Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Editorial board
GM Victor Korchnoi
GM Helmut Pfleger
GM Nigel Short
GM Rudolf Teschner
2009
EDITION OlMS
m
Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov
Secrets of
Creative Thinking
2009
EDITION OlMS
m
4
All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not. by way of trade
or otherwise, be lent. re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or
cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this
condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
Printed in Germany
ISBN 978-3-283-00519-3
ftJ 5
Co nte n ts
PART IV ATTACK
Missed Brilliancy Prizes (Artur Yusupov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Long-d istance Dispute (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 33
Attacks with opposite-sided Castl ing (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 38
PART V DEFENCE
Practical Exercises in the Taking of d ifficult Decisions (Igor Belov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 53
Virtuoso Defence (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 65
What l ies behind a Mistake (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77
PART VI
Analysis of a Game (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 82
Creative Ach ievements of Pupils from the School (Artur Yusupov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 91
Mark Dvoretsky
P reface
Vou now have in your hands the con chess and the ways to overcome the m . To
I clud ing, fifth book in the series School of demonstrate the main d i rections and meth
Future Champions, based on material from ods of chess improvement. And that is a l l .
the Dvoretsky-Yusu pov school for talented Not s o m u c h , b u t also n o t s o l ittle. The
young chess players. pupils' results confirm that this was the
Our small school fu nctioned for only th ree correct approach and that on the whole we
years ( 1 990-1 992 ). Between ten and fifteen solved our objective successfu lly. I nciden
youngsters attended the sessions. Nearly all tally, it was at a session of the school that I
of them began studying with us at the age of advised Peter Svidler to seek Lukin's help.
1 2 -1 5. I can mention with pride that five Our books reflect the same approach . We
years later eight of our pupils became have not tried to write textbooks, with a full
grandmasters - some of them very strong and exact coverage of a particu lar topic.
and world-renowned . Here are their names: The aim was to provide readers with high
Alexey Alexandrov, Vasily Emel i n , I n na qual ity material and a va riety of ideas for
Gaponenko, l Iakha Kadymova , Sergey Mov i ndependent th inking and independent work
sesian , Ella Pitem, Peter Svidler and Vadim in the g iven directio n . Moreover, not only
Zviagintsev. I am sure that in the near futu re our own ideas, but also the ideas of other
Vladimir Baklan and Peter Kiriakov will also experts (in particular, trainers working to
become grandmasters. ( They have! Trans
- gether with us at the school). Clearly, such a
lator. ) Hardly any other junior chess school way of presenting the material demands of
can boast of such a high 'pass rate'. the readers a creative (and at times critical)
I n listing the ach ievements of the school, I attitude to the text being stud ied and is not
nevertheless clearly real ise that the pupils' su itable for those who like ready-made
successes have been forged mainly by the prescriptions. To judge by the popularity of
players themselves and their permanent our books, such an approach su its very
trainers. For example, did we have time to many players.
teach much to the futu re three-times Rus Not all the problems discussed in this book
sian champion Peter Svidler during those are purely chess problems - they lie some
th ree ten-day sessions of the school (the where between chess and psychology.
2nd, 4th and 6th ) in which he participated? Th inking at the board and the ways of taking
Of cou rse, the main components of Svidler's decisions i n a variety of situations - this, in
successes are his enormous talent and the brief, is its main content. Many of the
aid of his splendid trainer Andrey Luki n . examples offered are very complicated and
Yusu pov a n d I saw o u r role as being t o give not straig htforward , and demand a deep
an impetus to the fu rther development of the penetration into the position, ingenu ity, and
young players. To help them to understand bold, risky actions. Therefore, compared
themselves, their virtues and deficiencies, with the preced ing vol umes, the present
and to outl ine plans for the futu re. To book is less instructional and more problem
discuss the problems they encou nter in atic and creative.
Preface lLl 7
The arrangement of the lectu res and arti whereas successful observations and con
cles in the d ifferent parts of the book is to clusions relating to chess playing in general
some extent arbitrary, si nce their topics are retain their value for many years. The reader
closely interconnected . For example, the will be able to see this for himself by reading
discussion of the accu rate and deep calcu two articles by the Soviet master Beniamin
lation of variations i n the fi rst part of the Blumenfeld, a subtle analyst of chess psy
book is merely a prelude, and it will be chology, wh ich were written several decades
continued right to the end of the book. ago. Don't be put off by his writing style,
The calculation of variations is not every which is somewhat archaic by present-day
th ing - during the course of a game a player standards - it is the author's thoug hts that
is obl iged not only to calculate , but also to are most important, and they are still modern .
guess. The problem of developing intuition One of my earlier books School of Chess
has hardly been discussed seriously in Excellence 2 - Tactical Play was devoted to
chess literatu re . I am not a professional problems of attack and defence. But these
psychologist and do not claim to have topics are inexhaustible and I hope that the
written anyth ing scientific, but I hope that fresh material analysed here in appropriate
my practical ideas and recommendations chapters will be useful to you .
on this will prove useful to the readers.
I n the traditional concluding chapter Yusupov
Many players make the serious mistake of analyses some games by pupils from the
devoting all their free time excl usively to the schoo l . In previous books he mainly fo
study of opening theory. After all, errors cused on instructive mistakes, but this time
made in the later stages of play have as the g randmaster decided to demonstrate
much influence on results as poor i n itial some creative achievements by the j u n iors.
organ isation of the game. Specific playing The book concludes with a brill iant game by
deficiencies which , given desire and persist Vadim Zviagintsev, which the experts judged
ence can and should be elimi nated , are to be the best of all those publ ished in
typical of players of any standard . I n order to Informator No.62. It is extremely ra re for
emphasise this idea , the book critically young players to have such an honour
analyses the play not only of young masters conferred on them , since the opin ions of the
and candidate masters, but also of such jury members are strongly influenced by
top-class g rand masters as Artur Yusupov names and titles. I wish our readers the
(he does this h imself in the chapter 'M issed same competitive and creative successes
brilliancy prizes' ) and Garry Kasparov. as those ach ieved by our best pupils. I hope
Opening theory develops very rapidly and that you will be hel ped by the ideas derived
therefore opening books are sometimes out from the books in the series School of
of-date even before they are published , Future Champions.
8
PART I
Mark Dvoretsky
Najdorf - Kotov
Mar del Plata 1 957
It is immed iately apparent that the h7-pawn It turns out that he has two more ways of
can be captured with check: 21 xf6 xf6 conducting the attack:
22 'ii'x h7+ 'itf8 . Here there is noth ing to a ) 21 d 1 (with the idea of 22 ..i h5);
calculate - it is a matter of assessing the b) 21 ..i c2 (with the threat of 22 ..ixh7+ and
resulting position . It is not possible to give the key variation 2 1 . . . l:txc2 22 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 23
mate (the bishop on f6 securely defends the
'iWxh7+ and 24 'iVxc2).
kingside), and Black retains some positional
The second way is more forcing, and is the
compensation for the lost pawn in view of
one which must be checked in the fi rst
his control of the c-file and the weakness of
instance .
the d4-pawn .
Another, more tempting continuation , is 2 1 2 1..ic2 ! ! :xc2
ttJ g4 . We easily find the variation 2 1 . . . xb3? 21 . . . g6 22 ..i xf6 and 2 1 . . . h6 22 ..ixh6 are
22 ttJ xf6+ xf6 23 'iVxh7+ 'itf8 24 'iWh8+! both bad for Black, while if 2 1 . . . 'itf8 , then
e7 25 'iVxg7 and wins. If 21 . . . h6?! there either 22 ..i h6! or 22 ..ixh7 ttJ xh7 23 'ii' h 5! is
follows 22 ttJ xh6+, and the captu re of the decisive.
knight leads to mate (22 . . . 'itf8 ! is more 22 ..ixf& h&
tenacious, although after 23 xd5 'iVxd 5 24 2 3 'iWh 5 ! ..ixf&
ttJ g4 ttJ g8 25 ttJ e5 Black's position is
23 . . . :f8 2 4 ..i xg7 .
difficult).
24 'ili'x f7+ 'it'h7
But we will not jump to conclusions -
candidate moves should be sought not only 24 . . . 'it h8 25 11xh6+ ! gxh6 26 ttJ g6 mate .
for ourself, but also the opponent, and this 25 .l:r.xh &+! xh &
mea ns we must check whether we have 2 & 'iii' g & mate
taken all the defensive resou rces into
account. We find the only defence: 2 1 . . . 'itf8! . The winning combi nation (pointed out by
The h7-pawn can b e captu red in various Igor Zaitsev) immediately resolves the ques
ways , but noth ing is completely clear. For tion about the strongest conti nuation of the
example, in the variation 22 ttJ xf6 ..ixf6 23 attack, and none of the remaining conti nua
..ixf6 'ii'xf6 24 'iVxf6 gxf6 25 ..ixd5 exd5 26 tions needs to be analysed . You see that it
.l:[xh7 'itg8 the activity of the black rooks on is important not only to determine the
the open c- and e-files is a concern . complete list of candidate moves, but
also to establish the optimum order in
Of course, no one has given us a guarantee
which they are considered.
that we can achieve more than the win of a
pawn . The knight move to g4 looks very It would have been much simpler to fi nd the
strong, especially if we notice the possibil ity combi nation if there had been an obvious
after 21 . . . 'itf8 of conti nuing the attack by 22 lack of promising possibilities for Wh ite . But
i. h6!? (however, it is sti ll an open question in the g iven instance there were such
whether it is possible to checkmate the possi bil ities, and they immed iately drew our
opponent in the variation 22 . . . ttJ xg4 23 attention . In such conditions, even if you are
..ixg7+ 'itxg7 24 'iWxh7+ 'itf6 25 'ili'h4+ 'itf5). an excellent tactician, it is easy to miss the
Nevertheless, after a slight delay (perfectly move 21 ..ic2 ! ! . A well-developed search
excusable - the moves 21 ..ixf6 and technique ('candidate moves') significantly
especially 21 ttJ g4 are really too tempting) improves our chances of success.
let us remember about the 'candidate But no technique will save a player if he
moves' principle and look for new possibili does not possess sharp combinative
ties for Wh ite . vision. This quality must be trained and
12 The Tech nique of searching for and ta king Decisions
developed, by regularly solving appro Fortunately for me, my opponent made his
priate exercises. move without checki ng the variations.
I n the game Miguel Najdorf played the 16 . . . ttJe4 ?
weaker 2 1 i.d 1?1. The opponent could It is clear that the exchange h a s to be
have parried Wh ite's threat by playing his sacrificed ( 1 7 ttJ 4f3? ttJ xd2 1 8 ttJ xd2 dxc4 is
king to a safer square: 21 . . . f8 ! (22 i.h5 completely bad), but in what way? If a list of
ttJ e4! ) , or by defending the weak f7 -point
all the candidate possibilities is established ,
beforehand with 21 .. J:tc 7! (22 i.h5?! ttJ xh5 it is not at all difficu lt to find the strongest of
23 'iYxh5? i.xg5). But Kotov carelessly them :
repl ied 2 1... iia5 ?, and after 22 i.h 5 ! The
a ) 1 7 l:.xe4 dxe4 1 8 ttJ xe4;
attack became irresistible. There followed
22 . . . l:.ed 8 (22 . . . ttJ xh5 23 'it'xh5; 22 . . . l:.f8 23
b) 1 7 ttJ xe4 i.xe 1 1 8 'iVxe 1 dxe4 1 9 iixe4;
i.xf6 i.xf6 24 i.xf7+ l:txf7 25 iixh7+) 23 c) 1 7 ttJ xe4 i.xe 1 1 9 cxd5.
i.x f7+ f8 24 i.h6 ! ttJe 8 25 iif4 i.f6 26 I n the fi rst two cases one can speak only
i.xg7 + e7 27 i.xe 8 i.xg7 28 lIxh7 Black about some compensation for the lost
resig ned . exchange, but in the third case a double
edged position arises and it is not clear to
Dvorets ky - Butnoryus
which side preference should be give n .
It should be said that, despite the obvious twenty-five m i n utes , I worked out a winning
virtues of my position, my mood was far combination .
from optimistic. At the tournament of young I ncidentally, i t was only one of two possible
masters in Dubna I was playing terribly combi nations. The other, perhaps even
badly, making constant oversig hts, which more spectacular one: 23 ttJc4! "dS 24
were explained mainly by a lack of self ttJxf6+ gxf6 25 Wxg6+ ..t.g7 26 ..t.xf6 'ifxf6
control and a q u ite u njustified haste i n the 27 .xeS+ 'iifS 2S l:te 1 with four pawns for
taking of decisions. In the previous game the piece , in fact remai ned unnoticed . So
with one hasty move I had thrown away a that the candidate moves were neverthe
practically winning position , and in the less not determined as well as possible.
present game I had messed u p the opening.
23 d6! l:txe5?
It was pure l uck that my opponent had so
cheaply conceded the in itiative . If 23 . . .fxe5 I was intending 24 ttJf6+! (no win
is apparent after 24 ttJg5 ttJd7) 24 . . . gxf6
'Yes' , I thought, ' I stand wel l , of cou rse, but
(24 . Af7? 25 ttJxeS xeS 26 Wxg6+ dS
I'll probably have a 'fit' and make some
27 .g5+ ! ) 25 .xg6+ hS 26 WxeS Wxd6
blunder. Alright, whatever he plays, on my
27 l:tc1 We7 2S WcS . Black is tied hand and
reply I will spend at least five m i n utes ! I have
foot, but it is not easy for Wh ite to make
an enormous reserve of time, and I should
progress. After 2S . . . gS (defending against
make use of it. '
g4-g5) he does not have 29 ':c7? because
After a long think Alg is Butnoryus played : of 29 . . . ttJa6. Even so, objectively Black's
22 . . . f6 position remains d ifficult, as is shown by the
fol lowing variation : 29 l:td 1 a5 (what else?)
30 ..t.c1 ! (of course, not 30 ':dS? ttJc6 ! )
3 0 . . .c 5 (the th reat was 3 1 ..t. h6 a n d 32
..t.xfS ; if 30 . . . f7 Wh ite has both 31 ..t.a3!?
ttJc6! 32 .xaS .xa3 33 'iix b7+ ttJe7 34
.e4 with advantage, and also the unhurried
31 ..t.e3 ! ) 31 We6+ g7 32 ..t. h6+! xh6 33
'iixf6+ h7 34 .f7+ ..t.g7 (34 . . . hS 35
:dS ; 34 . . . h6 35 h4) 35 .f5+ gS 36
UdS+ ..t.fS 37 "g6+ hS 3S 'ili'f7 .
24..t.xe5 fxe5
25 'ili'c4 + h7
2 6 .c 8 .d4
26 . . . ..t.xd6 27 ttJg5+ with mate .
I even felt u pset. ' It's all clear: I take on g6, 27 ttJg 5 +
he develops his knight on d7, and then I can I n h i s joy Wh ite also conceives a rook
have a think. But now, why do I need to sacrifice. And although this leads to a forced
spend these five m i n utes?' But there was mate , in principle such a 'combi nation for
noth ing to be done: I 'd g iven my word . the sake of a combination' (an expression of
In order not to be bored, I began analysing grandmaster Vladimir Pavlovich Simag i n )
other possibil ities apart from 23 ttJxg6 hardly meets with approva l . After all, the
(there you are - candidate moves! ) . And as elementary 27 l:.e1 (with the th reats of .xfS
a result, after th inking not for five but for and 'ili'xb7) would have forced Black to
14 The Technique of searching for and taking Decisions
analysis of the positio n . Suppose that the We will fi nd the solution if we think about 3
variations do not work because of some l:[xc6 (instead of 3 b8) i n the last variation.
deta i l , and here it dawns on us that an U nfortu nately, it does not work, but the idea
apparently poi ntless i ntermediate move can ca n be improved.
be included , adding this deta i l . 1l::td 5 +! ! f5
We already know that this is the only move .
2 l::td 1! ..txa4
F. B o n dare n k o AI. K u zn etsov
,
have prevented the correct decision from or b7. For this he must first defend his knight
being reached . by . . . b6-b5.
But an exact evaluation is by no means I n this way we find the solution of the
always req uired. For example, you come to position for Wh ite.
the concl usion that a position is reached by 21 a4!
force, but it is d ifficult to evaluate - Th reatening, among other things, 22 .tf1 . If
additional calculation is required . If it will be 21 ... b5 there follows 22 .tf1 ! (22 axb5
necessary, you ca n carry it out later, directly .txb5 23 .tf1 is also not bad ) 22 . . . .tc8
from the critical position , without repeating (22 . . . lIc8 loses after 23 liJd4 liJxe5 24 f4
work that has been done earlier. This is the liJxg4 25 l:ixe7) 23 'iif4 a6 24 .txc4 bxc4
point of reg istering in your mind the conclu 25 'iix c4, and Wh ite emerges a pawn up.
sions on variations that have already been
The question arises , is it not possible to
stud ied .
reach the same position by playing 2 1 .tf1
(and if 21 . . . b5, then 22 a4)? Wh ich move
5. Prophylactic thinking. Often it is order is more accurate? Here we have to
useful to begin considering a position concentrate on a search for resources for
with the question: 'What does the oppo the opponent. We will probably g ive prefer
nent want; what would he play if it were ence to the pawn move after in reply to 2 1
him to move ? ' .tf1 we d iscover the unexpected sortie
Readers who are familiar with my earl ier 21 . . . 'ii a 3!.
books will probably need no convincing I n the game Konstantin Lerner did not think
about the exceptional value of the abil ity to about prophylaxis, and simply played 21
th ink prophylactically. Even so, I will g ive lIad 1 ? ! . His opponent replied 2 1 . . . b5! , not
one more example. fearing 22 lId7 .tc8 ! 23 ':xe7 (23 e6 .txd7
24 exd7 'iix e 1 + 25 liJxe 1 lIxe 1 + 26 .tf1
Lerner - Lukin lId8) 23 . . . .txg4 24 lIxa7 .txf3 25 .txf3
USSR 1 977 liJxe5 with approximate equality.
Ciocaltea - Liberzon
Netanya 1 983
good , since pawn weaknesses are created point you spend too much time and energy,
in Black's position. Wh ite's superior pawn you do not have sufficient for the solving of
structu re guara ntees h i m a slight but endu subsequent problems.
ing advantage . 1 6 Wf4 Wd7
B u t what happened in t h e game? After I 1 7 :ad 1
played 1 0 li:)h4, Chekhov sank i nto thought. Threatening 1 8 %:tdS with the win of a pawn .
For a couple of min utes I checked the
17 . . . 'ire6
consequences of 1 0 . . . li:)xd2 1 1 li:)xfS. Then,
1 8 I:tfe1
having convinced myself (in his time ! ) that
this could not be played , I simply began The opponent has to reckon not only with
strolling around - after a l l , there was l:[dS, but also with the opening of l i nes: e2-
noth ing more to th ink about, and it was my e4 . If 1 8 . . . Wf6 there follows 1 9 lidS eS 20
opponent who faced a choice . Wd2 (from this variation it is understandable
why 1 8 e3?! would have been less accu
Ten mi nutes passed , then a fu rther ten
rate).
minutes, and I began to grow slig htly
i rritated. What was he th inking about? By 18 . . . f6
the method of elimination it is not d ifficult to
establish that the exchange of knig hts is
obligatory - why then waste time?
10 . . . li:)xd2
1 1 'ili'xd2
Obviously I made my move instantly, after
which Chekhov again sank into thought for
some twenty-five m i n utes. Apparently he
had still not come to a defin ite conclusion, or
else new doubts had arisen and he again
began trying to solve a problem over which
he had racked his brains earl ier.
It stands to reason that to spend almost an
hour on a not very complicated problem was
pure wasteful ness. And also he did not 1 9 l1d5
solve it in the best way. This previously plan ned move, win ning a
11 . . . cxd4? ! pawn , I made without thinking, and this was
a mistake. Stronger was 1 9 e4! fxe4 20
1 2 li:)xf5 gxf5
:xe4 Wf? (20 . . . Wd7 21 We3 with two
1 3 xc6 bxc6
threats: 22 :xe7 and 22 WxcS) 2 1 Wg4+
14 xd4 i.. x d4?! h8 22 Wd 7 .
14 . . . eS 1 S i. b2 We7 was preferable. 19 . . . a5?
1 5 Wxd4 c5? 1 9 . . .We4 20 l:[xfS Wxf4 21 llxf4 as was
Now Black's position becomes d ifficult. He more tenacious. In the endgame the ad
should have chosen between 1 S . . . Wd7, vance of the a-pawn promises Black some
intending ... e7-eS, and 1 S ... e6, preparing cou nterplay. But in the m iddlegame it is of
. . . d6-d S . However, weak play on the part of l ittle use - in reply Wh ite launches an attack
my opponent was not surprising - if at some on the king.
The Tech n ique of search ing for and taking Decisions ctJ 23
when playing the position from Genrikh any serious importance , it is clear what he
Kasparian's study. You will see that it is should play - why allow the opponent an
not essential to analyse lengthy and additional defensive resou rce?
complicated variations 'to the end' - it is 1 tLl h41
far more important to check accurately
When you are considering you r move in a
the necessary short variations, endeav
practical game, there is no need to ascerta i n
ouring in so doing to take account of all
h o w t h e g a m e should end. Based on a
the significant playing resources both
comparison of your two possibilities, you
for yourself, and the opponent.
qu ickly place your knight on h4, and let you r
opponent try t o fi nd a way t o save h imself.
4. Compa rison. This is a rather subtle During this time you will gain a better
method . Sometimes you quickly choose understanding of the resulting variations.
a move, only because you see that the
1 . . . 'iii' g 1
situation arising after it is nowhere
worse, and is in some places better, than 2 tLlf3+ 'iii' g 2
after another possible continuation. For 3 lLlxh2 'iii' x h2
example, in this way the accu rate move If now the wh ite king heads towards the a7-
order (33 . . . d 3 ! , rather than 33 . . . Wb 1 +?) was pawn, Black will shut it in by rush ing to c7
determ ined in the Alexander-Euwe game. with his king. How can this be prevented?
Let us consider the followi ng study. 4 e5! .i.xe5
5 'iii' e 6! ! 'iii' g 3
F. Bondarenko, M . Liburkin 6 'iii' d 7 'iii'f4
1 950 7 'iii' c 8
The bishop turns out to be in the way of its
own king.
I should mention that in the event of 4 . . ..i.c3
(instead of 4 . . . .i.xe5) 5 e6 .i. b4 6 'iii' e 5 'iii' g 3
7 'iii' d 5 'iii' f4 8 'iii' c 6 'iii' e 5 9 'iii' b7 'iii' d 6 it is now
the king that h i nders the bishop: 1 0 e7! and
wins.
From this last variation it is clear that the
tempo gai ned by Black after the i ncorrect 1
lLle1 ? .i.c3! is vitally important for h i m : 2 lLlf3
'iii' g 2 3 lLlxh2 'iii' x h2 4 e5 'iii' g 3 5 e6 .i.b4 6
'ii.? e 5 .iofa (or 6 . . . 'iii' g 4) 7 'iii' d 5 'iii' f4 a 'iii' c6
'iii' e 5 9 'iii' b 7 'iii' d 6 1 0 'iii' x a7 'iii' c7 with a draw.
Wh ite has two moves: 1 lLl h4 and 1 lLle1 . I n 5. Don't calculate ultra-complicated vari
the event o f 1 . . . 'iii' g 1 2 lLlf3+ 'iii' g 2 3 lLlxh2 ations for too long - i n these cases rely
there is no d ifference between them . How on i ntuition. Often we encou nter irrational
ever, after 1 lLle1 .i.c3! White must play 2 situations, in which it is practically impossi
tLlf3 , when 2 . . . 'iii' g 2 leads to the same ble to establish the truth with in a restricted
position, but with the black bishop on c3. time. Even if, after spending a mass of
Even without calculating whether this has energy, you find the correct move, the price
26 The Tech nique of search ing for and taking Decisions
may prove to be too high - for subseq uent I recommend that you should not restrict
decisions you will most probably not have yourself to the advice that has been g iven -
sufficient time and strength . develop it further, by working out new rules
In which cases does it make sense to for you rself. Analyse examples illustrating
spend a lot of time when considering a the rational tech nique of seeking and taking
move ? When you realise that an exact decisions, try solving special training exer
solution may be found to the problem cises, and analyse your own actions in the
facing you and that it will decisively cou rse of tournament battles. I hope that
innuence the further course of the game. you will become i nterested in this way of
In other words - at key moments (it is working on chess. And indeed , only on
very important to be able to determine chess? After all, rationa l , clearly organ ised
them). Or if you do not see any continua thinking comes in useful in any wal k of l ife.
tion that is in the least acceptable, and
you must devise one.
I n conclusion , here are a few rather d ifficult
The time of our lectu re has come to an end . exercises for independent solving .
Exercises
Sol utions
Here is a very simple example, illustrating importance for the taking of a decision . And
Zlotn i k's first remark: th is can often be decided on the basis of the
calcu lation of other candidate moves. In this
Alexander - Marshall case the order of consideration plays a
major role.
Cambridge 1 928
I n the present article an attempt has been
made to suggest (and illustrate with an
example) a more complicated calculation
algorithm (true, a not very formalised one),
which is effectively used (sub-consciously)
by many players in complicated positions
(of the 'th icket' type).
1 . Decide on the aim of the calcu lation ,
i . e . the criteria by which we will assess the
variations we calculate, whether they satisfy
us or not. This may be, for example,
achieving a decisive material advantage;
enhancing a positional advantage; gaining
equal play; putti ng up resistance in a bad
position , and so on. The aim should be
After calculating the variation 1 l:tf4 exf4 2 realistic, i . e . based on an assessment of the
gxf4, to which Black repl ies 2 . . . dxc3 , con position and intu itive considerations. If there
trolling the g 1 -sq uare, we arrive at the idea is sufficient time for calculation , the aim may
of first moving the knight: 1 ttJd5 or 1 ttJa4! be raised somewhat; if there is little time, it
(and then 2 .l:.f4). The move 1 ttJa4! is in fact may be lowered.
the quickest way to wi n . But without the 2 . Search for ideas to ach ieve the aim,
calculation of the (albeit elementary) varia choose appropriate candidate moves
tion with 1 lif4, it is not clear for what reason and (very important) determine their order
it should be included in the list of candidate of priority, i . e . select those which are most
moves . likely to prove successfu l .
The second remark characterises such 3 . Calcu late variations ( a s deeply a s
featu res of human thinking as the work of possible) i n thei r order o f priority (begin
the su bconscious and association . Another ning with those which seem most appropri
significant defect of Kotov's theory becomes ate for achieving the aim). Here each time
apparent: he ignores the problem of the there is a choice, the calculation order is
order in wh ich candidate moves should be also determined by the priority of the
considered , assu ming that this 'depends on possible moves (in connection with the
the character and habits of each player and aim).
the peculiarities of the position. ' Of cou rse , 4. If a contin uation leading to the set aim
if, as Kotov impl ies, all ca ndidate moves is found, what happens next depends on
must be examined , the order in which this is how much time there is on the clock: if there
done is not of great sign ifica nce. But in fact is insufficient, the main part of the calcula
in many cases, in the interests of economy, tion may be concluded here (sti ll necessary
the calculation of a number of candidate is the 'Blu menfeld check' - cf. point 8
moves may be omitted , if this of no below); but if there is still time in hand , the
32 Wa ndering through the Labyrinth
aim can be refi ned (raised ), and the set of However, a s we have seen above , this is not
candidate moves which have not yet been always possible.
examined also refi ned , and the calculation 7. It may happen that, while calculating one
continued; if the new aim is not achieved , of the variations, a new idea appears, a
then stick with the continuation fou n d . candidate move u n related to this variation .
5 . I f , as a result o f t h e calculation a path I n this case its priority should be estab
leading to the aim is not found, the fu rther lished , but you should not start examining it
actions also depend on the clock situation . until you have completed the calculation of
I f time i s short, the a i m should b e lowered, the variation you were working o n . An
the set of candidate moves corrected, and exception may be made when it is immedi
the calculation continued . In this case the ately obvious that the new idea is better
new aim will often be satisfied by one of the than the conti nuation being exami ned (but
variations already exami ned or it will be not simply of higher priority).
comparatively simple to fi nd an appropriate 8 . One of the major th i n king deficiencies of
conti nuatio n . The only thing you must avoid many players is 'chess bli ndness', the
is making a move 'in the dark' , without overlooking of elementary replies by the
calculation. opponent of 1 -2 moves. To tackle this evil in
6. If, however, there is sti l l plenty of time, the calculation of variations there exists the
and your intu ition suggests that the aim 'Blumenfeld ru le' (Kotov also talks about
should be achievable (a strong player it): after concluding your calculation and
should trust his intuition more, since it is an taking a decision , pause and look at the
accu mulation of his chess understanding), position with the fresh 'eyes of a novice': is
then you can (and shou ld) deli berately go in the plan ned move a blunder, lead ing to
for a ' repeat' calculation of certain varia immed iate d isaster? Only after ascertaining
tions. For this you have to fi nd new ideas for that it is not a blunder can it be made on the
achieving your a i m . I n accordance with th is, board . But if a mistake is d iscovered , the
new ca ndidate moves and 'candidate varia calculation of variations will have to be
tions' are fou n d . I should explain what is renewed . In this case you should normally
meant by this. During the fi rst stage of the lower the aim of the calculation , and aim for
calculation , against many conti nuations you simpl ification, since the bad oversight is
will already have found the only or the evidence the player is un prepared for a
strongest repl ies for the opponent, and complicated battle .
forced series of moves. Often a new idea , a Most strong players are well aware o f the
candidate move, is found not in the i n itial Blu menfeld ru le, but. . . in the heat of the
position , but after a series of moves, which battle they often forget about it.
together with it comprises a 'candidate
I should l i ke to illustrate what I have said
variation ' . After this there begins the calcu
with an extract from one of my own games. I
lation of new possibil ities (point 3) - the
regard the winning manoeuvre found in it as
second stage of calculation (it can happe n ,
one of my best creative achievements.
although rarely, that t h i s cycle w i l l also
proceed a third time).
Generally speaking, a repeat calculation is
a shortcoming, therefore it is desirable to
encompass all the ideas for ach ievi ng the
aim i n the fi rst stage of the calculation .
Wa ndering through the Labyrinth CD 33
'ifxa2 , or, more accu rate, 25 .. :ii'a6+! 26 impossible to find, without first calculating
g 1 'ifd6) 25 .. .'ii' d 7 26 e1 or 25 .. .'ii' a 6 26 nu merous variations and delving i nto the
'ili'e3! . labyrinth of d ifferent attacks and defences .
I n none o f these variations is i t apparent On the other hand, the fu rther calcu lation
how Black can win . Thus the second stage (already the third stage!) is not complicated .
of the calculation also failed to produce a With the wh ite q ueen on e2, the invasion of
result. Black's on d 1 is decisive: 26 e 1 'ifd 1 27
'ili'e4 f5 or 26 'ii' b 5 l:td8 27 e 1 'ili'd 1 28 'ili'a5
So, should the calcu lation be cu rtailed and
b6.
the maximum goal abandoned? I neverthe
The entire th ree-stage calculation (together
less decided to keep looking. And like a
with the verification) took exactly an hour.
flash of lightening an idea occu rred to me. U nfortunately, in the game after 23 . . . 'ifa41
23 . . . 'ii' a4 24 d2 .l:[d6 25 'ilke2 'ilkd4 ! ! . 24 d2 :td6! the player from Novosibirsk
played 25 f1 (?) and after 25 ... 'iIi'b5+ he
resigned. Alas, Black's main idea remai ned
off-stage . . .
I am proud to say that, of the many strong
players (grandmasters and masters) to
whom I have shown this position, only one
has been able to find the solution independ
ently.
I am not suggesting at all that my proposed
algorith m is appl icable to all complicated
positions. At the same time, like any other
method of organ ised th inking, it can g ive
good resu lts when it has entered a player's
subconscious and he follows it automati
cally. But this can be achieved only by
Yes, the idea o f return ing with the queen i s special training, to which , alas, few players
not a t a l l obvious. I think i t would have been g ive sufficient attentio n .
ttJ 35
B e n iam i n B l u m enfeld
retu rning to the thought: ' It's a pity that after At any event, as far as I can judge from my
1 . . . lL'ld4 2 'ifi>h2 lL'lxf3+ 3 xf3 lL'le5 4 g2 own experience, moments occu r when the
xh3 he captu res on h3 with the king (and impression created by visual imagination
not the bishop), and I ca n't derive anyth ing displaces reality.
from the exposed position of his king ' . Although such occurrences are rare , it can
I n the game (after 1 . . . lL'ld4) Wh ite replied 2 be considered a regular phenomenon that
lL'ld1 ? and here I thought for five whole moves made mentally when considering
min utes before I saw that with 2 . . . lL'lxf3+ etc. one variation h i nder the correct visualisa
I cou ld win a pawn . I spent these five tion of a position reached in another
minutes hesitati ng over what plan to choose, variation. It is clear that the greater the
without reach ing any conclusion , and to number of variations and the longer they
take a rest from these gloomy thoughts I are, the greater the possibility of a
retu rned to the previous one: ' It's a pity that mistake.
after 2 . . . lL'lxf3+ 3 .i.xf3 lL'le5 4 .i.g2 .i.xh3 he The followi ng should also be borne in m i n d .
captu res with the king ' , when suddenly I I n a l o n g variation , each move m a d e in the
saw that he couldn't capture with the king , mind leads to a position which is increas
since it was at g 1 , not at h2. ingly removed from real ity, and therefore the
Thus during these five min utes, in my mind impression becomes fainter and fainter.
his king was not at g 1 , where I could see it Even though a player with an especially
with my own eyes, but at h2, i . e . the square strong visual imagination is sure that he can
to where I had earlier moved it in my visual picture correctly in his mind a position
imag ination, in anticipation of my oppo reached as a result of a long variation , he
nent's reply. It is qu ite possible that if after 2 can not be sure that the defin ite weakness of
ttJd 1 I could have easily decided on some the impression will not influence the correct
thing else, and had not retu rned to thoug hts evaluation of the position, reached at the
of 'it's a pity' etc. , I would not in fact have end of the variation. With every player it
played 2 lL'lxf3+ with the win of a pawn .
