleasant for White after either 30.£d2 ¥xg2† 31.¢xg2 £xd2† 32.¤xd2 cxd3µ or 30.¥xc4 ¦f8! 31.£d2 ¥xg2† 32.¢xg2 £xe4†–+), when the struggle could continue with:
14
Advanced Chess Tactics
28...£h4 29.gxh5 ¥h3 30.¥c3 ¥xg2† 31.£xg2 ¥xc3 32.bxc3 £xh5 33.¥xa6 £e5 giving approximate equality, but White would have a couple of reefs to negotiate. 28.¤d2 Practically forcing a draw, and indeed 99% of opponents would now have settled for the half point – but on this day Birbrager was up against an exception to the general rule! Incidentally, 28.¦a3 ¤f6 29.¤d2 was weaker in view of 29...£h3 30.¥b5 £xg2†! 31.¢xg2 axb5, when Black holds the initiative despite parting with his queen. 28...¥xg4?! 29.¤xf3 ¥xf3 It is time to catch our breath a little. The fact is that Tal has made an outright sacrifice of queen for rook – or more precisely, we might say, for a minor piece; for who would want to part with the light-squared bishop, the pride of Black’s position, by taking on g2 without dire necessity? Black does of course have some compensation for the queen, but it is psychological more than anything else. White was simply dumbstruck by such a rapid change in the situation, and most likely he was in time trouble – which immediately left its mark on the course of the game.
30.h4!? It’s hard for me to criticize this move; White takes control of g5 and gives his king a square. Let’s look at two further possibilities that he had available: Black should not have any real problems after 30.b3!?, which brings the a2-rook into play but has its defects:
30...¦xe4! 31.¥xe4 ¦e8 32.£c4 ¦xe4 33.h4 ¥e5! 34.£xa6 ¦e1† 35.¢h2 ¦xc1 and it’s quite impossible to predict how this will all end! Interesting complications also arise from: 30.¥d2 ¦e5 How easy it would now be to miss the threat of 31...¤g3†!. 31.h4™ ¦f8 32.¢h2! Or 32.¥c3 ¥xg2† 33.£xg2 f3 34.£h3!? f2 35.¥xd4 cxd4 36.¦a1 ¤f4 37.£g3 ¤h5 38.£g4 ¤f4² and White still has to prove his advantage. 32...¥xg2 33.¢xg2 f3† 34.¢h2 ¤f6! And now in the event of: 35.¥f4 ¤xe4 36.¥xe5 ¥xe5† 37.¢h3 f2 38.¢g2 ¦f4 The real fun is only just starting! As we can see, playing a position like this for White is not at all a simple matter, so it’s no surprise that his nerves are the first to crack.
Chapter 1 – Attacking in the Benoni 30...¦f8
31.¥e2?? The decisive mistake, in what was probably a won position! White had a wide choice of lines that should have led to victory after a certain amount of nervous tension – for example 31.b3!? or 31.¦a1!? or 31.¦a3!? b5 32.axb5 axb5 33.¢h2. And finally, the following variation was possible: 31.¢h2!? ¥xg2 32.£xg2 f3 33.£h3!?
33...c4! 34.¥f1 ¥e5† 35.¢g1! (better than 35.¢h1? ¤g3†) 35...¥d4† 36.¢h1 ¤f4 37.¥xf4 ¦xf4 38.£e6† ¢g7 But to be fair I would add that the position is not at all simple to assess correctly. I think if I had to explain what happened in this game in one word, I would say “bewilderment”.
15
White completely lost control of the events on the board – and retribution was swift! 31...¤g3† 32.¢h2 ¥xg2 33.¢xg2 ¤xe2–+ By now Black has both a material plus and an attack. The affair quickly heads towards its logical conclusion.
34.£xe2 Bowing to the inevitable! The game could have ended prettily after: 34.¦a3™ f3† 35.¦xf3 ¦xf3 36.¢xf3 ¦f8†! 37.¢g4 White has no chance of salvation in the endgame after 37.¢xe2 ¦f2† 38.¢d3 ¦xc2 39.¢xc2 ¢f7–+. 37...h5† 38.¢g5 38.¢h3 ¦f2 would end the game even more quickly. 38...¢g7! 39.£xe2 Or 39.e5 ¦f6! 40.£e4 ¥xe5 41.¥e3 ¤g3 42.£d3 ¦f5† 43.£xf5 ¤xf5 44.¥d2 ¤h6! and the white king will be mated from the f7-square! 39...¢h7 40.£xa6 ¦f7! 41.£e2 ¥g7–+ And White can only defend against mate next move by sacrificing his queen! 34...f3† 35.£xf3 ¦xf3 36.¢xf3 ¦f8† 37.¢g3 ¥e5† A good alternative would have been 37...c4!?.
16
Advanced Chess Tactics
38.¢g2 ¥f4 And White called a halt to his pointless resistance. 0–1 Well, what can be said or written about this? The black pieces were played by one of the rare geniuses in all of chess history, a fearless and irreproachable warrior. Although objectively Tal had still to reach his true strength, his famous style is already plain to see. Black obtained a fine position out of the opening and increased his pressure, but at a certain juncture he committed two errors running and ought to have settled for a draw. No doubt this prospect frightened the young player more than the risk of defeat, and what ensued was a simply stunning queen sacrifice – which, though incorrect, gave chances of continuing the fight. Birbrager failed to withstand this pressure and was crushed!
Bukhuti Gurgenidze – Mikhail Tal USSR Championship 1957 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.¤c3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.¤f3 g6 The Benoni remained an important weapon in Tal’s opening repertoire throughout his chess career. He employed it regularly, and nearly always with success; clearly the sharp, unclear positions that arise in this opening were absolutely in keeping with the great champion’s style. 7.e4 ¥g7 8.¥e2 0–0 9.0–0 ¦e8 I too used to play the Benoni frequently, but at this point my preference diverged from Tal’s. My favourite variation was 9...a6 10.a4 ¥g4, hoping for an advantageous exchange of this bishop at the appropriate moment. I also played lines with ...¤a6 from time to time, but my inclination lay elsewhere.
10.¤d2 ¤a6
11.¦e1 A rare move – which of course is not to say a bad one. The line seen much more often is 11.f3!? ¤c7 12.a4, and with precise play White can count on a small plus. 11...¤c7 12.a4 b6 13.£c2 13.¥f3 is well met by 13...¥a6!?, while 13.f3 guarantees White no advantage after the standard 13...¤h5!?. It seems to me that the most natural and strongest continuation is 13.h3!?. Then after, for example, 13...¥a6?! 14.¥xa6 ¤xa6 15.¤c4ƒ White has an easy and pleasant game. 13...¤g4!? A strange move with a single idea – to sacrifice the knight on f2, given the chance. The aim is quite simple, and in the former USSR it was only likely to come off in a schools tournament! That it worked just as well in such a strong event as the national championship is amazing. In this position Black usually plays: 13...¦b8!? We have transposed to the position after Black’s 15th move in Birbrager – Tal.
The Alterman Gambit Guide
White Gambits By
Boris Alterman
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Acknowledgments, Bibliography & Key to symbols used Foreword by the Author 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Danish Gambit The Urusov Gambit The Philidor The Cochrane Gambit The Morphy Attack The Max Lange Attack The Evans Gambit The Panov Attack The Morra Gambit The Milner-Barry Gambit
Games Index Variations Index
4 5 7 45 79 117 159 203 231 303 367 409 443 445
Chapter 1 The Danish Gambit 1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoOo+oOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 +b+p+ +5 + O + + 5 pP + PpP5 RnBqK Nr5 79 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.¥c4
Introduction I recall that when I was a child everyone was talking about the strength of the Danish Gambit. Some even claimed that it was winning! It was very popular, and highly aggressive. Black was getting blown away by the ferocious attacks on an open board, sometimes not even escaping the opening alive! And so, I would like to introduce you to the popular and famous Danish Gambit! 1.e4 Remember that the fight is directed at controlling the center (d4, e4, d5 and e5) in the opening. You also have to bring out all your pieces as quickly as possible, naturally to where they control the greatest number of central squares. A good way to achieve these aims is to march the e-pawn two squares forward to occupy the center, when it also opens the diagonals for his queen and f1-bishop. White’s next move, if he is allowed, will be 2.d4, when he not only controls the center, but also prevents Black from moving his pieces there. Preventing your opponent from using the center, while your own pieces have full access to these central squares, is an ideal to aim for, since the quickest route from one sector of the board to another is through the center. 1...e5 Black does likewise, and tries to make d2-d4 more difficult for White, since after 2.d4 exd4 3.£xd4 ¤c6 Black would benefit from the early development of White’s queen as it will have to move again. After 1.e4 e5, we often get very sharp and open positions, and the Danish Gambit is no exception. 2.d4 White launches another pawn into the center, challenging Black’s e5-pawn. Has White not read our comment after 1...e5? Let’s see: 2...exd4 3.c3 Surprise! White has something else in mind. 3...dxc3 If Black does not take the pawn on offer then White would capture on d4 with his pawn, and get a two-abreast pawn center. 4.¥c4 White sacrifices another pawn (!), and develops his bishop to its most aggressive outpost, where it exerts pressure on the center. The bishop also targets Black’s weakest spot before castling – f7 – as it is protected only by the king, and sacrifices at precisely this spot would draw the king out and expose it to attack. This energetic opening system is called the Danish Gambit. 4...cxb2 5.¥xb2
The Danish Gambit
9
1222222223 q tMvWlVmT5 OoOo+oOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 +b+p+ +5 + + + + 5 pB + PpP5 Rn+qK Nr5 79 This is the so-called “Accelerated variation of the Danish Gambit”. Being 2 pawns ahead, Black hopes to realize his material advantage in the endgame. White, however, has serious positional dividends such as: A huge advantage in development and greater mobility of his pieces. Significant control over the most important central squares (d4, d5, e4, e5). His bishops are nicely placed to put pressure on the center and the kingside. Open lines and diagonals which are avenues along which White could develop very unpleasant threats.
Illustrative Games Black has a wide selection of options, which we will now examine. But let’s start with an exercise that arrives after Black’s fifth move:
1222222223 tMv+lVmT5 OoOo+oOo5 + + + +5 + + + W 5 +b+p+ +5 + + + + 5 pB + PpP5 r Rn+qK Nr5 79
White to play! - How should he exploit the early development of Black’s queen?
10
The Alterman Gambit Guide
In the following games, we will learn how we should think during the game. More importantly, we will see in full force the power of having a lead in development. The first two games are instructive in the clash between the police and the thief – the side who follows the rules of development, against the materialist who violates the principles of opening play.
Game 1 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.¥c4 cxb2 5.¥xb2 £g5? An obvious and greedy attempt, aiming to exploit the weakness on g2 created by the development of the bishop to c4. But this move has major drawbacks. Remember the important opening principle: don’t develop your queen too early. This “rule” may be broken only when you can achieve a good target for the queen. Now, is the g2-pawn such a great target? No! 6.¤f3!
1222222223 q tMv+lVmT5 OoOo+oOo5 + + + +5 + + + W 5 +b+p+ +5 + + +n+ 5 pB + PpP5 Rn+qK +r5 79
White develops his knight with tempo by attacking Black’s exposed queen, and also controls the central squares d4 and e5. Remember the main opening principle: develop all your pieces rapidly. If White instead defended with 6.g3?, he would allow Black to follow a well-known principle for the side with a material advantage: exchange pieces (not pawns) and enter an endgame where you can make your material advantage count. An advantage of “7 pieces against 6” is significant, but the advantage of “2 pieces against 1” is much proportionally greater. So, after 6...¥b4† 7.¤d2 £xd2†! (forcing the exchange of queens) 8.£xd2 ¥xd2† 9.¢xd2 ¤f6 White’s attacking chances have disappeared together with the queens, while Black remains 2 pawns up.
The Danish Gambit
11
Remember: opening with an attacking gambit system and then playing cowardly moves is a sure recipe for disaster. 6...£xg2 Capturing on g2 leads to a very instructive position. Currently, Black is 3(!) pawns up. Nevertheless, after: 7.¦g1 There are not many squares available to the black queen. Incidentally, may I also point out that White is developing his rook with tempo – to an open file. 7...£h3
1222222223 tMv+lVmT5 OoOo+oOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 +b+p+ +5 + + +n+w5 pB + P P5 r Rn+qK R 5 79 White to play! - How should White utilize his lead in development?
In my experience, many inexperienced chess players get too concerned about such positions with White. Yes, Black is 3 pawns up, but take a look at his minor pieces – they are all sleeping! Out of 7 moves, Black has played 4 with his pawn, and 3 with the queen. White, on the other hand, has concentrated on developing his pieces, and undoubtedly has a clear lead in development. This should be converted into something more, but therein lies the difficulty. Many of you might simply play 8.¥xg7 ¥xg7 9.¦xg7 ¤h6! (covering f7), later asking, “Where did I go wrong? Where did I spoil my huge initiative, and why did it bring me only a pawn?” The solution is simple. Before calculating, ask yourself: what/where is my target? Usually, correctly identifying your aim leads you halfway on the road to success. In this position, we see that: the g7-pawn is threatened the queen is badly placed on h3 the f7-pawn is weak
12
The Alterman Gambit Guide
These clues lead us to 8.¤g5, with a double attack on the f7-pawn and the black queen. Alas, after 8...£xh2 Black counterattacks by attacking the g1-rook. But White has an improvement on this idea. 8.¥xf7†!
1222222223 q tMv+lVmT5 OoOo+bOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 + +p+ +5 + + +n+w5 pB + P P5 Rn+qK R 5 79
White captures the f7-pawn with check, forcing Black to move his king. After 8...¢xf7 9.¤g5† – fork! – White wins the queen. 8...¢d8
1222222223 tMvL VmT5 OoOo+bOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 + +p+ +5 + + +n+w5 pB + P P5 r Rn+qK R 5 79 White to play! - How should he continue?
White’s attack now converges on Black’s other weakness – g7. Exploiting the fact that Black’s rook is stuck on h8, White performs a nice tactical blow:
Attacking Manual 1 2nd edition By
Jacob Aagaard
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
First English edition 2008 by Quality Chess UK LLP, this 2nd edition 2010. Copyright © 2008, 2010 Jacob Aagaard
Attacking Manual 1 - 2nd edition All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-9197600-40-8 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom Office phone: (+44) 141 227 6771 e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK LLP through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Proofreading: Colin McNab and Alan Beardsworth Edited by John Shaw and Anne Madsen Cover design by Carole Dunlop Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
Contents Key to Symbols used Preface to the second edition Bring it on - an introduction
4 7 9
Chapter 1 – Bring all your Toys to the Nursery Party Chapter 2 – Don’t lose your Breath Chapter 3 – Add some Colour to your Play Chapter 4 – Size Matters! Chapter 5 – Hit ’em where it hurts Chapter 6 – Chewing on Granite Chapter 7 – Evolution/Revolution Chapter 8 – 15 Great Attacking Games Chapter 9 – Watch Yourself take the Next Step Possible Solutions
27 57 89 109 137 157 173 195 273 284
Index
320
Key to symbols used ? ?? ! !! !? ?! # (n)
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate nth match game
² ³ ± µ +– –+ = © „ ÷
White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality with compensation with counterplay unclear
Bibliography Alexey Dreev: My 100 Best Games Adrian Mikhalchishin & Tomasz Lissowski: Najdorf: Life and Games Mark Dvoretsky & Artur Yusupov: Attack and Defence Igor Stohl: Garry Kasparov’s Greatest Chess Games: v. 1 John Watson: Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch Mikhail Golubev: Understanding the King’s Indian David Bronstein: International Chess Tournament: Zurich 1953 Amatzia Avni: Creative Chess Amatzia Avni: Chess Tips for the Improving Player Igor Nor & Alik Gershon: San Luis 2005 Periodicals Chess Informant Chess Today New In Chess Chess Monthly Schach 64 Chessvibes.com Chessbase.com Mega Database 2008
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following people for their contribution to this book in big and small ways: Jonny Hector, Krishnan Sasikiran, Anne Madsen, Herman Herbolt, Mihail Marin, Artur Yusupov, Allan Beardsworth, Colin McNab and John Shaw. Thank you! Jacob Aagaard Glasgow, March 2008 and September 2009
Preface to the second edition Confession: I used to be a serial writer. From 2000 to 2004 I wrote more than twenty books; some of them with other people, some of them alone, some of them with my name on the cover, some of them not. I was doing so without a true goal or direction, simply pleasing people, or helping the publishers to fill a hole in their schedule. I think these books were not too bad in general and some of them even a good deal above average. One of them even picked up an award, while another was nominated for one. But deep down I knew that my books were not as good as they could be. I felt that the work I was doing was pleasing a lot of people, but not me. It was somewhere during this period, in 2001 to be a bit more exact, that the idea of this book came into being. I was very interested in generalisations in chess (despite this having been unfashionable for a long time) not because I believe that there are any shortcuts to playing good chess, but because I believe that there are recurring strategic themes in chess, and to know them will help you to develop your chess intuition. I had written a few chapters in 2003, when I decided that I wanted to set up a chess publishing house, and in this way move to a different place in the chain of people creating chess books. I had done so mainly because I had produced 35% of the Everyman Catalogue that year, but felt that I had very little control over the final product. With Everyman still going strong six years later, and Quality Chess not doing too badly either, it seems that it was mainly a matter of taste. In 2004 I finished all my contracts with Everyman and co-founded Quality Chess. At first I was working as an editor and trying to make a living without writing for other companies, while Quality Chess struggled through the always tricky first years of business. I wanted to finish this book, but it was difficult to find the time and then I got distracted, and wrote Practical Chess Defence, which was always meant to be a small quick project, along the lines of what I had done with Everyman. However, it had become clear that once released, it was not possible to cram the beast back into the cage. That book was big, difficult and almost anti-commercial. I still love it dearly. It was only in 2008 that I finally finished this book. I have to admit that over time I became very emotionally attached to this project, because of what it meant. I had left Everyman and founded Quality Chess because I wanted full control over the look of this book, and because I wanted to publish Questions of Modern Chess Theory and The Berlin Wall. The latter two were published in the autumn of 2008 to great critical acclaim, while the Attacking Manual 1 was a bit of a disappointment – not least to the author. The first edition of this book was written from the heart. It had a lot of interesting ideas, I think. However, the typesetting and the proofreading had gone all wrong and this ruined the experience for many readers, as well as for the author. I am not sure that this book can justify a second edition, nor if what I feel are valuable insights into chess strategy and dynamics are really so, but because of its history, I was able to talk my editor John Shaw into having it printed.
8
Attacking Manual 1 - 2nd edition
One of the questions about this book is if it is truly original. To some extent yes, and to some extent, no. Obviously there has been a lot written about dynamics in chess in general. However, the books I have read have all mentioned dynamics as a self-explanatory phenomenon, or even confused tactics with dynamics. I have yet to come across a coherent theory of dynamics, which is why I decided to bring some often-described elements together with some observations of my own. It is very difficult for me to evaluate to what extent this has been a success or not, as no one has challenged this theory. I hope the reader will make up his own mind, but most of all, I hope he will find this book helpful in understanding the great mystery which is chess strategy. Jacob Aagaard Glasgow, September 2009
Bring it on – an introduction My aim with this book and its companion volume is to teach you everything there is to know about attacking chess. Not a small aim and already by its very definition it is clear that failure in this project is guaranteed. However as a chess player I know there is almost always more to be learned from defeats than victories, especially the spectacular ones. So, though these two books will inevitably fall short of their aim, I hope the reader will agree that at least I fought valiantly to make sure that it was not by much. In this volume I will present the general rules underlying attacking chess. This statement alone requests scrutiny, so we might as well get specific immediately. By rules, I mean standard replies that can be beneficially used in many situations, not sentences you have to repeat at the board and use to thump your ability to reason. Another word commonly used for having such standard replies in your fingers is “intuition”. Before we get ahead of ourselves by assuming that we agree on a term commonly used in chess writing, I had better define what I think when I say intuition. Intuition is the word we use for the quick splurge of automatic interpretation provided by the subconscious part of the brain. This is based on conclusions you have made in the past, sometimes consciously, sometimes not. These could be good interpretations or they could be bad. Mostly they are good, but often they are not good enough. In this book I will offer a number of strategies to add to your intuition regarding the nature of attacking play, by presenting simple effective guidelines. When I talk about attacking chess I am talking about an attack against the king, although I, in general, am trying to describe how dynamics (also know as short-term factors) can be utilised in the best way. Let me explain: The rules we know from Tarrasch and Lasker and others mainly relate to static (long-term) factors, such as pawn structure, space and other positional factors. Even though they have elements of dynamic thinking in them, they came out of a worldview that was inherently mechanical. The only exception I can think of is from possibly the greatest contributor to chess, the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz. Steinitz said: “if you have an advantage, you must use it immediately, or it will disappear”. This is incompatible with a more modern rule relating to winning technically won endings, known since the days of Rubinstein and preached by all trainers today, “do not hurry”. Both rules are correct. The Steinitz rule relates to an advantage in time, while the Rubinstein rule relates to an advantage in structure and/or material. These two opposing and/or supplementing factors are well known from physics. There they call them potential (static) and kinetic (dynamic) energy. The rules we will investigate in this book are all related to getting a feeling for general dynamics. The static aspects of chess will have to wait till another day.
10
Attacking Manual 1 - 2nd edition
The style of this book and how to use it My experience with chess books is as follows: If you want to use them to improve your playing strength, you need to work with them. But to be able to enjoy them, you need to be able to read them. So in a Solomonic attempt to please everyone, I have divided this book up as follows: The first seven chapters discuss various principles of attacking chess. I have tried to design the material in such a way that this part of the book will be as pleasant to read as possible, and it can all be read and understood by decent players. I hope the target audience of this book, players rated between 1700 and 2500, will be able to follow most of the action in the games by reading the text and following the moves in their head between the diagrams. This might sound too pleasant to be able to offer the conditions for improvement you would normally associate with hard work. I am not sure this is so. I want to explain these principles and hopefully I will be successful in doing so without boring the reader. However, if you are into hard work, deep ideas and complex chess, then Chapter 8 is definitely written for you. There I will illustrate these principles in action in a handful of great games. In that chapter we will go into the analytical details we have sporadically waved at in the previous chapters. I am afraid to say that most readers will need a chessboard and a place you can relax in to get the most out of these games. Finally, I have collected 50 exercises. I spent a long time selecting them and then pruned my collection more often than I would have liked to get down to this number. I apologise in advance to those who find these exercises hard. They are hard. At the end of the day, effort has to be put in before new abilities can be taken out.
Diagram introduction – a new idea I have included something I have not seen in other books. Before each chapter I have selected a number of diagrams representing positions from the coming chapter for you to consider, should you feel so inclined. It is my experience as a trainer, as well as someone who has had to work to improve, that “reading and nodding” (Daniel King) can create a false impression of how difficult chess really is. By thinking over these positions for up to 10 minutes each, you will have a first impression of what your intuition has to say about these positions, before I say what I think about them. Though we might never meet, this is a way for us to have a constructive dialogue. I hope you will accept this offer.
A sneak preview Although the chapters are colourfully named, the principles discussed in this book are very simple. They are:
Bring it on - an introduction 1) Include all your pieces in the attack 2) Momentum 3) Colour schemes 4) Numbers over Size 5) Attack the weakest point in your opponent’s position 6) Attack the strongest point in your opponent’s position 7) Evolution and revolution These principles are what I would call global principles, not so much because they are relevant in all positions, but because they are relevant in all kinds of positions. A good understanding of them will certainly improve your attacking chess, even without the techniques I will discuss in Volume 2. Before we go into the details of each of these principles, I would like to show three games where they are in play. Although I am out to teach a few principles and show their use in a dynamic environment, I have also tried to present games that in themselves are attractive and instructive. I think this is always an obligation for a chess writer, but never more so than in a book that aims to improve your chess intuition.
Wolfgang Nicklich – Ralph Junge Sokolsky Opening Correspondence, East Germany 1980
1.b4 The Orang-Utan or Sokolsky Opening. Not a great opening. Actually it is possible to imagine that White’s position is worse than if this move had not been played. It should be mentioned in White’s defence that the two players also played a game with reversed colours in the same opening, again with Black prevailing. The suspicion is that this was a theme tournament...
11
1...e5! The most energetic response. 2.¥b2 ¥xb4 3.¥xe5 White’s idea is to take this centre pawn and hope for some positional reward later on. Unfortunately it costs a lot of time, which allows Black to build up an attacking position. 3...¤f6 4.¤f3 ¤c6 5.¥b2 0–0 6.e3 d5 Black’s position is pleasant. He has control over the centre and has completed his development. 7.c4 This and the next few moves are theory, but the keen observer will realise that White is continuing to neglect his development, while Black is getting his pieces to more and more attractive squares. 7...¦e8 8.cxd5 ¤xd5 9.¥e2 This is the first interesting moment of the game.
1222222223 t+vWt+l+5 OoO +oOo5 +m+ + +5 + +m+ + 5 V + + +5 + + Pn+ 5 pB PbPpP5 Rn+qK +r5 79
Black has a solid lead in development and decides to go for an idea that is more fascinating than correct. His argument goes like this: because White can get his king into safety on the next move, Black decides that he has to
12
Attacking Manual 1 - 2nd edition
seize the moment. However, his rook sacrifice has the drawback of not being supported by all Black’s pieces. The queenside is still waiting for completion of its development. 9...¦xe3?!?! A very tempting sacrifice for any player prone to romantic music. Black gives away a rook, but disturbs White’s development. Most often, decisions in attacking consist of such or similar trade-offs. This is what makes dynamic chess so interesting. Both players have a chance to win, as White is winning on points (static feature) and Black is winning on time (dynamic feature). This is also what makes dynamic chess so difficult. Though there are clear rules to follow, which can be translated into techniques, in the end all conclusions at the board will have to be guided by concrete calculation and gut feeling. Without the techniques, rules and so on that I will describe in these two books, you could be choosing the moves and ideas you want to calculate a little at random. After reading this book, hopefully your bias will be strongly towards the kind of decisions that are most commonly right. The best move in this position is probably 9...¥g4!, but the text move is not directly bad. It is justified by Black’s lead in development and the open files down towards the king. 10.fxe3 Nothing else makes any sense. 10...¤xe3 White is faced with his first important decision of the game. The queen has two possible squares to go to, and one is likely to be better than the other. To work out which is very hard. 11.£b3! Looking back at the game without analysis it is easy to think that 11.£a4!? was the best move, based on the very simple idea that when
Black develops his queen’s bishop, he should not be allowed to do so with gain of tempo. But the game continuation is both more popular in practice and after analysis. The queen is a bit offside on a4, so maybe the feeling of activity projected by the temporary threat to the knight on e3 appeals to the majority? Either way, no one has played the necessary followup. After 11.£a4 Black would play 11...£e7! with sufficient compensation, though no more. My analysis suggests a draw after a lot of complications, but as promised I have pruned the tree and only cropped the fruits of knowledge, distilled them and turned then into the finest calvados (hopefully). 11...£e7 Let’s at this point hint at maybe the most important theme in this book, that of Revolution/Evolution (Chapter 7). Black still needs to include all of his pieces in the attack and does so without feeling the pressure of having to justify his sacrifices at present. It is not yet time to change the nature of the position by taking on g2.
1222222223 t+v+ +l+5 OoO WoOo5 +m+ + +5 + + + + 5 V + + +5 +q+ Mn+ 5 pB Pb+pP5 Rn+ K +r5 79
12.¢f2? After this time-consuming move Black gains the time he needs to mount a winning
Bring it on - an introduction attack. After a normal move such as 12.¤c3 the chances are probably even. The tempting move was 12.¤e5!, trying to frustrate Black’s build-up. In a strict sense this is not improving White’s development, but I ask you to take in these “rules” with an open mind. We want to respect our development, but also to neglect it when it is beneficial to do so. In this particular position White is obstructing Black’s development as well. Black does not have time to gain a tempo with ...¥e6, which is why the shallow observation on move 11 is incorrect. Meaning, it was correct in the way that the game proceeds, but incorrect in the way it should proceed with best play. It turns out that Black is not fully prepared to back up his sacrifice with the full force of his army. Only by starting the conflict now will White be able to exploit it. This is an important part of the Evolution/Revolution aspect, and one we will look at when we are talking about Momentum in Chapter 2. In dynamic chess you will only get one chance to do something. If you do not take it, the tide can change and your dreams can be washed away. After the critical 12.¤e5! play should probably continue with 12...¤xg2† 13.¢d1. The point behind White’s play is that after: 13...¤xe514.£g3!
analysis diagram
1222222223 t+v+ +l+5 OoO WoOo5 + + + +5 + + M + 5 V + + +5 + + + Q 5 pB Pb+mP5 Rn+k+ +r5 79
13
he has created play against the black king. The best move appears to be 14...f6. In this position White is a rook up for three pawns. His king is quite shaky, but Black has exchanged his most prominent attacker and will therefore have to show exceptional play to justify this heavy investment. 12...¤g4† Suddenly all Black’s moves are coming with tempo. This is a typical illustration of momentum as seen in Chapter 2. 13.¢f1 13.¢e1 ¥e6 is no better. 13...¥e6 Another tempo move. Black is aware that in order to succeed he will need to get all of his pieces into the attack. We have reached another critical moment for White. There are three options, but only one of them does not lose.
1222222223 t+ + +l+5 OoO WoOo5 +m+v+ +5 + + + + 5 V + +m+5 +q+ +n+ 5 pB Pb+pP5 Rn+ +k+r5 79
14.£a4? It seems that it was absolutely necessary for White to keep the bishop on e2 protected. Also insufficient was 14.£c2? ¦e8 15.¤c3 £c5! and Black was already winning in
14
Attacking Manual 1 - 2nd edition
Dopper – Van Loon, Netherlands 1990. The point is that White cannot protect f2 without moving the d-pawn forwards, which would leave a big hole on e3. From there we have the characteristic distance to the king and the queen, which the g4-knight will be happy to exploit after the c6-knight has surrendered itself for the common good.
In the game after 14.£a4? Black also faces this interesting choice. It is tempting to bring in the rook, but as we have just seen, we should never yield uncritically to the impulse of playing the most natural move without investigating whether or not it is also the best move. Chess is far too complicated to be played with a superficial approach.
14.£d3! was the only move. It is very tempting to bring in the rook, and a superficial reading of the first chapter, which discusses including all the pieces into the attack, would certainly make you reach for the rook. But if you stop and look at the position more critically, spooked by the obvious nature of the rook move, you will realise that the queen is not only well placed on d3 for defending e2, it is also in the way of the d-pawn. Realising this, you will see that Black has an option that he should not waste in 14...£c5!, targeting f2. Then 15.¥d4 is forced and so is 15...£c1† 16.¤e1 ¤xd4 17.£xd4 c5.
14...¦e8?! This turns out to be an inaccuracy. Though it does not lose all of Black’s advantage, it is not as convincing as the winning shot 14...¥c4!. The point is that after 15.¥xc4 Black has 15...£c5.
We will stop here. Black has sacrificed a rook, but has arrived at a position where of the white pieces, only the queen has any influence on the course of the game. White’s knights are both pinned and his rooks trapped in the corners. I think a modest evaluation would be ‘sufficient compensation for the rook’, while a more objective evaluation might be ‘with a crushing position’.
analysis diagram
analysis diagram
1222222223 t+ + +l+5 Oo+ +oOo5 + +v+ +5 + O + + 5 V Q +m+5 + + + + 5 p+ Pb+pP5 RnW Nk+r5 79
1222222223 t+ + +l+5 OoO +oOo5 +m+ + +5 + W + + 5 qVb+ +m+5 + + +n+ 5 pB P +pP5 Rn+ +k+r5 79
The double threat is lethal and the defence is playing peek-a-boo. We could imagine White would want to get as much as possible for his bishop, but after 16.¥xf7† ¢xf7 17.¤d4 Black is ready to bring in the rook with 17...¦f8!, after which he is completely winning. This line is very instructive in the sense that it shows how we should understand the notion of bringing all our pieces into the attack – intelligently. Black wants to bring the rook into the attack, so it should be a constant factor in his calculation, but he should also be open to other options, such as the stunning bishop sacrifice. We can also choose to look at this option from another side. Once at c4 the bishop is
Bring it on - an introduction attacking e2 and the sequence is based on an attack against the f2-square. These are the squares where Black is likely to find success as they are the least protected in the white position. I, surprisingly, call them the weakest squares. We will discuss them in Chapter 5. Though objectively 14...¦e8 is dubious, it is hard in practice to find White’s defence on the next move. But it was certainly possible to find the bishop sacrifice and notice its devastating effect. 15.¤c3 White tries to catch up in development, but he needed a non-standard solution to climb out of the hole he is in and over his mountain of problems. After 15.¤a3? Black has the blow 15...¥xd2!, based on 16.¤xd2?! ¥f5 17.¦e1 £e3! with a winning position. The best move was 15.h3!. After Black executes his threat of 15...¥b3 and White replies with the forced 16.£b5 a6 17.£d3 ¥c2, he would have to fight with three pieces for the queen after 18.hxg4! ¥xd3 19.¥xd3. Black is better here, maybe even much better. But simply because the position is non-standard it is much harder to win than a position where you have an extra pawn without concessions.
1222222223 + +t+l+5 OoO WoOo5 +m+v+ +5 + + + + 5 qV + +m+5 + N +n+ 5 pB Pb+pP5 R + +k+r5 79
15
15...¥d5! Creating the double threat of taking on f3 and c3. White’s choices are limited. 16.£b5 Black’s main point comes out in the following nice variation: 16.¦e1 ¥xf3 17.gxf3 £h4! 18.fxg4 £h3† 19.¢f2 ¥c5† winning. The best defence was 16.£d1, when Black has a winning endgame after 16...£c5 17.d4 ¤e3† 18.¢g1 ¤xd1 19.dxc5 ¤xc3 20.¥xc3 ¥xc3, but once again White will be grateful to have an exchange for (soon) three pawns, as the imbalance gives him something to fight with.
1222222223 + +t+l+5 OoO WoOo5 +m+ + +5 +q+v+ + 5 V + +m+5 + N +n+ 5 pB Pb+pP5 R + +k+r5 79
Black now cannot strengthen his position any further through normal means (Evolution). The build-up is over and he will have to execute his attack (Revolution) or it will lose its sting (Momentum). The main weaknesses in the white position are still e2 and f2, Black therefore focuses his efforts in this direction. 16...¥xc3 17.¥xc3 a6 18.£d3 ¥e4! The queen is out of squares. We see the power the black pieces have simply because they are in play, as well as the futility of the white rooks. In Chapter 4 we will have a closer look at how material should be viewed in dynamic chess.
Attacking Manual 1 - 2nd edition
16
19.¥b4!? An attempt to give the queen somewhere to go. A later game also reached exactly this position. In this game Black won after: 19.£c4 b5
analysis diagram
1222222223 + +t+l+5 + O WoOo5 o+m+ + +5 +o+ + + 5 +q+v+m+5 + B +n+ 5 p+ Pb+pP5 R + +k+r5 79
20.¥f6!? A desperate echo of our main game. (20.£b3 loses to 20...¥c2!) 20...¤xf6 21.£b3 ¥d5 22.£e3 £d6 23.£f2 ¤g4 24.£g3 ¥xf3 25.£xf3 ¤d4 26.£xg4 £f6† 0–1 Jeschke – Rost, Germany 1995. 19...¤xb4 20.£a3 White has found a square for the queen, but it is far away from the weak squares in need of protection, so the euphoria is very short-lived.
1222222223 + +t+l+5 +oO WoOo5 o+ + + +5 + + + + 5 M +v+m+5 Q + +n+ 5 p+ Pb+pP5 R + +k+r5 79
20...¥d3!
One of many winning moves. This book will not deal much with combinations, as we will be talking about the build-up. All I can say is that the attack is ripe and the flesh is tasty. 21.¥xd3 £c5 The idea behind the previous move was to attack the other weak square, f2. White is beyond salvation. 22.¥xh7† ¢xh7 23.d4 £c2 24.¤g5† ¢g6 25.£g3 £c4† 0–1 This game illustrates the intelligence we need to apply when we talk about including all the pieces in the attack. It also shows the value of attacking the weakest squares in the opponent’s position, the sense of momentum and a few other principles illustrated in this book. This will be a common occurrence, as it is common for most of the global rules to be in play at the same time. In the next game we shall see the notion of ‘attacking the opponent where he is strongest’ in action. Especially look out for moves 14 and 17.
Jonny Hector – Erling Mortensen Sicilian Defence, Keres Attack Denmark 1990
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 d6 After a lot of bad experiences in the late 80’s and early 90’s, people decided not to allow the Keres Attack anymore and instead headed for the Scheveningen through the Najdorf. Only in the last few years have players such as Movsesian and Van Wely tried to restore the reputation of this risky line.
Attacking Manual 2 By
Jacob Aagaard
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
First English edition 2010 by Quality Chess UK LLP, Copyright © 2010 Jacob Aagaard
Attacking Manual 2 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-9197600-41-5 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom Office phone: (+44) 141 227 6771 e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK LLP through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Typeset by Andrew Greet and Jacob Aagaard Proofreading: Colin McNab and Alan Beardsworth Edited by Andrew Greet Cover design by Carole Dunlop Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following people for their contribution to this book in big and small ways: Jonny Hector, Krishnan Sasikiran, Anne Madsen, Herman Herbolt, Mihail Marin, Artur Yusupov, Allan Beardsworth, Colin McNab, and most of all Andrew Greet and John Shaw.
Thank you!
Contents Key to Symbols used Preface to the second edition Bring it on - an introduction Chapter 1 – Understanding Mating Attacks Typical Mates & Focal Points Three Piece Attacks Insurance Policies Transformations Exercises Solutions
4 7 9 9 11 25 30 31 40 43
Chapter 2 – Typical Piece Play The Assault Ratio Deflection Overloading Tempo-gainers Piece Sacrifices for time Transition squares Lines of Communication Vacating Squares Outposts Launching The pin Improving the Circumstances Prophylaxis The f5/f4-squares
53 57 67 76 81 84 89 101 118 127 135 148 165 170 178
Chapter 3 – Typical Pawn Play Pawn breaks Pawns as valuable as pieces Pawn storms Pawn sacrifices Provoking weaknesses
181 183 193 208 237 243
Chapter 4 – King Safety Destroying the defensive structure Line clearance Cutting off the defences Weak kings Drawing the king into the open Kings on the run Cutting off the escape route The king stuck in the centre Breakthrough in the centre Two thematic sacrifices
251 253 264 275 281 293 300 311 315 321 346
Chapter 5 – Intuitive Sacrifices and Enduring Initiative Creative play A sudden chance Aggressive opening play Intuitive sacrifices Enduring initiative
353 355 358 377 391 399
Chapter 6 – Exercises Solutions
413 423
Index of games and game fragments
457
Key to symbols used ? ?? ! !! !? ?! # (n)
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate nth match game
Bibliography Jacob Aagaard: The Panov-Botvinnik Attack Christian Bauer: Play 1...b6! Sabino Brunello: Attacking the Spanish Larry Christiansen: Rocking the Ramparts & Storming the Barricades Colin Crouch: Attacking Technique Iakov Damsky & Mikhail Tal: Attack with Mikhail Tal Ftacnik, Kopec & Browne: Champions of the New Millennium Tibor Karolyi with Nick Aplin: Genius in the Background Hans Kmoch: Pawn Power in Chess Vladimir Vukovic: Art of Attack in Chess Simon Webb: Chess for Tigers Periodicals Chess Informant, Chess Today, New In Chess, Chess Monthly, Schach 64, ChessVibes.com, ChessBase.com, Mega Database 2009
Foreword by the author When I decided to write this double-volume book on attack back in 2002, I had very clear ideas for Volume One, such as specific phrases, positions, structures, while all I had for Volume Two was a clear notion of what it should cover, in abstract. Where Volume One was about the laws of dynamics, the font of all attacks, and to some limited extent an original work, Volume Two was always meant to be a perfection of existing work on the attack. Over the years I have read dozens of books on attacking chess, and they were all about knocking the king’s position open, once the attack had been established. Some authors even disguised their puzzle books as books on attack – or was it their publishers? Although some books on the middlegame would mention parts of the positional basis for the attack, I was unable to refer my students to any book as the work on attacking chess. Simply put, none of them explained well how the attack came to be, but concerned themselves mainly with the sacrifice. This is what I tried to do in Volume One, and with some success, I think. This volume is intended to cover all of attacking technique, by which I mean what to do once the attack is up and running. Obviously this cannot be done in 464 pages, but a decent attempt can be made, and I think I have managed to do so. In this book I will discuss such concrete items as Destroying the defensive structure (page 253), The pin (page 148), Overloading (page 78), as well as more abstract concepts such as Creative play (page 355) and Intuitive sacrifices (page 391). Hopefully what I have found worthwhile to say about these concepts will be useful for the reader. Although I am a writer by nature, and place a high value on aesthetics, I am deeply aware that most readers will have picked up this book with the hope of improving their chess. My experiences and conversations with some of the best players in the World have strengthened my belief that it is very useful to solve exercises regularly if you want to improve your play. Although a well-written book can affect your play positively, it will do so much more if you are involved, rather than just reading it. For this reason I have included a diagram preview in this book. I invite you to use up to 10 minutes on each position before reading the subsequent chapter. For Chapters 1, 3, 4 & 5 I have selected 8 positions I find interesting, while Chapter 2 has 26 positions, as it is a rather big chapter. I know that not everyone will want to spend this amount of time on these exercises, but for those who have the discipline, the option is there. It is for the same reason that I have included 50 exercises towards the end of this book and 24 exercises at the end of Chapter 1. This double-volume work has been seven years in the making; with the publication of the revised and expanded Volume One and this volume, I have fulfilled a major personal ambition. Quality Chess was founded to support the publication of The Berlin Wall, Questions of Modern Chess Theory and this work. Seven years after the first thoughts and conversations about these works, I am proud to say that it was all worth it, and that all four books were worth fighting for. Jacob Aagaard Glasgow, 22nd December 2009
Chapter 1 Understanding Mating Attacks
This is the three piece rule in practice. The bishop has sacrificed itself, the knight is assisting the queen, in this case by defending her, and big momma creates general devastation.
Diagram preview On this page you find 8 diagrams with critical moments from the coming chapter. I recommend that you take up to 10 minutes to think about each of them. The solutions are found on the following pages in the annotations to the games. Positions with a circled P can be played against a computer.
1222222223 1222222223 + + +tL5 + + +l+5 + + +o+o5 + + +o+o5 oW +oPoQ5 O + Qv+5 +o+ O + 5 O +o+p+ 5 +t+ + +5 + N + +5 P P +v+p5 + + R Kp5 P + +pK5 + + +p+5 W + T + 5 + +r+r+ 5 P 79 79 White wins, but how? (see page 22)
White to play and win (see page 29)
White to win (see page 25)
Calculate all the way (see page 33)
1222222223 1222222223 1222222223 + + T L5 + +vTl+5 +w+ M +5 +v+ N To5 + T +o+o5 +o+mT Ol5 o+ P + M5 o+ NmWoQ5 + +o+oO5 +o+ Q + 5 +o+ O +p5 + Po+ + 5 + + + +5 + +p+ +5 + P + +5 + +b+oPw5 + +b+p+ 5 +pNbR + 5 pP + P P5 pPp+ + +5 + + Pp+5 + K + Rr5 +q+ + K 5 + + R Rk5 79 79 79 Win in the face of disaster (see page 15)
1222222223 1222222223 1222222223 t+v+ Tl+5 + V L T5 + + Tl+5 + + V Oo5 + +m+oOo5 +vW To+o5 + O + +5 o+m+o+ +5 o+ N O +5 +p+pO + 5 +oWoP + 5 +o+p+ + 5 r+ + +v+5 + + P +5 + + + +5 + + +oPw5 + Nb+n+ 5 + + R + 5 P B P P5 pPpQ +pP5 pPp+qPpP5 + + R K 5 + +q+ Rk5 + Kr+ +r5 P P 79 79 79 Black to win in one move (see page 17)
White to calculate very well (see page 26-27)
Accurate attack (see page 36)
Covered in this chapter • Typical Mates & Focal Points • Three Piece Attacks • Insurance Policies • Transformations In this chapter we will discuss the basic mechanics of mating attacks. We will do so by looking at some basic themes and then elaborating on them, to see how they work in practice. A good place to start is with the ordinary. Typical Mates & Focal Points I am not sure if the notion of focal points has been used before in chess literature, but the place where I first encountered it and where it continues to meet new readers, was in Vladimir Vukovic’s famous book Art of Attack in Chess, which is considered by many to be the best book ever written about attacking chess. The book is an impressive looking brick, written in 1965, which alternates between giving bloated theoretical descriptions in the tradition of Kmoch’s Pawn Power in Chess (a book which by itself has decreased the numbers of chess players in the world!) and some sophisticated description of actual positions. Vukovic’s definition of a focal point goes as follows: “If the attacker threatens mate or actually mates on these squares, they are mating focalpoints, but if he only harries the king from them or uses them as points from which to break into the castled position, they are called strategic or auxiliary focal-points. It may be that there is more than one mating focal-point, and in that case we speak of compound focal-points. If there are many focal-points (both mating and strategic) on
squares of the same colour, we speak of a network of weak squares.” I personally find this paragraph of definitions rather amusing, as it is complex and not particularly helpful for the practical player, if anyone at all. The reason why I am starting with this quote is that I had written a few pages that were going down the road of trying to define what attacking chess is, rather than showing it, before I realised that I was stuck and not able to deliver my ideas in a format that satisfied me. Despite the fact that the theoretical basis for the idea of focal points stands on this rather shaky foundation, which despite being technically correct is of very little use, it has had a great impact on how people talk about chess even today, more than forty years after the book was written. I think this is mainly because Vukovic manages to elucidate various aspects of attacking chess with great vitality and care, and leaves the reader with real insights. But we do not need to know a lot of definitions to understand that, though it is usually easier to attack the opponent at h7 than g7 (mainly because of the easy access from the starting position for the king’s bishop and knight), an attack on g7 is in general stronger, because the king will have a greater chance of escaping if it is attacked on h7 than on g7. We do not need to know a complex terminology to understand such insights, and luckily you do not need to do so to follow Vukovic’s book. Another chapter in Vukovic’s book gives some generic mating positions that may seem more suitable for a beginner’s book than a sophisticated book on middlegame strategy, but they do have the purpose to build a foundation for the rest of the book. An example is the following configuration:
Attacking Manual 2
12
12223 Tl+5 oO 5 + +5 Nq5 79 Only two chapters after presenting this simple position, Vukovic goes deep into the Greek gift sacrifice with ¥xh7†, ¤g5† and £h5, in scenarios that are far from clear. He has his own points to make about this and I strongly recommend that you read his book to find out what they are, as it is always useful to see a topic discussed from various points of view. Not surprisingly it is my intention in this book to present my understanding of the various techniques and aspects of attacking chess. I am a strong believer that thinking in concepts can improve your chess and that to consider certain patterns or standard reactions can greatly improve your playing strength. If you are familiar with a lot of thematic ideas, you will definitely find them more easily at the board. For instance, if you know that an attack on the flank is best met by a strike in the centre, you will investigate this option with a good deal more confidence than if you had never encountered the concept. In the first volume of this book I presented my seven global ideas, of which I am certain that we should have an intimate knowledge, if we want to be good attackers. They were deliberately made so simple as to make them seem almost comical, and for this reason I gave examples of very strong players violating them again and again. Obviously those strong players had other ideas and somehow they did not work out, but we should also not overestimate the human ability or underestimate just how
difficult chess is. We need all the help we can get to play this game just on a decent level. Developing a strong intuition for the attack by learning and mastering those seven principles will definitely do this. It is with this foundation that we progress to this, the second volume. Here we will look at some of the typical scenarios that we encounter again and again when conducting a direct attack on the opponent’s king. The first discussion will be of a typical mating pattern, one also found in Vukovic’s book. However, just like Vukovic, I am not simply wishing to give a mate in one exercise, but to take this typical pattern and study it thoroughly, from the perspective of both the attacker and the defender. The first pattern is defined by a pawn on f6 teaming up with a queen on h6 to attack the enemy king:
12223 + L5 o+o5 PoQ5 79
This is the archetypal position. Let us now familiarise ourselves with some typical variations on the position, which we will be discussing in more detail over the next few pages (for ease of reading I will always take White as the attacking side, but the principles will of course be just as relevant on the opposite side of the pitch).
12223 WtL5 o+o5 PoQ5 N 5 79
Chapter 1 - Understanding Mating Attacks White has just played the knight to g5 and Black will have to give up his rook in order to avoid mate.
1222223 W +tL5 +o+o5 + PoQ5 + B 5 79
White has the chance to decide the game with 1.£g7†, winning a rook due to the hanging queen on d8.
122223 +tL5 Ro+o5 PoQ5 + + 5 79
Black cannot defend f7 in this position, but even if he was able to do so, White would have the deciding tactic 1.¦e8!, diverting/pinning the rook on g8 and thus taking control over the g7-square.
12223 +tL5 o+o5 PoQ5 + 5 R +5 79
Black has managed to control the vital g7-square, but if White is to move, he would have 1.£xh7†! ¢xh7 2.¦h4 mate. However, Black to play would be able to defend with 1…g5! followed by 2…¦g6!, repulsing the queen.
13
1222223 + +tL5 w+o+o5 +oPoQ5 + +p5 +b+ R5 79 The final position shows a combination that arises rather infrequently. Here White can decide the game with 1.£xh7†! ¢xh7 2.hxg6 mate. In what follows I will give thirteen relevant practical examples from games played by good players. During my research, I found it striking that serious mistakes were committed more often than not. If I had to guess, I would attribute the mistakes to the players’ insufficient familiarity with the relevant patterns, not forgetting the simple fact that chess is just difficult!
David Berczes – Simon Widmer Biel 2005
1222222223 + + +tL5 O + +o+o5 O + PoQ5 M +oWb+ 5 + + N +5 + + + + 5 p+ + +pP5 + + +rK 5 79 The first example starts at a point where the player leading the black pieces is on the way to inflicting a big upset against an opponent rated more than 300 points higher, when the following accident happens:
Attacking Manual 2
14
25...£xf5? If Black had taken with the pawn on f5 he would not only have prevented anything bad from happening, but would also have been able to use the open g-file for aggressive measures. 26.¤h3! £h5 Black must have believed that he had everything under control at this point. Great must his disappointment have been, upon seeing White’s next move. 27.¤g5! There is no good way for Black to defend f7. Taking the queen allows a smothered mate:
12223 +tL5 n+o5 PoW5 79
1–0 This pattern is more often seen in positions where Black gets his queen to f8 to expel the white queen from h6, as we saw above, and as is the case in the following example.
Hansjuerg Kaenel – Meinrad Schauwecker Swiss Championship 2001
1222222223 + + Tl+5 +v+ +w+o5 o+ + M +5 P +oV + 5 b+ No+o+5 + + PtP 5 + + P P5 B Rq+rK 5 79
Objectively, White is probably doing rather well in this position. Black has no easy targets to attack around the white king, even if it does look rather vulnerable. The best way to continue would probably be to get the bishop to c6 and start undermining the black queenside with the idea of eventually attacking his kingside from the flank. In the game White chose another strategy, which can at best be called suicidal. He decided to exchange probably his best piece, the knight on d4, for what is surely an ineffective piece of wood on f3, albeit theoretically of higher value, and in the process promote the pawn on g4 from being in the way of the knight to being a cold-hearted killer on f3. You can argue that this was the basis of a miscalculation, but Kaenel is not a weak player and would not have made this type of error if he had possessed a deep understanding of the relevant themes. 28.¤xf3? gxf3 29.¢h1 White seems to be under the illusion that his king can be defended. But even if he had not been losing to the trick played in the game, it would still be an error of judgement to enter such a volatile position willingly, considering that his position was so promising beforehand. 29…£e6? Black commits an inaccuracy. Instead 29...£h5! 30.¦g1 £h3 would transpose to the game, without allowing the possibility mentioned in the following note. 30.¦g1? This loses in the way we have already seen in the previous example, this time with the queen on the more typical f1-square. Instead it was possible for White to defend his king
Chapter 1 - Understanding Mating Attacks by advancing the g-pawn, something that we will see is a quite common defensive possibility from this generic position. The line I have analysed includes a few nice tactics and eventually leads to a draw: 30.g4! ¤xg4 31.¦g1 £g6 32.£d2 ¥xh2 33.¥d7 ¥xg1 34.¥xg4 £h6† 35.¢xg1 £g6 36.¢h2 £d6† 37.¢h3 £h6† 38.¢g3 £d6† with an odd repetition of moves. 30...£h3 31.£f1 ¤g4!
1222222223 + + Tl+5 +v+ + +o5 o+ + + +5 p +oV + 5 b+ +o+m+5 + + PoPw5 + + P P5 b R +qRk5 79
White must have been horrified to see this move. Though he had probably seen a similar theme before, somehow it had slipped his mind. He tried to give up a rook, but the material deficit was much too great for him to obtain any hope of survival. 32.¦g2 fxg2† 33.£xg2 £xg2† 34.¢xg2 ¥xa1 35.¦xa1 ¦xf2† 36.¢h3 ¥c8 37.¢h4 ¦xh2† 38.¢g5 ¢g7 0–1 At times a knight jump to g4 can seem so convincing that it disarms us of our confidence, which I imagine is one of the ingredients in the following disaster, the other being possibly time trouble.
15
Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant – Stephen Peters Port Erin 2000
1222222223 + + T L5 +v+ N To5 o+ P + M5 +o+ Q + 5 + + + +5 + +b+oPw5 pP + P P5 + + R Rk5 79 White is faced with the strong threat of …¤g4 and did not find an adequate reply. It was necessary to disturb the black coordination for long enough to turn the d-pawn from a mere player into a match winner. A bit of positive thinking was required, as White is surprisingly winning after 36.¤f5!!. The relevant line goes: 36…¤xf5 37.d7! and with the threat of ¥xf5 it seems that Black has nothing better than 37…¤h6. But here White has time for 38.£e8 or 38.£d6, both of which decide the game in White’s favour as the d-pawn is unstoppable. In what I suspect was time trouble White followed a less convincing strategy. 36.£e6?? ¤g4 37.£xg4 £xg4 0–1 One thing that surprised me when I was researching our archetypal position was that the number of positions featuring the above pattern, involving a knight moving to g5 (or g4), is very low. In the vast majority of games, rooks were the main helpers in the attack, either against h7 or by pinning the g8-rook.
Attacking the Spanish By
Sabino Brunello
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
First English edition 2009 by Quality Chess UK LLP Copyright © 2009 Sabino Brunello
Attacking the Spanish All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-1-906552-1-76 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, Suite 45, Central Chambers, 93 Hope St, Glasgow G2 6LD, United Kingdom e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK LLP through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Editing: Andrew Greet Typeset: Andrew Greet and Jacob Aagaard Proofreading: Colin McNab and John Shaw Cover design: Peter Woods and Barry Adamson Cover photos: Jacob Aagaard Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
Contents
Key to symbols used Introduction
4 5
1 2 3
The Schliemann Schliemann: 4.d3 Schliemann: 4.¤c3 Schliemann: Minor Lines
4 5
The Gajewski Gajewski 11.d3 and 11.exd5 Gajewski 11.d4
93 119
6 7 8 9
The Marshall Anti-Marshall Marshall: 12.d4 Marshall: 12.d3 Marshall: Modern Ideas
153 183 223 257
7 37 69
Chapter 1 - Schliemann: 4.d3 The resulting position is rather unclear. White’s extra piece is approximately balanced by his missing pawns, lack of development and ragged structure. 16...£h4 17.h3! The immediate 17.fxg4?? would of course see White get mated after 17...£xg4† 18.¢h1 £f3† 19.¢g1 ¥h3. 17...£xh3 18.fxg4 £xg4† 19.¢h2 £h3† 19...¦f8 20.¦a3 forces Black to take the draw with 20...¦f3 anyway. 20.¢g1 £g4† ½–½ Based on the evidence of this game, it seems that after 9.b4!? the theoretical ball is presently in White’s court. D312) 9.¤c3
1222222223 t+v+l+ T5 OoO W Oo5 +mO M +5 +bV O + 5 +q+p+ +5 + N +n+ 5 pPp+ PpP5 R B +rK 5 79
This is White’s most popular continuation, and probably his best try for a theoretical plus. The knight is headed for d5 at the earliest opportunity. 9...¥d7 Black unpins his knight in preparation for the following sequence.
27
10.¤d5 If White tries to prepare this with 10.¥g5?! there follows 10...a6! 11.¥xc6 (of course there is no time for 11.¤d5?? as 11...axb5 hits the queen) 11...bxc6 with an excellent position. 10...¤xd5 11.exd5 ¤d4 Black has no real choice, as the alternatives would leave the knight severely misplaced. 12.¥xd7† White can change the move order with 12.¤xd4 ¥xd4 13.¥xd7† £xd7 leading to line D3122). 12...£xd7
1222222223 t+ +l+ T5 OoOw+ Oo5 + O + +5 + VpO + 5 +qM + +5 + + +n+ 5 pPp+ PpP5 R B +rK 5 79
White must now decide whether to grab a pawn with D3121) 13.¤xe5 or exchange knights with D3122) 13.¤xd4. D3121) 13.¤xe5 With this move White wins a pawn but loses some time. 13...£f5 14.¤d3 0–0–0 Black can regain his pawn with 14...b5?! 15.¦e1† ¢f7 16.£c3 £xd5, but after 17.¥e3 his position is quite unpleasant. The text is much more in the spirit of the Schliemann.
28
Attacking the Spanish
1222222223 +lT + T5 OoO + Oo5 + O + +5 + Vp+w+ 5 +qM + +5 + +n+ + 5 pPp+ PpP5 R B +rK 5 79 15.a4 15.¢h1 b5!? 16.£c3 £xd5 was equal in Melia – Shukurova, Kusadasi 2006. Black’s active pieces compensate the slight weakening of his king’s shelter. 15.¤xc5 dxc5 16.£xc5 should not be at all dangerous for Black, as long as he makes the right choice: In Kozhuharov – Inkiov, Fouesnant 2007, he was successful with 16...¦xd5? 17.£xa7 ¦e8?! 18.¥e3?? ¤e2† 19.¢h1 ¦a5! 0–1, but White could easily have improved with 18.£a8† ¢d7 19.£xb7 with a winning position. Therefore Black should prefer 16...¤xc2:
1222222223 +lT + T5 OoO + Oo5 + + + +5 + Qp+w+ 5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 pPm+ PpP5 R B +rK 5 79
White has no chance of an advantage, for example:
17.¦b1 ¦xd5³ leaves Black more actively placed. 17.£xa7 ¤xa1 18.£a8† ¢d7 19.£xb7 ¤c2 does not give White any real compensation for the rook, as only his queen is attacking. 17.¥f4!? £xf4 18.£xc2 ¦xd5 is equal. 15...¦he8 16.¢h1! It is important to position the king away from the checking range of the knight. 16.¤xc5? dxc5µ 17.£xc5 ¦xd5 18.£xa7? (18.£c4 was mandatory, although even here 18...¤xc2 regains the pawn while keeping a much more active position) 18...¤e2† 19.¢h1 ¦a5! trapped the queen in Meshcheriakova – Agrest, Stockholm 2008. 16...g5! The slow 16...a6 can be met by 17.f3 ¥a7 18.c3 ¤e2 19.¤f4². The text is designed to prevent this possibility.
1222222223 +lTt+ +5 OoO + +o5 + O + +5 + Vp+wO 5 p+qM + +5 + +n+ + 5 Pp+ PpP5 R B +r+k5 79
We now follow the model game Mamedyarov – Radjabov, Baku 2008. 17.¥e3 White gets into trouble after: 17.c3? ¤c2 18.¦b1 ¦e4 19.£b3 ¤e1!
Chapter 1 - Schliemann: 4.d3
1222222223 +lT + +5 OoO + +o5 + O + +5 + Vp+wO 5 p+ +t+ +5 +qPn+ + 5 P + PpP5 +rB Mr+k5 79 Black must utilise all eight ranks if he is to maximise his initiative! 20.£d1 20.¤xe1?? £xf2! wins. 20.¤xc5? dxc5 21.f3 ¦e2 is not much better for White. 20...¤xg2! 20...£xd5 21.¦xe1 £xd3 22.¥xg5 ¦xe1† 23.£xe1 ¥xf2 is only equal. 21.¦g1 White loses after 21.¢xg2 ¦h4!, or 21.b4 ¤h4!. 21...¤e1! 21...¤h4 22.¦xg5 (22.¥xg5 £xd5) 22...£f7 gives Black a smaller advantage.
1222222223 +lT + +5 OoO + +o5 + O + +5 + Vp+wO 5 p+ +t+ +5 + Pn+ + 5 P + P P5 +rBqM Rk5 79
The knight’s return to this unusual destination makes a nice impression. 22.¤xe1 22.¥xg5 ¤f3 23.¥xd8 ¤xg1–+. After 22.¦xg5 £h3 23.¤xe1 ¥xf2 24.¤g2 ¦e1† 25.£xe1 ¥xe1 26.¤xe1 ¦e8 27.¦g1
29
£f5 28.¦a1 £xd5† 29.¤g2 ¦e2 White is unlikely to survive. 22...¥xf2 23.£f3 ¦f8 24.£xf5† ¦xf5 25.¦f1 25.¤g2 ¥xg1 26.¢xg1 ¦xd5 27.¥e3 ¦xa4 is winning for Black. 25...¦xe1 26.¦xe1 ¥xe1µ Black has excellent winning chances in the ending. We must also examine the consequences of the critical 17.b4 when I recommend 17...¦e4!. (At first I liked the look of 17...¤f3!? but the problem turned out to be 18.¤xc5 dxc5 19.¦a3! when White should maintain some advantage.)
1222222223 +lT + +5 OoO + +o5 + O + +5 + Vp+wO 5 pPqMt+ +5 + +n+ + 5 +p+ PpP5 R B +r+k5 79
The tactics work out well for Black, although of course the position is very complicated. The following variations illustrate his possibilities quite nicely. a) 18.¤b2?! ¤c6µ b) 18.¦e1 ¦h4 19.bxc5 ¤f3 20.£xh4 ¤xh4–+ c) 18.£c3 ¤e2 19.£g7 (19.£d2 ¥d4 20.¦a3 £xd5 21.£xg5 £f7µ) 19...¥d4 20.£xg5 £xg5 21.¥xg5 ¦g8µ d) 18.f3 ¤xf3 19.£b3 Alternatives are no better: 19.£a2 ¦e2 20.¦xf3 £g4–+ 19.¦xf3 £xf3 20.gxf3 ¦xc4 21.bxc5 dxc5µ
30
Attacking the Spanish
19...¦e2 20.¤f4 20.¤xc5 ¤d4 21.¢g1 ¤xb3 22.¦xf5 ¤xa1 23.¤e6 ¦e8 24.¥xg5 ¤xc2–+ 20.¦xf3 loses beautifully after 20...£g4 21.¦g3:
1222222223 +lT + +5 OoO + +o5 + O + +5 + Vp+ O 5 pP + +w+5 +q+n+ R 5 +p+t+pP5 R B + +k5 79
21...¦e1†!! 22.¤xe1 £e2 23.h4 £xe1† 24.¢h2 £g1† 25.¢h3 £h1† 26.¢g4 £xh4† 27.¢f3 ¦f8† with mate in a maximum of four more moves. 20...¤d4 21.£h3 gxf4 22.£xf5† ¤xf5 23.bxc5 dxc5 Black stands clearly better. e) 18.¤xc5! seems to be the only way for White to maintain the balance. My analysis continues: 18...dxc5 19.£xc5 ¦xd5 20.£xa7 ¤xc2 21.¦b1! ¦e1 22.¦xe1 ¤xe1 23.¥xg5!
1222222223 +l+ + +5 QoO + +o5 + + + +5 + +t+wB 5 pP + + +5 + + + + 5 + + PpP5 +r+ M +k5 79
This is the key move which enables White to force a draw. 23...£xb1 24.£a8† ¢d7 25.£d8† ¢c6 26.£e8† ¢b6 27.¥e3† c5
28.bxc5† ¦xc5 29.£d8† ¢a6 30.£a8† ¢b6 31.£d8†= 17...¤f3!
1222222223 +lTt+ +5 OoO + +o5 + O + +5 + Vp+wO 5 p+q+ + +5 + +nBm+ 5 Pp+ PpP5 R + +r+k5 79
The other option was 17...¦e4 18.¤xc5 dxc5 19.£xc5 ¦xd5 when Black has some activity to show for the pawn. Play might continue 20.£c3 ¤e2 21.£g7 ¤f4 22.¦fd1 ¦xd1† 23.¦xd1 b6 with some, though perhaps not quite enough, compensation. Radjabov’s choice is more incisive. Black threatens to transfer a rook to the h-file. 18.¤xc5 Of course 18.gxf3?? loses to 18...£xf3† 19.¢g1 ¦e4. 18...dxc5 19.¦fd1 19.£xc5 ¦d6 20.£b5 should also lead to a draw after: 20...£e4! 21.gxf3 £xf3† 22.¢g1 ¦e4 (or immediately 22...£g4† 23.¢h1 £f3†) 23.¦fd1 ¦xe3 24.fxe3 £xe3† 25.¢g2 19...¦e4 20.£f1 White must take care to avoid 20.£xc5? ¦h4 21.gxf3 £xf3† 22.¢g1 ¦d6 with a winning attack. 20...¤d4 21.£d3 £e5
Chapter 1 - Schliemann: 4.d3
1222222223 +lT + +5 OoO + +o5 + + + +5 + OpW O 5 p+ Mt+ +5 + +qB + 5 Pp+ PpP5 R +r+ +k5 79 Black’s active, centralised pieces make a nice impression. 22.¥xg5 22.c4!? was possible although 22...¦e8 would leave Black with enough for the missing pawn. 22...¦e8 23.¥d2 ¦h4 24.h3 £xd5 25.c4 £c6 Black’s activity provides full compensation for his small material investment, and I think that Mamedyarov was quite justified in repeating the position. 26.£g3 The evaluation would be the same after 26.¦a3 ¦g8 27.£f1 ¤f5 28.¦f3 ¤d4 29.¦c3 ¤f5= 26...¤f5 27.£d3 ¤d4 28.£g3 ¤f5 29.£d3 ¤d4 30.£g3 ¤f5 ½–½ This was an excellent game. In fact, I would find it difficult to fault a single move by either player. We may conclude that Black is presently holding his own after 13.¤xe5, although he should definitely make sure he comes to the board well prepared.
31
D3122) 13.¤xd4 ¥xd4 14.a4!
1222222223 t+ +l+ T5 OoOw+ Oo5 + O + +5 + +pO + 5 p+qV + +5 + + + + 5 Pp+ PpP5 R B +rK 5 79
Tournament practice and analysis have demonstrated this to be White’s most promising move. The text gains space on the queenside while also threatening to trap the enemy bishop. 14...a6 Black prepares a retreat square on a7. 15.¥e3 Black was intending ...0–0 with pressure against f2. White should therefore exchange off his opponent’s strong bishop while conveniently opening the f-file and preventing short castling. 15...¥xe3 Obviously it would be far too risky for Black to venture 15...¥xb2? 16.¦ab1 b5 (after 16...¥d4 17.¥xd4 exd4 18.¦xb7 White will emerge with an extra pawn) 17.£a2!? ¥d4 18.¥xd4 exd4 19.axb5±. 16.fxe3 0–0–0 We have reached a position with equal material, no minor pieces and symmetrical pawns. Black is close to equality, but White does control slightly more space as well as the only open file.
Beat the KID Three Lines Against the King’s Indian
By
Jan Markos
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to symbols used & Biblography Foreword - what can be found in this book Introduction to the King’s Indian Defence
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 9
PART 1 - The Krasenkow Variation
15
Introduction - The Art of Prophylaxis
17
The Modern Benoni Structure Avoiding the Pin - 7...¤h5 Black Plays 7...h6 Black does not Play 7...h6 and Plays ...¤a6 with his Pawn on a7 Black does not Play 7...h6 and Plays ...¤a6 with his Pawn on a5
21 27 33 39 47
Conclusion to part 1
55
PART 2 - The Bayonet Variation
57
Introduction - An Open Fight
59
6 7 8 9 10 11
Black’s Rare Answers and Introduction to the 9.b4 a5 Line 9...a5 10.¥a3 axb4 11.¥xb4 b6 9...a5 10.¥a3 axb4 11.¥xb4 ¤d7 9...¤h5 10.¦e1 a5 9...¤h5 10.¦e1 f5 11.¤g5 ¤f4 Introduction to the 9...¤h5 10.¦e1 f5 11.¤g5 ¤f6 System and the 12.¥f3 c6 13.¥e3 Line 12 9...¤h5 10.¦e1 f5 11.¤g5 ¤f6 12.¥f3 c6 13.¥b2 13 9...¤h5 10.¦e1 f5 11.¤g5 ¤f6 12.f3 Conclusion to part 2
61 71 79 85 93 97 105 109 121
PART 3 - The Classical Variation Introduction - Back to the Roots 14 9.¤e1 c5 and 9.¤e1 ¤d7/¤e8 10.f3 f5 11.g4 15 Introduction to the 9.¤e1 ¤d7 10.f3 f5 11.¥e3 f4 12.¥f2 g5 13.a4 Line and 13.a4 ¦f6 16 9.¤e1 ¤d7 10.f3 f5 11.¥e3 f4 12.¥f2 g5 13.a4 a5 17 9.¤e1 ¤d7 10.f3 f5 11.¥e3 f4 12.¥f2 g5 13.a4 ¤g6 18 9...¤e8!?
123 125 129 143 147 153 167
Conclusion to part 3
173
EPILOGUE - Sixth and Seventh Move Alternatives
175
19 Tying Up Loose Ends Index of Annotated Games Index of Variations
177 192 193
Foreword I am not an experienced chess author. However, I am a very passionate reader of chess books. When I was thirteen, I read Averbakh’s entire course on endings, and I read it with pleasure (frankly, my parents were not especially happy about that.) And I am a reasonably strong practical player. This book was written to serve both practical and ‘unpractical’ chessplayers. It was written to meet the expectations of those who seek useful advice, but it was also written for those who are looking for beauty and entertainment in chess. Therefore do not be surprised to find a diagram attached to some completely unimportant sub-line: I have never been able to resist the temptation to highlight a unique chess moment. This is a book on a specific opening. From such a book two conflicting qualities are demanded. On the one hand, it should be crammed with exhaustive and reliable information, which is easy to find if needed. On the other hand, it should be structured and intelligible enough to be read from cover to cover like a novel. I was trying to find a compromise between these two demands, although I have to admit that I am a fan of elegant, easy-to-read chess books. This book deals with the King’s Indian opening from the viewpoint of White. You will become familiar with three different systems against this opening: the Krasenkow line (6.h3), the Bayonet Attack (9.b4), and the Classical Variation (9.¤e1). These three lines have much in common – they are modern, popular and dangerous weapons. However, their strategic character is rather different. In the Krasenkow line, White’s strategy is based on the concept of prophylaxis, whereas in the Bayonet Attack White has to play actively and courageously. In the Classical Variation, attacks on opposite flanks usually take place. White’s main strategic problem in this line is to harmoniously combine attack and defence. It is not without reason that I have chosen three variations of such distinct characters. Studying these three lines will offer a complex view on the King’s Indian opening.
8
Beat the KID
Most of the material in this book consists of annotated parts of chess games. I always preferred examples from top grandmasters praxis. I am perfectly aware that no chessplayer is able to learn by heart an entire theoretical book. Moreover, theory is constantly changing. However, you should be aware of the typical plans and ideas in the line you are playing. This is what you should know by heart. In this book, every Introduction and Conclusion deals with this kind of material. I am convinced that in the age of chess databases it makes no sense to write a compilation of others games, evaluations and analyses. While I was trying to get every piece of information available, I am not merely reproducing them. This is a book with an opinion. You will find more than a dozen novelties in it. Sometimes I have decided not to follow the main line, suggesting a rare yet interesting continuation. On several occasions I have changed the traditional evaluation of a sub-line or a position. I have annotated anew several frequently commented games. Some of my conclusions might prove to be subjective, or even faulty. Still, I believe that it is vital to try to communicate my personal chess understanding. I find an objective, politically correct chess book approximately as interesting as a directory. I would like express my thanks to grandmasters Jacob Aagaard, Lubomir Ftacnik, Viktor Laznicka and Igor Stohl for their invaluable help. Jan Markos Bratislava September 2008
Introduction
! " #$%&'()*+,
Many chessplayers don’t like facing the King’s Indian Defence. Perhaps they find it too tactical, too complicated, too difficult to handle. Perhaps they fear its (supposedly) aggressive, counterattacking character. After all, I know many players who switched to 1.d4 because they simply wanted to avoid all these sharp Sicilians. Perhaps they even feel it slightly unjust that in this opening White, despite being a tempo up, has to defend carefully in some lines. “Defence is difficult” is the opinion of many players. “It is much easier to attack, or enjoy a small advantage in a relatively calm position.”
However, in my opinion, there are very few reasons to feel unhappy when your opponent chooses the King’s Indian Defence. And there are several good reasons to be happy. Why do I think so? Well, some of the fearsome rumours about the King’s Indian are based on prejudices or exaggerations. In addition, I am convinced that by choosing this opening Black undertakes quite a significant strategic risk. Let’s have a detailed look.
The Central Pawn Chain Pawns are the least mobile troops in chess. As their placement can’t be changed quickly, it is one of the most reliable factors you have to take into account when evaluating the situation on the chessboard. Most of the middlegame positions arising from the King’s Indian are of a closed character. Usually, a pawn chain originates in the centre, with the white pawns on e4 and d5 and the black pawns on d6 and e5.
10
Beat the KID
another pawn, you can’t successfully attack
it with a piece. After all, exchanging a minor for two pawns is usually quite bad
piece business. That’s why a pawn chain can usually
be effectively attacked only with the help of
pawn advances. In White’s case, two advances
come into consideration: f2-f4 and c4-c5.
#$%&'()*+,
The d5-outpost gives White a significant spatial advantage in the centre and on
the queenside. Moreover, as this outpost
is very well defended by both pawns and pieces, White’s spatial advantage is usually
permanent. While in the French Defence
Black often succeeds in undermining the e5#$%&'()*+, outpost, here he is almost never capable of capturing or exchanging the d5-pawn. Having more space for his troops, White can manoeuvre freely. He can get his pieces to the best squares, maximizing their influence. This is why the spatial advantage is an important strategic plus. In the King’s Indian, Black gives up space without a fight. What does he get for it? Well, I can offer you only a rather vague answer. As Black’s central pawn chain is closer to Black’s base, the potential battlefield is also closer to his army. He therefore enjoys a kind of dynamic advantage: at the moment his pieces are closer to the location of the future clashes. Therefore he is momentarily better prepared for these fights. To sum up, thanks to the shape of the central pawn chain White enjoys a strategic, long-term advantage, while Black’s positional plusses are of a short-term, dynamic character.
Pawns are the least valuable troops on the chessboard. Once a pawn is defended by
From a purely strategic point of view, the c4-c5 advance is sounder. After cxd6 ...cxd6 a weakness is created on d6: this pawn can be successfully attacked by pieces. In addition, there is no reason to be afraid of the d6xc5 capture – White usually gets strong pressure along the c-file, terrorizing the c7-pawn. On the contrary, after f2(f3)-f4 the e4-pawn loses its pawn support. Furthermore, after e5xf4 the freed e5-square may become an excellent outpost for Black’s pieces. Similarly, Black also has two ways to attack his opponent’s central pawns: c7-c6 and f7-f5. The f7-f5 advance is strategically sounder, as the c7-c6 advance weakens the d6-pawn.
Black’s Dark-Squared Bishop Of course, the pawn structure is not the only influence on the character of the fight in the opening. Also vital is the placement of the pieces.
Introduction to the King’s Indian Defence In our pawn structure the fate of Black’s dark-squared bishop is especially important. The d6- and e5-pawns are fixed on dark squares, limiting the mobility of this bishop. And obviously, the less mobile a piece is, the more its actual position influences the evaluation of the entire position. The following position originated from the Bogo-Indian Defence:
Karpov – Nikolic Skelleftea 1989
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¥b4† 4.¥d2 £e7 5.g3 0–0 6.¥g2 ¥xd2† 7.£xd2 d6 8.¤c3 e5 9.0–0 ¦e8 10.e4 ¥g4 11.d5 ¥xf3 12.¥xf3
11
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0–0 ¥e7 6.¦e1 b5 7.¥b3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 ¤a5 10.¥c2 c5 11.d4 ¥b7 12.d5
!
#$%&'()*+, The central pawn structure in this line
is identical to the King’s Indian structure,
however, the pieces of both sides are placed differently. As a result, Black is usually very active on the queenside (playing c5-c4, ¤f6
d7-c5, or even ¥e7-d8-b6), while White tries to develop an initiative on the
often kingside. I have to confess that I am no expert
on the nuances of the Spanish (for a detailed of this opening you should have a
! analysis look somewhere else, e.g. the excellent book A - Spanish Repertoire for Black, written by Mihail
" Marin). Still, one thing is obvious even to me: the #$%&'()*+, f7-f5 break, so typical for the King’s Indian
Two pairs of minor pieces have been exchanged. This fact reduces the importance of White’s spatial advantage, as Black’s remaining pieces have enough space to be harmoniously placed. Moreover, Black has got rid of the ‘bad’ dark-squared bishop. Therefore he does not have to fear the endgame. The following fight will be of a very calm, positional character; White is minimally better. The position in the next diagram arises from one of the main lines of the Spanish Opening:
Defence, is almost never played here. Why? Because of the specific position of two bishops: White’s c2-bishop indirectly controls the f5square, while Black’s dark-squared bishop is so modestly placed on e7 that after f7-f5 it wouldn’t be able to support Black’s activity on the kingside. In the King’s Indian Defence, Black’s darksquared bishop is developed to g7. Although it seems to be quite passively placed here, it plays a very important role in Black’s attack.
12
Beat the KID
Karpov – Spassky
Leningrad (3) 1974
(position after 27.a5)
.
/
#$%&'()*+,
Without the e5-pawn, the dark-squared
bishop would be a very active piece, controlling
! 0
the entire long diagonal. Therefore it is only logical that White wants the e5-pawn to stay
where it is. And because White wants the #$%&'()*+, e5-pawn to remain where it is, he does not want to put any piece or pawn on f4. He usually refrains from playing f2-f4, and often allows f7-f5-f4, or even ¤f6-h5-f4 without protesting. The dark-squared bishop on g7 helps Black to build up an attack on the kingside, as it indirectly fights for the f4-square. The position of the darksquared bishop thus increases Black’s dynamic potential. On the other hand, it decreases Black’s strategic potential, as it nevertheless stands quite passively on g7. As a result, almost every endgame with the darksquared bishop on the board is very difficult for Black. The following example is from the Karpov – Spassky Candidates match in 1974. White enjoys a decisive advantage, because in addition to the space advantage and the sorry position of Black’s dark-squared bishop he also has the advantage of a bishop pair.
“The game is effectively over. Spassky’s desperate resistance can no longer change anything.” (Kasparov)
I have said that I like playing against the King’s Indian Defence. Now you probably understand why: in this opening, White enjoys a permanent positional plus – a spatial advantage. Moreover, practically every endgame is better for him. In the King’s Indian, Black is the one who has to be creative, the one who has to show activity.
White Has a Wide Choice Another good thing about fighting against the King’s Indian Defence is that White may choose between an extraordinarily broad variety of interesting systems. This gives a subjective advantage – you have the freedom to choose the sub-system which suits you most, or the sub-system which you expect to be the most unpleasant for your opponent. If your wish is to achieve a draw, there are some variations which may help you to fulfil this aim, the most popular of them being the
Introduction to the King’s Indian Defence 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 ¥g7 4.e4 d6 5.¤f3 0–0 6.¥e2 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.£xd8 ¦xd8 9.¥g5 line. There are variations for attacking players (e.g. the Bayonet Attack), for positional players (e.g. the Petrosian Variation, or the Krasenkow Variation), lines for those who love danger (e.g. the Classical Variation with 9.¤e1), but also for those who love safety (e.g. the Classical Variation with 9.¤e1 and an early g2-g4). It is only a myth that in every King’s Indian game White has to face a strong attack. In fact, in the majority of systems you can avoid it, choosing exactly the kind of game you like. This book does not cover all the major systems against the King’s Indian Defence. It covers only three of them: the Krasenkow Variation (Part 1), the Bayonet Attack (Part 2) and the Classical Variation (Part 3). However, it is written to offer you the maximum freedom of choice. When two lines are available, a positional one and a tactical one, I always analyse both. This is because I believe that the subjective factors in chess are no less important than the objective ones.
13
The Benko Gambit Jan Pinski
Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Introduction to the Classical Benko Structures 7 The Benko Gambit Accepted I 31 The Benko Gambit Accepted II 41 The Benko Gambit Accepted III 57 The Positional 5.b6 71 The Ambitious 5.e3 83 5.f3 91 5.¤c3 – The Zaitsev Variation 105 Five Sidelines 111 Index of variations 121 Index of games 124
Introduction to the Classical Benko Structures
In the Benko Gambit there is no pawn structure more common than the classical structure:
This structure is the most important structure you will face when you are playing the Benko Gambit. Whether a bishop or a king is on g2 (after e4, ¥xf1, ¢xf1 and ¢g2) does not matter too much. Also the e-pawn could be on e2 instead of e4, and the white pawns on the queenside can be on b3 and a4, or (weaker) on a3 and b2. In this chapter we shall look at the most common decisions and motifs in this structure, which will make it easier for us to investigate the theoretical lines in the coming chapters. We will start by looking at the main strategic ideas in a kind of express summary.
Black’s ideal development
Black is usually striving towards a position not too dissimilar to this. The a6-bishop might be exchanged, the knight on d7 has not yet found its place in the world, and the same goes for the f6-knight, but in general this is the standard way of placing the pieces for Black in the Benko. White’s ideal world For White the story is slightly different. Having won a pawn as early as move 4, he is in a different situation from Black. Black wants to achieve pressure on the queenside against the two weak white pawns, while White is behind in development and basically just wants to have time
8
The Benko Gambit
to catch up. For this reason White does not often have an ideal position to be heading towards. His moves are usually designed to soften the black initiative and to avoid creating weaknesses in his own camp. Often this means that White will head towards something not too far away from this position:
Never mind the rest of the pieces. In a position like this White has managed to block the queenside completely. He can now consider if he wants to play b3-b4 or if he should focus on a kingside attack with h2-h4-h5xg6 and so on, or the most common advance, e4-e5 in the centre, trying to create weaknesses. So, whenever we see a game with this standard Benko structure, we can expect to see Black being a little ahead in development, and White somehow relating to Black’s actions in a strategy of containment. The bishop on a6 A natural part of the Benko Gambit Accepted is a black bishop on a6. Either White will advance his e-pawn and give up the right to castle, or he will face a well-placed bishop for quite some time. However modern practice seems to suggest that the weakness of the light squares in the white camp is more important than the strong bishop, and most importantly, the bishop on a6 is also a little bit in the way.
It is probably for this reason that White players have started to develop their bishop to g2, where it looks somewhat inferior to its mighty opponent at a6. Also, it is not that easy to land a knight on d3 when you are Black. As indicated above, White will usually strive towards putting his pawns on b3 and a4. Obviously it could also prove beneficial for White to play a3+b4 if it does not lose a pawn - or something else for that matter! However the move a2-a3 is usually a very bad idea, as it weakens a lot of light squares on the queenside. Of course b2-b3 weakens the dark squares, but they are easier for White to control. He has a bishop at c1 for that job, and a knight at c4, or more likely b5, will also take control of some dark squares. If White plays a2-a3 he can easily end up with a weak b3-square. Let us look at some examples that show what this can lead to. Game 1 Ehlvest – Fedorowicz New York 1989 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6 6.¤c3 ¥xa6 7.g3 d6 8.¥g2 ¥g7 9.¤f3 ¤bd7 10.0–0 ¤b6 11.¤e1!? This is a somewhat slow plan, which did not find many followers. These days people try to focus on getting their queenside developed before thinking about this kind of manoeuvre. As
Introduction to the Classical Benko Structures we shall see on the very next move, this quickly becomes more difficult. 11…¤c4 12.¤d3 12.b3?! is usually dubious when the knight is at c4. Here Black has a cunning blow: 12...¤d7! 13.£c2? £a5! with a clear edge for Black is worth noting. 13.bxc4 with almost equality is better, but still White should not go there to start with. 12...¤d7 13.£c2 0–0 14.h4? As discussed below this is part of an erroneous plan. White should instead try to catch up with Black’s lead in development. 14.¤e4!? is suggested by Fedorowicz. But after 14...¤db6! it is not easy to see any advantage for White at all. A natural move such as 15.¦d1 is answered with 15...¤a3 16.£d2 ¤xd5! after which Black is doing fine in all the complications. This is a good example of how Black can gain the advantage through a lead in development, a lead that was expanded because of the slow manoeuvre ¤f3-e1-d3. Another game from this position continued 14.a4 £a5 15.¦a2 ¦fb8 16.¤e4 ¤de5 17.¤xe5 ¤xe5 18.¥d2 £b6 19.¥c3 ¥c4.
Now we have: a) 20.¦aa1 ¥xd5 21.¤f6† ¥xf6 22.¥xd5 ¦a6, which would lead to an interesting position. White has exchanged his extra pawn for a position with two bishops and a passed pawn. Usually this would sound very good, but Black’s knight is by no means bad, and the f6-bishop will eventually be exchanged for the one on c3, and the black pawns are very likely to shut out the light-squared bishop eventually. If I were to give
9
an evaluation here, I would probably guess that Black has slightly better chances, as the b-pawn is still backward, and White has not solved the problems of having weak squares at b3 and b4. b) 20.a5 £b5 21.¦aa1 ¥xe2 22.¦fe1 ¥d3 Here a draw was agreed in Lyrberg – Lonborg, Copenhagen 1998. Black probably offered a draw because he was lower rated and had too much respect for his IM opponent, rather than because he thought the position held no promise for him. In my eyes play might still be close to equal, but the trend is certainly with Black, and White cannot be said to have complete and eternal control over his queenside. 14...£a5 15.a3
White is distressed about the threat of ¤a3. 15.¦b1?! allows this trick, based on the weak c3knight: 15...¤a3 16.bxa3 £xc3 17.£xc3 ¥xc3 and Black has a good position. But also 15...¦fb8! seems to be good. It is not clear how White shall improve his position, and the ¤a3 threat is still hovering over his head. 15...¦ab8!? Black is instantly targeting the weakened b3square. I am sure that at least one reader will wonder why the queen’s rook goes to b8, and not the king’s rook as in the diagram of ideal development above. There are two reasons for this. 1) White has made his intentions clear. He wants to play b2-b4. This will open the c-file and
Chapter 1
The Benko Gambit Accepted I 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6
1222222223 4tMvWlV T5 4+ +oOo+o5 4p+ + Mo+5 4+ Op+ + 5 4 + + + +5 4+ + + + 5 4pP +pPpP5 4RnBqKbNr5 7888888889
This is the starting position of the Benko Gambit Accepted, the most fashionable way to battle against Black opening in the beginning of the 21st century. White has won a pawn and Black is developing rapidly, depending on his better pawn structure and two open files to support his slight lead in development. Black’s last move probably requires some explanation. Basically g6 is the standard development, but against some White set-ups Black can advantageously recapture with the knight or rook at a6. To understand perfectly why Black chooses this move order, see game 20 in chapter 3. In this chapter we shall look at less fortunate systems for White. In game 9 he will try to attack (me!) on the kingside without any development, a strategy that is continued in game 10. In game
11 none other than Kasparov makes a guest star appearance in the book, opposing a slightly odd manoeuvre from Evgeny Bareev. Game 9 Radziewicz – Pinski Jaroslaviec 1995 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6 5...e6?! is a move from a fairy tale. After 6.¤c3 ¤xd5 7.¤xd5 exd5 8.£xd5 it is not realistic that Black will get sufficient compensation. (Already now he can lose the game in one move with 8...¦xa6? 9.£e5† winning a piece.) 8...¤c6 9.e3 ¥e7 10.¥d2! White immediately contests Black’s activity on the long diagonal. 10...0–0 11.¥c3 £b6 12.¦d1 d6 13.¥d3 ¥e6 14.£e4! This is better than 14.£h5 h6 15.a3 ¤e5 with some counterplay, Knaak – Pytel, Zabrze 1977. 14...g6 15.¤f3 White has a clear advantage due to his extra pawns. However, it is not clear that 12.¦d1 leaving a2 unprotected, was necessary. 5…g6 is in my opinion the best move order. Black should delay playing ...¥xa6 until White has played ¤b1-c3. If White should attempt to do without this move, Black can take on a6 with the knight. The history behind 5…g6 becoming the “industry standard” in this position is based on the following games: 5...¥xa6 6.g3 d6 7.¥g2 g6 8.b3! ¥g7 9.¥b2 0–0 10.¤h3 ¤bd7 11.0–0 £b8 12.¥c3 ¦c8 13.¦e1 ¦a7 14.¤f4 ¦b7 15.¤a3 and White is better, Portisch – Geller, Biel 1976. Portisch won this game and some people believed that the Benko Gambit was done for. First of all Black
32
The Benko Gambit
can play better than Geller. Secondly, the 5…g6 move order would prevent Portisch’s plan. But Black can also improve on move 11: a) 11...¦a7!? 12.¦e1 £a8 13.¤f4 ¦b8 14.h4 ¤b6 15.£d2 ¦ab7 16.¥c3 and according to Ernst the position is unclear. b) 11…£b6 12.¥c3 ¦fb8 13.¤d2 ¤e8 14.¥xg7 ¤xg7 15.¤f4 ¤e5 gave Black compensation for the material, Kovaliov – Vetemaa, Minsk 1981. So the 5...¥xa6 move order is playable, but why give White this extra option? In chapter 3 we shall look at what happens if White tries to play this set-up against 5...g6. 6.¤c3 ¥xa6 7.e4 ¥xf1 8.¢xf1 d6 9.g4?!
1222222223 4tM WlV T5 4+ + Oo+o5 4 + O Mo+5 4+ Op+ + 5 4 + +p+p+5 4+ N + + 5 4pP + P P5 4R Bq+kNr5 7888888889
A move like this is, in my opinion, only dangerous for White. But of course Black will need to play well to prove this! 9...h5! This cancels all White’s chances for an attack on kingside once and forever. Other moves to take a note of are: 9...£c8 10.h3 ¥g7 11.¢g2 ¤a6 12.¤ge2 0–0 13.¥f4 ¤d7 14.£d2 ¤e5 15.¥xe5! ¥xe5 16.¦ac1 and White is slightly better, Haba – Palkovi, Austria 1997. 9...¥g7 10.g5 ¤h5 11.¤ge2 £c8 12.¢g2 £g4† 13.¤g3 ¤f4† 14.¥xf4 £xf4 15.h4 h6 16.£c1 Komljenovic – K. Berg, Copenhagen 1989. Now after 16...hxg5 17.hxg5 £g4 18.¦xh8† ¥xh8 19.f3 £c8 20.£d2 White has a slight edge. The opening of the h-file is not in
Black’s interest with the queens still on the board, though an immediate mate is hard to see. The game continued 16...£xc1 17.¦hxc1! where White is slightly better. (There is nothing for White on the kingside but unfavourable exchanges, therefore the recapture with the hrook.) 10.gxh5? This makes one wonder why White played g2g4. Now White is left with a weak pawn on h2 and a fragile king’s position. 10.g5 was better. Now after 10...¤fd7 11.¢g2 ¥g7 12.f4 ¤a6 13.¤f3 0–0 14.£e2 £c7 15.¥e3 ¦fb8 Black has excellent compensation for the pawn. In Sakovich – Lanka, Riga 1980, White played 16.¦ad1?! when after 16...£a5 17.¦c1 ¤b4 18.a3 ¤a2! the white queenside is crumbling. This is an unorthodox version of the exchange of the c3-knight, but definitely viable. Better was therefore 16.¦hc1 £a5 17.¤d1 £a4 where Black has sufficient compensation. 10...¤xh5 Black is already slightly better. 11.¢g2 ¥g7 12.¤ge2?! This seems a little irrational. The natural square for the knight is f3. 12.¤f3 ¤d7 and Black is slightly better. 12...¤d7 13.¤g3 £c8! This little move order is worth remembering. Here I deliberately played ...¤d7 first and only later ...£c8, as I wanted to hide my threats against the white king. 14.f4 ¤b6 15.£f3 ¤c4 Perhaps stronger is 15...¤xg3 16.hxg3 ¦xh1 17.¢xh1 £h3† 18.¢g1 f5! with an attack. But I could not help myself from playing for a mean trap. 16.b3?? White gracefully falls for the trap. But even after something like 16.¤ge2 f5! 17.£d3 fxe4 18.£xe4 £g4† 19.¢f1 ¥xc3! 20.bxc3 ¤f6 21.£g2 (21.£xc4?? £f3† 22.¢g1 ¤g4 and White cannot protect the f2-square) 21...£xg2† (21...£f5!? with a continuing initiative is probably even stronger. White’s king’s position is very weak.) 22.¢xg2 ¤xd5 and Black is much better.
The Benko Gambit Accepted I Best was maybe 16.h3 £a6 and Black is at least slightly better. White is trying to control the black pieces, but they are roaming everywhere on the board, so White will have a busy job closing the holes in the dike with his fingers.
1222222223 4t+w+l+ T5 4+ + OoV 5 4 + O +o+5 4+ Op+ +m5 4 +m+pP +5 4+pN +qN 5 4p+ + +kP5 4R B + +r5 7888888889
16...£h3†!! Now White is mated or suffering decisive material losses. In his continued grace White allowed himself to be mated. 17.¢xh3 17.¢g1 ¥d4† and Black wins. 17...¤xf4† 18.¢g4 ¤e5†! 19.¢xf4 19.¢g5 ¤h3 mate! 19...¥h6 mate!
1222222223 4t+ +l+ T5 4+ + Oo+ 5 4 + O +oV5 4+ OpM + 5 4 + +pK +5 4+pN +qN 5 4p+ + + P5 4R B + +r5 7888888889
0–1
33
Game conclusions: White started the opening normally, but then went for a counterintuitive attack with 9.g4?!. This move has been played even by strong grandmasters, but violates the basic rules of chess and, not surprisingly, Black should get good chances with correct play. Game 10 Andruet – Fedorowicz Wijk aan Zee 1989 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6 6.¤c3 ¥xa6 7.f4?!
1222222223 4tM WlV T5 4+ +oOo+o5 4v+ + Mo+5 4+ Op+ + 5 4 + + P +5 4+ N + + 5 4pP +p+pP5 4R BqKbNr5 7888888889
Similarly to g4 in the previous game, this move is too much too soon. White wants to play ¤f3 and e4, to recapture on f1 with the rook. If he is successful doing so his position will be good. However, according to my classical understanding of chess this does not seem like an appropriate way to play chess. White is behind in development so opening up the centre does not seem sound. So it is quite logical that Black’s strongest continuation against this line is very concrete and based on disturbing White’s development. 7...¥g7 7...£a5 is also possible. After 8.¥d2 ¥g7 we would transpose to the game. 8.¤f3 8.e4 makes little sense here, as White wants to recapture with the rook.
The Alterman Gambit Guide
Black Gambits 1 By
Boris Alterman
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Acknowledgments, Bibliography & Key to symbols used Foreword by the Author
4 5
1 The Benko Gambit 2 The Blumenfeld Gambit 3 The Vaganian Gambit 4 1.d4 ¤f6 – Sidelines 5 The English Defense Gambit
7 141 197 277 311
Game Index Variation Index
355 357
Chapter 1 The Benko Gambit 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5
8
The Alterman Gambit Guide
The Benko Gambit was one of my favorite openings as a junior. I loved to fianchetto my bishop on g7 (my favorite opening against 1.e4 was the Sicilian Dragon) and Black’s middlegame strategy was easy to understand yet highly effective. Being a kid you almost never worry about a small material sacrifice – getting active play for your pieces is much more important! Fortunately the gambit is good enough for adults as well...
Game 1
NN – Alterman Ukraine 1984
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 The present game was one of my first experiences with the Benko Gambit; prior to this event, I had mainly tested it in blitz games. 4.cxb5 This game was played in the first round of the National School Team Championship, where the level of the players on the top board was usually close to the first or second category level (approximately 1800-2000). Despite my opponent being at a decent level for his age, it soon became obvious that he had no clue about how to meet my chosen opening. White can hardly contemplate 4.¤c3? as 4...b4 makes the knight look silly, for instance 5.¤b1 d6 6.¤f3 g6 7.g3 ¥g7 with a fine position for Black. 4...a6
+ o p r
5.e3 After a few minutes of thinking White decides to protect the pawn on b5. Instead 5.bxa6 is the main line, and White can also decline the gambit with 5.b6. Here is an example of disastrous opening play from White: 5.¤c3 axb5 6.¤xb5 (The alternative 6.e4 will be considered in the final section of the chapter.) 6...¥a6 7.e3?? (White had to play 7.¤c3 transposing to the main line.)
The Benko Gambit
9
Analysis diagram
q O v n
7...¥xb5! 0–1 Kirchhoff – Foldi, Dortmund 1986. White resigned as he will lose a piece due to the queen check on a5. 5...g6 I decided to continue with the normal development, waiting for White to capture on a6 one day... 6.¤f3 ¥g7 7.¤c3 0–0 8.bxa6?! This came as a pleasant surprise. Later I discovered that the best response was 8.a4!, strengthening White’s position on the queenside and refusing to gift the opponent a tempo. See Game 9 for further details on this.
q o +
8...d6! This accurate move saves valuable time. The immediate 8...¥xa6 would have allowed 9.¥xa6 when White has achieved a minor victory, having expended only a single tempo exchanging bishops. 9.¥e2 Allowing Black to justify his idea, but it was hard to suggest a more constructive move.
10
The Alterman Gambit Guide
9...¥xa6 Perfect timing! 10.¥xa6?! This loses additional time. White should have castled instead. 10...¤xa6! It was also possible to capture on a6 with the rook and put the knight on d7. From there one possible plan involves ...¤g4 and ...¤ge5, intending to jump to c4 or d3 later. Alternatively the knight may go to b6 and later c4 or a4. I knew about these plans, but correctly decided to accelerate my development by taking on a6 with the knight. Later this piece can head towards the d3-square via b4 or c5, while the other knight can go to d7 and later b6 or e5. 11.0–0 White finishes his kingside development. It seems like his position is okay, but Black’s next move highlights his problems.
q
11...£b6! Now White will have a hard time developing his queenside pieces. 12.£e2 Covering the b2-pawn and preparing to complete development with e4 and ¥f4. 12.b3 could be met by 12...¤e4 13.¤a4 £b7 14.¥b2 ¥xb2 15.¤xb2 ¤b4! when Black wins the d5-pawn while keeping a huge positional advantage. 12...¦fb8 Another standard idea: the rook comes to the open file and increases the pressure on the b2-pawn. 13.e4 White’s only chance for active play is in the center.
The Benko Gambit
11
q 13...¤d7! Another important move. Black prevents e5 and opens the long diagonal for his bishop. 14.¦e1 Since the bishop is unable to leave the c1-square, White develops his rook. 14...¤b4 15.¥f4? White totally overlooks the power of Black’s next move. 15.¥g5!? was better, although even here Black can proceed in the same way as in the game, as capturing on e7 would lead to the loss of the white bishop after ...f6.
q
15...£a6! This came as a great surprise for my opponent. The idea of exchanging queens while a pawn down might seem counterintuitive, but in fact it makes perfect sense. After the queen trade White loses all hope of any meaningful counterplay in the center or on the kingside. Meanwhile Black’s queenside assault is in no way diminished. The weakness of the d3-square only adds to White’s troubles, especially in view of the unfortunate position of his bishop. 16.£xa6 ¦xa6 17.¦e2 ¤d3 18.¥c1
12
The Alterman Gambit Guide
q m O K 18...c4! White remains a pawn up, but his pieces are virtually paralyzed. With his last move Black cements the outpost on d3 and prepares to bring the other knight into the attack. 19.¢f1 ¤7c5 Black has achieved everything he could have wished for, and the game is almost over. 20.¦b1? A blunder, but there was no good defense against ...¤b3. 20...¥xc3 0–1 I am glad to have won so thematically in one of my first serious games with the Benko Gambit. The above game illustrated several key maneuvers and ideas. What we have learned: After the moves cxb5 and ...a6, tension may occur between the pawns on b5 and a6. This may continue for several moves as neither side wishes to facilitate the opponent’s development by capturing prematurely. Usually the b8-knight will go to d7, but occasionally it does better to move to a6, as in the above game. In the standard Benko Gambit Accepted structure, Black can obtain ongoing queenside pressure with ...£b6 (or ...£a5) followed by ...¦fb8. A timely ...¤f6-d7 retreat can help to take control over the e5-square, while preparing to deploy the knight on the queenside. A queen maneuver to a6 can be useful for trading queens and/or attacking the light squares. Black’s compensation often persists after – and may even be intensified by – a queen exchange. The ...c5-c4 advance can be used in conjunction with ...¤d7-c5 to activate the d7-knight while clamping down on the d3-square. (It is important that White cannot profitably use the d4-square for his pieces.)
The Alterman Gambit Guide
Black Gambits 2 By
Boris Alterman
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Acknowledgments, Bibliography Foreword by the Author Key to symbols used
4 5 6
1 The Marshall Attack 7 2 The Hector Gambit 55 3 The Traxler Counterattack 89 4 The Frankenstein-Dracula Gambit 173 5 The Falkbeer Counter Gambit 209 6 From’s Gambit 271 7 Other Systems after 1.e4 e5 309 Game Index Variation Index
365 367
Chapter 1 The Marshall Attack m M oO p n R 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0–0 ¥e7 6.¦e1 b5 7.¥b3 0–0 8.c3 d5
Introduction Frank James Marshall (1877-1944) of the USA was one of the chess world’s first grandmasters. Apart from being one of the strongest players of his time, he left a lasting legacy to the chess world in the form of the Marshall Gambit in the Queen’s Gambit, and even more significantly, the Marshall Attack against the Ruy Lopez. Despite constant attempts to refute it over the decades, the Marshall Attack continues to give headaches to Ruy Lopez players all the way up to superGM level. 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5
q
The Ruy Lopez (also known as the Spanish Opening) is one of the most enduringly popular openings at all levels of play. White’s system is based on pressure: the bishop develops to a square where it attacks the c6-knight, which is a defender of the crucial e5-pawn. At the same time, White does not forget his aim of taking over the center with d2-d4, which may or may not be prefaced by c2-c3, depending on how Black plays. 3...a6 This pawn move may seem like a simple attack on the bishop, but it actually contributes to Black’s central play. At some point in the near future Black will have to take some measures against the potential threat of ¥xc6 followed by ¤xe5. For the time being the threat is not real (see Chapter 2 for more details on 4.¥xc6) so the bishop usually retreats to a4. Once that has happened, Black will be able to insert the move ...b7-b5 to drive the bishop away as soon as ¥xc6 becomes a threat. 4.¥a4 4.¥xc6 dxc6 is the subject of Chapter 2. 4...¤f6 Black continues with his development and attacks the e4-pawn. 5.0–0
The Marshall Attack
9
This natural move is the main line. It makes sense to castle early as White can afford to leave the e4-pawn hanging. 5...¥e7 Likewise, Black continues developing his pieces and gets ready to castle. It is interesting that both sides are happy to leave their e-pawns to their respective fates, since neither side can capture the opponent’s pawn without losing their own. 5...¤xe4 introduces the Open Spanish, an important alternative which is outside the scope of the present book. Interested readers may wish to investigate the forthcoming Grandmaster Repertoire book which covers it from Black’s side. 6.¦e1 White has several alternatives available on moves 5 and 6, and we will deal with the most important ones in Chapter, beginning on page 351. 6...b5 Now that White has defended his e-pawn, Black must also take measures to safeguard his central pawn. 7.¥b3 After a little dance, White’s bishop lands on the active a2-g8 diagonal where it keeps an eye on the center and the f7-pawn. 7...0–0 Signalling Black’s intention to play the Marshall Gambit. The other big move is 7...d6, which keeps the center closed for the time being. 8.c3 This is the most traditional and principled move, aiming to construct a powerful pawn center. Nowadays many players prefer to avoid the Marshall altogether with moves like 8.a4, 8.h3 and 8.d4. These options can be found in Chapter 7. 8...d5!
r
10
The Alterman Gambit Guide
Finally we arrive at the position that signifies the start of Marshall’s infamous counterattacking system. Black’s aggressive central thrust has a lot of logic to it. Black is slightly ahead in development, especially since White’s pawn on c3 takes away the b1-knight’s most natural developing square. By sacrificing the e5-pawn, he draws the white rook onto an exposed square which will enable him to gain additional time to start an attack later. The Marshall Attack is one of the most important openings in the history of chess. So far it has defied all White’s attempts to refute it, and for this reason it is a frequent guest at elite tournaments. Over the years its most notable adherents have included Spassky, Geller, Nunn, Adams, Short, Anand, Svidler, Kamsky, Shirov and others. Perhaps its greatest endorsement came from Garry Kasparov, who famously never allowed the Marshall to be played against him in a single game and instead resorted to various anti-Marshall systems. 9.exd5 Nothing else is likely to worry Black. 9.d3 is feeble, and 9...dxe4 10.dxe4 £xd1 just leads to a level endgame. Both sides are equally well placed in the center, and neither has the advantage. 9.d4!? This is not theoretically dangerous, but at least it is a bit more lively. 9...¤xe4 Black installs the knight on a strong central outpost. There is a good alternative in 9...exd4 10.e5 ¤e4 11.cxd4 ¥f5, when Black should be at least equal. 10.dxe5 Gaining space on the kingside and uncovering an attack on the d5-pawn. 10...¥e6
Analysis diagram
v+ P m + r
The position resembles the Open Spanish. White’s rook would not usually move to e1 so soon, although Black’s bishop often prefers the active c5-square instead of e7. The critical continuation is:
The Marshall Attack
11
11.¤d4!? 11.¤bd2 is a natural move, but after 11...¤c5 12.¥c2 d4! White can forget about any advantage. 11...¤xe5!? Taking a pawn but sacrificing a piece. 12.f3 ¥d6! 13.fxe4 ¥g4 This position was first tested almost a century ago in 1913! Black has decent compensation and has scored roughly 50% since that time. 9...¤xd5
r
10.¤xe5 10.d4!? Once again White can consider declining the gambit, although Black should be fine if he reacts correctly. 10...exd4 11.cxd4 Keeping a pawn on d4 while freeing the c3-square for the knight. 11.¤xd4? is worse, and after 11...¤xd4 12.£xd4 ¥b7 Black’s easy development gives him the better chances. 11...¥g4! An important move. Others may see Black struggling to equalize, for instance: 11...¥f5?! 12.¤c3! ¤db4?! 13.a3 ¤d3 14.¦e3± Parligras – Gyimesi, Germany 2008. 11...¥b4 12.¥d2 ¥b7 13.¤c3 ¥xc3 14.bxc3 ¤a5 15.¥c2 ¤c4 16.¥g5 f6 17.£d3 g6 18.¥h6² Nisipeanu – Beliavsky, Pune 2004. 12.¤c3 ¤f6 13.¥e3 £d6 14.¦c1 ¦ad8 15.a4 b4 16.¤b1 ¤a5 17.¥c2 ¤d5 18.£d3 g6 19.¤bd2 ¤xe3= Perez Candelario – Sargissian, Zafra 2007. 10...¤xe5 11.¦xe5
12
The Alterman Gambit Guide
q The present position will be our main starting point (although we will return to the subject of the anti-Marshall systems in Chapter 7). White has gobbled the e-pawn and the knight on d5 is under attack. However, the rook is exposed in the center and once Black deals with the threat to his knight, he will be able to gain time with ...¥d6. At this point we must make an important decision. To begin with, I must acknowledge that 11...c6 is by far the most popular move, and the one that enjoys the best reputation amongst theoreticians. Black keeps the knight in the center, and prepares ...¥d6 and ...£h4 in the near future. Unfortunately it comes pre-packaged with a truly mind-boggling amount of theory, including numerous forced drawing lines and pawn-down endgames in which Black can hold a draw but has little chance to play for a win. For this reason I decided it would be more interesting to focus on two less popular lines. Both of them contain a good deal of venom and are likely to come as a surprise to many opponents. Games 1-4 will focus on 11...¤f6?!, the move chosen by Marshall himself against Capablanca in a game that we will soon see. One of the primary aims of my Gambit Guide is to help the reader improve his arsenal of tactical and attacking motifs. The 11...¤f6 line has these in abundance, and for this reason alone it was worth including it in the book. Despite its allure, I must make it clear that the 11...¤f6?! variation is not entirely sound, and if White plays accurately then he should be able to obtain a clear advantage. Nevertheless I found some improvements for Black in certain variations that were previously considered unfavorable for him. Overall I would consider Black’s system a dangerous practical weapon, especially against an unsuspecting opponent. Forgetting about beautiful attacks and sacrificial combinations for a moment, we must also keep theoretical soundness in mind. For this reason I have covered the slightly unusual but still respectable 11...¥b7!? in games5 and 6. This move leads to a noticeably different type of game in which Black strives for positional compensation in the center and on the queenside. Black’s chances of scoring a quick checkmate are diminished, but he has good chances to maintain the balance even when White plays strongly. After reading through the chapter the reader will be able to select whichever option he finds more appealing to use in his own games.
The Marshall Attack
43
Game 5
Vladimir Kirpichnikov – Mikhail Steinberg Riga 1968
Mikhail Steinberg was one of the most talented players of Karpov’s generation and the Ukrainian Kharkov chess school. When he played this game he was only 16 years of age. Unfortunately he never become a grandmaster, as his life was tragically cut short by leukaemia at the age of just 23. 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0–0 ¥e7 6.¦e1 b5 7.¥b3 0–0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 ¤xd5 10.¤xe5 ¤xe5 11.¦xe5 ¥b7!? According to the database this was only the second time anyone had tested this move. 12.d4 This might seem like an automatic choice, but 12.£f3!? is a serious alternative which we will encounter in the next and final game of the chapter.
q
12...£d7 Black has a second reliable option here: 12...¥f6 13.¦e1 ¦e8! 13...c5 14.dxc5 ¦e8 15.¤a3 £c7 16.¦xe8† ¦xe8 17.¥xd5 ¦d8 18.¥f4 £xf4 19.£f3 £xf3 20.¥xf3 ¥xf3 21.gxf3 b4 22.¤c2 bxc3 23.bxc3 ¦c8² Anand – Short, Amsterdam 1993. 14.¥d2 After 14.¤a3 b4! 15.¤c4 bxc3 16.¤e5 £d6 17.£e2 ¦e7 18.bxc3 ¤xc3 19.£c4 £d5 Black had equalized in Mukhin – Romanishin, Vilnius 1971. Also 14.¤d2 ¤f4 15.¤f3 ¥xf3 16.gxf3 £d6 gave Black good compensation in Jobava – Stern, Dresden 2007. 14...¦xe1† Three other ideas deserve a mention: 14...c5 does not equalize: 15.dxc5 ¦xe1† 16.£xe1 £c8 17.¤a3 £xc5 18.¦d1² 14...a5 15.¤a3 b4 16.¤c2 ¦xe1† 17.£xe1 a4 18.¥xd5 £xd5 19.¤e3² Anand – Hracek, Germany 2002. The untested 14...£d6!? is interesting, and after 15.£f3 c5 Black has promising compensation.
44
The Alterman Gambit Guide
Analysis diagram
r T 15.£xe1 b4 15...£d7!? intending ...¦e8 looks reasonable as well. 16.a3 bxc3 17.¤xc3 ¥xd4 18.¦d1 c5 ½–½ Kokarev – Stern, Rijeka 2010.
r
13.g3? White goes badly astray – it is hard to guess his motivation for weakening the long diagonal. Here are some other examples of how the game may continue after better moves by White: 13.h3 ¥f6 14.¦e1 ¦fe8 15.¥d2 ¦xe1† 16.£xe1 ¦e8 17.£f1 ¤e7 (17...¤b6!?) 18.¤a3 c5! Black’s position already looks better. 19.¦d1 cxd4 20.¥e3 ¤f5 21.¥xd4 ¤xd4 22.cxd4 g6 23.¤c2 a5 24.a4 bxa4 25.¥c4 ¦b8 26.¤e3 h5³ Krnan – Tseitlin, Montreal 2004. 13.£f3 ¦ad8 14.¤d2 Now Black has a strong tactical sequence which is worth remembering. 14...c5! 15.dxc5 ¥f6 16.¦e1 ¤xc3 17.£g3
The Marshall Attack
45
Analysis diagram
q
17...¤a4! Stronger than 17...£c6 18.bxc3 ¥xc3 19.¦b1 ¥xd2 20.¥xd2 ¦xd2 21.¦bc1 (21.¦e5!=) 21...a5 22.¦e7 ¦d3 23.f3 a4 24.¥e6 ¦d1† 25.¦xd1 £xc5† 26.£f2 £xe7–+ Faibisovich – Ivanov, Leningrad 1973. 18.¥xa4 bxa4 19.¤c4 £d5 20.¤b6 £xc5 21.¤xa4 £c6 22.¤c3 ¥h4 23.£h3 ¦d6 24.¥f4 ¦f6 25.¤e2 g5 26.¥g3 ¥c8 0–1 Dimitrov – Hebden, Cappelle la Grande 1989. 13.a4 ¥f6 14.¦e1 ¦ae8! Playing for development. 14...b4 15.c4 ¤e7 16.d5 c6 17.d6 ¤f5 18.c5 looks dreadful for Black at first sight, but in the following game White soon went astray: 18...¦ae8 19.¥e3? (Better was 19.¤d2! ¦xe1† 20.£xe1 ¦e8 when Black has some compensation, but White should have a clear advantage if he plays correctly.) 19...¤xe3 20.fxe3 £f5 Black was already better in Ciocaltea – Tseitlin, Kragujevac 1974. 15.¤d2
Analysis diagram
q
46
The Alterman Gambit Guide
15...¤f4! Black has a strong initiative for a pawn. 13.¤d2!? is the computer’s top choice. I think Black should respond aggressively with 13...¤f4 14.¤f3 ¤xg2! 15.¦xe7 £xe7 16.¢xg2 ¦ad8 as played in Tukmakov – Tseitlin, Odessa 1972. The position is difficult to assess. White has a material advantage of two pieces for a rook, but Black has some pressure on the long diagonal and White’s king will not be safe for a long time. I believe Black has enough resources to maintain roughly equal chances.
q
13...¥f6 14.¦e1 ¦ae8! Blacks attack develops effortlessly, while White is still struggling to complete his development. 15.¤d2 15.e3 ¤xe3 16.fxe3 ¥g5 17.£d3 c5! puts White under strong pressure in the center.
q
15...¤f4! A powerful attacking move, although it is worth mentioning that there was a good alternative in 15...c5!, intending to meet 16.dxc5 by 16...£c6! with unpleasant threats. (The immediate
The Marshall Attack
47
15...£c6 can be met by 16.¥xd5 £xd5 17.f3, with reasonable chances to defend.) 16.¦e3? After 16.¦xe8 ¦xe8 17.gxf4 ¦e1†! 18.£xe1 £g4† Black wins. White’s last chance to prolong the game was 16.d5, although Black will still have a strong initiative in a position with equal material. 16...¦xe3 17.fxe3 ¤h3† 18.¢f1 £f5† 19.¢e2 £f2† 19...¥g2! and 19...¦e8! were even more conclusive, but the text is good enough. 20.¢d3
q
20...c5! Bringing yet another fighting unit into the attack. White cannot even retreat his king to c2, as this would allow mate in one! 21.c4 21.£e2 £f5† 22.e4 ¤f2† 23.¢c2 ¤xe4–+ 21...cxd4 0–1 White’s position is a complete disaster so he resigned. What we have learned: The 11...¥b7!? variation is relatively easy to learn and does not require much detailed theoretical knowledge. The central strategy with ...¥f6 and ...c5 can sometimes give rise to ...¤xc3 tactics. The bishop on b7 can become an extremely powerful attacking piece, especially if White is foolish enough to weaken himself on the long diagonal. The ...¤f4! sacrifice.
Boost Your Chess 1 The Fundamentals By
Artur Yusupov
This is a pdf excerpt from Boost your Chess 1 by Artur Yusupov, published by Quality Chess.
CONTENTS
Key to symbols used Preface Introduction
1 The windmill 2 Pawn weaknesses 3 Back rank combinations 4 Exploiting weaknesses 5 The 7th rank 6 Fortresses 7 The pawn wedge 8 Opening traps 9 The use of traps 10 Stalemate combinations 11 The semi-open file 12 Mate with bishop and knight 13 Combinations involving files 14 Outposts 15 Combinations involving diagonals 16 Elementary endgames 17 Combinations with knights 18 The principles behind mobilization 19 Perpetual check 20 Mate in two moves 21 Combinations with the major pieces 22 Coordination of the pieces 23 Combinations with knights 2 24 Zugzwang Final test Appendices Index of composers Index of games Recommended books
4 5 6 8 16 26 34 46 56 66 76 86 96 106 118 128 140 152 160 170 180 190 200 208 218 228 238 246 256 257 265
chapter Contents
ü The windmill ü Coordination of the pieces ü Mating attack
Diagram 1-1 r 1222222223 Çt+ +tMl+5 ÆOv+ +oO 5 Å + Oo+ O5 Ä+w+ + Bq5 Ã P P + +5 Â+ + N R 5 Áp+ + PpP5 À+ + R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
8
1 The windmill The windmill is one of the most beautiful combinations in chess. Kotov provided the definition of a windmill as ‘a forcing series of attacks with discovered check.’ The following famous game made this type of combination so well-known. Diagram 1-1
C.Torre – Em.Lasker Moscow 1925
The white bishop is pinned and attacked. However, White’s surprising reply turns the tables. 1.¥f6!! White sacrifices his strongest piece in order to set up a windmill. 1...£xh5 2.¦xg7† Now the white bishop and rook display unbelievable coordination. 2...¢h8 3.¦xf7† White sets the windmill in motion. The rook first eliminates almost all of the black pieces on the seventh rank. The only way for Black to meet the discovered checks is with king moves. It would be bad to play 3.¦g5† ¢h7 4.¦xh5? (White could still go back with 4.¦g7† and continue as in the game) 4...¢g6 5.¦b5 ¥c6 and Black wins a piece. 3...¢g8 4.¦g7† ¢h8 5.¦xb7† It is important that the white bishop is not under attack. Otherwise it could not participate in the windmill without being in danger. 5...¢g8 6.¦g7† ¢h8 7.¦g5† With another discovered check White wins back his queen. White could also have first taken the pawn on a7, but he did not want to unnecessarily open the a-file for the opposing rook. 7...¢h7 8.¦xh5 ¢g6 This double attack wins the piece back, but White will have a good three pawns more! 9.¦h3 ¢xf6 10.¦xh6† 1–0 8
Diagram 1-2
1
The attacking side exploited the power of a rookbishop battery. It is very important to learn how to coordinate these different pieces. They complement each other very well. We have already seen some similar examples of this in Chapters 2 and 7 of Build Up Your Chess 1. The windmill and other similar attacking set-ups are very dangerous and often lead not ‘only’ to a gain of material, but also directly to mate.
Diagram 1-2 r 1222222223 Çl+m+t+ +5 ÆO +r+ Vv5 Å +o+ WoO5 Ä+ + Oo+ 5 Ã +p+ + +5 Â+ B Q P 5 ÁpP + PbP5 À+ + + K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-3 q 1222222223 Ç + + T L5 ÆO O W Oo5 Å + + + +5 Ä+ Vq+ + 5 Ã + +m+ +5 Â+ P Pn+ 5 ÁpP + TpP5 ÀRn+ R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Variation from the game
V.Smyslov – M.Euwe Zürich Candidates 1953
1.¥xe5! A deflecting sacrifice. Another good move is 1.£c5+–. 1...¦xe5 2.£xe5! £xe5 3.¥xc6† ¢b8 4.¦b7† ¢a8 A typical windmill, which even leads to mate in this case. 5.¦b5#
Diagram 1-3
N.N. – W.Steinitz London 1869
Here is another example which confirms how strong the rook-bishop battery is. 1...£h4!! A spectacular move. The threat is 2...¦xg2† and then ...£f2†, as well as the simple 2...¦2xf3. 2.¤xh4 ¥xe3! The threat is 3...¦f1#. White is left with no satisfactory defence. 3.¤g6† Other moves are no better: a) 3.h3 ¦f1† 4.¢h2 ¥g1† 5.¢h1 ¤g3#. b) 3.g3 ¦e2† 4.¢h1 ¦xe1† 5.¢g2 ¦g1† 6.¢h3 ¤f2#. c) 3.¤f3 ¦2xf3†–+. 3...hxg6 4.g3 ¦e2† 5.¢h1 ¦xe1† Black has a forced mate. 9
chapter
The windmill
1 chapter
Diagram 1-4 r 1222222223 Ç + +v+tL5 Æ+ + + Wo5 Å + +o+ +5 Ä+oBoMoPp5 Ã P + Q +5 Â+ P +b+ 5 Á + + +rK5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-5 r 1222222223 Ç + +v+ L5 Æ+ + + +o5 Å + W + P5 Ä+o+oRoT 5 Ã P B + +5 Â+ P +q+ 5 Á + + + K5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Tactics 1
6.¢g2 ¦g1† 7.¢h3 ¤f2† 8.¢h4 ¦f4†! 9.gxf4 Or 9.¢g5 ¦g4#. 9...¦g4# Diagram 1-4
O.Duras – R.Spielmann Bad Pistyan 1912
1.¥d4! White begins a forcing attack. 1...¤xf3† 2.£xf3 e5 3.h6! £e7 If 3...£c7, then 4.£f4!+–. 4.¦e2 4.£xd5! would be simpler: 4...exd4 5.£xd4†+–. 4...¦xg5 5.¦xe5 White sets up his battery. There is a strong alternative in 5.¥xe5†! ¢g8 6.¥f4+–. 5...£d6 Diagram 1-5 The only chance. Black pins the white rook. 6.£g3!! White prepares an elegant way to unpin. But not the immediate 6.¢h1?? on account of 6...£xh6†–+. 6...£xh6† 6...¦xg3 7.¦xe8# 7.£h3! £d6 8.¢h1!+– Black cannot avoid losing a piece. In the test which follows, you should try to set up a windmill! Calculate only the necessary variations. Always end your variations with an evaluation. It is important to concentrate on the first few moves and also to take into account the various possible replies by your opponent.
10
r Ex. 1-4
«« 1222222223 Çt+ Ml+t+5 ÆOv+ +w+o5 Å + +o+ +5 Ä+ +o+ Oq5 Ã + + + +5 ÂBp+ + + 5 ÁpP + PpP5 À+ R R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-2
«« 1222222223 Çt+ + L T5 ÆOoOr+ Oo5 Å +m+ O +5 Ä+ + + +b5 Ã + +pB +5 Â+ Q + + 5 ÁwP + PpP5 À+ K + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-5
« 1222222223 Çt+ + +l+5 ÆOo+ +oO 5 Å Wo+ +o+5 Ä+ +vT + 5 Ã + + B +5 Â+ +p+ +p5 ÁpPp+ Qp+5 ÀR + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-3
«« 1222222223 Çt+ + Tl+5 Æ+o+m+oOo5 Åo+v+ + W5 Ä+ + +p+ 5 Ã + Bp+ +5 Â+bP +q+ 5 Áp+p+ + P5 À+k+ + R 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-6
«« 1222222223 Ç +lT + +5 Æ+vOt+ +o5 Å + +r+ +5 Ä+oQ + + 5 Ã + + + +5 Â+ + + B 5 Á + W +pP5 À+ R + +k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 11
1
r Ex. 1-1
« 1222222223 Ç + M + T5 Æ+ O + L 5 Å OvVoRoO5 Ä+ + + T 5 Ã + P + +5 Â+ PbQ +p5 Áw+ + +p+5 À+ + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
chapter
Exercises
1 chapter
Exercises q Ex. 1-7
«« 1222222223 Çv+ + TtL5 Æ+ Q M +o5 Å + +o+w+5 ÄO + P +r5 Ã V B + +5 Â+ + + Np5 Á Pb+ PpK5 À+ +r+ + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-10
«« 1222222223 Ç +l+ +t+5 ÆOv+ +o+o5 Å W VoO +5 ÄQ + + + 5 Ã +p+m+t+5 Â+ + B + 5 Á P + PpP5 ÀR +bNrK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-8
««« 1222222223 Ç +t+t+l+5 Æ+r+ + Vo5 Åo+ + +o+5 Ä+ O M + 5 Ã +w+ + +5 Â+ B + + 5 Á Pq+ +pP5 À+ + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-11
«« 1222222223 Ç + + + L5 Æ+ + + + 5 Å + + T +5 Ä+ + + + 5 Ã + + + +5 ÂB R + + 5 Á + + + +5 ÀK + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-9
«« 1222222223 Ç +t+ Tl+5 ÆO + VoO 5 Å O +b+ O5 Ä+ + B Mw5 Ã + P + +5 Â+ + +r+p5 ÁpP +qPp+5 ÀR + + K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-12
«« 1222222223 Ç + + Tl+5 Æ+ R + Oo5 Åt+ +oV +5 ÄOw+ B +q5 Ã O +r+ +5 Â+ + + +p5 Á + + +pK5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 12
Kreichik – Laitgeb Vienna 1951
1.£xg5!!+–
(1 point) 1...hxg5 If 1...£xg2†, then 2.£xg2 ¥xg2 3.¦xg6† ¢h7 4.¦xg2#. 2.¦xg6† ¢h7 3.¦xe6† ¢g8 4.¦g6† ¢h7 5.¦xd6† ¢g8 6.¦g6† ¢h7 7.¦xc6† ¢g8 8.¦g6† ¢h7 9.¦xb6† ¢g8 10.¦g6† ¢h7 11.¦a6† ¢g8 12.¦xa2 1–0
Ex. 1-4
G.Antunac – R.Hübner Dresden 1969
1.¦c7!!
(1 point) 1...£xh5 2.¦e7† ¢f8 3.¦xb7† ¢e8 4.¦e7† ¢f8 5.¦xh7† But not 5.¦xa7†? ¢e8 6.¦e7† ¢f8 7.¦xh7†? because of 7...¦xa3–+. 5...¢e8 6.¦xh5+– (another 1 point for the whole variation)
Ex. 1-2
L.Schmid – Muth 1950
1.£xf6†!!
(1 point) 1.¥h6! also wins easily. 1...gxf6 2.¥h6† ¢g8 3.¦g7† ¢f8 4.¦xc7† ¢g8 5.¦g7† ¢f8 Don’t be impatient! The windmill can keep on working! 6.¦xb7† ¢g8 7.¦g7† ¢f8 8.¦xa7† ¢g8 9.¥f7†!! (another 1 point) This is the only winning move. 9...£xf7 10.¦xa8† £e8 11.¦xe8† ¢f7 12.¦xh8 1–0
Ex. 1-5
F.Dos Santos – M.Ginzburg San Rafael 1992
1...¦e2!
(1 point) 2.£xb6 ¦xg2† 3.¢h1 ¦xc2† 4.¢g1 ¦g2† 5.¢h1 ¦xb2† 6.¢g1 ¦g2† 7.¢h1 ¦xa2† 8.¢g1 axb6 0–1 Ex. 1-6
B.Verlinsky – I.Rabinovich
Ex. 1-3
USSR Ch, Leningrad 1925
A.Beni – Schwarzbach
1.£xc7†!
Austria 1969
(1 point) 1...¦xc7 2.¦xc7† ¢b8 3.¦c1† There is the equally good 3.¦c3†+–. 3...¢a7 3...¦d6 is followed by 4.¥xd6† ¢a7 5.¦a1† ¥a6 6.¦xa6†! ¢b7 (or 6...¢xa6 7.¥f4†+–) 7.¦b6†! ¢a7 8.¥c5+–.
1.£h3!!
(1 point) After deflecting the black queen, White can open up the diagonals for both his bishops. 1.£h5!!+– does this equally well. On the other hand 1.£f4? would be wrong. 13
1
After a queen sacrifice, you must calculate your variations very carefully! Black plays 1...£xf4 2.¦xg7† ¢h8 3.¦xf7† ¤e5 (or even 3...£e5) and wins. 1...£xh3 2.¦xg7† ¢h8 3.¦xf7† ¢g8 4.¦g7† ¢h8 5.¦g8# (another 1 point for this variation)
Ex. 1-1
chapter
Solutions
1 chapter
Solutions
4.¦a1† ¥a6 5.¦axa6† ¢b7 6.¦eb6† ¢c8 7.¦a8† ¢d7 8.¦xd8† ¢xd8 9.¦d6† 1–0 (another 1 point for this variation)
2.¥xe5!
(another 1 point) 2...£xc2 3.¦f8†! But not 3.¦xg6†?? ¦xe5–+. 3...¦xf8 4.¦xg6† 1–0 (1 point)
Ex. 1-7
Afanasjev – Koshelev USSR 1968
Ex. 1-9
1...£xh5!!
Based on the game
(1 point) 1...¤f5? would be bad: 2.¥xf5 ¦xf5 3.¦xf5 exf5 4.e6†+–. 2.¤xh5 ¦xg2† 3.¢h1 ¦gxf2† Of course not 3...¦gg8† 4.¢h2 ¦xf2†? due to 5.¥xf2 and Black will have to give perpetual check: 5...¦g2† 6.¢h1 ¦g5†=. 4.¢g1 ¦g2† 5.¢h1 ¦xc2† (another 1 point) 6.¢g1 ¦g2† There is an even faster win: 6...¦g8†! 7.¢f1 ¥g2† 8.¢g1 ¥c6† 9.¢f1 ¥b5† 10.£c4 ¥xc4† 11.¦d3 ¥xd3#. 7.¢h1 ¦xb2† 8.¢g1 ¦g2† Here too there is a win after 8...¦g8†!. 9.¢h1 ¦d2† 10.¢g1 ¦xd1† 11.¢h2 ¦d2† 12.¢g1 12.¢g3 is met by 12...¦g2† 13.¢h4 ¤f5#. 12...¦g2† 13.¢h1 ¦c2† Or 13...¦f1†!. 14.¢g1 ¦xc7 0–1
B.Malich – Litkiewicz East Germany 1967
1.¦xf7!
(1 point) 1.¥g4 (1 consolation point) is not so strong: 1...¤xf3† 2.£xf3 £g5 3.¥xc8 ¦xc8±. 1...£xe2 1...¤xh3† 2.gxh3 £g6† is followed by 3.£g4 £xg4† 4.hxg4 ¦xf7 5.¥xc8+–. 2.¦xg7† ¢h8 3.¦xe7†! (1 point) After 3.¦g8† ¢h7 White has to repeat moves by 4.¦g7† ¢h8. 3.¦xg5†?? would be bad, on account of 3...¥f6–+. 3...£xe5 4.dxe5 ¦c2 5.¥b3 ¦cxf2 6.¦c1 ¦xb2 7.¦c6+– Ex. 1-10
I.Boleslavsky – A.Ufimtsev Omsk 1944
Ex. 1-8
1...¦xg2†!
(1 point) 1...£xa5?! 2.¦xa5 ¤d2 would not be so good, in view of 3.¥xg4 ¤xf1 4.¥xe6† fxe6 5.¢xf1². 2.¤xg2 ¤d2! –+ (another 1 point) Also possible is 2...¤c3!?–+; but 2...¦xg2†? 3.¢xg2 ¤g5† is refuted by 4.f3!±. 3.£d5 3.¥xb6 is met by 3...¦xg2† 4.¢h1 ¦xh2† 5.¢g1 ¦h1#.
M.Taimanov – N.N. Simultaneous 1964
1.¦xg7†!
(1 point) 1.¥xe5 (1 consolation point) is not so precise, as after 1...£xf1†! 2.¢xf1 ¦xe5 Black has a rook, bishop and pawn for the queen and can still defend his position. 1...¢h8 1...¢xg7 2.¥xe5†+– 14
2.¦c7† ¢g8 3.¦g7† ¢h8 4.¢a2+–
(1 point) Black is in zugzwang and loses after any move he makes.
Ex. 1-11
Ex. 1-12
The end of a study by
L.Topko
V.Faibisovich – K.Lerner
1966
USSR Ch semifinal, Alma Ata 1971
(1 point) Preparing the battery for discovered checks. 1...¦f8 The echo variation is 1...¦h6 2.¦g3† ¢h7 3.¦g7† ¢h8 4.¢b1+–. 1...¦f7 runs into 2.¦h3† ¢g8 3.¦h8#; likewise, 1...¦g6 allows 2.¦c8† ¢h7 3.¦h8#.
Here it is all about achieving equality. 1.¥xf6! (1 point) 1...£xh5 2.¦xg7† ¢h8 3.¦f7†! (1 point) ½–½ White delivers perpetual check, naturally avoiding 3.¦g5†? ¦xf6–+.
1.¥b2!
Scoring Maximum number of points is 23
20 points and above 16 points and above 12 points
Excellent Good Pass mark
If you scored less than 12 points, we recommend that you read the chapter again and repeat the exercises which you got wrong. 15
1
3.f3 also leads to a quick loss: 3...£xe3† 4.¢h1 £h6–+. 4...¥xd5 5.cxd5 £xb2–+
chapter
Solutions
Boost Your Chess 2 Beyond the Basics By
Artur Yusupov
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
CONTENTS
Key to symbols used Preface Introduction
4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Attacking the king 8 The open file 18 ‘Minor’ tactics 32 Opening repertoire for White – the French Defence 42 Simple rook endings 54 Fighting against the pawn centre 64 Trapping pieces 74 Calculating short variations 82 Weak points 92 Line blocking 102 Opening repertoire for Black against 1.d4 110 Simple rook endings 2 122 Blocking combinations 134 The bishop pair 142 Typical mistakes in calculating variations 156 Removing the defence 166 Good and bad bishops 176 Closed openings 190 Line clearing 202 Endgame technique 212 Blockade 224 Dragging the king out 236 Reti/English Opening 246 Typical mistakes in the endgame 258 Final test 268 Index of composers 277 Index of games 278
Preface
It was a pleasure to have Artur Yusupov working as my second, both personally and professionally. It is therefore an honour for me to write the preface to the new manual Boost Your Chess. This new book was created by expanding and improving the original online lessons from the Chess Tigers University. As an honorary member of the Chess Tigers, it has given me great pleasure to see this logical follow-up take concrete form and meet the twin challenges of being both a valuable textbook and a bedside book. It was in 1994 that I met Artur Yusupov in the semi-finals of the Candidates’ cycle in Wijk aan Zee. I managed to come out ahead by 4.5–2.5, but I recognized that Artur harboured great potential, both in his chess knowledge and extensive match experience. Artur’s systematic and professional approach to analysing games was the decisive factor in having him as my second in the World Championship Finals in New York 1995 and Lausanne 1998. His mastery of the methods of the Russian chess school was very helpful in the preparation for the matches, as well as during the matches themselves. It was his idea that I should play the Trompovsky in the last game in Lausanne. I was 3-2 down, but was able to level the match at 3–3 and thus force a play-off. I am still very grateful for everything that Artur did for me.
Artur’s vast experience as a trainer convinced him that there is a considerable need for better tuition for amateurs. Matching the level to the needs of the student is perhaps not too difficult, but the masterstroke is structuring the information in such a way that makes it immediately useful for amateurs. I am naturally enthusiastic about the rich variety of material in this series, which can help beginners become top amateurs. I wish Artur Yusupov all the best with the publication of the first book in the series Boost Your Chess. Making this work available in English means that even more people who are keen to learn can enjoy it to the full. World Champion, Viswanathan Anand
chapter Contents ü Significance of the attack on the king ü Preconditions for a successful attack on the king ü Removing a defender ü Exploiting the open king position ü Sacrifices ü Forced moves
1 Attacking the king The attack on the king has the highest priority of all in chess. For a successful attack on the king, you can sacrifice almost the whole army. But attacks do not always work. Before Steinitz, many players believed that it was only the player’s tactical abilities that had any part to play. Steinitz established that a successful attack can only be mounted if based on positional advantages – such as the initiative, better development, control over important central squares, etc. But whoever has the chance to attack must do so in the most energetic manner! In the following examples, look for the most active continuation! Bring your pieces closer to the opposing king, open up the position for your rooks and bishops, break up your opponent’s castled position, create specific threats! But you must also remain realistic: sometimes our attack on the king is ‘only enough to win material’!
W.Steinitz – C.von Bardeleben Hastings 1895
Diagram 1-1 r 1222222223 Çt+ Wl+ T5 ÆOoO +oOo5 Å +m+v+ +5 Ä+ +m+ + 5 Ã VbP + +5 Â+ N +n+ 5 ÁpP + PpP5 ÀR Bq+rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 8
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥c4 ¥c5 4.c3 ¤f6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 ¥b4† 7.¤c3!? An old gambit line. 7.¥d2 is the safer way. 7...d5?! A better option is 7...¤xe4 8.0–0 ¥xc3, as in the game Steinitz – Schlechter in the same tournament. 8.exd5 ¤xd5 9.0–0 ¥e6 Diagram 1-1 It is risky for Black to take the pawn as White’s lead in development would be too great. After 9...¤xc3 10.bxc3 ¥xc3 comes 11.¥xf7† ¢f8 12.£b3! ¥xa1 13.¥a3† ¤e7 14.¦e1+–; while if 9...¥xc3 10.bxc3 ¤xc3, then 11.£b3 gives White a strong attack. 10.¥g5! White brings his bishop into the game with tempo, thus increasing his lead in development. 10...¥e7?! For his part, Black loses a tempo. However, it is very difficult to correctly evaluate the attack which ensues. 8
9
1
Kasparov gives the better defence: 10...£d7 11.¥xd5 ¥xd5 12.¦e1† ¢f8² 11.¥xd5! ¥xd5 12.¤xd5 12.¥xe7 is not so good, because after 12...¤xe7 13.¦e1 0–0 14.¦xe7? Black has the intermediate move 14...¥xf3!=. 12...£xd5 13.¥xe7 ¤xe7 Diagram 1-2 14.¦e1 A typical idea to prevent the opponent castling. 14...f6 15.£e2 Later Zaitsev suggested another, even better, way to pursue the attack with 15.£a4†! and now: a) Perhaps Black should surrender a pawn: 15...£d7 16.£b4 ¢f7 (16...c6? 17.¦xe7†+–) 17.£xb7 ¤d5± b) 15...¢f7 16.¤e5†! fxe5 17.¦xe5 £d6 18.£c4† ¢f8 19.¦ae1 ¤g8 (19...¤g6 20.¦f5†+–) 20.¦d5 £c6 21.£b4† ¢f7 22.¦c5 £d6 23.£c4† ¢f8 24.¦xc7+– (Geller) 15...£d7 15...£d6? would be bad: 16.£b5† £c6 17.£b4 £d6 18.£xb7+– 16.¦ac1 Steinitz brings his final reserves into the game; it can be very useful to attack with all available forces! 16.¦ad1!? (Zaitsev) would also be very strong. 16...c6? The immediate 16...¢f7! is correct, in order to bring the knight to d5 more rapidly, e.g. 17.£c4† ¤d5 is fine for Black. The exchange sacrifice 17.£xe7†?! is not dangerous: 17...£xe7 18.¦xe7† ¢xe7 19.¦xc7† ¢d6 20.¦xg7 ¦ac8 21.g3 ¦c7! (Kasparov) Steinitz developed the principle: ‘The player with the advantage must attack!’ White has brought all his pieces into the game. If he now hesitates, his opponent will also bring his reserves into play and the initiative will disappear. So Steinitz sacrifices a pawn, opens files and puts his opponent under pressure. Diagram 1-3 17.d5!! cxd5 17...¢f7 is objectively better: 18.dxc6 bxc6± (Kasparov) 18.¤d4 This superb square is only a staging-post for the knight, who is aiming to get even closer to the
chapter
Attacking the king
Diagram 1-2 r 1222222223 Çt+ +l+ T5 ÆOoO MoOo5 Å + + + +5 Ä+ +w+ + 5 Ã + P + +5 Â+ + +n+ 5 ÁpP + PpP5 ÀR +q+rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-3 r 1222222223 Çt+ +l+ T5 ÆOo+wM Oo5 Å +o+ O +5 Ä+ + + + 5 Ã + P + +5 Â+ + +n+ 5 ÁpP +qPpP5 À+ R R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
1 chapter
Diagram 1-4 r 1222222223 Çt+t+ + +5 ÆOo+wMlOo5 Å + +nO +5 Ä+ +o+ + 5 Ã + + + +5 Â+ + + + 5 ÁpP +qPpP5 À+ R R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-5 r 1222222223 Çt+t+l+ +5 ÆOo+wM +o5 Å + + Oo+5 Ä+ +o+ N 5 Ã + + +q+5 Â+ + + + 5 ÁpP + PpP5 À+ R R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-6 r 1222222223 Ç V +t+ +5 Æ+o+wTl+o5 Åo+ +rOo+5 Ä+ +p+ + 5 Ãp+ + N +5 Â+q+ + Pp5 Á + + P +5 À+r+ + K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Tactics 1
opposing king! 18...¢f7 19.¤e6 The threat is now 20.¦c7. 19...¦hc8 19...¦ac8 is likewise met by 20.£g4. Nor is 19...¤c6 any better; White wins with 20.¤c5 £c8 21.£h5† (Kasparov). Diagram 1-4 20.£g4! The attacking side cannot afford to waste time! The threat is mate in two moves. 20...g6 21.¤g5† ¢e8 Diagram 1-5 Steinitz now ends the game with a fantastic combination. 22.¦xe7†! ¢f8! The most stubborn reply. If 22...£xe7, then 23.¦xc8† ¦xc8 24.£xc8† is a simple win. After 22...¢xe7 then 23.¦e1† wins. (23.£b4†! is also good, but you can only win a game once! The important thing is to calculate your winning line carefully.) 23...¢d6 24.£b4† ¦c5 (24...¢c6 25.¦c1#; 24...¢c7 25.¤e6† ¢b8 26.£f4†+– Steinitz) 25.¦e6† £xe6 26.¤xe6+– 23.¦f7†! But not 23.£xd7?? ¦xc1†–+. 23...¢g8! 23...£xf7 24.¦xc8† ¦xc8 25.£xc8† £e8 26.¤xh7† is hopeless. 24.¦g7†! ¢h8! Or 24...¢f8 25.¤xh7† ¢xg7 26.£xd7†+–. 25.¦xh7†! After this move von Bardeleben simply left the tournament hall! Steinitz demonstrated the following forced variation for the benefit of the spectators: 25...¢g8 26.¦g7†! ¢h8 27.£h4† ¢xg7 28.£h7† ¢f8 29.£h8† ¢e7 30.£g7† ¢e8 31.£g8† ¢e7 32.£f7† ¢d8 33.£f8† £e8 34.¤f7† ¢d7 35.£d6# Diagram 1-6
J.Capablanca – N.Zubarev Moscow 1925
Capablanca finds an elegant and forcing way to win. 1.¦xe7† ¢xe7 10
Diagram 1-7
J.Capablanca – H.Steiner Los Angeles 1933
1.f4! The black king is already rather exposed. White opens further lines for the attack. 1...¦g8 2.£h5† ¢g7 3.fxe5 dxe5 Diagram 1-8 4.¦xf6! A very natural continuation of the attack. White loses no time getting on with the decisive onslaught. 4...¢xf6 5.¦f1† ¤f5 5...¢g7 6.¦f7† ¢h8 7.£xh7# 6.¤xf5! Here Capablanca had certainly calculated all the way to the end. 6...exf5 7.¦xf5† ¢e7 8.£f7† ¢d6 9.¦f6† ¢c5 10.£xb7! A difficult move, but one which contains several mating threats. 10...£b6 11
1
Otherwise White wins with the discovered check d5-d6. 2.£xb7 ¥xf4 3.¦e1†! An important intermediate check, which leads to the following forced line. 3...¥e5 3...¢d6 loses to 4.£b6†, as does 3...¢d8 to 4.£a8†. 4.d6†! ¢e6 4...¢d8 is met by 5.£b6†+–. 5.£b3† ¢f5 5...¢xd6 loses the queen after 6.¦d1†. 6.£d3† ¢g5 7.£e3† ¢f5 If 7...¢h5, then 8.g4†+–. 8.£e4† ¢e6 8...¢g5 9.£h4† ¢f5 10.£g4# 9.£c4† ¢xd6 Forced, since 9...¢f5 runs into 10.£g4#. 10.¦d1† ¢e7 11.¦xd7† ¢xd7 12.£xa6 The attack has secured White a decisive material advantage. 1–0
chapter
Attacking the king
Diagram 1-7 r 1222222223 Çt+ W T +5 ÆOo+ Ml+o5 Å +oOoO +5 Ä+ + O + 5 Ã + +p+qN5 Â+ Pp+ + 5 Áp+p+ PpP5 ÀR + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-8 r 1222222223 Çt+ W +t+5 ÆOo+ M Lo5 Å +o+oO +5 Ä+ + O +q5 Ã + +p+ N5 Â+ Pp+ + 5 Áp+p+ +pP5 ÀR + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
1 chapter
Diagram 1-9 r 1222222223 Çt+ +tL +5 Æ+w+ +oO 5 Å + O V O5 Ä+ +pOp+q5 ÃoOpM +r+5 Â+p+b+ + 5 Áp+ B +pP5 À+ + +r+k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Tactics 1
Or 10...£xf6 11.£b4#. 11.¦xc6†! £xc6 11...¢b5† 12.¦xb6† axb6 13.£xh7+– would lead to a prospectless ending. 12.£b4# Diagram 1-9
E.Vasiukov – M.Taimanov USSR Ch, Kharkov 1967
The black king wants to escape to the centre. To prevent that happening, White must act immediately. 1.¦xg7! A correct sacrifice. 1...¢xg7 As the following variations show, other moves are no better: a) 1...¥xg7 2.f6 ¥xf6 3.¦xf6 ¦e7 4.£xh6† ¢e8 5.¦xd6 ¦d7 6.£h8† ¢e7 7.£xe5†+– b) 1...axb3 2.¥xh6 (…¦xf7†) 2...¥xg7 3.f6+– c) 1...¦e7 2.¦g4 ¢e8 3.£xh6 axb3 4.axb3 ¤xb3 5.¦g8† ¢d7 6.¦xa8 £xa8 7.¥xb4+– White was faced with an interesting problem at this point in the game. Which is more important here, material (£xh6† and then £xf6) or the attack (¥xh6†)? 2.£xh6†? White decides on material and wins the bishop. However, in doing so he loses a tempo for the attack. The correct choice is 2.¥xh6†! ¢g8 3.£g4† ¢h8 4.¥g5! ¥xg5 (4...£e7 5.£h4†+–) 5.f6! ¥h6 (5...¥xf6 6.¦xf6+–) 6.£h5+–. 2...¢g8 3.£xf6 £e7 4.£h6 f6 5.¥xb4 axb3 The position is now anything but clear, since the black rooks can become active via the open queenside. White takes an unfortunate decision and leaves the dangerous black pawn on the board. 6.a3?! ¦ac8 7.h3?! 7.¦e1!? 7...£g7 8.£h4 e4!? Now it is Black who wants to open lines. He takes the initiative and even goes on to win the game. 9.¥xe4 ¤e2! 10.¥d3 ¤g3† 11.¢g1 ¤xf1 12.¢xf1 ¦e3 13.¥b1 ¦ce8 14.£f4 And White resigned. 12
r Ex. 1-4
« 1222222223 Çt+ + Tl+5 Æ+vO +oOo5 ÅoO +oM +5 Ä+ +w+ + 5 Ã V PnP +5 Â+ +b+nP 5 ÁpP +qP P5 À+ Rr+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-2
« 1222222223 Ç + + +tL5 ÆOo+ Oo+o5 Å + W +tV5 Ä+ +p+v+ 5 Ã + P P +5 Â+p+ +q+p5 ÁpB N R K5 À+ R + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-5
« 1222222223 Ç T + Tl+5 ÆOvWm+oO 5 Å + +o+ O5 Ä+ O + + 5 Ã +p+ +m+5 Â+ B Pn+ 5 Áp+ +bPpP5 ÀQ +r+rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-3
«« 1222222223 Çt+ +tL +5 ÆO +w+ Oo5 Å O OrV +5 Ä+ Mp+ + 5 Ã +oQ + N5 Â+ B + + 5 ÁpP + P P5 À+ + R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-6
«« 1222222223 Ç +v+ Tl+5 Æ+ + +o+ 5 Åo+ Qo+oV5 Ä+wO P +p5 Ã + R P +5 Â+ P +b+ 5 Á P + + +5 À+ K + R 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 13
1
r Ex. 1-1
«« 1222222223 Ç + T +l+5 ÆOoO + On5 Å + O +qO5 Ä+ + M + 5 Ã + +nWv+5 Â+ + + + 5 ÁpPp+ PpP5 À+ + R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
chapter
Exercises
1 chapter
Exercises r Ex. 1-7
«« 1222222223 Ç + +tTl+5 Æ+vO +oOo5 Åo+w+ V B5 Ä+oM +b+ 5 Ã + +n+q+5 Â+ P + +p5 ÁpP + Pp+5 À+ +rR K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-10
« 1222222223 Ç + Tt+l+5 ÆOv+ +oOo5 Å O + M +5 Ä+ P + W 5 Ã + P +n+5 ÂP + +o+p5 ÁbB Q P +5 À+ Rr+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-8
«« 1222222223 Ç +lVt+ T5 ÆQo+m+o+ 5 Å Po+ +o+5 ÄR P + +o5 Ã + + + +5 Â+nW + Pp5 Áp+ + Pk+5 À+ +r+ + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-11
«« 1222222223 Ç + + +tL5 ÆOo+ + To5 Å +o+v+ +5 Ä+ +oP +w5 Ãp+ P O +5 Â+ P M + 5 Ár+ + QpP5 ÀR + NbK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-9
« 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 ÆOt+ +oL 5 Å + +o+o+5 ÄW OmP Bt5 Ã Oq+r+ P5 Â+ +r+ + 5 ÁpPp+ P +5 ÀK + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-12
««« 1222222223 Ç + + Tl+5 Æ+ O +t+ 5 Å O + + V5 Ä+ OpOv+ 5 Ãp+p+n+w+5 Â+ Nq+ Po5 Á + + R P5 À+ + +r+k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 14
Ex. 1-4
Based on the correspondence game
J.Capablanca – A.Becker
Morse – Bashein
Karlsbad 1929
1.¤ef6†! ¢h8 Of course 1...£xf6 would also be hopeless. 2.¤g5! (1 point) The threat is 3.£h7#. 2...£f5 Or 2...¥f5 3.£e8† ¦xe8 4.¤f7† ¤xf7 5.¦xe8#. 3.£e8†!! Decoying. 3...¦xe8 4.¤f7† ¤xf7 5.¦xe8# (another 1 point for these variations)
1.¤fg5!
(1 point) White threatens ¤xf6† followed by ¥e4. The immediate 1.¤xf6†? only leads to a draw: 1...gxf6 2.¦xc7 £xf3 3.¦xb7! £xb7 4.£g4† ¢h8 5.£h4 f5 6.£f6†= 1...¤e8 No better are 1...£xd4 2.¥b1+– or 1...¤xe4 2.¥xe4+–. 2.¤xh7! f5 3.¤hg5! 3.¤xf8 also wins after 3...¢xf8 4.f3. Black resigned, as 3...fxe4 is simply met by 4.¥xe4+–. Other moves also lose, e.g. 3...¤f6 4.¥c4 £d8 5.¥xe6†+– or 3...£d7 4.£h5 ¤f6 5.¤xf6† gxf6 6.£g6† ¢h8 7.¤xe6 £xe6 8.¦xc7 ¥e7 9.¥c4+–.
Ex. 1-2
L.Rellstab – V.Petrovs Kemeri 1937
1...¥xf4†! 2.£xf4 ¦g3!
(1 point) 2...¦h6 is just as good, since 3.¦c3 £g6! wins for Black. White resigned, in view of 3.£xd6 ¦xh3# or 3.£xf5 ¦g2† 4.¢h1 £h2# or 3.¢h1 £xf4–+.
Ex. 1-5
J.Capablanca – E.Colle Hastings 1930/1
1.¦xd7!
(1 point) 1.¥xg7?? would be bad, due to 1...¥xf3 2.g3 ¥xe2–+. 1...£xd7 2.¥xg7 £c7 2...¦fc8 3.¤e5 ¤xe5 4.£xe5 f5 5.¥xh6± 3.¥xf8 ¦xf8 4.g3±
Ex. 1-3
Tomas – Markwell Correspondence game
1.¦xf6†!
(1 point) 1...gxf6 2.£xf6† £f7 2...¢g8 3.£h8†+– 3.¤g6†! Or 3.£h8† £g8† 4.¤g6†!+–. 3...hxg6 4.£h8† £g8 5.£h6†! ¢f7 6.£f4# (another 1 point)
Ex. 1-6
Kofman – S.Zhukhovitsky Moscow 1936
1.hxg6! Not the only way, but the quickest route to victory. 1...cxd4 2.gxf7† ¢h8 2...¢xf7 3.¥h5# 2...¢h7 3.¥e4† ¢h8 4.£xf8† ¥xf8 5.¦g8# 15
1
Ex. 1-1
chapter
Solutions
1 chapter
Solutions
1...¦xg5! 2.hxg5 ¤b6 3.£b3 c4 4.¦xc4 ¤xc4 5.£xc4 b3 6.cxb3 £e1†–+ (1 point)
3.£xf8†!
(1 point) 3...¥xf8 4.¦g8† ¢h7 5.¥e4† ¢h6 6.¦h8† ¢g7 7.¦h7# (another 1 point)
Ex. 1-10 Variation from the game
Ex. 1-7
S.Bromberger – S.Löffler
E.Vasiukov – R.Kholmov
Bundesliga 2002
Moscow 1964
1...¦e1†!! By this deflection, Black gains the time needed for the capture on g4. 2.£xe1 ¤xg4 3.¢h1 3.¥xf7† ¢xf7–+ 3...£h4 4.£f1 ¤xf2† 5.¢h2 £f4† 6.¢g1 £g3†–+ (1 point)
1.¤xc5!
(1 point) 1.¥xg7 ¥xg7 2.¤xc5 (1 consolation point) is less precise, on account of 2...¦xe1† 3.¦xe1 h6 4.¤xb7 £xb7±. 1...£xc5 2.¥xg7! Black resigned, in view of 2...¥xg7 3.£h5 ¦xe1† 4.¦xe1 h6 5.¥h7†+–. (another 1 point for finding this idea)
Ex. 1-11
G.Stahlberg – A.Alekhine
Ex. 1-8
Prague Olympiad 1931
Mumelter – N.N.
1...¤g4!
Vienna 1896
(1 point) 2.£xf4 ¦f7 White resigned, on account of 3.£g3 ¤xh2 (or 3...¦xf1† 4.¢xf1 ¤xh2†–+) 4.£xh2 ¦xf1†–+. (another 1 point for this variation)
1.£a8†!
(1 point) 1.¦xd7 also wins, but is more complicated: 1...¢xd7 2.£xb7† ¢e6 3.£xc6† (1 consola tion point) 3...¢f5 4.£d6 ¦e5 (4...¥f6 5.c6† ¦e5 6.¤d4† ¢e4 7.f3† ¢d3 8.¤b5†+–) 5.¤d4† ¢e4 6.¦a4+– 1...¤b8 2.¦xd8†! ¦xd8 Or 2...¢xd8 3.£xb8† ¢d7 4.£d6† ¢c8 5.¦a8#. 3.£xb7†! ¢xb7 4.¦a7† ¢c8 5.¦c7# (another 1 point for the whole variation)
Ex. 1-12
Trubnikov – Radchenko Novosibirsk 1965
1...¥d2!
(1 point) The defending white pieces are overloaded. This deflecting sacrifice ruins the coordination of the opposing pieces. Of course 1...¥xe4†? would be bad: 2.£xe4 £xe4† 3.¤xe4 ¦xf2 4.¦xf2 ¦xf2? 5.¤xf2± 2.£xd2 If 2.¦xf5 ¦xf5 3.¤xd2, then 3...¦xf1† 4.¤xf1 e4 5.¤xe4 £xe4†–+.
Ex. 1-9
A.Suetin – G.Kasparian USSR Ch, Moscow 1952
The game saw 1...¤b6?? 2.¥f6† and Black resigned, because 3.¦d8 is coming next. The correct continuation would have been: 16
1
2.¦xd2 is simply met by 2...¥xe4† 3.¤xe4 ¦xf1†–+. 2...¥xe4† 3.¢g1 Or 3.¤xe4 £xe4† (3...¦xf2 is also good: 4.¦xf2 £xe4† 5.¢g1 £b1†–+) 4.¢g1 £g2†! 5.¦xg2 ¦xf1#. (1 point for this variation) 3...£xg3†! 4.hxg3 h2†! 5.¢xh2 ¦h7†–+ (another 1 point for this variation)
chapter
Solutions
Scoring Maximum number of points is 20
18 points and above 14 points and above 10 points
Excellent Good Pass mark
If you scored less than 10 points, we recommend that you read the chapter again and repeat the exercises which you got wrong. 17
Boost Your Chess 3 Mastery By
Artur Yusupov
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
CONTENTS
Key to symbols used Preface Introduction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Attacking the king in the centre Realizing an advantage Counterplay Knight endings The English Opening Hanging pawns on c3-d4 Counter-attack Rook against pawn The technique of calculating variations The Reti Opening The passed pawn in the middlegame Prophylactic thinking Bishop against knight Defence Candidate moves Combinational vision The King’s Indian Defence Queenside pawn majority Central pawn majority Pawn storms The initiative The Grünfeld Defence The elimination method Knight against bishop Final test Index of composers Index of games
4 5 6 8 20 34 44 56 70 82 92 100 110 122 134 146 158 170 180 190 204 216 228 240 254 266 276 287 297 298
Preface
It was a pleasure to have Artur Yusupov working as my second, both personally and professionally. It is therefore an honour for me to write the preface to this series of books. This book was created by expanding and improving the original online lessons from the Chess Tigers University. As an honorary member of the Chess Tigers, it has given me great pleasure to see this logical follow-up take concrete form and meet the twin challenges of being both a valuable textbook and a bedside book. It was in 1994 that I met Artur Yusupov in the semi-finals of the Candidates’ cycle in Wijk aan Zee. I managed to come out ahead by 4.5–2.5, but I recognized that Artur harboured great potential, both in his chess knowledge and extensive match experience. Artur’s systematic and professional approach to analysing games was the decisive factor in having him as my second in the World Championship Finals in New York 1995 and Lausanne 1998. His mastery of the methods of the Russian chess school was very helpful in the preparation for the matches, as well as during the matches themselves. It was his idea that I should play the Trompovsky in the last game in Lausanne. I was 3-2 down, but was able to level the match at 3–3 and thus force a play-off . I am still very grateful for everything that Artur did for me.
Artur’s vast experience as a trainer convinced him that there is a considerable need for better tuition for amateurs. Matching the level to the needs of the student is perhaps not too difficult, but the masterstroke is structuring the information in such a way that makes it immediately useful for amateurs. I am naturally enthusiastic about the rich variety of material in this series, which can help beginners become top amateurs. I wish Artur Yusupov all the best with the publication of this series of books. Making this work available in English means that even more people who are keen to learn can enjoy it to the full. World Champion, Viswanathan Anand
chapter Contents ü The correct psychological attitude ü Technique Do not allow any counterplay Do not hurry The principle of two weaknesses Making the correct exchanges
2 Realizing an advantage In this chapter we shall deal with the most important principles for realizing an advantage. (See also Boost Your Chess 2, Chapter 20.) The correct psychological attitude If we have an advantage, we must raise our level of concentration. If we can solve the next problems to arise, then the game may come to a quick end and we will not have to make any further effort! Technique 1) Do not allow any counterplay The most important principle! You can often (but unfortunately not always) control the game when you have a better position and deprive your opponent of his final chances of becoming active. When you have the better position you don’t want to allow him any counterplay. 2) Do not hurry This principle comes into play when the opponent has no counterplay left. The first thing to do is to improve your position as much as possible (or to make your opponent’s position worse) and only then turn to making active changes in the position. If your opponent does have some ideas to improve his position, or if by chance you see an opportunity, then you have to hurry! 3) The principle of two weaknesses This is an important strategic concept. If your opponent has one weakness, then normally he will be able to protect it sufficiently well. But you can break down his defence by provoking a fresh weakness, as far away as possible from the first one. You then attack the two weaknesses turn about and the attacking side’s superior lines of communication will play a decisive role. 4) Capablanca’s principle – the correct exchanges You should retain only those pieces (or pawns!)
20
20
2
which you require to win the game! You should try to swap off any superfluous pieces. A perfectly played positional game is finished off with a won ending. There is a rule of thumb: the side with the advantage in material strives to exchange pieces, the side which is behind tries to swap off pawns!
chapter
Realizing an advantage
The following examples will illustrate these principles of technique.
A.Yusupov – L.Christiansen Las Palmas 1993
1.d4 d6 2.e4 ¤f6 3.f3 e5 4.dxe5 After the exchange of queens White obtains a small, but safe, advantage. 4...dxe5 5.£xd8† ¢xd8 6.¥c4 ¥e6?! This exchange damages the pawn structure. 6...¢e8!? would be better, or even 6...¢e7!? preparing ...¥e6 (Rivas). 7.¥xe6 fxe6 Diagram 2-1 8.¤h3!?² The first goal is to attack the weakness on e5. For that reason, the white knight wants to go to d3. 8...¥c5 9.¤f2 ¥xf2† 10.¢xf2² This exchange is also good for White, because his dark-squared bishop will be slightly stronger than the opposing knight. 10...¤c6 10...¤bd7!? 11.¥e3 ¢e7 Diagram 2-2 12.¤a3!? White retains various options for the knight: b5, c4 or (after c2-c3) the c2-square. 12...a6 13.c3 ¦hd8 The more active 13...¦ag8!?² (…...g5) might be a better attempt to create some worries for White. 14.¢e2 h6?! Black is just weakening his position with pawn moves. If 14...b5, then 15.¤c2². 15.¤c2 ¦d7 21
Diagram 2-1 r 1222222223 ÇtM L V T5 ÆOoO + Oo5 Å + +oM +5 Ä+ + O + 5 Ã + +p+ +5 Â+ + +p+ 5 ÁpPp+ +pP5 ÀRnB K Nr5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 2-2 r 1222222223 Çt+ + + T5 ÆOoO L Oo5 Å +m+oM +5 Ä+ + O + 5 Ã + +p+ +5 Â+ + Bp+ 5 ÁpPp+ KpP5 ÀRn+ + +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
2 chapter
Diagram 2-3 r 1222222223 Çt+ + + +5 Æ+oOtL O 5 Åo+m+oM O5 Ä+ + O + 5 Ã + +p+ +5 Â+ P Bp+ 5 ÁpPn+k+pP5 ÀR + + +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 2-4 r 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+oOtL O 5 Åo+mMo+ O5 Ä+ + O + 5 Ã + +p+ +5 Â+ PnBp+ 5 ÁpP +k+pP5 ÀR + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 2-5 r 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ OtLmO 5 Å Om+o+ O5 ÄO + O + 5 Ãp+ +p+ +5 Â+ Pn+pB 5 Á P +k+pP5 ÀR + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Positional play 1
Diagram 2-3 The main problem in the position is the question of exchanging. What shall we do with the open file: should we exchange all the rooks on it, should we avoid exchanges or should we exchange only one pair of rooks? 16.¦hd1 The correct answer is to exchange one pair of rooks, in order to reduce any possible counterplay. White needs to keep one rook to prepare his own active operations. 16...¦ad8 If 16...¦xd1 17.¦xd1 ¦d8, then 18.¦g1!² is correct. 17.¦xd7† ¦xd7 17...¤xd7!? 18.¤e1! White regroups his pieces in order to attack the e5-pawn. In doing so, White wants to tie the black knight down on c6, where it is not so well placed and where it can later become a target (after b4, a4 and b4-b5). 18...¤e8 18...¤d8? 19.¤d3 ¤f7 20.¤c5± 19.¤d3 ¤d6 Diagram 2-4 20.¥f2! The position of the bishop is also improved; it goes to g3, to exert even more pressure on e5. 20...b6?! Black wants to protect the c5-square, but once more he weakens his own position with the pawn move. 21.¥g3 ¤f7 Better is 21...¢f6. 22.a4 a5 White needs a second weakness to attack. It now makes sense to play on the queenside. Diagram 2-5 23.¦c1!± Intending b2-b4. Before undertaking any active operations, White first improves his position as much as possible. After 24.b4 the rook will be very well placed here. The over-hasty 23.b4? gives the opponent counterplay: 23...axb4 24.cxb4 ¤d4† 22
23
2
23...¢f6 24.b4 ¦d8 24...axb4 25.cxb4 ¤d4† is no longer dangerous; after 26.¢e3 c6 27.a5 White is clearly better. For example: 27...bxa5 28.bxa5 ¦a7 29.¤xe5! ¤xe5 30.¥xe5† ¢xe5 31.¦c5†+– 25.b5 ¤e7 Diagram 2-6 26.¥f2! Preparing c4-c5. Once more White must pay attention. The immediate 26.c4 allows counterchances after 26...c5! 27.bxc6 ¤xc6. 26...¦b8 After 26...¦c8 White continues 27.c4 c5 28.bxc6 ¦xc6 29.c5 bxc5 30.¦xc5 ¦xc5 31.¤xc5 ¤c6 32.¤b7+– and Black cannot protect the a5-pawn often enough. 27.c4 c5 Diagram 2-7 28.¤xc5?! The sacrifice on c5 is very tempting. Unfortunately White spotted his opponent’s defensive idea too late and gave up the wrong piece. 28.¥xc5! would have been even better: 28...bxc5 29.¤xc5+– 28...bxc5 29.¥xc5 ¤d8!? There is no hope after 29...¦c8 30.¥b6 ¤d6 31.c5+–. 29...¦b7 is simply met by 30.¥a3±. 30.¥d6 ¦b7 31.¦d1! It was only here that I understood that Black wants to return the piece. 31.c5?! is answered by 31...¤ec6÷, and the white bishop on d6 finds itself offside. 31...¤dc6!? 32.bxc6 ¤xc6 33.¥c5 Now the bishop can join the play again. But the mistake on move 28 has given Black good defensive chances. 33...¦b2† 34.¦d2 ¦b3 35.¦d6 ¤e7? Black misses his chance. 35...¤d4†!? is correct: 36.¥xd4 exd4 37.¦xd4 (37.¦a6!?±) 37...¦b4± 36.¥b6 ¤g6 Diagram 2-8 37.¥xa5 White calculated a long variation and decided to force matters. His passed pawns will be too dangerous. After the technical 37.g3!? Black could still reply 37...¦b4.
chapter
Realizing an advantage
Diagram 2-6 r 1222222223 Ç + T + +5 Æ+ O MmO 5 Å O +oL O5 ÄOp+ O + 5 Ãp+ +p+ +5 Â+ Pn+pB 5 Á + +k+pP5 À+ R + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 2-7 r 1222222223 Ç T + + +5 Æ+ + MmO 5 Å O +oL O5 ÄOpO O + 5 Ãp+p+p+ +5 Â+ +n+p+ 5 Á + +kBpP5 À+ R + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 2-8 r 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ + + O 5 Å B RoLmO5 ÄO + O + 5 Ãp+p+p+ +5 Â+t+ +p+ 5 Á + +k+pP5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
2 chapter
Diagram 2-9 r 1222222223 Çt+ Bl+ +5 Æ+ P + O 5 Å + +o+ O5 Ä+ + O + 5 Ãp+m+p+ +5 Â+ +r+p+ 5 Á +k+ + P5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 2-10 r 1222222223 Ç T + + +5 Æ+tL MmO 5 ÅrO O O O5 Ä+pOpO +p5 Ã + +p+p+5 Â+ P BpN 5 Á + + +k+5 ÀR + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Positional play 1
37...¤f4† 38.¢d2 ¤xg2 39.c5 ¤e3 40.¥d8† ¢f7 41.¦d3!+– ¤c4† 42.¢c2 ¦b8 The point is 42...¦xd3 43.¢xd3 ¤b2† 44.¢c2 ¤xa4 45.¥b6!+– and White forces a won pawn ending. 43.c6 ¢e8 44.c7 ¦a8 Diagram 2-9 45.¦c3 Just before the winning post White begins to lose his concentration. Fortunately he was not punished for it in the game: his opponent’s resistance was already broken. 45.¢c3! would be better: 45...¤b6 46.¢b4+– 45...¤b6 46.a5 Nor is this move the best. 46.¦b3! is correct: 46...¤d7 47.a5+– 46...¦xa5 Or 46...¤c8 47.¦c5+–. 47.c8£ Black resigned, slightly prematurely. After 47...¦a2† I would still have had to find the variation 48.¢b3 ¤xc8 49.¦xc8 ¦xh2 50.¥f6† ¢d7 51.¥xe5+–. Diagram 2-10
A.Yusupov – J.Hall Bundesliga 1999
White is better. He controls the a-file and has an advantage in space. Black has the b6-pawn as a weakness, but it is hard to attack and relatively easy to defend. Despite that, it is worth first forcing your opponent onto the defensive and tying down some of his pieces. 46.¤f1! Planning ¤d2-c4, so as to put further pressure on b6. 46...¦e8 47.¤d2 ¤c8 48.¤c4 ¦f8 In order to make progress, White must undertake something on the kingside (the principle of two weaknesses). Since Black has absolutely no counterplay, White manoeuvres for quite a long time, aiming to first bring his pieces to their optimal positions. These waiting tactics are rather unpleasant for his opponent. 49.¥d2 ¦e8 50.¢g3 ¦d8 51.¦a8 ¦b8 52.¦8a4 24
25
2
White is still not sure whether he wants to exchange the rooks. 52...¦b7 Diagram 2-11 53.f4! There is no way to make progress without this breakthrough. 53.¤e3 achieves nothing after 53...¤e7. 53...¦e8 Also after 53...exf4†!? 54.¥xf4 ¦e8 55.¢f3 ¤e5† (or 55...¤g5† 56.¥xg5 fxg5 57.¤e3±) 56.¥xe5 dxe5 57.¦a8± the position remains very unpleasant for Black. 54.¢f3 ¦f8 55.¦a8 ¦b8 56.¦8a6 ¦b7 57.¢e2 The waiting game continues. 57...¦e8 58.¢d3 ¦h8 59.¥e3 ¦e8 60.¦a8 ¦b8 61.¦8a2 ¦b7 62.¦a6 ¦h8 63.¥d2 ¦f8 64.¦a8 ¦b8 Diagram 2-12 Having gained some time for thought, White now realized that he could profit from the black rook having left its position on h8. After 64...¦h8!? there follows 65.¦1a6!?± and the black pieces are even more tied down. Not so good is 65.fxe5 ¤xe5† 66.¤xe5 dxe5 with a solid position for Black. 65.¦xb8 White exchanges the superfluous rook. One rook is all he needs for his active play (as in the previous game). In addition he obtains better possibilities of activating his king. 65...¢xb8 Diagram 2-13 66.g5! The principle of two weaknesses. 66...fxg5 66...exf4 67.gxf6 gxf6 68.¥xf4 ¤e5† 69.¥xe5 fxe5 70.¦g1 ¦f3† 71.¢d2 ¦h3 72.¦g6 ¦xh5 73.¤xd6 ¤xd6 74.¦xd6± is also to White’s advantage. 67.fxg5 ¤xg5 68.¥xg5 hxg5 69.¦g1 ¦h8 70.¦xg5 ¦h7 The result of the operation is very pleasing for White. Black has a clear second weakness on g7, the white king can now come quickly into play, and the d6-pawn also becomes a serious target.
chapter
Realizing an advantage
Diagram 2-11 r 1222222223 Ç +mT + +5 Æ+tL +mO 5 Å O O O O5 Ä+pOpO +p5 Ãr+n+p+p+5 Â+ P +pK 5 Á + B + +5 ÀR + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 2-12 r 1222222223 ÇrTm+ T +5 Æ+ L +mO 5 Å O O O O5 Ä+pOpO +p5 Ã +n+pPp+5 Â+ Pk+ + 5 Á + B + +5 ÀR + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 2-13 r 1222222223 Ç Lm+ T +5 Æ+ + +mO 5 Å O O O O5 Ä+pOpO +p5 Ã +n+pPp+5 Â+ Pk+ + 5 Á + B + +5 ÀR + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
2 chapter
Diagram 2-14 r 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ L M + 5 Å O O +p+5 Ä+pOpO R 5 Ã +n+p+k+5 Â+ P + + 5 Á + + + +5 À+ + + +t5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 2-15 r 1222222223 Ç + + +m+5 Æ+ Lt+ P 5 Å O O +r+5 Ä+p+pOn+ 5 Ã +o+p+k+5 Â+ + + + 5 Á + + + +5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Positional play 1
71.¢e2!? 71.¤e3 ¤e7 72.¤f5 ¤xf5 73.exf5 ¢c7 74.¢e4 ¢d7 75.¦g6 ¢e7± would be less clear. 71...¢c7 72.¢f3 ¤e7 72...¤a7 73.¤a3± does not change the situation. 73.¢g4 Black is in zugzwang and has to abandon his defensive line. 73...g6!? Black sets a final trap. 73...¤g8 74.¢f5 ¤f6 75.¢g6 ¤xe4 76.¢xh7 ¤xg5† 77.¢xg7 ¢d7 78.h6+– is hopeless. 74.hxg6 ¦h1 Diagram 2-14 75.¢f3! Mistakes are always possible. 75.g7? is met by 75...¦g1†=, resulting in a repetition of moves. 75...¦h3† 76.¢f2 ¦xc3 77.¤e3+– The g-pawn is too strong. 77...¦a3 78.g7 ¦a8 79.¤f5 ¤g8 80.¦g6 The second weakness – the d6-pawn – is also attacked. 80...¦d8 81.¢f3 ¦d7 82.¢g4 The threat is 83.¢h5 and then 84.¤h6. Black tries to obtain counterplay. 82...c4 Diagram 2-15 83.¢f3! The simplest solution. White’s king will simply take this pawn first, before returning to the kingside. 1–0 When you do the exercises, always bear in mind the principles of technique.
26
chapter Contents ü “What does my opponent want to do?” ü Prophylactic solutions ü When we should employ prophylaxis
12 Prophylactic thinking Prophylactic thinking is one of the most important themes in the positional game. Chess players often forget that they are not alone at the board, and that they must also take into account their opponent’s plans. The habit of always asking yourself what your opponent wants to do, of answering the question correctly and taking into account the information you have gained, is prophylactic thinking. Prophylactic thinking is for me a philosophy of the chess struggle, which embodies due respect to one’s opponent. Prophylactic thinking often helps not only to find the opponent’s ideas, but also to work out the solution to the position. A move which simultaneously improves our own position and blocks our opponent’s plans is usually the optimal solution. Prophylactic moves are stronger than purely defensive moves because they improve your own position. Prophylactic moves are also stronger than mere improvements to your own position, because they also hinder your opponent’s game. There is another important psychological factor in prophylactic thinking which I wish to emphasize: it is extraordinarily difficult to battle against a prophylactic player. Once the plans you have prepared have been thwarted a few times, mistakes often creep in. Of course we do not always make use of prophylactic thinking. It is when the course of the game is very quiet that prophylactic thinking is most useful. In situations in which we have forcing options, we must first of all calculate variations – we are not interested in our opponent’s intentions if we have a forced mate in three moves! The following games show how and when we should employ prophylactic thinking.
134
134
12
A.Yusupov – J.Van der Wiel
chapter
Prophylactic thinking
Lucerne Olympiad 1982
1.c4 ¤f6 2.¤c3 e6 3.e4 d5 An alternative is 3...c5. 4.e5 ¤e4 4...d4 is the main variation. 5.¤f3 5.¤xe4 dxe4 6.£g4 wins the e4-pawn, but Black gets control of the d4-square and develops an initiative. White prefers a quieter set-up. 5...¤c6 6.¥e2 After 6.d4!? Black can reply 6...¥b4. 6...¥e7 7.0–0 7.£c2 is met by 7...¤g5!, as in Seirawan – Christiansen, USA Ch, South Bend 1981. 7...0–0 8.d4 Now White can occupy the centre. 8...b6 9.¥e3 ¤xc3 Or 9...¥b7 10.cxd5 ¤xc3 (10...exd5 11.¦c1²) 11.bxc3 exd5 12.¥d3². 10.bxc3 dxc4 10...¥a6!? (Bagirov) 11.¥xc4² ¤a5 12.¥d3 ¥b7 Diagram 12-1 Black prepares ...c5. Here White has a typical regrouping of his pieces to prepare the attack on the kingside. 13.¤d2! c5 14.£g4! g6 Not 14...cxd4? 15.¥h6±. 15.¤e4 cxd4 If 15...¥xe4? 16.¥xe4 ¦c8, then comes 17.d5±. 16.cxd4 ¤c6 Diagram 12-2 Black probably should have preferred 16...¥xe4 17.¥xe4 ¦c8². With the game move, Black has the tactical threat of ...¤xe5. This threat can easily be parried if White puts his rook on d1. It is more difficult to do anything against his opponent’s positional idea of bringing his knight via b4 to d5. But one logical move takes into account both ideas. 17.¦fd1! Why not the other rook? In the variation 17.¦ad1?! ¤b4 18.¥h6 (18.¥b1 ¦c8„) 18...¤xd3! 19.¥xf8 135
Diagram 12-1 r 1222222223 Çt+ W Tl+5 ÆOvO VoOo5 Å O +o+ +5 ÄM + P + 5 Ã + P + +5 Â+ PbBn+ 5 Áp+ + PpP5 ÀR +q+rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 12-2 r 1222222223 Çt+ W Tl+5 ÆOv+ Vo+o5 Å Om+o+o+5 Ä+ + P + 5 Ã + Pn+q+5 Â+ +bB + 5 Áp+ + PpP5 ÀR + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
12 chapter
Diagram 12-3 r 1222222223 Çt+ Wt+l+5 ÆO + Vo+o5 Å Om+o+oB5 Ä+ + P + 5 Ã + Pn+q+5 Â+ + + + 5 Áp+ + PpP5 ÀR +r+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 12-4 r 1222222223 Ç + Wt+l+5 ÆO T Vo+o5 Å Om+o+oB5 Ä+ + P + 5 Ã + PnQ P5 Â+r+ + + 5 Áp+ + Pp+5 À+ +r+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Positional play 2
£xf8 20.¦xd3 ¥a6= we can clearly see the difference between the two moves. 17...¤b4 17...¤xd4?? is of course bad, on account of 18.¥xd4 £xd4 19.¤f6†+–. 18.¥h6! ¦e8 18...¤xd3? 19.¥xf8 £xf8 20.¦xd3+– 19.¥b5 ¥c6 20.¥xc6 ¤xc6 Diagram 12-3 White can be content. The exchange of bishops was not bad for him. But it is once more time for some prophylactic thinking. What does his opponent want to do here? Probably ...¤b4-d5 again! White can protect the b4-square with a3. But the prophylactic move played in the game is much better. 21.¦ab1!± White develops his rook and aims to bring it into the attack by ¦b3-f3(or h3). At the same time he prevents the move ...¤b4. 21.£f4 ¤b4 22.¤g5 ¥xg5 23.¥xg5 ¤d5! 24.£h4 £d7 25.£h6 f5 26.exf6² would not be so clear. 21...£d5? After White has twice thwarted his plans, Black reacts nervously and loses a decisive tempo. 21...¤b4? is followed by 22.¦xb4! ¥xb4 23.¤f6† ¢h8 24.£h4+–. But 21...¦c8± would have been better. 22.£f4+– The threat is ¤f6†. The black queen must retreat. 22...£d8 23.¦b3 ¦c8 24.h4 Also good is the simpler 24.¦f3 ¦f8 25.¥xf8+–. 24...¦c7 24...¥xh4 is followed by 25.¦f3 (or 25.¤d6!?) 25...¦c7 26.g3+–. Diagram 12-4 25.¦f3 As Tal showed me after the game, White has a pretty way to win here: 25.d5!! exd5 26.¦xd5 £xd5 27.¤f6† ¥xf6 28.£xf6 £xe5 29.¦e3!+– 25...¦f8 After this loss of the exchange, the game cannot be saved. But if 25...¥xh4, then simply 26.g3+–. 26.¥xf8 £xf8 27.d5! exd5 28.¦xd5 ¤b4 28...¤d8+– would have lasted longer. 29.¦d1 136
12
Threatening 30.e6. 29...¦c6 30.¤d6 ¤xa2 31.£a4 1–0 The two prophylactic moves 17.¦fd1 and 21.¦ab1 practically decided the game.
chapter
Prophylactic thinking
A.Yusupov – G.Timoscenko Kislovodsk 1982
1.c4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.¤f3 ¥g4 7.cxd5 ¤xd5 8.£b3 ¥xf3 9.gxf3 ¤b6 9...e6 is the main alternative. 10.d5!? ¤d4 11.¥b5†!? White tries to make use of his lead in development. 11.£d1 is also possible. 11...¤d7 11...¤xb5 12.£xb5† £d7 13.£xd7†² 12.£a4 e5? This optimistic move escaped punishment in the game. 12...¤xf3†?! 13.¢f1!± would also have been too risky for Black. The correct choice was 12...¤xb5 13.£xb5, when White’s initiative should compensate for his pawn weaknesses. 13.dxe6 ¤xe6 Diagram 12-5 Black wants to play ...a6 and release the pin. That should encourage White to seek an active continuation. 14.¥e3? 14.¥g5!! (Petrosian) would be correct: 14...£xg5 (or 14...¤xg5 15.0–0–0+–) 15.¥xd7† ¢e7 16.¤e4!+– 14...a6 15.¥xd7† £xd7 16.£xd7† ¢xd7² White wants to exploit the open position of the black king. For that he needs all the central files. 17.0–0!? ¥d6 Black has two ways to consolidate the position and bring his king to safety: ...¦ac8 followed by ...¦c6, or ...¦fd8 followed by ...¢e8. But it would have been better to begin the first plan with the immediate 17...¦c8!. Then after 18.¦fd1† ¥d6 19.¤e4 ¦c6 20.¦ac1 ¦d8! (20...¦hc8? 21.¤xd6 ¦xc1 22.¥xc1+–) 21.¦xc6 ¢xc6 22.¦c1† ¢b5 23.¤c3† ¢c6 the position remains level. 137
Diagram 12-5 r 1222222223 Çt+ WlV T5 ÆOo+m+oOo5 Å + +m+ +5 Ä+b+ + + 5 Ãq+ + + +5 Â+ N +p+ 5 ÁpP + P P5 ÀR B K +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
12 chapter
Positional play 2
Diagram 12-6 r 1222222223 Çt+ + + T5 Æ+o+l+oOo5 Åo+ Vm+ +5 Ä+ + + + 5 Ã + + + +5 Â+ N Bp+ 5 ÁpP + P P5 ÀR + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 12-7 r 1222222223 Ç + T + T5 Æ+oVnLoOo5 Åo+ +m+ +5 Ä+ +r+ + 5 Ã + + + +5 Â+ + Bp+ 5 ÁpP + P P5 À+ +r+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 12-6
18.¤d5! This move activates the knight and prevents both defensive ideas. As we already know, 18.¦fd1 achieves nothing: 18...¦ac8 19.¤e4 ¦c6 20.¦ac1 ¦d8!= 18...¦ad8 Now Black wants to play ¢c8. Therefore… 19.¦ac1! If 19.¦fd1, then 19...¢c8 20.¥b6 ¦de8=. 19...¤c7 19...¢e8 20.¦fd1 is also unpleasant for Black. 20.¤b6† Of course White should keep the pieces on the board. 20...¢e6 21.¦fe1! Not 21.¦fd1, on account of 21...g5! followed by ...f6 and ...¥e5, and Black stabilizes his position. 21...¢f5 22.¦ed1 Threatening 23.¦xd6 ¦xd6 24.¦xc7. 22...¤e6 22...¢e6? allows 23.¦xd6† ¢xd6 24.¥f4†. 23.¦d5† ¢f6 23...¢g6!? is worth considering, or even 23...¥e5!? 24.¤d7 f6=. 24.¦cd1 ¥c7 25.¤d7† ¢e7 Diagram 12-7 White retains the initiative. Now he strengthens the pressure on the queenside. 26.b4! If 26.¥c5†? ¤xc5 27.¤xc5, then 27...¦xd5 28.¦xd5 ¦d8 29.¦xd8 ¥xd8 30.¤xb7? ¥b6–+ and the knight is trapped. 26...f6 27.a4 Intending b5-b6. 27...g5?! Black wants to control the f4-square, but he voluntarily weakens his f6-pawn. 27...¦he8!? followed by ...¢f7 was sounder. 28.¥c1!? The bishop wants to go to b2 to attack the f6pawn. If 28.b5, then 28...axb5 29.axb5 ¦hg8=. A decent alternative is 28.¥d4!? ¤xd4 (28...¦xd7? 29.¦xd7† ¢xd7 30.¥xf6†+–) 29.¦1xd4, although 138
“The development of the capacity for prophylactic thinking brings the chess player a powerful step forward and clearly raises his playing strength.” – Mark Dvoretsky In the test which follows, we shall train this ability. First ask yourself what the other side wants to do, and note that down in your answer. Try to prevent it and, if possible, to improve your own position at the same time. 139
12
Black can hold the position after 29...b6 30.¦e4† ¢f7 31.¦c4 ¢e6 32.¤xf6 ¥xh2† 33.¢xh2 ¦xd5=. 28...¤f4?! This move has more drawbacks than pluses. 28...¦hg8! would have been better: 29.b5² 29.¥xf4 ¥xf4? Better is 29...gxf4±. Diagram 12-8 30.¤xf6! This tactical blow brings White a clear advantage. 30...¦c8?! Of course not 30...¢xf6? 31.¦xd8+–. But 30...¦xd5 (or 30...¦d6!?) 31.¤xd5† ¢e6 32.¤xf4† gxf4 33.¦d4± would have been more resilient. 31.¤h5!? 31.¤xh7!? is also possible, but in time trouble White chooses a safer continuation. 31...¥c7 32.¦e1† ¢f7 33.¦d7† ¢g6 34.¤g7!? Threatening mate in one. 34...¥d8 34...¦hf8 35.¦e6† ¦f6 36.¦xf6† ¢xf6 loses to 37.¦xc7! ¦xc7 38.¤e8†. 35.¦xb7+– White has a large material advantage, which he was able to convert into the full point. Black’s mistake on move 29 was not a matter of mere chance. With his prophylactic decisions on moves 18, 19 and 21, White hindered his opponent’s desired consolidation of the position and developed a dangerous initiative. Mistakes in such situations are almost preprogrammed and prophylactic play provokes them.
chapter
Prophylactic thinking
Diagram 12-8 r 1222222223 Ç + T + T5 Æ+o+nL +o5 Åo+ + O +5 Ä+ +r+ O 5 ÃpP + V +5 Â+ + +p+ 5 Á + + P P5 À+ +r+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Update for
Beating the Open Games by Mihail Marin
This is a free Internet update to the first edition of Beating the Open Games by Mihail Marin. The material included is in the second edition of the book. The only update not included in this file is the Evans Gambit Chapter, as the entire chapter can be found online at www.qualitychessbooks.com as a sample PDF of the second edition of the book.
The Bishop’s Opening 1.e4 e5 2.¥c4
1222222223 4tMvWlVmT5 4OoOo+oOo5 4 + + + +5 4+ + O + 5 4 +b+p+ +5 4+ + + + 5 4pPpP PpP5 4RnBqK Nr5 7888888889
This opening is just as old as the King's Gambit and the Italian Game. It was regularly employed by Greco and was part of Philidor’s system of thinking (see also his ideas about not blocking the f-pawn too early, mentioned on page 14). Later, it was submitted to thorough practical examination in the matches between Cochrane and Staunton (1841 and 1842). In modern times, Larsen frequently resorted to this opening in order to avoid theory, while Kasparov tried it in several rapid games. Theoretically, moving the bishop while the knight is still on g1 might look like a violation of the rules of development. However, Black cannot take immediate advantage of it because 2...£g5?! is useless in view of 3.¤f3! when 3...£xg2 allows 4.¦g1 £h3 5.¥xf7†. So why is this interesting opening covered in the shortest chapter in the whole book? The answer is quite simple: given the structure of our repertoire, 2.¥c4 will most likely transpose elsewhere in the book, be it to the King’s Gambit (if White plays f4 at some moment), or one of the numerous variations of the Italian Game (if he refrains from such a brave action). You can also refer to my comment on page 42 about the Vienna Game. Basically, we should just develop the knights normally and play ...¥c5 at some moment, but
it is important to know the most restricting move order. I would recommend: 2...¤c6 If 2...¥c5 White could consider 3.£g4 when Black cannot answer in the same style as White would have done against 2...£g5, with 3...¤f6, because f7 is hanging after 4.£xg7. It is easy to convince ourselves that each way of protecting the g7-square has drawbacks. For instance, 3...g6 weakens the dark squares, which can be felt after the bishop’s departure. Players who intend to play the Petroff defence (2.¤f3 ¤f6) are more or less forced to play 2...¤f6 in order to avoid learning such a complicated opening as the Italian game. In modern times, White almost always answers 3.d3, when 3...¤c6 followed by ...¥c5 leads to well known paths. However, I would be worried that in case of the romantic 3.d4!? we would have to learn some additional lines. After 2...¤c6 White cannot give the game an independent character.
1222222223 4t+vWlVmT5 4OoOo+oOo5 4 +m+ + +5 4+ + O + 5 4 +b+p+ +5 4+ + + + 5 4pPpP PpP5 4RnBqK Nr5 7888888889
3.f4 ¥c5 4.¤f3 d6 leads to the King’s Gambit. 3.¤f3 is an immediate transposition to the Italian game, while moves such as 3.¤c3 or 3.d3 only delay the moment of such a transposition. Black simply plays ...¤f6 and ...¥c5.
Belgrade Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.d4 exd4 5.¤d5!?
6.¤xd4 ¤xd5 7.exd5 ¤xd4 8.£xd4 0–0 offer Black very easy play.
The first player who tried this in a recorded game is Richter, back in 1938, but the variation probably owes its name to the fact that in the '40s it was played in several games between Yugoslav players. Almost all I knew about it before writing these lines was that Black should not embark on sharp lines (such as 5...¤xe4 6.£e2 f5 7.¤g5 or 5...¤xd5 6.exd5 ¥b4† 7.¥d2), which would indeed transform the position into a dangerous gambit, but play the solid developing move: 5...¥e7, which, as we shall see, will transpose to a structure typical of the relatively inoffensive Ponziani Opening. White still needs to justify his early knight jump to the centre. Both ...¤xe4 and ...¤xd5 should be permanently considered, while an exchange on e7 or f6 would just improve Black’s development. Compare with the following line from the English Opening: 1.c4 e5 2.¤c3 ¥b4 3.¤d5 ¥e7 4.d4 d6 5.e4 ¤f6, where Black loses a whole tempo (and does not capture any pawn on the way!) in order to provoke such a tense situation in the centre. Returning to the Belgrade Gambit, we should know that the simplifications after
In order to complicate the fight White would need to castle long, but if he develops the dark-squared bishop then 9...¥f6 would be unpleasant. The only way to defend the b2-pawn would be 10.£b4, but then 10...a5 would offer Black a strong initiative, precisely on the wing where the white king has planned to go. Therefore, White has to play the more modest 9.¥e2 when play may continue 9...¥f6 10.£d3 10.£d1?! is too passive and hands the initiative to Black. For instance 10...d6 11.0–0 ¥f5 12.¥d3 £d7 13.c3 ¦fe8 14.a4 ¥e4³ Sax – Karpov, Tilburg 1979. 10...d6 11.0–0 ¦e8 12.¥f3 White has to place his bishop on this relatively passive square because 12.c3, preparing the development of the other bishop, would offer Black some initiative after 12...¥f5!³. 12...g6 13.c3 13.£b3!? planning ¥d2 and ¦ae1 can be met by 13...a5 14.a4 b6 15.¥d2 ¥e5= Liska – Florian, Ostrava 1957. The most probable result is a draw. 13...¥f5 14.£c4 a6 15.¥e3 b5 16.£b3 ¥e5=
1222222223 4t+vWlV T5 4OoOo+oOo5 4 +m+ M +5 4+ +n+ + 5 4 + Op+ +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4R BqKb+r5 7888888889
1222222223 4t+vW Tl+5 4OoOoVoOo5 4 + + + +5 4+ +p+ + 5 4 + Q + +5 4+ + + + 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4R B Kb+r5 7888888889
Black has little to fear, Padevsky – Smyslov, Alekhine Memorial 1956. Instead of immediately capturing on d4, White should try to maintain his slight initiative in the centre with 6.¥f4 when the natural answer is 6...d6
1222222223 4t+vWl+ T5 4OoO VoOo5 4 +mO M +5 4+ +n+ + 5 4 + OpB +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4R +qKb+r5 7888888889
restricting the activity of the enemy bishop and leaving it exposed. The gambit continuation 6...0–0!? 7.¥xc7 £e8 is playable, but after having spoiled Black’s structure White can hope for a small positional advantage with 8.¥e2. 7.¤xd4 0–0 Now Black should refrain from immediate simplification with 7...¤xd5 8.exd5 ¤xd4 9.£xd4 because this would offer Black the opportunity of castling long, with some attacking chances. 9...¥f6 would not prevent this because of an intermediate check on the e-file. 8.¤b5 In order to justify his previous play White has to move again with an already developed piece. The permanent threats of ...¤xe4 and ...¤xd5 leave him little choice. However, we should not wonder that Black will soon have excellent development. 8...¤xd5 9.exd5 ¤e5
1222222223 4t+vW Tl+5 4OoO VoOo5 4 + O + +5 4+n+pM + 5 4 + + B +5 4+ + + + 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4R +qKb+r5 7888888889 This is the position that resembles the Ponziani Opening. White has a space advantage in the centre in a basically symmetrical position, but is slightly underdeveloped. The over-ambitious plan of preparing to castle long with: 10.£d2 can be strongly met by: 10...¥g4!? Curiously, a rare move. 11.¤d4 Another knight move, with the aim of overdefending the f3-square. 11.¥e2 ¥xe2 12.£xe2 ¥f6= is very comfortable for Black. The attempt to block the d1-h5 diagonal with 11.f3? fails tactically to 11...¥h4†! (but not 11...¥xf3? because of the intermediate 12.¥xe5!) 12.¥g3 (12.¢d1 is met by the echoline 12...¤xf3!µ) 12...¥xf3!µ It would make some sense to insert the moves 11.h3 ¥h5 before playing 12.¤d4 but Black can open play in his favour with 12...c5! 13.dxc6 £b6 when after 14.cxb7 £xb7 15.c3 ¦fe8© White would have serious problems completing his development. 11...¥f6 12.f3 Now 12.h3 can be met by the intermediate 12...¦e8!, threatening to win the queen, when White faces serious problems. For instance: 13.¥e3 ¥h5 14.g4 ¥g6 15.g5 (15.0–0–0 loses the central pawn to 15...¥e4µ) 15...¥xg5!–+
12...¦e8!
1222222223 4t+ Wt+l+5 4OoO +oOo5 4 + O V +5 4+ +pM + 5 4 + N Bv+5 4+ + +p+ 5 4pPpQ +pP5 4R + Kb+r5 7888888889
It appears that the g4-bishop is not willing to retreat yet. 13.0–0–0 ¤g6 14.¢b1 Against 14.fxg4 Black can choose between 14...¦e4³ and 14...¤xf4³. 14...¥d7!? There is nothing wrong with 14...¤xf4³. 15.¥e3 c5! 16.¤b3 16.dxc6 bxc6µ opens the b-file, which would offer Black excellent attacking chances in view of his better development. 16...b5µ Black has a strategically superior position and a promising attack, Horak – Dolmatov, Cacak 1991. In view of all this, White’s safest continuation on the 10th move might seem to be 10.¥e2, but now Black can take advantage of the exposed position of the f4-bishop with 10...¤g6 11.¥g3 11.¥e3 allows Black to obtain a strong initiative with 11...¥g5! 12.¥xg5 £xg5 13.g3 (13.¤xc7? is bad because of 13...£xg2 14.¥f3 £g5 15.¤xa8 ¦e8† with a decisive attack) 13...¥h3 when 14.¤xc7?! leaves White badly underdeveloped after 14...¦ac8 15.¤b5 £e5 planning ...¦fe8. 11...f5!
White’s dark-squared bishop starts feeling more and more uncomfortable. 12.f4 12.f3 would allow Black to dominate the dark squares after 12...f4 13.¥f2 ¥f6. 12...c6 The better developed player should open the position. 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.¤d4 £b6 15.0–0 ¥f6
1222222223 4t+v+ Tl+5 4O + + Oo5 4 WoO Vm+5 4+ + +o+ 5 4 + N P +5 4+ + + B 5 4pPp+b+pP5 4R +q+rK 5 7888888889
16.¥f2 After 16.c3 £xb2 all White could try to prove would be some compensation for the pawn, but not more. 16...c5 17.¤b5 ¤xf4 18.¥c4† ¥e6 19.¥xe6† ¤xe6 20.£xd6 ¦fd8 21.£xb6 axb6 22.¦ae1 ¤f8³ Black’s pieces are more active and the enemy queenside is submitted to strong pressure, Kummerov – Aleksandrov, Bundesliga 2003. At the present stage of theory the Belgrade Gambit hardly offers White more than equality. Quite justly so, since by refusing the gambit Black can easily highlight the artificiality of White’s approach.
6
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.d4 exd4 5.¤d5!? ¥e7
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
¥e21 ¥f6
£d32 d6
0–0 ¦e8
¥f33 g6
c34 ¥f5
£c4 a6
¥e3 b55
= µ
1
¤xd4 exd5 £xd4 ¤xd5 ¤xd4 0–0
2
¥f4 d66
¤xd4 ¤b58 exd5 0–07 ¤xd5 ¤e5
£d2 ¥g4!?
¤d49 ¥f6
f310 ¦e8!
0–0–0 ¢b111 ¥e3 ¤g6 ¥d7!?12 c5!13
3
... ...
... ...
... ...
¥e2 ¤g6
¥g314 f5!
f415 c616
dxc6 bxc6
4
¥c418 0–0
0–019 d6
¤xd420 £xd421 ¥xd5 ¤xd4 ¤xd5 ¥f6
£d3 c6
¥b322 ¥e623
c324 axb3 ¥e3 ¥xb3 ¦e825 a626
... ...
1 9.¥d3?! With the king in the centre, leaving the e-file undefended looks like playing with fire. 9...¥f6 10.£f4 ¦e8† 11.¢f1 d6 12.g4 ¥e5 13.£f3 and now in Pokojowczyk – Ziembinski, Poznan 1971, the simplest way to maintain the initiative would have been 13...c6!³. 9.¥e3?! ¥f6 10.£b4 a5 11.£a3 d6 12.0–0–0 (Consequent but risky. Abandoning the initial plans and re-directing the king to the kingside would be safer. 12.¥d3 ¥d7 13.0–0 b5 14.c3 c5!? Black will get a backward pawn on d6, but his queenside pressure will lead to “complete” simplification. 15.dxc6 ¥xc6 16.¦ad1 b4! Taking advantage of the exposed placement of the enemy queen. 17.cxb4 axb4 18.£xb4 ¦a4 19.£b3 £a8 20.¥b5 ¥xb5 21.£xb5 ¦b8 22.£d5 £xd5 23.¦xd5 ¦xa2 24.¦xd6 ¦axb2 25.g3 h5 ½–½ Nguyen – Mahesh Chandran, Negombo 2003.) 12...¥d7 13.¥e2 ¦e8 (The straightforward 13...b5 14.¦he1 b4 15.£d3 a4 16.¥d4 b3 deserves attention. Black has a strong initiative, while his king is in absolute safety.) 14.£d3 £e7 15.¥f3 £e5 16.c3 ¥g5 (Black should not be in a hurry to exchange his active bishop. After, say, 16...a4, it would be White who would have to play 17.¥d4 in order to avoid trouble, when Black can maintain some tension with 17...£g5† 18.¥e3 £h4³ eventually followed by ...¥g4, when White would remain under pressure on both wings.) 17.¥xg5 £xg5†
¤d4 £b6
0–0 ¥f617 ©/=
=
18.£d2 £h4 19.£d4 £xd4 20.¦xd4 ¦e5= Timmerman – Langeweg, Hilversum 1983. There is not much play left, although Black later outplayed his opponent. 2 10.£d1?! d6 11.0–0 ¥f5 12.¥d3 (12.c3 ¦e8 13.¥e3 ¥e4 14.¥d3 £d7 15.a4 a5 16.¥b5 c6 17.dxc6 bxc6 18.¥d3 ¦ab8 19.¥xe4 ¦xe4 20.£c2 d5³ Black has a strong centre and exerts pressure along the b-file, R. Rodriguez – Torre, Hong Kong 1982; 12.a4 £d7 13.a5 c5 14.c3 ¦fe8 15.¥e3 ¥e4 16.¥d3 £f5 17.¥xe4 ¦xe4³ Black has an active position, Thiel – Unzicker, Germany 1998.) 12...£d7 13.c3 ¦fe8 14.a4 ¥e4³ Sax – Karpov, Tilburg 1979. 3 12.c3 ¥f5!³ 13.£xf5 ¦xe2 14.¦b1 ¦e5 15.£d3 £d7 16.¥e3 ¦ae8 17.¦fe1 £a4 18.¥d2?! Black’s position was quite active, but this move gives up a pawn for nothing. 18...£xa2µ Radojcic – Pirc, Novi Sad 1945. 4 13.£b3!? (…¥d2 and ¦ae1) 13...a5 14.a4 b6 15.¥d2 ¥e5= Liska – Florian, Ostrava 1957. 5 16.£b3 ¥e5= Padevsky – Smyslov, Alekhine Memorial 1956. 6 6...0–0!? 7.¥xc7 £e8 8.¥e2² 7 7...¤xd5 8.exd5 ¤xd4 9.£xd4 ¥f6 10.£e3†
8 8.¤c3 loses too much time to be good. 8...¦e8 9.¥b5 ¥d7 10.0–0 ¥f8 We have reached a position typical for the Steinitz system of the Ruy Lopez, but with two extra tempi for Black! (due to ¤c3-d5-c3) 11.¦e1 g6 12.¤xc6 bxc6 13.¥c4 ¥g7 14.£d2 ¤g4 15.¥g5 £b8 16.¥b3 ¥e6 17.¦ad1 £b4 18.¤a4 a5 19.¥xe6 ¦xe6 Black has a comfortable position, Fabian – Pachman, Kosice 1961. 9 11.¥e2 ¥xe2 12.£xe2 ¥f6= is very comfortable for Black. 11.f3? ¥h4†! (11...¥xf3? 12.¥xe5!) and now 12.¥g3 ¥xf3!µ and 12.¢d1 ¤xf3!µ are both good for Black. 11.h3 ¥h5 12.¤d4 (12.¥e2 ¥xe2 13.£xe2 ¥f6 14.0–0–0 £d7 15.g4 ¦fe8 16.¥e3 g6 17.¦he1 ¥g7 18.f4 ¤f3! 19.£xf3 £xb5 20.c3 ¦e7 21.¥d2 ¦ae8 Black is at least equal, Hoffmann – Balinov, Seefeld 2001) 12...c5! 13.dxc6 £b6 14.cxb7 £xb7 15.c3 ¦fe8© 10 12.h3 ¦e8! 13.¥e3 ¥h5 14.g4 ¥g6 15.g5 (15.0–0–0 ¥e4µ) 15...¥xg5!–+ 11 14.fxg4 ¦e4 or 14...¤xf4. 12 14...¤xf4³ 13 16.dxc6 bxc6µ or 16.¤b3 b5µ Horak – Dolmatov, Cacak 1991. 14 11.¥e3 ¥g5! 12.¥xg5 £xg5 13.£d2 (13.¤xc7? £xg2 14.¥f3 £g5 15.¤xa8 ¦e8†–+; 13.g3 …¥h3 14.¤xc7?! ¦ac8 15.¤b5 £e5 … ...¦fe8.) 13...£xg2 14.0–0–0 £xf2 (Not only grabbing a second pawn, but also making the e5-square available for the knight and preparing the return of the queen to c5. 14...¥f5 15.h4 £e4 16.h5 ¤f4 17.¦he1 ¤xe2† 18.¦xe2 £c4 19.¤d4© White’s centralization and Black’s instability make the position unclear, Kovacik – Castiglione, Slovakia 2002.) 15.¦df1?! (15.¤xc7 ¦b8 16.¤b5 ¦e8³) 15...£h4 16.¤xc7 ¥h3µ Paalman – Khmelniker, Dieren 2005.
15 12.f3 f4 13.¥f2 ¥f6„ 16 This is the most logical continuation, but Black can do without the immediate opening the position, too. 12...¥f6 13.c3 ¦e8 14.0–0 a6 15.¤d4 (15.¤a3 c5 16.¤c2 b5 17.£d2 ¥d7³ Bloch – Kolarov, Siegen 1970) 15...¥xd4† 16.cxd4 ¥d7 17.¦e1 £f6 The c7-pawn is somewhat vulnerable, but White has many weaknesses on light squares, too. 18.£d2 ¦e4 19.¦ad1 £f7 20.£c1 ¦c8 21.¥c4 ¤e7³ Black has successfully defended his own weakness and put pressure on White’s d5-pawn, I. Almasi – Bezgodov, Balatonbereny 1996. 17 16.¥f2?! (16.c3 £xb2©/=) 16...c5 17.¤b5 ¤xf4 18.¥c4† ¥e6 19.¥xe6† ¤xe6 20.£xd6 ¦fd8 21.£xb6 axb6 22.¦ae1 ¤f8³ Black’s pieces are more active and the enemy queenside is submitted to strong pressure, Kummerov – Aleksandrov, Bundesliga 2003. 18 White aims to complete the development of his kingside as soon as possible. Black should do the same, ignoring the central tension for the time being. 19 We are familiar with the fact that the early development of the queen’s bishop in combination with the capture on d4 would leave the b2-pawn vulnerable: 7.¥f4 d6 8.¤xd4 ¤xd4 9.£xd4 ¤xd5 10.¥xd5 ¥f6 11.£b4 a5 12.£a3 As usual in such cases, the queen lands on a passive square in order to defend the b2-pawn. 12...c6 13.¥b3 a4³ Squillante – Bisguier, Columbus 1977. 7.¤xd4 is also premature because after 7...¤xd5 8.¥xd5 ¤xd4 9.£xd4 ¥f6 10.£d3 c6 11.¥b3 Black can take advantage of the enemy king’s presence in the centre to carry out this thematic break without the time-consuming preparation ...d6 and ...¥e6, as in the main line. 11...d5! 12.0–0 (12.exd5 ¦e8† 13.¥e3 Otherwise, White’s position would be simply too dangerous, with his king in the centre and the e- and d-files wide open. 13...¥xb2
14.¦b1 £a5† 15.¢f1 ¥f6 16.d6 ¥f5³) 12...dxe4 13.£xe4 ¦e8 14.£f3 ¥e6 15.c3 £a5 16.¥e3 £b5 17.¥xe6 ¦xe6 18.¦ab1 £c4 (18... a5 19.¦fd1 ¦e7³ Morris – Wedberg, New York 1991) 19.¦a1 a5 20.a4 £b3 21.£e2 ¦ae8³ White is in no immediate danger, but his position certainly looks uncomfortable, Prie – Spassky, Angers 1990. 20 The threats 8...¥g4 or 8...¤e5 leave White little choice, but now the position will be simplified. 21 9.¤xe7†?! £xe7 10.£xd4 £xe4 11.£c3 £c6 12.£b4 ¥e6µ White has no compensation for the pawn, Haahr – Samaritani, Denmark 1989. 22 White has managed to retrieve the temporarily sacrificed pawn and retain some advantage in space. However, in absence of knights this is not too relevant, just as in the Ponziani structures. Besides, Black can simplify the position even more. 23 It is best to hurry with this move. Otherwise after, say, 12...¦e8 13.c3 ¥e6 the enemy bishop could avoid the exchange and become a dangerous attacking piece with 14.¥c2 when after 14...g6 15.f4! Black does not have time to equalize completely with 15...d5 because of 16.f5 dxe4? 17.£xd8, while after 15...£b6† 16.¢h1 d5 17.e5 the queen’s departure from the kingside can make the situation dangerous.
24 13.c4?! prevents the exchange of bishops, but weakens the c4-pawn and the long diagonal. 13...a5 14.¥c2 g6 15.¥f4 (This move leads to a disadvantage, but it is already not easy to complete development. 15.f4?! £b6† 16.¥e3 £b4 leaves the c4-pawn in trouble. Maybe 15.¦d1 £b6 16.¦b1= is best.) 15...¥xb2 16.¦ab1 ¥e5 17.¥xe5 dxe5 18.¦xb7 £xd3 19.¥xd3 ¦fd8µ Lopez Pereyra – Cabrera, Sauzal 2004. 13.¥xe6 fxe6 (…...d5) 14.f4 e5! (The position resulting after 14...d5 15.e5 ¥e7 might be equal, but why give White the slightest attacking prospects on the kingside?) and now 15.f5 d5 or 15.£b3† d5 in both cases Black has achieved full equality. 25 With so little material left on the board, Black has no problems coordinating his forces, despite his relative lack of space. The d6-pawn is not weaker than the e4-pawn, while the f6-bishop is stable and active. 26 16.f3 ¦e6 17.¦ad1 £c7 18.¥d4 ¦ae8 19.¦f2 h6 20.¥xf6 ¦xf6 21.£d4 ¦fe6 22.c4 £a5 23.¦fd2 £g5 24.£f2 ½–½ Lesiege – Gligoric, Montreal 1998. The veteran proved the solidity of Black’s position against a much younger opponent.
Spanish Exchange Line A is to footnote 145, p274, and replaces all the text after 18.¤gf3 with Line A. Table on page 248: Line B and C are early deviations of line 20 in the tables as they are in the first edition. After 8.¥e3 ¤e7, I still consider 9.¤bd2 to be the main line, so B and C should be inserted before line 20. Line D is inserted after line 20, as a late deviation. Line E was adapted from the postscript and is related to lines 15 and 16. Line A 18...¢f7 (Black clears the g-file and brings the king closer to the centre at the same time. The slightly artificial 18...¥c8?! 19.c4 fxg3 20.hxg3 ¥b7 did not entirely justify itself after 21.a4² Grodzensky – Naivelt, corr. 1995. In the previous edition I gave 18...¦e8 19.¦e1 ¢f7. The current game was played a couple of months later and I decided that centralizing the king immediately is better.) 19.a4! This is White’s only active possibility. After opening the a-file he will be able to generate tactical threats such as ¦a7 and ¦xd6. Black should hurry with his counterplay. 19...¦g8 20.¢f2 A draw was agreed here in the game Milu – Marin, Romanian Team Championship 2006. A more forceful drawish continuation would have been 20.axb5 ¥xf3† 21.¤xf3 fxg3 22.¦xd6 (22. hxg3? ¤f4†) 22...¤f4† 23.¢f1 g2† 24.¢f2 ¤h3† 25.¢e3 cxd6 26.bxa6=. After 20...¢f2 play might have continued 20...¥c5† 21.¢f1 fxg3 (another possible repetition is 21...¥h3† 22.¢e2 ¥g4=) 22.hxg3 ¥d6 and White has no reason to avoid the repetition of moves. Line B 9.dxe5 fxe5 10.¤bd2 0–0 11.£b3† ¢h8 12.£xb7 This brave capture leads to interesting complications, which end in a draw by perpetual.
White’s initiative after 12.¤g5?! is only temporary. 12...£e8 13.f3 (13.£xb7? £g6 Threatening ...¦fb8. 14.£b3 h6 leaves the knight terribly misplaced.) 13...¥c8 14.¤e6 ¦f6 15.¤c5 b6 16.¤d3 ¥e6 17.£c2 c5³ (I rejected 17...¤g6 because of 18.b4 ¤f4 19.¥xf4 exf4 20.e5?, overlooking the elegant 20...¥xe5! 21.¤xe5 ¥f5µ) This looks like a logical reaction to Black’s threatened ...¤g6, but is tactically unsound. 18.f4? exf4 19.¤xf4 ¤f5!! (A fantastic blow, which did not cross my mind during the game. 19...¥f7?! 20.e5 ¥xe5 21.¤e4ƒ; 19...¥xf4?! 20.¦xf4 ¦xf4 21.¥xf4 £c6= Sofronie – Marin, Romanian Championship 2006) 20.exf5 ¥xf5µ 12...¥e6 The standard reaction, keeping the enemy queen captive. Black threatens ...£d7 followed by ...¦fb8. The following tempting attack is not entirely sound: 12...£d7 13.£b3 ¥xf3 14.¤xf3 ¦xf3 15.gxf3 ¤g6 16.¢h1 £h3 17.£d1 ¤h4 18.¦g1 ¤xf3 19.¦g2 ¦f8 Black threatens ...¦f6-g6, but after 20.£a4! the weakness of his back rank will not allow him to carry out his plan in optimal form. 13.¦fd1 It makes some sense to keep this rook for defensive purposes, but after 13.¦ad1 £e8 14.b4 Black has 14...a5!?. 13.c4 ¦b8 14.£xa6 ¦a8= 13...£e8 13...£d7?! 14.¤xe5 ¥xe5 15.¤c4 ¥d6
16.¤xd6 cxd6 17.£xd7 ¥xd7 18.¦xd6² offers White more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed piece. 14.b4 This move is necessary in order to ensure White of some stability on the queenside. 14.¥a7 c5 (threatening ...¤c6) 15.b4 cxb4 16.cxb4 ¤g6 17.¥c5 ¤f4© After the bishop’s departure from the kingside, this knight has become very active. 14.c4= 14...£g6 15.¥a7 The queenside situation is rather unusual. Two of White’s pieces are trapped, but there is no obvious way to attack them. Therefore, Black should look for counterplay on the other wing. 15...¥g4 16.¢h1 ¥xf3 17.¤xf3 £xe4 18.¦xd6 cxd6 19.£xe7 ¦xf3 20.gxf3 £xf3† 21.¢g1 £g4† 22.¢f1 £c4† White cannot avoid a draw because 23.¢e1? drops a rook to 23...£xc3† Line C 10.h3 ¥h5 11.c4 The start of an interesting plan suggested by Kindermann, aiming to weaken Black’s queenside structure. Its main drawbacks are the weakness of the d4-square and Black’s possible counterplay along the f-file. 11...c5 12.b4 b6 13.bxc5 bxc5 14.¤bd2 0–0 This position can also arise via the move order 9.h3 ¥h5 10.¤bd2 0–0 13.dxe5 fxe5 14.c4, etc. One fine point behind White’s strategy is that after the straightforward 14...¤c6 15.£a4 Black faces problems installing his knight on d4 without exchanging queens, which favours White, who will forget about kingside dangers. 15...£d7 16.¦fb1 ¤d4
17.£xd7† ¢xd7 18.¤e1 This was analyzed by Kindermann. Indeed, it seems that Black has not achieved full equality: 18...¦hb8 19.f3 ¦b6 20.¢f2 (20.¤d3? ¤c2) 20...¥f7 21.¤d3 ¦ab8 22.¦c1! and suddenly the threat ¥xd4 becomes very unpleasant. It is interesting to notice that White’s knights control all the important squares along the b-file, making Black’s rook activity rather sterile. Much weaker than 22.¦c1! is 22.¥xd4?! cxd4 23.c5? ¦xb1 24.¦xb1 ¦xb1 25.¤xb1 ¥c4 26.¤b2 ¥xa2µ. 15.£a4! 15.¦b1 ¤c6³ 15...£c8 16.¢h2 16.£a3 ¥xf3 17.¤xf3 ¦xf3 18.gxf3 £xh3© 19.¥xc5? ¦f8!–+ 16.¤e1? ¥e2µ 16.¤h2 avoids the immediate threats, but releases the pressure against the centre, offering Black more freedom of action. 16...£e6 17.¦ab1 h6 18.f3 ¦fd8 19.¦b2 ¥f7 20.¤g4 ¤g6 21.g3 h5 22.¤f2 ¤f4 (22...h4 23.g4 ¤f4³) 23.h4 Now in Baklan – Kallio, Batumi 2002, Black could have obtained excellent play with 23...¥e7³, with pressure along the d-file and the possibility of transferring the knight to d4 or exchanging it on d3, depending on the circumstances. 16...¤g6 The spectacular 16...¤f5 is not so effective after 17.¦fe1 (17.exf5?! e4†) 17...¤d4 18.¥xd4 cxd4 19.c5!. 17.£a3!? 17.g4?! ¥xg4 18.hxg4 £xg4 19.£d1 (19.¦g1 £h5† 20.¢g3 ¤f4 21.¥xf4 ¦xf4 22.¢g2 ¦xf3 23.¤xf3 £g4† 24.¢f1 £xf3©) 19...¦f5 20.¤g5 ¦xg5 21.£xg4 ¦xg4µ Shaw – Ashton, Gibraltar 2006. 17...¥xf3 The threat against the c5-pawn is not real yet, but it is not easy for Black to make neutral, useful moves. His main problem is that the queen, which is very useful for keeping the
enemy kingside under pressure, is not well placed on c8 as it disrupts the coordination of rooks. 17...¦b8 18.¦ab1 (18.¥xc5? ¥xc5 19.£xc5 ¥xf3 20.¤xf3 ¦xf3 21.gxf3 ¤f4–+) 18...¦b4 19.£d3 and White has stabilized the position. The knight jump to f4 does not improve Black’s position after the simple ¥xf4. The attempt to improve the queen’s position with 17...£e6?! is strongly met by 18.g4 ¥xg4 19.¤g5!, while on d7 the queen does not stand well either, because of possible pins along the d-file. 18.¤xf3 ¦xf3!? 19.gxf3 £f8 20.£d3 20.¦g1 £xf3 21.¦g4 (21.£d3 ¤f4 22.£f1 £xe4) 21...¤f4 22.¦g3 £xe4 23.¥xc5 (23.¦ag1 ¤e6) 23...¦f8 24.¥xd6 cxd6 25.£xd6 ¤e2= 20...¤h4© Black will have a pawn for the exchange, the more solid pawn structure and the safer king’s position. Line D 11…b5 I faced this line in a rapid game and simply did not have time to remember my analysis from the first edition and that we were following the game Nisipeanu – Bruzon. I just saw that the knight is vulnerable on c4 and attacked it! I was very surprised when, soon after the game, I realized my forgetfulness, but now I believe that both lines are more or less equivalent. 12.dxe5 Caught by surprise, the soon-to-be under-16 World Champion tries to maintain the initiative. 12.¤a5 £c8 leaves the white kingside slightly vulnerable. 12.¤cd2 exd4 (12...¢h8 13.£c2 £d7 14.c4 exd4 15.¤xd4 ¤g6 16.cxb5 cxb5 17.¤f5² Meier – Holzke, Germany 2006) 13.cxd4 (13.¥xd4 c5) 13...f5 14.e5 f4 15.exd6 cxd6=
12...bxc4 A nice forced variation leading to a draw was possible: 12...¥xf3!? 13.£b3! (13.£xf3? fxe5–+; 13.gxf3?! fxe5³) 13...¥xe4 14.¤xd6† (14.exd6 ¤d5 15.dxc7 £xc7 16.¤b6 ¦ad8=) 14...¥d5 15.c4 ¥e6= 13.exd6 cxd6 14.b3 14.g4 ¥g6 15.¤d2 d5„ 14...f5„ 15.e5?! 15.exf5 ¤xf5 16.£e2 ¤xe3 17.fxe3 cxb3 18.axb3 £b6= 15...f4 16.¥c1 16.exd6 ¤g6 17.¥d4 ¤h4 18.¢h2 £xd6µ 16...¤g6 17.£xd6 ¥xf3 18.£xd8 18.gxf3 £g5† 19.¢h2 ¤xe5–+ 18.£e6† ¦f7 19.gxf3 £g5† 20.£g4 ¤xe5 21.£xg5 ¤xf3† 22.¢g2 ¤xg5 23.f3 ¦e8 24.¦f2 ¦e1 25.¥b2 ¦xa1 26.¥xa1 ¦d7 27.h4 ¤e6 28.bxc4 ¤c5–+ 18...¦axd8 19.¥a3 19.gxf3 ¤xe5 20.¢g2 ¦f6µ 19...¥d5 20.¥xf8 ¢xf8–+ Chirila – Marin, Braila (rapid) 2007 Line E 15...¥e6!? Until here I played almost without thinking, although I had spent a couple of minutes on writing down the moves and enjoying the feeling of finding myself on familiar territory. After my opponent’s last move I stopped for a while, trying to remember some of my old experiments with the slightly awkward 15...¥h5, which had eventually brought me success but without any connection with the objective merits of the move. I decided that I was too grownup for such eccentricities and that I should simply follow the book recommendation. Therefore, I took my bishop and retreated it to e6, not realizing that I had almost produced a novelty (the move had in fact been played only once before). In just a flash I thought that the bishop stands
much better here than on d7, keeping an eye on the important c4-square and avoiding a possibly unpleasant pin along the d-file, which were enough arguments to make me sure that this was precisely the move I had recommended in the book! Although such a memory slip is slightly irritating from a personal point of view, I believe that in chess (as in any other science) forgetting specific details can enable general progress if just the perception of the whole is correct. It is too early to give a definitive verdict on my last move, but I do not see a clear refutation of it, while generally speaking my thoughts were entirely correct: e6 is the best square for the bishop, especially since White’s next move is not dangerous. 16.¤g5 Immediately after the game my opponent criticized this move. However, in the event of a neutral course of events Black is in a better position than in the lines given in the theoretical part. For instance: 16.¤h2 ¦af8 (forcing White to define his kingside intentions) 17.f3 (now Black does not need to fear a concentrated attack against the e5-pawn by means of ¤df3 and ¤g4) 17... h5 18.h4 c5 19.c4 ¦b8 (The start of a radical regrouping. The generally desirable 19...¤e7 would have allowed 20.f4 leading to unclear complications after 20...exf4 21.e5 ¦g6.) 20.¦c1 ¦ff8 21.¥a3 ¦fd8 (by putting pressure on the d-file, Black indirectly defends the c5pawn) 22.¤hf1 ¦a8 23.¦c2 (defending the a2-pawn in order to make the threat cxb5 and ¥xc5 real) 23...b4 24.¥b2 Now, in the game Beikert – Rodin, Pardubice 1997, Black should have finally carried out the thematic transfer of the knight to c6 with 24...¤e7 25.¤e3 (25. f4? would be weak because of White’s badly placed rooks, which can be felt after 25...exf4 26.e5 ¥f5–+) 25...¤c6 and Black has a great position.
16...¥d7 17.¦f3 The only logical follow-up to the previous move. Against virtually any other move, Black would drive the enemy knight away with ...h6, obtaining a position from the theoretical section with a bonus of one useful move. 17.f4? would win the exchange but lose the game after 17...exf4! 18.¥xf6 gxf6 19.¤gf3 fxg3–+ with the strong threat ...¤f4†. 17...c5 In principle, the exchange on f6 greatly favours Black, whose central pawn would be reinforced. However, for the time being I did not want to spend a tempo on 17...h6, which would also slightly weaken my rook’s pawn. During the game my opponent was afraid of the following line: 18.¦xf6 gxf6 19.¤gf3 f5 (?!) but after 20.¦e1 f4 21.g4! ¢f7 22.c4² followed by ¦c1 with pressure against the c5-square and, indirectly, the e5-pawn, only White can be better. 18.¦e1 A logical consequence of my opponent’s fears, as mentioned in the previous comment. However, it should be said that the move itself is not bad. White removes the rook from a relatively exposed square (sometimes tricks based on ¥xe5 do not work because of ...¥xe5, when the rook would remain en prise) and places it on a central file. The possible usefulness of this move will be shown in a later comment. 18...a5 With the strong positional threat ...a4, which invites White to concrete action. 19.c4 b4 20.a4 bxa3 The only way to fight for the initiative. 21.¥xa3 ¤e7?! But now it was absolutely imperative to force the exchange on f6 with 21...h6! 22.¦xf6 gxf6 when after 23.¤gf3 ¤e7 followed by ...¤c6 Black’s strong centre and the weakness of the b3-pawn offer him a stable advantage. 22.¦d3!
