(
Foreword by Robert zysk
/
/
Chess Analytics Training with a Grandmaster
by
Efstratios Grivas
Foreword by Robert Zysk
2012
Russell Enterprises, Inc. Milford, CT USA
Chess Analytics Training with a Grandmaster by Efstratios Grivas © Copyright 2012 Efstratios Grivas
All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. ISBN: 978-1-936490-41-7 Published by: Russell Enterprises, Inc. PO Box 3131 Milford, CT 06460 USA http:/ /www.russell-enterprises.com
[email protected] Cover design by Nicolas Sphicas with Janel Lowrance
Printed in the United States of America
Table of Contents
Foreword by Robert Zysk
5
The Middlegame Pinning
7
Shattered Kingside Pawns
11
The Weak d5-square
18
The Important f5-square
25
Rook on the Run
30
Sacrifices for the Initiative
36
The Central Strike
41
Mate on the Back Rank
47
Dancing Knights
57
Doubled f-pawns
63
Queen Sac around the King
73
A King's Golden Cage
81
The Useless Isolani
88
Driving Forces
96
Emptying the Queenside
1 02
False Guards
1 07
The Double Exchange Sacrifice
1 14
Losing a Queen
120
Twins
126
The f4 Break
131
Planning
137
Recipes from the Grandmaster's Kitchen
1 43
Opening Diagonals
1 46
Small Advantages
153
Chess Analytics
The Endgame Keep Your Rooks Active!
1 64
A Trapped Rook
1 70
Losing a Drawn Rook Ending
1 75
Technical Rook Endings
1 80
The Isolani in the Endgame
1 87
Knight and Three Pawns vs. Rook
1 93
Rook vs. the Bishop Pair
198
The Bishop Pair vs. the Exchange
202
Pawns on the Seventh Rank
206
A King' s March
214
Pawn Endings
220
Rook and Knight
228
The Square
23 1 248
Queen vs. Rook
253
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop & Rook-pawn
Miscellaneous Critical Games
262
Strength of a Novelty
280
The a7 Forepost
288
David Bronstein ( 1 924-2006)
292
Facing a Good Friend
300
FIDE World Cup 2007
303
Player Index
312
Opening Index
316
Bibliography
319
About the Author
320
4
Foreword
Why do we read a chess book? There are mainly two reasons: we seek entertainment and we want to improve our play. While certainly entertaining, this book is clearly dedicated to the ambitious player who has reached a certain level and wants to improve even further. You want to advance from a medium player to a stronger player, from a strong player to a master? Well, you have made an excellent choice. Based on the analysis of high level games you will be presented with and have explained (this is something that your chess engine won't do for you!) important middlegame and endgame patterns, winning strategic plans, and typical mistakes. Several personal remarks about the author's and his students' tournament practice add another dimension, as you get an idea about the emotions involved in a tournament game. There is a broad range of the subjects which are covered. You will find well known subjects like back rank mate combinations, chapters about isolated pawns, strong squares, etc., as well as less commonly presented patterns, such as the chapters "False Guards" or "The King's Golden Cage." The guiding principle of these themes is their practical value. This is particularly true in the endgame section where the author deals with structures which occur relatively often but are rarely presented in chess literature. The structure of each chapter is clear and methodical. The concept is explained in a few lines and illustrated in carefully selected, annotated master games. A conclusion with practical hints rounds off each section. Working through the book will increase your general understanding of chess. Thus your progress will be permanent and sustainable. Unlike opening theory which is subject to rather dramatic changes in a relatively short period, the principal rules of chess strategy have remained the same over time. Personally, I particularly enjoyed the chapters about "Dancing Knights" and "Decisive Games" and the entire section about endings. Yes, sometimes you will need to go through a lot of analysis in this section but there is a good chance that this work will bring you the desired extra half-point in your tournament games. Some remarks about your author. I have known and have been good friends with Efstratios (Stratos) Grivas now for 30 years. He is a grandmaster and by definition an excellent player. But more importantly for you he is one of the world's leading chess trainers, one of those who can help you to become a grandmaster. (Well, I do admit that achieving that goal takes more than reading one book. It takes talent, time and tournament practice and . . . some luck!) Having been "brought up" as a chessplayer by leading trainers ofthe Eastern European Chess School, he has devoted almost two decades of his life to chess training. Consequently he is now an executive member of the FIDE trainer's commission. This position compels him to travel a lot, giving classes to future FIDE Trainers. Bottom line: you are in the safe hands of a real expert who is dedicated to chess training. That's the good news.
5
Chess Analytics Now the bad news: buying Stratos' book and even reading it is not enough. You have to work with it, you have to play through the games, follow the analyses and understand the concepts presented to reap the real benefits. This means that you will have to spend time and effort. And, of course, you will need to play some tournaments to put into practice what you learned. On the other hand, if you make that effort, you are almost sure to improve your success at chess substantially. And that's what you really want, right? I sincerely wish to all of you that you will experience this effect! International Master Robert Zysk Germany March 20 1 2
6
Pinning The Middlegame Pinning Concept The concept of pinning is a very simple one, as its definition is rather basic: the piece that is pinned cannot move either because it allows the op ponent to win material or because it is simply forbidden to do so! Pinning a piece is an everyday ac tion during a chess game, but the ques tion remains: how can we really ben efit from a pin? Well, there are many ways but the most often met are:
Black seemed to have everything under control, but he had missed a de tail:
22.�xe6! �xe6 23.§xe6 §xe6 24..1}.d5 §fe8 Or 24 . . .'�£7 25.§el §fe8. 25.§el ctlf7 (D)
( 1 ) Instantly winning material; (2) Long-term win of material; ( 3 ) D isrupting the opponent's camp; and (4) Help an attack or a defense. Here we are going to see some ex amples that mostly deal with the sec ond concept. We shall start with the long-term pinned rook concept and the way to benefit from it. The first game is a clear case of our theme:
Of course Black had counted on that position, based on his . . . f5 and ... �f6 plan.
(1) Sulava - Kryvoruchko Calvi 2007 Queen's Gambit Declined [D4 1 ]
26.f4! f5
V£)f3 c5 2.c4 4Jf6 3.4Jc3 4Jc6 4.g3 d5 5.d4 e6 6.cxd5 4J x d5 7 . .1}.g2 .1}.e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.4J xd5 exd5 10.dxc5 .1}.xc5 1 1 . .1}.g5 f6 12 . .1}.d2 .1}.e6 13.e3 d4 14.exd4 4J xd4 1 5 . .1le3 4J xf3+ 16.� x f3 .1}.xe3 17. � xe3 �d7 18.§fdl �f7 1 9 . .1}. x b7 §ab8 20 . .1}.f3 § x b 2 21.§d6 §b6 (D)
Or 26 . . . g6 27 .g4 f5 28.g5 +- .
27.g4! g6 27 . . .'�f6 28.g5+
28.g5 And now Black can never unpin his rook without losing a great deal of ma terial. 28 ... h5 29.§e51 (D)
7
Chess Analytics Preparing the white king's journey on the queenside.
24.'it'al Ad5 25.Axe4 Axe4 26.�xe4+ �d5 27.f3 ± is a better try for Black) 23.Ag2! Axe5 24.dxe5 �xe5 (D)
29 ... §8e7 30.
Now it looks like Black is in no danger, but. . . 25.l='1xd5! § xd5 26.�xe4 �xe4+ 27.Axe4 §hd8 28.l='1dl 'it'c6 29.b4 (D)
(2) Dautov - Krasenkow Essen 2002 Dutch Defense [A84]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. .£\c3 c6 4.e3 f5 5.g4 fxg4 6.'�xg4 .£\f6 7.'�g2 c5 8. .£\f3 .£\c6 9.Ad2 Ad7 10.00-0 �e7 11 ..£\e5 cxd4 12.exd4 00-0 13.Af4 �e8 14.cxd5 exd5 15 ..£\ xc6 Axc6 16.�g3 b5 17.Ae5 ®b7 18. �d3 .£\e4 19 ..£\ xe4 dxe4 20.�b3 a6 (D)
B lack can only move his rook along the d-file, as he cannot break this nasty pin without losing material. White will bring his king to the kingside and advance his f- and h-pawns. At an ap propriate moment the general exchange on d5 will liquidate into a winning pawn ending: 29 ... l='18d7 30.l='1d4 §d8 31 .'1t'c2 l='18d7 32.'1t'd2 § d8 33.'1t'e3 l='18d7 34.f4 g6 35.h4 l='1d8 36.h5 l='18d7 37.a3 §d8 38.'1t'f3 l='18d7 39.'1t'g4 l='1d8 40.l='1xd5 § xd5 4l .Axd5+ 'it'xd5 42.f5! and White wins the pawn ending.
21 ... e3! 22.Af7? Also bad is 22.d5? Ad7 23.Ac3 exf2 + but White could go on with 22.l='1hel! Jlf3 (22 ... exf2 23.l='1e2 l='1c8 24.'lt'bl=) 23.l='1xe3 Axdl 24.'it'xdl oo /
21.Ac4? The game continuation has noth ing to do with our theme, which is well hidden somewhere in the analysis. So, White should continue with 2 1 .'it'bl ! Ad5 ( 2 l . . .e3 22.d5 ± ) 22 .�e3 .£ld6?! (perhaps 22 . . . �f7! 23 . .£lg2! Axa2+
22 ... Ae4!! 22 .. . �e7?
8
2 3 . fxe3
Axhl
Pinning majority will prove more dangerous than White's.
24.§ xhl oo /=
23. .§.d3
26.ll.)g2 g4 27.ll.) x f4 ll.) x f4 28.gxf4 Ah6 29 . .§.e2 .11, xf4 30. .§.e6 .§.fe8 31 . .§.f6 .§.e1 + 32.�g2 .§.f8!
23 .ilxe8 § c8+ 24.�c3 § xc3+ 25 .bxc3 ila3 *
23 .. .' �e7 24 . .§.c3 A x h1 25. .§.c7+ �xc7+ 26. .11, xc7 exf2 0-1
Active pieces have to be ex changed!
33 . .§. xf8+ �xf8 34.d5?!
When you miss such a good chance you shouldn't complain about your luck! In general pinned pieces are not usually rooks. Here the pinned piece is a bishop, but the main concept (ex change and penetrate with the king) re mains the same:
This "kills" White's pawns - the a2-b3-c4-d5 chain cannot move any farther.
34 ....11,d6 35.Ac3 .§.cl 36. .11,d2 .§.c2 37.a4 f4 But the black pawns can - White is in trouble.
38.h3 f3+ 39.�fl h5 40.hxg4 hxg4 (D)
(3) Polugaevsky - Kortschnoi Evian 1 977 Queen's Indian Defense [E 1 9]
l.d4 ll.)f6 2.c4 e6 3.lL!f3 b6 4.g3 Ab7 5.Ag2 Ae7 6.0-o o-o 7.lL!c3 ll.)e4 8.t\'c2 ll.)xc3 9.t\'xc3 f5 10.b3 Af6 l l .Ab2 lL!c6 1 2 . .§.ad1 ll.)e7 1 3 .ll.)e1 .11, xg2 14.ll.)xg2 g5 15.t\'c2 ll.)g6 16.e4 f4 17.e5 Ag7 18. t\'e4 t\'e7 19 . .El.d3 .§.adS 20 . .§.e1 d5 21.exd6 t\'xd6 22 . .§.ed1 t\'e7 23.ll.)e 1 t\'f6 24. .§.1d2 (D)
Time-trouble was over as the first time-control was reached. Here the game was adjourned and White sealed his move.
="'T,���
41.�e1 It was still the era when adjourn ments were on the daily plate of every chessplayer along with the usual "hor ror night" of lengthy analysis was to follow. Nowadays, as a result of very strong analytical engines, adjournments are no longer useful since there is no need for "human" brain-work! Returning to the game, when the extensive human analysis was quite convincing, Polugaevsky, seeing that he was easily l o st after 4 1 . . . ilc5 (zugzwang!) 42.b4 ild6, resigned. But our theme could be seen better after the
24... t\'f5! Black's strategy is impressive and would make Nimzowitsch really proud in terms of minorities, majorities and blockading!
25.t\'xf5 exf5! That's the trick- Black's kingside
9
Chess Analytics alternative 4L§d4 .§b2 42.1.l.e l .§xb3 43 . .§ xg4 when Black can pin the white b ishop with 43 . . . .!':\bl 44 . .§ e4 Ab4 45 . .§ e6 (D)
The hunt of the black king has re sulted in a serious material advantage for White. But there are still some de tails to be taken care of.
28.4)g4! E{e2 29.4)f6 �f5 30.E{cl 3 0.t:i'xd7+? t:i'xd7 3 1 .<£\xd7 'it>xd7 3 2 . .§ xd 5 + �e6 3 3 . .§ d4 .§ c xc2 34. .§e4+ .§ xe4 35 .'it>xc2 .§ e2+ 36.'it>c3 .§ xg2 37.h5 'it>f7 is not so convincing. 3 0.'it>a l ! is equally strong: 30 . . . .§ xc2 3 1 .<£\xd5+ �b8 32.<£le3 and the double attack reveals the winner.
30 . . . E{d8 32.E{xd5 (D)
. . . and then proceed with the king as usual, 4 5 . . . �f7 46 . .§ e 3 'it>g6 47 . .§ e6+ 'it>f5 48 . .§ e3, liquating to a won pawn ending: 48 ... .!':\xel + 49 . .!':\xel Axel 5 0.'it>xel 'it>e4 0-1
3 1 . Elhdl
Instances ofvarious reciprocal pins are rare, but, here is a good example: (4) Kritz - Kozul Istanbul 2003 Sicilian Defense [B67]
32 ... .§ xc2!
l.e4 c5 2.J��f3 4)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4)f6 5.4Jc3 d6 6.11,g5 e6 7:�d2 a6 8.0-0-0 Ad7 9.f3 E{c8 10.4)xc6 11,xc6 1Vit'bl 11,e7 12.h4 0-0 13.4)e2 d5 14.e5 4Jd7 15.f4 4Jc5 16.4)d4 E{e8 17.Ad3 �b6 1 8.f5 4) xd3 1 9 . � x d3 exf5 20.11, x e7 E{ xe7 2 1 . 4) x f5 E{ xe5 2 2 . 4) h6+
An excellent trap in White's seri ous time trouble. Although the text move also loses, it might shake White's confidence as he might have been ex pecting Black's resignation! The analy sis is clear but in the real game anything could go wrong ...
33.4J xd7+ 3 3 . .§ xf5 ! also wins 3 3 . . . 1.l.xf5 34.<£le4! Axe4 35.t:i'e5+. But with the text move we will be able to have on our plate more pins yet to come! Double attack and pins are the beauty of chess !
33 ... E{xd7 34.�g3+ Also good was 34 . .§ xf5 .§ xc l + 35 .'it>xcl .§ xg7 36 . .§g5 +- . 34... E{dc7 (D)
10
Shattered Kingside Pawns 25 ...dxc5?! 25 . . . <£Jxc5 26.l"lb8+ Jlf8 27.Axc5 dxc5 28.<£Jc4 would offer White a clear advantage, but it was still preferable than the text move.
26.§.b7 Jif8 27.§.a7 As now the usual pin is painful. . .
27...§.a4 28.\t'f3 c4 Black decided to give up a pawn in order to break the pin. A waiting policy with 28 . . .f6 29.g3 hS 3 0.e5 would not have been of any real help.
A bizarre position; almost all ofthe pieces are under attack, but the tension is resolved by a simple move:
29 . .i£) xc4 §. xc4 30.§.xa6 E!c3
35. tNxc7+l 1-0
(D)
An "only move, but a move that is convincing enough, forcing Black to re stgn. A pin is nearly always hard to meet. It can cause lethal problems; just have a look at the following game, where White pins various minor black pieces: (5) Sbamkovich - Soltis Pasadena 1 978 Modem Defense [A42]
31.§.a8! But now the bishop is pinned!
31 ... §.b3 32.e5 f5 33.e6 E!b7
l .d4 g6 2.e4 Jig7 3.c4 d6 4. .!£)c3 c6 5.Ae3 a6 6.f4 b5 7. .i£)f3 .i£)d7 8.d5 c5 9.cxb5 .!£)gf6 10. .i£)d2 0-0 ll.bxa6 .!£)b6 12.Jie2 Jixa6 13.Axa6 §.xa6 14.0-0 tNd7 15.h3 §.fa8 1 6 . tNc2 .i£)e8 17.a3 .i£)c7 1 8 . §. ab1 .!£) a4 1 9 . .i£) x a4 tN x a4 20.tNxa4 §.xa4 21.§.fc1 E!b8 22.b4 §.xa3 23.\t'f2 .!£)a6 24.bxc5 E! xb1 25.§.xb1 (D)
Forced: 33 . . . l"lc3?! 34.d6+- .
34. Ad4 h6 35 .h4 E!h3+ 36.\t'e2 E!b7 37.§.c8 37 . d6 exd6 3 8 . Af6 would be equally strong.
37... §.b4?! 38.d6! 1-0 Conclusion Pinned pieces are not our friends we should try to avoid them as much as possible. Yes, there are exceptions but we usually only find out after the game - the risk is not "justified!" Shattered Kingside Pawns Concept When the material gets quite lim ited and also it is "restrained" on one
11
Chess Analytics part of the board the draw gets nearer. But this is not the case when there are weak and shattered pawns. This fact, in combination with the king's weakened position, could create insoluble prob lems for the weaker side; either he will lose material or just lose his king ! In general, the weaker side should try to keep minor pieces on the board and avoid fighting against the major ones, especially against the combination of the queen and a rook - anything else is nearly acceptable. In this case of�+§ vs. �+.!'l:, the stronger side has every possibility to prevail, as the weaker side is usually restricted in its available counterplay. But let's examine a recent example:
1 7 . .!'l:fcl :J; was more natural, but White wanted to transfer his knight to d3.
17... 4)e4 Not bad, but B l ack could try 17 .. .f4! 18.
18.4)d3 Now White wants to continue with .!'l:fcl and
18...e51 19.4)xe4 dxe4 20.4)xe5 4) xe5 21.dxe5 (D)
(6) Topalov - Gashimov Linares 20 1 0 Slav Defense [D l l ]
l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.4)f3 4)f6 4.e3 a6 5.'l¥'/c2 g6 6.Ad3 Ag7 7.00 0-0 8.4)bd2 /dbd7 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.b3 /db8 ll.Aa3 4)c6 12 . .§acl Ae6 1 3 . 'l¥'/b2 .§e8 14.h3 .§c8 15 . .§c2 (D)
21 ... .§xc2?! This is the start of a wrong plan. Black thought that it would be good to exchange bishops but this is a wrong attitude - without bishops Black's king w i l l be vulnerab l e . B etter was 2 1 . . .�xe5 22 . .!'l:xc8 �xc8 23.�e2 f4! and equality cannot be far away.
���
22.'1¥'/xc2 'l¥'/a5 22 . . . �xe5 23.�b2 �xb2 24.�xb2 doesn't change much.
23.Ad6! A x e5 24.b4 '1¥1/dS 25.Axe5 .§xe5 26 . .§cl .§d5 (D) White stands a somewhat better but has nothing really concrete yet.
Although his pawn structure on the kingside is not ideal, Black seems to stand satisfactorily, as his control over the d-file should give him enough ac tivity to keep the balance. But White can still look to the future as he has a clear target - the black pawn formation on the kingside.
t5...Af5 The text move changes the posi tion, as Black spoils his pawn structure a bit in return for control over the e4square.
16.Axf5 gxf5 17./del?!
12
Shattered Kingside Pawns remaining pawns are weak but so is the black king's position. By combining the threats on these two weaknesses, White can emerge with a material plus.
32.�h6! Now the f5-pawn is doomed and the e4-pawn will follow soon after.
32... E!b8 The alternative was 3 2 . . . '�e 6 33.�g5+ �f8 ( 3 3. . . �g6 34.�d8+ �g7 35.l'k8 �a6 36.h4! +- ) 34.Eldl El b8 35.�h4 h6 36.�g3 ± .
27.a4 White could also consider 27 .g3 h5 28.h4, but he wanted to keep open the option of an eventual �h2-g3. The "no hurry" policy should be a guide in such positions.
33 .g3 35.E!dl
�e6
34. �f4
E!c8
Probably more accurate was 35.Elal �d5 36.�g5+ �f8 37.g4 ± but the text move should be also be suffi cient.
27...b5?1 This actually leads to a very diffi cult position. 27 . . .h5!? with the idea of ... h4 looks quite alright - Black would then have perpetual check in all queen endings.
35 ... E!c6 36.E!d8+ ct;g7 (D)
28.axb5 E!xb5 After 28 . . . axb5 29.g3 Black still has serious problems, as the b5 - and f5pawns are weak. With the text move Black eliminates all queenside pawn� and everything will be decided on the kingside.
37.ct;g21
29.�a4 �d6 30.�al!
"Simply a useful move, the kind of move one makes automatically" as Veselin Topalov has asserted. Black is short of useful moves anyway and White once more follows the "no hurry" policy.
Forci ng the exchanges on the queenside, in view of the back rank threats.
