The Lasker Method

 

Contents Title Page Explanation of symbols 6 Introduction 7 Chapter 1 General chess philosophy and common sense 11 Chapter 2 Chess strategy and the principles of positional play 14 Chapter 3 Endgame play 19 Chapter 4 Attack 36 Chapter Cha pter 5 Defen Defence ce 58 Chapter Cha pter 6 Knights versus versus bishops 71 Chapter 7 Amorphous positions 75 Chapter Chap ter 8 An approach to the to the openings 90 Defending against 1.e4 91 1) Defending 2) Defending against 1.d4 108 3) White o penings 117 Chapter Chap ter 9 Games for study and analysis 128 Sec Section tion A

Section B Section Section Sec tion C Section Sec tion D Section Sec tion E Chapter Cha pter 10 Combinations and tactics 199 Se Section ction A: Easy puzzles Section Se ction B: Intermediate Intermediate puzzles Section Se ction C: Difficult puzzles puzzles   Index x of openings 233 Inde Index of names 234 Index Bibliograph Bibl iography y 238

2  

Gerard Welling and Steve Giddins

The Lasker Method to Improve in Chess A Manual for Modern-Day Club Players

New In Chess 2021

© 2021 New In Chess   To Leo, Who constantly reminds me that there is always something else to discover, and new adventures to be had.

Published by New In Chess, Alkmaar, The Netherlands www.newinchess.com

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or  transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or  otherwise, without the prior written permission from the publisher.

Cover design: Buro Blikgoed Editing and typesetting, supervision: Peter Boel Proofreading: Mariska de Mie Production: Anton Schermer 

Have you found any errors in this book? Please send your remarks to [email protected]. We will collect all relevant corrections on the Errata page of our website www.newinchess.com and implement them in a possible next edition.

ISBN:978-90-5691-932-0  

3  

Acknowledgements Thanks are due to the New in Chess production team for their work on the book. Matthew Sadler  shared his thoughts on defence and his own approach to it. Most of all, we are grateful to Michael Cook, who generously shared many of his Lasker-inspired games and whose influence can be seen in various places throughout the book.

4  

Explanation of Symbols

The chessboard with its coordinates:

K King Q Queen R Rook  B Bishop N Knight

² White stands slightly better  ³ Black stands slightly better  ± White stands better  µ Black stands better  +– White has a decisive advantage –+ Black has a decisive advantage = balanced position ! good move !! excellent move ? bad move ?? blunder  !? interesting move ?! dubious move

5  

 novelty ƒ initiative ‚ attack  „ counterplay ° compensation ∞ unclear 

6  

Introduction The game of chess is in a constant state of flux, and already has been for a long time. Several books have been written about the advances made in chess, about Wilhelm Steinitz, who is traditionally regarded as having laid the foundation of positional play (although Willy Hendriks expresses his doubts about this in his latest revolutionary book On the Origin of good Moves), Moves ), about how the socalled Hypermoderns broadened our conception of the centre, how the Russian school of chess emphasised the importance of dynamics, and so on. Nowadays, we live in the era of the strong computer engines and we are discovering that concepts which have generally been believed to be dubious can often work in practice. Modern chess has turned into a much more concrete game and modern chess strategy has grown more and more into a question of whether a move works or not, regardless of whether it fits in with underlying principles or rules of thumb. From the early days of the game, scientifically-minded players have tried to formulate the general  principles that should guide guide a game of chess, and each time, after the ideas ideas became general property of the chess world, adaptations have been made and new directions explored. These in turn have led to new insights, and to a general shift in the understanding of how chess should be played in a correct way. This movement, this battle of ideas, has been going on for hundreds of years, with the elite chess  players and thinkers as standard-bearers, and the common chess players trying to follow in their  footsteps. And this is not always easy to do, because chess changes, and with modern technology and communication, the pace increases more and more. Chess trainers – especially the deep thinkers – have tried to find the answer for the amateur player   by searching for the philosopher’s philosopher’s stone that should be the compass compass for all our actions on the chessboard. One can think, for example, of the German-Ukrainian chess trainer Alexander Bangiev, who has developed a thinking method over the years, which he has baptised ‘squares strategy’. After  studying an enormous number of games by strong players, he has deduced a couple of basic strategies  based on three characteristics of the position: position: • the central ‘nerve-point’ of one’s position (from White’s point of view, e4 or d4); • the direction of one’s play; • the colour complex on which the action is to be performed. These characteristics should point towards logical candidate moves, which he has explained in a thought-provoking book called Felderstrategie: called Felderstrategie: Denkmethode. Denkmethode. In St Petersburg, the famous trainer Alexander Shashin has acted otherwise in his quest to find a general solution to the chess problem. He did not base his research on classifying experiential knowledge as Bangiev did, but he studied chess through the prism of modern scientific methods. According to him, Steinitz’s theory is to be compared with the Newtonian approach to physics, and ust as science has moved on, so why not approach the science of chess with help of the modern methods of studying complex systems? Several decades of dedicated research led him to cconclude onclude that every position has its individual character, which is based on the same set of parameters every time: • material; • time;

7  

• safety; • compactness; • expansion. With the help of these parameters, the players should be able to find which of three algorithms the current position responds to – either ‘Tal’ (attacking material chess targets), ‘Capablanca’ (the strongest strategic move) or finally ‘Petrosian’ (the defensive algorithms). This sounds a bit abstract,  but in his book Best book Best Play Shashin Play Shashin sets out the method and the elements to sort this out. The present authors are both experienced chess players, and in the course of decades of playing and reflection, both have been thinking of the problem of how chess should be played. Lacking the creative genius of the standard-bearers in this respect, we have looked for a ‘role model’ instead of a new direction, an example that may help the average club player to orient him- or herself in the constantly changing way of chess. The amateur player has limited time for chess c hess play and study, but still likes to practice his ‘major hobby’ as well as he can, and thus would like to base his game on reliable premises. He ideally wants to play trustworthy openings, and reach a sound middlegame, and would welcome a basic grasp of endgame strategy, but often lacks the time to work on this. Our idea is to present a manual that teaches the club player to play strictly according to Lasker’s ideas, the ones that he explained in his books and that we often see illustrated in his games. His is an efficient and independent approach to chess, with nothing superfluous, which is diametrically opposed to what many players do in practice, by storing as much information in their brains as they can. Lasker warned against this memory approach, and one of the co-authors (GW) noted with surprise that a strong player and experienced trainer like GM Jörg Hickl also did the same in one of our  discussions about chess a few years ago. Of course you need some basic knowledge, but the starting  point for decision-making should be a set of principles and common common sense. Our discussion was about a position in the Old Indian Defence after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 N bd7 4.e4 e5 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Be3 a6.

8  

ow White plays 9.d5, giving Black a choice: • either to take on d5 and play for ...b7-b5 in Old Indian style; or  • to play ...c6-c5 in Czech Benoni style. Black can consider all kind of subtleties, comparing different variations and piece set-ups, but that does not lead to a clear conclusion about what is best. Hickl did not really mind. According to the  principles of sound play, both both moves are playable and we should not waste time on such small details that are basically not so interesting, according to him. Superfluous knowledge, especially in the openings, is often a pitfall! Emanuel Lasker believed that his Manual his  Manual of Chess was Chess was a timeless document. Most modern players and writers tend not to agree, but we strongly believe that some parts of it are indeed timeless. And quite a few years ago, one of the co-authors even modelled his openings on Lasker’s choice, partly  because of laziness and partly because they are built on Lasker’s universal beliefs in in chess. For  example, the Spanish Old Steinitz Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B b5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6) is a bit restrained, but is certainly not bad and can in no way be refuted (it has not been in over 100 years). We have decided to discuss the applications of Lasker’s chess principles in reversed order of the stages of a chess game, for reason of better comprehension. Thus, we start with endgame play, which is the science of materially simplified positions. The application of principles in this kind of position will, we hope, be a good introduction, before turning our attention to the middlegame and then to openings, with materially more complex positions. One further, important point. Some years ago, John Nunn published John published John Nunn’s Chess Course Course,, a complete textbook on the game, based entirely around Lasker’s games. In the present book, we aim to do something completely different: we emphasise the specifically Laskerian approach and how it can  be used by the average club player. Lasker emphasised emphasised most of all playing by understanding and general principles, with minimum rote-learning (especially of openings). This is perfect for the average amateur player, who wants to be able to maintain a good standard of play without relentless homework. Lasker also used psychology much more than most players, aiming for positions where his opponent might feel less comfortable than himself, even if the objective assessment of the position might be fine for the opponent. For Lasker, chess was a fight, a battle between two imperfect humans, and the idea was to win that  battle by whatever means possible possible (within the rules, of course!). Whereas most most textbooks emphasise trying to play the objectively best move all a ll the time, Lasker understood that, paradoxically, that was not always the best way to win. Nobody can possibly play the best moves all the time. Mistakes are inevitable and they are what decide games, so his aim was to try to induce more mistakes from the opponent than from ourselves. So, for example, for the average player, playing a position which he understands and feels comfortable in is more important than playing an objectively superior position that he doesn’t understand and doesn’t feel comfortable in, because he is more likely to go wrong in the latter. Lasker therefore emphasised the importance of a good grasp of the basic essential  principles, sticking to tried tried and tested opening schemes, and not worrying about micro-subtleties, micro-subtleties, such as a world champion might be concerned with – at the average amateur level, games are not decided by such subtleties. As well as Lasker’s own games, we have used many games by other players, who (consciously or  otherwise) have used a Laskerian approach themselves. Some of them were not even masters or 

9  

grandmasters, but just strong amateurs, whose play is often easier for the average player to understand. Our approach has been to annotate games largely with verbal explanations, adding concrete tactical detail only when this is essential to understand what is going on. Experience shows that this is the most effective way of presenting instructional material to the average club player,  because too many detailed tactical variations variations tends to lead to the wood wood being obscured by the trees. As Lasker himself emphasised in his books, ‘the method’ is the key thing, as it applies more generally to many positions, whereas the tactical detail is always specific to one concrete position. Gerard Welling and Steve Giddins, December 2020

10  

Chapter 1 General chess philosophy and common sense 1.1 Our guideline

The first question that has to be answered is: what is the purpose of this book? Our goal is to present the average club player with the methods of one of the most successful, yet efficient players in chess history, in order to inspire our readers to be efficient in their chess study and yet to optimize the effectiveness of what they study. Emanuel Lasker spent comparatively little time on chess compared to his rivals. Most people know that he was a noted mathematician, a published philosopher, and that he had the ideal of being the universal human, at least in matters of the mind. That Lasker’s principles of chess worked admirably for him is shown by the sheer longevity of his chess career, and by the way he was able to adapt to all the trends in chess that he encountered throughout these long years. The second question, derived from the first one, is: how do we intend to learn from Lasker’s legacy? Lasker wrote several well-thought-out works on chess, mostly of a scientific character, and had a long career as a player. In his Common Sense in Chess he Chess he explains his approach to chess and to what underlying laws the game of chess responds. And in in Lasker’s  Lasker’s Manual of Chess Chess, he states that he has made an effort to write a chess book that is timeless, unlike other chess books. Once again he does not dive into details, but discusses the principles of the chess struggle. We do not want to improve our chess and results by memorisation of many rules and stored knowledge (e.g. openings) but to learn to understand and apply the principles that Lasker thought to  be ‘timeless’ in chess. He regarded chess as a microcosm of the struggle of life life itself, and thus responding to the general laws of the struggle. This sounds abstract, but it worked for him. Lasker  helped us in understanding his abstract ideas in the the Manual   Manual  by  by giving illustrative examples. In his earlier book Common Sense in Chess, Chess, he explained how general principles (‘common sense’) should  be the guide in our decision-making decision-making process at the board.   1.2. Common sense in chess

In 1895, Emanuel Lasker gave a series of lectures that were later published in a small but fine book  titled Common Sense in Chess. Chess. In the introduction he clarifies his aim as follows:   ‘The principles laid down are deduced from considerations concerning the nature of chess as a fight  between two brains and their conception is based on simple facts.’    The intention behind a game of chess is that two players with opposed objectives enter into a discussion, and the weapon is logical argument. This means in concrete terms: the use of the  principles known to the player, player, with the help of his own common common sense and judgment, to find a way through this jungle of choices. In the aforementioned booklet, our guide Emanuel Lasker talks about the application of common chess in practice in given positions, with the help of his set of principles.

11  

The Manual of Chess is The Manual Chess is a much later work (the original German edition is from 1925) and the author’s goal was much more ambitious and wide-ranging. The game of chess was to be presented as a harmonious unit, as a structured entity instead of a collection of fragmented pieces of knowledge. What do we mean by fragmented pieces of knowledge? We observe that most instructional books on chess divide the teaching material into a multitude of different aspects. This is not entirely devoid of logic, because it is well known that the storage of a large number of patterns in our mind helps us to find the solutions that have to be found during a chess game, by being able to recognize similarities. But where does this end for the chess amateur? From the investigations into chess  psychology by De Groot and Gobet, Gobet, it is known that the stronger stronger player has a larger store of patterns. This has to do with study and with chess practice, but also with talent (for some it is easier to store and recognise). And the science of chess keeps developing, so how can we keep up, given our limited time? Lasker   played and studied chess considerably considerably less than his contemporary rivals, rivals, simply because he had a wide field of interests and was outstanding in quite a few of them. But still he was able to remain a tower of strength for decades, withstanding all new developments in chess. Of course he must have had an enormous natural talent, but equally clearly, his general approach to chess must have had a deep impact. We see his rivals fade one after another, and their methods getting outdated, while Lasker kept on top. We can only conclude that there was and still is a future in his general chess  philosophy, supported by by common sense. In the subsequent chapters, we will explain the principles attached by Lasker to each stage of the game and will illustrate them with examples. And we hope that our readers will, in their future  practice, prove our assumption that that Emanuel Lasker’s general principles of of chess really can withstand the test of time!

12  

Chapter 2 Chess strategy and the principles of positional play In this chapter, we give a general summary of the main principles of positional play, as explained by Lasker. In the next few chapters, these principles are then examined in greater depth, as they apply to different aspects of the game. 2.1. What is strategy?

In essence, strategy is knowing what to do once one has developed one’s pieces and built up a basic middlegame position. One must decide whether one should attack or defend, and in which area of the  board. This is fundamentally fundamentally what is meant by strategy. The The basic building-block of strategy is is  positional play, knowing knowing how to build up, fortify, and expand one’s position. 2.2. Planning

It is worth mentioning here the vexed subject of planning. Many books emphasise the importance of  having a plan, and the mantra that ‘a bad plan is better than no plan at all’ has been drummed into every chess player’s mind. In reality, though, much confusion and damage has been caused. The impression has been given that a player should stop after the opening and formulate a plan, incorporating multiple stages and ending in mate. The books are full of such misleading examples, where grandmasters like to present some grand, multi-stage plan, which they formed around move 15 and which ended in the triumphant completion of stage 7, some 40 moves later. But that is not really what happens in practice. The top GM and trainer to world champions, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, expressed the truth brilliantly a few months ago, when commentating on an online event. He said, ‘It’s important to understand that plans are only 3-4 moves deep, to solve some local issue. Not these types one sees in the books, with step 1, step 2, step 3, etc. Such things only work in AA meetings, and not always then!’ The following is one classic example of the ‘grand strategy’ illusion being foisted on the public:   Eugene Znosko-Borovsky Alexander Alekhine Paris 1933 (4)

13  

In his best games collection, Alekhine explains how he formed a six-stage plan here, as follows: ‘Black’s plan, which will prove completely successful, consists of the following parts: (1) exchange one pair of rooks; (2) transfer the king to e6 where, being defended by the e-pawn, it can prevent the invasion at d7 by the remaining White rook; (3) operating with the rook on the open g-file and  advancing the h-pawn, force the opening of the h-file; (4) after this White’s king, and possibly his bishop, will be tied to the defence of h1 and h2 against invasion by the rook; (5) Black meanwhile, by advancing his a- and b-pawns, will sooner or later also open one of the files on the Q-side; (6) since at this point his king will still be on the opposite wing, White will be unable to prevent the invasion of  the first or second rank by the black rook.’  aturally, he proceeds to carry out exactly this plan and win accordingly. But with all due respect to the great man, this is just not how chess is played. Such grand plans are actually dreamed up ‘ex ‘ex post facto’, facto’, as writers of bygone eras would have said. What actually happens is that the game just gets played, the players battle from move to move, meeting threats, forming short-term plans to achieve some minor objective and then looking around for the next thing to do. In a case such as this, Black, the stronger player, gradually starts achieving small victories, whilst White plays a little passively and, bit by bit, loses ground. In the end, Black wins – in this case  by breaking through to White’s White’s first or second rank with his rook. rook. Basically, he has just ground ground his opponent down from almost nothing. Then he annotates the game for a magazine or book and retrospectively tells the story of the game as a profound, multi-stage plan, which he had intended all along. We would therefore suggest a different formulation from the ‘always play to a plan’ mantra. Instead, one should ensure that every move one makes has a purpose. That will usually be something very small and specific, such as ‘I don’t want his knight coming to f5, so I’ll play ...g7-g6’, or ‘my bishop is not very active on g7, so I’ll transfer it to c5’. It takes no more than 3-4 moves, whereupon the ‘plan’ is completed and one then looks for something else to do. Of course, generally strategy tends to promote some degree of consistency – for instance, one might

14  

have the overall objective of attacking on the kingside and so one’s small, short-range plans may well involve mainly bringing pieces to the kingside rather than the queenside, but that is about aass far as the ‘overall plan’ goes. 2.3. Lasting advantages

Lasker emphasises that positional advantages can be divided into temporary and permanent/lasting. Small advantages are often temporary, such as a small lead in development or a temporarily misplaced piece. In order to exploit these, if it is possible to do so at all, one usually needs to convert them into one of the lasting advantages. These tend to be structural, involving pawns and basically consist of the various types of weak pawns: • doubled pawns; • backward pawn; • isolated pawns; • blocked isolated pawn. Sometimes, control of an open file will be a permanent advantage, or a piece so badly misplaced that it cannot easily be brought back into the game. Similarly, the possession of the better minor piece is often a lasting advantage. 2.4. Principles of positional play

The main principles of positional play, as Lasker expounded at length in his Manual  his Manual , come from Steinitz. There are three main ones: 1) The principle of attack: when you have the advantage, you must ‘attack’. Here too, some confusion has arisen, because the word ‘attack’ tends erroneously to be interpreted as meaning a mating attack. That is not the case – instead of ‘attack’, we would rather say ‘seek a method of  exploiting your advantage’. Lasker’s philosophical point is that there must be a way of doing so,  because if there isn’t, then strictly strictly speaking you don’t really have an advantage advantage at all. The method of exploiting your advantage will depend on the nature of the advantage itself. Basically, you need to look for the ‘weakest link in the chain’ of the opponent’s position. If his main weakness is on the kingside, then attacking his king may well be the way to exploit your advantage, but if your  advantage consists in the fact that his queenside pawns are weak, then you should direct your ‘attack’ there. 2) The principle of defence: this follows from the principle of attack. Just as the stronger side should direct his play against the weakest point in the enemy position, so the weaker side (the defender) should defend his weakest point and aim ultimately at ensuring that every part of his  position is equally strong. strong. Of course, this can never be fully achieved, achieved, as any army commander will tell you – some parts of one’s line will always be less well-defended than others, but the aim, nonetheless, should be to level up the defences as far as possible along the whole line. 3) The principle of proportion: this is something Lasker added to Steinitz’s theory, and is really just a refinement of the principle of attack. Basically, his idea is that if you have the advantage, then you should try to exploit that advantage, but that the aim of your actions should be proportionate to the  size of your advantage. advantage. So, if you have a large positional advantage, then you may be justified in trying to win the game in short order, for example by mating a seriously exposed king. But if you only have a very small advantage, such as a slightly better pawn structure, then there is no

15  

ustification in trying to use that to win the game immediately; instead, one must temper one’s ambitions to something more modest, such as using the pawn weakness to inflict a more serious weakness, or maybe to seize control of an open file, by exploiting the fact that the opponent has to devote time to defending his weak pawn. The principle of proportion often ties in with our comments above about grand plans. Lasker quotes as an example a game Te Kolsté-Réti, where after 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.dxc3, Réti annotates the game, claiming White’s fourth move to be a decisive positional error! He followed the strategy of exchanging all the pieces to reach an endgame, where his healthy pawn majority on the kingside could produce a passed pawn, whilst White’s doubled pawns could not, much along the lines of White’s strategy in the Exchange Lopez (see Chapter 8). Réti presents the rest of the game as an inevitable technical exercise, suggesting that White is already helpless against the filigree technique of the modern master. But Lasker will have none of this. His principle of proportion says that even if 4.dxc3 is an error (in itself debatable), it is not so serious as to cost White the game. Réti’s strategy to exploit the superior   pawn structure is fine, but will will not lead to anything more more than a slight initiative, unless unless White makes a further mistake. Lasker proves his point by demonstrating that even as late as the rook and pawn ending many moves later, White could still have drawn easily. These, then, are the three main principles underlying positional play. We will now see how these  principles are applied in different aspects aspects of the game, beginning with the endgame.

16  

Chapter 3 Endgame play 3.1. General endgame characteristics

Lasker was universally regarded by his contemporaries and rivals as one of the best endgame players in the world and he scored many successes in endgames. Yet, paradoxically, there are not many examples from his play which one will automatically find in endgame textbooks. Indeed, almost the only sine qua non to be found among his games is the rook ending won against only sine a gainst him by Rubinstein at St Petersburg 1909. Lasker also wrote relatively little about this phase of the game. In fact, his Manual  his Manual  does  does not even have a chapter specifically devoted to endgames, although there are quite a few endgame positions featured under other headings. Common Sense does have a couple of brief chapters on the endgame, and here we can see Lasker’s basic philosophy regarding this stage of the game. For Lasker, the supreme practical player, the endgame was simply another part of the game, and his interest in it was chiefly in identifying those specific features which make the endgame different from other stages. Of course there is need of some basic knowledge, some standard endgames, but the reader must also understand the principles of correct endgame play (strategic endgames), because beca use this  phase wins or loses points. points. Generally we can describe the endgame as the phase of the game when, after an earlier battle in the opening and middlegame, pieces have been exchanged. As in every stage of a game, the game is still a showdown between attack and defence. The attack is the process of giving your pieces useful work  to do, or, as Lasker specified, of removing obstacles out of the way of your goal. Defence is the  process of strengthening the obstacles obstacles that are in the way of the opponent’s opponent’s attacking plans. However, the rules are slightly different from those in the earlier stages of the game, because of the smaller number of pieces left on the board. The attack on the king, which is frequently of such  prominent advantage in the middlegame middlegame (and sometimes even in in the opening when the balance has  been disturbed) generally loses its its importance in the ending, whereas instead instead the king does not need to hide anymore, but in general can and should play an active role in the proceedings. The weaknesses in the enemy position will in most cases consist of pawn weaknesses, and the general endgame strategy will be that the attacker directs himself against these weaknesses, while the defender tries to put obstacles in his way. The most important difference in endgame play compared to the earlier stages of the game is however that the process of queening a pawn may become a much more realistic goal and can often be a goal in itself, to win the game. The other main thing Lasker does in Common Sense is Sense is to consider what effect the simplification of  the position has on the relative values of the pieces. Here, he makes the point that rooks tend to be more effective than in the middlegame, because the simplification usually means there are more open files for the rooks to exploit. Secondly, bishops frequently prove stronger than knights, again because of the greater scope they enjoy in an open position, although Lasker also makes the point that the opposite can be the case in blocked positions. And thirdly, of course, he points out the power of the king in the ending, when mating threats are largely gone and obstructions to the king’s activity far  fewer.

17  

In summary, in the endgame: • the king becomes a strong piece able to perform offensive tasks; • queening a pawn often becomes a major goal; • because of the limited number of pieces, the defender is more likely literally to run out of moves. This so-called ‘zugzwang’ (or, as Lasker called it, ‘the principle of exhaustion’) is often a fatal danger  to the defender in the ending. The relative values of the pieces often change in the endgame, due to the more simplified positions. Kings, rooks and often bishops tend to become relatively more powerful, as do passed pawns, whilst the weakness of vulnerable pawns tends to grow. Let us then examine these key endgame points in more detail. 3.2. Zugzwang, or the ‘principle of exhaustion’

We assume that most readers will be familiar with the concept of zugzwang, but it is worth emphasising how crucial it is to the endgame. Without it, the result of many endgame positions would  be changed. Take the following simple simple example:

The result depends entirely on who is to move, but rather than having the move being an advantage, as is generally the case in chess, here it is a disadvantage. Black to move loses after 1... Kg7 2.Ke7, whereas White to move can only draw, 1.Kf6 stalemate being the only way to keep the pawn. Here, in fact, we have a case of reciprocal zugzwang: White to move only draws, whilst Black to move loses. The diagram position in fact represents a neat little problem, which Jonathan Mestel once showed me (SWG). Cue the theme tune from ‘Mission Impossible’: ‘Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to add a piece or pawn of either colour to the diagram position, in such a way that the new position is still reciprocal zugzwang – White to move still only draws, whilst Black to move loses. There are our solutions (answer at the end of the chapter).’ 

The following example of zugzwang, like many of the best examples, comes from an endgame study.

18  

It is worth noting that in the Manual , Lasker quotes quite a few studies, recognising that not only are they beautiful, but they are frequently fre quently exceptional clear and instructive examples of a given theme. In the diagram position, the black pawns look too dangerous for White to be able to win, especially as an exchange of all the pawns results in a theoretical draw: Yochanan Afek  Study, 1997

The obvious first move is 1. Nhg4?, but this fails to 1...f1= Q! 2.Nxf1 Kg2 3.h4 Kxf1 4.h5 Ke2! and the black pawn cannot be stopped. Instead, White wins in just three moves: 1.N 1.Nhf1 g2 2.h4 g1=Q g1=Q 3.  3.K Kf7!

And Black is in zugzwang – every queen move puts Her Majesty en prise!   3.3. King and pawn endgame basics

In king and pawn endings, the player really just needs a firm grasp of the opposition and the kind of  chessboard geometry illustrated in Réti’s famous K+§ v K+§ study. Interestingly, years before Réti  published his classic study study on the theme, Lasker had demonstrated demonstrated it in practice, in a critical game against his arch-rival, Tarrasch. Emanuel Lasker Siegbert Tarrasch St Petersburg 1914 (9)

19  

Tarrasch had been better for most of the game and could now have clinched the full point without much trouble by means of 37... Be6+ 38.Kf8 Bxg7+ 39.Kxg7 Bxb3 40.h4 Bd1 and the black  queenside pawns decide. Instead, Tarrasch, not unnaturally, calculated the king and pawn ending and, having decided that it was winning, played that, as being the easiest way to wrap up the game. Unfortunately, he had missed a subtlety and, as so often in king and pawn endings, there was no way  back. 37...Bxg7? 38.B 37...B 38.Bxf5 Kxf5?

Dvoretsky points out that 38...Bf6 might still have offered some practical winning chances, but Tarrasch was just chopping down to the pawn ending. 39.K 39. Kxg7 a5 40.h4 Kg4

ow Tarrasch had only considered the natural 41.Kf6? when Black wins neatly by means of 41...c4 42.bxc4 bxc4 43.Ke5 c3! 44.bxc3 a4 and the pawn on c3 obstructs the white king’s path to stop the a pawn. However, a rude shock awaited the German German doctor. 41.K 41. Kg6!

20  

This delightfully subtle little move changes the picture entirely. Now White threatens to promote his h-pawn, so Black has no choice but to capture on h4. 41...Kxh4 42.K 41...K 42.Kf5

But now we see the effect of White’s last move – just as in the Réti study, by using his own passed  pawn as a threat, he has gained a vital tempo to transfer his king to the the h7-b1 diagonal, which cannot  be obstructed by the black c-pawn. The The game is now drawn. 42...Kg3 42...K

ow, of course, the attempt to force the pawns home by 42...c4?? would even lose: 43.bxc4 bxc4 44.Ke4 a4 45.Kd4 etc. 43.K 43. Ke4 Kf2 44.K 44.Kd5 Ke3 45.K 45.Kxc5 Kd3 46.K 46.Kxb5 Kc2 47.K 47.Kxa5 Kxb3 ½-½ 3.4. Rook endgame basics

The most common type of endgame in practice, and also the most difficult, is the rook ending. Here, some concrete knowledge of certain positions, especially with R+§ v R, is essential, and every player  should know and understand the Lucena, Philidor, Vancura and other such positions. Even in this case the concrete knowledge is a matter of understanding principles though the application may not always be that simple. Let’s look at a few examples:

21  

The rook can show its power in the endgame when it is actively positioned. With the board gradually getting emptier, the rook can move more freely and gains a lot in strength. In the diagrammed  position, both rooks are extremely active. A major goal in endgame endgame play is to promote a pawn, and it is clear that to do so White will need the active cooperation of his king. However the defending rook  is a nuisance, being able to disturb the king with checks, and that is why the only winning plan in similar positions is to provide one’s own king with a shelter. In this diagram, with Black to move he can cross that plan by playing 1...R 1... Ra6!

ow the king cannot advance, otherwise White’s Kf6 would have complicated Black’s task. Now in the position after  2.e6 Ra2

there is no shelter left for the white king and the black rook easily holds his defence together. There is a balance of attack and defence now that the defender has obstructed White’s plan to promote the  pawn.

However when it is White’s turn to move, the position gets more complicated after 1.K 1.Kf6

and Black has to find new defensive obstructions to stop White’s attacking plan. Fortunately for him he can keep the combined forces in check with 1...R 1... Re2!,

22  

keeping an eye on the e-pawn, the potential danger. White can try 2.K 2.Ke6

Instead 2.Rh8+ Kd7 makes no progress as the e-pawn is securely blocked and Black threatens to check and separate the pawn from the king. 2...Kf8!

The defensive king has to give way, and he goes to the ‘short side’ of the pawn, giving his rook better  defensive options for checking on the side (in many instances checking distance can be a decisive factor). 3.R 3.Rh8+ Kg7 4.R 4.Re8

Threatens further progress but now the black rook can disturb the king from the side: 4...Ra2! 5.R 4...R 5.Rd8 Re2

And once again there is a balance of attack and defence – White cannot make progress.

It is clear that when it is Black’s move, the defence (Philidor) is simple, but when it’s White’s move, the situation – even with few pieces on the board, gets more complicated to solve at the board. The following diagram shows the optimal position that the attacker can get, but there are still difficulties to solve as the king has no apparent shelter. However, rook and king can combine to build a safe haven:

23  

1.R 1.Rf4

Instead 1.Re2+ Kd7 2.Kf7 Rf1+ and the defensive power of Black’s active rook chases the king back  in front of his pawn. 1...R 1... Rh2 2.R 2.Re4+

Chasing the adverse king away to make room for his own. 2...Kd7 2...K

And now we see why the rook went to the 4th rank in the first place: 3.Kf7 Rf2+ 4.Kg6 Rg2+ 5.Kf6 Rf2+ 6.Kg5 Rg2+

And White finishes his king shelter with 7.R 7.Rg4

and the attacker has reached his goal, the pawn promotes.

Thus we have learnt that two very importance principles of this type of rook endings are the active rook and the shelter for the king. Both attacker and defender have to take extreme care of these. Besides potential sheltering, another factor of critical importance in the rook and pawn endgame is the so-called ‘barrier’. The following example shows this principle in practice:

24  

1.R 1.Rd5

This cuts off the black king on the d-file from approaching White’s passed pawn, a vertical barrier  (horizontal barriers are also seen regularly in rook and pawn endgames). 1...K 1... Ke6 2.R 2.Rd8 Ke7

If he tries to get the rook into a defensive position for checking purposes by 2...Rf7 3.c4 R b7+ 4.Ka5 it turns out that the checking distance is too short; after 4... Rc7 5.K b5 R b7+ 6.Kc6 White will make  progress and will eventually win by getting the pawn on c7 and creating a shelter for his king as in the the last example. 3.Rd1 Rf8

Preparing to disturb White’s king, but it is not sufficient. 4.c4 Rb8+ 5.K 5.Ka5 Rc8 6.K 6.Kb5 Rb8+ 7.K 7.Ka6 Rc8

25  

8.R 8.Rd4!

With a more centralised king, Black could have disturbed White’s rook and drawn but in this case he is a move late. 8...K 8... Ke6 9.K 9.Kb7 Rc5 10.K 10.Kb6 Rc8 11.c5

And White will eventually win.

We have seen that theoretical endgames are a matter of principles as well. We have seen active rooks, sheltering and barriers as important aspects of rook and pawn endings (besides the general endgame principle that the king should participate actively). However, it is recommended to do some additional homework, as these ‘theoretical endgames’ have  been researched and it is difficult to reinvent the wheel at the board every time time when the solutions have been found before. We could give these here, but they are readily available in a thousand other  sources and there seems little point in reproducing them yet again. Our aim in the present book is to highlight what is specific to Lasker’s approach, so we will assume the reader has mastered these ‘essential knowledge’ positions for himself. If not, then we can recommend Jesus de Villa’s 100  Endgames You Must Know Know (published  (published by New in Chess) as one excellent source of such positions. Apart from a knowledge of certain concrete positions, the main principle of rook endings, which the reader needs to know, is the vital importance of using the rook actively. It is frequently better to be a  pawn (or even two) down, but with with an active rook, than to have material equality but a passive rook. The classic example quoted in most textbooks is Tarrasch-Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1912, but here too, Lasker had got in first. Carl Schlechter

26  

Emanuel Lasker Berlin Wch m 1910 (1)

This position was reached in the opening game of what proved to be an immensely difficult and dramatic World Championship Match against Carl Schlechter. Lasker had been outplayed and had already shed one pawn, in order to simplify to this rook ending. Passive play would allow something such as c2-c4, followed by the advance of the white king. But Lasker secured the draw with remarkable ease, by giving up a second pawn and relying on using his rook actively. 54...Re4! 55.R 54...R 55.Rc5 Kf6 56.R 56.Rxa5 Rc4 57.R 57.Ra6+ Ke5 58.R 58.Ra5+ Kf6 59.R 59.Ra6+ Ke5 60.R 60.Ra5+ Kf6

Yes, you are right – under modern rules, Black could already claim a draw by threefold repetition, but things were different in those days! 61.Ra2 61.R

After some hesitation, Schlechter keeps his two extra pawns, but this passive placement of the white rook offers no winning chances, as the game shows. The alternative was the more active 61.h5 Rxc2 62.h6, but this also gets nowhere, as the passed h-pawn can always be stopped by Rh2. Black can just wait, e.g. 62...R b2 and there is no way for White to make make progress. The seven-man endgame tablebase confirms that the position is a draw, e.g. 63.h7 Rh2 64.Ra7 Kg6 65.Kf4 Rf2+ 66.Ke3 Rh2 etc. 61...K 61... Ke5 62.R 62.Rb2 Rc3+ 63.K 63.Kg2 Kf6 64.K 64.Kh3 Rc6

27  

65.Rb8 65.R

Finally, White abandons the c-pawn to activate his rook, but it does not change anything. 65...R 65... Rxc2 66.R 66.Rb6+ Kg7 67.h5 Rc4 68.h6+ Kh7 69.R 69.Rf6 Ra4

And Schlechter had to concede the draw.

Lasker’s other main contribution to rook endings was his famous endgame study. This again reflects his practical approach, because it is a study which is a very realistic position and indeed shows a mechanism that does occur in practical play: Lasker Study, 1890

28  

White’s advantage consists in the fact that his king supports his passed pawn, whereas Black’s does not. White wins by a surprising staircase manoeuvre: 1.K 1.Kb8 Rb2+

Clearly forced, else the pawn queens. 2.K 2.Ka8 Rc2 3.R 3.Rh6+ Ka5

Obviously, the black king can never step onto the b-file, because of  K  K b7 and there is no check from  b2. 4.K 4.Kb7 Rb2+ 5.K 5.Ka7 Rc2 6.R 6.Rh5+ Ka4 7.K 7.Kb7 Rb2+ 8.K 8.Ka6 Rc2 9.R 9.Rh4+ Ka3 10.K 10.Kb6 Rb2+ 11.K 11.Ka5 Rc2 12.Rh3+ Ka2

29  

13.Rxh2! and wins. 13.R

The practical importance of this study is shown, inter alia, by an example quoted by Mark Dvoretsky in his Endgame his Endgame Manual : Tigran Petrosian 2635 Anatoly Karpov 2695 Moscow ch-URS 1976 (5)

ow 51...Kh6? would lead directly to the position of Lasker’s study (horizontally switched) after  52.f7 Kh7 53.h6! Kxh6 54.Kg8 etc. Instead, doubtless fortified by spending so many of those cold

30  

winter nights of his youth solving rook endgame exercises e xercises at the Zlatoust Pioneer Palace, Karpov found the draw: 51...K 51... Kh8! 52.f7 Ra1! 53.R 53.Rxc2 Ra8+

with a known draw. 54.Ke7 Ra7+ 55.K 54.K 55.Kf6 Ra6+ 56.K 56.Kg5 Ra5+ 57.K 57.Kg4 Ra4+ 58.K 58.Kg3 Ra3+ 59.K 59.Kg2 Kg7 60.R 60.Rf2 Kf8 61.Rf5 Ra6 62.Kg3 Rh6 63.Kg4 Rh7 ½-½ 3.5. The minor piece battle in the endgame

Lasker’s discussion of the merits of bishop and knight is interesting, because here too, he contributed some instructive practical examples. On the general superiority of bishop over knight in an open  position, the following following is a classic. Vitaly Chekhover Emanuel Lasker Moscow 1935 (4)

Here, the bishop dominates the knight, with the fact that the black king is closer to the queenside also  being crucial, of course. Lasker won as follows: follows: 21...b5!

An instructive example of fixing the target before attacking it. Instead, 21... B b2? 22.a4 K b6 23.Ke1 Ka5 24.Kd2 K b4 25.Kc2 would allow the white king across in time to defend. 22.Ke1 Bb2 23.a4 bxa4 24.bxa4 Kc6 22.K

31  

Again, going straight after the a-pawn is too slow: 24...K b6 25.Kd2 Ka5 26.Kc2 Be5 27.f4 Bd6 28.K b3 and draws. Instead, Lasker follows the ‘two weaknesses’ principle and directs his king more centrally. 25.K 25. Kd2 Kc5 26.N 26.Nc3

The black king’s value on c5 is shown by the variation 26.Kc2 Bd4! 27.f3 Kc4! 28.Nxd4 Kxd4 29.K b3 a5 and wins (Dvoretsky). 26...K 26... Kb4 27.N 27.Nb5

27...a5?!

Dvoretsky, quoting Karsten Müller, points out that this is an inaccuracy, and that Black should have  played 27...a6, with much the the same continuation as in the gam game. e. In fact, Megabase gives 27...a6 as having been played in the game, but this is incorrect. 28.N 28. Nd6?!

Instead, Müller’s 28.Kd3! Kxa4 29.Kc4 traps the black king and poses significantly more technical  problems, although Nunn shows that Black still wi wins ns even in that case. 28...K 28... Kxa4 29.K 29.Kc2 Be5 30.N 30.Nxf7 Bxh2 31.N 31.Nd8 e5 32.N 32.Nc6 Bg1 33.f3 Bc5

The way in which the bishop can switch effortlessly from one side of the board to the other underlines its superiority over the short-stepping knight.

32  

34.N 34. Nb8 Kb5 35.g4 Be7

ow the white knight is trapped and a further pawn has to be sacrificed to free it. 36.g5 fxg5 37.N 37.Nd7 Bd6 38.N 38.Nf6 Kc4 0-1

Of course, we have emphasised at various places in this book that Lasker is more often regarded as a player who preferred knights over bishops. In reality, it is not true to say that he preferred them, but rather thatpositions, he had a better than most masters forthis. those qualities which knight superior in certain and hesense was often able to exploit The following is a made typicalthe example of the ‘trickiness’ of the knight in Lasker’s hands: Emanuel Lasker Emanuel Schiffers  Nuremberg 1896 (2)

This ending was analysed many years ago by David Hooper on an old Audio Chess cassette tape devoted to R+B v R+N endings. Although White is nominally a pawn down, his passed f-pawn, supported by the combined white army, means that it is Black who is defending for the draw. onetheless, he should be able to hold it, and initially succeeds, only to fall for a trick later. 33.f5 Ra2 34.f6 Ra8 35.f7 Kd6 36.R 36.Rg8 Ke7 37.K 37.Kf4 Bd5

White has pushed his opponent back against the wall, but that is the limit of his progress. He cannot force the f-pawn home, and meanwhile, Black has his own passed b-pawn to push, if given any respite. 38.R 38. Rg7 Rh8

33  

ot the only move to hold, but fully sufficient. 39.K 39. Kg5 h6+ 40.K 40.Kf5 Be6+ 41.K 41.Kg6 Rc8 42.R 42.Rh7

42.f8=Q+ Kxf8 43.Kf6 Bd5 achieves nothing. Lasker’s last move contains c ontains a subtle trap, into which Schiffers falls, although in fact it is still not fatal for Black.

42...b4?!

42...Rf8! would have ruled out White’s next move and secured the draw, as White has no way to strengthen his position. Hooper believed that the text was the losing mistake, commenting that Schiffers now learns that ‘every move made by Lasker must be examined very carefully’. In fact, though, Black is not yet lost. 43.f8=Q 43.f8= Q+!

The only try. 43...Kxf8 44.K 43...K 44.Kf6

34  

44...Bg8?? 44...B

This is in reality the losing moment. The computer confirms that Black could still hold by giving up his bishop: 44...Rc2! 45.Kxe6 Kg8! (45...Rxf2?? allows mate in three with 46.Nd7+) 46.Rxh6 Rxf2 and there is no mating net, as the tablebase confirms. However, in Schiffers’ defence, it had been a long and tough battle, and it is also not certain that players of that time were even aware that R+N v R is generally a draw. 45.Re7 45.R

ow there is no adequate defence to 46. Ng6 mate. 45...Bh7 46.Rxh7 Kg8 47.Rg7+ Kf8 48.Rb7

48.Ng6+ Ke8 49.Nf4 was simpler, but the text does the job. 48...R 48... Ra8 49.R 49.Rf7+ Ke8 50.R 50.Re7+ Kd8 51.N 51.Nf7+ Kc8 52.N 52.Nd6+ Kd8 53.K 53.Ke6 Ra7 54.R 54.Rxa7 1-0

This is a very good example of Lasker’s battling qualities and determination to fight to the very end. It also shows the vital importance of accurate calculation at every stage of the game, and never  switching off one’s ‘cheapometer’, no matter how simplified the position. If Schiffers had not done so, he would not have allowed the trick 43.f8=Q+. It is well-known that knights are likely to be better than bishops in blocked positions, where the  bishop is obstructed by fixed pawn obstacles. However, there is another another very important respect in which knights can be better than bishops even in an open position, and that relates to the ‘colour blindness’ of the bishop. No matter how open the positi position on is, a bishop can only ever control half of  the squares on the board, whereas a knight can go to any square, albeit not always very quickly. This

35  

means that a knight is often much more effective at attacking weak pawns – when attacked by a  bishop, the pawns can hide by moving to squares of the opposite opposite colour to those on which the the bishop operates, whereupon they cannot be attacked without the assistance of another piece. But when weak   pawns are being hunted by a knight, knight, ‘they can run, but they can’t hide’. Lasker does not quite say this in so many words, but he alludes to it in Common Sense, Sense, when he writes that the value of two bishops varies much less than that of one, ‘because they control the whole  board’. That is indeed the key to the great strength of the bishop pair, pair, namely that between them they control all 64 squares. One of the best illustrations of a knight exploiting this colour-blindness of a bishop comes not from Lasker’s own practice, but from a game played by one of his ‘great successors’ as World Champion: Mikhail Botvinnik  Mikhail Tal Moscow Wch m 1961 (1)

With a bishop against a knight and an asymmetrical pawn structure, a superficial glance may even lead one to expect Black to stand better. In reality, though, he is quite lost. His pawns are weak and there now follows a simple, but highly instructive hunt by the white knight. 31.N 31. Nd4

Threatening 32.e4, winning a pawn, so the reply is forced. 31...c5 32.bxc5 bxc5 33.N 33.Nb5 a6 34.N 34.Nc7 Bc4 35.N 35.Ne8

The knight hops from square to square, attacking pawn after pawn and gradually driving the weak  enemy pawns onto squares where they will eventually fall.

36  

35...f5 36.h4!

The ‘Do not hurry!’ principle in action. The hasty pawn grab with 36.Nf6+ Kg7 37.Nd7 would have allowed counterplay after 37...Bf1. 36...Kf8 37.N 36...K 37.Nd6 Bf1

Or 37...Be6 38.Kd2 Ke7 39.N b7 c4 40.Nc5, continuing the process of driving the weak enemy  pawns to their deaths. Note that that the pawns are not safe on squares of either either colour, as the knight can always attack them: 40...a5 41.Kc3 and the pawns soon drop off. 38.g3

See move 36. Now there is no pawn dropping on h3. 38...K 38... Ke7 39.N 39.Nxf5+ Ke6 40.e4 Ke5 41.K 41.Kd2 1-0   3.6. The practical endgame Lasker’s greatest endgame strength was as a practical player. He treated endgames as just another  stage of the game and was always prepared to fight just as hard in that stage of the game as in any other. His tactical alertness, strategic understanding and fighting spirit enabled him to win numerous equal and even inferior endgames against the strongest of his rivals. Many of the best examples of  these are examined in Nunn’s book and we do not reproduce them here. Instead, we end this chapter  with a couple of examples Nunn did not use, both against world-class players. Emanuel Lasker Harry Nelson Pillsbury Paris 1900 (15)

37  

In this position, arising from a Dutch Defence, White is somewhat better, mainly because Black has weaknesses on the dark squares, whilst the white pieces are more active. The obvious weakness is the  backward e-pawn, but that is less of an issue than it first appears, since since Black will probably be able to achieve the break ...e6-e5 and eliminate it. Lasker’s approach is very interesting here. His next move has been lauded in many books and is certainly very striking, although the computer is unimpressed. But it accords with one of the main  principles of chess strategy – when when you are unsure what to do, improve improve the position of your worst placed piece. In this position, position, that piece is the Nc3, which has little scope. Lasker duly redirects it to greener pastures. 22.N 22. Nb1!? Rae8 23.N 23.Nd2 e5

Essential, before the knight reaches f3. 24.dxe5 Rxe5 25.N 25.Nf3 Re3 26.N 26.Ng5 Rxg3 27.hxg3

Black has eliminated his backward e-pawn, but his dark squares are still weak and h7 is attacked. 27...h6?!

This appears forced, since after 27...Re7 White can take on h7: 28.Nxh7 with the point that after  28...Rxh7?? 29.Bxh7 Kxh7 30.Rf7+. However, much better was simply 28...Kg7 when White’s extra  but doubled pawn is of little little significance. 28.Nf7+ Kg7 29.Nd6 Re7 30.Nxb7

White’s knight manoeuvre has netted a pawn, but a long technical battle lies ahead to convert the advantage.

38  

30...N 30... Nf6 31.N 31.Nc5 Bg4 32.R 32.Rf4 Bc8 33.R 33.Ra4 Ng4

34.Ba6 34.B

An instructive moment. Formally, the pawns on c6 and d5 make the black bishop ‘bad’, and so it is a little surprising that White seeks to exchange it off. But in practice, bad bishops often make useful defenders and here, the bishop ‘dominates’ the white knight and deprives White’s rook of the juicy square a6, from where it would attack both a7 and c6. 34...Bf5 35.R 34...B 35.Rf4 Ne3 36.c3 Kg6 37.R 37.Rf2 Be4 38.b3

Exchanging on e4 would grant Black a strong passed pawn after ...dxe4, so instead Lasker gives back  the g2-pawn, to activate his pieces. 38...Bxg2 39.B 38...B 39.Bd3+

39.B b7 looks more testing. 39...K 39... Kg5?

It is natural to activate the king in the ending, but here it allows the white rook to become active, and 39...Kg7 was much safer. Objectively, White has nothing then. 40.Rf8 Kg4 41.Rg8+ Kf3 42.Rg6 Ng4 43.Bf5 h5 44.Rg5 Re1+ 45.Kb2 Rh1

Immediately 45...Kxg3 was simpler.

39  

46.Bg6 Kxg3 47.B 46.B 47.Bxh5 Bf3 48.B 48.Bxg4!

ow White can make this favourable exchange. With the remaining pawns all on one side, the knight  proves stronger than the enemy bishop. bishop. 48...B 48... Bxg4 49.R 49.Rg6 Rh2+ 50.K 50.Ka3 Rc2 51.N 51.Nd3

Threatening 52.Ne5. 51...Kh4 52.N 51...K 52.Ne5 Bf5 53.R 53.Rxc6 Kg3 54.R 54.Rc5 Rd2 55.N 55.Nc6 Kf4 56.N 56.Nb4 d4 57.cxd4 Rxd4 58.R 58.Ra5 Rd7 59.N 59. Nc6

Finally settling matters, by winning a second pawn. Pillsbury struggled on for a further 25 moves, but he could have resigned here: 59...Be4 60.N 59...B 60.Nxa7 Rd1 61.N 61.Nb5 Rd5 62.K 62.Kb4 Bd3 63.N 63.Nc7 Rxa5 64.K 64.Kxa5 Ke5 65.K 65.Kb4 Kd6 66.N 66.Nb5+ 68.Na3 Be2 69.N 69.Nc4+ Ka6 Kc6 67.a4 Kb6 68.N

40  

70.Kc3 70.K

70.Kc5 Bd1 was the point. Lasker needs to manoeuvre with just a little care, but he duly does so and the result is an instructive finish. 70...B 70... Bd1 71.N 71.Nb2 Bh5 72.b4 Be8 73.K 73.Kb3 Bc6 74.K 74.Kc4 Bd7 75.K 75.Kc5 Bg4 76.N 76.Nc4

76.b5+ Ka5 would again have complicated c omplicated the win needlessly. 76...B 76... Bd1 77.b5+ Ka7 78.a5 Bf3 79.N 79.Ne5 Bb7 80.N 80.Nc6+ Ka8 81.K 81.Kb6 Ba6

Amusing for the spectators, perhaps, but no more than that. 82.N 82. Nb4 Bb7 83.N 83.Na6 Bf3 84.N 84.Nc7+ Kb8 85.a6 1-0  

Pirc Defence Dawid Janowski Emanuel Lasker Berlin Wch m 1910 (10) 1.d4 d6 2.e4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Q 4. Qxd8+ Kxd8

Rather a curious choice of opening by Lasker. In his book Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters, Masters , Edward Lasker claims that this was a deliberate insult, resulting from Lasker’s having heard that Janowski had made disparaging remarks about him. It is certainly true that Black’s position is

41  

somewhat dubious here. As it happens, we recommended a similar line 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 in our book Side-Stepping Mainline Theory, Theory, but that move-order is rather   better from Black’s side, as the white white knight is slightl slightly y misplaced on c3. The game should be better for White, but Lasker was not bothered about that – he clearly believed that any white advantage was relatively re latively small and containable, whilst the ever-optimistic Janowski was likely to overrate his chances. 5.N 5.Nf3!? Bd6 6.N 6.Nc3!?

Janowski’s treatment is unimpressive, and something with Bc4 and possibly an early f2-f4 looks more dangerous. 6...B 6... Be6?! 7.B 7.Be3

One would certainly expect 7. Ng5 here. After 7...Ke7 8.Nxe6 fxe6 the doubled e-pawns are not as weak as they appear and control a lot of central squares, as we demonstrated in our above-mentioned  book, but here White has retained his his light-squared bishop and must must be somewhat better. 7...N 7... Nf6 8.0-0-0 Ng4 9.B 9.Bg5+ f6 10.B 10.Bh4 Nd7 11.h3 Nh6 12.N 12.Nb5

Finally Janowski succumbs to the lure of the two bishops, but Black has nothing to worry about here. 12...N 12... Nf7 13.N 13.Nxd6 cxd6

White has the bishop pair, but Black has good centralisation and the half-open c-file. Also, the pawn on d6 is easily defended, whilst the black king has a convenient square on e7. Chances are about equal.

42  

14.N 14. Nd2 Rc8 15.b3 Ke7 16.K 16.Kb2 Rc7 17.c4 Rhc8 18.B 18.Bd3 Nc5 19.B 19.Be2 b5!

Typical of Lasker’s constant tactical alertness. He exploits a tactical chance to remove the cramping white c-pawn and create counterplay on the queenside. 20.f3

20.cxb5? g5 21.Bg3 Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Rc2+ was the point of Black’s play. 20...bxc4 21.B 21.Bxc4 a5 22.B 22.Bf2 a4

23.B 23. Bxc5

The right move, as the black knight is at least as effective as the white bishop, but one imagines that Janowski will have played the move with a rather heavy heart. Despite Lasker’s ‘dubious’ opening and White’s securing of the two bishops, Janowski has no scrap of advantage. 23...R 23... Rxc5 24.R 24.Rc1 axb3 25.axb3 Nd8

The knight has done its job on f7 and now, with no pressure against d6, it can redeploy to more active  pastures. The target is the attractive attractive square d4. 26.R 26. Ra1 Nc6 27.R 27.Rhc1 Nd4 28.R 28.Ra7+ R8c7 29.R 29.Rca1 Kd7 30.R 30.Rxc7+ Rxc7

43  

If anyone is better here, it is Black, whose pieces are slightly more active. Of course, it is not very much (‘but still more than White has,’ as Tony Miles once remarked of a similar situation!), but Janowski would probably not have been enjoying the need to defend carefully. 31.R 31. Ra6 Ke7 32.R 32.Rb6 f5 33.K 33.Kb1?

A very strange move, the point of which is hard to fathom. 33.Bd3 would have held the balance. 33...B 33... Bxc4 34.N 34.Nxc4 fxe4 35.fxe4 Nxb3 36.N 36.Nxd6 Nd2+ 37.K 37.Ka2 g6

Calmly taking the square f5 away from the white knight and preparing to drive it away from the

44  

defence of e4. Black is clearly on top now. 38.h4 Rd7 39.N 39.Nb5 Nxe4 40.K 40.Kb3 Nf6

Suddenly White is lost, a pawn down and with all his pieces stranded on the queenside, far from the action on the other flank. 41.Rc6 Rd3+ 42.R 41.R 42.Rc3 Rxc3+ 43.N 43.Nxc3 Ke6 44.K 44.Kc2 Kf5 45.K 45.Kd3 Kg4 46.K 46.Ke3 Kg3

46...Kxh4 was also winning, of course, but Lasker sees no need to permit the white king to come to f3. 47.h5 gxh5 48.N 48.Nb5 h4 49.N 49.Nd6 Kxg2 50.N 50.Nf5 h3 51.N 51.Nh4+ Kg3 52.N 52.Nf5+ Kg4 0-1

45  

Chapter 4 Attack  In Common Sense, Lasker writes: ‘If you have a large superiority of force in a quarter where the enemy has important weaknesses, like the King or the Queen in a bad position, etc. you must assail quickly. Every one of your moves must  be intended to do much. Your reserve force must be made useful for the attack with as much gain of  time as possible – by attacking, for instance, some weaknesses while on the way – and the reserve orce of the opponent must be kept back, if possible...’  In the following example, we see him demonstrate this process to perfection. White makes a serious mistake in the early middlegame, after which he is never given a moment’s respite.   Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence Moritz Porges Emanuel Lasker  Nuremberg 1896 (1) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2 Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.b3!?