White uses the first opportunity to release the generally unfavourable kingside tension. Black has to be careful now about all kind of tricks based on ¥xc5. 22...¤c6 23.¤gf3! Another strong move, putting the other central black pawn under pressure, too. When playing 21...¤e7 I calculated only 23.¥xc5? ¥xc5 24.¦xd7 ¦xf2† 25.¢h1 ¤d4–+. 23...a4?! It was rather disappointing to find that the effects of the generally desirable knight jump 23...¤d4?! are not that rosy for Black after the simple 24.¤xd4! (I had initially calculated only something like 24.¤xe5 ¥xe5 25.¥xc5 ¤e6!³) 24...cxd4 25.¥xd6 ¦xd6 (or 25...cxd6 when 26.f4ƒ would leave the f6-rook rather misplaced) 26.f4ƒ and Black cannot consolidate his centre. We can see here that the rook is well placed on e1, supporting the e-pawn. By advancing the a-pawn I desperately tried to maintain the initiative, failing to understand that I was just helping my opponent to get rid of his weak b3-pawn. It would have been wiser to remove the tactical threats once and for all with the calm 23...¥e8!?, as suggested by Neboisa Ilijin, when Black’s position might still be preferable.
24.bxa4 ¦xa4 25.¦a1! The most consistent answer. White defends against the temporary threats without making any positional concession. I vaguely hoped for 25.¥xc5 ¥xh3† 26.¢xh3 ¥xc5 although after 27.¢g2 White does not have any special worries. 25...¦f8 It was not too late to deviate from my initial plans with 25...¤b4!? when after 26.¦b3 the position remains unclear. 26.¥b2! ¤d4 When I played ...a4, I had calculated 26...¦xa1 27.¥xa1 ¦a8 “with initiative for Black”, failing to notice a trick that was hanging in the air: 28.¥xe5!± 27.¦da3 My opponent later explained that after the badly played opening he had decided he would offer a draw the moment he felt he was not worse. In fact, White is already better: he has neutralized Black’s initiative, and enjoys the better structure. Therefore, I had no reason to reject the draw offer. ½–½ Grigoryan – Marin, Turin (ol) 2006
Four Knights Scotch Table on page 190: Line A is inserted after Line 6. Remove the “!” from 15...Bg4 in line 5 and change the comment in footnote 33 to “This is the approved theoretical continuation, but, based on my own experience, I believe it is not the best.” Line B comes, not surprisingly, after line A. Line C - after line 9. For Others - Scotch: Line D - Before line 4, which “loses” the move Bd3 and gets a “...” instead. Change the whole comment from footnote 18 to “Completely inoffensive.” Line E - After line 4.
Line A
Line B
16.£xg4! In the first edition I underestimated this move, which leads to a minimal but stable advantage for White. 16...¤xg4 17.¥xd8 ¦axd8 In the similar line with a previous exchange on d5, Black can play 17...¥xh2†? but here it just loses material to 18.¢h1 ¦axd8 19.¥f5+-. 18.g3!² This is not a good moment to transpose to the similar lines resulting after 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.¦c1 ¥f4 16.¦c2. For instance: 18.cxd5 ¦xd5! 19.¥e2 ¥xh2† 20.¢h1 ¦d4 21.b3 ¥d6 22.¥xg4 ¦xg4 23.¦xc6 ¦h4† 24.¢g1 ¥h2† 25.¢h1 ¦e2µ 18...¤e5?! Just making things worse. 18...¥e5 (or any other bishop retreat) 19.cxd5 cxd5 leads to a position similar to that from the game Brunello – Marin, where the pawn exchange in the centre was carried out on the 14th move. 19.¥e2 d4 20.gxf4 d3 21.fxe5 dxc2 22.¦c1 ¦d2 23.¤c3 ¦xe5 24.¢f1± Black’s counterplay has been extinguished and White has every chance to convert his material advantage into a win.
15...£d6 In the light of Black’s micro-problems arising after 15...¥g4 16.£xg4, I suggest this rare move as a simpler way to comfortable play. 16.¥xf6 I believe that this is a good moment for White to strive for equality. 16.h3 leaves the bishop vulnerable on h4. 16...dxc4 (the premature 16...g5?! 17.¥g3 ¥xg3 18.fxg3 leaves Black hanging along the f-file, for instance 18...£xg3 19.¦cf2 ¥xh3 20.£f3!) 17.¥xc4 ¤d5 18.£f3 ¥f5 19.¦e2 ¦xe2 20.£xe2 ¥e6³ It is getting harder and harder for White to meet ...g5. 16.¥g3 ¥xg3 17.hxg3 ¥g4 18.£c1 (18.£d2 ¦ad8³) 18...d4 19.£f4 £xf4 20.gxf4 ¤h5 21.g3 ¥f3³ Pedersen – Hebden, Mallorca 2004. The attempt to transpose to the lines with an earlier exchange on d5 with 16.cxd5? does not work because after 16...¥xh2† 17.¢h1 ¤xd5 18.g3 White’s h4-bishop is as trapped as Black’s bishop! 18...¥h3 (18...¤b4? 19.¥h7†!+-) 19.¦e1 ¦xe1† 20.£xe1 ¤b4µ 16...£xf6 17.cxd5 cxd5= Black’s pair of bishops is a fair match for White’s stability on the light squares.
Line C 16.¦c2!? Having opened the c-file does not force White to place his rook on an advanced position. In order to understand the subtleties of this position, the reader should refer to the similar variation without the insertion of the moves 14.cxd5 cxd5. In the current position, Black is deprived of the possibility of opening the d-file with counterplay in the centre, but in many lines the knight is hanging on a4, because the fourth rank is empty. These important differences do not change the general evaluation of the position as comfortable for Black, but play generally takes an independent course. 16...£d6 Here, 16...¥g4 seems to offer Black a wider choice than in the position without the exchange on d5. 17.£xg4 ¤xg4 18.¥xd8 ¥xh2†!? (The only chance to maintain the balance. 18...¦exd8?! 19.g3 ¥e5 20.¦d1 ¦ab8 21.b3² White has the more compact structure and enjoys great stability on the light squares. Black’s pieces are not fully coordinated and he has no active plan available. In Brunello – Marin, Edinburgh Quality Chess (rapid) 2007, Black went down painfully.) 19.¢h1 ¦axd8 20.g3 (20.f3 ¤e3 21.¢xh2 ¤xc2 22.¥xc2 ¦e2 23.¥b3 ¦d2! Black secures the d-file and frees the other rook from its defensive tasks. 24.¦e1 ¢f8 followed by ...¦d6 and Black is certainly not worse. White’s position is solid but passive. With the fourth rank open, 20.¥f5? does not work because of 20...¥d6 21.¥xg4 ¦e4!µ.) 20...¥xg3 21.fxg3 ¤e3 22.¦d2 ¤xf1 23.¥xf1 g6 24.¢g2 ¢g7 25.¤c5© /² Black has a small material advantage, but his pawns are not dangerous. At the same time, the queenside majority will soon become dangerous. Personally, I would ignore the engines’ evaluation of the position as favourable for Black and prefer White.
17.¥g3 17.h3 leaves the bishop misplaced on h4 after, say, 17...¤e4³. 17...¥g4! An important moment. With the d-file secured, White can answer 17...¥xg3 18.hxg3 ¥g4 with 19.£d2², maintaining a harmonious position and the better structure. 18.£d2! 18.¥xf4? would lose material after 18...£xf4 19.f3 £xa4 20.fxg4 ¤xg4µ. 18...¤h5! Black does not release the tension. 19.¥xf4 ¤xf4„ Black’s pressure against the enemy kingside will most probably provoke a significant weakness such as f3, enabling further development of his counterplay. Line D 7.¥d3 0–0 This move order is frequently employed by players who do not wish to avoid White castling long, as in the line below. 8.¥g5 8.0–0 d5 transposes to the main line of the Four Knights Scotch. 8...d5 9.£f3 9.e5? £e8 10.f4 (10.£e2 ¤g4=) 10...¤g4 11.£e2 f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13.h3 (13.¥h4 £h5–+) 13...fxg5 14.hxg4 ¥xg4 15.¥xh7† ¢g7 0–1 Candela – Korneev, Spanish Team Championship 1997. 9...dxe4 9...d4 10.a3 (10.¥xf6 gxf6 11.a3 dxc3 12.axb4 cxb2 13.¦b1©) 10...¥e7 11.¤e2 ¥g4 12.£g3 ¥xe2 13.¥xf6 ¥xf6 14.¢xe2² White’s more flexible structure and good control of the light squares offer him a long-term advantage. As for his king, it will reach absolute safety after castling artificially, Ouwendijk – Roggeveen, Vlissingen 2006. 10.¥xe4 ¥g4 11.£d3
11.¥xf6 ¥xf3 12.¥xd8 ¥xe4 13.¥xc7 ¥xg2µ 11.£f4 ¦e8 12.0–0 ¥xc3 13.bxc3 ¦xe4 14.£xe4 ¤xe4 15.¥xd8 ¦xd8 16.f3 ¤d2= 17.¦ad1? ¥e6µ …¦d5, ¤c4 18.¦f2? ¤xf3†!–+ 11.£xg4 ¤xg4 12.¥xd8 ¦axd8 13.0–0 ¦d6= 11...h6 11...¦e8 12.0–0 ¥xc3 13.¥xh7†! 11...¥xc3† 12.bxc3 ¦e8 13.f3!? 12.£xd8 ¦axd8 13.¥xf6 gxf6= Black’s pair of bishops and his general activity compensate for the structural defects. Line E 10.¥g5 0–0 11.0–0–0 By castling long, White has accelerated the centralization of his major pieces, but his king will be more vulnerable than Black’s. 11...c6 12.¦he1 12.¤a4 ¥d7 13.c3 ¦e8 14.¥c2 h6 15.¥f4 £a5 16.¦d3 ¥d6 17.¥e3 c5 18.£d1 ¦ab8µ Thesing – Valenta, Pardubice 1996. 12...¥d6 13.h3 13.£e3 h6 14.¥f4 (14.¥h4 ¤g4!³ 15.£h3? ¤xf2–+) 14...¦e8 15.£d2 ¥e6 16.¥xd6 £xd6 17.h3 ¦ab8 18.¤e2 c5 19.¤g3 £b6 20.b3 c4³ Alonso – Gildardo Garcia, Capablanca Memorial 1993.
13...h6 14.¥h4 Zakic suggested 14.¥d2 as an improvement, but after 14...¤d7 15.¢b1 ¤e5 we can feel that White’s pieces lack breathing space. 14...¦b8 15.£f3 ¦b4 15...¥e6!? (…...¥e7) 16.¥xf6 £xf6 17.£xf6 gxf6 18.¤e2 c5 saves some time compared to the game. 16.¥xf6 £xf6 17.£xf6 gxf6 Black’s pair of bishops and his queenside pressure compensate for the structural defects. 18.a3 White’s activity along the fourth rank was irritating, but the advance of the a-pawn will create a comfortable target for Black. 18.¤e2 c5 19.c3 ¦a4 20.¢b1 ¥e6= 18...¦b8 19.¤e2 c5 20.c3 ¦b6 21.¤g3 c4! Once the knight has moved away from the d4-square, the strategic drawbacks of this pawn advance are less significant than the attacking chances it yields. 22.¥c2 ¥e6 23.¤h5 ¢h8! 23...¦fb8? 24.¤xf6† ¢g7 25.¤xd5² Zakic – Gligoric, Nis 1998, 25...¦xb2? 26.¤b4± 24.¦e2 24.¤xf6 ¥f4† 25.¢b1 ¦fb8„ 24.¦d2 ¦fb8 25.¥d1 ¥xa3!µ 24...¦fb8 25.¥a4 25.¥b1 ¥xa3µ 25...¦a6 26.¥c2 ¦ab6=
Four Knights Spanish Table on page 80: This line comes after line 8 in the first edition’s tables. 14.h3 White adopts a very flexible approach, intending to keep the central structure intact for as long as possible. I faced this move shortly after having delivered the manuscript for the first edition of the book and the game was inserted in a short postscript. 14...¤g6 15.g3 h6 Once the danger of the manoeuvre ¤h4-f5 has been removed, Black continues making useful moves. After the transfer of the knight to g6, the central break ...d5 is a less adequate reaction to g3 than in the main line, because of the undesired opposition of the e1-rook and the black queen along the e-file. 16.¥g2 Surprisingly, this position has not been met in practice before, although both players’ play has been quite logical so far. For the first time in the game, I had to think independently. 16...£c7!? Not an easy choice. Most of Black’s pieces were situated on what can be considered optimal squares already and my main concern was to prevent my position from losing harmony. The obvious drawback of my move is that it removes the queen from the kingside, which might look like a concession after White blocks the centre and my subsequent counterplay is based on f7-f5. However, I was not satisfied with the main alternative, which was 16...¦f8. White would then decline the obstinate invitation to block the centre and instead try to strengthen his pressure with, say, 17.¤h2 eventually followed by f4. 17.d5 My opponent decides to take advantage of the queen’s relocation. White’s choice is not a bit easier than Black’s, which is typical for strategically complicated positions. Under the new circumstances, 17.¤h2 could have been met by 17...d5!ƒ when the removal of the
queen from the e-file proves useful. It is here that White should look for an improvement. I am pretty sure that White’s play so far has been very logical, but blocking the centre is hardly a solution as the near future will prove. 17...¤h7 18.c4 The decisive factor when making my choice between 16...£c7 and 16...¦f8 was that after 18.h4 f5 19.h5 the knight can retreat with 19...¤e7 over-defending f5 and planning ...¦f8. This made me feel that Black’s plan had a certain fluency: the queen had done her job on e7 and then cleared this square for the knight. 18...¦f8 There was nothing wrong with the immediate 18...f5!? but I intended to put psychological pressure on my opponent. This proved to be a correct policy, judging from his answer. 19.g4 White’s nerve cracks under the pressure. His last move radically prevents ...f5, but chronically weakens the f4-square. For the sake of truth it should be said that after 19.¦a3 f5³ Black’s play looks preferable. 19...£e7 20.¥e3 ¤g5 21.¤d2?! A further concession. The lesser evil would have been 21.¤xg5 hxg5 22.a5³ but by refraining from the exchange on g5 White probably hoped to carry out the thematic break f2-f4 in a favourable way. However, after the voluntary retreat of the knight, Black’s kingside pressure becomes threatening. 21...£f6 22.¦a3 We can see that White is well acquainted with Lein’s favourite plan of transferring the rook to the kingside along the third rank. However, the unfavourable kingside configuration prevents him from taking full advantage of this manoeuvre. 22...¥d7!?
Abstractly speaking, a natural move, but from a practical point of view the most difficult move in the game. Before starting concrete kingside operations, Black intends to complete his development, putting the a4-pawn under some pressure at the same time. Opening of the kingside immediately could have led to unclear consequences, for instance: 22...h5 23.gxh5 ¤f4 24.¥xf4 £xf4 25.¦g3÷ and White is ready to counterattack on the wing where Black was supposed to be better. Or 22...¤f4 23.¥xf4 £xf4 24.¤f1 followed by ¤g3 when the black queen would start feeling uncomfortable. 23.£a1?! White over-defends the a4-pawn and creates a pin along the a1-h8 diagonal, in the hope of playing f4 at the right moment. However, the removal of the queen from the centre will become a telling factor. Somewhat better would
have been 23.a5 although after 23...¦ae8 Black would comfortably complete his development and be ready to open the kingside. 23...h5!µ 24.f3 The difference is that after 24.gxh5 ¤f4 25.¥xf4 £xf4 the d2-knight would be hanging, preventing White from starting his counterplay based on ¦g3. 24...¦ae8! 25.¦b1 ¥c8 Black has regrouped optimally and has a strategically won position. Given the closed character of the position, White could have put up stubborn resistance but, demoralized by the unfavourable course of events, my opponent soon blundered. 26.¦f1 ¤f4 27.¥xf4 £xf4 28.¦f2? £g3 In view of the threat ...¤xh3† (which could also follow in the case of 29.f4), White resigned in Canda – Marin, Turin (ol) 2006.
Giuoco Pianissimo Page 160 table. Lines A and B start with the deviation 7.d4, so insert after Line 1. Line C is a White move 8 option, and line D a Black move 8 deviation from line C. Line E is another White move 8 alternative A - 7.d4 After White has castled, occupying the centre does not allow Black an early counterblow, as was the case in the classical main line. However, the tempo lost by moving the d-pawn twice makes the last move completely inoffensive. 7...d6! This simple developing move is the best answer to White’s relatively unprepared action in the centre. Since White is not fully developed he will face problems maintaining the integrity of his centre. Black should refrain from an early counteraction in the centre. For instance, 7...exd4 8.e5 d5 9.exf6 dxc4 10.fxg7 ¦g8 11.¦e1† ¥e6 would lead to a relatively unfavourable form of the Max Lange Attack. The insertion of the moves c3, ...a6 and ...¥a7 rather favours White, who can immediately question Black’s domination in the centre with 12.¥g5 £d5 13.cxd4 followed by ¤c3, while the kingside has been irreparably damaged anyway. 8.h3 White’s practical problems derive from the fact that he has to keep both his central pawns defended. His last move prevents ...¥g4, which would increase the pressure on the d4-pawn. 8.¥g5, aiming to release the pressure against the e4-pawn, prematurely defines the bishop’s intentions. 8...h6 9.¥h4 g5 (More ambitious than 9...£e7, which is also playable and eventually offered Black adequate counterplay after 10.¦e1 ¥g4 11.d5 ¤b8 12.¤bd2 g5 13.¥g3 ¤bd7 14.¤f1 ¤f8 15.¤e3 ¥xe3 16.¦xe3 ¤g6 17.¥e2 ¥d7 18.¤e1 h5 19.f3 g4 20.¥f2 ¦g8 Heim – Gschnitzer, Eppingen 1988.) 10.¥g3 (The thematic sacrifice 10.¤xg5? hxg5 11.¥xg5 does not work,
because Black has not castled yet and can use his rook to chase away the bishop. 11...¦g8 12.¥h4 ¦g4 13.g3 ¦xh4 14.gxh4 ¥h3 15.¦e1 £d7–+ followed by castling long. White has nothing to show for his material deficit. This is by no means Black’s only way to refute the sacrifice, but is probably the most “human”. 10.dxe5 gxh4 11.exf6 £xf6 followed by ...¥g4 and castling long offers Black easy play and attacking chances.) 10...¤xe4 11.dxe5 Otherwise, White will be a pawn down without enough development to gain adequate compensation. 11...¤xg3 12.hxg3 dxe5 13.£xd8† ¢xd8 14.¥xf7 e4 15.¤h2 ¦f8 16.¥b3 e3µ White is still underdeveloped, while his kingside is under attack. Immediately releasing the tension in the centre with 8.d5 offers Black easy play. 8...¤e7 9.¥d3 h6 10.c4 0–0 (The slightly extravagant 10...g5 11.¥e3 ¤g6 is time-consuming and fails to put the enemy kingside under serious pressure. 12.¤c3 ¤f4 13.¤e2 ¤6h5 14.¤g3 ¤g7 15.¦c1² Deev – Conquest, Lyngby 1990.) 11.¤c3 ¤h7 Justifying the move ...h6. Clearing the way of the f-pawn with ...¤e8 would cause some temporary problems of coordination along the back rank. 12.b4 f5 13.exf5 ¥xf5 14.¥xf5 ¤xf5 15.¤e4 ¤f6= The move...h6 proves useful again, by preventing ¤eg5-e6. Black has active kingside play. In fact, h3 might not be entirely necessary at this point of the game if White wants to maintain the tension, but will become so slightly later. For instance: 8.¦e1 0–0 (8...¥g4 is premature because after 9.¤bd2, threatening to drive the bishop away with h3 and g4, 9... exd4 is not without risks in view of 10.e5! dxe5 11.¤xe5! when Black will lose his right to
castle.) Now, 9.¤bd2 is not possible, because of 9...exd4. 9.¥g5 also fails to maintain White’s domination in the centre after 9...h6 10.¥h4 g5 11.¥g3 (White is not well enough developed to sacrifice with 11.¤xg5 hxg5 12.¥xg5 because of 12...¢g7 13.£f3 exd4 followed by either ...¤xe5 or ...¤xd4.) 11...¦e8 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.£xd8 ¦xd8= Black has achieved normal development, having neutralized White’s space advantage in the centre. 14.¤xe5? does not work because of 14...¤xe5 15.¥xe5 ¥xf2†!µ. 8...0–0 9.¦e1 h6 Preparing ...¦e8 by preventing ¤g5. 10.¥e3 10.¥f1 is too slow and forces White to release the tension after 10...¦e8 11.d5 ¤e7 12.¥e3 (Matulovic recommends 12.c4, but Black can continue as in the game with 12...¤h7 13.¤c3 f5 14.exf5 ¥xf5. If we compare with the variation 8.d5 above, we can notice that Black’s king’s rook is slightly misplaced and will have to return to f8. Doesn’t this mean that Black has simply lost two tempi? In fact, it does, but White has done far worse. He spent this time weakening his king’s position with h3 and retreating the bishop to a passive square. After all, he might also have to return the bishop to d3...) 12...¥xe3 13.¦xe3 ¤h7 14.¤bd2 ¦f8 15.c4 f5 16.exf5 ¤xf5 17.¦e1 ¤g5 18.¤xg5 £xg5 Black’s kingside play develops easily. 19.¤f3 (Occupying the e4square with 19.¤e4?! would leave the even more important d4-square undefended. 19...£g6³ ……¤d4) 19...£f6 20.£d2 (White cannot start his queenside attack yet: 20.b4? ¤h4!µ 21.¥e2? ¥xh3–+) 20...b6 21.¦ac1 (Again, it is too early for 21.b4 because after 21...a5 White cannot maintain the integrity of his structure with 22.a3 axb4 23.axb4? because of 23...¦xa1 24.¦xa1 e4–+) 21...a5 Black has managed to arrange his queenside pawns optimally and can now concentrate on the kingside. 22.¦c3 ¥d7 23.¥d3 ¤h4 (This looks a bit premature to me. I would prefer 23...¦f7³ followed
by ...¦af8 and eventually ...g5 and ...¦g7.) 24.¤xh4 £xh4= Damljanovic – Matulovic, Niksic 1997. 10...¦e8 Black would lose a piece without sufficient compensation after 10...¤xe4?! 11.d5 ¤a5 12.¥f1. 11.¤bd2 exd4 12.cxd4 d5! The simplest way to blast White’s centre into pieces. After 12...¤xe4?! 13.£b3! Black needs to play the awkward looking 13...£d7, causing himself problems developing the queenside. 13...£f6? is bad because of 14.¥xh6! when Black’s delay in development is obvious. 13.e5!? The only way to muddy the waters. 13...dxc4 14.exf6 ¥f5! Development at any cost! 14...£xf6?! 15.d5 ¥xe3?! 16.dxc6! leaves the bishop pinned. 15.fxg7 ¤xd4 16.¤xd4 16.¥xh6 offers Black very active play after 16...£f6. White’s material advantage is temporary and Black’s domination in the centre might become threatening. 16...¥xd4 17.¤xc4 ¥xg7 18.£f3 ¥e4 19.£g3 ¦e6 20.f3 ¥g6 21.¥f2 ½–½ Inkiov – Am. Rodriguez, Minsk 1982. Black’s active bishops compensate for the kingside weaknesses (and cover them, too!). The main thing to be prevented is a knight jump to e5. Therefore: 21...£e7= looks like the best move. B - 8.dxe5 A simplistic approach. Since maintaining the tension in the centre is a far from easy task, White hopes to retain some initiative by opening play at once. However, it is not easy to achieve such an aim without satisfactory development. 8...¤xe5!
It is important to eliminate the f3-knight. After 8...dxe5 9.£xd8† Black has to play the passive 9...¤xd8, since 9...¢xd8?! simply loses a pawn to 10.¥xf7 and if 10...¤xe4 then 11.¥d5±, weakening the e5-pawn. 9.¤xe5 dxe5 10.£f3 White intends to make use of the availability of this square in order to build up some pressure against Black’s kingside. 10.£xd8† ¢xd8 offers White very little. 11.¥g5 (11.¤d2 ¢e7 12.¤f3 ¤xe4 13.¤xe5 ¥e6 14.¥xe6 ¢xe6 15.¤f3 ¦ae8 16.¥f4 ¢d7 17.¦ad1† ¢c8= Orlov – Sivokho, St Petersburg 2001. The absence of the f3-knight makes itself felt after 11.¥xf7?! ¦f8 12.¥c4 ¤xe4, when the f2-square is under strong pressure. 13.¥e3 ¥xe3 14.fxe3 ¦xf1† 15.¥xf1 ¥e6 16.¥d3 ¤f6 and Black is not worse.) 11...¢e7 12.¤d2 h6 (12...¥e6 13.¦ad1 ¦hd8 14.¥xe6 ¢xe6 15.¥xf6 ¢xf6 16.¤f3 ¢e6 17.¦fe1 f6 is also plain equal, Nun – Flear, Dortmund 1989.) 13.¥h4 ¥g4 An irritating move, preventing the occupation of the d-file. 14.¦fe1 (14.h3 ¦ad8! drives the knight away from the f5-square. After 15.¤b3 Black can play 15...g5 16.¥g3 ¥e6= without fearing any ghosts.) 14...¦ad8 15.¤f1 g5! Once again this move is not dangerous for Black, because the g3-square will be physically unavailable to the knight, while ¤e3 will always be met by ...¥xe3. 16.¥g3 ¥e6 17.¥xe6 ¢xe6 18.¦e2 ¦d3 19.¦ae1 ¦hd8µ Popa – Godena, Verona 2006. White has little to show against Black’s authoritarian control of the d-file. 10...0–0 11.¥g5 This move has never been played, but should be taken into account because it is White’s only attempt to justify his previous strategy. 11.¥e3 ¥g4 12.£g3 ¥xe3 13.£xe3 £d6 14.f3 ¥e6 15.¤d2 ¦fd8 16.¦f2 ¦d7 17.¥xe6 £xe6 18.¤f1 ¦ad8³ Smagin – Aseev, Tashkent 1984. 11.¤a3 b5 12.¥b3 ¥g4 13.£g3 ¥e2 14.¥h6 (14.¦e1 ¤xe4) 14...¤h5 15.£xe5 gxh6µ
Cicak – Lobzhanidze, Wiesbaden 2000. 11...h6! Being well developed, Black does not need to fear the structural defects. 12.¥xf6 The attempt to win a tempo with 12.¦d1 would be strongly met by 12...hxg5! 13.¦xd8 ¦xd8, threatening ...¥g4 followed by ...¦d1†(#). White is underdeveloped and his queen is vulnerable. 14.¥b3 (14.h3 g4! puts the f2-pawn in danger. Or 14.¤a3 ¦d2 15.¦f1 b5 16.¥b3 ¥b7 followed by ...¦ad8 with strong pressure.) 14...¥g4 15.£g3 ¥e6 16.¤a3 ¥xb3 17.axb3 ¦d2© Black has occupied the only open file and the second rank. His chances are not worse, despite his minimal material deficit. 12...£xf6 13.£xf6 gxf6 14.¤d2 Otherwise, Black would take the initiative in the centre with ...f5. 14...¥g4! Winning an important tempo in the fight for the open d-file. We can see how efficient the a7-bishop is in preventing the generally desirable f3. 15.h3 ¦ad8 16.¤b3 16.¤f3 ¥xf3 17.gxf3 ¦d2µ 16...¥d7 The knight has been prevented from transferring closer to the f5-square, so the bishop returns to the queenside. 16...¥h5? 17.g4 ¥g6 18.¦fe1±, followed by ¢g2 and f3, would leave the g6-bishop permanently out of play. White would practically be a piece up on the other wing. 17.¦fd1 b5 18.¥e2 ¥c6 19.¥f3 ¥b6= Black’s active bishops compensate for the structural defects. C - 8.h3 This move can transpose to the main line if both sides wish, but play can also take an independent character. 8...d6
Black does not deviate from the natural course of the game. 9.¥e3 This move cannot be found in any opening books. However, it has caused Black some trouble in games between strong players over the last few years. White’s idea is that Black cannot afford to play symmetrically: ¥xa7 is a much more unpleasant threat than ...¥xb3. The former would provoke the undesirable misplacement of one of Black’s pieces, while the latter can be answered comfortably with either £xb3 or axb3. Therefore, Black will be practically forced to open the f-file with ...¥xe3, offering White a strong centre and possibilities of attacking along the f-file. To a certain extent the move is similar to Korchnoi’s revolutionary 9...¥e6. However, there is a minor difference that in theory slightly favours Black: White develops his bishop before having moved his knight. In practice, this is not so easy to take advantage of, though. 9...¥xe3 9...¥e6 10.¥xe6 Just one of the possible continuations. (10.¤bd2 is likely to transpose to the main game. If Black refrains from the exchange on e3 with, say, 10...£e7 the a7bishop would remain passive after 11.d4.) 10...fxe6 11.¥xa7 ¦xa7 12.¤bd2 ¤d7 13.d4 £f6 14.£b3 ¤b6 15.¦ae1 ¤a5 16.£c2 ¤c6 17.£b3 ¤a5 18.£d1 ¦aa8 19.dxe5 dxe5 20.£e2² Black’s doubled pawns gave him lots of trouble in Nevednichy – Pavasovic, Sibenik 2005. 10.fxe3 It will not be easy for Black to challenge White’s domination in the centre. Besides, the pressure along the f-file is likely to become annoying in the long run. 10...¥e6 10...¤e7?! allows 11.¤h4! ¤g6 12.¤f5 with strong kingside pressure, as in Harikrishna – Sokolov, Hoogeveen 2005.
11.¤bd2 £e7 I believe this is a good square for the queen, allowing optimal cooperation with the knights. 11...£d7 12.d4 ¥xb3 13.£xb3 ¦fe8 14.¦ae1² maintains White’s domination in the centre. 11...¥xb3 12.£xb3 b5 13.d4 ¤d7 14.¦f2 (14.a4!?²) 14...¤a5 15.£c2 c5 16.dxc5?! (16. d5!² would have led to a similar situation as after Black’s inaccuracy in the main game) 16...dxc5 17.c4 £e7 18.¦af1 ¤b6 19.b3 ¤c6„ With the d-file open, White cannot concentrate on his kingside attack, Nevednichy – Jovanic, Nova Gorica 2006. 12.d4 ¥xb3 13.£xb3 ¦ab8 Black has to play this slightly passive move. 13...exd4 14.exd4 (14.£xb7 dxe3!) 14...¤xe4 fails to equalize after 15.¤xe4! £xe4 16.£xb7 (16.¦ae1 £f5 17.¤e5 £h5 is less clear) 16...¦ab8 17.£xc7 ¦xb2 18.£xd6 £e3† 19.¢h2 £xc3 20.¦ac1 ¦c2 21.¦xc2 £xc2 22.d5². 14.¦ae1 b5 Once White’s queen’s rook has abandoned the a-file, this move is entirely justified because a4 is less dangerous. Finally, Black can give some meaning to the rook’s placement on b8 by initiating a massive regrouping. 14...g6?! A stereotypical plan. Black intends to transfer his king’s knight to g7, as in the Czech Benoni. This plan also works in some lines of the Chigorin Ruy Lopez, but with the f-file under pressure Black will not manage to play ...f5 and his knight will remain passive. 15.¦f2 ¤h5 16.g4 ¤g7 17.¦ef1 ¤d8 18.¢h2 (18.d5!?²) 18...¤de6 19.d5 ¤g5 20.c4 ¤xf3† 21.¦xf3² Black has no constructive plan and has to play a defensive game, although he later had a winning position in Nevednichy – Marin, Romania 2007. 15.¦f2 15.¤h4 is inoffensive because of 15...g6!. 15...¤d7 16.¦ef1 ¤d8 17.£c2
After 17.d5 c6!„ White cannot support his d5-pawn efficiently and will soon lose his domination in the centre. 17...c6! An important move. 17...¤e6 would be met by 18.d5² when 18...¤g5 19.¤h2! leaves the knight misplaced on g5. 18.b3 ¤e6 Black has regrouped harmoniously and has little to fear. 19.c4 Threatening to win more space in the centre, but Black is prepared for this. 19...exd4 20.exd4 c5„ Black has equalized completely, because 21.d5?! can be met by 21...¤f4!³ followed by ...¤g6-e5. D - 8…d5!? If Black is not entirely satisfied with the suggested improvement over my game against Nevednichy, then this move is a radical way to cross White’s intentions. Generally, it is considered that opening the centre so soon is unfavourable for Black, because of White’s combined pressure along the e-file and a2-g8 diagonal. However, after having lost one tempo on a pawn move (h3), White has considerably diminished his dynamic potential, which makes Black’s position entirely playable. 9.exd5 ¤xd5 10.¦e1 ¥e6!? It is always pleasant to ignore the opponent’s threats. However, the more neutral 10...f6 is entirely sound, too. 11.¤bd2 (11.d4 exd4 12.cxd4 ¤a5 13.¤c3 ¤xb3 14.£xb3 c6 15.¥f4 ¦f7 We can see that f7-f6 has not really weakened Black’s position, while the f6-pawn restricts White’s bishop and king’s knight. 16.¥g3 ¥f5 17.a4 £b6 18.£xb6 ¤xb6 19.¦e2 ¦d8 20.¦ae1 ¦fd7 21.¥f4 g5 22.¥c1 ¢f7 23.b3 ¤c8³ After patient manoeuvring Black is ready to assault
the d4-pawn, De la Paz Perdomo – Short, Ottawa 2007.) 11...¢h8 12.¤e4 (12.¤f1 is too passive and allows Black to place his pieces more actively in the centre. 12...£d6 13.¤g3 ¥e6 14.d4 exd4 15.cxd4 ¦fe8 16.a3 ¥g8 17.¤e4 £f8 18.¤c3 ¦xe1† 19.¤xe1 ¦d8³ Again, the d4-pawn is submitted to strong pressure, Sivokho – Romanov, Minsk 2006.) 12...¥e6 Black has a space advantage in the centre and White’s attacking attempts have little chance of success. 13.¤g3 £d7 14.¤h4 ¦ad8 15.£h5 ¥f7 16.£f3 ¤de7 17.¥c2 ¥d5 18.£h5 ¥f7 19.£f3= White is obviously not playing for a win, Xu Yuhua – Short, Ji Nan 2003. 11.¤a3 White has to resort to such unnatural moves. 11.¤xe5? is impossible because of 11...¤xe5 12.¦xe5 ¥xf2†!µ. 11.¤bd2? leaves the f4-square at Black’s mercy. 11...¤f4 12.¥xe6 (12.d4 ¤d3 13.¦e3 ¤xc1 14.¥xe6 exd4 15.cxd4 fxe6 16.¦xc1 ¤xd4µ) 12...fxe6! Black keeps his knight on an active position, opening the f-file for his king’s rook at the same time. 13.¤e4 ¤xd3 14.¦f1 (14.¥g5 does not prevent trouble on f2: 14...¤xf2! 15.¤xf2 ¥xf2† 16.¢xf2 £xg5µ) 14...¤xf2 15.¤xf2 £xd1 16.¦xd1 e4 17.¤d4 e5µ 11.¤g5 £f6 12.£e2 ¦ad8 13.¤xe6 fxe6³ leaves White badly underdeveloped and in danger around the f2-square. 11...¦e8 I prefer this developing move to 11...b5, which is probably not bad either. 12.£e2 b4 13.¤b1 f6 14.d4 ¥f7 15.dxe5 ¤xe5÷ Arizmendi – Cruz, Andorra 2004. 12.¤g5!? 12.¤c4 would finally force 12...f6=, but only after having developed the knight far from the kingside, thus reducing White’s attacking potential on that wing. 12...£f6 13.£e2 ¦ad8 14.¤xe6 ¦xe6= Once the rook has moved away from the f-file,
this is the logical answer. Black’s hyperactivity compensates for White’s almost unchallenged pressure along the a2-g8 diagonal. E - 8.¥e3 The ideas behind this move are similar to those of 8.h3 d6 9.¥e3. 8...d5! The most logical answer. After 8...¥xe3 9.fxe3 d6 White can continue his development with 10.¤bd2, leaving for later the generally useful move h3 (which enables ¤h2-g4). For practical reasons this might eventually save a whole tempo over the line 8.h3 d6 9.¥e3. 9.exd5 ¤xd5 10.¥xa7 ¦xa7 White is only too happy to force the enemy rook to occupy such a square. However, the lack of harmony in Black’s camp is temporary and White is not so well developed either. Besides, the exchange of the dark-squared bishops has deprived White of an important attacking piece, while leaving the f4-square vulnerable. 11.¦e1 11.d4 ¤f4!? (11...exd4 12.¤xd4 ¤ce7 13.¤d2 c5 14.¤4f3 b5= is a simpler way to activate the rook, winning some space on the queenside at the same time) 12.dxe5 (12.d5 ¤a5 leaves the d5-pawn vulnerable) 12...¤xe5 13.¤xe5 (13.£xd8?! ¤xf3† 14.gxf3 ¦xd8³)
13...£g5! 14.g3 ¤h3† 15.¢g2 £xe5 16.¦e1 Black has an active position, but the temporary passivity of the a7-rook suggests he should be prudent. 16...£f5 17.£f3 £xf3† 18.¢xf3 ¤g5† 19.¢f4 ¤h3† 20.¢f3 ¤g5† White has nothing better than agreeing a draw by repetition, because 21.¢g2?! allows Black to complete his development with gain of time after 21...¥h3† 22.¢h1 ¦aa8³, while the king feels miserable on h1. 11...¤f4 12.d4 The structure resulting from this move does not offer White anything special, but it is hard to suggest better alternatives. 12.¤xe5? loses material to 12...£g5!–+. Defending the d3-pawn with 12.¥c2 looks passive and offers Black the time he needs to complete his development. 12...¥g4 13.h3 ¥h5 14.¤bd2 ¦a8³ 12...exd4 13.cxd4 ¥g4 14.¤c3 ¦a8 15.¦e4 £f6 16.¤d5 ¤xd5 17.¦xg4 17.¥xd5 ¥xf3³ 17...¦ad8 18.£d2 ¦fe8= Black has little to fear. He has a harmonious placement of pieces and satisfactory stability in the centre. 18...¦d6?! is worse because it allows White to take control of the open e-file. 19.¦e1 g6 20.¦ge4 ¦dd8 21.¤e5² Zagrebelny – Aleksandrov, Moscow 2004.
Giuoco Pianissimo Line 1 Giuoco Pianissimo This line is a footnote to 6…¥a7 from the first header of the tables on page 160. 6...0–0 Black can also start with this move, which in most cases would lead to a transposition. The following is a recent game of mine where play took an independent course. 7.¥g5 h6 8.¥h4 ¥e7!? Since White has not castled short yet, it is dangerous to play 8...g5?!. For instance: 9.¥g3 d6 10.¤bd2 ¥g4 11.h3 ¥h5 12.£e2 ¥g6 13.h4 ¤h5 14.hxg5 ¤xg3 15.fxg3 hxg5 16.0–0–0 ¢g7 17.¤c4 f6 18.d4 exd4 19.cxd4 ¥a7 20.¤e3 ¦e8 21.¥c2 £e7 22.e5‚ Ivanchuk – Marin, Ciudad Real (blitz) 2007. 9.¤bd2 d6 When I looked at the whole variation, shortly after my blitz game against Ivanchuk, I planned to play 9...¤h5 10.¥g3 ¤xg3 11.hxg3 d6=, but during the game I did not feel like opening the h-file too soon. 10.¥g3 He was probably worried about ...¤h5 all the same, but I believe that this voluntary bishop retreat is too passive to offer White an advantage. 10...¦e8 10...¤h5 transposing to another blitz game M. Zaitsev – Harikrishna, playchess. com 2004, allows 11.¤xe5 ¤xe5 12.¥xe5 dxe5 13.£xh5 £xd3 14.£xe5² when Black’s compensation does not look sufficient. 11.¤f1 ¥f8 This was the first round of the tournament and, not being entirely sure about my form, I aimed to keep the position closed for as long as possible. This strategy eventually proved correct for this specific game, but objectively speaking Black could have fought for the initiative already.
11...d5!? 12.£e2 a5! 13.¤xe5 ¤xe5 14.¥xe5 a4 15.¥c2 a3 16.b3 ¤g4 17.¥g3 dxe4 18.dxe4 ¥f6ƒ 12.¤e3 ¥e6 13.¥h4!? This is a good moment to put the knight in a pin again, but this bishop has moved quite a lot already. 13...g6! Not fearing the pin. 13...¥e7?! 14.¥xe6 fxe6 15.£b3 £d7 16.0–0² 14.¤d2 14.¥xe6 ¦xe6 15.¤d5 ¥g7 16.0–0 ¤b8= …...¤bd7. 14...¥g7 15.£f3 Black seems to be under pressure, but White’s development is a bit artificial. Black only needs to find a way to over-defend his f6-knight. 15...¤b8!? 16.¥c2 ¤bd7 17.g4 My opponent was inclined towards a slow course of events, too. The dynamic alternative was 17.d4, putting the e6-bishop in immediate danger of being trapped with d5. However, Black can maintain his stability with: 17...¤f8 18.0–0–0 ¤8h7 19.dxe5 dxe5 20.¤dc4 £e7 (20...£c8!? 21.¤xe5 ¥xa2”) 21.¤d5 ¥xd5 22.¦xd5 £e6 23.¦c5 b6 24.¦xc7 ¦ec8 25.¦xc8† ¦xc8 26.b3 b5 27.¤d2 ¤g5 28.£e3 ¥f8© Black has an active position and his king is much safer than its colleague. 17...¤f8 18.¤f5 ¤8h7! 18...gxf5? would lead to decisive white attack after 19.gxf5 ¥d7 20.¦g1+– 19.¤xg7?! It was tempting to eliminate this bishop, but the truth is that White releases the pressure too soon. 19.¦g1!? c5÷ 19...¢xg7³ Black is better developed and has active possibilities in the centre and on the queenside. White does not have a clear attacking plan on the kingside, Tiviakov – Marin, Reggio Emilia 2007/08.
Line 2 Greco The lines starting with 6.e5 expand on what was footnote one (in Classical main line tables, page 145). 1.e4 e5 2. ¤f3 ¤c6 3. ¥c4 ¥c5 4.c3 ¤f6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 This move is probably unjustly considered as inoffensive. Having failed to understand this when preparing the first edition, I happened to be confronted with it in practice under the pressure of time. My last round opponent from Reggio Emilia 2007/08 had just added this line into his repertoire. Unfortunately, I had no time to prepare properly, because I had finished my previous game (with Korchnoi) quite late and the last round was scheduled in the morning. 6...d5 7.¥b5 7.exf6?! dxc4 would lead to an unfavourable form of the Max Lange Attack, because the move c3 is by far less useful than 0–0. 7...¤e4 8.cxd4 ¥b6 9.¤c3 0–0 10.¥e3 ¥g4 11.£c2 White can avoid the deviation mentioned on the 13th move with 11.¥xc6 bxc6, but this exchange consolidates Black’s centre too soon. 12.£a4 (12.£c2 f5!? As can be seen from a later comment, this move is not possible in the absence of the exchange on c6. 13.exf6 £xf6 14.¤e5 ¥f5 15.£a4 c5 16.¤xd5 £d6ƒ) 12...f6 13.exf6 (13.£xc6 ¤xc3 14.bxc3 ¥xf3 15.gxf3 fxe5 16.dxe5 ¥xe3 17.fxe3 ¦xf3³ Macieja – De la Paz, Merida 2005.) 13...¥xf3 14.fxg7 ¦e8 15.gxf3 ¤xf2! 16.¢xf2 £h4† 17.¢e2 ¥xd4 18.¤e4 (18.¤d1 £f4–+) 18...¥xe3 19.¢xe3 ¦xe4†! 20.fxe4 ¦e8 21.¦hg1™ (21.¢d2 £f4† 22.¢c3 ¦xe4 23.£xe4 £xe4 24.¦hg1 £e3† 25.¢c2 £e2† 26.¢c3 c5–+; 21.¦ag1 ¦xe4† 22.£xe4 £xe4† 23.¢d2 c5µ) 21...¦xe4† 22.£xe4 £xe4† 23.¢d2 = De la Paz. 11...¥xf3
11...f5? 12.¤xd5! In the first round of the same tournament, Ni Hua faced the less principled answer 11...¥f5 12.£b3 ¤e7 13.¥e2 c6 14.0–0 f6 15.exf6 (15.¤h4 ¤xc3 16.£xc3 fxe5 17.dxe5 d4 18.£c4† £d5³) 15...¦xf6 16.¤e5 (I was slightly worried about 16.a4!?² ) 16...¤g6 17.¤a4 ¤xe5 18.¤xb6 axb6 19.dxe5 ¦g6 20.¥h5 (20.¥xb6 £g5 21.g3 ¤d2 22.£c3 ¤xf1 23.¥xf1© Black’s pawns are too immobile for my taste.) 20...¦e6 21.f3 ¤c5 22.¥xc5 bxc5 23.£xb7 g6 24.¥g4 ¥xg4 25.fxg4 £e8 26.¦f7 £xf7 27.£xa8† £e8 28.£xe8† ¦xe8÷ Ni Hua – Navara, Reggio Emilia 2007/08. 12.gxf3 ¤g5 13.¥xc6 bxc6 After this move, Black’s position is at least dangerous. 14.0–0–0!? The most ambitious continuation. 14.£a4?! ¤xf3† 15.¢e2 f6!? 16.e6 ¤g5 17.£xc6 £e8!³ Sveshnikov – Balashov, USSR 1985. Against 14.£f5 I had prepared 14...f6!? (14...¤e6 has been played in no fewer than three games between the same players: Alonso – Valdes, Cuba 2005. Cuban analysis in Chess Informant claims that Black is doing fine, but I did not like the kingside pressure exerted by White.) 15.0–0–0 (15.exf6 h6!; 15.¦d1 ¥xd4!” 16.¦xd4? fxe5µ) 15...g6 16.£g4 £c8 17.£xc8 ¦axc8 18.f4 ¤e6÷ 14...¤xf3 15.£e2! This move was new to me. Sveshnikov recommended 15.£f5 ¤h4 16.£g4 ¤g6 17.h4 f5 18.exf6 £xf6 19.h5 ¤f4 20.¦h4© but after 20...¤e6µ I see no compensation for White. 15...¤h4 15...¤g5 16.f4 ¤e4 17.¤xe4 dxe4 18.f5‚ 16.¦hg1 With his bishop isolated on the queenside, Black faces serious problems stopping White’s slow but logical attack. 16...£d7!?
This move, completing development before anything else, is Black’s best chance to obtain a viable position, although White has plenty of play anyway. 16...¤f5?! 17.£g4 £c8 18.¥h6!± 16...f6?! The plan initiated by this move will fail by just one tempo. 17.£h5! (17.exf6?! £xf6! 18.¥g5 £f7 19.¥xh4 £f4†³) 17...¤g6 18.¦g3‚ White’s attack develops by simple means. 18...¦e8!? (18...¦f7?! 19.e6 ¦e7 20.f4 f5 21.£xf5 ¤f8 22.£g4 ¤xe6 23.f5+–; 18...fxe5?! 19.¦h3 £f6?! 20.¦g1!+– with a decisive attack in Ni Hua – Marin, Reggio Emilia 2007/08. 19...£f6 seems to be the losing move, but the fact that 19...¢f7 is the only way to prolong the fight speaks for itself about Black’s situation.) 19.f4 (19.¦h3 ¤f8 20.f4©) 19...fxe5 20.fxe5© Black has managed to stabilize the position, but his kingside remains under pressure. 17.£h5 17.¦g4 ¤f5 18.¦dg1 £e6³ 17.¥g5 £f5!? (In fact, I overlooked this resource. 17...¤g6 18.h4‚; 17...¤f5 18.£g4 g6 19.¦d3‚) 18.¦g3 (18.¥xh4 £f4† 19.£e3 £xh4 20.f4 f5÷) 18...¤g6 (18...¦ae8 19.£h5‚) 19.h4!? ¤xh4 20.¥xh4 £f4† 21.£e3 £xh4 22.f4© 17...¤f5 17...¤g6? 18.¦g3‚ 18.¥h6 ¤xh6 19.£xh6 19.¦xg7† ¢xg7 20.£g5† ¢h8 21.£f6† ¢g8 22.¦g1† ¤g4 23.h3 h5= 24.hxg4? ¢h7! 25.g5 £e6 26.g6† ¢h6 27.£g5† ¢g7 28.gxf7† ¢xf7 29.£xh5† ¢e7 30.¦g6 £f7μ 19...f6 20.e6 £e7 21.¤e2©
Line 2 Greco 13...¤xf3†!? 14.¢e2 ¤xd4† 15.¥xd4 ¥xd4! 15...bxc6 16.¥xb6 axb6 17.¦he1 £g5 18.¢f1 £h5 19.f4 f6 Fernandez Garcia – Izeta Txabarri, Bilbao 1987. 16.¥xb7 16.¥xd5 ¥xc3 17.¦ad1 ¥xe5 18.¥xf7† ¦xf7 19.¦xd8† ¦xd8 20.£b3 c5 21.¦d1 ¦xd1 22.¢xd1 b6 23.£d5 ¥xb2 24.£a8† ¦f8 25.£xa7 ¦f6 26.£e7 h6= 16...¦b8 17.¥c6 £h4 18.¢e1 18.¢f1? £h3† 19.¢e2 ¦xb2 20.£xb2 ¥xc3 21.£c1 £g4† 22.¢f1 ¥xa1 23.£xa1 £c4† 24.¢g2 £xc6–+ 18.¦af1 £h5† 19.¢e1 £xe5† 20.¢d1 ¦b6© 18...¥xe5©
King’s Gambit This text should be at the end of the King’s Gambit chapter in the first edition, and the theory comes after the theory section of this chapter.
However, there are situations when the notions of development and ‘common sense’ have a much deeper meaning. 9...£d6 We have examined only natural moves so far. Since the King’s Gambit is not quite a natural opening it is hardly surprising that at times highly extravagant moves work out rather well. This is the case with: 10.£d2!?
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4OoO +oOo5 4 +mW M +5 4+ O O + 5 4 +b+pPv+5 4+ +p+n+ 5 4pPpQ +pP5 4R B +rK 5 7888888889
This move is almost unexplored; it has been played in just two correspondence games and passed unnoticed until it was recently analyzed by Olivier Renet on chesspublishing.com. When I first heard about a ‘rather problematic’ 10.£d2, for a long time I could not figure out in which line White could play it. I was confused because I was considering positions where the c1-bishop was developed already. Does it make any sense for White to block his own development? Beyond superficial evidence and prejudgement, it does. The queen fulfils many
important tasks on d2. It defends the f4-pawn and prevents an eventual exchange of the c4bishop with ...¤a5. Moreover, it unpins the knight, increasing the pressure against e5. This latter aspect is relevant in case of the natural developing move 10...¦ad8, when White can exchange on e5 twice followed by £g5. This simple operation would leave him with two dominating bishops, while Black’s minor pieces would be rather misplaced. Another unsuccessful try is 10...¤d7, with the obvious aim of consolidating the e5-pawn. White answers with 11.¤g5, when there is no satisfactory way to parry the unexpected threats of 12.¤xf7 ¦xf7 13.¥xf7† ¢xf7(?) 14.fxe5 and the more trivial 12.h3, harassing the bishop. Clearly, the f3 knight has to be removed with: 10...¥xf3 but after 11.gxf3! White’s centre has become even more impressive than before.
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4OoO +oOo5 4 +mW M +5 4+ O O + 5 4 +b+pP +5 4+ +p+p+ 5 4pPpQ + P5 4R B +rK 5 7888888889
White threatens the apparently simplistic 12.f5 (for instance, after the natural developing move 11...¦ad8) followed by a slow but hard to parry attack with ¢h1, ¦g1, £g2, etc, as pointed out by Renet. Black could transfer his king’s knight to f4, but his stability would be limited and his counterplay almost nonexistent. Prolonged analysis has convinced me that, for the second move in a row, Black has to release the tension: 11...exf4 12.£xf4 Similarly to 10...¥xf3, the capture on f4 looks like a clear concession: White has been helped to clear the way for the bishop’s development and his position looks very promising.
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4OoO +oOo5 4 +mW M +5 4+ O + + 5 4 +b+pQ +5 4+ +p+p+ 5 4pPp+ + P5 4R B +rK 5 7888888889
It is well known that a bishop pair in combination with a strong centre is likely to offer a large long-term advantage. If allowed to play ¥e3, ¢h1, ¦g1, £g3 and f4-f5, he would be simply winning. What’s more, his solid queenside structure seems to leave Black little chance for counterplay. And yet, things are not so one-sided. Black has a way to take advantage of his main trumps: slightly better development and a space advantage on the queenside, both being direct consequences of White’s ¤a4xc5. 12...¤e5 13.¥b3 b5
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4O O +oOo5 4 + W M +5 4+oO M + 5 4 + +pQ +5 4+b+p+p+ 5 4pPp+ + P5 4R B +rK 5 7888888889 It now becomes clear that the generally active light-squared bishop is slightly vulnerable. If it were placed more ‘passively’ on e2, White could have arranged to meet the threatened ...c4 with d4 somehow. Black's queenside operation pursues two main goals. The bishop will be cut off from the rest of its army on a4 or (more desirably for Black) on a2, while the e4- and f3-pawns will lose the support of their colleague on d3. These two elements combined with the harmonious cooperation of Black's knights and queen would leave White's kingside slightly vulnerable. We can also notice that the consequences of the early development of White's queen have not vanished completely. The queen stands in the way of both the c1-bishop and the f-pawn, thus offering the e5-knight temporary stability. Besides, she is vulnerable to the knights' attacks (and will be so after £g3 or £h4, too), which will make the problems with advancing the central pawns slightly more persistent than expected. These elements add meaning to the move ...exf4, which only partly allows White to solve his development problems. In order to understand both sides’ resources, we shall discuss a few typical situations.
1222222223 4 + T +l+5 4+ O + +o5 4o+ +wOo+5 4+ + M +m5 4b+o+p+ Q5 4+ + Bp+ 5 4pPp+ + P5 4+ + +r+k5 7888888889 Without the support of the light-squared bishop, White's central pawns are not easy to advance. A rushed f3-f4 would leave the e4pawn chronically weak. Moreover, the pawns can become subject to attack with a later ...f5, or be blocked with ...g5 and ...¤f4. The whole kingside structure bears a strong similarity to the configuration on the opposite wing from one of the main lines of the classical NimzoIndian (§a2, c3, d4). In that case, White also has a pair of bishops, which are more harmoniously placed than here. Decades of practice have not yet answered the question whether the hanging pawns are strong or just vulnerable. We should also note that the a4-bishop is relatively active, but completely immobile. The attempt to reroute it with c3 and ¥c2 would leave the d3-square at the mercy of the e5-knight. It would be too optimistic to claim an advantage for Black. The bishop pair remains a terrible weapon and should be kept under control permanently. Besides, Black’s queenside structure is weak. I would predict a draw as the most probable result, although there are two possible scenarios. The peaceful result can be achieved either by mutual conservation of the status quo or by a perpetual check if White
embarks on active operations far from his own king, leaving His Majesty poorly defended. There is one important element Black should be aware of. Generally, an exchange of queens would abruptly tilt the balance in White’s favour, sometimes even if this would mean losing a pawn. The cooperation between the queen and the knights is proverbial, especially in the neighbourhood of the enemy king. In the endgame the white king could be centralized rapidly, while the creation of a passed queenside pawn would prove of decisive importance. After this warning, let’s examine an example featuring an even more clear success of Black’s strategy.
1222222223 4 + + Tl+5 4+ O WoOo5 4 + + M +5 4+ + M + 5 4o+o+p+ +5 4P + BpQ 5 4bPp+ + P5 4+ +r+ +k5 7888888889
The main difference consists of the passivity of the light-squared bishop. In certain cases, White could free it by means of ¥xe5 and ¥xc4, but this would leave the f4-square chronically weak, offering Black excellent play. In the diagrammed position Black can start improving his position slowly with 21... g6, followed by ...¤h5. Usually, Black is not willing to advance the g-pawn when there is an enemy dark-squared bishop on the board. However, White’s attack is not too dangerous here, because the other bishop cannot join the fight. Black enjoys what I would call ‘dynamic
stability’ in the centre. The e5-knight is not easy to drive away or exchange. 22.¥d4 is answered with 22...¦d8. White would have to play 23.¦d2 and exchange rooks, which would just increase the probability of perpetual check. 22.¥f4 is worse because of 22...¤h5, when 23.£g5 does not work because of 23...f6 followed by ...¤xf4 and ...g5. This would lead to absolute stability for the remaining knight. Finally, 22.f4? is just bad because of 22...¤xe4! taking full advantage of the vulnerability of the enemy queen. Black has won a pawn and things work out well for him tactically. For instance: 23.£g2 ¤d7 24.¦xd7 (24.¥xc4? drops one of the bishops after 24...¤d6–+. I will also mention a hidden detail. At a certain moment, Black has a choice regarding which rook to place on d8. This variation strongly advocates playing ....¦ad8, in order to prevent the rook from remaining hanging on a8.) 24...£xd7 25.£xe4 ¦e8 26.£f3 £f5³ White’s lack of coordination leaves his bishops rather vulnerable. I will now highlight two important aspects of the play preceding the advance c5-c4.
1222222223 4 + T Tl+5 4O O WoOo5 4 + + M +5 4+oO M + 5 4 + +pQ +5 4+b+pBp+ 5 4pPp+ + P5 4+ +r+rK 5 7888888889
The exposed position of the queen deprives White of the possibility of opening play in the centre with 16.d4? in view of the intermediate move 16...¤g6! followed by ...c4, trapping the bishop.
However, the bishop’s captivity on b3 is relative, as proven by the following example.
1222222223 4t+ +t+l+5 4O O +oOo5 4 +w+ M +5 4+oO M + 5 4 + +pQ +5 4+b+pBp+ 5 4pPp+ + P5 4+ +r+rK 5 7888888889
Apparently, Black has prepared ...c4 in an optimal way. He has denied ¥a4 (after dxc4, bxc4) without having to weaken his queenside structure by advancing his a-pawn. However, the lack of pressure against the d3-pawn allows White to maintain the integrity of his structure with 16.a3! c4 17.¥a2 followed by d4, c3 and ¥b1, with a crushing advantage in the centre. In the above example Black delayed concrete action for too long. A premature advance of the c-pawn can also have unfavourable consequences.
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4O O +oOo5 4 + W M +5 4+oO M + 5 4 + +pQ +5 4+b+pBp+ 5 4pPp+ + P5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889
The position (arising after White’s 14.¥e3)
is not ripe for 14...c4?! yet. Black loses stability in the centre after 15.dxc4 bxc4 16.¦ad1 £e7 17.¥a4. For instance: 17...¦ad8 18.¥d4² Or 17...¤h5 18.£g5! which practically forces the undesirable exchange of queens. Black lacks one tempo (...g6) to be able to transpose to a familiar situation with 18...f6. 18...£xg5† 19.¥xg5 f6 20.¥e3² I recommend the prophylactic 14...£e7!? creating the threat 15...¤fd7 followed by 16...c4 17.dxc4 bxc4 18.¥a4 ¤b6. The immediate 14...¤fd7 would reveal Black’s intentions too soon. White would complete his development with 15.¦ad1 when after 15...£e7 (renewing the threat) the absence of pressure against the d3-pawn would enable the already familiar 16.a3!.
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4O O WoOo5 4 + + M +5 4+oO M + 5 4 + +pQ +5 4+b+pBp+ 5 4pPp+ + P5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889
After 14...£e7 White plays: 15.¦ad1 Preventing ...¤fd7. Black can take advantage of the enemy rook’s presence on d1 with 15...¦ad8 when after a later ...c4 dxc4 he can exchange one pair of rooks, leaving the f3-square vulnerable and the enemy queen tied to its defence. This will offer Black the time needed to regroup and achieve entirely adequate play. 10.£d2 leads to fascinating play, rich
in possibilities for both sides, which is characteristic for the King’s Gambit in general. After working on this chapter, I felt that this ‘prehistoric’ opening is not simpler to play or analyse than the refined modern lines of the Ruy Lopez... Theory 10.£d2!? 10...¤d7 11.¤g5 … 12.¤xf7 ¦xf7 13.¥xf7† ¢xf7(?) 14.fxe5 … 12.h3 10...¥xf3 10...¦ad8 11.fxe5 ¤xe5 12.¤xe5 £xe5 13.£g5± 11.gxf3! …f5, ¢h1, ¦g1, £g2 Renet 11...exf4 11...¦ad8 12.f5 12.£xf4 ¤e5 13.¥b3 In order to maintain chances for an advantage, White should keep both his bishops. 13.¥e3 £e7! (more precise than 13...¤xc4 14.dxc4 £e7, which offers White some initiative after 15.£f5) 14.¦ad1 (14.¥b3 b5 transposes to the main line) 14...¤xc4 (Black can wait one more move with 14...¦ad8, without fearing being taken out of the mainstream) 15.dxc4 b6= 13...b5 14.¥e3 14.£g3 prepares f4, but Black’s action is faster. 14...c4 15.dxc4 (15.f4 ¤eg4 16.e5 £c5† 17.¢h1 cxb3 18.exf6 ¤xf6 19.¦g1 g6 20.cxb3 ¦ad8µ) 15...bxc4 16.¥a4 ¤h5 (Black initiates the typical kingside regrouping. Alternatively, he can activate his rooks first. 16...¦ab8 17.¢h1 ¦fd8 18.¦b1 ¤h5 19.£h4 g6 20.¥e3 £e6 21.¥xa7!? ¦a8 22.¥c5 ¦d2 23.£e1 ¤xf3 24.¦xf3 £g4 25.£xd2 £xf3† 26.£g2 £xg2† 27.¢xg2 ¦xa4 28.a3 c3 29.¢f3 cxb2 30.¦xb2 ¦c4=) 17.£h4 g6 18.¥h6 (18.f4 £b4 19.b3 cxb3 20.cxb3 £xe4) 18...¦fd8 19.¢h1 £e6 20.¦ad1 ¦xd1 21.¦xd1 f6 22.¦f1 (22.£f2 g5! ×¥h6, ×f4; 22.¢g2? loses material unexpectedly to 22...£a6 23.b3 ¤f7 followed
by ...cxb3 and a deadly check on e2) 22...¦d8 23.¥e3 a6= 14.£g5 c4 15.¥f4 ¤fd7 16.dxc4 bxc4 17.¥a4 f6 18.£g3 ¤b6³ 14.£h4 c4 15.dxc4 (15.f4 ¤g6) 15...bxc4 16.¥a4 £b4„ 17.b3? cxb3 …...£d4†, צa1 14.¢h1 a5 15.a3 c4 16.dxc4 a4 17.¥a2 bxc4 is similar to the main line. 14...£e7!? …15...¤fd7 followed by 16...c4 17.dxc4 bxc4 18.¥a4 ¤b6. 14...¤fd7 15.¦ad1 15...£e7 (…...c4) 16.a3! 14...c4?! 15.dxc4 bxc4 16.¦ad1 £e7 17.¥a4 17...¦ad8 (17...¤h5 18.£g5! £xg5† 19.¥xg5 f6 20.¥e3²) 18.¥d4² 14...¦fe8 15.¦ad1 £c6 16.a3! c4 17.¥a2 17...¦ad8 18.d4± 14...¤fd7 15.¦ad1 £e7 16.a3 c4 17.¥a2± 15.¦ad1 15.¢h1 ¤fd7 16.¦g1 c4 17.dxc4 bxc4 18.¥a4 ¤b6 19.¥c5!? (19.£g3 g6 20.f4 ¤xa4 21.fxe5 ¦fe8³) 19...£xc5 20.¦xg7† ¢xg7 21.£g5† ¢h8= 15...¦ad8 15...¤fd7 16.a4 c4 17.¥a2± 16.¢h1 The most consistent answer. White places his king further away from the f3-square, ensuring that an eventual knight capture of that pawn would not come with check. At the same time, active operations along the g-file are enabled, putting additional pressure on Black. The exposed position of the queen deprives White of the possibility of opening play in the centre with 16.d4? in view of the intermediate move 16...¤g6! followed by ...c4, trapping the bishop. 16.£g3 a5 17.a3 (17.d4 cxd4 18.¥xd4 ¤c6) 17...c4 18.dxc4 (18.d4 ¤xf3† 19.£xf3 cxb3 20.e5 ¤d5 21.cxb3) 18...a4 19.¥a2 ¦xd1 20.¦xd1 bxc4= 16.£g5 c4 17.f4 (17.¥f4 ¤g6 18.dxc4 bxc4³ 19.¥xc4? ¤xf4 20.£xf4 £c5†–+; 17.dxc4? ¦xd1–+) 17...¤g6 18.¥c5 £d7
19.¥xf8 (19.dxc4 £xd1 20.¦xd1 ¦xd1† 21.¢g2 ¤xe4 22.£g4 ¦d2† …...¤xc5) 19...cxb3 20.¥xg7 (20.¥c5?! ¤xe4 21.dxe4 £xd1 22.¦xd1 ¦xd1† 23.¢g2 bxa2 24.£g4 ¦d8–+) 20...¢xg7 21.axb3÷ h6 22.£g2 ¦g8 23.¢h1 ¢h7 24.£f2 ¤g4„, …...f5 25.£xa7? ¤xh2! 26.¢xh2 £g4–+ 16.¢g2 induces some differences compared to 16.¢h1. The f3-pawn is better defended and a future ...¦xd1 would not be check. On the dark side, there is no white attack building along the g-file, while the king is exposed to other checks (such as ...¤h4 or ...¦g6). 16... a5 (Since there is no pressure along the g-file, Black could also consider 16...¦d7!?. Black can do without inserting the ...a5 and a3 moves, too. 16...c4 17.dxc4 bxc4 18.¥a4 ¦d6 etc.) 17.a3 c4 18.dxc4 bxc4 (18...a4 does not work out so well now. 19.¥a2 ¦xd1 20.¦xd1 bxc4 21.¥d4² ¦d8?! 22.¥c5! This move is possible only because the white king does not find himself on the back rank.) 19.¥a4 ¦d6!? With the king on h1, this move would not be possible because of ¥c5. Black can fight for the d-file now and in some cases consolidate his e5-knight with ...cxd6. 20.£g5 (20.¥c5 ¤h5! 21.£e3 ¦g6† 22.¢h1 £h4 23.¦g1 ¦d8„; 20.¦xd6 £xd6 21.£f5 g6 22.£g5 c6 23.¦f2 £e6 24.¥d4 ¤fd7 25.£g3 f5„) 20...h6 21.£f5 (21.£h4 ¤g6 22.£g3 ¤h5 23.£g4 ¤gf4† 24.¢h1 f5„) 21...g6 22.£h3 (22.£f4 g5 23.£f5 ¤g6= leaves Black with absolute kingside stability. The weakness of the light squares is not so relevant, because the lightsquared bishop is too far from them.) 22...¦xd1 23.¦xd1 c3!? 24.b3 £xa3 25.¢h1 (25.¥xh6 £a2 26.¦c1 ¤d3! wins the c2-pawn) 25...£e7 26.¥xh6 ¦d8 27.¦e1 ¦d2!?„ 16.a3 c4 (16...¦b8 17.d4) 17.dxc4 ¦xd1 18.¦xd1 bxc4 19.¥a2 (19.¥a4 ¤h5 20.£f5 g6 21.£h3 f5) 19...¤h5 20.£f5 g6 21.£h3 ¦b8 (21...¦d8 22.¦xd8† £xd8 23.£f1 c3 24.bxc3 £f6; 21...£f6 22.¢h1 a5 23.£f1 a4) 22.b3 cxb3 23.¥xb3 c5 24.£f1 (24.¥d5 £f6)
24...¦c8 25.¥d5 £h4„ 16...a5 17.a3 17.a4 deprives the bishop of the a4-square and basically offers Black an additional tempo. 17...c4 18.dxc4 ¦xd1 (another way to use the extra tempo is 18...bxc4 19.¥a2 c5, preventing ¥d4) 19.¦xd1 bxc4 20.¥a2 g6= 17...c4 18.dxc4 ¦xd1 19.¦xd1 a4 20.¥a2 bxc4 21.¥d4 21.£g3 g6 (21...¦e8 22.¥d4; 21...c3!?) 22.f4? (22.¥g5 £e6 …...¤h5, ...f6; 22.¥d4 ¦d8; 22.¥f4 ¤h5 23.£g5 f6 …...¤xf4 and ...g5) 22...¤xe4! 23.£g2 ¤d7 24.¦xd7 (24.¥xc4? ¤d6–+) 24...£xd7 25.£xe4 ¦e8 26.£f3 £f5³ 21...¦d8 22.¦d2 ¤h5 23.£e3 g6 24.¥c3 White can win a pawn after 24.¥xe5 ¦xd2 25.£xd2 £xe5, but his kingside weaknesses and lack of harmony prevent him from keeping both wings under control. 26.£c3 (26.¥xc4 £xb2³; 26.c3 £b5 27.£e2 ¤f4 28.£xc4 £d7 29.£d4 £h3=) 26...£g5 27.¥xc4 £c1† 28.¢g2 ¤f4† 29.¢f2 g5©
24...¦xd2 25.¥xd2 £e6 26.¥c3 £f6 27.£f2 27.¥d4 ¤f4 27.¥xc4? ¤xc4 ×£e3 27...£f4 Or 27...£g5 when after 28.£d2!? Black should refrain from ‘winning’ the f3-pawn. In the absence of queens, White’s a-pawn will be impossible to stop (after ¥xc4 and b3). 28...£f6! 28.¥d2 £f6= 29.f4?! g5 30.¥c3 ¤xf4 31.¥xc4 £d6 32.¥f1 c5³ Black will improve his kingside position slowly, with ...¢g7-g6, h5, g4 putting the enemy king in some danger. Placed on stable dark squares, the knights are not weaker than the bishops.
Max Lange Attack The lines cover early deviations on the Max Lange Attack: table of theory on page 135
This chapter would not be complete without taking into account two earlier deviations. I am not sure whether they are directly related to Max Lange’s (and, later, Marshall’s) original idea, but since the structure is very much the same, I have decided to examine them here rather than in the chapter dedicated to the Two Knights Defence.
1222222223 4t+ Wl+ T5 4OoO +oOo5 4 +m+vP +5 4+ V + + 5 4 +oO + +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4RnBqR K 5 7888888889 So far we have focused only on 9.¤g5, but we have not discussed the objective merits of moving an already developed piece while the opposite wing is undeveloped. White’s justification is that after the more or less forced 9...£d5 (there was a very strong threat against e6), he can initiate queenside development with a knight move towards the centre (10.¤c3), which is entirely in accordance with general principles. If we take into account that ¤c3 will be with tempo, there is little doubt left about the correctness of 9.¤g5. Nevertheless, it is hardly surprising that analysts have searched for other ways to develop.
9.fxg7 ¦g8 10.¥g5 This also wins a tempo, without having to move the f3-knight for a second time. Any queen move would leave her exposed after either ¤c3 or ¤bd2, while Black still cannot castle long. Therefore, Black is practically forced to answer: 10...¥e7 But after: 11.¥xe7 Black faces a choice.
1222222223 4t+ Wl+t+5 4OoO BoPo5 4 +m+v+ +5 4+ + + + 5 4 +oO + +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4Rn+qR K 5 7888888889 Should he give up the d4-pawn or the right to castle? 11...£xe7! This is the correct answer! Practice has shown that 11...¢xe7?! fails to preserve the integrity of Black’s impressive centre, while leaving the king insecure. White’s strongest continuation is: 12.¦e4 (12.¤bd2 is less dangerous. For instance, 12...£d5 13.b3 cxb3 14.axb3 ¦xg7 15.¤e4 and now in Müller – M. Hoffman, Germany 2006, Black should have unpinned his bishop with 15...¢f8 when White’s
compensation for the pawn remains within bearable limits.) 12...d3 13.¤bd2² Black’s central pawns will soon disappear, opening files for White’s major pieces, while Black’s coordination is rather poor. 12.¤xd4 ¦d8! The only favourable way to pin the knight. After 12...0–0–0?! the black queen remains undefended, allowing 13.¤xc6 bxc6 14.£f3±. 13.c3 ¤xd4 14.cxd4 ¦xg7 15.¤c3 ¢f8!?
1222222223 4 + T L +5 4OoO WoTo5 4 + +v+ +5 4+ + + + 5 4 +oP + +5 4+ N + + 5 4pP + PpP5 4R +qR K 5 7888888889
White is slightly better coordinated, but the queenside and central pawn configuration favours Black. Besides, the threats along the g-file should not be underestimated. The position remains complicated with approximately equal chances. This variation does not look dangerous for Black, but White has a trickier move order at his disposal. Instead of checking with the rook on the 8th move, he can immediately play: 8.fxg7 ¦g8 9.¥g5 It is easy to establish that 9...¥e7 is no longer satisfactory. After 10.¥xe7 £xe7 White can capture on d4 without fearing the pin along the d-file. From this point of view the absence of the moves 8.¦e1† and 8...¥e6 clearly favours White. If Black captures with the king then 8.¦e1† would just transpose to a previously mentioned line that is unfavourable for Black.
However, 9...¥e7 is not forced anymore. Without a bishop hanging on e6, Black can play: 9...f6!?
1222222223 4t+vWl+t+5 4OoO + Po5 4 +m+ O +5 4+ V + B 5 4 +oO + +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4Rn+q+rK 5 7888888889
This looks precarious: Black willingly gives up the right to castle and weakens several light squares. However, there are a few elements that justify his decision. First of all, the light squares will be relatively easy to defend, because only one light-squared bishop remains and it belongs to Black. In addition, White's development is incomplete, and avoiding an exchange of darksquared bishops has left Black's domination in the centre unchallenged. Finally, the slightly awkward advance of the f-pawn is simply a result of a process of elimination. Black is worse after either a queen move or ...¥e7, which leaves him with just one possibility. As for the safety of the king, the following line is quite surprising. 10.¦e1† ¢f7 11.¥h6 White has defended his far advanced pawn and is ready to start an attack with ¤h4 and £h5. 11...¢g6! Much better than 11...¥f5?! 12.¤h4 ¥g6 13.£f3! ¦e8 14.¤d2². My confidence in the ‘process of elimination’ increased abruptly when I discovered that the exotic 11...¢g6 was playable. White cannot afford to lose the bishop
and/or the g7-pawn, which forces him to play: 12.£c1 when after 12...£d5 Black’s better development, superb centralization and pair of bishops compensate for the relatively vulnerable situation of the king.
1222222223 4t+v+ +t+5 4OoO + Po5 4 +m+ OlB5 4+ Vw+ + 5 4 +oO + +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4RnQ R K 5 7888888889
Black is not worse. However, this does not exhaust the subject. Once again, White can do better than mechanically checking on e1, which only improves the position of the black king, as we have just seen. The immediate 10.¥h6! is far more dangerous.
1222222223 4t+vWl+t+5 4OoO + Po5 4 +m+ O B5 4+ V + + 5 4 +oO + +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4pPp+ PpP5 4Rn+q+rK 5 7888888889
Now 10...¢f7? is bad because of 11.¤h4, threatening £h5†, and if 11...£d5 then 12.¤c3 with a winning attack. Black should prepare to castle long: 10...¥e6 11.¦e1 £e7 12.£e2 ¥f7 White’s attack is considerably slowed down because of the impossibility of activating the queenside pieces in an efficient way. The c3square is denied to the knight, while the d-file is not available to the rook. White can force a repetition of moves with 13.£d2, or develop slowly with 13.¤bd2 when after 13...0–0–0 the position remains complicated and with chances for both sides.
1222222223 4 +lT +t+5 4OoO WvPo5 4 +m+ O B5 4+ V + + 5 4 +oO + +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4pPpNqPpP5 4R + R K 5 7888888889
The character of the fight is to a certain extent similar to that from the ‘genuine’ Max Lange Attack. However, I will mention some small differences that favour Black: White's knights do not enjoy stability on e4, while Black has managed to retain the bishop pair.
Theory 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥c4 ¥c5 4.0–0 ¤f6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4 8.fxg7 ¦g8 9.¥g5 f6!? 10.¦e1† ¢f7 11.¥h6 11.¥h4?! ¢xg7! 12.¤bd2 £d5³ The spectacular 11.¤e5† ¤xe5 12.¦xe5 leaves White’s pieces hanging after 12...¥e7! (12...fxg5 13.¦xc5 ¥e6 was Slingerland – Turov, Dieren 2005, and now 14.£f3† ¢xg7 15.£xb7²) However, White has sufficient resources to force a draw. 13.£h5† ¢xg7 14.£h6† ¢f7! (14...¢h8? 15.¦xe7 £xe7 16.¥xf6†+–) 15.£xh7† ¦g7 16.£h5† ¦g6! (16...¢g8? 17.¥xf6 ¥xf6 18.¦e8†+-) 17.£h7† ¦g7 18.£h5† ¦g6 ½–½ Alekhine – Fryganas, Paris 1931. 11...¢g6! 11...¥f5?! 12.¤h4 ¥g6 13.£f3! ¦e8 14.¤d2² 12.£c1 12.£d2?! ¥b4 12.¥f4!? ¢xg7 13.¤bd2 ¢h8!? 14.¤xc4 £d5 15.¤cd2 ¥f5 16.c3 ¥b6÷ 12...£d5 13.c3!? White threatens to make the c3-square available for his knight, which practically forces Black to block the centre. 13.£f4?! ¥d6 14.¤h4† ¢f7 15.£d2 ¥d7³ 13.¤h4† ¢f7 (Believe it or not, 13...¢h5!? seem to be playable, too. Now 14.£f4 £d6 leads nowhere, while 14.g3 ¤e5 15.¥f4 ¦xg7 16.¤d2 ¦e7 leaves White with problems developing his attack. For instance: 17.£d1† ¥g4 18.f3 d3† 19.¢g2 ¤g6 Personally, I consider this variation more of a curiosity rather than a suitable over-the board method of play.) 14.¤d2 (14.£f4?! ¥d6!³ 15.£f3 £xf3 16.¤xf3 ¢g6µ) 14...£h5! 15.¤df3 (15.¤e4 £xh4 16.¤xc5 ¢g6 17.¥f4 ¦xg7÷ 18.¦e8?! ¢f7! [……¦xg2] 19.¥g3 £g5 and White’s pieces are hanging) 15...¥d6 (15...¦xg7 is premature because of 16.¥xg7 ¢xg7 17.£f4 ¥d6 18.£e4±) 16.£d2 (16.¥f4
¦xg7 17.¥xd6 cxd6 18.£f4 ¥h3 19.g3 ¦d8³ 20.¤xd4?! ¦g4 21.¤xc6 ¦xf4 22.¤xd8† ¢f8 23.gxf4 £xh4µ …24.¦e3 £g4† 25.¦g3 £d7 26.¤xb7 ¥f5 27.¤a5 £b5–+; 16.h3 ¥d7 17.g4? ¥xg4 18.hxg4 £xg4† with a split: 19.¢h1 £h3† 20.¢g1 ¦xg7!† 21.¥xg7 ¦g8!–+ or 19.¢f1 £h3† 20.¢e2 ¦ae8† 21.¢d2 c3†!‚) 16...¥d7 17.c3 (17.h3 c3!?; 17.¦ad1 ¦ae8÷) 17...d3 18.b3 b5÷ Black has consolidated his centre and will play ...¦xg7 soon, with excellent compensation for the exchange. His bishops are much better placed than the enemy knights. 13...d3 14.¤h4† ¢f7 14...¢h5?! is worse now because of 15.£f4! ¥d6 (15...£d6?! fails to 16.£xc4, which was not possible in the similar line without the moves c3 and ...d3) 16.£xf6 ¥xh2† 17.¢xh2 £d6† 18.£xd6 cxd6 19.¥f4 ¢xh4 20.¥xd6 ¦xg7 21.¤d2² 15.¤d2 £h5 16.¤df3 White has achieved some stability on the kingside, but the whole set-up looks a bit rigid. 16...¥d6 17.b3 17.¦e4 ¥d7 18.¦xc4 ¦ge8ƒ 17...b5 18.g3 18.a4 ¤e5! 18...¥d7³ Black has completed his development and threatens ...¦xg7. 19.a4?! This attempt to question Black’s superiority in the centre is unsound. 19...cxb3 20.axb5 £xb5 21.c4 £h5! 21...b2 22.cxb5 bxc1£ 23.¦exc1 ¤e5 24.¤d4÷ 22.¦b1 ¦ab8 23.£d2 ¦gd8! 24.c5 ¥e5 25.¤xe5† 25.¥g5 ¢xg7 26.£xd3 ¥h3 27.£e4 ¥c3! 28.£xc6 fxg5 29.£xc7† ¢g8!–+ 25...¤xe5 26.¥f4 ¥c6µ
Line 2 (instead of 10.¦e1†) 10.¥h6! ¥e6 10...¢f7? 11.¤h4 £d5 12.¤c3+– 10...¥f5?! 11.¦e1† ¢f7 12.¤h4 ¥g6 13.£f3!² 11.¦e1 £e7 12.£e2 12.¤bd2 0–0–0 13.¤xc4 £f7³ 12...¥f7 13.¤bd2 13.£d2 wins some time for the activation of the queen, but temporarily blocks the knight’s development. 13...¥e6 14.£f4 (14.£e2 ¥f7=) 14...0–0–0 15.¤bd2 £f7 16.£e4 ¥d5 17.£xh7 ¢b8 18.£f5 ¥b4 Black has put both enemy knights under pressure. He will eventually sacrifice an exchange on g7, with strong threats against the kingside. 13.£xe7† ¥xe7 14.c3 (14.¤bd2 0–0–0 transposes to the main line) 14...d3 15.¤bd2 ¥d5! …...¢f7 13.£f1 leaves the d2-square available, but releases the pressure against the d4-pawn, allowing: 13...¤e5! 14.¤bd2 0–0–0„ 15.¤xe5 fxe5 16.¤e4 £e6 17.¤g5 £g6 18.¤xf7 £xf7 19.¦xe5 ¥d6 20.¦a5 (20.¦e4 ¥xh2† 21.¢xh2 £h5† 22.¢g1 £xh6 23.£xc4 £xg7=) 20...£g6 21.£c1 ¦de8³ 22.¦xa7?! ¢b8 23.¦a4 (23.¦a5? ¥b4!–+) 23...¦e6µ 24.¥f4? ¥xf4 25.£xf4 £e8–+ 13...0–0–0 14.£e4 White tries to maintain the tension. 14.£xe7 ¥xe7 15.¤e4 ¦d5, with the threat ...¦h5, wins a tempo for Black compared to the main line. 14...£xe4 Black could apply the same method with 14...¥g6. For instance, if 15.£g4† £d7 16.£xd7† ¦xd7 17.¤e4 ¥e7 he would have the extra tempo ...¦xd7, enabling ...¤d8-f7. However, this variation is not forced. The continuation from the main line restricts White’s options more. 15.¤xe4 ¥e7 16.¦ad1 ¦d5 …...¦h5
17.¤g3 17.g4 ¥g6 18.¤h4?! ¤e5³ 17...¥g6÷ White cannot bring new forces to support the far advanced pawn. The position is dynamically balanced. Line 3 (instead of 9.¥g5) 9.fxg7 ¦g8 10.¥g5 ¥e7 11.¥xe7 £xe7! 11...¢xe7?! 12.¦e4 (12.¤bd2 £d5 13.b3 cxb3 14.axb3 ¦xg7 15.¤e4, Müller – M. Hoffman, Germany 2006, 15...¢f8!) 12...d3 13.¤bd2² 12.¤xd4 ¦d8! 12...0–0–0?! 13.¤xc6 bxc6 14.£f3± 13.c3 White’s attempt to avoid pawn weaknesses with 13.¦e4 looks highly artificial. Two of his pieces are still on their initial squares, while the developed rook becomes vulnerable in the centre. The complications initiated with 13...¦xg7 14.¤c3 ¦xg2†!? are not entirely clear. After the more or less forced variation 15.¢xg2 ¥d5 16.£g4 ¥xe4† 17.¤xe4 ¤xd4 18.¦e1 ¤e6 White’s position looks more pleasant, despite the missing pawn. Black should play the more restrained 13...£f6, increasing the pressure in the centre. 13...¤xd4 14.cxd4 ¦xg7 15.¤c3 ¢f8!? 15...£g5?! 16.£f3 c6 17.¤e4± 16.£f3 16.£a4 ¦xd4 …17.£xa7 ¦xg2†! 18.¢xg2 £g5† 19.¢h1 ¥d5† 20.¦e4 ¥xe4† 21.¤xe4 ¦xe4 22.£xb7 £f5 23.£a8† ¢e7 24.£a3† with a probable draw. 16.¦e4 £g5 17.£f3 (17.g3 c5 …...¥f5) 17...¥g4 18.£g3 ¥f5 19.¦e5 £h5 20.£f4 £g4 21.£xg4 ¥xg4 22.¦ae1 ¦g6= 16...c6 16...¦xd4?! 17.£xb7 17.¦e4 ¦g6 18.¦ae1 £f6=
Chapter 7
The Evans Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥c4 ¥c5 4.b4
From the rich inheritance of the great masters of the 19th century, the Evans Gambit occupies a special place. Our forefathers’ brilliant combinations, their imaginative attacking plans and even certain endgame analysis have entered forever into the thesaurus of chess, nobody can argue about that. However, the chance that an opening system invented long before the formulation of the principles of positional play should preserve its viability almost two centuries after its birth looks much more problematic. And yet, this is precisely the case with the Evans Gambit. “The most wonderful of the openings”, as it was called by Adolf Anderssen,
was thought up by Captain William Davies Evans around 1824 during one of his regular sea voyages. Having been the favourite weapon of such outstanding players as Anderssen, Morphy and Chigorin, the gambit fell into oblivion for almost a century. It wasn’t until 1995 that the great champion Kasparov unearthed this formidable weapon to crush Anand and Piket. Even though the 13th World Champion never repeated the experiment after that, his choice speaks volumes about the soundness of the whole system. Recently, I read a comment claiming that computer assistance will enable the definitive refutation of such openings as, among others, the Evans Gambit and (no kidding!) the Marshall Attack. I believe there is too much lack of respect for human intelligence in this statement. If several of the greatest players in chess history employed a certain variation regularly, computers will most likely prove their correctness, if only they are used properly. It is precisely because of such negative comments that this chapter is structured in a different way from the others. Instead of focusing on making the whole variation playable for Black, I have first tried to illustrate what a formidable weapon it is for White! First of all, we have to understand why such an early pawn sacrifice should be viable at all.
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
120
Beating the Open Games
Did Black do anything wrong to deserve such treatment? In a certain way he did. Moving the king’s bishop while the knight is on its initial square still is a slight violation of one of the basic rules of development. This should not be enough to put Black in trouble, but it certainly offers White plenty of ideas. It is quite symptomatic that in the Evans Gambit Black has problems with the proper development of his king’s knight. What does White get in exchange for the sacrificed pawn? First of all, after 4...¥xb4 he gets a vital tempo for preparing the occupation of the centre with 5.c3 ¥a5 6.d4 Black has problems consolidating his e5pawn. After 6…d6 White has the strong 7.£b3, practically forcing the awkward 7…£d7, which places the queen in front of the bishop. White usually continues with 8.dxe5, opening the position in his favour. However, Black can play 6…exd4 when the generally desirable 8.cxd4 is impossible as yet because the c-pawn is pinned. Capturing with the knight is quite illogical now, because it gives up the idea of building a strong pawn centre. Therefore, 7.0–0 renewing the threat of cxd4 is better, which leads us to a first critical moment.
White is two pawns down already, but has managed to open several lines and diagonals and threatens to put the black position under strong pressure with such moves as ¥a3, £b3, e5 or ¤g5. Black faces a choice regarding the evolution of the structure in the centre, which is tightly connected with that of the material balance. He can return one pawn immediately with a) 7...¥b6, aiming for a solid position after 8.cxd4 d6, or, on the contrary, increase his material advantage with the greedy b) 7...dxc3. There is also a more balanced approach, to leave the situation in the centre as it is and proceed with the development of the kingside with either c) 7...¤f6 or d) 7...¤ge7. Although play tends to become very concrete in the near future, choices are difficult to make only on the basis of calculation, because the position might be just too complicated for that. General considerations should be taken into account, too. On general grounds, I would discard a) and b) as being too cooperative. The former allows White to build up his centre while the latter leads to an increment of his advance in development. However, this would mean falling into the other extreme. Therefore, I shall give a brief examination of some typical lines possible after the first three moves, in order to support in a more explicit way my final choice of the fourth one for the repertoire. a) 7...¥b6 8.cxd4 d6 9.¤c3 We have reached one of the classic tabiyas of the Evans Gambit. As compensation for the sacrificed pawn, White is one tempo ahead in development (considering the fact that it is Black's turn to move). From this point of view, we can consider that the balance is more or less even, but there is an additional element that slightly inclines it in White's favour: his strong and mobile pawn centre. This detail makes it difficult for Black to continue his development with natural moves.
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
The most desirable continuation would be 9...¤f6, placing the knight on the most active square, but this allows White to obtain a strong attack with 10.e5. For instance 10...dxe5 11.¥a3 ¥xd4 12.£b3‚ and Black’s king is helpless. Another natural move would be 9...¥g4 increasing the pressure against the white centre, but after 10.¥b5! Black is short of just one tempo to get rid of the pin by castling. Instead, 10...¢f8 11.¥xc6 bxc6 12.e5! followed by ¥a3 leaves him struggling in a position where it seems that White’s advantage in development tends to increase. 9...¤a5!? Since normal developing continuations have serious drawbacks, Black tries to change the course of the game. The obvious aim of his move is to force the bishop to abandon the a2-g8 diagonal, in order to continue his development with ...¤e7. However, White’s position already contains sufficient dynamism to prevent such a peaceful scenario. 10.¥g5 10.¥d3, leaving the knight rather misplaced on a5, is entirely playable as well and should be regarded as White’s best chance if he cannot find an advantage in the main line. 10...¤e7 Theory considers this to be a reliable defence. White is given the opportunity to start a sacrificial attack which, supposedly, does not lead to more than a draw by perpetual. This is
the last moment when Black can switch back to a calmer course of events by playing 10...f6. However, this move has the obvious drawback of weakening the a2-g8 diagonal. After 11.¥f4 it becomes clear that the bishop is not really en prise, since 11...¤xc4?! can be met by 12.£a4† £d7 13.£xc4 when after 13...£f7 14.¤d5 White maintains a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn, as could be seen in several games played by Chigorin. 11...¤e7 looks safer, although it does not solve all Black’s problems. 11.¤d5 f6 12.¥xf6! Not having solved the problem of the hanging light-squared bishop yet, White sacrifices his other bishop in order to open the enemy king’s position. 12...gxf6 13.¤xf6† ¢f8 14.¤g5 ¤xc4 Finally, the knight has put into practice the threat created five moves earlier. In the meantime, White has obtained compensation of another nature. 15.£h5 Dark clouds are gathering around the black king, but there is a long way till mate. 15...¢g7! Bravely fighting for its own life. It suddenly appears that the cooperation of the white attacking pieces is not optimal for creating a mating net. 16.£f7† ¢h6 17.¤gxh7!
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
Curiously, such a great attacking player as Chigorin ended his analysis here with 17.£h5†, forcing a draw by perpetual. Did he not have sufficient energy to look for a continuation of the attack, or did he discover something that appealed to him more in some other line? Hard to say. In any case, the merits of 17.¤gxh7 are not easy to see. At first glance, it might look as if White chaotically concentrates his forces around the enemy king, without causing him any trouble. In fact, White’s coordination is almost perfect now. Several back rank squares are under strict control now, preventing the black major pieces from providing help for their king. Besides, the king is completely immobilised and all it takes for mate is one check. This can be accomplished with the not very obvious advance of the g-pawn. Black’s main trump cards are his two (!) extra pieces, but this might remain a mere statistical detail if he cannot activate in an efficient way his a5-knight or the b6-bishop. 17...¤d2!
1222222223 4t+vW + T5 4OoO Mq+n5 4 V O N L5 4+ + + + 5 4 + Pp+ +5 4+ + + + 5 4p+ M PpP5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889
Only this move, anticipating the inevitable weakening of the f3-square, keeps Black alive, although from a practical point of view making the right choice is anything but easy. 17...¥e6? is not very logical, because the bishop was actually doing a job from its initial square. White can get a decisive advantage with
18.£xe6 ¦xh7 19.¤xh7† ¢xh7 20.¦ac1 ¤g6 21.£f7† ¢h6 22.¦c3 £h4 23.¦g3 (23.¦h3? would allow Black to turn the tables after 23...£xh3 24.gxh3 ¤d2³) 23...£h5 24.£xc4 (now ¦h3 becomes a serious threat) 24...¢g7 25.f4+-. The only game where this position has occurred so far went 17...¥xd4? The main idea is to eliminate one of the enemy knights, but White’s attacking potential, reinforced by the advance of the g-pawn, remains enormous after 18.g4 ¥xf6 19.¤xf6 ¦g8 (It is already too late to bring the knight one step closer with 19...¤e5 because of 20.g5† ¢xg5 21.£g7† ¤5g6 22.f4† ¢h4 23.f5 with the deadly threat ¦f4) 20.f4 ¦xg4† 21.¢h1 £h8 and now White would gain an irresistible attack with 22.¦g1!‚ instead of 22.f5? which was strongly answered by 22...¤e5 in Smith – Clarke, corr. 1978. Remarkably, on the basis of this game, theory sustained Chigorin’s point of view that White should take a draw when given the opportunity. 18.g4 ¤f3† Temporarily taking the g5-square under control. 19.¢g2 With the deadly threat ¢xf3 followed by g5 mate. 19...¥e6!
1222222223 4t+ W + T5 4OoO Mq+n5 4 V OvN L5 4+ + + + 5 4 + Pp+p+5 4+ + +m+ 5 4p+ + PkP5 4R + +r+ 5 7888888889
Now that the knight has caused some temporary chaos in White’s territory, this move,
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
intended to distract the queen from its main job, is entirely adequate. Instead, 19...¤g5 leaves White with a strong attack after 20.£h5† ¢g7 21.£xg5† ¢f7 22.¦ad1 (Defending the d4-pawn and preparing the activation of the rook along the third rank. 22.e5 would lead to unclear consequences after 22...¥xd4.) 22...¦xh7 23.¤xh7 £h8 24.£f4† ¢g7 25.¤g5 (Renewing the threat ¦d3) 25...£f8 26.£g3 and White’s attack (which can possibly be reinforced with the advance of the impressive mass of pawns) persists, in conditions of approximate material equality. 20.£xe6 ¤h4† 21.¢g3 ¦xh7! Very soon the approximate material balance will be restored, with a rather unclear position. Although from a theoretical point of view Black seems to be OK in this line, the course of the game rather suits White’s intentions to get a highly unbalanced game. Any unexpected novelty is likely to provoke a disaster overthe-board, since the position is enormously complicated. Besides, there are several lines like this one, which makes Black’s task of being up-to-date and remembering everything when needed very difficult. b) 7…dxc3 Several top players from the 19th century considered this greedy move to be playable. Black physically removes the potential danger of being crushed by White’s pawn centre and hopes to be able to return some or all of his material advantage in order to complete his development in good conditions. The main drawback of this variation is that it allows White to develop his pieces on the best squares without any special effort. 8.£b3 £f6 There is no other favourable way to defend the f7-pawn, but the queen’s exposed position will be White’s main trump in the ensuing middlegame. The next few moves are natural and do not require any comment. 9.e5 £g6 10.¤xc3 ¤ge7 11.¥a3 0–0 12.¦ad1
Nowadays, we do not often see such wonderful development for White. His main plan is to attack the f7- or the h7-squares, making use of the exposed position of the black queen in order to win time. Black has to react energetically if he does not want to perish with most of his pieces on the last two ranks. 12...b5!? This move was submitted to thorough practical examination during the last quarter of the 19th century. The main figure involved was Zukertort, who tested the variation with both colours. 13.¥d3! White should not allow himself to be distracted from the main plan. 13.¤xb5 ¦b8 14.¥xe7 ¤xe7 15.£a3 ¤c6 16.¤bd4 ¥b4 17.£c1 ¥b7 allowed Black to obtain counterplay in Paulsen – Zukertort, Leipzig 1877. 13...£g4 There are certain subtleties regarding the trajectory chosen by the black queen. 13...£h5 should be met by 14.¤e2 with the threat of harassing the queen with ¤f4 rather than 14.¤d5 which has the same idea, but allows the additional 14...¤xd5!µ as in a game Taylor – Zukertort. White probably missed the fact that 15.¥xf8 loses to 15...¤f4 followed by ...£g4. The idea behind 13...£g4 is to provoke h3, taking away this square from the enemy queen. The importance of this detail becomes obvious
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
from the following line: 13...£e6 14.¥xh7† ¢h8 15.¤d5 b4 16.¥c1 (In fact, 16.¤g5 is also playable, for instance 16...£g4 17.¥c1 ¥a6 18.h3 £h4 19.¤xe7 ¤xe7 20.¥e4 ¥xf1 21.¢xf1 ¦ad8 22.g3 £h5 23.g4 £h4 24.¤xf7† ¦xf7 25.£xf7+- Manko – Alekhine, corr. 1905. At the age of 13, the future World Champion looked less impressive than 15-20 years later.) 16...¤xd5 17.¦xd5 ¤e7? [This loses instantly, because in some lines the a5-bishop is hanging. However, 17...¥b6 does not save Black either in view of 18.¥b1 (…¤g5, ¦d3‚ …£c4) 18...¢g8 19.£c4 when the black king is helpless against the concentrated attack of practically all White’s pieces.] 18.¤g5 £xd5 19.£h3 1–0 Zukertort – Payne, corr. 1884. 14.h3 £e6 15.¤d5 b4 16.¥xh7† ¢h8 17.¥c1 White follows the pattern of Zukertort – Payne. In fact, now that the sphere of action of the black queen has been restricted even more by the move h3, 17.¤g5 looks very strong, too, as Zukertort had the opportunity to feel: 17...¤xd5 (The variation 17...£xe5 18.¥c1 ¤xd5 19.¦xd5 £c3 20.£d1 g6 21.£e2 £g7 22.¥b2 f6 23.£e4+- …¥xg6 is just another illustration of White’s perfect coordination.) 18.¤xe6 fxe6 19.¥b1 bxa3 20.£c2 ¦f5 21.¦xd5 ¤b4 22.£c5 ¤xd5 23.¥xf5 1–0 Young – Zukertort, 1882 . 17...¤xd5 18.¦xd5 ¤e7
This was probably the position Zukertort aimed for. ¤g5 followed by £h3 is impossible now, but White’s position is very strong anyway. 19.¥e4 ¥b7 20.¤d4! Better than 20.¤g5 ¥xd5! 21.£d1? (21.£g3 ¤f5 or 21...£h6 are both still unclear) 21...¥xe4 22.£h5† ¢g8 23.¤xe6 fxe6 with superb play for Black, Hirschfield – Zukertort, London 1881. The difference induced by ¤d4 will become clear one move later. 20...¥xd5 The queen has no favourable squares along the 6th rank, for instance 20...£b6 21.¦b5; or 20...£a6 21.£g3 ¤g6 22.¦xa5±. 21.£g3!± With the knight on d4 rather than g5, neither ...¤f5 nor ...£h6 are possible now. Black will have to give up the queen in rather unfavourable circumstances, in view of a further check on h4, winning one of the black minor pieces. c) 7…¤f6
Generally speaking, this is the most logical move. Black develops the knight on the most active square, taking the e4- and d5-squares under control. On the other hand, we should not forget that White’s whole strategy in the Evans Gambit is aimed at preventing Black from developing in a natural way. This leaves us
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
with an obvious conflict of principle, far from easy to solve by analytical means. My first impulse was to embark on the difficult task of building up a coherent defensive system based on 7...¤f6, but two reasons made me change my mind during the process. First of all, the tree of possible variations is enormously complicated. It does not seem like a practical approach to fill in a considerable amount of pages of analysis in an opening that is a rather rare guest in modern practice. Besides, the more complicated the variations one analyses, the higher is the probability of committing mistakes. I simply felt that 7...¤ge7 was simpler to analyse and explain, while being entirely sound at the same time. The other aspect was of a psychological nature. Recently, Maarten de Zeeuw published two articles in the New in Chess Yearbook series, claiming that after 7...¤f6 (!) White should not even be able to equalise! Such exaggerated optimism challenged my natural taste for the initiative and an advantage in development, as well as my respect for the great classics. Therefore, quite unexpectedly for an author who was about to write a repertoire book for Black, I started looking for improvements for White! Unsurprisingly, I have managed to unearth quite a number of mistaken evaluations. The fact that I have included here some of the most relevant should not be regarded as the intended start of a polemical discussion, but as a warning about the hidden dangers that await Black if he treats the Evans Gambit in a superficial way or if he blindly follows the computer’s recommendations. Nor do I claim that 7...¤f6 is unplayable. What I aim to illustrate is that it might be simply too complicated to make it playable. 8.¥a3 Quite typical for the Evans Gambit: White makes use of the diagonal made available after the pawn sacrifice in order to hinder Black’s castling. 8...d6 9.e5! ¤e4 10.exd6
In fact, 10.¦e1 might be stronger. After 10...d511.¥b5 White gets an extra tempo over the variation 8.e5 d5 9.¥b5 ¤e4 10.¥a3. Here, several moves are possible for Black, but I have picked 11...¥xc3 which is reported to lead to a clear advantage for Black. 12.¤xc3 dxc3 (Or 12...¤xc3?! 13.¥xc6† bxc6 14.£c2 with strong pressure on the dark squares.)
13.e6! White sacrifices a third pawn in order to clear the e5-square for his knight and open the e-file or, if Black so wishes, the h5-e8 diagonal (depending on the way he will capture on e6). 13...fxe6 (It should be mentioned that 13...¥xe6 leads to rather easy play for White. For instance 14.£a4 threatening to win the a8-rook by means of a double capture on c6. 14...¦c8 15.¤e5 ¤d6™ 16.¤xc6 bxc6 17.¥xc6† ¢f8 18.¦ac1©. The black king is out of danger, but the time Black will have to spend in order to complete his development [for instance ¢g8, h5, ¦h6] will most likely allow White to win back the c3, a7 and d5-pawns, when his position would be preferable in view of his strong bishop and the outside passed a-pawn.) 14.¤e5 £f6™ (14...£h4? 15.¦xe4 dxe4 16.£a4±; 14...£g5? 15.¤xc6 ¥d7 16.¤d4±) 15.¦xe4! (The start of a series of tactical blows, revealing the hidden force of White’s position. The elimination of the active black knight was necessary, since after the immediate 15.¤xc6? ¥d7 16.¤d4 Black would play 16...£xf2† 17.¢h1 0–0–0µ with
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
5 pawns for the piece and a safe position for his king.) 15...dxe4 16.¤xc6 ¢f7 (If 16...¥d7 White would not answer with 17.¤d4? because of 17...0–0–0! when he would remain pinned. Instead he would play 17.¤a5! ¥xb5 18.£h5† £f7 19.£xb5† c6 20.£a4² would lead to a promising position for White. Black can hardly defend his numerous extra pawns. Such threats as ¤c4 or £xe4 are quite unpleasant, while 20...0–0–0? leads to immediate trouble in view of 21.¤xc6! bxc6 22.¦b1.) 17.£h5† g6 18.£e5! £xe5 (But not 18...bxc6? 19.£xc7† ¢g8 20.¥xc6±) 19.¤xe5† ¢f6 20.¥b4!² From a formal point of view, Black has a material advantage, but he has problems completing his development. White’s minor pieces are very strong, dominating the whole board, which should be more important. 10...¤xd6 Here I should also mention that Botterill’s recommendation 10...cxd6!? is quite interesting, bearing in mind the following sequence 11.¦e1 0–0 12.¦xe4 d5, when the position remains very interesting. 11.¦e1† ¢f8?! This looks like playing with fire. In their book Play the Evans Gambit, Harding and Cafferty give this move as possibly survivable for Black, which is a reasonable description of the situation. However, De Zeeuw claims that it is White who has problems maintaining the balance now. He also states that 11...¥e6 is sufficient for equality, giving the following line: 12.¥xe6 fxe6 13.¦xe6† ¢d7 14.¤xd4 ¤xd4 15.¦e5 £f6 (15...¤c6 loses to 16.£g4†+-) 16.¦xa5 (This is more restrictive than the move order given by De Zeeuw, 16.¥xd6, which allows the supplementary 16...¥b6 17.cxd4 cxd6 when Black might be doing all right.) 16...¤c6 17.¥xd6 cxd6 Now, we have transposed back to De Zeeuw’s analysis, which is supposed to lead to equal play. However this is debatable. After 18.¦b5² followed by ¤d2 White’s advantage is obvious, in view of the exposed position of the black king.
12.£b3! This simple developing move, attacking the f7-pawn and putting the b7-square under serious pressure has escaped the attention of analysts so far. I believe that it will soon become clear who is fighting for survival. 12...¥d7 Black’s tragicomedy consists of the fact that he cannot parry such a simple threat as ¥xf7. After 12...£f6?! White would get an irresistible attack with 13.¤bd2! followed by ¤e4. 13.¥xf7 dxc3 14.¥d5 14.¥e6 ¥xe6 15.¦xe6 £d7 16.¦e2² is a reasonable alternative. White will soon win the c3-pawn back, completing his development and retaining enormous compensation for the remaining missing pawn, in view of the unfortunate position of the black king. The spectacular 14.¤xc3 ¥xc3 15.¥h5 £f6 16.£xb7 is met by 16...£d8! (the only move that keeps Black’s queenside together) and now White might have nothing better than forcing a draw with 17.£b3=. 14...£f6 Black’s last hope is to keep the c3-pawn on the board. He has no time to defend his b7-pawn with 14...¦b8 because of the simple 15.¤xc3± with an overwhelming lead in development for White. 15.¥xd6†!? The double exchange initiated by this move looks like a slight concession, but it presents
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
the advantage that it allows White to bring his knight into play. The immediate 15.¤xc3!? is interesting, but possibly not sufficient for an advantage.
+ v b + qN
After 15...£xc3 (15...¥xc3 16.£xb7 ¦d8 17.£xc7 ¤b4 18.¤g5‚ looks too dangerous for Black, who is completely tied up) 16.£xb7 ¦d8 17.¥xd6† cxd6 18.¦ac1 (After 18.¦ec1 £b4 19.¥xc6 £xb7 20.¥xb7 ¢e7 White’s position is slightly more pleasant, but the most probable result is a draw.) 18...£f6 (18...£b4? is impossible now because of 19.¦c4! when Black has to give up his queen in order to parry the mating threats.) 19.¥xc6 ¥xc6 20.£xc6 ¥xe1 21.¦xe1. White certainly has compensation for the exchange, but hardly more than that. 15...£xd6 15...cxd6 loses material to 16.£xb7±. 16.¥xc6 bxc6 The bishop has to guard the f5-square. If 16...¥xc6 then 17.¦e5! attacking the a5-bishop and threatening ¦f5†, when White gets a very strong attack. 17.¤xc3 Black is in a very dangerous situation. He faces such threats as ¤g5 or ¦ad1. The only reasonable move is 17...£b4 aiming to chase away the enemy queen. After 18.£d1!
Black has to apply the same method: 18...£d6 Hoping for a draw by repetition. However, it seems that White can escape this pursuit with 19.£c2 £c5 20.¦e3 ¦e8 21.¦ae1 with a strong initiative. Finally, we have only one continuation left. d) 7… ¤ge7 This move gives up the ambitious plans about putting pressure on the e4-pawn and focuses on preparing the thematic break in the centre ...d5. The knight is much safer placed on e7 than on f6 and it covers the important a3-f8 diagonal, too. All of this represents a relatively simple solution to the problems posed by the current official main line. However, this is not yet the end of the story. After: 6.d4 exd4 White can attack the f7-pawn immediately with: 7.£b3!?
1222222223 4t+vWl+mT5 4OoOo+oOo5 4 +m+ + +5 4V + + + 5 4 +bOp+ +5 4+qP +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4RnB K +r5 7888888889
This has never been considered as a main line, which partly explains why I omitted it in the previous edition of the book. In recent years it has served Nigel Short rather well, something I learned from several readers after the book’s release.
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
By coincidence, soon after that I met Nigel in Banyoles, Spain. During breakfast on the first day we had a brief conversation about this subject. I let him know that I had not yet had time to investigate the matter, while he confessed his faith in this variation. When, later that afternoon, we met in the fifth round of the rapid event, I had the feeling that we both had learned something useful. He knew perfectly well that 3.¥c4 was the move to be played (although 3.¥b5 is his main weapon), while I understood that 3...¥c5 would be equivalent to suicide. I chickened out with 3...¥e7 4.d4 d6 and eventually drew, which was more than OK for me as a player, but made me feel very uncomfortable about the whole situation as an author. As in other lines of the Evans Gambit, Black is forced to deviate from the normal course of development. Although 7...¤f6 does not necessarily lose, after 8.¥xf7† ¢f8 9.0–0 Black will need more time than White to regain his harmony, while his material advantage is not big enough to offer sufficient compensation for the inconveniences. Although the early development of the white queen puts Black under immediate pressure, we should note two main drawbacks of this move. By defining the queen’s position so quickly White not only weakens his control over the d4square (in view of a later cxd4), but also exposes White’s most active pieces to a double attack in the event of ...¥b6 and ...¤a5. However, these are only abstract aspects, while the position has a rather concrete character. When I started looking for a reasonable continuation for Black my aim was the same as throughout the rest of the book: to avoid unclear complications where White has the initiative, and to strive for a solid position where the strategic factors tend to prevail over dangerous tactics. I also kept in mind that Black should return part of his material advantage for the sake of completing development. I must confess that I do not recall any other variation in the whole book where I felt that my task was as difficult as
here. In virtually all the ‘theoretically approved’ lines, I would gladly have sat on White’s side. Black has two ways to defend the f7-pawn. 7...£e7 This has the drawback of placing the queen on a vulnerable diagonal, allowing White to develop his initiative with ¥a3 at a later stage. After 8.0–0
1222222223 4t+v+l+mT5 4OoOoWoOo5 4 +m+ + +5 4V + + + 5 4 +bOp+ +5 4+qP +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4RnB +rK 5 7888888889
Black’s main continuation is supposed to be: 8...¥b6 This move looks logical, because it underlines both aforementioned drawbacks of £b3. Black increases his control over the d4-square while creating the threat of ...¤a5. However, with the centre unstable and several of his pieces on the back rank, moving for the fourth time with the same piece is at least dangerous. My interest in 7...£e7 waned when I discovered that there is no way to make Black’s position playable after the desirable developing move 8...¤f6. White simply strengthens his centre with 9.cxd4, threatening ¥a3 and e5, while 9...¤xe4 leaves Black dangerously underdeveloped. For instance: 10.¥a3 ¤d6 (10...¥b4 neutralizes the pressure along the a3-f8 diagonal, but makes the e1-square available for the rook. 11.¥xb4 ¤xb4 12.¦e1 f5 13.¤c3± leaves the black king exposed to a strong attack. 10...d6 drops a piece to 11.d5 when any knight move can be answered by
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
£a4† or £b5†.) 11.¤c3 0–0 12.¦fe1© Black is two pawns up, but several tempi behind in development. Obviously, this line is no reason for White to refrain from the Evans Gambit. 9.cxd4 ¤xd4 The other attempt to question the viability of 7.£b3 is 9...¤a5. However, after 10.£a4 ¤xc4 11.£xc4 Black’s bishops do not compensate for his delay in development and White’s strong centre. One example from grandmaster practice continued: 11...d6 12.a4 c6 13.¤c3 £d8 (naively hoping to stop the advance of the a-pawn) 14.a5! (with such a huge lead in development White does not care about such small material quantities) 14...¥xa5 (otherwise a6 would weaken the c6-square) 15.¥g5 (Black’s bishop is hanging, which forces him to weaken his position) 15...f6 16.¥d2 ¤e7 17.¦fe1 b5 18.£b3 ¥b6 19.e5! White had a strong attack in Sutovsky – Smagin, Essen 2001. 10.¤xd4 ¥xd4 11.¤c3 ¤f6
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4OoOoWoOo5 4 + + M +5 4+ + + + 5 4 +bVp+ +5 4+qN + + 5 4p+ + PpP5 4R B +rK 5 7888888889
Black is one step away from castling, but his overall development remains rather poor. The strong novelty 12.¤b5! yielded White a strong initiative in Short – Nielsen, Skanderborg 2003. I believe that we have sufficient reasons to switch to Black’s other possibility: 7...£f6
1222222223 4t+v+l+mT5 4OoOo+oOo5 4 +m+ W +5 4V + + + 5 4 +bOp+ +5 4+qP +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4RnB K +r5 7888888889 The main merit of this move is that it permits kingside development with ...¤ge7 and ...0–0. True, the queen’s relative exposure allows White to win a tempo with a later e5, but this would just give Black the possibility of a counterattack with ...d6, even though this might imply returning the material. 8.0–0 Theory holds that: 8...¥b6 is best, for similar reasons as after 7...£e7. My personal evaluation remains the same, though. 9.e5! A good moment to play this move. Black has to make up his mind about where to place his queen. 9...£g6 I have tried to make 9...£f5 work. The idea would be that after 10.cxd4?! ¤a5 11.£b4 ¤xc4 12.£xc4 d6! 13.exd6 Black has the intermediate 13...¥e6!, taking advantage of the fact that the d5-square is under control, which makes 14.d5 impossible. However, White can play 10.¤xd4! exploiting the queen’s vulnerable position. He will either eliminate the threat ...¤a5 by exchanging the black queen’s knight or leave Black’s dark squares weak in case of ...¥xd4. 10.cxd4 ¤a5 White gets a wonderful position after 10...¤xd4 11.¤xd4 ¥xd4 12.¤c3 ¤h6
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
13.¥a3!©. Black would gladly return his two extra pawns just to get castled, but this is not easy to achieve under favourable circumstances. 11.£a4 ¤xc4 12.£xc4 ¤e7 13.¥a3
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4OoOoMoOo5 4 V + +w+5 4+ + P + 5 4 +qP + +5 4B + +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4Rn+ +rK 5 7888888889
White has obtained the usual pressure along the a3-f8 diagonal, but Black relies on the weakness of the light squares, with d5 first in line. 13...£e6 For a while I was tempted by 13...£c6!?, but Vali Stoica made my illusions vanish with 14.£e2! (after 14.¤bd2 d6! 15.exd6 ¥e6! Black’s idea is fully justified) 14...d6 (14...d5 15.¥xe7 ¢xe7 16.£b2 leaves Black with problems completing his development. As always, the king’s presence on e7 causes a huge loss of time.) 15.¦c1! An important intermediate move, spoiling Black’s coordination. 15...£d7 16.¦e1! Now, the combined pressure against the e7-knight is very annoying. We can see here that White should not hurry to capture on d6 (for instance, after 14...d5 given above), because Black could play ...¥d8, defending his knight and enabling castling under comfortable circumstances. 16...d5 (16...0–0 returns the material without freeing Black’s position, for instance 17.exd6 ¤f5 18.dxc7 ¤d6 19.¤c3±) 17.¤c3 c6 (After the safer 17...0–0 18.¥xe7 £xe7 19.¤xd5 £d8 20.¤f4 Black has not quite equalized, because of White’s space advantage
in the centre.) 18.e6 fxe6 19.¤e5 with the initiative. 14.d5!? A typical sacrifice to maintain White’s initiative. I would also be worried about 14.¤bd2!? when the exchange of queens would leave Black with the same developing problems, while increasing White’s activity at the same time. 14...£xd5 15.£e2 ¤g6 16.¤c3 The black king was stuck in the centre in Short – Piket, Zurich 2001. I believe that these illustrative lines more or less justify my general doubts about the viability of the bishop retreat to b6. This leaves us with the developing move: 8...¤ge7 Aiming to give meaning to the queen’s placement on f6 (compare this with 7...£e7 followed by 8...¤f6).
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4OoOoMoOo5 4 +m+ W +5 4V + + + 5 4 +bOp+ +5 4+qP +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4RnB +rK 5 7888888889
In several lines given in the theoretical part the bishop will prove useful on a5, keeping the b1-knight under some sort of domination and (sometimes indirectly) controlling the important e1-square. 9.cxd4 ¥b6 I believe that this is the best moment for the bishop retreat. Apart from his intentions to castle and continue his development with ...d6, Black creates two important threats (...¤a5
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
and ...¤xd4). However, he should not hurry to carry out either of them, because this would annihilate the other! It is well known that the threat is stronger than its execution. The premature attempt to stabilize the position with 9...d6? weakens the a4-e8 diagonal and offers White a forcing line to a promising attacking position with 10.¥g5 £g6 11.d5. Black has to work miracles in order to avoid losing a piece to £a4† or £b5†. 11...¤e5 12.¤xe5 dxe5 13.¥xe7 ¢xe7 14.£a3† ¢d8 15.d6! (The hurried 15.£xa5? offers Black an essential tempo to launch a devastating counterattack with 15...¥h3 16.g3 £xe4 17.f3 £xc4µ. Unexpectedly, White is underdeveloped and his king is in greater danger than Black’s.) 15...¥b6 16.dxc7† ¢xc7 17.¤c3± White has strong initiative, Harding – Day, corr. 1974. The mechanical continuation of development with 9...0–0 allows White to obtain a strong initiative with 10.d5! when the hanging position of the a5-bishop will make itself felt in several moments. 10.¥g5! The most energetic continuation of the attack. After 10.e5 £f5 Black will castle and free his position with ...d6, even if this means returning the extra pawn. 10...£g6 11.¥xe7 This early release of the tension fails to trouble Black. 11…¤xe7!
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4OoOoMoOo5 4 V + +w+5 4+ + + + 5 4 +bPp+ +5 4+q+ +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4Rn+ +rK 5 7888888889
12.¤c3! As analysis has shown, White should complete his development before embarking on such forced lines as 12.¤e5 £f6 13.¥xf7† ¢f8, when his position is hanging. I believe that this is a good moment to highlight an essential aspect: as mentioned on more than one previous occasion, Black’s development problems are caused by his inability to play the desirable ...¤f6 without exposing himself to major dangers. We can notice a similar problem for White. His queen’s knight would be best placed on c3, but in order to clear this square White needs to spend a tempo capturing on d4, giving Black the time needed to organize his own development. It is also obvious that White has little chance of success with his knight on b1 and his queen’s rook captive on a1. In the main line given below, the knight will be the last piece to be developed, something not entirely in accordance with the general rules. White’s limitations in the Evans Gambit are connected precisely with this (not so easy to solve) problem. 12...d6
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4OoO MoOo5 4 V O +w+5 4+ + + + 5 4 +bPp+ +5 4+qN +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889
Black has a solid position and his lag in development is not that big. White has achieved a harmonious piece placement, and doubtlessly retains sufficient resources to maintain a slight initiative, based on the fact that Black has not castled yet. However, this does not offer more than plain equality.
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
Instead of capturing on e7, White can play the immediate 11.¤c3! This is a more restricting move order, entirely in accordance with my previous comment about White’s development as the highest priority. 11...0–0 The attempt to transpose to the previous line with 11...d6 leaves Black with some problems after 12.¤e2, threatening to trap the queen with 13.¤f4 £xe4 14.¥d3, and forcing Black to make significant concessions. 12.¤e2
1222222223 4t+v+ Tl+5 4OoOoMoOo5 4 Vm+ +w+5 4+ + + B 5 4 +bPp+ +5 4+q+ +n+ 5 4p+ +nPpP5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889
Apparently, Black is in some trouble. His queen is in danger and he is underdeveloped. However, the exposed placement of the enemy queen and light-squared bishop, together with Black’s extra pawn, offer an elegant and principled solution. 12...d5! By returning the pawn Black wins time to complete his development. The immediate 12...¤a5?! is less accurate. After 13.£a4 ¤xc4 14.¥xe7 ¦e8 15.£xc4 ¦xe7 16.¤f4!© Black is still far from fully developed. 12...£xe4 is also dangerous because of 13.¤g3 £g6 14.¥xe7 ¤xe7 15.¤e5©. 13.exd5 13.¥xd5 simplifies Black’s play after 13...¤xd5 14.exd5 ¤a5 15.£c3 ¥g4 16.¥d2 £f5 17.¤f4 ¥xf3 18.gxf3. After having achieved certain
strategic successes, Black can bring his knight back into play starting with 18...c6³. 13...¤a5 14.£b4 It is important to keep the a3-f8 diagonal under control. After 14.£a4 £d6= White will face problems maintaining his space advantage. 14...¤f5 15.¥d3 £d6= Black has the better structure and reasonable development. White’s slight initiative should enable him to maintain equality, but not more than that. Although objectively speaking 6.d4 is White’s strongest move, there is also a lot to be said about 6.0–0 In the 19th century this move was mainly played to avoid the so-called ‘Compromised Defence’ (6.d4 exd4 7.0–0 dxc3). It is curious that Chigorin almost always castled before occupying the centre. Did such an outstanding attacking player really believe that Black’s greediness could remain unpunished after the sequence of moves mentioned above? Despite the fact that it does not seem to put immediate pressure on the enemy position, it gives the play independent character if Black is prepared to meet 6.d4 exd4 7.0–0 with 7...¤ge7, as is our case. Indeed, after 6.0–0 ¤ge7?? 7.¤g5! Black is in big trouble. For instance, 7...d5 8.exd5 ¤xd5 9.¤xf7!? as played by Morphy. The natural 6...¤f6 is not entirely satisfactory from our point of view either, because of 7.d4. Now, 7...exd4 transposes to a variation briefly examined above, which confronts Black with serious practical problems. Black fails to consolidate with 7...d6. White can develop his initiative with either 8.£a4 (threatening to win one of the queenside minor pieces with 9.d5) or 8.dxe5 followed by £b3 and ¥a3, when Black faces serious problems defending the f7-square. In my opinion Black’s most reliable defensive plan is
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
6...d6 7.d4 Now 7.£b3 is less dangerous. With the f6-square available, Black can defend the f7pawn with 7...£f6 when 8.d4 transposes below. As indicated in the theoretical section, White cannot do without releasing the tension in the centre with dxe5 at some moment anyway. 7...¥b6 This is known as the Lasker variation. Since continuing the development of the kingside under favourable circumstances is not possible yet, improving the bishop’s placement makes a lot of sense. First of all, the queen’s incursion to a4 is completely inoffensive now because of the simple ...¥d7. 8.£b3 is no better because after having cleared the a5-square Black has 8...¤a5! when the capture on f7 would just lose material after 9...¢f8. The main continuation is: 8.dxe5 dxe5 When White can retrieve the pawn with 9.£xd8† ¤xd8 10.¤xe5
1222222223 4t+vMl+mT5 4OoO +oOo5 4 V + + +5 4+ + N + 5 4 +b+p+ +5 4+ P + + 5 4p+ + PpP5 4RnB +rK 5 7888888889
The exchange of queens has considerably reduced White’s active possibilities, adding relevance to the strategic factors. Lasker considered that this position favours Black, because of the weakness of the c3-pawn and the c4-square. This seems like an over-optimistic evaluation. Black is certainly doing fine, but White’s space advantage in the centre offers
him adequate compensation for the structural defects. Maybe Lasker judged the position from the narrow point of view of his own taste and style of play. Generally, he did not mind taking certain risks if he spotted a weakness in the enemy territory, offering him a clear long-term plan of action. Traditionally, 10...¥e6 has been considered Black’s best continuation. Indeed, the exchange of the light-squared bishops favours him strategically, but the tension created causes him problems completing his development. White can play natural moves such as 11.¤d2 followed by ¥a3, ¦fd1 and ¦ab1. In order to re-develop his queen’s knight and connect rooks, Black would most probably need to release the tension himself with ...¥xc4, which would just help White activate his play with ¤2xc4. At a certain moment White could also consider retreating the bishop to b3, when ...¥xb3 would annihilate Black’s structural advantage. I would not rush to claim an advantage for White after 10...¥e6, but I feel that Black is under some pressure. Therefore, I believe that the developing move 10...¤f6 is better. By attacking the e4-pawn Black prevents ¥a3 for just an instant, winning an essential tempo in order to get castled. Later, he would try to release the pressure against the f7-pawn by counter-attacking with ...¦e8, then activate his d8-knight via e6-c5 and only after that play ...¥e6. This sounds a bit complicated, but the instability of the e5-knight greatly helps Black. I find Black’s position entirely playable. In the theoretical part I have examined in detail both of Black’s options, not only because of my respect for the “classics” (who preferred 10...¥e6) but also because of the relative lack of practical material after 10...¤f6. White’s main alternative to the relatively inoffensive exchange of queens is 9.£b3
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
1222222223 4t+vWl+mT5 4OoO +oOo5 4 Vm+ + +5 4+ + O + 5 4 +b+p+ +5 4+qP +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4RnB +rK 5 7888888889 The next sequence is quite natural: White tries to maintain his initiative, while Black calmly parries the threats. 9...£f6 It should only be said that 9...¤a5? does not work now because of 10.¥xf7† ¢f8 11.£d5!±. With the pawns still on d6 and d4 this would leave the queen trapped after ...c6. 10.¥g5 £g6 11.¥d5 ¤ge7 12.¥xe7 ¢xe7 13.¥xc6 £xc6 14.¤xe5
1222222223 4t+v+ + T5 4OoO LoOo5 4 Vw+ + +5 4+ + N + 5 4 + +p+ +5 4+qP + + 5 4p+ + PpP5 4Rn+ +rK 5 7888888889
We have reached the same structure as after 9.£xd8†. However, there are two significant differences. The presence of queens gives play a sharper character with chances to take advantage of the central position of the black king. On the other hand, the pair of bishops can prove a telling factor in the long run.
Let us have a more concrete look at the position. Black’s king is not in immediate danger, but its evacuation will be rather time consuming. At the same time White only needs a tempo to complete his development (¤d2) after which he can start building up his kingside attack. One natural line continues: 14...£e6 15.¤c4 15.£a3† is strongly met by 15...£d6, forcing the exchange of queens and retaining the positive aspects of the position for Black. 15...¥c5 Black secures the a3-f8 diagonal and preserves the bishop from exchange. 16.¤bd2 ¦d8 17.¢h1 ¢f8 18.f4 ¢g8 19.f5 £e8 20.¤f3 b6 21.¦fe1 ¥b7 22.¤ce5
1222222223 4t+ Tw+l+5 4OvO +oOo5 4 O + + +5 4+ V Np+ 5 4 + +p+ +5 4+qP +n+ 5 4p+ + +pP5 4R + R +k5 7888888889
From an aesthetic point of view Black has a wonderful position, but White’s space advantage on the kingside can become threatening. Maybe an experienced Sicilian player would laugh at White’s attack, but I must confess that I gave up the Sicilian precisely because I failed to evaluate the dangers correctly. Computers prefer Black’s position all the way, but generally change their evaluation only when it is too late to save the game. Unfortunately, the practical material available is from correspondence games only, with no relevant examples from over-the-board players. Besides, the almost automatically played
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
13.¥xc6 might not be the best move. Instead, White can continue his development with 13.¤bd2, strengthening the threat of 14.¥xc6 followed by 15.¤xe5, when 15...£e6 can be met by 16.¤2c4 with active play. With his king in the centre, Black is under serious pressure. For instance, 13...f6 would cut the queen off from the left wing, allowing the annoying 14.£a3†. To my knowledge, the position after 13.¤bd2 has never occurred in practice, but the whole line deserves attention. Personally, I believe that Black’s position is playable, but I would prefer an earlier deviation brought into the limelight in recent years by the current World Champion, Anand. After: 11.¥d5 Black can defend his e5-pawn with 11...f6!?
1222222223 4t+v+l+mT5 4OoO + Oo5 4 Vm+ Ow+5 4+ +bO B 5 4 + +p+ +5 4+qP +n+ 5 4p+ + PpP5 4Rn+ +rK 5 7888888889
If White had better development then Black’s position would be just as dangerous as it looks, but with the queen’s knight on its initial position it is hard to take advantage of the newly created weakness of the light squares. In the rapid game Kogan – Anand, Venaco 2005, White went down quickly after 12.¥xg8 fxg5 13.¤xg5? ¢f8!! when significant material losses are inevitable. I have searched for improvements for White on the 12th and 13th moves, but found Black’s position entirely viable or maybe just better. Concluding, Black should not be afraid of 6.0–0, although some knowledge is needed. The Evans Gambit is an opening that should be taken seriously. The resulting positions contain sufficient possibilities for further developments and the complexity of the position should entitle the stronger (or just better prepared) player to impose his point of view. The old ‘Queen of Openings’ is entirely sound, but not lethal!
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
6
7
1
0–01 d6
2
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥c4 ¥c5 4.b4 ¥xb4 5.c3 ¥a5 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
d42 ¥b6
a43 ¤f6
¥b54 a65
¥xc6† a5 bxc6 ¥a7
dxe56 ¤xe4
£e27 ¥f58
exd69 dxc7 0–0!10 £xc711
... ...
... ...
dxe5 dxe5
£xd8†12 ¤xe5 ¤xd8 ¥e6
¤d213 ¥a3 ¤e714 f6
¤d315 ¦ab117 ¥d5 ¤g616 ¢f718 ¦e819
3
... …
... ...
... ...
... ...
… ¤f6
¤d220 ¦e121 0–0 ¦e8
¤df3 ¤g422
4
... ...
... ...
... ...
£b3 £f6
¥g5 £g6
¥d523 ¥xe7 ¤ge7 ¢xe7
¥xc624 ¤xe5 £xc6 £e6
¤c425 ¥c526
÷
5
... ...
... ...
... ...
... ...
… …
… f6
¥h427 ¤ge7
¤bd2 £a329 ¤d828 ¥h3
¥g3 ¥e630
³
15
16
17
£c6† ¢e740
£xc4 ¦e841
³
=/² =
6.d4 exd4 7.0–0 ¤ge7 8
9
10
11
12
13
6
cxd431 exd5 ¥a333 d5 ¤xd532 ¥e6
7
¤g542 exd544 £xd4!46 ¦e1!47 £h449 £xc4 d543 ¤e545 f6 ¥b6™48 ¤xc450 fxg5
£b334 ¥xb4 a337 ¥b435 ¤cxb436 ¤c6
14
£xb738 £a639 ¤a5 ¤xc4
d6!?51 ¥xg5 £xe652 ¦xe653 £xd6™ ¥e6™ £xe6 ¥c554
µ µ
6.d4 exd4 7.£b3 £f655 8.0–0 ¤ge756 9
10
11
12
13
8
cxd457 d5!59 ¤xe5 0–058 ¤e560 £xe5
9
… ¥b6
e566 £f5!
10
... ...
¥g5! ¥xe775 ¤c376 a4 £g674 ¤xe7 d677 ¥g478
11
... ...
... ...
¥b261 ¤c3 ¦ae1 £xe462 £g663 ¤f5
¤c367 ¥a369 0–068 d6!70
¤c3 0–085
14
exd6 cxd6
¥xd6 ¤a5
15
16
17
¥d3 d6
£a4 ¥b6
¦e8!©64 ¦xc8! c6?! ¦axc865±
£a4 ¤xc4
¥xe771 £b3 ¤b272 ¦e873
=
¥c480 0–0!81
=
¤e279 ¥b5† a5! c6
¤e286 exd588 £b489 ¥d3 d5!87 ¤a5 ¤f590 £d6
1 6.£b3 £f6 is likely to transpose to one of the main lines below. For instance: 7.0–0 (If 7.d4 Black can transpose with 7...exd4 or try 7...¤xd4, although there is no need to complicate one’s life with additional lines.) 7...d6
18
¦fe1!?82 £xf3 ¥xf383 d584
=
2 7.£b3 still has no independent value. After 7...£f6 8.d4 ¥b6 White should not delay the exchange on e5 for too long. 9.¥g5 £g6 10.¥d5?! (10.dxe5 dxe5 11.¥d5) 10...¤ge7 11.¥xe7 (11.dxe5 ¤xd5 12.£xd5 ¥e6µ) 11...¤xe7! 12.dxe5 0–0³ Black is well developed and has a mighty pair of bishops.
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
3 This was one of Chigorin’s repeatedly unsuccessful attempts to inject new life into White’s play. 8.£b3?! ¤a5 9.£a4† (9.¥xf7† ¢f8µ 10.£d5? c6–+) 9...¥d7 10.¥b5 c6 (10...¥xb5 11.£xb5† c6) 11.¥d3 £c7 12.¤bd2 ¤f6 13.¦e1 h6 14.¤b3 0–0µ Artner – Gregg, e-mail 1992. 8.¥g5 is completely inoffensive. 8...¤ge7 (8...f6 is slightly illogical. Why weaken the a2-g8 diagonal? 9.¥e3 ¥g4 10.¤bd2 ¤ge7 Isakov – Alekhine, corr. 1907, 11.h3 ¥h5 12.¦e1©) 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.£xd8† ¤xd8 11.¥xe7 (11.¤xe5? f6–+) 11...¢xe7 12.¤xe5 f6 13.¤d3 ¤f7³ … ...¦d8 8.¥e3 is too slow to be dangerous. White should not forget that he is a pawn up, while Black’s position is quite solid. 8...¤f6 Since dxe5 followed by ¥a3 is impossible now, this move is entirely possible. 9.¤bd2 (9.¦e1 0–0 10.h3 d5?! 11.exd5 ¤xd5 12.¥g5ƒ Alekhine – Sorokin, Kiev 1916. Better is 10...exd4 11.cxd4 d5 or even 10...¤xe4 11.dxe5 ¥f5.) 9...0–0 10.£c2 exd4 11.cxd4 d5 12.exd5 ¤b4 (12...¤xd5 would provoke undesired kingside weaknesses after 13.¤g5 g6 14.¤de4©) 13.£b3 ¤bxd5 14.¥g5 Now, 14...c6 15.¤e4 allowed White spoil the enemy’s kingside structure and get adequate compensation for the pawn in Chigorin – Akohangas, St Petersburg 1907. The knight jump to e4 could have been prevented with 14...¥f5. For instance: 15.¥xd5 (15.¥xf6 ¤xf6 16.¤e5 ¥g6 17.¤df3 c6³ …...¤d5) 15...£xd5 16.¥xf6 £xb3 17.axb3 gxf6µ Once the queens have been exchanged Black’s pair of bishops and his extra pawn are more important factors than his structural defects. 8.¥a3 fails to create dangerous pressure along the a3-f8 diagonal. 8...£f6 9.¥b5 (9.dxe5 ¤xe5³) 9...¥d7 10.¤bd2 ¤ge7 11.¤c4 exd4 (11...¤g6 Harding, Cafferty; 11...0–0–0 Harding, Cafferty) 12.¥xc6 (12. cxd4 ¥xd4µ Levitsky & Falk – Lasker, Moscow 1896) 12...¤xc6 13.e5 ¤xe5 14.¤cxe5 dxe5 15.cxd4 exd4 16.¦e1† ¥e6 17.£a4† c6 18.¤e5 (18.¥d6!? £d8 19.£a3 c5 Harding, Cafferty, 20.¥xc5 ¥xc5 21.£xc5 £e7 22.£b5† £d7
23.£c5 b6 24.£a3© £e7 25.£a4† £d7 26.£a3©) 18...0–0–0 19.¤xc6 ¥d7 20.¤xa7† ¢b8 21.¤b5 d3–+ Nicholson – Harding, London 1973. 8.¤g5 is easily parried by 8...¤h6 9.£h5 (9.d5 ¤e7 10.£h5 Now instead of 10...¤g6, which allows White to muddy the waters with 11.¤e6 as in Nielsen – House, email 1995, Black should play 10...0–0! with virtually no compensation for White.) 9...0–0 10.f4 ¤xd4 (This looks a bit exaggerated, but is hard to refute. I would prefer the more restrained 10...exd4 11.¢h1 ¤a5 12.¥d3 f6µ.) 11.f5 (11.cxd4!? ¥xd4† 12.¢h1 ¥xa1 13.f5 might offer some chances) 11...¤c2† 12.¢h1 ¤xa1 13.¤xh7 ¢xh7 White’s attack proved insufficient in Correia – De Pedroso, corr. 1996-97. 8.h3 This is another half-waiting move, preventing the pin created by ...¥g4. Although it does not put Black under pressure in any way, it is worth studying as it can cast some light on Black’s main ‘threat’ after 7...¥b6. 8...¤f6! (As mentioned in the introductory part, with the bishop on a5 and the pawn on h2, this would have been quite dangerous for Black. We shall see that things are different here, mainly because of the availability of the a5-square for the knight and the pressure against the f2square. In practice Black has refrained from this natural move, which is likely to lead to trouble. The most relevant example: 8...£e7? 9.a4 ¤a5 10.¤bd2 ¤f6 11.¥a3 c5 12.¥b5† ¢f8 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.¤c4ƒ Djurhuus – Stefansson, Gausdal 1990.) 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.£b3 White continues in the same way as after 7...¤f6. (10.£xd8† ¤xd8 11.¤xe5 is unsatisfactory because of 11...¤xe4 with an extra pawn for Black) 10...0–0 11.¥a3 (11.¤g5 £e8 12.¥a3 drops a piece to 12...¤a5 13.£b4 c5 14.£b5 ¥d7–+) 11...¤a5 Again this is the move, reducing White’s attacking potential and leaving him in strategic ruins and underdeveloped. 12.£a4 ¤xc4 13.¥xf8 (13.£xc4 ¦e8 14.¤g5 ¥e6µ) 13...¥e6µ Black has fantastic compensation for the exchange. White’s queenside is underdeveloped, his e4pawn is as good as lost and the bishop is hanging.
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
For instance, after 14.¤g5 £d3 15.¤xe6 fxe6 16.¥e7 ¤xe4 White’s king is in great danger. 4 White threatens to win a piece with d5, a5 or, in the case of castling, ¥xc6 followed by a5. This allows White to win some space on the queenside, but not to get really strong threats to compensate for the pawn. 9.a5 The sacrificial operation initiated by this move is unsound. 9...¤xa5 10.dxe5 dxe5 (10...¤xc4?! 11.exf6 0–0 12.fxg7©) 11.¦xa5 ¥xa5 (11...£xd1? 12.¦xe5†+–) 12.£a4† c6 13.¥a3 ¤d7 (Black needs to be careful for a while: 13...b5? 14.¤xe5!) 14.¦d1 ¥c7! (It is essential to cover the d6-square: 14...b5? 15.¥xf7† ¢xf7 16.£b3† ¢g6 17.¦d6†±) 15.¥a2 £f6 16.¤bd2 ¤b6µ Black will soon complete his development with ...¥g4 (or ...¥d7) and ...¦d8. It can be felt that White misses the other rook to keep the king cut off from the queenside. 9.¥d5 ¤xd5! Black returns the pawn, but keeps the better structure and development. 10.exd5 ¤a5 11.dxe5 0–0 12.¥g5 £d7 13.¦e1 dxe5 14.¤xe5 £f5 15.¥h4 f6 16.¤f3 ¥d7 17.¤a3 ¦ae8µ Chigorin – Lipke, Vienna 1898. 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.£b3 is slightly more logical than after 8.h3, because of the additional possibility of questioning Black’s stability with a5, but fails to offer adequate compensation anyway. 10...0–0 11.¥a3 ¤a5 12.£a2 ¤xc4 (In fact, 12...c5 is entirely possible, too, because White’s incomplete development prevents him from taking full advantage of the d5-square.) 13.¥xf8 ¤e3 14.fxe3 £xf8 Black has a great position, despite the minimal material deficit. 5 More or less forced, but quite sufficient. 6 12.£a4 0–0! (12...exd4 offers White the ‘undeserved’ chance to complicate matters with 13.e5, as in Dus Chotimirsky – Salwe, St Petersburg 1905) 13.dxe5 (13.£xc6 ¥d7 14.£xa6 ¥xd4 15.£d3 ¥b6 16.a6 ¥c6 17.¤bd2 £d7µ) 13...dxe5 14.¤xe5 (14.¦d1 £e8 15.¥a3 c5 16.£c2 ¥b7 Harding, Cafferty) 14...£e8! 15.¥f4 (15.£xc6? leads to disaster
after 15...£xe5! 16.£xa8 ¤g4 17.g3 ¤xh2!. Now 18.¢xh2 loses to 18...£h5† 19.¢g1 ¥h3, attacking the queen and threatening ...£f3 at the same time. 18.£xa7 is not much better either: 18...¤f3† 19.¢g2 £xe4 and in view of the threat ...¤e1† followed by ...£g2# White resigned in Urusov – Hardin, corr. 1897.) 15...¤h5 16.¤d3 ¥g4 White has serious problems of coordination. 17.¦e1 (17.£c2 £xe4µ; 17.¦a2 ¦d8 leaves White’s minor pieces hanging) 17...¦d8 18.¥e3 ¥xe3 19.¦xe3 ¤f4 20.h3 ¤xd3 21.hxg4 £e6 with a strong initiative for Black. 7 A logical attempt to maintain a viable position. Otherwise, Black would get castled and retain an advantage because of his pair of bishops and better development. 13.exd6 0–0 14.dxc7 £xc7 15.£e2 was recommended by Zak as an attempt to maintain equality, but 15...¦e8 16.¦e1 ¥g4µ leaves White underdeveloped anyway. 13.£a4 ¤c5 14.£xc6† ¥d7 15.£d5 0–0 16.exd6 (Zak) 16...¥e6µ 8 I believe that this is stronger than Lasker’s 13...d5, which weakens the a3-f8 diagonal prematurely. 14.¥a3 (This move, suggested by Zaitsev, is certainly better than 14.¤d4? ¤xc3 15.¤xc3 ¥xd4 16.£d3 c5µ Chigorin – Lasker, St Petersburg 1895.) 14...c5 Strategically, Black has a fantastic position, but his dark-squared bishop is awkwardly placed, which leaves the situation unclear (compare this with the position with the bishop on e7, where White could simply resign.) 15.c4! ¥b7 16.¦d1 d4 17.¤e1 0–0 18.f3 ¤g5 19.¤d3 £e7 20.¤d2 f5 21.¤b3 ¤e6 The position has been stabilized, but Black risks being left with an awfully passive bishop in case of eventual simplification. A recent top level game where such a bishop was the telling factor is Topalov – Nisipeanu, Madrid 2007. Black’s extra pawn hardly made itself felt. 9 14.¤d4 ¥xd4! (with the centre still under tension 14...¤xc3 15.¤xc3 ¥xd4 does not work
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
out so well because of 16.exd6† ¥e6 17.£e4 £xd6 18.¥a3± with a strong initiative) 15.cxd4 0–0 Black is better developed and has chances to dominate the light squares. The attempt to question his stability with 16.g4 ¥g6 17.f3 fails to 17...dxe5! 18.¦d1 ¤f6 19.dxe5 ¤d5³. 10 Returning the pawn for the sake of rapid development. 11 16.¤h4? This attempt to obtain counterplay by attacking Black’s apparently vulnerable pieces fails tactically. 16...¤xf2! 17.¦xf2 ¦fe8 18.£f1 There is no other way to keep the back rank defended. (18.£d2 ¥xb1 19.¦xb1 ¦ad8; 18.£d1 ¥c2! ) 18...¥d3! 19.£xd3 (19.£d1 ¦e2–+) 19...¦e1† 20.£f1 ¥xf2† 21.¢xf2 ¦xf1† 22.¢xf1 £d8!–+ Attacking the h4knight and threatening ...£d1†. 12 9.¥xf7†?! is interesting but unsound. 9...¢xf7 10.¤xe5† ¢e8! 11.£h5† g6 12.¤xg6 (12.¤xc6 gxh5 13.¤xd8 ¢xd8–+) 12...¤f6 13.£h6 ¦g8 14.¤h4 (14.¤f4 ¤e5 15.¤d5 ¦g6 16.¤xf6† £xf6 17.£xh7 ¤g4 18.¥a3 ¤xf2–+ Lane – Black, corr. 1950) 14...¤e5–+ 15.g3 (15.¥g5 ¤eg4 16.¥xf6 £xf6 17.£xh7 ¥xf2† 18.¢h1 ¦h8 19.£g6† £xg6 20.¤xg6 ¤xh2; 15.£f4 ¤eg4 16.e5 ¤xf2 17.¥e3 ¤h3† 15.¤f5 ¤eg4 16.£f4 ¤xf2 17.£e5† ¢f8 18.¥a3† ¢f7 19.¤h6† ¢g6 20.£g3† ¢xh6 21.¥c1† ¢h5 22.£e5† ¢h4 23.g3† ¢h3 24.£b5 ¤2xe4† 25.¢h1 all lines here by Mlotkowski , except 25...¦xg3!.) 15...¤eg4 16.£f4 ¤h5 17.£f3 £xh4 0–1 Kopel – Grocescu, corr. 1989. 13 11.¥a3 f6 12.¥xe6 ¤xe6 13.¤c4 ¥c5³ Johner – Zauer, corr. 1912. 11.¥xe6 is an obvious concession, allowing Black to activate his play. 11...¤xe6 12.¤c4 ¤f6 13.¤xb6 axb6 14.f3 ¤d7 15.¤a3 f6 16.¤b5 ¤dc5³ Grob – Eliskases, Bad Nauheim 1935. 11.¥e2 preserves the bishops, but loses an important tempo and frees the d8-knight from its defensive task. 11...¤e7 12.¤c4 ¤dc6 13.¥f4 0–0–0 14.¤xb6† axb6 15.¤a3
(15.¤d2 ¤g6 16.¥e3 ¤ge5 17.h3 White covers the g4-square, creating the threat f4, but Black maintains his stability with 17...¤a5! followed by the invasion of the c4-square.) 15...¤g6 16.¥g3 ¦d2 17.¦fe1 h5 18.h4 ¤ge5 19.¤b5 f6 20.a4! (A strong move, overdefending the b5-knight in order to create the threat f4. 20.f4 is premature because of 20...¥c4! 21.fxe5 ¥xe2 22.¤d4 ¥g4³) 20...¥f7 (20...g6?! 21.f4! […f5] 21...¤d3 22.¦ad1 ¦xe2 23.¦xe2 ¥g4 24.¦xd3 ¥xe2 25.¦e3²; 20...g5 21.hxg5 fxg5 Annageldyev – Ivanov, Ashkhabad 1996 22.a5!±) 21.¥f4 (21.f4 ¤g4!) 21...¦d7 22.¦ad1 ¦hd8= 11.¥b3 is strategically consistent, but premature in this concrete situation. 11...¤f6! 12.¥c2 (12.¤d2 0–0 13.¥a3 ¦e8 with pressure along the e-file) 12...¤d7 13.¤d3 f6 14.¥a3 ¤c6 15.¤d2 ¤ce5 16.¤f4 ¥f7 17.¥b3 ¥c5= Olenin – Ovod, St Petersburg 2000. 14 11...¤f6 also deserves attention. For instance: 12.¥a3 ¥xc4 13.¤dxc4 (13.¤exc4 is not dangerous because of 13...¤e6 followed by castling long and eventually ...¥c5) 13...¤c6?! (An unnecessary structural concession. Black’s position seems to be survivable after 13...¤xe4 14.¦ae1 f5 15.g4 g6 16.¤d2 ¤xd2 17.¤xg6† ¢d7 18.¦e7† ¢c6 19.¤xh8 ¤xf1 20.¢xf1 fxg4 21.¦e8 ¢d7.) 14.¤xb6? (It is hard to understand this move. 14.¤xc6! was correct. 14...bxc6 15.¦fe1 0–0–0 16.¢f1² White has unpinned his f-pawn without improving Black’s structure with ¤xb6 and is ready to consolidate his advantage with f3 and ¦ad1.) 14...axb6µ Reinhard – Nebel, corr. 1982. 15 13.¤ef3 ¤g6 14.¤d4 (14.¦ab1 ¢f7 15.¦fd1 ¦e8 puts the e4-pawn under indirect pressure, forcing White to release the tension somehow) 14...¥xc4 15.¤xc4 ¢f7 16.¦fd1 ¤e6 17.¤f5 ¦hd8 18.¢f1 (18.¦ab1 ¤g5!) 18...¥c5= 16 Remarkably, Black’s position remains playable after the slight concession 13...¥xc4 14.¤xc4 ¤e6 15.¦fd1 ¦d8 16.¢f1 ¢f7
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
17.¦d2 (17.¤xb6 axb6 18.e5 was suggested by Harding and Cafferty. Black should probably keep the centre closed with 18...f5 19.¥xe7 as otherwise this bishop could remain passive. 19...¢xe7 20.g3 g5 21.¤b4 c6 22.¤c2 f4=) 17...¤c6 18.¦ad1 ¦he8= Karaklajic – Longer, Sarajevo 1951. 17 It is not easy for White to find the best way to increase his pressure. 14.¥d5 c6 15.¥b3!? (15.¥xe6 ¤xe6 […...0–0–0] 16.¤c4 0–0–0 17.¦fd1 ¦d7³) 15...¥xb3 16.axb3 ¤e6 Optically, White has improved his queenside structure, but his pieces are far from optimally placed. At the same time, the pawns still need some re-arrangement in order to avoid becoming weak. 17.¤c4 0–0–0 18.¦fd1 (18.¤d6†? ¦xd6 19.¥xd6 ¦d8–+) 18...¦d7 19.¥d6 (19.¤xb6† axb6 20.f3 ¦hd8³) 19...¥c7 20.¥xc7 ¢xc7= 21.¦xa7? ¦hd8–+ 14.¦fd1 ¥xc4 15.¤xc4 ¤e6 16.¤b4 ¦d8= 18 14...¥xc4 15.¤xc4 ¤e6 (Chigorin) 16.¦bd1 0–0–0 17.¤xb6† axb6= 18.f4? (² Harding, Cafferty) 18...¤exf4!–+ 19 16.¤c4 (Chigorin, Romanovsky) 16...¤c6 17.¦fd1 ¦ad8 18.¤c5 ¥xd5 19.exd5 ¤ce5 20.¤xe5† ¦xe5 21.c4 ¥xc5 22.¥xc5 b6 23.¥e3 ¦e7=/² White’s space advantage is compensated by Black’s perfect regrouping and the simplified character of the position. 16.c4? c6 17.¥xe6† ¤xe6 18.¤b3 (18.c5 ¦ed8!) 18...¦ad8³ 19.¤bc1 ¦d7 20.c5 ¥c7 21.g3 (21.¦xb7? ¥xh2†!–+) 21...¤e5 22.¤xe5† ¥xe5³ Chigorin – Pillsbury, London 1899. 20 11.¥g5 ¥e6 (11...¤d7 12.¤xd7 ¥xd7 13.¤d2 ¤e6 14.¥h4 0–0 15.¦fb1 ¦ae8= Meyer – De Baere, email 1997) 12.¥d3 (12.¤d2 ¥xc4 13.¤exc4 ¤d7 14.¤b3 ¤e6³ Harding, Cafferty) 12...¤d7 13.¤xd7 ¥xd7 14.¤a3 ¤e6 15.¥h4 ¤c5 16.¥c2 ¥e6= Deambrosi – Canova, corr. 1987. 11.¥a3 ¤xe4 Harding, Cafferty
21 12.¥d3?! offers Black additional time for regrouping. 12...¤e6 13.¥c2 ¤c5 14.¦e1 ¦e8 15.¤dc4 ¥e6 16.¤xb6 axb6 17.c4 ¦ed8 18.¥g5 h6 19.¥f4 g5 20.¥g3 ¤h5³ Malmstroem – Rodriguez, email 2000. 22 After the exchange of one pair of knights White’s space advantage will lose its relevance. 23 11.¤bd2!? f6 (11...¤ge7 12.¥xe7 ¢xe7 13.¥d5 transposes below to the comment to 13.¥xc6, which is not without dangers for Black. 11...¤a5? 12.£b5† ¥d7 13.£xe5†±; 11...¤f6 led to Black’s advantage after a neutral answer in Edinburgh C.C. – Turin C.C., corr. 1911, but 12.£a3 practically forces Black to castle long, which is not 100% safe.) 12.¥e3 ¤ge7 Black threatens to castle short after ...¤a5 followed by ...¤xc4 and ...£f7. At the same time, White has to count with other moves such as ...¥h3 or ...¥d7. 24 13.¤bd2!? has never been played, but offers rich territory for investigation. Black’s best chance to refute this line is 13...¤a5 (13...f6? 14.£a3† ¢e8 15.c4ƒ; 13...¥h3 14.¤h4 £f6 15.¤df3 leaves Black’s pieces uncoordinated. 15...g5 would just make things worse because of 16.¤f5† ¥xf5 17.exf5 £xf5 18.¥xc6 bxc6 19.¤xe5 with an initiative for White. 13...¦d8 14.¥xc6 £xc6 15.¤xe5 £e6 16.¤dc4 offers White a more active position than in the main line.) 14.£b2 (14.£b4† £d6) 14...£f6 Again, the only move that questions the viability of White’s plan. (14...f6 15.£a3†©; 14...£d6 15.¤g5©) 15.c4!? This implies further sacrifices, but it is not easy to find other ways of increasing the pressure. 15...c6 16.¤xe5 ¥c7! (16...cxd5 17.exd5 ¦d8 18.¤e4 £f5 19.£b4† ¢e8 20.¦ae1±) 17.¤df3 cxd5 18.£a3†! (18.exd5 ¦d8 19.£a3† £d6 20.£d3 ¤c6! 21.¦fe1 ¤xe5 22.¤xe5 ¢f8 23.£xh7 £h6µ) 18...¥d6 19.£xa5 ¥xe5 (19...dxe4 20.¦fe1 ¥f5 21.¦ad1ƒ) 20.£b4† ¢d8 (20...£d6 21.c5 £f6 22.¤xe5 £xe5 23.c6† £d6 24.cxb7!²) 21.¤xe5 £xe5 22.exd5© White has only one pawn for
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
the sacrificed piece, but Black has no obvious way to complete his development. If he fails to do so, the centralization of the white rooks followed by the advance of the central pawns might simply crush him. 25 15.£a3† £d6 16.£xd6† (16.¦d1 £xa3 17.¤xa3 ¥e6 18.¤b5 ¦hd8 19.¤d4³) 16... cxd6 17.¤d3 ¥e6µ Ebeling – Rantanen, Jyvaskyla 1987. 26 15...¦d8 16.¤bd2 ¢f8 17.¢h1 £e8 (17... f5?! 18.f4 £f7 19.¦ae1 h6 20.¤f3 ¥e6 21.¤fe5 £f6 22.exf5 £xf5 23.¤g6† ¢f7 24.¦xe6 1–0 Krantz – Schroeder, corr. 1989) 18.f4 ¥e6? (too provocative) 19.f5 ¥d7 20.¦ae1 ¥c6 21.¤f3 ¥c5 22.e5 ¥d5 23.f6 g6 (23...gxf6 24.exf6 £c6 25.¤ce5 £xf6 26.c4± Harding, Cafferty) 24.e6 fxe6 (24...¥xe6 25.¤g5±) 25.¤fe5 (…£b1c1-h6) 25...g5 26.f7 £e7 27.£c2 ¢g7 28.¤g6!! hxg6? 29.¤e5 ¦h8 30.f8¥†!+– SchroederOren, corr. 1988. 15...¥c5 16.¤bd2 ¦d8 17.¢h1 ¢f8 18.f4 ¢g8 (18...£e8 19.¤f3 b6 20.f5 h6 21.¦fe1 a5 22.£c2 ¥a6 23.¤ce5 ¢g8 24.¤g4 ¥f8 25.£f2 £d7 [25...h5 26.£h4 hxg4 27.¤g5‚] 26.£g3 ¢h7 27.f6 ¥c8 28.h3 c5 29.£h4 £c7 30.¤g5† ¢g6 31.¤xf7 ¢xf7 32.fxg7 ¥xg4 [32...¥xg7!?] 33.gxf8£† ¦xf8 34.£xg4± Skotorenko – Ahman, corr. 1976; 18...£h6 19.¦ae1 b6 20.¤f3 a5 21.a4 ¥a6 22.¤g5 £h5 23.¤e5!+– Schroeder – Van der Kooij, email 1998.) 19.f5 £e8 20.¤f3 b6 21.¦fe1 ¥b7 22.¤ce5 ¥d6 In this position the game Skotorenko – Heap, corr. 1988, was interrupted without being adjudicated. Harding and Cafferty suggest: 23.¤g4÷ 27 The aim of this move is to prevent castling short and to invite the enemy king to castle long, which would be risky. The bishop risks remaining out of play, but at least White does not have to worry about ...¥h3 anymore, in view of the possibility of ¥g3. 12.¥e3 ¤ge7 (12...¥h3 is premature because of 13.¤h4 £g4 14.¥xg8±) 13.¤bd2
(13.¢h1 is too slow and allows Black to carry out a refined regrouping plan: 13...¤d8 14.¤bd2 ¤xd5 15.exd5 0–0 16.c4 ¥xe3 17.fxe3 b6 and White’s compensation for the pawn is questionable.) 13...¥h3 (13...¤d8 still deserves attention) 14.g3 (14.¤h4 £g4) 14...¥xf1 15.¦xf1 ¤xd5 (15...¤d8? 16.£a4†! c6? 17.¥xb6±) 16.exd5 ¤e7³ White has insufficient compensation for the sacrificed material. 12.¥xg8?! fxg5 13.¤xg5? (13.¥d5 £f6 14.¤bd2 g4 15.¤e1 ¤a5 16.£b4 c6 17.¥c4 ¥e6 18.¤d3 0–0–0µ White lacks the necessary stability to think about a direct attack against the enemy king. 13.¤bd2 g4 14.¤e1 ¥d7 15.¤d3 0–0–0 16.¥d5 ¤a5 17.£b4 c6 Now, 18.¤xe5 loses a piece to 18...£f6 19.¤xd7 ¦xd7, while 18.¥b3 ¦he8µ leaves Black with excellent centralization, good control on dark squares and an extra pawn.) 13...¢f8!! (13...£xg5 14.£f7† ¢d8 15.¦d1† ¤d4 16.cxd4ƒ) 14.¤e6† (14.¤xh7† ¦xh7 15.¥xh7 £xh7µ) 14...¢xg8 15.¤xc7† ¢f8 16.¤xa8 ¥h3 17.g3 £xe4 18.£a3† ¤e7 0–1 Kogan – Anand, Venaco 2005. 28 The same plan as after 12.¥e3. 13...¥g4 is met with 14.c4 0–0–0 15.¦fc1 ¥c5 16.¦ab1© 29 14.¤c4 ¤xd5 15.exd5 0–0 14.a4 ¤xd5 15.exd5 0–0 16.a5 ¥c5 17.£a4 ¥f5³ 30 Black is not far from castling, while his position remains solid strategically. 31 This is a solid move, allowing Black to carry out a thematic counter-blow in the centre. 32 Black has achieved some stability in the centre and is just one move away from castling and maintaining a sound extra pawn . However, it is White’s turn to move, which makes things less clear than that.
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
33 Since the knight has abandoned the e7-square, this move is quite logical. 10.£b3 ¥e6! 11.£xb7?! (better is 11.¥a3 transposing to the main line) 11...¤db4 12.¥b5 ¥d5 13.¤e5 ¦b8 14.¥xc6† (14.¤xc6 ¦xb7 15.¤xd8† ¦xb5 16.¤c3 ¤c2 17.¤xb5 ¤xa1 18.¥f4 ¢xd8 19.¦xa1 a6µ Botterill) 14...¤xc6 15.£a6 (15.¤xc6 ¦xb7 16.¤xd8 ¢xd8µ Botterill) 15...¦b6 16.£d3 0–0³ Botterill 17.¥f4 ¦b4 18.¤xc6 ¥xc6 19.£g3 £xd4 20.¥e5 £g4 21.¤d2 £xg3 22.¥xg3 ¥d5 23.¦fc1 Schroeder – Harding, Evans Gambit theme corr. 1988 23...c6 24.¥d6 ¦g4 25.f3 ¦g6 26.¥xf8 ¥xd2–+. 34 White increases his pressure. 11.¥b5 is less consistent. Since White has moved for the second time with an already developed piece, Black can also spend a tempo on covering the a3-f8 diagonal with 11...¥b4. For instance 12.¥xc6† bxc6 13.¥xb4 ¤xb4 14.£a4 ¦b8!? (14...£d6 15.¤c3 0–0 16.¤e4 £f4= Sokolsky 17.¤c5² Chandler) 15.¤c3 …¦fb1, Harding, Cafferty (15.a3 ¤d5 16.£xa7 0–0 17.£c5 ¤f4 18.£c2 ¥d5 19.¤bd2 ¤xg2!µ Freidank – Fritsch, corr. 1988 20.¢xg2?! £g5† 21.¢h1 £g4 22.£d3 ¦b3–+) 15...0–0 16.£xa7 (16.¦fb1?! c5 17.dxc5 £d3³; 16.¦ab1 ¤d5=) 16...£d6 17.£c5 ¤d3! Since White is not interested in improving Black’s structure by an exchange on d6, this move drives the enemy queen away from its apparently stable outpost. 18.£g5 (18.£h5 ¤f4) 18...£a3„ Black’s piece activity compensates for the minor defect of structure. 35 This move is barely mentioned by theory books. 11...£d7?! is given as the main line, but after 12.¤e5 ¤xe5 13.£xb7 £c8 (The intended tricky 13...¤f3† 14.gxf3 ¦c8 [forced, in view of the threat ¥b5] loses some material to 15.¥a6² without getting sufficient compensation, mainly because his own king hinders the activation of the h8-rook.) and now, in Kolenbrander – Sogaard, corr.
1989-94, White could have maintained some initiative with 14.¥xd5 £xb7 15.¥xb7 ¦b8 16.¥e4 (16.¥a6 ¤c6 17.¥c5 ¤b4µ) 16...¤c4 17.¥c5 (17.¥c6†?! ¥d7=; 17.d5?! ¥d7 18.¦c1 ¤d6=) 17...¥b6 18.¥c6†². 36 Black should not abandon the blockade of the d5-square. After 12...¤dxb4? as played in Bromberger – Siklosi, Kecskemet 2000, with the hope of simplifying the position at the cost of returning the pawn, White could have obtained an advantage with 13.¤c3!± when the b4-knight is terribly misplaced. 37 Since Black has only one stable square at his disposal (d5) one of his knights is superfluous. Therefore, the exchange offered by 13.¤c3 suits him perfectly, for instance 13...0–0 14.¤xd5 ¤xd5 15.£xb7 £d6= Trapl – Sosna, Czech Republic 2001. 38 White gets absolutely nothing if he delays this capture, for instance 14.¦e1 0–0 15.£xb7 (15.¤c3? is quite hard to understand, since it allows Black to maintain his extra pawn with 15...¤a5 16.£a4 ¤xc4 17.£xc4 c6µ Griffiths – Dale, e-mail 2002) 15...¤a5 16.£a6 ¤xc4 17.£xc4 ¤f4 18.£c2 ¥d5=/³. Black’s active minor pieces compensate for the weakness of the c5-square. 39 White should not rush in to deprive the enemy king from castling with 15.¥b5† since he will achieve this anyway one move later. After 15...¢f8 16.£a6 the weakness of the b3square, not defended by the bishop any more, is exploited by 16...¤b3 17.¦a2 ¤b6 18.¥e2 (the careless 18.¦c2?? led to immediate disaster after 18...¥c8–+ in Ilczuk – Ostrowski, Suwalki 1999) 18...¤xd4 19.¦d2 ¤xe2† 20.£xe2 £f6= Black has an active placement for his pieces and will soon connect his rooks after ...g6 and ...¢g7. White will most probably win his pawn back, but his active possibilities are restricted by the passivity of his queen’s knight.
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
40 16...¥d7? 17.£xd5± Odnorozhenko – Gorbatenko, Kharkov 2004. 41 18.£c2 ¤f6 19.¤c3 ¢f8= Black has completed his development and has a solid position. The mutual pawn weaknesses tend to cancel each other out. 42 This is a more active continuation than 8.cxd4 and leads to more interesting play. 43 White’s main idea is to take advantage of the fact that the h5-square is not controlled by the knight. This can be felt in the case of the generally desirable 8...¤e5 which can be answered now by 9.¤xf7! ¤xf7 10.¥xf7† ¢xf7 11.£h5† with initiative for White. 44 The only consistent answer. Other moves are bad: 9.£h5? g6 10.£h6 dxc4 11.£g7 ¢d7–+ 9.¤xf7?! ¢xf7 10.exd5 ¤e5 11.¥b3 ¤f5 12.cxd4 ¤g6 13.d6† ¢f8µ 9.¥xd5? ¤xd5 10.£h5 g6 11.£h6 ¥e6! 12.¤xe6 fxe6 13.exd5 £xd5 White is two pawns down and far behind in the development. 14.¥g5 ¦f8 15.cxd4 ¤xd4 16.¤d2 ¦f5!–+ 17.¥e3 ¤e2† 18.¢h1 ¦h5 0–1 Estrin – Kondali, corr. 1971. 19.£g7 ¦xh2† 20.¢xh2 £h5 mate. 45 Black should content himself with the fact that he temporarily provoked the obstruction of the dangerous a2-g8 diagonal. Opening it again with 9...¤xd5? would allow White to obtain a strong attack with 10.¤xf7 ¢xf7 11.£f3† £f6 12.¥xd5† ¢f8 13.¥a3†‚. 46 White has no time to step back if he wants to maintain the initiative. In the case of 10.¥b3 0–0 White’s play would reach a sort of dead end. 11.cxd4 (11.¤xh7!? ¢xh7 12.£h5† ¢g8 13.£xe5 ¤f5÷ hardly bothers Black, who has good centralisation and a considerable lead in development, Short – Adams, Sarajevo 2000) 11...¤g4 (11...¤5g6!? Adams) Black has the
better pawn structure and a solid position. This is the last moment when White could try to achieve anything concrete. 12.¥a3 (The pressure of the pair of bishops along parallel diagonals is slightly unpleasant. After the less resolute 12.£f3?! ¤f6!? 13.¥a3 h6 14.¤e4 ¤xe4 15.£xe4 ¦e8µ Black managed to unpin himself and retained a clear strategic advantage in Morozevich – Adams, Wijk aan Zee 2001.) 12...¤xd5! (By sacrificing the exchange, Black solves all his remaining problems. 12...¦e8? is out of question now because of 13.¤xf7 ¢xf7 14.d6†‚. 12...¤g6?! can be met by the spectacular 13.¤e6! £h4 14.h3 ¦e8 15.¥a4±. 12...¤h6 is a slightly extravagant way of covering the f7-square in order to prepare ...¦e8. Certain sources indicate this as Black’s best defence, but I do not trust it. After 13.¤d2 b5, in Johnson – Webb, e-mail 1996, White should have played 14.¥c5! maintaining the pressure. For instance 14...¦e8 15.¤de4 ¤xd5 16.£d3 ¥f5 17.£xb5²) 13.¥xf8 £xg5 14.¥xd5 (A necessary concession. 14.¥a3? is a careless recommendation by Adams. After 14...¤f4!–+ Black’s attack is irresistible.) 14...£xd5 15.¥a3 ¥d7© Anderssen – Mieses, Breslau 1867. Black has a pawn for the exchange, the pair of bishops and an active position. In order to complete his development, White will most likely have to give up his central pawn as well. 47 Again, stepping back would allow Black an important tempo to regroup. For instance 11.¥b3 ¥b6 12.£a4† £d7 13.¤e6 £xa4 14.¥xa4† ¢f7³ Bilguer. 48 Finding himself under serious pressure, Black has to make use of every opportunity of activating his pieces with gain of tempo. In certain cases, the sacrifice on f2 can save the day for him, by decoying the enemy king into a vulnerable position. 49 The best square for the queen. 12.£e4 would allow further activation of the black pieces with 12...¥f5 when after 13.£e2 ¤xc4
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
14.£xc4 fxg5 15.¥xg5 the above mentioned tactical resource 15...¥xf2†! allows him to escape with his own king from the centre after 16.¢xf2 0–0, since the intended 17.d6†? is bad now in view of 17...¥e6†.
Nielsen, Skanderborg 2003) 10.£a4 ¤xc4 11.£xc4 d6 12.a4 c6 13.¤c3 £d8 14.a5 ¥xa5 15.¥g5 f6 16.¥d2 ¤e7 17.¦fe1 b5 18.£b3 ¥b6 19.e5± Sutovsky – Smagin, Essen 2001.
50 Black has to remove this dangerous attacking piece at any cost. 12...¤5g6 13.£h5 fxg5 14.¥xg5 ¥c5 (14...¥xf2† 15.¢xf2 0–0† 16.¢g1 £d6 17.¥xe7 ¤xe7 18.¤d2² Morin – Corbat, e-mail 2002) 15.d6 (15.¤d2©) 15...¥xd6 16.¤d2 £d7™ 17.¤e4 ¥a3 18.h3! a6 19.¦ad1 £c6 20.¥xe7 ¥xe7 21.¥d5 £b6 22.¤g5‚ Morin – Nagley, e-mail 2003. 12...¤7g6 13.£h5 ¥f5 (13...¥c5 14.¦xe5† fxe5 15.¤xh7 £d6 16.¥d3+-) 14.¦xe5† fxe5 15.¥b5†; 12...fxg5 13.¥xg5 ¤5g6™ 14.£h5 transposes to 12...¤5g6.
56 8...¥b6 9.e5 £g6 (9...£f5 10.¤xd4!) 10.cxd4 (10.¥a3!? ¤ge7 11.cxd4 transposes) 10...¤a5 (10...¤xd4?! 11.¤xd4 ¥xd4 12.¤c3 ¤h6 13.¥a3!©) 11.£a4 ¤xc4 12.£xc4 ¤e7 13.¥a3 £c6!? (13...£e6 14.d5! £xd5 15.£e2 ¤g6 16.¤c3 Short – Piket, Zurich 2001) 14.£e2 (14.¤bd2 d6! 15.exd6 ¥e6 16.£d3 cxd6) 14...d6 (14...d5 15.¥xe7 ¢xe7 16.£b2) 15.¦c1 £d7 16.¦e1 d5 (16...0–0 17.exd6 ¤f5 18.dxc7 ¤d6 19.¤c3±) 17.¤c3 c6 (17...0–0 18.¥xe7 £xe7 19.¤xd5 £d8 20.¤f4²) 18.e6 fxe6 19.¤e5©
51 The only way to proceed with the attack. 14.¥xg5 ¥xf2† 15.¢xf2 0–0† 16.¢g1 £xd5µ. 14.¥a3 0–0!? 15.d6† (15.¥xe7 ¥xf2† 16.¢h1 £d7µ) 15...¤d5 16.£xd5† ¢h8µ 52 16.¦xe6? once again allows the b6-bishop to turn the balance in Black’s favour after 16...£d1† 17.£f1 ¥xf2†!–+. 53 White has maintained the initiative until far into the endgame. Black’s chance lies in the fact that the white queenside is still undeveloped. 54 17...0–0–0? 18.¤a3 ¤d5 19.¥xd8 ¦xd8 20.¤c4 left Black without compensation for the exchange in Christiansen – Marin, World Chess Network (rapid) 2002. 17...¥c5 18.¤d2 ¢f7 19.¦ae1 ¦he8= Although White’s position looks more active, the fact that Black is fighting with an extra piece (his king) keeps the balance. 55 7...£e7 8.0–0 ¥b6 (8...¤f6 9.cxd4 ¤xe4 10.¥a3©) 9.cxd4 ¤a5 (9...¤xd4 10.¤xd4 ¥xd4 11.¤c3 ¤f6 12.¤b5!© Short –
57 9.e5 £f5 10.¤xd4 ¤xd4 11.cxd4 is less dangerous now, because Black has not lost a tempo with the bishop retreat. 11...0–0 12.¥a3 (White cannot take advantage of the slight lack of coordination of Black’s minor pieces with 12.£a3?! ¤c6 13.d5?! because after 13...¤xe5µ he is hanging, too, as well as being underdeveloped.) 12...d6! (but not 12...¦e8? which finally allows White carry out his aforementioned idea with 13.¥xe7 ¦xe7 14.£a3+–) 13.exd6 cxd6 14.¥xd6 ¦e8 15.¤c3 ¥xc3 16.£xc3 ¥e6= 58 9...d6? 10.¥g5 £g6 11.d5 ¤e5 12.¤xe5 dxe5 13.¥xe7 ¢xe7 14.£a3† ¢d8 15.d6! (15.£xa5? ¥h3 16.g3 £xe4 17.f3 £xc4µ) 15...¥b6 16.dxc7† ¢xc7 17.¤c3± Harding – Day, corr. 1974. 59 10.¥b2 d6 11.d5!? (If 11.¤c3 Black should refrain from 11...¤xd4? because of 12.¤xd4 £xd4 13.¤d5 £xe4 14.£d3!±, so better is 11...¥g4³. 11.¦d1 ¥g4 12.¦d3 ¥b6 13.¤bd2 ¤a5 14.£c2 was recommended by Lukacs, but 14...d5! destroys White’s centre.) 11...¤e5 12.¤xe5 dxe5 13.f4 £b6†! (13...¥b6† 14.¢h1 £g6 Anderssen – Kolisch, Paris 1886, 15.fxe5 £xe4 16.e6ƒ) 14.¢h1 exf4 15.¦xf4 (15.e5
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
¤g6, planning ...¥f5 and ¦ae8. 16.¤c3? ¤xe5) 15...¤g6 16.¦f1 ¥d7 …....¦a(f )e8 and ...¤e5. 17.e5?! (17.¤c3 ¤e5µ) 17...¦fe8 (17...¦ae8!? 18.¥a3 ¤xe5µ) 18.d6 ¥e6µ 10.¤c3 d6 11.¤e2 (11.¥g5 £g6) 11...h6 12.¥b2 ¤g6 13.d5 ¤ce5 14.¤xe5 dxe5³ 10.e5!? £f5! (10...£g6 11.d5© Kipping – Anderssen, Manchester 1857) 11.¥a3 (11.¥d3 fails to question the queen’s stability because of the simple 11...£h5; 11.d5 drops another pawn without too much compensation to 11...¤xe5; 11.¤c3 ¥xc3 12.£xc3 d6„ allows Black to complete his development soon.) 11...d6 12.exd6 (12.¤c3 dxe5 13.dxe5 ¥b6³) 12...cxd6 13.d5!? (13.¥xd6 ¦d8 14.¥xe7 ¤xe7 15.£a3 ¤g6=; 13.¤c3 ¥xc3 14.£xc3 ¤d5 15.£d2 ¥e6³) 13...¤e5 14.¥xd6 ¤xf3† 15.£xf3 £xf3 16.gxf3 ¦e8 17.¥b5 ¥h3 18.¦d1 ¤xd5 19.¥xe8 ¦xe8© Black is better developed and has a mighty pair of bishops. Besides, White’s structure is in bad shape. This offers Black adequate compensation for the exchange. 60 10...¤d4?! 11.¤xd4 £xd4 would leave the queen somewhat isolated from the kingside. 61 12.¤d2 d6 13.¥b2 £h5 14.¥c3 ¥xc3 15.£xc3 Black’s simplest path is 15...c5 16.dxc6 bxc6 when White’s activity should be sufficient only for equality. 62 This certainly looks dangerous, but Black has many worries anyway. First, there is the permanent threat of £a3, then he must find a relatively safe square for the queen and, last but not least, complete his queenside development. 12...£h5? 13.£a3!+– 63 Possibly not the best square, but I have given this variation for illustrative purposes. 64 The rook’s intrusion is quite irritating, as is the fact that Black cannot immediately fight against it with, say: 65 19.£f4±
66 10.d5 ¤d4 11.¥b2 ¤xb3 12.¥xf6 gxf6 13.axb3 d6³ is at least OK for Black. 10.¥b2 ¤a5 11.£c2 ¤xc4 12.£xc4 d5 13.exd5 0–0³ Black has normal development, the pair of bishops and the better pawn structure. 10.¤c3 0–0 is also perfectly fine for Black, who retains all his threats (...¤a5, ...d6 or even ...¤xd4). 67 11.¥a3 d6 (if 11...¤a5 12.£a4 ¤xc4 White can complicate matters with 13.¥xe7!) 12.exd6 cxd6 13.¥xd6 (13.d5 ¤a5 14.¥b5† ¥d7! and the presence of the queen on f5 obviously favours Black) 13...0–0=. 11.¥d3 forces the queen to abandon the optimal f5-square, but releases the pressure along the a2-g8 diagonal. 11...£h5 12.¥a3 d6! 13.exd6 ¥e6!= 68 Black should not define the knight’s intentions too soon with 11...¤a5?! 12.£a4 ¤xc4 13.£xc4 0–0 (13...d6?! is premature because of 14.exd6 cxd6 15.¦e1 ¥e6?! 16.d5! and Black’s king will be forced to stay in the centre for a while) 14.¦e1 ¤g6 (14...d6? 15.exd6 ¥e6 16.¦xe6!) 15.¤d5© Black is far from completing his development. 69 White tries to inhibit both ...¤a5 and ...¤xd4. After 12.¦e1 Black is not forced to play ...¤a5, which would transpose above. Instead, he can take advantage of the fact that ...¥b6 had created two main threats and switch to the materialistic one with 12...¤xd4 (in fact 12...d6 looks entirely OK, too) 13.¤xd4 ¥xd4 14.¥e3 ¥xe5. Black will return one or two of his extra pawns starting with ...d5, thus completing his development and maintaining at least equal chances. 70 By returning his small material advantage, Black completes his development in a satisfactory way. 71 16.£xc4 ¥e6 17.£e2 (17.£b4 ¤c6!³) 17...¦fc8!³
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
72 Making the e8-square available for the rook. 73 Black has comfortable play. 74 Black should refrain from forced play such as 10...¤xd4 11.¤xd4 £xg5 12.¥xf7† ¢f8 13.¤f3 £f6 14.¥c4 d6 15.¤c3©. White is better developed and Black still has not secured his king. For instance, 15...g6 would be met by 16.e5! followed by ¤e4 with a strong initiative. 75 11.d5 obstructs an important diagonal, allowing 11...¤d4 under favourable circumstances. 76 This is the most consistent continuation. White needs to complete his development before starting concrete attacking operations. It appears that White’s early capture on e7 does not bring an immediate advantage because 12.¤e5 leaves White’s pieces hanging after 12...£f6. For instance: 13.¥xf7† (13.¤xf7? ¦f8µ 14.¤e5? ¥xd4–+) 13...¢f8 The strong threat ...¥xd4, winning tonnes of material, forces White to delay for one more move the generally desirable development of the queen’s knight. 14.¦d1 d6 15.¦d3 (15.¤c3?! dxe5 16.dxe5 £xf2† 17.¢h1 ¥h3! 18.¦g1 ¥xg2† 19.¦xg2 £xf7 20.e6 £f6 21.£c4 ¢e8 followed by ...¦f8 and ...¦d8. White’s king is not safer than Black’s, while he is simply a piece down. 15.¤a3 is not the best way of developing the knight, of course. 15...g6 16.¦d3 dxe5 17.¦f3 ¥f5 18.¥e6 ¢g7 19.exf5 e4³ Black has completed his development satisfactorily. His king’s position is slightly exposed, but from a structural point of view he is fine, as well as being a pawn up.) 15...¥xd4! (15... dxe5 16.¦f3 is unclear) 16.¦xd4 (16.¦f3 ¤f5 leaves most of White’s pieces hanging) 16...£xe5 Again, we can see that White’s lack of development forces him to step back. The generally desirable ¦ad1 is not legal. 17.¦d1 £xa1! 18.¤c3 £xc3 19.£xc3 ¢xf7 Black has a considerable material advantage. White will most likely win one or two pawns before
Black gets completely coordinated, but this will hardly offer him more than chances for equality. 20.£f3† (20.£xc7 ¥e6 transposes) 20...¢e8 21.£c3 ¥e6 22.£xc7 ¢f7 23.£xd6 ¦he8 24.a4 ¤c6³ 77 Black has an extra pawn, a strong pair of bishops and no obvious weaknesses. White should hurry to create some threats before Black gets castled. 12...0-0 would transpose to the next line, but I have preserved this independent line in order to offer a wider perspective of the position. 78 Black undermines the d4-pawn and simply threatens to win a piece with ...¥xf3. The premature 13...a5?! 14.¥b5† deprives Black of the right to castle because 14...c6 15.¥xc6† wins the pawn back for White. 79 The knight would be unstable after 14.¤b5. Black’s simplest answer is 14...¥xf3 (the attempt to immediately question the knight’s stability with 14...a6 allows White complicate matters with 15.a5!) 15.£xf3 ¤c6³ There is nothing that can prevent Black from castling soon. 80 The point is that 16.¥xc6†? loses material to 16...bxc6 17.£xb6 ¥xf3 18.¤f4 £xe4–+. 81 Black has completed his development, but has to solve the problem of his unstable darksquared bishop. The pressure against White’s centre and the hanging position of several white pieces will help him do so. 82 17.h3 ¥xf3 18.£xf3 d5 19.exd5 cxd5 20.¥xd5 ¤xd5 21.£xd5 ¦fd8 22.£xb7 ¦ab8 23.£a6 ¥xd4 24.£xg6 hxg6 25.¤xd4 ¦xd4 26.¦fe1 ¦bb4 27.¦e5 ¦xa4 28.¦xa5= 17.¦fd1 d5 18.¤e5 dxc4 19.£xb6 £xe4 17.¢h1 d5 (17...¥xf3 18.gxf3 would only consolidate White’s centre) 18.£xb6 dxc4! 17.¤f4 £f6! 83 17...d5 18.¤e5 dxc4 19.£xb6 £xe4 20.¤g3±
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
84 19.exd5 ¦ad8! The simplest way to equality. Black brings the last reserves into play. (19...cxd5 20.¥xd5 ¤xd5 21.£xd5 ¦fd8 22.£xb7 ¦ab8 23.£e7 The point behind White’s mysterious rook move is revealed after 23...¥xd4? 24.¤xd4 ¦xd4? 25.£e8†!+–, but Black can improve with, say, 23...¦e8 or simply 23...h6, when the knight does not stand too well on e2.) 20.dxc6 ¤xc6= The position has simplified and the most probable result is a draw. 85 11...d6 12.¤e2, threatening 13.¤f4 £xe4 14.¥d3. 86 12.¥xe7 ¤xe7 13.a4 a5 14.e5 d6 15.¤b5 (15.¦ae1 ¥g4) 15...¥g4 (15...dxe5 16.¤xe5 £f6 17.¦ae1 ¤g6 18.¤xf7 ¦xf7 19.¦e8† ¤f8 20.¤c3) 16.exd6 cxd6 17.h3 ¥xf3 18.£xf3 ¤c6= 12.a4 This tempting move, threatening to trap the bishop, does little for the development in general, allowing a typical central break. 12...d5! (12...a5 13.¤b5 d6 14.d5!ƒ) 13.exd5 ¤xd4 14.¤xd4 ¥xd4 15.¥xe7 ¥h3 16.g3 ¥xc3 17.£xc3 £e4 18.f3 £xe7µ
12.¦ad1 is probably too slow. 12...d6 13.¤e2 White lacks just a tempo to complete his development while keeping the e5-square under control: Black can already dare to play 13...£xe4. Compare this to 12...£xe4 after 12.¤e2. 87 12...£xe4 13.¤g3 £g6 14.¥xe7 ¤xe7 15.¤e5© 12...¤a5?! 13.£a4 ¤xc4 14.¥xe7 ¦e8 15.£xc4 ¦xe7 16.¤f4!© 88 13.¥xd5 ¤xd5 14.exd5 ¤a5 15.£c3 ¥g4 16.¥d2 £f5 17.¤f4 ¥xf3 18.gxf3 c6³ 89 14.£a4 £d6= 90 The simplest solution. 14...£d6?! is bad because of 15.¥xe7!±. 14...¤xc4 15.¤f4 (15.£xc4 ¤f5 […...¤d6, ...¥g4] 16.¤f4 £d6 …...c6³) 15...£d6 16.¥xe7 £xb4 17.¥xb4 ¦d8 18.¦fc1 ¤d6 19.a4 a5 20.¥c5² 14...¥g4 15.¥xe7 ¥xf3 16.¤g3 ¤xc4÷
Beating the Open Games (2nd ed.) 2008 Mihail Marin, Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
Build Up Your Chess with Artur Yusupov The Fundamentals
Artur Yusupov Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
First English edition 2008 by Quality Chess UK LLP. Translated from the German edition Tigersprung auf DWZ 1500 I Copyright © 2007, 2008 Artur Yusupov All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-1-906552-01-5 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychessbooks.com Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK LLP through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Cover Photo: Nadja Jussupow Photos on page 63 reprinted with the kind permission of Nadja Jussupow Photo of Judit Polgar on page 211 reprinted with kind permission of the organizers of the World Championship tournament in San Luis Argentina 2005. Photos of Viktor Korchnoi and Parimarjan Negi on page 211 reprinted with kind permission of the organizers of Corus Chess Tournament in Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands Translated by Ian Adams Typeset and editing by Colin McNab Additional editing: Jacob Aagaard and John Shaw Cover design and generic typeset: Augusto Caruso of Caissa Italia Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
CONTENTS
Key to symbols used Preface Introduction
1 Mating motifs 2 Mating motifs 2 3 Basic opening principles 4 Simple pawn endings 5 Double check 6 The value of the pieces 7 The discovered attack 8 Centralizing the pieces 9 Mate in two moves 10 The opposition 11 The pin 12 The double attack 13 Realizing a material advantage 14 Open files and Outposts 15 Combinations 16 Queen against pawn 17 Stalemate motifs 18 Forced variations 19 Combinations involving promotion 20 Weak points 21 Pawn combinations 22 The wrong bishop 23 Smothered mate 24 Gambits Final test Appendices Index of composers and analysts Index of games Recommended books
4 5 6 8 18 30 44 54 64 74 82 92 100 110 120 128 138 148 156 164 172 182 192 202 212 222 232 244 252 254 262
chapter Contents ü Underpromotion ü Two connected passed pawns on the 6th (3rd) rank ü The pawn phalanx ü The pawn fork ü Mating motifs with pawns
Diagram 21-1 r 7 Diagram 21-2 r 7 202
21 Pawn combinations The famous French chess master François-André Philidor called the pawn the soul of chess. In the chapters on ‘Combinations involving promotion’ and ‘The double attack’ we have already learned something about the capacities of the pawns. These pawns are very important tactical elements, as we shall also learn in this lesson. Underpromotion An especially spectacular tactic is an underpromotion, when the pawn does not promote to a queen, but to a rook, bishop or knight. The last case is the most frequent underpromotion, and is linked to a gain of tempo by check or to a knight fork. Diagram 21-1
Em.Lasker 1900
1.¦c8†! ¦xc8 If 1...¢xb7, then 2.¦xd8+–, but not 2.£xd8?? due to 2...£e1#. 2.£xa7†!! ¢xa7 Or 2...¢c7 3.bxc8£†+–. 3.bxc8¤†!!+– With a winning knight fork. 3.bxc8£?? would allow 3...£e1#. Diagram 21-2
K.Richter – N.N. Berlin 1930
1.¤f5†!? White wants to employ his well-coordinated forces for a final attack on the black king, before Black can manage to bring his extra material into play. 1...¢f6! But apparently Black has found the only way to win. 1...¢e8 leads only to a repetition of moves: 2.¤d6† (but not 2.e7?? ¥xf5 3.¥a4† ¤c6–+) 2...¢e7 3.¤f5†
Two connected passed pawns Two connected passed pawns are much stronger than a single passed pawn, because they can offer each other mutual support. In the endgame a rook cannot stop two connected passed pawns on the 6th (or 3rd) rank (or one on the 7th and the other on the 5th rank). Diagram 21-3 1...¦xa2! 2.¦xa2 b3 3.¦a8† ¢g7 4.¢e2 If 4.¦b8, then 4...c2–+ while after 4.¦c8 there comes 4...b2–+. 4...b2! 5.¦b8 c2–+
21
2.e7! ¥xf5?? A fatal error in a won position. Black was reckoning simply on 3.e8£ ¦h2# and had completely forgotten the motif of underpromotion. The correct move is 2...¥d7, and Black is winning. 3.e8¤#!!
Diagram 21-3 q 7
Diagram 21-4 q 7
The pawn phalanx In the next example, Aron Nimzowitsch made superb use of the penetrative power of a pawn phalanx against the author of Pawn Power in Chess. Diagram 21-4
H.Kmoch – A.Nimzowitsch Bad Niendorf 1927
How can Black break down the blockade on the queenside and conduct his pawns to their much desired promotion? 1...¦b4!! Nimzowitsch sacrifices his strongest piece! The threat is ...¦a4-a2, followed by ...a5-a4-a3. 2.cxb4 a4 3.b5† ¢xb5 The three connected passed pawns simply cannot be stopped. 4.¥a3 c3 5.¦b1 ¢c4 6.f4 ¢xd4 This is the simplest. Now Black has obtained a fourth connected passed pawn! 203
chapter
Pawn Combinations
21 chapter
Tactics 10
7.¢f2 ¢c4 8.¢e1 d4 9.¢e2 ¢d5 10.¢f3 If 10.¢d3, then 10...¥a6#. 10...¥b7 Don’t be too hasty! Black brings his bishop into the game. 11.¦e1 ¢c4† 12.¢f2 b2 13.f5 exf5 14.e6 ¥c6 White has no defence against ...¢b3. For example, 15.e7 ¢b3 16.¦e6 ¥e8–+. 0–1
Diagram 21-5 q 7 Diagram 21-6
The pawn fork The following typical exchanging combination uses the pawn fork to win the piece back and destroy the opposing centre. Diagram 21-5
R.Spielmann – E.Cohn Ostend 1907
1...¤xe4! 2.¤xe4 d5 3.¤g5 dxc4 4.£xc4 £d7³ Black has the bishop pair and stands better. The c6-bishop is particularly strong.
S.Tarrasch – Em.Lasker Berlin 1916
q
7
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥c4 ¤f6 4.¤c3 Diagram 21-6 There is a standard reply to this variation. 4...¤xe4! 5.¤xe4 5.¥xf7† ¢xf7 6.¤xe4 d5 7.¤eg5† ¢g8 is even better for Black. 5...d5 6.¥d3 dxe4 7.¥xe4 ¥d6= Black has no opening problems.
Mating motifs with pawns Pawns are not only superb at supporting attacks, when the occasion arises they can also deliver mate themselves. Here are two spectacular examples. 204
Diagram 21-7 r 7
Diagram 21-8 r 7
R.Skuja 1956
1.¢e3! 1.¥g3? is bad, on account of 1...f4. 1...¢xh4 If 1...f4† 2.¢e4 f3 (2...¢xh4 3.g6! – see the main variation), then 3.¥f2+–. 2.g6! White is aiming for a zugzwang position. 2...f4† Or 2...fxg6 3.¢f4 wins similarly. 3.¢f3! fxg6 4.¢xf4‡ g5† 5.¢f5 g4 6.¢f4 g3 7.hxg3# Diagram 21-8
Moldojarov – Samochanov Correspondence 1974
1.¦g6! White is playing for mate. 1.¦xa5? ¢g3= would only lead to a draw. 1...a4 2.¢e3 a3 3.¢f4 a2 4.¦g3 Threatening ¦h3#. 4...¥e6 5.¦h3†! ¥xh3 6.g3#
205
21
Diagram 21-7
chapter
Pawn Combinations
21 chapter
Exercises r Ex. 21-1
« 7
q Ex. 21-4
«« 7
q Ex. 21-2
« 7
r Ex. 21-5
«« 7
q Ex. 21-3
« 7
q Ex. 21-6
«« 7 206
r Ex. 21-10
«« 7
r Ex. 21-8
«« 7
q Ex. 21-11
« 7
r Ex. 21-9
« 7
r Ex. 21-12
« 7 207
21
r Ex. 21-7
«« 7
chapter
Exercises
21 chapter
Solutions Ex. 21-1
1.g4! But not 1.¦a5 ¦b8 2.g4 ¦b6† 3.¢xf7 ¦b7†=. 1...a2 2.¦h5†! gxh5 3.g5† ¦xg5 4.hxg5# (1 point) Ex. 21-2 1...¦xc2! 1...d3? 2.cxd3† ¢xd3 3.h5 c2 4.h6 ¦d1 5.¦xc2= 2.¦xc2 d3 (1 point) 3.¦c1 Or 3.¦xc3† ¢xc3 4.h5 d2 5.h6 d1£ 6.h7 £d4–+. 3...d2 4.¦d1 c2–+
Ex. 21-5
V.Panov – M.Taimanov Moscow 1952
1.¦xa6! White now creates a pawn phalanx and wins the game. 1.£e7 is not so energetic (only 1 point). 1...¦xa6 2.d6! (2 points) 2...£xe5 If 2...£xd6, then 3.¥d5† ¢f8 4.£h8† ¢e7 5.£g7† ¢e8 6.£f7#. 3.fxe5 ¦a5 4.¥d5† ¢f8 5.¦b1+– 1–0 Ex. 21-6
A.Medina Garcia – H.Mecking
Ex. 21-3
Palma de Mallorca 1969
Woizechowski – Sandler
1...e4!
Riga 1982
1...e2! 2.¥xf2 Or 2.¦xf4 ¦xf4 3.¥xg3 ¢c6–+. 2...¥e3!
(1 point) 3.¦a1 gxf2†–+ But not 3...¥xf2†? 4.¢h1 e1£† 5.¦xe1 ¥xe1 and White has set up a drawing fortress. 0–1 Ex. 21-4
G.Stahlberg – V.Menchik Moscow 1935
In the game Menchik played 1...¥c7?. Instead the Women’s World Champion could have won the game with a promotion combination: 1...£xb3! (1 point) 2.axb3 a2 (1 point) But not 2...¥xc3, because of 3.£a6. 3.£d1 ¥xc3–+
(2 points) Black seizes his chance and activates his pawns in the centre. Only 1 point for 1...¦f3. 2.£c4 If 2.£xe4, then 2...¦e5 3.£g4 h5–+. (1 point) 2...d5! 3.£b5 e3! 4.f4 4.¦xe3 ¦xf2† 5.¦xf2 £xf2†–+ 4...d4 Another very strong move would be 4...£e6. 5.¦c1?! g5!–+ 6.cxd4 gxf4 7.¢h1 fxg3 8.£d7 cxd4 9.¦g1 ¦f2 0–1 Ex. 21-7
I.Csom – T.Ghitescu Siegen Olympiad 1970
1.¥e7!
(1 point) 1...¥g5 Other moves lose more simply: 1...¥c7 2.¤e8†+– or 1...¤xe7 2.¤e8† ¢f8 3.d8£+–.
208
Ex. 21-10
(1 point)
4...¢h4 Or 4...¢h6 5.¤f5† ¢h5 6.g4#. 5.¢h2 Threatening g3#. 5...¥d8 Or 5...¥f4† 6.g3†+–. 6.f4! Threatening g3# once more, this time decisively. 1–0 Ex. 21-8
E.Melnichenko 1979
1.g6! 1.¢f4 would be wrong, on account of 1...f5!=. 1...fxg6† 1...f6 2.¢xf6+– 2.¢f4!‡ g5† 3.¢f3 Or 3.¢f5 g4 4.¢f4 g3 5.hxg3#. 3...g4† 4.¢f4 g3 5.hxg3# (2 points) Ex. 21-11
B.Gulko – K.Grigorian
R.Spielmann – L.Forgacs
USSR 1971
1.¦f8†! 1.¤g6!?+– (1 point) is also good enough, but the move in the game wins in a more forcing manner. 1...¦xf8 1...¢h7 2.£g6# 2.£d5†! (1 point) 2...¢h7 2...¢h8 3.exf8£†+– 3.exf8¤†!! (1 point) 3...¢h8 4.¤eg6# Ex. 21-9
Piotrowski – Tannenberg Lemberg 1926
1.£h8†!! ¢xh8 2.g7† ¢g8 3.¥h7†! ¢xh7 4.g8£# (1 point)
Ostend 1907
1...¤xe4!
(1 point) 2.¤xe4 d5 3.¥xd5 £xd5 4.¤c3 £d6= Ex. 21-12
Goljak – Gajduk Moscow 1949
1.¤f6! gxf6 2.exf6
(1 point) 2...¦gf8?! If 2...¤ec6, then 3.f7+–. But a more stubborn defence would be 2...¤bc6 3.f7 ¦xg2† and then 4...¦f8. 3.¥xe7 ¦f7 4.¦e3 (…¥h5) 4...¤d7 5.¥h5 ¦exe7 6.fxe7 ¦xe7 7.£e1+– 1–0
209
21
2.¤e8† ¢h6 3.¥f8† ¢h5 4.¤g7†
chapter
Solutions
21 chapter
Scoring Maximum number of points is 19
16 points and above 13 points and above 9 points
Excellent Good Pass mark
If you scored less than 9 points, we recommend that you read the chapter again and repeat the exercises which you got wrong.
Judit Polgar is the strongest ever women player. Polgar became a grandmaster at 15, and since then she has established herself as a top player. In 2005 she became the first woman to compete in a World Championship final.
Viktor Korchnoi has been one of the best players in the world for over five decades, and he was still in the Top 100 at the age of 75. ‘If a player believes in miracles he can sometimes perform them.’ – V.Korchnoi
Parimarjan Negi from India became a grandmaster while still only 13 years old. In chess it’s the brain that counts, not the birth certificate.
210
21
211
chapter
Build Up Your Chess with Artur Yusupov 2
Beyond the Basics By
Artur Yusupov
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
First English edition 2008 by Quality Chess UK LLP. Translated from the German edition Tigersprung auf DWZ 1800 I Copyright © 2008 Artur Yusupov
Build Up Your Chess with Artur Yusupov 2 - Beyond the Basics All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-1-906552-10-7 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK LLP through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Back Cover Photo: Nadja Jussupow Photo of World Champion Anand on page 5 reprinted with kind permission of the organizers of Corus Chess Tournament in Wijk aan Zee, The Netherlands Translated by Ian Adams Typeset and editing by Colin McNab Additional editing: Jacob Aagaard and John Shaw Cover design: Augusto Caruso of Caissa Italia and Peter Woods Generic typeset: Augusto Caruso of Caissa Italia Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
CONTENTS
Key to symbols used Preface Introduction
1 Mating combinations 2 General endgame principles 3 Combinations involving the back rank 4 General opening principles 5 The double attack 6 Good and bad bishops 7 Candidate moves 8 The centre 9 The pin and the discovered attack 10 Zugzwang 11 Deflection 12 The Greek gift sacrifice 13 Evaluating the position 14 Planning in chess 15 An opening repertoire for White after 1.e4 e5 16 Destroying the castled position 17 An opening repertoire against 1.e4 18 Exchanging 19 Priorities when calculating variations 20 Pawn endings 1 21 Decoying 22 Time in the opening 23 Improving the position of your pieces 24 Pawn endings 2 Final test Appendices Index of composers Index of games Recommended books
4 5 6 8 18 30 38 48 56 68 78 90 98 108 118 128 138 150 162 174 186 198 208 220 230 240 252 263 273 274 284
chapter Contents ü Mating combinations ü Active moves ü Forcing variations ü Introductory advice ü The combinations
1 Mating combinations Mating combinations often come as the crown to a successful attack. You must recognize the underlying mating pattern in good time in order to force the win. The following positions may be considered as exercises and you can try to solve them yourself. It is very important to consider the active moves: moves which attack or capture something, moves which create threats of mate or which give check. Try to force your opponents into reacting. When calculating variations, priority must be given to forcing lines. Try to solve the positions and write down all the necessary variations. If you do not find the winning idea straight away, think for at least 5-10 minutes and look for new possibilities. If finding the solution is too difficult, then first read the hint before taking another look at the position. Finally, compare your notes with the solution in the text.
Diagram 1-1 r 1222222223 Çt+ + Tl+5 ÆO O +oO 5 ÅvO +o+ W5 ÄM +o+ +n5 Ã VpP P +5 Â+ N +q+ 5 ÁpPb+ +p+5 ÀR + K +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
8
Diagram 1-1
R.Knaak – A.Adorjan Szirak 1985
How can you exploit the open h-file? The c2-bishop can also take part in the attack… 1.¤f6†! 1.¤g3 is also good. But a forced win is always better. 1...£xf6 2.¥h7† ¢h8 3.¥g6† ¢g8 4.¦h8†!!+– Followed by £h5† and £h7#.
8
Diagram 1-2 1222222223 Ç T +t+l+5 ÆO +w+oVo5 Å + + +o+5 Ä+ + M + 5 Ã + + Q +5 Â+ N + Pv5 ÁpPp+ PbP5 ÀR Br+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-3 r 1222222223 Ç + +t+l+5 ÆO Wt+o+ 5 Å +oV Bo+5 Ä+o+ + +o5 Ã + P M R5 Â+b+ +p+ 5 ÁpP + Pk+5 À+ Q + +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-4 r 1222222223 Çr+r+ + +5 Æ+t+ +oOl5 Å + +o+ O5 Ä+ +oP + 5 Ã T +wPp+5 Â+ + + +p5 Á P Q + K5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
J.Aitken – Keffler Edinburgh 1954
For the moment only the d1-rook is protecting White’s back rank… 1...£xd1†!! 2.¤xd1 ¤f3†! 3.£xf3 ¦e1† 4.¥f1 ¦xf1#
Diagram 1-3
J.Blackburne – J.Schwarz Berlin 1881
The white bishop has a superb post on f6, but it needs some support… 1.£xf4!! ¥xf4 2.¦xh5+– Black resigned, since he cannot fend off the threat of ¦h8#.
Diagram 1-4
O.Bernstein – A.Kotov Groningen 1946
In this open position White has no time for quiet moves. Rapid action is called for… 1.¦h8† ¢g6 2.f5†! Black resigned, in view of 2...exf5 3.£xh6†!! gxh6 4.¦ag8#.
9
q
1
Diagram 1-2
chapter
Mating combinations
1 chapter
Tactics 1
Diagram 1-5 r 1222222223 Ç +tW Tl+5 ÆOo+ VoOo5 Å +m+ M +5 Ä+ + NrB 5 Ã + P + +5 ÂPb+ + +q5 Á P + +pP5 À+ +r+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-6 q 1222222223 Ç + + +l+5 ÆO +b+oO 5 Å + + + +5 Ä+ + W +o5 Ãq+ Mp+ +5 ÂP +t+ + 5 Á + + +pP5 À+r+ + +k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-7 r 1222222223 ÇtM + Tl+5 ÆOo+ Wo+o5 Å +o+ + +5 Ä+ +o+ + 5 Ã + + Q P5 Â+ Np+ +r5 ÁpPp+ +p+5 ÀR + +k+ 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-5
E.Kogan – Foster Boston 1937
The white pieces are very active. But to mate his opponent White will have to get rid of some defenders and open up the castled position… 1.¥xf6 ¥xf6 Or 1...gxf6 2.¦h5 (also good is 2.£h6 followed by 3.¦h5) 2...¤xe5 (if 2...fxe5, then 3.£f5+–) 3.¦xh7 ¤g6 4.£h6+–. 2.£xh7†!! ¢xh7 3.¦h5† ¢g8 4.¤g6!+– 1–0 Diagram 1-6
G.Stahlberg – P.Keres Bad Nauheim 1936
Attack your opponent! 1...¤f3! 2.gxf3 If 2.g3, then 2...¦d2–+. 2...¦d2–+ 0–1
Diagram 1-7
D.Harrwitz – J.Szen London 1851
Don’t give your opponent a chance to consolidate his position! Look for the forcing way to decide matters! 1.¦e1 Or 1.¦g3† ¢h8 2.¦e1+–. 1...£d8 2.¦g3† ¢h8 3.£h6 ¦g8 4.¦e8!! £xe8 5.£f6† ¦g7 6.£xg7#
10
Diagram 1-8 1222222223 Ç T T +l+5 ÆO + +oOo5 Å Wo+ + +5 Ä+ + Pv+ 5 Ã + V P +5 Â+pP +n+ 5 Áp+ Bq+pP5 À+ Kr+ +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-9 r 1222222223 Çt+ +t+ +5 ÆOr+ +oL 5 Åw+ +v+ O5 Ä+ +o+ + 5 Ã + P +oP5 Â+ N + P 5 Áp+pQ + K5 À+ + +r+ 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-10 r 1222222223 Çt+l+t+ +5 ÆOoO Mo+o5 Å + + N +5 Ä+ + + + 5 Ã +bQ +vW5 Â+ +p+ + 5 ÁpPp+ + +5 À+ + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
J.Rosanes – A.Anderssen Breslau 1862
The black bishop on f5 is a giant, but it cannot mate White on its own! 1...£xb3!! 1...¥c5 also wins. For example, 2.¢b2 ¥d3 3.£e1 ¥f2! 4.¥e3 ¥xe3–+. 2.axb3 ¦xb3 Threatening ¦b1#. 3.¥e1 ¥e3†!! And then ¦b1#. Diagram 1-9
J.Blackburne – N.N. Great Britain simultaneous 1871
Black’s castled position is too open. The white major pieces can decide the game… 1.¦f6!! £xb7 1...¦h8 2.¦bxf7† ¥xf7 3.¦xa6+–; or 1...¢xf6 2.£xh6† ¢f5 3.£g5#. 2.£xh6† ¢g8 3.£g5† ¢f8 4.¦h6 Black resigned, on account of 4.... f6 5.£xf6† £f7 6.¦h8#.
Diagram 1-10
M.Chigorin – M.Davidov St Petersburg 1874
The white king is too exposed. Only forcing moves should be considered! 1.¥e6†!! ¢b8 If 1...fxe6, then 2.£d7†+–. But 1...¥xe6 would be somewhat more stubborn, although 2.£xh4 gives White a decisive material advantage. 2.¤d7† ¢c8 3.¤c5† ¢b8 Again 3...¥xe6 4.£xh4+– would be the lesser evil. Now Black is mated. 4.¤a6†!! bxa6 5.£b4# 11
q
1
Diagram 1-8
chapter
Mating combinations
1 chapter
Tactics 1
Diagram 1-11 r 1222222223 Ç +m+ Tl+5 ÆT +v+oOo5 ÅoW + + +5 Ä+ +bO + 5 Ã + Op+ +5 Â+ + + Q 5 ÁpP B +pP5 À+ R R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-12 r 1222222223 Çt+ + +tL5 Æ+oO M Oo5 Åo+m+v+w+5 Ä+ +o+o+ 5 Ã + + + R5 Â+ Qb+n+ 5 ÁpB + PpP5 À+ + R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-11
Mueller – Botew Correspondence 1989
The white queen and the bishop pair are a strong attacking force. The black king is rather isolated, with only the queen still in a position to be brought into the defence… 1.¦c6!! ¥xc6 1...£b8 2.¥h6 g6 3.¦xg6†!+– 2.¥h6 g6 2...d3† 3.¢h1+– 3.£xe5+– And then £g7#. Diagram 1-12
Atkinson – N.N. Manchester 1929
The position is ripe for the decisive sacrifice… 1.¦xe6!! £xe6 2.¤g5! 2.¦xh7† ¢xh7 3.¤g5† ¢g6 4.¤xe6+– is also good, but the game move is even better. 2...£g6 3.¦xh7†!! £xh7 4.¤f7#
12
r Ex. 1-4
« 1222222223 Ç +t+ L T5 Æ+ O +oO 5 Åq+ +vW O5 Ä+ +mN + 5 ÃbO P + +5 Â+p+ + + 5 Á + + PpP5 ÀR + R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-2
« 1222222223 Ç +lT + T5 ÆOv+m+o+ 5 Å +w+oP +5 Ä+oV + + 5 Ã +o+ B +5 Â+ N +b+ 5 ÁpPq+ PpP5 ÀR + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-5
« 1222222223 Ç + + Ml+5 Æ+ V W O 5 Å +o+ + +5 Ä+ +oP Oq5 Ã T P +p+5 Â+ +b+r+ 5 Á + + Pp+5 À+ + + K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-3
« 1222222223 Çt+v+ + +5 ÆOo+ +qOl5 Å + + + +5 Ä+ +oO +m5 Ã + + + +5 Â+ + +p+ 5 ÁpP + W P5 ÀR B + Rk5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-6
«« 1222222223 Ç + + +l+5 ÆO O +oO 5 Å +o+m+w+5 Ä+t+ P + 5 Ã + +n+pQ5 Â+ + +p+ 5 Áp+ + + P5 À+ +r+ +k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 13
1
r Ex. 1-1
« 1222222223 Ç + +t+l+5 Æ+ + V M 5 Å W + Tp+5 ÄO +o+o+ 5 Ã O + B +5 Â+ + +nN 5 ÁpPpQ P +5 À+k+ + +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
chapter
Exercises
1 chapter
Exercises r Ex. 1-7
«« 1222222223 Ç +tW Tl+5 ÆOo+ +oOo5 Å V O M +5 Ä+ +o+ Q 5 Ã +m+p+ +5 Â+ +b+p+ 5 ÁpB +nP P5 ÀR + +r+k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-10
« 1222222223 ÇtM +t+l+5 ÆOoO W +o5 Å + V Mo+5 Ä+q+o+ N 5 Ã + + +v+5 Â+ N + + 5 ÁpPpB PpP5 À+ K Rb+r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-8
«« 1222222223 Ç + +t+ +5 ÆO + +oLo5 Åw+ + + +5 Ä+ +bVv+ 5 Ãp+ P OoP5 Â+ N + M 5 Á Pp+ KpR5 ÀR Bq+ + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-11
« 1222222223 Çt+v+t+l+5 ÆOo+mWo+ 5 Å +o+o+oO5 Ä+ + + + 5 Ã + +n+ +5 ÂP Q P + 5 Á P + PpP5 À+bRr+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-9
«« 1222222223 Ç +t+ V +5 ÆO +w+p+o5 Å + O +l+5 Ä+ + OnP 5 Ã + +p+rQ5 Â+ + + +k5 Á +oT + +5 À+ + +r+ 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-12
« 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ Rr+ + 5 Å T + + +5 Ä+l+ + + 5 Ã O O MbO5 Â+k+ V + 5 Á + + + +5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 14
Ex. 1-6
M.Tal – R.Mascarinas
Kovacs – Beni
Lvov 1981
Vienna 1950
1.¥c7!! £xc7 2.¦h8†!!
1.¦d8†!
(1 point) Black resigned, in view of 2...¢xh8 3.£h6† ¢g8 4.£h7† ¢f8 5.£h8#.
(1 point) 1...¤xd8 After 1...¤f8 there follows 2.¦xf8†!! ¢xf8 3.£d8#. 2.£xd8† ¢h7 3.¤g5† ¢h6 4.¤xf7†!! (1 point) White must continue playing energetically. After a quiet move such as 4.h4? Black can seize the initiative and mount his own attack: 4...£b1† then 5...¦b2†–+ etc. 4...£xf7 4...¢h7 5.£h8# 5.£h4†! ¢g6 6.£h5#
Ex. 1-2
Johansson – Ekenberg Sweden 1974
1...£xf3!! 2.gxf3 ¦dg8† 3.¥g3 3.¢h1 ¥xf3# 3...¦xg3† 4.hxg3 ¥xf3 Followed by ¦h1#.
(1 point)
Ex. 1-3
Ex. 1-7
D.Pirrot – G.Hertneck
A.Anderssen – B.Suhle
Bundesliga 1990
Breslau 1859
1...¥g4!! (…¥xf3†) White resigned, on account of 2.¦xg4 £f1† 3.¦g1 ¤g3†! 4.hxg3 £h3#. (1 point)
1.¤d7†! ¥xd7 2.£xc8†!! ¥xc8 3.¦e8# (1 point)
1.¦g1! You can also start with 1.¥xc4 (1 point) and then play the same combination. But it is less precise, since Black then has an intermediate move 1...h6. 1...¤e8 2.£xg7†!! (1 point) 2...¤xg7 3.¦xg7† ¢h8 4.¦g8†! (1 point) 4...¢xg8 5.¦g1† £g5 6.¦xg5#
Ex. 1-5
Ex. 1-8
E.Geller – N.Novotelnov
J.Rosanes – A.Anderssen
Ex. 1-4
Fridrich – Bantleon Hanover 1967
USSR Ch, Moscow 1951
Breslau 1863
1.¦xf8†!+– ¢xf8 1...£xf8 2.¥h7†+– 2.£h8† ¢f7 3.¥g6†! Black resigned. After 3...¢xg6 there comes 4.£h5#; while if 3...¢e6, then 4.£g8† (or 4.£c8† £d7 5.¥f5†+–) 4...¢d7 5.¥f5†+–. (1 point)
1...£f1†!! 1...¥xd4†?? would be wrong, due to 2.£xd4†. 2.£xf1 ¥xd4† 3.¥e3 ¦xe3 And mate on the move cannot be avoided. 4.¢g1 ¦e1# (2 points) 15
1
Ex. 1-1
chapter
Solutions
1 chapter
Solutions Ex. 1-9
Ex. 1-11
A.Anderssen – N.N.
A.Rubinstein – Hirschbein
Berlin simultaneous 1866
Lodz 1927
1.£xh7†!! But not 1. ¤e7†? £xe7 2.¦f6†, because of 2...¢g7!–+. 1...¢xh7 2.g6† ¢h8 3.¦h4† ¥h6 4.¦xh6# (2 points)
1.¦xd7!! ¥xd7 2.¤f6† ¢f8 3.¤d5!+– (1 point) As a consequence of the double threat £h8# and ¤xe7, Black has to give up his queen. Ex. 1-12
E.Bogoljubow – Sultan Khan
Ex. 1-10
Prague 1931
C.Göring – E.Schallopp
1.¦d5†!! ¤xd5 Or 1...¢a6 2.¥c8† ¦b7 3.¦d6† ¢b5 4.¥d7† ¢a5 5.¦c5† then mate. 2.¥e2† ¢a5 3.¦a7† ¦a6 4.¦xa6# (1 point)
Leipzig 1877
1...£xe1†!! 2.¥xe1 ¥f4†! 3.¥d2 ¦e1† 4.¤d1 ¦xd1# (1 point)
Scoring Maximum number of points is 16
14 points and above 12 points and above 9 points
Excellent Good Pass mark
If you scored less than 9 points, we recommend that you read the chapter again and repeat the exercises which you got wrong. 16
Build Up Your Chess 3 – Mastery Artur Yusupov
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
First English edition 2009 by Quality Chess UK LLP Copyright © 2009 Artur Yusupov
Build up your Chess 3 - Mastery All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-1-906552-26-8 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychessbooks.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK LLP through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Photo by Harald Fietz on pages 19, 33, 55, 147, 191, 225 and 271 Photo on page 235 courtesy of Caissia Italia Translated from German by Ian Adams Edited and typeset by Colin McNab Proofreading by John Shaw Cover Design: Barry Adamson Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
CONTENTS
Key to symbols used Preface Introduction
1 Combinations involving promotion 2 Evaluation of the position 3 Pawn endings 4 Rook against bishop 5 Opening repertoire for White with 1.d4 6 The isolated pawn 7 Playing against the isolated pawn 8 Simple tactics 9 The backward pawn 10 Bishop endings 11 French Defence 12 Training with studies 13 Blockade 14 Drawing combinations 15 Opposite-coloured bishops 16 Opening repertoire for White with 1.d4 (Part 2) 17 The elimination method 18 Hanging pawns 19 Playing against hanging pawns 20 Simple tactics 2 21 Doubled pawns 22 Opening repertoire for Black against 1.d4 23 The comparison method 24 Rook against knight Final test Appendices Index of composers Index of games Recommended books
4 5 6 8 20 34 44 56 68 82 94 104 114 124 138 148 160 168 178 192 200 212 226 236 248 260 272 282 292 293 300
Key to symbols used
r q
White to move Black to move
² ³ ± µ +– –+ =
White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality
ƒ ‚ © „ ÷
with the initiative with an attack with compensation with counterplay unclear
¹ … ™ ‡ ×
better is intending only move zugzwang weak point
? ?? ! !! !? ?! #
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate
4
chapter Contents ü The advanced passed pawn in the middlegame ü Breakthrough ü Use of an open king position ü Exchanging defensive pieces ü Getting rid of a defender ü Promoting with check
Diagram 1-1 r 1222222223 Çt+ +wT L5 Æ+ Ov+ O 5 Å + + M O5 ÄR + +o+ 5 Ã OpPoP P5 Â+ QmP P 5 Á + N +r+5 À+ +n+ Kb5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
8
1 Combinations involving promotion We shall now take a look at combinations which involve promotion. They are often a feature of the endgame, but sometimes you can make use of advanced pawns in the middlegame. The value of pawns increases dramatically as they approach the queening square. Frequently a passed pawn can only be stopped at a great cost in material. To clear the path for a passed pawn, even pieces may sometimes be sacrificed. Here are a few spectacular examples. Diagram 1-1
E.Bogoljubow – A.Alekhine Hastings 1922
30.¦xa8 White’s position is already very difficult. But after the text move there is a surprise in store for him. 30...bxc3! 30...£xa8 would not be so strong: 31.£b3 ¥a4 32.£b1µ 31.¦xe8 c2! A typical double attack, on the knight along with a simple promotion on c1. 32.¦xf8† ¢h7 33.¤f2 c1=£† 34.¤f1 ¤e1 35.¦h2 £xc4 Despite the material balance, Black’s position is clearly better. The white pieces are too passive and uncoordinated. 36.¦b8 ¥b5 37.¦xb5 £xb5 38.g4 ¤f3† 39.¥xf3 exf3 40.gxf5 Or 40.g5 ¤g4–+. 40...£e2!! For the second time, Black exploits the strength of an advanced pawn. 41.d5 White is in zugzwang; if 41.¤h3 or 41.¦h3, then 41...¤g4!. 41...¢g8! 42.h5 ¢h7 43.e4 ¤xe4 44.¤xe4 £xe4 45.d6 cxd6 46.f6 gxf6 47.¦d2 £e2! 8
Diagram 1-2 r 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ + + +l5 Å + O O O5 Ä+ + + +p5 Ã + + P +5 Â+ + +o+ 5 Á + Rw+ +5 À+ + +nK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-3 q 1222222223 Ç + L + +5 Æ+ + + + 5 Å + + Oo+5 Ä+o+pV + 5 Ão+w+ +pO5 ÂP +n+b+p5 Á P RkP +5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-4 (analysis) q 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ L + + 5 Å + + +o+5 Ä+ +p+w+ 5 Ã + + +bO5 Â+ + + +p5 Á + + Pn+5 À+ + K + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-3
Y.Balashov – A.Yusupov Minsk 1982
To crack open the white fortress, Black needs a passed pawn. 74...b4!! 75.axb4 ¥xb2! 76.¦xb2 a3 77.¦d2 a2 White now has to give up his rook for the dangerous passed pawn. 78.¦xa2 Or 78.¦d1 £c2† 79.¢e1 £xd1†–+. 78...£xa2† 79.¢e3 After 79.¢f1 comes 79...£c4 80.¥e2 £e4–+. 79...£b1 Threatening ...£f1. 80.¢e2 ¢c7 If 80...£g1, then 81.¤e1. 81.¤e1 Intending to continue with ¤g2-e3. 81...£xb4 82.¤g2 £c4† 83.¢e1 £c1† 84.¢e2 £c2† 85.¢e1 After 85.¢f1 there follows 85...£d3†. 85...f5!–+ If 85...£d3, then 86.¤e3. 86.gxf5 86.¤xh4 loses to 86...£d3 (threatening ...g5) 87.¥g2 (or 87.¥e2 £xh3 88.¤xg6 £h1† 89.¢d2 £h6†) 87...£c3† 88.¢e2 fxg4 89.hxg4 £c4†. 86...£xf5 Black also breaks through on the kingside! White resigned, in view of 87.¥g4 Diagram 1-4 87...£xg4!! 88.hxg4 h3 with the well-known motif: the knight often performs poorly against a rook’s pawn. 9
1
Diagram 1-2 A pretty finish. Black forces the transition to a won pawn ending. 48.¦xe2 fxe2 49.¢f2 exf1=£† 50.¢xf1 ¢g7 51.¢e2 ¢f7 52.¢e3 ¢e6 53.¢e4 d5† 0–1
chapter
Combinations involving promotion
1 chapter
Diagram 1-5 q 1222222223 Ç +lT + T5 ÆOoO WoOo5 Å +o+ M +5 Ä+ V +v+ 5 Ã +p+oP +5 Â+p+ P + 5 ÁpBqPb+pP5 ÀRn+ K +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 1-6 (analysis) q 1222222223 Ç +lT + T5 ÆOoO WoOo5 Å +o+ + +5 Ä+ V +v+ 5 Ã +p+oPm+5 Â+pN P + 5 ÁpBqPb+pP5 ÀR + K +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-7 q 1222222223 Ç +lT + T5 ÆOoO WoO 5 Å +o+ + +5 Ä+ V +v+o5 Ã +p+oPm+5 Â+p+ P Pp5 ÁpBqPb+ +5 ÀRn+ K +r5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Tactics 1
A far-advanced pawn may control important squares in the opposing camp and can completely disrupt the defence.
B.Larsen – B.Spassky USSR – World, Belgrade 1970
1.b3 e5 2.¥b2 ¤c6 3.c4 ¤f6 4.¤f3 e4 5.¤d4 ¥c5 6.¤xc6 dxc6 7.e3 ¥f5 8.£c2 £e7 9.¥e2 0–0–0 10.f4 Diagram 1-5 10...¤g4! 11.g3 After 11.0–0 there follows 11...£h4 12.h3 h5 with an attack (Euwe). If 11.¥xg4, then simply 11...£h4†µ (Larsen). And 11.¤c3 Diagram 1-6 would be bad due to 11...¦xd2! and then 12...¥xe3 (Florian). 11...h5! Now 11...¦xd2 is not so clear, because of 12.¤xd2 ¤xe3 13.£c3 (Spassky). 12.h3 Once more 12.¤c3 is met by 12…¦xd2!–+. If 13.£xd2 (or 13.¢xd2 ¥xe3†), then 13...¥xe3 14.£d1 (14.£c2 ¥f2† nets the white queen after either 15.¢f1 15...¤e3† or 15.¢d2 e3†) 14...¤f2–+ (Alexander). Spassky now starts a brilliant attack. His queen and the strong pawns play the decisive role. Diagram 1-7 12...h4! 13.hxg4 13.¥xg4 would be no better: 13…¥xg4 14.hxg4 hxg3 15.¦g1 ¦h1! (or 15...¦h2–+ Larsen) 16.¦xh1 g2 17.¦g1 £h4† 18.¢e2 £xg4† 19.¢e1 £g3† 20.¢e2 (20.¢d1 £f2 21.£xe4 £xg1† 22.¢c2 £f2–+) 20...£f3† 21.¢e1 ¥e7–+ (Spassky). 13...hxg3 14.¦g1 14.¦xh8 ¦xh8 15.gxf5 loses to 15...¦h1† 16.¥f1 g2.