...
happens that, after calcu lating a variation
The especially interesting point about this correctly, he cannot decide whether or not it
case is that I played 1 . . . lL'ld4 based on the is advantageous for h i m , which , as fa r as I
threat of winning a pawn , but after movi ng can judge from myself, is mainly explained
the wh ite king in my mind when considering by the fact that the pictu re in his mind is
the variation , I forgot to put it back, and then insufficiently clear. A chess player's think
the impression created by my visual imagi ing involves his visual imagination.
nation h i ndered the objective perception of Therefore, the clearer and more vivid the
the square occupied by the king. visual picture, the easier and more
Th is explanation of the above occu rrence is accurately his thinking works and the
not the only one. The following explanation more fruitful it is.
is also possible: when I was considering There is another danger involved with
1 . lL'ld4 , I decided that si nce Wh ite replies 2
. . long variations: the mental strain of
h2, it means that 2 . . . lL'lxf3+ does not give working out a long variation is so great,
anyth ing, and this prepared conclusion because of the need, move after move, to
remai ned in my m i n d , although the prereq record the changes with the visual
uisite move (2 'ifi>h2) was not made. imagination, that tiredness resulting from
Of course, it is hard to decide which the strain may tell later in the game.
explanation is correct in a specific instance. Every over-the-board player should be
38 Visual I mag ination and the Calcu lation of Va riations
clearly awa re of the role of visual imagina The establishment of the order of con
tion and the dangers inevitably involved in sideration should be based on aiming for
the calcu lation of variations, and he should a possible reduction in the number and
d raw appropriate conclusions, taking ac length of variations. First you should
cou nt, of cou rse, of his degree of visual examine wha t seems on first impression
imagi natio n . to be the most dangerous reply to the
F o r our pa rt, w e can d raw t h e followi ng proposed move and only if a defence is
concl usions: found against this dangerous reply
should you examine whether or not there
A fter a move by the opponent you should
is a more veiled reply. In exactly the
begin thinking not with prepared conclu
same way, if within a few moves a
sions, made beforehand, but as though
variation should give a clear, decisive
anew, beginning by visually impressing
advantage, it is pointless to lengthen in
the resulting position on your mind.
your mind the details of converting the
However strongly developed your visual
advantage.
imagi nation , it is qu ite obvious that the
impression in you r mind will be weaker than If your next move is absolutely forced,
the visual perceptio n . Therefore, when and the branches (variations) begin after
your opponent makes a move, even one your move and the opponent's reply, for
that is expected, you should never the moment it is too early to delve into
(except, of course, in extreme time the variations: after your forced move
trouble) without thinking immediately and the opponent's reply the visual
make the prepared reply to the expected picture will be clearer, and it will be
move: after all, this reply was prepared easier to calculate varia tions. This also
when the given position was in your applies to a case where in a variation tha t
imagination; it is qu ite possible that now, is, say, eight moves long, after the first
when after the opponent's move this posi few moves a forced return to the initial
tion is d i rectly perceived with all its featu res, position is possible (repetition of moves).
i . e . including the opponent's move , as a In this case you are recommended,
result of the greater cla rity of the picture without thinking for long, to make the
there will also be new ideas. first few moves, in order then to work out
the variations to the end, and if they
A strict internal discipline should be
prove unfavourable, then return to the
observed when considering variations;
initial position by repeating moves.
in particular, you should not rush men
tally from one variation to another, In positions which are not sharp, where
returning several times to the same one, there cannot be forced varia tions, calcu
but first establish an order for consider lation should be restricted to a few short
ing the varia tions applicable to the variations for better revealing the fea
specific situa tion, and then gradually tures of the position.
move in your mind from one variation to If there is a possible choice between two
another; moreover, when considering continuations, producing roughly the
each varia tion, after each move make the same effect (equality, advantage, deci
appropria te move in your mind, fix it with sive advantage), you should prefer the
you visual imagination, and at the end of continuation which involves less vari
the variation make a summary, and only ational calculation, and hence, the smaller
after this turn to the next variation. danger of a mistake. This principle should
Visual I magination and the Calculation of Va riations ttJ 39
be fi rmly adhered to, rejecting any kind of should aim to ach ieve the desired result with
'romanticism' . If, for example, there is the maximum certainty. This is why we
choice between liqu idating into a pawn consider our argu ment to be correct.
endgame with an extra pawn and a certain The importance of visual impressions for
wi n , and a mu lti-move mating combi nation chess thinking is so great, that a defi n ite role
with branches, it is more sensible to choose is bound to be played by factors aiding
the fi rst continuatio n : there have been visual perception, such as: appropriate
instances in tou rnaments where a player lighting during play, the correct correlation
annou nced mate in a few moves then lost between the board and the pieces, and a
the game, since the mate proved to be colouring of the pieces that is easy on the
fictitious. eye . From my own experience I know that if
Our arguments, especially the last one, will during a simu ltaneous d isplay the lighting is
certainly be opposed by supporters of chess poor, the pieces are pai nted an irritating
'beauty' . In our opinion, the calculation of colour, or the board is not correctly propor
variations is only a necessary technique, tioned , the result of the d isplay even against
and if this technique can be simplified or weaker players will be worse than in a
made easier, so much the better. The d isplay against stronger players but with
beauty of chess lies in its inner logic and more favourable cond itions for visual per
richness of ideas, for the revealing of which ception . I th i n k that chess organ isations
in most cases a deep penetration into the should consult with experts on physiology
position is sufficient, calculation being and psychological testing, and, in accord
needed only to check the correctness of the ance with their d i rectives, develop a stand
ideas. Chess is a pu rposefu l game: you ard type of chess equ ipment.
40
PART I I
Mark Dvoretsky
Along with the obvious advantages given by assess the promise of particular conti nua
a quick grasp of situation, the ability to see tions. I ntuitive insight enables the lengthy
almost simultaneously the whole array of and complicated calculation of variations to
tactical features contained in any compli be avoided , makes our searches easier,
cated position (economy of thinking and, as and suggests where the solution may be
a consequence, self-belief), almost insepa h idden .
rably linked are temptations: a player may A serious study of chess, of its playing
easily arrive at the faulty opinion that those methods, and a thoughtful analysis of
good moves, which on acquaintance with various specific situations significantly
the position he sees immediately - or develops and enriches our intuition. I will
almost immediately - are definitely the best, not attempt to demonstrate this argument -
and as a result of this his play loses just as it is illustrated in the first part of my book
much in depth as it gains in ease. This School of Chess Excellence 1 - Endgame
gradual rejection of seeking the absolute Analysis, in the chapter "The benefit of
best, and being satisfied only with good 'abstract' knowledge". I also recommend
moves, is unfortunately (for the art of chess) that you read the article by Eduard Gufeld
characteristic of the present phase of ' How to develop intuition' from his book My
Capablanca 's career. (From a famous arti Life in Chess.
cle by Alekh ine 'The 1 927 New York
Throughout a game we rely (to a g reater or
tournament as a prologue to the battle in
lesser extent, and with varying degrees of
Buenos Aires for the world championship' . )
success) on our intuitio n . It d isplays itself in
For players with an intuitive type of th inking the most varied forms. Think of certain
it is advisable to do training in the solving of concepts which we constantly use: 'positional
strategic problems (for example, involving feeling', 'spirit of the position ' , 'combinative
choice of plan at the transition from opening vision', 'sense of danger' , 'feeling for the
to middlegame). It is usefu l for them to test in itiative' - even from their verbal expres
their strength in exercises with the compli sion it is obvious that these are d ifferent
cated calculation of variations, demanding man ifestations of the intu itive perception of
perseverance and concentratio n . At one the game. I n principle, it would be useful to
time I suggested that Alexander Chern i n discuss each of these sepa rately, but this is
should work in t h i s directio n . Soon he made a topic for a special investigatio n .
sign ificant prog ress , qu ickly progressing
Stra ngely enoug h , in chess l iteratu re intui
from an ordinary master to a strong g rand
tion is often simply taken to mean the abil ity
master, and a participant in a Candidates
to decide on a sacrifice of material that does
tournament for the world championship.
not lend itself to exact calculation . Essen
Things are more complicated with the tially this confuses the concepts of risk,
development of i ntuition . Sometimes play because of the impossibility of calculating
ers and even their trainers do not know how the variations to the end, and intuition .
to approach this problem. In this lectu re I will
share certain thoug hts, based on my train
ing experience.
Chess intuition is the abil ity easily and (see diagram)
qu ickly - and sometimes immed iately - to
grasp the essence of a position, the most
important ideas contai ned in it, and to
42 The Development of Chess I ntuition
Black is a pawn u p , but the activity of the and suggests when he needs to concen
wh ite pieces more than compensates for trate and carefully check variations, or
this small material deficit. It is clear that now where , on the contrary, for one reason or
the knight must be advanced . But where to : another there is no point in delving into a
f5 or c6? detailed calculation .
On c6 the knight attacks the a7-pawn ,
restricting the black rook's mobil ity. From f5 , Tal - Dvoretsky
on the other hand, it controls the d6-square 42nd USSR Championship,
and prepa res the advance of the passed Len i ngrad 1 974
pawn . Wh ich is more important? To calcu
late the variations at the board is completely
impossible - after some approximate esti
mations you have to trust your intuition.
In his book The Test of Time Garry
Kasparov several times draws the attention
of the readers to the fact that in complicated
situations his intu itive perception of the
position proved correct. He is obviously
proud of his own intu itio n , and considers it
one of his strong poi nts . But it is clear that
any top player can boast of n umerous
examples of the correct solving of d ifficult
problems. In order to make an objective
judgement about the degree to which
intuition is developed , it is more important to 21 . . . .tfS ! ?
follow how often it lets a player down . For
'The move in the game involves a clever
example, in sharp positions the young
trap ' (Tal). I was very much hoping that the
Mikhail Tal nearly always acted in the
ex-world champion would be tempted by the
strongest way, fi nding the attacking re
possibil ity of beg i n n ing an offensive against
sou rces that were most dangerous for his
my king by 22 .txe5 .txa2 23 .t a 1 !
opponent. Whereas, as a careful study of
(threatening not only the capture of the
Kasparov's play revealed to me, his i ntuition
bishop, but also the deadly 24 'iVc3) 23 . . . 'iVb3
is far from faultless. Even in his best games,
at some point he often 'miscued ' and gave (the only defence) 24 'iVd2 . The variations
would appear to be in his favour. Such an
his opponents additional chances (wh ich ,
attack would have been fu lly in keeping with
however, they did not always exploit).
Tal's style.
That was also what happened i n thi
example. Kasparov 'guessed wrong' and 'After some hesitation, I decided not to open
missed a wi n . Later he did not sense the the sluices for the black pieces', writes Tal .
moment when it was now time to force a 'A nd I acted correctly: after 2 2 .txe5 Black
draw, and in the end he lost. You will find the had prepared 22 .tb3!!, not only securing
. . .
game in an addendum to the lectu re. opposite-colour bishops, but also regaining
the pawn!'
the open files with his rooks and is also (Alekh ine) 2S . . . aS! he would have had to
ahead in time. It is now time to turn his seek salvation in a heavy piece endgame a
advantage to account before White is able pawn down . A sample variation is 26 bxaS
fully to develop his game. ' bxaS 27 l:txc8 l:[xc8 28 :d 1 .i.xa3 29 .i.xa3
20 . . . 'iWe51 'iWxa3 30 'iWa6 'iWc3 .
'A finesse to gain time in bringing the queen 2S 11ad 1 ! as 26 .i.d4! is stronger: 26 . . . axb4
into the battle. Black wants to take posses 27 axb4 .i.xb4 28 .i.xb6, or 26 . . . 'iWxa3 26
sion of the second row with one of his rooks bxaS 'iWxaS (the reply is the same after
and to do that he needs the co-operation of 26 . . . bxaS) 27 :a 1 , regaining the pawn .
the queen. The text move aims at prevent 25 . . . :c2
ing b2-b4 at once, which would be an 26 'iWa6?1
swered by 21 . . . .i.d6 22 g3 "fie4, and Black Another error by N imzowitsch in his percep
will obtain possession of the second rank. ' tion of the position : he does not sense that
As you see , Black's main aim is formulated his queen should be participating in the
- the occu pation of the 2nd ran k (it is also defence of the kingside. 26 "fif1 or 26 'iWd 1
clear what Wh ite wants - to complete his (with the idea of 27 ':e2) suggests itself. The
development and beg i n exchanging rooks). move i n the game allows Capablanca to
Without specific analysis it is d ifficult to include his second rook in the attack along
foresee wh ich of the two sides will be more the 2nd rank.
successfu l in carrying out their plans. But at
least it is clear what they need to a i m for.
21 93 'ii' d 5!
22 b4 .i.f8
23 .i. b2 'ii'a 2!
24 l:ta1 ?!
Alexander Alekhine suggested 24 J:[bd 1 !
::lxd 1 (if immediately 24 . . . aS, then 2S J:.xd8
J:txd8 26 .i.d4 ! ) 2S ':xd 1 . After 2S . . . aS 26
bxaS bxaS (26 . . . .i.xa3 27 'ii' a 6 ! ) Alekh ine
conti nues 27 'ii' a 6? l:tc2 28 l:td8 l:txb2 29
l:I.xf8+ with perpetual check, or 28 . . . 'ii'x b2
29 'ii'd 6 with a draw. As Harry Golombek
poi nted out, in this variation Black wins by
28 . . . 'ii' b 1 + ! 29 g2 "fixb2 . 27 l:.d2! is 26 . . . e5!
correct, and if 27 . . . .i.xa3, then either 28 27 .i.xe5 l:tdd2
'ii'd 1 ! , or 28 'ii' a 6! J:[f8 (28 .. Jlb8 29 'ii' x aS ! , 28 'ii' b 1?
and the bishop a t b 2 is immune) 2 9 'ii'x aS
By this point all the commentators had
'ii'b 1 + 30 g2 .i.xb2 (30 . . . 'ii'e 4+ 31 f3) 3 1
already written Wh ite off, but to me his
'i'b4 .
position seems defensible, despite the
24 . . . 'ii' b3
inaccuracies committed earl ier. The queen
25 .i.d4?! should have been retu rned to the defence:
It is surprising , but Aaron N imzowitsch does 28 'ii'f 1 (in the event of 28 :f1 ? Black
not real ise that he should seek salvation by spectacu larly decides matters with 28 . . .
exchanging rooks. However, after 2S l:.ac1 'ii'x e3! 2 9 .i.f4 l:.xf2 ! ) . Alekh ine gives the
50 The Development of Chess I ntuition
You must use your time in the most under such rules you can win even if you
economical way, to avoid reaching the last make one mistake . With two mistakes, this
exercises already in severe time-trouble. is u n l i kely (too l ittle time for thought re
But it is dangerous to play too qu ickly - it is mains) and with three mistakes it is simply
easy to make a stupid mistake. You win, if impossible.
you correctly solve all five exercises - Play stops as soon as the time li mit is
otherwise you fail to a g reater or lesser exceeded . It is also possible to win 'ahead
extent. of schedule' - if for the last one or two
Another form of the same game, which I in positions you have a time reserve which is
fact used with Dolmatov, Yusupov and other g reater than the possible penalty for an
grandmasters whom I was training, is even incorrect but instant answer. I n this case it is
more effective . Slightly more time is al no longer necessary to solve them.
lowed : 20-25 m i n utes ( 1 5 m i n utes only for But play can also be continued after losing
grandmasters and strong masters). We play on time - u ntil you have gone through all
in exactly the same way, but if an exercise is five positions. It makes sense to do this if
solved incorrectly the clock hand is ad the ru les of the game envisage (with the a i m
vanced by one third of the i n itial time o f raising t h e seriousness and responsibil ity
reserve (with a 1 5-minute control - by 5 of the decisions take n ) some kind of
minutes , with a 20-min ute control - by 6% 'penalty' for a loss, depending on the
min utes, and so on). Success i n the 'series' nu mber of additional m i nutes used .
means getting through all five positions
without losing on time. You will see that Now try solving one such 'series' .
Exercises
5. White to move
The Development of Chess I ntuition lD 53
1 . Smyslov - Gurgenidze (34th USSR He also has the advantage after 21 . . . 'ii'x b4
Championsh i p , Tbilisi 1 966/67). 22 axb4 lLlf6 23 e3 lIe7 24 lLle2 g5 25 i.. c8 ! .
4S h4! I n the game there followed 21 . . . aS!? 22
The black pawn must be fixed on the 'ii'x bS lLlxc3 23 'iVxc4 dxc4 24 bxc3 l:.ab8
vul nerable h5-sq uare , in order then to 2S i.. d 71 l:1e7 26 i.. a 4 i.. d S 27 g4! g6 28 f3
attack it with the bishop, and possibly create fS 29 gxfS gxfS 30 f2 f7 31 g3 f6 32
a dangerous passed pawn on the h-file. It is f4 i.. f7 33 1:[g1 i.. g 6 34 h4, and Wh ite
hardly possible simultaneously to hold two converted his extra pawn .
weaknesses - on a7 and h5. Wh ite is bound
to win . 4. M i les - Makarychev (Oslo 1 984) .
I n the game there followed 4 S dS? h 4 ! 46 Wh ite would like t o attack t h e opposing
i.. e2 lLlf8 47 e4 (if the a7-pawn is queenside pawns with his q ueen , but fi rst he
captu red , Black shuts the king in the corner must suppress the opponent's counterplay
by . . . c7) 47 ... gS 48 dS f6 49 i.. g 4 on the kingside. 37 'ii'c6? i.. x g3 38 xg3
lLlg6 with an obvious draw. After a passed g 'ii'g 1 + would be premature. 37 lLlf1 ? 'iVb2 is
pawn is created, Black can give u p his pointless, while if 37 lLle2? there follows
kn ight for it, if his king is then able to retu rn 37 . . . 'ii' e 1 ! , and 38 'iVxe5+?? loses to
to b8. 38 . . . i.. f6 .
37 lLlh1 ! !
2. lohlesen - Belavenets (correspondence Threatening to gain an advantage b y 38
1 974-79). 'ii'c6. For example, 37 . . . i.. e 7 38 'iVc6 i.. d 6
2S . . . :t8xe6! 39 lLlg3, intend ing h4-h5 . In the game there
26 dxe6 'it'f3 ! ! followed 37 . . . 'iVb2 38 'iVc6 'iVb1 ? (38 . . . i.. g 5!
White resigned . 39 f3 'iVb 1 40 lLlg3 'iVd 1 + 4 1 g2 'ii'd 8
Usually the answer consists of just one was necessary) 39 'iVxc7 'iVe4+ 40 h2 hS
move , but sometimes the solution contains 41 'ii' c 6 'iVc2 42 gxhS 'iVfS 43 'iVg2 ! ? 'ii'x hS
44 cSI , and Wh ite won .
two or more moves. I n such cases I make
my reply, again press the clock butto n , and
so on, u ntil the entire solution is reprod uced S . P i nter - Larsen ( I nterzonal Tournament,
on the board . Las Palmas 1 982).
Wh ite is planning action on the kingside.
3. Beliavsky - C hern i n ( I nterzonal Tourna However, the hasty 25 f2? ru ns into the
ment, Tu nis 1 985). exchange sacrifice 25 . . . .l:.xg5! 26 fxg5 lLlg6,
In the event of 2 1 'iVxc4 dxc4 Black would when the position becomes unclear.
not stand badly. 2S i.. h41
21 'iVb4! The threat of the exchange sacrifice is
Wh ite has in mind 21 . . . lLlxc3 22 %:txc3 (22 neutralised . If 25 . . . lLlg6 Wh ite has 26 i.. f6 ,
'iVxc3 !?) 22 . . . 'iVxb4 23 axb4 llxe2 24 %:tc7 and otherwise he plays f2 and i.. f3 ,
1:lb8 25 l:Ixb7 and wins, or 22 . . . 'ii'xe2 23 concentrating his forces on the kings ide and
l:!.c7 l:Iab8 24 'iVxd6 with strong pressure. preparing g3-g4.
54 The Development of Chess I ntuition
Adden d u m
Kasparov - Karpov
World Championship Match ,
Moscow 1 984/S , 6th Game
Queen 's Indian Defence
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 e6 3 liJf3 b6 4 g3 i.a6 5 b3
i.b4+ 6 i.d2 i.e7 7 i.g2 0-0 8 0-0 d5
9 liJe5 c6 10 i.c3 liJfd7 11 liJxd7 liJxd7
1 2 liJd2 ':c8 13 e4 b5
The consequences of 1 3 . . . cS were exam
ined by Artur Yusu pov at the second session
of our school - cf. the game Yusupov-Sax,
Rotterdam 1 989, which is analysed in
Secrets of Opening Preparation p.4S.
1 6 cxb5?
Incidentally, our analysis of the clash be
tween Kasparov and Karpov will be based The fi rst (but by no means last) occasion
on a deep analysis by Yusu pov, published when Kasparov's positional feeling let him
the day after the conclusion of the game in down . 1 6 cS! would have led to an advan-
the newspaper Sovietsky Sport. tage for Wh ite : 1 6 . . . liJa4 1 7 'ii'c2 (with the
threat of 1 8 eS! ) 1 7 . . . eS 1 8 liJb3 (Karpov-
1 4 :e1 dxc4
Van der Wiel, Amsterdam 1 986), or 1 6 . . . b4
1 5 bxc4 liJ b6?! 1 7 i.b2 liJc4 1 8 liJxc4 i.xc4 1 9 'ii'c2 i.bS
1 S . . . bxc4 is better. 20 a3.
56 The Development of Chess I ntuition
had changed in his favour, and he decided to 34 l:ta 1 SLxc6 35 xc6 1:.e6 36 1:.xa 7 was
play for a win . more tenacious, although the endgame after
Kasparov, on the other hand , d i d not sense 36 . . . l:txd6 37 d7 1:.b6 can hardly be held.
the impending danger. He should have 34 . . . f6 1
forced a draw by choosing 32 SLg2 ! l:td8 33 35 d7
c6 (with the threat of 34 d7) 33 . . . SLc8 34 There is no longer any way of saving the
liJxb5. game: 35 SLxb7 l:txe5! 36 1:. a 1 b4 37 l:lxa7
It was also possible to play 32 d7 SLb7! b3 and 35 liJd7+ 'iti>f7 36 1:.a1 SLxg2 37
(defending against 33 liJc6 or 33 g2) and 'iti>xg2 'iti>e6 were equally bad .
now, for example, 33 liJf5 .l:r.d8 34 ':e8+ (if 35 . . . lld8
34 liJxg7? or 34 liJd6? there is the simple 36 xb7 fxe5
34 . . . c6) 34 .. Jbe8+ 35 dxe8'iV+ 'iti>xe8 36
37 c6 'iti>e7?
liJd6+ 'iti>d8 37 liJxb7 'iti>c7 - the two black
pawns are at least as strong as the piece. A time-trouble mistake. There was an easy
The unexpected move 33 l:t a 1 ! , found by win by 37 . . . e4! 38 lla 1 'iti>e7 (38 . . . liJe2+ 39
Vadim Zviagintsev, is safer. The point is that 'iti>f1 liJd4 is also possible) 39 llxa7 'iti>d6 40
if 33 . . . a6 there follows the pretty stroke 34 l:ta6 'iti>c7 41 'iti>f1 b4 .
liJc6! SLxc6 35 llxa6. The interesting try 38 .ltxb5! liJxb5?!
33 . . . a5 encounters the intermed iate move Ka rpov d id not have sufficient time to check
34 lla3! (weaker is 34 ':'xa5 'iti>e7) 34 . . . b4 35 the variation 38 . . . 'iti>d6! 39 SLd3 1:.xd7! 40
:txa5. Black does best to agree a draw after SLxh7 a5.
33 . . . 'iti>e7 34 :e1 + 'iti>f8 (but not 34 . . . 'iti>d6? 39 llxe5+ 'iti>xd7
35 1:.e8 'iti>c7 36 liJc6 ! ) 35 ':'a 1 . Of course, 40 l:txb5 'iti>c6
the order of the moves can also be changed :
41 1:.h5?
32 1:. a 1 SLb7 33 d7.
41 11e5! was stronger, and if 41 . . . 1:.a8, then
32 liJc6? b7!
42 1:.e6+ 'iti>c5 43 lle7 a5 44 1:.xg7, also
A draw results from 32 . . . b4 33 d7 (or 33 attacking the h-pawn .
liJxb4 SLb5) 33 . . . b3 34 d8'iV+ .uxd8 35 liJxd8
41 . . . h6
SLd3.
42 11e5 lla8
33 SLg2 :e8 !
The sealed move. 42 . . . 1:.d5 was also good .
Possibly Kasparov was hoping for 33 . . . b4? The ending is rather i nteresti ng, but here we
34 d7 b3 35 liJb8! 1:.xb8 36 SLxb7 b2 will cut th ings short, since from this point it
(36 . . . l:td8 37 c6) 37 c8, and White wins. was a contest not in the abil ity to fi nd the
But Karpov's sense of danger is equal to the strongest conti nuations at the board , but in
occasion . quality of adjournment analysis. Black won
34 liJe5 on the 70th move.
ltJ 59
I n J azz Style
I placed my rook on e1 so that if 1 1 . . . lDc5 I 1 5 'iVxd4 i. c5 and was hoping to exploit the
could defend the e-pawn with the simple pin on the g 1 -a7 d iagonal (it is not clear,
bishop retreat 12 i.f2 . After 1 2 . . . lDe6 1 3 however, whether this is possible after 1 6
'iVd2 Wh ite brings his queen's rook to d 1 'iVd2 ) . Konstantin Lerner clearly underesti
and only then begins th inking about his mated my reply.
fu rther plans: whether to break through in 1 5 i.xd5!
the centre with e4-e5, or prepare a pawn
Now both pieces are invul nerable in view of
offensive on the kingside with h2-h3 and
1 6 xf7+, and 1 5 . . . 'iVxf6 1 6 lDe4 is bad for
g2-g4 .
Black. I n order to defend his queen , he must
My opponent did not want to defend
develop his bishop from c8 , but where? It is
patiently and he decided to beg in an
immed iately clear that any bishop move has
immed iate battle in the centre.
its drawbacks: 1 5 . . . i.d7 1 6 'iVh5 g6 1 7
11 . . . d5?! i.xf7+, 1 5 . . . i.e6 1 6 l:1xe6, or 1 5 . . .i.g4 1 6
12 e5 c5? 'iVxg4 dxe3 1 7 i.xb7.
It would have been better for Black to 15 . . . i.f5
restrict hi mself to the modest knight retreat 1 6 :e5 i.g6
1 2 . . . lDd7.
have removed one of my pieces from
Can you believe in the success of Black's
attack, but it is more d ifficult to deal with the
mil itary operation, begun with his bishop on
second - any knight move is answered by
c8 and his knight on a6? You can't? Then
1 6 . . . gxf6. However, as was shown by
you have to find a refutation .
Dvoretsky, it was nevertheless possible to
1 3 exf6 l:[xe3 play 1 7 lDe4 ! , since if 1 7 . . . gxf6 there is the
The 'point' of my opponent's idea! pretty stroke 1 8 11e8 ! .
14 ':'xe3 cxd4 1 7 fxg7 'ii? x g7
I n the event of 1 7 . . . i.xg7 1 8 'iVxd4 it all
(see diagram)
immed iately becomes clear.
For the moment I am the exchange u p , but I 1 8 lDe4! f6
have two pieces en prise. If either of them 1 9 'ii'x d41
should be captu red, the material advantage
will pass to Black. He was only expecting (see diagram)
In Jazz Style ttJ 61
23 . . . liJd7
24 'ith1 !
In such cases variations should already be
calculated to the end . To make things
easier, I recommend that you beg in your
calculation with moves to which the oppo
nent has only one reply. Thus the queen
check on e6 looks tempting, but you will
have to analyse not only 24 . . . 'itg7, but also
24 . . .liJf6 and 24 . . . 'iVf6 , and it is possible to
overlook . . . 'iVb6+. The king move, renewing
the threat of .l:!.e3, does not leave the
opponent any choice.
it a couple of times. I don't know why no one Wh ite is a pawn down , and for the moment
plays this now - in my opin ion , here Wh ite he also has no attack, but he has the two
obtains a very promising position . bishops and a defi n ite advantage in space
and development. I n add itio n , as I recall,
6... iLb4
there was a healthy optimism, a confidence
7 0-0 iLxc3 in my powers, which is of no small impor
8 bxc3 4Jxe4 ta nce in such situations. However, such a
9 iLd3 position is one that I would also happily play
now. Wh ite's in itiative is enduring , and it is
not easily neutral ised .
1 1 iLg5 'ii'a 51?
9. . . 4Jxd4
This was the extent of my knowledge. I
knew that 9 . . . 4Jxc3?! was dangerous in view
of 1 0 'ii'g 4 or 1 0 'ii'e 1 and I had only 12 f4!
analysed 9 . . . d5. I was aware of only one
A non-routi ne decision (with the bishop on
game on this theme, Geller-Khasin (25th
g5 it is not usual to place the pawn on f4),
USSR Championsh ip, Riga 1 958), which
but apparently the correct one. White
continued 1 0 iLa3 'ii' a 5 1 1 'ii' c 1 4Jxd4 1 2
should not hu rry with the exchange on f6 . By
cxd4 iLd7 1 3 ':' b 1 iLc6 1 4 iLb4 'ii'c7 1 5 'ii' a 3
advancing his f-pawn , he i ncludes his king's
a5 1 6 iLxe4 dxe4 1 7 c4 f6 1 8 iLd6 'ji'd7 with
rook in the attack. In the event of 1 2 . . . 'i!Vb4 1
roughly equal chances. I don't remember
would have g iven up a second pawn by 1 3
exactly how I was intend ing to improve
f5 .
Wh ite's play, but there was a way - you can
look for it you rself. Later I successfully 12 . . . b6
employed it against Sergey Gorelov, but, 1 3 iLxf6
unfortunately, I have not retained the score But now is an appropriate moment for the
In Jazz Style ltJ 63
exchange - thanks to it Wh ite will be able to the enemy q ueen from the long d iagona l .
gain a tempo by 1 4 Wf3 . 2 0 c41 Wxc4
13 . . . gxf6 21 fxe6 dxe6
1 4 'it'f3 lIbS 21 . . . Wxe6 was more tenacious.
14 . . . Wd5 1 5 Wxd5 exd5 1 6 1:[ae 1 + ..ti>f8 1 7 22 Wf41
Iif3 would have led to an inferior endgame A double attack on f6 and b8. But couldn't it
for Black. For the moment he is not ready so have also been made without the d iverting
openly to sound the retreat. pawn sacrifice?
1 5 f5 b7 22 . . . l::t b7
1 6 ..te4! 23 ':'c1 !
It is important to kill the opponent's hopes This is the point! Now all my pieces are
associated with counter-pressure on the g2- participati ng in the attack. Wh ite's threats
point. With just the heavy pieces on the are irresistible.
board , Black's position is d ifficult, since his 23 . . . 'it'd5
king is under attack and his rooks are
24 Wxf6 :e7
separated .
25 'ili'hS+
16 . . . xe4
Black resigned .
1 7 Wxe4 Wd5
1 S Wh4 ':gS
Dolmatov Flesch
For me there is someth ing mysterious about
-
Defence. The resulting positions suit me tioned game against Speelman) Wh ite has
perfectly well , so that I myself cannot an enormous lead i n development, giving
understand why I altogether avoid the q u ite him more than sufficient compensation for
reasonable move 1 d4. the sacrificed pawn .
7. . . dxe4 11 . . . lLl bd7
8 i.xe4 0-0 The opponent is hoping after 1 2 c4 b6 1 3
9 0-0 i.xe3?1 i.g5 i.b7 to arrange his pieces in accord
1 0 bxe3 "ike7 ance with Ka rpov's scheme, but I do not
al low h i m this opportun ity.
1 2 i.a31
An u nusual development of the bishop for
the g iven opening variation. I n his youth a
chess player has less dogma and more
energy - it can be easier for h i m to devise a
fresh idea . When he becomes older, he
already knows exactly what was played
earlier in similar cases, and this knowledge
sometimes prevents an unprej udiced ap
proach to the position .
I have managed to discover the main
weakness in the opponent's position - the
vulnerable d6-square. I ncidentally, also after
the normal development of his bishop at g5,
In the late 1 970s the world champion later White often tries to exploit the same
Anatoly Karpov successfully practised the weakness with the manoeuvre i.g5-h4-g3! .
plan involving the exchange of the b4-
12 . . . ':'e8
bishop for the knig ht, and the development
The usual square for the rook in this
of the knight at d7 and bishop at b7. Janos
variation (Karpov also used to place it here).
Flesch is aiming for a similar set-up, but he
It would have been better to play it to d8, but
carries it out i naccu rately - the premature
the opponent did not anticipate my idea .
exchange on c3 increases Wh ite's possibili
ties. He should have begun with either 1 3 lLld21
9 . . . b6 or 9 . . . lLl bd7. I n cidentally, the knight What to do now? The knight is aiming for d6,
move was made against me by Jonathan and after 1 3 . . . "ikxc3 14 lLlc4 Black is in
Speelman in a game which I demonstrated danger of losing his queen . He should
at the 2nd session of the school (cf. Secrets probably have chosen the cool-headed
of Opening Preparation p . 78). 1 3 . . . b6 , although after 1 4 lLlc4 i.b7 1 5 lLld6
1 1 i.d3! Wh ite has an obvious advantage.
A natu ral and logical move - the bishop was 13 . . . ltd8
under attack. I have to admit that at the time 14 "ikf3
I did not even consider the reply 1 1 . . . 'ilt'xc3 I n the event of 1 4 lLlc4 lLlf8 Black would
(now my optimism has dimin ished some have covered the d6-sq uare, and so I
what, and probably I would nevertheless try activate my queen , fi nally defending the c3-
to calculate it). After 1 2 i. f4! (but not 1 2 i.g5 pawn and preventing the development of
lLlbd7, transposing i nto the afore-men- the bishop at b7.
In Jazz Style ttJ 65
14 . . . lLlf8 1 8 h4 f5?!
What would you now play as W hite? It is probable that many would have played
this - it is hard to endure such intense
pressure for long. Even so, it would have
been better to be patient, and refrain from
weakening the position.
19 c2 lLlb6
20 b3 d7
21 g3
Before taking the f5-pawn it is useful to
improve the placing of the bishop. It is
amusing that i n the end it has nevertheless
moved to g3, its lawfu l square in this
variation.
21 . . . 'iVc6
22 'ifxf5 'iVxc3
1 5 lLle4!
23 e5!
A typical idea ! In such cases it is useful to
White defends the d4-pawn and parries the
exchange the opponent's few developed
th reat of 23 .. :ii'xb3, after which 24 'ifg5 is
pieces - then your lead in development is
now decisive .
easier to exploit. An analogy with ice
hockey can be drawn : if a player has to 23 . . .
leave the rink, an advantage of five players The q ueen returns to the defence.
against four is appreciable, but neverthe 24 'ifh5 .l:tac8
less not decisive. If a further pair is How should the offensive be conti nued?
removed , it becomes much harder to de
fend with th ree against four, and with two
against three it is probably almost impossi
ble.
Of course, Wh ite's move was also based on
more concrete considerations; in particular,
he was aiming to h i nder the development of
the bishop on ca . But a knowledge of
general rules, such as the one just men
tioned , usually makes it easier for us to take
a decision and suggests where it should be
sought.
15 . . . lLlxe4
1 6 xe4 lLld7
A dismal spectacle - the opponent's pieces
rush from place to place. He obviously 25 f4!
wants to play 1 7 . . . lLlf6, but of course, I do Usually I find it hard to decide on changes in
not allow th is. the pawn structu re - I prefer to play with the
17 e7 1 1:[e8 pieces. But here I made a pawn move - it
66 In Jazz Style
really is very strong . Wh ite is threatening tious opponents. We crossed swords in the
not only to include his rook via f3, but also to very first round and I was able to q u ickly
play f4-f5. crush him with Black. It was a double-round
25 . . . g6 event, and soon our second meeti ng took
place - with the same result.
25 . . . i.c6 is bad in view of 26 'ifg4! 'ife7 27
i.xe6+, while if 25 . . . tDc4, then 26 i.c2 is
decisive . After the move in the game Wh ite Dolmatov - Larsen
forcibly destroys the opposing defences .
Amsterdam 1 980
26 'ifh4 'ife7 Caro-Kann Defence
27 i. f6 'iff7 1 e4 c6
28 f51 tDd5 Of course, Larsen had no suspicion of how
29 fxg6 'iVxg6 dangerous it was to play this opening
30 lIf3 tDxf6 against me.
Black is forced to give up his quee n , which is 2 d4 d5
equ ivalent to resignation . 3 exd5 cxd5
31 1:.g3 g7 4 c4 tDf6
32 1:[f1 IU8 5 tDc3 e6
33 ':xg6+ hxg6 6 tDf3 i.b4
34 'ifg5 l:.c6 7 i.d3 dxc4
35 'ili'e51 l:.b6 8 i.xc4 0-0
36 g4 l:.b5 9 0-0 a6
37 d51
Black resigned.
Note that, after gaining a material advan
tage, Wh ite did not relax the pressure , but
looked for the most d i rect and energetic way
to wi n . Sometimes in such situations,
feeling that the work has already largely
been done, a player relaxes and beg ins
playing carelessly. As a result the opponent
is able to set up a defence and even gain
cou nter-chances.