White develops his pieces, but does nothing to hinder Black from freeing his position with the advance ...d7-d5. More problems are posed by 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Nd4. 9...0-0 10.B 10.Bb2 d5 11.exd6

Having placed his bishop on the long diagonal, White naturally wishes to open it up, but this move also frees Black’s pieces. The position is still only equal, but Black has certainly solved his opening  problems and it soon becomes becomes clear that it is White who has to to be a little careful. 11...cxd6 12.Nbd2 Re8 13.Rfe1 Bd7

46  

14.Ne4? 14.N

This is the start of White’s real troubles, from which he never recovers. Correct was 14.Rad1, maintaining the balance, e.g. 14...Bf8 (14...Bf6 is no threat because of 15.Bxf6) 15.Qd3 Nc5 16.Qd4 etc. The text is very hard to understand, because it obviously places the white pieces in considerable peril, due to the pin and discovered attacks along the e-file. 14...d5 15.N 15.Ned2

Forced, since 15.Nc3? Ba3 would already have lost material, as would 15.Ng3 B b4. 15...Ba3 16.Be5 f6 17.Qa6

White’s last two moves were the only way to avoid material loss, but positionally, their consequences are very unpleasant for him. 17...fxe5 18.Q 18.Qxa3

47  

The upshot of the exchange is that Black has a powerful pawn centre and an open f-file. Moreover, the white queen is misplaced. Lasker now proceeds with unremitting energy to exploit these plusses. According to his formula quoted above, Black should now bring his pieces into the attack on the kingside, bringing up his reserves with as much gain of time as possible, whilst preventing White doing the same. Lasker does this by ensuring that every e very move contains a threat, thus giving White no time to consolidate his forces. 18...e4 19.N 19.Nd4 Qf6 20.c3

20.Q b4 would have been a small improvement, improvement, trying to get the queen queen back towards the centre, but Black would retain the advantage after 20...Rab8 21.Qc3 c5 22.Ne2 Re5. 20...Rf8 21.f3 Qg5 22.Qc1 Nc5

48  

Every one of Lasker’s moves contains a threat, leaving White no time to bring up extra defenders or  create any counter-threats. 23.Nf1 Qg6 23.N

ow 24...Nd3 is a threat and f3 is hanging. 24.R 24. Re3

The alternative was 24.Qe3, but then 24...Nd3 practically forces White to give up the exchange with 25.fxe4, since 25.Re2 exf3 26.Nxf3 Rae8 leaves the white queen unable to defend f3. 24...N 24... Nd3 25.Q 25.Qd1 Nf4 26.N 26.Ng3 h5

Lasker is quite relentless. White has not had a moment’s breathing space since his unfortunate 14th move. 27.Nde2 27.N

49  

It is interesting to compare this position with that after White’s 18th move. At that point, White already had rook and two knights defending his king. Over the past nine moves, the only reserve  piece he has managed to add to the defence defence is the queen, and even she is quite passive. passive. Meanwhile, over the same period, Black has brought his knight all the way from b7 to f4, advanced the pawn to e4, brought the rook to the open f-file and his queen to g6, and pushed the pawn to h5. ow, with almost all of Black’s pieces in the attack, the moment is ripe for a decisive sacrifice: 27...N 27... Nxg2! 28.K 28.Kxg2 exf3+ 29.R 29.Rxf3 Bh3+ 30.K 30.Kxh3

Or 30.Kf2 Rxf3+ 31.Kxf3 Rf8+ 32.Ke3 h4 33.Nh1 Qh6+, forcing mate. 30...Q 30... Qg4+ 31.K 31.Kg2 Qxf3+ 32.K 32.Kg1 h4 33.N 33.Nh1 Qe3+ 0-1

The remaining games of this section show various other aspects of the principle of attack. You will note that none of the games features Lasker himself, but they are all by players whose approach to chess was based to a fair extent on Lasker’s, especially as regards independence of thought and willingness to depart from standard ideas.   Caro-Kann Defence Lodewijk Prins Robert Cross Hastings 1931/32 1.e4 c6 2.b4!?

50  

The Dutch grandmaster Lodewijk Prins was a creative player who had his own ideas about how to  build up his game. But But what could have been the idea behind such such a seemingly outrageous move? 2...d5

The logical follow-up for a Caro- Kann player, but 2...e5 also comes into consideration. 3.e5 Bf5 4.d4 e6 5.c3

ow it is clear that with 2.b4 White was expecting this follow-up and intending to clamp down on Black’s counterplay with ...c6-c5. At least that was Prins’ own explanation! 5...a5

This does not seem to harm White, and a few moves later it has helped him to stabilize the centre and his space advantage. Maybe 5...Ne7 was preferable. 6.b5 Qb6 7.a4 c5

Because of the white pawn on b5 Black is unable to put additional pressure on d4, so it remains to be seen if the plan initiated with 5...a5 was best. 8.N 8.Nf3 cxd4 9.N 9.Nxd4 Bc5 10.B 10.Be2 Ne7 11.0-0 Bxb1

Better was 11...Bg6. 12.Rxb1 Ng6?! 12.R

ow White gets the opportunity to cement ce ment his central space advantage. A neutral developing move

51  

like 12...Nd7 still promises Black a reasonable game as White cannot follow up with 13.f4? in view of 13...Nf5. 13.f4 0-0

13...Nc6 is tricky but no good after 14.Be3. 14.Kh1 Nd7 15.N 14.K 15.Nb3 Be7 16.R 16.Rf3

Prepares Be3 and the rook can be swung into a kingside attack. 16...Q 16... Qc7 17.R 17.Rh3 f6?

Superficially this seems a strong counter but unfortunately for Black it also creates weaknesses. 18.Bg4!? 18.B

18.Nd4 may have been even better. 18...f5

Forced, since 18...Q b6 fails to 19.Be3. 19.Be2 Nc5 20.N 19.B 20.Nxc5 Bxc5 21.B 21.Bd3 b6?

Underestimating White’s attacking chances. Now White has a marked superiority on the kingside and he is invited to attack there. So he should, and hurry. The next moves are logical in that context.

22.Q 22. Qh5 Kf7

52  

23.g4!

Of course the Dutch grandmaster does not fall for the cheap trick 23.Qxh7? Rh8. 23...fxg4

Otherwise his pawn formation would crumble. 24.Q 24. Qxg4 Qb7

If 24...Rh8 then 25.Rxh7 crashes through. Black is given no rest. 25.Rxh7! d4+ 26.K 25.R 26.Kg1 dxc3+ 27.K 27.Kf1 Qh1+ 28.K 28.Ke2

A well calculated sequence. There are no checks left while Black remains helpless. 28...N 28... Nxe5

Desperation. 29.fxe5

Simplest, and Black resigned. A swift punishment of Black’s ignoring his kingside safety with White already having a space advantage.   Sicilian Defence Frank Marshall

53  

M. Heinemann  New York 1942 1.e4 c5 2.b4

Even in his later years Frank Marshall was an irrepressible attacker, venturing gambits to unbalance the game as soon as possible. In the context of this manual we cannot approve of early hooliganism –  we recommend a steady build-up here with 2.Nc3 – but once in a while it is fun for spectators... 2...cxb4 3.a3 d5

Starting immediate counterplay in the centre, but Black can ca n even consider grabbing the pawn with 3...bxa3, as his position is flexible and without weak points. 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.N 5.Nf3

The Iranian master Shirazi once blundered a rook against Peters in the US Championship with 5.axb4? Qe5+. 5...e5

One of your co-authors witnessed Shirazi playing 5... Bg4 6.axb4 many years later and for a short moment thinking ‘Not again!’, but 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Qe5+? (7...Qxf3 8.gxf3 and in spite of his structural damage White is probably a bit better) 8.Kd1! was suddenly very much in White’s favour. 6.axb4 Bxb4 7.c3 Be7 8.N 8.Na3

Prepares N b5 among other things.

54  

8...B 8... Bd7

8...Nc6 was preferable. 9.N 9.Nc4

Suddenly White toys with the idea of N b6 and has collected fair compensation. 9...Nc6 10.Ne3

We would have expected 10.N b6 Qe4+ 11.Be2 Rd8 12.Nxd7 Rxd7 13.0-0 with compensation. 10...Q 10... Qd6 11.B 11.Bb5

Putting pressure on both the e- and a-pawns. 11...Nf6 11...N

Black could have considered 11...e4 12. Ba3 Q b8. 12.0-0 Qb8

A safe enough shelter, but blocking his own lines of communication. 12...Qc7 seems better; 12...e4 was a decent alternative as well, for example 13.Ba3 Qc7 14.Bxe7 Nxe7 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Ng5 Qf4 17.Nh3 Qd6 18.f3 and White has some compensation but there is little danger for Black. 13.Rb1 13.R

Maybe the veteran should have played 13.Bxc6 bxc6 (if 13...Bxc6, 14.Nf5 is threatening at least) 14.d4 with compensating pressure. 13...0-0 14.d4 e4?!

Giving the old fox the chance he was waiting for. Much better was 14...exd4. 15.B 15. Bxc6

Instead 15.Ne5! Nxe5 16.dxe5 was very strong. 15...Bxc6 16.N 15...B 16.Ne5 Qc7 17.N 17.Nf5

55  

The American master Anthony Santasiere, who witnessed this game, stated that at this point the two knights so near to his king made Black very nervous. Objectively he has sufficient defensive potential  but in chess there is always a degree degree of psychology involved. 17...B 17... Bd6 18.B 18.Bf4

ow Black also has to look out for a rook swing with c3-c4 and R b3. 18...B 18... Bxe5 19.B 19.Bxe5 Qd7

A highly critical position! Here Marshall judges that once again there is a substantial plus in force on

56  

White’s part, operating on Black’s kingside. So the principle of attack tells us to act, and to act fast. But calculation also plays its role in the decision-making process. 20.N 20. Nxg7!?

20.Nh6+ looks sensible but after 20...gxh6 21. Bxf6 Qe6 there is no numerical superiority left and Black holds his position together. Marshall misjudged that his position was already so superior that he was able to strike, but the slower 20.g4! was probably better, when the engines promise White an edge. 20...Kxg7 20...K

The position is still highly unclear after 20... Nd5!? 21.Nh5 f6. 21.Q 21. Qh5 h6 22.c4 Rae8!? 23.R 23.Rb3 Rxe5 24.Q 24.Qxe5 Qe6 25.Q 25.Qg3+ Kh7 26.d5 Nxd5 27.cxd5 Bxd5

As a result of this sacrificial attack Black has equal material and very decent control, and Marshall has reason to regret his adventure. 28.R 28. Re3 Qf6?!

But it is still a position that has to be treated with caution c aution and, having survived a typical Marshall attack, Black should realise that care is still necessary even if the fireworks have ceased. Maybe 28...a5 29.Qc7 a4 30.f3 Rc8 was worth consideration. 29.Q 29. Qc7 Ra8

Misplacing yet another piece, but his position has some resilience.

57  

30.R 30. Rd1 Bc6 31.R 31.Ra3 Rg8 32.R 32.Rg3 Rxg3 33.hxg3 e3?

Did his nerves crack? 34.fxe3 Qe6 35.Q 35.Qf4 Qa2 36.e4 Qc4 37.K 37.Kh2

And suddenly Black is dead lost. 37...f6 38.Qxf6 1-0

Careful judgment of the position is and remains re mains the most important aspect of playing chess. Marshall  probably judged that he was close close to winning when he landed a bomb bomb on g7 but his ‘superiorit ‘superiority y in force’, though marked, was probably not large enough to guarantee a winning attack, so he might have done better to use the g-pawn. Black could have held the position together but his nerves had  probably suffered from all this.   King’s Fianchetto Genna Sosonko Johannes Eising Mannheim 1975 (12) 1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.N 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.e4 e6 6.N 6.Nf3 Ne7 7.B 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 e5!?

A speciality of the German master, hoping for an improved King’s Indian where he has his knights on e7 and d7 in one go, saving two tempi on the usual ...Ng8-f6-d7 and ...N b8-c6-e7. He loses one tempo with ...e6-e5, but overall is a tempo up! As well as the present game, he also beat no less a  player than Polugaevsky with with this idea. 9.a3 Nd7 10.b4 b6 11.R 11.Rb1 h6 12.N 12.Nb5 Nf6 13.N 13.Nd2 Ne8 14.N 14.Nb3 f5

58  

The thematic battle has taken shape, White has something going on the queenside and as compensation Black must fight for chances on the kingside. The good thing about such positions is that when you crash through as Black, it is the king that you slay. White, by contrast, if he breaks through on the queenside, will win some material, but that will not necessarily end the game. As a result, even if Black’s attack is slower in breaking through, he can still win the game. 15.bxc5 bxc5 16.B 16.Bd2 Bd7 17.f3 a6!?

Sosonko may have been hoping for 17...f4?! when White can sacrifice with 18.Nxd6!? Nxd6 19.Nxc5 with a resulting pawn-roller while Black’s attack still has to start. 18.N 18. Nc3

After 18.Nxd6 Nxd6 19.Nxc5 Bc8 Black keeps the tension (or maybe 19...fxe4). 18...f4 19.N 19.Nc1 g5 20.Q 20.Qb3 Ng6 21.N 21.Nd3 h5?!

It looks sensible to bring the knight towards the action with 21...Nf6 22.Q b6 Qe7 and let the h-pawn assist when necessary. 22.Qb6 Qf6 23.N 22.Q 23.Nf2 Qe7 24.Q 24.Qa5 Ra7 25.R 25.Rb8 Nh4 26.h3 Bh6 27.R 27.Rfb1

Throwing all his forces in his queenside attack, meanwhile deserting his kingside. In case of 27.Qd8 Qxd8 28.Rxd8 R b7 Black seems to hold his his threatened sector together. 27...Nf6 28.R 27...N 28.R1b7

Contemporary commentators liked 28. xf8+

xf8 29. e1, although it is hard to judge such

Contemporary commentators liked 28.Rxf8 Qxf8 29.Be1, although it is hard to judge such

59  

subtleties. 28...R 28... Rxb7 29.R 29.Rxb7 g4!

But it is clear to our eyes now that Black is drumming up a vicious counterattack. 30.fxg4

Or 30.hxg4 hxg4 31.fxg4 Nxg2.

30...N 30... Nxg2!

The Australian master and didact C.J.S. Purdy warned that tactics dominate the game and can come out of nowhere, even in positionally lost situations. We believe it is a matter of formulation, because if there are correct tactics available, then by definition, the position is NOT strategically lost. Lasker  formulated this in a clear way, when he mentioned ‘a large superiority of force in a quarter where the opponent has an important weakness’. Purdy’s examples also fall into this category. This game and many other King’s Indians are typical examples as well. Black is often stone-dead on the queenside,  but when he scores a touchdown on on the opponent’s kingside, it is White who loses. Mate ends the game, as Nigel Short is fond of observing. 31.gxh5

In case of 31.Kxg2 f3+ 32.Bxf3 Bxd2, Black rules the board, his dark-squared bishop suddenly being a very active piece. 31...Ne3 32.Q 31...N 32.Qc7 Qg7+

60  

The cool engine indicates that 32...f3! 33. Bxf3 Qg7+ 34.Bg4 (if 34.Kh1 Qg3 wins) 34...Nexg4 35.hxg4 Bxd2 was even better. 33.N 33. Ng4

33.Bg4 holds somewhat longer but should also lose. 33...N 33... Nexg4 34.B 34.Bxg4

If 34.hxg4 f3! 35.Bxh6 Qxg4+ 36.Kf2 Nxe4+ with a mating attack.

34...R 34... Rf7?!

Black could have destroyed White’s king with 34...f3! 35.Bxh6 Nxg4!!. 35.Kf1 35.K

A time scramble adventure. No human in his right mind would consider 35.Qxd6, but then the  position is completely completely unclear again. 35...N 35... Nxg4 36.hxg4 Qxg4

And now the game is really over. 37.Rb8+ Kh7 38.Qxd6 Rg7 39.Ne2 Qg2+ 40.Ke1 Qh1+ 0-1

Black checkmates after 41.Kf2 Rg2+ 42.Kf3 Rh2. In this type of game the opponents attack on opposite sides, which sharpens the game to a

61  

considerable extent. Who is first to secure his ‘large superiority in force’? Therefore any inaccuracy can often be fatal, and the players should realise what they involved themselves in. But, for the reasons explained above, the practical chances in such positions tend to lie with the player who is attacking the king, since his attack, if it breaks through, will end in mate, and so the price or an error  is much greater for his opponent.   Orang-Utan OpeningSokolsky E.J. Stoliar John Vincent Kellner cr ch-AUS 1966 1.b4 a5!?

Pachman’s old recommendation. 2.b5 e5

But the Czech grandmaster and noted theoretician suggested 2...d6, hoping to disturb White’s plans  by fighting for control of the the square c5. 3.B 3.Bb2 d6 4.c4 b6!?

The Australian player had his own ideas about how chess should be played and his creative and adventurous play even brought him as far as the final of the World Championship in correspondence chess.

5.e3 Bb7 6.N 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.N 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.B 8.Be2

62  

White proceeds slowly; maybe central action with 8.d4 came into consideration. 8...Q 8... Qe7

This looks a bit weird, but let’s proceed and see what his idea is. 9.0-0 0-0-0?!

Extremely double-edged, and the authors are unsure what mark is appropriate. We would say ‘dubious but dangerous’. The alternative 9...g6 seems playable enough, e nough, but could have been played a move earlier. 10.d4

Puts pressure on the centre. 10...g5!?

A move you would expect in a blitz game with money on the table, but not in a high-profile correspondence game. 11.Q 11. Qc2

After 11.Nxg5 Rg8 Black has some compensation in his open file against White’s kingside, but objectively it should not be sufficient in correspondence chess. 11...g4 12.N 12.Ne1

The knight seems a bit misplaced after 12.Nh4 h5, but we do not think it is and therefore the move

63  

came into consideration. Now Black has a reasonable position with uncontested space on the kingside. 12...h5

13.Na4? 13.N

A move we do not like at all, decentralising the knight and losing time. Even if he succeeds in  pushing through c4-c5, the benefits benefits are unclear, as there is no easy way of getting getting to grips with Black’s king. 13.Nd3 may have been preferable. 13...N 13... Ne4

A decent alternative was 13...exd4 14.exd4 (14. ( 14.Bxd4 Rg8) 14...Re8 15.Nc3 Bg7. Modern engines like to push with 13...h4. 14.Nd3 Rg8 14.N

Preparing to mass more pieces against White’s king. 15.c5?!

Playing to damage Black’s queenside, which is the logical follow-up to 13.Na4, but it is slow and leaves Black’s bishop on b7 undisturbed. 15...dxc5 16.dxc5 bxc5 17.B 17.Ba3

Once again it is each man attacking on his own side but White is slower and less effective. Black has

64  

a lot of material pointing at White’s king in one sector of the board and he is already entitled to seek  and find the way to cash in. 17...Q 17... Qh4! 18.R 18.Rad1 Ng5 19.Q 19.Qc4

The variation 19.Bxc5 Nf3+ 20.Bxf3 gxf3 21.g3 Bxc5 22.Naxc5 Nxc5 23.Qxc5 Qh3 shows that White has been too slow.

19...Q 19... Qh3!

Even 19...Bxg2! was a killer, but queen sacrifices are generally preferred, so that the board can be showered with gold coins. Admittedly, this was a correspondence game, which rather complicates the  board-showering process... 20.Ne1 Bxg2 21.f3 20.N

On 21.Nxg2, 21...Nf3+ wins. 21...g3 0-1

We have witnessed a spectacular game. According to the principles of sound chess, it is not a wise thing to start attacking from the early stages. However, modern chess often has double-edged  positions, that are in dynamic dynamic balance but where both hammer away at opposite sides. It is a risky way of playing, but it can pay dividends as the number of mistakes is markedly higher. So when you feel accurate and strong on a given day, and willing to take risks, there is nothing wrong with playing a double-edged game. But always remember that the consequences can also work  against you.

 

65  

Scandinavian Defence Gerard Welling 2335 Yevgen Grinis 2207 Germany tt 1998/99 (9) 1.e4 d5 2.N 2.Nc3!? d4 3.N 3.Nce2 c5 4.N 4.Ng3 a6

Rather slow. 5.f4 Qc7

And now he also wants to grab a pawn. White did not need any further incentive to give up a pawn to speed his mobilisation. 6.N 6.Nf3!? Qxf4 7.B 7.Bc4 Qc7 8.0-0

White should have abundant compensation, don’t you think? 8...e6 9.N 9.Ng5 Nh6 10.d3

The direct 10.Qh5 also came into consideration. 10...B 10... Bd6?!

Black is anything other than cautious; maybe 10... Nc6 was still playable. 11.Q 11. Qh5

Logical – also possible was 11. Nh5!? Bxh2+ (maybe he should retreat the bishop to f8) 12.Kh1 Be5 13.Nf3 and Black is in a lot of danger. 11...0-0

66  

A critical position, where White’s pieces are massed on the kingside and an attacker feels that he has to strike. There is such a superiority in force that White must! 12.Nxh7!! 12.N

Stockfish agrees! 12...K 12... Kxh7 13.B 13.Bxh6 g6

More or less giving up the fight, but accepting also loses: 13...gxh6 14. Rf6 Bf4 15.Rf1 Be3+ 16.Kh1 Kg7 (16...Kg8 17.Rxh6 (or 17.R1f3!) 17...Bxh6 18.Qxh6 Qe5 (18...f5 19.Nxf5+–; 18...f6 19.Nh5+–) 19.Rf6 Nd7 20.Nh5 wins) 17.Qg4+ (or the somewhat more spectacular 17.Bxe6!) 17...Kh7 (17...Kh8 18.Qh4 Qe5 19.Rxh6+ Bxh6 20.Qxh6+ Kg8 21.Rf6 Nd7 22.Nh5+–) 18.Nh5 Bg5 19.h4 Bxf6 20.Rxf6 Rg8 21.Rxh6+ Kxh6 22.Qxg8 Qe5 23.g4, winning. 14.Q 14. Qh4 Rh8 15.e5!? Bxe5 16.R 16.Rae1

67  

16...Nc6?! 16...N

The position is full of sacrificial possibilities, Black has just taken too much risk and should not hold: A) 16...Bxg3 17.hxg3 Kg8 18.Rxe6! Bxe6 19.Bxe6 Rh7 20.Rxf7! Rxf7 21.Qf6 and the game is over; B) 16...Kg8 17.Rxe5 Rxh6 (17...Qxe5 18.Qd8+ Kh7 19.Rxf7+) 18.Qxh6 Qxe5 19.Ne4 Nd7 20.Ng5 Qe3+ 21.Kh1 Nf6 22.Qh4!? Bd7 23.Nxf7! and White wins. 17.R 17. Rxe5! Nxe5

17...Qxe5 18.Rxf7+. 18.N 18. Ne4 Ng4 19.B 19.Bf4+ Kg7 20.Q 20.Qxg4!

Even stronger than 20.Qxh8+. 20...e5

68  

21.Bxe5+! Qxe5 22.R 21.B 22.Rxf7+ Kh6 23.Q 23.Qh4+ Qh5 24.Q 24.Qf4+ g5 25.Q 25.Qf6+ 1-0

There is a certain amount of risk that a position can stand, but playing some slow moves and then grabbing a pawn on top of that is disturbing a delicate balance and inviting the opponent to take strong measures. Measures that should work, because chess is a game of logic.   French Defence[Chigorin/Exchange] Sergei Korolev Viktor Kortchnoi Leningrad ch 1973 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2

69  

Chigorin’s old opening idea, which is nowadays considered an eminently playable experiment to sidestep French main lines. Among its contemporary practitioners are original grandmasters such as Alexander Morozevich and Christian Bauer. For the moment, White wants to hamper the direct ...d7d5. 2...c5

2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 wins a tempo, for what it’s worth. 3.g3 Nc6 4.c3 g6 5.B 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.N 6.Nf3 Nge7 7.0-0 b6

A bit slow, and this invites White to take immediate action, but maybe Kortchnoi underestimated White’s next. Both 7...d5 and 7...e5!? come into consideration. 8.d4! 0-0

Leaving the white centre unchallenged, but if Black takes the bait with 8...cxd4 9.cxd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 White gets excellent chances with 11.e5! (11.Bh6!? offers compensation but the text move may be even better, cutting a very important defensive piece out of the game) 11...Nc6 12.Rd1 f6!? 13.Bh6!. 9.R 9.Rd1

9.Bg5 seems like a good move, as Black cannot grab on d4: 9...cxd4 10.cxd4 Nxd4 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 12.e5 R b8 13.Rd1 Bc5 14.Nc3 and he is more or less dead. 9...cxd4 10.cxd4 d5 11.e5

70  

The scene is set. White has a space advantage in the direction of Black’s kingside, and Black should try to find counterplay, probably on the queenside. 11...a5

Logical, as the counter 11...f6 seems weakening. 12.B 12. Bf4 h6

12...Ba6 13.Qd2 Nf5 came into consideration. 13.h4 Ba6 14.Q 14.Qd2 Kh7 15.N 15.Nc3 Qd7

Once again there was something to be said for 15...Nf5!?. 16.Bf1 Bxf1 17.R 16.B 17.Rxf1 a4

That is the start. 18.Kg2 Na5 19.h5 g5

The central structure more or less cuts the board in two and White has a lot of force focussed on Black’s kingside. If he does not want to lose the initiative, he should attack. 20.Bxg5! hxg5 21.h6

The point, either to give a rook access to the attack, or to use the h-pawn as a direct attacking unit.

21...Bh8 21...B

71  

21...Bxh6 22.Rh1 is hard to defend: A) if 22...Rg8, 23.Nxg5+ Rxg5 (23...Kg7 24.Rxh6!) 24.Qxg5 wins; B) 22...Ng8 23.Nxg5+ Kg6 24.Qe2 and the engine prefers White; C) 22...Nf5 23.g4 (safest; White can also consider going all-out with 23. Rxh6+!? Nxh6 24.Nxg5+ Kg7 (24...Kg6 25.Ne2! Kg7 26.Ne4! with a strong attack) 25.Nge4 and Black is struggling to survive the attack) 23...Nc4 24.Qc2 Rg8 25.gxf5 exf5 26.Rh5 and White is on top. 22.Nxg5+ Kg8

22...Kg6 23.Qd3+ (23.Ne2 is also very strong) and now: A) 23...Kxg5 24.f4+ Kxh6 25.Rh1+ Kg7 26.Qh7#; B) 23...Nf5 24.g4 Kxg5 25.gxf5 Rg8 26.Rg1 Kxh6+ 27.Kh1 and Black lands in a mating net; C) A better defensive chance is 23...f5 24.exf6+ Nf5 but he should not hold anyway after 25.f4 Kxf6 26.g4 (26.Rae1 may be even stronger) 26...Nxh6 27.Rh1 Bg7 28.Rae1. 23.h7+ Kg7 24.R 24.Rh1

24.Qf4 kills as well, after which even as tough a defender as Kortchnoi cannot stop the flood of white forces around his king. There is no way the pieces on the other half of the board can assist. 24...R 24... Rfc8

24...Nc4 25.Qe2 (our first idea was 25.Qf4!? f6!? (if 25...Nf5 26.g4 f6 27.gxf5 fxg5 28.Qxg5+ Kf7 29.fxe6+ Qxe6 30.Rh6 wins) 26.Nf3 Nf5 (26...Nc6 27.Rh6!+–; 26...Nxb2 27.Qh6+ Kf7 28.Qh5+ Kg7 29.Rh4! Rfc8 30.exf6+ Kxf6 31.Ne5+–) 27.g4 Ne7 28.Qh6+ Kf7 29.Qh5+ Kg7 30.b3 axb3 31.axb3 Rxa1 32.Qh6+ Kf7 33.Rxa1 Na5 34.exf6 Bxf6 35.g5 Bh8 36.Qh5+ Kg7 37.Ne5, winning,  but this is easier) 25...Nf5 26.Qh5 f6 27.g4 is crushing.

72  

25.N 25. Nge4! Nf5

25...dxe4 26.Qh6#. 26.Nf6 Qb7 27.g4 Nc4 28.Q 26.N 28.Qg5+ Kf8 29.gxf5 1-0

Rarely has the great Viktor Kortchnoi been crushed so devastatingly, and that by a fairly unknown  player. With a stabilised centre and a substantial inferiority in force on the kingside, it is a thankless thankless ob to defend.   Dutch Defence Reuben Fine Alexander Chistiakov Moscow clock simul 1937 (6) This game was part of a clock simul given by Fine on 6 boards. His opponent was already a reputed  player, USSR championship championship material, which poor Fin Finee probably did not realise. 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 d5 7.Nc3 c6 8.Bf4 Qe8 9.Qc2 Qh5 10.Rab1 Nbd7 11.c5 Ne4 12.b4

12...g5!?

12...Bf6 13.b5 was played in the game Reshevsky-Botvinnik, Nottingham 1936, relatively shortly  before, and then 13...Ndxc5 14.bxc6 bxc6 15.Nxe4 fxe4 16.Qxc5 exf3 17.Bxf3 Qe8 18.Rfc1 would

have been very promising for White. Chistiakov goes for a direct kingside approach to counter 

73  

White’s queenside pressure. Once again the blocked centre makes that a sensible and practical approach. 13.B 13. Bc7 Rf6

A direct and rather crude approach, but it is not clear what alternatives like 13...g4 14.Ne5 Ng5 or  13...Bf6, that have been given by contemporary annotators, have in their favour compared to this. 14.h3 Rh6

Continuing his direct play; 14...g4 15.hxg4 fxg4 16.Nxe4! dxe4 17.Nh4 is clearly better for White. 15.R 15. Rfe1

Here White could have improved by means of 15.Nxe4 fxe4 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Bxe5 g4 18.h4 and there is little else to play than 18...Bf6, when 19.Bf4 Bxd4 20.Bxh6 Qxh6 provides some compensation but probably not enough. 15...g4 16.hxg4 fxg4 17.N 17.Nh4

It is easy to spot that if 17.Nxe4, 17...gxf3 18.Bxf3 Qh2+ wins. Slightly more complicated but direct and easy enough is 17.Ne5 Qh2+ 18.Kf1 Nxg3+! 19.fxg3 Rf6+ 20.Nf3 gxf3 21.exf3 Rxf3+, winning.

17...N 17... Nxf2!

It is not clear if this is objectively the best move, but it is clearly the move with the best practical

chances. When Fine played 13. Rfe1, he was probably thinking of a follow-up like 17...Nxc3 18.Qxc3

74  

Bxh4 19.gxh4 Qxh4, when his bishop on c7 has everything under control and Black’s pieces look  misplaced. The annotators gave 20.e4 (we prefer 20.b5 with a good game) when 20...Nf6 s not that clear. 18.K 18. Kxf2

Instead 18.Bf4 Rf6 (18...Bxh4!? 19.Kxf2! (19.Bxh6 Bxg3) with chances to hold) 19.e3 (19.Kxf2 Rxf4+ 20.gxf4 Bxh4+) 19...Nh3+ and Black is to be preferred but it is still a tough game. 18...B 18... Bxh4 19.gxh4

19.Rh1 is punished by the intermediate check 19...Qf7+ and ..Bg5, which results in a black  advantage. 19...Qxh4+ 20.K 19...Q 20.Ke3

Maybe best, as instead 20. Kg1 leaves the king in the danger zone, for example 20...g3 21.e3 (21.Be5? Nxe5 22.dxe5 Bd7 with a winning attack) 21...Rf6 22.Bf4 e5 23.dxe5 Nxe5 with a raging attack for  Black. A decent alternative was 20.Bg3 Rf6+ 21.Bf3 Qg5 (21...Qh5 22.Rh1) 22.Rh1 or 22.Rg1!. 20...e5!

Black has to continue as ferociously as he can because otherwise White consolidates. Besides, the queenside pieces should be activated.

21.dxe5

75  

ot the best choice. Better was 21.Kd2 exd4 22.Nxd5! and White fights for the initiative. Instead, the old annotations continued 22.Na4 (sidelining the poor knight) 22... Ne5! 23.Bxe5 Qg5+ 24.e3? Qxe5 25.exd4? Qf4+! and with ...Bf5 coming White is in dire straits. The complications after 21.Rh1 Qg5+ 22.Kd3 Rxh1 23.Rxh1 exd4 24.Kxd4 Qg7+ 25.Kd3 Ne5+ 26.Bxe5 Qxe5 are quite murky and a nd maybe White should sidestep them. 21...d4+!?

21...Qg3+ 22.Bf3 Nxe5 came strongly into consideration. 22.Kxd4 Qf2+ 23.K 22.K 23.Kd3

23.Ke4? gets mated directly after 23...Nxc5+ 24.bxc5 Bf5#. Similarly, 23.Kc4 Nxe5+ 24.Bxe5 Be6+ is not something one likes to get involved in; although it is not immediately killing after 25. Bd5!?, Black should be better. 23...Nxe5+!? 23...N

All in the same brilliancy prize style, but 23...Qxg2 was objectively preferable, and if 24.Ne4 Nxe5+!! 25.Bxe5 Bf5. 24.Bxe5 Bf5+ 25.e4 24.B

If 25.Be4 Rd8+ 26.Bd6 then Black crashes through with 26...Rdxd6+ 27.cxd6 Rxd6+ 28.Kc4 Be6+ 29.Bd5 cxd5+ 30.K b3 d4+ 31.K b2 Rc6. After 25.Ne4 Rd8+ 26.Kc3! (not 26.Bd6 Qxg2 27.Qc4+ Re6 and Black wins) 26...Qxg2 27.Q b3+ Be6 28.Qc2 Bf5, it seems that neither side can avoid repetition. 25...R 25... Rd8+

76  

26.Bd6? 26.B

Fine cracks under the pressure of Black’s sustained aggression. In a practical game – especially when you have to focus on six of them at a time – it is hard to see that 26. Nd5!! is best: 26...Rxd5+ 27.Kc3 Qxc2+ 28.Kxc2 Rxe5 29.exf5 Rxf5 30.Re2 and Black lacks compensation. 26...Rdxd6+! 27.cxd6 Rxd6+ 28.N 26...R 28.Nd5

28...Q 28... Qg3+!

77  

If 28...Rxd5+ then 29.Kc3 Qd4+ 30.K b3 defends and wins. 29.K 29. Kd2

A) 29.Kd4 Rxd5+! wins; B) 29.Kc4 cxd5+, for example 30.K b5 Bd7+ 31.Ka5 Ra6#; C) 29.Re3 Rxd5+ 30.Kc4 (30.Ke2 Qxg2+) 30...Qxe3 31.exf5 b5#; D) Best was 29.Ke2! Qxg2+ 30.Kd1 Qf3+ (30...Rxd5+ 31.Kc1 Qxc2+ 32.Kxc2 Bg6 33.Kc3 Rg5µ) 31.Kc1 cxd5 and Black is firmly in the driver’s seat. 29...R 29... Rxd5+ 30.K 30.Kc1

30.exd5 Qxg2+ 31.Re2 Qxd5+ wins the queen. 30...Qxe1+ 31.K 30...Q 31.Kb2 Qxb4+ 32.K 32.Ka1 Qd4+ 33.Q 33.Qb2

33.R b2 Qd1+. 33...Qxb2+ 34.K 33...Q 34.Kxb2 Rb5+

Or 34...Rd2+. 35.K 35. Kc1 Rxb1+ 36.K 36.Kxb1 Bg6 37.K 37.Kc2 Kf7 38.K 38.Kd3 Ke6 39.K 39.Kd4 b6 40.B 40.Bf1 c5+ 0-1

This game clearly shows the practical danger of attacking chances in a position where the centre is stabilised and the board is thus more or less cut into two sectors.   Sicilian Defence Grand Prix Vladimir Antoshin 2305 Sergey Gorelov 2445 Moscow 1984 (4) 1.e4 c5 2.f4

With the intention to build up some space advantage on the kingside. As a result, we often see a game where White plays on the kingside, and Black on the queenside. 2...g6

2...d5 is often played, to disturb White’s plan. Then Larsen’s 3.B b5+!? Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.d3 is a sensible approach. 3.N 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.Q 6.Qc2 0-0 7.B 7.Be2 b6 8.0-0 Bb7

78  

9.f5!?

One would expect development from White, but with Black setting up a solid and flexible but not very direct formation, White feels he can make some attacking gestures without risk of being  punished. 9...c4 10.fxg6 hxg6 11.N 11.Ng5 cxd3 12.B 12.Bxd3

As a result, White has an impregnable knight on g5, and he will move the queen to h4 to add to the  pressure. Sometimes, but only sometimes, there are other priorities priorities than development. Here, there is little Black can do... 12...Nbd7 13.Qf2 Qc8 14.Qh4 Rd8 15.Na3 Nf8 16.Be3

Finally, development is finished. White has some pressure on the kingside and Black does not have any counterplay yet. He hopes to swap queens now to get rid of the potential danger. 16...Qg4 17.Q 16...Q 17.Qf2

White does not oblige. 17...N8h7 18.h3 Qc8 19.N 17...N 19.Nxh7 Kxh7 20.N 20.Nb5 Kg8 21.a4 Rf8 22.Q 22.Qh4 Qd7 23.N 23.Nd4 Qc7 24.a5 bxa5

79  

o fixed centre this time, but it is once again clear that the kingside is a separate sector and there are not so many defenders. White feels that his numerical advantage on this part of the board gives him the moral right to sacrifice and attack. 25.N 25. Nf5!? gxf5 26.R 26.Rxf5

Even the engines ‘feel’ now that White’s attack should be unstoppable, and give him very positive assessments, though he is a whole piece down! Note that due to the intermediate a4-a5 there is also a rook on a1 preparing to join the battle. 26...Ne8 26...N

For example, 26...Rfd8 27.Raf1 and Bg5 with a devastating attack. 27.e5!

The bishop on d3 also joins the attack. White has judged his chances very well. 27...Q 27... Qc6

If 27...dxe5, 28.Rxe5 Nf6 29.Rg5 wins. 28.Rg5 f5 29.exf6 Rxf6 28.R

29...Nxf6!? 30.Rxg7+ (30.Rf1! Rf7 31.Bg6 with an enduring attack is probably better) 30...Kxg7 31.Qg5+ leads to a draw.

30.R 30. Raxa5

80  

Logical in the course of the game, but 30.Ra4 was strong. 30...K 30... Kf8

30...e5 31.Ra4 and the rook joins, once again with a strong attack. 31.Raf5 31.R

ot the best continuation probably. 31. Bc4! e5 32.Rg4 frees the queen and White’s attack continues, with the threat of 33.Qh7. 31...Rd8? 31...R

Immediately losing was 31...e6 32.Rxg7! Kxg7 33.Rg5+ Kf8 34.Qh7. Best was 31...Rxf5! 32.Rxf5+ Nf6 33.Rg5 e5 with chances to hold.

32.Q 32. Qh7

Judging from the remainder of the game, this was probably a time scramble. It is unfortunate that White missed the win here with 32.Rxg7! Nxg7 (32...Kxg7 33.Rg5+ Kf7 34.Qh7+ Ke6 35.Bf5+ Kd5 36.Qg8+ e6 37.Bd3+ and Black gets checkmated) 33.Rxf6+ exf6 34.Qxf6+ Ke8 35.Qxg7 with unstoppable threats. 32...B 32... Ba8

ot best; 32...Rxf5! 33.Qxf5+ Nf6 34.Qg6 Ne8 and it is not clear how White can get more than a draw.

81  

33.B 33. Bd4

Good enough, but even more crushing was 33.Rxg7! Nxg7 34.Rg5. 33...d5

34.R 34. Rxg7 Nxg7 35.Q 35.Qh8+ Kf7 36.R 36.Rxf6+ exf6

36...Qxf6 37.Qxd8 e5 38.Qxa8 exd4 39.Qxd5+ with a winning endgame. 37.Qxd8 Ne6 38.Q 37.Q 38.Qb8

This is a case in point. White’s flag must have been about to drop, otherwise we cannot explain a  player of Antoshin’s class not seeing 38.Qxf6+. 38...a6

Of course he must have noticed 38...Nxd4 39.Qxa7+ in a flash. 39.Kh2 Bb7 40.Q 39.K 40.Qg3 Nxd4 41.cxd4 Qb6 42.B 42.Bg6+ Kf8 43.B 43.Bf5 Qd8

43...Qxd4 44.Q b8+ drops the bishop. 44.h4 Bc8? 45.Qb8 1-0

This game shows clearly that sometimes it is not enough to set up a solid and flexible formation, as

when the opponent can mass a bunch of pieces in the sector near the defender s king, we must be ready to react. Antoshin was able to get what Lasker called a ‘large superiority of force’ on the

82  

kingside, which he felt was great enough to give a whole piece with the long-term sacrifice 25.Nf5. And he was right. A valuable lesson for attackers and defenders alike!   King’s Fianchetto Christoph Zill Gerard Welling 2393 Bad Wiessee 2002 (1) 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.N 3.Nc3 a6!?

aturally, 3...d6 is played more often, but the text move has some psychological value. The Slovak  master Maximilian Ujtelky wrote in a game annotation back in 1964: ‘At first sight a small bizarre move, but in fact a similar position arises when Black plays 3...d6 and ...a6 later. It has happened to me that the opponent thought half an hour about the “refutation” of 3...a6’. 4.g3

After the aggressive 4.f4, Black positioned himself in an original way in the game BredewoutUjtelky, Beverwijk 1969, by means of 4...b5 5. Nf3 B b7 6.Bd3 e6 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Be3 Nge7 9.a4 b4 10.Ne2 f5 11.e5 d6 12.c4 Qd7 and he had a flexible position with good chances for counterplay. 4...b5 5.B 5.Bg2 Bb7 6.a3 d6 7.N 7.Nge2 Nd7 8.0-0 c5

With a timely counterattack on White’s centre Black assures himself of reasonable counterplay. 9.B 9.Be3 cxd4 10.B 10.Bxd4 Ngf6?!

83  

A less ambitious continuation was 10...Bxd4 11.Qxd4 Ngf6 but after 12.a4 White is slightly better. The text move implies a small material investment.

11.N 11. Nd5

Of course the principled continuation would have been 11.e5! dxe5 12.Bxb7 exd4 and then Black  would have had to spend a considerable amount of time calculating the results: A) After 13.Bxa8 dxc3 14.Bc6 cxb2 15.R b1 Qc7 Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange with his compact position and White’s damaged queenside structure; B) 13.Qxd4 R b8 14.Bxa6 Qa5 15.Bxb5 (further analysis at home, when tactical lines can be checked with engine help, prosaically showed a flaw in Black’s calculations. White plays 15.Qa7 and in case of 15...R b6 16.Qa8+ – overlooked – 16...N b8 17.B b7) 15...Rxb5 16.b4 Q b6 17.Nxb5 Qxb5 with a real party on the board and we still ask ourselves who is better and why...; C) 13.Nxd4 Ra7 14.Nc6 (14.Bg2 Q b6) 14...Q b6 15.Nxa7 Qxb7 and the knight is lost. 11...0-0 12.Q 12.Qd2?!

After 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 White could still have hoped for a balanced position. 12...e5! 13.B 13.Bc3

13.Nxf6+? Nxf6 14.Be3 Nxe4 loses material. 13...Nxd5 14.exd5

84  

14...f5?!

This gives the opponent counter-chances on the dark squares, which would have been non-existent after 14...a5. 15.Ba5! Qc8 15.B

After other moves the bishop disturbs Black in getting an optimal placement of his pieces, for  example after 15...Qe7 16.Rfe1 with the idea Nd4, or 15...Qf6 16.Bc3 Qf7 17.B b4. 16.R 16. Rab1!?

A mysterious move that went far beyond Black’s limited understanding, but which is intended to  prepare b2-b3 and c2-c4, when the vis-à-vis of R b1 with B b7 provides White with useful chances. chances. 16...Nf6 17.b3 Rf7 18.c4 16...N

85  

18...h5

White has managed to develop counterplay on the queenside which after Rfc1 will soon develop into an attack. That is why it is logical that Black wants do ‘something ‘ on the part of the board where he has ‘a superiority in force’. There is nothing to be gained with direct action, hence the reason for the march of the h-pawn first, somewhat weakening the white king’s bastion. 19.Qb4 19.Q

Sniffing his chance, White throws all of his forces into the battle on the queenside. In the game it will turn out that Black’s initiative on the kingside, though nearly near ly invisible at the moment, will grow considerable after some white pieces have been moved to the other sector. For that reason, 19.Rfc1!? may have been more sensible. 19...Q 19... Qf8 20.N 20.Nc3 h4 21.R 21.Rfd1 hxg3 22.hxg3 e4!?

Leaves the entire queenside to the white forces, but intends to weaken the king’s security even more with ...e4-e3. At the same time it frees the square e5 for an eventual knight manoeuvre ...Nf6-g4-e5 and the bishop on g7 breathes again. 23.Bb6 23.B

White’s best practical chance probably consisted in 23.Ne2!? to take advantage of the square f4 that has become available. Post-mortem analysis showed Black’s chances here as well, but the character  c haracter  of the game is not very forcing so there is probably scope for improvement.

23...N 23... Ng4! 24.cxb5 a5!

86  

A tricky finesse that gains Black time for his attack and sidelines the bishop. The balance of force on the kingside is thus disturbed even more. 25.Bxa5 25.B

On 25.Qc4, 25...Rc8 wins. 25...B 25... Bxc3 26.Q 26.Qxc3 Qh6 27.B 27.Bb6 Rc8

The queen now must give up her defensive post on the third rank. 28.Qd2 f4! 29.gxf4 28.Q

29.Bxe4 Qh2+ 30.Kf1 f3 loses immediately for White. 29...R 29... Rxf4 30.B 30.Be3

Logical, but the follow-up is forced now and White is blown away. 30...Qh2+ 31.K 30...Q 31.Kf1

87  

31...Rf3! 32.R 31...R 32.Re1

Because 32.Bxf3 exf3 is an unavoidable mate, Black wins another tempo and the attack crashes through. 32...R 32... Rcf8 33.R 33.Rb2 Rg3 34.B 34.Bxe4 Bc8!?

Played according to the dictum that as many pieces as possible should join the fight, and also played after long thought. Black’s conclusion was that two forcing lines win for him, but there is some work  involved: A) 34...Rg1+ 35.Ke2 Rxf2+ 36.Bxf2 Qxf2+ 37.Kd3 (37.Kd1 Ne3+–+) 37...Ne5+ 38.Kc2 Qxe1 39.Qxe1 Rxe1 and the pawns offer insufficient compensation for the piece; B) 34...Nxf2 35.Qxf2! (35.Bxf2 Rg1+ (35...Qh3+ 36.Ke2 Qg4+ even leads to mate) 36.Ke2 Rxf2+) 35...Rg1+ 36.Ke2 Rxf2+ 37.Bxf2 Rxe1+ 38.Kxe1 Qe5 (38...Qf4! wins on the spot but that was a discovery after the game was finished) 39.Re2 Qa1+ 40.Kd2 Qxa3. The text move is a tough approach and it turns out that White has no defence. But there was an easy solution with a move that Black did not consider at all: 34... Nxe3+! 35.Rxe3 (35.Qxe3 Qg1+ 36.Ke2 Rxe3+) 35...Qg1+ 36.Ke2 Rxf2+ and White’s position is utterly destroyed. 35.Qd4 Rxe3 36.R 35.Q 36.Rxe3 Rxf2+

White resigned. Another example of the battle raging on two sides of the board, White and Black each in their own half. Even if we are attacking in our half, this does not mean we should forget about the other half! White forgot about this for a moment and deserted his own kingside in order to attack Black’s

queenside, which was a major reason for his downfall. Black however kept this in consideration and a

88  

couple of moves on the queenside gained him time to eventually succeed on the other part of the  board. So we should not forget to consider the situation on the whole board.

89  

Chapter 5 Defence 5.1. General considerations

Lasker’s main principles of defence were twofold: When you have a disadvantage (or are being attacked), you must be willing to conform yourself to the role of defender and be willing to agree to concessions to do so. Following on from the above, the Principle of Economy then requires that the defender ensure that he minimises the concessions he makes. The first point given above is really crucial and is partly a psychological issue and partly a chess one. Many players defend poorly in the first instance because they are reluctant to admit that they have gone wrong and stand worse, and need to adopt the role of defender. As a result, they try to shut their minds to the reality and play as if they stand well and have the initiative. This leads to their  failing to take defensive measures in time. This is a point which has often been observed. Writing in his book My book My Chess Adventures, Adventures, Charles Warburton described his experience of judging the best game prize for the British Correspondence Chess Association in 1975. He commented: ‘As usual, the attacking play was much superior to the defensive and many games were lost simply because the precautionary element necessary in all planning had not been applied and the loser   seemed not to realise his dangers dangers until it was to too o late to take effective measures.’  This is a very common failing among amateur players and is one reason why this chapter is longer  than many others in this book. Having made the psychological admission that we stand worse, the need to adopt defensive measures follows from the theory of Steinitz. That theory states that one must only attack if one has the advantage, and the converse therefore is that if one stands worse, one must adopt defensive measures. So, once we accept that we stand worse and need to adopt defensive measures, what should these  be? Lasker’s main advice is this: the defender should strive for the (unattainable) (unattainable) ideal that all the lines of resistance are equally strong. This is a familiar idea with military commanders – every commander wants to arrange his forces in such a way that he is equally strong on all fronts. In  practice, this can never be fully attained, attained, but just because an aim is unachievable unachievable does not mean that one should not strive for it – after all, doctors cannot keep their patients alive for ever, but that doesn’t mean that shouldn’t do so for us long as they reasonably can! Lasker showed the practical application of his principles of defensive chess by being able to switch over to defensive mode when he got into trouble. He also showed a willingness to sit tight and wait, rather than lashing out to try to get immediate counterplay. Let us now look at some examples of this. 5.2. The fine art of doing nothing

Lasker’s ability, when defending, to do nothing and put the onus on the opponent has been largely overlooked, especially at amateur level. Traditional advice to the defender is always to seek  counterplay at every opportunity and not to defend passively. But Lasker had a much deeper 

understanding of the problem of defence. The problem with seeking counterplay is that it often involves weakening one’s position further and this can just help the opponent. After all, the theory of 

90  

Steinitz states that one should only attack when one has the advantage, and this implies that if one stands worse, one should be very careful of trying to ‘attack’ in any sense, lest one simply make things worse. It was said of the five-time Tour de France winner, Bernard Hinault, that what made him such a great cyclist was that ‘he knew how to suffer’. Lasker had the same ability. In accordance with his  principles, as described in the previous previous section, he was prepared to accept that he stood worse and therefore needed to defend, often for a long time and often without being able to do anything active. Most players cannot stand this for very long and will lash out in a search for counterplay or a forcing way to equalise. But if you really do stand worse, then there won’t be a forcing way to equalise – if  there is such a variation, then strictly speaking you don’t really stand worse! Instead, Lasker took the Steinitzian view that one had to just defend one’s weaknesses, meet any direct threats and wait for  one’s chance. The classic example of this approach is his oft-quoted game with Nimzowitsch. Because it has been analysed and published so often, we will look only briefly at it. ( see  see fragment next page) page) Emanuel Lasker Aron Nimzowitsch St Petersburg 1914 (2)

Lasker had been completely outplayed, has lost a pawn and is tied down to the weakness on h2. Almost every black piece is better than its white counterpart and one could argue that objectively speaking, White is lost. Most players would feel that White needs to seek some sort of activity. Applying the principle of exchanging off the opponent’s strongest weapon suggests the move 27.Ng5. However, after 27...Nxg5 28.Bxg5 f4, White is in even more trouble. His attempt to ‘do

something has simply made his opponent s task easier. Instead, Lasker adopted an altogether  different approach. It is true that things are pretty grim, but for the moment, everything is defended,

91  

there are no direct threats and the white pieces are as well placed as they could be. As far as is  possible, all lines of defence are equally equally strong. So, what Lasker does is is simply wait and ask Black  Black  how he intends to proceed. Once he comes up with some plan to make progress, we will then consider  what we can do about it. 27.a3 a6 28.B 28.Be3 Rhd8 29.K 29.Ka2 Rh8 30.K 30.Ka1 Rhd8 31.K 31.Ka2 Re8

Already, we can see that Black hesitates about what to do and Lasker was careful not to do anything to make his decision easier. Now, finally, Black has announced his intention. He is going to advance in the centre with ...f7-f6 and ...e6-e5, so now Lasker decides that he needs to counter that, by exchanging off the Re8. 32.R 32. Rg8 Rxg8 33.R 33.Rxg8+ Rd8 34.R 34.Rg7 Rd7

Again, Nimzowitsch hesitates. As Nunn points out, the simple 34...f6 would probably have been too much even for Lasker’s defensive abilities. 35.Rg8+ Rd8 36.R 35.R 36.Rg7 Rf8

Again 36...f6 was simpler, but the text is also a decent move. ...Qh8 will expel the active white rook, so Lasker decides that he has to try to do something to distract Black. But note that he only does this once it is clear that Black has found a plan to make progress. 37.c4

ow there may be counterplay with d4-d5.

37...N 37... Nf6?

92  

And immediately, Nimzowitsch is induced to make a serious mistake. Nunn shows that 37...Qh8 38.Rg2 Rg8 should be good enough to win. Nimzowitsch’s move aims to cover d5, in response to White’s last, but now Lasker pounces on a tactical opportunity. 38.B 38. Bg5! Nh5?!

The text allows a drawing combination, but Black has problems anyway. 38...Ne8 runs into an even R R Q more effective version of the same combination as in the game: 39. xf7 xf7 40. xe6+ and White actually wins, whilst 38...Ne4 39.Be7 Re8 40.Rxf7 leaves White well back in the game. 39.Rxf7! Rxf7 40.Q 39.R 40.Qxe6+ Rd7 41.N 41.Ne5! Bxe5 42.Q 42.Qe8+

Draw. 5.3. Passing the burden

Most players of our generation will have first seen the above example in Paul Keres’ chapter on defence in the old classic book The Art of the Middlegame. Middlegame. The really important aspect of it is the way in which Lasker is prepared to sit and wait passively and to throw the onus onto his opponent to come up with a way to make progress. Most players, when defending, feel that it is up to them to find a way to rectify their position, but Lasker was much more like a defendant in the criminal court. Just as the accused is not required to prove his innocence, so the defender is not required to prove that his  position is tenable – if if the stronger side wants to win the the game then, like the Prosecutio Prosecution n in court, he has to prove that he can do so. This psychological approach of throwing the burden of proof on the stronger side was highlighted  by a fascinating comment written written by GM Matthew Sadler, over half half a century after Lasker’s death. In the May 1998 British 1998 British Chess Magazine Magazine (pages  (pages 234-5), Matthew reported on the Melody Amber  tournament, where he had for the first time crossed swords with the world’s top players. Watching the  post-mortems, he was especially especially impressed by Karpov: ‘In particular, his mental approach [to defending was a revelation. never   seemed to stop asking questions! questions! You would say to him: hdifficult im: “Ha,positions] I’ve forced your king to move!” moHe ve!” and he would reply: “OK, now everything is protected, what are you doing now?” So you hit back with: “Well, now I attack this!” and he replies: “You attack this, I defend it. Eventually, I will threaten this. What do you do now?” Even from difficult positions, he would never stop putting pressure on you. It  is so easy in a tricky position just to become overwhelmed by the range of options open to your  opponent. You look at the position and say “He can do this and he’s better, he can do that as well. He can even play this stupid move and still be a bit better! Oh God, the whole thing is hopeless!” By the end, you have convinced yourself that you might as well resign immediately. I got the feeling that   Karpov didn’t get too upset upset about being worse: he didn’t didn’t try to calculate a complicat complicated ed line to try to orce equality. He just level-headedly set himself the task of preventing his opponent from increasing  his advantage further; if he could do that, the rest would attend to itself.’  Although Matthew did not explicitly say so, this is the Lasker approach to a tee. That is exactly

what Lasker did in the above example against Nimzowitsch. Matthew s point about how easy it is for  the defender to be overwhelmed by the number of ways his opponent can play is a really important

93  

one and ties in with Rudolf Spielmann’s famous comment: ‘Lasker comment: ‘Lasker may occasionally lose a game, but  he never loses his head.’  Level-headedness is an absolutely vital component of good defence, which is a major reason why computers defend so well – silicon never panics nor gets depressed! Bearing this in mind, let us now look at another of Lasker’s most celebrated examples of ‘how to suffer’, his game against Janowski at New York 1924:   Ruy Lopez Neo-Steinitz Emanuel Lasker Dawid Janowski  New York 1924 (12) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 a6 4.B 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 d6 6.R 6.Re1 Bg4 7.c3 Be7 8.h3? Bh5 9.d3 Qd7

A key moment. Lasker’s 8th move was a serious inaccuracy, because with Black not having castled, he now has the chance to play for a direct attack with ...g7-g5-g4. A drastic modern example shows ust how dangerous the attack is: 10.N bd2 g5 11.Nf1 g4 12.hxg4 Bxg4 13.Bg5 Rg8 14.Bh4 Nh5 15.Bxe7 Kxe7 16.Ne3 Rg6 17.Nf5+ Kf8 18.N5h4 Rh6 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.Re3 Nf4 21.g3 Rxh4 22.gxh4 Ke7 23.Kh2 Rg8 24.Qh1 Bh3 25.Ng5 Bg2 26.Qd1 h6 27.Nxf7 Kxf7 28.Q b3+ d5 0-1 De Jonghe-Winants, Belgium tt 2004/05. But instead of going down like a lamb to the slaughter, Lasker gives a perfect illustration of his first defensive principle: recognise that you stand worse and go over to defensive measures. He simplifies the game and heads for an ending, thereby defusing the attack, but at the cost of conceding the bishop  pair. Remember the principle: the defender must be prepared to make concessions, concessions, but should apply

the principle of economy and keep them to the minimum necessary.

94  

10.Bxc6 Qxc6 11.B 10.B 11.Bg5 Bg6 12.N 12.Nbd2 h6 13.B 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.N 14.Nf1 0-0 15.N 15.Ne3 Rae8 16.Q 16.Qb3 Bd8 17.Q 17. Qd5 Qxd5 18.N 18.Nxd5 f5 19.N 19.Nd2 Bf7 20.N 20.Ne3 f4 21.N 21.Nec4 Bf6

Black has more space and the whole bishop pair, whilst this is a dreadfully depressing position for  White, who has zero counterplay and can only expect to be pushed off the board slowly, by some sort of mass pawn advance, such as ...g7-g5-g4 on the kingside and ...c7-c6/d6-d5 in the centre. There is one other sub-text which should be mentioned. Janowski was an unparalleled lover of bishops. Lasker  was very well aware of this and had already exploited Janowski’s over-fondness for the bishops on a number of previous occasions. We will see this play a role here too. Given how bad the white position is objectively, it is all the more remarkable to see the stoical way in which Lasker just defends and defends against each threat, not panicking, not doing anything stupid in search of non-existent counterplay, etc. Instead, he just keeps asking Black what he wants to do next. So, let us imagine Karpov defending this position in front of Sadler, in the analysis room of the Melody Amber. Cue Karpov’s squeaky voice... 22.a4 Rd8 23.N 23.Na5 Rb8 24.N 24.Nf3 g5 25.N 25.Nh2 h5 26.N 26.Nc4 Be6

‘What do you want? You want to play ...g5-g4? OK, I defend that.’ 27.f3

‘Now what do you want to do?’ 27...Rfd8

‘You want to play ...d6-d5? OK, I prepare to double rooks on the e-file.’