30 ... �e5 3l.�xa6 E!xb4 (D)
37 ...h6 Black wants to hide his king on h7. A waiting move like 37 ... Elb6 loses to 38.�g5+ �g6 39.�e7 �f6 40.�f8+ �g6 4 l .h4! h5 and now White has to re-arrange his pieces: 4 2 . El d5 �h7 43.Eld7 �g6 44.�c8 El c6 45 . '�g8+ �g7 46.�b8 �f6 47.Eld8 ± .
So, Black has exchanged off the queenside, but still problems exist - the
38. �b8 �f6 (D) Or 38 . . .�e7 39.Elh8! �g6 40.g4!
13
Chess Analytics O r 4 2 . . . l"l b6 44.l"lg5 +- .
fxg4 4 1 .�g8+ �f5 4 2 . hxg4+ lt'e5 43.�b8+ lt'd5 (43 ...�c7 44.�b2+ lt'd5 45.�d4+) 44.l"ld8+ lt'c5 45.1"\dl +- .
4 3 . �f8
l"l b7
43.gxf4 43.l"lg5! is a faster win.
43...\I¥Yxh4 43 . . . l"l d6 44.l"lg5 l"l d8 45Jhh5+ lt'g6 46.�b5 +-
44.E!,h8+ !it>g6 45. \I¥Yg8+ 'it>f6 46. \I¥Yd8+ E!.e7 4 7 .E!,h6+ 'it>f5 48.\I¥Yd5+ 1-0 (D)
39.E!.d5?! A very strange decision. After 39.l"lh8! the game should have ended very quickly.
39 ...E!.e6 Black's problems are not over, as his weaknesses are permanent- White has simply wasted some time, but this does not change the evaluation of the p o s ition. 39 . . . �e6 4 0 . l"l e 5 �f6 4 1 .1"\ b5 ± was another option. 40.h4?! (D)
And Black resigned as 48 . . . \t'g4 will lead to mate in 9 after 49.f3 + : 49 . . . exf3+ 50.�xf3+ lt'f5 5 1 .�d5+ lt'g4 5 2 . �d l + lt'f5 5 3 .�c2+ l"l e4 (53 . . . \t'g4 54. l"l g6+!) 54.�c5+ lt'g4 5 5 . l"l g6 + ! fx g6 5 6 . �c8+ l"l e6 57.�xe6 * . Exactly a month later the follow ing, very similar game, was played: (7) Jobava - Almasi Rijeka 20 1 0 Queen's Indian Defense [E 12]
40.�f4 \t'g6 4 l .h4 ± was more ac curate - White is in a "no-hurry" posi tion!
1.d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.4)f3 b6 4.a3 .Q.b7 5.4)c3 d5 6.cxd5 4) xd5 7 . .Q.d2 4)d7 8.\I¥Yc2 c5 9.4) xd5 exd5 10.dxc5 A x c5 1 l .e3 0-0 12 .Q.d3 4)f6 13.0-0 4)e4 14 .Q.b4 \I¥Ye7 15 .Q. xc5 bxc5 16.b4 cxb4 17.a xb4 \I¥Y x b4 18.El,fb1 \I¥Ye7 19.4)d4 g6 20 .Q.xe4 dxe4 21.\I¥Yb3 E!,fc8 22.h4 E!.c7 23.h5 \I¥Yg5 24.\I¥Yd1 a6 25.E!.b6 .Q.cs 26.\I¥Yb1 .Q.f5 27.h6 (D)
40...h5? Black misses his last chance to try to survive in a difficult endgame after 40 . . .f4! 41 .�xf4 �xf4 42.gxf4. Now White again wins easily.
•
•
•
•
41.El,d8! The rook goes to g5, after which Black's defense will collapse.
41 ... 'it>h7 42.El,g8 f4
14
Shattered Kingside Pawns 30 ... .§.cd7 3l.g3 �g4! We l l played counterplay now.
-
B l ack
has
32.�f6 There was nothing positive about 32./"iel §dl 33.�c3 §xel + 34.�xel f6 (34 . . ./"idl?? 35.§a8+) 35.§al �f7 and Black holds.
32 ... .§.dl+ Now a forced line begins:
Black stands slightly worse, as the d4-knight is a much stronger piece than the black bishop.
33 . .§. x dl � x dl + 34.<;f}h2 �h5+ 35.�h4 �xh4+ 36.gxh4 (D)
27 .§.ac8? •..
But this is already a bad mistake. Black should opt for 27 . . . ild7 28.�xe4 l"ie8 29.�f4 �xf4 30.exf4 ilc8 when his chances to hold the game are very much increased.
28.4) xf5 gxf5 Probably Black missed that he could not go in for 28 . . . �xf5?, as after 29.�b2 § c3 30.§b8 �c5 3 l .§ xc8+ �xeS 32.l"ia3! l"icl + 33.�h2 f6 34.l"ib3 White wins. But now his kingside pawn structure is shattered. . .
The ending should be drawn White also has weaknesses now. . .
36 f4?! •••
Not yet the decisive mistake but simpler was 36 . . . �f8 37.�g3 �e7=.
29.�b2!
37.exf4
And not 29.§ bxa6?! f4! , when Black is fine.
Black, in time trouble, missed the fine drawing line 39 . . . :Sd6 40.§a7+ ( 4 0 . /"i xd6 �xd6 4 l . �f4 � d 5 = ) 4 0 . . . �f6 4 1 .�f4 e 3 ! 42.fxe3 :Sd4+! 43.�g3 (43.exd4 and 43 .e4 :Sxe4+ 44.�xe4 are just stalemating options ! ) 4 3 . . ./"i e 4 44.h5 § xe3+ 45.�f4 § e l 46.§a6+ �e7 47.f6+ �d7 48.§a7+ �e6 49.l"ie7+ �xf6 50.§xel stalemate!
29 ... .§.d8 (D)
40.<;f}f4 Now White's active king wins the ending.
30. .§.bxa6? But here White goes astray! He should first play 30.g3! :Scd7 and only now 3 1 . l"i ax a6! �g4 32 ./"id6 § xd6 33.l"ixd6 ± , when "reflections" from the previous game are on the horizon . . .
40 .§.f3+ •••
40 . . . §d2 4 1 .�e5 is no different.
41.
15
Chess Analytics 30. .§7f3 Af6 31.c3 .§e4 32. .§xf6 gxf6 33 . .§xf6 .§xe3 34. .§xd6 (D)
44. .§a4! Placing the rooks behind the passed pawn assures the win, as the white king will be allowed to attack the enemy pawns with effect (44J'le7?? .§ xf5+! -+ ).
White's extra pawn is not signifi cant, but of course Black has to be ac curate.
34 . . . <;tlf7 3 5 . <;tlc2 .§e2+ 36.<;tlb3 <;tle7 37. .§d4 c5 38. .§d3 b6 39.<;17a3 .§c2 40. .§d5
44 . . . e3 45 . .§e4 e2 46.<;tlg7! .§ xf5 47. .§xe2 .§f4 48.<;tlxh7 .§g4
Black's main problem is that his king is cut off and this causes his weak ness.
Or 48 . . . .§ x h4 4 9 . <;t>g7 .§ g 4 + 50.<;t>xf7 .§f4+ 5 1 .<;t>g6 .§fl 52 . .§ e 5 +- .
49 . .§e5 f6 50 . .§e6 <;tld7 5l..§xf6 <;tle7 52..§f5 .§xh4
40...a5!? On one hand this move weakens Black's position further, but probably he was not fond of 40 . . . <;t>e6?! 41..§d8 .§h2 42.b3 .§g2 43J''l a8 .§g7 44.<;t>a4 ± or 40 . . . <;t>e8 41 ..§h5, although in this line he can try 4 l . . . .§e2 I doubt that White can win the pawn ending arising after 42 . .§h7 .§e7 43.l"l xe7+ <;t>xe7, for example, 44. <;t>a4 a6 4 5 . <;t>b3 <;t>d6 46.c.t>c2 c.t>e5 47.<;t>d3 <;t>f4. 41 . .§d3 .§h2 42.b3 .§c2 (D)
52 . . . <;t>e6 53 . .§g5
53.<;17g6 1-0 Well, winning a pawn in our cases doesn't guarantee an easy win, espe cially if these pawns are doubled. Here is another recent case, from the same tournament as the first example! (8) Topalov - Gelfand Linares 20 1 0 Petroff Defense [C42]
l.e4 e5 2.JtJf3 JtJf6 3.JtJ xe5 d6 4.JtJf3 JtJxe4 5.JtJc3 JtJxc3 6.dxc3 .1l,e7 7. .1l,e3 0-0 8.\l¥Yd2 JtJd7 9.00-0 .§e8 10.h4 c6 l l .h5 h6 1 2 . <;tlb t JtJf6 1 3 .Jld3 Afs t4 . .§dgt JtJg4 1 5 . Af4 \l¥Yf6 1 6 . JtJh2 JtJ x h 2 17 . .§ x h2 Jlf5 18 . .1l, xf5 \l¥Yxf5 19.g4 \l¥Ye4 20.g5 h x g5 2 l . J}. xg5 \l¥Ye2 22.'\�he2 .§xe2 23 . .1l.e3 .§xe3 24.fxe3 .§e8 25 . .§h3 .§e6 26.c4 Ae7 27 . .§f3 .§e5 28. .§gfl .§xh5 29 . .§xf7 .§e5
43.<;17a4 After some quiet moves White now plays his last trump .
43 . . . .§ x a 2 +
16
44.<;tlb5
.§b2
Shattered Kingside Pawns 45.�xb6 a4
by assisting his a-pawn with the king, he will save the day. A sample could be: 50.l"!h8 l"! xc3 5 l . l"! a8 'it'e6 52.l"la5 �e5 53.�d7 �d4 54.c6 �c4 5 5 .c7 �b3=. 50.El.h8+ �e7 51.El.a8 El.b2 (D)
45 . . . § xb3+ is not bad either, as the position after 46.�xa5 �e6 47.�a4 §b1 48.§d5 �e7 49.l"! xc5 �d6 is also a theoretical draw.
46.�xc5 El.xb3 46 . . . a3! 4 7 . l"! d6 § xb3 48 . § a6 l"! xc3 was an easier draw. 47.�c6 a3 48.c5 (D)
Black cannot save himself any more: 5 l . . .§xc3 52.l"!xa2 'it'd8 53.l"la8+ �e7 54.l"!c8 is a well-known winning method.
48...�e8?1
52.�c7 §c2 53.c6 §b2 54.c4 El.c2 55 .§a6 §b2 56.c5 �e6 57.§a51 §c2 58.�b7 §b2+
This may not be the losing move, but it is definitely a step in the wrong direction. 48 ... a2 49.§d7+ �e6 50.l"!a7 l"lb2 (50 . . . § xc3? 5 l .l"lxa2 +- ) 5 l .�c7 (51 .c4 �e5 52.l"!a4 § c2 53.�d7 § d2+ 54.'it'c7 �d4 55 .c6 �c5=) 5 1 . . .�d5! 52.c6 �c4= was the most accurate way to draw. Alternatively, 48 . . . �e6?! 49.l"le3+ looks a bit odd, but 48 ... �f6 was perfectly fine also. 49.El.h31 (D)
58 . . . § xc5 59.l"! xa2 +-
59.�c8 �e7 60.c7 �e8 (D)
61.El.xa21 A nice finishing touch. After 61 .c6? 'it'e7 62.l"la3!? �d6! (62 . . .'it'e8? 63.§xa2 § xa2 64.�b7 §b2+ 65 .�a6 l"! a 2 + 66.�b6 l"! b2+ 67.�c5 § c2+ 68.�d5 l"! d2 + 6 9 . 'it' e 5 § e 2 + [69 . . . § d8 70.cxd8�+ �xd8 7l.�d6+- ] 70.�f4 l"lf2+ 7 1 . �e3 and White wins. It is clear in this line why White inserted 62.l"la3!? �e8? - with the black king on e7, Black could have played 7 l . . . l"! f8! here) 63.�d8 §h2!= Black draws!
49 ...a2? But now this is the losing move. Black had to opt for 49 . . . �e7! when White's only chance is to sac the c3pawn and push the other c-pawn. Black will then have to give up his rook, but
17
Chess Analytics 6 t . . . E{ x a2 62.\t>b7 1 - 0 and Black resigned as the c-pawn queens. Conclusion So, it looks like that the defending side should avoid situations like this. Keeping a minor piece on the board, or exchanging queens seems to be a plan to defend and share the point. Of course, it would be even better to avoid shat tered and weak pawns in general ! The Weak d5-square Concept The element of the strong square (outpost) is one of the most often met in practice. The creation and occupa tion of an outpost plays a significant role in the course of many chess games. An outpost is a square where we can place one of our pieces without it being attacked by an enemy pawn. Naturally, an outpost gains in value if it is central, and even more so if it is situated inside the enemy camp. The importance of the outpost increases if the opponent does not have a bishop moving on squares of the same color. In most cases it is beneficial to be able to control the outpost with one of our pawns. Another factor adding value to the outpost is its location on an open file. In that case we are able to double our rooks behind the piece occupying the outpost, and then open the file at the right moment. The piece we usually aim to place on an outpost is the knight, fol lowed by the bishop, the rook and - in rare cases - the queen. It follows from the above that a square representing an outpost for us is
18
also a weakness for the opponent and may have seriously negative conse quences for him. In practice we encounter two dif ferent situations revolving around the outpost: ( 1 ) The outpost has already been created. In this case our task is simple: control it and exploit it. (2) The outpost has not yet been created. This case is clearly more de manding, as we first have to identify which square can serve as an outpost and then try to wrest control of it from the opponent. Methods often used in this case are the strengthening of our control ofthe outpost by pawns and the exchange of the opponent's pieces which can control it. Naturally, the possession of one or more outposts does not guarantee vic tory. The piece that will occupy the out post will have to cooperate harmoni ously with the rest of the army from its powerful position in order to further our aims. We can conclude that knights love outposts - they just sit there and don't bother moving at all, as they are able to control a fair amount of squares from behind and from a distance! The most usual case is the weak d5-square; we can see its exploitation in the next four examples: (9) Smyslov - Rudakovsky Moscow 1 945 Sicilian Defense [B83]
1 .e4 c5 2)��f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4. .£1 xd4 .£!f6 5 . .£lc3 d6 6 ..Q.e2 .Q.e7 7.0-0 0-0 8 . .Q.e3 .£!c6 9.f4 tf}Jc7 10. tf}Je1 .£! xd4 11 . .Q.xd4 e5 12 ..Q.e3 .Q.e6 13.f5 .Q.c4 14. .Q.xc4 tf}Jxc4 (D)
The Weak d5-square 1 8...b 5 19.b3 �c5+ 20.
hl E!cS 21.E!f3 Preparing a kingside assault.
21 ... hS?! Good or bad, Black had to play 2l .. .f6. After 22.a4 (yes, White can play on both sides !) 22 . . . a6 23.axb5 axb5 24.�h3 White's position is superior but Black is not losing yet.
22.f6!
15 . .Q.g5!
Now White will quickly achieve victory by attacking the black monarch.
White prepares an ideal position for his knight. After the exchange on f6, it will be placed on the excellent d5square, from where it will guide White's forces to action all over the board. This is a typical method of creating a good knight vs. bad bishop theme.
22 ...gxf6 22 . . . g6 23 .'i!Yd2 � g8 24.'i!Yh6 g5 25.�h3 +- or 22 ... � g8 23.'i!Yh4 +- .
23.�h4 f!gS 24.4)xf6 f!g7 24 ... Jlxf6 25.'i!Yxf6+ �g7 26.�g3 is only a transposition.
1 5 . . . E!fe8 1 6 . .Q. xf6 .Q. x f6 17.4)d5 AdS
25.f!g3! Axf6 Or 2 5 . . . Ae7 2 6 . � xg7 �xg7 27.'i!Yxh7+ �xf6 28.'i!Yh6#.
Black could think of giving up the exchange with 1 7 . . . 'i!Yxc2 18.�f2 '(i:Yc5 (18...'i!Yc6 19.�cl 'i!Ya4 20.b3 ±) 19.�cl 'i!Yd4 20A:lc7 ± . Although material is lost, I do not see what else he can do ... 18.c3 (D)
26.�xf6 E!cg8 27.E!dl! And B lack has no defense to White's idea: �xd6, � xg7 and � d8+.
27...d5 28.f!xg7 1-0 (10) Anand - Kamsky Sanghi Nagar 1 994 Ruy Lopez [C92]
l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3.Ab5 a6 4.Aa4 4)f6 5.0-0 .Q.e7 6.E!el b5 7..Q.b3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Ab7 10.d4 E!eS 1 1 .4)bd2 .Q.fs 12.J,tc2 g6 13.d5 4) b8 1 4.b3 c6 1 5.c4 a 5 1 6 . d x c 6 A x c6 1 7 . c x b 5 A x b5 18.4)c4 4)a6 19.Ag5 4)b4 20.4)e3 Ae7 21 . .Q.xf6 Axf6 22.a3 4) xc2 23.�xc2 .Q.g7 24.E!adl �b8 25.a4 E!cS 26.�bl Aa6 27.4)d2 f!c3 28.4)d5 Ad3 29.�al E!c2 30.f!e3 Aa6 31.f!c3 E!xc3 32.�xc3 Ah6 33.4)c4 A x c4 34.� x c4 .Q.g5 35.E!d3 �b7 (D)
White's knight is ideally placed on the strong d5-outpost and dominates the whole board. If we add to this White's superior pawn structure (the d6-pawn is backward and weak), we can easily understand that he should be holding a large plus. Black has no compensation for the strategic defects.
19
Chess Analytics
White enjoys the advantage of the better minor piece (knight vs. bishop) and the better pawn structure, as Black's d6-pawn cannot be considered ideally placed. As for a plan, White can con sider combining his excellently placed knight with the creation of a passed pawn on the queenside, and generally play on both sides of the board. Bla�k has no active counterplay and I S doomed to passivity.
36.§c3 §b8 37.�d3 ®g7 White also stands better after 37 . . . AdS 3S . .§ c4 .§cS (3S . . . �g7 39.b4 axb4 40 . .§xb4 'ffia7 4 l . .§ xbS 'ff! xbS ± ) 39.b4.
38.g3?! Following the principle of "not hurrying," White gradually "improves" his position. But 3S.b4! axb4 39.l'k7 'ff!aS was critical, as then White would have the pleasant choice between two good moves: (a) 40. 'ffi b 3 (40. 'ff! f3 l'HS oo ) 40 . . . 'ff!a 5! 4 l .g3! (41 .4Jb6 .§fS 42 . .§c6 h5 oo 43. 4Jc4? 'ff! a S 44 . .§ x d6 'ff! x e4 45 . .§dl .§ dS + ) 4 1 . . . .§ fS ( 4 1 . . .Ad2? 42.'ffif3 .§f8 43.'ffff6+ �h6 44.4Je7! or 4 l . . .AdS 42 . .§ d7 are excellent for White, but perhaps Black's best practi cal chance was 4 l . . . .§aS!? 42.h4 AdS 43 . .§d7 'ff! xa4 44.'ff! xa4 .§ xa4 45 . .§xdS b3 46 . .§bS .§ xe4 47 . .§xb3 ± ) 42 . .§b7 Ad2 43.'ffif3 Ag5 (43 . . . 'ff! dS 44.a5!) 44.h4 AdS 45. 'ff!b3 ±, but still this po-
20
sition looks quite unpleasant for him. (b) 40.'ff!c4!? and now: (b l ) 40 . . . 'ff! x a4? 4 1 . .§ xf7+! �h6 (4l . . .�xf7 42.4Jb6+) 42 . .§ xh7+! �xh7 43.'ffic7+ �h6 44.'ff! x bS ± . (b2) 4 0 . . . AdS 4 1 . .§ d7 b 3 (4 1 . . .'ff! x a4 42 . .§ xf7+ ! �hS 43 . .§ fS+ 'it'g7 4 4 . .§ gS + �h6 4 5 . 4J e 3 ! +- ) 42.4Jb4 �h6 43.'ff! xf7 'ff! xe4 44.'ff! xh7+ �g5 45 . .§ xd6 +- . (b3) 40 . . . 'ff!a 5 41.4Jf4 d5 42.4Jxd5 b3 43.4Jc3 .§fS 44 . .§b7 ± . (b4) 40. . .b3 4 1 .4Jb6 d5! 42 . .§xf7+! �xf7 43. 'ff! c 7+ Ae7 44.4JxaS .§b4! 4 5 . 4Jb6! b2 46.4JcS b l 'ff! + 47.�h2 .§ b7! 4S.4Jd6+ �f6 49. 'ff! xb7 'ff! c l 50.'ff!c 7!! 'ff! x c7 5l .fleS+ 'it'f7 52.4Jxc7 dxe4 5 3 . a 5 Ac5 5 4 .flb5 Ax f2 55 .g3! +- .
38... ,1;ld8! Of course Black covers the c7square!
39.�f3 �d7 Also possible is 39 . . . .§cS 40.�g2 .§ xc3 4l.'ff! xc3 f5 42.f3.