Also prophylaxis against . . . b7-b5, only q ueens have to be exchanged : it is too risky
more refined . In the event of 1 0 . . . iLe7 1 was to play 1 4 . . . :a7 1 5 iLf4 ( 1 5 'iVh5!?)
intending to retreat my bishop to a2 in 1 5 . . . l::t d 7?! 16 'iVh5 with strong pressure on
advance and to meet the flank advance Black's kingside. After 14 . . . 'iVxd5 1 5 iLxd5
1 1 . . . b5 with the central cou nter 1 2 d5! . If lla7 1 6 f4 Black cannot play 1 6 . . . iLb7? 1 7
instead 1 0 . . . iLxc3 1 1 bxc3 b5, then after 1 2 e3, and 1 6 . . J:td7 1 7 iLxf7+ ':xf7 1 8 iLxb8
iLd3 the threat of 1 3 a4 is unpleasant. is also unfavourable. He has to agree to a
Even so, this last variation looks the most permanently inferior endgame by 1 6 . . . e6
log ical reaction to Wh ite's plan. After the 1 7 iLxe6 fxe6 . Even so, this would have
exchange on c3 the move a2-a3 is a waste been the lesser evil : objectively Black can
of time: the pawn should either be left on a2, hope for a draw. 'But why play cautiously
or moved to a4 . At the 1 982 Zonal Tourna against a boy? ' , the g randmaster probably
ment in Yerevan , Lev Psakhis prepared well thought.
for his game with me and went in for this 1 4 ltJxe7+ 'iVxe7
positio n . There followed 1 2 .. :iVd5 1 3 a4 1 5 iLg5
i. b7 1 4 'iVe2 l:tc8 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 l:ba8 The two bishops in an open position ensure
i.xa8 1 7 iLd2 ltJe4 1 8 iLxe4 'iVxe4 1 9 'iVxb5 Wh ite an overwhelming adva ntage. I only
i.d5 20 l:te 1 'iVg6 21 'iVe2 ltJc6, and Black have to make natu ral attacki ng moves and
had sufficient compensation for the sacri make sure that the opponent does not
ficed pawn . The game soon ended in a escape from the trap into which he has
draw. fallen.
Of course, at the board , with the clock 15 . . . ltJbd7
ticking away, it is far harder than in home
1 6 :e1 'iVc5
preparation to make a sober assessment of
a position. Therefore if you are able to think 1 6 . . . 'iVd8 was more tenacious.
up a sensible idea such as 1 0 a3, the 17 iLe3
practical chances of it succeed ing are very Of course, not 1 7 l:tc1 ? iLxf3 .
considerable, even if a solution to the 17 . . . 'iVf5
problem facing the opponent does in fact
1 7 . . . 'iVh5 was comparatively better, al
exist.
though after 1 8 ltJg5 'iVxd 1 1 9 l::t a xd 1 Black
10 . . . iLe7 has a d ifficult endgame.
1 1 iLa2 b5?!
1 1 . . . ltJc6 was better.
1 2 d5!
What should Black do now? He does not
want to al low the captu re on e6 - for the
entire game he will have to defend a clearly
inferior position.
12 . . . exd5
1 3 ltJxd5 iLb7?
Black should have exchanged knig hts:
13 ... ltJxd 5 . Larsen was afraid of the reply 1 4
'iVxd5 ( 1 4 iLxd5 i s weaker i n view of
14 . . Jla7 with the th reat of 1 5 . . J:td7). The
68 In Jazz Style
1 8 lLlh4! 24 'ii'd 4!
The q ueen is al most trapped . Of course, the Complete dominatio n ! There is no need to
routine 1 8 lLld4? was weaker because of pick the fru it - it will fal l of its own accord .
1 8 . . ...g6. Black's next move is effectively First deprive the opponent of any sensible
the decisive mistake - only the retu rn of the moves, and then finish him off. It was even a
queen to e5 promised chances of saving the pity for me to make the next few moves, as I
game. wanted simply to enjoy the ideal arrange
18 . . . 'ii'e 4? ment of the white pieces - I am no longer
able to improve it.
1 9 95 'ii'c 6
24 . . . 'ii' b 8
20 l:[c1 'ii' b6
It was not in vain that I had developed my
21 .i.e3
'prophylactic th inking' - I immed iately real
The game has tu rned out to be very ised that Black was i ntend ing 25 . . . .l:.d8 . I
amusing. My dark-square bishop moves had to calculate a wi n n i ng variation to the
backwards and forwards, each time with end (when the opponent's possibil ities are
gain of tempo. so restricted, this is very easy). I n fact it was
21 . . . 'ii'd 8 time to win the point and leave for home.
22 lLlf5 25 f4! ':d8
As you can see, since the 1 6th move only 26 f5 ..th5
Wh ite has been playing. The opponent's 27 h3 lLl b6
q ueen has wandered round the entire board 28 'ii'x b6 'ii'x b6
and finally retu rned to its i n itial square d8,
29 ..txb6 l:.xd6
but during that time I have included all my
pieces in the attack. 30 .i.e3
It is after accurate moves such as these that
22 . . . ..te4
the opponent usually capitulates (after other
23 lLld6 ..tg6
moves by the bishop Larsen would still have
The bishop has moved to the defence of the been able to consider 30 . . . :d2). Black
f7-point. Wh ite's position is won , of course, resigned .
but I suggest you try to find the way that I
found in the game. By now you will probably have gained the
impression that I can win only with Wh ite.
Therefore I will show you a game in which I
had the black pieces.
combination 25 . . . lt'lf4 26 ':'xf4 'if h 6 27 ':'xg4 The opponent has just two pawns for the
'ife3+ 28 f1 'ife2+ 29 g 1 is sufficient lost piece. However, for the moment there
only for a draw. are still d ifficulties in converting the advan
But why lau nch into u n necessary compl ica tage. All my pawns are broken and the
tions, when the opponent's position is knight is out of play.
already fai rly compromised? The th reats of 30 . . . :d61
24 . . . lt'le5 and 24 . . . lt'le3 are very dangerous, 3 1 l:r.xb5 b6
and Black only needs to ascertain that the Black has g iven up a third pawn , but now he
captu re of the d4-pawn does not relieve will be able to defend his b-pawn with the
Wh ite of his serious d ifficulties. knight from d7.
24 it.xd4 'ii' h 6! 32 ':'e4 lled8
The h2-pawn is attacked ; in addition , White's 33 ':'ee5 g7
back ran k is weak, and his rook at c 1 is
If 33 . . . lt'ld7 there is the reply 34 ':'ed5. There
hang i n g . 25 ':'h3 is met not by 25 . . . 'ifd2?!
is no need to hurry with this move - for the
26 'iWc3 , but by 25 ... l:txd4 ! ! 26 lt'lxd4 'ii'd 2 27
moment it is better to bring the king towards
.l:!.f1 1:Ie 1 28 'ii'c2 (28 l:.f3? l:.xf1 + 29 ':xf1
the centre . I n the endgame any respite
'i'e3+) 28 . . .I:txf1 + 29 xf1 'ii'f4+ .
should be used to strengthen the position to
2 5 h3 a6! the maximum.
The wh ite pieces are overloaded . If 25 34 f2?1 f6?1
hxg4 , then 25 . . . axb5 26 'ii' c3 ':'xd4 , and 25
[A move earlier the capture of the d3-pawn
it.b2 It'le5 (25 . . . lt'le3 ! ? ) 26 it.xe5 axb5 27
did not have any point, since the opponent
'iff4 ':'xe5! also does not help.
would have replied 34 ':e 7, with a simulta
26 it.xg7! 'ii'x g7 neous attack on fl and b6. But now, when
27 :g3 axb5 the fl-pawn is defended by the king,
[27. . . h5! 28 lt'lc7 ':e3 29 ':xe3 lt'lxe3 or 28 34 . . Jlxd3! could have been played with
hxg4 axb5 29 'ii' f4 h4 was even stronger impunity (35 :t1xb6? It'ld7) - Dvoretsky.]
Dvoretsky.] 35 ':'e3 It'ld7
28 'ii'x g4 'ii'x g4 36 g4 .:te8
29 lbg4+ h8 37 a4 l:te5
30 ne5 38 :b4 l1d5
72 In Jazz Style
1 8 tDe2 !
An un pleasant surprise. Black faces the
terri ble th reat of f5-f6 ! , for example:
18 . . . 'ii'a 5? 19 f6! gxf6 20 'ii'g 3+ h8 2 1 "f4
(2 1 exd6), or 1 8 . . . i.d5? 1 9 f6! gxf6 20 'ii'g 3+
h8 21 "f4 g7 22 tDg3. If 1 8 . . . dxe5, then
1 9 fxe6 is still strong.
18 . . . exf5
1 9 tDd4
Exploiting the position of the bishop at c6!
With gain of tempo the knight approaches
the important f5-point. After 1 9 . . . i.e4 20
i.xe4 fxe4 21 tDf5 the pin on the d-file is
decisive - 21 . . . d5? is not possible because
1 7 f5!
of 22 l:lxd5. If 1 9 . . . i.d7, then 20 i.xf5 is
A standard way of conducting the attack in a strong .
situation where Black has not managed to 19 . . . 'ilVc7
exchange pawns on e5. Of course, the
20 tDxf5 dxe5
move made by me demanded accurate
21 'ilVg3 g6
calculation .
21 . . . i.g5 22 h4 i.f6 23 tDxh6+ h8 was a
How would the offensive have been contin
tougher defence.
ued in the event of the captu re of the e5-
pawn? I did not even consider the variation 22 tDxh6+ h8
1 7 . . . dxe5 1 8 f6 i.xf6 1 9 i.h7+ - Black's
rook, bishop and two pawns are stronger
than the queen . After the correct 1 8 fxe6! it
is now unfavourable to give up the queen
( 1 8 . . . fxe6 1 9 i.h7+), but otherwise Black
encou nters serious difficulties.
17 . . . b4
This is what Lerner was counting o n . What
should Wh ite do now? 1 8 tDe4 dxe5 (or
1 8 . . . exf5) is unfavourable for him. I have to
admit that I am proud of my next move.
When you are engaged in a sharp struggle it
is important to be very attentive and
resou rceful , and to exploit all your re
sources. You only need to play insufficiently The black king is vulnerable and I have
energetically at some point, for the attack to excellent attacki ng prospects. How should
come to a standstil l and the in itiative to pass the offensive be conti nued? Don't think that
to the opponent. I ndeed , Black has the two you defin itely have to find someth ing bril
bishops, and he only needs to parry the liant. Sometimes d ifficult and by no means
immed iate th reats without particular dam obvious solutions have to be fou n d , but
age . . . more ofte n , without being d iverted , one after
In Jazz Style ltJ 75
another you have to make log ica l , accu rate transpose into some safe position with an
moves. extra pawn . It is dangerous to sit between
23 l:lhf1 two stools - the dual feeling played a n
The inactive rook joins the offensive. The adverse role, l e d t o excessive expend iture
position is not yet ripe for combinations of time, and prevented me at the decisive
such as 23 ttJxf7+. moment (now in ti me-trouble) of accurately
23 . . . .itd5 choosing and calculating a way to the goa l .
T h e first possibil ity was 27 ':xf5 . After
The f7-pawn has to be defended . But how
27 . . . :g8 the king wants to ru n away to f8 ,
should Wh ite conti nue now?
and to conti nue his attack Wh ite must
A good idea has been suggested - ttJf5 ! . sacrifice a rook: 28 l:.h5+.
But i f i t is carried out, i t should b e with gain
The second way was 27 .itxf5. The only
of tempo!
reply - 27 . . . 'iVc4 - leads after 28 'ifh3+ 'i'h4
24 'ii' h 3 g7 29 'i'xh4+ .itxh4 30 l:[xd5 to an endgame
25 ttJf5+! gxf5 with a n extra pawn for Wh ite.
If 25 . . . g8 Wh ite decides matters with 26 And , final ly, it is possible to interpose the
'i'h6 .itf6 27 ttJe3 (simu ltaneously attacking check 27 'ili'h3+ g7, and only then play 28
d5 and f6) 27 . . . .itg7 28 ttJxd5. xf5 . The reply 28 . . . 'iVc4 is now pointless ;
26 'ii'g 3+ h6 apart from 29 'i'h7+ the simple 29 l:txd5 is
After 26 . . . h8 27 lIxf5, mate is unavoid a lso threatened . There is only one defence:
able. 28 . . . .itxa2+! 29 xa2 'i'c4+ and 30 .. :ifh4.
I clearly saw all these ideas, but I did not
manage to make the correct choice . Prob
ably the simplest solution (and the one most
in keeping with my style at that time) was to
transpose into an endgame by 27 .itxf5 , in
which I would only h ave had some tech nical
d ifficulties to overcome.
But I begrudged giving up the attack
immediately. At the same time I was unable
to calculate fully the conseq uences of the
rook sacrifice. This was a pity - it was a
d i rect and pretty way to win .
2 7 l:lxf5! l::t g 8 2 8 l::t h5+ ! ! xh5 2 9 'i'h3+
g5 (29 . . . .ith4 30 'iVf5+ is no better) 30
'iVf5+ h6 31 'ii' h 7+ g5 32 1:[f1 ! .ite6
Here Wh ite has th ree conti nuations, two of (32 . . . 'ii'c8 33 g3! e4 34 .itxe4 .itxe4 35 h4+
which a re win n i n g . U nfortunately, I chose g4 36 'ii'x e4+ h5 37 lIxf7) 33 h4+ g4
the th ird and sq uandered all my advantage. 34 'ii' e 4+ h5 (34 . . . g3 35 "f3+ h2 36
I can explain why this happened . On the one g4) 35 g4+! xh4 36 'ii' h 1 + with a quick
hand I was rather excited and was eager to mate .
finish off nicely a game which had gone so Thus I could not bring myself to sacrifice the
well for me. But on the other hand, I still did rook, but I did not want to excha nge the
not feel sufficiently confident, and I was queens. This is why I settled for the third
looking for a conven ient opportun ity to possibil ity.
76 In Jazz Style
27 '6'h3+ Iitt g 7
28 ..ixfS? ..ixa2+ !
29 litt x a2
29 1itt a 1 ? :hB.
29 . . . .c4+
30 Iitt b 1 .h4
3 1 '6'e3
I thought that it would be hard for Black to
defend, seeing as his king is exposed , and
in the midd legame the presence of oppo
site-colour bishops should strengthen the
attack. But this assessment is incorrect - I
missed the fact that Black, by placing a rook
on the d-file, would prevent me from using 38 . . . :c8?
my rooks in the offensive. Also, the position After 3B . . . :eB! Black would have maintained
of the wh ite king is by no means secure, the balance - the threat of exchanging
especially after the capture of the e5-pawn . queens (39 . . . e 1 + 40 Iitt b 2 'ii'e 5+) would
31 . . . Itad81 have restricted Wh ite and not allowed him
When there are opposite-colour bishops time to develop an attack.
you should not cling on to material: the My opponent's last few moves in ti me
initiative is more important. Black happily trouble were poor and they again led to a
sacrifices his e5-pawn - it is merely h i nder lost position for h i m .
ing h i m .
39 .f4 f6? !
32 .xeS+
4 0 l:te3
What else?
The correct tactics! In the opponent's time
32 . . . ..if6 trouble you should avoid forcing variations,
33 .c7 lbd 1 + and go in for them only if they are winning.
34 nxd 1 'ii'f2 ! Of course, Lerner was expecting the check
Active defence! Black not only attacks the on g3 and he would have made his
bishop, but also threatens to play 35 . . . b3! . answeri ng king move instantly. But how
This explains m y next move . should he respond now? Here it is very easy
to become flustered and make some blun
35 ..ie6 ..ixb2 !
der, for example: 40 . . . '6'd5? 4 1 '6'g4+ and
I foresaw this counter-stroke by the oppo
42 'ii'x cB. The only acceptable move was
nent, and I thought (rig htly, i n all probability)
40 . . . 'ii' d 7.
that I should al low it.
40 . . . l:tc4?
36 Iitt x b2 '6'f6+
41 '6'g3+ '6'g4
37 Iitt b 1 '6'xe6
42 '6'd6
38 l:td3
It's all over! When your flag is about to fal l ,
all that you look for are checks and
captu res, and, of cou rse, Lerner simply d id
not have time to assess the consequences
(see diagram) of my quiet move.
In J azz Style
Here the game was adjourned . It did not last 47 ':'xc3 bxc3
long on the resumptio n . 48 a2 f4
42 . . . lIc3 49 b3 e3
43 'ii'e 7+ g6 50 xc3 f5
44 'ii'e 8+ f5 51 h4!
45 'ii'e 6+ g5 Black resigned .
46 'ii'x g4+ xg4
78
PART I I I
B e n iam i n B l u menfeld
is possible, retaining real chances of saving the preced ing moves Black did not advance
the game - Dvoretsky.] his a5-pawn , which so suggested itself.
Instead of this, N imzowitsch (after 45 a4) 51 cxb4 a4 52 b5+ Wh ite gives up a pawn to
played 45 ... b3, when there followed 46 open a path for his bishop; however, the
.i.xc6+ xc6, and the position appears to rook and bishop prove to be helpless.
be a dead draw: Black's passed a- and b 52 ... xb5 53 a3 c3 54 ::tb1 c4 55 f4
pawns are easily stopped , and on the xd4 56 f2 c4 57 e1 d4 58 e2 d5
kings ide it is impossible to break throug h . 59 f3 b7 60 l:te1 c4+ 61 f2 b2 62 f5
The game continued : 4 7 g5 :a7 4 8 l:. b 2 . I n exf5 63 e6 c6 Wh ite resigned .
blocki ng the black pawns, i t would be The combi nation carried out i n the game
dangerous to stick to purely waiting tactics. shows just how many dangers were lying in
For example: 48 f3 l:[b7 49 g3 a4 50 wa it for Wh ite in this seemingly harmless
.i.a3 b2! 51 l:txb2 l:tb3! 52 l:[xb3 cxb3 53 position . Therefore N i mzowitsch correctly
'iit f3 b5 54 e3 b2 55 xb2 c4 56 d2 decided that the conti nuation chosen by h i m
'iit b 3, and Black wins the bishop. would give t h e best practical chances .
48 ... l:tb7 49 f4 [Nimzowitsch points out
that after 49 a3! he would hardly have Kmoch - Yates
been able to break through - Dvoretsky]
San Remo 1 930
49 ... c8. Apparently with the aim of trying
to penetrate with the rook on the h-file;
therefore it was natural for Wh ite to make
the following reply, which Black provoked
with the aim of diverting the wh ite king from
the queenside and carrying out his plan ned
combi natio n .
50 g3
does not allow Black any chances, White Wh ite could have immediately decided the
embarked on a combination. There followed : game with a simple combination : 41 CfJg6+
32 CfJe7 xe6 33 CfJxg8 xc4! (White was hxg6 (4 1 . . . lixg6 loses a piece) 42 'iWh4+
obviously hoping for 33 . . . xg8 34 f4). etc. I n stead of this, probably without any
As a result of the combination White thoug ht, Wh ite played 41 CfJh5, which is
remai ned the exchange up, but Black seemi ngly also very strong.
obtai ned defi nite cou nter-chances, since on The game conti nued 41 . . .lie5! (4 1 . . . lixg3
the q ueenside he had acquired mobile 42 i.. x d4+ e5 43 l:[xe5 etc. was bad for
pawns, supported by his two bishops. In the Black) 42 'it> h 1 [the position would still have
end Black even won . been won after 42 :e 1 ! - Dvoretsky]
42 . . . xc3 ! 43 l:[xe5 i.. x e5. Now Wh ite has
From this it can be concluded that, if you
a queen for rook and m i nor piece , but his
have a sufficient advantage, you should
attack on the kingside has evaporated ,
choose continuations where the win is
whereas Black can develop active play. I n
achieved without counterplay for the
the e n d Wh ite even lost.
opponent.
In connection with this example the fol low
The following conclusion, which is not so ing general comment can be made. When
absu rd , can also be drawn : if there is a an attack concludes with a gain of
choice between two continuations - one,
material, it is as yet too early to celebrate
giving a decisive positional advantage,
victory. Often in such cases the entire
with an equal balance of forces, and
situation changes, and pieces, which
another, giving roughly the same advan
earlier were systema tically placed for the
tage but with unequal material (as in the
conducting of the attack, after the attain
given example: rook and knight against
ing of the goal may now be misplaced, as
two bishops), it is better to choose the
play has switched to another part of the
first continuation. With an equal balance
board, where the opponent has more
of forces the methods of attack and
forces or they are better placed. There
defence have been better studied, and so
fore you should be especially careful at
here there may be fewer surprises.
critical moments, when win of material is
possible, and carefully weigh up whether
Yates - Ahues it is worth gaining a ma terial advantage if
Scarborough 1 930 this worsens your position.
43 . . Jlc3+ 44 b2 lIb3+ 45 c2 .:tc3+ 46 I t i s well known that the endgame with rook
d2 .:td3+ 47 e2 .:tc31 (47 . . . nxd4 48 'Wc5 and knight against rook is d rawn . The
was bad ) 48 d2 nd3+ 49 c2 ':'c3+ 50 presence of the black pawn should not
d2 .:td3+ Draw. make any d ifference . Fahrn i is an experi
I ndeed , Wh ite can not achieve anything, for enced enough master to avoid doing any
example: 5 1 e2 l:tc3 52 'Wc5 .:tc2+ 53 d 1 thing really stu pid . It would appear that it is
b3 54 d5 exd5 55 'Wxd5 ':xh2, and if 56 not worth wasting time by playing on.
'Wxc4 , then 56 . . . b2, while if 56 c1 there But Rotlewi decided to play o n , since he
follows 56 . . . :c2+ 57 b 1 c3! , and it is now saw a practical chance, provided precisely
Wh ite who has to seek a draw by perpetual by the fact that Black had a pawn .
check. Later the position in the next diagram was
reached .
Whereas cool-headed conversion of an
advantage in a winning position and
presence of mind in a lost position are
typical of most experienced players,
comparatively more often one observes
a weakening of attention and will to win
in obviously drawn positions. I n his book
on the 1 927 New York tournament, Alekh ine
criticised Rudolf Spiel mann for the fact that
in certai n games he agreed a draw, al
though he had practical chances, albeit
minimal, of wi nning.
As confirmation that a tenacious striving for
victory can have a favourable outcome even
in a drawn position , I will g ive the following
example. Black made the natu ral move 79 . . . a3, after
which there followed a study-like fi nish: 80
Rotlewi - Fahrni f7 W h 6 (if 80 . . Jh 1 , then 81 d5! is
Carlsbad 1 9 1 1 decisive) 81 g8! Black resigned . It is
curious that, had it not been for Black's
pawn , he could have saved hi mself by
playing for stalemate with . . J Ig 1 .
Vlad i m ir Vu lfson
W Of course,
e are often faced by such a question . on e6, Tal effectively condemned it to being
a ready-made solution exchanged for a white knight.
does not exist - everything depends on the 10 c3 a5
specific ci rcu mstances. We can learn to In such positions one cannot al low b2-b4 ,
understand this problem better if we see which secu res Wh ite the in itiative on the
how it was solved by other players, and q ueenside.
each time make a critical assessment of
11 ttJc4 ttJd7
their actions. It is interesting to follow how a
player's choice is influenced by his charac 1 2 ttJg5
ter and style of play, when as a conse
quence of individual preferences he is
unable to decide on the objectively best
course.
We will beg i n with an analysis of two games
by M i khail Tal . He played the first when he
was at the height of his powers, and the
second many years later (I hope you will
sense the d ifference). In the analysis of the
games we will do some training by seeking
replies to the d ifficult q uestions which
invariably arise on the way.
The g randmaster g ives the variation 2 1 In the game 22 . . . axb4 23 cxb4 i.e7 was
i.g2 'ii'xf2+ 2 2 h 1 iLe3 23 ltJh3 i.xc1 24 played . But why not place the bishop on d4?
ltJxf2 i.xb2 with the better endgame for It turns out that in the variation 23 . . . i.d4 24
Black. Another try, 2 1 i.d7 'ii'xf2+ 22 h 1 b5 ltJa5 25 .1i.g4! 'ii'xf2+ 26 h 1 i.e3 there
i.e3 23 i.xc6, is refuted by 23 . . . i.xg5! with is the defence 27 ltJh3! . Wh ite's position
the terrible threat of 24 .. .'iVf3+. relies on this tactical nuance .
However, it is possible to defend more In which version is it better to retreat the
strongly. Both the players and the commen bishop to e7, immed iately or after the pawn
tators overlooked the simple move 21 1:[d3 ! , exchange on b4? What is the d ifference? I n
taking control o f the important f3- and e3- each case, i f he wishes, Black obtains two
squares. After 27 . . . 'ii'xf2+ 28 h 1 ltJc4?! pieces for a rook, but it is important that the
(28 . . . h6? 29 1:[f3 e2 30 i.f1 , and the opponent should not be able to activate his
queen is trapped ) Wh ite has a pleasant forces. After 22 . . . iLe7!? 23 i.d7 for the
choice between 29 1:[f3 'ii'x b2 30 'ii'x b2 moment the c-file is closed and there is the
liJxb2 31 .l:!.xf7 ( 3 1 ltJxf7 ! is simpler) 31 . . . h6 excellent resou rce 23 . . . ltJb8 ! . However, the
32 i.e6 h8 (32 . . . hxg5 33 1:[f2+) 33 J::t xc7 conseq uences are far from clear: 24 i.g4
hxg5 34 l:txb7 and 29 'ii'f 1 'ii'x f1 + 30 i.xf1 'iWxg5 25 'ii'x g5 i.xg5 26 bxa5 ltJc4 27 i.c8!
liJxb2 (30 . . . ltJd6!?) 31 .u.d7. I n both cases it ltJxa5 28 i.xb7! (28 . . . ltJxb7 29 l:t b 1 ).
is doubtful whether Tal would have been [By playing 2B... c6! 29 iLcB (with the threat
able to save the game. As Dvoretsky of 30 :r:Lb 1) 29. . . iLe 7!, Black retains the
pointed out, Black's play can be improved better chances, since he prevents the
by 28 . . . iLe7! 29 ltJc3 ltJc4 , but in the ending invasion of the rook and securely blockades
arising in the variation 30 ltJd2 ! ? i.g5 3 1 the passed a-pawn. On the other, instead of
'iNf1 'iVxf1 + 3 2 ltJxf1 ltJxb2 3 3 J::t d 7 Wh ite's 24 iLg4 White can try 24 i.b5!? (24. . . c6 25
chances are better. bxa5 ltJ 6d7 26 a6!? bxa6 27 i.xa6)
Vasyukov also devised a reasonable idea, 24 . . . 'ii'xg5 25 "fixg5 iLxg5 26 bxa5 ltJcB 27
but even so it was much inferior to 21 lid 3 ! . f4! with a complicated and double-edged
21 iLf5?! 96 ending Dvoretsky.]
-
22 b4! 22 . . . axb4
The play has become much sharper. Tal 23 cxb4 i.e7
now has a choice of three or four possibili [I think that the simple 23. . . i.xb4 deserves
ties. Which of them is the strongest? serious consideration, with good compen
sation for the sacrificed exchange Dvo
-
retsky]
24 i.d7 ltJd4
Tal writes: 'Black does not want to simplify
the position and he avoids 24 . . . 'ii'xg5 25
i.xc6 'ii'xc 1 26 1:!xc 1 bxc6 27 xc6 iL d6,
continuing to devote his main attention to
the kingside. '
There is no point in going in for the variation
24 . . . ltJxd7 25 1:!xd7 'ii'x g5 26 'ii'x g5 iLxg5
27 :xc7 (stronger than 27 b5 ltJa5 or 27 a3
i.c1 ) 27 . . . ltJxb4 28 a4 b6 29 1:!b7, when
Wh ite obtains a dangerous passed a-pawn .
88 Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
decided on a d ubious combination , and knight, conced ing to his opponent the
finally, in search of attacking chances he advantage of the two bishops. However,
allowed the opponent to obtain two con here th is does not play a particular role.
nected passed pawns . Such was his style of 11 h3
play at that time!
11 'ife2 followed by ltJd2-c4-e3 was prefer
able.
Ribli - Tal 11 . . . i.. xf3
Candidates Tou rnament, Montpell ier 1 985 1 2 'ifxf3 'iVe7
Reti Opening
1 3 nad 1 ? !
1 ltJf3 d5
Another routine move, after wh ich Wh ite is
2 g3 i.. g 4
already in some d ifficulties . He should have
3 g2 c6 placed his pawn on a4, preventing not only
4 b3 ltJd7 the exchange of the dark-square bishops by
5 i.. b2 ltJgf6 1 3 . . . i.. a 3, but also 1 3 . . . b5, which deprives
6 0-0 e6 his knight of its lawful c4-square.
7 d3 i.. c 5 13 . . . b5!
8 ltJ bd2 0-0 14 h4?!
g e4 dxe4 One mistake often leads to another. Appar
1 0 dxe4 e5 ently Zoltan Ribli remembered about his
light-sq uare bishop and decided to bring it
out to h3. But in so doing he weakens the
g4-square .
Wh ite's primary objective is t o rearrange h i s
badly placed knight on d2. There is only one
route available to it: via f1 to e3. This means
that the correct move was 14 :fe 1 ! .
14 . . . as
The g4-square can not be occupied immedi
ately: if 14 . . .'iVe6 there is the reply 1 5 'ii'f5! .
Therefore for the moment Tal harasses his
opponent on the queenside, by preparing
1 5 . . . a4.
1 5 c3
In order to answer 1 5 . . . a4 with 1 6 b4. But
The structu re of the position is roughly the
allowing the opening of the a-file would have
same as in the previous game. The only
been the lesser evil , since now another
difference is in the placing of Black's
important square is weakened - d3.
queen's knight (there it stood at c6 ,whereas
here this square is occupied by a pawn ) and 15 . . . ltJb6
White's dark-sq uare bishop. These changes 1 6 1:[fe1 ?
are rather to Black's advantage. 1 6 "'e2 or 1 6 i.. h3 was better.
It is probable that on this occasion too Tal
will have to exchange his g4-bishop for the (see diagram)
90 Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
Black's last few moves have entirely fo 21 'ii'x e6? fxe6 22 xf2 l:tfxf3+ 23 li:)xf3
cused the opponent's attention on the l:txd 1 is completely bad for Wh ite. After 2 1
q ueenside - he has forgotten about possi xf2? 'ii'd 6 h e ends u p in a mortal p i n on
ble d iversions on the opposite side of the the d-file. The best chance of a defence was
board and incautiously weakened his f2- offered by 21 .te2 ! :xd2 22 :'xd2 .te3
point. This is immediately exploited by Tal , (22 . . . .tc5 23 'iVxe6 fxe6 24 .tg4) 23 .l:.d3
who, i t would appear, always remembers .tc5 (23 . . . 'ii'xf5!? 24 exf5 .tc5 25 .tf3 %lc8)
about the enemy king. 24 'ii'x e6 fxe6 25 .tf3 (or 25 l:tf3). Black is a
16 . . . 'ii'e 61 pawn up, but the win is stil l a long way off. It
is amazing how g reat the safety marg i n is in
1 7 'ii'f5 li:)g4
chess - despite Wh ite's nu merous errors,
1 8 .:te2 .l:.ad8 his position can still be held !
White's position is already d ifficult. If 1 9 [ The position can no longer be held! In the
.th3 Tal was intending 1 9 . . J:td3! (with the event of 2 1 .te2 the pretty stroke 2 1 . . . li:)d5!!
threat of . . Jbg3+) 20 g2 'ii'xf5 21 exf5 is decisive: 22 xf2 (22 'ii'xf2 li:)e3+ 23 g 1
li:)xf2 22 ::'xf2 .txf2 23 xf2 l::t fd8 24 e2 li:)xd1; 22 'ii'xe6 li:)e3+) 22. . . li:)e3 23 .txd3
e4 . [In the event of 19 .th3? there is a li:)xd1 +24 e2 li:)xb2 - Dvoretsky.]
simpler win by 1 9 . . . li:)xf2! 20 l1xf2 g6! - 22 xf2 'ii'd 6
Dvoretsky.] 23 .tc1 g6
1 9 .ttl lld3! 23 . . . 'ii'c 5+ followed by 24 . . ....xc3 was also
20 g2 li:)xf2 1 strong.
It should be said that Tal liked sacrificing two 24 'ii' g 5 f6!
pieces for a rook. So that the previous Before the f-file is opened , the wh ite queen
game, i n which completely the opposite must be d riven away. 24 .. .f5 is unconvinc
balance of force a rose, is rather an excep ing: 25 g2 l:txf3 26 xf3 "'d3+ 27 f2
tio n . fxe4+ 28 g 1 (Tal) 28 . . . e3 29 'ii'g 4! (weaker
.txf2 is 29 'ii'x e5 li:)d7! 30 'ii'e 6+ g7) 29 . . . li:)d7!?
21 lbf2
(29 . . . e3 30 'ii'e 6+ with a d raw) 30 li:)e4! e2!
Can White somehow set up a defence? 31 :e1 l:tf1 + 32 g2 l:txe 1 33 'ii'e 6+ , and
the battle ends in perpetual check (Dvo
retsky).
Does it pay to sharpen the Play? ttJ 91
venomous, but in recent times for some 1 9 . . . tbf6 20 .i.xg6!? hxg6 2 1 'iVxg6+ h8 2 2
reason it has not been employed . fS with a powerfu l attack). B u t t h e compen
11 . . . 'iVa5 sation for the pawn is hardly sufficient. Black
Black has decided to play on the kingside, probably does better to reject the pawn
and it is not clear why he moves his q ueen sacrifice in favour of 1 8 . . . tbg7!? 1 9 fxeS
to the queenside. If he was going to develop dxeS.
his queen at as, he should have done this a Petrosian wants to preserve his knight from
move earl ier, when , firstly, there was not the exchange and so he does not hu rry to take
reply .i.d2, and second ly, he would have decisive action. However, the opponent
retained the option of castling on the gains time to strengthen his position .
q ueenside. 17 . . . tbf6
1 2 .i.d2 tbe8 1 8 tbg5
1 3 tbg3 f5 The knight is very strongly placed here,
14 exf5 tbxf5 since the attempt to d rive it away by . . . h7-
Black has a d ifficult position after 1 4 . . . .i.xfS h6 leads to a weakening of the kingside.
1 S tbxfS tbxfS 1 6 'if c2 . 18 . . . ':ae8
1 5 'ii'c2 ! g6 19 f3 !
1 6 0-0 .i.d7 A typical Petrosian move . Having taken
It is important to note that, in contrast to the control of the e4- and g4-squares, he is
King's I ndian Defence, Black's knight can ready at a convenient moment to play g2-
not go to d4 - the square is defended by the g4, depriving the enemy pieces of the fS
white pawn. point.
19 . . . tbg7
20 g4!
17 tbe4
1 7 f4! ? suggested itself, in order to open up
the position and exploit the power of the two Of course, the ex-world champion prevents
bishops. Possibly Wh ite was concerned the exchange of bishops by 20 . . . .i.fS plan ned
about 1 7 . . . tbxg3 1 8 hxg3 e4!? ( 1 8 . . . exf4 1 9 by the opponent. All the black minor pieces
.i.xf4, i ntend ing ':ae1 and at some point are now shut out of play, and yet for the
.i.xg6) 1 9 .i.xe4 tbg7! ( 1 9 . . . .i.fS 20 g4 ! ? ; moment the situation remains unclear. For
Does it pay to sharpen the Play? ttJ 93
complete happiness White still needs also The answer is clear: in Black's favour, of
to cramp Black on the queenside with a2- course. In cramped positions you should
a4. exchange pieces! I think that after 26 . . . 'ii'x b6!
20 . . . 'ifa4 (27 'ifa2 Wb2 ) he would have retai ned
Borislav Ivkov misses an excellent chance to excel lent drawi ng chances.
complicate the play, pointed out by Petrosian: But now remember the situation before
20 . . . b5! 2 1 cxb5 c4 22 xc4 xb5. Wh ite's 1 7th move. I should like to ask: have
21 'ifb31 : b8 Petrosian's subtle manoeuvres been justi
22 .i.e2 1 'ifaS fied? Wouldn't it have been simpler, by
playing 1 7 f4! ? , to immediately 'cut the
23 a 4
Gordian knot'?