28.R 28. Re2 Kf7 29.a5 Rg8 30.R 30.Ra4 Rbd8 31.R 31.Rb4 Bc8 32.b3 Rh8 33.N 33.Nb2 d5 34.exd5 Rxd5 35.R 35.Rc4 c6

95  

36.b4 Bf5

‘You attack d3? OK, I defend it. Now what are you going to do?’ 37.R 37. Rd2 Rhd8 38.K 38.Kf2

38...R 38... Rb5

A big moment. ‘Reluctance to part with a good position’ is a common failing in many players and the stronger side in such situations often tries to win without making even the tiniest concession to the defender. Here, there is no objective reason not to take on d3 with 38...Bxd3 39.Nxd3 Rxd3 40.Rxd3 Rxd3 41.Nf1 and now 41...e4 should win comfortably. But there is just one problem with this line from Janowski’s point of view – it involves giving up one of his beloved bishops. He was always loth to do this, as Lasker was well aware. It is unlikely that Lasker was surprised at his opponent’s reluctance to cash in the pawn. 39.K 39. Ke2 Rbd5 40.K 40.Kd1 Ke6

‘You still don’t want my d-pawn? OK, I defend it. Now what are you going to do?’ 41.Kc2 Be7 42.N 41.K 42.Nf1 c5 43.bxc5 Bxc5

‘Now you want to attack a5? OK, I defend it.’ 44.R 44. Ra4 R8d7 45.R 45.Rd1 Ba7 46.R 46.Ra3 g4 47.hxg4 hxg4 48.c4 R5d6 49.N 49.Nd2 Be3

49...Rh7 looks more natural.

96  

50.R 50. Rh1

‘You don’t want the h-file? OK, I’ll take it. Now what are you going to do?’ 50...gxf3 51.gxf3 Rg7

‘So, you threaten 52...Rg2? OK, I defend it. Now what?’ 52.R 52. Rh2 Bg1 53.R 53.Re2 Rg3

‘So, you want to play 54... Be3 and take on d2 and f3? OK, I stop that.’ 54.N 54. Nd1 Rd7

‘You have no threats? OK, I improve my rook.’ 55.R 55. Rb3

‘Now maybe I will have Rxb7 or R b6+ later on. Now what are you going to do?’ 55...R 55... Rdg7 56.N 56.Nc3 Be3?

This renewed attempt to take on d2 and f3 proves to be a serious mistake. After thirty-odd moves of  manoeuvring round and round, Black has definitively lost the thread and is now almost losing. 57.N 57. Nd5! Rg2

57...Bxd2 58.Kxd2 Rxf3 59.R b6+ is winning for White. 57... 57...Rd7 was the best chance, but after  58.Nxe3 fxe3 59.Rxe3, it is now Black who needs a squeaky voice and a stoical outlook, if he is to

97  

survive.

58.Rxe3!

This simple tactic turns things around totally and Black is now lost. 58...fxe3 59.R 59.Rb6+ Kd7 60.N 60.Nxe3 Kc7

The problem, of course, is that the bishop cannot be defended because of 60...R2g5 61.Nxf5 Rxf5 62.Rxb7+. 61.N 61. Nxf5

White now has a winning material advantage and won in 82 moves. A wonderful example of stoical defence in a very difficult and depressing position, achieved by applying Lasker’s principles – accept that you stand worse and be prepared to suffer, make the minimum concessions you can get away with and try to keep all points equally well defended. In the face of such defence, even the strongest players in the world can falter. Another important point to note is that even Lasker’s defensive skill would not have saved him in the two examples above, if the opponents had played better. If Nimzowitsch had played 34...f6 or  37...Qh8, or if Janowski had taken on d3 when he had the chance, then Black would almost certainly have won both games. So where does that leave Lasker and his great philosophical scheme for  defence? Well, the answer is that it leaves him completely unruffled. Of course, if a position is objectively lost, then no amount of defensive ingenuity can save it against perfect play. But chess is not a mathematical theorem being played out with remorseless perfection. It is a flesh-and-blood battle

mathematical theorem being played out with remorseless perfection. It is a flesh and blood battle  between two flawed and imperfect humans. humans. Just as we played some bad moves moves to end up in such a

98  

lost position, so the opponent is likely to do the same in trying to convert his advantage, especially if  he is faced with tough and unexpected resistance. And if he doesn’t, but plays perfectly and conducts his advantage to victory? Well, in that case, as Lasker wrote in his Manual  his Manual , ‘All is lost save honour!’ We are all taught that counterplay means everything, and these examples show that this is not always the case. The principle of economy however has another face that we should not forget about. That is when defending our position we should strive for a minimalistic approach. When we can defend safely with a couple of pieces, why use more ‘just to be sure’? Remember that having pieces in reserve means better chances of starting a counterattack of our own when the time comes. But the first priority in defensive strategy should always be to check our line of  defence and here we see Lasker’s great predecessor demonstrating the technique, in an example quoted by Lasker in his Manual  his  Manual :   King’s Gambit William Steinitz Celso F. Golmayo Zupide Havana, casual game 1889 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Bc5 3.f4 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.fxe5 dxe5 6.Nxe5 Qd4 7.Nd3 Bb6 8.Qf3 Nc6 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Q 10. Qf4 Bxe2 11.K 11.Kxe2 0-0-0

In characteristic style, Steinitz has grabbed a rather hot pawn and clung onto it for dear life, even at the cost of having his king stuck in the centre and apparently at the mercy of the black forces. I suspect the average human player’s first reaction to this position (certainly mine, anyway! – SWG) is that White ought to be busted here, here , but interestingly, the computer only assesses Black’s advantage as

half a pawn. Applying the Steinitz-Lasker principles to the position, how should we defend? Well, we want to

99  

ensure that each link in the defensive chain is equally strong. It is clear that e4 is the crucial weakness at present, with Black lining up with ...Rhe8 next move, so Steinitz plays a logical move, shifting the knight from d3, so he can play d2-d3. At the same time, from e1 the knight defends the c2-square. 12.Ne1 12.N

The computer advocates instead 12.Re1 Rhe8 13.Kd1, which also defends e4. It I t still assesses Black  as only half pawn better, but itmoves is hardfor to White see where White’s nextand move coming In fact, 13... theaengine’s top three are 14.g4, 14.a4 14.is nonefrom. of which fillsafter  one K b8 R b1, with confidence in the white position! 12...Nb4? 12...N

This seems to have been based on a simple tactical oversight. The most natural move is 12... Rhe8 13.d3, and now the computer likes 13...Nd5 (the prophylactic 13...K b8 is also quite good, eliminating eliminating the check on f5 and just just asking White how he plans to continue) 14.Nxd5 Qxd5. Now 15...f5 is a threat, so 15.g4 Re6. Black retains the initiative, although there seems to be no immediate breakthrough. The computer still assesses the black aadvantage dvantage as less than a pawn. 13.a3

Obviously, Black’s last move set up 13.d3 Nxc2, but the text poses the question of what next. Black  had planned a piece sacrifice, but had made a simple oversight. 13...Rhe8? 13...R

Black should have acknowledged his mistake and retreated 13...Nc6, but then after 14.d3 White has gained two whole tempi and is back to equality (though still no more than that, despite his extra  pawn). 14.axb4 Nxe4

This looks deadly for White, in view of 15.Kf1 Rd6 or 15.Kd1 Nxc3+, but Golmayo had missed a simple resource. 15.Qf5+! 15.Q

The queen gets off the fourth rank with tempo, and suddenly the threats can be repulsed. 15...Kb8 16.Nxe4 Rxe4+ 17.Kd1

100  

The white king escapes to safety and his defensive lines, equally strong at every point, are holding. The remainder sees Steinitz gradually crawl out of his trench, with his booty intact. 17...Rf4 18.Q 17...R 18.Qh3 Re8 19.c3 Qc4 20.K 20.Kc2 Rf2 21.N 21.Nd3 Rfe2 22.b3 Qc6 23.Q 23.Qf3 Qg6 24.R 24.Rf1 R8e3

Sadly reminiscent of the Flanders battlefields of WW1. Black goes on throwing his troops against the enemy barbed wire and machine guns, but there is no breakthrough. 25.Qf5 Qc6 26.b5 Qd6 25.Q

If 26...Qxg2 27.Qd7 it is Black whose king faces the stronger threats. 27.N 27. Nf4 Re5 28.Q 28.Qxf7 R2e4 29.d3 Re2+ 30.N 30.Nxe2 Rxe2+ 31.B 31.Bd2 1-0

With modern eyes, it is easy to dismiss this game as a piece of rubbish – it was only a casual game, White takes absurd-looking risks to win a pawn and then Black simply blunders a piece by missing a trick two moves deep. But Lasker thought it sufficiently important to include in his Manual, and it is true that it illustrates the application of the Steinitz/Lasker principles very well. White defends his weaknesses (notably e4 and c2), strengthens his defensive chain equally at every point, and  eventually the attacker commits hara-kiri. Once again, it is not really important whether White’s osition was tenable against superior black play – the key thing is to defend as well as one can, in accordance with the Steinitz/Lasker principles, with the ‘cheerful pessimism’ of which Lasker was amous. And if the position does prove beyond salvation, then ‘All is lost save honour’... Of course we can ask ourselves if this is a timeless, or just an old-fashioned approach? Let us first remember that it worked for Lasker and in his practice withstood the test of time. And let us, just as

an example, give the word to Alexander Shashin, a celebrated trainer from St Petersburg and who has used modern scientific methods to derive modernised guidelines along which chess should be played.

101  

On the topic of defensive chess he formulates the following goals: • optimal placement of our pieces and pawns on squares suitable for defending occupied and unoccupied squares from attack; • exchanges; • be prepared to sacrifice to slow down our opponent’s attack. This modern approach is remarkably similar to what we have seen in Lasker’s practice, so this means that at least we can rebut the description ‘old-fashioned’. An existence theorem

As will have become clear already from the foregoing material, defence in chess is to a huge degree a  psychological thing. Specific Specific chess techniques are important (exchanging (exchanging off strong enemy pieces, defending threats, repairing weaknesses, etc.), but overwhelmingly the most important reason why many players defend badly is psychological. Having a bad position is just so depressing! One spends much of one’s time cursing one’s own stupidity for having landed in such a mess, re-thinking earlier  moves (‘Perhaps I should have taken with the other rook?’) and just generally feeling sorry for  oneself, rather than concentrating on the task in hand and mobilising all of one’s resources for the defence. Defenders need strong character and it is no accident that such strong chessboard characters as Botvinnik and Karpov were exceptionally good defenders. As well as his purely chess principles of defence, Lasker can be used as a psychological inspiration to improve a player’s defensive play. As a youth, one of the strongest players in my (SWG) area of  South-East England was Michael Cook, a local schoolmaster. Michael was a strong county player, consistently graded over 200 ECF (about 2300 Elo) for year after year and also a great devotee of  Lasker. During the late 1970s and 80s, I played for the same county team as Michael, and he and I used generally to get a lift to matches in the same car, driven by another of my closest chess mentors, Roger, who was also around 2300 strength. Naturally, we were constantly discussing chess on these ourneys and it was on these that Michael expounded his Laskerian approach. One of the ways in which he made use of Lasker’s inspiration was in defending really bad  positions. He later explained his ideas in an article for the local chess newsletter in Suffolk, where he moved after retirement. So, imagine the situation. You are sitting at the board, and you realise that you have gone badly wrong and are in trouble. What do you do? Here is Michael’s explanation of his approach: ‘What I do [after do [after realising I have gone horribly wrong] is wrong] is ask the question “If Lasker were alive and  in his prime and he were sitting here with this position and against this opponent, what would be the result?” On about 5% of the occasions, the answer would be that “Even he would have lost”, but in about 20% of cases it is “He would have found a way to draw”. This leaves about abo ut 75% of positions with the response “He would have turned things round and eventually found a crafty way of  winning”. Now it may be objected that if one has a brain about half the size of Lasker’s, all of this is of little avail. But I find it otherwise. The point is that we now know that a sequence of moves exists which, against this opponent and from this position, will save the game and probably win it. The task  of searching for such a sequence is at least as enjoyable and productive as was playing the game

whilst one s position was sound. The knowledge that it exists makes all the difference. Think of what  it is like to look for a valuable coin you know you have dropped down the back of the sofa, compared 

102  

with an idle probing amongst the fluff, just in case.’  So, bearing the above approach in mind, let us look at an example of Michael’s approach in operation. Notes in inverted commas are his.   Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence Peter Mercs Michael Cook  Hastings Wch Amateurs 1998 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Bc5 5.N 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 c6 7.B 7.Ba4 0-0??

7...Nxe4 8.Qe2 d5 9.dxc5 0-0 10.B b3 Nd7 11.c4 Ndxc5 was a previous game Orton-Cook. Michael thought he was following this, but mixed up his move-order. 8.dxc5

The sad truth dawns: 8... Nxe4? loses to 9.Qd4. Rather than resigning, Black goes through the above mental process and starts looking for the coins at the back of the sofa. 8...Qe7 9.Q 8...Q 9.Qd4 Ng6 10.N 10.Nc3 b5

‘Activating the bishop is priority no.1.’ 11.cxb6

‘Now the d-file looks a little less disastrous.’

103  

11...c5 12.Q 12.Qd3 axb6 13.B 13.Bb5 Bb7 14.f3 h6 15.B 15.Bd2 Qe5

‘There are one or two Lasker games where he headed for an endgame a pawn down.’ 16.f4 Qd4+ 17.B 17.Be3 Qxd3 18.B 18.Bxd3 d5 19.exd5 Nxd5 20.N 20.Nxd5 Bxd5

‘Still a clear pawn down, but Black does have a bit of play on the e-file and with the active knight.’ 21.a3 Rfe8 22.R 22.Rae1 Nh4

Remarkably hard to meet. 23.R 23. Rf2 Bxg2 24.R 24.Ree2 Bf3 25.R 25.Re1 Bd5?

25...Bc6. 26.Bb5 Re4 27.R 26.B 27.Rd1 Bb7 28.R 28.Rd7 Rb8 29.B 29.Bd2 Rd4 30.R 30.Rxd4 cxd4 31.B 31.Bb4 Be4 32.K 32.Kf1 Rc8 33.B 33.Bd3 Bxd3+ 34.cxd3 Rc1+ 35.B 35.Be1 Nf5 36.K 36.Ke2 Rb1

ow White loses a pawn, since 37.Kf1 runs into 37...Ne3+. 37.Bd2 Rxb2 38.R 37.B 38.Rf1 Ne3 39.R 39.Rc1 Nd5 40.K 40.Kd1 Ra2 41.R 41.Rc8+ Kh7 42.R 42.Rd8 Ra1+ 43.K 43.Ke2 Nc3+ 44.K 44. Kf2 Rh1!

104  

‘By a wonderful stroke of fortune, Black can take the h-pawn (obtaining a passed h-pawn) and come  back for the less important a3 later.’ later.’ 45.Be1 45.B

The point is that 45. Rxd4 loses the bishop after 45...Rxh2+ 46.Ke3 Re2+. ‘It seems that when one impersonates Lasker, one gets lucky even without blowing cigar smoke in the opponent’s eyes.’ 45...Rxh2+ 46.K 45...R 46.Kf3 Ra2 47.R 47.Rxd4 Rxa3 48.R 48.Rd7 Kg6 49.B 49.Bf2 b5 50.f5+ Kxf5 51.R 51.Rxf7+ Kg6 52.R 52.Rd7 Na4

‘After the game, my opponent said that when the knight went to the far edge of the board, he thought, “At least I can forget about that for a while”. I wish I could meet the first writer who described the knight as a slow piece. I would like to thank him and shake his hand.’ 53.Kg4 Nb2 54.B 53.K 54.Bd4 h5+ 55.K 55.Kh4 Nxd3 56.R 56.Rxg7+ Kf5 57.K 57.Kxh5??

Of course, White should have given up the bishop to eliminate the final black pawn: 57.Rg5+ Ke4 58.Rxb5 with a theoretically drawn ending. Admittedly, Kasparov once won it against Judit Polgar in a classical tournament... 57...Nf4+ 58.K 57...N 58.Kh6 Rh3#

105  

Chapter 6  Knights versus bishops One particular aspect of chess strategy where Lasker is interesting is his attitude to minor pieces. Steinitz first demonstrated the value of the bishop pair and many of Lasker’s rivals, such as Capablanca and Rubinstein, were great bishop lovers. But Lasker had a reputation for preferring knights over bishops. It was not really true that he preferred them, but he did have a subtle appreciation of the strength of the knight and liked to exploit this. It is particularly noticeable in some of his games against Janowski (see the previous chapter). Amongst amateur players, great lip-service is paid to the strength of bishops, and the knight tends to be under-estimated. But not by everyone! In the chapter on defence, readers have already been introduced to my old friend and Lasker devotee, Michael Cook. Michael had his own ideas about chess strategy and one especial foible was a fondness for knights against bishops. Naturally, any educated player is aware that knights can often be better than bishops in closed or blocked positions,  but in more open positions, positions, most amateurs take it for granted granted that the bishop will always always be stronger. However, Michael had a much deeper understanding than this and he appreciated that there are many  positions where the knight knight can outperform the bishop, even though though the position could not not be described as blocked. In particular, one bishop on its own can only ever reach half of the squares on the board, whereas a knight can reach all 64. This ‘colour blindness’ of the bishop often enables a knight to be the superior piece, even when the position is relatively open. We saw an example of this in the endgame in Chapter 3, Game 8. In typically Laskerian style, Michael played in such a way as to exploit this whenever possible, taking advantage of the fact that his opponents tended to under-estimate the strength of the knight. This is of course exactly how Lasker played against such opponents as Janowski (see Games 10 and 22). The great Polish master had an overwhelming love of bishops and tended to overestimate his  position whenever he had the bishop bishop pair. Lasker took advantage of this, this, frequently heading into  positions where he ceded the bishop bishop pair to his opponent, hoping hoping that this would lead the the impulsive Pole into overrating his position and losing his objectivity. In Michael’s case, he would often win instructive games against club and county players, by exploiting the fact that they tended to overrate bishops and underrate knights. Roger and I would frequently watch with barely suppressed smiles, as even strong opponents greedily seized the ‘advantage’ of the bishop pair against a gainst Michael and then played optimistically to exploit their  superiority, blissfully unaware that they were being led up the garden path. The following game was a classic example of this. As Michael recently reminded me, I happened to witness it being played, as I was present to act as a neutral arbiter for the match. Michael’s opponent in this game was a strong South London player, consistently graded around 190 ECF, or 2200+ Elo, year in, year out, yet in this game, he went like a lamb to the slaughter:   Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence

Mark Robertson Michael Cook 

106  

Lewisham-Maidstone 1992 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7

Like Lasker himself, Michael always played this move, rather than the now ubiquitous 5... Nd6. 6.R 6.Re1!?

A perfectly natural move, which cannot be bad, but the most accurate line is 6.Qe2 when the tabiya  position arises almost by force after 6...Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 (7...dxc6? 8.dxe5 Nf5 9.Rd1 Bd7 10.e6 fxe6 11.Ne5 gives White a large advantage) 8.dxe5 N b7. 6...N 6... Nd6 7.B 7.Bxc6 bxc6

An interesting moment. With White having played 6. Re1 instead of 6.Qe2, Black could now play 7...dxc6 8.dxe5 Nf5 when 9.Qxd8+ Bxd8 would give him an improved variation of the Berlin Wall endgame nowadays so popular after 5... Nd6. In this version, Black has preserved castling rights and can untangle his pieces more easily. ea sily. Objectively, one could argue that this is the best continuation for  Black, but Michael follows his own path. He was used to reaching the tabiya tabiya position  position with the knight on b7, and he knew what he was doing in that position, so he sticks to that plan, notwithstanding the fact that objectively, taking with the d-pawn may be slightly superior. This is typical of the approach we discuss more in the chapter on openings. 8.dxe5 Nb7

This is effectively the basic tabiya tabiya position  position for this variation and modern theory has always claimed White is better here. In Common Sense in Chess, Chess, Lasker recommended the line (with White having

107  

 played 6.Qe2 rather than 6.Re1) and said that he did not believe White had any advantage here. Indeed, he even went so far as to suggest he slightly preferred Black, who has ‘held his forces back a little’. That is, of course, a slight exaggeration objectively, but the important point for us, as we emphasise in the openings chapter, is that whether either side has a small edge does not matter much. What is important is that the player understands the ideas of the position and has a few thoughts on how to handle it. If he has that, then he is likely to be able to outplay his opponent, whichever colour  he is playing. Michael Cook, of course, had exactly this. He understood that Black’s main immediate aim is to get in the move ...d7-d5, to free his game. If this cannot be achieved, then ...f7-f6 is the other  main break, looking to remove the cramping c ramping e5-pawn. 9.N 9.Nc3 0-0 10.N 10.Ne2?!

We already see that White, although a strong club and county player, does not really have any special idea how to play the position. He should have played 10. Nd4, making it hard for Black to achieve his desired pawn breaks. His move is not actually bad, but it does nothing to hinder Black’s plan. 10...f6 11.exf6 Bxf6 12.c3 Re8 13.N 13.Ned4 Rxe1+ 14.Q 14.Qxe1 c5 15.N 15.Ne2 d5

Black has achieved a comfortable position. Indeed, his bishop pair and extra space suggest that he could easily be somewhat better. But what follows is the key part of the game. Robertson is of course strong enough to realise the danger and he hurries to exchange off the bishops. Unfortunately, without realising it, that means he plays into Michael’s hands. 16.B 16. Bf4 Bg4 17.N 17.Ne5

Watching the game, I of course knew exactly what was going to happen here, because I knew Michael and his ideas about bishops and knights. I suspect most amateurs would have retreated the  bishop, retaining the pair of prelates, but Michael had already formed a different different plan – he intended to exchange off his bishops for the enemy knights and leave a position with knight v bishop. One can argue whether that is objectively the best plan, but as we have emphasised in this book, knowing what you are doing is often more effective at amateur level than trying to play the objectively very best moves. 17...B 17... Bxe5 18.B 18.Bxe5 Qe7 19.f4 Bxe2 20.Q 20.Qxe2 c4

108  

ow we see the point of Black’s idea. His knight is heading for a splendid outpost on d3. 21.Rd1 c6 22.Qf2

It seems that White still did not sense the danger. He should have broken up the enemy pawn chain with 22.b3. 22...N 22... Nc5 23.Q 23.Qd4 Re8 24.R 24.Re1?

Still oblivious to the danger. Again, 24.b3 was necessary, maintaining equality. 24...N 24... Nd3 25.R 25.Re2 Qc5 26.R 26.Rd2?!

26.Qxc5 Nxc5 was still enough to hold, but I suspect that White was not thinking in terms of  ‘holding the balance’, but actually thought he stood better. After all, he has R+B v R+N in an open  position and he has fewer pawn islands. islands. Why shouldn’t he be better? better? Well, the answer is that in this  position, the light squares squares in White’s camp are weak and the bishop bishop cannot contribute to the battle battle for  those squares, as it is ‘colour blind’. It was concepts such as this that Michael was so aware of in his understanding of the relative merits of bishop and knight. 26...Qxd4+ 27.cxd4 Re7 26...Q

109  

It was probably only around here that Robertson realised just how much trouble he was in. His bishop looks dominant in the centre, but in reality, it is just a big pawn and Black is able to play around it. 28.b3

This loses a pawn, but there was no better way to meet the threat of 28... R b7. 28...R 28... Rb7 29.K 29.Kf1 cxb3 30.axb3 Rxb3 31.R 31.Rc2 Nb4

ote how the knight is able to defend Black’s weak pawns, whereas the white bishop is completely inactive. The agile steed finishes the ending e nding off comfortably. 32.Rc1 Rb2 33.R 32.R 33.Ra1 Ra2 34.R 34.Rxa2 Nxa2 35.K 35.Ke2 Nc3+ 36.K 36.Kd3 Nb5 37.f5 h5 38.K 38.Kc2 Na3+ 39.K 39.Kb3 40.Bb8 a5 41.B 41.Bc7 Kf7 42.B 42.Bd8 Ne3 43.B 43.Bxa5 Nxf5 44.K 44.Kb4 Nxd4 45.B 45.Bd8 c5+ 46.K 46.Kxc5 Ne6+ Nc4 40.B 0-1

A nice example of the merits of knight versus bishop, even in an open position, but an even better  example of the importance of getting a position one understands and in which one has some ideas and  plans of how to play. Thanks to his familiarity with these Berlin positions, and to to his particular  appreciation of the merits of knights against bishops, even in positions which are not strictly closed, Michael was able to outplay a strong opponent with remarkable ease, regardless of the objective merits of the position.

110  

Chapter 7  Amorphous positions A typical and personal trait to be seen on a regular basis in Lasker’s own games is to build up an amorphous position. Sometimes this is because he did not get any clear sense of direction from his own build-up, and sometimes it is his way to puzzle the opponent. It can been seen in a way as an extension of Lasker’s ideas about the principle of defence. He sets up a restrained but resilient formation without weak links, hoping to take advantage of the potential energy stored therein, if the opponent does not react appropriately. It is not the principled chess that we would expect from a dominating player, but it is a practical approach from a seasoned fighter who knows that he is the better of the two, and sets up a flexible formation without committing himself, more or less hoping to ambush the opponent in the later stages of the game. It is a well-known fact that club and tournament players in general often have difficulties in coping with restrained but flexible formations against strong opposition. Having a small but strictly theoretical advantage, in most cases consisting of a bit of extra space, the player has to take decisions that can have far-reaching consequences. Strong strategists of a high calibre can work with this kind of edge, but most of us have difficulties in containing the opponent’s flexibility of options. The better   player knows when to change the pawn pawn structure into an advantageous one, as soon as he is given the chance. We will look at some telling examples played by Lasker himself, to get an idea about amorphous positions, and will then continue to show some modern examples e xamples by creative players that consistently toy with formless formations as a general battle strategy.   Ruy Lopez Smyslov Emanuel Lasker Harry Nelson Pillsbury  New York 1893 (8) In this game Lasker faced young Pillsbury for the first time, a talented young player who was to  become his most formidable formidable opponent soon. In this tournament the American finished in the middle of the field but we see Lasker approaching the game with care. 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 g6 4.B 4.Bxc6!?

The principled 4.c3 is to be expected from an elite player but Lasker had his own ways of dealing with the opening problem. He changes the structure, creating a strategic imbalance which forces his opponent to play actively. Though the endgame is far ahead there is a potential white passed pawn on the kingside. 4...dxc6 5.d3 Bg7

111  

6.N 6.Nc3

The other deployment is 6. N bd2 Ne7 7.b3 but after 7...c5 there is a strong grip on the central dark  squares and White’s plans for an endgame are postponed, at least. 6...B 6... Be6 7.B 7.Be3 Qe7 8.Q 8.Qe2 c5 9.h3

Here Lasker may have been a bit too cautious, as 9.0-0 f6 10. Nd2 0-0-0 11.N b3 b6 12.f4 would at least have unleashed some dynamic play. 9...c6 10.a4 b6 11.N 11.Nd2

Somehow White is not feeling happy with the proceedings, but there was still a possibility to liven up the fight with 11.a5 b5 12.0-0 f6 13.Nd2 0-0-0 14.f4. As we will see in the next couple of moves however, Lasker creates one of his amorphous positions, somehow changing to waiting-mode and concentrating on the inner harmony of his own position instead of taking steps to harm the opponent. 11...N 11... Nf6 12.f3!? Nd7

Maybe he had a better option in 12...Nh5!? 13.Qf2 0-0 when probably it is Black who is a tad better. 13.0-0 g5?!

Stops any ideas with f2-f4. This may be objectively playable, but it is exactly the kind of move Lasker is waiting for as it creates weak points. Even if we take into consideration that White cannot

 benefit from them for the time time being, it narrows Black’s path.

112  

14.N 14. Nd1 h6 15.c3 0-0 16.N 16.Nf2

A typical formation. White is rolled up like a porcupine, almost invulnerable to his rival’s actions, and waits for his chance. 16...R 16... Rfd8 17.R 17.Rfd1 Nf8 18.a5

Small pin-points to disturb the opponent, but for the time being Pillsbury is not to be intimidated. 18...Ng6 19.axb6 axb6 20.Q 18...N 20.Qf1 Nf4 21.R 21.Rxa8 Rxa8 22.R 22.Ra1 Qb7 23.Q 23.Qb1 Ra6 24.K 24.Kh2 Bf8 25.g3 Ng6

Though not necessary yet, probably the best move. 26.Kg2 Qa7 27.Rxa6 Qxa6 28.Nf1 Bd6

113  

Pillsbury has not given his illustrious opponent an inch and Lasker decides to change the pawn structure to guard against eventual play on the queenside. 29.c4 f6 30.B 30.Bd2 h5 31.N 31.Ne3 h4 32.N 32.Nfg4 Bxg4?!

This looks like the first small slip that the inexperienced opponent makes. 32...Be7 came clearly into consideration, whereas 32...hxg3 33.Nxf6+ Kf7 34.Nfg4 is probably better for White, although tricky. 33.hxg4 hxg3 34.N 34.Nf5 Bf8 35.K 35.Kxg3 Qa7 36.Q 36.Qf1 Qd7 37.Q 37.Qb1 Ne7

114  

White has the better bishop, but due to the blocked character of the position there is little he can do with it. Now the next stage is to let the opponent exchange on f5, which adds to White’s control, and then centralise the king to protect the soft spots and see if there is something to be gained. 38.Be3 Nxf5+ 39.exf5 Qh7 40.K 38.B 40.Kg2 Qd7 41.K 41.Kf2 Qa7 42.K 42.Ke2 Bd6 43.B 43.Bd2 Qa4 44.Q 44.Qh1 Qa7 45.B 45. Be3

45...K 45... Kg7?

And finally Black lowers his guard and is surprised by an ingenious blow. 46.B 46. Bxg5!! fxg5 47.f6+ Kg8

47...Kxf6 48.Qh6+ Kf7 49.Qh7+ is the tactical point. 48.Q 48. Qh6 Qf7

48...B b8 may hold according to modern modern engines but it looks a bit bit strange to the human eye; 48...Qh7 49.f7+ Qxf7 50.Qxd6 Qf4 51.Qxc6 Qh2+ 52.Kd1 however promises White good winning chances. 49.Q 49. Qxg5+ Kh8

49...Kf8 50.Qf5 (probably better than 50.Qh6+ Ke8 51.g5) and with White’s queen nicely placed, Black has difficulties in coping with the advancing pawns.

50.Q 50. Qf5 Bf8 51.g5 Qh5 52.Q 52.Qxe5 b5 53.K 53.Ke3 Qh4?

115  

In a dangerous position against a dangerous opponent, Black cracks. 54.f7+ Kh7 55.Q 55.Qf5+

and Black resigned as the queen goes after 55...Kh8 56.Qf6+ Kh7 57.g6+. Lasker used a psychological approach here that we often describe in modern words as ‘giving the opponent enough rope to hang himself’. It is not easy to keep playing good moves when the opponent holds back and is waiting for you. We are reminded of the recommendations of the old Chinese warlord Sun Tzu.   London System Emanuel Lasker Max Euwe Mährisch-Ostrau 1923 (8) This is probably an even more typical example of Lasker’s use of an amorphous position to put the onus on the opponent to find how to deal with it, and not to over-reach. It may not be a coincidence that his opponent is another young master, soon to climb up to World Championship contender. 1.d4 Nf6 2.N 2.Nf3 g6 3.B 3.Bf4 Bg7 4.Q 4.Qc1

This move, clearly intending to exchange the bishops, looks a bit primitive to the modern eye. We would rather play 4.e3 and proceed with sensible development. However, even at this early stage of  his career, Euwe was known as a young master with an excellent knowledge of the modern openings

(the choice of 2...g6 was already a typical modern idea for the time) and Lasker doubtless aimed at avoiding anything theoretical.

116  

4...h6

ow the queen is misplaced, but on the other hand Black has ruled out kingside castling for the time  being. 5.h3 b6 6.N 6.Nc3 Bb7 7.Q 7.Qd2

Correcting the placing of the queen, but it is clear that Black is very much OK in this opening. 7...a6

Ruling out any knight sally, although this was not a necessity. Moves like 7...d5 or 7...d6 strongly came into consideration. 8.R 8.Rd1

A bit unexpected but once more typical of Lasker’s cautious approach on a given day. Perfectly logical seems 8.0-0-0 but it is a well-known fact that the queenside castled position is generally slightly more vulnerable than the kingside castled position. White does not want to give his young and ambitious opponent any clear target for his counterplay with ...d7-d6 and ...c7-c5. 8...e6 9.Q 9.Qc1!? d6 10.g3 Nbd7 11.B 11.Bg2 Qe7

White’s enigmatic opening play has not been a success so far, and Black seems very much OK. In this position we see Lasker adopting the strategy of prophylaxis that Nimzowitsch claimed to have invented a few years later. He exchanges the bishop on b7 to get somewhat more of a potential grip

on the queenside, where Black’s king is supposed to hide. For his own king he has an unusual solution in mind as part of an a n amorphous construction.

117  

12.N 12. Nh4!

Instead of 12.0-0 0-0-0. 12...B 12... Bxg2 13.N 13.Nxg2 e5 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.B 15. Be3 Qe6 16.f3!?

This is the initiation of White’s idea. 16...0-0-0 17.Kf2

With a solid waiting formation, and lying in an ambush to strike where he spots a black target. 17...g5

Maybe it was wiser to consolidate his queenside castled position somewhat more before taking active measures. Lasker now starts counteraction. 18.b4! Nb8 19.Q 19.Qa3 Rxd1 20.N 20.Nxd1 Qf5 21.N 21.Nc3 Rd8

21...Qxc2 is an invitation to 22. Rc1 Qf5 23.Bxb6 with strong attacking chances. The engine suggests it is at least enough for equality and so probably indefensible for a human. 22.g4! Qxc2?!

The recklessness of youth. Instead 22... Qe6 came into consideration, for example 23.h4 (23.Q b3 with approximate equality is a sensible alternative) 23...gxh4?! (23... Qe7!) 24.Nxh4 e4 25.Nf5 and we like

White’s position somewhat more. Black’s move is a typical result of the provocative quality of   playing an amorphous position. position.

118  

23.R 23. Rc1 Qg6 24.b5

24...a5?

24...axb5? overdoes it – 25. Nxb5 c5 26.Rxc5+! checkmates; 24...K b7 25.Q b3 gives White compensation but no more; 24...Bf8 also came into consideration. 25.B 25. Bxb6 Nxg4+

25...cxb6 loses outright: 26.Nd5+ Kd7 27.Qe7# or 26...K b7 27.Rc7+ Ka8 28.Nxb6#. 26.hxg4 Qxb6+ 27.K 27.Kf1

Black is a pawn up but his position is full of holes on the light squares, White is strongly to be  preferred here. 27...h5

It was time to take defensive measures with 27...Bf8. 28.Q 28. Qb3! Qe6

After 28...hxg4 White executes his threat with 29.Nd5 but now Black’s structure is seriously weakened.

29.Q 29. Qxe6+ fxe6 30.gxh5 Rh8 31.K 31.Kf2

ot necessary, 31.Ne3 speeds up the process.

119  

31...R 31... Rxh5 32.N 32.Ne4

The result of this short hand-to-hand fighting episode is that Black has a rotten pawn formation with a  bad bishop, and he has to fight fight against an ideal blockade and very well placed knights. White’s amorphous position has blossomed into total control. 32...B 32... Bf8 33.K 33.Kg3 Rh8 34.N 34.Ne3! Bb4 35.N 35.Nc4 Rd8 36.K 36.Kg4 Kb7 37.K 37.Kxg5

37.a3 also came into consideration, but why not take the pawn? 37...c6 38.b6 Nd7 39.K 39.Kg6 Nxb6 40.N 40.Nxe5 Nd5 41.N 41.Nxc6 Nf4+ 42.K 42.Kg5 Rf8 43.N 43.Nxb4 axb4

A better practical chance was to get rid of as many pawns as possible with 43...Nxe2, but it is not easy to switch to desperation mode in a tournament game when there is no direct win for the opponent. 44.R 44. Rc2 Rf5+ 45.K 45.Kg4 Kb6 46.N 46.Nd6! Rf8 47.R 47.Rc8! Rf6 48.K 48.Kg5 Nd5 49.R 49.Rc2 Rf8 50.K 50.Kg6 Nc3 51.N 51.Nc4+

51.a3 has been recommended but 51... Nxe2 52.Rxe2 bxa3 greatly complicates White’s winning chances. 51...Kc5 52.N 51...K 52.Ne5 Ra8 53.N 53.Nd3+ Kb5 54.N 54.Nc1 Rf8 55.K 55.Kg7 Rf5

R 55... c8 came into consideration.

56.a3! Ka4 57.axb4 Kxb4 58.N 58.Na2 ! Nxa2 59.R 59.Rxa2

120  

59...Kc3 59...K

If 59...Re5 60.e4 Kc3 61.Kf6 wins. 60.Ra4 60.R

Cutting the king off and finally preparing to advance the pawn that he has held back so long. 60...Re5 61.e4 Rb5 62.f4 Kd3 63.K 60...R 63.Kf6 Ke3 64.e5 Rb6 65.f5 1-0

A fairly typical game with Lasker making a practical decision to hold back in a waiting formation at the moment that it is clear his opening has not worked out the way he probably expected. He declines to take on any more responsibilities and instead leaves it to his opponent to make decisions and to commit himself. We can see this reactive chess a number of times in Lasker’s games and it worked wonders for him. In the next game we see a contemporary use of an amorphous formation as an invitation to a complicated battle. The winner of this game (nicknamed the Dutch Suttles) once explained to one of  the co-authors that he liked classical openings in the Botvinnik style in his younger days but eventually switched to non-committal formations, because the opponent has to think for f or himself, and has to cope with the enemy’s flexibility. In addition, White often feels obliged to punish his counterpart for giving up a bit of space so easily. Philip du Chattel therefore felt this was a legitimate method to play for a win.  

King’s Fianchetto Peter de Roode Philip du Chattel

121  

 Netherlands tt 1987 1.d4 g6 2.e4 Nh6

In the Dutch Championship earlier in his career, Du Chattel played a slightly less provocative moveorder: 2...c6 3.c4 d6, although the knight eventually landed on h6 anyway. N 3.c4 d6 4. c3 c6

An interesting alternative is 4...Bg7, to meet the set-up 5.f3 with 5...f5!? now that White is solid but somewhat inert, for example 6. Be3 e5 7.Qd2 Nf7 8.Nge2 0-0 9.d5 Nd7 10.Nc1 Nf6 11.Bd3 c5 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.0-0 f4 14. Bf2 g5 15.Rd1 Be6 16.Bf1 as in Van der Poel-Du Chattel, Netherlands tt 1992, and 16...g4 seems sensible and OK. 5.N 5.Nf3

A knight on h6 can be a red rag to a bull for a certain type of player. For example, 5.h4 f6 6.h5 g5. This unusual position materialized by transposition in Rogers-Du Chattel, Utrecht 1988, and continued 7.g3 e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.f4 gxf4 11.gxf4 Ng4 12.f5 Na6 13.Nh3 Bc5 14.a3 Bd4 15.Na4 Bd7 16.Bd2 Ne3 17.Bxe3 Bxe3 with Black taking the driver’s seat. 5...B 5... Bg7 6.B 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 f6 8.b4 Nf7 9.Q 9.Qb3 e6

122  

Optimal flexibility. White’s next move is more or less invited. 10.d5 cxd5 11.exd5?!

To be honest, the structure that results from 11.cxd5 e5 would appeal more to us with the white  pieces. Of course, there too Black can engineer engineer his counterplay with ...f6-f5, but in the game Black  has a valuable central majority, while White’s queenside majority does not result in anything tangible. 11...e5 12.c5 f5 13.N 13.Nd2 e4 14.N 14.Nc4 Nd7 15.cxd6 Nde5 16.N 16.Nxe5 Bxe5 17.f4 exf3 18.R 18.Rxf3 Nxd6

The central majority is transformed into a strong blockade and good central control that soon  blossoms. 19.Bb2 Bd7 20.N 19.B 20.Nd1 Qf6 21.R 21.Rc1 Rac8 22.R 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.B 23.Bd3 Bd4+ 24.K 24.Kf1 Kf7 25.R 25.Rf4 Bxb2 26.Q 26. 27.Nxb2 Kf6 Qxb2 Qxb2 27.N

123

 

2.d4 g6 3.N 3.Nf3 c6 4.B 4.Be2 f6 5.0-0 Bg7 6.N 6.Nc3 0-0 7.B 7.Be3 d5 8.h3 e6 9.Q 9.Qd2 Nf7

It is not easy for White to get to grips with this set-up, even though objectively he may be a bit better. 10.Rad1 10.R

The annotator in the newspaper Utrechts Nieuwsblad  suggested  suggested 10.a4, as in the game Black is able to grab some space there without any risk. 10...b5 11.a3 a5 12.B 12.Bd3 Nd7 13.Q 13.Qc1 Nb6 14.R 14.Rfe1 Ra7 15.N 15.Nd2 Nd6 16.exd5 exd5 17.N 17.Nb3 Nbc4

White’s manoeuvring has lacked somewhat in effectiveness and Black seems to be fine already. 18.Bf4 g5 19.Bh2 f5

With the idea of shutting out White’s bishop and/or gaining attacking chances. 20.B 20. Be5 Ne4 21.f3 Bxe5 22.dxe5 Qb6+ 23.K 23.Kh2

125  

23...Nxe5! 23...N

Starting some creative attacking play. The cautious 23... Nxc3 was also possible and would have  promised Black an edge. 24.fxe4 Nf3+!

Black’s idea. 25.gxf3

25.Kh1 Nxe1 26.Rxe1 fxe4 with abundant compensation. 25...Q 25... Qf2+ 26.K 26.Kh1 Qxf3+ 27.K 27.Kh2 f4!?

126  

Black is brave and plays on instead of accepting a perpetual check – a good practical decision, as even the engines do not find a clear defence for White. At least there is no refutation. 28.Bf1 28.B

28.Qd2 Qxh3+ 29.Kg1 f3 was mentioned in the newspaper and seems to guarantee Black the advantage; 28.Re2 Bxh3 is less clear after 29.Nd4!, although probably still sufficient to hold the  balance. 28...Qg3+ 29.K 28...Q 29.Kh1 f3 30.Q 30.Qe3

30.Re3!? came into consideration. 30...B 30... Bxh3

ow Black is winning. 31.Rd2 Bxf1 32.R 31.R 32.Rxf1 Qh3+ 33.K 33.Kg1 Rf4 34.R 34.Rxf3

On 34.Kf2, 34...Qh4+ wins. 34...R 34... Rxf3 35.Q 35.Qxa7 Rf1#

A creative game and a treat to play over. Du Chattel’s creative way of handling the initial stage of the game deserves the occasional try in practice. Even the well-known Dutch chess master and

 pedagogue Hans Bouwmeester – a serious serious person – suggested this to to the readers of his his Prisma  Prisma Chess Yearbook 1975 after Du Chattel’s participation in the Dutch Championship.  

127  

King’s Fianchetto Pal Benko Duncan Suttles Boston 1964 1.N 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.N 4.Nc3 c6

Suttles was a fan of non-committal formations, right into his grandmasterhood. 5.B 5.Be2

5.Bc4 is an interesting alternative when 5...b5 6.Nxb5 d5 can lead to interesting complications. 5...N 5... Nd7 6.0-0 Nh6

The Canadian player had a partiality for keeping his knight away from the most logical development square f6. This way it does not hamper the movement of the f-pawn and can also be part of a trademark amorphous formation that we have also seen in the games of ‘the Dutch Suttles’. 7.h3

Two other practical examples from this position: 7. Bg5 f6 8.Be3 0-0 9.d5 and now that White has taken steps to pin down Black’s e-pawn Black’s logical rejoinder is 9...f5 10. Nd4 Bxd4 11.Qxd4 f4 with a murky situation in Janosevic-Suttles, Belgrade 1969. The engines indicate 12.dxc6!. 7.Re1 Qc7 8.a4 0-0 9.h3 Kh8 10.Bc4 e5 with a foothold in the centre, Jimenez-Suttles, Palma de

Mallorca 1970. 7...0-0 8.B 8.Be3 f6 9.Q 9.Qd2 Nf7

128  

This is how Suttles mainly used to play. Now he is ready to occupy the centre with ...e7-e5, retaining a measure of flexibility, so White takes steps to stop him. 10.d5! f5!

The logical reaction. 11.exf5 gxf5 12.N 12.Nd4

Intending to refute the ‘black nonsense’, but there is more to it than a classically trained chess player  would expect. In case of 12.Ng5 Nxg5 13.Bxg5 Nf6, White probably has some theoretical advantage  but it is not easy to come come to grips with Black’s pos position. ition. 12...B 12... Bxd4!

A great move that shows independence of mind. 12...Nf6 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.Nxc6 Qc7 looks a bit dubious, but with the text move Black’s position suddenly awakens. 13.B 13. Bxd4 cxd5 14.N 14.Nxd5 e5

Black has taken over the centre and the knight on f7 provides some solidity. 15.Bc3 15.B

Intending to immobilise Black s central mass with f2-f4, which is thematic classical play. Instead 15.Be3 f4 16.Nxf4 exf4 17.Bxf4 Qf6 is good for Black.

129  

15...f4! 16.B 16.Bc4!

A sly plan, taking advantage of Black’s slightly exposed king and threatening 17. Nxf4 exf4 18.Qxd6 when there are too many open lines and files for Black to cope with. 16...Nc5! 16...N

N Q 16... f6 fails to 17. xf4!. 17.N 17. Nxf4!

Relying on some cunning tactics. 17...Ne4 18.Q 17...N 18.Qe3 Nxc3 19.Q 19.Qg3+!

The point of White’s idea. 19...K 19... Kh8 20.Q 20.Qxc3 Ng5 21.N 21.Nh5

White has won a pawn but Black’s king is safe for the moment and White’s kingside is temporarily deserted. It is Suttles’ turn to strike.

21...R 21... Rf3!! 22.Q 22.Qd2

Benko was a tough character and he plays for a win: 22.gxf3 Nxh3+ 23.Kg2! Nf4+! (23...Qh4!? 24.Bf7 is probably drawn as well but more complicated) 24.Nxf4 Qg5+ and this great game would have ended in a peaceful draw.

130  

22...R 22... Rxh3! 23.B 23.Be2 Rh4 24.R 24.Rad1

White has consolidated and is ready to capitalize on Black’s pawn weaknesses, but the game is not over yet as Suttles throws fuel on the fire: 24...B 24... Bg4! 25.B 25.Bxg4 Rxg4 26.N 26.Ng3

Q N K Q There is no time to take the bait: 26. xd6 f3+ 27. h1 h4#. 26...Q 26... Qb6!

Still consistently playing against White’s king. 27.Q 27. Qxd6! Nf3+

27...Rxg3 fails to 28.Qxe5+. 28.gxf3 Rxg3+ 29.K 29.Kh2 Rg5!

In this game Suttles keeps finding tactical resources and this one threatens the white king. 30.f4!

30.Qxb6? gets checkmated after 30...Rh5+ 31.Kg3 Rg8+. 30...Rh5+?! 30...R

R

Playing for a win! However, it would have been more sensible to accept the fact that the game will be drawn and play either 30...exf4 or 30...Qxd6.

131  

31.K 31. Kg2 e4?

Going too far, and overlooking a tactic in the process. It was sensible to play 31...Qxd6, although he has some difficulty in fully equalising now that Black has slightly misplaced the rook and improved the position of White’s king. 32.Rg1! Rg8+ 32.R

32...Qxb2 was still a chance for survival, but Black was fixated on the game continuation. 33.K 33. Kf1 Qb5+

The next move must have rocked him out of his chair, as the game is suddenly decided in White’s favour. 34.Rd3!! Rxg1+ 35.K 34.R 35.Kxg1 1-0

An amazing battle, also showing the strategical and tactical potential of this type of amorphous  position. It needed a high-class high-class player like Pal Benko to find his way through the resulting complexities with white.   Benko’s Opening Duncan Suttles Predrag Ostojic

Belgrade 1969 (1) 1.g3

132  

Suttles liked to play non-committal opening set-ups with white as well. When you play for the initiative fromtype the first move,isopponents tend well prepared to meet initialthat aggression. That firm is why a certain of player happy to set upto anbe essentially waiting formation is inherently and adapt their plan to whatever the opponent responds. In many instances Suttles’ beloved formations had an amorphous character. 1...g6 2.B 2.Bg2 Bg7 3.d3 d5 4.N 4.Nc3

Provoking 4...d4 to gain control of e4, but Black does not oblige. 4...Nf6 5.B 4...N 5.Bd2 0-0 6.Q 6.Qc1

One is reminded of Lasker’s 4. c1 against Euwe. Here we may imagine some idea with Bh6 and h2h4, but in the game we see noneQof that. 6...c6

133  

Black has bolstered the central strongpoint at d5 and we would expect some central action soon, for  example with e2-e4, though some of White’s earlier moves do not really fit in. But the next move is  baffling and at first sight incomprehensible: incomprehensible: 7.N 7.Nd1!?

The knight has done its work, and that is why White played this piece away from the overprotected d5-pawn, in a way ‘under-attacking’ it in Suttles own words. 7...Re8 8.f3 7...R

By now Ostojic must have been utterly confused. 8...e5

I would strongly consider 8...d4 but Suttles thinks that 9. Nh3 or 9.Bh3 are eminently playable. 9.e4 Be6 10.N 10.Nh3 Qc8 11.N 11.Ndf2 a5 12.0-0

134  

The result of White’s enigmatic opening play is that he has constructed an amorphous formation on the kingside, with a couple of knights massed there to improve its dynamic potential the moment his  position expands. 12...dxe4 13.dxe4 Nbd7 14.R 14.Rd1 Nc5 15.B 15.Bf1

White keeps slowly preparing, as there is little his opponent can do in the offensive sense. 15...b5 16.b3 Bd7 17.B 17.Bh6 Ne6 18.B 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.f4

Finally White expands, with an eye on potential weaknesses on d6 and f6. 19...N 19... Nc5 20.fxe5 Nfxe4

20...Rxe5 21.Q b2. 21.Qf4 Nxf2 22.N 21.Q 22.Nxf2 Bf5 23.g4 Be6

Both 23...Bxc2 24.Rdc1 and 23...Ne6 24.Qd2 lose a piece. 24.B 24. Bg2 Ra6 25.R 25.Rd2 Qc7 26.R 26.Rad1 Qe7 27.R 27.Rd6 Rc8 28.R 28.Rf1 Nd7 29.N 29.Ne4

White is clearly better. Black was probably psychologically busted around here and under severe  pressure he makes a mistake.

29...Bd5? 29...B

135  

30.Qf6+! Nxf6 30.Q

30...Kf8 31.Qh8#. 31.exf6+ Kf8 32.fxe7+ Kxe7 33.R 33.Rdf6 Ra7 34.N 34.Ng5 1-0

It is almost magical how White reacted reac ted to Black’s set-up from his own waiting formation to take action at the appropriate time. Can you spot any clear mistakes in Black’s play?   Benko’s Opening Duncan Suttles Lev Polugaevsky Belgrade 1969 (5) 1.g3 d5 2.B 2.Bg2 e5 3.d3 Nf6 4.c3!?

4.Nf3 is the normal move that most would pick but Suttles is another kind of player. 4...c6

A solid and sensible set-up against king’s fianchetto formations. 5.Nd2 Nbd7 6.Nh3

Effectively the same as Black’s set-up in the game Benko-Suttles. 6...B 6... Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.f3!? a5 9.N 9.Nf2 b5

136  

White has defended potential weak spots in his formation and now feels it is time to expand: 10.f4 Bc5 11.e4 Re8?!

At the time Suttles himself suggested 11...exf4 12.gxf4 dxe4 13.dxe4 N b6. The text move is objectively playable but clearly Black must have overlooked the tactics that now disturb his plan. So in the practical sense, the text was not a wise move. 12.d4! exd4 13.cxd4 Bxd4 14.e5 Nxe5

Black could also have considered 14... Ng4 15.Qxg4 Nxe5 with unclear complications. N 15.fxe5 g4

15...Bxe5 16.Nf3 feels as slightly preferable for White. 16.Nf3 Bxf2+ 17.R 16.N 17.Rxf2 Nxf2 18.K 18.Kxf2 Bf5 19.Q 19.Qd4

137  

Materially, Black is OK, but White’s square control makes his position superior. 19...Be4 20.B 19...B 20.Bf4 Qd7 21.R 21.Re1 Qe7 22.R 22.Rc1 Rac8 23.Q 23.Qc5 Qd7 24.Q 24.Qd6 Qf5

With his blocked structure Black does not fancy defending an endgame. 25.N 25. Nd4 Qh5 26.h4 h6 27.B 27.Bf3! Bxf3 28.N 28.Nxf3 Qf5 29.N 29.Nd4 Qh3 30.K 30.Kf3 Kh7 31.R 31.Re1 Qh2

This looks a bit like a gamble in approaching time trouble, but what else is there to do for Black? 32.Q 32. Qd7!

ow the attack starts rolling. 32...Qxb2 33.N 32...Q 33.Nf5 Rf8 34.e6 fxe6 35.R 35.Rxe6 Kh8

If 35...Rxf5, 36.Rxh6+ Kg8 37.Qxf5 wins. 36.R 36. Re5 Rg8 37.N 37.Ne7 Rcd8

37...Rgf8 seems like the best practical chance. 38.N 38. Ng6+

Grabbing material and keeping up the attack with 38.Qxc6! was probably the best winning try.

38...Kh7 39.Q 38...K 39.Qf5 Rge8!

138  

In Suttles’ defence, it was hard to foresee that there is no immediate killer blow for White here. 40.Nf8+?! 40.N

White could have tried 40.Bxh6!? Kg8 41.Bf4 when Black has yet to stabilize his king. 40...K 40... Kg8 41.N 41.Ne6 Rd6?

41...Ra8 42.Nxg7 Rxe5 43.Bxe5 Qc1 looks hairy, but probably holds for Black now. 42.R 42. Re2?

42.Ng5! would have won on the spot. 42...Q 42... Qxe2+

Suddenly the game is completely unclear, and White accepted his opponent’s offer of a draw. Watching and playing Suttles in this Belgrade tournament, Botvinnik was impressed enough to praise his originality and playing strength. Clearly his non-committal and amorphous structures deserve closer scrutiny. In summary, then, playing such amorphous, undetermined formations can be an effective weapon,  particularly against the right opponent. Against a weaker player, especially especially one with a classical, straightforward approach to the game, it can be a good way of luring the opponent onto territory where he feels uncomfortable. It is also an effective way of playing for a win, such as in must-win

games, as such formations tend to avoid early exchanges, as well as theoretical forcing lines, and so  preserve the chance to outplay the opponent opponent later in the game.

139  

Chapter 8 An approach to the openings Emanuel Lasker played chess in a principled way, in the sense that he followed general rules of the struggle. But in the opening phase, especially with the black pieces, he did not – unlike a contemporary such as Tarrasch – search for the ultimate truth (if, indeed, such a thing exists). Instead his approach was practical and he had a couple of guidelines, such as development, limit the number  of pawn moves etc. His goal was to reach a middlegame without weak points. With the white pieces, one can afford to be a bit more ambitious and strive for strong points, but common sense told him that  playing with a tempo less, less, one is well advised not to overreach. In many mainstream openings ssuch uch as the Ruy Lopez or Queen’s Gambit, it is clear that there will be some pressure on Black because of the first-move initiative. Lasker liked to solve that pressure by making what in his eyes was a minor  concession: to give up some space (side-stepping risks in desperately trying to hold onto it) and thus solve the development problems, with a somewhat restricted but very solid position. This will be our approach in what follows. We propose a repertoire for both White and Black, following Lasker’s principles and approach. In some cases, c ases, this involves choosing specific openings that Lasker himself played regularly, whilst in some others, we choose lines he did not play himself,  but which nonetheless accord with with his approach. The key underlying philosophy philosophy is to avoid forcing forcing variations as much as possible, so as to minimise the need for rote learning and instead to enable the reader to reach a playable middlegame, with a solid position. Sometimes, particularly as Black, we may objectively stand slightly worse, but this was never a major consideration for Lasker – indeed, he even wrote that the player who stands slightly worse often ends up doing better, as he tends to play with greater attention and care, whereas the player who thinks he stands better after the opening frequently gets over-confident and careless. At amateur a mateur level, especially, most games are decided by tactical opportunities and it is of no relevance at all whether one side or the other has a quarter of a  pawn’s advantage after the opening. The important important thing is just to reach a playable position, with the  pieces developed and the king safe, preferably without significant pawn weaknesses. weaknesses. The rest is about one’s middlegame and endgame play. In this chapter, we just present the main opening moves in each line. The next chapter presents many illustrative games in the lines concerned, from which the reader can gain a greater  understanding of the typical middlegame plans and ideas. 1) Defending against 1.e4

When facing 1.e4, the soundest reply, creating good conditions for a smooth development of the  pieces, is 1...e5. This was overwhelmingly overwhelmingly Lasker’s principal choice. choice. Cecil Purdy, the famous Australian chess pedagogue and first World Champion in correspondence chess, wrote in 1976: ‘I  had no doubt then [in the Wch final], and still have no doubt, that 1...e5 is the best reply to 1.e4.’ Of  course, even a glance at the games from any modern super-tournament will demonstrate that almost all the world’s top GMs now agree. Our black repertoire is therefore based on this move.