10
Combinations can sometimes appear out of an almost clear blue sky. Who would believe that the d4-pawn in the position in the next diagram would have such a fantastic career? Diagram 1-9
A.Kotov – V.Ragozin Moscow 1949
1.b5! c5 1...¦ac7 would not be much better: 2.bxc6 ¤xc6 3.¥b5 ¤xd4 4.¦xc7 ¤xc2 5.¦xc8+–. 2.dxc5!! £xe5 3.cxb6 ¦xc3 4.bxa7! The point of the combination. 4...¦xc2 5.¦xc2 And Black cannot stop the passed pawn. 1–0 If our pawn is already very far advanced, then we can often base all the play on the said pawn. Diagram 1-10
H.Kmoch – A.Alekhine Kecskemet 1927
27...dxc3! The decisive combination, very accurately calculated by Alekhine. 28.¦xd7 ¦xd7 29.¦xd7 The main variation was 29.£e8† ¢h7 30.£xd7 £e4!! (the point) 31.£xf7 (or 31.£d5 £xd5 11
q
Diagram 1-8 1222222223 Ç +lT + T5 ÆOoO WoO 5 Å +o+ + +5 Ä+ V +v+ 5 Ã +p+oPp+5 Â+p+ P O 5 ÁpBqPb+ +5 ÀRn+ K R 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
1
Diagram 1-8 14...¦h1!! 15.¦xh1 After 15.¢f1 there follows 15...¦xg1† 16.¢xg1 £h4–+ (Kotov). 15...g2 16.¦f1 Or 16.¦g1 £h4† 17.¢d1 £h1 18.£c3 £xg1† 19.¢c2 £f2 20.gxf5 £xe2 21.¤a3 and now 21...¥b4!–+ is the neatest finish, although 21...£d3† 22.£xd3 exd3† 23.¢c3 ¥xe3 24.dxe3 d2 25.¦d1 ¦h8 is also winning. 16...£h4† 17.¢d1 gxf1=£† White resigned, in view of 18.¥xf1 ¥xg4† 19.¢c1 £e1† 20.£d1 £xd1#.
chapter
Combinations involving promotion
Diagram 1-9 r 1222222223 Ç Mt+v+l+5 ÆT + +o+ 5 Å OoW +o+5 ÄO +oN + 5 Ã P P + +5 ÂP RbP + 5 Á +q+ Pp+5 À+ R + K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-10 q 1222222223 Ç + T +l+5 ÆO +t+oO 5 Å + + V +5 Ä+ + + +o5 Ã P O W +5 Â+ Br+ + 5 Áp+ +q+pP5 À+ +r+ K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
chapter
1
Tactics 1
Diagram 1-11
32.¦xd5 c2! 33.¦c5 ¥d4†–+) 31...c2 32.£xh5† ¢g8 33.¦f1 c1=£! 34.¦xc1 £e3† and Black wins. 29...¥d4† 30.¢h1 30.¦xd4 £xd4† 31.¢f1 £f4† 32.¢e1 £xb4–+ 30...£c1†–+ 0–1
q
1222222223 Ç + + +l+5 ÆO + Oo+o5 Å + +v+ +5 Ä+ + + + 5 Ã +oWp+ +5 ÂP + +pP 5 Á + + QkP5 À+ + +b+ 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 1-12 q 1222222223 Çt+ T Ml+5 Æ+ + +o+ 5 Å + +o+o+5 Ä+ + P Qo5 Ã +w+ P P5 Â+oRn+ R 5 Á P + +p+5 À+ + + +k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
To clear the way for the passed pawn, you often have to swap off opposing pieces. Diagram 1-11
L.Lengyel – B.Brinck Claussen Varna 1962
1...¥h3†! 2.¢g1 £a1!!–+ 3.£e2 c3 4.¢f2 £xf1†! Intending 5.£xf1 ¥xf1 6.¢xf1 c2. 0–1 In the strictest sense of the term, this was not a combination, because Black did not have to sacrifice anything. But the next example fits 100%. Diagram 1-12
R.Barstatis – A.Vooremaa Riga 1978
1...£xc3!! Black clears the way for his b-pawn. 2.bxc3 ¦xd3 3.¦xd3 ¦a1† 3...b2? 4 ¦d1 ¦a1 is not good, on account of 5.£d8!+–. 4.¢h2 b2 5.¦d8 b1=£ Now Black has an advantage in material. What is important here is that the black major pieces are ready to take part in the counterattack on the white king. 6.£e7 Or 6.¦xf8† ¢xf8 7.£d8† ¢g7 8.£f6† ¢g8 9.£d8† ¢h7–+. 6...£g1† 7.¢g3 £e3† And Black will be the first to mate. 0–1
12
1
The new queen can very effectively enter the attack. Look also at the following example.
Diagram 1-13
J.Kotrc – N.N. Vienna 1907
1.¦e8† ¢a7 If 1...¢c7, then 2.£a5†! b6 3.£e5† ¢d7 4.£e7#. 2.¦a8†! ¢b6 Or 2...¢xa8 3.£c8† ¢a7 4.£xb7#. 3.£a5†!! ¢xa5 4.axb7† ¢b6 5.b8=£† ¢c5 6.¦a5† ¢d4 7.£xf4† 1–0 Now you are ready for the test. Some of the exercises are difficult and you must invest a considerable amount of time in this test. Of course, it will be helpful that you know the motif behind the combinations (promotion). And just remember: you only get the maximum number of points for complete solutions.
13
chapter
Combinations involving promotion
Diagram 1-13 r 1222222223 Ç L + + +5 Æ+o+ + O 5 Åp+o+ + +5 Ä+ + +q+ 5 Ã +w+ T +5 ÂP + + + 5 Á + + + +5 À+ + R +k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
1 chapter
Exercises r Ex. 1-1
««« 1222222223 Ç +l+ +t+5 Æ+ +t+ N 5 ÅoOo+ + O5 Ä+ +vPn+ 5 Ãp+o+m+ +5 Â+ + + P 5 Á Pp+ + K5 À+ +r+r+ 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-4
«« 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ + + + 5 Å +p+lOo+5 Ä+r+ O + 5 Ã V + Pp+5 Â+ + B K 5 Á + + + +5 À+t+ + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-2
««« 1222222223 Ç + T + +5 Æ+v+tV L 5 Åo+ + + O5 ÄP + +p+ 5 Ã O O O +5 Â+p+b+ + 5 Á +r+ B P5 À+ + R K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-5
« 1222222223 Ç + +t+l+5 Æ+ + +o+o5 Å + W +o+5 Ä+o+p+ + 5 Ã P + + +5 Â+ O + +p5 Á +q+mPb+5 À+ + Rk+ 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-3
«««« 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 ÆOr+ + Ol5 Å V + + +5 Ä+ O + + 5 Ãn+o+ + +5 Â+ + + + 5 ÁpP T +pP5 À+ + + K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-6
«« 1222222223 Ç + + +l+5 Æ+ + + O 5 Å + + +pO5 ÄOoO + + 5 Ã + Om+ P5 Â+p+ +k+ 5 Á Pp+ P +5 À+ +n+ + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 14
r Ex. 1-10
«« 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ + + + 5 Å + + OlO5 ÄP +r+o+ 5 Ã + + + +5 Â+ +p+ O 5 Á + + Wp+5 À+ + +r+k5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-8
«« 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ + +v+ 5 Å + + +o+5 ÄP N + +o5 Ã M + L +5 Â+pN + + 5 Á + + +p+5 À+ + + K 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-11
««« 1222222223 Ç R + + +5 Æ+ Ol+ + 5 Å P + + +5 Ä+ + + + 5 Ã + T + +5 ÂK + + + 5 Áp+ + + +5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 1-9
««« 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ + +oL 5 Å + P +o+5 ÄO + + + 5 Ãp+ + + +5 ÂQ +o+oP 5 Á +t+wP P5 À+ + +rK 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 1-12
« 1222222223 Ç + + + +5 Æ+ + +oO 5 Å + + +l+5 Ä+oRv+ + 5 Ã + + Pp+5 ÂPo+ K + 5 Á + + + P5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 15
1
r Ex. 1-7
« 1222222223 Ç + V +l+5 Æ+ +v+ + 5 Å O + OpK5 ÄO O O + 5 Ãp+p+ + +5 Â+p+ B + 5 Á +b+ + +5 À+ + + + 5 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
chapter
Exercises
1 chapter
Solutions
This is even better than 57.f7† ¦xf7 58.¥g6 ¥d5± (also 1 point). 57...¢d8 58.f7 (another 1 point for the whole variation) 58...¢xc7 59.f8=£ f3 60.£xb4 ¦d6 61.¥d3 1–0
Ex. 1-1
A.Alekhine – E.Bogoljubow World Championship, Germany (16) 1934
30.e6!
(1 point) 30.¦xd5 first is not so strong: 30…cxd5 and now 31.e6 (1 consolation point) can be met by 31...¦c7 32.e7 ¢d7. 30...¦dxg7 If 30...¦c7, then 31.e7 ¢d7 32.¦fe1 (or 32.¦f4 ¤f6 33.¦xc4+–) 32...¦xg7 33.¦xe4 ¦g8 34.¦xc4+–. 31.¤xg7 ¦xg7 32.¦xd5!! (another 1 point) 32...cxd5 33.¦f8†! ¢c7 34.¦f7†+– (1 point) 34...¢d6 Black loses the exchange. If 34...¦xf7, then 35.exf7 wins. 35.¦xg7 ¢xe6 36.¦g6† ¢e5 37.¢g2 b5 38.a5 d4 39.¦xa6 b4 40.¢f3 c3 41.bxc3 bxc3 42.¦e6†! ¢xe6 43.¢xe4 1–0
Ex. 1-3
M.Ortuerta Esteban – J.Sanz Aguado Madrid 1934
1...¦xb2!!
(1 point) 2.¤xb2 c3 3.¦xb6! If 3.¤d3, then 3...c4†! 4.¦xb6 cxd3–+ or 4.¢f1 cxd3 5.¢e1 c2 6.¢d2 ¥e3†–+. (1 point for these side lines) 3...c4! (1 point) The threat is ...c2. Of course 3...axb6? would be bad, due to 4.¤d3–+. 4.¦b4 If 4.¤xc4, then 4...c2–+. 4...a5!! (another 1 point) 5.¤a4 5.¦xc4 loses to 5...cxb2. After 5.¤d1 there follows 5...c2–+. 5...axb4 0–1
Ex. 1-2
A.Alekhine – E.Bogoljubow World Championship, Germany (4) 1934
52.¦xe7†!!
(1 point) 52.¥xd4† is not so good: 52…¢f7 53.¥c4† ¥d5=. 52...¦xe7 53.¥h4 Threatening f6†. 53...¢f7 After 53...¦ed7 there comes 54.¥xd8 ¦xd8 55.¦c7†+–. 54.¥xe7 ¢xe7 55.¦c7† ¦d7 56.f6†! (1 point) 56...¢e8 56...¢d8 loses to 57.f7. After 56...¢e6 comes 57.¥f5†+–. 57.¥g6†!
Ex. 1-4
M.Vidmar – N.N. 1.f5†!
(1 point) Of course not 1.¥d2? ¦b3† 2.¢h4? because of 2...g5† 3.fxg5 fxg5† 4.¢h5 ¦h3†. 1...gxf5 2.gxf5† ¢d6 After 2...¢f7 or 2...¢xf5 comes 3.c7+–. 3.¦xb4!! 3.¥c5† is less precise: 3...¥xc5 4.¦xb1 ¢xc6 5.¢f3±. 16
Ex. 1-8
(another 1 point)
4...¢xc5 5.c7 1–0
V.Anand – B.Spassky Cannes 1989
1.¤d3†!!
(1 point) 1.a6? is not so good: 1…¤xa6 2.¤xa6 ¥xb3². 1...¤xd3 2.a6 Threatening a7-a8=£. 2...¥e8™ 3.¤d5†! (another 1 point) After 3...¢e5 comes 4.¤e7. White then controls the c6-square and Black cannot stop the passed pawn. 1–0
Ex. 1-5
I.Weltmander – L.Polugaevsky Sochi 1958
1...¤g3†!! 2.fxg3 £f6†! 3.£f2 Or 3.¢g1 ¦xe1† 4.¢h2 £d4–+. 3...¦xe1†! 4.¢xe1 £xf2† 5.¢xf2 c2 0–1 (1 point) Ex. 1-6
G.Bonner – A.Medina Garcia
Ex. 1-9
Haifa Olympiad 1976
1...¤c3!!
E.Ermenkov – G.Sax Warsaw 1969
(1 point)
2.bxc3 If 2.¤xc3, then 2...dxc3 3.bxc3 a4–+. 2...a4! 3.cxd4 cxd4 But not 3...a3?? due to 4.¤c3+–. 4.c3 Or 4.bxa4 bxa4 5.¤b2 a3–+. (another 1 point for this variation) 4...a3 0–1
1.d7!
(1 point) 1.£a1† f6 2.d7 achieves nothing, on account of 2...£e7 3.£d4 £e2!= and Black threatens £xf1†. 1...£xf1† After 1...d2 comes 2.£a1†+–. 2.¢xf1 d2 3.£xf3 ¦c1† 4.£d1!! (another 2 points) 4...¦xd1† 5.¢e2 Black resigned, in view of 5...¦b1 6.d8=£ d1=£† 7.£xd1 ¦xd1 8.¢xd1+–.
Ex. 1-7
A.Hennings – G.Walter East Germany 1964
1.¥g5!!
Ex. 1-10
A.Alekhine – Shishkov
(1 point)
1919
But not 1.g7? because of 1...f5. 1...¥e7 If 1...fxg5, then 2.g7 followed by ¥h7† wins. 2.g7!+– The threat is 3.¥h7† ¢f7 4.g8=£#. 2...f5 3.¥xe7 1–0
1.¦xf2!
(1 point) But not 1.¦a1? due to 1...f4 2.a6 f3 3.¦g1 fxg2† 4.¦xg2 £f1† 5.¦g1 £h3#. 1.¦xf5 £d4± is not so clear (1 consolation point). 17
1
3...¦xb4 4.¥c5†!!
chapter
Solutions
1 chapter
Solutions
1...gxf2 2.¦xf5!! ¢xf5 3.g4†! ¢xg4 4.¢g2 1–0 (another 1 point for this variation)
Ex. 1-12
B.Gelfand – J.Lautier Belgrade 1997
In the game, Black missed the boat and played 39...¥c4?? and after 40.¢d2 he resigned. The correct move would be: 39...b4!! (1 point) And suddenly Black is winning: 40.¦xd5 (or 40.axb4 b2–+) 40...bxa3–+ (also winning is 40...b2).
Ex. 1-11
J.Moravec 1925
1.¦d8†!! ¢xd8 2.b7
(1 point) 2...¦b4! 3.¢xb4 c5† (another 1 point for this defence!) 4.¢b5! If 4.¢xc5, then 4...¢c7=. 4...¢c7 5.¢a6! ¢b8 After 5...c4 there follows 6.¢a7+–. 6.¢b6! c4 7.a4 c3 8.a5 c2 9.a6 c1=£ 10.a7# (1 point for the whole variation)
Scoring Maximum number of points is 27
24 points and above 20 points and above 14 points
Excellent Good Pass mark
If you scored less than 14 points, we recommend that you read the chapter again and repeat the exercises which you got wrong. 18
Joel Lautier was France’s top player for a decade before leaving chess to pursue a business career
Grandmaster Preparation
CALCULATION By
Jacob Aagaard
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to Symbols used 4 Foreword by Boris Gelfand 5 Series Introduction 6 Concentration, Concentration, Concentration 7 Calculation Theory in 60 Seconds 11
1 Candidate Moves 2 Combinational Vision 3 Prophylaxis 4 Comparison 5 Elimination 6 Intermediate Moves 7 Imagination 8 Traps 9 Tests 10 Difficult Positions
15 43 77 103 123 145 163 199 220 251
298
Name Index
Foreword I have always liked books with challenging exercises. No matter what level you reach, it is important to keep your mind sharp and ensure that your calculation is as quick and precise as it can be. This can only be achieved by continuous practice. After I told Jacob Aagaard that I had worked with his book Practical Chess Defence, he started to send me exercise positions, some of which can be found in the Quality Chess Puzzle Book (co-written with John Shaw) and now this book. I have enjoyed solving these positions over the last few years and found them helpful. I am sure the same will be true of the reader. There is no shortcut to the Grandmaster title, but there is a well-known route that many people have walked over the years. Jacob offers to guide you on part of this journey and I hope you will take him up on the offer. Boris Gelfand Winner of 2009 World Cup and 2012 World Championship Challenger
Series Introduction Ever since I was a junior I have been a chess trainer. At times my dissatisfaction with the conditions for trainers has caused me to be a player as well; and not without some success. But at the end of the day I have had to accept that my destiny is not to feel comfortable on the stage, but rather in the anonymity of the locker room. I have always cared more for the results of my students than my own, just as I have always had lots of passion for training others, but none for training myself. Over the years I have developed some of the skills necessary to become a decent trainer, not least of all the ability to earn a living by other means! Among other things this means I have become a chess writer. From the moment I started taking pride in my work, I have developed into a not entirely bad one, to the degree where I am finally comfortable enough to publish this series of books, which I have been dreaming about for years. The series title Grandmaster Preparation is of course a little joke, as the five books originally planned do not include any coverage of the opening. But it is also a serious point at the same time. Grandmaster play does not occur in a vacuum, and it consists of much more than opening preparation, random intuition and even more random calculation. There are rules and methods that have been successful for many decades and will continue to be so in the future. One of my main objectives with this project has been to merge this classic understanding of chess with my own ideas and create a serious training plan for ambitious players. This is the most ambitious project I have undertaken in my professional life, and there is no escaping the unavoidable imperfection of the execution. I hope the reader will forgive me in advance for any mistakes, but at the same time offer me the confidence to believe in most of what I claim throughout these books. They are heavily researched and based on my experience of working with close to a thousand individuals over the years: from my own daughters, who recently discovered the joy of capturing a piece, to friends who have been involved in World Championship matches. So, please develop your own understanding of chess by questioning everything I say, but at the same time, please never disregard anything I say as unfounded. When I was a young man I had no access to a classical chess education, and many other grandmasters have had the same experience. It is my hope that this series will help to change this picture in the same way that Mark Dvoretsky’s books have, and the way that Artur Yusupov’s series of nine books (Fundamentals, Beyond the Basics and Mastery) have given juniors and amateurs a clearly-structured method of improvement. The ultimate goal for this series is to show a path towards playing chess at grandmaster level for those who do not have access to a good trainer. I have worked with some grandmasters who had the kinds of holes in their chess understanding that would baffle the average man on the street. Obviously they excelled in other aspects of the game simultaneously, but over time their weaknesses became obvious to their opponents and their results duly suffered. This series is meant to help those players as well. Jacob Aagaard, Glasgow 2012
Chapter 1 Candidate Moves Pogos Nakhapetiane – Sergei Zhigalko Olginka 2011
Black to play Black had just given up the exchange to regain his earlier sacrificed pawn. Seemingly he was so glad about this that he failed to actually look at the position and the opportunities he has in it.
16
Grandmaster Preparation – Calculation
Alexander Kotov famously introduced the idea of candidate moves into chess literature in Think Like a Grandmaster. The idea is simple and powerful. Rather than calculating endlessly on his first genius inspiration, Kotov suggested that the strong chess player would instead apply a bit of structure to his thinking and look for options first. Kotov then went from this sound position to a land of trees and mechanical thinking that no one has returned to with their sanity intact. We shall not repeat this mistake. Instead we shall focus on candidate moves and ideas as a simple technique to become more creative. The idea is simple (as it should be). By focusing on looking for ideas that have not revealed themselves at once to our divine selves, we open up for our human ability to discover something new – in this case about the position right in front of us. In my previous book on calculation, Excelling at Chess Calculation, I called the first chapter Before you can think, you need to learn how to see. This is what candidates are all about. Let’s start with a simple example.
David Berczes – Hans Tikkanen Stockholm 2010
Black is a piece down and lost a long ending after 28...¦e2? 29.¤f3 ¦ae8 30.¢f1 without real counterplay. If Tikkanen had used this moment to look at the position instead of thinking, chances are that he would have seen a much better move. 28...¦e1†! Quite a surprising move if you have not spent a few moments looking at it. But once you see it, the idea is obvious. White cannot prevent Black from making something of his only asset and promoting the pawn. 29.¦xe1 ¦d8! A bit of accuracy. Obviously this decision can be classified as comparison, but in the end all calculation techniques are based on looking for moves we have not seen immediately. The point is of course that 29...¦b8? would land the rook on the wrong side of the pawn and allow White to eliminate it with 30.¦fe7! ¦b1 31.¦7e6† ¢c7 32.¦6e2, when the extra piece will guarantee him an extra point. 30.¢g2 ¦d1 31.¦e6†!
Black is now faced with a trickier decision, but no doubt it would be one Tikkanen would have been grateful to be allowed to make.
20
Grandmaster Preparation – Calculation Golod – Gerzhoy, Philadelphia 2011
1
Romanko – Shulakova, Moscow 2012
2 A. Hunt – Galdunts, Gold Coast 2000
3
Navara – Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee 2012
4 Nebolsina – N. Kosintseva, Moscow 2010
5 Fressinet – Brunner, Mulhouse 2011
6
22
Grandmaster Preparation – Calculation
1. Golod – Gerzhoy, Philadelphia 2011 18...£f3! White resigned. 0–1 2. Romanko – Shulakova, Moscow 2012 Black missed a direct win, after getting the first move right. 34...¥xa4 35.bxa4 ¥a7! It is important to throw in this move. In the game Black played 35...¤b4? and eventually only drew after 65 moves. White did not reply in the most accurate way here, as simply 36.¦d1! would have solved all of her worries at once and maybe even made Black’s practical experience a bit troublesome. 36.¦fc2 ¤b4 This works now. Most likely Black overlooked the idea of ...¦xc5 and ...¤d3. 37.¥xa7 This is forced, but after 37...¤xc2 Black will win the game with perfect play. 3. A. Hunt – Galdunts, Gold Coast 2000 Sorry, I could not resist this one. 47...¦xh4†! Or queen takes first. 48.gxh4 £xh4† 49.¢xh4 ¦h2# 4. Navara – Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee 2012 Black is doing quite well, but how to make the most of it? 33...£e4! That’s how. White does not have time for 34.bxc5 because of 34...¦b1†. 34.¦xa6 34.¢h2 cxb4 35.¦xa6 does not work as a concept. After 35...¦xa6 36.¦xa6 b3 37.¦b6 £c2 Black just wins. 34...¦xa6 35.¦xa6 c4!? This is good enough, but there is no reason to decline the pawn. 35...cxb4 36.¦b6 £b1† 37.¢h2 b3 and Black wins. 36.¦c6 c3 37.¦c8† ¢g7 38.¦c7† ¢f6 39.¢h2 £d4 40.f4 Hoping... 40...g5 41.fxg5† ¢e5 0–1 5. Nebolsina – N. Kosintseva, Moscow 2010 White was no doubt hoping that ¦h3 would do the job. Or at least ¤h5xf6. But she was met with a cold shower... 22...£c4! Threatening ...£xd4†. 23.¦e1 After 23.¦d1 Black wins an important tempo with 23...£c2!, so that after 24.¦df1 she has time to play 24...exf4–+. 23...£xd4† 24.¢h1 £d2 With the point 25.¦h3 £xf4!. 25.¤e2 ¦g4! 26.£f2 ¦xe4 0–1 6. Fressinet – Brunner, Mulhouse 2011 White obviously has a fine position, but how is he to exploit it? 16.¦fd1 looks natural, but something more direct exists. 16.¥g6!! The bishop is mysteriously immune and Black is just lost. 16...0–0 17.¥xh7† ¢h8 18.dxc5 There are other good moves, but who is counting? 18...¤xc5 19.¤xc5 ¦xc5 19...¥xc5 20.¦c4! would also quickly spell T.H.E. E.N.D. 20.¦xc5 ¥xc5 21.¥g6† ¢g8 22.¥xf7†! The final trick. 22...¦xf7 23.£h8†! 1–0
Challenging the Grünfeld By Edward Dearing
CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Bibliography Acknowledgements Introduction The Presumptuous 12...a5!? The Logical 12...b6!? The Chameleon 12...¤d7!? The Reliable Recipe 12...¥g4! Rare 12th Move Alternatives and 11.£d2!? The Provocative 9...¤c6!? The Insidous 10...¤e5!? The Indubitable 9...b6!? Early Alternatives and Miscellany Index of variations Index of games
5 6 7 15 41 62 85 125 135 146 165 188 197 205
Introduction
7
Introduction The Background to Challenging the Grünfeld: In early 1997 I sat down to do some serious work on my White opening repertoire, in preparation for the World Under-18 Championship. In general, I was happy with my openings – I had found some good lines against the King’s Indian Defence, the Nimzo Indian, and most of the mainline Queen’s Gambit and Slav lines – however one large hole in my opening repertoire remained: the Grünfeld. In the past I had enjoyed mixed experiences when facing the Grünfeld. Originally I relied exclusively on the Seville Variation (1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥c4 c5 8.¤e2 0–0 9.0–0 ¤c6 10.¥e3 ¥g4 11.f3 cxd4 12.cxd4 ¤a5 13.¥xf7 ¦xf7 14.fxg4 ¦xf1 15.¢xf1)
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-+k+0 9zpp+-zp-vlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9sn-zp-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+P+0 9+-zP-vL-+-0 9P+-+N+PzP0 9tR-+Q+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
I had seen Karpov use this line to good effect in some games from his 1987 World Championship match with Kasparov, and the notion of rapidly firing out 20 moves of established theory at the board very much appealed to me. Initially my results were quite positive, however the positions I reached were highly imbalanced, and as I improved I faced more experienced opponents
who handled the Black side of the Seville Variation with understanding and precision that was quite beyond my own powers. I soon discovered that without serious study the resulting positions were simply too volatile to work out in practical play. Subsequently I switched to the Russian System (1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.£b3 dxc4 6.£xc4 0–0 7.e4)
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+QzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
which was popular at that time. As with the Seville Variation, my initial results were good, however I was never entirely comfortable with bringing my queen out so early. Furthermore, although I enjoyed sharp and tactical positions, I didn’t much care for entering situations where I was behind in development – the potential for things backfiring was simply too high. It was with some frustration, therefore, that I set out to discover a suitable and durable line against the Grünfeld; one that offered good winning chances but did not risk burning down the house in the process! At around this time my old friend Andrew Brett stopped by my home for some blitz chess. Andrew was in law school then, and is now an experienced lawyer.
8
Challenging the Grünfeld He rarely has time to play chess, but follows the top tournaments and occasionally studies sharp mainline theory. We began playing, and I made a point of playing the Grünfeld as Black to see if I would discover anything that I disliked playing against. With a smugness befitting Andrew’s lawyerly nature, he convincingly beat me three games in a row with the 8.¦b1 line. Although I tried not to let it show, this annoyed me intensely: I was substantially higher rated and usually won at blitz too! Nevertheless, I was intrigued by how well he handled the 8.¦b1 system, and requested a crash course on its intricacies. For the next hour Andrew demonstrated the lines he knew, repeated some old games and explained which lines were currently popular or problematic for White. Needless to say, I was impressed and horrified that he knew all this, never mind the fact that he could remember it too! Later that day I flicked through some copies of Informant and those New In Chess Yearbooks which I owned, and it quickly became clear that White scores excellently with the 8.¦b1 line. However, perhaps even more impressive than White’s results was the calibre of player that employed this line: Kramnik, Khalifman, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Yusupov, Shirov, Beliavsky, Sakaev, M.Gurevich, Bacrot and even Kasparov and Karpov have played this line as White! This line definitely held some appeal, so I set out to study it quite thoroughly. Unfortunately there were no books on it (The Complete Grünfeld, by Alexei Suetin, and Anatoly Karpov’s Beating the Grünfeld, offer some limited coverage, but much of this was rather dated) so I had to pull together what I could from various issues of the New In Chess magazines and yearbooks, Informant and Chessbase Magazine (CBM). That was 1997. In 2004 I decided to play at the FIDE Chess Olympiad in Calvia, Mallorca, Spain. My preparation for the Grünfeld was a complete mess, so I again had to do some serious work on the 8.¦b1 variation, however to my disappointment there were still no books
on it! Consequently I had to go through the same arduous task of examining numerous journals and gathering notes on each line and sub-variation so that I could update my opening folder. Having gone through this process a second time, and kept detailed notes, it occurred to me that anyone else who wants to play this variation must encounter the same difficulties, which is largely why I put together this little book. The 8.¦b1 variation (or ‘The Modern Exchange Variation’ as GM Bogdan Lalic dubs it in The Grünfeld for the Attacking Player) offers White superb winning chances, is theoretically sound, has been played by most of the best players in the world, and is much easier to play as White than to defend against as Black! But really, what’s the point? When I decide to undertake any project I like to have a specific purpose in mind. I have written one other chess book (Play the Sicilian Dragon, by GAMBIT Publications) and the purpose of that book was largely to detail my experiences with the Sicilian Dragon, discussing both the strengths and weaknesses of the opening, as well as providing a detailed survey of the theory in the most popular variations. The sheer size of that project required that I use a ‘tree of variations’ format, with relatively little room for complete games and explanatory content. Challenging the Grünfeld was a project that gave me more flexibility in terms of approach. Although I wanted to provide White with a thoroughly reliable opening repertoire against the Grünfeld, I also appreciated that most people have neither the time nor the patience to wade through line after line of dense theoretical subvariations. In light of this consideration I decided to present the book as a set of 50 annotated games between strong grandmasters, which I consider to be particularly instructive or helpful. It is my hope that the process of playing through these games will illustrate the themes, niceties and strategies of the Modern Exchange Variation in a relatively pain-free manner.
Introduction For those readers who desire more detail, or who require a more expansive knowledge of the theory surrounding the Modern Exchange Variation, this can usually be found in the ‘alternatives’ notes to the illustrative games. Obviously a tree format had to be used for this, and at times the theory can become rather dense, and I must apologise for this. It was my original intention to avoid dense theoretical variations wherever possible, however I approached this project on the basis that I was preparing the Modern Exchange Variation for my own use, so the level of detail included here represents the level of detail which I myself would desire from a book purporting to present a comprehensive repertoire against the Grünfeld. The Themes and Ideas of the Modern Exchange Variation: The opening moves of the Modern Exchange Variation proceed as follows: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 (6...c5 is also possible. Notably White avoids this move with the 4.¤f3 move order, although I am not sure how much difference it really makes.) 7.¤f3 is also possible, however my preference has always been to play 4.¤f3. before capturing on d5. 4...¥g7 5.cxd5 ¤xd5 6.e4 ¤xc3 7.bxc3 c5 8.¦b1!
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+RvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
9
8...0–0 9.¥e2 cxd4 9...b6 is a sideline that has now become very popular at all levels on account of Black’s solid yet potentially dynamic formation. In general White can obtain a small opening advantage against this system on account of his greater space and superior central control, however actually converting that slight edge to anything more is another matter entirely. In practice Black’s position has proved extremely resilient and results have been good. The 9...b6 system will be discussed in detail in Chapter 8. 9...¤c6 is perhaps Black’s most logical move: the c6-knight coordinates with the g7-bishop and d8-queen to put substantial pressure on the d4-pawn. If White defends the d4-pawn with 10.¥e3, Black could try to undermine White’s centre with 10...¥g4, or play 10...cxd4 11.cxd4 £a5†, when White must choose between 12.£d2 £xd2 13.¢xd2, and 12.¥d2 £xa2, both of which are probably better for Black. White is therefore forced to play 10.d5!.
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+n+-+p+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9P+-+LzPPzP0 9+RvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
Black now has two lines: The most obvious choice is 10...¥xc3† and this is examined in Chapter 6. Play continues 11.¥d2 ¥xd2† 12.£xd2 and now 12...¤d4 13.¤xd4 cxd4 14.£xd4 £a5† 15.£d2 £xd2† 16.¢xd2 leads Black into a difficult ending. This is examined in Game 37, Kasparov – Natsis 1980.
10
Challenging the Grünfeld The main alternative is 12...¤a5!? when Black attempts to hold on to the extra pawn, but in return White gains excellent attacking chances against the black king. Theory now recommends 13.h4 ¥g4! when White can choose between 14.h5!, which is the mainline and is considered in Game 38, Halkias – Lputian 2000, or 14.¤g5!?, which has scored enormously well for White and is considered in Game 39, Bacrot – Popovic 2002. Black’s primary alternative to 10...¥xc3 is 10...¤e5 which has become something of a mainline unto itself in recent years, and is considered in Chapter 7. Play continues 11.¤xe5 ¥xe5 12.£d2! (12.£c2?! is less accurate, but is included for illustrative purposes (Game 40). 12.¦b3!? is a relatively new idea that has hitherto scored well for White (Game 43).) 12...e6 13.f4 and now 13...¥g7 is the traditional mainline of this variation (examined in Game 41), and 13...¥c7!? is perhaps best described as the modern mainline of 9...¤c6, although perhaps this is something of a misnomer given that Khalifman – Tseitlin 1999 (Game 42) seems to have put most Grünfeld players off this line in recent years. Occasionally Grünfeld advocates try the old 9...£a5!? line, however nowadays this variation is considered unduly risky, if not invariably disadvantageous for Black. We will take a quick look at this system in Chapter 9, Games 48 & 49. 10.cxd4 £a5†
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9P+-+LzPPzP0 9+RvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
11.¥d2 In the past 11.£d2 has enjoyed brief spells of popularity because the endgame after 11...£xd2† 12.¥xd2 was thought to hold some dangers for Black. Nowadays Black’s handling of this system has been refined to the point where White has little (if any) hope of an advantage, and consequently 11.£d2 has fallen into widespread disuse at IM and GM level. 11..£xa2 12.0–0
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9q+-vLLzPPzP0 9+R+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The position above represents the starting position of the mainline Modern Exchange Grünfeld. Black is a pawn up, has two connected passed pawns on the queenside, and has no visible weaknesses to speak of. Oh, and it is Black to move as well! When one puts it in those terms I would hope it is easy for the reader to understand why I was initially somewhat sceptical of this variation. After all, where is White’s compensation? This is not an easy question to answer in abstract, but I will give it a try. The first point to note is that White is ahead in development: all of his pieces bar the f1 rook (and perhaps the d1–queen) are developed quite actively. Although neither of White’s bishops can threaten anything without moving again, the point is that they are only a move away from creating a serious threat. For example, the d2-
Introduction bishop can lunge to b4 or g5, in either case hitting the e7 pawn. If White recovers his sacrificed pawn material equality will be restored, but White will retain his strong centre and formidable lead in development. The e2-bishop also enjoys hidden potential: consider the continuation 12...b6 13.£c1 ¥b7. Now 14.¥c4! hits the black queen and puts pressure on the tender f7-pawn. Indeed at this stage White already has the option of forcing a draw via 14...£a4 15.¥b5 £a2 16.¥c4, not that he would want to! The second point to consider is Black’s development. At present only Black’s g7-bishop is well-placed, and even then its scope is quite restricted by the d4-pawn. Black’s queen feels as though she is on the wrong side of the board, and is in the path of Black’s queenside pawns1. Whereas White’s pieces are ready to create immediate threats, Black’s pieces remain undeveloped and unprepared to generate immediate counterplay. An additional aspect to White’s compensation is what Black cannot do: Black would like to play 12...¤c6, however 13.d5 ¤e5 14.¤d4 (intending 15.¥c3 and 16.¦a1 trapping the queen) is already very good for White. Black would also like to develop the c8-bishop, however at present the bishop seems to be tied to the protection of the b7-pawn2. A further consideration is each side’s pawn structure. White enjoys a strong and mobile pawn centre that is already eager to advance with d4-d5 and e4-e5, restricting Black’s forces and creating threats as they go. Black, on the other hand, will have trouble organising an effective pawn break that does not create serious weaknesses within his position. 12...a7-a5 is one mainline (Chapter 1), however this substantially weakens the b5 and b6 squares, and also does nothing to challenge White’s centre or improve Black’s development. 12...b7-b6 (Chapter 2) is another obvious choice, however this weakens Black’s control of the queenside light squares.
11
One final point that I would like to mention is borrowed from Jonathan Rowson’s work, Understanding the Grünfeld. Rowson notes that, having essentially exchanged the g8-knight for the b1–knight, Black has potentially left his kingside a little vulnerable. The problems that this exchange gives rise to are compounded by the difficulties that Black will experience in bringing his remaining minor pieces over to the kingside. Although this element doesn’t really form a big part of White’s compensation at this stage, I wanted to mention this observation because I had never thought of this position in those terms. I was, of course, aware that Black’s kingside often comes under fire from White’s minor pieces in subsequent stages of this variation, however before reading Understanding the Grünfeld I had never thought of Black’s kingside as being ‘weak’ at this stage. In conclusion, I believe that White’s large lead in development, well-placed pieces and mobile pawn centre guarantee excellent compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Recommended Repertoire: Although this book includes fifty illustrative games (and I shudder to think how many ancillary notes, variations and sub-variations!), not all of them are strictly necessary to the repertoire which I am going to recommend. However, the games are there for a reason, and I firmly believe that a thorough knowledge of the concepts that are explored in these games will prove beneficial to those who wish to play the Modern Exchange Variation.
Chapter 1 Here we consider the variation arising after: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3 0–0 8.¥e2 c5 9.¦b1 cxd4 10.cxd4 £a5† 11.¥d2 £xa2 12.0–0 a5!?
However the queen does perform some useful functions on a2, in particular in terms of restricting the movement and coordination of White’s forces within their own camp. We will discuss this theme in more detail as and when it occurs throughout the book. 2 This comment is made on a purely superficial level only. In actual fact 12...¥g4! is probably Black’s strongest move, and this will be considered in Chapter 4. 1
Challenging the Grünfeld
12
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9q+-vLLzPPzP0 9+RwQ-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
against which I am recommending 13.¥g5 a4 (13...h6 is also playable, but probably bad for Black. This is examined in Game 6) 14.¦e1! which is relatively unexplored, but has scored excellently in practice and is a favourite with GMs Boris Gelfand and Yuri Shulman, both of whom are renowned experts on the Modern Exchange Variation. This line is discussed in detail in Game 8.
Chapter 2 In Chapter 2 the line 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3 0–0 8.¥e2 c5 9.¦b1 cxd4 10.cxd4 £a5† 11.¥d2 £xa2 12.0–0 b6!? is discussed.
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zp-+-zppvlp0 9-zp-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9q+-vLLzPPzP0 9+R+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
My recommendation against this line is 13.£c1! when Black has two moves. In my opinion Black’s best option is 13...£e6!?, against which White has several dangerous options, but none which seem to guarantee a knockout blow or even a definite advantage. My recommendation here is Chernin’s 14.¦e1!?, which gives rise to unclear positions in which White enjoys enduring positional compensation and excellent practical chances (see Game 12). The normal move is 13...¥b7, when White should play 14.¥c4 £a4 15.¥b5 £a2 16.¥c4 £a4 17.¥b5 £a2 18.¦e1 (Games 13 and 14).
Chapter 3 In this chapter we deal with one of Leko’s favourite lines, 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3 c5 8.¦b1 0–0 9.¥e2 cxd4 10.cxd4 £a5† 11.¥d2 £xa2 12.0–0 ¤d7!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+nzppvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9q+-vLLzPPzP0 9+R+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
which has proven quite resilient over the last few years. 13.¥b4! a5?! is shown to be good for White in Game 15, however much better is 13...¤b6, which is considered in Games 16-19. White then has a choice: 14.¦a1!? £e6 15.£b1 is considered in Game 18. White seems to have good chances in this line, however with precise play Black is able to hold the balance. Consequently it may be worth trying GM Boris
Introduction Avrukh’s 15.¥d3!?, which is discussed in the notes to Game 18 and may well be promising for White. Avrukh is a respected expert on Grünfeld defence and, in particular, on the Modern Exchange Variation, so his ideas deserve consideration. In Game 19 we examine Boris Gelfand’s interpretation of the 12...¤d7 variation: 13.¥b4 ¤b6 14.h3!?. Gelfand is considered the foremost authority on the Modern Exchange Variation, and his ideas have done much to shape my understanding of how this system should be played. 14.h3 has scored excellently in practice, but unfortunately remains relatively unexplored. Game 20 sees the Indian GM Viswanathan Anand causing GM Peter Leko some serious problems with another fresh idea: 13.¦e1!?. In the main game Leko manages to hold the balance, however the notes to move 16 take into account Stohl’s recommended improvement, 16.¥d3!? which also looks promising for White. Conclusion: You are spoilt for choice here! If I was forced to choose between these systems I think I would probably play Gelfand’s 14.h3, but that is just personal preference speaking.
Chapter 4 In this chapter we deal with Black’s most reliable line, 12...¥g4!.
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+l+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9q+-vLLzPPzP0 9+R+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
13
Black has been close to equality in this system for some time, however White has continuously been able find refinements that pose fresh problems. My recommendation against this system is 13.¥g5 h6 14.¥e3 (considered in Games 2629). White has also played 13.¥g5 h6 14.¥h4, however I believe that Black has now solved his problems here (see Game 25). White has one other option in 13.¥e3 (considered in Games 30-32), which is still posing Black some problems. However I am recommending 13.¥g5 h6 14.¥e3 because it has been the choice of true experts like GM Khalifman, GM Krasenkow and, most recently, French GM Etienne Bacrot.
Chapter 5 This chapter is just a round-up of Black’s dodgy sidelines, the recommendations against which are obvious (they are pretty much the only thing discussed!).
Chapter 6 In this chapter we deal with the line 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3 c5 8.¦b1 0–0 9.¥e2 ¤c6!? 10.d5 ¥xc3† 11.¥d2 ¥xd2† 12.£xd2
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zpp+p0 9-+n+-+p+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9P+-wQLzPPzP0 9+R+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
and now 12...¤d4!? just leads to a bad ending for Black (see Game 37), so Black has to try
Challenging the Grünfeld
14
12...¤a5!? 13.h4 ¥g4, when White’s best is probably 14.h5! with a dangerous kingside attack. [Editor’s note: Very recent developments suggest that 14.¤g5! is also promising (see Game 39).]
Chapter 7 This chapter deals with Black’s alternative to capturing on c3, i.e. 1.d4 ¤f6 2 ¤f3 g6 3.c4 ¥g7 4 ¤c3 d5 5.cxd5 ¤xd5 6.e4 ¤xc3 7.bxc3 c5 8.¦b1 0–0 9.¥e2 ¤c6 10.d5 ¤e5!? against which I recommend following the mainline with 11.¤xe5 ¥xe5 12.£d2! (Games 41 & 42), although those who wish to avoid all the theory have a reasonable alternative in 12.¦b3!? (Game 43).
Chapter 8 Here we deal with 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3 ¤f3 ¥g7 4 ¤c3 d5 5.cxd5 ¤xd5 6.e4 ¤xc3 7.bxc3 c5 8.¦b1 0–0 9.¥e2 b6,
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zp-+-zppvlp0 9-zp-+-+p+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9P+-+LzPPzP0 9+RvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
which tends to be more about ideas and understanding than long variations. Play continues 10 0–0 ¥b7 11.£d3 and now 11...e6!?
is Game 44. Instead, 11...¥a6 12.£e3 £d7 13.d5! is Game 45, and 11...¥a6 12.£e3 £c8 13.d5! is Game 46, both of which are better for White on existing evidence. 11...cxd4 is considered in Game 47, however exchanging on d4 at this stage just enhances the mobility of White’s pieces and leaves Black with inferior versions of the positions reached in Games 44-46.
Chapter 9 Here we just consider Black’s dodgy alternatives, such as 9...£a5, which should be met by 10.0-0!. The recommendations here are all pretty self-explanatory. The mainline of the 8.¦b1 Grünfeld commences after 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3 0–0 8.¥e2 c5 9.¦b1 cxd4 10.cxd4 £a5† 11.¥d2 £xa2 12.0–0 with the following position:
XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9q+-vLLzPPzP0 9+R+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
The general ideas associated with either side’s play were considered in the Introduction, and in this chapter we are going to examine one of Black’s most aggressive treatments of the position, 12…a5, in greater detail.
Challenging the Nimzo-Indian
David Vigorito Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
CONTENTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
List of Symbols Bibliography How this book came to be Chapter overview and recommendations Endgame Variation Avoiding the Endgame The Old Variation Bareev Variation Sokolov Variation Rozentalis Variation and 7…c5 Dutch and Vitolinsh Variations Central Variation: Main Line Central Variation: Deviations Zurich Variation and Black’s rare 4th moves Romanishin: 6.e3 Romanishin: 6.¤f3 Accelerated PCA Variation Exchange Variation PCA Variation Romanishin Gambit and Short Variation Adams Variation Modern Variation Knight Hop Macieja Variation Deviations after 4…c5 Index of Main Lines
5 6 7 9 13 25 37 49 61 73 89 111 129 149 161 171 189 199 205 219 227 243 261 281 297 310
List of symbols † ! !! !? ?! ? ?? ™
Check A strong move A brilliant move An interesting move A dubious move A mistake A blunder The only move
1-0 ½-½ 0-1 (ch) (izt) (ol) (n)
White won The game was drawn Black won Championship Interzonal Olympiad nth match game
+± ² = ÷ ³ μ –+ © ‚ ƒ „ ¹ ‹ … ‰
With a winning advantage for White With a large advantage for White With a small advantage for White With equal play With unclear play With a small advantage for Black With a large advantage for Black With a winning advantage for Black With compensation for the sacrificed material With an attack With an initiative With counterplay Better is Worse is With the idea With a development advantage Weakness
×
Chapter overview and recommendations: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.£c2
1) Endgame Variation: 4...0–0 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 b6 7.¥g5 ¥b7 8.f3 main line The endgame that arises after 8…h6 9.¥h4 d5 10.e3 ¤bd7 11.cxd5 ¤xd5 12.¥xd8 ¤xc3 13.¥h4 ¤d5 14.¥f2 is still popular and very important. Recent times have seen White play other systems, not because the endgame is so easy for Black, but because other possibilities are also interesting and offer some promise to White. This line is still a good choice if you want a safe line where you can hope to squeeze a little bit. 2) Avoiding the Endgame: 4...0–0 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 b6 7.¥g5 ¥b7 8.f3 deviations If White wants to play 8.f3, he still has some chances to avoid the endgame. Unfortunately most of these deviations are pretty harmless. This chapter is still very important because Black has several ways to avoid the endgame. The good news is that if Black varies from Chapter 1, White has good chances of getting an advantage. 3) The Old Variation: 4...0–0 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 b6 7.¥g5 ¥b7 8.e3 d6 9.f3 This old variation is not considered to be very dangerous. It is not completely harmless however, and the theory is still important. A study of this chapter will help one understand the struggle of White’s bishop pair and space vs. Black’s lead in development and methods of achieving counterplay. 4) Bareev Variation: 4...0–0 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 b6 7.¥g5 ¥b7 8.e3 d6 9.¤e2 Bareev’s system is a very modern variation. It is an ambitious system which is still very popular, and it is currently White’s top choice against 4...0-0. 5) Sokolov Variation: 4...0–0 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 b6 7.¥g5 ¥b7 8.¤f3 This line was introduced by Ivan Sokolov. White intends to place his knight on d2. While this system probably does not give White much chance of achieving an advantage, the positions that arise are almost always interesting.
10
Challenging the Nimzo-Indian
6) Rozentalis Variation and 7…c5: 4...0–0 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 b6 7.¥g5 – 7…others In this chapter we look at the popular alternatives to 7…¥b7, which are 7…¥a6 and 7…c5. White has good chances of achieving some advantage against either move, but it is not so simple and these lines should not be neglected. 7) Dutch and Vitolinsh Variations: 4...0–0 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 – 6…others Here we cover the ambitious lunge 6…¤e4 and Vitolinsh’s gambit 6…b5. I do not think Black can easily claim equality in either line, but his play is very aggressive and White should be well prepared. 8) Central Variation: Main Line: 4...0–0 5.e4 d5 5.e4 was ignored by theory for a long time and it is not very well covered in chess literature. The play can become very sharp. After 5…d5, however, I believe that Black is doing quite well. Emms once said that the more he looked at this line, the more he liked it for White. Unfortunately, my feelings are rather the opposite and I think that Black has good chances if he knows his stuff. 9) Central Variation: Deviations: 4...0–0 5.e4 – 5...others If, for whatever reason, Black is unhappy with 5…d5, he can play 5…c5 or 5…d6. If you want to employ 5.e4 as White, you must know these lines as well. The good news is White has a better chance of fighting for an advantage in the lines given in this chapter. 10) Zurich Variation (4...¤c6) and Black’s rare 4th moves The Zurich variation, as 4...¤c6 is called, is a solid line for Black. Although White has good chances of securing a theoretical advantage, the struggle in the middlegame is much more likely to be determined by ability rather than by knowledge of long variations. For that reason, this system is popular at club level. In this chapter I discuss the lines that I think give White the best chance of fighting for a tangible initiative. 11) Romanishin: 6.e3: 4...d5 5.cxd5 £xd5 6.e3 4…d5 is the move I would choose for Black. It is solid but also allows Black the chance to stir up trouble. This chapter looks at Romanishin’s 5…£xd5. The simple move 6.e3 has developed a large body of theory, but I think White has very little chance to achieve anything here. 12) Romanishin: 6.¤f3: 4...d5 5.cxd5 £xd5 6.¤f3 The best response to 5…£xd5 is 6.¤f3. After 6…£f5, the best move is the obvious 7.£xf5, which gives White a small edge in an interesting endgame. If White avoids this with either 7.£d1 or 7.£b3 Black can already think about taking over the initiative. 13) Accelerated PCA Variation: 4...d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5 c5 Black can also play 5…exd5. This can lead to complications which are discussed in Chapter 15. If Black wants to reach these positions while avoiding the fixed pawn structure of Chapter 14, he can play 6….c5. This used to be a sideline but this move-order has become popular. 14) Exchange Variation: 4...d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5 h6 7.¥xf6 By taking on f6, White removes a lot of the dynamism from the position. This used to be considered a safe method of playing for a small edge. Although it is still not too dangerous theoretically, the positions that arise are not as dull as many believe.
Chapter overview and recommendations
11
15) PCA Variation: 4...d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5 h6 7.¥h4 This is one of the sharpest lines of the whole 4.£c2 Nimzo-Indian. Often both kings are in some danger. Although the theory has not been totally resolved, many of the complications that arise in this chapter lead to a draw. There are still things to be discovered here, but at the moment Black is doing fine. For this reason I prefer 5.a3 as covered in Chapters 16-18. 16) Romanishin Gambit and Short Variation: 4...d5 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 – 6…others This chapter introduces the sharp 5.a3. White refuses to make any positional concessions and grabs the two bishops. If Black wants to avoid the bulk of theory which is covered in Chapters 17 and 18, this is the place to look. 17) Adams Variation: 4...d5 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 ¤e4 7.£c2 – 7…others This chapter covers 7…e5 and 7...¤c6. There is less to learn here than in Chapter 18, and while these systems are interesting, White has good chances of getting an edge. 18) Modern Variation: 4...d5 5.a3 ¥xc3† 6.£xc3 ¤e4 7.£c2 c5 The 7…c5 variation can be considered the main line of 5.a3. White has a choice of how to play. He can steer the game towards quiet positions, or he can grab a pawn and provoke a sharp battle across the whole board. 19) Knight Hop: 4...c5 5.dxc5 ¤a6 The uncompromising 5…¤a6 has had bouts of popularity. Black bets everything on piece activity and hopes to chase White’s queen around. This line can lead to exciting chess. If White knows his stuff and plays to control the position instead of grabbing material, he has good chances for an advantage. 20) Macieja Variation: 4...c5 5.dxc5 0–0 6.a3 ¥xc5 7.¤f3 b6 This solid system of development has been popularised by Macieja. Black develops naturally and can often achieve a very comfortable hedgehog-type position. White must play very deliberately to achieve anything. 21) Deviations after 4…c5: 4...c5 5.dxc5 – 5…others Something of an “odds and ends” chapter, here we look at less common Black 5th moves as well as an old “equalizing variation”. Many of the lines are quite tricky, so White should be well aware of these less common systems.
Champions of the New Millennium By
Lubomir Ftacnik Danny Kopec Walter Browne
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to symbols used Foreword by Anthony Saidy Preface
4 5 9
January 2009 ratings and World ranking
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Veselin Topalov (2796 - World no. 1) Viswanathan Anand (2791 - World no. 2) Vassily Ivanchuk (2779 - World no. 3) Magnus Carlsen (2776 - World no. 4) Alexander Morozevich (2771 - World no. 5) Teimour Radjabov (2760 - World no. 6) Vladimir Kramnik (2759 - World no. 8) Peter Leko (2751 - World no. 9) Levon Aronian (2750 - World no. 11) Alexei Shirov (2745 - World no. 12) Wang Yue (2739 - World no. 13) Alexander Grischuk (2733 - World no. 14) Ruslan Ponomariov (2726 - World no. 16) Gata Kamsky (2725 - World no. 17) Shakhriyar Mamedyarov (2724 - World no. 18) Peter Svidler (2723 - World no. 20) Sergey Karjakin (2706 - World no. 27) Judit Polgar (2693 - World no. 36)
14 41 69 99 127 153 173 195 221 245 263 285 309 331 355 377 405 425
Index of complete games Alphabetical index of complete games Selected list of photographs
450 452 453
Chapter 1 Veselin Topalov
Born March 15, 1975 in Rousse, Bulgaria Highest Rating in July 2006: 2813
16
Champions of the New Millennium
Veselin Topalov is the biggest “new” star of the first decade of the 21st century, despite his age and numerous earlier accomplishments. No other mature player has been able to achieve such a significant jump in strength. Topalov lives in Salamanca in Spain, partly because his business manager, IM Silvio Danailov, resides there as well. He was one of the first chess players to prepare with coaches from other sports, including sports psychologists. One example is his special training to deal with the fear of losing: Topalov has been able to demonstrate that he is unconstrained by this fear, and indeed his games reveal that he is prepared to accept a higher level of risk than his contemporaries. Topalov gets indirect support and sponsorship from Bulgaria – state officials attend the Sofia tournaments. Various grandmasters have acted as Topalov’s official second, most recently Ivan Cheparinov. Topalov is unquestionably one of the world’s strongest players with a fearless attacking style, and his chess is generally exciting and unpredictable. He seems to specialize in material imbalances with the help of sacrifices in his quest to gain the initiative. His original approach can be seen in his predilection for attacking with knights and his courage in playing very deep exchange sacrifices. Veselin started to play chess at the age of 8, and in 1989 was already able to win the World U14 championship in Puerto Rico, followed by silver in the World U16 in Singapore 1990. The 1990s were very fruitful for the dynamic youngster, who played attractive chess full of tension and life. In knockout tournaments for the FIDE World Championship he reached the last 16 in 1999, losing to Kramnik 1-3. At the same stage in 2001 he lost 3-4 to Shirov. In the semi-finals in 2004 he fell to the overall winner Kasimdzhanov 2-4. In Dortmund 2002, playing for the right to challenge Kramnik for his Classical World title, Topalov lost the final Candidates match to Leko 1.5-2.5.
Chapter 1 - Veselin Topalov
17
Some notable accomplishments of Topalov include defeating Kasparov in Linares 2005 in his last official tournament game, and winning the 2005 Sofia MTel Masters (+4,=5,-1), the strongest event of that year with an average rating of 2744. He reached the top of the rating list in October 2006 achieving 2813, the second highest rating of all time. Topalov’s most significant tournament result was winning the double round robin 2005 FIDE World Championship in San Luis, Argentina, 1.5 points ahead of Anand and Svidler. En route to this achievement he scored a remarkable 6.5/7 in the first half. The champion was duly awarded the chess Oscar for 2005. In Elista 2006 he lost the unification match with Kramnik on tiebreak (1.5-2.5) after tying in regular games 6-6. Unsupported allegations of cheating were made against Kramnik by Topalov’s camp, and the term “toiletgate” was coined. The controversy left an unpleasant aftertaste for the whole event. We will refrain from reviewing all the painful details. Suffice it to say that the match was interrupted after four games with the score at 2-2 and, following the allegations, Kramnik did not show up for Game 5, which was awarded to Topalov. The match continued on October 2, 2006, with FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov upholding the 3-2 score in favour of Topalov. No doubt the psychological repercussions of the 2006 unification match took their toll on Topalov. However, after losing the title he has clearly proven his class and the efficiency of his approach to training. The list of his tournament triumphs is truly enviable – 1-2 place in Corus 2006, 1-3 in Corus 2007, 2-3 place in Morelia/Linares 2006, 3-4 in Morelia/Linares 2008, 1st place in Sofia MTel 2006 and 2007, 2nd place in 2008, 1st place in Vitoria Gasteiz 2007 and 1st place in the Grand Slam final in Bilbao 2008 and Nanjing 2008, 1.5 points ahead of the field in a category 21 event! In 2008 Topalov was on top form and occupied 1st place in the rating list.
The Creative Attacking Player Topalov is one of the finest universal players of modern times, but in his heart he is above all a tactician and an attacking player. His early successes had indicated that he was capable of beating any opponent, but the lack of deeper strategic insight was stopping him from reaching the very top. Then Veselin worked on his chess and moved to an even higher level – his excellent opening preparation is on a par with Kasparov in his best days; he plays dynamic positions and his active approach offers chances to win with both colours; he has a profound understanding of the relationship between material and initiative, just like Petrosian. Topalov is physically fit and very often improves his tournament position in the final rounds when his competitors are struggling with reduced energy levels. His special psychological preparation helps him to cope with stress, time trouble and the fear of losing. The Bulgarian star is showing the way for the younger generation in his willingness to extend his preparation beyond the limits of 64 black and white squares.
Champions of the New Millennium
18
Game 1 Veselin Topalov – Levon Aronian Wijk aan Zee 2006
Veselin finds an explosive exchange sacrifice in a normally quiet opening, and continues the initiative to the very end! It’s no wonder this game won the highest awards for the most important theoretical novelty and best game in Chess Informant 96. 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 b6 4.g3 ¥a6 5.b3 ¥b4† 6.¥d2 ¥e7 7.¥g2 Another Aronian game continued: 7.¤c3 0–0 8.¦c1 d5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.¥g2 ¥b7 11.0–0 ¤a6 12.¥f4 giving White good play in Aronian – Ivanchuk, Linares 2006. 7...c6 8.¥c3 d5 9.¤e5 ¤fd7 10.¤xd7 ¤xd7 11.¤d2 0–0 12.0–0
12...¤f6 Another way to play this position is 12...¦c8. After 13.e4 Black has played both 13...b5 and 13...c5, where the main line goes: 14.exd5 exd5 15.dxc5 dxc4 16.c6. It seems that Black is holding his own, but the winning chances are slim (see game 44 as an example).
13.e4 b5 14.exd5 exd5 If Black instead plays 14...cxd5, then White has 15.c5!? b4 16.¥xb4 ¥xf1 17.£xf1 with good compensation for the exchange. 15.¦e1 ¦b8 15...¦e8 16.£c2 ¦b8 was also possible but the text keeps options on the b-line. 16.c5!
Staking out more territory while freeing the knight on d2 to go to e5 to put pressure on c6. 16...¥c8 On the sharper 16...b4, then 17.¥b2 ¥b5 18.a3 bxa3 19.¦xa3 a6 20.¤b1 ¤d7 21.¤c3 gives White a slight edge. 17.¤f3 ¤e4
m R
Chapter 1 - Veselin Topalov
19
18.¦xe4!! In one fell swoop Veselin extinguishes Black’s central control whilst preparing pressure on c6 and the h1-a8 diagonal.
Should Black try 23...b4, then 24.¥b2 exf3 25.¥xf3 gives a big edge. 24.b4 £d6 25.£d1! With a clear advantage.
Until this game 18.¤e5 was played without great success: 18...¤xc3 19.£d3 £c7 20.£xc3 ¦e8 As in Kramnik – Leko, Dortmund 2004, with approximately equal chances.
21.g4! Pushing the bishop to g6 where it will be less able to stop White’s central pawns.
18...dxe4 19.¤e5 £d5 20.£e1
P
20...¥f5 The alternative is: 20...f5 This would be met by: 21.f3 ¥xc5 The best practical chance. On 21...¥b7 22.fxe4 fxe4 White would have faced a difficult crossroads. The tempting 23.£xe4 £xe4 24.¥xe4 ¦bc8 25.a4! bxa4 (25...b4!?) 26.¦xa4 a6 27.¦b4 ¦c7 28.¦xb7 ¦xb7 29.¥xc6 ¦c7 30.¥a5 ¦xc6! (much better than 30...¦cc8? 31.¥d5† with a won game for the first player) 31.¤xc6 ¢f7 is only slightly better for White. It seems that 23.¥xe4 £d8 24.¤xc6 ¥xc6 25.¥xc6 wins, though the battle would be more complex. 22.dxc5 £xc5† 23.¢h1 ¦be8
21...¥g6 21...b4!? On this there follows: 22.gxf5 bxc3 23.£xe4 £xe4 24.¥xe4 ¥f6 If 24...¦b4!? 25.¤xc6 ¥xc5 26.¤xb4 ¥xb4 27.a3? ¥d6 28.¥c6 ¥f4 29.¦a2 ¦d8 30.d5 ¢f8 31.¦c2 ¥d2 32.¢f1 ¢e7 33.¢e2 ¦d6 gives an edge to Black with ...¦h6 coming. Naturally the precise move 27.¦c1! would keep White happily in control. 25.¤xc6 ¥xd4 25...¦b7 26.¢g2! ¦c8 27.¢f3 with a slight edge. 26.¤xd4 ¦b4 27.¦d1 White has a won game. 22.f3! This diagonal must be opened!
22...b4 Black has a couple of options we should consider:
20
Champions of the New Millennium
On 22...¥xc5 23.dxc5 £xc5† 24.¢h1 exf3 25.¥xf3 ¦fe8 26.b4 £b6 27.£g1 White is in control due to his strong pieces. 22...£e6 23.fxe4 f6 24.¤xg6 hxg6 25.£g3 White could also play 25.g5 ¦be8 26.gxf6 ¥xf6 27.e5 with a pleasant edge eyeing the c-pawn, but 25...fxg5!? puts the whole idea under a question mark. 25...¦be8 26.b4 Instead 26.¦f1 ¦d8 27.b4 £xa2 28.d5 is met by 28...cxd5 29.exd5 ¦xd5! and Aronian is fine. But not 28.£c7 £c4! 29.¦f3 ¦xd4! (29...¦f7 also makes a good impression) 30.£xe7 ¦d1† 31.¢f2 (not pleasant, but 31.¥f1 ¦xf1† 32.¦xf1 £xc3 is bad as well) 31...£a2† 32.¢g3 ¦g1 33.¦f2 £b3 34.¦f3 £c2 when Black wins. 26...£c4 27.a4 a6 28.axb5 axb5 29.¦a7 29.d5 cxd5 30.¥f1 ¥xc5† is unclear. 29...¦f7 30.¦a6 ¦c8 31.h4 g5 32.h5 The impending d5 will be lethal. However, the defender would do much better with 30... f5! with an unclear position. 23.fxe4 £e6 24.¥b2 ¥f6
If instead 24...¦fe8 then 25.£f2 f6 26.d5 cxd5 27.exd5 £c8 28.¤c6 and White’s pawns are unstoppable.
After 24...h6 25.¢h1 ¦fe8 White’s overwhelming centre decides, even though the immediate 26.d5 cxd5 27.exd5 £a6 28.d6 ¥f6 would be only slightly better. 25.¤xc6! Clarifying the centre by exchanging the knight for bishop and creating two passed pawns. 25...£xc6 26.e5 £a6 27.exf6 ¦fe8 On 27...£xf6 28.£f2 £g5 29.d5! £xg4 30.£d4 ¥f5 31.£xg4 ¥xg4 32.c6 and the pawns triumph! 28.£f1
28...£e2 Hoping to gain a tempo on the bishop with an exchange on e2, but Veselin refuses to oblige! On 28...£xf1† 29.¥xf1 gxf6 30.d5 wins. 29.£f2! Wonderful! White realizes that the pawn on g4 is not relevant: once Black loses control of e2 counterplay is squashed and the pawns will roll with an easy win. 29...£xg4 30.h3 £g5
Chapter 1 - Veselin Topalov Another move to analyse is: 30...£h5 31.¦e1 Too impatient would be 31.d5?! ¦e2 32.£g3 ¦d8 33.¥d4 ¦d2 34.¥e3 ¦xg2† 35.£xg2 ¦xd5 36.¦e1 gxf6 37.c6 ¦d1 38.¦xd1 £xd1† 39.£f1 £d6 40.£f3 £e5 41.¥f4 £a1† 42.¢f2 £xa2† 43.¢g3 £c2 44.c7 ¥f5 and Black survives! 31...£g5 32.d5 ¥e4 33.¦xe4! ¦xe4 34.¢h2 ¦ee8 Not 34...¦f4?! 35.£g3. 35.fxg7 With the towering bishop duo and two advanced connected pawns, the victory is assured. 31.¥c1 £h5 32.¥f4
32...¦bd8?! A much tougher defence was 32...¦bc8! when White’s best seems to be 33.¥e5 gxf6 34.¥xf6 ¦e2 or 33.fxg7 ¥e4 with unclear fighting positions. 33.c6 ¥e4 34.c7 ¦c8 35.¦e1 £g6 On 35...¥xg2 36.¦xe8† ¦xe8 37.£xg2 £d1† 38.¢h2 g6 39.£e4! ¦f8 40.d5 wins.
21
36.¦xe4! A second exchange sac on the very same square as the first! 36...¦xe4 37.d5 White now has a won game. 37...¦ce8 38.d6 A triumphant march! 38...¦e1† 39.¢h2 £f5 40.£g3 g6 Unfortunately 40...£xf6 41.d7 was out of the question for the defender. 41.£g5
Besides having to worry about passed pawns, Black must not forget to protect his king.
22
Champions of the New Millennium
An enterprising win was 41.£g4!? £c5 42.d7 £g1† 43.¢g3 ¦1e3† 44. ¢h4 £f2† 45.£g3 and Aronian would have no defence. 41...£xg5 42.¥xg5 ¦d1 43.¥c6 An instructive case of bishops over rooks! 43...¦e2† 44.¢g3 1–0
Game 2 Peter Svidler – Veselin Topalov San Luis 2005, World Championship
Topalov unleashes an inspired novelty that soon leads to a fascinating endgame. When you surprise your opponent in the opening you will almost invariably gain on the clock. In this case a psychological advantage was also gained. Under constant pressure and short of time, Svidler finally cracks. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥e3 ¤g4 7.¥g5 If instead 7.¥c1 then 7...¤f6 puts the onus on White to play for a win. 7...h6 8.¥h4 g5 9.¥g3 ¥g7 10.h3
Or on 10.¥e2 h5 11.¥xg4 (if 11.h4 ¤c6 12.¤b3 gxh4 13.¦xh4 ¥e6 14.£d2 £b6 is equal) 11...hxg4 12.0–0 ¤c6 13.¤f5 ¥xc3 14.bxc3 £a5 15.£xg4 f6 is fine for Black. 10...¤e5 11.¤f5 Instead if 11.¥e2 ¤bc6 12.¤b3 ¥e6 13.¤d5 ¦c8 14.0–0 ¤g6 15.c3 ¥e5 16.¥xe5 ¤cxe5 Black has a nice grip on the centre.
Chess Evolution 1 The Fundamentals By
Artur Yusupov
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
First English edition 2011 by Quality Chess UK Ltd Translated from the German edition Tigersprung auf DWZ 1500 III Copyright © 2011 Artur Yusupov All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Paperback ISBN 978-1-906552-45-9 Hardcover ISBN 978-1-906552-64-0 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom Phone: +44 141 333 9588 e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland www.crafts.pl Cover Photo by Nadja Jussupow Photos by Harald Fietz on pages 5, 45, 95, 147, 157, 205, and 210 Translated by Ian Adams Edited and typeset by Colin McNab Proofreading by Jacob Aagaard Cover design and generic typeset: Augusto Caruso of Caissa Italia Elaborated by Adamson Design Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
CONTENTS
Key to symbols used Preface Introduction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Combinations involving bishops Diagonals Queen sacrifices Realizing a material advantage in a pawn ending Realizing a material advantage Attacking with queen and knight The open games Attacking with queen and rook Forced Variations Attacking with queen and bishop Positional advantages Bishop against pawns Attacking with queen and pawn Attacking Attacking with rook and bishop Knight against pawn Attacking with rook and knight Semi-open games Combinations involving promotion Mate in three moves Mating nets in the endgame The passed pawn Combinations involving files Queen against rook Final test Index of composers Index of games
4 5 6 8 18 28 36 46 56 66 76 86 96 106 118 126 134 146 158 168 176 188 198 206 216 226 236 245 255 256
chapter Contents ü Forcing the play after a queen sacrifice ü Material compensation ü Attacking the opposing queen
Diagram 3-1 q Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
28
3 Queen sacrifices In this chapter we shall study combinations in which the strongest piece is sacrificed. Such queen sacrifices are relatively rare, because it takes extremely wellcoordinated pieces to be able to mount a mating attack without the queen. If we are contemplating a queen sacrifice, we have to check the variations very carefully. We must try to make the play as forcing as possible, in order to prevent the opposing queen from successfully leading a counter-attack. We should be aware that although the queen is very strong, it does not show itself at its best in defence; to a certain extent this is because it is so valuable. Diagram 3-1
G.Rotlewi – A.Rubinstein Lodz 1907
1...£h4! Black brings his queen into the attack. 1...¤xh2! is also very strong. If 2.£h5 then simply 2...¥xe4–+ kills all hope. 2.g3 2.h3 is met by 2...¦xc3! and now: a) 3.¥xb7 ¦xh3† 4.gxh3 £xh3† 5.£h2 £xh2# b) 3.£xg4 ¦xh3† 4.£xh3 £xh3† 5.gxh3 ¥xe4† 6.¢h2 ¦d2† 7.¢g3 ¦g2† 8.¢h4 ¥d8† 9.¢h5 ¥g6# c) 3.¥xc3 ¥xe4 4.£xg4 (or 4.£xe4 £g3!–+) 4...£xg4 5.hxg4 ¦d3! The threat of mate on h3 nets Black a material advantage. 6.¢h2 ¦xc3–+ 2...¦xc3! All of Black’s pieces are attacking. To speed up his attack along the long diagonal, Black sacrifices his queen. 3.gxh4 White cannot really decline the sacrifice: a) 3.¥xc3 ¥xe4† 4.£xe4 £xh2# b) 3.¥xb7 ¦xg3 4.¦f3 (4.¥f3 ¤xh2–+) 4...¦xf3 5.¥xf3 ¤f2† 6.¢g1 (nor is 6.¢g2 any better, in view of 6...£h3† 7.¢g1 ¤e4† 8.¢h1 ¤g3#) 6...¤e4† 7.¢f1 ¤d2† 8.¢g2 ¤xf3 9.£xf3 (9.¢xf3 £h5†–+) 9...¦d2† White’s situation is hopeless. 28
3
3...¦d2! With this new sacrifice, the white queen is deflected from the defence of the e4-bishop. 4.£xd2 White loses in all variations: a) 4.£xg4 ¥xe4† 5.¦f3 ¦xf3–+ b) 4.¥xc3 ¦xe2 5.¦f2 ¥xe4† 6.¢g1 ¥xf2† 7.¢f1 ¥f3 8.¦d1 ¤xh2# c) 4.¥xb7 ¦xe2 5.¥g2 ¦h3–+ d) 4.¦ae1 ¥xe4† 5.£xe4 ¦xh2# 4...¥xe4† 5.£g2 ¦h3!!–+ Diagram 3-2 0–1 Rubinstein’s Immortal Game! White resigned be cause of mate in three: 6.¦f3 (or 6.¦f2 ¥xf2 7.£xe4 ¦xh2#) 6...¥xf3 7.¥d4 ¥xd4 8.£xf3 ¦xh2#
Diagram 3-2 r Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 3-3 q Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Very interesting situations can arise when in return for the sacrificed queen a player obtains some material compensation (often a rook plus a minor piece), along with an attack on the opposing king. This attack can sometimes be combined with threats against the opposing queen. Diagram 3-3
E.Geller – B.Spassky Moscow 1964
1...¥g5! This move prepares a queen sacrifice. Spassky has accurately calculated the required variations and correctly evaluated the position. 2.¦c7 2.¦xf8† ¦xf8 3.¦c7 is even worse for White: 3...¥e3† 4.¢h2 ¦f2† 5.¢h1 ¤xd2 6.¦xd7 ¥e4† 7.¢g1 ¦e2# 2...£xc7!! 3.¥xc7 ¥e3† 4.¢g2 The other king move is no better: 4.¢h2 ¤xd2 5.¦xf8† ¦xf8 6.¥xd5 ¦f2† 7.¥g2 (7.¢g3 transposes to the game) 7...¥e4–+ 4...¤xd2 5.¦xf8† ¦xf8 Spassky has only got a rook and knight for the queen. However, his forces are very well coordinated and are attacking the white king, which has been stripped of defenders. 29
chapter
Queen sacrifices
3 chapter
Diagram 3-4 q Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Diagram 3-5 q Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 Diagram 3-6 (analysis) q Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
Tactics 2
6.¥xd5 ¦f2† 7.¢g3 ¤f1† 8.¢h4 h6 9.¥d8 ¦f8 0–1 White has no sensible way to defend against the threat of ...¥f2#. Diagram 3-4
V.Smyslov – M.Tal Moscow 1964
1...f5! Black opens up the game and prepares a combination. 2.exf5 ¤e5! 3.f4 After 3.¥xb7? £xb7, the threat of ...¤f3† gives Black the advantage. 3...¤f3† 4.¥xf3 ¥xf3 5.¦e1 Diagram 3-5 5...£e2!! A positional queen sacrifice! Tal only gets a rook for the queen, but he has faith in the strength of his active pieces. 6.¦xe2 ¦xe2 7.£xe2 Hoping to survive in a worse endgame. If Smyslov had dared to hang on to the queen with 7.£c1, then Tal intended to play 7...¦g2† 8.¢f1 ¦xh2. Black has a very dangerous initiative, and will have at least a perpetual check with ...¦h1-h2† in reserve. A possible continuation is: 9.¤e1 ¥d5 10.¦b2 ¦h1† 11.¢f2 Diagram 3-6 11...¤xf5!? 12.g4 ¤e3 13.¢g3 h5 14.gxh5 gxh5 Black’s threats to the white king (such as ...h4† followed by ...¦f8) are overwhelming. 8...¥xe2 9.¤b2 gxf5! Black is better (see Boost Your Chess 2, Ex. 17-5).
30
r Ex. 3-4
«« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 3-2
« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 3-5
« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 3-3
«« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 3-6
«««« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 31
3
r Ex. 3-1
« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
chapter
Exercises
3 chapter
Exercises r Ex. 3-7
« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 3-10
««« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 3-8
« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 3-11
«« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
r Ex. 3-9
«« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9
q Ex. 3-12
«« Ç Æ Å Ä Ã Â Á À 7ÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏ9 32
(another 1 point) 4.¦xf8 is just as good: 4...¦xf8 5.¥xd7† ¢xd7 6.¤e5†+– 4...£b5 4...£c7 5.¥xd7† ¢b8 6.¦xd8† £xd8 7.¤c6† ¢a8 8.¤xd8+– 5.¦c1† ¥c5 6.¤xd7+– ¦xe8 7.¤b6#
J.Bolbochan – L.Pachman Moscow Olympiad 1956
1.£xf7†! ¢xf7 2.¥xe6#
(1 point)
Ex. 3-2
S.Urusov – Kalinovsky
Ex. 3-5
St Petersburg 1880
1.£g5†!! fxg5 1...¢f7 2.£g7† ¢e8 3.£e7# 2.¤h6†! ¢h8 3.¥b2† ¦f6 4.¥xf6#
K.Emmrich – B.Moritz Germany 1922
In the game, Black went on to lose after missing the forced mate: 1...£xh2†!! 2.¢xh2 ¤g4† 3.¢g1 ¤h3† 4.¢f1 ¤h2# (1 point)
(1 point)
Ex. 3-3
Em.Lasker – W.Steinitz St Petersburg 1895
Ex. 3-6
1.£xf4!! White can play his moves in a different order. You also get 1 point for: 1.¤f6! £e7 2.£xf4 £xf6 3.£h4+– 1...exf4 2.¤f6! (1 point) 2...¤e6 The black queen cannot flee: 2...£b5? 3.¤f7# (another 1 point for this variation) If 2...h6 then 3.¤xd7 hxg5 4.¤f6+–. 3.¤xd7+–
M.Tal – Miller Los Angeles 1988
1.h4!!
(2 points) Of course not 1.£xe5?? ¦f1#. 1...£g3 If 1...£xe2 then 2.¤xc7#. 2.¦d1! (another 1 point) Threatening both ¦xd5 and ¦d3. 2...¦f2 2...c6 is met by 3.¦d3 £b8 4.¦f3!+–. 3.£xf2!! (another 1 point) 3.¤xc7† also wins: 3...£xc7 4.£b5† £c6 5.¦xd5 ¦f6! 6.¥xf6 gxf6 7.£d3 ¤b4 8.¦d8† ¢e7 9.£xh7†!! ¢xd8 10.e7† ¢e8 11.£g7+– 3...¥xf2 3...£xf2 4.¤xc7† ¢f8 5.e7†+– 4.¦xd5+–
Ex. 3-4 Variation from the game
S.Tarrasch – S.Tartakower Berlin 1920
1.£xc4!!
(1 point) 1...£xc4 2.¥f5† ¦d7 2...£e6 is more resilient: 3.¦xe6 fxe6 4.¥xe6† ¦d7 5.¤e5 ¤xe5 6.¥xe5 ¢d8 7.¥xd7 ¢xd7 8.¥xd4+– 33
3
3.¦e8† ¤d8 4.¤e5
Ex. 3-1
chapter
Solutions
3 chapter
Solutions
Ex. 3-7
4.£d3 4.¦e1 is followed by: 4...¦xe1† 5.£xe1 ¦f1† 6.£xf1 ¥xf1–+ Effectively Black has an extra pawn in this ending. (another 1 point for this variation) 4...¥f3 5.¦f1 No better is 5.¢f1 ¦xh2 6.£d4 c5 and now: a) 7.£c3 ¥e2† 8.¢g1 (or 8.¢e1 ¦f1† 9.¢d2 ¥xc4† 10.¢e3 ¦e2#) 8...¦ff2–+ b) 7.£xd6 ¥c6† 8.¢e1 ¦e8† 9.¢f1 ¦h1†–+ 5...¦g2† 6.¢h1 ¥c6! 7.¦xf8† ¢xf8 8.£f1† ¦f2† 0–1
A.Tolush – G.Mititelu Warsaw 1961
1.£xf6!! gxf6 2.¤ge4†
(1 point) 2...¢h8 is met by 3.¤xf6, not only threatening mate on g8, but also attacking the queen on d7. 1–0 Ex. 3-8 Based on the game
Syversen – J.Podgorny
Ex. 3-11
Correspondence game 1933
Vogel – Barlov
1...£a5†!! 2.¢xa5 ¦xa2† 3.¢b4 a5# (1 point)
West Germany 1981
1.¥b5!
Ex. 3-9
(1 point) 1.£b5± is less clear. 1.£a4 ¦a8 2.£c6 ¦c8 leads to a repetition of moves. 1...¦xc6 2.dxc6! (another 1 point) 2...¤xe5 2...£c7 is met by: 3.cxd7† ¤xd7 (3...¢d8 4.¤xf7#) 4.¥xd7† ¢d8 5.¥f4 £b6 6.¦d1+– 3.c7†+–
H.Westerinen – G.Sigurjonsson New York 1977
1.£xg7†!! ¢xg7 2.¥d8†!
(1 point) 2...¢h8 2...¢f7 3.¥h5# or 2...¢h6 3.¦h3#. 3.¦g8†! But not 3.¥f6†?? ¦xf6 4.¦g8† ¦xg8–+. 3...¦xg8 4.¥f6† ¦g7 5.¥xg7† ¢g8 6.¥xd4†+– (another 1 point)
Ex. 3-12
G.Salwe – A.Rubinstein Lodz 1907
Ex. 3-10 1...£e1†!!
V.Alatortsev – I.Boleslavsky
(1 point) The less spectacular 1...¥xd5 (1 point) also wins. 2.¦xe1 2.¤f1 ¦h6† 3.¢g1 (3.¦h2 £f2!–+) 3...f2†! 4.¦xf2 ¦h1# 2...f2† 3.£xe4 fxe1£† 4.¢g2 £xd2† (1 point) White will quickly be mated. 0–1
USSR Ch, Moscow 1950
1...¥xf1! 2.fxg5 ¦xe2 3.£c3 ¥g2–+
(1 point)
(another 1 point) The bishop is very well placed on the long diagonal. 3...¥h3 (also 1 point) is not bad either, although White can struggle on with 4.g4µ. 34
3
Scoring Maximum number of points is 22
19 points and above 15 points and above 11 points
Excellent Good Pass mark
If you scored less than 11 points, we recommend that you read the chapter again and repeat the exercises which you got wrong.
35
chapter
Chess Evolution 2 Beyond the Basics By
Artur Yusupov
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
CONTENTS
Key to symbols used Preface Introduction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Combined attack on the seventh and eighth ranks Exchanging Attacking the king Opening repertoire against 1.c4 Don’t allow counterplay! A lead in development Exploiting weaknesses Calculating short variations Better pawn structures The pawn phalanx Opening repertoire (Black vs. the Reti/ White vs. the King’s Indian) Don’t be too hasty! The double bishop sacrifice Pawn play Active moves Intermediate checks Improving the position of your pieces Pawn sacrifices in the opening Intermediate moves The principle of two weaknesses An advantage in space Counter-blows The centre in the opening The correct exchanges Final test Index of games & studies
4 5 6 8 20 30 40 52 62 74 84 92 106 116 130 142 152 164 174 184 196 212 222 234 248 258 270 285 296
chapter Contents ü Evaluation of exchanges ü Unbalanced positions ü Some guidelines for exchanging
2 Exchanging This important subject was introduced in Chapter 18 of Build Up Your Chess 2. Which pieces should we exchange, and which ones would we be better keeping on the board? Correctly answering this question can be the key to gaining a clear advantage. Of course it is often not a trivial matter to evaluate exchanges – the specific situation on the board must be investigated accurately. The annotations to the following game are based on analysis by Tal.
Diagram 2-1 q
20
Diagram 2-1
M.Tal – M.Botvinnik World Ch (15), Moscow 1960
33...¥g8! Botvinnik here demonstrates a very deep positional understanding of the situation. For Black the most important task in this position is to activate his rooks. But after 33...¥xc2 34.¢xc2 c5 35.bxc5 bxc5 36.d5±, White would have the more active rooks in the rook ending – and therefore a great advantage! Black prepares the move ...f6, which will force the white rook away, thereby facilitating the future breakthrough ...c5. Black’s light-squared bishop has an important job to do! 34.g5 f6 35.¦5e4 After 35.gxf6 gxf6 36.¦5e4, Black would be able to use the open g-file. 35...c5 Black secures counterplay. 36.¥b3 Here White could play 36.dxc5 bxc5 37.b5, so as to retain some options on the queenside. 36...cxb4 37.cxb4 hxg5 38.fxg5 fxg5 39.¦g3 ¦f7 Black has opened lines for his passive rooks by exchanging pawns. 40.¦xg5 ¦f2† 41.¢a3 ¦c7 Black has activated his forces and can now maintain the balance. ½–½ 20
2
Some exchanging operations lead to unbalanced positions (for example, rook plus one or two pawns against two minor pieces). Such situations are particularly difficult to evaluate, as the positional factors play a very important role and can fully compensate for a slight material deficit.
chapter
Exchanging
M.Tal – M.Botvinnik World Ch (9), Moscow 1960
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.¤1e2 6.h4 is the main continuation nowadays. 6...¤f6 7.h4 h6 8.¤f4 ¥h7 9.¥c4 e6 10.0–0 ¥d6 Diagram 2-2 Tal had prepared an interesting sacrifice for this game. But Botvinnik too had been counting on the said sacrifice! 11.¤xe6!? fxe6 12.¥xe6 £c7 12...¤bd7 13.¦e1 and only then 13...£c7 would have been somewhat more precise. 13.¦e1 13.¤h5!? is an interesting possibility here. 13...¤bd7 14.¥g8† Diagram 2-3 Why does Tal exchange pieces while attacking? He wishes to swap off a good defensive piece so as to obtain the f5-square for his knight. 14...¢f8 15.¥xh7 ¦xh7 15...¥xg3? 16.¥g6 is too dangerous, as the lightsquared bishop would be very strong. 16.¤f5 White has a dangerous initiative in return for a piece. Tal would like to continue to strengthen his position quietly with h4-h5, £f3 and ¥d2, followed by doubling on the e-file. It is difficult for Black to coordinate his pieces. Botvinnik returns a pawn in order to simplify the position. 16...g6!? It was later discovered that it was better to put in the bishop check first: 16...¥h2† 17.¢h1 g6!µ 17.¥xh6† ¢g8 18.¤xd6 £xd6 Materially, the position is balanced, but positional nuances play a very important role here. For example, the two knights and the queen form an excellent, 21
Diagram 2-2 r Diagram 2-3 q
2 chapter
Diagram 2-4 q
Diagram 2-5 r
Positional play 1
coordinated attacking force. In addition, in the middlegame it will be very difficult for White to advance his pawns. Instead, 18...¦xh6 19.¦e6 ¦xh4 20.g3! (Kasparov) would have given White good attacking chances. 19.¥g5 Diagram 2-4 In his book on the match, Tal reports on his conversation with Botvinnik after the game. Tal showed his opponent a lot of variations he had calculated at this point. Botvinnik’s reply was somewhat startling: he said that he too had preferred the white position at first, but then he had realized that it would be better to exchange the rooks but retain the queens! Botvinnik had understood the essence of the position, which was more important than all the variations that one can calculate here! 19...¦e7! Black is fighting to get the open file for his major pieces. 20.£d3 ¢g7 Diagram 2-5 21.£g3? Tal wants to exchange queens to break up the dangerous combination of queen and two knights, but he seriously damages his pawn structure and thereafter has hardly any chances to save the game. But his position was not yet bad, and he could have maintained equality. Tal suggested 21.f4!?, intending 21...¦ae8 22.¦e5! with counterplay. 21.¦xe7† £xe7 22.£b3= (Kasparov) seems even simpler, keeping the opponent occupied on the queenside. 21...¦xe1† 22.¦xe1 £xg3 23.fxg3 ¦f8!µ A strong move, preventing a march into the centre by the white king. 24.c4?! This plan brings no relief to White. But passive defence was not to the taste of the young Tal: 24.¦e7† ¦f7 25.¦xf7† ¢xf7 26.¢f2 ¢e6 27.¢f3 ¢f5µ 24...¤g4 The consequence of 21.£g3? – the black knight profits immensely from the opponent’s damaged pawn structure. 22
Here are a few more guidelines for exchanging: 1) Swap off your opponent’s active pieces (or those that are potentially active) and try to retain your own active pieces. 2) Avoid exchanging a bishop for a knight without good reason. 3) When attacking you should try to avoid unnecessary exchanges, though one may swap off good defensive pieces to increase the advantage 23
Diagram 2-6
r
Diagram 2-7 r
2
25.d5 cxd5 26.cxd5 ¤df6 27.d6 ¦f7 28.¦c1 ¦d7 29.¦c7 ¢f7 Diagram 2-6 30.¥xf6 White must exchange his bishop in order to break the blockade and set in motion his kingside pawns. 30...¤xf6 31.¢f2 ¢e6 32.¦xd7 ¢xd7 33.¢f3 ¢xd6 After the wholesale exchanges and the capture of the d-pawn, Black only has some final technical difficulties to overcome. Diagram 2-7 34.¢f4 ¢e6 35.g4 ¤d5† 36.¢e4 If 36.¢g5 ¢f7 37.h5, then 37...¢g7!–+ keeps Black in control. 36...¤f6† 37.¢f4 ¤d5† 38.¢e4 ¤b4 39.a3?! Slightly better is 39.a4. 39...¤c6 40.h5 40.g5 ¤a5–+ 40...g5 41.h6 ¢f6! 42.¢d5 42.h7 is met by 42...¢g7 43.¢f5 ¤a5! 44.¢xg5 ¤c4–+. 42...¢g6 43.¢e6 43.¢d6 loses to 43...¤a5 44.¢c7 b5; after the exchange of all the queenside pawns, the g5-pawn will win the game. 43...¤a5 44.a4 ¤b3 45.¢d6 a5 46.¢d5 Or 46.¢c7 ¤c5 47.¢b6 ¤xa4†–+. 46...¢xh6 47.¢c4 ¤c1 48.¢b5 ¤d3 49.b3 ¤c1 50.¢xa5 ¤xb3† 51.¢b4 ¤c1 52.¢c3 ¢g6 53.¢c2 ¤e2 54.¢d3 ¤c1† 55.¢c2 ¤e2 56.¢d3 ¤f4† 57.¢c4 ¢f6 58.g3 ¤e2 59.¢b5 would be followed by: 59...¤xg3 60.¢b6 ¤e4 61.a5 (61.¢xb7 ¤c5†–+) 61...¤d6–+ 0–1
chapter
Exchanging
2 chapter
Positional play 1
of the attacking side. (There is a rule in ice hockey about attacking – 4 against 3 is less dangerous than 3 against 2.) 4) By intelligent simplification of the position the defending side can weaken the force of the opponent’s attack. An exchange of queens can be especially important. 5) Sometimes a piece is actively placed but is getting in the way of its fellow pieces. In this case an exchange may clear the way for these other pieces. 6) You should try to swap off weak (or potentially weak) pawns.
24
r Ex. 2-4
«
r Ex. 2-2
««
r Ex. 2-5
«
r Ex. 2-3
«
q Ex. 2-6
«« 25
2
q Ex. 2-1
«
chapter
Exercises
2 chapter
Exercises r Ex. 2-10
««
q Ex. 2-7
«««
r Ex. 2-11
««
q Ex. 2-9
««
r Ex. 2-12
«
Ex. 2-8
««
q
26
Ex. 2-2
Ex. 2-4
A.Yusupov – G.Milosevic
A.Yusupov – A.Horvath
Basle (rapid) 2005
Basle (rapid) 2005
K.Volke – A.Yusupov Basle (rapid) 2005
1...cxd4!
1.¤d2!
1.¤xe5!
(1 point) After White has exchanged off his opponent’s most active piece, Black will have difficulties defending his hanging pawns. 1...¤b4 2.¤xe4 dxe4 3.£g4! ¥f6 4.¦cd1 ¤d3± See Ex. 2-5.
(1 point) The concentration of the white major pieces on the e-file should suggest to us that this file might be opened by force. 1...dxe5 2.¥xe5 ¥d6 (1 point for spotting this defensive idea) 2...£a8 loses to both 3.¥xf6 and 3.¤c7. 3.¥xd6 ¦xe3 4.£xe3 ¦xd6 5.¤xd6 £xd6 6.£e7 White has a clear advantage. 6...£b8 7.h4 h5 8.a4 a6 9.¦e3 b5 10.axb5 axb5 11.£c5 g6 12.¥h3 bxc4 13.bxc4 £a8 14.£d4 ¤8h7 15.¦e7 £a6 16.£b2 ¥a8 17.£b8† ¤f8 18.¦a7 £xc4 19.¦xa8 ¤6h7 20.d6 £c1† 21.¢h2 £c5 22.d7 1–0
Ex. 2-5
A.Yusupov – A.Horvath Basle (rapid) 2005
1.£xe4!
(1 point) A natural series of exchanges leads to a clear advantage. 1...¤xe1 2.¦xd8 ¦fxd8 3.¥xf6 gxf6 White’s small material advantage is not as important as the larger positional advantage resulting from Black’s weakened king position and badly placed knight. If 3...¦d1, then 4.¢f1 gxf6 5.£g4†+–. 4.¤b2! Keeping the e1-knight cut off. 4...¦c7 5.¢f1 c4
Ex. 2-3
A.Yusupov – G.Terreaux Switzerland 2004
1.¥g4!
(1 point) A standard operation. White swaps off his opponent’s good light-squared bishop, leaving 27
2
(1 point) White overlooked this simple intermediate move. Black opens diagonals for his bishop pair. 2.axb7 ¥xb7 3.exd4 ¤xd4 4.¤xd4 ¥xd4 5.¦ab1 ¦e7 6.¤b5 ¥b6 7.¦fe1 ¦xe1† 8.¦xe1 £f6 9.¦e2 £f4!µ But not 9...£a1† 10.¢h2 £xa4? on account of 11.¦e8† ¢g7 12.£xa4 ¦xa4 13.¦b8±.
him with the bad bishop and at the same time making the f5-square even weaker. 1.a5!? (also 1 point) is a good alternative, fixing the black pawns on the queenside and intending to follow up with ¥e2-g4. 1...b5 2.axb5 axb5 3.¥xc8 ¦fxc8 4.¤e2± The knight heads for g3 and f5. 4...f5 5.¤g3 fxe4 6.¤xe4 £g6 7.¦e1 c4 8.d6 ¢h8 9.£d5 b4 10.¦ac1 c3 11.bxc3 bxc3 12.d7 ¦d8 13.¦xc3 ¦b4 13...¦xd7 14.£xd7 £xe4 15.£c8† ¢h7 16.¦xe4+– 14.¦c8 ¦b8 15.¦xb8 1–0
Ex. 2-1
chapter
Solutions
2 chapter
Solutions
5...¦d2 6.¤c4+– 6.¢xe1 c3 7.¤c4+– ¦d2!? 8.£f4 8.¤xd2? c2= 8...¦c6 8...¦xa2 9.£xc7 ¦a1† 10.¢e2 c2 11.¤d6+– 9.£f3! ¦xa2 10.£xc6 ¦a1† 11.¢e2 c2 12.¤e5! Black resigned, in view of 12...c1£ 13.£e8† ¢g7 14.£xf7† ¢h6 15.£xf6† ¢h5 16.g4#. 1–0
2...£c6!
(another 2 points) Black is playing for safety. He must certainly avoid 2...¤xc5?? 3.¥h7†+–. However, there is another strong (and much more interesting) possibility: 2...¤d2! (also 2 points) 3.f3 ¤xf3† 4.gxf3 £xf3 5.£e2 £h1† 6.¢f2 £xh2† 7.¢e1÷ 3.¥xe4 £xe4 4.£xe4 ¥xe4 5.¦d6 ¥c6 White has only a minimal initiative, and the opposite-coloured bishops make a draw inevitable.
Ex. 2-6
M.Cebalo – A.Yusupov
Ex. 2-8
Bastia (rapid) 2004
C.Balogh – A.Yusupov
1...¤xd5
Bastia (rapid) 2004
(1 point) Of course the strong bishop must be exchanged! 2.¦xd5 £c7! 3.£xa7 ¦a8 3...¥c6 is less precise, on account of 4.¦a5. 4.£d4 ¥c6 5.¦c5 ¦xa2 (another 1 point) 6.¤e5 £b6 7.b4 ¦e2 8.b5? White should play 8.¤xc6 with equality. 8...¦d8! 9.£c4 ¥e8³ For the conclusion of the game, see Boost Your Chess 1, Ex. 22-3.
(2 points) 1...¦xe7? gives White a decisive attack after 2.£xh7†. 1...¥xf5?! 2.¥xd6 £f7 (1 consolation point) is only good enough for equality. 2.£xh2 £xh2† 3.¢xh2 ¥xf5 4.¦ac1 ¢f7 5.¥c5 b6 6.¥d6 ¦xe1 7.¦xe1 ¦e8³ Black will go a pawn up in the ending, but White has no problems holding the draw – opposite-coloured bishops again!
Ex. 2-7
Ex. 2-9
Y.Pelletier – A.Yusupov
S.Docx – A.Yusupov
Basle (rapid) 2005
Netherlands 2005
1...¥xh2†!
1...¤xe4
1...c3!
(1 point) 1...£xc5? is bad: 2.£xc5 ¦xc5 3.¥b4+– 2.¥e3! This causes Black some worries. On the other hand, 2.¥xe4 is not dangerous: 2...£xe4 3.£xe4 ¥xe4= 2.¥b4? is answered by: 2...¤d2! 3.f3 (3.¥f1 ¤f3† 4.¢h1 £h5–+) 3...¤xf3† 4.gxf3 £d4†–+
(2 points) Immediately setting in motion the queenside pawns. 1 consolation point for 1...¦e8. 2.¤xb5 cxb2! This is even more energetic than 2...axb5–+. 3.¤d6 ¦c1 4.¦f1 a3 If 4.¥b1, then ¦xb1 5.¦xb1 a2–+. 0–1 28
M.Tal – M.Botvinnik World Ch (7), Moscow 1960
1.¦xd7†!
(2 points) A courageous decision. After other moves, White would only have been fighting for a draw. 1...¤xd7 2.¦xd7† ¢xd7 3.¤f6† ¢d6 4.¤xg8 The badly placed knights offer Black compensation for his small material deficit. 4...¦c5 5.¤h6 f6 6.¤g4 ¥xc2 7.¤xf6 ¥xb3?! 7...¥f5 would have kept the chances balanced. 8.axb3 ¦b5 9.¤xg5± White went on to win this sharp ending.
Ex. 2-12
M.Tal – M.Botvinnik World Ch (13), Moscow 1960
1.¥b2!
(1 point) By offering this exchange, White neutralizes the pressure on his position. 1...¥xb2 1...¥xb1? 2.¥xf6+– 2.¦xb2 ½–½
Ex. 2-11
M.Tal – M.Botvinnik World Ch (11), Moscow 1960
1.£e1!
(2 points) White has an advantage in space, and so retreating with the queen to avoid an exchange
Scoring Maximum number of points is 20
17 points and above 14 points and above 10 points
Excellent Good Pass mark
If you scored less than 10 points, we recommend that you read the chapter again and repeat the exercises which you got wrong. 29
2
is correct. The moves 1.£d2 and 1.£a3 (intending ¥c3) are equally good, and also earn 2 points. An exchange of queens would only make things easier for the defence: 1.£xc7?! ¦xc7 2.¤a5 ¤b4= Nor does 1.e4 ¥xc4 2.£xc7 ¦xc7 3.¦xc4 c5 promise White anything. 1...£b8 2.e4 ¥xc4 3.¦xc4 ¤c7 4.¥h3 It may be more accurate to play 4.¥c1!? ¤b5 5.¥h3 e6 6.¥f4 £a8 7.d5± (Tal). 4...e6 5.¥c1 £a8! 6.¥g5 ¦e8 7.£d2 f5! Although White is still slightly better, Black has reasonable counterplay.
Ex. 2-10
chapter
Solutions
CHESS EVOLUTION September 2011 By
Arkadij Naiditsch
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Key to Symbols used Editorial Preface
4 5
A 9 B 55 C 109 D 141 E 291 Miraculous Rook Endgames 347 12 Puzzles 359
Contributors Etienne Bacrot: France, 28 years old, GM 2705, number 43 in the world. Became GM at the age of 14, a record at the time. Six times French Champion starting from 1999. Winner of many international events including: 2005: 1st place in Poikovsky, 3rd in Dortmund and 3rd of the World Cup in KhantyMansiysk. 2009: 1st in Aeroflot Open, second in Montreal and Antwerp. 2010: First equal in Gibraltar, 3rd in Nanjing and winner of Geneva Open. 2011: First equal in Basel, Geneva (rapid) and Rabat (blitz). Baadur Jobava: Georgia, 27 years old, GM 2704, number 36 in the world. Georgian Champion. 2003 and 2007. Gold medal on 4th board the Calvia Olympiad 2004. Silver medal 2010 European Individual Ch. Rijeka, Croatia. Winner of: 2003 Dubai Open; 2005 Samba Cup, Skanderborg, Denmark; 2006 Aeroflot Open, 2011 Bosna-Open, Sarajevo. Sebastien Maze: France, 26 years old, GM 2575 Winner of 2008 Rabat blitz tournament, 1st equal in Marseille 2009 and Menton 2009. Member of the French team in the Olympiad in Dresden 2008. Was the second of Etienne Bacrot in FIDE Grand Prix Elista 2008, Dortmund 2009 and Nanjing 2010. Kamil Miton: Poland, 27 years old, GM 2628. World Junior U12 Champion in 1996. No 2 at the World Junior Champion (U 20). Twice the winner (2002 and 2005) of one of the world’s biggest tournaments, the World Open in Philadelphia, USA.
Arkadij Naiditsch: Germany, 25 years old, GM 2707, number 40 in the world. Became International Master at the age of 13, Grandmaster at 15. Winner of 2005 Super-tournament in Dortmund and since 2006 the top-rated German player. In 2007 was German Champion and won the Baku Open. In 2010 Arkadij won a match against Efimenko in Mukachevo and was 1st equal in the European Rapid Championship in Warsaw. Borki Predojevic: Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24 years old, GM 2643. Gained the GM title at the Calvia Olympiad in 2004 when he was 17. Best Elo was 2654 in September 2009. Joined the top 100 in 2007; highest place so far was 68th on the October 2007 list. Winner of several international open tournaments including: Open Metalis in Bizovac, Croatia in 2006, Zagreb Open, Croatia in 2007, Hit Open in Nova Gorica, Slovenia in 2008, Acropolis Open in Greece 2009. in 2008, Acropolis Open in Greece 2009.
Nikola Sedlak: Serbia, 28 years old, GM 2589 Winner of the 3rd European Union Individual Chess Championship in 2007 and 2009 BH Telecom tournament in Sarajevo.
Ivan Sokolov: 43 years old, GM 2673, number 69 in the world. Best world ranking on the FIDE list of 12th (several times). Winner of many top GM events of which the most important are: Hastings, Sarajevo, Selfoss, Reykjavik, Hoogeveen, Lost Boys, Staunton Memorial. Yugoslav Champion in 1988 and Dutch Champion in 1995 and 1998. Won team gold with the Dutch team at the 2005 European Championship in Gothenburg.
GAME 1 GAME 2 GAME 3 GAME 4 GAME 5 GAME 6
Svidler – Kramnik, [A07] 10 Gashimov – Wang Yue, [A28] 14 Nepomniachtchi – Efimenko, [A29] 23 Kramnik – Nepomniachtchi, [A30] 32 Kramnik – Timofeev, [A35] 40 Svidler – Nepomniachtchi, [A35] 48
GAME 7 GAME 8 GAME 9 GAME 10 GAME 11 GAME 12 GAME 13
Hector – Fridman, [B12] 56 Grischuk – Galkin, [B12] 60 Karjakin – Morozevich, [B12] 68 Navara – Laznicka, [B12] 79 Leko – Roiz, [B12] 89 Nepomniachtchi – Polgar, [B60] 95 Caruana – Vachier Lagrave, [B96] 102
GAME 14 GAME 15 GAME 16 GAME 17 GAME 18
Nepomniachtchi – Mamedyarov, [C02] 110 Gharamian – Ni Hua, [C11] 113 Nepomniachtchi – Onischuk, [C45] 117 Karjakin – Kramnik, [C67] 123 Ivanchuk – Leko, [C89] 136
GAME 19 GAME 20 GAME 21 GAME 22 GAME 23 GAME 24 GAME 25 GAME 26 GAME 27 GAME 28 GAME 29 GAME 30 GAME 31 GAME 32 GAME 33 GAME 34 GAME 35 GAME 36 GAME 37 GAME 38 GAME 39 GAME 40 GAME 41 GAME 42
Yu Yangyi – Balogh, [D10] 142 Harikrishna – Jakovenko, [D16] 148 Morozevich – Timofeev, [D20] 160 Bacrot – Edouard, [D27] 167 Melkumyan– S. Zhigalko, [D31] 173 Morozevich – Grischuk, [D31] 177 Mamedyarov – Sargissian, [D35] 180 L’Ami – Sokolov, [D36] 184 Giri – Ponowariov, [D37] 189 Morozevich – Caruana, [D43] 193 Ponomariov – Giri, [D46] 196 Carlsen – Shirov, [D48] 201 Aronian – Harikrishna, [D56] 207 Morozevich – Carlsen, [D80] 218 Aronian – Sutovsky, [D85] 224 Pashikian – Zhou Jianchao, [D85] 233 Pelletierk – Carlsen, [D85] 235 Timofeev – Nepomniachtchi, [D85] 242 Vachier Lagrave – Morozevich, [D86] 250 Salem – Cheparinov, [D90] 258 Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son – Li Chao, [D93] 260 Morozevich – Vachier Lagrave, [D97] 269 Morozevich – Svidler, [D97] 272 Onischuk – Navara, [D98] 279
GAME 43 GAME 44 GAME 45 GAME 46 GAME 47 GAME 48 GAME 49 GAME 50
Fressinet – Bacrot, [E03] 292 Meier – Giri, [E04] 297 Meier – Kramnik, [E15] 300 Hammer – Naiditsch, [E20] 309 Mamedyarov– Ganguly, [E32] 318 Seirawan – Polgar, [E32] 328 Kramnik – Ponomariov, [E94] 335 Kramnik – Nakamura, [E97] 342
292
Chess Evolution
GAME 43 L. Fressinet (2698) E. Bacrot (2710) 86th French Championship, Caen Round 3, 16.08.2011 [E03] Annotated by Ivan Sokolov The players debated a line of the Catalan which arose through an English/Reti move order. Bacrot unveiled an interesting novelty in 10...¤b4!?, instead of the usual 10...¥b7 as featured in the 2006 Kramnik – Fritz match, or the rare but interesting 10...¤e5!?. In the game White was unable to find anything convincing against his opponent’s new tenth move. The critical direction looks to be 11.£e4!? but according to my analysis Black is doing well there too. 1.¤f3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 dxc4 5.£a4† ¤bd7 6.£xc4 6.0–0 a6 7.£xc4 b5 8.£c2 ¥b7 gives Black easy play. 6...a6
7.£c2 Another option is 7.£b3 although Black should be okay here: 7...¦b8 (But not 7...c5?! 8.a4! ¦b8 9.a5 when Black’s queenside is fixed and sooner or later he will have to
damage his pawn structure, for instance: 9...¥d6 10.d3 0–0 11.0–0 h6 12.¥d2 ¦e8 13.¤a3 e5 14.¤c4 ¥c7 15.¦fd1 £e7 16.¤h4 b5 17.axb6 ¤xb6 18.¤a5 ¤bd5 19.£c2± Lputian – Piket, Sarajevo 1998.) 8.d4 b5 9.0–0 ¥b7 10.¥f4 ¥d6 11.¦c1 ¥xf4 12.gxf4 ¤d5 13.e3 c5 14.dxc5 ¦c8 15.c6 ¥xc6 16.£a3 ¥b7= Ivanchuk – Naiditsch, Warsaw 2005. 7...c5 8.d4 This seems to be the most testing approach. Other moves are not dangerous for Black: 8.a4 works less well than in the analogous position after 7.£b3 c5?! 8.a4! as noted above. The point is that with the queen on c2 instead of b3, Black can safely play 8...b6! as 9.¤e5?! can be met by 9...¤d5. 8.0–0 b6 (8...b5 9.a4 ¥b7 10.axb5 axb5 11.¦xa8 £xa8 12.¤a3 ¥c6 13.d3 ¥e7 14.¤e1 ¤d5 15.f4 0–0 16.f5 exf5 17.¦xf5 g6 18.¦f1 £b7= Zaichik – Beliavsky, Yaroslavl 1982) 9.b4 ¥b7 10.bxc5 ¦c8 11.¤c3 ¥xc5 12.£b3 0–0 13.a4 £c7 14.¥b2 ¥xf3 15.¥xf3 ¤e5 16.¤e4 ¤xf3† 17.£xf3 ¤xe4 18.£xe4 ¦fd8 19.¥c3 ¦d5 20.¦fb1 £d7³ Akopian – Piket, Madrid 1997.
8...b6
September 2011 After 8...cxd4?! 9.¤xd4 Black has problems developing his queenside, and his problems were demonstrated as far back as six decades ago: 9...¤c5 (9...¥c5 10.¤b3 ¥a7 11.0–0 0–0 12.¥d2 £e7 13.a3 ¦e8 14.¥b4 £d8 15.¤c3 £c7 16.¦ac1 £e5 17.£d1 £g5 18.¤d2 £h6 19.¤de4ƒ Smyslov – Kan, Leningrad 1947.) 10.¤b3 ¤xb3 11.£xb3 £c7 12.0–0 ¥c5 13.¥f4 e5 14.¥g5 ¥e6 15.£xb7 £xb7 16.¥xb7 ¦b8 17.¥xf6 gxf6 18.¥xa6 ¦xb2 19.¦c1 ¥b6 20.¤c3 ¥a5 21.¤d1 ¦d2 22.¤e3 ¢e7 23.¤c4 ¦d5 24.a4± Smyslov – Botvinnik, Moscow 1951. On the other hand 8...b5!? deserves attention: 9.dxc5 ¥xc5 10.¤d4 (10.¤e5 ¦b8 11.¤c6 £c7 12.¢f1 ¦b6 13.¥f4 e5 14.¤xe5 ¤xe5 15.¤d2 ¥b7 16.¤f3 ¥xf3 17.¥xf3 £e7–+ Alburt – Speelman, Hastings 1983) 10...¤d5 11.¤b3 ¥b7 12.¤xc5 ¤xc5 13.0–0 ¦c8 14.¦d1 0–0 15.¤c3 ¤d7 16.¥xd5 ¥xd5 17.£d3 ¥c6 18.¥f4 e5 19.¥e3 f5 20.f3 £e8= ½–½ Andersson – Korchnoi, Johannesburg 1981. 9.¤e5 ¤d5
10.¤c3 10.¤c6 is not dangerous for Black: 10...£c7 11.e4 ¤5f6! (After 11...¤e7?! 12.¤xe7 ¥xe7 13.¥f4 £a7 14.d5 e5 15.¥e3 0–0 16.¤d2
293
£b8 17.a4 ¤f6 18.h3 b5 19.0–0 c4 20.b3 cxb3 21.¤xb3 ¥d7 22.¤a5ƒ bxa4 23.¤c6 ¥xc6 24.dxc6± White’s passed c-pawn went on to decide the battle in Tkachiev – A. Sokolov, Belfort 2010.) 12.d5 ¥b7 13.0–0 ¥d6 14.¤d2 0–0= 15.¤c4 exd5 16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.¥xd5 ¥xc6 18.¦d1 ¥xd5 19.¦xd5 ¥e7 20.¦xd7 £xd7 21.¤xb6 £e6 22.¤xa8 ¦xa8 23.¥e3 ¦c8 24.a3 ½–½ Landa – Meier, Copenhagen 2010. 10.¤xd7 ¥xd7! (10...£xd7 11.dxc5 ¥xc5 12.0–0 ¥b7 13.¦d1 £c8 14.¤c3 ¤xc3 15.£xc3 0–0 16.¥f4 ¥xg2 17.¢xg2 ¦d8 18.£f3 ¦a7 19.¦ac1 ¦ad7 20.¦xd7 £xd7 21.¦c3² White had a microscopic advantage in Andersson – Lombard, Biel 1977) 11.dxc5 ¦c8 12.0–0 ¥xc5 13.£b3 0–0 14.¤d2 ¥b5 15.¥f3 ¤b4 16.a4 ¤c2 17.£xc2 ¥xf2† 18.¢xf2 ¦xc2 19.axb5 £d4† 20.¢g2 axb5 21.¤e4 f5 In this unbalanced position Black’s chances were slightly higher in Postny – Naiditsch, Moscow 2005.
10...¤b4!? Bacrot’s novelty, and it seems to be a good one. The most natural and common continuation has been 10...¥b7 11.¤xd5 when both candidate moves have been tried.
294
Chess Evolution
a) 11...exd5 does not equalize, although in the following game Black got the upper hand: 12.0–0 ¥e7 13.¦d1 0–0 14.£f5 (14.¥f4!?² deserves attention) 14...¤xe5! 15.dxe5 ¦a7! 16.e6 d4 17.¥xb7 ¦xb7 18.e3 ¥f6 19.exd4 ¦e7 20.¥e3 fxe6 21.£g4 h5 22.£xh5 (22.£e4 cxd4 23.¥xd4? loses to 23...¦d7 as the rook on d1 is no longer protected) 22...cxd4 23.£e2 £d5 Black had the initiative and went on to win in Hübner – Smyslov, Tilburg 1982. b) 11...¥xd5! Exchanging the light-squared bishops is a more reliable approach for Black. 12.¥xd5 exd5 13.0–0 13.¤xd7 £xd7 14.dxc5 ¥xc5 15.0–0 0–0 16.£d3 ¦fe8 17.¥d2 £g4 18.e3 h5 19.¢g2 ¦ad8 20.¦ae1 h4³ Rustemov – Landa, Germany 2006. 13...¤xe5 14.dxe5 £c8 15.¦d1 £e6 16.£d3 ¥e7 17.£xd5 ¦d8 18.£b3 ¦xd1† 19.£xd1 0–0 20.£b3 c4 21.£c3 f6
22.b3 A possible improvement for white is 22.¥f4!? b5 (after 22...¦d8 23.exf6 ¥xf6 24.£c2 Black’s compensation is rather questionable) 23.¦d1 b4 (23...g5 24.¥e3 fxe5 regains the pawn, but Black’s loose kingside means he is not yet out of the woods) 24.£e3 ¦c8 It is not easy to say if Black has enough compensation for the missing pawn. 22...¦c8 23.¥b2 b5 24.£e3 fxe5 25.bxc4
¦xc4 26.¥xe5 h6 Black had enough counterplay and game was eventually drawn in Kramnik – Fritz 10, Bonn (3) 2006. Before moving on, let us note that the rare 10...¤xe5!? deserves attention, for instance 11.dxe5 ¥b7 12.0–0 £c7 13.¤xd5 ¥xd5 14.¥xd5 exd5 15.¥f4 £c6 16.¦fd1 ¥e7 17.£d3 d4 18.¦ac1 £e6 and Black was at least okay in Burmakin – Heinz, Bad Wiessee 2009.
11.£d1 Faced with a prepared novelty over the board, Fressinet goes for a safe reply. Two other moves deserve consideration. Firstly, it should be noted that 11.£b3 cxd4! 12.¥xa8 ¤xe5 13.a3 ¤bc6 is a promising exchange sacrifice for Black. 11.£e4!? It seems to me that this must be the critical path, although it is far from clear if White can make it work. 11...¦a7! The safest continuation. 11...¤xe5 is playable although it enables White to develop a dangerous initiative:
Miraculous Rook Endgames by GM Konstantin Landa
We are fortunate that chess requires not only good opening play and sharp tactical skills in the middlegame, but also knowledge of the final stage of chess – the endgame. In recent times many young players have not bothered to read any endgame books – the opening stage is taking too much of their time, in particular the search for deep novelties. The games of such players rarely reach an endgame; instead they end in a sharp tactical middlegame. When an endgame does appear, it is hard to watch without shedding a tear over how these youngsters are playing it – of course with the exception of a few top class players. When the editors of Chess Evolution asked me to write a section about the endgame, for a long time I could not find the right topic. To cover elementary endgames, as provided by many other chess publications, would of course be sensible – refreshing our knowledge of rook endgame theory is always healthy, but this can easily be done by the dear reader himself by opening any endgame book. I came up with the idea of my current endgame topic by remembering when I was watching live the last round of the French league, where the outcome of the following game decided the result of a match.
M. Choisy (2207) – A. Muller (2152) Mulhouse 2011, French League
55...f5 56.¦a5 g4 A good move, but to be honest almost any move should also lead to a win. Black played a great game and managed to get an absolutely winning position. 57.hxg4† fxg4 58.g3 If 58.¦xe5† then White is not in time to take the black pawns: 58...¢g6 59.¦xe6† ¢f7 60.¦a6 g3† 61.¢h3 ¦h1† 62.¢g4 a1=£ 58...hxg3† 59.¢g2
12 Puzzles by GM Jacob Aagaard In previous versions of Chess Evolution the puzzle section has been a repetition of positions that could be found elsewhere in the book. When we decided to make some small changes to the layout and structure of Chess Evolution, it was natural to stop this practice and have a small section with 12 combinations from the last two months. Of the twelve positions I have selected, most of them could be said to be difficult. The first six positions are probably within reach of most readers without too much effort, some more than others. But don’t get too cocky; some top class players managed to misplay a majority of these positions! The next six positions are harder. Even though Hou Yifan did manage to win one of them, she did not manage to do so in the most direct way. The other five positions all include mistakes and failures for the grandmasters included; not because they are not great players, but because chess is a brutally difficult game. Still, our sympathy and respect for these players should not ruin the enjoyment of succeeding where they failed. It might be a cheap pleasure, but why pay overprice for happiness? My own preference when it comes to combinations is a blend of logic and classical beauty. I like the surprise, but I also like the detail quite a lot. I have tried to annotate these positions based on their core ideas, the points you have to discover to solve the positions. But at the same time, combinations are as concrete as you get in chess; so there are plenty of variations to prove my point. Finally, before we begin, here is a little warm-up position:
q
1. Richter – E. Berg, Gothenburg 16.08.2011 36...£b4!! Classic overloading. The first rank is too vulnerable. 0–1
Ge
tp
rev io
us
iss
ue
so
fC he
ss
Ev olu
tio
at w
ww .ch
ess
-ev olu
tio
n.c om
n
Don’t get left behind! Join the Evolution - Subscribe to Chess Evolution! Get 3 volumes for €82.48* * issue - The same as one free issue! Get 6 volumes for €27.49 per Make full use of our interactive service and subscribe now!
at www.chess-evolution.com
* Terms and conditions apply. For example, postage costs apply. For details, go to our website.
CHESS EVOLUTION November 2011 By
Arkadij Naiditsch
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Key to Symbols used 4 Editorial Preface 5 Contributors 6 A 9 B 51 C 99 D 177 E 265 24 Puzzles 367 A Chess Evolution Adventure 378
Contributors Etienne Bacrot: France, 28 years old, GM 2714, number 29 in the world. Became GM at the age of 14, a record at the time. Six times French Champion starting from 1999. Winner of many international events including: 2005: 1st place in Poikovsky, 3rd in Dortmund and 3rd of the World Cup in KhantyMansiysk. 2009: 1st in Aeroflot Open, second in Montreal and Antwerp. 2010: First equal in Gibraltar, 3rd in Nanjing and winner of Geneva Open. 2011: First equal in Basel, Geneva (rapid) and Rabat (blitz). Yannick Gozzoli: France, 28 years old, GM 2549. For the last few years Yannick was an extremely high-rated IM, and he recently completed the requirements for the Grandmaster title.
Sebastien Maze: France, 26 years old, GM 2577 Winner of 2008 Rabat blitz tournament, 1st equal in Marseille 2009 and Menton 2009. Member of the French team in the Olympiad in Dresden 2008. Was the second of Etienne Bacrot in FIDE Grand Prix Elista 2008, Dortmund 2009 and Nanjing 2010. Kamil Miton: Poland, 27 years old, GM 2622. World Junior U12 Champion in 1996. No 2 at the World Junior Champion (U 20). Twice the winner (2002 and 2005) of one of the world’s biggest tournaments, the World Open in Philadelphia, USA.
Arkadij Naiditsch: Germany, 26 years old, GM 2712, number 31 in the world. Became International Master at the age of 13, Grandmaster at 15. Winner of 2005 Super-tournament in Dortmund and since 2006 the top-rated German player. In 2007 was German Champion and won the Baku Open. In 2010 Arkadij won a match against Efimenko in Mukachevo and was 1st equal in the European Rapid Championship in Warsaw. Borki Predojevic: Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24 years old, GM 2642. Gained the GM title at the Calvia Olympiad in 2004 when he was 17. Best Elo was 2654 in September 2009. Joined the top 100 in 2007; highest place so far was 68th on the October 2007 list. Winner of several international open tournaments including: Open Metalis in Bizovac, Croatia in 2006, Zagreb Open, Croatia in 2007, Hit Open in Nova Gorica, Slovenia in 2008, Acropolis Open in Greece 2009. in 2008, Acropolis Open in Greece 2009.
Paco Vallejo Pons: Spain, 29 years old, GM 2705, number 40 in the world. Former child prodigy who became a grandmaster aged 16 and won the under-18 World Youth Championship in the year 2000. Has been competing at the highest levels for many years.
Ivan Sokolov: 43 years old, GM 2646 . Best world ranking on the FIDE list of 12th (several times). Winner of many top GM events of which the most important are: Hastings, Sarajevo, Selfoss, Reykjavik, Hoogeveen, Lost Boys, Staunton Memorial. Yugoslav Champion in 1988 and Dutch Champion in 1995 and 1998. Won team gold with the Dutch team at the 2005 European Championship in Gothenburg.
GAME 1 GAME 2 GAME 3 GAME 4
Eljanov – Ponomariov, [A13] 10 Wang Hao – Rublevsky, [A20] 27 Radjabov – Ivanchuk, [A37] 33 Gelfand – Jobava, [A61] 39
GAME 5 GAME 6 GAME 7 GAME 8 GAME 9 GAME 10 GAME 11
Caruana – Eljanov, [B12] 52 Caruana – Motylev, [B12] 58 Karjakin – Laznicka, [B12] 66 Dominguez – Polgar, [B33] 71 Motylev – Laznicka, [B48] 80 Rublevsky – Bruzon, [B85] 86 Motylev – Wojtaszek, [B90] 91
GAME 12 GAME 13 GAME 14 GAME 15 GAME 16 GAME 17 GAME 18 GAME 19 GAME 20 GAME 21
Grischuk – Morozevich, [C02] 100 Navara – Grachev, [C03] 109 Dominguez – Le Quang Liem, [C11] 113 Morozevich – Vitiugov, [C11] 120 Ni Hua – Shirov, [C45] 126 Radjabov – Ponomariov, [C65] 137 Andreikin – Morozevich, [C69] 146 Volokitin – Iordachescu, [C70] 150 Grischuk – Shirov, [C78] 164 Caruana – Jakovenko, [C84] 169
GAME 22 GAME 23 GAME 24 GAME 25 GAME 26 GAME 27 GAME 28 GAME 29 GAME 30 GAME 31 GAME 32 GAME 33
Mamedyarov – Inarkiev, [D11] 178 Le Quang Liem – Dominguez, [D16] 182 Nepomniachtchi – Pavasovic, [D31] 193 Eljanov – Moiseenko, [D38] 200 Vallejo Pons – Erdos, [D43] 208 Eljanov – Shirov [D44] 214 Bacrot– Rublevsky, [D45] 221 Tomashevsky – Ni Hua, [D45] 226 Jakovenko – Gelfand, [D56] 231 Bacrot – Caruana, [D86] 238 Bacrot – Mamedyarov, [D86] 249 Kamsky – Nepomniachtchi, [D87] 255
GAME 34 GAME 35 GAME 36 GAME 37 GAME 38 GAME 39 GAME 40 GAME 41 GAME 42 GAME 43 GAME 44 GAME 45 GAME 46 GAME 47 GAME 48
Bacrot – Filippov, [E07] 266 Almasi – Parligras, [E11] 274 Gelfand – Tomashevsky, [E11] 285 Le Quang Liem – Meier, [E11] 293 Eljanov – Andreikin, [E15] 295 Nyzhnyk – Tiviakov, [E17] 302 Andreikin – Tomashevsky [E18] 310 Melkumyan – Gashimov, [E41] 317 Roiz – Naiditsch, [E55] 322 Potkin – Grischuk, [E73] 325 Tomashevsky – Ponomariov, [E81] 335 Onischuk – Bacrot, [E92] 342 Meier – Feller, [E95] 351 Kasimdzhanov – Nisipeanu, [E97] 357 Kramnik – Giri, [E97] 363
November 2011 GAME 17 T. Radjabov (2752) R. Ponomariov (2758) European Club Cup, Rogaska Slatina 30.09.2011 [C65] Annotated by Borki Predojevic In the following game we will see one of White’s most popular side lines against the Berlin Defence. 4.d3 has recently been played by many top-level grandmasters and it seems that White has chances to fight for the advantage in this line. Ponomariov, who has had a few games in this line, chose his favourite set-up with 4...¥c5 and after that 7...h6 and 8...¥b6. Radjabov was well prepared and by playing the precise moves 10.d4! and 11.¥d3 he secured a promising position with White. After the premature reaction 13...c5?! Ponomariov was slightly worse. Radjabov then played a very good technical game. It should be mentioned that Ponomariov played a few imprecise moves (probably he was exhausted after his long fights in the World Cup) which helped Radjabov to convert his advantage into a fairly easy win.
137
usually preferred 5.c3 which stops Black’s idea of ...¤d4. However, Black gains other options against 5.c3. For example, he can play 5...0–0 6.0–0 (6.¥xc6 bxc6 7.¤xe5 d5 is another very sharp line) 6...¦e8!? omitting the move ...d7-d6 for the moment, and perhaps later he will achieve ...d7-d5 in one move. 5...d6 A logical decision from Ponomariov. Recently in the World Cup he did not have any problems in holding this set-up with the black pieces. Another popular line is 5...¤d4 6.¤xd4 ¥xd4 with a complicated game. It is worth mentioning that Ponomariov has played against this line with the white pieces. Note that 5...0–0? is bad, as after 6.¥xc6 bxc6 7.¤xe5± White simply wins a pawn.
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤f6 4.d3 ¥c5 5.0–0
6.c3 A few rounds earlier I had the same position against Movsesian, and here he decided to play a rare move: 6.d4!? The game continued: 6...exd4 7.¤xd4 ¥d7 8.¥xc6 bxc6 9.¤c3
An interesting move order. White has
I played “safe” with: 9...h6 During the game I had the feeling that
138
Chess Evolution
9...0–0 10.¥g5 h6 11.¥h4 is better for White, since I cannot bring back my bishop to e7 to defend the kingside; maybe this was not a good evaluation. After 11...¦e8 12.¦e1 ¦b8 13.¤b3 ¥b6 14.h3 ¦e6!„ Black will play ...£e7 or ...£e8 with a good game. Movsesian answered with the direct: 10.¥f4 0–0 11.e5 dxe5 12.¥xe5 ¦e8 13.¤f3 But after: 13...¥f5 14.£xd8 ¦axd8 15.¥xc7 ¦d7 16.¥g3 ¥xc2 17.¦fc1 ¥e4!„ I did not have any real problems in holding equality in Movsesian – Predojevic, Rogaska Slatina 2011. 6...0–0 7.¤bd2 h6 This is always a useful move for Black; it also delays making a decision about which set-up Black will choose. The favourite line of GM Arman Pashikian is: 7...a6 Ponomariov has also played this line.
Now there are two lines to consider: A) 8.¥xc6 and B) 8.¥a4. A) 8.¥xc6 bxc6 9.d4 exd4 10.cxd4 ¥b6 This does not look dangerous for Black. Ponomariov has had this position with the black pieces twice and these games are good examples of how to play this set-up as Black. 11.£c2 ¦e8 12.¦e1 ¥d7 13.b3 c5! 14.¥b2
On 14.d5 Black has 14...c6 15.dxc6 ¥xc6 16.¥b2 ¥a5! 17.¦ad1 h6 18.¦e3 ¦e6„. Ivanchuk continued: 19.¤c4 ¥c7 20.e5 ¤d5 21.¦ee1 ¤f4 And here he blundered: 22.£f5? (Best was 22.exd6 ¥xf3 23.dxc7:
23...¤h3†! 24.¢f1 ¥xg2† 25.¢xg2 £g5†= This leads to a draw by perpetual check.) After the simple 22...¥xf3 23.gxf3 £h4 24.¦e4 dxe5 25.¦d7 ¦g6† 26.¢f1 ¦g2 White resigned in Ivanchuk – Ponomariov, Russia 2011. 14...cxd4 15.¥xd4 ¥xd4 16.¤xd4 a5= 17.¦ad1 £b8 18.¤4f3 ½–½ Areshchenko – Ponomariov, Ukraine (ch) 2011. B) White’s best answer is: 8.¥a4 ¥a7 9.h3 ¤e7 10.¦e1 ¤g6
11.¤f1 A typical manoeuvre.
November 2011 White has also tried a more direct approach with 11.d4, but this premature reaction in the centre gives Black the opportunity to play actively: 11...b5 12.¥c2 (12.¥b3 c5„) 12...c5 13.¤f1 cxd4 14.cxd4 exd4 15.¤xd4 ¥b7„ Black had no problems in Efimenko – Pashikian, Rogaska Slatina 2011. 11...c6 Now the idea with 11...b5 is not so effective as before, as White can keep a stable centre since he has not pushed d3-d4. For example, 12.¥b3 ¥b7 13.¤g3 h6 14.¤h2!÷/² with the typical plan of ¤g4 and £f3. The position remains complicated and unclear, but I prefer White. 12.¤g3 d5 12...¦e8 13.d4 h6 14.¥c2 leads to a similar type of position as in the main game. 13.exd5 ¤xd5 14.¥b3 ¦e8
15.¥g5 15.d4! exd4 16.¦xe8† £xe8 17.¥xd5 cxd5 18.¤xd4²/= was another idea for White. In my opinion this was the right way to fight for the advantage. 15...f6 16.¥e3 ¥xe3 17.fxe3 ¥e6 18.£d2 £c7 19.¦ad1 ¦ad8= Radjabov – Kramnik, Kazan (m/9) 2011. 8.h3 ¥b6 The main idea of the set-up with ...¥b6 is to avoid losing time with ...a6 and ...¥a7; Black prepares ...¤e7 and ...c6. As we shall see,
139
White has to play precise moves here to fight for the advantage.
9.¦e1 Another plan is: 9.¤c4 I do not find this idea dangerous for Black and again it is enough to follow Ponomariov’s games to gain equality. 9...¤e7 10.¥a4 ¤g6 11.¥c2 ¥e6 12.a4
12...c6! In a few games Black tried 12...¥xc4 13.dxc4 a5, but this is in White’s favour since after 14.g3² and next ¢g2, Black lacks real counterplay while White slowly improves his position. 13.¤xb6 The only logical move, as otherwise Black would play ...¥c7.
140
Chess Evolution
13...axb6 Black’s main idea is to push ...d5 or ...b5, and it seems that White cannot avoid this. 14.¥e3 14.¦e1 b5 15.¥e3 bxa4 16.¥xa4 £c7 17.¥c2 c5= and next ...d5 looks nice for Black. 14.¥d2 d5 15.exd5 ¥xd5= 14...d5! 15.d4 15.exd5 ¥xd5 16.¦e1 ¦e8„ 15...exd4 16.¤xd4 ¥d7 17.exd5 ¤xd5 18.¥d2 £f6 19.£f3 ¤df4 20.¥xf4 Black had no problems and a draw was agreed in Svidler – Ponomariov, World Cup (m/1) 2011. 9...¤e7
10.d4! The best reaction. With his last two moves Black prepared ...c6, but the main drawback of this plan is that Black lost control over the d4square. This gives White the opportunity to push d3-d4, which immediately frees a square for White’s light-squared bishop on the c2-h7 diagonal. Otherwise White would lose more time with the manoeuvre ¥a4-c2. After 10.¤f1 c6 11.¥a4 ¤g6 12.¤g3 ¦e8 Black will quickly play ...d5. Here we can see a better version of the position reached
in the game Radjabov – Kramnik, Kazan (m/9) 2011, which was given in the line after 7...a6. 13.¤h2 d5! 14.£f3 ¤h4 15.£e2 ¥e6 16.¥c2 £d7 is good for Black, E. Berg – P. H. Nielsen, Oslo 2009.
10...c6 Black could try to save the move ...c6 for later and choose instead: 10...¤g6
We shall consider two replies: A) 11.¤f1 and B) 11.¥d3. A) 11.¤f1 The normal move allows Black’s idea with: 11...¥d7!? 11...c6 12.¥d3 leads to the same position as in the game. 12.¥d3
November 2011 12.¥xd7 £xd7 13.¤g3 ¦fe8= is a good version for Black. He has exchanged bishops and so has more space. Later the break with ...d5 will be inevitable. 12...¦e8 13.¤g3
Black has a choice: 13...c5!? Black is a tempo up compared to the position in the game. Another idea for Black is 13...¥c6!?. With this move Black fights to prevent the move ¥e3. Still after 14.a4 a6 15.£c2² White keeps a small advantage. 13...exd4 14.cxd4 c5 is bad in view of 15.e5! dxe5 16.dxe5 ¤h7 17.¥xg6 fxg6 18.¤e4 ¥c6 19.¤d6ƒ/±. B) 11.¥d3 This is the best answer.
11...¥e6
141
11...c6 12.¤f1 transposes to the game. On 11...¥d7 White can play 12.¤c4! with ideas of creating pressure on the queenside and on the b6-bishop. For example, 12...£e7 13.£b3ƒ planning a2-a4. 12.¤f1 On 12.¤c4 Black can reply: 12...¥xc4 13.¥xc4 exd4 14.cxd4 (14.¤xd4 ¦e8„ puts the e4-pawn under pressure) 14...d5!? 15.exd5 ¤xd5 16.¥d2 c6 17.£b3²/= This position looks slightly better for White. 12...¦e8 13.¤g3 c5 13...c6² would lead to a similar position as in the game, so there is no need to explain White’s plans again. 14.¥e3 14.¥b5 ¦f8 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.£a4 £c7 17.¥c4² is another option. 14.d5 ¥d7 15.¥e3 also looks better for White. 14...cxd4 15.cxd4 ¦c8 16.£d2 a6 17.a3² White is slightly better. 11.¥d3 Of course. Retreating with 11.¥a4 would not make sense now. 11...¤g6 12.¤f1 ¦e8 13.¤g3²
This position reminds me of typical set-ups in the Giuoco Piano. I have had a lot of games
Chess Evolution
142
like this with the white pieces, so I usually prefer White here. If White manages to play d4 and keep the centre stable, then the longterm advantage should be on his side (a similar assessment would apply to Black if instead he had achieved ...d5 before White was ready with d4). According to this “rule” White’s position should be slightly better here. 13...¥d7N Officially this is a novelty. Before Black had tried: 13...c5 White reacted with: 14.¥b5
14...¦f8 14...¥d7 15.¥xd7 £xd7 16.dxe5 ¤xe5 (16...dxe5 17.£xd7 ¤xd7 18.a4² gives White a typical slight advantage) 17.¤xe5 ¦xe5 18.¥f4 ¦e6 19.c4 White is better. If Black doesn’t do anything concrete then his position will be much worse as his pawn structure is bad. After the forced: 19...¦ae8 20.f3 d5 (20...¥a5 21.¥d2²) 21.cxd5 ¤xd5 Black has executed his central break, but even so after 22.¦e2 ¤f6 23.¤f5² White’s position looks better. 15.¥e3 It is obvious that White has some advantage and after a few imprecise moves Black was much worse:
15...a6 16.¥c4 ¥a7?! 17.a4 cxd4 18.cxd4 ¤xe4?! 19.¤xe4 d5 20.¥xd5 £xd5 21.dxe5 £xe4 22.¥xa7 £b4 23.£d4 £xd4 24.¥xd4 ¥e6 25.¥c3 White kept his extra pawn and won the game in Palac – De Graaf, Aix-les-Bains 2011. 14.¥e3
14...c5?! A premature decision. Better is: 14...£c7 When Black prepares a possible break with ...d5. Also, if Black wants to play the same idea as in the game, ...c5, then it is better to develop his pieces first and then to try the break. White can continue with: 15.£c2 15.£d2 is unnatural: 15...¦ad8 16.¦ad1 c5!„ Black has a better version than in the game. 15.a4!? 15...¦ad8 16.a4 16.¦ad1 would allow 16...c5, whereas now after: 16...c5 16...a6 17.b3² 17.dxe5 dxe5
November 2011
White has the nice reply: 18.¥c4 18.¤d2 ¤f4 19.¥f1 a6 20.¤c4 ¥a7 21.a5÷ is an alternative. White has play on the queenside, but all the pieces are still on the board. 18...¥e6 19.¤d2! White should be better. 19...¤f4 19...¦xd2 20.¥xd2 ¥xc4 is met by: 21.a5! ¥xa5 22.£a4 ¦d8 (22...¥xc3 23.¥xc3 ¥d3 24.£xa7 ¤f4 25.f3 g6 26.¢h2² should lead to an advantage for White) 23.¥e3 ¥xc3 24.bxc3 ¥a6 25.£a5 ¦c8 26.¦ed1 ¤e7 27.f3² White is better. 20.¥xe6 20.b3² 20...¦xe6 21.¤c4 £c6 22.¦ad1 ¦xd1 23.¦xd1² White is slightly better, but it is questionable if he can he convert it into a win.
143
15.dxe5 dxe5 15...¤xe5 16.¤xe5 dxe5 17.¥c4 ¥e6 18.£b3² 16.¥c4² White is better thanks to his control of the light squares. It is also important to note that the bishop is badly placed on b6. The opening battle has finished in White’s favour. 16...¥e6 The computer suggests 16...£c7² as best, but this would lead to a similar position as after 14...£c7, which we have already examined. 17.£b3 £c7 18.¤d2 £c6
19.a4! ¦ad8 After the active 19...¤f4 White can play the simple 20.¦ed1!² with the same idea as in the game: £b5. 20.£b5! The last two moves are typical, but it is still very nice to see how Radjabov plays “easy” moves and improves his position. 20...£xb5 20...¥d7 21.£xc6 ¥xc6 22.f3 ¤f4 23.¤b3± looks very bad for Black.
24 Puzzles by GM Jacob Aagaard
This is my second puzzle selection for Chess Evolution and this time it is a bit different from the previous version. Last time I had 12 easy to understand – play and win – puzzles. This time I have gone for a slightly different approach. The 24 positions I have chosen were selected from a list of 53 games supplied to me by Arkadij Naiditsch. Of these some were not really working as puzzles for various reasons, not least of all that the outcome was very uncertain once you analysed deeper! An example is the following: Stojanovic – Kasimdzhanov, European Team Championship, 27.09.2011
15.f4! ¤xc4?! 15...¤g4 16.£g3 ¤f6 17.f5! is however also better for White. 16.£e2 ¤xd2 17.¤d5 £d8 18.¤c7† ¢d7 19.¤xa8 ¤xf1 20.¦c7† £xc7 21.¤xc7 ¢xc7 22.¢xf1± ¥e7 23.£h5 g6 24.£a5† ¢d7 25.£b4 ¦b8 26.£a4† ¢c7 27.£d4 ¦g8 28.a4 h5 29.b4 h4 30.b5 axb5 31.axb5 ¦c8 32.b6† ¢d7 33.£a4† ¦c6 34.£a7 ¦c1† 35.¢g2 ¢c6 36.£a4† ¢xb6 37.£e8 ¥f6 38.£xf7 ¥d4 39.£xe6 ¥c5 40.f5 gxf5 41.exf5 ¦c3 42.h3 ¦a3 43.f6 ¦a8 44.f7 1–0 However the problem is that if Black plays 17...£a5 18.¤c7† ¢e7 19.¤xa8 ¤xf1 20.¦c7† ¢f6 21.b4! £b5 22.e5† dxe5 23.fxe5† ¢g5 24.f4† ¢h6 25.£g4 f6 26.¦c3, it looks bad, but things are not so clear:
A Chess Evolution Adventure by GM Etienne Bacrot Having inspected the content carefully as the editor of the first two issues of your favourite periodical, I can honestly say that the chess work our team made was really useful in the study of the opening. We have all benefited from the work we have done, but this does not exclude the possibilities of some mistakes, which can later be spotted by really strong players. The worst one is probably the fact that I missed 13.¥d1!, recently played in this position in Karjakin – Laznicka, Poikovsky 2011:
See game 7 for more detail. Please forgive us; chess is a complicated game! Although we were very happy with the content, we had to react to the sales and the feedback from the readers. The project had to change or die. With the introduction of words in the annotations I decided to retreat and become a mere external help to Chess Evolution. I was very pleased to read the September issue with many interesting comments from the expanding team of grandmasters and the higher production level. I hope you were too.
Life, Puzzles & Endgames From generalities to specifics. Let me share a few words about my past year. After showing strong play against the absolute top in October 2010 in Nanjing, I was hoping for further invitations, but had to accept that they never came. Thus I took the “clever” decision to play some opens – in Basel, Geneva and Neckar, all tournaments with double rounds – for which I was rewarded with a rating loss of 27 points throughout the year. A special mention goes to Neckar Open where I donated 20 rating points to the general well-being of my opponents. While editing the May issue I also had the chance to be a part of Grischuk’s team for the Candidates tournament and thus spend a month working on his preparation to face some of the top theoreticians in the world, Aronian, Kramnik and Gelfand. The latter of course ended up defeating Grischuk in the final and earning a match with Anand for the World Championship. This was very hard work, but at the same time a wonderful experience. Back in France I delayed getting the necessary rest to first help Marseille to be French Club Champion. After a small training session it was time for a new season with lots of challenging opponents. I performed above even my own expectations at the French Individual Championship, winning a nice game against Romain Edouard on the way (see game 22, page 167 of Chess Evolution Sep 2011), but missed a big opportunity in my game against Fressinet:
Don’t get left behind! Join the Evolution - Subscribe to Chess Evolution! Get 3 volumes for €82.48* * issue - The same as one free issue! Get 6 volumes for €27.49 per Make full use of our interactive service and subscribe now!
at www.chess-evolution.com
* Terms and conditions apply. For example, postage costs apply. For details, go to our website.
Chess for Kids and Parents From the start till the first tournament
Heinz Brunthaler
2006 Quality Chess
Contents What you need (to know) Dear parents! (Introduction) When should you begin? The positive aspects of chess Our training programme Applying the training programme Name that square! Our training game "Hunting the black king" The moves The "en passant" move We note down a game of chess Noting down a game! Ranks, files and diagonals Introduction to endgame training Elementary wins – Mate with king + queen Quiz on queen endings (6 x mate with K + Q) Mate with king + rook Mate with king + 2 rooks Quiz on rook endings (6 x mate with K + R or K + 2 R) Introduction to opening training Starting a game of chess The centre Development Castling – a safe haven for the king! The correct and the quick order of moves We learn an opening: the Scotch Game
1 2 2 2 3 4 6 10 11 11 12 14 15 19 20 29 30 34 36 37 40 40 41 41 42 43
Traps, tricks & blunders – Scholar’s mate; Fool’s mate; a defence against those nasty tricks which attack f7 Opening quiz Solutions to opening quiz Introduction to training in tactics Tactics The double attack / the fork Quiz on the double attack Solutions to the quiz on the double attack The pin Quiz on the pin Solutions to the quiz on the pin The skewer Quiz on the skewer Solutions to the quiz on the skewer Discovered attack and discovered check Quiz on the discovered attack and discovered check Solutions to quiz on the discovered attack and discovered check Introduction to endgame training 2 The endgame 2 – elementary wins – pawn endings The queening square Quiz: "the clever square" United pawns, pawn chains and isolated pawns Helping our pawn to promote – the king protects it from the side The king is placed in front of the pawn on the 6th (3rd) rank The rook pawns Solutions to the quiz: "the clever square"
60 64 67 70 71 72 78 80 81 84 86 87 90 92 94 98 100 102 103 104 106 107 108 109 110 114
Quiz on pawn endings Introduction to opening training 2 The opening 2 – What our opponent can do (wrong?) – and how we can exploit it! Damiano’s Defence – the weak move 2...f7-f6? Black plays the “Petroff” 2...Ng8-f6 Black plays the ”Sicilian” 1.e2-e4 c7-c5 Black plays the “Centre Counter” 1.e2-e4 d7-d5 "Unusual moves" What should I play as Black? Against the “Giuoco Piano”? Against the “Ruy Lopez”? Against 1.d2-d4 or the Queen’s Gambit? Against other moves?
115 116
The world of chess, the sport
136
Preparation for your first tournament The chess clock Thinking time Playing with clocks and writing down moves The "touch-move" rule
137
Behaviour and sportsmanship Being told what to do Ratings Information about tournaments How tournaments work At the tournament – the great day has arrived! What to do when your child is beaten or when s/he wins What comes next? Chess coaches
117 117 124 126 127 128 131 131 133 134 135
137 138 142 143 144 145 147 148 150 151 153 158 159
And finally Power Test Solutions to the Power Test Evaluation Appendix Hunting the black king (scoresheet) Files, ranks and diagonals Solutions to the quiz "Mate with king and queen" Solutions to the endgame quiz "Mate with K + R / 2 R" Solutions to the quiz on the pawn ending Solution to "endgame with a rook's pawn" The Laws of Chess How the pieces move Taking your opponent's pieces Checkmate, stalemate and draws Recommended reading Internet addresses for chess associations Scoresheet Certificate for the Power Test
161 162 173 178 179 180 181 183 191 197 199 200 200 202 203 204 205 206 207
6
Chess for Kids and Parents
Name that square! We learn about chess notation Chess notation, i.e. writing down and "reading" of chess moves is absolutely necessary for all chess training. Knowing the notation helps us to read chess books, to note down our own (training) games and to play through them later in order to find mistakes and improvements or to show our games to other people. So let’s take a closer look at our chessboard: Round about it we can see numbers and letters. It reminds you of the game "battleships", doesn’t it? And that is exactly how chess notation works. We can describe each square by its co-ordinates. So each square has a "name", which we can use to identify it.
!"# $% &' () *+
a8
b8 c8
d8 e8
f8
g8 h8
a7
b7 c7
d7 e7
f7
g7 h7
a6
b6 c6
d6 e6
f6
g6 h6
a5
b5 c5
d5 e5
f5
g5 h5
a4
b4 c4
d4 e4
f4
g4 h4
a3
b3 c3
d3 e3
f3
g3 h3
a2
b2 c2
d2 e2
f2
g2 h2
a1
b1 c1
d1 e1
f1
g1 h1
On rank 1 and file e we have the king. In chess notation we say the first, so the king is standing on letters square e1.
What is the name of the square on which the pawn in front of the king is standing? The solution is on the next page.
Name that square!
7
Solution: the pawn is standing on square e4. To give the name of a piece, we always use an abbreviation: • • • • •
King Queen Rook Bishop Knight
=K =Q =R =B =N
So these are all called "pieces" (they are like the officers in an army). But, generally speaking, all the men on the board (including the pawns) are also called "pieces". The distinction is not important as yet, but when we get further on, we will make use of the specific terms “pieces” and “pawns”.
To describe a move, there are two possibilities: • Short notation • Long notation In short notation you only say which square the piece lands on. In our example, if the king were to move from square e1 to square e2, we would write Ke2 (a move to the square e2 and the name of the piece which moved there in front of it, i.e. the king to e2 = Ke2). In long notation you say, from which square and to which square the move was made and you put a hyphen between the names of the two squares, so in our example Ke1-e2. The latter is easier to understand for those who are learning chess, and for that reason in this book we use almost exclusively this form of notation. Occasionally, we will use short notation for short comments or for pointing out plans or goals, e.g. " ... and White wins, as soon as he has brought his king to b2”. Moreover in the text we very occasionally use a “p”, e.g. pe4.
8
Chess for Kids and Parents
Exercise No. 1: Write down in long notation the moves which White and Black have made. (The order of the moves does not matter.)
!"# $,-./012,% &3443444344' (1) *56-34+ 7
3333 287659 8
White:
Black:
1. ....................
1. .....................
2. .....................
2. .....................
3. .....................
3. .....................
(See page 18 for answers) There are a few more important symbols: • If you take a piece, the hyphen is replaced by an x, so: x = takes In older chess books, you sometimes find a colon instead of an x. It means the same thing; : = takes.
• Short (or kingside) castling is written 0-0. • Long (or queenside) castling is written 0-0-0. • Taking "en passant" (taking a pawn as it passes) is written by adding e.p. to the pawn move. (If you do not know this move, it doesn’t matter. We’ll explain it later.) • If the king is checked, this is shown by a +. • If it is mate, there is a # (In old books we sometimes find ++)
Name that square!
9
In chess books and magazines, games and positions are printed with some evaluations and annotations for the reader: • ? after a move, tells us that it was a weak move. • Logically two question marks indicate that it was an even weaker move: ??. (Generally speaking, the move was not twice as bad as normal, but really, really stupid, e.g. the queen was given away or mate on the next move was overlooked). At the start, unfortunately, we will have to use this annotation a lot in our games!
• Of course there are also strong moves. These are given an ! and if it was a really good, perhaps even a brilliant, move, then the special sign is two exclamation marks: !!. We can concern ourselves with that a bit more in a couple of years; for the moment, it is important not to collect too many ? and ??. There are other symbols used to comment on moves or positions, but at the start we don’t need to know or learn them. To sum up, here's a quick list of the special symbols: 0-0
= kingside castling
0-0-0
= queenside castling
+
= check
#
= mate
?
= weak move, mistake
??
= bad mistake
!
= strong move
!!
= very strong move
Chess Lessons By
Vladimir Popov
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Foreword by Nadezhda Kosintseva Kosintseva Biography Preface Introduction Chapter 1 – Errors Due to Lack of Knowledge Chapter 2 – Evaluating the Position Chapter 3 – Planning Chapter 4 – Piece Play Chapter 5 – Pawn Play Chapter 6 – Co-ordination of Pieces and Pawns Chapter 7 – Arranging and Altering the Pawn Structure Chapter 8 – Exchanging Chapter 9 – Transition to the Endgame Chapter 10 – Asymmetrical Exchanges Chapter 11 – Prophylaxis Chapter 12 – Monitoring Counter-Threats Chapter 13 – Too Much Calculation Chapter 14 – Calculation Neglected or Cut Short Chapter 15 – Spotting Aggressive Sorties Chapter 16 – Detecting Ideas Chapter 17 – Blow and Counter-Blow Chapter 18 – Obvious Moves and Reflex Answers Chapter 19 – Deep Calculation Chapter 20 – Enterprise Chapter 21 – Hard Work Pays Off! Appendix – Examples from Classic Games
4 5 6 7 9 11 19 27 39 49 59 69 79 95 103 113 127 143 155 165 175 191 203 213 225 235 253
Key to symbols used ² ³ ± µ +– –+ = © „ ÷
White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality with compensation with counterplay unclear
? ?? ! !! !? ?! #
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate
Kosintseva Biography Tatiana and Nadezhda Kosintseva are rising stars of women’s chess. The sisters, known familiarly as Tania and Nadia, are ranked, respectively, 4th and 6th in the world. They were born in Arkhangelsk, a city in the extreme north of western Russia and they share more in common than chess, as they are both studying law at Pomor University in their hometown. In the 2010 Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, the Kosintsevas played on the top two boards for the Russian Women’s team, pushing World Champion Alexandra Kosteniuk down to Board 3. The pressure on the Russian top seeds must have been intense but they delivered in style, winning all eleven matches to take the team gold. Individually, Tatiana won the gold medal for the best score on Board 1 and Nadezhda matched this feat on Board 2. A dream result! Nadia is the elder sister by a year, being born in 1985. As a junior Nadia won a hatful of gold medals including being European Youth Champion three times and World Under-14 Champion. Now an established star, Nadia was Russian Women’s Champion in 2008 and is an International Master and Woman Grandmaster. The full Grandmaster title must surely arrive soon as her rating of 2576 far exceeds the minimum requirements. Nadia’s résumé is already impressive but her greatest victories still lie ahead. Tania Kosintseva, born in 1986, is a Grandmaster with a rating of 2581. Like her sister, she was a highly successful junior player with a highlight being winning the European Under-10 title. Even greater triumphs have followed as an adult including becoming Russian Women’s Champion in 2002, 2004 and 2007, and Women’s European Champion in 2007 and 2009. In 2010 she won the FIDE Women’s Grand Prix in Nalchik with a performance rating of 2735. It is clear that Tania is still improving...
Preface In the last few years the finals of the Russian Junior Championships have traditionally been held in the Dagomys health resort. Hundreds of young chess players, their coaches and their parents congregate every year in the popular Black Sea holiday destination. The scale of this chess festival is impressive. For all the difficulties, chess in Russia is alive and has a future! After making one of these trips, the thought of a book occurred to me. I had collected some ideas which I think should be of interest, whether the reader is a youth trainer or a player who has reached a reasonable standard and wishes to improve further. There is no disputing that in order to improve your quality of play, the quantity of errors has to be reduced. An experienced teacher, going over a game with beginners, will point out the weak moves; afterwards there is a chance that in a similar situation the child will get it right. For a player who has reached a certain level, work on his own mistakes ought to have become a systematic process. A coach involved with talented children on a one-to-one basis should understand this very well. Take the case of the Kosintseva sisters, Nadezhda (Nadia) and Tatiana (Tania). There was a time when a problem with their play, for all its great promise, was a large number of blunders. I had to choose suitable exercise positions for what was then their chief fault, and organize various solving contests followed up by serious critical discussion. As a result we basically succeeded in solving the problem – see the chapter on “Monitoring Counter-Threats”. It is well said that “you learn from your mistakes.” And you can also learn from the mistakes of others. In this book you are shown many notable cases of inaccurate play by young chess players. However, the classification and description of the most frequently seen errors is not the author’s sole aim. The main task of this book is to help the reader to minimize the quantity of errors in his games through studying the material and solving the exercises. The layout of the book is as follows. (1) Theoretical section. Each chapter contains introductory material or a lesson on a particular theme; extracts from games illustrating that theme are given, and generalizations and conclusions are stated. It is logical that coaches teach children using models of ideal play by World Champions and other stars. In our case we are speaking of a different approach. The idea of training inexperienced players by studying the mistakes of grandmasters seems inappropriate – in grandmaster play you can hardly find those obvious faults which characterize people to whom this book is addressed. Therefore in the theoretical part of my work I generally utilize extracts from games by young players. An author writing about players’ mistakes needs to have a good grasp of the reasons behind each poor decision. Otherwise he may draw the wrong conclusions. For that reason, most of my examples are based on the negative experiences of my own pupils. In some chapters, I give examples of bad decisions they took during training sessions. I think this will be of interest to the reader.
Chapter 3
Planning
M. Taimanov – A. Kotov Zurich 1953
t+ +n+l+ + + J + +o+w+oO +o+oHo+ P P + + + +bPq+ + + PpP +r+ + K 1.h4? In coaching sessions with beginners, I offer a simple definition: a plan is a sequence of moves united by a single aim. When speaking of planning, you need to bear in mind that situations where the opponent has no logical sequences of his own are very rare – they mostly occur in endgames. The following is an instructive example which I have always liked for its simplicity and logic.
Chess Lessons
28
Baslavsky – Kondratiev Soviet Union 1947
White to move: Find a plan to improve his position To understand what forced Kondratiev to construct a cage for his own bishop would be a complicated matter. Black’s lot is to defend passively – White’s plan is obvious. He has to bring his king to the queenside, attempting to penetrate via b6. His opponent in turn may reach c7 in time, while guarding the g6weakness with his bishop. White then has the resource of advancing his queenside pawns. In the position we are starting from, does it make sense to figure out the winning plan right to the end? I don’t think so, considering that in the diagram position White simply has no other way of playing. 1.¢e3 ¢f7 2.¢d4 ¥e8 3.¢c3 ¢e7 4.¢b3 ¢d8 5.¢a4 ¢c7 6.¢a5 ¥f7 7.¥c4! ¥g8 White has achieved what he wanted, but there is no zugzwang – Black can move his bishop to and fro between f7 and g8. White can now have a think about what to do next.
White to move: Find the winning plan The task isn’t complicated. Black is forced to mark time, so after a3-a4 and b4-b5 White pushes his pawn to b6, fixing a new weakness. Then the black monarch will be unable to switch to the kingside, in view of the threat of ¥a6. White wins by centralizing his king, after which he can break through via the f4-square by means of the sacrifice f4-f5. All this actually happened in the game. 8.a4 ¥f7 9.b5 axb5 10.axb5 ¥g8 (10...cxb5 11.¥xb5 ¥g8 12.¥e8 ¥h7 13.¥f7+–) 11.b6†! ¢d8 12.¢b4 ¥f7 13.¢c3 ¢d7 14.¢d4 ¢d8 15.¢e3 ¢d7 16.f5! gxf5 17.¢f4 ¥g6 18.¢g5 ¥e8 19.¢f6 f4 20.¥e2 1–0 In reality it is very hard for a practical player to obtain such comfortable conditions as White enjoyed in the ending we have just examined. When planning your game you are usually faced with the hostile designs of the other side – and scope for mistakes is opened up! Often the actions you have in mind will quickly need adjustment – after your opponent’s first move in reply. This means that when we talk about planning, it is really a case of determining the rough direction of the play from the position under scrutiny – for instance by identifying the part of the board where you need to take action, deciding
Chapter 3 – Planning which regroupings of pieces, pawn thrusts or exchanges are sensible to aim for; and so on. The ability to plan the game correctly is a valuable quality, and it can and must be developed. For work in this area, there are some positions for you to solve at the end of the chapter, and more positions for you to try playing. But first let’s look at some examples of wrong decisions. The theme of the next two positions is a confrontation between plans. To avoid errors, the player had to try to fathom the opponent’s intentions.
M. Botvinnik – L. Stein
29
twice, and he would lose control of the file.” (Botvinnik) As a result Black equalized, and the game concluded peacefully: 3.¦d5 ¦c5 4.¦d2 ¥g5 5.¦d1 ¦c8 6.g3 ¦d8 7.¥d5 £c5 8.¦d3 ¦f8 9.¢g2 ¥d8 ½–½ White should have gone into an ending with: 1.£d7†! £xd7 2.¦xd7† ¢h8 3.g3± In his notes to the game, Botvinnik writes: “The pawn weaknesses and the bad position of the black king would have given White realistic winning chances.” In fact, Black should prefer 2...¢h6 but he would still face an awkward defence.
Hoang Thanh Trang – T. Kosintseva
Moscow 1963
Women’s World Championship, Elista 2004
White to move
White has seized the open file with his major pieces and has a tangible plus. In the game, Botvinnik continued with 1.£e2. The idea of this move is to place the rook in front of the queen with 2.¦d3 and then 3.£d2. In the process, the illustrious player missed his opponent’s counter-measure: 1...£e7 2.¦d3 ¦c8 “This move – the only one, but fairly straightforward – is what White overlooked (when playing 1.£e2). He forgot that the d8-square would now be defended
Black is a pawn up in the endgame. How should she improve her position? Tatiana decided to bring her king nearer the centre with 1...¥f6 and 2...¢e7. However, White too has her own obvious plan, and her young opponent clearly underrated it. 1...¥f6 2.¥d4 ¢e7 3.¢c2 White has got in first – all she needs to do now is play 4.¢c3 and 5.¤xc4. Black was therefore obliged to go into a drawn ending with: 3...¥xe5 4.¥xe5 ¢f7 5.¢c3
Black to move
Chess Lessons
30
¢g6 6.¢d4 ¢f5 7.¥xg7 ¢xf4 8.¥e5† ¢f3 9.¢c5= Let’s go back to the initial position. Young Tatiana needed to adjust her plan by taking her opponent’s possibilities into account. It was worth thinking about the prophylactic moves 1...c3 or 1...¥d8 2.¢c2 ¥a5, before bringing up the king with ...¢e7-f6-f5. There was also another way, an aggressive one. Black could bring her bishop to g3 with the idea of ...g7-g5. Thus, 1...¥h4! 2.¢c2 ¥g3 3.¢c3 g5 4.¤xc4 gxf4 with winning chances. Let’s now look at some examples of faulty play where an outwardly attractive plan is chosen but has no chance of success in view of the opponent’s straightforward counter-action.
R. Farakhov – N. Kosintseva Russian u20 Championship, Essentuki 2003
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6 6.¤c3 ¥xa6 7.g3 ¥g7 8.¥g2 0–0 9.¤f3 d6 10.0–0 ¤bd7 11.¦b1 ¤e8 12.£c2 ¤c7 13.¤h4? ¤b5 14.¤xb5 ¥xb5 15.b3 £b6 16.a4 ¥a6 17.¤f3 ¦ab8 18.¦d1 ¦b7 19.e4 ¦fb8 20.¥e3
Black to move
In the Benko Gambit the 18-year-old Nadia has gained adequate compensation for the pawn. The best move here was 20...£b4! with the idea of 21...£c3, putting pressure on the weakness on b3. But the Kosintseva sisters always play for a win, and in this uncompromising spirit Nadia was put off by the possible draw after 21.¥d2 £a3 22.¥c1 £b4 23.¥d2. She therefore decided to increase the pressure on the backward pawn by other means – by placing the queen behind the rook with 20...£d8, then ...¦b6 and ...£c8-b7. Was Nadezhda right? There followed: 21.h3 ¦b6 22.¥d2! Alas, 22...£c8 is now useless on account of 23.¥a5. So the rook has to go back again. In other words, Black’s plan was unrealistic. After 22...¦6b7 23.¥f1 ¥xf1 24.¦xf1 £c8 25.¦fc1 White had the better position.
S. Novikov – N. Kosintseva Russian u18 Championship, Dagomys 2003
Black to move: find a way of improving her position.
Chapter 3 – Planning What counts for more in this position – the weak pawns on the e-file or the activity of Black’s pieces? The first-mentioned factor is a long-term one, whereas the initiative may quickly evaporate if the play is steered in the wrong direction. That is what happened in the game. Nadezhda decided to attack with her kingside pawns, but only weakened her own position: 1...h5? 2.b3 h4? 3.h3 g5?
White to move: how can he exploit his opponent’s ill-judged play?
The answer to this question is fairly simple: 4.¤d4! ¥a8 5.£e2!+– The queen now breaks into the enemy camp via the weakened squares; Black is defenceless. Instead, Nadia could have played something like 1...¥d5!? 2.b3 b5 3.c5 b4 with counterplay.
+ Pv O p +
31
I gave the girls the following example as an exercise to solve.
V. Mikenas – V. Smyslov Soviet Championship 1944
Black to move: Find a plan to improve his position In this ending the fairly obvious point is that Black holds the advantage of the two bishops – although one of them is not participating. The indicated plan, therefore, is to bring this badly placed piece into play with: 1...g5! 2.¢e2 f6 3.¤e1 ¥g6 4.¤c2 ¥g1
+ Ov O + nk V
5.h3 ¢d6–+ That is how the game went.
Chess Lessons
32
On the other hand 1...f6, the move chosen by young Nadia, doesn’t work because of the following riposte:
O
2.h4! ¥g6 (2...g5 3.h5!) 3.¤f4 Now the bishop can’t be preserved from exchange, as if 3...¥e8? then 4.¤e6. This means that White’s problems disappear. Let’s state the conclusion that emerges: in devising your game plan, don’t forget about your opponent’s possibilities! Indeed, in the following game Black formulated his plan in a more sophisticated way.
A. Malkov – Z. Levin Arkhangelsk 2001
Black to move: what plan would you choose to exploit his positional plus?
At first glance, Black’s line of play is obvious – he brings his king to b4. Then he plays ...¤d4 or ...¤c5, attacking the weakness on b3. But it isn’t as simple as that, as White will not be standing still. His counter-measures are easy to understand: ¢e3 and f3-f4, to obtain active play. Black’s kingside pawns are arranged on the same colour as the bishop, which means that not everything is so bleak for Malkov. Zhenia Levin, the eleven-year-old Wunderkind from Arkhangelsk, proceeded very cannily – he modified his plan to allow for the possibility of counterplay. The boy reasoned more or less like this: “First I need to make the kingside safe by playing ...¢e7-f6 and ...g6-g5. My opponent will have to take on g5, otherwise I’ll exchange on h4 myself and obtain the f4-square for the knight. After retaking with ...¢f6xg5 I can play ...h5h4, getting rid of the pawns on light squares once and for all, and at the same time securing f4 for my knight or king. Black should win by breaking through on one of the wings.” Let’s see how Zhenia carried out his plan: 1...¢f6! 2.¢e3 g5 3.hxg5† ¢xg5 4.¥c2 h4 5.gxh4† ¢xh4 6.¥d1 ¢g5
+ L + K+ +
Having deprived his opponent of any chances on the kingside, Black can now head across towards b4! 7.¥c2 ¢f6 (7...¤d4? 8.f4†)
Chapter 3 – Planning 8.¥d1 ¢e7 9.¥c2 ¢d6 10.¢d3 ¤d4 11.¥d1 ¢c5 12.¢c3 f6
Zugzwang! Black wins
With the aid of some sample variations, let’s test whether a different line could have given White counterplay: 1...¢d6? 2.¢e3 ¢c5
+ L K +
3.f4 ¢b4 (3...f6 4.f5 gxf5 5.¥xh5) 4.fxe5 ¤c5? 5.g4 hxg4= 6.¥xg4 ¢xb3? 7.h5 gxh5 8.¥xh5, and now White is winning! Naturally, Black can improve on this line (for example, by playing ...¢c3 on either move 4 or 6) but the fact remains that the “obvious” 1...¢d6? is inaccurate. For the sake of completeness, note that 1...f6! was also strong with a similar idea to the main line: 2.¢e3 g5! So in this case, there were two good answers, but they rely on the same process – anticipate and prevent White’s counterplay.
33
In this chapter we have done no more than touch on a vast topic. The planning process will be discussed further – its elements, essentially, are those positional operations (piece play, pawn play, exchanging) which we shall treat in the next chapters.
Chess Lessons
34
Errors in planning are no rarity. A young player must work on rectifying this defect. Finding the solution or continuation in specially selected positions is helpful; the player should analyse his solutions and draw appropriate conclusions. Below I offer six positions to solve, as examples of the theme we are studying. You must: (a) Find the outline plan for improving the position (2 points) (b) Make the first move in accordance with this plan (1 point) There are also four endgames for you to practise playing with your sparring partner or trainer. In the initial position you need to find the right plan.
Positions for Solving
(1) White to move
(3) Black to move
(2) White to move
(4) White to move
35
(5) Black to move
(6) Black to move
Positions for Practice
(1) White to move
(3) White to move
(2) White to move
(4) White to move
Chess Lessons
36
Positions for Solving (1) V. Popov – Shipov (1982) The right idea is to carry out b2-b4. White therefore needs to play 1.a5 (1 point), as otherwise ...a6-a5 would follow. The game continued: 1...¤e8 2.¦b1 ¤g6 3.b4 (2 points) 3...¦c7 4.bxc5 dxc5 5.¤a4+– (2) N.V. Pedersen – M. Notkin (1995) When planning your play it is essential to take account of your opponent’s possibilities. In the game White failed to do so: 1.g3? d5 2.exd5 ¤xd5 3.¦xe5 ¤xc3 4.£e1 cxd4 5.¤xd4 ¦xd4 6.¥b2 ¦xa4 7.¥xc3 ¦xa1 8.¥xa1 ¥d7µ He had to play differently with 1.d5! (1 point) 1...¤f8 2.¤d2, aiming for ¤d2-c4 and then f2-f4 (2 points). (3) W. Schmidt – R. Kuczynski (1988) Black has a weakness on b6; the correct plan is to free the rook on b8 from defending it: 1...¥c3! (1 point), with the idea of ...¥a5 or ...¥b4-c5 (2 points). The continuation was: 2.¢g2 ¥a5 (or 2...¥b4!? with ...¥c5 in view) 3.¦c1 hxg3 4.hxg3 ¤e5 5.¦h1 ¢g7 6.¦c2 ¤d3 7.¦c7 ¤xf2! 8.¢xf2 ¦e8= (4) M. Botvinnik – V. Smyslov (1954) Black’s knight has to be exchanged off: 1.¤c1 ¥g7 2.¤d3! (3 points) 2...f5 3.¤xc5 dxc5 4.¥f3 Preparing g3-g4. 4...£d6 5.g4 f4 6.g5! ¢f7 7.¢h1² (5) V. Kramnik – A. Karpov (2002) By playing 1...¤e8! (1 point) and then ...f7-f6 and ...e6-e5 (2 points), Black curbs the activity of the enemy pieces (in particular the b2-bishop and the queen). The knight can be transferred to an active post on d6. In the game there followed: 2.b5 f6! 3.a4 a5 4.bxa6 ¦xa6 5.a5 ¦ca8 With counterplay. (6) E. Bareev – P. Leko (1995) Black has to prepare the advance ...e6-e5, but it doesn’t pay to be hasty: 1...e5? 2.d5 ¤a5 3.¤b3± The Hungarian grandmaster made the preparatory move 1...¢a8! (1 point) and equalized after: 2.¤b3 e5 3.d5 ¤b8 (2 points) 4.a4 a5= More than 14 points – “excellent”; 12-14 – “good”; under 9 – failure.
Chapter 3 – Planning
37
Positions for Practice (1) A. Karpov – M. Gurevich (1991) By means of the regrouping 1.¤e1!, with a view to 2.¢f3 and then ¤e1-d3(g2), White should win the weak pawn on f4. The game went: 1...a5 2.¢f3 a4 3.¦d7† ¦8e7 4.¦xe7† ¦xe7 5.¤d3 axb3 6.axb3 1–0 (2) V. Faibisovich – H. Westerinen (1969) White’s plan is to bring his rook over to d3, after which the pawn on a5 will fall: 1.¦d5! ¥e1 2.¦d3 ¢f6 3.c3 ¦e7 4.¥b7 ¦e2 5.¢xa5 ¦c2 6.¢b5 ¥xc3 7.a5+– (3) I. Boleslavsky – B. Goldenov (1952) Here White’s plan is to attack the weak pawn on a4. To this end he needs to bring his bishop to d1 and move his king away. He must play accurately to limit his opponent’s counterplay. 1.¥g4 ¦a8 (1...¢d5 2.¦e5† ¢d6 3.¢c1) 2.¢c1! ¦a7 3.¥d1 The aim is achieved – the pawn falls. 3...¤b5 4.¥xa4 ¤d4 5.¥d1 ¤f5 6.¥g4 ¦b7 7.¥xf5 exf5 8.¦e3+– (4) N. Kosintseva – T. Kosintseva White’s plan should be to rid herself of the weak pawn on a3 – but not at once! In the coaching session, the play went 1.a4? bxa4 2.¤xa4 (better 2.¦a3!) 2...¦b1, and Black’s rook was activated. The advance a3-a4 had to be prepared: 1.¥f1! ¦a8 (1...¤c8? 2.¤d7+–) 2.¥d3 ¦a7 (2...¤c8? 3.¥xf5+–) 3.¥c2 ¦a8 4.a4 bxa4 (4...b4 5.¦b3 ¦b8 6.¤d3+–) 5.¥xa4 With advantage.
Menorca 1996
Foreword In the last few years the finals of the Russian Junior Championships have traditionally been held in the Dagomys health resort. Hundreds of young chess players, their coaches and their parents congregate every year in the popular Black Sea holiday destination. The scale of this chess festival is impressive. For all the difficulties, chess in Russia is alive and has a future! After making one of these trips, the thought of a book occurred to me. I had collected some ideas which I think should be of interest, whether the reader is a youth trainer or a young player who has attained a reasonable First Category standard (or that of Candidate Master) and is ambitious. There is no disputing that in order to improve your quality of play, the quantity of errors has to be reduced. An experienced teacher, going over a game with beginners, will point out the weak moves; afterwards there is a chance that in a similar situation the child will get it right. For a player who has reached a certain level, work on his own mistakes ought to have become a systematic process. A coach involved with talented children on a one-to-one basis should understand this very well. Take the case of the Kosintseva sisters, Nadezhda (Nadia) and Tatiana (Tania). There was a time when a problem with their play, for all its great promise, was a large number of blunders. I had to choose suitable exercise positions for what was then their chief fault, and organize various solving contests followed up by serious critical discussion. As a result we basically succeeded in solving the problem – see the chapter on “Monitoring Counter-threats”. It is well said that “you learn from your mistakes.” And you can also learn from the mistakes of others. In this book you are shown many notable cases of inaccurate play by young chess players. However, the classification and description of the most frequently seen errors is not the author’s sole aim. The main task of this book is to help the reader to minimize the quantity of errors in his games through studying the material and solving the exercises. The layout of the book is as follows. (1) Theoretical section. Each chapter contains introductory material or a lesson on a particular theme; extracts from games illustrating that theme are given, and generalizations and conclusions are stated. It is logical that coaches teach children using models of ideal play by World Champions and other stars. In our case we are speaking of a different approach. The idea of training inexperienced players by studying the mistakes of grandmasters seems inappropriate – in grandmaster play you can hardly find those obvious faults which characterize people to whom this book is addressed. Therefore in the theoretical part of my work I generally utilize extracts from games by young players. An author writing about players’ mistakes needs to have a good grasp of the reasons behind each poor decision. Otherwise he may draw the wrong conclusions. For that reason, most of
8
Chess Lessons
my examples are based on the negative experiences of my own pupils. In some chapters, I give examples of bad decisions they took during training sessions. I think this will be of interest to the reader. (2) Practical section. At the end of each chapter I give you a set of positions for training activities, under a coach’s direction or on your own. The aim in each case has been to present a situation where, in trying to play the position or solve the exercise, you are liable to make a mistake in the category that is being studied. It will be splendid if you cope with the problem. And if you do make a mistake, it will be better still. Compare your own analysis with the recommended line of play, and try to draw the right conclusion. I hope you will not go wrong next time in a similar situation. (3) Answers. At the end of the book the answers to the exercises are given, and the reader is awarded points for correct solutions. In most cases you score one point for the correct first move, and either one or two more points for the reasoning behind it. You are given an assessment on the basis of your total score. I should explain that the examples for solution and practice were selected on the principle that in each case there should be one objectively best line. Nonetheless it may be that in some situations there are alternative possibilities that merit approval. If a chess player has a coach, it will be easy for the latter to organize work utilizing the material presented here. In the absence of a mentor, the reader can work with the book independently. After acquainting yourself with the first part of each chapter, you should turn to the practical section. Set up each position on your chessboard and try to find the strongest continuation within 1020 minutes; make a note of the reasons for your choice, and write down the variations you have found. On solving all the positions in a batch, check your solutions against the recommended answers. Record the points scored for each solution and the assessment for the batch as a whole. Try to improve your showing when you attempt the next set of positions! I am convinced you will make progress by systematically working with the material in this book. I wish you success!
Introduction There are said to be two ways of improving as a chess player – by accumulating knowledge and by working on your shortcomings. For beginners, the acquisition of information is more important. For more experienced players, who already possess a solid theoretical grounding, efforts to eradicate a range of characteristic mistakes become no less important. This way, first one and then another component of their play is enhanced. Their class and their practical strength accordingly increase. How do you work to overcome the defects in a young person’s play? Where do you start? To begin, you must ascertain where their problems lie; to this end it helps to conduct an analysis of your pupil’s play after every tournament, identifying the chief negative factors. Let me give an example from my own practice as a coach. In 2002 an interesting tournament was held in Arkhangelsk, my home town. It was a double-round event with six contestants. Among them were Grandmasters Malaniuk and Moiseenko from the Ukraine, Alexander Ivanov from the USA, and his namesake (sharing his first name and surname) – Ivanov the master from Arkhangelsk. And there were two schoolgirls, the sisters Tania and Nadia Kosintseva. The girls acquitted themselves creditably, though they didn’t finish as prize-winners. I still have a record of my preliminary analysis of their performance. Here are some extracts. Nadia Round 2: Ivanov (Arkh.) – Nadia, 1-0. Black had a promising position out of the opening. 24...f5 was an error (missing a “counterthreat”). Instead of 27...¦fe8, she had the clearly stronger 27...¦ae8 (resource: f5-f4), when Black is not worse. Mistake of judgement typical of Nadia... 33...g5 – a blunder. After the queen exchange, a second weakness appears on h5... Hard to defend such positions in time trouble. From this game you notice Nadia’s weak play in technical positions and the ending. Round 7: Ivanov (USA) – Nadia, 1-0. In the Rauzer Attack, Black would have had a good game after the active 19...b4! 20.¤d5 ¤xd5 21.exd5 e6! – a standard idea. But Nadia played the whole game passively. After the colourless 19...¥e6, there is no way for Black to attack the king – no active plan. 22...¤e5? is wholly bad, Black gets a backward pawn on g7 by force. Counter-threat missed. In defence she lacked persistence; instead of 28...¢h7? she had the better 28...¥xd5!, not giving up the pawn.
10
Chess Lessons
Round 8: Nadia – Moiseenko, 0-1. Chelyabinsk Variation played. Instead of 16.¥d3! with some edge, as written down, she played 16.¥b6?! – she forgot. She didn’t find the correct plan: 22.¦c1, ¤a5-c6, ¦c3, ¦fc1, with queenside play... 31.¤b6?? misses the counter-threat. With an unfamiliar structure, Nadia clearly had a poor understanding of what to do. Conclusion: master this variation as we mastered the Rauzer. Nadia showed weak play in the endgame. You are struck by her passive handling of some positions. In defence she didn’t play with due persistence. She showed a high standard of play in some individual games but performed unevenly overall. Well then, let’s suppose that a boy or girl knows his or her own problems. Where do we go from there? It is of course essential to work on the shortcomings you have exposed. A possible form that such work may take is the playing and solving of specially selected examples. This book deals with errors of which you may rid yourself by means of solving exercises. Errors linked to psychological factors, time shortage and so on, are a topic for a different discussion. I would like to say that all the errors described in this book are characteristic of any chess player. But some particular faults may predominate. For instance one of my former pupils is mostly prone to positional errors, especially in connection with exchanging pieces; another has problems with the technique of calculation, failing to anticipate the opponent’s play. Naturally in such cases you have to concern yourself first and foremost with eradicating the main shortcomings. But then it is not worth treating the book as material for liquidating just two or three basic flaws. I advise you to use it as a kind of “training apparatus” for improving all elements of a young person’s game, through studying, playing and solving the sample positions supplied.
Chapter 1 Errors Due to Lack of Knowledge R.J. Fischer – J. Sherwin Portoroz Interzonal 1958
1...¢e6? As an introduction to the topic of this book, let me do something to classify the numerous errors made by chess players in the course of a game. I think we can identify two major categories. In one of them, we group mistakes due to ignorance. It is no surprise that an inexperienced player should often prove unfamiliar with some opening line or other, or be unacquainted with the standard ideas and plans for the middlegame or the important endgame positions. The best way to combat inadequacies of this kind is to absorb the necessary information by utilizing books and a computer and by working with a coach. The other category comprises errors due to lack of skill. We are talking here about deficiencies in the technique for finding the right move during play. Understandably, by no means all young men and women know how to devise a game plan, by no means all are trained to engage in prophylaxis
Chess Lessons
12
and anticipate threats, or to calculate variations correctly (we shall deal with these themes in the corresponding chapters). Let’s first discuss mistakes arising chiefly from inadequate knowledge. I would like to show you a noteworthy sample of play by Karmen Mar, the Slovenian Girls’ Champion. Though she holds the Woman International Master title, there are quite a few gaps in her chess education. The game given below was played in the women’s team tournament which traditionally takes place in autumn in that well-known health resort, the little town of Bled. I happened to be present at that event as Karmen’s trainer. It was some while after the start of the round. I was pleased that the girl had emerged from the opening with no particular problems (see the diagram below), and I decided to take a stroll round the lake. An hour and a half later, returning to the tournament hall from my walk, I was astonished to discover that all the black pieces were in the same places as before, whereas White had noticeably improved her position...
M. Hocevar – K. Mar Bled 2005
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 e6 6.¥e2 a6 7.a4 b6 8.0–0 ¤bd7 9.f4 ¥b7 10.¥f3 £c7 11.¢h1 ¥e7 12.£e1 ¦d8 13.£g3 0–0 14.¦e1 ¤c5 15.¥d2
So Karmen has confidently developed her pieces according to well-known patterns. But how is she to carry on? The girl started looking for a possibility to improve her position, but did not find one. Black’s following actions are curious. 15...¢h8? 16.¦ad1 ¤g8? 17.¥c1 £d7? 18.b3 £c7 19.¥b2 ¤f6? And so on. It is clear that in the course of five moves Karmen has achieved little, contriving to lose four whole tempos. It is worth noting that the cause of the girl’s mistake (or mistakes) is understandable. Similar faults are characteristic of many inexperienced chess players. While knowing variations in the opening, such players have only a vague notion of the ideas of the resulting middlegame. Before answering the question as to how Black ought to continue from the diagram, let’s examine two other positions and the play arising from them.
Idea 1: preparing ...e6-e5 R. Byrne – A. Machulsky Philadelphia 1992
Black to move
13
1...¦fe8 An essential preparatory move. 2.¤b3 Or 2.¢h1 e5 3.¤f5 ¥f8, with counterplay. 2...e5 3.£f2 exf4 4.¥xf4 ¤e5 5.h3 ¤c4 6.¥c1 ¥f8=
Idea 2: carrying out ...d6-d5 A. Shchekachev – G. Ginsburg Smolensk 1992
White intends g4-g5. It is therefore worth considering 1...d5!? 2.exd5 (2.e5 ¤e4 with counterplay) 2...¤xd5 3.¤xd5 ¥xd5 4.¥xd5 exd5 5.¤f5 ¦fe8 6.£f2 ¤f6 7.¥d4 ¤e4 8.£g2 ¥c5, with a good position for Black. The advance ...d6-d5 was especially effective once White had weakened his king position with g2-g4. The examples I have quoted illustrate two playable schemes in the opening in question. Karmen should have pondered which one of these to choose. Should she carry out the standard plan of 15...¦fe8 and 16...¥f8 with ...e6-e5 to follow? Or should she go for 15...d5 16.e5 ¤fe4? In either case Black has adequate counterplay. A mundane piece of advice may be given to young chess players and their coaches: when
you study opening schemes, it pays first of all to work through the typical ideas of the ensuing middlegame – and only then concentrate on specific variations. A very important point is that even if your memory is merely average, ideas tend not to be forgotten – unlike the myriad theoretical lines which require constant cramming. Now let’s talk a little about errors committed through ignorance of standard devices (or their inept application). A description and classification of tactical devices can be found in plenty of books. The theme of “strategic devices” has been less fully elaborated, but that doesn’t excuse a young player for neglecting it. The endgame too has its own specific devices.
T. Kosintseva – I. Dudukin Russian u18 Championship, Dagomys 2002
White to move In time trouble the players traded blunders: 1.¦h7? ¤g6? (1...¤xg2–+) 2.¢e4= To force the draw, it was essential for White to harass the pawns with: 1.¦e5! ¢f4 2.¦e4† ¢g3 3.¦e5=
Chess Lessons
14
D. Kokarev – T. Kosintseva
N. Kosintseva – A. Muzychuk
Russian u20 Championship, Kazan 2001
European Women’s Championship Warsaw 2001
Black to move The girl continued simply with 1...d3?, overlooking her more experienced opponent’s obvious counterplay: 2.£d4† ¢h7 3.£d5 ¢g7 4.£d4† ¢g8 Sadly Tania now had no means of shaking off the “harassing” queen, so the players agreed a draw. If the fifteen-year old had been more attentive she would definitely have found another way – 1...£c3!. For example, 2.£e5† ¢h7 3.£d5 (3.£f4 £c4) 3...¢g8 4.£d8† ¢g7
Q W
Accurate defence should lead to a draw, but Black retains serious practical chances.
White to move After the move in the game, 1.¥b5?, Black still retains winning chances. Nadezhda had an unexpected opportunity to force a draw by means of a “harassing” ploy that is characteristic of endgames: 1.¥d7†! ¢f6 2.¥a4! (threatening to win a pawn with ¤d7†) 2...¢g7 (2...¦a3 3.¤d7†) 3.¥d7! ¢f6
b L
4.¥a4!=
15
E. Danielian – N. Kosintseva
Tania – Nadia
European Women’s Championship Varna 2002
Training game
Black to move The impression is that White stands better on account of her active pieces and safer shelter for her king. In time trouble Black decided to play safe with 1...£f6, but after 2.¦a3 ¦f7 3.£d2 she had to live through quite a few more minutes of unpleasant defence. A different possibility looks stronger: 1...£b1†! 2.¢g2 £b2, with the idea of 3...¦f7. Black’s major pieces are activated, latching on to the pawn on f2. Having a set of ideas and devices in his arsenal, any chess player ought also to be acquainted with a stock of specific positions and their evaluation. By way of illustration I shall quote a piece of play between two arch-rivals – the Kosintseva sisters. I was always astonished and delighted by the way the little girls would play against each other in training sessions with maximum effort and concentration.
Black to move The position comes from a game between J. Donner and T. van Scheltinga. Nadezhda – like Van Scheltinga – went into a clear drawing line: 1...¦d8? 2.¦xa7 ¦xd6 3.¦b7= Evidently the reason for the error was Black’s ignorance of the precise verdict on the resulting standard position. Black could, you see, have played differently: 1...a5! 2.¦b1 ¢f8! 3.¦xb6 ¦a8!
The king takes care of the d-pawn while the rook “propels” the passed a-pawn. This is the ideal allocation of tasks! Black should win.
16
Chess Lessons
In chess there are plenty of such ideas and devices, and also precise positions, which can and must be studied. My own work has a different agenda. Its aim is to help a player to reduce the number of errors in situations where the ability to think in the correct manner is of greater importance for finding the right move. To this the following chapters are devoted. I believe that the skills acquired through our training procedures should make it easier for the reader to take correct decisions in a tournament game. On the next page I give you six positions by way of a test. They require you to demonstrate your erudition and knowledge of ideas. You should write down the correct first move (1 point) and the rough continuation (2 points), culminating in an evaluation. The aim of the test is to gauge the level of your chess knowledge. A class player should have a precise conception of how to play with typical pawn structures, and should also be versed in the most important endgame ideas. If you could not cope with solving these examples, you need to study some chess textbooks.
17
(1) White to move
(4) White to move
(2) White to move
(5) Black to move
(3) Black to move
(6) Black to move
18
Chess Lessons
(1) A. Gipslis – A. Mikenas, Correspondence 1988 White carries out a pair of exchanges in order to arrive at a typical structure with the better minor pieces: 1.¥xg7 ¢xg7 2.¥xd5 exd5 (2...¤xd5 3.¤xd5 exd5 4.¦e5 ¥c6 5.¦ae1²) 3.£f4 (3 points) 3...f6 4.¦e2± (2) B. Avrukh – V. Kirilov, Katowice 1993 White needs to seal the kingside with: 1.h5! (1 point) 1...g5 2.g4 ¤f6 3.¤d2 c5 The remaining play is on the other side of the board, where White is traditionally stronger. 4.a3! ¤e8 5.b4 (2 points) 5...b6 6.f3 ¥f6 7.¢f2 ¢g7 8.¢g2 ¤g8 9.¤f1 ¥e7 10.¤g3 ¤gf6 11.¥e3 ¤h7 12.¥d3 f6 13.¥c2 ¦f7 14.¥a4 ¤f8 15.¥c6 ¦b8 16.£a4 ¥d7 17.¦hd1 £c8 18.£xa7 1–0 (3) R. Avery – S. Gligorić, USA 1971 After the stock sacrifice 1...¦f4! (1 point) 2.¥xf4 exf4 3.¤d3 £xg5 (2 points), Black obtains good compensation for the exchange. (4) L. Polugaevsky – P. Biyiasas, Petropolis 1973 White has to prepare a2-a4. The immediate 1.a4? provokes the standard reaction 1...c4! 2.bxc4 b4 3.¤e2 ¤c5, with counterplay. Lev Polugaevsky first made the preparatory move 1.¥f1! (1 point). It was only after 1...¦e8 that he played 2.a4 b4 (2...c4? 3.axb5 axb5 4.bxc4 b4 5.¤b5) 3.¤b1 ¤b6 4.¤bd2± (2 points) 4...¦e7 5.¥b2 ¤e8 6.¦c1 f6 7.a5 ¤a8 8.¤c4 with the better position. (5) V. Osnos – Y. Averbakh, Soviet Union 1967 Black reaches a drawn position of theoretical importance, after bringing his king to the queenside: 1...¢d7! (1 point) 2.¢e4 (2.h3 ¦a3!=) 2...¢c7 3.¢d4 ¢b7 4.h3 ¦a3! (2 points) The plan of defence is quite simple – the rook covers the h-pawn from the side, while the king stops the a-pawn: 5.¢c4 ¢a6 6.¢b4 ¦f3 7.¦h6† ¢a7= (6) V. Korchnoi – A. Karpov, Baguio City (23) 1978 Black must remember the device of “cutting off” the king: 1...¦e8! (1 point) 2.¦a2 ¦e7! (2 points) 3.¦d2 ¦e6 4.a7 ½–½ A score of 15 points or more is in the “excellent” class; 12-14 is “good”. If your total is under 9, you have failed the test.
Chess Praxis The Praxis of My System A textbook of practical chess, illustrated with 109 games from my struggles
Aron Nimzowitsch
Quality Chess
www.qualitychessbooks.com
Table of contents Index of games Index of stratagems Index of openings Introduction
page 4 page 7 page 9 page 11
1. Centralization (games 1-23)
page 13
1. Neglect of the central square complex as a typical, recurring error (games 1-3) 2. Sins of omission committed in the centre (games 4-6) 3. The vitality of troops in the centre (games 7-8) 4. Some combined forms of centralization (games 9-15) 5. A mobile pawn mass in the centre (games 16-17) 6. Giving up the pawn centre (games 18-20) 7. Centralizing as a deus ex machina (games 21-23) 2. Restriction and blockade (games 24-52) 1. Restraining freeing pawn advances (games 24-25) 2. Restraining a central pawn mass (games 26-28) 3. Restraining a qualitative majority (games 29-30) 4. Restraint where there are doubled pawn complexes (games 31-36) 5. From the workshop of the blockade 6. My new method of handling chains • The Dresden Variation (games 49-52) 3. Overprotection and other forms of Prophylaxis (games 53-60)
page 14 page 17 page 21 page 24 page 36 page 38 page 42 page 49 page 50 page 53 page 59 page 64 page 78 page 97 page 107
4. The Isolated Queen’s Pawn, the two Hanging Pawns – the two Bishops (games 61-70) page 121 5. Manoeuvring against opposing weaknesses... (games 71-77)
page 137
6. A brief survey of hypermodern territory – old and new (games 78-109)
page 151
1. The thesis of the relative harmlessness of the pawn roller (games 78-79) 2. Flexible handling of the opening (games 80-83) 3. The centre and play on the flank (games 84-88) 4. The small but solid centre (games 89-91) 5. The asymmetric treatment of symmetrical variations (games 92-94) 6. The bishop, with and without outposts (games 95-97) 7. A weak complex of squares of a specific colour (games 98-99) 8. A victory parade of “bizarre” and “ugly” moves (games 100-101) 9. Heroic defence (games 102-106) 10. “Combinations slumbering under a thin blanket” (games 107-109)
page 151 page 154 page 161 page 170 page 176 page 182 page 187 page 191 page 194 page 203
Postscript
Page 209
Chapter 1
Centralization This leads to excellent results in modern tournament praxis. The reason is that up until now it has not been well known that under all circumstances the control of the central squares is a strategic necessity; quite often even experienced players simply “run away” from the centre. But in each individual case we must make absolutely sure that any neglect of the central area by the opponent is really punished. Sins of omission as far as the centre is concerned arise because the player is not in the habit of paying attention to the needs of strategy (that is – in other words – strategic carelessness) or because he develops a passion for the flank attack! In the first case, our opponent lets us take the centre away from him and in the second he voluntarily concedes it to us in order to try his luck with a bold sortie down the wing. But a flank attack only has a real chance of success when the centre is closed or can be held stable with a minimum of forces. If the latter is not the case, then the attack fails because of a lack of forces. How can it be possible to successfully link a difficult attack with the heavy demands of a difficult defence? Game 3 illustrates this clearly. The central breakthrough led to complete paralysis – I nearly said demoralization – of the troops taking part in the diversion. The mechanics of centralization can be seen in the way that, after the necessary restraint of a possibly mobile opposing pawn centre, we draw the noose tighter and tighter around the central
squares. In doing so, we are glad to seize any line or diagonal which may simply pass through the centre. But if we manage to make this long-range action effective and establish some of our pieces in the centre, then we should be really pleased with the success of our policy of centralization. See game 12. Piling up pieces in the centre in the middlegame (as sketched in above) can be used for a strong attack on the flank, because in the final analysis centralization is not an end in itself, but simply the most rational way to accumulate forces which can be deployed on the wings (see game 8). It is however clear that a sensibly centralized position should in all circumstances be considered consolidated. In spite of everything, a centralized position is not necessarily free from all danger. For example, the opponent might think of getting rid of the centralized pieces by exchanges. In such a case, we need to preserve into the endgame a sufficient remainder of our centralization (game 7). Another danger might be that the opponent sacrifices one of his own blockading pieces in order to suddenly extend the central terrain. This danger is warded off by aiming to adapt to the new circumstances as soon as possible, perhaps by making a return sacrifice in order to exploit in a sharp way a central blocking diagonal (see game 8). We shall leave you for the present with these short remarks; the rest will become clear from the games themselves and the introductory notes.
14
Chess Praxis
1. Neglect of the central square complex as a typical, recurring error • The concept of the “central focussing lens” In games 1 and 2 the central area is neglected for no apparent reason, and in game 3 for the sake of a flank attack; such a strategy can only be successful against faulty counterplay. Compare, moreover, our remarks on pages 13 and 17. The “central focussing lens” is of course an imaginary instrument, but a very effective one, which in every case tells you whether the move you are about to make would increase or decrease the effectiveness of your forces in the centre. If, during our tournament game in Berlin 1928, Brinckmann had made use of this focussing lens, he would hardly have chosen the move 5...£b6 after 1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 e6 3.¥f4 ¤f6 4.e3 c5 5.c3 because after 5...£b6 6.£b3 ¤c6 7.¤bd2 the centralizing 7...¥d6 proved impossible. Now he should at least have played 7...¥e7, but he chose the decentralizing 7...¤h5 and what came next was a short but effective punitive expedition: 8.£xb6 axb6 9.¥c7 c4 10.¥xb6 and Black was obliged to recall his knight with loss of time, thus 10...¤f6 which also parries the threat of e3-e4. Next came 11.¥c7 with advantage to White. Without Black’s 7...¤h5, White would have had no justification whatever for his marauding raid, e.g. 7...¥e7! (instead of 7...¤h5?) 8.£xb6? axb6 9.¥c7 c4 10.¥xb6 ¤d7 and Black gets the attack. We shall find further opportunities to test the usefulness of our lens. Game 1 Aron Nimzowitsch Carl Oscar Ahues Berlin 1928 1.c4 ¤f6 2.¤c3 c6 3.e4 d5 4.e5 d4 5.exf6 dxc3 6.bxc3 gxf6 6...exf6 was clearer. Why? It would then no longer be possible to prevent Black from developing with …¥d6, …0-0 and …¦e8. Such a set-up would mean centralization, which is the greatest possible safeguard against any surprise.
Things are very different after the text move (6...gxf6). Black no doubt obtains a “proud” pawn centre, but it is doubtful whether there is a good reason to be proud of this pawn centre at all. Let us examine it: the mobility of the said centre is small, e.g. 6...gxf6 7.¤f3 e5 8.d4 e4? 9.¤h4! f5 10.g3 followed by ¤g2 and ¥f4 with paralysing effect. But, as is shown in the note to move 9, “hanging on” to the centre here also proves weak. So, 6...exf6 was the correct continuation. 7.¤f3 c5 7...e6 seems positionally more correct, adopting a defensive posture in the centre. 8.d4 ¤c6 9.¥e2
9...f5 Worth considering was 9...e5 to make a stand (= the policy of hanging on or sitting tight). The continuation would be 10.¥e3 £a5 (or 10...b6 11.0-0 then £d2, ¦ad1 and White has pressure down the d-file) 11.0–0 £xc3 12.dxe5! (much better than 12.¦c1, which would only have driven the queen back into the defence: via a5 to c7) 12... fxe5 (or 12...¤xe5 13.£d5!) 13.¤g5 ¥f5 14.¥h5 ¥g6 15.¥xg6 hxg6 16.£d5 and wins. The text move 9…f5 is a serious error, which gives up the whole centre. Relatively the best move was 9...¦g8, although White also remains with an advantage after 10.g3 ¥h3 11.¦b1 £c7 12.£a4 ¥d7 13.£c2 etc. 10.d5 ¤a5 11.¤e5 This decides matters.
Chapter 1 11...¥d7 Or 11...¥g7 12.£a4† ¢f8 (12...¥d7? 13.¤xd7! ¥xc3† 14.¥d2 ¥xa1 15.¤f6†† ¢f8 16.¥h6 mate) 13.f4 f6 14.¤f3 with total positional domination. 12.¥h5 ¥g7 13.¤xf7 £b6 14.¤xh8† ¢f8 15.¤f7 White quite simply returns all the captured material, but obtains a giant of a knight on e6. This is how to do things. You should not always just hang on to material! Flexibility is the watchword! That means transforming one advantage into another. 15...¥e8 16.¤g5 ¥xc3†
17.¢f1! Not 17.¥d2 on account of 17...¥xh5 18.£xh5 ¥xd2† 19.¢xd2 £b2†. 17...¥xa1 18.¤e6† ¢g8 19.¥xe8 ¦xe8 20.£h5 ¦a8 21.£xf5 £b4 22.g3 £xc4† 23.¢g2 £e2 Black is helpless. 24.¥d2 24.¦e1! seems even more accurate: 21...£xe1 25.¤g5 ¥g7! 26.£f7† ¢h8 27.¥b2! and wins. 24...¤c4 Or 24...£xd2 25.¤g5 ¥g7 26.£e6† with a smothered mate. 25.¦e1 £xd2 26.¤g5 ¤d6 The rest is somewhat bloody. Since we are not of a bloodthirsty nature, we shall be brief. 27.£xh7† ¢f8 28.£xe7† ¢g8 29.£h7† ¢f8 30.£h6† ¢g8 31.£g6† ¥g7
15
Poor bishop, its hour has come; its only consolation is not to perish in foreign fields! 32.£h7† ¢f8 33.¤e6† ¢e8 34.¤xg7† ¢d8 35.¤e6† ¢e8 36.¦e5 1–0 Game 2 Efim Bogoljubow Aron Nimzowitsch London 1927 1.c4 e6 2.¤c3 ¤f6 3.e4 c5 4.g3 Worth considering was 4.¤f3 ¤c6 5.d4 cxd4 6.¤xd4 ¥b4 7.£d3 (the idea is from Bogoljubow). 4...d5 5.e5 d4 6.exf6 dxc3 7.dxc3 There was nothing wrong with 7.bxc3, e.g. 7.bxc3 gxf6 8.d4 (8...cxd4 9.cxd4 ¥b4† 10.¥d2 £xd4 11.¥xb4 £e4† 12.¥e2 £xh1 13.£d6 ¤c6 ¥f3 and wins). However, the text move is also playable since the black pawn majority should hardly be able to get going. 7...£xf6! 8.¤f3 Here 8.¥g2 had to be weighed up carefully, e.g. 8...¤c6 9.¤e2 e5 10.0-0 and then f4. The text move makes it harder for the bishop’s diagonal to be used effectively against the centre. 8...h6 9.¥g2 ¥d7! 10.¤d2! With this, he to some extent compensates for the error on move 8. 10...¥c6 11.¤e4 £g6 12.£e2
16
Chess Praxis
12…¥e7 Not 12...f5 on account of the reply 13.¥f3 then ¤d2 and the e5-square remains permanently weak. You can see that the problem White has to solve here is a double one: 1. Black’s majority has to be restrained. 2. Dominance of the centre must be achieved. This (double) problem can be solved, up to a point. However, it can only be done by the most accurate use of the forces he has available. 13.0–0 0–0 14.h4!? He is neglecting the centre! Why not 14.f4! If then 14...¤d7, he plays 15.¥d2 ¢h8! 16.¦ae1 ¤f6 17.¥c1 (intending ¤e4-d2-f3-e5). After the general exchanges started on move 17, then we can still see a possibility of Black advancing his pawn majority. 14...f5 15.¤d2 ¥xg2 He is avoiding the trap 15...¥xh4 16.¤f3!. 16.¢xg2 ¤c6 17.¤f3 Intending ¥f4. 17...f4 Barring the gate. Next comes a final attempt at consolidation and then White’s game collapses. 18.¦e1 ¦f6 19.£e4 fxg3 20.fxg3 ¥d6 The g3-pawn is weak, he is badly developed and has an open king position – too much of a bad thing, even when you have a centralized position. It can now be appreciated how much damage was done by 14.h4. 21.g4 £xe4 22.¦xe4 ¦af8 23.¦e3 ¦f4 Less experienced readers should pay attention to the work done down the f-file.
24.g5 24.¦xe6 ¦xg4† 25.¢f2 ¤e5 leads to disaster. 24...¦g4† 25.¢h1 Or 25.¢f2 ¤e5 26.¢e2 ¦g2† 27.¢f1 ¦g3 winning a piece. 25...hxg5 26.hxg5
26…¢f7 27.¤g1 After 27.g6† the best is 27...¢f6 (not 27...¢e7 because of 28.¤h2 ¦h8 29.¦e2 ¦gh4?? 30.¥g5†). 27...¦h8† 28.¤h3 ¢e7 29.b3 ¥f4 30.¦f3 ¤e5 0–1 Game 3 Aron Nimzowitsch Theodor von Scheve Ostende 1907 1.¤f3 d5 2.d3 ¤c6 3.d4! Because now the opposing c-pawn is blocked by its own knight. 3...e6 3...¤f6 is better. 4.e3 ¤f6 5.c4 ¥e7 6.¤c3 0–0 7.¥d2 ¤e4 Correct play. Note that the invasion could hardly be successfully prevented by 7.¥d3 either (instead of 7.¥d2 as played), e.g. 7.¥d3 ¤b4! 8.¥e2 c5. 8.¥d3 f5 Not very good! You cannot play a Stonewall with a knight on c6. Black should have contented himself with 8...¤xd2 9.£xd2 ¤b4 10.¥e2 dxc4 11.¥xc4 c5.
Chess Tactics from Scratch Understanding Chess Tactics 2nd edition By
Martin Weteschnik
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to symbols used Foreword by Tibor Karolyi Foreword by the Publisher
4 5 5
What is this book about? Introduction
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Becoming Familiar with the Pieces! The Pin The Discovered Attack The Reloader The Double Attack Overloading Mate Gain of Tempo/Intermediate Move The X-ray Attack Opening and Closing Lines of Communication Status Examination Candidate Moves
17 23 51 75 83 101 107 143 161 165 177 217
300 Test Positions
233
Name Index
335
7 13
What is this book about? Chess is a visual game. A chess player must be able to recognize elementary patterns, therefore the tactics in this book will be primarily explained graphically. This approach is supported by a large numbers of diagrams, which will also allow the reader to study this book without a chessboard. Chess is also a game of logic. Logic, in the same way as chess tactics, depends on collecting and processing information. This book will show you how to accurately find the elements of tactics, and work with them creatively. This book is divided into the following parts: Chapter 1 Becoming Familiar with the Pieces!
Chapter 2 The Pin
1.g4! It is an illusion to assume that after 1.g4 the black queen could take the white queen, because Black must defend against ¦c8 mate. That is also why the black bishop has no time to take the white queen.
1...£h7†! There is much more to know about the pin than might appear at first sight. 1...£h7† looks like a mistake because of:
In this chapter you will learn (among other things) to safeguard yourself against illusions of this kind.
2.¦h3 But we shall see in this chapter that Black has it all under control... The theme of this chapter is the chain of three points that constitutes the formation of a pin: • The pin’s interaction with other pieces and squares on the board. • How to recognize the pin if it is in a preliminary state (only two points out of three). • How to create a pin and work with it.
8
Chess Tactics from Scratch Chapter 3 The Discovered Attack
Chapter 4 The Reloader
1...¦f7 This time the target of the discovered attack is a square. The formation £h5-¦f3-d1 is a similar formation to a pin.
This is the end of a nice combination by Tal. The black queen gave check on f6 forcing White to take. But the black pawn will take back with a check and reload itself with deadly force. Thus White has no time to save his rook. What the first piece occupying f6 (the black queen) did not achieve on this square, the following piece will do.
Detailed information about what constitutes a discovered attack and how to create and strike with the discovered attack are demonstrated in this chapter.
The reloading of pieces is explained here and – strangely enough (and deservedly!) – recognized as a tactical motif in its own right and finally given a name in chess literature.
What is this book about? Chapter 5 The Double Attack
9
Chapter 6 Overloading
White has just played £g3-g4? running into a double attack.
Overloading is when a piece has a responsibility on two important squares. In the diagram the d1-rook is obviously defending the d3-bishop, but when we note that the rook must also cover the back rank then we should ask – is the bishop really defended?
1...£e6! The boxed-in squares show the targets of the f5-knight. The encircled square on e3 is the point from where the knight strikes. 1...£e6 wins the necessary tempo against the undefended d7-rook. An easy example, but this chapter will also reveal to you the finer points of this motif.
1...£xd3†!
Chess Tactics from Scratch
10
Chapter 7 Mate
Chapter 8 Gain of Tempo/Intermediate Move
1...£xb3! Knowledge of mating patterns (here a potential rook and bishop mate) is essential. This chapter will teach you all of the important ones.
1...¦xh2† The tempo lets us find efficient ways to bring our pieces to squares that would otherwise be impossible to reach with a normal timetable. Black was under enormous pressure, but he finds time to transfer his queen via c2 (with check) to the mating square h7. This chapter will tell you how to make combinations possible in the nick of time. Other related themes are also investigated in this chapter.
What is this book about? Chapter 9 The X-ray Attack
1.£e8† Simple but effective: the X-ray attack! This small chapter shows you how this frequently misunderstood little motif can clearly be detected and utilized.
11
Chapter 10 Opening and Closing Lines of Communication
1.¥h3! Lines for attack or defence; lines between pieces, squares and tasks; lines to open; lines to close and interrupt – all these are the story of this chapter. Realize the importance of your pieces working together and learn how to cut off your opponent’s pieces from their colleagues.
Chess Tactics from Scratch
12
Chapter 11 Status Examination
Not defending the Not defending h4
Target Square=h4-f2
e1-rook (because it must defend e3)
e3=target of knight (because it must double attack defend e1-rook)
1...¤xf4†! In this chapter we will learn how to organize and effectively prune the calculation process when working with tactics. This chapter brings it all together: from the easy questions such as ‘How many retreat squares does a piece have?’ to finding complex combinations like the one above.
Chapter 12 Candidate Moves
In this chapter on candidate moves you will learn much more about the above position. The previous eleven chapters are largely about what to look for. This last chapter is about how to look. Well, I called Chapter 12 the final chapter and that is true up to a point, as then it’s time for the reader to stop reading and start working! Next are 300 puzzles to test your newfound understanding. I will say more about the puzzles on page 233.
Chapter 2
The Pin Have you ever lost due to an unforeseen pin? Try to find the games, then put the positions on a board and try to figure out why these pins came as surprises. Don’t be satisfied with just being able to pinpoint the exact mistakes. Always try to understand the underlying causes of your defeats. In some sense all defeats are caused by lack of understanding. So the question one must ask oneself after a loss is: What more do I need to understand in order to improve my chess? Essentially a pin is a chain of three chess pieces. The first point in this chain is the attacking piece, the second point is the pinned piece, and the third piece is the target of the pin. In this chapter I will at first take a closer look at the different kinds of targets, then I will examine the pinned piece, and finally the attacker. The final points to examine are the conditions to set up and to break a pin. I. The target 1. The King When the king is the target of a pin, the freedom of movement of the pinned piece is always radically reduced. A knight becomes totally immobile; other pinned pieces are only able to move on the line between the attacker and the king. So the pieces lose the attacking and defending functions they might have had before. In the following diagram the white queen is only allowed to move diagonally between g2 and d5 as it is pinned against the king.
Consequently Black’s rook and queen are not under attack by the white queen and there is no mate on h7 either. The next two diagrams show how the defensive function of the queen disappears with the pin. She can neither defend the rook:
Nor defend a square (mate):
Chess Tactics from Scratch
24
The next example demonstrates the loss of function of a pinned piece rather drastically.
Shumov – Winawer St Petersburg 1875
1.¦c1 Black will lose the queen or be mated. As the black queen is pinned by the white queen against the king it loses all its attacking power concerning the white rook on c1 and its mobility to defend the c8-rook against ¦c1xc8 with mate.
If the target is the king the pin is always effectual and we can draw the following conclusions:
The freedom of movement of the pinned piece is radically (in the case of the knight totally) reduced. The piece is only able to move in the line of fire of the attacking piece. Therefore, the pinned piece has no chance to defend itself against additional attacks. Bearing this in mind, it is not very difficult to see that these consequences of a pin against the king also have strategic repercussions. In an endgame the weaker side will try to hold the game by neutralizing the opponent’s advantageous pawn structure or even an extra pawn with a piece. What the weaker side is trying to avoid is the exchange of this very last piece. One of the strategic consequences of a pin against the king would be the elimination of a remaining piece by setting up this pin and exchanging the last important piece, transforming the position into a won king and pawn endgame.
Beliavsky – Yusupov USSR 1987
If White wants to stop the e-pawn the king has to move to the f-file. So in this position White resigned because: 1.¢f1 ¦f6
The Pin Black will swap off the rooks and one of his pawns will make it to the eighth rank. 1.¢h1 e2 2.¦e5† ¦e6! also does not save the day.
Lengyel – Brinck Claussen Varna (ol) 1962
1...¥h3† 2.¢g1 £a1 All the white pieces are paralysed and Black’s c-pawn, having no adversary left, will march towards the eighth rank. Another beautiful example is:
25
Black’s last move was 74...¥b3-c2 (74...¥d1 would have lost as well). Now followed: 75.¥e4 ¥b3 76.¥d5 ¥c2 77.¥e6
And now White is winning as the knight is pinned against the king and any king move would lose material In the following example, Black has sacrificed a pawn with 24...f4. Using a pin White turns his material superiority into a won pawn endgame.
Polugaevsky – Pinter
Morphy – Anderssen
Zagreb 1987
Paris (11) 1858
26
Chess Tactics from Scratch
25.£xf4 £f8 26.¤xb5 axb5 27.£h6 ¢h8 With the threat of 28...£xf6!.
28.¦xg7 ¦xg7 29.¢f2! ¢g8 30.£xg7† £xg7 31.¥xg7 ¢xg7
And White won the pawn endgame with his extra pawn on the kingside. Tarrasch once pointed out that it is always dangerous when your king and the opponent’s queen are on the same line, no matter how many pieces are in between. The next example shows that this advice should be taken seriously.
Schatz – Giegold Hof 1928
1...£h7† Black gave his opponent the possibility to set up a pin against his king but the pin against the white king was even stronger. 2.¦h3 ¦d1† 3.¢h2 ¦h1†!!
White finds out rather painfully that after 4.¢xh1 the black queen is pinned but not immobile. The rook and now also the g2-pawn are pinned against the king. Consequently, the rook is not defended. 4...£xh3† and White loses the rook and the game at once.
300 Test Positions – The Pin
235
1
4
2
5
3
6
236
Chess Tactics from Scratch
(1) Zapata – Kacheishvili, Arlington 2010 Black was already doing quite well, but after 31...¦d3! White simply resigned. (2) A. Hunt – Cheparinov, Plovdiv 2010 20...¥h6! 0–1 (3) Edouard – St. Novikov, Moscow 2011 39.¦c1! A typical combination. 1–0 (4) Granda Zuniga – Gonzalez Garcia, Mexico 2010 White won a crucial pawn with: 27.£a6! ¦d7 27...¥xa6 28.¦xe7 wins a piece. 28.£xb6 ¦xc4? (Diagram A) 29.¦d2? 29.¦e2! would have won the b7-bishop, because 29...£xe2 30.£xb7! leaves Black’s back rank inadequately defended. 29...¦xd2? It is hard to say why Black did not play 29...¦cc7. 30.¦xb7! ¦xg2† 30...¦d7 31.¦b8† 31.¢xg2 1–0 (5) Kosteniuk – Kacheishvili, Las Vegas 2010 The pins from d7 to d1 and a3 to c3 decided the game after: 21...¤xe5! 22.¥c1 22.dxe5 ¦xd1 and Black wins. 22...£b4 23.£xb4 (Diagram B) The following knight checks are quite funny. 23...¤xf3† 24.¢g2 ¤h4† 25.¢g3 ¤f5† 26.¢g4 ¤h6† 27.¢h5 ¥xb4 28.¤xe6 fxe6 29.¥xh6 ¦xd4 30.¥xe6† ¢h8 31.¦xd4 ¦xd4 32.¦g1 ¥f8 33.f4 ¤d5 34.¥g5 h6 35.¢g6 hxg5 36.¦xg5 ¤xf4† 37.¢f7 ¦d6 0–1 (6) Salgado Lopez – Smirin, Paks 2011 18...¦xg3†! 19.hxg3 £xg3† 20.¥g2 ¦g8 21.£h2 (Diagram C) 21...¥c6! 22.£xg3 ¦xg3 23.¤d5 Black also wins against the best defence: 23.¢h2 ¦xg2† 24.¢h3 ¤g4 25.¤d5 ¥xd5 26.¦xd5 ¦xf2 27.¦dd1 h5 and the ending is eventually winning. 23...¥xd5 24.¦xd5 ¤xd5 25.¢h1 ¦g5 26.¤d2 ¤f4 27.¥f3 f5 28.¤c4 ¤h3 29.¤d6† ¢c7 30.¤xb7 ¤xf2† 31.¢h2 e5 32.¤a5 e4 33.¥e2 f4 0–1
A
+ t Q t + B
C
Chess Tips for the
Improving Player Amatzia Avni
Quality Chess qualitychessbooks.com
First edition 2008 by Quality Chess UK LLP Copyright © 2008 Amatzia Avni All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-1906552008 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychessbooks.com Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California www.scbdistributors.com Edited by John Shaw Typeset: Colin McNab Proofreading: Jacob Aagaard Cover Design: Oscar de la Riva and Josep A. Rivero Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
CONTENTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Symbols Introduction Acknowledgements The Board Pieces: Value, Placement, Exchanges General Approach Rules of Thumb In Search of Ideas Phases of the Game Strategy Tactics Attack and Defence Planning Decisions Learning Training Exercises Solutions to Exercises Index of Players and Composers
4 5 5 7 21 37 61 77 95 109 127 143 161 183 205 220 225 230
46
Chess Tips for the Improving Player
Don’t be a Control Freak Most of us aspire to control our lives; to know what is happening, to foresee coming events, to minimize uncertainty. But sometimes things happen which are beyond our control, in real life and in chess too. For example, when you are involved in a mutual pawn race, it may not be possible to calculate in advance who will be first to promote. Or when a sharp turn of events has transformed a tranquil manoeuvring battle into a sharp tactical mêlée, where wellgrounded positional principles are of no use. What should one do in such moments, when the opponent’s very next move is a mystery to us? When we have no idea if we are winning or losing? I will advocate GM Maurice Ashley’s sage advice: ‘Embrace chaos’ he says, meaning that sometimes one has to accept chaos as an integral part of reality, not resisting it. Geller – Bronstein Kislovodsk 1968 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 e5 5.¤b5 a6 6.¤d6† ¥xd6 7.£xd6 £f6 8.£d1 £g6 9.¤c3 ¤ge7 10.h4
tv+ ooo p N + P br
White must play sharply to gain an advantage in this variation. 10...h5 11.¦h3 d5 12.¦g3 ¥g4 13.f3 dxe4 14.¤xe4 ¦d8 15.¥d3 f5
16.¤g5 e4 17.fxg4 hxg4 18.¤xe4 fxe4 19.¦xg4 £d6 19...¦xh4!? is a viable alternative for Black. 20.¦xe4 £g3† 21.¢d2 0–0 22.¢c3
Given a choice, you wouldn’t jeopard ize your monarch’s well-being willingly, would you?
General Approach ‘Players try to avoid chaotic situations like the plague… (but) the endless possibilities… often produce situations where even the best chess players face confusion and panic. (Paradoxically) the more the mind tries to impose logic and order, the more slippery and frustratingly defiant the position becomes… Not everything can be anticipated precisely, nor does it need to be.’ – GM Ashley 22...¤d5† 23.¢b3 ¤a5† 24.¢a3 b5 25.£g4 £c7 26.¥d2 ¤f6 27.£e6† ¢h8 28.£e7 £b6 29.¦e6 £d4 30.£b4 ¤c4† 31.¥xc4 a5 32.£xb5 £xd2 33.¦f1 ¦b8 34.¦fxf6! ¦xb5 35.¦xf8† ¢h7 36.¥d3† g6 37.¦e7† 1–0
47
54
Chess Tips for the Improving Player
Choose a Positive Interpretation A Finnish story goes like this: In 1939 two Finnish foot soldiers were pinned down in a battle during the war between Finland and Russia. ‘We’re outnumbered’ – said one soldier – ‘There must be over forty of them, against the two of us.’ ‘Dear God’ – his mate answered – ‘It will take us all day to bury them!’ This anecdote tells us a lot about the different interpretations people ascribe to the same reality. The same lesson shines through in many stories, which are basically variations on a similar theme: Two salesmen went to Africa, to check the potential of exporting shoes to the continent. The first sent a disappointing e-mail: ‘No market for shoes here, everyone walks barefoot.’ His friend was thrilled, and faxed ‘Everyone here walks barefoot; there is a huge market for shoes!’ ‘But shouldn’t we be objective in our assessments?’ the reader might ask. Yes, we should. Evaluation of our position should be done in an objective manner. Interpretation of this evaluation, however, is left to our choice and is therefore totally subjective. Defending an inferior position, one player may view it as an arduous task, a thankless torment with few prospects of success, while his colleague would look at such a situation as challenging and rewarding. Selecting how to interpret the facts rests entirely in our minds. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 e6 7.f4 b5!? 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 £c7
This is the start of the famous (infamous?)
Polugaevsky variation in the Sicilian defence, one of the sharpest and boldest of all opening variations. In a candid description of his analytical work on this system, extending over more than two decades, GM Polugaevsky recalled many occasions when it appeared that his brainchild had run into difficulties. The GM experienced disappointment but he was never so disheartened as to abandon his pet system. ‘I definitely knew that I would play The Variation until I encountered a complete refutation of it, and then… I would again get down to analysis. I would seek a refutation of the refutation…’ Polugaevsky chose to interpret his oppo nents’ fresh ideas in his beloved variation as stimulants to creativity, not obstacles. Every new twist that his adversaries uncovered only gave him a renewed drive to counter it with one of his own. When encountering new surprises he told himself ‘Something will also turn up against this move.’ Time and again he did indeed find an antidote.
96
Chess Tips for the Improving Player
In Which Phase Are You? Each phase of a game has its own characteristics. In the opening the emphasis is on swift development and king safety. In the middlegame, when the armies clash, strategic and tactical considerations predominate. The endgame, in which one converts previous gains into a concrete final result, is regarded as more technical in nature. Sometimes players assume that they inhabit a certain phase of the game, while in truth they are in another phase. For instance, they continue to develop their pieces unpretentiously and flexibly, missing that they are already in a middlegame where they should form a more specific plan. Or they might believe that since queens have been exchanged, the game had reached the final phase, while actually the middlegame is still in progress. So, an important task of a player is to identify which stage of the game he is in.
Employing the Smith-Morra Gambit in the Sicilian Defence, White gave up a pawn at an early stage for quick development. However, in the diagram position his compensation is negligible, and with some incisive, accurate moves Black neutralizes White’s initiative. 17...¤e5 18.¤xe5 £xe5 19.¥xe7 £xe4 20.£xe4 ¥xe4 21.¥d6 ¥c2 22.¦c1 ¥xb3
Votava – Miladinovic World Youth, Singapore 1990
The situation has simplified into a double-rook, opposite-coloured bishops tussle, with Black holding a two-pawn advantage. It is easy to categorize the position as an endgame, imagining that the battle will assume a technical nature with White endeavouring to stop the black queenside pawns’ race to promotion. In reality, we are still in the middlegame. 23. ¦c7 a5 24.f4 g6 25.¢f2 ¦g8 26.¢e3 ¦a6 27.¥e5 ¢e7 28.g4! ¥d5 29.¢d4 ¥c6 30.¢c5 ¦ga8 31.¦d1 a4 Black is indifferent to White’s growing initiative. He should have taken defensive measures like 29...¦c6 and, later on, 31...¦8a7.
Black to play
Phases of the Game
+ RL + t+o K B o Pp + +r + 32.¦d3 a3 33.¦h3!? h5! 34.gxh5 a2? 35.hxg6 ¦g8?! 35...a1=£ 36.¦h7† leads to perpetual check. But 35...¦e8! still gave winning chances. and 34...b4!! would have won! 36.¦c8!!
36...d6†?? Disdaining 36...¦xc8 (36...a1=£?? 37.¦h7†) 37.¦h7† drawing, Black stumbles and loses. 37.¥xd6† ¢f6 38.¦xg8 a1=£ 39.¥e5† ¢f5 40.¦f8† ¢e4 41.¥d4! 1-0 After 41...£c1† 42.¦c3 £d2 43.¦e3† White wins easily.
97
The endgame follows the middlegame, as every child knows. In exceptional circumstances the sequence can be reversed, and the endgame leads to yet another middlegame! This peculiarity usually occurs in positions after pawns are promoted. Bastian – Zeller German Championship 1996
Black to play
In this double-edged position, Black initiates some hair-raising complications: 33...¦c4! 34.¤c5 ¥xd4!? 35.¤xd7 ¥xf2† 36.¢xf2 If 36.¢f1 ¥xe1! or 36.¢g2? ¦xh2†!. 36...¦xh2† 37.¢f3 £h8 38.¤e5† ¢f6 39.¤xc4 d4 40.¦xe6†! ¢g5
+ W + r+ + L nO k + T + +
98
Chess Tips for the Improving Player
41.£d2†?! 41.¦xg6†! ¢xg6 42.£a7 is better. 41...¦xd2 42.¤xd2 £h1† 43.¢e2 £g2† 44.¢d1 £xg3 45.¢c2
The position has stabilized. Although it is
far from tranquil, we do expect a technical stage to appear… 45...£c7† 46.¦c6 £a7 47.¢b2 ¢f4 48.¤b3 ¢e3 49.b6 …but instead the game proceeded wildly. White missed a chance, both sides promoted an advanced pawn… After 73 moves the diagram position was reached, with White to move:
Is it an endgame or a middlegame? The need for concrete calculation and the importance of the kings’ safety suggest that this position should be treated as a middlegame. One should calculate forcing variations and not act upon general considerations. 74.¦e4? 74.£e4! £fb3† 75.£b4 £dc4† 76.¢c6! draws (GM Lutz). 74...£fd3† 75.¢b6 £d6† 76.¢b7 £3d5† 77.¢a7 £5xc5† 78.¢a8 £d8† 0–1
Attack and Defence
153
The Momentum Myth ‘People speak about momentum as if it were an entity of its own, an unpredictable player on the field… from my own experi ence I can vouch for it seeming that way.’ – IM Josh Waitzkin We talk about the ‘trend’ and ‘flow’ as if they were concrete phenomena, but in fact they exist only in our minds. We have a psychological inclination to go along with the momentum: continuing along the same path we had trodden before. Examined objectively, this tendency has no solid foundation. The fact that the game was heading in a certain direction doesn’t guarantee that it will follow the same direction in its later stages. Timman – Leko Groningen 1996
White to play
20.¤d4! The move 21.¤f5†! is hanging over Black’s head. He now decides to capture a pawn, gaining some material in return for his positional inferiority.
20...¥xh2 21.¤f5† ¢f8 22.¦xd8† £xd8 23.¦d1 £c7 24.¥d4!
+ L W + + n B + V +
Another white officer plants itself on this central square. 24...exf5 25.¥xf6 gxf6 26.¦d7 £e5 27.¦xb7 leaves Black with gloomy prospects. His next move is the only viable alternative. 24...e5 25.¥xb6! White’s attack gains strength with each move. 25...£xb6 26.¦d6 £c7 27.£c4! £b8 27...£xc4? 28.¦d8† mating. 28.¦b6! £c8
154
Chess Tips for the Improving Player
29.¦xb7? Here we witness the trouble with ‘momentum’. White’s state of mind is geared to the notion that he ought to continue in sacrificial vein. Instead, 29.¥c6! would be decisive, as 29...¥xc6 30.£c5† or 29...£xf5 30.¦xb7 both lead to a swift victory. 29...£xb7 30.¤d6
w + N
30...£e7? …And Black, for his part, also goes with ‘the momentum’: the previous trend in which his attacked pieces beat a retreat. True, 30...£d5 loses to 31.£c8† ¢e7 32.¤f5#, but Black had a great saving shot at his disposal: 30...¤e4!! 31.¤xe4 (31.¤xb7? ¤d2†) 31...g6, after which the advantage switches sides. 31.£c8† ¤e8 32.¤f5 h5 Despair. 32...£e6 32.¥d7 clinches matters. 33.¤xe7 ¢xe7 34.£d7† Black resigned 1-0
Learning
215
Me and Mrs. Fritz ‘I’m in love,’ he confessed. ‘I’m very happy to hear that,’ I said. ‘Who is she?’ He blushed. Then he shared his secret with me: ‘It’s Mrs. Fritz.’ (from Diaries of a young chess player – yet to be written) The relationship between chess players and their software is a complex one. Fritz and Co. assist us in analyzing our games and spare us effort in detecting our errors. On the other hand, who likes a smart aleck? The Fritz family pretends to be superior to us and we resent them for that. Can we learn from the machines? Instead of sneering at their bugs and constantly claiming that they don’t really understand chess, can we emulate some of their virtues? Rybka – Diep 15th World Computer Chess Championship 2007 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 a6 5.¤c3 b5 6.¥d3 d6 7.0–0 ¤f6 8.¥e3 ¥b7 9.f4 ¤bd7 10.a3 £c7 11.£f3 ¥e7 12.¦ae1 ¤c5 13.¥f2 d5 14.e5 ¤fe4 Pretty routine, so far. Maybe if the programmers stop supplying the machines with opening books, we will find out some day that these moves are not always the best. Anyway, from now on Rybka pulls off a string of stunning moves. 15.f5! ¤d2 16.£g4 g6 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.¤cxb5! £d7 18...axb5 loses to 19.¥xb5† ¢d8 20.b4 ¤xf1 21.bxc5. 19.¤d6† ¥xd6 20.exd6 0–0 20...¤xd3 21.¦xe6† ¢d8 22.£g5† ¢c8 23.¦e7 ¤e4 (23...£xd6 24.¥g3) 24.¦xd7
¤xg5 25.¦c7† ¢b8 26.cxd3 and White wins.