40.®g2 40.'ff! g4? is out of the question: 40 . . . 'ff!xg4 (40 . . . 'ff! e6!?) 4 1 .hxg4 Ab6! 42 . .§d3 .\a,c5=. White not only lost the "Capablanca Theorem" option ('ff! +fl vs. 'ff! +A) but also the chance for a passed queenside pawn.
40... h5 Taking away the g4-square is use ful and also, under some circumstances, the pawn might advance to h4.
41.§c4 �b7 42.§c3 It is too early for 4 2 .b4 axb4 43 . .§ xb4 as Black can sacrifice his queen with 43 . . . 'ff! x b 4 ! (43 . . . 'ff! a S 44 . .§b5! ±) 44.flxb4 .§xb4, retaining decent chances to survive: 45. 'fffdl .§ d4 46.'fffc2 h4. But the other option with 42.h4! .§ cS (42 . . . 'ff! xb3 43.'ff! x b3 .§ xb3 44 . .§cS Af6 45 . .§aS g5 46.hxg5 Axg5
The Weak d5-square monarch. Also possible was 49. . .�d7 50.�g3 (50.:slc l �b7 5 l .b4 a xb4 5 2 .�h3 JigS!) 50 . . . Ag5 5 1 .:s\c7 �e6 oo .
47.:s\xa5 :s\a3 48.:s\a6 iid2 49.:slxd6 :§ xa4 50.4Jf6 ± is also good enough) 43.�c3 :s\xc4 44.�xc4 �a7 45.b4 ;!; .
4 2 . . . �d7 44.�d2!
43.�e2
Ab6
50.�e3 E{xc3 51.� xc3 �a6 52.�c2
Not of course 44.4Jxb6? :§ xb6=.
After 52 .b4 axb4 53.�xb4 �e2 54 .'1t'g3 Jih4 + ! 5 5 . \t' x h4 �xf2+ 56.'1t'h3 �f3+ Black is able to draw (re member 48.g4?!).
44...AdS! 44 . . . iic5? looks attractive, but fails tactically to 45 .:s\f3 (45 .�g5 �d8 46.4Je7! ± ) 45 . . . �d8 46A::l f6 :s\b7 47.�g5 as the c5 -bishop is far away from the defense. Black's fate is also similar after 44 . . . f5? 4 5 . exf5 �xf5 46.4Jxb6 :s\xb6 47.:s\c7+ 'it'f6 48.�d5 �e6 49.�f3+ �f5 50.�a8 +- .
52 ... �a7 And now Black's queen threatens to infiltrate via d4. 53. �d2 �b7 54. �d3 �-� White still stands slightly better and he should have continued the fight with 54.b4 axb4 55.�xb4 ;!; .
45. �c2 �b7 46. �d3 Ab6 47.�f3 AdS (D)
(11) J.Polgar - Anand Wijk aan Zee 1 998 Sicilian Defense [B90]
l.e4 c5 2.4){3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4)f6 5.lL!c3 a6 6.Ae3 e5 7.lL!f3 Ae7 S.Ac4 0-0 9.0-0 Ae6 10. �e2 b5 ll.Ab3 Ax b3 12.ax b3 4)bd7 13.§fdl �c7 14.Ag5 §fcS 1 5 . 4) el �b7 1 6 . A xf6 4) x f6 17. lL! d 5 4) x d5 1 S . E{ x d 5 §c5 19.§adl E{xd5 20.E{xd5 §cS 2l.c3 b4 22.c4 g6 23.g3 §c5 24.§dl a5 25.4)c2 ®g7 26.�d3 §c6 27.lL!e3 �cS 2S.!3)g2 �e6 29.�e2 AdS 30.4)d5 (D
4S.g4?! I do not like the text, as it weakens the dark squares on the kingside with out offering anything positive. 48.h4 is natural, preserving White's advantage: 48 . . .:s\c8 (48 .. .f5 49.exf5 gxf5 50.:s\c4! �xb3 5 1 .4Je3 ± ) 49.:s\xc8 (49 .�d3 :s\xc3 50.�xc3 f5 5 1 .f3 [5l .'it'f3 iib6!] 5 l . . .fxe4 52.fxe4 �a6 53.�c2 iib6 oo ) 49 . . . �xc8 50.�d3.
==;;-�
4S...hxg4 49.hxg4 It would be preferable to recapture with the queen (intending h4-h5) but here 49.�xg4 fails to 49 . . .f5! with an unclear game.
49 ...§cS! Now that as White has weakened his kings ide, Black willingly trades off the rooks to invade and harass the white
21
With precise play, White has achieved her strategic goal - the "eter nal" knight on d5 vs. Black's rather poor
Chess Analytics bishop. As the knight should not just sit on d5 and watch, White needs to or ganize an attack in which it can take part.
30... §c5 31.'�e3 .Q.e7 32.§d3 .Q.d8 33. �d2 §c6 34. �dl
but White now has the additional pos sibility of c4-c5!.
43.hxg6! A good move, as the alternative 43.c5?! dxc5 44.�xc5 .§.b8! (44 . . . �a6? 45 .
35 ...
36.h5
44.c5!
Now there is ten s i o n on the kingside.
Once the position ofthe black king has been weakened, White does not mind opening the c-file.
36....Q.g5 37.'�f3 §c8 38.§dl White prepares to transfer her ma j or pieces to the h-file, creating threats against the enemy king.
44 . . . d x c5 46.§cl!
45. � x c 5
.Q.d8
The rook no longer has any busi ness on the h-file, so White transfers it to the opened c-file.
38 ... §c6 39. �e2 §c8 40.§hl
46...
47.�e3
41 ... §b8 42. �f2 §b7 B lack has defended against the white queen's invasion on the diagonal,
49 ... h5 50.§c6 §d6 51.§c8 �d7 52. �c5
22
The Weak d5-square
58.�xf6+ §xf6 59.§h7+ �xh7 60.4Jxf6+, forking the queen and winning easily.
53. .§b8 White had no reason to avoid the immediate 53J'hS (threatening lh7) 53 . . .Ab6 54.�cl + �g7 55 .�g5.
53 .i}.f6
A very recent example played (un fortunately) by one of my students, will conclude this chapter.
•••
5 3 . . . g5 only weakens the f5 square: 54.l"\aS! �e6 (54 . . . g4 55 .fxg4 hxg4 56.�f2! �g6 57.�f8) 5 5 . 4::\e 3 l"\ d2+ 56.�fl +- (56.�gl? Jlb6), but Black might had tried 53 . . .�g7 54.l"\b7 (54.l"\ aS!? Ab6 55 .�cl AdS 56.�e3 Jlb6 57.�g5 ± ) 54 . . .�xb7 55.�xd6 ± .
54.'li'Ye3+ .ilg5?1
(12) Adams - Esen Konya 20 1 0 Sicilian Defense [B90]
1 .e4 c5 2 . .[)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4::) xd4 .[)f6 5 . .[)c3 a6 6.a4 e5 7 .[)f3 'IP/c7 8.Ae3 Ae7 9 . .i}.e2 0-0 10.0-o b6 11. 'IP/d3 Ab7 12 . .[)h4 g6 13 .Q.h6 .§d8 14. .[)f5 .i}.f8 15 ..Q.g5 .[)bd7 16. .[)e3 .i}.e7 17.'li'Yc4 'li'Yb8 18 . .i}. xf6 .[) xf6 1 9 . .[)ed5 .i}.xd5 20 . .[) x d5 §a7 2 1 .§fd 1 .[) x d5 22. 'IP/ xd5 C/}g7 (D) •
•
Also bad is 54 . . . �h7?! 55.l"\aS + but Black had to play 54 . . . �g7 55.l"\aS �b5 56.l"\a7+! (56.4Jc7 l"\d3 57.�e2 ± ) 56 . . . l"\ d7 (56 . . . �gS 57.4::\ xf6+ l"\ xf6 5 S .�h6 � e 2 + 5 9 .�h3 �fl + 60.�h4 +- ) 57.l"\ xd7+ �xd7 58.�b6 AdS (5S . . . �dS 59.�e6) 59.�bS ± . White's position is obviously much bet ter, thanks to the strong d5-knight and the weak black king, so it's not so strange that a winning combination ex ists!
55.f41 exf4
White holds a pleasant and nearly permanent advantage. His bishop is certainly a much better piece than its counterpart, as there are many more tar gets at its disposal. Also, the backward black d-pawn is not a great fact for Black either; it will not fall easily and it bolsters the defense. And what are White's plans? Well, he should combine offensive activity in various parts of the
B lack had to try 55 . . . Jlxf4, al though his survival chances after 56.gxf4 �g4+ 57.�g3 �e2+ 58.�h3 �fl + 59.�g2 �xg2+ 60.�xg2 exf4 61 .§hS+ �g7 62.l"\aS would be slim.
56. .§h8+1 1-0 And Black resigned, as he "felt" the coming combination after the forced 56 ... �g7 57.�d4+ Jlf6 (D)
23
Chess Analytics board (l"la3-f3, g3, 'it'g2, h4-h5, etc) but the most important is that he should not change any of the remaining pieces. With every exchange Black can more easily organize his defense, as his spa tial disadvantage is difficult to handle.
23.Ac4 The white bishop takes its position; its first and permanent target is the f7square (and not "by force" the f7-pawn) and generally the a2-g8 diagonal. Black has no counterpart to offset. . . 23 ... §f8 24.§a3 (D)
27.l'i\'d2 Now the bishop will be placed in the "royal" d5-square, while the h6square might come under a combined attack. 27...a5 (D)
24...§c7?! Black's policy (a passive one) can not be recommended. He should try to become active and exchange some pieces and therefore should try 24 .. .f5. After 25 .exf5 l"l xf5 (25 . . . gxf5 26.l"lg3+ 'it'h8 27.�d2! ± ) 26.l"lf3 ± and White stands clearly better but far from win ning.
25.§f3 l'i\'e8 Now 25 . . .f5?! fails to 26.exf5 gxf5 (26 . . . l"lxf5 27.l"\ xf5 gxf5 28.�f7+ 'it'h8 29.1.txa6 +- ; 26 . . . �a8 27.�xa8 l"lxa8 28.l.td5 l"lf8 29.c4 gxf5 30.l"lb3 l"lb8 3 1 . a 5 b5 3 2 . c x b 5 a x b 5 3 3 . a6 ± ) 27.�e6 'it'h8 28.l.txa6 +- . 26.Ab3 (D)
26...f6 Black weakens the a2-g8 diago nal but somehow he had to liberate his queen. Note that 26 . . .f5?! wasn't good here either: 27.exf5 l"l xf5 28.l"l xf5 gxf5 29.�e6 +- . 24
28.§c3? A mysterious move. White ex changes an active piece, losing his com bined attack on h6. More logical was 28.l"lh3 h5 29.�e2 ± .
28...§xc3 29.l'i\'xc3 l'i\'c8 White advantage was certainly re duced; he is now obliged to keep the queens on board, otherwise he would lose the opportunity to attack various points in Black's camp. 30.l'i\'e3 l'i\'c5 31.l'i\'e2 (D)
The Important f5-square As previously noted, combined attacks are White's "secret" weapons!
31 ...f51 Correct - Black has to be active.
49 ...El.d7 so.t:/g4 Ag5
32.exf5 El,xf5 Safe and correct. After 32 . . . gxf5?! 33.l"'d3! White's attack should not be underestimated.
33.El.d5 t:/c7 34.g3 El.f8 35.h4 This is the plan that was discussed above. White tries to weaken Black's kingside defense by organizing an at tack on g6-pawn.
35 ... t:/c8 36.El.d3 t:/f5 37.Ad5 t:/d7 38.t:/e4 §.c8 39.El.f3 (D)
39 ... Af6?! Exchanges nearly always favor the defender! For this reason Black had to opt for 39 . . . l"\f8.
Now after 42 . . . l"\f8 comes 43.hxg6 hxg6 4 4 . Ac4 Ae7 4 5 . l"\ xf8 Axf8 46.Ad3 �f7 47.c4 and White will win a pawn with 48.�c6. hxg6
44.c4 Now it's all over; Black has no real defense against White ' s kings ide threats.
44... El,c7 45. t:/h3 t:/d8 Or 45 ...gxh5 46.�xh5 h6 47.�g4+ Ag5 48.l"'f5 +- .
46.t:/e6 Also good is 46.h6+ �h8 47.�g4 and Black is in zugzwang!
46 . . . Jl,g5 47.h xg6 48.Jl,e4 Af6 49.El.d3!
5 1 . . . e x f4 5 2 . gx f4 Af6 53. t:/ x g6+ �f8 54. El.g3 d5 55.Axd5 1-0 The Important f5-square Concept The important element of the out post was detailed described in the first volume ofthe Training with the Experts series. Here we will look at an impor tant outpost, the f5 -square, which is often accompanied by doubled f-pawns and as it is located near the black king's castled position, could tum out to be decisive. In general, weak squares are undesirable and we should be very care ful when creating them . . . We will start with a simple ending:
l.e4 c5 2.4Jf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4)f6 5.f3 e5 6.Ab5+ Ad7 7.Jl,xd7+ t:/xd7 8.4Jf5 d5 9.Ag5 dxe4 10.Jl,xf6 t:/ xdl + ll.�xdl gxf6 12.fxe4 4)c6 13.c3 §.g8 14.g3 §.d8+ 15.4Jd2 4)e7 16.�c2 �d7 1 7 . El.adl �c6 1 8. 4)f3 El, x d l 19.4J xe7+ A xe7 20.§.xdl El.d8 21.El,xd8 Jl,xd8 (D)
43.t:/g4 El.c5 4 4 . hxg6
White wins as the black king will not find any shelter.
(13) Salov - Lj ubojevic Buenos Aires 1 994 Sicilian Defense [B55)
40.�g2 §.c5 4l.b3 E!,c8 42.h5 t:/e7
43 . . . l"\ x c 2 45.Ae4+-
50 . . . g5 51 .�h5 l"'f7 52 .Ag6 +-
51.f4
h x g6
25
Chess Analytics end. Such a situation must clearly be avoided when at all possible.
This is a classic example in which the superiority of the knight vs. the bishop is evident. This superiority is based on: 1 . Better pawn-structure (doubled and i solated black pawns on the kingside). 2. Strong outposts on the d5- and f5-squares. 3 . Potential passed pawn on the queenside, where White's majority is active.
37.4)e7+ d7 38.4)f5 Ael 39.b5 axb5+ 40.xb5! In general, a passed pawn should be created as distantly as possible.
40 ... Ad2 41.b6 Ael 42.a5 Af2+ 43.b7 e6 44. c6 1-0 B lack resigned because of 44 . . . �gl 4 5 . a6 �f2 46A:Jd6 �gl 47A:Jc8 .llf2 48.4.Jb6. A clear-cut tech nical win.
22.l�� h4 The late middlegame positions with a weak f5 - square are also difficult to defend. One must be extremely care ful when giving to the opponent chances to create this weak square; one should at least have clear compensation for the deficit, something that one would be happy about . . .
The knight is heading for the im portant outpost.
22... Ae7 23.4Jf5 Afs 24.b4! Now the procedure for the creation of a passed pawn begins.
24...d7 24 . . . b5 can only help White : 25 .'it'b3 a6 26.c4 'it'd7 27.a4.
25.b3 c6 26.c4 a6 27.a4 b6
(14) Ivkov - Galliamova Aruba 1 992 Queen's Gambit Accepted [D26]
27 . . . b5+ 28.axb5+ axb5+ 29.�b3 �b6 30.c4 bxc4+ 31 .�xc4 +- .
28.g4 b5+ 30.4)e3
1.4Jf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.e3 dxc4 4 . A x c4 4)f6 5.d4 c5 6 . d x c 5 t?/ xdl+ 7.xdl Axc5 8.e2 a6 9.4Jbd2 4)c6 10.a3 0-0 ll.b4 Ad6 12.j'tb2 e5 13.Ad3 §.eS (D)
29.b3 d7
30.axb5 axb5 3 1 .c4 +- is equally fine.
30 ...Ah6 31.4Jd5 Ag5 32.c4 c6 33.4Jc3 Forcing Black's hand.
33 . . . b x c4+ 34. x c4 Ah4 35.4Jd5 Ag5 36.h3 Ah4 (D)
It seems that Black is not doing badly and she is about to fully equalize as the balanced pawn structure helps her.
14.4)e4!
B lack i s deprived of any counterplay, passively waiting for the
But White on the move creates un-
26
The Important f5-square pleasant threats by well-thought ex changes.
26.Ac3 axb4 27.axb4 ± , but there was no need to hurry. B lack's position sooner or later will fall apart.
14 ... .Q.c7?! Not the best. 14 . . . <£ld4+?! wasn't good either because of 1 5 .
23 ...a5?! Trying for some "counterplay." 23 . . . Ab6 was more tenacious, although after 24.h4 Black's position is a mess.
24.b5 4)a7 25.a4?! Here White missed a nice tactical shot: 2 5 . g 5 ! fx g 5 26 . .§. x c7 itxf5 27 . .§. xe7 itxe4 28.itxe5+ +- . 25 ...4)c8 26. .Q.a3 4)d6 (D)
1 5 .§acl .Q.g4 1 6.h3 .Q.h5 17.4) xf6+ gxf6 18. .Q.e4 §e6 (D)
Now White wins material. His great positional advantage allows small winning tactics. This is not something magical as it happens very often after a chessplayer has outplayed his opponent positionally . . .
After a forced series of moves, White has achieved a clear advantage. Black's weak f5-square, her doubled f pawns and her uncoordinated pieces justifies this evaluation.
27.§xc7! §xc7 28 . .Q.xd6 §c4 29 . .Q.e7! §a8 30.r:t;f3 §xa4 31.h4 3 1 .llxf6+ \t'f8 32 .Axe5 wins as well.
31 ...h6 32.h5 .Q.xf5 33.gxf5+ r:t;h7
19.g4! Fixing the f5-square once and for
33 . . . \t'hS 34.Axf6+ \t'h7 35 . .§.g7+ and mate in 1 2 !
all.
19 ... .Q.g6 20.4)d2 §d8 21 . .Q.f5! §e7
34.4) xf6+ r:t;h8 3 5. .Q.d6 e4+ 36.r:t;f4 1-0
Black cannot liquidate her weak f5 square: 2 1 . . ..\.ixf5 22.gxf5 .§.ed6 23.
( 1 5) Farago - Ljubojevic Wijk aan Zee 1 988 Old Indian Defense [A53]
22.4)e4 r:t;g7 23.§hgll
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 d6 3 . .£lc3 e5 4.dxe5 d x e5 5 ." � x d8+ r:t; x d8 6.4)f3 4)bd7 7. .Q.g5 (D)
A clear prophylaxis against ...Axf5. White could win material with 23.
27
Chess Analytics White has obtained a very pleas ant advantage, as his superior light piece (knight vs. bishop) will help him to take full control over the f5-square. A white knight solidly posted on f5 will be a very helpful force, assisting the rest of its army to create nasty threats.
13...c:t;e6 14.§.d3 §c7 7...h6?! Too optimistic. Black should cho sen the modest but fully acceptable 7 . . . Jle7 8.0-0-0 +=.
8.Axf6+ gxf6 Now Black has a weak f5 -square and a ripped kingside pawn structure.
9.g3?! White wants to take full control of the f5 -square and halve Black's bishop pair (by exchanging a pair of bishops), but more accurate was 9.0-0-0 c6 10.g3.
9 ...c6?!
Passive. Black should have thought of trying to control the f5-square again by 1 4 . . . f5 1 5 . l"l hd H . His kings ide pawns would remain weak, but at least there would be not so many threats against them.
15.§.hdl E!d7 16.c:t;c2 Ae7?! But this is really the bad move. Here Black was obliged to try 16 . . . l'h d3 when after 1 7 .exd3 ! f5 18.l"le1 Jlg7 19.4:lxe5 Jlxe5 20.d4 f6 2 l .f4 4Jd7 22.dxe5 fxe5 23.fxe5 4:lxe5 24.4Je2;!;; White would be happy but Black is still fighting.
17.§.xd7 � xd7 (D)
9 . . .Jlb4! was best, as then Black would have enough compensation for his "problematic" kingside.
to.Ah3 �b6 10 . . . Jlb4!? 1 U 'lc1 ;�;;wasn't so bad.
11.0-0-0+ 'i!Je7 The alternative was 1 l . . .�c7 after which 1 2 .Jlxc8 l"lxc8 1 3 .b3 Jla3 + 1 4.�c2 and 4Jh4 gives White a very pleasant advantage.
18.�h4! Now White will completely control the f5 - square.
12.Axc8 §.xeS 13.b3 (D)
18 ... §.c8 18 . . . f5? 19.4Jxf5! +-
19.�f5! Afs 1 9 ... �xf5 20.l"l xd7 loses material.
20.g4 b5?1 Trying to find some counterplay but giving White another important square, d5. Perhaps Black should have considered 20 . . . a5 and . . . 4Jc5, although White's advantage would be great in any event.
28
The Important f5-square structure by the bishop pair and easy play. To choose a side it is a matter of preference . . .