Ruy Lopez – Steinitz Defence

In the Ruy Lopez White keeps pressure on the central dark squares and as a result Black must be very

140  

careful. He has a handful of double-edged responses at his disposal but walks a tightrope and needs to  back them up with accurate analysis to survive the opening phase. Nowadays Nowadays that is even more true than ever, because computer engines facilitate deep and principled analysis and it is easy to get lost in a minefield. We therefore recommend an old approach, that Lasker himself used successfully. 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6

Sensible development. By contrast, 3...a6 does not develop a piece.

4.0-0

This is White’s main reply. Other moves are: A) 4.d3 is especially popular these days, when White wishes to avoid the so-called Berlin Wall endgame after 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 etc. Now 4...Bc5 is the most popular move at GM level, but there is a lot of theory there and we prefer to recommend a more modest development, which avoids the theory and is also more consistent with our Steinitz Defence approach. Therefore in reply to the topical move 4.d3 we opt for 4....d6 5.N bd2 g6 (5...Be7 is also perfectly  playable, but in such positions, positions, the bishop stands w well ell on g7. In the normal lines with with d2-d4, when the  bishop comes to e7, Black often ends up redeploying it by means means of playing ...Re8, ...Bf8, ...g7-g6 and ...Bg7. Here, with White delaying central action, Black has time to put the bishop on g7 straightaway) 6.c3 Bg7 7.Nf1 0-0

141  

8.Bg5 (or 8.Ng3 Bd7 9.Ba4 Re8 10.0-0 a5 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bd2 d5 with equal chances, Gobet-Spassky, Fribourg 1987) 8...Ne7 (8...h6 9.Bh4 Ne7 10.Ne3 c6 11.Ba4 Qc7 12.B b3 a5 13.0-0 Bd7 14.d4 exd4 15.Qxd4 Nh5 16.Qd1 Rae8 was comfortable for Black in Svidler-Topalov, Monaco blind 2005) 9.h3 c6 10.Ba4 Nd7 11.g4?! was an example of Steinitz’s old favourite plan. White relies on the stable centre to start a kingside pawn storm. Svidler shows a sound modern approach to the defence: 11...Nc5 12.Bc2 Ne6 13.Be3 d5 14.Ng3 dxe4 15.dxe4 Qc7 16.Ng5 Nf4. Black stood better and eventually won in Sedlak-Svidler, Germany Bundesliga 2004/05; B) 4.Qe2 is a similar attempt to keep things closed. Now since White is not yet threatening to win the e5-pawn, Black could switch to 3...a6 lines with 4...a6 5.Ba4 (5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Qd4 regains the  pawn) 5...Be7 when a typical line runs 6.c3 d6 7.d4 Bd7 8.N bd2 exd4 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.cxd4 0-0 12.0-0 Rfe8 13.b3 Bf8 14.f3 g6 with a solid position, Varnusz-Szily, Budapest 1958. However, the simplest reply is 4... Be7 5.c3 (again, 5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Qd4 is fine for Black) 5...d6 6.d4 Nd7 (both unpinning the Nc6 and defending e5) 7.0-0 0-0 8.N bd2 Bf6 9.d5 Ne7 10.Bd3 c6 11.c4 a5 12.b3 g6 13.Ba3 c5 14.B b2 Bg7.

142  

Black has achieved a solid and a nd harmonious set-up, very reminiscent of the King’s Indian. His space disadvantage is not serious and he has potential counterplay with ...f7-f5. This was Karpov-Bisguier, Caracas 1970, and despite his phenomenal prowess at a t manoeuvring with the d4-d5 space advantage a dvantage in such Spanish positions, Karpov made no real progress in 85 moves of trying; C) 4.d4 can be safely defused by 4...exd4 5.0-0 (5.e5 Ne4 6.0-0 Be7 transposes): 5...Be7 (sidestepping the murky complications of 5...Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Nxd4 by simple development is a sensible approach) 6.e5 (after 6.Nxd4 0-0 7.Nc3 Tartakower suggested the simple and solid 7...Nxd4 8.Qxd4 d6) 6...Ne4 7.Nxd4 0-0 8.Nf5 d5 (of course White’s intention was 8...Nxe5 9.Qd5) 9.Bxc6 (9.Nxe7+ Nxe7 10.f3 Nc5 11.b4 Ne6 12.f4 f5 with approximate equality according to Tartakower and Du Mont in their notes to the game) 9...bxc6 10.Nxe7+ Qxe7.

143  

Marshall-Lasker, Wch m USA 1907. The opening phase of the game is more or less over and Black is very much OK with only one piece left to mobilize and a stable central position. Lasker went on to win an endgame masterpiece, which is examined in Chapter 9; D) 4.Nc3 transposes to the Four Knights below. 4...d6

As well as the main Berlin move 4...Nxe4, a double-edged move like 4...Bc5 is certainly playable,  but there is some tricky analysis analysis and Black must follow a narrow path. The Steinitz Defence is not among the very ambitious defences, but is very solid – it almost completely excludes nasty surprises and carries the weight of the struggle into the middlegame. 5.d4

The major alternative is 5.c3, to build up a classical Ruy Lopez centre. Black continues to develop in the same Steinitz Defence fashion: 5... Be7 6.d4 Bd7 7.Re1 0-0.

ow there is a tricky threat to be considered: A) 8.N bd2? allows 8...Nxd4!. Now 9.cxd4 Bxb5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Nxe5 regains the pawn, but 11...Nd7 gives Black a dangerous initiative, with his superior development. A youthful Luke McShane went down surprisingly quickly from this position: 12.Q b3 Ba6 (12...Nxe5! 13.Qxb5 Nd3 may be stronger still) 13. Nec4?! Nc5 14.Qc2 Qd3 15.Qxd3 Nxd3 16.Rd1 Rad8 17.b3 Bc5 18.Kf1 b5 0-1 McShane-Campora, Benasque 1996). A gambit alternative is 9. Nxd4 exd4 10.Bxd7 dxc3! 11.Ba4 cxd2 12.Bxd2, when White’s bishop pair and extra space offer some compensation for the pawn, but

Black has no weaknesses and in Ornstein-Bronstein, Budapest 1977, the great David Ionovich went on to win; B) 8.Ba4 sidesteps the trap: 8... Re8 9.N bd2 Bf8 (looking eventually to redeploy the bishop to a better   position on g7) 10.Bc2 h6 11.h3 (to sidestep the pin 11.Nf1 Bg4) 11...g6 12.Nf1 Nh7 13.Ne3 Bg7.

144  

Chances are about equal, Schlechter-Bernstein, San Sebastian 1911 (see Chapter 9 for the remainder  of the game). 5...Bd7 6.N 5...B 6.Nc3 Be7 7.R 7.Re1

ow 7...0-0? falls into the famous ‘Tarrasch trap’, losing a pawn after a long forcing variation: 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8 (10...Rfxd8 is similar: 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Kf1 Rf8 16.Ke2 Rae8 17.fxe4+–) 11.Nxe5. Now Black can only regain the  pawn by exposing himself himself to a fatal pin along the e-file: 11...Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Nxc5 Nxc5 16.Bg5 Rd7 17.Be7 and White wins material. Instead, Black should give up the central ce ntral outpost: 7...exd4 8.Nxd4 0-0

145  

Black has finished his development, and has a position without weaknesses. Lasker believed that was a priority when playing with the black pieces. Striving for the initiative is not Black’s natural  birthright! Patience is required, required, but this is an efficient and timeless timeless approach to the opening. A few examples: A) 9.b3 is well met by 9...Nxd4 (or maybe also 9...Re8 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bd3 Ng4 12.h3 Ne5 13.B b2 Bf6) 10.Qxd4 Bxb5 11.Nxb5 Nd7 (Tartakower suggested 11...Ne8!?), preparing ...Bf6, Koncielski-Tseitlin, Kleve 1999; B) 9.Nde2 keeps pieces on the board but Black gets counterplay with 9...a6 10.Bd3 Ng4 and ...Bf6; C) 9.Bxc6 bxc6 is the most common and leads to a regular structure in this opening. Although Black’s queenside pawns have been devalued, his isolated a-pawn is not on an open file, whilst the doubled c-pawns enhance his central control. He also has two bishops. It seems that he has adequate  play against the various white white continuations. For example: example: C1) 10.Bf4 (Geller’s recommendation in the old ECO and maybe most effective) 10...g6!? (concrete (c oncrete defence against White’s idea of pushing e4-e5 to disrupt Black’s position) 11.e5 Nh5 12.Bh6 Re8 13.Qf3 d5 14.e6 fxe6 15.Nxe6 Bxe6 16.Rxe6 Bd6 and the position is not at all clear, KrasnovTseitlin, Moscow 1973; C2) 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Re8 12.Qd2 Nh7 13.Bxe7 Rxe7 with approximate equality, LaskerCapablanca, Havana Wch m 1921. Instead, after 12.Qf3 Nh7 13.Bxe7 Rxe7 14.Rad1 Q b8 (a thematic manoeuvre in such positions), one of Michael Cook’s games (see next chapter) saw White caught after 15.e5?! by the surprising switchback 15...Qe8!, when he was struggling to avoid the loss of his e-pawn; C3) 10.b3 can be neutralised calmly by 10...Re8 11.B b2 Bf8 and ...g7-g6 & ...Bg7, but Black also has

the tactical trick 10...d5! based on the undefended Nc3, e.g. 11.e5 B b4! 12.B b2 Bxc3 13.Bxc3 Ne4 and Black is doing well. D) 9.Bf4 g6!? (as in line C1 above, this looks peculiar at first sight but is directed against White’s idea to take on c6 and follow up with e4-e5) 10.Qd2 (10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.e5 Nh5! is Black’s point)

146  

10...Re8 11.Rad1 (Utjazki-Tseitlin, Moscow 1974), and now simplest is Tseitlin’s suggestion 11...Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Bxb5 13.Nxb5 Nh5 14.Be3 a6 15.Nc3 Bf6 16.Qc4 Bxc3, with equality. The Scotch Opening 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.N 4.Nxd4

White can also proceed in gambit style here, e.g. 4.Bc4, when Black can sidestep all book lines with 4...d6 5.Nxd4 Nf6, transposing into the line 3. Bc4 d6!? for which the reader should consult the illustrative game Trofimov-Boleslavsky given in Chapter 9. The other gambit continuation 4.c3 can be neutralised by 4...d5 (the simple 4...d3 can also be recommended if Black does not mind playing a solid position with a little less space. This line will be especially suitable if Black wants to retain more tension in the position and thus more chances of   playing for a win), for example 5.exd5 5.exd5 Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Be2 B b4+ 8.Nc3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qe2+ Qxe2+ 12.Kxe2 0-0-0. As compensation for his broken pawns Black has excellent piece play against d4 and White’s king. This line was preferred by Capablanca.

4...B 4... Bc5

If we can develop this bishop to a natural square, why not? But, as Nimzowitsch indicated, even 4...d6!? is playable. He continues the line with 5.Be2 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.f4 Re8 9.Be3 Bf8 10.Bf3 Bd7 and Black holds the white centre in check. Black’s set-up here is very similar to the Old Steinitz against the Spanish, with the only difference that White’s bishop is on e2 instead of b5. That may or may not be in White’s favour (the bishop is less likely to be exchanged off on e2, but it is also

less aggressively placed there), but we feel sure that Lasker would argue that such a minor difference is anyway of no great significance; either way, Black’s position is perfectly playable, which is all we want in our scheme of things, and meanwhile, with 4...d6, he can dispense with hundreds of pages of 

147  

Scotch Game theory. Another logical developing move is 4...Nf6, which Lasker even indicates in Common Sense as Sense as the move most in accordance with his principles of development. However, in modern times the old Mieses Variation 5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.e5 has been analysed and tested at top GM level in enormous depth and it is difficult to sidestep the theoretical complexities in that line, so we will not try to do so. 5.B 5.Be3

The alternatives are as follows: A) The old continuation 5.Nf5 moves the knight for the third time and therefore it is logical that Black can afford 5...d6! 6.Nxg7+?! Kf8 7.Nh5 Qh4 8.Ng3 Nf6 9.Be2 Ne5 with dangerous attacking chances as a result, Timman-Borm, Netherlands tt 1984; B) 5.Nxc6 is another move played a good deal at top GM level. We now suggest the simple 5...bxc6!? (instead of the theoretical 5... Qf6 6.Qd2 or 6.Qf3, although the latter is also very much  playable) 6.Bd3 d6 7.Nc3 Nf6 (an interesting and economical way to play is 7...Ne7!? 8.0-0 Ng6 9.Kh1 (Kasimdzhanov-Graf, Namangan 2000) and now 9...0-0 10.f4 f5 seems to give Black a reasonable position) 8.0-0 (8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 Be6 invites 10.0-0 g5 11. Bg3 h5 and Black attacks the kingside where he has more pieces to participate; 8.Na4 B b6 does not hurt Black) 8...Ng4 (threatens 9...Qh4 with a direct decision and a nd prepares re-routing the knight to e5. White’s position does not have  bite and therefore he cannot take advantage of Black’s Black’s moving the same piece twice) twice) 9.Bf4 g5 10.Bd2 (10.Bg3 h5) 10...Qf6 with double- edged play, Miles-Sorin, Matanzas 1995; C) 5.N b3

5...B b4+!? (5...B b6 leads to a multitude of complex complex variations after 6.Nc3 (or 6.a4) and that is why in the practical sense the text move – disturbing White’s natural development – comes into consideration) 6.c3 (or 6.Bd2 a5 7.Bxb4?! (7.a3 Be7 8.Nc3 Nf6 looks OK for Black, as in Sveshnikov-Berzinsh, Riga 2003) 7...axb4 8. Bd3 Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 10.c4 Ne5 11.a3 Qe7 and Black’s

148  

chances were already to be preferred in Landenbergue-Kortchnoi, Ptuj 1995) 6...Be7 (Black has moved the bishop three times, but that is compensated by the white knight that has landed on b3 after  moving twice, and the pawn move c2-c3 c 2-c3 that hampers White’s development. So in retrospect, Black  has not really sinned against the development principles in the opening) 7.c4!? (logical, to clamp down on d5 and facilitate the development of the N b1) 7...Nf6 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Be2 Re8 10.f3 (10.0-0 a5! 11.a4 d6 12.Be3 Nd7 (Ljubojevic-Gligoric, Niksic 1977), and as usual with efficient opening choices for Black, White has some advantage in space, but Black has a very solid position and can make use of the queenside squares c5 and b4, after perhaps playing ...b7-b6 and ...B b7 first) 10...a5 11.a4?! (after this move there are some fixed weaknesses on White’s queenside; 11.0-0!? comes into consideration, e.g. 11...a4 12.Nd4 Bc5 (12...a3!?) 13.Be3 a3 14.b3 d6) 11...d6 12.0-0 Nd7 and Black  has secured a more or less equal position, Ivanovic-Petrosian, Tallinn 1979.

5...B 5... Bb6!?

The so-called principled continuation runs 5...Qf6 6.c3 (6.N b5 can stir up unclear complications) complications) 6...Nge7 and in modern days 7.Bc4 has developed an extensive body of theory. For that reason we  prefer a simple defensive move, played by Lasker, of which Spielmann wrote: wrote: ‘Simple and sound, and avoiding many book variations.’ 6.B 6.Bc4

A major alternative is 6. Nc3 d6 7.Nd5?! (7.Bc4 transposes to the game; 7.Qd2 Nf6 is possible as well when White has his usual slight plus but Black is solid) 7... Nf6 8.Nxb6 axb6 9.Nxc6 (there is

little choice as 9.f3 d5 is already comfortable for Black – even 9...0-0 10.c4 Re8 comes into consideration when 11.Be2 Nxe4!? is a field for exploration) 9...bxc6 10.Bd3 Qe7! 11.0-0 Qe5 (11...Nxe4? is reckless, when 12.Bxe4 Qxe4 13.Bxb6 Qe7 14.Qf3 gives Black many problems to solve; maybe 14...Ra6 gives chances for salvation but that is not an inviting sequence)

149  

12.Qc1 0-0 and the white bishop pair has not much potential. Black was very much OK with his compact formation, good pieces, and measure of central control, in Mieses-Lasker, St Petersburg 1909. White can also play the simple and controlled 6.Nf5 Bxe3 7.Nxe3 Nf6 8.Nc3 0-0 9.g3 d6 10.Bg2 Bd7 (10...Re8) 11.0-0 Qc8 (11...Re8) 12.Re1 Bh3 13.Bh1 Re8 (Sveshnikov-Barle, Ljubljana 1994). White is slightly better but Black’s position is resilient. 6...d6

A good alternative is 6... Nge7, when play can proceed 7.Nxc6?! bxc6 8.Qf3 d5 9.exd5 cxd5 10.Bxb6 axb6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nc3 c6 13.Bd3 Ng6 14.Rfe1 f5! and Black was already drumming up attacking chances in Mieses-Rubinstein, Baden-Baden 1925. 7.N 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.N 8.Nxc6

At first sight this is not a logical move but White hopes that the following pin is effective. 8...bxc6 9.B 9.Bg5

150  

Mieses-Spielmann, Regensburg m 1910. Now Spielmann played 9...0-0, but later he said that 9...Be6 or 9...h6 10.Bh4 Be6 would have been the most reliable way to proceed. Black has a perfectly good game. The Italian Game 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bc4 Bc5

We will also take a look at the efficient and solid reply 3...d6, but the text is what Emanuel Lasker  used to play in most of the games against strong opposition. The most important alternative is 3...Nf6 but then you must be ready to sacrifice a pawn after 4. Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5, which is playable, but conflicts a bit with our opening principles at such an early stage. There is also a lot of sharp theory in such lines, which we prefer to avoid.

151  

4.c3

A) White can play the famous Evans Gambit 4.b4 and try to pull Black into double-edged adventures. We decided to get this ‘out of the way’ with the simple but surprising counterstrike in the centre: 4...d5!?. ow there are two alternatives: A1) 5.Bxd5?! Nxb4 6.B b3 Nf6 7.Qe2 0-0 8.0-0 Bg4 9.B b2 Nc6 and the computer already slightly  prefers Black. Alternatively, 9...Qe7= was the finishing move of Pachman’s old suggestion, whilst 9...Nh5!? also comes into consideration, when after 10.Bxe5?! Nc6 White is in dire straits; A2) 5.exd5 Nxb4 and now: A21) 6.c3 Nxd5 7.Q b3 (7.Nxe5 Nge7 8.d4 Bd6 and Black develops smoothly which compensates for White’s extra central pawn; for example, 9.Qf3 Bxe5 (9...0-0!? is somewhat more adventurous  but should be OK according to to the engines) 10.dxe5 0-0) 7...c6 8.Nxe5 Qg5 (Suhle-Neumann, Berlin 1865), and Black is definitely better; A22) 6.0-0. Now 6...Bg4!? leads to complications that seem satisfactory for f or Black, but we recommend the simpler and sounder 6... Nf6 7.Nxe5 0-0

152  

8.d4 Be7!. Now Black is fine after either 9.Nc3!? N bxd5 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.Qf3 Be6 12.R b1 R b8, when any white edge is minimal, or 9.B b3 N bxd5 10.c4 N b6 11.B b2 c5! 12.d5 Bd6 13.Nd2 Re8 14.Ndf3 Qc7 15.Re1 Ng4, and Black developed counterplay in Asker-Miettinen, cr 1998. B) 4.0-0 is another move-order, when we suggest as simplest 4...d6!? (4... Nf6 is obvious, but then White sometimes plays the strange gambit 5.d4!?, which is tricky to meet without detailed knowledge; 4...d6 avoids that danger) 5.c3 Qf6 6.d3 h6 7.Be3 Nge7 (Rabiega-Jussupow, Altenkirchen 2001) with a solid position that has active ac tive possibilities. 4...N 4... Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4

6.e5 d5 7.B b5 Ne4 8.cxd4 B b6 is quite OK for Black after 9.0-0 0-0 0-0 10.Nc3 (10.Be3 Bg4) 10...Bg4 11.Be3 f5 12.exf6 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Qxf6, Steinitz-Schiffers, Vienna 1898; if 6.0-0 Nxe4 7.cxd4 d5! neutralises everything. 6...B 6... Bb4+ 7.B 7.Bd2

The well-known Greco Gambit 7.Nc3 is rather harmless when Black plays 7...Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5!

153  

9...Ne5 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 (Schlechter-Lasker, London 1899) and now 11...0-0 12. Qxc4 Nd6 sidesteps all complications, and Black is very much OK, with ...Re8, maybe ...b7-b6 and ...B b7 depending on White’s course of action. 7...N 7... Nxe4!?

A solid alternative is 7... Bxd2+ 8.N bxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Q b3 Nce7. 8.B 8.Bxb4 Nxb4 9.B 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Q 10.Qb3+

10...d5!?

154  

10...Kf8 11.Qxb4+ Qe7 is another simple equalizer. 11.Q 11. Qxb4

11.Ne5+ Ke6 12.Qxb4 Qf8 (Black can play for more with 12...c5!?, Lee-Flear, Torquay 2002, but has to take some risks thereby) 13.Qxf8 Rxf8. 11...Rf8 12.0-0 Kg8 13.N 11...R 13.Nc3 Nxc3

ow 14.Qxc3 is correct, with perhaps a small edge for White. Instead, a Lasker simultaneous game saw his opponent blunder with 14.bxc3?? Rxf3!

With White’s queen far away from the action and White’s king deserted, Black needs no further  invitation. 15.gxf3 Bh3 16.K 16.Kh1 Qf6 17.f4 Qg6 18.R 18.Rg1 Qe4+ 19.f3 Qxf3+ 20.R 20.Rg2 Qxg2# The Giuoco Pianissimo

These lines are characterised by White not striving for d2-d4. These have become quite popular  recently at super-GM level, but objectively, Black has no great problems:

1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3

The Four Knights Italian 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.Bg5 has been known to be harmless for ages.

155  

White may have a very small edge after 6...h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.c3, although even this is debatable after 9...a6 (or even the simplifying 9...Ne7) 10.d4 Ba7. However, the cleanest equalizer in the diagram position is 6...Na5!? and an important white piece is bound to disappear from the board. ow 7.B b3 c6 is absolutely fine, whilst whilst the attempt to take advantage of B Black’s lack’s failure to break the  pin on the Nf6, by means of 7.Nd5, runs into a surprise: 7...Nxc4 8.dxc4 Bxf2+! 9.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 10.Kf1 Nxg5 11.Nxg5 c6! and White loses material, Degenhardt-Unzicker, Bad Aibling 1965. Remarkably, the great David Bronstein twice reached the position after 8.dxc4, against Kortchnoi and Eliskases, and both times chose the less effective 8...c6 (although he did grind out long wins in both games). He wrote in 200 Open Games that Games that he avoided the forcing 8...Bxf2+ because the theory of his day suggested that at the end of the above variation, matters were unclear after 12. Qh5 g6 13.Qf3. However, the modern computer dismisses this with 13...f5 and a clear advantage to Black. If White intends to play the ‘Slow Italian’ with c2-c3 and d2-d3, a possibly more accurate move-order  is 4.d3 Nf6 5.0-0, as 5.c3 a6 gives Black the additional option to play for ...d7-d5 in one move. Of  course these are details and the simple 5...d6 is not bad at all. 4...N 4... Nf6 5.d3 d6

156  

N 6. bd2

6.b4 B b6 7.a4 is another strategy, focussing focussing on the queenside. Then for example example 7...a6 (somewhat more forcing is 7...a5 8.b5 and the re-routing of the queen’s knight to g6 – which is a natural plan for  Black – is the natural follow-up: 8...Ne7 9.0-0 Ng6 10.N bd2 0-0 11.Ba3 Nh5! 12.d4 (12.Nxe5? Nxe5 13.Qxh5 Bg4 and the queen is gone) 12...Nhf4 13.dxe5 Bg4! with dangerous attacking chances against White’s kingside, Lutz-Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 1995) 8.0-0 Ne7 (a thematic regrouping as we mentioned in the last note) and now an old Lasker game went 9.Be3 c6 10.Qe1 Ng6 11.N bd2 0-0 12.Ba2 Bc7 13.a5 d5 with good counterplay, c ounterplay, Morgan-Lasker, USA simul 1907. 6...a6

Another game between these players in the same elite tournament went 6...0-0 7.Nf1 (more natural is 7.0-0 a6 8.Re1 Ba7, but Black has no particular worries) 7...d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Be3 Nxe3 10.fxe3 (10.Nxe3 Na5 when 11.Nxe5 Bxe3 12.fxe3 Qg5 favours Black) 10...e4!? (an alternative is 10...Kh8 with the idea ...f7-f5) 11.dxe4 Qe7 with a good game for Black, as the extra white pawn has no value, Chigorin-Lasker, St Petersburg 1896. 7.h3

A modern approach is 7.0-0 0-0 8.a4 (or 8.B b3 Ba7 9.h3 h6!? 10.Re1 Be6 with decent chances) 8... a7 9.h3 and once again we see the common regrouping manoeuvre 9... e7! 10. e1

g6 11.d4

B a trustworthy position for Black. c6 with

N

R

N

7...B 7... Ba7

157  

7...Be6 should more or less equalise. 8.B 8.Bb3 Nd7

A concrete decision, otherwise 8...0-0 is a sound developing move. 9.N 9.Nf1 Nc5 10.B 10.Bc2

10.Bg5 f6 11.Be3 does not bring any dividends as the strong bishop is gone after 11...Nxb3. 10...d5

Black has counterplay in the centre and more or less equal chances, Chigorin-Lasker, St Petersburg 1895. The Ponziani 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3

158  

White intends to occupy the centre immediately but this slows down his development a bit so that Black can gain counterplay by development: 3...Nf6 4.d4 3...N

4.d3 d5 is more or less equal. 4...N 4... Nxe4

Once again we can also build up in the style of the Steinitz Defence with 4...d6!?, for example 5. B b5 (5.dxe5 leads to a duller position and this may put some black players off) 5...Bd7 6.Qe2 Be7 7.0-0 00 8.d5 N b8 9.Bd3 c6 10.c4 Na6 11.Nc3 Nc5 with counterplay, Dückstein-Gligoric, Tel Aviv 1964. 5.d5 Ne7 6.N 6.Nxe5 Ng6 7.B 7.Bd3!

7.Qd4 Qf6!=. 7...N 7... Nxe5

Do not fall for the trick 7...Nxf2? 8.Bxg6!!, winning. 8.B 8.Bxe4 Bc5

With equality, Kuijf-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1990.

The Four Knights 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.N 3.Nc3 Nf6

159  

Black can also play the more reserved 3...d6 here, which is covered in the game TrofimovBoleslavsky in Chapter 9.

4.d4

This transposition to the Scotch, whilst avoiding our recommended 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5, is the only independent line that need concern Black. By contrast, the classical Four Knights move 4. B b5 can be met simply by 4...d6, transposing back into the Spanish Steinitz Defence lines covered above. Similarly, 4.g3 is a fairly modern idea, practiced by grandmaster Igor Glek, which can transpose into the Vienna Game with 3.g3 after 4...Bc5. 4...exd4 5.N 5.Nxd4

Confronted with a gambit like 5. Nd5 (the Belgrade Gambit), it is common sense policy to develop naturally with 5...Be7! 6.Bf4 d6 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nxd5, intending ...Bf6, and Black has no worries. 5...B 5... Bb4 6.N 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.B 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 d5 9.exd5 cxd5 10. 10.B Bg5 c6

160  

With a classical build-up. There may follow 11.Ne2 Bd6 (11...h6 12.Bh4 Bd6 13.Nd4 c5 14.Nf5?! position, Lutz-Jussupow, Munich 1992; 1992; an old and sensible Bxf5 15.Bxf5 R b8 and Black has a good position, suggestion by Tarrasch is 11...Re8 12.Nd4 Qd6!?) 12.Nd4 Bd7 13.Qf3 Re8 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6. It has become common knowledge that in this line of the Scotch Four Knights, Black should not fear the doubled f-pawn in the endgame: 16.Bf5 Bxf5 17.Nxf5 Bc5 18.Rfe1 Re5, MnatsakanianKarpov, Daugavpils 1971, with good counterplay. The Vienna Game 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nc3 Nf6

White has three major ideas here: the direct f2-f4, taking advantage of the knight on f6, development

161  

followed by the preparation of f2-f4, and slow development with g2-g3. 3.f4

3.Bc4 can be neutralised most simply by 3...Nxe4!.

The fork-trick secures a sorrow-free life here: 4.Qh5! (4.Nxe4 d5; 4.Bxf7+ Kxf7 5.Nxe4 d5) 4...Nd6 5.B b3 Be7! (not clinging to the pawn and inviting double-edged adventures with 5...Nc6 6.N b5) 6.Nf3 (6.Qxe5 0-0) 6...Nc6 7.Nxe5 0-0 and Black is OK. 3.g3 is solid but slow and does not present Black with a difficult task. After 3...Bc5 4.Bg2 Nc6

5.Nge2 (possibly 5.Nf3 d6 6.d3 a6 is slightly more reliable) 5...d6 (with the idea ..Be6 and ...Nd7) 6.0-0 h5! Black can play for a direct attack.

162  

3...d5!

White’s idea is 3...exf4 4.e5 which disturbs Black’s position. 4.fxe5 Nxe4

5.d3

Most dependable may be 5. Nf3 and then 5...Be7 6.d4 0-0 7.Bd3 f5 8.exf6 Bxf6! 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Nxe4 dxe4 11.Bxe4 Nxd4 12.Ng5 Bf5 and Black equalises, Konstantinopolsky-Keres, Moscow 1940. A  popular choice is 5.Qf3 but the solid 5...f5!? 6.d3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 d4 is equal at least. 5...N 5... Nxc3!

Avoiding adventures with 5...Qh4+ 6.g3 Nxg3 7.Nf3 Qh5 8.Nxd5! which seem advantageous for  White anyway! 6.bxc3

163  

6...Nc6

A solid way of playing is 6...Be7 7.Nf3 0-0 8.d4 f6=. 7.N 7.Nf3

ot 7.d4? Qh4+, disrupting the white king. 7...d4! 8.B 8.Bb2

8.cxd4 B b4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Nxd4 leaves White’s position disorganised. 8...B 8... Bg4

Focussed development. 9.B 9.Be2

9.cxd4 Nxd4 10.Be2 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Qh4+ forces White to move the king. 9...dxc3 10.B 10.Bxc3 Bc5

164  

This is very irritating – where does the king go? Black is already better. Now the game Shaposhnikov-Kortchnoi, Sochi 1958, ended quickly after 11.Qd2 (11.d4 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Nxd4 is already problematic) 11...0-0 12.0-0-0 Qd5 13.Qf4 Be6 14.a4 Rfd8 15.Kd2 (15.Qc4 may have been the only move but does not inspire confidence) 15...a5 16.Ba1 N b4 17.Ng5 Nxc2! 18.Nxe6 (18.Kxc2 Qa2+ 19.B b2 Bd4) 18...Qa2! 0-1. The Bishop’s Opening 1.e4 e5 2.B 2.Bc4

This often transposes into the Vienna or Italian openings. N 2... f6

165  

3.d3

Alternatives: A) 3.d4?! exd4 4.Nf3 (4.e5 d5!) 4...Nxe4! 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nc3 c6! 8.0-0-0 d5! with a solid  position, White has to prove that he is compensated for his pawn; B) 3.Nc3 transposes to the Vienna Game. 3...c6

Targetting the Bc4. 4.Nf3!

Black has little to fear after both 4.f4 exf4 5.Bxf4 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5! and 4.Qe2 Bc5 (even 4...d5!? 5.exd5 cxd5 6.Qxe5+ Be7 offers good compensation) 5. Nf3 d6 6.0-0 0-0 7.c3 (Maier-Hort, Bad euenahr 1989) and now 7...b5 8.B b3 Re8 is fine for Black; C) 4.B b3 Bc5 5.Nf3 d6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.0-0 N bd7 8.Ne2 B b6 9.c3 Nc5 10.Bc2 Bg4 with equality, Hartston-Petrosian, Moscow 1977. 4...B 4... Be7

A simple developing move that keeps ...d7-d5 in the air. The immediate 4...d5 is also possible, but

after 5.B b3 the black centre is under some pressure pressure and it seems easier to delay the central advance advance until a more propitious moment. 5.B 5.Bb3 0-0 6.0-0

166  

6.Nxe5? Qa5+ drops a piece. 6...d6 7.N 7.Nbd2 Nbd7 8.c3 d5

ow it is time for central expansion. 9.R 9.Re1 Qc7

With a more or less balanced position, Inkiov-Beliavsky, Novi Sad ol 1990. The King’s Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4

The famous King’s Gambit, the opening of the chivalrous attackers in bygone times. White gives up a  pawn – sometimes temporarily temporarily – to improve his central influence. influence. Of course, 2...exf4 is the critical line and this was even advocated by Lasker in Common Sense. Sense. However, there is a huge amount of  theory on all such lines and, in accordance with our policy of seeking the simplest and most economic ways to get a playable position as Black, rather than trying to refute anything, we advocate the following: 2...N 2... Nf6!?

Simple development, avoiding double-edged positions, and a typical common-sense approach. As

well as having been a favourite with Lasker s contemporary Ossip Bernstein, the move has been  played by such solid modern modern GMs as Kholmov and Juss Jussupow. upow. 3.fxe5

167  

3.Nc3 d5! transposes to the Vienna Game and if then 4.exd5, 4...Nxd5. Similarly, 3.Nf3 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 transposes to 4...d5. 3...N 3... Nxe4 4.N 4.Nf3

4...N 4... Ng5!?

An old idea devised by Isidor I sidor Gunsberg to simplify matters. An alternative which maintains more tension (and so may be useful if Black wishes to play for a win) is 4...d5 5.d3 Nc5 6.d4 Ne6 7.Bd3 c5! 8.c3 Nc6 with counterplay, as in Showalter-Pollock, Georgetown 1891. 5.Nc3

After 5.d4 Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Qh4+ 7.Qf2 Qxf2+ 8.Kxf2

168  

8...Nc6 (Tartakower suggests 8...d6 first) 9.c3 d6 provides a solid position for Black, although White may be a shade better because of his extra central pawn. Another idea is 5.c3 d6 (or 5...Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3, Chigorin-Bernstein, Kiev 1903, and now 6...d6 is equal) 6.d4 (6.Nxg5 Qxg5 7.d4 Qh4+) 6...Nxf3+ 7.Qxf3 Qh4+ 8.g3 Qg4! 9.Qxg4 Bxg4 10.Bg2 c6 with equality, according to analysis by Ravinsky. A creative but slightly weird line was also devised by Ravinsky: 5.B b5!? c6 (5...a6!?) 6.0-0 cxb5 7.d4 Ne6 8.d5 Bc5+ (the engines like 8...Q b6+ 9.Kh1 Nd8, but that may be risky) 9.Kh1 0-0!?, with unclear play per Ravinsky, but Black seems fine here. 5...N 5... Nc6 6.Q 6.Qe2?! Nxf3+ 7.gxf3

Q B 7. xf3 c5 is advantageous for Black. 7...N 7... Nd4

7...Bc5 may be even stronger. 8.Q 8.Qe4

169  

8...Qh4+!?

A shocker, but it may still be OK for White. 9.K 9.Kd1

9.Qxh4! Nxf3+ 10.Kf2 Nxh4 11.d4 with fair compensation as Black has to play 11...h6 or 11..c6 to stop White’s threat of 12. N b5. 9...Q 9... Qxe4 10.fxe4 d6 11.exd6 Bg4+ 12.N 12.Ne2 Bxd6

Black is clearly better now, having superior mobilisation and targets, La Rota-Bernstein, Philadelphia 1979. The Centre Game and Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4

Another direct pawn thrust against Black’s centre. 2...exd4 3.Q 3.Qxd4

The major alternative is the Danish Gambit 3.c3. A few minutes with the computer will reveal that

White is virtually busted if Black takes the pawns, but this again leads to forcing lines, which the  black player should be wary of playing playing without preparation. Our ‘minimalist’ solution is therefore to decline the offer. offer . Black has several good options, of which we recommend Tarrasch’s suggestion 3...d5 4.exd5 Nf6 (4...Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 transposes to the Scotch with 4.c3) 5. Bc4 Nxd5 or even 5...c6 with a decent game.

170  

3...N 3... Nc6 4.Q 4.Qe3 Be7!?

Side-stepping weird complications such as 4...Nf6 5.e5 Ng4 6.Qe4 d5 7.exd6+ Be6, for example: 8.Ba6!? (8.dxc7 Qd1+!) 8...Qxd6 9.Bxb7 Q b4+!. 5.N 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.B 6.Bd2

6.Bc4 0-0 7.Nge2 Ng4 with counterplay, Troianescu-Spassky, Bucharest 1953. 6...0-0 7.0-0-0

7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 N b4! Levitsky-Alekhine, St Petersburg Petersburg 1913. 7...d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.N 9.Nxd5 Qxd5

Mieses-Alekhine, Scheveningen 1913, with easy equality, for example 10. B b4!? Bg5.

171  

2) Defending against 1.d4 Against 1.d4, we are again following our basic principle of defending solidly and simply, avoiding forcing variations wherever possible, and being prepared to accept a slightly cramped game, but no organic weaknesses. The best way to do this is by defending the Queen’s Gambit Declined with the Orthodox Defence. Lasker himself almost invariably did this. It also has the great practical advantage that the same basic set-up can be used against flank openings, such as the English and Catalan, thus complying with our principle of efficiency – Black has no need to learn another system to meet these different move-orders. The Queen’s Gambit Declined 1.d4 d5

The classical reply, making White in the first instance fight for his space. 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nc3

After 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 we have the Catalan Opening which will be treated separately. 3...N 3... Nf6

An important position in the QGD, as this is a parting of the ways. White has three major choices to

 play for an advantage: 1) the main line (with Bg5 and e2-e3); 2) the Exchange Variation (with cxd5); and 3) the approach with Bf4, which is state of the art nowadays. We will take an introductory look at a t these possibilities here.

172  

The main line 4.B 4.Bg5 Nbd7

Lasker’s name is associated with the lines involving an early ... Ne4 by Black, i.e. 4...Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bh4 Ne4. In fact, the ...Ne4 idea was not his – it had been used already by the great English master Atkins, and Lasker’s contribution was to flick in the moves ...h7-h6 and Bh4, an interpolation which generally helps Black (Atkins himself tended to play 6...Ne4). However, Lasker  did not actually play his eponymous defence all that often, generally preferring the Orthodox. We have decided not to recommend the Lasker here, principally because it has become quite popular at super-GM level over recent years, featuring heavily in World Championship Matches (e.g. AnandTopalov) and thus attracting a large body of theory. 5.e3 c6

Lasker played like this in a famous game with Euwe, but modern theoreticians consider an early ...c7c6 less flexible and generally continue 5...Be7 6.Nf3 0-0. Now 7.Qc2 (7.Rc1 c6 transposes to our  line) gives Black the additional option 7...c5. However, it is still not clear if that is a better option than 7...c6 (Kasparov has scored well on the white side after 7...c5) and following Lasker’s principles we are not so much interested in secondary details, but instead in sound and solid development. We see no objective reason not to play like Lasker.

6.Nf3 Be7

ow White must make a decision. Broadly, he has two options here: 7.Rc1, which leads to the Orthodox line, and the attempt to exploit Black’s early ...c7-c6 with 7. Qc2. We examine each in turn. The Orthodox 7.R 7.Rc1

173  

7.R 7.Rc1 0-0 8.B 8.Bd3

Both can try to fight for the tempo with 8.Qc2 a6 9.a3 h6 10.Bh4 Re8, but this makes little fundamental difference to the plans of the two sides. 8...dxc4 9.B 9.Bxc4

9...N 9... Nd5

This is Capablanca’s freeing manoeuvre. 10.Bxe7 Qxe7

ow Black is solid enough, but should keep an eye on his bishop on c8 and activating that piece should be part of his plan. 11.0-0

White can keep an extra set of pieces on the board and thus play for more with Alekhine’s old favourite 11.Ne4 N5f6 12.Ng3 e5 (solving the development of his queen’s bishop, which is probably the best antidote to White’s plan. However, Black must know that he has to play the accurate 17...g6!. A rock-solid, but somewhat restrained alternative is 12... Q b4+ 13.Qd2 Qxd2+ 14.Kxd2 b6 15.Rhd1

B b7 16.Ke2 Rfd8 17.Rd2 Kf8 18.Rcd1 Ke7 19.e4 (Ivanisevic-Gurevich, Heraklio 2007) and now 19...c5 is a decent equalizer, though Gurevich’s 19...Nf8 20.Ke3 Ng6 is not bad either) 13.0-0 exd4 14.Nf5 Qd8 15.N3xd4 Ne5 16.B b3 Bxf5 17.Nxf5 (Alekhine-Lasker, Zürich 1934) and now Black  must beware and neutralise White’s piece play with 17...g6! 18.Nd4 (18.Nd6 Qe7) 18...Qe7 19.Qc2 Rac8=. 174  

11...R 11... Rd8!?

The Capablanca Variation is mostly played with 11... Nxc3 12.Rxc3 e5 which however gives rise to some theoretical complexities. The move in the game is a sturdy and untheoretical alternative that should be OK as well. 12.Qc2 12.Q

The sound and solid approach here is 12...Nxc3 13.Qxc3 b6 and Black equalised the chances after  14.b4 B b7 15.Be2 Rdc8 16.Q b2 h6 17.Rfd1 Rc7 18.Rc3 Nf6 19.Rdc1 Rac8 20.h3 Nd5 21.R b3 Ba8 22.Ne5 c5 23.bxc5 bxc5 ½-½ in Karpov-Andersson, London 1984. Instead, 12...Nf8?! was tried in the game Kirillov-Bohatirchuk given in Chapter 9. Objectively this is not the best decision, but Black has an interesting plan in mind and that game serves as an illustration of how a more ambitious player can try to generate chances in this line. The aggressive 7.Q 7.Qc2 7.Q 7.Qc2 0-0

175  

This is the critical position of our defensive system where the two main options to take advantage of  Black’s ‘inflexible’ early ...c7-c6 are 8.0-0-0 and 8.Rd1. In recent years however, grandmaster  Mikhail Gurevich, a former world number 5 who has gone for an efficient opening approach, has shown that Black in reality has nothing to fear and he has clear ideas to battle White’s options. 8.0-0-0

With the black c-pawn on c6, White believes he can afford to play aggressively, but Gurevich will  prove that this is a double-edged double-edged approach. You cannot mess with a sound sound position! A sensible positional approach is 8. Rd1 and now the rook has slid past the c-file Black may solve the development of his c8-bishop with 8...b6, for example 9.Bd3 B b7 10.0-0 h6 11.Bh4 Rc8 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Q b3 Ne4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Rc1 Ndf6 and Black has a solid position, Ubilava-Gurevich, Torrelavega 2007. Finally, the quiet 8.a3 Re8 9.Rc1 led to a type of Orthodox Variation in the classic game EuweLasker, Zürich 1934, which is analysed in Chapter 9. 8...Nb6! 8...N

An interesting and sensible reply. In an earlier game Black played the direct 8...dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Bd3 B b7 11.Ne5 h6 and now White went for an all-out attack with 12.h4!? (here 12. Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Ne4 was indicated by Soultanbeieff as giving White a slight edge) 12... Nd5 13.Rh3!? Nxc3 14.bxc3 Bxg5 15.hxg5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Qxg5 17.f4 Qe7 18.g4.

176  

And now Black started a vicious counterattack with 18...c5! 19.Bxb5 (19.g5 c4 does not quite work  for White) 19...Rfd8 20.Rg1 c4! 21.Bxc4 Rab8! (something is brewing on the queenside) 22.B b3 a5 23.Rd1 (23.g5 a4! and it is Black who will score the touchdown first) 23...Qa3+ 24.K b1 Rxd1+ 25.Qxd1 Be4+ 26.Ka1 Rxb3! 0-1, Wood-Soultanbeieff, Zaandam 1946. 9.N 9.Ne5

Black was aiming to provoke 9.c5 N bd7 when, for example, 10.Bd3 b6 opens lines on the side where White has just evacuated his king. 9...dxc4 10.N 10.Nxc4

After 10.e4 Black has several decent options, the safest possibly being 10... Nfd7!? (10...a5 injects a touch of aggression) 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Nxc4 Nxc4 13.Bxc4 e5! with a balanced position. If 10.h4, then maybe 10...a5 followed by ... N bd5 and pushing the queenside pawns. pawns. 10...N 10... Nbd5

177  

11.h4 Nxc3 12.Qxc3

12.bxc3 does look a bit reckless but is not easy to refute. Black may continue with 12...b5 13. Ne5 B b7 14.K b1 Qc7, preparing to open lines. This was the game Jäger-Gurevich, Tromsø 2007. Gurevich played 12...b6 and won quickly after  errors by his opponent (see Chapter 9). The engines slightly prefer 12...Nd5, with equal chances. The Exchange Variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5

The introduction to the Exchange Variation. White immediately fixes the pawn structure, eliminating ideas such as Capablanca’s orthodox freeing manoeuvre with ...dxc4 and ... Nd5, as seen above. His further plan will become clear later. 4...exd5

4...Nxd5 is also possible, leading to the Semi-Tarrasch Defence, but we recommend that Black stick  to solidity in the centre. 5.B 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3

N

N

B

B

6. xd5??

xd5 7. xd8  b4+ is an old trap.

6...c6 7.B 7.Bd3 Be7

Preparing the freeing manoeuvre ... Ne4.

178  

8.Q 8.Qc2

An important position, as thus far White has retained flexibility and has several plans at his disposal. First of all he can finish development and then play on the queenside with the so-called minority attack b4-b5. Alternatively, he can play in the centre by preparing f2-f3/e3-e4. He can also play directly for a kingside attack with queenside castling and g2-g4, etc. The placement of the king’s knight depends on which plan he wants to follow – the central plan requires the knight to go to e2, so as to allow f2-f3 and e3-e4, whereas in the minority attack, the knight is usually better on f3. From Black’s side, an economical defence seems to be to exchange a piece, thus relieving some cramp, and at the same time being able to adapt to White’s plan. We therefore recommend: 8...Nh5!? 9.B 8...N 9.Bxe7

The pawn sacrifice 9.h4 can be declined solidly with 9...g6. 9...Q 9... Qxe7

179  

Black will now wait and see which side White castles and follow his lead, which promises a solid game. 10.Nge2 10.N

If 10.0-0-0, Bouwmeester suggests the sensible line 10... N b6 11.Nf3 (11.h3 is perhaps better, to stop Black’s next, when Black can play the manoeuvre ...g7-g6/Ng7/Bf5) 11...Bg4 12.Rdg1 Bxf3 13.gxf3 0-0-0 14.Na4 Nxa4 15.Qxa4 K b8 16.K b1 Qh4 with mutual chances. Note that after 10.Bxh7 there is 10...g6. 10...g6 11.0-0

To 11.0-0-0, Black reacts with 11... N b6 and ...Be6 or ...Bg4 followed by ...0-0-0, finishing his development with a solid position. ow Bouwmeester-Euwe, Amsterdam 1949, continued 11...f5, whilst 11...0-0 12.Ng3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Nf6 was preferred in Kottnauer-Euwe, Amsterdam 1950. Both these games illustrate Black’s counterchances with this method of play and can be found in Chapter 9. The Bf4 variation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nf3 d5 4.N 4.Nc3 Nbd7

180  

White can also opt to develop his QB not to g5 but to f4, mainly with the aim of making it harder for  Black to exchange bishops and free himself with moves such as ...Ne4 or ...dxc4 followed by ...Nd5. owadays, there is again a huge amount of theory on such lines after 4... Be7 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 and now 6...c5 (or 6...N bd7), and so we recommend the above move-order, move-order, which sidesteps the theory. White now has two options: A) 5.B 5.Bf4 dxc4!

The idea behind Black’s slightly old-fashioned but stable set-up is that taking on c4 here has more  bite because of the possibilities possibilities ...N b6 and ...Nd5. White will have to make some concession in order  to regain his pawn. 6.e3

181  

6.e4 B b4 and it turns out to be difficult difficult for White to maintain tthe he centre. 6...N 6... Nb6

The alternative is 6...Nd5 7.Bxc4 Nxf4 8.exf4 (Capablanca-Becker, Carlsbad 1929), and now imzowitsch wrote that modest development is in the spirit of the position, i.e. 8...c6. He continues: ‘Black really should be content to defend himself as best as he can against the threatening f4-f5 (after  the sequence just indicated, he would probably continue ...Nd7-b6-d5)’. But perhaps the easiest way to play is the treatment of the position in the style of the Queen’s Gambit Accepted – suggested by Nigel Davies in his excellent book on the Queen’s Gambit: 6...a6!? 7.Bxc4 (7.a4 Bd6 8.Bg3 b6 9.Bxc4 B b7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qe2 Bxg3 12.hxg3 c5 13.Rad1 Qe7 with a balanced  position, Wirig-Grachev, Biel Biel 2011) 7...b5 8.B b3 B b7 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Ne5 0-0 11.Rc1 Qe7 12.Qe2 and now the natural counter 12...c5, Kempinski-Baburin, Gothenburg 2005. 7.B 7.Bxc4 Nxc4 8.Q 8.Qa4+ c6 9.Q 9.Qxc4 Nd5

This led to an absorbing and complex battle in Alekhine-Spielmann, Carlsbad 1923, which can be found in Chapter 9. But as the previous note shows, Black has several simpler ways to get a decent, sound position, without any particular adventures. B) 5.cxd5!

This avoidance of the 5.Bf4 dxc4 seen in the previous game is generally regarded as the sternest test of 4...N bd7. But, as we will see, Black’s Black’s position is perfectly fine anyw anyway ay and, besides, not every white QGD player wants to play the Exchange Variation. 5...exd5 6.B 6.Bf4 c6

182  

7.e3

This allows an immediate hunt for the Bf4. White can try to preserve it with 7.h3, but then 7...Be7 8.e3 Ne4!. We will see that it is a wise strategy to disturb White’s attacking build-up. For example, 9.Qc2 f5 10.Bd3 0-0 with a balanced game according to the strong theoreticians Grünfeld and Becker  in the tournament book, Sämisch-Wolf, Teplitz-Schönau 1922. 7...Nh5!? 7...N

Again, Black is following a guerrilla strategy. Suppose instead that the game would proceed with the more stereotyped 7...Be7 8.Bd3 0-0 9.h3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Ne5 Bd6 12.Bh2 (12.Bg3!? N6d7? 13.Nxf7) 12...N6d7 13.f4 f6 and now 14.Qf3!? from the game Tartakower-Romih, Spa 1926, is an interesting sacrificial idea. 14.Ng4 h5 15.Ne5! fxe5 16.fxe5 Bxe5 17.dxe5 Nxe5 was played in the game Alekhine-Vidmar, New York 1924, and now the simple 18.Bc2 gives excellent long-term compensation. So let’s disturb White here as well.

183  

8.Bd3?!

The alternatives do not hurt Black: A) 8.Be5 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 (9.dxe5 g6 10.h3 B b4 11.Q b3 Qe7 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.g4 Ng7 14.e4 (BalashovTaimanov, Leningrad 1977) 14...Bxc3 15.Qxc3 Be6 and Black is OK) 9...Nf6 10.Bd3 Bd6 11.f4 0-0 12.0-0 Ne8 13.Qc2 g6 14.f5 Bxe5 15.dxe5 Qe7 with a chaotic position, Alekseev-Kuzmin, Alushta 1999; B) 8.Bg5!? Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 can be compared with our method against the Exchange Variation; 8.Bg3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Bd6 10.Bd3 Nf6 11.Qc2 Qe7 Browne-Balashov, Taxco 1985. Now if White castles kingside, Black does likewise, whilst 12.0-0-0 g6 13. Rde1 Be6 works towards ...0-0-0 with a decent game. 8...N 8... Nxf4 9.exf4 Bd6 10.g3

In case of 10.Ne5 Black can play 10...Qh4!? (maybe even 10...Q b6) 11.g3 Qh3. 10...0-0 11.0-0 Re8 12.Q 12.Qc2 Nf8

This was the classic game Alekhine-Lasker, New York 1924. Lasker went on to give his powerful young opponent a positional masterclass, which can be found in Chapter 9. The Catalan Opening

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3

The Catalan Opening. White hopes that the bishop on g2 will exert influence in a strategic middlegame. The most stable approach is the closed defence, where Black holds on to d5 for the time

184  

 being: 4...B 4... Be7

Flicking in the check 4... B b4+ 5.Bd2 Be7 is the modern preference, on which there is again masses and masses of theory. As usual, we follow the Lasker spirit in eschewing such micro-subtleties, in favour of sensible development. 5.B 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 Nbd7!?

Of course Black can play 6...c6 here, but we prefer to postpone that move and develop a piece first.

A position that offers White a few different ways to build up, Black is solid in any of the cases. The move-orders for both sides are quite amorphous here, but Black’s ideas remain the same: ...b7-b6, ...B b7 (or ...Ba6, especially if White puts his knight on c3, leaving c4 less well defended), and eventually the freeing break ...c6-c5. Sometimes, he plays ...a7-a5 to gain space, and sometimes ...b6 b5 with the same idea, etc. A few examples: 7.Qc2 (7.b3 can be seen in Rubinetti-Spassky in the next chapter) 7...c6 and now: A) 8.N bd2 b6 9.e4 B b7 10.b3 (10.e5 Ne8 and Nc7 followed by ...c6-c5 will be a thematic plan) 10...Rc8 Krasenkow-C.Hansen, Malmö 1994, preparing ...c6-c5; B) 8.b3 b6 9.B b2 (if 9.Rd1 a5 10.N bd2 Ba6 11.e4 b5 offers counterplay, Smejkal-Spassky, Germany Bundesliga 1985/86) 9...B b7 10.Nc3 Qc7 11.e4 dxe4 (Black often holds strong in the centre, but in

this case he has finished his development and so frees the game) 12.Nxe4 c5 and Black frees his  position, Ribli-Spassky, Ribli-Spassky, Linares 1981; C) 8.Rd1 b6 9.Bf4 B b7 10.N bd2 Nh5!? (10...c5 seems well-timed) 11. Be3 f5! 12.cxd5 exd5 13.N b3 (Flesch-Spassky, Sochi 1967), and Black has ample counterplay after 13...f4; D) 8.Bf4 a5!? (annexes some queenside space, which he can afford to do, thanks to the slow character 

185  

of the position) 9.Rd1 a4 10.Ne5 Qa5 11.Nd2 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Ng4 13.Nf3 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Rd8 15.e3 Bd7 16.Nxd7 Rxd7 and a truce was agreed in Andersson-Spassky, Torino 1982. The English and Réti Openings

As explained above, one of the beauties of the Orthodox QGD structure is that it affords an all-round defence against most closed openings, and we see that again here. 1.c4

The English move-order. The other move-order to get into this structure is the Réti sequence 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6. 1...e6!

This is the most accurate way. Instead, 1...Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 allows White the annoying extra option of  3.e4, the Mikenas Attack. This can be quite sharp and theoretical and, although Black can equalise, he needs to know what he is doing. 1...e6 is much simpler. 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3

3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 and we have a QGD by transposition. 3...N 3... Nf6 4.B 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0

6.b3

The Réti System omits to put pawns in the centre for the time being, but intends to control the vital central squares from the flanks. Otherwise 6.d4 transposes into a Catalan Opening.

186  

6...c5 7.B 7.Bb2 Nc6 8.e3 Qa5!?

In this position a lot of games have been played with 8...b6, but we like this Spassky idea, making way for the rook to come to d8. 9.Q 9.Qe2 Rd8 10.N 10.Nc3 Bd7 11.R 11.Rfd1 Rac8 12.d3 Be8

Lombardy-Spassky, Buenos Aires 1979. Black is absolutely fine and soon got the upper hand, as can  be seen in the next chapter.