21.¥xg6! hxg6
Or 21...¤xf1 22.¤xe6! ¤xe6 23.¥f5† with a decisive attack. 22.¤f3! Blending the sacrificial 21.¥xg6 with the quiet 22.¤f3 is amazing. The knight retreat enables the f2-bishop to target the c5-knight, which has a vital role in defending e6. 22...¤xf1 22...¤xf3† 23.gxf3 ¦ac8 24.¥xc5 ¦xc5 25.¦xe6 leaves Black helpless. 23.¥xc5 ¥c8 24.¤e5 £g7 25.d7 ¥xd7 26.¤xd7 £xd7 27.¥d4 ¦f7 28.£xg6† ¦g7 29.¥xg7 £xg7 1–0 Deep Fritz 10 – Kramnik Man vs. Machine, Bonn 2006 (6) 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥c4 e6 7.0–0 ¥e7 8.¥b3 £c7 9.¦e1 ¤c6 10.¦e3!? 0–0 11.¦g3 ¢h8 12.¤xc6 bxc6 13.£e2 a5 14.¥g5 ¥a6 15.£f3 ¦ab8 16.¦e1 c5 17.¥f4 £b7 18.¥c1 ¤g8 19.¤b1
216
Chess Tips for the Improving Player
¦f1-e1-e3-g3; ¥c1-g5-f4-c1; ¤b1-c3-b1. What is this? A decade ago this would have been taken as an indication of the computer’s stupidity. But nowadays people treat the software with respect and try to fathom the sense in its choices. 19...¥f6 20.c3 g6 21.¤a3 £c6 22.¦h3 ¥g7 23.£g3 a4 24.¥c2 ¦b6 25.e5 dxe5 26.¦xe5 ¤f6 27.£h4 £b7 28.¦e1 h5 29.¦f3 ¤h7 30.£xa4 £c6 31.£xc6 ¦xc6 32.¥a4 ¦b6 33.b3 ¢g8 34.c4 ¦d8 35.¤b5 ¥b7 36.¦fe3 ¥h6 37.¦e5 ¥xc1 38.¦xc1 ¦c6 39.¤c3 ¦c7 40.¥b5 ¤f8 41.¤a4 ¦dc8 42.¦d1 ¢g7 43.¦d6 f6 44.¦e2 e5 45.¦ed2 g5 46.¤b6 ¦b8 47.a4 1–0 You can’t argue with success. Probably the machines should be another role model for us to learn from.
The Cutting Edge
The Open Sicilian 1 By
Milos Pavlovic
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
The Cutting Edge: Series Introduction The Cutting Edge is a new type of opening book. The purpose of the series is to investigate a selection of the most critical variations in various openings, providing a state-of-the-art, cutting edge” snapshot of the current theoretical picture as well as suggesting numerous improvements and new ideas. The Cutting Edge concept The idea of this series was in some ways inspired by recent trends amongst our competitors. First there was New In Chess, whose successful S.O.S. series continues to cover a variety of unusual opening lines designed to surprise one’s opponents. Everyman’s Dangerous Weapons series did something similar, except that each individual volume is dedicated to one particular opening. Our Cutting Edge series is closer to the latter, in the sense that each volume covers a number of variations within one major opening, which we believe to be the most logical and reader-friendly approach. However, there are a couple of major differences. Firstly, The Cutting Edge focuses on reputable main lines, most of which have been tested at the very highest levels. Secondly, we are not looking to sell’ one side of the position over the other. Instead we allow the author to investigate the variations in question with a completely open mind, in an effort to discover the real truth of the position. Cutting Edge preparation When building and maintaining an opening repertoire, one must pay attention both to inferior and/or unusual responses, and to the more critical main lines. Preparing for sidelines is generally not too difficult. Rare moves are normally rare for a reason, and in most cases you can easily check a database and/or a good book to find a convincing response. Of course we have all, at one time or another, succumbed after being surprised in the opening, but we should not worry about it unduly. Preparing for main lines is a completely different kettle of fish. The theory of these lines is constantly evolving, as certain critical positions are tested over and over by top players armed with increasingly powerful analysis engines. Simply put, it can be a daunting prospect even for a seasoned grandmaster. Cutting Edge value The purpose of our Cutting Edge series is to give the reader the best possible headstart in preparing for the most challenging opening variations, irrespective of the side of the board on which he will be sitting. The material is as up-to-date as it can be, and includes a plethora of original analysis from the author. Furthermore, the fact that we cover several different variations within each volume enables the reader to adopt a flexible approach, varying his choices while keeping a number of aces up his sleeve. The goal of this series is not to spoon-feed the reader a repertoire, but rather to provide highquality information that will enable him to develop and refine his knowledge and understanding of the opening in question. We are excited about this series, and hope the readers will share our enthusiasm. Andrew Greet Series Editor
Contents Bibliography Key to symbols used
5 6
The Sveshnikov Variation 1 13.¤xb5 piece sac 2 18.h4 pawn sac 3 The positional approach: 11.c4
7 27 41
The Rauzer Variation 4 Doubled f-pawn variation
57
The Dragon Variation 5 Chinese Dragon 6 12...¦e8 variation 7 Topalov variation
75 83 93
The Taimanov Variation 8 English Attack main line 9 English Attack 8...¥e7 10 5...a6 6.¤xc6 bxc6 7.¥d3
101 115 127
The Kan Variation 11 5.¤c3 £c7 6.¥d3 ¤f6 7.0-0 ¥c5 12 5.¥d3 ¥c5
141 155
Index
167
er a pt
1
Ch
Sveshnikov
1222222223 t+ Wl+ T5 + + +oVo5 o+mOv+ +5 +n+nOo+ 5 + +p+ +5 + P + + 5 pP + PpP5 R +qKb+r5 79
13.¤xb5 piece sac Variation Index 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 e5 6.¤db5 d6 7.¥g5 a6 8.¤a3 b5 9.¥xf6 gxf6 10.¤d5 f5 11.¥d3 ¥e6 12.c3 ¥g7 13.¤xb5!? axb5 14.¥xb5
A) 14...¥d7 15.exf5 A1) 15...0–0 16.0–0 A11) 16...¦b8 A12) 16...¦e8 17.a4 e4 18.£g4 ¢h8 A121) 19.¦ad1 A122) 19.¦fd1!? A2) 15...¤b8 A21) 16.a4 A211) 16...¥xb5 A212) 16...0–0!? A22) 16.£g4 B) 14...¦c8 A1) note with 16...¢h8!?
A121) after 21...£f6
9 10 11 13 13 15 18 18 18 20 21 23 A211) after 20...e4
1222222223 t+ W T L5 + +vMoVo5 + O + +5 +b+nOp+ 5 + + +q+5 + P + + 5 pP + PpP5 R + +rK 5 79
1222222223 +t+ + L5 + +v+oVo5 +mO W +5 +b+ Tp+ 5 p+ +o+q+5 + P N + 5 P + PpP5 + +r+rK 5 79
1222222223 + W Tl+5 Q +m+oVo5 + O + +5 +p+n+p+ 5 + +o+ +5 + P + + 5 P + PpP5 + + +rK 5 79
18.£xg7†!
22.£e2!N
21.b6!N
8
The Sveshnikov Variation
The Sveshnikov, also known as the Lasker or Pelikan variation of the Sicilian, is an immensely popular line. The great Emanuel Lasker played it first, but the Argentinean master Jorge Pelikan and later on the famous Russian grandmaster Evgeny Sveshnikov both made valuable contributions, popularizing this highly complex line. The whole system is based on the misplaced knight on a3 in addition to the bishop pair and strong centre in many lines. To begin our investigation I will present a position that has been regarded as suspicious by modern theory but was briefly popular in the 1970s and ’80s: 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 e5 6.¤db5 d6 7.¥g5 a6 8.¤a3 d5!?
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 +o+ +oOo5 o+m+ M +5 + +oO B 5 + +p+ +5 N N + + 5 pPp+ PpP5 R +qKb+r5 79
This pawn sacrifice never achieved great popularity, but at least it gave a hint about Black’s active possibilities. Pelikan published analysis on this so his contribution to the system is by no means small. On the other hand Sveshnikov realized the strength of a bishop pair and potentially strong pawn centre despite White’s strong outpost on the d5-square. The Russian pioneered the following system: 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 e5 6.¤db5 d6 7.¥g5 a6 8.¤a3 b5 9.¥xf6 gxf6 10.¤d5 f5
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 + + +o+o5 o+mO + +5 +o+nOo+ 5 + +p+ +5 N + + + 5 pPp+ PpP5 R +qKb+r5 79 In the early 1970s these ideas were revolutionary and did not catch on right away. When other strong grandmasters such as John Nunn and Andras Adorjan began to take an interest in Black’s system it became more widely accepted. Nowadays it has become one of the most challenging obstacles against White’s aspirations for an opening advantage. The names of Kasparov, Kramnik, Radjabov, Topalov and Leko are just a few of those I could mention amongst top players who have used it with success. In this chapter I will focus on one of the most direct attempts to refute Black’s play, by sacrificing the knight on a3. One way of doing it, from the above diagram position, is with: 11.¤xb5!? axb5 12.¥xb5
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 + + +o+o5 +mO + +5 +b+nOo+ 5 + +p+ +5 + + + + 5 pPp+ PpP5 R +qK +r5 79
The sacrifice on b5, by either the bishop or knight, is nowadays considered to be one of the most direct challenges to the entire variation. The diagram position first occurred to my
Chapter 1 – 13.¤xb5 piece sac knowledge in a game of Murey, but became better known and more widely accepted after David Bronstein won a nice game against Vukic at a tournament in Vrsac in 1979. The line was subsequently adopted by many other players, but antidotes have been found. Until the early 2000s the line disappeared, until White players unearthed a more accurate move order to sidestep certain problems that occurred in the original sacrifice. The present chapter will focus on the modern incarnation of the knight sacrifice: 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 e5 6.¤db5 d6 7.¥g5 a6 8.¤a3 b5 9.¥xf6 gxf6 10.¤d5 f5 11.¥d3 ¥e6 12.c3 ¥g7 13.¤xb5!? axb5 14.¥xb5
1222222223 t+ Wl+ T5 + + +oVo5 +mOv+ +5 +b+nOo+ 5 + +p+ +5 + P + + 5 pP + PpP5 R +qK +r5 79
In comparison with the bishop sacrifice on b5 (an aggressive line that will not be considered in the present book), here White’s strategy is more positional. He will obtain three pawns for a piece while retaining the strong outpost on d5. After Black defends the knight on c6 White will capture on f5, winning a third pawn and securing some space on the kingside. In some positions the prospect of f5-f6 can be troublesome for the second player. The queenside pawns are another key element in the position, and White will usually start pushing his a- and b-pawns as soon as
9
he gets the chance. Black on the other hand is a piece up, but passive at the moment, so activating pieces is his main priority. All in all, a fascinating and complex struggle lies ahead of us. In the present position Black has two ideas, of which the first is critical: A) 14...¥d7 and B) 14...¦c8. A) 14...¥d7 15.exf5 We have reached another important branching point. White has three pawns for a piece, a great knight on d5 and a strong pawn chain on the queenside, while Black is after all a piece up. That was a basic explanation, but later we will see that many more ideas and evaluations will come to the surface.
1222222223 t+ Wl+ T5 + +v+oVo5 +mO + +5 +b+nOp+ 5 + + + +5 + P + + 5 pP + PpP5 R +qK +r5 79
Here we will consider the following moves in detail: A1) 15...0–0 and A2) 15...¤b8. Also 15...e4!? is possible. It is an interesting move order from Kotronias, intending to rule out White’s possible idea of coming quickly with the queen to e4. White has two main options: a) The attempt to attack the e4-pawn leads nowhere: 16.£g4 ¢f8 17.£xe4 17.£f4 ¤e5 18.¥e2 ¥c6 is good for Black.
10
The Sveshnikov Variation
17...£a5! Threatening ...¦e8. 18.0–0 £xb5 19.f6 ¥h6 20.a4 £b3 21.£h4 After a forced sequence of moves White did not achieve any advantage, for instance: 21...£xd5 22.£xh6† ¢e8 23.£g7 ¦f8 24.¦fe1† Now both 24...¥e6 and 24...¤e5 give Black at least adequate play. b) However, White can and should prefer the simple 16.0–0. After 16...0–0 17.a4 ¦e8 18.£g4 ¢h8 the game will transpose to line A12) below.
17...¦b8 The trick is revealed after: 17...¤e7? 18.£xg7†!
1222222223 t+ W T L5 + +vMoQo5 + O + +5 +b+nOp+ 5 + + + +5 + P + + 5 pP + PpP5 R + +rK 5 79
A1) 15...0–0 16.0–0
18...¢xg7 19.f6† ¢h8 20.fxe7 £a5 21.exf8=£† ¦xf8 22.¥xd7 £xd5 23.a4 After a practically forced sequence, it is only White who can play for a win in the resulting position, thanks to his dangerous queenside pawns. Both players should be on the lookout for the sacrifice on g7 whenever the white queen comes to g4. 18.a4 f6! This brings Black an excellent game. Compared with line A11 Black has not wasted a tempo on ...¦e8 and will aim for a quick ...¤e7. Meanwhile the white queen is not so well placed on g4 in this position.
With apologies for the further division, there are two main lines to consider here: A11) 16...¦b8 and A12) 16...¦e8. In Almasi – Shirov, Bundesliga 2004/05, Black preferred 16...¢h8!?. This move can have independent meaning, but it can also lead to transpositions as we will see. It is worth checking two possible responses:
b) 17.a4! This is the best move. 17...f6 18.b4 ¦b8 19.£d3
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 + +v+oVo5 +mO + +5 +b+nOp+ 5 + + + +5 + P + + 5 pP + PpP5 R +q+rK 5 79
a) 17.£g4 This sets a nice trap, but is not the most accurate move. It is better to leave the queen at home until Black goes for ...e4 ideas, as we will see later.
1222222223 T W T L5 + +v+ Vo5 +mO O +5 +b+nOp+ 5 pP + + +5 + Pq+ + 5 + + PpP5 R + +rK 5 79
Chapter 1 – 13.¤xb5 piece sac This is a useful move, connecting the rooks and also keeping an eye on the c3-pawn. Furthermore, the queen blocks any ...e4 ideas, while also preparing some pressure on the d-file and defending the bishop in preparation for a4-a5. A truly multifunctional move! 19...¦e8 Now the game continued 20.¦fd1 e4 21.£e2 £c8 at which point Almasi decided to repeat the position with 22.¥a6 £d8 23.¥b5 £c8 24.¥a6 (Rogozenko mentions the possibility of 24.a5!? intending ¤b6) 24...£d8 25.¥b5 ½–½. It may have been as well for White to play: 20.£e4 Transposing to line A11 below. A11) 16...¦b8 Black intends to stabilize his position and to prepare ...¤e7. His main goal is to exchange both sets of minor pieces. The problem with this line is that the move ...f7-f6 will have to be played at some point, which will severely limit the scope of black’s remaining bishop – not an ideal scenario when confronted by two speeding pawns on the queenside. Nevertheless the move has been tried many times.
1222222223 T W Tl+5 + +v+oVo5 +mO + +5 +b+nOp+ 5 + + + +5 + P + + 5 pP + PpP5 R +q+rK 5 79
17.a4 ¦e8 This is the usual move here, although Black can also try:
11
17...£g5 Black wants to restrain the enemy queen, and also hopes to exert pressure against the f5-pawn as well as on the kingside generally. 18.£f3 This looks to me like the most logical move. I think that as a general rule in this line, White should not move the knight away from d5 unless it is absolutely necessary. 18.¤e3 could be met by 18...¦fd8 19.£xd6 ¥e8 20.£a3 ¤e7 21.¥xe8 ¦xe8 22.a5 ¤xf5 23.¤xf5 £xf5 24.a6 e4. This position is not clear; the black bishop is not blocked in so it will help to restrict the white pawns on the queenside. At the same time he has the idea of ...¥e5 to attack the opposite flank; quite an attractive plan when you consider that the white queen is far away on a3. 18...¢h8 19.¤e3 ¦xb5?! 19...¦fc8! was surely better. After 20.¦fd1 ¥f8 21.b4 White has the initiative, but the position remains interesting; Black is certainly not without chances. 20.axb5 ¤e7 21.¦a8 ¥xb5 22.f6 White won quickly in Parligras – Kapnissis, Kavala 2004. 18.£g4 ¢h8 19.£e4 f6
1222222223 T Wt+ L5 + +v+ Vo5 +mO O +5 +b+nOp+ 5 p+ +q+ +5 + P + + 5 P + PpP5 R + +rK 5 79
Both sides have carried out their objectives to some degree. White has firmly blocked his
The Cutting Edge
Sicilian Najdorf 6.¥e3 By
Milos Pavlovic
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to symbols used Preface Bibliography
4 5 6
Topalov Variation 1 8.£d2 b4 9.¤a4 ¤bd7 2 8.g4
7 29
Perenyi Attack 3 7...e5 4 7...h6 5 7...h5
41 67 83
Main Line 6 14.a3 7 9...¤b6
87 113
Scheveningen 8 9...d5 10.¥e2!?
127
6...e5 9 Positional Line 7.¤f3 10 Vallejo Pons Variation 11 10...a5 12 Topalov Variation 9...h5 13 f2-f4-lines
133 157 175 193 203
Index
213
er a pt
1
Ch
Topalov Variation
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 + +m+oOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 nO Np+ +5 + + Bp+ 5 pPpQ +pP5 R + Kb+r5 79
8.£d2 b4 9.¤a4 ¤bd7 Variation Index 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥e3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.£d2 8...b4 9.¤a4 ¤bd7 A) 10.c4 bxc3 11.¤xc3 ¥b7 12.¥e2 ¥e7 13.0–0 0–0 A1) 14.¦ac1 A2) 14.¦fc1 B) 10.0–0–0 B1) 10...£a5 11.b3 ¥b7 B11) 12.¢b1 B12) 12.a3 B2) 10...d5 C) 10.¥c4!? D) 10.g4 h6 D1) 11.h4 D2) 11.0–0–0 ¤e5 D21) 12.£xb4 D22) 12.b3 A2) after 15.¦ab1
D21) after 19...e5
8 9 11 12 12 13 15 17 19 22 22 23 24 25 D22) note to 14...£c7
1222222223 tW + Tl+5 +v+mVoOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 + Np+ +5 + N Bp+ 5 pP Qb+pP5 +rR + K 5 79
1222222223 Tw+lV T5 + +v+oO 5 o+ + M O5 + +oO + 5 + Np+p+5 + +qBp+ 5 pPpN + P5 + Kr+ +r5 79
1222222223 t+ WlV T5 + +v+ O 5 o+ +oO O5 + +o+ + 5 O QmBp+5 +p+ +n+ 5 pNp+ + P5 + Kr+b+r5 79
15...d5N
20.exd5!?N or 20.¤f5!?N
17.¦e1!
Topalov Variation
8
This very complicated and modern line can be split into two set-ups, according to whether White plays 8.£d2 or 8.g4, which we cover respectively in this chapter and the next. But first I would like to say a few words on these systems. They are new and ultra-sharp, and their trademark is that Black hurries to push ...b4, regardless of the potential weakness of the b-pawn after this early excursion. Topalov introduced this idea, and in the past few years it has stood the test of time well. Ahead of us are two highly complicated and interesting chapters. 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥e3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.£d2 b4 9.¤a4 ¤bd7
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 + +m+oOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 nO Np+ +5 + + Bp+ 5 pPpQ +pP5 R + Kb+r5 79
This set-up was introduced by Topalov, and it is a popular way for Black to play against the English Attack. Black immediately pushes the knight away, hoping that his b-pawn is not really attacked, and indeed it is not. We have a very sharp position. We have to deal with various alternatives here, some of which are ultra-sharp and some more solid: A) 10.c4, B) 10.0–0–0, C) 10.¥c4, and D) 10.g4. A) 10.c4
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 + +m+oOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 nOpNp+ +5 + + Bp+ 5 pP Q +pP5 R + Kb+r5 79 This positional approach has been used by Leko, Anand and Morozevich when confronted with Black’s idea. After the usual 10...bxc3, White’s knight will come back into game, and the queenside majority, together with the open c-file, gives White chances to play for the advantage. On the other hand, it is not easy to prevent the central thrust ...d5, with which Black will open central lines and thus activate his pieces. 10...bxc3 This is not the only move, although it is the most frequently played. The main alternative is 10...£c7. Although this allows White to keep the c4-e4 pawn structure, the position remains closed and Black has the c5-square for his knight. Play may continue: 11.¥e2 ¦b8 12.0–0 ¥e7 13.a3 bxa3 14.¦xa3 0–0 15.¦c1
1222222223 Tv+ Tl+5 + WmVoOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 n+pNp+ +5 R + Bp+ 5 P Qb+pP5 + R + K 5 79
Chapter 1 – 8.£d2 b4 9.¤a4 ¤bd7 We have a fairly typical hedgehog position. I slightly prefer White here, but nevertheless consider 10...£c7 to be a solid and little investigated alternative to our main line. 11.¤xc3 ¥b7 12.¥e2 ¥e7 Another significant possibility is Topalov’s original idea: 12...d5 13.exd5 ¤xd5 14.¤xd5 ¥xd5 15.¦c1! This is the best move here, and was introduced by Morozevich. It is important for White to immediately occupy the open c-file. In the stem game of the system, Anand played less accurate 15.0–0, and after 15...£b8 16.¤f5 £e5 17.¤g3 ¥b4! Black was fine in Anand – Topalov, Sofia 2006.
1222222223 t+ WlV T5 + +m+oOo5 o+ +o+ +5 + +v+ + 5 + N + +5 + + Bp+ 5 pP Qb+pP5 + R K +r5 79
15...£b8 Again there are other moves: a) 15...¥d6 16.¤f5 ¥e5 17.f4 £f6 18.0–0 £xf5 19.fxe5 £g6 20.¥d3 £h5 21.£b4 and White had the initiative in Smirnov – Hillarp Persson, Dresden 2007. b) 15...¥e7 16.¤c6 is better for White. 16.a3 ¥d6 17.¤f5! 0–0 18.¤xd6 £xd6 19.0–0 This position has occurred in two games, Morozevich – Grischuk, Moscow 2006 and Carlsen – R. Jones, Crete 2007, both of which showed that White has an undisputable advantage. 13.0–0 0–0
9
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 +v+mVoOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 + Np+ +5 + N Bp+ 5 pP Qb+pP5 R + +rK 5 79 There are now two major options and I will give them equal attention. White has different ways of bringing his rooks into play: A1) 14.¦ac1 and A2) 14.¦fc1. A1) 14.¦ac1 £b8 15.¦fd1 White has tried several other moves here: 15.a3 ¦d8N Or 15...¦c8 16.b4 ¥d8 17.¢h1 ¤e5 18.¤b3 ¥c6 and now instead of 19.¥d1, as played in the game Vasiesiu – Jakovljevic, Obrenovac 2007, White should prefer 19.¤a5!?N ¥xa5 20.bxa5 and I believe that the bishop pair, along with control of the dark squares, secures some advantage for White. 16.b4 d5 17.exd5 ¤xd5 18.¤xd5 ¥xd5 19.¢h1 ¤f6
1222222223 tW T +l+5 + + VoOo5 o+ +oM +5 + +v+ + 5 P N + +5 P + Bp+ 5 + Qb+pP5 + R +r+k5 79
10
Topalov Variation
This looks good for Black; the pressure along the d-file and centralized pieces is just what Black is aiming for.
20.¤a4 d5 21.¤b6 White obtained some initiative in Fedorov – Gabrielian, Voronezh 2008.
15.¦c2 Seemingly preparing to double rooks, although the c1-square may also provide an interesting spot for the white queen. 15...¦d8 The alternative is 15...d5N 16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.¤xd5 ¥xd5, which also looks not bad for Black. 16.£c1 Another approach would be: 16.¦fc1 d5 17.exd5 ¤xd5 18.¤xd5 ¥xd5 19.£e1 ¥d6 20.g3 £b7
15.b4 d5 Also possible is: 15...¦d8 16.a4 d5 17.exd5 ¤xd5 18.¤xd5 ¥xd5 19.b5 axb5 20.axb5 (or 20.¥xb5 and after 20...¤c5 21.¦a1 a draw was agreed in Korneev – Vera, La Roda 2009) 20...¥d6 21.h3 ¥c5 with counterplay. 16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.¤xd5 ¥xd5 18.a3 ¥d6 19.f4 £b7 20.¥f3 ¤f6 21.¥xd5 £xd5 22.¤c6 ¦fc8 23.¦fd1 The position is unclear.
1222222223 t+ T +l+5 +w+m+oOo5 o+ Vo+ +5 + +v+ + 5 + N + +5 + + BpP 5 pPr+b+ P5 + R Q K 5 79
Black has reached his optimal set-up and the position is quite unbalanced, Blehm – Vovsha, USA 2008. 16...¤e5 Not the only move, as I think Black can go for 16...d5, for example: 17.exd5 ¤xd5 18.¤xd5 ¥xd5 19.¤c6 ¥xc6 20.¦xc6 ¤f6 with counterplay. 17.b3 h5 18.h3 ¤g6 19.¦d1 h4 Here as well, Black misses a good opportunity to break in the centre: 19...d5 20.exd5 ¤xd5 21.¤xd5 ¥xd5 22.¤c6 ¥xc6 23.¦xd8† ¥xd8 24.¦xc6 a5 25.f4 ¤e7 26.¦c4 ¤d5 27.¥f2 g6 28.¥f3 ¥b6 Black has reasonable counterplay. This line is not forced, but it clearly shows Black’s potential.
15...¦d8 Again it is very natural for Black to consider ...d5 here, although I haven’t seen it suggested in this particular position: 15...d5N 16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.¤xd5 ¥xd5 18.¤c6 18.¥c4 is possible, but after 18...¥b4 19.£e2 ¤f6 20.¥xd5 ¤xd5 21.¤c6 £b7 22.¤xb4 ¤xe3! Black equalizes. 18...¥xc6 19.¦xc6 ¤f6 20.¦b6 After 20.¥xa6 ¦d8, Black secures good play. 20...£e8 21.¥c4 £c8
1222222223 t+w+ Tl+5 + + VoOo5 oR +oM +5 + + + + 5 +b+ + +5 + + Bp+ 5 pP Q +pP5 + +r+ K 5 79
Black obtains good counterplay with either ...¦d8 or possibly ...¥c5. 16.¢h1
Chapter 1 – 8.£d2 b4 9.¤a4 ¤bd7 16.¥f4!? is an interesting move. White aims to restrict Black’s ...d5 idea and may follow up with ¤b3-a5 if he is given time. 16...¤h5!?N (in Firat – Paikidze, Kirishi 2008, Black played 16...¤e5 and after 17.¥g3 ¤c6 18.¤a4 White had some initiative) 17.¥g5 ¥xg5 18.£xg5 ¤hf6 19.£g3
1222222223 tW T +l+5 +v+m+oOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 + Np+ +5 + N +pQ 5 pP +b+pP5 + Rr+ K 5 79
Now we have a position that is more or less equal, provided Black avoids entering into a worse endgame after: 19...d5?! 20.exd5 ¤xd5 21.£xb8 ¦dxb8 22.¤xd5 ¥xd5 23.b3 a5 24.¥b5 ¤f6 25.¥a4 Another idea that has been played here is 16.¥f2, and after 16...g6 17.£c2 ¦c8 18.£a4 d5 19.exd5 ¤b6 20.£a5 ¤bxd5, the position was unclear in Brkic – Rezan, Split 2008. 16...d5 17.exd5 ¤xd5 18.¤xd5 ¥xd5 19.¥c4 ¤f6 20.£e2 £b7 21.b3 h6
1222222223 t+ T +l+5 +w+ VoO 5 o+ +oM O5 + +v+ + 5 +bN + +5 +p+ Bp+ 5 p+ +q+pP5 + Rr+ +k5 79
11
Black is fine. I will give the rest of the game, so that readers can see some of the methods of playing this type of position. 22.¥f2 ¦d7 23.¦c2 ¥xc4 24.¦xc4 ¦ad8 25.¦f1 ¦d6 26.£c2 ¥f8 27.¤c6 ¦e8 28.b4 e5 29.¤a5 £b5 30.¥c5 ¦d5 31.¥xf8 ¦xf8 32.¦e1 ¦fd8 33.¤b3 ¦d1 34.£xd1 ¦xd1 35.¦c8† ¢h7 36.¦xd1 e4 37.fxe4 ¤g4 38.¦c5 £b8 0–1 Leko – Topalov, Morelia/Linares 2008. A2) 14.¦fc1 This is a different approach, in which White wants to push his pawns on the queenside. 14...£b8 15.¦ab1
1222222223 tW + Tl+5 +v+mVoOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 + Np+ +5 + N Bp+ 5 pP Qb+pP5 +rR + K 5 79
Hurrying to push the pawns without preparation is nothing special. For instance: 15.b4 d5 16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.¤xd5 ¥xd5 18.a3 ¦d8 with a good game for Black. 15...d5N Another idea might be 15...¦d8N, when a logical continuation is: 16.b4 d5 17.b5 axb5 18.¥xb5 £d6 19.¥f1 ¥a6 Black has decent counterplay.
12
Topalov Variation
The move Black has tried in practice doesn’t look convincing to me: 15...¦c8 16.b4 ¤e5 (16...d5 17.exd5 ¤xd5 18.¤xd5 ¥xd5 19.¦xc8† £xc8 20.a4 h6 21.a5 looks to be exactly what White is wishing for) 17.b5 ¤c4 18.¥xc4 ¦xc4 19.bxa6 ¦xa6 20.£e2 and White is much better, Erenburg – Vovsha, Pawtucket 2008. 16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.¤xd5 ¥xd5 18.¤c6 Attempts like 18.b4 ¥d6 19.¢h1 ¥xh2 20.b5 axb5 21.¥xb5 ¤f6 or 18.¤f5 ¥f6 both look fine for Black. 18...¥xc6 19.¦xc6 ¦d8 20.£c2 The alternative is: 20.£e1 a5 21.¢h1 £b7 22.¦c2 ¤f6 23.¥g1 ¤d5
1222222223 t+ T +l+5 +w+ VoOo5 + +o+ +5 O +m+ + 5 + + + +5 + + +p+ 5 pPr+b+pP5 +r+ Q Bk5 79
This set-up occurs so often in this line that I must advise readers to pay it particular attention. It should be pointed out that the bishop pair, along with the queenside majority, would be enough for White to win a simple endgame with just two minor pieces on each side. But here, with queens on the board and many weak squares in the white position, as well as the centralized position of the black pieces, matters are much more complicated. The advantage can go to either side. 20...¥d6 21.h3 a5 22.¢h1 ¥f4 23.¥g1 ¤f6
1222222223 tW T +l+5 + + +oOo5 +r+oM +5 O + + + 5 + + V +5 + + +p+p5 pPq+b+p+5 +r+ + Bk5 79 Black has good play. Again we have a similar structure and positioning of the minor pieces. B) 10.0–0–0
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 + +m+oOo5 o+ OoM +5 + + + + 5 nO Np+ +5 + + Bp+ 5 pPpQ +pP5 + Kr+b+r5 79 We continue our survey with this extremely sharp continuation. White is simply developing, without worrying overmuch about Black’s chances of undermining the knight on a4. The subsequent play will be all about which side is more successful in resolving the current situation of this knight. We will look at two major ideas for Black: B1) 10...£a5 and B2) 10...d5. B1) 10...£a5 11.b3 ¥b7 1 Now White chooses between the slower B11) 12.¢b1 and the more direct B12) 12.a3.
Experts on the Anti-Sicilian Edited by
Jacob Aagaard & John Shaw
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Boris Avrukh – 3...e6 versus the Grand Prix Attack Jacob Aagaard – A Classical Repertoire against 2.c3 Tiger Hillarp Persson – Beating 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 with 3...d6 Tiger Hillarp Persson – Beating 2.¤f3 d6 3.¥b5† with 3...¤d7! Andrew Greet – Moscow Variation with 5.c4 Christian Bauer – 2.¤f3 d6 3.¥c4 Christian Bauer – 2.¤f3 d6 3.c3 ¤f6 4.h3 – ...g6-lines Christian Bauer – 2.¤f3 d6 3.c3 ¤f6 4.h3 ¤c6 Christian Bauer – 2.¤f3 d6 3.c3 ¤f6 4.h3 – Rare Lines Christian Bauer – King’s Indian Attack Christian Bauer – 2.¤f3 e6 3.c3 d5 4.e5 d4 Milos Pavlovic – A 10-minute repertoire against the Closed Sicilian Matthieu Cornette – Tiviakov Grand Prix Matthieu Cornette – 3...¤d4 – Early Deviations Matthieu Cornette – 4.¥c4 g6 Matthieu Cornette – 4.¥c4 e6 5.¤f3 – Minor Lines Matthieu Cornette – 4.¥c4 e6 5.¤f3 – 5...¤f6 6.0–0 Matthieu Cornette – 4.¥c4 e6 5.¤ge2 – 5...£c7 Matthieu Cornette – 4.¥c4 e6 5.¤ge2 – 5...¤f6 6.0–0 a6 7.a4 Matthieu Cornette – 4.¥c4 e6 5.¤ge2 – 5...¤f6 6.0–0 a6 7.d3 Colin McNab – Beating 2.a3 with 2...g6 Colin McNab – Beating 2.f4 with 2...d5 Colin McNab – Beating 5.f3 with 5...e5 John Shaw – 2.d3 – A Black Repertoire Peter Heine Nielsen – Beating 2.b3 with 2...g6
4 5 7 21 70 102 120 152 194 213 226 246 276 309 317 329 340 355 364 377 379 389 402 406 417 425 432
Introduction Experts vs. the Sicilian was invented in a brainstorming session-turned-argument in 2004. Together with Learn from the Legends by Mihail Marin, it was the first release from Quality Chess. We liked the format and so did the public, so it was natural to return to it at some point. That it would take seven years is a surprise, but the right idea did not exist before then. Experts on the Anti-Sicilian includes articles from many writers, all of them grandmasters (with the exception of Andrew Greet who prefers to just write like one...) and all of them experienced in their field. The focus is a bit different from the first Experts book where White went out with all guns blazing in the main lines, hoping for an advantage against some of the best openings of our day. The anti-Sicilian lines do not have as strong a theoretical reputation as the Open lines (which are characterized by 2.¤f3, 3.d4 4.¤xd4 and 5.¤c3 in reply to almost anything) but anti-Sicilians are played in roughly a third of all games that start 1.e4 c5. Success in this area of opening theory is important for everyone playing the Sicilian, with White or with Black. This book, like the previous Experts volume, was written by the authors as they wanted to write it. Most of them have followed the traditional ABC format, while others have decided to put their own flavour on things. Beyond this, some chapters are repertoires offering (mainly) Black suitable advice against a certain line; while others have a more holistic approach, investigating (sometimes deeply) lines in every direction. The authors and their articles are: GM Boris Avrukh was already famous as a player before his surname became a verb (coined by Artur Yusupov) in the wake of his two-volume repertoire on 1.d4: Grandmaster Repertoire 1 (2008) & Grandmaster Repertoire 2 (2010). “To Avrukh your opponent” is to play a theoretical improvement first suggested by Boris. Boris recently won the ChessPublishing “Opening Book of the Year for 2010” (for GM2), became the coach of the Israeli national team and is just about to publish his repertoire book for Black Grandmaster Repertoire 8: The Grünfeld Defence, Quality Chess 2011. His chapter The Grand Prix Attack with 3...e6 gives a fascinating repertoire for Black against 2.¤c3 ¤c6 3.f4. GM Jacob Aagaard has won the ChessCafe Book of the Year prize (Excelling at Chess, 2002) and the English Chess Federation and Guardian Book of the Year awards (Attacking Manual 1 & Attacking Manual 2, 2010). As a player he has won the British Championship and several opens. A Classical Repertoire against 2.c3 gives a complete repertoire for Black after 2...¤f6, excluding irrelevant stuff such as 3.d3, 3.£c2 and other nonsense...
6
Introduction
GM Tiger Hillarp Persson should be well known to our readers due to his popular book Tiger’s Modern. Perhaps we should mention that Tiger thought the name Tiger’s Modern sounded immodest, but he was outvoted. Tiger has twice been Swedish Champion and has won numerous international events. Tiger’s two chapters present a repertoire for Black against 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 and 2.¤f3 d6 3.¥b5†. In the former case he recommends 3...d6 and in the latter 3...¤d7. Thus the reader is offered a line against the Rossolimo System and two lines against the Moscow System. As mentioned above, IM Andrew Greet is the only non-GM in the book, but the Englishman makes up for it by being the 2010 Scottish Champion. Greet explains the subtleties of the Moscow Variation with 5.c4. That is, the position after 2.¤f3 d6 3.¥b5† ¥d7 4.¥xd7† £xd7 5.c4. Greet’s focus is on suggesting ideas for White that avoid the notorious equalizing lines created by Ivanchuk and Agdestein. GM Christian Bauer is a former French Champion and a specialist in offbeat anti-Sicilians. Bauer has proved these lines can work in international opens, as his FIDE rating of 2633 testifies. Bauer covers the following lines: 2.¤f3 d6 3.¥c4, 2.¤f3 d6 3.c3 ¤f6 4.h3, The King’s Indian Attack: 2.¤f3 e6 3.d3 or 3.g3 and 2.¤f3 e6 3.c3 d5 4.e5 d4. In each case, Bauer offers far more than a repertoire; he shares his ideas and improvements in total coverage of these lines. In contrast GM Milos Pavlovic offers a strict repertoire approach. The Serbian opening expert’s chapter is called A 10-minute repertoire against the Closed Sicilian. The title is tongue-incheek, but there is no denying Pavlovic provides a quick and effective answer to the Closed Sicilian. GM Matthieu Cornette of France is an expert on the 2.¤c3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 variation. This is sometimes known as the Modern Grand Prix, but Cornette’s preference is to call it the Tiviakov Grand Prix to honour its strongest exponent. Cornette offers in-depth and extensive coverage of a line that no book has ever before studied in such depth. In fact, Cornette’s chapters could have been a reasonably sized book on their own... GM Colin McNab has been Scottish Champion four times and has had even greater success as a World Champion chess puzzle solver. In his chapters McNab recommends a repertoire for Black against three lines that could and should have been included in Grandmaster Repertoire 6: The Sicilian Defence: 2.a3, 2.f4 d5 and 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.f3. GM John Shaw has been Scottish Champion just three times. In his chapter on 2.d3 he offers a quick repertoire for Black against this offbeat line. One of the tricks of 2.d3 is that White often retains the option of transposing to a Closed Sicilian, so the repertoire in this chapter is designed to be consistent with Pavlovic’s anti-Closed Sicilian line. GM Peter Heine Nielsen is the highest rated player of our authors and has been Danish Champion five times. Nielsen’s opening expertise is so highly regarded that World Champion Viswanathan Anand selected him as his second. Nielsen offers a repertoire for Black after 2.b3 g6. The 2.b3 variation is a quirky yet increasingly popular sideline; Nielsen’s witty counter-fianchetto is a serious attempt at refuting it.
3
Ch
a pt
er
70
Tiger Hillarp Persson
Beating 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 with 3...d6 Variation Index 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 3...d6 Game 1 – 4.d4 cxd4 5.£xd4 ¥d7 6.¥xc6 ¥xc6 7.¤c3 Game 2 – 4.d4 cxd4 5.£xd4 ¥d7 6.¥xc6 ¥xc6 7.c4 Game 3 – 4.¥xc6† bxc6 5.0–0 ¥g4 6.d3 Game 4 – 4.¥xc6† bxc6 5.0–0 ¥g4 6.h3 Game 5 – 4.0–0 ¥d7 5.¦e1 ¤f6 6.c3 a6 7.¥f1 ¥g4 8.d3 Game 6 – 4.0–0 ¥d7 5.¦e1 ¤f6 6.c3 a6 7.¥f1 ¥g4 8.d4!? Game 7 – 4.0–0 ¥d7 5.¦e1 ¤f6 6.c3 a6 7.¥xc6!? Game 8 – 4.0–0 ¥d7 5.¦e1 ¤f6 6.c3 a6 7.¥a4
71 74 78 80 83 88 93 98
Chapter 3 – Beating 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 with 3...d6 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 Compared with 2...d6 3.¥b5†, this is a significantly more aggressive move. You do not have to worry about White wanting a draw here.
3...d6!? Both 3...g6 and 3...e6 are more common in this position, and that is one of the reasons why I prefer 3...d6 – because your opponent will be less likely to have played against it. Still, if it is only the third most popular move, there surely must be some problem with it? After spending a few weeks on this line, I think the answer is just that it is slightly more difficult to play than the other lines. After 3...g6 4.0–0 ¥g7 5.¥xc6 dxc6 6.d3 Black has a number of decent set-ups to choose between, but White is safely in the driving seat, without taking too many risks. In the 3...e6line it seems that the plan involving c3 and ¥a4 is dangerous for Black. Therefore I recommend that you give the complicated 3...d6 a chance. This chapter consists of eight and a half games. First we look at the lines beginning with 4.d4 cxd4 5.£xd4 (Games 1&2), then continue with 4.¥xc6† bxc6 (Games 3&4) and finish with 4.0–0 ¥d7 5.¦e1 ¤f6 6.c3 a6 (Games 5-8).
71
Game 1
Kamsky – Mohota Philadelphia 2005
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 d6 4.d4 cxd4 5.£xd4 ¥d7 5...¤f6 is an interesting alternative:
O M + Q +
a) 6.c4 ¥d7 7.¥xc6 ¥xc6 transposes to the note to Black’s 7th move in Game 2. You should only choose 5...¤f6 if you are happy to forgo the early lunge by the f-pawn that is the main line of that game. b) 6.¤c3 e5 7.£d3 h6 followed by ...¥e7 and ...a6 seems fine for Black. c) 6.e5 £a5† 7.¤c3 £xb5 8.¤xb5 ¤xd4 9.¤fxd4 dxe5 10.¤c7† ¢d7 11.¤xa8 exd4 12.¥f4 ¢c6 13.0–0–0 ¤d7 14.¦xd4 e5 15.¦c4† ¥c5 This is rather unclear, although I suspect that Black is a bit better. 6.¥xc6 ¥xc6 7.¤c3 White can dissuade Black from ...¤f6 with 7.¥g5, but Black gets the better game with 7...e5! 8.£e3 f6! 9.¥h4 £b6 (9...¤e7!? intending ...d5, looks even stronger) 10.£xb6 axb6 11.¤c3 b5 12.¤d2 b4 13.¤d1 ¤e7 14.f3 d5 Mastrovasilis – Atakisi, Athens 2008. 7.c4 is seen in the next game.
72
Experts on the Anti-Sicilian
7...h6!? Preparing ...e5 and ...¤f6. With this move we start treading less known territory. In 80% of games Black plays 7...¤f6 8.¥g5 e6, which leads to a very complex tabiya that would take another chapter to explain. It is a bit risky to play a move like 7...h6, since there is only a handful games played between strong opponents. But I believe it is always better to head for the new ground; to be, if not an explorer, then at least a colonist of the unknown.
8.¥e3 With this move, White plans 0–0–0 followed by ¤f3-h4-f5. There are a couple of alternatives: 8.£d3!? This is played with the intention of following up with ¤f3-d2-c4-e3-(f5). 8...e5 9.¤d2 ¤f6 10.¤c4 (10.0–0 leads to a position discussed below after 8.0–0)
+ M O n+ q
Black now has a choice: a) He can force the game into a rather drawish endgame with: 10...¤xe4 11.¤xe4 d5 12.£g3?! After 12.¤xe5 dxe4 13.£xd8† ¦xd8 14.¤xc6 bxc6 15.¥e3 ¦d7 16.¢e2 ¥d6 a draw seems likely. 12...dxc4 12...dxe4 13.£xe5† £e7 14.¤d6† ¢d7 15.£f5† £e6 16.£xf7† £e7 17.¥f4² Tseitlin. 13.£xe5† £e7 14.¤d6† ¢d7 15.¤xc4 ¥xg2! 16.¦g1
And now instead of blundering with 16...¦e8? 17.¥f4, as in Rozentalis – Borge, Copenhagen 1996, Black could have gained the upper hand with: 16...¥d5! b) 10...¥e7 This is critical, since Black may not be able to avoid this type of position if White plays 0–0 before going ¤c4. 11.¤e3 0–0 11...¤d7!? 12.¤f5 ¤c5 13.£c4 ¥f8, followed by ...g6, ...¥g7 and ...f5 is unclear. 12.0–0 12.¤f5 ¥d7 13.g4 ¥xf5 14.gxf5 £b6 15.¥e3 £xb2 leads to a long sharp line that ends in approximate equality, but I am not totally convinced by this line. I would have more
Chapter 3 – Beating 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 with 3...d6 faith in the above-mentioned 11...¤d7!? as Black. 12...¦e8 13.a4 13.¦d1 ¥f8 14.¤f5 ¦c8 15.£g3 g6 16.¥xh6 ¤xe4 17.¤xe4 ¥xe4 18.¥xf8 ¥xf5 19.¥xd6 ¥xc2 is equal. 13...a6 13...¥f8!? 14.a5 14.¤f5 ¥f8 15.¦d1 is awkward for Black, so he should opt for one of the earlier alternatives. 14...b5 15.axb6 £xb6 16.¤cd5 ¤xd5 17.¤xd5 ¥xd5 18.£xd5 ½–½ Zvjaginsev – Navara, Rijeka 2010. 8.0–0 e5 9.£d3 ¤f6 10.¤d2 ¥e7 10...£c7!
This tricky move prepares to meet 11.¤c4 with 11...¤xe4!, while other moves can be met by ...¦d8, intending ...d5! 11.¤c4 The knight again heads to e3, but this time without giving Black the opportunity to take on e4. 11...b5!? 11...0–0! 12.¤e3 ¦e8 might be safer, transposing to Zvjaginsev – Navara above. 12.¤e3 b4 13.¤cd5 ¤xd5 14.¤xd5 ¥xd5 15.£xd5 0–0 This has been played in several games, including Zelcic – Tiviakov, Ohrid 2001.
73
It seems that White can claim a slight advantage with: 16.a3 The standard operation in this kind of structure where Black has moved the pawn to b4 prematurely. 16...bxa3 17.¦xa3 Black will suffer. 8...e5 9.£c4!? After 9.£d3 ¤f6 10.0–0–0 ¥e7 11.h3 £a5 12.¤d2 0–0 followed by ...d5 (prepared, if necessary, with ...¦fd8), Black is doing very well. 9...¤f6 10.0–0–0 Now we can see the main point behind 9.£c4; White is threatening to take on e5, which forces Black to move the queen. This in turn makes it easier for White to carry out the ¤f3-h4-f5 manoeuvre, since the knight will not be exposed to tactics involving ...¤xe4 followed by ...£xh4. 10...£c8 It is quite possible that 10...£a5!? is a stronger move here. Looshnikov – Bylino, St Petersburg 2002, continued: 11.¤d2 d5 12.exd5 ¤xd5 13.¤b3 £b4 14.£xb4 ¤xb4 15.a3 ¤a6 16.f3 b6 With approximately equal chances. It seems a bit shaky for Black though, after something like 16.f4!?. I do not like releasing the tension so early, and would suggest: 11...¥e7!? 12.¤b3 £d8 This is paradoxical, but good; Black will use the knights on c3 and b3 to accelerate the pawns down the a- and b-files. 13.f3 0–0 14.g4 ¦c8 15.£d3 £c7 (15...a5!?) 16.g5 hxg5 17.¥xg5 d5! A neat idea. 18.¥xf6 dxe4 19.¤xe4 ¥xe4 20.£xe4 ¥xf6 With some advantage for Black. 11.£d3 Black was threatening to play ...¥xe4.
74
Experts on the Anti-Sicilian
11...¥e7! 11...a6 12.¤h4 b5 (12...g6!? 13.f4 £c7 is an improvement, but it needs testing) 13.f4 b4 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.¤d5 ¥b5 16.£d2 White had a strong initiative in Hou Yifan – Arun Prasad, Gaziantep 2008. 12.¤h4 g6 13.f4 This is very principled and possibly best, although it does not promise White any advantage. A more careful approach would be 13.h3, when Black has to come up with a plan. 13...a6 is a nice waiting move, since 14.f4 exf4 15.¥d4 £e6 doesn’t work out well for White. Better is 14.¢b1 b5 15.f4 (15.a3!?) 15...¤h5 16.¤f3 exf4 17.¥d2 0–0 18.¤d4 ¥b7 with a complicated position where it is difficult to say who is better. Instinctively, I would not mind playing the black side. 13...£g4?! Black goes astray, but that g2-pawn smelled just too yummy. Sadly, there is only one road for Black after this and it goes down, down, down. Instead 13...¤h5! is much stronger.
Black hits the f4-pawn and the knight on h4, forcing White to play energetically in order to keep the balance. Sacrificing a piece with 14.fxe5 ¥xh4 15.exd6 £e6 16.¦hf1 ¥g5 17.¤d5 ¥xe3† 18.£xe3 ¥xd5 19.¦xd5 0–0
does not work, and 14.¤f3 ¤xf4 15.¥xf4 exf4 16.¤d5 ¥xd5 17.exd5 0–0 (17...£c5 18.¦he1) 18.£e4 ¦e8 19.£xf4 £c5 is fine for Black. After 20.£xh6 ¥f6 21.¦he1 ¥xb2† the game ends in a draw. 14.¤f3 £xg2 No better is 14...exf4 15.h3 £xg2 16.¥d4, when ¦dg1 will make Black unhappy on the next move. There is not much to be said about the rest of the game; Kamsky never takes his eyes off the ball. 15.fxe5! £xf3 16.¦hf1 £xf1 17.¦xf1 dxe5 18.¤d5 ¥xd5 19.exd5 0–0 20.d6 ¥d8 21.¥xh6 ¦e8 22.£b5 ¦b8 23.¥e3 a6 24.£b3 b5 So far the game seems to make sense, but the rest is flawed in some way. I include the final moves for the reader as an exercise in fantasy. 25.d7 ¦e6 26.¥c5 ¦c8 27.¢b1 ¤xd7 I doubt that this is what really happened, although the result seems logical (in the position a few moves ago). 1–0
Game 2
Ni Hua – Bluvshtein Edmonton 2009
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.£xd4 ¤c6 5.¥b5 ¥d7 6.¥xc6 ¥xc6 7.c4 White has a certain scenario in mind; a few moves into the future the c- and e-pawn will make it difficult for Black to do anything in the centre. Nothing to worry about really, but why let White have his way? 7...f5!? This idea has stood the test of time, and seems sound enough to be my recommendation. The solid alternative is:
Experts vs the Sicilian 2nd edition Edited by: Jacob Aagaard & John Shaw
www.qualitychess.com
Content Preface The writers The Najdorf The Dragon The Sveshnikov The Classical Sicilian The Kan and Taimanov The Accelerated Dragon The Scheveningen The Kalashnikov The Four Knights The Pin Variation The Nimzowitsch Variation Minor lines 5th move alternatives List of variations List of games
5 7 9 37 71 89 117 147 157 173 181 187 197 209 221 226 227
Preface GM John Nunn had a lot of success with his trilogy Beating the Sicilian 1, 2 and 3. Others have tried to follow suit, but none with the same success. (The latest being Nigel Davies with Taming the Sicilian, where the White repertoire was based on g3-lines against almost everything.) It was with this knowledge that Ari Ziegler and Jacob Aagaard discussed the idea of a repertoire book against the Sicilian in 2003, while developing the idea of a new chess publishing company. The discussions (leading to this book) ended with the idea of contacting strong players who had specialist knowledge in the lines in question. It was our conviction that this would give the reader the best possible insight into the finer points of a particular line. As experienced players and opening book writers we know that important finesses are missed if you do not: 1. Use a lot of time analysing the games, instead of just believing the players’ own analysis. 2. Have prior knowledge of the system. It is obviously not easy to get many busy chess players to deliver up-to-date material all at the same time. However it was also not as difficult as we feared. Alexander Raetsky and Peter Wells were playing tournaments at the time of the deadline, but still managed to deliver with only a week’s delay. And this despite serious computer problems for both! It has been interesting to learn how differently some very strong players view opening theory, and see how this has made itself apparent in their contributions. At one extreme there is Viktor Gavrikov with his dense theoretical style, at the other Peter Heine Nielsen with his ideas-based approach. This is not a matter of playing strength or necessarily style of play. These two GMs are the two highest rated players contributing to this book, and are both renowned theoreticians. For this reason we decided that it did not make any sense to make huge changes to the style chosen by the different contributors. Clearly a lot of general editing has been done, but we made no particular effort to limit the diversity of the book’s authors. We hope you will find this book enlightening and entertaining. Glasgow, October 2nd 2004
Jacob Aagaard
John Shaw
Foreword to the revised 2006 edition As we wanted to re-typeset to a bigger format when we had to reprint this book, we decided to insert the corrections of both language and chess moves we had encountered since the book was first published. In essence, the book is the same as the 2004 edition, but a lot of minor changes and a few updates will hopefully make it an improved edition. The updates compared to the first edition do not only include improvements for White, but also for Black. We have tried to present the reader with an honest picture of the development of the lines over the last two years, but not upheld ourselves to the obligations of delivering a bullet proof repertoire. We found this approach the most honest and hopefully the readers will do so too. In that connection we would like to thank Mikhail Golubev for revising his chapter on the Dragon. Glasgow, June 1st 2006
Jacob Aagaard
John Shaw
The writers
Grandmaster Peter Wells vs. the Classical Sicilian
Grandmaster Thomas Luther vs. the Najdorf
Peter Wells is 41 years old and has for many years been one of the best players in England. During his work for this book he found time to take second place in the British Championship. At the publication date of this book Peter will represent England at the Olympiad. Peter’s participation is a real scoop for this book. His reputation as a chess opening author is unchallenged. Kasparov, with his usual diplomacy, said about Peter’s book on the Semi-Slav, that he could not understand how such a weak player could write such a great book. His recent book on the Trompowsky (Batsford 2003) was called “the finest opening book I’ve ever seen” by IM Jeremy Silman, and received universal acclaim as well as a nomination for book of the year at www.chesscafe.com. In 1998 Peter wrote The Complete RichterRauzer together with Viacheslav Osnos. He plays the Classical Sicilian often and with good results.
37-year-old Thomas Luther from Erfurt in Germany (where Martin Luther went to university) is twice German champion and a regular member of his country’s Olympiad team, including 2000 when they were close to winning the tournament, but in the end had to settle for silver medals. Although this is Thomas’ first contribution to a chess book, his 20 years of playing 6.¥g5 against the Najdorf at a high level cannot but impress. Grandmaster Dragon
Mikhail
Golubev
vs.
the
Mikhail Golubev is a strong 36-year-old grandmaster from Ukraine who mainly considers himself a journalist. He is known as a diligent chess writer and the author of some well-received opening books. Mikhail contributes often to New In Chess Yearbook with theoretical surveys, and mainly on the Sicilian Dragon. In recent years a great number of books on the Dragon have been published, but none caught the attention of the editors of this book as Golubev’s small book, Easy Guide to the Dragon. We are very happy that Mikhail accepted our invitation to contribute to this book. International Master Jacob Aagaard vs. the Sveshnikov & several minor lines Jacob Aagaard is 32 years old, born in Denmark, but resident in Glasgow, Scotland. His best results are his two GM-norms, both attained in 2004. Jacob has written many chess books. Especially close to heart is the Excelling at Chess series of 5 books, from which the first, Excelling at Chess, won book of the year at chesscafe.com, while the final two received even better reviews. Jacob is also the author of Easy Guide to the Sveshnikov (Everyman Chess 2000).
Grandmaster Sune Berg Hansen vs. the Taimanov and the Kan Sune Berg Hansen is 35 years old and has been one of Denmark’s strongest grandmasters for many years. He has competed in several Olympiads and once in the World Championship. He is well known in Denmark for the high quality of his chess annotations, and as the daily chess and poker columnist for the large newspaper Politiken. His article in this book is his first larger contribution to a chess book. His great knowledge of opening theory will become apparent to anyone who reads his work in this book. Grandmaster Peter Heine Nielsen vs. the Accelerated Dragon Peter Heine Nielsen is 33 years old and currently Scandinavia’s number one. Peter has won many international tournaments, ahead of such players as Ivanchuk, Short, Svidler and Beliavsky. He
8
Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
also won a bronze medal at the 1994 Olympiad in Moscow. Peter co-authored the book The Sicilian Accelerated Dragon in 1998 with fellow Dane Carsten Hansen. They are currently contemplating an updated edition.
Grandmaster Alexander Raetsky vs. the Four Knights.
Viktor Gavrikov is 47 years old and famous on the tournament circuit for his vast knowledge of opening theory. As a player he has competed at the highest level for many years, and won games against players such as Karpov, Beliavsky, van Wely, Lautier, Andersson and Adams. Currently he contributes theoretical articles to ChessBase Magazine and is working on a book on the middlegame. Viktor has played the Keres Attack with both colours, but does not consider himself a true expert. However his contribution to this book suggests otherwise.
44-year old Alexander Raetsky very recently made his first grandmaster norm after 9, 10 and 11 rounds of the Biel Open 2004, but was unfortunately given one and not three norms for the effort. He has for a long time been one of the best players in his home region of Voronezh in Russia, where for the last five years he has organized one of the largest open tournaments in the world. Alexander is also the author of several chess books, most often with his close friend Maxim Chetverik, as well as a contributor to New In Chess Yearbook. Among his books is Meeting 1.e4, which is a repertoire book with the main line being the Four Knights Sicilian, an opening he has played regularly since. Alexander was finally awarded the grandmaster title in 2005 after making the final norm in Cappelle le Grande, France, where you should be able to find him each year.
International Master Jan Pinski vs. the Kalashnikov
Grandmaster John Shaw vs. several minor lines.
Jan Pinski is a 27-year-old journalist, currently working hard on uncovering corruption in his native Poland, as well as on his next chess book. Jan has written a number of chess books, the first being The Kalashnikov Sicilian with Jacob Aagaard. In an e-mail to the editors Jan states, “It is incredible that I played this line for so long without being punished!”
John Shaw from Scotland has represented his country in many international team tournaments, including Olympiads. He has written two opening books for Everyman Chess and was awarded the grandmaster title in 2006.
Grandmaster Viktor Scheveningen
Gavrikov
vs.
the
The Najdorf - By Thomas Luther
The Najdorf System is one of the most popular systems of the Sicilian Defence. It arises after the moves 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6. The Argentine Grandmaster M. Najdorf played it for the first time in a tournament game in the 40s. Nowadays it is seen in every level of tournament. Many World Champions, including Fischer and Kasparov, used it as their main defence against 1.e2-e4. In many variations an uncompromising battle arises where every move has great importance. It is a very practical choice if Black wants to play for a win from the very beginning of the game. In our times many moves from the older games belong only to history, because strong computer programs show that they are incorrect. Nevertheless, in some lines White just crushes Black’s setup. I will give some examples where I show the reader some basic ideas (for example the ¤c3-d5 sacrifice), and I try to show the connection of different variations and the tricks of move orders. This book recommends 6.¥g5. I have played this move for nearly 20 years now and I have won many games with it. There are relatively few recent games in the 6.¥g5 line, because 6. ¥e3 is more popular right now. However when
comparing the results of these two variations we see that 6.¥g5 is doing fine. There are some specialists in this line and I have annotated some of their best games. Among many others I want to mention GMs Short, Timman, Kotronias and Sulskis for their great efforts. The most important lines are the Poisoned Pawn variation (6...e6 7.f4 £b6), which is the most critical line and the main line (6...e6 7.f4 ¤bd7 8. £f3 £c7 9. 0-0-0 ¥e7) and now 10. ¥d3. These two lines dominate at the moment in tournament practice. Other formerly wellknown lines, like the Polugayevsky Variation (6…e6 7.f4 b5), are rarely met nowadays. I have checked most variations given in this chapter with my computer. But soft- and hardware are developing fast, and sooner or later improvements will be found. If you are uncertain about a position after reading this book I truly advise you to check it with your computer. In the beginning I will give some sidelines. Each of them is dangerous if White does not know what to do. I start with 6…¤bd7 (the usual move which is played in almost all other games here is 6...e6). Black’s idea is to avoid getting double pawns on the f-line, and maybe later there could be an e7-e5 in one move. In most of the games Black just plays e7-e6 on the next move and the game transposes to another line. Really not recommendable is this idea in connection with 7...£b6. Black is just too far behind in development to do so. The following game is a perfect example of how White should deal with this plan. Game 1 Stripunsky - Granda Zuniga New York 1998 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 6...h6 7.¥xf6! 7.f4 £b6?! 7...e6 is of course the move, transposing to 6...e6 7.f4 ¤bd7.
10
Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
7...h6? 8.¥xf6 ¤xf6 9.e5 dxe5 10.fxe5 ¤d5 11.e6± 7...b5? also does not really work. After 8.¥xf6 ¤xf6 9.e5 b4 10.¤cb5! – Nunn. White has a strong position. Here are some lines: 10...¤e4 11.e6 £b6 12.exf7† ¢d8 13.£f3 d5 14.0–0–0‚ axb5?! 15.£xe4!+10...dxe5 11.fxe5 ¥g4 (Nunn gives 11...axb5 12.exf6 gxf6 13.£f3 ¥d7 14.¤e6+-) 12.£d3± axb5 13.exf6 exf6 14.£e4† £e7 15.¥xb5† ¥d7 16.¥xd7† ¢xd7 17.¤e6!!+Let’s return to 7... £b6?! .
8.£d2 £xb2 Otherwise Black’s play does not make a lot of sense. 9.¦b1 £a3 10.¥xf6! White uses his lead in development by this immediate action. 10...gxf6 Forced. 10...¤xf6 11.e5 ¤g4 12.¤d5 is pretty hopeless for Black. 12...£c5 (12...¦a7 13.¦b3 £xa2 14.£c3 ¥d7 15.£c7+- or 12...¦b8 13.¤c6 £xa2 14.£d1±) 13.¤b3 £c6 14.¤a5 £c5 Now the weaker player could have won if he played 15.¤xb7+-, but respect for the grandmaster made him repeat moves, Bindrich - Zagrebelny, Dresden 2000. 11.¤d5 ¦b8 Other moves are no better, or maybe even worse. 11...£xa2 12.£b4 ¢d8 (12...b5 13.¤c7†
¢d8 was Zunker - Holfelder, Bruchkoebel 2002. Now 14.¤xa8 ¥b7 15.¥c4! wins.) 13.¦b3 £a1† 14.¢f2 e6 15.¦b1 £a2 16.¥c4 a5 17.£c3 ¤c5 18.¤c6† bxc6 19.£xf6† ¢e8 20.¤c7† ¢d7 21.£xf7† ¥e7 22.¥xa2 1–0 Garbarino - Sabas, Buenos Aires 1982. 11...£c5 12.¤b3 £c6 13.¤a5 £c5 14.¤xb7 ¦b8 15.¤xc5 ¦xb1† 16.¢f2 ¤xc5 17.£a5+12.¦b3! White needs to bring his pieces into action. Worse was 12.¤c7† ¢d8 13.¤xa6 bxa6 14.¤c6† ¢c7 15.¤xb8 ¤xb8 16.¥c4 ¤c6³.
12...£a4 After this there is not a lot to talk about. White is simply much better. 12...£c5 13.¦c3 £a7 14.¥xa6!+- does not work, but 12...£xa2!? has been suggested, and is in fact the only way for Black to play on. Still, analysis assisted by a computer indicates that White has the advantage. 13.¥c4! is of course the move. Now we have: a) 13...£a1†? This only helps White. 14.¢f2 £xh1 White now has a winning combination with 15.¤c7† ¢d8 16.£a5! b6 17.¤de6† fxe6 18.¤xe6† ¢e8 19.£h5 mate. b) 13...¤c5? 14.¦xb7! (14.0–0!? ¤xb3 15.¥xb3 £a3 16.¦f3‚ is also tempting, but winning the queen is more convincing.) 14...£b1† 15.¦xb1 ¦xb1† 16.¢e2 ¦xh1 17.£a5+c) 13...e6 14.¤c7† ¢d8 15.£c3! (15.0–0 £a4! and it is not possible to find more than
The Najdorf equality for White. This shows the old truth that an advanced soldier behind enemy lines can do a lot of damage.) 15...¤c5 16.¦xb7 £b1† 17.¦xb1 ¦xb1† 18.¢e2 ¦xh1 19.£a5 ¢d7 20.¤cb5! and the White attack crashes through. d) 13...£a4 14.£c3 ¤c5 15.¤b6 £a2 16.0–0 ¤xe4 17.£e1 ¤c5 18.£b4 and the black queen is trapped. 13.¥xa6! e5!? 13...bxa6 14.£c3!+- Vitolinsh - Arakas, USSR 1978. 13...£xa2 14.£c3 e6 15.¤c7† ¢d8 16.¥c4 is of course not playable for Black. There is nothing that justifies the weakening of the king’s position. 14.¦b4 £xa2 14...£a5 15.¤b3 looks good for White. 15...£xa2 16.¥b5 with a crushing attack. 15.¤b3 bxa6? 16.£c3! 1–0 Black resigned. His queen is trapped after 16...¦a8 17.0–0 a5 18.¦b5 a4 19.¤c7† ¢d8 20.¤c1. Another old sideline is 7...¤c6. It came to popularity after GM Shabalov played it. Funnily it was also GM Shabalov who started crushing this line. Black wants to achieve a Rauzer-like set-up and make use of White’s early f2-f4. In fact the early f4 gives White the chance to kick Black’s knight on f6 with e4-e5. Since White has better development the tactics should go fine for him, and they do so. In the game below GM Adams shows fine technique and gains a great advantage. Only a silly blunder, which had nothing to do with the opening, cost him half a point. Game 2 Adams - Anand Linares 1997 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 e6 7.f4 ¤c6 Usually in the Najdorf the ¤b8 is going to d7, compared to the Rauzer where Black sets up with, d6, ¤f6 and ¤c6.
11
8.e5! Here Black wants to make use of the early f2f4, so after the “normal” Rauzer move 8.£d2 h6 9.¥h4 (9.¥xf6 £xf6 is not attractive for White either) 9...¤xe4 is very strong. But this is not a Rauzer, but a Najdorf, where White is prepared for an early e4-e5. 8...h6 9.¥h4
9…dxe5 9...¤xd4 keeps the pawn structure on the queenside intact, but Black has to commit his kingside with g7-g5. 10.£xd4 (10.exf6?? falls into a nice trap: 10...¤f5! This was discovered by Adorjan. 11.fxg7 £xh4† 12.g3 ¤xg3 13.gxh8=£ ¤e4† and notwithstanding his two queens, the white king will soon be checkmated.) 10...dxe5 11.£xd8† ¢xd8 12.fxe5 g5 13.¥g3! ¤d7 14.0–0–0 ¥g7 15.¥e2 (for some reason this natural move is not in Kosten’s book Easy Guide to the Najdorf) 15...¢e7 16.¥h5! (f7 is the weakest point in Black’s territory) 16...¦f8 (16...¤xe5 does not work here. 17.¦he1 f6 18.¥xe5 fxe5 19.¦f1! ¥f6 20.¤e4 ¦f8 21.¦f2! and White is clearly better.) 17.¤e4 ¤xe5 18.¦he1 f5 19.¤c3 f4 20.¥f2 b6 21.¥xb6 ¥b7 22.¥c5† ¢f6 23.¦xe5 1–0 Luther - Senff, Cappelle la Grande 2001. 10.¤xc6 £xd1† 11.¦xd1 bxc6 12.fxe5 ¤d5 Also possible is 12...¤d7!? but Black still has a passive position. 13.¤e4 g5 14.¥g3 ¥g7 15.¤d6† ¢e7 16.¤c4 a5 17.h4. This is a very strong move: White wants to weaken the
12
Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
g5-pawn and trade his passive rook. Now it is difficult for Black to develop his last pieces, as can be seen by the following lines: 17...a4 (17...¥a6 18.¤xa5 ¦hc8 19.¥xa6 ¦xa6 20.¤c4 ¦xa2 21.hxg5 hxg5 22.¦h5 ¦h8 23.¦xg5±) 18.hxg5 hxg5 19.¦xh8 ¥xh8 20.¥e2² 13.¤e4 ¦b8 14.b3
14.c4?! allows a tricky piece sacrifice: 14...¦xb2! 15.cxd5 ¥b4† 16.¤d2 exd5µ 14...¥e7 14...g5?!. Making the check on b4 happen is not worth weakening the structure. 15.¥g3 ¥b4† 16.¢e2! and by threatening c2-c4 White obtained a big advantage in Brodsky - Rechel, Groningen 1993. 15.¥g3! This move certainly secures an advantage for White. Black has too little space for his pieces. This is more important than just the usual good/bad bishop stuff. Worse is 15.¥xe7 ¢xe7, and with a weak pawn on e5, White can never be better. 15...0–0 16.¥e2 16.c4?!. White should be careful with pawn moves: 16...¤b4 17.¦d2 ¦d8 with counterplay. 16...a5 16...¤e3 hunting the g2-pawn is not good for Black: 17.¦d2 ¤xg2† 18.¢f2 ¤h4 19.¤f6†! Without this move White would have nothing. 19...gxf6 20.¥xh4 ¥c5† 21.¢f3 fxe5 22.¥f6 and after ¥d3 and ¦g2 White has a dangerous attack.
17.c4 ¤b4 18.¦d2! It is important to protect the a-pawn since it keeps Black’s knight out of the game. Huzman gives: 18.0–0 ¤xa2 19.¦a1 ¤b4 20.¦xa5 ¤c2 and Black has good counterplay against the b3pawn. 18...¦d8 19.¦f1! Another brilliant move by Adams. The king stays in the centre to cover the important squares. 19...¦xd2 20.¢xd2 ¤a6 20...¤xa2 Now this is different. The white king dominates the knight on b4 after: 21.¦a1 ¤b4 22.¦xa5 the position is ±. 21.¥h5 Forcing Black to weaken the kingside structure. 21...g6 22.¥f3 ¥b7 23.¢c3 ¦d8 24.¤d6 ¥a8 25.a3?? This spoils all the previous achievements. After protecting the knight on d6 once more, White’s victory would have been only a question of time. 25.¦d1! was the right move.
25...f5! Now Black has counterplay. 26.b4 g5 27.h3 ¥f8 28.c5 ¦b8 28...¥g7 29.¤c4 does not change much. 29.¥h5 29.¦a1 with the idea 30.¤c4 was recommended after the game. 29...¤c7 30.¥f3 ¤a6 31.¥h5 ¤c7 32.¥f3 ½–½
The Najdorf White could have played on, but probably he was frustrated with his 25th move. Now we turn to the above-mentioned game from GM Shabalov. Instead of heading for an ending, as in the previous game, Black can burn his bridges and crack White’s centre with 9...g5. White has to play carefully and have some theoretical knowledge about the position. With the right move order White can prevent Black building up a strong centre. He has to take the d5 knight before he takes the one on c6. As soon as White castles the black king be under a strong attack. Game 3 Shabalov - Browne Las Vegas 1997 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 e6 7.f4 ¤c6 8.e5! h6 9.¥h4 g5
Black acts concretely against White’s centre and the game becomes very tactical. Since White has better development, tactics should work in his favour. 10.fxg5 ¤d5 10...¤h7 Knights need to be placed in the centre! 11.¤xc6 bxc6 12.exd6 with advantage for White. Of course not 10...hxg5?? 11.¤xc6 bxc6 12.¥xg5 and Black loses a piece.
13
11.¤xd5 It is important to take first on d5 and later on c6, so that Black does not have the option to take with a later c-pawn on d5. 11...exd5 12.exd6 The best. Other moves like e5-e6 have been tried, but without much success.
12...£xd6 12...¥xd6 13.¤xc6 bxc6 14.£d4 White plays this move because he wants to protect his bishop on h4 and then play g5-g6. 14...£e7† 15.¥e2 ¥e5 16.£a4 ¦b8 17.g6 (when White achieves this Black is usually busted) 17...£d6 (17...£b4†. This was once recommended as equalising, but I think White is still better. 18.£xb4 ¦xb4 19.gxf7† ¢xf7 20.0–0† ¢g7 21.¥f2 ¦xb2 22.¥d3 After lots of exchanges Black still has problems, his pieces are not coordinated. A possible line could be: 22...¦f8 23.¦ae1 ¥c3 24.¦e7† ¢g8 25.¥c5 ¦xf1† 26.¢xf1 ¥g4 27.¦c7 ¦xa2 28.¦xc6 ¥d1 29.¥e3 ¦a3 30.¦xa6 ¦xa6 31.¥xa6 ¥xc2 32.¥xh6 and good technique should bring White the full point.) 18.gxf7† ¢f8 19.¥f2 ¦xb2 20.0–0 ¦h7 21.¢h1 ¦xf7 22.¥d4 With a decisive attack in McDonald - Danner, Budapest 1996. Instead of 16…¦b8, there is also the option of 16...£d6. This is met by a surprisingly strong move: 17.¥g3! Now we have the following options:
14
Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
a) 17...¥xg3† 18.hxg3 £xg3† 19.¢f1 Both c6 and h6 are hanging, besides Black’s king is in danger. White is clearly better. b) 17…¥d7 18.gxh6 with advantage for White, was Luther’s recommendation. In practice another more turned out to be quite poisonous. 18.£h4 ¦b8 19.0–0 ¥xg3 (19...¦xb2 20.g6 fxg6 21.¥xe5 £xe5 22.¥xa6±) 20.hxg3 £e5 (20...£c5+ is the only move according to Fritz, but White has a sensational attack after 21.¢h2! £xc2 [21...£e3 22.¦ae1 £xg5 is objectively better, but the endgame after 23.¥g4† ¢d8 24.¥xd7 £xh4† 25.gxh4 ¢xd7 26.¦xf7† ¢d6± is still a pawn up for White - not a bad result of the opening!] 22.¦ae1 and Black has no defence: 22...¥e6 23.gxh6 ¢d7 24.¥g4 f5 25.£f6+-) 21.g6! fxg6 (Black has various chances to go into endgames as this one: 21...£e3† 22.¢h2 0–0 23.¦xf7 ¦xf7 24.gxf7† ¢xf7 25.¦f1† ¢g8 26.¦f6 £g5 27.b3 Objectively Black is just lost, but in practice he might score between 10 and 20%.) 22.¦ae1± The outcome of the opening is clearly in White’s favour. Without having sacrificed anything she has a strong attack against the completely naked black king, and many weak black pawns to attack. Dworakowska – Areshchenko, Gibraltar, 2005. c) 17...0–0!? is an interesting attempt of improving. White should probably play 18.gxh6 (18.0–0–0 ¦b8 does not seem appealing.) 18...¥xg3† 19.hxg3 £xg3† 20.¢f1 ¥f5 21.£d4 Now Black played 21...¦ae8?, which should have lost in one move to 22.¥g4!!, in Dworakowska - Calotescu, Gothenburg 2005. Better is 21...¢h7 when White is better after for example 22.¥d3 ¥xd3† 23.£xd3† £xd3† 24.cxd3². 13.£e2† The point of White’s play. White gets the clearly better game now. 13...¥e7 14.¤xc6 Of course not 14.0–0–0?? £f4†–+. 14...bxc6 15.¥g3! £g6 15...£b4† 16.c3 and, thanks to £e2, the b2pawn is protected. 16.£e5! ¦g8 17.gxh6!
Finally! White secures his extra pawn. 17...£xc2 17...¥f5!? 18.¥e2! ¥xc2 19.0–0 and with his king in the centre Black is helpless against all the threats. 17...£xh6 With this move Black is just accepting to play a pawn down. 18.¥f4 £g6 (18...£e6 19.£xe6 ¥xe6 20.g3 was seen in Luther -Abreu, Havana 2001. Black had no compensation for the pawn.) 19.0–0–0± With a safe king and an extra pawn White has a clear advantage. 18.¥e2 ¦g5 Desperation! 18...£g6 19.¥h4! is very uncomfortable for Black. 19.£h8†! ¢d7 20.£c3+This finishes all Black’s hopes. 20...£xc3† 20...£e4 21.0–0 £xe2 22.¦ae1 and the various threats cannot be parried anymore. 21.bxc3 ¥f6 22.0–0 After this move everything is clear. The passed pawn on h6 decides the game. 22...¥xc3 23.¦xf7† ¢e6 24.¦af1 ¥d7 25.¥h4 ¦g6 26.¥h5 1–0 Now after 26…¦xh6 27.¥g4† White wins a piece, so Black resigned. The early £c7 is another sideline. Black wants to play b7-b5 without allowing e4-e5. If White
The Najdorf does not react to this plan and slowly develops, Black will kick White’s knight on c3 by playing b7-b5-b4. Black is doing fine if White has to move this knight to e2 or a4. There are many tactical lines but I cannot recommend them. Basically, if White gets the chance to take on f6 and Black has to recapture with the g-pawn White should do it. The arising position is more common in the Rauzer Defence, so I advise the reader to study this chapter as well. Game 4 Khalifman - Lautier Moscow 2001 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 e6 7.f4 £c7 With this move Black wants to trick White in his set-up. If he goes for £d1–f3 and castling queenside Black quickly plays b7-b5-b4. Since at this early stage of the game there is no ¤d5 - sac possible the c3-knight has to be moved backwards, which is a big concession.
8.¥xf6 On the other hand there is the chance to break Black’s pawn chain, since Black has not played either ¤b8-d7 or ¥f8-e7. In my opinion, this is the most principled way to treat the £c7-line. 8.£f3 is often played in this position. 8...b5 (Black decides not to enter one of the main lines by playing 8...¤bd7 or ¥e7.) 9.¥xf6 gxf6 10.e5 d5 (10...¥b7 11.£h5 with the idea of ¤d4xe6
15
and White is better here.) 11.exf6 b4 12.¤xd5 exd5 13.0–0–0 ¥b7 and, after studying this position for some time, I came to the conclusion that White should not risk this piece sacrifice. 8...gxf6 9.£d2 9.¥e2 is another way of setting up the pieces for White. Generally I do not think the white king belongs on the kingside. 9...¤c6 10.¤b3 b5 11.0–0 ¥b7 and Black will castle queenside and aim for the standard break d6-d5. 9...b5 Pushing the b-pawn is in the spirit of the variation. The drawback is that the black king will never find a safe spot on the queenside. 9...¤c6 10.0–0–0 ¥d7 11.¢b1 h5 12.¥c4 0–0–0 13.¤xc6 £xc6 14.¥b3 ¢b8 15.¦hf1² was seen in Topalov –Anand, Dortmund 1997. 10.¥d3 10.a3 ¥b7 11.¥e2 with the idea of castling kingside is another option, but Black can even stop this plan by playing £c7-b6. 10...¥b7 11.0–0–0 ¤d7 Black cleverly keeps the knight because it will be strongly placed on c5. After 11...¤c6 12.¤xc6 White is better. 12.¦he1 0–0–0 13.f5 ¤c5 14.a3 White has to secure the c3-square for his knight. 14...¢b8 15.¢b1 h5 16.£e3 ¥h6 17.£h3 £e7
18.£f3 ½–½
16
Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
Here the players agreed a draw. In my opinion White could have continued the game. Instead of 18.£f3 I prefer: a) 18.b4 OK, it is not everybody’s taste to open one’s king, but getting rid of the c5 knight is worth it. 18...¤xd3 19.¦xd3 ¦de8 20.¦ed1 with pressure. Or: b) 18.¥e2 Hitting on h5. 18...e5 (18...¤xe4? 19.¤xe4 ¥xe4 20.¥f3 and White wins) 19.¤b3 ¤xe4 20.¤d5 ¥xd5 21.¦xd5 and White has good compensation. He has play on the light squares and against Black’s king. Great players have their own openings is an old saying which is difficult to fulfil in our time, since most of the sensible (and even most of the stupid) moves from the starting position have been played already. However GM Polugayevsky invented 7…b5, played it and published a lot of analysis on it, so this system took his name: the Polugayevsky Variation. The idea is to kick the c3 knight as early as possible. White is forced to take counter measures and the game develops in a very tactical way. What was a tremendous workload back in the 70s and 80s can now be done quickly with a computer program. Nevertheless the work of GM Polugayevsky will always be remembered. Game 5 Leko - Ghaem Maghami Yerevan 2001 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 e6 7.f4 b5 This is the aggressive move that was played and analysed deeply by the Russian GM Lev Polugayevsky. 8.e5 The only way to deal with b7-b5 successfully. Otherwise Black just manages to kick White’s knight with b5-b4. 8...dxe5 8...h6? (this move does not promise Black much here) 9.¥h4 g5 10.fxg5 ¤h7 11.£h5 hxg5 12.¥g3 ¥g7 13.0–0–0 and White had
a big advantage in Kasparov - Ehlvest, Baku 1978. 9.fxe5 £c7 The idea behind Black’s play. He does not lose material, but White gains a lot of time. 10.exf6 There is also 10.£e2 but it is not in the spirit of White’s set-up. 10...£e5† 11.¥e2 £xg5 12.0–0 12.£d3 is considered as the main alternative here. Bringing the white king out of the line of fire is, in my opinion, the better option.
12...¦a7 Black’s defence is based on this idea: the rook goes to d7. 12...£e5 was for a long time considered the main line, but is now less popular in practice. It is considered in the next game. Not the natural 12...¥b7? 13.¥f3 when Black’s position cannot be saved: a) 13...¥xf3 14.£xf3 ¦a7 (14...¥c5 15.£xa8 as in Bisset - Martinez, e-mail 1994 offers Black no compensation) 15.¦ad1 £e5 16.¦fe1 £xf6 17.£g3 ¤d7 18.¤d5 £d8 19.¤c6 and White wins. b) 13...£e3† 14.¢h1 ¥xf3 15.¦xf3 £e5 16.£d2! ¥d6 17.g4 b4 18.¤f5!! After this Black is done for. 18...¥c7 19.¦e1 £xh2† 20.£xh2 ¥xh2 21.fxg7 ¦g8 22.¤d5 ¤d7 23.¢xh2 ¢d8 24.¤de7 1–0, Stripunsky - Jaracz, Poland 1995. c) 13...¦a7 14.¤xe6!! An absolute stunner.
The Najdorf 14...fxe6 (14...£e3† 15.¢h1 fxe6 16.fxg7! and it is the end of the world) 15.f7† ¢e7 16.£d4 The key move. At best Black will be an exchange down with a ruined position. 16...¢xf7 17.¥xb7† ¢e8 18.¤e4 ¦xb7 19.¤xg5 ¦d7 20.£e5 1–0, Kaehmann - Hamburg, Ruhrgebiet 1999. 13.£d3 ¦d7 14.¤e4 £e5 14...£d5?! is worse than the text. The game Sulskis – Stocek, Isle of Man 2002 went as follows: 15.c3 ¤c6 16.¤xc6 £xc6 17.£e3 ¥b7 18.¥f3 and Black still could not free his position from White’s attack. 15.¤f3! 15.c3?! ¥b7 16.¥f3 ¥xe4 17.¥xe4 gxf6 and White does not have enough compensation for the pawn. 15...£xb2 As in many tactical lines Black is forced to take some material. After 15...£c7 16.£e3 ¥b7 17.c4 ¥xe4 18.£xe4 gxf6 19.cxb5 £b6† 20.¢h1 axb5 21.a4!. White simply has a great attack for no risk at all. The game Vasquez – Arancibia, Maipu 2003 was soon 1–0. 16.£e3 ¥b7 17.a4 b4
After 17...£b4 Black could not solve all his problems following 18.c4 ¥xe4 19.£xe4 £c5† 20.¢h1 b4 21.£f4 ¥d6 (a serious commitment, but 21...¤c6 22.¦ad1 £f5 23.£e3 ¦xd1 24.¦xd1 £xf6 25.£b6 is no fun either) 22.fxg7 ¦g8 23.£h6 ¥e5 24.£xh7 ¦xg7 25.£h8† and
17
soon 1–0 in Rodriguez Cespedes - Stangl, Biel 1988. 17...¥xe4 does not solve Black’s problems. 18.£xe4 ¥c5† 19.¢h1 gxf6 20.axb5 and White wins back the material and keeps a clear advantage. 18.¦ab1 18.c3 This move is an old recommendation. The text is better. 18...¥xe4 19.£xe4 gxf6 and the best White can get is a repetition by following Black’s queen with his rooks. 18...£xc2 18...£a3 19.c3 Only now does White play this move. Black cannot finish his development and is in trouble. 19.¤fg5! £c7 Black is in serious trouble as any computer shows. Nowadays any program can analyse this tactical position far better than any human. 19...h6!? does not help either. 20.¦bc1 £xc1 21.¦xc1 hxg5 22.£g3 ¤c6 23.¥xa6 and White wins. 19...g6 20.¦fc1 £a2 21.¥c4 and White wins again...
20.¦xb4! Opening up the position, after this blow there is no longer a defence. 20...¥xe4 21.¤xe4 ¥xb4 Allowing a nice finish. 22.fxg7 ¦g8 23.¤f6† ¢d8 24.¤xg8 ¥c5 25.¤f6! ¥xe3† 26.¢h1 ¢c8 27.¤xd7 1–0
18
Experts vs. the Sicilian, 2nd edition
In the next game we shall continue analysing the Polugayevsky Variation. Compared to a line like 7…Nbd7 it might seem less relevant. But first of all many club players really like to play this way, as there is something macho about it. Secondly, the knowledge necessary for playing an opening is not necessarily always centered around the critical lines. Game 6 Wosch - Nordin e-mail 2001 Sometimes a relatively weak player (here 2000 elo) plays at the level of a grandmaster for the entire length of a game. This is the case with this wonderful game. Some might think that this is because of computer assistance, as it is an e-mail game, but looking this game over with my own computer does not suggest this at all. On the contrary! 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.¥g5 e6 7.f4 b5 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 £c7 10.exf6 £e5† 11.¥e2 £xg5 12.0–0 £e5 13.¤f3
13...¥c5† 13...£xf6 14.¤e4 £xb2 15.¤fg5 and, with most of his pieces in the starting position, Black is helpless against White’s various threats. 13...£e3† 14.¢h1 ¤d7 15.¦e1 £a7 16.fxg7 ¥xg7 17.£d6 was played in a blindfold rapid game between Leko and Ivanchuk. It seems that White still has some pressure here.
14.¢h1 £xf6 15.¤e4 £e7 16.¤e5! The most dangerous. 16.¤fg5 f5! has proven to be nothing. 17.¥h5† g6 18.¤xh7 ¢f7! and Black was OK in several games.
16...f5? Now this does not work. 16...0–0 is the only move. Now White should play 17.¤xf7! and then we have: a) 17...¤c6? 18.¥h5!± is no good for Black. I have analysed the following line 18...¥d4 19.c3 ¥e5 20.£g4! with a winning attack. 20...¥d7 21.¤h6† ¢h8 22.¦f7 ¦xf7 23.¤xf7† ¢g8 24.¤h6† ¢h8 25.¤g5 g6 26.¦f1! ¦f8 27.¤hf7† ¢g8 28.£h4 and Black has no defence. b) 17...¥b7!? is an alternative. 18.¥d3. Nunn’s suggestion. (18.¤xc5 £xc5 19.£d6 £xd6 20.¤xd6 ¦xf1† 21.¦xf1 ¥d5= was played in Bartoli - Innorta, e-mail 1998) 18...¦xf7 19.¦xf7 £xf7 (19...¢xf7 20.£h5†±) 20.¤xc5 ¥d5 21.¤e4 £g6 22.£e2 and I think White has good chances for achieving an advantage here. He has ideas of ¤e4-c3 and a2-a4, creating further weaknesses in the Black camp. c) 17...¦xf7 18.¤xf7 ¢xf7 19.¥h5† ¢g8 (19...g6 20.¤xc5 ¦a7 21.¤e4 ¢g7 22.¥f3 ¦d7 23.£e1² Kover - De Almeida, corr. 1980.) 20.¤xc5 Now we have the following options: c1) 20...£xc5 21.£d8† 1–0. Lukas - Feist, corr. 1997. Black probably overlooked 21...£f8 22.¥f7†!+-. c2) 20...¤c6 21.£f3 ¥d7 22.¤xd7 £xd7 23.¦d1± Schneider - Riedmueller, corr. 1996.
The Najdorf c3) 20...¤d7? 21.¤xe6!± Beliavsky Polugaevsky, Moscow 1979. c4) 20...¦a7 21.¤d3! A new idea, but not a very surprising one, as the alternatives are less encouraging. (21.¤e4 ¦d7 22.£e2 ¤c6 23.c3 ¤e5 24.¦f1 ¥b7= Denaro - Bosco, corr. 1990, and 21.£d4 ¦c7! 22.¤e4 ¦xc2 23.¦f1 ¤d7!³ Mauro - Soranzo, corr. 1990.) 21...¤c6 22.¥f3 ¤d4 (22...¥b7? 23.£g1! ¦a8 24.¤c5±) And now White has many ways to proceed. 23.¥e4² is probably easiest. Of course Black can fight for a draw in such an endgame, he is only slightly worse, but certainly White would accept this position from the opening. 17.¥h5† g6 18.¤xg6 hxg6 19.¥xg6† ¢f8 20.¤xc5 ¦h6! The alternatives are not cheerful. 20...¢g7 is met strongly with 21.¤xe6†! ¥xe6 (No better fate is to be found after 21...¢xg6 22.¤f4†! [22.¦xf5?! ¢xf5 23.£d3† ¢xe6 24.¦e1† ¢f7 25.¦xe7† ¢xe7 26.£e4† ¥e6 27.£xa8²] 22...¢g7 [22...¢h6 23.£h5†+-] 23.¦f3!. This manouevre is not that easy to find, but very logical. Black has no way to bring his pieces to the defence of the king. 23...£e5 [23...£d7 24.¦d3 £c6 25.¦c3 £d7 26.£f3+-] 24.¦g3† ¢f6 25.£f3 ¦h6 26.¤h5† ¢e6 [26...¦xh5 27.£xh5 and Black has no way to survive the attack] 27.¦d1 and the black king cannot escape.) 22.¥xf5 £h4 (22...¥xf5 23.¦xf5 £h4 24.£d6! transposes) 23.£d6 ¥xf5 24.¦xf5 ¦e8 25.¦af1 ¦a7 26.¦5f4 £d8 27.£c5 ¦c7 28.£h5 1–0. Uboldi - Lalanne, San Antonio de Padua 2001. 20...£xc5 21.£d8† ¢g7 22.£g5 with a winning attack. A crucial line is 22...¦xh2† 23.¢xh2 £e5† 24.¢g1 £f6 25.£g3 £xg6 26.£c3†+-. 21.¥h5 Probably the best move. 21.£g4!? £xc5 22.£g5 ¦xg6 23.£xg6 ¦a7÷ 21.¤xe6† ¥xe6 22.¥xf5 ¥f7 looks unclear to me. 21...¤c6! 21...£xc5? 22.£d8† ¢g7 23.¦f3 ¦xh5 24.¦g3† ¢f7 25.£g8† ¢e7 26.¦g7† ¢f6 (26...¢d6 27.£f8† ¢d5 28.¦d1† and White
19
wins the queen.) 27.¦f7† ¢e5 28.£g3† ¢d5 29.¦d1† and it is all over.
22.b4! This move makes a lot of sense: White sacrifices his extra pawn to derail the knight. If this or the alternative 22.¤e4!? is stronger I do not know. The position needs a lot of independent analysis before anything can be said with certainty. I have tried to give some variations here that I believe are critical, however they cannot be said to be conclusive in any way. 22...¥b7 (22...e5?! is the computer’s first choice, but after 23.g4!? [Seems strange, but it works!] 23...¤d4 24.£d2 £g7 25.c3 ¥b7 26.¦ae1! White has a very strong attack) 23.£g4!? ¤d4 (23...¦d8 24.¤g3 ¤e5 25.£f4 £g7 26.¦ae1 ¦xh5 27.¦xe5 ¦h6 28.¦fe1±) This position is probably critical. I have tried to outline the possibilities here, but cannot give full conclusions. a) 24.¦ad1!? ¤xc2 25.¦d3 ¦h7 (25...¥d5 26.¦g3 £h7 27.¤g5 £d7 28.¤h3! £h7 29.¥g6 ¦xg6 30.£xg6 £xg6 31.¦xg6²) 26.¤g5 ¢g8 27.£h4 ¦g7 28.¦g3 ¦f8= b) 24.c3? ¤c2 25.¦ad1 ¤e3 26.£f4 ¦xh5 27.£xe3 £h4–+ c) 24.¤g3! £f6 25.£f4 e5 26.£f2² The following analysis might be correct, but chances are that they are a bit too long to be bulletproof. 26...f4 27.c3 ¤e6 28.¦ad1 ¦d8 29.£b6 ¦xd1 30.¥xd1 ¥xg2† Far from the only option here. 31.¢xg2 ¦xh2† 32.¢g1!? (32.¢xh2 £h4†=)
Genius in the Background By
Tibor Károlyi with Nick Aplin
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Preface by Tibor Károlyi
4 5
Chapter 1 – Topalov’s Junior Trainer Chapter 2 – Versatility Chapter 3 – A Gentleman – highly respected and fondly remembered Chapter 4 – Kasparov’s Junior Trainer Chapter 5 – In Love with Chess until the End Chapter 6 – Kasparov’s ‘Half-Brother’ Chapter 7 – The Endgame Expert Chapter 8 – The Man whose Life was Saved by Chess Chapter 9 – “When Garry played I was with him” Chapter 10 – The Stars of a developing Chess Nation Chapter 11 – The Moscow Magician
7 39 82 113 148 196 220 260 278 320 342
Index
381
Preface by Tibor Károlyi Attila József, who died in 1937, was one of Hungary’s greatest ever poets, but while he was alive he received very little appreciation for his art. Andor Nemeth was one of his few close friends; he understood the high level of his art, but never expressed this to the poet. Years later, when József ’s poems had become part of Hungarian culture and were taught in every Hungarian school, and many streets had been named after him, Nemeth was asked why he had not expressed his appreciation (József was longing for it). He answered, “I am sorry, but when I beat somebody three times out of five at chess, I can’t consider him a genius.” Chess society has a similar problem; we only value the winners over the board. Yes, champions have the greatest impact on the game, and they deserve enormous respect for their legacy, but the personalities who did not score so well should also enjoy our respect. I am fortunate in that I have already had the chance to write about Judit Polgar, Garry Kasparov, and Anatoly Karpov – altogether five books, four of them with Nick Aplin. The chance to analyse and portray the creations of these chess giants naturally made me appreciate their play very much. Although I will always remain proud of these books, there have of course been countless other articles and publications devoted to the achievements of these and other famous chess players. At the same time, I know of several other chess personalities who have accomplished a great deal, yet remain unknown to the great majority of chess fans. Therefore the idea occurred to me to write a book devoted to these unknown talents. By doing so, I hoped to create a book that would be truly unique in its subject matter, and would enable the chess public to become acquainted with a selection of lesser known but still outstanding personalities. I was happy that when I mentioned the idea to my co-author Nick Aplin, he was immediately enthusiastic about it. Most of the people featured in this book have recorded significant achievements, yet they remain virtually anonymous to the great majority of chess fans. A few of them are known amongst certain segments of the chess world, but none are known as widely as I believe they deserve to be. Some are still alive, while others, I am sorry to say, are no longer with us. Some I know or knew well, and others I have never met. All have made their unique contributions to the world of chess, and all have their own – sometimes very moving – stories. Instead of simply writing about each individual in a routine way, I took a couple of additional steps that I believe have added significantly to the value of each chapter. Wherever possible, I conducted interviews (some in person, and others by e-mail) with the featured individuals, which have subsequently been reproduced within the text. I hope that after reading them the reader will feel as though he has got to know the person at least a little better than before. Secondly, I asked a number of strong players, some of whom are simply legendary in chess, to write a short appraisal of the individuals included here. I never expected to receive so many contributions from so many great players! I found this response tremendously gratifying, and believe it underlines the value of the book.
6
Genius in the Background
Your author, who is first of all a junior trainer who desires to pass on knowledge, believes that getting acquainted with these remarkable chess personalities will deepen anyone’s understanding of our game. I knew from the outset it would be difficult to decide which individuals to feature in the book. There are doubtlessly a great number of worthy candidates – including plenty that remain unknown to this author. I wanted to include people who excelled in different areas of chess. Thus over the course of the book the reader will become acquainted with outstanding chess players, junior trainers, study composers, as well as a few individuals who made significant achievements in more than one of these categories. There were a few candidates who, through no fault of their own, did not make the final cut. For instance, I considered the possibility of devoting chapters to the great Nona Gaprindashvili and the late incomparable Tony Miles, but eventually decided that the inclusion of such well known players would be inconsistent with the overall scheme of the book. Naturally, the choice was influenced by my personal relationships with some of the featured players. A different author may, quite legitimately, have presented a very different selection of subjects. But thinking in terms of the value that I can offer as an author, it is obvious that I can write a far more fitting tribute to a person whom I know extremely well, as opposed to a total stranger. Of course, there were certain individuals whose accomplishments were so impressive that I felt compelled to include them in the book, despite never having met them in person. In the end, the final choice of player selection was always going to rely on a certain amount of subjective judgement. I am happy with the choices I made, and I hope that the reader will agree. All that remains is to thank you for reading this book. I hope by the time you reach the end, you will agree that these people are indeed remarkable and enduring chess personalities. Tibor Károlyi Soltvadkert, Hungary October 2009
Chapter 1
Petko Atanasov
Topalov’s Junior Trainer
Veselin Topalov in the middle, Petko Atanasov on the right In 2005, Veselin Topalov dominated top-level chess in a way that very few have done before. Not many world champions have had a year like he did. Topalov went from being a strong contender to an undisputed star, and the same happened to his manager for many years, Silvio Danailov. And yet, of all the chess people I have asked, there has not been a single one who knew the name of his junior trainer. Actually, I think hardly anybody knows who Petko Atanasov is and what he has contributed to chess, while everybody has heard of Danailov, and knows the successes he has achieved together with Topalov. This is not only unfair to Atanasov, but damaging for chess in general. We cannot expect the high level of junior coaching we have seen in the 20th Century to continue, when we do not reward or recognize the effort of the trainers. (It is therefore pleasing to see the very positive words of acknowledgement from both Topalov and Danailov about Atanasov at the end of this chapter.) It is no laughing matter that Hungary, with a long tradition of great players – Maroczy, Szabo, Portisch, Ribli, the Polgar sisters and most recently Peter Leko, does not currently have a world top twenty player in the under-20 age group in either the boys or the girls section. At the latest World Youth Championships, played in twelve different age groups, Hungary only achieved a single tenth place. And the years before were no better. The lack of dedicated and motivated trainers is creating this crisis. Obviously the Hungarian situation is worse than most, but my travels have confirmed that the situation is deteriorating in many other countries as well. For example, the Bulgarian juniors are not doing well at these championships either.
8
Genius in the Background
Undoubtedly Veselin Topalov is a rare talent with a number of special qualities required to become a great player. (Actually I think he has the most professional attitude of all the world champions. Kasparov sometimes wasted energy on politics, whereas Topalov has been able to focus on chess continuously.) But the career of a champion does not start with his victories, but with his first moves as a junior; in the case of Topalov, in the Bulgarian city Ruse. This was where he met Atanasov. Atanasov was born in the village of Karan Varbovka, outside Ruse, in 1948. In 1955 his family moved to Ruse to look for a better quality of life. It was at this point that he learned to play chess in school. There were many chess tournaments there and back then chess was a very popular ‘sport’ (sport for the masses, as it was known under Communism). Thus he encountered our ancient game and took his first lessons. Who was your own trainer? “There were no professional trainers at that time. All studies and competitions were amateur. My first trainer was an ambitious amateur chess player – Nikola Chervenovodski. He advised me how and what I must learn from chess theory. He also gave me chess books that were very hard to find during those times.” I checked the database – you were a good junior player. How many times did you represent Bulgaria? “During the period 1963-66, I was the national junior champion (under 20 years) of Bulgaria 3 times. For some reason, most probably political, I did not take part in world junior events. As a student I participated in three world championships. The first was in Austria in 1968 – the team took the fourth place. I won the board prize on third board with 9½/12 points. (See the game against Marangunic in the games section on page 17.) At my second Student Olympiad in Dresden in 1969 the Bulgarian team finished third. I was the second best on second board with 9½/14. (See the game against Lombard in the games section, page 19.) Finally, I played for the Bulgarian national team at the Under-26 team World Championships in Graz, Austria, in 1972. We took fifth place. On board three I scored 9 points from 14 games.” Who was your trainer when you were a junior? “Unfortunately in this period there wasn’t any particular player around to have a big influence over my maturation as a chess player. My opponents took on this role. First of all I raised my chess level with self-training – learning from the games of popular chess players.” Who are your favourite players – do you have any particular chess icon? “My favourite player is Mikhail Tal. He is an exceptional fighter and a distinctive chess talent. As a person and a professional, Tal is unique right up to the present day!” Were you a chess professional? “From 1976-1991 I was professional chess trainer at the ‘Dunav’ (Danube) chess club in Ruse.”
Chapter 1 - Petko Atanasov
9
Do you have a ‘best’ game? Which was your best tournament? “I like my Dueball game from Dresden. (It can be found on page 20 in the games section.) There was a regular ‘Kamen Piskov’ Memorial in Ruse. In 1983 I was the winner and maybe this was my best tournament.” What do you think is the best part of your chess? “My strong point in chess is the middlegame. This is because the books that I read were mostly about chess combinations.” (The games against Ilivski and Peev from the games section show this excellently.) How did you develop your endgame play? “For several years I devoted my time very intensively to the endgame. From my long experience in chess, I have come to the conclusion that young players must learn the endgame in detail in order to absorb fundamental knowledge about chess.” (The games against Lalic and Gazis in the games section show the benefits of this approach.) When did you start working with Topalov? “I started to work with Veselin in 1986. I did not know him personally until his mother came to me and entrusted me to take him into my group. At that time I was teaching a group of advanced children between 12-14 years old. He was about ten years old. For a ten-year-old boy he had the necessary basic chess knowledge. But he did not know the higher chess rules: observing the basic principles and laws, building a strong strategy in a given game. In the beginning Veselin wasn’t so different from the rest of the children in the group. But after two years of work with him, he had changed a lot. In order to become a very good chess player you need to acquire two things: chess knowledge and chess thought. The second characteristic is very important and it’s hard to perfect someone’s level of expertise in this area. The chess thought factor demands many hours at the chessboard, many hours analysing specific positions. I then realized that this boy had enormous potential and that his future was in professional chess. With much effort I persuaded his mother to agree to send him to a sport school rather than to a school for foreign languages. This gave him a much better chance to develop himself as chess player.” In what ways did you work with him? How many sessions did you have with him per week, and how long did the sessions last? “Veselin undertook exercises lasting 2 hours three times a week in the beginning. Gradually his training time was increased. When he started to learn in sport school, I trained him individually. We had exercises every day and weekly we had to have about 30-36 hours.” Any memorable game he played when you were coaching him? “Vesko participated for the first time in an international tournament ‘Albena’ when he was 11 years old. He produced a very good result.” Here is one of his victories in the tournament:
Genius in the Background
10
Veselin Topalov – Dimitar Marholev Albena 1986
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¥c5 4.0-0 ¤f6 5.c3 ¤xe4 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 ¥b6 8.d5 ¤e7 9.£e2 f5 10.¤c3 ¤xc3 11.bxc3 0-0 12.¥g5 ¥c5 13.¦ad1 h6 14.d6! hxg5 15.¤xg5 g6 16.£e5 c6 17.dxe7 £xe7 18.¥c4† d5 (diagram) 19.¦xd5! £xe5 20.¦xe5† ¢g7 21.¦xc5 1-0
1222222223 t+v+ Tl+5 Oo+ W + 5 +o+ +o+5 + VoQoN 5 +b+ + +5 + P + + 5 p+ + PpP5 + +r+rK 5 79
What openings did you teach him? “In the beginning his opening repertoire was very modest. With White we trained with 1.d4 and had various schemes to meet Black’s defences. With Black against 1.d4 we practised the Old Indian Defence. We practised the French Defence against 1.e4, but later he refused to play it and started to play the Sicilian Defence instead. When his rating increased Vesko started to play 1.e4 and 1.¤f3 and many more openings.” Did you notice you often sacrifice the exchange? He is known for that as well. Did you work on it together? “The sacrifice of material (a pawn or even a piece) is a basic part of any chess combination. Of course I have in my practice many such examples. From the beginning Veselin coordinated the interaction between queen and minor pieces perfectly. A sacrifice of the exchange was his basic tactical approach.” As you will see in the games section, Atanasov is fond of sacrificing the exchange, something that has become a trademark tool of Topalov’s. The following example is remarkable:
1222222223 t+v+t+l+5 +oW Oo+ 5 o+o+ +o+5 + PmP +o5 + + + +5 +q+ + Pp5 pP B Pb+5 + R R K 5 79
Veselin Topalov – Gata Kamsky Sofia 2006
(diagram) 26.e6! ¥xe6 27.¦xe6!! fxe6 28.¦e1 29.£d3 ¢h7 30.¦e5 ¤f6 31.£e3 32.¥e4 ¢f7 33.¥c2 ¦ad8 34.£h6 35.¥a5 £d4 36.¥c3 £c4 37.¥b3 38.¥xe6† ¢e8 39.¢g2 ¦f8 40.£g7 41.¥f5 ¦f7 42.¦xe7† 1–0
£d7 ¢g7 ¦g8 £d3 ¦d5
20
Genius in the Background
defending the g3-knight. 19.¦hf1 f5! Black wins back the piece with a huge initiative. 15...f5! Opening the position. 16.e5!?
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 + O + Oo5 o+ O + +5 + O Po+ 5 + V + +5 +pN + Np5 pBp+ +p+5 R +q+k+r5 79
16...¥b7! White’s last move kept the f-file closed but it also opened this diagonal. 17.£d3 ¥e4 17...£g5! Bringing the queen up at once would also inflict pain. 18.£d2? Controlling the h5-square with 18.£e2 was a bit better, although it is doubtful that it would be enough to save the game. 18...£g5 (Or 18...£h4!? 19.¤h5 dxe5 – Black gets tremendous play here as well.) 19.¤h5 ¥xe5 White is in huge trouble. 18...£h4! After this White is simply lost. 19.£e1 £f4† 20.¢e2 ¥xg2 21.¦f1 ¥xf1† 22.¤xf1 ¦ae8 0–1 The end of the game was just a rout. Here is a game where Atanasov attacks successfully from an innocent-looking position, in a manner reminiscent of Tal.
Petko Atanasov – Juergen Dueball Dresden 1969
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.g3 This is a rare combination of variations. 5...¥g7 6.¥g2 ¥e6 Masters more often take on c3: 6...¤xc3 7.bxc3 c5, with typical play against the enemy centre. 7.¤f3 0–0 8.0–0 c5 8...¤c6!? is possible. 9.¤e4 ¤a6 10.¤eg5 ¥c8 It was worth considering 10...£b6!? 11.¤xe6 fxe6 with a very active position. 11.dxc5 ¤xc5? After 11...e6! Black should have a playable position.
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 Oo+ OoVo5 + + +o+5 + Mm+ N 5 + + + +5 + + +nP 5 pP +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
12.¤xh7! This surprising tactical shot wins a pawn. 12...¦e8 13.¤hg5 ¤b4? Looking for counterplay on the queenside, but he leaves the kingside vulnerable. Instead Black should just develop with 13...e6. His pieces stand quite well, so it would still take a lot of effort for White to convert his extra pawn. When something goes wrong in a game one often does better to act like a hedgehog and let the opponent try to win the position.
Chapter 1 - Petko Atanasov 14.¥d2 a5 15.a3 ¤ba6 The knight is out of the game here.
1222222223 t+vWt+l+5 +o+ OoV 5 m+ + +o+5 O M + N 5 + + + +5 P + +nP 5 P BpPbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
16.£c2! If 16.¦c1!? ¥xb2? 17.¦xc5 ¤xc5 18.£c2 ¥xa3 19.£a2 wins, but 16...¥f5! keeps Black in the game. 16...£b6? The lesser evil was 16...¥e6! 17.¤xe6 ¤xe6 18.¦ac1 when White still wins, but it would take some work. 17.£c4!! Many people would just try to win with the extra pawn, but Atanasov makes the effort to find the best move and goes straight for the kill. 17...¤e6
1222222223 t+v+t+l+5 +o+ OoV 5 mW +m+o+5 O + + N 5 +q+ + +5 P + +nP 5 P BpPbP5 R + +rK 5 79
21
18.£h4! Quite a remarkable queen manoeuvre. In two moves, from a quiet Catalan-esque positional game, Atanasov turns it into a strong attack against the opponent’s king. 18...£xb2 19.¦ac1 Even more clinical was 19.£h7† ¢f8 20.¦ab1!, e.g. 20...£f6 21.¤e4 £f5 22.¥h6 f6 23.¤d4 and it is all over. 19...£xa3? After 19...¤xg5 20.¥xg5 £xa3 21.¥f4! White has a strong attack with ¤g5 the next move. 20.£h7†! Now Atanasov checkmates his German opponent. 20...¢f8 21.¤xe6† fxe6 After 21...¥xe6 22.¥h6 wins immediately. 22.£xg6 ¥d7
1222222223 t+ +tL +5 +o+vO V 5 m+ +o+q+5 O + + + 5 + + + +5 W + +nP 5 + BpPbP5 + R +rK 5 79
23.¤g5 ¢g8 24.¦c4! 1-0 It was a very well conducted attack. Here is a nice attacking game played by Atanasov some time later. This was his first game to be published in Chess Informant, although it was not annotated by either of the contestants. Grandmaster Bukic analysed it, meaning that the quality of the game was recognized by an independent expert.
Creating the Grandmaster Repertoire series seemed a natural idea. There is a glut of opening books at the Starting Out level. These books have certainly been refreshing, but they have almost completely replaced high-level opening books. As chess fans, we felt we were missing out, and because we can, we decided to do something about it. The books in the Grandmaster Repertoire series are written by grandmasters, edited by grandmasters, and will certainly be read by grandmasters. This does not mean that players who are not grandmasters cannot read them. We have worked hard to make our books clear in their presentation and to make it possible for the readers to decide the depth to which they want to study them. When we were young and trying to be up-and-coming, we understood that you do not have to remember everything in an opening book in order to use it. It is our hope that those readers who find this repertoire too extensive and detailed, will ignore many of the details. Even now that we are grandmasters, we see the bolded moves as what we want to memorize, and the notes as explanations and illustrations. It is our conviction that you will eventually be more successful by playing the main lines, simply because they are based on better moves. Instinctively most players know this, but they fear losing to a prepared line and thus turn to unambitious systems, or unhealthy surprises. The opponent will not be able to use his preparation but, sadly, will not need it. These sidelines generally end in uninspiring positions almost automatically. Possibly the main reason why high-level opening books have disappeared is the rise of databases. It has been assumed that there is no point in having traditional opening books anymore, as you can look it all up in the database. Some rather lazy authors have a system: collect a few hundred games from the database, give Fritz a few moments, then hit Print. Such books add nothing to chess literature. We have seen enough of them and have never wanted to add to that pile. In these days of multi-million game databases, we all have access to information, what is lacking is understanding. In the Grandmaster Repertoire series, very strong players will share their understanding and suggest strong new moves that are in no one else’s database. We are excited about this new series and hope that the reader will share some of that excitement. John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard
Contents
Key to symbols used & Bibliography Foreword by Grandmaster Boris Gelfand Foreword by the Author
The Catalan 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4...dxc4 and 5...¥d7 4...dxc4 and 5...c6 4...dxc4 and 5...¥b4† 4...dxc4 and 5...¤bd7 4...dxc4 and 5...c5 4...dxc4, 5...a6 and 6...b5 4...dxc4 and 5...b5 4...dxc4, 5...a6 and 6...¤c6 4...dxc4 and 5...¤c6 4...¥b4† 5.¥d2 ¥e7 4...¥e7, 5...0-0 and 6...¤bd7 4...¥e7, 5...0-0 and 6...dxc4
The Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
3...dxc4 3...¤f6 4.e3 g6 4...a6 Stonewall 4...¥g4 4...e6 Meran Style 4...¥f5 and 5...a6 4...¥f5 and 6...¥e4 6...¥g4 and 6...¥g6
6 7 8
13 25 39 51 63 87 99 111 129 151 185 203
247 255 267 281 287 297 307 315 329
The Queen’s Gambit 1.d4 d5 2.c4
22 23 24 25 26
2...¥f5 2...c5 Tarrasch Defence Albin Counter Gambit Chigorin Defence
The Queen’s Gambit Accepted 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3
343 349 355 369 389
27 Minor lines 28 3...¤f6 4.¥xc4 e6 5.¤f3 a6 6.0-0 c5 7.¥b3 29 7...b5
405 427 437
450
Index of variations
Key to symbols used ² ³ ± µ +– –+ = © „ ÷
White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality with compensation with counterplay unclear
? ?? ! !! !? ?! #
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate
Bibliography Sakaev and Semkov: The Queen’s Gambit Accepted – 3rd edition, Chess Stars 2008 Nigel Davies: Gambiteer II, Everyman Chess 2007 Palliser, Flear and Ward: Dangerous Weapons – The Queen’s Gambit, Everyman Chess 2008 Bologan: The Chebanenko Slav, New In Chess 2008 Vigorito: Play the Semi-Slav, Quality Chess 2008 Raetsky and Chetverik: The Catalan, Everyman Chess 2004 Levitov and Bareev: From London to Elista, New in Chess 2007 Periodicals New in Chess Magazine ChessBase Magazine Chess Informant Secrets of Opening Surprises TWIC Chess Today
Foreword Every chessplayer, from club level to World Champion, comes up against the problem of choosing an opening repertoire. How are you to keep your bearings amid the ocean of information – when hundreds of thousands of games are played worldwide every year, and the standard databases contain millions of them? Where are you to find the compass enabling you to obtain a position that suits your taste? Should you perhaps do what some renowned specialists advise, and abandon all thoughtful study of the opening phase – or put all your trust in analysis by computer programs? The readers of this book have hit upon the best way out of the dilemma: the brilliant theoretician and profound analyst Boris Avrukh is sharing his recommendations with them, in all the closed openings. Mikhail Botvinnik and Viktor Korchnoi used to divide chessplayers into those who create opening theory and those who utilize the results of these labours. Boris Avrukh belongs to the small number in the former category. I have played in the Israeli team together with Boris on several occasions, and could personally observe what encyclopaedic knowledge this exceptional player possesses. Grandmasters of the highest rank have fallen victim to his opening preparation. I am convinced that this will become a constant reference book for a great many readers. Boris Gelfand World Championship Runner-Up 2007
Foreword Years ago, when people were inquiring about my first move, or even looking at my games, they used to frown, because I always played 1.d4. It was not uncommon to be met with comments such as “Well, of course, this is pretty solid, but...” or “1.e4 will give you more chances to fight for an advantage,” and “Study 1.e4 and your results are sure to improve.” Time has moved on, and it is not only because I am a grandmaster that these comments have stopped. Over the last few years the trend has changed and players such as Leko, Morozevich, Svidler, Grischuk and Ponomariov, who used to almost exclusively play 1.e4 (except for an occasional 1.¤c3 from Morozevich, of course) are all now relying on 1.d4 more and more for important games. The most recent indicator of this trend was the match between Kramnik and Anand, where it was expected that Kramnik would rely on 1.d4, but a surprise that Anand, who otherwise exclusively plays 1.e4, also decided to open with the queen’s pawn. Actually you will have to go all the way back to 1995 before you find a World Championship match where 1.e4 won a game! Alexei Shirov expressed the sentiment behind this slide in his usual ironic tone in New In Chess Magazine 5/2008, when he said that 1.d4 was “quite a popular weapon against the Petroff, Marshall and so on.” As White struggles to find an advantage against these defences and the Berlin Wall, many have found that life on the other side is indeed greener. The reason for this is quite simple. The openings after 1.d4 are for good reason called closed, as it is harder to launch an immediate attack on the opponent when you have not opened up the development of the kingside pieces, as you do when you play 1.e4. Among other things, this leads to less forcing positions. For this reason, it is less likely that the opponent will manage to analyse the opening all the way to a position where there is not much play left, where the draw is close; the opportunity to outplay your opponent is kept alive. Obviously there are still many 1.e4 games played at the top level, but increasingly 1.e4 is only employed against the more bloodthirsty grandmasters, who will not try to vacuum the pieces off the board from move 1. So for this reason I am happy to be writing the Quality Chess repertoire book with 1.d4, while I feel a bit sorry for whoever will write the 1.e4 manual!
It was a big decision for me to begin writing an opening book. I have always liked annotating my own games and those of others, but at some level I had bought into the idea that, with the emergence of computers, opening books belong in the past, as it is now easy to get a reasonable overview of the theory of a specific line. Some authors write books that save the reader from doing this job, which is fine, but there are others, Sakaev and Marin spring to mind, who write books that go far beyond general knowledge. It was such a book I wanted to write. However, I do not have the literary skills of Mihail Marin and my way of thinking about chess is more concrete than his beautiful conceptual point of view. What I can do well is analyse, and I have spent the better part of a year analysing the repertoire I will present to the reader. I think it would be almost impossible for the readers to find as many new ideas as I have found in my work for this project. It is my sincere hope that these will be put to use and cause great frustration for those who face them. I have not willingly held anything back, but this experience has shown me that there are always new paths and that the scope for creativity in the opening is far from being exhausted. Having finished the first volume of what was intended to be only one book, but turned out to be a double volume, I have to admit that I think I have succeeded in creating something special. This book might not flow like a novel, but I am hoping that the chess will be engaging. As a player, the opening is one of my main strengths, but this does not mean that my memory resembles those of various fictional characters from colourful literature or from chess literature. The mind of a grandmaster is not much different from that of an amateur: the grandmaster has simply learned to apply certain skills, which give him an edge over the amateur. It is natural for the grandmaster to know more about openings than the amateur, just as it is normal for an Israeli to know more about Israel than, say, an American. However, this does not mean that an American cannot outperform an Israeli on a test about Israel. In a test, as in a game of chess, there are usually only twenty to forty questions to answer, and most of the extra knowledge of an Israeli or a grandmaster might be superfluous. As anyone who has ever had to sit a tough exam will know, you remember the things you have seen recently better, and you remember them better if you have seen them often. For this reason top players will continuously revise their preparation before important games, which, by the way, is one of the reasons for the blunders you see in top tournaments: for the players the games start much earlier than for the audience! By utilizing the preparation in this book you will be able to eliminate one of the grandmaster’s advantages. Only a few players in the world will have better preparation as White. However, the point I am making is far more important than separating fact and fiction: I want to draw the reader’s attention to the things that a well-prepared grandmaster does remember. Take the current World Champion, Vishy Anand, as an example. In an important game in the 2005 World Championship in San Luis he introduced a stunning novelty, 23.£d2!?, against Michael Adams, which it turned out he had prepared for his matches against Gata Kamsky back in the mid 1990s. When he was asked if he remembered
his analysis, his answer was that he remembered some key points and conclusions, but of course not the analysis. This is still very impressive of course, but Anand’s brain does not work differently from the rest of us, even if it seems to be running on a new generation of processors! What I would like the average reader to take away from this book is the general structure of an opening repertoire, which can be revisited again and again, which will not be refuted, even if it needs a bit of updating over the years. Grandmasters using this repertoire would probably be overjoyed if they could recall just the main lines, but because they work on their openings, they will often find for themselves the moves they have forgotten, because the understanding of the opening lasts longer. There is another difference between grandmasters and amateurs that I did not consciously think about until I worked on this project. While I often play the Catalan and the Slav, it is very rare that I play against the Tarrasch, the Albin Counter Gambit, or other openings with lesser reputations. For the amateur these minor lines are more the norm than the exception. So while I might spend fifty pages on the main line of the Catalan, this does not mean that this line is three or four times more important than the Tarrasch, just that there are three to four times more topical games with it. For the amateur it is likely that the smaller chapters are more important than the bigger ones and I would ask the reader to think about which chapters he reads, and not just read the book from the first page to the last. This is not a novel and the book’s structure is less important than each chapter’s structure. And I promise, the villain in black will, if not die, then at least suffer horribly in every chapter! This book is very detailed for several reasons. First of all, I think about chess in a very concrete way and the book expresses how I think. Secondly, chess is played by moves, and I found it acceptable to explain many of my ideas with moves, which also covers the third reason, which is my already stated limitation as a writer. I hope this level of detail will assist the reader in forming a deeper understanding of the opening, and maybe also leave a few traces of actual knowledge in his mind that can assist him at the board. Before I explain why I chose the lines I did for this book, I would like to say that it has been an honour for me to cooperate with Quality Chess on this project, especially with Jacob Aagaard, who has helped me a lot with the practical side of writing my first book. The Repertoire These two books are essentially based on my own repertoire. I have used more than ninety percent of the lines already, and the remaining ten I plan to use quickly before everyone knows that I have prepared them. The reason there is not a total overlap is a practical one. The theory in the Slav is advancing with such breathtaking speed that it does not make sense to recommend the most critical lines of the Meran or Moscow Gambit. Instead I have chosen an interesting new system with 4.e3, which has only become popular in recent years,
but has already won games at World Championship level. With some obvious exceptions, the repertoire is based on putting the king’s bishop on g2. This will be especially true in the second volume, but is already the case in this book, which spends more space on the Catalan than all the other openings combined. This is a serious repertoire intended to trouble strong opposition. The lines are threatening enough to force Black to make a concession, but this concession will be minor rather than mate or major loss of material. In modern chess, these minor concessions are often space and exchanging a bishop for a knight, so in many variations you will read versions of “White is a little better because of his space advantage and bishop pair.” Generally, the bishop Black surrenders will be the light-squared one. The Catalan I introduced the Catalan to my repertoire about 8 years ago and it has brought me a lot of success. First and foremost, I started playing the Catalan because it limits the opponent’s choice. There is no need to think about such openings as the Ragozin Defence, the Nimzo and Queen’s Indian or the Queen’s Gambit Declined. Also, there is something reassuring about playing the same five or six moves in the opening as White against almost everything, without feeling that you are letting go of an advantage; you certainly get the pieces on squares where you know what they are doing. It is a common misconception that the Catalan is an opening where White is trying to achieve a slight edge and squeeze the life out of his opponent. This is no more true than it is for the Spanish Opening. In both cases Black has the possibility of taking a defensive stand and exchanging his chances of counterplay for the passive hope of equalizing. However, if Black is ready for a fight, so is White! The sharp lines in Chapters 6 and 7 only differ from the sharp lines of, say, the Marshall Attack by being less likely to end in a draw by force. Besides the move order used in this book, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3, the Catalan is also used against the Queen’s/Nimzo-Indian set-up after 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3, when 3...d5 4.¤f3 transposes to our book, while 3...c5 leads to Benoni positions and 3...¥b4† to the Bogo-Indian: openings that will be covered in the second volume. The Slav As I mentioned, the choice to play 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.e3 against the Slav was mainly a practical one. But it is also a line that fits in with the rest of the repertoire rather well. White is not seeking an immediate tactical confrontation, but the position is rich in positional ideas and it is quite likely that White will gain the advantage of the two bishops: something I always enjoy.
The Queen’s Gambit When you play the Catalan you do not have to worry about the Queen’s Gambit in the same way, as after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3 we are right where we want to be. However, there are some sidelines White needs to know about. The most important of these was, to my surprise, the Tarrasch variation. This variation was deemed almost unplayable two decades ago, when Karpov created textbook examples as he outplayed the contender to his World Championship title, Garry Kasparov. However, in the lines with 9.¥g5 c4! I could find no advantage, as explained in Chapter 24. For this reason I chose an idea that was previously unknown to me. The Queen’s Gambit Accepted In this line there are two significant ways to play for an advantage. Either White plays the aggressive 3.e4, which I was thinking about employing in this book, or he plays 3.e3 and later on 7.¥b3!, as I eventually decided. The reason for this was that Quality Chess will publish a book by the Danish Grandmaster and well-known theoretician, Lars Schandorff, called Playing the Queen’s Gambit. Lars will recommend 3.e4 in a repertoire that is based mainly on gaining space. I thought it would be a disappointment for those who decide to purchase both books if we covered the same ground, so I chose 3.e3. This choice was a fortuitous one, as I am very pleased with the lines I ended up covering against this opening, not least because I managed to mate the leading manual for Black, The Queen’s Gambit Accepted, by the Chess Stars authors Sakaev and Semkov. Volume Two Volume Two should be published in the early spring of 2009. It will cover all the obvious Indian defences, such as the King’s Indian, the Gruenfeld, the Benko Gambit and so on. We will also be looking at two lines that could equally well have been in this volume. They arise after 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3, and now both 3...¥b4† and 3...c5 lead to positions which could either be classified under the Catalan, or under the Bogo-Indian and the Benoni. For aesthetic reasons I decided to leave them for the next volume. First of all, they do not arise after 1.d4 d5 and, secondly, I expect this will make the books closer to equal in length. If the latter of these observations will turn out to be true, only time will tell. Now it is time for me to get back to work on the second volume. I wish the reader all the best, and hope that he or she enjoys the book. Boris Avrukh Beersheba, October 28th 2008
er a pt Ch
1
The Catalan 4...dxc4 and 5...¥d7
1222222223 tM WlV T5 OoOv+oOo5 + +oM +5 + + + + 5 +oP + +5 + + +nP 5 pP +pPbP5 RnBqK +r5 79
Variation Index 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3 dxc4 5.¥g2 ¥d7 6.¤e5 ¥c6 7.¤xc6 ¤xc6 8.0–0 A) 8...¥e7 B) 8...¤d5 C) 8...£d7 9.e3 ¦b8 10.£e2 b5 11.b3 cxb3 12.axb3 C1) 12...¥b4 C2) 12...¦b6
Main line after 8.0-0
C1) after 17...¥e7
C2) after 14...¥d6
p 15 p 17 p 18 p 20 p 20
1222222223 t+ WlV T5 OoO +oOo5 +m+oM +5 + + + + 5 +oP + +5 + + + P 5 pP +pPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79
1222222223 + +l+ T5 O +wVoOo5 Om+oM +5 +q+ + + 5 + Pp+ +5 +p+ + P 5 B + PbP5 +n+ +rK 5 79
1222222223 + +l+ T5 R O +oOo5 TwVoM +5 +o+ + + 5 + P + +5 +p+ P P 5 + +qP P5 +nB +rK 5 79
Three options; A, B and C
18.¦c1!N
15.¥d2!N
14
The Catalan
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3 dxc4 5.¥g2 ¥d7
1222222223 tM WlV T5 OoOv+oOo5 + +oM +5 + + + + 5 +oP + +5 + + +nP 5 pP +pPbP5 RnBqK +r5 79
Recently this has been a rare continuation, but in the late 1980s it was regularly employed by the chess elite. In general Black’s idea is to play ...¥c6, but Black can react differently with ...c5 and ...¥c6, or even ...¥b5: everything depends on White’s next move. 6.¤e5 This move is supposed to be the reason 5...¥d7 went out of fashion. White has tried other options as well, such as 6.£c2 and 6.¤bd2, but Black was quite OK. 6...¥c6 This is a natural reaction. Putting the other piece on c6 looks rather dubious: 6...¤c6 7.¤xc4 After this Black’s light-squared bishop remains passive on d7. 7...¤d5 7...¥b4† 8.¤c3 ¤d5 9.£d3 (Razuvaev’s recommendation in Chess Informant 57 was 9.0–0 ¤xc3 [Much worse is 9...¥xc3 10.bxc3 ¤xc3 11.£d3 and White dominates with his pair of bishops, as Black cannot play 11...¤xd4 12.¦e1! ¤dxe2† 13.¦xe2
¤xe2† 14.£xe2 0–0 15.¥a3 ¦e8 16.¦d1 £c8 17.¤a5 c6 18.¤c4!+– with total domination.] 10.bxc3 ¥xc3 11.¦b1© This is worthy of consideration.) 9...£f6 10.e3 (There is no point in entering into the complications of 10.a3?! ¤xd4 11.axb4 ¤xb4 12.£b1 ¤bc2† 13.¢f1 ¤xa1 14.£xa1 ¤b3÷ with mutual chances.) 10...£g6 11.¥e4 (11.e4 would also lead to an advantage for White) 11...£h5 Razuvaev – Klovans, Bern 1993, and now simplest would have been 12.0–0 0–0 13.a3 ¥e7 14.¥g2 with a pleasant edge for White. 8.0–0 ¤b6 This position occurred in Babik – Husson, Stockerau 1991. I believe almost every knight’s move should give White an advantage, but I prefer logical play: 9.¤ba3 ¥e7 10.e3 0–0 11.¥d2 White has stable Catalan pressure. 7.¤xc6 ¤xc6 8.0–0 This move is stronger than 8.£a4 £d7 when Black is alright after 9.£xc4 ¤xd4 10.¥xb7 ¦b8 11.¥g2 ¥b4† as Black’s dynamic play fully compensates for his weaknesses on the queenside and White’s pair of bishops.
1222222223 t+ WlV T5 OoO +oOo5 +m+oM +5 + + + + 5 +oP + +5 + + + P 5 pP +pPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79
We have reached the first branching point. In this position Black has experimented with A) 8...¥e7 and B) 8...¤d5!?, but the main
Chapter 1 – 4...dxc4 and 5...¥d7 line continues to be C) 8...£d7. In addition to these, we should also have a quick look at: 8...¤xd4?! This has only occurred twice in practice, as Black quickly understood that after: 9.¥xb7 ¦b8 10.¥g2
1222222223 T WlV T5 O O +oOo5 + +oM +5 + + + + 5 +oM + +5 + + + P 5 pP +pPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79
Black’s position is rather dubious. 10...£d7 10...¥c5 11.¤d2 (11.e3 looks good as well) 11...c3 (after 11...0–0 12.¤xc4 White has a long-term advantage, thanks to his bishop pair and better pawn structure) 12.bxc3 ¤b5 13.£c2± Black faced serious problems in Gulko – Korchnoi, Amsterdam 1989. 11.e3 ¤f5 11...¤b5 12.£a4 regains the pawn with an advantage. 12.£c2 £b5 13.¤d2 ¤d6 14.b3 cxb3? This happened in Tratar – Plesec, Slovenia 1994. The lesser evil would be 14...¥e7, though White is clearly better after 15.bxc4 £a6 16.c5 ¤f5 17.¤b3 0–0 18.¦d1. White could now grab a decisive advantage with: 15.¥c6† ¢d8 16.axb3 (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3 dxc4 5.¥g2 ¥d7 6.¤e5 ¥c6 7.¤xc6 ¤xc6 8.0–0)
15
A) 8...¥e7
1222222223 t+ Wl+ T5 OoO VoOo5 +m+oM +5 + + + + 5 +oP + +5 + + + P 5 pP +pPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79 Once again White has a tough choice. Finally I decided to go with a new move. 9.£a4 9.e3 seemed unclear to me after 9...e5! 10.¥xc6† (the endgame arising after 10.dxe5 £xd1 11.¦xd1 ¤xe5 12.¥xb7 ¦b8 13.¥g2 0–0 is fine for Black due to his activity, as in Gyorkos – Farago, Zalakaros 1994) 10...bxc6 11.dxe5 £xd1 12.¦xd1 ¤g4 (12...¤d7 13.¥d2! is better for White) 13.f4 ¥c5 with sharp play in Kallai – Anka, Balatonbereny 1995. 9...0–0 White is comfortably better after 9...£d7 10.¦d1 0–0 11.¤c3 ¦fd8 12.£xc4 With an obvious edge, Johnson – Stracy, Dunedin 1999. Unfortunately Black’s try to complicate the game falls short: 10...0–0–0 (instead of 10...0-0) 11.¤c3 ¤d5 12.£xc4 ¤b6 13.£b5! with a nice refutation if Black takes the central pawn: 13...¤xd4 14.£a5 ¢b8 15.e3 ¤e2† 16.¢f1 ¤d5 17.¤xd5 ¤xc1 18.¦axc1 exd5 19.¦xd5 ¥d6 20.¦b5 b6 21.£a6 £c8 22.¦xb6† and mate in two. Or 10...¤b4 11.£xd7† ¤xd7 12.¤a3² regaining the pawn with advantage.
16
The Catalan
10.e3
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 OoO VoOo5 +m+oM +5 + + + + 5 q+oP + +5 + + P P 5 pP + PbP5 RnB +rK 5 79
10...e5!N This move has never occurred in tournament practice, nevertheless it is critical. White is obviously better after 10...¤b4 11.a3 ¤bd5 12.£xc4² C. Horvath – Lukacs, Budapest 1994, or 10...a6 11.£xc4² J. Horvath – Bokros, Szekszard 1996.
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 OoO VoOo5 +m+ M +5 + + O + 5 q+oP + +5 + + P P 5 pP + PbP5 RnB +rK 5 79
11.¦d1! Other options are worse: 11.dxe5 ¤xe5 12.¥xb7 ¦b8 13.¥g2 £d7 with counterplay, or 11.¥xc6 bxc6 12.dxe5 ¤g4 with mutual chances. 11...exd4
After 11...£c8 12.£xc4 (There is no point in White giving up his light-squared bishop: 12.¥xc6?! bxc6 13.dxe5 ¤g4 14.f4 £e6 and Black will always have plenty of counterplay against White’s king.) 12...exd4 13.exd4 ¥d6 14.¤c3 White is better, thanks to his strong light-squared bishop. 12.¥xc6 Black gets a pretty solid position after 12.£xc4 ¤d7 13.exd4 ¤b6 14.£f1 ¤b4! (14...¥f6 15.¤c3 £e7 16.¥e3² is better for White) 15.¤c3 c6 16.a3 ¤4d5 17.£d3 ¦e8 18.¥d2 £d7 and Black is close to equality. 12...bxc6 13.¦xd4 £e8 White looks better in every line: 13...¤d7 14.£xc6 ¤e5 15.£e4 ¥d6 16.¤d2 ¦e8 17.£g2 £f6 18.f4 ¤g4 19.¤e4 £g6 20.h3 ¤f6 21.¤xf6† £xf6 22.¦xc4± with a healthy extra pawn. 13...¥d6 14.£xc6 £e7 15.¤d2 and White wins a pawn for nothing. 14.¦xc4 c5 15.£xe8 ¦fxe8
1222222223 t+ +t+l+5 O O VoOo5 + + M +5 + O + + 5 +r+ + +5 + + P P 5 pP + P P5 RnB + K 5 79
16.¢f1 Less clear is 16.¤c3 ¦ed8 17.b3 ¤d7 with counterplay.
Chapter 1 – 4...dxc4 and 5...¥d7 16...¦ed8 17.¢e2 ¤d7 18.¦c2 This endgame is quite unpleasant for Black: 18...¤e5 18...¤f8 19.¤a3 ¤e6 20.¤c4 with a clear advantage. 19.¤a3 ¦ab8 20.¥d2 Black is going to suffer for the rest of the game. (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3 dxc4 5.¥g2 ¥d7 6.¤e5 ¥c6 7.¤xc6 ¤xc6 8.0–0) B) 8...¤d5!? This is a quite playable alternative though it has only occurred twice in tournament practice. In my opinion White should continue with the same new move as in variation A:
1222222223 t+ WlV T5 OoO +oOo5 +m+o+ +5 + +m+ + 5 +oP + +5 + + + P 5 pP +pPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79
9.£a4N I cannot see another way to fight successfully for an advantage. In both games White opted for 9.e3, but after the most natural 9...¥e7 I cannot find anything special for White. (Less accurate is 9...¦b8 as in Konopka – Huber, Marbach 1994, when
17
White should simply continue 10.£e2 b5 11.b3 cxb3 12.axb3© with fine compensation.) 10.£c2 This position happened in Kilgus – Brehovsky, Aschach 2004, and Black could have simply held onto his extra pawn with 10...b5 and if 11.b3 ¤cb4 12.£e2 c5! Black easily equalizes. 9...£d6 9...£d7 10.£xc4 ¤b6 11.£d3 0–0–0 12.£f3!² and White’s light-squared bishop should secure him an advantage. 9...¤b6 10.¥xc6† bxc6 11.£xc6† £d7 and now White has a pleasant choice between: 12.£xd7† (and 12.£f3 ¥e7 13.¤c3 0–0 14.¦d1² and White is slightly better, due to Black’s damaged pawn structure on the queenside) 12...¢xd7 13.e4² White’s chances are slightly preferable in this endgame, thanks to his better pawn structure. 10.£xc4 10.e3 ¤b6 11.£c2 e5 leads to double-edged play. 10...£b4 This is the point of Black’s idea. 11.£xb4 If 11.¥xd5 exd5 12.£xd5 £xd4 13.£f3 Black obtains reasonable play with 13...¥b4!. 11...¤dxb4 12.¤c3 ¤xd4 After 12...¤c2 13.d5! exd5 14.¦b1 (less clear is 14.¤xd5 0–0–0) 14...0–0–0 (Black cannot play 14...d4?! 15.¤b5 0–0–0 16.¥f4 ¥d6 17.¤xd6† cxd6 18.¦fd1 and White will regain the d4-pawn with a clear advantage) 15.¥xd5² White is better thanks to his pair of bishops. 13.¥xb7 ¦b8 14.¥e4 14.¥g2 ¤bc2 15.¦b1 counterplay.
¥b4
with
18
The Catalan
14...f5
1222222223 T +lV T5 O O + Oo5 + +o+ +5 + + +o+ 5 M Mb+ +5 + N + P 5 pP +pP P5 R B +rK 5 79
15.¥e3! Only in this way can White fight for the advantage: 15.¥b1 ¥d6 allows Black good counterplay. And now Black has a choice: 15...¤xe2† This looks like Black’s best option. 15...fxe4 16.¥xd4 ¤c6 17.¥e3 ¦xb2 18.¦ab1 White will regain the e4-pawn, keeping an obvious advantage in the endgame due to his better pawn structure. 15...¥c5 16.¥b1! (16.¦ad1 ¤xe2† 17.¤xe2 ¥xe3 is equal) 16...0–0 (White is clearly better after 16...¤d5 17.¤xd5 exd5 18.¢g2! ¦xb2 19.¦d1 ¦b4 20.¥xf5±) 17.¦d1 ¦fd8 18.¢g2 ¤bc6 19.¥d3 and White is better thanks to his bishops. 16.¤xe2 fxe4 17.¤c3 Less convincing is 17.¥xa7 ¦b7 18.¥d4 ¢f7. 17...¤d5 18.¥d4! Black comfortably equalizes after 18.¥xa7 ¦xb2 19.¤xe4 ¦b4 followed by 20...¦a4. 18...¤f6
Or 18...¦b4 19.¦ad1 c5 20.¥e5 ¤b6 21.b3². 19.¦fe1 ¥b4 20.¦e3! White has the better prospects. (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3 dxc4 5.¥g2 ¥d7 6.¤e5 ¥c6 7.¤xc6 ¤xc6 8.0–0) C) 8...£d7 This is Black’s main continuation. 9.e3 According to the old theory Black equalizes after 9.¤c3 ¤xd4 10.¥xb7 ¦b8 11.¥g2 ¥e7 12.e3 ¤b5 13.£c2 ¤xc3 14.£xc3 £b5! as in Yusupov – Karpov, Belfort 1988.
1222222223 t+ +lV T5 OoOw+oOo5 +m+oM +5 + + + + 5 +oP + +5 + + P P 5 pP + PbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79
9...¦b8 Quite principled is 9...e5 but White is better after 10.dxe5 ¤xe5 11.¥xb7 In my opinion this move order is stronger than 11.£xd7† ¤fxd7 12.¥xb7 ¦b8 13.¥g2 Skodvin – Tallaksen, Norway 2006, when after 13...¥c5 14.¤c3 0–0 15.¦d1 ¦fd8 Black has reasonable play. 11...¦b8 12.¥g2 £xd1 If Black continues 12...¥c5 White has
Chapter 1 – 4...dxc4 and 5...¥d7 another interesting idea: 13.b3!? 0–0 14.¥b2 ¦fd8 15.£xd7 ¤fxd7 16.¤d2 cxb3 17.axb3 ¤d3 18.¥c3 and White is clearly better. 13.¦xd1 ¥d6 I also analysed 13...¥b4 then White has to play very energetically: 14.f4! ¤d3 15.¤d2 c3 16.bxc3 ¥xc3 17.¦b1 0–0 18.¦xb8 ¦xb8 19.¤e4 ¦b1 20.¤xc3 ¦xc1 21.¦xc1 ¤xc1 22.e4 and this endgame is very dangerous for Black. White’s king will quickly move towards the centre, and Black’s weak pawns on the queenside are an important factor. 14.f4N In Cvitan – Vaganian, Neum 2000, White played 14.¤d2 and also achieved an advantage, but the text looks even more convincing: 14...¤d3 14...¤ed7 15.¥f3! (with the idea of 16.e4) 15...¤c5 16.¤d2 and White wins a pawn.
1222222223 T +l+ T5 O O +oOo5 + V M +5 + + + + 5 +o+ P +5 + +mP P 5 pP + +bP5 rnBr+ K 5 79
15.¤d2! ¤xb2 16.¥xb2 ¦xb2 17.¤xc4 ¦c2 18.¤xd6† cxd6 19.¦xd6 ¢e7 20.¦a6 With a technically winning position. 9...¤d5 This is not so interesting as on move 8, as Black has wasted time on ...£d7. 10.£e2 ¤b6 Certainly Black cannot play 10...b5 11.a4! and White regains the pawn with dividends. 11.¤d2 ¤a5 12.¤f3 Also interesting is 12.¤e4 ¤c6 13.¦d1 ¥e7
19
14.¥d2 0–0 15.¥c3 followed by ¤d2-c4. 12...¥d6 13.¥d2 ¤c6 14.¥c3 ¤e7 Or 14...0–0 15.¤d2 and White gets back the pawn with a clear advantage, thanks to his powerful light-squared bishop. 15.e4! White had powerful compensation for the pawn in Slipak – Adla, Buenos Aires 1990. 10.£e2 b5 11.b3 cxb3 Certainly not 11...¤a5?! which runs into 12.¥d2 b4 13.bxc4 with advantage to White. 12.axb3
1222222223 T +lV T5 O Ow+oOo5 +m+oM +5 +o+ + + 5 + P + +5 +p+ P P 5 + +qPbP5 RnB +rK 5 79
At this point we have the final branching point of this chapter. Black has two main options: C1) 12...¥b4 and C2) 12...¦b6. Simply bad is 12...¥e7? 13.¤c3 0–0 (Black can also play 13...b4, but after 14.£c4! ¤d8 15.¤e2 c6 16.e4 Black is doomed to passive defence) 14.¤xb5 White has regained the pawn, and he maintained a clear positional advantage in Moutousis – Rozentalis, Athens 2007. Once again there is 12...¤d5, but this is probably the worst moment for this move, as after 13.¥b2 White is threatening the unpleasant 14.e4 followed by 15.d5 when the
The Catalan
20
g7-pawn will be under attack. 13...b4 This position occurred in Orlov – Mijailovic, Novi Sad 1989. Now White could have effectively decided the game with 14.£c4!N ¥e7 15.¦c1 ¦b6 16.e4 ¤c3 (otherwise 17.d5 comes with great effect) 17.¤xc3 bxc3 18.¥xc3 and Black most probably will lose the a7-pawn. (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.g3 dxc4 5.¥g2 ¥d7 6.¤e5 ¥c6 7.¤xc6 ¤xc6 8.0–0 £d7 9.e3 ¦b8 10.£e2 b5 11.b3 cxb3 12.axb3) C1) 12...¥b4 13.¦a6 ¤d5
1222222223 T +l+ T5 O Ow+oOo5 r+m+o+ +5 +o+m+ + 5 V P + +5 +p+ P P 5 + +qPbP5 +nB +rK 5 79 In this position I want to play: 14.¥b2! White has tried to develop his bishop differently with 14.¥d2, but after 14...¥xd2 15.¤xd2 ¦b6 16.¦xb6 (16.¦fa1 0–0 17.¦xb6 cxb6 18.£xb5 ¦c8 and Black should also be able to hold) 16...cxb6 17.£xb5 ¤cb4 18.£xd7† ¢xd7 19.¤c4 ¦b8 Black easily held this slightly worse endgame in Janjgava – Abramovic, New York 1990. 14...¦b6 14...0–0 15.¦c1 ¤a5 16.£d1 and Black faces serious problems. For example, 16...c6 17.e4 ¤f6 18.¥c3 ¥xc3 19.¤xc3 b4 20.¤a4
£c7 21.£d3!± and Black is helpless against White’s idea of 22.¦c5. 15.¦xb6 cxb6?! The wrong recapture. 15...axb6 was preferable, though White is better after 16.£xb5 ¤a5 17.£d3 0–0 18.e4 ¤f6 19.¦d1. Although Black’s position looks solid, White has a pleasant edge thanks to his space advantage and bishop pair. 16.e4 ¤f6 17.£xb5 ¥e7 White was threatening 18.d5. This position occurred in Hofland – Westerman, corr. 1990.
1222222223 + +l+ T5 O +wVoOo5 Om+oM +5 +q+ + + 5 + Pp+ +5 +p+ + P 5 B + PbP5 +n+ +rK 5 79
18.¦c1!N This would have been very strong: 18...¤a5 19.¦c8† ¥d8 20.£xd7† ¢xd7 21.¦a8! ¤xb3 22.¦xa7† ¥c7 23.d5!± Black faces a serious attack. (1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.¥g2 dxc4 5.¤f3 ¥d7 6.¤e5 ¥c6 7.¤xc6 ¤xc6 8.0–0 £d7 9.e3 ¦b8 10.£e2 b5 11.b3 cxb3 12.axb3) C2) 12...¦b6 This is definitely Black’s main choice, although other options have occasionally been tried. In
Chapter 1 – 4...dxc4 and 5...¥d7 reply to 12...¦b6 I prefer the rather concrete approach of the text to the more popular 13.¥b2, where White definitely keeps good compensation, thanks to his powerful lightsquared bishop and the half-open a- and c-files, but Black’s defensive resources should not be underestimated.
1222222223 + +lV T5 O Ow+oOo5 Tm+oM +5 +o+ + + 5 + P + +5 +p+ P P 5 + +qPbP5 RnB +rK 5 79
13.¥xc6! £xc6 14.¦xa7 ¥d6 Black has two important alternatives at this point: 14...¥b4 15.¥d2 ¥xd2
1222222223 + +l+ T5 R O +oOo5 Tw+oM +5 +o+ + + 5 + P + +5 +p+ P P 5 + VqP P5 +n+ +rK 5 79
And now I believe 16.¤xd2!N is a serious improvement over 16.£xd2 which was played in both the games where Black played 14...¥b4. Then I dislike White’s prospects after 16...¤e4!. Only this move
21
promises Black decent play (clearly inferior is 16...0–0?! 17.¦c1 £f3 18.¦axc7 ¤e4 19.£e1 and Black does not have compensation for the pawn, Berkes – Savanovic, Vogosca 2007). 17.£c1 ¢d7! 18.f3 ¤d6 Black successfully defended this position in Krasenkow – Sanchez Guirado, Ponferrada 1991. 16...0–0 17.¤f3 ¤d7 Covering the e5-square. White is clearly better after 17...¦a6 18.¤e5 £b6 19.¦xa6 £xa6 20.¦c1±. 18.¦fa1 h6 19.b4 ¦b7 20.¦7a2² White keeps a long-term advantage, thanks to the weakness of Black’s c7-pawn. 14...¦a6 15.¦xa6 £xa6 16.¥b2 At this point it makes sense to look at a few options: Not so good is 16...c6?! 17.¦c1 ¥d6 18.£c2 and Black has difficulties defending his c6pawn. 16...£b7 Now White can break through with the nice: 17.¤c3 c6 17...b4?! 18.¤a4 would certainly lead to a strategically difficult position for Black, due to his permanently weak pawn on c7. 18.d5! Seizing the initiative. For example: 18...exd5 18...¤xd5 19.¤xd5 cxd5 20.¦a1 threatening the unpleasant 21.¥d4 following by 22.¦a7. Black’s position is very dangerous. 19.e4 ¥e7 Or 19...d4 20.e5 ¤d7 21.¤e4 ¤c5 (otherwise ¤d6† would be very unpleasant) 22.¥xd4 ¤e6 23.¥e3 ¥e7 24.f4 g6 25.¦a1 with a clear advantage. 20.exd5 cxd5 21.¦e1± Black cannot castle without losing material. 16...¥e7
22
The Catalan
1222222223 + +l+ T5 + O VoOo5 w+ +oM +5 +o+ + + 5 + P + +5 +p+ P P 5 B +qP P5 +n+ +rK 5 79 17.¤c3!N This is my improvement over 17.¦c1 £b7 18.¤a3 as was played in Krasenkow – Kelecevic, Wattens 1989. In this game Black overlooked a neat defensive idea: 18...0–0 19.£xb5 (19.¤xb5 c6 followed by 20...£xb3 is just equal) 19...¦b8!, which would have allowed him to equalize without any serious difficulty. 17...c6 18.¤a4! 0–0 18...¤d7 19.d5 (White can also try another type of position: 19.¤c5 ¤xc5 20.dxc5 0–0 21.¦a1 £c8 22.b4 ¦d8 23.£g4 ¥f8 24.¢g2 White is playing without risk, but the position looks defendable for Black.) 19...0–0 (if 19...cxd5 20.¥xg7 ¦g8 21.¥b2 £b7 22.¤c3 b4 23.¤a4 White is clearly better, as his opponent’s king is stuck in the centre) 20.dxe6 fxe6 21.¦d1! ¤f6 22.¥xf6 ¦xf6 (of course not 22...¥xf6? 23.¤c5 £c8 24.£g4 with a clear advantage) 23.¤c3² White has a pleasant edge with his strong knight on e4. 19.¤c5
1222222223 + + Tl+5 + + VoOo5 w+o+oM +5 +oN + + 5 + P + +5 +p+ P P 5 B +qP P5 + + +rK 5 79
19...£b6 Opening lines for White’s dark-squared bishop would be dangerous for Black: 19...¥xc5 20.dxc5² 20.¦c1² With a typical Catalan advantage, thanks to Black’s weak c6-pawn, as well as the c5-square.
1222222223 + +l+ T5 R O +oOo5 TwVoM +5 +o+ + + 5 + P + +5 +p+ P P 5 + +qP P5 +nB +rK 5 79
15.¥d2!N A natural novelty that poses Black definite problems. White’s idea is to seize the initiative along the c-file, while White’s dark-squared bishop might be useful on a5. The only move White has tried in practice is: 15.¥a3 Here I noticed the following pretty forced line: 15...¦a6! After 15...¥xa3?! White gained a nice edge with 16.¤xa3 0–0 17.£c2! £xc2 18.¤xc2± in Stohl – Zsu. Polgar, Rimavska Sobota 1991. 16.¦c1 16.¦xa6 £xa6 17.¥xd6 cxd6 18.¤c3 ¢e7! should be an easy draw for Black. 16...£xc1† 17.¥xc1 ¦xa7 18.£xb5† ¢e7 I think Black should hold this quite easily with two rooks against the queen.
Chapter 1 – 4...dxc4 and 5...¥d7 I also tried 15.¥b2 0–0 16.¦c1 £d5 17.£c2 (17.¤d2 ¦c6 and Black is close to equality) 17...¤e4 18.¤c3 ¤xc3 19.£xc3 f5= but after the exchange of knights, I cannot imagine how White can seize the initiative. 15...¦b8 Another line is: 15...0–0 16.¦c1 £d5 Too passive is 16...£d7 17.e4 e5 18.d5± with a clear advantage. 17.¥a5 ¦c6 Here White has an interesting pawn sacrifice at his disposal: 18.¤c3! £xb3 Black should accept the challenge as 18...£f5 19.¦b7! ¦a8 20.¦xb5 £g6 21.¥b4± leaves Black a pawn down. 19.¦b1 £c4 19...¦xc3?! 20.¦xb3 ¦xb3 21.¥xc7 should be winning for White. 20.£xc4 ¦xc4 20...bxc4 21.e4! e5 (White wins after 21...¤e8 22.d5 exd5 23.exd5 ¥c5 24.dxc6 ¥xa7 25.¥b4!+–) 22.d5 ¥c5 23.dxc6 ¥xa7 24.¥xc7 The c-pawn decides the issue. The tactical justification is 24...¦c8 25.¥xe5 ¦xc6 26.¥d4!! and White wins. 21.¤xb5 e5 Black obviously loses after 21...¦b8? 22.¤xd6 ¦xb1† 23.¢g2 and the weakness of the 8th rank decides. 22.¥xc7 ¥xc7 23.¦xc7 ¦xc7 24.¤xc7 exd4 25.exd4 White has a healthy extra pawn, but Black has some hopes of survival.
23
16.¦c1 £b6 17.¦a2 0–0 And now White has two options:
1222222223 T + Tl+5 + O +oOo5 W VoM +5 +o+ + + 5 + P + +5 +p+ P P 5 r+ BqP P5 +nR + K 5 79
Either White can play 18.£f3 ¦fc8 19.£c6² or: 18.¥a5 £b7 19.¦ac2 ¦fc8 20.¤d2 ¦a8 21.b4² In both cases White maintains typical Catalan pressure, as Black has failed to achieve the desired ...c7-c5 advance. Conclusion: Objectively White’s chances are slightly preferable in this line. In the main line my novelty 15.¥d2! is very important and poses Black definite problems. In this 5...¥d7 line it is very hard to imagine how Black could possibly seize the initiative, and this is probably the main reason why this system is out of fashion.
Grandmaster Repertoire 2
1.d4 - Volume Two By
Boris Avrukh
This is a pdf excerpt from the book Grandmaster Repertoire 2 - 1.d4 Volume Two by Boris Avrukh, published by Quality Chess.
Creating the Grandmaster Repertoire series seemed a natural idea. There is a glut of opening books at the Starting Out level. These books have certainly been refreshing, but they have almost completely replaced high-level opening books. As chess fans, we felt we were missing out, and because we can, we decided to do something about it. The books in the Grandmaster Repertoire series are written by grandmasters, edited by grandmasters, and will certainly be read by grandmasters. This does not mean that players who are not grandmasters cannot read them. We have worked hard to make our books clear in their presentation and to make it possible for the readers to decide the depth to which they want to study them. When we were young and trying to be up-and-coming, we understood that you do not have to remember everything in an opening book in order to use it. It is our hope that those readers who find this repertoire too extensive and detailed, will ignore many of the details. Even now that we are grandmasters, we see the bolded moves as what we want to memorize, and the notes as explanations and illustrations. It is our conviction that you will eventually be more successful by playing the main lines, simply because they are based on better moves. Instinctively most players know this, but they fear losing to a prepared line and thus turn to unambitious systems, or unhealthy surprises. The opponent will not be able to use his preparation but, sadly, will not need it. These sidelines generally end in uninspiring positions almost automatically. Possibly the main reason why high-level opening books have disappeared is the rise of databases. It has been assumed that there is no point in having traditional opening books anymore, as you can look it all up in the database. Some rather lazy authors have a system: collect a few hundred games from the database, give Fritz a few moments, then hit Print. Such books add nothing to chess literature. We have seen enough of them and have never wanted to add to that pile. In these days of multi-million game databases, we all have access to information, what is lacking is understanding. In the Grandmaster Repertoire series, very strong players will share their understanding and suggest strong new moves that are in no one else’s database. We are excited about this new series and hope that the reader will share some of that excitement. John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard
Contents
Key to symbols used & Bibliography Foreword by Grandmaster Boris Gelfand Bibliography Foreword by the Author
6 7 8 9
The Bogo-Indian Defence
1 2 3 4
4...c5 4...¥xd2† 4...a5 4...£e7
The Budapest Gambit
5 6
Farajowicz Variation Classical Variation
Benoni Systems
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Catalan Benoni Snake Benoni Benoni without …¤f6 Reluctant Benoni Czech Benoni Old Benoni Modern Benoni Benko Gambit
92 102 108 113 126 144 164 201
The Dutch Defence Stonewall Variation Classical Variation Leningrad Variation St Petersburg Variation
221 243 262 289
13 19 30 36
59 66
The Grünfeld Defence 19 Dynamic Variation 20 Solid Variation
297 337
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
367 370 379 387 400 414 426 460 491
The King’s Indian Defence 6...¥g4 6...¤c6 & 7...¥g4 6...¤c6 & 7...¥f5 6...¤c6 & 7...e5 6...¤c6 & 7...a6 6...¤c6 & 7...¦b8 6...c6 6...¤bd7 9...£b6
The Modern Defence 30 Wade Defence 31 The Modern Defence
501 521
32 33 34 35 36 37 38
538 542 556 572 578 587 593
Minor Systems 2...b6 b-pawn Systems English Defence Black Knights Tango Old Indian Queen’s Indian Attempt Odd ideas
Index of Variations
601
The Dutch Defence
234
queenside. I evaluate White’s position as more promising, for example: 19...¦b8 20.¦xb8 ¥xb8 21.¦e1 Vacating the f1-square for the bishop. 21...¦f8 If 21...g5 then White has an interesting sacrifice at his disposal: 22.¤xe4! dxe4 23.£xe4 White will also win the c6-pawn and his pawn chain will become very dangerous. 22.¥f1 ¤f6 23.£a4² White has an easy plan to seize the initiative, which includes ¥d2, ¦b1, ¥a6 and so on. B42) 9...¤d7 A natural idea to bring his second knight into the game. 10.b4
11...¤xc3 12.£xc3 cxb5! 13.c5 (13.¦xb5 b6! also does not promise White much) 13...¤e4 14.£c2 ¥e7 15.¦xb5 b6! 16.cxb6 ¥d7 17.¦b2 axb6= Stefansson – Radjabov, Torshavn 2000. However, worthy of consideration was: 11.¤e5!? £c7 In the event of 11...¤xc3 12.£xc3 ¤e4 13.£c2 White retains an advantage.
1222222223 t+v+ Tl+5 OoW + Oo5 +oVoM +5 + +oNo+ 5 PpPm+ +5 + N + P 5 p+q+pPbP5 +rB +rK 5 79
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 Oo+m+ Oo5 +oVo+ +5 + +o+o+ 5 PpPm+ +5 + N +nP 5 p+q+pPbP5 +rB +rK 5 79
12.¥f4!N This move is clearly stronger than 12.f3 ¤xc3 13.£xc3 b6 14.c5?! ¥xe5 15.dxe5 ¤d7 16.¥f4 bxc5 17.bxc5 ¥a6 when Black was already better in J. Szabo – Hajnal, Hungary 1997. 12...¤xc3 Black also fails to solve his opening problems by: 12...g5 13.¤xe4 ¤xe4 14.c5 (14.¥c1!?) 14...gxf4 15.cxd6 ¤xd6 16.gxf4 White keeps a stable positional edge. 13.£xc3 ¤h5 14.¥e3 ¤f6 15.¦fc1 ¤e4 16.£b2² White enjoys a pleasant game.
Here we have a further branching point.
11...¥c7 12.¥f4 The following encounter is a very good illustration of what might happen in this type of position:
B421) 10...¤df6 11.c5! A remarkable moment; White avoids the natural-looking 11.b5, since it would allow Black to force favourable simplifications:
12...¥xf4 13.gxf4 ¥d7 14.¤e5 ¥e8 15.a4 a6 16.¤a2!
Chapter 15 – Stonewall Variation A strong positional idea; White not only creates the threat of trapping Black’s knight by 17.f3, but also transfers his knight to d3. 16...¤d7 17.¤c1 £h4 It is very important that Black cannot play 17...¤xe5, since after 18.dxe5 d4 (otherwise f2-f3 would trap the knight) 19.¤a2± Black is going to lose his d-pawn.
1222222223 t+ +vTl+5 +o+m+ Oo5 o+o+o+ +5 + PoNo+ 5 pP PmP W5 + + + + 5 +q+pPbP5 +rN +rK 5 79
18.e3!N In my opinion 18.¤cd3, as in Grabuzova – Burchardt, Germany 1995, is not so accurate, since it allows Black to create counterplay with 18...¤xe5! 19.dxe5 d4. 18...¤ef6 19.¤b3! ¥h5 20.¤a5² White retains a long-term advantage. B422) 10...b5!?
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 O +m+ Oo5 +oVo+ +5 +o+o+o+ 5 PpPm+ +5 + N +nP 5 p+q+pPbP5 +rB +rK 5 79
235
This very interesting attempt to stop White’s queenside offensive was recommended in Win with the Stonewall Dutch. After some time analysing the position, I found an aggressive way to deal with this line. 11.cxb5 ¤xc3 12.£xc3 cxb5 In my opinion the critical continuation is: 13.£c6!N 13.¥g5 has been played, but after 13...£b6 14.¦fc1 ¥b7 15.£e3 ¦fe8 16.¥f4 ¥xf4 17.gxf4 £d6 18.¤e5 ¦ac8 Black equalized easily in Kerek – C. Horvath, Aggtelek 1997. 13...£b6 The point of Black’s idea – the white queen is going to be trapped on a8.
1222222223 t+v+ Tl+5 O +m+ Oo5 WqVo+ +5 +o+o+o+ 5 P P + +5 + + +nP 5 p+ +pPbP5 +rB +rK 5 79
14.£xa8!! But we are not frightened of this trap – there are opportunities for White here as well. Now Black is at a crossroads. He must decide which minor piece to place on b8, since I believe the position with two rooks versus queen, which might appear after 14...¥b7 15.£xf8†, is favourable for White in the long run. 14...¥b8
236
The Dutch Defence
The alternative is: 14...¤b8 15.¤g5! An important tactical idea. 15...¤c6 After 15...¥b7 16.£xb7 £xb7 17.¤xe6 ¦e8 18.¤c5 £f7 19.e3 White is clearly better due to the permanent weakness on d5.
1222222223 q+v+ Tl+5 O + + Oo5 WmVo+ +5 +o+o+oN 5 P P + +5 + + + P 5 p+ +pPbP5 +rB +rK 5 79
16.a3! White is ready to play £xc8 next. 16...¥d7 17.£xf8† ¥xf8 18.e3 More accurate than 18.¦d1 a5 19.bxa5 ¤xa5, as in this case Black has good counterplay. 18...a5 19.¥d2! White is better. 15.¤g5 ¥b7 The other option is: 15...¤f6 Now White has a strong move: 16.¦b3! ¥b7 Practically forced, as 16...h6 loses to 17.¤xe6! ¥xe6 18.¦c3, and White’s queen escapes. 17.£xb7 £xb7 18.¤xe6 ¦e8 19.¤c5 £f7 20.e3!² In my opinion White has the better chances, as he will slowly prepare to open up the position on the queenside, or penetrate along the c-file, while Black is rather passive. It should be noted that 15...¦e8 loses in one go to 16.¥xd5!.
16.£xb7 £xb7 17.¤xe6 ¦e8 18.¤c5 £c6 Certainly 18...¤xc5? would be a serious mistake in this case, as after 19.dxc5 ¦xe2 20.¦d1 Black’s central pawn is falling and White gains a strategically winning position, since his c-pawn should decide the issue.
1222222223 V +t+l+5 O +m+ Oo5 +w+ + +5 +oNo+o+ 5 P P + +5 + + + P 5 p+ +pPbP5 +rB +rK 5 79
Now White has a pleasant choice between two options: 19.¥f3 ¤b6 20.¦b3 ¤c4 (20...g6 21.¦a3!?²) 21.¦c3 Followed by opening the a-file with a2-a4. 19.¤xd7 £xd7 20.e3 ¦c8 21.¥b2 ¦c4 22.¦fc1² In either case only White can play for a win. B43) 9...a5 10.a3
1222222223 tMvW Tl+5 +o+ + Oo5 +oVo+ +5 O +o+o+ 5 +pPm+ +5 P N +nP 5 Pq+pPbP5 +rB +rK 5 79
Grandmaster Repertoire 3
The English Opening Volume One By
Mihail Marin with invaluable help from
Valentin Stoica
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Creating the Grandmaster Repertoire series seemed a natural idea. There is a glut of opening books at the Starting Out level. These books have certainly been refreshing, but they have almost completely replaced high-level opening books. As chess fans, we felt we were missing out, and because we can, we decided to do something about it. The books in the Grandmaster Repertoire series are written by grandmasters, edited by grandmasters, and will certainly be read by grandmasters. This does not mean that players who are not grandmasters cannot read them. We have worked hard to make our books clear in their presentation and to make it possible for the readers to decide the depth to which they want to study them. When we were young and trying to be up-and-coming, we understood that you do not have to remember everything in an opening book in order to use it. It is our hope that those readers who find this repertoire too extensive and detailed, will ignore many of the details. Even now that we are grandmasters, we see the bolded moves as what we want to memorize, and the notes as explanations and illustrations. It is our conviction that you will eventually be more successful by playing the main lines, simply because they are based on better moves. Instinctively most players know this, but they fear losing to a prepared line and thus turn to unambitious systems, or unhealthy surprises. The opponent will not be able to use his preparation but, sadly, will not need it. These sidelines generally end in uninspiring positions almost automatically. Possibly the main reason why high-level opening books have disappeared is the rise of databases. It has been assumed that there is no point in having traditional opening books anymore, as you can look it all up in the database. Some rather lazy authors have a system: collect a few hundred games from the database, give Fritz a few moments, then hit Print. Such books add nothing to chess literature. We have seen enough of them and have never wanted to add to that pile. In these days of multi-million game databases, we all have access to information, what is lacking is understanding. In the Grandmaster Repertoire series, very strong players will share their understanding and suggest strong new moves that are in no one else’s database. We are excited about this new series and hope that the reader will share some of that excitement. John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard
Contents
Key
to symbols used Bibliography Foreword by the Author How to Use this Book
6 7 8 10
1
The English – A Repertoire
11
Karpov Variation 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3
2 3 4 5 6
Introduction 7...h6 8.a3 a6 7...h6 8.a3 a5 7...a6 5th Move alternatives: 5.a3?! and 5.e3
Reversed Rossolimo 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥b4 5.¤d5
7 8 9 10 11 12
Introduction 5...¤xd5?! 5...¥c5 5...0–0 Minor Lines 5...0–0 6.¤f3! ¥c5 5...0–0 6.¤f3! e4
Botvinnik System 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 g6 4.¥g2 ¥g7 5.e4 d6 6.¤ge2
13 14 15 16 17 18
Introduction 6...¤f6 6...¥e6 6...h5 6...¤ge7 6...f5
15 23 47 57 71
85 89 99 111 123 141
155 165 173 189 199 211
2...¤c6 3.¤c3 19
3rd move alternatives
235
Reversed Dragon 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.¤c3
20 21 22 23 24 25
Introduction and minor lines 8...a5 8...¥e6 8...0–0 Minor Lines 11...a5 11...¤d4
Keres Variation 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 c6 4.d4
26 27 28 29
Introduction and Sidelines 4...¥b4† 4...exd4 5.£xd4 ¤a6 4...exd4 5.£xd4 d5
2...d6
30 31
Minor Lines 5...f5
Accelerated Keres 1.c4 e5 2.g3
32
2...c6
Odd and Trends
33
Minor Lines
451
Index of Variations
469
259 273 281 289 309 327
345 353 369 385
405 425
437
er a pt
5
Ch
Karpov Variation
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 +oO +oOo5 o+mO M +5 + V O + 5 +p+ + +5 + Np+nP 5 pP +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
7...a6 Variation Index 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 A) 8...¥a7 9.b4 A1) 9...¥f5 A2) 9...¥g4 B) 8...¤d4 9.¤e1! B1) 9...c6 B2) 9...h6
A1) after 11...¤d4
7...a6 8.a3
A2) after 12...g5
p 58 p 59 p 60 p 62 p 62 p 67
B2) after 17...d5
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +oO 5 o+ O M O5 + + Ov+ 5 PpM + B5 P Np+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +o+ 5 o+ O M O5 + + O O 5 PpMn+vB5 P +p+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
1222222223 t+ Tv+l+5 Vo+ WoO 5 o+o+mM O5 P +oO + 5 Pp+ + +5 + NpP P 5 BnQ PbP5 + R +rK 5 79
12.e3!!
13.¤fxg5!!
18.c5!±
58
Karpov Variation
1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 +oO +oOo5 o+mO M +5 + V O + 5 +p+ + +5 + Np+nP 5 pP +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
By refraining from ...h7-h6, Black intends to save a tempo compared to the variations examined in Chapter 3. 8.a3 8.¥g5 h6 9.¥xf6 £xf6 does not achieve much for White. His control over the light squares has been increased, but the c5-bishop can become a very dangerous attacking piece. Black only needs to move his queen out of the way and then push the f-pawn. 10.¤e4 £e7 11.¤xc5 dxc5 does not look troubling for Black. He has good central control and I do not see an active plan for White.
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 +oO +oOo5 o+mO M +5 + V O + 5 +p+ + +5 P Np+nP 5 P +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
We now have A) 8...¥a7 and B) 8...¤d4. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3) A) 8...¥a7 9.b4 White uses his last “neutral” move, inviting Black to define his plans. 9...h6 would transpose to the normal lines examined above, but now we will examine the independent lines.
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 VoO +oOo5 o+mO M +5 + + O + 5 Pp+ + +5 P Np+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
We have A1) 9...¥f5 and A2) 9...¥g4. 9...¤d4 This leads to a considerable loss of time. 10.¤xd4 This is the correct move. If 10.¤e1?! h6 11.e3 Black can play the intermediate 11...¥g4! as in a sub-note of line B2. 10...¥xd4 10...exd4 11.¤d5 ¤xd5 12.cxd5² leaves White with the better structure and pressure along the c-file. 11.¥b2 c6 12.e3 ¥a7 This bishop has moved quite a lot already. 13.d4 Threatening to win space with d4-d5,
Chapter 5 – 7...a6 which would put the c6-pawn under serious pressure. 13...exd4 14.exd4 Renewing the threat. 14...d5 15.c5 ¥f5 16.a4² White has a promising queenside attack, while the a7-bishop is obviously misplaced. 9...¥e6 exposes the bishop to the knight jump ¤f3-g5. There has only been one game with this move between reasonably strong players. 10.¥b2 ¤e7 11.¤g5 ¥c8 12.e3 h6 13.¤f3 We are back into the normal paths, since Black has played ...h6, Spiridonov – Therkildsen, Nice 2000. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 ¥a7 9.b4) A1) 9...¥f5
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +oOo5 o+mO M +5 + + Ov+ 5 Pp+ + +5 P Np+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79 The development of the bishop to this square is hardly more constructive now than after ...h7-h6. The bishop is both passive and exposed at the same time. 10.¥g5 h6 11.¥h4! As we shall see, this is a recurring theme. The immediate exchange on f6 is inoffensive, but now the threat of ¤d5 is very unpleasant.
59
11...¤d4 Black intends to exchange the f3-knight to make ...g7-g5 a real threat. Of course, 11...g5? 12.¤xg5! hxg5 13.¥xg5 is bad for Black, who has no favourable way of freeing himself from the pin.
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +o+ 5 o+mO M +5 + + OvB 5 Pp+ + +5 P Np+ P 5 + +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
13...¤b8 (anticipating the threat ¤c3-d5) 14.¥xb7 ¤bd7 15.¤d5 White threatens to win material by capturing on a8 and f6. 15...¢g7 is strongly met by 16.£d2, threatening ¥g5xf6† followed by £d2-g5†, while 15...¦b8 16.¥c6 leaves him helpless against the threat of ¥c6xd7. 16...¥e6 17.¥xd7 ¥xd5 18.cxd5 White has a decisive material advantage.
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +oO 5 o+ O M O5 + + Ov+ 5 PpM + B5 P Np+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
12.e3!!N This move, ignoring the threat of ...g7-g5, takes full advantage of the exposed position of the f5-bishop.
60
Karpov Variation
White did not get any advantage after 12.¥xf6 £xf6 13.¤h4 ¥c8 14.e3 ¤e6 15.¤e4 £d8 16.£h5 f5= in Marin – Tomescu, Sovata 2003.
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +oO 5 o+ O M O5 + + Ov+ 5 PpM + B5 P NpPnP 5 + + PbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
12...¤e6 After 12...¤xf3† 13.£xf3 the f5-bishop is hanging. 13...¥xd3 This does not bring any relief. 14.¤d5 ¥xf1 15.¦xf1 With a decisive attack. 12...g5 13.¥xg5 hxg5 14.exd4± leaves Black with many weaknesses. 13.¥xf6 £xf6 14.¤h4 c6 15.¤xf5 £xf5 16.a4²
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 Vo+ +oO 5 o+oOm+ O5 + + Ow+ 5 pPp+ + +5 + NpP P 5 + + PbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
Black’s pieces are poorly coordinated, partly because the queen is awkwardly placed, while White’s attack on the light squares develops naturally. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 ¥a7 9.b4) A2) 9...¥g4
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +oOo5 o+mO M +5 + + O + 5 Pp+ +v+5 P Np+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79 For a long time I feared that after this rarely played move White would have to play h2-h3, which is generally undesirable, as we already know. I discovered the tactics presented below only when preparing the material for this book. 10.¥g5!N The reasons this standard manoeuvre is possible with the black bishop on g4 are less obvious than in the variation with 9...¥f5. 10...h6 11.¥h4 ¤d4 The other way to create the threat of ...g7g5 is: 11...¥xf3 12.¥xf6! After this intermediate move White’s control over the light squares is likely to be unchallenged. 12...£xf6 12...¥xe2?! does not work because after 13.¥xd8 ¥xd1 14.¥xc7 ¥c2 White has
Chapter 5 – 7...a6 15.b5± putting the enemy queenside in danger. 13.¥xf3²
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 VoO +oO 5 o+mO W O5 + + O + 5 Pp+ + +5 P Np+bP 5 + +pP P5 R +q+rK 5 79
This certainly looks like a dream position for White, but does he have a real advantage? To reveal White’s potential, we should continue the variation a few more moves. 13...¦ab8 14.¦b1 ¤d4 15.¥g2 c6 16.e3 ¤e6 17.a4 £e7 18.b5 £c7 Black proves that he is prepared to stand the queenside pressure. 19.£f3!² White declares his intention to play on both wings. Apart from increasing the pressure against the c6-pawn, he plans to take control of the kingside light squares with g3-g4 followed by h2-h4, £f3-g3, ¥g2-e4, etc.
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +oO 5 o+ O M O5 + + O + 5 PpM +vB5 P Np+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
12.¤e4!
61
We shall understand later why this move should be preferred to the apparently more active 12.¤d5. 12...g5 This is the only way to question White’s previous play, but it will put Black on the verge of disaster. Play now takes a fascinating course, requiring White to make a queen sacrifice. The safer 12...¥xf3 fails to equalize after 13.¤xf6† £xf6 (It is generally desirable for Black to exchange queens to avoid major kingside dangers. 13...gxf6 14.¥xf3 ¤xf3† 15.exf3 ¥d4 16.¦a2 ¢g7 17.f4 £d7 18.£f3² leaves White with very pleasant play.) 14.¥xf6 ¤xe2† 15.¢h1 ¤xg3† 16.fxg3 ¥xd1 17.¦axd1. Black now has the witty 17...¦ab8, preserving the b7-pawn and leaving White’s extra bishop trapped, but after: 18.c5 gxf6 19.cxd6 cxd6 20.¦xf6² White retains strong pressure against both enemy wings. The presence of oppositecoloured bishops does not offer Black any relief, because his bishop is firing along on an empty diagonal.
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +o+ 5 o+ O M O5 + + O O 5 PpMn+vB5 P +p+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
13.¤fxg5!! Although we have seen the sacrifice ¤f3xg5 before, the situation here is entirely different. Instead of a stable situation with an unpleasant pin, it leads to original play.
62
Karpov Variation
13...¤xe2† The operation initiated by this move is enabled by the bishop’s presence on g4.
(1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3)
Had White played 12.¤d5, Black could have played 13...¤xd5, when 14.¤e4 would have been relatively best but not entirely satisfactory.
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 +oO +oOo5 o+ O M +5 + V O + 5 +pM + +5 P Np+nP 5 P +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
The way it is, capturing the knight with 13...¤xe4 can be met by 14.¤xe4. The positions from the two cases are almost identical, but in the latter situation Black’s d5knight is missing! 14.¢h1 ¤xg3† 15.fxg3! The correct way of capturing, which opens the f-file for an attack. 15...¥xd1 16.¤xf6† ¢h8 17.¦axd1 hxg5 18.¥xg5±
1222222223 t+ W T L5 VoO +o+ 5 o+ O N +5 + + O B 5 Pp+ + +5 P +p+ P 5 + + +bP5 + +r+r+k5 79
The position has temporarily calmed down. Despite his material disadvantage, White has an irresistible attack. His next moves will be ¦f1-f5, ¦d1-f1, ¥g5-h4, ¥g2-e4 (perhaps after capturing on b7). The move order depends on Black’s reactions. As a general rule, ...¦f8-g8 should be answered by ¥g5-h4 and ...£d8-c8 by ¥g2-e4, preparing ¦f1-f5.
B) 8...¤d4
Black clears a path for his c-pawn and invites White to simplify the position. 9.¤e1! White avoids the exchange because the enemy knight is unstable in the centre. Black has a choice between B1) 9...c6 and B2) 9...h6. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 ¤d4 9.¤e1) B1) 9...c6
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 +o+ +oOo5 o+oO M +5 + V O + 5 +pM + +5 P Np+ P 5 P +pPbP5 R BqNrK 5 79
Großmeister-Repertoire 3
Die Englische Eröffnung Band Eins Von
Mihail Marin mit unschätzbarer Hilfe von Valentin Stoica
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Eine Serie über großmeisterliche Eröffnungsrepertoires herauszugeben, ist eine verständliche Idee. Derzeit gibt es eine Flut von Eröffnungsbüchern für Vereinsspieler und Fortgeschrittene. Diese Bücher sind teilweise sehr erfrischend geschrieben. Doch inzwischen haben sie die erstklassigen Eröffnungsbücher fast völlig vom Markt verdrängt. Als Schachfans haben wir diese Situation etwas bedauert. Weil wir in der glücklichen Lage sind, etwas an diesem Zustand ändern zu können, haben wir uns letztlich entschieden, tatsächlich etwas zu unternehmen. Bücher der Großmeister-Repertoire-Reihe werden von Großmeistern geschrieben, von Großmeistern herausgegeben und sicher auch von Großmeistern gelesen werden. Das heißt natürlich keineswegs, dass Spieler, die nicht Großmeister sind, sie nicht lesen und verstehen können. Wir haben hart daran gearbeitet, unsere Bücher so klar zu strukturieren und zu präsentieren, dass die Leser selbst entscheiden können, bis zu welcher Tiefe sie in die dargebotene Materie eindringen wollen. Als wir noch junge, aufstrebende Talente waren, verstanden wir, dass man sich nicht an jedes Detail, das man in einem Eröffnungsbuch gelesen hat, erinnern muss, um eine Eröffnung anwenden zu können. Es ist unser Anliegen, dass diejenigen Leser, die das dargebotene Repertoire als zu umfangreich und zu detailliert empfinden, einfach einige Details ignorieren können. Inzwischen sind wir Großmeister, aber noch immer sind es die kühnen Züge, die wir uns einprägen möchten, und wir nutzen die Anmerkungen als Erklärungen und Illustrationen. Es ist unsere feste Überzeugung, dass man letztlich erfolgreicher sein wird, wenn man die Hauptvarianten spielt, einfach deshalb, weil sie auf den logischeren Zügen basieren. Instinktiv teilen die meisten Spieler diese Ansicht. Aber oft befürchten sie, einer Vorbereitung zum Opfer zu fallen, und spielen letztlich anspruchslosere Systeme oder greifen zu ungesunden Überraschungswaffen. Der Gegner wird seine Vorbereitung dann nicht nutzen können, nur wird er sie leider auch kaum brauchen. Die meisten Nebenvarianten münden fast automatisch in weniger interessante Stellungen.
Die
Der Hauptgrund, warum erstklassige Eröffnungsbücher fast völlig vom Markt verschwunden sind, dürfte im gewaltigen Anwachsen der Datenbanken liegen. Viele Spieler glauben, dass es keinen Sinn mehr macht, traditionelle Eröffnungsbücher zu studieren, da man alles in Datenbanken finden kann. Einige ausgebuffte Autoren verfahren nach folgendem faulen Schema: Sie sammeln einige hundert Partien aus den Datenbanken, lassen Fritz einige Sekunden darüber laufen, den Rest besorgt der Drucker. Solche Bücher leisten keinen Beitrag zur Schachliteratur. Wir haben mehr als genügend solcher Bücher gesehen, aber wir hatten und haben nicht die Absicht, Bücher für die Halde zu produzieren. In Zeiten von Multi-Millionen-Partien-Datenbanken hat jedermann Zugang zu den Partiedaten, woran es mangelt, ist Schachverständnis. In der Reihe von Großmeister-Repertoire-Büchern werden sehr starke Spieler ihr Schachverständnis mit dem Leser teilen und starke neue Züge vorschlagen, die niemand sonst in seinen Datenbanken finden wird. Wir sind von dieser neuen Reihe sehr angetan und hoffen, dass der Leser unsere Begeisterung teilen wird. John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard
Inhalt
Verwendete Symbole Bibliographie Vorwort des Autors Anleitung zum Gebrauch des vorliegenden Buchs
6 7 8 10
1
Englische Eröffnung – Ein Repertoire
11
Karpow-Variante 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3
2 3 4 5 6
Einführung 7...h6 8.a3 a6 7...h6 8.a3 a5 7...a6 Alternativen im 5. Zug: 5.a3?! und 5.e3
Rossolimo-Variante im Nachzug 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥b4 5.¤d5
7 8 9 10 11 12
Einführung 5...¤xd5?! 5...¥c5 5...0–0 Nebenvarianten 5...0–0 6.¤f3! ¥c5 5...0–0 6.¤f3! e4
Botwinnik-System 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 g6 4.¥g2 ¥g7 5.e4 d6 6.¤ge2
13 14 15 16 17 18
Einführung 6...¤f6 6...¥e6 6...h5 6...¤ge7 6...f5
15 23 49 59 73
87 91 101 113 125 143
159 169 177 193 203 215
2...¤c6 3.¤c3
19
Alternativen im 3. Zug
Drachen im Anzug 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.¤c3
20 21 22 23 24 25
Einführung und Nebenvarianten 8...a5 8...¥e6 8...0–0 Nebenvarianten 11...a5 11...¤d4
Keres-Variante 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤f6 3.¥g2 c6 4.d4
26 27 28 29
Einführung und Nebenvarianten 4...¥b4† 4...exd4 5.£xd4 ¤a6 4...exd4 5.£xd4 d5
2...d6
30 31
Nebenvarianten 5...f5
Beschleunigte Keres-Variante 1.c4 e5 2.g3
32
2...c6
Frühe Abweichungen
33
Nebenvarianten
457
Variantenindex
475
239
263 277 285 293 313 333
351 359 375 391
411 431
443
Vorwort Ich war schon immer der Meinung, dass der Aufbau eines auf den persönlichen Stil und die jeweiligen Fähigkeiten abgestimmten perfekten Eröffnungsrepertoires genauso schwierig ist wie die Suche der Argonauten nach dem Goldenen Vlies. Es gibt eine ganze Reihe von Fragen zu klären, bevor man überhaupt daran denken kann, bestimmte Eröffnungen auszuwählen. Soll man sich in der Eröffnung mit beiden Farben an die gleiche Herangehensweise halten oder vielleicht besser mit Weiß sehr ambitioniert spielen und sich mit Schwarz auf eine zurückhaltendere Spielweise verlegen? Auf allen Niveaus finden sich Anhänger beider Methoden. Es gibt auch mehr als einen Weg, dem Repertoire einen kohärenten Charakter zu verleihen. Man kann sich in allen seinen Eröffnungsvarianten von den gleichen allgemeinen Prinzipien leiten lassen (wie dem Kampf um Raum und Initiative, oder im Gegensatz dazu dem Streben nach soliden, aber etwas passiven Stellungen). Dies ist der breiteste Ansatz, der zur Koexistenz von Systemen führen kann, die absolut keine optische Ähnlichkeit miteinander haben. Er war bei den größten Spielern der Schachgeschichte sehr beliebt, ist aber für Normalsterbliche nicht leicht zu handhaben. Viele Spieler ziehen es vor, ihre Figuren und Bauern unabhängig vom Spiel des Gegners nach den gleichen allgemeinen Mustern zu entwickeln und abzutauschen. Mit Schwarz greifen sie hierfür zu Kombinationen von verwandten Eröffnungen, wie Slawisch und Caro-Kann oder Königsindisch und Breyer-Variante der Spanischen Eröffnung. Dies führt mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit zu einer hochgradigen Spezialisierung in den jeweiligen Systemen, läuft aber das Risiko der Einschränkung des schachlichen Horizonts. Beim Aufbau meines Weißrepertoires lege ich Wert auf Raum und Initiative, aber auch auf die Möglichkeit, das Spiel innerhalb einer relativ begrenzten Palette von Strukturen zu halten, die ich in der Regel tiefgründig studiere. Außerdem nehme ich alle fünf, zehn oder fünfzehn Jahre größere Änderungen an meinem Repertoire vor, um das im vorhergehenden Absatz angesprochene Risiko zu vermeiden. Als Kind und Jugendlicher spielte ich ausschließlich 1.e4, aber im Alter von 18 Jahren stieg ich auf 1.d4 um. Nachdem ich einige Jahre lang aggressive Aufbauten gespielt hatte, begann ich mich in den frühen 90er Jahren von Aufstellungen mit einem Königsflügelfianchetto angezogen zu fühlen. Damals konnte ich natürlich nicht ahnen, dass dies der Moment war, an dem die ungewöhnlich lange Entstehungsgeschichte des vorliegenden Werks seinen Anfang nahm. Mit Katalanisch und den Fianchetto-Varianten gegen Königsindisch und Grünfeld-Indisch errang ich zahlreiche Siege, konnte aber keine zufriedenstellenden verwandten Aufstellungen gegen Slawisch finden. Aus eigener Erfahrung lernte ich, dass 1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.g3 c6 gefolgt von ...¥c8-f5 oder ...¥c8-g4 dem Weißen nichts als Ärger einbringt. Amüsanterweise konnte vor langer Zeit ein gewisser Valentin Marin (!) mit diesem Aufbau als Nachziehender dem großen Savielly Tartakower ein Remis abknöpfen.
Vorwort
9
Ironisch ist auch, dass dieses Aufeinandertreffen zusammen mit anderen von Tartakower 1929 in Barcelona gespielten Partien die Theoretiker dazu veranlasste, das System auf Basis von 1.d4 und 2.g3 die „Katalanische Eröffnung“ zu taufen. Um die oben erwähnten Probleme zu vermeiden, begann ich als Hauptzugreihenfolge 1.¤f3 gefolgt von 2.g3 und 3.¥g2 zu spielen und damit den direkten Kampf um das Zentrum auf einen späteren Zeitpunkt zu verlegen. Nach ein paar Jahren wurde mir jedoch klar, dass dies gut funktioniert, wenn Schwarz sich im Geiste der Indischen Verteidigungen entwickelt, aber keine Chancen auf Vorteil bietet, wenn Schwarz mit 1...d5 (oder 1...¤f6 und 2...d5) das Zentrum in Besitz nimmt. Nachdem ich von 1.¤f3 genug hatte, gelangte ich zu dem Schluss, dass das Feld d5 mit 1.c4 sofort unter Beobachtung genommen werden sollte. Dies war der Beginn der am längsten anhaltenden Erfolge meiner gesamten Karriere mit den weißen Steinen. Gegen die meisten Antworten von Schwarz entwickelte ich mich im Allgemeinen ganz nach meinem eigenen Geschmack mit g2-g3, ¥f1-g2 usw. Bei Gelegenheit leitete ich ohne Zögern mit d2-d4 im richtigen Moment in Katalanisch oder die Fianchetto-Varianten des Königsinders und Grünfeld-Inders über. Die Slawische Eröffnung blieb in dieser Hinsicht eher außen vor, aber in der Regel griff ich nach 1...c6 zu 2.e4 mit Überleitung in den aggressiven Panow-Angriff. Als ich erstmals erwog, ein Buch über ein reines Englisch-Repertoire zu verfassen, hatte ich Angst, dass es sich als unmöglich erweisen würde, in jedem Abspiel für Weiß Vorteil nachzuweisen, ohne an verschiedenen Punkten einen Übergang zu 1.d4 zu empfehlen. Dieses überehrgeizige Vorhaben, von dem ich insgeheim geträumt hatte, stand im Gegensatz zu den althergebrachten Ansichten der offiziellen Theorie und schien nahezu unmöglich in die Tat umzusetzen zu sein. Nach mehr als einjährigen tiefgründigen Analysen mit Valentin Stoica gelang mir ein Schritt, den ich nie zuvor gewagt hatte: Der Aufbau eines funktionsfähigen Repertoires auf Basis von 1.c4 gefolgt von 2.g3 auf jede Antwort von Schwarz! Dass Weiß in allen diesen Abspielen auf frühes d2-d4 verzichtet, bedeutet nicht, dass er den Kampf um das Zentrum aufgibt. Nachdem Weiß die Gefahr eines schwarzen Gegenspiels gebannt oder irgendeine andere Art von Vorteil erzielt hat, wird der die Besetzung des Zentrums anstreben. Der Grundgedanke dieser allgemeinen Strategie durchzieht beide Bände dieses Werks wie ein roter Faden. Nach Abschluss der analytischen Arbeiten kurz vor der Teilnahme an der 51. Auflage des Turniers in Reggio Emilia zum Jahreswechsel 2008/2009 fühlte ich mich bereit, das brandneue Repertoire einem gründlichen praktischen Test zu unterziehen. Das Ergebnis war mehr als ermtigend: mit Weiß erzielte ich 4 Punkte aus 5 Partien, was einer Rating-Performance von über 2800 entsprach. Überdies hatte ich auch in meiner einzigen Verlustpartie die bessere Stellung. Ich kann natürlich nicht voraussehen, wie mein Schachverständnis sich beispielsweise in zehn Jahren verändern wird, aber im Moment bin ich zuversichtlich, dass ich nach fast 20 Jahren Forschungsarbeit schließlich mein Goldenes Vlies gefunden habe. Im vorliegenden Buch möchte ich meine Errungenschaft mit dem Leser teilen. Mihail Marin Bukarest, Juli 2009
Anleitung zum Gebrauch des vorliegenden Buchs Mir ist aufgefallen, dass viele Schachspieler Bücher lesen, indem sie verschiedene Kapitel stichprobenartig studieren, wie es ihnen gerade einfällt. Ich habe eine Bitte – Halten Sie sich beim ersten Lesen des Buchs an die gegebene Reihenfolge. Es werden nämlich häufig in einem Kapitel strategische Ideen eingeführt, auf die dann in späteren Kapiteln zurückgegriffen wird. Ich habe die Absicht, das Verständnis des Lesers für die Englische Eröffnung im Lauf meiner Ausführungen nach und nach aufzubauen. Das vorliegende Buch liefert ein komplettes Repertoire für Weiß nach 1.c4 e5; es werden keine wesentlichen Varianten ignoriert. Zuweilen wird auf mögliche Übergänge in andere Eröffnungen hingewiesen, die aber für unser Repertoire nicht von Bedeutung sind. In der Englischen Eröffnung, in der die Figuren häufig erst später in direkten Kontakt kommen, verfügen beide Seiten häufig über eine breite Palette von Zügen. Jede wichtige Variante wird angesprochen, aber es wäre weder praktisch noch besonders hilfreich für den Leser, jeden möglichen Zug abzudecken. Viel wichtiger ist es, alle Schlüsselideen zu behandeln. Daher wird der Leser zwar von Zeit zu Zeit auf unbekannte Züge treffen, aber trotzdem nicht ratlos dasitzen – sein neues Verständnis der Englischen Eröffnung wird im als zuverlässiger Kompass dienen. Ich habe jahrzehntelange praktische und analytische Erfahrung mit der Englischen Eröffnung und werde trotzdem häufig in der Eröffnung überrascht – das liegt in der Natur der Sache. Einige Züge sind von mir mit dem Buchstaben N für Neuerung versehen worden. Dies bedeutet, dass mir der Zug neu ist und ich ihn nicht in meiner Datenbank und meinen Büchern finden kann. Es besteht jedoch immer die Möglichkeit, dass der Zug in irgendeiner mir unbekannten obskuren Partie gespielt worden sein könnte. Sollte der Leser auf irgendwelche derartige Beispiele stoßen, so möchte ich daran erinnern, dass es praktisch unmöglich ist, sich mit allen erdenklichen Quellen von Schachpartien vertraut zu machen. In jedem Fall enthält das vorliegende Buch eine große Menge von Originalanalysen, die sich hoffentlich für den Leser als nützlich erweisen werden. Genug der langen Vorrede – Ich hoffe, das Buch wird Ihnen gefallen.
el pit
1
Ka
Englische Eröffnung Ein Repertoire
Kapiteln 2-6
Kapiteln 7-12
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoOo+oOo5 + + + +5 + + O + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + + 5 pP PpPpP5 RnBqKbNr5 79
Kapiteln 13-18
1222222223 t+vWl+ T5 OoOo+oOo5 +m+ M +5 + V O + 5 +p+ + +5 + N + P 5 PP PpPbP5 R BqK Nr5 79
1222222223 t+vWl+ T5 OoOo+oOo5 +m+ M +5 + + O + 5 Vp+ + +5 + N + P 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK Nr5 79
1222222223 t+vWl+mT5 OoO +oVo5 +mO +o+5 + + O + 5 +p+p+ +5 + N + P 5 pP PnPbP5 R BqK +r5 79
Karpow-Variante
Rossolimo-Variante im Nachzug
Botwinnik-System
Kapitel 19
Kapiteln 20-25
Kapiteln 26-29
1222222223 t+vWlVmT5 OoOo+oOo5 +m+ + +5 + + O + 5 +p+ + +5 + N + P 5 pP PpP P5 R BqKbNr5 79
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 OoO +oOo5 + + + +5 + +mO + 5 + + + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBqK Nr5 79
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 Oo+o+oOo5 +o+ M +5 + + O + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBqK Nr5 79
Alternativen im 3. Zug
Drachen im Anzug
Keres-Variante
Kapiteln 30-31
Kapitel 32
Kapitel 33
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoO +oOo5 + O + +5 + + O + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpP P5 RnBqKbNr5 79
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 Oo+o+oOo5 +o+ + +5 + + O + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpP P5 RnBqKbNr5 79
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoOo+oOo5 + + + +5 + + O + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpP P5 RnBqKbNr5 79
2...d6
Beschleunigte Keres-Variante
Frühe Abweichungen
el pit
5
Ka
Karpow-Variante
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 +oO +oOo5 o+mO M +5 + V O + 5 +p+ + +5 + Np+nP 5 pP +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
7...a6 Variantenindex 1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 A) 8...¥a7 9.b4 A1) 9...¥f5 A2) 9...¥g4 B) 8...¤d4 9.¤e1! B1) 9...c6 B2) 9...h6
A1) nach 11...¤d4
7...a6 8.a3
A2) nach 12...g5
s 60 s 61 s 62 s 64 s 64 s 69
B2) nach 17...d5
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +oO 5 o+ O M O5 + + Ov+ 5 PpM + B5 P Np+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 VoO +o+ 5 o+ O M O5 + + O O 5 PpMn+vB5 P +p+nP 5 + +pPbP5 R +q+rK 5 79
1222222223 t+ Tv+l+5 Vo+ WoO 5 o+o+mM O5 P +oO + 5 Pp+ + +5 + NpP P 5 BnQ PbP5 + R +rK 5 79
12.e3!!
13.¤fxg5!!
18.c5!±
Kapitel 5 – 7...a6 Dieser Läufer hat bereits eine ganze Menge Züge gemacht. 13.d4 Droht Raumgewinn mit d4-d5, was den Bauern c6 ernsthaft unter Druck setzen würde. 13...exd4 14.exd4 Erneuert die Drohung. 14...d5 15.c5 ¥f5 16.a4² Weiß hat aussichtsreichen Angriff am Damenflügel, wohingegen der Läufer a7 offensichtlich schlecht steht. 9...¥e6 exponiert den Läufer gegenüber dem Springerausfall ¤f3-g5. Mit diesem Zug gibt es nur eine einzige Partie zwischen einigermaßen starken Gegnern. 10.¥b2 ¤e7 11.¤g5 ¥c8 12.e3 h6 13.¤f3. Wir bewegen uns wieder auf normalen Pfaden, da Schwarz ...h6 gespielt hat, Spiridonow – Therkildsen, Nizza 2000. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 ¥a7 9.b4) A1) 9...¥f5
Die Entwicklung des Läufers auf dieses Feld ist jetzt kaum konstruktiver als nach ...h7h6. Der Läufer steht sowohl passiv als auch exponiert. 10.¥g5 h6 11.¥h4!
61
Wie wir sehen werden, kommt dieses Thema immer wieder vor. Der sofortige Abtausch auf ist harmlos, aber nun ist die Drohung ¤d5 sehr unangenehm. 11...¤d4 Schwarz will den Springer f3 abtauschen, um ...g7-g5 zu einer echten Drohung zu machen. Natürlich ist 11...g5? 12.¤xg5! hxg5 13.¥xg5 schlecht für Schwarz, der sich nicht günstig aus der Fesselung befreien kann.
13...¤b8 (antizipiert die Drohung ¤c3-d5) 14.¥xb7 ¤bd7 15.¤d5 Weiß droht, durch Schlagen auf a8 und f6 Material zu gewinnen. 15...¢g7 trifft auf die starke Erwiderung 16.£d2 mit der Drohung ¥g5xf6† nebst £d2-g5†, während nach 15...¦b8 16.¥c6 die Drohung ¥c6xd7 nicht zu parieren ist. Nach 16...¥e6 17.¥xd7 ¥xd5 18.cxd5 hat Weiß entscheidenden Materialvorteil.
62
Karpow-Variante
12.e3!!N Dieser Zug, der die Drohung ...g7-g5 ignoriert, zieht maximalen Nutzen aus der exponierten Stellung des Läufers f5. Nach 12.¥xf6 £xf6 13.¤h4 ¥c8 14.e3 ¤e6 15.¤e4 £d8 16.£h5 f5= erhielt Weiß in Marin – Tomescu, Sowata 2003, keinen Vorteil.
12...¤e6 Nach 12...¤xf3† 13.£xf3 hängt der Läufer f5. 13...¥xd3. Dies bringt keine Erleichterung. 14.¤d5 ¥xf1 15.¦xf1 Mit entscheidendem Angriff. Nach 12...g5 13.¥xg5 hxg5 14.exd4± bleibt Schwarz auf zahlreichen Schwächen sitzen. 13.¥xf6 £xf6 14.¤h4 c6 15.¤xf5 £xf5 16.a4²
Die schwarzen Figuren sind schlecht koordiniert, was zum Teil auf die ungelenke Stellung der schwarzen Dame zurückzuführen ist, wohingegen sich der weiße Angriff auf den weißen Feldern natürlich entwickelt. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 ¥a7 9.b4) A2) 9...¥g4
Lange Zeit befürchtete ich, dass Weiß nach diesem selten gespielten Zug h2-h3 spielen müssen würde, was im Allgemeinen nicht wünschenswert ist, wie wir bereits wissen. Die nachstehenden taktischen Wendungen entdeckte ich erst bei der Vorbereitung des Materials für das vorliegende Buch. 10.¥g5!N Die Gründe dafür, dass dieses Standardmanöver mit dem schwarzen Läufer auf g4 möglich ist, sind nicht so offensichtlich wie in der Variante mit 9...¥f5. 10...h6 11.¥h4 ¤d4 Der andere Weg zur Aufstellung der Drohung ...g7-g5 ist: 11...¥xf3 12.¥xf6! Nach diesem Zwischenzug wird die Kontrolle des Anziehenden über die weißen Felder wohl unangefochten bleiben.
Kapitel 5 – 7...a6 12...£xf6 12...¥xe2?! funktioniert nicht, da Weiß nach 13.¥xd8 ¥xd1 14.¥xc7 ¥c2 mit 15.b5± den gegnerischen Damenflügel in Gefahr bringen kann. 13.¥xf3²
Dies sieht sicherlich wie eine Traumstellung für Weiß aus, aber hat er einen realen Vorteil? Zur Enthüllung des Potenzials der weißen Stellung sollte die Variante einige Züge weitergeführt werden. 13...¦ab8 14.¦b1 ¤d4 15.¥g2 c6 16.e3 ¤e6 17.a4 £e7 18.b5 £c7 Schwarz stellt unter Beweis, dass der dem Druck am Damenflügel standhalten kann. 19.£f3!² Weiß erklärt seine Absicht, auf beiden Flügeln zu spielen. Neben der Verstärkung des Drucks auf den Bauern c6 will er mit g3-g4 nebst h2h4, £f3-g3, ¥g2-e4 usw. die weißen Felder am Königsflügel unter Kontrolle nehmen.
63
12.¤e4! Warum dieser Zug gegenüber dem scheinbar aktiveren 12.¤d5 den Vorzug verdient, wird später ersichtlich werden. 12...g5 Dies ist der einzige Weg, das vorhergehende Spiel des Anziehenden in Frage zu stellen, wird Schwarz aber an den Rand des Abgrunds bringen. Das Spiel nimmt nun einen faszinierenden Verlauf, der Weiß zu einem Damenopfer zwingt. Das sicherere 12...¥xf3 führt nach 13.¤xf6† £xf6 (Damentausch ist im Allgemeinen wünschenswert für Schwarz, um größere Gefahren am Königsflügel zu vermeiden. Nach 13...gxf6 14.¥xf3 ¤xf3† 15.exf3 ¥d4 16.¦a2 ¢g7 17.f4 £d7 18.£f3² hat Weiß sehr angenehmes Spiel.) 14.¥xf6 ¤xe2† 15.¢h1 ¤xg3† 16.fxg3 ¥xd1 17.¦axd1 nicht zum Ausgleich. Schwarz verfügt nun über das geistreiche 17...¦ab8, was den Bauern b7 rettet und den weißen Mehrläufer in der Falle sitzen lässt, aber nach 18.c5 gxf6 19.cxd6 cxd6 20.¦xf6² behält Weiß starken Druck an beiden Flügeln. Die Anwesenheit von ungleichfarbigen Läufern bietet Schwarz keine Erleichterung, da sein Läufer auf einer leeren Diagonale sein Pulver verschießt.
64
Karpow-Variante
13.¤fxg5!! Das Opfer ¤f3xg5 haben wir bereits gesehen, aber hier ist die Lage völlig anders. Es führt nicht so einer stabilen Situation mit einer unangenehmen Fesselung, sondern zu originellem Spiel. 13...¤xe2† Die durch diesen Zug eingeleitete Operation wird durch die Stellung des Läufers auf g4 ermöglicht. Hätte Weiß 12.¤d5 gezogen, so hätte Schwarz 13...¤xd5 spielen können, wonach 14.¤e4 relativ am besten, aber nicht vollauf zufriedenstellend gewesen wäre. In der gegebenen Situation kann das Schlagen des Springers durch 13...¤xe4 mit 14.¤xe4 beantwortet werden. Die sich in diesen beiden Fällen ergebenden Stellungen sind fast identisch, aber in letzterer Situation fehlt der schwarze Springer auf d5! 14.¢h1 ¤xg3† 15.fxg3! Damit öffnet Weiß die Angriffszwecke.
f-Linie
für
15...¥xd1 16.¤xf6† ¢h8 17.¦axd1 hxg5 18.¥xg5±
Die Stellung hat sich vorübergehend beruhigt.
Trotz seines materiellen Nachteils hat Weiß unwiderstehlichen Angriff. Seine nächsten Züge werden ¦f1-f5, ¦d1-f1, ¥g5-h4, ¥g2-e4 (vielleicht nach Schlagen auf b7) lauten. Die Zugreihenfolge hängt von den Reaktionen des Nachziehenden ab. Als Faustregel sollte ...¦f8-g8 mit ¥g5-h4 beantwortet werden und ...£d8-c8 mit ¥g2-e4, was ¦f1-f5 vorbereitet. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3) B) 8...¤d4
Schwarz macht dem c-Bauern den Weg frei und lädt Weiß zu einer Vereinfachung der Stellung ein. 9.¤e1! Weiß vermeidet den Abtausch, da der gegnerische Springer im Zentrum auf wackligen Füßen steht. Schwarz hat die Wahl zwischen B1) 9...c6 und B2) 9...h6. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 ¤d4 9.¤e1) B1) 9...c6
Kapitel 5 – 7...a6
Schwarz nimmt das Feld d5 unter Kontrolle und hofft auf eine weitere Expansion mit ...d6d5. 10.e3 Nun kann Schwarz zwischen B11) 10...¤e6 und B12) 10...¤f5 wählen. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 ¤d4 9.¤e1 c6 10.e3) B11) 10...¤e6
Dieser Zug belässt den Läufer c8 in einer passiven Lage und verhindert außerdem die Überdeckung des Bauern e5 mit ...¦f8-e8, was späteres ...d6-d5 erschwert.
65
11.b4 ¥b6 12.¤f3 ¥c7 Dies ist der einzige Weg, ...d6-d5 möglich zu machen. Nachteilig ist dabei, dass der Läufer auf c7 passiv steht. 13.¥b2
13...d5 Wie der weitere Partieverlauf belegen wird, führt diese frühe Besetzung des Zentrums nicht zum Ausgleich, aber Schwarz hat keine natürliche Möglichkeit zur Fortsetzung seiner Entwicklung. 14.cxd5 cxd5 14...¤xd5 würde unabhängig davon, wie Schwarz auf d5 zurückschlägt, nach 15.¤xd5 nebst ¤f3xe5 einen Bauern verlieren. 15.¤e2! Ein flexibler Springerrückzug, der die Felder d4 und f4 unter Kontrolle hält und den Bauern e5 unter Druck setzt. 15...e4 Schwarz muss diesen Bauern früher vorrücken, als ihm lieb ist, da 15...¤d7?! nach 16.£b3! zu Schwierigkeiten geführt hätte. Wegen seines Entwicklungsrückstands kann Schwarz seine Zentrumsbauern nicht ordentlich verteidigen.
66
Karpow-Variante
16.¥xf6 Weiß lässt sich auf eine forcierte Variante ein, mit der er seinen Entwicklungsvorsprung bis weit ins Endspiel hinein behalten kann. Eine einfachere Lösung wäre 16.dxe4 dxe4 17.£xd8 ¦xd8 18.¤fd4² gewesen. Weiß ist besser entwickelt und hat das Zentrum stabilisiert, während der Bauer e4 anfällig ist und der Läufer c7 ziemlich passiv steht. Ich gebe die folgende lange Zugfolge aus einer Partie als Hauptvariante an, da sie den dauerhaften Charakter der weißen Initiative auch nach Vereinfachungen veranschaulicht. Falls sich irgendwelche der in den Anmerkungen erwähnten Endspiele als remis erweisen sollten, so hat Weiß immer noch das oben angegebene einfache Abspiel in der Hinterhand. 16...£xf6 17.dxe4 dxe4 18.¤d2 ¦d8 Nach 18...¤g5 19.¤xe4 ¤f3†?! 20.¢h1 £f5 21.¤d4!± würde die schwarze Initiative bald versiegen und Weiß einen gesunden Mehrbauern behalten. 19.¤xe4 £b2
Schwarz hat für den Bauern etwas Initiative erhalten.
20.¤d4! Weiß gibt den Bauern zurück, um weitere Vereinfachungen zu provozieren. Nach dem passiven 20.£e1 hätte 20...¥e5! den Bauern a3 gewonnen. 20...¤xd4 21.exd4 ¦xd4 21...£xd4 hätte nach 22.£xd4 ¦xd4 23.¦ac1 zur Hauptvariante übergeleitet.
22.£c1! Erzwingt den Abtausch der aktivsten schwarzen Figur. 22...£xc1 23.¦axc1 Die Massenvereinfachungen haben die Bedeutung des weißen Entwicklungsvorsprungs lediglich weiter erhöht. Schwarz muss nach einer günstigen Möglichkeit zu einem Bauernopfer Ausschau halten, um seine Entwicklung zu beenden und in einem schlechteren Endspiel ums Remis zu kämpfen. 23...¥b6 Die Überführung des Läufers nach f6 wäre nach 23...¥d8 24.¤c5 ¦b8 25.¦fd1! zu zeitaufwändig. Wieder die gleiche Politik: Weiß tauscht die aktivste schwarze Figur ab. 25...¦xd1† 26.¦xd1 ¥f6 27.¤d7 ¥xd7 28.¦xd7 b5 29.¥d5±. Schwarz sieht sich in einem Endspiel mit einem Bauern weniger einer schwierigen Verteidigung gegenüber.
Kapitel 5 – 7...a6 24.¤c5 ¦b8 Die gemeinsame Post-Mortem-Analyse ergab, dass die beste Chance für Schwarz in 24...a5!? 25.¤xb7 ¥xb7 (25...axb4 trifft auf die Erwiderung 26.¤d6! mit Materialgewinn) 26.¥xb7 ¦b8 27.bxa5 ¥xa5 28.¦b1² bestanden hätte. Die ungleichfarbigen Läufer bieten Schwarz Remischancen. 25.¦fd1! Dieses Muster kennen wir schon. 25...¦xd1† 26.¦xd1
26...a5 Nach dem Turmtausch scheint es für diesen Zug zu spät zu sein. Weiß hätte auch nach einem Entwicklungszug wie 26...¥g4 27.¦d4± seine Initiative behalten oder nach 26...¥xc5 27.bxc5 ¥g4 28.¦b1± den Bauern b7 gewonnen. 26...¢f8 Dieser Zentralisierungszug wäre besser gewesen, wenngleich Weiß auch dann die Initiative behält: 27.¥xb7! ¥xc5! Jedes Schlagen auf b7 würde zu materiellem Vorteil für Weiß führen; z.B. 27...¦xb7? 28.¤xb7 ¥xb7 29.¦d6!, wonach einer der
67
Läufer fallen wird, oder 27...¥xb7? 28.¤d7† mit Gewinn des Turms. 28.¦d8† ¢e7 29.¦xc8 ¥xf2† Der Textzug ist noch die beste Chance. Das sich nach 29...¦xc8 30.¥xc8 ¥d4 31.¥xa6 ¥b2 32.a4 ¥c3 33.b5 ¥a5 34.¢g2 ergebende Endspiel mit ungleichfarbigen Läufern ist wahrscheinlich gewonnen.
Da der schwarze Läufer zwei gegnerische Bauern bewachen muss, kann Weiß Zugzwangstellungen herbeiführen, so dass der weiße König auf einem der beiden Flügel eindringen kann. Betrachten wir beispielsweise die Stellung mit weißem König auf c4 und weißem Läufer auf g2 und schwarzem König auf d6 und schwarzem Läufer auf a5. Dann würde ...¥a5-b6 mit ¢b4 und der Drohung a5 beantwortet, und falls ...¥c5†, so ¢a5. Nach ...¥a5-d2 könnte Weiß b5-b6 spielen, während ein Rückzug des Königs von d6 auf die Erwiderung ¢c5 träfe. 30.¢xf2 ¦xb7 31.¦c6! a5 31...¦a7 sieht nach 32.¢e3 ¢d7 33.¦c5± zu passiv aus. 32.bxa5 ¦b3 33.a6 ¦xa3 34.¦c7† ¢e6 35.a7 Dieses Turmendspiel ist extrem gefährlich für Schwarz, wenngleich das Endergebnis nur durch weitere Analysen ermittelt werden kann. 27.¤d7!
Karpow-Variante
68
Weiß konsolidiert seinen Vorteil durch Besetzung der siebten Reihe.
Hier steht der Springer aktiver als auf e6, ist aber gegenüber späterem e3-e4 anfällig.
27...¥xd7 28.¦xd7 axb4 29.axb4 ¦d8 30.¦xb7 ¦d1† 31.¥f1 ¥d8 32.¢g2±
11.¤f3 ¥a7 12.b4 ¦e8 13.¥b2 Weiß hat sich harmonisch entwickelt, und es ist schwer zu sagen, ob Schwarz wirklich die Stellung seines Damenspringers verbessert hat. Der Springer ist immer noch zwei Tempi vom Feld g6 entfernt, von wo aus er das Feld e5 überdeckt und somit ...d6-d5 vorbereitet.
Weiß hat zwei klare Ideen: Ausübung von Druck auf den Bauern f7 und Vorrücken des b-Bauern. Nachdem Schwarz zu vollständiger Passivität verurteilt ist, wird die Zentralisierung des weißen Königs die Partie entscheiden. In Marin – Swetuschkin, Ploiesti 2005, schoss Schwarz einen Bock und verlor ein paar Züge später. (1.c4 e5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 ¥c5 5.¤f3 d6 6.d3 0–0 7.0–0 a6 8.a3 ¤d4 9.¤e1! c6 10.e3) B12) 10...¤f5
13...d5!? Dieser Zug war eine Empfehlung von Gulko als Verbesserung gegenüber 13...¦b8 14.¦c1², wonach Weiß besser entwickelt und flexibler aufgestellt ist. 14...b5 Nach dieser verfrühten Zurschaustellung von Aktivität wird sich die größere Flexibilität der weißen Stellung als wichtig erweisen. 15.c5! dxc5 16.¤e4!±. In Gulko – Sadler, Luzern 1997, waren die folgenden Komplikationen günstig für Weiß.
14.cxd5!N Vor dem Gegenschlag e3-e4 öffnet Weiß die c-Linie und schwächt das Feld d5. Bemerkenswerterweise reagierte Gulko, als er sich seiner eigenen Empfehlung gegenübersah, nicht optimal: 14.e4 dxe4 15.¤xe4 ¤d4 16.¤xd4 ¥xd4 17.¥xd4 £xd4 18.¤xf6† gxf6 19.¦e1 ¥g4 20.¥f3 f5 Die Partie Gulko – P. Cramling, Malmö 2001, endete bald Remis.
Grandmaster Repertoire 4
The English Opening Volume Two By
Mihail Marin with invaluable help from Valentin
TO LUIZA
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Stoica
First English edition 2010 by Quality Chess UK Ltd Copyright © 2010 Mihail Marin
Grandmaster Repertoire 4 - The English Opening Volume Two All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Softback ISBN: 978-1-906552-38-1 Hardback ISBN: 978-1-906552-25-1 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, Central Chambers, 93 Hope Street, Glasgow G2 6LD, United Kingdom +44 141 277 6771 e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Typeset: Jacob Aagaard Proofreading: Colin McNab Editing: John Shaw Cover design: Adamson Design Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
Creating the Grandmaster Repertoire series seemed a natural idea. There is a glut of opening books at the Starting Out level. These books have certainly been refreshing, but they have almost completely replaced high-level opening books. As chess fans, we felt we were missing out, and because we can, we decided to do something about it. The books in the Grandmaster Repertoire series are written by grandmasters, edited by grandmasters, and will certainly be read by grandmasters. This does not mean that players who are not grandmasters cannot read them. We have worked hard to make our books clear in their presentation and to make it possible for the readers to decide the depth to which they want to study them. When we were young and trying to be up-and-coming, we understood that you do not have to remember everything in an opening book in order to use it. It is our hope that those readers who find this repertoire too extensive and detailed, will ignore many of the details. Even now that we are grandmasters, we see the bolded moves as what we want to memorize, and the notes as explanations and illustrations. It is our conviction that you will eventually be more successful by playing the main lines, simply because they are based on better moves. Instinctively most players know this, but they fear losing to a prepared line and thus turn to unambitious systems, or unhealthy surprises. The opponent will not be able to use his preparation but, sadly, will not need it. These sidelines generally end in uninspiring positions almost automatically. Possibly the main reason why high-level opening books have disappeared is the rise of databases. It has been assumed that there is no point in having traditional opening books anymore, as you can look it all up in the database. Some rather lazy authors have a system: collect a few hundred games from the database, give Fritz a few moments, then hit Print. Such books add nothing to chess literature. We have seen enough of them and have never wanted to add to that pile. In these days of multi-million game databases, we all have access to information, what is lacking is understanding. In the Grandmaster Repertoire series, very strong players will share their understanding and suggest strong new moves that are in no one else’s database. We are excited about this series and hope that the reader will share some of that excitement. John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard
Contents
Key
to symbols used Bibliography Foreword by the Author How to Use this Book
6 7 8 10
1
The English – Introduction
11
Anti-Slav Systems
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Introduction 5th Move Various 5...e6 4...¥g4 The Barcza Variation 4...g6 4...e6 3...¥g4 3...dxc4 3...g6
Anti-QG Systems
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Introduction and 3...dxc4 The Triangle I The Triangle II The Georgian System 4...dxc4 4...e6 with a quick ...b5 4...dxc4 – 6...0–0 Main Line
15 21 53 69 85 109 127 155 165 173
195 203 209 215 227 241 259
QGD Set-up
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
6...d4 and 6...a5 6...c6 6...b6 without ...c5 6...c5 Reversed Modern Benoni 9...dxc4 Main Line 9...¥b7 Main Line
Odds and Ends
26 27 28 29 30
Anti-Grünfeld Anti-King’s Indian Anti-Dutch Anti-Owen Reti Move Order
375 391 403 411 423
Variation Index
425
269 275 293 303 317 333 351
Foreword I have always regarded building up a perfect opening repertoire, suitable for one’s style and skills, as no easier a task than the Argonauts’ search for the Golden Fleece. There is a whole series of aspects to be clarified before even starting thinking about picking specific openings. Should we approach the opening in the same way irrespective of colour, or would it be wiser to display our main ambitions with White, while playing in a more restrained style with the black pieces? At all levels, we will find adherents of both these methods. There are also several ways to give the repertoire a coherent character. We may be guided by the same general principles in all our opening variations (such as fighting for space and the initiative, or, on the contrary, aiming for solid but somewhat passive positions). This is the widest approach, which can lead to the coexistence of systems that bear absolutely no optical similarity to each other. It has frequently been the choice of the greatest players in history, but it is not easy to handle for mere mortals. Many prefer to develop and exchange their pawns and pieces according to the same general patterns, irrespective of the opponent’s play. In order to achieve this with Black, they utilize tandems of related openings such as the Slav and the Caro-Kann, or the King’s Indian and the Breyer Ruy Lopez. This is likely to lead to a high degree of specialization in the respective systems, but risks limiting one’s chess horizon. When building up my repertoire with White, I treasure space and the initiative, but also the possibility of keeping play within a relatively limited range of structures, which I tend to study in depth. I also make major changes in my repertoire every five, ten or fifteen years, to avoid the risk mentioned in the previous paragraph. As a child and teenager I only played 1.e4, but at the age of 18 I switched to 1.d4. For several years I employed aggressive set-ups, but in the early ’90s I started to be attracted to the schemes involving a kingside fianchetto. Without me being aware of it, this was the moment when the book you are holding in your hands started its unusually long period of gestation. The Catalan and the Fianchetto variations against the King’s Indian and Grünfeld yielded me many wins, but I failed to find adequate related schemes against the Slav. Experience taught me that 1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.g3 c6 followed by ...¥c8-f5 or ...¥c8-g4 offers White nothing but trouble. I was amused to find out that, a long time ago, a certain Valentin Marin (!) managed to
Foreword by the Author
9
hold his own by employing this set-up with Black against the great Saviely Tartakower. It is also ironical that, together with other games played by Tartakower at Barcelona in 1929, that game convinced theoreticians to baptize the system based on 1.d4 and 2.g3 “The Catalan Opening”. In order to avoid the aforementioned problems, I started employing 1.¤f3 followed by 2.g3 and 3.¥g2 as my main move order, delaying the direct fight for the centre. After a few years I understood that this works well if Black develops in the spirit of the Indian Defences, but does not offer chances for an advantage if Black occupies the centre with 1...d5 (or 1...¤f6 and 2...d5). After having had enough of 1.¤f3, I decided that the d5-square should immediately be taken under observation with 1.c4. Thus was initiated the most consistent period of success with White in my whole career. Against most of Black’s answers I would generally develop according to my own taste, with g2-g3, ¥f1-g2, etc. If allowed, I did not hesitate to transpose to the Catalan or the Fianchetto King’s Indian and Grünfeld, by playing d2-d4 at the right moment. The Slav Opening remained somewhat aside from this point of view, but I usually answered 1...c6 with 2.e4, transposing to the aggressive Panov Attack. When I first considered writing a book dedicated to a pure English Opening repertoire, I was afraid that I would face insurmountable problems proving an advantage for White in every line while avoiding recommending a transposition to 1.d4 at various points. This over-ambitious quest, which I had secretly been dreaming of, was against the long-established views of official theory and looked nearly impossible to accomplish. After more than one year of deep analysis with Valentin Stoica, I managed to make a step I had never dared to try before, by building a viable repertoire based on 1.c4 followed by 2.g3 irrespective of Black’s answer! That White refrains from an early d2-d4 in all these lines does not mean that he gives up the fight for the centre. Once White has eliminated the danger of Black’s counterplay, or achieved some other sort of advantage, White will strive to occupy the centre. You will find the spirit of this general strategy throughout this book and its companion volume. I completed the initial analytical work shortly before participating in the 51st edition of the Reggio Emilia tournament, as 2008 turned into 2009, and felt ready to give the brand new repertoire a thorough practical testing. The result was more than encouraging: with White I scored 4 out of 5, the equivalent of a rating performance of over 2800. Moreover, I had the better position in the only game I lost. I cannot anticipate how my understanding of chess will change in, say, ten years, but for the moment I feel confident that, after almost 20 years of research, I have finally found my Golden Fleece. By writing this book, I wish to share my conquest with you, dear reader.
Mihail Marin Bucharest, August 2010
How to Use this Book I have noticed that many chess players seem to read books by dipping in and out of various chapters, as the mood strikes them. I have a request – the first time you read this book, please read it in order. I ask this because I often introduce strategic ideas in one chapter that will be relied upon in later chapters. My plan is to build the reader’s understanding of the English gradually, as the story unfolds. This book supplies the second part of our complete repertoire for White with 1.c4. I may point out possible transpositions to other openings, but I will not rely on them for our repertoire. This does not necessarily mean that I would always choose to play certain lines in the English instead of playing the Catalan, as an example. But as a great guide for the Catalan already exists in Boris Avrukh’s 1.d4 repertoire, it does not make sense for me to cover the same ground. And besides... This is a book on the English after all! In the English Opening, where direct contact between the pieces is often delayed, both sides often have a wide range of moves. I mention every significant variation, but covering every possible move would be neither practical nor especially helpful to the reader. What is important is to cover all of the key ideas. Thus, even though you may encounter unfamiliar moves from time to time, you will not be “all at sea” – your new understanding of the English will be a reliable compass. I have decades of experience in playing and analysing the English and yet I am often surprised in the opening – it is the nature of the beast. I have marked some moves with N for Novelty. This means the move is new to me and I cannot find it in my database or books. However, there is always a possibility that the move could have been played in some obscure game, unbeknown to me. Should the reader encounter any such examples, I would ask him to remember that it is almost impossible to acquaint oneself with every possible source of chess games. In any case, this book contains a great deal of original analysis, which I hope will prove useful to the reader. I have delayed you long enough – I hope you enjoy the book.
Ch
a pt
er
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoOoOoOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + + 5 pP PpPpP5 RnBqKbNr5 79
1
The English Introduction
Chapters 3-11
Chapters 12-18
Chapters 19-25
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 Oo+ OoOo5 +o+ + +5 + +o+ + 5 +p+ + +5 + + +nP 5 pP PpP P5 RnBqKb+r5 79
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoO +oOo5 + +o+ +5 + + + + 5 +o+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBqK Nr5 79
1222222223 tMvW Tl+5 OoO VoOo5 + +oM +5 + +o+ + 5 +p+ + +5 +p+ +nP 5 p+ PpPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79
Anti-Slav Systems
Anti-QG Systems
Anti-QGD Systems
Chapter 26
Chapter 27
Chapter 28
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 OoO Oo+o5 + + +o+5 + +m+ + 5 + + + +5 + N + P 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK Nr5 79
1222222223 tMvW Tl+5 OoOoOoVo5 + + Mo+5 + + + + 5 +p+ + +5 + N + P 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK Nr5 79
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 OoOoO Oo5 + + M +5 + + +o+ 5 +p+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBqK Nr5 79
Anti-Grünfeld
Anti-King’s Indian
Anti-Dutch
Chapter 29
Chapter 30
1222222223 tM WlVmT5 OvOo+oOo5 O +o+ +5 + + + + 5 +p+p+ +5 + N + + 5 pP PnPpP5 R BqKb+r5 79
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoOoOoOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 + + + +5 + + +n+ 5 pPpPpPpP5 RnBqKb+r5 79
Anti-Owen
Reti Move Order
er a pt
3
Ch
Anti-Slav Systems
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 Oo+ OoOo5 +o+ M +5 + + + + 5 +o+ + +5 + + +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79
5th Move Various Variation Index 1.c4 c6 2.g3 d5 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¥g2 dxc4 5.0–0 A) 5...g6 6.¤a3 A1) 6...£d5 A2) 6...¥g7 A3) 6...b5 B) 5...b5 C) 5...¥e6 6.¤g5 C1) 6...¥f5 C2) 6...¥d5 7.e4 h6 8.exd5 hxg5 9.dxc6 ¤xc6 10.¤a3 C21) 10...e6 C22) 10...£d3 D) 5...¤bd7 6.¤a3 ¤b6 7.£c2 D1) 7...¥e6 8.¤g5 £d7 9.b3! cxb3 10.axb3 ¥g4!? 11.¤c4! ¤xc4 12.£xc4 e6 13.¥b2 ¥h5 14.¦a5 D11) 14...¥e7 D12) 14...¥g6 D2) 7...£d5 8.¤e1! D21) 8...£d4 D22) 8...£h5 D23) 8...£f5 D24) 8...£e6 9.d3! cxd3 10.¤xd3 g6 11.e4!N ¥g7 12.¥f4 D241) 12...£g4 D242) 12...¤fd7 D25) 8...¥f5
23 23 24 26 28 30 30 32 33 34 38 39 43 43 44 45 45 46 47 49 50 51
Anti-Slav Systems
28
15.¤xb5! This resolute move completely changes the picture. White sacrifices his knight in order to create two dangerous passed pawns and prevent Black from castling. 15...axb5 16.£xb5† ¤d7 16...¢f8 17.a4© is similar. 17.¥f4 h5 18.¦d1 £c8 19.a4© Black’s position is very dangerous. He has no easy way to complete his development, while the white queenside pawns are threatening. B) 5...b5
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 O + OoOo5 +o+ M +5 +o+ + + 5 +o+ + +5 + + +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79 Needless to say, this is the most committal move. In order to defend a pawn that was not yet under attack, Black weakens the long diagonal, which allows White to orientate his further actions quite easily. 6.a4 ¥b7 7.b3 cxb3 8.£xb3 a6 9.¥a3 Having avoided the loss of time £d1-c2xb3, White is a whole tempo up (he has castled) if compared with the aforementioned line 5.£c2 b5, etc. Black’s queenside is under pressure and the inevitable ...e6 will lead to the loss of the right to castle and chronic weaknesses on the dark squares.