2 1 . c x b5 c x b5 22.\tlb2 a6 23.4:\d51 §.c6 24.e4 Full domination over the white knights' strong outposts on d5 and f5 . 24...a5 25.a3 b4 26.a4 4:\c5 (D)
10.4:\f3 White's plan is simple: he will post his knight on h4 and then try something like ltd3, 4Jg2-f4 and h4-h5 to force Black to exchange the light-square bish ops. If he succeeds, then his advantage will be huge.
10 ... 4:\d7 11.4)h4 .ile7 12.g3 4)b6 Lately Black has tried 1 2 . . . f5 !? 13.4Jg2 4Jf6 1 4.f3 Ad6 as in Hillarp Persson-Vas, Lund 2010.
Great positional domination cre ates the preconditions for successful tactics. Here comes one . . . 27.4:\de71 1-0 And Black re signed in view of 27 . . . :§b6 (27 . . . Axe7 2 8 . 4Jg7 * ; 27 . . . :§ a6 2 8 . :§ d8 +- ) 2 8 . :§ d8! 4Jd7 (28 . . . 1tg7 2 9 . 4Jd 5 ! ) 29.4Jd5 :§ c6 30.:§ e8+ Ae7 3 l . :§ xe7 # .
13.f3 a5 14.\tlf2 a4 15.§.c1 Or 1 5 .Ae2 4Jc8 1 6.e4 a3 1 7.b3 d x e 4 1 8 . fx e 4 0-0 1 9 . :§ a c l Ab4 20.Ad3 :§ d8 oo Gustafsson- Sokolov Amsterdam 200 1 .
15 ... 4:\cSI A well-known maneuver, aiming to relocate the knight to d6, from where it would control the important f5-square.
1 6.,ile2 4)d6 17.§hd1 0-0 18. .ild3! White proceeds according to the previously described plan.
18 ... §.fe8?! 18 ... Axd3 19.:§ xd3 fS 20.4Jg2 oo was a must.
19.g4! A pawn is needed for better con trol!
19 ... ,ilf8 20.4)e2! Relocating, focusing on the f5 square.
20 ... ,ilh6 21.f4 ,ilxd3 22.§.xd3 .ilfS 23.4:\g3 §a5?! Black's plan is wrong, as it will in fact be White who is able to take ad vantage of the open file. Modest but playable was 23 . . . :§e6 24.4Jhf5 +=. 24.§.c2 §.b5 (D)
This i s a very well-known position, one in which both players seem to be happy: White has the weak f5 - square to draw his plans around, while Black is compensated for his flawed pawn
29
Chess Analytics Conclusion I would give the matter consider able thought before I surrendered the f5-square outpost (and not only this outpost) to my opponent. The compen sation must be concrete and the dy namic balance should be kept. Other wise, an easy game and better chances are awaiting the side that can benefit from the weak f5-square. Maybe I am too concerned about pawn weaknesses, but my experience has taught me that it is better to limit their existence - or avoid them completely!
25.l�:lhf51 White dreams of a 4J v s . � endgame, in which his superior light piece and pawn structure will tell. So, exchanges are of an ultimate impor tance.
Rook on the Run
25 .l�)c4 ••
Black has to fight for counterplay. 25 . . . 4Jxf5 26.4Jxf5 ± would only have helped White.
Concept In his book My System, in the chap ter "On Open Files," Aron Nimzowitsch formulated the following idea: to ad vance in one file with the idea of giv ing up that file for another one, using that file as a jumping-off place. Unfor tunately, he hardly developed this idea any further but here we can somewhat fill in the blanks with a small selection of examples. The main idea consists of transferring a rook via a semi-open file to another flank, in order to include it in the attack or generally to take over the initiative in the center. We will start with a classic game:
26.b3 axb3 27 .§.xb3! •
White correctly exchanges Black's active pieces.
27 .§. xb3 •••
If 27 . . . .ilb4, then 28 . 4Jh5 .§ e 6 29.e4! ± .
28.axb3 4)a5?1 Good or bad Black had to accept a worse position with 28. . . 4Jd6 29.l"la2 4Jxf5 30.4Jxf5 ± . 29 . .£lh5 .§.e6 30 .§.a2! b6 (D) •
(17) Shipov - Miles Hastings 1 998 Queen's Gambit Accepted [D27]
l.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3. .£lf3 4)f6 4.e3 e6 5.Axc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.-'1.b3 b6 8.e4 cxd4 9.e5 4)fd7 10.�xd4 -'i.b7 11.�f4 (D)
31 . .§.a41 1-0 And Black resigned as White's rook penetrates: 3 1 . . . h6 32 .b4 4Jc4 33.l"la8 +- , winning mate rial. The knight on f5 looks like a dragon!
30
Rook on the Run
ll .. .l�)c5? Black's concept is wrong, as he loses precious time and also opens the a-file for White. Better was 1 1 . . .4Jc6 1 2 .4Jc3 ( 1 2 . t¥g3!? t¥c7 1 3. Af4 +=) 12 . . . t¥c7 13 . .§e1 4Jc5 1 4 .Ac2 .§ dS ( 1 4 . . . Ae7? 1 5 . t¥ g 3 ; 1 4 . . . 0-0-0!? 1 5 .Ae3 ;!; ) 1 5 . 4Je4 4Jxe4 1 6 .ilxe4 4Jb4 ;!; or 1 1 . . .t¥c7 1 2.4Jc3 (12.4Jbd2 4Jc5) 1 2 . . .ilxf3 1 3.ii¥xf3 4Jc6 (13 . . . l"la7 1 4.t¥g3 ± ) 1 4.Af4 l"ld8 1 5.ii¥g3 ;!; .
Here it comes! White has clear pressure on the kingside and the last of his forces joins the attack. The rook will be transferred to g4 from where it will participate in the attack.
t6... �e8 In general I would prefer 16 . . . .§c8 17 . .§ ad4 (another point) 1 7 . . . ilc6 1 8 . Ag 5 l"l c7 1 9 . A x e 7 + t¥xe7 20 . .§d6 ± .
17. .§g4 g6
12.l£)c3!
What else? If 1 7 . . . A xf3 then 18 . .§ xg7! Ah4 (18 . . .Jlxd1? 19 . .§g8+! .§ x gS 2 0 . Ah6+ l"l g7 2 l . t¥ x g7 # ) 1 9.t¥xh4 hS (19 . . . Axd1 20.Ah6 +- ) 20 . .§ xd7! t¥xd7 2 1 .l"lg3! Ac6 22.t¥f6 .§h7 23.ii¥g5 +- and if 1 7 . . . l"lg8, then s imply again 1 8 . .§ x g7 .§ x g7 1 9.Ah6 +- .
White continues his development, although 1 2.Ac2!? was not bad either: 12 . . . 4Jd3 1 3.ii¥g3 <£\xcl 14 . .§xc1 4Jd7 1 5 . 4Jbd2 g6 16.ile4 ilxe4 17.4Jxe4 ile7 18 . .§ c6 ± .
1 2... 4)xb3 13.axb3 Ae7 What else? I f 1 3 . . . 4Jd7, then 14.4Jg5! t¥e7 15.4Jce4 ilxe4 16.t¥xe4 (16.4Jxe4 t¥b4 17.l"la4 t¥xb3 18.<£\gS <£\ x e S 1 9 . l"l e4 ild6 20 . .§ x e 5 0-0 2 1 .t¥e4 g6 22 . .§xe6 fxe6 23.ii¥b7 +- ) 16. . . .§a7 17.Ae3 ± and if 1 3 . . . 4Jc6, then 14 . .§d1 t¥c7 1 5 .4Je4 .§d8 16.ile3 ± .
ts.Ah6+ wgs t9 . .!dg51 The knight is on its way to be relo cated to d6 or f6, via e4- square.
19 ... ,ilf8 The activity of the white rooks compared to the black rooks is obvious and Black is short of good moves. The main alternative was 19 . . . .§d8 20 . .§gd4 (20.b4!? 4Jb8 2 1 . .§ xd8 t¥xd8 22 . .§f4 t¥d2 2 3 .h4 +- ) 20 . . . <£\cS 2 1 . .§ x d8 AxdS 22.b4 4Jd7 23.t¥f4 +- .
t4.�g3! Wf8 Black is more or less forced to give-up his castling rights. On either 1 4 . . . 0-0? 1 5.Ah6± or 14 . . . g6 1 5 .ilh6 ± White should be more than happy. 15 . .§dl 4)d7 (D)
20.,ilxf8 Wxf8 There is no salvation with 20 . . . <£\xfS 2 1 ..§f4 +- . 21 . .§gd4 Ac6 (D)
The alternative 1 5 . . . t¥c7 is of no help, especially after 16 . .§ a4! ± .
16. .§a4!
31
Chess Analytics The other option is 1 2 .4Jc3 l"'1 b4 1 3.�a5 Ab7 14.f3 §h4 1 5.4Jd3 .ild6 as in Galkin-Yemelin, St Petersburg 1 994, when Black's attack is strong.
12 ... §b6 13.4:)c3 §e6 14.Af4 Ab7 15.4:)d3 c51 16.Ae3 §e8 (D)
22.E{f4! f5 Black was lost anyway: 22 ... 4Jxe5 23.�e3 +- . 23.exf6 e5 24. �d3! 1-0 Black resigned as he will not survive long: 24 . . . exf4 25.�d6+ �g8 26.f7+. (18) Chiburdanidze - Grivas Athens 1 984 Ruy Lopez [C84]
Black is about to conclude his plan, so White must act.
17.b4? But not like that! 17 . .ilg5! oo was White's only acceptable move.
l.e4 e5 2.4:)f3 {)c6 3.Ab5 a6 4.Aa4 {)f6 5.d4 exd4 6.0-0 Ae7 7.E{el b5 8.e5 {) xe5 9.4:) xe5 bxa4 10.�xd4 0-0 ll.'�xa4 (D)
17 c x b4 19.4:)e2 Ad6 ••.
1 8 . a x b4
�c7!
And Black's attack is strong as all his forces are well focused on the white king.
20.4:)g3 {)e4 2l.Ad4 {) xg3 22.hxg3 A xg31 23.E{ xe6 § x e6 24.4:)c5 White cannot accept the "sacri fice": 24.fxg3 �xg3 -+ .
24... Ah2+? Good enough was 24 . . . l"'1 g6! 2 5 . � xd7 ( 2 5 . 4J xb7 �xb7 + ) 2 5 . . . ia.h2 + 2 6 . �fl .ilxg2+ 27.�e2 �xd7 28.4Jxd7 l"'1d6 29. .ile5 l"'1e6 30.f4 ia.xf4 3 1 .�f2 .ilxe5 32.4Jxe5 Ae4 -+ . -
ll ...§b81 An excellent idea, preparing the relocation of the black a8-rook to e6. Black's plan consist of moves like . . . l"'1 b6-e6, . . . l"'1 e8 , . . . iib7 and then pushing his central pawns. But White has also to be concerned about another . . . l"'1b4-h4, with an attack. This idea was first played by Wolfgang Unzicker back in 1 950 and from then Black has scored heavily in this position.
25.
27.�xa6 h5 28.c4? 28.l"'1dl! would still keep White in the game.
28 �f41 29.c x d5 � x d4 30.4)d3 h4 3l .§el § x e l + 32.4:) xel � xd5?! . . •
12.a3
32
Rook on the Run 32 . . .'�xb4! +
3 3 . �e2 ,£td6 34.b5
12. .§a4! Very strong. Now White threatens 13.b5 axb5 14.l"lh4, trapping the queen! Black has an extra pawn, but the reduced material and the fact that (al most) all the pawns are on one side of the board (and thus the white knight may prove more useful than the black bishop) allows White to hope for a draw.
38... �xe2+? A serious error, after which Black can no longer hope to win the game. After the exchange of queens the mate rial is further reduced, while the white king has been freed to participate in the defense. After, for example, 38 . . :�d5!, Black can continue the fight for victory.
12 ... 4)ce7 What else? If 1 2 . . . 4Jge7, then 13.b5 axb5 (13 ... 4Jxe5 14.4Jxe5 �xe5 15.l"le1 �f6 16.l"lf4 �d6 17.l"lfe4 +- ) 1 4.l"lh4 +- .
13.b5 4)g6 14.g4! The rook on a4 also supports this decisive advance !
14...�h3 1 5 . .§e1 Not bad, but 1 5 .b6 cxb6 16.axb6 Axb6 1 7.4Jg5 �h4 18.�b3 was cur tains. Now White threatens 1 6.-'l.fl +- . 15 ... 4)h4 16.4) xh4 �xh4 (D)
39.
Now a small tactic finishes Black off:
17.b6! cxb6 18.g5 �h3 19.e6!
(19) Saverymuttu - Van den Berg
Cutting-off Black's queen retreat.
Arosa 1 972 Scotch Game [C44]
19 ...dxe6 20 . .§e3 1-0
1.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3.d4 exd4 4.,£tc4 Ac5 5.c3 d3 6.b4 ,£tb6 7.00 �f6 8.e5 �f5 9.a4 a6 10.,£txd3 �h5 ll.a5 Aa7 (D)
(20) Lobjanidze - Nadanian Pasanauri 1 997 Queen's Gambit Declined [D32]
l .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3 . 4) c3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.'df3 4)c6 6.e3 4)f6 33
Chess Analytics 7..Q.e2 cxd4 8.'£\ xd4 .Q.d6 9.0-0 00 10.'£\ x c 6 b x c6 l l .b3 �e7 12 . .Q.b2 (D)
( 1 6 . gxh4? �xh4 1 7 . �d2 �xh2 + 1 8 . <;\';'fl Aa6+ -+ ) 1 6 . . . f\ xg4 (16 ... Axg4? 17.�d4 �g5 18.4Jb5! cxb5 19.gxh4 �g6 20.�xd5 ± ) 17.e4 �h4! 18.exd5 Axg3 19.hxg3 fi: xg3+ 20.fxg3 �xg3+=. But it seems that Black can delay the rook transfer and try to attack White's kingside with the thematic 14 . . . h5!? 1 5 .ita3 ( 1 5 . Axh5? 4Jxh5 1 6.�xh5 Ag4 -+ ) 15 ... f\b7 16.Axd6 �xd6 oo .
This is a typical position with hang ing pawns. White has the better pawn structure but Black has the initiative and a potential attack.
(D)
14... .§h4! 15.g3 .§h6 16. .Q.g2
12 ... .§b8!? The rook joins the attack via b4 !
13 ..Q.f3 Asanov-Nadanian, Moscow 2003 continued l 3 .'� c2 f\b4 1 4 . g3 llh3 1 5.E\fel f\eS 1 6.lla3 f\b7=.
13....§b4 14.'£\e:i?! The main alternative is 14.g3 when it seems that Black can still continue with his original plan, 14 . . . f\h4!?, after which White should play 1 5 A:Jb5! ( 1 5 . gxh4? �e5 1 6 . f\ e l Ah3 -+ ; 1 5 .4Je2 f\h6 16.f\cl Ad7 oo ; 1 5 .4Jxd5 4Jxd5 1 6.Axd5 cxd5 17.gxh4 la.xh2+ 18.<;\';'xh2 �xh4+=) 15 . . . cxb5 16.gxh4 Ah3 17.Ag2! (17.f\el?! AbS 18.Ag2 �c7 19.f4 Axg2 20.<;\';'xg2 4Je4 oo /=) 17 . . . Axg2 1 8 . <;\';'xg2 �e4+ 1 9 . �f3 �xh4 20.h3 4Je4! 2 1 .�g4 (2 1 .f\adl f5 oo /= 22.f\ xd5? 4Jg5 -+ ) 2 1 . . .�h6 22.�f5! �h4 23.Eiadl g6 24.�g4 �e7 25.f\ xd5 f5 26.�dl b4 when Black has compensation for the sacrificed ex change as a result of the weakened white king's position. Another option is 1 4 . f\ e l f\ h4 1 5 .g3 when Black can ignore the threat on his rook and play 1 5 . . . 4Jg4! 16.Axg4
34
t6 ... .Q.a6?! The bishop should not have been taken off the c8-h3 diagonal. After 1 6 . . . 4Jg4 ! 1 7 . h 3 ( 1 7 . 4Jd4? fi: xh 2 ! [ 1 7. . . 4Jxh2? 18.4Jxc6 �g5 19.f\el ltg4 20.f4 �h5 2 l .�xd5 �xd5 22.Axd5 4Jf3+ 23.Axf3 Axf3 24.4Je5 Ae4 oo /=] 1 8 . 4J xc6 �g5 1 9 . �d4 �h6 -+ ) 17 . . . 4Jf6! (the continuation 1 7 . . . 4Jxe3?! 18.fxe3 �xe3+ 19.f\f2 is dubious but 1 7 . . . 4Je5 is perfectly playable) 18.h4 4Jg4 Black would stand better. The game is now complicated but unimpor tant for our theme from now on.
17 . .§el �d7 18.�c2 l£\e4 t 9.f3 l£\g5 20.'£\d4 .Q.cs 2t .f4 l£1h3+ 22.�hl c5 23.'£\f3 �g4 24.'£\h4 .§ x h4 2 5 . g x h4 .Q.f5 26.�e2 � x h4 27 . .Q. x d 5 .§e8 28 . .§fl l£\ x f4 29.�{2 � x f2 30 . .§xf2 .§xe3 (D)
Rook on the Run 1 6 ... E!b8 17.§fel d x c4 18. .Q.xc4 .Q.g4 19 . .Q.e2 .Q.d6?!
31.E!afl .Q.h3 32 . .Q.cl 4) xd5 33 . .Q. x e3 4) x e3 34.E!el 4) f5 35. E!e8+ .Q.f8 3 6 . E!c2 4) d 6 37. § x f8+ � xf8 38. E! xc5 .Q.c8 39.�gl .Q.b7 40.E!c7 �e8 41.b4 �d8 42.E!c5 �d7 43.b5 f5 44.h4 h6 45.a4 g5 46.hxg5 hxg5 47.a5 g4 48.E!e5 .Q.e4 49.a6 4)c4 50.E!c5 4)b6 5 1 . E!cl g3 5 2 . E!dl+ �e6 53.§d8 f4 54.E!e8+ �f5 55.§f8+ �e5 56.§f7 �d4 57.§ x a7 f3 58.§f7 �e3 0-1
Later on, and as a result ofWhite's continuation, Black improved with 19 . . . a6! 20.h3 Ah5 2 1. .1"\al (2 1 .4Jg5? Axe2 2 2 .4Je6 '{;lrd5 2 3 . l"l x e 2 f3! 24.§eel fxg2 25.4::\xfS § xf8 -+ Rohde Seirawan, Estes Park 1 986) 2 l . . .Ad6 22.'{;lrc2 b5 23.4Je5 4::\x e5 24.Axh5 4Jc4 25 . .\lcl '{;lrh4 26.Af3 § be8= Ramesh Konguvel, Kasaragod 1 996. 20.h3 .Q.h5 (D)
2l.E!b5! Here it comes! White plans to ex change the defending black f8-rook and take advantage of B lack's weak kingside, while he exerts pressure on Black's light-square bishop.
(21) Karpov - Seirawan Brussels 1 986 Petroff Defense [C42]
l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)f6 3.4:) xe5 d6 4.4)f3 4) xe4 5.d4 d5 6 . .Q.d3 .Q.e7 7.0-0 4)c6 8.c4 4)b4 9 . .Q.e2 .Q.e6 10.4)c3 0-0 ll . .Q.e3 f5 12.a3 4:) xc3 13.bxc3 4)c6 14.�a4 f4 15 . .Q.d2
2l ....Q.e8 Preferable was 2 l . . .Ag6 although White, with 22.c4 ;!; , would be happy, as there would be no more pressure on his knight.
�h8 (D)
;;;; �==;r. ;; � :;:;= j -=;�� :a;=" ;a "'7"9 .� i'f"'ii """i�� v� r � lf � r. . � i � t j7� � �� ///a l %� % m 'il V/////'m�mJ.. � �� ./ ill��?'>t�7. 'lf:l� ft i:ff0 iD �
22.�c2 a6 Black's problems would not be solved by 22 . . . Ag6 23 .Ad3! Axd3 24.'{;lrxd3 ± as the threats §h5 or 4Jg5 are strong.
·
� "� 'm4imW//h ·�,m �.�J� ft �lB' *� · '-�l�
23.E!f5! Now, after the exchange of rooks, Black's kings ide (and especially the f4pawn) would be rather weak.
16.E!abl!
23 ... E!xf5
The rook is nicely placed on the semi-open file and is getting ready to go further into Black's camp . . .
Or 2 3 . . . Ag6?! 2 4 . § xf8+ '{;lrxf8 25.Ad3! Axd3 26.'{;lrxd3 l"le8 27.§ xe8 '{;lrxe8 28.c4 +- .
35
Chess Analytics 24. � x f5 .1l,g6 25.�g4 �f6 26. .1l,c4 §.f8 26 . . . .\US 27.�g5 �xg5 28.'£:Jxg5 ±
27.a4 Ac2 28.�h5 h6 28 . . . Jlxa4?! 29.
29.§.e8! Af5 29 . . . Axa4 30.�e6! ii!f5 3 1 .�xf5 �xf5 32.<£lh4+-
30..1l,d5! Ad7 3l.§.xf8+ �xf8 3 1 . . .Jlxf8 32.