187  

3) White openings Our basic approach here is to follow Lasker’s fondness for the Exchange Lopez, by using the early Bxc6 in as many variations as possible. This does not confer any theoretical advantage in many lines,  but has the practical advantage of economy, economy, in that White avoids theory theory and also forces ‘his’ position, where he has a common plan and is likely to understand the structure better than most of his opponents. The Ruy Lopez 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5

3...a6

Against other black moves, we seek to use a similar Exchange Variation approach wherever possible. Thus: A) 3...Nf6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 is just a Delayed Ruy Lopez Exchange (i.e. 3...a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Bxc6) without the pawn on a6. Does this really matter? Of course not; we prefer to leave such über-subtleties to the theoreticians. After 5.d3 Bd6 6.N bd2 Be6 7.b3 Nd7 8.Nc4 B b4+ 9.Bd2 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Bxc4 11.bxc4 Nc5 12.Qe3 Qe7 13.0-0 0-0 (Kortchnoi-Bronstein, Kiev 1965), the position is balanced. ow, as well as 14.g3, even 14.Nh4 Qxh4 15.Qxc5 Qf6 16.Qe3 is possible; B) 3...Bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 (4...Nd4 5.Nxd4 Bxd4 6.c3 B b6 7.d4 c6 8.Ba4 d6 9.Na3, Ravinsky-

Chernenkov, USSR 1956, with Nc4 and/or dxe5 coming and White has some initiative) 5.Bxc6!? (trying to apply the Exchange Variation strategy here as well) 5...dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nxe4 7.Qe2 Qd5 8.d3 (8.Nxc6?! Be6 is in Black’s favour) 8...Qxe5 9.dxe4 (or 9.Qxe4 Qe6 (9...Qxe4 10.dxe4 is what White wants) 10.Nc3 0-0 11.Be3 Bd6 and at least Black prevents White from getting his kingside

188  

majority) 9...0-0 10.Nc3 Re8 11.Re1 a6 12.Qf3 Qe7 (12...f5 13.Bf4 Qe7 14.e5 and White is somewhat better) 13.Qg3 Be6 14.Bf4 Rac8 15.Rad1 Donev-Palmero, Vienna 1991.

White is in the driver’s seat now and in the course of the following moves achieves his strategic goals. The full game is in Chapter 9; C) 3...g6 4.Bxc6!? (once again a viable option, Emanuel Lasker showed us the way) 4...bxc6 (if  4...dxc6 5.d3 Bg7 6.Nc3 (or maybe 6.b3 Qe7 7.B b2 Nh6 8.N bd2 with the idea Nc4) 6...Be6 7.Be3 Qe7 8.Qe2 c5 (Lasker-Pillsbury, New York 1893) 9.0-0 f6 10.Nd2 0-0-0 11.N b3 b6 12.f4 and White’s position is somewhat preferable) 5.d4 (this makes sense now that Black’s capture has somewhat stagnated his development) 5...exd4 6.Qxd4 f6 7.Nc3 Bg7 8.h4 h5 9.Bf4 d6 10.0-0-0 Bd7.

The focal point e5 seems well defended, but that is not the case:

189  

11.e5!! fxe5 (11...dxe5 12.Nxe5 (12.Rhe1 is equally strong) 12...fxe5 13. Bxe5 Bh6+ 14.K b1 Rh7 15.Rhe1 Kf8 (15...Re7 16.Bf6) 16.Ne4 with a winning attack) 12.Bxe5 dxe5 (if 12...Bxe5? 13.Nxe5 wins) 13.Nxe5 Ne7 14.Rhe1!. 14.Qxd7+ is possible but the text move is even stronger; for example, e xample, 14...Be6 15.Qc5 and Black’s position falls apart, Donev-Krantz, Widnau 1990; D) 3...Nge7 stops White from inflicting a doubled pawn but after 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0! Ng6 6.Nxd4 Bc5 7.N b3 B b6 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Nd5 White has somewhat more space; E) 3...f5 4.Bxc6!? (this had a wave of popularity in the 1990s but is more or less forgotten again. It may not be the most principled continuation but it is reliable enough to stand the test of time and fits in perfectly with our overall approach) 4...dxc6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Qe2 fxe4 (if 6...Bd6 then 7.d4 exd4 8.e5 opens the position with interesting chances. The text move is the main choice) 7. Nxe4 Bg4 8.d3 Qd5 9.h3 (White can also consider 9.0-0) 9...Bxf3 10.Qxf3 B b4+!? 11.c3 Be7 12.Bg5 0-0-0 (12...0-0 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 and White has a slight plus because of the superior minor piece)

13.Bxf6, Akopian-Yilmaz, Manila ol 1992. However Black recaptures, White plays 14.Ke2 and puts his hopes on his slightly better structure. The king looks strange on e2, but Black cannot easily open the centre and get at it. The game is given in full in Chapter 9. 4.B 4.Bxc6 dxc6

4...bxc6?! is rarely played; after 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qf6 7.Qd3! White has some initiative. 5.N 5.Nc3

190  

Sensible development; this was also a preferred continuation of Lasker’s. Nowadays, White generally follows Fischer in preferring 5.0-0, but Lasker’s line avoids theory and also preserves options of  queenside castling. Yet another option is 5.d4, which Lasker used to beat Capablanca in a famous game at St Petersburg 1914. Again, theory dismisses it as comfortable for Black, but the English GM eil McDonald has played the line with success, including a win over long-time English no.1, Mickey Adams. 5...f6

Black needs to defend his e5-pawn. In case of 5...Bd6 6.d4 exd4 (6...Bg4 7.dxe5 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Bxe5 9.Bf4 Bxf4 10.Qxf4 and White has reached his strategic goal and is somewhat better, Donev-Stoinov, Q N B Kermen 1989) 7. xd4 f6 8.0-0 White has dynamic possibilities, for example 8... e7 (8... g4? 9.e5! Bxf3 10.exd6 Bh5 11.Re1+ and White has a winning attack) 9.e5! Bxe5 (9...fxe5 10.Nxe5 comes into consideration) 10.Qxd8+ Kxd8 11.Nxe5 fxe5 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bxe7+ Kxe7 14.Rae1 and White is somewhat better. 5...Qd6 6.d4 exd4 7.Nxd4 (7.Qxd4 is a sensible alternative) 7...Bd7 8.Be3 0-0-0 9.Qe2! (Donev-Godena, Luzern 1996) and White is still flexible in his placing of the king. 5...Bg4?! 6.h3 more or less forces Black to exchange one of his two bishops, which is a definite concession on his part. 6.d4

This advance is a standard part of White’s strategy in the Exchange Variation, as he seeks to exploit

his superior pawn structure by setting up a kingside pawn majority. However, the opening of the  position does make it easier easier for Black to activate his two bishops, bishops, and an alternative, more restrained strategy is introduced by 6.d3. This was a favourite of the Russian master Romanovsky and is illustrated by the game Romanovsky-Smorodsky in Chapter 9.

191  

6...exd4 7.N 7.Nxd4 c5

7...B b4 seems a bit irritating but but 8.Qd2! Qe7 9.0-0 c5 10.Nde2 solves the issue and White remains with a slight plus. 8.N 8.Nde2 Qxd1+ 9.N 9.Nxd1

A typical position where White fights for the advantage if he can contain the two bishops. 9...B 9... Be6

9...Bd7 10.Bf4 0-0-0 11.Ne3 Ne7? (preferable was 11...Bc6 12.f3 Ne7 13.Rd1, Hug-Ivkov, Petropolis izt 1973) 12.0-0-0 Re8 13.Nc3 g5 14.Bg3 f5 15.exf5 Nxf5 (15...Bxf5 16.Ncd5 Nxd5 17.Nxf5 with a kingside majority for free) 16.Rxd7! Nxg3 17.Rhd1 with a substantial advantage for  White, Donev-Siklosi, Partenen 1995. 9...Bd6 10.Bf4 is also in White’s favour; the exchange of bishops generally favours him in this line, since Black is deprived of the bishop pair, which is a large part of his compensation for the doubled  pawns. 10.Bf4 0-0-0 10.B

Donev-Almada, Zürich 1996. Objectively, chances are about equal, but of course, a Lasker fan is

happy with that.of White hasChapter a clear 9. plan to try to exploit his superior pawn structure and we will seeenough some examples this in The Petroff Defence 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nf6

192  

The Petroff or Russian Defence is a popular guest in contemporary chess practice, with Caruana a  particularly successful practitioner. practitioner. There are several options for Black – both aggressive and defensive – to handle the resulting middlegame positions. After some fierce battles with Pillsbury, Lasker decided that a solid and a nd efficient choice would be his main option. 3.N 3.Nxe5 d6 4.N 4.Nf3 Nxe4

5.Q 5.Qe2

An old-fashioned manoeuvre that invites a semi-endgame in which White is better developed. However, Black’s position is flexible, so White should not over-press, but it is a safe way ‘to play for  two results’: either Black will equalise, or not. This simple method was preferred by both Lasker and Capablanca. A clear proof that it has stood the test of time is that in modern days, another former  World Champion, Boris Spassky, liked to play it, as well as former contender Jan Timman. 5...Qe7 6.d3 Nf6 7.B 5...Q 7.Bg5 Qxe2+

7...N bd7 8.Nc3 Qxe2+ 9.Bxe2 transposes. Black can sidestep the queen swap with 7...Be6, which is  playable but does not make a harmonious harmonious impression. After 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.d4, the threat of 10.Q b5+ results in a sharper battle where White has somewhat better chances – see the game WarburtonHunter in Chapter 9.

8.B 8.Bxe2

193  

With a symmetrical pawn structure, but for the time being White is two tempi ahead. Can we use this temporary advantage and transform it into something more lasting? 8...Be7 8...B

8...N bd7 9.Nc3 h6 10.Bd2 (10.Bh4 may sidetrack the bishop) and the game got interesting after  10...N b6 11.N b5 N bd5 12.c4 a6 13.N bd4 N b6 14.0-0 g6 15.Rfe1 Bg7 16.Bd1+ Kd8 17.b4 and White was already fighting for the advantage, Taimanov-Suetin, Leningrad 1967. 9.N 9.Nc3 c6

This is a defensive set-up that was Petrosian’s preference. Black prepares the knight manoeuvre ...N b8-a6-c7-e6 to barricade the e-file. Practice has shown shown that otherwise Black can easily land into trouble soon. For example, 9...Bd7 10.0-0-0! Nc6 11.Rhe1 0-0?! (11...0-0-0 12.d4 with a slight plus) 12.d4 Ng4 (12...Rfe8 13.d5 and Black is under some pressure) 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.B b5! Bxb5 (14...Nc6 15.h3 Nf6 16.d5) 15.Rxe7 Ba6 16.Rxc7 Nxf2 17.Re1 Rfe8 18.Ree7 Rxe7 19.Rxe7 with a considerable advantage for White in Lasker-Teichmann, Cambridge Springs 1904. 10.0-0-0 Na6 11.R 11.Rhe1 Nc7

194  

12.Ne4!?

12.Bf1 Ne6 13.Bd2 as in Spassky-Petrosian, Moscow Wch 1969, is slightly better for White, but Spassky was not able to break Black’s defensive wall. 12...N 12... Nxe4 13.dxe4 Bxg5+

Or 13...Ne6 14.Be3 b6 (Georgiev-Pergericht, Haifa 1989) when the position after 15.Nd4 does not feel agreeable for Black. 14.N 14. Nxg5 f6 15.N 15.Nf3 Ke7 16.N 16.Nd4

White is slightly better, Spassky-Almada, Thessaloniki ol 1988. The Sicilian Defence 1.e4 c5

The Sicilian was relatively rare in Lasker’s day and he did not meet it a great deal, but after WW2, it  became the predominant defence to 1.e4. Our recommendation is the Closed Closed System, a favourite of   both Smyslov and Spassky, Spassky, as well as the young Karpov. Karpov. It offers White a sound and purposeful  build-up, largely independent of Black’s set-up, and a choice of different in interpretations terpretations and

approaches. 2.N 2.Nc3 Nc6

Overwhelmingly the most popular reply, but both 2...e6 and 2...a6 are alternatives. Against 2...e6, we recommend 3.g3 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5. Bg2 d4 6.Ne4 Nf6 7.d3 Nxe4 and now both recaptures on e4 are

195  

interesting and offer chances for a small edge. See the games Donev-Felsberger and Basman-Rayner  in the next chapter. 2...a6, aiming for a very rapid queenside advance, is rarer still, and can be met most simply by 3.a4 – see the two games by Starostits in Chapter 9. 3.g3 g6 4.B 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3

This supports the strategic square e4, the pieces support e4 and d5 and the pawn structure suggests that White will probably generate his future play on the kingside. 5...d6 6.N 6.Nge2

White has various alternatives here, such as 6.Be3 and 6.f4 (Spassky’s particular favourite), but we suggest the flexible text, which is slightly less well-known nowadays. White retains the option of   pushing the f-pawn, but can also also delay this and play Be3 and Qd2, angling for an exchange of   bishops with Bh6. 6...e5

This blocks the central square d4, and was introduced by Botvinnik in his 1954 match with Smyslov. Black has two other main set-ups: A) 6...Nf6 7.0-0 0-0 8.h3! (intending to expand on the kingside with f2-f4/g3-g4/ Ng3/f4-f5) 8...Bd7 (8...R b8 9.f4 Bd7 10.g4!? b5 11.Ng3 Nd4 12.Nce2 Nxe2+ 13.Qxe2 Ne8 14.c3 b4 15.c4! (now the

light squares are stable and White has a free hand on the kingside) 15...Nc7 16.f5, and White’s attack  materialized in Sedlak-Miranovic, Sombor 2004) 9.Be3 R b8 10.Qd2 b5 11.Nd1 Qa5 12.c3 Rfc8 13.Bh6 Bh8 14.g4 Ne8 15.f4 b4 16.f5 with good attacking chances in Karpov-Tsamryuk, Leningrad 1967; B) 6...e6 is the most popular set-up. Black intends ...Nge7 and keeps the possibility of meeting

196  

White’s later advance f2-f4 with ...f7-f5, trying to hold up the kingside pawn storm. However, the combination of ...g7-g6 and ...e7-e6 weakens the dark squares around the black king and encourages White to exchange the dark-squared bishops. There can follow 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Bg5!? for which see the illustrative game Maiwald-Pribyl in Chapter 9. White intends to follow up with Qd2, and seeks to  provoke Black into chasing the the bishop with ...h7-h6, which which would weaken the black kingside and and create a target. After 8...h6, 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Qd2 stops Black castling, whilst instead 8...0-0 9. Qd2

R b8!? 10.Bh6 b5 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.f4 Nd4 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Ne2 e5 was Spassky-Karpov, Bugojno 1986, and now King’s suggestion 15.f5!? is worth trying. 7.N 7.Nd5

Occupies d5, but success depends on whether Black is able to neutralise White’s strategy by exchanges. A worthy alternative is 7.h4!?, which is analysed in detail in the game Short-Stohl in Chapter 9. 7...Nge7 8.B 7...N 8.Bg5 h6 9.B 9.Bf6

ot 9.Nf6+? Kf8, when White’s pieces are hanging precariously, but 9.Bxe7! Nxe7 10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.h4!² is a very interesting idea, suggested by Hans Müller in his book on Botvinnik. Black can easily be saddled with a dark-squared bishop that is inferior to White’s knight. 9...Bxf6 10.N 9...B 10.Nxf6+ Kf8 11.N 11.Nc3 Kg7 12.N 12.Nfd5

197  

Fixes his control of the light squares e4 and d5. White is now ready to play against the dark squares that are harder to defend after the exchange of the bishops. This was Spassky-Ostl, Germany Bundesliga 1988/89, for the rest of which see Chapter 9. The French Defence 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5

The French Defence can lead to complicated struggles with asymmetrical pawn chains, after for  example 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 (see diagram).

The Exchange Variation has been played by Morphy and his contemporaries, and in our days even Kasparov has played some interesting games with it. We simplify the central structure, which is an

198  

efficient method that has stood the test of time. Because of the symmetrical central pawn structure, this way of playing has a reputation of being drawish, but in practice that is not so easy to prove. When Black develops in a symmetrical fashion, White is a tempo up, which can tell when things get tense. When Black avoids symmetry, which is the most popular way of playing, there will be tension. In both instances, the well-versed player will have his chances. 3...exd5 4.N 4.Nf3

There is one particular point in the Exchange French that we want to stress. This move-order is  preferable to 4.Bd3 when Black has proven fair counterplay by dynamising the position in accepting an isolated pawn: 4...c5!? and an interesting example of Black’s chances is 5.dxc5 xc5 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.0-0 0-0 8.h3 Nc6 9.N bd2 Qd6 10.N b3 B b6 11.c3 Bxh3!? and the queen entered B at g3 with a dangerous attack in Lhagvasuren-Ulibin, Cheliabinsk 1991. 4...N 4... Nc6

Some important alternatives: A) 4...Bd6 5.Bd3 (5.c4 is popular here, but keeping in mind that Lasker did not like to make structural concessions in the opening, we prefer to develop naturally) 5...Nc6 (5...Ne7 6.0-0 Bg4 7.Be3 c6 8.N bd2 Qc7 9.h3 Bh5 10.Re1 Nd7 11.c4! with good play for White – see Warburton-Simon

in Chapter 9) 6.c3 Nge7 7.0-0 Bg4 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bh4 h5!? 11.N bd2 (11.Bg6+ Kf8 with the idea that after 12.Qc2? Nxg6 13.Qxg6 Bf5 the queen is trapped) 11...g5 12.Bg3 Bxg3 13.fxg3! 0-0-0 Enoch-Nimzowitsch, Berlin 1927, and in his Chess Praxis, Praxis, Nimzowitsch suggested 14.N b3!? (or the regrouping manoeuvre 14.Re3 followed by Qf1 and Re1) with the idea 14...b6? 15.Nc5!; B) In case of the symmetrical 4...Nf6 5.Bd3 Bd6 (5...c5 6.0-0 c4 7.Re1+ Be7 8.Bf1 0-0, and then White has several decent alternatives, such as 9.b3, 9.Bg5 or Kasparov’s suggestion 9. Ne5. If 5...Be7,

199  

the restraining 6.h3!? has been recommended) 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 (a reasonable alternative is 7.h3 h6 8.Re1 Nc6 9.a3 Re8 10.Rxe8+ Qxe8 11.Nc3 a6 12.Be3 Chandler-Short, London 1986) 7...Bg4 8.c3 N bd7 9.N bd2 c5 (9...c6) 10.Qc2 h6 11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.Bh4 White is a bit better, Gurevich-Ivanchuk, Biel 1993. He is entirely safe and Black must find compensation for his slight structural defect; C) White must take care in case of 4...Bg4 when Kasparov has shown an interesting follow-up: 5.h3 Bh5 6.Qe2+! (disturbs Black’s natural development) 6...Qe7 (both 6...Be7 7.Q b5+ Nd7 8.Qxd5

Ngf6 9.Q b3 and 6...Ne7 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 are promising for White) 7.Be3 Nc6 (7...Nd7 8.Nc3 c6 9.00-0 and Kasparov prefers White) 8.Nc3 0-0-0 (8...Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Nxd4 10.Qd1 c5 11.Nxd5 Qe5 12.c3!) 9.g4 Bg6 10.0-0-0 with interesting chances, Kasparov-Short, Tilburg 1991, e.g. 10... N b4 11.Rd2 and the knight will be kicked back soon. 5.B 5.Bd3

Once again we prefer sound development over a concrete variation such as 5.B b5 Bd6 6.c4 dxc4 7.d5 a6 which can get murky. 5...B 5... Bg4 6.c3 Qf6!?

6...Bd6 7.0-0 can transpose to 4..Bd6.

7.Q 7.Qe2+!?

An interesting idea, while 7.N bd2 Qe6+ 8.Be2 Bd6 more or less equalises for Black. Black now faces a choice of how to meet the check, and we discuss this further in the game Handoko-Züger, in Chapter 9. The Caro-Kann

200  

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5

The Caro-Kann Defence, putting a pawn in the centre on d5 without hampering the bishop on c8. Over the last hundred years, the Caro-Kann has gained a solid reputation and has been the weapon of  World Champions Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov and Karpov to name a few. No more proof of its inherent solidity is needed. We are in need of a stable continuation where we can hope for a slight edge, and without making long-term concessions. In the well-known 4th edition of Collijn’s  Lärobock I Schack  where  where the opening part was revolutionized by contemporary stars, it was Rubinstein who recommended the Exchange Variation. 3.exd5 cxd5

This is an important pawn structure, which we have seen – although with colours reversed – in the  part on the Queen’s Gambit Declined, Declined, Exchange Variation. Both sides sides have a solid structure whereas there is an asymmetry in the pawn structure, and a difference in the open files. With his open c-file Black’s basic chances can be found in play on the queenside, while White with an open e-file and an outpost for a knight on e5 can hope for kingside play. Of course all depends on changing circumstances. Now we continue with a solid move: 4.c3

An interesting alternative was shown in a game Fischer-Hort, Vinkovci 1968, that went 4. Nf3 Nf6

5.c3 Bf5 6.B b5+ N bd7 7.Nh4 and after 7...Bg6 8.Bf4 e6 9.Nd2 Nh5 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.Be3 Bd6 12.g3,

201  

White had the two bishops but Black was solid. But after 12...a6 13. Bd3 Rc8?! (13...Nhf6 should be more or less equal according to Hort) 14.0-0 N b6 15.a4 it was White who had the the edge and was able to press for a long time – on the queenside, which shows that chess can be a game of changing targets. Nowadays 4.Bd3 is the most popular move, but as Rubinstein and Larsen have shown, our  solid choice is good as well. Besides, it invites some interesting black replies. 4...Nc6 4...N

ow that White has not taken the chance to take the square f5 away from Black’s bishop, 4... Bf5 seems like a logical reply. We continue 5.Q b3 (of course we can go on in classical fashion fashion with 5.Nf3 but there is also scope to play somewhat more adventurously) 5... Qd7 6.Nf3 Nc6 (6...e6) 7.Ne5!? Nxe5 8.dxe5 a6 9.Na3 e6 10.N b5 Rc8 and now 11.Nd4 is not a bad idea at all, and maybe even a slight plus, but about 20 years ago the sacrificial 11.Be3!? axb5 12.Bxb5 Rc6 13.a4! was tested in Czech chess circles, for which we point to the game Pakosta-Gwozdz, cr 2001, in Chapter 9. 5.B 5.Bf4

Emanuel Lasker, who also liked the exchange variations in his later career, gives the line 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.N bd2 e6 8.0-0 Bd6 9.Re1 0-0 10.Nf1 in his Manual his Manual of Chess... Chess...

202  

and repeats what we have already mentioned regarding the strategic direction of both opponents’ play (Black on the queenside, White via the e-file and e5 on the kingside. Note that he seems somewhat  biased towards White, writing writing that Black’s logical counter with with ...b7-b5 can be hampered with a2-a4). Of course we can also play 5.Nf3 when 5...Bf5 6.Q b3 transposes to 4..Bf5. 5...Nf6 5...N

After 5...Bf5 White has several decent options, for example 6.Bd3 (6.Nf3 e6 7.Q b3 Qc8! 8.N bd2 Nf6 (Larsen-Spassky, San Juan 1969) and now 9.Rc1 has been suggested by annotators, but 9.Nh4 is suggested by the engines as slightly better for White) 6...Bg6 7.Nf3 e6 8.0-0 Bd6 9.Bxd6 Qxd6 10.Bxg6 hxg6 11.N bd2 Nf6 12.Qe2 which is mutually solid, Larsen-Seirawan, Las Palmas 1981. 6.N 6.Nf3

203  

Once again there are several possibilities, and there is little that White can do wrong in the opening  phase here as long as he develops sensibly. sensibly. For example, 6.Bd3 Bg4 (6...Q b6 7.Q b3 Qxb3?! 8.axb3 and now it was White who was able to build on the queenside: 8...e6 9.h3 Be7 10.Nd2 0-0 11.b4 b6 12.Ngf3 Bd7?! 13.Ba6 with a substantial advantage for White, Rubinstein-Davidson, The Hague 1921) 7.Nf3 e6 8.Q b3, as given by Rubinstein in Collijn’s Lärobock I Schack . And after 8...Qc8 a thematic position has arisen that we find in multiple database games (mostly by transposition via 4.Bd3; 8...Qd7 9.Ne5!). Another line is 6.Nd2 e6 (6...Bf5 looks sensible) 7.Ngf3 Bd6 8.Bg3 Nh5 9.Bxd6 Qxd6 10.g3 0-0 11.Bd3 Nf6 12.Qe2 Nd7 13.0-0 e5 14.dxe5 Ndxe5 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 16.Qxe5 Nxe5 17.Bc2 with a white edge, Larsen-Barcza, Copenhagen 1965. 6...Bg4

We occasionally see 6...g6 when Czech analysts went on with 7.Na3 Bg7 8.Bd3 0-0 9.h3 Bf5 (9...a6) 10.Bxf5 gxf5 11.g4 and the game sharpens up. Of course there are other sensible replies. 7.Q 7.Qb3 Na5

Theoretically 7...Qc8 has a better reputation, when White continues 8.Ne5 or 8.N bd2.

8.Q 8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Q 9.Qc2 e6 10.B 10.Bd3 Qb6

10...Rc8 11.0-0 a6 12.Qe2 Be7 13.Ne5 with a good game, and 13...b5 14.a4 is clearly in White’s favour. 11.a4!

204  

And with Black’s counterplay contained White was able to prove he had the better chances in Fischer-Petrosian, Belgrade 1970.

205  

Chapter 9 Games for study and analysis In his summary of his 200-hour programme for the development of a chess player, Lasker assigned the largest portion (120 hours, or 60%) to ‘play and analysis’. In this chapter, we present a selection of annotated games for the reader’s study and further analysis. Some are by Lasker himself, others (in fact, the great majority) are by other players. All of the games feature openings that we recommend in Chapter 8, and are intended to illustrate the middlegame and endgame features of those openings, enabling the reader to familiarise himself with the types of positions he will reach, the typical plans and ideas, etc. Ruy Lopez Steinitz Alexander Alekhine José Raul Capablanca St Petersburg 1914 (6) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 d6

The more popular and superior move-order to the Steinitz Defence, which we recommend in Chapter  8, is 3...Nf6 4.0-0 d6. 4.d4 exd4 5.N 5.Nxd4

ow White has the alternative 5.Qxd4!? Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Nc3 with swift development. To rule this out we prefer the move-order 3...Nf6. 5...Bd7 6.N 5...B 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7

206  

8.Nf5!?

Going for the two bishops but damaging his pawn structure and restraining his own dynamic chances in the centre. 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Bf4 gives better chances to keep an edge. 8...B 8... Bxf5 9.exf5 0-0 10.R 10.Re1 Nd7!?

Regrouping his pieces in a bid for more effectiveness. This makes way for the bishop to come to the long diagonal on f6. 11.Nd5 Bf6 12.c3 Nb6 13.N 11.N 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6

207  

14.Bxc6

Unnecessary. It seems more practical to keep the bishop, e.g. 14.Qc2 a6 15.Bf1 Rfe8 16.Bd2, as in  N-Warburton, cr 1963/64. Now Black began began to drift and ended up standing worse (although he still drew the game), but 16...Re5 17.Bd3 Rae8 leaves Black with no problems at all. 14...bxc6 15.Q 15.Qf3 Rfe8 16.B 16.Be3 c5 17.R 17.Re2 Re5! 18.R 18.Rae1 Rae8

Strongly believing in the power of his centralised position, Black deserts his queenside. 19.Q 19. Qb7?

208  

Underestimating Black’s attacking chances. 19.Bf4 Rxe2 20.Rxe2 Rxe2 21.Qxe2 simplifies and pulls the sting out of Black’s idea. The position may be roughly equal then, which does not mean Black  can’t play on after 21...h6 22.Qe8+ Kh7. 19...Qxf5 20.Q 19...Q 20.Qxc7 Qe6 21.Q 21.Qxa7 Nd5

With multiple threats such as 22... Nf4 and also 22...f5. 22.Kf1? 22.K

22.Q b7 f5 with good attacking chances, chances, but in the game White is toast. toast. 22...N 22... Nf4 23.R 23.Rd2 Nxg2

One of several winning moves – the simplest might be 23...Qg4 24.f3 Qe6. 24.K 24. Kxg2 Qg4+ 25.K 25.Kf1 Qh3+ 26.K 26.Ke2

26.Kg1 Rg5+ 27.Bxg5 Rxe1#.

209  

26...Rxe3+! 27.fxe3 Qxe3+ 28.Kd1 Qxe1+ 29.Kc2 Qe4+ 30.Kb3 Qc6

More accurate was the direct 30...Ra8 31.Rxd6 g6 32.Qd7 R b8+ 33.Ka3 Qc2 and the roof falls in. 31.a4 d5 32.a5 Qb5+ 33.K 33.Ka3 Rb8 34.K 34.Ka2 h6 35.a6 Qb3+

White resigned. A good illustration of the middlegame chances Black gets when White overestimates the importance of his space advantage. Black’s position is fundamentally sound, so it is common sense that overambition by White should be punished. Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence Siegbert Tarrasch Emanuel Lasker Düsseldorf & Munich WCh m 1908 (4) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.N 6.Nc3 Be7 7.R 7.Re1 exd4 8.N 8.Nxd4

210  

8...Nxd4

The main line is 8...0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6, as discussed in Chapter 8, but exchanging pieces when one has limited space is also very logical and a perfectly viable alternative way to handle the position. 9.Q 9.Qxd4

Or 9.Bxd7+ Nxd7 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Q b4 Bxc3 and Black is solid, although theoretically White might  be a tad better. 9...B 9... Bxb5

An old issue of The Chessplayer  once  once suggested the untried 9...c6 10.Bc4 (10.Bf1 may be better, with a slight plus) 10...b5 with counterplay. 10.Nxb5 0-0 11.B 10.N 11.Bg5

11.Bf4 Nd7 12.Rad1 a6 13.Nc3 Bf6 14.Q b4 a5 seems playable, as in the game game Hracek-Smejkal, Czech Republic 1998. 11.b3 Nd7 prepares ..Bf6. 11.Qc3 is an old recommendation by the famous trainer Zak, but Nunn mentions the interesting

B Q N Q B tactical possibility 11...d5! 12.e5 c6! 13.exf6 xf6 14.  b3 (14. d4  b6 15. e3 c5) 14...cxb5 15.Qxb5 a6 16.Qxb7 Qd6 17.Q b3 Rab8 with a balanced position. 11...h6 12.B 12.Bh4 Re8

12...c6 13.Nc3 Q b6 is a sensible idea; 12...Ng4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 turned out to be viable as well in Ree-

211  

Donner, Leeuwarden 1979. 13.R 13. Rad1

13...N 13... Nd7

In his great book John book John Nunn’s Chess Course Course,, the author claims that a modern player would have  played more actively with 13...a6 13...a6 14.Nc3 b5, e.g. 15.f3 (15.f4 c6 and ...Qc7, ...Rad8) 15...Q b8 16.a3 a5, once again with a playable position for Black. 14.Bxe7 Rxe7 15.Q 14.B 15.Qc3 Re5!

Black feels that his position is good enough to toy with tactical ideas to generate counterplay. 16.N 16. Nd4

16.Qxc7 Rxb5 17.Qxd6 Rc8 18.Qxd7 Qxd7 19.Rxd7 Rxb2 gives Black the edge, and 16.Nxc7? Rc5 loses outright. 16...R 16... Rc5 17.Q 17.Qb3

17.Qg3 Qg5 solves all of Black s potential problems. 17...N 17... Nb6

17...a5!? has been suggested as an alternative. 18.f4

212  

18.Nf5 Qf6 neutralises. 18...Q 18... Qf6 19.Q 19.Qf3 Re8?

19...Na4! was suggested by Makariev during a lesson at the Dvoretsky Chess School and seems to offer good counterplay. 20.c3 a5 21.b3 a4 22.b4?

Just at the moment that he had hopes to get control again, a gain, White spoils his chances. He should have  played 22.c4. 22...R 22... Rc4 23.g3 Rd8

unn has suggested the interesting 23...a3 with the idea ...Na4. 24.R 24. Re3

24.Rd3 has been recommended. In the remainder of the game, White goes for a tactical sequence hoping to deal a knockout, but this is flawed – he lands on the receiving end, and loses... 24...c5 25.N 25.Nb5? cxb4 26.R 26.Rxd6 Rxd6 27.e5

27...R 27... Rxf4!

This refutes White’s over-optimistic idea. Lasker had no difficulty in converting now: 28.gxf4 Qg6+ 29.K 29.Kh1 Qb1+ 30.K 30.Kg2 Rd2+ 31.R 31.Re2 Qxa2 32.R 32.Rxd2 Qxd2+ 33.K 33.Kg3 a3 34.e6 Qe1+

213  

35.K 35. Kg4 Qxe6+ 36.f5 Qc4+ 37.N 37.Nd4 a2 38.Q 38.Qd1 Nd5 39.Q 39.Qa4 Nxc3 40.Q 40.Qe8+ Kh7 41.K 41.Kh5 a1Q a1Q 0-1

This was one of Lasker’s most famous wins in the Steinitz Defence. Some of the middlegame tactics were quite obscure and he could have found himself in some trouble (for example, after 22.c4), but as the notes have shown, he had earlier improvements, which would have avoided most of the trouble. Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence Anatoly Utjazki Mark Tseitlin Moscow 1974 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.N 6.Nc3 Be7 7.R 7.Re1

White can also try 7.Bg5 exd4 8.Nxd4 0-0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Qd3 (Bernstein-Lasker, St Petersburg 1909), when Black can for example free his game with 10...h6 11.Bh4 Nh5 (in a position with less space, exchanges ease the cramp) 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.f4 c5 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.exf5 Nf6 16.Rae1 Qd7 and ...Rae8 with a good defensive set-up. Or 7.Bxc6 Bxc6 8.Qd3 exd4 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.Bg5 0-0 11.Rae1 (Lasker-Capablanca, Havana Wch match 1921) and playable alternatives are 11...Re8 or maybe 11...c6. 7...exd4 8.N 8.Nxd4 0-0

9.B 9.Bf4

Alternatives are discussed in Chapter 8. 9...g6!?

214  

This looks peculiar at first sight but is directed against White’s idea to take on c6 and follow up with e4-e5. 10.Q 10. Qd2

10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.e5 Nh5! is Black’s point. 10...Re8 11.Rad1

11...Nh5 11...N

As mentioned in Chapter 8, Black could exploit his opponent’s failure to capture on c6 to exchange some pieces – a sound procedure in positions with less space – and more or less equalise with 11...Nxd4 12.Qxd4 Bxb5 13.Nxb5 Nh5 14.Be3 a6 15.Nc3 Bf6 16.Qc4 Bxc3, which is Tseitlin’s suggestion. 12.B 12. Be3 Bf6 13.B 13.Be2 Nxd4 14.B 14.Bxd4 Bxd4 15.Q 15.Qxd4 Nf4 16.B 16.Bf1

Black does not fear 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 when 17...Qg5 solves his problems. Bothering the queen does not help White, e.g. 18.f4 Qf5 19.Bd3 Qh5.

16...B 16... Bc6?!

16...Qg5!? was a better chance for a balanced position, e.g. 17. Kh1 Ne6 (or 17...Bc6) 18.Qd5 Bc6 19.Qxg5 Nxg5 20.f3 Kg7 21.Kg1 Ne6. 17.N 17. Nd5 Bxd5?!

215  

Keeping the bishop with 17...Nxd5 18.exd5 Bd7 gives White a small but secure advantage, but this way Black must beware that he does not drown in the complications that he stirs up. 18.exd5 Qg5

19.R 19. Rxe8+

Missing his chance, 19.g3! is promising as picking up a pawn with 19... Rxe1 20.Rxe1 Nxd5 leads to trouble with 21.h4 Qh5 22.g4!. 19...Rxe8 20.g3 19...R

20.Qxa7 Nh3+ 21.Kh1 Qf5! 22.Ra1 Nxf2+ 23.Kg1 Ng4 24.h3 Nf6. 20...N 20... Ne2+ 21.B 21.Bxe2 Rxe2

ow Black is perfectly OK, and it is White who has to find a good continuation. 22.Kf1?! 22.K

Which he doesn’t. Both 22.Qc4 and 22.Qd3 were good enough to keep the balance.

22...Rxc2 23.Qxa7

216  

Black would also have kept an advantage in the event of 23.Re1 Rc1 24.Rxc1 Qxc1+ 25.Kg2 Qg5 (or  25...Qc5). 23...Qh5! 24.R 23...Q 24.Re1 Qxd5!

If 24...Qxh2, 25.Re8+ Kg7 26.Qd4+ keeps a draw. 25.K 25. Kg1 c5

And White’s position is hopeless, but the game is not over yet. 26.b3 Kg7 27.h4 h5 28.Q 28.Qa8 Qd4 29.R 29.Rf1 b5 30.a4 c4!?

30...Rc3 was also strong. 31.bxc4 bxa4?

Complicating his task, while 31...bxc4 should be winning. 32.Qxa4 Rxc4 33.Q 32.Q 33.Qa2 Rc3 34.K 34.Kg2 Rd3 35.Q 35.Qe2 Qd5+ 36.K 36.Kg1 Rd2 37.Q 37.Qe1 Qd4 38.K 38.Kg2 d5 39.Q 39.Qe7 Rb2 40.Q 40.Qa3 Qe4+ 41.K 41.Kg1 Rc2 42.Q 42.Qa1+ d4 43.R 43.Re1 Qd3 44.R 44.Rd1 Rd2 45.R 45.Rxd2 Qxd2 46.Q 46.Qa8 Qe1+ 47.K 47. Kg2

217  

47...Qe5

47...d3 48.Qd5 d2 would have messed up; a draw results after 49.Qd4+ Kh7 50.Qd7!. 48.Qd8 Qe4+ 49.K 48.Q 49.Kh2 d3 50.Q 50.Qd6 Qf3 51.Q 51.Qd4+ Qf6?!

51...Kg8 52.Kg1 and once again Black must take care as 52... Qe2 53.Qd8+ is an immediate draw. 52.Q 52. Qe3?

Of course the only chance was 52.Qxd3 Qxf2+ 53.Kh1, now White is toast. 52...Q 52... Qd6 53.Q 53.Qd2 Qd5 54.K 54.Kg1 Kg8 55.f4 Qf3 56.Q 56.Qf2 Qd1+ 57.K 57.Kg2 Qc2 0-1

In Chapter 5, we introduced the reader to the Kent amateur Michael Cook and showed a game where he successfully outplayed a strong opponent with his strategy of exploiting the superiority of a knight versus a bishop. After many years of playing the Berlin proper, around the late 1970s, Michael switched to the Old Steinitz Defence 3... Nf6 4.0-0 d6. This is another line in which Black frequently ends up with the bishop pair, but here too, Michael had his ideas. I (SWG) still remember the car  ourney to an away match one Saturday, when he explained how, having been put off the Old Steinitz for years by the thought of ‘being lumbered with the bishops’, he had now found a middlegame plan

which enabled and himexaggeration to offload them for White’s knights! Of course, true therethat wasthe ankey element deliberate self-caricature in this, but nonetheless, it remains pointof about Michael’s handling of the Steinitz was that he had a clear middlegame plan. One of the first games we saw with him playing this line was the following. Once again, his opponent was a strong county player, of a steady 2300 strength, playing a high board for Middlesex.

218  

Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence M.J. Lightfoot Michael Cook  Surrey-Kent 1978 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.N 6.Nc3 Be7 7.R 7.Re1 exd4 8.N 8.Nxd4 0-0 9.B 9.Bxc6 bxc6

This is the tabiya tabiya position  position for the variation which we discuss in more detail in Chapter 8. The important thing for now is Black’s plan, which is where Michael’s explanation during our car ca r journey comes in. Black has these two bishops, but they are not very active and Michael really wanted to exchange them off and try to reach a position with knight against bishop. Objectively, one may argue whether that is the best plan, but as usual, he understood that he could play such positions with greater comfort and understanding than many of his opponents and that outweighed other  considerations. So, how does Black achieve this? The plan Michael outlined is as follows: the Nd4 will be kicked with ...c6-c5 and will usually come to f5, where it can be taken by the bishop. Then Black will move his Nf6, play ...Bf6 and, if allowed, exchange the bishop for the Nc3. My friend Roger and I both laughed out loud when Michael explained all this in his humorous and self-mocking way, but after witnessing the present game, we stopped laughing...

10.Q 10. Qf3 Ne8

Initiating the plan of bringing the bishop to f6. In later games, Michael refined the idea by starting with 10...c5 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.Qxf5 and now 12...Nd7 with the same idea of ...Bf6. The knight is rather more active on d7 than on e8. 11.Bf4 Rb8 12.b3 c5 13.N 11.B 13.Nf5 Bxf5 14.exf5 Bf6 15.R 15.Rad1 Bxc3 16.Q 16.Qxc3 Qf6

219  

Mission accomplished. White perhaps should not have allowed ... Bxf5 if he had to take with the  pawn, but even so, the position position is basically equal. But in in what follows, it becomes clear tthat hat Lightfoot felt that he should stand better and he played accordingly. 17.Q 17. Qd3 g6 18.B 18.Bh6 Ng7 19.fxg6 fxg6!? 20.f3 Rfe8 21.Q 21.Qd5+ Qf7 22.Q 22.Qxf7+ Kxf7

Once again, we have an example of the so-called ‘Fischer endgame’, with R+B v R+N, in an open  position. But once again, again, White does not really have a shred of advantage, advantage, although Lightfoot clearly thought that he did. 23.K 23. Kf2 Nf5 24.B 24.Bc1 Nd4 25.R 25.Rxe8 Rxe8 26.R 26.Rd2 Nc6 27.B 27.Bb2 Rb8 28.h4 a5

All thematic stuff by Black. The advance of the a-pawn is a key component of Black’s strategy in such positions. 29.Ke3 c4 30.B 29.K 30.Bc3 cxb3 31.axb3 a4 32.bxa4 Ra8 33.a5 Nxa5 34.K 34.Kf4 Nc6

220  

35.Kg5

The start of what proves a fatal misadventure, but White was clearly still reluctant to accept that the  position is just drawn. drawn. 35...R 35... Ra3 36.R 36.Rd3 Ra2 37.K 37.Kh6?

Finally overstepping the mark. 37...R 37... Rxc2 38.g4 Rh2 39.h5 gxh5 40.gxh5 Ne7

At this point, the session ended and the result was determined by that most hated of Caissic  personalities, the adjudicator: 0-1

It goes without saying that White should never have lost and only did so as a result of the fatally optimistic king march into h6. But that is beside the point. As Lasker always emphasised, chess is first and foremost a fight, and the true fighter will exploit whatever weaknesses he can in his opponent. In this case, the strategy of heading for an ending where White had the theoretical advantage of bishop against knight sowed the seeds for over-optimistic play on his part, exactly in the

way Lasker used to tempt his opponents by offering them small advantages, knowing they would be likely to overplay their hand. Michael won a number of similar games in the Steinitz, another being the following: Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence R. Bristow

221  

Michael Cook  Berks-Kent 1980 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.N 6.Nc3 Be7 7.R 7.Re1 exd4 8.N 8.Nxd4 0-0 9.B 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Q 10. Qf3 Re8 11.N 11.Nf5

This time, White does not even wait for ...c6-c5 before jumping with his knight into f5, ‘forcing’ the exchange of the black bishop. ‘Come into my parlour,’ said the spider to the fly... 11...B 11... Bxf5 12.Q 12.Qxf5 Nd7 13.B 13.Bd2 Bf6 14.Q 14.Qf3 Ne5 15.Q 15.Qe2 d5 16.exd5 cxd5

Black has undoubled his pawns and already stands objectively better. 17.f4?!

Rather repulsive and again suggestive of a white player who thinks he stands better, even though he has no shred of justification for such a judgement. 17.b3 or 17.Qh5 would have kept Black’s edge to a minimum. 17...Nc4 18.Q 17...N 18.Qxe8+ Qxe8 19.R 19.Rxe8+ Rxe8 20.R 20.Re1 Bd4+!

A nice intermezzo, forcing the white king into the corner. 21.K 21. Kh1 Rxe1+ 22.B 22.Bxe1 Bxc3?!

Typical of Michael. Objectively, 22...c6 retains a greater advantage, but Michael instead heads for his  beloved N v B ending.

222  

23.B 23. Bxc3 c5 24.b4 d4 25.B 25.Ba1 cxb4 26.B 26.Bxd4 a5 27.c3 bxc3 28.B 28. Bxc3 a4

Objectively, Black’s 22nd move has squandered his advantage and the game should now be drawn. However, Black keeps pressing and White eventually e ventually collapses towards the end of the session: 29.Kg1 Nd6 30.g3 f6 31.B 29.K 31.Bb4 Nb5 32.K 32.Kf2 Kf7 33.K 33.Ke3 Ke6 34.K 34.Ke4 f5+ 35.K 35.Kd3 Kd5 36.B 36.Bc3 g6 37.B 37. 38.Bb2 Kc5 39.B 39.Bc3 Nd6 40.B 40.Bd2 Ne4 41.B 41.Be1 Kd5 42.K 42.Ke3? Be5 h5 38.B

A fatal misstep. 42.a3 would have held, although it is clear that White is the one who is suffering. 42...K 42... Kc4 43.K 43.Ke2 Kd4 44.B 44.Bb4 h4

Once again, adjudication analysis did the rest. For example, 45.Kf3 hxg3 46.hxg3 Nc3 47.a3 Kc4 and Black wins: 0-1 These last two games, although not on GM level, are very instructive and illustrate one middlegame strategy for Black in the Steinitz. The greater the understanding the reader has of such ways of  handling the black position, the better his results will be with the opening. After taking up the opening, Michael scored incredibly well with it over the next few years, notching up about 80% with  black, against opposition that ranged from about 160-220 ECF, ECF, or 2000-2350 Elo. As he confessed confessed recently, ‘Of course, I almost always stood a little worse before coming up with something,’ but this is exactly our point.

Within reason, the objective assessment of the position does not really matter that much, when it is ust a matter of a slight plus or minus one way or the other – what is much more important is knowing what you are doing and understanding that the white advantage, if any, is relatively small and not enough to win against accurate defence. Michael, as we saw, had a specific plan of play in the middlegame, particularly regarding the minor pieces, and this often enabled him to outplay strong opponents even from a position where he was strictly speaking slightly worse.

223  

An additional point, as we have seen, is that the white player will frequently overestimate his advantage and play too ambitiously, often just because ‘the books’ say this Steinitz Defence is not really very good. Just as Lasker said, he preferred the side ‘which has kept back his forces a little’, so deliberately heading for a position where one knows one is objectively slightly worse, but also knows that the disadvantage is small and manageable, and where one also knows how to handle the position, is often a very effective way to play for a win. Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence Carl Schlechter Ossip Bernstein San Sebastian 1911 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.R 6.Re1 Be7 7.c3 0-0 8.B 8.Ba4 Re8 9.N 9.Nbd2 Bf8 10.B 10.Bc2 h6 11.h3 g6 12.N 12.Nf1 Nh7 13.N 13.Ne3 Bg7

For comments on the opening phase, see Chapter 8. After a phase of rerouting the pieces to more effective squares Black has focussed his forces against d4 and e4. 14.N 14. Ng4

An alternative is 14.Nd5 Ne7 (direct neutralisation) 15.B b3 Nxd5 16.Bxd5 c6 17.B b3 Nf6!

(counterplay against White’s centre) 18.dxe5 dxe5 19. Bc4 Qe7 20.Q b3 b5 21.Bf1 c5! (taking advantage of the somewhat clumsy positioning of White’s pieces, to secure a positional advantage) 22.Qc2 Bc6 23.c4 b4 24.a3 b3! and Black was already clearly better in Teichmann-Bernstein, Ostend 1907. In the main game White takes the adventurous road but Black’s position turns out to be very solid.

224  

14...B 14... Bxg4 15.hxg4 Qc8 16.d5 Nd8?!

More natural retreats are 16...N b8 or 16...Ne7. But in the game he happily finds a way to activate the knight. 17.g5

In retrospect, 17.Nh2 came into consideration, as the opening of the h-file seems to favour Black. 17...hxg5 18.N 18.Nxg5 Nxg5 19.B 19.Bxg5 f6 20.B 20.Be3 Kf7

21.c4

According to Tartakower, the logical sequence 21.f3 Rh8 22.Kf2 Ke7 23.Rh1 Nf7 24.Rxh8 Qxh8 25.Qh1 b6 26.c4 Qxh1 27.Rxh1 Rh8 28.Rxh8 Nxh8 would have led to equality. 21...b6!?

A very provocative and fighting move that more or less invites White to play for an invasion of the queenside. The move also generates a weak point, so Black counts on the effectiveness of his kingside

counterplay. 22.b4 Rh8 23.c5 Bh6 24.cxd6

It looks better to play 24.Ba4 and follow it up by Rc1. 24...cxd6 25.R 25.Rc1

225  

Once again it seems 25.Ba4 came into consideration. 25...Q 25... Qd7

ow Black is happy to have this square, which the following moves show is of importance. 26.Ba4 b5! 27.Bb3

Sacrificing with 27.Bxb5 Qxb5 28.Rc7+ Kg8 29.Qg4 is not sufficient after 29...Qe8. 27...K 27... Kg7 28.a4 Nf7

And Black has succeeded in achieving a harmonious participation of all of his pieces in the coming  battle. 29.Rc6 Bxe3 30.R 29.R 30.Rxe3 Rh7 31.f3 Rah8 32.Q 32.Qc2 Rh1+ 33.K 33.Kf2 R8h2 34.R 34.Re2

White is too late; 34. Rc7 Rxg2+ 35.Kxg2 and the queen decides after 35...Qh3+ 36.Kf2 Qh2#. 34...Qh3 34...Q

Strong, but missing an even more decisive chance with 34...Rxg2+! 35.Kxg2 (35.Ke3 Rxe2+ 36.Qxe2 Qh3 is without defence as well) 35...Qh3+ 36.Kf2 Rf1+ 37.Ke3 Qh6+ and White gets mated. 35.Ke3 Qg3 36.Q 35.K 36.Qd2

White is busted, but the only practical chance was 36.Rc7.

226  

36...R 36... Rg1

ow the end is nearing fast. 37.axb5 Rgxg2 38.B 38.Bd1 Qf4+ 39.K 39.Kd3 Qxf3+ 40.Q 40.Qe3 Qf1 41.K 41.Kd2 Rh3 42.Q 42.Qxa7 Qf4+ 43.K 43.Kc2 44.Kc1 Rxe2 0-1 Qxe4+ 44.K

This game provides another good illustration of the solid character of the Steinitz Defence, and the opportunities for counterplay against the classical Ruy Lopez centre. Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence Fernand Gobet 2355 Boris Spassky 2605 Fribourg 1987 (3) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.N 5.Nbd2

Duras’ old idea 5.c4, aiming at enhanced central control, can also be well met by 5...g6! with good  play after a line such as 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.0-0 0-0 11.f3 (11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 Q b8 13.Qd2 Q b4! with a promising position position in Wolff-Kaidanov, Long Beach Beach ch-USA 1993) 11...Re8 12.Qd3 Q b8 with interesting counterplay counterplay (Kaidanov). Note how well the bishop bishop is placed on g7 in such positions. Other comments on the opening are in Chapter 8. 5...g6 6.c3 Bg7 7.N 7.Nf1 0-0 8.N 8.Ng3 Bd7 9.B 9.Ba4 Re8 10.0-0 a5 11.B 11.Bg5 h6 12.B 12.Bd2 d5

Black stands absolutely fine. He has developed his pieces and taken a full share of the centre. Note that the pawn on g6 does a good job of ‘dominating’ the Ng3, which has taken three moves to get

227  

there but actually has little scope on that square. For this reason, White exchanges on d5, hoping to give the knight additional scope, but he achieves very little. 13.exd5 Nxd5 14.N 14.Ne4 Nce7 15.R 15.Re1 Bxa4 16.Q 16.Qxa4 Nb6 17.Q 17.Qc2 Nc6 18.R 18.Rad1 Nd5 19.B 19.Bc1 b6 20.N 20. Ng3

The restless steed continues to wander around, in search of a better square, but with little success. 20...Q 20... Qd7 21.h4 Rad8 22.h5 g5

ow the knight dreams of landing on f5, but this can easily be prevented.

23.d4?!

Hoping to enhance his control of e5 and f5, but this weakens the white pawn structure and Black’s excellently-placed pieces take over the position. 23...exd4 24.R 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.cxd4 Ndb4 26.Q 26.Qa4 Qd5 27.Q 27.Qb3 Rd8 28.Q 28.Qxd5 Rxd5

228  

It is now clear that White has just seriously weakened his position and is struggling in the endgame. 29.a3 Nc2 30.B 30.Be3 N6xd4 31.N 31.Nxd4 Nxd4 32.B 32.Bxd4 Bxd4 33.K 33.Kf1 c5 34.b3 f5 35.N 35.Ne2

The wretched horse sets off on another journey, but it ends in the knacker’s yard. 35...K 35... Kf7 36.N 36.Nc3 Re5 37.N 37.Nb5 Kf6 38.N 38.Nxd4

After moving for the ninth time in the game, the knight perishes, but a lost rook endgame is the only dividend. 38...Rd5 39.R 38...R 39.Re1 cxd4 40.K 40.Ke2 Re5+ 41.K 41.Kd2 Rxe1 42.K 42.Kxe1 Ke5 43.K 43.Ke2 Ke4 44.K 44.Kd2 g4 45.a4 d3 46.Kc3 g3 0-1

229  

Games for study and analysis B Scotch Opening Jacques Mieses Rudolf Spielmann Regensburg m 1910 (3) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.N 4.Nxd4 Bc5

If we can develop this bishop to a natural square, why not? But, as Nimzowitsch indicated, even 4...d6!? is playable and he continues the line with 5.Be2 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.f4 Re8 9.Be3 Bf8 10.Bf3 Bd7 and Black holds the white centre in check. Black’s set-up here is very similar to the Old Steinitz against the Spanish, with the only difference that White’s bishop is on e2 instead of b5. That may or may not be in White’s favour (the bishop is less likely to be exchanged off on e2, but it is also less aggressively placed there), but we feel sure that Lasker would argue that such a minor difference is anyway of no great significance; either way, Black’s position is dispense perfectlywith playable, which all we in our scheme of things, and meanwhile, with 4...d6, he can hundreds ofispages ofwant Scotch Game theory. 5.B 5.Be3

5...Bb6!?

Lasker’s simple alternative to the sharp and theoretical 5...Qf6. More detail on White’s alternatives over the next few moves can be found in the previous chapter.

230  

6.B 6.Bc4 d6 7.N 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.N 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.B 9.Bg5

9...0-0!? 10.Q 10.Qf3 Be6

10...Bd4 is the solid continuation, but solidity was not Spielmann’s choice that particular day. 11.B 11. Bd3

After 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qxf6 gxf6 13.Bd3, Spielmann considered the two bishops good compensation for the weakened pawn structure. 11...Bd4 12.Qg3?!

It was more sensible to finish his development with 12.0-0. 12...R 12... Rb8 13.N 13.Nd1 Nh5!?

Contrary to what the earlier annotations make us believe, Black could take with 13...Bxb2 14.Nxb2 (somehow after 14.R b1 the annotators overlooked that 14...Be5 wins) 14...Rxb2 15.e5 dxe5 16.Qxe5 R b4 17.0-0 and White has compensation compensation for his lost pawn because of Black’s Black’s permanent weaknesses.

That is why the text move may be more practical. 14.Qh4 Bf6

14...f6 is playable but looks a bit clumsy. 15.B 15. Bxf6 Nxf6 16.f4

231  

Once again Mieses prefers attacking gestures over development. 16.0-0 looks more sensible. 16...c5 17.c4

White hopes to keep the position under control and conserve his space advantage but now Spielmann  plays a ‘preventive sacrifice’, as he calls it, it, to stop White from castling. castling. 17...d5!!

Black does not have much to fear anyway because his position is solid, and he can play 17...Re8 18.00 Bd7 and ..Bc6 or even 17...Ng4 without danger, but instead he comes up with a brilliant idea to take advantage of White’s retarded development, leaving the king potentially exposed in the centre. 18.exd5

18.e5 Ne4 19.Qxd8 Rfxd8 20.cxd5 Bxd5 leaves Black with a good position because of his active  pieces, so White decides to take the the bait. 18...B 18... Bxd5! 19.cxd5 Qxd5

232  

Black is fully mobilised and has dangerous chances against White’s king. Even the engines consider  Black’s game to be better so it is no surprise that Mieses soon collapsed. 20.Qg3 20.Q

Maybe he should have jettisoned the extra piece with 20.Bxh7+. 20...R 20... Rfe8+ 21.B 21.Be2 Rbd8 22.N 22.Nc3 Qd2+ 23.K 23.Kf1 Nd5! 24.R 24.Re1

Or 24.Qe1 Qxb2 25.Nxd5 Rxe2–+. 24...N 24... Nxf4

In retrospect, better was 24...Ne3+ 25.Kg1 (25.Kf2 Qxb2) 25...Qxb2 and the roof falls in. 25.Qf2 Rd4 26.g3 25.Q

26.Rd1 Qxe2+!. 26...Nh3 26...N

26...Qxb2!? 27.Nd1 Q b7 28.Qf3 Nd5 is quite unclear. 27.Qf5

27.Qg2 was to be preferred. 27...Q 27... Qxb2

233  

27...Nf4 is an interesting alternative.