1222222223 tM WlV T5 +v+ OoOo5 o+o+ M +5 +o+ + + 5 p+ + + +5 Bq+ +nP 5 + PpPbP5 Rn+ +rK 5 79 9...¤bd7 9...e6 10.¥xf8 ¢xf8 11.¦c1 g6 12.£b2 ¢g7 13.¤e5² left Black under pressure on both wings in Vukanovic – Barle, Ljubljana 1996. Note that 9...g6 would not avoid playing ...e6, because of 10.¤e5!. 10.¦c1
1222222223 t+ WlV T5 +v+mOoOo5 o+o+ M +5 +o+ + + 5 p+ + + +5 Bq+ +nP 5 + PpPbP5 RnR + K 5 79
This move, with which we are familiar from a comment to the ninth move, seems to be the best way to develop White’s initiative. The mechanical occupation of the centre with 10.d4 is less constructive. The text move puts the c6-pawn under severe pressure and keeps the long dark diagonal open for the queen.
Chapter 3 – 5th Move Various 10...e5 A risky move. Black deprives the white knight of the d4-square, but weakens the a2-f7 diagonal. The more restrained 10...e6 loses the c6-pawn to 11.¤d4±, without solving the problem of evacuating the king from the centre in view of 11...¥xa3 12.£xa3. Vuksanovic mentions 10...£b6!? as Black’s best defence, aiming to keep the queenside together without creating weaknesses on the other wing. She provides the following variations: 11.¤g5 (forcing the opening of the a3-f8 diagonal) 11...e6 12.¥xf8 ¦xf8 (12...¢xf8 would allow White win time with 13.axb5 cxb5 14.£b4† ¢e8 15.¤c3±, while 12...¤xf8 leaves the c5square undefended. 13.¤c3± I would continue her analysis with 13...¤8d7 14.axb5 axb5 15.¦xa8† ¥xa8 16.£a3 ¥b7 17.£d6±, or 14...cxb5 15.¥xb7 £xb7 16.£b4±.) 13.¤c3© (Vuksanovic).
1222222223 t+ +lT +5 +v+m+oOo5 oWo+oM +5 +o+ + N 5 p+ + + +5 +qN + P 5 + PpPbP5 R R + K 5 79
White is fully developed and prepared to start fighting for the c5-square (¤ge4). With his rooks uncoordinated, Black faces a difficult defensive task. 11.¤g5! ¤d5 12.¥xf8 ¢xf8 13.axb5 The start of a typical exchanging operation, which aims to leave the enemy bishop passive and vulnerable.
29
13...axb5 14.¦xa8 ¥xa8 14...£xa8? would lose material to 15.e4+–.
1222222223 v+ W L T5 + +m+oOo5 +o+ + +5 +o+mO N 5 + + + +5 +q+ + P 5 + PpPbP5 +nR + K 5 79
15.¥xd5!N During an over-the-board game it is not easy to spot the surprising queen manoeuvre allowed by this move. 15.e4 is also strong. 15...c5 16.exd5 £xg5 17.£xb5 £d8 18.¤c3± White has restored material equality and enjoys a huge lead in development, Vukanovic – Acs, Hungary 1996. 15...cxd5 16.£f3! White forces the next move, which clears the seventh rank for the attack. 16...¤f6 17.£a3† 19.¦c7+–
¢e8
18.£a7
¦f8
1222222223 v+ WlT +5 Q R +oOo5 + + M +5 +o+oO N 5 + + + +5 + + + P 5 + PpP P5 +n+ + K 5 79
Großmeister-Repertoire 4
Die Englische Eröffnung Band Zwei Von
Mihail Marin mit unschätzbarer Hilfe von Valentin Stoica
FÜR LUIZA
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Eine Serie über großmeisterliche Eröffnungsrepertoires herauszugeben, ist eine verständliche Idee. Derzeit gibt es eine Flut von Eröffnungsbüchern für Vereinsspieler und Fortgeschrittene. Diese Bücher sind teilweise sehr erfrischend geschrieben. Doch inzwischen haben sie die erstklassigen Eröffnungsbücher fast völlig vom Markt verdrängt. Als Schachfans haben wir diese Situation etwas bedauert. Weil wir in der glücklichen Lage sind, etwas an diesem Zustand ändern zu können, haben wir uns letztlich entschieden, tatsächlich etwas zu unternehmen. Die Bücher der Großmeister-Repertoire-Reihe werden von Großmeistern geschrieben, von Großmeistern herausgegeben und sicher auch von Großmeistern gelesen werden. Das heißt natürlich keineswegs, dass Spieler, die nicht Großmeister sind, sie nicht lesen und verstehen können. Wir haben hart daran gearbeitet, unsere Bücher so klar zu strukturieren und zu präsentieren, dass die Leser selbst entscheiden können, bis zu welcher Tiefe sie in die dargebotene Materie eindringen wollen. Als wir noch junge, aufstrebende Talente waren, verstanden wir, dass man sich nicht an jedes Detail, das man in einem Eröffnungsbuch gelesen hat, erinnern muss, um eine Eröffnung anwenden zu können. Es ist unser Anliegen, dass diejenigen Leser, die das dargebotene Repertoire als zu umfangreich und zu detailliert empfinden, einfach einige Details ignorieren können. Inzwischen sind wir Großmeister, aber noch immer sind es die kühnen Züge, die wir uns einprägen möchten, und wir nutzen die Anmerkungen als Erklärungen und Illustrationen. Es ist unsere feste Überzeugung, dass man letztlich erfolgreicher sein wird, wenn man die Hauptvarianten spielt, einfach deshalb, weil sie auf den logischeren Zügen basieren. Instinktiv teilen die meisten Spieler diese Ansicht. Aber oft befürchten sie, einer Vorbereitung zum Opfer zu fallen, und spielen letztlich anspruchslosere Systeme oder greifen zu ungesunden Überraschungswaffen. Der Gegner wird seine Vorbereitung dann nicht nutzen können, nur wird er sie leider auch kaum brauchen. Die meisten Nebenvarianten münden fast automatisch in weniger interessante Stellungen. Der Hauptgrund, warum erstklassige Eröffnungsbücher fast völlig vom Markt verschwunden sind, dürfte im gewaltigen Anwachsen der Datenbanken liegen. Viele Spieler glauben, dass es keinen Sinn mehr macht, traditionelle Eröffnungsbücher zu studieren, da man alles in Datenbanken finden kann. Einige ausgebuffte Autoren verfahren nach folgendem faulen Schema: Sie sammeln einige hundert Partien aus den Datenbanken, lassen Fritz einige Sekunden darüber laufen, den Rest besorgt der Drucker. Solche Bücher leisten keinen Beitrag zur Schachliteratur. Wir haben mehr als genügend solcher Bücher gesehen, aber wir hatten und haben nicht die Absicht, Bücher für die Halde zu produzieren. In Zeiten von Multi-Millionen-Partien-Datenbanken hat jedermann Zugang zu den Partiedaten, woran es mangelt, ist Schachverständnis. In der Reihe von Großmeister-Repertoire-Büchern werden sehr starke Spieler ihr Schachverständnis mit dem Leser teilen und starke neue Züge vorschlagen, die niemand sonst in seinen Datenbanken finden wird. Wir sind von dieser neuen Reihe sehr angetan und hoffen, dass der Leser unsere Begeisterung teilen wird. John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard
Vorwort Ich war schon immer der Meinung, dass der Aufbau eines auf den persönlichen Stil und die jeweiligen Fähigkeiten abgestimmten perfekten Eröffnungsrepertoires genauso schwierig ist wie die Suche der Argonauten nach dem Goldenen Vlies. Es gibt eine ganze Reihe von Fragen zu klären, bevor man überhaupt daran denken kann, bestimmte Eröffnungen auszuwählen. Soll man sich in der Eröffnung mit beiden Farben an die gleiche Herangehensweise halten oder vielleicht besser mit Weiß sehr ambitioniert spielen und sich mit Schwarz auf eine zurückhaltendere Spielweise verlegen? Auf allen Niveaus finden sich Anhänger beider Methoden. Es gibt auch mehr als einen Weg, dem Repertoire einen kohärenten Charakter zu verleihen. Man kann sich in allen seinen Eröffnungsvarianten von den gleichen allgemeinen Prinzipien leiten lassen (wie dem Kampf um Raum und Initiative, oder im Gegensatz dazu dem Streben nach soliden, aber etwas passiven Stellungen). Dies ist der breiteste Ansatz, der zur Koexistenz von Systemen führen kann, die absolut keine optische Ähnlichkeit miteinander haben. Er war bei den größten Spielern der Schachgeschichte sehr beliebt, ist aber für Normalsterbliche nicht leicht zu handhaben. Viele Spieler ziehen es vor, ihre Figuren und Bauern unabhängig vom Spiel des Gegners nach den gleichen allgemeinen Mustern zu entwickeln und abzutauschen. Mit Schwarz greifen sie hierfür zu Kombinationen von verwandten Eröffnungen, wie Slawisch und Caro-Kann oder Königsindisch und Breyer-Variante der Spanischen Eröffnung. Dies führt mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit zu einer hochgradigen Spezialisierung in den jeweiligen Systemen, läuft aber das Risiko der Einschränkung des schachlichen Horizonts. Beim Aufbau meines Weißrepertoires lege ich Wert auf Raum und Initiative, aber auch auf die Möglichkeit, das Spiel innerhalb einer relativ begrenzten Palette von Strukturen zu halten, die ich in der Regel tiefgründig studiere. Außerdem nehme ich alle fünf, zehn oder fünfzehn Jahre größere Änderungen an meinem Repertoire vor, um das im vorhergehenden Absatz angesprochene Risiko zu vermeiden. Als Kind und Jugendlicher spielte ich ausschließlich 1.e4, aber im Alter von 18 Jahren stieg ich auf 1.d4 um. Nachdem ich einige Jahre lang aggressive Aufbauten gespielt hatte, begann ich mich in den frühen 90er Jahren von Aufstellungen mit einem Königsflügelfianchetto angezogen zu fühlen. Damals konnte ich natürlich nicht ahnen, dass dies der Moment war, an dem die ungewöhnlich lange Entstehungsgeschichte des vorliegenden Werks seinen Anfang nahm. Mit Katalanisch und den Fianchetto-Varianten gegen Königsindisch und Grünfeld-Indisch errang ich zahlreiche Siege, konnte aber keine zufriedenstellenden verwandten Aufstellungen gegen Slawisch finden. Aus eigener Erfahrung lernte ich, dass 1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.g3 c6 gefolgt von ...¥c8-f5 oder ...¥c8-g4 dem Weißen nichts als Ärger einbringt. Amüsanterweise konnte vor langer Zeit ein gewisser Valentin Marin (!) mit diesem Aufbau als Nachziehender dem großen Savielly Tartakower ein Remis abknöpfen.
Vorwort
9
Ironisch ist auch, dass dieses Aufeinandertreffen zusammen mit anderen von Tartakower 1929 in Barcelona gespielten Partien die Theoretiker dazu veranlasste, das System auf Basis von 1.d4 und 2.g3 die „Katalanische Eröffnung“ zu taufen. Um die oben erwähnten Probleme zu vermeiden, begann ich als Hauptzugreihenfolge 1.¤f3 gefolgt von 2.g3 und 3.¥g2 zu spielen und damit den direkten Kampf um das Zentrum auf einen späteren Zeitpunkt zu verlegen. Nach ein paar Jahren wurde mir jedoch klar, dass dies gut funktioniert, wenn Schwarz sich im Geiste der Indischen Verteidigungen entwickelt, aber keine Chancen auf Vorteil bietet, wenn Schwarz mit 1...d5 (oder 1...¤f6 und 2...d5) das Zentrum in Besitz nimmt. Nachdem ich von 1.¤f3 genug hatte, gelangte ich zu dem Schluss, dass das Feld d5 mit 1.c4 sofort unter Beobachtung genommen werden sollte. Dies war der Beginn der am längsten anhaltenden Erfolge meiner gesamten Karriere mit den weißen Steinen. Gegen die meisten Antworten von Schwarz entwickelte ich mich im Allgemeinen ganz nach meinem eigenen Geschmack mit g2-g3, ¥f1-g2 usw. Bei Gelegenheit leitete ich ohne Zögern mit d2-d4 im richtigen Moment in Katalanisch oder die Fianchetto-Varianten des Königsinders und Grünfeld-Inders über. Die Slawische Eröffnung blieb in dieser Hinsicht eher außen vor, aber in der Regel griff ich nach 1...c6 zu 2.e4 mit Überleitung in den aggressiven Panow-Angriff. Als ich erstmals erwog, ein Buch über ein reines Englisch-Repertoire zu verfassen, hatte ich Angst, dass es sich als unmöglich erweisen würde, in jedem Abspiel für Weiß Vorteil nachzuweisen, ohne an verschiedenen Punkten einen Übergang zu 1.d4 zu empfehlen. Dieses überehrgeizige Vorhaben, von dem ich insgeheim geträumt hatte, stand im Gegensatz zu den althergebrachten Ansichten der offiziellen Theorie und schien nahezu unmöglich in die Tat umzusetzen zu sein. Nach mehr als einjährigen tiefgründigen Analysen mit Valentin Stoica gelang mir ein Schritt, den ich nie zuvor gewagt hatte: Der Aufbau eines funktionsfähigen Repertoires auf Basis von 1.c4 gefolgt von 2.g3 auf jede Antwort von Schwarz! Dass Weiß in allen diesen Abspielen auf frühes d2-d4 verzichtet, bedeutet nicht, dass er den Kampf um das Zentrum aufgibt. Nachdem Weiß die Gefahr eines schwarzen Gegenspiels gebannt oder irgendeine andere Art von Vorteil erzielt hat, wird der die Besetzung des Zentrums anstreben. Der Grundgedanke dieser allgemeinen Strategie durchzieht beide Bände dieses Werks wie ein roter Faden. Nach Abschluss der analytischen Arbeiten kurz vor der Teilnahme an der 51. Auflage des Turniers in Reggio Emilia zum Jahreswechsel 2008/2009 fühlte ich mich bereit, das brandneue Repertoire einem gründlichen praktischen Test zu unterziehen. Das Ergebnis war mehr als ermtigend: mit Weiß erzielte ich 4 Punkte aus 5 Partien, was einer Rating-Performance von über 2800 entsprach. Überdies hatte ich auch in meiner einzigen Verlustpartie die bessere Stellung. Ich kann natürlich nicht voraussehen, wie mein Schachverständnis sich beispielsweise in zehn Jahren verändern wird, aber im Moment bin ich zuversichtlich, dass ich nach fast 20 Jahren Forschungsarbeit schließlich mein Goldenes Vlies gefunden habe. Im vorliegenden Buch möchte ich meine Errungenschaft mit dem Leser teilen. Mihail Marin Bukarest, August 2010
Anleitung zum Gebrauch des vorliegenden Buchs Mir ist aufgefallen, dass viele Schachspieler Bücher lesen, indem sie verschiedene Kapitel stichprobenartig studieren, wie es ihnen gerade einfällt. Ich habe eine Bitte – Halten Sie sich bitte beim ersten Lesen des Buchs an die gegebene Reihenfolge. Es werden nämlich häufig in einem Kapitel strategische Ideen eingeführt, auf die dann in späteren Kapiteln zurückgegriffen wird. Ich habe die Absicht, das Verständnis des Lesers für die Englische Eröffnung im Lauf meiner Ausführungen nach und nach aufzubauen. Das vorliegende Buch liefert den zweiten Teil unseres kompletten Repertoires für Weiß mit 1.c4. Zuweilen wird auf mögliche Übergänge in andere Eröffnungen hingewiesen, die aber für unser Repertoire nicht von Bedeutung sind. Das bedeutet aber nicht unbedingt, dass ich mich beispielsweise immer für bestimmte Abspiele der Englischen Eröffnung anstelle von Katalanisch entscheiden würde. Da es jedoch mit Boris Awruchs 1.d4-Repertoire bereits einen großartigenn Ratgeber zur Katalanischen Eröffnung gibt, sehe ich keinen Sinn darin, dieses Gebiet noch einmal abzudecken. Außerdem ist dies schließlich ein Buch über die Englische Eröffnung! In der Englischen Eröffnung, in der die Figuren häufig erst später in direkten Kontakt kommen, verfügen beide Seiten häufig über eine breite Palette von Zügen. Jede wichtige Variante wird angesprochen, aber es wäre weder praktisch noch besonders hilfreich für den Leser, jeden möglichen Zug abzudecken. Viel wichtiger ist es, alle Schlüsselideen zu behandeln. Daher wird der Leser zwar von Zeit zu Zeit auf unbekannte Züge treffen, aber trotzdem nicht ratlos dasitzen – sein neues Verständnis der Englischen Eröffnung wird im als zuverlässiger Kompass dienen. Ich habe jahrzehntelange praktische und analytische Erfahrung mit der Englischen Eröffnung und werde trotzdem häufig in der Eröffnung überrascht – das liegt in der Natur der Sache. Einige Züge sind von mir mit dem Buchstaben N für Neuerung versehen worden. Dies bedeutet, dass mir der Zug neu ist und ich ihn nicht in meiner Datenbank und meinen Büchern finden kann. Es besteht jedoch immer die Möglichkeit, dass der Zug in irgendeiner mir unbekannten obskuren Partie gespielt worden sein könnte. Sollte der Leser auf irgendwelche derartige Beispiele stoßen, so möchte ich daran erinnern, dass es praktisch unmöglich ist, sich mit allen erdenklichen Quellen von Schachpartien vertraut zu machen. In jedem Fall enthält das vorliegende Buch eine große Menge von Originalanalysen, die sich hoffentlich für den Leser als nützlich erweisen werden. Genug der langen Vorrede – Ich hoffe, das Buch wird Ihnen gefallen.
el pit Ka
1
Englische Eröffnung
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoOoOoOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + + 5 pP PpPpP5 RnBqKbNr5 79
Einführung Kapitel 3-11
Kapitel 12-18
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 Oo+ OoOo5 +o+ + +5 + +o+ + 5 +p+ + +5 + + +nP 5 pP PpP P5 RnBqKb+r5 79
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoO +oOo5 + +o+ +5 + + + + 5 +o+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBqK Nr5 79
Anti-Slawisch-Systeme
Anti-Damengambit-Systeme
Kapitel 26
Kapitel 27
Kapitel 19-25
1222222223 tMvW Tl+5 OoO VoOo5 + +oM +5 + +o+ + 5 +p+ + +5 +p+ +nP 5 p+ PpPbP5 RnBq+rK 5 79 Systeme gegen das Abgelehnte Damengambit Kapitel 28
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 OoO Oo+o5 + + +o+5 + +m+ + 5 + + + +5 + N + P 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK Nr5 79
1222222223 tMvW Tl+5 OoOoOoVo5 + + Mo+5 + + + + 5 +p+ + +5 + N + P 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK Nr5 79
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 OoOoO Oo5 + + M +5 + + +o+ 5 +p+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBqK Nr5 79
Anti-Grünfeld-Indisch
Anti-Königsindisch
Anti-Holländisch
Kapitel 29
Kapitel 30
1222222223 tM WlVmT5 OvOo+oOo5 O +o+ +5 + + + + 5 +p+p+ +5 + N + + 5 pP PnPpP5 R BqKb+r5 79
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoOoOoOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 + + + +5 + + +n+ 5 pPpPpPpP5 RnBqKb+r5 79
Anti-Owen-Verteidigung
Zugreihenfolge
12
Englische Eröffnung
1.c4
Die in diesem Band untersuchten Varianten sind von kritischer Bedeutung für die Schlüssigkeit unseres gesamten Repertoires. Mit 1...e5 (siehe Band 1) oder 1...c5 (Band 3) definiert Schwarz zumindest teilweise seine Absichten im Zentrum gleich zu Beginn der Partie, was unsere Planung einfacher macht und die Einladung zu echten Englisch-Gefilden annimmt. Weniger klar ist die Lage nach den Zügen 1...¤f6, 1...c6 oder 1...e6, die im Mittelpunkt des vorliegenden Bands stehen. In den meisten Fällen stellt Schwarz die Vorherrschaft des Anziehenden über den Punkt d5 in Frage, indem er schnell ...d7-d5 spielt. Damit kann er zwei verschiedene Zwecke verfolgen: zum einen die Einschränkung des Läufers g2, zum anderen die Ausnutzung der Tatsache, dass der Läufer so früh die Diagonale f1-a6 verlässt, durch Aufstellung der Drohung ...dxc4. Eine ähnliche Situation haben wir in den Abspielen auf Basis von ...c6 und ...d5 im ersten Band gesehen, aber dort hilft die Anwesenheit eines schwarzen Bauern auf e5 dem Weißen bei der Entwicklung seiner Initiative im Zentrum. Viele Spieler eröffnen mit 1.c4, um Eröffnungen wie Nimzo-Indisch und Grünfeld-Indisch aus dem Weg zu gehen, leiten aber dann bereitwillig
in 1.d4-Systeme über. In diesem Band habe ich die Augenblicke hervorgehoben, in denen eine Überleitung in die von Boris Awruch in seinen Büchern zu einem Repertoire mit 1.d4 oder von Lars Schandorff in Playing the Queen’s Gambit untersuchten Hauptvarianten möglich ist, aber dies sind lediglich Zusatzoptionen. Zugleich habe ich versucht, das Repertoire kompakt zu halten und gegen alle möglichen Aufbauten von Schwarz hypermoderne Systeme anzubieten. Ich bin der Meinung, dass die Chancen des Anziehenden in der überwiegenden Mehrzahl der hier untersuchten Varianten nicht schlechter sind als in den Hauptvarianten der klassischen Eröffnungen. Nur in sehr seltenen Fällen (beispielsweise gegen die für Kapitel 27 charakteristische Zugreihenfolge von Schwarz) habe ich einen Übergang zu 1.d4 als möglicherweise im Vorteilssinne konsequenter als die von mir untersuchte reine EnglischVariante empfohlen. Soweit eine Wahlmöglichkeit bestand, habe ich mich für dynamische oder strategisch ehrgeizige Abspiele entschieden, auch wenn dies das Risiko etwas höher schraubt. In den Kapiteln 2 bis 25 lässt Weiß mutig den Bauern c4 ungedeckt und will nachweisen, dass die Öffnung der langen Diagonale und seine bessere Entwicklung mehr als genug Kompensation für das geopferte Material bieten. Meine im Vorwort erwähnten anfänglichen Befürchtungen und Schwierigkeiten beziehen sich auf ebendiesen wichtigen Teil des Buches, in dem der Bauer d5 durch einen seiner Kollegen gedeckt ist, was dem Spiel des Nachziehenden einen strategisch gesunden Charakter verleiht und Weiß mit einer komplizierten Situation im Zentrum konfrontiert. Im Geiste der Englischen Eröffnung zu spielen, bedeutet nicht, auf immer und ewig auf d2-d4 zu verzichten. Damit würde Weiß sein eigenes Spiel unnötig beschränken und es dem Nach-
Kapitel 1 – Einführung ziehenden gestatten, nach seinem Gutdünken Raum zu gewinnen. Wie jeder Leser des ersten Bandes bereits weiß, sollten wir uns gegenüber so grundlegenden Dingen wie Zentrum und Raum nicht gleichgültig zeigen, wenngleich wir sie auf indirekte Weise angehen. Nach der harmonischen Mobilisierung seiner Figuren muss Weiß häufig seinen Damenbauern vorrücken, um seine Strategie zu krönen. Ein typischer Fall ergibt sich in der in Kapitel 25 untersuchten Tabija.
Die Stellung der schwarzen Dame auf d5 schreit förmlich nach 12.d4 mit der starken Drohung ¤e5. Diese Variante ist schon seit mindestens einem halben Jahrhundert gut bekannt und bewährt, aber in Kapitel 24 habe ich in der gleichen Richtung Fortschritte gemacht.
13
Die offizielle Theorie empfiehlt langsames Manövrieren mit dem d-Bauern auf d3 oder d2, aber ich ziehe es vor, d2-d4-d5 vorzubereiten. Es gibt keine unabhängigen Kapitel über 1...g6 oder 1...d6. Indem Weiß seine üblichen Züge spielt (2.g3, 3.¥g2, 4.¤c3), lässt er seinem Kontrahenten praktisch keine andere Wahl, als in Varianten überzuleiten, die in diesem dreibändigen Werk an anderer Stelle untersucht werden. Im vorliegenden Buch wird der Leser häufig Neuerungen finden, die das bisherige praktische Spiel des Anziehenden verbessern, aber ich möchte insbesondere die Kapitel 3, 12, 13, 16, 17 und, wie bereits erwähnt, 24 herausstreichen, die die meisten Originalanalysen enthalten und in einigen Fällen neue theoretische Trends setzen sollen. Interessant ist hier übrigens die Terminologie. Viele der nachstehend untersuchten Stellungen können der durch 1.¤f3 gekennzeichneten Reti-Eröffnung zugeordnet werden, was offenbar dem Titel des Buches etwas zuwiderläuft. Dieses Problem kann niemand lösen, da es nach 1.c4 der Nachziehende ist, der die Entscheidung zwischen der Englischen Eröffnung (1...e5 und 1...c5) oder der RetiEröffnung (...e6 oder ...c6 gefolgt von ...d5) trifft. Ich bin jedoch der Ansicht, dass der Titel aus praktischer Sicht vollauf gerechtfertigt ist. Wie im letzten Kapitel ausgeführt, ist 1.c4 aktiver und weniger restriktiv als 1.¤f3. Darüber hinaus sind diese beiden Eröffnungen so eng miteinander verflochten, dass die gesamte Diskussion akademisch ist. Wichtig ist nur, dass man dem hypermodernen Geiste treu bleibt, und dies ist genau das, was ich auf den folgenden Seiten zu erreichen versucht habe.
Grandmaster Repertoire 5
The English Opening Volume Three By
Mihail Marin with invaluable help from Valentin
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Stoica
First edition 2010 by Quality Chess UK Ltd Copyright © 2010 Mihail Marin
Grandmaster Repertoire 5 - The English volume 3 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Paperback ISBN 978-1-906552-59-6 Hardback ISBN 978-1-906552-30-5 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom Phone +44 141 227 6771 e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Proofreading by Colin McNab Edited by John Shaw and Andrew Greet Cover design by Adamson Design Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
Contents
Key to symbols used Bibliography Foreword by the Author How to Use this Book
6 7 8 10
1
The Double English – A Repertoire
11
The Closed System
2 3 4 5 6 7
Introduction and Sidelines 5...d6 5...e5 5...e6 – The Fischer System 5...¤f6 Main Line with 8...¤xd4
The Open Lines
8 9 10
2...¤f6 The Reversed Maroczy Reversed Maroczy with ...g6
The Flexible 3...e6
11 12 13 14 15
Introduction 4...b6 – The Inferior Queen’s Indian 4...a6 – The Inferior Hedgehog The Anti Tarrasch Catalan 6...cxd4 – The delayed Hedgehog and others
215 219 229 209 215
Variation Index
271
15 27 51 79 101 123
149 165 195
er a pt Ch
3
The Closed System
1222222223 t+vWl+mT5 Oo+ OoVo5 +mO +o+5 + O + + 5 +p+ + +5 + N +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK +r5 79
5...d6 Variation Index 1.c4 c5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤c3 ¥g7 5.¤f3 d6 6.0–0 A) 6...a6 7.a3! ¦b8 8.¦b1 b5 9.cxb5 axb5 10.b4 cxb4 11.axb4 28 A1) 11...¤f6 29 A2) 11...e5 30 B) 6...£d7!? 31 C) 6...¤h6 7.d4! cxd4 8.¥xh6 ¥xh6 9.¤xd4 34 C1) 9...¤xd4 34 C2) 9...¥d7 36 D) 6...¤f6 7.a3 0–0 8.¦b1 a5 9.d3 ¥d7 10.¥d2 ¤e8 11.¤e1 ¤c7 12.¤c2 ¦b8 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 ¤xb4 15.¤xb4 cxb4 16.¦xb4 b5 17.cxb5 ¤xb5 18.¤xb5 ¦xb5 19.¦xb5 ¥xb5 20.£b3 38 D1) 20...¥d7 44 D2) 20...£d7 21.¦c1 47 D21) 21...e6 47 D22) 21...¥a4 48 A2) after 11...e5
C1) after 14...¥e6
D22) after 22...£b5
1222222223 TvWl+mT5 + + +oVo5 +mO +o+5 +o+ O + 5 P + + +5 + N +nP 5 + PpPbP5 +rBq+rK 5
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 OoW Oo+o5 + Ov+o+5 + + + + 5 +p+ + +5 + Q + P 5 pP +pPbP5 + Rr+ K 5 79
1222222223 + + Tl+5 + + OoVo5 + O +o+5 +w+ + + 5 vQ + + +5 + +p+ P 5 + BpPbP5 + R + K 5 79
12.d4!N
15.£e3!N
23.¦c4!N
The Closed System
28
1.c4 c5 2.g3 ¤c6 3.¥g2 g6 4.¤c3 ¥g7 5.¤f3 d6 This is a flexible move. Black keeps the d4square under firm control while retaining the possibility of continuing the development of either wing. The drawback is that in certain lines, the early commitment of the d-pawn will restrict Black’s possibilities in the fight for the centre, as the typical idea of meeting d2-d4 with ...d6-d5 would mean a loss of a tempo.
7.a3! This is one of the rare cases in which White agrees to embark on symmetric play. In doing so, he relies on the fact that 5...d6 has cost Black an important tempo.
6.0–0 Since Black has not defined his intentions yet, White plays a useful developing move, delaying the moment of choosing a concrete plan. From this position we will examine A) 6...a6, B) 6...£d7!?, C) 6...¤h6 and D) 6...¤f6. Each of these moves leads to a distinct type of position. Grouping them under the same chapter is justified by the fact that they are sub-branches of 5...d6 and the volume of theoretical material does not warrant separate chapters.
1222222223 TvWl+mT5 + + OoVo5 +mO +o+5 +o+ + + 5 P + + +5 + N +nP 5 + PpPbP5 +rBq+rK 5 79
A) 6...a6
1222222223 t+vWl+mT5 +o+ OoVo5 o+mO +o+5 + O + + 5 +p+ + +5 + N +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79 This early queenside action has similar drawbacks as in line B from Chapter 2. With his king two tempos away from castling, Black should not display strategic ambitions.
7...¦b8 8.¦b1 b5 9.cxb5 axb5 10.b4 cxb4 11.axb4 The queenside position has been stabilized and Black should think about developing his other wing.
We examine A1) 11...¤f6 and A2) 11...e5. 11...¥f5 avoids immediate troubles, but does not provide a solution to White’s lead in development. 12.e4 ¥g4 13.¤e2 e5 14.h3 ¥xf3 15.¥xf3 ¤ge7 So far, we have followed Urban – Schmidt, Poznan 1997.
1222222223 T Wl+ T5 + + MoVo5 +mO +o+5 +o+ O + 5 P +p+ +5 + + +bPp5 + PnP +5 +rBq+rK 5 79
Chapter 3 – 5...d6 16.£b3!N Before embarking on an active plan, White should prevent the freeing move ...d5. 16...0–0 17.d3 ¦a8 18.¥d2± Despite the nearsymmetrical character of the position, White retains a stable advantage because of his strong bishop pair. The e7-knight is passive and the b5-pawn is likely to become vulnerable. A1) 11...¤f6
1222222223 TvWl+ T5 + + OoVo5 +mO Mo+5 +o+ + + 5 P + + +5 + N +nP 5 + PpPbP5 +rBq+rK 5 79 As a consequence of the unfortunate combination of ...d6 and ...a6, the natural text move fails to offer Black a viable game. 12.d4! This is it! White has not touched his d-pawn yet and can start the fight for space in the centre without any loss of time. The threat is d5 followed by ¤d4, with a crushing positional advantage. 12...¥f5 As will be revealed immediately, this counterattacking move, aiming to take advantage of the weakening of the b1-h7 diagonal, does not cross White’s plans in any way. Blocking the d4-pawn physically would involve the loss of an important tempo: 12...d5 13.¥f4 ¦b6 14.£b3 0–0 15.¦fc1±
29
White is a tempo up over a theoretical position that is considered to be almost equal. One consequence of this circumstance is that the black rook has been forced to b6, while the corresponding b3-square has been occupied by the white queen. With the b4-pawn overprotected, the b1-rook is free to return to the a-file. 13.d5! White bravely carries out his plan. The sacrificed exchange will be more than balanced by the strong passed c-pawn and the tempos lost by the enemy bishop. 13...¥xb1 Practically forced, since 13...¤a7 14.¦a1 followed by ¤d4 is awful for Black. 14.dxc6 ¥f5 The best chance, but it is still insufficient. 14...¥e4?! loses material: 15.¤xe4 ¤xe4 16.£c2 With the dual threats of c7 and £xe4. 16...¤c3 17.¥b2 White has a winning position, Frias – Frois, Caceres 1996. 15.¤d4
1222222223 T Wl+ T5 + + OoVo5 +pO Mo+5 +o+ +v+ 5 P N + +5 + N + P 5 + +pPbP5 + Bq+rK 5 79
The b5-pawn cannot be saved, which will leave White with two dangerous passers on
The Closed System
30
the queenside. Besides, after a later ¥e3, his bishops will be ideally placed for supporting the pawns’ advance. 15...0–0 16.¤cxb5 ¤e8 17.¥e3 ¤c7 18.¤xc7 £xc7 So far we have been following the game O. Ivanov – Orev, Gyongyos 1995.
1222222223 T + Tl+5 + W OoVo5 +pO +o+5 + + +v+ 5 P N + +5 + + B P 5 + +pPbP5 + +q+rK 5 79
19.¤xf5!N The start of the most effective sequence, allowing White to capitalize on his advantage. 19...gxf5 20.£a4 Threatening b5. 20...¦a8 21.£c2 ¦fb8 Black has no time to defend f5 – his number one priority must be to slow down the b-pawn. 22.£xf5 e6 Worse is 22...¦xb4 23.¥e4!. 23.£f4 White remains in control. He has restored full material equality and can prepare the further advance of his queenside pawns. A2) 11...e5
1222222223 TvWl+mT5 + + +oVo5 +mO +o+5 +o+ O + 5 P + + +5 + N +nP 5 + PpPbP5 +rBq+rK 5 79 This move, aiming to prevent White’s expansion in the centre, worked out well in Najdorf – Sanguinetti, Sao Paulo 1957, but only as a consequence of White’s insufficiently energetic play. 12.d4!N We became acquainted with this type of central break in the note to Black’s 10th move in line B2 of the previous chapter. White prepares the rapid development of his queen’s bishop and spoils the flexibility of Black’s central structure. 12...exd4 The alternative is equally unappealing: 12...¤xd4 13.¤xd4 exd4 14.¤d5 ¥e6 Black should exchange the powerful knight as soon as possible, in order to keep his extra pawn, thus retaining some material compensation for his general problems. 15.¥b2 ¥xd5 16.¥xd5 £b6 17.£b3 ¤h6 18.¦fc1 0–0 19.¦c6 £d8 20.¦bc1± White’s pieces dominate the board and the extra pawn is not relevant at all. 13.¤d5 Threatening ¥b2 followed by ¤xd4. 13...¥e6 14.¤f4 Threatening to weaken the light squares in
Großmeister-Repertoire 5
Die Englische Eröffnung Band Drei Von
Mihail Marin mit unschätzbarer Hilfe von Valentin Stoica
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Inhalt
Verwendete Symbole Bibliographie Vorwort des Autors Anleitung zum Gebrauch des vorliegenden Buchs
6 7 8 10
1
Doppel-Englisch – Ein Repertoire
11
Geschlossenes System
2 3 4 5 6 7
Einführung und Nebenvarianten 5...d6 5...e5 5...e6 – Fischer-System 5...¤f6 Hauptvariante mit 8...¤xd4
Offene Varianten
8 9 10
2...¤f6 Maroczy-System im Nachzug Maroczy-System im Nachzug mit ...g6
Das flexible 3...e6
11 12 13 14 15
Einführung 4...b6 – Minderwertiges Damenindisch 4...a6 – Minderwertiger Igel Anti-Tarrasch-Katalanisch 6...cxd4 – Verzögerter Igel und anderes
213 217 226 233 256
Variantenindex
268
14 27 51 79 102 123
148 163 193
Vorwort Ich war schon immer der Meinung, dass der Aufbau eines auf den persönlichen Stil und die jeweiligen Fähigkeiten abgestimmten perfekten Eröffnungsrepertoires genauso schwierig ist wie die Suche der Argonauten nach dem Goldenen Vlies. Es gibt eine ganze Reihe von Fragen zu klären, bevor man überhaupt daran denken kann, bestimmte Eröffnungen auszuwählen. Soll man sich in der Eröffnung mit beiden Farben an die gleiche Herangehensweise halten oder vielleicht besser mit Weiß sehr ambitioniert spielen und sich mit Schwarz auf eine zurückhaltendere Spielweise verlegen? Auf allen Niveaus finden sich Anhänger beider Methoden. Es gibt auch mehr als einen Weg, dem Repertoire einen kohärenten Charakter zu verleihen. Man kann sich in allen seinen Eröffnungsvarianten von den gleichen allgemeinen Prinzipien leiten lassen (wie dem Kampf um Raum und Initiative, oder im Gegensatz dazu dem Streben nach soliden, aber etwas passiven Stellungen). Dies ist der breiteste Ansatz, der zur Koexistenz von Systemen führen kann, die absolut keine optische Ähnlichkeit miteinander haben. Er war bei den größten Spielern der Schachgeschichte sehr beliebt, ist aber für Normalsterbliche nicht leicht zu handhaben. Viele Spieler ziehen es vor, ihre Figuren und Bauern unabhängig vom Spiel des Gegners nach den gleichen allgemeinen Mustern zu entwickeln und abzutauschen. Mit Schwarz greifen sie hierfür zu Kombinationen von verwandten Eröffnungen, wie Slawisch und Caro-Kann oder Königsindisch und Breyer-Variante der Spanischen Eröffnung. Dies führt mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit zu einer hochgradigen Spezialisierung in den jeweiligen Systemen, läuft aber das Risiko der Einschränkung des schachlichen Horizonts. Beim Aufbau meines Weißrepertoires lege ich Wert auf Raum und Initiative, aber auch auf die Möglichkeit, das Spiel innerhalb einer relativ begrenzten Palette von Strukturen zu halten, die ich in der Regel tiefgründig studiere. Außerdem nehme ich alle fünf, zehn oder fünfzehn Jahre größere Änderungen an meinem Repertoire vor, um das im vorhergehenden Absatz angesprochene Risiko zu vermeiden. Als Kind und Jugendlicher spielte ich ausschließlich 1.e4, aber im Alter von 18 Jahren stieg ich auf 1.d4 um. Nachdem ich einige Jahre lang aggressive Aufbauten gespielt hatte, begann ich mich in den frühen 90er Jahren von Aufstellungen mit einem Königsflügelfianchetto angezogen zu fühlen. Damals konnte ich natürlich nicht ahnen, dass dies der Moment war, an dem die ungewöhnlich lange Entstehungsgeschichte des vorliegenden Werks seinen Anfang nahm. Mit Katalanisch und den Fianchetto-Varianten gegen Königsindisch und Grünfeld-Indisch errang ich zahlreiche Siege, konnte aber keine zufriedenstellenden verwandten Aufstellungen gegen Slawisch finden. Aus eigener Erfahrung lernte ich, dass 1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.g3 c6 gefolgt von ...¥c8-f5 oder ...¥c8-g4 dem Weißen nichts als Ärger einbringt. Amüsanterweise konnte vor langer Zeit ein gewisser Valentin Marin (!) mit diesem Aufbau als Nachziehender dem großen Savielly Tartakower ein Remis abknöpfen.
Vorwort
9
Ironisch ist auch, dass dieses Aufeinandertreffen zusammen mit anderen von Tartakower 1929 in Barcelona gespielten Partien die Theoretiker dazu veranlasste, das System auf Basis von 1.d4 und 2.g3 die „Katalanische Eröffnung“ zu taufen. Um die oben erwähnten Probleme zu vermeiden, begann ich als Hauptzugreihenfolge 1.¤f3 gefolgt von 2.g3 und 3.¥g2 zu spielen und damit den direkten Kampf um das Zentrum auf einen späteren Zeitpunkt zu verlegen. Nach ein paar Jahren wurde mir jedoch klar, dass dies gut funktioniert, wenn Schwarz sich im Geiste der Indischen Verteidigungen entwickelt, aber keine Chancen auf Vorteil bietet, wenn Schwarz mit 1...d5 (oder 1...¤f6 und 2...d5) das Zentrum in Besitz nimmt. Nachdem ich von 1.¤f3 genug hatte, gelangte ich zu dem Schluss, dass das Feld d5 mit 1.c4 sofort unter Beobachtung genommen werden sollte. Dies war der Beginn der am längsten anhaltenden Erfolge meiner gesamten Karriere mit den weißen Steinen. Gegen die meisten Antworten von Schwarz entwickelte ich mich im Allgemeinen ganz nach meinem eigenen Geschmack mit g2-g3, ¥f1-g2 usw. Bei Gelegenheit leitete ich ohne Zögern mit d2-d4 im richtigen Moment in Katalanisch oder die Fianchetto-Varianten des Königsinders und Grünfeld-Inders über. Die Slawische Eröffnung blieb in dieser Hinsicht eher außen vor, aber in der Regel griff ich nach 1...c6 zu 2.e4 mit Überleitung in den aggressiven Panow-Angriff. Als ich erstmals erwog, ein Buch über ein reines Englisch-Repertoire zu verfassen, hatte ich Angst, dass es sich als unmöglich erweisen würde, in jedem Abspiel für Weiß Vorteil nachzuweisen, ohne an verschiedenen Punkten einen Übergang zu 1.d4 zu empfehlen. Dieses überehrgeizige Vorhaben, von dem ich insgeheim geträumt hatte, stand im Gegensatz zu den althergebrachten Ansichten der offiziellen Theorie und schien nahezu unmöglich in die Tat umzusetzen zu sein. Nach mehr als einjährigen tiefgründigen Analysen mit Valentin Stoica gelang mir ein Schritt, den ich nie zuvor gewagt hatte: Der Aufbau eines funktionsfähigen Repertoires auf Basis von 1.c4 gefolgt von 2.g3 auf jede Antwort von Schwarz! Dass Weiß in allen diesen Abspielen auf frühes d2-d4 verzichtet, bedeutet nicht, dass er den Kampf um das Zentrum aufgibt. Nachdem Weiß die Gefahr eines schwarzen Gegenspiels gebannt oder irgendeine andere Art von Vorteil erzielt hat, wird der die Besetzung des Zentrums anstreben. Der Grundgedanke dieser allgemeinen Strategie durchzieht beide Bände dieses Werks wie ein roter Faden. Nach Abschluss der analytischen Arbeiten kurz vor der Teilnahme an der 51. Auflage des Turniers in Reggio Emilia zum Jahreswechsel 2008/2009 fühlte ich mich bereit, das brandneue Repertoire einem gründlichen praktischen Test zu unterziehen. Das Ergebnis war mehr als ermtigend: mit Weiß erzielte ich 4 Punkte aus 5 Partien, was einer Rating-Performance von über 2800 entsprach. Überdies hatte ich auch in meiner einzigen Verlustpartie die bessere Stellung. Ich kann natürlich nicht voraussehen, wie mein Schachverständnis sich beispielsweise in zehn Jahren verändern wird, aber im Moment bin ich zuversichtlich, dass ich nach fast 20 Jahren Forschungsarbeit schließlich mein Goldenes Vlies gefunden habe. Im vorliegenden Buch möchte ich meine Errungenschaft mit dem Leser teilen. Mihail Marin Bukarest, August 2010
Anleitung zum Gebrauch des vorliegenden Buchs Mir ist aufgefallen, dass viele Schachspieler Bücher lesen, indem sie verschiedene Kapitel stichprobenartig studieren, wie es ihnen gerade einfällt. Ich habe eine Bitte – Halten Sie sich bitte beim ersten Lesen des Buchs an die gegebene Reihenfolge. Es werden nämlich häufig in einem Kapitel strategische Ideen eingeführt, auf die dann in späteren Kapiteln zurückgegriffen wird. Ich habe die Absicht, das Verständnis des Lesers für die Englische Eröffnung im Lauf meiner Ausführungen nach und nach aufzubauen. Das vorliegende Buch liefert den dritten und letzten Teil unseres kompletten Repertoires für Weiß mit 1.c4 und behandelt die Antwort 1...c5. Im Rahmen dieser Buchreihe habe ich in der Regel auf mögliche Übergänge in andere Eröffnungen hingewiesen, sie aber nicht zu Eckpfeilern unseres Repertoires gemacht. Im vorliegenden Band gibt es ein paar Ausnahmen von dieser Regel, wo ich eine “nicht-englische” Spielweise empfehle, aber nur, wenn Schwarz sich für eine deutlich minderwertige Variante entschieden hat. So schlage ich beispielsweise in ein paar Nebenvarianten in Kapitel 15 vor, den Nachziehenden in hässliche Versionen der Tarrasch-Verteidigung und Verbesserten Tarrasch-Verteidigung zu lenken. Ich hoffe, dass der Leser mir in diesen Fällen verzeiht und sich auf die vorzüglichen Stellungen einlässt, die Weiß als Entschädigung für meine Untreue erhält. In der Englischen Eröffnung, in der die Figuren häufig erst später in direkten Kontakt kommen, verfügen beide Seiten häufig über eine breite Palette von Zügen. Jede wichtige Variante wird angesprochen, aber es wäre weder praktisch noch besonders hilfreich für den Leser, jeden möglichen Zug abzudecken. Viel wichtiger ist es, alle Schlüsselideen zu behandeln. Daher wird der Leser zwar von Zeit zu Zeit auf unbekannte Züge treffen, aber trotzdem nicht ratlos dasitzen – sein neues Verständnis der Englischen Eröffnung wird im als zuverlässiger Kompass dienen. Ich habe jahrzehntelange praktische und analytische Erfahrung mit der Englischen Eröffnung und werde trotzdem häufig in der Eröffnung überrascht – das liegt in der Natur der Sache. Einige Züge sind von mir mit dem Buchstaben N für Neuerung versehen worden. Dies bedeutet, dass mir der Zug neu ist und ich ihn nicht in meiner Datenbank und meinen Büchern finden kann. Es besteht jedoch immer die Möglichkeit, dass der Zug in irgendeiner mir unbekannten obskuren Partie gespielt worden sein könnte. Sollte der Leser auf irgendwelche derartige Beispiele stoßen, so möchte ich daran erinnern, dass es praktisch unmöglich ist, sich mit allen erdenklichen Quellen von Schachpartien vertraut zu machen. In jedem Fall enthält das vorliegende Buch eine große Menge von Originalanalysen, die sich hoffentlich für den Leser als nützlich erweisen werden. Genug der langen Vorrede – Ich hoffe, das Buch wird Ihnen gefallen.
el pit
1
Ka
Doppel-Englisch
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 Oo+oOoOo5 + + + +5 + O + + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + + 5 pP PpPpP5 RnBqKbNr5 79
Ein Repertoire Kapitel 3
Kapitel 4
Kapitel 5
1222222223 t+vWl+mT5 Oo+ OoVo5 +mO +o+5 + O + + 5 +p+ + +5 + N +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK +r5 79
1222222223 t+vWl+mT5 Oo+o+oVo5 +m+ +o+5 + O O + 5 +p+ + +5 + N +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK +r5 79
1222222223 t+vWl+mT5 Oo+o+oVo5 +m+o+o+5 + O + + 5 +p+ + +5 + N +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK +r5 79
5...d6
5...e5
5...e6 – Fischer-System
Kapitel 6
Kapitel 7
Kapitel 8
1222222223 t+vWl+ T5 Oo+oOoVo5 +m+ Mo+5 + O + + 5 +p+ + +5 + N +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 R BqK +r5 79
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 Oo+ OoVo5 + O Mo+5 + + + + 5 +pQ + +5 + N + P 5 pP +pPbP5 R B +rK 5 79
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 Oo+ OoOo5 +m+ + +5 + Om+ + 5 + + + +5 + + +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBqK +r5 79
5...¤f6
Hauptvariante mit 8...¤xd4
2...¤f6
Kapitel 9
Kapitel 10
Kapitel 11-15
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 OoM +oOo5 +m+ + +5 + O O + 5 + + + +5 + N +nP 5 pP PpPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
1222222223 t+v+ Tl+5 Oo+ OoVo5 +m+ +o+5 + Ow+ + 5 + + + +5 + +p+nP 5 pP +pPbP5 R Bq+rK 5 79
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 Oo+o+oOo5 + +oM +5 + O + + 5 +p+ + +5 + + + P 5 pP PpPbP5 RnBqK Nr5 79
Maroczy-System im Nachzug
Maroczy-System im Nachzug mit ...g6
Das flexible 3...e6
12
Doppel-Englisch
1.c4 c5
Aus irgendwelchen Gründen wird die große Palette von Abspielen, die sich aus dieser Stellung ergeben können, unter der Bezeichnung Symmetrische Variante geführt. Ich weiß aus Erfahrung, dass es mit allen Figuren auf dem Brett noch viel zu früh ist, um von Symmetrie zu sprechen, und dass das Spiel schon nach wenigen Zügen einen hochinteressanten und unsymmetrischen Verlauf nehmen kann. Treffender ist meiner Meinung nach der Begriff „Doppel-Englisch“, da beide Seiten über mehr oder weniger die gleichen Pläne verfügen, wenngleich es im Allgemeinen der Weiße ist, der die Wahl des Nachziehenden in gewissem Maße einschränkt. Was ich damit meine, wird schon aus einem Vergleich der in den Kapiteln 7 und 10 untersuchten Tabijen oder einigen Abspielen aus den Kapiteln 2 und 3 ersichtlich. Der zweite Zug von Weiß ist der gleiche wie in den Varianten aus den ersten beiden Bänden: 2.g3 Eine wichtige Alternative in der Turnierpraxis ist 2.¤f3, um mit frühem d2-d4 um Raum im Zentrum zu kämpfen. Aus Sicht unseres allgemeinen Repertoires ist dies wenig relevant,
da wir auf Züge wie 1...¤f6 oder 1...g6 mit 2.g3 antworten, wonach Schwarz mit 2...c5 oder 3...c5 in Doppel-Englisch überleiten kann. Ein wichtiger Pluspunkt unserer RepertoireZugreihenfolge besteht in der Vermeidung des Englisch-Igels (1.c4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.¤c3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.¥g2 ¥b7), einer zuverlässigen Waffe für Spieler, die einen Kampf mit beiderseitigen Chancen anstreben. Ich habe das analytische Material in drei große Kategorien eingeteilt. In den Kapiteln 2 bis 7 wird das sogenannte Geschlossene System untersucht.
Diese Abspiele sind dadurch gekennzeichnet, dass beide Seiten auf eine frühe Öffnung des Zentrums mit d4 bzw. ...d5 verzichten und vier oder fünf Züge lang symmetrisch spielen! Der Hauptgrund für die höhere Popularität von 2.¤f3 gegenüber 2.g3 auf Großmeisterebene besteht meines Erachtens in dem mangelnden Glauben an dieVorteilschancen des Anziehenden im Geschlossenen System. Schwarz verfügt nämlich über mehrere Möglichkeiten, seinen Gegner in lange symmetrische Abspiele zu locken. Ich muss gestehen, dass ich erst im Lauf meiner Arbeit am vorliegenden Band ein hinreichendes Gegengift gegen all diese frühen Ausgleichsversuche gefunden habe.
Kapitel 1 – Ein Repertoire In den Kapiteln 8 bis 10 sehen wir eine ehrgeizigere Spielweise von Schwarz. Da Weiß auf frühes d4 verzichtet, öffnet Schwarz mit ...d5 mutig selbst das Zentrum.
Da Schwarz gegenüber ähnlichen Stellungen mit vertauschten Farben ein Tempo weniger hat, läuft er Gefahr, seine Stellung etwas zu überreizen, und kann den Anziehenden nicht daran hindern, in typisch hypermodernem Stil die Initiative zu übernehmen. In den letzten fünf Kapiteln versucht es Schwarz mit einer flexibleren Spielweise. Die angewandte Zugreihenfolge (2...¤f6 3.¥g2 e6) lässt die Möglichkeit offen, entweder einen Igel zu erreichen oder in eine Eröffnung außerhalb unseres Englisch-Repertoires überzugehen.
13
Es ist einfach unmöglich, alle derartigen Übergänge zu verhindern, aber objektiv kann Schwarz auf seine Errungenschaften nicht stolz sein. In Kapitel 12 erreicht er eine ungünstige Variante des Dameninders. In Kapitel 13 kommt er einem richtigen Igel ziemlich nahe, aber der einzige Zug, der einen Unterschied macht (...¦a8-a7), ist ziemlich ungelenk und gibt ihm ein schwieriges Spiel. Die in Kapitel 14 untersuchte Katalanisch-Variante ist sehr angenehm für Weiß. Schließlich ergibt sich in Kapitel 15 eine Igel-Struktur mit ordentlicher Entwicklung für Schwarz, aber mit dem viel passiveren Zug ...¥d7 anstelle von ...b6 und ...¥b7. Nach dem Abschluss meiner Arbeit an diesem letzten Band habe ich nach wie vor das Gefühl, dass Weiß gerade in der sogenannten Symmetrischen Variante die besten Chancen erhält, eine Stellung mit risikofreier Initiative zu erreichen. Der schwarze Raumvorteil am Königsflügel im ersten Band und der schwarze Mehrbauer nach frühem ...dxc4 im zweiten Band führen häufig zu zweischneidigen Stellungen, aber im vorliegenden Band ist festzustellen, dass Schwarz einfach ein Tempo weniger hat.
The Sicilian Defence By
Lubomir Ftacnik
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
First edition 2010 by Quality Chess UK Ltd Copyright © 2010 Lubomir Ftacnik
Grandmaster Repertoire 6 - The Sicilian Defence All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Paperback ISBN 978-1-906552-08-4 Hardcover ISBN 978-1-906552-07-7 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom Phone +44 141 227 6771 e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Proofreading and computer checking by Colin McNab Additional analysis by Jacob Aagaard and Christoph Tiemann Edited by Andrew Greet Cover design by Adamson Design Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
Creating the Grandmaster Repertoire series seemed a natural idea. There is a glut of opening books at the Starting Out level. These books have certainly been refreshing, but they have almost completely replaced high-level opening books. As chess fans, we felt we were missing out, and because we can, we decided to do something about it. The books in the Grandmaster Repertoire series are written by grandmasters, edited by grandmasters, and will certainly be read by grandmasters. This does not mean that players who are not grandmasters cannot read them. We have worked hard to make our books clear in their presentation and to make it possible for the readers to decide the depth to which they want to study them. When we were young and trying to be up-and-coming, we understood that you do not have to remember everything in an opening book in order to use it. It is our hope that those readers who find this repertoire too extensive and detailed, will ignore many of the details. Even now that we are grandmasters, we see the bolded moves as what we want to memorize, and the notes as explanations and illustrations. It is our conviction that you will eventually be more successful by playing the main lines, simply because they are based on better moves. Instinctively most players know this, but they fear losing to a prepared line and thus turn to unambitious systems, or unhealthy surprises. The opponent will not be able to use his preparation but, sadly, will not need it. These sidelines generally end in uninspiring positions almost automatically. Possibly the main reason why high-level opening books have disappeared is the rise of databases. It has been assumed that there is no point in having traditional opening books anymore, as you can look it all up in the database. Some rather lazy authors have a system: collect a few hundred games from the database, give Fritz a few moments, then hit Print. Such books add nothing to chess literature. We have seen enough of them and have never wanted to add to that pile. In these days of multi-million game databases, we all have access to information, what is lacking is understanding. In the Grandmaster Repertoire series, very strong players will share their understanding and suggest strong new moves that are in no one else’s database. We are excited about this series and hope that the reader will share some of that excitement. John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard Quality Chess
Contents
Key to symbols used & Bibliography From Russia Sicily with Love - Introduction
Minor Systems
1 2 3
Pandora’s (Chess) Box - Miscellaneous 2nd moves Some Like It Hot - The Morra Gambit Forrest Gump - The c3-Variation
Closed Systems
4 5
Up Close(d) and Personal - Without g3 A Bridge Too Far - 3.g3
Anti-Open Systems
6 7 8
Fight Club - Various Blade Runner - 3.¥b5† The Last Samurai - 4.£xd4
Minor Open Lines
9 10 11 12 13 14
The Misfits - 6th Move Sidelines Sideways - 6.g3 The Karate Kid - 6.h3 Pulp Fiction - 6.f4 The Rock - 6.¥e2 Midnight Express - 6.¥c4
6 7
9 29 37
67 85
101 119 133
149 161 175 183 207 251
English Attack
15 The English Patient - 6.¥e3 e5 16 Predator - Perenyi Attack: 6.¥e3 e6 7.g4 17 Four Weddings and a Funeral - 6.¥e3 e6 7.f3
285 323 333
Classic Main Line
21 License to Kill - 6.¥g5 e6 22 Blood Diamond - 6.¥g5 ¤bd7
379 405
Variation index
420
Introduction From Russia Sicily with Love First I would like to express my gratitude to the reader for opening this book on the Sicilian Defence. Credit must go to the Quality Chess team and their excellent authors whose efforts resulted in the creation of a real buzz about the Grandmaster Repertoire series. To follow in the footsteps of the previous titles made for a daunting challenge and I hope that the present book, the sixth volume in the series, will live up to the readers’ high expectations. The unparalleled popularity of the Sicilian has led to the creation of an entire chess galaxy that is too vast for even the best and brightest minds to comprehend fully. Each player chooses his Kan, Sveshnikov, Dragon or other pet variation, around which he creates his own Sicilian world. My own modest expertise lies in the domains of the Najdorf and Scheveningen systems, which I have been playing and studying over the past two decades. The Scheveningen system represents a kind of foundational core, from which virtually all knowledge about thematic Sicilian structures and plans can be traced. Although the official subject of this book is the Najdorf variation, the two systems share many common themes and can often transpose to one another. In certain places, such as Chapters 12 and 13 (which deal with the variations 6.f4 and 6.¥e2 respectively), the decision to recommend the response 6...e6, instead of equally valid alternatives such as 6...e5, was influenced by my fondness for the Scheveningen set-up. I make no apologies for this, as I believe that an author can make the most useful contribution when writing about his own areas of expertise. At the end of the day this repertoire book is about cherry-picking the best and brightest ideas from the enormous jungle of variations available. In some sense the repertoire is notable not only for the recommendations that were included, but also for the attractive ones that (sometimes after agonizing deliberations) did not make the final cut. The whole Sicilian Defence creates something of a ‘win-win’ situation, in the sense that the unbalanced positions often result in bloodshed for one side or the other. In some variations Black may have to defend for a while, but it rarely kills his chances for a subsequent counterattack and ultimate success. I have tried to address all the most important ideas in every chapter, but practice will inevitably bring some new challenges, so please be prepared for some surprises. Nobody can foresee the future – it is often difficult enough to ‘predict’ the past (just ask any decent historian). I have often hankered for a bit of colour in our seemingly dry, black and white world of technical annotations, symbols and diagrams. As a young man I came across a game that is played in social situations, involving association with the names of films. Movies can often be symbolic, full of cultural references and associative bridges – evoking colours and emotions unlike any other form
8
Introduction
of media. I hope for some readers the chapter titles will evoke some positive feelings and help to place the struggle to master chess into a broader perspective. This entire project has at times threatened to pull me down and drag me under the deep waters of endless lines and multiplying ideas. I am greatly indebted for the help and encouragement of John Shaw, Jacob Aagaard and Andrew Greet of Quality Chess. The love, care and understanding of my wife Katarina went so far that she is happy to be woven between the lines. I appreciate the attention of any reader who glances beyond this preface. The main rule of the survival guide in Black’s Sicilian galaxy is to Die Another Day – be prepared to go under at any moment, but try to resist and strike back. The final (or should that be Fatal?) attraction of the Sicilian is the fact that it is truly dangerous – for both sides! Lubomir Ftacnik Bratislava, June 2010
er a pt
4
Ch
Closed Systems
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 Oo+oOoOo5 + + + +5 + O + + 5 + +p+ +5 + N + + 5 pPpP PpP5 R BqKbNr5 79
Up Close(d) and Personal - Without g3 Variation Index 1.e4 c5 2.¤c3 2...d6 A) 3.¤ge2 B) 3.d4 C) 3.f4 g6 4.¤f3 ¥g7 C1) 5.d4 cxd4 6.¤xd4 ¤c6 7.¥e3 ¤f6 8.¥e2 0–0 C11) 9.0–0?! C12) 9.¤b3 C2) 5.¥b5† ¥d7 6.¥xd7† £xd7 7.0–0 ¤c6 8.d3 ¤f6 C21) 9.h3 C22) 9.¥d2 C3) 5.¥c4 ¤c6 6.0–0 ¤f6 C31) 7.£e1 C32) 7.d3 0–0 8.£e1 ¤d4 C321) 9.f5?! C322) 9.¤xd4 C323) 9.¥b3 C21) after 17.¤d5
C31) after 14.£xf1
68 70 71 72 72 74 75 75 77 77 78 79 79 81 82
C323) 17.¥xe7
1222222223 + T Tl+5 O + OoVo5 Om+ +o+5 + OnPw+m5 + + P Q5 + + +n+p5 pPp+ Bp+5 + +r+rK 5 79
1222222223 t+vW +l+5 Oo+ + Vo5 + +o+o+5 + OmO + 5 + N + +5 +bNp+ + 5 pPp+ +pP5 R B +qK 5 79
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 +o+mBoVo5 W + +o+5 + + +p+ 5 o+ Oo+ +5 + +p+ + 5 pPp+nQpP5 R + +rK 5 79
17...¦xd5!
14...cxd4!N
17...¦fe8N
Chapter 4 - Without g3 Black has an extra pawn and healthy central control. True, the extra e-pawn may not be hurting White directly, but it certainly improves Black’s control over the important central squares. C32) 7.d3
1222222223 t+vWl+ T5 Oo+ OoVo5 +mO Mo+5 + O + + 5 +b+pP +5 + Np+n+ 5 pPp+ +pP5 R Bq+rK 5 79 This is the standard developing move. 7...0–0 8.£e1 White’s entire system is geared towards a kingside attack, and this move plays a key role. White’s typical plan involves some combination of f5, £h4, ¥h6, ¤g5 followed by mate on h7. It is all rather crude, but can certainly be dangerous if Black does not know how to respond. Sometimes White switches things around with the immediate: 8.f5 e6 As mentioned previously, it would be risky to accept the pawn, although it may be theoretically okay. 9.fxg6 9.£e1 is well met by 9...d5!, which gives Black good chances to fight for the advantage, for instance: 10.¥b3 c4! 11.dxc4 dxe4 12.¤xe4 ¤xe4 13.£xe4 exf5, Vo Hong Phuong – Xu Yuhua, Istanbul (ol) 2000. 9...fxg6 10.¥g5 h6 11.¥h4
79
It is a similar story after 11.¥d2 d5 12.exd5 exd5 13.¥b3 ¢h7 14.£e1 ¥g4³. Black has all his pieces in play and the b3-bishop has trouble finding a useful role. 11...g5 12.¥e1 d5 13.¥b3 ¤a5³ White’s position was already becoming uncomfortable, Meulner – Ploetz, Wildflecken 1988. 8...¤d4
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 Oo+ OoVo5 + O Mo+5 + O + + 5 +bMpP +5 + Np+n+ 5 pPp+ +pP5 R B QrK 5 79
Here we will consider the ultra-aggressive but not quite sound C321) 9.f5?!, followed by the calmer alternatives of C322) 9.¤xd4 and C323) 9.¥b3. C321) 9.f5?! This was tried in Gofshtein – Pigusov, Bourbon Lancy 1997, and does not appear to have been repeated since. 9...¤xc2!N Black must not be intimidated. He should be able to survive the attack and win with his extra material, although strong nerves may be required at certain key moments. 10.£h4 ¤xa1 From this point on, the key to Black’s defence will be to neutralize the c4-bishop.
80
Closed Systems
The goal might be achieved by capturing the bishop outright, diverting it away from the a2-g8 diagonal, or blocking the said diagonal. Once this had been achieved, the remaining defensive moves should not be too difficult to find, as you can see in the following variations.
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 Oo+ OoVo5 + O Mo+5 + O +p+ 5 +b+p+ Q5 + Np+n+ 5 pP + +pP5 M B +rK 5 79
11.¥h6 11.fxg6 should be met by 11...¥e6!, immediate going after the bishop. 12.gxh7† (After 12.gxf7† ¥xf7 Black should defend without much difficulty, for instance: 13.¥xf7† ¦xf7 14.¤g5 ¤c2 15.¤d5 [15.¤xf7 ¢xf7 16.£xh7 ¤d4–+] 15...£f8–+) 12...¢h8 13.¥xe6 fxe6 14.¤g5
1222222223 t+ W T L5 Oo+ O Vp5 + OoM +5 + O + N 5 + +p+ Q5 + Np+ + 5 pP + +pP5 M B +rK 5 79
14...¤g4! 15.¤xe6 ¥d4† 16.¤xd4 cxd4 17.¦xf8† £xf8 18.£xg4 dxc3 19.bxc3 £f7 and Black should win.
11...b5! Once again, the c4-bishop is the target. 11...e6!? seems to be playable, but the text move is so obviously strong that there is no point in analysing anything else in detail. It should briefly be noted that 11...d5? is much worse, for instance: 12.¤xd5 ¤xd5 13.¤g5! ¤f6 14.fxg6 hxg6 15.¥xg7 ¢xg7 16.¦xf6+– 12.¥xb5 12.fxg6? bxc4 gives White nothing; alternatively after 12.¥d5? ¤xd5 13.¤xd5 Black kills the attack with 13...f6!–+. The following line is more interesting: 12.¤xb5 d5! Having drawn the knight away from the centre, this becomes an excellent move. Once again we are targeting the bishop. 13.¥xd5 ¤xd5 14.¤g5!? The best try. 14...¤f6 15.fxg6 fxg6 16.¥xg7 ¢xg7 17.¦xf6 ¢xf6! 18.e5† ¢xe5
1222222223 t+vW T +5 O + O +o5 + + +o+5 +nO L N 5 + + + Q5 + +p+ + 5 pP + +pP5 M + + K 5 79
The king is surprisingly safe, for instance: 19.£e4† ¢f6 20.¤xh7† ¢g7 21.¤xf8 ¥f5 and Black wins. 12...¤c2! The knight is not only safeguarding itself from a potential capture, but also playing an active role in the defence. 13.¥c4
Chapter 4 - Without g3 Other moves are no better, for instance: 13.¤g5 ¤e3! Not only attacking the rook, but also threatening ...¥xh6 followed by ...¤eg4. 13...¤d4 14.¤g5 e6! Thanks to the lost tempo involved in White’s ¥xb5-c4 manoeuvre, Black had enough time to recentralize his knight, supporting the pawn on e6 and thereby preventing the bishop on c4 from playing an active role in the attack.
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 O + +oVo5 + OoMoB5 + O +pN 5 +bMp+ Q5 + Np+ + 5 pP + +pP5 + + +rK 5 79
15.fxg6 There is not much else that White can do. 15...fxg6 16.¥xg7 ¢xg7 17.¦xf6 h6!–+ The attack runs out of steam. As you can see, a certain amount of precision was required in order to defend correctly. At the same time, the ideas were quite easy to understand and follow: just take away the influence of the bishop on c4, and everything else more or less falls into place. C322) 9.¤xd4 cxd4 The direct exchange in the centre may be White’s best option, although it is not much of a try for an advantage.
81
1222222223 t+vW Tl+5 Oo+ OoVo5 + O Mo+5 + + + + 5 +bOpP +5 + Np+ + 5 pPp+ +pP5 R B QrK 5 79 10.¤d5 White should avoid 10.¤e2?! d5! 11.exd5 ¤xd5 when the resulting pawn structure favours Black. Here is one example: 12.£f2 ¤e3 (Also interesting is 12...b5!?N 13.¥xb5 £b6 with promising compensation.) 13.¥xe3 dxe3 14.£xe3 ¥xb2 15.¦ab1 ¥g7 16.£f3 ¦b8 17.¤g3 e6 18.¢h1 b6 With the bishop pair and a sounder structure, Black was in full control in Kolosowski – Nedilko, Warsaw 2006. 10.¤d1 is not so bad, although Black should be able to obtain a comfortable game after 10...d5 11.¥b3 dxe4 12.dxe4, Armbrust – Fruebing, Willingen 2006. In this position it looks promising to pre-empt the possible e5push with 12...¤d7!?N 13.¤f2 £c7 14.¤d3 a5! 15.a4 ¤c5 16.¤xc5 £xc5 when Black has good chances on the queenside. 10...¤xd5 11.¥xd5 White can also consider 11.exd5, J. Peters – D. Lee, Los Angeles 1999. White wants to attack along the e-file, but the downside is that his bishop has a restricted view of the board. Black should develop calmly with 11...¥d7N with the possible continuation 12.a4 a5 13.¥d2 ¦e8, with roughly even chances. 11...e6 12.¥b3 a5 13.a4 ¢h8!? This is a sensible precaution.
Grandmaster Repertoire 7
The Caro-Kann By
Lars Schandorff
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to symbols used & Bibliography Introduction
The Classical Variation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Introduction Early Deviations 6.¥c4 6.h4 11.¥d2 11.¥f4 12.¥d2 The Main Line 14.c4
The Advance Variation
9 10 11 12 13
Introduction and Minor Lines c4-Lines Positional Lines Short Variation Shirov Variation
Panov Variation
14 Introduction and Early Deviations 15 The Endgame Line 16 The Sharp 6.¥g5
6 7
9 13 21 31 37 53 59 65
85 95 103 113 137
149 157 171
Minor Systems
17 18 19 20 21 22
Pseudo-Panov Exchange Variation Fantasy Variation Two Knights Variation 2.d3 Rare Lines
181 197 207 215 225 235
Index of Illustrative Games Index of Variations
246 251
Introduction If you play the Caro-Kann when you are young, then what would you play when you are old? – Bent Larsen What to do against 1.e4? It is the oldest dilemma in the chess world. The answer my friend is perhaps not blowing in the wind, but still obvious: Play the Caro-Kann! The Caro-Kann is solid, reliable and – this may come as a surprise to some of you – a great fighting weapon. The latter point may need a little explanation. It is related to the nature of the opening – typically in the Caro-Kann White has extra space and some initiative, but Black’s position is completely sound and without weaknesses. White must do something active and he must do it quickly, otherwise Black will catch up in development and gain a fine positional game. That White is forced to act is what creates the early tension. The reputation of the Caro-Kann was also affected by the attitude of its exponents. Playing Black is not the same as playing dull chess. For decades the Caro-Kann was considered to be unambitious. In this period you could say it kind of attracted the wrong people. Black’s primary goal was to equalize completely and kill all the life in the position. This has changed. Nowadays enterprising players such as Topalov, Anand and Ivanchuk regularly use the Caro-Kann and it is not to get a quick handshake! Throughout the book I recommend entering the sharp mainlines. This is cutting-edge theory, which means that one new move could change the verdict. It is rare that White comes up with such moves though and in general Black is in very good shape. And most importantly: Black’s own winning chances increase dramatically by allowing double-edged play. So in the Classical mainlines (3.¤c3 or 3.¤d2 and 3...dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5) where White castles long we will not imitate him and try to get a draw, but instead follow in the footsteps of the great Danish fighter Bent Larsen and castle short! Often White will burn his bridges in his eagerness to attack – and if we are not mated, then we will win the endgame! In the Advance Variation we shall meet 3.e5 with the principled 3...¥f5 – sharp and interesting play is all but guaranteed. I recommend meeting the Panov Variation, 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4, with 4...¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6. If White chooses 6.¤f3 then we shall equalize in the famous endgame variation. This is the closest we shall come to the old-fashioned dull Caro-Kann, but equal is not the same as drawn – we can still fight
8
Introduction
for the win. If White wants to wrestle for an opening advantage he must play 6.¥g5, and that leads to much more interesting play. All that remains are the minor lines, which are in general unthreatening, but there are some fun lines. For example, the Fantasy Variation, 3.f3, has become trendy, so I have analysed it with especial care. The modern Caro-Kann is for everyone. Good luck with it. Lars Schandorff Copenhagen, April 2010
er a pt
6
Ch
Classical Variation
1222222223 t+ WlVmT5 Oo+m+oO 5 +o+o+ O5 + + + +p5 + P B +5 + +q+nN 5 pPp+ Pp+5 R + K +r5 79
11.¥f4 Variation Index 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7 9.¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 A) 12.c3 B) 12.¤d2
A) after 21.£g3
11.¥f4 £a5†
B) 12.¤d2
54 56
B) after 19.dxc5
1222222223 t+ +l+ T5 Oo+ +oO 5 +oWoM O5 + + R + 5 p+ P + +5 + P + Q 5 P B Pp+5 R + + K 5 79
1222222223 t+ +lVmT5 Oo+m+oO 5 +o+o+ O5 W + + +p5 + P B +5 + +q+ N 5 pPpN Pp+5 R + K +r5 79
1222222223 t+ +t+l+5 +o+mVoO 5 W +oM O5 O P + +p5 +p+ B +5 P + +nN 5 P +qPp+5 + +r+rK 5 79
21...¦g8
Hector’s secret weapon
19...£xc5N
54
The Classical Variation
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5 5.¤g3 ¥g6 6.h4 h6 7.¤f3 ¤d7 8.h5 ¥h7 9.¥d3 ¥xd3 10.£xd3 e6 11.¥f4
1222222223 t+ WlVmT5 Oo+m+oO 5 +o+o+ O5 + + + +p5 + P B +5 + +q+nN 5 pPp+ Pp+5 R + K +r5 79
A much more active square for the bishop than d2. Having said that, White’s basic plan is still the same: to castle long and combine positional and aggressive ideas depending on what Black does. With the bishop on a strong post on f4 the possibility of playing an early ¤e5 is probably the most important difference, and this idea can be disruptive for Black. To balance this, there is also a slight drawback with 11.¥f4 – Black can give an annoying check. 11...£a5† The modern solution and the move that has revived interest in the Caro-Kann. Of course simple development with 11...¤gf6 followed by ...¥e7 and short castling is possible, but Black is a bit more passive than I would like, and it is not so easy to equalize. After 11...£a5† White has more immediate problems to solve, the first one being how to parry the check. The main move is to withdraw the bishop to d2, but in this section we will examine the minor lines A) 12.c3 and B) 12.¤d2. But first of all, we should note that offering an exchange of queens with 12.£d2 is harmless.
12...£xd2† (Black could even consider 12...¥b4!? 13.c3 ¥e7) 13.¤xd2 ¤b6 14.¤ge4 0–0–0 15.c3 ¤d5 16.¥g3 f5 17.¤c5 ¥xc5 18.dxc5 f4 19.¥h4 ¤df6 20.0–0–0 ¦d5 And with weak pawns all over the board, White had to scramble for compensation with 21.¤c4 in Keijzer – Goebel, corr. 2004, and he probably did have just enough counterplay to hold the balance. A) 12.c3
1222222223 t+ +lVmT5 Oo+m+oO 5 +o+o+ O5 W + + +p5 + P B +5 + Pq+nN 5 pP + Pp+5 R + K +r5 79 White keeps his bishop on the active f4square. That’s the good thing about this move. The pressure from the black queen makes it difficult to castle long, and White soon runs out of normal moves. Those are the bad things! 12...¤gf6 13.a4!? A move based on the rather bizarre logic that if you can’t castle long, then why not launch a pawn offensive on that side of the board. White has also tried a bunch of other moves without getting anything. Here is a sample: 13.¤e5 ¤xe5 14.¥xe5 0–0–0 and the threat of ...£xe5 forces White to lose more time. 13.£e2 ¥e7 14.¤e5 ¤xe5 15.dxe5 ¤d5 16.¥d2 This is Trylski – Kupryjanczyk, Poznan
Chapter 6 – 11.¥f4 1988, and now 16...¤b6N prevents c3-c4 and solves all Black’s opening problems at once. 13.b4 Similar thinking to the mainline, but imprecise in its execution. Black can respond with 13...£b5 or 13...£a3, in either case with good play. 13...¤d5 Instead 13...¥e7 14.b4 £d8 is solid, albeit rather passive. 14.¥d2 £c7
1222222223 t+ +lV T5 OoWm+oO 5 +o+o+ O5 + +m+ +p5 p+ P + +5 + Pq+nN 5 P B Pp+5 R + K +r5 79
White’s pawn on a4 determines his play, at least as far as it tells him what not to do! Castling long is out of the question and the pawn has also left a potential hole on b4 – this hole will become visible if White is compelled to chase the black knight away from d5 with c3-c4.
55
15.¢f1 Freeing e1 for one rook while leaving the other on h1, hoping to be able to use it in some attacking scheme. In Panchenko – Bronstein, Moscow 1981, Black coolly responded with 15...a5 and steered the game into a positional battle, which quickly turned in his favour: 16.£e2 ¥e7 17.¤e5?! ¤xe5 18.£xe5 £xe5 19.dxe5 ¤b6³ 15...¥d6 16.¤e4 ¤5f6 The h5-pawn is about to drop. 17.¤xd6† £xd6 18.¦fe1 ¤xh5 Why not? An extra pawn is always nice to have. We are Caro-Kann players, remember. Not some chaos pilots from the King’s Indian. 19.¤e5 Best. Against other moves Black would just withdraw his knight to f6 and ask White what he has for the material. 19...¤xe5 20.¦xe5 ¤f6 21.£g3
1222222223 t+ +l+ T5 Oo+ +oO 5 +oWoM O5 + + R + 5 p+ P + +5 + P + Q 5 P B Pp+5 R + + K 5 79
15.0–0 The normal reaction in an abnormal situation. More original ideas could easily backfire:
21...¦g8 Cool defence.
After 15.¦h4?! ¥e7 16.¦g4 ¤7f6 it turns out that 17.¦xg7 ¥f8 traps the rook, so White must blushingly return with 17.¦h4 when after 17...0–0 Black must be fine.
22.b4 g5! Houska proposes 22...0–0–0, but then would follow 23.£f3 with long-term compensation for the pawn.
The Classical Variation
56
23.b5 ¦g6 24.¦ae1 ¢f8 This way Black solves his king’s problems without giving White attacking chances. 25.bxc6 25.¦xg5 won the pawn back with tactical means. However, the ending after 25...£xg3 26.¦xg3 ¦xg3 27.fxg3 ¢g7 is fine for Black. 25...£xc6 26.£d3 ¢g7 In Wojcik – Pfalz, corr. 2005, White barely had enough for the pawn. B) 12.¤d2
1222222223 t+ +lVmT5 Oo+m+oO 5 +o+o+ O5 W + + +p5 + P B +5 + +q+ N 5 pPpN Pp+5 R + K +r5 79 A specialty of the imaginative Swedish attacker, Jonny Hector, who has scored a fearsome 6/6 with it. However, Hector’s successes should not deceive us about the move’s objective merits – Black should be okay just by making standard moves. 12...¤gf6 13.c4 Preventing ...¤d5. 13...¥e7 14.£e2 Protecting h5 and planning to castle kingside. There is a certain logic behind White’s play; everything seems to fit together, which probably fooled some of the strong players who have had to face this line. Let me
repeat myself: if Black makes normal moves, he can’t be worse. Probably as a result of similar reasoning, Hector decided to vary with 14.£f3!? when he played against me in the Danish league in 2009. The game continued 14...0–0 15.0–0 ¦fe8 16.a3 £b6 17.¥e3 and now I should have played the simple equalizer 17...c5N 18.dxc5 ¥xc5 19.¥xc5 £xc5. 14...0–0 15.0–0 ¦fe8
1222222223 t+ +t+l+5 Oo+mVoO 5 +o+oM O5 W + + +p5 +pP B +5 + + + N 5 pP NqPp+5 R + +rK 5 79
16.a3 A refinement by the inventor. In the stem game Hector played 16.¦fd1 when Black logically replied 16...b5!? 17.a3 ¦ac8 18.¦ac1 £a6 19.¥e5 bxc4 20.¤xc4 c5 with equality, Hector – Iordachescu, Malmo 2005. 16...£b6 Too passive was 16...£d8 17.¦ad1 a5 18.¤f3 a4 19.¤e5 ¤f8 when 20.£f3 ¤8h7 21.¦d3± left White in the driving seat in Hector – Agrest, Helsingor 2009. 17.¤f3 a5 Holding back b2-b4. 18.¦ad1 After 18.c5 £a6 Black gets good play on the light squares.
Chapter 6 – 11.¥f4 18...c5=
1222222223 t+ +t+l+5 +o+mVoO 5 W +oM O5 O O + +p5 +pP B +5 P + +nN 5 P +qPp+5 + +r+rK 5 79
The typical thrust and, as usual, a clear equalizer. 19.dxc5 So far this is Balogh – Dautov, Warsaw 2005, and now the simplest is: 19...£xc5N And Black has no problems. Conclusion On 11.¥f4 the modern 11...£a5† encourages White to return the bishop to d2, which we will see in the next sections. If he instead plays 12.c3 ¤gf6 13.a4!? then after 13...¤d5 Black is fine. Hector’s pet line 12.¤d2 ¤gf6 13.c4 also does not promise White an opening advantage. Black simply plays 13...¥e7 followed by castling short. Often a well-timed ...c6-c5 will equalize completely.
57
Grandmaster Repertoire 8
The Grünfeld Defence Volume One By
Boris Avrukh
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used & Bibliography
Early Deviations 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6
1 Rare Third Moves 2 3.f3
Fianchetto Systems 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤b6
3 4 5 6 7
Rare Lines 5.b3 Rare Seventh Moves 7.£b3 White exchanges on d5
Various 4th Moves 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5
8 Rare Options 9 4.£a4† 10 4.£b3
6
7 13
37 43 50 58 67
85 94 104
Closed Variation 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.e3 ¥g7
11 Various Fifth Moves 12 5.¤f3
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¥f4
13 14 15 16 17
Sidelines 6.¦c1 5.e3 c5 – Introduction and Sidelines 7.¦c1 – Sidelines and 9.¤ge2 9.¤f3
115 127
148 157 172 187 203
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¥g5
18 19 20 21 22 23
Sidelines 5.¥f4 5.¥h4 – Sidelines 7.e3 – Sidelines 8.¦b1 8.¤f3
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7
24 Rare Fifth Moves
291
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.¥g5 ¤e4
25 6.¥h4 26 6.cxd5
226 242 255 259 266 275
296 304
Russian System 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.£b3 dxc4 6.£xc4 0–0 7.e4 ¤c6
27 Without 8.¥e2 28 8.¥e2
317 327
Variation Index
341
er a pt
1
Ch
Early Deviations
1222222223 79
Rare Third Moves Variation Index 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 A) 3.£c2 B) 3.d5 C) 3.¥g5 ¤e4 4.¥f4 c5 C1) 5.d5 C2) 5.£c2 A) after 9...¤d4
2...g6
B) note to 5.bxa6
8 9 10 10 11
C) note to 7.f3
1222222223 + + O M B + +r 79
1222222223 79
1222222223 ++ V W po + n NP + 79
White has lost control of the d4-square
9...¤xd5!
8...¤a6!N
Early Deviations
8
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 The starting point of our journey into the Grünfeld Defence. Why not start earlier? Sometimes you cannot cover everything; I am sure you will find this book heavy enough as it is. Besides, there should also be room for another book later on... In this chapter we shall look at A) 3.£c2, B) 3.d5 and C) 3.¥g5. Obviously there are many more possible moves, but some of them do not have any point and are not worth studying. And the rest we shall consider in the following chapters. 3.h4!? This outlandish move has been championed by Simon Williams, who recently wrote an SOS article on the subject. 3...c5! Black steers the game towards a position where the move h2-h4 is of limited value. 4.d5 b5 4...e6!?N also deserves attention, angling for an improved version of a Modern Benoni. 5.e4?! A bit too creative. Williams suggests the improvement 5.h5!?N ¤xh5 6.cxb5 a6 7.e4 d6, reaching an unusual kind of Benko position which should be roughly equal. 5...¤xe4 6.h5 £a5† 7.¤d2 ¥g7 8.£f3 ¤d6 8...f5!?N is also good. 9.cxb5 ¥b7 10.hxg6 hxg6 11.¦xh8† ¥xh8 12.a4 a6 13.¦a3 This was Vinoth Kumar – Shivananda, New Delhi 2009. White’s play has been enterprising but ultimately unsound, and in this position both 13...c4N and 13...£b4N give Black some advantage. A) 3.£c2 Maybe not such a bad idea against the Grünfeld, but the problem is that White gets
a poor version of the King’s Indian Defence, where he can have trouble fighting for the vital d4-square. Here is one illustrative example: 3...¥g7 Certainly 3...d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤b6 6.¤f3 is not such a bad version of the AntiGrünfeld for White. 4.e4 0–0 5.¤c3 d6 6.¥e2 ¤c6
7.¥e3 After 7.¤f3 Black has a pleasant choice between 7...¥g4 8.¥e3 ¤d7 and 7...e5, in both cases winning the battle for the d4-square. 7...e5 8.dxe5 Obviously 8.d5 ¤d4 couldn’t satisfy White either. 8...dxe5 9.¦d1 ¤d4 White has lost the battle for the d4-square, and very soon finds herself in a clearly inferior position. 10.¥xd4 10.£d2 ¥e6³ 10...exd4 11.c5 £e7 12.¦xd4 £xc5µ Koneru – L’Ami, Wijk aan Zee 2006.
Chapter 1 – Rare Third Moves B) 3.d5 When this chapter was almost ready, I was playing in a rapid tournament and my opponent managed to surprise me with this rare move. But after the game I did some work and came to the conclusion that the most promising response for Black is: 3...b5!? Playing in the spirit of the Benko Gambit is logical, since the dark-squared bishop can find a lot of activity on the long diagonal after White has advanced his d-pawn. That said, I believe there is nothing wrong with more classical play, for example: 3...c6 4.¤c3 cxd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 ¥g7 7.¤f3 0–0 8.¥e2 ¤bd7 9.¥e3 ¤c5 10.¤d2 e6 With equal chances. 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 During the aforementioned game I was concerned about 5.b6N. However, Black is not forced to take this pawn and can try 5...c6 6.£b3 ¥b7 with interesting play. 5.e3 ¥g7 6.¤c3 0–0 7.¤f3 ¥b7 8.¥e2 axb5 9.¥xb5
9...¤xd5! 10.¤xd5 ¥xd5 11.£xd5 c6 12.¥xc6 ¤xc6 13.0–0 £c7 14.¦d1 Spassov – Ribli, Camaguey 1974. As pointed out by Ribli in Chess Informant 17, 14...¦fb8 would have secured excellent compensation for Black.
9
5...c6 6.dxc6 If 6.¤c3 then Black develops with tempo: 6...cxd5 7.¤xd5 £a5† 8.¤c3 ¥g7 9.¥d2 Peev – Radev, Bulgaria 1975. Here simply 9...¥xa6N 10.¤f3 0–0 11.g3 ¤c6 12.¥g2 ¦fb8 13.¦b1 ¤d5! offers Black tremendous compensation. 6...¤xc6 7.e3 Or 7.¤c3 ¥xa6 8.g3 ¥g7 9.¥g2 0–0 10.¤h3 Varga – Feher, Hungary 1998, and now the natural 10...e6N 11.0–0 d5 12.¤f4 ¤g4! would give Black ample compensation for the pawn. 7...¥g7 8.¤f3 8.¤c3 0–0 9.¤f3 occurred in Alber – Banas, Germany 2000. Black now hurried with 9...¥xa6, but instead the more accurate 9...£a5N 10.¥d2 ¥xa6 would have given him an excellent version of the Benko. 8...0–0 9.¥e2 ¥xa6 10.¥xa6?! Better is 10.0–0 but after, for example, 10...¤e4 Black still has great compensation.
10...£a5†! An important nuance. 11.¤c3 ¤e4! 12.0–0 ¤xc3 13.bxc3 ¦xa6³ Dzindzichashvili – Adorjan, Amsterdam 1978.
Early Deviations
10
C) 3.¥g5
Quite a tricky move, especially taking into account that it’s a rarely seen continuation. 3...¤e4 The most challenging reply. Certainly Black can continue with 3...¥g7, but then he must be ready to play the King’s Indian, which is not in our plans, even though White’s setup after 4.¤c3 is generally considered quite harmless. 4.¥f4 c5 The text is logically connected with Black’s previous move and resembles Black’s play in a line of the Trompowsky (1.d4 ¤f6 2.¥g5 ¤e4 3.¥f4 c5 etc.). Obviously after 4...¥g7 5.f3 ¤f6 6.e4 we would get a strange version of the Sämisch King’s Indian, with White’s ¥f4 being an extra move. We have reached the main crossroads in this line. At this point the most logical moves are C1) 5.d5 and C2) 5.£c2, but we shall take a quick look at a couple of other moves that White has tried: If 5.¤d2 then the response 5...¤xd2 6.£xd2 ¥g7 is too compliant. After 7.d5 White has a reasonable game, with chances for an
advantage. Instead Black should play 5...£a5! 6.£c2, transposing into line C2 below. 5.f3 £a5† 6.¤d2 ¤xd2 This looks more natural than retreating, as after 6...¤f6 7.d5 d6 8.e4 Black’s queen is somewhat misplaced on a5. 7.¥xd2 £b6 8.¥c3 ¥g7 9.e3 In the event of 9.d5 ¥xc3† 10.bxc3 £f6 (also threatening the c4-pawn, by means of 11...£h4†) 11.£b3 d6, Black has an excellent position. This position arose in Koops –Tesic, e-mail 2005, and now simplest for Black is: 9...¤c6N 10.¤e2 0–0 Obviously there is no advantage for White. C1) 5.d5
p + 5...¥g7 6.¤d2 ¤f6 Also not bad is 6...£a5 7.£c2 f5. 7.e4 d6 Finally the game has transposed to a King’s Indian type of position, but with White’s knight misplaced on d2. 8.£c2 As a consequence of the knight being on d2, White has to take time to defend the b2-pawn, because the natural 8.¤gf3 would just lose this pawn to 8...¤h5 followed by 9...¥xb2.
Chapter 1 – Rare Third Moves 8...0–0 9.¤gf3 e6 10.¥d3 If 10.¥e2 then Black can obtain good play with 10...¤h5! 11.¥g5 f6 12.¥e3 f5. 10...¤a6 A useful move to insert before returning attention to the kingside; the threat of ...¤b4 causes White to lose more time. 11.a3 In Straeter – Gross, Germany 1999, Black should now have played:
11...¤h5N An already familiar idea. 12.¥g5 f6 13.¥e3 After 13.¥h4
Black gets a good version of the King’s Indian with: 13...e5! (less clear is 13...exd5 14.cxd5
11
¤f4 15.0–0 g5 16.¥g3 ¤xd3 17.£xd3 f5 18.exf5 ¥xf5 19.£b3÷) 14.0–0 £e8 Black cannot be prevented from carrying out his main idea, the ...f5-advance, which will give him excellent play. However, 14...¤f4!? is also worthy of consideration. 13...e5 Again I don’t see how White can stop the ... f5 advance; Black has great play. C2) 5.£c2
White’s best choice, according to theory. 5...£a5† 6.¤d2 f5 The justification for the previous move; White will have to spend some time if he wants to chase Black’s knight away from the centre. After 6...¤f6 7.d5 d6 8.e4 ¥g7 9.¤e2 followed by 10.¤c3, White is fighting for an opening advantage. 7.f3 The most natural reply. Another game saw: 7.¤gf3 Black should continue: 7...¥g7 In Speelman – Ehlvest, Reykjavik 1991, Black immediately went wrong with 7...cxd4?! and after 8.¤xd4 ¥g7 9.¤4b3!
12
Early Deviations
White was better. 8.d5 This position has occurred once in tournament practice, via a different move order, in the game Serafimov – Ignatenko, Russia 1996. I found the following natural improvement: 8...¤a6!N 9.a3 White can hardly allow 9.e3 ¤b4 10.£b3 (10.£c1 is clearly inferior: 10...£a4! 11.¤b3 d6 12.¥e2 ¤xa2! 13.£c2 ¤b4 14.£d1 £d7µ Black remains with a healthy extra pawn.) 10...e5! 11.dxe6 dxe6 Black has a comfortable game, with excellent chances to take over the initiative. 9...0–0 10.e3 ¤xd2 11.¤xd2
11...e5! Black is probably better already, e.g. 12.dxe6 dxe6 13.0–0–0 e5 14.¥g3 ¥d7 The idea of ...¥a4 is unpleasant for White. 7...¤f6 8.d5 ¥g7 9.¥e5 A natural idea, White’s dark-squared bishop is transferred to c3, neutralizing the annoying pin along the e1-a5 diagonal. This position occurred in Barsov – Vareille, Val Thorens 1995. I found the following improvement: 9...0–0N 10.¤h3 e6 Black strikes in the centre, aiming to use his lead in development.
Tl+ + o n + 11.¥c3 £d8 12.e4 Certainly 12.dxe6 dxe6 would allow Black to comfortably develop his queen’s knight to c6. 12...fxe4 13.fxe4 b5! Black not only creates unpleasant tension in the centre, but also has the major threat of playing 14...b4, which would force White to give up his dark-squared bishop. In my opinion Black has good chances to take over the initiative.
Conclusion White may be attracted to these rare thirdmove options because they make it problematic (or even impossible) for Black to continue in traditional Grünfeld style. However, by adopting a flexible approach, I believe that Black can obtain good chances. Against 3.£c2 it is promising for Black to head into a King’s Indian in which White’s d4-pawn can quickly be targeted. I recommend meeting 3.d5 with the aggressive 3...b5!? when Black can expect to obtain compensation typical of the Benko Gambit. Finally 3.¥g5 can be met by an idea from the Trompowsky, 3...¤e4 followed by 4...c5, which assures Black of good play.
Großmeister-Repertoire 8
Grünfeld-Indisch Band 1 Von
Boris Awruch
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Nach dem großen Erfolg meiner ersten zwei Großmeister-Repertoire Bände (1.d4 für Weiß) dauerte es nicht lange, bis die Idee aufkam, ein Buch über meine Lieblingseröffnung zu schreiben. Die Ironie wollte es, dass dies auch bedeutete, dass ich ein Gegenmittel gegen die Fianchettovariante finden musste, die ich in den beiden 1.d4-Bänden so energisch verfochten hatte. Meine Lösung dieses Problems lässt sich in Kapitel 4 des vorliegenden Buches nachlesen. Ich möchte an dieser Stelle kurz erwähnen, wie ich zum Jünger dieser phantastischen Eröffnung wurde. Als ich 1995 nach Israel zog, war mein Eröffnungsrepertoire ziemlich löchrig, so dass ich mich während der ersten paar Monate dort energisch bemühte, daran zu arbeiten. Glücklicherweise schufen der Beer Sheva Verein und dessen Leiter Ilyahu Levant die bestmöglichen Voraussetzungen für diese Arbeit. Mein erster Trainer in Israel wurde Mark Zweitlin, den ich nach wie vor als ‚Grünfeldguru‘ bezeichnen würde. Außerdem erhielt ich noch große Unterstützung von Alex Huzman, einem starken Spieler, der sich vor allem einen Namen als langzeitiger Trainer von Boris Gelfand gemacht hat. Gleich die ersten Stunden mit Mark machten mir klar, dass Grünfeld meine Eröffnung ist. Die kämpferischen und dynamischen Stellungen, die daraus hervorgehen, wie auch die Aussicht, mit den schwarzen Steinen um die Initiative zu ringen, zogen mich mit Macht an. Besonders hilfreich war, dass alle Spieler meines neuen Vereins diese Eröffnung gut kannten. So wird der Leser auch in diesem Buch viele Hinweise auf Partien von Mark Zeitlin, Alex Huzman, Alon Greenfeld, Wiktor Michalewski und Alex Finkel finden. Zu jener Zeit war der Computereinfluss noch nicht so stark, und durch unsere gemeinsame Analyse gelang es uns, viele interessante Ideen zu entdecken. Bezeichnenderweise blieb die Grünfeldverteidigung für die nächsten sechzehn Jahre meine erste Wahl gegen 1.d4, während ich gegen 1.e4 recht oft gewechselt habe. Grünfeld ist eine der beliebtesten Eröffnungen auf Weltklasseniveau. Spieler wie Schirow, Swidler, Leko und Kamski haben sie als Hauptwaffe, während Anand, Carlsen, Topalow und Grischuk sie ebenfalls häufig anwenden. Außerdem wollen wir nicht Garri Kasparow vergessen, der von den späten achtziger Jahren bis zu seinem Rückzug einen großen Beitrag zur Entwicklung der Grünfeldtheorie geleistet hat. Die jüngst beendeten Kandidatenmatches legen ein beredtes Zeugnis ab: Wladimir Kramnik ließ nicht einmal zu, dass Alexander Grischuk Grünfeld spielen konnte (was nachvollziehbar ist, wenn man bedenkt, dass einer der Sekundanten Grischuks Peter Swidler hieß), und eröffnete alle seine Weißpartien mit 1.Sf3. Gata Kamski spielte ausschließlich Grünfeld gegen 1.d4, wobei sein Hauptsekundant Emil Sutowski einer der weltweit führenden Grünfeldexperten ist. Zwei der Auseinandersetzungen Kamskis gegen Boris Gelfand im beliebten 4.Lg5-System können Sie in Kapitel 23 nachlesen. Es spricht für sich, dass Boris, nach der zweiten dieser Partien, zu Anti-Grünfeld-Varianten wechselte, und sich in seinen restlichen Weißpartien auf keine Grünfelddiskussion mehr einließ. Grünfeld hat mir immer von beiden Seiten des Brettes Spaß bereitet, weil die Reichhaltigkeit der Stellungen beiden Parteien jede Menge Raum für Kreativität und Phantasie lässt. Ich hoffe, dass der Leser nach der Lektüre dieses Buches meine Begeisterung teilen wird! Boris Awruch Beer-Sheva, Mai 2011
Inhalt Verwendete Symbole & Bibliographie
Frühe Abweichungen 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6
1 Seltene dritte Züge 2 3.f3
Fianchettosysteme 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6
3 4 5 6 7
Seltene Abspiele 5.b3 Seltene siebte Züge 7.£b3 Weiß tauscht auf d5
Verschiedene vierte Züge 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5
8 Seltene vierte Züge 9 4.£a4† 10 4.£b3
6
7 14
39 45 53 62 72
91 101 112
Geschlossene Varianten 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.e3 ¥g7
11 Verschiedene fünfte Züge 12 5.¤f3
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¥f4
13 14 15 16 17
Nebenvarianten 6.¦c1 5.e3 c5 – Einführung und Nebenvarianten 7.¦c1 – Nebenvarianten und 9.¤ge2 9.¤f3
123 135
157 166 182 198 214
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¥g5
18 19 20 21 22 23
Nebenvarianten 5.¥f4 5.¥h4 – Nebenvarianten 7.e3-Nebenvarianten 8.¦b1 8.¤f3
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7
24 Seltene fünfte Züge
303
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.¥g5 ¤e4
25 6.¥h4 26 6.cxd5
237 253 266 270 277 286
308 316
Russisches System 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.£b3 dxc4 6.£xc4 0–0 7.e4 ¤c6
27 Ohne 8.¥e2 28 8.¥e2
329 339
Variantenindex
354
el pit
1
Ka
Frühe Abweichungen
1222222223 79
Seltene dritte Züge Variantenindex 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 A) 3.£c2 B) 3.d5 C) 3.¥g5 ¤e4 4.¥f4 c5 C1) 5.d5 C2) 5.£c2 A) nach 9...¤d4
2...g6
B) Anmerkung zu 5.bxa6
8 8 10 10 11
C) Anmerkung zu 7.f3
1222222223 + + O M B + +r 79
1222222223 79
1222222223 ++ V W po + n NP + 79
Weiß hat die Kontrolle über d4 verloren
9...¤xd5!
8...¤a6!N
Frühe Abweichungen
8
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6
Hier beginnt unsere Reise durch die Grünfeld-Verteidigung. Warum wir nicht früher starten? Nun, manchmal kann man nicht alles berücksichtigen, und ich bin mir sicher, dass dieses Buch dick genug ist. Außerdem lässt dies die Tür offen für ein weiteres Buch... In diesem Kapitel schauen wir uns A) 3.£c2, B) 3.d5 und C) 3.¥g5 an. Natürlich gibt es noch mehr mögliche Züge, aber für die meisten lohnt sich eine eingehendere Betrachtung nicht, weil sie keinen Sinn machen, und den Rest werden wir in den folgenden Kapiteln beleuchten. A) 3.£c2 Vielleicht gar keine so schlechte Idee gegen Grünfeldindisch, aber das Problem ist, dass Weiß nun in eine schlechte Version des Königsinders geraten kann, wo er Probleme im Kampf um das wichtige Feld d4 bekommt. Hier folgt ein schönes Beispiel dafür:
7.¥e3 Auf 7.¤f3 hat Schwarz die angenehme Wahl zwischen 7...¥g4 8.¥e3 ¤d7 und 7...e5, wobei er jeweils als Sieger aus dem Kampf um d4 hervorgeht. 7...e5 8.dxe5 Offensichtlich kann 8.d5 ¤d4 Weiß ebenfalls nicht zufriedenstellen. 8...dxe5 9.¦d1 ¤d4 Weiß hat den Kampf um d4 verloren und wird sich bald in einer deutlich schlechteren Stellung wiederfinden. 10.¥xd4 10.£d2 ¥e6³ 10...exd4 11.c5 £e7 12.¦xd4 £xc5µ Koneru – L’Ami, Wijk aan Zee 2006. B) 3.d5
3...¥g7 3...d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤b6 6.¤f3 wäre gewiss keine schlechte Version eines AntiGrünfeld.
Als dieses Kapitel schon so gut wie fertig war, traf ich in einem Schnellschachturnier auf einen Kontrahenten, der mich mit diesem seltenen Zug überraschte. Nach der Partie machte ich aber meine Hausaufgaben und kam zu dem Schluss, dass die beste Erwiderung für Schwarz der folgende Zug ist:
4.e4 0–0 5.¤c3 d6 6.¥e2 ¤c6
3...b5!?
Kapitel 1 – Seltene dritte Züge Ein logischer Zug ganz im Geiste des Wolgagambits. Der schwarzfeldrige Läufer wird auf der langen Diagonale viel Aktivität entfalten, wenn Weiß seinen d-Bauern vorstößt. Nichtsdestotrotz glaube ich, dass auch die klassische Vorgehensweise vielversprechend ist. Zum Beispiel: 3...c6 4.¤c3 cxd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 ¥g7 7.¤f3 0–0 8.¥e2 ¤bd7 9.¥e3 ¤c5 10.¤d2 e6 mit gleichen Chancen.
4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Während der oben erwähnten Partie hatte ich vor allem vor dem folgenden Zug Respekt: 5.b6N. Allerdings muss Schwarz den Bauern nicht sofort nehmen, sondern kann 5...c6 6.£b3 ¥b7 versuchen mit interessantem Spiel. 5.e3 ¥g7 6.¤c3 0–0 7.¤f3 ¥b7 8.¥e2 axb5 9.¥xb5
9
9...¤xd5! 10.¤xd5 ¥xd5 11.£xd5 c6 12.¥xc6 ¤xc6 13.0–0 £c7 14.¦d1 Spassov – Ribli, Camaguey 1974. Wie Ribli richtigerweise im Schachinformator 17 anmerkt, hätte das logische 14...¦fb8 Schwarz exzellente Kompensation gegeben. 5...c6 6.dxc6 Falls 6.¤c3 dann entwickelt sich Schwarz mit Tempo: 6...cxd5 7.¤xd5 £a5† 8.¤c3 ¥g7 9.¥d2 Peev – Radev, Bulgarien 1975. Und hier bietet 9...¥xa6N 10.¤f3 0–0 11.g3 ¤c6 12.¥g2 ¦fb8 13.¦b1 ¤d5! Schwarz ausgezeichnete Kompensation. 6...¤xc6 7.e3 Oder 7.¤c3 ¥xa6 8.g3 ¥g7 9.¥g2 0–0 10.¤h3 Varga – Feher, Ungarn 1998, und das natürliche 10...e6 11.0–0 d5 12.¤f4 ¤g4! gibt Schwarz reichlich Kompensation für den Bauern. 7...¥g7 8.¤f3 8.¤c3 0–0 9.¤f3 geschah in Alber – Banas, Deutschland 2000. Schwarz zog nun hastig 9...¥xa6, dabei hätte ihm das präzise 9...£a5 10.¥d2 ¥xa6 eine ausgezeichnete Version des Wolgagambits versprochen. 8...0–0 9.¥e2 ¥xa6 10.¥xa6?! Besser ist 10.0–0, aber nach 10...¤e4 hätte Schwarz trotzdem große Kompensation besessen.
Frühe Abweichungen
10
10...£a5†! Ein wichtiges Detail. 11.¤c3 ¤e4! 12.0–0 ¤xc3 13.bxc3 ¦xa6³ Dzindzichashvili – Adorjan, Amsterdam 1978. C) 3.¥g5
Ein trickreicher Zug, insbesondere wenn man berücksichtigt, dass man diese Fortsetzung nur selten antrifft. 3...¤e4 Die dynamischste Antwort. Natürlich kann Schwarz auch mit 3...¥g7 fortsetzen, aber dann muss er zum Königsinder bereit sein, was nicht zu unserem Thema passt, auch wenn der weiße Aufbau nach 4.¤c3 generell als harmlos gilt. 4.¥f4 c5 Dieser Zug ist die logische Folge des vorhergehenden und ähnelt dem schwarzen Spiel in einer Variante des TrompowskiAngriffs (1.d4 ¤f6 2.¥g5 ¤e4 3.¥f4 c5 usw.). Nach 4...¥g7 5.f3 ¤f6 6.e4 hätten wir eine merkwürdige Version des SämischKönigsinders auf dem Brett, wobei Weiß mit ¥f4 einen Extrazug gemacht hat. Damit stehen wir am Scheideweg in diesem Abspiel. Hier lauten die logischsten Züge
C1) 5.d5 und C2) 5.£c2, aber wir wollen noch einen schnellen Blick auf zwei andere Möglichkeiten werfen, die Weiß probiert hat: Falls 5.¤d2 dann wäre die Erwiderung 5...¤xd2 6.£xd2 ¥g7 zu entgegenkommend. Nach 7.d5 verfügt Weiß über das angenehmere Spiel und hat gute Chancen, in Vorteil zu kommen. Stattdessen sollte Schwarz 5...£a5! 6.£c2 spielen und in die Variante C2 einlenken. 5.f3 £a5† 6.¤d2 ¤xd2 Das sieht natürlicher aus als der Rückzug, denn nach 6...¤f6 7.d5 d6 8.e4 wirkt die schwarze Dame auf a5 irgendwie deplaciert. 7.¥xd2 £b6 8.¥c3 ¥g7 9.e3 Im Falle von 9.d5 ¥xc3† 10.bxc3 £f6 (bedroht auch indirekt den Bauern c4 mittels 11...£h4†) 11.£b3 d6 hat Schwarz eine ausgezeichnete Stellung. Beim Textzug folgen wir Koops –Tesic, E-Mail 2005. Am einfachsten für Schwarz ist nun: 9...¤c6N 10.¤e2 0–0 Offensichtlich hat Weiß keine Aussicht auf Vorteil. C1) 5.d5
p + 5...¥g7 6.¤d2 ¤f6 Ebenfalls nicht schlecht ist 6...£a5 7.£c2 f5.
Kapitel 1 – Seltene dritte Züge 7.e4 d6 Schließlich ist die Partie in einer Stellung gemündet, die dem Königsinder ähnelt, wobei der weiße Springer auf d2 deplaciert steht. 8.£c2 Mit dem Springer auf d2 muss Weiß nun Zeit opfern, um den Bauern b2 zu verteidigen, denn das natürliche 8.¤gf3 würdenach 8...¤h5 nebst 9...¥xb2 diesen Bauern einfach verlieren. 8...0–0 9.¤gf3 e6 10.¥d3 Falls 10.¥e2 dann sichert sich Schwarz mittels 10...¤h5! 11.¥g5 f6 12.¥e3 f5 gutes Spiel. 10...¤a6 Ein nützlicher Einschub, bevor sich Schwarz wieder dem Königsflügel widmet. Die Drohung ...¤b4 zwingt Weiß zu einem weiteren Zeitverlust. 11.a3 In Sträter – Gross, Deutschland 1999, hätte Schwarz nun folgendermaßen fortsetzen sollen:
11...¤h5N Eine mittlerweile vertraute Idee. 12.¥g5 f6 13.¥e3 Nach 13.¥h4
11
erhält Schwarz mit 13...e5! eine gute Version des Königsinders (weniger klar ist 13...exd5 14.cxd5 ¤f4 15.0–0 g5 16.¥g3 ¤xd3 17.£xd3 f5 18.exf5 ¥xf5 19.£b3÷) 14.0–0 £e8. Schwarz kann nicht daran gehindert werden, seine Hauptidee, den Vorstoß …f5, auszuführen, was ihm exzellentes Spiel sichert. Freilich verdient auch 14...¤f4!? Beachtung. 13...e5 Erneut vermag ich nicht zu sehen, wie Weiß den thematischen Vorstoß …f5 verhindern kann. Schwarz hat ausgezeichnetes Spiel. C2) 5.£c2
Laut Theorie die beste weiße Wahl. 5...£a5† 6.¤d2 f5 Die logische Konsequenz des vorherigen Zuges. Weiß muss nun Zeit aufwenden, um
12
Frühe Abweichungen
den schwarzen Springer aus dem Zentrum zu vertreiben. Nach 6...¤f6 7.d5 d6 8.e4 ¥g7 9.¤e2 gefolgt von 10.¤c3 hat Weiß Aussichten auf Eröffnungsvorteil. 7.f3 Die natürlichste Erwiderung. In einer anderen Partie geschah: 7.¤gf3 Schwarz sollte nun folgendermaßen fortsetzen: 7...¥g7 In Speelman – Ehlwest, Reykjavik 1991, griff Schwarz mit 7...cxd4?! sofort daneben und nach 8.¤xd4 ¥g7 9.¤4b3! stand Weiß besser. 8.d5 Diese Stellung kam bisher einmal in der Praxis aufs Brett, und zwar in der Partie Serafimow – Ignatenko, Russland 1996, wenn auch über eine andere Zugfolge. Ich fand hier die folgende, natürlich wirkende Verstärkung: 8...¤a6!N 9.a3 Weiß kann sich 9.e3 ¤b4 10.£b3 (10.£c1 ist deutlich schwächer: 10...£a4! 11.¤b3 d6 12.¥e2 ¤xa2! 13.£c2 ¤b4 14.£d1 £d7µ und Schwarz behält einen gesunden Mehrbauern.) 10...e5! 11.dxe6 dxe6 kaum leisten. Schwarz hat angenehmes Spiel und besitzt gute Chancen, die Initiative zu übernehmen. 9...0–0 10.e3 ¤xd2 11.¤xd2
11...e5! Schwarz steht vermutlich schon besser. Zum Beispiel: 12.dxe6 dxe6 13.0–0–0 e5 14.¥g3 ¥d7 Die Idee ...¥a4 ist recht unangenehm für Weiß. 7...¤f6 8.d5 ¥g7 9.¥e5 Eine natürliche Idee. Der schwarzfeldrige Läufer wird nach c3 überführt, wo er die nervige Fesselung auf der Diagonale e1-a5 neutralisiert. Diese Stellung entstand in Barsov – Vareille, Val Thorens 1995. Ich fand die folgende Verstärkung: 9...0–0N 10.¤h3 e6 Schwarz holt zum Schlag im Zentrum aus, wobei er sich seinen Entwicklungsvorsprung zu Nutze macht.
Tl+ + o n +
11.¥c3 £d8 12.e4 12.dxe6 dxe6 hätte natürlich Schwarz gestattet, seinen Damenspringer komfortabel nach c6 zu entwickeln. 12...fxe4 13.fxe4 b5! Damit übt Schwarz nicht nur unangenehmen Druck auf das Zentrum aus, sondern schafft auch die Drohung 14…b4, was Weiß zwingen würde, seinen schwarzfeldrigen Läufer abzugeben. Meiner Meinung nach hat
Kapitel 1 – Seltene dritte Züge Schwarze gute Aussichten, die Initiative zu übernehmen. Fazit Diese seltenen Optionen im dritten Zug beziehen einen Großteil ihrer Attraktivität aus der Tatsache, dass es für Schwarz schwer (oder gar unmöglich) wird, im klassischen Grünfeldstil fortzusetzen. Wenn man aber flexibel vorgeht, glaube ich, dass Schwarz gute Chancen erhalten kann. Gegen 3.£c2 verspricht es am meisten, in einen königsindischen Aufbau zu wechseln, wo der weiße Bauer auf d4 schnell zur Zielscheibe wird. Auf 3.d5 empfehle ich das aggressive 3...b5!?, wonach Schwarz sich wie im Wolgagambit gute Kompensation sichern kann. Schließlich kann 3.¥g5 mit einer Idee aus dem Trompowski-Angriff, 3...¤e4 gefolgt von 4...c5, begegnet werden, was Schwarz gutes Spiel gibt.
13
Grandmaster Repertoire 9
The Grünfeld Defence Volume Two By
Boris Avrukh
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used & Bibliography
Various 5th Moves 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5
1 2 3 4
4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.¤f3 5.¤a4 5.¥d2 5.g3
Various 7th Moves 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7
5 6 7 8
7.¥g5 7.¥a3 7.£a4† 7.¥b5†
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥e3
9 Two Rook Moves 10 8.¤f3 11 8.£d2
6
7 19 26 41
57 62 69 78
89 108 134
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3
12 Various 8th Moves
144
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3 c5 8.¦b1
13 14 15 16
Various 9th Moves 11.£d2 11.¥d2 £xa2 – Introduction and other 13th Moves 13.¥g5
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥c4
17 18 19 20 21
Various 9th and 10th Moves 10...¥g4 12.¦b1 10...£c7 11...b6!?
Variation Index
162 169 181 194
203 212 222 229 241 255
er a pt
5
Ch
Various 7th Moves
1222222223 l+ T O + R + 79
7.¥g5 Variation Index 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥g5 7...c5 8.¦c1 0–0
A) 9.d5 B) 9.¤f3 ¥g4 10.d5 £d6 11.¥e2 ¤d7 B1) 12.0–0 B2) 12.h3
A) after 9.d5
B) note to 11...¤d7
58 59 59 61
B2) after 14.c4
1222222223 o 79
1222222223 79
1222222223 79
9...f5! – the spirit of the Grünfeld
13...e6N
14...bxc4!N
Various 7th Moves
58
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥g5 White’s main idea in this line is to provoke the move ...h6, and then to continue with ¥e3 and £d2; compared with Chapter 11, White would gain a tempo by attacking the black h-pawn. However Black can easily manage without moving his h-pawn. 7...c5 8.¦c1 0–0
Here play may take two directions: A) 9.d5 or B) 9.¤f3. A) 9.d5 f5!
This is very much in the spirit of the
Grünfeld; Black attacks the white centre, aiming to use his lead in development. 10.¥c4 ¢h8 11.¤e2 Probably the most challenging move. The alternatives are: 11.exf5 ¦xf5 12.¤f3 ¤d7 13.£e2 ¤e5 14.¤xe5 ¦xe5 15.¥e3 e6 Black has comfortably equalized. In Troff – Haessel, Las Vegas 2010, White tried to hold the centre with 11.f3. It is now very tempting to play: 11...£d6N 12.¥d3 ¤d7 13.¤e2 c4 14.¥b1 fxe4 15.¥xe4 ¤c5 16.0–0 ¥f5 Black has the better chances. 11...fxe4 12.¤g3 ¥f5 If Black would prefer to avoid the repetition in the main line, I can offer a reasonable alternative in 12...¤d7N 13.¤xe4 ¤b6 14.£e2 h6 15.¥e3 ¤xc4 16.£xc4 b6 with double-edged play.
13.0–0 Inferior for White is 13.£e2 ¤d7 14.¤xe4 h6 15.¥h4 g5 16.¥g3 ¤b6 17.¦d1 Lysyj – Sutovsky, Dagomys 2008. Now I recommend the straightforward: 17...¤xc4N 18.£xc4 b5 19.£e2 ¥xe4 20.£xe4 ¥xc3† 21.¢f1 £d7 Black is clearly better.
Chapter 5 – 7.¥g5 13...¤d7 14.d6 White cannot afford to play slowly, for example: 14.£e2 ¤e5 15.¤xe4 ¤xc4 16.£xc4 b5 16.£d3 c4 White is losing his d-pawn. 14...¥f6 15.¥h6 ¥g7 16.¥g5 ¥f6 17.¥h6 It seems that neither side can avoid the repetition, Polak – Ftacnik, Czech Republic 2009. B) 9.¤f3 ¥g4 10.d5 £d6 I much prefer this positional concept to the sharp 10...f5 which leads to crazy complications: 11.£b3 ¢h8 12.¤d2 fxe4 13.£xb7 ¤d7 14.h3 I don’t have much faith in Black’s position here.
11.¥e2 It is quite risky for White to play: 11.£d2 ¤d7 (I would prefer to limit White’s options with the move order 11...¥xf3 12.gxf3 ¤d7) 12.¥e2 ¥xf3 13.gxf3? (This is a serious strategical mistake; it was necessary to recapture with 13.¥xf3, when a logical continuation is 13...f5 14.exf5 ¦xf5 15.0–0 ¥e5! 16.h3 ¦xg5 17.£xg5 ¥h2† 18.¢h1 ¥f4 19.£h4 g5! 20.£g4 ¤e5 21.£h5 ¤xf3 22.£xf3 ¥xc1 23.¦xc1 ¦f8 24.£e3 £xd5 25.c4 £f5 26.£xe7 ¦f7 with an equal position.) 13...f5! 14.¥f4 ¤e5 Black was clearly better in Eperjesi – Farkas, Hungary 2007.
59
11...¤d7 White’s main options are B1) 12.0–0 and B2) 12.h3, although he has also tried: 12.¤d2 It looks quite natural for the knight to head for the c4-square, but Black’s counterplay arrives just in time. 12...¥xe2 13.£xe2
This was Jenkinson – Fenwick, e-mail 2008. Black should now play: 13...e6N 14.¤c4 (no good is 14.c4 ¦ae8! and White cannot hold the centre) 14...£a6 15.¤e3 £xe2† 16.¢xe2 exd5 17.exd5 (after 17.¤xd5 f6! Black shouldn’t experience any problems) 17...¦fe8 The position is pretty much balanced. B1) 12.0–0 ¥xf3 13.¥xf3 b5
A very interesting concept. Black has given up his light-squared bishop, but in return
Various 7th Moves
60
has made various gains: he has completed his development and connected his rooks, his queen is well-placed on d6, and he has started to advance his queenside pawns. 14.¥e2 c4! Black now has the c5-square at his disposal. 15.f4 White has also tried: 15.£c2 ¤c5 15...f5 deserves serious attention. 16.¦fd1 After 16.f4 Black has the strong idea 16...f6 17.¥h4 ¥h6 and White has problems defending the f4-pawn. White’s best option is 16.¥e3, although 16...a6 17.¦fd1 ¤a4 secures Black good counterplay.
16...f5! 17.exf5 ¦xf5 18.¥e3 ¦af8 Black had taken over the initiative in Karavade – Gupta, Reykjavik 2010. 15...f6 There is an interesting alternative: 15...¤b6N 16.£c2 ¦ad8 Black is intending to continue with ...f5. 16.¥h4 ¤c5 17.£d4 e5! The key move, otherwise Black would be in trouble. 18.dxe6 £xd4† 19.cxd4 ¤xe6
20.¦xc4!? The best try. Black is out of danger after 20.d5 ¤xf4! 21.¦xf4 g5. 20...f5! A very strong response. After 20...bxc4 21.¥xc4 followed by 22.f5 White has good chances of obtaining an advantage. 21.e5? This is going too far. White could maintain equality with 21.¦b4 ¤xd4 22.¥xb5. 21...bxc4 Now taking the rook is a different story. 22.¥xc4 ¦fe8 23.d5
t+ + pPo b+ +
Chapter 5 – 7.¥g5 23...g5! This is simply a refutation of White’s idea. 24.fxg5 ¤c5 25.d6† ¢h8 26.e6 ¦ad8 27.¦d1 ¦xe6! Black had a winning position in Nyback – Kovchan, Aix-les-Bains 2011. B2) 12.h3 ¥xf3 13.¥xf3 b5 14.c4 White decides to prevent Black playing ...c4.
14...bxc4!N This is a natural improvement over 14...b4 15.0–0 a5, which led to complex strategical play in Nyback – Svidler, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009. 15.¦xc4 ¥d4! 16.0–0 ¤e5 17.¦a4 f5 Black has an excellent game.
61
Conclusion Developing the bishop to g5 leaves the d4square poorly defended and means that the white d-pawn will soon have to advance. After A) 9.d5 Black can immediately attack the centre with 9...f5, easily obtaining equal chances. When White opts for B) 9.¤f3 ¥g4 10.d5, then 10...f5 is not so clear; however 10...£d6 and 11...¤d7 offers Black fine play.
Großmeister-Repertoire 9
Grünfeld-Indisch Band 2 Von
Boris Awruch
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Vorwort Die nach den Anfangszügen 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 entstehende Stellung ist der Ausgangspunkt für diesen, den zweiten Band meiner Grünfeld-Serie. (Ich bin mir nicht einmal sicher, ob „Grünfeld-Verteidigung“ überhaupt der richtige Ausdruck ist.) Falls der Leser mit Band 1 noch nicht vertraut ist, werde ich noch einmal kurz die Geschichte wiedergeben, wie ich zu einem Jünger dieser wunderbaren Eröffnung geworden bin. Im Vorwort zum ersten Band schrieb ich also: „Als ich 1995 nach Israel zog, war mein Eröffnungsrepertoire ziemlich löchrig, so dass ich mich während der ersten paar Monate dort energisch bemühte, daran zu arbeiten. Glücklicherweise schufen der Beer Sheva Verein und dessen Leiter Ilyahu Levant die bestmöglichen Voraussetzungen für diese Arbeit. Mein erster Trainer in Israel wurde Mark Zeitlin, den ich nach wie vor als ‚Grünfeldguru‘ bezeichnen würde. Außerdem erhielt ich noch große Unterstützung von Alex Huzman, einem starken Spieler, der sich vor allem einen Namen als langzeitiger Trainer von Boris Gelfand gemacht hat. Gleich die ersten Stunden mit Mark machten mir klar, dass Grünfeld meine Eröffnung ist. Die kämpferischen und dynamischen Stellungen, die daraus hervorgehen, wie auch die Aussicht, mit den schwarzen Steinen um die Initiative zu ringen, zogen mich mit Macht an. Besonders hilfreich war, dass alle Spieler meines neuen Vereins diese Eröffnung gut kannten. So wird der Leser auch in diesem Buch viele Hinweise auf Partien von Mark Zeitlin, Alex Huzman, Alon Greenfeld, Wiktor Michalewski und Alex Finkel finden. Zu jener Zeit war der Computereinfluss noch nicht so stark, und durch unsere gemeinsame Analyse gelang es uns, viele interessante Ideen zu entdecken. Bezeichnenderweise blieb die Grünfeldverteidigung für die nächsten sechzehn Jahre meine erste Wahl gegen 1.d4, während ich gegen 1.e4 recht oft gewechselt habe.“ Im ersten Band habe ich dargelegt, wie schwer es mir fiel, gegen die Fianchetto-Variante anzukämpfen, die ich selbst im Großmeister-Repertoire 2 – 1.d4 Band Zwei aus Sicht von Weiß empfohlen hatte. Aber dies war nicht das einzige Mal, dass ich gegen mich selbst antreten musste. Die Hauptvariante mit 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 habe ich in zahllosen Weißpartien angewandt, und ich werde mich auch weiter mit beiden Farben den interessanten Herausforderungen stellen, die diese Eröffnung bereithält. Eine meiner Lieblingswaffen mit den weißen Steinen ist das berühmte 8.¦b1-System gewesen, aber wie Sie in den Kapiteln 13-16 erfahren werden, hat Schwarz dort momentan keine Probleme, so dass ich gezwungen bin, neue Wege zu erforschen, wenn ich gegen meine Lieblingseröffnung antreten muss. Ein weiterer kritischer Kampfplatz ist das 7.¥c4-System, wogegen ich zwei unterschiedliche Strategien für Schwarz beleuchtet habe, deren Details in den Kapiteln 17-21 zu finden sind. Dieser zweite Band vollendet mein Großmeister-Repertoire in der Grünfeldverteidigung. Diese phantastische Eröffnung hat mir am Brett nicht nur jede Menge Spaß bereitet, sondern auch exzellente Resultate eingebracht, und ich hoffe, dass meine zwei Bücher ihren Beitrag leisten, damit der Leser dieselben Erfahrungen machen wird. Boris Awruch Beer-Sheva, Juni 2011
Inhalt Verwendete Symbole & Bibliographie
6
Verschiedene 5. Züge 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5
1 5.¤f3 7 2 5.¤a4 19 3 5.¥d2 26 4 5.g3 41
Verschiedene 7. Züge 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7
5 7.¥g5 58 6 7.¥a3 63 7 7.£a4† 70 8 7.¥b5† 79 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥e3 9 Zwei Turmzüge 90 10 8.¤f3 110 11 8.£d2 136 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3 12 Verschiedene 8. Züge
147
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¤f3 c5 8.¦b1 13 Verschiedene 9. Züge 166 14 11.£d2 174 15 11.¥d2 £xa2 – Einführung und andere 13. Züge 186 16 13.¥g5 199 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥c4 17 Verschiedene 9. und 10. Züge 209 18 10...¥g4 219 19 12.¦b1 229 20 10...£c7 236 21 11...b6!? 249 Variantenindex 264
el pit
6
Ka
Verschiedene 7. Züge
1222222223 M 79
7.¥a3 Variantenindex 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥a3 7...¤d7! A) 8.£b3 64 B) 8.¤f3 c5 65 B1) 9.¥c4 65 B2) 9.£b3 0–0 67 B21) 10.¥d3 68 B22) 10.¥e2 68
A) nach 13.¥b4
B1) nach 17.£b4
B22) nach 13.¤d2
1222222223 79
1222222223 79
1222222223 79
13...£b6!N
17...¦c7N
13...b5!N
Verschiedene 7. Züge
64
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 ¤xd5 5.e4 ¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥g7 7.¥a3 Eine ziemlich populäre Nebenvariante, die sich gegen …c5 richtet.
9...0–0 10.¥e2 10.¤f3 ist eine weitere Zugumstellung, diesmal führt sie zur Anmerkung zu 10.¦d1 in Variante B2.
7...¤d7!
10...£a5 11.¤f3 ¤f6! Eine sehr starke Idee. Bevor Weiß mit seinem König flüchten kann, beginnt Schwarz den Angriff auf die Zentrumsbauern. Die Grundidee des weißen Aufbaus zeigt sich an folgender Variante: 11...cxd4 12.¥b4 £c7 13.cxd4 ¤f6 14.£e3 und Weiß hatte die besseren Chancen, V. Milov – W. Michalewski, Biel 2002.
Ein sehr konkreter Ansatz, mit dem Schwarz trotzdem …c5 vorbereitet. Ein wichtiger Aspekt besteht darin, dass Weiß dann gezwungen wäre, auf die Drohung ...cxd4 gefolgt von ...£a5† zu reagieren. Wir sind an der ersten Gabelung in dieser Variante angelangt, wobei die Hauptfortsetzungen A) 8.£b3 und B) 8.¤f3 lauten. Andere Möglichkeiten sind: 8.¥c4 c5 9.£b3 0–0 10.¤f3 cxd4 führt zu Variante B1. 8.¦c1 c5 9.d5. Eine interessante Idee, aber der weiße Läufer ist auf a3 eindeutig deplaciert. 9...£a5 10.£b3 0–0 11.¤f3, Garcia Gonzales – Lechtynsky, Cienfuegos 1985. Schwarz sollte nun 11...¤f6 12.¥d3 e6 spielen, wonach Weiß in Schwierigkeiten ist. A) 8.£b3 c5 9.¦d1 9.¥c4 0–0 10.¤f3 lenkt in B1 ein, während 9.¤f3 zu B2 führt.
12.¥xc5 Der 11. schwarze Zug war eine Neuerung, die ich vor einigen Jahren fand, obwohl sie seitdem einige Male angewandt wurde. Hier sind einige der von mir untersuchten Varianten: 12.¤d2 cxd4 13.¥b4 (13.cxd4? ¤xe4 14.¥b4 ¤xd2µ) 13...£e5 14.cxd4 £xd4 15.¥xe7 ¤xe4! 16.¤xe4 £xe4 17.¥xf8 ¥xf8 und Schwarz hat starke Initiative für die Qualität. 12.¥d3 ¥e6! 13.£b2 (Nach 13.d5 ¥d7 14.¦c1 ¦ac8 droht Schwarz ...c4 und hält die Initiative in der Hand. Zum Beispiel: 15.£b2 e6 16.d6 ¥c6 17.¤d2 £d8 18.¥xc5 ¥xe4 und Schwarz steht gut.) 13...b6 14.0–0 ¥g4! und Schwarz hat die besseren Chancen.
Kapitel 6 – 7.¥a3 12...¤xe4 13.¥b4 Den e-Bauern zu nehmen wäre gefährlich für Weiß: 13.¥xe7 ¦e8 14.¥b4 £c7 15.c4 (Nach 15.0–0 a5 verliert Weiß seinen c-Bauern.) 15...a5 16.¥a3 a4 17.£b2 ¥g4 18.0–0 ¤g5 und Schwarz hat die Initiative.
Dies geschah in De Virgilio – Molo, E-Mail 2008. Meiner Ansicht nach hätte Schwarz nun folgendermaßen fortsetzen sollen: 13...£b6!N 14.¤d2 Nach 14.c4 a5 15.¥a3 £xb3 16.axb3 ¤c3 17.¦d3 ¤xe2 18.¢xe2 a4! kann nur Schwarz besser stehen. 14...¥e6 15.£a3 Natürlich nicht 15.d5 £xf2#.
65
15...¤d6 16.0–0 £c7 Schwarz plant als Nächstes 17...a5 und steht völlig in Ordnung. B) 8.¤f3 c5
Weiß hat nun die Wahl zwischen B1) 9.¥c4 und B2) 9.£b3, obwohl die beiden Züge häufig in dieselbe Variante führen. B1) 9.¥c4 cxd4
10.£b3 10.0–0? wurde in Hvenekilde – Fries Nielsen, Aalborg 1979, gespielt, ist aber nicht korrekt. Schwarz sollte die Herausforderung annehmen: 10...dxc3! 11.¥xf7† ¢xf7 12.¤g5† ¢e8 13.¤e6 (13.£b3 ¤e5µ)
66
Verschiedene 7. Züge
13...£a5 14.¤xg7† ¢f7 15.£b3† ¢xg7 16.¥xe7 ¤f6 17.¥b4 £b6 18.£xc3 ¦e8 und Schwarz steht klar besser. 10...0–0 11.cxd4 ¤b6 12.0–0 Weiß kann auch probieren, seinen weißfeldrigen Läufer zu behalten: 12.¥e2 ¥e6 13.£b4 ¦c8 Die thematische Idee 13...f5!? kommt ebenfalls in Betracht. Schwarz beabsichtigt, das Feld d5 für den Springer zu erkämpfen, und nach 14.e5 ¤d5 15.£d2 ¦c8 16.0–0 ¤c3 stand er sehr gut in Dinerchtein – Wister, E-Mail 2009.
14.0–0 Auf 14.£xe7 empfiehlt Swidler in seinen Kommentaren im Schachinformator 83 das folgende Abspiel: 14...£xe7 (14...¤c4 sieht ebenfalls verlockend aus.) 15.¥xe7 ¦fe8 16.¥d6 (oder 16.¥g5 ¥c4 17.e5 f6!) 16...¥c4 17.e5 ¥xe2 (17...f6 könnte sogar noch stärker sein.) 18.¢xe2 ¤c4 und Schwarz steht gut. 14...¥c4 Swidler hob hervor, dass 14...¤c4!? eine beachtliche Alternative ist. 15.¦fe1 ¥xe2 16.¦xe2 ¤c4 Schwarz hatte keine Probleme in V. Milov – Swidler, Moskau (3.2) 2001. 12...¤xc4 13.£xc4 Meiner Meinung nach stellt die Kraft
des Läuferpaars sicher, dass Schwarz keine Probleme hat.
13...¥g4 14.¦ad1 Oder 14.¤e5 ¥e6 15.£b4 £b6! 16.£xb6 axb6 17.¥xe7 ¦fe8 18.¥b4 ¥xa2= 14...¥xf3 14...¦c8 ist ebenfalls vielversprechend. 15.gxf3 £d7 Schwarz hat bereits die besseren Chancen. 16.¦d3 ¦fc8 17.£b4
Wir sind der Partie I. Iwanow – Lonoff, Chicago 1990, gefolgt. Hier empfehle ich das natürliche:
Kapitel 6 – 7.¥a3
67
17...¦c7N 18.¦c1 ¦xc1† 19.¥xc1 a5 20.£b3 b5³ Schwarz plant, seine Damenflügelbauern vorzustoßen, was ihm die besseren Chancen sichert.
11.¤g5!N Mein Kontrahent verpasste glücklicherweise diese brillante Idee. 11...e6 12.¤xf7! ¦xf7 13.¥xe6 £e8 14.0–0 Mir gefällt die schwarze Stellung nicht.
B2) 9.£b3 0–0
10.¦d1 £c7! Schwarz sollte nichts überstürzen; nach 10...cxd4 11.cxd4 ¤f6 12.¥d3 ¥g4 hat Weiß nach dem natürlichen 13.0–0N Aussichten auf Vorteil. (Allerdings hat Weiß in allen bisherigen Partien mit dem riskanten 13.£xb7 fortgesetzt, wogegen Schwarz überragend gepunktet hat.) 11.e5 Verteidigt sich gegen die Idee ...¤f6. Auf 11.¥d3 hat Schwarz den unerwarteten Schlag 11...b5!, wobei der Bauer tabu zu sein scheint. Man sehe: 12.¥xb5 ¦b8 13.£c4 £a5! 14.¥xd7 £xa3 15.¥xc8 (oder 15.£xc5 £b2!) 15...¦fxc8 und Schwarz hat eindeutig die besseren Chancen.
Erneut stehen wir an einer Gabelung; die Hauptfortsetzungen lauten hier B21) 10.¥d3 und B22) 10.¥e2. Andere Möglichkeiten sind: 10.¥c4 ¦b8?! Dies zog ich in Golod – Awruch, Gibraltar 2009, aber angesichts der Tatsache, dass Weiß über konkrete Drohungen verfügt, ist es ziemlich riskant. Die einfachste Möglichkeit für Schwarz bestand in 10...cxd4 11.cxd4 ¤b6, was zu B1 weiter oben überleitet.
T b
11...cxd4N Dies ist eine offensichtliche Verstärkung gegenüber Katki – Koch, Fernschach 1958, wo 11...b6 12.¥e2 ¥b7 13.e6! Weiß die Initiative überließ. 12.cxd4 ¤b6 Schwarz hat gutes Spiel.
Verschiedene 7. Züge
68
B21) 10.¥d3 ¦b8! Diese starke Idee leitet den korrekten Plan ein. Schwarz wird …b5 folgen lassen, wonach sich die weißen Figuren am Damenflügel etwas ungemütlich fühlen werden. 11.0–0 b5
12.£c2 Eine andere Variante lautet: 12.¥e2 ¥b7 13.£c2 (13.d5 wird stark mit 13...b4! beantwortet.) 13...b4 (13...£a5 ist ebenfalls sehr vielversprechend.) 14.cxb4 cxd4 15.¦ad1 ¦c8 und Schwarz stand besser, Gomez Fontal – Herrera, Santa Clara 2001. 12...£a5 13.¥b2 ¥a6 14.£e2 ¤b6! Der schwarze Springer strebt nach a4. 15.dxc5 ¤a4 16.¤d4 ¤xb2 17.£xb2 b4!ƒ Schwarz hatte klaren Vorteil, Goldenberg – Roos, Courchevel 1979. B22) 10.¥e2 £c7 11.0–0 ¦b8 Der Leser sollte sich diese thematische Idee gut merken, wenn die Dame auf b3 steht. 12.e5 e6 Verhindert e5-e6. Nicht so gut ist 12...b5
13.e6 c4 14.£b4! und Weiß profitiert davon, dass sein Läufer auf e2 und nicht e3 steht! 14...fxe6 15.£xe7 und Weiß steht besser. 13.¤d2 Mit seinem letzten Zug hat Schwarz das Feld d6 geschwächt, also setzt sich der weiße Springer sofort dorthin in Bewegung.
13...b5!N Eine interessante Verstärkung gegenüber dem ruhigen 13...b6. Offensichtlich war Schwarz um seinen Bauern c5 besorgt, aber ich denke, dass er offensiver vorgehen kann. 14.¤e4 ¥b7! Dies halte ich für stärker als 14...b4 15.cxb4 cxd4 16.f4! und Weiß steht gut. (Stattdessen ist 16.b5 £xe5 17.¥d3 ¥b7 bei weitem nicht so klar.) 15.¤xc5 15.¤d6 kann Schwarz folgendermaßen begegnen: 15...¥d5 16.¤xb5 (Oder 16.£c2 a6 17.¦ac1 £c6 18.g3 f6 und nur Schwarz kann besser stehen.) 16...£c6 17.c4 ¥xg2 18.¦fd1 a6 19.d5 exd5 20.cxd5 £b6 21.¢xg2 ¥xe5 22.¦ab1 axb5 23.¥xb5 £d6. Weiß sollte sich Gedanken über seinen gefährdeten König machen.
Kapitel 6 – 7.¥a3
69
15...¤xc5 16.¥xc5
20.gxf3 ¥f4
16...¥xe5! Die Pointe des schwarzen Spiels.
Schwarz hat schöne Kompensation, obwohl Weiß vermutlich gute Chancen hat, die Stellung zu halten.
17.¥xf8 ¥xh2† 18.¢h1 ¢xf8 Es gibt keinen Zweifel, dass Schwarz ausgezeichnete Kompensation für die Qualität hat. 19.¥f3 Verteidigt sich gegen die schwarze Absicht ...£f4-h4(h6). 19...¥xf3 Sehr unterhaltsames Spiel entsteht nach 19...£f4, wobei die folgende Variante mehr oder weniger forciert erscheint: 20.¥xb7 £h4 21.g3 ¥xg3† 22.¢g2 ¥d6 23.¦h1 £g4† 24.¢f1 ¦xb7 25.¦xh7 ¢g8 und Schwarz ist in keinerlei Gefahr.
L + + + V p + +k
Fazit Ich empfehle 7...¤d7! gefolgt von 8...c5 als geeigneten Weg, um den frühen Läuferausfall nach a3 zu kontern. Weiß wird üblicherweise irgendwann £b3 folgen lassen, worauf der Plan mit ... ¦b8! und b5 allgemein die korrekte Reaktion ist. Freilich nicht in allen Fällen, wie meine Kommentare zur Partie Golod – Awruch in B2 zeigen. In Variante B22 allerdings liefert die Verstärkung 13...b5!N ein gutes Beispiel für die aktiven Möglichkeiten für Schwarz in diesem Abspiel.
Grandmaster Repertoire 10
The Tarrasch Defence By
Jacob Aagaard & Nikolaos Ntirlis
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Bibliography 3 Key to Symbols used 6 Preface by Nikolaos Ntirlis 7 Preface by Jacob Aagaard 10 Introduction 11
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 ¤f6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.0–0 0–0 9.¥g5 c4!
1 Various 10th Moves 21 2 Various 11th Moves 40 3 11.¦c149 4 11.e3 59 5 11.f4 74 6 11.¤xc6 and 11.b3 89 7 16.¦c1!101 8 16.£c2116
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 ¤f6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.0–0 0–0 9.dxc5 ¥xc5
9 10 11 12 13
Minor 10th Moves 131 Reti Variation 144 10.¥g5162 Timman Variation – Introduction 182 Timman Variation – Main Line 195
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 ¤f6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.0–0 0–0
14
9th Move Alternatives
Early Deviations
15 16 17 18 19 20
Set-ups without ¤c3234 Various 6th Moves 255 6.dxc5! – Introduction and 9.¥d2269 6.dxc5! – 9.£d2285 Various 5th Moves 307 Various 4th Moves 319
Variation Index
218
341
Preface By Jacob Aagaard In 2002 I helped some friends with the writing of two books for Everyman Chess, Meeting 1.e4 and Meeting 1.d4. On the first book I worked as an editor only, while with the second book I wrote it together with Esben Lund (now a strong IM with a GM-norm in his pouch). We focused on the Tarrasch Defence for Black, with additional systems against the Reti, London and so on. This was primarily Esben’s project and he wrote most of the Tarrasch chapters, especially on his favourite line 9.¥g5 c4. I had the thankless task of trying to make 9...cxd4 work, something I probably did not do too badly, but on the other hand I cannot imagine that anything I did influenced practice significantly. This is the main reason why I decided to offer my services to Nikolaos Ntirlis (referred to as Nikos in the rest of the book); I wanted to do better than first time around. This we have done. Nikos at some point said that we had moved the theory on the Tarrasch a few years forward, which is a very kind thing to say, as it is essentially he who has done this. Our working relationship on this book has been one of the ideas man and his editor. Nikos started out with lots of ideas everywhere (based on a massive amount of research and sheer hard work), while I analysed everything carefully, checked if any games unknown to Nikos were available, and then wrote and rewrote every sentence of the book. Esben and I wrote together in the same room and sought each other’s advice, while Nikos and I are on two far corners of the European continent. We met up only briefly in Glasgow in February 2011 and are together in Greece in November 2011, at the time this book is being printed. However our work has been truly co-authored and not split as with my previous experience with the Tarrasch. It was definitely more social the first time around, but I think the reader will be happier with the result of the less social and more analytical approach taken this time around. It has been seven years since I last wrote an opening book, and I have never had an opening book published by Quality Chess. Not only is this the start of the third part of my career as a chess writer, the first being working for Everyman and the second being essentially the Attacking Manuals and the spin-off prequel Practical Chess Defence, it is hopefully also the beginning of a close working relationship with Nikos. We have planned a number of things to work on together in the future and I look forward to it a lot. I think this is a good book on a good opening and I hope you will enjoy it. Jacob Aagaard Halkidiki, Greece November 2011
er a pt
1
Ch
9.¥g5 Various 10th Moves
O
Variation Index 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 ¤f6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.0–0 0–0 9.¥g5 9...c4!
A) 10.¦e1 h6! 22 A1) 11.¥f422 A2) 11.¥xf623 B) 10.¦c124 B1) 10...h6!? 25 B2) 10...¥e6 26 C) 10.e3 27 D) 10.b3 29 D1) 10...cxb3!? 30 D2) 10...£a532 D21) 11.¦c132 D22) 11.£c234 D23) 11.£d2 36 D24) 11.¥d237 A1) after 12.¤e5
B2) after 12.£xb3
D23) after 17.¦ab1
12...¦e8!N
12...£b6!N
17...b5!Nµ
9.¥g5
22
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 ¤f6 7.¥g2 ¥e7 8.0–0 0–0 9.¥g5 c4!
The big move here is of course 10.¤e5, putting immediate pressure on the d5-pawn. Although the principal alternatives to the main line generally occur on move 11, various other 10th moves are played from time to time. In this chapter we shall look at: A) 10.¦e1, B) 10.¦c1, C) 10.e3 and D) 10.b3. None of them should be considered critical, but on the other hand they are not entirely lacking in ideas, and they deserve some respect and a decent investigation. We have tried to provide both, but hopefully been more successful in the latter aspect. A) 10.¦e1 This type of slow move has no chance of challenging the black set-up. Contrary to popular belief, the Tarrasch is a positionally acceptable opening. It is true that in many lines Black accepts the isolated d-pawn and thus relies on a fair amount of activity, but other lines, such as this one, are more about structure than dynamics. If nothing happens for a few moves, Black will be able to start a pawn storm on the queenside and be positionally preferable. For this reason White
needs to challenge the black centre rapidly, and not waste time on moves such as 10.¦e1. 10...h6! For Black there is no reason to hesitate; why not collect the two bishops immediately? Obviously there is nothing wrong with 10...¥e6, but given the chance, Black should ask White to either release the pressure a bit or concede the two bishops.
At this point White has the choice between A1) 11.¥f4, which seems a bit inconsistent, and accepting the challenge with A2) 11.¥xf6. A1) 11.¥f4 ¥f5! This reaches a favourable version of a line we shall examine in Chapter 14, dealing with 9th move alternatives (the variation with 9.¥f4). Here Black has gotten the useful move ...h6 thrown in for free, and also White has played the non-threatening ¦e1. In general the e6square is a rather passive square for the bishop, but it usually has to go there to support the d5-pawn. However, when we are given the chance, we should choose the more active f5square, where the bishop plays an active role in the centre. 12.¤e5
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves
12...¦e8!N A small refinement to existing practice. We want to target the important e4- and e5-squares before turning our eyes to the queenside. In the only game in this position in our database, Black played: 12...¦c8 The idea is to take on c6 with the rook. This is acceptable, but a bit unnecessary. 13.¤xc6 There is a small trap in that White may be tempted by 13.¤xc4? dxc4 14.d5, hoping to regain the piece by the further advance of the d-pawn.
14...g5! A tactical solution, which should be borne in mind as a resource in other similar positions. After 15.dxc6 gxf4 16.cxb7 ¦b8 White does not have enough for his piece.
23
13...¦xc6 14.e4!? This does not look great positionally, but White is trying to justify his play up to this point. 14...¤xe4 15.¤xe4 ¥xe4 16.¥xe4 dxe4 17.d5?! Better was the simple 17.¦xe4 ¥f6, when White is only marginally worse. 17...¦c5 18.d6 ¥f6³ Tuerk – Bach, Dortmund 1995. 13.¤xc6 If 13.¦c1 then 13...¥b4!? looks an interesting idea, although we can now also afford the luxury of playing 13...¦c8. 13...bxc6 Black has a comfortable position. He can consider ...¥b4 to take control over the e4square, and if White prevents this with 14.a3 then 14...¥d6 gives Black a slight edge. A2) 11.¥xf6 ¥xf6
12.e4N This is the move that makes sense of 10.¦e1, although when the opponent has two bishops, it is in principle not advisable to open the position, taking on a weak d-pawn in the process. However, White can probably maintain the balance fairly easily, with the help of a few computer moves.
9.¥g5
24
12.£d2 This is rather tame. The long-term features of the position are all in Black’s favour, so White should be looking to disrupt the flow of the game. 12...¥f5 The more active move, although 12...¥e6N is of course also possible and good. It is not easy for White to find an active plan. 13.e4!?N This move may still be White’s best try for equality. 13.b3 cxb3 14.axb3 ¦e8³ was Bazart – Berges, Besancon 1999. Black has the two bishops, the better pawn structure and controls the important e4- and e5-squares. 13...dxe4 14.¤xe4 ¥xd4 15.¤xd4 £xd4 16.£xd4 ¤xd4 17.¤d6
17...¥d3! We could stop here and say that White is struggling to equalize, but let’s supply a bit of evidence: 18.¦e7 ¦ab8! Black’s target is b2; if that falls the c-pawn will become very strong. 19.¤xb7 ¦fe8 20.¦d7 ¤e2† 21.¢h1 ¦e5 White still has a lot of problems to solve. Black may continue with either ...¦b5 or ...¦f5. 12...dxe4 13.¤xe4 ¥g4 The pressure on d4 is evident, so White needs a concrete solution.
14.h3! 14.d5?! ¤b4 15.¤xf6† £xf6 16.¦e4 ¥xf3 17.¥xf3 looks like a logical continuation, but after 17...¤d3 Black has a slight but pleasant advantage. Notice that 18.b3? ¦fe8–+ takes advantage of the pressure against f2. Instead 18.£e2 is better, but after 18...b5 White is still under some pressure. 14...¥xf3 15.¤xf6† £xf6 16.£xf3 £xd4
17.£c3!„ White has enough counterplay down the long diagonal to regain the pawn and achieve equality, although he may have to play a few moves to demonstrate it. B) 10.¦c1
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves This makes a bit more sense than 10.¦e1. Here we shall consider B1) 10...h6!? and B2) 10...¥e6. The first of these is attractive enough, and sufficient for equality, albeit rather a complicated way to deal with a subvariation. 10...¥e6 is livelier and simpler, and is thus our main recommendation for once. B1) 10...h6!? 11.¥xf6 After 11.¥f4?! ¥f5 Black has a fine position. As we have said already, there is no need for ...¥e6 when the d5-pawn is not threatened. 12.¤e5 ¦e8= If White now plays 13.¤xc6 bxc6 14.b3? ¥a3, he loses the exchange, which means that the white rook gains no benefit from being on c1. 11...¥xf6
12.e4! This is not usually a very attractive move, but in this case we have an exception, because the rook on c1 is able to attack the c4-pawn quickly. The alternatives are not really dangerous:
25
the simple 12...¥e6 and the more active 12...¥f5!?. In the latter case, moving the bishop again after 13.¤e1 ¥e6 does not feel like too great a concession, and 14.b3 ¤a5 15.b4 ¤c6 was fine for Black in Foierl – Modes, Germany 1993. 12.¤e5 ¥e6 13.f4 transposes to line D2 of Chapter 3. 12...dxe4 12...¤b4 is worse. White can reply with either 13.¤xd5 or 13.e5! ¥e7 14.¤e1 ¥e6 15.f4 with the idea 15...g6 16.a3 ¤c6 17.¤c2, and White will prepare f4-f5 with ¤e3 and possibly g3-g4. 13.¤xe4 ¥xd4 14.¤xd4
14..£xd4!N After 14...¤xd4 15.¦xc4² Black had not really solved his problems in Michenka – Netusil, Czech Republic 1996. The b7-pawn is a weakness and White has ideas such as ¤c5 or ¤d6.
12.b3!? ¥f5„
15.£xd4 ¤xd4 16.¦xc4 ¤e2†! This might look risky, but the time gained is very useful.
12.e3 is rather tame. Black can choose between
17.¢h1 ¦d8
9.¥g5
26
A quick look at the position might suggest that White has some chances to create a bit of pressure, but in reality Black does not have any problems equalizing. Here are some possible lines: 18.¤c5 ¦b8 19.¦e4 b6! The only move, but good enough. 20.¤b3 ¥a6 21.¦a4 ¥b5 22.¦xa7 ¦bc8„ 18.¦c7 ¦b8 leaves White without a real follow up. 18.¦b4 a5! 19.¦b6 ¥e6 (probably 19...¦a6!? is also sufficient, but we like this active approach) 20.a3 ¦ac8!
t + R v O P
Aiming for the second rank. 21.¦xb7 (21.b4 axb4 22.axb4 ¦c2 23.¤c5 ¥c4 24.¤xb7 ¦d4 is similar) 21...¦c2 22.b4 axb4
23.axb4 ¥c4 24.¦e1 f5 25.¤c5 ¤c3 With enough counterplay, and maybe a draw after 26.¢g1 ¤e2† 27.¢h1. B2) 10...¥e6
The classical approach leads to the most interesting game here. 11.b3 11.¤e5 transposes to 10.¤e5 ¥e6 11.¦c1, found in Chapter 3, where Black has good play in all lines. 11.¦e1 ¦c8 12.e4 was played in Budihardjo – Oliver, Adelaide 2003. Here Black can improve with simple play: 12...dxe4!N 13.¥xf6 ¥xf6 14.¤xe4 ¥xd4³ 11.£c2 h6 12.¥f4 does not make a lot of sense. Not surprisingly, after 12...£a5 13.¦fd1 ¦ac8 14.¤e5 ¦fd8= Black was already living a problem-free life in Prost – Midoux, Lyon 2003. 11.¥f4 £b6 12.¤a4 £a6= is also fine for Black, Van Heel – Wiersma, Utrecht 2004. 11...cxb3!? Black tries to exploit the move order. 11...£a5 12.¤e5 transposes to a line that we do not recommend for Black (see page 92)
27
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves 12.£xb3
12...£b6!N Black attacks the white centre, at the same time daring White to “give” him doubled pawns. As it happens, Black equalizes very easily here. It was quite surprising to us that after 12...¤a5 13.£b1 ¦c8 14.¤e5², Black does not have an easy way to solve his problems. At least, we could not find it. Mendez Ataria – Cranbourne, Buenos Aires 1991. Another decent move is 12...¤e4!?N 13.¥xe7 £xe7 14.¦fd1 ¦fd8= and the position is roughly equal. 13.£xb6 There is not really a way to avoid it. 13.£a4 looks odd, and we cannot believe that this is the right move, no matter what our electronic horses neigh out. 13...¦fc8 14.¦b1?! (14.¦fd1= is probably better) 14...£a5 15.£xa5 ¤xa5 16.¥d2 b6 Black has come out of the opening with a good grip on the c4-square. After something along the lines of 17.¤g5 ¤c4 18.¥c1 ¤e3 19.¥xe3 ¦xc3³ it is definitely White who is fighting for equality, and maybe without success. 13...axb6 14.¦fd1
14.¦b1 ¥b4! gives White immediate problems on the a-file. 14...¦fc8
With the threat of ...¥a3 followed by ...¤xd4, this gives Black a good game. White needs to force matters: 15.¥xf6 ¥xf6 16.e4 dxe4 17.¤xe4 ¦d8 18.¤xf6† gxf6 19.¦b1 ¦xa2 20.¦xb6 ¤xd4 21.¤xd4 ¦xd4 22.¦f1!= C) 10.e3
10...¥e6 10...h6!? is also playable, but it seems to be White’s intention to take on f6 anyway, so
9.¥g5
28
why give up the tempo? After 11.¥xf6 ¥xf6 12.¤d2 ¥e6, the chances were roughly even in Borg – Takashima, Thessaloniki (ol) 1988. 11.¤d2?! This move has an artificial feel to it. The best way forward must be 11.¤e5, which transposes to Chapter 4. If you would rather not play this as Black, you can meet 10.e3 with 10...h6!? as mentioned above, but of course there is no way of avoiding it if White plays the superior move order of 10.¤e5 ¥e6 11.e3. There is always a question as to what point you should stop analysing a line. We could quite feasibly stop here and say that Black is obviously fine and should look forward to the middlegame with glee. But as this is a grandmaster repertoire book, we choose to provide a more extensive investigation. We hope that the reader understands that none of the authors of any of the Grandmaster Repertoire books expect the reader, or even themselves, to necessarily memorize all lines. Sometimes, such as here, seeing the illustrative examples is a benefit in itself. At this point Black has two pleasant looking options, 11...¦c8 and 11...£a5. We have chosen to cover the first, as it gives Black more options. 11...¦c8 11...£a5 12.a3 should not be a problem for Black either, but he has to be careful:
a) After 12...¦fe8?! 13.b4! Black is in a slightly inferior situation. b) 12...h6?! 13.¥xf6 ¥xf6 14.£h5 ¦ad8 15.¦fc1 ¦d6 (15...¦d7 was better, but we fear that Black has to play accurately to avoid ending up in a worse position after 16.b3) 16.b3 b5? (again 16...¦d7 was best) 17.a4!± Graf – Meins, Osterburg 2006. c) We have a lot of analysis on 12...¦ac8, which is fully playable, but we prefer to play the rook to c8 on the 11th move and keep our (queen’s) options open. 12.¥xf6 This is hardly the strongest idea here. White also fared poorly after: 12.a3 £d7 13.£e2 ¦fd8 14.¦fd1 h6 Black has played all his truly constructive moves, so this now makes sense. 15.¥xf6 ¥xf6 16.¦ac1
Mrva – Mozny, Slovakia 2002, continued with the natural 16...¤e7 with a slight edge for Black. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but it was more accurate to play 16...b5!N right away. Black is just better. White is struggling to find a good move and the digital monster even wants to play 17.¤xb5 ¦b8 18.¤c3 ¦xb2³, which we cannot be displeased with. 12...¥xf6 13.f4 White has played his hand. No face cards, only threes and fours...
29
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves 13.¤xc4 looks tempting, but Black has a strong riposte in 13...¤xd4!³. 13...¤e7 14.g4 g6 The standard set-up. Black is doing well.
15.¥h3 This looks simply wrong, but it is hard for White to find pleasant looking moves. 15.£f3 ¥g7!³ The idea of blocking off all White’s play with ...f5 looks great. And if White tries to do anything immediately, he will find himself unprepared for the tactics. 16.f5?! gxf5 17.gxf5 ¤xf5µ
Black is simply a pawn up, based on: 18.¤xd5? ¤h4–+ Black wins after some complications.
19.£g3 ¤xg2 20.¤f6† ¢h8 21.¤de4 ¦g8! 21...¤xe3! also works. 22.¤xg8 ¤xe3! 23.¤gf6 ¤xf1 24.¦xf1 ¥d5 The two bishops prevail. 15...¦c6!
Keeping an eye on f6 and other important squares along the sixth rank; and also freeing c8 for the bishop – just in case. The opening is over and Black holds the better chances. His dark-squared bishop will one day become great, and White has no significant threats on the kingside to counter the long-term expansion Black is planning on the queenside, Volke – Bachmayr, Munich 1993. D) 10.b3
9.¥g5
30
This makes less sense without the inclusion of 10.¤e5 ¥e6 first. It is our belief that Black can equalize in various ways, but we had to choose. So we have decided to go for just two of these: D1) 10...cxb3!? and D2) 10...£a5. D1) 10...cxb3!? This is the secondary option – but still worth a look. 11.axb3 The second option here is not surprisingly also a recapture: 11.£xb3 ¤a5
This line should not pose Black great problems. The c4-square will come in very handy. 12.£b5! The most testing. 12.£c2 ¥e6 with the idea ...¦c8 should not be problematic for Black. For example: 13.¤e5 ¦c8 14.£d3 h6 15.¥d2 ¤c4 16.¤xc4 ¦xc4 17.¦ac1 b5 18.¤xb5 £d7 19.¤c3 ¦fc8 20.e4 ¥a3 21.¦cd1 dxe4 22.¤xe4 ¤xe4 23.¥xe4 ¦xd4 24.£xa3 ¦xe4 Keskisarja – Martynov, Helsinki 1999. After 25.¥xh6 £b5³ Black has ample play for the pawn. 12...¥e6! By not harassing the queen yet, Black keeps the knight on c3 unprotected a bit longer, thereby gaining a tempo with ...¦c8.
Less precise is 12...a6 13.£d3 ¥e6 14.¤e5 ¦c8, as played in Rapparlie – Tschann, Germany 1996. White should probably use his extra time to play 15.f4!N, when Black lacks a good reply. For example: 15...g6 16.¥h6‚ based on 16...¦e8?! 17.f5! ¥xf5 18.¦xf5 gxf5? 19.£xf5 ¤h5 20.£xf7† ¢h8 21.¥xd5 with the threat of £g8†, forcing Black into 21...¦g8 22.£f6†! ¦g7 23.¤f7† and everything is coming to an end. 13.¤e5 ¦c8 14.¦fc1 a6 15.£d3 b5
Black has fully equalized.
11...¥f5! A very logical move, first played in Sasikiran – Kotronias, Bursa 2010. Previously the bishop had gone to the passive e6-square, where it has little to do. Kotronias correctly took advantage of the fact that d5 is no longer under attack.
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves 12.¥xf6 A typical plan in these structures. White’s idea is that his central pawns on d4 and e3 will restrict Black’s dark-squared bishop. If White tries 12.e3 ¦c8 13.¤e5, Black will reply with 13...¤b4!= getting his pieces to good squares. 12...¥xf6 13.e3
13...¦c8!N This is a slight refinement on Sasikiran – Kotronias, which is the model game for how to play this variation. Basically we think it is better to control e5 before initiating the plan with ...a5 and ...¤b4. We have analysed some alternatives: 13...£d6!? 14.£d2 ¦fc8 15.¦ac1 g6 looks like another reasonable set-up: 16.¤e5!? ¤xe5 17.dxe5 ¥xe5 18.¤xd5 ¦xc1 19.¦xc1 ¦c8= 13...¤b4 14.£d2 For some time we seriously feared that White could be a bit better after 14.¤e5!? ¦c8 15.£d2 a5 16.¦fc1 ¦e8 17.f4, though Black can reply with 17...g6! when the correct evaluation should be “unclear”. After this move Black plans to play ...¥g7 and ...f6. We don’t think Black is getting a lot from
31
his two bishops, but exactly what White is doing is also not clear to us. 18.¤b5 ¥e7 Once the knight has gone to b5, this is more logical; the bishop will go to f8. 14.¤a2!? is also worth considering, with roughly equal chances. 14...a5 We also spent a good deal of time analysing 14...¥e7, but you cannot cover everything in a single volume. 15.¦fc1 ¦c8 16.¤e1 16.¤e5!? 16...¥e7 17.¤a4
17...£d6 Black has emerged from the opening with a good position. 18.h4 b6 19.¤c3 £d7 20.¥f1 ¥d6 As there are no obvious actions for either party to undertake, the game enters a slow manoeuvring phase. 21.¤a4 ¦b8 22.¦c3 g6 23.¦ac1 ¦fe8 24.¤g2 ¥e4
T +t+ w++ O V o n v P R n+ + +b
9.¥g5
32
Objectively the position is equal, but Black is starting to put some pressure on White’s kingside, meaning he has to take care not to drift into a worse position. 25.¤f4 £f5 26.¥h3 £f6 27.¥g2 ¥xf4 28.exf4 ¥xg2 29.¢xg2 ¢g7 30.¦e3 ¦e4 It was also possible to try 30...¦xe3!? 31.£xe3 ¦b7, but White can defend with 32.£e5 b5 33.£xf6† ¢xf6 34.¤c3 and Black will not be able to win the ending. 31.¤c3 ¦xe3 32.£xe3 ¦c8 33.h5 Draw agreed, Sasikiran – Kotronias, Bursa 2010. Black is at least not worse. 14.£d2 a5 15.¦fc1 15.¤e5 ¤xe5 16.dxe5 ¥xe5µ 15...¦e8 The e5-square is now under full control. 16.¤e1 ¤b4
We have (almost!) transposed to Sasikiran – Kotronias. Black has a good game, but the position is a bit static, so maybe this is not the path to follow if you desperately need to win!? D2) 10...£a5 This is our main recommendation. Compared to 10.¤e5 ¥e6 11.b3 £a5, Black is under less pressure in the centre and can thus act more forcefully.
White now has the following options at his disposal: D21) 11.¦c1, D22) 11.£c2, D23) 11.£d2 and D24) 11.¥d2. 11.¥xf6 ¥xf6 12.£d2 ¦d8 13.e3 ¥f5 is given as equal by Lund, but one might ask if Black is not already doing quite well. D21) 11.¦c1
11...¥b4 The most direct way to play. 11...¥e6 12.¤e5 ¦ac8= transposes to a line we rejected for our repertoire (see page 92) 12.¥xf6 After 12.£c2 ¥xc3 White should transpose to the main line by 13.¥xf6; instead 13.£xc3?
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves £xc3 14.¦xc3 ¤e4 would give White problems with most of his pieces. 12...¥xc3! The accurate move order. The immediate recapture on f6 unnecessarily gives White extra options.
13.£c2 This is more or less forced. 13.¥g5 ¥b2 14.¦c2 c3 15.¥d2 looks very clever, but Black has: 15...¥f5! 16.¦xb2 cxb2 17.¥xa5 b1=£ 18.£xb1 ¥xb1 19.¦xb1 ¤xa5 20.¤e5 ¤c6! (20...¦fd8 is a bit passive, and with 21.¦c1 White might be able to hold the balance) 21.¥xd5 ¤xd4 22.¢f1 ¦ad8 Black obtains winning chances in the endgame because of 23.¥xb7 ¤xe2! 24.¢xe2 ¦fe8³. 13...gxf6 14.£xc3 £xc3 15.¦xc3 b5 16.bxc4 bxc4 This is quite a typical position for the oldfashioned 9...c4 Tarrasch, where Black accepts the doubled pawns with the argument that it does not matter at all, as they cannot be attacked, and that it is at least as important that he has a passed c-pawn. Additionally, the f6-pawn prevents any ¤f3-e5 jumps. 17.e4?! White is trying to force matters, but goes overboard in the process.
33
17.¦e1 ¥e6 18.e4 dxe4 19.¦xe4 ¦ac8 should not give Black any problems. He is already thinking about ...¤b4(e7)-d5 with active play. 17.e3 ¦b8 18.¤d2 ¦d8 with even chances seems to be the most reasonable way to play, as long as it is not followed up with 19.¤xc4?! ¥a6! when Black is playing for an edge. 17...dxe4 18.¤d2? Losing the plot. Necessary was 18.¦xc4 ¥a6 19.¦xc6 ¥xf1 20.¢xf1 exf3 21.¥xf3 ¢g7³. White should hold, but will not enjoy the process of proving this assumption.
18...¤xd4!N One of these obvious improvements, found by the process of elimination. 18...f5 was the less fortunate choice in Kostiuk – Grabuzova, Vladimir 2008. 19.¦xc4 ¦d8! 20.¥xe4 20.¤xe4 ¥a6! 21.¤xf6† ¢g7 22.¤h5† ¢h6µ leads to Black being an exchange up. 20...¦b8! White is faced with threats such as ...¥a6 and ...¤e2†, both picking up material. Forced is therefore: 21.¦b1 ¦xb1† 22.¤xb1 f5!
34
9.¥g5
23.¥d5™ White has to put the bishop somewhere, but the number of squares is limited. As an example, 23.¥h1 loses brutally by force to: 23...¤e2† 24.¢g2 ¥b7† 25.f3 ¦d1! 26.¤c3 Other moves lose as well. 26...¦g1† 27.¢f2 ¦xh1 28.¤xe2 ¦xh2† 29.¢e3 ¦xe2†! 30.¢xe2 ¥a6 31.¢d3 f4! 32.gxf4 h5–+ 23...¤e2† 24.¢g2™ 24.¢f1 ¥a6 25.¦c6 ¥d3! wins outright. 24...¥a6 25.¦c5 ¦xd5 26.¦xd5 ¥b7 27.¢f1 ¥xd5 27...¤xg3† 28.fxg3 ¥xd5 may also give Black some winning chances. 28.¢xe2 ¥xa2 Black should win.
D22) 11.£c2
This looks like a flexible and normal move, but it has a downside; the d4-pawn can be attacked and Black thus equalizes comfortably. 11...¥g4! With an obvious threat to the d4-pawn. 12.¦fd1 12.e3 looks quite solid.
Our suggestion is 12...¦ac8!N with an active and interesting game. The only game to be played here continued instead 12...¥b4 13.¥xf6 ¥xf3 14.¥xf3 ¥xc3 15.¦ab1 gxf6 16.bxc4 ¥xd4 17.exd4 with a draw in Nenciulescu – Shishkin, e-mail 2005, based on the fact that 17...¤xd4 18.£d1 ¤xf3† 19.£xf3 dxc4 is rather equal.
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves
So far we have been following Vossen – Wacker, Germany 2001. Here we have a significant (though thematic) improvement. 12...h6!N Taking advantage of the fact that 13.¥d2 is not possible at this moment. 13.¥c1 13.¥e3 ¥b4 14.¤a4 14.¦ac1 ¥a3! followed by ...¤b4 and ...¥f5 looks unpleasant for White, even if he holds the balance. If nothing else, after 15.¦b1 Black has 15...¤e7!? or 15...¥b4!=.
14...¤e7! With the ideas ...¥f5 and ...b5, Black is at least equal. For example: 15.a3 ¥f5 16.£a2 16.axb4?! £xa4!³ 16...¥d6 17.¤c5 b5„
35
13...cxb3 14.£xb3 ¦fc8 Black has fully equalized. The following is just an illustrative line.
15.¥b2 15.£xb7?? ¦ab8–+ 15...¥e6 Black has other good ways to play this position. For example: 15...£d8!? 16.¤e5 ¤a5 17.£a4 ¤c4 18.£b3 ¤xb2 19.£xb2 ¥e6 and Black is at least equal. 16.¤e5 ¥d6 17.£b5 a6 18.£xa5 ¤xa5 What a pretty picture! White’s bishops are both fianchettoed while Black’s are placed “classically” in the centre. Black is by no means worse.
9.¥g5
36
D23) 11.£d2
Not surprisingly there are no great benefits to entering into the pin. 11...¦d8! Protecting d5 and keeping an eye on d4 (and d2). 12.bxc4 White tried the more circumspect 12.¦fc1 in Dolezal – Juarez, Villa Ballester 1992.
Black should be absolutely fine after either 12...¥e6N= or 12...h6!?N. The latter could continue: 13.¥xf6 ¥xf6 14.bxc4!? (14.e3 ¥f5=) 14...dxc4 15.e3 ¥f5 Black has a good game. He is planning ...¤b4-d3, and after 16.a3 b5„ it looks to be more fun to be Black.
12...dxc4 13.e4? This is overambitious; White will not be able to keep control over the centre. Better was 13.¦ab1N, but after 13...a6 14.e3 b5! Black has an excellent and interesting game.
The main point is that after 15.¤e5?! ¤xe5 16.¥xa8 ¥f5 White has nothing better than 17.¥xf6 gxf6 18.¥g2 ¥xb1 19.¤xb1 £xd2 20.¤xd2 ¤d3, when he will be fighting for equality. 13...h6!
O
14.¥xf6 ¥xf6 15.¤d5 £xd2 16.¤xd2 ¥xd4 17.¦ab1 Saladino – Cranbourne, Buenos Aires 1986. Here Black missed his chance:
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves
37
17...b5!Nµ Based on 18.¦xb5? c3 followed by 19...¥a6–+.
12...¦e8!? This logical move produces interesting play.
D24) 11.¥d2 ¥b4
12...b5 13.a4 ¥xc3 14.axb5 £xb5 15.bxc4 £xc4 16.£xc3² Tarjan – Zwaig, Hastings 1976, is not the way we want to go.
12.£c2 We should also consider: 12.£e1 £a6 13.e3 ¦e8 13...¥f5 or even 13...b5 14.¤e5 ¥xc3 15.¥xc3 ¤e4 16.¥b4 ¦e8 gives Black comfortable play. 14.¤e5 ¤xe5 15.dxe5 This was played in the game Haik – Miralles, Marseille 1987. Now instead of 15...¦xe5?!, Lund proposes: 15...¥xc3!?N 16.¥xc3 ¤e4 With equality.
13.bxc4!?N This is definitely the critical test, even if it is not clear whether it is the best move. 13.a3 ¥xc3 14.¥xc3 should not be a problem at all:
14...¥f5! Black needs to remember this zwischenzug. 15.£d2N (15.£xf5 £xc3 16.bxc4 ¦xe2 was level in Granberg – Vodep, corr. 1984) 15...£a6 Black looks all right here. For example: 16.bxc4 £xc4 (or 16...¤e4 17.£b2 ¤xc3 18.£xc3 £xc4=) 17.¤e5 ¤xe5 18.dxe5 ¤e4 19.¥xe4 dxe4!=
38
9.¥g5
13...¤e4! This leads to wild forcing lines.
14.¤xd5! This piece sacrifice is the critical direction. 14.¤b1 ¥f5! 15.¥xb4 £xb4³ makes no sense. 14...¤xd2 15.¤g5 The only idea. There are a lot of only moves around here... 15...g6! 16.¤f6†
16...¢f8! 16...¢h8?! leads to problems for Black: 17.¤xf7† ¢g7 18.¤xe8† ¢xf7 19.¦fd1 ¢xe8 20.a3 ¥c3 21.¥xc6† bxc6 22.¦ac1 ¥xd4 23.c5!²
17.¤gxh7† 17.d5 ¤e5 18.¤gxh7† transposes. 17...¢g7 18.¤xe8† ¢xh7
19.d5!? 19.¤f6† ¢g7 20.¤d5 ¤xf1 21.¦xf1 ¥a3÷ offers White three pawns for the piece, but Black has some good things to say about his position too. 19...¤e5 Black needs to avoid 19...¤d4?! 20.£d3 ¥c3 21.¤d6!². 20.¦fc1 ¥a3
21.c5!
39
Chapter 1 – Various 10th Moves White has to play for structure and activity. If he plays slowly, he ends up in troubled waters: 21.¦d1 ¤dxc4 22.¤f6† ¢g7 23.¤e8† ¢f8 24.¤f6 ¥f5!
25.¥e4 (25.e4 ¥c8!!³) 25...£d8 26.¤h7† ¢g7 27.¥xf5 ¢xh7³ 21...¥f5 22.¤f6† 22.e4? would critically weaken the f3-square. Black plays: 22...¤ef3† 23.¥xf3 ¤xf3† 24.¢g2 ¦xe8 25.exf5 ¥xc1µ 22...¢g7 23.¤e4 23.e4 is still not working out the way White would like: 23...¥xc1 24.¦xc1 ¢xf6 25.exf5 ¤df3† 26.¢h1 gxf5³ 23...¥xc1 24.¦xc1 ¥xe4 25.¥xe4 ¦e8! Black still needs to play accurately. After 25...¦c8? 26.¥d3² his pieces are not as well placed as he would like.
Now we should consider two options: 26.¢g2?! ¤xe4 27.£xe4 £xa2 28.c6 bxc6 29.dxc6 f6!³ Black is better, based on 30.f4? £d2 31.¦c2 ¤xc6!. 26.¥g2 ¤dc4 27.c6 bxc6 28.dxc6 ¦d8 29.£b3 ¦d2 30.¦xc4 ¤xc4 31.£xc4 ¦d1† 32.¥f1 £e1
33.e3 ¦d2 34.£f4 ¦d1 35.£c4 ¦d2=
Conclusion The only challenging move against 9...c4 is 10.¤e5. In this chapter we have given good replies against the various alternatives, and demonstrated that there are several ways to deal with all of them. One thing to pay attention to is the way the e2-e4 break is often a poor decision for White, leaving the d-pawn weak and unattended. This is often a strategic mistake; and quite a popular one. Another thing to pay attention to is how the black bishop in most cases is far better placed on f5 than on e6, and how this alone can be the difference between a complex game (as in the coming chapters) and easy equality.
Grandmaster Repertoire 11
Beating 1.d4 Sidelines By
Boris Avrukh
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Preface By the Author Explaining the contents of a repertoire book is normally a simple process, but for this book a little more effort is required. It is a repertoire for Black against 1.d4 when White avoids the main lines that result after 2.c4. So far, so simple. There are two complicating factors – our choice against the minor lines will automatically be constrained by the main line we had hoped to reach, and I wish to cater for a variety of black defences. It would be easier to create a repertoire that, for example, starts 1...¤f6 and 2...e6, but of course that would have little relevance to those who intend to play the King’s Indian. Instead I have created a range of black repertoires with the aim of making the book compatible with all the main defences to 1.d4. If you play the King’s Indian, Grünfeld, Nimzo-Indian or meet 1.d4 with 1...d5 main lines, then the present book should cover virtually everything you need to know. I must admit that I have not made the book compatible with every possible black defence. For example, if you are a Chigorin fan who likes to meet 1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 with 2...¤c6 then you are on your own. My apologies, but to cover every possible black defence would have been hopelessly impractical. The book is split into four sections:
1) 1.d4 d5 lines The main options considered here are the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, the Veresov Opening and the London System, as well as options such as 2.¥g5 and 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.¥g5.
2) 1.d4 ¤f6 without 2.c4 or 2.¤f3 This section is almost entirely devoted to the Trompowsky – 2.¥g5. My reply is the ambitious 2...¤e4.
3) 1.d4 ¤f6 2.¤f3 e6 lines The most important lines here are 3.e3 – the Colle and Colle-Zukertort – plus the Torre Attack with 3.¥g5 and the nameless 3.g3 system.
4) 1.d4 ¤f6 2.¤f3 g6 lines The main options in this final section are 3.¥g5, 3.¥f4 and 3.g3. In the case of 3.g3, after 3...¥g7 4.¥g2 0–0 5.0–0 I cover both 5...d5 and 5...d6, so both Grünfeld and King’s Indian players will
be happy. On the 6th move I cover all White’s serious options excluding 6.c4, as of course that would transpose to a main line. Throughout the book I have selected sound yet ambitious lines for Black. I expect the reader would like to play for a win, despite the implied disadvantage of the black pieces, so I have as far as possible avoided lines that lead to dead-drawn positions. I am happy that I have found many original ideas, so I hope and expect that my variations will serve the reader well. Good luck! Boris Avrukh Beer-Sheva, September 2012
Contents Preface by the Author Bibliography Key to Symbols used
3 5 8
Part 1 – 1.d4 d5 lines
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rare 2nd Moves 9 Blackmar-Diemer Gambit 19 2.¥g5 43 The Veresov 55 The London System 85 2.¤f3 ¤f6 – Minor Lines 112 The Lame Torre 116
8 9 10 11
Part 2 – 1.d4 ¤f6 2.g3 (and others) 134 Trompowsky – Intro and 3.h4 153 Trompowsky – 3.¥h4 160 Trompowsky – 3.¥f4 180
Part 3 – 1.d4 ¤f6 2.¤f3 e6
12 Rare 3rd Moves 13 3.g3 14 The Torre Attack 15 The London System 16 Colle 17 Colle-Zukertort (with c2-c4) 18 Colle-Zukertort (without c2-c4)
208 215 234 264 287 296 324
Part 4 – 1.d4 ¤f6 2.¤f3 g6
19 20 21 22 23 24
Rare 3rd Moves The Barry Attack 3.e3 The London System The Torre Attack 3.g3 (without c2-c4)
335 359 378 393 430 467
Variation Index
495
er a pt
1
Ch
1.d4 d5 Rare 2nd Moves
Variation Index 1.d4 A) 2.a3!? B) 2.e3 ¤f6 3.¥d3 c5 4.c3 ¤c6 B1) 5.¤f3 B2) 5.f4
A) note to 4.¥g5
1...d5
B1) after 12.a3
10 12 13 16
B2) note to 8.£e1
12...£c7!N
12...¤e5!N
12...¥f5!N
10
Part 1 – 1.d4 d5 lines
1.d4 d5
In this, our first chapter of the book, we will pay attention to the following two moves: A) 2.a3!? and B) 2.e3. In my view, these are the only two rare moves that are worth examining in detail. However, I will offer a few thoughts about the array of obscure alternatives. If you check your database, you will see that virtually every legal move has been played at one time or another, but no serious player should require a book to provide recommendations against options such as 2.¥e3, 2.£d3 and 2.b4. Moves such as 2.¤d2 and 2.c3 are more sensible, but they are unlikely to have much independent value. Black should respond with 2...¤f6, when the play is likely to transpose to some other recognized variation sooner or later. 2.g3 can be compared with the 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.g3 line examined in Chapter 13, in which I recommend a set-up with ...d7-d5 and ...b7-b5. The simplest reply is 2...¤f6 3.¥g2 e6, when White hardly has anything better than 4.c4 transposing to a Catalan, or 4.¤f3 b5 transposing to Chapter 13.
If the Catalan transposition takes you out of your repertoire then 3...b5!? is a valid alternative move order. White can consider avoiding the normal paths of 4.¤f3 e6, but I don’t see an advantageous way for him to do so. If that sounds too adventurous 3...c6 is a good alternative, followed by ...¥f5 or ...¥g4. I won’t be covering this in detail, but rest assured the position is not difficult for Black to handle. Enough! We could talk all day about these obscure paths, but we need to attend to the (relatively) serious business. A) 2.a3!?
What was that about “serious business”? Although the move on the board may look like a joke, there is more to it than meets the eye. It has been championed by the French grandmaster Eric Prié, who gave it the tongue-in-cheek name of “the Grand Prié Attack.” White’s idea is to make a useful non-committal move, remaining flexible until the opponent has revealed his intentions. It is surprising how often the move a2a3 turns out to be useful, and Prié himself has made quite an impressive score with it.
Chapter 1 – Rare 2nd Moves By the way, the 2.¤f3 ¤f6 3.a3 move order is also perfectly valid, but the psychological impact of White’s ‘left hook’ is likely to be at its greatest at an early stage of the game. 2...¤f6 Obviously 2...c5 would be met by 3.dxc5! when the a2-a3 move gives White every chance of holding on to the extra pawn. 3.¤f3 White returns the ball over the net and invites his opponent to determine his set-up. 3...e6 This seems like the most reliable choice. Prié has managed to make a2-a3 look surprisingly useful against most of Black’s other plausible moves. 4.¥g5 4.¥f4 This has been played, but the straightforward London System with an early a2-a3 does not impress. Here is one illustrative example: 4...c5 5.e3 ¤c6 6.c3 ¥d6 7.¥xd6 £xd6 8.b4 cxd4 9.cxd4 0–0 10.¤c3 ¥d7 11.¥e2 ¦fc8 12.£b3 Sitnikov – Kuzmin, Alushta 2010. Here I found an interesting way to highlight White’s slight lag in development:
12...£c7!N
11
In the game Black opted for 12...e5 which is also quite okay. 13.¦c1 a5! 14.0–0 Black’s main point is 14.b5 a4! when the following line is virtually forced: 15.£b2 ¤a5 16.¤d2 ¤b3! 17.¤xb3 axb3 18.0–0 [18.£xb3 ¤e4µ] 18...£a5 19.a4 £b4 20.f3 ¦c4! 21.¥xc4 dxc4 22.e4 ¥e8 followed by ...¤d7-b6 with excellent compensation. 14...axb4 15.axb4 £d6 16.b5 ¦a3 17.£b2 £b4 Black is better, although White probably should hold.
4...c5 5.c3 Prié has always chosen this move, although 5.e3 is likely to transpose after 5...¤c6 6.c3. 5...¤c6 5...¤bd7 6.e3 ¥d6 is also pretty reliable. 6.e3 h6!? This has only been played once, but it seems to me like a good time to hit the bishop. 7.¥xf6 After 7.¥h4 Black might seriously consider 7...g5! 8.¥g3 ¤e4. 7...£xf6 8.b4
Part 1 – 1.d4 d5 lines
12
This position occurred in Prié – Bareev, Ajaccio (blitz) 2007. Here the most straightforward continuation is:
8...cxd4N In the game Black played extremely ambitiously with 8...c4!? and eventually prevailed. This path may also appeal to some readers. 9.cxd4 ¥d6 10.¤c3 0–0 11.¥d3 ¥d7 12.0–0 ¦ac8 Black has two bishops and healthy prospects. White’s reversed ...a6-Slav formation gives him a solid position too, but he can hardly fight for the advantage. B) 2.e3
This move may look dull, but appearances should not always be trusted. White intends to play a Stonewall set-up with an extra tempo, which could easily lead to a kingside attack if Black is not careful. 2...¤f6 3.¥d3 3.f4 c5 4.c3 ¤c6 5.¥d3 ¥g4 transposes to line B2 below, although Black might well consider 3...¥f5 via this move order. 3...c5 4.c3 ¤c6 From this position White sometimes reverts to a Colle set-up with B1) 5.¤f3, but the most important line is of course B2) 5.f4. The following alternative is obviously harmless: 5.¤d2 e5 6.dxe5 ¤xe5 Black is already effectively playing with the white pieces. We could leave it there, but I would like to show one illustrative game where he played particularly convincingly. 7.¥c2 ¥d6 8.¤gf3 0–0 9.¤xe5 9.0–0 ¥g4 10.h3 ¥h5 11.g4 was played in Tech – Salimbagat, Los Angeles 2003, and here 11...¥g6N 12.¤xe5 ¥xe5 13.f4 ¥xc2 14.£xc2 ¥c7 15.g5 ¤h5 16.¤f3 £e7 would have preserved Black’s advantage. 9...¥xe5 10.¤f3 ¥c7 11.0–0 £d6 12.h3
12...¤e4!? Initiating favourable simplifications. 12...¦e8 would also have maintained an edge. 13.¥xe4 dxe4 14.£xd6 ¥xd6 15.¤d2 f5
The Grandmaster Battle Manual By
Vassilios Kotronias
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Preface
4 5
Chapter 1 – Annoy Them! Chapter 2 – Nipped in the Bud? Back to the Roots! Chapter 3 – Be a Harsh Critic of Your Own Wins Chapter 4 – Geometry & Co: A Creative Outlet to Success Chapter 5 – Facing Lower-rated Opponents Chapter 6 – Beating the Wall-Y Structures Chapter 7 – Defence makes the Difference! Chapter 8 – The Challenge of the Last Round
7 41 85 115 153 219 279 325
Game Index
347
The titles of some books are self-explanatory, but I suspect the reader would like to know what to expect from The Grandmaster Battle Manual. A hint is that at one point I considered using the title How to Win Open Tournaments. This book is indeed based on my extensive tournament experience and I hope it will help chess players to be more successful. However, I want to write about more than just winning. I want to encourage chess players to fight hard, enjoy the struggle, and then win! I should forewarn the reader that in places I go into great depth and show a lot of analysis. I wish a lazier approach were possible, but a modern chess player must work hard for success. Naturally, I cover many topics and I will not attempt to list them all here. Chapter titles such as Be a Harsh Critic of Your Own Wins, Facing Lower-rated Opponents, Defence makes the Difference! and The Challenge of the Last Round are easy to understand. However Beating the Wall-Y Structures does, I confess, sound a little wacky. In fact, the topic of this chapter is how to deal with rock-solid openings such as the Petroff, Slav and Berlin Wall. If, like me, you have spent years bashing your head against these “walls”, you might also have developed a taste for quirky titles. Throughout my career I have put a lot of work into my chess and I have extended that effort into this book. Over the years I have been rewarded with some competitive success, but of course not as much as I would like. I hope the reader benefits from my experiences and, who knows, perhaps my own play will also improve! Vassilios Kotronias Athens, Greece May 2011
Annoy Them!
8
The Grandmaster Battle Manual
The theme of annoyance is in my opinion an important aspect of the practical chess game, and in order to avoid the risk of being misunderstood I would like to make it clear immediately that by the term “annoyance” I mean only the kind of embarrassment that chess moves may cause to us or our opponents. Throughout the years I have been the victim of several such “embarrassments” and I can assure you that they can be much more frustrating than unfair off-the-board “moves” such as unjustified and continuous draw offers, facial grimaces, speaking during play, and so on. With so many contrasting styles among the ranks of chess players, it is in fact only natural that “annoyance” should emerge as a major factor that decides the outcome of the struggle on the board. The list of complaints muttered by the vast majority of chess players after a bad game is endless. As such, it does contain mild comments, like the classic and, to a certain extent, pathetic “I had a winning position today, but I blew it” or the slightly more exciting “Gosh, how could I lose this fantastic position?” to name but a couple. However, many other similar comments born out of temporary desperation are much less flattering for us, and, I can assure you, my publisher would not allow me to mention them here. Of course, all these comments are lacking in real self-criticism and fail to take into account our own deficiencies or the practical problems set by our opponents that changed the course of the games we (undeservedly?) lost or drew. So, in what way can a move or a plan be annoying or embarrassing? How can apparently lifeless entities force us to get carried away with disrespectful language? Is it the purely objective strength of such moves that forces us to classify them as undesirable, or is it the sentiment caused by their execution at the board?
I would like to answer these questions in a straightforward manner, because I am eager to proceed with the practical examples: every move has a special “flavour” and sometimes we can be allergic to it! Even the very best, widely acknowledged as universal-style players have their own weaknesses and may often skip the calculation of a line on account of dislike or fear. Some others may avoid entering an advantageous endgame in search of something more concrete or out of fear it might bore them to death! Thus, the main strength of an annoying chess move or plan is, above all, that it is directed against the opponent’s style and that it tries to interfere with the smooth course of the game, even if the move itself is not objectively correct. In the vast majority of cases, this annoying little move is designed, and often succeeds, in changing the character of the game. Bypassing the question of its objective value, we may identify a move of that kind from such attributes as the stirring up of a crisis or attempting to wrest the initiative by some concession, for example, a material one. The following example could have been a similar case, but the player at a disadvantage failed to grasp the opportunity of “annoying” the opponent:
Viswanathan Anand – Judit Polgar World Championship Tournament, San Luis 2005
1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤c6 5.¤c3 £c7 6.¥e3 a6 7.£d2 ¤f6 8.0–0–0 ¥b4 9.f3 ¤e7 10.¤de2 b5 11.¥f4!? e5 12.¥g5 ¥b7 13.¢b1 I have refrained, contrary to my usual tendency, from commenting on the opening moves so far, as they are not relevant to our topic.
Chapter 1 – Annoy Them! It is obvious that the opening has been a success for White – he has the more harmonious development, his king has already reached safety and he has pressure on the d-file. Additionally, he has a positional threat (ruining the enemy’s kingside pawn structure by ¥g5xf6) and a tactical threat (¤c3xb5). Overall, the situation is unpleasant for Black but certainly not hopeless: the fact that she controls the critical d5-square with several pieces means that White must watch out for a potential ...d7-d5 advance that could free Black’s play, although admittedly at the moment this possibility looks remote.
13...¥a5?! Rather surprisingly, Judit Polgar fails to pose her illustrious opponent the most practical problems, a task at which she usually excels. To be honest, I do not know if the improvement I am going to suggest would have saved Black in the long run, but one thing is for sure: Vishy Anand is very powerful with queens on the board, a relatively safe king and some sort of initiative in an asymmetrical position. After the text move he gets a useful respite to acquire all the above mentioned elements and steer the game his way. So, how could Judit have played? It is obvious that in such a difficult situation radical
9
measures must be taken, as otherwise the quality of Black’s game will deteriorate quickly, and this is actually what happened in the game. On the other hand, such measures are barely detectable on the horizon. I will analyse several moves including 13...d5?, 13...¦c8?! and 13...¥c5 before getting to what I believe is the best annoying move, 13...0–0–0!?. 13...d5? This move was mentioned by several commentators, including Gershon and Nor in San Luis 2005 and De la Villa in Dismantling the Sicilian. There follows: 14.¤xb5 £c5 15.¤c7† £xc7 No salvation is offered by 15...¢f8 16.c3! £xc7 17.cxb4 dxe4 18.¥xf6 gxf6 19.£h6† ¢e8 20.¤c3+– and the white pieces are coming from everywhere. 16.£xb4 ¦c8 After 16...0–0 17.¥xf6 gxf6 18.¤g3 Black’s demise will arrive from the h5-square. For example, 18...¦fb8 19.¤h5± or 18...d4 19.¤h5±.
Now instead of De la Villa’s 17.£d2±, even better seems: 17.£a4†! ¥c6 17...¢f8 18.¥xf6 gxf6 19.¤g3 d4 20.¤h5+– 18.£a3 ¥b7
10
The Grandmaster Battle Manual
18...¥b5 19.¦d2± 19.¦d2 dxe4 20.¥xf6 gxf6 21.fxe4 ¥xe4 22.¤c3 ¥c6™ 22...¥b7 23.¥xa6 ¥xa6 24.£xa6+– 23.¥xa6 ¦b8 24.¦f1 f5 25.£c5 £b6 26.£xb6 ¦xb6 27.¥c4± White has a big advantage in the endgame. Thus, Black’s attempt to break free with an immediate ...d7-d5 fails for tactical reasons. Instead, strategically unfortunate is: 13...¦c8?!
14.¥xf6 gxf6 15.g3! Black has lost the option of castling long and it is clear that her king will not find a safe refuge behind the damaged kingside pawn structure. 15...d5 15...¥xc3 16.¤xc3 b4 17.¤a4 0–0 18.¥h3± leaves White with a clear advantage and an easy game. 16.¥h3! ¥xc3 16...d4 17.¥xc8 £xc8 18.¤xb5!+– 16...¦d8 17.¤xb5± 17.¤xc3 ¦d8 Now either 18.£h6± or 18.exd5 ¤xd5 19.¤e4± would have left Anand with a powerful position and playing on his own favoured territory, as an excellent attacker and tactician. Another possibility offered by Gershon and Nor is 13...¥c5.
This is certainly better than the above tries. However, I believe White still has an annoying edge after 14.¥xf6 gxf6 15.£h6 £b6 16.¤g3!, eying h5 and intending to meet 16...0–0–0 with 17.¤d5². Black would be obliged to capture the knight, and then 18.exd5 gives the knight on g3 a pleasant variety of options for its next stop. Before sharing my findings on the position after 13.¢b1, I will first explain my approach towards it, because otherwise the whole chapter would have no meaning: 1) It is clear that conventional methods will not work in such a situation, especially when you are dealing with the world’s top tactician, who has a sharp feeling for the initiative and is one of the finest players in chess history. 2) Black must at all costs minimize the danger to her king, and if possible create a crisis with some liquidations taking place. The only safe place I could see for the black king was the queenside. 3) Another feature that drew my attention was that in anticipation of White’s planned ¥g5xf6, Black should be able to quickly respond with ...d7-d5, in order to eliminate the weakness on the d-file and give life to the bishop pair.
Chapter 1 – Annoy Them! 4) As I implied above, if Black does not coordinate various, possibly extraordinary, components to achieve a substantial outcome, then she would be as good as lost. But what gave me faith that a solution really existed was the impression that Black’s opening play was not so bad as to deserve a fatal verdict as early as the 13th move. All these thoughts led to the “non-Rybka” solution that I present below: 13...0–0–0!?
This untried possibility seems to be the most critical response. Black is sacrificing a pawn for endgame compensation. After the rather forced: 14.¥xf6 gxf6 15.¤xb5 ¥xd2 16.¤xc7 ¢xc7 17.¦xd2 d5! Black has lost a pawn and does not even possess the bishop pair, but this is a rather superficial assessment:
11
If we take a closer look at the diagram position we begin to realize that things have started to go Black’s way. Suddenly it would have been Judit who would have the better and most harmonious development. Indeed, the black king has been relieved from his worries as the queens are gone, and White is experiencing severe difficulties in consolidating the extra pawn in view of his weak back rank in conjunction with Black’s increasing activity. All this amounts to good practical chances and such a development would have undoubtedly passed the initiative over to the defender and forced Vishy to show excellent technique in order to make something out of his extra pawn. However, as is usually the case with debatable decisions born out of difficult situations, it can be argued that there are not only pros but also cons in the above reasoning. For example, a discouraging factor for my suggested course of action could be that Anand is an excellent technical player as much as he is a tactician and he might slowly capitalize on his material superiority in this ending. Notwithstanding the element of truth such a statement contains, I would still prefer my suggestion over the continuation chosen in the game. An elaboration of the remarks I made earlier offers concrete answers as to why 13...0–0–0!? is good: Firstly, the energy one has to burn in a longer game is much greater and so small inaccuracies can happen along the way. Secondly, the transition from a beautiful attacking position to a dull ending is disturbing, even for professionals of this class. Thirdly, Judit is an excellent defender of worse endgames when she has active pieces, as is the case here.
Grandmaster versus Amateur Edited by
Jacob Aagaard & John Shaw
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Preface 4 Key to Symbols used 8 1 Jacob Aagaard – Danes Eat Fish for Breakfast 9 2 Peter Heine Nielsen – A Tale of Three Stories 37 3 Pavel Eljanov – From Amateur to 2700 55 4 John Shaw – From 1700 to Grandmaster – and Back 87 5 Boris Avrukh – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 99 6 Tiger Hillarp Persson – The Ulysses Effect 137 7 Mihail Marin – It’s an Amateur’s World 151 8 Jacob Aagaard – Fish Eat Danes for Supper 177 Game Index Name Index Opening Index
191 193 196
Preface This is the third collection of essays by various grandmasters that Quality Chess has published, and the first such collection dealing with a topic other than the Sicilian Defence. Once again we were able to assemble an enviable line-up of contributors, each of whom approached the subject in their own way with their own ideas and experiences. The idea for this book came from our good friend Jesse Gersenson, but the concept is not entirely new. A long time ago Max Euwe authored a book entitled Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur. It was only after the project was up and running that we were alerted to the existence of this book. To avoid ripping off the Dutch World Champion we deliberately avoided reading his book, instead preferring to do our own thing, and we hope the readers will agree when we say that the results are pleasing! The authors and their projects are as follows. Jacob Aagaard (born 1973 in Denmark) Danish/Scottish grandmaster with a top rating of 2542. Most notable successes include winning the 2007 British Championship (the tournamement where he completed his GMtitle) and the Arco Open several times. As an author his greatest successes have been winning the ChessCafe Book of the Year 2002 for Excelling at Chess and more recently the English Chess Federation’s Book of the Year 2010 (for Attacking Manual 1+2). Jacob was a co-founder of Quality Chess in 2004.
Unknown amateur congratulates Jacob on winning the ECF Book of the Year at the 2010 London Chess Classic.
Chapter 1 – Danes Eat Fish for Breakfast Rather than embarrass the audience with national stereotypes, Jacob presents five different scenarios from his own games where grandmasters prevail over amateurs. Along the way he identifies several underlying causes for their success, offering a wealth of practical advice for amateurs wishing to bridge the gap. Chapter 8 – Fish Eat Danes for Supper In this chapter Jacob shows some of his least proud moments, as well as explaining how they came about. Rather than turning the chapter into a sea of sick excuses, he uses the examples to highlight the ways in which the amateur can optimize his chances of beating a grandmaster.
Preface
5
Peter Heine Nielsen (born 1973) Danish grandmaster with a peak rating of 2700. Peter has won a number of opens and the gold medal on board one in the 2005 European Team Championship, but his greatest achievement was undoubtedly reaching the last 16 in the 2011 World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk. Outside the tournament hall Peter has worked regularly with Anand, since shortly after they met in the 2001 World Championship knockout tournament in Moscow. Since 2005 Peter has been Anand’s chief second with considerable success, although the World Champion has pointed out that Peter has the drawback of being “impossible to hide” (on account of his towering height). Chapter 2 – A Tale of Three Stories Peter starts by identifying three typical ways in which a Grandmaster – Amateur game might play out, before providing an example of each scenario from his own practice. With a hearty balance of insight, anecdotes and good humour, Peter’s chapter is as entertaining as it is instructive. Pavel Eljanov (born 1983) Ukrainian grandmaster with a peak rating of 2761, placing him at sixth in the world at the time. Pavel is a regular on the Ukrainian national team, including its gold medal performance at the Calvia Olympiad in 2004. His biggest tournament success was in May 2010, when he won the Astrakhan Grand Prix tournament by a full point. Recently he seconded Boris Gelfand during his victory in the 2011 Candidates tournament in Kazan. Chapter 3 – From Amateur to 2700 Of the seven contributors to this book, Pavel was the only one who had not previously written for Quality Chess. Nevertheless it quickly became clear that he was a real ‘find’ for this book, and in this chapter he shares his views on a number of topics, including the role of talent, chess education, psychology, opening preparation and choosing the right plan. The reader is guided through a number of his successes and failures which played a role in his ascension from amateur to world-class grandmaster.
6
Grandmaster versus Amateur John Shaw (born 1968)
Scottish Grandmaster without a peak rating. (Okay, 2506 then.) John’s biggest achievement is that he was rated 1745 at the age of 19, and thus devoid of natural talent, and yet still managed to become a grandmaster at the ripe old age of 37. Over the years John has given such illustrious players as Bacrot, Eljanov and Shirov a tough fight, and eventually a draw as well. He has been a regular on the Scottish national team for almost two decades, and is a three-time Scottish Champion. He wrote two books for Everyman before co-founding Quality Chess in 2004. He is almost finished with his long-awaited treatise on the King’s Gambit and promises it will be out soon... Chapter 4 – From 1700 to Grandmaster – and Back In his characteristically humorous and self-deprecating style, John describes his journey towards the Grandmaster title, offering plenty of personal insights into the reasons for both his successes and shortcomings. Boris Avrukh (born 1978 in Kazakhstan) An Israeli grandmaster with a peak rating of 2668, Boris was a regular for the Israeli team from 1998 to 2009. During this period he won both gold and bronze individual medals, as well as the overall silver medal with the team at the Dresden 2008 Olympiad. Boris is the winner of numerous open tournaments and a renowned theoretician. In recent years he has written four highly acclaimed books in the hugely successful Grandmaster Repertoire series, and has worked as a trainer and second for World Champions of yesterday and tomorrow alike. Chapter 5 – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly In this chapter Boris presents five highly instructive games, exploring the various factors that contributed to the respective successes of both the grandmasters and the amateurs. The games have been divided into three categories, each of which has been named after a famous movie, for no particular reason apart from sounding more interesting.
Preface
7
Tiger Hillarp Persson (born 1970) A Swedish Grandmaster with a peak rating of 2618, Tiger is known for his deeply original and creative approach to chess. He has won many opens and has been a regular on the Swedish national team since the mid-nineties. Tiger’s fame stems not so much from the final results of his games, but more for their unusually rich content. Win, lose or draw, he is never boring. Aside from his active playing career he also found time to write Tiger’s Modern (Quality Chess 2005), which was widely acclaimed. Chapter 6 – The Ulysses Effect Never one to take the conventional route, Tiger begins with a bizarre-sounding quote from James Joyce’s classic novel. He then examines the meaning and reveals how it helped him to raise his chess level from that of an aspiring amateur to a sabre-toothed grandmaster! Mihail Marin (born 1964) Romanian grandmaster with a peak rating of 2616. Mihail has represented Romania in ten Olympiads and won an individual bronze medal in 1988. Although he has been successful in his long playing career, his main achievements have been away from the board. He has for example worked as Judit Polgar’s second, including at the 2005 San Luis World Championship, the only occasion in chess history when a woman has taken part in a World Championship contest. While admitting a certain bias, we would argue that Mihail’s greatest achievements of all are his books. Learn from the Legends (Quality Chess 2004) won the ChessCafe.com Book of the Year award in 2005. IM Jeremy Silman said in his review “I can’t recall having seen a better book in the last two decades.” More recently Mihail wrote three volumes on the English Opening in the Grandmaster Repertoire series, which inspired a number of top-level players to include this opening in their repertoires.
Grandmaster versus Amateur
8
Chapter 7 – It’s an Amateur’s World! In this, the penultimate chapter of the book (the last being Jacob’s second chapter as detailed above), Mihail paints a warm and engaging picture of two amateurs, Dr Victor Țacu (“the good Doc”) of Romania and Jose Miguel Ridameya Tatche (“Don Josep”) of Spain. Mihail has become acquainted with both of these enthusiastic amateurs over the years, both personally and over the board. After reflecting on his own career, including his experiences with these two colourful characters, Mihail’s conclusion is perfectly summed up by the chapter title! We hope that this book will be enjoyed by grandmasters and amateurs alike, and without further ado, we invite the reader to turn the page and get started. Andrew Greet, Quality Chess Glasgow, October 2011
Key to symbols used ² ³ ± µ +– –+ = © „ ‚ ƒ ÷
White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality with compensation with counterplay with attack with initiative unclear
? ?? ! !! !? ?! ™ #
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value only move mate
Mihail Marin
It’s an Amateur’s World
152
Mihail Marin
After graduating from the Polytechnic Institute back in 1989, I finally found myself in a position I had dreamed about for a long time: that of being able to dedicate most of my available time to studying and playing chess. My results over the final years of studentship strongly suggested the possibility of embracing the chess professional life, but, quite paradoxically, my next important ‘move’ took me entirely in the opposite direction. Indeed, how else could one describe my decision to spend the next season of the Romanian Team Championship playing for a modest second division team, comprised of amateurs, despite having been offered attractive contracts by the strongest first division teams? It is hard to remember my exact train of thought from more than twenty years ago, but I must have had my own rather subjective reasons of taking such an important decision. The 1987 team championship had caused me a deep feeling of frustration. Despite being the only Romanian player to have qualified for the Interzonal, I was confined to play on the fifth board. According to the Romanian Federation rules, the teams had to field their players in the strict order of their international title. By the time the championship took place, I was still a FIDE Master, waiting for the next FIDE congress in order to be awarded with the International Master title. True, in 1988 I was promoted to the second board, but I was probably too immature to put the aforementioned unpleasant situation behind me. My decision to step back to an inferior level two years later was meant as some sort of moral compensation for my seriously injured ego. Finally, I would be the unchallenged top board of my team and cause great fear among my opponents! As expected, I scored an “astronomical” result (all my opponents were
mere amateurs), but the draw conceded in the game below was the main reason for my team’s failure to qualify for the first division.
Țacu – Marin Romania 1989 Victor Țacu is the most colourful Romanian chess amateur I have ever met, and one that perfectly suits the inner meaning of the term. Despite being a successful medical doctor, his true lifetime passion has always been chess. Obviously the time he could dedicate to chess was quite limited, but he nevertheless aimed to maintain a professional attitude towards his beloved hobby. There is a small paradox involved here. Sometimes, only an amateur can really break free of any inhibitions and play a move just because he believes in it, or he likes it, even though the ultimate consequences cannot be predicted and the risks involved are quite big. Dr Țacu always tried to keep up with the newest theoretical developments and he was always among the first Romanian players to get the latest NIC Yearbook or Chess Informant. About thirty years ago, when I was a teenage Candidate Master, he allowed me to step into what he considered his chess sanctuary. I remember the image of a room in which there was hardly any breathing space left. All the walls were covered by shelves overloaded with chess books, and the majority of the floor also was employed for the same storage purpose! In fact, new (or very old) books as well as new opening ideas are among Dr Țacu’s favourite subjects of conversation. Even nowadays, at the age of 72, he orders a bunch of Quality Chess books every few months and calls me regularly asking for advice regarding one new title or another. The balance between our general chess culture and knowledge has not always been like that, though. In the early
Chapter 7 – It’s an Amateur’s World eighties we once met in the centre of Bucharest by pure chance and he told me in a low voice, as if to keep the secret from the people passing by us, “They’ve got Bronstein’s Zurich ’53 in Russian at the Crețulescu library – go there quickly and buy one for yourself! Tomorrow it may be sold out!” I am ashamed to confess that I had no idea what he was speaking about, but got the book anyway. It took me several years to understand the value of this book, my excuse being that at that time I had not learned Russian yet! Despite the friendship we had developed since we first met, I sat down for the next game with just one result on my mind: a crushing win. 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 d6 4.¤c3 g6 5.e4 ¥g7 This variety of Benoni, characterized by a delayed ...e6, was regularly employed by Karel Hromadka and rightly bears his name. During the 1980s it became something of a Romanian specialty as it was used regularly by grandmasters Gheorghiu and Ghițescu. The latter offered to be my trainer when I was a Candidate Master, and thanks to his help I was able to qualify for the Interzonal seven years later. As a devoted amateur, faithful to the national values, my opponent also played the Hromadka System on a regular basis. As we will see, this was far from the only Romanian specialty in his repertoire. 6.h3 0–0 7.¥g5 e6 8.¥d3 exd5 9.exd5 ¤bd7 10.f4 a6 11.a4 The systems of development based on h2-h3 against the King’s Indian (to which we have transposed after exd5) is usually attributed to Makogonov by theoreticians. In Romania however, many consider the combination of h3 with ¥g5 as a national variation, and not without reason. Top Romanian players have employed it regularly over more than
153
half a century; from its recent heroes I would mention the ever stubborn (in a good sense) Mihai Șubă. White’s approach is quite ambitious. He aims to restrict Black’s minor pieces and get a stable space advantage. Ever since I began searching for an antidote, I had the feeling that White’s decision to make so many pawn moves with his king still in the centre should enable Black to obtain promising counterplay.
11...£e8†! Black has to escape the pin immediately if he is to cause problems to his opponent. If White is given time to complete his development with ¤ge2 and 0–0, he should be able to consolidate his space advantage. 12.¤ge2 ¤h5! By threatening ...f6 followed by ...¤xf4, Black keeps his momentum and questions the position of the g5-bishop. 13.¤e4 This was played almost instantly. My opponent seemed to know what he was doing; indeed I also had come to the conclusion that the text move is the critical test to the whole line. White has several other possibilities to parry the threat, but none of them is entirely satisfactory.
154
Mihail Marin
13.¢d2 is quite weird, as the king will need a lot of time to reach a safe square. 13...f6 14.¥h4 ¥h6!
+w + OV +m B Kn + +
Immediately exerting some pressure against His Majesty. 15.¦f1 f5 16.g3 ¤df6 Black is close to completing his development while White’s forces lack coordination, Partoș – Korchnoi, Bucharest 1966. In a relatively strong student tournament, I had faced 13.¢f2. In this case the opposition of the f8-rook with the white king gives Black the opportunity to commence active kingside operations: 13...f6 14.¥h4 g5 15.¥g3 f5 Black was developing a nice initiative in Vasilescu – Marin, Bucharest 1986. The most natural move is: 13.0–0 However, this does not solve the problem of the g5-bishop, which becomes apparent after: 13...£e3† 14.¢h1
14...¤e5! This move had been mentioned by Partoș in his annotations to the game mentioned in the note to Black’s 17th move below. Almost twenty years later, Mihai Șubă allowed this trick in a rapid game against Judit Polgar (at Debrecen 1992 if I remember correctly). Despite being a specialist of the Romanian system, he apparently did not know the analysis of his former countryman. This unpleasant experience induced him to switch to the 10.¤f3 ¦e8† 11.¢f1 line. Partoș’s analysis continues: 15.fxe5 £xg5 16.exd6 f5!µ Black has excellent play on the dark squares. As we see, Romanian players of different generations have been trying to make the line work and Dr Țacu must have been aware of most of the analysis given above. The move played in the game is largely a product of the process of elimination. Since the alternatives all offer Black good play, the knight move is the only serious option remaining. But even this is not enough to guarantee a smooth ride for White. The delay in development and the weaknesses left behind by the kingside pawns make this whole line rather suspicious for him and, as Dr Tarrasch was kind enough to point out, “In bad positions all moves are bad!” Concretely, White threatens the deadly ¤xd6, forcing Black to adopt radical measures. 13...f6 14.¥h4 ¤xf4! A thematic move, underlining the fact that White has neglected to castle. 15.¤xf4 f5 16.¤e6 An important element in White’s plan. The e6-square is used to obstruct the e-file, at least temporarily. 16...fxe4 17.¤xf8
Chapter 7 – It’s an Amateur’s World All these moves were played rather quickly, and it was here that I finally delivered my novelty.
17...exd3†! Correctly evaluating the dynamic factors of the position. White will either remain with his king in the centre or give up another pawn or two. The less enterprising 17...¤xf8?! also offered Black some compensation for the exchange, although he eventually lost in Partoș – Ostojic, Bucharest 1973. 18.¤e6 The knight returns to block the e-file. In fact, the whole assessment of the position depends largely on the knight’s stability. Unfortunately I was unable to find my old notes and cannot remember my original analysis, but I recall that rather soon I was on unknown territory. 18...¤b6! An important move. Several white pawns are hanging now, and there is a threat to shake White’s position with ...¥xe6. By this moment, I fully expected that my opponent would understand the seriousness of his situation and go down psychologically
155
rather quickly. I was thus surprised to notice that the good Doc maintained his initial excitement. His body language seemed to suggest that he considered his position as quite promising, which I must confess I found rather irritating. Only now I understand that this interpretation could have been correct if my opponent had been a professional player. As an amateur, Dr Țacu enjoyed the thrill of competing in a complicated game against a much stronger player with every beat of his heart, possibly without thinking too much about the objective evaluation of the position.
19.£g4?! Just as with 13.¤e4, this is the most principled move, aiming to maintain the outpost on e6. And just as on that occasion, it tends to increase White’s problems, since his previous play has been a bit too adventurous. In my comments for Chess Informant, I suggested 19.0–0 as a safer way out of the complications. After 19...¥xe6 20.¦e1 ¥e5 21.dxe6 £xe6, White should avoid 22.£xd3 ¤xc4, with two pawns for the exchange and excellent piece coordination for Black. Instead, the critical move is 22.b3!?, aiming to restrict the enemy knight. I had ended my comments with this last move, without giving any clear evaluation.
156
Mihail Marin
For the sake of the truth, it should be mentioned that Black retains a strong initiative with: 22...£f5! 23.¦a2 £f4 The threat of ...£h2† forces White to block the bishop’s retreat, leaving it in a delicate situation. 24.g3 £d4† Black has completed his centralization and has several promising plans at his disposal. He can sacrifice his knight on c4, obtaining a threatening pawn majority, or open the centre with the more cautious ...d5. The h4-bishop can be molested with ...h6, and ...¦f8 at any moment would increase the pressure against White’s position.
19...¥d4! Preventing White from castling. It is interesting to note that both kings are under some pressure and the final result will largely depend on who will be able to deliver concrete threats first.
20.¦f1 The only reasonable move, but it is quite symptomatic of White’s poor coordination that he does not threaten ¦f8† yet, as the knight is pinned along the c8-g4 diagonal. In my comments I had mentioned 20.¦c1?! as a possible alternative. Just as 22.b3 from the earlier variation, this is aimed at preventing the knight’s activation via c4, but after 20...£xa4 the threat of ...£b4† immediately puts White in a critical position. 20...¤xc4 21.£e4 Finally the threat of ¦f8† has become real and Black has to eliminate the enemy knight.
+ mq r
21...¥xe6 22.dxe6 The net surrounding the white king is tighter than that of his counterpart, but White only needs one move (e6-e7) to create the decisive threats of ¦f8† and £e6†. 22...£c6?! Possibly intimidated by the great enthusiasm my opponent continued to exude, I started to panic. The plan of transferring the queen to a5 or b4 is rather slow, and Black should have opted for a more forcing continuation. The simplest is 22...d5!. White needs to
Chapter 7 – It’s an Amateur’s World keep the e6-pawn defended in order to avoid immediate disaster, but after 23.£xd5 (or 23.£g4) 23...¤e3 Black retrieves the exchange, reducing White’s attacking possibilities and retaining a winning position. 22...¤e3! threatening ...d5 or ...¤xf1 is just as good. 23.£f4! Exchanging queens would annihilate White’s counterattacking chances, leaving him helpless against the compact mass of enemy pawns. The last move threatens a check on f7, forcing a perpetual check at least.
23...d2†? This hurried check dismantles the net around the white king. The right move was 23...£c7!, covering the f7-square while threatening ...£a5† as well as ...¦e8. White has nothing better than 24.£f7† £xf7 25.exf7† ¢f8µ when Black’s king is safe and his powerful pawn mass should decide the game. I must admit that my memories about this game ended abruptly somewhere around the 15th move. Psychologically, I had little incentive to remember the way I had misplayed
157
a promising position, despite being the clear favourite. Quite a pity, because the way I see it now, the game is rather interesting. I had the sense that things were different with my old friend though. During our occasional meetings in the decades that followed after the game, he constantly reopened the subject, mentioning some new idea that he got. In my years as a “true professional chess player”, I did not find it useful to overload my memory with details about an old game from the second league. More recently I changed my opinion, and now consider a regular return to the games from one’s youth to be an excellent method of self-improvement. Pushed by curiosity, I called Dr Țacu just a few weeks before writing this text and, without too much of an introduction, I asked him what he remembered about our game. He immediately pointed out that he should have castled on move 19, and that in the final position he got prematurely scared when accepting the draw. The second assertion is only partly justified (see the note at the end of the game), but it became obvious that for him this had been a memorable game; one that he thought about once in a while, and probably even replayed on the board for the nth time again and again. One happy aspect of being an amateur is that one can remain focused on the artistic side of the game, by not being in a permanent rush to win prizes and rating points. 24.¢e2 £xg2† Now is too late for 24...£c7? as there is no check on a5, so 25.e7 is just winning for White. 25.¦f2 This simple move keeps trouble away from the white king. The rook is taboo because of mate in two, and so Black has to retreat his queen.
158
Mihail Marin
w 25...£d5 This move was accompanied by a draw offer, which was accepted. ½–½ Given the exposed position of both kings, a perpetual check is inevitable. The Doc was right in thinking that after 26.£f7† ¢h8 27.¥f6† ¥xf6 28.£xf6† ¢g8 29.£f7† ¢h8 he is not forced to keep checking, but if he tries an active move such as 30.e7, Black forces a draw himself by means of 30...d1=£† 31.¦xd1 £e4† 32.¢f1 £h1† and so on. I believe that the key moments for understanding what actually happened in this game, as well as the strengths and limitations of the typical amateur prototype, are the moves 13.¤e4 and 19.£g4. We can expect a chess book lover like Dr Țacu to have an excellent chess culture. This led him to know – or rather feel – that if everything had been okay with his general strategy, these ambitious moves were the only ones to allow him to fight for an advantage. Also, he had faith (perhaps too much of it) in the opening system because it had been employed by several strong Romanian players from different generations. The only problem was that, having only limited time available for study, he was unable
to test this system of logical thinking with concrete and thorough analysis (as I had done). Objectively speaking, this should have led him to a defeat, but in every negative thing there is a positive part too. Being convinced about the correctness of his play, Dr Țacu kept displaying overwhelming optimism, which eventually inhibited me and caused me to miss a relatively simple win. We will dig a bit deeper into this theme by examining two extreme cases, taken from the practice of my old friend. In the first of them, unjustified optimism was severely punished, but in the second a much stronger opponent succumbed spectacularly.
Voiculescu – Țacu Bucharest 1982
The 1982 Troianescu Memorial in Bucharest remains ingrained in my memory as the first really strong open tournament in which I took part as a junior. I was only 17 at the time, but I achieved a respectable score of 6/10. It was also one of the first times my attention was drawn to the colourful figure of Dr Țacu. I was on my way to including the Hromadka Indian in my repertoire, which made me follow the following game with certain interest. In what looked like a normal position with better chances for White, the good doctor decided to sacrifice a pawn.
Judit Polgar Teaches Chess 1
How I Beat Fischer’s Record by
Judit Polgar with invaluable help from Mihail Marin
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used 4 Preface 5 1 Tricks 2 Mating Net 3 Trapping the Queen 4 Zwischenzug 5 Tales with an Unexpected End 6 Improving Piece Placement 7 Pawn Play 8 Piece Domination 9 A Lead in Development 10 Attacking the Uncastled King 11 The Art of Simplifying & Elements of Endgame Technique 12 Attacking without Queens 13 Decisive Games 14 Memorable Games 15 Amsterdam 1989 OHRA Tournament Diary
9 41 57 63 69 77 95 103 121 133 163 199 227 251 315
Records and Results Game Index Name Index
376 378 381
Preface I started flirting with the idea of publishing a collection of my best games a long time ago. For years, I was aware that the moment when I could fulfil my dream was far away. As a professional player, I spent most of my time and energy playing in tournaments and training, so each time the idea of my book popped up, I had to say to myself “Later, later...” By coincidence, several publishers approached me during this period. And although I was not prepared to embark on any definite project yet, I could feel that the whole idea was, little by little, starting to take shape.
The critical moment The 2009 World Cup proved to be a decisive moment in the birth of my book. In the third round I played Boris Gelfand, a very strong opponent who eventually went on to win the event. I lost the first match game with Black, and during my preparations for the second one, I found myself with no clue about how to break down his favourite Petroff Defence. I decided to improvise with the Bishop’s Opening, and in the early middlegame started a sacrificial attack in the best spirit of the King’s Gambit, my favourite opening as a kid. This turned out to be Gelfand’s only defeat in a classical game in the whole tournament. I eventually lost the play-off, but this did not spoil the magic: it felt like for a moment the Judit from 1988, who many (including myself ) had forgotten, had come back to deliver her trademark brilliancies. With this nostalgic feeling, I decided that the time had finally come to write my book, in which the little girl from the past would play an important role. On the way back home, while waiting to embark at Moscow airport, I made it “official” by sharing my thoughts with my husband Gusztav. He was delighted with the idea and I appreciate very much his enthusiasm, support and encouragement ever since.
Preliminary details There were a few technical details to be worked out before starting to work. Most of my best games have been published worldwide, in countless magazines and even in a few books about my chess career written by other authors. Therefore, I aimed for a different approach than just “Judit’s selected games”. After much hesitation, I chose to structure the material as a manual rather than an autobiography. This way, it would be instructive for young players or amateurs aspiring to progress, but also offer a guideline to their parents or trainers. True, there would be a wealth of autobiographical stories, but they would pop up without respecting a chronological order. Without any false modesty, I can say that I played entertainingly and quite well from an early age, and it soon became clear that one book would not be enough to cover my whole career.
6
How I Beat Fischer’s Record
To make this rather unusual project come true, I needed a publisher who would allow me the freedom of action I needed. I decided to work with Quality Chess after I met their Creative Director, Jacob Aagaard. I was captivated by Jacob’s enthusiasm, optimism and his acceptance of making the book the way I wanted it. We soon reached an agreement and he offered his invaluable feedback during the complex writing process. Since I had no experience as a book writer, I also needed the help of a close collaborator. Even before the project had taken shape, I had shared my ideas with my old friend Bob (Mihail Marin). I have known Bob since 1990, when he stayed with my family in Budapest on several occasions. We were playing chess, training and having lots of fun. Many years later we worked together regularly and he even accompanied me as a second to a few tournaments, including the World Championship in San Luis 2005. I knew that Bob has lots of knowledge and broad experience in many areas of chess. He is a successful author who has written many good books. But even more importantly, I appreciate his love and enthusiasm for chess. Bob gladly joined my project and now that this book is finished, I can say that he has been a great adviser and helper throughout. In addition, working as a pair proved joyful and entertaining.
Novi Sad 1990: (l. to r.) My Mother, Pal Benko, Susan, Marin, Hazai, Me!, Morvay & Sofia
Preface
7
Sources of information Many of the games in this volume have not been published before. Some of them were played against my coaches or sparring partners for training purposes. I have input them all from my dusty archive of scoresheets. From my early years as a chess player, my coaches taught me to regularly write down the time taken both by my opponent and myself. This was meant to provide the coaches with information about my way of thinking, my possible superficiality at critical moments or, on the contrary, my hesitations. This information also proved useful for this book. In my comments, I have frequently referred to the situation on the clock, in order to draw interesting conclusions of a psychological nature. And, as a curiosity, I would add that I have not given up the habit of writing down the time even today... The old scoresheets helped me to spot a few input mistakes in the official databases. I also drew a wealth of information from my old opening notes and game annotations. Luckily, my whole archive has survived several changes of apartments over the years! It was refreshing to learn that some of my original analysis stands up to severe computer scrutiny even today.
The structure This first volume covers the period from my early years until 1991, when at the age of 15 years, 4 months and 28 days, I broke Fischer’s record by roughly one month and became the youngest ever grandmaster. The chapters are arranged according to their complexity, starting with the simpler ones. The aim is to increase the educational value of the book, but it also evokes the rapid progress I made at that young age. The first five chapters focus on simple tactical elements, and the next three on notions of positional play. Chapters 9 to 12 highlight the subtleties of the transition phases, from the opening to the middlegame, and from the middlegame to the endgame. The first twelve chapters have mainly game fragments. Things become more complex in Chapters 13 and 14 which feature complete games (with just one exception). In Chapter 15 (the final one) we take a step further by examining the multifaceted universe of a chess tournament.
A nostalgic journey to the past One of the most rewarding aspects of my work on this book was the possibility of revisiting the past. Looking at my old games brought back unique memories, but I was also surprised by my strength as a player at that young age. I gained the distinct feeling that to me playing chess used to be as natural as breathing. Every now and then I could not stop smiling when noting my ingenuity in certain situations. Now, I could surely teach that young girl a thing or two! Although I have changed a lot as a person since then, I am glad that I did not lose any of my love for chess or my pleasure in playing beautiful games.