Thus, Wh ite has also succeeded in restrict
ing the opponent's possibil ities on the [At any event he should have struck in the
queenside. But even now the battle is not centre, without waiting for the opening of
yet over. lines on the queenside: 25 f4! (instead of 25
a5 ?!) 25. . . exf4 26 :'xf4 or 25. . . b5 26 axb5
23 . . . 'ife7
axb5 27 fxe5 dxe5 28 .i.e3 with advantage
24 h3 to White - Dvoretsky.]
White has to support the g4-pawn , to
26 . . . lIxb6?
prepare f3-f4.
27 'ifa3
24 . . . a6
Wh ite switches his queen to the kingside for
an attack, whereas the black queen lacks
any prospects .
27 . . . Wd8
28 'ife1 We7
The rook on its own cannot do anyth i n g , and
it is q u ickly driven off the second rank.
30 d3 e8
3 1 e1 lIb3
32 .i. e2 :b6
The prophylactic work has been success
fu lly accompl ished . There now follows what
is effectively the fi rst active move in the
game, and Black's position immed iately
collapses.
2S aS
33 f4! h6
Otherwise White would have had to reckon
34 fxeS WxeS
with 25 . . . b5, and after the capture on b5 with
the c-pawn - . . . c5-c4. 3S 'ii' x eS dxeS
2S . . . bS 36 ttJe4 hS
26 axb6 37 a3
What do you th ink, with wh ich piece should It is time to gather the harvest.
Black captu re on b6? In whose favou r is the 37 . . . ttJxe4
exchange of queens? 38 .:txf8+ 'iit xf8
94 Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
39 i.xe4 b3
40 i.xe5+ e8
41 'uf1
Black resigned .
Tsariov - Vu lfson
Moscow 1 989
Sicilian Defence
1 e4 e5
2 tbe3 tbe6
In view of my retarded development, it
3 f4 e6
would be good to strike a blow in the centre,
4 tbf3 d5 by advancing the c-pawn . The pawn on b4
5 d3 slightly h inders the realisation of this idea.
Apparently my opponent was satisfied with Even so, 11 c4 bxc3 1 2 bxc3 , i ntending 1 3
the endgame after 5 . . . dxe4 6 dxe4 . I was c4 , was q u ite possible. My opponent found
aiming for more complicated play. a more cun n i ng way of carrying out this
5. . . tbf6 plan.
1 1 a3!? bxa3
6 e5 tbd7
1 1 . . . a5 1 2 axb4 cxb4 came into considera
7 g3 b5!?
tion . However, after 1 3 i.e3 (weaker is 1 3 c4
Usually this advance has to be prepared ,
bxc3 1 4 bxc3 i.a6) White would have stood
but here there is an opportun ity to carry it
better.
out i m med iately.
1 2 bxa3!
8 i.g2 b4
I had only reckoned on 12 l:txa3 'it'b6 1 3 c4
9 tbe2 g6?!
d4 with u nclear consequences.
It would have been better to continue i n the
12 . . . i.a6
same spirit: 9 . . . a5 and then . . . tbb6. But it
1 3 tbg5!
seemed important to me to halt the wh ite
pawns on the kingside. Another strong move . It transpires that if
1 3 . . . i.e7 there follows 14 c4! i.xg5 1 5
1 0 0-0 h5
cxd 5 ! . Therefore Black defends his knight on
The standard plan for Wh ite i n such posi
c6 .
tions involves the preparation of an offen
13 . . . 'fII e 7
sive on the kingside: h2-h3, g 3-g4 and at
some point f4-f5 . However, i n the g iven 1 4 e4!
instance he also has another very promising Th i n k what happens in the event of the
pla n . Try to fi nd it. pawn sacrifice being accepted.
If 14 ... dxc4, then 1 5 'iVa4 cxd3 16 tbc3. For
example: 1 6 . . . d2 1 7 'fIIx a6 , or 1 6 . . . i.b7 1 7
tbb5 followed by 1 8 tbe4.
All this looks extremely dangerous, but the
Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
CD 95
defence can be improved . Black should not 'ii'f3! with irresistible threats.
take the second pawn - it is better to play To be honest, I did not see the pawn
immediately 1 5 . . . i.b7! 1 6 dxc4 tLlb6 1 7 'iVc2 sacrifice, whereas my opponent saw it and
tLld4, reta i n i ng a defensible position. conscientiously tried to calculate it. But he
I preferred to keep the position closed , got bogged down in the mass of variations
which , alas, did not get Black out of serious and in the end he decided not to risk it. 'I felt
difficu lties. that I should play this, but I couldn't
14 . . . d4? calculate it fully', he explained after the
game. 'But why calculate it fully?', I asked in
surprise. ' If such an idea had occu rred to
me, I would defin itely have sacrificed . '
Having decided not to risk the sacrifice, my
opponent easily persuaded h imself that he
would win after 1 5 'it'a4 .
[And he was right - in this way White does
indeed achieve a significant advantage, by
simple means, without resotting to risk.
From the practical point of view the decision
taken by White is the most advisable -
Dolmatov.]
1 5 'it'a4 i.b7
1 6 :r.b1 tLlb6
17 'iWb5 nb8
My hopes were based on the lack of active
Black has to cover his gaping wound - the
possibilities for two of the white pieces - the
b-fi le.
knight on e2 and the bishop on c 1 . But such
18 tLle4 tLld7
possibilities appear after the positional
pawn sacrifice 1 5 f5. Another way of Otherwise the c5-pawn cannot be de
developing Wh ite's in itiative is 1 5 'it'a4 i.b7 fended .
1 6 J:.b 1 . 1 9 tLlf6+1
Thus, there is choice of two conti nuations. Wh ite's calculations were based on th is. I n
Which of them would you prefer? It is rather the event o f 1 9 . . . tLlxf6 h e has the decisive
difficult to calculate the variations fu lly 20 i.xc6+. But he clearly underestimated
(especially in the f4-f5 variation). At some my reply.
point you have to trust your intuition . 19 . . . cJ;d8!
1 5 f5!? gxf5 1 6 tLlf4 . The threat is 1 7 tLlxe6, 20 . . . i.a8 is threatened , and the knight at e2
after which the king can no longer be saved . is still out of play. And no forced win is
The best defence is 1 6 . . .l: h6. Then 1 7 apparent: 20 tLlxd7 xd7 ( i ntend ing 21 . . .
tLlxf7 ! ! cJ;xf7 1 8 tLlxe6! ':xe6 1 9 'iVxh5+ cJ;g7 i.e7) 2 1 i.xc6+? 'it'xc6 2 2 'iWxc6+ cJ;xc6.
( 1 9 . . . cJ;g8 20 i.d5 with the threat of 2 1
20 i.d2 i.a8
'i'g6+; 1 9 . . . :g6 2 0 i.d5+ cJ;g7 2 1 i.h6+!
20 . . . tLlxf6? is bad because of 21 i.xc6 ! .
:txh6 22 'ili'f7+) 20 i.d5! 'iVxe5 2 1 i.h6+!
with a mati ng attack. And if 18 . . . cJ;xe6 21 'iWa4 nxb1
(instead of 1 8 .. JIxe6), then 1 9 i.d5+ cJ;e7 22 l:txb1 tLlxf6
20 i.g5+ e8 21 i.xh6 is strong, as is 1 9 23 exf6 i.d6
96 Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
Adden d u m
ently. What mainly attracts h i m in chess is A propens ity for pretty moves
the creative search, the intellectual strug
If a player fi nds a spectacular and seem
gle, and only then the resu lt. A read ing of the
book pa ints the author i n a very attractive ingly tempting possibility, he is often hypno
light (I am sure that it is authentic, even tised by it and can no longer resist the
though I do not know Grigory Konstantinovich temptation. Probably all of us have lost
- an experienced reader cannot be de poi nts for this reason . I can not refrain from
ceived ! ) - a vivid , u ncompromising, self showi ng you a memorable example from
confident chess player, and an erud ite and one of my own games.
at the same time non-trad itional thinker.
I couldn't help beg i n n i ng with my overall Dvoretsky - Peev
very favourable impression of Sanakoev's European Champions Cup, Plovd iv 1 975
book, but it wasn't for th is that I 'picked up
my pen' (an obsolete phrase in the compu
ter age ! ) . The topic of my a rticle is certai n
critical aspects o f chess mastery, thoug hts
about which were in itiated by my read ing of
the book.
After choosing the games which to me
seemed the most noteworthy, I invited
grandmaster Zviag intsev to study them .
Vad im's task was an independent search for
difficu lt decisions at critical moments (of
course, without movi ng the pieces on the
board ), and someti mes also the playing of
that most tense episode of a game, when its
outcome was being decided . In many
instances the conclusions of the experi Wh ite's position looks to be won . True, 29
enced correspondence player and the young l:r.b6? 'ii'c 5+ is pointless, and 29 c4 'iVa6 ! or
over-the-board g randmaster did not coin 29 "a8+ c7 30 "a5+ b6 is unconvincing.
cide - such situations were additionally However, 29 :f4! is very strong , with the
analysed , discussed and interpreted. terrible threat of 30 :tc4 . If 29 . . . lbd6, then
I should mention that a deep exami nation of 30 .l:[ b6 "c5+ 31 :d4 and there is noth ing
even the most conscientious analysis is that Black can move . And in the event of
bound to reveal questionable aspects or 29 . . . .l:.d2 the following pretty variation is
even mistakes - chess is just too compli possible: 30 "a8+ c7 31 l::t x b7+ ! d6! 32
cated . Therefore the followi ng critical analy lId7+!? (32 lbe4+! is simpler) 32 . . . 'iVxd7 33
sis of episodes from Sanakoev's book of 'iWa3+ e5 34 lbxd7+ xf4 35 'iVc1 e3 36
games is not at all an attempt to cast doubts lbe5 and wins.
on it. I n my time I have written in similar U nfortunately, I was tempted by a showy
fashion about excellent books by Jan move plan ned in advance, which proved on
Timman and John Nunn, which beforehand verification to be not very effective.
I had used for training pu rposes with Sergey
29 lbd7?!
Dolmatov. Books with less interesting con
tent simply wouldn't have come with in our I nto a th ree-fold attack!
field of view. 29 . . . l::t xd7 1
1 00 Thoughts about a Book
The only defence. 29 . . ....xd7 30 "'a8+ is undoubtedly have to be taken seriously, but
bad , if 29 . . .'.txd7 there is the decisive 30 even so I th ink that the commentator
lIxb7+ 'iii> e 8 31 lIxf5 ! , while if 29 . . . lLld6, sign ificantly exaggerates the danger threat
then (if there is noth ing better) 30 lLle5 'iWd5 ening h i m .
3 1 lLlxf7. F o r example, after t h e natural 2 4 . . .llc8!?
After the move in the game I real ised that Sanakoev g ives 25 hxg6 fxg6 26 'iWh3 i.d5
the plan ned 30 "'a8+ 'iii> c 7 31 "'xh8 leads to 27 'iii> b 1 ! , preparing 28 lLlxd5 . However,
an i mmed iate draw: 31 . . ....c5+ ! (but not Black gains the advantage if instead of
31 . . . l:.d2? 32 'iWe5+ and 33 11f2 ) 32 'iii> h 2 26 . . . i.d5?! he chooses the sharp 26 . . . b4!
"'d6+ 33 'iii> g 1 "'c5+ 34 11f2 l:td2 35 ]1f1 27 'iWxe6+ 'iii> f8 28 l:tc4 bxc3 ! 29 ':xc7 cxd2+
lLlg3 36 "'f6 lLlxf1 37 "'xf7+ 'iii> b 8 38 'iii> x f1 30 'iii> x d2 ':'cxc7 31 'iii> c 1 i.c5 32 'ii'x e5 'iii> g 8.
l:.xf2+ 39 "'xf2 "'xc3 . But the attempt to Generally speaking , the knight is well
play on with 30 l:.xfS?1 gxfS 31 "'a8+ 'iii> c 7 placed at c3 - from here it prevents Black
32 "'xh8 proved even worse in view of 32 .. . from conven iently supporting his e6-point
'iWe4 1 . After 33 1:.f1 %:td2 34 'iWg7 peace was by . . . i.d5, and in some cases it can go to
nevertheless concluded , although Black's e4 . Therefore 24 . . . b4 !? suggests itself.
position is now somewhat better. Sanakoev thinks that after 25 lLld 1 l:tc8 26
lLle3 Wh ite has a clear adva ntage (i ndeed ,
any min ute now the knight will jump to g4).
An exami nation of Sanakoev's games
showed that he is characterised by this But why let the knight out from d 1 ? I n stead
tendency to choose pretty moves , even if of 25 . . . .:tc8 Black has the Significantly
this is sometimes at the expense of their stronger 25 . . . i.c5 ! ? 26 'iVh3 i.d5. Now the
qual ity. rook is intending to go to c8 , in the event of
27 hxg6 fxg6 Black has everyth ing safely
Engel - Sanakoev defended , in reply to lLle3 there always
follows . . . i.xe3, while the consequences of
An niversary Tou rnament of the
27 i.xb4 i.xb3 (27 . . . i.xb4 28 l:txb4 l::t c8
Romanian Chess Federatio n , 1 976-79
also comes into consideration) are uncer
tai n . It is clear that Black has the right to go
i n for this.
25 . . . i.e 7! would appear to be even stronger.
Wh ite can not play 26 lLle3? i.xg5, and 26
hxg6 ':xd2! is also unfavourable for h i m . But
after 26 i.e3 the knight can no longer go to
e3, and Black calmly plays 26 . . J::tfd8 ,
i ntending 27 . . . l:txd 1 + or 27 . . . 'iWa5 .
T h e above considerations are prosaic. By
contrast, the solution found by Sanakoev
was highly spectacu lar.
24 . . . i.a3 ! ?
Now White loses immed iately after 2 5
.:. 1 h 2 ? ':xd2! 26 l:txd2 'iWxc3 . If 25 bxa3
'Only an immediate counterattack can save Black was intending 25 .. J:txd2 ! 26 'iii> x d2
Black', writes Sanakoev. Wh ite is i ntending l:td8+ 27 'iii> c 1 'ii'x c3 28 'iii> b 1 lId2 29 'ii'c 1
25 'iWh3 followed by 26 hxg6. His th reats i.xf3 30 : 1 h3 11e2 with advantage. How-
Thoughts about a Book ttJ 101
ever, Wh ite's play can b e improved b y 30 would have hardly allowed his opponent 'off
hxg6! (instead of 30 l::t 1 h3?) 30 . . . iLxh 1 (in the ropes' so soo n . But what told here,
the event of 30 . . .fxg6 3 1 l:t 1 h3 Black no apparently, was the magic of a pretty move ,
longer has 31 . . . .:e2?? because of 32 l:txh7) forci ng h i m to convi nce h imself that after
3 1 gxf7+ 'itt xf7 32 l:txh7+, for example: other continuations Wh ite would gain the
32 . . . 'itt g 6 33 l:txh 1 e4 34 J:th6+ 'itt x g5 35 advantage.
I:txe6 e3 36 'ifg 1 + 'itt f4 37 J:te4+! 'itt xe4 38
'iVg4+ 'itt d 5 39 'ifd7+ with perpetual check. A. Zaitsev - Sanakoev
In the game there followed 25 lDb1 1! . Here 6th USSR Championsh i p , 1 963-65
Sanakoev resisted the temptation to again
play 'for brilliancy' : 25 . . . J:txd2? ! 26 lDxd2
'iVc3. In the event of 27 bxa3?! l:tc8 28 'ifd 1
l:td8! the game ends in a draw after both 29
'itt b 1 I:txd2 30 'ifc1 iLxf3 31 hxg6! (we have
already seen this position in our analysis of
the 25 bxa3 variation), and 29 hxg6!? l:txd2
30 gxf7 + 'itt f8 31 .l:txh 7 .l:txd 1 + 32 l:txd 1 .
Stronger is 27 'ifd3! iLxb2+ 28 'itt b 1 iL a 1 29
'iVxc3 iLxc3 30 lDe4 iLxe4 31 fxe4 - here it
is Black who would have to fight for a d raw.
25 ... iLc51 26 'ifh3 'ifc61 27 hxg6 'ifxf3 1 28
gxh7+ 'itt h8 29 'ifxf3 iLxf3 , and in the
endgame Black had an obvious advantage ,
which he successfully converted .
Zviagi ntsev also hit on the move 24 . . . iLa3. 25 . . . iLxh4
But he was not sure about his choice , since 26 .:t. h 1 iLxg3!
he calculated that Wh ite could force a draw, The exclamation mark is mine. Sanakoev
and he wondered whether instead he hi mself considers the move made by h i m to
should play the complicated position after be dubious. This is what he writes:
24 . . . b4 !? 'The temptation prove too great . . . I recal/ed
25 hxg6! ':xd2 ! that ''the wise man understands that it is
26 ':'xh7 'ii'x c3 ! simpler to deny himself a passion than to
27 :h8+ 'itt g 7 struggle against it afterwards" (Franc;ois La
28 I:t1 h7+ Rochefoucauld), but with the chance of a
sacrificial attack against Zaitsev, I thought
28 l:t8h7+ is just the same.
"No, I can 't chicken out!"
28 . . . 'itt x g6
'A s for the purely objective assessment of
29 ':'h6+ <3;g7 the manoeuvre . . . iLf6xh4xg3, 26. . . iLg5
The king can not move forward (29 . . . 'itt f5? was undoubtedly stronger. After the modest
30 'ifh3+ 'itt f4 3 1 I:t h4+ 'itt e 3 32 ':'e4+! iLxe4 reply 27 11xh5, by 27 . . . iLxd2 28 iLxd2 bxc4
33 fxe4+ and 34 'ifxc3), and so th ings end in Black would have gained the initiative on the
perpetual check. queenside in the absence of any serious
Of course, Sanakoev saw this variation and counterplay for the opponent, which would
gave it i n his book. He is a very combative have promised long months of very pleas
player and under other ci rcumstances he ant analysis in the range from 'better' to
1 02 Thoug hts about a Book
'much better'. The more critical 27 cxb5 30 :h2 h4 31 liJf1 bxc4 32 bxc4 J.xc4 33
would have allowed the pawn sacrifice J.xc4 l:r.xc4 34 'ii' b 3 :ec8 35 J.xf4 exf4 is
27 . . . h4! 28 bxa6 'ike 7 followed by . . . hxg3, bad for Wh ite.
obtaining an attack on the dark squares,
,
which would be not at all easy to parry.
A player's impression of a game he has
played usually depends strongly on its
result. If Sanakoev had won (as we see, he
had every basis for doing so), the piece
sacrifice would probably have been awarded
two exclamation marks. But he lost, and
hence the dou bts about the qual ity of the
decision take n .
I n fact, after Sanakoev's recommendation
26 . . . J.g5 27 l:r.xh5 J.xd2 28 J.xd2 bxc4 29
bxc4 Black has a good game, but noth ing
more. And yet the piece sacrifice was not
only tempti ng, but also very strong . You only
have to look at the position arising with in 2- 30 . . . h4
3 moves, and the sure feeling is that Black's Sanakoev makes no comment on this
attack is fu lly correct. move, although it is not self-evident. After
In such situations, 'correspondents' aim to 3 1 :g 1 the queen will temporarily have to
analyse variations as deeply and accu rately retreat - there is no longer a check at h4.
as possible. But over-the-board players, However, then there follows . . . h4-h3 and
who have neither a sufficient reserve of the h4-sq uare again becomes accessible to
time, nor the right to move the pieces on the the q ueen .
board , are forced , by contrast, to cut short Black had another tempting attacking possi
their calculation at the first conven ient bil ity, suggested by Zviagi ntsev: 30 . . . bxc4 !
moment and evaluate the position reached . 3 1 bxc4 J.xc4 32 liJxc4 :xc4 33 'ii' b 3 :ec8 ,
This is why correspondence players are after which , in my view, neither 34 J.xf4
bound to be less good at making correct l:r.c2+ 35 J.e2 exf4 , nor 34 J.xc4 'ifg2+ 35
assessments than over-the-board experts - e3 'ifxh 1 36 J.b2 'ifh2 (and if 37 ':c1
simply, here they have less experience, ':xc4 ! ) leaves Wh ite any real hopes of
since they solve most of their problems saving the game.
analytically. 31 1:1g1 'ii' h 6
Of course, any observation of this sort, even 32 'ifb61
if in general it is correct, ca nnot be extended Wh ite has to prepare the king move to e 1 ,
to every eventual ity in l ife . For example, I which did not work immed iately because of
am familiar with the games of M i khail 32 . . . liJg2 + .
Umansky, another world correspondence 32 . . . h3
champion , and they are impressive pre
33 e1 1:1c51
cisely for their depth of strategy.
An excellent move, cutti ng off the q ueen
28 'ii' e 3 'ii'e 7 from the important e3- and f2-squares. If 34
29 f2 'ii'g 5 'ii'x d6 there follows 34 . . . 'ii' h 4+ 35 d 1 'ii'f2 ,
30 J.f1 and then . . . 1:1c5-c8-d8 .
Thoug hts about a Book ltJ 1 03
there things are not altogether clear. For Razuvaev - Bel iavsky
example, after 40 . . . f6! Sanakoev gives 4 1 47th USSR Championsh ip, Minsk 1 979
ttJe4+ g6 4 2 c2 bxc4 4 3 bxc4 h 1 'iV 44
.i.d3 ! , and now for some reason 44 . . Jbc4+?
45 'iVxc4 'iVxa 1 46 ttJg3+ etc. But I don't see
how Wh ite can checkmate his opponent
after the immed iate 44 . . . 'iVxa 1 .
The move in the game led to a hopeless
ending.
40 i.xc5 'iWxd6
41 i.xd6 h 1 'iW
42 c2 'iWh6
43 c5 'iWe3
44 a4!
Wh ite has both a material advantage (three
minor pieces for a queen) and a positional
advantage, which he successfully con Yu ri Razuvaev restricted hi mself to the
verted. immediate regaining of the pawn 1 8 ttJxe4,
which allowed Black to equal ise by 1 8 . . .
Calculation horizons i.xe4 1 9 'ii'xe4 'iWd5 ! . There followed : 20
'iVxd5 exd5 21 l:lfd 1 e6 22 f1 i.d6 23
i.xd6 Draw.
As has already been mentioned , it is natu ral The interposition of a rook move to d 1
for over-the-board players to aim to cut suggested itself. However, in the event of 1 8
short their calculation of variations as early l:r.fd 1 ? ! Black h a s a n excellent reply:
as possible. In this way they save time and 1 8 . . . 'ii'e 8! 1 9 lId7+?! g6, when 20 ttJxe4?
energy, but sometimes they delve i nsuffi is bad because of 20 . . . i.xf2+. The q ueen
ciently deeply into the position , overlook should be attacked with the other rook.
latent tactical or strategic resources, and as 1 8 .ucd1 ! 'iWe8
a result miss the strongest continuations.
After 1 8 . . . 'ii' b 6 1 9 ':'d7+ and 20 ttJxe4 the
What can be done: 'real life is, to most men,
in itiative remains with Wh ite.
a long second-best, a perpetual compro
mise between the ideal and the possible. ' 1 9 l:td7+ g6?
(Bertrand Russell). The natu ra l , but incorrect move . 1 9 . . . f8 ! is
stronger.
[After 1 9. . . f8! it is not clear that White has
much compensation for the pawn, e.g. 20
l:tfd1 e5. It seems dubious to assert that 1 8
l:r.cd1 is better than 1 8 ttJxe4 Translator.]
-
20 ttJxe4 e5
After calculating this far, Razuvaev rejected
1 8 l:r.cd 1 . But he was wrong!
21 ttJxc5 l:.xc5
22 l:[xg7+! xg7
Thoug hts about a Book ttJ 1 05
(but not 45 . . .1le2? 46 b7 .:I.cc2 47 .:I.xg5) 46 displays itself mainly in a situation where
b7 (a pretty draw results from 46 ':xg5 hxg5 there is a choice between roughly equ iva
47 b7 .:I.b3 48 l:[b6 ':xb6 49 cxb6 e3 50 b8'if lent possibil ities (in particular, in the choice
e2) 46 .. J:th 1 + ! 47 'itt g 2 ':b1 48 .:I.xg5 (of of a particular opening strategy). Of course,
course, not 48 l:[b6?? .:I.e2+ 49 'itt h 3 .:I. h 1 this is merely a scheme - in fact th ings are
mate) 4 8 . . . .:I.xb7 4 9 %1 h 5 ':g7 a n d the far more compl icated . There are many
position is most probably drawn . borderl ine, problematic situations, and also
The actions of the two players can probably decisions are sometimes taken (and qu ite
be improved , but this is all rather compli rightly) on psychological grounds. 'An expe
cated and unclear, and in practice Black rienced player often chooses a certain
retains real chances of saving the game. continuation, not because he is sure that it is
Later I found another way of defending , one the best of all those possible, but exclu
which is perhaps more reliable. sively on the basis that it gives the best
34 . . . 'itt h 71 35 lDg6. Now 35 . . . 'ifc6? and practical chances' (Beniamin Blumenfeld).
35 . . . 'ifa7!? lead to variations wh ich have You can deliberately embark on a path ,
already been considered . There is also the known to be not the strongest, merely to
clever attempt 35 . . . .i.e7?! , hoping for 36 give the play a character which is desirable
t'iJxe7? ':xe7 37 'ifxe7 ':'a2+ 38 'itt h 3 'iff2 for you and undesirable for your opponent.
with an attack. Wh ite retains the advantage, The only q uestion here is the acceptable
by contin u i ng 36 'ii'f5! :a2+ (bad is 36. Ag8 measure of such psycholog ical play, and the
37 'ife6+ 'itt h 7 38 lDxe5! 'ifb7 39 'ifg6+ 'itt g 8 lim its which should not be overstepped.
40 lDf7 ) 37 'itt h 3 ':f2 38 lDf4+ 'itt h 8 39 'ifd 7 . It would be very interesting and usefu l ,
But Black c a n p l a y 35 . . . d51 36 ':g4 'iff6 3 7 u s i n g an analysis o f concrete examples, to
'i'xf6 gxf6 38 ':xd5 h5 3 9 lDxf8+ :xf8. follow how a player's style influences the
With material eq ual, White's position is decisions he takes. U nfortunately, as far as I
preferable, thanks to his two connected know, as yet no one has carried out such a
passed pawns, but even so a draw is the study - everything has merely been re
most probable outcome. stricted to speculative attempts to construct
various style classifications.
It is hardly right to call the idea carried out by
Sanakoev a trap. After all, as we have Sanakoev - Lungdal
establ ished , 'falling into the trap' has not
6th World Championsh ip, 1 968-7 1
been refuted and it was objectively Black's
best chance. No, essentially this is a
complicated combination with the sacrifice
of two pawns on h3 and f2 .
By embarking on the combination , Sanakoev
played in full accordance with his style - he
usually prefers a tactical way of solving the
problems facing h i m . The q uestion of chess
styles is very important and deserves to be
dwelt on for at least a short time.
It is logically clear that continuations which
are obviously the strongest, whether posi
tional or tactica l , should be chosen by a
player irrespective of his style of play. Style
1 08 <;t> Thoug hts about a Book
Wh ite stands better, of course, and the only main d ifficulty here is not in fi nding Wh ite's
question is how to extract the maximum move , but in assessing its consequences.
possible from the position. 18 . . . 'ii'xd4+
After 1 8 cxb4 ?! "ilxd4+ 1 9 1:!xd4 l:!c2 20 1 8 . . . bxc3 1 9 bxc3 'ii' x d4+ is less accu rate,
iL.d3 1:!xb2 21 :Lc1 d7 22 lIc2 l:!xc2 23 since Wh ite can choose between 20 l:.xd4
iL.xc2 White would have lost the greater part (as in the game) and 20 cxd4. Black can not
of his advantage. ' (Sanakoev). avoid the opening of the b-file: 1 8 . . . a5? 1 9
Let us try refining this variation with 1 8 'ii'x c5 ':'xc5 2 0 cxb4 axb4 2 1 l:.d4 o r 21
.xc5 l:txc5 1 9 cxb4 1:!c2 20 f2 (20 iL.d3 %:tbc1 is bad for him.
l:[xb2 2 1 1:!db1 lId2 22 b5 a5!) 20 .. J:txb2 2 1
19 l:lxd4 bxc3
l:[db1 l:txb 1 22 1:!xb 1 d7 2 3 lIc1 - here
Wh ite, who has seized the c-file and brought 20 bxc3 ':'c7
his king towards the centre, has a very 21 l:ldb4 iL.c8
sign ificant advantage. But Black can im
prove his defence by sacrificing a pawn with
20 . . . e7! (instead of 20 .. J:txb2) for the
sake of retaining control of the open file and
the 2nd rank. For example, 21 lIdc1 ? ! l:lhc8
22 l:txc2 :xc2 23 b3 d4! 24 l:ld 1 %:'xa2 (now
it is clear why Black did not place his king on
d7) 25 l:[xd4 iL.xg2.
A dangerous plan was suggested by grand
master Stefan Kinderman n : 1 8 .xc5 l:[xc5
1 9 l:[ac1 !? bxc3 20 b4! l:tc7 21 l:td3 . In the
bishop endgame arising after 21 . . . d7 22
l:[dxc3 l:[hc8 23 1:!xc7+ l:[xc7 24 l:[xc7+
xc7 Black faces a d ifficult defence. His
only hope: 25 . . . b6 (followed by 26 . . . iL.c6
or 26 . . . a5) is not hard to d ispel , by playing On reach ing this position , the over-the
25 a4! followed by a4-a5 and f2-e3-d4- board player would most probably terminate
c5. The pawn ending arising after 25 . . . ii.c6 his calculations and reject the plan begin
26 a5 iL.b5 27 iL.xb5 axb5 28 f2 is lost (the ning with 1 8 l:.ab 1 (as Zviag intsev did). In
reader can check this for h imself). fact, what has Wh ite ach ieved? Well , he has
seized control of the b-file, but on it there are
Black does better to avoid the exchange of
no targets to attack. On the other hand , his
rooks, by choosing 21 . . . d4! 22 ':xd4 e7
q ueenside pawns have become weak,
with an acceptable positio n .
wh ich ensures that the opponent has real
1 8 1:!ab1 1 1 counter-chances, even if (as is very prob
'A mysterious rook move' - a s Aaron able) Wh ite succeeds in winning the a6-
N imzowitsch expressed it. By defending his pawn. No, Sanakoev's decision does not
b2-pawn , Wh ite strengthens the th reat of 1 9 look convincing, it is somehow unstrategic!
cxb4 . This assessment can be corrected only by
'Such a continuation can be more difficult to continuing to study the position and fi nding
find than a forcing combination involving the a fu rther plan for White. In fact there is
sacrifice of several pieces', writes Sanakoev. noth ing u nexpected here , since , as N imzo
He is rig ht, although it seems to me that the witsch emphasised long ago, 'the entry into
Thoug hts about a Book ltJ 1 09
enemy territory, in other words into the 7th domi nation of the 7th rank, it would appear
and 8th ranks, forms the logical conse that Black can hope for a draw.
quence of play in a file. ' But it is q u ite Wh ite should not hu rry with the captu re of
impossible to establish in advance how the a6-pawn. It is far more dangerous to
dangerous for the opponent is the doubling interpose the check 24 ':'a7+ ! . For example,
of rooks on the 8th rank. Here a detailed 24 . . . d8 25 :tb8! (weaker is 25 ':'xf7? :tc7 ;
analysis is needed , which is not easy to a not altogether clear rook endgame arises
carry out, even playing by correspondence. after 25 i.xa6 i.xa6 26 ':'xa6 d7 27 l:tb7+
But at the board , with l i m ited time for l:tc7 28 l:txc7+ xc7 29 lla7+ c6 - the
thought, it is not worth even trying to passed d-pawn and the activity of Black's
calculate the variations accu rately - one king ensure him counterplay) 25 . . . l:tc7 26
has to rely on i ntuition. It would be interest :taa8 (th reatening an eternal pin on the 8th
ing to know - what does it suggest to you ran k after 27 i.xa6) 26 . . . a5 27 ltxa5 llb7 28
here? l:tba8, or 27 .. Jk1 + 28 f2 1:c2 29 e1 (but
22 l:tb8 ! not 29 .:taa8? c7 30 e1 1:xe2+ 31 xe2
Why doesn't Wh ite defend his c3-pawn? i.a6+) 29 . . . c7 (the th reat was 30 1:1a7 or
Probably, so as not to allow the opponent 30 11aa8 followed by 31 i.a6) 30 llb3 and
time for the following arrangement of his 3 1 l:ta7+ . I n this variation Black is appar
forces: 22 II 1 b3 e 7 23 llb8 (23 f2 is ently unable to disentangle h imself.
better) 23 . . . 1:d8 24 1:a8 d4 ! . In the event of 24 . . . i.d7 (instead of 24 . . . d8)
25 :tbb7 l:td8 Wh ite does best to play 26 a4 !
The tempting move 2 2 c4 would b e justified
after 22 . . . dxc4 23 l:txc4 l:txc4 24 i.xc4 d7 with an overwhelming advantage. 26 i.xa6? !
25 .ub8 l:.d8 26 lIa8 i.b7 27 :a7 and 28 is weaker: 26 . . . ':'a3! (26 . . . e8? 27 1:xd7
i.xa6. But Black is not obl iged to exchange l:txd7 28 i.b5; 26 . . . 1:1c1 +?! 27 f2 llc2+ 28
on c4 - 22 . . . e7! 23 cxd5 exd5 is stronger. i.e2) 27 i.e2 l:txa7 28 Iha7 e8 29 a4
l:tb8 30 a5 l:t b 1 + 31 f2 l:[b2 with a
22 . . . e7 probable draw.
23 l:ta8! 24 :b3 f6
Sanakoev consistently pursues his course. If 24 . . . i.d7, then 25 1:xa6 1:ec8 26 1:1aa3 .
In the event of 23 i.xa6?! ltd8(e8) he would Weaker is 25 l:txe8+ i.xe8 ( 2 5 . . . xe8) 2 6
have either had to agree to the exchange of i.xa6 11 a 7 27 ll b 6 llc7 , when 28 l:[ b 7 i s
bishops, which favou rs the opponent, or unfavourable in view o f 28 . . . l:txb7 29 i.xb7
give up his c3-pawn . i.b5! with the threat of . . . d7-c7.
23 . . . lle8 25 i.d3!
Let's consider 23 . . Jbc3 . An interesting Not immed iately 25 f2? fxe5 26 fxe5 l:tf8+
variation goes 24 i.xa6 %:te8 25 :a7+ (25 27 e3 :f5.
l:[bb8 i.d7) 25 . . .f8 26 i.xc8 (26 i.b5 lIe7 25 . . . fxe5
27 l:ta8 :tc7) 26 . . ..uexc8 27 l:[bb7 %:tc1 +
26 fxe5 h6
(27 . . . g8 28 h4 l:tf8 is also possible) 28 f2
27 f2
l:t1 c2+ 29 g3 .:t8c3+ 30 h4 g8! 3 1 f5!
(31 ':'xf7? ':'xg2) 3 1 . . . exf5 32 e6 (32 l:tb8+ Wh ite's advantage has become obvious
l:[c8 33 :taa8 g5+ 34 xg5 l:txb8 35 l::t x b8+ and su bsequently he convincingly con
..t?g7 with equal ity) 32 . . .fxe6 33 llxg7+ h8 verted it into a win .