28.Q 28. Qxh3

28.Nd1 was the right move to keep hope alive – 28...Qd2! 29.Qxh3 Rde4 30.Nf2 Rxe2 31.Rxe2 Qxe2+ 32.Kg2 h5 and the rook will participate. But this would have made Black feel sorry that he had missed a better chance on move 24. 28...Q 28... Qxc3

ow Black is definitely winning. 29.Q 29. Qf5 Rde4 30.Q 30.Qf2 Qd2 31.R 31.Rg1 R8e6 32.R 32.Rg2 Rf6 0-1

Scotch Opening Bozidar Ivanovic 2460 Tigran Petrosian 2610 Tallinn 1979 (10) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.N 4.Nxd4 Bc5

234  

5.Nb3 Bb4+!?

See Chapter 8 for more on this intermediate check. 6.c3 Be7 7.c4!? Nf6 8.N 8.Nc3 0-0 9.B 9.Be2 Re8 10.f3 a5 11.a4?! d6 12.0-0 Nd7

Black has secured a more or less equal position. 13.Be3 Bf6 14.Q 13.B 14.Qd2 b6 15.N 15.Nd5 Nc5 16.R 16.Ra3 Bd7 17.N 17.Nc1 Nb4!

With a concrete freeing plan in mind.

235  

18.B 18. Bd1

Or 18.Nxb4 axb4 19.Qxb4 Rxa4. 18...Nxd5 19.cxd5 c6! 20.dxc6 Bxc6 21.N 18...N 21.Nd3

21...d5!

The point of Black’s counterplay, he is about to take over... 22.N 22. Nxc5 d4 23.B 23.Bf2

The alternative was 23.N b7!? Bxb7 24.Bf2 and then 24...Rc8 or 24...Re7 seem good. Old annotations mention 24...Be7 with the idea ...N b4 and ...Na6. 23...bxc5 24.B 24.Be2 Rb8 25.B 25.Bc4 Rb4 26.b3 Be5 27.Q 27.Qd3 Rb7 28.R 28.Ra2

236  

28...Bd7!

Rerouting to e6. 29.B 29. Bd5 Rb8 30.R 30.Rc2 Be6 31.R 31.Rxc5?

31.Bxe6 Rxe6 32.R b1. 31...Bxh2+ 32.K 31...B 32.Kh1 Bd6

Firmly in the driver’s seat. 33.Rc4 Qg5 34.B 33.R 34.Bxe6 Rxe6 35.R 35.Rfc1 Rf8 36.R 36.Rc8 Ree8 37.R 37.R8c6 Re6 38.R 38.Rc8 Rg6 39.R 39.Rxf8+ Bxf8 40.Q 40. Qf1 d3! 41.g3 d2 42.R 42.Rd1 Rc6 43.K 43.Kg2 Rc1 44.B 44.Bb6

44.Qe2 Rxd1 45.Qxd1 Qd8 46.Be3 B b4 and ...Qd3 coming. 44...B 44... Bd6 45.B 45.Bf2 h5 46.Q 46.Qe2 Bxg3 0-1

Italian Game

Alexandr Trofimov Isaak Boleslavsky Tashkent 1965 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bc4 d6!?

A restrained but solid and efficient continuation that has been played by a range of strong players,

237  

Lasker and Alekhine among them.

Just as in the Steinitz Defence, Black sidesteps early commitments, focussing on setting up a rreliable eliable formation to be ready for the middlegame. Although 3...Bc5 is our main repertoire choice here, we have included the present game to illustrate this alternative, as it fits in well with the Steinitz and also if Black decides to play 4...d6 against the Scotch (see Chapter 8). 4.d4

Immediately reacting in the centre. White can also build up a classical centre with 4.c3.

Here, Lasker experimented with 4... Qf6!? and after the timid 5.d3 (5.d4 h6) 5...h6 6.h3?! Nge7 7.0-0 g5 8.Nh2 Ng6 9.Na3 Bd7 10.b4 h5 he got realistic attacking chances in Makovetz-Lasker, Graz

238  

1890. However, a more solid move is 4...Qe7, which was Alekhine’s suggestion to solidify the centre c entre with ...g7-g6 and ...Bg7. As White has signalled a slow build-up with 4.c3, Black can afford to do so also: 5.0-0 g6 6.d4! (if 6.d3 h6!? (to cut out Bg5 once and for all) 7.Re1 Bg7 8.N bd2 Nf6 9.Nf1 0-0 10.B b3 Be6 with approximate equality, or 6. Re1 Bg7 7.h3 Nf6 8.d4 0-0 9.N bd2 Bd7 and Black is well mobilised and has a resilient position with counterchances, Kudrin-Vorotnikov, Moscow 1995) 6...Bg7.

The critical position of this Alekhine idea. 7.dxe5! (7.B b5 Bd7 8.Be3 Nf6 9.d5 Nd8 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.c4 0-0 12.Nc3 f5 13.Ne1 Nf7 seems OK for Black, Komliakov-Vorotnikov, Sochi 1997) 7...Nxe5! (7...dxe5?! Montalvo/Lewis/Alcalde-Capablanca, consultation game 1912, is less recommendable because of 8.b4 with ideas such as a2-a4 and Ba3, or Bc1-e3-c5) 8.Nxe5 dxe5 9.b3 Be6 10.Ba3 ½-½ Beshukov-Vorotnikov, Krasnodar 1991. 4...exd4

Giving up central space for sound development and a solid position.

239  

This position can also be reached when Black, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4, defends with 4...d6!?, as well as transposing from the Scotch after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 d6!? 5.Bc4. 5.N 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.N 6.Nc3 Be7

7.0-0

7.f3 0-0 8.Be3 is a bit artificial and worked out quite well for Black in practice: 8...Ne5 (or 8...a6 9.Qd2 Ne5 10.Be2 d5 11.exd5 Nxd5= Karlsen-Barkhagen, Gausdal 1991) 9.Be2 d5 (freeing Black’s

240  

game effectively) 10.exd5 (10.f4? does not work due to 10...Neg4) 10...Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 and Black was OK and soon gained the advantage after 12.N b3? Qe6! 13.0-0 Ng4 in Khasin-Petrosian, Moscow 1961. 7.Bg5 0-0 is about equal. 7...0-0

8.f4?!

Overestimating his chances. Another practical example is 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9.h3 Nd7!? (a re- routing B B B N B manoeuvre we know from the Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defence) 10. e3 f6 11. d4 e5 12. e2 c5 13.Be3 Nc6 (13...R b8!?) 14.R b1 R b8 15.Nd5 (Rozhdestvensky-Boleslavsky, Minsk 1957) and now safest seems 15...Bd4. 8...d5!

Black can equalise with 8... Nxe4 but is more ambitious as his pieces are ready to spring alive, and White has weakened the squares around his king by his rash advance. 9.N 9.Nxc6

9.Nxd5 Nxd5 (9...Nxe4) 10.exd5 N b4 11.N b3 Bf5 and White must place his pieces on rather clumsy squares to hold things together: 12.Rf2 Be4 13.Rd2 Qd6 14.c3 b5 15.Bxb5 Nxd5 with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn. 9...bxc6 10.exd5 Bc5+ 11.K 11.Kh1 cxd5 12.B 12.Bxd5

241  

White probably refrained from 12. Nxd5 because of 12...Ng4 (12...B b7!? 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 gives abundant compensation because of Black’s active pieces), which, however, is not clear after 13.f5, in spite of Black winning the exchange. 12...Ba6! 13.B 12...B 13.Bxa8

13.Re1 came into consideration. 13...Q 13... Qxa8 14.R 14.Re1

ow Black has extremely active pieces and the storm breaks loose. 14...B 14... Bb7 15.R 15.Re2 Ng4 16.Q 16.Qe1

ow 16.h3? fails to 16...Bxg2+ 17.Rxg2 Nf2+, whilst 16.Qf1 Qd8! 17.Qe1 (17.f5 Ba6 is better but also problematic for White) loses after 17...Bf2! 18.Rxf2 Qh4. 16...B 16... Bxg2+! 17.R 17.Rxg2 Nf2+ 18.K 18.Kg1 Nd3+ 19.B 19.Be3 Nxe1 20.R 20.Rxe1 Re8 0-1

A nice example of White overreaching and the potential of Black’s solid and well-developed position.

Four Knights Game Julian Hodgson Boris Spassky 2590 Brussels 1985 (9) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.N 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.B 4.Bb5 Bb4

242  

In Chapter 8, we suggested 4...d6 here, which will generally transpose into the Ruy Lopez Steinitz Variation. However, the present game is a good recap of the Four Knights main line, should Black   prefer that, and is also a very Laskerian effort by Spassky. Although Alekhine Alekhine is generally cited as the World Champion whom Spassky’s style most closely resembled, we find that Spassky was often quite Laskerian in his approach to the game. Like Lasker, he was a universal player, who could handle all types of position well. He also had a somewhat more casual approach to openings than many of his rivals (possibly because of his notorious laziness!), and was often content to set up a solid, classical-type position and ‘shift the weight of the struggle to the middlegame’. Our section on the Catalan and flank openings in Chapter 8 shows his influence on this book.

5.0-0 0-0 6.d3

6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.d3 Qe7 8.Qe2 Re8 9.h3 was seen in the game Capablanca-Jaffe, New York 1913, and now Black can set up a safe position with 9...Bxc3 10.bxc3 Nd7 and ...Nf8. 6...B 6... Bxc3 7.bxc3 d6 8.B 8.Bg5 Qe7

243  

Black initiates an unpinning idea named after Metger, which is sensible considering that the darksquared bishop is missing. 9.R 9.Re1

White prepares to advance in the centre. After 9.Nd2 Pachman advocated 9...h6 10. Bh4 g5! 11.Bg3 Bd7, with the idea of ...Na5, as simplest. And 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.h3 h6 (Lilienthal-Capablanca, Moscow 1936), equalises. 9...Nd8 9...N

The knight is re-routed to e6 to break the pin. Due to the closed nature of the position Black can afford multiple moves with the same piece. 10.d4 Ne6

Capablanca suggested 10...Bg4 as a good alternative. 11.B 11. Bc1

A better choice than 11.Bh4 when 11...Nf4 and ...Ng6 will get rid of the pin anyway.

11...c5

244  

12.Bf1

Evidently not 12.dxe5?! dxe5 13.Nxe5? Nc7 and Black pockets a piece. If 12.d5 Nc7 13.Bd3 Nfe8 14.R b1 R b8 15.c4 Bd7 16.c3 g6 17.Bh6 Ng7, preparing counterplay, Tarrasch-Euwe, Bad Kissingen 1928. 12...Qc7 13.g3?! 12...Q

ot the accurate way to play. Better was 13.d5 Nd8 though this does not mean that White is better. 13...Re8 14.d5 Nf8 15.c4 Ng6 16.B 13...R 16.Bg2 Bd7 17.a4 h6 18.Q 18.Qd3 Rf8

Focussing on kingside counterplay. 19.Nd2 Nh7 20.R 19.N 20.Rf1 f5 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.B 22.Be4 Qd7 23.B 23.Bxf5 Rxf5 24.N 24.Ne4 Raf8 25.f3 Nf6!?

25...Ne7 came into consideration, Black however takes a calculated risk to stir up complications, a typical Lasker approach.

245  

26.Nxd6! e4 27.Nxe4 Ne5 28.Nxc5

28.Nxf6+ R5xf6 29.Qe2 Nxf3+ loses for White. 28...Qc8 29.Q 28...Q 29.Qe3?

This stretches his position too far. The reason Black’s adventure was a calculated risk is that 29.Qd4! Nxf3+ 30.Rxf3 Rxf3 loses the exchange but gives White ample compensation after 31. Ne6. 29...Nfg4! 30.Q 29...N 30.Qd4 Nxh2! 0-1

After taking the knight, 31...Rh5+ and 32...Qh3 is an unstoppable mating attack. Queen’s Gambit Declined Cambridge Springs Declined Max Euwe Emanuel Lasker Zürich 1934 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.B 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6!? 6.N 6.Nf3 Be7 7.Q 7.Qc2 0-0

246  

8.a3

After 8.Rc1 Re8, the game transposes into Lasker’s analysis in in Lasker’s  Lasker’s Manual of Chess Chess. Constructive waiting moves are often seen in this kind of structure, as Black hopes to play ...dxc4 with tempo when White’s bishop develops, and White tries to postpone this. 9.Bd3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nd5 11.Ne4 (11.Bxe7 Qxe7 and a freeing idea is ...Nxc3 and ...e6-e5). Lasker now gives 11...Nf8 and writes ‘Black will now slowly gain ground and beat back any attack since his position is void of  weak spots.’ This is a typical Lasker statement and shows his philosophy towards playing with black. In fact, though, the computer’s recommendation 11... Qa5+ is even better, causing White some disruption in meeting the check. After 12. Qd2 B b4 13.Nc3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Ba3 Black is fine. 8...R 8... Re8 9.R 9.Rc1 dxc4 10.B 10.Bxc4 Nd5 11.B 11.Bxe7 Qxe7

247  

12.Ne4

The following line is attributed to Bronstein: 12. Ne2!? N5b6 13.Ba2 e5 14.Ng3 exd4 15.Nf5 (in retrospect, 15.Nxd4 Nf6 is preferable, and White may be slightly better) 15...Qf6 16.N3xd4 and White is supposed to be a little better. Inner logic shows that this cannot be true. White has played around with the knight and left his king uncastled, and 16...g6!! punishes him for that: 17.Nh6+ Kg7 18.Bxf7 (18.Nxf7 Qxd4 is the main point) 18... Re7 19.Ng8 Rxe3+ 20.fxe3 Qxf7 and Black is clearly  better. 12...N 12... N5f6 13.N 13.Ng3 c5

Maybe Lasker considered 13...b6, but found it a bit passive after 14.e4. It may have been for that reason that he reacted in the centre. It is true that White has the c-file but we can foresee ... N b6, ...Bd7 as a chance of neutralisation. 14.0-0 cxd4 15.N 15.Nxd4

15.exd4 N b6 only solidifies Black’s position. position.

15...N 15... Nb6 16.B 16.Ba2 Rb8

Overly cautious. Black could have played the direct 16...Bd7! with the point 17. Qc7 N bd5, neutralising the way we expected. 17.e4

White could have considered a slow way to apply some pressure with 17.Qd2 when Qa5 is in the air.

248  

17...R 17... Rd8 18.R 18.Rfd1 Bd7 19.e5 Ne8!?

Setting up a resilient defensive formation. One of Lasker’s priorities was always to be very careful about weak points. Instead, 19...Nfd5 20.B b1 or 20.Ne4 would have given White chances for active play. 20.Bb1 g6 21.Qe4

Alternatively 21.Ne4, when 21...R bc8 22.Qe2 Ba4 comes into consideration. 21...Ba4! 21...B

A provocative little move with a deeper intention. 22.b3?

Kicks the bishop, but more careful was 22.Re1 R bc8. But who would not play this in an active  position? 22...B 22... Bd7

ow a3 is hanging. 23.a4 Nd5

ow Lasker’s idea has materialized. Suddenly there are ‘weak points’ in White’s formation and Black has possibilities to activate his pieces. 24.B 24. Bd3 Rbc8 25.B 25.Bc4 Bc6

249  

Better than the superficial 25...Nec7 26.Qg4. 26.N 26. Nxc6 bxc6

Once again, better than the alternative 26...Rxc6 27.Qg4 and Ne4. The apparent weakness of the  pawn on c6 is compensated for by the splendidly-entrenched central knig knight ht on d5. 27.R 27. Rd3 Nb4

Starts his counterplay which White clearly underestimates.

28.Rf3?!

White still strongly believes in his attacking potential, otherwise he would have neutralised the  position with 28.Rxd8 Rxd8 29.Qe3. 28...R 28... Rc7!

With an eye to the d-file. We can feel that Black is ready to hit back and for that reason Euwe makes a desperate effort to get his intended attack into full swing.

29.h4 Rcd7

ow ...Rd4 is in the air. 30.h5 Qg5!

All of Black’s pieces get to effective squares.

250  

31.R 31. Re1

The endgame after 31.Qf4 Qxf4 32.Rxf4 a5 is comfortable for Black. 31...Rd4 32.hxg6!? hxg6 31...R

R K Q K N ot falling for tricks: 32... xe4? 33.gxf7+ f8 34.fxe8 + xe8 35. xe4 with a winning attack. 33.Qe2 Rd2 33.Q

34.Q 34. Qf1?

The last chance to defend, 34.Qe3, should still have given reasonable drawing chances. 34...N 34... Nc2!! 35.N 35.Ne4 Qxe5! 36.N 36.Nf6+ Qxf6 37.R 37.Rxf6 Nxf6

Black has given up the queen for rook, minor piece and pawn, but all of White’s active pieces have disappeared in the transaction. What is left on the board is a great attacking position for Black. 38.R 38. Rc1

White might have done better giving up the queen with 38. Re2 Rd1 39.Rxc2 Rxf1+ 40.Bxf1 and hoping to hold. 38...Ne4 39.B 38...N 39.Be2 Nd4

251  

White’s position gets overrun. 40.Bf3 Nxf2! 41.Q 40.B 41.Qc4 Nd3 42.R 42.Rf1 Ne5 43.Q 43.Qb4 Nexf3+ 44.gxf3 Ne2+ 45.K 45.Kh2 Nf4+ 46.K 46.Kh1 R2d4 47.Q 47. Qe7 Kg7!

The final mating attack is near. 48.Q 48. Qc7 R8d5 49.R 49.Re1 Rg5 50.Q 50.Qxc6 Rd8 0-1

This game is a magnificent example of the solidity of Black’s position in this opening, and shows his counterattacking potential. It is also a matter of believing in it! Queen’s Gambit Declined Vladimir Kirillov Fedor Bohatirchuk  Moscow ch-URS 1931 (14) 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nc3 d5 4.B 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.N 5.Nf3 c6 6.e3 Be7 7.R 7.Rc1 0-0 8.B 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.B 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.B 10. Bxe7 Qxe7

252  

11.0-0 Rd8!? 12.Q 12.Qc2

12...Nf8?! 12...N

As noted in Chapter 8, a cleaner path to equality here is 12...Nxc3 13.Qxc3 b6. However Bohatirchuk  needed a win to preserve his high place in the Soviet Championship and therefore strives to complicate the fight. Objectively this is not the best decision, but Black has an interesting plan in mind and the game serves as an illustration of how a more ambitious player can try to generate chances in this line.

253  

13.R 13. Rfe1

Bohatirchuk considered 13.e4 to be better, and then 13...Nxc3 (after 13...N b6, his initial idea is crossed by 14.B b3 Bd7 15.e5) 14.Qxc3 b6 is still reasonable for Black. 13...B 13... Bd7 14.a3 Be8

This has a cramped appearance but Black toys with a long-term idea in which the bishop will return to the action later. 15.B 15. Ba2 Nb6

15...f6 16.e4 Nxc3 17.Qxc3 Bf7 would not have been easy to crack. 16.N 16. Ne4

White may have been able to cross Black’s plan at this stage by playing 16.e4 when 16...f6 would be met by 17.e5. 16...f6 17.N 17.Nc5 Bf7 18.Q 18.Qb3 Rab8 19.Q 19.Qc2

Bohatirchuk suggested 19.a4 Nfd7 20.Nd3 here. 19...K 19... Kh8 20.b4 g5

That was Black’s idea, to build up on the kingside and create counterplay there. It is an interesting  practical attempt, but theoretically theoretically it may not be achievable.

254  

21.Q 21. Qb2 Nd5 22.e4 Nf4 23.R 23.Re3 N8g6

Little by little Black’s idea has materialized into an interesting fighting scheme. 24.B 24. Bc4

B Q Q If White had played 24.d5 e5 25.dxc6 bxc6 26. xf7 xf7 27.  b3, Black would have achieved good good counterplay. 24...g4 25.N 25.Ne1 e5! 26.N 26.Nb3

Black’s last move had some tactical points like 26.Bxf7 exd4 and 27.Bxg6? fails to 27...dxe3 28.Bf5 Rd2. Or 26.dxe5 Bxc4 27.Rxc4 (27.exf6 Qf7 28.Rxc4? Qxc4 29.f7+ and Black can interpose with 29...Qd4) 27...Nxe5 28.Rc1? (28.Rcc3µ) 28...b6!, winning. 26...Bxc4 27.R 26...B 27.Rxc4

27...R 27... Rd6!

Black is clearly better now. 28.Nd3 Nxd3 28.N

28...b5 may even have been superior. 29.R 29. Rxd3 Rbd8

255  

Or 29...Nf4!? 30.Rd2 b5 31.Rc1 exd4. 30.g3?! b5 31.R 31.Rc1 exd4 32.R 32.Rxd4 Rxd4 33.N 33.Nxd4 Qe5! 34.R 34.Rd1 Qxe4

Black must be winning now. But Kirillov fights on. Q N N N K N K N K R 35. a1! e5 36. e2 f3+ 37. f1 xh2+ 38. g1 f3+ 39. f1 e8?

39...Rxd1+ 40.Qxd1 h5!? – Bohatirchuk gave 40...Kg7 in his annotations. 40.Q 40. Qxf6+ Kg8 41.N 41.Nc3!

41...Qc4+ 41...Q

Or 41...Qd3+ 42.Kg2 Ne1+!? (42...Qg6 43.Qxg6+ hxg6 was given by Bohatirchuk) 43. Kg1 Qf3 44.Qxf3 Nxf3+ 45.Kf1 Kf7 but the game is a long way from being won. 42.Kg2 Qe6 43.Q 42.K 43.Qxe6+

43.Qf4 Qg6 is clearly better for Black, it’s difficult to say what deserved preference.

43...R 43... Rxe6 44.R 44.Rh1!? Ne1+

If 44...Re1 45.Rxe1 Nxe1+ 46.Kf1 Nc2 47.N b1 holds for the time being. being. 45.K 45. Kf1 Nd3 46.N 46.Nd1 Re1+ 47.K 47.Kg2 Re2

47...h5!?.

256  

48.R 48. Rh4 Rd2 49.R 49.Rxg4+ Kh8?!

Did Bohatirchuk overestimate 49...Kf7 50.Ne3 ? because 50...Rxf2+ 51.Kg1 Ra2 seems good enough. 50.Ne3 Rxf2+ 51.K 50.N 51.Kg1 Rf3

Or 51...Ra2 52.Nf5!? (52.Rd4 Rxa3 53.Nf5). 52.N 52. Nc2

If 52.Nf1, 52...N b2 wins. 52...N 52... Ne5 53.R 53.Rg5 Nf7 54.R 54.Rc5

If 54.Rg4 Rd3 with good chances. R K R 54... xg3+ 55. h2 d3

55...Rg6 56.Nd4 Nd8 57.Re5 with sufficient counterplay for White to draw. 56.Rxc6 Ne5 56.R

Maybe Black should have kept his forces compact with 56...Kg7. 57.R 57. Rc5 Ng4+ 58.K 58.Kg2 a6 59.K 59.Kf1 h6 60.R 60.Rc6 h5

61.R 61. Rxa6

257  

This seems the losing move. 61. Rc5 Nf6 62.Ke2 Rg3 (62...R b3!? may provide better practical chances) 63.Ne3 is given by Bohatirchuk, with good equalizing chances. 61...h4! 62.N 62.Ne1 Rg3 63.K 63.Ke2 Re3+ 64.K 64.Kf1 h3 65.R 65.Ra8+ Kg7 66.R 66.Ra7+ Kg6 67.R 67.Ra6+ Kg5 68.R 68.Ra8 69.Kxe1 h2 70.R 70.Rg8+ Kh5 0-1 Rxe1+! 69.K

An interesting fighting game that shows that even in a solid and stable line such as this, Black can make an effort to mould the course of the game to his purpose without taking excessive risk. This and a good degree of determination can win games! As Lasker continually emphasised, chess is a fight.

258  

Games for study and analysis C Queen’s Gambit DeclinedExchange Hans Bouwmeester Max Euwe Amsterdam 1949 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nc3 d5 4.B 4.Bg5

White delays exchanging for one move. The Exchange Variation normally materialises after 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 N bd7 6.e3 c6. 4...N 4... Nbd7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.e3 c6 7.B 7.Bd3 Be7 8.Q 8.Qc2

8...N 8... Nh5!? 9.B 9.Bxe7 Qxe7

259  

10.Nge2 g6 11.0-0 f5 10.N

11...0-0 is seen in the next game. The text is a little riskier, but is also quite logical. Euwe wrote in his classic middlegame treatise with Kramer than in such ‘Carlsbad’ (i.e. Exchange QGD) structures, Black also has a minority attack plan, namely ...f7-f5-f4. In practice, it is harder to achieve, because if  White plays g2-g3, to hold up the advance ...f5-f4, then supporting it with ...g7-g5 involves a serious weakening of the black king. Nonetheless, if the centre is stabilised and the break e3-e4 not easily achievable, then such an ambitious advance may be possible for Black. It is interesting that recent experiences with the AI computer program AlphaZero have seen the computer defend the Exchange QGD as Black in precisely this way, by organising a kingside pawn storm. 12.R 12. Rab1

Preparing the so-called Minority Attack with b2-b4-b5, with the intention of weakening Black’s queenside structure. 12...0-0 13.b4 a6 14.a4 f4

This way Black gets compensation for the potential weakening of his c-pawn, by opening the f-file

and weakening White’s d4 in return. 15.exf4 Nxf4 16.Nxf4 Rxf4 17.Ne2 Rf6 18.b5 axb5 19.axb5

260  

19...Nf8 19...N

The sensible approach. Now Black has to defend one weakness, on c6, whereas after 19...cxb5 it would have been two, on b7 and d5. 20.bxc6 bxc6 21.R 21.Rb6 Bd7 22.R 22.Rfb1 Rf7 23.Q 23.Qd2 Qh4

Provoking a weakening to improve his chances for counterplay. 24.f3 Ne6 25.Q 25.Qe3 Re7 26.R 26.Rb8+ Rxb8 27.R 27.Rxb8+ Kf7 28.Q 28.Qf2 Qh6 29.f4 Ng7

261  

Blocking the f5-square against White’s threat of f4-f5 and preparing to take over control of the light squares. 30.B 30. Bc2?

Attack and defence were still in a state of approximate balance and White had good chances to equalise after 30.R b7 Bf5 31.Rxe7+. 30...B 30... Bf5 31.B 31.Bxf5 Nxf5 32.h3 Nd6

ow Black’s central control makes his position dominating. 33.Q 33. Qf3 Qh4 34.R 34.Rb1 Nb5 35.R 35.Rd1 Qf6

ot falling for the tricky trap 35...Rxe2? 36.Qxe2 Nc3 when 37.Qe1! turns the tables. 36.R 36. Rd2 Re4 37.Q 37.Qf2 h5 38.R 38.Rd3 Kg7 39.R 39.Rd2 Nd6 40.R 40.Rd3 h4

Immobilises White’s position further. 41.R 41. Rc3 Nf5 42.K 42.Kh2 Qe6

In hindsight, 42...Qe7 may have been more accurate. After 42... Nxd4 43.Nxd4 Rxd4 44.Rxc6 Qxf4+ 45.Qxf4 Rxf4 46.g3 Rf2+ 47.Kg1 hxg3 48.Rc3! Bouwmeester believed he would have had good chances to draw the game. 43.R 43. Rc2 Re3 44.N 44.Ng1 Nxd4 45.R 45.Ra2

262  

45...g5

In case of 45...Qe7! White’s 46.Ra7 was planned but this fails to 46...Nf3+! and therefore this was the superior choice. 46.R 46. Ra7+

Why not 46.fxg5, when it is not clear how much is left of Black’s initial advantage? 46...K 46... Kg6 47.Q 47.Qb2

Once again 47.fxg5 came into consideration. 47...Qf6 48.Q 47...Q 48.Qb7 Qxf4+ 49.K 49.Kh1 Qf8 50.Q 50.Qh7+ Kf6

Contrary to first appearances, Black’s centralised position is completely c ompletely safe. 51.R 51. Ra1 Re4

Of course he does not fall for 51...Nf5? 52.Qxf5+!. But the reliable 51...Re5 came strongly into consideration. 52.Rf1+ Rf4 53.R 52.R 53.Rxf4+ gxf4 54.Q 54.Qxh4+ Ke5 55.Q 55.Qe1+ Kf5

Black has returned one pawn to neutralise all potential danger, a highly practical decision. 56.Qd1 Qf6 57.Q 56.Q 57.Qh5+ Ke6 58.Q 58.Qe8+ Kd6 59.Q 59.Qb8+ Kd7 60.Q 60.Qb7+ Kd6 61.Q 61.Qb8+ Kd7 62.Q 62.Qb7+ Ke8 63.Q 63.Qc8+ Kf7 64.Q 64.Qd7+ Kg6 65.Q 65.Qg4+ Kh6 66.Q 66.Qd1 c5 67.Q 67.Qc1 c4 68.Q 68.Qb2 Qe5 69.Q 69.Qb6+ Kh5 Q 70. c5

263  

How to make progress now? Answer: by using all of our pieces. 70...f3! 71.gxf3

If 71.Nxf3, 71...Nxf3 72.gxf3 Kh4 is decisive. 71...N 71... Nf5 72.Q 72.Qc8 Kh4 73.Q 73.Qg8?

Blunders into a mating net but there was little hope anyway, for example: 73.Qd8+ Kg3 74.Qg5+ Kf2 75.Qd2+ Kf1 76.Qg2+ Ke1 77.f4 Qe3 78.Qxd5 Ng3+ 79.Kh2 Nf1+ 80.Kh1 c3 and White is defenceless; the threat is 81... Ng3+ and 82...Qf2+ and after the exchange of queens the c-pawn runs. 73...N 73... Ng3+ 0-1

Queen’s Gambit DeclinedExchange Cenek Kottnauer Max Euwe Amsterdam 1950 1.c4 e6

This is a handy move-order against the English Opening that invites going into the QGD by transposition.

264  

2.N 2.Nc3

In case of 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3, play transposes to a Réti System, after which Lasker in his Manual his Manual of Chess suggested 3...Nf6 4.B b2 c5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 a5 with the interesting remark: ‘In thus opening a way for the QR, Black escapes the necessity of providing an exit for the QB.’ 7.cxd5 (otherwise a welltimed ...d5-d4 follows) 7...Nxd5 and although the B b2 has to be neutralised with ...f7-f6, ...f7-f6, Lasker  thinks that Black is OK with his good centre. Food for thought, but in the game Lombardy-Spassky we take a closer look at the Réti-type of opening. 2...d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.B 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 c6 6.cxd5 exd5 7.B 7. Bd3

If 7.Nf3 Be7 8.Qc2 then 8...Nh5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 works as well, e.g. 10.0-0-0 Nhf6 11.Bd3 N b6 12.Ne5 Ng4 and Black neutralises. White however tried to force the issue with insufficient ustification, and lost after 13.e4?! Nxe5 14.dxe5 d4 15.Ne2 Qxe5 16.K b1?! Be6 17.f4 Qa5 18.a3 c5 19.f5 Bd7 20.Rc1? Rc8 21.e5? c4 22.e6 Ba4 0-1 in Aagaard-Welling, Budapest 1992. 7...Be7 8.Q 7...B 8.Qc2 Nh5 9.B 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.N 10.Nge2 g6

265  

11.0-0

If 11.0-0-0, then 11...N b6, development of the bishop bishop and following the leader with ....0-0-0, ..0-0-0,  providing a safe game. 11...0-0 12.N 12.Ng3

After 12.Rab1 f5 Black will generate counterplay with ...f5-f4 as in the previous illustrative game Bouwmeester-Euwe. N N R Q K 12... xg3 13.hxg3 f6 14. fe1 d6 15.a3 g7 16.b4

Once again we see a minority attack in order to weaken c6, but Black once again shows counterplay on the kingside. 16...a6 17.N 17.Na4

After 17.Rab1 h5 18.a4 Rh8, Black takes full advantage of the weakness of White’s kingside with ...h5-h4 coming.

17...h5

266  

Black fastens onto the ‘hook’ at g3, aiming to open the h-file with ...h5-h4. 18.Qc5 18.Q

That’s the idea, distracting the black queen from her attacking ideas. 18...Q 18... Qe6 19.N 19.Nb6

This makes a nice picture but is not really effective. 19...R 19... Rb8 20.f3 Rd8 21.e4?

This turns out to be weak as Black gets access to the strong square g4 for his knight. 21...dxe4 22.fxe4 Ng4 23.B 23.Bc4

23.e5 Q b3! and White’s position is is in danger of collapsing. 23...Q 23... Qd6 24.Q 24.Qxd6 Rxd6 25.R 25.Rad1 Be6 26.R 26.Rd3

Euwe provided the possible variation 26.Bxe6 fxe6 27.e5 Rdd8 28.Nc4 Nh6 29.Nd6 Nf5! which is good for Black. 26...Rbd8 27.Red1 Bxc4 28.Nxc4 Re6

267  

ow it is a matter of time. White slips up: 29.Nd2? Ne5! 30.d5 Nxd3 31.dxe6 Ne5 29.N

White was hoping for a last trick with 31...N b2? 32.R b1 Rxd2? 33.e7 and the pawn cannot be stopped. 32.exf7

Better fighting chances were offered by 32.e7 Re8 33.Nf3 Rxe7 34.Nxe5 Rxe5 35.Rd7. N 32... xf7

32...Nc4? seems clever but even loses to the rejoinder 33.f8=Q+!. 33.K 33. Kf2 Rd3

White resigned. The roof falls in.

Queen s Gambit Declined Alexander Alekhine Rudolf Spielmann Carlsbad 1923 (16) 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nf3 d5 4.N 4.Nc3 Nbd7

We discussed the merits of this move-order in Chapter 8.

268  

5.B 5.Bf4 dxc4! 6.e3 Nb6

As noted in the previous chapter, 6...Nd5 is an alternative and 6...a6!? may be simplest of all. 7.B 7.Bxc4 Nxc4 8.Q 8.Qa4+ c6 9.Q 9.Qxc4 Nd5 10.B 10.Be5

Tarrasch suggested 10.0-0 Nxf4 11.exf4 but in that case Black’s position is fairly stable after 11...Be7 and ...0-0. 10...f6 11.B 11.Bg3 Qb6!

12.Q 12. Qe2

12.R b1? loses outright after 12...Nxc3 13.Qxc3 B b4. 12...Bb4 13.R 12...B 13.Rc1 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Ba3 15.R 15.Rd1 Qb5!? 16.c4

In case of 16.Qxb5 cxb5 the pawn on c3 is a fixed weakness on an open file.

16...Qa5+ 17.N 16...Q 17.Nd2 0-0 18.0-0 b6 19.f4 Ba6

269  

As Maroczy stated in the tournament book, Black has the better game. 20.Be1 Qa4 21.R 20.B 21.Rf2 Rad8 22.R 22.Rb1 c5 23.dxc5 Bxc5 24.N 24.Nb3 Ba3 25.N 25.Nd4 Bxc4

Black is even winning now but somehow has some difficulties in converting. 26.Q 26. Qg4 f5 27.Q 27.Qg3 Rf7 28.h3 Bc5 29.R 29.Rd2 Rc7

29...e5! would have wiped out White’s defence as after 30.fxe5 f4! the centre is crushed. 30.K 30. Kh2 Bxd4

Bishops of opposite colours, but on the other hand it is Black who has the initiative. 31.exd4 Bd5 32.Q 32.Qe3 Rdc8 33.Q 33.Qe5 h6 34.R 34.Rbb2 Rc3 35.Q 35.Qe2 Qa3 36.R 36.Rd1

270  

36...Qxb2 36...Q

Probably best, Black keeps the initiative well into the endgame. 37.Q 37. Qxb2 Rc2 38.R 38.Rd2 Rxb2 39.R 39.Rxb2 Rc4 40.B 40.Bb4

If 40.Rd2 Ra4 forces two passed pawns. 40...a5

White probably hoped to activate his pieces after 40...Rxd4 41.Bd6, although even this should be winning for Black. But why not improve the position of his king first, one of our major endgame  principles, instead of this rash advance? 41.B 41. Bd6 Kf7 42.a3

42.g4 Rxd4 should not be enough for White. 42...Rc6 43.B 42...R 43.Bb8 Ke8 44.B 44.Ba7 Rc7!

271  

45.Bb8 45.B

45.Bxb6 R b7 with a winning pin. 45...Rc8 46.B 45...R 46.Be5 g6 47.g4 Rc3 48.gxf5 gxf5 49.R 49.Rxb6 Rxa3 50.B 50.Bd6 Rc3 51.B 51.Bc5 h5 52.h4 a4 53.R 53.Ra6 Rc2+ 54.K 54.Kg1

On 54.Kh3 Rf2 55.Rxa4 Rf3+ 56.Kh2 Rxf4 wins two pawns as after 57.Kh3 Rf3+ 58.Kh2 Rf1 Black  constructs a mating net. 54...Rg2+ 55.Kf1 Rg4 56.Rxa4 Rxh4

Leaving the f-pawn at its place so that White’s bishop will not be able to perform a defensive function. 57.Bd6 Rh1+ 58.K 57.B 58.Kf2 h4 59.R 59.Ra7 Rh2+ 60.K 60.Kf1 h3 61.R 61.Re7+ Kd8 62.R 62.Rh7 Ra2 0-1

The h-pawn will queen.

Queen’s Gambit Declined Alexander Alekhine Emanuel Lasker  New York 1924 (3) 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.N 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.cxd5! exd5 6.B 6.Bf4 c6 7.e3 Nh5!? 8.B 8.Bd3?! Nxf4 9.exf4 Bd6 10.g3 0-0 11.0-0 Re8 12.Q 12.Qc2 Nf8

272  

Once again, the opening is discussed in detail in Chapter 8. Black has emerged well from the opening. He has two bishops and the white d4-pawn is weak. Lasker manoeuvres in masterful fashion to exploit these factors. 13.N 13. Nd1?!

The aggressive 13.Ng5 does not bring any dividends after 13...g6 14.Rfe1 f6 15.Nf3 Bg4 16.Rxe8 Qxe8 17.Re1 Qd7. Alekhine suggested 13.Rfe1 instead, which more or less holds the balance. 13...f6

The engines indicate that 13... Bg4 14.Ne5 Bh3 15.Re1 Q b6 is strong, but Lasker’s approach is more logical. The pawn on f6 takes away the e5-outpost from White’s knights, whilst a later ...Bc8-e6-f7h5 is possible, putting more pressure on the d4-pawn. 14.N 14. Ne3 Be6 15.N 15.Nh4?!

Here Alekhine thinks 15.Rfd1 Bf7 16.Bf5 is better.

15...Bc7 15...B

Rerouting the bishop to attack the enemy weaknesses. 16.b4 Bb6 17.N 17.Nf3 Bf7! 18.b5?! Bh5!

Forces the opponent to weaken his structure. 19.g4 Bf7 20.bxc6 Rc8 21.Q 21.Qb2 bxc6 22.f5 Qd6 23.N 23.Ng2

273  

Or, for example, 23.a4 Qf4.

23...B 23... Bc7

The bishop has done its work on b6 and meanwhile the situation has changed on the diagonal b8-h2. Black’s other bishop has provoked the pawn advances g3-g4 and f4-f5, so now Black sets up threats along the weakened black diagonal. 24.R 24. Rfe1 h5! 25.h3

25.g5 fxg5 26.Ne5 Nd7 collapses. 25...N 25... Nh7!

Intending to come to g5. 26.R 26. Rxe8+ Rxe8 27.R 27.Re1 Rb8 28.Q 28.Qc1 Ng5 29.N 29.Ne5 fxe5 30.Q 30.Qxg5 e4 31.f6 g6 32.f4 hxg4!

White hoped for counterplay after 32...exd3 33.gxh5.

33.B 33. Be2 gxh3 34.B 34.Bh5 Rb2! 35.N 35.Nh4 Qxf4 36.Q 36.Qxf4 Bxf4 0-1

One of Lasker’s most famous games and a really impressive example of a solid opening, followed by elegant positional manoeuvring. The way he used his bishops to attack White’s weakness on d4 and  provoke further decisive weaknesses on the kingside is highly instructive. instructive. Slav Defence Johann Hjartarson 2550 Ljubomir Ljubojevic 2625

274  

Belgrade 1987 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nf3 d5 4.N 4.Nc3 c6

Our regular repertoire move-order is 4...N bd7. Then after the very modest 5.e3, we we can just stick to orthodox QGD structures with 6...Be7 and 6...0-0, but the present game illustrates an alternative approach. We decided to include it, because it is yet another example of restrained and modest play  by Black, accepting a space disadvantage, disadvantage, but avoiding weaknesses. Ljubojevic Ljubojevic gives an excellent demonstration of the counterattacking potential of such structures. 5.e3 Nbd7

After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 N bd7 the move 5.e3 is not often played these days. White keeps the bishop on c1 within the pawn chain but intends to store up potential energy before opening the position and unleashing it. This method should certainly not be underestimated. In accordance with our Laskerian approach of simplicity and efficiency, we continue 5...c6 but with the intention of  a solid development (albeit with a little less space), instead of submerging ourselves in the doubleedged Meran conflicts with ...dxc4 and ...b7-b5, on which there are hundreds of pages of opening theory and forcing variations.

6.B 6.Bd3

It does not matter so much that White can also play 6.Qc2 which is focussed against ...dxc4 and ...b7 b5, as we are not intending to react like that anyway. 6...Be7 6...B

Bogoljubow gave this move an exclamation mark in his famous book book Die  Die Moderne Eröffnung 1.d21.d2-

275  

d4!. This may be a bit exaggerated, but it seems quite playable. 6...Bd6 is another way to follow a d4!. This similar approach, but on d6 the bishop can be exposed. 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4

The direct approach. Better practical chances may be offered by some additional preparatory development: 8.b3 b6 9.B b2 B b7 10.Qc2 (a good alternative is 10.Qe2 c5 11.Rad1, MathotSoultanbeieff, cr 1937, and Soultanbeieff suggested 11...Qc7 followed by ...Rad8 and ...Rfe8) 10...Rc8 11.Rac1 g6!? 12.Rfd1 Qc7 13.e4 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nxe4 15.Bxe4 Rfd8 16.Qe2 Re8 17.Ne5 Rcd8, and Black had a somewhat restricted but solid position in Piket-Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1989. The  players decided to call it a day here. Finally, Finally, after 8.Qe2 Black can consider 8...dxc4 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Bd3 b4 11.Ne4 c5 with gain of time. 8...dxe4 9.N 9.Nxe4 b6!

This was Bogoljubow’s improvement on Grünfeld’s analysis, which went 9...c5 10. Nxc5 Nxc5 11.dxc5, but now we spot a playable alternative as well: 11...Qc7! (11...Bxc5 12.Qe2 was Grünfeld’s recommendation for White) 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bh4 Qxc5 14.Qe2 Rd8 15.Ne5 a5! 16.Rad1 Ra6 and the rook came to d6 with decent counterplay in Morovic-Ljubojevic, Vina del Mar 1988.

Similar structures often arise from the 4... Nd7 Caro-Kann, with Black patiently developing within his own first three ranks and gradually preparing the freeing break ...c6-c5. 10.b3

Once again, adopting a more restrained build-up. Alternatively, for example, 10.Qe2 B b7 11.Rd1 Qc7 12.Bg5 (Johner-Bogoljubow, Berlin 1928), and after 12...c5! Black frees free s his position, intending 13.dxc5 bxc5.

276  

10...c5 11.B 11.Bb2 Bb7 12.Q 12.Qe2 cxd4 13.N 13.Nxd4 Nc5 14.N 14.Nxc5 Bxc5! 15.N 15.Nf3 Qc7

There is no need to fear 16.Bxf6, as there is no attack. 16.Ne5 Rad8 17.R 16.N 17.Rad1 Rd6 18.N 18.Ng4 Nxg4 19.Q 19.Qxg4 f6 20.B 20.Bc2 Qe7 21.R 21.Rxd6 Bxd6 22.R 22.Re1 e5 23.h4 Rd8 24.h5 Bb4 25.R 25.Re2 Qd7 26.B 26.Bf5

White should have exchanged 26. Qxd7, as he is losing control now. 26...Q 26... Qd1+ 27.K 27.Kh2 Bd2 28.B 28.Be6+ Kh8 29.B 29.Bd5 Bf4+ 30.g3

ow Ljubojevic starts his tactical sequence and White does not succeed in defending his weaknesses.

30...f5! 31.Q 31.Qh4

If 31.Qf3, 31...Rxd5! wins, nor does 32.Bxe5 Bxe5 33.Rxe5 h6 survive for White. 31...B 31... Bxg3+! 32.K 32.Kxg3 Rxd5 33.cxd5 Qxd5 34.Q 34.Qb4

In case of 34.Qa4 b5 35.Rxe5 Qg2+ 36.Kf4 Qxf2+ 37.Kg5 h6+ 38.Kg6 Q b6+ Black wins.

34...Q 34... Qf3+ 35.K 35.Kh4

277  

35...h6?!

Missing a clear win though the main line was not easy to spot: 35...Qh1+ 36.Kg5 (36.Kg3 f4+ 37.Kg4 Bc8+ 38.Kg5 Qg2+ 39.Kh4 Qg4#) 36...h6+ 37.Kxf5 (37.Kg6 Qc6+ 38.Kxf5 Qd7+ 39.Kxe5 Qd5+ 40.Kf4 Qg5#) 37...Qf3+ 38.Ke6 Bc6!! and White’s position is indefensible. 36.Re3 36.R

There was one chance for survival: 36.Bxe5!? Qh1+ 37.Kg3 Qg2+ 38.Kh4 Qg5+ 39.Kh3 Qxh5+ 40.Qh4 (40.Kg3 Qg5+ 41.Kh3 Qg2+ 42.Kh4 Kh7!–+) 40...Qf3+ 41.Qg3=. Now Black is winning again. 36...Qxf2+ 37.R 36...Q 37.Rg3 Qh2+ 38.R 38.Rh3 Qf2+ 39.R 39.Rg3 Kh7

278  

40.Kh3 40.K

40.Bxe5 Qh2+ 41.Rh3 Qxe5. 40...Qf1+ 41.K 40...Q 41.Kh4 Qh1+ 42.R 42.Rh3 Qg1 43.R 43.Rg3 Qh2+ 44.R 44.Rh3 Qxb2 45.Q 45.Qc3 Qf2+ 0-1

Catalan Opening Jorge Rubinetti 2430 Boris Spassky 2640 Buenos Aires 1979 (6) 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.N 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 Be7 5.B 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 Nbd7!? 7.b3

Alternatives are considered in Chapter 8 above.

279  

7...b6!

The set-up with 7.b3 had a good reputation for White, and this was the main reason some strong  players tried to be tricky with 4..B b4+ 5.Bd2 Be7!? in order to sidestep the whole thing. Spassky shows us that this is unnecessary because of his move-order. 8.cxd5

White can build up with 8. B b2 B b7 9.N bd2 c5 10.Rc1 Rc8; for example, 11.e3 dxc4 12.Nxc4 b5 13.Nce5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 Qd5+ 16.Qf3 c4! with a more or less equal position, HübnerPachman, München 1979. 8...N 8... Nxd5! 9.B 9.Bb2 Bb7 10.N 10.Nbd2 c5 11.R 11.Rc1 Rc8 12.dxc5?!

Loses the grip on the position, 12.a3 comes into consideration. 12...Nxc5 13.a3 b5! 14.R 12...N 14.Rc2 Qb6 15.B 15.Bd4 Qa6 16.b4

After 16.Qc1 Nd7 White is under pressure, whilst 16. Qa1 fails because of 16...Nxb3!. 16...N 16... Na4 17.N 17.Nb3 f6 18.N 18.Na5 Ba8 19.B 19.Bh3 f5 20.B 20.Bg2 Qd6

280  

21.Be5 21.B

21.Bxa7 e5 gives Black a lot of chances. 21...Qd7 22.R 21...Q 22.Rxc8 Rxc8 23.Q 23.Qa1?!

In Réti style, but unfortunately for him Black can plug the diagonal effectively. 23...Ndc3 24.R 23...N 24.Re1 Bd5 25.h4 Bf6!

Takes over the whole of the central control. 26.B 26. Bxf6 gxf6 27.e3 e5 28.N 28.Nh2 Kf7 29.B 29.Bh3 Ba8 30.N 30.Nf1 Qd3

281  

31.e4

Desperation, but what else? 31. Bg2 Bxg2 32.Kxg2 Qe4+ 33.f3 Qc2+ looks pathetic. 31...B 31... Bxe4 32.R 32.Re3 Qc2 33.Q 33.Qe1 Rd8 34.f3 Ba8 35.f4 Be4 36.fxe5 fxe5 37.N 37.Nc6 Rd1

37...Bxc6 38.Rxe5 Be4 was good as well. 38.Nxe5+ Kf6 39.R 38.N 39.Rxe4 Nxe4

39...Rxe1 scores as well. 40.Qe3 Kxe5 41.Q 40.Q 41.Qf4+ Kd4 42.B 42.Bxf5 Nac3 43.Q 43.Qe3+ Kd5 44.Q 44.Qc5+ 0-1

Réti Opening William Lombardy 2520 Boris Spassky 2640 Buenos Aires 1979 (11)

1.c4 e6 2.N 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 Nf6 4.B 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 c5 7.B 7.Bb2 Nc6 8.e3 Qa5!? 9.Q 9.Qe2 Rd8 10.N 10.Nc3 11.Rfd1 Rac8 12.d3 Be8 Bd7 11.R

282  

Black has completed a rock-solid classical set-up. ow White is invited to show his hand... 13.e4?!

... and makes a mistake, which proves the old rule that it is often easier to counter a move than to create one yourself. 13.cxd5 comes into consideration but after 13...exd5 Black’s forces are nicely centralised. 13...dxc4 14.bxc4 Nd4 15.Q 15.Qd2 b6 16.e5

Looks a bit committal, but there is little else to do. Maybe 16. Ne1 was worth a try. 16...N 16... Nd7 17.R 17.Re1

283  

17...b5!

ow Black activates his pieces effectively and White is on the ropes. 18.cxb5 Nb6 19.Q 19.Qd1

19.a4? N b3 or 19.Red1? Nc4!. Best was 19.Rad1, holding for the time being. 19...N 19... Nxb5 20.N 20.Ne4 Na4

White’s queenside and centre get overwhelmed in the next few moves. 21.Bc1 c4 21.B

284  

22.d4 Nxd4 23.N 23.Nd6 Bxd6 24.exd6 Rxd6 25.N 25.Nxd4 Rxd4 26.Q 26.Qxd4 Qxe1+ 27.B 27.Bf1 Qc3 28.B 28.Be3 Qxd4 29.B 29. Bxd4 a6

Black is up on material and eventually wraps things up. 30.f4 Bb5 31.K 31.Kf2 f6 32.B 32.Bh3 Kf7 33.R 33.Re1 Rc6 34.B 34.Bg2 Rc7 35.B 35.Bh3 Bd7 36.B 36.Bf1 Bb5 37.B 37.Bh3 Rc6 38.B 38. 39.Ke3 Nc3 40.R 40.Ra1 Ba4 41.B 41.Bf3 Nb5 42.B 42.Bc5 0-1 Bg2 Rd6 39.K

285  

Games for study and analysis D Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation Keith Arkell 2479 Stephen Fairbairn 2088 Port Erin 2006 (1) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 a6 4.B 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.b3!?

An interesting move that is not often seen. 5...Bg4

5...f6 6.B b2 c5 7.d3 Bd6 8.N bd2 Ne7 9.Nc4 and White has put his pawns on the right colour – the one opposite his bishop – but because of Black’s central square control White is not able to gain an advantage. For example: 9...Bg4 10.h3 Bh5 11.g4 Bf7 12.Qd2 Ng6 13.Ne3 Nf4 14.0-0-0 with equality, Bohak-Sande, cr 1979.

6.h3 Bh5 7.B 7.Bb2 f6 8.d4 exd4

8...Bxf3 9.Qxf3!? exd4 10.0-0 and in case of 10...c5 11.e5 White develops an initiative (or 11.Rd1 and c2-c3). 9.Q 9.Qxd4 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Qxd4 11.B 11.Bxd4 Bd6 12.N 12.Nd2 Ne7 13.N 13.Nc4 Ng6

286  

White has a potential pawn majority on the kingside and Black’s doubled c-pawn hinders the creation of a passed pawn of his own. But Black’s pieces dominate the dark squares and for that reason White changes the direction of the game: 14.N 14. Nxd6+!? cxd6 15.R 15.Rd1 Ke7 16.R 16.Rg1 Rhg8 17.B 17.Be3 Ne5!? 18.K 18.Ke2 Nf7

19.h4

White hopes that after a further h4-h5, he can make the g7-pawn into a target. 19...R 19... Rae8 20.h5 Ke6 21.R 21.Rg3 g5 22.hxg6 Rxg6?

287  

After 22...hxg6, White can play against the g6-pawn, but after 23.f4 d5 24.f3 Nd6 25.Bc5 b6!? Black  develops some counterplay. In the game he is saddled with a weak pawn on h7 and, helped by that fact, the white rook becomes very mobile. 23.Rh1 Rxg3 24.fxg3 h6 25.g4 23.R

Immobilizes and fixes the weakness. Of course not 25.Bxh6? Rh8. 25...R 25... Rh8 26.R 26.Rh5 d5

Maybe Black should have waited with 26... Ke7. 27.exd5+ cxd5 28.B 28.Bf4 Rc8 29.K 29.Kd3 Ng5

This gives White the opportunity to activate his rook and king. 30.B 30. Bxg5! hxg5 31.R 31.Rh7 b5 32.R 32.Ra7

32...R 32... Rc6 33.K 33.Kd4! Rxc2

Black crumbles under pressure, but after 33...b4 34.Ra8, White also has a distinct advantage. 34.Rxa6+ Ke7 35.K 34.R 35.Kxd5 Rc3 36.R 36.Ra7+ Kf8 37.K 37.Ke6 Rxf3 38.R 38.Rf7+ Kg8 39.R 39.Rxf6 Re3+ 40.K 40.Kf5 Re2 41.R 41. Ra6

Black resigned. Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation

288  

Eduardas Rozentalis 2650 Tom Wedberg 2480  New York 1997 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 a6 4.B 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0

Although we recommend 5.Nc3 as our repertoire move, the present game is included because it is an excellent illustration of White’s main strategic idea in the Exchange Lopez, namely the exploitation of his superior pawn structure. 5...B 5... Bd6 6.d4 exd4 7.Q 7.Qxd4

Reaching the archetypal pawn structure.

White has a healthy 4 v 3 majority on the kingside, which can produce a passed pawn, By contrast, Black’s 4 v 3 majority on the other flank is compromised by the doubled c-pawns and cannot force a  passed pawn. White’s plan, at its its most basic, is to exchange most most (if not all) of the pieces and reach a simplified endgame, in which he will be effectively a pawn up.

7...f6 8.B 8.Be3 Ne7 9.N 9.Nbd2 Be6 10.Q 10.Qc3 0 0 11.N 11.Nc4 Bxc4 12.Q 12.Qxc4 Kh8 13.R 13.Rad1

White has already achieved a small success, in inducing Black to exchange bishop for knight. This deprives Black of the two bishops, one of his main compensations for his inferior pawn position. 13...Q 13... Qe8 14.B 14.Bc5

289  

An instructive example of flexibility. White pursues his plan of simplification. However, if Black  were to defend the bishop (e.g. with 14...Rd8), the exchange on d6 would allow Black to undouble his  pawns. Even so, the pawn on d6 d6 would be backward and weak, so White is is quite happy to make that exchange and effectively swap one advantage for another. The reader will see a similar  transformation, again resulting from a bishop exchange on d6, in the classic game LaskerCapablanca, St Petersburg 1914. 14...Bxc5 15.Q 14...B 15.Qxc5 Ng6 16.R 16.Rfe1 Qf7 17.b3 Rfe8 18.N 18.Nd4 Qf8

This exchange plays into White’s hands, by bringing the endgame nearer, but on the other hand, Black has no counterplay and the white queen is annoyingly more active than her counterpart. This illustrates another important positional principle – if you wish to exchange off one of your pieces, the most effective way to do this is often to place that piece in an effective position, as a result of which the opponent will himself frequently hurry to exchange it. 19.Q 19. Qxf8+ Nxf8 20.f3

This is also instructive. White is getting closer to his desired endgame and his eventual plan is f3-f4

and e4 e5, creating a passed pawn on the e file. However, the golden rule of the endgame is do not hurry’ and Rozentalis for the moment bides his time. Rather than rushing with f3-f4 and e4-e5, he instead first improves the position of his pieces to the maximum and seeks further favourable exchanges. Ultimately, the threat of f3-f4 and e4-e5 will not go away. 20...R 20... Rad8 21.K 21.Kf2 Kg8 22.N 22.Nf5 Kf7 23.N 23.Ne3

This creates the nasty threat of Nc4 and Na5, which would attack b7 and tie Black down considerably, hence Black’s next.