How I Beat Fischer’s Record
8
Many times people have asked me about the reasons for my early successes. Talent and ambition must have played a significant part, but my family environment was the most important factor. Both my parents were teachers by profession and by inclination. My sisters and I are grateful to them not only because they dedicated their lives to our success, but even more so because they raised us with a positive set of values. I was fortunate to be the youngest of three sisters, so my parents already had a lot of experience when they started bringing me up as a chess player. Moreover, growing up around my elder sisters Susan and Sofia was very stimulating and they offered their help whenever I needed it. No words are rich enough to describe my feelings towards Susan and Sofia. And I am happy that after all these years we are still very close friends, despite the huge geographical distances between us.
Acknowledgements I would like to express my thanks to: All my trainers, coaches and sparring partners. The organizers, sponsors, opponents and arbiters, without whom chess life could not exist. My enemies, who stimulated me to improve myself. Last but not least, thanks to my chess fans. I hope you will enjoy this book. Judit Polgar Budapest, July 2012
Chapter 1 Tricks
Showing my game against Chilingirova (see page 19)
10
How I Beat Fischer’s Record
When an adult loses to a very young player, the most common excuse he comes up with is “He (or she) tricked me!” The usual meaning of this cliché is that the baby opponent somehow undeservedly managed to change the logical course of the game in a radical way. In order to understand this association of ideas, we should try to give a proper definition of a “trick” in a chess game. I see the trick as a basically simple (maximum two or three moves), but very well masked, tactical operation. It requires imagination, alertness, lack of preconceptions, and the ability to intuitively perceive the intimate dynamic nuances of the position. These qualities allow spotting, foreseeing or aiming to deliver a trick. Most of these qualities are characteristic of the very young. For a kid, there is nothing more rewarding than tricking the opponent! As the years pass, one tends to rely mainly on knowledge and experience, losing part of the aforementioned qualities. My favourite way of highlighting the artistic impression created by tricks on the chess board and their unexpected character is by comparing them with a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat. Again, this is a field that captivates kids. Adults may smile while watching a magician’s show, but they will not believe in the “miracles” even if they cannot explain them by logical means. I was labelled as a tricky player early on and have been regarded as tricky throughout my whole career. It was said that I was able to pull out tricks from nowhere. While admitting that this is one important thread of my play, I hope this book will show that my general style as a girl was more rounded. I must confess that whenever I examine a position, my train of thought tends to go in a tactical direction. Many times I have planned tricks well in advance, but I tried to look as innocent as possible, in order to avoid giving a hint to my opponent. It is interesting to mention that the highest authorities have different opinions about this latter aspect. I felt deeply honoured when Vassily Smyslov called me “Tal in a skirt”, comparing me with arguably the most brilliant World Champion ever. I was less pleased when Korchnoi described me as a “coffee house player”! Handling tricks is a useful weapon, but does not exclude strategic vision or basic chess knowledge. On the contrary, it can be an excellent complement to them! Besides, tricks continued to occur frequently in my games despite my opponents being more and more aware of the danger with the passing years.
How to become tricky Under the guidance of my father I spent many hours each day solving studies, problems and tactical positions. My father considered solving to be very important because it requires concentration and accurate calculation, precisely what you need most during a practical game. We had many books which my father had collected over the years. On many occasions I studied together with Sofia and later on I had the opportunity to go into Susan’s workroom too! (Susan is seven years older and had done some serious training already). In our apartment there was a wall with 30 small chess boards with the positions meant to be our homework.
Chapter 1 – Tricks Another common method of preparing was playing blitz games and different kind of rapid games. My father was always looking for opportunities for us to practise and so he invited many different sparring partners to come to our place. This intense practice developed our skills of rapid orientation in unknown positions and a feel for tactical nuances, which we could describe as intuition. It also helped us to memorize the opening moves better and to become acquainted with typical middlegame and endgame positions. Another positive effect was that I felt less pressure or tension during tournaments. Of course, there also was a lot of bluffing in our countless blitz games, but even in a scientific game like chess learning how to take one’s chances is important. While the usefulness of training games at different time controls is relevant to most of the themes covered in the forthcoming chapters, blitz games are most closely related to the trick sections. Blindfold games also played an important part and I remember there were times when I played against Sofia (or other opponents) at least ten times a day! After a while, analyzing and exchanging ideas with other players without needing a chess board became natural. There is a lot of fun involved in this kind of activity, as you can speak about a certain game or position with the same ease with which you comment on a movie you have watched the night before. Also, you can read chess magazines and books while travelling or before going to sleep. I would like to add that opening preparation was not at all important at that time. This may be a reason why, even today, my strongest area remains the middlegame. The only chapter in this book tangentially related with the opening is that dedicated to a lead in development, but even there we will mainly focus on decisions taken over the board and not on applying concrete knowledge.
11
The present chapter will examine some typical situations in which tricks may pop up. Later, we will divide them into subchapters, according to their aim. Players are especially vulnerable to falling for tricks when they relax prematurely or find themselves in time trouble. The next example illustrates both aspects perfectly. It was a blitz game (implying that we both were in time trouble from the very first move) and features a strongly simplified and apparently dull position.
Jozsef Palkovi – Judit Polgar Training game, Budapest (blitz) 1989
Jozsef came to our apartment for many years. He was a professional player for a long time, but nowadays he works mainly as a kid’s coach. We used to tease each other during the blitz games, comment on certain good or bad moves, or make fun of each other.
White is under some pressure, but due to the reduced amount of material left on the board he should manage to draw. When playing his next move, Jozsef asked: “What are we playing for here?”
How I Beat Fischer’s Record
12
1.¦xf2? Indeed, this looks like the simplest solution. After 1...exf2, White would have little trouble holding a draw, but Jozsef ’s mistake was taking for granted that I have to take the rook. His unawareness of the danger can be explained by the fact that in the initial position I had no tactical threat. His last move made the trick possible, though. 1...¦h2†! Oops! After 2.¢xh2 exf2 the pawn promotes. The unfortunate position of the knight is the decisive factor, as White cannot prevent ...f1=£ and ...fxe1=£ at the same time. I always enjoy when I can do something unusual which turns out to be good! 0–1 I will now show a typical case of objective details, related strictly to the position, which allowed me to carry out a simple but quite nice tactical operation.
Dr N.N. – Judit Polgar Budapest 1984
It may seem that White has some attacking chances in view of the weakened black kingside, but his poor coordination is the deciding feature. The f2-rook is pinned, which creates
back rank problems, while his b3-knight does not take part in the fight. These factors gave me the possibility to get an advantage with a slightly paradoxical move. 19...¤e4! Attacking the pinned rook and the overloaded c3-knight, which is tasked with keeping the back rank defended. My opponent did not suspect that I might even consider allowing his next move. 20.£xf7† The back rank problems are illustrated by: 20.¦xd8† ¦xd8 21.£xe4 ¦d1!†
White loses his queen. 20...¢h8 The check has not improved White’s position at all, as my king is safe in the corner. 21.¤d5 What else? 21.¤xe4 leads to mate in one after 21...¦xd1. 21...£xf2† 22.£xf2 ¤xf2 23.¢xf2 c6 I eventually converted my material advantage. ...0–1 This was a rather simple example. It should not take too much effort to notice the lack of harmony reigning in White’s camp and
Interview with Alik Gershon and Igor Nor (Authors of English Federation Book of the year San Luis 2005.) San Luis 2005 has been said to set new publishing standards by critics and seen as a logical continuation of a long tradition of tournament books, positioning itself in a small group of great titles such as St Petersburg 1909 (Lasker), New York 1924, New York 1927 (both Alekhine) and Zurich 1953 (Bronstein). Some have even gone as far as to call it better than Zurich 1953 or the best chess book seen. After such a response from the critics it was not a surprise that the book unanimously won highest honour in chess publishing, the English Chess Federations book of the year. But as we shall learn below, the authors in no way thought the deal was in the bag.
San Luis 2005 is clearly a labour of love, but also a monster in terms of the effort put into it. What brought about this book? From where did the project arise? Igor Nor: The most accurate way to put it would be: “it came from nowhere”. It was a very unusual day when two old friends had, quite unexpectedly, the same positive mood. One of them offered to do a lot of analysis and the other, unlike on many other occasions when the same idea came from the same guy, boldly calling himself “trainer”, didn’t refuse… Alik Gershon: Yeah, back then I was running a (Hebrew) chess website, and the idea of being the first ever to conduct a unique, real time analysis of a major event in Hebrew looked charming. The problem was that this spontaneous-patriotic plan, as some of Igor’s ideas, had some tactical difficulties. To begin with, there were only a couple of days left before the beginning of the tournament and we hadn’t even discussed the format of how it should look, not to mention the content itself. Fortunately, we both have quite an exhaustive in commenting chess, not to mention of working together. So those problems were successfully solved, mostly by way of ignoring them, and getting some sleep hours, that would surely be missed for the period to come. Igor Nor: At some point, after a few rounds, we discovered an interesting phenomenon: people liked what we did. It couldn’t be a complete surprise, but the proportions were unexpected. Alik Gershon: Speaking ahead, this strange feeling of people appreciating our work much more than in our most optimistic prognoses become the normal condition. But at the time we were happy to see thousands of visitors on the website and printouts of the analysis in most unexpected places (some chess clubs, for instance), various forums discussions on the subject etc. In fact it was very exciting to see chess players sitting with the printouts and checking every sick idea we had during night analysis (the games, as you might recall, were played at night in Europe). Already during the tournament we started hearing suggestions to write a book, because “this is hot stuff”….
Igor Nor: Then after the tournament some very good friends of ours said very strictly that either we should make a book or someone else will, with our analysis. We didn’t really know what the laws state here and by no means wanted to find out. So immediately after the end of the championship we somehow found ourselves in the middle of making our first book. This book could resemble the greatest games of Anatoly Karpov, where he would simply be solving problems as they were coming, but from outside it might look like there was this deep plan… Alik Gershon: ….like some of my more fortunate chess games… Of course, as a part of the “plan”, our old friend GM Arthur Kogan called me and asked a very strange question: “why don’t you make the book in English?” Since we couldn’t answer this one as well, we used the fact that he knew Jacob Aagaard from the Quality Chess, a company we had heard a lot about to ask him the same question. Igor Nor: And Jacob was so enthusiastic… Alik Gershon: Well… he agreed to see some of our analysis, but at the same time he did his best not to give us extra hopes, to say the least. This might be an appropriate moment to mention that the team of Quality Chess did not only help us a lot during the writing, but also were very straightforward in all aspects, including the economical one. Sadly enough, this is a kind of rarity, but one we would be happy to meet as much as possible. Igor Nor: Absolutely. But meanwhile we were waiting for their decision and the fact it didn’t come immediately could only mean something good. As we waited, I was trying to convince Alik and myself that the book was almost ready and we only need to translate it to English. In fact, at that time it looked as the most problematic “remaining thing”. Alik Gershon: Yes, if my memory serves me right, we also told QCB that the book was “over 80% finished”. Looking back, translating was the least difficult thing. The point is that when I have completely adopted to the free style of life in Israel, my friend is, unfortunately, one of the successors of the old Russian chess-school. Meaning, there has always been only one reason for which the analysis could be paused and it is complete inability of the participants to continue. And this pause exists only in order to continue on the next day, and so on, until the mission is complete. So when we got a positive answer from Jacob, for me it felt like going to chess-prison for a while. Igor Nor: Well, Alik exaggerates, of course. Indeed, he was never the biggest fan of hard work (in my opinion, this is one of the reason he wasn’t close to being one of the participant of this tournament), but still we made a lot of analysis during the 10 years we have know each other, so there was nothing new for us.
How was it to write a book together? What were the advantages and what were the disadvantages? Alik Gershon: As Igor said, it wasn’t so new for us. He brought his knowledge, and the guy read a book or two in his life (in fact, he is reading everything he can get, including all possible websites. Spooky, really.). I tried to concentrate more on the struggling parts of the games and the endgames.
So for me the main disadvantage was that we had too many debates that made me work real hard to be able to prove my opinion. Igor Nor: For me it was very positive. Alik’s rating is lower than it should be and his help in many cases was very useful. Of course, our characters fits together just great – when one likes white, the other likes black and those symposia’s could be changed every move. Alik Gershon: Yeah, for a few months we’ve become like a tired couple, arguing on every occasion they have. In a good sense, of course. Paradoxically, the general approach to the book was clear. Igor has a lot of tournament books… Igor Nor: Including some English readers would never believe exist… For instance, in most of the years each Interzonal tournament had his own book (Brasilia and Leningrad 73, Riga and Rio de Janeiro 1979 and so on) and it couldn’t be forgotten how interesting they were to read. Alik Gershon: So we just tried to adopt the best things from all books we saw, and add our special touch with sugar on top.
Which games would you single out as the most important in the tournament, and what were the deciding moments? Igor Nor: From the chess point of view I remember well the game TopalovAnand from the second round. Strictly speaking, no one understood it. From the point the theory finished until the end, it looked like all the commentators were walking in the dark, mostly trying to guess what was going on. The temptation to adopt this approach was big (no one will even try to refute it), but we decided to go very slowly, move after move and discover the ideas behind each and every move. Other games that were absolutely disastrous for analysing were those of Alexander Morozevich. He usually plays so technically, but complex and unforcing chess. To work out what is going on is always difficult. MorozevichPolgar was a game it took a lot of time to make sense of. Alik Gershon: I personally can’t forget the very first tournament game, when at some point we have found that his majesty Kasparov, probably the greatest genius of our game (and analysis!) made some mistakes, which we found after a long way. Also Svidler-Kasimdzhanov is a memorable one – it alone could probably make a small book, but all in all, every single game was something special, in general, and to us, and I think this is what really makes for the book – there is no “garbage time”. You are both from Israel and speak Russian. How was the experience of writing in English? One could imagine that it did not come naturally? Also, to what extend did Quality Chess’ team influence the process? Igor Nor: Alik is generally better in languages, except the Russian. The gap between us in English is pretty substantial, so he sometimes had to translate me to a better English. But it wasn’t a problem for him – he knows the languages I know, so usually it wasn’t difficult for him to understand my intentions.
Alik Gershon: Yes, and after this translation, the Quality chess guys translated it again from my good English to something, lets say, more traditional, something other people would understand as well . And it was done quite effectively – after we saw the “fixed” version, we couldn’t believe that it wasn't us using those words… QCB managed to relay it all as genuinely as possible. We think that the editing was very impressive. Igor Nor: Completely agree. The interesting fact is that at the beginning, when we got the first set of “correctness’s” from Jacob Aagaard, we were amazed how many ideas he got. But most of them were chess related, so we even thought for a moment that the language was ok. Then John Shaw got to work and the result is twofold: the book became a success and John hates us now. But it is important to mention that the book we got so many complements for is a common work of many people, not only the authors.
San Luis 2005 has been compared by many to Zurich 1953 and is according to a former British Champion the best chess book he has ever seen. What do you think about this reception and to what extend did you expect it? Alik Gershon: Well, “better than Bronstein” is too much. I think this is the book we both like the most and we strongly believe those comparisons are not in place – Bronstein of those days was one of the best players in the world and this probably puts an end to this discussion. But, of course, having such an amazing example of a tournament book could not help but influence our writing. And to me, the very fact people speak of these two books in the same breath is already a fantastic achievement for us. Igor Nor: Well, for me Bronstein’s book was the first book I read, I think I can retell entire chapters in exact words. Again, we took all the best from other books, and some of our ideas and used all the modern utilities to show the tournament from its best side. There was not even one publication about the tournament we weren’t familiar with… It would have taken an even bigger effort to write a bad book than it did to write a good one. More interesting is the expectation about this book. While trying your best book, even having a huge experience of reading, you can never know what, in fact, will be the reaction. Many times we asked ourselves isn’t it too deep or are there too many explanations? (I remember a very tired Alik saying with his last leftovers of politeness: “who do you think will read such a deep analysis?”)… Alik Gershon: And at the end a lot of them were left out of the book. So I was right… Igor Nor: Only partially: it is easier to remove things when you have found the truth than the opposite… Anyway, we are not so young anymore and it was clear we are not the first to think how to make the book the most interesting for the readers. So there is a good chance we also will not be the first to fail to do so. Thus at some point we just decide to adopt the old saying of the great Freddie Mercury “Talent will out, my dears”. For us it meant that if we will be good enough to make ourselves happy about this book, there will hopefully be other people who will not be able to ignore such a serious effort. Alik Gershon: And you can take our word for it, that to make us happy, especially one of us, is such a difficult task, that the Freddie assumption had to work in this case.
We worked a lot to bring this book to a condition we could both agree was “OK”, but then the Quality chess guys got into the picture and made us work even more. After all this, we were just too tired to think the book could fail. This is your first chess book. With the reception it has received it is natural to ask if you are wanting to go on further adventures in the world of chess writing, or if you have had enough. Igor Nor: Further… Alik Gershon: Enough… Igor Nor: Well, we are not completely agreed here and need to think… Alik Gershon: In fact at this moment we have interesting ideas, but I still need to be convinced that working on those projects is not going to ruin our personal lives.
Let us go back a bit. You speak about old tournament books and about taking what is best from these for San Luis 2005. Why do you think that tournament books went out of fashion, and do you think that the success of San Luis 2005 marks the beginning of a revival? (Already we have seen Topalov and his team write about the Elista match and Bareev write about Kramnik’s matches.) Alik Gershon: In Russian those books never stopped. At some point in the 90s they almost hadn’t published any at all, but when they survived the crisis the book returned. Even Kasparov-Kramnik match got a book by GM Sergey Shipov. And probably another reason is that in those years Kasparov dominated so mightily that most of the matches were irrelevant from the sporting point of view. Igor Nor: In my opinion, the right question is why those books didn’t succeed. The immodest answer is that no one wanted to work hard enough to make his book a qualitative one. It seems that there are too many authors that are convinced that it is enough they are writing something to attract people. We didn’t have this mania before this success and we don’t have it now. At the same time I must admit that in my opinion the tournament books are to be rated above all other chess books. My first trainer always told me not to copy any opening top players use unless they do it in the most important events. The reason is: only in those events will the best players show their secrets. If Kasparov game after game avoids the Marshal, he has a reason and the other players will know it too. Hence this opening is worth playing. If it was dodgy Kasparov would show the problematic line. Alik Gershon: Take San Luis for example, where some positions proved themselves as success stories, and some will probably not be played anymore on the high level (like in Kasimdzhanov-Anand, Svidler-Topalov and so on…). But what is most important for me is the great tension in those tournaments. Not just “another” Berlin in yet another round robin. This is money time, and that brings some interesting, previously hidden qualities out of the players.
Let us try to jump forward a bit. The tournament in San Luis 2005 was meant to be the tournament that healed the chess world, but it didn’t. Then the match in Elista was supposed to do the same, but when Kramnik won it was suddenly Topalov who was left out of the Mexico World Championship. Now we will have three matches to decide the ultimate World Champion once again. What is your opinion on the current state of affairs in the chess world? Alik Gershon: At this moment there is a clear world champion and it is Anand. Everybody, including Kramnik, agree with it, and this situation would most likely not have happened without the San Luis tournament. Hopefully, after the current cycle there will finally be order. Igor Nor: I might surprise some, but I really think that this intermediate temporary cycle is the best we can have. Unlike some respectable gentlemen (Mark Dvoretsky, for example), I don’t believe in all those knockouts and I think chess needs an undisputed king. So the match at the end looks as the most appropriate way to avoid an accidental champion. Same time, Round-Robin looks like the best way to find a good candidate. Moreover, it could be a good idea to allow the champion to participate in the candidates tournament – so he will be able to prevent a match if he wins. The same happened this time, but by mistake… Alik Gershon: Nigel Short will probably say here that anything good FIDE is able to do is by mistake (of course, he will say it in a more fancy way ). Personally, I don't think there is one perfect system, neither for chess fans, nor for the players as a whole. The bottom line, it's all down to the participants. Some feel more comfortable with one system, some with the other – it will always be this way. I suspect nobody could claim the KK matches, starting with their second one, to be boring, even though they weren't played with fast time controls, and even with adjournments (and none of them could be knocked out after two games), but then you have their first match, and Brisaggo... All in all, what the system has to take care of is to allow the most appropriate candidates at least to have a chance to play against the champion, and to allow for that champion, coming out of this system to feel legitimate Igor Nor: And this was not the situation a few years ago while Kasparov was still playing…
The three judges in the English Chess Federations Book of the Year committee had the following to say about San Luis 2005: Tournament books have been an integral and important part of chess literature. They show both how chess was played and how it could be played. Three classics spring to mind: New York 1924 by Alekhine, Moscow –Leningrad 1942 by Botwinnik and Zurich 1953 by Bronstein. The latter is regarded by many as the best chess book ever written. However in the last two decades tournament books have become rare events, no doubt due to the work involved in this computer age.
San Luis 2005, an exceptional tournament which saw Topalov crowned as FIDE World Champion, deserved a permanent record. The two authors have put in a tremendous effort, seeking to find a correct analytical evaluation of every game. But there is much more to the book than that: forewards by Veselin Topalov and Nigel Short, the latter being sharply observant as always, a preface by Mihail Marin and various end papers which both salute Topalov’s victory and vigorously debunk conspiracy theories. San Luis would probably have won Book of the Year 2007 on the strength of the above alone, but it is greatly enhanced by the production values. The numerous photographs both in and out of the tournament hall are exceptional and give the reader a real insight into the tournament environment. All in all, a splendid book which matches its great predecessors in analytical content but far exceeds them in presentation and layout. This is an outstanding book in every way.
San Luis 2005 is for sale in Europe for 29.99 euro, in the UK for 19.99 pounds and in the US for 39.95 dollars at most outlets. It is also available at www.qualitychess.co.uk An excerpt of San Luis 2005 (321 kb) can be found at this link: http://www.qualitychessbooks.com/uploadimages/39492.3864 495371SanLuis2editionpage41-51.pdf
Karpov’s Strategic Wins 1 The Making of a Champion By
Tibor Karolyi
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Preface Bibliography 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Epilogue Classification Game Index by Page Number Game Index by Karpov’s Opponents Alphabetical Game Index – Non-Karpov Games Name Index Statistics Scores against Individual Opponents Tournament Record
4 5 6 7 13 21 25 29 33 45 61 77 97 111 125 143 159 195 213 235 255 269 289 309 327 353 379 417 439 440 442 447 449 451 456 457 458
Preface Anatoly Karpov, the twelfth World Chess Champion, is one of the greatest players of all time and the holder of a number of records. No other player in history has won so many high-level individual tournaments. Karpov also achieved the best ever tournament performance in winning the 1994 Linares tournament with an incredible 11/13, two and a half points ahead of the second and third placed Kasparov and Shirov. These records are the most impressive but they are not the only ones. Of all the World Champions, Karpov is the one who participated in the largest number of World Championship finals. He is also the only player to have won the title of World Champion in three different ways. The most significant is of course when he reigned between 1975 and 1985. He also won the 1997-98 FIDE World Championship. What is less well known is that he was the winner of the only World Rapid Chess Championship in Mazatlan 1988. Karpov may well be the player who earned the most money through chess, although it is impossible to establish this with any certainty. Together with Nick Aplin I wrote a book entitled Endgame Virtuoso: Anatoly Karpov, published by New in Chess in 2007. During the selection of games for that book came the realization that Karpov’s games are so rich as to be worthy of deep investigation from just one particular angle. The primary aim of the present two-volume work is to show the reader, in chronological order, how Karpov outplayed his opponents by strategic means. Karpov’s strategic genius has been well documented by many chess writers, but according to my best knowledge not a single book has been written on the subject in such depth as can be found in these pages. The twelfth World Champion is best known as a “python” who could slowly squeeze the life out of his opponent, but over the course of the two volumes we will see plenty of examples of his tactical sharpness as well. Games involving a quick attack on the opponent’s king have been omitted, as they do not fit in with the overall theme of the book, but let me quash any misconceptions about Karpov being a one-dimensional player. When the situation on the board demanded it, he could attack with as much ferocity as almost anyone else. A number of Karpov’s games which culminated in interesting endgames have been omitted from this project, as they have already been discussed in the Endgame Virtuoso book. My conclusion from the work on both the present project and the aforementioned endgame book is that Karpov’s little-known games often contain at least as much instructive and artistic value as his more famous wins. In this book I have tried to give priority to the beauty and educational value of his strategic masterpieces. Over the coming pages I will identify the tools he uses and highlight the features that characterize his play. Many have called Karpov the greatest strategic player of all time. I invite the readers to become acquainted with his masterpieces and decide for themselves whether this view is justified.
1961 Anatoly Evgenevich Karpov, the twelfth world chess champion, was born on 23 May 1951 in the city of Zlatoust, located in the Urals region of Russia. He learned to play chess at the age of four with his father Evgeny Stepanovich, a chief engineer. It may or may not be a coincidence that many of the world champions came from single parent families. Karpov was an exception; he grew up in a normal family environment with his parents and one sister. Karpov’s exceptional chess talent shone almost from the start. He became a second and then a first category player at the age of just nine. His first recorded games for the public are from 1961. We will take the year 1961 as the starting point for our study of Karpov’s career, as his first games in the database are from that year. The biggest event in the broader chess world was the Tal – Botvinnik rematch, in which the fifty year old Botvinnik regained the highest title for the last time. Most of Karpov’s games from 1961 were played in his home city, although he also competed in several other Russian cities including Borovichi, Magnitogorstk and Chelyabinsk. This exposure shows that he and his supporters were already taking chess seriously at that time. It is not possible to work out from the database whether the Zlatoust games were played in one tournament or whether these are selected games from that particular year. He did not handle openings in a well educated way, although with Black he played one main Ruy Lopez Chigorin variation with ...¦d8 and a ...d5 pawn sacrifice. His generally slow handling of the opening caused his games to last longer on average than they did in the later part of his career. He already followed reasonable plans, although of course opponents’ blunders played a more significant role than in later years. Here is our first game. A database search reveals no further games on the part of his opponent.
Game 1 Anatoly Karpov – Gaimaletdinov Zlatoust 1961
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 d6 4.d4 ¥g4 5.d5 a6 6.¥xc6†?! White could have given up the bishop under better circumstances: 6.¥a4 b5 7.dxc6 bxa4 8.c4 f5 9.h3 ¥h5 (or 9...¥xf3 10.£xf3 fxe4 11.£xe4 ¤f6 12.£c2 and White is better) 10.exf5 e4 11.g4 ¥f7 12.£e2 d5 13.¤e5 White got a clear advantage in Dvoretsky – Biriukov, USSR 1973.
8
The Making of a Champion
It is also promising to keep the bishop: 6.¥e2!? ¥xf3 (6...¤ce7 7.h3 ¥d7 8.c4 is also better for White) 7.gxf3! ¤d4 (7...¤ce7 8.f4) 8.¥f1 And White will carry out f3-f4 with better prospects. 6...bxc6 7.dxc6
7...h6? This move is obviously too slow, just like the whole plan with which Black intends to capture the c6-pawn. Instead he should play 7...¤e7, regaining the pawn with a good game. 8.0–0 On 8.£d3 ¤e7 comes. 8...¤f6 9.£d3 ¥e7 10.¤c3 0–0
11.¤d2! A subtle move; the young Anatoly wants to defend the c6-pawn without allowing his opponent to double his pawns on the kingside. 11...£e8 So Black wants to take the c6-pawn with the queen. 12.£c4! ¦b8 13.¤b3 ¦b6
14.¤a5! The position is closed, so White can afford to spend a fourth tempo with the knight to defend it. Besides, the black rook is misplaced on b6. 14...¢h7?! This is too slow. Black should have preferred 14...¥e6 15.£d3 ¤h5 16.f3 £d8 17.b3 ¥g5 when White only has a small edge. 15.b3 ¥e6 16.£d3 ¤h5 17.¦d1?! It is difficult to understand why Karpov moved his rook to this square. He may have wanted to vacate the f1-square for the queen in the event of 17...¤f4. 17...f5 18.f3!? It is remarkable that he refrains from winning a tempo with the natural 18.¥e3. He probably
1961
Anatoly Karpov – Gaimaletdinov
had a different plan in mind to hurt the rook on b6.
18...f4? Black closes the kingside, hoping for a pawn storm that will never happen. Both of the following alternatives would have kept the game more interesting: 18...£g6 19.¤d5! 19.¥e3 ¤f4 20.£d2 (20.¥xf4 exf4 21.¤d5 fxe4 22.¤xe7 exd3 23.¤xg6 ¢xg6 24.cxd3 ¦f5 Black is very active) 20...fxe4 21.fxe4 ¦bb8 22.¦f1 It is not easy to for White to make his extra pawn count. 19...¥xd5 20.exd5 e4 21.£e2 ¦b5
22.a4!! It is a lovely way to showcase the theme of the misplaced rook.
9
22.¤b7 ¥f6 23.¦b1 ¥c3 is not so convincing. 22...¦bb8 22...¦xa5!? is possible, although after 23.b4 ¥f6 24.¦a3 ¥b2 25.¥xb2 ¤f4 26.£f1 ¦xd5 27.¦xd5 e3! 28.¦xe3 ¤xd5 29.¦e1 ¤xb4 30.£c4 a5 31.¦e7 White keeps a nice edge. 23.¤c4 23.f4!? also looks promising. 23...¥f6 24.¦b1 exf3 25.£xf3 Black does not have enough for the pawn. 18...fxe4 Opening the position at once was probably Black’s best chance. 19.£xe4† (19.fxe4 £g6) 19...¢g8 (After 19...£g6 20.£xg6† ¢xg6 21.¥e3 ¦bb8 22.¤d5 Black has little to show for the pawn.) 20.¤d5 (20.¥e3 is also good) 20...¤f6 21.¤xf6† ¥xf6 22.c4 White extra pawn should be worth more than Black’s activity. 19.¤d5 ¥xd5 20.exd5† ¢h8
21.¤b7! The knight may not attack anything here, but is serves an important function in trapping the black rook. 21...¥f6 22.¦b1 £f7 23.a4! ¥g5 24.a5! ¦b4 25.c3 ¦b5
10
The Making of a Champion
26.c4! Karpov completes his plan and the rook perishes. The rest should be simple. 26...¦xb7 27.cxb7 ¦b8 28.b4 ¦xb7 29.b5 axb5 30.cxb5 £e8 31.£c4 £a8 32.£c6 £a7† 33.b6 cxb6 34.axb6 £a6 35.¥d2? Missing an opportunity to end the game with 35.£e8†!, winning the knight on h5. 35...¤f6
36.£xd6 36.¥e1!? e4 (36...¤g8 37.¥f2) 37.h4 wins without giving any counterchances. Karpov has such an overwhelming advantage that he can win in any way he chooses. In the game he
certainly did not finish off his opponent in the most efficient way, but he always maintained a winning advantage. 36...e4 37.¥xf4?! 37.fxe4 was simpler, as 37...¤xe4? loses to 38.£f8† ¢h7 39.£f5†. 37...¥xf4 38.£xf4 exf3 39.£xf3 39.d6!? was also possible. 39...¦xb6 40.¦xb6 £xb6† 41.¢h1 £d6 42.h3 42.£g3 was also fine. 42...¢h7 43.£e2 ¤g8 44.£e6 £xe6 45.dxe6 ¤f6 46.e7? 46.¦d8! ¢g6 47.¦f8 wins very simply. 46...¢g8 47.¦e1 ¢f7 48.¢h2 ¢e8
49.¦e5 It is worth mentioning the line 49.¦e6 ¢f7 (49...¤g8 50.¦g6 wins easily) 50.¦xf6†!? gxf6 51.¢g3 ¢xe7 52.¢g4 ¢f7 53.h4! White wins here but there was no practical value in playing like this. 49...¤g8 50.¢g3 ¤xe7 Winning the e7-pawn enables Black to resist for a while, but he is lost anyway. If Black had
1961
Anatoly Karpov – Gaimaletdinov
a light-squared bishop instead of the knight, the win would require skilful technique. 51.¢g4 ¢f7 52.h4 ¤g8 53.¢f4 ¢f6 54.g4 ¤e7
11
55.h5 g5† 55...¤g8 56.¦a5 ¤e7 57.¦a7 ¢f7 58.¢e5 ¢f8 59.¢e6 wins. 56.¢e4 ¢f7 57.¦a5 ¤g8 58.¢e5 ¢g7 59.¦a7† ¢h8 60.¢e6 1–0 This was a remarkable performance for a ten year old. He made the win a bit harder than it should have been, but overall he played the whole game impressively.
1961 Summary The database contains eighteen games from this year, of which Karpov won twelve, drew five and lost only one. It is likely that his overall results were lower and Karpov publicized only his best games from the early period of his life. Even so, his play was undoubtedly at a high level for a ten year old.
Karpov’s Strategic Wins 2 The Prime Years By
Tibor Karolyi
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Preface Bibliography 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Epilogue Classification Game Index by Page Number Game Index by Karpov’s Opponents Alphabetical Game Index – Non-Karpov Games Name Index Statistics Tournament Record
4 5 6 7 33 61 97 121 147 175 219 265 293 343 375 401 413 433 447 453 477 491 505 513 523 533 541 549 555 557 559 565 567 569 575 576
Preface In this, the second volume, we will continue our investigation into Karpov’s strategic victories, from the time when he lost his World Championship title at the end of 1985 until the end of the year 2010. In the first volume we saw that during the ten-year period from 1975-1985, Karpov not only held the highest title in chess, but also dominated the tournament circuit more convincingly than any other player in chess history. And yet, despite being one of the greatest world champions of all time, it was only after losing his title that Karpov played his very best chess. During his decade-long reign as World Champion, Karpov worked hard but he already stood head and shoulders above the other leading grandmasters. But when the young Garry Kasparov took over as the dominant force in the chess world, everything changed. Kasparov was able to do what no other player could. By defeating Karpov in their second championship match (after their first match was aborted, as explained on page 417 of the first volume), he forced Karpov to work harder than he ever had before in an effort to reclaim his title. Steel sharpens steel, and in the present book we will see how both of these titans were able to raise their respective levels in an effort to outdo the other. Despite his colossal efforts, Karpov was unable to reclaim the coveted crown from his nemesis. Nevertheless, in terms of his overall skill as a chess player, Karpov’s prime years occurred only after his reign as World Champion had ended. By the end of the 1980s Karpov’s level had begun to drop slightly, although he remained the number two player in the world until well into the 1990s. Indeed, his greatest tournament success, which is widely considered the most impressive tournament performance of all time, occurred in 1994. As the years went by, Karpov was gradually superseded by the next generation of supergrandmasters, but he continued to achieve excellent results and produced a host of beautiful games along the way. Without further ado, I invite the reader to continue his voyage of discovery into the prime years of Karpov’s career.
1986 Rating 2700 (2 in the world) For the first time in more than a decade, Anatoly Karpov began the year without holding the title of World Champion. Having lost his crown, he must have spent some time contemplating his future. Faced with the same situation, many players would probably have accepted that there had been a changing of the guard, and settled down to enjoy life as a millionaire and a national hero. Not so Anatoly Karpov. Luckily for the game of chess, he decided to focus all his efforts on reclaiming his title. He must have known that it would take a phenomenal amount of work, since Kasparov was not only a marvellous player, he was also only twenty two years of age and was only going to get better. Karpov was already thirty four, so if he was being realistic he would have known he had roughly five or six years in which to achieve his goal. One of the conditions of his last match with Kasparov was that, in the event of Karpov’s defeat, he would be guaranteed a rematch. It was scheduled for later in 1986, but before that time Karpov participated in a few other tournaments. Karpov’s first event of the year was the SWIFT tournament in Brussels. He started with a draw against Torre, then defeated Timman after the Dutchman failed to find the best defence in a long endgame. A fairly quick draw with Romanishin followed. In Round 4 Van der Wiel tried the Dely Gambit, but Karpov had done some work since his match with Kasparov and he unveiled a strong novelty which yielded a clear advantage. But Van der Wiel defended stubbornly and eventually salvaged half a point after Karpov missed some chances. How Karpov must have wished he could have found the right antidote to the gambit in time to use it against Kasparov! In Round 5 Karpov drew quickly with Korchnoi, but then he switched into top gear and amazingly won each and every one of his last six games! His win against Ljubojevic was mentioned in the notes to Game 72 in the first volume. Then after beating the Belgian IM Jadoul on the black side of a Hedgehog, he met another local player, Luc Winants, who scored one point out of six games against world champions.
Game 1
Luc Winants – Anatoly Karpov Brussels 1986
1.d4 ¤f6 2.¤f3 e6 3.e3 c5 Fifteen years earlier Karpov carried out a similar plan via a different move order: 3...b6 4.¥d3 ¥b7 5.¤bd2 c5 6.0–0 cxd4 7.exd4 ¥e7 8.b3 0–0 9.¥b2 ¤c6 10.a3 £c7 11.¦e1 ¦ac8 12.c4 d5
8
The Prime Years
13.¦c1 ¦fd8 14.£e2 dxc4 15.bxc4 £f4 16.g3 £h6 17.¦c2 £h5 18.£f1 ¦c7 19.¥e2 £f5 20.¥d3 £h5 21.¥e2 ½–½ Platonov – Karpov, Leningrad 1971. 4.¥d3 cxd4 With this early exchange Karpov avoids a symmetrical pawn structure. 5.exd4 b6 6.0–0 ¥b7 7.c4 ¥e7 8.¤bd2 0–0 9.b3 d5 Karpov opts for a position with hanging pawns; he has great experience with this formation. 10.¥b2
10...¤c6 Karpov chooses the main line. Interestingly, he played the position after 10...¤e4 with both colours during his career: a) 11.¦e1 Karpov used this move to defeat Andersson twice, but then he abandoned it after Portisch came up with the following equalizing line: 11...¤xd2 12.¤xd2 ¤d7 13.¤f3 ¦c8 14.¦c1 ¦e8 15.£e2 ¥d6 16.£e3 dxc4 17.bxc4 £c7 18.g3 ¤f6 19.¥f1 £b8 20.¥g2 ¤d7 21.£d3 ¦cd8 22.¤g5 ¤f6 23.d5 e5 24.¤e4 ¤xe4 25.¥xe4 g6= Karpov – Portisch, Malta (ol) 1980.
b) Seventeen years later Karpov tested the same line from the opposite side of the board: 11.¤e5 ¤xd2 12.£xd2 ¤d7 13.f4 ¦c8 14.¦ae1 ¦c7 15.£e2 g6 16.£e3
16...¤f6! The knight transfer to e4 equalizes as it will be hard for White to build an attack. 17.f5? White embarks on an unsound attack. 17...exf5 18.¥xf5 gxf5 19.£g5† ¢h8 20.¦xf5 ¥c8 21.¦f4 ¤g4 Black defended successfully and went on to win with his extra piece, Lobron – Karpov, Frankfurt (rapid) 1997. 11.£e2 £d6 This prepares an interesting plan based on the transfer of the queen to the kingside.
12.¦ad1 A more purposeful continuation was 12.¦ac1! with the idea of a3 and later c5. It
1986
Luc Winants – Anatoly Karpov
looks like Winants was expecting Karpov to exchange on c4, but the former champion postponed it for a long time. It is worth noting that White cannot play 12.¤e5? due to 12...¤xd4! when Black wins material. 12...¦ac8 13.¦fe1 13.¤e5 was possible, although after 13...dxc4 (13...¤xd4?? does not work here, as after 14.¥xd4 dxc4 15.¤dxc4 the bishop on d4 is poisoned.) 14.¤dxc4 £d5 Black is not worse in this IQP middlegame. 13...£f4!? The queen vacates the centre. She will help to fortify the black kingside, while making way for the rooks to attack White’s hanging pawn centre. 14.g3 It was worth considering 14.£e3!? £xe3 15.fxe3 when White’s pawn centre has been strengthened, although he has no real advantage. 14...£h6
15.£f1?! This is too artificial. Winants retreats the
9
queen in order to prepare h3 and g4, but he never gets enough time to carry out the plan. Correct was 15.¤e5 ¦fd8 16.¤df3 ¤xe5 (16...¤e4!?) 17.¤xe5 (If 17.dxe5?! dxc4 18.¥xc4 ¤d5 Black is a bit better.) 17...¥b4 18.¦f1 reaching a balanced position, rich in chances for both sides. 15...¦fd8 Karpov calmly completes his development. 16.h3?! White continues with his faulty plan. With hindsight, it was worth considering the prophylactic 16.a3. It would have been interesting to see how Karpov would have responded. There are several reasonable options: a) 16...¤g4!? The threat of ...dxc4 followed by ...¤xd4 provokes a further pawn move on the kingside. 17.cxd5 (another possibility is 17.h3 dxc4 18.bxc4 ¤f6) 17...¦xd5 18.h3 ¦h5 19.h4 ¦d5 Black has a good game, but he has not achieved anything special. b) 16...g5!? Black wants to drive the knight away from its defence of the d4-pawn. The idea is interesting, but not at all in Karpov’s style. After 17.cxd5 ¤xd5 18.¤e5 the position is about equal. c) 16...g6 17.h3 dxc4 (there is also 17...£f8!? 18.c5 a5) 18.bxc4 £f8 19.¦a1 ¤e8 Black intends to increase the pressure on the d4pawn with ...¥f6. d) 16...¦c7 This type of small improving move was typical of Karpov’s style. 17.h3 (If 17.¤e5? ¤xe5 18.dxe5 ¤g4 19.h3 ¤xf2! Black takes over.) 17...¦dc8 18.¤e5 The position remains balanced after 18...g6 or 18...¤xe5 19.dxe5 ¤d7 20.cxd5 ¥xd5.
10
The Prime Years
16...¥b4! Positions with hanging pawns are similar to those with an isolated pawn, in the sense that the opposing side should generally try to exchange minor pieces. Normally one would be hesitant to exchange a bishop for an enemy knight, but since White has weakened his kingside with g3, Karpov has devised a powerful strategy based on playing on the light squares. 17.¦e3 ¥xd2! Removing a defensive piece makes the latent power of the b7-bishop become real. 18.¦xd2? Winants either missed Karpov’s reply, or he did not fully appreciate its power. 18.¤xd2 was essential, although following 18...dxc4 (18...¤b4 does not achieve much after 19.¥b1) 19.¤xc4 £h5 20.a3 (20.¥e2 £f5) 20...£d5 Black has the upper hand. 18...¤b4! Suddenly White’s position is on the brink of collapse. 19.¤e5 White cannot save the bishop with 19.¥b1? as 19...dxc4 20.bxc4 ¥xf3 wins a piece.
Another idea was 19.¥c1 ¤xd3 20.¦exd3, but after 20...dxc4 21.bxc4 £h5 22.g4 £a5 Black dominates the light squares and is also well placed to attack the hanging pawns. 19...¤xd3 20.¦dxd3 After 20.¦exd3 ¤e4 21.¦c2 f6 22.¤f3 dxc4 (22...¦d7 is also strong) 23.bxc4 b5! Black secures his domination over the light squares. 24.¦b3 (24.c5 ¥c6) 24...¥d5 25.¦xb5 ¤d6 Black takes over. 20...¤e4 Winants probably did not anticipate the main point of this move. 21.¦d1?! It turns out that the rook is vulnerable on this square. The best chance for White to keep his position together was 21.¥c1! £h5 22.g4 £h4 23.¦d1 ¤g5 24.¦ed3 f6 25.¥xg5 £xg5 26.¤f3 £f4 although White is under pressure here too.
21...f6! The knight was well placed on e5, where it defended several vulnerable light squares. Once it is driven away, White will not be able to defend all his weaknesses. 22.¤g4 £h5 23.¤h2?
1986
Luc Winants – Anatoly Karpov
This loses quickly, but the game was already beyond saving. If 23.¢h2 dxc4 24.bxc4 f5 25.¤e5 ¤xf2 26.¦c1 ¤e4 Black wins. Also after 23.f3 ¤xg3 24.£g2 £h4 25.¦xe6 ¦e8! 26.¦de1 ¦xe6 27.¦xe6 ¢f7! 28.¦e1 ¤h5! Black wins material. 23...dxc4 24.bxc4
24...¦xc4! Exploiting the loose rook on d1. White is completely busted. 25.d5 ¦xd5 26.¤g4 ¤g5 0–1 Winants’ level has never been world class, but he is a good player and the way Karpov dismantled him was highly impressive. In the final three rounds Karpov defeated Seirawan, Zapata and Miles. He finished with an unbeaten 9/11, winning first prize by a two point margin ahead of Korchnoi. In many of his earlier tournaments Karpov had settled for draws in some games, provided they suited his tournament strategy. But by this stage in his career, it looks as though his rivalry with Kasparov may have motivated him to strive for an even higher level.
11
Karpov’s next tournament was in Bugojno, the scene of his 1978 match versus Korchnoi. He started by drawing with Spassky, then won a fine game against Yusupov. He drew comfortably with black against Timman, but then suffered an unpleasant defeat on the black side of a Zaitsev Ruy Lopez against Andrei Sokolov. This turned out to be one of the most beneficial losses of Karpov’s career, as it motivated him to learn the Caro-Kann, which became a mainstay of his repertoire and served him well for many years. Karpov immediately bounced back with a long endgame win over Ljubojevic, draws with Portisch and Miles, then a fine win over Spassky, which is referenced in the notes to Game 14 (Karpov – Mikliaev) of the first volume. Then he drew with Yusupov, won a hard fought game against Timman, and drew his final three games to win the tournament with 8½/14, a point clear of Sokolov.
Third World Championship match versus Kasparov As was customary in those days, the defeated champion was granted the right to a rematch. Once again it was contested over twenty four games. The first twelve games took place in London and the remaining twelve in Leningrad. It was the first time that a world championship match between two Soviet contenders did not take place solely within the Soviet Union. It was probably symptomatic of the fact that the superpower was in decline. The overall weakening of the Soviet Union had an impact on chess, as the state was unable to offer the same level of economic support to its most talented players. On Kasparov’s initiative, both players generously agreed to donate the prize fund from the London half of the match to help the victims of the Chernobyl disaster, which occurred in April of 1986.
32
1986 Summary Brussels (1st place): 9/11 (+7 =4 –0) Bugojno (1st place): 8½/14 (+4 =9 –1) World Championship match versus Kasparov, London/Leningrad: Lost 11½–12½ (+4 =15 –5) Tilburg (3rd place): 7½/14 (+2 =11 –1) Dubai Olympiad (Board two): 6/9 (+4 =4 –1) Vienna (2nd-3rd place): 6/9 (+3 =6 –0)
Total 59.9% (+24 =49 –8)
Wins
Draws
Losses
Chapter 7 – Introduction and 5.¥c4
GAME 2 Magnus Carlsen – Wang Yue Kings’ Tournament 2010
1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 exf4 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.¥c4 ¤xd5 6.0–0 ¥e7
7.¥xd5?! Even at this point this move is not much good. 7.¤c3 and 7.d4 are considered in games xxx and xxx respectively. 7...£xd5 8.¤c3 £d8! Compared with the previous game, Black should modify his approach. 8...£f5
263
In this particular position this move is slightly less precise, though it remains quite playable. 9.d4 9.¦e1 ¥e6 10.d4 c6 11.¦e5 £g6 12.¥xf4 ¤d7 was roughly equal in Gulbe – Petrov, e-mail 1999. 9...0–0 10.¤e5
10...g5?! This move is principled, but it carries obvious risks. 10...¤d7 11.¥xf4² Hresc – Pinkas, Werfen 1994. 10...f6!N 11.¦xf4 £e6 12.¤d3 £f7÷ looks like Black’s best option. 11.¤d5 Gaining time against the bishop and preparing a sacrifice on f4. 11...¥d8 The alternative is 11...¥d6N 12.¥xf4! gxf4 13.¦xf4 £g5 when White’s best idea looks to be:
3.¤f3 d5
264
14.¤f6†! (14.£d3 £h6 15.¦af1 f5 16.¦4f3 ¢h8 17.¦h3 £g7 18.¦g3 £h6 19.¦h3 £g7 20.¦g3 is a draw.) 14...¢h8 15.£d3 £h6 16.g3! Threatening to plant the rook on h4. (After 16.¦af1 White has a strong initiative for the sacrificed piece, but the outcome is still not clear.)
16...¥xe5 17.dxe5 £g6 18.£e3 ¥e6 19.¦h4 ¤d7 20.¤xh7 £xh7 21.¦xh7† ¢xh7 22.¦d1 ¦ad8 23.¦d4 ¢g6² White has at least a draw here, but he has reason to play for more.
12.¤xf4!N Much better than 12.c4? ¤d7 13.¤d3 c6 14.¤c3 £g6µ as in Koller – Jakel, Germany 2010. 12...gxf4 13.¥xf4 White may not have a forced win, but he obviously has excellent attacking chances for the piece. A possible continuation is: 13...£e6 14.£d2 ¤d7 15.¦ae1 ¥f6 16.¦f3‚ Black will have a hard time dealing with the attack.
9.d4 0–0? Much too timid! Better is: 9...g5! This principled move has seldom been played, but I have not been able to find any good ideas against it. 10.h4 10.£e1 0–0µ Hague – Dilleigh, West Bromwich 2003. 10.¦e1 0–0µ Cross – Vnukov, e-mail 1999. 10.¤e5 0–0 11.¤e4 ¥f5 12.£d3 £d5 13.¦e1 ¤c6µ Brazina – Karhanek, Prerov 1995. 10.¤xg5!?N ¥xg5 11.¥xf4 (or 11.£e2†) gives White some compensation for the missing piece, although I have a hard time believing in it. 10... h6 11.¤e4 Bromberger – Fischer, Bayern 2004. 11...0–0Nµ White does not have enough for the missing pawn – simple as that. 10.¥xf4 White should be slightly better from here. His lead in development, extra central pawn and open f-file should count for slightly more than Black’s bishop pair. 10...¥f5 10...c6 11.£d3 has been played in some games. Here too the evaluation hangs somewhere in the balance between equal and slightly better for White.
Chapter 7 – Introduction and 5.¥c4 11.£e2 Another direction is 11.£d2 c6 as in Fedorov – Svidler, Smolensk 2000, and now 12.¦ae1N looks consistent. 11...¥d6 Another possibility is: 11...¤c6 12.¦ad1 ¦e8 (12...£d7!?N looks like a better chance to equalize) 13.£b5! £c8!N (13...£d7?! 14.d5 ¤b4 15.d6! £xb5 16.¤xb5² R. Jones – Abdulla, Mallorca 2004.) 14.¦de1 (14.¤d5 ¥d6 15.¥xd6 cxd6 16.¦de1 £d7=) 14...a6 15.£b3 and White keeps a modest edge. 12.¥xd6 £xd6 13.¤b5 £d8 14.c4² White has emerged with a pleasant advantage thanks to his extra space, central pawn majority and freer development: a success from the opening, although we have seen in the note to move 9 that Black could have done much better. This game received considerable attention from numerous commentators in the chess press, and since I have no wish to take up space reproducing the analysis of others, I will keep the remaining comments brief.
14...a6 14...c6 15.¤c3 ¤d7 16.¦ae1² 15.¤c3 ¤d7 16.¦ad1 ¥g6 17.£f2 ¦e8 18.h3 White continues to build his position patiently. 18...¦c8 19.¦fe1 ¦xe1† 20.¦xe1 c6
265
21.d5?! Slightly premature. White could have kept a pleasant edge with 21.a3 ¤f6 22.¤e5². 21...¤f6 21...cxd5! 22.cxd5 £c7 23.£d4 £d6= would have enabled Black to equalize. 22.£d4 22.dxc6! ¦xc6 23.£a7 ¦xc4 24.£xb7 £c8 25.¦d1² would have maintained an edge for White. 22...cxd5 23.¤xd5 ¤xd5 24.cxd5 £d6 Black is more or less equal here, but Carlsen manages to squeeze the maximum from the position.
266
3.¤f3 d5
25.¤e5 ¦e8?! 25...f6! 26.¤xg6 hxg6 27.¦e6 ¦c1† (27...£c5=) 28.¢f2 ¦c2† 29.¢f3 £d7= is equal. 26.¦e3 ¦d8 27.¤c4 £f6 28.¦e5 28.£xf6 gxf6 29.¦e7² 28...h6? 28...b5! 29.¤a5 h6 would have kept the d-pawn restrained.
29.d6! ¥f5 29...b5 30.d7! ¢h7 31.¤b6± 30.¤b6 ¥e6?! 30...¥d3! 31.d7 ¥b5 32.a4 £f1† 33.¢h2 ¥c6 34.£d2² 31.d7!± Now Black is almost paralysed and Carlsen converts his advantage smoothly. 31...¢h8 32.a4 g6 33.£c3 ¢g7 34.a5 h5 35.h4 ¦xd7 35...¢g8 36.¦c5± £xc3 37.¦xc3 ¢f8 38.¦c7 ¢e7 39.¦xb7 ¥xd7 40.¦a7+– 36.¤xd7 ¥xd7 37.£d4+– ¥c6 38.b4 ¥b5 39.¢h2 ¥a4 40.¦d5 ¥c6 41.£xf6† ¢xf6 42.¦c5 ¢e6 43.¢g3 f6 44.¢f2 ¥d5 45.g3 g5?! Allowing a quick finish.
46.g4! hxg4 47.h5 ¥e4 48.¦c7 f5 49.h6 f4 50.h7 g3† 51.¢e1 f3 52.h8=£ f2† 53.¢e2 ¥d3† 54.¢e3 1–0 Although the final result was a success for White, the position after 7.¥xd5?! £xd5 8.¤c3 £d8! looks more than satisfactory for Black, and after the improvement 9...g5! I was unable to find anything decent for White. In the next game we will turn our attention to a different approach after 6.0–0 ¥e7.
GAME 2 Vadim Zvjaginsev – Evgeny Tomashevsky Ulan Ude 2009
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.¤f3 ¤e7 4.¥c4 d5 5.exd5 ¤xd5 6.0–0 ¥e7 7.¤c3 This seems like a better try than 7.¥xd5, and it can be compared with 6.¤c3!? as featured in Game xxx in the next chapter.
7...¤xc3 Black can consider some other moves as well. 7...¤b6 8.¥b3 0–0 8...c5?! 9.d3² g5? allows White to launch a dangerous attack:
Learn from the Legends Chess Champions at their Best
Mihail Marin Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
Contents
Bibliography Forewords
4 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Akiba Rubinstein’s Rook Endings Alexander Alekhine and the Fourth Phase of the Game In the Patriarch’s Footsteps Tal’s Super Rooks vs. Two Minor Pieces Petrosian’s Exchange Sacrifices Bobby Fischer’s Pet Bishop Karpov’s Opposite Coloured Bishops Endings Viktor, the “Non-Existent” Hero
9 69 95 123 149 199 233 263
Biographies of Our Heroes Index of Games
317 330
Akiba Rubinstein’s Rook Endings
Chapter One: Akiba Rubinstein’s Rook Endings
11
When, at the age of 18, it became clear that I had no other choice but to join the glorious Romanian army, some older friends warned me that the main thing I had to avoid was dying of boredom. As a future student of the Polytechnic Institute I had been assigned to a technical division, which meant that I would spend most of the daytime in a classroom where nothing special was going to happen. (Indeed, most of my colleagues-in-arms used this time to sleep, with their heads on the tables. A few others would chat in low voices while even fewer would write letters to their beloved young ladies). Following my friends’ advice, I decided that I would spend the time available learning the Russian language; even then I already had a good collection of Soviet chess books, but could not take full advantage of it, since the linguistic barrier was rather difficult to overcome. I took with me a pocket dictionary and a carefully selected book (the criteria were: it had to be not too thick, in order to be easy to carry and hide; to be printed in hard cover in order to survive possible accidents; finally, it could not be one of the best books in my library, to avoid endless regrets in case of deterioration, loss, or confiscation by one of my superiors). The main plan ended in total success: nine months later when, much to my relief, I became a civilian again, I felt able to read and understand most of my Russian chess books. And yet, there was something that I had not foreseen: the “carefully selected book” which I had carried so many times from the dormitory to the classroom and back, hidden under the military robe, very close to my heart, had become my chess Bible. A book I would open again and again to see for the nth time one game or another. Some time ago, wishing to remember the good old days, I opened again that book: Akiba Rubinstein, written by Razuvaev and Murakhvery, and containing a biography and selected games of my classic idol. I was immediately struck by the same old feelings, but I also became curious: would the book stand up to the analysis of a more mature and critical eye? Much to my disappointment, it did not. I discovered that Razuvaev’s analysis contained countless mistakes or omissions and very little original work. But when I admitted this as a fact, I realized it had nothing to do with Rubinstein’s games: they provided me with the same feeling of clarity, fluency and logic as 20 years ago. I took it as my duty to publish my own commentaries on some of his games, and the obvious theme was his rook endgames: a great Akiba specialty. However, this is a book dedicated mainly to World Champions. Therefore, the reader might wonder why it opens with a chapter about the games of a player who did not even play a match for the supreme title? I shall try to explain that there is more to my decision than subjective memories. Until Alekhine’s death in 1946, the World Champion had the personal right to choose his challenger for the title. Was Akiba ever the best player? Akiba reached his peak of form in the years preceding the First World War. In 1909 he obtained one of his best results ever, sharing first place with Lasker in St Petersburg, 3½ points ahead of the field. This was the moment when public opinion started considering Rubinstein as the most likely challenger for the title. However, his magical year was 1912, when he won every single strong tournament he played in. These were long tournaments, with about 20 rounds to be played. Therefore, proving such absolute superiority was far from easy and, in fact, had no precedent since Morphy. Akiba’s performance should be put at the same level as Kasparov’s domination in the tournaments played around the turn of the millennium. Much to Akiba’s misfortune, the reigning champion in the pre-war years was Emanuel Lasker. Besides being a very strong player, Lasker knew how to take full advantage of the right to choose his opponent.
12
Learn from the Legends – Chess Champions at their Best
For instance, he practically forced Schlechter to play a match under scandalously unfair conditions (although it should be mentioned that even so he only retained his title with luck). Little wonder that he reigned for more than a quarter of a century. Although there is not much historical evidence about it, we can suppose that Lasker also did his best to delay the seemingly inevitable match against Akiba. After long negotiations, the match was scheduled for October 1914 but then the war came and chess life was practically frozen. Akiba’s nerves seem to have been seriously affected by the conflagration and, although he remained a fearsome opponent until his last important tournament (Prague Olympiad 1931), he was never the same player again. As a consequence he ceased to be, according to public opinion, a plausible challenger. However, since during one specific period Akiba was clearly the strongest player in the world, I feel entitled to include his masterpieces in this book. Rubinstein’s name is closely linked with the main lines of such openings as the Nimzo-Indian, the Queen’s Indian and the Tarrasch Defence. He invented several set-ups for Black that are still topical in the French Defence and the Ruy Lopez. He was also the first to play the modern Meran variation of the Semi-Slav defence. Opening expert or endgame virtuoso? Why is it then that I have focused on the endgames played by such a great opening expert? Rubinstein was probably the first great player to use the so-called long plans, lasting through the whole game, from the opening till the endgame. His opponents didn’t always understand Akiba’s monumental play and were only concerned with parrying the immediate threats. Only after the game was over, did it become clear that Rubinstein had planned the contours of the ensuing endgame from a very early stage. You will notice that more than once I have started analysing a game at an earlier moment than the endgame itself. There is also a complete game in this chapter. The reason for doing this is to illustrate the idea of the “long plan”. I have divided the material in accordance with the number of rooks present on board. As will soon become evident, this is more than a formal classification. Pure rook endings (one rook each) tend to be rather technical. Four-rook positions present far more tactical possibilities, although naturally they can also transpose to a pure rook ending. Rook endgames are not only the most common in practice, but also the most difficult to analyse. The rook is such a strong and mobile piece that it allows countless tactical possibilities and makes over-theboard calculation especially difficult. I have tried to point out in my annotations the moment when one of the players missed a win or a draw, but the probability of mistakes in my comments is quite great, precisely because of these difficulties. Rook endgames are well known for their drawish tendency. A material advantage of one or, in some extreme cases, two pawns is frequently difficult or even impossible to convert into a win. This does not really mean that Tartakower’s axiom “all rook endings are drawn” should be taken literally, however. The technical purpose of this chapter is to highlight those elements that mark a clear advantage for one of the players, with an elevated probability of resulting in a win. (I made the specification “technical” because another purpose, this time of a sentimental nature, is to pay tribute to Akiba). After a thorough study of Rubinstein’s games, I have developed a rough method for preliminary evaluation of rook endings. For each favourable element such as an extra pawn, spatial advantage, the more active rook or an important weakness in the enemy camp, one point is awarded. If the difference between the two sides is one point (scores such as 1–0, or 2–1) the position is clearly better but not necessarily winning. This marks a significant difference compared with pawn, same-colour bishop, or knight endgames where the score 1–0 (equivalent to an extra pawn) is usually sufficient for a win.
Chapter One: Akiba Rubinstein’s Rook Endings With the exception of some extreme cases (for instance, the ending with f- and h-pawns) a score of 2–0 or 3–1 should guarantee a win. The reader should understand that this system is only a guideline. It can help the practical player (and definitely helped me throughout the years) to choose one or another ending when simplifying from the middlegame, but should not be treated as an infallible rule. Some concrete advantage might weight much more than just one point, or on the contrary, have no real significance. We should take into account that a greater number of pawns present on the board would usually increase the winning chances, while a simplified position would normally help the defending side. This is an element that cannot be easily quantified. Besides, if chess were pure mathematics, it would be much less interesting. At the same time, if a rook ending is winning it does not necessarily mean that the player with an advantage will automatically win it. We shall see from the selected examples that good, sometimes even intricate, technique is needed. We shall make a further division between the situations where the stronger side has a material advantage and those where the superiority is only of a positional nature.
Converting a material advantage I Akiba Rubinstein – Emanuel Lasker St Petersburg 1909
13
An ideal situation for the stronger side is to have a minimal material advantage and some other kind of positional advantage. This is a specific example of the score 2–0. Lasker had sacrificed (or rather lost) a pawn in the opening, but his position looks rather active. In view of the threat …¦xe3, it would seem that he would have no problem regaining his pawn. Unless... 16.¦c1! Akiba simply continues his development, cutting off most of the black attack’s energy. 16...¦xe3 The prophylactic 16...¢b8 would give White an important tempo to develop his initiative: 17.¦c5 £f4 18.d5 ¦xe3 19.£c1! Just like in the game, this elegant move puts an end to Black’s hopes for counterplay. 19...¦e4 20.dxc6 bxc6 21.£c3 with a clear advantage for White, according to Lasker. 17.¦xc6† bxc6 18.£c1! It is worth mentioning that with the same intermediate move Rubinstein would later defeat another (this time, future) World Champion: Akiba Rubinstein – Jose Capablanca San Sebastian 1911
Black has built up strong pressure against the f2-pawn. In case of the timid 15.e3 he would consolidate his centre with 15...¦ad8, obtaining a perfectly viable position. Noticing the slightly hanging position of the black bishop and the
14
Learn from the Legends – Chess Champions at their Best
c8-rook, Rubinstein initiated a thematic tactical operation. 15.¤xd5!? £h6? Capablanca tries to solve by simple means a position that is basically quite complicated. Obviously, 15...exd5? loses material to 16.£xd5† ¢h8 17.¥xc8. Recently, a Russian amateur chess player named Sorokhtin discovered that 15...¥xf2† would have allowed Black to stay in the game, for instance 16.¢g2 £e5!. This is Sorokhtin’s improvement over the variation 16...£f7? 17.¤f4 given by Kasparov. For instance 17.¦xf2 ¦xf2† 18.¢xf2 ¦d8 19.¤e7† ¢h8 20.£b3 ¤xe7 21.£xe6 £d4† 22.¢g2 ¤d5 when the weakness of the white kingside as well as better piece coordination offers Black a reasonable game. 16.¢g2 ¦cd8 This was the move Capa relied on. 16...¥xf2 would be less efficient now because of 17.¤f4 for instance 17...¦cd8 18.£a4 when White will win the e6-pawn. 17.£c1! An elegant multi-purpose move. The queen escapes the unpleasant pin along the d-file, attacking the c5-bishop at the same time. By offering to be exchanged for the black queen, it also undermines the e6-square, making 17...¦xd5 impossible. 17...exd5 Black would lose quickly after 17...£xc1? 18.¥xe6† ¢h8 19.¦axc1, or 17...¦xd5? 18.£xh6 gxh6 19.¥xe6† with a huge material advantage for White in both cases. 18.£xc5 £d2 19.£b5 ¤d4 20.£d3 £xd3 21.exd3 with a safe pawn up for White, who went on to win the game. 1–0
Let us now return to Rubinstein – Lasker. (Position after 18.£c1)
18...¦xd4 18...¦e5 19.£xc6† ¢b8 20.dxe5 £xe5 21.¦c1 also looks winning for White due to Black’s weakened king’s position. 19.fxe3 ¦d7 19...¦d6 20.¦xf7 20.£xc6† ¢d8
21.¦f4! “A remarkable concept. White threatens to decide the game with a direct attack against the king: 22.£a8† ¢e7 (22...¢c7 23.¦c4†! also looks bad) 23.¦e4†. In order to avoid this, Black has to exchange queens, entering a lost endgame.” (Lasker). By means of this remarkable rook lift, White defends the e3-pawn and gains access to the e-line and to the queenside.
Chapter One: Akiba Rubinstein’s Rook Endings 21...f5 Relatively best. Black takes the e4-square under control. He would lose after 21...£a5 22.£a8† ¢e7 23.¦e4† ¢f6 24.£c6† ¢g5 25.h4†. The counterattack 21...¦d1† 22.¢f2 ¦d2† 23.¢e1 £xg2 would fail to 24.¦d4†! (overloading the rook) 24...¢e7 25.£d6† and White wins. Both lines were indicated by Lasker. 22.£c5 £e7 Now, 22...¦d1† 23.¢f2 ¦d2† 24.¢e1 £xg2 would simply lose the rook to 25.£a5†. 23.£xe7† Actually Fritz considers 23.£c3 to be equally strong, but that move would lead us to the next chapter. 23...¢xe7 24.¦xf5 ¦d1† 25.¢f2 Too passive would have been 25.¦f1 ¦d2 26.¦b1 ¦e2 with drawing chances for Black. 25...¦d2† 26.¢f3 ¦xb2
27.¦a5! ¦b7 An important moment. Besides his extra pawn, White has the more active rook. Black has nothing to compensate for White’s trumps. Therefore, we can safely attach to the position the score of 2–0. White’s win will require some accuracy but will never be put in any doubt. 28.¦a6 A typical method in rook endgames. With the last two moves, White has restricted both Black pieces’ activity. In principle, if everything else failed, White could at some moment push his
15
a-pawn to a6 and then transfer the rook to b7. This is, however, not necessary for the moment: White should first strengthen his position on the other side. The only thing left for the World Champion was to wait for the execution. 28...¢f8 29.e4 ¦c7 30.h4 ¢f7 31.g4 ¢f8 32.¢f4 The attack on the kingside is massive. There would be little sense in keeping one of the pawns back, since it could be attacked at a later time. White is not in any hurry, since Black has only waiting moves at his disposal. 32...¢e7 33.h5
1222222223 4 + + + +5 4O T L Oo5 4r+ + + +5 4+ + + +p5 4 + +pKp+5 4+ + + + 5 4p+ + + +5 4+ + + + 5 7888888889
33...h6 This move weakens the g6-square, but letting White advance all his pawns to the fifth rank was also a bit scary. In his old endgame book Lisitzin gives a nice winning method (I am sure it is not the only one): 33...¢f7 34.¢f5 ¢e7 35.g5 ¢f7 36.e5 ¢e7 37.g6 h6 38.¦e6† now Black faces a difficult choice: a) 38...¢d7 would allow the incredible 39.¦f6!!. A remarkable example of how a space advantage in an apparently blocked position can allow tactical solutions based on modification of the pawn structure. It happens all the time in modern lines of the King’s Indian. 39...¢e8 (After 39...gxf6 40.g7 ¦c8 41.exf6 Black cannot stop the pawns, since the king cannot cross the eighth rank.) 40.¦f7 ¦xf7† 41.gxf7† ¢xf7 42.e6† and White will stalemate the black king,
16
Learn from the Legends – Chess Champions at their Best
forcing g7-g5, hxg6 and mate within two moves. For instance, 42...¢e8 43.¢e5 ¢e7 44.¢d5 ¢e8 45.¢d6 ¢d8 46.e7† ¢e8 47.¢e6 a5 48.a4 g5 49.hxg6 h5 50.g7 h4 51.g8£ mate. b) 38...¢f8 39.¦d6 ¢e7 40.¦a6 ¦b7 (If 40...¢d7 then 41.¦f6 is again winning or 40...¢f8 41.¢e6 ¢e8 42.a4, planning a5, ¦d6, a6, when Black is too passive to resist) 41.¦c6 ¦d7 42.¦c8 once the rook captures the g7-pawn the game will be over. 34.¢f5 ¢f7 35.e5 ¦b7 36.¦d6 The only purpose of the following moves was to reach the 38th move where the game would be adjourned. 36...¢e7 37.¦a6 ¢f7 38.¦d6 ¢f8 39.¦c6 ¢f7
40.a3 Black is in zugzwang: 40...¢f8 (40...¦e7 is well met by 41.e6† ¢g8 42.¢g6 ¦e8 43.e7 followed by ¦d6-d8 and White wins) 41.¢g6 ¦b3 42.¦c8† ¢e7 43.¦c7† ¢e6 44.¦xg7 winning. Ironically, this nice win over the World Champion didn’t help Akiba’s cause. Although from a formal point of view Lasker acted as a gentleman and praised his opponent’s play in his annotations, he also understood that he would have a tough (if not impossible) job defending his title against such a strong player. As is known Akiba never got a title match with Lasker... 1–0
It is, however, not always possible to have an extra pawn and the better-placed rook. If the enemy rook is more active, then an extra pawn guarantees only practical chances, but not a clear win. Here is a typical example. Akiba Rubinstein – Aron Nimzowitsch Gothenburg 1920
Compared with the previous endings, it will soon be the defending side that has a more active rook. As compensation for White, there are more pawns on board and, besides, within just a few moves Rubinstein will obtain a very favourable configuration on the kingside. Therefore, a preliminary evaluation, based on the score 2-1, suggests that the position should be placed somewhere on the edge between a draw and a win for White. The further course of the game will support this evaluation. Faced with Rubinstein’s strong and consequent play, Nimzowitsch will make just one significant mistake, but this will be enough for the balance to swing decisively in White’s favour. 32.g4 In principle, Black would like to play ...h5, in order to defend his pawns more easily. Only the f7-pawn would need permanent care from the king, but this pawn is close enough to the centre to avoid the black monarch’s decentralization. After 32.g4, Black is at a crossroads: shall he allow g4-g5 or not? It is easy to say, already
Mihail Marin Interview
on March 1st, I had just started my usual working day when I suddenly remembered the whole issue. I connected to ChessCafe.com with such thoughts as “Let’s see who I should congratulate on the win this time!” Actually, if we think about it, there should not be such a big difference between being one of the top three (or four or whatever) but the human mind is educated very much in the spirit of “The winner takes it all!” And just as I had felt a bit of disappointment on First Mihail, allow me to congratulate you on winning the previous occasions, I was very happy to learn that ChessCafe Book of the Year for Learn from the Legends “The Legends” have won this year’s contest. I would - Chess Champions at their Best. Did you expect to be like to congratulate Jennifer and Jonathan and hope they obtain “full success” on a further occasion. To put nominated, let alone win this honour? it briefly, the answer to your two questions is 1Getting nominated for such maybe and 2-no. a contest is a great honour, of course. Although I had twice Can you, in short, describe had this pleasant experience the idea of Learn from before (at the ChessCafe in the Legends? Where did 2003 with my first book the idea of Learn from Secrets of Chess Defence the Legends come from? and last year from the BCF with “The Legends”) I was First of all, let me say that quite happy when a friend I shall try not to repeat of mine told me two weeks aspects I have written ago that I had just qualified about in the foreword for a final again. True, the to the book. Most of the thrill was not the same as chapters were initially the first time and actually I got used to being one of the runners-up. I remember written in the form of independent articles, long before that on the day when the final result for BOTY I even thought about writing books at all. The articles 2003 was to be announced, the first thing I did in had several purposes: to serve as diploma works at the the morning (apart from waking up) was to switch Trainers’ School in Romania or to be published in the on the computer and check the situation. This year, Romanian National Chess Magazine or in the Swedish On the first of March Mihail Marin, a grandmaster from Romania, won the ChessCafe.com Book of the Year award by popular vote ahead of Jonathan Rowson’s Chess for Zebras and Jennifer Shahade’s Chess Bitch. We immediately caught up with the happy author to hear about his emotions upon receiving this great honour, as well as to learn something about the man behind the book.
Schacknytt. In the introduction to each chapter I have generally explained the way I first got in contact with its central theme, a couple of decades ago. I would add now that the reasons that reactivated my interest (maybe enthusiasm is a better description) and made me determined to write my thoughts down were often separate incidents, and did not form a well-established plan. For instance, I remember that I spent a couple of hours analysing the ending Fischer-Taimanov with my wife, Luiza, sitting on a terrace of the Herastrau Park in Bucharest. We discovered so many hidden nuances compared to Balashov’s excellent comments that I decided to investigate the subject further. My close friendship with the editors from the aforementioned magazines (Mihai Panait and Ari Ziegler) induced me to express myself freely, without any inhibitions. There are so many things that you sometimes refrain from writing, just because you are afraid that the editor will cut them down... After I had published a bunch of these articles already, I started considering the possibility of putting them together into a book. I contacted a big publishing house but they rejected the idea because it would not be appealing to the public. I had more or less abandoned the whole plan when all of a sudden the editors of the newly created QCE suggested that I develop this project. I was quite happy, of course, but I did not suspect yet how much more work was to be done still. My editor was Jacob Aagaard. I have no words to express my gratitude to him. He pushed me hard not only to transform the articles into chapters that fit well together but gave me lots of essential advice of a more general nature. I still keep in a safe place the printouts of the initial form of the articles, filled on their back with Jacob’s handwritten notes. They are sort of school notes or, if you wish, a handbook for chess writers.
yourself move more into writing than playing, and maybe teaching chess as well? This is a complex question. In fact it contains two relatively independent aspects, which I shall try to answer separately. My pleasure of playing chess has not diminished over the years, but some 10 years ago I have started developing a new hobby: chess writing. It all started rather spontaneously. While my opponents were thinking over the next move, I frequently surprised myself by mentally composing articles based on the events from the current game. Sometimes this helped me in the way that I became less tense, but quite often this led to my concentration diminishing. To a certain extent, this is the nature of the main problem. Time and human resources are so awfully limited that I haven’t managed yet to entirely adapt myself to the dual character of my professional activity. I achieve the best results (in both fields!) when I manage to induce in myself the psychological approach of an amateur: the pure pleasure of practising my hobbies without any concrete purpose. However, it can also happen that I work on a book longing for the next tournament to come or, on the contrary, to ruin a well started tournament just because I bear in mind so many things to write. Taimanov wrote that whenever he plays chess he relaxes from playing the piano and vice versa, adding that this allowed him to have a neverending vacation. He must have had a very happy life. This is the state of mind I would dream of.
Now we come to the problem of my age. While there are people around who can successfully compete with youngsters despite approaching their 75th birthday, I feel that I am very young still. I believe that I have not completed my evolution as a chess player yet and although for physical reasons I sometimes have disappointing results, I still play 2-3 tournaments per You are, I am sorry to say, no longer a very young man, year that I can be satisfied about. Time might eventually especially not in the Chess World where 12 year-olds are force me to move into the direction mentioned, but I making GM-norms (it seems) almost daily. Are you seeing have no intention to cooperate in any way. The thrill
given by a tournament win or a well-played game cannot be compared with anything else. Playing chess keeps me mentally fit, just as bike riding maintains the fluidity of my blood. However, now I could not imagine my life without writing, either.
reviews I received, but I have not tried to build to myself an image of “the writer of the moment”. This is something very relative, it is not like being a World Champion or a National Champion, where you simply have to accumulate the highest number of points in a certain competition. I took the generally A lot of people mention you as the chess writer of the positive opinion of critics just as proof that I was not moment, something that has now been confirmed with spending my time in vain when writing. It also helped the public’s vote of confidence. But which books have me to express myself more freely in the next writings. influenced you, both of recent books and from the past? I have built up my chess culture mainly on the basis Who are the giants on whose shoulders you are standing? of Soviet chess books. There are quite a number of The good part of chess writing compared to playing giants in Soviet chess literature that I am obliged to. is that you do not have this harmful feeling of Some of the elements that influenced me most were competition. The only thing you have to fight against Karpov’s concision, Tal’s joy for chess and life in is your own weaknesses. There are two main things: general, Botvinnik’s methodical thinking. to be consequent in your search for the truth (to the extent that such a notion exists) and to have sufficient You are from Romania. In the West this country is often concentration to express your thoughts and feelings seen as the one with the most tragic history in Eastern as clearly and (even more importantly) faithfully as Europe during the communist reign. Was it a difficult possible. While the first part is something players are place to grow up in? And how did growing up in a more or less used to, the second part is more difficult. communist East European country influence your choice Our physical limits tend to distort our thoughts and of becoming a chess professional? feelings during the process of expressing them. Now, let us return to the absence of competition. I I was born the same year that Ceausescu came to was very pleased, of course, by all the favourable power and graduated from the Polytechnic Institute
just months before his fall from the throne. My whole moral and intellectual education took part during one of the worse periods of Romania’s whole history. Day by day life is not much fun under permanent terror. You would have a nice time for 5-10 minutes by telling or listening to a political joke and then live with the fear that “somebody” has heard you for a whole week and that you would end up in a police section. I was a student still when I started being regarded as a future top Romanian player. One day we (I lived with my parents) received a visit from a very sympathetic guy, who declared himself a big fan of mine, but whom I had never seen before and I was not to meet ever again. I knew that “they” used to keep top players under strict observation, because these players were supposed to travel abroad. The visit did not last too long and I cannot know for sure whether the man had any hidden purposes, but I remember that we spent a couple of hours searching for microphones that he might have eventually dropped during his visit. We did not find anything suspicious, but the episode is relevant for the rather stressed state of mind of most Romanians. During the latest years, we had only 2-3 hours of TV transmission daily; half of it was dedicated to Ceausescu, of course. It is not hard to imagine that such a thing degenerated into a national obsession. You can understand that playing chess was a most welcome escape to a better (though imaginary) world. There was no place for Ceausescu on the small board with 64 squares. The paradox is that the cruel communist system strongly sustained sporting and cultural activities, most probably for advertising purposes. Top class musicians and gymnasts spread the name of Romania all over the world. Under these circumstances, being a strong chess player was a warranty for a relatively good life. It is not easy for me to admit it, but as a chess player I indirectly owe quite a lot to the Ceausescu regime. I was lucky that the Wall was broken down just
when I started making my first steps into maturity. I more or less understood the right value of freedom and could develop further as a person without any constrictions. If the communists were beneficial for chess, one could expect that chess would decline in Romania with the fall of the communists, but that is not so obviously so. Romania has many strong players, both male and female, including the current European Champion, your friend Nisipeanu. What is the real state of the Romanian Chess scene these years? When I heard the news about the first sparks of the revolution (it all started on the 16th-17th of December 1989, in Timisoara, quite far from Bucharest) among the contradictory thoughts that crossed my mind (most of them of hope for a change to the better) there was also a slightly alarming one: What will happen with chess life now? For a while, my fears seemed not to be justified. Chess tradition in Romania was just too strong and for about 10-12 more years there was a flourishing of our favourite sport. Strong clubs gave even better financial conditions to their players than before the revolution, but somewhere deep in my soul I knew that this would not last forever. Romania is supposed to join the European Union soon, which means among others that the whole economy should be re-oriented towards maximum efficiency. Chess is hardly an efficient activity, which explains the increasing problems faced by strong chess clubs to find funds. The extreme case is that of RATB (the club of the public transport company from Bucharest) which was dissolved last year, in spite of having won about half of the post-revolutionary championships and being the club with the longest tradition in Romania (players like Gheorghiu, Nisipeanu, Istratescu, Corina Peptan were members throughout the years. I had played for RATB no fewer than 25 years altogether). Fortunately, we recently had a positive change in the
Federation. I have hopes that the new president and Finally, there is of course no reason for resting on your his team will manage to adapt chess activity to the laurels. You have won a Book of the Year award, but I new requirements of the society. assume that this is not the last chess fans will hear from Mihail Marin. What does the immediate future hold for As you probably already know this is not the first time you you as a chess writer? are to be found in an award winning chess book. I open I am currently working on my first opening book, last year’s winner of Book of the Year at both ChessCafe. which will be published soon by QCE. It is about com and BCF, the Golden Globe and Oscar if you like, fighting the open games as Black. Although I am My Life, Games and Compositions by Pal Benko and supposed to make all the variations playable for Black Jeremy Silman, and find a picture of Benko, the Polgar (and I will definitely do that) sometimes I feel like family and a very young and slim Mihail Marin on one of turning the tables and taking White’s side when it the first pages. I imagine that this picture from Budapest comes to such fascinating lines as the Evans Gambit is taken in connection with a training session. Can you or the Max Lange Attack. It is incredible what richness tell us about your relationship with the Polgar family? of ideas you can find in the games of the old masters. I have several other plans for new books and hope that I was amused to see that photo in Benko’s book. I shall have the time and the strength to put them in Comparing it with what I see in the mirror now, practice. Openings, history, strategy, although when I it seems that several ages have passed since then. It write I cannot really separate these domains from each looks like the perfect photo I would include in an other. autobiographical book myself, given the number of celebrities surrounding me.
Mayhem in the Morra! By
Marc Esserman
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Foreword by Larry Christiansen Foreword by Loek van Wely Key to Symbols used Preface by the Author Introduction – The Much Maligned Morra Morra Methodology 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4 5 6 7 11 29
Morra Accepted Siberian Wilderness 31 The Scheveningens 57 The Scheveningens II 77 Into the Deep 97 The King in the Windy City – the Chicago Defense 121 Slaying the Dragon 139 The Professional’s Choice – ¤ge[00]7 155 Early Bishop Out – ¤ge[00]7 Reloaded? 183 Taylor’s Temple of Doom 203 Finegold’s Final Frontier 233 Searching the Stars for a Refutation 245
Morra Declined 12 Potpourri 253 13 Crushing 3...d3 with the Morra-Maroczy: squeeze, squeeze, destroy! 271 14 The Noxious 3...¤f6 283 Appendix – Supplemental Games 313 Endnotes 345 Works Cited 348 Game Index 350 Variation Index 353 Transpositions 359
Foreword “It’s not business Larry, it’s strictly personal.” So said International Master Marc Esserman when I asked him why he planned to write a book on the Morra Gambit. His massive treasury of Morra files will be unlocked and the secrets and ideas he has accumulated over the years will be revealed in this book. Marc adopted the Morra Gambit in his youth and soon weaponized the quaint, tame house pet into a snarling, vicious pitbull of an opening. Esserman has convinced hardcore skeptics. He has refuted many a “refutation”. He has forced many opponents to spend countless hours preparing for the dreaded thing. Many formerly proud acceptors have become meek, sniveling decliners when faced with Esserman’s dreaded 3.c3. Essermania has spawned Esserphobia. Answering 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 with the “beta” replies 3...¤f6 and 3...g6 is a significant psychological victory for White by move 3. In 2011, when preparing for the US Championship, I decided to employ the Morra Gambit as a surprise weapon if given the chance. Marc supplied me with a vast amount of analysis and novelties for that tournament and I became convinced that the gambit was not only dangerous, but perfectly sound. There is no greater authority in the world on this line than Marc Esserman and he lays it all out there in this book. “It’s not business, it’s strictly personal.” Grandmaster Larry Christiansen Three-time US Champion
Foreword The first time I met Marc was at the Foxwoods Open in 2009. Friends had warned me about him. After the game, which I won, it became clear to me that Marc is a passionate lover of chess who likely dedicates more time to analyzing the game than many top GMs. Our rematch took place at the 2011 US Open in Orlando. Marc played the Morra Gambit! What !#%?@?$!%! I had just recently visited Boston, where Marc resides. There I played some blitz games in Harvard Square versus his friend, Jorge Sammour-Hasbun, who also used this “weapon”. When Marc ventured 1.e4 c5 2.d4, I thought, “Is he serious? Are we going to play coffeehouse today?” Now I know the answer, and the answer is yes! I got crushed in an impressive way, leaving me both groggy and completely mad, forcing me to consider the Morra seriously for the first time in my life. After the tournament, Marc and I had a thematic blitz match to test our ideas. I must admit, life still isn’t easy against the Morra. I am sure that in this book, Marc will provide you with many interesting ideas and analysis. I am also convinced that you will have some enjoyable attacking games, at the cost of only one pawn! Grandmaster Loek van Wely Winner of countless tournaments and former top 10 player
Preface By the author At 16, I found myself in the bookstore innocently browsing before the 2000 US Masters, my first ever invitational event. Suddenly, a title struck my eye. Leafing through, some words popped out of the pages and became etched in my memory forever: “Why did you elect to take up the Smith-Morra Gambit in the first place? The gambit is a good weapon for blitz chess, useful in teaching tactics to a young player, and fun to play. But if you expect to get a good result with it at the higher levels of serious tournament competition, and think the logical outcome of a game after using it is only a draw for Black with perfect play, we express our condolences. It is difficult to have a serious discourse with someone who insists the earth is flat.”1 As a teenager all I knew were the games of Paul Morphy, the leader of the Romantic generation. Pawns were sacrificed as the pieces came to the fore with stunning speed, sweeping away all in their path until the king himself succumbed to their power. Whereas now the Berlin and Petroff steal the show, then the Evans and King’s gambits governed the landscape. Occasionally the gambiteer would flounder as the defender grabbed all material in sight and lived to tell the tale. But far more inspiring were those cases when two plus two did not equal four,2 and our royal game revealed far greater depth than mere greed and number-crunching extra pawns to bland victory. Perhaps the author meant simply to attack only the Morra Gambit, but in my young mind he was desecrating the great Morphy and the entire Romantic chess era. I would not let such dogma stand; it could not stand. A few hours later the Morra appeared on my board, but my opponent was not in the least perturbed. He blitzed out the opening with an aura of confidence bordering on arrogance that I had never encountered, until we reached the very starting position of the book I had just been reading, “Smith-Morra Gambit, Finegold Defense”. Quite odd, I mused, but plowed forward nonetheless, thinking for over an hour on move 11. Eventually my opponent too slowed down, I drummed up a decisive attack, tragically missed a mate in two, and lost. Only afterwards did I receive the shock that my adversary, National Master Bob Ciaffone, co-authored the “Finegold Defense”. In the post-mortem, the masters surmised that I fought valiantly and showed some imagination, but ultimately the Morra Gambit remained unsound and I should just learn a new opening. But every time a move flashed on the board which defied their conclusion, I thought I could detect a creeping doubt that maybe, just maybe, the world was flatter than my opponent imagined. I was defeated, but invigorated, having successfully challenged a published author in a debate where we were polar opposites. I went on to use the Smith-Morra Gambit successfully twice more in the 2000 US Masters: once against the young
8
Mayhem in the Morra
Hikaru Nakamura, and in the last round vs. FM Chow, who, in a perfect storybook ending, adopted the Finegold Defense himself! After an early bishop sacrifice, my knight raided the Black camp from its e6-outpost, and I won in short order. The coup prompted my objective opponent to pay the ultimate compliment – he remained unconvinced that the Finegold Defense refuted the Smith-Morra Gambit. Chow urged me to keep exploring the possibilities hidden in the gambit, and projected that in my hands the Morra may morph into a formidable weapon after all. History has not been kind to the Smith-Morra. While the King’s and Evans gambits had their time under the sun during the 19th century, the Morra has always remained in the shadows. Although the Sicilian’s purest gambit did in fact debut in 1846 in Kieseritzky’s practice during the height of the Romantic movement,3 it remained eclipsed by its more accomplished brothers. Perhaps had it fallen into Morphy’s hands, the world would have taken notice.4 But alas, the gambit stayed buried in the rubble for another 100 years, only to surface again in an era where it was not welcome. Just a glance at Bronstein’s famed tournament book of Zurich 1953 would tell a time traveler that the glorious games of the Romantic era had become museum artifacts.5 The closed openings (much reviled by Morphy) ruled the day. While the masters lauded their improved defensive technique as the demise of the reckless swashbuckling play of yore, occasionally there remained a rebellion scattered across the chess kaleidoscope. The flair of the Romantic school flowed through both Bronstein and Spassky, and their reverence for the forgotten art form took center stage in their classic King’s Gambit encounter. And we cannot forget Fischer’s demolition of Fine in 1963, when he paid tribute to Morphy’s beloved Evans Gambit. But the Romantics were fighting a losing battle, and after Spassky’s King’s Gambit coup over Fischer, the American genius vowed to refute the relic gambit once and for all. As the global chess level advanced through time and the game became further subjected to brutal, concrete analysis, surely the colorful, emotional play of the 19th century could not survive. Within this hostile environment, the Smith-Morra Gambit re-emerged. While the dangerous Yugoslav attacking grandmasters, in particular Matulovic, achieved some resounding victories in the Morra, the current of history could simply sweep aside these uprisings as isolated rebellions. Despite his success, Matulovic eventually abandoned the opening, and the young gambit, without the medals of honor from the 19th century, desperately longed for a shining knight. Sadly, no world class player would lead the charge. While Spassky still felt comfortable dabbling in the established King’s Gambit, he would never dare to test the fledging Morra Gambit. In 1960, Fischer would take up the mantle, unleashing the gambit to surprise Korchnoi. Yet despite being on the dominant end of a tense draw, Fischer would not try again. He seemed content for the gambit to remain a surprise, and nothing more.6 Alas, history would choose Ken Smith as the gambit’s champion and name bearer.7 The inherent risk in the gambit naturally appealed to Smith’s gambling nature, who aside from being a FIDE Master and avid chess enthusiast, donned the hat of a world class poker player.8 Smith would author a myriad of books and articles promoting the Morra, and in the San Antonio international tournament of 1972, the time came for him to showcase the virtues of the gambit to the world. However, it was not to be. Smith lost all three Morra Gambit scuffles badly vs. world class players (IM Donald Byrne, GM Larry Evans, and GM Henrique Mecking), and the harsh chess public swiftly passed its verdict on the young gambit. The popular sentiments of the day
Preface
9
can no better be summarized than by Grandmaster and World Championship Candidate Bent Larsen. While annotating one of Smith’s other games during the tournament, Larsen quipped about the opponent’s choice to play the French Defense: “1...e6?, stronger is 1...c5 which wins a pawn.”9 Smith had threatened the established thinking of the day, and the grandmasters were quick to shoot his beloved gambit down. While still considered second-rate, the esteemed King’s and Evans gambits were never chided in such a fashion. When Kasparov crushed both Anand and Piket in the Evans Gambit in 1994, the public praised his brilliant, if risky, play. But did Kasparov win because he played the Evans Gambit, or because he is Kasparov? Likewise, did Ken Smith lose in San Antonio 1972 because of the Morra’s faulty DNA, or because he was simply outgunned by grandmasters? The ripples of Smith’s losses in San Antonio 1972 are still felt in modern times. As a teenager surveying the book store, I could not understand why such an inspiring opening faced such hostility from the chess public. Now with age and the study of history, I do. The young gambit, with virtually only 60 years of practice today, has never received its proper evaluation. Far worse, it has never even been given a chance; its life cut short, tragically pronounced dead in its second decade of testing. This book will finally give the Morra Gambit its chance to shine. I have ventured the King’s, Evans, and Smith-Morra gambits in tournament and rapid play against strong grandmasters. My results in the Morra are by far the best in these contests. In the last 8 years, I have lost only twice with the Morra Gambit in tournament play, both defeats not a result of the opening. I have faced two players over 2700 FIDE in the Morra Accepted in tournament play. In both cases, they lost in under 30 moves. Luck? Perhaps. During a phase of my career when I would lose game after game with the Evans, I would win on command in the Morra Gambit. Can this statistic simply be ignored as a result of my superior knowledge of the Morra Gambit compared to the Evans? Perhaps. But at the highest level, there is no luck in chess – all can be explained by the art of scientific analysis. Nothing will be hidden in this book. There are no gimmicks here, no attempts to conceal novelties for later use on an unsuspecting opponent. The reader can expect the truth – nothing less. The Sicilian’s only true gambit must take its rightful place in history.10 If gambits were viewed with skepticism in the 1950’s, then in modern days, the sentiments have turned to downright scorn. The Evans Gambit has all but disappeared at the top level. Meanwhile, the King’s Gambit just became the butt of a worldwide April Fool’s Day joke when a 3000 core machine proclaimed it refuted at last. Naturally, many got duped!11 And 1.e4 c5 2.d4(?). Well, it just loses a pawn! The general public simply does not believe that the Romantic gambits can survive the rugged world of objective, precise, unforgiving computer analysis. But tell that to all the grandmasters who now decline the Morra Gambit or simply don’t even brave playing the Sicilian against me. Perhaps there is a crack in the armor of the materialists’ mantra two plus two equals four. Perhaps there is a growing rebellion against conventional thinking. Perhaps the earth is flat after all. As I’d do with any serious opening, I will not stop the analysis in each critical variation until I have demonstrated that White is fighting for the advantage. Yes, that is not a misprint – that White is fighting for an advantage in the Morra Gambit. If after studying the Morra Gambit for 15 years I did not believe I could make this claim, I would not be writing this book.
10
Mayhem in the Morra
For the practical player not so much concerned about the tides of history as about maximizing chess results, I will now speak to you. In the pages ahead you will find a stockpile of heavy artillery to combat the Sicilian successfully, against players of all levels, from amateur to grandmaster. Your opponents, meanwhile, will be placed under considerable psychological strain, not only because of your imposing style of play, but because the Morra Gambit does not constitute part of their standard main line Sicilian preparations. Do not be mistaken, however – this is not simply a “how to” opening book. Rather, it expounds a philosophy of dynamic, attacking chess in general and the Morra Gambit is merely my featured guest. Thus, sprinkled across the pages you will find games which at first glance seem to have no relation to the Morra Gambit. Yet once you scale the Morra’s vast, overarching theme base, the sparkling similarities will be as clear as day. Ultimately, even when you are faced with mainstream chess positions, you will be able to more successfully apply the principles of the Romantic school to your chess praxis. Lastly, even if you have no interest in playing the Morra Gambit or doubt that it could ever be sound, your overall chess imagination and vision will improve as a result of studying this book. I dare you to push forward, and you will be exposed to possibilities you never thought existed on the chessboard. And if you finish the task, you will add a new dimension to your chess understanding, no matter what positions you choose to play. This is why Spassky’s legendary coach Tolush urged him to play gambits, and why my first professional coach, IM Calvin Blocker, taught me the Smith-Morra Gambit as a youngster. I hope this book inspires a whole younger generation to take up the forgotten art of gambit play which so enriches the possibilities in our game and chess players in general. I hope that as a result of this book, aspiring professional players have the courage to test the gambit at the highest level, pushing this fascinating opening into mainstream modern chess. And lastly, I ironically hope that after this book, the Morra Gambit Declined (which I also copiously cover) becomes the main line after 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3. After all, every player who declines the gambit tacitly admits that there is indeed much to fear! May the Smith-Morra Gambit finally have a home, a firm foothold in the 21st century, 200 years after its predecessors. IM Marc Esserman Cambridge, Massachusetts June 2012
Introduction
The Much Maligned Morra After 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3,
we reach the starting position of the much maligned Morra Gambit. I must confess that this is often the moment in my chess praxis when my heart thumps most – will my opponent accept the sacrifice in the spirit of the Romantics, or will he shun the most honorable path and meekly decline? Sometimes I wait for the critical decision for many minutes as my grandmaster foe flashes me an incredulous, bordering on insulted, look. Other times, I receive the answer almost instantaneously. Yet every time I am greeted with 3...dxc3, I could not be happier. My knight freely flows to c3, the Morra accepted appears, and we travel back in time to the 19th century. Already ahead a full tempo in development, I smile, knowing that all of my pieces will soon flood the center. My bishops will zoom to the central diagonals, and my nimble queen will influence any sector of the board she desires. Meanwhile, Black remains cramped. His queen and bishops lie sleeping, and while his queen’s knight can reach c6 unharmed, the king’s knight must constantly fret about the dangerous e4-e5 thrust.
The Morra Gambit vs. the King’s and Evans gambits But this only scratches at the surface of the gambit’s depth. In order to fully appreciate why the Morra can endure the 21st century’s rigorous analytical microscope, we must first compare the gambit to its two elder brothers which have virtually disappeared from top level chess, the King’s and Evans gambits. In the King’s Gambit,
12
Mayhem in the Morra
White sacrifices his king’s bishop pawn for central dominance. However, his aggression comes at a hefty price – not only does he lose a pawn, but all of the squares around his king are critically weakened forever. So often it is not White’s minus pawn in the King’s Gambit, but a compromised king, which ultimately leads to his demise. Likewise, in the swashbuckling Evans,
the gambiteer sacrifices his queen’s knight pawn to gain tempi on the black bishop via c2-c3 and d2-d4, erecting a central pawn mass in the process. But again, the price is steep, as the lunging b2-b4 undermines the solidity of White’s queenside, chiefly the c3- and c4squares. In both of these illustrious openings, if the gambiteer does not swiftly sweep Black
off the board, his game will likely become positionally bankrupt. To cast further doubt upon the ancient gambits, after 1.e4 e5, Black’s king’s bishop already can move, thus bringing him one step closer to castling out of danger. In contrast, in the Morra Gambit, the bishop starts buried on f8. As a result, Black’s king often never escapes the pelting central crossfire. Yet it’s not all so cut and dry. To the credit of Morra bashers, Black does possess a full extra central pawn for his woes (while in the King’s and Evans gambits, White sacrifices only a flank pawn.) But to take the conversation into the concrete, Black can blunt the Morra gambiteer’s assault on the sensitive f7-square with ...e6, a defense not available in the classical e4/e5 gambits. The extra central d-pawn then may make an immediate impact, sliding up to d6 and plugging any holes while restraining White’s e4-e5 advances. No wonder then that the solid ...e6 and ...d6 pawn duo, establishing a Scheveningen Sicilian-like fortress, is one of the most trusted ways to subdue Morra mayhem. Yet in the final analysis, the secret to the Morra Gambit’s longevity lies not solely in the tactical arena (all gambits pose immediate tactical dangers to the defender). Rather, the Morra is also firmly positionally grounded. For starters, a Morra gambiteer may safely castle and tuck away his king on g1 behind a healthy blanket of pawn cover. The same luxury is not available in the King’s Gambit (so aptly named for throwing the white king’s safety to the wind). On the other end of the board, White’s rooks may rush to c1 and d1, where they will chew up central squares on the wide open c- and d-files. Take a close look at the Morra accepted starting position again – White simply has no obvious weaknesses! This fact alone can breed a doomsday psychology from the defender as
Introduction – The much Maligned Morra he struggles to deal with reality. He knows he is up a pawn, he knows he should win easily – after all, the chess authorities said so. As all of these thoughts cloud his thinking, the freewheeling gambiteer slowly increases the pressure, his pieces ready to ravage. Even in the worst case scenario, when White’s potent e4-pawn and Black’s passive d6-pawn swap off and the gambiteer obtains only nebulous compensation in return, the menacing Morra rooks and imposing centralization of White’s forces can still strain the defender’s delicate psyche.
The d4-square – White’s only true weakness Only a keen eye can spot the one true defect in White’s starting position: the d4-square. As a result of pushing 1 e4 and then shedding the c pawn, the gambiteer lacks proper pawn protection against an enemy incursion on d4. Particularly, a black knight plopping on d4, especially when supported by the e5-pawn, can virtually paralyze White. However, to access the d4 soft spot, the defender must make some serious concessions.
Black has just played ...e6-e5, securing a foothold on d4. In return, he surrenders the d5-square for White’s pieces. But hastily
13
probing the d5-square further with 10.¥g5(?) meets strict punishment. After 10...¥g4! Black becomes master of the center, as the highly unpleasant threat of ...¤d4 looms large. A Morra virtuoso would never allow such a beast into the heart of his camp, and instead would overprotect d4 with ¥e3! immediately. Only after the sensitive d4-square is under lock and key would White then continue his plans to conquer d5 and the rest of the board.
A good rule of thumb – Chase the black queen! Too often the novice gambiteer believes that there is only one formulaic setup for White, namely 5.¤f3, 6.¥c4, 7.0–0, 8.£e2, 9.¦fd1, and then hope for the best. While this sequence is normally the correct method against the d6-e6 Scheveningen defenses, thinking in these simple terms will often get you into deep trouble. In fact, the savvy defender lies awake at night wishing that you have such a misunderstanding. Achieving Morra mastery requires great mental flexibility, but if you must abide by a Morra formula, the most powerful one would be: when in doubt, chase the black queen. In the Open Sicilian, White’s c2-pawn obstructs his rook from participating in the fight for the c-file. As a result, Black often makes the c-file his permanent base of operations, with a rook on c8 patrolling the half-open line and the black queen comfortably perched on c7. However, in the Morra Gambit, the fully open c-file morphs into White’s greatest asset. The gambiteer’s lead in development ensures that his queen’s rook will reach c1 first, thus serving fair warning to the black queen that c7 is no longer safe territory. The queen can be hounded on her original d8-square as well, as White’s other rook can easily target her from d1. If she heads to e7, she may obstruct the
Mayhem in the Morra
14
harmonious development of the king’s bishop and the entire kingside in turn. If she pokes her head out to b6 or a5, she comes under fire from a pawn advance b2-b4 or a sleek ¥d2 or ¥e3. If she obstinately tries to beat the queen’s rook to the punch with a premature ...£c7, White’s queen’s knight can harass her with ¤b5 (or even the sacrificial ¤d5) and White’s queen’s bishop can also get into the act with ¥f4. And if she ever plays it too cool on b8, the entombed rook on a8 will pay dearly for her cowardice. As you can see, finding a harmonious square for the queen is Black’s main headache in the Morra Gambit, and if he can solve this problem, he often solves the Morra riddle. Let us now witness some queen hunting in action.
Chase #1 The following example, which made a great impression upon me as a young Morraphile, can be found in Graham Burgess’s groundbreaking 1994 Smith-Morra Gambit book. Burgess featured the sequence to explain why Black cannot make simple developmental moves in the Morra Gambit and survive. We will be viewing it from a different lens, with an eye for rabidly chasing the black queen to and fro. 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.¤xc3 ¤c6 5.¤f3 In every example in this book, White’s king’s knight will develop to its natural f3-square. 5...d6 6.¥c4 Likewise, White’s king’s bishop takes aim on the aggressive “Italian” diagonal in almost all cases.12 6...e6 Black adopts the solid Scheveningen structure alluded to earlier, and so the gambiteer readies for the standard 0–0, £e2, ¦d1 plan.
7.0–0 ¤f6 8.£e2 ¥e7 9.¦d1 The chase begins. If the queen flees to c7, White’s cavalry keeps stalking her via b5. Here the old main line of the Morra Gambit, 9...e5, prevents White’s e4-e5 thrust but consequently weakens the d5-square forever. The passive 9...¥d7 also blocks the d-file pin but interferes with the queen’s guard of d6. There are just no easy answers against the Morra’s flowing compensation. 9...0–0?
10.e5! Black is scolded for his carelessness, and must retreat to a fallback position. 10...¤e8 11.exd6 ¥xd6 11...¤xd6 12.¥f4+– and the crushing pin decides. 12...e5 (12...a6 13.¥xd6 ¥xd6 14.¤e4+–) 13.¤xe5 only prolongs the inevitable. 12.¤b5! £e7 The hapless queen runs, but she cannot hide. 12...a6 13.¤xd6 ¤xd6 14.¥f4± 13.¥g5!
My System A chess manual on totally new principles
Aron Nimzowitsch
Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
Foreword It would be interesting to choose the best chess book from the 20th century. My System by Aron Nimzowitsch would certainly be my favourite, and I think this would be a common choice. According to Mikhail Tal, this book is “full of the elixir of chess youth”. What are the secrets behind the powerful effect My System has on its readers? I think that the magical power of this book can be found in the fact that the author managed to be ahead of his time. Already in 1925 he expressed still relevant modern ideas like prophylaxis, pawn activity, and the blockade. The impulse that originated from Nimzowitsch was so immense that the thinking of chess developed in his direction. If you look at the games of Petrosian and Karpov you immediately find the traces of Nimzowitsch’s “system”. These outstanding chess players developed to perfection the prophylactic style of preventing the opponent’s possibilities. Nimzowitsch’s mark is recognisable to some extent in every top player. When I contemplate the later games of Kasparov, I am convinced that many of his decisions are based on purely prophylactic grounds. Nimzowitsch did not write a simple handbook of opening lines, but a manual of chess. The opinions, ideas, and generalisations that he describes gave rise to a true revolution, whose consequences we can correctly evaluate today. Artur Yusupov
From the publishers When we decided to publish a new edition of My System our primary intention was to produce an updated translation. The second issue was which source we should use for this translation. We decided on the 2005 Rattman German edition, which contains a number of improvements from previous editions. We also decided to computer-check, within reason, the games in the book. The Rattman edition already had some interesting observations on the original text, which we decided to retain with their corrections in the text or as footnotes on the page (pages 15, 64, 74, 76, 84, 106, 126, 156) and their references to the editor. We have also added two small essays at the end of the book. The first is a general discussion about the current relevance of My System; the second contains just over a dozen positions from the book where we think a new opinion might interest the reader. These positions have also been marked with superscript throughout the book. We would like to thank Yuri Garrett of Caissa Italia for his superb efforts in researching Nimzowitsch’s tournament and match results, which are included towards the end of this book as the article “The Chess Career of Aron Nimzowitsch”. This second print contains minor modifications, most of which will be hard to spot in a comparison. Alas, there is one addition to the Nimzowitsch for the 21st Centory at the end of the book. We hope that our new edition of My System will reveal this classic to a new generation of young chess players. December 2006/August 2007
Preface In general, I am not at all in favour of writing a preface; but in this case it seems necessary because the whole business is so novel, that a preface would be a welcome aid. My new system did not arise all at once, but rather it grew slowly and gradually, or as one might say organically. Of course the main idea, the thorough analysing one by one of the different elements of chess strategy, is based on inspiration. But it would in no way be sufficient, should I wish to discuss open files, to say that such and such a file should be occupied and exploited, or if talking about passed pawns to say that this particular one should be stopped. No, it is necessary to go into some detail. It may sound somewhat amusing, but let me assure you, my dear reader, that for me the passed pawn possesses a soul, just like a human being; it has unrecognised desires which slumber deep inside it and it has fears, the very existence of which it can but scarcely divine. I feel the same about the pawn chain and the other elements of strategy. I now intend to give to you concerning each of these elements a series of laws and rules which you can use, rules which do go into a lot of detail and which will help you to attain clarity even about the apparently mysterious links between events, such as are to be found over the 64 squares of our beloved chessboard. Part II of the book then goes into positional play, especially in its neo-romantic form. It is frequently claimed that I am the father of the neo-romantic school. Therefore it should be of interest to hear what I think about it. Manuals are customarily written in a dry, instructive style. It is thought that one would somehow lose face, if one allowed a humorous tone to appear, because what does humour have to do in a chess manual! I cannot share this point of view. In fact I would go further: I consider it to be totally wrong, since real humour often contains more inner truth than the most solemn seriousness. As far as I am concerned, I am a great fan of parallels with an amusing effect, and thus I like to draw on the events of everyday life in order by doing so to throw some light on complicated happenings over the chessboard. At many points in the book I have added a schematic diagram so that the structure of my thought can be seen clearly. This step was taken not only on pedagogical grounds, but also for reasons connected with personal security – since less gifted critics (and these do exist) only wish to or only can take into account isolated details and not the more complicated underlying structure which is the true content of my book. The individual parts, apparent by name at first sight, are seemingly so simple, but that is their merit. To have reduced the chaos inherent to a certain number of rules linked to each other in various relationships of cause and effect, that is exactly what I think I can be proud of. For example, the 5 special cases linked to the 7th and 8th ranks sound simple, but how difficult it was to tease them out of the surrounding chaos! Or the open file or even the pawn chains! Of course, at each stage things become more difficult, because the book is intended to be progressive in level. But I do not consider this growing difficulty to be armour which will protect me from the attacks of those critics who use only light weapons. I insist on this only for the sake of my readers. I will also be attacked for making use of a great number of my own games. But I shall not be downcast by this attack either. After all, am I not justified in illustrating my system with my games?! Moreover, I even include some games (well) played by amateurs, but this does not make me one. I now confide this first edition to the public view. I do so with a clear conscience. My book will have its faults, it would be impossible for me to cast light into all the corners of strategy, but I consider that I have written the first real manual about the game of chess and not simply about the openings. August 1925
The author
CONTENTS
I The Elements Introduction 1 The centre and development 1 By development we mean the strategic march of the troops towards the border 2 A pawn move must not be considered in itself to be a developing move, but rather simply a move which helps development 3 A lead in development is an ideal 4 Exchanging followed by a gain of tempo A possible intermezzo between exchanging and gaining a tempo 5 Liquidation followed by development or a bid for freedom 6 The centre and its urge to demobilise 6a Surrendering the centre 7 Pawn grabbing in the opening 7a Take any central pawn if it can be done without too great a danger! 2 The open file 1 Introduction • General comments and definition 2 How open files occur (or are born) 3 The ideal (purpose) behind all operations on a file 4 Possible obstacles to operations down a file 5 “Restricted” advance on a file in order give it up in favour of another file, or the indirect exploitation of a file • The file as a springboard 6 The outpost Schematic illustration of the open file 3 The 7th and 8th ranks 1 Introduction and general comments 2 Convergent and revolutionary attacks on the 7th rank Seizing a square (or pawn) with an acoustic echo (a simultaneous check) 3 The five special cases on the 7th rank 1 The 7th rank “absolute” and passed pawns 2 Double rooks ensure perpetual check 3 The drawing mechanism of ¦ + ¤ 4 Marauding on the 7th rank 5 Combining play on the 7th and 8th ranks (flanking from the corner) Schematic illustration for the 7th and 8th ranks Schematic illustration for the 5 special cases
15 17 17 19 20 21 21 24 26 28 30 31 32 33 34 37 38 42 43 43 46 46 46 47 47 47 52 52
Illustrative games for the first three chapters
53
4 The passed pawn 1 Getting our bearings 2 Blockading passed pawns 2a The first reason 2b The second reason 2c The third reason 3 The main and secondary functions of the blockading piece The effect of the blockade 4 The struggle against the blockading piece “Negotiations” or uprooting 5 Frontal attack by a king on an isolated pawn – an ideal! 6 Privileged passed pawns 7 When a passed pawn should advance When can a passed pawn be considered ready to move? Endgames and games illustrating passed pawns Schematic representation for the passed pawn (question and answer session)
73 74 75 79 80 80 81 83 84 86 89 92 92 95 101
5 Exchanging 1 We exchange in order to occupy (or open) a line without loss of time 2 We destroy a defender by exchanging 3 We exchange in order not to lose time retreating 3a “He tries to sell his life as dearly as possible” 4 How and where exchanges usually take place
103 103 104 105 105
6 The elements of endgame strategy Introduction and general comments • The typical disproportion 1 Centralisation Shelters and bridge building 2 The aggressively posted rook as a typical endgame advantage 3 Welding together isolated troops and “General advance!” 4 The “materialisation” of the abstract concepts: file or rank Schematic illustration of the “endgame” or “the 4 elements”
109 109 112 113 116 117 119
7 The pinned piece 1 Introduction and general remarks 2 The concept of the completely or partially pinned piece The exchanging combination on the pinning square 3 The problem of unpinning a) Challenging b) Ignoring the threat or allowing our pawns to be broken up c) The reserves rush up to unpin in a peaceful way d) Tacking (manoeuvring) and keeping open the options a, b, c! Games involving pins Schematic representation to illustrate pinning
125 126 128 130 131 133 133 134 135 141
8 Discovered check 1 The degree of relationship between the “pin” and the “discovered check” is defined more closely • Where is the best place for the piece which is discovering the check? 2 The treadmill (windmill) 3 Double check 9 The pawn chain 1 General remarks and definitions • The base of the pawn chain The idea of two separate battlefields The idea of building a chain Towards the kingside Towards the centre 2 Attacking the pawn chain 3 Attacking the base as a strategic necessity 4 Transferring the rules of blockading to the pawn chain 5 The concept of a surprise attack compared to that of positional warfare, as applied to chains • The attacker at the parting of the ways! 5a The positional struggle, or put simply the slow siege of the unprotected base 6 Transferring the attack Schematic representation of pawn chains Games to illustrate pawn chains
143 144 145
149 149 150 150 151 153 154 156 158 161 164 165
II Positional Play 1 Prophylaxis and the centre The reciprocal links between the treatment of the elements on one hand and positional play on the other 2 Offences against sound positional play, which should be weeded out in every case as a sine qua non to the study of positional play 3 My novel conception of positional play as such 4 Next to prophylaxis, the idea of the “general mobility” of the pawn mass constitutes one of the main pillars of my teachings on positional play 5 The centre 6 What should be the leitmotiv behind true strategy 7 Giving up the centre The “surrender of the centre” – a prejudice Roads to the mastering of positional play (schematic representation of chapter 1)
1
177 177 179 183 184 189 191 192 200
2 Doubled pawns and restraint 1 The affinity between “doubled pawns” and “restraint” 1a The only true strength of doubled pawns 2 A review of the best-known doubled pawn structures The doubled pawn complex in diagram 391 as an instrument of attack
201 203 203 209
3 4 5
Restraint • “Mysterious rook moves” Clarification of the nucleus of a manoeuvre designed to restrain a pawn majority The different forms of restraint are more clearly explained a) The mobile central pawn b) The struggle against a qualitative majority c) Restraining doubled pawn complexes d) My own special variation and its restraining tendencies
211 216 216 217 218 219 220
3 The isolated queen’s pawn and its descendants a) The isolated queen’s pawn 1 The dynamic strength of the d4-pawn 2 The isolani as an endgame weakness 3 The isolani as an instrument of attack in the middlegame 4 Which cases are favourable to White and which to Black? 5 A few more words about the creation of a related weakness among White’s queenside pawns b) The “isolated pawn pair” c) Hanging pawns From the “isolani” to “hanging pawns” d) The bishops 1 Horrwitz bishops 2 A pawn mass directed by bishops 3 Cramping the knights while at the same time fighting against a pawn majority 4 The two bishops in the endgame
229 230 230 231 232 232 233 234 235 238 239 240 241 242
4 Overprotection and weak pawns How to systematically overprotect your own strong points and how to try to get rid of weak pawns or squares a) Overprotection of the central squares b) Overprotection of the centre as a protective measure for your own kingside How to get rid of weak pawns
247 249 251 252
5 Manoeuvring What are the logical elements on which manoeuvring against a weakness is based? The concept of the “pivot”, around which manoeuvring takes place. 2 The terrain • The rule for manoeuvring • Changing place a) A pawn weakness, which is attacked in turn from the (7th) rank and from the file b) Two pawn weaknesses, in this case c3 and h3 c) The king as a weakness 3 Combining play on both wings, when for the moment the weaknesses either do not exist or are hidden
1
255 255 256 256 257 258
4
Manoeuvring when circumstances become difficult (your own centre is in need of protection)
260
Postscript: The history of the revolution in chess from 1911-1914 1 The general situation before 1911 Does “The modern game of chess” by Dr Tarrasch really correspond to the modern conception of the game? 2 The revolutionary ideas 3 Revolutionary theory put into revolutionary praxis 4 Other historical battles 5 Extension and development of the revolution in chess in the years 1914 to 1926
269
The chess career of Aron Nimzowitsch
285
Index of players
300
My System in the computer age (or footnotes)
303
Nimzowitsch for the 21st Century
313
270 276 277 279 282
The passed pawn
95
Endgames and games illustrating passed pawns Nimzowitsch – Rubinstein Breslau 1925
180 1222222223 4 + T + +5 4+ + + O 5 4 +l+ V O5 4+oO +o+p5 4p+ + B +5 4+ P + P 5 4 +k+ P +5 4+ + R + 5 7888888889
White had the move and played an exchange sacrifice, which despite the length of the combination can be expressed in no other terms than: White is aiming for the ideal position (the frontal attack against an isolated pawn – see section 5, page 86). I managed to carry out the deeply laid plan (although it could have been refuted) since Rubinstein seemed handicapped by not being as familiar as I was with the wellknown rules of my system. Moreover, I know no other ending in which this precise striving for “the ideal position” is more clearly illustrated than in the one which follows. Things proceeded as follows: 1.¦e6† ¢d5 2.¦xf6 gxf6 3.axb5 (threatening 4.c4† ¢xc4 5.b6 etc) 3...c4 And now White took the §h6, although he had to give up the b- and h-pawns; there followed 4.¥xh6 ¦h8 5.¥g7 ¦xh5 6.¥xf6 ¢c5 7.¢d2!. The key idea. All that has happened up till now was solely and simply to clear the way for the king to get to f4. 7...¢xb5? An error. Here Black could prevent the king journey planned by White by 7...¦h6 8.¥d4† ¢xb5 9.¢e3 ¦e6† 10.¢f4 ¦e4† then ¦xd4 and wins. Note that 10.¢f3 (instead of 10.¢f4?) would
not have saved White either, because then there would have been at the correct time ¦e4 then ¢xb5 and the king would have marched to e1 followed by ¦e2 etc. In the game, there followed 8.¢e3 ¢c5 9.¢f4!. And things are all right again. 9...¢d5 10.f3 And it ended in a draw after a few moves, since the rook and black king cannot both be liberated at the same time. (Or else there could be a double attack on c3 followed by an exchange sacrifice.) An instructive ending!! How keenly the king tried to get to the frontal attack we have described! Why? Well, because such efforts form part of the king’s innermost being (and one of the rules of the blockade). The second example shows a simple case of flanking. Hansen – Nimzowitsch Denmark (simultaneous)
181 1222222223 4 + + + +5 4+ + + + 5 4 +oL + +5 4+ +o+ O 5 4 O P +p+5 4+ +k+ + 5 4p+p+ + +5 4+ + + + 5 7888888889
Black played 1...¢c7 (he has to do something against the threat of c3 with the distant passed pawn which would result from it) and the ending went as follows, simply and effectively: 2.c3 (or 2.c4 ¢b6 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.¢c2 ¢a5! – tempo!) 2...¢b6! 3.cxb4 ¢b5 4.¢c3 ¢a4 and the flanking works perfectly in spite of
96
My System: The Elements
allowing White to win the pawn, since White has been crippled which favours Black’s flanking manoeuvre. Example 3 illustrates how a distant passed pawn can deflect a king. Tarrasch – Berger Breslau 1889
182 1222222223 4 + + L +5 4+ + +oOo5 4 + O + +5 4O + + + 5 4 + Op+ +5 4+p+ +p+ 5 4p+ + +pP5 4+ + + +k5 7888888889
After an exchange of queens (see game 6, page 60) there now followed: 37.¢g1 ¢e7 38.¢f2 d5 39.e5 (there was also the simpler 39.exd5 ¢d6 40.¢e2 ¢xd5 41.a3 ¢c5 and White will also succeed with f2-f4 and finally a deflection by b4†) 39...¢e6 40.¢e2 (40.f4 would be weaker on account of 40...g5 41.g3 gxf4 42.gxf4 ¢f5) 40...¢xe5 41.¢d3 h5 42.a3 (42.h4! first would have been preferable) 42...h4! Black creates a chance for later. 43.b4 axb4 44.axb4 ¢d6 45.¢xd4 ¢c6 46.b5† White does not use the zugzwang. 46.f4 would have brought about zugzwang and a pawn advance by Black; this would have decisively favoured the later king excursion by White and the execution of the black pawns which follows it. 46...¢xb5 47.¢xd5 ¢b4! And now the deflection is of lesser importance in that Black, after the taking of the g- and h-pawns, needs only a few tempi for his own h-pawn. The ending is instructive on account of the errors. The position reached was finally won by White, after Black had overlooked the chance of a draw.
Example 4 is important for the way linked passed pawns move (see section 6, page 89). Nimzowitsch – Alapin St Petersburg 1913
183 1222222223 4 +t+t+l+5 4+w+ + Oo5 4 + +o+m+5 4OpP Qo+ 5 4 + N + +5 4+ + + + 5 4 +p+ PpP5 4+r+ R K 5 7888888889
Play went: 1.c6! Here the choice of which pawn to advance first is made not so much on account of which is under the greater or lesser danger of blockade but because White would otherwise lose the c-pawn. 1...£b6 (if 1...¦xc6 2.bxc6 £xb1 3.¦xb1 ¤xe5 then 4.c7 with a passed pawn and the 7th rank absolute [page 46], e.g. 4...¤d7 5.¤c6 and wins) 2.£e3 Now the blockader on b6 must be chased away so that the somewhat backward b-pawn can advance (section 6, page 90). 2...f4 (the threat had been ¤xf5) 3.£e4 ¦cd8 4.¤f3 ¦d6 184 1222222223 4 + +t+l+5 4+ + + Oo5 4 WpTo+m+5 4Op+ + + 5 4 + +qO +5 4+ + +n+ 5 4 +p+ PpP5 4+r+ R K 5 7888888889
The passed pawn 5.h4! With his strong position in the centre (£e4), White now wishes to prove that the defending pieces are hanging in mid-air. 5...£c5 It has worked. The blockader has become more accommodating! 6.¤e5 (the move 6.h5! would also be good and logical; 6...£xh5 7.b6 and the two friends meet up again) 6...¦d4 (the main line would be 6...¦d2 7.¤d3 £xc2 8.b6!,
97
Next came 1.g4 ¥xg4 2.exf6† ¢f7. Here, the king is a bad blockader because of its sensitivity. The danger of mate means that his blockading effect is pure illusion. 3.¥d5†! To create a zone of activity for the f-rook without loss of time. It is now supporting the passed pawn to the best of its ability. 3...cxd5 4.£xe8† ¢xe8 5.f7† ¢f8 The last attempt at a blockade. But now the piece behind (¥b2) is brought to life by the lengthening of the diagonal thanks to 5.f7. It makes its presence felt, most uncomfortably for Black. 6.¥g7†! ¢xg7 7.f8£ mate. This ending is a pragmatic demonstration of the lust to expand. Example 6 is characteristic of the flexibility required of the blockader. The subject is an endgame which has come down to a blockade. We shall only look at the most important aspects.
185 1222222223 4 + +t+l+5 4+ + + Oo5 4 Pp+o+m+5 4O + + + 5 4 + +qO P5 4+ +n+ + 5 4 +wT Pp+5 Nimzowitsch – A. Nilsson 4+r+ R K 5 Nordic Master Tournament 1924 187 1222222223 7888888889 and without worrying about the loss of a piece the pawns march on to queen) 7.£e2 ¤xh4 4t+ + + +5 8.b6 (according to book, the way things should 4T +l+ Oo5 go!) 8...¦b4 9.¦xb4 axb4 10.b7 £c3 11.£e4 ¤f5 12.¤d7 1–0 4o+ + + +5 Example 5 (Nimzowitsch – Amateur, odds 4+oPo+ + 5 game, Nuremberg 1904) shows how impetuous a passed pawn can become. Usually you cannot 4 P Po+ +5 guess at its temperament, but we do know about 4+ + P + 5 its lust to expand. So the example which follows will not come as a surprise. 4r+ + KpP5 186 1222222223 4R + + + 5 4t+ Vt+ +5 7888888889 White wishes to play down the f-file with 4+o+ + Lo5 something like 1.¢g3, 2.¦f1. He wishes to create 4 Po+ Oo+5 for himself an entry point on f6 by advancing h-pawn h2-h4-h5-h6, and for that reason 4O P Pv+ 5 his the presence of the white king on the kingside 4 + + + +5 is necessary. But despite the fact that the f-line play, White found the courage to resist 4+ + QbPw5 dominates its lure and quietly played 1.¦a2-a5 and only then 4 B R + P5 started the struggle for the f-file. The blockade on 4+ + +rK 5 a5 is possible here, because the blockading piece 7888888889
Playing 1.d4
The Queen’s Gambit – a grandmaster guide By
Lars Schandorff
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Preface This is the first of a two-volume complete repertoire for White with 1.d4. In this book I offer an ambitious repertoire against 1...d5 with 2.c4. In the second volume, Playing 1.d4 – The Indian Defences, I complete the repertoire. In addition to being part of a new repertoire, this is also the second edition of my 2009 book Playing the Queen’s Gambit. It is natural for the reader to wonder – what has changed? The short answer is that the core of the repertoire remains the same, but a multitude of details have been updated and improved within the lines. As I explained in the first edition, the repertoire is based entirely on big mainlines, which guarantees its reliability and strength. Firstly, you cannot expect to get anything against well-respected openings like the Queen’s Gambit Declined and the Slav by trying a little sideline or just by playing safe. The main lines, on the other hand, have not become main lines by chance. They have slowly but surely evolved and proved their strength over the years, so by choosing main lines you gain reliable weapons. Secondly, the main lines are sharp and put the maximum pressure on the opponent, both theoretically and in practice. This corresponds perfectly with the philosophy behind this work, which is that White should strive for the initiative and show that moving first matters. Developing the pieces fluidly to active squares and trying to take the centre with pawns to seize space – these are key elements in the various White set-ups presented here. Playing White is like serving in tennis – with a good serve you either win directly or, if the opponent manages to return the ball, at least you get the chance to take the initiative and dictate the rest of the duel. In this book I offer you an excellent first serve. But every tennis player knows that it is important to have a decent second serve as well. This may also be true in chess, especially in this computer age, so having a safe alternative is a good idea. Thus, throughout the book I offer hints of where you could devote some of your further investigations. In the first edition I chose well-respected mainlines so it is pleasing but not so surprising that they have generally stood the test of time. It was also inevitable that a few years of practice and analysis would reveal parts that required strengthening. Thus every chapter has been updated, but some needed more work than others. To be more specific, the greatest changes have been made in the sharpest lines, particularly the Semi-Slav and the Noteboom variations. The Semi-Slav remains one of the greatest challenges a 1.d4-player must face. Accordingly I have not only updated my previous answer to it but also offered as an alternative a new sharp but slightly less theoretical answer. This new line has the bonus that it can be played against both the Botvinnik and Moscow variations. My original recommendation against the Noteboom was one of the most ‘controversial’ parts of my repertoire. Sadly, the doubters may have been right! I have updated my old line, but this ‘Triangle’ line remains troublesome. So I also offer a completely new antidote to the Noteboom. If you studied my first edition then much will feel familiar – the text I wrote about the lines’ positional features is still valid. The devil is always in the details and that is where I concentrated my attention. I am confident this updated and improved repertoire will be an effective weapon now and for years to come. I hope it brings you many aces! Lars Schandorff Denmark, June 2012
Contents
Preface 3 Key to symbols used & Bibliography 6 Introduction 7
1 Queen’s Gambit Declined 11
Follow the Patriarch The 3...¥e7 move order The Mainline 3...¥e7
13 16 21 31
2 Queen’s Gambit Accepted
43 45 47 53 70 75
The 3...b5 Variation The 3...c5 Variation The 3...e5 Variation The 3...¤c6 Variation The 3...¤f6 Variation
3 The Slav 83
The Rare 3...dxc4 The 5...¤a6 Variation The 5...¥g4 Variation The 5...e6 Variation The Mainline: 5...¥f5 6.¤e5 The 6...¤a6 Variation The Mainline – Part One: The Bishop Sacrifice – 15...0–0–0 The Bishop Sacrifice – 15...0–0 The Bishop Sacrifice – 15...b5 etc. Kramnik’s ending The Mainline - Part Two The Classical Move – 11...f6 Morozevich’s 11...g5 Sokolov’s Variation – 7...¤b6
85 88 90 94 99 101 103 103 106 108 110 116 118 123 128
4 The Semi-Slav 134
The Botvinnik Variation The Moscow Variation The Cambridge Springs Queen’s Gambit Declined Theory: Botvinnik Variation Theory: Moscow Gambit Theory: Cambridge Springs Theory: QGD
5 The a6-Slav
The 5...b6 Variation The 5...¥g4 Variation The 5...g6 Variation The 5...¥f5 Variation The 5...¤bd7 Variation
135 136 137 137 137 166 197 211
217 219 221 224 227 231
6 The Tarrasch 239
Positional Play Theory The 9...c4 Variation The 9...¥e6 Variation The 9...cxd4 Variation
241 246 250 255 258
7 The Chigorin 265
The System The a6-variation The active 4...¥g4 Early Deviations
266 270 273 276
8 Minor Lines 280
The Albin Counter-Gambit The Von Hennig-Schara Gambit The 2...¥f5 Variation The Symmetrical 2...c5 The Marshall Variation The Triangle Variation The Semi-Tarrasch The QGD with 3...¥b4
281 285 288 292 295 297 305 309
Index of Main Games Index of Variations
314 316
Introduction to the Repertoire I have explained the principles of the repertoire – aggressive reliable mainlines that seize space – but after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 how does that translate into moves? Against some openings the choice seems obvious, in others there are several possible lines that could fit the bill. Where there was a real choice I have used my judgment to select the most principled continuation – no compromises! Let’s take it one opening at a time in the order I have arranged the chapters:
Chapter 1: Queen’s Gambit Declined 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 Against the Queen’s Gambit Declined my choice is: 4.cxd5 exd5 Critical, yes, but how does it take space? The answer is that in many of my lines White will later play f3 and e4. 5.¥g5 The great Botvinnik will be our guide of how to play this line.
Chapter 2: Queen’s Gambit Accepted 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 The Queen’s Gambit Accepted is a tough opening to meet, but it is obvious my space-gaining choice must be: 3.e4 Black has various ways to challenge White’s central dominance, so we will leave the details till later.
Chapter 3: The Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 dxc4 5.a4 ¥f5 Naturally, Black also has moves such as 5...¥g4, 5...¤a6 and 5...e6, and I cover them all. But 5...¥f5 is the mainline of the Slav, and I answer with the mainline: 6.¤e5 As against the Queen’s Gambit Declined, I will usually build my centre with f3 and e4.
Chapter 4: The Semi-Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 The Semi-Slav will be met by the most aggressive reply: 5.¥g5 Naturally if Black takes on c4 then White seizes the centre with e2-e4.
Chapter 5: The a6-Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 a6 Against the a6-Slav achieving e2-e4 is more difficult (though it will happen in one of my key lines!). This time I claim a space advantage by playing: 5.c5 At this point Black has a choice, so we will leave further explanation to the chapter itself.
Chapter 6: The Tarrasch 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 The Tarrasch is the joker in our pack: White will not have a space advantage but we will have easy development and the sounder pawn structure by following the main line: 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 White’s play will be more about control, whereas the rest of the repertoire is more attacking.
Chapter 7: The Chigorin 1.d4 d5 2.c4 ¤c6 In the Chigorin Black chooses piece-play over supporting his centre, so it is relatively easy for us to secure a space advantage – the trick is to find an accurate move order that limits Black’s counterplay. My solution is: 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¤f3 dxc4 Now 5.e4 looks like our kind of move, but it allows Black to play 5...¥g4, so I opt to develop first with: 5.¥g5 This is an old favourite of mine, and I will show how to use it as an effective weapon.
Chapter 8: Minor Lines The final chapter is a hotchpotch of minor lines.
The lines covered include the Triangle Variation (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c6), the Albin CounterGambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5) and the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4). Naturally this chapter also covers many other lines, as this is a complete repertoire. I have explained the ideas behind the repertoire and shown a few moves, so it’s time to dive into the details.
Chapter 1 Queen's Gambit Declined And did we tell you the name of the game, boy We call it Riding the Gravy Train – Pink Floyd
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoO +oOo5 + +o+ +5 + +o+ + 5 +pP + +5 + + + + 5 pP +pPpP5 RnBqKbNr5 79 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 Follow the Patriarch The 3...¥e7 move order The Mainline 3...¥e7
page 13 page 16 page 21 page 31
12
Playing 1.d4 – The Queen’s Gambit
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6
the bishop pair, while after the standard 7.¥h4 Black can either release the tension with the Lasker variation 7...¤e4 or play the flexible Tartakower system with 7...b6. Generally speaking, White’s pieces quickly get to good squares and he has a slight positional initiative, but Black has no real weaknesses, so it is difficult to gain anything tangible. In the new century White has had some success with 5.¥f4. Even so, after 5...0–0 6.e3 both the old move 6...c5 and the popular 6...¤bd7 seem viable. Fortunately there is a third option. One that immediately changes the nature of the battle.
The real Queen’s Gambit: Black defends d5 and stays solid. It is one of the most respected openings in all chess theory and has been used by every World Champion. Fortunately, they have also had to face it, so we will have some of the greatest guides possible.
4.cxd5 exd5 5.¥g5 The Exchange Variation. White fixes the pawn structure in a way that gives him a slight but long-lasting positional edge. Usually Black safeguards d5 with ...c6 and we have the typical Carlsbad structure.
3.¤c3 ¤f6 Black plays according to the old philosophy: first equalize, and then play for a win. Black’s choice of opening should not be thought of as unambitious, but rather as realistic. After all it is White who must come up with something. It is only fair: he has the serve, remember. Translated to moves, Black will continue ...¥e7 and ...0–0 with a safe king. Afterwards the queenside can be attended to. Here the bishop on c8 needs special care. It is the real problem child of the entire Queen’s Gambit Declined, because its natural route to freedom was blocked by 2...e6. Often it can come fully alive on b7. The knight on b8 can go to d7 and help Black to increase his influence in the centre with ...c5. One mainline is 4.¤f3 ¥e7 5.¥g5 0–0 6.e3 and now instead of the ancient masters’ solid but rather passive 6...¤bd7, the modern elite throws in the little move 6...h6. Then 7.¥xf6 does not do much for White other than lose
5...c6
White has tried to play on both flanks. Usually he begins with 6.£c2 to prevent Black’s problem bishop from going to the great square f5, then White continues with e3, ¥d3, ¤f3 and either castles long and launches an offensive on the kingside with h3 and g4, or castles short and begins positional play on the
Chapter 1 – Queen’s Gambit Declined queenside with ¦b1 followed by b2-b4-b5, the so-called minority attack. It is true that Black does not have immediate counterplay. For example, the natural strike in the centre with c6-c5 will most likely lead to severe problems if White just takes it and isolates the black d-pawn. But you don’t play the Queen’s Gambit with Black to get active piece-play, do you? No, you play it to get a firm position, and that is exactly what you get after the normal moves ...¥e7, ...0–0 and ...¤bd7 followed by the clever regrouping ...¦e8 and ...¤f8. The king’s position is well defended and, although placed on the last few ranks, the black pieces are ready to counter any aggression. In the early days of this variation White often ran headfirst into a wall. However, the legendary World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik found, almost by accident, an interesting set-up for White based on his flair for dynamic pawn play. After the moves £c2, e3, ¥d3 he developed the knight more flexibly with ¤ge2 and after 0–0 came the key move f3! preparing the break e3-e4. So White could also play in the centre. This strategy is very promising and was also a favourite of Botvinnik’s pupil, the brilliant attacking player Garry Kasparov. As an appetizer, let’s see three famous Botvinnik wins that show White’s prospects in full bloom.
Follow the Patriarch Botvinnik was well known for his deep opening preparation, but you can’t work out everything in the lab: chess is a practical game. Even in our computer age you still have to make your own decisions at the board – at least sometimes! In the following masterpiece Botvinnik was provoked by the creative Estonian, Paul Keres, and had to come up with something new. In fact, he came up with the foundation for our whole system.
13
GAME 1 Botvinnik – Keres Moscow 1952
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¥g5 ¥e7 6.e3 0–0 7.¥d3 ¤bd7 8.£c2 ¦e8 9.¤ge2 ¤f8 10.0–0 c6 11.¦ab1 Preparing the typical minority attack. 11...¥d6?! This threatens 12...¥xh2† 13.¢xh2 ¤g4† and ...£xg5, but the move is inaccurate. 12.¢h1 Now on ...¥xh2 White has the intermediate move ¥xf6 winning instantly. 12...¤g6 13.f3!
We are witnessing the birth of a profound strategy. Black was ready to gain the bishop pair with ...h6, so White needed an active continuation. 13.f3 prepares play in the centre with e3-e4. 13...¥e7 Black admits his failure. After 13...h6 14.¥xf6 £xf6 15.e4 White already has a serious initiative.
14
Playing 1.d4 – The Queen’s Gambit
14.¦be1 Botvinnik adapts to the new situation. No minority attack today! The plan is to play e3-e4, but first he improves his pieces and at the same time prevents any counterplay: prophylactic play in its very essence. The break will come eventually and with extra force if it is properly backed up. Too hasty was 14.e4 dxe4 15.fxe4 ¤g4 when Black gets good counterplay. 14...¤d7 15.¥xe7 ¦xe7 16.¤g3 ¤f6 17.£f2 ¥e6 18.¤f5 ¥xf5 19.¥xf5 £b6 20.e4!
Finally.
20...dxe4 21.fxe4± White has strong pressure. The further advance e4-e5 is in the air, gaining more space and establishing an outpost on d6 for the knight. 21...¦d8 22.e5 ¤d5 23.¤e4 Simple stuff: the knight is going to d6. 23...¤f8 24.¤d6 £c7 25.¥e4 Botvinnik wants to eliminate the strong knight on d5 and at the same he vacates f5 for his own knight. 25...¤e6 26.£h4 g6 27.¥xd5 cxd5 28.¦c1 £d7 29.¦c3+–
The positional dominance transforms into a strong attack. Black is beyond salvation. 29...¦f8
30.¤f5! ¦fe8 Or 30...gxf5 31.¦g3† ¤g7 32.£f6 and mate on g7. 31.¤h6† Even stronger than taking the exchange. Soon Black will lose everything. 31...¢f8 32.£f6 ¤g7 33.¦cf3 ¦c8 34.¤xf7 ¦e6 35.£g5 ¤f5 36.¤h6 £g7 37.g4 1–0 After this game Botvinnik refined the system, so when the opportunistic Danish fighter Bent Larsen allowed it some years later, the Patriarch was more than ready.
GAME 2 Botvinnik – Larsen Noordwijk 1965
1.c4 e6 2.¤c3 d5 3.d4 ¤f6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¥g5 c6 6.e3 ¥e7 7.£c2 0–0 8.¥d3 ¤bd7 9.¤ge2 h6 This looks natural but it is a small weakening
Playing 1.d4
The Indian Defences – a grandmaster guide By
Lars Schandorff
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Preface This is the second book of a two-volume repertoire for White with 1.d4. The first volume offered an ambitious repertoire against 1...d5. Now I complete the repertoire by covering everything else! The major openings covered are the Indian defences, in particular the Nimzo-Indian, King’s Indian and Grünfeld Defences. As in the first book, the repertoire is based entirely on big mainlines, which guarantees its reliability and strength. Firstly, you cannot expect to get anything against well-respected openings by trying a little sideline or just by playing safe. The main lines, on the other hand, have not become main lines by chance. They have slowly but surely evolved and proved their strength over the years, so by choosing main lines you gain reliable weapons. Secondly, the main lines are sharp and put the maximum pressure on the opponent, both theoretically and in practice. This corresponds perfectly with the philosophy behind this work, which is that White should strive for the initiative and show that moving first matters. Developing the pieces fluidly to active squares and trying to take the centre with pawns to seize space – these are key elements in the various White set-ups presented here. In the first volume the challenge in meeting 1...d5 was often to build up a space advantage by achieving e2-e4. In this volume, playing e2-e4 is usually much easier since Black has declined to occupy the centre with a pawn. Black’s general plan is to create counterplay against White’s space advantage. Thus the challenge in this book is to keep control and not let Black seize the initiative. I will explain the details later, but in general I have chosen the lines in my repertoire so that White will be the one attacking – I don’t like using the white pieces to grab a gambit pawn and then defend desperately for the next 30 moves. I wish to repeat what I said in the first book. Playing White is like serving in tennis – with a good serve you either win directly or, if the opponent manages to return the ball, at least you get the chance to take the initiative and dictate the rest of the duel. In this book I offer you an excellent first serve. But every tennis player knows that it is important to have a decent second serve as well. This may also be true in chess, especially in this computer age, so having a safe alternative is a good idea. Thus, throughout the book I offer hints of where you could devote some of your further investigations. I am confident this repertoire will be an effective weapon now and for years to come. I hope it brings you many aces! Lars Schandorff Denmark, August 2012
Contents
Preface Key to symbols used & Bibliography Introduction
3 6 7
1 Nimzo-Indian 11
Follow the Patriarch Various 4th Moves The 4...b6 Variation The 4...c5 Variation The 4...0–0 Variation The Mainline: 6...¥d6 The Mainline: 6...¥e7
13 17 18 31 36 40 43
2 King’s Indian
43 53 55 58 66 68 80
Various 4th and 5th Moves Various 6th Moves Panno Variation The New Panno Variation The Old Mainline The Sämisch Gambit
3 Grünfeld Defence 100
Smyslov Variation 104 Prins Variation 107 Hungarian Variation 116 The Positional 8.¥e2 119 Modern Mainline: 7...¤c6 126
4 Modern Benoni 134
...a6 or ...¤a6? The ...a6-line
137 141
5 Benko Gambit 147
The 5...axb5 Variation 148 The 5...g6 Variation 156 The 5...e6 Variation 160
6 Old Indian 169
The 5...¤c5 Variation 171 The 5...¥e7 Variation 173
7 Dutch Defence 179 2...c5 180 2...d6 182 2...c6 183 2...d5 185 2...¤f6 185 2...h6 186 2...c5 189 8 Minor Lines 196
A) Rare Moves 197 B) Various Benonis 206 C) The Budapest Gambit 215 D) 1...e6 Systems 222 E) The Modern Defence 231
Index of Main Games Index of Variations
240 242
Introduction to the Repertoire Chapter 1: Nimzo-Indian 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 The Nimzo-Indian is one of Black’s most respected defences and we meet it by following the Patriarch with 4.e3. We will generally follow up with ¤ge2 and a2a3, breaking the pin while avoiding any damage to our structure. Then White will start increasing his grip on the centre.
Chapter 2: King’s Indian
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 ¥g7 4.e4 d6 The King’s Indian can be a dangerous counterattacking system but with 5.f3, the Sämisch Variation, we support our centre and potentially prepare to expand. The only side likely to be doing any attacking on the kingside is White.
8
Playing 1.d4 – The Indian Defences
Chapter 3: Grünfeld Defence 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 d5 Against the Grünfeld Defence it is easy to achieve e2-e4; the trick is to do so while keeping control. We manage that with the Russian System: 4.¤f3 ¥g7 5.£b3 dxc4 6.£xc4 Of course e4 is on the way.
Chapter 4: Modern Benoni
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.¤c3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 The Modern Benoni is another opening where Black does not strive for dull equality; he wants to attack, but we will foil his plans. With 7.¤ge2 we have good chances to obtain a favourable version of the ...c5 variation in the King’s Indian.
Introduction to the Repertoire
9
Chapter 5: Benko Gambit 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 The dream of any Benko Gambit player is to sac a pawn for a never-ending initiative on the queenside. We decline the offer with 5.f3, preparing to build our traditional centre. In the main line, it will be White who sacrifices to seize the initiative.
Chapter 6: Old Indian
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 d6 3.¤c3 ¤bd7 The Old Indian can create some move order confusion, but not for us. After 4.e4 e5 5.d5 White secures a space advantage and arranges his pieces in a similar fashion as in Chapter 2.
10
Playing 1.d4 – The Indian Defences
Chapter 7: Dutch Defence 1.d4 f5 The Dutch stands apart from the Indian defences covered in the previous chapters, and the ensuing play may take on a totally different character. Our chosen system with 2.¥g5 will often lead to an open fight, in which White’s lead in development and Black’s airy kingside may take their toll.
Chapter 8: Minor Lines
Every repertoire book needs a hodgepodge chapter to cover all the stragglers and oddities. In this case some are fairly respectable, such as the Czech Benoni and Budapest Gambit. Others, such as 1...e6, 1...d6 and 1...g6, will sometimes transpose to mainstream systems but all offer independent possibilities. I will refrain from listing the full contents here, but rest assured that all the important bases are covered.
o + B
Chapter 1 Nimzo-Indian With the lights out, it’s less dangerous Here we are now, entertain us – Nirvana
1222222223 tMvWl+ T5 OoOo+oOo5 + +oM +5 + + + + 5 VpP + +5 + N P + 5 pP + PpP5 R BqKbNr5 79 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3 Follow the Patriarch Various 4th Moves The 4...b6 Variation The 4...c5 Variation The 4...0–0 Variation The Mainline: 6...¥d6 The Mainline: 6...¥e7
page 13 page 17 page 18 page 31 page 36 page 40 page 43
12
Playing 1.d4 – The Indian Defences
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 This is by far Black’s most popular choice in the whole Indians-complex and a very flexible system indeed. A lot of options are kept open while Black makes sure he doesn’t show his hand prematurely. He can still play ...d5 and transpose to a Queen’s Gambit, or even ...c5 with a Modern Benoni. Most of the time though, he intends to play the Nimzo-Indian. 3.¤c3 Which we allow! Please notice that the move 3.¤c3 is forced to make our repertoire coherent. If we instead opted for the choice of the majority of White players, 3.¤f3, then after 3...d5 we could no longer transpose to the beloved Exchange Variation from Playing 1.d4 – The Queen’s Gambit, at least not in the version I like. As an alternative to the Nimzo you definitely could consider the Catalan with 3.g3, where White strives for a small long-lasting positional pull. 3...¥b4 If Black plays 3...d5 we just take with 4.cxd5 and are happy! Then we are still in book, albeit not the one that you are holding in your hands right now. Another direct transposing move is 3...c5 4.d5 with a Benoni. That is covered later on in this volume. 4.e3
The real Nimzo. “Old School” some would say, “Eternal” others might reply. It is certainly true that the line has been around for a long time. The move 4.e3 might look a bit modest, but you shouldn’t be deceived. Behind it lies a deep strategic concept that actually creates a sharp positional struggle right from the beginning. Lately more forceful tries like 4.£c2 and 4.¤f3 have been heavily debated, and the slightly bizarre 4.f3 has even appeared in a World Championship match. However when these sharp lines have been exhausted people tend to return to the evergreen 4.e3. The reason is easy to understand. The 4.e3 Nimzo-Indian leads to a complicated manoeuvring game, where the better player wins. It is extremely difficult to play for both colours, so I will dwell on some of its distinct features.
Nimzo Features The Nimzo-Indian is a so-called hypermodern opening where Black primarily uses his pieces to fight for the centre instead of just occupying it with pawns as in traditional openings such as the Queen’s Gambit Declined or the Slav. By pinning the knight Black prevents e2-e4. Later, depending on how White reacts, Black will decide which pawn formation he will strive for. The e4-square is very important. Black can launch a light-square strategy with ...b6, ...¥b7 and often ...¤e4 and ...f5 as well. Despite all these efforts a small white pawn move like f2f3 can throw a spanner in the works and stop the fun. Black has a simpler and more straightforward way to control e4 and take his share of the centre into possession – that is to play ...d5 himself. Then the pawn structure is very dynamic and often will end up being quite
Chapter 1 – Nimzo-Indian similar to the Queen’s Gambit Exchange variation examined in the other book in this series. Here is an example: 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3 0–0 5.¥d3 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.¤ge2 ¦e8 8.0–0 ¥d6 9.f3
The biggest difference between the Queen’s Gambit and the Nimzo is the passive white bishop on c1. In the Queen’s Gambit it is very active on g5; here it is restrained behind the pawns. Fortunately the dark-squared bishop has decent prospects of a bright future. If we for a moment forget about the hanging e3-pawn in the diagram position, the bishop could be developed to b2 (after first b2-b3). Then later when Black attacks the white centre with the typical ...c5, White can simply take it with dxc5 and suddenly the bishop operates on a wonderful diagonal all the way towards the opponent’s king. The other way to get the bishop out is the manoeuvre ¥c1-d2-e1-g3/h4. Finally the most characteristic feature of the Nimzo-Indian arises after Black plays ...¥xc3 and White takes back with the b-pawn. Then White has the bishop pair, but also a somewhat shattered structure with double pawns on the c-file. Which is the more important depends on the exact position.
13
Follow the Patriarch To deepen our understanding let’s see a few games by the great masters. Just as in the corresponding chapter on the QGD Exchange Variation in my other book, we will have Botvinnik as our sturdy guide. The Patriarch was also one of the pioneers in the 4.e3Nimzo.
GAME 1 Botvinnik – Taimanov Moscow (4) 1952
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3 ¤c6 A sideline. I have included the game mainly for two reasons. 5.¤ge2
This is the first! With this important knight move White prevents the doubling of his pawns on the c-file. Next he plans to play a2a3 and question the black bishop. 5...d5 6.a3 ¥e7 Black withdraws. After 6...¥xc3† 7.¤xc3 White just enjoys the pair of bishops.
14
Playing 1.d4 – The Indian Defences
7.cxd5 exd5 The second reason. The pawn structure is similar to the QGD Exchange Variation. 8.¤f4 0–0 If Black had guessed what was coming he could have tried 8...¥f5 9.¥e2 £d7. 9.¥e2 ¥f5
10.g4! Botvinnik was fond of this move. See the later game against Smyslov and check out the win over Petrosian from my other book. 10...¥e6 11.¤xe6 fxe6 12.0–0 £d7 13.f4 Effectively stopping the freeing ...e5 break. 13...¤d8 14.¥d3 ¤f7 15.b4 a5 16.b5 ¤d6 17.£f3 Controlling e4. 17...a4 18.¦a2! Planning to transfer the rook to the kingside. The bishop just stays on c1 until a clear destination is found. 18...c6 19.bxc6 £xc6 20.¦c2 £d7 21.g5 ¤fe8
22.¥xh7†! A spectacular bishop sacrifice. Many of Botvinnik’s games started as really deep strategic exhibitions, but ended with a big combinational bang. 22...¢xh7 23.£h3† ¢g8 24.¤xd5 ¥d8 25.g6!
The key move in the combination. The defensive move ...£f7 is prevented and the black king is caught on g8. 25...¤f6 26.¤xf6† gxf6 27.g7? 27.d5! ¦e8 28.¥b2 gives strong pressure. For instance: 28...¦c8 29.¦xc8 ¤xc8 30.¦f2 ¤d6 31.dxe6 ¦xe6 32.f5 ¦e8 33.¦d2! and the threat of ¦xd6 decides.
Chapter 1 – Nimzo-Indian
27...¦e8? Black returns the favour. He sees 27...£xg7† 28.¦g2 winning the queen, but misses 27...¢xg7! 28.¦g2† ¢f7, when the king hides on e7 or e8. 28.£h8† ¢f7 29.£h5† ¢g8 30.¦g2 Now it is over. 30...¤f7 31.¦f3 The next rook comes. 31...¦a5 32.£h4 e5 33.¦h3
Threatening mate. Black must surrender his queen. 33…£xh3 34.£xh3 exf4 35.exf4 ¥b6
15
36.¥b2 ¦b5 37.¢f1 ¥a5 38.¦c2 ¦b3 39.£d7 ¦be3 40.£xa4 ¦e1† 41.¢f2 ¥c7 42.£xe8† 1–0 Here is another game from 1952. It may sound old, but the chess content is very fresh.
GAME 2 Botvinnik – Smyslov Moscow (5) 1952
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3 c5 5.¤ge2 Here we have this key move again. 5...d5 6.a3 cxd4 Exchanging the bishop with 6...¥xc3† 7.¤xc3 cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4 9.¥xc4 is more common – see page 31 for more details. 7.axb4 Of course White takes the bishop. 7...dxc3 8.¤xc3 dxc4 Now White gets a strong initiative in the ending. On 8...0–0, White answers 9.cxd5 exd5 10.b5! ¥e6 11.¥e2 with a positional plus. 9.£xd8† ¢xd8 10.¥xc4 ¤c6 11.b5 ¤e5 12.¥e2 ¢e7 13.f4 ¤ed7
Playing 1.d4 – The Indian Defences
16
14.b3! The dark-squared bishop gets out via a3. 14...¦d8 15.¥a3† ¢e8 16.¥d6 And immediately is the dominant figure on the whole board. Black is strategically lost already. 16...¤b8 17.¥c7 ¦d7 18.¥b6 ¤d5 18...a6 19.bxa6 bxa6 20.¥b5+– 19.¤xd5 ¦xd5 20.¦xa7 ¦xa7 21.¥xa7 ¤d7 22.e4 1–0 Let’s try an even earlier game!
GAME 3 Botvinnik – Keres The Hague/Moscow (10) 1948
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3 0–0 5.a3 Botvinnik fancied this. Personally I prefer to develop with 5.¤ge2, but that is another story. This game is important because it shows the typical Nimzo-Indian pawn structure.
5...¥xc3† 6.bxc3 ¦e8 7.¤e2 e5 8.¤g3 d6 9.¥e2 ¤bd7
Not the optimal square for this knight. Better was 9...b6. The knight may later go to c6. 10.0–0 c5 11.f3
11...cxd4 I don’t think Black should release the tension in the centre, but it is not easy to suggest a plan. 12.cxd4 ¤b6 13.¥b2 The slumbering bishop wakes up. 13...exd4 14.e4 14.¥xd4 was simple and strong. 14...¥e6 15.¦c1 ¦e7? 15...¦c8 was necessary. 16.£xd4! The point of White’s 14th move. Now there is maximum pressure along the long diagonal. 16...£c7 17.c5! Opening up the position and activating the rook. 17...dxc5 18.¦xc5 £f4 19.¥c1 £b8 20.¦g5! Going for the attack. Botvinnik finishes in style.
Chapter 1 – Nimzo-Indian 20...¤bd7
21.¦xg7†! ¢xg7 22.¤h5† ¢g6 23.£e3 Black is mated. 1–0 By now it is quite clear that the potential of White’s dark-squared bishop is very high. After these instructive games, let’s move on to theory in the year 2012. It is most likely that something has happened since Botvinnik’s days.
Various 4th Moves 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3
17
The big mainline is 4...0–0, but let’s begin with the other serious 4th moves from Black. The two most important are 4...b6 and 4...c5. A good response to both systems is the already familiar move 5.¤ge2. The line 4...b6 is covered in Games 4-6, and 4...c5 in Games 7 and 8. The rest of the chapter is dedicated to 4...0–0, which is covered in depth in Games 9-12. Of course there are many other legal moves, but it is impossible to cover everything. I will mention a few of them here though. For 4...¤c6 see Game 1 above. 4...d5 is quite often played, but it has little independent value. White could just answer 5.¤f3 if he plays that move in the mainlines. But we don’t! So I’ll recommend the promising 5.a3!, when we are suddenly in the last chapter of Playing 1.d4 – The Queen’s Gambit, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4. 4...d6 is too modest to pose any problems: 5.¥d3 ¤c6 6.¤ge2 e5 and now just 7.d5² with extra space and a pleasant position. 4...¤e4 looks active, but could in fact just be a waste of time: 5.£c2 f5 (5...¤xc3 6.bxc3 ¥e7 7.¥d3²) 6.¥d3 0–0 7.¤ge2² Taking on e4 might work, but this is much simpler. We are ready to castle and then we can always play f2-f3 and maybe even e3-e4. 4...¥xc3† Black does not even wait for White to play a2-a3, so basic logic tells us that this move cannot be good. 5.bxc3 d6 6.¥d3 0–0 More usual is 6...c5 7.¤e2 ¤c6, but the position is closed and the exact move order
Playing the Queen’s Gambit – a grandmaster guide By
Lars Schandorff
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Preface This book provides White with a hard-hitting repertoire against all Black’s answers to 1.d4 d5 2.c4, the Queen’s Gambit, including classics like the evergreen Queen’s Gambit Declined, the highly fashionable Slav, and the rather obscure Chigorin. The repertoire is based entirely on big mainlines, which guarantees its reliability and strength. Firstly, you cannot expect to get anything against well-respected openings like the Queen’s Gambit Accepted and the Semi-Slav by trying a little sideline or just by playing safe. The main lines, on the other hand, have not become main lines by chance. They have slowly but surely evolved and proved their strength over the years, so by choosing main lines you gain reliable weapons. Secondly, the main lines are sharp and put the maximum pressure on the opponent, both theoretically and in practice. This corresponds perfectly with the philosophy behind this work, which is that White should strive for the initiative and show that moving first matters. Developing the pieces fluidly to active squares and trying to take the centre with pawns to seize space – these are key elements in the various White set-ups presented here. Playing White is like serving in tennis. I remember when I started to play a few years ago – tennis that is! – a good friend of mine explained that the serve should be a great offensive weapon. Actually this is quite a cruel thing to tell a beginner, because the serve is by far the most difficult stroke in tennis. But it is true of course, and the right attitude. With a good serve you either win directly or, if the opponent manages to return the ball, at least you get the chance to take the initiative and dictate the rest of the duel. In this book I offer you an excellent first serve. And it will be an effective offensive weapon, I promise that. But every tennis player knows that it is important to have a decent second serve as well. This may also be true in chess, especially in this computer age, so having a safe alternative is a good idea. Thus, throughout the book I offer hints of where you could devote some of your further investigations. Enough. Let’s hit the engine and start rolling – I hope you enjoy the films, the songs and the moves. Lars Schandorff Denmark, January 2009
Contents
Preface Key to symbols used & Bibliography Introduction
1
Follow the Patriarch The 3...¥e7 move order The mainline 3...¥e7
2
The 3...b5 Variation The 3...c5 Variation The 3...e5 Variation The 3...¤c6 Variation The 3...¤f6 Variation
3
3 6 7
Queen’s Gambit Declined
11 13 16 21 28
Queen’s Gambit Accepted
39 41 43 48 60 64
The Slav
71 73 76 77 81 84 86 88 88 90 93 95 97 99 102 105
The Rare 3...dxc4 The 5...¤a6 Variation The 5...¥g4 Variation The 5...e6 Variation The Mainline: 5...¥f5 6.¤e5 The 6...¤a6 Variation The Mainline – Part One: The Bishop Sacrifice – 15...0–0–0 The Bishop Sacrifice – 15...0–0 The Bishop Sacrifice – 15...b5 etc. Kramnik’s ending The Mainline - Part Two The Classical Move – 11...f6 Morozevich’s 11...g5 Sokolov’s Variation – 7...¤b6
The Semi-Slav
111 112 113 114 114 114 133 147 158
The a6-Slav
163 165 166 169 171 175
The Tarrasch
181 182 187 191 194 197
The Chigorin
205 206 210 212 214
4
The Botvinnik Variation The Moscow Variation The Cambridge Springs Queen’s Gambit Declined Theory: Botvinnik Variation Theory: Moscow Gambit Theory: Cambridge Springs Theory: QGD
5
The 5...b6 Variation The 5...¥g4 Variation The 5...g6 Variation The 5...¥f5 Variation The 5...¤bd7 Variation
6
7
Positional Play Theory The 9...c4 Variation The 9...¥e6 Variation The 9...cxd4 Variation The System The a6-variation The active 4...¥g4 Early Deviations
Minor Lines
The Albin Counter-Gambit The Von Hennig-Schara Gambit The 2...¥f5 Variation The Symmetrical 2...c5 The Triangle Variation The Semi-Tarrasch The QGD with 3...¥b4
219 220 223 226 229 231 236 238
Index of Full Games Index of Variations
241 243
8
Introduction to the Repertoire I have explained the principles of the repertoire – aggressive reliable mainlines that seize space – but after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 how does that translate into moves? Against some openings the choice seems obvious, in others there are several possible lines that could fit the bill. Where there was a real choice I have used my judgement to select the most principled continuation – no compromises! Let’s take it one opening at a time in the order I have arranged the chapters:
Chapter 1: Queen’s Gambit Declined 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 Against the Queen’s Gambit Declined my choice is: 4.cxd5 exd5 Critical, yes, but how does it take space? The answer is that in many of my lines White will later play f3 and e4. 5.¥g5 The great Botvinnik will be our guide of how to play this line.
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 OoO +oOo5 + + M +5 + +o+ B 5 + P + +5 + N + + 5 pP +pPpP5 R +qKbNr5 79
Chapter 2: Queen’s Gambit Accepted 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 The Queen’s Gambit Accepted is a tough opening to meet, but it is obvious my space-gaining choice must be: 3.e4 Black has various ways to challenge White’s central dominance, so we will leave the details till later.
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoO OoOo5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 +oPp+ +5 + + + + 5 pP + PpP5 RnBqKbNr5 79
8
Playing the Queen’s Gambit
Chapter 3: The Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 dxc4 5.a4 ¥f5 Naturally, Black also has moves such as 5...¥g4, 5...¤a6 and 5...e6, and I cover them all. But 5...¥f5 is the mainline of the Slav, and I answer with the mainline: 6.¤e5 As against the Queen’s Gambit Declined, I will usually build my centre with f3 and e4.
1222222223 tM WlV T5 Oo+ OoOo5 +o+ M +5 + + Nv+ 5 p+oP + +5 + N + + 5 P +pPpP5 R BqKb+r5 79
Chapter 4: The Semi-Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 The Semi-Slav will be met by the most aggressive reply: 5.¥g5 Naturally if Black takes on c4 then White seizes the centre with e2-e4.
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 Oo+ +oOo5 +o+oM +5 + +o+ B 5 +pP + +5 + N +n+ 5 pP +pPpP5 R +qKb+r5 79
Introduction
9
Chapter 5: The a6-Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 a6 Against the a6-Slav achieving e2-e4 is more difficult (though it will happen in one of my key lines!). This time I claim a space advantage by playing: 5.c5 At this point Black has a choice, so we will leave further explanation to the chapter itself.
1222222223 tMvWlV T5 +o+ OoOo5 o+o+ M +5 + Po+ + 5 + P + +5 + N +n+ 5 pP +pPpP5 R BqKb+r5 79
Chapter 6: The Tarrasch 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 The Tarrasch is the joker in our pack: White will not have a space advantage but we will have easy development and the sounder pawn structure by following the main line: 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¤f3 ¤c6 6.g3 White’s play will be more about control, whereas the rest of the repertoire is more attacking.
1222222223 t+vWlVmT5 Oo+ +oOo5 +m+ + +5 + Oo+ + 5 + P + +5 + N +nP 5 pP +pP P5 R BqKb+r5 79
10
Playing the Queen’s Gambit
Chapter 7: The Chigorin 1.d4 d5 2.c4 ¤c6 In the Chigorin Black chooses piece-play over supporting his centre, so it is relatively easy for us to secure a space advantage – the trick is to find an accurate move order that limits Black’s counterplay. My solution is: 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¤f3 dxc4 Now 5.e4 looks like our kind of move, but it allows Black to play 5...¥g4, so I opt to develop first with: 5.¥g5 This is an old favourite of mine, and I will show how to use it as an effective weapon.
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 OoO OoOo5 +m+ M +5 + + + B 5 +oP + +5 + N +n+ 5 pP +pPpP5 R +qKb+r5 79
Chapter 8: Minor Lines The final chapter is a hotchpotch of minor lines.
1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoO OoOo5 + + + +5 + +o+ + 5 +pP + +5 + + + + 5 pP +pPpP5 RnBqKbNr5 79
The lines covered include the Triangle Variation (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c6), the Albin CounterGambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5) and the Von-Hennig-Schara Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4). Naturally this chapter also covers many other lines, as this is a complete repertoire. I have explained the ideas behind the repertoire and shown a few moves, so it’s time to dive into the details.
Play The Scandinavian By
Christian Bauer
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
First edition 2010 by Quality Chess UK Ltd Copyright © 2010 Christian Bauer
Play the Scandinavian All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. Paperback ISBN 978-1-906552-55-8 Hardcover ISBN 978-1-906552-11-4 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom Phone +44 141 227 6771 e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Proofreading by Colin McNab Edited by Andrew Greet Cover design by Vjatseslav Tsekatovski Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
Contents Key to Symbols used & Bibliography Introduction
4 5
Chapter 1 – Main line 8.¤e4 & 8.¤d5 Chapter 2 – Main line 8.£e2 Chapter 3 – White 8th Move Alternatives Chapter 4 – White 6th and 7th Move Alternatives Chapter 5 – 4.d4 ¤f6 5.¤f3 Unusual options for Black Chapter 6 – 4.d4 ¤f6 5.¥d2 Chapter 7 – 4.d4 ¤f6 5.¥c4 Chapter 8 – Black delays ...¤f6: Die Königspringerzurückhaltungspolitik Chapter 9 – 4.¥c4 ¤f6 5.d3 Chapter 10 – 4.¤f3 (and 4.h3) Chapter 11 – Flank Attacks Chapter 12 – 3.d4 and 3.¤f3 Chapter 13 – 2.¤c3 Chapter 14 – 2nd Move Sidelines
7 63 91 105 121 139 167 187 197 215 221 235 275 285
Variations Index
299
Key to symbols used ² ³ ± µ +– –+ = © „ ÷
White is slightly better Black is slightly better White is better Black is better White has a decisive advantage Black has a decisive advantage equality with compensation with counterplay unclear
? ?? ! !! !? ?! #
a weak move a blunder a good move an excellent move a move worth considering a move of doubtful value mate
Bibliography Emms: The Scandinavian, Everyman 2004 Houska: Starting Out: The Scandinavian, Everyman 2009 Wahls: Modernes Skandinavisch, Chessgate 2006 Periodicals ChessBase Magazine Chess Informant MegaBase New In Chess Magazine New In Chess Yearbooks (especially Prie) The Week in Chess
Introduction 1.e4 d5 1222222223 tMvWlVmT5 OoO OoOo5 + + + +5 + +o+ + 5 + +p+ +5 + + + + 5 pPpP PpP5 RnBqKbNr5 79 Of all the possible replies to 1.e4, the Scandinavian is the only reputable option which creates an immediate pawn clash in the centre. This means that it differs from most other openings where a variety of pawn structures can be reached. For example, the French Defence is noted for thematic positions with a rigid pawn chain (where the white phalanx d4-e5 is blocked by Black’s d5-e6) but many other structures can also be reached. In contrast, in the Scandinavian, right from the start Black breaks up the pawn structure. We will see that 2.exd5 constitutes White’s only worthy reply, so players using the Scandinavian can be sure of reaching their favourite scheme. This point should be underlined, since it is a unique case among 1.e4 openings. The Scandinavian highlights the activity of the pieces and this factor is predominant in the first phase. Indeed, the usual pawn structure – d4 for White vs. the black duo of e6 and c6 – is unlikely to evolve in the near future. As we will see throughout this work, the assessment of the position greatly depends on the circumstances in which the d4-d5 push may be achieved. Black is often slightly behind in development, a consequence of the queen’s early outing, and he must therefore be especially cautious about this central thrust, as it would open the game in favour of the white forces. The main drawback of the Scandinavian, these lost tempos by the queen which lead to Black being behind in development, is the reason why some claim this opening is dubious. It is true
6
Play the Scandinavian
that Black disobeys two major chess principles: he commits his queen early (2...£xd5) and then he moves the same piece again (3...£a5). Despite these sins, the Scandinavian should not be dismissed, as Black acquires numerous advantages from the main line introduced by 3...£a5. In essence, Black hankers after an improved Classical Caro-Kann (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥f5) while having avoided various White divergences on move three, notably the critical Advance Variation and the Panov Attack. If Black succeeds in developing his light-squared bishop and then completes his development without harm, he will have a perfectly sound position, without any ‘bad’ pieces. Another element that one should mention in favour of the Scandinavian compared to the CaroKann, in addition to avoiding the need to study sharp theoretical systems such as the Advance Variation, concerns the white c-pawn. If White chases the enemy queen from the centre with 3.¤c3, then the c-pawn is blocked on its original square. In consequence, White has less potential activity than in the main line of the Caro-Kann, and so it is difficult to profit from any extra tempos. In this book, after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 £xd5 3.¤c3, I shall analyse only 3...£a5 and not 3...£d6 or any of the sidelines such as 3...£d8 or 3...£e5†. The latter two moves are certainly inferior, but the reader may wonder why I have studied 3...£a5 and not 3...£d6, which is also popular. There is no consensus on the respective value of these two queen moves. For example, Nigel Short seems convinced that 3...£a5 is inferior due to his system (4.¥c4 and next 5.d3), while Eric Prié swears by 3...£a5. As for me, I am certain that these two moves have roughly equal merit. As 3...£d6 appeared more recently at grandmaster level, the theory of this variation is less developed. This has pros and cons: a greater chance of innovations but also more difficulties learning what each side should avoid. Regardless, there is plenty of interesting material to consider with 3...£a5 without adding more about other moves. The Scandinavian has served me well for many years. I hope the reader is equally fortunate. Christian Bauer Montpellier, France, September 2010
Chapter 1 Main line 8.¤e4 & 8.¤d5 1222222223 tM +lV T5 Oo+ +oOo5 +o+oM +5 W + +v+ 5 +bP + +5 + N +n+ 5 pPpB PpP5 R +qK +r5 79 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 £xd5 3.¤c3 £a5 4.d4 ¤f6 5.¤f3 ¥f5 6.¥c4 e6 7.¥d2 c6 A) 8.¤e4 A1) 8...£d8?! A2) 8...£c7 A3) 8...£b6 9.¤xf6† gxf6 B) 8.¤d5 £d8 9.¤xf6† B1) 9...£xf6 10.£e2! B2) 9...gxf6 B24) 10.c3 B25) 10.¥b3 ¤d7 B251) 11.¤h4 B252) 11.£e2
8 8 11 18 27 27 36 45 49 50 51
8
Play the Scandinavian
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 £xd5 3.¤c3 £a5 4.d4 ¤f6 5.¤f3 ¥f5 6.¥c4 c6 7.¥d2 e6
1222222223 tM +lV T5 Oo+ +oOo5 +o+oM +5 W + +v+ 5 +bP + +5 + N +n+ 5 pPpB PpP5 R +qK +r5 79
In this, the first chapter of the book, we are jumping straight in at the deep end and analysing the variation that is most likely to appear on a Scandinavian player’s board nowadays.
the major argument lies in the solidity of his formation. Without further delay, let’s see how the game may develop after the first of the aforementioned knight hops. A) 8.¤e4 After this move Black must choose between A1) 8...£d8?!, A2) 8...£c7 and A3) 8...£b6. A1) 8...£d8?!
1222222223 tM WlV T5 Oo+ +oOo5 +o+oM +5 + + +v+ 5 +bPn+ +5 + + +n+ 5 pPpB PpP5 R +qK +r5 79
In the above position White normally chooses between the related, yet quite distinct continuations of A) 8.¤e4 and B) 8.¤d5, which will be analysed in turn. The other main option is 8.£e2, which will form the subject of Chapter 2, while the remaining alternatives will be covered in Chapter 3.
By choosing this square Black is visibly hoping for 9.¤xf6†, which would transpose into line B with 8.¤d5 £d8. Unfortunately for Black, the queen is less than ideally placed on its original post, which enables White to profit from avoiding the transposition.
Why is the idea of exchanging knights so popular for White? For one thing, the c3knight is traditionally a poor piece in the Scandinavian, so it is logical to take the opportunity to exchange it for the more active one on f6. Furthermore, after the subsequent ¤xf6† Black will have to make a difficult decision: either he compromises his pawn structure or allows his queen to be drawn out into an exposed position. In general terms, White’s position is sound and relatively easy to handle, at least for the next few moves. From Black’s point of view
9.¤g3! ¥g6 Safer is: 9...¥g4 The bishop will have to exchange itself for the knight on f3 in the near future, but Black’s position will remain solid and only a little worse. 10.c3 ¤bd7 10...¤h5?! 11.£b3 ¤xg3 12.hxg3 ¥xf3 was tried in Golod – Sergeev, Hlohovec 1994. Here White’s strongest reply would have been 13.gxf3!N (The game continuation of 13.£xb7 ¥xg2 14.¦h2 ¤d7 15.¦xg2 was
Chapter 1 – Main line 8.¤e4 & 8.¤d5 enough for a nice edge, but the text is even more promising.) A sample continuation might be 13...£b6?! 14.¥xe6! fxe6 15.£xe6† ¥e7 16.0–0–0 with a raging attack. 11.h3 ¥xf3 12.£xf3 ¥d6
1222222223 t+ Wl+ T5 Oo+m+oOo5 +oVoM +5 + + + + 5 +bP + +5 + P +qNp5 pP B Pp+5 R + K +r5 79
We have reached a position resembling those that may arise from the Caro-Kann, as well as the “Fort Knox” variation of the French Defence (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 dxe4 4.¤xe4 ¥d7, intending ...¥c6). The bishop pair confers on White a slight but riskfree advantage, although at the same time the black fortifications are hard to shake. (There is a reason why the aforementioned variation of the French Defence received that particular moniker...) 13.¤e2 £c7 14.g4 White is not forced to act so energetically, and he may have been better off playing more patiently with 13.0–0 0–0 14.¦fe1. 14...¤d5 Another game continued 14...0–0 15.g5 ¤d5 16.0–0–0 b5 17.¥d3 c5 18.¢b1 c4 19.¥e4 ¤7b6 20.h4 ¦ae8 21.¦dg1 b4 with decent counterplay for Black, Bologan – Ionov, Kazan 1995. 15.a4 a5 16.g5 ¤5b6 17.¥b3 c5 18.h4 c4 19.¥c2 ¤d5 20.h5 ½–½ Movsesian – Istratescu, Ohrid 2001. Obviously there is a lot of play in the position, but presumably White offered a draw on the basis that he lacked any real advantage.
9
1222222223 tM WlV T5 Oo+ +oOo5 +o+oMv+5 + + + + 5 +bP + +5 + + +nN 5 pPpB PpP5 R +qK +r5 79 10.h4! This aggressive move highlights the drawback of Black’s decision to retreat his bishop rather than exchange it. Instead the timid 10.c3?! would be good enough for equality after 10...¤bd7. 10...¤h5!? This creative solution is unfortunately insufficient to solve Black’s problems, although his position is already quite dangerous. He should certainly avoid: 10...h5? 11.¤e5 ¥h7 12.£e2± 10...¥d6!? This rare move may be the least of the evils. 11.h5 ¥e4 (11...¥xg3?? 12.hxg6 ¥c7 13.gxf7†+–) 12.¤xe4 (12.h6!?N) 12...¤xe4 13.¥e3 (13.h6!?N) White maintained an edge in Zelcic – Fierro Baquero, Cannes 2007, but at least Black’s position is not about to collapse any time soon. Black’s most common reply has been: 10...h6 But this has not brought him much success. 11.¤e5 ¥h7 11...£xd4? 12.¤xg6 fxg6 13.£e2± 12.£e2 We have reached the same position as in the game Nedev – Slovineanu (see variation A
10
Play the Scandinavian
in Chapter 8) except that the white knight is on e5 rather than f4, turning an already promising position into an even better one. 12...¤d5 12...¥d6?? loses trivially after: 13.¤xf7 ¢xf7 14.£xe6† ¢g6 15.h5# 13.0–0–0 13.£h5!?N also looks dangerous. 13...¤d7 14.f4 ¤xe5 Relatively best. 14...¥e7?! 15.¤h5 0–0 16.£g4 g6 17.¤g3 is clearly unappetizing for Black. 15.fxe5 15.dxe5?! would spoil a good part of White’s advantage. 15...£c7 16.¦hf1 0–0–0 17.f5 Arakhamia – Olbrich, Yerevan (ol) 1996. Now Black could have got out of the woods with 17...¢b8!N (instead the game continuation of 17...¥xf5 18.¤xf5 exf5 19.¦xf5 g6 20.¦f3 ¥g7 21.e6! yielded White a big plus) 18.£g4 ¥c5 with a decent game. 15...£c7 16.¦hf1 0–0–0 17.¦f3 b5 This radical measure weakens the black queenside, but also secures the position of the knight on d5. The alternative was 17...¢b8 18.¦df1 ¦d7 followed by passive defence. 18.¥d3
1222222223 +lT V T5 O W +oOv5 +o+o+ O5 +o+mP + 5 + P + P5 + +b+rN 5 pPpBq+p+5 + Kr+ + 5 79
18...¥g8? After this ugly move Black soon finds himself overrun on the queenside. The superior
18...¥xd3N 19.£xd3 f5 20.exf6 gxf6 leaves White with some advantage, but a long fight lies ahead. 19.c4 bxc4 20.¥xc4 ¥e7 21.¤e4 ¤b6 22.¥a5 ¥xh4 23.¦c3 1–0 Emms – Dunnington, London 1997. Black decided here to throw in the towel in view of the impending ¥b5. It was perhaps a bit early to resign, but in any case the whole game provided a useful illustration of the kind of trouble Black must strive to avoid. 11.£e2! White does best to ignore the cheeky knight, as the exchange on g3 can bring him certain benefits.
1222222223 tM WlV T5 Oo+ +oOo5 +o+o+v+5 + + + +m5 +bP + P5 + + +nN 5 pPpBqPp+5 R + K +r5 79
11...¤d7 The immediate exchange on g3 would have increased White’s options: 11...¤xg3?! 12.fxg3 ¤d7 (12...¥xc2? loses fast: 13.¤g5! ¥e7 14.¤xf7 ¢xf7 15.£xe6† ¢e8 16.¦c1 ¥a4 [or 16...¥g6 17.h5] 17.£f7† ¢d7 18.b3 ¥b5 19.¥xb5 cxb5 20.£f5† ¢e8 21.¦c8+–) 13.0–0–0 ¤b6 14.h5 ¥f5 15.¥b3 Intending ¤e5 followed by g4. 15...a5 (15...¥g4 runs into 16.¦h4 ¥xf3 17.gxf3 with a great edge for White.) 16.a3 a4 17.¥a2 The counterplay was only temporary, and Black must once again worry about the opponent’s easy kingside play.
Chapter 1 – Main line 8.¤e4 & 8.¤d5 12.0–0–0 ¥d6 13.¤e5! ¤xg3 14.fxg3 ¥xe5 15.dxe5 h5 Better than 15...h6, since White’s kingside options are reduced and the bishop on g6 gains some stability. 16.¥b4!
1222222223 t+ Wl+ T5 Oo+m+oO 5 +o+o+v+5 + + P +o5 Bb+ + P5 + + + P 5 pPp+q+p+5 + Kr+ +r5 79
It may already be too late for Black to escape, as indicated by the remainder of the present game.
11
1222222223 t+ +l+ T5 Oo+ +o+ 5 Wo+o+o+5 + M Pv+o5 Bb+ R P5 + Q + P 5 pPp+ +p+5 + Kr+ + 5 79 20...¤e4 20...a5 would not have improved Black’s fate after 21.¥a3 ¤d7 (or 21...¤a4 22.£e1) 22.¦fd4 0–0–0 23.¥e7, when White’s victory would only be a matter of time. 21.£e1 ¦h7 22.¥a5 £c5 23.¥d3 ¤xg3 24.¥b4 1–0 Svidler – Oll, Ter Apel 1996. A2) 8...£c7
18...g6 Other tries would also have been fruitless, for instance: 18...¤xe5? 19.¦xf5 ¤xc4 20.¦xf7!+–; 18...0–0–0 19.¥a5 £c5 20.£c3±; and finally 18...a5 19.¥d6±.
1222222223 tM +lV T5 OoW +oOo5 +o+oM +5 + + +v+ 5 +bPn+ +5 + + +n+ 5 pPpB PpP5 R +qK +r5 79
19.£c3 ¤c5 20.¦f4 The precipitous 20.¥a5? would have squandered almost all White’s advantage after: 20...¤a4 21.£b4 £xb4 22.¥xb4 ¤b6²
Although the queen is neither exerting pressure against d4 nor on b2, this retreat is nevertheless quite okay. Indeed, Black will not have to waste another tempo with his queen and he can soon castle long after ...¤d7.
16...£b6 17.£e1! ¥f5 17...0–0–0 does not help due to: 18.¥a5 £c5 19.£c3!± The rook on d8 is under fire, and if it moves then 20.¦xd7 wins immediately, while 19...b6? is also hopeless due to 20.¥b4+–. 18.¦f1 Threatening ¦xf5.
Positional Chess Sacrifices By
Mihai Suba
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Key to Symbols used Introduction
4 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
The Open Games The Ruy Lopez The Semi-Open Games Alekhine’s Defence The French Defence The Caro-Kann Defence The Sicilian Defence The Closed Games The Semi-Closed Games The Modern Benoni The Nimzo-Indian Defence The Queen’s Indian Defence Flank Openings
14 36 46 56 74 91 118 165 181 214 231 243 257
14 15 16 17 18 19
Pawn Sacrifices Exchange Sacrifices Minor Piece Sacrifices Queen Sacrifices Other Sacrifices Endgame Sacrifices
279 286 312 324 333 345
End Notes Game Index Name Index
360 363 368
Positional Chess Sacrifices
66
Oleg Korneev – Mihai Suba Orense 2000
Points to look for in this game: An overrated pawn move – 5.a4 A pawn sacrifice to undermine the centre – 15...c5! The wrong exchange sacrifice – 21.¦d5? The most critical moment of this game came at move 21, when White had to choose between sacrificing an exchange immediately, and taking a different path which would have led to a different kind of exchange sacrifice in the near future. The second option was more or less satisfactory, but fortunately for me it remained in the background. My opponent went for the illfated option, which was overoptimistic and led to a swift downfall. It provides a good counterexample to the theme of this book, showing a tempting sacrifice whose positive features are outweighed by other more salient factors. 1.e4 ¤f6 2.e5 ¤d5 3.d4 d6 4.¤f3 ¤b6!? 5.a4
It is a mystery to me why this move with such lamentable consequences is on top of the popularity chart in this variation, and
why Theory has cherished it for so long. The weakness of b5 is less important than that of b4 in the Alekhine. If you do not believe me, I call a horse to testify about its possible hippetyhoppety between d5 and b4. And in the event of the exchange of pawns on e5, another horse may bear witness to the secure stable on c5. The explanation might be that White is afraid that a typical break with ...c5 will ruin his proud centre, and so he seeks compensation “in advance” by creating a hole on b5. Or it could be that White is anticipating an exchange of pawns on d6, and with the a-pawns fixed, he will feel safer against a minority attack by Black. Should an admirer of Nimzowitsch try to encourage you in this overly prophylactic prophylaxis, do not let him assault your ears. Just believe in me and equine testimonies! 5...a5 6.h3 Over the board, Korneev realized that the theoretical recommendation of 6.¥b5† c6 7.¥d3 ¥g4 was not exactly what he wanted. For example: 8.exd6 exd6 9.0–0 ¥e7 10.c3 ¤8d7 11.¤bd2 d5 12.¦e1 ¥h5 13.¤f1 ¥g6 14.¤g3 0–0 15.¤f5 ¦e8 16.£c2 ¤f8 17.¥f4 ¤c4 18.b3 ¥xf5 19.¥xf5 ¤d6= led to a draw in 61 moves in Rodriguez Cespedes – Suba, Barcelona 2000. 6...dxe5 7.¤xe5 ¤8d7 8.¤f3 g6 9.¥e2 ¥g7 10.0–0 0–0 11.¤c3 c6 12.¥g5 ¤d5?!
Chapter 4 – Alekhine’s Defence 13.¤e4?! This is not best. 13.¦e1 offers White a slight advantage. After 13.¤xd5!? cxd5 14.¥b5 ¤b6 15.¦e1 Black has to play well to keep the balance:
15...f6! 16.¥f4 ¥d7 17.£e2 ¦e8 18.b3 e6 19.£d3 ¥c6! 20.¦e2 £d7 21.¦ae1 ¥xb5 22.£xb5 £xb5 23.axb5 ¢f7= and Black intends ...a4 next. 13...¤7f6 14.¤g3 Without central domination or a clear attacking idea, White simply amasses pieces on the kingside. However, he has nothing better, as the alternatives give Black comfortable play: 14.¤c5 b6 15.¤d3 ¤e4 16.¥c1 ¥b7 17.¤de5 c5 18.¥d3 ¤b4³ 14.¤xf6† is well met by 14...exf6! when I prefer Black, for example:
67
15.¥d2 ¦e8 16.¦e1 ¥f8 17.c4 ¤b4 18.£b3 ¥f5 19.¦ac1 ¥e4 20.¥e3 ¥d6 21.¤d2 ¥f5 22.c5 ¥c7 23.¥c4 £d7³ 14...h6 15.¥d2
White’s position looks favourable due to the opponent’s apparent lack of counterplay. His plan is simple: with £c1 he will provoke ...¢h7. Then, by c3 and ¥d3 he will pin the g-pawn, threatening h4-h5 and provoking ...h5. Once the square g5 is conquered, the queen will be transferred to the b1-h7 diagonal, with various sacrifices in the air. Is it really that simple? I only omitted one detail – the duty of Black to play moves in the meantime! 15...c5! As in all hypermodern defences and most semi-open games, Black must undermine the white centre. Of course, he could have prepared this by 15...£c7 or 15...£b6, but offering some bait is not bad either. You never know... 16.dxc5?! This move is not in itself bad; the “dubious” symbol refers to White’s intention to keep the captured pawn.
68
Positional Chess Sacrifices
Against 16.c3, I intended 16...b6!? accepting an inferior pawn structure in exchange for play in the centre and on the b-file. For example: 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.£c1 ¢h7 19.¥b5 ¥b7 20.¦d1 £c7 21.¦e1 e6 22.¤e5 ¦fd8= Another possibility for White is 16.c4 ¤b4 17.d5 e6 18.dxe6 ¥xe6 19.£c1 ¢h7 20.¥c3 £e7 21.£f4 ¦ad8 22.¦fd1 b6 23.£h4 ¤g8=. 16...£c7 17.£c1 ¢h7
18.c4 This advance “kills” White’s majority on the queenside. As Korchnoi might say, “It is well known that pawns cannot go back.” An alternative is 18.c3 £xc5 (18...¤d7?! 19.b4!²) 19.c4 ¤b4 20.¥e3 £c7 21.¤d4 ¥d7 22.¤b5 ¥xb5 23.axb5 ¤d7 24.¦d1 ¤c5 with equality. 18...¤b4 19.¥e3?! Defending the pawn is not good, but how else should White justify the heresy of his previous move? It is fashionable for football commentators to use chess terms like “strategy” and “tactics”. I shall pay them back by borrowing their terminology and saying that this was an unforced error, because 19.¤d4! £xc5 20.¥e3 £e5 21.¦d1 ¥d7 would still be a touch better for White.
19...e5! Before getting his pawn back, Black occupies the centre and prevents a knight trip via d4 to b5. 20.¦d1 ¤a6
21.¦d5? Although it may appear tempting, this exchange sacrifice is a mistake. It will quickly become clear that the text move helps Black to mobilize his strong centre against the tangled web of white pieces on the kingside. The correct path was: 21.£c3 ¦e8 21...¤d7 22.¤e4 ¤dxc5 23.¤xc5 ¤xc5 24.£a3 b6 25.¤d2 ¥e6 26.¤b3=
Chapter 4 – Alekhine’s Defence 22.£a3
22...¥e6 22...¥f8?! 23.¦d6! would be a much more desirable exchange sacrifice. 23.c6 bxc6 24.£d6 £xd6 25.¦xd6 ¦ec8 26.¦d2 ¤d7 27.¤e4 Threatening 28.¤fg5†. 27...¢g8 28.¦d6 ¦ab8 29.¦ad1 ¦c7 30.c5 ¤b4
31.¦xe6! This exchange sacrifice does not fully solve White’s problems, but it is much better than the option seen in the game. 31...fxe6 32.¥xh6 ¥xh6 33.¦xd7 ¤d5! 34.¦d6 ¦xb2³ White’s compensation is not quite enough for equality, but at the same time it will not be easy for Black to convert his extra material. 21...¤xd5 22.cxd5 f5!µ
69
Highlighting the awkwardness of White’s cluttered kingside pieces. 23.d6 £d8 24.¥d2 e4 25.¤e1
The strength of the mobile centre has pushed back White’s forces. It is now time to deal with the passed pawns. 25...b6! The rest is simple. 26.¥xa6 ¦xa6 27.c6 £xd6 28.¥f4 £e7 29.£c4 g5 30.¥b8 £c5 31.£b5 ¦a8 32.¥c7 ¥d4 33.¤e2 ¥xf2† 34.¢f1 ¥a6 35.£xc5 ¥xc5 36.¦d1 f4 37.¦d7† ¢g6 0–1 Post-game reflections In a book mostly filled with inspirational examples of glowing positional sacrifices, we should keep our feet on the ground and remember that a tempting sacrifice will not always have the desired effect. In the above example certain elements of the position favoured the exchange sacrifice, such as the correcting of White’s pawn structure and the advanced c- and d-pawns. Unfortunately for Korneev, his minor pieces were poorly placed, and he had to waste valuable time moving
Positional Chess Sacrifices
70
them while my kingside pawns roamed forwards. Once that happened, White’s prized pawns were devoid of support, and it was easy to undermine and capture them.
6.¥d3 This is not the best square for the bishop; instead both 6.¥e2 and 6.¥c4 are sound choices.
We will conclude the chapter with a game from super-GM praxis.
It should be noted that the aggressive 6.c4?! is hasty here due to 6...¤b4! (threatening 7...£xd4!) 7.¥e3 ¥f5 8.¤a3 (8.¤d3 e5!) 8...¤d7 with a slight advantage for Black.
Some part of a mistake is always correct – Savielly Tartakower
Veselin Topalov – Magnus Carlsen Morelia/Linares 2008
Points to look for in this game: Small but significant inaccuracies from White – 6.¥d3, 9.¤d2, 11.¦e1 and 12.c3 Ambitious play from Black – 12...c5! A positional pawn sacrifice to fight for a draw – 15.h3! in the notes
6...¤d7 7.¤xd7 This is not bad, but more in the spirit of the position is 7.¤f3 ¤7f6 8.h3 (or 8.c3²) 8...¤b4 9.¥c4 ¥f5 10.¥b3 a5÷. A less ambitious approach for White is 7.0–0 ¤xe5 (7...g6 is also possible) 8.dxe5 ¥e6!? with a balanced position. 7...¥xd7 8.0–0 g6 9.¤d2 This move is a bit ‘flat’ and cannot promise any real advantage.
Casual play in the opening by Topalov leads to some problems for White. Black takes over the initiative, and after again failing to choose the more promising options, Veselin finds himself in a difficult endgame.
Another move deserving the same epithet, or worse, is 9.¦e1 ¥g7 10.c3 0–0 11.¥g5 £b6 and Black already has some initiative.
1.e4 ¤f6 2.e5 ¤d5 3.d4 d6 4.¤f3 dxe5 5.¤xe5 c6
9...¥g7 10.¤f3 0–0
M b
The forthright 9.c4!² is best.
Chapter 4 – Alekhine’s Defence Topalov now starts to play a bit carelessly. 11.¦e1 In order to have h2-h3 available as an immediate answer to ...¥g4, a good preparation for the text move would be 11.c3!. 11...¥g4 12.c3 Another negligent move. White might still hope for a tiny advantage after 12.¥e2 ¥f5 13.c3 ¦e8 14.¥d3.
12...c5! The Norwegian prodigy does not miss the opportunity to free his game and seize some initiative, both real and psychological. Beyond the pawn sacrifice looms the spectre of a further offering on the c3-square. 13.¥e4? Steinitz said that the best way to refute a sacrifice is by accepting it. In the present case White could hardly hope to refute the sacrifice, but he could have equalized by accepting it. 13.dxc5 ¤xc3! It looks like Topalov overestimated this sham sacrifice. 14.bxc3 ¥xc3 15.¥h6
71
15...¥xe1 The only good option, as 15...¦e8? 16.¦e3 and 15...¥xa1? 16.£xa1 are both winning for White. 16.£xe1 £xd3 17.¤e5 17.£e5? f6 18.£xe7 ¦f7–+ 17...£d4
18.c6! Probably the move that Topalov missed. Worse is 18.¥xf8 ¢xf8 19.¤xg4 £xg4³. 18...bxc6 19.¤xc6 £f6 20.¤xe7† ¢h8 21.¤d5 £d4 22.¤c7! More accurate than 22.¥xf8 ¦xf8 23.¤e3 ¥e6 24.¦d1 £e5 25.£b4 ¢g7 26.h3 ¦c8 27.a3 a5³. 22...¦ac8 23.¥xf8 ¦xf8 24.h3 ¥e2 25.¦c1 £b2 26.¤d5 ¢g7 27.¦b1 The position is equal. If White preferred to avoid the above complications, he could also have maintained
72
Positional Chess Sacrifices
the balance by simple means: 13.¥e2!? cxd4 (13...¥xf3 14.¥xf3 cxd4 15.cxd4= gives White an improved version of the game) 14.¤xd4 ¥xe2 15.¤xe2=
when White succeeds in regaining the pawn. His position remains somewhat worse, but his drawing chances are much higher than in the game.
13...cxd4 14.cxd4 e6 Black has a dream version of an IQP position, with a solid blockade on d5 and easy play against the weak d-pawn. Now it is White’s turn to think in terms of making a positional sacrifice. His objective is to give up the d4-pawn in a way that will enable him either to regain the pawn in a few moves, or to obtain enough activity to hold a draw.
15...¥xf3 16.¥xf3 ¥xd4 17.¥xd5 It is possible that Topalov had been intending 17.£xb7?!, but only now realized that 17...£a5! 18.¦d1 ¦ab8 would allow Black to develop both rooks with tempo, followed by capturing on b2 with an extra pawn and a dominant position.
15.£b3? This is a waste of time, as it turns out that Black can ignore the threat to the b7-pawn.
20.¢f1 20.¥g5!? may be a better defensive try.
Attempting to keep the d-pawn with 15.¥e3?! leads to trouble after 15...¤xe3 (15...f5!? is also strong) 16.fxe3 f5! 17.¥xb7 (17.¥d3 f4!) 17...¦b8 when Black has a clear advantage. In the absence of a useful developing move, White should have forced simplifications with 15.h3!. Compared with the game continuation this provides a crucial bolthole for the king. Play continues 15...¥xf3 16.¥xf3 £b6 17.¥xd5 exd5 18.¥e3 £xb2 19.£d3 £b6 20.¦ab1 £c7 21.¦b5 ¦fd8 22.£b3
17...£xd5 18.£xd5 exd5 19.¦d1 ¥g7
In the event of 20.¦xd5? ¦fd8! 21.¦xd8† ¦xd8 22.¥e3 (22.¢f1 ¦d1† 23.¢e2 ¦h1) 22...b6 23.¦b1 ¥xb2 Black’s advantage is obvious. This is where the weak back rank comes into play, and explains why 15.h3! would have been an improvement earlier. 20...¦fd8 Black is a healthy pawn up, and the presence of the bishops improves his winning chances. The technical part of the game is less relevant to our main subject, so I will refrain from commenting on it.
Chapter 4 – Alekhine’s Defence 21.¥g5 ¦d7 22.¦d2 h6 23.¥e3 d4 24.¦d3 ¦c8 25.¥d2 ¦c2 26.¦b1 ¦e7 27.a4 f5 28.b3 ¦ec7 29.¥e1 ¢f7 30.¦d2 ¦c1 31.¦xc1 ¦xc1 32.¢e2 ¦b1 33.¦d3 ¢e6 34.h4 ¢d5 35.¥d2 ¢e4 36.¦g3 f4 37.¦d3 ¥e5 38.f3† ¢d5 39.¥e1 ¥d6 40.¥d2 g5 41.hxg5 hxg5 42.¥e1 g4 43.fxg4 ¢e4 44.g5 ¢e5 0–1 Post-game reflections Topalov conducted the opening and early middlegame with an uncharacteristic lack of drive, and Carlsen quickly obtained the initiative. The outcome of the game rested on some form of sacrifice by either side. Carlsen’s 12...c5! echoed the 15...c5! from the previous game, although this time the active pawn break was not a true sacrifice as Black had the means to maintain material equality through tactics. White’s 13.¥e4? was a weak reaction, but even after that mistake he could still have obtained good drawing chances with 15.h3!, a strong defensive sacrifice.
73
Grandmaster Preparation
POSITIONAL PLAY By
Jacob Aagaard
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to Symbols used 4 Foreword by Artur Yusupov 5 Series Introduction 6 My Intentions with this Book 7 Visualizing the Three Questions 11 The Three Questions in Practice 15
1 Weaknesses 2 Pieces 3 Prophylaxis 4 Exercises 5 Solutions
23 71 119 153 179
308
Name Index
Foreword First of all I would like to congratulate the readers of this book on making a very good choice! As with all books by Jacob Aagaard, this is a quality work! It combines clear explanations and carefully selected material, mainly from very recent games, which you won’t find in other books. As a chess trainer, I know how difficult it is to find good positional exercises. (On the contrary it seems a relatively easy task to look for tactical positions – computers are a big help in showing us how poorly we can play chess!) The examples from this book will make the life of chess trainers a little bit easier and the life of their students and readers much more interesting! Because you are holding this book, it means that you want to improve your positional skills and perhaps to make an important step towards grandmaster level (or to brush up your positional play if you are a grandmaster already). Then you may be interested to learn the answer to the popular question: “What is the difference between an amateur player and a grandmaster?” Many might think that it’s mainly the ability to calculate that helps grandmasters fathom the depths of the position. In some cases this is true, but it also true that grandmasters have generally better opening knowledge; they know more typical plans and pawn structures as well. Perhaps they are better (at least some of them) in endgames too. Still, I would put certain other qualities in first place. By working with amateur players, I have noticed that very often, even if they have the necessary knowledge about the position, they can’t use it properly. Grandmasters are trained to make decisions and have much more practical skills. The second factor that struck me was seeing how much energy amateur players waste analysing or calculating moves that a stronger player would simply ignore. This hints of a huge difference in the levels of positional understanding. As a result, an amateur player may spend too much time on weak moves and ideas; meanwhile a grandmaster concentrates on the heart of the position and looks for much better solutions. It is not easy to improve positional understanding. One way is to work on good books with the games of strong players, and to pay special attention to their explanations. Also the careful analysis of your own games may help you to improve your evaluations and to correct some mistakes. Although Aagaard’s “approach with this book is not to teach positional understanding, but to teach positional judgement and decision-making”, I am sure that solving the many positional exercises from this book will help readers to raise their positional level too. The tools that Aagaard uses in this book look simple. But his method of three questions and his rather modest approach shouldn’t deceive readers – if you follow the instructions carefully and concentrate on these important questions, you will most likely focus on the central elements of the position, which will help you to find the solutions of the exercises. Working with this book will train your positional judgement and develop your chess intuition. You will improve your decision-making process and learn some new practical skills. And maybe you will be able to make another step forwards... Artur Yusupov Twice Candidates Finalist
Series Introduction Ever since I was a junior I have been a chess trainer. At times my dissatisfaction with the conditions for trainers has caused me to be a player as well; and not without some success. But at the end of the day I have had to accept that my destiny is not to feel comfortable on the stage, but rather in the anonymity of the locker room. I have always cared more for the results of my students than my own, just as I have always had lots of passion for training others, but none for training myself. Over the years I have developed some of the skills necessary to become a decent trainer, not least of all the ability to earn a living by other means! Among other things this means I have become a chess writer. From the moment I started taking pride in my work, I have developed into a not entirely bad one, to the degree where I am finally comfortable enough to publish this series of books, which I have been dreaming about for years. The series title Grandmaster Preparation is of course a little joke, as the five books originally planned do not include any coverage of the opening. But it is also a serious point at the same time. Grandmaster play does not occur in a vacuum, and it consists of much more than opening preparation, random intuition and even more random calculation. There are rules and methods that have been successful for many decades and will continue to be so in the future. One of my main objectives with this project has been to merge this classic understanding of chess with my own ideas and create a serious training plan for ambitious players. This is the most ambitious project I have undertaken in my professional life, and there is no escaping the unavoidable imperfection of the execution. I hope the reader will forgive me in advance for any mistakes, but at the same time offer me the confidence to believe in most of what I claim throughout these books. They are heavily researched and based on my experience of working with close to a thousand individuals over the years: from my own daughters, who recently discovered the joy of capturing a piece, to friends who have been involved in World Championship matches. So, please develop your own understanding of chess by questioning everything I say, but at the same time, please never disregard anything I say as unfounded. When I was a young man I had no access to a classical chess education, and many other grandmasters have had the same experience. It is my hope that this series will help to change this picture in the same way that Mark Dvoretsky’s books have, and the way that Artur Yusupov’s series of nine books (Fundamentals, Beyond the Basics and Mastery) have given juniors and amateurs a clearly-structured method of improvement. The ultimate goal for this series is to show a path towards playing chess at grandmaster level for those who do not have access to a good trainer. I have worked with some grandmasters who had the kinds of holes in their chess understanding that would baffle the average man on the street. Obviously they excelled in other aspects of the game simultaneously, but over time their weaknesses became obvious to their opponents and their results duly suffered. This series is meant to help those players as well. Jacob Aagaard, Glasgow 2012
Chapter 1 Weaknesses Baskaran Adhiban – S.P. Sethuraman World U-16, Vung Tau 2008
White to play White has a lead in development; in return for this Black has the two bishops. White has several tempting options, but which one will allow him to fully exploit Black’s weaknesses: his pawns, the king and the hook created by the pawn on f6?
48
Grandmaster Preparation – Positional Play
Salov – Karpov, Alma-Ata blitz (1) 1995
1 Pogonina – E. Paehtz, Krasnoturinsk 2007
2 Klinova – Ferguson, Isle of Man 2007
3
Leko – Khalifman, Budapest 2000
4 Leko – Morozevich, Wijk aan Zee 2001
5 Horn – Howell, Stockholm 2006
6
52
Grandmaster Preparation – Positional Play
1. Salov – Karpov Alma-Ata blitz (1) 1995
This position is of course essentially equal, but quite often equal positions are won with good moves, so it is important to play the best moves for Black. Here the only reason why White should have any problems is that the b2-pawn is a bit weak, and that he has advanced the a-pawn. Were the a-pawn on a2, Black would not have the chance to make the advances he did in the game. 16...¦fb8! The correct rook, as the other rook needs to keep an eye on the a-pawn. 17.¦ae1 17.c4 will lead to a knight being established on d5 once Black deflects the c4-pawn. White might have a temporary initiative, but long term the d5-square will mean that the position is a bit more pleasant for Black. 17...a6! On the next move comes 18...b5!, and although the position is not terribly frightening for White, it is certainly not entirely equal. 17...d5?! would be risky. White suddenly has three pieces attacking on the kingside. After 18.¤e5 £e8 19.¦g4! Black has to play
non-script moves such as 19...f6!?, when the position is simply unclear. 17.¤e1! as suggested by Andrew Greet was probably the most prudent move. White manoeuvres the knight to d3 in order to keep all his pieces covered. In this case White probably holds equality without too much trouble. 17...b5 18.axb5 ¦xb5 19.£a2 a5³ 20.¦4e2 £c6 21.£a4 £b7 22.£c4 ¤d5 23.£a2 ¤f4 24.¦d2 Black eventually won this blitz-game on move 40, but at this point he overlooked the chance to win the game instantly with either 24...¦g5 or 24...¤xg2!. ...0–1
2. Pogonina – E. Paehtz Krasnoturinsk 2007
White has a pleasant position after various decent moves, but the clearest plan by far is to transfer a knight to the weak e6-square. This is what White did in the game. 21.¤b5! g5 21...¦fe8 22.¤bd4 £f7 has the idea of replying to 23.¤e6 with 23...¤c5!, when Black would be okay, but it can be met with either
Chapter 1 – Weaknesses the greedy 23.£xa5!? or the more restrained 23.b4, in each case with a great advantage. 22.¤bd4 £g6 23.¤e6 We could actually stop here. When you play positional chess, you do not have to be able to see anything beyond transferring the ineffective knight from c3 to e6. White has many ways to follow up, with some probably better than others, but it is not something we gain a practical advantage out of determining in advance. 23...¦f7 24.£xa5? This move looks very tempting, but it allows Black to come back into the game with counterplay on the kingside. The correct way to play was to make the most out of the remaining inactive pieces. After 24.¦be1! White’s advantage is very clear.
R
It has to be the b1-rook, as it was under threat from the queen, and so moving the other rook would deny White the option of doubling on the e-file. If Black plays 24...¤c5, the knight can be exchanged and then the rook enters the position on e6 with a clear superiority. And if Black plays 24...g4 White can play 25.hxg4 £xg4 26.¦e4! with ¦fe1 on the way. The black position is full of weaknesses and White’s dominating pieces will secure her a clear edge in all lines. In the game, matters were less clear.
53
24...g4 25.hxg4 £xg4 The g-file is opened and the position is not as clear as it once was. 26.£e1! The queen is urgently needed on the kingside. The computer thinks White also can win with 26.b4?!, with the idea that 26...¢h8 27.b5 ¦g8 28.bxa6 ¥d4 29.¤e1 f3 allows White to play 30.£d2!. This is a very complicated line, and an example of a machine not being able to do a human’s job. After 30...¥e5! Black has enough counterplay and it is White who has to look for a draw: 31.g3 bxa6 32.¤xf3 £xf3 33.¤d4 ¦xg3† 34.fxg3 £xg3† 35.£g2 ¥xd4† 36.¢h1 £h4† 37.£h2 £e4†= 26.£b5?! is another computer favourite. It takes a human to discover the correct riposte: 26...¢h8! 27.£xb7 ¦g8 Black has some counterplay here. The critical line starts 28.¤h2! (28.£xa6? ¥d4! and White is mated) 28...£g6 29.£b3 f3! 30.g3 ¤c5 31.¤xc5 ¥d4! 32.¢h1 ¥xf2! 33.g4 ¥xc5 34.£c3† ¢h7 35.¦be1 f2 with chances for both sides. 26...¢h8? Black misses her opponent’s defensive resource. 26...¤c5! was much better, and after 27.¤xc5 dxc5 28.b4! cxb4 29.axb4 ¦f6 30.£e4 ¦g6 Black has a lot of counterplay. I would guess that White is still minimally better with correct play, but it is definitely easier to play the black position, making the result rather unpredictable. 27.£d1! ¦g8 28.¤fg5! £f5 29.¤xf7† £xf7 30.£f3 And White won.
54
Grandmaster Preparation – Positional Play
3. Klinova – Ferguson Isle of Man 2007
can be seen from the line: 30.f3 £d3! 31.¦e3 £c2† with a winning attack. 30.¢g3 would lose to 30...£d3† 31.¦e3 £d1! with a decisive attack.
White’s weaknesses are h3 and e4. Black can organize an attack on both of these quite easily. The thing to look out for is how to increase the pressure on the white position without giving White any counterplay.
30...£d3! The e-pawn falls with check. The game is decided.
28...£d7! The obvious first move. White only has one reply.
31.h4 £xe4† 32.¢f1 £h1† 33.¢e2 £f3† 34.¢f1 0–1
29.g4 h5! This is the key move. The white pawns are put under increased pressure as the pawn joins in the attack. The common mistake here is to think that Black has a decisive double attack with 29...£d3?!, but actually, because of the slightly exposed nature of the rook on d8, White can repulse the attack with 30.¦e3!.
4. Leko – Khalifman
It should be said that 29...¤e6!?µ would also give Black a great game. 30.¤e3 White can also call in reinforcements from his own pawn base, but it would weaken the king’s position on the second rank, which
Budapest rapid (4) 2000
Chapter 1 – Weaknesses 18.¤e4! This move is the best for two reasons, and should thus be relatively easy to find. First of all it prevents Black from playing 18...e4 and activating the black bishop on f6. Secondly, it exchanges the knight on c5, giving White the advantage of good knight against somewhat inactive bishop. There is of course a lot of play in the position, but this still secures a slight plus. 18...¤xe4 After this normal-looking move Black is entirely without counterplay. However, it is not easy to cook up something better. Maybe it was necessary to play 18...¥e7, when White is still happy after 19.g4², but his queen is not nearly as dominant as in the game. 19.£xe4 White is ready for g2-g4-g5; Black has no counterplay.
55
20...¥g7 21.h5 £f6 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.¤d2² White could have tried a lot of other moves here, but nothing was really clear-cut.
23...c6? White’s only problem is the d-pawn. Exchanging it does not open a file for attack against the white king, it merely exchanges this weakness.
19...g6 19...h5 20.¦hg1! would give White a strong initiative on the kingside.
23...£xf2? would allow White to start a winning attack with 24.¦df1, and then: a) 24...£g3 is somewhat complicated, but clear enough once you see the idea: 25.¤c4!! ¦ad8 26.¤e3 and the threat of ¦f3 is devastating. Black can try 26...¦d6 27.¦f3 f5!?, but it is not enough. 28.¤xf5! gxf5 (28...£g2 29.¤g3! with ¦f8† coming.) 29.£xf5 and the queen is lost. b) 24...£c5 25.£f3! £e7 26.¤e4 ¦ed8 (26...¢f8 27.¦h7! followed by £h3 is equally decisive) 27.£h3 and Black cannot survive. For example: 27...¦xd5 28.£h7† ¢f8 29.g5 ¦d6 30.¤f6 ¦xf6 31.gxf6 ¥xf6 32.¦xf6! £xf6 33.£h8† £xh8 34.¦xh8† ¢e7 35.¦xa8 and the ending is won.
20.g4 This move does not make a lot of sense to me. It seems more natural to play 20.h5± and keep the future of the g-pawn open.
23...¦ad8!² was natural and sensible. White plays something like 24.f3 and prepares to put the knight on e4 with a slight but enduring edge.
+ o + q ++
56
Grandmaster Preparation – Positional Play
24.dxc6 ¦ac8 25.f3 ¦xc6 26.£e2 £e6 27.¢b1± e4?! Black tries something desperate; his position is very unpleasant. 28.£xe4 £c8 29.£d3 ¦d8 30.£e2 ¦e6 31.¤e4 ¦xd1† 32.£xd1 £c6 33.£d3 a5 34.¦d1 ¥e5 35.£e3 £c7 36.¦d5 ¥g7 37.£d3 ¦e8 38.¦d7 £e5 39.a4 ¦f8 40.£d5 £f4 41.¤d6 ¥e5 42.¤c4 ¥c7 43.£c6 ¥d8 44.¦b7 ¢g7 45.¤xb6 ¥xb6 46.¦xb6 ¦d8 47.¦a6 £d2 48.£e4 ¦d5 49.¦a7 g5 50.¢a2 ¦c5 51.£d4† £xd4 52.cxd4 ¦d5 53.¢b3 1–0
5. Leko – Morozevich Wijk aan Zee 2001
White’s pieces are basically placed as he would like them to be. Both players have unsafe kings, but that cannot be exploited immediately. 29.h4!² White’s only asset is his potential passed pawn. In order for it to have any value, it must be pushed immediately. The alternatives do not offer White any advantage. 29.£d6 ¦d8 30.£e5 0–0 gives
White little. Black is ready to play ...£f2 or ...¦fe8. White can of course force a draw, but nothing more is available. 29.£e5 can again be answered with castling, but it is also possible to play 29...¢d7!?, when the black king looks safe as houses in the middle. 29.¦e1 can also be answered with a king move, or 29...0–0!?, as White has no particular compensation after 30.¦xe6 fxe6 31.¦xg6† ¢f7. 29...¦a8 29...¢d7!? 30.h5 ¦bg8² looks a more natural defence, but Black is still on the defensive. 30.h5 £a7 31.a4 31.¦d2!?² was also possible. 31...gxh5 This looks like a concession. The g-file is a great asset for White. On the other hand, Black wins a tempo. 32.gxh5 £b8 33.£c3 33.¦e5! appears stronger. 33...¢e7 34.¦e1?!÷ 34.¦f1!² was perhaps the right move. White is a little better, as can be shown by this line: 34...¦xa4? 35.£c5† ¢d8
Chapter 1 – Weaknesses 36.¥xd5!! cxd5 37.¦xd5† ¢e8 38.£c6† ¢f8 39.¦b5!± and White finishes an exchange up in the ending. 34...£f4 34...¦xa4! would leave White with only a draw. 35.¦ge5 ¢d6 36.¥h3 ¥xh3 37.£xh3 ¦ab8 38.¦e7 ¦hd8? 38...¦xh5! 39.¦d7† ¢c5 40.£c3† ¢b6 41.a5† ¢b5 42.£d3† ¢b4 43.a6² 39.£c3? 39.h6!+– 39...d4? 39...¦h8² 40.£c4 £f5† 41.¢a2 £d5 42.£c2! 1–0
6. Horn – Howell Stockholm 2006
White’s centre looks great, but it is not stable. Black can with a few good moves create some attractive squares for his pieces. One of the surprises to some is that Black does not have to worry too much about the safety of his king
57
in this position. The way the white bishops are pointing, they are a danger to no one. The essence of the position is the way White is clinging on to the light squares, only supporting those in the centre with the knight on c3. It is for this reason that Black can undermine the centre. 11...f5! 12.e5? This is very compliant. Black now has three pieces that are thriving, while the bishop on g7 is not significantly worse than the bishop on e3, and despite everything has a long-term future. 12.d5! was a natural move. White is fighting for the light squares as well.
After 12...fxe4 White can either choose the calm line with 13.dxe6 exf3 14.exd7† £xd7 15.¥xf3 ¥xf3 16.¦xf3 0–0 with more or less even chances, or he can try the more aggressive 13.¤d4!? ¤xd5 14.¤xd5 ¥xd5 15.f5!?. However, I think Black is not worse after 15...0–0, although nothing is certain, of course. 12...¤b6 13.b3 I find it difficult to suggest a plan for White here. Black is very solid and the white pieces are poor, yet not easy to improve. 13...£d7 14.a4 b4 15.¤a2 a5 16.c3 bxc3 17.¤xc3 ¢f7 18.¤b5 ¤ed5³ Black is better and won on move 54.
Practical Chess Defence
Jacob Aagaard Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
List of Symbols Foreword Bibliography Introduction The Defensive Thinking Frame Defensive Methods Exercise Section Warming Up! Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Solutions to Warming Up! Solutions to Level 1 Solutions to Level 2 Solutions to Level 3 Index of illustrative examples Index of Exercises
4 5 6 7 15 41 69 70 79 91 111 127 147 177 241 295 296
Introduction When Garry Kasparov published the first volume of his On My Great Predecessors series, he said that since we had reached the end of classical chess, the pre-computer period, he had found it natural to write a history of classical chess. The only reaction I saw expressed on this was when a famous reviewer said that Kasparov’s invention “advanced chess” (man assisted by a computer) did not seem to be very successful and would not replace classical chess anytime soon. This missed the great man’s point by a mile and beyond! With the introduction of various forms of computer chess programs in chess, we have seen obvious changes in how people play the opening. Increasingly novelties in high-level games are introduced in the middlegame rather than the opening. Together with the reduction in time controls, this is transforming chess, though less than some people think. More important than the changes in opening preparation are the changes in top players’ creativity and tactical abilities. Most of this has been psychological. Most of the prominent players consult chess-playing programs, so they cannot help adapting their thinking methods, as inspired by the machines. This is seen mainly in two ways: Firstly, in the ability to spot the so-called “Fritz-moves”. These moves were spotted in the “classical period” as well, but will be so maybe five to ten times as frequently today. Secondly, there has been a philosophical movement away from the notion of given truths in chess, especially in the West, where the best players have always been autodidacts and not part of a great tradition of inherited knowledge, such as characterised the Soviet Chess School. To me it is not surprising that the only Western player who won the World Championship after
World War II, Robert Fischer, was a dedicated student of Russian chess magazines, often knowing their content better than the top Russian grandmasters. But this book is far from being ambitious enough to try to prove any philosophical or historical thesis. It is a book aimed at those who want to improve their defensive abilities. To do so we cannot get around these bizarre Fritzmoves. But let’s not talk about beauty; instead we shall look it straight in the eye: Chernikov – Etruk Kharkiv 1968
White to play and win – Solution on next page
The increased tactical ability in humans has not only created a larger number of beautiful brilliancies, but also helped us to scrap the less than brilliant brilliancies. It happens quite often that a combination is dismissed when the computer points out a defence overlooked by the players during the game. What is even worse for attacking players like me: people have started to find these defences over the board!
8
Practical Chess Defence
The art of defence is the only part of chess that has developed with the same speed as opening theory. The clearest proclamation of this was Kramnik’s demolition of Kasparov in their London 2000 match. The first World Champion of the third millennium defeated the greatest attacking player of all time, with accurate defence! One of my more important personal realisations has been that it is more difficult to win a game than to draw one. To win against a good player you have to do something special. At times this factor leads to fewer decisive results, to the crowd’s displeasure, but it also forces grandmasters to surpass each other in creative achievements. And overall the number of draws today is not higher than it was twenty years ago, when humans were still thinking for themselves. Chess is changing, for better and for worse. Only one thing can be said with absolutely certainty: chess is becoming much more competitive. An example is the sensation it was when a young Bobby Fischer blitzed out the correct drawing moves in a bishop ending against Mark Taimanov in Buenos Aires 1960. Today there are many players who know not only this theoretical endgame position, but hundreds like them. One place where computers have had a positive impact is on one of my favourite kinds of chess books: puzzle books. A sad majority of puzzle books still have the odd position from the Zurich 1953 Candidates tournament, as well as similar misdeeds. With hundred of thousands of new games played every year, it is hard to see the point of recycling the best books of our past. But at least writers have the decency to check the accuracy of the previous analysis with computer programs. This does not necessarily lead to bullet-proof solutions, but we get much closer to this unobtainable goal than we would have done without computers. This does depend on the author’s level of decency. When Chess Informant, re-released one of their older products in digital form, they
wrote in the promotions for it that they, of course, had considered reviewing the material before publishing it, but had decided to keep the charm of the original work intact! I don’t generally think badly about others, but I do wonder whether the good people from Sahovski did not care more about limiting their own efforts than the interests of their audience. My rough estimate is that half of the puzzles on their CD with 3000 puzzles from Informant 5 to 91 were suitable as puzzles. Quite a number were unsuitable because the defending side had a surprising defence, consisting of Fritz-moves, or just very accurate defence. So, on the one hand, this CD contained some beautiful combinations like the Chernikov – Etruk one featured on the previous page, where White wins with: 1.£d8†!! £xd8 2.¦a8 ¦d1 3.¦c8!!
This idea is the core of the position as a puzzle. All that remains for the solver is to calculate correctly that Black cannot give perpetual check. 3…¢h7 4.b8=£ ¦xf1† 5.¢xf1 £d3† 6.¢g1 g5 7.h5 ¢h6 8.¦h8† ¦h7 9.£f8† ¢xh5 10.£xf7† ¢h6 11.£xe6† £g6 12.¦xh7† ¢xh7 13.£xg4 1–0 A truly striking achievement from Mr Chernikov. But, on the other hand, there were many mistakes. It is distressing that something truly great is found side by side with something as horrid as the following example:
Introduction Aijala – Sigurjonsson Graz 1972
9
Chess Informant, who have the decency to ask a rather imaginative amount for their products, but not the decency to update them. It is important to remember: where there are mistakes in chess, there is also room for improvement. This book is largely about the mistakes of others, and about how to learn from them. Because, if we absolutely have to be honest, we would rather learn from the mistakes of others, than commit mistakes of our own to learn from. So, let’s return to the position where White blundered the rook.
Black took his chance to create a double threat. 1...¤d5! Even though this does not win by force, it creates practical problems for the opponent, and therefore deserves praise. 2.¥xh7† 2.cxd5 ¦xb3 3.¥xc5 (3.d6 ¦xe3! 4.dxe7 ¦e1 mate) 3...£g5! and Black wins a truckload of toys. 2...¢h8 3.¦h3?? Not the greatest move in chess history. White White to play – find the only move had a lapse of concentration and overlooked Black’s reply. 3...¤f4 Supplied with a generous !! from R. Maric in his annotations. Maybe it would be possible to talk oneself into a single exclam, but two? Come on. White has just blundered more or less every piece he had in one move, and Black has the decency to accept his kind offer. Let’s be careful not to overestimate the achievement. White resigned. 0–1
Do not misunderstand me. Though a bad blunder, it is easy to forgive Maric an analytical mistake. Anyone old enough to have analysed without a computer-provided safety net would know how easily mistakes creep in. This sympathy, however, does not extend to the present-day editors at
White’s main idea of delivering perpetual check is sound, only the execution was dubious. Massive loss of material is imminent and only radical measures will suffice. If you have the mindset for it, it is not too hard to see that instead of instantly transferring the rook to the h-file, White can change the move order by bringing the bishop back to one of four squares. But which of these would be best? Let’s investigate them one by one: 3.¥d3? is a bad mistake. 3…¥xe3† is winning immediately. 3.¥c2? does not work because of Black’s standard winning attempt, 3…g6, when White no longer supports ¥xc5 with the rook. To decide between 3.¥b1 or 3.¥e4 is more complicated. What we need to do is to go through a forced sequence of moves to see which is better.
10
Practical Chess Defence
This is referred to as the method of elimination. After 3…g6 4.cxd5 ¦xb3 5.¥xc5 £g5 6.¦ff1 we reach the following position:
If you made it to this position from the previous diagram, it should not have been too difficult to decide on 3.¥e4, as after 3.¥b1? Black would now have 6…¦xb2, winning a vital tempo by the threat of mate. So the main line goes: 3.¥e4! g6! The only way to play for a win. 3…f5?? 4.exf6! would give White a winning attack, queen or not. Now White has to let go of his strongest piece. 4.cxd5 No alternatives, no exclamation marks! It is worth mentioning some of the obvious benefits that the inclusion of the whole dance with the check on h7 before giving up the queen has given White. Firstly, the king no longer defends the f8rook. Secondly, the black king’s position is more fragile than previously. These minor differences change the evaluation of the position. 4…¦xb3 5.¥xc5 £g5 6.¦ff1! Time to choose again, this time for Black. This has little to do with the Chess Informant CD, but the position itself deserves attention. It is difficult for White to continue keeping his position alive after Black’s three main options, a) 6...¦xb2, b) 6…¦e3 and c) 6…¦bb8. Difficult, yet possible. If you feel so inclined, this is probably a good time to find out what you would do against these three trials.
The first option is the greediest. a) 6...¦xb2!? Even though there is no mate on g2 anymore, it makes sense for Black to investigate the capture of a pawn. Especially since White cannot capture on f8 because of the check on e3. Still, my analysis suggests that White can keep the balance. 7.dxe6! ¢g8! 7...£xe5 8.¦fe1! will make it unpleasant to suggest moves for Black, so I will refrain from doing so. 8.¥xc6 £xe5! Again the only move. After 7.dxe6! it is Black who is “making the draw”. 9.e7 ¦c8 10.¦fd1
Black to play – what is the only move?
Introduction Things look grim for Black. Will White queen his e-pawn and be much better? Well, he would if Black did not possess a surprising defence. For instance, Black cannot play 10…£g5 because of 11.h4! £xh4 12.¦e1! when Black might not hold the game, even with perfect play. 10…¦b1!! A very surprising move if you don’t think in this way. The move is a representative of the “spanner in the works” thinking discussed often in this book. When we have seen the move it is less difficult to calculate the various lines; finding the move is the hard bit, something that can be learned, and will make a lot of difference in the tournament table. 11.¦d8† ¢g7 12.¦xb1 £xc5† 13.¢h1 £xc6 The endgame is drawn in a number of ways. Hardly a rough ordeal for White. After finding 3.¥e4, finding the remaining moves was not too demanding. This is not the case after Black’s next try, where White forces a draw with the best moves, but only just. b) 6…¦e3!? Instead of taking the pawn Black is creating threats. White is in a difficult situation and only accurate play will make a draw.
White to play
The main problem for White is Black’s threats against g2. If it wasn’t for these, White could
11
happily take on f8 and c6, then trundle to the finish line with his passed pawn. The solution is to distract Black so he cannot attack the main weakness in White’s position. 7.¥xf8! With a sensational idea in mind. The main alternative was 7.h4!?, where Black has two main replies: 7...£xe5 8.¥xe3 cxd5 9.¥h6 £d4† 10.¦f2 ¦b8 11.¥c2 ¦xb2 12.¥g5 I think the control over the dark squares and the potential threats to the black king should give White reasonable chances. 7…£xh4! is simpler. After 8.¥f3 £g5 Black has reinstated his threats, including 9…¦xf3. After something like 9.¦cd1 ¦c8 10.dxc6 ¦xe5 Black is better, though White can create a lot of practical problems for him. 7...¦xe4 8.¥h6!!
The point. White wins a tempo to create counterplay with the c-pawn. After 8.dxc6? ¦e2 White cannot defend. 8...£xh6! Black has no real choice. The following lines illustrate his problems: 8...£xe5 9.dxc6 £c7 10.¥d2! ¦e2 11.¥a5 £xa5 12.c7 and White wins. 8...£g4 An attempt to stay focused on g2, which fails badly. 9.h3 £g3 10.¦c3 £xe5 11.dxc6 £c7 12.¦xf7! £xf7 13.c7 and once again White wins.