(33 . . . f8 is worse because of 34 g5! ) 34 27 ... 11c5 28 e3 ltd8 29 d4 lla5 (29 . . . llc7
l:1xh7+ g8 - despite the enemy rooks' 30 ':'bb8) 30 1:bb8 d7 31 lla7+ c6 32
1 10 Thoughts about a Book
i.xa6 l:ta4+ 33 'Ot>e3 (33 'Ot>d3? i.xa6+ 34 29 l1xa6 l:!.fc8 30 1:tbb6 Itxc3 31 b5 i.xb5
1:txa6+ l:txa6 35 lhd8 l:txa2 ) 33 . . . d4+ 34 32 l::1 x e6+ 'Ot>f7 33 axb5 is qu ite probably not
cxd4 l::t a 3+ 35 'Ot>e4 i.xa6 36 lba6 ! l:txa6 lost.
37 l::t x d8 :xa2 38 l::t d 6+ 'Ot>b5 39 l:txe6 Zviagintsev suggested playing 23 .. .f6!? (in
tlxg2 40 'Ot>d5 Black resig ned . stead of 23 . . . l:te8). I will show some of the
Black lost without a fig ht. So what about our variations that we found together.
considerations regard i n g his hopes of
cou nterplay, and the 'unstrategic' nature of
Wh ite's decision - were these merely empty
words?
No, we based these on objective factors in
the position and therefore we have the right
to assume that Black could have defended
much more tenaciously. Here are some
considerations which will ease the search
for a plan of defence. Firstly, the loss of the
a6-pawn should not be fea red , especially if
at the same time the bishops are ex
changed . Secondly, it is important to pre
vent the wh ite king from making its way to
the centre.
A) 24 l:tbb8 l::t e 8 25 i.xa6 i.d7 26 l1xe8+
i.xe8, and if 27 l:tc8, then 27 . . . l:ta7.
B) 24 l:tb3 fxe5 25 fxe5 l::1 f8 ! , and the rook
restricts the mobil ity of the king , while also
creating the threat of 26 . . JH5 .
C) 24 i.xa6 l:te8 25 i.xc8 l:texc8 26 .uxc8
.ll x c8 27 l:tb7+ 'Ot>f8 28 exf6 gxf6 29 J:txh7
l:txc3 - in the rook endgame Black retains
real hopes of savi ng the game. The same
assessment appl ies to the position arising
after 25 l:tb3 fxe5 26 fxe5 i.xa6 27 l::t xa6
:ec8 (27 . . . <t>f7 ! ? ) 28 l:tbb6 l:txc3 29 J::1 x e6+
<t>f7 .
D) 24 i.xa6 l:te8 25 d3!? fxe5 26 fxe5
I n stead of the insipid 26 ... h6? Black should i.d7 (26 . . . l:txc3 27 ':a7+ is dangerous for
have tried 26 .. J:tf8 ! , intend ing 27 xh7 d4! Black) 27 l:txe8+ (27 l:ta3 l:tec8 28 J:tbb3
28 c4 ! (28 cxd4?? l::t c 1 mate) 28 . . . l:txc4 29 also comes into consideration) 27 . . . i.xe8
l:ta7+ <t>d8 30 h3 l:tc1 + ! ? 31 'Ot>h2 l:tc7 , and 28 l:tb3. Here Wh ite's advantage is sign ifi
of Wh ite's advantage only memories re cant, although the outcome still remains
mai n . If 27 h3 there is the satisfactory reply unclear.
27 . . . l:tf4 ! ? , and also the rook endgame Another possible approach to the defence
arising after 27 . . . h6 28 a4!? (28 xa6? (with which, to tell the truth, the analysis
i.xa6 29 l:txa6 l:tf5; 28 .ll b b8 l:te8) 28 . . . d7 should have beg u n ) i nvolves the captu re of
Thoughts about a Book ttJ 111
the c3-pawn in one version or another. Let Let us check 22 .. J:txc3 ! ? Now 23 i.. x a6
us retu rn to the position after Wh ite's 22nd suggests itself, consideri ng that after 23 . . .
move. <ltd7 24 1:[a8 :d8 2 5 l:Ibb8 the eternal pin
I n reply to 22 . . . 0-0 !? Sanakoev g ives the along the 8th rank ensures White a decisive
variation 23 1:[a8 i.. d 7 24 1:[bb8 1:[xb8 advantage (he brings his king up to the
(24 .. Jlcc8 25 l:txc8 i.. x c8 26 <ltf2 ! ) 25 centre and advances his passed a-pawn ).
.l:txb8+ 1:[c8 , and now not 26 l:t b7? i.. b5! 27 And the attempt by Black to disentangle
i.. x b5 axb5 28 1:[xb5 h5 (28 . . . g5!?) 29 1:[b3 h imself by 23 . . . <lte7 (with the idea of
l:tc4 30 g3 1:[a4 with cou nterplay, but simply 24 . . . .l:te8 and 25 . . . i.. d 7) ru ns into the tactical
26 l:txc8+! i.. xc8 27 <ltf2 , and the i nvasion of stroke poi nted out by Artur Yusupov: 24
the wh ite king decides the outcome. How l::t 1 b7+! ! , leading after 24 . . . i.. x b7 25 lixb7+
ever, Black can play 23 . . . .l:ixc3 !? 24 l:tbb8 and 26 l:tb8+ to the win of a piece. However,
nc6. Black is rescued by 23 . . . 0-0 ! , and if 24
i.. b5, then 24 . . . 1:a3, attacki ng the a2-pawn
and preparing to bring out the bishop to a6.
23 1:[a81 is stronger. The situations arising
after 23 . . . <ltd7 24 i.. x a6 .l:id8 25 .l:ibb8 and
23 . . . <lte7 24 .l:la7+! have already been
d iscussed above - they are defi nitely in
Wh ite's favour. The best defence is 23 ... 0-0 !
24 1:bb8 1:[c6. We have again reached the
position in the last diagra m . Evidently its
assessment also determines the objective
assessment of Wh ite's entire plan beg in
ning with 1 8 .l:.ab1 .
Let us sum up. The complicated (and,
probably, not faultless) analysis that we
have carried out once again illustrates the
How should this position be assessed? viabil ity of even the seemingly most d ifficult
Black has retained his extra pawn and no positions, but even so it does not cast
immed iate danger is apparent. But his doubts on the brill iant decision taken by
forces are tied down : it is not possible to Sanakoev on the 1 8th move . After a l l , the
disentangle hi mself by . . . lie8 (with the idea defence is very d ifficult, Wh ite everywhere
of . . . <ltf8 and . . . i.. d 7) because of the reply retains chances of success , and all the
i.xa6. He is forced to play . . . g7-g6 and same we have not found anyth ing more
. . . <ltg7, su bsequently restricting h imself to convincing for him .
waiting tactics. The q uestion (the reply to
which seems unclea r to me) is whether or
not Wh ite has sufficient resou rces to breach Conversion of an advantage
the opponent's defences. When examining the last two examples, we
In princi ple, after castl ing Wh ite is not have already begun discussing this topic,
obliged to sacrifice the c3-pawn - with 23 one that is very important for every player.
l1b3!? he retains the advantage. Therefore Just like another one, which is closely linked
it makes sense for Black to captu re the to it - the search for defensive resou rces in
pawn sl ig htly earlier. difficult positions.
1 12 Thoughts about a Book
51 l:tf8 <:J;; e 7 52 lIc8 : h 1 (th reatening mate without it, Black cannot combat the passed
on f1 ), Black forces the exchange of bishops pawns.
and gains a d raw. I hope you have seen that Sanakoev's
Therefore White should shut in the rook interesting book offers us a mass of food for
immed iately: 46 <:J;; g 1 ! , and only after thought. I have dwelled only on a few
46 J.f5 (with the idea of . . . J.g4 or . . . J.d7)
... episodes (another example of the author's
reply 47 d5! c5 (47 . . . cxd5 48 l::t x d5+ <:J;; e 6 49 play is exami ned i n the chapter 'Vi rtuoso
b5 is hopeless) 48 b5! (but not 48 bxc5+ defence'), but, of course, there are many
<:J;; x c5 49 d6 J.d7 50 l:td5+ <:J;; b 6 with a more games in the book, and in each of
probable draw). It is here that the tragi them the reader will defin itely find some
comic position of the black rook is felt - thing interesting and usefu l .
ltJ 1 15
PART IV
Attac k
M issed B ri l l ia n cy P rizes
M write
ark Dvoretsky's suggestion that I should sol idly and boringly (here, unfortunately,
about some spoiled 'master they are more correct about the latter). I
pieces' came at just the right time. should like to try and change this image for
Firstly, I have long been wanting to make a the better: 'he plays badly, but interestingly' .
more careful analysis of certain old games. And , final ly, perhaps my dismal experience
With the passage of time, the vexation will prove useful to others , although , I have
caused by missed wins has now subsided , to admit, I have learned l ittle even from my
and perhaps I will be able to look at them own mistakes.
more objectively and critically.
Yusupov - Rebel 8
Secondly, I am i ndeed a leading expert in
th is field ( I have in mind not the critical 1 3th match game, I schia 1 997
examination of my own games, but the 'active chess' (30 mins. for the game)
spoiling of masterpieces). Although d u ring Queen 's Pawn Opening
my career I have managed to create several 1 tt'lf3 tt'lf6 2 d4 e6 3 e3 c5 4 .1i.d3 b6 5 b3
games of which even now, after the strict .1i.e7 6 i. b2 0-0 7 0-0 d5 8 tt'le5 tt'lfd7 9 f4
test of time and chess analysis, I can be tt'lxe5 1 0 dxe5 .1i.a6 1 1 c4 tt'lc6 1 2 a3 dxc4
proud, nevertheless for each such game 1 3 bxc4 f5 1 4 exf6 .1i.xf6 1 5 tt'lc3 tt'la5 1 6
there are a dozen others , which up to a point 'iVc2
were excellently played , but then hopelessly
spoiled .
Th irdly, I can imagine what a 'pleasure' I
have afforded my trainer and co-author (of
course, book co-author, not co-author in the
spoiling of masterpieces) in observing my
numerous lapses. Now I can at least explain
that I was col lecti ng material for a book.
In addition , there is a mercenary aim. I fear
that some tournament organisers have
developed (alas, not without certain grounds)
an unfavourable impression of my chess
style. They possibly th ink that I play too
1 16 M i ssed Brilliancy Prizes
22 h4! ? was promising , in order to provoke Wh ite's broken pawn structu re does not
the reply 22 . . . h5 (22 . . . xc4 23 lLlxc4 d6 leave h i m any real hopes of more than a
is more tenacious), and now the same sharing of the point, which withi n a short
sacrifice is very strong: 23 lLlxf5! 'ii'xf5 24 time d id in fact occu r.
lLle5 d7 25 'ii'a 8+, although here Black
may have an opportun ity to bring the rook Yus upov - Ivanehuk
into play via h6.
Tal Memorial Tou rnament, Riga 1 995
An alternative knight sacrifice was sug Queen 's Gambit Accepted
gested by Thomas Wed berg : 22 lLle5 ! . After 1 d4 dS 2 e4 dxe4 3 e3 lLlf6 4 xe4 e6 5
22 . . . lLlxe5 23 dxe5 c6 (23 . . . d3? 24 lLld5! ; lLlf3 eS 6 0-0 a6 7 b3 lLle6 8 We2 exd4 9
23 . . . c5 24 'ii' a 8+ 'ii'd 8 25 'ii' b 7 with a .l:r.d1 d3 (9 . . . e7) 1 0 .l:r.xd3 We7 1 1 lLle3
decisive advantage) 24 l:td 1 d3 25 a3 d6?1 ( 1 1 . . . c5) 12 e4 lLleS 1 3 lLlxe5
xa3 (25 .. .f4 26 lLlc4 'ii'g 4 27 ':'a 1 xc4 28 xeS
xf8 :txf8 29 'ii' c7 a6 30 e6! is bad for
Black, but 25 . . . 'ifi>f7!? deserves considera
tion ) 26 'ii'a 8+ 'ii'd 8 27 'ii' x a3 .%:tf8 28 'ii'c 5
Wh ite, according to his analysis, retains the
advantage.
I deviated from the correction conti nuation
of the attack, for the reason that I was
tempted by the strateg ically tempting under
m i n i ng of the centre.
22 g4?
This move looks stronger than it really is.
22 . . . fxg4
23 'it'a8+ 'ifi>f7
24 'it'xe4 b4!
Black uses the respite g ranted to complete In trying to gain control of the b8-h2
her development as q u ickly as possible. d iagona l , the opponent has rather fallen
White wins a pawn , it is true, but his i n itiative behind in development. Of course, Wh ite
completely evaporates. must immed iately try to seize the in itiative.
2S .l:r.d1 .l:r.e8 1 4 f4!
26 'it'xg4 'it'xg4+ The right way! By sacrificing a pawn , I
The correct assessment of the position . I n further i ncrease my lead in development.
the endgame Black's king will b e safe and The slow 14 g3 would have allowed Black to
the two strong bishops fully compensate for obta i n a n acceptable position after 1 4 . . . d7
the small material deficit. 1 5 f4 .i.xc3 1 6 l:1xc3 c6. For example, 1 7
27 lLlxg4 .l:r.e4 e5 lLld5 1 8 .i.xd5 exd5 1 9 e3 d4 20 .i.xd4
28 h3 hS 'it'd7 with cou nterplay.
29 lLlgeS+ lLlxes 14 . . . xf4
30 lLlxeS+ 'ifi>e6 1 S .i.xf4 'ii'xf4
Here we can take stock. Black has gained 1 6 eS! lLld7
sufficient compensation for the pawn , and The point of the pawn sacrifice is that the
M i ssed Brilliancy Prizes ltJ 1 19
active 1 6 . . . tl)g4? is met by the simple 1 7 g3, strongest players in the world, qu ickly
and if 1 7 . . . 'it'f5 , then either 18 i.. c2 or 1 8 making his repl ies with an imperturbable
1:[f1 , and Wh ite's attack develops u n h i n appearance!
dered . 21 . . . tl)e5
1 7 1:[f1 1 After 21 . . . .l:.d8 the suggestion by Ljubomir
Again Wh ite finds the most energetic solu Ftacn i k is possible: 22 tl)f6+! gxf6 (if
tio n . Of cou rse, he could have retained an 22 . . . h8, then 23 :h3 h6 24 'it'd2 most
attack without any additional sacrifices: 1 7 simply decides matters) 23 'it'g4+ f8
1:[e3 ! ? 0-0 1 8 1:[f1 'it'd4 1 9 h 1 , but in this (23 . . . h8 24 :g3) 24 'it'b4+, and if 24 . . . 'it'c5
case the active queen i n the centre of the (24 . . . e8 25 :g3 is bad for Black), then
board would have seriously h i ndered his simply 25 'it'xc5+ tl)xc5 26 ':'xd8+ e7 27
offensive. After the move in the game White l:th8, with a big advantage for Wh ite i n the
evicts the queen from the centre , and the endgame.
loss of the e5-pawn is compensated by h i m 22 l:th3 tl)g6
opening li nes and g a i n i n g t i m e for the
22 . . . h6 was worse in view of 23 ':'xh6 gxh6
attack.
24 tl)f6+, destroying the castled position .
17 1:[ad 1 would have been a fundamental
Black brings his knight closer to his king , but
mistake, allowi ng Black to pa rry the attack
Wh ite has already concentrated nearly all
at the cost of a small sacrifice: 1 7 . . . 0-0 ! 1 8
his forces for the attack.
l:txd7 i.. x d7 1 9 1:[xd7 l::t a d8.
17 . . . 'it'xe5
1 8 1:[e3 'it'd4
Of course, 1 8 . . . 'it'c5 was weaker because of
1 9 tl)e4 . Pinn ing the rook is Black's best
chance. He would have lost q u ickly after
1 8 . . . 'it'd6? (the reply to 1 8 . . . 'it'c7 would
have been the same) 1 9 l::t xf7 xf7 20 ':'xe6
'it'd4+ 2 1 h 1 tl)c5 22 'it'f3+.
19 :td1 'it'a7
1 9 . . . 'it'b6 was bad because of 20 i.. x e6 ! !
fxe6 2 1 tl) d 5 'it'c5 22 b4.
20 tl)e4 0-0
21 h1
White does everyth ing correctly, but he
23 'ii' h 5
spends too much effort and time. The only
reason I did not manage to bring the game Short of time for the calculation of varia
to a logical concl usion was that I d id not tions, White tries to play rational ly. It was
trust my assessment and I tried to calculate already possible to launch a decisive attack
the variations al most to the end. The result with 23 l:txh7!? The immed iate acceptance
was that at the critical moment I simply did of the sacrifice loses, accord ing to analysis
not have enough time for thought. I should by Sergey Dol matov:
have had more faith in my powers, but try 23 . . . xh7 24 'ii' h 5+ g8 25 tl)g5 1:[e8 26
retaining your confidence and composure , 1:[f1
when opposite you is sitting o n e o f the A} 26 . . . tl)e5 27 :txf7 tl)xf7 28 'it'xf7+ h8 29
1 20 M i ssed Bri l l i ancy Prizes
exhaust all the possibil ities in the position , less finds new ways to strengthen the
o f course, but they show how strong Wh ite's attack. The threat is 27 1:1e7+ , for example:
attack is: 26 . . . 'ii'x bS 27 1:1e7+ 'iti>f8 28 'ii'x g6 'ii'x f1 + 29
A) 23 .. Jlhe8 24 tDd6+ ; 'iti>xf1 tDxe7 30 'ii'g 7+ with mate.
B) 23 . . . 'ii'x d2 24 f6! (24 'ii'e 6+ 'iti>f8 2S f6 26 . . . lId7
l:r.d7! ) 27 1:1e7+ tDxe7
B 1 ) 2 4 . . . gS 2S tDd6+ ! .l:.xd6 (2S . . . 'iti>g6 26 27 . . . ':xe7 28 fxe7+ (28 'ii'x dS+ ! ) 28 . . . tDf6 is
'iVe4+ 'iti>h6 27 tDfS+ 'iti>g6 28 f7) 26 'ii'e 7+ hopeless in view of 29 'ii'e S with the decisive
'iti>g6 27 'iVg7+ 'iti>hS 28 'ii'x h8+; threat 30 tDd6+.
B2) 24 . . . 'iti>g8 2S fxg7 ':h6 (2S .. Jbh2 26 28 fxe7+ 'iti>e8
'ii'e 6+ 'iti>h7 27 g8'ii' + ':'xg8 28 l:tf7+ :g7 29 29 'ii'e 5
'ii'fS+ 'iti>h8 30 .:tf8+ ':'g8 31 'ii'f6+ 'iti>h7 32 29 l:tf6 was probably even stronger.
l:tf7+ ) 26 'ii'e 7, and Wh ite wins;
29 . . . 1:1xe7
C ) 23 . . . tDdS 24 'ii'e 6+ 'iti>f8 2S f6 g6 26 :e2
30 'ii'x h8+
C 1 ) 26 . . . 'ii' b 6 27 'ii'g 4 'iti>f7 28 'ii' g S!?
(intending 29 1:[e7+ ), or immed iately 28
1:1e7+! tDxe7 29 fxe7+ 'iti>xe7 30 'ii'g S+ 'iti>d7
31 l:If7+ 'iti>c8 (31 . . . 'iti>c6 32 .l:.f6+) 32 'ii'e S!
with the decisive th reats 33 tDxa7+ and 33
1:1c7+;
C2) 26 . . . 'ii' b4 27 f7 'iVe7 28 'ii'g 4 'ii' h 4
(28 . . . tDe3 29 'iVxg6 or 29 'it'f4) 29 l1e8+!
1:1xe8 30 fxe8'if+ 'iti>xe8 31 tDd6+ 'iti>d8 32
'it'c8+ 'iti>e7 33 ':'f7+ 'iti>xd6 34 'ii'd 7 mate ;
C3) 26 . . . 'ii'x bS 27 f7 'ii'x e2 (27 . . . 'ii'd 7 28
'ii'e S! 1:1h7 29 'ii'e 8+) 28 'ii' x e2 tDab6 29
'ii'e S with advantage to Wh ite .
The conti nuation in the game is probably
just as good and in many cases it leads to a
simple transposition of moves. After making this move , Wh ite, who was in
23 . . . 96 moderate time-trouble, timidly offered a
If 23 . . . gS there follows 24 'ii'x eS with a draw, wh ich my opponent sensibly ac
strong attack. cepted . G reat was my astonishment, when
24 'ii'x e5 i n subsequent analysis I discovered that in
the concluding position I was a pawn up! I
24 dxeS!? 'ii'x d2 2S e6+ 'iti>f8 ! 26 e7+ 'iti>f7 27
had been material down for so many moves
exd8tD+ 'ii' x d8 28 'ii' b4! was also interest
and was so happy to regain it, that I did not
i n g , with the th reats of 29 tDd6+ or 29 b3.
even notice that I was now ahead ! Of
24 . . . tDd5
course, the sou nd extra pawn determines
25 1:1e2 'ii' b 6 the eval uation of the position, and after the
If 2S . . . 'ii'x bS 26 'ii'e 6+ 'iti>f8 27 f7 'ii'x e2 28 natural 30 . . . 'iti>d7 31 'ii' h 3+ 'ii'e 6 32 'ii'x e6+
'ii'x e2 with advantage to White. l:t.xe6 33 b3 even my tech nique should have
26 'ii' 9 51 sufficed for a w i n .
Although in time-trouble, White neverthe-
M i ssed Brilliancy Prizes ttJ 1 23
Yusu pov - Anand strai ned 1 6 . . . .:tcB ! ? was less in keeping with
Linares 1 99 1 the temperament of my opponent, who very
Queen 's Pawn Opening rarely avoids compl ications.
1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJf3 e6 3 e3 b6 4 ..i d3 ..i b7 17 ttJxh71 ttJxh7
5 0-0 d5 6 ttJe5 ttJbd7 7 f4 g6 8 b3 ..ig7 9 1 8 ttJxg6
ttJd2 e5 1 0 ..i b2 0-0 1 1 'Wf3 1 ttJe8 1 2 'Wh3 1 B ..i xg6 was weaker because of the simple
ttJd6 13 ttJdf3 .:te8 1 B . . . ttJfB .
18 . . . 'We7
1 B . . . .:tcB 1 9 .:tf3 c4 was risky in view of 20
ttJe7+ 'Wxe7 2 1 'iVxh7+ 'it?fB 22 ..ig6 :edB
23 .:tg3 or 23 ..ia3 with a strong attack.
However, possibly Black should have de
cided on 1 B .. .fS!? 1 9 ..ixg7 'it?xg7. Then 20
I1f3 ttJf6 21 I1g3 leads to a repetition of
moves: 21 . . . ttJfe4 (2 1 . . . ttJg4? 22 ttJeS! and
wins) 22 ..ixe4 ttJxe4 23 ttJeS+ ttJxg3 24
'Wxg3+ 'it?fB 2S ttJg6+, while 20 'Wg3 'Wf6 2 1
ttJeS+ 'it? h B 2 2 ttJd7 'Wc3 2 3 ttJeS leads to an
unclear position .
1 9 .1:.f3 ttJe4
1 9 . . . c4 was dangerous in view of 20 ttJe7+
Both players have practically completed the .:txe7 21 ..ixh7+ (2 1 'Wxh7+ 'it?fB 22 ..ig6 is
mobil isation of their forces and Wh ite weaker) 21 . . . 'it?fB 22 :g3 c3 23 ..i a3 fS 24
switches to determined actio n . However, :g6 with an attack.
Black too has prepared well for the oppo 20 ..i xe4 dxe4
nent's attack, by erecting powerful defen 21 :g3
sive l i nes. Possibly I should have preferred The rook joins the offensive against the
the restra ined 1 4 l1ad 1 ! ? , but I was already weakened position of the black king. Natu
seized by a creative mood . rally, the opponent tries to create counterplay
1 4 ttJg5 ttJf8 along the now open d-file.
1 5 dxe5 21 . . . l::t a d8
A standard exchange, opening the long 22 ':xd8 'Wxd8
diagonal for the bishop. 23 'Wg4
15 . . . bxe5 23 'WhS? is wrong , since after 23 . . . 'WdS
1 6 :ad1 ! (23 . . . 'Wd2 !? 24 h3 'ii'xc2) White has to reply
By including the rook in the game and 24 ttJeS, and 24 . . . l:te7 Ieaves Black with too
offering a piece sacrifice , Wh ite g reatly many defensive resources.
sharpens the position. It was not possible to 23 . . . 'Wd5
calculate all the variations, but it seemed to Here Black also had other possibil ities. I n
me that a couple of pawns and the in itiative the event o f 2 3 . . . 'Wd2 White would have
would provide sufficient compensation . played 24 h4 and if 24 .. :ii'xc2 , then 2S ttJfB
16 . . . f6 %:te7 26 ttJxh7 'ii'x b2 27 'Wg6 1:[f7 2B hS ..i dS
Anand accepts the challenge. The re- 29 h6 with a decisive advantage, while after
1 24 M issed Brilliancy Prizes
24 . . .f5 there would have followed 25 'it'h5 to demonstrate the correctness of his
'ife 1 + 26 'ifi>h2 'ifxg3+ 27 'ifi>xg3 i.xb2 28 attack.
tDe5 11e7 29 'it'd 1 with the better game. However, he has available another, stronger
23 .. .f5 came into consideration. After 24 conti nuatio n , which occu rred to me only
'ifh5 tDf6 25 tDe7+ l:be7 (25 . . . 'it'xe7 is after the game. Wh ite should pursue the
weaker in view of 26 i.xf6) 26 i.xf6 'it'd2 27 knig ht: 25 tD h 7 ! . As shown by the variations
h3 (27 ':'xg7+ ':'xg7 28 'it'e8+ leads to given below, Black now has to solve some
perpetual check) 27 . . . 'it'e 1 + 28 'ifi>h2 'it'xg3+ d ifficult problems:
29 'ifi>xg3 i.xf6 30 'ifi>f2 Wh ite, in my view, A) 25 . . . ':'d8 26 tDxf6+ i.xf6 27 i.xf6 'it'd 1 +
has somewhat the better chances. 28 'it'xd 1 ':'xd 1 + 29 'ifi>f2 - the piece is
regained and White should win;
B) 25 ... 'iVd2 26 h4 'iVe 1 + 27 'ifi>h2 'ii'x g3+ 28
'iVxg3 tDxh7 29 h5 with a winning position;
C) 25 . . .f5 26 tDf6+! (26 'it'e2 i.xb2 27
':'xg5+ 'ifi>f7 28 c4 'it'd3 29 c4 'it'd3 30 'it'xb2
'it'xe3+ is unfavourable for Wh ite, but he
ca n consider 26 'iVh5 tDf3+ 27 'iVxf3 ! exf3
28 ':'xg7+ 'ifi>h8 29 :d7+ e5 30 ':xd5 i.xd5
31 tDf6 ':'d8 32 i.xe5 with a favourable
endgame) 26 . . . i.xf6 27 'it'h5
C 1 ) 27 . . . i.xb2 28 'it'xe8+ 'ifi>h 7 29 h4!
with a big advantage (less is promised by 29
'iVh5+ 'ifi>g8 30 l::t x g5+ 'ifi>f8 31 h3);
C2) 27 .. J:td8 28 i.xf6 (weaker is 28
24 h4 'iVg6+ 'ifi>f8 29 'iVxf6+ 'ifi>e8 30 ':'xg5 'iVd 1 +
3 1 'ifi>f2 l::t d 2+! 32 'ifi>g3 ':'xg2+! 33 'ifi>xg2
The most natu ral development of the game.
'it'f3+ with perpetual check) 28 . . . 'iVd 1 + 29
Wh ite makes an escape square for his king
'it'xd 1 ':'xd 1 + 30 'ifi>f2 ':'d2+ 3 1 'ifi>e 1 l:txc2 32
and includes his rook's pawn in the offen
fxg5, and the endgame is most probably
sive. But at the same time he had a more
won .
camouflaged way of conducti ng the attack. I
rejected 24 tDf8 ! ? in view of 24 . . . tDg5 24 . . . 'iVf5
(24 . . . .:.e7 is weaker because of 25 tDxh7 If 24 . . .f5 , then 25 'it'h5.
'ifi>xh7 26 i.xf6). I ndeed , now noth ing is 25 'it'd1 'iVd5
promised by 25 fxg5 f5 26 'it'h5, since Black 26 'it'94 'it'f5
repl ies not 26 . . . ':'xf8 (in view of 27 g6 i.h6
It appears that things will end i n a repetition
28 i.d4! cxd4 29 'it'xh6 'ifd7 30 g7 and
of moves, especially since I was already in
wins), but either 26 . . . 'ifi>xf8 , or 26 . . . i.xb2. I n
my customary time-trouble.
the fi rst case 2 6 . . . 'ifi>xf8 2 7 i.xg7+ 'ifi>xg7 2 8
'ifh6+ 'ifi>f7 2 9 'iff6+ leads to perpetual 27 'ifd1 'it'd5
check, but it is possible to play for a win by 28 'ife2 1
29 g6+ 'ifi>e7 30 h3. More i nteresting is After plucking up cou rage , Wh ite decides to
26 . . . i.xb2! 27 tDh7 'ifi>g7 28 'ifh6+ (or 28 c3 play on. Now it is not easy for the opponent
i.xc3 29 tDf6 .:th8 30 tDxd5 l:Ixh5 31 tDxc3 to find a useful move. Thus if 28 . . . 'it'd6 there
i.c6) 28 . . . 'ifi>f7, when it is not easy for Wh ite follows 29 'it'g4 ':'d8 30 'ifi>h2 ':'d7 3 1 tDe5
M issed Brilliancy Prizes It:J 1 25
27 . . . Wb6 !? - it is impossible to predict how, opponent, who in the event of a win would
with both players short of time, it would all obta i n chances of fi rst place .
have then ended . 1 d4 d6 2 e4 liJf6 3 liJ c 3 g6 4 f4 g 7 5 liJf3
28 fxg6+ c5 6 b5+ d7 7 e5 liJg4 8 xd7+ Wxd7
28 Wh7 :g8 29 Wxg6+ e7 30 'ii' e 6+ f8 9 d5 dxe5 1 0 h3 e4 1 1 liJxe4 liJf6 1 2 liJxf6+
3 1 c1 does not work because of 3 1 . . . liJg5 xf6 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 e3 ! ? liJa6 1 5 liJe5
(or 31 . . . f6 32 a3+ g7) 32 a3+ liJc5 Wd6
33 Wg6 xd4 .
28 . . . xg6
Now White repeats moves several times in
order, after reach ing the time control, to
check the variations accu rately and once
again convince h imself that the win , alas,
has already been missed .
29 Wf7+ h7
30 Wf5+ g8
31 Wf7+ h8
32 Wh5+ g8
33 Wf7+ h8
34 Wh5+ g8
35 xd5+ xd5 Wh ite played the open ing confidently, which
36 Wxd5+ h8 was mainly explai ned by the fact that the
37 Wh5+ g8 entire variation and this particular position
had already occu rred in my game with
38 Wf7+ h8
Vlastimil Hort from the German Team
There is no point in giving White chances by
Championsh ip. It is probable that M ichael
38 . . . h7?! 39 :f5 liJdf6 40 :aa5 Wxa5 4 1
Adams simply did not know about this
:xa5 liJxd2 4 2 g5.
game, which was played a few months
39 Wh5+ g8 before Dortmund.
40 Wf7+ h8 1 6 liJg4
Draw. A standard idea in this variation . From g4
the knight su pports the attack well and at a
In concl usion I will give yet another example conven ient moment it is threatening to go to
of a spoiled attack, in which , however, it all h6.
ended happily for the author. 16 . . . xb2
1 7 llb1 g7
Yusu pov - Adams 18 f5
Dortmund 1 994 An important move in Wh ite's plan. The
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence regaining of the pawn can wait (if 1 8 l:txb7
This game was also played in the last round, there would have followed 1 8 .. .f5), it being
and I wanted to win it without fai l , in order to far more important to develop his in itiative
improve my tournament result somewhat. on the kingside and secure the h6-square
The game was even more important for my for the knight.
1 30 M issed Brilliancy Prizes
18 . . . lDc7?! 20 f6!
In the afore-mentioned game Hort played The point of Wh ite's idea is to exploit the
more strongly: 1 8 . . . lDb4 ! ? 1 9 c4 lDxa2 20 opposition of the queens.
':xb7 lDc3, trying to create counterplay. The 20 . . . exf6
move in the game is rather passive, and 20 . . . i.xf6 was weaker in view of 2 1 ':xf6
Wh ite gains the opportun ity to dictate the lDxf6 22 'iix d6 exd6 23 lDxf6+ g7 24 lDg4!
fu rther cou rse of events. He now has with a winning position .
perhaps too wide a choice : h5
21 c4
A) 1 9 c4 bS; 22 lDh6+
B) 1 9 f6 exf6 20 i.f4 'it'd8 ; But not 22 lDf2? in view of 22 . . . 'iig 3 23
C ) 1 9 lDh6+!? i.xh6 20 i.xh6 l:.fd8 2 1 c4 ; i.xcS lDf4 .
D) 1 9 i.f4!? i.d4+! (as shown by Adams, 22 . . . h7
dangerous is 19 . . . 'it'd8 20 i.xc7 'it'xc7 21 d6 23 lDf5
'ii'd 7 22 dxe7 i.d4+ 23 h 1 'it'xe7 24 f6 with Wh ite has not managed to win a piece , but
an attack) 20 'iix d4 cxd4 21 i.xd6 exd6 22 he completely destroys the opponent's
l:txb7 l:tac8 (22 . . . lDxdS 23 f6 followed by pawn cha i n . 23 'ii'x dS 'iix dS 24 cxdS i.xh6
lDh6+ - Black's f7 -point is weak), and if 23 2S ..txcS would also have led to a better
f6? hS - however, after 23 lDf6+ g7 24 endgame for h i m .
fxg6 fxg6 (24 . . . hxg6 2S a4 ! ? , and if 2S . . . a6,
23 . . . gxf5
then 26 lDd7) 2S lDe4 l:txf1 + 26 xf1 the
advantage remains with White . Although in the variation 23 . . . 'ii' c6 24 'iix dS
'ii'x dS 2S cxdS gxfS 26 i.xcs Black is
During the game my choice was mainly
nominally a pawn up, the endgame with
between this last continuation , which seemed
tripled pawns will hardly afford him any
to me to be not too clear, and the text move .
pleasure.
1 9 l:.xb7! 24 cxd5 g8
The start of a forcing operatio n . Black's 25 1:.xf5
reply is compulsory, since 20 i.f4 is
2S i.f4 ! ? 'ii'a 6 26 'ii' b 1 was interesting, not
threatened .
paying any attention to the f-pawns and
19 . . . lDxd5 concentrating all efforts on the advance of
the passed pawn .
25 . . . 'ii'a 6
26 'ii' b 1 1:.fe8
I was expecting 26 . . . 'ii'e 2 , after which 27
i.f2 is the simplest way to retain the
advantage. 27 i.xcs l:[fc8 28 1:.b2 is also
possible, only not 28 d6? 1:.xcS 29 ':xcS
'ii'e 3+ 30 h 1 'ii'x cs 3 1 l::t b 8+ l::t x b8 32
'ii'x b8+ h 7 33 d7 in view of 33 . . . 'ii' c 1 +
(transposing moves does not work: if
33 . . . i.h6? Wh ite has 34 'ii' b 1 + , winning) 34
h2 i.h6 3S d8'ii' i.f4+.
The continuation in the game also parries
the obvious threat of 27 ':xhS.
M i ssed Brillia ncy Prizes CZJ 1 31
32 'iVb1 g8
33 l:txe5 fxe5
34 'it'b8+ h7
35 'iVc7
It was on this move that I was pinning my
hopes. 35 d6 'iVd3 (35 . . . f6 ) 36 'ii c7 g6
(36 . . . c4 37 'iVxf7 'ii'x d6 38 'iix h5+ 'iVh6 is
also possible) 37 d7 f6 is not dangerous
for Black. Since now, apart from the ad
vance of his passed pawn , Wh ite is also
threatening the f7-pawn , I was feeling
optimistic, u ntil I noticed a defence. Of
cou rse, my opponent also found it - Adams
does not miss such chances!