290  

23...b5

But the drawback of this move is the weakening of the queenside, especially the c5-square. Now a  possible king march to e3-d4-c5 e3-d4-c5 is in the air, as is a knight penetration to c5. But before carrying out either of those ideas, Rozentalis reveals the other point of his last move – he is scheming to hoover the rooks on the d-file. 24.R 24. Rxd8 Rxd8 25.R 25.Rd1 Rxd1

Given that there are no penetration squares on the d-file, Black could have tried to keep the rooks on with 25...Re8 but then he would be permanently tied to the defence of d7 and d8. 26.N 26. Nxd1

Thus, White has succeeded in exchanging all the pieces except a pair of knights. As Botvinnik   pointed out in his time, time, knight endings are the closest to pawn endings in their characteristics, characteristics, and this is almost as favourable a piece disposition as White can hope for in the Exchange Lopez. 26...c5 27.K 27.Ke3 Ke6 28.f4

At last, the pawns are ready to advance. For the moment, Black has e5 under control, but that may not always be the case. 28...Nd7 29.N 28...N 29.Nb2 Kd6 30.g3 Ke6 31.N 31.Nd3

ow Black must keep guarding the weak c5-pawn, a consequence of his 23rd move. 31...Kd6 32.g4 31...K

291  

Bizarrely, my engine assesses this position as dead equal, but I don’t think aany ny GM would really agree with this assessment. In practice, Black’s position is highly unpleasant to play, as he has no counterplay and can only wait to see how White goes about strengthening the position. White has various options, such as space-gaining with h2-h4/g4-g5, or f4-f5, followed by transferring the knight to e6 or h5. Black should probably be able to draw with very best play, but it is not easy at all against a patient white player. 32...c4?!

Black tires of passively watching as White steadily probes and improves his position bit by bit. The text weakens the black pawns further and arguably makes White’s task easier, but it is notoriously hard to sit still and do nothing in such positions. 33.bxc4 bxc4 34.N 34.Nb4 c6 35.a3

Black relied on the trick 35.Nxa6 c5 when the white knight would be trapped. 35...a5 36.N 36.Na2 Nb6 37.N 37.Nc3 c5

Otherwise Kd4 is unpleasant, but now the white knight has options on b5 and d5. 38.h4 Ke6 39.N 39.Nb5

Taking d6 from the black king. 39...K 39... Kd7

292  

40.g5!

40.e5 could now have been played, but then Black gets access to d5. Instead, Rozentalis still holds  back this move, looking to create a weakness on f6, as well as opening the g4-square for his king  potentially to penetrate on the the kingside. 40...K 40... Ke6 41.gxf6 gxf6

41...Kxf6 would have avoided the weak pawn, but allowed White his long-dreamt-of passed pawn on the e-file. 42.N 42. Nc3 Nd7 43.N 43.Nd5 Kf7 44.K 44.Kf3 Kg6 45.K 45.Kg4 h5+

Otherwise White himself plays 46.h5+ and brings his king into f5. 46.K 46. Kf3

White has been temporarily repulsed on the kingside, but now his king heads back towards the

weaknesses on the queenside.Kf3-e3-d2-c3 is on the agenda. 46...K 46... Kf7 47.K 47.Ke3 Ke6 48.f5+ Kf7 49.N 49.Nf4

Finally annexing a pawn. The way White has combined threats against both the queenside and the kingside is a perfect illustration of the ‘two weaknesses’ principle. 49...N 49... Ne5 50.c3 Ke7 51.N 51.Nxh5 Nd3 52.N 52.Nf4 Ne1 53.a4 1-0

A wonderfully thematic Exchange Lopez victory by Rozentalis, who has always been a great

293  

specialist in the variation. ote that although the idea of creating a passed pawn with e4-e5 hung over Black throughout the entire game, it never actually happened – the threat proved stronger than the execution (yes, we know, that was Nimzowitsch not Lasker!)! One other point to note is that the black player here was a strong Swedish GM, which just goes to show that it is far from easy to prevent White from carrying out his plan in this line, whatever the theory books and/or engines may say about the position being equal. Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation Ivo Donev 2400 Enrigue Almada 2315 Zürich tt 1996 (1) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 a6 4.B 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.N 5.Nc3 f6 6.d4 exd4 7.N 7.Nxd4 c5 8.N 8.Nde2 Qxd1+ 9.N 9.Nxd1

9...B 9... Be6 10.B 10.Bf4 0-0-0 11.N 11.Ne3 h5 12.h4 Nh6 13.f3 Nf7 14.K 14.Kf2 Ne5 15.R 15.Rad1 Bd6

Of course the pawn cannot be snapped off with 15...Rxd1 16.Rxd1 Bxa2 due to 17.Bxe5 fxe5 18.b3.

Of course the pawn cannot be snapped off with 15...Rxd1 16.Rxd1 Bxa2 due to 17.Bxe5 fxe5 18.b3. 16.Nf5 16.N

The logical continuation, and probably superior to doubling with 16. Rd2. 16...B 16... Bxf5

If 16...g6, 17.Nxd6+ seems to secure a slight edge.

294  

17.exf5 Rd7

17...Rhe8 18.Rhe1. 18.Bxe5! Bxe5 18.B

In the long term Black will suffer because of his weakness at h5. White’s first step is to obstruct Black’s bishop. 19.Rxd7 Kxd7 20.R 19.R 20.Rd1+ Kc6 21.c3 b5 22.f4 Bd6 23.K 23.Kf3 a5 24.b3 Ra8 25.N 25.Ng3 Rh8 26.R 26.Rd2 Kb6 27.N 27. Ne4 Kc6 28.c4 b4

This does not look right, but it is not easy to defend a worse position. 29.a4! Re8

29...bxa3 30.Ra2 R b8 31.Rxa3 and the black position has too many targets. But now the queenside is sealed and White can act more or less freely on ‘his’ kingside. Is it enough to win, though?

30.R 30. Re2 Kd7 31.N 31.Ng3 Rh8 32.R 32.Re6 Kc6 33.N 33.Ne4 Kd7

295  

34.Ng3 34.N

White can try to invade with 34.Nxd6 cxd6 35.Ke4, which seems to win at first sight, but what about 35...Kc6!? (35...Ra8 36.Kd5 Ra6 37.Re3 Ra8 38.Rg3 Rg8 39.Rg6 Ke7 40.Kc6 and White is close to winning) 36.Re7 Rd8!? (or 36...Rg8 37.g3 Rd8!?) 37.Rxg7 Re8+ and the rook will enter with unclear  consequences. 34...Kc6 35.N 34...K 35.Nf1 Kd7 36.N 36.Ne3 Rf8 37.N 37.Nd5 Rh8 38.R 38.Re1 Rf8 39.N 39.Ne3 Rh8 40.N 40.Nf1 Rf8 41.N 41.Ng3 Rh8 42.R 42. 43.Ne4 Rd8 44.K 44.Ke3 Kd7 45.N 45.Nxd6 cxd6 46.K 46.Ke4 Kc6 Re6 Kc6 43.N

296  

47.g3

After 47.Re7 Donev has shown a nice drawing line with 47...d5+! (not clear if this is necessary, but a fine idea) 48.cxd5+ Rxd5 49.Rc7+! Kxc7 50.Kxd5 K b6 51.g3 c4 52.Kxc4 Kc6 and Black draws by opposition. 47...Rd7 48.Re8 Rc7 49.Kd3 Rd7 50.Rc8+ Kb7 51.Rg8

If 51.Rh8, 51...Kc6 52.Rxh5 d5 53.cxd5+ Kxd5 keeps the balance due to his active king. 51...K 51... Kc6 52.R 52.Rc8+ Kb7 ½-½

One gets the feeling that White was a bit unlucky not to bring in the full point. Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation Peter Romanovsky Andrey Smorodsky Moscow 1924 (10) 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 a6 4.B 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.N 5.Nc3 f6 6.d3

In Chapter 8, we gave 6.d4 as our main line here, but the text is also an interesting way to handle the  position. White eschews setting setting up the kingside pawn m majority ajority with d2-d4, since the opening opening of the  position makes it easier for Black Black to activate his bishops. Instead, the veteran Russian master Romanovsky, who learnt his chess from Chigorin (a great lover  of knights over bishops), developed a plan to keep the position closed and manoeuvre with his knights, hoping thereby to keep the lid on the enemy clergy. Whilst White objectively has no advantage, the plan is interesting and quite playable, and Romanovsky had considerable success with

297  

it. It is also of particular relevance to us, since in our recommended line against the Berlin, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B b5 Nf6 4.Bxc6!? dxc6, the additional pressure against e4 makes 5.d3 the necessary follow-up anyway. 6...Bd6 6...B

The immediate 6...Ne7 7.Be3 Ng6 was tried in Romanovsky-Gotthilf, Petrograd 1923. After 8. Ne2 Bd6 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nd2 Black was tempted into the aggressive, but positionally rather ugly 10...f5?!. After the further moves 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.Ng3 Nf4 13.Bxf4 exf4 14.Nxf5 Rxf5 15.Nf3 Qf6 16.c3 entirely Kh8 17.Re1 Qh6 18.Q b3 White was certainly better and went on to win, albeit not entirely convincingly. 7.N 7.Ne2 c5 8.B 8.Be3 Ne7 9.0-0

9.Ng3 Be6 10.c3 Qd7 was a later game Romanovsky-Botvinnik, Moscow 1935, eventually won by Black after a gruelling struggle. 9...B 9... Bg4 10.N 10.Nd2

This knight manoeuvre to d2 and e2 was a favourite of Romanovsky’s in this line. An open games  purist would have fits at the the thought that he had used four moves moves instead of two to get his knights to e2 and d2, but the position is fairly closed, so time is not so crucial. 10...N 10... Nc6 11.f3 Be6

12.c3

298  

12.f4!? is another way to play the position. Instead, Romanovsky has formed a plan to attack the  black pawn on c5, by playing c2-c3, c2-c3, a2-a3 and b2-b4. 12...Q 12... Qe7 13.a3 0-0

13...a5 would probably have been better. 14.Qc2 Rad8 15.b4 Rd7 16.N 14.Q 16.Nb3 cxb4

16...c4? fails to 17.dxc4 Bxc4 18.Nc5. 17.axb4

White has achieved his aim, removing the c5-pawn and creating pressure on the queenside. His own weakness on d3 is easily defended and Black’s failure to create kingside counterplay with ...g7-g6 and ...f6-f5 gives White a free hand. 17...Q 17... Qf7 18.N 18.Nec1 Rfd8 19.R 19.Rd1 h6 20.B 20.Bc5!

A nice move. White prefers to exchange bishops, securing the c5 outpost for his knight. By contrast, 20.Nc5 Bxc5 21.Bxc5 would not have achieved much. 20...Ne7 21.Bxd6 Rxd6?!

With so much of White’s strategy revolving r evolving around the c5-square, 21...cxd6 seemed more sensible. 22.N 22. Nc5 Bc8 23.N 23.Ne2 Qh5 24.d4 Qg5?!

Black was reluctant to surrender his last central bastion, but the text allows White far too much of a

299  

space advantage. 24...exd4!? 25.cxd4 Nc6 would have offered better defensive chances. 25.d5 Ng6 26.Q 26.Qd2 Qxd2 27.R 27.Rxd2

ow Black is systematically pushed off the board. 27...Nf8 28.c4 Kf7 29.N 27...N 29.Nc3 Ke7 30.R 30.Rf2 c6 31.N 31.Nb3 Kf7 32.c5 R6d7 33.N 33.Na5 Rc7 34.R 34.Rd1 h5 35.R 35.Rfd2 36.Na4 Ke8 37.N 37.Nb6 Rc7 38.N 38.Nac4 Bd7 39.N 39.Nd6+ Rcd7 36.N

A total triumph for White’s ‘knights over bishops’ strategy. Chigorin must surely have been smiling down on this position!

300  

39...K 39... Ke7 40.N 40.Nb5!

eatly winning the exchange, although it almost seems a pity to exchange one of the splendid knights for a mere rook. 40...R 40... Rcc8

40...axb5 41.d6+. 41.Nxc8+ Rxc8 42.N 41.N 42.Nd6 Rb8 43.N 43.Nc4 g5 44.N 44.Nb6 Be8 45.d6+ Kd8 46.d7 Bf7 47.R 47.Rd6 Bb3 48.R 48.R1d2 49.Nc8 h4 50.N 50.Na7 1-0 Nh7 49.N

Ruy Lopez Berlin Defence Ivo Donev Celestin Palmero Vienna 1991 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.B 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 5.B 5.Bxc6!? dxc6 6.N 6.Nxe5 Nxe4 7.Q 7.Qe2 Qd5 8.d3 Qxe5 9.dxe4 0-0 10.N 10.Nc3 Re8 11.R 11.Re1 a6 12.Q 12.Qf3 Qe7 13.Q 13.Qg3 Be6 14.B 14.Bf4 Rac8 15.R 15.Rad1

For comments on the opening moves, see Chapter 8. White is now in the driver’s seat and in the course of the following moves achieves his strategic goals. 15...f6 16.a3 Qf7 17.N 17.Ne2 Bb6 18.B 18.Be3

As in Rozentalis-Wedberg above, the exchange of dark-squared bishops is part of White’s overall  plan.

301  

18...B 18... Bxe3 19.Q 19.Qxe3 Rcd8 20.Q 20.Qc5 Qf8 21.Q 21.Qxf8+ Kxf8 22.f3 Bc8 23.R 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.K 24.Kf2 Kf7

Black has been rather cooperative in agreeing to so many exchanges. Perhaps he had thought 24...Rd2 offered good counterplay and only now realised that it comes to nothing after 25.Rc1 and Ke3. 25.K 25. Ke3 Ke7 26.N 26.Nc3 b6 27.R 27.Rd1 Rxd1 28.N 28.Nxd1

Thus we have almost the same ending as in Rozentalis-Wedberg, but with Black having a bishop instead of a knight. This does not help him at all – indeed, it is even worse, since the ‘colour blindness’ of the bishop prevents prevents it covering half the squares on the board. 28...c5 29.h4 Be6 30.g4 g5?

This grants White his passed e-pawn without a fight, but Black does not want to just sit there and be squeezed. We have seen this phenomenon before – not everyone could suffer and defend passively like Lasker! 31.hxg5 fxg5 32.Nf2 Kf6 33.f4 gxf4+ 34.Kxf4 h6 35.Nd1 Bf7 36.Ne3

White is winning easily. 36...c6 37.N 37.Nf5 h5 38.e5+ Ke6

On 38...Kg6, 39.gxh5+ Kxh5 40.e6! wins thematically. 39.gxh5 1-0

Another very thematic white win in the Exchange Variation.

302  

Ruy Lopez Jaenisch Vladimir Akopian 2605 Turhan Yilmaz 2390 Manila ol 1992 (2) N N B B N N Q N B Q B 1.e4 e5 2. f3 c6 3. b5 f5 4. xc6!? dxc6 5. c3 f6 6. e2 fxe4 7. xe4 g4 8.d3 d5 9.h3 xf3 10.Q 10. Qxf3 Bb4+!? 11.c3 Be7 12.B 12.Bg5 0-0-0 13.B 13.Bxf6 gxf6

13...Bxf6 14.Ke2 and White puts his hopes on his slightly better structure.

K 14. e2 h5 15.b3

Prepares g2-g4. 15...Kb8 16.g4 15...K

303  

White has a clear edge now, with the superior minor piece and better structure. His king on e2 is not really vulnerable, as Black has no lever to open the central files and the blockading Ne4 controls everything. 16...B 16... Ba3 17.R 17.Rad1 a5

17...hxg4 18.hxg4 Rxh1 19.Rxh1 a5 20.Rh3 fortifies the position, with a considerable c onsiderable advantage for  White. 18.gxh5 Rdf8 19.Q 19.Qf5 Qf7 20.N 20.Ng3 Bb2?

ow White consolidates with tempo and gets a free hand. 21.Kd2! a4 22.K 21.K 22.Kc2 a3 23.R 23.Rhe1

And White is in full control. 23...Q 23... Qd5 24.R 24.Re4 b5 25.R 25.Rg4

Intending to invade the 7th rank. 25...Q 25... Qf7 26.R 26.Re1 Qe7 27.R 27.Re3 c5 28.N 28.Ne4 Rf7 29.R 29.Reg3

304  

White is now winning. 29...Rd8 30.R 29...R 30.Rg8 Rff8 31.R 31.R3g7 Qe8 32.R 32.Rxf8 Qxf8 33.Q 33.Qxf6 c4 34.Q 34.Qxf8

34.Qxe5 cxd3+ 35.K b1 was even stronger. 34...cxd3+ 35.K 35.Kd2 Rxf8 36.h6 Rh8 37.h7 Kb7 38.b4 Kc6 39.N 39.Nf6 Rf8 40.K 40.Ke3

Probably time trouble. 40.Rg8 won more simply. 40...e4 41.K 41.Kd2 Rd8 42.R 42.Rg8 1-0

This handling of 3...f5 changes the character of the game and may get Black out of his comfort zone, as well as being a reliable and simple treatment. Petroff Defence Boris Spassky 2590 Enrigue Almada 2295 Thessaloniki ol 1988 (2)

1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.N 3.Nxe5 d6 4.N 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Q 5.Qe2 Qe7 6.d3 Nf6 7.B 7.Bg5 Qxe2+ 8.B 8.Bxe2 Be7 9.N 9.Nc3 c6 10.0-0-0 Na6 11.R 11.Rhe1 Nc7 12.N 12.Ne4!? Nxe4 13.dxe4 Bxg5+ 14.N 14.Nxg5 f6 15.N 15.Nf3 Ke7 16.N 16.Nd4 Be6

305  

The opening was covered in the previous chapter. Black has a defensive set-up with little space, which as we know from earlier examples does not have to be a big deal, but there is no counterplay at all here and so he has to wait and see what White is going to do. 17.h4

Gaining some space, hoping to make Black feel miserable. An interesting alternative is 17.f4 with the  possible follow-up 17...Rad8 18.Bf3 Rhe8 19.Rd2 Kf8 20.Red1 Bf7 21.Nf5 and Black has landed in severe problems; after 21...d5 22.c4 White was comfortably on top in Timman-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1995. 17...Rad8 18.h5 h6

It is always a difficult matter to judge this kind of move, because in the long term the weakness of the light squares can tell. Maybe Black should just have waited and held back with a move like 18...Rhe8, although then he risks having a later annotator criticise him for not stopping the white h-pawn earlier! 19.b3 Rhe8

306  

20.Bc4! 20.B

A bolt from the blue and very instructive. White accepts damage to his pawn structure in order to exchange the light-squared bishops and get an iron positional grip. 20...B 20... Bc8

Black declines, as after 20...Bxc4 21.Nf5+ Kf8 22.bxc4 Re5 23.g4 Ne8 24.Rd4 he can do little else  but wait for White to strengthen strengthen his position and strike strike at the appropriate moment. 21.f3 Kf8 22.g4

22.Ne2 also came into consideration. 22...d5

Black hopes to free his game by violent means. At first sight, it seems like a decent idea, but things are less clear.

23.exd5 Rxe1 24.R 24.Rxe1 Nxd5 25.N 25.Ne6+

ow we see that White still persists in having a pull. The move ...h7-h6 now makes the light squares in Black’s camp rather sensitive. 25...B 25... Bxe6 26.R 26.Rxe6 Nb6

White intents to re-route the bishop soon anyway and prepare to kick the knight with cautious pawn advances.

307  

27.B 27. Bd3

In this kind of endgame position the bishop is superior to the knight because the battlefield is wide. Black has an outpost for his knight in the centre, but it is an unstable one. 27...N 27... Nd5 28.R 28.Re4 Re8 29.R 29.Ra4

Manoeuvring around before going into a new stage. White can exchange rooks whenever he wants, so let us first try a little pushing. 29...a6 30.K 30.Kd2 Ke7 31.a3 Kd6 32.R 32.Rd4 Re7

Black waits, as he does not see anything in 32...Kc5 33.c3 nor 32...c5. These moves both force the issue but it is hard to judge if the resulting position is tenable with two open flanks, where potentially the white king can invade, whilst the bishop also works better than the knight on such a wide front.

33.b4

Just continuing to build up. 33...K 33... Kc7

Once again 33...c5 may have been playable, but it was hard to judge properly. Now however White gains some further territory. 34.c4 Nb6 35.B 35.Bf5 Nd7 36.K 36.Kc3 b6

36...Re3+ does not disturb, for example 37.Kd2.

308  

37.R 37. Rxd7+!?

White loses his patience, whereas he could have ground on indefinitely with 37.f4. 37...R 37... Rxd7 38.B 38.Bxd7 Kxd7 39.K 39.Kd4 Ke6

39...Kd6. 40.K 40. Ke4

Stockfish claims that 40.c5 wins now. 40...K 40... Kd6 41.K 41.Kf5 Ke7 42.K 42.Kg6 Kf8 43.a4 Kg8 44.a5

White has an enormous advantage in space and should be winning at first sight. But the position is tenable and it is only Black’s next move that gives White the point he was hoping for when he exchanged the remaining pieces. 44...b5?

44...b5?

Better was 44...bxa5 45.bxa5 c5, for example 46.f4 Kf8 47.Kf5 Ke7. 45.Kf5! Kf7 46.Ke4 Ke6 47.Kd4 Kd6 48.f4 Ke6 49.cxb5 cxb5 50.Kc5

And Black resigned. Petroff Defence Charles Warburton C.S. Hunter

309  

cr 1962 1.e4 e5 2.N 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.N 3.Nxe5 d6 4.N 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Q 5.Qe2 Qe7 6.d3 Nf6 7.B 7.Bg5 Be6

Avoiding the queen exchange may be playable, but makes a somewhat clumsy impression as Black’s  pieces are cluttered. 8.N 8.Nc3 h6

8...N bd7 9.0-0-0 h6 10.Bh4 g5 11.Bg3 Nh5 (11...Bg7 12.Nd4 0-0 13.h4 and White starts his initiative) 12.d4 Nxg3 13.hxg3 g4 14.Nh4 d5 15.Q b5! 0-0-0 16.Qa5 a6 17.Bxa6! initiating a winning attack, Lasker-Marshall, St Petersburg 1914. 9.B 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.d4 Be7

10...Qe7 was suggested by Euwe, but Black remains cramped. 11.Q 11. Qb5+ Nd7 12.B 12.Bd3 g5

310  

13.Qxb7! 13.Q

13.h3 0-0 14.Qxb7 Rab8 15.Qe4 Qg7 16.b3 was Capablanca-Marshall, St Petersburg 1914, and now Warburton feared 16...Nc5!. 13...R 13... Rb8 14.Q 14.Qe4 Rxb2 15.0-0 Qg7

Some alternatives suggested by the player of the white pieces: A) 15...Nc5 16.B b5+ (16.dxc5! Qxc3 17.Nd4 seems even more forceful) 16...Rxb5 17.Qc6+ Bd7 18.Qa8+ Bd8 19.Nd5 Qf5 20.Nxc7+ and White wins; B) 15...g4 16.Nd2 Nc5 17.dxc5 Qxc3. Now Warburton gave 18.Qa8+ as good for White, but his lines are unfortunately anything but forced. However, 18.N b3 seems a good continuation continuation instead. 16.Bb5 16.B

16.N b5 also looks strong.

16...B 16... Bd8 17.B 17.Bxd7+ Kxd7

311  

18.Ne5+! dxe5 18.N

There is little hope for Black after either 18...Ke8 19.Nc6 or 18...Kc8 19.Rab1 Rxb1 20.Rxb1 dxe5 21.Qc6. 19.d5 Ke8

Black could have jettisoned his bishop otherwise, with 19... Bh3, but after 20.gxh3 (20.Qa4+!?) 20...Qg6 21.Qa4+ White has a strong attack, while his damaged kingside structure does not influence the course of the game at all. 20.dxe6 fxe6 21.R 21.Rad1 Rb6 22.N 22.Nb5! a6 23.N 23.Na7 Rd6 24.N 24.Nc6 Bf6 25.R 25.Rxd6 cxd6 26.R 26.Rb1 d5 27.Q 27.Qa4 Qc7 28.Q 28.Qxa6 Qd6 29.R 29.Rb7

Every white piece invades and the end is near. 29...Bd8 30.R 29...B 30.Rg7 1-0

Sicilian DefenceClosed Boris Spassky 2580 Andreas Ostl 2295 Germany Bundesliga 1988/89 (1) 1.e4 c5 2.N 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.B 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.N 6.Nge2 e5 7.N 7.Nd5 Nge7 8.B 8.Bg5 h6 9.B 9.Bf6

An interesting moment. As noted in Chapter 8, 9.Nf6+?Kf8 is weak, but another idea is 9.Bxe7! Nxe7 10.Nxe7 Qxe7 11.h4!² as suggested by Hans Müller in his book on Botvinnik. The position is

312  

simplified, that is true, but White has ideas such as h4-h5 and Nh3 and he has control according to Bent Larsen in the chess freethinker’s magazine Kaissiber  magazine Kaissiber . Black can easily be saddled with a bishop on the dark squares that is inferior to White’s knight with no other minor pieces left. 9...Bxf6 9...B

Maybe 9...0-0 deserves consideration. 10.N 10. Nxf6+ Kf8 11.N 11.Nc3 Kg7 12.N 12.Nfd5

Fixes his control of the light squares e4 and d5. White is now ready to play against the dark squares that are harder to defend after the exchange of the bishops. 12...B 12... Be6 13.N 13.Ne3!

Keeps the complex c4/d5/e4/f5 intact. 13...Qd7 14.f4 exf4 15.gxf4 f5

Blocks possible attacking ideas with f4-f5. 16.Q 16. Qd2 Rab8 17.0-0-0

With his last two moves White has finished his development and now he is ready to start the attack  against Black’s exposed kingside. Castling queenside is very rare in the Closed Sicilian, but as this game shows, it can be effective in the right circumstances. 17...b5 18.R 18.Rhg1 b4 19.exf5 Nxf5 20.B 20.Bxc6 Qxc6 21.N 21.Ncd5 Kf7

313  

21...Bxd5 22.Nxf5+ brings the king into danger.

22.R 22. Rxg6!!

Utterly destroying the cover of Black’s king, which is left without chances by White’s play on the light squares. 22...K 22... Kxg6 23.N 23.Nxf5 Kf7

23...Bxf5 24.Ne7+. 24.Nfe7 Qb7 25.Qg2 Rhg8

25...Bxd5 26.Nxd5 R bg8 27.Qf3 should win as well, as should 27.Qe4. 26.Qe4 Rg7 27.R 26.Q 27.Re1

Black resigned. If 27...Bd7, 28.Nf5! decides.

Sicilian Defence Closed Nigel Short 2675 Igor Stohl 2600 Batumi tt 1999 (3) 1.e4 c5 2.N 2.Nc3 d6 3.d3 Nc6 4.g3 g6 5.B 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.N 6.Nge2 e5 7.h4!?

314  

A versatile move that toys with the idea h4-h5. 7...h6

A) After 7...h5, it is easier to generate play for White because of the weakness of g5. For example: 8.Nd5 Nce7 (8...Nge7 9.Bg5 Qa5+ 10.Bd2 Qd8 11.c4!? with a slight advantage for White) 9.Nec3 Nxd5 10.Nxd5 Be6 11.c4 Bxd5 12.cxd5 Bh6. Exchanges the so-called bad bishop, but now White generates some initiative with 13.b4! Bxc1 (13...cxb4 14.Qa4+ Qd7 15.Qxb4 with a clear initiative) 14.Rxc1 b6 15.Bh3 Nh6 16.Qd2 Kf8 17.0-0 Kg7 18.f4 exf4 19.Rxf4 Re8 20.Q b2+ Re5 (20...Kh7 21.Qf6±) 21.bxc5 bxc5 22.Rxc5!+– King-A.Sokolov, Switzerland tt 2000; B) 7...Nd4?! loses time: 8.Nxd4 cxd4 9.Nd5 Be6 10.c4 dxc3 11.bxc3 Bxd5 12.exd5 Qa5 13.0-0 Ne7 14.Q b3 Qa6 15.R b1 R b8 16.Rd1 0-0 17.a4 b6 18.Ba3 Rfd8 19.Bh3± Wittmann-Kraschl, Austria tt 1995/96; C) 7...Nf6 8.Bg5 Be6 9.Nd5 h6 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.h5 with the advantage, Wittmann-Miniböck, Vienna 1986. 8.N 8.Nd5

Less appropriate is 8.h5 g5, because after 9.f4 there follows 9...Bg4 10.Be3 gxf4 11.gxf4 exf4 12.Bxf4 Nf6 with counterplay. 8...Nge7 9.Nec3

Controls the squares e4 and d5. 9.c4 also comes into consideration. 9...B 9... Be6

315  

10.f4! exf4! 11.B 11.Bxf4 Nd4 12.Q 12.Qd2 Nec6 13.0-0 Ne5 14.R 14.Rab1

Black has more or less neutralised the first wave of White’s initiative but now White intends to expand in the centre, helped by the somewhat shaky positioning of Black’s knights. 14...R 14... Rc8 15.N 15.Nd1! Bg4

16.N1e3!? 16.N

The position is more or less balanced after 16.Qf2 Ne2+ 17.Kh1 Nxf4 18.Qxf4, but White judges

316  

that he can sacrifice the exchange and the loss of material will be compensated by the fact that all active black pieces disappear from the board. 16...N 16... Ne2+

After 16...Nef3+ 17.Bxf3 Nxf3+ 18.Rxf3 Bxf3, he probably intended 19.Qf2 Bh5 20.g4 g5 21.Bg3 Bg6 22.h5 Bh7 23.Nc4 Rc6 24.Qh2 with strong pressure and good compensation. 17.K 17. Kh1 Nxf4 18.R 18.Rxf4 Be6 19.R 19.Rbf1 0-0

Maybe Black could have considered 19...g5!?. 20.Nf6+ Kh8 21.N 20.N 21.Ned5 Bxd5 22.N 22.Nxd5

And once again the position has more or less come to rest. White has control but it is not so easy to develop an initiative. 22...Qd7 23.Kh2 Rce8 24.Bh3 Qd8 25.a4 h5 26.R4f2 Kg8 27.b3 Nc6

28.c3

With the intention of playing for d3-d4, the only way to try for an advantage. 28...B 28... Be5 29.N 29.Nf6+ Bxf6 30.R 30.Rxf6 Ne5 31.d4 cxd4 32.cxd4 Nc6 33.Q 33.Qf4 Qe7

33...Nxd4? loses after 34.Rxd6 Ne2 35.Rxd8 Nxf4 36.Rxe8 Rxe8 37.Rxf4. 34.B 34. Be6!

317  

Thematic, eventually the light squares fall into White’s hands. 34...Q 34... Qxe6 35.R 35.Rxe6 fxe6 36.Q 36.Qc1 Nxd4 37.R 37.Rxf8+ Rxf8 38.K 38.Kg2 Nc6 39.b4 Re8

On 39...Nxb4 40.Qc4 decides. 40.b5 Ne7 41.Qf4 1-0

Sicilian Defence Closed Jens-Uwe Maiwald 2529 Josef Pribyl 2376 Germany Bundesliga B 2000/01 (1) 1.e4 c5 2.N 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.B 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6 6.N 6.Nge2 e6 7.0-0 Nge7 8.B 8.Bg5!?

This is a refinement compared to 8.Be3, provoking a slight weakening in Black’s kingside with ...h7h6.

8...0-0

Black is not provoked, because White will play Qd2 and Bh6 anyway. In case of 8...h6 9.Be3 Nd4 Q K N R R (9...0-0N10. 11.h3 d4Q 12. – introducing typical inhas thisavariation – 12...  b8 13.b4 xe2+d2 14.Nh7 xe2 cxb4 15. xb4ab1 b6 16. Nd4! Qd7 a17. N b5! plan White good game, ParaguaGoh Wei Ming, Ho-Chi-Minh City 2003) 10.R b1!? (10.Qd2 stops castling) 10...R b8 11.b4 b6 12.bxc5 dxc5 (Spassky-Kindermann, Dubai 1986), and now 13. Qd2 again comes into consideration. 9.Q 9.Qd2 Nd4

318  

The logical 9...R b8!? 10.Bh6 b5 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.f4 Nd4 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Ne2 e5 was played in Spassky-Karpov, Bugojno 1986, and now King’s suggestion 15.f5!? is worth trying. 10.Rab1 10.R

Once again, note this move, a typical idea in the Closed. There are two ideas: firstly, White defends  b2, thus creating the possibility possibility of moving his kn knight ight from c3 and playing c2-c3, to expel the enemy knight from d4, and secondly, White sets up the possibility of initiating play on the queenside with  b2-b4. 10...Bd7 10...B

11.N 11. Nxd4!?

A remarkable choice. Logical seems 11.b4 f6 12.Be3 Nxe2+ 13.Nxe2 Qc7 14.c4!? and White is somewhat better.

11...cxd4 12.N 12.Ne2 e5 13.c3 f6

After 13...dxc3 14.bxc3, the move 10. Rab1 has not been in vain. 14.Bh6 Be6?!

Underestimates the force of White’s extra central pawn though for the time being it is doubled. 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.cxd4 Bxa2 17.R 15.B 17.Ra1 Be6 18.d5! Bd7 19.f4 Qb6+ 20.K 20.Kh1 Rac8 21.h3 Ng8 22.R 22.Rf3 a6 23.d4 exd4?!

319  

Maybe 23...Nh6 was better. 24.N 24. Nxd4 Rc4 25.R 25.Rd1 Rfc8 26.b3 Rb4

27.g4

Because of his spatial advantage and Black’s lack of clear counterplay, White is able to initiate an attack. 27...a5 28.g5 a4 29.e5!

After this breakthrough the floodgates open, and Black has insufficient defence. 29...fxe5 30.fxe5 dxe5 31.Q 31.Qe1! Qd6 32.N 32.Ne6+! Kh8 33.bxa4

Or 33.Nc5, winning material.

33...Rxa4 34.R 33...R 34.Re3 Rc2 35.R 35.Rxe5 Raa2 36.N 36.Nf4 Bf5 37.Q 37.Qe3 h6?

An escape square for the king, but now White’s attack crashes through:

320  

38.Rxf5! gxf5 39.Q 38.R 39.Qd4+ Nf6

39...Kh7 40.g6+. 40.Qxf6+ Qxf6 41.gxf6 Rd2 42.R 40.Q 42.Re1 Kg8 43.R 43.Re7 1-0

321  

Games for study and analysis E Sicilian Defence Closed Ivo Donev 2375 Alfred Felsberger 2390 Austria tt 1995 1.e4 c5 2.N 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3 d5

This is a quite different approach from the usual 2...Nc6. Black takes direct action in the centre. 4.exd5 exd5 5.B 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.d3 d4

Eventually Black will have to commit to ...d5-d4, for example 6...Be7 7.Nge2 d4 8.Ne4 Nxe4 (8...00 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Nf4 Ne5 (11...Be5 12.Re1 Bd6 13.Qh5) 12.Nd5 Bg4 13.f3 Be6 14.Nxf6+ Qxf6 15.f4 Nc6 16.Qh5 and White is a bit better, Chigorin-Tarrasch, Ostend 1907) 9.dxe4 repairs the control of e4 and d5, as in the main game. The game may proceed 9... Nc6 10.0-0 Bg4

(10...0-0 11.Nf4 Bd6 12.h3 Bd7 13.Bd2 with a more or less balanced position) 11.h3 Bxe2 (in order  to stop occupation of d5 by means of Ne2-f4) 12.Qxe2 Q b6 13.Kh2 Rd8 14.e5! 0-0 15.f4 Kh8 16.a3 Rfe8 17.Be4 Bf8 18.h4 Rd7 19.Bd3 Rde7 20.Qf3 g6 21.h5 with attacking chances, LedgerJ.Anderson, Southend 2000. 7.N 7.Ne4 Nxe4 8.dxe4

322  

The control over e4 and d5 has been snatched from Black’s hands again. White would like to control or occupy d5 now with Ne2-f4. The alternative recapture 8.Bxe4 is seen in the next game. 8...B 8... Be7 9.N 9.Ne2 0-0 10.0-0 Nc6 11.N 11.Nf4 Re8 12.N 12.Nd5 Bd6 13.c4

Extra support for d5, but an alternative is 13.f4!?, e.g. 13...R b8 (13...f5!?) 14.c4 Bf8 15.e5 Be6 16.Be4 with a pull, Lommens-Ottens, Porz 1991. 13...dxc3

13...Ne7 14.Bg5! Qd7 (14...f6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Nxf6+ Kg7 17.Nxe8+ Qxe8 18.f4 and Black seems helpless against White’s phalanx) 15.Bxe7 Bxe7 16.f4 b6 17.Qd3 B b7 18.Rae1 and White’s position is preferable. 14.bxc3

White’s position has interesting potential and can be recommended.

14...R 14... Rb8 15.Q 15.Qc2 Be6 16.R 16.Rd1 f6 17.B 17.Bf4 Bxf4 18.N 18.Nxf4 Qe7

323  

19.Nxe6 19.N

White could build on his strategic initiative by tactical means with 19.e5!? Bc4 (or 19...Bg4 20.f3 Bc8 21.Q b3+ Kh8 22.exf6 Qxf6 23.Nd5 Qf7 24.f4 Be6 25.Q b5) 20.e6 (20.exf6 Qxf6 21.Rd7 also seems strong) 20...R bd8 21.Be4 (21.Bxc6!?). However, he prefers to retain his control of d5. 19...Q 19... Qxe6 20.R 20.Rd5 Qe7 21.R 21.Rad1 Rbd8 22.Q 22.Qb3 Na5

22...Kh8 23.f4. 23.Qb5 b6 24.Rd7 a6 25.Qa4

Of course not 25.Rxe7? Rxd1+ 26.Bf1 axb5 27.Rxe8+ Kf7 28.R b8 Nc4 and Black has more than survived. 25...Rxd7 26.R 25...R 26.Rxd7 Qe5 27.R 27.Rd5 Qe7 28.f4 Rd8 29.e5 Rxd5 30.B 30.Bxd5+

ow the knight on a5 has been side-tracked, which hampers Black’s play to a high degree. 30...K 30... Kf8 31.Q 31.Qe4

Strong centralisation of this mighty piece. 31...g6 32.g4

Alternatively, 32.e6 Qd6 33.f5 seems strong. 32...fxe5 33.Q 33.Qxe5

324  

33.fxe5. 33...Q 33... Qxe5 34.fxe5

It is clear that White is much better in this endgame with his passed pawn and superior minor piece. 34...Ke7 35.Kf2 Kd7 36.Ke3 Nc6 37.Ke4 Ne7

Instead, 37...b5 38.e6+ Kd6 39.Bxc6 Kxc6 40.Ke5 and the e-pawn will decide. 38.B 38. Bb7 a5

The game is reminiscent of the famous Fischer-Taimanov endgame from their match in 1971. White’s control of the light squares eventually brings Black into ‘zugzwang’: the principle of  exhaustion! 39.a4! Kc7

The desperate 39...b5 does not help as 40.axb5 a4 41.Kd3 wins. 40.B 40. Bd5 g5 41.B 41.Bc4 Kd7 42.B 42.Bf7 Kc7 43.B 43.Be8! Kd8 44.B 44.Bb5 Kc7 45.h3 h6 46.c4!

Wrong colour, but it is more important that Black has to move the king and White will gain entry to e5. 46...Kd8 47.e6 Nc8 46...K

47...Kc7 48.Ke5 is also highly problematic for Black.

325  

48.K 48. Ke5

48.Kd5 Ke7 49.Bd7 Nd6 50.Bc6 Nc8 51.B b5 Nd6 52.Bd7 is another cute zugzwang idea. 48...Ke7 49.B 48...K 49.Bd7 Nd6 50.K 50.Kd5 Nb7 51.K 51.Kc6 Nd6 52.K 52.Kxb6 Nxc4+ 53.K 53.Kxc5 1-0

Sicilian Defence Closed Michael Basman 2395 Emmanuel Rayner London 1978 1.e4 c5 2.N 2.Nc3 e6 3.g3 d5 4.exd5 exd5 5.B 5.Bg2 Nf6

A bit too premature is 5...d4 6.Qe2+! Be7 (6...Be6? 7.Bxb7; 6...Qe7 7.Nd5 Qxe2+ 8.Nxe2 with great square control and an advantage in development) 7.Nd5 Nc6 8.d3 Be6 9.Nf4 Bd7 10.g4!? (White can  play 10.Nd5 Be6 11.Nf4= but with the original text move he controls f5 for the moment and will later fight for the control of the squares e4 and d5 by means of g4-g5) 10... Nf6 11.g5 Ng4 12.Nd5 Nge5 13.Bf4 Ng6 14.Bc7 Qc8 15.h4 Be6 16.Bg3 Bd8 17.h5 Nge7 18.h6 Nxd5 19.hxg7 Rg8 20.Bxd5 Rxg7 21.Nf3 Qd7 (Borngässer-Mozny, Prague 1990), and now 22. Be4!? seems logical, or  22.B b3!?. 6.d3 d4

This move is unavoidable in the short term, as after 6...Be7 7.Nge2 d4 8.Ne4 Nxe4 9.Bxe4 a similar  type of position arises, where White will try to control the light squares with piece play. In grandmaster practice there is the danger that the chance for an advantage may evaporate, e.g. 9... Nd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bg2 Nf6 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Nf4 Be5 15.Qf3 R b8 16.Rfe1 Re8 17.Re2 Qd6 18.Rae1 Bd7 19.Nd5 b6 and White was slightly better in Taimanov-Polugaevsky, Tallinn 1965. But  between grandmasters, the position position may prove drawish. 7.N 7.Ne4 Nxe4 8.B 8.Bxe4 Nd7!

326  

9.Q 9.Qf3!?

A very interesting moment. An example of this type of position fizzling out was 9.Ne2 Nf6 10.Bg2 Bd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.h3 R b8 13.Bf4 b5 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Nf4 Re8 16.Nh5 Nd5 17.Qf3 B b7 18.Qg4 Qg6 19.Rfe1 Kf8 20.Qh4 h6 21.Bxd5 Bxd5 22.Nf4 Qd6 23.Nxd5 Qxd5 24.Qf4 R bc8 25.b3= Casper-Vaisser, Berlin 1982. The British master therefore strengthens his control over the important central squares e4/d5/f5 in original fashion, but the success of this strategy depends on concrete ideas: does it work? 9...Q 9... Qc7

After 9...Nf6?! 10.Bg5! Qa5+ 11.Kf1 White reaches his goal by tactical means as 11...Nxe4 is very  bad. 10.Bg5 Bd6 10.B

A specific point is 10...h6 11. Qe2!, whilst 10...Ne5 11.Qe2 f6 can be met by 12.f4 fxg5 13.fxe5 and the control of the light squares remains unchallenged. 11.Q 11. Qh5!?

Once again a specific measure as after 11. Ne2 Ne5 White has to hide his queen with 12.Qg2 which, however, seems a playable option. (Not 12. Qh5? Bg4.) 11...h6

11...g6 12.Qh4 with the idea Ne2-f4, intending to occupy d5 (12. Qh6 Bf8).

327  

12.Kf1 Be5 12.K

12...0-0 is too risky: 13.Bxh6! and the weakness of the light squares around the black king will prove fatal if the sacrifice is accepted. 13.R 13. Re1

Eyeing the king on e8. 13...0-0

13...g6? 14.Bxg6!. 14.N 14. Nf3

ow unfortunately 14.Bxh6? does not work because of 14...Nf6! 15.Qg5 Nxe4 16.Rxe4 Bf6 17.Qf4 Qd8, winning a piece, and the compensation is insufficient.

14...N 14... Nf6 15.B 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.h4

328  

White is better, as he controls the important light squares and can initiate attacking chances with Ng5 or g4-g5. This seems like an interesting and viable method against 2...e6, with little memorisation except for the important idea 9.Qf3. 16...B 16... Be6 17.N 17.Ng5 Rfe8 18.B 18.Bh7+ Kf8 19.N 19.Nxe6+ Rxe6 20.R 20.Rxe6 fxe6 21.b3 Rd8 22.B 22.Be4 b6 23.K 23.Kg2

Black’s position has been weakened as a result of White’s strategy and White’s control is unchallenged. It is still not so easy to break Black’s resistance, but under pressure Black eventually collapses. 23...Qf7 24.Q 23...Q 24.Qg4 h5 25.Q 25.Qe2 g6 26.a4 Kg7 27.f4 Rd6 28.R 28.Re1 Bd8 29.Q 29.Qf3 Rd7 30.B 30.Bc6 Re7? 31.R 31.Re5!

329  

Bc7 32.R 32.Rg5 e5 33.B 33.Be4 Re6 34.f5 1-0

Sicilian Defence Closed Ilmars Starostits 2474 Rainer Raud 2365 Tallinn rapid 2005 (8) 1.e4 c5 2.N 2.Nc3 a6

A little move to take the game into original territory. This was suggested by Dutch grandmaster  Donner in the 1960s and has just experienced a short period of comparative popularity. 3.a4!?

A bit crude, but why not? At least it crosses Black’s plans. Black has his own ideas that become apparent after, for example, 3.f4 b5 4.Nf3 B b7 5.d3 e6 6.g3 d5! 7.Qe2 (7.exd5 b4) 7...Nc6!? 8.exd5?! Nd4 as one of your co-authors [don’t look at me! – SWG] quite recently experienced to his detriment.

3...e6

330  

After 3...Nc6 4.g3 (the creative German master Bücker’s suggestion 4.f4 e6 5.Nf3 d5 6.d3 comes into consideration) 4...g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d3, the position has transposed into a regular branch of the Closed Sicilian with the extra moves a2-a4 and ...a7-a6. It is not clear whom this inclusion favours, but Black’s 2nd move 2...a6 at least shows that he prefers not to be involved in this kind of position. 6...e6 (6...d6 7.f4 for which see the illustrative game Starostits-Degenhardt) 7.Be3 d6

8.Qd2 (Bücker, who has studied the consequences of 3.a4 in some depth, suggests a few playable alternatives. To start with, 8.Nf3, followed by 0-0, d3-d4, Nce2, c2-c3, also comes into consideration. Other options are 8.h4!? or 8.Nge2 or 8.Nh3) 8...R b8 9.Nge2 (9.f4!? and now we play 9...Nge7 (9...b5 10.e5!) 10.Nf3 Nd4 11.0-0. Compare this with Starostits-Degenhardt: here the thematic  possibility e4-e5 also appears appears on the horizon, e.g. 11...Nec6 (11...b5 12.e5!; 11...0-0 12.a5 Nec6

331  

13.e5) 12.e5!?, for example 12...dxe5 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14.fxe5 Bxe5 15.Ne4 or 15.Bf4!) 9...Nd4 (after  the direct 9...b5 10.axb5 axb5 11.d4, White is slightly better and for that reason Black prepares it. But now White has multiple ideas)

10.a5!? (possible is 10.R b1 Ne7 11.b4, or 10.0-0 Ne7 11.b4!?, or maybe even 10.h4!?) 10...Ne7 11.Bxd4 cxd4 12.Na4 and this is analysis attributed to Stefan Bücker. 4.g3

An alternative is 4.d3 d5 5.Bd2, for example 5...Nc6 6.g3 d4 7.N b1!? (steers towards Na3, but certainly 7.Nce2, as in King’s Indian-type I ndian-type structures, also comes into consideration) 7...e5 8. Na3 Bd6 9.Nh3 (at first sight this looks like a strange development of the knight but it leaves the f-pawn free and as we know pawn play is very important in closed positions!) 9... Nf6 10.Bg2 h5!? 11.Nc4 Be7 12.f4 (Starostits-Jovanic, Nova Gorica 2008), and White has taken the initiative. 4...d5 5.d3

White invites King’s Indian-type structures with colours reversed.

5...Nc6 5...N

After 5...dxe4 White has a choice, but 6.dxe4!? certainly comes into consideration as after the exchange of queens Black’s queenside formation can easily become a strategic target. 6.B 6.Bg2 Nf6

Black can also close the centre with 6...d4 7.N b1!? (7.Nce2) 7...e5 8.Bd2 Be6 9.Na3 Bd6 (StarostitsLarino Nieto, Mondariz 2007) 10.Nh3 (in preparation for f2-f4; 10.Bh3!? is another idea, to exchange the potentially bad bishop).

332  

7.B 7.Bg5!? Be7 8.N 8.Nh3

ow there is pressure building towards d5 and for that reason Black closes the centre: 8...d4 9.N 9.Nb1

Or 9.Ne2. 9...N 9... Nd7 10.B 10.Bxe7

Side-stepping the exchange with 10.Bd2 also came into consideration. 10...Q 10... Qxe7 11.0-0 0-0 12.N 12.Nd2 Rb8 13.a5 Rd8 14.f4 f6

333  

White has a space advantage and better development and therefore sees enough reason to start an attack. 15.g4!? Nf8 16.N 16.Nc4 Bd7 17.Q 17.Qd2 Ng6 18.R 18.Rae1 Be8 19.Q 19.Qf2 Bf7 20.e5!

Seizes his chance to harm Black’s structure. 20...fxe5 21.B 21.Bxc6 bxc6 22.fxe5 Nh4 23.Q 23.Qg3 Bg6 24.R 24.Rf4 Rf8 25.R 25.Ref1 Rxf4 26.Q 26.Qxf4 h6 27.b3 Qd8 28.Q 28. Qg3 h5 29.N 29.Nf4 hxg4 30.N 30.Nxg6 Nxg6 31.Q 31.Qxg4 Qe8 32.R 32.Rf3 Nh8 33.R 33.Rg3 Qe7 34.N 34.Nd6 Rf8 35.N 35.Ne4 Rf5

334  

36.N 36. Nf6+ Rxf6

36...Kf8 37.Qh4. 37.exf6 Qxf6 38.Q 38.Qg5 Qf8 39.Q 39.Qe5 Qe7 40.Q 40.Qb8+ Qf8 41.Q 41.Qxf8+ Kxf8 42.R 42.Rg5 1-0

Sicilian Defence Closed Ilmars Starostits 2474 Horst Degenhardt 2293 Goch 2005 (4) 1.e4 c5 2.N 2.Nc3 a6 3.a4 Nc6 4.g3 g6 5.B 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.d3 d6 7.f4 e6

Another thematic build-up – the Botvinnik System – is 7...e5, which can probably best be answered with 8.Nh3!. White keeps the f-file open, which promises good practical chances: 8...Nge7 9.0-0

9...exf4! (after the obvious 9...0-0 White can sacrifice a pawn with 10.f5! and games without the insertion of a2-a4 and ...a7-a6 have shown this to be very dangerous) 10.Bxf4 h6 11.Qd2 g5 (in the

line of Botvinnik’s system, Black strives to control the dark squares in the centre) 12. Be3 0-0 13.Kh1 (maybe the direct 13.Rae1 came into consideration) 13... Ne5 14.Rae1 Be6 15.Nf2 Qd7 16.b3 Rac8 17.Nd5 Nxd5 18.exd5 Bf5 19.a5 Bg6 20.c4 Qc7 21.d4 Nd7 and White seems to have the slightly  better chances due to his central plus, plus, for example 22.Bh3 Rcd8 23.Re2 b6 24.axb6 Qxb6 25.dxc5 dxc5 26.Bxd7!? Rxd7 27.Nd3 Rc8 28.Nxc5 Rxc5 29.b4 Rcxd5 30.cxd5 Be4+ 31.Kg1 StarostitsZherebukh, Dresden 2007. White has won material but winning is not trivial as he had to weaken the squares around his king in order to do so. 8.N 8.Nf3 Nge7 9.0-0 0-0 10.B 10.Be3 Nd4

335  

Without the insertion of the moves a2-a4 and ...a7-a6 the following positional pawn sacrifice has a good reputation and there is no obvious reason why the inclusion of the rook’s pawn moves should change that. 11.e5!? Nef5 12.B 12.Bf2 Nxf3+ 13.Q 13.Qxf3 Nd4 14.Q 14.Qd1 dxe5 15.fxe5 Bxe5 16.N 16.Ne4

With ample compensation, Black cannot really hold on to the pawn. 16...f5

If 16...b6? 17.Nf6+ Bxf6 18.Bxa8. Or 16...Qc7 17.c3 Nc6 18.Bxc5 and White wins the pawn back  with a central preponderance. 17.N 17. Nxc5 Qd6 18.b4 Nc6 19.R 19.Rb1 Bd4 20.Q 20.Qd2 a5 21.B 21.Bxc6!

A paradoxical but strategically very well-founded decision.

21...bxc6 22.B 22.Bxd4 Qxd4+ 23.Q 23.Qf2 Qxf2+ 24.R 24.Rxf2 axb4 25.R 25.Rxb4

336  

The white pieces are clearly more effective than the black ones. 25...Ra5 25...R

Black is not happy with 25...e5 26. Re2 Re8 27.R b6. 26.d4 e5 27.N 27.Nb3 Rd5 28.c4 Rdd8 29.dxe5

With a big advantage. 29...Rd1+ 30.R 29...R 30.Rf1 Rxf1+ 31.K 31.Kxf1 f4 32.K 32.Kf2 Bg4 33.a5 Bd1 34.a6 1-0

Sicilian Defence Closed Georgios Souleidis 2417 Stephen Gordon 2533 Palma de Mallorca 2019

1.e4 c5 2.N 2.Nc3 a6 3.g3

This time White refrains from 3.a4 and sticks with normal Closed Sicilian development. 3...b5 4.B 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.d3 e6 6.f4

Souleidis suggests 6.Nh3 here as now Black could have seized his chance and equalised the game. 6...d5?!

Dubious, whereas after 6...b4 7. Na4 d5 Black is OK.

337  

7.f5!

A thematic thrust against the light squares. 7...d4

7...exf5 8.Nxd5 is clearly better for White.

8.fxe6!

A piece sacrifice that suggests itself naturally. 8...fxe6

8...dxc3 9.exf7+ Kxf7 is as dangerous as you would expect it to be, for example 10. Nf3 (Stockfish 11 even considers the slow 10.bxc3 to be clearly better for White, which casts some doubts on Black’s  position) 10...cxb2 (10...Nf6 11.e5 cxb2 12.Bxb2 Nd5 13.0-0! Ne3 14.Nh4+ with winning

complications) 11.Bxb2 Nh6 (11...Nf6 12.Ng5+ Kg8 (12...Kg6 13.Qf3+–) 13.Bh3 Bc8 14.Bxc8 c laims a strong attack  Qxc8 15.e5+–) 12.0-0 Kg8 13.Qd2 Nc6 14.Ng5 and we believe Souleidis who claims here. 9.N 9.Nce2

ow White has his positional trumps for free. Black’s position makes an ‘airy’ impression. 9...e5 10.N 10.Nf3 Nc6 11.0-0 Be7

This had all been played before. After 11...Nf6 12.a4 b4 13.c3! White opened the position to his

338  

advantage in Tischbierek-Dann, Dresden rapid 2017 (a peculiar idea is 13.Bd2 Bd6 14.Q b1!?). 12.c3

Like in the game Tischbierek-Dann, 12.a4 came also into consideration. With such a porous position, it will be very unpleasant for Black when White generates play all over the board. 12...Qd6 12...Q

Maybe not the best but White is better anyway. 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.B 14.Bd2 Nf6 15.Q 15.Qb3

Highlights the weaknesses in Black’s inner camp. 15...B 15... Bc8 16.N 16.Ng5 Rf8

17.Nf4!! 17.N

An ingenious stroke. 17...h6

17...exf4 would lose material after 18.e5. 18.Nf3 18.N

The engines (and Souleidis) indicate that 18. Nge6! was even better, but that is complicated and not

339  

an easy decision to make in a position where you are better anyway. 18...g5

Again 18...exf4 19.e5 and White regains the material with advantage. 19.Nd5

The practical choice, though the engines like 19.Ng6. 19...B 19... Bd8

19...Be6 came into consideration, though White remains better placed after 20. Nc7+. 20.Rac1 20.R

ow the black position is about to collapse under its own weight. 20...B 20... Be6

21.Rxc6! Qxc6 22.N 21.R 22.Nxe5 Qd6 23.N 23.Ng6 Bxd5

If 23...Rf7 24.B b4 Qd7 (if 24...Q b8, 25.Nc7+! crashes through) 25.Ne5 wins. 24.exd5 Rg8 25.B 25.Bb4 Qb8 26.d6!

Another sacrifice to initiate a direct mating attack.

340  

26...R 26... Rxg6 27.Q 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.B 28.Bd5 Ra7 29.d7+ Kg7 30.Q 30.Qf7+ 1-0

A swift exploitation by the well-known Greek-German chess master and reporter. French Defence [Chigorin/Exchange] Edhi Handoko 2390 Beat Züger 2420 Manila ol 1992 (11) 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.N 4. Nf3 Nc6 5.B 5.Bd3 Bg4 6.c3 Qf6!? 7.Q 7.Qe2+!? Kd7!?

An interesting idea, which is not as crazy as it looks. The game would be roughly equal after 7...Nge7 8.N bd2, or 7...Qe6 8.Be3. 8.B 8.Be3 Bxf3 9.gxf3 Bd6 10.N 10.Nd2 Nge7

If 10...Re8 then still 11.Ne4 (of course 11.0-0-0 is playable but White prefers to play dynamically

now he has damaged his pawn chain) 11...dxe4 12.fxe4 and even the engines consider that White has very good compensation. 11.Ne4! dxe4 12.fxe4 Qh4 13.e5 Nd5 14.0-0-0 11.N

Black idea was 14.exd6 Nxe3 15.Qxe3 Rae8. 14...N 14... Nxe3 15.fxe3 Be7 16.R 16.Rhf1

With abundant compensation, and in the game Black soon cracks under the pressure.