32.4)h4 .1l,e8 33. �e2 33.
33 . . . 4) d 8 34. �e4 �e7 35.4)g6+ .1l,xg6 36.�xg6 (D)
And White converted his advan tage later, although not without the help of Black, as he committed some inac curacies along the way.
36...c6 37. .1l.b3 b5 38.�fl �f8 39 . .1l,c2 �g8 40. .il.b3+ �h8 41.h4 4) b7 42.c4 �g8 43.�d3 �h7 44.�e2 g5 45.c5 .il.c7 46.axb5 a x b5 47.h5 .il.a5 48 . .1l,cl �e7+ 49.�dl �el + 50.�c2 � xf2+ 5 1 . �bl �g3 5 2 . � x g3 f x g3 53.�c2 �g7 54.d5 4) xc5 55. .1l,b2+ �f8 56.dxc6 4)a6 57.Aa3+ �e8 58 . .1l,e6 .il.b4 59 . .1l.b2 .il.f8 60 . .1l,d7+ �d8 6 t ..il.e5 4) b4+ 62.�d2 4)d5 63 ..1l,e6 4)c7 64.Af7 4)e8 (D)
36
65 . .1l, x e8 � x eS 66 . .1l,f6 g4 67.�c3 .1l,d6 68. .1l,g7 Af4 69.�b4 �d8 70.�xb5 �c7 71.�c5 .il.e3+ n.�d5 Af4 73..1l.f8 �b6 74. .1l.d6 Ag5 75 . .1l,xg3 1-0 Conclusion Imagination is an important asset for the advanced chessplayer. One should not be simple-minded, follow ing just "natural" potential moves but should try to be "objective" and try to find new ways of development. An ac tive rook should be able to be used not only along a semi-open file (the easy way) but should be sometimes trans ferred via it to another important part of the board, where the "real" battle will take place. But of course a rook itself has nothing to decide; this is an obliga tion of the smart and imaginative chessplayer! Try to be one of them! Sacrifices for the Initiative Concept The initiative is an important com ponent in modem chess. The only prob lem is that your opponent is not likely to hand it over to you for free! So, sac rifices of all kinds may be needed to sustain it. In this respect, the next two games are typical, in which, aided by superior development, diagonals and lines are sought to be opened.
Sacrifices for the Initiative 1 9 . �h6+ �g8 20.l£!h5 �f8 21.�f4 l£!d5 22.§xd5
(22) Bogoljubow Spielmann Stockholm 1 9 1 9 French Defense [C l 4] -
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.l£!c3 l£!f6 4..Q.g5 .Q.e7 5.e5 l£!fd7 6.h4 .Q.xg5 7.hxg5 �xg5 8.l£lh3 �e7 9.l£!f4 a6 10. �g4 g6 11.0-0-0 c5 12. �g3 i£1b6 13.dxc5 �xc5 14..Q.d3 �fS (D)
Having said "A," we have to say "B." Material is not tallied when on the attack with the initiative. If the black rooks come to life, then White will re sign; if not, he will win!
22 ...exd5 23.i£lf5? Another bad move. White should proceed with 23.l"lh3 a5 24 . .§[3 oo /=. 23...h6! 24. �g3 �h7? (D)
Here White has finished his devel opment (in the cost of only a pawn), while Black still has a long way to go. But the position is of a semi-blocked character, so it is not easy for White to benefit by his superior development. Lines and diagonals should be opened...
In the heat of battle Black returns the favor. He could achieve a winning position with 24 . . . �e8 25.l"lel �e6.
25.l£lhg7?
15 . .Q.e41
White missed his last chance. He could have drawn by 25 .�g5! 'it'g8 26.4Je7+ 'it'h7 27.4Jf5=.
Now White is ready to sacrifice on d5, opening up the position.
15...dxe4
25 ... l£!c5?
If Black declines the sacrifice with 1 5 . . . 4Jc6, then 1 6 . Jl x d 5 ! follows: 16. . .4:lxd5 17.4:lcxd5 exd5 18.4:lxd5 and Black is busted.
A series of inaccuracies. Black could have won by 25 . . . 4:l x e 5 ! 26 . .§ x h 6 + 'it' g 8 2 7 . � x e 5 .§ xh6 28.4Jxh6+ 'it'h7 -+ .
16.l£j xe4 l£!8d7 17.�h4?
26.�g5?
But this is not correct. Better was 17.�c3 �e7?! (17 . . . a5 18.4Jd6+ 'it'd8 1 9.�f3 ± ) 18.4Jf6+
17 . . . �e7
1 8 . l£j d 6 +
Black's text move gave White the opportunity to draw again by 26. .§ xh6+ 'it'g8 27 . .§ xh8+ 'it'xh8 28.4Je8!! �xeS 29.�h4+ 'it'g8 30.4Je7+ 'it'f8 31 .�h8+ 'it'xe7 32.�[6+=.
26 . . . �g8 27. l£l x h6+ § x h 6 28.§xh6 l£je6 29.l£! xe6 .Q.xe6 and Black wins : 30.§ xg6 + f x g6 3 l . � x g6 + �h8 3 2 . � x e6 §e8 33.�h3+ �g8 34.�e3 �g7 35.f4 �xg2 0-1
�f8
White resigned as now the black 37
Chess Analytics extra rook does count. White's sacrifice was correct and could have been effec tive, but he went astray.
White maintains an extremely strong initiative even with the queens off the board.
17.a3 1 7 . 4Jfg5 seems to be equally strong: 17 . . .�d8 18.a3 �e7 1 9 . .§. xh7 ± . 17... �e7 (D)
(23) Grischuk - Brynell Germany 2002 French Defense [C 1 4]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.4)c3 4)f6 4 ..Q.g5 Ae7 5.e5 4)fd7 6.h4 Jtxg5 7.hxg5 � xg5 8.�d3 g6 9.4)f3 �e7 10.0-0-0 a6 1 1 . �e3 c5 1 2. d x c5 � x c 5 13.�f4 4)c6 14..Q.d3 �b4 (D)
Or 17 . . .�a5 18.�h4 4Je7 19.4Jd6+ �d8 20.4Jg5 �c7 2 1 .4Jxh7 +- .
18.�e3 Not letting the black king escape to c7; but stronger was 18 . .§. xh7 �d8 19.4Jd6 �c7 20.4Jg5 ± . Grischuk is a fantastic attacking player so thi s variation used by Alekhine perfectly suits his aggressive style.
15.Ae4!
18... .§h8 The best defense, as alternatives do not help: 18 . . .f5 19.exf6 .§. xf6 20.4Jfg5! h5 2 l .g4! +- or 18 . . .�d8 1 9.�b6+ �e8 20 . .§. xd7 +- .
19.4)fg5 4)dxe5
So, here comes again - a very strong move which is poses Black seri ous problems. Grischuk had certainly carefully studied Bogoljubow's idea.
Nothing would have been changed by the capture with the other knight: 19 . . . 4Jcxe5 20.4Jxh7 .§.g8 2 l .�c3 f5 2 2 . .§. x d7! 4J x d7 2 3 . 4Jhf6+ 4Jxf6 24.4Jxf6+ �f7 25.4Jxg8 +- and Black is helpless.
15 ...dxe4 It seems that Black is forced to ac cept the "gift" s ince 1 6 . .§. xd5 was threatened: 1 5 . . . b5 16 . .§. xd5! exd5 1 7.4Jxd5 �a5 1 8.e6 fxe6 1 9.ilxg6+ �d8 20.�g5+ +- or 1 5 ... .§.a7 16 . .§.xd5! exd5 1 7 . 4J xd5 �f8 1 8 . 4Jc7+ �d8 19.e6 +- .
20.4)xh7 .§ xh7 21 . .§xh7 �f8 22.4)f6+ 1-0 B lack resigned: 2 2 . . . �e7 23.�g5 +- . A small sacrifice of a pawn for a long-term initiative is a common occur rence in modem chess. There have been numerous games in which this tech nique has been implemented and while results were nearly equally divided, it looks easier to play with the initiative
16.4) xe4 .§f8?! More stubborn was 1 6 . . . �d8!? 1 7 .�xf7 ( 1 7 .a3!? �e7 1 8 . 4Jd6 �c7 1 9 . 4Jxf7 .§. f8 20 . .§. xh7 ± ) 1 7 . . . �e7 18.4Jfg5 �c7 19.�xe7 4Jxe7 20.4Jf7 .§. g8 2 l . .§. xh7 4Jf8 22 . .§. h 3 though
38
Sacrifices for the Initiative than with the pawn. This more or less happens as a result of human nature; it is easier and more pleasant to attack than to defend . . . Of course, when we come to en gines, then the results could be easily opposite, as they tend to be quite stub born and nearly always find the best defense. Ultimately, it is more likely that the human will crack first!
over the knight. Black is too well de veloped: 18 . . . a6 1 9.�b3 l"lfd8 20.ile3 l"l ac8 2 1 . l"l ac l h6 2 2 .h3 4:Jd4 'h-'h Kasparov-Karpov Moscow 1 985.
17... Ac5 This natural move will lead to the radical activation ofWhite's forces, but it is not easy to find a clear path to equal ity: 1 7 . . . l"le8 18.�xbS (18.l"ladl �aS) 18 ... ilcS 19.l"ladl ;!; .
18. .§.adl Axe3 19 . .§. xe3
This variation, which had been long considered to be drawish, came into the l i mel ight rec ently, after Kramnik was defeated twice with it.
16.�b3
This is better than 1 9.�xe3 �h4 20.g3 �c4 2 l .b3 �cS 22 .�xcS
19... �a5 Probably Black's best. The alterna tives are: 1 9 . . . a6 20.f4 ± and 1 9 . . . l"l c8 20.f4 'it'h8 2 1 .fS
1 6.ilf4 was Naiditsch-Kramnik, Dortmund 2008 and 1 6.�hS Ivanchuk Kramnik, Dortmund 2008. 16...0-0 17.Ae3 (D) One famous game continued 17.4:Jxe7+ �xe7 18.�xbS. White has recovered the pawn, but after releasing the tension it will be virtually impos sible to prove the bishop's superiority
39
Chess Analytics Gelfand, Moscow 2009) 2 6 . �xb4 �xb4 27. <£Jxb4
Black has to be careful: 20 . . . f\ac8? 2 1 . <£J e 7 + \t'hS 2 2 .�xh7 + ! \t'xh7 23.Eih3 *. "In the absence of the b5pawn, Black could play 20 ... f\fd8 (?? in the current position), putting some pres sure on the central knight, with reason able chances to hold the position. The way it is, 2 l . § a3! +- traps the queen. It is instructive to notice that in these two lines, the members of the black Royal Family are trapped on the edge of the board with the help of the same mecha nism (white knight + rook and a black pawn). This speaks volumes about the huge activity displayed by White 's pieces as well as Black's lack of coor dination." - M.Marin.
This move looks logical, because it prepares the recycling of the knight, but Black is not sufficiently well devel oped and White will win almost by force. I think it would be preferable to play 23 . . . §e5 24.f6 §aeS which was seen in Georgiadis-Muheim, Graechen 2009 (liz- liz), although White has a pleasant position after 25.h3. Ofcourse only tournament tests will reveal th� truth . . .
24.'*c71
21.f4!
A nice maneuver. 24.<£Jc7? would have failed to 24 . . . <£Jc5! (24 . . . b3? 25 .�c3! ± ) 25 .<£Jxe8 <£Jxd3 26.<£Jf6+ gxf6 27.�xd3 �c5+ 28.\t'hl aS =i" .
As we have already seen in previ ous variations, this is White's main threat. The black knight on e6 is per fectly located, and now it may be forced to move. Also, there is the possibility of f5-f6, attacking the black king's castled position.
24... '*c5+ 24 ... �b5 did not prove sufficient after 2 5 . �g3
21 ...b4 22.f5 .i£}f8 23 . .§ed3! The text move expands the hori zons and possibilities for this variation to be successful. White avoids the ex change and creates such strong threats as
25.�fl White's almost complete domina tion allows him to utilize the king for
40
The Central Strike If 3 3 . . . �c2?, then the usual 34.�xh7+! comes and if33 ... �h5, then 34.�xh5 gxh5 35 .4Jxa8+- .
the purpose of protecting the back rank. 25.'
25 �b5 (D) ••.
34.�g7+1 White simplifies to a won ending with an extra knight.
34 .§ xg7 35.fxg7+
•
•
Conclusion
26.�g3! By switching the queen to the kingside, White renews the threats of 4Jc7 and f6.
26 .J£)e5?! ••
26 . . . §ac8 may have been more te nacious, but after 27.f6 g6 28.4Je7+ ( 2 8 . 4Jc7? § xc7! 2 9 . �xc7 4Jc5) 28. . . § xe7 29.fxe7 4Je5 30.'
27.f6 g6 28.�g5
The initiative should not be handed over "free of charge," as our opponent should not be our cooperative friend at least this should not happen often and not without a weak move or a bad open ing by our opponent. So, sacrifices for the initiative should be on the daily menu but they should be handled with care and with a strong positional foun dation. Non-standard combinations are based on sound positional domination grounds and they crown our ideas and plans, resulting in nice points !
•
The Central Strike
For the second time in this game, Black faces the threat of�xh7+!. There fore, he has to keep the d3-rook pinned (30 . . . �c6? 3 1 .�xh7+!), or the h 3 square under control.
Concept One of the less acknowledged and analyzed strategic/tactical elements is the so-called "central strike." This con cept refers to the unexpected advance of a central pawn or pawns, temporarily disrupting the flow of the position. Its aim is destruction or domination of the opponent's pawn center or pawn chain. The element of the central strike is of a short-term nature and, while ini tially giving rise to a multitude of dy namic continuations, it eventually re solves itself, becoming stable, follow ing the expected central clarification. Taking into account that the situation
3 l .b3 �g4 32 . .§d4 �f5+ 33 .§f4 .!£lg4 (D) •
41
Chess Analytics reversed colors. If Black is determined to play . . . e5 then he should insert 5 . . . a6!?.
in the center is the basic point of refer ence for both sides' plans, such a vio lent mutation may force a reassessment of the situation or even fundamentally reshape the position. It has often been observed that af ter the execution of a central strike, one's opponent temporarily lies in a state of shock, as this violent attempt to disturb the existing situation causes immense psychological pressure.
6.b3 Ad6 7.Ab2 o-o s.Ae2 �e7 Another option for Black is 8 . . . a6 9.d4 'iffe7 (9 ... e5 10.cxd5 cxd5 1 l .dxe5
(25) Grivas - Svetushkin Athens 200 1 English Opening [A l l ]
l.c4 c6 2)�)f3 4)f6 3.4)c3 d5 4.e3 4)bd7 This seems more accurate than 4 . . . e6 as Black retains the option of 5 ... e5. After 4 ... e6 5 .b3 Ad6 6.Ab2 00 7.d4 (7.Ae2 4Jbd7 8.0-0 'iffe 7 9.'iffc2 � e8 1 0.md1 dxc4 1 l .Axc4 b5 1 2.iH1 Ab7 1 3.a4 a6 1 4.4Je4
5.�c2
9 . . . § e8 or 9 . . . a6 was to be preferred. The move . . . b6 is good when White has already played d4.
10.cxd5! cxd5?1 A second consecutive inaccuracy by Black, who should have accepted a slightly worse position after 10 . . . 4Jxd5. Note that 10 . . . exd5 is even worse be cause of 1 1 .4Jd4! Ab7 1 2.4Jf5!.
11.4)b51 Aa6 12.E{fcl White treats the position accu rately. Since the main conflict will take place on the queenside, the white pieces are transferred to the battlefield with out interrupting their mutual coverage, simultaneously freeing a path for the queen's retreat.
12 ... f:Ifc8 13. �dl Ac5
The evaluation of5.b3 e5 is a mat ter of personal taste.
Black does not wish to surrender the bishop pair. 1 3 . . . .ll x b5 1 4 . .ll x b5 Aa3 15.Axa3 'iflxa3 16.4Jd4! a6 17.Ac6 § ab8 1 8 .Axd7!
5 ...e6 5 . . . e5? 6.cxd5
14.a3! Axb5 In face of the threat 1 5.b4, Black
42
The Central Strike had no choice. Now, however, White obtains the advantage of the two bish ops which will prove to be of decisive importance. 15 .Q.xb5 a6 16 .Q.e2 (D) •
•
21. .. '*d6 22.h3 Making luft for the king, prevent ing a future ... 4Jg4 and also threatening f4.
22 ... h6 23 . .§c21 White now threatens to wrest con trol of the c-file as well with 24.§acl. 23 4)ed7 24.4)c6 h7 (D) •..
16 ...b5 Seemingly strong, but in fact it only succeeds in further weakening Black's queenside. 16 . . . a5 is better, though af ter 1 7.Ab5 White has the advantage. I would say that in this position Black's main problem is the absence of a de cent plan. He is condemned to passiv ity and defense without much chance for the full point.
17.a41 bxa4 Compulsory, as 17 . . . b4? loses im mediately to 1 8 . d4 Ad6 1 9 . § xc8+ § xc8 20 . .ilxa6.
White has a clear advantage and could continue with the simple 25.§acl or with 25.4Jxb4. However, my atten tion was drawn to the possibility of opening up the center. . .
25.e4! e5 Forced in view of the threatened 26.e5. 25 . . . dxe4? would be refuted sim ply: 26.dxe4 4Jxe4 27.4Jx b4 'l¥/xb4 28.Axd7 § d8 29.'l¥/g4. 26.d4!! (D)
18.bxa4 a5 19 .Q.b5 •
The b5-bishop's field of action has now grown. The light squares in Black's queenside (and especially c6) are very weak.
19 .Q.b4 20.4)d4 4)e5 2l.d3! •••
What a huge difference it would have made if White had mechanically played d4. The b2-bishop would be re stricted, the d4-knight would be unable to come across to c6 while the c4-square would become an outpost for a black knight! White is better as he has the two bishops and better-placed pieces, aim ing at Black's weakened queenside. B lack remains passive, defending White's threats.
A powerful central strike, after which Black's position collapses. The black pieces remain uncoordinated and unprepared to react to the explosion in the center.
26 ...exd4 Black's alternatives were hardly of any help: after 26 . . . dxe4? 27.dxe5
43
Chess Analytics �xd1 + 28.l''\x d 1 he loses a piece while he also loses material in the event of 26. . . {Jxe4 27.dxe5 �e6 28.{Jd4! �e7 29.�c6!.
27.l£)xb4 axb4?! Unpleasant as it may have been, 27 . . . �xb4 28.exd5 was Black's only chance.
28.l3.xc8! l3.xc8 29.�xd4 �c5 Black submits to his fate as the only move, 29 . . . {Je8, after 30.exd5, would promise White a slow but certain vic tory.
30.e5 1-0 The central strike is an old concept; see the following game of the great Mikhail Botvinnik: (26) Botvinnik - Bisguier Hastings 1 96 1 English Opening [A 1 4]
1.g3 d5 2.l£\f3 l£1f6 3.Ag2 e6 4.0-0 Ae7 5.c4 0-0 6.b3 c6 7.Ab2 b5 s.d3 l£1 bd7 9 . l£\ bd 2 Ab7 10.�c2 l3.c8 11.e4 �b6 12.e5 l£\e8 13.d4 c5 (D)
lenge, as 1 4 . . . bxc4?! 1 5 . bx c 5 �a6 1 6.{Jb1 � or 14 . . .dxc4? 1 5 .dxc5 �c7 1 6.a4 a6 1 7.{Je4 +- were unpleasant alternatives.
1 5.c5 �c7 1 6 . �d3 Ac6 17.l3.fe1 White could consider 1 7 .a3!? a5 (17 ... bxa3 18.�xa3 l"'a8 1 9.Ac3 oo /=) 18.axb4 a4 1 9.l"'fe1 � .
17...g6?! Black should have played, 17 . . . aS stopping White's potential activity on the queenside. White has compensation after 18.{Jfl oo /= when he will be fo cused only on the kingside.
18.a3! b x a3 1 9 . � x a3 l3.a8 20.Ac3 Ads 21.l£\b3 White's compensation is obvious based on his space advantage and his passed c-pawn. Black can hardly move because of his lack of space.
2 1 . . . l£\g7 22.Aa5 �b7 23.Axd8 l3.fxd8 24.l£\a5 �c7 (D)
25.l3.e2! With the simple plan of {Je1 -d3b4 and also tripling the heavy forces on the a-file, winning back the sacrificed pawn. Black is in trouble as he cannot oppose any decent plan.
Black seems to be doing fine, al though his passive e8 -knight needs to be relocated. But White is on move and he can set the board on fire ...
25 ...a6 26.l£\e1 l£1f5 27.�c3 b4? B lack i s trying to find some counterplay and breathe but he was obliged to hang onto his extra pawn. Good or bad, he had to stay passive with 27 . . . {Jb8 28.{Jd3 {Je7 29.{Jb4 Ab7
14.b41 A pawn sacrifice that allows White to obtain a protected passed pawn.
14...cxb4 Black is forced to accept the chal-
44
The Central Strike 16.f5!?
30.El,ea2 ;!;; .