I had no doubts about the assessment of the
position , but in the calculation of variations I 35 . . . 'iix a2 1
began to get confused . Everywhere I i mag 36 'it'xf7 'ifb1 +
ined some kind of counterplay for the This is the point! The queen switches to the
opponent. As a result I decided to play as kingside with gain of tempo.
simply as possible, by analogy with the 37 h2 'iVg61
26 . . . 'iVe2 27 f2 variation . Of course, Wh ite 38 'iVxa7
should have exerted h imself a little and
U nder the impression of his poor play in the
ascertai ned that after the simple 27 xc5!
tech n ical stage, Wh ite takes a sensible
Black's minimal activity does not cause any
practical decision - he wants to red uce to
great problems: after 27 . . . 'iVa5 there follows
the minimum the probabil ity of losing the
28 b4 . a6 29 :Xxh5, while if 27 . . . liac8 -
game. The bolder 38 'iic 7 'iVf5 would have
28 d6. The sharpest continuation 27 . . .1le2
left the opponent's passed pawn alive.
leads after 28 .l:1b8+ (28 l:xh5? l:txg2+)
28 .. Jtxb8 29 'iVxb8+ h7 30 l:txh5+ g6 38 . . . c4
3 1 lih4! to an easy win . 39 'iVc7
2 7 f2?
Wh ite reckoned that after the practically
forced exchange of rooks his passed pawn
would decide the outcome, but he over
looked a strong defensive manoeuvre by
the opponent.
27 . . . :e5
28 l:.b8+ lixb8
29 'iVxb8+ h7
30 'iVb1
A usefu l device. To avoid time-trouble,
Wh ite repeats moves.
30 . . . g8
31 'it'b8+ h7 39 . . . 'it'd3?
1 32 M issed Brillia ncy Prizes
Upset by the cou rse of the game, which did overlooked Wh ite's 42nd move.
not leave h i m any chances of first place i n 41 d7 e2
the tournament, Adams was unable to
42 .ie3 !
concentrate fully on the fight for a draw and
he made this natu ral but losing move almost Black's downfall is caused by the fact that
without th inking . Meanwhile Black had a his king is on the same rank as the wh ite
way to save the game. After 39 . . . 'ii'f5! ! 40 queen, and if he moves his bishop there is a
.ig3 'ii'e4 41 d6 (4 1 'ii'f7 also leads to a decisive discovered check.
draw) 4 1 . . . h4 or 40 .ie3 'iVe4 4 1 .ig5 'iVxd5 42 . . . 'ii'x e3
(4 1 . . . c;t;>g6 42 d6 .i f6 43 .ixf6 'iff4+ 44 c;t;>g 1
43 'ii'x e2+ e4
'ilVe3+ 45 c;t;>f1 'iVd3+ is also possible) 42 .if6
'ii'g 8 43 .ixe5 c;t;>h8 44 .ixg7+ 'ii'x g7 45 44 'ii' e 7!
'ii'xc4 'ii'e 5+ Black should gain a draw. The simplest. There is no point in calculat
40 d6 e3 ing the more complicated 44 d8'ii' .ie5+ 45
40 . . . c;t;>g6 41 d7 .if6 was rather more g3 (wh ich , however, was also sufficient for a
tenacious, although after 42 .i b6 Black's win) when there is a simple solution .
position is d ifficult. My opponent obviously Black resigned.
CD 1 33
Mark Dvoretsky
7 e4 i.. g4
S sacrifice?
hould I take a risk? Should I make a
Questions such as these 8 i.. e 3 tLlfd7
qu ite often have to be solved . It is clear that 9 'iVb3 i.. xf3
here there is not and can not be a general
Black wants to develop his knight at c6 , but
prescription . The best that readers ca n be
the immediate 9 . . . tLlc6 ru ns into 1 0 'iVxb7
advised to do is refer to books and articles in
tLla5 1 1 'it'a6 , as in the game Polugayevsky
which this type of situation is analysed . Test
Simag i n , played in Leningrad in the 1 960
them on yourself - try, by deeply analysing
USSR Championship (however, after 1 1 . . . c5
the position, to decide how you would act in
1 2 dxc5 l1b8, according to the Encyclopae
this or that case , and then check your
dia of Chess Openings, the position is
reasoning with the commentator's conclu
unclear).
sions. By acti ng in this way, you will not only
develop your tech nique of calculating varia The prel iminary exchange on f3 , elimi nating
tions, but also learn to determ ine intu itively one of the defenders of the d4-point, does
the degree of acceptable risk. not leave Wh ite time to captu re the pawn on
b7. However, it also has its drawbacks, and
I should like to show you the analysis of a
therefore the main theoretical conti nuation
sharp position, which occu rred in a game of
became 9 . . . tLlb6.
the Soviet master Vlad imir Simagin (he
became a grandmaster much later). Eleven 10 gxf3 tLlc6
years later (without having any knowledge 1 1 1:[d1 ?
of that previous game) the same position Now Simagin's idea proves justified . As
was obtai ned by Bobby Fischer. The opin later practice showed , by playing 1 1 O-O-O !
ions of Simagin and Fischer d iverged . You Wh ite gains an advantage.
have the opportun ity to make a choice , to 11 . . . e5
decide which player's handling of the 1 2 dxe5
position was more correct.
1 2 d5?! tLld4 is unfavourable for Wh ite.
12 . . . tLlcxe5
Shamkovich - Simagin
1 3 i.. h3
Leningrad 1 95 1
Leonid Shamkovich plays aggressively, hop
GrOnfeld Defence
ing to exploit the pin on the knight at d7. I n
1 d4 tLlf6
the event o f 1 3 i.. e 2 Black has the excel lent
2 c4 g6 reply 1 3 . . . 'it'h4 ! , and if 14 f4 , then 14 . . . tLlg4.
3 tLlc3 d5 13 . . . tLlxf3+!
4 tLlf3 i.. g 7 1 3 . . . 'it'h4! ? 14 i.. x d7 l:tad8 would also have
5 'it'b3 dxc4 g iven Black a good game.
6 'it'xc4 0-0 1 4 e2
1 34 Long-d i stance Dispute
If 1 4 'iti>f1 Simagin g ives the variation I n the game Evans-Fischer (USA Champi
1 4 . . . lDfe5! 1 5 i.. x d7 lDxd7 1 6 'iVb5 c6 1 7 onship 1 962/63) Black d id not risk going in
'ili'xb7 i.. xc3 (the immed iate 1 7 . . .'iVh4! is no for the complications and he restricted
worse) 1 8 bxc3 'ili'h4 ! . Now 1 9 'iVxd7 lIad8 h imself to the simple 1 9 . . . 'ii'x d7 20 l:1xd7
is not possible, while after 1 9 lIxd7 both i.. x c3 . A draw became practically inevitable.
1 9 . . . .:tab8 and 1 9 . . . 'iVxe4 are strong . 21 l:txa7 :te8 22 .l:.a4 i.. b4 23 i.. d4 ':c2 24
14 . . . lDfe5 l:.xb4 c5 25 i.. x c5 ':'xc5 26 'iti>g2 ':c2 27 a4
1 5 i.. x d7 l:td8 28 'iti>g3 ':'a2 29 ':c1 %1dd2 30 I:tf1
l:td3+ 31 f3 %:tda3 32 ':'d1 l1xa4 33 l::t d 8+
If 1 5 ':'xd7, then 1 5 . . . 'iIi'h4! ( 1 5 . . . lDxd7 1 6
'iti>g7 Draw.
l:td 1 is less good ). 1 5 f4 'iVh4 1 6 i.. x d7
lDxd7 1 7 lixd7 'iVg4+ will also not do. Simagin acted differently. He decl ined the
lDxd7 d raw offered at that moment and sacrificed
15 . . .
a piece.
1 6 'iVb5 c6
19 . . . 'ili'f6 ! !
1 7 'ili'xb7 l:tb8
I n fact, i t is also not easy to refute the move
1 8 'ili'xd7
1 9 . . . 'iVh4? ! . 20 'ii' x c6? (or 20 'ili'd3?) is bad
Of course, not 1 8 'iVxc6? l:txb2+ 1 9 'iti>f1 in view of 20 . . . 'iIi'h3+ 21 'iti>e1 'iVf3 , attacking
'iVh4 ! . the rook and threatening mate after 22 . . .
18 . . . lIxb2+ i.. x c3+. I f 2 0 lDa4?! Black can reply
19 'iti>f1 20 . . . l:txa2 21 lDc5 i.. h6 22 'ifd3 'ili'h3+ 23
'iti>e1 i.. x e3 24 'iVxe3 'ii'x e3+ 25 fxe3 .:1fb8
with sufficient cou nterplay. The strongest
conti nuation is 20 lDe2 ! 'ili'xe4 21 ':g1
(weaker is 21 lDg3 'ili'f3 22 ':c1 f5! )
21 . . . l:txa2 2 2 ':'c1 ! ? , intending 23 'ili'xc6 or
23 'iVg4 followed by 'ii' c4 . Wh ite success
fu lly consolidates and retains an advantage.
Fischer considered the sacrifice made in the
game to be completely incorrect. But Simagin
tried to show that Black's combi nation leads
to a win. I th ink that the truth l ies somewhere
in between . Let us examine some varia
tions.
1 . 20 lDa4? This is what Shamkovich played
in the game. After 20 .. J::txa 2 21 lDc5 'iVf3 22
Here is the position in which I invite you to 'iti>g1 (22 1:[g 1 'ii' e 2+ 23 'iti>g2 'ili'xe3)
take a decision for Black. He has a choice 22 ... i.. h6! Black's attack became irresist
between regaining the knight, transposing ible. There followed 23 i.. d 4 'ili'xd 1 + 24 'iti>g2
into a roughly equal ending, and the attempt 'iVd2 25 'iVd6 i.. e 3! 26 lDd7 'ili'xf2+ 27 'iti>h3
to attack a piece down by either 1 9 . . . 'iVh4 'iVg2+, and Wh ite resigned .
(from here the queen controls the h3-square II. 20 lDe2? 'iVf3 21 lDg3 i.. h61 It is
and attacks the pawn on e4), or 1 9 . . . 'iVf6 apparently not possible to defend the wh ite
(aiming at the weak f3-square). Which king, for example: 22 i.. x a7 (noth ing is
would you prefer? changed by 22 i.. c5 ':c2 23 i.. x a7 lla8! 24
Long-d i stance Dispute 4:J 1 35
l:.e 1 .l:t.xa2) 22 . . . l:ta8! (threatening 23 . . . .l:t.xa7) The only q uestion is whether Black should
23 :e 1 (23 i.c5 i.f8 24 i.e3 ':'axa2 ; 23 be satisfied with a d raw, or whether he has
l:.a 1 l:1xf2+! 24 i.xf2 i.e3) 23 . . . l:.xa2 24 the right to continue the attack with 21 ... c5! ?
i.c5 i.d2! 25 l:1b1 l:ta 1 26 'ii' b 7 i.c3! with Simagin thinks that he does. He g ives the
the decisive threat of 27 . . . l:txb 1 + 28 'ii'x b 1 variation 22 l:tg3 'ii' h 1 + 23 l:tg 1 'it'xh2 24
:a 1 (analysis by Simag i n ) . 1:Ig2 'ifh 1 + 25 J:tg 1 'ifh4! with an attack.
III. 2 0 i.d4 ! ? 'it'f3 Wh ite can play more strongly: 22 1i.xc5!
1i.xc3 23 'ii'd 31 'iff6 24 1:Ig3 . By allowing the
20 . . . 'it'h4 is weaker in view of the excellent
opponent to restore material equal ity, he
reply 21 ttJ d 5 ! , pointed out by F ischer. Then
activates his forces. 24 . . . 1i. b4?? loses im
21 . . . i.xd4? 22 ttJe7+ is completely bad .
mediately to 25 1i.d4, and Black resig ned
After 2 1 . . . 'il'xe4 22 ttJe7+ 'iti>h8 23 i.xg7+
(McLellan-Kokori n , correspondence 1 968).
'iti>xg7 24 'iVd4+ (24 :g 1 ) 24 . . . 'ii'x d4 25
J:txd4 Wh ite should be able to convert his 24 . . . 1i.e5 25 ':'f3
piece advantage. But even here Black is by
no means doomed - he plays 21 . . . cxd5 22
1i.xb2 i.xb2 23 'il'xd5 'il'h3+ 24 'iti>e2 'ii'g 4+
with a probable d raw.
21 :g1
21 'iti>g 1 ? will not do because of 21 .. Jlc2 or
2 1 . . . c5 .
The same assessment applies to the posi though he overestimated his position. One
tion arising after 22 d 1 ! ? Wxe4 (or can argue about the analytical correctness
22 . . . 1:[e2 23 d2 Wxe4 24 h3 c5). Here the of the piece sacrifice, but from the practical
outcome remains u nclear. point of view it is certainly justified . The
V. 20 l:tc1 ! This move, suggested by the probabil ity of the opponent fig uring out the
Brazilian g randmaster Gilberto M i los, may complications and finding all the strongest
cast dou bts on Simagin's bold idea. Having moves at the board is pretty smal l . Wh ite is
defended his knig ht, at the same time Wh ite in far more danger - after the slig htest
does not al low the reply 20 . . JIc2 , wh ich inaccu racy the attack will become i rresist
gave the opponent counterplay after 20 ible.
l::t d 3 . He is not afra id of 20 . . . l:1d8 in view of
It is curious that Bobby Fischer, a fig hting
21 'ii' h 3, while in the event of 20 . . . .th6 he
player who always aimed only for a wi n , did
can choose between 2 1 Wh3 and 2 1 'it'xa7
not risk sacrificing the piece and satisfied
l:txf2+ 22 xf2 xc1 23 Wd4 . There only
h imself with a d raw. The American grand
remains 20 . Wf3 21 g1 ! (but, of course,
master valued clarity, did not l i ke to lose
..
Question : what would you now play as A seemingly sensible move - Wh ite sup
Wh ite? ports his f4-pawn in advance and vacates
With opposite-sided castling one must the d 1 -square for the retreat of his knig ht.
act as energetically as possible, trying at But even such a m i n i mal delay is already
any cost to seize the initiative. Here the sufficient for Black to be the fi rst to lau nch
slightest delay is usually fatal. his assault.
The principle itself is perfectly clear, but Here I should like to take the opportun ity to
sometimes it is not easy to fol low it. For quote an idea of Alexander Kotov regarding
example, the attempt to undermine the mutual attacks with opposite-sided castl ing,
enemy centre by 14 f5?! exf5 1 5 g5 is bad in which he thought was important. 'When
view of 1 5 . . . t'De4 1 6 t'Dxd5 'fif? beginning a pawn storm, you should bear in
I th i n k that the correct continuation was the mind that it is of a forcing nature and you
sharp 1 4 g5! t'Dh5 1 5 t'De5 ! . Now it is should calculate it as accurately as you
extremely dangerous to accept the pawn would calculate a combination '.
sacrifice: 1 5 . . .t'Dxf4 1 6 i.xf4 ':xf4 1 7 t'Dxc6 I don't agree with Kotov's idea . I ndeed , the
'ii'xc6 1 8 'fih5 ( 1 8 :hf1 ! ? or even 1 8 outcome in such cases sometimes hangs by
i.xh7+ !? also comes into consideration) a thread , and depends on a single tempo.
18 . . . g6 19 i.xg6 hxg6? 20 'fixg6+ h8 2 1 The calculation of variations plays an
lLlxd 5 . important role, but nevertheless not the
Tamaz Georgadze was probably concerned lead ing one - it helps specific problems to
about the reply 1 5 . . . g 6 ! , after which the be solved , but usually (as in the given
weakness of the f4-pawn is very percepti game) it does not enable the fate of an
ble. In sharp situations with opposite attack to be accu rately determined before
sided castling, for the sake of the hand . Therefore you should not be too
initiative you sometimes have to go in for carried away by calculation, and, of cou rse,
positional or material concessions, and you must not be restricted to it. It is
you should not be afraid to do this. Let us important to sense the spirit of the position ,
continue 1 6 t'Dxc6 'ii' xc6 1 7 t'De4! i.d4 1 8 and to be able to assess intu itively the
lLlf6+ ! ' prospects of the two sides, whatever d i rec
The attempt to prepare this check, by tion events may take.
playing 1 8 h4? (wh ich is justified in the 14 . . . b4
1 40 Attacks with opposite-sided Castl ing
22 lId2 31 e2
Wh ite wa nts to consolidate, by playing f3,
'it'f1 and g2 . But during this time I am able
to blow up the enemy centre.
31 . . . 'it'e4+ !
32 f3
If 32 lId3, then 32 . . . xd4 ! , while if 32 e1
there follows 32 . . . 'ifb5! (intending si mply to
advance the a-pawn), and 33 'it'f1 ? 'ifb 1 +
followed by 34 . . .'it'xe4 is bad for Wh ite.
32 . . . d5
33 e5 xe5!
34 'iff1 f6
35 'ifxe4 lIxe4
How should Black continue the attack? 36 e2?
To me it seemed d ubious to go chasing the 36 ': a 1 was essential , with the idea of
a2-pawn : 22 . . . c4 23 c2 'it'xa2 24 b 1 doubling rooks on the 7th rank as soon as
(th is is why t h e opponent played 2 2 lI d 2 - possible. After the move in the game Black
the b2-pawn is now defended) 24 . . . 'it'a 1 25 wins without any d ifficulty.
ttJg3. Wh ite h imself is threatening to lau nch 36 . . . ttJg7 37 lIa1 ttJf5 38 lIxa7 xd4! 39
an attack, for example, after 25 . . . ttJxg3 26 lIa8+ g7 40 f4 e3 (40 . . . xf2 ! ? 41
fxg3! followed by h4-h5 . However, if I had n 't e5+ f6) 41 lId3 lIxf4 42 J:txe3 ttJxh4 43
been too lazy to calculate fully the variation ];t e7 g5 (the fu rther play proceeds in
25 . . . l:tb3! 26 ttJxh5 ':xc3+ 27 bxc3 l;lb8 28 accordance with a well-known endgame
d 1 l:txb 1 + 29 e2 ':xh 1 30 ttJxg7 xg7, principle formulated by N imzowitsch : 'the
lead ing to a great advantage for Black, I col lective advance') 44 lIaa7 g6 45 l;ld7
could have gone in for it. ttJf5 46 lIab7 f6 47 ':b8 ttJd4+ 48 e3 f5
22 . . . xe 2 1 ? 49 lIf8 e5 50 ':xd5 l:tf3+ 51 d2 l:1xf2+ 52
I preferred not t o block l ines on the e3 ':f3+ 53 d2 e4 54 11d7 g4 55 :g8
q ueens ide, but on the contrary, to open f5 56 ':e8 ':a3 57 ':de7 ttJf3+ White
them immediately. resigned.
23 ':xe2 exd4
24 exd4 lIxb31 Pawns attacking the enemy king position
Such sacrifices do not requ i re any calcula can not themselves g ive mate. The aim of a
pawn storm is to open lines for the
tion . It is clear that now only Black has
pieces. Mainly for the queen and rooks,
winning chances.
although it is not uncommon for an
25 axb3 'it'a 1 +
important role in the attack to be played
26 d2 'it'xb2+ by the minor pieces.
27 e1 'it'a 1 +
I n the fol lowing game the main hero was my
28 d2 'it'b2+ dark-square bishop. After occupying the
29 e1 'it'xb3 long d iagonal as early as the second move,
30 :td2 :te8 it su bsequently d id not i n fact move from its
Attacks with opposite-sided Castl ing ttJ 1 45
post. But its influence on the development of 1 3 . . . tLle4! 1 4 tLle2 fS , and Black seized the
events was enormous . in itiative.
Alanakian-Dvoretsky (Moscow 1 97 1 ) : 1 2
.i.xc6!? bxc6 1 3 a4? ! ( 1 3 'ii'f4) 1 3 . . . aS 1 4
Dvoretsky - Khramtsov 'ii'fS .l:.fe8 ( 1 4 . . . 'ii'd 6) 1 S 1:[ae 1 1:[ad8 1 6 1:[e2
Moscow 1 970 cS 1 7 'ii'x eS 1:[xeS 1 8 1:[ef2 c6 1 9 1:[fS 1:[de8
Simagin-Larsen Opening 20 h3 1:[8e7 21 1:[xeS 1:[xeS 22 1:[f4 f8 23
1 b3 e5 g4 e7 with a good endgame for Black.
2 .i. b2 tLlc6 7. . . .i.xf3
3 e3 d5 8 'ii'xf3 tLlf6
4 .i.b5 .i.d6 I n correct is 8 . . . e4? 9 'ii'g 3 f6 1 0 tLlc3 .f7 1 1
5 f4 tLlxd S ! , as i n the game Dvoretsky-Makarov
Of cou rse, the opponent can not be allowed (Moscow 1 970). There followed : 1 1 . . . 0-0-0
to set up a powerful pawn centre u n h i n ( 1 1 . . . xdS 1 2 .i.c4 'ii' h S 1 3 . xg7 or
dered . The attack on the other side by c2- 1 2 . . .gS 1 3 'ii' x gS fxgS 14 .i.xg7) 1 2 .i.c4
c4 looks steadier, but I several times 'ii'd 7 1 3 0-0-0 a6 1 4 .g4 tLlaS? 1 S tLlb6+!
successfully employed the more risky move Black resigned .
in the game.
5. . . 'ii'e 7
If S . . .f6 Wh ite was i ntending 6 'ii' h S+!?
(provoking a weakening of the a 1 -h8
diagonal) 6 . . . g6 7 'ii' h 4.
6 tLlf3 .i.g4
In the event of 6 .. .f6 ! ? it is dangerous to win
a pawn : 7 fxeS?! fxeS 8 xc6+ (8 tLlxeS?
.i.xeS 9 .i.xc6+ d8! is completely bad )
8 . . . bxc6 9 tLlxeS . h4+ (9 . . . .i.xeS? 1 0
'ii' h S+) 1 0 g3 'ii' h 3 ( 1 0 e4 is worse in
. . .
Rauzer recommended 9 g3 with approxi is den ied this possibil ity. As a result the
mate equal ity. I think that 9 lDc3!? also bishop on b2 becomes fearfully strong.
deserves consideration. 15 i.. x e6 "xe6
9 f5?! 1 6 lDe2 lDh5
An over-comm itting conti nuatio n . I sensed
how risky it was, but I wanted to engage my
opponent i n a complicated and u nusual
fight. I n the end my idea was justified .
9 . . . e4
1 0 "f2 h5
Wh ite wants to castle on the q ueenside, and
therefore the most u npleasant move for him
was 1 0 . . . lD h S ! , forcing kingside castl i n g . It
is true that after 11 0-0 it is not possible to
clamp the kingside by 1 1 . . . lDg3 because of
the reply 1 2 f6! , but 1 1 . . . .. gS or 1 1 . . . 0-0 , for
example, is not bad .
1 1 lDe3
I also thought about 1 1 g3 h4 1 2 gxh4, but I
decided that it was too provocative. 17 f6 !
11 . . . h4 Weaker was 1 7 lDxg3 lDxg3 1 8 "f4 f6 ! (but
12 0-0-0 i.. g 3?! not 1 8 . . . lDxh 1 ? 1 9 i-xg7 or 1 9 f6 with
13 "f1 0-0 deadly mati ng th reats).
14 b1 17 . . . g6
What would you now have played as Black? I did not even consider the acceptance of
To answer this question, it is useful to the pawn sacrifice. After 1 7 . . . lDxf6 White
consider the point of my last move . would have had a pleasant choice between
1 8 lDxg3 hxg3 1 9 "f4 (or 1 9 "fS), 1 8 lDd4
I was not averse to the exchange of several
pieces: 1 4 i.. xc6 bxc6 1 S lDe2 i.. e S 1 6 (with the idea of 1 9 lDfS ) and, fi nally, the
i.. x eS "xeS 1 7 'iWf4 . After 1 7 . . .'ifxf4 1 8 primitive 1 8 i.. xf6 'ifxf6 1 9 'ii'xf6 gxf6 20
lDxf4 Wh ite has the better endgame. U nfor lDxg3 hxg3 2 1 l::t hf1 . If this move had been
tu nately, this idea did not work because of made, then I would have had to choose, but
the mate on a 1 , but now Black has to reckon there was no point in spending time before
with it. hand .
I recommend the attacking but also prophy 1 8 lDxg3 hxg3
lactic reply 1 4 . . . a S ! , wh ich disru pts Wh ite's Of course, not 1 8 . . . lDxg3 1 9 'iff4 lDfS 20
pla n . If 1 S i.. x c6?! bxc6 1 6 lDe2 i.. e S 1 7 "gS followed by 2 1 1:[df1 or 2 1 g4 hxg3 22
i.. x eS WxeS 1 8 Wf4 there follows 1 8 . . . We7 ! h4.
1 9 a 4 ( 1 9 "xh4 a 4 ) 1 9 . . . lifb8 , a n d things 19 "e2 1
become u npleasant for the wh ite king . The advantage is with Wh ite, but it is not so
14 . .. 'ii'e 5? easy to breach the opponent's defences.
A serious positional mistake . Black should On the kingside he has erected someth ing
always have been able to meet lDe2 with resembling a fortress. If l:. hf1 with the idea
the exchange of bishops on eS, but now he of l:.fS ! , Black repl ies . . . "e6 , and the rook
Attacks with opposite-sided Castling CD 1 47
Exercises
not advance pawns where you are weaker. 6. Pchiolkin-Tolonen (Russian Corre
1 4 liJa4 or 1 4 h5 was better. spondence Championship 1 980/83).
1 4 ... Ub8 One of the most difficult problems in
The rook coord inates excellently with the chess is how to correctly combine attack
bishop - the two pieces exert terrible and defence, avoiding both excessive
pressure on the b2-point. Wh ite's position is caution, leading to passivity, and ultra
already d ifficult. aggression, bordering on recklessness.
'ifb5! ) 28 . . ...xb6 29 'ifxb6 l:1xb6 30 .1t.xd5+ his extra pawn . Let us see how the game
h7 31 .1t.xa8 with a probable draw. 26 concluded .
'iVh4! l:td8 (there is noth ing better) 27 .1t.d3 31 . . . .1t.c5? 32 %:tc1 "f7 33 b4 .1t.d4 34 .1t. b3
is much stronger, with an irresistible attack. 'iVe7 35 .1t.f4 b5
25 'ii' h 4 fxg6 26 fxg6 h6 Black's lot is not eased by 35 . . . d2 36 .1t.xd2
26 . . . hxg6 27 "xc4+ h8 28 ':'g3 is no .1t.xf2+ (36 . . . tDd3 37 l:tc6) 37 h 1 ! .1t.d4
better. (37 . . . %:txd2 38 Was + ! ) 38 .1t.f4 .
27 .1t.xh61 gxh6 28 g7, and Black has no 3 6 "c6 (36 .1t.e6! was even stronger,
defence. preparing the invasion of the q ueen at c6)
36 . . . 'ii'd 7 37 "e4 .1t. b6 38 %:td1 :e8 39
J:[xd3 "c8 40 .1t.f7 %:te7 41 .1t.xh5 "c4 42
7. Simagi n-Petrosian (Moscow 1 956).
'ii' h 7! c7 43 l:td2 "xb4 44 'ifg8 1:td7 45
17 h41 l:tc2+
An example of skilful prophylaxis with It was possible to win the queen by 45
opposite-sided castling! 'This move seems xe5+ fxe5 46 l::t x d7+ xd7 47 .1t.e8+ d8
risky, but in this way White parries Black's 48 xb5+ e7 49 "xg7+ e6 50 .1t. c4+!
attack on the kingside ' (Simag i n ) . It is Wxc4 5 1 "g8+ .
important to deny the opponent the possibil
4 5 . . ..1t. c 5 4 6 "a8 d 6 4 7 .:td2+ .1t.d4 48
ity of . . . h5-h4 or . . . g7-g5. For the sake of
.1t.e3 e6 49 "e8+ f5 50 g4+ e4 51
th is, one can even violate the principle,
"a8+ l:td5 52 %:txd4+ Black resigned.
mentioned in the notes to another game by
Si mag in ( Exercise 4). Wh ite , who has two By playing 3 1 . . . l:tc8, Black would have
strong bishops, has the better chances. The prevented the enemy rook from occupying
th reat is c3-c4-c5 . I ncidentally, the immedi the c-file (32 l:tc1 ? 'ifxc1 + 33 .1t.xc1 ':xc1 +
ate 1 7 c4 g5! 1 8 c5 .1t.e 7 1 9 .1t.xf4 gxf4 34 h2 tDg4+ 35 h3 l:th 1 + ! 36 'ii'x h 1
( 1 9 . . ...xf4 ! ? ) 20 tDe2 is sufficient only for tDxf2+), but after 32 .1t.b5!? his position
equal ity. would have remained d ifficult in view of the
insecure position of his king and the lack of
1 7 . . . tD4d5 1 8 tDe4 tDxe4 1 9 .1t.xe4 tDf6 20
counterplay.
.1t.c2 tDg4 21 g3 .l:.he8 22 a51 e5 23 .1t.g5! f6
24 .1t.d2 (th reatening 25 .1t.g6) 24 . . . exd4 25 Only if you sense just how strateg ically
cxd4 ltxe1 + 26 ':'xe1 c5! 27 a6! cxd4 28 dangerous Black's position is can you
.1t.a5?1 decide on the compl ications beg i n ning with
31 . . . b5, which was suggested after the
A tempting move, but not the best. 28 .1t.e4!
game by Tigran Petrosian. After all, in this
bxa6 29 "d3 tDe5 (29 . . . 'ifb6 30 .1t.g2! with a
case you have to reckon with the seemingly
decisive attack) 30 "xa6 'ifb6 3 1 'ii'a4 was
powerful .1t.a5. However, in winning the
stronger.
exchange, Wh ite l ifts the blockade on the
28 . . . b6 29 .1t.d2 tDe5 30 'it'g2 d3 31 .1t.a4 d3-pawn .
The position of the next exercise has been 31 . . . b5! 1
reached.
32 .1t.a5
The following variation is i nteresting : 32
8. Simagin-Petrosian (Moscow 1 956). .1t.xb5 "b6 33 .1t.a5 'ii'x b5 34 .1t.xd8 d2! (not
It only remains for Wh ite to play 32 1:tc1 , and 34 . . . tDc6? 35 %:te8; 34 . . . 'ifxa6 35 'iVe4 leads
th ings will be bad for the opponent, despite to an unclear position) 35 l:td 1 'ii' b 3 36
1 52 \t> Attacks with opposite-sided Castling
1:[xd2! (this sacrifice is forced: 36 'iVf1 'iVd5 bxa4 ! 35 1:[e8 lZ'lxd8 36 1:[xd8+ <j;c7 or 35
is bad for Wh ite, and he has a hopeless 1:[e6 e5.
endgame after 36 'iVb7+ 'iVxb7 37 axb7 b4 33 . . . lZ'lf3+
with the threats of 38 . . . lZ'lc6 and 38 . . . lZ'lc4) Weaker is 33 . . . bxa4 34 a5, when 34 . . . lZ'lf3+?
38 . . . lZ'lf3+ 39 'iVxf3 'iVxf3 40 1:[xd6 'iVf5! (the no longer works because of 35 'iVxf3!.
only defence, but a sufficient one, against
34 <j;h1 bxa4
the threat of 4 1 a5), and White faces a
fight for a draw. 35 a5 e5
The active placing of Black's pieces and his
32 . . . 'iVc61
strong passed pawn compensate for the
33 xd8 sacrificed exchange. A good example of a
Wh ite loses after 33 'iVxc6? lZ'lxc6 34 xd8 timely cou nterattack.
CD 1 53
PART V
Defe n ce
I gor Belov
- Vau l i n
M demand a deep penetration into the
any moves that we make d o not Beloy
Katowice 1 99 1
position . It is sufficient to make use of
standard eval uation considerations and to
check a few variations. Any yet in nearly
every game there invariably comes a
turning-point (sometimes several), when
the solution is by no means obvious, and
on it depends the entire course and
perhaps the result of the subsequent
play. It is a few such situations, which
occu rred in my games, that I wish to offer for
your attention. Try in a restricted time to
solve those problems which I encountered ,
and then we will compare our conclusions.
We will beg in with a few relatively ( only
relatively! ) simple examples, and conclude
with some that are very complicated , al most Exercise 1 . We have a position with a n
irrational . un usual material balance. Who is playing
for a win? How should Wh ite continue?
The clearest way was pointed out by I Iya Black makes an escape square for his king,
Makariev. and then plays . . . b7-b6 and . . J:tb7.
1 .lixd5! cxd5 The idea of I n na Gaponenko seems ques
If 1 . . . exd5, then 2 'ikc3 a6 3 l:te 1 . tionable: 1 a6 bxa6 2 'iVc4. Black's rook
2 ':d1 :fc8 immediately comes into play on the b-file,
and his bishop endeavours to get to the d4-
3 I::!. d 3!
pawn and attack f2 .
The rook is head ing for c3. It may even be
U nfortunately, at the board I too failed to
possible to seize the in itiative . The side
figure out the position. I real ised that I
with the queen should aim for ex
should aim for exchanges and I stud ied the
changes/ The power of the queen is
move 1 .lixd5. But I did not see the rook
easier to exploit, when it is opposed by
manoeuvre to c3, and considered only
fewer pieces - the chances of breaking
1 . . . cxd5 2 h4 .lif6 3 'ii'e 3. Then 3 .. .l:Ibc8!
into the opponent's position are im
(with the threat of 4 . . . l:tc4) is strong, and if 4
proved.
Itc1 Black has 4 . . . .lixd4 ! .
[Instead of 2. . . I::!. fcB Black does better to play
1 l:ta4? .lie7 !
2. . . b6, hoping for 3 a6?! b5 followed by
4 . . . 1J.b6 or 4 . . . b4. But after 3 axb6 I::!. xb6 4 O f course, Black prevents 2 .lixd5 and 3
'it' c3 followed by 5 .l:ta 1 White would seem to 1:tb4 . Even now it was not yet too late to
be out of danger - Dvoretsky.] captu re on d5, but I decided fi rst to occu py
Peter Svidler was intend ing to bring up his the c-file with my rook.
rook along another route : 2 'it'b4?! l:tfc8 2 11c4? ! liJc7!
(2 . . J:tfe8 3 h4 .lie7 4 'iVd2 and 5 ttc1 ) 3 .l:!.a3. Alas, I completely overlooked this simple
This is too intricate. Try to put your plans into move. With the retreat of the knight, White's
effect in the simplest and most rel iable way, position immed iately becomes d ifficult. The
otherwise you risk making some blunder, as opponent wants to make a concerted attack
i n fact occurred with Peter: 3 . . . .t!.c4! 4 'ilYd6? on d4. He has more pieces than me, and
l:td8. therefore the pawn essentially ca nnot be
[If it is clearly realised that the rook must defended . All I can hope for are chance
definitely aim for the c-fi/e, it is even tactical opportu nities.
possible to consider a pawn sacrifice: 2 h4 3 'it'd3 l:tfd8 4 .lie4 h6 5 'iVe3 a6!
.lif6 3 1:1 c 1 ! .lixd4 4 l:tc7. But after 4 . . . b6 or
Before the knight is moved to b5, the a5-a6
4 . . . b5 White still has problems, so that the
th rust must be prevented .
manoeuvre l:ta 1-d1-d3-c3 is more con
vincing, in my opinion - Dvoretsky.] 6 .lic2 .li f6 7 .lia4 liJb5 8 .lixb5 axb5 9 l:tb4
All the remaining plans are weaker. For J:ta8 1 0 'it'f4 lId7 1 1 'it>g2 lIad8 , and Black
example, Maxim Boguslavsky suggested 1 won .