341  

16...R 16... Rhf8

16...Ke8 17.B b5 and Black is under pressure. 17.Bf5+ Ke8 18.d5! 17.B

The most promising of several good attacking continuations. 18...N 18... Nxe5 19.Q 19.Qb5+ Kd8 20.R 20.Rf4 Qh5 21.d6!

21.Qxb7 also wins, but White prefers the grand style. 21...Bxd6 22.R 21...B 22.Rxd6+ cxd6 23.Q 23.Qxb7 Qe2 24.Q 24.Qxa8+ Ke7

If 24...Kc7, 25.Qxa7+ Kd8 26.Rd4! Qxe3+ 27.Kc2 wins. 25.Qxa7+ Ke8 26.R 25.Q 26.Rd4 Qxe3+ 27.K 27.Kc2 Qf2+ 28.K 28.Kb3 Qxf5 29.Q 29.Qb8+ Kd7 30.Q 30.Qxd6+ Kc8 31.Q 31.Qc5+ Kb7 32.Rb4+ 1-0

French Defence [Chigorin/Exchange] Charles Warburton D. Simon Cheshire-Lancashire m 1935 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.B 4. Bd3

As explained in the previous chapter, we prefer the move-order 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.Bd3, because now 4...c5 is an interesting way of livening up the fight at the cost of an isolated pawn. 4...B 4... Bd6 5.N 5.Nf3 Ne7 6.0-0 Bg4 7.B 7.Be3!?

According to the player of the white pieces, he got the idea of the set-up generated with this move from one of Nenakorov’s games in the St Petersburg tournament of 1909. However in that particular  game, Duras-Nenakorov, this player had the black pieces and the bishop eventually landed on e3 after

game, Duras Nenakorov, this player had the black pieces and the bishop eventually landed on e3 after   being developed to g5. But the break with c2-c4 is seen in both games. 7...c6 8.N 8.Nbd2 Qc7 9.h3 Bh5 10.R 10.Re1 Nd7

342  

11.c4!

A good point of this move is that it makes Black’s plan of castling on the queenside less attractive  because there is a ready-made attack waiting for him over there. 11...dxc4 12.N 12.Nxc4 0-0?

There was no need for this yet, as Black is walking right into a version of the Greek Gift combination. To be preferred was 12...Nf6. 13.B 13. Bxh7+! Kxh7 14.N 14.Ng5+ Kg6

343  

A better chance was 14...Kg8 15.Qxh5 Nf6 16.Qf3 and Black has lost an important pawn but can  play on; 14...Kh6 loses directly to 15. Ne6+ Kg6 16.Qd3+. 15.Q 15. Qd3+

15.g4 does the job as well. 15...f5

Both 15...Nf5 16.g4 and 15...Kf6 16.Nh7+ Ke6 17.Bf4+ are utterly destructive. 16.Ne6 Qb8 17.N 16.N 17.Nxd6 Qxd6 18.B 18.Bf4 Qb4 19.Q 19.Qg3+ Bg4 20.B 20.Bd6 Qxb2 21.hxg4 Rf7 22.gxf5+ Kxf5 23.Q 23. Qg5#

French Defence [Chigorin/Exchange] Magnus Carlsen 2838 Georg Meier 2630 PRO League KO Stage 2017 (4.7)

This game was played in a none-too-serious online event and at a fast time limit. Nonetheless, we thought it well worth including, because it embodies perfectly the Laskerian approach we are advocating. In many ways, Carlsen is very like Lasker in his approach to chess, especially his desire to avoid long theoretical opening lines and settle for an equal position, in which he can just ‘play chess’. The World Champion has spent much of his career outplaying top GMs from seemingly equal and drawish endgames. This is another example. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.N 4. Nf3 Nf6 5.B 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.Q 6.Qe2+

A particularly quiet line, but one Carlsen has played three times against GMs, scoring two wins and a loss, the latter being merely the result of blundering his queen. 6...Qe7 6...Q

In Carlsen Grischuk, chess.com 2017, Black avoided the queen exchange with 6...Be6. The game continued 7.c4 dxc4 8.Bxc4 Qe7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nc3 Re8 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 N bd7 13.Rfe1 Qf8 14.Bxe6 Rxe6 15.Q b5 a6, and now 16.Q b3 is equal, instead of Carlsen’s 16. 16.Qxb7?? R b8 17.Qa7 Qc8, when his queen was trapped. 7.Qxe7+ Bxe7

Carlsen-Akobian in the same event saw 7... Kxe7 8.0-0 Re8 9.Re1+ Kf8 10.Rxe8+ Kxe8 11.Nc3 c6 12.Bd2 h6 13.Re1+ Kf8 14.Ne5 N bd7 15.f4 and White had a small small edge, eventually winning. 8.B 8.Bf4 c6 9.0-0 0-0

344  

What can one say about this position? It is just completely equal, of course. But equal is not the same as drawn, and Carlsen is happy simply to take such a position and play it out. So should we be! Another point to note, and part of the reason for including the game, is that the position is very similar to those reached in our recommended 5.Qe2 line against the Petroff, so a study of this game should be doubly useful to the reader. rea der. 10.Re1 Re8 11.N 10.R 11.Nbd2 Bg4 12.N 12.Ne5 Be6 13.N 13.Nb3 a5 14.N 14.Nc5 Bxc5 15.dxc5

At the cost of a slight deterioration in his pawn structure, White has gained the two bishops. Chances are still very equal, but there is a little imbalance in the position. 15...N 15... Nbd7 16.N 16.Nxd7 Bxd7 17.f3

A nice little multi-functional move. White takes the squares e4 and g4 from Black’s minor pieces, opens a path for his king to approach the centre and prepares a kingside pawn expansion with g2-g4 and h2-h4.

17...a4!?

Maybe not objectively bad in itself, but this is the start of a plan to open lines on the queenside, which rebounds on Black. 18.Kf2 Be6 19.B 18.K 19.Bd6 Nd7 20.b4 axb3 21.axb3 g6 22.g4 b6?!

345  

Continuing his mistaken strategy. Now White’s two bishops and more active pieces benefit from the opening of lines and he starts to take control of the position. 23.cxb6 Nxb6 24.K 24.Kg3 Nd7 25.h4 Kg7 26.f4

A typical methodical space-gaining operation. Black’s position is becoming extremely unpleasant. 26...d4 27.R 27.Rxa8 Rxa8 28.f5 gxf5 29.gxf5 Bd5 30.R 30.Re7 Ra7 31.K 31.Kf4 Rb7

32.Be5+ Kf8 33.f6 1-0 32.B

346  

Black’s game collapsed amazingly quickly and without any grievous blunder on his part. Of course, this was only an internet game at a fast time limit, but we would point out that the black player was rated 2630 at the time of this game and has a particular reputation for his rock-solid handling of the French. If he can be outplayed so easily in the Exchange Variation, then your opponents certainly can! Caro-Kann Defence Bert Enklaar Hein Donner Leeuwarden ch-NED 1974 (9) 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.B 4. Bd3 Nf6 5.c3 Nc6 6.B 6.Bf4 Bg4 7.Q 7.Qb3

7...N 7... Na5

owadays queen moves are more popular as a result of Fischer’s game against Petrosian. For 

example: 7...Qd7 8.Nd2 e6 9.Ngf3 and in a game Tringov-Pomar, Büsum 1968, where Black tried to simplify the position with 9...Bxf3 (9...Bh5 is probably better) 10.Nxf3 Be7 (10...Bd6 11.Ne5 Qc7 is the current theoretical recommendation, and is enough for equality), he got into a bind on the kingside after 11.Ne5 Qc8 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qd1 Rd8 14.Re1 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Nd7 16.h4 Nf8 17.h5 h6 18.Re3 and duly lost. 8.Q 8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Q 9.Qc2

347  

9...Rc8 9...R

9...e6 10.Nf3 Q b6 (10...Nc4 11.0-0 Bd6 12.Be5! Qc7 13.Re1 Nh5 (13...b5 14.a4 is also better for  White) 14.Bxc4 dxc4 15.N bd2 b5 16.Ne4 with a devastating position, Timman-Pomar, Las Palmas 1977) 11.a4! (11.N bd2 B b5 solves Black’s problems) problems) 11...Rc8 (11...Q b3 12.Qe2 Bxa4? 13.Rxa4 Qxa4 14.B b5+ wins) 12.N bd2 Nc6 13.Q b1 Nh5 14.Be3 h6 15.Ne5 and White was better in FischerPetrosian, Belgrade 1970, and converted this into a full point. If 9...Q b6 10.a4! again stops B b5, exchanging bishops. 10.Nf3 Nc6 11.Qe2 Bg4 12.Nbd2 e6 13.Qe3 Nd7 14.0-0 Be7

348  

Somehow we have still reached a typical structure. White’s chances should be based around his halfopen e-file and the outpost on e5: 15.Ne5 Ndxe5 16.B 15.N 16.Bxe5

ot yet 16.dxe5 d4. 16...0-0

But now 16...Nxe5 17.dxe5. 17.Bf4 Qd7 18.Rfe1 Rfe8 19.Qg3 Bh5 20.Re3 Bg6

Hoping to solidify, but now the remaining knight finds its way onto the kingside. 21.Bxg6 hxg6 22.N 21.B 22.Nf3 Bf6 23.Q 23.Qh3 Na5 24.b3 b5 25.g4 Nc6 26.R 26.Rd1 b4 27.g5 Be7 28.cxb4 Bxb4 29.N 29. 30.Bxe5 Ne5 Nxe5 30.B

349  

We pass no judgment as to how well the game has been played, but it is a nice example of the mutual chances that are the trademark of this variation, or, even better, this structure. Here White is first with his attack. 30...Q 30... Qb5

30...Bf8 31.Qh4. 31.B 31. Bxg7! 1-0

Caro-Kann Defence Stanislav Pakosta Jan Gwozdz cr 2001 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c3 Bf5 5.Q 5.Qb3 Qd7 6.N 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.N 7.Ne5 Nxe5 8.dxe5 a6 9.N 9.Na3 e6

10.N 10. Nb5 Rc8

350  

11.Be3!? 11.B

As we mentioned in the opening chapter, c hapter, 11.Nd4 is playable enough, but this sacrificial idea poses interesting practical problems. 11...axb5

This is the engines’ choice as well – that is before they change their minds after a while – whereas after the former recommendation 11...f6, the suggestion is 12.Nd4!? (the old Czech analysis goes 12.f4 fxe5 13.fxe5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Rc6 15.a4 with good compensation. It is not clear if that is 100% theoretically sound but it is dangerous to counter) 12...fxe5 13.Nxf5 exf5 14.0-0-0 Nf6 (14...d4 15.Bc4 is better for White) and 15.g3 or 15.Bg5 remain unclear. 12.Bxb5 Rc6 13.a4! 12.B

351  

With the idea to push up to a6. Black must take some very important decisions now. 13...f6! 14.a5 Kf7

Black takes steps to unpin, otherwise 14...fxe5 15.a6 with smashing consequences, or 14...Ne7 15.a6  bxa6 16.Rxa6 d4!? (16...fxe5 17.Qa4) 17.Bxd4 fxe5 18.Bc5 with a clear advantage for White. But the text move is no improvement. 15.a6 bxa6 16.R 16.Rxa6 Rxa6 17.B 17.Bxd7 Ra1+ 18.K 18.Kd2 Rxh1

Black is material up, but his position is a shambles.

352  

19.Q 19. Qb8 g6 20.B 20.Be8+ Kg7 21.exf6+ 1-0

353  

Chapter 10 Combinations and tactics Thus far, we have not dealt with what can well be regarded as the real nitty-gritty and essence of  chess – ‘seeing ahead’. Every chess player hates it when non-players ask the hoary old question ‘How many moves do you see ahead?’, but of course, it remains true that calculation and visualisation are a huge part of success at the game. Despite all the effort players put into openings and other aspects of  chess, most games are decided by tactical oversights. The ability to calculate combinations and tactical blows is therefore crucial, as is calculation of less spectacular, but nonetheless important variations, such as in many endgames. This is true even at the most exalted level. Grandmaster Alexey Suetin, a long-time trainer of  Petrosian, quoted a story regarding the latter’s preparation for his 1966 World Championship Match against Spassky. Having just concluded their final training session, after several months of work, Petrosian commented to Suetin that, despite all of the work and opening preparation they had done, in the end, the match would be decided by who was better at ‘he goes there, I go here, then he takes this and I take that’. Lasker himself was one of the greatest tacticians and calculators the game had ever seen and this was an important secret to his success. Rudolf Spielmann famously spoke of the difficulty of  analysing with Lasker: ‘But Lasker! His eyes, his thoughts are everywhere. I speak from experience, for I have frequently tried to analyse with him. The result was really discouraging for me: no sooner had I hit on a good  idea or a pretty combination, than Lasker waved it aside, for he had long ago already discarded it in his thoughts!’  Every serious chess player, of whatever level, is likely to have had similar experiences, whether it is an ordinary GM analysing with a World Champion, or a 1200 player analysing with the 2000-strength club champion. The other chap just seems to ‘see’ things so quickly, noticing immediately little tactical tricks which escape the lesser player altogether, or else take him much longer to spot. And we are mainly talking not about spectacular sacrificial combinations, but just routine tactical ideas, 2-3 moves deep, on which so much of a chess game hinges. So how does one acquire such ability? Well, as with most things in life, talent is obviously a factor,  but hard work and regular practice is crucial. crucial. Tactical ability and alertness is rather rather like physical

fitness – when you start from a very low level, a lot of work is needed to build yourself up to a certain level, but once you are there, 15-30 minutes’ exercise a day is all you need to maintain that level. But you do need to do that minimum every day – miss a few days and you immediately start to notice the difference. Knowledge of the main tactical themes and ideas, such as pins, forks, skewers, deflections, overloads, etc., is also important, but this is easily acquired from any of a thousand books and we do not propose to cover these systematically here. Once one is familiar with these ideas, it is simply a question of practice, solving tactical puzzles every day, to keep one’s brain fresh and alert. We therefore present below 50 puzzle positions for the reader to practice on. Some are from Lasker’s games, but we have sought to avoid anything well-known and which appears in other books, notably unn’s, which has a chapter of such tactical puzzles from Lasker’s games. We have therefore in the

354  

main taken examples from the authors’ own games, secure in the knowledge that these are bound to  be almost completely unknown unknown to our readers. The puzzles have been grouped into three sets: Easy, Intermediate and Difficult. The third group often involves calculating a relatively long variation, rather than just spotting a specific tactical blow. Section A: Easy puzzles Show in Text Mode

  1. Emanuel Lasker Ignatz von Popiel Berlin casual 1889

How did the young Lasker come a cropper here?

Show/Hide Solution 19...Q 19... Qxh3+ 20.K 20.Kg1 Qh1+ 21.B 21.Bxh1 Nh3#

2. John Smith John Wager Thanet 1977

355  

White to play. How does he wrap up the game most effectively?

Show/Hide Solution 35.N 35. Ne7+! 1-0 3. Steve Giddins J.Coburn Basingstoke 1989

Black has just played 14... Rfe8? Why is this a mistake?

356  

Show/Hide Solution 15.f4

Wins material: 15...Ng4 15...N

Or 15...Nd7 16.f5 and the bishop is trapped. 16.f5

And White won. 4. Steve Giddins K.Neil

Bradford 1989

White to play. How does he win material decisively?

Show/Hide Solution 21.e4 Bb7

21...Bxe4 22.Bxf6. 22.e5 1-0 5. Steve Giddins

357  

Gordon Botley Thanet 1990

How does he win material?

Show/Hide Solution 26.Ne7+ Rxe7 27.Q 26.N 27.Qd5+ 1-0 6. Steve Giddins Jerry Anstead

Hastings 2006 (2)

358  

19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.g5 wins, but there is an even more effective solution.

Show/Hide Solution 19.Qxf6+! Kxf6 20.R 19.Q 20.Rxh7

And there is no defence to mate. 7. Lars Thiede 2240 Gerard Welling 2345 Miskolc 1989

359  

White has just played 21.Na4, forking queen and rook. What had Black prepared?

Show/Hide Solution 21...R 21... Rxf2 22.N 22.Nxb2 Rf6+ 0-1 8. Marek Swierczewski 2220 Gerard Welling 2400 Copenhagen 1993 (1)

How does Black win?

Show/Hide Solution 29...N 29... Nd4 30.Q 30.Qb2 Qxc3! 31.Q 31.Qxc3 Ne2+ 32.K 32.Kh1 Nxc3 33.R 33.Rb3 Nb5 0-1 9. Gerard Welling 2400

Torben Sörensen 2255 Copenhagen 1995 (3)

360  

29. Qh3 would also win, but there is a cleaner solution.

Show/Hide Solution 29.Qxc8+! Kxc8 30.N 29.Q 30.Nexd6+ 1-0 10. Gerard Welling 2395 Sandor Horvath 2100 Budapest 1996 (1)

How does he decide the game at once?

361  

Show/Hide Solution 19.Q 19. Qxe6! 1-0

However Black recaptures on e6, the queen is lost to a knight fork: 19...Bxe6 20.Nf6+ or 19...Qxe6 20.Ng5+. 11. Gerard Welling 2330 Konrad Hauenstein 1935 Schaan 1999 (1)

How does White make decisive material gains?

Show/Hide Solution 20.g3! Qg4 21.B 21.Bxf7+!

Wins material: 21...K 21... Kxf7 22.N 22.Nxh6+

Picks up the queen. 12. Solokovsky Emanuel Lasker Moscow sim 1899

362  

Black has just captured a pawn on c2, but a shock awaited him. What was it?

Show/Hide Solution 20.Q 20. Qxe5!

Wins at once because of the back- rank weakness. 13. Meyer Gerard Welling Eindhoven NBSB league 1974

363  

Black has been a piece down for quite some time but the game has derailed somewhat from White’s  point of view. Do you spot spot a tactical motive that gives Black Black a good game?

Show/Hide Solution 22...Rxe3! 23.fxe3 Bxb2 22...R

Double attack: White lost his extra rook and had to fight for a draw which he was able to clinch in 38 moves. 14. Gerard Welling Fred Wrobel Bad Mondorf 1982

With a king so exposed and such a development lead for White it should not be a surprise that White has a winning tactic, despite the simplified position and absence of queens.

Show/Hide Solution 22.R 22. Re3+ Kf8 23.R 23.Rf6+! 1-0 15. Gerard Welling Herman Grooten Tilburg ch-jr 1976

364  

Black attacks the queen with a view to a tactical attack of the pawn at f4: 15. Qf2 Nxf4! 16.Qxf4 Bg5, etc. However his temporarily misplaced piece gives White a tactical chance.

Show/Hide Solution 15.N 15. Nxe6! fxe6 16.B 16.Bg6+

Loose pieces drop off! 16...K 16... Kd7 17.B 17.Bxh5

And White is winning. Black put up a stiff resistance after 17...d5 but was unable to save the game. 16. Gerard Welling Jan Mascini Eindhoven 1979 (3)

365  

White’s pieces are pointed menacingly at the black king, but there is a knight on h4 hanging. Can White use his enormous advantage in force on the kingside to break through?

Show/Hide Solution 23.fxe6! fxe6

If 23...gxh4 24.Nf5+ Kg8 25.Qxh6 wins on the spot. 24.R 24. Rxf6 Rxf6 25.N 25.Nh5+ Kh7

25...Kh8 26.Rxf6 and the knight at h4 is untouchable and Black’s king lost. Fritz announces a prosaic mate in 18(!), mainly because Black can prolong the agony by jettisoning pieces. 26.N 26. Nxf6+ Kh8 27.N 27.Nh5 Qd8 28.N 28.Ng6+ Kh7 29.R 29.Rf7+ 1-0

17. Gerard Welling Jean-Marie Kappler Liege 1983

366  

White has been throwing the kitchen sink at his opponent and as a result he is a rook down, while Black’s king is about to escape to safety. But he is not there yet and White must strike when the iron is hot. Find the win!

Show/Hide Solution 26.Q 26. Qh6+ Kg8 27.R 27.Rg6+!

Simple, but it is funny to give up the rook on a square that is protected three times. 27...fxg6 28.N 28.Nf6#

367  

Show in Text Mode

 

Section B: Intermediate puzzles 18. Rudolf Loman Emanuel Lasker Amsterdam 1889 (3)

White has just played 11. g4. Is this good or bad?

Show/Hide Solution 11...N 11... Nxg4+

11...Bg6 12.Bxg5±. 12.hxg4 Bxg4 13.B 13.Bxf7+??

13.Nxe5! dxe5 (13...Bxd1 14.Bxf7+ Ke7 15.Nd5#) 14.Qxg4 is good for White. 13...K 13... Kxf7 14.N 14.Nxg5+ Qxg5! 15.B 15.Bxg5 Bxd1 ... 0-1 (22) 19. Jacques Mieses Emanuel Lasker Leipzig m 1890 (8)

368  

Black to play. Can he play 12...Rd8 or does he have to defend the h7-pawn?

Show/Hide Solution 12...Rd8 13.B 12...R 13.Bxh7+? Kh8 14.Q 14.Qe4 Qh5

Traps the bishop: 15.Q 15. Qc4 Qxh7–+ 20. A.N. Other Steve Giddins online 3m 2020

369  

White to play. How does he wrap up the game most effectively?

Show/Hide Solution 13...N 13... Nxg2! 14.K 14.Kxg2 Bh3+ 15.K 15.Kxh3 Qxf3+ 16.K 16.Kh4 g5# 21. Steve Giddins A.N. Other online 3m 2020

White to play. How does he finish things most effectively?

370  

Show/Hide Solution 23.R 23. Rh8+ Kxh8 24.Q 24.Qh6+ Kg8 25.Q 25.Qh7+ Kf8 26.Q 26.Qh8# 22. John Hickman Steve Giddins Bradford 1988

How does Black deal with the pin on the Nf6?

Show/Hide Solution 12...Q 12... Qa5! 13.0-0-0

Or 13.Rd1 Qxc3+ 14.Rd2 e3 15.fxe3 Ne4!, winning.

13...Q 13... Qxa3+ 14.K 14.Kb1 Nd5! 15.N 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.c4 e5

And Black won. 23. Sean Marsh Steve Giddins Cleveland 1991

371  

Black has an extra pawn, but appears to face a long endgame grind after the double exchange of  rooks. How instead does he force immediate resignation?

Show/Hide Solution 23...R 23... Rxd1+ 24.R 24.Rxd1 Qe4!

And White cannot defend the rook on d1 in view of the zwischenzug 25.Qxe4 Rxd1+. 24. Steve Giddins 2280 Bruno Carlier 2360

Antwerp 1993

372  

Here White played the move 24.Nxc4. Is this a blunder?

Show/Hide Solution o, because after  24...Bxc4 24...B

he has the decisive blow 25.Rb6! Qxb6 26.R 25.R 26.Re6+ Kg8 27.R 27.Rxb6 25. Per Johansson 2185 Steve Giddins 2290 Gausdal 1995

373  

Black has obviously achieved the maximum positional advantage, but how does he decide the game immediately?

Show/Hide Solution 39...R 39... Rf3! 0-1

In view of 40.Bxf3 Qxd2+!. 26. Steve Giddins J. Gallagher St Albans 1996

374  

How does Black decide the game?

Show/Hide Solution 30...N 30... Nxh3+! 31.gxh3 Be3+ 0-1 27. Steve Giddins Bainbridge Oxford 1979

How does White finish the game off most effectively?

375  

Show/Hide Solution 17.Q 17. Qxh7+ Kxh7 18.R 18.Rh3+ Nh4 19.R 19.Rxh4+ Kg6 20.R 20.Rh6# 28. John Cox 2381 Gerard Welling 2364 Port Erin 2007 (5)

How does Black demolish the rather rickety white structure?

Show/Hide Solution 14...Nxd4! 15.B 14...N 15.Bxd4 Qb4

Regains the piece. Now the most tenacious defence for White was 16.Nd6, although after 16...exd6

17.a3 Qa5 18.b4 Qd5 19.Bc3 Qe6 Black remains clearly better. In the game, White tried 16.Qb3? 16.Q

when 16...Rxd4! 17.Qxb4 Rxb4 18.Bf3 Rxb2 would have been the most convincing, with an extra  pawn and two bishops in the ending. Black played the slightly slightly less effective 16...Q 16... Qxb3 17.axb3 Rxd4 xd4µ µ

still with the advantage, and won fairly easily anyway. 29. Widmer

376  

Gerard Welling Biel 1979

Black is completely winning and should be able to win in many ways. We challenge you however  to find a completely forcing way.

Show/Hide Solution 44...R 44... Rg1+!

ow an easily winning king and pawn ending is forced: 45.Qxg1 Qf3+ 46.Qg2 Qxd1+ 47.Qg1 Qxg1+ (this is enough, but 47... Qxd5+ first wins another pawn) 48.Kxg1 b6 etc. 30. Gerard Welling Alain Pardoen Biel 1981

377  

As a result of sacrificial play in a Blackmar-Diemer gambit White is a piece down but his pieces mass on the kingside where Black’s defense is a flimsy barricade. The simple 20.Rf3 is probably enough to cash in, but do you see a combination?

Show/Hide Solution 20.R 20. Rxf8+! Rxf8 21.B 21.Bxh7+ Kh8

21...Qxh7 22.Rxf8+ Kg7 23.Qf6#. 22.B 22. Bg6+ Kg8 23.R 23.Rxf8+

And mate, whichever way Black recaptures. 31. Gerard Welling Dinand Webbink 

Eindhoven 1981

378  

Black has many of his pieces hanging and 27...Rc1+ fails to 28.Rxc1 Qxd6 29.Nxf7 mate. Is 27...Rc6 a sufficient defense, with an extra pawn?

Show/Hide Solution o, it is not, because of  28.Q 28. Qd8+! Rxd8 29.N 29.Nxf7+! 1-0

Clearly the queen was overloaded here. 32. Michael Pasman Gerard Welling Biel 1982

379  

White has sacrificed no fewer than two pieces and has just brought his rook into the attack with 17. Rd3.Which of the following three moves do you think Black should now play and what is the assessment of the position: A) 17...Nf6 B) 17...Qd8 C) 17...Q b4

Show/Hide Solution A) 17...Nf6?! allows 18.Ra3+ K b7 19.R b3 Qd8 20.Be3 and White regains the bishop with an ongoing attack; B) 17...Qd8 is the best move, when the position is still quite unclear – the computer suggests White has enough for his considerable material investment, but no more than that; C) Sadly, in the game, as impulsive as ever, Black played the disastrous 17... Q b4?? and had to resign immediately after the blow 18.Rxd7+!, as the bishop on c8 proves to be overloaded. 33. Gerard Welling Theo van Scheltinga Eindhoven ch-NED 1984

380  

An interesting position, probably somewhat in White’s favour, where Black should play 18...Ndf6 to stop White’s threat 19.d5. He took another precaution with 18...Q b7? in order to prevent White’s idea. How do you continue with White now?

Show/Hide Solution 19.d5!

evertheless! 19...exd5 20.cxd5 Bxd5 21.B 21.Bxe4!

And Black suddenly noticed he is caught in the theme of a cross-pin. There is no saving line any more. 34. Rob Faase

Gerard Welling Dieren 1987 (4)

381  

Black has a large lead in development and White’s king is exposed in the centre, but there is no direct mating idea, and Black is a pawn down. How can Black take advantage of White’s clumsy  pieces?

Show/Hide Solution 19...N 19... Nd3+!! 20.cxd3 Bg3

Paralyses White. 21.K 21. Kf1 Bxf2 22.N 22.Nc3

Black’s point was 22.Kxf2 Rhf8+ 23.Ke1 Re6! and as Ra1 and Bc1 are sleeping, there is no way that White can defend his piece in the sector where Black’s force is overpowering and will be material down instead.

22...Rhf8 23.N 22...R 23.Ne4 Bd4+ 24.K 24.Kg2 Re6 0-1

382  

Show in Text Mode

  Section C: Difficult puzzles 35. Gerard Welling 2335 Etienne Bacrot Belfort 1992 (3)

What should White play?

Show/Hide Solution

14.Bxh7 Kxh7 15.Q 14.B 15.Qh4 Kg8 16. 16.Ng5 Rd8

Somewhat more tenacious was 16...Re8, but after 17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.Qh8+ Ke7 19.Qxg7 Bxh2+ (or  19...Nd8 20.Ne4 Be5 21.Bg5+ Kd7 22.Rfd1+ Kc6 23.Nf6 Re7 24.Qh6 and White wins) 20.Kh1 Be5 21.Qxf7+ Kd8 22.Rd1+ Bd7 23.Nxe6+ Rxe6 24.Qxe6 White wins. 17.Qh7+ Kf8 18.Qh8+ Ke7 19.Qxg7 Rf8 20.Nh7 Ke8 21.Nf6+ Ke7 22.Bg5 1-0 36. Andreas Teloeken 2150 Gerard Welling 2385 Germany Oberliga 1996/97 (3)

383  

White now captured 20.Nxd4, but met a rude shock. What was it?

Show/Hide Solution 20...Rxh1+! 21.K 20...R 21.Kxh1 Be4+ 22.f3

Or 22.Kg1 Qh3; 22.Nf3 Qh3+. 22...Q 22... Qh3+ 23.K 23.Kg1 Qxg3+ 24.K 24.Kf1 Rh8 25.e3 Bxf3

Good enough, but 25...Bd3+! forces mate after 26.Qxd3 Rh1+. 26.N 26. Nxf3 Qxf3+ 0-1 37. Ralf Hubert 2350 Gerard Welling 2355

Germany Oberliga 1997/98 (4)

384  

White has just played 18.f4. How should Black continue?

Show/Hide Solution 18...N 18... Nxh2!

Destroys White’s position. 19.K 19. Kxh2 Qh6+ 20.K 20.Kg1 Qh1+ 21.K 21.Kf2 Qg2+ 22.K 22.Ke1 Qxg3+ 23.R 23.Rf2 Bf6

And Black has a winning attack. The game ended: 24.Bf1 Bh4 25.B 24.B 25.Bc1 Bf3 26.R 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.c5 Qg1 28.b4 Rd3 0-1 38. Gerard Welling 2350 Mikhail Langer

Kona 1998 (9)

385  

How should White continue and how should Black respond?

Show/Hide Solution White correctly played the thematic pseudo-sacrifice 18.N 18. Nf6+!

which brought an immediate mistake from his opponent: 18...K 18... Kh8?

Correct was 18...gxf6! 19.exf6 Qc8 (but not 19...Bd6 20.Bxd6 Qxd6 21.Nxd4, winning) 20.fxe7 Nxe7, when White is somewhat better, but no more than that. The text loses. 19.N 19. Ng5 Bxf6 20.exf6 Qc8

Both 20...Nce5 21.Nxh7 and 20...e5 21.fxg7+ Kxg7 22.Qg4 win for White. 21.fxg7+ Kxg7 22.Q 22.Qg4 Kh8 23.Q 23.Qh5 Nf6 24.Q 24.Qh6 Qd8 25.B 25.Bc7 Qe7 26.B 26.Bd6 Qxd6 27.Q 27.Qxf6+ Kg8 28.B 28. Be4 1-0

39. Nenad Sulava 2466 Gerard Welling 2334 Andorra 1999 (6)

386  

What should White play?

Show/Hide Solution White wins a pawn with 6.N 6.Nxe5! xe5!± ±

e.g. 6...Nxe5 7.Bxg4 or the game continuation 6...Bxe2 7.Q 6...B 7.Qxd7+! Qxd7 8.N 8.Nxd7 Kxd7 9.K 9.Kxe2

The computer points out the best defence 6...B b4+! with the point that after 7.c3 Nxe5 8.Bxg4 Black  has 8...Nd3+ 9.Ke2 Nxc1+ 10.Qxc1 Bd6, with perhaps some compensation for the pawn. 40. Gerard Welling 2376 Martin Müller 2026

Dresden 2001 (3)

387  

What should White play?

Show/Hide Solution 11.B 11. Bxg5!

yields a clear advantage. In the game, after  11...hxg5 12.h6

Black chose to return the piece with 12...B 12... Bxh6

when he was just clearly worse, but after 12...Bh8 13.h7+ Kg7 14.f4!, the threat of Qe2-f3-h3 is decisive.

41. Gerard Welling 2391 Reinhard Sabel 2081 Dresden 2003 (5)

388  

Play continued 9.Nxf6+. How should Black recapture?

Show/Hide Solution Black chose 9...Qxf6??, intending to meet 10. Bg5 with the zwischenzug 10... Bxf3. However, he had missed the ‘zwischenzwischenzug’ 11.Qd2!, defending the Bg5 and winning the black queen. Black  resigned, as after the trick 11...Bf4 12.Bxf4, he loses a piece – there is no time to rescue the bishop on f3, since 13.Bg5 Qxd4 14.Bxh7+ is still a threat. 42. Gerard Welling 2371 Vereslav Eingorn 2591

Bad Wiessee 2006 (3)

389  

Black now played the move 45...g5. Was this good or bad?

Show/Hide Solution It is a losing blunder: 46.g4!

And White forces a decisive passed pawn on the h-file, e.g. 46...gxh4 47.gxh5 h3 48.Kf2 f5 49.h6 Kf6 50.e5+ and Black cannot stop both passed pawns. Black in fact resigned immediately after  46.g4!. 43. Emanuel Lasker Hooper Great Britain simul tour 1895

How should White continue?

Show/Hide Solution 20.N 20. Nxf6!

Initiates a winning king hunt. 20...K 20... Kxf6 21.d5+ Kf7 22.N 22.Ng5+ Ke8 23.Q 23.Qh5+ Kd7

390  

Thus far, all forced. Now 24.Nf7! wins, but Lasker erred with 24.N 24. Ne6?

after which things are unclear: 24...R 24... Rxf2

24...Qe8 was also quite unclear. B R 25. d4 f5??

25...Bxd4 26.Nxd4 Qf8 is unclear. 26.dxc6+ 1-0

Because it is forced mate after 26...Nxc6 27.Nc5+ dxc5 28.Qxf5+ Kd6 29.Be5+ etc. 44. Emanuel Lasker MacLaren Great Britain simul tour 1895

391  

Here, Black continued with 9... Nh5+. How should White respond and what should the result be?

Show/Hide Solution White is actually winning with best play: 10.Kxg4! 10.K

‘Forced, therefore best,’ as the late Gerald Abrahams liked to say. The alternative 10.Kf3?? allows a forced mate: 10...Qf6+ 11.Kxg4 d5+ 12.Kxh5 g6+ 13.Kh6 g5+ 14.Kh5 Qg6#. The text looks dangerous, but White can escape with his booty intact. 10...d5+ 11.K 11.Kf3 Qf6+ 12.K 12.Ke3 Qf4+ 13.K 13.Ke2 Ng3+

13...Bg4+ 14.Ke1 gets Black nowhere.

14.K 14. Ke1 Qh4 15.hxg3

15.Bg5! was even cleaner, but the text is good enough. 15...Q 15... Qxh1+ 16.K 16.Kf2 Qxd1 17.N 17.Nxd1 1-0 45. Viktor Kortchnoi Gerard Welling Deurne simul 1976

392  

White is under a lot of pressure and the optimistic junior playing Black was already hoping for a full point. But even in a simul, with so many boards to consider, Kortchnoi’s resourcefulness was enormous and he forced a draw in a split second. How?

Show/Hide Solution 25.c4! Rxf4 26.cxd5

And drawing by perpetual check after 26...Rxf2 27.Qxc6+. 46. Gerard Welling Rob Verhey Eindhoven 1976

393  

In spite of his somewhat disorganised pieces White has enough tactical potential to win the game. How?

Show/Hide Solution 31.R 31. Rxb6+!

Exploiting the tactical theme of the pin. 31...K 31... Kc8

31...Bxb6 32.Qxb6+ Ka8 33.Qa6+ K b8 34.R b1#. 32.R 32. Rb8+ Kd7 33.Q 33.Qb5+ Nc6 34.Q 34.Qxc5! Rd3+ 35.K 35.Kg4 h5+

White s point was 35...Qxa1 36.Qf5+ Ke7 37.Qf8+ Ke6 38.Qg8+ Kd7 39.Qe8#. 36.Kh4 Qf7 37.R 36.K 37.Rf8 Qe6 38.Q 38.Qf5 1-0 47. Steve Giddins James Plaskett

Hastings 1997

394  

What is the outcome after the move 43...Rxg2+ ?

Show/Hide Solution This requires calculating some 12 moves deep, but along a single variation: 43...Rxg2+ 44.K 43...R 44.Kf3 Rd2 45.K 45.Kxf4 Rd4+! 46.K 46.Kf3 Rxd6 47.R 47.Ra6! Ke6 48.R 48.Rxd6+ Kxd6 49.K 49.Kf4 Kc5 50.K 50. Kxf5 Kxb5 51.K 51.Kg5 Kc6 52.K 52.Kh6 Kd7 53.K 53.Kxh7 Ke7 54.K 54.Kg7

And White wins by a single tempo. 48. Gerard Welling Symon Algera Leiden 1982

395  

Black is slightly ahead on material and threatens to take on f2. But White’s pieces radiate enormous activity and an objective judge would expect some compensating tactical ideas. The question is, who is better and why? But this is a difficult puzzle, so you are warned.

Show/Hide Solution 41.R 41. Rxf7!!

The only move, but this is only the start of our adventure. Q 41... xf7

Also possible was 41...Q b1+ 42.Kh2 Rxb2 (42...Qxb2? loses after 43.Be4+ Kh6 44.Ra6+ Kg5 45.Rg6#) 43.Re8 R b4 44.Bh3 R b5 45.Bg2 with a dynamic balance.

42.B 42. Be4+ Kh6 43.f4!

Kudos if you found the solution thus far. It seems that Black is caught in a mating net and will lose the game. That is what the naive player with the white pieces was thinking when he went into this. But in reality the position is drawn, and a nd under severe pressure to find the only move, Symon Algera found it: 43...R 43... Rd1+ 44.K 44.Kf2 Rd2+ 45.K 45.Ke1 Rd1+!!

That is it, the rook has no defensive duty so it can be jettisoned for defensive purposes. 46.Kf2 46.K

Black’s point was 46.Kxd1 Q b3+.

396  

46...Rd2+ 47.K 46...R 47.Ke1 Rd1+

And the game was given up as a draw and at the end both players shared the best game prize. 49. Gerard Welling Hans Bosscher Eindhoven 1986

White has been attacking in ferocious style and is a piece down, but he can take it back at once if he wants. How do you continue White’s attack?

Show/Hide Solution 29.Q 29. Qg4!!

29.fxe7 Nxe7 improves Black’s defensive chances, as there are additional defensive pieces coming to the rescue, such as after 30.Qg4 Qg6. 29...B 29... Bf8

29...g6 30.Bxe4! with a winning attack. 30.fxg7 Bd6

30...Be7 31.Rxf7 is also curtains. 31.Rxf7!? 31.R

397  

White’s point, and clearly winning, but the engine e ngine points out the easy way: 31.Qf5! and if 31...Qc7 then 32.Bxe4 and mates. 31...N 31... Ne5 32.R 32.Rf8+

Another engine idea is 32. Bxe4!! Nxg4 33.Bd5 which is indefensible. 32...R 32... Rxf8

32...Bxf8 33.gxf8=Q+ Kxf8 34.Bxe5. 33.Qe6+! 1-0 33.Q 50. Hendrik Happel Gerard Welling  Netherlands tt 1987

Black took the second rank with 29...R b2. Was he right in doing so or is f7 a tender spot?

Show/Hide Solution R 30. f3

Otherwise he loses material with a desperate position, for example 30.Nd3 Rxa2 or  30.Nf3 Rxa2. Meanwhile, 30.Qd8+ Kh7 31.Rf3 does not change anything compared to the game. 30...N 30... Ne3+!

398  

The little check that White overlooked, and the reason that 29...R b2 was sound. 31.R 31. Rxe3 Rxf2+

Winning, but even stronger was 31... Qxf2+! 32.Kh3 Qf5+ 33.Ng4 h5. 32.Kg1 Rf1+ 33.K 32.K 33.Kg2 Qf2+ 34.K 34.Kh3 Qxe3 35.Q 35.Qd8+ Kh7 36.Q 36.Qxd5 Rf5 0-1

399  

Index of openings (numbers refer to pages) B

Benko’s Opening 86, 88 C

Caro-Kann Defence 38, 195-196 Catalan Opening 162 D

Dutch Defence 49 F

Four Knights Game 146 French Defence 47, 192-193 I

Italian Game 143 K 

King’s Fianchetto 42, 54, 81-82, 84 King’s Gambit 65 L

London System 78 O

Orang-Utan Opening 44 P

Petroff Defence 175, 177 Pirc Defence 34 Q

400  

Queen’s Gambit Declined 148, 150, 153, 155, 157, 159 R 

Réti Opening 163 Ruy Lopez 36, 62, 69, 72, 75, 128, 130-131, 134, 136-137, 139, 164, 166, 169, 171, 173-174 S

Scandinavian Defence 46 Scotch Opening 140, 142 Sicilian Defence 39, 52, 178-179, 181-182, 184, 186, 189-190 Slav Defence 160

401  

Index of names (numbers refer to pages) A

Aagaard 156 Abrahams 228 Adams 119 Afek 21 Akobian 194 Akopian 174 Alcalde 144 Alekhine 15, 107, 109, 114-115, 128, 143-144, 146, 157, 159 Alekseev 114 Algera 230 Almada 169, 175 AlphaZero 154 Anand 102, 108 Anderson 183 Andersson 116 Anstead 216 Antoshin 54 Arkell 164 Asker 99 Atkins 108 B

Baburin 113 Bacrot 225 Bainbridge 222 Balashov 114-115 Bangiev 7-8 Barcza 127 Barkhagen 145 Barle 98 Basman 122, 184 Bauer 47 Becker 113-114 Beliavsky 105 Benko 88

402  

Bernstein 106-107, 131, 137-138 Berzinsh 96 Beshukov 144 Bisguier 92 Bogoljubow 161 Bohak 165 Bohatirchuk 110, 150-153 Boleslavsky 102, 143, 145 Borm 96 Borngässer 184 Bosscher 230 Botley 216 Botvinnik 178 Bouwmeester 112, 153-154, 156 Bredewout 55 Bristow 136 Bronstein 117, 148 Browne 115 Bücker 187 C

Campora 93 Capablanca 71, 95, 109, 111, 113, 119-120, 125, 128, 131, 144, 146-147, 167, 177 Carlier 221 Carlsen 193-194 Caruana 120 Casper 185 Chandler 124 Chekhover 28

Chernenkov 117 Chigorin 101-102, 106, 171-172, 183 Chistiakov 49-50 Coburn 215 Cook 95, 133-134, 136 Cox 222 Cross 38 D

Dann 191 Davidson 127 Davies 113

403  

Degenhardt 187, 189 De Groot 12 De Jonghe 62 De Roode 81 Donev 122, 169-170, 173, 182 Donner 130, 186, 195 Du Chattel 81-82, 84 Dückstein 102 Du Mont 93 Duras 192 Dvoretsky 131 E

Eingorn 227 Eising 42 Eliskases 101 Enklaar 195 Enoch 124 Euwe 177 F

Faase 224 Fairbairn 164 Felsberger 182 Fine 49 Fischer 126-127, 135, 184, 195 Flear 100 Flesch 116

G

Gallagher 222 Geller 94 Georgiev 121 Giddins 229 Glek 103 Gligoric 102 Gobet 139 Godena 119 Goh Wei Ming 181 Golmayo 65-66

404  

Gordon 190 Gorelov 52 Gotthilf 171 Grachev 113 Graf 96 Grinis 46 Grischuk 193 Grooten 218 Grünfeld 161 Gunsberg 106 Gurevich 124 Gwozdz 196 H

Handoko 192 Hansen 115 Happel 231 Hartston 105 Hauenstein 217 Heinemann 39 Hendriks 7 Hickl 9 Hickman 221 Hinault 59 Hjartarson 160 Hodgson 146 Hooper 228 Hort 126 Horvath 217

Hracek 130 Hubert 225 Hübner 163 Hug 120 Hunter 120, 177 I

Inkiov 105 Ivanchuk 124 Ivanisevic 109 Ivanovic 97, 142 Ivkov 120

405  

J

Jaffe 146 Jäger 111 Janosevic 84 Janowski 34-35, 62-65, 71 Jimenez 84 Johansson 221 Johner 161 Jovanic 188 Jussupow 106 K 

Kaidanov 139 Kappler 219 Karlsen 145 Karpov 181 Kasimdzhanov 96 Kasparov 123-125 Kellner 44 Kempinski 113 Keres 104 Khalifman 101 Khasin 145 Kholmov 106 Kindermann 181 King 181 Kirillov 152 Komliakov 144

Koncielski 94 Konstantinopolsky 104 Korolev 47 Kortchnoi 229 Kottnauer 155 Kramer 153 Krantz 118 Kraschl 179 Krasenkow 115 Krasnov 94 Kudrin 144 Kuijf 102 Kuzmin 114

406  

L

Landenbergue 97 Langer 226 Larino Nieto 188 La Rota 107 Larsen 126-127, 178 236 Lasker 8-14, 16-22, 25-38, 43, 54, 58-72, 75 79, 81, 86, 90-91, 93-102, 106, 108-110, 115, 117-121, 124, 126, 128, 130-131, 135, 137, 140-141, 143-144, 146-149, 153, 156, 159-160, 167, 169, 173, 177, 193, 199-201, 215, 218, 220, 228 Ledger 183 Lee 100 Levitsky 107 Lewis 144 Lhagvasuren 124 Lightfoot 134-135 Lilienthal 147 Ljubojevic 160-161 Loman 220 Lombardy 156, 163 Lommens 183 Lutz 101, 103 M

MacLaren 228 Maier 105 Maiwald 181 Makariev 131 Makovetz 144

Maroczy 158 Marsh 221 Marshall 177 Mascini 219 Mathot 161 McDonald 119 McShane 93 Meier 193 Mercs 69 Mestel 21 Metger 147 Meyer 218 Mieses 107, 140-142, 220

407  

Miettinen 99 Miles 35, 96 Miniböck 179 Miranovic 122 Mnatsakanian 103 Montalvo 144 Morgan 101 Morovic 161 Morozevich 47 Morphy 123 Mozny 184 Müller,H 178 Müller,K 28 Müller,M 227 N

eil 216 enakorov 192 eumann 99 ewton 8 imzowitsch 59-62, 65, 79, 95, 113, 124, 140, 169 unn 10, 28, 31-32, 60-61, 130-131, 200 O

Ornstein 93 Orton 69 Ostl 178

Ostojic 86-87 Ottens 183 P

Pachman 147, 163 Pakosta 126, 196 Palmero 173 Paragua 181 Pardoen 223 Pasman 223 Pergericht 121 Peters 40

408  

Petrosian 97, 105, 121, 127, 142, 145, 195, 199 Piket 175 Pillsbury 75-77, 118, 120 Plaskett 229 Polgar 70 Pollock 106 Polugaevsky 42, 88, 185 Pomar 195 Porges 36 Pribyl 181 Prins 38 Purdy 43, 91 R 

Rabiega 99 Raud 186 Ravinsky 117 Rayner 122, 184 Ree 130 Reshevsky 49 Réti 17, 21-22, 163 Ribli 116 Robertson 72-74 Rogers 81 Romanovsky 119, 171-172 Romih 114 Rozentalis 173 Rozhdestvensky 145 Rubinetti 162

Rubinstein 19, 25, 71, 98, 125-127 237 Index of names S

Sabel 227 Sadler 61-63 Sämisch 114 Sande 165 Santasiere 41 Schiffers 99 Schlechter 137 Sedlak 122

409  

Seirawan 127 Shaposhnikov 105 Shashin 67 Shirazi 40 Short 43, 123-125, 179 Showalter 106 Siklosi 120 Simon 192 Smejkal 130 Smith 215 Smorodsky 171 Smyslov 125 Sokolov 179 Solokovsky 218 Sörensen 217 Sorin 96 Sosonko 42 Souleidis 190-191 Soultanbeieff 161 Spassky 107, 115-116, 120-123, 126, 139, 146, 156, 162-163, 175, 178, 181, 199 Spielmann 199 Starostits 186-189 Steinitz 144 Stohl 179 Stoinov 119 Stoliar 44 Suetin 199 Suhle 99 Sulava 226

Sun Tzu 78 Suttles 84-89 Sveshnikov 98 Svidler 92 Swierczewski 217 Szily 92 T

Taimanov 184-185 Tal 31 Tarrasch 25, 90, 103, 107, 130, 147, 157, 183 Tartakower 92-94,

410  

106, 114, 138 Teichmann 138 Te Kolsté 17 Teloeken 225 Thiede 216 Timman 195 Tischbierek 191 Topalov 108 Tringov 195 Trofimov 143 Troianescu 107 Tsamryuk 122 Tseitlin 131-132 U

Ubilava 110 Ujtelky 54-55 Ulibin 124 Unzicker 100 Utjazki 131 V

Vaisser 185 Van der Fliert 82 Van der Poel 81 Van Scheltinga 224 Varnusz 92 Verhey 229

Vidmar 114 Von Popiel 215 Vorotnikov 144 W

Wager 215 Warburton 120, 124, 129, 177, 192 Webbink 223 Wedberg 173 Welling 229-231 Widmer 223

411  

Winants 62 Wirig 113 Wittmann 179 Wolf 114 Wolff 139 Wood 111 Wrobel 218 Y

Yilmaz 174 Z

Zak 130 Zherebukh 189 Zill 54 Znosko-Borovsky 15 Züger 192

412  

Bibliography A.A.Aljechin: Das New Yorker Schachturnier A.A.Aljechin: Das Schachturnier 1927 , Berlin 1982 A.Bangiev: Felderstrategie A.Bangiev:  Felderstrategie – Denkmethode, Denkmethode, Silbersaiten Verlag 2006 E.Bogoljubow: Die E.Bogoljubow:  Die moderne Eröffnung 1.d2-d4!, 1.d2-d4!, Triberg 1928 I.Boleslavsky: Selected Selected games, games, Caissa Ltd. 1988 H.Bouwmeester/B.Kieboom: Prisma H.Bouwmeester/B.Kieboom:  Prisma 9: Facetten van het Nederlandse Nederlandse schaakleven schaakleven,, Het Spectrum 1968 H.Bouwmeester: Leven H.Bouwmeester:  Leven met het schaakspel , Culemborg 2007 J.R.Capablanca: A J.R.Capablanca:  A primer of chess, chess, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich inc. 1977 .Davies: The Queen’s Gambit Declined: move by move, move, Everyman Chess 2017 J.Donaldson/N.Minev: Akiba J.Donaldson/N.Minev:  Akiba Rubinstein: The Later Later Years Years,, ICF 1995 A.Drinovec e.a.: Slovenski Sah, Sah, Ljubljana 2007 J.Emms: Starting out: the scotch game, game, Gloucester publishers 2005 Forster, Negele & Tischbierek: Emanuel Tischbierek: Emanuel Lasker, Volume I , Excelsior Verlag, Berlin 2018 Forster, Negele & Tischbierek: Emanuel Tischbierek: Emanuel Lasker, Volume I I, I, Excelsior Verlag, Berlin 2020 B.Harper & Y.Seirawan: Chess on the Edge Volume 1, 1, Chess’n Math Association, Montreal 2008 B.Harper & Y.Seirawan: Chess on the Edge Volume 2, 2, Chess’n Math Association, Montreal 2008 B.Harper & Y.Seirawan: Chess on the Edge Volume 3, 3, Chess’n Math Association, Montreal 2008 W.Hendriks: On the Origin of Good Moves, Moves, New in Chess 2020 L.Kaufman: The Chess Advantage in Black and White, White , McKay 2004 L.Kaufman: Kaufman’s L.Kaufman:  Kaufman’s New Repertoire Repertoire for Black and White White,, New in Chess 2019 C.Lakdawala: Capablanca move by move, move, Everyman Chess 2012 G.Lane: The Ultimate Closed Sicilian, Sicilian, Batsford 2001

B.Larsen: 3 points’ forspring , Samlerens Forlag 1980 E.Lasker: Lasker’s E.Lasker:  Lasker’s Chess Manual , Dover Publications 1960 E.Lasker: Common Sense in Chess, Chess, Dover Publications 1965 E.Lasker: Struggle Struggle,, Lasker-Gesellschaft 2001 E.Lasker: Lasker’s E.Lasker:  Lasker’s Chess Primer , Portman Press 1988 G.Maroczy: III. G.Maroczy:  III. Internationales Schachturnier in Karlsbad 1923 1923,, BCM 1977 D.Marovic: Play D.Marovic:  Play the Queen’s Gambit , Maxwell MacMillan 1991 H.Müller: Botwinnik lehrt Schach, H.Müller: Botwinnik Schach, Hamburg 1966 A.Münninghoff: Max A.Münninghoff:  Max Euwe: biografie van een wereldkampioen wereldkampioen,, Andriessen B.V. 1976 A.Nimzowitsch: Carlsbad International Chess Tournament 1929, 1929, Dover 1981 A.Nimzowitsch: Mein A.Nimzowitsch:  Mein System, System, Berlin 1965 J.Nunn: John J.Nunn:  John Nunn’s Chess Course Course,, Gambit 2014 L.Pachman: Indische L.Pachman:  Indische Verteidigungen, Verteidigungen, Olms 1997

413  

S.Pickard: The Games of Wilhelm Steinit z, z, Pickard & Son 1995 R.Réti: Die R.Réti:  Die Meister des Schachbretts, Schachbretts, Mährisch Ostrau 1930 E.Schiller: Black E.Schiller:  Black to Play and Win – Classical Classical Defenses Defenses,, Chess Digest inc. 1993 J.Schorr: Schachkongress Teplitz-Schönau 1922, 1922, Edition Olms 1981 A.Shashin: Best A.Shashin:  Best Play, Play, Mongoose Press 2013 E.Shekhtman: The Games of Tigran Petrosian Vol.2, Vol.2, 1991 S.Soloviev: Alexander S.Soloviev:  Alexander Alekhine: Games 1923-34 v.2, v.2, Chess Stars 2002 S.Soloviev: Emanuel S.Soloviev:  Emanuel Lasker Volume 1: 1889-1903, 1889-1903 , Chess Stars 1998 S.Soloviev: Emanuel S.Soloviev:  Emanuel Lasker Volume 2: 1904-1940 1904-1940,, Chess Stars 1998 A.Soltis: Why Lasker Matters, Batsford 2005 V.Soultanbeieff: Le V.Soultanbeieff:  Le maitre de l’attaque, l’attaque, Echecs et Mat, 1974 R.Spielmann: The art of sacrifice in chess, ches s, McKay New York 1976 S.G.Tartakower, J.du Mont: 500 Master Games of Chess, Chess , Dover 1975 S.G.Tartakower: Moderne S.G.Tartakower:  Moderne Schachstrategie – Bernstein’s Bernstein’s Schach- und Lebenslaufbahn Lebenslaufbahn, Breslau 1930 S.G.Tartakower: New S.G.Tartakower:  New York 1927 , Caissa books 1986 S.G.Tartakower: The Hypermodern Game of Chess, Chess, Russell Enterprises 2015 J.Timman: Schaakwerk , Bert Bakker publ. 1991 G.Velasco: Masterpieces G.Velasco:  Masterpieces of Attack: The Brilliant Brilliant Games of GM Marcel Si Sisniega sniega Campbell , Chess Digest 1997 S.Voronkov: Fedor S.Voronkov:  Fedor Bohatirchuk Tom 1 1892-1935, Moskva 2013 C.Warburton: My C.Warburton:  My Chess Adventures, Adventures, Thinkers Press 1984 Articles:

Mi.Tseitlin: ‘Grossmeister ‘Grossmeister Tseitlin’s Schachtheorie’, Schachtheorie’, Rochade Europa No. 8, August 2001 Magazines:

S.Bücker: Kaissiber 31, April-Juni 2008, S.Bücker: Kaissiber 2008, Nordwalde 2008 A.Matanovic: Chess Informant 50-60, 50-60, Belgrade

Information carriers:

ChessBase: BigBase 2017  ChessBase: BigBase Corr Database 2016  I.Donev: 1.e4 repertoire, repertoire, ChessBase 1996 T.Harding: Closed Sicilians, Sicilians, Audio Chess 1976 D.V.Hooper: Rook D.V.Hooper:  Rook and Bishop versus Rook Rook and Knight endings endings,, Audio Chess 1978 D.V.Hooper: Rook D.V.Hooper:  Rook and pawn endings, endings, Audio Chess 1977 Internet information:

S.Bücker: Chesspub.com forum ChessBase.com 2019

414  

E.Rajmund: ‘Caro-Kann 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c3’, 2007

415  

Table of Contents

Title Page Explanation of symbols 6 Introduction 7 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 1) Defending against 1.e4 91 2) Defending against 1.d4 108 3) White openings 117 Section A Section B Section C Section D

3 5 7 2 11 13 17 46 90 106 111 140 172 188 206 230 259 286

Section E Section A: Easy puzzles Section B: Intermediate puzzles

322 354 368