12
Practical Chess Defence
9.dxc6 £e3† 10.¢h1 ¦f4 11.¦fd1! A bit of accuracy is needed. White could have blundered with 11.¦fe1?? when Black wins instantly with 11…¦c4!. 11.¦g1 seems to be possible, but only if after 11…¦h4! White replies with 12.¦gd1! £xe5 13.h3 £c7 14.¦d7 £c8 15.c7, when White is still making the draw. 11...¦h4 Black has to think about making half a point here. 11...£e2 12.c7 ¦c4 is maybe also a draw, but not convincingly. 12.c7 ¦xh2†! With perpetual check. White cannot get his king away from the checks without losing the c-pawn, making avoiding the checks pointless. Black can improve his play substantially by protecting his pieces: c) 6…¦bb8!
Instead of trying to make White’s fragile house of cards collapse, Black prepares to block and eliminate the passed pawns. White does not have time to take on both f8 and c6, so the critical line looks something like this: 7.dxe6 £xe5 Black can also try for an advantage with 7... fxe6 8.¥xf8 £e3† 9.¢h1 £xe4 10.¦ce1 £a4 11.¥a3. He does not have a material advantage, but the bishop is misplaced on a3, so he still has some winning chances.
8.e7 ¦fe8 9.¥xc6 ¦xe7 10.¥xe7 £xe7 11.¦c2
1222222223 4 T + + L5 4O + Wo+ 5 4 +b+ +o+5 4+ + + + 5 4 + + + +5 4+ + + + 5 4pPr+ +pP5 4+ + +rK 5 7888888889
Black has the advantage, but how to exploit it? Presumably he needs to exchange a rook to be able to bully the white pieces, but then White will maybe be able to build a fortress. White can also try: 7.dxc6 White is happy to stick with his bishops and stay active. The limitation of this approach is that Black can sacrifice an exchange. 7...¦fc8 8.b4
8…¦xb4! White’s main trumps are the passed pawn and the agility of the bishops. Black returns some of his material superiority rather than
Introduction staying pressed against the back rank. After 8...£xe5 9.¦c4 ¢g8 10.a4 White has a lot of compensation. Though only with two bishops for the queen, a draw should be within reach. 9.¥xb4 £e3† 10.¢h1 £xe4 11.¥e7 ¦xc6 12.¥f6† ¢h7 13.¦xc6 £xc6 14.h3 £a4 15.¦f2
1222222223 4 + + + +5 4O + +o+l5 4 + +oBo+5 4+ + P + 5 4w+ + + +5 4+ + + +p5 4p+ + Rp+5 4+ + + +k5 7888888889
Again White is close to having built a fortress. If Black is able to zugzwang White in some way or activate his king to create threats
13
against the white king, he might break the fortress. We are quite a bit away from the initial position. We now know that only extensive analysis would have a chance of bringing down the white position. As defenders we have succeeded in making the opponent’s task as difficult as possible. The initial position was desperate and Aijala lost after making only two moves. If we assume that White had defended immaculately, would Black have won the game? It is only fair to begin this book with these two examples, as these were the two positions that encouraged me to do what Chess Informant did not find time for: to check all the positions on the CD with a computer program. In the process I found some positions that could be used for a new kind of puzzle book, a book with exercises in defence. Though a few good books exist on defence, notably Mihail Marin’s Secrets of Chess Defence, there seems to be no good way for the ambitious player to train defensive abilities. Hopefully this book will change this.
Isaac Lipnitsky QUESTIONS OF MODERN CHESS THEORY - A Soviet Classic
Translated by John Sugden
QUALITY CHESS www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Preface Foreword Foreword
Isaac Lipnitsky and his Super-Book, by Efim Lazarev by Anatoly Karpov by the UK Publisher
Introduction
5 9 10 11
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16
On the Opening The Centre The Centre and the Flanks Conquering the Centre from the Flanks Mobilizing the Pieces Evaluating the Position The Concrete Approach From Critical Positions to Settled Positions Positional Flair Plans in the Opening The Initiative Modern Gambits Opening and Middlegame Reevaluation of Values How Long Does a Novelty Last? How is an Innovation Born? Index of Games and Fragments
12 14 37 52 58 73 81 88 98 109 122 131 153 167 178 182 186
Appendix:
Selected Games of Isaac Lipnitsky Index of Opponents
188 229
Questions of Modern Chess Theory
Lipnitsky was eternally grateful to his patron. In Questions of Modern Chess Theory – his new book which was to become famous – he pointed out that in analysing the game Alekhine – Mindeno (Holland 1938), “the Kiev chess enthusiast A. Eremenko” had “unearthed some subtleties which had so far gone unnoticed, and found some possible ways for Black to defend.” (See page 9697) Quoting the variations that the enthusiast had indicated, Lipnitsky comments: “This analysis must be valued very highly, for Alekhine very rarely made analytical mistakes. Eremenko forces us to reconsider our assessment of this famous game of Alekhine’s.” Nor did Lipnitsky forget the author of these reminiscences, to whom he donated his book with the following inscription: “To Efim Markovich Lazarev, with sincere thanks for the help he gave in working on the book – from the author. I. Lipnitsky, 16 March 1956.” And one further detail: the book’s manuscript for submission to the publishers was typed out by the legendary Berta Iosifovna Vaisberg – seven times Ukrainian Women’s Chess Champion (a record!). The text was read through, checked and corrected by her son, Senia Vaisberg – a First Category player known everywhere in Kiev chess, both for his phenomenal erudition and for his fantastic eccentricities. One day when Lipnitsky visited him at home to collect the proofs, Senia said: “Why do you write that in some critical positions there aren’t any chess laws that apply? I mean, if some laws don’t apply, it means there are others that do!” Lipnitsky was delighted! Thanking Senia, he promptly reworked an entire section in accordance with this advice. The book came off the printing press in 1956, and the whole edition was instantly bought up by enthusiasts. In the same year Lipnitsky became Champion of the Ukraine for the second time. However, his pleasure was soon to be marred by acute pains which no medical treatment could remedy. It was said that he must somewhere have been exposed to some form of radioactive rain and had contracted leukaemia, for which there was then no cure. Three years of torment, at home and in hospitals – and then the funeral at the end of March 1959, at Baikov cemetery. He had only lived for a little more than 36 years. Incidentally, almost exactly three years later, who do you think succumbed quickly to what would seem to have been exactly the same form of radiation? It was Grandmaster Ragozin himself, the author of the opening system to which Lipnitsky devoted his work. But then, the patriarch was over 53... Lipnitsky’s best memorial is his Questions of Modern Chess Theory. To those questions, the book gives many striking and convincing answers. To this day it remains one of the world’s best handbooks for the strategy of the “game of the wise”. Efim Lazarev, Master of Sport Kiev 2008
8
Foreword Habent sua fata libelli – “Books have their own destiny.” This was said in the ancient world. The destiny of Isaac Oskarovich Lipnitsky’s book Questions of Modern Chess Theory is one that you would not by any means call happy. It is something of a legend, yet enigmatic and inexplicable. For all that, the destiny of the book has been far happier than that of its author... The Great Fatherland War was over. The decorated front-line soldier Isaac Lipnitsky was returning to peacetime life. In 1950 he had his moment of glory: in the final of the 18th Soviet Championship Lipnitsky shared 2nd-4th places, finishing only behind Keres and outperforming Smyslov, Petrosian, Geller, Averbakh... He was only 27, he had his whole life ahead of him, his career was taking off, he was sure to become one of the best players in the country ... but already a terrible illness was looming. It too was ready to make its most powerful move. Isaac Oskarovich was to die in 1959, having lived a mere 36 years. He took part in one more USSR Championship final, but was no longer able to concentrate on the game properly. Fully aware of what was happening, Lipnitsky gradually withdrew from practical play. He taught – and wrote his book. Appearing in 1956, it was on the sidelines in every respect: it was published in Kiev, in a small edition (by Soviet standards of course) and with many misprints. From the very moment of its appearance the book seemed condemned to oblivion. But ... something extraordinary ensued. “Lipnitsky recommends...”, “in Lipnitsky’s view...” – we find such utterances in the works of Botvinnik and Fischer. Two great Champions, so unlike each other, took Lipnitsky’s book very seriously. “Widely known within narrow circles”, inaccessible to the mass of readers, the book occupied a place of honour in the home libraries of grandmasters and coaches. Yet it aroused perhaps the greatest enthusiasm in people who ... had never read it, but had only heard about it or seen individual chapters which someone had adapted. The book was becoming a legend. What then is so special about it? In a striking, indeed fantastic way, it is the reverse of banal. Have a browse and read through any two pages at random, and you will see this for yourself. There are some books – conscientious compilations – whose authors strive to convince you that two and two make four and the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea. And then there are some books which stimulate thought. Such a book is the one before you. Fifty years from the day of its first appearance, it has found its second birth. Anatoly Karpov World Champion 1975-85, FIDE World Champion 1993-9
Foreword by the UK Publisher Time has moved on since Isaac Lipnitsky wrote Questions of Modern Chess Theory. This can be seen if you look at the theory of the Botvinnik variation of the Semi-Slav as given on page 141 and compare with the latest issue of Chess Informant. Or if you read Chapter 15 “How long does a Novelty last?” In Lipnitsky’s era a new move might remain secret for many months, while in our Internet-infested age information is updated continuously, in chess as in other areas of life. But there is a great difference between merely acquiring information and achieving real understanding. In this book you will find much that is as vibrant and relevant as ever, because Lipnitsky wrote with intelligence and lucidity. He was a champion who could play chess and also explain how he played chess. Technology might have changed the way we look at chess, but the pieces still move in the same way they did sixty years ago. Many highly acclaimed modern chess writers, especially those from Eastern Europe, proudly acknowledge Lipnitsky’s influence on their work. Though he does not have the name-recognition in the West of such established brands as Nimzowitsch, Reti or Kotov, he is worthy of a place in the pantheon. Studying Lipnitsky will make it easier for the reader to make the leap from the ideas of Nimzowitsch to works by Lipnitsky’s modern admirers such as, to choose just one example, those of Mark Dvoretsky. As Anatoly Karpov mentions in the Foreword, the great Bobby Fischer quoted Lipnitsky’s views in My 60 Memorable Games. This is natural: every chess thinker builds on the efforts of the previous generation. However, Fischer had to learn Russian to reap the benefit. For the less linguistically gifted, the lack of an English translation of Questions of Modern Chess Theory left a missing link in the chain of thought. Russian International Master Ilya Odessky extensively edited this edition of Lipnitsky’s “Superbook” with a 21st century audience in mind. The original edition from 1956 included about 120 pages of analysis on the Ragozin variation of the Queen’s Gambit, for which Lipnitsky held much affection (see for example page 189), but which held little relevance to a modern reader. This opening is still defended by top class players such as Carlsen, Mamedyarov, Morozevich and so on, but the theory now is obviously quite different. Quality Chess was founded four years ago in order to make a contribution to chess literature, one specific plan being to publish this book in English. Thanks to the help of our Russian partners this is finally a reality. I hope that the reader will agree with the greatest players of the last halfcentury that Questions of Modern Chess Theory is a Soviet classic, if not the Soviet Classic. John Shaw Quality Chess 10
Introduction This book focuses on those general problems of opening and middlegame theory which are of paramount importance for a player to understand properly in order to manage a game successfully. Under this heading we should place the problems of the centre, mobilization of the pieces and the initiative. These problems do not exist by themselves, in isolation from each other; in various forms they are closely interwoven. The basis for a game of chess is a purposeful plan which, beginning in the opening, is consistently developed in the middlegame. A highly characteristic feature of modern opening play is that from the very start of the game the players will try to predetermine the channels in which the middlegame fight will be conducted. Thus the link between opening and middlegame is of topical significance. Together with these issues, we shall consider the problem of assessing a position and analysing – undoubtedly the paramount question of chess theory. It should be borne in mind that any of these problems can only be studied successfully given a critical, imaginative approach to them. In the examples cited in the text, very extensive use is made of the work and achievements of Alexander Alekhine and Mikhail Botvinnik. Their merit in presenting and resolving the problems of the opening in contemporary terms is especially great.
11
Chapter
1
The opening is the initial stage of the game. This definition of the opening as such dates from the second half of the 15th century, which saw the transformation of the Arabian shatranj into the modern game of chess. Let us recall that shatranj was played with the same pieces on the same board as the modern game, but with somewhat different rules. Thus for example the movements of the pieces according to the rules of shatranj were extremely slow (the queen moved only one square along the diagonal, there was no castling, etc.) and it took a great deal of time for the opposing forces to come into contact. As a result, openings in the modern sense of the word were absent from the Arab game in the final centuries of its existence. A thousand years ago, play would begin not from the original starting position but from one where the initial development was already completed. Thirty-one such positions have come down to us. They were called tabiyat. In addition each tabiya had a name of its own. Diagram 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a b c d e f g h
Diagram 2 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a b c d e f g h
Chapter 1 - On the Opening
When the modification of the rules of shatranj had created modern chess, with its possibilities for fast development of the pieces at the start of the game, tabiyat were no longer needed. But at once the question arose as to how the pieces were to be developed correctly. From attempts to find an answer to this question, the study of chess openings arose. The opening has been an object of special attention for chessplayers for close on 500 years. Small wonder that openings were a major topic in the very first chess books to appear. Thus for example in the Göttingen Manuscript (a text of French origin dating from around 1490, discovered in Göttingen University library), thirty parchment pages are devoted to twelve different openings, including those now called the Petroff, the Ruy Lopez, the Giuoco Piano, the French Defence, the English Opening, the Queen’s Gambit and others. Dozens of books devoted to chess openings have been written since; hardly a single contemporary chess author passes over the questions of the opening. Yet even today no unanimity has been reached on the treatment of the basic opening problems. Questions about the tasks and aims of the opening, and the chief principles and methods of playing it; the question of how long the opening lasts, and how it is linked to the middlegame; these questions remain topical. It is therefore important to explain what is characteristic and distinctive about the modern approach to solving the various opening problems. The opening as distinct from the other phases of the game has its own unique peculiarities. The most characteristic fact about the starting position is that the armies of both sides are still, so to speak, occupying rearguard posts. This suggests what the basic strategic task for both sides must be: to mobilize their forces as expediently and quickly as they can. In the process of mobilization the opposing armies will inevitably clash and begin a fight to seize favourable points. Thus, the rationale of the fight which is joined in a chess game right from the start consists in developing your own forces to good positions as fast and effectively as possible, while trying your hardest to stop your opponent from doing the same. It is not difficult to see that the most favourable points are located in the centre of the board – the central squares represent the most convenient stronghold for stationing the forces. The issue of the centre is all the more crucial in the opening because, in the starting position, this sector of the board is vacant – which presents both sides with an imperative to fight for it and conquer it. For this very reason the centre is the principal theatre of warlike actions in the opening phase. Thus, combined with the fight for the centre, the mobilization of the pieces is the fundamental, unique law for playing any chess opening. Let us examine the constituent parts of this law in more detail.
13
Chapter As we know, any piece placed in the centre (with the exception of the rook) is “hitting” more squares than it would elsewhere, which means that this is where it possesses its greatest fighting value. Furthermore it is from the centre that pieces can be transferred to either of the flanks in the smallest number of moves. These two circumstances make the centre the most important place on the whole chessboard.
M. Stolberg – M. Botvinnik Moscow 1940
Diagram 3
8
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a b c d e f g h
2
What stands out when you look at the diagram is the radical difference in the placing of the two sides’ forces. Black has gained total control of a stronghold in the centre. Making a mighty striking force out of his pieces there, he dominates the entire board. White’s forces are scattered and have been driven into rear positions. He can no longer get them co-ordinated to resist his opponent’s fearsome and constantly mounting pressure. The outcome of the struggle is a foregone conclusion. The final moves were:
33.a5 ¥c5 34.b6 a6 35.¤b2 ¦c3 36.¥d2 ¦b3 37.£c2 £b5 38.¦c1 ¥f8 39.¦d1 ¦e2 40.£c1 ¦xh3†!! 41. gxh3 d4! White surrendered. In this game the principle of centralization comes across vividly and impressively. Even the mortal blow that is irresistibly threatened would come from the central square d5. But Black did not succeed all at once in gaining such a colossal preponderance in the centre. It resulted from focusing attention on the
Chapter 2 - The Centre
centre from the very first moves, in contrast to his opponent who did not give the central terrain its due importance.
Diagram 4 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a b c d e f g h
The game whose finale we have just examined started as follows:
1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3 0–0 5.¥d3 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.¤ge2 c5 8.0–0 ¤c6 9.a3 cxd4 10.exd4 ¥d6 From here the bishop controls e5, while White’s surveillance of this important point has been weakened by developing his knight on e2 rather than f3.
11.h3 Contributing nothing to the fight for the centre. A better move was 11.¥f4!, at once neutralizing the pressure from the black bishop.
15...¥f5! Obviously the more weak points your opponent has, the easier it is to break into his camp. With a central pawn position of this type, the centre squares adjacent to the pawns are usually the weak ones. For White this means e4 and c4, and for Black, e5 and c5.
11...h6 12.b4 ¦e8 13.£b3 ¥e6! This move impedes the action of Black’s own rook on the e-file. Is it necessary? Doesn’t it reduce his pressure on the centre? It turns out that it does not. Furthermore this move has a deep idea behind it; Black is commencing a manoeuvre aimed at weakening the influence of White’s pieces on the centre, and afterwards conquering it. At the same time he facilitates the further mobilization of his queenside forces.
The natural defenders of these weak points are the bishops of the corresponding colour. Botvinnik deprives his opponent of the defender in question, and gaping holes arise in the middle of White’s position, on the squares e4 and c4. Black’s manoeuvre is not fortuitous. It was prepared by his foregoing play which was oriented to seizing the central ground, and which proved all the more effective since White did not give due attention to securing his own central points.
14.¥d2 £d7 15.f4 Many players (especially young ones) will notice a danger to their own king before anything else. Stolberg probably wanted to shut off the bishop on d6 and prevent a possible sacrifice with 15...¥xh3. But now the e4-square is weakened even more, and Botvinnik gives a textbook example of how to exploit this kind of weakness.
16.£c2 ¥e4 The immediate 16...¥xd3 was possible too, but Black has no objection to 17.¤xe4 dxe4. In that case he would obtain a strong passed epawn and an excellent post on d5 for a knight, while White would be left with a pawn weakness on d4.
(see next diagram)
17.b5 ¥xd3 18.£xd3 15
Reggio Emilia 2007/2008 The Golden Jubilee Tournament By
Mihail Marin & Yuri Garrett
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/ReggioEmilia20072008-excerpt.pdf
Contents Acknowledgements & Key to Symbols used How this Book was Born Yuri Garrett How a Tournament is Born Yuri Garrett Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Round 8 Round 9 In Lieu of a Conclusion Yuri Garrett
4 5 7 11 39 61 85 105 129 169 189 221 236
Appendixes Memoirs of Reggio Emilia Miso Cebalo When Hari met Ni Hua Yuri Garrett Biographies Yuri Garrett A Triumphant Return Ni Hua 50 years in Tables Index of Games and Openings
239 248 261 272 276 288
Round 1
29 December 2007
Almasi – Harakrishna
1–0
Ni Hua – Navara
½–½
Landa – Korchnoi
½–½
Tiviakov – Marin
0–1
Godena – Gashimov
½–½
Standings 1
Almasi, Marin
½
Gashimov, Godena, Korchnoi, Landa, Navara, Ni Hua
0
Harikrishna, Tiviakov
14
Reggio Emilia 2007/2008
As we noted before, the players come from ten different countries and span distant generations (need we remind the reader that Viktor Korchnoi is 76 and Vugar Gashimov and Ni Hua are 21). Over the board, the differences are just as great: Almasi, Godena, Marin and Tiviakov can be considered to be positional players; Harikrishna and Gashimov have a more tactical style, whereas Landa, Ni Hua and Navara can be expected to play anything. Korchnoi, as usual, also defies any classification. However, attaching labels to such strong players is a dangerous exercise, as they are skilled in all styles of play. It was difficult to guess which of the five games from the first round would be the most interesting. As we shall see, Almasi and Harikrishna were the most spectacular gladiators in the arena today, playing a very lively game that set the tone for their respective tournaments. Actually, the manoeuvring had started a few hours before the round, in the pizzeria Il Condor, no more than a few steps from the Astoria Hotel. Rather than secluding themselves in their rooms to avoid any contact with the world (and their opponent), Zoltan and Hari opted to share a meal, not only together but also with yours truly and Luca Barillaro. Every well informed player knows that a light meal is the preferred choice before an important game, and so both the Hungarian and the Indian opted for a local specialty: pizza with gorgonzola for Almasi, and pizza with mushrooms, peppers and onions for Harikrishna. If you are wondering which of the two “bricks” is more beneficial to the royal game, all you need to do is read on... At 2:30 p.m. International Arbiter Franca Dapiran started the fiftieth edition of the Reggio Emilia Capodanno Tournament. She was assisted by local arbiters Angelo Mancini and Antonio Sfera. As the clocks started, the time control was 1 hour and 40 minutes for 40 moves, then 50 minutes were added, with a 30 second increment from move 1. The first game to end (in a draw) was the one between Korchnoi and Landa. Encouraged by Viktor’s satisfied look, I approached him and asked if he was willing to pay a visit to Miso Cebalo’s realm (the commentary room) and show his game. “Of course! Where shall we go to?” “Please follow me, Maestro.” Thus a cheerful yet combative Korchnoi entertained the public for almost three quarters of an hour, explaining the themes and tactics of his beloved French, and relating the twists and turns of his complicated draw. “Would you like to add anything?” I suggested to Landa. “How could I? He is a superstar.” Korchnoi briefly left the floor to his opponent to illustrate a line that they had analysed only minutes earlier. Landa had barely time to whisper a few words before Viktor took over again. “I can’t say I’m sitting pretty here, but I’ve found myself in this situation so many other times...” “Now White should have opened the centre with c2-c4, to give play to his most active pieces, but it is easier said than done. And after c2-c3 I understood that I would have achieved a draw: I simply needed to carry out my plan.” “Finally it would seem that I could even play for a win, but frankly I cannot see how. So after all, a draw will do.” In my opinion this was a defining moment for the tournament because all the other players, following the doyen’s example, gladly agreed to demonstrate their games. This turned the commentary room into the beating heart of the tournament, under the skilful control of GM Cebalo.
Round 1 - 29 December 2007
15
Immediately after Korchnoi, the audience was treated to the straightforward and logical commentary of Zoltan Almasi, who had overcome Harikrishna in one of the three “Italian” openings of the day. The Hungarian’s pressure was so intense that I think Harikrishna felt relieved when he was finally freed from the painful task of finding yet another move to play. If you want to feel the young Indian’s suffering during the game, all you have to do is glance (yes, only a glance is needed) at the diagram after Black’s 29th move. In the second Italian Game of the day, Mihail Marin once again displayed his mastery of the open games and outplayed (with the black pieces) the bookmakers’ favourite Tiviakov. The game reached its climax around move twenty, when the Dutchman decided to take Black’s h5-pawn. After this inaccuracy, Black built his advantage with great confidence by seizing the dark squares on the kingside and immediately thereafter in the centre of the board. Michele Godena also started well by forcing a draw against Vugar Gashimov. The young Azeri adopted the Pirc Defence, and in reply Godena chose his pet move c2-c3 and emerged from the opening with a comfortable position. A couple of inaccurate moves relegated the Italian to a slightly worse position, but from then onwards White bravely went for complicated play and caused his opponent to err. The ensuing simplifications finally allowed Godena to grab a welldeserved half point. In a tournament where the average rating of his opponents is almost 100 points higher than his, Godena must capitalize on every chance to add to his score, and so his renowned solidity with the white pieces will prove quite useful. The last Giuoco Piano of the day was Ni Hua – Navara, a well-played draw. This game has the added merit of introducing the reader to David Navara’s remarkable analysis.
Reggio Emilia 2007/2008
16
Game 1 Zoltan Almasi – Pentala Harikrishna Italian Game
Annotations by Zoltan Almasi & Mihail Marin Zoltan Almasi won the tournament quite deservedly. His stability and ambition throughout the nine days of play as well as the strategic and tactical complexity of his games placed him above all his rivals in Reggio Emilia. Zoltan took the lead as early as the first round and never surrendered it, although at times he had to share it with other players. 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥c4 I did not have much time to prepare, so I selected the Italian Game instead of allowing the Marshall Attack, which has been analysed to death these days. I know the text offers a very solid and playable position. 3...¤f6 4.d3 ¥e7 5.0–0 0–0 6.¦e1 d6 7.a4 ¥e6
1222222223 t+ W Tl+5 OoO VoOo5 +mOvM +5 + + O + 5 p+b+p+ +5 + +p+n+ 5 Pp+ PpP5 RnBqR K 5 79 8.¤c3 The main alternative here is 8.¤bd2. The following are some possible developments: 8...¤d4 9.¤xd4 exd4 10.c3 dxc3 11.bxc3 ¥xc4 12.¤xc4 d5 13.¤d2 dxe4 14.dxe4 ¤d7 15.e5 ¤c5 16.¥a3 ¤d3 17.¦e4 ¥xa3 18.¦d4 ¤xf2 19.£h5 £e7 20.¦h4 h6 21.¢xf2 £c5† 22.¢e2 ¦ae8 Black soon won in D. Kontic – Z. Markov, Tivat 1995. 8...¦e8 9.a5 ¥f8 10.c3 ¦b8 11.b4 a6 12.£b3 h6 13.h3 £d7 14.¥b2 ¤e7 15.¥xe6 £xe6 16.£xe6 fxe6 17.c4 ¤d7 18.¥c3 g5
Round 1 - 29 December 2007 19.¦ab1 ¥g7 20.¤f1 ¦f8 21.¤3d2 ¤g6 22.g3 ¤e7 23.¤e3 ¤c6 and Black won in 49 moves, Tkachiev – P. Nikolic, Paris (rapid) 1994. 8...£d7 9.c3 ¦fe8 10.¥b3 ¥f8 11.a5 ¥xb3 12.£xb3 a6! 13.¤f1 d5 14.¥g5 dxe4 15.dxe4 £e6 16.£xe6 ¦xe6 17.¥xf6 ¦xf6 18.¤e3 ¦e6! 19.¦ed1 ¦d6 20.¤d5 ¦c8 21.¤d2 f6 22.¤c4 ¦dd8 23.b4 This was agreed drawn in A. Grosar – Gostisa, Slovenia (ch) 1994. A different approach for White is to exchange bishops: 8.¥xe6 fxe6 9.c3 ¢h8 10.£b3 £d7 11.¤bd2 ¤a5 12.£b5 b6 13.£xd7 ¤xd7 14.b4 ¤b7 15.d4 ¥f6 16.¥a3 ¦fd8 17.¤c4 a6 18.b5 axb5 19.axb5 ¤a5 20.¤cd2 ¦a7 21.¥b4 ¦da8 22.¦ab1 ¢g8 With a draw in 45 moves, Movsesian – Kholmov, Czech Republic 1995. 8...£d7 9.a5 a6 10.h3 I looked at a few games in my preparation, among them Anand – Carlsen, Reykjavik (blitz) 2006, and Malakhov – Tomashevsky, Russia 2006. I think White was a little bit better in both games. 10...h6 This was a new move to me, albeit a very logical one. Afterwards, I discovered it had already been played in Anka – Z.J. Szabo, Hungary 2004. 11.¥d2 White should not play 11.¤d5? in view of 11...¥xd5 12.exd5 ¤b4 13.c3 ¤bxd5 14.£b3 c6. [Editor’s note: Perhaps it is not so simple as 13.d4! looks good for White. For example, 13...e4 14.¤d2 or 13...exd4 14.¤xd4 ¤bxd5? 15.£f3 c6 16.¥xh6! gxh6 17.¤f5.]
17
1222222223 t+ + Tl+5 +oOwVoO 5 o+mOvM O5 P + O + 5 +b+p+ +5 + Np+n+p5 PpB Pp+5 R +qR K 5 79 11...¦ae8? This natural move looks okay, but it is in fact wrong! White should not be allowed to play ¤d5. Possible alternatives were 11...¤d4 or 11...¥xc4 12.dxc4 ¤d4. 12.¤d5 ¥d8 This was the idea behind 11...¦ae8, so that the rooks are not cut off from each other. This manoeuvre is very typical in the Ruy Lopez. 13.¥b3! Better than the “ordinary” 13.c3 ¥xd5 14.exd5 ¤e7 15.£b3 c6 16.dxc6 ¤xc6. Of course White has to play on the queenside and Black has to try on the kingside. 13...¤h7?! A better choice was 13...¥xd5 14.exd5 ¤e7 15.¥a4 c6 16.c4. 14.¥a4 The situation is now very unpleasant for Black. It is not easy to stop White’s attack on the queenside. 14...£c8 Black has to step out of the pin. 15.b4 It’s time to get going! 15...f5
18
Reggio Emilia 2007/2008
Hari is trying to find some counterplay on the kingside, but he is much slower.
My idea was to put pressure on Black’s position.
16.c4 The idea is to stabilize the d5 knight and prepare b4-b5.
18...axb5? In my opinion this was the final mistake! After this, White has a very fast passed a-pawn that is not easy to stop.
I also calculated the immediate 16.b5 but it looked rather complicated and unnecessary to me: 16...axb5 17.¥xb5 fxe4 18.dxe4 ¦xf3!? 19.£xf3 ¤d4 20.£d3 c6 (20...¤xb5 21.£xb5 c6 22.£a4) 21.¥a4 ¦f8 22.¤b6 ¥xb6 23.axb6 ¥xh3 16...¥d7 I did not understand this move, but I cannot see how Black can hold his position. It may seem that Black has regrouped his forces harmoniously and his kingside counterplay is developing without problems. However, White’s space advantage in the centre and on the queenside should not be underestimated. Eventually, it will become the telling factor in the final part of the game.
1222222223 +wVtTl+5 +oOv+ Om5 o+mO + O5 P +nOo+ 5 bPp+p+ +5 + +p+n+p5 + B Pp+5 R +qR K 5 79
To a certain extent, this can be considered the decisive mistake. Harikrishna may have evaluated the position from a static point of view and even slightly dogmatically. From a structural point of view, the capture on b5 is correct because it makes White’s pawn chain less compact. However, the passed pawn White will soon create on the a-file will decide the battle in his favour. 19.¤xe7† An important zwischenzug. 19...¦xe7 It was probably better to take with the bishop. 20.cxb5†
1222222223 +wV Tl+5 +oOvT Om5 + O + O5 Pp+ Oo+ 5 b+ +p+ +5 +q+p+n+p5 + B Pp+5 R + R K 5 79
17.b5! 17.exf5 also seems promising: 17...¦xf5 18.b5 ¤e7 19.¤e3 ¦f7 and White has a great advantage.
20...¦ef7 By placing the rook in this pin, Black loses an important tempo for his attack.
17...¤e7 18.£b3
20...¥e6 looks more natural, but after 21.£c3
Round 1 - 29 December 2007 fxe4 22.dxe4 ¦ef7 White manages to exchange the enemy bishop, which could eventually become a dangerous attacking piece, with 23.¥b3!. After 23...¦xf3 24.gxf3 ¥xb3 25.£xb3† Black has to lose a tempo with 25...¢h8 anyway, when 26.¦a3 keeps things under control on the kingside, while the threat of a6-a7 is very strong. For instance, 26…£xh3 27.f4! £g4† 28.£g3 and Black can resign. 21.a6 fxe4 22.dxe4 ¢h8 Black tries to start an attack against the white king, but he is too late. 22...¥e6 is met by 23.axb7 and 22...bxa6 23.bxa6 is even worse for Black because another line opens. It seems that everything is ready for the thematic sacrifice on f3, but... 23.a7! After this move, Black will have to use his strongest piece for the passive job of blocking the pawn. Without any contribution from the queen, the kingside attack will lack power. In fact, it will soon be White who will start active operations on that wing, taking advantage of his local material superiority. 23...£a8 If 23...¥xh3 then 24.¤xe5! dxe5 25.£xh3. 24.b6 White’s position is winning because of the a7-pawn.
19
26...¥e8 27.¥a5 ¦d7 28.£a3 ¥e7 29.¥b4 This move provokes more weaknesses in Black’s position. 29...c5
1222222223 w+ +vT L5 Po+tV O 5 P O M O5 + O O + 5 bB +p+ +5 Q + Rn+p5 + + Pp+5 + +r+ K 5 79
30.¥a5 ¦d8 31.¥xe8 ¦fxe8 32.¤h4 Now the white squares are very weak and it is time to penetrate Black’s position. 32...¢h7 Another possible continuation with a similar assessment was 32...¤g4 33.hxg4 ¥xh4 34.¦h3 ¥g5 35.¥d2. 33.£b3 Now everything is rolling.
24...c6 Black plays without his queen and keeps the position closed, but this is just hopeless. However, 24...¥xh3 25.¤xe5 or 25.bxc7 ¥xc7 26.¤h4 were no better.
33...¥f8 34.£f7 £c8 35.¦f3 ¦d7 36.£g6† ¢h8 37.¥d2 d5 Activity in the centre is not always an adequate solution to a flank attack. In this case White has an overwhelming superiority on both wings; in order to compensate for it, Black would need something like two connected passed pawns on the second rank...
25.¦e3 Safety first – why not defend everything?
38.¦xf6 gxf6 39.¦a1 dxe4 40.a8=£ 1–0
25...¤f6 26.¦d1 There’s a weakness on the horizon!
Landa Konstantin
Almasi Zoltan
Godena Michele
Ni Hua
Navara David
Gashimov Vugar
Harikrishna Pentala
Korchnoi Viktor
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Marin Mihail
Tiviakov Sergei
1
ROM
SUI
IND
AZE
CZE
CHN
ITA
HUN
RUS
NED
2551
2611
2668
2663
2656
2641
2535
2691
2678
2643
Elo
+13
-13
+40
+45
-63
+70
-10
+56
-49
-88
Perf.
1
½
½
1
½
1
0
½
½
1
Reggio Emilia 2007/8 - Table of results
0
½
1
½
½
½
½
½
½
2
0
½
0
½
0
½
½
½
½
3
½
½
1
½
1
½
½
½
1
4
0
½
½
½
½
½
½
½
0
5
½
0
1
1
½
0
1
½
½
6
½
½
½
0
½
½
½
½
0
7
½
½
½
0
½
0
1
0
½
8
½
½
½
1
½
½
½
½
½
9
½
½
½
½
1
½
1
1
0
10
3,5
4,0
5,5
5,5
4,0
5,5
3,0
6,0
4,5
3,5
pt
9°
6°
4°
2°
7°
3°
10°
1°
5°
8°
cl
286
Reggio Emilia 2007/2008
Landa Konstantin
Almasi Zoltan
Godena Michele
Ni Hua
Navara David
Gashimov Vugar
Harikrishna Pentala
Korchnoi Viktor
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Marin Mihail
Tiviakov Sergej
1
ROM
SUI
IND
AZE
CZE
CHN
ITA
HUN
RUS
NED
2551
2611
2668
2663
2656
2641
2535
2691
2678
2643
1
½
0
½
½
½
½
1
½
0
1
1½
1
1
1
1
1
½
1½
1
½
2
1½
1½
1½
2
1
1½
1
2
2
1
3
2
2
2½
2½
1
2
1
2½
2½
2
4
Reggio Emilia 2007/8 - Table of progressive scores
2
2
3
3
2
3
1½
3½
3
2
5
2½
2½
3½
3½
2½
3½
2
4
3½
2½
6
3
3
4
4½
3
4
2½
4½
4
2½
7
3½
3½
4½
5
3
4½
3
5½
4½
3
8
3½
4
5½
5½
4
5½
3
6
4½
3½
9
9°
6°
4°
2°
7°
3°
10°
1°
5°
8°
cl
14,50
18,50
22,50
23,50
15,50
23,25
50 Years in Tables 287
Index of Games and Openings Numbers refer to pages 1 Almasi-Harikrishna za, mm 16 2 Ni Hua-Navara dn 20 3 Landa-Korchnoi mm 24 4 Tiviakov-Marin mm 28 5 Godena-Gashimov mm 35 6 Korchnoi-Almasi mm 41 7 Gashimov-Ni Hua mm 43 8 Marin-Navara dn 48 9 Tiviakov-Landa st 53 10 Harikrishna-Godena mm 56 11 Almasi-Tiviakov mm 63 12 Navara-Gashimov vg, dn 65 13 Ni Hua-Harikrishna mm 69 14 Landa-Marin mm 71 15 Godena-Korchnoi mm 82 16 Landa-Almasi mm 87 17 Marin-Gashimov mm 88 18 Korchnoi-Ni Hua mm 91 19 Harikrishna-Navara hk, dn 95 20 Tiviakov-Godena mm 102 21 Almasi-Marin mm 107 22 Gashimov-Harikrishna mm 112 23 Ni Hua-Tiviakov nh 115 24 Navara-Korchnoi dn 119 25 Godena-Landa mg, kl 126 Gashimov-Korchnoi vk 132 26 Almasi-Godena mm 139 27 Korchnoi-Gashimov vk 145 28 Landa-Ni Hua kl, mm 149 29 Tiviakov-Navara dn 155 30 Marin-Harikrishna mm 161 31 Ni Hua-Almasi mm 171 32 Gashimov-Tiviakov vg 175 33 Harikrishna-Korchnoi mm 177 34 Navara-Landa dn 180 35 Godena-Marin mm 183 36 Almasi-Navara dn 191 37 Landa-Gashimov mm 195 38 Godena-Ni Hua mm 198 39 Tiviakov-Harikrishna mm 200
40 Marin-Korchnoi Portisch-Korchnoi Portisch-Darga Huebner-Korchnoi Ponomariov-Korchnoi 41 Gashimov-Almasi 42 Ni Hua-Marin 43 Harikrishna-Landa 44 Korchnoi-Tiviakov 45 Navara-Godena V.Georgiev-Cebalo Cvitan-Cebalo Almasi-Ni Hua
mm mm mm mm mm mm nh hk mm mm, dn mc mc nh
205 210 214 215 218 223 223 227 228 233 240 243 272
Numbers refer to game numbers Bishop’s Opening 9 Bogo-Indian Defence 6, 33 Caro-Kann Defence 29 Catalan Opening 40 English Opening 8, 14, 17, 27, 34 French Defence 3, 15, 20, 24, 38 Italian Game 1, 2, 4, 13, 42, 43 King’s Indian Defence 37 Modern Benoni 12 Modern Defence 5, 39 Queen’s Indian Defence 44 Pirc Defence 35 Ruy Lopez 7, 10, 21, 22, 26, 36, 41 Scandinavian Defence 23, 32 Semi-Slav 18, 45 Sicilian Defence 11, 19, 25 Slav Defence 16, 28, 30 Two Knights Defence 31
3PPLWT5XP.JOPS1JFDFT
#Z&TCFO-VOE
$0/5&/54
#JCMJPHSBQIZ 1SFGBDF
1BSU*ǰFPSZ
ɨFPSFUJDBM'PVOEBUJPO 'VOEBNFOUBM&OEHBNFT
1BSU**1SBDUJDF
*OUSPEVDUJPOUP1BSU** ɨF¤D$BUBMBO &WBMVBUJPO&YFSDJTFT ɨF4DPUDI&OEHBNF
1BSU***5SBJOJOH
(FOFSBM&YFSDJTFT 4PMVUJPOTUP&WBMVBUJPO&YFSDJTFT 4PMVUJPOTUP(FOFSBM&YFSDJTFT
*OEFYFT
ɨFPSFUJDBM'PVOEBUJPO
$IBQUFS
ǰFPSFUJDBM'PVOEBUJPO
5PCFHJOXJUI *XJMMNBLFBTUBUFNFOUUIBU NJHIU TFFN MJLF BO PWFSTJNQMJmDBUJPO ɨF QPJOUJTUIBUJUNBLFTJUFBTJFSUPPSHBOJ[FUIF NBUFSJBM 0G BMM UIF NBUFSJBM XSJUUFO PO UIF TVCKFDU SPPL WT UXP NJOPS QJFDFT JU TFFNT UIBU iPMEFSwNBUFSJBMNBJOMZDPODFOUSBUFEPOUIF NBUFSJBM DPSSFMBUJPO CFUXFFO UIF SPPL BOE UIFUXPNJOPSQJFDFT XIFSFBTUIFiNPEFSOw WJFXUBLFTBNPSFEZOBNJDBQQSPBDI-FUVT TUBSUPVUXJUI#FSHFSTDzFPSJFVOE1SBYJTEFS &OETQJFMFGSPN i" SPPL BOE UXP QBXOT BSF DPOTJEFSFE UP FRVBMUXPNJOPSQJFDFTw QBHF
4P#FSHFSXSJUFTEJSFDUMZUIBUBSPPLBOEUXP QBXOTBSFUIFSJHIUFRVJWBMFOUGPSUXPNJOPS QJFDFT)FEPFTOPUEJĊFSFOUJBUFCFUXFFOUXP LOJHIUT UXPCJTIPQT PSCJTIPQBOELOJHIU )F UIFO HJWFT BO FYBNQMF PG UIJT DPOmHVSBUJPO JO B CBTJD FOEHBNF GSPN UIF UIHBNFPGUIF4UFJOJU[;VLFSUPSU8PSME $IBNQJPOTIJQNBUDIPGɨJTFOEHBNF IBT TPNF JOUFSFTUJOH GFBUVSFT BOE XJMM CF TUVEJFE JO UIF DIBQUFS PO 'VOEBNFOUBM &OEHBNFT "OPUIFSFYBNQMFPGBNBUFSJBMDPNQBSJTPO JTUBLFOGSPN4VFUJOTCPPL4DIBDIMFISCVDIGàS 'PSUHFTDISJUUFOF iɨFUXPNJOPSQJFDFTBSFVTVBMMZTUSPOHFS UIBO UIF SPPL JO UIF PQFOJOH BOE EVSJOH UIF NJEEMFHBNF FWFO JG UXP QBXOT BSF BEEFEUPUIFTJEFXJUIUIFSPPLw "T4VFUJOTUBUFT UIJTJTBHVJEFSBUIFSUIBOBO BCTPMVUFSVMF CVUJUBMTPEFQFOETPOIPXZPV EFmOFUIFFOEHBNFBOEUIFNJEEMFHBNF
*GZPVBEEBSPPLBOERVFFOUPFBDITJEF JT JUUIFOTUJMMBOFOEHBNF PSIBWFXFFOUFSFE NJEEMFHBNFUFSSJUPSZ "OEEPFTUIFOVNCFS PG QBXOT DPVOU GPS BOZUIJOH IPX NBOZ QBXOT NVTU CF PO UIF CPBSE UP DBMM JU BO FOEHBNF *ONZWJFX JUJTOPUTPJNQPSUBOUIPXXF DBUFHPSJ[F UIF QPTJUJPOT BOE XPSLJOH XJUI NBOZ IVOESFET PG QPTJUJPOT IBT UBVHIU NF UIBUXIBUDPVOUToCFTJEFTBDUJWJUZBOEPUIFS HFOFSBMGFBUVSFTPGUIFQPTJUJPOoJTUIFOVNCFS PGPQFOmMFTGPSUIFSPPLTJOUIFQPTJUJPOɨJT VTVBMMZEFDJEFTFYBDUMZIPXTUSPOHUIFSPPLJT DPNQBSFEUPUIFUXPNJOPSQJFDFT 4VFUJO MJLF #FSHFS EPFT OPU EJĊFSFOUJBUF CFUXFFO UIF UISFF QPTTJCMF DPOmHVSBUJPOT PG NJOPS QJFDFT -BUFS PO UIF TBNF QBHF IF XSJUFT i%FTQJUF UIJT HFOFSBM HVJEFMJOF TVDI BO FYDIBOHF PQFSBUJPO JT EFTJSBCMF JG UIF DPPSEJOBUJPO PG UIF NJOPS QJFDFT JT EJTSVQUFE PS JG UIF PQQPOFOU JT MFGU XJUI MBTUJOH TUSVDUVSBM XFBLOFTTFT JO IJT QPTJUJPOw QBHF
5PFYQBOEPOUIJT UIFSFDBOCFFYDFQUJPOTUP IJTHVJEFMJOFJGUIFTJEFXJUIUIFUXPNJOPS QJFDFTMBDLTDPPSEJOBUJPO EZOBNJDGFBUVSFPG UIF QPTJUJPO
PS JG IF IBT QBXO XFBLOFTTFT TUBUJDGFBUVSF ɨJT QPJOU JT JOUFSFTUJOH BOE TIPXT UIBU IF JT PG DPVSTF BXBSF PG UIF EZOBNJDT PG UIFQPTJUJPO"TBHFOFSBMUIFNF4VFUJOTFFT UIFDPPSEJOBUJPOPGUIFQJFDFTBTQFSIBQTUIF NPTUJNQPSUBOUGFBUVSFJOIJTCPPL #PUI #FSHFS BOE 4VFUJO HJWF UXP QBXOT BT QPTTJCMF DPNQFOTBUJPO GPS SPPL WT UXP NJOPS QJFDFT UP CF GBJS UP 4VFUJO IF HJWFT
1BSU*ɨFPSZ
QBXOT XIJDIDBOCFTFFOJOUIFUJUMFPG UIFTFDUJPOJOIJTCPPL5XPNJOPSQJFDFTWT SPPLBOEQBXO T 3PPL BOE POF QBXO JT VTVBMMZ OPU FOPVHI DPNQFOTBUJPOGPSBCJTIPQBOELOJHIU#VUJG XFDPNQBSFJOTJNQMFNBUFSJBMUFSNT LOJHIU PS CJTIPQ SPPL UIFO NBUFSJBM JT FRVBM XJUIQPJOUT .BOZ BVUIPST IBWF QPJOUFE PVU UIBU TVDI B SJHJE DPNQBSJTPO PG QJFDFT BOE QBXOT JT VOTBUJTGBDUPSZBOEFWFSZUIJOHEFQFOETPOUIF QPTJUJPO 0G UIF BCPWFNFOUJPOFE BVUIPST +PO 5JTEBMMUPVDIFTVQPOUIJTTVCKFDU BOEIFmOET TVDI NBUFSJBMJTUJD FWBMVBUJPOT JOBEFRVBUF VOMFTTUIFZBEEBEZOBNJDFWBMVBUJPO BOEIF JT PG DPVSTF SJHIU ɨF GPMMPXJOH RVPUF JT GSPN IJT FYDFMMFOU CPPL *NQSPWF:PVS $IFTT /PX i* DBO SFNFNCFS UIBU * IBE B WFSZ FYBHHFSBUFE TFOTF PG UIF QPXFS PG UXP NJOPS QJFDFT BHBJOTU B SPPL BOE QBXO .Z FEVDBUJPO MBDLFE BO VOEFSTUBOEJOH PG IPX NVDI TUSPOHFS UIF SPPL CFDBNF JO BO FOEJOH BOE * DBO DMFBSMZ SFNFNCFS IBWJOHUPMFBSOUIJTCZUSJBMBOEFSSPSBTB ZPVOHTUFSw "OEUIFOIFBEET iɨJT DBO CF NPTU ESBTUJDBMMZ TFFO XIFO B CJTIPQ BOE LOJHIU CBUUMF BHBJOTU SPPL BOE UXP QBXOT 0GUFO UIJT JT EFDJEFE JO UIF GBWPVS PG UIF QJFDFT JO B DPNQMJDBUFE NJEEMFHBNF*OBOFOEJOH BSPPLBOEUXP QBXOT UFOE UP TUFBNSPMM B CJTIPQ BOE B LOJHIUw QBHF
ɨF GPMMPXJOH RVPUF GSPN .JIBJM .BSJOT FYDFMMFOU CPPL -FBSO GSPN UIF -FHFOET o $IFTT $IBNQJPOT BU UIFJS #FTU DPODFSOT UIF TBNFTVCKFDUPGIPXNBOZQBXOTTIPVMECF BDDFQUFEBTUIFSJHIUNFBTVSF
i*O UIF NJEEMFHBNF UIF SFMBUJWF WBMVF PG QBXOT JT TPNFXIBU TNBMMFS BOE XF DPVME DPOTJEFS UIBU UXP NJOPS QJFDFT TIPVMENBUDIBSPPLBOEUXPQBXOT*UJT IPXFWFS BQQSPQSJBUFUPQPJOUPVUUIBUTVDI TUSJDUFWBMVBUJPOTBSFOPUWFSZSFMJBCMF&BDI QPTJUJPOIBTUPCFFTUJNBUFEJOBDDPSEBODF XJUI UIF DPODSFUF TUSVDUVSF BOE QJFDF EJTQPTBMw QBHFT
"HBJO UIF NBHJDBM OVNCFS PG UXP QBXOT BQQFBSTy *OIJTCPPL4FDSFUTPG$IFTT%FGFODF.BSJO TVHHFTUT QBXOT UP FRVBMJ[F NBUFSJBM QBHF $PNQBSJOHUIFEJĊFSFOUWJFXTJT EJċDVMU BOEJOUFSFTUJOH
BOEXIJMF*EFMWF EFFQFS JOUP UIF EJTDVTTJPO * XJMM TUBSU PVU XJUI UXP HBNFT GSPN NZ PXO FYQFSJFODF * XJMM SFGFS UP UIF NPSF iNPEFSOw WJFX XIJMF BOOPUBUJOHUIFTFHBNFT -VOEo&KTJOH $PQFOIBHFO
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpp+lvlpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9wqN+-+-+-0 9P+-+-+n+0 9+QzP-vL-zP-0 9-+-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
#MBDLIBTKVTUQMBZFE¤H8IJUFOPX USBOTGPSNFE UIF QPTJUJPO JOUP SPPL WT UXP NJOPSQJFDFTXJUI ¥YB ¦YB ¤YB £YB £YC ¥DF 8IJUF OPX IBT SPPL BOE UXP QBXOT GPS CJTIPQBOELOJHIU8IJUFTUXPFYUSBQBXOT
ɨFPSFUJDBM'PVOEBUJPO
POUIFRVFFOTJEFBSFQBTTFE CVUBUUIFTBNF UJNF UIFZ BSF BMTP CPUI JTPMBUFE 8F TIPVME OPUFJNNFEJBUFMZUIBUPOFPGUIFNJTBSPPLT QBXO BOELOJHIUTIBWFHSFBUQSPCMFNTXJUI TVDIQBXOT *OIJTCPPL4FDSFUTPG$IFTT5SBJOJOH .BSL %WPSFUTLZ UPVDIFT VQPO UIF TVCKFDU PG UIF WBMVFPGBSPPLDPNQBSFEUPUXPNJOPSQJFDFT JO UIF DIBQUFS iɨF TUSPOHFTU QJFDF JT UIF SPPLw ɨF UJUMF IBT OPUIJOH UP EP XJUI UIF FWBMVBUJPOPGSPPLWTUXPNJOPSQJFDFT CVU JT OP MFTT UIBO B DIFTT KPLF
BT FBSMJFS JO UIFTBNFCPPLIFQSFTFOUFEUIFSFBEFSXJUI BQPTJUJPOXIFSFUIFXFBLFSTJEFXBTBCMFUP DPOTUSVDU B GPSUSFTT XJUI CJTIPQ BOE LOJHIU WT RVFFO )F HJWFT BO FYBNQMF PG UIF SPPL CFJOH TUSPOHFS UIBO UIF UXP NJOPS QJFDFT BOEIFODFUIFSPPLNVTUCFTUSPOHFSUIBOUIF RVFFO )NN #Z UIF XBZ +BDPC "BHBBSE NFOUJPOFEUIFCPPL4DIPPMPG$IFTT&YDFMMFODF CZ%WPSFUTLZGPSBNPSFSFDFOUSFGFSFODFPO UIFTVCKFDU
"OZXBZ UIJT TNBMM DIBQUFS JT RVJUF JOTUSVDUJWF *OTUFBE PG UIF NBUFSJBM CBMBODF UIF RVFTUJPO PG UIF OVNCFS PG QBXOT %WPSFUTLZGPDVTFTPOUIFEZOBNJDQPUFOUJBMPG UIFQJFDFT)FQPJOUTPVUUIBU *GUIFSPPLQFOFUSBUFTJOUPUIFPQQPOFOUT QPTJUJPO PS *G IF DBO DSFBUF B QBTTFE QBXO UIBU SFTUSJDUTUIFNJOPSQJFDFT UIFOUIFSPPLDBOQSPWFOPXFBLFSUIBOUIF UXPNJOPSQJFDFT +PO5JTEBMMBMTPDPWFSTUIJTTVCKFDUJO*NQSPWF :PVS $IFTT /PX *O UIF DIBQUFS i3PPL WT LOJHIUBOECJTIPQwIFXSJUFTNPSFTQFDJmDBMMZ BCPVUUIFSPMFPGQBXOT ZFT +POBUIBOEPFT EJĊFSFOUJBUFCFUXFFOUIFUISFFQPTTJCMFNJOPS QJFDFDPOmHVSBUJPOT i1BXOT PO UIF TJEF PG UIF PVUOVNCFSFE QJFDF IBWF UXP LFZ SPMFT ɨF mSTU JT UP EJTQMBDF UIF FOFNZ GPSDFT BOE ESJWF UIFN
BXBZGSPNBDUJWFQPTUTɨFTFDPOEJTUPQMBZ BOBDUJWFSPMFUIFNTFMWFTBTQBTTFEQBXOT BOEBHBJOUIJTCFDPNFTNPSFNBSLFEBTUIF QPTJUJPOTJNQMJmFTBOEJUCFDPNFTFBTJFSUP QVTI UIFN BOE UP SJTL FYQPTJOH UIF LJOH NPSFw QBHF 8JTFXPSET-FUTIBWFBMPPLBUUIFQPTJUJPO BGUFSF
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9wqQ+l+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-vl-+-+-0 9P+-+-+n+0 9+-zP-zP-zP-0 9-+-+-zPLzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
8IJUF JT UIF TJEF XJUI UIF PVUOVNCFSFE QJFDF UIF SPPL
TP JO QSJODJQMF * XPVME CF HMBE UP FYDIBOHF QJFDFT BOE HP JOUP UIF FOEHBNF#MBDLDBOOPUBWPJEUIFFYDIBOHFPG RVFFOTBTUIFCJTIPQPOEJTIBOHJOH ɨFFYDIBOHFPGRVFFOTJTBMXBZTJNQPSUBOU BTUIFBCTFODFPGUIFTUSPOHFTUQJFDFDIBOHFT UIF FWBMVBUJPO PG UIF QPTJUJPO DPOTJEFSBCMZ ɨFNBJOSFBTPOGPSUIJTJTUIBUUIFLJOHDBO CFBTUSPOHQJFDF FTQFDJBMMZJOUIFFOEHBNF BOEJOHFOFSBMJUDBOCFBTUSPOHTVQQPSUFSPG UIFNJOPSQJFDFT 8JUI UIF RVFFOT TUJMM PO UIF CPBSE JU JT PGUFO EJċDVMU GPS UIF LJOH UP UBLF BO BDUJWF QBSUJOUIFHBNF BTUIFLJOHJTUIFVMUJNBUF HPBM UP BUUBDL BOOPZJOH DIFDLT BOE UIF EBOHFSPGDIFDLNBUFPGUFOGPSDFUIFLJOHUP TFFLTIFMUFSXIFOUIFRVFFOTBSFTUJMMQSFTFOU POUIFCPBSE -BUFS 8IJUF XPVME MJLF UP FYDIBOHF POF QBJSPGSPPLTBTXFMMɨFRVFFOBTBTVQQPSUFS
1BSU*ɨFPSZ
PGUIFNJOPSQJFDFTDBOCFBWFSZEBOHFSPVT XFBQPO CVUBSPPLJTBMTPBTUSPOHTVQQPSUFS UIFSFGPSF * XPVME CF IBQQZ UP FYDIBOHF SPPLT IFSF "MTP UIF FYDIBOHF PG MJHIU TRVBSFECJTIPQTXPVMECFQSPmUBCMFGPSNF #MBDL TIPVME EFmOJUFMZ BWPJE GVSUIFS QJFDFFYDIBOHFT*OBOBSUJDMFJO4DIBDLOZUU B 4XFEJTI DIFTT NBHB[JOF
.JIBJM .BSJO XSPUF BCPVU UIJT QSPCMFN PG FYDIBOHJOH BT XFMM )F XSJUFT UIBU B SPPL JT B iCSB TQFMGÚSEFMBSFGÚSEFMÊUUBQKÊTFSOBwUIBUJT UIF SPPLBTBiDPPSEJOBUPSPGQMBZwGPSUIFNJOPS QJFDFTy*MJLFUIJTBOBMPHZ UIFFYQSFTTJPOJT UBLFO GSPN .JIBJM .BSJOT 4FDSFUT 0G $IFTT %FGFODF QBHF #ZUIFNTFMWFTUIFNJOPS QJFDFTBSFSFTUSJDUFE DPNQBSFEUPUIFSPPL
BTUIFZDBOPOMZQSPUFDUPOFDPMPVSDPNQMFY BUBUJNF#VUXJUINPSFQJFDFTPOUIFCPBSE BOE FTQFDJBMMZ IFBWZ QJFDFT o UIF NJOPS QJFDFT DPPQFSBUF XFMM PO CPUI DPMPVST BOE UIF BEWBOUBHF PG CFJOH POF QJFDF VQ DBO CF GFMU ɨF TVCKFDU PG FYDIBOHJOH XJMM CF EJTDVTTFEJOUFOTJWFMZMBUFS #BDL UP UIF HBNF #MBDL IBT B EBSL TRVBSFE CJTIPQ BOE LOJHIU GPS B SPPL BOE UXPQBXOT8IJUFTIPVMEVTFIJTQBXOTUP SFTUSJDU PS EPNJOBUF UIF FOFNZ GPSDFT BOE BT*NJTTNZEBSLTRVBSFECJTIPQJUJTMPHJDBM UP QMBDF NZ QBXOT PO EBSL TRVBSFT ɨJT SFEVDFT UIF TDPQF PG #MBDLT EBSLTRVBSFE CJTIPQ DPOTJEFSBCMZ "GUFS F NZ QBXO TUSVDUVSFCFHJOTUPSFTUSJDUUIFCJTIPQ ɨF PUIFS SPMF PG UIF QBXOT UIBU CPUI %WPSFUTLZ BOE 5JTEBMM NFOUJPOFE XBT UIBU PG QBTTFE QBXOT DSFBUJOH UISFBUT BOE UIVT NBLJOH UIF PQQPOFOUT NJOPS QJFDFT QBTTJWF #MBDLTUJMMIBTBSPPL BOEJGIFDBOFYFSU QSFTTVSF BMPOH UIF DmMF NZ DQBXO DPVME QSPWFWFSZXFBL*SFBMMZXBOUUPFYDIBOHF UIJTSPPL CVUVOGPSUVOBUFMZUIJTBJNDBOOPU CF BDIJFWFE JO UIF OFBS GVUVSF )PXFWFS * TBXUIBUJUXBTEJċDVMUGPS#MBDLUPPSHBOJTF QSFTTVSFBMPOHUIFDmMF ¤F£YB
#BE JT ¦GC £B #MBDL BWPJET UIF FYDIBOHF PG RVFFOT BOE UIF FWBMVBUJPO PG UIF QPTJUJPO DIBOHFT DPNQMFUFMZ #MBDL IBT QPTTJCJMJUJFT PG DSFBUJOH UISFBUT BHBJOTU UIF XIJUF LJOH MBUFS JO UIF HBNF BOE UIVT * DBOOPU UVSO NZ BUUFOUJPO DPNQMFUFMZ UP UIF RVFFOTJEF#MBDLJTJOGBDUCFUUFS ɨF FYDIBOHF PG RVFFOT JT BMXBZT B WFSZ JNQPSUBOUEFDJTJPOUIBUIBTUPCFUBLFO BOE UIJT DFSUBJOMZ BQQMJFT UP QPTJUJPOT XJUI SPPL WTUXPNJOPSQJFDFT.BSJOJOIJTCPPL-FBSO GSPN UIF -FHFOET o $IFTT $IBNQJPOT BU UIFJS #FTU BUUIFCFHJOOJOHPGUIFDIBQUFSPOi5BMT 4VQFS3PPLTwXSJUFT iɨF QSFTFODF PG RVFFOT DBO DIBOHF UIF DIBSBDUFS PG UIF QPTJUJPO ESBNBUJDBMMZ "T XF LOPX BMSFBEZ UIF NJOPS QJFDFT GFFM NVDITBGFSXJUIBiCJHCSPUIFSw PSTJTUFS BSPVOE CVU PO UIF PUIFS IBOE UIF RVFFO BOE SPPL UBOEFN JT BCMF UP EJTQMBZ BO JSSFTJTUJCMFGPSDFXIFOBUUBDLJOHUIFFOFNZ LJOHw QBHF
ɨFRVFFOJTUIFTUSPOHFTUQJFDF BOEJGJUJT FYDIBOHFEUIFOUIFEJSFDUBUUBDLPOUIFLJOH VTVBMMZWBOJTIFT BMUIPVHIPDDBTJPOBMMZBSPPL DBOCFBmOFTVCTUJUVUF ɨJTFYDIBOHFIBT UPCFDPOTJEFSFEDBSFGVMMZ*OUIFHBNFJUXBT JO8IJUFTGBWPVSUPFYDIBOHFRVFFOT BTUIF iCJH TJTUFSw XPVME XPSL XFMM XJUI UIF CMBDL NJOPS QJFDFT BHBJOTU UIF XIJUF LJOH 8IJUF GPSFTUBMMFE UIJT BOE UIF GPDVT TIJGUFE UP UIF RVFFOTJEFJOTUFBE "OPUIFS SFBTPO XIZ B RVFFO FYDIBOHF TIPVME CF DPOTJEFSFE UXJDF JT UIBU XJUI UIF RVFFOTPĊ UIFLJOHXJMMCFBCMFUPQBSUJDJQBUF BDUJWFMZJOUIFHBNFɨFLJOHJTBTUSPOHQJFDF BOEXJUIIJTIFMQUIFPWFSBMMDPPSEJOBUJPOPG UIFNJOPSQJFDFTXJMMJNQSPWF 8JUI UIF RVPUF GSPN .BSJOT CPPL * IBWF BMSFBEZ NFOUJPOFE UIF TVCKFDU PG QJFDF FYDIBOHFTɨJTXJMMCFBUIFNFPGEJTDVTTJPO MBUFS'PSUIFNPNFOUJUTIPVMECFCPSOFJO NJOE UIBU BO BUUBDLJOH GPSDF PG KVTU B SPPL
ɨFPSFUJDBM'PVOEBUJPO
CJTIPQBOELOJHIUDBOTUJMMDSFBUFSFBMEBOHFS GPSUIFPQQPOFOUTLJOH BTXFTIBMMTFFJOUIF OFYUHBNF ¥YB¦GC *XBOUUPQFOFUSBUFXJUINZSPPL
XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9vl-+l+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9P+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-zP-zP-0 9-+-+-zPLzP0 9tRR+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
y¥D "CBENPWF BTJUXBT8IJUFXIPXBOUFEUP FYDIBOHF QJFDFT ɨF CJTIPQ TIPVME CF LFQU BTBEFGFOEFSPGUIFMJHIUTRVBSFT/PX#MBDL GBDFTQSPCMFNTXJUIUIFCTRVBSF ɨF SJHIU NPWF XBT ¥D BOE #MBDL BWPJET JNNFEJBUF QFOFUSBUJPO ɨF JEFB JT ¥C ¥E BOE JG ¥B UIFO ¥D ¥C¥E4PBGUFS¥DXIBUTIPVME 8IJUFQMBZ B 0OFFYBNQMFPGJODBVUJPVTQMBZCZ8IJUF JT B ¤E #MBDL SFMPDBUFT IJT LOJHIU UP D B G ɨJT DPOUJOVBUJPO JT NPSF QSPNJTJOHUIBO¤D¦B¥E¦E ¥D ¦E ¥YB ¦EYB ¤YB ¦YB ¥D XIFSF #MBDL IBT TPNF ESBXJOH DIBODFT EVFUPUIFPQQPTJUFDPMPVSFECJTIPQT ¦B ¢G¥C¢G¥YD¦YD¦C¦B "UmSTUUIJTNPWFMPPLTQBTTJWF CVUJUJTWFSZ IBSEUPCSFBLUISPVHI#MBDLTEFGFODFTPODF UIFLOJHIUHPFTUPD #VU #MBDL IBT TPNF BDUJWF JEFBT IJNTFMG 8IJUF QMBDFE IJT QBXOT PO EBSL TRVBSFT UP EPNJOBUFUIFCJTIPQ TP#MBDLTIPVMEUSZUP mHIU BHBJOTU UIJT DPODFQU ɨJT JT EPOF CZ
BEWBODJOH UIF QBXOT PO UIF LJOHTJEF XJUI HBOEGGɨJTJEFBPGFYQMPJUJOHUIF iNJTTJOHwCJTIPQJTBWFSZJNQPSUBOUUIFNFBT XFMM 8IJUF NJTTFT IJT EBSLTRVBSFE CJTIPQ TP IF TIPVME USZ UP DPWFS UIF EBSL TRVBSFT TPNFIPX o BOE B OBUVSBM XBZ UP EP UIJT JT XJUI UIF QBXOT "OE TP #MBDL TIPVME mHIU GPSUIFEBSLTRVBSFT*CFMJFWFUIBU#MBDLIBT FOPVHIDPVOUFSQMBZJOUIJTMJOF C 8IJUFTCFTUNPWFJTQSPCBCMZ¦C /PXUIFLOJHIUNBOPFVWSFUPDJTJNQPTTJCMF "GUFS¤E ¦BC¤D¦B#MBDL MPTFTNBUFSJBM *G ¤E 8IJUF IBT B TUSPOH SFQMZ JO ¦BC #MBDL DBOOPU BWPJE UIF FYDIBOHF PGMJHIUTRVBSFECJTIPQT BOEBGUFSUIJTNPWF #MBDLT QJFDF DPPSEJOBUJPO JT QPPS ¥C ¤D¥YD¦YDBJTQPTTJCMFBTXFMM XJUI B QPTJUJPO TJNJMBS UP POF XF EJTDVTTFE CFGPSF #MBDL JT OPU GBS BEWBODFE XJUI IJT QMBOT PO UIF LJOHTJEF CVU UIF RVFTUJPO JT JG 8IJUF DBO VTF UIF FYUSB UJNF SFBTPOBCMZ 8IJUF JT TMJHIUMZ CFUUFS JO UIJT FOEHBNF *G GPS FYBNQMF I XF BMSFBEZ LOPX ¤D¦B UIFO¥DJTEFDJTJWF #MBDL TIPVME DPOUJOVF ¤D ¦C ¤EɨFQPTJUJPOPGUIFCMBDLLOJHIUPOE JTTIBLJFS8IJUFIBTUIFCFUUFSQSPTQFDUT ¥YD¤YD¦C /PX8IJUFQFOFUSBUFTFBTJMZ ¦D¦E ɨFPUIFSSPPLQFOFUSBUFTBTXFMM y¥D¦EE¤E¦CD -PHJDBM BOE TUSPOH *U XBT BMTP QPTTJCMF UP VTF UIF DSBNQFE QPTJUJPO PG UIF CMBDL QJFDFTXJUI¦C¢G ¥GB¤D B JT XJOOJOH ¦YEp ¦YE ¦YD ¦Ep ¢H ¦B B ¢F #MBDL IBT TPNFDPVOUFSQMBZJOUIJTSPPLFOEHBNF CVU 8IJUFJTQSPCBCMZKVTUXJOOJOH"OZXBZ UIF HBNF DPOUJOVBUJPO JT DMFBSDVU BT * XBOUFE UP FYDIBOHF SPPLT o UP SFNPWF #MBDLT i$PPSEJOBUPSPG1MBZw0OFTIPVMEOPUCFUPP EPHNBUJD UIPVHI BOE UIF BMUFSOBUJWF JT BMTP TUSPOH
1BSU*ɨFPSZ
y¦YD¦YD¥C¦D¢G¦B ¢FB¥D¦D #MBDL JT OPU BMMPXFE UP QMBZ ¤D #Z UIF XBZ OPUF IPX SFTUSJDUFE #MBDLT CJTIPQ JT/PXJUIBTUPHJWFVQDPOUSPMPGBɨJT NPNFOUJOUIFHBNFJTUIFUPUBMUSJVNQIPG 8IJUFTTUSBUFHZ ¥E ¥B¦DpESPQTUIFCJTIPQ B¢E¦YEp o #MBDL XBT SBUFE BCPVU TP FWFO RVJUF TUSPOHQMBZFSTBSFOPUDPNGPSUBCMFXJUIUIFTF TUSBUFHJDUIFNFT y¥D XBT B CBE NPWF BOE QFSIBQT FWFO UIF EFDJTJWF NJTUBLF "GUFS UIF HBNF &TCFO &KTJOH UIPVHIU UIBU y¤H XBT UIFEFDJTJWFNJTUBLF BMMPXJOH8IJUFUPQMBZ ¥YBɨJTJT PGDPVSTF OPOTFOTF NBZCF IFXBTKVTUGSVTUSBUFEBCPVUMPTJOHUIFHBNF *OBOZDBTF UIJTHBNFQSPWFEUPNFUIBUUIFTF UIFNFTBSFXPSUIMFBSOJOH /PXXFIBWFBHBNFGSPNUIF$PQFOIBHFO $IBNQJPOTIJQ -VOEo./JFMTFO $PQFOIBHFO
XIIIIIIIIY 9rtr-+-+k+0 9+q+-zppvlp0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-zpPtR-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+QzPP0 9PzP-+-zPK+0 9tR-vL-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy 1PTJUJPOBGUFS£G
#MBDL IBT QMBZFE UIF SBUIFS TUSBOHF JEFB £ECC JOTUFBE PG UIF NPSF OPSNBM £BBOEFJUIFS¦BPS¦CUPQSPUFDU UIFQBXOPOF ¤H ɨFBMUFSOBUJWFXBTUPDPOUJOVFQMBZBTJOUIF QPTJUJPO NFOUJPOFE CFGPSF ¤F ¦F ¤E H CVU IFSF #MBDL JT NPSF QBTTJWF UIBOVTVBM TPIFHPFTGPSBOPUIFSPQUJPO ¦F¤F£F£C ɨJT MFBET BMNPTU CZ GPSDF UP UIF OFYU EJBHSBN QPTJUJPO " QPTTJCMF JNQSPWFNFOU XBT£B ¥G£YFp¦YF¦C 0GDPVSTFG ¥YFGYF¦CJT UFSSJCMFGPS#MBDL ¦YF¥YF¥YF¦YC
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9+-+-zpp+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-zpPvL-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-zPP0 9Ptr-+-zPK+0 9tR-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
8IJUFIBTUIFBEWBOUBHFXJUICJTIPQBOE LOJHIU WT SPPL CVU IPX TIPVME IF DPOWFSU JU ɨF CMBDL SPPLT BSF WFSZ BDUJWF BOE UIF LOJHIUJTUJFEUPQSPUFDUJOHUIFQBXOTPOB BOEE ɨFCJTIPQDPVMEFOEVQJOTPNFUSPVCMFJG #MBDLNBOBHFTUPEPNJOBUFUIFEBSLTRVBSFT BT IF BUUFNQUT JO UIF HBNF 8IJUF IBT B GFX DPPSEJOBUJPO QSPCMFNT * DBNF VQ XJUI BTUSPOHSFQMZ ¦D ɨJT JT XJUIPVU EPVCU UIF TUSPOHFTU NPWF ɨF BMUFSOBUJWF XBT ¥G CVU BGUFS
Interview with Alik Gershon and Igor Nor (Authors of English Federation Book of the year San Luis 2005.) San Luis 2005 has been said to set new publishing standards by critics and seen as a logical continuation of a long tradition of tournament books, positioning itself in a small group of great titles such as St Petersburg 1909 (Lasker), New York 1924, New York 1927 (both Alekhine) and Zurich 1953 (Bronstein). Some have even gone as far as to call it better than Zurich 1953 or the best chess book seen. After such a response from the critics it was not a surprise that the book unanimously won highest honour in chess publishing, the English Chess Federations book of the year. But as we shall learn below, the authors in no way thought the deal was in the bag.
San Luis 2005 is clearly a labour of love, but also a monster in terms of the effort put into it. What brought about this book? From where did the project arise?
Igor Nor: At some point, after a few rounds, we discovered an interesting phenomenon: people liked what we did. It couldn’t be a complete surprise, but the proportions were unexpected.
Igor Nor: The most accurate way to put it would be: “it came from nowhere”. It was a very unusual day when two old friends had, quite unexpectedly, the same positive mood. One of them offered to do a lot of analysis and the other, unlike on many other occasions when the same idea came from the same guy, boldly calling himself “trainer”, didn’t refuse…
Alik Gershon: Speaking ahead, this strange feeling of people appreciating our work much more than in our most optimistic prognoses become the normal condition. But at the time we were happy to see thousands of visitors on the website and printouts of the analysis in most unexpected places (some chess clubs, for instance), various forums discussions on the subject etc. In fact it was very exciting to see chess players sitting with the printouts and checking every sick idea we had during night analysis (the games, as you might recall, were played at night in Europe). Already during the tournament we started hearing suggestions to write a book, because “this is hot stuff”….
Alik Gershon: Yeah, back then I was running a (Hebrew) chess website, and the idea of being the first ever to conduct a unique, real time analysis of a major event in Hebrew looked charming. The problem was that this spontaneous-patriotic plan, as some of Igor’s ideas, had some tactical difficulties. To begin with, there were only a couple of days left before the beginning of the tournament and we hadn’t even discussed the format of how it should look, not to mention the content itself. Fortunately, we both have quite an exhaustive in commenting chess, not to mention of working together. So those problems were successfully solved, mostly by way of ignoring them, and getting some sleep hours, that would surely be missed for the period to come.
Igor Nor: Then after the tournament some very good friends of ours said very strictly that either we should make a book or someone else will, with our analysis. We didn’t really know what the laws state here and by no means wanted to find out. So immediately after the end of the championship we somehow found ourselves in the middle of making our first book. This book could resemble the greatest games of Anatoly Karpov, where he would simply be solving
problems as they were coming, but from outside it might look like there was this deep plan… Alik Gershon: ….like some of my more fortunate chess games… Of course, as a part of the “plan”, our old friend GM Arthur Kogan called me and asked a very strange question: “why don’t you make the book in English?” Since we couldn’t answer this one as well, we used the fact that he knew Jacob Aagaard from the Quality Chess, a company we had heard a lot about to ask him the same question. Igor Nor: And Jacob was so enthusiastic… Alik Gershon: Well… he agreed to see some of our analysis, but at the same time he did his best not to give us extra hopes, to say the least. This might be an appropriate moment to mention that the team of Quality Chess did not only help us a lot during the writing, but also were very straightforward in all aspects, including the economical one. Sadly enough, this is a kind of rarity, but one we would be happy to meet as much as possible. Igor Nor: Absolutely. But meanwhile we were waiting for their decision and the fact it didn’t
come immediately could only mean something good. As we waited, I was trying to convince Alik and myself that the book was almost ready and we only need to translate it to English. In fact, at that time it looked as the most problematic “remaining thing”. Alik Gershon: Yes, if my memory serves me right, we also told QCB that the book was “over 80% finished”. Looking back, translating was the least difficult thing. The point is that when I have completely adopted to the free style of life in Israel, my friend is, unfortunately, one of the successors of the old Russian chess-school. Meaning, there has always been only one reason for which the analysis could be paused and it is complete inability of the participants to continue. And this pause exists only in order to continue on the next day, and so on, until the mission is complete. So when we got a positive answer from Jacob, for me it felt like going to chess-prison for a while. Igor Nor: Well, Alik exaggerates, of course. Indeed, he was never the biggest fan of hard work (in my opinion, this is one of the reason he wasn’t close to being one of the participant of this tournament), but still we made a lot of analysis during the 10 years we have know each other, so there was nothing new for us. How was it to write a book together? What were the advantages and what were the disadvantages? Alik Gershon: As Igor said, it wasn’t so new for us. He brought his knowledge, and the guy read a book or two in his life (in fact, he is reading everything he can get, including all possible websites. Spooky, really.). I tried
each Interzonal tournament had his own book (Brasilia and Leningrad 73, Riga and Rio de Janeiro 1979 and so on) and it couldn’t be forgotten how interesting they were to read. Alik Gershon: So we just tried to adopt the best things from all books we saw, and add our special touch with sugar on top. Which games would you single out as the most important in the tournament, and what were the deciding moments?
to concentrate more on the struggling parts of the games and the endgames. So for me the main disadvantage was that we had too many debates that made me work real hard to be able to prove my opinion. Igor Nor: For me it was very positive. Alik’s rating is lower than it should be and his help in many cases was very useful. Of course, our characters fits together just great – when one likes white, the other likes black and those symposia’s could be changed every move. Alik Gershon: Yeah, for a few months we’ve become like a tired couple, arguing on every occasion they have. In a good sense, of course. Paradoxically, the general approach to the book was clear. Igor has a lot of tournament books… Igor Nor: Including some English readers would never believe exist… For instance, in most of the years
Igor Nor: From the chess point of view I remember well the game Topalov-Anand from the second round. Strictly speaking, no one understood it. From the point the theory finished until the end, it looked like all the commentators were walking in the dark, mostly trying to guess what was going on. The temptation to adopt this approach was big (no one will even try to refute it), but we decided to go very slowly, move after move and discover the ideas behind each and every move. Other games that were absolutely disastrous for analysing were those of Alexander Morozevich. He usually plays so technically, but complex and unforcing chess. To work out what is going on is always difficult. Morozevich-Polgar was a game it took a lot of time to make sense of. Alik Gershon: I personally can’t forget the very first tournament game, when at some point we have found that his majesty Kasparov, probably the greatest genius of our game (and analysis!)
made some mistakes, which we found after a long way. Also Svidler-Kasimdzhanov is a memorable one – it alone could probably make a small book, but all in all, every single game was something special, in general, and to us, and I think this is what really makes for the book – there is no “garbage time”. You are both from Israel and speak Russian. How was the experience of writing in English? One could imagine that it did not come naturally? Also, to what extend did Quality Chess’ team influence the process? Igor Nor: Alik is generally better in languages, except the Russian. The gap between us in English is pretty substantial, so he sometimes had to translate me to a better English. But it wasn’t a problem for him – he knows the languages I know, so usually it wasn’t difficult for him to understand my intentions. Alik Gershon: Yes, and after this translation, the Quality chess guys translated it again from my good English to something, lets say, more
traditional, something other people would understand as well . And it was done quite effectively – after we saw the “fixed” version, we couldn’t believe that it wasn't us using those words… QCB managed to relay it all as genuinely as possible. We think that the editing was very impressive. Igor Nor: Completely agree. The interesting fact is that at the beginning, when we got the first set of “correctness’s” from Jacob Aagaard, we were amazed how many ideas he got. But most of them were chess related, so we even thought for a moment that the language was ok. Then John Shaw got to work and the result is twofold: the book became a success and John hates us now. But it is important to mention that the book we got so many complements for is a common work of many people, not only the authors. San Luis 2005 has been compared by many to Zurich 1953 and is according to a former British Champion the best chess book he has ever seen. What do you think about this reception and to what extend did you expect it?
Alik Gershon: Well, “better than Bronstein” is too much. I think this is the book we both like the most and we strongly believe those comparisons are not in place – Bronstein of those days was one of the best players in the world and this probably puts an end to this discussion. But, of course, having such an amazing example of a tournament book could not help but influence our writing. And to me, the very fact people speak of these two books in the same breath is already a fantastic achievement for us. Igor Nor: Well, for me Bronstein’s book was the first book I read, I think I can retell entire chapters in exact words. Again, we took all the best from other books, and some of our ideas and used all the modern utilities to show the tournament from its best side. There was not even one publication about the tournament we weren’t familiar with… It would have taken an even bigger effort to write a bad book than it did to write a good one. More interesting is the expectation about this book. While trying your best book, even having a huge experience of reading, you can never know what, in fact, will be the reaction. Many times we asked ourselves isn’t it too deep or are there too many explanations? (I remember a very tired Alik saying with his last leftovers of politeness: “who do you think will read such a deep analysis?”)… Alik Gershon: And at the end a lot of them were left out of the book. So I was right… Igor Nor: Only partially: it is easier to remove things when you have found the truth than the opposite… Anyway, we are not so young anymore and it was clear we are not the first to think how to make the book the most interesting for the readers. So there is a good chance we also will not be the first to fail to do so. Thus at some point we just decide to adopt the old saying of the great Freddie Mercury “Talent will out, my dears”. For us it meant that if we will be good enough to make ourselves happy about this book, there will hopefully be other people who will not be able to ignore such a serious effort.
Alik Gershon: And you can take our word for it, that to make us happy, especially one of us, is such a difficult task, that the Freddie assumption had to work in this case. We worked a lot to bring this book to a condition we could both agree was “OK”, but then the Quality chess guys got into the picture and made us work even more. After all this, we were just too tired to think the book could fail. This is your first chess book. With the reception it has received it is natural to ask if you are wanting to go on further adventures in the world of chess writing, or if you have had enough. Igor Nor: Further… Alik Gershon: Enough… Igor Nor: Well, we are not completely agreed here and need to think… Alik Gershon: In fact at this moment we have interesting ideas, but I still need to be convinced that working on those projects is not going to ruin our personal lives. Let us go back a bit. You speak about old tournament books and about taking what is best from these for San Luis 2005. Why do you think that tournament books went out of fashion, and do you think that the success of San Luis 2005 marks the beginning of a revival? (Already we have seen Topalov and his team write about the Elista match and Bareev write about Kramnik’s matches.) Alik Gershon: In Russian those books never stopped. At some point in the 90s they almost hadn’t published any at all, but when they survived the crisis the book returned. Even Kasparov-Kramnik match got a book by GM Sergey Shipov. And probably another reason is that in those years Kasparov dominated so mightily that most of the matches were irrelevant from the sporting point of view. Igor Nor: In my opinion, the right question is why those books didn’t succeed. The immodest
answer is that no one wanted to work hard enough to make his book a qualitative one. It seems that there are too many authors that are convinced that it is enough they are writing something to attract people. We didn’t have this mania before this success and we don’t have it now. At the same time I must admit that in my opinion the tournament books are to be rated above all other chess books. My first trainer always told me not to copy any opening top players use unless they do it in the most important events. The reason is: only in those events will the best players show their secrets. If Kasparov game after game avoids the Marshal, he has a reason and the other players will know it too. Hence this opening is worth playing. If it was dodgy Kasparov would show the problematic line.
situation would most likely not have happened without the San Luis tournament. Hopefully, after the current cycle there will finally be order. Igor Nor: I might surprise some, but I really think that this intermediate temporary cycle is the best we can have. Unlike some respectable gentlemen (Mark Dvoretsky, for example), I don’t believe in all those knock-outs and I think chess needs an undisputed king. So the match at the end looks as the most appropriate way to avoid an accidental champion. Same time, Round-Robin looks like the best way to find a good candidate. Moreover, it could be a good idea to allow the champion to participate in the candidates tournament – so he will be able to prevent a match if he wins. The same happened this time, but by mistake…
Alik Gershon: Take San Luis for example, where some positions proved themselves as success stories, and some will probably not be played anymore on the high level (like in Kasimdzhanov-Anand, Svidler-Topalov and so on…). But what is most important for me is the great tension in those tournaments. Not just “another” Berlin in yet another round robin. This is money time, and that brings some interesting, previously hidden qualities out of the players.
Alik Gershon: Nigel Short will probably say here that anything good FIDE is able to do is by mistake (of course, he will say it in a more fancy way ). Personally, I don't think there is one perfect system, neither for chess fans, nor for the players as a whole. The bottom line, it's all down to the participants. Some feel more comfortable with one system, some with the other – it will always be this way. I suspect nobody could claim the KK matches, starting with their second one, to be boring, even though they weren't played with fast time controls, and even with adjournments (and none of them could be knocked out after two games), but then you have their first match, and Brisaggo... All in all, what the system has to take care of is to allow the most appropriate candidates at least to have a chance to play agaist the champion, and to allow for that champion, coming out of this system to feel legitimate
Let us try to jump forward a bit. The tournament in San Luis 2005 was meant to be the tournament that healed the chess world, but it didn’t. Then the match in Elista was supposed to do the same, but when Kramnik won it was suddenly Topalov who was left out of the Mexico World Championship. Now we will have three matches to decide the ultimate World Champion once again. What is your opinion on the current state of affairs in the chess world? Alik Gershon: At this moment there is a clear world champion and it is Anand. Everybody, including Kramnik, agree with it, and this
Igor Nor: And this was not the situation a few years ago while Kasparov was still playing…
The three judges in the English Chess Federations Book of the Year committee had the following to say about San Luis 2005: Tournament books have been an integral and important part of chess literature. They show both how chess was played and how it could be played. Three classics spring to mind: New York 1924 by Alekhine, Moscow –Leningrad 1942 by Botwinnik and Zurich 1953 by Bronstein. The latter is regarded by many as the best chess book ever written. However in the last two decades tournament books have become rare events, no doubt due to the work involved in this computer age. San Luis 2005, an exceptional tournament which saw Topalov crowned as FIDE World Champion, deserved a permanent record. The two authors have put in a tremendous effort, seeking to find a correct analytical evaluation of every game. But there is much more to the book than that: forewards by Veselin Topalov and Nigel Short, the latter being sharply observant as always, a preface by Mihail Marin and various end papers which both salute Topalov’s victory and vigorously debunk conspiracy theories. San Luis would probably have won Book of the Year 2007 on the strength of the above alone, but it is greatly enhanced by the production values. The numerous photographs both in and out of the tournament hall are exceptional and give the reader a real insight into the tournament environment. All in all, a splendid book which matches its great predecessors in analytical content but far exceeds them in presentation and layout. This is an outstanding book in every way.
San Luis 2005 is for sale in Europe for 29.99 euro, in the UK for 19.99 pounds and in the US for 39.95 dollars at most outlets. It is also available at www.qualitychessbooks.com
ROUND 1 Results: Leko Morozevich Svidler Polgar
0 ½ ½ 0
: : : :
1 ½ ½ 1
Standings: 1-2 Anand 1-2 Topalov 3-6 Adams 3-6 Kasimdzhanov 3-6 Morozevich 3-6 Svidler 7-8 Leko 7-8 Polgar
Topalov Kasimdzhanov Adams Anand
1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0
At last the first round has started! The interminable talk, predictions and analysis ends, and it is time to move some pieces... Ask any fan and you will hear the following response: at the start of the first round everyone was genuinely excited, because the chess world missed World Championships very badly. And if that was just the fans, one can only guess how the players felt! Indeed, the first round was distinguished by the extreme nervousness of the participants. Confusing opening The opening of Polgar vs. Anand was certainly confusing. To be on the safe side, Anand decided to choose a calm and quiet Caro-Kann against the Hungarian. But if such precautions had an evident explanation then Polgar’s choice of an obviously unpromising variation could only be explained by nerves, since Anand’s opening was not too unpredictable. Already by the 10th move White had to forget about any advantage. In situations like this a calmer chess player would make a few quiet moves, exchange a couple of pieces, and then go prepare for the next game – after all, White would have to try
42
ROUND 1
hard to lose this position. The Hungarian Diva overcame this obstacle fairly easily: unwilling to accept a calm position, she did her best to set the board on fire, which, unfortunately for her, spread all over the white camp. Anand kept playing in rock-solid style not allowing his tricky opponent any counterplay (at times even passing by very promising continuations), but he eventually won the game without having to show even a fraction of his abilities, An interesting struggle was produced by friends/opponents Svidler and Adams. The Briton chose “his” variation of the Petroff and Svidler’s response was far from the most principled one. The game soon became very confusing: it was not easy to prove the correctness of the moves, but it was even harder to evaluate the consequences of the resulting complications. The players resolved this problem by agreeing to a draw at the moment of truth. The game Morozevich vs. Kasimdzhanov resembled a very nervous twelve-round boxing match. Luckily, in a chess fight there is no need to nominate a winner on points, for it would be extremely difficult. The advantage switched several times, whereupon each time, as if by a spiral, one of the players raced further ahead. The last turn was in Kasimdzhanov’s hands, who was an inch away from a simple technical endgame, but he missed his chance. He tried his luck in a rook endgame that forced Morozevich to find a few accurate moves before the draw. Severe Slaughter The most severe slaughter occurred between two of the pre-tournament favourites: Leko and Topalov. Topalov went, very bravely, for his pet line in the Najdorf, which was undoubtedly carefully studied by his rivals. After the game there were a great number of voices criticizing the Hungarian grandmaster for extreme carefulness, blaming everything on Leko’s style being unsuitable for such positions. This is rather unfair or just partly true. The point is that Topalov had one overwhelming advantage – he was the only one who was really calm. First, he played a variation he had studied in detail; second, he had serious psychological advantages after his last encounter with Leko, as was described in the introductory article. In addition to that, in all his successes this year the Bulgarian has started badly, but then improved and surpassed everyone. A willingness to risk losing and a recent history of success are effective weapons in the hands of a strong chess player. It is easy to be confident about this explanation after the event, but during the game Topalov had to defend in a very unpleasant situation. Leko did his homework very professionally, and completely decoded Topalov’s plan. Already by his 17th move he could start a direct attack, which, as was proved later, should have doomed the black king. However, Leko hesitated and the Bulgarian hovered on the brink of the abyss. The audience was amazed, only a short while ago White’s victory was only a matter of two steps (or two checks), and an instant later Black had a significant edge in the endgame and never looked back. Summing up, the round did not show a real correlation of power. Objectively, only Adams played really well. He made 24 effective moves which completely neutralized his opponent’s attempts to gain an advantage. And concerning the favourites, Topalov took big risks against one of the main contenders for the title, but Caissa was on his side. This could not have gone unnoticed by his future opponents.
LEKO – TOPALOV
43
t GAME 1 Peter Leko Veselin Topalov v Sicilian, English Attack B80 1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.f3 e6 7.¥e3 b5 8.£d2
analysis diagram
analysis diagram
A great example of the changing nature of chess fashion. White's mainstream idea is to carry out the typical so-called English attack: 0–0–0, g4, h4 etc. To accomplish that White can choose between two move orders: 8.g4 or 8.£d2. First, let us examine 8.g4. The idea behind this move is to prevent Black from transferring his b8-knight to b6 (because 8...¤bd7 will now be met with 9.g5). The drawback of this move order is White’s weakening of the f3-square, which was shown in the so-called Topalov variation: 8...h6 9.£d2 b4 (this move, played as soon as possible, establishes Topalov’s idea) 10.¤a4 ¤bd7 11.0–0–0 ¤e5
The first game in which Topalov employed the ...b4 idea immediately made its way into history at Wijk aan Zee 2005, when the Bulgarian hurricane left Kramnik homeless after a mere 20 moves: 12.£xb4 ¥d7 13.¤b3 ¦b8 14.£a3 ¤xf3 15.h3 ¤xe4 16.¥e2 ¤e5 17.¦he1 £c7 18.¥d4 ¤c6 19.¥c3 d5 20.¤bc5 £a7 and White resigned. Half a year later, however, Anand came up with an improvement: 12.b3 13.¤b2 d5 (perhaps in view of that game 13...£a5 is worth considering for Black) 14.¥f4 and now, after 14...¤xf3 15.¤xf3 ¤xe4 16.£d4 f6 17.¥d3!
Anand introduced an interesting queen sacrifice which seems to have placed new problems in the path of this line's Black devotees. That game continued: 17...¥c5 18.¥xe4 ¥xd4 19.¥g6† ¢f8 20.¦xd4 with an irrational position, in which White’s chances seem to be higher, Anand – Topalov, Sofia 2005. As we mentioned, 8.£d2 chosen by Leko, allows Black to refrain from playing the weakening 8...h6, and therefore used to be considered as less precise than the immediate 8.g4. This assessment
ROUND 1
44
was re-evaluated after the game Leko – Kasparov, Linares 2005, in which the Hungarian managed to improve White’s play on the 12th move after: 8...¤bd7 9.g4 ¤b6. However, White found 10.a4! ¤c4 11.¥xc4 bxc4 12.a5!.
analysis diagram
An important move, that seems to be closing the whole line. Black's position looks grim, as White has managed to seize too much space on the queenside, and take control over b6. Black is virtually left with no counterplay. The game continued: 12...¥b7 13.¤a4 ¦c8 14.£c3 ¤d7 15.0–0–0 ¥e7 16.h4 ¥xh4, but here, instead of going for the kill in a straightforward way, Leko continued improving his position, and let the moment slip away: 17.¤e2?! (better was 17.£b4! ¦b8 18.¦xh4! £xh4 19.£xd6 and Black’s position is falling apart) After 17...¥f6 18.¥d4 e5 19.¥e3 ¥e7 Black managed to stabilize his position in Leko – Kasparov, Linares 2005. (One might guess that this game was in front of Topalov’s eyes while preparing for Leko). After that game the line with 8...¤bd7 lost most of its attractiveness. Topalov revived the variation with the daring 8...b4 idea, but the current game seems to slam yet another blow against Black’s setup, and this time against its new leading exponent – Topalov. 8...b4 Topalov copied & pasted this idea from positions with the insertion of g2-g4 h7-h6, and until the current game it looked like Black’s last try to revive the line. 9.¤a4 Leko is following Anand’s footsteps (see previous note), with a small, and yet mighty difference: White has not weakened f3 yet.
Prior to this game White’s attempts to deal with Black’s plan were rather modest. A good example is Kramnik – Topalov, from the last round of Sofia 2005: 9.¤ce2 e5 10.¤b3 ¤c6 11.c4 ¥e7 12.¤g3 g6 13.¥d3 ¤d7 14.¦d1 0–0 15.£f2 a5 and Black achieved a good game. 9...¤bd7 Played in analogy to the lines with the insertion of g4 and h6. An attempt to break free with 9...d5, as was played in the few games that did reach this position, does not look good: 10.e5 ¤fd7 11.f4 With the moves g4 and h6 this position is very bad for Black, since he has severely weakened the g6-square. However, even without it, this French-like structure is good for White: all his moves were useful for this structure, while Black kept moving his pawns on the queenside, creating weaknesses for himself. 10.0–0–0
10...d5?! Black’s was not too successful in developing his pieces until now, which means opening the position should not be in his favour. 10...£a5 was the more solid, and probably stronger continuation. Then, after 11.b3 11...¤e5?, threatening ...¥d7, is refuted by 12.¤xe6! fxe6 13.¥b6 ¤xf3 14.gxf3 £h5 15.¦g1 with a big advantage for White. Therefore Black would have to play 11...¥b7 12.¢b1 ¥e7 13.c4 bxc3 14.£xc3 £xc3 15.¤xc3 0–0 16.¥e2. White is marginally better due to
LEKO – TOPALOV
45
his pawn majority on the queenside, but it is much better for Black than the game. By the way, an attempt to reproduce the idea he played against Kramnik: 10...¤e5 11.£xb4 ¥d7 12.¤b3 ¦b8 13.£d4 fails, as the f3-pawn is now protected. 11.exd5 ¤xd5 12.¥c4 Black is facing a clear problem: how to protect the knight?
White is just an exchange up) 18.¤xb6 £xb6 19.¤xd5 exd5 20.£xd5
b) Kasparov, in his analysis for NIC, suggests 13...£c7 as Black’s most stubborn defence, providing the following line: 14.¤xe6! £xc4 15.¤c7† £xc7 16.¥f4† ¢d8 17.¥xc7† ¢xc7 18.c4 bxc3 19.¤xc3 with advantage for White. c) 13...¥e7 14.¤f5 0–0 (14...¤xe3 loses to 15.¤xg7† ¢f8 16.¤xe6†! fxe6 17.£xe3 with a decisive attack) 15.¥xd5 ¥xd5 16.¥b6! ¤xb6 17.¤xe7† ¢h8 (after 17...£xe7 18.¤xb6
14.¥xd5! A very strong and simple reaction. White is not willing to lose precious time retreating the bishop. 14...¤xd5 15.¦he1 White already has the concrete threat of 16.¤xe6 followed by 17.£xd5, which has to be attended to, forcing Black to postpone the solution of his main problem – poor development.
analysis diagram
Here Black's best practical chances to save the game would be after 20...¦ac8, whereas Kasparov’s to regain the pawn with 20...£h6† suggestion is too risky for Black because of 21.£d2 £xh2 22.¦h1 £g3 (22...£b8 23.¦h4) 23.£xb4 (23.¦h3 24.¦dh1 a5 25.£d6!) 23...£xg2?! 24.£h4 £g6 £g6 25.¦dg1 £h6† 26.£xh6 gxh6 27.¦xh6 with a totally winning endgame for White. 13.¥g5 £c7 12...¤7f6?! The source of Black’s misfortunes in the future, as he probably overlooked Leko’s strong reply. Stronger was 12...¥b7 although after 13.¦he1 it is not easy to advise Black on a good move: a) 13...¦c8 14.¥g5! (weaker is 14.¥xd5 ¥xd5 15.¥f4 g6 and White still has to prove his advantage) 14...¤7f6 (after 14...£c7 Black’s position collapses after the thematic: 15.¤xe6 fxe6 16.¦xe6† ¢f7 17.¦e4!) 15.¥xf6 gxf6 (15...£xf6 16.¤xe6 fxe6 17.¥xd5 ¥xd5 18.£xd5 is completely one-sided) 16.¤xe6 fxe6 17.¦xe6† ¢f7 18.¦b6!, White has extra material, and a winning position.
46
ROUND 1
15...¥b7 Not a move one wants to make, especially as White does not even try to hide his intentions about e6, but d5 is also very vulnerable, and Black simply had no other options. 15...¥e7 is refuted prosaically with: 16.¥xe7 when Black cannot play 16...£xe7? due to 17.¤f5 followed by £xd5 on the very next move. So, after 16...¤xe7 17.£xb4 the pawn on b4, which was the only justification for Black going through all the misery so far, disappears. Without it one would have a hard time finding an explanation why Black should go into this position. 16.£e2 17.¤xe6 is already a clear and immediate threat. Black’s position is critical, but Topalov is defending very resourcefully.
18.¤xe6 £xc2† 19.¢xc2 ¤xe3† 20.¦xe3 fxe6 21.¤b6 ¦b8 22.¥f4 ¥c5 (after 22...¥e4† 23.¦xe4 ¦xb6 24.¦c4 ¢f7 25.¦c8 Black suffers) 23.¦ed3 ¥xb6 24.¥xb8 ¥d5 (24...0–0 25.¥d6 ¦xf3 26.¦xf3 ¥xf3 27.¦f1 ¥e4† 28.¢b3 g5 29.¢xb4 g4) 25.¥d6 a5 26.a3 White is better, but Black might escape thanks to his bishop pair. However, if we go back to the position after 16...¤f4
analysis diagram
16...£d6! A gutsy move, which was quite undeservedly criticized by Kasparov in his analysis for NIC. The queen steps up to protect its king, not minding the white pieces flying around. The main point behind this move is that after it White does not have any concrete wins, in the shape of “sac-sacresign”. a) 16...£c8 17.£e5 White maintains a very strong initiative while Black has no good way to develop. b) 16...¦c8 17.¤xe6 fxe6 18.£xe6† ¤e7 19.¢b1 £c6 (19...£xc2† 20.¢a1) 20.¦d6 £xa4 21.b3 and White wins.
analysis diagram
c) Kasparov, in his analysis for NIC, suggests 16...¤f4 as Black’s only possible continuation and provides the following line: 17.£e3 ¤xg2
LEKO – TOPALOV White has a much easier way to refute his opponent’s defensive idea: 17.¥xf4! £xf4†
analysis diagram
18.¦d2! Although it is not easy to make such a move over the board. The point behind this move is that once White takes on e6, the rook will be ready to join the attack along the e-file. The immediate threat is, of course, 19.¤xe6. The more natural 18.¢b1 would also do the job, although less convincingly: 18...¥e7 19.¤xe6 fxe6 20.£xe6 £c7 21.¤c5 (Now White does not have time to double his rooks with 21.¦d2 ¦f8 22.¤b6 ¦d8, when Black would still be in the game.) 21...¦d8 22.¦xd8† ¢xd8 23.¤xb7† £xb7 24.¦d1† ¢e8 25.¦d6 £a7 26.a4 ¢f8 27.¦xa6 The material is equal, while Black is completely paralysed. White should win without much trouble. 18...£h6! The original attempt to solve the problems around the king with 18...0–0–0
analysis diagram
does not work due to spectacular geometry: 19.£c4† £c7 20.¤b6† ¢b8 21.¤c6†! £xc6
47
22.¦xd8† ¢c7 23.£h4!, and on either capture of the knight White wins the f8-bishop in a different way: 23...¢xb6 is met with 24.¦xf8 ¦xf8 25.£xb4†, whereas on 23...£xb6 the fork comes from a different side: 24.¦xf8 ¦xf8 25.£e7†. 19.f4! ¥e7 20.£e5 White’s play here is rather straightforward. Now he is threatening £c7. 20...¦c8 After 20...¦d8 White wins a piece with 21.¤f5 £f6 22.¦xd8† ¥xd8 23.¤d6† ¢e7 24.¤xb7. 21.¤b6 Black suffers heavy material losses. These fairly forced lines prove that Topalov’s intuition did not fail him, and 16...£d6, not allowing any forced wins, was the best choice from a practical standpoint. Back to the game:
17.¢b1? A complete waste of time. White should have played 17.f4 when he has Black at his mercy. For example: a) 17...¤xf4? 18.£g4 ¤d5 19.¤xe6 is an ‘ouch’. b) 17...h6?! weakens the g6-square, and therefore loses immediately to 18.¤xe6! £xe6 19.£d3, which needs no explanation, while 18...fxe6 is bad due to 19.£h5† ¢d7 20.£f7† ¢c8 21.¦xe6 £d7 22.¥e7! (the less spectacular 22.¤b6† ¤xb6 23.¦xd7 ¤xd7 24.¥h4 ¥d5 25.f5 wins as well) 22...¥xe7 23.¦xd5! ¥xd5
ROUND 1
48
analysis diagram
White has quite a few possibilities, although only one is really promising: a) 18.¤c5 does not work because of 18...£xc5 19.¤xe6 fxe6 20.£xe6† ¥e7 21.¥xe7 £xe7 22.£d6 ¤e3! 23.£f4 g5! 24.£d4 0–0 25.¦xe3 £f6 26.£xb4 ¦ad8 and only Black can win this. b) Kasparov suggested the spectacular 18.a3 awarding the move two exclamation marks, providing the following line: 18...¥g7 18...bxa3 is now met with 19.c4, whereas after
18...h6 19.¤c5 £b6 20.¤cxe6 fxe6 21.£d3 ¢d7 22.¦xe6 ¥d6 23.¥e3 bxa3 24.¤b3 £c7 25.¦xg6 White has the advantage. 19.axb4 0–0 20.¤c5 ¦ab8 21.c4 ¤xb4 22.¤dxe6 £c6 23.¥e7 fxe6 24.¥xf8 ¥xf8 25.£xe6† £xe6 26.¤xe6 With a substantial advantage for White in the endgame. However, Black can improve his play with 20...£b6!. The queen is moved away from X-rays along the d-file, and creates threats along the bfile. On 21.¤xb7 Black has a strong intermediate move at his disposal: 21...£xb4!, with the threat of ...¤c3, and Black has the upper hand in the complications. 21.c3 is simply met with 21...¦fc8 (threatening ¦xc5), with a very dangerous initiative for the pawn, and 21.¤d7 is again bad due to 21...£xb4. c) Even having wasted a tempo (on 17. ¢b1) White’s strongest move is still 18.f4!:
analysis diagram
24.¤b6† ¢c7 25.¤xd7 ¥xe6 26.£xe6 ¥d6 27.¤e5 White has a queen and two pawns for two black rooks, but what matters here is the open position of the black king. c) 17...g6 18.f5 A good illustration of the dangers awaiting Black on every move can be seen after: 18... ¦c8 On 18...¥g7 White decides the game with a straightforward assault 19.¤c5 £xc5 20.¤xe6 fxe6 21.£xe6† ¢f8 22.fxg6 with an inevitable mate. 19.fxe6 f6 20.¤f5! £c7 21.e7 fxg5 22.¤b6!! A nice tactical blow, which ends Black’s misery on the spot. The black pieces already had enough defensive tasks to worry about, and another one proves to be fatal. 22...£xb6 22...¤xb6 23.¤d6† 23.¦xd5! ¥xd5 24.exf8£† ¢xf8 25.£e7† ¢g8 26.£g7 mate. 17...h6? Returning the favour. The correct and natural reaction was 17...g6
18...¥g7 On 18...h6 White can sacrifice the whole set with 19.¤c5! hxg5 (19...¥c8 20.¤e4) 20.¤xb7 £e7 21.£e4. Black’s position is as lost as a position can be. One of the unpleasant threats occupying Black’s mind is ¤xe6 followed by £xg6† with a party. 19.f5 ¥xd4 19...0–0 20.fxe6 ¦ac8 (20...¥xd4 21.e7) 21.exf7† ¦xf7 22.£e6! and now either 22...£c7 23.¦f1 or 22...£xe6 23.¤xe6 is very difficult for Black. 20.¦xd4 gxf5 Worse is 20...0–0 21.f6 ¦fc8 (21...¦fd8 22.£d2 £c6 23.¥h4 e5 24.¦xe5 ¦ac8 25.¤b6! either winning material or mating) 22.£d2 £c6
LEKO – TOPALOV 23.¥h4!. The weakness of the dark squares around the king establishes White’s advantage beyond any doubt. 21.£h5 ¦c8
analysis diagram
22.g4! Gaining control over the important e4-square. 22...f4 After 22...fxg4 23.¦de4 Black has no hope. 23.£h6 £c6 23...f3 loses to 24.¦d2, and Black is unable to hold his kingside 24.¦c4! £d6 25.¥xf4 ¤xf4 26.¦xf4 White continues his attack against the king while maintaining the material balance, whereas: 26...£d2? lethally abandons the king: 27.¦xe6† fxe6 28.£xe6† ¢d8 29.£f6† ¢d7 30.¦d4† and White wins. 18.¥h4 ¤f4! The only move that protects the vital e6-square, and does so with a tempo. What more can one ask
49
from a single move?! Having said that, we must state that Black’s position is still lost, provided White plays correctly. 19.£f2 And now it is the critical point of the game. 19...£c7
20.¤f5? A bad mistake by Leko, who was under heavy time pressure by now, but he usually spots such things in blitz. 20.¤b6! was the correct path: the beauty of which can be observed after 20...£xb6 21.¤xe6! £xf2 22.¤c7 mate, or 21...£xe6 22.£a7!, both winning in some style. So, Black would have to answer with 20...¦b8 and only now 21.¤f5. The addition of a knight
50
ROUND 1
in the game (b6) has a huge impact on the situation. 21...g5 already does not work due to 22.¤d7! (threatening ¤f6 mate!) 22...¤d5 23.¦xd5 and White wins. The attempt to get rid of the annoying knight with 21...¥c6 fails to 22.£d4! ¦g8 23.¤c4 g5 24.¥g3 followed by an inevitable ¤d6†. 20...g5 An accurate assessment of the situation in the game (not just the position) can only be given relatively to what used to be a few moves ago. Black’s position is still suspicious, but it cannot be compared to the abyss he was facing throughout the past five moves. 21.¥g3 ¦c8 The attempt to reduce White’s attacking potential with exchanges by means of 21...¦d8 leads to quite a serious advantage for White after 22.¦xd8† £xd8 23.¤c5 ¥d5 24.¤e4! (threatening ¥xf4 and £d4) 24...¥xe4 25.fxe4. Black cannot take to knight as it would prove deadly to his own king, whereas tolerating the knight is virtually impossible as well. 22.£d4?! Leko is still under the influence of the huge advantage he had a few moves ago, but it was time to think in positional terms now. The queen sacrifice 22.¤b6 ¥c5 23.¤xc8 ¥xf2 24.¤cd6† ¢f8 25.¥xf2 does not lead to the goal after 25...¥d5 (but not 25...exf5 26.¦e8† ¢g7 27.¥d4† f6 28.¥xf6† ¢xf6 29.¦xh8 with
an unclear game) 26.¥d4 ¦g8 27.¥f6 ¦g6 and Black wards off White’s initiative However, the best move was 22.¦d2 when it is hard to see a better move for Black than 22...¦d8, which we looked at in the previous annotation. 22...¦g8 Now it suddenly turns out that none of the white pieces coordinates with each other. Of course, 22...£xc2† loses, as after the king’s retreat Black will be unable to defend both h8 and d7.
23.c3? It is a known fact that mistakes never travel alone. This move can be awarded more than one question mark, since not only does it change the
LEKO – TOPALOV course of the game by 180 degrees, but the flow of the whole tournament (and arguably chess history). It was vital to bring the queen back home with 23.£f2, and Black’s position would still be far from pleasant. The seemingly tempting 23...£a5 loses to 24.¤b6 £xf5 25.¤xc8 ¥xc8 26.£b6, while after 23...£c6 24.b3 ¤d5 25.¦d4, White is still better. 23...¦d8! This is probably the move that escaped Leko’s attention. Topalov forces a queen exchange. Without the ladies Black’s monarch will be very comfortable in the centre, whereas both white knights are much worse than the black bishops. The rest of the game does not really need explanations. Just sit back and enjoy Topalov’s technique. 24.£xd8† 24.£e3 ¥c6 25.¤b6 bxc3 with a serious advantage for Black. 24.£f6? ¦xd1† 25.¦xd1 exf5 and there is no compensation for the material deficit. 24...£xd8 25.¦xd8† ¢xd8
Miraculously, Black has managed to survive the attack with zero damage and, contrary to what might have been expected, he even has the more active pieces in the endgame. His bishop pair is going to be extremely strong in just a few moves, as there are no obstacles in the centre to prevent them from playing on both sides of the board. The knight on f4 is suddenly putting very
51
unpleasant pressure on White's kingside (along with the light-squared bishop). White’s pieces, on the other hand, are no longer operating as a unit, but as unconnected (and hunted) soldiers. 26.¤e3 Or 26.¦d1† ¢c7 27.¤d4 bxc3 28.¤xc3 e5 29.¤b3 f6 and Black is much better. 26...¥c6 27.¤b6 27.b3 ¥xa4 28.bxa4 bxc3 29.¢c2 ¥g7 is hopeless for White. 27...bxc3 28.bxc3 ¥g7 Black’s bishops indisputably control the whole board, and each and every one of White’s weaknesses is going to get special treatment. 29.¥xf4 29.¢c2 ¢c7 30.¤ec4 (30.¤bc4 loses to 30...¥a4†) 30...h5! and Black wins easily. 29...gxf4 30.¤d1 It is almost painful to look at White’s position... 30...¥b5 Precision to the end. This move cuts the white knight off. 31.a4 ¥d3† 32.¢c1 ¢c7 33.a5 The pawn is doing a great job protecting the knight on b6. Too bad it will not stay there for long. 33...¥h8 34.¢d2 ¥b5 35.¦g1 ¥c6 Now White loses material. 36.¢e2 ¥e5 Principally stronger was 36...¦g5 when the rook penetrates from the other flank, snatching a5 in the process. 37.c4 ¥d4 38.¤f2 ¥c3?! An inaccuracy that could and should have made the win more difficult to achieve, whereas 38...¦g5 would have ended it on the spot. 39.¤e4?! The final mistake. The stubborn Leko would normally have undoubtedly found the unexpected resource: 39.¦c1! ¥xa5 40.¤d5† ¥xd5 41.cxd5† ¢b6 42.dxe6 fxe6 The a-pawn will probably decide matters in Black’s favour, but there is still some work to be done. 39...¥xa5 40.c5 f5 0–1
Play the Semi-Slav David Vigorito
Quality Chess qualitychessbooks.com
First edition 2008 by Quality Chess UK LLP Copyright © 2008 David Vigorito All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-9185779017 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK LLP, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychessbooks.com Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California www.scbdistributors.com Edited by John Shaw & Jacob Aagaard Typeset: Colin McNab Cover Design: Vjatseslav Tsekatovski Cover Photo: Ari Ziegler Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
CONTENTS
Bibliography Introduction Symbols
Part I – The Moscow Variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 h6 1. Main Lines with 7.e3 2. Early Deviations 7.£b3; 7.£c2; 7.g3 3. The Anti-Moscow Gambit 6.¥h4
4. 5. 6. 7.
Part II – The Botvinnik Variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 dxc4 Main Line 16.¦b1 Main Line 16.¤a4 White Plays 9.exf6 Early Deviations 6.e4 b5 7.a4; 6.a4; 6.e3
4 5 10
13 29 41
63 79 95 105
Part III – The Meran Variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.e3 ¤bd7 6.¥d3 dxc4 7.¥xc4 b5 8. Wade Variation 9.e4 b4 10.¤a4 c5 11.e5 ¤d5 117 9. Reynolds Variation 9.0–0 a6 10.e4 c5 11.d5 135 10. Early Deviations 8.¥d3 ¥b7 9.0–0 b4; 8.¥d3 ¥b7 9.a3; 8.¥b3; 8.¥e2 155 Part IV – The 6.£c2 Variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.e3 ¤bd7 6.£c2 ¥d6 11. Positional Treatments 7.e4; 7.b3; 7.¥e2; 7.¥d3; 7.¥d2 12. The Latvian Variation 7.g4
171 195
Part V – White Avoids the Main Lines 13. Exchange Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 14. Slow Slav 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.e3 ¥f5 15. Odds and Ends 4.£c2; 5.£b3; 5.g3; 5.cxd5
211 233 251
270 276
Index of Variations Index of Full Games
4
Play the Semi-Slav
Bibliography Books: Burgess: The Slav, Gambit 2001 Cox: Starting Out: 1.d4! Everyman 2006 Donaldson & Silman: Semi-Slav Defense : Non-Meran Variations, Summit 1998 Flear: Starting Out: Slav and Semi-Slav, Everyman, 2005 Kasparov: Revolution in the 70s, Everyman 2007 Kaufman: The Chess Advantage in Black and White, Random House 2004 Khalifman: Opening for White According to Kramnik 4, Chess Stars 2002 Kramnik & Damsky: Kramnik: my life and games, Everyman 2000 Neishtadt: Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Cadogan 1997 Palliser: Play 1d4!, Batsford 2003 Pedersen: The Botvinnik Semi-Slav, Gambit 2000 Pedersen: The Meran System, Gambit 2000 Sadler: The Semi-Slav, Everyman 1998 Sakaev & Semkov: Anti-Meran, Chess Stars 2005 Shirov: Fire on Board, Cadogan 1997 Shirov: Fire on Board part II, Everyman 2005 Wells: The Complete Semi-Slav, Henry Holt 1994 Yermolinsky: The Road to Chess Improvement, Gambit 2000
Periodicals: Chess Informant through Volume 98 New In Chess Magazine through issue no. 2007/4 New In Chess Yearbook through Volume 83
Electronic Resources: ChessBase Magazine through issue no.112 ChessLecture.com Chess Ninja.com Chesspublishing.com Megabase 2007 The Week in Chess through issue no. 662 Van Wely: The Botvinnik and Moscow variation, ChessBase 2006
Introduction This is a repertoire book on the SemiSlav defence to 1.d4. While there is deep theoretical coverage when necessary, this work is not meant to cover all variations of the Semi-Slav comprehensively. When possible, at least two possibilities are given against White’s main lines. The relatively solid Moscow variation is covered, as is the exciting but risky Botvinnik variation. Even within these systems there are options available. In the main lines of the Meran only 8...¥b7 is included, although after 9.0–0 both 9...a6 and the more solid 9...b4 receive attention. Even within the solid confines of the Exchange Slav, Black is given options whenever possible. Because this book utilizes the Slav move order (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6) there is a lot here that would be useful not only to those who want to play the Semi-Slav, but to players of any Slav system.
Why the Semi-Slav? Choosing a defence to 1.d4 can be a difficult practical matter. Black’s sharpest defences to 1.d4 are the Indian defences. The King’s Indian is a fun opening, but it gives up a lot of space, and almost every white line against it poses Black certain problems. The Benoni and Benko are very dynamic, but they are not very move-order friendly – they can only be essayed against the 1.d4, 2.c4 move order, and their theoretical reputations are not the best. The Grünfeld requires a tremendous amount of work because almost every variation is a theoretical minefield. Personally, my brief dabbles in this opening showed that it just did not suit me.
Then there are the more classical defences. Let’s start with the popular Nimzo-Indian. I cannot say that there is anything at all wrong with the Nimzo. In fact, I would not mind playing most lines of the Nimzo with either colour, because it is a strategically rich opening. I am discouraged from playing the Nimzo because White can avoid it. This may sound odd, considering I wrote a book on the Nimzo-Indian for White, but not everyone wants an interesting game with both colours! If White avoids the Nimzo with 3.¤f3 then there are several choices available to Black, but I am not thrilled with any of them. The Queen’s Indian is very theoretical and can be difficult to win. The Bogo-Indian may give Black better winning chances, but it tends to concede a lot of space to White, and it is also only playable from a “pure” 1.d4, 2.c4 move order. Black could aim for a Benoni with 3...c5, but White is not forced to oblige, as he can head for the English Opening with 4.g3 or 4.¤c3. We could play 3...d5, when White can allow various Queen’s Gambit Declined systems with 4.¤c3 (or the SemiSlav after 4...c6) or head for a Catalan with 4.g3. More on this later. If Black does not want to give White a space advantage, the most logical move is 1...d5. After 2.c4, Black has to make a choice. The Queen’s Gambit Accepted is quite sound, but in many of the lines it is very difficult to play for a win. The Queen’s Gambit Declined is extremely solid and provides several lines for Black to choose from, but here, too, it can be difficult to play for a win. And again, there is the prospect of
6
Play the Semi-Slav
the Catalan opening, which I would prefer to avoid. So then we come to the Slav systems. The main lines start after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3.
1222222223 4tMvWlV T5 4Oo+ OoOo5 4 +o+ M +5 4+ +o+ + 5 4 +pP + +5 4+ N +n+ 5 4pP +pPpP5 4R BqKb+r5 7888888889
One thing I love about the Slav is that it makes it easy to expand one’s repertoire. In this position 4...dxc4, 4...e6, and even 4...a6 are all very playable and lead to different types of positions. Of these three moves, 4...e6 is the sharpest, and it is this move that constitutes the Semi-Slav defence. The Semi-Slav is a very rich opening that can lead to many different types of positions. It is also a very flexible defence, so Black can switch up lines without completely revamping his opening repertoire. White’s sharpest and most principled move is 5.¥g5. If Black plays passively (say, with 5...¥e7) he will end up in a Queen’s Gambit Declined where ...c6 has been played prematurely. 5...¤bd7 is solid enough, heading for the Cambridge Springs variation. Some grandmasters play this way, but Black has two more interesting options within the realm of the Semi-Slav and we will stick to those. The Moscow variation (5...h6) forces some sort of concession from White. 6.¥xf6 is the traditional main line.
White has free development and more space, but in return Black has the bishop pair. The Moscow became much more popular when after 6...£xf6 7.e3 ¤d7 8.¥d3 dxc4 9.¥xc4 the move 9...g6! was proven to be a viable option for Black. Because of Black’s resilience in this variation, the gambit 6.¥h4 became popular. After 6...dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.¥g3 b5 Black has managed to grab a pawn, but his position on both flanks is somewhat compromised. There is an interesting symmetry in this position, because White’s main breaks are a2-a4, h2-h4, d4-d5, and e4-e5. The theory of this gambit is developing rapidly and both sides have the chance to display a lot of creativity. Black can also play the exciting Botvinnik variation (5...dxc4). The main line 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.¥h4 g5 9.¤xg5 hxg5 10.¥xg5 ¤bd7 leads to some of the most complicated, irrational positions in all of chess theory. The Botvinnik is a very risky opening to play, but it is a lot of fun and in my opinion it is worth studying some of the variations even if you prefer the more sober Moscow variation. In this book I have chosen to focus on the main line of the Botvinnik. Black has many sidelines to consider as well, and these will be indicated for those who want to further broaden their repertoire. The other main branch of the Semi-Slav is 5.e3. This move avoids the chaos of some of the variations stemming from 5.¥g5, but it can also lead to very sharp play. After 5...¤bd7 White has another decision to make. 6.¥d3 leads to the Meran variation (6...dxc4 7.¥xc4 b5), which is similar in nature to the Queen’s Gambit Accepted. One important difference is that White’s queen knight is already on the c3-square, which gives Black the possibility of playing ...b4 with tempo.
Introduction White can also play 6.£c2. Black usually responds with the active 6...¥d6. Traditionally this line has been a quiet positional variation, and White has continued with moves like 7.b3 and 7.¥e2. However, the emergence of the radical 7.g4 has made 6.£c2 another sharp way of playing against the Semi-Slav. There are other variations, of course, and all of these will be discussed. Most of these are relatively harmless compared to White’s main lines. I know there is one question that everyone is dying to ask – “The Semi-Slav sounds great, but what about the Exchange Slav?” I only consider this a minor nuisance, and I have paid special attention to the Exchange variation. The problem with the Exchange is never held to be theoretical. It is always about its drawish tendencies, but I think these have been exaggerated, and I believe that if Black can overcome the common psychological issues in facing 3.cxd5, he can always play for a win.
Move Order Issues There are three basic ways to reach the SemiSlav. The least common of these is through a Nimzo-Indian move order – 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 and if 3.¤f3 d5 4.¤c3 c6. This is perfectly valid, but as this is not a book on the Nimzo, I have shied away from it. Black must also be ready for the Catalan (4.g3), which by now the reader has probably figured out I have a slight aversion to. The second way to reach the Semi-Slav is through a Queen’s Gambit move order – 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6. The main advantage to this move order is that it avoids the Exchange Slav. I strongly feel that this is a case where the cure can be worse than the disease. In my opinion White has many more annoying lines to play against 2...e6 than against 2...c6.
7
I know some will be sceptical of this notion, so I am prepared to back it up. First, there is 3.¤c3. If Black wants to play the Semi-Slav then 3...e6 is absolutely mandatory, because 3...¤f6 allows both 4.¥g5 and 4.cxd5: in both cases White has his optimal version of Queen’s Gambit Declined variations. After 3...e6 there is the Marshall Gambit, 4.e4 to contend with. After 4...dxe4 5.¤xe4 ¥b4† 6.¥d2 £xd4 7.¥xb4 £xe4† 8.¥e2 ¤a6 White has scored very well with both 9.¥a5 and 9.¥d6. After studying these lines I realized it would be much more fun to write a repertoire book advocating these lines for White. Okay, life is not always easy, and these lines are sharp at least, so if the Marshall was my only issue I probably would have had no problem with this move order. But there is more. All right, let’s take a look at 3.¤f3. Black has to make a decision. 3...¤f6 is the best move in my opinion. Then 4.¤c3 c6 is our Semi-Slav, and 4.¥g5 allows Black to steer the play towards the Moscow with 4...h6 or the Botvinnik with 4...dxc4. White can vary from the main lines, but I do not think any of it is too scary. My real issue, once again, is the Catalan (4.g3). Personally, if I was trying to win with Black, I would just as soon play the Exchange Slav. Covering the Catalan in a Semi-Slav book would have been difficult to do, especially if I had to show that Black could get good winning chances without taking undue risks. Black can also play 3...c6 against 3.¤f3 to maintain the “triangle” theme. This move order also threatens to play the Noteboom variation (4.¤c3 dxc4) which scores very well for Black. Unfortunately White can avoid this in a couple of ways. 4.£c2 is a bit of a headache, and it is more popular now because it has received some publicity. This move is recommended in recent repertoire
8
Play the Semi-Slav
books by both Khalifman and Cox. Black’s main problem is that it is difficult to prevent White from playing ¥c1-g5. After 4...¤f6 5.¥g5 White is threatening to head into a comfortable Queen’s Gambit Declined with 6.e3, so Black is compelled to play 5...dxc4 (or 5...h6 6.¥h4 dxc4). After 6.£xc4 b5 7.£c2 it will not be so easy for Black to get in ...c5, because White can play ¤b1-d2 and possibly ¤d2-b3. White may also take on f6 at an opportune moment, in order to deflect one of Black’s minor pieces (a bishop on e7 or a knight of d7) from the important c5-square. I would also find 4.e3 annoying, and I will discuss this more below. The final option is the traditional Slav move order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6. As mentioned before, the downside to this move order is the Exchange Slav. However, everything else is an upside. It is no accident that this is the most popular move order amongst the world’s top Semi-Slav practitioners. Many grandmasters will actually play the Slav after 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 with 4...dxc4 and the Semi-Slav against 4.e3. If 5.¥g5 is too scary, this is a good option for Black. Again, the flexibility provided by 2...c6 is another plus. There are a couple of other reasons to prefer the 2...c6 move order. One is not related to anything in this book, but it is an important practical consideration. After 1.d4 d5 2.¤f3 we can play 2...¤f6. Obviously, if we were married to a triangle move order, we could not play this, because after 3.c4 we would be out of our repertoire. The reason I like 2...¤f6 is that if White does not play 3.c4, we will have extra options available because we have left the diagonal open for our queen’s bishop (by omitting ...e6) and we will be able to play c7-c5 in one move if we want (because we have omitted ...c6). For example, after 3.¥f4 we can play the aggressive 3...c5 4.e3 (4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4 is
an Exchange Slav!) 4...¤c6 5.c3 £b6 6.£b3 c4 7.£c2 ¥f5! and 3.¥g5 can be met by 3...¤e4 followed by a quick ...c5 as well. The Colle (3.e3) can be met by 3...¥f5 or 3...¥g4, when 4.c4 c6 will lead to the lines considered in Chapter 14. The other reason I like the 2...c6 move order is very important. After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.e3 we can develop our bishop with 4...¥f5 or 4...¥g4. My feeling is that an early e2-e3 is a concession that Black can “punish”. After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.e3 the “concession” is White’s c3-knight, because after 4...e6 the Meran plans with ...dxc4 and ...b5 are “on”, because we will have ...b4 with tempo (for example, in response to a2-a4) and because the knight is blocking the c-file, we will almost always be able to play the ...c5 break. However, after1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.e3 the Semi-Slav move 4...e6 gives White several options which I find rather annoying. 5.¤bd2 is one possibility. This discourages ...dxc4 because White can take with the knight. Official theory suggests that Black wastes a tempo with 5...c5 because White’s knight is more passive than it would be on c3, and Black can play ...¤c6. This is a very reasonable way to play, but the positions that arise are more like a Tarrasch Defence, and these may not suit everyone. A bigger concern to me is the sly move 5.¥d3. If Black plays like he does in the Meran with 5...dxc4 6.¥xc4 b5 7.¥d3, Black has a QGA position, but White’s knight is still on b1. In a normal QGA Black would have played ...a6 instead of ...c6, which would be more useful because Black has to aim for ...c5 anyway. Black is more vulnerable to a2-a4 ideas here than in the Meran, and ...c5 may not be so simple to achieve. I think Black does best to save this kind of plan for positions where White’s
Introduction knight is on c3. Black could play 5...¤bd7, hoping for 6.¤c3 dxc4 with a Meran, but White has other options. 6.¤bd2 transposes to a position normally reached after 5.¤bd2 ¤bd7 6.¥d3, but Black has lost the 5...c5 option. White could play 6.0–0, when 6...¥d6 7.¤c3 has tricked us into a line other than the Meran. This variation is playable for Black, but it is outside the scope of our repertoire. 6.b3 is another idea. I have always found this to be very annoying, and Kramnik has recently used this move. White’s idea is to play 0–0, ¥b2, and ¤bd2. If we compare this to the positions reached in Game 32, we will see that the fact that White’s knight is on d2 instead of c3 allows White to control the e5-square, because the b2-bishop is not obstructed. This gives White the extra possibility of playing ¤f3-e5. Perhaps Black could try 6...¤e4, heading for a Stonewall Dutch. Honestly, I think that Black’s best move after 5.¥d3 is 5...dxc4. After 6.¥xc4 c5, we have reached the main line of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, with each side taking an extra move (¥f1-d3xc4 and c7-c6-c5), which I cannot cover here for obvious reasons. Because of all of these annoyances, I believe that Black should seek to punish White for the slow 4.e3 by developing his bishop actively. This idea is not so good after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.e3, because 4...¥f5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.£b3 pressures both b7 and d5, but with White’s king knight developed there is no such problem. I think that after 4...¥f5 there is some onus on White to show that locking in his own queen bishop while allowing Black’s to develop freely does not grant Black easy equality. Perhaps it is not so easy to equalize, but I think that Black has better chances to play for the full point than in some of the lines discussed above.
9
So, if we can overcome our fear of the Exchange Slav, there is a very strong argument to be made for the 2...c6 move order. We must remember that almost every opening has its drawish variations. In fact, often times the sharpest openings can be the most drawish of all. Openings like the Botvinnik variation of the Semi-Slav and the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf have many drawing lines because the theory has been worked out so deeply. At least in the Exchange Slav there are not really any forced drawing lines. In the U.S. alone, diehard Semi-Slav practitioners such as Alex Shabalov, Alex Stripunsky and Julio Becerra use the 2...c6 move order all of the time and routinely win in the Exchange Variation against weaker players. The most important thing is to not be too discouraged. Years ago I found the 2.c3 Sicilian to be extremely annoying, because I thought that Black had a lot of difficulty creating winning chances without taking too many risks. Once I embraced the fact that I should be pleased that it was not so difficult to equalize, my results improved tremendously. After all, in the Exchange Slav there are still thirty bits of wood (or plastic, or computer-generated pieces) left on the board and that should give us reasonable scope to outplay a weaker or less experienced opponent. This book was a great challenge to write and I learned a lot. I would like to thank John Shaw for his great patience (especially with my move-order obsessions), Jacob Aagaard, Dean Ippolito, Bill Kelleher, and Jim Rizzitano for his never-ending support. David Vigorito Andover, Massachusetts June 2007
Chapter 1
Main Lines with 7.e3
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 This is the sharpest way of meeting the Semi-Slav. White refuses to lock in his c1bishop with e2-e3 and pins Black’s knight. 5...h6
not considered a Semi-Slav and it also gives White the option of playing 6.cxd5, which gives a normal Queen’s Gambit Exchange Variation, where it is not easy for Black to develop his c8-bishop. 6.¥xf6 The alternative 6.¥h4 is the Anti-Moscow Gambit, and this will be considered in Chapter 3. 6...£xf6 7.e3
If Black does not want to go into the irrational complications of the Botvinnik Variation, he can either play 5...¤bd7 6.e3 £a5 with a Cambridge Springs Queen’s Gambit Declined, or 5...h6, which is the Moscow Variation of the Semi-Slav. We will not consider the former variation, as it is
This is by far the most common move. White simply gets on with his development. The alternatives are covered in Chapter 2. 7...¤d7 8.¥d3 This is the main move, but sometimes White delays this to keep the option of playing cxd5:
Game 1 Ehlvest – Atalik Philadelphia 1995
1222222223 4tMvWlV T5 4Oo+ +oO 5 4 +o+oM O5 4+ +o+ B 5 4 +pP + +5 4+ N +n+ 5 4pP +pPpP5 4R +qKb+r5 7888888889
1222222223 4tMv+lV T5 4Oo+ +oO 5 4 +o+oW O5 4+ +o+ + 5 4 +pP + +5 4+ N Pn+ 5 4pP + PpP5 4R +qKb+r5 7888888889
14
Play the Semi-Slav
a) 8.£c2 g6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.¥d3 ¥g7 (10...¥d6, aiming at White’s kingside, is logical in this structure) 11.0–0 0–0 12.b4 £d6 13.¦ab1 ¤b6 (13...a6 14.¦fc1 b5!? 15.¤e2 ¥b7 16.h4 h5 17.¤f4 ¥h6 18.g3 a5 19.a4 axb4 20.axb5 ¦fc8 was about equal in Kramnik – Vallejo Pons, Paris 2002) 14.¦fc1 ¥e6 15.a4 ¤d7 16.¤e2 ¦fc8 17.¤d2 ¤f6 18.h3 ¦c7 19.¤f4 ¥d7 20.¤f3 ¥e8 21.¦b3 b6 22.£b1 c5= Sorokin – Dreev, Moscow 2004. White’s minority attack is not too dangerous and, if the position opens up, Black’s bishops may have their say. b) 8.a3 g6 (8...dxc4!? 9.¥xc4 g6 10.0–0 ¥g7 could also be considered – White’s extra a2-a3 is hardly fatal for Black)
White has tried: b1) 9.cxd5 exd5 10.b4 ¥d6! This is the best place for the bishop in this Exchange Queen’s Gambit structure. 11.¥d3 £e7 12.0–0 ¤f6 13.b5 c5 14.dxc5 ¥xc5 15.£b3 ¥e6 16.¤d4 0–0 17.¤xe6 £xe6= Van Wely – M. Gurevich, Germany 1996. b2) 9.e4 Now there is no ...¥b4†, but 8.a3 still costs time. 9...dxe4 10.¤xe4 £f4 and here: b21) 11.£e2 ¥g7 12.g3 £c7 13.¥g2 0–0 14.0–0 e5 15.¦ad1 exd4 16.¤xd4 £b6 (16...¤f6, as in Bonin – Stripunsky, Nassau 1999, is also fine) 17.£d2 ¤c5 18.b4?! ¤xe4 19.¥xe4 ¥h3 20.¦fe1 ¦ad8 21.c5 £c7µ was Nikolic – Kramnik, Monte Carlo 1996.
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4Oo+m+oV 5 4 +o+oWoO5 4+ +p+ + 5 4 P P + +5 4P N Pn+ 5 4 + + PpP5 4R +qKb+r5 7888888889 analysis diagram
analysis diagram
1222222223 4t+v+lV T5 4Oo+m+o+ 5 4 +o+oWoO5 4+ +o+ + 5 4 +pP + +5 4P N Pn+ 5 4 P + PpP5 4R +qKb+r5 7888888889
b22) 11.¥d3 ¥g7 12.0–0 0–0 13.¦e1 c5! Black strikes in the centre immediately. White has: b221) 14.dxc5 ¥xb2 15.¦b1 ¥g7 16.¥f1 £c7 17.£d6 £xd6 18.cxd6 b6 gave Black good counterplay in Petursson – Serper, Oslo 1994. b222) 14.¤xc5 ¤xc5 15.dxc5 ¥xb2 16.¦b1 ¥c3 17.£c1 £xc1 18.¦exc1 ¥f6 was about equal in Cvitan – Chernin, Bern 1995. White still has some initiative, while Black has the bishop pair and a solid position. b223) 14.¥f1 cxd4 15.g3 £c7 16.¤xd4 a6 17.£d2 and instead of 17...¤c5 18.¤xc5 £xc5 19.¦ad1² as in Beliavsky – Pavasovic, Krsko 1997, both 17...¦d8 and 17...¤f6 look fine for Black. b3) 9.b4 ¥g7 10.cxd5
Both recaptures are acceptable for Black: b31) 10...exd5 11.¥d3 0–0 12.0–0 ¤b6 13.£b3 £d6 and now: b311) 14.a4 ¥e6 15.¤d2 ¤d7 16.¦ab1 a5 17.bxa5 ¦xa5 18.£c2 b6 19.¤b3 ¦aa8 20.£d2 c5³ I. Sokolov – Dreev, Hastings 2000. b312) 14.¦fc1 ¥e6 15.¤d2 ¦fb8 16.¦ab1 a5 17.bxa5 ¤d7 18.a4 ¦xa5 19.£c2 gave White a slight initiative in Piket – Dreev, Wijk aan Zee 1996. b32) 10...cxd5 This is very solid. 11.¥d3 0–0 12.0–0 £e7 13.£b3 ¤b6 14.a4 ¥d7 and then:
Chapter 1: Main Lines with 7.e3 b321) 15.¤d2 ¤c8 16.¦fc1 ¤d6 17.b5 ¦fc8 18.a5 £d8= Van Wely – Gelfand, Tilburg 1996. b322) 15.a5 ¤c8 16.¦ac1 ¤d6 17.¦c2 ¦fc8 18.¦fc1 b5! gave Black good play in Ki. Georgiev – Gelfand, Belgrade 1997. 8...dxc4 9.¥xc4 g6! This is Black’s usual method of develop ment in the main lines of the Moscow Variation. Black adopts a Grünfeld-like set-up. Other moves are possible, but they lead to passive positions and we will not consider them. The text move is the modern interpretation and is rightfully the most popular way of playing Black’s position. 10.0–0 The immediate 10.e4 attempts to disrupt Black’s position before he can castle, but Black has no problems after 10...e5 (10...¥g7 11.e5 £e7 12.0–0 0–0 is considered in the note to Black’s 11th move) 11.¤xe5 ¤xe5 12.dxe5 £xe5 13.£b3 and now: a) 13...£c7 14.0–0 ¥g7 15.f4 £b6† 16.£xb6 axb6 17.e5 ¥f5= E. Kahn – Milov, Buenos Aires 1992. b) 13...£e7 14.a4 ¥g7 15.0–0 0–0 16.a5 ¦b8 17.¦fe1 b5 18.axb6 axb6 19.£c2 b5 20.¥b3 Beliavsky – Vallejo Pons, Germany 2003. Beliavsky suggests 20...¦d8!³. 10...¥g7
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4Oo+m+oV 5 4 +o+oWoO5 4+ + + + 5 4 +bP + +5 4+ N Pn+ 5 4pP + PpP5 4R +q+rK 5 7888888889
15
This position is the starting point for the main lines of the Moscow variation. White enjoys a space advantage and better central control. Black has a very solid position and good long-term prospects with the bishop pair. Often Black will fianchetto his queen’s bishop as well and aim for an eventual ...c5. White has several plans available. He can play in the centre immediately with 11.e4, as in this game, or on the queenside with 11.b4 (Game 2), or he can manoeuvre a bit first. The most popular method of doing this is with 11.¦c1 (Game 3). 11.e4
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4Oo+m+oV 5 4 +o+oWoO5 4+ + + + 5 4 +bPp+ +5 4+ N +n+ 5 4pP + PpP5 4R +q+rK 5 7888888889 This is the most direct move. It looks very
logical for White to seize the centre, but Black is ready for this, and for this reason White usually prefers the queenside plans of Game 2 or the manoeuvring plans of Game 3. 11...e5 This is the theoretical antidote and leads to an endgame that is pretty even. If Black wants to avoid the ending, he can play 11...0–0 although the position after 12.e5 £e7 is considered to favour White because he has not committed his rooks and can set up his pieces in an ideal fashion. White has a couple ways to play: a) 13.¦e1 ¦d8 14.£c2 (instead 14.£e2 b6 15.¦ad1 a5 16.¥d3 ¥b7 17.¥e4 b5 18.h4
16
Play the Semi-Slav
¤b6 19.¥b1 c5 gave Black counterplay in Kramnik – Svidler, Mexico City 2007, but 14.¦c1! is considered in e22 in the note to White’s 12th move in Game 3) 14...b6 15.¦ad1 ¥b7 16.a3 This position could also arise from 11.£c2, which we look at in the notes to Game 3. Black can try: a1) 16...a6?! 17.¥a2 ¦ac8 18.£e4! ¥a8 19.h4 b5 20.£f4 c5 21.d5 c4 22.d6 £e8 23.¤e4² Sharavdorj – Stripunsky, Philadelphia 2004. White has consolidated his centre. a2) 16...a5!? Instead of preparing ...b5 and ...c5, Black wants to play ...b5-b4 and then ...c5. This idea worked out well after 17.¥a2 b5 18.¦e3?! b4 19.¤e4 c5 20.d5 exd5 21.¥xd5 ¤xe5 22.¥xb7 ¤xf3† 23.¦xf3 ¦xd1† 24.£xd1 £xb7 25.¤xc5 £e7³ Fang – Ippolito, Budapest 1998. a3) 16...¦ac8 17.¥a2 and here: a31) 17...c5 18.d5 exd5 (18...c4!?) 19.¤xd5 ¥xd5 20.¥xd5 ¤f8 21.£e4 ¤e6 22.¥c4 ¦d7 23.g3² was Anand – Dreev, Hyderabad 2002. a32) 17...¤f8!? I usually do not like this manoeuvre, but it is reasonable if Black can quickly double rooks on the d-file. This worked out well for Black after 18.£e2 ¦c7 19.¦d2 ¦cd7 20.¦ed1 g5! 21.h3 ¤g6 in Dautov – Slobodjan, Germany 1997. b) 13.£e2 b6 14.¦fe1 a6 This move is played to stop ¥c4-a6 exchanging one of Black’s bishops. 15.¥d3! ¥b7 16.¥e4
analysis diagram
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4+v+mWoV 5 4oOo+o+oO5 4+ + P + 5 4 + Pb+ +5 4+ N +n+ 5 4pP +qPpP5 4R + R K 5 7888888889
This position has been considered to be better for White, but recently Dreev was found on the black side. Practice has seen: b1) 16...¦a7 17.¦ac1 b5 18.£e3 c5 19.d5 ¤xe5 20.¤xe5 ¥xe5 21.dxe6 ¥xe4 22.¤xe4 ¥xb2 23.¦xc5 ¥g7 24.¦c6! was indeed good for White in the well known game Kamsky – Kramnik, Luzern 1993. b2) 16...¦fd8 17.¦ac1 b5 18.h4 ¦ab8 19.£e3 ¦dc8 20.¤e2 c5 21.¥xb7 ¦xb7 22.¤f4 c4 23.d5 exd5 24.¤xd5 £e6 gave Black a reasonable position in N. Pert – Dreev, Gibraltar 2005. 12.d5 ¤b6
1222222223 4t+v+l+ T5 4Oo+ +oV 5 4 Mo+ WoO5 4+ +pO + 5 4 +b+p+ +5 4+ N +n+ 5 4pP + PpP5 4R +q+rK 5 7888888889
Black attacks White’s bishop, pressures d5, and introduces the possibility of playing ...¥g4. 13.¥b3 This maintains control of the d5-square but allows Black to use the active position of his queen to enforce a pin on White’s f3knight. White has tried other things here as well: a) 13.¥e2 relinquishes piece control of d5 and is rather passive. 13...0–0 and then: a1) 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.¤a4 ¦b8 16.¤c5 ¦d8 17.£c2 ¥g4 18.¦fd1 ¥f8 19.b4 ¤d7= Br. Thorfinnsson – Thorhallsson, Iceland (ch) 1998.
Chapter 1: Main Lines with 7.e3 a2) 14.£b3 cxd5 15.exd5 ¥f5 16.¦ad1 ¦fd8 17.a4 ¦ab8 18.¤d2 ¤c8 19.¤c4 ¤d6 was comfortable for Black in Finegold – Kuczynski, Groningen 1992. b) 13.¤d2 White attempts to control the centre with his knights. Piket has tried this move a couple of times, but it has not been seen much since, probably because of Sadler’s logical suggestion of the immediate 13...¤xc4. In practice Black has tried: b1) 13...£g5 14.£e2 0–0 15.¦fd1 ¥h3 16.f3 ¦ad8 17.¥b3 ¥c8 18.¤c4 ¤xc4 19.¥xc4 was a little better for White in Piket – Van der Wiel, Rotterdam 1998. b2) 13...0–0 14.a4 ¦d8 15.a5 ¤xc4 16.¤xc4 £g5 17.£b3 ¥h3 18.¤e3 ¦ab8 19.¦ac1 ¥f8 is about equal, although the bishop pair makes Black’s position more pleasant to play, and Black won in Piket – Kramnik, Linares 1997. 13...¥g4 Instead 13...0–0 is supposed to give White an edge after 14.h3, preventing the ...¥g4 pin.
analysis diagram
1222222223 4t+v+ Tl+5 4Oo+ +oV 5 4 Mo+ WoO5 4+ +pO + 5 4 + +p+ +5 4+bN +n+p5 4pP + Pp+5 4R +q+rK 5 7888888889
In practice this has heavily favoured White, but the position is probably playable for Black. a) 14...¥d7 15.£e2 ¢h7?! Black’s play is too passive. 16.¦fd1 ¦ae8 17.a4 £e7 18.a5 ¤c8 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.¦d2 f5 21.¦ad1± Benjamin – Blatny, Chicago 1995. b) 14...¦d8 15.£e2 ¥d7 (15...¥f8 16.¦ac1
17
¥d7 17.¦fd1 ¥e8 18.a3² Ehlvest – Kharlov, Novosibirsk 1995) 16.¦fd1 and: b1) 16...¥e8?! 17.a4 cxd5 18.¥xd5 ¦d7 19.a5 ¤xd5 20.¤xd5 £a6 21.£c2 ¦ad8 22.b4² Vigorito – Schoonmaker, Phoenix 2005. b2) 16...¦ac8 17.a4 cxd5 18.¥xd5?! (instead 18.¤xd5 ¤xd5 19.¥xd5 is equal; while 18.exd5 a5 19.¤e4 £e7 is unclear) 18...¤xd5 19.¤xd5 £e6 20.¦d3 f5 21.¤c3 ¥c6 22.a5 ¦xd3 23.£xd3 £b3 gave Black the initiative in Shulman – Ippolito, Linares 1997. This looks like a reasonable way to play if Black wants to keep more tension in the position. 14.h3 ¥xf3 15.£xf3 £xf3 16.gxf3 ¢e7 With the queens off, there is no reason for Black to castle. 17.dxc6 bxc6
1222222223 4t+ + + T5 4O + LoV 5 4 Mo+ +oO5 4+ + O + 5 4 + +p+ +5 4+bN +p+p5 4pP + P +5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889
An endgame has been reached with both sides having pawn weaknesses. Although Black’s weak pawn is on an open file, which favours White slightly, Black really has no problems. The pawn can be protected easily enough, and it controls the d5-square. White’s kingside pawns are not really vul nerable, but because they are doubled White lacks flexibility on that side of the board. 18.¦ac1
18
Play the Semi-Slav
White has also tried 18.¦fc1 ¦hd8 19.¤d1 ¦d6 20.¦c3 a5 21.¤e3 h5 22.¦ac1 a4 23.¥d1 ¢d7 24.¢f1 ¥h6= Khalifman – Akopian, Yerevan 1996. 18...¦ab8 Another option is 18...¦ac8 19.¦fd1 ¦hd8 20.¢g2?! h5 21.¦xd8 ¦xd8 22.¤a4 ¦d6= Century – Junior, Cadaqu 2000. 19.¤e2 White can also play 19.¦c2. Black should prepare to activate his bishop via h6 with 19...h5!. White has tried: a) 20.¤a4 ¦hc8 21.¤c5 a5 is given by Atalik. After 22.¦d1 ¥h6 23.¦c3 (Pedersen) White is a little better, but instead 21...¦d8 holds the balance. b) 20.¦d1 ¦hd8 21.¢f1 (21.¦xd8 is better, but still equal) 21...¦bc8 (21...¦d4 would give Black counterplay) 22.¦xd8 ¦xd8 23.¤a4 was Vigorito – Ippolito, San Diego (USA ch) 2006. Now the simplest is 23...¤xa4 24.¥xa4 ¦c8 25.¥xc6 (25.¦xc6 ¦xc6=) 25...¢d6 with a drawn ending. This is the only time I have tried this endgame with the white pieces, and I really felt like I was trying to get blood from a stone. 19...¦hc8 20.¦c5 ¤d7 21.¦a5 White has a slight initiative, but it is easily neutralized. 21...¦b7 22.¦c1 ¤b8 23.¤c3 ¦d8 24.¤d1
1222222223 4 M T + +5 4Ot+ LoV 5 4 +o+ +oO5 4R + O + 5 4 + +p+ +5 4+b+ +p+p5 4pP + P +5 4+ Rn+ K 5 7888888889
The knight heads for the c4-square. 24...h5 This is a typical move. Black needs to activate his bishop. 25.¤e3 ¢f6 This also gives Black the option of ...¥f8, but it was simpler to protect the e-pawn with 25...f6. 26.¤c4 ¥h6 27.¦d1 ¦xd1† 28.¥xd1 a6 Black intends ...¦b5. Atalik gives 28...¥f4 29.¥a4 when White maintains slight pressure. The f4-bishop is actually out of play because the fight is on the queenside. However, 28...¤d7 29.¥a4 ¦c7, intending ...¥f8, looks okay for Black. 29.¥e2 Not 29.¤xe5? ¥d2 30.¦c5 ¥b4–+. Instead 29.¦xe5 ¦xb2 is given by Atalik, although I still prefer White after 30.¥b3!. 29...¦b5 Now Black has little to worry about. 30.¦a4 c5 31.b3 ¦b4 32.¦a3 ¥c1 33.¦a5 ¦b5 34.¦xb5 axb5 35.¤d6 b4 36.¤b7 ¤d7 Instead 36...¤c6 37.¤xc5 ¤d4 is better: Black should not lose. 37.¥b5 ¤f8 38.¤xc5 g5 39.¥d7! White has chances again because Black is so passive. It is still very difficult for White to exploit his extra pawn though. 39...¤g6 40.¥f5 ¤h4 41.¤d7† ¢g7 42.¤xe5 ¥f4 43.¤c6 ¥d6 44.¢f1 ¤xf3 45.¢e2 ¤e5 46.¤d4 ¥c5 47.¤c2 ¤c6 48.¤e3 ¢f6 49.¥d7 ¤e5 50.¤d5† ¢g7 51.¥f5 g4! Black sacrifices a pawn to exchange knights. 52.hxg4 hxg4 53.¤e3 ¢f6 54.¤xg4† ¤xg4 55.¥xg4 ¢g5 56.f3 ¥d4 57.¢d3 ¥b2 58.¢c4 ¥a3 59.¢c5 ¢f4 60.¥h5 f6 61.¥g4 ¢e5 ½-½
Chess Classics
Soviet Chess Strategy By
Alexey Suetin
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents
Key to symbols used & Bibliography
Chapter 1: General Questions of Strategy and Tactics
6 7
Chapter 2: The Chess Game as a Unified Process of Struggle The Results of Mobilization: Their Influence on the Character of the Middlegame Features of the Middlegame Struggle at the Start of the Game The Task of Harmoniously Co-ordinating the Forces – its Role in the Opening Transition from Opening to Middlegame: The Principal Task Involved Transition to the Endgame Some Other Key Moments in the Chess Struggle
31 31 38 38 43 48 50
Chapter 3: Foundations of Positional Play Relative Values of the Pieces Open File for a Rook – Penetration to the Seventh Rank The Minor Pieces: Their Values Compared Diverse Material – Compensation for the Queen Compensation for a Rook Compensation for a Minor Piece Rare Types of Compensation for Queen or Rook – Two Minor Pieces against Rook and One or Two Pawns
55 55 56 57 58 62 65
Chapter 4: The Centre – Typical Pawn Structures Old and New Conceptions of the Centre Typical Pawn Structures in the Centre The Open Centre Numerical Equality of Pawns in the Centre The Closed Centre Fixed Central Pawn Position with Open d-file or e-file Mobile Centre with Two Pawns on the Fourth Rank One Mobile Pawn in the Centre The “Hanging Pawn” Centre The Piece-and-Pawn Centre Pawn Weakness in the Centre (accepted in return for good piece-play)
69 69 70 70 71 72 76 83 85 85 86 89
Chapter 5: The Dynamics of the Chess Struggle Some General Concepts: a Brief History Lesson Some Important Features of the Dynamic Approach The Relation of Logic to Imagination in Chess Co-ordination of the Forces The Initiative
66
99 99 100 107 116 132
Chapter 6: Modern Positional Play The Modern Understanding of Centralization Structures with Tension in the Centre Fluid Situation in the Centre The Centre and Space – Crossing the “Demarcation” Line The Centre and the Flanks Pawn Counter-stroke in the Centre Pawn Chains – Pawn Restraint Connected Wing Pawns versus a Central Pair: The Key Role of Blockading Pawn Sacrifices Weak Square Complexes
136 136 136 141 143 144 146 147 150 152 155
Chapter 7: The Attack – Affinity between Strategic and Tactical Methods General Concepts Dynamic Moments – Launching the Assault The Sudden Attacking Coup Transferring the Attack to the King
159 159 160 160 163
Chapter 8: Methods of Defence – Switching from Defence to Attack Persistence Tenacity Defence and the Elements of Strategy Activity – the Main Theme of the Defence Interrelation between Methods of Attack and Defence Switching from Attack to Defence From Defence to Counterattack Strategic Aims of Tactical Operations The Art of Manoeuvring in Balanced Positions
167 168 169 170 171 172 173 173 175 176
Conclusion
180
Appendix: From the Book “The Middlegame in Chess” The Initiative Transformation of Positional Factors The Concrete Approach to Evaluating a Position Middlegame Mastery: Ways of Working to Improve It
181 181 187 194 210
Dynamics should be Dynamic
227
Game Index
240
Chapter 1 General Questions of Strategy and Tactics The game of chess has many facets. Its attraction lies above all in the inner beauty of its ideas – its aesthetics. At the same time the laws of logic are applicable to it – which is what constitutes its affinity with science. The development of creative thought in chess, especially since the Renaissance era, vividly demonstrates that chess is an inseparable part of world culture. By what process do the artistic ideas of chess arise? In what does the logic of chess find expression? This question, of no small importance, is what we shall illuminate first and foremost. In this connection let us ponder some widely familiar and basic chess truths. In a game of chess the fundamental law of development is struggle. After the first few moves which are needed to bring the two opponents’ forces into contact, a battle is already unfolding, in which the active means of fighting (a move, a threat, an operation, a plan, etc.) are constantly opposed by various defensive and counter-aggressive measures. Among the principles on which the chess struggle is founded, we must include such elementary concepts as the scale of relative values of the pieces and pawns, and the fighting qualities and characteristics of each piece type. Another important factor is the role of the king in the game. The material factor is inseparable from the various properties of the area where the battle takes place – the chessboard. Depending on its position on the board, and its interaction with other pieces – those on its own side as well as those of the opponent – the power of a fighting unit (a piece or pawn) may noticeably change. Even an inexperienced player cannot help being struck by the fact that the outward contour of the position frequently influences the strength of a particular piece. Such positional elements as centralization, strong and weak squares, the character of the pawn structure and so on, are generally familiar. As we can easily see, it is in pursuit of the main aim of gaining positional and material assets that the battle is fought out. In this process (and here in fact is one of the key characteristics of the chess struggle), all the elements I have mentioned are primarily weapons in the fight. Thus in a chess game the distinction between an object of attack and the forces in action is decidedly relative. In the course of play it may sometimes happen that an object of attack is instantly transformed into an active force. The following example is instructive.
Soviet Chess Strategy
8
Alexander Kotov – N. Novotelnov Moscow 1947
1222222223 + T +l+5 Ov+t+oVo5 O +oM +5 + + B +o5 + P + +5 + N Np+ 5 pP + KpP5 + +rR + 5 79 An object of attack has arisen in the white camp, namely the isolated pawn on d4, against which Black has directed the pressure of his forces. The most logical move here was probably 23...¤d5, blockading the weakness. However, Black chose a more straightforward plan. 23...¤e8 24.¤c2 ¤d6? The threat of 25...¤f5 looks most unpleasant. However, Black has overlooked that the d4-pawn is not only an object of attack but also a fighting unit in his opponent’s hands. Grasping the opportunity, White rids himself of his weakness. 25.d5! The pawn sacrifices itself, but the pieces dramatically gain in activity. 25...exd5 26.¥xg7 ¢xg7 27.¤d4! Unlike Black, who forgot about the principle of blockade, White is firmly blocking the dangerous passed pawn on d5. It now becomes clear that Black’s scattered pawns are coming under pressure. His position rapidly deteriorates.
1222222223 + T + +5 Ov+t+oLo5 O M + +5 + +o+ +o5 + N + +5 + N +p+ 5 pP + KpP5 + +rR + 5 79 27...¢f6 28.¤ce2 ¤f5 29.¤f4 ¤g7 30.h4 ¦e7 31.¦xe7 ¢xe7 32.¦e1† ¢d7 33.¦e5 f6 34.¦e2 ¦c8 35.¦d2 a6 36.¤de2 ¢e7 37.¤c3 d4 38.¦xd4
1222222223 +t+ + +5 +v+ L Mo5 oO + O +5 + + + +o5 + R N P5 + N +p+ 5 pP + Kp+5 + + + + 5 79
White has regained his pawn while keeping a large positional plus, which he confidently proceeded to turn into a win. In the chess battle the distinction between engaged forces and reserves is also relative. Naturally, if there is a major disturbance in the balance of the position, the game ought to end in one player’s favour. But then we also encounter positions where just the slightest advantage in the interplay of forces creates
General Questions of Strategy and Tactics realistic conditions for victory. Of course there are also exceptions – such as standard endgames where a material plus proves insufficient to win, or the rare phenomenon of so-called “positional draws” where the stronger side is again unable to exploit its trumps.
Isaak Boleslavsky – Vassily Smyslov Leningrad 1948
1222222223 + + + +5 + + +lO 5 oMt+ O O5 + + + + 5 + + + +5 + +k+pBp5 p+ R P +5 + + + + 5 79 There are few pieces left on the board, and the position looks drawish. On each wing the pawns are numerically balanced. But on careful analysis, Black’s advantage stands out. His kingside pawn position is more elastic, and in this kind of situation the pairing of rook and knight works much better than that of rook and bishop. By bringing his king into play, Black strengthens his position and proceeds to exploit White’s weaknesses. 1...¦c5 The rook heads for a5. 2.¦b2 ¤d7 3.¢d4 ¦a5 4.¦c2 ¢e6 5.¦c6† ¢f5 6.¦c7 ¤e5 7.¦c5 White seeks salvation in exchanges. The following powerful move dashes his hopes.
9
1222222223 + + + +5 + + + O 5 o+ + O O5 + R Ml+ 5 + K + +5 T + +pBp5 p+ + P +5 + + + + 5 79 7...¦a3! 8.¥xe5 ¦a4†! 9.¦c4 Simplifying Black’s task. After 9.¢e3 fxe5 10.¦c2 ¦a3† 11.¢e2 White could still offer prolonged resistance. 9...fxe5† 10.¢d5 ¦xa2 11.¦g4 g5 White resigned. This example demonstrates the role of minute, sometimes barely perceptible, advantages in the chess struggle. A game of chess amounts to a process of struggle, in which each move alters something more than the outward aspect of the position. All the material and positional elements already mentioned are in a state of motion. This is what defines the role of the move, the unit of time in chess. Time should also be counted among the basic factors of the struggle. If chess can be compared to a film, the frames of the film are like the positions that succeed each other with each move in the game. The concept of a chess position embraces the elements of space, time, the material correlation of forces, and also the way the pieces are arranged – their mobility, co-ordination and so forth. This last factor undoubtedly plays a most important role in the game. Sometimes you can acquire an advantage in material, in time and in space, but still not win.
Soviet Chess Strategy
10
I will give a pair of examples.
1222222223 + + +vT5 + + + +m5 + + +pK5 + + + + 5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 + + + +5 L + + + 5 79 White to move
1222222223 l+ + +vW5 + + + +m5 + + +pK5 + + + + 5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 79 White to move In the first position Black has an overwhelming material plus, but the co-ordination of his pieces is in disarray. After 1.g7 he is forced to cease resistance. In the second position, after 1.g7, Black is still unable to win: 1...£xg7† 2.¢xg7, and White proceeds to pick up one of the minor pieces. *** A game of chess develops according to the principles of strategy and tactics.
The strategy of chess embraces questions about the general co-ordination of the fighting forces that are employed to achieve the key aims at a particular stage of the struggle. The basis of strategy is a plan – a purposeful method of action. As the art of chess develops, strategic plans are enriched by constantly adopting new forms. Of course, many new plans later become accepted as “standard”. A plan in a game of chess is always founded on an evaluation of the position from which the plan begins – an appraisal of the essential peculiarities of that position. The game plan is a guideline to be followed during the struggle. If the conditions of the struggle alter, so does the plan – since every change in the position, sometimes even just a minor one, demands new strategic decisions. Planning always accompanies a chess game from the first move to the last, as though illuminating its course. Sometimes the strategy of the game stands out in bold relief. At other times it becomes, you might say, imperceptible. Planning recedes into the background whenever tactics begin to play the key role. Tactics is the second integral component in the process of the struggle. If strategy gives a player principles for the general management of his forces, tactics demands a concrete approach to the particular position, the closest possible attention to the specific details of the conflict. As Euwe pointedly observed: “Strategy requires deliberation, tactics requires penetrating vision.” Tactics in chess is the art of fighting. It takes account of the fighting qualities and peculiarities of the pieces, the various ways in which they act together. The plans a player has devised are implemented through tactical devices and operations. The basis of a tactical operation is a threat (in the broad sense of the word). Threats can differ sharply in character:
General Questions of Strategy and Tactics a threat to the enemy king a threat to gain a material advantage a threat to gain space and restrict the mobility of the opponent’s pieces a threat to exchange the opponent’s attacking pieces in order to ease the defence and so on. This variety is one more reflection of the inexhaustible wealth of chess.
Let us look at some examples that illustrate tactical devices. One of the effective tactical ploys is a manoeuvre. It is often fairly concise, consisting of two or three moves. But manoeuvres that are several moves long, outwardly striking and memorable, are not infrequent either. The following example is characteristic.
Alexander Alekhine – Siegbert Tarrasch Mannheim 1914
1222222223 t+v+l+ T5 +o+mWo+o5 o+ O Mo+5 P +p+ + 5 Pb+o+ +5 + P Pn+ 5 + N +pP5 R + QrK 5 79 20.¤g5! There might seem to be more point in immediately directing the knight to d4 (where it will be very actively placed) but Alekhine is in no hurry to do so. He will only occupy
11
d4 after a few more moves. His knight is travelling along the route f3-g5-h3-f4-e2-d4. The idea of this remarkable manoeuvre is that by means of a combinative attack against e4, White first wants to induce a weakening of Black’s pawn position and thus gain control of the f5-square. 20...h6 20...¤e5 is strongly answered by 21.¥b3! ¥f5 22.¥a4† ¢f8 23.¥c2!. 21.¤h3 £e5 22.¦c1 ¤g4 23.¤f4! The knight continues on its way. 23...g5 24.h3 ¤gf6 25.¤e2 ¤xd5 26.¥xd5 £xd5
1222222223 t+v+l+ T5 +o+m+o+ 5 o+ O + O5 P +w+ O 5 P +o+ +5 + P P +p5 + Nn+p+5 + R QrK 5 79
27.¤d4! The manoeuvre is completed. The possibility of invading the kingside with the knight via f5 decides the outcome of the game. 27...£e5 28.¤c4 30.¤fxd6 White soon won.
£d5
29.¤f5!
¢f8
Frequently a useful tactical ploy for improving your position is exchanging your opponent’s important pieces. The following example is noteworthy.
Soviet Chess Strategy
12
Mikhail Botvinnik – N. Sorokin Moscow 1931
1222222223 t+v+ Tl+5 +o+ +oO 5 oM + M O5 + W O + 5 p+ +p+ +5 + N +n+ 5 bP RqPpP5 + +r+ K 5 79 In this case it is simplification that enables White to improve his position further. 20.£e3! £xe3 21.fxe3 ¥g4 22.a5 ¤c8 23.¦c1 ¥xf3 24.gxf3 ¤e7 25.¤d5! The exchanges increase White’s superiority, making it easier for him to break through to the seventh rank with his rooks. 25...¤c6 25...¤fxd5 could be answered either by 26.exd5 or 26.¥xd5 ¤xd5 27.¦xd5. 26.¤xf6† gxf6 27.¦d7 ¦ab8
1222222223 T + Tl+5 +o+r+o+ 5 o+m+ O O5 P + O + 5 + +p+ +5 + + Pp+ 5 bP + + P5 + R + K 5 79
28.¢f2! ¤xa5 29.¦cc7 ¦bc8 30.¦xf7 ¦xc7 31.¦xc7† ¢h8 32.¥d5! White won easily. Of course, among the range of tactical procedures, the most powerful and effective is a combination, which introduces an element of aesthetics and art into chess and lends it its peculiar attraction. The combination usually involves a sacrifice of material.
Efim Bogoljubow – Alexander Alekhine Hastings 1922
1222222223 t+ +wT L5 + Ov+ O 5 + + M O5 Ro+ +o+ 5 +pPoP P5 + QmP P 5 + N +r+5 + +n+ Kb5 79 Alekhine finds an exceptionally beautiful combination, drastically changing the course of the struggle to his own benefit. 29...b4! 30.¦xa8 bxc3! 31.¦xe8 c2!!
1222222223 + +rT L5 + Ov+ O 5 + + M O5 + + +o+ 5 +pPoP P5 + +mP P 5 +oN +r+5 + +n+ Kb5 79
A Spanish Repertoire for Black by Mihail Marin with invaluable help from Valentin Stoica
Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
First edition 2007 by Quality Chess Europe AB Vegagatan 18, SE-413 09 Gothenburg, Sweden Copyright © 2007 Mihail Marin All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 13 ISBN 10
978-91-976005-0-7 91-976005-0-4
All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess Europe AB, Vegagatan 18, SE-413 09 Gothenburg, Sweden tel: +46-31-24 47 90 fax: +46-31-24 47 14 e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychessbooks.com Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena California www.scbdistributors.com Edited by John Shaw Typeset: Jacob Aagaard Cover Design: Carole Dunlop Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC
CONTENTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
List of Symbols Bibliography Foreword The Chigorin Variation - General Aspects The Rubinstein System The Petrosian System The Yates Variation The Yates Variation - 10.d5 The Yates Variation - 10.¥e3 The d3-System The Worrall Attack The Delayed Exchange Variation The a4-System The System Based on ¤c3 The Central Attack Index of Main Lines
5 6 7 9 25 97 133 137 149 169 189 197 209 217 225 232
Chapter 1
The Chigorin Variation - General Aspects 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4
This is where the story of our book starts. We have just stepped into the territory of the Ruy Lopez, the handling of which is traditionally considered to be a cornerstone of positional understanding. The next series of moves until 9.h3 has occurred in thousands of games for many decades, and is now played almost automatically in most cases. However, I will make some short comments on each move, as if it were my first time seeing the position. This will hopefully offer an overview of the significance of each chapter. 4...¤f6 Black takes advantage of the first opportunity to counterattack the enemy centre.
5.0-0 White does not need to defend his e-pawn yet, because after 5...¤xe4 6.d4 he would win the pawn back, due the vulnerability of the enemy king. Actually, this would be just the start of a completely different story titled the Open Variation, which is beyond the scope of this book. Each move that defends the pawn has some drawbacks. 5.¤c3 blocks the c-pawn and prevents the natural plan of occupying the centre with c3 and d4. 5.£e2 develops the queen at a moment when most of the other pieces find themselves on their initial squares. This seriously contradicts the general rules of development and is very unladylike. 5.d3 is more flexible, but might result in a loss of time if White later decides to occupy the centre with c3 and d4. 5.d4 is a premature display of central activity. The placement of the bishop on the a4-e8 diagonal serves long-term purposes, by putting the e5-pawn under pressure. If White intended to open the centre at such an early stage, he should have developed his bishop on c4, in order to get tactical threats against the f7-pawn. This would have led to a completely different opening, though. 5...¥e7
10
A Spanish Repertoire for Black
By covering the e-file, Black renews the threat of ...¤xe4. 6.¦e1 All the moves mentioned in the previous comment are possible here, too, but they would have the same drawbacks. Defending the pawn with the rook is more efficient. After the planned c3 and d4, White’s major pieces would keep the central files under permanent pressure, preventing an early black counterattack. 6.¥xc6 is White’s last chance to avoid the natural course of the game. After 6...dxc6 the loss of tempo is justified by the fact that Black’s pieces are not optimally placed to defend the e5-pawn, which will demand some accurate play from him. However, giving up the lightsquared bishop reduces White’s strategic potential considerably. 6...b5 Black parries the threat of ¥xc6 followed by ¤xe5 that was created by White’s last move. 7.¥b3 Finally, the bishop takes the f7-pawn under observation, but Black is well enough developed to avoid any major trouble. 7...d6 Black over-defends his e-pawn and creates the threat of ...¤a5. At the same time, he opens the c8-h3 diagonal for the bishop. The alternative is 7...0-0, when play may just transpose after 8.c3 d6. The sharp Marshall Attack (8...d5) is not part of this book’s subject and, from the point of view of our main line, the move order starting with 7...d6 is more accurate. Castling on the 7th move would leave Black with some minor problems after 8.a4. 8.c3 White clears the c2-square for his bishop and prepares the occupation of the centre. 8.a4 would be less effective because of 8...¥g4, creating the threats ...¤d4 or ...¥xf3 followed by ...¤d4. After 9.c3 0-0 Black is ready to question White’s strategy with …¤a5 followed by ...b4, when the weaknesses induced by the early advance of the a-pawn leaves the Spanish bishop rather exposed.
8...0–0 Now, the rushed 9.d4 would allow Black to complete his development in a natural way with 9...¥g4, putting the enemy centre under strong pressure. Therefore, the prophylactic 9.h3 should be regarded as a more consistent continuation.
Thus, we finally reach what can safely be considered the main tabiya of the open games. There are several reasons to claim this. First of all, an examination of all the possible deviations clearly shows that Black's first move cannot be easily challenged by an early and unprepared action in the centre. (Some of these lines have been examined in Beating the Open Games, while the rest of them were reviewed above and will be examined in this book at a later stage.) More than one century of practice supports this point of view. Finally, we can note that contrary to the situation in the so-called sidelines where Black usually chooses between two or three reasonable variations, in the diagrammed position countless numbers of systems have been tried for Black: the Breyer, the Smyslov, the Zaitsev, and then a whole series of Chigorin set-ups connected with names such as Rauzer, Panov, Keres, Romanishin, Graf, as well as many other lines without specific names, but which have been part of the main repertoire of great players, including world champions, throughout chess history.
The Chigorin Variation - General Aspects This is hardly a sign that Black can equalize however he wishes against the main line of the Ruy Lopez; instead it is proof that against each of these systems White has continually found new ways of keeping his opponent under positional pressure, regularly forcing Black to come up with a new set-up. In fact, the wisest approach for a player who mainly relies on the closed lines of the Ruy Lopez with Black is to periodically switch from one system to another in order not only to avoid specific preparation by one’s opponents, but also to gain a wider understanding of chess in general. In the diagrammed position, White is just one step away from achieving his primary goal, the stable occupation of the centre, but this does not necessarily mean that he has won the strategic battle yet. Since it is quite obvious that Black cannot physically prevent 10.d4, he has to look for an optimal way of meeting it. It is hard to claim that any of the variations listed above is better than another, which means that the word “optimal” needs further explanation. A player should choose Black’s further system of development in accordance with his general level of understanding, style of play, personal taste and, why not, with his general mood on the particular day. It goes without saying that my choice of the repertoire systems contains a high degree of subjectivity. I intentionally avoided fashionable systems. Experience has taught me that fashion is an unpredictable and capricious lady; after certain variations have been well-enough forgotten, they might come back into the limelight. Secondly (and more importantly I would say), the task of catching the very essence of the position in lines where theory advances with big steps (not necessarily in the correct direction) is rather difficult. It is much easier to take a photo or sketch a portrait of a virtually immobile image than to describe a highly animated scene. Instead, I have preferred to choose variations with a very long past, involving the names of great players including world champions. This
11
will give us the opportunity of following the evolution of thought processes through the years. It is also supposed to lend some stability to the theoretical conclusions given in the following pages. Truths that have required years or even decades to unfold completely to human understanding, and involve names like Rubinstein, Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Petrosian or Karpov will hardly ever be shaken by practice or with the help of a computer. I must confess that, apart from some rare moments of fear that I would not manage to make these “antiquities” viable, I have never regretted my choice during the whole working process. I rather felt as though I was drinking a very old wine, discovered in a hidden corner of my cellar. Another aim of mine has been to make the information useful in general, and not just relevant to the specific variations. If some of the readers would like to make a choice of their own against the main variation of the Ruy Lopez, the strategic explanation given below should help their orientation. All these self-imposed restrictions left me with a relatively narrow domain. After some further pondering and hesitations, I picked two of the oldest sub-lines of the Chigorin Variation, which, in its turn, is the oldest way of reacting to the main line of the Ruy Lopez. Strictly speaking, the move 9...¤a5 which defines the Chigorin system, looks like a small deviation from the logical course of development. Indeed, Black moves for the second time with an already developed piece, while the c8-bishop is still on its initial square. From this perspective, the more natural move is 9...¥b7, which in fact leads to the highly fashionable Zaitsev Variation, a system that endured a thorough examination during the matches between Kasparov and Karpov. However, there are certain elements of the position that explain why the generally good and logical move 9...¥b7 is not necessarily the only correct or at least the very best one.
12
A Spanish Repertoire for Black
After 10.d4 Black cannot easily question White’s supremacy in the centre in the near future. The main reason is that the c6-knight is tied to the defence of the e5-pawn, thus blocking his c-pawn, which under different circumstances could be used to undermine the d4-pawn. At the same time, it is uncertain yet whether the development of the bishop to b7 is useful, in view of White’s possibility of closing the centre with d5 whenever he wishes. In fact, virtually all Black’s possible continuations on the 9th move have minor drawbacks, which, I repeat, makes the choice at this stage a mere matter of taste. I do not intend to question the correctness of 9...¥b7 or prove the superiority of 9…¤a5 in any way, but aim to explain that in this last phase of development concrete thinking can and should be tightly connected with the appliance of general rules. Let us now return to the Chigorin Variation. 10.¥c2 c5 Anticipating White’s next move, Black prepares to put up strong resistance in the centre. 11.d4 £c7
This is the main tabiya of the Chigorin variation. Other moves have been played (mainly 11...¥b7 and 11...¤d7), but in the vast majority of games (about three-quarters) Black prefers to defend the e5-pawn with the queen, maintaining maximum flexibility for his position.
The term “flexibility” mainly refers to the fate of the queenside minor pieces. Developing the bishop to b7 now or slightly later would put the white centre under immediate pressure, but the simple advance of the d-pawn would solve this problem, leaving the bishop terribly passive on b7. Black can correct the bishop’s placement in a rather simple way, with a further ...¥c8. Although this would mean the loss of two whole tempi, it would at least avoid irreparable damage to the general harmony of the position. The problem of the a5-knight is slightly more demanding. If Black does not manage to find a comfortable location, or at least a useful job for it, he will most likely face insurmountable strategic problems. Dr. Tarrasch’s warning, “If one piece stands badly, the whole position is bad” applies perfectly here. And yet, it is not easy for White to cut the knight out of play completely. The hidden interactions between pieces placed on different areas of the board can lead to surprising results. To a certain extent, the situation is similar to that arising in the Yugoslav variation of the fianchetto King’s Indian. I believe that this latter aspect deserves a small digression. We, modern chess players, are accustomed to using the generic terminology of a pawn structure typical of the King’s Indian Defence whenever White blocks the centre with the strategically dreaded triangle c4-d5-e4. But this structure can arise from several other openings as well, including the Closed Ruy Lopez. Historically speaking, the choice of name is not entirely correct, because the Ruy Lopez acquired coherent theoretical contours decades earlier than the King’s Indian. However, for practical reasons I find it perfectly adequate. There is no such typical Ruy Lopez-structure, since the opening is much too complex and flexible, while the aforementioned blocked position almost defines the King’s Indian. Let us return to the issue of the a5-knight. The next examples will illustrate the typical problems facing Black if he fails to solve this delicate matter in an adequate way. They are not intended to discourage the reader from playing
The Chigorin Variation - General Aspects the Chigorin line, but to offer a clearer image of the kind of positions that should be avoided. All fragments are taken from games where the Ruy Lopez was played (although I was tempted to insert some games with the Yugoslav variation of the King’s Indian Defence as well). In some of them Black chose set-ups other than the Chigorin variation, but play soon took a course that is relevant for our central subject. The critical situation arises when White blocks the centre with d4-d5.
Having been deprived of the natural retreat to c6, the a5-knight has only two ways of regrouping. From one point of view, the retreat to b7 is the most natural. The knight physically approaches the rest of Black’s army, although this does not necessarily mean that the overall coordination is improved yet. In order to solve the problem, Black has to install his knight on c5 (after a preliminary …c4 if the structure is as in the previous diagram or immediately if the c-pawns are missing as a consequence of an earlier exchange on d4). However, White has a strong remedy at his disposal. By playing b4 (or b3 and if …c4, then b4) he can prevent Black’s plan with a minimum of effort. The evaluation of the position depends greatly on Black’s ability to use the relative weakness induced by b4 in order to generate queenside counterplay. For instance,
13
if the a1-rook is undefended, after …a5 White cannot maintain a pawn on b4, being forced to give up the control of the c5-square. If such rapid counterplay is not available, Black’s situation could become critical from a longterm perspective. The following game fragment illustrates the nature of Black’s problems in its pure form. In spite of the fact that almost all the other pieces were exchanged, the knight’s bad position on b7 was the main cause of his defeat. Spassky – Kholmov Soviet Championship, Yerevan 1962
At a superficial glance it might look as if Black had no problems at all. The queenside is safely blocked, while on the other wing only Black can start active operations. The knight's awkward position seems to be temporary, because after the standard ...f5 it could go to f7. Unfortunately for Black, things are not that simple. A deeper look reveals a remarkable detail: the solidity of the queenside is undermined precisely by the dreadfully placed knight. The threat ¤a3xb5 is very unpleasant, because after ...axb5, a6 Black could not parry the threats a7 and axb7 simultaneously. Black has no time to regroup properly. If 30...¤d8, then after 31.¤a3 he is not in time to transfer the bishop to the queenside in order to stop the a-pawn. In fact, this is one of the indirect but
Update to
A Spanish Repertoire for Black by grandmaster Mihail Marin
15th February 2008
Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com Theory moves on whether we like it or not. When a book is published on a variation the variation tends to get more popular. This has happened with the closed Spanish over the last 12 months, in some cases with a clear link to this book, including a game between a commending reviewer of the book and the publisher, in other cases by the author’s own practice. For this reason we talked Mihail into doing an online update for his book. We hope that this is received in the correct spirit and will be a pleasant surprise to fans of the book. John Shaw and Jacob Aagaard, Quality Chess
2
Spanish Update
Update to Chapter 2
The Rubinstien System The following can be read in connection with the text on page 69 in the book. Despite that ...¤e8 is entirely playable, as the previous analysis has proven, abstract reasons make me prefer ...¥d7. This developing move involves a lesser commitment than the knight retreat and allows recapturing with the queen in some cases. Op den Kelder-Marin, Banyoles 2007 15.axb5 axb5 16.b4 ¥d7
1222222223 4 T M Tl+5 4+ WvVoOo5 4 + O M +5 4+oOpO + 5 4 P +p+ +5 4+ P +n+p5 4 +bN Pp+5 4R BqR K 5 7888888889
17.bxc5 Again, this is the most concrete way of trying to refute Black’s strategy. The merits of Black’s last move become obvious after the risky 17.c4 when Black can rapidly complete his development with 17...cxb4 18.cxb5 ¤b7 19.¦b1 ¦fc8µ
17...£xc5 With the knights relatively far from the d6square, it makes little sense for Black to capture with the pawn. 18.¦e3 White needs to spend a tempo on defending this pawn. As indicated by Kortschnoj in his notes to the game against Spassky, the straightforward 18.¥a3 £xc3 19.¦e3 £c7 20.¤xe5 leads nowhere because of 20...¥xh3! It should be said that Kortschnoj did not mention ...¥d7 as a preparation to the continuation of Rubinstein’s plan but just as a possible way to delay ...¤b7 with one move. After 18.¦e3, the threat ¥a3 becomes serious. 18...£c7 This is my recommendation from the previous edition. Black removes the queen from the exposed position, enabling the knight’s transfer to c5 at the same time. Previously 18...¦e8?! had been played. It certainly looks like a logical move. Black parries the threat by developing a piece. However, in doing so he slightly neglects the queen side situation, which could have led to some problems. 19.c4!? This move would have ensured White some initiative. In the game, White missed his chance to take advantage of the exposure of the black queen and focused on his kingside plan with 19.g4 g6 20.¤f1 ¤b7 21.¤g3 ¦a8 22.¦b1 ¦ec8 23.¤e1 ¤a5 24.¦f3 ¤c4³
Mihail Marin
1222222223 4t+t+ +l+5 4+ +vVo+o5 4 + O Mo+5 4+oWpO + 5 4 +m+p+p+5 4+ P +rNp5 4 +b+ P +5 4+rBqN K 5 7888888889
Black has managed to regroup in optimal way and has a very enjoyable position, KuzminKrogius, Perm 1971. 19...¤b7 19...bxc4 leaves White with an active position after 20.¦c3 ¥b5 21.¦b1². 20.cxb5 ¥xb5 20...¦ec8 would lose a tempo compared with a similar line from the next comment, allowing 21.¥d3± since ...¤c5 is impossible. 21.¦b3² Black is not fully coordinated yet. 19.¥a3 The opening of the queen side by means of ’ 19.c4 is not dangerous because of 19...¤b7! (Development above all! 19...b4 is bad because of 20.¦b3 when the weakness of the b4-pawn prevents the knight’s activation.) 20.cxb5 ¦fc8 for instance 21.¥a4 ¤c5 22.b6 £xb6 23.¥xd7 ¤fxd7 24.¦ea3 £d8!? …...¥g5. 19...¦e8 Now, this move becomes necessary. 20.¥b4 ¤b7
1222222223 4 T +t+l+5 4+mWvVoOo5 4 + O M +5 4+o+pO + 5 4 B +p+ +5 4+ P Rn+p5 4 +bN Pp+5 4R +q+ K 5 7888888889
3
I played all these moves rather confidently, because they were part of my analysis from the first editions' main line. My opponent played even quicker than me, though. I started fearing that he had red the book and found a refutation somewhere, although I trusted my analysis to be correct. I had good reasons to take such a possibility into account, since several opponents from the previous rounds told me they had red at least parts of my recent opening books. Right after the game, when I asked my opponent why he played so quickly he answered rather vaguely, mentioning an older game he had seen in the database. I was slightly disappointed: no he did not read the book! Now that I am writing these lines, the frustration becomes even stronger. As can be seen below, among the main actors of the modern phase from the Rubinstein system's evolution we find the author (kindly yours), one of the editors, without whose permanent support the whole project would have been impossible to accomplish (Jacob Aagaard), and a famous reviewer, who had been kind enough to write positively about the first edition (Jonathan Rowson). The only missing part is a reader... 21.¤b3 This is the new move compared to my analysis, but during the game I could not remember the variations very clearly. My initial line goes 21.¦a7 £b6 22.£a1 ¤c5 eventually followed by ...¤a4. 21...¥f8 A necessary move. Black places the bishop on a very stable square, offering to the e8-rook freedom of action. I was worried that after 21...¤c5 22.¥a5 £c8 23.¤xc5 £xc5 24.¥d3 I would not be able to regroup properly. 22.¦a7 £b6 I did not feel prepared to fight for the a-file yet, noticing that after 22...¦a8 23.£a1 £b8 24.¦xa8 £xa8 25.¦e1 the occupation of the c5-square is not possible without giving up the control of the a-file. However, 25...¤h5 might offer Black sufficient counterplay. 23.£a1
4
Spanish Update
1222222223 4 T +tVl+5 4Rm+v+oOo5 4 W O M +5 4+o+pO + 5 4 B +p+ +5 4+nP Rn+p5 4 +b+ Pp+5 4Q + + K 5 7888888889
23...¤c5 Now, everything is ready for this long awaited move. 24.¦e1 Avoiding the trap 24.¤xc5? dxc5 25.¦a6 £b7 26.¦a7 ¦a8!, winning material for Black. 24...¤a4 Black has neutralized White’s initiative, achieving stability on the queenside. From the opening’s point of view, he can be satisfied, but the whole middlegame lies ahead. While writing the first edition, I might have failed to emphasize how difficult (for both sizes!) this phase of the game can be, maybe because I was not completely aware of it myself. In other words, in the long variations of the Ruy Lopez it is not enough to equalize with Black (or, similarly, get an advantage with White) out of the opening. You also need to deal with the strategic and tactical subtleties of these complex positions properly. I understood this truth with the occasion of my recent win against Jakovenko, which can be found in the 10.d5 Yates variation. Chess is enormously complicated and the Ruy Lopez offers us a good proof about it. During the next phase of the game, Black had tempting alternatives in several moments and even now I am not sure whether my choices have always been best. Maybe in this type of position there is no such thing as the best move and it largely depends on styles of play and taste. Since there is very little practical material available in this variation, I have taken myself the liberty to insert the whole game, highlighting most of the critical moments and the main alternatives in both sides’ play.
25.¦a5 ¤h5 Black’s other knight goes to the edge of the board, aiming to set up play on both wings. The more cautious 25...¦a8, exchanging White’s most active piece, was entirely possible. 26.¤bd2 I considered 26.¥d3 ¤f4 27.¥f1 to be safer. 26...¤f4
1222222223 4 T +tVl+5 4+ +v+oOo5 4 W O + +5 4Ro+pO + 5 4mB +pM +5 4+ P +n+p5 4 +bN Pp+5 4Q + R K 5 7888888889
The pressure exerted by this knights is quite annoying, but Black does not threaten anything concrete yet. 27.c4 In the meantime, the other wing is under fire. 27...¤c5! The knight had become unstable on a4. After retreating to c5, it threatens to join his actions with his colleague from the other wing for invading the d3-square. 28.£a3 ¦ec8 Black brings another piece into play, refraining from an early release of the tension. I saw that Black could get a good position with the logical and consequent 28...¤cd3 for instance 29.¥xd3 ¤xd3 30.£xd3 bxc4 31.£xc4 (31.¤xc4 £xb4³ is a better version for Black because his queen is more active.) 31...£xb4 32.£xb4 ¦xb4= However, I did not see an active plan in the final position and decided not to part with my active knights so easily. 29.¦b1 In order to maintain the balance even on the queenside, White has to leave the e2-square undefended. 29...£d8
Mihail Marin
Once again, it was not easy to refrain from the knight jump forward, but things are not entirely clear after 29...¤e2† 30.¢f1 ¤d4 31.¤xd4 exd4. For instance 32.£a1 (The alternate way to attack the d4-pawn would be 32.¤f3, but this allows Black generate incontrollable complications with 32...bxc4 33.¥xc5 £xb1† 34.¥xb1 ¦xb1† 35.¢e2 dxc5÷, when Black’s pawns look scary.) 32...¥e7 33.£xd4 ¥f6 34.£e3 ¤a6!? and Black’s better coordination offers him adequate compensation for the pawn. From my choices in these two critical moments we can define my general approach in this phase: maintain the tension for as long as possible, even though concrete action seemed entirely viable, too. 30.¢h2 £f6 I briefly considered 30...¤b7 31.¦a7 bxc4 but did not like the idea of playing with a passive knight on b7. 31.£e3
1222222223 4 Tt+ Vl+5 4+ +v+oOo5 4 + O W +5 4RoMpO + 5 4 Bp+pM +5 4+ + Qn+p5 4 +bN PpK5 4+r+ + + 5 7888888889
31...¥e7!? Again a quiet move, bearing in mind to transfer the bishop to b6, which must be a familiar scenario to the reader already. Instead of this somewhat slow manoeuvre, Black had none less than two worthy alternatives. I calculated 31...h5!? 32.h4 ¤b7 33.¦a7 £g6 34.g3 ¤xd5 35.cxd5 ¦xc2 36.£b6 and considered it too risky. Maybe Black has adequate counterplay after 36...¥g4 37.¤e1 ¦xd2 38.¥xd2 £xe4 but I was not sure at all. 31...¤b7 32.¦a7 bxc4 was possible, with the possible continuation 33.¥xd6 ¥xd6 34.¦axb7 ¦xb7 35.¦xb7 ¥c5 when Black’s dark squared bishop gets into play faster than in the game.
5
32.¦a7 Immediately taking advantage of the temporary vulnerability of the bishops. 32...¤b7 A necessary retreat already. However, the passivity of the knight is temporary, because Black has in mind the following plan: ...¥d8, ...¤g6-f8, ...¤c5 and ...¥b6. Quite slow, but the vulnerability of White’s queen and queen’s rook will eventually cause him some loss of time as well. 33.¤g1 Threatening with g3. 33...¥d8?! This consequent move might not be best. Black had an alternate way of activating his bishop with 33...£g6 34.g3 ¥g5 (I saw that 34...¤xd5 is dangerous because of 35.cxd5 ¦xc2 36.£b6, when 36...¥d8? is insufficient in view of 37.¦xb7 ¥xb6 38.¦xb8† ¦c8 39.¦xb6†- with decisive material advantage for White.) 35.h4 ¥h6 36.£c3. For some reason, I disliked this position, failing to notice that Black can increase his pressure with 36...¤h5! (Threatening ... ¥xd2.) 37.¤gf3 ¥g4³ when White would face problems keeping his position together. 34.g3 ¤g6 35.¥d3 ¤f8 36.cxb5 ¤c5
1222222223 4 TtV Ml+5 4R +v+oOo5 4 + O W +5 4+pMpO + 5 4 B +p+ +5 4+ +bQ Pp5 4 + N P K5 4+r+ + N 5 7888888889
White has won a pawn, but Black is just one step away from crowning his previous play with ...¥b6. 37.¥xc5 ¦xc5 38.¦a6 By this moment, my young opponent had entered the phase of eternal time-trouble already (with the 30 seconds increment), while I had some spare minutes still.
6
Spanish Update
38...¦c3 Increasing the force of the threat ...¥xb5 and avoiding the trap 38...¥b6? creates an unfavourable pin and can be answered with 39.¤c4! ¦xc4 40.¦xb6± 38...¥xb5!? was possible, though. 39.b6?! 39.¦b3 ¦xb3 40.¤xb3 ¥xb5 41.¥xb5 ¦xb5= looks safe for White because the bishop cannot be activated easily. 39...¥xb6 I could not find adequate compensation for the exchange after 39...¦xd3 40.£xd3 £xf2† 41.¢h1 ¥xb6 42.¦f1² and had no time left to notice the simple 39...¥c8!? 40.¦axb6 ¦xd3 41.£e2 ¦xb6 42.¦xb6 ¦c3
1222222223 4 + + Ml+5 4+ +v+oOo5 4 R O W +5 4+ +pO + 5 4 + +p+ +5 4+ T + Pp5 4 + NqP K5 4+ + + N 5 7888888889
After a long tense phase, play has calmed down somewhat. Black's position is more compact and his king safe. The e4-pawn is more vulnerable than the d6-pawn, because f3 would weaken the king even more. 43.¢g2 Preparing ¤c4, which was impossible now because of 43.¤c4 ¦xc4 44.£xc4 £xf2† 45.¢h1 £xg3 with two pawns for the exchange and threats against the enemy king. 43...h6 Slightly careless. I had practically no time left either and played a generally useful move, failing to notice White’s reply. A safer way to reach a similar position as in the game was 43...£d8! 44.£a6 (44.¦xd6? loses to 44...¥xh3† while after; 44.¦b4 Black can play 44...h6 already.) 44...¦c2 45.¤gf3 ¦a2!. Releasing the pressure against the
d6-pawn. 46.£xa2 £xb6³ 44.¤c4 £d8! Fortunately, this still works out well. 45.¦b4 45.¦xd6 loses the exchange to 45...£c7µ 45...£c7 46.¤e3 ¤h7 The wandering knight returns to its previous location, in order to put the e4-pawn under pressure. 47.¦c4 Hoping to ease his defence by exchanges. 47...¦xc4 48.£xc4 £b6 49.¤e2 ¤f6 50.¤c3 £d4³
1222222223 4 + + +l+5 4+ +v+oO 5 4 + O M O5 4+ +pO + 5 4 +qWp+ +5 4+ N N Pp5 4 + + Pk+5 4+ + + + 5 7888888889
Black has completed his regrouping, and his pieces dominate the position. Although it is early to speaker about a concrete advantage yet, White's defence in time trouble is not easy. 51.£c7 ¢h7 A prophylactic move, passing to the opponent the responsibility of concrete action. 52.¤c2?
1222222223 4 + + + +5 4+ Qv+oOl5 4 + O M O5 4+ +pO + 5 4 + Wp+ +5 4+ N + Pp5 4 +n+ Pk+5 4+ + + + 5 7888888889
Mihail Marin
An understandable blunder. The queen's presence in the centre was irritating... 52...¥xh3†! A decisive little combination. 53.¢xh3 £xf2 54.¤b4?! Saving the knight, but allowing a forced mate. 54...£f1† 1–0 We have enough elements to conclude that, against both ...¤e8 and ...¥d7, White gets very little by opening the queenside immediately. Therefore, we should investigate the plan consisting of the standard knight transfer to the kingside. Berescu-Marin Romanian Championship, Predeal 2006 15.axb5 axb5 16.b4 ¥d7 This position can be reached via the move order 16...¤e8 17.¤f1 ¥d7, too. In this latter variation, 17...g6 is slightly premature. In order to maintain the re-capture on c5 with the pawn viable, Black should delay the moment of weakening of the f6and h6-squares for as long as he has other useful moves available. Now, or on the next move, White could switch back to the plan 18.bxc5 dxc5 19.c4. A later comment will reveal the fact that against Black’s correct move order this plan is harmless. 17.¤f1
1222222223 4 T M Tl+5 4+ WvVoOo5 4 + O M +5 4+oOpO + 5 4 P +p+ +5 4+ P +n+p5 4 +b+ Pp+5 4R BqRnK 5 7888888889
17...¤e8 Black continues regrouping in the spirit of the Rubinstein system. 18.¥e3 f6
7
Intending ...¤f7 and only later ...g6 and ...¤g7. 19.¤3h2 Now, the opening of the queen side by means of 19.bxc5 dxc5 20.c4 would be less effective because of the simple 20...bxc4 when the time needed by White to win the pawn back could be used by Black to transfer one of his knights to d4. Here is a possible continuation: 21.¥a4. This move carries out a strategically favourable exchange but loses even more time. 21...¥xa4 22.¦xa4 ¤d6. Please notice that this move is enabled by the fact that the e5-pawn is safely defended by his colleague. 23.£c2 ¦b4= and Black has little to complain about. After the careless 24.¤3d2? Black’s activity would become threatening starting with 24...c3!µ 19...¤f7 20.¤g3 g6 21.£d2 ¤g7 Both sides have completed the first phase of piece mobilization. The exchange on c5 does not offer White anything because after ...dxc5 Black would get the excellent d6-square for his minor pieces. 22.f4 Otherwise, Black could start active kingside operations himself. 22...exf4 23.¥xf4
1222222223 4 T + Tl+5 4+ WvVmMo5 4 + O Oo+5 4+oOp+ + 5 4 P +pB +5 4+ P + Np5 4 +bQ +pN5 4R + R K 5 7888888889
23...¦a8 Black prevents his opponent from taking over the control of the a-file, but makes a slight structural concession. 23...¤e5 would have been more ambitious from strategic point of view, although chances would have remained roughly equal after 24.¦a2 ¦a8 25.¦ea1 ¦xa2
8
Spanish Update
26.¦xa2 ¦b8= The strong centralized knight and the flexibility of Black’s queenside structure compensate for White’s control of the only (yet!) open file. 24.bxc5 £xc5† 25.¥e3 £c7 26.¥d4
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4+ WvVmMo5 4 + O Oo+5 4+o+p+ + 5 4 + Bp+ +5 4+ P + Np5 4 +bQ +pN5 4R + R K 5 7888888889
White has obtained this wonderful square for his minor pieces, but Black will solve all his problems by means of simplifications along the a-file. 26...¤e5 27.¤hf1 £b7 28.¥b3 ¦xa1 29.¦xa1 ¦a8 30.¦xa8† and a draw was agreed. The game was played shortly after I had delivered the final form of the book to my editors, but months before its publishing. My opponent, who had won the Romanian championship twice over the last years and is regarded as a good theoretician, expressed his disappointment regarding the ease with which Black managed to equalize, using an officially doomed variation. When I mentioned the fact that there will be a 70–pages chapter dedicated to the whole system, he relaxed and stopped feeling uncomfortable. At the same time, I felt quite happy because I managed to defend Black’s point of view in a practical game. Analyzing long variations is good, but over-the-board testing should be an important element, too. White’s failure to obtain an advantage was mainly caused by Black’s potential threat of taking over the initiative on the kingside with ...f5. This forced him to open the position with f4 at an earlier stage than he might have wished to. Therefore, after Black’s 17...¤e8,
the ambitious 18.g4 deserves being investigated.
1222222223 4 T MmTl+5 4+ WvVoOo5 4 + O + +5 4+oOpO + 5 4 P +p+p+5 4+ P +n+p5 4 +b+ P +5 4R BqRnK 5 7888888889
On the dark side of this move I would mention that it implies a serious kingside commitment from White, which basically excludes the possibility of successfully opening the other wing with bxc5, allowing Black play 18...g6 with all the comfort. For a while, play continues in accordance with the familiar patterns. 19.¤g3 f6 20.¥e3 ¤f7 21.£d2! A natural move, connecting rooks and preparing for active operations on both wings. In the only relevant game played prior to the first edition, 21.¦a3 was tried. After 21...¤g7 22.£a1 £c8! A subtle move, preparing active operations on both wings. Black increases the probability of the thematic break ...f5, while enabling the activation of the dark-squared bishop via d8-b6. 23.¦a7 ¥d8! Black had a good position in TukmakovKan, Tashkent 1974. After the transfer of the bishop to the queenside, White has little chances for success on this territory. The game continued 24.¦a6 (The tactical justification of the last move is that 24.bxc5 dxc5 25.¥xc5 £xc5 26.¦xd7 leaves the rook trapped to 26...¥b6 27.¦f1 £c8. In the first edition I gave 26...b4, which is also good and offers Black excellent compensation for the pawn, in view of his control over the dark squares. Safer would have been 24.¦c1 although after 24...¥b6 25.¦a6 £c7 Black has little to fear.) 24...f5!„ (A well timed pawn break, after which White will not be able to justify his multiple
Mihail Marin
commitments on different areas (g4, b4, the occupation of the a-file). White probably hoped for 24...cxb4?! 25.cxb4 £xc2?! which loses the queen after 26.¦c1 £b3 27.¤d2 £xb4 28.¦b1) 25.exf5 gxf5 26.gxf5? (This moves weakens the d5-pawn, which will be quite relevant as we shall see. White should have embarked the dangerous complications starting with 26.bxc5 f4) 26... cxb4! 27.¦a7 (The difference is that after 27.cxb4 £xc2 28.¦c1 £b3 the queen will escape through d5.) 27...bxc3 Black had material and positional advantage and won soon. Curiously, this game escaped the theoreticians’ attention even though it was played at a time when the variation was “officially alive”. 21...¤g7 22.¦a2 White plans to increase his pressure by doubling rooks along the a-file. For the time being, Black cannot initiate a kingside counterplay with ...f5 and his knight has not the e5-square at his disposal. He has to look for a way to consolidate his position, maintaining the hope that the weakness induced by the courageous advance of White’s g-pawn will tell at a later stage. We shall investigate two possible continuations.
1222222223 4 T + Tl+5 4+ WvVmMo5 4 + O Oo+5 4+oOpO + 5 4 P +p+p+5 4+ P BnNp5 4r+bQ P +5 4+ + R K 5 7888888889
22...£c8 The same plan as in the game TulmakovKan, although the tactical nuances are slightly more complicated here because of the different placement of the white queen. I believe that it is best to play this move immediately. Alternatively, Black can trade a pair of rooks along the a-file with 22...¦a8 23.¦ea1 ¦xa2 (In the game Aagaard-Rowson, British
9
Championships 2007, Black continued the fight for the a-file with 23...£b7?! White answered with the strong move 24.¥b3!, setting up indirect pressure along the a2-g8 diagonal. Blocking the position with 24...c4 would open the diagonal of the e3-bishop, allowing the intermediate 25.¦a7! The prophylactic 24...¢h8 looks safer, although it is not easy to suggest a further plan for Black. The game went 24...¦xa2?! 25.¦xa2 ¦c8? 26.bxc5 dxc5 27.d6! with strong initiative for White.) 24.¦xa2 £c8! 25.¦a7 ¥d8 26.bxc5. Otherwise, Black would be very much OK after ...¥b6. 26... dxc5 27.¥xc5 £xc5 28.¦xd7
1222222223 4 + V Tl+5 4+ +r+mMo5 4 + + Oo+5 4+oWpO + 5 4 + +p+p+5 4+ P +nNp5 4 +bQ P +5 4+ + + K 5 7888888889
White has won a pawn, but Black has good chances to stabilize the position and setup domination on dark squares. Now, the weaknesses induced by g4 are obvious. 28...¤e8 (This looks to be the most solid continuation, keeping the d6-square under firm control and preparing an optimal regrouping of the knights. 28...¥a5 is possible, but can lead to unnecessary complications after 29.¤e2 ¤e8 30.£e3!? It is useful to exchange the active black queen, even at the cost of weakening the own structure. 30...£xe3 31.fxe3 ¤ed6. Black’s position looks very nice in view of the threats ...¥b6 followed by ...¤c4, but White has not exhausted his resources yet. 32.g5!? Played with the hope for 32...¢g7? 33.¤ed4!! exd4 34.gxf6† ¢xf6 35.e5!†. A nice tactical resources, but Black can do better. 32... fxg5 33.¤xe5 ¤xe5 34.¦xd6 ¤f3† 35.¢h1 ¤e1 with a very unclear position, where White’s pieces lack coordination and are in fact hanging.) 29.£e3 £xe3 30.fxe3 ¤ed6. Now, the threat
10
Spanish Update
...¥a5 is real and 31.g5?! fxg5 32.¤xe5? does not work anymore because of 32...¤xe5 33.¦xd6 ¥c7 34.¦e6 ¤f3† winning material. 23.¦a7 White tries to prevent Black’s plan by tactical means. In case of the more neutral 23.¦ea1 Black achieves a safe position with 23...¥d8= 23...¥d8 24.bxc5 The logical consequence of the previous move. 24...dxc5 25.¥xc5 £xc5 26.¦xd7 The b8-rook is useful by over-defending the b5-pawn and depriving the enemy rook of the b7-square. In some cases, it enables the bishop’s transfer to b6. These are sufficient reasons to justify refraining from exchanging rooks along the a-file before initiating the thematic regroupment. Black has several ways to obtain very good play. 26...¤e8 26...¥a5 is also strong, when 27.¤e2? loses material to 27...¥b6 28.¤g3 £c8 29.¦e7 £d8µ 27.¥d3 27.£e3? is impossible now because of 27...£c8! 28.¦a7 ¥b6 with a deadly fork. 27...¤ed6
1222222223 4 T V Tl+5 4+ +r+m+o5 4 + M Oo+5 4+oWpO + 5 4 + +p+p+5 4+ Pb+nNp5 4 + Q P +5 4+ + R K 5 7888888889 If anything, I would prefer Black here. The d7rook is vulnerable, while Black's position is very stable. We have now reached the end of an incredibly long journey. I hope that I have managed to prove that the system of development designed by Rubinstein one century ago is perfectly playable and that the oblivion into which it has fallen for more than 3 decades is due only to the
Theory So footnote 155 is not perfect. More accurate would be: 16.¤f1 ¤e8 17.¤f1 ¥d7 transposes to 15…¥d7. 17...g6?! 18.bxc5!? dxc5 19.c4. Line 27 in the book could be replaced with the three following lines: A, B and C. Line A 15…¥d7 16.axb5 axb5 17.bxc5 17.c4 cxb4 18.cxb5 ¤b7 19.¦b1 ¦fc8µ 17...£xc5 18.¦e3 Threatening ¥a3. 18.¥a3 £xc3 19.¦e3 £c7 20.¤xe5 ¥xh3! Kortschnoj. 18...£c7 18...¦e8?! 19.c4!? (19.g4 g6 20.¤f1 ¤b7 21.¤g3 ¦a8 22.¦b1 ¦ec8 23.¤e1 ¤a5 24.¦f3 ¤c4³ Kuzmin-Krogius, Perm 1971.) 19...¤b7 (19...bxc4 20.¦c3 ¥b5 21.¦b1²) 20.cxb5 ¥xb5
(20...¦ec8 21.¥d3±) 21.¦b3² 19.¥a3 19.c4 ¤b7! (19...b4 20.¦b3.) 20.cxb5 ¦fc8 21.¥a4 ¤c5 22.b6 £xb6 23.¥xd7 ¤fxd7 24.¦ea3 £d8!? …...¥g5. 19...¦e8 20.¥b4 ¤b7 21.¤b3 21.¦a7 £b6 22.£a1 ¤c5 eventually followed by ...¤a4. 21...¥f8 21...¤c5 22.¥a5 £c8 23.¤xc5 £xc5 24.¥d3. 22.¦a7 £b6 22...¦a8 23.£a1 £b8 24.¦xa8 £xa8 25.¦e1 (‘a)25...¤h5„. 23.£a1 ¤c5 24.¦e1 24.¤xc5? dxc5 25.¦a6 £b7 26.¦a7 ¦a8! 24...¤a4= Black has neutralized White’s initiative, achieving stability on the queenside, Op den Kelder-Marin, Banyoles 2007.
Mihail Marin
Line B 17.¤f1 ¤e8 18.¥e3 f6 …...¤f7, ...g6, ...¤g7. 19.¤3h2 19.bxc5 dxc5 20.c4 bxc4 21.¥a4 21...¥xa4 22.¦xa4 ¤d6 23.£c2 ¦b4= 24.¤3d2? 24...c3!µ 19...¤f7 20.¤g3 g6 21.£d2 ¤g7 …...f5 22.f4 exf4 23.¥xf4 ¦a8 23...¤e5 24.¦a2 ¦a8 25.¦ea1 ¦xa2 26.¦xa2 ¦b8= 24.bxc5 £xc5† 25.¥e3 £c7 26.¥d4 ¤e5 27.¤hf1 £b7 28.¥b3 ¦xa1 29.¦xa1 ¦a8 30.¦xa8† draw, Berescu-Marin, Romanian championship, Predeal 2006. Line C 18.g4 Controlling f5, but weakening f4. 18...g6 19.¤g3 f6 20.¥e3 ¤f7 21.£d2! 21.¦a3 ¤g7 22.£a1 £c8! (…...f5, ……¥d8-b6.) 23.¦a7 ¥d8!= 24.¦a6 (24.bxc5 dxc5 25.¥xc5 £xc5 26.¦xd7 ¥b6 27.¦f1 £c8 or 26...b4. 24.¦c1 ¥b6 25.¦a6 £c7=) 24...f5!„ (24...cxb4?!
11
25.cxb4 £xc2?! 26.¦c1 £b3 27.¤d2 £xb4 28.¦b1) 25.exf5 gxf5 26.gxf5? (26.bxc5 f4) 26...cxb4! 27.¦a7 (27.cxb4 £xc2 28.¦c1 £b3 …...£d5) 27...bxc3-† Tukmakov-Kan, Tashkent 1974. 21...¤g7 22.¦a2 £c8 22...¦a8 23.¦ea1 ¦xa2 (23...£b7?! 24.¥b3! ¦xa2?! 25.¦xa2 ¦c8? 26.bxc5 dxc5 27.d6! Aagaard-Rowson, British Championships 2007. 24...c4 25.¦a7! 24...¢h8!?) 24.¦xa2 £c8! 25.¦a7 ¥d8 (…...¥b6) 26.bxc5 dxc5 27.¥xc5 £xc5 28.¦xd7 ¤e8 (28...¥a5 29.¤e2 ¤e8 30.£e3!? £xe3 31.fxe3 ¤ed6. …...¥b6, ...¤c4. 32.g5!? ¢g7? 33.¤ed4!! exd4 34.gxf6† ¢xf6 35.e5!†. 32...fxg5! 33.¤xe5 ¤xe5 34.¦xd6 ¤f3† 35.¢h1 ¤e1÷) 29.£e3 £xe3 30.fxe3 ¤ed6. …...¥a5. 31.g5?! fxg5 32.¤xe5? ¤xe5 33.¦xd6 ¥c7 34.¦e6 ¤f3† -†. 23.¦a7 23.¦ea1 ¥d8= 23...¥d8 24.bxc5 dxc5 25.¥xc5 £xc5 26.¦xd7 ¤e8 26...¥a5!? … 27.¤e2? ¥b6 28.¤g3 £c8 29.¦e7 £d8µ 27.¥d3 27.£e3? £c8! 28.¦a7 ¥b6. 27...¤ed6=
12
Spanish Update
12.d5 In the Chigorin variation, instead of the natural developing move 12.¤bd2, the immediate
1222222223 4t+v+ Tl+5 4+ W VoOo5 4o+ O M +5 4MoO O + 5 4 + Pp+ +5 4+ P +n+p5 4pPb+ Pp+5 4RnBqR K 5 7888888889
12.d5 is also possible. This move has become popular in recent years, especially among players who like to avoid the systems based on an early exchange on d4. From our point of view it does not induce any significant differences from the main lines. 12...¥d7 This is the most flexible move. After the hurried 12...c4 White could play 13.b4! ¤b7 (if 13...cxb3 14.axb3 White’s undeveloped knight proves useful, because the c3-pawn is defended) 14.a4 when, compared to the Rubinstein system, White’s queen’s knight could prove useful in attacking the b5-pawn. 13.b3 White intends to attack the b5-pawn with a4 and ¤a3. The immediate 13.a4 would weaken the b3-square, allowing 13...c4! in favourable circumstances. The most consistent continuation is 13.¤bd2, but this would transpose to the second line from the Petrosian system tables. 13...¦ab8!?
Black aims to discourage the planned a4. However, other moves such as 13...¤b7 and 13...¦fe8 are entirely playable, too. 14.¥e3 14.a4?! is not recommendable because of 14... bxa4 with pressure against the b3-square. 14...g6 A move order that limits White’s options more is 14...¤e8 15.¤bd2 g6 16.¥h6 ¤g7. 15.¤bd2 White could have tried 15.¥h6!?, although then Black would play in the spirit of the Petrosian system with 15...¦fe8 16.¤bd2 ¥f8=. 15...¤h5 16.¥h6 ¤g7 17.¤f1 ¤b7 The picture is very familiar for adherents of the Rubinstein system. 18.g4 ¤d8 19.¤g3 f6 20.¤h2 ¤f7 21.¥e3 ¢h8 21...a5!? 22.£d2 22.f4 f5!?„ … ¥h4 22...£c8 22...a5!?
1222222223 4 Tw+ T L5 4+ +vVmMo5 4o+ O Oo+5 4+oOpO + 5 4 + +p+p+5 4+pP B Np5 4p+bQ P N5 4R + R K 5 7888888889
23.f4! exf4 23...f5 24.exf5 gxf5 25.g5! 24.¥xf4 ¤e5= Maze – Marin, Moscow Aeroflot 2005.
Mihail Marin
13
Update to Chapter 8
The Worrall Attack Finally, I will mention a slightly tricky move order, advocated by Tiviakov. After 5.£e2 b5 6.¥b3 ¥e7, White can play 7.c3:
1222222223 4t+vWl+ T5 4+ OoVoOo5 4o+m+ M +5 4+o+ O + 5 4 + +p+ +5 4+bP +n+ 5 4pP PqPpP5 4RnB K +r5 7888888889
In the first edition, I have failed to notice the significant differences induced by this move and have not mentioned at all, assuming that it would simply transpose elsewhere! Fortunately, I got my punishment just in time to become aware of the necessity to examine this variation for the present edition. I suspect that my opponent (Vladimir Baklan, an extremely efficient player with the white pieces) or one of his team mates had noticed my omission. Otherwise I cannot explain why a strong player with a stable opening repertoire chose precisely the Worrall Attack for the first time in his life! Be it as it may, during the game I was not aware of the fact that there was no mention of 7.c3 in the book and played 7...d6 thinking that after 8.d4 ¥g4 we would transpose to the line 7.d4 d6 8.c3 ¥g4. Only when he answered 8.a4, did I remember an important detail, which served me as a guideline
when writing the chapter for the first time, but which I had failed to mention explicitly: Black should not weaken the c6-square before castling, in order to be able to meet a4 with ...b4 without fearing ¥xf7 followed by £c4† or simply £c4 with a double attack.
1222222223 4t+vWl+ T5 4+ O VoOo5 4o+mO M +5 4+o+ O + 5 4p+ +p+ +5 4+bP +n+ 5 4 P PqPpP5 4RnB K +r5 7888888889
Caught by surprise, I did not want to make concessions such as 8...¥d7 or 8...¦b8, which would offer White a more favourable form of the normal line after castling followed by d4. Indeed, the development of the bishop to d7 would allow White spare the move h3, while abandoning the a-file would disable (after the exchange on b5) the typical manoeuvre ...¤a5. Instead, I tried to repair my “mistake” from a position of force with 8...¥g4, but, not being prepared for such a course of events, went down rather painfully. My highest praise and sincere thanks for Vladimir and his accurate play in the decisive part of this rather short game. Without his “help”, the book you are reading would have been incomplete. Further analysis proved that Black’s pawn sacrifice is not entirely unsound, but my feeling is that the variation does not fit in our main
14
Spanish Update
repertoire too well (Remember? We are playing the Chigorin Variation, not the Marshall Attack!) Immediately after resigning, I put all the blame on the careless advance of the d-pawn and decided that 7...0–0 would have avoided troubles. This simplistic attitude certainly served me well for avoiding a sleepless night and being fit for the last and decisive round. Later, however, I understood that things are not that simple and that additional work has to be done. After 8.d4 d6 White is not really forced to transpose to the previously investigated lines by castling, but can consider consolidating his centre with either 9.¤bd2 or 9.h3.
1222222223 4t+vW Tl+5 4+ O VoOo5 4o+mO M +5 4+o+ O + 5 4 + Pp+ +5 4+bP +n+ 5 4pP +qPpP5 4RnB K +r5 7888888889
Personally, I am not too worried by 9.¤bd2 After 9...exd4 (This slight deviation from the Yatessystem plan is better than the immediate 9...¥g4, which can be answered with 10.h3) 10.cxd4 ¥g4 the early (premature!?) development of the queen makes itself felt. The threat 11...¤xd4 forces the white Lady move again, on a rather unnatural position with 11.£e3 Although there is no immediate danger for White, he will face problems completing his queenside development, allowing Black generate adequate counterplay against the mighty central pawns. In practice, Black has tried 11...d5 12.e5 ¤e4 mainly, but I fear that closing the centre would offer White the possibility to get his forces coordinated. I prefer the plan suggested against the ¥e3 line in the Yates system, namely 11...¤a5 12.¥c2 c5
White’s more consistent continuation is 9.h3
1222222223 4t+vW Tl+5 4+ O VoOo5 4o+mO M +5 4+o+ O + 5 4 + Pp+ +5 4+bP +n+p5 4pP +qPp+5 4RnB K +r5 7888888889
The main difference compared to the line with an early white castle is that White has occupied the centre and secured his domination in this area before Black carried out the Chigorin manoeuvre ...¤a5 and ...c5. This will make it more difficult for Black to get active counterplay and certainly poses us concrete problems maintaining the coherence of our entire repertoire against the Ruy Lopez. Later, White will place his rook on d1, creating an unpleasant pin along the d-file and eventually play a4, when the queen’s presence on e2 would prove useful. In practice, Black has been relatively successful with 9...¥b7 10.0–0 £e8 eventually followed by ...¥d8 and ...¤b8-d7. While this hardly has anything in common with the Chigorin system, I am also slightly suspicious about the objective merits of such a way of regrouping. With the rook captive on f8 and the d8-bishop obstructing the communication between Black’s major pieces, it certainly looks like a worse version of the Breyer system. Finally, It does not look like a serious reason why not to play the Worral... When searching for the optimal plan for Black, I have focused on two main goals: to make the queen feel uncomfortable on e2 and create some similarity with the Rubinstein or the Petrosian system. In order to enable the knight jump ...¤a5 followed by ...c5, Black obviously needs to overprotect the e5-pawn. The most natural way to do it is 9...¦e8 10.0–0 10.¤g5 is not dangerous. After the calm 10...¦f8 the early departure of the queen from
Mihail Marin
d1 makes itself felt, by leaving the d4-pawn insufficiently defended. In order to avoid an unfavourable release of the tension in the centre, White has nothing better than return with the knight to f3, when Black can insist with ...¦e8. 11.¥e3 is dangerous because of 11...d5! when White’s minor pieces are slightly hanging. Besides, Black can try the more adventurous 10...d5, implying material sacrifices for the sake of preventing the enemy king from castling. 10...¥f8
1222222223 4t+vWtVl+5 4+ O +oOo5 4o+mO M +5 4+o+ O + 5 4 + Pp+ +5 4+bP +n+p5 4pP +qPp+5 4RnB +rK 5 7888888889
By regrouping in the spirit of the Zaitsev and the Smyslov systems, Black has immediately put the e4-pawn under pressure. Curiously, this plan has been played very rarely. When confronted with this variation, practically all the top players stuck to systems of development that made part of their main repertoire against 5.0–0 followed by 6.¦e1 and which do not necessarily work out equally well here. It is possible that they were caught by surprize by the move order based on 6.c3 and just looked for an over-the-board emergency exit. If this is the truth, I can understand them perfectly well. Even in the peace of my working place, I needed quite some time to find a solution. I even tried to imagine the situation in which, preparing for an opponent who frequently plays 5.£e2 followed by 6.c3, I had spotted my omission in time. Would I have been able to find my way out under the pressure of time? Probably not; I might have simply switched to the Pirc, which would have been a good practical decision as a tournament player, but basically a desertion
15
as an author. See the similar situation described in the Evans chapter. Anyway, the lack of practical examples in this line gives this part of the chapter a somewhat vague character. However, I believe that any player mastering the first chapters of the book and my recommendations from the current position will have no problems defending Black’s point of view. Let us consider White’s main continuations. 11.d5 is hardly a solution now. After 11...¤a5 12.¥b3 c6, Black gets a very favourable form of the Yates system with 10.d5. Instead of losing two tempi with the queen’s bishop (...¥g4 and ...¥c8) he has played two useful moves (...¥f8 and ...¦e8), which make part of his main plan anyway! The fact that £e2 had been played instead of ¦e1 hardly favours White. 11.¤g5 continues to be inoffensive. Black answers 11...¦e7, maintaining the pressure against White’s centre and leaving the knight misplaced on g5. 11.¥g5 has been played, but White’s initiative has only temporary character after 11...h6 12.¥xf6 £xf6 13.¥d5 ¥d7. The most natural continuation is 11.¤bd2 when nothing can stop Black to play 11...¤a5 12.¥c2 c5:
1222222223 4t+vWtVl+5 4+ + +oOo5 4o+ O M +5 4MoO O + 5 4 + Pp+ +5 4+ P +n+p5 4pPbNqPp+5 4R B +rK 5 7888888889
Here it is, an almost typical Chigorin position! Having played ...¦e8 and ...¥f8 prevents Black from employing Rubinstein’s regrouping already. However, these moves are useful from the point of view of the Petrosian system. Besides, the presence of the white queen on e2 and Her
16
Spanish Update
Majesty’s opposition with the black rook will force White release the tension in the centre earlier than generally desirable. Just take into account that Black has not made any committal move yet (such as ...¤c6) and neither d5 nor dxc5 offer White any concrete advantage. In the Chigorin variation, the black queen’s development on c7 was a concrete necessity at a concrete moment, but not really a great achievement for Black. Therefore, maintaining other options for this mighty piece in the diagrammed position offers Black greater flexibility. Finally, White has 11.a4:
1222222223 4t+vWtVl+5 4+ O +oOo5 4o+mO M +5 4+o+ O + 5 4p+ Pp+ +5 4+bP +n+p5 4 P +qPp+5 4RnB +rK 5 7888888889
This move caused Black some trouble in the few games where it was played. White indirectly defends the e4-pawn, because 11.exd4?! can be strongly answered with the intermediate move 12.axb5!
The most flexible continuation is 11...¥d7, indirectly defending the b5-pawn and maintaining the same threats and ideas as before. After 12.¤bd2 ¤a5 13.¥c2 c5 14.¦d1 £c7 we can notice that the advance of the a-pawn is anything but one-sided.
1222222223 4t+ +tVl+5 4+ Wv+oOo5 4o+ O M +5 4MoO O + 5 4p+ Pp+ +5 4+ P +n+p5 4 PbNqPp+5 4R Br+ K 5 7888888889
15.¤f1 can be met with 15...exd4 16.cxd4 bxa4!, while the opening of the a-file with 15.axb5 axb5 before playing 16.¤f1 allows the simplifications 16...¤b3! 17.¦xa8 ¤xc1 18.¦xc1 ¦xa8. In order to avoid repeating what I have said so many times already, I will just offer you a quiz: which is the drawback in White’s position that enabled this favourable for Black tactical operation? I will preserve the conclusion from the first edition (below), adding only that 6.c3 should not allowed to be an over the board surprise, as I had the occasion to learn on my own...
Theory Line A 7.c3 d6 8.a4 ¥g4 9.axb5 9.h3 ¤a5 10.¥xf7†?! (10.¥c2 ¥xf3 11.£xf3 leaves White a tempo down if compared with the lines from chapter 10 - the a4-system.) 10...¢xf7 11.hxg4 ¤b3 12.axb5 ¤xa1 13.g5 White’s attack is less dangerous than it looks at first sight. he is a whole rook down and is rather poorly developed. 13...¤g4!? 14.£c4† (14.¤h4 ¥xg5 15.£xg4 ¥xh4 16.¦xh4 ¤b3–†) 14...¢f8! 15.bxa6
(15.g6 £e8! 16.¦xh7 ¦g8–†) 15...¤c2† (‹15...¥xg5 16.£a4÷) 16.¢e2 (16.¢f1 £c8–†) 16...d5 17.exd5 £c8µ 9...axb5 10.¦xa8 £xa8 11.£xb5 0–0 12.£e2! 12.0–0 would transpose to a famous game that I had known for more than 30 years. 12...¤a7! (12...¤xe4? 13.¥d5 Keres; 12...¦b8 13.£a4 Keres; 12...¤a5 13.¥c2 ¤xe4 14.¤xe5!± BookCHO’D Alexander, Margate 1938.) 13.£e2 (13.£a5 £xe4 14.£xa7 ¥xf3 15.gxf3 £g6† 16.¢h1 £xb1 17.£xc7 £d3© Black’s initiative
Mihail Marin
should reach for at least perpetual check.) 13...£xe4 14.£xe4 ¤xe4 15.d4 (15.¥d1 c5 Keres) 15...¥xf3 16.gxf3 ¤g5 17.¢g2 (17.¥xg5 ¥xg5µ Keres) 17...¦b8 18.¥c4 exd4 19.cxd4 ¤e6 20.d5 (20.¥xe6 fxe6µ Keres; 20.¦e1 ¥f6 21.¥xe6 fxe6 22.¦xe6 ¥xd4³ Keres) 20...¤c5³ Fine-Keres, AVRO 1938. 12...¦b8 12...¤h5?! 13.d3 £a1?! 14.0–0! (14.¥c2 ¤f4 15.¥xf4 exf4 16.b4 ¤e5) 14...¦b8 15.¥d5 ¤d8 16.¤a3± Baklan-Marin, Romanian team championship, 2007. 13.¥c2 ¤h5 14.0–0 Paradoxically, this brave move seems to be White’s best chance for an advantage. 14.d3 ¤f4 15.¥xf4 exf4 16.b4 £a2 followed by ...¤e5 or immediately 16...¤e5, with initiative for the pawn. 14.g3 This move prevents the knight jump, but leaves White with problems getting rid of the unpleasant pin and get castled at the same time. 14...£a2 15.h3 (15.0–0 ¤a5 will more or less force White give up his light-squared bishop for the knight after 16.d3 ¤b3, when the kingside weaknesses would become more relevant. Or 16.d4 ¤c4 and the queenside is in danger.) 15...¥d7 16.¢f1 (16.d4 exd4 17.cxd4 ¤b4÷) 16...¤a5© 14...¤f4 14...¥g5!? 15.g3 ¥h6 is an interesting alternative, leaving White with problems completing his development. 15.£e3 ¤a5 16.d3 f5!? 17.b4 17.¤bd2 ¥g5! …18.¤xg5? ¤e2† 19.¢h1 f4. 17...fxe4 18.£xe4 £xe4 19.dxe4 ¤e2† 20.¢h1 ¤xc1 21.¦xc1 ¥xf3 22.gxf3 22.bxa5 ¥e2 23.¤d2 ¥g5 24.¦b1 ¦a8 25.¤b3 c5© 22...¤c6 White has managed to keep his extra-pawn, but his structure is far from perfect. Besides, the presence of opposite coloured bishops and the fact that Black will occupy the only open file increases the probability of a draw dramatically. For instance 23.¤a3 ¢f8 24.¤c4 ¦a8 25.¥b3 ¥g5 26.¤e3 ¤e7© and Black should not lose.