28.�xb4 .§db8 29.�c3 .§b5 30. .§ea2 f6 31.4) xc6 3 l .f4 fxe 5 3 2 . fxe5 ± was good enough.
31 ... � xc6 32.-'l,fl Safer was 32.exf6
32 . . . f x e 5 3 3 . -'l, x b 5 � xb5 34.dxe5 White has won material and the end is near; he only needs to make some exchanges!
34...d4 35.�d3 �xc5 36. .§xa6 .§xa6 37.�xa6 �xe5 38.4)d3 �f6 39. �c8+ 4)f8 40 . .§a8 4) d 6 4 1 .�d8 � x d8 42 . .§ xd8 4) b 5 43.4)e5 �g7 44.4)c6 1-0
A full central strike, with the par ticipation of five pawns! White aims to strip the black king and then attack it.
16 ... gxf5?! 1 6 . . . fxe5?! probably is not that good: 1 7.fxg6! (17.fxe6 �h4+ 18.\t>d1 Axe6! 19.El, xb7 Ac8 oo ) 1 7 ... hxg6 18.00 ;!;; but 1 6 . . . exd5!? 1 7 . fxg6 hxg6 18.cxd5 El, xe5 1 9.0-0 oo /= Agzamov Pribyl, Sochi 1 984, is interesting.
17. .§b3 New forces are joining the attack!
17... .§e7 If 1 7 . . . Ag7?!, then 18.El,g3 fxe5 1 9.�h6 El,e7 20.Ab2 exd5 2 l .Axe5 �d7 22.Af6 gf7 23.0-0 ± .
18.d6! The central strike can be used to open lines and diagonals for various beneficial reasons. One of them is to attack the king, as can be seen in the following example:
Excellent! There wasn't much in 18.Ab2?! fxe5 1 9.�g5+ Ag7 20.Axe5 h6!=, Eingom-Tukmakov, Lvov 1 984.
18 ....§g7 19.exf6 �xf6 B l ack 's options are l i m ited: 1 9 ... El, xg2 20.\t>fl ! E!,g6 2 1 .Ah5 ± . 20.-'l,b2 e5?! (D)
(27) McCambridge - Hjartarson Grindavik 1 984 Griinfeld Defense [D85]
1.d4 4)f6 2.c4 g6 3.4)c3 d5 4.cxd5 4) xd5 5.e4 4) xc3 6.bxc3 Ag7 7.4)f3 c5 8. .§b1 0-0 9.Ae2 4)c6 10.d5 4)e5 11.4) xe5 -'l,xe5 12.�d2 e6 13.f4 -'l,h8 14.c4 .§eS 15.e5 f6 (D) 20 . . .�d8 2 l .Axg7 Axg7 22.Af3 ± was Black's only chance.
21.-'l,xe51 A nice combination, but 2 1 .El,e3! was good as well.
21 ... �xe5 22 ..§e3 �e6 Black decided to give up his queen. He could instead win a second piece as well with 22 . . . �a1 + 23.\t>f2 �xh1 but he would not be saved after 24.El,e8+ \t>f7 25 .Ah5+ E!, g6 26.Axg6+ \t'xg6
This is a theoretical position in which White seems to be doing fine, but his strong pawn center is under fire.
45
Chess Analytics (26 . . . hxg6 27.l'l:e7+ ®f6 28.�c3+ 'it'g5 29.�g3+ ®f6 30.�h4+ g5 3 1 .�h6 #) 2 7 . l"l g8+ ®f6 28 .�e3 +- and if 22 ... �d4, then 23.§e8+ \t'f7 24.Ah5+ §g6 25. �xd4 ia.xd4 26.d7 +- .
23 . .§ xe6 Axe6 24."�e3 .§eS 25.�xc5
White's advantage is obvious and it is based mostly on his space advan tage and the bishop pair. But Black seems to be defending on his three first ranks.
25.e5? The exchanges that are invited by White cannot be correct. 25.�b5 would preserve White's advantage.
And now White wins.
25 ... .§xg2 25 . . . b6 26.�b5 §d8 27.c5 +-
25 . . . d xe5 26 . .£) x e5 l£)fxe5 27.Axe5 �c5+! 28.�h1 l£) xe5 29 . .§xe5 exd5?
26.d7 .§xe2+ 27.�xe2 Axd7+ 28.�d2 Ae6 29.�c7 Ad4 30..§b1 Ab6 31. �g3+ �f7 32. �h4 .§dS+ 3 3 . �c2 .§d4 3 4 . � x h7+ �f6 3 5 . � h8+ �f7 36. �h7+ �f6 37 . .§ x b6! .§ xc4+ 38.�d3 axb6 39.h4 .§a4 40. �h6+ �f7 41.h5 f4 42.�g6+ �e7 43.h6 .§a3+ 44.�e4 .§a4+ 45.�e5 .§a5+ 46.�xf4 .§a4+ 47.�e3 .§a3+ 48.�d4 1-0
After the obvious 2 9 . . . �xc4 3 0 . �xc4 § x c4 3 1 .dxe6 ia.xg2+ 32.\t'xg2 § e8 Black should hold eas ily.
30.cxd5 �h8 31 . .§ae1 Now White's strong passed pawn and his well-placed rooks will tell in the end.
31 ...h6 32.h4
Well, the central strike is not al ways the proper reaction. Here is an instructive example that can prove it:
32.�d3! § f8 33.�g6 ± was stron-
(28) Smyslov - Chandler Hastings 1 988 Nimzo-Indian Defense [E32]
l.d4 l£)f6 2 . .£)f3 e6 3.c4 b6 4 . .£) c3 Ab4 5 .�b3 �e7 6.a3 A x c3+ 7.� x c3 Ab7 8.g3 0-0 9.Ag2 d6 10.0-0 .£) bd7 11.b4 .£)e4 12. �c2 f5 13.Ab2 l£)df6 14.a4 a5 15.b5 .§ae8 16 . .£)e1 c6 17.bxc6 Axc6 18.f3 l£)g5 1 9 . .£)d3 l£)f7 20. .§fe1 .§bS 21.e4 fxe4 22.fxe4 .§fc8 23.d5 Ab7 24.�b3 .£)d7 (D)
33.�d3! White finally found the correct idea; now Black is in deep trouble ...
33 ... .§bc8 35. Ae4! 1-0
34. �g6
.§gS
Conclusion The concept of the central strike is not easy to explain with rules and plans. It is not often encountered and its pe culiarities are unique in practically ev ery single game. Nevertheless, I have
46
Mate on the Back Rank tried to offer a general description with the help of these instructive examples!
(30) Bernstein - Capablanca Moscow 1 9 1 4 (D)
Mate on the Back Rank Concept Combinations based on our theme can be found in virtually every manual or exercise book. The reader should become familiar with the approximately 30 examples which will help one un derstand the familiar and repeated mo tifs which govern the exploitation ofthe back rank weakness. Of course, back rank mates can be classified more or less according to micro-themes and the pieces that participate in the assault. Chasing the queen protector is a nice way to start. The following five ex amples have a common idea:
A classic game, known to most players.
27. ./£} xc3? White had to bring his knight back, 27.1£'ld4, but after 27 . . . l"l dc8 (threaten ing 28 . . . 1£'lb4), Black retains the upper hand, thanks to his dangerous passed pawn at c3.
27 . . . .1£} x c3 28 . .§ x c3 .§ xc3 29 . .§xc3 �b2!! Evidently, White expected only 29 . . . 'i£tbl +? 30.'i£tfl 'i£txa2 (30 . . . l"ldl?? 31 .l"lc8+) 3 1 .g3, with a likely draw. But now he had to resign 0-1
(29) Hoch, 1973 (D)
(31) Adams - Torre New Orleans 1 920 (D)
In this nice study both sides are working with back-rank mate threats. The question is who will prevail in this sharp duel.
1. �xc2! .§e8! 2. �c8!! �d7!! 2 . . J'( xc8 3 .l'ha4
This is one of the most well-known examples of exploiting a weak back rank.
3.�c1! 3.'i£1a8? h6!
3...�c7 4 .§a8!! 1-0
17. .Q.xf6! .Q.xf6?
•
But not 4.'i£1e3? 'i£td8!.
17 . . . gxf6 was objectively better, although White 's position is over whelming after 18.h3 ( 18.l"l xe7? 'i£txe7! [18 . . . l"l xe7? 19.l"l xe7 'i£txe7 20.'i£tg4+] 19.l"l xe7 l"l cl + 20.
47
Chess Analytics �xel # ).
18. �g4! �b5 19. �c411 �d7 20.�c711 The "hunting" continues !
20... �b5 21.a41 The direct 2 l .'il¥xb7? is refuted by 2 1 . . .'il¥xe2!! 22.� xe2 �cl + -+ . Also no good is 2 l .'il¥xa5? il¥xe2! 22.� xe2 �xe2.
21 ... �xa4 White has an elegant way of get ting his rook o ff the e2-square with tempo:
player would easily understand that the game will end by a double attack threat ening mate and the rook.
22. .§e41
33 ...�c5+
Threatening 23.'il¥xc8!.
Nothing is offered by 33 . . . 'il¥b6+ 34.'\t>hl 'il¥f6 because of 35.h4! .
22 ... �b5 23.�xb7! 1-0
34.�h1 �c4! 35.�g1 �d4+ 36.�h1 �e4!
(32) Rovner - Kamishov Moscow 1 946 (D)
It's important to drive the queen away from its best square, e l . Black gets nothing from 36 . . . 'il¥d2? 37.�xe5 or 36 . . . �f4 37.h4 or, finally, 36 ... 'il¥d3 37.'\t>gl.
37.�c1 The most stubborn. Black wins af ter 37.�dl 'il¥f4! or 37.'il¥gl �e2!.
37... �d3 Accurate! Bad would be 37 . . . �e2, as 38.�f5! would tum the tables!
Another typical example. The black queen is obliged to guard its rooks, and so is overloaded . . .
38.�g1 �d4+ 39.�h1 �d2! 0-1 The double attack wins!
1.�a71 �a5 The only move, but now the har vest begins!
Of course, most of the games are quite similar in ideas and the ways the back rank weakness are exploited. But the truth is that the presence of the queens on the board helps.
2. �xa6! �c7 3.�a71 1-0 Black had to resign as he loses too much material or gets mated. (33) Lowcki - Tartakower Jurata 1 937 (D)
(34) Teschner - Portisch Monte Carlo. 1 969 (D)
Both back ranks are weak but the white rook is also badly placed and this makes the difference. An experienced
Black has won a pawn and White decided that it was time to equalize the material.
48
Mate on the Back Rank 3 l . .§. x eS) 30. �xbS �gS and now 3l .�b3+ or 3l.�a7. (36) Rakolta - Janoczy Czechoslovakia 1 978 (D)
29.E!xd5? But this was completely wrong. He had to fight with 29 . .§.cl �bS 30 . .§. xeS .§ xeS 3 1 .h3 or 29 . .§. xeS .§ xeS 30.h3.
29 ... �a6? Black missed the spectacular and highly effective 29 . . . �f2 ! ! 30. 4Jg3 �el +!.
30..£\g3 E!ed8 31.E!xd8 E!xd8 32.Elf2 �d3 33. �c7 a6 34.E!fl h5 35.�b6 h4 36.�xb4 hxg3 37.�c4 gxh2 38. �xd3 E!xd3 39.E!b1 '3;a7 40.'3;xh2 '3;b6 41.'3;h3 Yl-Yl
Both kings are in trouble, so White on the move must act.
1.b4+1 '3;b6 The pawn cannot be captured ei ther by the king or the rook because of 2. �xf2. And on 1 . . . cxb4, 2 . .§.e5+ wins, and finally, l . ..c,t>a4 loses the queen af ter 2.�a6+ �xb4 3.a3+ �b3 4.�b5+ �c2 (4 . . . .§.b4 5.�d3+) 5 . .§.e2+.
2.bxc5+ '3;b7 (35) Capablanca - Thomas Hastings 1 9 1 9 (D)
2 . . . �c6 doesn't help: 3.�a6+ �d7 (3 . . . �d5 4.�e6+ �xeS S . .§.eS+ �b4 6.�b3 * ) 4.'�e6+ c,t>dS S.�gS+! c,t>d7 6.�g4+ c,t>c6 7. .§. xd4.
3.c6+ '3;a8! But now Black's back rank is also very weak and White is on the move !
4.E!g41 E!dS 5.E!g81 �d4 S . . . .§. xgS 6.�xf2
6.�g4! With a double attack!
29.�a8? 1-0
6 . . . �d2 8.E{xc8 # 1-0
The text move "forced" Black to resign, when in fact he could have saved himself by 29 . . . .§. xa2!. White could have won by 29 . .§. xeS �xeS 30.�a4! (the u sual deflection) 30 . . . .§. x g2+ (30 . . . .§. c l + 3 l .�f2) 3 l .�xg2 �xg6+ 32.�hl but even clearer was 29.�b5! .§. xbS (29 . . . c6 30 . .§. xeS �xeS 3 l .�bS .§.cl + 32.�f2; 29 . . . .§.cl + 30Sflf2 .§. xbl
7.�c8+1
E! x c8
(37) Leonhardt - Fahrni Carlsbad 1 9 1 1 (D)
Under normal circumstances Black should have won here, but it is White on the move and there exists a back rank problem because of the g6-pawn .
49
Chess Analytics
42:{�·xe4?
(39) Crouch Speelman Hastings 1 992 (D) -
The correct idea but incorrect ex ecution! White could have won with 42 .�a2! El, d l + (42 . . . c2 43 .�xd5 ! ) 43 . �h2 � x a 2 44 . El, c8 + El, d8 45.El,xd8 # .
42 .§.d1 + 43.
Now this check saves the day for Black.
44.f4 �f8 45. .§. xc3 45.�e6+ �h8 46.l"lc8 El, d8.
45 ... .§.d8 46 . .§.c6 .§.aS 47.f5 �b8+?
25 ... .§.xa5? Black had to be satisfied with a draw after 25 . . . �xa5 26.�xa5 El, xa5 27.El, xd7=.
Black's follows a wrong idea. He should try to defend with 47 . . . l"ld8.
48.g3 �a7?1 49 .E!.c7! 1-0 •
26. .§. xd7?
Black resigned as he cannot avoid mate after 49 . . . �f2 + ( 49 . . . �b8 5 0 . El, xg7+ � x g7 5 l . �e7+ �g8 52.�f7+ �h8 53.�h7 # ) 50.�h3 �fl + 5 1 .�h4.
But White did not notice the dif ference either! He could have won with 26. El, b8! El, a8 and now the spec tacular 27.El, a l ! ! �xal (27 . . . El,dxb8 2 8 . El, x a 2 +- ) 2 8 . El, x d 8 + El, x d8 29.�xal winning. 26 .§.f8 27..§.b2 .E!.xe5 �-�
"Simple" tactics are always on the menu:
.••
But more complicated and ex tremely beautiful tactics can also be seen in connection with a back rank weakness. Here are two typical ex amples; the first is in particular quite well-known, as it was played by the famous Soviet player and world title challenger David Bronstein:
(38) Vogt - Alexander Berlin 1 962 (D)
Can White's queen be decoyed away from the defense of the fl -square?
1 ...c41 2.bxc4 �a3!! A double attack!
3.�d1 � xcl! 0-1
50
Mate on the Back Rank would end in a draw. But White thought that he could use some tricks with Black's weak back rank.
(40) Mikenas - Bronstein Tallinn 1 965 (D)
22 ... tfJJ xf2+!! A bold out of the blue - it is actu ally White's back rank that it is weak!
23.!iflxf2 23.'ti¥xf2 § xc l + 24.'ti¥e l § xe l + 25.�f2 §fl + -+
23 ... E! xb2+ 24.ciflf3 E!xcl 0-1 Black's threats are 24 . . . 'ti¥xb2 and 24 . . . 'ti¥el + 25 .'1i¥fl 'ti¥xh4.
24.E!b4?
And White resigned in view of 25.§a8+ § c8. (42) Alden - Nilsson Sweden 1 972 (D)
And White falls for the decoy. He should have gone in for 24.'ti¥d4! 'liYel + (24 . . . 'ti¥d6=) 2S.§xel § xe l + 26.'ti¥gl § xg l + 27.�xgl �f8= or 24 . § d4! 'liYe l + ( 2 4 . . . § a4 2 5 . § xa4 'ti¥xb2? 26.'ti¥d4 +- ) 25 .'ti¥fl 'ti¥e5 26.'1i¥d3=. By the way, also bad was 24. 'li¥d2 or 24.'1i¥c3 because of 24 . . . § xa3!!.
24... E!xa3!! 0-1 The weak white back rank cannot be protected anymore efficiently, so White resigned after this impressive blow.
White is a pawn down but a tempt ing continuation is in the air.
1.§xf6? This looks like a winner but in fact it is a losing move. White should have prepared himself for a long defense with something like l .h3.
(41) Seirawan - Lobron Amsterdam 1 983 (D)
1 ... tf1Jb7?? Black wins with the spectacular l . . .'ti¥c6!! (double deflection, coupled with a double attack) whereas the text move leads to the opposite result.
2. tfJJf l! 1-0 Somewhat more complicated cases can be of course connected to our theme but requires exact calculating abilities. Here are some instructive ex amples:
22.E!xa7? On 22 .'ti¥al §xcl + 23.'ti¥xcl 'li¥b6; 22.'ti¥d2 § xcl + 23.'ti¥xcl 'ti¥b6 the game
51
Chess Analytics (44) Korchmar - Polyak
(43) Khalifman - Hjartarson Reykjavik 1 99 1 (D)
19.4)b4! This is an extremely tactical posi tion, where White has to find his way. . .
The start ofa decisive combination.
19 . . . a x b4 20. � x d6 ! �d7 21.�d511
31.4) xg6? But he didn't. He could have p layed 3 1 . <2\g4! .£\ xg4 ( 3 1 . . .B xg4 32.itxf6+- ) 32.t'rd5+! �h8 (32... Bxd5 33.Be8+ itf8 34.Bfxf8 # ) 33.Bf7!
The key move in White's attack, creating the threat of 22.Rxg7 +.
3 l . . . h x g6 3 2 . A x f6 33.�d5+ �f7! 34.�dl
22 . . . � x d5 23. f!g8 + 1 � x g8 24.E{e8+ E!fS 25.E!xf8 # 1-0
2l...�f8 2 l . . .g6 fails to 22.Bge3!.
22.§xg7! And mate follows.
E!fS
34.t'rxf7+ B xf7 35.itxg7 B xfl + 36.E!. xfl �xg7=.
(45) Bukic - Romanishin Moscow 1 977 (D)
34 ... E!all An excellent counterstroke.
35.�xal �d5+ 36.�gl Axf6 In such a position, the exchange advantage is worth little, in view of the open situation ofthe white king and the queen's unfortunate position.
37.h4 �d4+! 37 . . . itd4 +? 39.t'Ydl +-
3 8 . �h 2
itf2
38.�g2 �d2+ 39.�h3 �d7+ 40.�g2 �d2+ 41.�h3
Black's uncoordinated pieces and his weak back rank allow the follow ing neat combination:
An equal endgame can arise after 4 l .§.f2 t'rxf2+! 42.�xf2 itxb2+=.
22.b4! �xb4 23.E!dbl �xc4 24.Ae2 1-0
41 ... �d7+ 42.�h2 White cannot escape the perpetual check: 42.g4 t'Yd3+ . 42 ... �d2+ 43.�h3 Yz-Yz
Black cannot defend anymore on the c-file (24 ... t'Yc3 [24 . . .t'rc2 25.itd3] 25.E!.b8+ Bc8 26.t'rxc3), so he resigned.
52
Mate on the Back Rank Black's pieces are hanging but White's back rank is weak. . .
(46) Ballona - Aristazabal Colombia 1 993 (D)
30... �d4? But not like that! Black could have won by 30 . . . �d6! as it's important that the queen protects the rook from d6. Another strong continuation was 30 ... �f5! 3 1 .4Jxf8 4:\xdl .
31.�xh7+1 White's other option was to resign, so in a way Black forced White to win!
31
Black executed a nice combination here:
•••
The point - the rook that could deliver the mate on f1 is captured with check.
1 )�)d1+ .•
B ut probably s impler was 1 . . .4Jg4+! 2.'it'hl �d6 3.ilxe6+ (3.g3 ilc6) 3 ... Axe6 4.g3 �c6+ 5.�g2 4Jf2+ 6.'it'gl 4Jh3+ 7.'it'hl �c5 -+.
32 . . .
2.
(48) Grivas - Halkias Thessaloniki 1 998 (D)
•
3.cxd5?? .§.el * was out ofthe question.
3 .1},xa411 .••
Black had to have foreseen this shot, as otherwise he would even lose: 3 ... �e4? 4.�c3 +- or 3 ...�d6 4.c5 �d5 5.h3 +- .
4.�xa4 �d2! 0-1 White resigned, since he remains a piece down, in view of the threatened 5 . . . .§. e l + : 5 .h3 �xb2 6.�xa5 .§. d6! 7.�el (7 . .§. xd6 �c l + 8.'it'h2 �f4+ 9.'it'hl �xd6) 7 . . . .§. xdl 8.�xdl 'it'g7 + .