'ikc4 with the threat of 2 a6. Black replies
1 . . . a6, and what now? Exchange on d5?
This is illogical - after all, Black recaptu res
with gain of tempo. Vasya Emelin continued
the analysis : 2 .lixd5 cxd5 (2 . . . exd5 3 'it'b4
and 4 11e1 ) 3 'it'c7 .l:[fc8 4 'it'd6 .lif6 5 l:td 1 .
Of course, the wh ite queen is active , but the
exchange of rooks has had to be deferred.
Practical Exercises in the Taking of d ifficult Decisions CD 1 55
to me: 1 . . . e3. His idea looks very dubious. After a move by the bishop this assessment
White gains an obvious advantage, for will be completely correct: the two rooks
example, by 2 fxe3 lLle4 3 ':'xcB ':'xcB 4 .i.g2 combined with the dangerous passed d
or 3 . . . 'iVxcB 4 d6 'iVd7 5 .i.g2. pawn are stronger than the queen . Bad is
All the rest of you found the strongest 4 . . . 'iVd7? 5 gxf4! 'ii'x eB 6 d6 'ii'd 7 7 .i.c4
possibility. followed by B e6, and Wh ite wins.
1 . . . .i.h6! Emelin calculated fu rther than anyone - he
suggested 4 ... .i.xg3 ! . If 5 1:[e6, then 5 . . . 'ii' c5
If the strong bishop on f4 can be exchanged
or 5 . . . 'iff4 is possible. We must look at 6
without detriment to Black's position , he will
fxg3 'ifxg3+ 7 g2 - what happens here?
stand better.
7 . . . e3? is anti-positional: after B l::tf 1 the
But if you analysed only 2 ':'xcB lLlxcB 3
black pawns are blocked . But the recom
'iVc7 , this reply is only worth th ree points out
mendation 7 . . . 'iVxb3! is very interesti ng.
of five. The critical continuation is 2 'iVxd6!
Where should the rook move to? Here
'iVxd6 3 llxc8 .
Black's chances are certainly not worse.
I have to admit that I only considered
7 . . f4! 1 8 1:[xe4 f3 9 11d2 fxg2. If 1 0 d6 there
.
Dolmatov.]
In fact the variation should be conti nued : 4
l:txa3 Wxb5 5 'ii' x d3 'ii'x d3 6 ':'xd3 It)c5 7
Exercise 4. The opponent's last move l:td4 (7 :e3 lIa8 8 a3 :a4 9 It)d2 is also
i.. d 3-b5 set me a d ifficult problem : how to possible) 7 . . . :a8 8 .l:tc4 ':'a5 9 It)d4. After
save the pin ned knight on a4. You (just as I calculating this far, I real ised that I would be
had to d u ring the game) have to: a pawn down in a d ifficult position.
a) assess the position; [By playing 9 . . lt)xe4, Black regains the
.
b) fi nd various possibilities for Black and pawn. Then 1 0 It)xe4 (10 It)b3 :e5)
weigh u p the necessary variations; 1 0. . . i.. xe4 1 1 lt)b3 l:.e5 1 2 f4 1:1e6 13 l:tc8+
c) choose the most promising course. rt;h 7 1 4 lt)c5 ':'c6 1 5 %:txc6 i.. xc6 leads to a
drawn endgame. And in the event of 7 :e3
Opinions regarding the assessment varied : (instead of 7 r1d4) 7. . . 1:1d8! it is vel}' difficult
'White is better', 'Wh ite is worse' , 'equal ity' . for White to convert his material advantage
Nearly all of you poi nted out that 1 . . .:xf3 is - the opponent's pieces are really too
bad because of 2 l:1xa4 ! . [After 2 .. J lc3 3 active. It can be concluded that 1 . . . d3!?
It)xc3 dxc3 Black retains some positional would have given excellent saving chances
compensation for the lost exchange (strong - Yusupov.]
passed pawn on c3, and two bishops). He [On the other hand, by continuing 5 ::'xd3
can go in for this position, if nothing better is (instead of 5 'ikxd3 ?!) 5. . . lt)c5 6 'tJ.d4 (or 6
found - Dvoretsky.] :e3!?) 6. . : ikb 1 + 7 lt)e 1 !, White would retain
Practical Exercises in the Taking of d ifficult Decisions ttJ 1 59
his extra pawn, for which Black has no real convert his advantage. If 6 lDf3 or 6 lDb3
compensation (he loses after 7. ..liJxe4 ? 8 there would have followed 6 . . . a8, aiming
lDxe4 xe4 9 11b4). In addition, as grand to break through onto the 2nd rank with the
master Bareev pointed out, instead of the rook.
capture on d3 White also has the interposi [After 6 lDb3 :l.a8?! there is the simple reply
tion 5 11b3!, and after 5. . . a6 - not 6 'ilih6?! 7 lDc5. Black does better to try 6 . . . b2!?,
f6, but simply 6 1:!xd3 lDc5 7 :d8, retaining a having in mind the variation 7 :e 1 :a8 8
serious advantage. For example: 7. . . f6 (cap lDc5 ?! xg2! 9 <:J;xg2 a3 1 0 c6 :c8. In
turing on e4 loses a piece) 8 :Xxf8+ <:J;xf8 9 the event of 6 lDf3 :a8?! White has 7 c6 -
'ikd8+ <:J;f7 1 0 'ikh8 - Dvoretsky.] therefore it makes sense to play 6 . . . xf3,
Have we taken all the candidate moves i nto spoiling the opponent's pawn structure -
point of view the decision was justified . I had change the character of the play, even
a clear impression of how I would be sacrificing material if necessary. The
outplayed with an extra pawn , whereas I opponent will most probably cope suc
could not imagine how Wh ite would win cessfully in a standard, technical posi
here . tion (say, with an extra pawn). It will be
12 . . . i.d4 far harder for him in a situation with an
1 3 f1 h5 unusual material balance - here the
1 4 e2 g7 probability of a mistake sharply in
creases.
1 5 f3 e6
I ncidentally, by fi nding this d ifficult and
We soon adjourned the game. Analysis
unexpected defensive idea , I not only saved
confirmed that my assessment of the posi
half a point, but also experienced an
tion was correct. I will show you a curious
enormous emotional lift, thanks to which I
episode which occu rred during the resump
began winning game after game.
tio n .
Mityaev - Belov
Moscow 1 989
A clever idea ( i n the spirit of the previous cluded that 1 . . . f8!? 2 lDe4 Iha2! would
game) was devised by Zviagintsev: 1 .. .f5 2 allow Black to defend successfully -
[As Bareev pointed out, 3 0,b5!? was also [It made sense to try 7. . . 0,g4!. The obvious
strong. But the attempt to exclude this reply 8 g3 ? would allow Black to put into
possibility by transposing moves: 1 . . . f5 2 f4 effect a well-known drawing mechanism
g5 did not work in view of 3 fxe5! gxh4 4 with rook + knight by 8 . . . lId2!! (it is
exd6 or 3. . . f4 4 11e2! - Dvoretsky.] inaccurate to begin with 8 . . . 0,h2? in view of
3 . . . 0,g4 9 fLe8! followed by lIe3). After 9 lie8 there
c;i;>f7 follows 9. . .1:1d 1 +! 1 0 c;i;>g2 lid2+ 1 1 c;i;>f1
4 11e8+
0,h2+! 1 2 c;i;>g 1 0,f3+ with perpetual check.
5 lIxh8 0,e3+
Only 8 c;i;>f1 !! 0,e3+ 9 c;i;> e 1 0,xg2+ 10 c;i;>f1
6 c;i;>g1
0,e3+ 1 1 c;i;>g 1 would have won. As a result
of this White gets rid of the g2-pawn, the
return of the knight to g4 no longer
threatens mate, and he gains an important
tempo to destroy the drawing mechanism -
Dvoretsky.]
7. . . c;i;>h5
8 0, b5?
Here the opponent spent some fifteen
minutes , but he was unable to come to the
correct decision. Apparently he very much
wanted to keep all his extra material. But if
he wanted to go after the d6-pawn , it would
have been more logical to do this a move
earl ier, without d riving the black king for
If Black takes the knight, the outcome is ward .
settled by the far-advanced h-pawn : 6 . . . I was most afraid of 8 :1g7 , si nce I d id not
':'xc3? 7 ':xh7+ c;i;>g6 8 lig7+ c;i;> h 5 9 h7. No see how I could counter the power of the h
better is 6 . . .0,g4? 7 ':xh7+ c;i;>g6 8 lig7+ pawn . For example: 8 . . . l:.xg2+ 9 c;i;> h 1 lIc2
c;i;>h5 9 0, d 1 ! lIc1 1 0 c;i;>f1 . Final ly, 5 . . . lIxc3 1 0 l:txh7 ':'xc3 1 1 ':'e7 c;i;>g4 1 2 h7 c;i;>g3
(instead of 5 . . . 0,e3+ ) is also hopeless: 6 ( 1 2 . . . c;i;>f3 1 3 ':'xe3+!) 1 3 h4+ ! .
':'xh7+ c;i;>g8 7 lig7+ c;i;>h8 8 l:td7 l:tc2 9
[Instead o f 1 1 . . . c;i;>g4 Black has the more
c;i;>e1 !? followed by lixd6.
tenacious 1 1 . . .11c 1 + 12 c;i;>h2 0,g4+ 13 c;i;>g3
6 . c;i;>g61
11c3+ 14 c;i;>g2 l:tc2+ 15 c;i;>f1 %1xa2 1 6 h 7
. .
Now the main strategic basis of the pawn lIa8, when the win still has to b e demon
sacrifice . . . g6-g5! becomes clear - it is strated.
important to g ive the black king air and
Black is not obliged to capture on g2.
enable it to break free.
8 . . . 0,g4!? suggests itself, for example: 9 g3
7 ':'g8+ (9 c;i;>f1 0,e3+) 9 . . . .1:.xc3 10 ':'xh 7 ':' c 1 + 1 1
I n the event of 7 0,b5!? I was intend ing to c;i;>g2 l:1c2+ 1 2 c;i;>f1 0,e3+ 13 c;i;>g 1 (if 1 3 c;i;>e 1
play 7 . . J:bg2+ 8 c;i;> h 1 l:txa2 9 0,xd6 0,xd5 the same reply follows with even greater
1 0 ':'g8+ c;i;> h 5 , and if 1 1 0,xf5?, then strength) 13 . . . c;i;>g4! 14 .1:. e 7 c;i;>f3 (threaten
1 1 . . . c;i;>g4! with cou nterplay, si nce the king ing 15 . . . l:t c 1 + 16 c;i;>h2 0,g4+) 15 ':'xe3+
breaks through to h3. U nfortunately, after 1 1 c;i;>xe3 16 h7 .1:.c 1 + 1 7 c;i;>g2 ':c2+ 18 c;i;>h3
d8! (Dol matov) or 1 1 f6! (Dvoretsky) lic1 with a draw. White nevertheless retains
Wh ite nevertheless wins. chances of success, by playing 9 0,d1! 11c1
Practical Exercises in the Taking of d ifficult Decisions ttJ 1 63
1 0 cJ;; f1 r1xd 1 + 11 cJ;; e2, and if 1 1 . . . 'l:.g 1 ?, A draw would have resulted from 12 l:[xf3
then 12 i.e 7!, winning - Dvoretsky.] cJ;; xf3 .
The king feels a little more comfortable on The mistakes made by my opponent to
the h-file than on the Bth ra nk. The attempt wards the end of the game are easily
to play for mate looks tempting: B i.e7!? If explained. He thought that his position was
B . . . .:.xc3 , then White decides matters with won , and he took the pawn sacrifice . . . g6-
the q u iet move 9 g 3 ! ! found by Dolmatov, gS to be sign of desperatio n . The move
after which the king can no longer escape 6 . . . cJ;; g 6 ! , complicati ng the position , came
from the mating net. This means that Black as a su rprise to h i m . In severe time-trouble
has to defend with B . . . ':'c1 + 9 cJ;; h 2 lDg4+ 1 0 (wh ich was mutual, incidentally) and under
cJ;; h 3? ':'xc3+ 1 1 g3 lDf2+ 1 2 cJ;; g 2 lDe4, or 9 the psychological effect of the sharp change
cJ;; f2 lDg4+ 1 0 cJ;; e 2 l:txc3 . There is little joy of situation , Wh ite loses his bea rings and
here, of course, but even so it is possible to even loses the game.
fight o n . 12 . . . cJ;; x g3
Probably t h e simplest way, and t h e most 1 3 l:lxf3+ cJ;; xf3
unpleasant one for me, was the win of two
1 4 cJ;; e 1 'iii> e 3
pieces for a rook either in the previous
variation ( 1 0 lbg4 with the king on h2 or f2), 1 5 cJ;; f1 c4! ?
or by B i.f6!? l:tc1 + (B ... lDg4 9 :gS+ cJ;; h 6 1 6 lDxd6 'iii>f3?!
1 0 i.g7 mate , or 9 . . cJ;; h 4 1 0 J:lxfS+ cJ;; g 3? 1 1
. 1 7 cJ;; e 1 c3
lDe4 mate) 9 cJ;; f2 lDg4+ 1 0 lbg4 cJ;; xg4 1 1 1 8 lDxf5??
a4. White should be able to convert his
1 B d 1 was essential, with a probable
advantage, although he still needs to over
d raw.
come some technical difficulties.
[Black would still have had to work for the
8 . . . lDg4
draw, by playing 1 B. . .1:!xa2 (weaker is
9 g3?! lDh2? 1 B. . . I!d2+ 1 9 cJ;; c 1 'l:.xd5 20 lDc4 cJ;; e 4 2 1
Black wants to set u p the afore-mentioned cJ;; c2 cJ;; d4 2 2 lDb6! o r 2 0. . . 1:.d4 2 1 lDe5+
drawing mechanism with . . . ':d2 and . . . lDf3+. e4 22 cJ;; c2 1:.d2+ 23 cJ;; xc3 1:lxa2 24 lDd7)
[Here exactly the same motifs operate as 1 9 lDc4 lta4 20 lDe5+ cJ;; e 4 2 1 d6 :!d4+ 22
were mentioned earlier. 9 . . . J:ld2!! would 'iii> c2 1:!xd6. Therefore it made sense to
have given a draw, while White could have advance the c-pawn a move earlier: 1 6. . . c3!
retained winning chances by choosing 9 1 7 lDxf5+ 'iii> e 4 with equality Dvoretsky.]
-
In seeking decisions, don 't restrict your And now the results of the competitio n . The
self only to an analysis of variations. strongest today was Svidler, with Zviagintsev
Often general positional considerations in second place , and Emelin third . However,
also come to your aid. I n the given all of you did q u ite well . I hope that the
instance I looked to see how I could exploit experience accu mulated in the solving and
the defects of the move f2-f4, and I also discussing of the exercises will come in
aimed to release my king from i mprison useful at the board , where it is certain that
ment. you will constantly encou nter equally diffi
cult problems.
ltJ 1 65
Mark Dvoretsky
Vi rtuoso Defe n ce
1 6 'ili'h4
The sharp attempt 1 6 e6?! is interesti ng. I n
the opin ion of Vlad i m i r Lepyoshki n , Wh ite
gains the advantage after the cautious
1 6 . . . xg5+ 1 7 "xg5 "f4+ 1 8 Wxf4 liJxf4
1 9 exd7+ xd7 20 f5+ d6 2 1 g3 liJg6 22 I n this sharp position Black has tried various
h3 liJe7 23 :e3 or 1 7 . . . liJdf6 1 8 exf7+ continuations:
xf7 1 9 liJe6 'ili'd6 20 e2 g6 2 1 xh5 A) 1 8 . . . liJdf6 1 9 exf7+ xf7 20 :f1 1:[e8 21
1:[ae8 22 g4 c8 23 lIf1 l:txe6 24 xe6+ g4 We5 (weaker is 21 . . . g8 22 gxh5 liJxh5
'ii'x e6 25 1:[xd5. 23 xg6 with a dangerous attack) 22 'ii' h 6
The q ueen sacrifice should be accepted : (22 'iWh4!?) 22 . . . liJg7 23 g5 'ii'e 3+ 24 b1
1 6 . . . liJxg3 1 7 exf7+ r:Ji;xf7 1 8 1be7+ g8 1 9 g8 25 xg6? ! (25 l'1f3 would have
hxg3 'ii'x g3 ( 1 9 . . ...e5 20 f5) 20 liJe6 'iWe5 maintained equality) 25 . . . hxg6 26 'iWxg6
2 1 1:[f1 . The correspondence game Baluev (Rodriguez Talavera-Nedobora, Seville 1 992)
Vad i kan ( 1 976), where 1 6 e6 was first and, by playing 26 . . . liJg4 ! ? , it would appear
employed , did not last long : 2 1 . . . liJc5? 22 that Black could have claimed an advan
f5 liJe4? (22 . . . liJxe6 23 xe6+ 'ii' x e6 24 tage.
:xe6 h6 with advantage to Wh ite) 23 xe4 B ) 18 . . ...f4+ 1 9 "xf4 liJxf4 20 exd7+ xd7
dxe4 24 1:[f6! 'ii'x g5+ 25 liJxg5 d5 26 1:[xa6 2 1 1:[f1 liJxd3+ 22 l:1xd3 f5 23 g4 - th is was
Black resigned . In Informator it was an no first played in the correspondence game
tated by Lepyoshki n , who gave the variation Shakarov-Zhuravlev, 1 976. Later practice
Virtuoso Defence ttJ 1 67
showed that the endgame is eq ual . For A tempti ng move . After defending his d7-
example: 23 .. J:taf8 24 gxf5 gxf5 25 11g3 pawn , White then wants to double heavy
l:.hg8 26 tt)xf5 lbg3 27 hxg3 h5 28 'iii> d 2 a5 pieces on the h-file. The immed iate attempt
(Lechtynsky-Sch mid, Germany 1 994) . to implement this attacking set-up is ineffec
C} 1 8 . . . tt)c5 1 9 exf7+ 'iii> xf7 20 :f1 + 'iii> g 8 2 1 tive: 2 1 'ii' h 6 ::txd7 (but not 2 1 . . . 'iWxd7? 22
tt)f5 1:[f8 ( o r 2 1 . . . tt) e 6 22 tt) h 6 + 'iii> g 7 2 3 :e3 'ii'x g4 23 e2 ! and 24 l::t h 3) 22 :e3
tt)f5+ 'iii> g 8 with a d raw, as in Luther-P. N iel tt)e6, and if 23 ':h3?! there is 23 . . . 'iWf4+,
sen , Malmo 2002) 22 tt)e7+ 'iii> g 7 23 xg6 while 23 f5? is refuted by 23 . . . tt)xd4 24
tt)e6 24 tt)f5+ l:txf5 25 'ii'xf5 tt)hf4 26 h5 l:txd4 ::te7 25 l:.h3 f6 (Sanakoev). A draw
l:.f8 27 'iVg4+ 'iii> h 8 28 g3 l::t c8 ! 29 ':'f2 'ii'c5 results from 23 xg6 hxg6 24 xe6 fxe6 25
30 l:tfd2 :g8 (30 . . . tt)xh5 31 'ii'x e6 tt)g7 is of 'ii'x g6+ 'iii> h 8, while the position arising after
equal merit - Berelovich-Dvoiris, Hoogeveen 23 l:txe6 fxe6 24 tt)xe6 'ii'd 6 25 tt)xf8 'iWxf8
200 1 ) 31 'ii'f5 tt)xh5 32 'ii'x e6 tt)g7 with 26 'ike3 is merely slig htly more pleasant for
roughly equal chances (Hakki-DeFirmian, White.
Hamar 1 983). However, there was another, stronger offen
I n two games from the 1 0th World Corre sive plan, involving the advance of the h
spondence Championship, Karl-Heinz Mae pawn . It was employed in the game Estrin
der chose another, more risky method of Maeder, played in the same World Corre
defence. spondence Championship.
noth ing of over-the-board play. 23 . . . gxf5 24 gxf5 f6 25 ':'g 1 (but not 25 1:e7
21 . . . i.c6 :tf7 26 ti)e6, as recommended in the first
edition of Sanakoev's book, because of the
Maeder aims to eliminate the dangerous d7-
counter-stroke 26 . . . ti)xf5 ! pointed out by
pawn as soon as possible. The wh ite bishop
John N u n n ) 25 . . . :tf7 (25 . . . i.c8? 26 l:th3) 26
is immune: Black loses qu ickly after both
ti)e6 ! i.xe6 27 fxe6 ':e7 28 :th3 with a
21 . . . gxf5? 22 ti)xf5, and 2 1 . . .f6? 22 'ikh6
powerful attack;
gxf5 23 Ite7 Itf7 24 Itde 1 Itdf8 (24 . . . l:txd7
25 1:[e8+) 25 1:xf7 xf7 (25 . . . 1:xf7 26 1:e8+ 23 . . .i.xf5 24 l:th3 ti)h5 25 l:.xh5 gxh5 26
l:.f8 27 l:.xf8+ xf8 28 ti)e6+) 26 ti)xf5 ti)xf5 gxf5 'ii'x h2 27 ti)f3, and Black has to give up
27 gxf5 . queen for rook;
22 11d3 ! ? 23 . . . l:.fe8 24 l:th3 gxf5 25 'ii'x h7+ f8 26
'ilfh8+ e7 27 'ikxg7 'ilff4+ (after 27 . . .fxg4,
Which rook should b e brought t o h3?
as considered by Sanakoev, the simplest is
Wh ite's choice looks illogica l , since after
28 'iVg5+) 28 b 1 fxg4 29 lIh6, and the
22 . . . i.xd7 23 'iVh6 (or 23 l:th3) the move
black king is in trouble.
23 .. .l::tfe 8 will be made with gain of tempo:
Wh ite will have to lose time moving his rook The best defence is 23 . . . ti)e6 ! (with the idea
from e 1 . Of course, Sanakoev took this into of 24 .l:th3? 'ilff4+). The wh ite player thought
account, but nevertheless, after delving that 24 ti)xe6 (24 i.xe6?! fxe6 25 ':xe6!
deeply into the concrete variations, he lIde8 26 l:txg6+ is sufficient only for a draw)
preferred the move in the game. Later he 24 . . . i.xe6 25 i.xg6 fxg6 26 l:txe6 'iVf4+ 27
concluded that his decision was incorrect 'iVxf4 1:xf4 would lead to an equal endgame
and that 22 1:[e3 should have been played . I (i ncidentally, after 26 . . . 1:[f2 ! 27 1:[d2 .l:.f1 + 28
carried out a joint analysis with Vadim 1:d 1 .uxd 1 + 29 xd 1 Black's position is
Zviagintsev, after which we d isagreed with even to be preferred , since the enemy king
the conclusion of the author - in fact the two can no longer feel secure).
moves are roughly equivalent. Later Sanakoev real ised that the simple 25
Let us examine the position arising after .l:.h3 would guarantee h i m a very strong
22 1:[e3 i.xd7. attack, for example: 25 . . . 1:fe8 26 'iVxh7+
f8 27 'ii' h 6+ e7 28 'iVg5+ etc.
However, this entire variation is of no
importance, since it is based on the errone
ous assumption that after 24 . . . fxe6 (instead
of 24 . . . i.xe6?) 25 i.xg6 White wins. Noth
ing of the sort! - the obvious 25 . . . i.c8 26
l:th3 l:td7 parries the opponent's attack.
Thus the exchange on e6 does not give
Wh ite any advantage. Sanakoev wanted to
play 24 l:[f1 , having in mind the winn ing
variations 24 . . . ti)xd4 25 l:[h3 l:[fe8 26 i.xg6
or 24 . . . l:tfe8 25 ti)xe6 (25 l:th3!?) 25 . . . i.xe6
26 l:th3. Alas, there is a refutation: 24 . . . 'iVc4 ! ,
a n d t h e rook on f1 is hang i n g . B u t with the
wh ite rook on d3 the q ueen move could be
23 'ii' h 6 suggests itself. Sanakoev gives the met by b2-b3 - this is why Sanakoev played
following variations: 22 l:[d3.
Virtuoso Defence ttJ 1 69
Even so, in these variations Black's position It was only when the present ed ition was
looks shaky, and it is dangerous to go in for being prepared for publ ication that I d iscov
such play - one would l i ke to fi nd someth ing ered both the refutation of Maeder's idea ,
rather more safe. and the defensive improvement 24 . . . 1Ii'c4 ! .
I suggest playing 24 .. .'iWc4 ! ' Sanakoev 25 l:th3?
writes that after this 'I could simply reply 25 A bold, but objectively i ncorrect decision !
b3 and continue the attack in comfort. Alas, '
Sanakoev tries to break through immedi
after 25 . . .1Ii'c5 to attack 'in comfort' does not ately on the h-file, but at a high price : the
prove possible, since 26 l:1h3?? no longer black pawn is now on the threshold of
works in view of 26 . . .'ii' x d4 27 11i'xh7+ 'itff8 q ueen ing. However, subseq uently it may
(th reatening an extremely u npleasant check still be possible to stop it, by playing 1:1a3 or
at a 1 ). In the variation 26 iLxd7 llxd7 27 It'lb3 .
.l:.h3 1Ii'xd4 28 1Ii'xh 7 + 'itff8 29 11i'h8+ 'itfe 7 30 25 . . . bxa2
.l:.e 1 + 'itfd6 31 ':'xe8 1Ii'g 1 + ! 32 'itfb2 It'lxe8
26 Wxh7+ 'itff8
33 'ikxe8 'ikd4+ Black is guaranteed a draw.
And after 26 iLxg6 he can reply either 27 'ii' h 8+
26 . . . hxg6 27 l:.h3 f6 28 1Ii'h7+ 'itff7 29 l:th6 In the event of 27 1:1a3 Black would have
'ii'x d4 30 'ili'xg6+ 'itfg8 with a draw, or gained an advantage with the spectacular
26 .. .fxg6 27 .l:.h3 lt'lh5 28 l:txh5 %1e7! with an 27 . . . l:te1 +! 28 l:txe 1 Wf4+ 29 'itfd 1 Wxd4+
u nclear position . 30 'itfc1 lIc8! (th reatening 3 1 . . . 1:1xc2 + ! ) 31
Maeder preferred a completely different 'ii' h 6+ 'itfg8 32 1Ii'e3 Wc4 or 3 1 ':xa2 iLxf5
method of defence. 32 'itf b 1 ':'xc2 33 'itfa 1 ':'e2 .
24 . . . b3?! 27 . . . 'itf e 7
An u nexpected reply! Any captu re on b3 28 Wh4+
would seem to have its d rawbacks. If 25
It'lxb3?, then 25 . . . iLb5 26 l:tc3 'ili'xc3 27
bxc3 iLxf1 (Sanakoev considers this posi
tion to be 'completely unclear', but in fact
here Black has a big advantage). If 25 axb3
there follows 25 . . . 'ika5 (th reatening not only
26 .. .',.'a 1 + , but also 26 . . . :1e 1 + ) 26 'itfb1
iLb5, and it is now Wh ite who has to gain a
d raw by 27 iLxg6! fxg6 28 l:t h 3 ! .
However, i t is not altogether clear what
Black had in mind in reply to 25 :xb3 ! Wa5
26 l:t d 1 ! (26 c3 is much weaker, since the
rook is cut off from the kingside). I do not
see any satisfactory defence against the
threatened l:th3, for example: 26 . . . gxf5 27
gxf5 f6 28 l:th3, 26 . . . Wxa2 27 l:th3, or Sanakoev had aimed for this position . If
26 . . . lt'le6 27 It'lxe6 iLxe6 28 l:th3 Wxa2 29 28 . . . 'itfd6 he was intend ing to reply simply
iLxg6 ! . 29 :a3, stopping the pawn and reta i n i ng a
I n Sanakoev's games collection and i n strong attack.
previous editions o f my book, Black's last The king move to f8 did not concern h i m , if
move was awarded two exclamation marks. only because if Wh ite wishes he can satisfy
Virtuoso Defence 1 71
h imself with a repetition of moves (28 . . .'i'f8 or 34 . . . lbh5? 35 gxh5 J:.c8 36 .i:tf3) 35 ..td3
29 'ii' h 8+ e7 30 'iWh4+ ). He can also l:lxd3+ 36 xd3 g8 with approximate
consider 29 iVf6!? a 1 iV+ 30 d2 . However, equal ity.
here with correct play the game should Alas, Black has available a much sounder
conclude with the same result: defence, secu ri ng him the advantage.
A) 30 . . . 'iif4+? is incorrect: 3 1 l:lxf4 iVe 1 + 32 28 . . . f6!
d3 'ii'd 1 + 33 c3 l:lc8+ 34 b3, and after 29 1:.e3+
moving along the 3rd rank the king hides
Now, in Sanakoev's opinion, Black loses
from the checks at a2 (Sanakoev). Noth ing
after both 29 . . . 'iii f7? 30 ..txg6+ and 29 . . . f8
is changed by 32 . . . ..tf5+ (in the hope of 33
30 ..txg6! ' However, the second variation
gxf5? lbh5 or 33 .i:txf5?! iVd 1 + 34 c3
must be conti nued : 30 . . . a 1 'ii + 31 'iii' d 2
iVe 1 + 35 b3 1I b8+ 36 a2 iVa5+ 37 .ll a 3
'iica5+ 32 c3 'iix b2+ 33 lbc2 1Wxc2+! 34
iVc7) 33 lbxf5! 'iid 1 + 34 c3 etc.
..txc2 f5 ! 35 ..txf5 ..txf5 36 'it'h8+ 'iii' f7 37
B) I n Sanakoev's opinion , 30 . . . iVaa5+ loses ':xf5+ lbxf5 38 iVh5+ 'iii' g 7 39 'iWg5+ ri;f7 40
to 31 c3 lbh5 32 l:[xh5 gxh5 33 iVh6+ rJ;; e 7 'ii'xf5+ rJ;; g 7 41 Vi'g5+ ri;f7 42 'iWh5+ (there is
34 l:le1 + ..te6 35 ..txe6 xh2+ 36 l::t e 2 no mate after 42 l:lf3+ e6) 42 . . . rJ;; g 7 43
iVxe2+ 37 xe2 l:[d6 38 lbf5+ d8 39 l:lxe8 'iWa2+ 44 e3 l:lxe8 45 Vi'xe8 'ii'x h2,
lbxd6 .i:txe6+ 40 'ii' x e6 fxe6 41 lbb 7 + with a and the result is a drawn q ueen endgame.
won ending for Wh ite . I n fact, the evaluation However, Black is no longer satisfied with a
of the endgame after 41 . . . c7 42 lbxa5 d raw.
hxg4 43 f2 is sti ll not altogether obvious, 29 . . . lbe6 ! !
but this is immaterial, since instead of 39
2 9 . . . ..te6 was weaker - in the variation
lbxd6 Wh ite wins far more simply by 39
which occu rred in the game 30 lbb3 'ii'c4 3 1
'iWf6+! ri;c7 40 'ixf7+ ri;b8 4 1 lbxd6. On the
iLd3 'ii'x b3+ 3 2 'ii'xf6+ the knight o n g 7
other hand , Black is by no means bound to
would b e vul nerable.
place his rook on d6, where it is immed iately
lost - 37 . . . l::t b 8! is stronger, when Wh ite , 30 lb b3
apparently, has no advantage. Besides, No combinations are apparent, and there
Black can play d ifferently on the 35th move . fore Wh ite has to retreat.
True, 35 . . J:td6? does not work in view of 36 30 . . . 'iVc4!?
..tc8+! (with the idea of giving mate in the A good move, but by no means Black's only
variation 36 . . . 'iii d 8 37 .i:txe8+ xe8 38 option. 30 . . . .i:th8 31 'ii'e 1 gxf5 32 gxf5 l:lxh2
h8+ e7 39 lbf5 mate) 36 . . . l:le6 37 ..txe6 was very strong, for example, 33 l:lxe6+
d8 38 'iWg5+ 11e7 39 .i:te5. However, the f7 ! 34 .i:te7+ rJ;;f8 35 .i:te2 l:tb8!?, or 33 .i:tc3
simple 35 . . .fxe6! ? forces Wh ite to be satis 'ia5 34 'ii' a 1 d4.
fied with perpetual check: 36 'iWxe6+ (36 31 iLd3 'ii'x b3
llxe6+? d7) 36 . . . f8 37 .i:tf1 + 'iii' g 7 38
32 'ii'xf6+ 'iii d 6
lbf5+ h7 39 'ii' h 6+ g8 40 iVg6+ 'iii h 8 .
33 'ii' e 5+ c6
C ) 30 . . . 'ii'c a5+ 3 1 c 3 iVxb2+ (perpetual
check results from 3 1 . . . ri;g8 ! ? 32 ..txg6! 34 cxb3 a1 'ii' +
xb2+ 33 ..tc2 ..te6 34 lbxe6 'ii'x c2+ ! ) 32 35 'iii c2 'ii'a 5
..tc2 iVbxc3+ 33 l::t x c3 .i:te7 (here Sanakoev 36 ..txg6 .i:tf8
terminated his analysis, thinking that in this 37 .i:tf7
way White's attack was refuted) 34 'it'h4!
1:1e3 ! ! (Black loses after 34 . . . 'iii g 8? 35 'ii'x e7 (see diagram)
1 72 Virtuoso Defence
A bad sign for White : he is forced to With the rooks on (43 . . . xc6?! 44 h4) the
exchange pieces. But after 4 1 11f6? (with position would become unclear - Wh ite's
the threat of 42 :a3) 41 . . . xg4! it is now his passed pawns are rather dangerous. I n
king that comes under attack. order to neutralise them, i t is i mporta nt
It is more d ifficult to evaluate 41 l:tc3 :ge8 !? above all to exchange the strong wh ite
42 'ifc5 (but not 42 'ifd6? :e2+! 43 xe2 bishop, which explains the captu re on c6
xg4+ 44 f2 :xd6 45 :cxc7+ b8! 46 with the king . It is true that the opponent
.l:.b7+ c8 47 :a7 'ifc6) 42 .. :iVc6 . In the gains the opportun ity to regain part of the
event of 43 'iff2 a draw results from material deficit, but the position is sign ifi
43 . . . 'ifxg6? 44 l:.xc7+ xc7 45 'ifa7+, but cantly simpl ified , and all the same Black's
Black can choose between 43 . . . 'iVd6!? and position remains sufficient for a win .
43 . . . 'ifb6 ! ? 44 'ifxb6+ xb6 45 :xd7 :xd7 44 l:tc3+ d6
46 .l:.xc7 xc7 47 xe8 :h7 48 h5 d6 - 45 ':f6+ e51
with a big advantage i n both cases. 46 l:bc7 xf6
43 h4!? is more promising for Wh ite. I n tu rn , 47 ':xd7
Black's play can b e improved : 4 1 . . . 'iVb5! I n the event of 47 xd7 :h8 Black soon
(instead of 41 . . . :ge8 ) 42 'ife5 (42 'iVd6 creates a decisive attack by the un ited
'iVb6) 42 . . . 'ifb6 43 .l:r.f6 lDe6, and the efforts of his two rooks and king .
advantage remains on his side.
47 . . . ':xd7
41 . . . :ge8 48 .i.xd7 l1h8
42 'iVd6 49 h3 e51
The king must stay i n the centre, while the
rook itself deals with the kingside pawns. If
49 . . . g5? there could have followed 50 b5
axb5 51 d3 l:[xh3+ 52 d4 :b3 (52 . . . b4
53 .i.a4 J:[h 1 54 xd5 ':c1 55 b5 with the
idea of 56 c4 ) 53 xd5 ':xb2 (53 . . . :d3+
54 c6 b4 55 e6) 54 c5 b4 55 a4 and
56 c4 with a draw.
50 g5 :g8
51 h4 ':h8
42 . . . 'iVc61
Not 42 . . . .:xe3? 43 :xd7! or 42 . . . 'ifd 1 +? 43
xd 1 a4+ 44 b3 :xd6 45 :h3! b5 46
:hh7 :c6 47 d7.