17
Line B 7...0–0 8.d4 d6 9.¤bd2 exd4 10.cxd4 10.¤xd4 ¤xd4 11.cxd4 c5 12.dxc5 dxc5 13.0–0 c4³ 10...¥g4 11.£e3 11.£d3 ¤b4 12.£c3 c5 13.0–0 ¥xf3³ 11...¤a5 11...d5 12.e5 ¤e4 13.0–0 (13.¤xe4 dxe4 14.£xe4 ¥xf3 15.gxf3 ¤xd4 16.¥d5 ¤c2†µ) 13...¥f5 14.¥c2 (Later, Tiviakov switched to 14.¦d1 £d7 15.¤f1 ¤a5 16.¥c2 ¤c4 17.£e2 f6 18.¤e3. Now, in the game Tiviakov-Ibragimov, Elista 1997, Black should have played 18...¤xe3!? 19.¥xe3 ¥g4 20.£d3 £e6÷ with an entirely acceptable position.) 14...¤xd2 15.£xd2 ¥e4 16.¦d1 £d7 (16...¤b4 17.¥b1 c5!? Beliavsky) 17.£e2 f5 (17...£g4! 18.h3 £g6³ Beliavsky) 18.¤e1 ½–½ Tiviakov-Beliavsky, Cacak 1996. 18...¥xc2 (18...¤d8? 19.¥b3!± …f3 19...f4? 20.£xe4!†-) 19.£xc2 ¤d8 20.¤d3 ¤e6 21.¤f4 ¦ac8„ …...c5, …...¤xf4, g5. 12.¥c2 12.0–0 should also be answered with 12... c5, when the bishop would have to retreat later anyway. 12...c5 13.0–0 13.d5 ¦e8 14.0–0 ¥f8 (…...¤xd5.) 15.£f4 g6 16.h3 ¥xf3 17.£xf3 This queen has moved quite a lot. It would be illogical to claim an advantage for White. 17...¥g7 18.¦b1 ¦c8= 19.b3 c4!„ 20.b4? c3!³ 13.dxc5 dxc5 14.0–0 (14.e5? ¤d5 15.£e4 f5 16.exf6 ¤xf6µ or 15.¥xh7!?† ¢h8!µ leave White’s pieces hanging.) 14...¥h5 (Anticipating e5 by enabling ...¥g6 as an answer to a later £e4.) 15.b3 ¤c6 16.¥b2 ¤b4 17.¥b1 ¦e8= White has an advantage of space in the centre, but his development is far from harmonious. 13...¦c8 If given a choice, I would prefer maintaining the tension for as long as possible. However, 13...cxd4 is playable, too. 14.¤xd4 ¦c8 15.h3 ¥d7 16.¦d1 ¦e8 17.¤2f3 ¥f8 18.b3 g6 (18...h6 as played in Calzetta-Kachiani, Crete 2007, is pointless, because, contrary to what both ladies seem to have thought, it does not prevent 19.¥b2. Indeed, after 19...¤xe4 20.¥xe4 d5 the
18
Spanish Update
intermediate capture on h7 is not possible any more, but 21.¤e5! leaves Black with problems retrieving the sacrificed material in favourable way.) 19.¥b2 ¥g7 20.£f4 £e7 21.¦e1 ¤c6=. Black’s excellent development, the passive and vulnerable placement of the c2-bishop as well as the pressure against the e4-pawn should compensate for the weakness of the d6-pawn. 14.h3 14.dxc5 ¦xc5! 15.¤d4 £c7 with active play for Black. 14.d5 ¦e8 is likely to transpose to 13.d5. 14.¦e1 does not cross Black’s intentions after 14...¦e8. 14...¥xf3 15.¤xf3 cxd4 16.¤xd4 ¦e8 17.¦e1 ¤d7 18.£d3 ¥f6= This picture is familiar to us from the chapter dedicated to the d3-system. Black’s better development compensates for the small structural defect. 19.e5?! is not dangerous because of 19...¤f8! Line C 9.h3 ¦e8 10.0–0 10.¤g5 ¦f8 (10...d5!? 11.exd5 ¤xd4 12.cxd4 ¥b4† 13.¢d1 exd4© …...h6, ...¤xd5.) 11.a4 (11.¥e3 d5 12.exd5 ¤xd5ƒ; 11.¤f3=) 11...¥d7= 10...¥f8 11.¥g5?! 11.¤g5 ¦e7 12.a4 (12.d5 ¤a5 13.¥c2 c6„) 12...¥d7 13.d5 (13.axb5 axb5 14.¦xa8 £xa8 15.d5 ¤a5 16.¥a2 c6 17.¤a3 cxd5 18.exd5 e4 19.¤xb5 £a6 20.c4 h6µ) 13...¤a5 14.¥c2 c6„ 11.d5?! ¤a5 12.¥c2 c6„ 11.dxe5?! ¤xe5! 12.¤xe5 ¦xe5 13.f3 d5³ White’s delay in development leaves him struggling, Varavin-Kuzmin, Sudak 2002. 11...h6 12.¥xf6 £xf6 13.¥d5 ¥d7 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.a4 ¦ad8! The point behind this centralizing move will be revealed later. The mechanical (and unnecessary) defence of the b5-pawn leaves White with some initiative. 15...¦ab8 16.axb5 axb5 17.¦a6 ¥c5 (17...¤d4?! does not work now because of 18.¥xf7†! £xf7
19.cxd4 exd4 20.¤xd4, for instance 20...c5 21.¤c2 b4 22.¦a5² and Black does not seem to have sufficient compensation.) 18.¤a3 ¥xa3 19.bxa3² Davies-Pavlovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1988. 16.axb5 axb5 17.¤a3 17.¦a6?! ¤d4! 18.¥xf7† £xf7 19.cxd4 exd4µ Here is the difference! The d4-pawn is taboo now. 20.¤xd4? ¥c8!–† 17.£xb5 ¤e7 18.£e2 (White needs to prevent ...¥xh3 by defending the knight.) 18...¤xd5 19.exd5 e4 20.¤d4 £g5³ 17...¤e7 18.¥b3 ¤g6³ Black has the pair of bishops and a very harmonious placement of pieces. Line D 11.¤bd2 ¤a5 12.¥c2 c5 13.¦d1 13.¦e1 puts less pressure on Black and allows him develop in the spirit of the Petrosian system without moving the queen at all. 13...¥d7 14.¤f1 ¤c4 15.¤g3 g6= 13.b4?! leaves White’s centre hanging after 13... cxb4 14.cxb4 ¤c6³ 13...£e7 The most direct way to force White take a decision in the centre. 13...£c7 is also playable, but White can sacrifice a pawn in order to maintain the tension. 14.¤f1!? exd4 (14...g6?! 15.¥g5! ¥g7 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.¥xf6 ¥xf6 18.¤e3 ¥b7 19.a4²) 15.cxd4 ¥b7 16.¤g3 ¤xe4 17.¥xe4 (17.¤xe4 d5 18.¤f6† gxf6 19.£d3 ¦e4 20.dxc5 ¥xc5 21.£f1©) 17...¥xe4 18.¤xe4 d5 19.¤f6† gxf6 20.£d3 c4 21.£f5© 13...¥d7 14.¤f1 ¤c4 looks entirely playable as well. 14.d5 14.dxc5 dxc5 15.¤f1 ¤c4 16.¤g3 g6 17.b3 ¤d6 18.¥e3 c4 19.¥c5 £c7 20.b4 a5=; 14.a4 ¥d7= transposes to 11.a4. 14...¤h5! 15.¤f1 g6 16.¥g5 16.a4 leaves the b3-square after 16…c4. 16...£c7= Black intends to regroup with ...¥g7, ...¥d7, eventually ...¤c4. At the right moment, the h5knight would jump to f4, even if this would mean sacrificing a pawn for activating his g7-bishop.
Mihail Marin
Line E 11.a4 ¥d7 11...¦b8?! 12.axb5 axb5 13.¤g5 d5 (Black is forced to open the centre because 13...¦e7? 14.d5! leaves the knight trapped. We can see here the drawbacks of leaving White with the control of the a-file.) 14.¤xf7! In the style of Morphy! 14...¢xf7 15.exd5 exd4 16.dxc6† ¥e6 17.¥xe6† ¦xe6 18.£f3 £d5 19.£xd5 ¤xd5 20.cxd4 ¦xc6 21.¤d2 ¦c2 22.¤f3² Vitiugov-Pokazanjev, Nojabrsk 2005. 11...exd4?! 12.axb5! ¦xe4 13.¥xf7†!± VitiugovYamilov, St Petersburg 1999. 12.¤bd2 12.d5 ¤e7 (12...¤a5 13.¥c2 c6„) 13.c4 c6 (13...¤g6 14.axb5 axb5 15.¦xa8 £xa8 16.cxb5 ¤h5 17.¤c3 ¤gf4 18.¥xf4?! White should have refrained from this exchange, in order to leave Black with the chronic problem of finding a job for the superfluous knight. 18...¤xf4 19.£e3 g6 20.¢h2 ¥h6 21.¤g1 ¢g7 22.£f3 f5© Smirnov-Tarlev, Alushta 2004.) 14.¥g5 (14. axb5 axb5 15.¦xa8 £xa8 16.¥g5 bxc4 17.¥xc4 cxd5 18.exd5 ¤exd5µ) 14...bxc4 15.¥xc4 cxd5 16.exd5 ¤g6 17.¤c3 (17.¥xa6?! h6 18.¥xf6
19
£xf6ƒ) 17...h6 18.¥xf6 £xf6= 19.¥xa6? ¤f4 20.£c4 ¥xh3–† 12...¤a5 13.¥c2 c5 14.¦d1 Here, too 14.b4 is premature because of 14... cxb4 15.cxb4 ¤c6³ 14...£e7 This line is important for the move order starting with 11.¤bd2. However, in this concrete position, 14...£c7 is an important alternative. 15.d5 (15.axb5 axb5 16.¤f1 ¤b3 17.¦xa8 ¤xc1 18.¦xc1 ¦xa8³; 15.¤f1 exd4 16.cxd4 bxa4³) 15...¤h5 16.¤f1 g6= 15.¤f1 15.dxc5 dxc5 16.¤f1 ¥c6 17.¤g3 g6= 15...exd4 16.cxd4 ¤xe4 It appears that Black can embark this line without fearing the pressure along the a-file. 17.axb5 axb5 18.£xe4 £xe4 19.¥xe4 ¦xe4 20.¤g3 20.¥d2 b4! 20.dxc5 ¦a4 21.¦xa4 bxa4 22.cxd6 ¤c4= 20...¦ee8 21.dxc5 ¤b3 22.¦xa8 ¦xa8 23.¥e3 ¦a1!= The tension will be released completely and, having the pair of bishops, Black is not worse.
20
Spanish Update
Update to Chapter 5
The Yates Variation 10.d5 Just a couple of weeks after the first edition of the book was published, I had the occasion to convince myself about the truth contained by the final part of my conclusion.
Jakovenko – Marin Torrelavega 2007
Recently, I analyzed in depth for the Spanish magazine Jaque a couple of Jakovenko’s games from the Poikovsky tournament and I must say that I remained quite impressed. Among others, his treatment of the Classical Najdorf (with white) is very effective. Given the aforementioned structural similarity between the Yates Spanish and the Classical Najdorf, one could not dream about a better suited opponent to test his Spanish repertoire against.
1222222223 4t+v+ Tl+5 4+ + VoOo5 4o+wO M +5 4+o+ O + 5 4 +m+p+ +5 4+ P +n+p5 4pPb+ Pp+5 4R BqRnK 5 7888888889
In the diagrammed position, Jakovenko played 16.a4 Lately, I experience problems with my memory, but during the game I remembered quite clearly
that my main line went 16.¤g3 ¦e8 17.a4 ¥e6 and hoped that his move would just lead to transposition. 16...¥e6
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4+ + VoOo5 4o+wOvM +5 4+o+ O + 5 4p+m+p+ +5 4+ P +n+p5 4 Pb+ Pp+5 4R BqRnK 5 7888888889
17.¤g5!? ¥d7 18.b3 ¤a5 Retreating with the knight to the more natural b6-square with 18...¤b6 would actually leave it slightly misplaced after 19.a5 ¤c8. 19.¥d2
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4+ +vVoOo5 4o+wO M +5 4Mo+ O N 5 4p+ +p+ +5 4+pP + +p5 4 +bB Pp+5 4R +qRnK 5 7888888889
Mihail Marin
I was convinced that I had never seen this position before. Therefore, I was surprised to find out that I had analyzed it in the book, although it is given as a sideline. 19...¦fc8 Actually, only this is the new move and it seems more logical than 19...£c7, as given by me on the basis of a game Nijboer-Adams, Wijk aan Zee 1992. It is true that the queen retreat creates the threat ...bxa4, practically forcing White to release the tension with 20.axb5, but after 20... axb5 21.¤e3 ¦fc8 22.¦a2 Black had to adjust the position of the queen with 22...£b7, which causes a loss of time. The conclusion of my analysis was that after 23.¤d5 ¥d8 the position is balanced anyway. 20.¤e3 I was not familiar with the plan involving the knight jump to e3, but I intuitively felt which structure my opponent was aiming for. In the Najdorf game from my aforementioned article for Jaque, Jakovenko played a relatively early ¤d5 and soon obtained an overwhelming advantage on the queenside. 20...h6 But probably this move is not the best. I wanted to return with my bishop to f5 in order to question the viability of the knight’s placement on e3 in view of the vulnerability of the e4-pawn. It would have probably been better to refrain from weakening the kingside and play 20...£b7, for instance 21.axb5 axb5 22.¤d5 ¥d8 with an extra-tempo compared to the book-variation. 21.¤f3 In case of 21.¤d5 ¤xd5 22.exd5 Black can avoid needless complications with 22...£c7. 21...¥e6 Starting with this moment I gradually understood that White’s plan has consistence both strategically and tactically. For the time being, this feeling had rather vague contours. It is easy to see that 21...¤xe4? does not work because of 22.axb5 axb5 23.¤d5! £xd5 24.¥xe4 followed by ¥xa8 and b4 winning lots of material. 22.¤h4!
21
1222222223 4t+t+ +l+5 4+ + VoO 5 4o+wOvM O5 4Mo+ O + 5 4p+ +p+ N5 4+pP N +p5 4 +bB Pp+5 4R +qR K 5 7888888889
But now the feeling became more distinct. I expected that the other knight would occupy the f5-square, but after 22.¤f5 ¥f8 the f3-knight would remain passive. The attempt to activate it with 23.¤h2 (planning ¤g4) would release the pressure against the centre for just a moment, allowing Black obtain strong counterplay with 23...b4 24.c4 ¥xf5 25.exf5 d5! Jakovenko’s plan is more consistent: he intends to occupy both critical squares (d5 and f5) with his knights. 22...¥f8 Once again, he had worked out the tactical nuances rather well. After a long thought I decided that 22...¤xe4 was not advisable because of 23.axb5! (The point behind this exchange will become clear at the end of the variation.) 23...axb5 24.¥xe4 (24.¤ef5 is not dangerous because of 24...¥xh4! for instance 25.¥xe4 d5 26.£g4 ¥f6 27.¥c2 e4, when the possibility of capturing on h6 with check does not compensate White for Black’s advantage of space.) 24...£xe4 25.¤ef5 Here, I mainly checked the queen sacrifice 25...¥xf5 (Objectively, 25...£b7 is better, but after 26.£g4 White’s pressure is unpleasant. Here is a sample line: 26...¥g5 27.¥xg5 hxg5 28.£xg5 f6 29.£g6 Strategically, Black seems to have a good position, but he cannot free his kingside easily. One of the main problems is that ...£f7? is impossible because of ¤h6†. 29...£d7 30.¦e3 ¤xb3 31.¦d1 and Black’s position will collapse soon.) 26.¦xe4 ¥xe4 27.£g4 and Black’s pieces are hanging.; I was not too attracted by 22...g6 because of 23.¤hf5! gxf5 (23...¥f8 transposes to a position from the
22
Spanish Update
next note.) 24.exf5 ¥d7 25.¤g4 with dangerous attack. 23.¤hf5 £b6!? The idea of this slightly mysterious move is to consolidate the king side with ...£d8 in case of emergency. It took less time than on the previous move to establish that 23...¤xe4? was out of question. After 24.£g4 ¤xd2? (24...¤f6 is better, but after 25.¤xh6† ¢h8 26.£h4 White has a promising attacking position without the necessity of making major material investments.) 25.¤xh6† ¢h8 26.¤xf7† ¢g8 (26...¥xf7 27.£h4† leads to mate, too.) 27.£h5! and Black is lost. The immediate threat is ¥h7# and the knight is taboo because of £h7#. After 27...e4 28.¤g5 there is no defence either, partly because the reserve knight is useful on e3 by preventing 28...¥f5. By this time I started experiencing some problems with the time. Therefore, I discarded 23...g6 on general ground: the kingside position is weakened too much. I believe that my evaluation was correct. Here is a sample line 24.¤d5!? (Actually, the threat ...gxf5 is not real, which means that White could make a strengthening move still. For instance, 24.£f3 and if 24...gxf5 then 25.¤xf5 or 25.£g3† followed by 26.exf5.) 24...¤xd5 25.exd5 ¥xd5 26.¤xh6† ¥xh6 27.¥xh6 ¥xg2 Both sides have managed to considerably weaken the square placed right in front of the enemy king, but whose attack will be faster and more efficient? 28.£g4! I believe that it is easy to guess the answer already. 28...¥f3 29.£h4 With the brutal threat £f6. 29...e4 (29...£xc3?, with the intention of meeting 30.£f6 with 30...e4 is refuted by 30.¥e4! ¥xe4 31.£f6 with mate to follow.) 30.¥g5 f5 31.¥f6 ¥h5 32.¥d1. White was a winning attack on dark squares. 24.¤d5 A new surprise. I expected 24.£f3, against which I had designed 24...£d8 anyway. 24...£d8 I was about to play 24...¤xd5, when, just as if prompted from above, I noticed the deadly intermediate move 25.¤xh6†!! (I would not have mind the position arising after 25.exd5 ¥xf5 26.¥xf5 ¦e8, but certainly would have
refrained from 25...¥xd5 because of 26.¤xh6! gxh6 27.£g4† followed by £f5.) After 25...gxh6 26.exd5 Black’s position is not defensible, for instance 26...¥d7 (26...¥xd5 would transpose above.) 27.£h5. I still tried to find a defence here with 27...£d8 28.¥xh6 £f6 but when I saw 29.¥h7†! I dropped the whole thing. 25.£f3
1222222223 4t+tW Vl+5 4+ + +oO 5 4o+ OvM O5 4Mo+nOn+ 5 4p+ +p+ +5 4+pP +q+p5 4 +bB Pp+5 4R + R K 5 7888888889
Another unexpected move. I was aware that I had not guessed too many of my opponent's moves after the opening and started feeling that we were playing different games in fact. While he was thinking, I mainly investigated the consequences of 25.c4 and drew the conclusion that 25...¤b7 would be OK for Black. In fact, Jakovenko’s move is very logical. By creating the threat ¤xh6†, he forces Black release the tension, when his favourite Najdorf structure would suddenly arise on board. It is remarkable that, even knowing his positional tastes, I failed to predict concrete moves. Sometimes, it is not easy to put up together all the information one knows under the pressure of time. 25...¤xd5 26.exd5 Now, 26.¤xh6† gxh6 27.exd5 ¥d7 28.£h5 would be less dangerous because of 28...f5 and the queen is close enough to prevent the disaster. 26...¥xf5 27.£xf5 In case of 27.¥xf5 I would have played 27...¤xb3! instantly, without checking whether Black “loses” an exchange or not. The strategic gain on the queenside would have obviously offered good compensation. 27...g6 28.£g4
Mihail Marin
1222222223 4t+tW Vl+5 4+ + +o+ 5 4o+ O +oO5 4Mo+pO + 5 4p+ + +q+5 4+pP + +p5 4 +bB Pp+5 4R + R K 5 7888888889
Up to this moment, I considered that I had managed to keep things under control in satisfactory way. Black has a strong kingside majority and should count on a long term advantage on this wing, although for the moment it is not easy to advance the pawns. I was hesitating between such neutral moves as 28...h5 and 28...¥g7, when, suddenly, I understood my opponent’s idea: axb5 followed by £b4, when the black queenside would be in big danger. It did not take too much time to understand that such an evolution would offer few hopes for successful defence and I became very impressed about my opponent’s anterior play. Now that the over-the-board emotions have long calmed down, I can express the psychological situation more clearly. It is my firm belief that 9.d4 is slightly premature objectively speaking. The same applies to 10.d5. This does not mean that Black is better after any of these moves, but he should be entitled to count on reaching a viable position with more ease than in the main lines based on 9.h3 followed by 10.d4 or 11.d4. At the same time, the strategic and tactical complexity of the position in the range between the 20th and 25th moves clearly reminded me of Karpov’s brilliant games in the classical variations of the Ruy Lopez. Obviously, there was a point of discontinuity in my whole thinking process. When, later that same day, I complained about this to my team mates, Jacob Aagaard gave me a very wise consolation: “The Ruy Lopez Opening is enormously complicated, and so is chess.” Indeed, sometimes it is not easy to find the absolute truth during the game. The comments
23
you are reading are fruit of additional analytical work, but they only justify White’s strategy and fail to spot Black’s “mistake” yet. Where did he allow White undeserved chances to complicate the fight from what should be relatively easy to handle position? Even if some improvement will be found in the range from the 19th to the 20th moves, Black should still be unsatisfied: this is way too complex. I felt that I will either have to find a relatively early deviation for Black or convince myself of the truth that 9.d4 followed by 10.d5 can be equally complex as 9.h3. After all, it is never too late to learn something new… While preparing the updates for the second edition, I finally found what seems to be an adequate answer (see below). For the moment, I will only add that, with less than 10 minutes left to reach the 40th move, I decided to leave the abstract questions for later and looked for a concrete solution to my immediate problems.
1222222223 4t+tW Vl+5 4+ + +o+ 5 4o+ O +oO5 4Mo+pO + 5 4p+ + +q+5 4+pP + +p5 4 +bB Pp+5 4R + R K 5 7888888889
28...b4!?! The best practical decision and the only way to ensure the knight stability. 29.£xb4 ¦ab8 30.£a3 This is the position I had aimed for when sacrificing the pawn. White’s queen has been forced to temporarily occupy a passive position and the queenside majority is anything but easy to advance. In the meanwhile, Black can freely strengthen his position on the other wing. Objectively speaking, his compensation should not be 100% sufficient, but White is confronted with unexpected practical problems. The position remains equally complicated as before, but the
24
Spanish Update
typical ideas were probably not within the range of Jakovenko’s best knowledge, which eventually led him to a (somewhat undeserved) defeat. Let us return to the position after White’s 19th move.
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4+ +vVoOo5 4o+wO M +5 4Mo+ O N 5 4p+ +p+ +5 4+pP + +p5 4 +bB Pp+5 4R +qRnK 5 7888888889
Both 19...£c7 (Adams) and 19...¦fc8 (Marin) reveal Black’s desire (or impatience) to put pressure on White’s position or to undertake concrete action. The game against Jakovenko made me look at the position with different eyes. White’s plan to install his knights on d5 and f5 is most disturbing and, if possible, should be prevented by any means. This is how the prophylactic move 19...¦fe8! came to my mind. With the bishop well defended, 20.¤e3 loses a pawn, possibly with some compensation for White, but not more than that. 20.¤g3 h6 21.¤f3 ¥e6 transposes to the main line. After 20.c4 ¤b7 21.cxb5 axb5 22.a5 Black should cut the a5-pawn off his colleague with 22... b4! for instance 23.¥xb4 h6 24.¤f3 ¥d8 25.£d2. Not really defending the a5-pawn, because the c2-bishop is hanging. 25...¥xa5! 26.¥xa5 ¦xa5 27.¦xa5 ¤xa5. The position is dynamically balanced and could eventually simplify to a draw. Here is a possible continuation: 28.¤e3 £b6 29.b4 ¤c6 30.£xd6 £xb4= 20...h6 21.¤f3 This is a first moment when the rook proves useful on e8. The intermediate 21.¤d5 is not dangerous at all.
1222222223 4t+ +t+l+5 4+ +vVoO 5 4o+wO M O5 4Mo+ O + 5 4p+ +p+ +5 4+pP Nn+p5 4 +bB Pp+5 4R +qR K 5 7888888889
21...¤xe4! As we shall see, this move is entirely possible now. 22.axb5 The tempting 22.¥xe4 £xe4 23.¤c4 fails to 23...£g6! 24.¤xa5 ¥xh3 25.g3 ¥g4µ followed by ...e4. 22.c4 ¤xd2 23.¤xd2 offers White nice control on light squares, but Black’s compact structure ensures him against troubles after, say 23...£b6 24.¤d5 £d8. The same applies after 22.b4 ¤xd2 23.¤xd2 ¤c4 24.¤dxc4 bxc4 25.¤d5 f5. 22...axb5 23.¤d5 We can see the difference now: Black has time for the intermediate 23...¤xd2 when after 24.¤xe7† ¦xe7 25.£xd2 ¦a6 26.¦a3 ¤b7 Black’s temporary lack of coordination should enable White to maintain equality, but not more than that. For instance, 27.¥e4 £b6 28.¦xa6 £xa6 29.¥xb7 £xb7 30.£xd6 ¦e6 followed by ...¥c6, ...f6 or the more daring ...¦g6, according to White’s answer. I believe that we have enough elements to stick to the conclusion from the previous edition…
Mihail Marin
25
Theory Line A 19...¦fc8 20.¤e3 h6 20...£b7!? 21.axb5 axb5 22.¤d5 ¥d8 with an extra-tempo compared to the line 19...£c7. 21.¤f3 21.¤d5 ¤xd5 22.exd5 £c7!?= 21...¥e6 21...¤xe4? 22.axb5 axb5 23.¤d5! £xd5 24.¥xe4 followed by ¥xa8 and b4 winning lots of material. 22.¤h4! 22.¤f5 ¥f8 23.¤h2 (… ¤g4) 23...b4 24.c4 ¥xf5 25.exf5 d5!„ 22...¥f8 22...¤xe4 23.axb5! axb5 24.¥xe4 (24.¤ef5 ¥xh4! 25.¥xe4 d5 26.£g4 ¥f6 27.¥c2 e4³) 24...£xe4 25.¤ef5 ¥xf5?! (25...£b7 26.£g4± ¥g5 27.¥xg5 hxg5 28.£xg5 f6 29.£g6 One of the main problems is that ...£f7? is impossible because of ¤h6†. 29...£d7 30.¦e3 ¤xb3 31.¦d1†-) 26.¦xe4 ¥xe4 27.£g4†22...g6 23.¤hf5! gxf5 (23...¥f8 transposes to a position from the next note.) 24.exf5 ¥d7 25.¤g4‚ 23.¤hf5 £b6!? …...£d8. 23...¤xe4? 24.£g4 ¤xd2? (24...¤f6 25.¤xh6† ¢h8 26.£h4±) 25.¤xh6† ¢h8 26.¤xf7† ¢g8 (26...¥xf7 27.£h4† leads to mate, too.) 27.£h5!†23...g6 24.¤d5!? (24.£f3 gxf5 25.¤xf5 or 25.£g3† followed by 26.exf5.) 24...¤xd5 25.exd5 ¥xd5 26.¤xh6† ¥xh6 27.¥xh6 ¥xg2 28.£g4! ¥f3 29.£h4 … £f6. 29...e4 (29...£xc3?, with the intention of meeting 30.£f6 with 30... e4 is refuted by 30.¥e4! ¥xe4 31.£f6 with mate to follow.) 30.¥g5 f5 31.¥f6 ¥h5 32.¥d1†-
24.¤d5 24.£f3 £d8 24...£d8 24...¤xd5? 25.¤xh6†!! (25.exd5 ¥xf5 26.¥xf5 ¦e8, but not 25...¥xd5 26.¤xh6! gxh6 27.£g4† followed by £f5.) 25...gxh6 26.exd5 ¥d7 (26...¥xd5 would transpose above.) 27.£h5‚ £d8 28.¥xh6 £f6 29.¥h7†! 25.£f3 25.c4 ¤b7÷ 25...¤xd5 26.exd5 26.¤xh6† gxh6 27.exd5 ¥d7 28.£h5 f5. 26...¥xf5 27.£xf5 27.¥xf5 ¤xb3!© 27...g6 28.£g4² Jakovenko-Marin, Spanish team championship 2007.
Line B 19...¦fe8! 20.¤e3 20.¤g3 h6 21.¤f3 ¥e6 transposes to the main line (16. ¤g3 ¦e8 17.a4 ¥e6). 20.c4 ¤b7 21.cxb5 axb5 22.a5 b4! 23.¥xb4 h6 24.¤f3 ¥d8 25.£d2 ¥xa5! 26.¥xa5 ¦xa5 27.¦xa5 ¤xa5 28.¤e3 £b6 29.b4 ¤c6 30.£xd6 £xb4= 20...h6 21.¤f3 ¤xe4! 22.axb5 22.¥xe4 £xe4 23.¤c4 £g6! 24.¤xa5 ¥xh3 25.g3 ¥g4µ followed by ...e4. 22.c4 ¤xd2 23.¤xd2 £b6 24.¤d5 £d8³ 22.b4 ¤xd2 23.¤xd2 ¤c4 24.¤dxc4 bxc4 25.¤d5 f5³ 22...axb5 23.¤d5 ¤xd2 24.¤xe7† ¦xe7 25.£xd2 ¦a6 26.¦a3 ¤b7 27.¥e4 £b6 28.¦xa6 £xa6 29.¥xb7 £xb7 30.£xd6 ¦e6 followed by ...¥c6, ...f6 or the more daring ...¦g6, according to White’s answer.
ɧ F4WFTIOJLPW3FMPBEFE
%PSJBO3PHP[FOLP
$0/5&/54 #JCMJPHSBQIZ *OUSPEVDUJPO 1BSU*&BSMZ%FWJBUJPOT %FWJBUJPOTBU.PWF ɨ F¥F-JOF ɨ FB-JOF ɨ F¤E-JOF ¥Foɨ F#JSE7BSJBUJPO 1BSU**o¤Eoǰ F1PTJUJPOBM-JOF *OUSPEVDUJPOUP¤E ɨ F4JMFOU%SBX0ĊFS£Bp¥E £E ¥F¤YF *OUSPEVDUJPOUP¥YG ¥YGD ¥C ¤F ¥H¤D ¤F ¦C¤D ¥H o¤D¥H o¤D¦C 1BSU***¥YGHYG¤Eoǰ F.BJO-JOF *OUSPEVDUJPOUPUIF.BJO-JOF *OUSPEVDUJPOUPUIF¥H4ZTUFN ɨ F2VJFUD ɨ F4IBSQD 4FDUJPOǰ FG4ZTUFN *OUSPEVDUJPOUPyG ɨ F#JTIPQ4BDSJmDF¥YC BYC¤YC H 4FDUJPOǰ FG4ZTUFNNFUCZD *OUSPEVDUJPOUPD *OUSPEVDUJPOUP¥E FYG ¥YG 4FDUJPOǰ FG4ZTUFNNFUCZ¥E *OUSPEVDUJPOUPUIF.PEFSO.BJO-JOF¥E¥F *OUSPEVDUJPOUPUIF"HHSFTTJWF£I ɨ F7BSJBUJPOXJUI¥H ɨ F7BSJBUJPOXJUIUIF"DUJWF¦H ɨ F.PEFTUMPPLJOHH *OUSPEVDUJPOUP ¥YFFYE ¤F ¤YC D £I D ɨ F7BSJBUJPOXJUI¦BE ɨ F7BSJBUJPOXJUI¦BF ¦F *OEFYPGWBSJBUJPOT
*OUSPEVDUJPO
*OUSPEVDUJPO ɨ F4WFTIOJLPW
ɨ F¤EMJOF
ɨ FSFJTMJUUMFEPVCUUIBUUIF4JDJMJBO4WFTIOJLPW JT POF PG UIF NPTU QPQVMBS PQFOJOH TZTUFNT JO NPEFSODIFTT)VOESFETPGBSUJDMFTBOEEP[FOT PGCPPLTIBWFCFFOXSJUUFOBCPVUUIJTPQFOJOH "TBSFTVMUPGUIFGBDUUIBUBMNPTUFWFSZUPQQMBZFS JODMVEFEUIF4WFTIOJLPWJOIJTPQFOJOHSFQFSUPJSF JUTUIFPSZIBTBEWBODFEJODSFEJCMZEFFQMZJOUIF QBTUGFXZFBST/PXBEBZTQSBDUJDBMMZFWFSZNBKPS UPQ UPVSOBNFOU JOFWJUBCMZ DPOUSJCVUFT UP UIF UIFPSZPGUIF4WFTIOJLPW *XJMMOPUUSZUPFYQMBJOIFSFUIFSFBTPOTGPSJUT QPQVMBSJUZ * CFMJFWF UIF SFBEFST DBO mOE UIPTF GPSUIFNTFMWFTɨ FNBJOUBTLPGUIJTCPPLJTUP IBWF BO JOTJEF MPPL BOE UP BOBMZTF UIF QSFTFOU TUBUF PG UIF 4WFTIOJLPWT UIFPSZ *U JT DPODFJWFE BT BO FYUFOTJWF VQUPEBUF UIFPSFUJDBM XPSL JODMVEJOHTIPSUFYQMBOBUJPOTBCPVUUIFIJTUPSJDBM EFWFMPQNFOUPGUIFNPTUGBTIJPOBCMFWBSJBUJPOT *ONZPQJOJPOUIF4WFTIOJLPWJTBWFSZDPNQMFY PQFOJOHBOEVTJOHJUXFMMJOQSBDUJDFJOWPMWFTUXP BTQFDUToHPPEVOEFSTUBOEJOHPGDIBSBDUFSJTUJD QPTJUJPOBM GBDUPST o DPODSFUF LOPXMFEHF PG DPNQMJDBUFEUIFPSFUJDBMWBSJBUJPOT5PQ(.TMJLF -FLPPS,SBNOJL XIPBSFUIFCFTUDPOOPJTTFVST PG UIF 4WFTIOJLPW DPNCJOF UIFTF GBDUPST WFSZ XFMM BOE UIFZ GFFM DPNGPSUBCMF BHBJOTU BOZ PQQPOFOUT XJUI FJUIFS 8IJUF PS #MBDL .BOZ ZPVOH HSBOENBTUFST IBWF MFBSOFE UIF UIFPSZ PG UIF4WFTIOJLPWPWFSOJHIUBOEEPOPUSFBMMZGFFM UIF JNQPSUBODF PG TUSBUFHJD GBDUPST *OTUFBE PG
ɨ F¥YGHYG¤d5 MJOF
HPJOHEFFQJOUPUIFTUSBUFHZPGUIFPQFOJOH UIFZ BSFDPOUFOUXJUINFNPSJ[JOHDPODSFUFWBSJBUJPOT *OQSBDUJDFUIJTMFBETUPBMBDLPGDSFBUJWJUZBOE EFQUI 'PS JOTUBODF &WHFOZ 4WFTIOJLPW BMXBZT FWBMVBUFT BOZ WBSJBUJPO JO UIJT PQFOJOH CZ mSTU DPOTJEFSJOHUIFmHIUGPSUIFETRVBSFɨ BOLT UP IJT HSFBU FYQFSJFODF IF TJNQMZ GFFMT IPX FWFSZ NPWF DPOUSJCVUFT UP UIF mHIU GPS E PS IPX JU JOnVFODFT PUIFS NBKPS TUSBUFHJD GBDUPST PG UIF 4WFTIOJLPW TVDI BT iUIF QSPCMFN PG UIF BLOJHIUw GBWPVSBCMF USBEF PG NJOPS QJFDFT DIBOHJOH UIF QBXO GPSNBUJPO PS QSPTQFDUT PG DPVOUFSQMBZ ɨ F 3VTTJBO HSBOENBTUFS BMTP LOPXT WFSZ XFMM BMM UZQJDBM mHIUJOH NFUIPET JO TUBOEBSEQPTJUJPOT)PXFWFS EVFUPUIFJODSFBTJOH BNPVOUPGUIFPSZJOUIF4WFTIOJLPW4JDJMJBO UIF WFSZDPODSFUFLOPXMFEHFPGWBSJBUJPOTCFDBNFOP MFTTJNQPSUBOUUIBOHFOFSBMVOEFSTUBOEJOHɨ JT CPPLUSJFTUPDPNCJOFCPUINFOUJPOFEBTQFDUT DPODSFUFUIFPSZXJUIHFOFSBMFYQMBOBUJPOT *IBWFCFFOQMBZJOHUIF4WFTIOJLPWGPSBCPVU ZFBSTBOEBMMUIJTUJNF*IBWFXPSLFEPOJUTUIFPSZ POFXBZPSBOPUIFS*UIBQQFOFEUIBU*IFMQFEPUIFS HSBOENBTUFSTUPVOSBWFMUIFMBCZSJOUIPGNVMUJQMF WBSJBUJPOT#FTJEFT *DPNNFOUFEPOIVOESFETPG HBNFTBOEXSPUFOVNFSPVTBSUJDMFTGPSEJĊFSFOU DIFTTQVCMJDBUJPOT*O*BMTPXSPUFB$% 30. PO UIF 4WFTIOJLPW *OFWJUBCMZ UJNF IBT DPSSFDUFETPNFPGNZQSFWJPVTBTTFTTNFOUT/FX JEFBT IBWF CFFO JOUSPEVDFE UIBU IBWF DIBOHFE
ɨ F4WFTIOJLPW3FMPBEFE
NBOZDPODMVTJPOTPGPUIFS4WFTIOJLPWTQFDJBMJTUT BOE BVUIPST PG EJĊFSFOU CPPLT BT XFMM * BN IBQQZ UP IBWF UIF PQQPSUVOJUZ OPX UP QSFTFOU B DPNQMFUFMZ VQHSBEFE NBUFSJBM PG UIF QSFWJPVT XPSLTJOUIFmFME "GFXXPSETBCPVUUIFTUSVDUVSFPGUIFCPPL ɨ FSFBSFUISFFQBSUT1BSUEFBMTXJUIUIFFBSMZ EFWJBUJPOT 1BSU XJUI ¤E BOE 1BSU XJUI ¥YGHYG¤E1BSUJTEJWJEFEJOUPUIF ¥H 4ZTUFN BOE UIF G 4ZTUFN ɨ F MBUUFS DPOUBJOT UIF MBSHFTU BNPVOU PG UIFPSZ BOE UIFSFGPSF OFFET NPSF FYQMBOBUJPO BCPVU JUT TUSVDUVSF*IBWFEJWJEFEUIFG4ZTUFNJOUP UISFF4FDUJPOT4FDUJPOJODMVEFTDIBQUFSTXJUI UIFCJTIPQTBDSJmDF¥YCBOEH4FDUJPO JODMVEFTBMMUIPTFWBSJBUJPOTXIFSF8IJUFQMBZT BOFBSMZDD*UIJOLUIJTSFQSFTFOUTUIFFBTJFTU XBZ GPS UIF SFBEFS UP mOE RVJDLMZ UIF EFTJSFE PQFOJOH WBSJBUJPO JG 8IJUF QMBZT B RVJDL D D VTVBMMZ PO NPWFT PS
UIFO UIF WBSJBUJPOJTJODMVEFEJO4FDUJPO PUIFSXJTF JG 8IJUF EFMBZT UIF BEWBODF PG UIF DQBXO GPS B XIJMF UIFQPTJUJPOTDBOCFGPVOEJO4FDUJPO XIJDIEFBMTXJUI¥E ¥FBOEOPDDZFU "T VTVBM JO DPNQMFY PQFOJOHT UIFSF BSF BMTP NBOZ QPTTJCMF USBOTQPTJUJPOT &BDI UJNF JO UIF
CPPL XIFO UIFSF BSF QPTTJCMF USBOTQPTJUJPOT UP PUIFS WBSJBUJPOT * JOEJDBUF UIF QBHF OVNCFS PG UIPTFWBSJBUJPOT TPUIBUUIFSFBEFSDBOmOEUIFN RVJDLMZ *UNVTUCFTBJEUIBUUIFNBJOQPTJUJPOTPGUIF 4WFTIOJLPWDBOCFSFBDIFEWJBUXPNPWFPSEFST FD¤G¤DEDYE¤YE ¤G¤D F¤ECE¥H BOEFD¤GFE DYE¤YE ¤G¤D ¤D¤ECE¥G F¥H8FIBWFUIFTBNFQPTJUJPO CVUJOUIF TFDPOEDBTFJUUPPLPOFNPSFNPWFUPSFBDIJU*O PSEFSUPBWPJEDPOGVTJPOXJUIUIFOVNCFSJOHPG UIFNPWFT UIFUSBEJUJPOBMNPWFPSEFS UIFmSTU POF NFOUJPOFE JT XJEFMZ BDDFQUFE BOE BMM UIF HBNFTJOUIFQSFTFOUCPPLBSFBMTPTUBOEBSEJ[FE UPJU *IPQFUIBUUIFCPPLXJMMQSPWJEFSFBEFSTXJUI BDMFBSWJFXPGUIFDVSSFOUTUBUFPGUIFPSZJOUIF 4JDJMJBO4WFTIOJLPWBOEXJMMBMTPIFMQUIFNCFUUFS VOEFSTUBOE UIJT JOUFSFTUJOH BOE IJHIMZ QPQVMBS PQFOJOHWBSJBUJPO %PSJBO3PHP[FOLP 3PNBOJB .BZ
$IBQUFS
*OUSPEVDUJPOUPUIF.BJO-JOF F D ¤G ¤D E DYE ¤YE ¤G ¤D F ¤EC E ¥H B ¤B C ¥YGHYG¤E
ɨ JTJTUIFTUBSUJOHQPTJUJPOPGUIFCJHHFTUQBSU PG4JDJMJBO4WFTIOJLPWUIFPSZ#FGPSFDPOUJOVJOH XFOFFEUPFYBNJOFCSJFnZBWFSZSBSFBMUFSOBUJWF UP¤E XIJDIOFWFSUIFMFTTIBTMBUFMZHBJOFE TPNFQPQVMBSJUZ ¤BC *UIBTDFSUBJOTJNJMBSJUJFTXJUI.OBUTBLBOJBOT ¤BC FYDFQU UIBU JU JT FWFO MFTT DPNNPO * PODF XSPUF BO BSUJDMF BCPVU UIJT NPWF FOUJUMFE iɨ FNPWFGPS4VOEBZNPSOJOHwɨ FSFBTPOXBT UIBUUIF(FSNBO(.ɨ PNBT-VUIFSTVSQSJTFE NFXJUI¤BCJOB#VOEFTMJHBHBNFUIBUXBT QMBZFEPOB4VOEBZBUBN*OUIFPQFOJOH *IBEBHPPEQPTJUJPOCVUPOMZESFX TPEVSJOH UIFQPTUNPSUFNXFDBNFUPUIFDPODMVTJPOUIBU ¤BC DPVME POMZ XPSL JG QMBZFE PO 4VOEBZ
NPSOJOH JO PSEFS UP TVSQSJTF B TUJMM TMFFQZ PQQPOFOU)PXFWFS BGUFSPVSFODPVOUFS-VUIFS VTFEUIJTNPWFJOPUIFSHBNFTBOEMBTUZFBSFWFO "OBOE HBWF JU B USZ ɨ FSFGPSF B NPSF TFSJPVT MPPL JT SFRVJSFE FWFO JG ¤BC MPPLT QSFUUZ EVCJPVT JO UIFPSZ BOE HFOFSBMMZ JO QSBDUJDF 8IJUFJTNPSFPGUFOPOUIFEFGFOEJOHTJEFBGUFS JUɨ FJOUFOUJPOPG¤BCJTUPEFMBZ¤DE GPS B XIJMF BOE JOTUFBE mOJTI EFWFMPQJOH UIF PUIFSQJFDFTmSTU#MBDLIBTNPSFUIBOPOFXBZ UPBDIJFWFHPPEQMBZ ¥H H £I G ¤E ¤F oo-VUIFSo3PHP[FOLP (FSNBOZ )FSF JOTUFBE PG £C NJTTJOH UIF SFQMZ ¥D XJUI DPNQMJDBUJPOT UIBU BSF GBWPVSBCMF GPS 8IJUF #MBDL XPVME IBWF HPPE QSPTQFDUT BGUFS ¦B XIJDI TFDVSFT BHBJOTU NBOZ UBDUJDBMQPTTJCJMJUJFTGSPN8IJUFBOE BUUIFTBNF UJNF UIFSPPLXJMMMBUFSCFXFMMQMBDFEPOD
o ¥H ¤F ¤E ¤YE £YE ¥F£E¦DoGFYG¥YG¤D ¦D#MBDLIBEBCTPMVUFMZOPQSPCMFNTJO"OBOE o WBO 8FMZ $BMWJB )JT FWFOUVBM MPTT PG UIJTHBNFIBEOPUIJOHUPEPXJUIUIFPVUDPNF PGUIFPQFOJOH G BOEOPX B B C¤E ¥H¤Eo¥D ¢I£I ¤EooGYF¤YF ¥G ¦EF¥H£E ¦DCGo .PUZMFW o(SFCJPOLJO *OUFSOFU C ¤E¥HH¥C¥H¤Eo o ¤C ¦F ¤E ¥YE FYE ¤YC
ɨ F4WFTIOJLPW3FMPBEFE
BYCF8IJUFNVTUQMBZQSFDJTFMZUPLFFQUIF CBMBODF (VGFMEo4WFTIOJLPW .PTDPX D H ¥H ¥H ¤F o o *O (SBGo*MMFTDBT 4BOYFOYP JOTUFBEPGUSZJOH UP FRVBMJ[F 8IJUF RVJDLMZ XFOU XSPOH XJUI £I C ¤E ¦C B GYF ¥YF G ¥H C D E BOE #MBDL IBE B IVHF BEWBOUBHF
3FUVSOJOHUPUIFEJBHSBNQPTJUJPOBGUFS¤E #MBDL IBT UXP NBJO QPTTJCJMJUJFT ¥H BOE G#PUIMJOFTDBOUSBOTQPTFJOUPTFDUJPO UIFDMJOF TUBSUJOHBUQBHF CVUCFTJEFT UIJTQBSUUIFJSXBZTIFSF¥H JTDPOTJEFSFE JO DIBQUFS o BOE UIF CJH NBJO MJOF XJUI yG JTDPOTJEFSFEGSPNDIBQUFSUPUIFFOE PGUIFCPPL
$IBQUFS
*OUSPEVDUJPOUPUIF ¥H4ZTUFN F D ¤G ¤D E DYE ¤YE ¤G ¤D F ¤EC E ¥H B ¤B C ¥YGHYG¤E¥H
ɨ FNBJOJEFBCFIJOEUIFCJTIPQNPWFJTUP QSPUFDUUIFGQBXOJOPSEFSUPQSFQBSF¤F UPUSBEFUIFELOJHIU "T GBS BT * DBO TFF ¥H XBT QMBZFE GPS UIFmSTUUJNFJOCZUIF"SHFOUJOFBO+PSHF 1FMJLBO *U SFNBJOFE DPNQMFUFMZ PCTDVSF VOUJM UIF FBSMZ T XIFO UXP QMBZFST GSPN UIF 4PWJFU DJUZ PG /PWPTJCJSTL 7BTJMJK .BMZTIFW BOE FTQFDJBMMZ #PSJT 4DIJQLPW TUBSUFE UP VTF JU JO 4PWJFU UPVSOBNFOUT 'SPN UIF NJE T ¥HCFDBNFBOJOUFSOBUJPOBMMZSFDPHOJ[FE BMUFSOBUJWF UP G BMUIPVHI JU OFWFS SFBMMZ QSFUFOEFEUPTVQFSTFEFGɨ FPDDBTJPOBM
QPQVMBSJUZPG¥HXBTNBJOMZEVFUPTPNF UFNQPSBSZ QSPCMFNT #MBDL XBT GBDJOH BGUFS G "MTP CZ QMBZJOH ¥H UIF QMBZFST BSF PGUFO IBQQZ UP BWPJE NBOZ DPNQMJDBUFE XFMMTUVEJFE WBSJBUJPOT UIBU BSF QPTTJCMF BGUFS G *OBMMUIFHBNFTJOUIFQBTUEFDBEFUIBUSFBDIFE UIFQPTJUJPOBGUFS¤E ¥HXBTVTFEJO BCPVUBUIJSEPGUIFN"OEBIBMGPGUIJTUIJSE USBOTQPTFEUPMJOFTGSPNG BGUFS¥H D G *O TQJUF PG UIF JOEJTQVUBCMZ HSFBUFS QPQVMBSJUZ PG G * NVTU NFOUJPO UIBU BU UIF QSFTFOU NPNFOU UIFSF JT OP DMFBS QBUI UP BOBEWBOUBHFGPS8IJUFBGUFS¥H"OPUIFS BSHVNFOU JO GBWPVS PG ¥H JT UIBU JO IJT MBTU UXP 4WFTIOJLPW HBNFT ,BTQBSPW QSFGFSSFE UIJTNPWFUPG "O JOUFSFTUJOH EFUBJM #PSJT 4DIJQLPW DPOTJEFSTGBOE¥HUPCFQSBDUJDBMMZ UXP EJĊFSFOU QBSUT PG UIF 4JDJMJBO )F OBNFT Giɨ F$IFMJBCJOTL7BSJBUJPOw $IFMJBCJOTL JT UIF DJUZ XIFSF 4WFTIOJLPW XBT CPSO BOE JO 3VTTJB UIF 4JDJMJBO 4WFTIOJLPW JT VTVBMMZ DBMMFE iɨ F $IFMJBCJOTL 7BSJBUJPOw
XIJMF ¥HJTOBNFEiɨ F/PWPTJCJSTL7BSJBUJPOw /PWPTJCJSTL JT UIF DJUZ PG #PSJT 4DIJQLPW 8FMM VOEPVCUFEMZ G BOE ¥H BSF QBSUPGUIFTBNFPQFOJOH CVU*UIJOLJUJTGBJS UPQBZUSJCVUFUPUIFQMBZFSTXIPDPOUSJCVUFEUP DIFTTUIFPSZ XIJDIJTXIZ*NFOUJPOFEBMMUIFTF MJUUMFLOPXOGBDUPST
ɨ F4WFTIOJLPW3FMPBEFE
¥E *O QSBDUJDF 8IJUF WFSZ PGUFO DIPPTFT D XIJDI BGUFS G USBOTQPTFT JOUP 4FDUJPO 8PSTF GPS #MBDL JT ¤F ¤D ¤YF £YF¤DG¥EUSBOTQPTFTUPWBSJBUJPO JO UIF OFYU DIBQUFS QBHF G ¤YE£YE ¥F£Dp¢F¤C £E ¤Ep ¥YE £YE± ¤YF FYG ¥YG ¤DF ¤YF BMTP CSJOHT OPUIJOH TQFDJBM BGUFS ¥YD ¥F MFBET UPUIFWBSJBUJPOBQBHF £YFFYG o ¥YG £G ¤FBOE8IJUFJT CFUUFS 5XPPUIFSNPWFTNVTUCFNFOUJPOFE B "GUFS D UIF HBNF "OBOE o -BVUJFS #FMHSBEF DBO TUJMM TFSWF BT BO FYBNQMF PG IPX UP QMBZ XJUI #MBDL G DYC ¤E ¥E XPSTF JT CYB GYF £Bp ¢G XJUI QPXFSGVM DPNQFOTBUJPO GPS UIF QBXO ¥F BMTP QPTTJCMF JT o ¤D GYF ¥YF ¦C÷ o ¤D ¥YE FYE F GBWPVST #MBDL o ¤D ¤YD ¥YD BDDPSEJOH UP -BVUJFS #MBDL IBT TVċ DJFOU DPNQFOTBUJPO GPS UIF QBXO BGUFS £YD ¦D£CGYF¥YFG¥E BYC ¥YC ¢I GYF CYB ¦YB ¥YF G ¥E -BVUJFS NFOUJPOFE UIBU BGUFS UIF DPSSFDU ¥D F ¥C ¢I £E¦B¦BD¥FH¦HUIFQPTJUJPO SFNBJOT EPVCMFFEHFE ¦D ¥F ¦D ¤DFμ C H DBO MFBE UP NBOZ USBOTQPTJUJPOT G 8IJUFXBTNBSHJOBMMZCFUUFSJO1PMHBSo 3BEKBCPW &OHIJFOMFT#BJOT BGUFS¤F ¤YF£YF¥Hoo¦CDG FYG ¥YG¤DB¤F ¥F£E
FYG ¥HGYFUSBOTQPTFTUPBOFRVBMMJOF TFF DIBQUFS QBHF ¥YG F
D G ¥YG¤YGp£YG£Eo JTCBEGPS8IJUF -KVCPKFWJDo,SBNOJL #FMHSBEF ¤F¥F ¥YG¤Doo JT VODMFBS ¥H F ¥F D o ¤D JT UIF MJOF C QBHF D ¤F o ¥H £D £C ¤Gp ¢I o ¤F ¥F £E Cμ 5FSBO "MWBSF[ o *LPOOJLPW 1PSUVHBM ¥G G £C ¥I÷ EFTFSWFT BUUFOUJPO ¥YG ¤YGp ¢H o BOE UIF QPTJUJPO JT BCPVU FRVBM 3PESJHVF[o.BUTVVSB 4BOUPT ¤F¤YF £YF
#MBDLIBTBDIJFWFEIJTUBTLPGUSBEJOHPĊUIF LOJHIU PO E CVU GPS UIF NPNFOU IJT EBSL TRVBSFE CJTIPQ MPPLT UFSSJCMF ɨ F GVUVSF QMBZ JTPCWJPVTMZDPOOFDUFEXJUIUIFBEWBODFPGUIF GQBXO 8IJUFIBTUXPNBJOQMBOT0OFJTDPOOFDUFE XJUI DD DIBQUFS BOE UIFO CSJOHJOH UIF LOJHIUJOUPQMBZWJBDɨ FPUIFSPOFJTBTIBSQFS QPTTJCJMJUZ JOWPMWJOH DD DIBQUFS #PUI UIFTF QMBOT DBO BMTP CF VTFE BGUFS mSTU DBTUMJOH TIPSU
Glenn Flear
TACTIMANIA Find the Winning Combination
Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co.uk
Contents Introduction . ............................................................................. 5 The Characters ........................................................................... 6 Chapter 1 Mate is in the Air!................................................ 10 Chapter 2 Tactics for Tyros .................................................. 26 Chapter 3 Deviate to Dominate . ......................................... 51 Chapter 4 On the Attack!..................................................... 65 Chapter 5 Pinching Pieces and Pawns .................................. 99 Chapter 6 Punishing Precariously Placed Pieces ................. 122 Chapter 7 Blunder-bashing................................................. 139 Chapter 8 Decisive Defence . ............................................. 157 Chapter 9 Excel in the Endgame!........................................ 175 Chapter 10 Until the Bitter End!.......................................... 197 Chapter 11 Tricky Decisions . .............................................. 209 Chapter 12 Chess is not an Easy Game . .............................. 222 Chapter 13 The Tactimania Test .......................................... 241
Introduction Tactimania simply means ‘passion for tactics’. If you enjoy chess, especially tactical chess, and you would like to improve this aspect of your game, then Tactimania is for you! Indeed, my main intention is to help the reader develop his experience and ‘gut-feeling’ for tactics, by solving chess puzzles. Chess can be great fun, but also a learning experience and I hope that you find this book of chess puzzles to be both. All players who have already learned the moves and played a few friendly games should be able to benefit. Experienced players will also find some testing material towards the end of each chapter and especially in the latter part of the book, so the book is aimed at just about everybody in the chess world. The game of chess is full of tactics which can be described as ‘threats, opportunities and short-term ideas that require calculation’. These merit particular attention if one wants to improve. Fortunately tactical themes are a most delightful aspect of the game and one can learn whilst enjoying oneself, that is, if the right sort of material is available. I have relied on my own chess experiences in my search for less well-known examples. So the vast majority of the positions are from my own games, with the remainder from my wife’s. In order to give a good idea of the level of difficulty, each puzzle is classified according to one of the following three categories: Apprentice Advanced student Expert
ì ìì ììì
The chapters, especially the early ones, have definite themes, so this may help you focus your thoughts and perhaps give you some clues in order to get going. So whatever your playing strength, I suggest that you start at the beginning of each chapter and then take it from there! It is generally accepted that experienced players have a tendency to recognize patterns and themes more readily. This ability then enables them to better navigate positions requiring tactical calculation. So it follows that if you increase your exposure to positions requiring ‘a combination’, you will be better armed to find the move that can make all the difference! If you are not familiar with the terminology used in the tactical environment, don’t despair, it will become clear as you read through the chapters. A final point before delving into the exercises. I personally find the use of colour or illustrations in a chess book adds the icing to the cake, so I was enthusiastic about including both of these! I hope you too appreciate the humour and creativity of the artist, James Flear, my eldest son. In fact the book is a family effort all round, as my wife Christine has helped out with many aspects of the book including the translation in the French edition. Glenn Flear Baillargues, France March 2011
5
Chapter One
Mate is in the Air !
Checkmate is the principal objective of the game of chess, so it seems like a reasonable place to start. In this chapter, seeking a possible mate will never be far from our thoughts. So in each of the puzzles that follow below, your aim will be to determine a way to dethrone the opposing monarch. When we sit down at the board we dream of inflicting this ultimate punishment. However, for this to become a reality, we often have to aim for and accumulate lesser advantages before launching into a mating attack. A player who exclusively aims for mate is not successful very often. In general, it is necessary for him to place his pieces on active, then more aggressive squares, and perhaps win some material along the way before turning his attention to Checkmate. Once the right conditions have been achieved he can start to calculate to see if a direct mate is possible. It may help to bear in mind that each ‘soft spot’ in the opposing camp can be a tactical weakness, and these can be fatal when concerning those defences near the king. In each case you may find it useful to ask yourself the following question: How can I exploit any vulnerability in the opposing team’s defences? You will soon note that each exercise is classified by a number of stars. The early ones in the chapter have one star (ì). These particular puzzles will generally require two or three moves of calculation. 10
01
Mate is in the Air!
Naturally, those puzzles denoted by (ìì) will require rather more attention. Either the combination is longer, or perhaps involves more finesse. In the more difficult cases, towards the end of the chapter denoted by (ììì), you will often need to weave a web to ensnare the opposing king. This may take longer and will generally involve making a series of threats that ultimately leads to the creation of a mating net. Before getting down to some serious solving, here are a couple of examples to demonstrate what is expected and also, hopefully, to whet your appetite! Sometimes the mate is forced, as in the first example:
1222222223
Q + R +5 + + + Tl5 + O + O5 + + O O 5 P +p+ +5 + + W +p5 + + +pK5 O + + + + 5 79
G. Flear – P. Genov San Sebastian 2006 52.¦h8† ¢g6 53.£xd6† ¢f7 54.¦f8#
In other cases, with best play, the defender can actually avoid being mated, but nevertheless the threats are sufficiently strong to give the attacking side a winning game.
1222222223 + + + +5 +o+mLo+t5 W +o+o+5 On+oP P 5 pT P Q +5 +p+ + P 5 + + K +5 O + R +r+ 5 79
K. Terrieux – G. Flear Guingamp 2008 28.¦c7! ¦xb5 After 28...£xc7 29.¤xc7 mate is a long way off, but Black is obviously in trouble. Otherwise, 28...¢d8 resists a little longer: 29.¦fc1 ¦xb5 (29...¦xb3 30.¦c8† ¢e7 31.¦1c7 ¦b2† 32.¢f3 ¦b3† 33.¢g4 and Black is in a mating net) 30.¦c8† ¢e7 31.axb5 ¦h2† 32.¢g1 ¦b2 33.¦1c7 £xc7 (to avoid the mate following £f6†) 34.¦xc7 ¢d8, but White is clearly winning. 29.£f6† The knight is pinned. 29...¢e8 30.¦c8† And mate next move. 1–0 11
01
Are you really ready?
12
ì
1-4
ì
1222222223 t+ + +l+5 Or+ +mO 5 O O T +5 + + + W 5 +p+q+ +5 + +b+p+ 5 pP + +pP5 O + + R K 5 79
1222222223 + + + L5 + + +r+o5 +m+ + +5 + P O +t5 o+ Ob+w+5 + +p+oP 5 p+ Q PvP5 o + + R K 5 79
1-2
1-5
ì
ì
1222222223 + T +l+5 Oo+ + Oo5 +vW + T5 + O +o+ 5 +p+ +m+5 PpQ P P 5 R Nr+ P5 o + + +bK 5 79
1222222223 + + +n+5 + + + +r5 + O +o+5 + OpM L 5 + + + +5 + + + +p5 + +w+pK5 O + + +r+ 5 79
1-3
1-6
ì
1222222223 T + +l+5 O + + Vo5 w+ O +o+5 + Tv+oB 5 O + P +5 +p+nP +p5 p+pQ + +5 o +k+rR + 5 79
01
1-1
Exercises
ì
1222222223 T +lMq+5 + W +oB 5 +v+ +p+5 + O +b+ 5 Mo+ + +5 + + T + 5 + + R P5 o + + +rK 5 79 13
01
Glenn Flear | Tactimania
1-1 G. Flear – R. Borchert Griesbach-im-Rottal 1983 25.£e8† ¦xe8 26.¦xe8# 1-2 B. Mallet – G. Flear Avoine 1985 27...£xg3† 28.hxg3 ¦h1# 1-3 Z. Slapak – G. Flear Cappelle-la-Grande 1986 22...£xa2† 23.¢xa2 ¦a5† 24.¢b1 ¦a1#
1-4 M. Burgess – G. Flear Uppingham 1987 34...¦xh2! 35.¥xf3 Or 35.¢xh2 £h3† 36.¢g1 £h1#. 35...¦h1† 36.¢xg2 £h3# 1-5 G. Flear – A. Jurkovic Eichgraben 1987 43.h4† ¢g4 44.¤f6# 1-6 G. Forintos – G. Flear Lille 1985 39...¦g3† 40.hxg3 £xg3† 41.¦g2 £xg2#
14
John Cox
The Berlin Wall The variation that brought down Kasparov
QUALITY CHESS www.qualitychessbooks.com
Contents Bibliography
5
Part 1
Understanding the Berlin Wall
Chapter 1 Chapter 2
Positional Introduction Typical Berlin Endings
Pawn Endings Knight Endings Knight vs. dark-squared Bishop Knight vs. light-squared Bishop Bishop vs. Knight Bishops of the same Colour Opposite-coloured Bishops Rook Endings Dark-squared Bishops & Knights Opposite-coloured Bishops & Knights Two Knights vs. Bishop & Knight The Two Bishops Rooks & dark-squared Bishops Rook & Knight vs. Rook & Queen’s Bishop Rook & Knight vs. Rook & King’s Bishop Double-rook Endings Rooks & Bishops of opposite Colours Endings with three Minor Pieces each
Chapter 3 Positional Themes The e6 Break Sacrificing e5 Attacks with the Rook Pawns The ¤d6/f6† Trick The Exchange Sacrifice Capturing on d5 The g4 Trick
7 9 17 17 19 20 22 23 28 37 43 47 49 51 56 57 59 62 63 65 70 75 75 80 84 89 90 93 95
Contents (Chapter 3 continued) The Classical Blockade Set-up Black’s ...¤d4 Correct and incorrect handling of Black’s Queenside Pawns Black’s ...¢c6! Restraining g4 – forestalling it with ...h5-h4 Striking back with ...h5 after g4 Black’s ...g5 Thrust Black’s ...f6 Break ...f5: Blockade or Counterattack Black’s ...c4 Break: a Controversial Undoubling Black’s ...b5 Break Developing Black’s Rook with ...a5 Black’s ...¤xe5 Trick Black’s ...¥xc3 Black’s early King Activation Part 2 The Theory of the Berlin Wall Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11
...¤e7 Systems without h3 ...¤e7 Systems with h3 ...¤e7 Systems without an immediate ...¤g6 ...¥d7 Systems ...¥e7 Systems Berlin Endgame: White Alternatives and Miscellaneous Black Systems White Plays 4.d3 Other White Tries
Index of Variations Index of Theoretical Games
96 103 104 105 106 110 112 119 123 125 127 128 129 130 132 135 137 155 177 201 229 253 277 291 319 328
Chapter 1 The heart of this book is the position which is reached after the moves 1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤f6 4.0–0 ¤xe4 5.d4 ¤d6 6.¥xc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ¤f5 8.£xd8† ¢xd8, the so-called Berlin Wall. Chapters 4-9 attempt to provide comprehensive analysis of this position from both sides, while Chapter 2 deals with typical endings arising, and Chapter 3 with typical middlegame themes. After 3...¤f6 this sequence is usually considered White’s only serious try for advantage, and Chapters 10 and 11 provide repertoire coverage only from Black’s point of view of the various deviations White has between moves four and eight: with the exception of 4.d3 these are more common at club level than international level. Let us go through the initial eight moves and see why this might be so.
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤f6 It was Morphy who first proposed that Black ought to insert 3...a6 in order to give himself the option to break the pin quickly. Basically the great man was right: the only variations of the Ruy in which Black does not benefit from having ...a6 ¥a4 thrown in are those in which the bishop is at some moment attacked on b5, the Bird (3...¤d4), the Schliemann (3...f5), the
Classical (3...¥c5) and the present debut, and those in which Black does not intend to fight against the formation of the c3/d4 pawn centre and does not want to push the bishop towards its ideal spot on c2, the Cozio (3...¤ge7) and the variously-named 3...g6 lines (Pillsbury? Smyslov?).
1222222223 t+vWlV T5 OoOo+oOo5 +m+ M +5 +b+ O + 5 + +p+ +5 + + +n+ 5 pPpP PpP5 RnBqK +r5 79
4.0–0 4.d3 and 4.£e2 are respectable ways to avoid Black’s main idea and are dealt with in Chapter 10 and Game 55 respectively. The former envisages either the old Steinitz plan with d3/c3 ¤bd2-f1-g3 before castling or else a build-up with c3 and d4, the latter perhaps 0–0/¦d1/ c3/d4 along the lines of the Worrall Attack in the normal Closed Ruy. However from a
10
The Berlin Wall
logical standpoint 4.d3 should not be the most critical test: if the game had gone 3.¥c4 ¤f6 4.d3 then most people would not think that White was opting to press Black particularly in the opening, while if he isn’t going to exploit the pressure created on the e-pawn by 3.¥b5 to force the concessions (queenside weaknesses or surrender of central space, basically), which are typical of the main lines of the Ruy, then it’s not clear why White put his bishop on b5 instead of c4 at all. 4.¤c3 is the Spanish Four Knights, which could of course have arisen by 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¥b5, and is not covered in this work: readers are referred to grandmaster Mihail Marin’s recent Beating the Open Games for (excellent) coverage. 4.d4 (game 56) is the Central Attack, and is not so effective before Black is committed to ...d6 and can still go ...d5 in one, as the traditional reply shows: 4...exd4 5.0–0 a6 6.¥a4 ¥e7 7.e5 (after 7.¦e1 b5 8.¥b3 d6 White’s tragedy is that 9.¤xd4?? falls into the Noah’s Ark trap with 9...¤xd4 10.£xd4 c5 and ...c4, so he has either to gambit a pawn for vague compensation only with 9.c3, or else give up the bishop with 9.¥d5) 7...¤e4 8.¤xd4 0–0 9.¤f5 d5. 4.¥xc6 (game 57), like in the Exchange Variation (3...a6 4.¥xc6) is not so bad, but obviously Black would rather have played 3...¤f6 than 3...a6.
4...¤xe4 Were Black to play 4...¥e7 now, analogous to the normal Chigorin defence with ...a6/¥a4 added, he would quickly find out the wisdom of Morphy’s advice: White continues with 5.¦e1 defending his own e-pawn and so threatening to win a pawn by ¥xc6 and ¤xe5, thus forcing 5...d6 6.d4 renews the threat and
forces 6...¥d7 if Black wants to maintain a pawn on e5, and now after 7.¤c3 Black finds that 7...0–0 loses material after 8.¥xc6 ¥xc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.£xd8 ¦axd8 11.¤xe5, and if 11...¥xe4? 12.¤xe4 ¤xe4 13.¤d3 f5 14.f3 ¥h4 15.g3, the famous Tarrasch Trap, and so he is forced to cede central space to White with 7...exd4, transposing to the old Steinitz defence. 4...¥c5, the Classical Berlin, is another reasonable line which is not covered in this book, but by omitting ...a6 Black usually telegraphs his intention to play the text. Black plays in a way akin to the Open Defence (5...¤xe4 with the inclusion of ...a6/¥a4).
5.d4 5.¦e1 (games 58-59) is possible and is in some ways the most natural move. In the normal Open Defence this move is rubbish because 6...¤c5 attacks the bishop on a4 and simply trades it off with a slight edge for Black. Here Black has to go 5...¤d6 to gain the same tempo, which of course blocks his development and gives White possibilities, but even so it turns out that Black’s difficulties can be fairly easily surmounted. 5.£e2 is also possible and is dealt with in Game 60.
5...¤d6 This move, the trademark of the Berlin Wall, was the whole point of leaving out ...a6. Both here and in the Open Defence proper 5...exd4 is frowned upon because of the hair-raising sequence 6.¦e1 d5 7.¤xd4 ¥d6 8.¤xc6 ¥xh2† 9.¢h1 £h4 10.¦xe4† dxe4 11.£d8† £xd8 12.¤xd8† ¢xd8 13.¢xh2, so in the Open proper Black normally plays 6...b5 to enable ...d5 (in fact he can try to reach the same position here by 5...a6 6.¥a4 b5 7.¥b3 d5). The text move however hits b5 and threatens to
Chapter 1 - Positional Introduction consolidate Black’s gains with ...e4, so White is forced to concede the bishop. Black can also try the strange 5...¥e7 6.¦e1 ¤d6 7.¥xc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 ¤b7, known in some circles as the Rio de Janeiro variation (although properly this refers to a Black plan later on). This book does not cover this option.
6.¥xc6 Since 6.¥a4 allows Black easy equality after 6...exd4 or 6...e4 White doesn’t seem to have much choice, but in fact 6.dxe5 ¤xb5 7.a4 (or 7.c4) is possible since the knight is trapped. In either case Black has the choice between returning the piece with equality or accepting a risky pawn sacrifice: see Games 61 and 62. White actually has still another try in 6.¥g5 (game 63), which again gives Black a choice between steady play with 6...¥e7 or accepting the challenge and the piece sacrifice with 6...f6, when White probably does not have enough compensation. 6...dxc6 7.dxe5 7.¤xe5 (game 64) is utterly feeble White should obviously translate his d-pawn to the kingside to obtain a working majority there compared to Black’s crippled one, as in the Exchange Variation, not to mention displacing Black’s king by the forthcoming queen exchange. 7...¤f5 7...¤e4 is a dubious alternative virtually refuted by 8.£e2 ¥f5 9.¦d1 £c8 10.¤d4 ¥c5 11.b4 ¥b6 12.f3 £d7 13.¥e3 0–0–0 14.a4 and is not covered. 8.£xd8† Nothing else makes a lot of sense. 8.£e2 is often played by White players with Oedipus complexes, but the whole point of 7...¤f5
11
(as opposed to 7...¤e4) was to meet that with 8...¤d4 9.¤xd4 £xd4, when Black can trade the queens anyway if he wants to after 10.¦d1 ¥g4, and obtain comfortable play (game 65).
8...¢xd8
1222222223 t+vL V T5 OoO +oOo5 +o+ + +5 + + Pm+ 5 + + + +5 + + +n+ 5 pPp+ PpP5 RnB +rK 5 79
And here we are. I hope the above preamble has convinced you that this position is critical for 3...¤f6, so it makes sense to take a long look at it, especially since in my opinion most texts fundamentally mis-state where Black’s advantages lie. White’s assets are fairly clear. One, he is ahead in development (and also in space). Two, if all the pieces but the kings were magically removed from the board Black would have to resign. And three, Black’s king is stuck in the centre of the board and will almost always block at least one of his rooks from entering the game along the back rank for some time to come. These considerations suggest that White will win games in this opening in two ways: first by obtaining the initiative, perhaps by opening the centre with a pawn sacrifice, and exploiting his active pieces to force decisive gains, secondly by slowly and carefully exchanging pieces, advancing his majority, creating a passed pawn and winning the ending. This impression is more or less correct and,
Chapter 2 In this chapter I want to start by looking at the opening backwards. You can’t learn any opening without considering the typical endings it gives rise to, and this is more true of the Berlin than most. Let’s start at the end with pawn endings with the typical Berlin Wall pawn structure.
Pawn Endings There would be many good reasons to call David Bronstein back to life, but one small question I would have for him would be why he wrote, in 200 Open Games, “If you have time, check whether the pawn ending is won. That’s a very difficult problem, but there is a solution.” I have a feeling I must be missing the great man’s point. In any case according to me the pawn ending is generally hopeless for Black White creates a kingside passer, decoys the black king with it and wins on the queenside in classical Ruy Exchange style. The only thing he has to be a little careful about is to ensure there isn’t a kingside pawn left after the decoying process, but this isn’t hard. Here’s Kasparov showing that even having his king well placed on d5 doesn’t help Black.
Kasparov – Bazan Simultaneous, Germany 1992
1222222223 + + + +5 + O +oO 5 o+ + + O5 +oOlP +p5 + + Pp+5 + +nK + 5 pPp+ + +5 + + +v+ 5 79 30...¥xd3?! Truly a horrible move. Black was worse of course but with the bishop he still had some chances to defend. I think probably 30...b4 was best: the bishop is in some danger of being trapped. 31.¢xd3 Simplest although I think 31.cxd3 does win as well, and makes quite a nice finish: 31...a5 32.b3 a4 33.bxa4 bxa4 34.a3 c6 35.¢f3 ¢d4
The Berlin Wall
18
36.¢f2! c4 (36...¢xd3 37.f5! c4 38.¢e1 c3 39.¢d1) 37.dxc4 ¢e4 (37...¢xc4 38.g5 ¢d5 39.f5 ¢xe5 40.f6 gxf6 41.gxh6 is the point, a typical trick with this kingside structure.) 38.¢g3 c5 39.g5 hxg5 40.fxg5 ¢xe5 41.¢g4, and White wins, e.g. 41...¢e6 42.h6 gxh6 43.gxh6 ¢f6 44.¢h5
31...c4† 32.¢e3 c6 33.c3 a5 34.a3 a4 35.¢f3 1–0 With this queenside structure Black can play ...c5 and ...b4 if he likes, but White just keeps tempoing his king and in the end Black has to let it in to e4, and the rest is easy. The importance of the e4-square in these pawn endings is great. If White establishes his king there, even having dissolved his doubled pawn may not be enough to save Black.
10.e6 c3 11.e7 ¦c5† 12.¢d6 ¦c6† 13.¢d7 c2 14.¦f1 1–0. But couldn’t Black have just opposed rooks? The answer is no. White wins quite simply after: 2.¦xd8 ¢xd8 3.¢e3 ¢d7 4.¢e4 ¢c6 5.g4 b5 6.h4 a5 7.h5 For example:
7...g6 8.h6 c4 Letting the king to d5 is hopeless. 9.bxc4 bxc4 10.¢d4 c3 11.¢xc3 ¢d5 12.¢d3 g5 13.¢e3 a4 14.a3 ¢e6 15.¢e4 gxf4 16.¢xf4 f6 17.exf6 ¢xf6 18.g5† ¢g6 19.¢g4 ¢f7 20.¢f5 ¢g8 21.¢e6 And so forth the white king crosses at once to the queenside.
Janev – Marcelin
But there is one important pawn ending which is a draw and which has turned up quite often in practice.
Bois Colombes 2003
Korneev – Fontaine
1222222223 + + + T5 + L +oOo5 oO + + +5 + O P + 5 + + P +5 +p+ + + 5 p+ R KpP5 + + + + 5 79 1...¦d8 The game actually continued with 1...h5 2.¢e3 ¦h6 3.f5 ¦c6 4.¦c2 b5 5.¢e4 ¢b6 6.¢d5 g6 7.fxg6 ¦xg6 8.¦f2 ¦c6 9.¦xf7 c4
Cap d’Agde 2002
1222222223 + + + +5 + O +lO 5 O +o+ +5 O O P + 5 p+p+ Pp+5 +p+ +k+ 5 + + + +5 + + + + 5 79 White has just exchanged Black's active rook on f3, but now he finds that he cannot win.
Chapter 4 The various systems Black can adopt in the Berlin are recalcitrant to exact classification, since the fact there is no direct clash of the forces means that Black can play his moves in various orders. Almost always though White will start off with the simple developing ¤c3, and by far his most usual move at his next turn is the flexible semi-waiting h3. After that White’s play tends to be defined most by where he develops the queen’s bishop: any of b2, d2, e3, f4 and g5 may be appropriate. The next three chapters deal with Black systems where he begins his play by regrouping the knight from f5 to g6, sometimes in conjunction with an early ...h6, sometimes with ...¢xd8, sometimes ...¥f5. In this chapter I deal with White reactions which do not include the move h3 at an early stage. Usually with these systems White’s idea is to open the game before Black is ready with his baroque manoeuvrings.
Game 1 Shirov – Z. Almasi Tilburg 1996
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤f6 4.0–0 ¤xe4 5.d4 ¤d6 6.¥xc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ¤f5 8.£xd8† ¢xd8 9.¤c3 ¤e7
1222222223 t+vL V T5 OoO MoOo5 +o+ + +5 + + P + 5 + + + +5 + N +n+ 5 pPp+ PpP5 R B +rK 5 79 ‘A move which conforms to no recognized chess principle’, according to Nigel Short, but is nonetheless the most popular way of handling the opening today. The knight was not in fact so well placed on f5. By obstructing the bishop it hampers Black in the fight against g4, and it cannot be made stable there by ...h5 for various reasons, perhaps most of all that this would allow White to establish a knight easily on g5, supporting the e6 break and making it impossible to obtain stability for a bishop on e6. Meanwhile on g6 the knight is surprisingly useful in the fight against White's majority by attacking e5 it makes it hard for White to move his f3-knight and gear up for f4-f5. It isn’t particularly convenient to defend e5: to
138
The Berlin Wall
put the bishop on f4 and then g3 has obvious drawbacks, and to play either rook to e1 allows ...¥b4, threatening to unload the bishop, while the choice of rook is also tricky if White uses the queen’s rook then he has to watch out for ...¥c4, and if he uses the king’s rook then he has to find another way to cover f4. By retreating the knight at once Black gains space to deploy his c8-bishop actively and postpones the choice of a home for his king until he sees a little more of White’s hand. Two other merits of the knight on g6 are that it helps towards establishing security for the bishop on e6 by controlling f4 against the manoeuvre ¤e2-f4, and it may also enable the further trip ...¤f4e6, where the knight is very well placed as long as it can sustain itself against an f4-f5 push. It is not so easy to get directly to e6, since to do so Black either was somehow to control d4 or else to move the g-pawn, which he usually doesn’t want to do at an early stage of the game, for fear of ¤e4-f6 if for no other reason. Usually Black’s ideal plan is ...¤e7-g6, ...h6, ...c5, covering all the approaches for White’s knights to e6, and then ...¥e6, establishing the bishop on its ideal square.
11.f4 White could play other moves but this is his idea. Shirov wrote that the position after 11.¥g5† ¢e8 12.¦ad1 ¥d7 ‘didn’t appeal to him’, although in fact this is the position reached in Game 9 (Volokitin – Vallejo Pons). Black could also consider 11...¥e7. 11...¥c5 12.¥e3 ¥b6 13.¤xc6† was threatened. It looks natural to defend against the threat by creating oppositecoloured bishops, but 12...¥xd4 13.¥xd4 ¥f5 14.¤d1! ¥xc2 15.¤e3 ¥d3 16.¦f2 ‘was what I was hoping for’, said Shirov, ‘White’s attack is extremely strong for just one doubled pawn’. Black’s trouble is that he cannot prevent the advance of the f-pawn because 16...¦e8? 17.¦d1 ¥e4 18.f5 ¤xe5 19.¥xe5 is check, so the best defensive try seems to be 16...¢e8 17.f5 ¤e7 18.¦d1 ¥e4, but after 19.¦e1 White’s initiative continues.
10.¤d4 White’s normal set-ups begin with h3 and we shall look at those in the next chapter. The text however is one of White’s oldest tries, and was recommended in Khalifman’s Opening for White According to Anand, Volume 1, and for that reason I cover it more extensively than perhaps it deserves. White keeps his rook on f1 to lend support to the f-pawn, and prepares for f4-f5 at once. Black has two ways of dealing with the threat: 10...¤g6 and 10...c5.
13.¦ae1 ¤h4 After the game Almasi preferred 13...¤e7, and Shirov agreed, giving 14.e6 c5 (14...fxe6? 15.¤xe6† ¥xe6 16.¥xb6 ¥c4 17.¥xc7†!) 15.¤b3 ¥xe6 16.¤xc5 ¥c4 17.¦d1† ¢c8 18.¦fe1 ¥a5 19.¥d2 ¥b6 20.¥e3 with a draw (20.¤3a4 might be a last try to maintain an edge). Khalifman disagreed with this and proposed 16.¥xc5 ¥xb3 17.¥xb6 axb6 18.axb3 with a position which is deceptively difficult for Black, but the simple 16...¦e8 seems to solve all his problems. 13...¦e8 is another possibility which Shirov does not mention, but at least prevents the tactic employed in the game. It isn’t clear to me how White would seek to refute that move.
10...¤g6 This is not well regarded these days, although it’s not clear that there is anything wrong with it except the fact that 10...c5 seems to be stronger.
14.e6 White has to move quickly before Black is ready for ...¥xd4, and the alternative Shirov gave was 14.¤e4 ¤f5 15.¤xf5 ¥xf5 16.¤g3 ¥xc2 (Can White win the rook ending which
Chapter 4 - ...¤e7 Systems without h3 arises after 16...g6 17.¤xf5 gxf5? I would rate Black’s chances of holding as quite high.) 17.¦f2, although after 17...¥a5 18.¦c1 (18.¥d2 ¥b6=) 18...¥a4 I don’t think Black will have too much difficulty in equalising.
1222222223 t+vL + T5 OoO +oOo5 Vo+p+ +5 + + + + 5 + N P M5 + N B + 5 pPp+ +pP5 + + RrK 5 79
14...fxe6? Essentially losing: 14...¥xd4 15.¥xd4 ¤f5 16.e7† ¢e8 17.¥e5 isn’t much better. But 14...c5 is more controversial: Shirov gave it as equal based on 15.¤b3 (15.e7† ¢xe7 16.¤b3 ¢d6! is equal, for example 17.¤xc5 ¥xc5 18.¤e4† ¢c6 19.¤xc5) 15...¥xe6 16.¤xc5 ¥xc5 17.¥xc5 ¢d7 18.¥f2 ¤f5 19.¦d1† ¢c6 (Khalifman disagreed but for some reason gave only the weaker 19...¤d6) 20.g4 ¤d6 21.f5 ¥c4 22.¦fe1 ¦ae8 23.b3 ¥a6, when Black is more or less out of danger.
15.¤xe6† ¥xe6 16.¥xb6 axb6 A sad necessity, since both 16...¥h3 17.¥d4 ¤xg2 18.¦d1 ¢c8 19.¦f3 and 16...¥c4 17.¥f2 ¤g6 18.¦d1† ¢c8 19.¦fe1 see White consolidating his material. 17.¦xe6 Black has nothing better than exchanging rooks along the e-file and transposing to the knight ending, which as we have seen is usually losing.
139
17...¢d7 18.¦fe1 ¦ae8 19.¦xe8 ¦xe8 20.¦xe8 ¢xe8 21.¢f2 ¤f5 22.¤e4 c5 23.g4 ¤h6 24.¢f3 ¤f7 25.h4 ¢e7 26.¤g5 ¤d6 27.¤xh7 ¤c4 28.f5 ¤xb2 29.g5 ¤c4 30.h5 b5 31.¢f4 ¤a3 32.h6 gxh6 33.g6 ¤c4 34.f6† ¢e6 35.f7 ¤e5 36.f8¤† 1–0 Conclusion: there are some unanswered questions here but unless the Black reply to 10.¤d4 covered in the next game is shaken, this line is likely to remain unimportant.
Game 2 Shirov - Sargissian Gibraltar Masters 2005
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤f6 4.0–0 ¤xe4 5.d4 ¤d6 6.¥xc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 ¤f5 8.£xd8† ¢xd8 9.¤c3 ¤e7 10.¤d4 c5
1222222223 t+vL V T5 OoO MoOo5 + + + +5 + O P + 5 + N + +5 + N + + 5 pPp+ PpP5 R B +rK 5 79
This move, first played by the Dutch GM Harmen Jonkman, is more or less a refutation of 10.¤d4. White can either reply as in this Game 11.¤de2, pursuing the original idea of freeing the f-pawn, or 11.¤f3 as in Game 3, claiming that Black’s ...c5 was such a weakness
5JHFST.PEFSO
#Z5JHFS)JMMBSQ1FSTTPO
$0/5&/54
#JCMJPHSBQIZ "DLOPXMFEHFNFOUT *OUSPEVDUJPO
7BSJBUJPOTXIFSF#MBDLQMBZTB
Go"VTUSJBO4UZMF 'MFYJCMF%SBHPO6OMFBTIFEo ¥FXJUIPVU¤G 'MFYJCMF%SBHPO3FTUSBJOFEo ¥FBOE ¤G ɨ F)JQQPQPUBNVT $MBTTJDBM7BSJBUJPO ¥Ho*OUPNJEBJS
7BSJBUJPOTXIFSF#MBDLEPFTOPUQMBZyB
¥Do.BE%PHH Ho'JBODIFUUP7BSJBUJPO Do-B[Z7BSJBUJPO 6OVTVBM-JOFT
8IJUFQMBZTD
"WFSCBLI7BSJBUJPO
$ISPOPMPHJDBMJOEFYPGDPNQMFUFHBNFT "MQIBCFUJDJOEFYPGDPNQMFUFHBNFT *OEFYPGWBSJBUJPOT
*OUSPEVDUJPOUPUIF.PEFSO%FGFODF iɨ F SFBTPOBCMF NBO BEBQUT IJNTFMG UP UIF XPSME UIF VOSFBTPOBCMF POF QFSTJTUT JO USZJOH UP BEBQU UIF XPSME UP IJNTFMG ɨ FSFGPSF BMM QSPHSFTTEFQFOETPOUIFVOSFBTPOBCMFNBOw (FPSHF#FSOBSE4IBXo .BOBOE4VQFSNBO "I MPPLJOHGPS.S1FUSPĊ 4PSSZ CVU1FUSPĊIBT MFGUUIFCVJMEJOHXJUI.S-PQF[*BNUIF.PEFSO UIF.PEFSO%FGFODF4UPQDBSFTTJOHUIBUFQBXO PS*XJMMUISPXZPVPVUPGUIJTDIBQUFS *TIPVMETUBSUXJUIBXBSOJOHGPSUIPTFPGZPV XIP IBWF POMZ QMBZFE DMBTTJDBM PQFOJOHT CFGPSF ɨ F .PEFSO %FGFODF IFODFGPSUI SFGFSSFE UP BT TJNQMZUIF.PEFSO JTTPNFUIJOHRVJUFEJĊFSFOU &WFOUIPVHI*IBWFUSJFEUPHJWFBGFXFYBNQMFT PG UZQJDBM QPTJUJPOT BOE TUSVDUVSFT UP TUSJWF GPS UIBU JT GBS GSPN EPJOH UIF .PEFSO KVTUJDF ɨ F .PEFSO JT KVTU UPP DPNQMJDBUFE BOE EZOBNJD XIBUJTHPPEJOPOFJOTUBODFDBOWFSZXFMMCFCBE JO BOPUIFS 0OF HSBOENBTUFS PO IFBSJOH * XBT USZJOHUPFYQMBJOUIFB.PEFSOTZTUFNTJOCPPL GPSN TBJEi:PVXJMMIBWFUPFYQMBJOFWFSZUIJOHw BOEUIFSFJTTPNFUSVUIUPUIBU4UJMM *UIJOLUIBU JTXIBUNBLFTUIFPQFOJOHTPXPOEFSGVM 4P XIBUJTUIF.PEFSO FHE¥H
ɨ JT JT UIF CBTJD .PEFSO QPTJUJPO #MBDLT BUUJUVEFJOUIF.PEFSOJTUZQJDBMPGUIFNPEFSO TDIPPMPGUIPVHIU*OTUFBEPGPDDVQZJOHUIFDFOUSF XJUIBQBXOPSUXP#MBDLQSFGFSTUPPCTFSWFUIF DFOUSFGSPNBEJTUBODF EFWFMPQBGFXQJFDFTBOE UIFOTUSJLFXIFO8IJUFMFBTUFYQFDUTJUɨ FNPTU DPNNPODPOUJOVBUJPOIFSFJT ¤DE /PX 8IJUF JT GBDFE XJUI B XJEF DIPJDF 5P JMMVTUSBUFUIFTZTUFNGFBUVSFEJOUIJTCPPL MFUVT TBZUIBU8IJUFQMBZT ¥F /PX #MBDL DBO QMBZ yD PS FOUFS UIF 1JSD XJUI y¤G CVU UIJT CPPL GFBUVSFT B EJĊFSFOU TZTUFN yB
8JUI UIJT NPWF #MBDL QMBOT BO FYQBOTJPO PO UIFRVFFOTJEFXJUICGPMMPXFECZ¥C ¤EBOE D UIVTDVMUJWBUJOHUIFDPODFQUPGPCTFSWJOHBOE DPVOUFSQVODIJOH FWFO GVSUIFS UIBO JO UIF PUIFS .PEFSO MJOFT XJUI D ɨ F POMZ DPOEJUJPO GPS UIJTTZTUFNUPXPSLJTUIBU8IJUFIBTQMBZFE ¤D PSFMTFCXJMMTUSJLFUIJOBJSBOEDXJMMCFFBTJMZ NFUCZD
5JHFST.PEFSO
8IZUIFB.PEFSO ɨ FmSTUHSFBUBEWBOUBHFPGUIF.PEFSOXJUIBJT UIBUJUHJWFT8IJUFBMNPTU[FSPDIBODFTPGQMBZJOH GPSBESBXBOEUIFSFGPSFJUJTBOFYDFMMFOUDIPJDFJO TJUVBUJPOT XIFSF QMBZJOH GPS B XJO JT FTTFOUJBM *O UIFTFMJOFTUIFSFJTOPFYDIBOHFWBSJBUJPOPS*BN BTVDLFSGPSBESBXWBSJBUJPO PSBOZPUIFSXBZGPS 8IJUFUPFYDIBOHFBCVODIPGQJFDFTPONPWFUFO ɨ F TFDPOE CJH BEWBOUBHF PG UIF MJOFT SFDPNNFOEFEJOUIJTCPPLJTUIBUUIFZBSFMJUUMF LOPXO BOE BOBMZTFE TP FWFO JG ZPVS PQQPOFOU LOPXTUIBUZPVXJMMQMBZUIF.PEFSOoXJUIUIJT CPPLBTZPVSBSTFOBMoZPVXJMMQSPCBCMZEJWFSHF GSPN iUIFPSZw mSTU BOE UIFSFGPSF UIF FMFNFOU PG TVSQSJTFXJMMCFPOZPVSTJEF 8IBU*IBWFUSJFEUPEP #FGPSFXSJUJOHUIJTCPPL*EJEOUSFBMMZLOPXBMPU PGiUIFPSZwPOUIF.PEFSO*KVTULOFXTPNFJEFBT BOE VTFE UIF POFT CFTU TVJUFE GPS UIF PDDBTJPO )PXFWFS BT * XBT XSJUJOH B CPPL * UIPVHIU JU NJHIU CF XJTF UP MPPL VQ TPNF PG UIF NPSF BDDFQUFEUIFPSZ8IBU*GPVOEDBNFBTTPNFUIJOH PGBSFWFMBUJPO&WFSZIBMGBOIPVS*XPVMEDPNF BDSPTT TPNFUIJOH XIJDI NBEF NF HP iBBIw PS iJT UIBU TP w PS o NPSF PGUFO o i* EPOU CFMJFWF UIBUw * XBT QPTJUJWFMZ TIPDLFE BU IPX NBOZ NJTDPODFQUJPOT FYJTU BCPVU UIJT PQFOJOH ɨ F SFTVMUJTUIBU*PGUFOEJTBHSFFXJUIUIFPQJOJPOTPG GBNPVT QMBZFST XIP IBWF BOOPUBUFE B.PEFSO HBNFT JO *OGPSNBOU $IFTT#BTFF BOE PUIFS QMBDFT "UmSTU*QPJOUFEPVUFWFSZTVDIEJTBHSFFNFOU CVU *TPPOSFBMJTFEUIBUUIFCPPLXPVMECFDPNFUPP QPMFNJDBMBOEUIFSFGPSF*SFNPWFENPTUPGUIFTF DPNNFOUT "MTP * IBWF OPU QPJOUFE PVU XIJDI NPWFTBSFiUIFPSFUJDBMOPWFMUJFTwCFDBVTFUIFSFBSF TPNBOZBOECFDBVTFUIFDPODFQUPG5/TJTOPU WFSZJNQPSUBOUJOUIJTPQFOJOH *IBWFUSJFEUPFYQMBJOUIFB.PEFSOTZTUFNT JO TVDI B XBZ UIBU FWFSZPOF TIPVME CF BCMF UP VOEFSTUBOE JU CVU * IBWF OPU USJFE UP DPWFS FWFSZUIJOH BCPVU UIF .PEFSO %FGFODF PO UIFTF QBHFT0OUIFDPOUSBSZUIJTJTBWFSZOBSSPXCPPL UIBU EFBMT XJUI POMZ B GSBDUJPO PG UIF FYJTUJOH
BMUFSOBUJWFT 1SPCBCMZ TPNF PG ZPV XJMM XPOEFS i#VU XIZ EPOU ZPV NFOUJPO .S BHBJOTU .S TPNFXIFSF TPNFUJNF wɨ FBOTXFSJT oJG*KVTUIBWFOPUNJTTFEJUoUIBU*CFMJFWFJUJTOPU TVDIBOJNQPSUBOUHBNF*IBWFOPUUSJFEUPXSJUF BO FODZDMPQBFEJB PO UIF .PEFSO ɨ JT JT BCPVU UIFBMJOFTBOEPOMZNPSFXIFSFOFDFTTBSZ 1MBZJOH UIFTF MJOFT JT B DPOTUBOU TUSVHHMF 0DDBTJPOBMMZ*XBLFVQUIJOLJOH iJUTDSBQo*NVTU mOE TPNFUIJOH FMTFw CVU UIFO B GFX NPSOJOHT MBUFS BGUFSTPNFIBSEXPSL *XBLFVQUIJOLJOH i*UTBMJWF*UTBNJSBDMFwBOETPJUHPFTPO%POU MFUUIFmSTUPGUIFTFNPSOJOHTTDBSFZPV*GZPVBSF OPUUPPMB[ZUIFPUIFSLJOEPGNPSOJOHJTXBJUJOH BSPVOEUIFDPSOFS"T4IBXQVUJUiyBMMQSPHSFTT EFQFOETPOUIFVOSFBTPOBCMFNBOw "WFSZTIPSUIJTUPSZPGUIFB.PEFSO ɨ FSFXFSFNBOZTUSPOH(.TBOEPUIFSOPUBCMF QMBZFSTXIPVTFETFUVQTXJUIBJOUIF.PEFSO CFGPSF NF *O UIF TJYUJFT UIFSF XBT *WLPW BOE 6KUFMLZ JO UIF TFWFOUJFT 4VUUMFT BOE ,FFOF VTFE BJOUIF$MBTTJDBM1JSD CVUJUXBTOPUVOUJMUIF FJHIUJFT UIBU QMBZFST MJLF 4FJSBXBO 4QFFMNBO BOE .D/BC EFWFMPQFE UIF JEFBT GVSUIFS *O UIF OJOFUJFT .JLIBJM (VSFWJDI BOE "[NBJQBSBTIWJMJ XFSFUIFNBJODIBNQJPOTPGUIFBTZTUFNT CVU UPEBZUIFSFBSFGFXXIPQMBZJUSFHVMBSMZBUBIJHI MFWFM*CFMJFWFUIFSFBTPOGPSUIJTIBTOPUIJOHUPEP XJUIUIFPCKFDUJWFWBMVFPGUIFPQFOJOH CVUSBUIFS SFnFDUTBHFOFSBMUFOEFODZUPXBSETDIPPTJOHNPSF TPMJEBOEMFTTBNCJUJPVTTFUVQTXJUI#MBDL :PV XJMM TPPO OPUJDF UIBU UIJT CPPL UP B IJHI EFHSFFDPOTJTUTPGNZPXOHBNFTɨ BUJTQBSUMZ CFDBVTF * LOPX UIFTF HBNFT CFUUFS UIBO PUIFST BOEQBSUMZCFDBVTFUIFZCFTUJMMVTUSBUFUIFJEFBT* QSPNPUFIFSFIPXUPXBMLUIFB.PEFSOSPBE *UJTOPUUIFPOMZSPBE CVUJUJTNJOFBOE*BN IPQJOHGPSTPNFDPNQBOZ ǰ F 1JSD BOE UIF .PEFSO XJUI D WFSTVT UIF .PEFSOXJUIB ɨ FSF BSF UISFF NBJO XBZT UP QMBZ XJUI H BHBJOTUF&BDIPGUIFTFIBTJUTBEWBOUBHFTBOE
*OUSPEVDUJPO
EJTBEWBOUBHFT0OFXBZUPDPNQBSFUIFNJTUPTFF IPXUIFZEFBMXJUI8IJUFTNPTUnFYJCMFTFUVQ ¥F .PEFSOXJUIB FHE¥H¤DE¥FB ɨ FJEFBCFIJOEUIJTNPWFJTTJNJMBSUPyB JOUIF4JDJMJBO/BKEPSG#MBDLJOUFOETUPFYQBOE PO UIF RVFFOTJEF XJUI C BOE BUUBDL UIF F QBXOXJUI¥C ¤GBOENBZCFCCɨ FSFJT POMZ POF QSPCMFN XJUI UIBU TFUVQ IFSF 8IJUF DBONFFU ¤GXJUIFFɨ FSFGPSF#MBDLNVTU XFBLFO 8IJUFT DPOUSPM PG UIF FTRVBSF CFGPSF QMBZJOH¤Gɨ JTJTEPOFCZQMBZJOH¥C ¤E BOE UIFO D JOUFOEJOH UP FYDIBOHF UIF DQBXO GPS8IJUFTEQBXO*OUIJTXBZ#MBDLVOEFSNJOFT 8IJUFTEQBXO HBJOTDPOUSPMPGF BOEUIFOUIF LOJHIUDBOHPUPGXJUIPVUGFBSJOHFF/PUF UIBU UIJT JEFB XPVME CF BCTPMVUFMZ XPSUIMFTT JG 8IJUFTLOJHIUXBTOPUPODBMSFBEZ ¤GCB ɨ JTXBTUFTBOJNQPSUBOUUFNQP"TXFTIBMMTFF JOMBUFSDIBQUFST JUJTCFUUFSGPS8IJUFUPQSPUFDU UIFFQBXOXJUI ¥EBOEUIFOBUUBDLCXJUIB B y¥C ¥E ¤E D ¦F DYE ¥YE
8F BSF GPMMPXJOH ( ɨ PSIBMMTTPO o )JMMBSQ 1FSTTPO *DFMBOEJD 5FBN $IBNQJPOTIJQ
#MBDLIBTBDIJFWFEBOFYDFMMFOUEZOBNJD4JDJMJBO %SBHPO TUSVDUVSF /PX CPUI y¤HG BOE y¥YE¤YE ¤HGBSFFYDFMMFOUGPS#MBDL CVU*DIPTFBNPSFBNCJUJPVTDPOUJOVBUJPO yF "GUFS y¤HG F 8IJUF JT BCMF UP PQFO UIF DFOUSF XIFO #MBDLT TUSVDUVSBM BEWBOUBHF JT DMFBSMZEJNJOJTIFE ¥F¤HG£E¦BE¦D #FDBVTF*BNBUUBDLJOHFXJUICPUINZCJTIPQ BOE LOJHIU JU JT EJċ DVMU GPS8IJUF UP NPWF UIF ECJTIPQBOEBUUBDLNZEQBXO *UJTHFOFSBMMZ BCJHBEWBOUBHFUPLOPXTPNFUIJOHBCPVU4JDJMJBO TUSVDUVSFTXIFOQMBZJOHUIF.PEFSOXJUIB ¥H £C¥G ¦YD *UJTBMTPQPTTJCMFUPQMBZy¦D CVUUIFUFYU JTFWFOTUSPOHFS £YD¤YF£F £DDG£D
"OEOPX JOTUFBEPGQMBZJOHyE #MBDLDPVME IBWFQMBZFEyGXJUIGBOUBTUJDDPNQFOTBUJPO GPSUIFFYDIBOHFɨ JTHBNFJTBHPPEFYBNQMFPG XIBU#MBDLJTIPQJOHGPSBOEXIBU8IJUFTIPVME GFBS*GZPVXPVMEMJLFUPMFBSOUIFmOFSQPJOUTPG UIFQPTJUJPOBGUFSyBZPVTIPVMEMPPLVQUIF 'MFYJCMF%SBHPODIBQUFST
True Lies in Chess Think for yourself written by
Lluis Comas Fabrego Translated by Manuel Perez Carballo
Quality Chess
www.qualitychessbooks.com
True Lies in Chess First English edition, 2007 by Quality Chess Europe AB 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow, G62 7TA, United Kingdom Copyright © Lluis Comas Fabrego Translation © 2007 Manuel Perez Carballo The right of Lluis Comas Fabrego to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess Europe AB, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow, G62 7TA, United Kingdom e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychessbooks.com Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena California www.scbdistributors.com Translated by Manuel Perez Carballo from “Mentiras Arriesgadas en Ajedrez” Edited by John Shaw Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Cover Design by Carole Dunlop after an idea by Jacob Aagaard Cover Photos by Ari Ziegler Printed and bound in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC ISBN - 91-976005-7-1 ISBN13 - 978-91-976005-7-6
CONTENTS Bibliography List of symbols Foreword CHAPTER I - Do not Trust the Classics The tip of the iceberg Dogmatic = Limited Some more rigour would not be amiss… Applying what has been learnt Challenging the heavyweights Nobody is without sin CHAPTER II - Middlegame Motifs I. The blockaded passed pawn Minority attack An excellent example Reality is always more complex than theory II. Jupiter and its satellites: the f-file versus the strong point on e4 Can you dance? What are you telling me? The thin (and subtle) line between prophylaxis and passivity CHAPTER III - Final Conclusions? Neither so simple nor so clear The empire strikes back Exchanging queens (the relation between the opening and the endgame) New ideas in the pipeline CHAPTER IV - How are Opening Novelties Born? Episode I: The analysis of a model game as a source of inspiration Episode II: First-hand impressions Episode III: Preconceptions Episode IV: The devastating influence of preconceptions
5 6 7 9 9 15 17 19 20 24 29 29 30 32 34 39 44 45 46 51 52 57 60 66 69 69 73 74 76
Episode V: Building new paths Episode VI and last: Applying the ideas so far discussed to modern positions The practical test Long-term structural and positional advantages versus time Applying the new concepts to opening theory Time versus Material: positional pawn sacrifices in the opening Thanks Mr Dvoretsky: Prophylaxis and logic in the opening I leave before I get kicked out Is it possible to completely neutralize the opponent’s initiative?
77 79 81 82 85 91 95 96 98
CHAPTER V - The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like ... ...¤a6 in the 103 King’s Indian Creating something new Line 1: Playing à la Petrosian Line 2: Other nuances of the move ¥g5 Line 3: Near the storm Line 4: In the eye of the hurricane White gets rid of the black knights White only exchanges one enemy knight Miscellany: Three stories 1. Evaluations change 2. Whatever happened to...? 3. A Chess Symphony CHAPTER VI - The Others
104 105 107 110 114 115 118 119 119 119 121 125
Foreword Deceived All Along
I still remember how excited I felt as a child at the magic moment of opening any chess book. What was shown there represented for me the key to gaining access to the hidden secrets of the royal game: new positional concepts, interesting opening systems, wonderful tactical blows, beautiful endgames. I eagerly devoured all the treasures I could find. I blindly believed in what the books said. Then, when I got to the playing hall and tried to apply the knowledge thus acquired to my own games, I usually found myself confronted with enormous difficulties: it was not as easy as I had been led to believe. At the beginning we only blame the deficiencies in our game on some vague flaw of our own, when applying in practice what we learnt in theory. Given time, young talents are expected to acquire greater ability and precision in this field, and therefore improve their results. However, time itself turns from an ally into an enemy: in the eyes of others, one is not making progress at the expected rate. People then talk about the promising young player reaching the limit of his potential. These turn out to be difficult years in no-man’s land. But life goes on and if one is really passionate about what one is doing, one keeps playing and studying, with more or less intensity, the art of chess. Stages come and go: the apprentice becomes a FIDE Master, then an International Master and eventually a Grandmaster and surprisingly… one discovers that one has been deceived all along. It turns out that from that entire array of books that captivated us in our childhood, only a few were really worthwhile, and even these were full of lies and mistakes. The latter are caused by several reasons: the authors’ lack of chess strength, scant ability to pass on their knowledge, superficial analysis, etc. This can have a damaging and enduring impact on our development as chess players. The present book has as its goal, first of all, to warn the reader about this aspect: if one is not ready to confront the study of any material in a critical, deep and creative way, to think and research for oneself, one is doomed to the most resounding failure.
8
True Lies in Chess
Secondly, in the present work I mount a staunch defence of chess ideas in the form of strategic concepts, positional principles, philosophies of the game, etc. Of late there has been a dangerous tendency to give clear precedence to concrete analysis over the written word. I would like to quote Lasker’s opinion about this topic: “A spirit with a large and roomy brain who without error could keep in mind millions of variations would have no need of planning. Frail, weak man can clearly keep in mind only half a dozen variations since he has but little time to spare for Chess. And if he by chance had more time for it and in addition had genius for the game, to see through hundreds of variations would turn his brain. His reason was not made to be a substitute for a printed table. His mind has a marvellous faculty which enables him to conceive deep and far-sighted plans without being subject to the necessity of examining every possibility.” [Lasker’s Lasker’s Manual of Chess Chess] The faculty to which Lasker refers is abstraction. We human beings have developed an exceptionally powerful technique to treat complexity: we abstract from it. Unable to control complex objects in their entirety, we ignore the non-essential details, dealing instead with the ideal model of the object and focussing on its essential aspects. Thus language has been born, the concept and the principle is but a simplified view of reality in such a way that we can interact with it. Abstraction is an essential tool to handle the complex world of the 64 squares. In my view a well-annotated game is one that encompasses the sum of, on the one hand, rigorous analysis, and, on the other, a generous written expression of the positional ideas underlying them. In this book I have tried to tackle the games with the aforementioned criteria. Thirdly, and finally, this work is an appeal for the reader to be creative. The only beautiful thing in chess – or in any other discipline for that matter – is that which contributes something fresh and original to the field. What is already known becomes boring to us in the end. Fortunately enough, chess is a tremendously complex and rich game. And I say fortunately because it means that there are still new and surprising horizons to be discovered. In order to delve more deeply into the unknown one only needs to be brave and to believe in oneself. Therefore the reader will find interesting ideas and opinions that the author has been accumulating over years of experience. I hope that this introduction to the way a grandmaster thinks will be useful for all those who want to improve their chess. Grandmaster Lluis Comas Fabrego
Chapter 1 Do not Trust the Classics
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. The Buddha’s Kalama Sutra The tip of the iceberg “Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith, the one unpardonable sin.” Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) English biologist In the games that appear in the classic manuals the analysis is usually too one-sided. History is always written by the winners and often their research lacks objectivity. Later treatises blindly copy these “exemplary games” thus reinforcing the transmission of the inaccurate, sometimes utterly false, knowledge they try to show. It is mostly young players and those who do not trust their own strength who are likely to be the victims of this partiality, this lack of honesty and rigorousness in the analysis. But because the proof is in the pudding, I am going to show a series of examples for the readers to familiarize themselves with the substance of this problem. The next game, analysis and notes are from the books My System and Chess Praxis by Aron Nimzowitsch, and from Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by John Watson. Naturally I have added my own opinions and corrections. k Janowski l Nimzowitsch St Petersburg 1914, Nimzo-Indian [E43] 1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.e3 b6 5.¥d3 ¥b7 6.¤f3 ¥xc3† 7.bxc3 d6 8.£c2
10
True Lies in Chess
The modern treatment of this variation starts with 8.0-0 0-0 9.¤d2 ¤bd7 (9...¤c6 10.e4 e5 11.¤b3) 10.e4 e5 11.¦e1 ¦e8 12.f3 ¤f8 13.¤f1, when White is slightly better: the knight can be transferred to the e3-square to target the important central points f5 and d5 without getting in the way of the plan based on the f3-f4 push. 8...¤bd7 9.e4 e5
“Now the position has taken on features typical of a Nimzo-Indian Defence. Please note the role of Black’s c-pawn. If Black has to play ...c5 in order to force White to play d5, then White’s queenside pawns will be hard to attack, e.g., Black won’t be able to play ...¤a5, ...¥a6, and ...£d7-c6 to attack the forward c-pawn. On the other hand, if White plays d5 without being provoked by ...c5, Black gains two important advantages: a fine square c5 for his knights, and more importantly, the possibility of opening the position against White’s queenside by ...c6. See the note to Black’s 13th move.” (Watson) 10.0-0 0-0 As we will see, the b7-bishop is not best placed here in this system. On the one hand Black does not have enough resources to force the advance d4-d5 that he so desires without having to resort to the move ...c7-c5, and on the other, the absence of this bishop from its original diagonal will considerably weaken the f5-square, a typical target in this kind of central pawn structure.
11.¥g5 h6 12.¥d2 White has provoked a slight weakening in the black kingside. If instead 12.¥h4?! ¦e8 followed by the manoeuvre ...¤d7-f8-g6 with a good game. 12...¦e8 If Black tries to achieve a general blockade of the position with 12...c5 13.d5 g5, there would follow the manoeuvre 14.h4! ¤h7 15.hxg5 hxg5 16.g3! with the idea of ¢g2, ¦h1, ¤h2 and ¥e2 with strong pressure against the enemy kingside. 13.¦ae1
13...¤h7?! In my opinion a dubious move. “The idea is still that Black would like White to play d5 without ...c5 being in, since 13...c5 14.d5 gives White a free hand to prepare g4 and f4 with an attack.” (Watson) Black had several interesting alternatives in order to try to provoke White’s problematic d4d5 advance: a) 13...¦e6 – Nimzowitsch (?!Comas) This move tries to increase the pressure on the e4point, while at the same time hindering the f2-f4 break, one of the basic plans at the disposal of the first player in this kind of position with its goal being to activate White’s rooks and the bishop pair. Now: a1) 14.d5? ¦e8 15.¦e2 ¤c5 16.¤e1 c6 17.g3 cxd5 (17...¥a6! and Black is clearly better, the
Do not Trust the Classics
analysis diagram
Time is a very important factor for carrying out our plans. At this point the advance is very promising since White’s attack on kingside succeeds before Black’s possible counterplay on the queenside. For instance: 15...¦e7 16.¤h4 ¤c5 (16...£d8!? 17.¤f5 ¦e8 18.¦e3!? with the alternative plan of bringing the rook to the g3-square to exploit the weakening that the move ...h6 caused on Black’s kingside) 17.¤f5 ¦d7 18.f4 exf4 19.¥xf4 (19.¦xf4!?) 19...¤g4 20.¦f3 White is clearly better. a22) 14...£f8!? (Watson) 15.¦fe1 ¦ae8 16.¤h4 g6 17.g3 £g7 (Quite a curious method of solving several problems at once: the
weakness of the f5-square and the development of the queenside, while increasing the pressure against White’s d4 and e4 points in accord with Black’s main plan) 18.¤g2 White is slightly better according to Watson. I think that after 18...¤h7!? (going after the weakness on d4: the idea is ...¤g5) Black has a very promising position: for example if 19.£a4 ¦6e7 20.£xa7 then 20...exd4!. a3) 14.¤h4 – Nimzowitsch (! Comas)
analysis diagram
idea being 18...¤xd3, exploiting the c4-pawn’s weakness – Comas) 18.cxd5 ¤xd3 19.¤xd3 ¦c8 “The point of this line is that White can liquidate his doubled c-pawns and still be left with a seriously backward pawn on an open file, an idea which applies to many positions and was first enunciated by Nimzowitsch.” (Watson) Nevertheless it is still necessary to note that the position is far from being clear due to White still having chances of counterplay on the kingside, e.g. f2-f3, ¦g2 followed by g3-g4-g5. Despite being on an open file, the c3-pawn is invulnerable. a2) 14.¦e2 – Nimzowitsch. And now: a21) 14...£e8 15.d5!? – Comas (15.¦fe1 “White, with the utmost perseverance, continues the policy of marking time. However, Black also has a score to register; the chance for White to play f4 has receded into the dim future.” Nimzowitsch)
11
Exploiting the temporary weakness of the f5square and planning the prophylactic move f2f3, firmly strengthening the e4-square: 14...g6 15.g3! (Comas – with the idea of securing the centre once and for all with 16.f3; the only line analysed by Nimzowitsch is 15.f4, when he gives the following variations: 15...exf4 16.¥xf4 £e8 [16...¤h5 17.£f2 ¦f6 18.g3 g5 19.e5 ¤xf4 20.gxf4 ¦xf4, winning; 16...g5!?] 17.d5 ¦e7 18.¥xh6 ¤g4 19.¥g5 f6 20.¥c1 ¤ge5 Black has a good game) 15...£f8 and now: a31) 16.f3!? (following a constructive strategy without any hurry) 16...¦ae8 17.¦e2 c6! The idea is to play ...d6-d5, exploiting the remote situation of the h4-knight, with a complex game. If Black plays passively White will have a strong attack after ¦g2 and g3-g4. a32) 16.f4! (this attack is completely justified in the given situation due to the poor location of the black forces) 16...£g7 (16...¦e7 17.c5! exf4 [17...bxc5 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.£b3 with a winning advantage] 18.cxd6 cxd6 19.gxf4 d5 20.e5 ¤e4 21.¥xe4 dxe4 22.f5 White is clearly better) 17.c5!
12
True Lies in Chess
analysis diagram
In this sort of position sometimes one has to act very vigorously. The pawn is offered with the object of opening important lines for White's heavy pieces. The following variations show how dangerous White's attack is: a321) 17...bxc5 18.f5! with a decisive advantage (18.dxe5 dxe5 19.¤xg6 and White is clearly better). a322) 17...exf4 18.d5 and White is clearly better. a323) 17...exd4 18.cxd4 ¤xe4 19.c6 ¤xd2 20.¦xe6 ¤xf1 21.cxb7 ¦b8 22.¦e7 ¤xg3 23.hxg3 £xd4† 24.¢g2 ¤c5 25.¥xg6 and White is winning. a324) 17...¦e7 18.£a4! (18.cxd6 cxd6 19.fxe5 dxe5 20.d5 and the position is unclear; 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.£c1 ¢h7) 18...bxc5 19.fxe5 dxe5 20.d5 ¦ee8 (20...¤b6 21.£a3) 21.c4 and White is clearly better. b) 13...¤f8 Nimzowitsch (! Comas)
I think this is the best move as Black prevents White's most effective plans: the transfer of the
analysis diagram
analysis diagram
knight to f5 and the f2-f4 break. Now: b1) 14.h3 ¤g6 15.¤h2 b11) 15...¦e7 16.f4 (16.¤g4 – Watson – is good: 16...¤xg4 17.hxg4 £d7 18.f3 and White is slightly better) 16...exf4 17.¥xf4 £e8 18.¥xh6 ¤xe4 and Black is slightly better according to Watson. b12) 15...£d7!? 16.f4 (16.f3?! ¤h5 Black has the initiative due to the weakness of the dark squares on the kingside) 16...exf4 17.¥xf4 ¤xf4 18.¦xf4 and White’s position has more prospects. b13) 15...c5! 16.d5 ¥c8 Black’s position is very good. b2) 14.¤h4!? Again this seems to me the most ambitious option. 14...c5!? (Exploiting the weakness of the unprotected white knight. If instead 14...¤g6!? then White could either play 15.¤f5 ¤e7 16.¤g3 and be slightly better, or 15.¤xg6!? fxg6 which leads to a pawn formation that is very interesting: Black threatens to block the kingside by means of the advance ...g6-g5. 16.c5!? One always has to keep an eye on the advance of the doubled pawns! [also interesting is 16.f4 with an initiative] 16...dxc5 17.dxe5 ¦xe5 18.f4 ¦e7 19.e5 ¦d7 20.¥c4† and White is clearly better.) After 14…c5!? White has a choice: b21) 15.¤f5 (15.d5? ¤xd5) 15...cxd4 16.cxd4 ¤e6 or 16...exd4 with very complex positions. b22) 15.dxe5!? Carrying out a plan that was played for the first time by Botvinnik. 15...dxe5 16.¤f5 ¤e6 17.f3
The idea is to transfer the knight to d5 eventually, although there is also the possibility
Do not Trust the Classics of carrying out manoeuvres such as ¦e1-b1, ¦f1d1 and ¥d3-f1 and ¥d2-e3 with very promising positions. Note that Black cannot use the d4-square as a base of operations thanks to the doubled-pawn complex c4-c3. c) 13...c6!? – (Comas)
analysis diagram
This is quite an original alternative, which no other author has pointed out. Black prepares to answer White's plan (removing the knight from f3 followed by the advance of the f-pawn) with a break in the centre, leading to complex play. 14.h3 Watson recommends 14.g3 and I agree with him that it is a better option. There could follow 14...¤g5 (14...£f6!? seems an annoying move, trying to prevent ¤h4 by putting pressure on d4, but 15.¤h4! exd4 [15...¤g5 16.f4 exf4 17.¥xf4 with some initiative] 16.e5 ¤g5 17.¥xg5 £xg5 18.f4 £d8 19.cxd4 and White is clearly better) and now: a) 15.¤h4 ¤f6 (15...¤e6 16.¤f5) 16.f3 and White is slightly better (Watson). b) I prefer 15.¤xg5 hxg5 16.£d1 and White is clearly better due to the weakness of the g5pawn. 14...¤hf8 A prophylactic move trying to prevent White’s f2-f4 break. (14...£f6 – Nimzowitsch) 15.¤h2 ¤e6 16.¥e3 c5!? “Nimzowitsch shows a typically modern flexibility; if he can’t force d5 without playing ...c5, well, he’ll play ...c5 anyway, but at a time when he has kingside prospects!” (Watson)
13
If the truth be told, this manoeuvre can be carried out here because Black has good prospects on the kingside due to the not-very-fortunate sequence h3, ¤f3-h2 which consolidated the position of the black knight on f4. Now driving it away with g2-g3 is much more difficult to accomplish and, furthermore, the exchange would not be very advisable because of the weakness that would appear on the e5-square right after this. The possibility Watson recommends, 16...£f6!?, was also interesting, and if 17.¤g4, then ...£h4 with the idea ...¤d7-f6, offering to exchange a minor piece, which in theory would benefit Black since he has less space to manoeuvre. 17.d5 ¤f4 18.¥e2 ¤f8 Better was 18...¤f6! with the idea ...¥c8. 19.¥g4 ¥c8 This leads us to a different subject: good bishop versus bad bishop. 20.£d2 ¥a6 21.g3 ¤4g6 22.¥e2
The position is unclear. Apparently White has achieved all that he initially wanted: Black has only been able to force d4-d5 by ...c7-c5 (now it becomes obvious how difficult it is to put pressure on the “weak” c4-pawn) and secondly, it looks as if the advance f2-f4 will come sooner or later. But as the continuation of the game shows, Black has enough resources to fight against the aforementioned break. This is to a great extent because of the bad situation of White's h-pawn,
14
True Lies in Chess
which would be better off on its initial square. Moreover, the weakness of the pawn structure on the queenside takes its toll at the end of the game. 22...¤h7 23.h4 ¤f6 24.¥d3 ¦b8 25.£e2 ¦b7 26.¥c1 ¦be7 A prophylactic manoeuvre to hinder White’s plans. 27.¢h1 ¥c8 28.¦g1 ¢f8 29.h5 ¤h8 30.g4 After this move White can no longer achieve the long desired f2-f4 under ideal conditions. 30...¤h7 31.¥c2?! If 31.g5!? hxg5 32.¥xg5 ¤xg5 33.¦xg5 f6 34.¦g3 ¤f7 35.¦eg1 ¤g5! 36.¤f3, then 36...¤h3! and Black is clearly better. 31...¦b7 32.f4 f6 Black’s position is very solid. 33.fxe5?! dxe5 34.¤f3 ¤f7 35.¦ef1 ¢g8 36.¤h4 ¤d6 Black is now clearly better. 37.¤f5 ¥xf5! In this sort of blockade position a good bishop is usually as ineffective as a bad one. 38.gxf5 ¤g5 39.¥xg5 hxg5 40.¥a4 ¦f8 41.¥c6 ¦b8 42.a4 ¢f7 43.¢g2 ¦h8 44.¦h1 ¦h6 45.¦a1 £c7 46.¢f2 ¦bh8 47.¢e3 ¢g8 48.¢d3 £f7 49.a5 ¦xh5 50.¦xh5 ¦xh5 51.axb6 ¦h3† 52.¢c2 axb6 53.¦a8† ¢h7 54.¦d8 £a7 55.¦a8 £f7 56.¢b3 £h5 57.£xh5† ¦xh5 58.¥e8 ¤xe8 59.¦xe8 ¦h2 60.¦a8 g4 61.¦a1 ¢h6 62.¢a4 ¢g5 63.¢b5 ¢f4 64.¦g1 ¢xe4 65.¦xg4† ¢xf5 66.¦xg7 ¦b2† 67.¢c6 e4 68.d6 ¦d2 69.d7 e3 70.¢xb6 e2 71.¦e7 ¦xd7 72.¦xe2 ¦d3 73.¦c2 ¦d1 ½-½ What conclusions can be drawn and lessons learnt after studying this game? In my opinion, there are several: 1. Who among us, in our youth, would dare challenge the great Nimzowitsch’s authority and defend White’s cause? Let me tell you: very few. Why? Because of what I told you before: classic games are usually annotated one-sidedly by the winners or by authors hardly bent on serious and
rigorous analysis, and in their notes everything goes the winner’s, or alternatively the superior player’s, way. When these games are subjected to serious investigation we can always find new ideas, correct established evaluations and discover mistakes that have passed unnoticed for several generations. It is precisely because of this that I would like to challenge the readers, daring them to play this sort of position with both colours. That’s why I’m going to sum up the typical plans for both sides from the main diagram after White’s 13th move. White - The f2-f4 break to activate both the rooks and the bishops (remember that when in possession of the bishop pair one has to open up the position—always with caution, though) and begin an attack on Black’s king. - The transfer of the white knight to the outpost on f5 followed by: A piece attack on the kingside via ¦e1-e3-g3. A pawn storm on that flank, going after the contact point on g5 with f2-f3, g2-g4 and ¦e1e2-g2. - The sacrifice c4-c5 to activate the bishop on c4 and disrupt Black’s pawn structure. - A pawn storm with the pieces posted behind the pawns; for instance g2-g3, ¤h4 (e1)-g2 and f2-f4. - In the event of Black playing ...c7-c5, the possibility of taking dxe5(c5) and playing for the central d5-square. Black - To put pressure on White’s centre with the aim of provoking the positional concession d4d5, if possible without having to resort to the move ...c7-c5. - To take prophylactic measures against White’s aforementioned plans, of which the move ¤f3h4 is the common element. - The innovative plan of going for the central break ...c6, ...d6-d5 while White is preparing his attack on the kingside: the only place where the latter actually has any prospects.
Understanding Chess Tactics
Martin Weteschnik Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
Contents List of symbols Preface What is this book about? Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 5 7 13
Becoming familiar with the pieces! The pin The discovered attack The Reloader The double attack Mate Gain of tempo/intermediate move The X-ray attack Opening and closing lines Status examination
17 23 51 77 87 107 143 159 165 177
Solutions to exercises Indexes
219 232
What is this book about? Chess is a visual game. A chess player must be able to recognise elementary patterns, therefore the tactics in this book will be primarily explained graphically. This approach is supported by a large numbers of diagrams, which will also allow the reader to study this book without a chessboard. Chess is also a game of logic. Logic, in the same way as chess tactics, depends on collecting and processing information. This book will show you how to accurately find the elements of tactics, and work with them creatively. This book is divided into the following parts:
Chapter 1 Becoming familiar with the pieces!
XABCDEFGHY 8-+-+-+k+0 7+-+-+pzpp0 6pvL-+-+-+0 5+-+ltr-+-0 4Pzp-+-+-+0 3+-+-+QzPq0 2-zP-+-zP-zP0 1+-tR-+-mK-0r xiiiiiiiiy
1.g4! It is an illusion to assume that after 1.g4 the black queen could take the white queen. The black queen cannot move, because she is defending against ¦c1-c8 mate. That is also why the black bishop has no time to take the white queen. In this chapter you will learn (among other things) to safeguard yourself against illusions of this kind.
Chapter 2 The pin
XABCDEFGHY 8-+-+-+-mk0Ç 7zpl+-wq-+-0 6-zp-+-zp-+0 5+-zprzp-zp-0 4-+-+-+P+0 3wQP+R+-+-0 2P+-+-zPP+0 1+L+-+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
1...£h7†! There is much more to know about the pin than might appear at first sight. 1...£h7† looks like a mistake because of 2.¦h3 but... The theme of this chapter is the chain of three points that constitutes the formation of a pin: t The pin’s interaction with other pieces and squares on the board. t How to recognise the pin if it is in a preliminary state (only two points out of three). t)PXUPDSFBUFBQJOBOEXPSLXJUIJU
Understanding Chess Tactics
8
Chapter 3 The discovered attack
XABCDEFGHY 8-+-+-+-+0Ç 7tR-+-+-zpk0 6P+p+-+-+0 5+-zPp+-+q0 4-+-+p+-+0 3+-+-zPrzPp0 2-wQ-+-zP-zP0 1+-+-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
1...¦f7 This time the target of the discovered attack is a square. The formation £h5-¦f3-d1 is the same formation as the pin. Detailed information about what constitutes a discovered attack and how to create and strike with the discovered attack are demonstrated in this chapter.
Chapter 4 The reloader
XABCDEFGHY 8-tR-+r+k+0 7+-+-+-zp-0 6p+-wQ-wq-+0 5+p+P+-mK-0 4-+-+-+-zP0 3zP-+-+-+-0 2-zP-+-+-+0 1+-+-+-+-0r xiiiiiiiiy
This is the end of a nice combination by World Champion Tal. The black queen gave check on f6 forcing White to take. But the black pawn will take back with a check and reload itself with deadly force. What the first piece occupying f6 (the black queen) did not achieve on this square, the following piece will do. The reloading of pieces is explained here and - strangely enough - (and deservedly!) recognised as a tactical motif in its own right and finally given a name in chess literature.
9
What is this book about?
Chapter 5 The double attack
XABCDEFGHY 8r+-+-+k+0Ç 7+-+R+-zpp0 6-+-+-+-+0 5+-+p+n+-0 4P+p+-+Q+0 3+-+-wqP+-0 2-+-+-+KzP0 1+-+-+L+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White has just played £g3-g4? running into a double attack. 1...£e6! The boxed-in squares show the targets of the ¤f5. The encircled square on e3 is the point from where the knight strikes. 1...£e6 wins the necessary tempo against the undefended ¦d7. An easy example, but this chapter will also reveal to you the finer points of this motif.
Chapter 6 Mate
XABCDEFGHY 8-tr-+r+k+0Ç 7zp-+-+pzpp0 6-wqp+-+-+0 5+-+-zPl+-0 4-+-vl-zP-+0 3+PzP-+-+-0 2P+-vLQ+PzP0 1+-mKR+-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy
1...¦ed8! Knowledge of mating patterns (here a ¦+¥ mate) is essential. This chapter will teach you all of the important ones. But there is more to it than just executing the mates. Giving mate is a subtle art. Or why do you think the tactical giant Anderssen played 1...¦ed8 in the above position?
10
Understanding Chess Tactics
Chapter 7 Gain of tempo/Intermediate move
XABCDEFGHY 8-mk-+-+-tr0Ç 7+l+p+-+-0 6-+q+-wQ-+0 5+R+p+-zp-0 4-vL-zP-+r+0 3+-+-+-+-0 2-zP-+-+-zP0 1+-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy
1...¦xh2† The tempo lets us find efficient ways to bring our pieces to squares otherwise impossible with a normal timetable. Under enormous pressure himself, Black finds time to transfer his queen via c2† to the mating square h7. This chapter will tell you how to make combinations possible in the nick of time. Other related themes are also investigated in this chapter.
Chapter 8 The X-ray attack
XABCDEFGHY 8-+Rtr-+-mk0 7+-+-+-zpp0 6-+-+Q+-+0 5+-+-+-+-0 4-+-+-+-wq0 3+-+-+-+-0 2-+-+-+PzP0 1+-+-+-+K0r xiiiiiiiiy
1.£e8† Simple but effective: the X-ray attack! This small chapter shows you how this frequently misunderstood little motif can clearly be detected and utilised.
11
What is this book about?
Chapter 9 Opening and closing lines (Lines of communication)
XABCDEFGHY 8-+l+-+-+0 7+pzP-+kvlp0 6-+-+-zpp+0 5+p+-zp-+-0 4-zP-+PzP-+0 3+-+-+-zP-0 2-+-+-+LzP0 1vL-+-+-mK-0r xiiiiiiiiy
1.¥h3! Lines for attack or defence, lines between pieces, squares and tasks, lines to open, lines to close and interrupt are the story of this chapter. Realise the importance of your pieces working together and learn how to cut off your opponent’s pieces from their colleagues.
Chapter 10 Status Examination Target square = h4-f2
XABCDEFGHY 8-+l+-+k+0Ç 7+-+-wqp+p0 6p+-zp-+p+0 5+-+P+-+-0 4-+Pzp-zPn+0 3+-+LtrNzPn0 2PzPQvL-+KzP0 1+-+-tR +-0 xiiiiiiiiy Not defending e3 = target of ¤ Not defending h4 ¦e1 (because e3) double attack
(because ¦e1)
1...¤xf4†! In the final chapter we will learn how to organise and effectively prune the calculation process when working with tactics. This chapter brings it all together: from the easy questions such as ‘How many (retreating) squares does a piece have?’ to finding complex combinations like the one above.
13
Introduction Tactics can be broken down into basic elements and systematically analysed. Therefore everybody should be able to understand tactics and use tactics successfully in his or her games. World Champion Steinitz once pointed out that combinations are not coincidences or strokes of genius but the results of concrete positions. He taught us how to analyse any given position for its elements. The same method used to analyse positions can be applied to combinations. They too can be broken down into their elements. Although tactics sometimes can be very complicated, there is good news: tactics consist of basic elements that can be learned like a language or mathematics. Some years ago I trained for about two years with the former trainer of Peter Leko, Tibor Karolyi. With Tibor I mainly studied openings, middlegame strategy, and endgames. During this time I also solved a lot of combinations to sharpen my tactical skills. I had developed my own little routine. Whenever I thought I had discovered some mechanism or characteristic of a position, I started taking notes. The work on thousands of positions grew first into a collection of unsorted tactical insights, but finally resulted in a structured overview of tactics. Over time seemingly unconnected information turned into a coherent concept. The book you are now holding in your hands is my attempt to communicate this understanding of tactics. Most of the positions discussed in this book are original positions from my notes. It does not really matter for teaching purposes whether these examples are well known or not. However, my experience when teaching club players is that most players did not know these positions. When I was asked to train a local club team, I thought it might be a good idea to have a look at their games from a team championship in order to find out about their playing strength. I saw the following position.
XABCDEFGHY 8-+-+r+k+0Ç 7zp-+lsn-trp0 6-zp-wq-+p+0 5+-zpptR-sN-0 4-+-zP-wQ-+0 3zP-zP-+-zP-0 2-zP-+R+KzP0 1+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
White is a piece down but has just played £h4-f4, and I wondered why they were asking for training if they could play moves like this! Black obviously did not know what was going on, as he now played: 1...¥c6?! Now I was expecting White to win back his piece. Surprisingly the player from my future club moved his queen back to h4. Now I knew they definitely needed my help. Let us look at the diagram again:
XABCDEFGHY 8-+-+r+k+0 7zp-+-sn-trp0 6-zplwq-+p+0 5+-zpptR-sN-0 4-+-zP-wQ-+0 3zP-zP-+-zP-0 2-zP-+R+KzP0 1+-+-+-+-0r xiiiiiiiiy
After studying this book, you will immediately realise the combinative idea of the solution to the diagram position. It is the typical pattern for a discovered attack. The game should have continued:
14
Understanding Chess Tactics
2.¦xe7 £xf4 2...£xe7 3.¦xe7 ¦gxe7 is equal. 3.¦xe8† ¥xe8 4.¦xe8† £f8 5.¦xf8† ¢xf8 6.¤e6† Forking king and rook.
XABCDEFGHY 8-+-+-mk-+0Ç 7zp-+-+-trp0 6-zp-+N+p+0 5+-zpp+-+-0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3zP-zP-+-zP-0 2-zP-+-+KzP0 1+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
From being a piece down at the beginning of the combination, White could have forced an equal pawn endgame. To calculate this over the board might have been difficult for you. Nevertheless, with the knowledge of this pattern (the discovered attack) you might have found it after all. This book will teach you two things: 1. It will systematically introduce you to all the elementary patterns and tactical formations 2. It will teach you how to create and use them in your games Another game from this club will illustrate quite dramatically what happens when a player is not familiar with the basic patterns and elementary motifs.
This book will: 1. Introduce you to all the elementary patterns and tactical formations.
Witt – Hoellwarth Germany 2004
XABCDEFGHY 8-+-tr-+k+0 7zpp+q+pzp-0 6-+ptr-+-zp0 5+-+-+-vlQ0 4-+-zP-+-+0 3+LzP-+-+-0 2PzP-+R+PzP0 1+-+-tR-mK-0r xiiiiiiiiy
In this position there are three ways to win material: 1.¦e7 (motif: line interruption) ¥xe7 2.£xf7† ¢h8 3.¦xe7 £xe7 4.£xe7 and White wins. 1.¥xf7† £xf7 2.¦e8† ¦xe8 3.¦xe8† (motif: Xray attack) 3...£f8 4.¦xf8† and White wins. 1.£xf7† £xf7 (motif: pin) 2.¦e8† ¦xe8 3.¦xe8† ¢h7 4.¥xf7 and White is a pawn up but stuck with opposite coloured bishops. Holger Witt, the translator of this book, brooded over the board for half an hour and found an “ingenious” fourth possibility: losing the game... A few weeks later Holger, who had just started to translate this book, was playing in a tournament. A couple of days before this tournament he had been working on the chapter on double attacks. The basic pattern in mind, he had already seen a possible double attack on c2 against king and bishop. Finally the time had come to cash in on the idea he had been harbouring in his mind for quite a while.
This book will: 2. Teach you how to create and use these patterns in your games.
15
Introduction Schwappach – Witt Deizisau 2005
Rotermund – Witt Frankfurt 2005
The black bishop took the knight. 1...¥xe3 Eliminating the defender of the c2-square. After his opponent took back on e3 with his queen: 2.£xe3 Holger finished the game with the decisive double attack: 2...¦c2† The difference between the two games was that Holger had learned to recognise a basic tactical pattern, which he then used in the game.
1...¥e8! If White takes on e6 with 2.£xe6†, Black would simply answer 2...¥f7 simultaneously covering the check and trapping White’s queen. Working through this book will help to improve your understanding and your results just like the players of the club I coached. On average the players improved by one to two hundred rating points and the club’s team has been promoted twice in three years to a higher league. And maybe one day you will be able to uncork tactical champagne like this:
XABCDEFGHY 8-+r+r+k+0Ç 7+-+q+-zp-0 6p+-+-+Pzp0 5+pvlP+p+P0 4-+-+nzP-+0 3+P+RsN-+Q0 2PvL-+-+K+0 1+-+-+R+-0 xiiiiiiiiy
As in the previous example, most amateur chess games are decided tactically. Therefore, the quickest way to improve your chess is to study tactics. However, solving tactical puzzles without fully understanding the underlying mechanisms is not the most efficient way to learn. Rather than offering yet another compilation of combinations to solve, you will understand the elements of combinations. Do not exercise what you do not understand! Look how tricky Holger became. In the following position he is using tactics to improve the position of his bishop.
XABCDEFGHY 8-+rtr-+k+0Ç 7+p+lvl-+-0 6pwqn+p+p+0 5+-+-+p+-0 4-zP-zP-+-+0 3zP-+LzPN+-0 2Q+-+N+P+0 1tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy
XABCDEFGHY 8-+-tr-trk+0 7+-zp-+pzpp0 6p+N+-+-+0 5+-+pzP-+-0 4-zp-+-+-+0 3+-zP-+lwq-0 2PzPL+-+P+0 1tRNwQ-+-tRK0r xiiiiiiiiy White to move
16
Understanding Chess Tactics
Black is threatening mate with ...£h3 or ...£h4. Obviously White is desperately looking for a good reply. Again you notice the visual and obvious structural components of a tactical motif: three pieces in a row constitute a pin, here rook, queen, and king. Based on this basic pattern of a pin, White found the answer: 20.£h6!! With this move White covers both threats and is threatening mate on h7 himself. If Black took the queen, White would simply take the bishop on f3, winning back his queen with a material advantage. I am sure that by reading this book you will understand elementary tactics completely and you will successfully implement them in your games. Since this is not just a tactical puzzle book, I purposely did not give detailed analysis for each position unless I thought it necessary. For a successful journey through this book I would advise you to concentrate on reading and understanding rather than solving the problems. Consequently, you will find a lot of diagrams in this book enabling you to read it without a chessboard.
You will benefit most from this book when you read through the entire material first and then go back to study certain themes more closely. My own experience taught me that I have trouble finishing a chess book when I lose myself in unnecessarily detailed analysis. I have read many of the classics from start to finish, such as Steinitz, Tarrasch, Lasker, Nimzowitsch, Reti, Capablanca, Alekhine, Spielmann, Tartakower, Kmoch, Euwe, Averbakh, Bronstein, Fischer and Vukovic. But, apart from them, my bookshelf is a graveyard for unfinished chess books featuring endless variations and sidelines. At the end of each chapter four exercises are given. Do not despair if you cannot solve many of them. Some are rather demanding. As already mentioned, this book is not an exercise book. Consider the exercises as small lectures: they help you to understand the subjects of the preceding chapter. Understanding is the first and most important step. If you are willing to take another then you have to practise combinations and venture into practical play. This book will endow you with all the necessary tactical tools.
Verbessern Sie Ihre Technik im Schach
Jacob Aagaard
Verbesseren Sie Ihre Technik im Schach Zuerst veröffentlicht 2004 durch Gloucester Edition plc (früher Everyman Edition plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0AT Englischer Originaltitel: Jacob Aagaard: Excelling at Technical Chess Copyright © Jacob Aagaard 2004 1. Deutsche Auflage 2007 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Diese Publikation ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die Vewertung der Publikation vollständig oder in Teilen ohne Zustimmung des Verlegers ist unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. ISBN: 91-976004-8-2 ISBN 13: 978-91-976004-8-4 Übersetzung: GM Henrik Teske Schriftsatz: Colin McNab Umschlagdesign: Carole Dunlop
Druck: Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC, Estland Alle anfragen an Quality Chess Europe AB 20 Balvie Road G62 7TA Glasgow United Kingdom
[email protected] www.qualitychessbooks.com Distribution: Schach E. Niggemann www.schachversand.de
INHALT Bibliographisches Danksagungen
4 4
Kapitel Eins: Das Endspiel
5
Was ist ein Endspiel? Ihre stärkste Figur sollte immer aktiv bleiben! Kapitel Zwei: Sieben praktische Merksätze 1) Schematisches Denken 2) Schwächen Die generelle Definition einer Schwäche Grundlegende Bauernschwächen Potenzielle Schwächen und die Schaffung von Schwächen Angriffsmarken Bauerninseln Doppelbauern 3) Dominanz 4) Ruhe Bewahren, sondern unterbinden Sie Gegenspiel Die Vermeidung von Gegenspiel 5) Freibauern 6) Bauernformation im Endspiel 7) Geheimnisvolle Aspekte des Endspiels Zugzwang Das Patt Festungen Angriff auf den König Verrückte Beispiele Kapitel Drei: Weiterführende Ideen
7 8 11 11 20 20 21 23 27 36 43 45 57 62 67 81 88 90 97 100 102 108 115
Die Erweiterung der Wirkung von Figuren Binden Sie den Sack zu! Guter Springer gegen schlechten Läufer Wenn Läufer besser sind als Springer Reine Läuferendspiele Der Vorteil des Läuferpaares im Endspiel Technisches Schach als Spielstil Komplizierte Beispiele
116 118 123 132 143 149 156 162
Spielerverzeichnis
169
4
Verbessern Sie Ihre Technik im Schach
Bibliographisches Bücher Fundamental Chess Endings (Fundamentale Schachendspiele), Müller and Lamprecht (Gambit 2002) Dvoretsky´s Endgame Manual (Dworetskis Handbuch des Endspiels), Mark Dvoretsky (Russell 2003) Endgame Strategy (Endspielstrategie), Michail Schereschewski (Everyman Chess) Technique for the Tournament Playerer (Technik für den Turnierspieler), Mark Dworetski und Artur Jussupow (Batsford 1995) Rate Your Endgame (Bewerte Dein Endspiel), Edmar Mednis (Everyman Chess 1992) School of Chess Excellence (Schule der schachlichen Meisterschaft) 1 – The Endgame (Das Endspiel), Mark Dworetski (Olms 2002) Praktische Turmendspiele, Wiktor Kortschnoj (Olms 2002) Tactical Chess Endings, (Taktische Schachendspiele) John Nunn (Batsford 1998) The Magic of Chess Tactics (Die Magie der Schachtaktik) Müller and Meyer (Russell Enterprises 2003) Weiteres Material Endgame Manual, (Handbuch des Endspiels) Juri Awerbach (Chess Assistant) Chessbase Mega Database 2004 Endgame Study Database 2000 (Endspielstudien Datenbank) Harold van der Heijden (editor) Schachinformator
Danksagungen Um allen zu danken, die mir geholfen haben, mich zu verbessern. Für kleinere Korrekturen auch in diesem Buch bin ich Danny Kristiansen sehr dankbar. Esben Lund kommentierte eine seiner Partien, die mir sehr gefallen hat. Peter Heine Nielsen gab mir einen leisen Einblick in seine Analysen zu seiner Niederlage gegen Drejew – vielen Dank! Artur Jussupow erlaubte mir, einige Beispiele aus seiner Sammlung zu verwenden, die ich sehr genossen habe. Dafür stehe ich tief in Eurer Schuld. Dieses Buch widme ich in Liebe Miss Anne Faith James. Jacob Aagaard, Glasgow, Juli 2004.
Kapitel Eins
Das Endspiel Es gibt zwei Arten von Endspielbüchern. Zum einen diejenigen, die sich der Theorie des Endspiels widmen, oftmals mit einer sehr geringen Anzahl von Figuren. Das berühmteste von diesen ist wahrscheinlich Awerbachs fünfbändiges Endgame Manual (Handbuch des Endspiels), das zwar schon etwa 25 Jahre alt ist, aber erst kürzlich in korrigierter und computergeprüfter Fassung auf DVD von Chess Assistant neu herausgegeben wurde. Ebenso bedeutend sind die großen EndspielEnzyklopädien des Schachinformator Schachinformators; die Analysen in diesen Büchern sind von unterschiedlicher Qualität, aber sie sind noch immer eine exzellente Materialquelle. Von den einbändigen Büchern ist vor allem Dworetsky’s Endgame Manual (Handbuch des Endspiels) (Russell Publications 2003), erwähnenswert, geschrieben von Mark Dworetski, dem besten Schachtrainer der Welt. (Mark Dworetski ist sicherlich ein guter Trainer, der vielen Spielern in ihrer schachlichen Karriere geholfen hat. Aber ich mag solche Verabsolutierungen nicht. Viele Trainer von Weltmeistern und Spitzenspielern waren ihren Schützlingen ein Leben lang treu ergebene Helfer [= Trainer?] und haben deshalb über ihre Zusammenarbeit fast nichts veröffentlicht. Wer kennt schon Alexander Schakarow? Wie viele Jahre war er einer der engsten Vertrauten und Computerfachmann für Garry Kasparow? Wer kann die Arbeit von Juri Dochojan genau einschätzen? Auch in der Ukraine und in vielen anderen Ländern scheint erstklassig trainiert zu werden. – der Übersetzer)
Gleichfalls ausgezeichnet ist Müllers und Lamprechts Fundamental Chess Endings (Fundamentale Schachendspiele) (Gambit 2002). Es gibt natürlich viele weitere gute Bücher, aber diese kann ich wirklich jedem empfehlen, der an theoretischen Endspielstellungen interessiert ist. Die zweite Art von Büchern ist komplexeren Endspielen gewidmet. Hier sind die berühmtesten Endgame Strategy (Endspielstrategie) von Michail Schereschewski, Technique for the Tournament Spieler (Technik für den Turnierspieler) von Mark Dworetski und Artur Jussupow, und Rate Your Endgame (Bewerten Sie Ihr Endspiel) von Mednis (herausgegeben von Crouch). Diese Bücher befassen sich mit der Kunst des Denkens im Endspiel und das vorliegende Buch soll eine Erweiterung dieser früheren Werke darstellen. Daneben gibt es auch eine Art untheoretischer Arbeiten wie Endgame Virtuoso (Vituoses Endspielbehandlung) (Smyslov), Geheimnisse des Endspiels (Lutz), School of Chess Excellence 1 – The Endgame (Schule der schachlichen Meisterschaft 1 – Das Endspiel) (Dworetski),, Praktische Turmendspiele (Kortschnoj) und viele andere mehr. Ich erwähne diese vier, weil ich sie wärmstens empfehlen kann, wie all die anderen oben genannten. Jedes von diesen ist ein ausgezeichnetes Werk. Ich habe in diesem Buch versucht, sieben grundlegende Denkweisen und Methoden für das Endspiel zusammenzustellen, die für das Verständnis und das Spielen von Endspielen hilfreich sind. Ich habe sie nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen
6
Verbessern Sie Ihre Technik im Schach
erklärt und versucht einige Beispiele zu geben. Es ist mein fester Glaube, daß abstrakte Regeln allein für niemanden einen Wert besitzen. Gleichermaßen müssen sie erklärt und ihre Anwendung in der Praxis demonstriert werden. Das Wichtigste hierbei ist, daß eine Regel nur dann wertvoll ist, wenn Sie verstehen, warum es eine Regel ist. Es ist schwer, die praktische Anwendbarkeit einer Regel zu begreifen (wie z.B. ‘Springer am Rand bringt Kummer und Schand’), wenn sie nicht die Rahmenbedingungen in die Betrachtungen mit einschließen. Niemand würde sich ernsthaft an die Bewertung einer Stellung mit einem Sack voller Regeln heranwagen und dann seinen gesunden Menschenverstand ausschalten. Regeln sind einfach ein Aspekt der Spielstärke, wie Konzentration, Theoriekenntnisse und die Fähigkeit, Varianten genau zu berechnen auch. Eine der größten Fehlkonzeptionen unter Schachspielern ist das Axiom: Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel Regel. Was für ein Unsinn! Es gibt keine Ausnahmen zu Regeln, sonst wären es keine. ‘Alle Schwäne in der Welt sind weiß’ ist eine Regel. Aber wenn wir einmal einen grünen Schwan gefunden haben, verliert die Regel ihre Gültigkeit. Im Schach ist der wichtigste Punkt zu verstehen, daß Regeln nur eine bestimmte Reichweite haben. Oftmals werden sie Prinzipien oder Richtlinien genannt, was in mancher Hinsicht auch eher ihrer Bedeutung entspricht. ‘Springer am Rand bringt Kummer und Schand’ bedeutet einfach, daß der Springer am Rande des Brettes in seinen Möglichkeiten beschränkt ist. Schauen sie ihn sich an! Am Rand kann er lediglich vier Felder kontrollieren, noch weniger sind es, je näher er dem Eckfeld kommt. Dagegen kann er im Zentrum acht Felder kontrollieren. Zudem sind Zentralfelder gewöhnlich wichtiger als Felder am Brettrand. Das ist alles, was es bedeutet. Wie können solche Prinzipien für den Lernenden nützlich sein? Nun, das ist nicht so schwierig. Wenn Sie Ihren Springer am Rand platzieren wollen, so sollte er dort eine besondere Funktion erfüllen. Sonst werden Sie bald feststellen müssen, daß Sie anstelle eines Schlachtrosses einen lahmen Gaul besitzen. In gleicher Weise
sind alle Prinzipien und Verfahren, die in diesem Buch erläutert werden, zu betrachten. Es ist nicht das Anliegen dieses Buches, eine Menge neuer Ideen und Erkenntnisse einzuführen, obwohl einiges tatsächlich neu sein könnte, sondern dem Lernenden zu helfen, die Prinzipien zu verstehen, die bereits von anderen vorgestellt wurden – wie z.B. von Schereschewski, Dworetski u.a. – durch tiefgründig analysierte und kommentierte Beispiele. Deshalb werden Sie ein Kapitel finden, in dem sieben praktische Ratschläge für die Behandlung des Endspiels (und auch sonst) gegeben werden, gefolgt von einem Kapitel mit komplizierteren Beispielen, in denen meistens Leichtfiguren die Hauptrolle spielen. Die Methoden, die in Kapitel 2 dargestellt werden, sind von genereller Bedeutung und werden einem Endspielvirtuosen ständig im Gedächtnis bleiben. Die Themen in Kapitel 3 sind sehr spezieller Natur. Die generelle Stärke des Läuferpaares spielt keine Rolle, wenn man gerade vor einem Springerendspiel sitzt. Mein Anliegen ist es, in diesem Buch darzustellen, wie Endspieltechnik von starken Spielern demonstriert wird. Anhand dieser Beispiele möchte ich versuchen, ausführlich zu erklären, wie die verschiedenen Züge gefunden worden sind. Mit Worten, wenn die Züge abstrakt verstanden werden sollten, und mit Varianten, wenn dies erforderlich ist. Häufig werden diese beiden Aspekte während Spiels in dieser Reihenfolge auftreten. Zuerst wird ein genereller Plan gefaßt, die Figuren manövrieren bis die Stellung maximal verstärkt ist, danach kommt der Moment, da direkte Kampfhandlungen nicht länger aufgeschoben werden und konkrete Aktionen gestartet werden sollten. Dies erfordert häufig eine exakte Berechnung, denn warum ein Zug besser ist als ein anderer, kann nicht besser erklärt werden als durch Analysen und Varianten. Dies liegt daran, daß die Stellungen taktischer werden, wenn erst einmal direkte Attacken gegen gegnerische Figuren begonnen oder Freibauern in Bewegung gesetzt wurden. Wenn ein Freibauer umgewandelt wird, wird die Partie wahrscheinlich gewonnen sein. Wenn ein Springer ohne Gegenwert gefangen wird, sicher ebenso.
Das Endspiel Vermutungen darüber, ob dies wirklich der Fall ist oder ob der Bauer überhaupt umgewandelt werden kann, machen wenig Sinn. Hier hilft wirklich nur konkrete Berechnung. Was ist ein Endspiel? Bevor wir in diese sieben wichtigen Verfahren einsteigen, sollten wir uns darüber verständigen, was ein Endspiel wirklich ist. Und in diesem Zusammenhang auch, was ein Mittelspiel ist, und ebenso, wann es sich noch um die Eröffnung handelt. Es gibt kaum eine einfache Antwort. Lassen Sie mich versuchen, die Komplexität der Probleme anhand der folgenden Stellung zu erklären: Spasski – Fischer Sveti Stefan (4. Matchpartie) 1992
Es wäre leicht zu argumentieren, daß es sich um eine Eröffnungsstellung handelt und in mancher Hinsicht ist es dies auch. Schwarz muß noch immer ein gutes Feld für den König finden und seine Türme ins Spiel bringen. Der einfachste Weg, die Eröffnungsphase zu definieren, ist zu sagen, daß in diesem Partieabschnitt die Spieler ihre Figuren entwickeln. Andererseits könnte die Stellung auch als Mittelspielstellung angesehen werden. Weiß hat seine Streitkräfte voll entwickelt und ist bereit, seine Stellung mit den Bauernzügen f2-f3 und e3-e4 zu verbessern (wie es tatsächlich in der Partie geschah). Also ist es vielleicht ein Mittelspiel ohne Damen?
7
Die dritte Option wäre, daß dies ein Endspiel ist. Denn was ist das charakteristischste Merkmal des Endspiels? Daß es keine Angriffe gegen den König gibt. Im Endspiel kann der König genauso aktiv am Kampf teilnehmen wie eine Figur und nur selten wird er mit Mattsetzung bedroht. Ein anderes gebräuchliches Merkmal des Endspiels ist die Umwandlung von Freibauern. Das ist gerade nicht unmittelbar zu erwarten. Andererseits gibt es aber auch Endspiele ohne Bauern. Was die Stellung in einigen Merkmalen zum Endspiel macht, ist, daß Bauernschwächen eine gewichtigere Rolle bei der Bewertung der Stellung und dem Entwurf des Planes spielen. Aber die Dynamik spielt eine ebenso wichtige Rolle. Gewöhnlich wird dies als damenloses Mittelspiel bezeichnet, aber es ist eine Definition ohne große Bedeutung. Wichtig ist die Stellung an sich und wie man sie behandeln muß. Die Königssicherheit ist durch die Abwesenheit der Damen gegeben, aber mit all den anderen auf dem Brett verbliebenen Figuren gibt es noch immer taktische Ideen wie 13...0-0? 14 ¤xe6! und Weiß gewinnt einen Bauern. Demnach gibt es wirklich keine zufrieden stellende Bestimmung für diese Stellung. Und dies wird mit vielen Stellungen der Fall sein, die im Niemandsland sind, zwischen Eröffnung und Mittelspiel oder zwischen Mittelspiel und Endspiel. In seinem Endgame Manual (Handbuch des Endspiels) sieht Mark Dworetski ein Endspiel als eine Stellung an, in der keine der beiden Seiten mehr als eine Figur zur Verfügung hat. Nur Turm und Läufer gegen Turm wird auch als Endspiel angesehen. Vom praktischen Standpunkt her ist dies keine schlechte Definition. Stellungen, in denen keine Seite mehr als eine Figur zur Verfügung hat, können schwerlich etwas anderes sein als Endspiele. Aber was macht man mit Stellungen mit zwei Figuren auf jeder Seite? Auch hier kann man sich kaum eine Situation vorstellen, in der es sich nicht um ein Endspiel handelt. Aber wenn beide Spieler noch drei Figuren haben, ist man in einer Grauzone. Mal ist es ein Mittelspiel, mal ein Endspiel. Dieses Buch beschäftigt sich mit der praktischen Endspieltechnik. Das bedeutet, daß es weder End-
8
Verbessern Sie Ihre Technik im Schach
spieltheorie einschließt (siehe oben) noch taktische Endspiele – hierzu empfehle ich John Nunns Tactical Chess Endings (Taktische Schachendspiele) und Müllers & Meyers The Magic of Chess Tactics (Die Magie der Schachtaktik). Beides sind ausgezeichnete Bücher zu diesem Thema, obwohl letzteres auch einige Mittelspielstellungen enthält. Die Idee des Buches ist es, die technischen Aspekte komplizierter Endspiele so klar wie möglich darzustellen (meist beginnend mit mehr als einer Figur auf jeder Seite). Theoretische und taktische Endspiele – die Mehrzahl von ihnen sind bekannt als Studien – sind faszinierend und jeder Spieler sollte ihnen seine gesamte Aufmerksamkeit schenken oder wenigstens so viel wie er kann. Hier wird er diese aus einfachen Gründen aber nicht finden: Ich glaube, daß mein Schreibstil genau zu der Art des vorliegenden Buches paßt und daß die Bücher von Schereschewski, Dworetski, Mednis u.a. einem jungen aufstrebenden Spieler nicht vollständig die Prinzipien der Endspieltechnik vermitteln können – nur aus dem Grunde, daß die Zahl instruktiver Beispiele limitiert ist. Deshalb habe ich es weitgehend vermieden, Stellungen auszuwählen, in denen es Zweifel daran gibt, ob es sich wirklich um ein Endspiel handelt oder nicht. Ich möchte die Diskussion darüber, wann das Endspiel beginnt und das Mittelspiel endet, nicht weiter vertiefen. Für das praktische Spiel hat dies nur wenig Bedeutung. Der Gegner wird wissen, ob der König sicher steht oder nicht, und nach dem 40. Zug mit seinem König nicht ins Zentrum marschieren, egal wie die Stellung aussieht, und sich umgehend mattsetzen lassen (wie es die Schachcomputer der siebziger Jahre machten, wenn man den Legenden Glauben schenkt). Der Hauptunterschied zwischen Mittelspiel und Endspiel ist nicht nur die Abwesenheit der Damen (daher die Bezeichnung damenloses Mittelspiel), sondern das Fehlen von permanenten Mattdrohungen. Dies macht den König im Endspiel zu einer wertvollen Figur. Julian Hodgson hat postuliert, daß der König im Endspiel vier Bauern wert ist.
Ihre stärkste Figur sollte immer aktiv bleiben! Dies hätte gut und gern einer der sieben Ratschläge sein können, in diesem Falle wäre es sogar der erste gewesen. Es ist eines der Grundprinzipien der Behandlung des Endspiels. Wenn möglich, dann aktivieren Sie Ihre stärkste Figur. Wenn wir in der Praxis mit diesem Ansatz arbeiten wollen, dann ist Hodgsons Aussage sehr hilfreich. Die Rangfolge der Figuren im Endspiel wäre dann: Dame vor Turm, Turm vor König und König vor den Leichtfiguren. Ich habe dies einigen Schülern anhand des Begriffes der Dominanz zu erklären versucht. Die Dame kann leicht einen Turm dominieren, der Turm hat den König im Griff, der König seinerseits kann die Leichtfiguren dominieren. Aber irgendwie fühlt nicht jeder, daß dies eine zufrieden stellende Definition ist. Unabhängig davon, daß dies der Grund für die Rangfolge der Figuren im Endspiel ist. Wie wir sehen werden, ist es in einem Leichtfigurenendspiel wichtiger, mit dem König zu spielen, als mit den Leichtfiguren. Weil sich das Buch nicht mit dem Turmendspiel beschäftigt, sollte angemerkt werden, daß zwei der besten Autoren von Endspielbüchern, Dworetski und Mednis, sich einig sind: Der Turm sollte immer aktiv bleiben ist das wichtigste Prinzip des Turmendspiels. Ein Beispiel ist das folgende: Timman – Karpow Belfort 1988
Das Endspiel Weiß hat einen Mehrbauern, aber sein Turm wird bald eine passive Stellung einnehmen müssen. Schwarz wird in Vorteil kommen können. 38...¦f8 39 ¦g1 ¦f4 40 ¦f1 ¢e6 41 ¢c2! Timman realisiert, daß wenn er sich an seine Damenflügelbauern klammert, Schwarz seinen König vorrücken wird, um seinen freien f-Bauern zu unterstützen. Dann wäre der schwarze Turm von seinen Aufgaben entbunden und würde uneingeschränkt das Brett beherrschen. 41...¦xc4† 42 ¢d3 ¦xb4 43 ¦xf3 ¦h4
44 ¦f1! Erneut zeigt Timman seine Qualitäten. Der Turm muß aktiviert werden und dies kann nur über die b-Linie erreicht werden. 44...¦xh5 45 ¦b1 ¦xc5 46 ¦xb7 ¢d5 47 ¦d7† Stärker war 47 ¦h7!. 47...¢e5
9
48 ¦e7†? Weiß spielt planlos. Der richtige Zug war 48 ¦h7, wonach er noch immer berechtigte Remischancen hätte. Nach dem Textzug hat der weiße Turm keine wirkliche Funktion, während Schwarz seinen Turm von passiven Aufgaben befreien kann. 48...¢f5 49 ¦f7† ¢g6 50 ¦f4 Der weiße Turm steht nun etwas passiver, aber auch der schwarze Turm ist noch nicht von der Verteidigung seiner Bauern entbunden. 50...¢g5 51 ¦a4 a5 52 ¢e2 ¦f5
Alles ist schief gegangen für Weiß. Die schwarzen Bauern sind eine Reihe vorgerückt, bevor sie blockiert worden sind, während der weiße Turm auf a4 nun kaum noch aktiv werden kann. Schwarz gelang es, aus diesen Vorteilen Kapital zu schlagen und konnte schließlich den vollen Punkt einfahren. 53 ¦a3 ¢g4 54 ¦c3 h5 55 ¦c8 h4 56 ¦g8† ¦g5 57 ¦a8 ¢g3 58 ¢f1 ¢f3 59 ¦c8 ¢e3 60 a4 ¦g4 61 ¦c5 h3! 62 ¦e5† ¢f3 63 ¦h5 ¢g3 64 ¢g1 ¦xa4 65 ¦g5† ¢h4 66 ¦c5 ¦g4† 67 ¢h2 a4 68 ¦c3 ¦g2† 69 ¢h1 ¦g4 70 ¢h2 ¦g2† 71 ¢h1 ¦g3 72 ¦c4† ¦g4 73 ¦c3 ¦b4 74 ¦a3 ¦g4 75 ¦c3 ¢g5 76 ¢h2 ¦h4 0-1 Dies ist kein Buch über Turmendspiele, aber das Prinzip, welches in der Partie angewandt wurde, daß der Turm als erstes aktiviert werden sollte und erst dann der König, ist universell. Figuren sollten in einer bestimmten Reihenfolge aktiviert werden:
10
Verbessern Sie Ihre Technik im Schach
Das heißt: Dame vor Turm, Turm vor König, König vor den Leichtfiguren. Das heißt natürlich auch, Dame oder Turm vor den Leichtfiguren. Nachdem es uns nicht gelungen ist, die Frage zu beantworten, was ein Endspiel wirklich ist, obwohl wir ein paar wichtige Hinweise mehr darauf haben, wollen wir uns nun den sieben Verfahren zuwenden, die einen universellen Charakter haben.
INHALT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Vorwort Einleitung Bibliographisches Denke wie ein Mensch – und verbessere Dein Schach Echte Schachspieler Keine Regeln? Wozu am Endspiel arbeiten? Seien Sie pragmatisch Einfache Wahrheiten Grundkonzepte Schwächen definieren Felder – und wie Figuren sie ausnutzen Aufgaben zum Positionsspiel Lösungen der Aufgaben Spielerverzeichnis
4 5 11 13 21 43 77 115 123 131 143 153 163 175 221
Kapitel Eins
Denke wie ein Mensch – und verbessere Dein Schach
Sie lesen dieses Buch in der Hoffnung, dass Sie damit weder Zeit noch Geld verschwenden. Also wovon handelt dieses Buch? Wir wollen vorne anfangen. 1997 und 1998 arbeitete ich an meinem ersten Schachbuch, The Easy Guide to the Panov-Botvinnik Attack, und war noch auf der Such nach meinem eigenen Stil. Nachdem ich drei Monate mit dem ersten Kapitel zugebracht hatte, gingen mir erstens die Seiten und zweitens die Zeit aus. Der Rest des Buches war dann eher Standard. Seitdem hatte ich das Gefühl, dass ich mit meiner Art, die positionellen Fragen innerhalb des Kapitels anzugehen, grundsätzlich richtig lag, und ich behielt diese Vorgehensweise über Jahre hinweg bei, bis ich meinen nächsten Herausgeber Byron Jacobs im Internet Chess Club kennen lernte. Wir verständigten uns darauf, dass ich ein Eröffnungsbuch schreiben solle, wobei mir die Wahl des Themas selbst überlassen wurde. Zwei Monate lang kreisten ständig neue Ideen in meinem Kopf herum, und ich schickte Byron wöchentlich lange E-mails, in denen ich meine chaotischen Gedankengänge beschrieb. Schließlich entschied ich mich für eine elementare Idee, und zwar dass
Menschen keine Computer sind – eine “Entdeckung”, die so simpel erscheint, dass es kaum lohnt, sie zu erwähnen, doch zugleich ein Thema – wie es so häufig bei elementaren Dingen ist – worüber man ein ganzes Buch schreiben kann, da seine Untersuchung mehr enthüllt, als auf den ersten Blick erkennbar ist. Mir fiel auf, dass immer mehr Leute mit Computern wie Fritz, Junior oder Crafty analysieren und die rechnergestützten Schlussfolgerungen für bare Münze halten, ohne sie jemals zu hinterfragen. Die gleichen Leute besitzen die Tendenz, in ihrer Spielstärke nachzulassen, und werden frustriert. Sie sind der Ansicht, dass sie besser berechnen sollten, aber dass ihnen die Zeit oder Disziplin fehlt, um das zu lernen. Wenn Sie zu dieser Gruppe zählen, seien Sie bitte nicht enttäuscht – es würde Ihnen ohnehin nicht viel bringen, es sei denn, Sie wüssten, was es zu berechnen gilt… Allzu häufig sehe ich auch, dass Leute dazu neigen, Varianten in Stellungen vorzuschlagen, deren Einschätzung auf den ersten Blick klar ist – “Aber was ist mit…” höre ich so oft, wenn ich eine Stellung zeige und erkläre, warum zum
14
Verbessern Sie Ihr Schach – Super Edition
Beispiel diese oder jene Seite im Vorteil ist. Erst kürzlich habe ich ein solches Beispiel erlebt, als ein guter Freund eine Partie analysierte, die er relativ leicht nach einem Qualitätsopfer gewonnen hatte. Die verbliebene Leichtfigur seines Gegners war ein Läufer, der dieselbe Farbe hatte wie die Felder, auf denen alle seine Bauern standen. Außerdem gab es keine offenen Linien für seine Türme (und auch keine Möglichkeit, welche zu öffnen), und ebenfalls nicht die Spur von Angriff oder Gegenspiel. Mein Freund konnte sich forciert einen Freibauern auf der sechsten Reihe verschaffen, ohne einen dieser Vorteile aus der Hand zu geben. Sein Gegner verstand einfach nicht, dass seine Stellung total verloren war, und probierte immer wieder neue Züge aus – Ich betone: Züge – nicht Ideen. Die zahllosen Versuche meines Freundes, auf die wichtigen Merkmale der Stellung hinzudeuten, wurden einzig mit einem neuerlichen Zug beantwortet. Ich erlebte die letzte Stunde dieser Sitzung mit und konnte mit ansehen, wie die Geduld meines Freundes sich nach und nach erschöpfte. Sinnigerweise wurde diese unangenehme Situation nicht durch bewusste Starrköpfigkeit hervorgerufen, sondern eher durch einen Mangel an Verständnis. Ich weiß nicht, ob ich es ihm hätte vermitteln können, und ich wollte es gewiss nicht probieren – am einfachsten wäre es, ihm dieses Buch in die Hand zu drücken… Die Quintessenz dieses Buch lautet, dass Schach auf Regeln basiert. Vor zehn Jahren, als Junior, glaubte ich, dass es im Schach keine anderen Regeln gäbe, als jene Fakten, die man durch das Analysieren einer Stellung entdecke – mit anderen Worten, jede Stellung hat ihre eigenen Gesetze. Ich hatte dies in einem New In Chess Heft gelesen und war beeindruckt, wobei der Umstand, dass diese Behauptung sich irgendwie mit dem brutalen Schach Garri Kasparows deckte, deren Glaubwürdigkeit nicht gerade minimierte. Heute, da ich älter – und hoffentlich weiser – bin, weiß ich, dass der frühere Weltmeister niemals solchen Unsinn von sich gegeben hätte. Tatsächlich würde er eher das Gegenteil
behaupten, wie ich in einem der folgenden Kapitel zur Diskussion stelle. Die letzten sechs oder sieben Jahre haben mich dann überzeugt, dass Schach auf dynamischen Gesetzen aufgebaut ist, in der gleichen Art wie Physik oder Biologie. Ich denke, dass die meisten Turnierpartien nicht durch überlegene Variantenberechnung oder stärkere Phantasie gewonnen werden, sondern durch ein besseres Verständnis der elementarsten Dinge des Spiels. Diese Ansicht ist eine Schlüsselaussage dieses Buches, und sie wird vorrangig in den Kapiteln 2 und 3 vorgestellt. Ersteres enthält einige Beispiele für überlegenes Verständnis aus Wettbewerben auf höchstem Niveau, ein Themenbereich, der nicht so schwer zu erklären ist. Im Kapitel Keine Regeln? versuche ich, einen abstrakteren Vorschlag darüber zu unterbreiten, wie diese Regeln organisiert sind. Selbstverständlich enthält dieses Kapitel Vermutungen, die zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt vielleicht widerlegt werden, trotzdem meine ich, dass dies ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung ist. Ich weiß, dass ein Buch, das nichts weiter zum Inhalt hat als theoretische Diskussionen, nicht sehr interessant wäre. Ich habe lange genug in der akademischen Welt der Universität von Aarhus zugebracht, wo ich Kognitive Semiotik studierte, und ich möchte diese Qualen nun nicht anderen bereiten – das wäre so, als würde man leere Patronenhülsen an Soldaten verteilen. Dieses Buch bietet auch Anregungen, wie man sein Verständnis für die fundamentalen Dinge im Schach verbessern kann, und, im Anschluss daran, wie man dies im praktischen Spiel umsetzt. Was auch immer Ihr Bestreben ist, sei es, von Brett 1 der zweiten Mannschaft zu Brett 8 der ersten aufzusteigen, sei es internationaler Erfolg, ich bin mir absolut sicher, dass Ihnen dieses Buch hilft, das jeweils Gewünschte zu erreichen. Freilich, wenn Sie es einmal lesen und dann wegstellen, wird das die Ausmaße ihrer Verbesserung einigermaßen limitieren, aber wenn Sie es dazu nutzen, um sich Ihrer Herangehensweise ans Schach besser bewusst zu werden, dann – wer weiß…
Denke wie ein Mensch – und verbessere Dein Schach Ich erinnere mich, wie David Norwood einmal sagte, dass Großmeister weniger berechnen als Amateure. Im Grunde genommen müssten sie das auch nicht, weil sie genau wissen, was sie berechnen müssen. So, oder zumindest so ähnlich, lautet seine Argumentation. Und ich glaube wirklich, dass er Recht hat. In meinen Jugendjahren, als meine Rechenfähigkeiten denen meiner älteren Gegner überlegen waren, beeindruckte ich meine ratinghöheren Kontrahenten nur zu oft mit zahlreichen Phantasievarianten, doch führte dies leider nicht zu vielen Punkten. Und in Jonathan Rowsons interessantem Buch The Seven Deadly Chess Sins berichtet der Autor von seinem Match über sechs Partien gegen Michael Adams, dem Homer Simpson des Schachs (ein positiver Vergleich). Nach den Partien stellte sich immer heraus, dass Adams nur einen Bruchteil von den Varianten gesehen hatte, die Rowson angab, doch letztlich waren dies die entscheidenden! Adams gewann das Match 5-1. Jedoch, Adams ist vielleicht das extreme Beispiel für diese Art Schach zu spielen. Kein Mensch war jemals in der Lage, mir zu sagen, was Adams denkt. Ein Freund meinte, dass er einfach nur eine seiner Figuren anschaut und fragt: „Nun, mein kleiner Freund, wo gehen wir hin heut Abend?“ – natürlich übertrieben, aber nicht vollständig, denn ich glaube, dass darin ein Körnchen Wahrheit steckt. Nicht allein die bloße Diskussion über die richtige Art schachlichen Denkens steht im Mittelpunkt dieses Buches. Ich habe auch einige Kapitel angefügt, in denen es darum geht, eine entsprechende geistige Verfassung zu erlangen. Ich bin kein professioneller Psychologe oder Physiker, aber ich habe einige Zeit damit verbracht, diese Themen zu untersuchen, und ich besitze auch den Vorteil, meine Theorien in der Praxis angewandt zu haben. Des führt uns direkt zur entscheidenden Frage, die sich jeder kritische Leser stellen sollte: Warum glaubt ein Internationaler Meister, dass er irgendeinen relevanten Beitrag zur Schachtheorie leisten kann? Und zwar ohne die Kommentare anderer zu
15
verwenden und Computerprogramme wie Fritz zu Rate zu ziehen, um anschließend ein durchstrukturiertes Gebilde aus einem enormen Wust an Informationen zu bilden – so wie es der Fall ist bei der Arbeit an Büchern, die sich mit Eröffnungstheorie befassen. Nun, gut dass Sie fragen – um das zu glauben, was ich Ihnen mitteile, sollten Sie ein wenig über mich erfahren. Ich begann mit dem Schachspielen im Alter von zwölf Jahren und war zu keiner Zeit ein Wunderkind. Ich hatte zwar Talent, aber ich war nicht der talentierteste Nachwuchsspieler in unserem Verein. Vielmehr war ich sehr ehrgeizig. Mit sechzehn lag meine Elozahl bei 2100, und ich wurde Vereinsmeister. Im folgenden Jahr stieg meine Zahl auf 2370. Da ich dieses Buch schreibe liegt sie bei 2360, dem niedrigsten Wert seit sechs oder sieben Jahren. Mehrmals stand ich kurz davor, eine IMNorm zu erfüllen, scheiterte aber immer in der letzten Runde. 1996, im Alter von 23 Jahren, bekam ich einige Trainingsstunden durch Großmeister Henrik Danielsen. Innerhalb weniger Monate hatte ich zwei IM-Normen erspielt, wobei ich bei der zweiten einen Punkt über dem zu erreichenden Soll lag. Im März 1997 erzielte ich meine letzte Norm und im Sommer spielte ich bereits um GM-Normen. Beim Turnier in Groningen 1998 war ich so nah wie nie, als ich die folgende Stellung erreichte:
1222222223 4 + +v+ +5 4Ow+ O L 5 4 O Op+ R5 4+p+p+ K 5 4 +tO + +5 4+ + + + 5 4p+ + +q+5 4+ + + + 5 7888888889 Weiß zieht und gewinnt
16
Verbessern Sie Ihr Schach – Super Edition
Hier hätte ich die Großmeisternorm erlangen können, wenn ich das spektakuläre 50 ¦h8!! Anstelle von 50 ¢f5†, gezogen hätte, womit ich das Remis durch Dauerschach sicherte. Man beachte, dass 50 £e4?? an 50...£xd5†!! 51 £xd5 ¦c5 scheitert. Nach 50 ¦h8 ¥g6 (50...¢xh8 51 ¢h6! und matt, oder 50...¦c2 51 £h1!, während 50...£xd5†? diesmal den Läufer auf e8 hängen lässt) 51 ¦g8†! ¢xg8 52 ¢h6 setzt Weiß bald matt. Wie dem auch sei, 1999 musste ich folgende schmerzvolle Erfahrung im Kopenhagener Open machen. Ich hatte Schwarz in der unten abgebildeten Stellung und war am Zug:
1222222223 4t+ W +l+5 4Oq+ V +o5 4mO + T +5 4+ Oo+oO 5 4 + Pm+ +5 4+ + BnPb5 4pP +pP P5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889 Schwarz zieht und gewinnt
An dieser Stelle holte mich mein altes Laster wieder ein. Mein Gefühl sagte mir, dass ich wahrscheinlich auf Gewinn stand, als plötzlich etwas Seltsames eintrat – ich begann nervös zu werden, meine Hände fingen an zu zittern, Hitze stieg auf… Dann sah ich mich 17...b5?? ziehen und nach 18 ¤e5 besaß Weiß entscheidenden Vorteil. Sogleich merkte ich, dass 17...cxd4 auf der Stelle gewinnt, da Weiß angesichts der Drohung 18...¤ac5 mit Damengewinn gezwungen ist, auf a6 zu nehmen. Es lag wohl am möglichen Preisgeld, dass ich mit dieser Form von kurzzeitiger Erregung reagiert hatte. Später fand ich heraus, dass dieses Phänomen in der kognitiven Literatur als Agmygdala Attacke bezeichnet wird. Ursprünglich
ist dies ein Überlebensmechanismus, der sich in jenen Tagen als sehr nützlich erwies, als wir noch auf der Speisekarte wilder Bestien standen. Es funktioniert folgendermaßen: Normalerweise geschieht jeder Bewusstseinsvorgang während einer Zeitspanne, die wir die Pöbelzeit nennen, nach dem deutschen Neurologen, der dieses Phänomen entdeckt hat. Diese Spanne beträgt etwa drei Sekunden. Alle dreißig Millisekunden nehmen wir etwas wahr und alle drei Sekunden reagieren wir entsprechend darauf. Um schneller reagieren zu können, dürfen wir nicht bewusst, sondern müssen automatisch handeln. Die Pöbelzeit begegnet uns tagtäglich in der menschlichen Welt. 4/4 in der Musik sind normalerweise drei Sekunden. Um das Pentameter eines Gedichts zu lesen bedarf es gewöhnlich 3 Sekunden, ein normaler Satz in einem Gespräch dauert in etwa drei Sekunden. Wenn Ihnen irgendjemand etwas sagt, und Sie antworten „Sorry“, um dann den Bruchteil einer Sekunde später erst zu realisieren, was die Person gemeint hat, haben Sie reagiert, bevor Sie es bewusst wahrgenommen haben. Also schneller als die Pöbelzeit. Wie dem auch sei, wenn ein Raubtier hinter Ihnen her ist, müssen Sie sofort reagieren. Also alarmiert das zentrale Nervensystem bei nahender Gefahr das Gehirn. Hier nun übernimmt die Agmygdala die Kontrolle, falls eine sofortige Reaktion verlangt wird, und Sie handeln nur aus dem Instinkt heraus. Viele Leute verlieren auf diese Weise ihren Kopf, zumeist in belanglosen Diskussionen, manchmal aber eben auch in Leistungsdrucksit uationen wie beim Schach. Mir ist das nur allzu oft passiert. Ich war dem Druck der Situation einfach nicht mehr gewachsen, und mein Spiel fiel in sich zusammen. Wie schade, dass die Höhlenmenschen nicht häufiger einen kühlen Kopf bewahrten. Nachdem ich diese Partie verloren hatte, war ich am Boden zerstört. Ich machte mir ernsthaft darüber Gedanken, Schach ganz an den Nagel zu hängen und einfach das Leben zu leben. Als ich schon fast überzeugt war, dass dies der
Denke wie ein Mensch – und verbessere Dein Schach richtige Entschluss sei, erinnerte ich mich an etwas, das mir ein Jahr zuvor am Brett begegnet war, ein Moment, der zu jener Zeit so etwas wie eine Offenbarung für mich darstellte. Mortensen–Aagaard Dänische Schnellschachmeisterschaften 1998 Ruy Lopez Zunächst sollten Sie etwas über das Turnier erfahren. Zweiunddreißig Spieler werden dazu eingeladen – die sechzehn Ratingbesten des Landes, alle Fernschachgroßmeister, einige Lokalmatadore und der Sieger des letztjährigen Qualifikationsturniers. Ich war an etwa 20 gesetzt und hatte meine Einladung hauptsächlich dem Fakt zuzuschreiben, dass ich im Jahr davor auf Rang 9 einkam. (2000 und 2001 wurde ich dann nicht mehr eingeladen, da die Organisatoren offensichtlich bemerkt hatten, dass ich nicht mehr zur Spitze zählte…) 1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 f5? Als ich zwanzig war, hatte ich viel Zeit mit dem Studium dieses Abspiels verbracht, um dann herauszufinden, dass es absolut sinnlos ist, und dass Weiß nahezu auf Gewinn steht (wenn er weiß, was zu tun ist). Andererseits jedoch, wie viele Leute werden schon ein Interesse daran haben, die weiße Stellung so gründlich zu studieren? Nun, ich kenne einen, aber erst, nachdem er zu viele Blitzpartien gegen mich verloren hatte! 4 d4? Ich will nicht zu viel verraten, aber das ist nicht das Beste. 4...fxe4 5 ¥xc6 bxc6!? 6 ¤xe5 £h4! Ein logischer Zug, der aber aus irgendeinem Grund noch nicht gespielt wurde. Nach 6...¤f6 7 ¥g5 erhält Weiß anerkanntermaßen einen großen Vorteil. Der Unterschied zur Textvariante liegt auf der Hand. Die Dame steht schlecht auf d8, doch nachdem der weißfeldrige Läufer verschwunden ist, hat sie glänzende Perspektiven am Königsflügel. 7 ¤c3 ¥b4!? 8 £e2 ¤f6 9 0‑0 ¥xc3 10 bxc3 0‑0 11 ¥a3
17
1222222223 4t+v+ Tl+5 4O Oo+ Oo5 4 +o+ M +5 4+ + N + 5 4 + Po+ W5 4B P + + 5 4p+p+qPpP5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889 Hier dachte ich eine Weile nach. Ich fühlte, dass 11...d6 der beste Zug sei, aber ich war mir nicht sicher, ob ich genügend Kompensation für den c6-Bauern besaß. Also war ich schon im Begriff, 11...¦e8 zu ziehen, als mir plötzlich etwas klar wurde. Dies hier ist ein Schnellturnier – wo ein Endresultat unter den Top 10 ein gutes Ergebnis war – und ich hatte Angst davor, einen Bauern zu opfern? Letztlich hatte ich so viele Zweifel an mir selbst und meinem Urteilsvermögen, dass ich nicht den Mut aufbrachte, das zu ziehen, was ich für richtig hielt. Von diesem Standpunkt aus war es dann leicht, die richtige Fortsetzung zu wählen, aber gleichzeitig fühlte ich mich auch beschämt. Mir wurde klar, dass ich so viel in meinem Leben mit dem Verlangen nach „Sicherheit“ verschwendet und niemals etwas wirklich Bedeutendes erreicht hatte. Ich muss wohl kaum hinzufügen, dass ich mir das Versprechen abnahm, nie wieder so zu handeln. 11...d6! 12 £c4†? 12 ¤xc6 ¥d7 13 £c4† ¢h8 mit unklarem Spiel war vorzuziehen. Jetzt hat Weiß bereits die deutlich schlechteren Karten. 12...¤d5! 13 ¤xc6? 13 £xc6 ¥e6 14 ¤c4 ¤xc3 15 ¤e3 ¤e2† 16 ¢h1 ¦ac8 und Schwarz ist klar im Vorteil. Nun hat er einen forcierten Gewinn. 13...¥e6 14 g3 14 ¥c1 ¤f4 15 £a6 ¤xg2 16 £e2 ist das Beste, was Fritz vorschlagen kann. Jegliche
18
Verbessern Sie Ihr Schach – Super Edition
Verteidigung ist natürlich aussichtslos: Auf 14 £e2 ¤f4 15 £e3 antwortet Schwarz mit 15...£g5!! 16 g3 (16 £xe4 d5) 16...¤h3† gefolgt vom Opfer auf f2 und Damengewinn. 14...£g4! Macht h3 für den Springer frei. 15 f3!? exf3 16 £d3 ¤f4 17 £e3
1222222223 4t+ + Tl+5 4O O + Oo5 4 +nOv+ +5 4+ + + + 5 4 + P Mw+5 4B P QoP 5 4p+p+ + P5 4R + +rK 5 7888888889
17...f2†! 0-1 Wie erwähnt war dies ein magischer Moment für mich. Nicht nur, dass ich etwas über mich selbst erfahren und das Richtige getan hatte, ich hatte auch eine hübsche Partie in wenigen Zügen gegen einen starken Kontrahenten gewonnen. Das Selbstvertrauen, das ich durch diesen Sieg gewonnen hatte, in Verbindung mit etwas Glück, ließ mich anderthalb Punkte aus den beiden Abschlussrunden holen, und ich beendete das Turnier auf dem geteilten zweiten Platz, vor fünf Großmeistern (das beste Resultat, das ich jemals erreichte). Ich entschied mich, meinen schachlichen Ambitionen einen letzten Versuch zu geben. Ich heuerte einen Freund an, Coach – jemand der Erfahrung im Bereich neurolinguistischer Programmierung (NLP) und Meditation besaß – und begann damit, an meinen Schwächen zu arbeiten. Nach sechs Monaten schaute ich zurück auf dreißig Partien, die ich mit einer Eloperformance von 2587 absolviert hatte. In jeder dieser Partien, bis auf einer, hatte ich etwas geopfert und mit ganzer Kraft den vollen
Punkt angestrebt, nicht eine einzige ging remis aus. Also gut, eine Schlussrundenbegegnung in Hamburg endete nach vierundvierzig Zügen und einem harten positionellen Kampf remis, aber perfekt ist schließlich keiner. Unglücklicherweise erzielte ich meine besten Resultate in dänischen und schwedischen Ligen, die nicht von der FIDE ausgewertet werden, so dass ich um die 2400 verblieb. Nichtsdestotrotz sah ich positiv in die Zukunft, selbst wenn nach wie vor einige Probleme auszumerzen waren. Zwar verbesserten sich meine körperlichen und mentalen Fähigkeiten, doch ich war faul, was das Schach an sich anbetraf. Ich besaß nicht genügend Interesse am Spiel. Ich wollte schon beweisen, dass meine Ideen richtig waren, aber ich las lieber James Ellroy als am Schach zu arbeiten. Folglich traf ich schon bald auf eine Barriere, die nicht zu überschreiten war, und um die Sache noch weiter zu komplizieren, lernte ich ein hübsches Mädchen kennen und verliebte mich! Also spielte ich wieder schlechter und interessierte mich nicht allzu sehr für meine Resultate. Ich wurde frustriert, feuerte meinen Freund und gründete stattdessen zusammen mit ihm eine Rockband, denn ich hatte herausgefunden, dass die Zusammenarbeit mit ihm genau das war, was ich wollte. In den Jahren 1999-2000 las ich jede Menge Bücher über den Geist und den Körper und dachte viel darüber nach, was es heißt, ein ernsthafter Schachspieler zu sein. Ich stellte fest, dass die daraus gezogenen Schlussfolgerungen mir in meiner kurzen Phase des Erfolgs von großem Nutzen gewesen waren. Ich habe mich bemüht, so viel wie möglich von diesem Wissen in dieses Buch zu integrieren. Die anderen Gründe, weshalb ich denke, das Recht zu haben, ein solches Buch zu schreiben und anderen dessen Lektüre nahe zu legen, lauten wie folgt: Ich weiß sehr gut über die Funktionsweise des Gehirns Bescheid, und während meiner Ausbildung habe ich mir die Fähigkeit erworben, elementares menschliches Verhalten zu analysieren. Ich besitze zwölfjährige Erfahrung als Schachlehrer und bei der
Denke wie ein Mensch – und verbessere Dein Schach Vermittlung von Schachwissen an Andere. Und schließlich habe ich keine Angst davor, falsch zu liegen. Dieser letzte Punkt ist meiner Ansicht nach der wichtigste, nicht nur weil ich meinen Standpunkt mit ganzem Herzen darlegen werde, sondern auch, weil ich ihn nicht so verteidigen werde, als würde es um mich selbst gehen. Ich werde Ihnen mitteilen, was ich für richtig halte und denke, dass dies in der Mehrzahl der Fälle auch zutrifft. Aber darum geht es mir vorrangig gar nicht, viel wichtiger ist es, dass Sie, als Leser, über diese Dinge nachdenken und Ihren eigenen Weg finden. Die letzte Partie, die ich in dieser Einleitung vorführen möchte, ist die beste von den dreißig genannten. Mein Kontrahent war zudem der stärkste, dem ich jemals gegenüber saß. Die Partie an sich hätte natürlich keinen Grund, in diesem Buch vorzukommen, zumindest keinen anderen, als den Autor glücklich zu machen. Sie steht in keinem Zusammenhang zum nachfolgend aufgeführtem, aber sie hat eine Geschichte. Sie scheint außerdem auch einen Einfluss auf meinen Gegner gehabt zu haben, denn dieser schickte sich an, seine nächsten zehn Partien en bloc zu gewinnen (drei in diesem Turnier und die ersten sieben im nächsten). Schabalow–Aagaard Hamburg 1999 Nimzowitschindische Verteidigung Während des Turniers teilte ich eine Wohnung mit Coach. Jeden Tag fuhren wir zwanzig Minuten mit der U-Bahn zum Spielort. Wer als erster fertig war, ging meist direkt nach Hause, ohne auf den anderen zu warten. Vor dieser Partie bat ich Coach um die Schlüssel, damit ich ihn nicht während der Partie stören würde, wenn ich verloren hatte. Im gleichen Moment als ich es aussprach, fiel mir auf, wie schrecklich sich das anhörte. Coach lächelte und bat mich, neben ihm Platz zu nehmen und so zu tun, als würde ich noch auf meinem Platz sitzen. Das tat ich. Dann fragte er mich, was Jacob fehlt, um gut zu spielen.
19
Ich weiß nicht mehr, wie das Gespräch weiterging, aber ich erinnere mich daran, wie stark und selbstbewusst ich mich während der Partie fühlte, und wie hoch verdient es war, dass ich gewann. Wenn ich immer so spielen und fühlen könnte wie in dieser Partie, hätte dies sicher meine Motivation am Leben gehalten. Doch ich entschied mich anderweitig. Ich bin ein glücklicher Amateur und nichts weiter, auch wenn dieses Spiel für lange Zeit in meinem Herzen leben wird. 1 d4 ¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e3 0‑0 5 ¥d3 d5 6 ¤f3 c5 7 0‑0 cxd4 8 exd4 dxc4 9 ¥xc4 b6 10 £e2 ¥b7 11 ¦d1 ¤bd7 12 ¥f4 ¥xc3! 13 bxc3 ¤d5 14 ¥d2 ¦c8! 15 ¦ac1 £c7 16 ¥b5 a6!? 17 ¥xd7 Den Bauern mit 17 ¥xa6? ¥xa6 18 £xa6 zu nehmen, würde Schwarz nach 18...£c4 gute Kompensation verschaffen. 17...£xd7 18 c4 ¤f6 19 ¤e5 £a4!? 20 ¦b1 b5 21 ¥e1! ¥e4 22 ¦b4 £c2 23 ¦d2 £c1 24 c5? Dies ist ein positioneller Fehler. Schabalow versucht, meine Dame anzugreifen, doch das ist zu ehrgeizig. Nach der Alternative 24 cxb5 hätte ich jede Menge Spiel für den Bauern, aber wahrscheinlich behielte Weiß einen kleinen Vorteil. 24...£a3 25 ¦b3 £a4!
1222222223 4 +t+ Tl+5 4+ + +oOo5 4o+ +oM +5 4+oP N + 5 4w+ Pv+ +5 4+r+ + + 5 4p+ RqPpP5 4+ + B K 5 7888888889
26 g4!? Typischer Schabalow-Stil – die Brücken werden verbrannt, bevor sie überquert werden.
20
Verbessern Sie Ihr Schach – Super Edition
26...¥d5 27 g5 ¤e4 28 ¦dd3! b4 29 ¦xb4 £e8! Nach diesem überraschenden Zug übernimmt Schwarz plötzlich die Initiative. 30 £g4 ¤xg5 31 ¤c4? Nach 31 £xg5! f6 32 £e3 fxe5 33 £xe5 haben es die schwarzen Figuren schwer, zum weißen König zu gelangen, auch wenn es sehr vielversprechend aussieht. 31...f6 32 ¤d6 £g6 33 £g3 33 ¦g3!? ¦cd8 (33...¥f3? 34 ¤xc8!) 34 ¢f1 ist eine stärkere Verteidigung. 33...¦cd8 34 ¢f1 a5 35 ¦a4 £h5 36 ¦aa3 f5 37 h4 Das verliert. Nach 37 f4!? ¤e4 38 £h3 £xh3† 39 ¦xh3 ¤xd6 40 cxd6 ¦xd6 41 ¥xa5 ¥c4† 42 ¢e1 ¦xd4 43 ¥c7 hat Schwarz die Sache sicher unter Kontrolle. 37...¤e4 38 ¤xe4 fxe4 39 ¦dc3 ¦f6 40 £g5 £f7 41 ¦g3? 41 c6 ¦f8 42 ¦c2 ¥xc6 43 ¦xa5 leistet mehr Widerstand, aber Schwarz sollte auch dann den vollen Punkt einfahren. 41...¦f8 42 ¢g1 h6! 43 £d2 £h5 44 ¦xa5 £xh4 45 ¦a7
1222222223 4 + + Tl+5 4R + + O 5 4 + +oT O5 4+ Pv+ + 5 4 + Po+ W5 4+ + + R 5 4p+ Q P +5 4+ + B K 5 7888888889
45...£xg3† 46 fxg3 ¦f1† 0-1
Von den Legenden Lernen Schachkönige im Exkurs
Mihail Marin Quality Chess www.qualitychessbooks.com
Von den Legenden Lernen - Schachkönige im Exkurs Zuerst veröffentlicht 2004 durch Quality Chess Europe AB Englischer Originaltitel: Learn from the Legends - Chess Champions at their Best Copyright © 2004, 2006 Mihail Marin. 1. Deutsche Auflage Quality Chess UK LLP 2008 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Diese Publikation ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die Vewertung der Publikation vollständig oder in Teilen ohne Zustimmung des Verlegers ist unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. ISBN 978-91-85779-04-8 Alle anfragen an Quality Chess UK LLP 20 Balvie Road G62 7TA Glasgow United Kingdom +44 141 585 5294
[email protected] www.qualitychessbooks.com Distribution: Schach E. Niggemann www.schachversand.de Übersetzung: Guido Rothe Schriftsatz: Colin McNab Umschlagdesign: Oscar de la Riva & Josep A Rivero Zeichnungen: Claus Qvist Jessen Druck: Tallinna Raamatutrükikoja LLC, Estonia
Inhalt
Bibliografisches Vorworte
4 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Akiba Rubinsteins Turmendspiele Alexander Aljechin und die vierte Phase der Partie In den Fußstapfen des Patriarchen Tals Monstertürme vs. Zwei Leichtfiguren Petrosjans Qualitätsopfer Bobby Fischers Lieblingsläufer Karpow und die Endspiele mit ungleichfarbigen Läufern Viktor, der „existenzlose“ Held
9 73 101 131 159 213 249 303
Biographien unserer Helden Partienverzeichnis
339 353
4
Von den Legenden Lernen – Schachkönige im Exkurs
Bibliografisches 300 partide alese ale lui Alehin, Vasily Panov, Editura Tineretului, Bucharest 1957. V ogoni ataki, Mikhail Tal and Yakov Damsky, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1978. Korchnoi’s 400 best games, Viktor Korchnoi, Robert Wade, L.S. Blackstock, Batsford, London 1978. Akiba Rubinstein, Iury Razuvaev and Valerii Murakhvery, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1980. Golden Dozen, Irving Chernev, Oxf. UP 1976. Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953, David Bronstein. Dover Publications 1979. Shakhmatnoe Nasledie Alekhina, 1-2, Alexander Kotov, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1982. Sto pobednikh partii, Anatoly Karpov, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1984. Analiticheskie i kriticheskie ra botii, 1-4, Mikhail Botvinnik, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1984-87. Strategiia Nadejhnosti, Tigran Petrosian, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1985. Shakhmathniie Lektsii, Tigran Petrosian, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1989. Akiba Rubinstein’s Chess Academy, Viktor Glatman, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 1992. 744 partii Bobby Fischera, (2 volumes), Andrey Golubev and Leonid Gutzait, Roleg Limited, Moscow 1993. Akiba Rubinstein: Uncrowned King (1994) and Akiba Rubinstein: The Later Years (1995), John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, International Chess Enterprises, Seattle 1994 and 1995. Mikhail Tal, games 1-4, Sergey Soloviov, Chess Stars, St Petersburg 1994-96. Boris Spassky, (2 volumes), Nikolay Krogius, Andrey Golubev and Leonid Gutzait, Moscow 2000. A.A.Alekhin, 100 luchshikh partii, V.I. Turov, Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow 2002. Power Chess with Pieces, Jan Timman, Interchess, 2004. Chess Informant, Belgrade 1965-2004. Schacknytt, Gothenburg 1999-2004. Chess Extrapress, Bucharest 1998-2001. 64 Shakhmatnoe obozrenie, Moscow 1976-81.
5
Vorwort zur ersten Ausgabe Ich begann mit der Arbeit an diesem Buch vor sechs Jahren. Zu Beginn des Jahres 1998 entschlossen sich mehrere Mitglieder meiner Familie (meine Frau, ihre Zwillingsschwester, deren Mann und ich selbst), unsere schachlichen Aktivitäten auf eine neue Stufe zu heben. Es handelte sich um den Abschluss einer Trainerausbildung, die periodisch von der rumänischen Föderation mit Unterstützung des Sportkomitees organisiert wird. Die Prüfungen fielen uns relativ leicht, doch der mühsamste Teil stand uns noch bevor: die Diplomarbeit. Glücklicherweise konnten wir uns die Themen selbst aussuchen. Da ich einige Erfahrung im Schreiben von Schachartikeln hatte, unterstützte ich meine Familie so gut es ging mit handwerklichen Tipps. Hauptsächlich bezog sich dies auf den Forschungsgegenstand sowie die Partienauswahl. Unsere Thesen wurden von den Juroren als absolut zufrieden stellend bewertet, und jeder von uns bekam seine Trainerlizenz. Auf diesem Wege wurde die Grundidee von vier Kapiteln dieses Buches geboren. Zwar war das ursprüngliche Ziel erreicht, doch das thematische Universum, in das ich die Gelegenheit hatte einzutreten, nahm mich weiterhin gefangen. Nachdem ich die Artikel einer gründlichen Überarbeitung und Korrektur unterzogen und sie weiterhin mit einer persönlichen Note versehen hatte, veröffentlichte ich sie in der rumänischen Zeitschrift Chess ExtraPress. Mit dem Gesamtresultat war ich noch nicht völlig zufrieden und überarbeitete es ein weiteres Mal für die Veröffentlichung in der schwedischen Zeitschrift Schacknytt. Schon bald widmete ich meine Aufmerksamkeit anderen verwandten Themen und veröffentlichte meine Ergebnisse in Schweden. Leider existierte die rumänische Zeitschrift in der Zwischenzeit nicht mehr. Als vor ein oder zwei Jahren die Idee aufkam, diese Artikelserie als Buch herauszubringen, glaubte ich, dass der Hauptteil der Arbeit bereits erledigt sei. Doch ein zweiter Blick auf das Material zeigte mir, welcher enorme Aufwand vonnöten ist, um dem Ganzen den notwendigen Schliff zu verleihen. Zudem entdeckte ich eine peinlich hohe Zahl an Fehlern in meinen alten Analysen, deren Korrektur manchmal einen radikalen Wandel der Struktur nach sich zog. Mehrere Jahre nach meinen ersten Versuchen auf diesem Terrain hatten sich darüber hinaus meine Ansichten als Schachautor erheblich gewandelt, sowohl was den literarischen als auch den rein analytischen Teil angeht. Nach mehreren Monaten harter Arbeit hatte sich die Größe der meisten Kapitel verglichen mit der schwedischen Version mehr als verdoppelt. Wie dem auch sei, ich bin mir natürlich bewusst, dass die Entstehungsgeschichte eines Buches für den Leser von geringerem Interesse ist als das Buch selbst. Deshalb möchte ich mich nun dem eigentlichen Thema nähern. Die großen Meister der Schachgeschichte wurden begeistert von der Öffentlichkeit gefeiert, sie haben den Geschmack ihrer Generation bestimmt, aber noch wichtiger ist, dass sie der Nachwelt einen unschätzbaren Reichtum an Studienmaterial hinterließen. Ein jeder von ihnen hatte seine eigenen Spezialitäten, bestimmte Gebiete, in denen er wie ein wahrer Virtuose agierte, klassische Manöver, die geradezu sprichwörtlich wurden.
6
Von den Legenden Lernen – Schachkönige im Exkurs
Jedes Kapitel dieses Buches konzentriert sich auf die Art und Weise, wie ein großer Meister vereinfachte Positionen mit einer bestimmten Materialverteilung (zum Beispiel Läufer gegen Springer, Leichtfigur gegen Turm, Dame und Turm gegen Dame und Turm) behandelt. Die einzige Ausnahme stellt das Kapitel über Viktor Kortschnoi dar, das auf gewisse Weise den Rest des Buches zusammenfasst. Acht Spieler habe ich für dieses Werk ausgewählt. Sechs davon haben den Titel des weltbesten Spielers offiziell anerkannt bekommen. Im Falle der beiden übrigen war es einzig Caissas Laune, die sie von den höchsten Ehren abhielt, doch ihre Kunst verdient eine gleichermaßen hohe Wertschätzung wie die ihrer Kollegen. Natürlich beinhaltet die Galerie der großen Meister wesentlich mehr als nur jene acht außergewöhnlichen Gestalten. Doch mein Ziel war es nicht, ein Buch über Schachgeschichte zu schreiben. Meine ursprüngliche Idee bestand darin, mich auf Spieler zu konzentrieren, die mich in einem bestimmten Stadium meiner Schachkarriere tief beeindruckt haben. Viele dieser Erfahrungen gehen zurück in meine Jugendzeit und hatten entscheidenden Einfluss auf meine schachliche Reifung. Zum Teil habe ich diesen Einfluss konkret aufgezeigt, indem ich ein oder zwei Fragmente meiner eigenen Partien in die Kapitel einschob. Ich sollte außerdem hinzufügen, dass ich mich den Schachklassikern zunächst auf recht spontane und bisweilen chaotische Weise näherte, die in der Einleitung zu den jeweiligen Kapiteln beschrieben ist. Auch wenn Schach in Rumänien seitens der kommunistischen Führung in großem Umfang unterstützt wurde, gab es doch immer einen Mangel an guten Trainern. Deshalb mussten die meisten der aufstrebenden jungen Spieler eigene Wege zur Vervollkommnung suchen, und ich war in diesem bedauernswerten Prozess keine Ausnahme. Durch die individuelle Arbeit an jedem einzelnen Kapitel musste ich einen wichtigen, wenn auch nicht sehr offensichtlichen Aspekt berücksichtigen, auf den mich mein Freund und Verleger Jacob Aagard hinwies. Die Hauptgefahr, wenn man mit Partien eines einzigen Spielers arbeitet, besteht darin, dass sie als das erscheinen, was sie wirklich sind, nämlich eine zufällige Ansammlung von Partien. Gerettet wurde ich durch die Fülle praktischer Beispiele in den Gebieten, in denen meine favorisierten Meister Vorzügliches leisteten. Meine Absicht bestand darin, die Partien so zu präsentieren, dass sie sich in den progressiven Verlauf des jeweiligen Kapitels perfekt einfügten. Indirekt wollte ich dem Leser somit suggerieren, dass die Partienauswahl nur so und nicht anders verlaufen konnte. Abschließend möchte ich den folgenden Menschen für ihre Unterstützung meinen Dank aussprechen: – an Mihai Panait vom Chess ExtraPress und Ari Ziegler vom Schacknytt dafür, dass sie mir die Gelegenheit gaben, meine Artikel in ihren Zeitschriften zu veröffentlichen, – an Jacob Aagaard für seine höchst wertvollen und originellen Ratschläge – und nicht zuletzt meiner Frau Luiza und meinem 5-jährigen Sohn Victor dafür, dass sie Schach so sehr lieben wie ich selbst und meiner Arbeit so einen Sinn geben. Mihail Marin Bukarest, Mai 2004
7
Vorwort zur zweiten Ausgabe Auf unserer permanenten Suche nach der Wahrheit werden wir (ich denke da an mehrere Arten von Menschen: Schachspieler, Wissenschaftler, Neugeborene) oftmals überrascht, dass der Weg, den wir für mehr oder weniger gerade hielten, tatsächlich eine Schwindel erregende Spirale darstellt. Manche Behauptung, die zu einem gewissen Zeitpunkt als unumstößliche Wahrheit galt, wird durch eine neue Entdeckung widerlegt, welche wiederum nur allzu schnell ihre Gültigkeit verliert, um mitunter sogar von der vorherigen Schlussfolgerung ersetzt zu werden. Dies ist eine Folge des Umstands, dass unser Geist dazu neigt, die Wahrheit mit Worten wie „ja“ oder „nein“ und manchmal auch „vielleicht“ zu belegen. Nur selten berücksichtigen wir die eingeschränkten Mittel unserer Vernunft und ähneln verdächtig jener älteren Person, die auf immer stärkere Brillengläser setzt, um die visuelle Wahrnehmung der umgebenden Realität zu verbessern. Die zweite Ausgabe dieses Buches aufzubereiten, bedeutete ein weiteres Voranschreiten entlang der vor einiger Zeit in Gang gesetzten Spirale. Zwar war schon die erste Ausgabe das Produkt eines arbeitsreichen Prozesses, doch ich hatte wenig Zweifel, dass sich Fehler einschleichen würden. Ich war mir außerdem sicher, dass in manchen Fällen detailliertere Kommentare und Ausführungen vonnöten sind. Aber das Hauptproblem war, dass die meisten Kapitel einen logischen Aufbau hatten und jede Änderung bezüglich der Einschätzung womöglich komplexe Auswirkungen auf die Gesamtstruktur nach sich zogen. Als also Yuri Garrett, der Herausgeber von Caissa Italia, mich informierte, dass Andrea Malfagia das Analysematerial einem gründlichem Check unterzog, als er den Text für die italienische Auflage übersetzte, überkam mich ein kalter Schauer. Müsste ich noch mal von vorn anfangen? Müsste ich längere Teile des Buches neu schreiben? Wie ich bald herausfand, bestätigten sich meine Befürchtungen nur zum Teil. Andrea gelang es tatsächlich, eine erkleckliche Anzahl an Problemen ans Tageslicht zu holen, doch die angenehme Überraschung war, dass er sich nicht darauf beschränkte, sondern sich auch gleich um Lösungen bemühte! Die erforderlichen Korrekturen im Text erwiesen sich deshalb als nicht so schwierig wie ich erwartete. Im Übrigen, selbst in jenen Fällen, bei denen ich nicht mit Andreas Schlussfolgerungen übereinstimmte, inspirierten sie mich doch zu weiteren Nachforschungen und Verbesserungen. Manchmal entschloss ich mich, seine weit gefächerten Variantenbäume nicht in den Text aufzunehmen, wenn ich das Gefühl hatte, dass sie nur meine ursprünglichen Schlussfolgerungen bestätigten. Eine Reihe weiterer Fehler und Auslassungen wurde von Lesern ausfindig gemacht (die meisten davon aus Deutschland). Ihnen gilt mein besonderer Dank, nicht nur für die rein technische Unterstützung, sondern auch dafür, dass sie mich an den guten alten Habitus der sowjetischen Autoren erinnerten, die immer engen Kontakt zu ihren Lesern pflegten. Mein spezieller Dank auch an Karsten Müller, der mich einige Stufen auf der Spirale begleitet hat. Und schließlich ist es mir eine große Ehre gewesen, dass der hoch angesehene Trainer und Autor Mark Dworezki an meiner Analyse einiger bestimmter Stellungen interessiert war. Er lud mich zu einem Meinungsaustausch ein, der, wie ich hoffe, von beiderseitigem Nutzen war.
8
Von den Legenden Lernen – Schachkönige im Exkurs
Während sich die Qualität der Analyse durch diese höchst willkommene Hilfe aus verschiedenen Quellen verbessert hat, sah ich mich mit der Gefahr konfrontiert, dass der Gesamtfluss des Buches angesichts der Komplexität der Änderungen beeinträchtigt würde. Ich hoffe, dass mit der Hilfe meiner Verleger (inklusive John Shaw, der so geduldig war, „mein“ Englisch einheimisch klingen zu lassen; mein spezieller Dank auch ihm) dieses Problem zufrieden stellend gelöst werden konnte. In manchen Fällen habe ich mich entschlossen, einen Auszug von der historischen Entwicklung der Stellungsbewertung einzufügen, um damit die Idee von der Wahrheitsspirale zu verdeutlichen. Vielleicht gab es dafür auch einen sentimentalen Grund: Ich wollte einfach nicht, dass bestimmte Abschnitte komplett aus dem Buch verschwinden. Ich hoffe, Sie werden an dieser verbesserten (aber wohl nicht endgültigen) Fassung „der Legenden“ Gefallen finden. Mihail Marin Bukarest, 11. November 2005
Akiba Rubinsteins Turmendspiele
Kapitel Eins: Akiba Rubinsteins Turmendspiele
11
Als mir im Alter von 18 Jahren klar wurde, dass ich keine andere Chance hatte als in die ruhmreiche rumänische Armee einzutreten, warnten mich meine älteren Freunde, dass die größte Gefahr darin bestünde, vor Langeweile zu sterben. Als zukünftiger Student des Polytechnischen Instituts wurde ich in eine technische Division beordert, was zur Folge hatte, dass ich die meiste Zeit des Tages in einem Klassenzimmer verbrachte, wo sich nichts Besonderes ereignete. (Und in der Tat nutzten die meisten meiner Kameraden diesen Zeitabschnitt, um zu schlafen, ihre Köpfe fest auf die Tischplatten gepresst. Einige andere tuschelten mit gedämpfter Stimme, und ein paar schrieben Briefe an ihre Liebsten). Dem Rat meiner Freunde folgend entschloss ich mich, die verfügbare Zeit dem Studium der russischen Sprache zu widmen. Schon damals besaß ich eine ordentliche Sammlung sowjetischer Schachbücher, konnte aber daraus keinen großen Nutzen ziehen, da sich die linguistischen Hürden als nur schwer überwindbar erwiesen. Mit mir führte ich ständig ein Taschenwörterbuch sowie ein sorgsam ausgewähltes Werk (und zwar ausgewählt nach folgenden Kriterien: es durfte nicht zu dick sein, damit es leicht zu transportieren und gut zu verstecken war; es musste in Hardcover gedruckt worden sein, damit es eventuelle Unfälle überlebte; und schließlich durfte es keines der Lieblingsbücher meiner Bibliothek sein, um im Falle von Zerstörung, Verlust oder Konfiszierung seitens meiner Vorgesetzten nicht in übergroße Trauer zu verfallen). Der große Plan endete im totalen Triumph: Neun Monate später, als ich zu meiner großen Erleichte rung wieder zum Zivilisten wurde, war ich in der Lage, einen Großteil meiner russischen Schachbücher sowohl lesen als auch verstehen zu können. Und dennoch gab es etwas, das ich nicht vorhergesehen hatte: Das „sorgsam ausgewählte Buch“, das ich so oft, versteckt unter der Montur, von unserer Behausung zum Klassenzimmer und zurück getragen hatte, wurde meine Schachbibel. Ein Buch, dass ich immer und immer wieder aufschlug, um mir zum x-ten Mal die eine oder andere Partie anzuschauen. Vor einiger Zeit, in dem Wunsche, sich der guten alten Tage zu erinnern, schlug ich es erneut auf: Akiba Rubinstein, von Rasuwajew und Murachwerij, mit einer Biographie und ausgewählten Partien meines klassischen Idols. Augenblicklich stand ich im Banne der alten Gefühle, doch ich wurde auch neugierig: Würde das Buch ebenso der Analyse eines reiferen und kritischeren Auges standhalten? Das tat es nicht, sehr zu meiner Enttäuschung. Ich fand heraus, dass die Analysen Rasuwajews eine Unmenge an Fehlern und Auslassungen und nur sehr wenig authentisches Material enthielten. Doch nachdem ich mir dies als unumstößlichen Fakt eingestand, entdeckte ich, dass dies nicht an Rubinsteins Partien lag: Sie versprühten nach wie vor das gleiche Gefühl von Klarheit, Eleganz und Logik wie damals vor 20 Jahren. Ich betrachtete es als meine Pflicht, meine eigenen Kommentare über einige seiner Partien zu veröffentlichen, wobei ich mir als auf der Hand liegendes Thema seine Turmendspiele auswählte, eine der großen Spezialitäten Akibas. Allerdings ist dieses Buch vorwiegend den Weltmeistern gewidmet, so dass sich der Leser wundern dürfte, weshalb es mit einem Kapitel über einen Spieler beginnt, der noch nicht einmal ein Match um die höchste Krone gespielt hat. Ich werde mich nachzuweisen bemühen, dass meine Entscheidung nicht nur auf der Grundlage subjektiver Erinnerungen gefällt wurde. Bis zum Tode Aljechins im Jahre 1946 besaß der Weltmeister das persönliche Recht, sich seinen Herausforderer selbst auszusuchen.
War Akiba jemals der beste Spieler? Akiba erreichte seinen Höhepunkt in den Jahren vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg. 1909 erzielte er eines seiner besten Resultate, als er zusammen mit Lasker den ersten Preis im St. Petersburger Turnier teilte, 3½ Punkte vor dem Rest des Feldes. Dies war der Zeitpunkt, als man in der Öffentlichkeit begann, Rubinstein als den wahrscheinlichsten Herausforderer für einen Titelkampf zu favorisieren.
12
Von den Legenden Lernen – Schachkönige im Exkurs
Sein magisches Jahr hatte er freilich 1912, als er jedes Einzelturnier gewann, an dem er teilnahm. Dies waren lange Turniere, bei denen um die 20 Runden gespielt wurden. Daher war eine solch absolute Überlegenheit alles andere als leicht zu erringen, und seit den Tagen Morphys hatte man sie auch nicht wieder gesehen. Akibas Leistung könnte man in etwa auf der gleichen Ebene ansiedeln wie Kasparows Dominanz bei Turnieren um das Jahr 2000 herum. Sehr zu Akibas Verdruss war jedoch Emanuel Lasker in den Vorkriegsjahren im Besitz des Weltmeistertitels. Lasker war nicht nur ein sehr starker Spieler, sondern er verstand es auch, aus seinem Recht, den Herausforderer zu bestimmen, vollen Nutzen zu ziehen. So zwang er beispielsweise Schlechter dazu, ein Match unter skandalös ungerechten Bedingungen zu spielen (obwohl erwähnt werden sollte, dass er seinen Titel trotzdem nur mit einer gehörigen Portion Glück behielt). Von daher verwundert es kaum, dass er 27 Jahre auf dem Schachthron residieren konnte. Auch wenn es nicht viele historischen Belege dafür gibt, so können wir doch vermuten, dass Lasker alles daran setzte, das offensichtlich unvermeidliche Match gegen Rubinstein hinauszuzögern. Nach langen Verhandlungen wurde das Aufeinandertreffen für den Oktober 1914 anberaumt, doch dann kam der Krieg und mit ihm das Schachleben praktisch zum Stillstand. Akibas Nerven scheinen unter dem Weltbrand arg gelitten zu haben, und auch wenn er bis zu seinem letzten bedeutenden Turnier (Schacholympiade in Prag 1931) ein gefürchteter Kontrahent blieb, war er doch nie wieder der gleiche Spieler wie zuvor. Und in der Konsequenz verschwand er auch, in den Augen der öffentlichen Meinung, von der Bühne der potenziellen Herausforderer. Weil er jedoch während einer bestimmten Phase ganz eindeutig der stärkste Spieler der Welt war, fühle ich mich auch berechtigt, seine Meisterwerke in dieses Buch aufzunehmen. Rubinsteins Name ist eng verknüpft mit den Hauptvarianten solcher Eröffnungen wie dem NimzoInder, Damenindisch und der Tarrasch-Verteidigung. Er führte als Nachziehender verschiedene Möglichkeiten des Aufbaus in der Französischen Verteidigung und im Ruy Lopez ein, die nach wie vor aktuell sind. Er war zudem der erste, der die moderne Meraner Variante in der Semi-Slawischen Verteidigung anwandte.
Eröffnungsexperte oder Endspielvirtuose? Warum nun habe ich mich bei einem solchen Eröffnungsexperten auf die Endspiele konzentriert? Rubinstein war vermutlich der erste große Spieler, der die so genannten langfristigen Pläne zur Anwendung brachte, die sich von der Eröffnung bis zum Endspiel über die gesamte Partie erstreckten. Seine Kontrahenten verstanden Akibas tiefgründiges Spiel zumeist nicht und waren vorrangig damit beschäftigt, die direkten Drohungen zu parieren. Erst nachdem die Partie vorüber war, wurde klar, dass Rubinstein die Konturen des entstehenden Endspiels von einem sehr frühen Zeitpunkt an geplant hatte. Man wird feststellen, dass ich die Analyse der Partie des Öfteren vor dem Endspiel beginne. Es gibt in diesem Kapitel sogar eine komplette Partie. Der Grund dafür besteht darin, das Konzept dieser “langfristigen Pläne” zu erläutern. Ich habe das Material nach der Anzahl der auf dem Brett verbliebenen Türme unterteilt. Dies ist, wie schon bald klar werden wird, mehr als nur eine formale Klassifizierung. Reine Turmendspiele (ein Turm auf jeder Seite) neigen dazu, vorwiegend technischer Natur zu sein. Vier-Türme-Endspiele halten weitaus größere taktische Möglichkeiten bereit, obwohl natürlich auch sie zu reinen Turmendspielen führen können. Turmendspiele sind in der Praxis nicht nur die verbreitetsten, sondern auch die am schwierigsten zu analysierenden. Der Turm ist eine dermaßen starke und bewegliche Figur, dass unzählige taktische Möglichkeiten auftauchen, die insbesondere am Brett sehr schwer zu berechnen sind. In meinen Anmerkungen habe ich versucht, den Moment herauszufiltern, an dem einer der Spieler einen
Kapitel Eins: Akiba Rubinsteins Turmendspiele Gewinn oder ein Remis auslässt, wobei aber die Wahrscheinlichkeit von Fehlern in meinen Kommentaren ziemlich hoch ist, eben wegen der genannten Schwierigkeiten. Turmendspiele sind bekannt für ihre Remistendenz. Materieller Vorteil von einem oder, in extremen Fällen, zwei Bauern ist häufig nur schwer oder gar unmöglich zu verwerten. Das soll indes nicht wirklich bedeuten, dass Tartakowers These, „alle Turmendspiele sind Remis“, wortwörtlich zu nehmen ist. Das technische Ziel dieses Kapitels besteht darin, jene Elemente herauszustellen, die einen klaren Vorteil für eine der beiden Seiten kennzeichnen, und von denen mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit gesagt werden kann, dass sie zum Gewinn ausreichen. (Die Betonung auf „technisches Ziel“ erfolgte, weil ein anderer Zweck dieses Kapitels, diesmal eher sentimentaler Natur, lautet, dem großen Akiba Tribut zu zollen). Nach gründlichem Studium der Partien Rubinsteins habe ich eine ungefähre Methode für eine erste Bewertung der Turmendspiele entwickelt. Jedes günstige Element wie zum Beispiel ein Mehrbauer, Raumvorteil, aktiverer Turm oder signifikante Schwächen im gegnerischen Lager wird mit einem Punkt bedacht. Sollte die Differenz beider Parteien einen Punkt betragen (also beispielsweise 1-0 oder 2-1), ist die Stellung zwar eindeutig besser, aber noch nicht zwangsläufig gewonnen. Dies bedeutet einen wesentlichen Unterschied im Vergleich zu Bauern-, gleichfarbigen Läufer- oder Springerendspielen, wo ein Score von 1-0 (vergleichbar einem Mehrbauern) gewöhnlich zum Sieg reicht. Mit Ausnahme einiger extremer Fälle (zum Beispiel das Endspiel mit f- und h-Bauern) sollte ein Score von 2-0 oder 3-1 den Sieg garantieren. Der Leser sollte sich darüber im Klaren sein, dass dieses System nur eine Richtlinie darstellt. Es kann sich beim praktischen Spiel als hilfreich erweisen (und half mir definitiv während der zurück liegenden Jahre), wenn es darum geht, in dieses oder jenes Endspiel überzuleiten, sollte jedoch nicht als unfehlbare Regel gelten. Manch konkreter Vorteil könnte stärker wiegen als nur einen Punkt oder, ganz im Gegenteil,
13
keine wirkliche Bedeutung besitzen. Wir sollten in Betracht ziehen, dass eine größere Anzahl an Bauern für gewöhnlich die Gewinnchancen erhöht, während Vereinfachungen normalerweise der schwächeren Seite helfen. Dies sind Elemente, die nur schwer messbar sind. Und außerdem, wäre Schach reine Mathematik, würde es weit weniger interessant sein. Gleichzeitig heißt es nicht zwingend, dass ein gewonnenes Turmendspiel vom im Vorteil befindlichen Spieler auch automatisch gewonnen wird. Anhand der ausgewählten Beispiele werden wir erkennen, dass gute, zum Teil sogar überaus subtile Technik nötig ist. Eine weitere Unterteilung erfolgt zwischen den Stellungen, in denen die stärkere Seite über materiellen Vorteil verfügt und solchen, wo die Überlegenheit positioneller Natur ist.
Die Verwertung eines materiellen Vorteils I Für die stärkere Seite lautet die ideale Konstellation, neben einem minimalen materiellen Vorteil auch über irgendeine Form von positionellem Vorteil zu verfügen. So sieht dann der Fall für einen Score von 2-0 aus. Akiba Rubinstein – Emanuel Lasker St. Petersburg 1909
Lasker hat in der Eröffnung einen Bauern geopfert (oder eher verloren), doch seine Stellung wirkt recht aktiv. Angesichts der Drohung ...¦xe3
14
Von den Legenden Lernen – Schachkönige im Exkurs
scheint es so, als hätte er keine Probleme, den Bauern zurück zu gewinnen. Es sei denn… 16.¦c1! Akiba setzt einfach die Entwicklung fort und reduziert gleichzeitig das schwarze Angriffs potenzial. 16...¦xe3 Das prophylaktische 16...¢b8 hätte Weiß ein wichtiges Tempo gegeben, um seine Initiative zu entwickeln: 17.¦c5 £f4 18.d5 ¦xe3 19.£c1! Genau wie in der Partie begräbt dieser elegante Zug die schwarzen Hoffnungen auf Gegenspiel. 19...¦e4 20.dxc6 bxc6 21.£c3 mit klarem Vorteil für Weiß gemäß Lasker. 17.¦xc6† bxc6 18.£c1! Durchaus erwähnenswert ist, dass Rubinstein etwas später mit dem gleichen Zwischenzug einen weiteren (diesmal zukünftigen) Weltmeister in die Knie zwang: Akiba Rubinstein – Jose Capablanca San Sebastian 1911
Schwarz entwickelt starken Druck gegen den Bauern f2. Im Falle des furchtsamen 15.e3 würde er sein Zentrum mittels 15...¦ad8 konsolidieren und eine absolut spielbare Stellung erhalten. Nachdem er jedoch die etwas unsichere Stellung von Turm und Läufer des Nachziehenden erkannt hatte, startete Rubinstein eine thematische taktische Kombination. 15.¤xd5!? £h6?
Capablanca versucht mit einfachen Mitteln eine Stellung zu behandeln, die in Wahrheit sehr kompliziert ist. Selbstverständlich verliert 15...exd5? wegen 16.£xd5† ¢h8 17.¥xc8 Material. Erst kürzlich hat ein russischer Amateurspieler namens Sorochtin entdeckt, dass 15...¥xf2† den Nachziehenden im Spiel gehalten hätte. Zum Beispiel: 16.¢g2 £e5! Dies ist Sorochtins Verstärkung der Variante 16...£f7? 17.¤f4, die von Kasparow angegeben wird. Zum Beispiel: 17.¦xf2 ¦xf2† 18.¢xf2 ¦d8 19.¤e7† ¢h8 20.£b3 ¤xe7 21.£xe6 £d4† 22.¢g2 ¤d5 und die Schwäche des weißen Königsflügels sowie die bessere Koordination seiner Figuren geben Schwarz ein angenehmes Spiel. 16.¢g2 ¦cd8 Das war der Zug, auf den sich Capa verlassen hatte. 16...¥xf2 wäre weniger wirksam wegen 17.¤f4 und beispielsweise 17...¦cd8 18.£a4, wonach Weiß den Bauern e6 gewinnt. 17.£c1! Ein eleganter Zug, der mehrere Funktionen erfüllt. Die Dame flüchtet aus der unangenehmen Fesselung in der d-Linie und greift gleichzeitig den Läufer auf c5 an. Da sie zudem den Tausch mit ihrer Kollegin anbietet, wird auch noch der Punkt e6 untergraben, so dass 17...¦xd5 nicht spielbar ist. 17...exd5 Nach 17...£xc1? würde Schwarz rasch verlieren: 18.¥xe6† ¢h8 19.¦axc1; oder 17...¦xd5? 18.£xh6 gxh6 19.¥xe6† mit riesigem materiellem Vorteil für Weiß in beiden Fällen. 18.£xc5 £d2 19.£b5 ¤d4 20.£d3 £xd3 21.exd3 und Weiß besaß einen gesunden Mehrbauern und schickte sich an, die Partie zu gewinnen. 1–0
Lassen Sie uns damit zur Partie Rubinstein – Lasker zurückkehren (Stellung nach 18.£c1).