Black is in trouble because of his weak queenside pawn structure but Black can defend with 20 ... .§.e6. Instead he saw a "combination."
20 .§ xe3? 2 1 . .§ x c 6 .§ xc6 22 .§xc6 �b8 23.fxe3 .iil e4 It seems that White is in trouble . . . 24. .§c71
(47) Bradford - Byrne Greenville 1 980 (D)
. . •
•
But not so! Black's weak back rank decides.
24 . . . h6 2 5 .�d7 � xb2 26. � x f7+
53
Chess Analytics mean that they arise as strategic ideas, trying to improve one's position, are implemented. The examples that follow are connected with strategic ideas, al though they are still "brutal" from the perspective of the final result.
(49) Wolf - Spielmann Mahrisch Ostrau 1 923 (D)
(51) Krause - Capelan Solingen 1 96 1
Here, several enemy pieces are de coyed: first, the queen - from the pro tection of the £3-pawn; then, the rook from the eighth rank; and finally, the bishop - from the e8-square.
36.h31 �xh3 37.�xf31 1-0 Black resigned in view of37 .. Jhf3 3 8 . l"\ c8 + ! Axc8 3 9 . l"' e8+ l"\ f8 40.l"\ xf8 # .
White should try to activate his central pawns, but it seems that Black keeps e4-square in bay.
l.e4! fxe4 2.fxe4 E!,xe4?
(50) Panno - Bravo Fortaleza 1 975 (D)
2 ... b5?! also leaves White with the better chances after 3.Axd5 cxd5 4.'if1c3 Ag4 5 . e 5 but Black had to go for 2 . . . Bf8! 3.e5 'ifJd8 oo . 3.E!.xe4 E!,xe4 4.jixd51 cxd5 (D)
28... �e2!! White missed this shot! A bad mis take would be 28 . . . 4Je2+? 29.l"'dxe2 'if1xe2 30. 4Jf6+ l"\ xf6 3 l . exf6 'if1d2 32.'if1e3 ± .
5.�c7!! This was the blow (analogous to the one Capablanca delivered in our second example) that Black overlooked.
29.§.ddl �xdl! 0-1 White resigned in view of30.l"\xdl ( 3 0 . 4Jf6+ B xf6 3 l . e x f6 4Je2+) 30 . . . 4Je2+.
5 ... Ag2+ 6.�gt t-o In this case White found an im provement based on the eighth-rank weakness. I would call it a free and suc cessful trap, a dream of every decent chessplayer!
These types of back-rank tactics are not usually this "brutal." By this I
54
Mate on the Back Rank A standard deflection o fthe queen.
(52) Ganchev - Pipkov Albania 1 966 (D)
31 ... .§ xdl+ 32.�xdl Axc2+ 33-�cl 33.'it'd2 4:Jc4+ 34.<�cl was good as well.
33 . . . Aa4+ 34." � x c6 A x c6 35 ..§e6 The end of the combination White remains an exchange up.
35 . . . Ab5 36 . .§ x b6 �g8 37..§b7 d4 38.�d2 �f8 39.h4 d3 40.b3 h6 41.gxh6 gxh6 42..§h7 1-0
Another case of a successful trap:
1.4)c5! .§xa3 2 . .§xa3 .§xc5? And Black falls for the decoy. He had to be satisfied with 2 . . . h6 3.4::lxe6 fxe6 4.E!a4 ;!; .
(54) Lilienthal - Aronin Moscow 1 948 (D)
3. .§a8+ Ac8 4 ..§a7! t:\'b6 Or 4 . . . Ab7 5.l':! xb7 �c8 6.�d7 (6.l':!d7? E! d5) 6 . . . �f8 7.l':!c7 +- . Now Black was expecting a repetition with 5.l':!a8.
5. t:\'d7!! 1-0 But he probably missed this deci sive shot!
25.c5! (53) Khalifman - Ehlvest Lvov 1 985 (D)
Thanks to this pawn sacrifice, the white rook gets access to the seventh or eighth rank.
25 ... t:\' xc5?! Black could have put up more re s istance by sacrificing the queen : 2 5 . . . Axc5 26.E! x b7 4::l x d5 27.l':! xc7 4::lxc7 +- .
26. .§cl t:\'a5 27.Axf6 .§xf6 After 27 . . .gxf6 White wins as fol lows: 28.l':!c8+ l':!d8 (28... .\ldS 29.�h5) 2 9 . �h5! �xd5 3 0 . e x d 5 l':! x c8 3 l .�g4+ +- .
Here White found the correct way to benefit from Black's weak eighth rank.
28. .§c8+! AdS 29. '*c3?!
30.Af5!
Missing the strong 29.�dl! which wins at least a piece! 29 ...'*b6 30.'*b2! '*d6 (D)
Decoying the bishop away from the e8-square.
30... Axf5 3l.t:\'c7!!
55
Chess Analytics
Black has won a pawn and has good chances to win the game also.
30 . . . �a5 3 l .�d2!
31.f4?! More accurate is 3 l .�xb7! \£ilf8 (31 . . .�f8 32 .f4!) 32.B:b8 �e8 (32 . . .g6 33. �c8 \£ile8 34.1.tc4 +- ) 33.i.tb3! +- , as the unbreakable pin on the eighth rank must decide the game.
31 ...exf4?1 lf 3 1 . . J'I xf4? then 32.�xe5 +- and the triple attack decides the game at once! But Black could put up stiff re sistance with 3 1 . . :�d7! 32.B:b8 b5 ± which casts doubt on White's 3 1 st move.
27... 4) xe5? But not like this ! He should have gone in for 27 . . . B:cd7! 28.f4 �xa3 -+ .
28.l�)f5! 1-0 Black resigned as he has no de fense: 28 . . . B: xdl (28 . . . exf5 29.B: xd8+ \£ile7 3 0 . �xg7 \£ilxd8 3 1 . �xe5 +- ) 2 9 . � xg7+ \£ile8 3 0 . �g8+ \£ild7 3 l . B: xdl + \£ilc6 32.B:d6+ +- . (56) Fernandez - Marino Zamora 1 996 (D) ��.....
32.e5 �d7 33.�xb7! Now White finally wins.
33 ... �e8 34. �b8 34J'\xd8 was good as well, but not 34.exf6? �el +=.
34....§d6 35.�xd6 35.exd6? �el +=.
35 . . . ,ilb6+ 36.� x b6 � x eS 37.e6 g5 38.e7 �g7 39.Ac6 1-0 Black thought that White's back rank was weak and that he had found a way to exploit it.
When in a difficult position, it is a good to search for tactics which can turn the tables. Of course, our theme is still valid and can be used in different, ef fective ways. Just have a look at the following example and of course at the trap in the second one!
19 ... �xa2? Falling to the trap ! Instead he should have played 19 . . .i.td6! 20.�xd5 and only now 20 . . . �xa2 ! 2 1 . B: d l B: cd8=.
20.�d1! 1-0 And the black queen is boxed in!
(55) Short - Bareev Tilburg 1 99 1 (D)
We will conclude this survey with
56
Dancing Knights an extremely beautiful example, where resolution takes place on the file and not on the rank, but it is still connected with the back rank problem:
nomenon of the "dancing knights ." With this term I mean that the knights penetrate to important squares in the opponent's camp and create lethal, or at least dangerous threats.
(57) Schwager - Ackerman Riga 1 978 (D)
(58) Beliavsky - Larsen Tilburg 1 9 8 1 Caro-Kann Defense [B 1 9]
l.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.lL!c3 dxe4 4.lL! xe4 Af5 5.lL!g3 Ag6 6.h4 h6 7 . .£lf3 lL!d7 s.h5 Ah7 9.Ad3 Axd3 10.�xd3 lL!gf6 11.Af4 e6 12.0-0-0 Ae7 13.lL!e5 a5 14.§hel a4 (D)
l ... �e3+ 2.�hl �f2 3.§gl White seems to be fine, as there seem to be nothing more for Black than exchanges on d2. But surely this was not the reason for Black's invasion ...
3 . . . lL! h 5 1 ! 4.§ x e2 5.hxg3 §c51 0-1
.£lg3+!
White resigned, as mate is forced this time, not on the rank, but on the file.
After this game nobody was will ing to try the text move again, but in stead played 14 . . . 0-0.
Conclusion Keep an eye on your back rank and try to open a luft for your king; You never know what can happen. On the other hand also keep an eye on your opponent's back rank; you may be able to take advantage of it tactically or po sitionally.
15.lL!g6! Here comes the first dance!
15 ... lL!d5
Dancing Knights Concept There are some exceptional but quite dangerous cases when a pair of knights or even one knight completely ignores the opponent pawns and are placed on squares were they can be cap tured. But, because of tactical reasons the opponent cannot really capture them; in these cases we have the phe-
57
Black cannot really accept the sac rifice, as after 1 5 . . . fxg6 1 6.�xg6+ �f8 17.§ xe6 �e8 18.
t6...Afs 16. . .fxg6 1 7.
t7.Ad6! A mating net around the black king
Chess Analytics I n this complicated position every tempo counts.
20...g31 21.4) xa8?!
is being woven.
17 ... f{g8 18.c4 4)b4 1 8 . . . <£\e5 1 9 .dxe5 fxg6 20.cxd5 gxf5 2 l .dxe6 was also simply lost.
19.�h3 fxg6 20.f{xe6+ ctlf7 2l.hxg6+! The final assault!
21 ...ct;xe6 22.f{el + 4)e5 If 2 2 . . . 'it'f6, then 2 3 .<£\h4! and White mates: 23 .. J"la5 24.l"!.e6+ 'it'g5 25 .<£\f3 # .
23.Axe5 1-0 And Black called it a day in view of 23 . . . <£\d3+ 24.�xd3 'it'd7 25 .<£\xh6!. (59) Piket - Kasparov Tilburg 1 989 King's Indian Defense [E99]
l.d4 4)f6 2.4)f3 g6 3.c4 Ag7 4.4)c3 0-0 5.e4 d6 6.Ae2 e5 7.0-0 4)c6 8.d5 4)e7 9.4)el 4)d7 10.Ae3 f5 n.f3 f4 t2.Af2 g5 13.b4 .i£1f6 14.c5 4)g6 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.f{cl ftf7 17.a4 Af8 18.a5 Ad7 19.4)b5 g4 20.4)c7 (D)
The first knight (pseudo) "dances" on the a8-square, but White might have considered 2l .hxg3 fxg3 22.�xg3 �h6! 23.4:\xaS <£\h5 24.�f2 <£\gf4 25 .<£\d3! (25.l"!.c7? �a4! 26.�xa4 <£\xe2+ 27.'it'h2 �f4+ 28.'it'h3 <£\hg3 29.l"!. xf7 'it'xf7 30.<£\d3 �c8+ 3 1 .'it'h4 <£\xf1 32.g4 <£\d2 33.4:\e l h5! -+ ) 25 . . . l"!.g7 (25 . . . <£\xg2 26.'it'xg2 l"!.g7+ 27.'it'h2 <£\g3! 28.�xg3 �g5 2 9 . l"!. g l �h5+ 3 0 . 'it'g2 �e3 3 1 .l"!.hl l"!. xg3+ 32.'it'xg3 �g5+ 33.'it'h2 �h4+ 34.'it'g2 �g5+ 35.'it'h2 �h4+=) 26.<£\xf4 �xf4 27.g4! (27Jk7? <£\g3! 2 8 . l"!. xd7 �h4 2 9 . l"!. xg7+ 'it' x g7 30 . .ilxa7 <£\xe2+ 3 l .�xe2 �h2+ -+ ) 27 . . . �xcl 28.�xcl <£\f4 29.�e3 h5! oo .
21 ... 4)h5! 2 1 . . .gxf2+ 22.l"!.xf2 �xa8 oo was a fair alternative, but the text is stronger.
22.ct;hl It seems that after 22.�xa7 �h4 23 .h3 �xh3 24.gxh3 �xh3 2 5 . l"!. f2 gxf2+ 26.'it'xf2 Black has no more than perpetual check. But this is not true, as after 26 . . . <£\h4 27.�fl �h2+ 28.�g2 l"!.g7 + he is on top.
22 ... gxf2 23.f{xf2 4)g3+1 The second "dance! "
24.ct;gl 24.hxg3? leads to mate: 24 . . . fxg3 25.'it'gl �h4 26.�c4 <£\f4.
24... �xa8 Black does not really care about the a8-knight; he only wants to use the g 1 a7 diagonal !
25.Ac4 2 5 . h x g3 fxg3 2 6 . l"!. fl <£\f4 ! (26 . . . �d8? 27.f4! + ) 27.<£\d3 �d8! and it's all over.
25 ...a6! 26. �d3?1 26.<£\d3 was White's only chance to survive : 26 . . . �a7 27 . <£\c5 dxc5 (27 ... ilb5 28.�xb5 axb5 29.hxg3 fxg3 30.l"!.fc2 dxc5 3 l .bxc5 �h6 + ) 28.d6
58
Dancing Knights cxb4 29:,;,td5 <£lh8 30.'i1¥xe5 .llg7 + . By the way, 26.hxg3 was still not satisfac tory: 26 .. .fxg3 27 . .§fc2 'i1¥a7+ 28.�fl .§ f4! 2 9 . <£ld3 .§ h4 3 0 . � e 2 .§ x e4+ 3 1 .fxe4 .llg4+ + .
A very complicated position. White is a pawn up but his king is in danger.
23 ... 4)d3! The knight stops the attack on the black queen and wins precious time.
26..:�a7 27.b5 axb5 28.Axb5 (D)
24.Ag4 The alternative was 24.Ah2 <£Jhf4 25 . .llx f4 .§ xf4 26 . .§ xd3 'i1¥d7 (26 . . .'i1¥h4 27 . .§g3 .§ d8 28.Af3 Axd6 29.<£lxd6 .§ xd6 oo /=) 27 . .§d4 .ilxd6 oo /= while of course 24.ilxd3? is out of the question: 24 . . .<£Jxf4 25 . .lle4 'i1¥d7 26.Axg6 hxg6 27.<£lc4 Axa3 -+ . 24... �h4 25.Ae3 (D)
28 ... 4)h1! 0-1 The third "dance" and a mirror move of White's 2 1 st! White resigned. When on the attack the "danc ing knights" can be very dangerous pieces: (60) Loginov - Gelfand Sverdlovsk 1 987 Irregular Defense [A4 1 ]
25 ... 4)g3! White thought that d3- and g3squares were ful ly protected by his pawns, although the black knights do not fully agree with him!
1.4Jf3 d6 2.d4 Ag4 3.h3 Ah5 4.e4 4)f6 5.4Jc3 e6 6.d5 e5 7.Ae3 Ae7 8.Ae2 Ag6 9.4)d2 c6 10.0-0 0-0 ll.a4 a5 12.Af3 cxd5 13.exd5 4)e8 14 . .§a3 f5 1 5 . 4) c4 4) d7 16 . .§b3 4)ef6 17.g3 �c8 18.Ae2 f4 19.gxf4 e x f4 20. A x f4 4Jc5 2 1 . .§a3 � x h3 2 2 . 4) x d 6 4Jh5 23.4)cb5 (D)
26.Ae6+ The immediate 26.fxg3 was also hopeless: 26 . . . 'i1¥xg3+ 27.�hl .§ xfl + 28.'i1¥xfl 'i1¥xg4 29 . .§ xd3 .llxd6 30.<£lxd6 .ll x d3 3 l . 'i1¥xd3 'i1¥h3+ 3 2 . � g l 'i1¥g3+ -+ .
26 ... �h8 27.fxg3 Forced. lf27.�g2, then Black wins by 27 . . . <£Jxfl 28.'i1¥xfl <£Jxf2! 29.Axf2 Ae4+ 30.<£lxe4 'i1¥xe4+ 3 1 .�gl Ac5 32 . .llx c5 .§ xfl + 33.�xfl 'i1¥c4+ -+ .
27 . . . � xg3+ 28.�h1 Ah5! 29 . .§xd3 A bit better was 29. 'i1¥xd3 although after 29. . . .§ xfl + 30.'i1¥xfl Af3+ 3l .'i1¥xf3 'i1¥xf3+ 32.�h2 'i1¥h5+ 33.�g2 'i1¥g6+ 34.�h3 .§f8 White would also lose.
59
Chess Analytics 29 . . . A x d 1 30._1lg1 �h4+ 3 l .§h3 § x f1 3 2 . § x h4 A x h4 33 . .if)f7+ ®g8 34. .1£)e5+ ®h8
17. .if)e4 Ae7 18.h4 �b8 (D)
34 . . . �f8 35 .�g2 §xgl + 36.�xgl ilxc2 -+ .
35..if)f7+ §xf736.Axf7 Axc2(D)
White 's activity i s obvious and Black feels uncomfortable. But if he could exchange queens he would breath.
19 . .if)e5! f6! And Black won without too much problem, although the game did con tinue for a while:
37.Ae6 §dB 38.Ab6 Ae4+ 39.®h2 § x d5 40._1l xd5 _1l xd5 4 1 . A x a 5 Ac6 42 . .if)c3 Ae1 43.Ac7 g5 44.Ae5+ ®g8 45.b4 ®f7 46.b5 Af3 47.a5 ®e6 48._1ld4 h5 49.a6 bxa6 50.bxa6 h4 51.®g1 g4 52.a7 Axc3 53.Axc3 g3 0-1
Black tries to get control over the important e5- and g5-squares. The al ternative, 1 9 . . A)xe5? 20.dxe5 �c8 2 1 .h5 Y!Je6 22 .h6+ �g8 23.�f6+ Axf6 24.�xf6 �xf6 (24 . . . § e8? 25.�g7 * ) 25.exf6 ± , was hardly appealing.
20. .if)g5! The knights start their lethal dance ! This wasn't what Black contemplated when played his last move !
20... .1£)f8 Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman seemed to be an expert on this theme. Here are two masterpieces which dem onstrate it. Although against Nigel Short he was not winning, he created many threats and induced his opponent (in a way) to a blunder. In the second game he was unstoppable and he just ham mered his unlucky opponent!
The most stubborn defense. In stead, 20 . . . � x e 5 ? 2 l . �e6+ �g8 ( 2 1 . . .�f7 2 2 . dx e 5 f5 2 3 . �c7! +- ; 2 1 . . .�h8 2 2 .dxe5 fxe5 23 .�f7 ilf8 24.§dl �e8 25. �f6+ \tlg8 26.�c7 +- ) 22.dxe5 fxe5 23.�c4! (23.§ xe5 �d6 [23 . . . Ad6? 24.�g5 Y!Jc7 25.�c4+ �h8 26.§e3 +- ] 24.�g5 §f8 25 .�c4+ �h8 26.�e2 ;!; ) 23 . . . �h8 2 4 . § e 3 ! Y!Jd6 25.§d3 �b4 26.�xb4 Axb4 27.§d7 § e8 2 8 . § xb7 § x e6 2 9 . § x b4 ± or 20 . . .fxg5? 2l .�f7+ �h6 22.�xe7 +- or, finally, 20 . . . ild6? 2l .�xd7! (21 .�e6+ �g8 22.�xd7 Axf4 23 .�xb8 Axb8 24.�c5 ± ) 2 1 . . .Axf4 2 2 . § e7+ �h8 2 3 . § xh7+ �g8 2 4 . � x f6+ \tlf8 25 .�e6 * were not appealing.
(61) Timman - Short Belgrade 1 987 Queen's Gambit Declined [D36]
1.d4 .lf)f6 2.c4 e6 3 . .1£){3 d5 4. .if)c3 Ae7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Ag5 c6 7.�c2 g6 8.e4 dxe4 9.Axf6 Axf6 10. �xe4+ ®f8 ll.Ac4 ®g7 12.00 §e8 13.�f4 Ae6 14._1lxe6 §xe6 1 5 . §fe1 § xe 1 + 1 6 . § x e 1 .if)d7
21.h5! White continues the attack on the
60
Dancing Knights 29.� xb7 .ll x d4= or either 2 2. . ."ifJd8! 23.4Jet7 '\ifc7 (23 . . ."if1e8? 24.4Jd6 '\ifd8 2 5 . 4Jgf7! '\ifc7 26.'\iff4 +- ) 24.4Je6+ 4Jxe6 25 .'\ifxe6 Ab4 (25 . . . �f8 26.4Jh6 �xh6 27 ."if1xe7 "if1xe7 28.� xe7 � d8 29.l''lx b7 � xd4 30.� xa7 �dl + 3 1 .�h2 � d2=) 26. 4Jh6! Axel 27.4Jf5+ �g6 28.4Je7+=.
black king.