43 'iVxc6+
43 'ifxd7? :xd7 44 xd7 did not work in
view of 44 ... 'ifh6! 45 xe8 d4 .
43 . . . xc6!
1 74 Virtuoso Defence
52 96 6 0 <it>c4 d3
I n one way or another Wh ite must exchange 61 .ta4 d2
the q ueenside pawns. The immediate 52 b5 62 .t b3 :91
is refuted by 52 . . . <it>d6! 53 bxa6 (what else?) 63 b5 J:!c1 +!
53 . . . <it>xd7 54 a7 1:[a8! - the rook eliminates
Of course, not 63 . . . d 1 'ii' ? ? 64 .txd 1 l:lxd 1
the a-pawn , wh ile the king stops the passed
65 b6 with a draw.
pawns on the kingside.
64 'it>d5 l:[b1
I ncidental ly, another, less successfu l alloca
tion of the roles of the black pieces Wh ite resigned .
54 . . . <it>c7?! 55 h5 <it>b7 56 h6 <it>xa7 57 <it>e3
Let us sum u p . I n playing for a win both
<it>b6 is also good enough to wi n :
players willingly took g reat risks. From the
5 8 <it>f4 d4; opening Wh ite did not gain any advantage,
58 b4 <it>c6 59 <it>f4 <it>d6 60 <it>f5 <it>e 7 (but not but Black's d u bious castl ing on the 1 8th
60 . . . d4? 61 g6); move put him in an extremely dangerous
58 <it>d4 <it>c6 59 b4 (in the event of 59 <it>e5 position . He committed another error by
Black wins by both 59 . . . <it>d7 60 b4 <it>e7 6 1 being tempted by the spectacular 24 . . . b3?!
<it>xd5 l:tg8, and 5 9 . . .1le8+ 6 0 <it>f6 d4) instead of reta i n i n g the bala nce with
59 . . . 'it>d6 60 b5 'it>e6 6 1 b6 l::t d 8 ! ! 62 h7 <it>f7 24 . . . 'ifc4! . Sanakoev also went wrong twice:
63 h8'it' l:[xh8 64 'it>xd5 <it>e7 65 <it>c6 .l::r.c8 + ! ' on the 2 1 st move he did not choose the
52 . . . ':xh4 strongest plan of attack, and on the 25th he
53 b5 axb5 played too straight-forwardly for mate, miss
ing a q u iet way of refuting his opponent's
54 .txb5 <it>d41
idea . Later Black defended accu rately and
The most accu rate - the king supports the at no point d id he let his advantage slip. On
advance of the d-pawn . The conseq uences the whole, the qual ity of the play (taking into
of 54 .. .1lb4 55 .td3 (55 .te8) 55 . . . .:xb2+ 56 account the irrational natu re of the very
<it>e3 .l:lg2 57 <it>f3 are less clear. sharp situation which arose in the game)
55 <it>c2 can be assessed as very high.
In the variation 55 .te8 l:th2+ 56 <it>c1 (56 'I have played about 300 games by corre
'it>e1 <it>e3 57 <it>f1 <it>f3 ! ) 56 .. .1lg2 (56 . . . 'it>e3? spondence, the majority of which I have
57 g7! .l:tg2 58 .tf7 ; 56 . . . <it>d3!?) 57 .tf7 won, but few of these victories brought me
<it>e4 58 b4 d4 59 b5 d3 60 b6 <it>d4 (or such creative satisfaction as this unsuc
60 . . . <it>e3) Black wins, as is usually the case cessful attack. The excitement of the crea
in the endgame, by one tempo. tive process took such a hold on me, that at
55 . . . ':94 some point the actual result became not so
56 .te8 'it>e3 important - creativity came to the fore . . .
57 b4 d4 'Heaven knows, in this game I did every
thing in my powers. My opponent played
Of course, not 57 . . . .:xb4?? 58 .tf7 .
better - all praise to the winner! But I
58 97 l:tx97 conducted the attack without heed for the
59 <it>b3 ':95 circumstances, and in the end a person is
A good move , although not essentia l . The responsible for his actions, but not for their
immed iate 59 . . . d3 was possible, for exam result . . . Of course, it was crazy to allow the
ple, 60 .th5 .1:.g5 61 .td 1 1:[g 1 62 .th5 %:t h 1 black pawn to reach a2, but "he who has
(62 . . . d2 also wins) 6 3 .tg4 <it>f4 . never done anything reckless is less wise
Virtuoso Defence ctJ 1 75
26 . . . "il g8
The main variation is 26. . . :1xg5 27 hxg5
When I annotated this game for the newspa "ikxe 7 28 fxe 7 iLe6 29 iLd1 g7 30 i.. a 4. Or
per 'Ekstrabladet', I was under the influence 29 iLe2 and 30 iLb5. Why I also mention
of analyses by Rivas and under pressure this second possibility, we will see later. The
from the editor Dinesen . . . And I believed d1-a4 diagonal could have been blocked!
that Black was doomed: 24 . . . gxh5? 25 "ilg5; Apart from this variation we will also analyse
24 . . . i.. e 6? 25 'Wig5 i.. xd5 26 i.. xg6+ fxg5 27 26. . . "ilf8 27 iLxg6+ h8 (27. . . fxg6 28 h5)
h5, and White wins (according to Rivas, 28 iL f5 i.. xf5 29 exf5 h7 30 CiJg8!!.
there can follow 27 . . . "ilxf6 28 hxg6+ g8 29 Perhaps it was this that Mestel overlooked.
"iixd5+ g7 30 : h 7+ xg6 31 "ikh5 mate However, it is not difficult to see 30 CiJg8, if
this in indeed pretty). I should mention one you think about how White can prevent the
instructive feature: the queen on g5 blocks defence 30. . :ikh6.
1 76 \t? Virtuoso Defence
Mark Dvoretsky
What l i es be h i nd a M istake
remains sharp. 32 %l g 1 is stronger, but then nervous tension , agg ravated by the emo
instead of 32 . . . %lg5 (which leads to a tions provoked by the loss of the previous,
position from the game) Black can make 1 0th game. And on the other hand - a lack
another, more useful move - 32 . . . 'ii'c2 . of the habit of deeply and carefully checking
32 %lg1 e3 variations. Anand possesses a wonderful
33 d6 %lg3 i ntuition , and many of his decisions (some
times very d ifficult ones) are taken quickly,
34 'ii'x b7 'ii'e 6
but rapid ity of th i n king often goes badly with
35 h21 accu racy and precision in calculation .
Black resigned , since after 35 . . . 'ii'e 5 36
3 0 . . . :1xb4+ 31 a3. Wh ite was expecting to
'ii'x aB he is unable to make favourable use
emerge with the exchange for a pawn after,
of the d iscovered check.
say, 3 1 . . . .l:.bc4, but he overlooked a fearfu lly
strong counter-stroke: 31 . . Jlxc2 ! . He had to
Anand - Kasparov resign immediately in view of 32 %lxc2 l:Ib3+
1 1 th game of the match 33 a2 :e3+, when Black is two pawns up.
Here Kasparov was simply lucky - after all,
the move he made was in fact bad ! The
captu re on e7 leads by force to a double
rook ending with an extra pawn and excel
lent winning chances for White .
28 li'lxe7! :te8
29 li'ld5 xd5
30 b4!
The moves can also be interposed : 29 b4
axb4 30 axb4 l::t c4 31 li'ld 5 .
30 . . . axb4
31 axb4 %lc4
32 l:txd5
This position has been reached by force. Of
The e7-pawn is under attack. After the
course, it is too early to call a halt - a certain
normal 27 . . .fB Black would have retained
calcu lating tech nique (although not too
an acceptable, although slightly inferior
complicated ) is requ i red , in order to take the
position . I n stead of this Kasparov played
variation to its logical end. It is surprising
'actively' .
that neither Anand (during the game) nor
27 . . . e6?
Kasparov (in his analysis in Informator)
In the game his idea proved justified , si nce coped with this problem .
his opponent was tempted by a faulty
32 . . . %lxb4+
combination on the theme of double attack:
28 b4? axb4 29 axb4 %lc4 30 li'l b6?? If 32 . . . .l:.ecB? (suggested by Kasparov), then
33 c3! (weaker is 33 %le2 l::t x b4+ 34 c1
I should mention that Anand thought about
':c6 35 .l:.ed2 l:ta6) 33 . . . l::t xc3 34 :e2
this combination for only a few minutes. and
followed by 35 %lxb5.
the fatal knight move was altogether made
almost instantly. Why? On the one hand, 33 c3
what obviously told was the enormous Of cou rse, not 33 c1 ? f5 with equality.
1 80 What lies behind a Mistake
Anand - Kasparov
1 7th game of the match
lIg5 3 8 lIxh4 lIxg2 3 9 'iti>b1 . Here , for the pawn to d4 when the king is on b 1 .
moment, Wh ite is not a pawn up, but he has The moral to be d rawn from these examples
a serious positional plus - two connected (the list of them could have been extended )
passed pawns on the q ueenside. If the is obvious. For a player of any standard it is
wh ite king ma nages to get to b3 (as i n the important to make a thorough analysis of his
variation 39 . . ..:f2 40 ':xh5!? ':'xf3 41 'iti>a2), own games, and disclose the latent, deep
the position will certainly become won . causes of the mistakes he has made, as this
Black's only counter-chance (although I always serves as the first step towards their
doubt whether it is sufficient) is to push his d- elimination .
1 82 <;t>
PART VI
Mark Dvoretsky
Analysis of a Game
':xd2 because of 26 1:.e2. But here it is too the position would not be changed (if 32
early to stop the calculation: Black can play 'itt g 3 , then 32 . . . 'iVe 1 + followed by 33 . . . a5 is
26 ... h51 (or 26 . . . h6!), opening an escape possible, if there is noth ing better).
square for the king . Black's rook is immune And in the event of 28 'itt h 2 there is an
and his th reats look rather dangerous. excellent knight sacrifice : 28 ... lbxh31 29
I ncidentally, in similar situations the pawn is gxh3 l:[d31 with an irresistible attack. For
usually advanced not one square , but two , example, 30 'iVb8+ 'itt h 7 3 1 'itt g 1 ':xh3 32
since it may come in useful i n the attack. I n .l:th2 'iVg5+ ! , or 30 'itt g 2 ':xh3 31 'ii'd 6 'itt h 7 ! ,
the g iven instance the two moves are intending 32 . . .f6 and 33 . . . e5 (31 . . . 'ii'g 4+ 32
roughly equ ivalent. 'ittf2 'iVg5! with the same th reat of . . . e6-e5
The opponent's reply is obvious: 27 'ii'x b6 is equally good ).
(27 'ii'x a6? l:1c2! is bad ). The next problem is Attempts to avoid mate lead to a lost
this: how can Black exploit the advantages endgame for Wh ite : 29 ':xd2 lbf4+ 30 'itt g 1
of his position? 'iVe 1 + 3 1 'itt h 2 'ii'x d2 , o r 2 9 'ii' b 8+ 'itt h7 30
'iVg3 'iVxg3+ 31 'itt x g3 ':d3+ ! 32 'itt h 2 lbg5.
I n stead of 26 ':e2 we must consider 26
.l:tf1 ! .
q ueenside pawns that are under fire , but 40 . . . 1:.d2+? ! ) 41 1:.g2 1:.d 1 or 4 1 'ii'x d6
also Black's. 'it'xc2+ 42 g 1 'ii' b 1 + and 43 . . . 'ii'x b5.
26 . . . tDxe4 In the game Black decided to go i nto an
27 'it'c6 'ii'g 3+ endgame. An incorrect assessment of the
28 g1 'ii'f2+ position! Even if the endgame is won , it is
clear that with the q ueens on it would be
29 h2 'ii'g 3+
much simpler to convert the advantage.
It is usefu l , by repeati ng moves, to save time
33 . . . 'ii'd 3?
on the clock.
30 g1 'it'f2+ 34 1:.e3 'ii'd 6+
31 h2 l:.d8 35 'it'xd6 ':'xd6
32 l:txe4 'ii'x d2 An interesting rook ending has arise n . In the
33 'it'xb6 analysis of it, numerous questions occurred
to me; the answers to them were either
lacking i n the commentary, or did not seem
convi ncing.
42 . . . f5 47 ':'c6 1:[xb4
43 l::t x h7 48 :1xg6
The delay i n playing . . . h7-h5 has told. The 48 %1e6 f4+ 49 g4 f3+ 50 g3 f2 51 l::t x e5+
outcome of the game is now in q uestion . f1 , and the f2-pawn inevitably promotes to
a quee n .
43 . . . e4
48 . . . f4+
49 h2 e4
50 :1xa6 e3
51 l:tb6 11a4
52 a6 f2
Wh ite resig ned .
1 90 Analysis of a Game
When analysing complicated endings, we follows 4 . . . l::t h 3+! 5 gxh3 g3+) 4 . . . l::t x a7
sometimes stumble upon positions which , (4 . . . g3! 5 as" f3! mates more qu ickly) 5
possibly, do not arise by force, but which are l::txe4 l::t a 1 + 6 'iti>h2 g3+ 7 'iti>h3 f3 S :f4 l::t h 1 +
i nteresting i n their own right. One such 9 'iti>g4 'iti>xg2 1 0 l::t xf3 l::t x h4+ .
position is examined by Chernosvitov.
It is time to sum u p . Chernosvitov played the
second half of the game uncertainly, and
also his commentary, although detailed,
was not too successfu l . Here two serious
deficiencies of his are clearly see n :
1 ) Weak conversion o f an advantage.
Remember: in a winning position Black
i ncorrectly allowed his opponent to sharpen
the play. Then he did not even try to figure
out the resulting complications. Finally, after
incorrectly resolving an exchanging prob
lem, he went into an endgame instead of
playing for mate . Later any methodical
player would surely have advanced his g
pawn two squares, instead of one, and he
I n his opin ion this is a position of mutual would also have chosen an appropriate
zugzwang. Wel l , it is not hard to see that if it moment to advance his h-pawn , whereas
is White to move he loses (1 g3 f3 , 1 h4 g4, Sasha left it at h 7, where it was lost. As a
or 1 l::t g S ':xa7 2 ':xg5 'iti>f2 3 l::t f5 f3 4 gxf3 result, the opponent gained real chances of
e3). But I can not agree with the conclusion saving the game.
that with Black to move it is a draw. The 2) Uncertain orientation in rook endings.
wh ite king is really very awkwardly placed . Chernosvitov overlooked some typical ideas
Black plays 1 . . . :ta2 2 'iti>g 1 l:Xa6! 3 'iti> h 1 (3 and plans, and his general assessments
'iti>h2 ::t a 1 ) 3 . . . g4! 4 hxg4 'iti>f2 5 g5 'iti>g3 with and specific recommendations often proved
unavoidable mate. incorrect.
There is also other, more spectacu lar Sasha can be advised to make a serious
solution : 1 . . . 'iti>f2 2 .:teS g4! 3 h4 (3 hxg4 study of rook endings, and even better - of
lba7) 3 . . . l:ta3! (another way is 3 .. .f3! 4 as. the theory and tech nique of the endgame as
l:th 1 + ! ! ) 4 'iti> h 1 (if 4 as. or 4 l:txe4 there a whole.
ltJ 1 91
A t the end of the book it has become an But this is already a serious mistake.
/""\e stablished tradition to g ive examples Accord ing to theory, better is 1 0 .. .fxe6 1 1
of play by pupils from the school (their ages dxe6 'ike7 1 2 t'i)d5 'ikxe6+ 1 3 'ili'e2 'it'xe2+
are g iven in brackets). The jun iors played 1 4 .txe2 0-0 1 5 t'i)c7 t'i)c6 1 6 t'i)xa8 t'i) b4 1 7
and annotated a whole series of interesting t'i)f3 t'i)c2+ 1 8 d 1 t'i)xa 1 1 9 .tc4+ h8, as
games, some of wh ich , with slight correc in the games Shereshevsky-Semenyu k,
tions in the analysis, will now be offered to Vilnius 1 974 , and Lputian-Magerramov,
the judgement of the readers. The author Beltsy 1 979.
faced a d ifficult problem, since nearly every 11 .t b5+ f8
young player has good examples of attack 1 1 . . . e 7 is also dangerous in view of 1 2
ing play. Th is is not surprising : attack, risk .tf4 fxe6 1 3 d6+ f7 1 4 t'i)f3 .
and imagination are natu rally associated
1 2 t'i)f3 fxe6
with youth . However, the games chosen
1 2 . . . a6 looks somewhat more accu rate,
speak for themselves.
although after 1 3 .te2 fxe6 1 4 0-0 exd5 1 5
t'i)g5 g8 ( 1 5 . . . .tf5?? 1 6 ':xf5 is completely
Boguslavsky ( 1 4) - Lepi n
bad ; Black also loses after 1 5 . . . d4 1 6 'iVb3
Moscow 1 989 'ikd7 1 7 .tg4) 1 6 .tc4 b5 1 7 .txd5+ t'i)xd5
Modern Benoni 1 8 t'i)f7 White has a very promising position .
1 d4 t'i)f6 1 3 0-0 exd5
2 c4 e6 14 t'i)g5 g8
3 t'i)c3 c5 1 4 . . . h6 came into consideration, but in this
4 d5 exd5 case after 1 5 'ikxd5 'ili'xd5 16 t'i)xd5 hxg5 1 7
5 cxd5 d6 .txg5 Wh ite regains the piece and reta ins
the in itiative in the endgame. Now, however,
6 e4 g6
the king's rook is shut in the corner, and
7 f4 .tg7
Wh ite is able to carry out his attack al most
8 e5 u n h i ndered .
This is typical of Maxim's style: already in 1 5 t'i)xd5
the open ing Wh ite chooses the sharpest
Also not bad was 1 5 .tc4 ! ? b5 1 6 .txd5+
conti nuatio n .
t'i)xd5 1 7 t'i)f7 with the idea of answering
8. . . dxe5 1 7 . . . 'ikd7 with 1 8 t'i)h6+ .txh6 1 9 .txh6,
The alternative is the immed iate 8 . . . t'i)fd7. with decisive threats.
9 fxe5 t'i)fd7 15 . . . t'i)xd5
1 0 e6 t'i)f6? Usually when defending the king you should
1 92 Creative Achievements of Pupils from the School
aim for the exchange of queens. In the given A fantastic position , where Wh ite has only
instance this would not have brought any one piece for the quee n , but one of the
particu lar relief: 1 5 . . . 'ii'x d5 1 S 'ii'x d5+ lZ'lxd5 opponent's rooks is out of play and his king
1 7 ..tc4 ..td4+ 1 8 'ii? h 1 'ii? g 7 1 9 ..txd5 fU8 20 is in a mating net. The fol lowing variations
':xf8 (20 lZ'lf7!? is also not bad ) 20 . . . 'ii? xf8 2 1 are based on Boguslavsky's analysis.
lZ'leS+ ..txeS 2 2 ..txb7, winning material. A) 20 . . . 'ii'f7 loses immediately to 21 ..tc4;
16 lZ'lf7 B) 20 ... lZ'ld7 2 1 :ae1 'ii' d 5 (or 2 1 . . . 'ii'x e 1 22
..tc4+) 22 1:.e7 'ii'd 4+ 23 'ii? h 1 lZ'lfS (23 ... lZ'lbS
24 ..te8) 24 ':xfS with unavoidable mate;
C) 20 . . . lZ'lcs 2 1 :ae 1
C 1 ) 2 1 . . . 'iVxa2? 22 1:.fS! (not 22 ..txcS? bxcS
23 :e7 'iix b2 24 :ef7 because of 24 . . :iWa 1 ! )
2 2 . . . 'ii'f7 23 :ef1 lZ'le5 2 4 llxf7 lZ'lxf7 25
..tc4 and wins;
C2) 21 . . . 'iIi'd5 22 b3 lZ'la5 (if 22 . . . lZ'le5, then
23 l:txe5) 23 ':'e7 'ii'd 4+ 24 'ii? h 1 , and Black
can not parry the threat of 25 ..te8;
C3) U nfortu nately, Maxim does not consider
the best defence: 21 . . . 'iVf7 ! . Here noth ing
decisive is apparent. For example, 22 :txf7
'ii? xf7 23 ..tc4+ 'ii? fS 24 .l:.f1 + 'ii? e 5 25 g7+
'ii? d S with eq uality, or 22 b3 lZ'la5 (but not
16 . . . ..td4+?
22 . . . 'iVxf1 +? 23 ':xf1 lZ'le5 24 1:.e 1 as 25
In a d ifficult position Black goes wrong and ..tf1 lZ'lf7 2S ..tc4, and all the black pieces
is elegantly mated . A subtle queen sacrifice, are tied up) 23 ..te2 .:te8.
which Boguslavsky had prepared , remained
Objectively, Wh ite would have done better
off-screen . After the best move 1 S .. :ii'e 7 1 7
to reject playing for bri l l iancy in favour of 1 8
lZ'lhS+ ..txhS Maxim was intending to play 1 8
xhS! (instead of 1 8 'ii'x d5+ ? ! ) 1 8 . . . ..teS 1 9
'ii'xd 5+ ..teS ( 1 8 . . . 'ii? g 7 1 9 .l:.f7+ 'ili'xf7 20
..tc4 lZ'lc7 20 'ii'f3 (20 ':f8+ 'it'xf8 2 1 ..txeS+
..txhS+ and 1 8 .. :ii'e S 1 9 ..txhS are both bad
lZ'lxeS 22 ..txf8 is also possible) 20 . . . lZ'ld7 2 1
for Black) 1 9 'ii'x eS+ ! ! 'ii'x eS 20 ..txhS.
':ae 1 , a n d Black h a s no defence.
17 'ii'x d4! cxd4
1 8 lZ'lh6+
Black resigned.
6 e2 0-0
7 0-0 li:)bd7
A transposition of moves has led to the
Sch lechter Variation of the Gru nfeld De
fence . Black's last move is considered
inaccurate, since now Wh ite can exchange
on d5, not fea ring the development of the
black knight at c6 - the optimal square in
this variation. I n this way Wh ite gained a
clear advantage in the game Botvinnik-Blau
(Olympiad , Tel Aviv 1 964) after 8 cxd5 cxd5
9 'it'b3 e6 1 0 a4 b6 1 1 .i.d2.
However, White's move in the game is also
not bad .
1 6 eSI
8 b3 e6
An imaginative decision . Such moves are
I n a game with Boris Kantsler, Van Teplitsky very easy to overlook. Now the win of a
found the antidote to another scheme of piece by 1 7 g4 is threatened . The 'auto
development for Black: after 8 . . . b6 there matic' 1 6 bxc4 would have left Black more
followed 9 a4 a5 1 0 cxd5 li:)xd5 1 1 li:)xd5 opportun ities for counterplay after 1 6 . . . e5
cxd5 1 2 a3 l:le8 1 3 l:[c1 a6 1 4 b5! with 1 7 d5 f8 ! ? (but not 1 7 . . . li:)c5? 1 8 xc5
the better game. bxc5 1 9 d6 l:tb8 20 li:)a4 with a decisive
9 'it'e2 l:te8 advantage for White).
1 0 b2 as 16 . . . fS
1 1 l:.ad1 li:)hS If 1 6 . . . cxb3 there is the unpleasant reply 1 7
12 a3! li:)e4 ! ( 1 7 g4 is weaker because of 1 7 . . . c5!
1 8 gxh5 xf3 1 9 xf3 cxd4 with fine
U p to here Wh ite has simply deployed his
cou nterplay, fully compensating for the
pieces sensibly. But now he reacts to the
sacrificed piece). Wh ite responds in the
opponent's plans and takes prophylactic
same way to 1 6 . . . b5!? ( 1 7 li:)e4 ! b4 1 8
measures agai nst . . . f7-f5 , on wh ich there
li:)d6).
follows 1 3 d6, controlling the dark squares.
17 exf6 ! ?
12 . . . b6
I nteresting play, although t h e qu iet 1 7 bxc4
Black changes pla n , but his knight proves
would also have ensured Wh ite the better
badly placed on the edge of the board
chances.
(remember the famous axiom of Dr. Tar
17 . . . li:)hxf6
rasch ! ) . White obtains good play by simple
means: he prepares an offensive in the 1 8 xe4
centre. This move leads to g reat compl ications.
1 3 l:tfe1 .i.b7 Wh ite exchanges two bishops for a rook and
pawn . The consequences of such an ex
1 4 e4 l:te8
change are usually d ifficult to assess cor
1 S 'it'd2 dxe4 rectly. I n many cases, especially in the
middlegame, the two pieces prove stronger,
since they can create more th reats to the
1 94 Creative Achievements of Pupils from the School
opponent. In the g iven position Tepl itsky 'ilVxd6 (but not 26 'ilVf7+? ..ti>h6 27 ttJe6
correctly reckoned that the activity of his because of 27 . . . 'ilVg8) Black proves helpless
heavy pieces, after seizing control of the against the un ited onslaught of the white
only open file, together with Black's weak pieces : there is no satisfactory defence
ened castled position, would prove more against the th reats of 27 ttJe6+ or 27 ':'e7+.
sign ificant factors than the potential power If 24 . . . 'ilVc7 Wh ite has the decisive 25 'iVe6+
of the h itherto dormant black bishops. ..ti>h8 26 ttJce4! .i.xe 1 27 ttJxf6 . Finally, in the
18 . . . b5 variation 24 . . . .i.xc3 25 'ilVe6+ ..ti>g7 26 'iVf7+
1 9 .i.xe6+ lhe6 ..ti>h6 27 ':xd7! 'ilVxd7 (27 . . . ttJxd7 28 ttJe6)
20 l:txe6 b4 28 'ilVxf6 .i.xe 1 29 ttJf7+ 'ilVxf7 30 'ilVxf7 Black
has two bishops and a rook for the q ueen ,
21 'ii'e 2 ! ? bxa3
but one of the bishops is inevitably lost.
If 2 1 . . . bxc3, then 22 l:Ie7 c2 23 l:tc1 with an
The attempt by Black to gain counterplay on
attack (but not 23 'ii'xc2 .i.f8).
the e-file proves unsuccessful .
22 11e1 .i.f8
25 'ilVe6+ ..ti>h8
22 . . . ttJf8 23 lIe7 lIc7 was bad in view of 24
26 ':'xd7 ]::t e 8
'ii'c4+ ..ti>h8 25 'iff7 .
27 ':xh7+
23 ttJg5 .i.b4
This d ispels the opponent's last illusions.
Black overlooks a spectacular stroke by his
Now Wh ite gains a decisive material advan
opponent. However, 23 . . .lIc7 could also
tage, which Teplitsky confidently converts
have been answered by 24 lId6 ! ! .i.xd6
into a win .
(24 . . . 'ifb8 25 'ife6+ ..ti>h8 26 ttJce4 ! ) 25
'ii'e 6+ ..ti>g7 26 'ifxd6 ..ti>g8 27 'ife6+ ..ti>g7 28 [27 'iVxf6+! 'ilVxf6 2 8 l:txe8+ .i. f8 29 ttJxh 7
'iff7+ ..ti>h6 29 ttJe6 'ife8 30 'ilVg7+ with a would have been more quickly decisive -
decisive attack. Dvoretsky.]
27 . . . ttJxh7
28 'ilVxe8 ttJxg5
29 'ilVxg6 ttJf7
30 :e3 'ilVg7
31 'ilVe6 .i.d6
32 :th3+ ..ti>g8
33 ttJe4 'ilVxd4
34 ttJf6+ ..ti>f8
35 'ilVe8+ ..ti>g7
36 l:.h7+ ..ti>xf6
37 'ilVxf7+
Black resigned
Black) 30 ltJxb5 'ii' b 7 31 l:txb8 'ii'x b8 32 Black is unable to d isentangle his clump of
'ii'xc6, and Black's position collapses. pieces on the q ueenside. His pawn-grab
21 ltJc7 1:Ia7 bing operation is explained by the well
known argument: ' if I'm going to suffer, then
22 bS!
at least I ' l l have something to show for it' . By
Switching to decisive action. energetic play Boguslavsky qu ickly con
22 . . . a4 cludes the game.
27 . . . 'ifxcs
28 l:1ac1 'ifxa3
If 28 . . . 'ii'f8 , then simply 29 e6 ltJb6 30
xc8 ltJxc8 31 1:Ixe5 and wins.
29 e6 'iff8
30 'ifc3
30 l:.xe5 was also possible.
30 . . . b6
30 . . .'ifc5 would not have saved Black in
view of 3 1 'ifa 1 'iifa 32 1:Ixe5.
3 1 1:IxeS 'iif6
32 ':'gSI
A simple, but attractive stroke . Since the
captu re of the q ueen leads immed iately to
23 ltJcdSI?
mate , Black can only try to postpone this
Of course, Wh ite has an undisputed advan inevitable finish by a couple of moves.
tage. Very often it is not easy to decide
32 . . . h6
whether the moment for concrete measures
has arrived . In the g iven instance Wh ite had 33 :g8+ h7
a good opportun ity to further strengthen his 34 'ii'd 3+
position by 23 1:Iad 1 . However, the ex Black resigned.
changing combination undertaken by Bo
guslavsky, wh ich thematically resembles ZViagintsev (1 3) - Nachev
the previous game, is also good : Wh ite Voskresensk 1 990
sharpens the situation at a moment when Slav Defence
the opponent's pieces are least well pre 1 d4 dS
pared for coord inated action.
2 c4 c6
23 . . . cxdS
3 ltJf3 ltJf6
24 ltJxdS f4 4 ltJc3 dxc4
This intermediate move does noth ing to S a4 g4
change the evaluation of the position : the
A rather risky variation , which has been
black pawns i n the centre remain under fire
upheld in a number of games by Predrag
by the heavy pieces.
N i kolic. True, to cast doubts on it Wh ite has
2S 'ii' d 2 'ii'g S to play very energetically.
26 ltJxe7 'ii'x e7 6 ltJeS hS
27 :fe1 7 h3!
C reative Achievements of Pupils from the School ltJ 1 97
The most u npleasant conti nuation for Black. The game Yusupov-G retarsson , G roningen
At a favourable opportun ity Wh ite wants to 1 997, went 1 3 . . . tDd5 14 :b1 e6 1 5 tDxc4!
occupy the centre with his pawns, and for xc4?! 1 6 'iVxc2 xc5 1 7 dxc5 a6 1 8 b4
this he unpins his e-pawn. with advantage to Wh ite - however, 1 5 . . .
7 . . . tD a6 xc5 1 6 dxc5 0-0 demands further testing.
What can happen if Black does not fight for 14 tDxb7 tDd5
the in itiative is illustrated by a game of Not 1 4 . . . 'iVxd2? because of 1 5 xc6+! 'it'd7
Vadim Zviag intsev against l Iya Frog (Mos 1 6 tDxd7 tDxd7 1 7 :d 1 f5 1 8 :xd7 tDxa 1 1 9
cow 1 989), in wh ich after 7 . . . tDbd7 8 g4 :d8+ f7 20 l::t x a8 (Khenki n-Sapis, Lenin
g6 9 tDxc4 e6 1 0 g2 b4 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 g rad 1 989).
a5! tDd5 1 3 'it'b3 b5 1 4 axb6 tD7xb6 1 5 e4
1 5 'iVg5!
tDxc3 1 6 bxc3 e7 1 7 f4 ! Wh ite success
fully carried out his plan of seizing the This home preparation by Zviagi ntsev sets
centre. Black un pleasant problems. 1 5 tDxc6 'iVxd2
1 6 xd2 is less dangerous in view of
8 g4 g6
1 6 . . . tDxa 1 1 7 xd5 e6 (Ftacn ik) or 1 6 . . . e6
9 g2 tD b4
(Gelfand, Kapengut) with roughly equal
1 0 0-0 play. Now both 1 6 tDxc6 and 1 6 'ii'f5 are
If 1 0 e4 there would have followed 1 0 . . :iVxd4. th reatened .
10 . . . c2 ! ? 15 . . . e6! ?
Weaker is 1 0 . . .tD d 7 ? ! 1 1 tDxc4 with advan After t h e critical 1 5 . . .f6!? Zviag i ntsev was
tage to Wh ite (Gelfand-Khuzman , USSR intending to conti nue 1 6 'ii' h 5+ g6 1 7 tDxg6
1 987). hxg6 1 8 'iVxh8, and if 1 8 . . . g5, then White
11 'iVd2 b3 retains the in itiative by playing 1 9 e4! . And in
1 2 tDe4! the event of 1 5 ... 'ii' b 6 , according to his
1 2 'ii'f4 ! ? h6 1 3 e3 leads to unclear analysis, strong is 16 'iVf5 'iVxb7 1 7 'iVxf7+
complications ( Levitt-Flear, British Champi d8 1 8 ':d 1 c3 ( 1 8 . . . tDxa 1 ? 1 9 xd5 xd 1
onship 1 989). If 1 2 a5, with the unequ ivocal 20 xc6 'iVxc6 2 1 tDxc6+ riit c7 22 f4+
idea of advancing the pawn fu rther, modern xc6 23 'iVe6+ with mate in th ree moves;
theory recommends 1 2 . . . e6, not paying any 1 8 . . . tD b4 1 9 f4) 1 9 tDxc6+ 'ii' xc6 20 xd5
attention to the opponent's threat. After 1 3 xd5 21 ':xd5+ c8 22 :d3 ! .
a6 'iVc7 1 4 axb7 'iVxb7 (Campos Moreno
Rogers, Olympiad , Manila 1 992) Wh ite still
has to demonstrate that he has sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed pawn .
12 . . . tDc2
1 2 . . . tDxe4? 1 3 'iVxb4 tDd6 is bad in view of
the spectacu lar rejoinder poi nted out by
Gelfand and Kapengut: 1 4 'iVxb7! ! , and
Wh ite wins.
13 tDc5
If 1 3 tDxc6 , then 1 3 . . . 'iVb6! (Gelfa n d ,
Kapengut).
13 . . . 'iVxd4
1 98 Creative Achievements of Pupils from the School
defends the c4-pawn , but also presses on I should like to conclude this account of
the white centre. Black's advantage in examples of the pupils' play with one more,
creases. later game by Vadim Zviagi ntsev, which was
1 9 ltJg3 ltJd6 judged to be the best game in Informator
20 i.e2 No.62 and was included in a collection,
published in England , of the 1 00 best
games ever played .
Kamshonkov 1 55
Capablanca 48
Karpov 46, 55
Chekhov 20
Kasparian 23
Chern i n 53
Kasparov 46, 55, 1 77, 1 78 , 1 79, 1 80
Chernosvitov 1 82
Kholmov 1 49
Cifuentes 201
Kh ramtsov 1 45
Ciocaltea 1 6
Kmoch 78, 79
Denisov 1 82 Kotkov 1 7
Dolmatov 59, 6 1 , 63, 66, 68, 73 Kotov 1 0
Dvoretsky 1 2 , 1 7 , 20, 44 , 47, 99, 1 38 , Krasen kow 33
1 4 1 , 1 43, 1 45 Kuznetsov 1 5
Paruti n 1 92 Wotawa 1 4
Pch iolkin 1 50
Peev 99 Xie J u n 1 1 6
Petrosia n , A. 1 49
Petrosian, T. 9 1 , 97, 1 5 1 Yach mennik 1 58
Pinter 53 Yates 79, 80
Platonov 28 Yusupov 1 1 5, 1 1 6 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 1 , 1 23, 1 26 ,
1 29
Razuvaev 1 04
Rebel 8 1 1 5 Zaitsev, A. 1 0 1
Ribli 89 Zedek 1 49
Rivas Pastor 1 75 Zhivtsov 35
Rotlewi 84 Zviagintsev 1 96 , 201
206
French Defence 1 38 , 1 4 1
Modern Benoni 1 9 1
N imzo-Indian Defence 9 1 , 1 26
P h ilidor Defence 59
Ruy Lopez 1 1 6