2l ...gxh5 Again, the only move. Bad was 2 1 . . . .lld6? 22.h6+ �xh6 23.4Je6+ �h5 24.4Jg7 * or 2 l . . .fxg5? 22.'\ift7+ �h6 23.'\ifxe7 '\ife8 24.4Jg4+ �xh5 25.4Jf6+ �h6 26.g4!! (26.4Jxe8 +- ) 26 . . . '\ifxe7 27.� x e7 � d8 28. 4Jg8 * or, finally, 2 1 . . . h6? 2 2 . '\iff3 ! .ll d 6 ( 2 2 . . . hxg5 2 3 . 4J x c6 ! b x c6 2 4 . � xe7+ �h6 25.'\ifxf6 +- ; 22 . . . Ad8 23.4Jxg6 hxg5 24.4Jxf8 �xf8 2 5 . '?ife4 +- ) 2 3 . 4Jg4! (23.'1ifb3 '?ifc7!) 23 . . .fxg5 24.'\iff6+ �g8 25.hxg6 +- . In all these variations the white knights perform a lethal dance! 22:�f5 (D)
23. .[)d7! Now White can settle for a pleas ant and advantageous endgame.
23... �xd7 What else? If 23 . . . .ll d 8, then 24.4Je6+ 4Jxe6 25.'\ifxe6 +- .
24. � x d7 .[) x d7 2 5 . E! x e7+ \tlg6 (D)
25 . . . �f8?! 26.� xh7! � e8 27.�t7+ �g8 28.� xd7 fxg5 29.� xb7+-
2 2 . � e3 h4 23.�f3 '\ifd6 24.4Je4 '\ifxd4 25.4Jxf6 (25.4Jg4 �h8) 25 ... '\ifxf4 26.4Jh5+ �g8 27.� xf4 � d8 28.�t7 � d l + 2 9 . �h 2 4Jg6 3 0 . � g7 + �f8 3 1 .�t7+ �e8 32.4Jg7+ �d8 33.4Je6+ �e8=.
26. .[)f31 This is better than 26.4Je6?! 4Jf8 27.4Jxf8+ � xf8 28.� xb7 �d8 ;!; .
26... E{d8 27.\tlh2 Even better was 27 .4Jh4+ �h6 28.f4 ± .
22 ...�c8?
27... .[)f8
But this is a bad mistake. After 2 2 . . . '\ifc7? 2 3 . 4Jd7 '?ifxd7 2 4 . '\ifxd7 4Jxd7 25.� xe7+ �g6 26.4Je6± White would be happy, but Black could main tain the balance with either 22 .. .'�e8! 2 3 . 4Je4!? ( 2 3 . 4Jc4? fxg5 2 4 . 4Jd6 .ll x d6 -+ ; 23.4Jh3 Ab4 24.4Jf4 '?ife7 25.4Jxh5+ �h8 26.� e4 fxe5 27.�xe5 "if1c7 28.a3 Ad6 29.'\iff6+ �g8 30.�g5+ 4Jg6 3 1 . '\ife6+ �h8 3 2 ."ifJf6 + = ) 2 3 . . . fx e 5 ( 2 3 . . . '\ifc8? 2 4 . 4J g 3 ! ) 24."ifJxe5+ �g8 25.4Jd6 Axd6 26.'\ifxe8 � xeS 2 7 . � x e8 Ac7! 2 8 . � e7 .ll b 6
27 . . . b6 28.4Jh4+ �h6 (28 . . . �g5 29.�g3 4Jf8 30.�g7+ 4Jg6 31.f4+ �h6 32.4Jf5 * ) 29.f4 4Jf8 30.� xa7 ±
28.E!xb7 The endgame is of course better for White, but has nothing to do with our theme, so we will only examine it with some light comments.
28... .[)e6 28 . . . � d7 29.� xd7 4Jxd7 30.4Jh4+ �f7 3 l . �g3 �e6 3 2 . �f4 �d5 33.�e3 ±
61
Chess Analytics 51.f6 §a3 52.f7 §aS 53.� xc6+ �c5 54.�e5 �d6 55.�g6 1-0
29. .§xa7 � xd4 30.�h4+ �g5 30 . . . �h6 3 1 . �b7 �dS 32.a3 ±
31.g3 3 1 . �g3? 4Je2+ 32.�f3 4Jd4+=
(62) Timman - van Wijgerden Rotterdam 1 977 King's Indian Defense [E90]
31 ... f5 32.f4+ �f6 32 . . . �h6 33.b4! +-
33 . .§xh7 �e6
1.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ilg7 4.e4 d6 5.�f3 0-0 6.h3 c5 7.d5 e6 8 . .ild3 exd5 9.exd5 §eS+ 10 . .ile3 .ilh6 11.0-0 .ilxe3 12.fxe3 �g7 1 3 . 'li\'d2 �g8 1 4 . � e4 'li\'e7 15.'li\'c3+ f6 16. .§f2 .ilf5 (D)
33 . . . � b8 34.b3 � as 35 .a4 �bs ( 3 5 .. Ajxb3 3 6 . � h6+ �f7 3 7 . � xc6 � x a4 3 S . i£J x f5 ± ) 3 6 . � h6+ �f7 37.� xh5 �e6 3S.�h6+ �dS 39.�f6 �e4 4 0 . � f7 � x b3 4 l . � e7 + �d3 42.�e5 ±
34. .§h6+ �d5 35 . .§xh5 �e4 36 . .§h7 (D)
B lack is suffering, as White 's pieces are active and in attacking posi tions. So, it is not strange that there is a good continuation waiting in the wings.
36 ... �d3?1 After this inaccuracy Black prob ably cannot save the game any longer. Instead he had to opt for 36. . . � aS 37.a3 � bS 3S.b4 � aS 39.� e7+ �d3 40.�e5 � xa3 4 1 .�h3 ± , when of course he stands worse, but White is far from win ning.
17.�eg51 1 7 . 1£Jfg5 ! �eS l S . � x e S � x e S 1 9.g4! + - was strong too.
17... .ilc8 B lack 's options were l imited : 1 7 ....ilxd3 1S.!£Je6+ �hS 19.�xd3 1£Jd7 20.�c3 ± ; 1 7 . . . �xe3?! lS.�el �xd3 1 9 . � xeS � x c 3 2 0 . bx c 3 fxgS 2 1 .1£Jxg5 +- .
37..§f7 .§d5 38.b4 �c4 39.a3 �b3 40. .§a7 �c2 41 . .§a5 .§d2+ 4 1 . . .1£Jxa3 42.� xd5 cxdS 43.1£Jxf5 �xb4 44.g4+-
18 . .§afl The last white piece joins the at tack. 18 ...h6 (D)
42.�h3 � x a3 43 . .§a6 .§c2 44.�xf5 �b5 44 . . . �xb4 45 .1£Jd4 +-
White is very active and now the matter is resolved with a combination.
45.�e7 �d4 46 . .§b6 §c3 46 . . . � c4 47 .fS +- .
19. .ilxg6! �xg6
47.�g4 �a4 4S. .§b7 �c2
Maybe Black could try 19 . . . hxg5 20.JlxeS �xeS 2 1 . 1£Jxg5 �eS although after 2 2 . 1£Je4! I£Jd7 2 3 . � x e 5 dxeS
4S. . . 4Je2 49.1£Jf5 �d3 50.�e7 1£Jc3 S l . � e6 +-
49.f5 � xb4 50. .§xb4+! �xb4
62
Doubled f-pawns have significant merits (control of cen tral squares, semi-open file, mutual sup port between the pawns) while its nega tive aspects are minimal and are usu ally only encountered in the endgame, when these pawns may become vulner able. Here we will examine some posi tions with doubled f-pawns (mirror c pawns) and be alert for their pros and cons. So, the advantages they offer are control of important squares and one additional semi-open file. Their main disadvantage is their vulnerability when they are attacked by the opponent; this vulnerability becomes obvious (as in all cases regarding pawn-structures) in the endgame. We will start with some games of "Sicilian Defense" type of f-pawns; a theme that is not uncommon.
24 . .§f3 'it'f7 25 .g4 'it'g6 26.h4 +- , he would just be lost.
20. �d3+ rt;g7 20 . . . f5 loses to 2 1 . 4Jh4+! 'it'g7 22 . .§ xf5! +- .
2Vde5! The white knights do not care about the black pawns controlling their enter ing squares; they just dance! Black has no defense anymore.
21 ...dxe5 2 l . . .hxg5 22.ii¥g6+ 'it'h8 23.4Jf7+ and 2 1 . . .f5 22 . .§xf5 �xf5 23.ii¥xf5 +- .
(63) Topalov - Kramnik Monte Carlo 2000 Sicilian Defense [B66]
2 2 . � h7+ rt;fs 2 3 . § x f6 + ! 4) xf6 23 . . .�xf6 24 . .§xf6+ 4Jxf6 25.�f7 *
l.e4 c5 2. ./df3 4)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4)f6 5 . ./dc3 d6 6.Ag5 e6 7. �d2 a6 8.0-0-0 Ae7 9.f4 4) xd4 10.�xd4 b5 11 . .i}.xf6 gxf6 (D)
24.�h8# 1-0 Conclusion This is an unusual and peculiar theme which is not met that often. But it does exist and training for it is an obligation ofthe ambitious chessplayer. The knight pair in the middlegame, when they are able to completely ignore the opponent's pawns (the false guards ! ) i s a dangerous attacking weapon.
This is a typical Sicilian Defense set-up. Black has doubled f-pawns and the bishop pair, while White has safer king, more space and good center.
Doubled f-pawns Concept Central doubled pawns are the most common form of doubled pawns, as they not only occur most often but also
12.Ae2 �c7 13.f5 A direct attack. The e5-square is
63
Chess Analytics not that important, as Black has no knight to place there.
13 .. .-�c5 14.�xc5 dxc5 The queen exchange favored Black, as now his king is less unsafe.
15.ghfl The point ofthis new idea is to hold 1 5.fxe6 back, for example, 1 5 .. .fxe6 1 6.�h5+ 'it>f8 1 7.e5 f5 18.g4 when af ter the strong 1 8 . . .1''i a7 ! B lack can equalize: 19.gxf5 exf5 20.<£ld5 �g5+ 2 1 . 'it>b 1 �e6, as in Kotronias Lupulescu, Kavala 2004. 15 ... §a7 (D)
2l ...exf5 An interesting decision. Black de cides to weaken his pawn structure fur ther, but at the same time he opens the position for his bishop pair. Instead, 2 1 . . .�b7 22.�f3 h4= was not bad ei ther.
22.exf5 .11,d6?! But here better was 22 ...h4 23.<£le3 �d6 24.<£ld5+ 'it>b8 2 5 .h3 (25.<£lxf6 � x h 2 2 6 . �c4 �g3 2 7 . <£le4 �b7 28.<£lxc5 �xg2 29.<£lxa6+ 'it>a8 30 . .!"!.gl h3 -+ ) 25 . . . �b7 26.�f3 �e5=.
23 . .£1 xd6 'ifjlxd6 24.§f4
A natural continuation in this varia tion. lf 1 5 ... b4, then 1 6.{Ja4 ;!; .
Now White can go for the full point without risk, as Black's weak pawn structure is no longer compensated by the bishop pair. 24.�c4!? was a reason able alternative: 24 . . . 'it> e 5 2 5 .g3 ( 2 5 . �xf7 � x f5 26 . l"! e l + �e4=) 2 5 . . . � xf5 (25 . . . a 5 26 . .!"!.dl �b7 27 . .!"!.d7 ± ) 26.�xa6 ;!; .
16.a4!? Now 1 6.fxe6 fxe6 1 7.�h5+ 'it>f8 1 8.e5 f5 1 9.g4 �g5+ 20.'it>bl 'it>g7= leads to well-known positions.
16 ...b4 17.l�)bl gd7 1 7 . . . l"lg8 1 8.g3 ;!; .
18.§xd7 'it'xd7 19.l!l)d2
24...a5
1 9.�h5 l"lf8 20.<£ld2 �d6 2 1 .g3 'it>e7 22.<£lc4 �c7=
24 ... h4 doesn't help: 25.'it>d2 �b7 26.'it>e3 ;!; (26.c3 bxc3+ 27.'it>xc3 h3 [27 . . . �xg2 28.�xa6 'it>e5 29.l"lf2 �e4 30 . .!"!.e2 'it>xf5 3 l .'it>c4 .!"!.b8 32.�b5 'it>e5 33.'it>xc5 ± ] 28.g3 ± ) and if 24 . . . 'it>e5?! then 25.l"lc4! ± . 25.g3 'it'e5 (D)
19 ...h5! Seems unnecessary, but this move is quite good. After 1 9 . . . .!"!.d8 20.�h5 White gains a small advantag e : 2 0 . . . r.t> e 8 ( 2 0 . . . e xf5 2 l . e xf5 'it>e8 22.�e2 �d6 23 .g3 ;!; ) 2 l .fxe6 �xe6 22 .�e2 �c8 23.g3 ;!; .
26.§h4? The wrong idea, squandering the advantage . White had to opt for 26.�d3! .!"!.g8 (26 . . . h4? 27.l"le4+! 'it>d6 28 . .!"!. xh4 .!"!. xh4 29.gxh4 'it>e7 [29 ... 'it>e5
20. .£lc4 'it'c7 This is a safe place for the black king. 2l.b3 (D)
64
Doubled f-pawns
3l.g4
30.h5 .ilxf5 3 1 .h6 +- ] 30 .�d2 �f8 3l .�e3 '3Jg7 32.�f4 �h6 33 ..ilc4 �h5 34.�e4 '3Jxh4 35.�d5 .ilxf5 36.�xc5 .il x c 2 3 7 . �b6 +- ) 27 . .§ e4 + �d6 28 . .§h4 (28 . .§e2 h4! 29.gxh4 .§ h8=) 28 . . . .§g5 29 . .ile2 .ilxf5 30 . .§ xh5 .ilg6 3 1 ..§h8 ;!; . Also bad was 26. .§c4? .ila6! 27 . .§ xc5+ '3Jd4 + .
Not bad, but probably more accu rate was the natural (and quick enough) 3 l .gxf4+ '3Jxf4 32.h4 Ae4 33.c3 f5 34 ..ild1 �e5 35.cxb4 cxb4 36.h5=.
31 ... �e4 After 3 1 ...f5!? 32 . .ild3! (32.g5? f3 33 . .ilxf3 '3Jf4 34 . .ild5 �xg5 3 5 .c3 �f4 + ) 32 . . . �f6 33.gxf5 .ilxf5 34.Axf5 �xf5 the endgame is drawn: 35.�e2 (35.�d3 '3Jg5 36.'3Je2 �g4 37. �f2 �h3 38.�f3 [38.'3Jg1 '3Jh4 39 .'3Jg2 �g4=] 38 ... �xh2 39.'3Jxf4 �g2 40.'3Je3 �fl 4l .�d2 �f2 42.c3 �fl 43.cxb4 cxb4 44.'3Jd1= [44.�d3? �e1 45 .'3Jc4 �d2 46.�b5 �c3 47.�xa5 �xb3 48.�b5 '3Jc3 49.a5 b3 50.a6 b2 5 l .a7 b 1 �+ -+ ] ) 35 . . . '3Jg4 36. '3Jf2 '3Jh3 37.�f3 �xh2 38.'3Jxf4 �g2 39.�e4 �f2 40.c4 �e2 4l .�d5 '3Jd3 42.'3Jxc5 �c3 43.'3Jb5 �xb3 44.c5 �a3 45.c6 b3 46.c7 b2 47.c8� b1�+=.
26 ... Axf5 27.§.xh5 The other option was 27 . .ilxh5 .ilg6 28. .ile2 .§ xh4 29.gxh4 .ile4 30.h5 f5 3 1 . �d2 ( 3 1 .h6?! �f6! [ 3 1 . . . f4?! 32.�d2 (32 ..ild3? .ilxd3 33.cxd3 '3Jf6 34.�d2 '3Jg6 35 .�e2 '3Jxh6 36.'3Jf3 '3Jg5 -+ ) 3 2 . . . �f6 33 . .ild3] 3 2 . �d2 '3Jg6 33 ..ilh5+ �xh6 34 ..ilxf7 �g5 =i" ) 3 l . . . �f6 3 2 . .ilc4 �g7 3 3 . c 3 .ilf3 34.cxb4 cxb4 35.�e3=.
27 . . . §. x h5 28. A x h 5 Ag6 29.Ae2 In this endgame both opponents should be quite careful not to slip! For example, White could even lose after the naive 29 . .ilxg6? fxg6 30.'3Jd2 be cause of Black's better king: 30 . . . '3Jd4 3 1 .h4 f5 3 2 .�e2 �c3 3 3 .�d1 c4 3 4 . b x c4 '3Jxc4 3 5 .'3Jd2 �d4 -+ . Doubled f-pawns can be quite strong !
32.h4 f3 3 3 . Ad3+ 34.Axg6 fxg6 35.h5 �g3
�f4
Black could also split the point by the simple 35 . . . gxh5 36.gxh5 �g3 37.h6 f2 38.h7 f1 � 39.h8�=.
36.hxg6 f2 37.g7 f1 t:f 38.g8t:f t:ff4+ 39.�e2 �-�
29...f5 Possible was 29 . . . .ile4 30.�d2 f5 3l .�e3! (31 .h4 f4 32.gxf4+ �xf4 33.h5 �g5 34.c3 f5 35 .cxb4 cxb4 36 . .ild1 f4 + ) 3 l . . ..ilxc2 32 ..ilc4 �f6 33.�f4 oo /
(64) Groszpeter - Nisipeanu Krynica 1 998 Sicilian Defense [B96]
l .e4 c5 2.4)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4)f6 5.'dc3 a6 6.Ag5 e6
30.�d2 f4! (D)
65
Chess Analytics White is obliged to go in for the coming exchanges, as 1 3 . �ce2 e 5 1 4 . �b3 a 5 ( 1 4 . . . A b 7 ! ? 1 5 . �xb4 l':'l.cS oo /= [ 1 5 . . . d5? 16.�a5]) looks fine for Black, as White cannot benefit from the weak d5-square.
13 . . . b x c3 14.ex d7+ .Q. x d7 15.ti\'xc3 1 5.bxc3 gives Black too much play after 1 5 . . . l':'l.b8+ 1 6.�al Ah6 1 7.�d3 Af4 and . . . Ae5. This bishop-maneuver is quite thematic for such pawn struc tures. 15 ... ti\'xc3 16.bxc3 §gS (D)
Here again we have the usual "Si cilian case" where each sides has pros and cons, as previously mentioned.
9 h5!? •..
This move aims to fight against White's ile2 - h5 and f5 idea. Other moves are supposed to lead to White's advantage. One of the most usual alter native is 9 . . . b5 10.0-0- 0 Ab7 1 1 .ild3 h5 1 2.l':'l.hel �d7 1 3.�b1 �b6 1 4.�b3 0-0- 0 1 5.a4 b4 1 6.�a2 a5 17.c3! �c5 1 8 . cxb4 ± Jansa-Ermenkov, Smederevska Palanka 1 979.
Black has sacrificed a pawn, which is unimportant (doubled on the c-file) but his main problem is his weak pawn structure - all his pawns are isolated and doubled!
10.0-0-0 Possible is 1 0 .Ae2 b5 1 1 .0- 0- 0 �d7 1 2.a3 �b6 13.l':'l.hel Ab7 1 4.�b1 Castellanos-Cabrera, La Paz 2002.
10 ...b5
17.g3 §g51
This is the modem way to treat the variation; 10 . . . �c6 is supposed to lead to White's advantage.
The activation ofthe rook is a quite good idea. 1 7 ... d5? would be premature: 18.exd5 Aa3 19.Ac4 l':'l.bS+ 20.Ab3 a5 2 l .�c6! +- .
lt.
18 ..Q.c4 E!c5 The fifth rank is perfect for the black rook. Actually this maneuver is typical in this structure.
19 . .Q.b3 a51 Playing for the initiative. 19 ... l':'l.xc3 1s not that good because 2 0 . �f5 (20.l':'l.hf1 Ag4 2 l .l':'l.d3 l':'l. xd3 22 .cxd3 Ae7 23.l':'l.f2 ;!; ) 20 . . . Axf5 (20 . . . l':'l. c6 2 l .l':'l.d3 ;!; ) 2 l .exf5 l':'l.c5 ;!; .
20.§d3 20.�f5 a4 2 l .Ad5 l':'l.bS+ 22.�a1
13.fxe6 66
Doubled f-pawns §. xc3 or 2 0 . a4 §. b8 2 1 .�a2 §. xc3 22.4::\fS �e6 are fine continuations for Black.
20...a4 2l.Ad5 E!.b8+ 22.�at (D)
4.4) xd4 4)f6 5.4)c3 4)c6 6.Ag5 e6 7.�d2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.Ae3 4)xd4 10.Axd4 b5 ll.f3 �a5 12.a3 e5 13.Ae3 Ae6 14.�bl Ae7 15.g4 E!.b8 t6.4)d5 �xd2 (D)
22 ...f5! It is time to get rid of the weak doubled f-pawns.
17.4) xf6+?! It takes considerable positional flair to appreciate just how vulnerable White's kingside is here. 1 7 .l='l. xd2!= was a must.
23.E!.bl White has little choice. If 23.l='l.el, then 23 ... �g7! 24.c4 (24.exf5+ �f8 25.f6 �xf6 26.l='l.f3 <;t>g7 27.l='l.efl Ah3! 2 8 . § x f6 Axfl 2 9 . l='l. xf7 + �g6 =i= ) 24 . . . �f8 2 5 .c3 fxe4 26.§ xe4 �xd4 (26 . . . Ae5?! 2 7 . l='l. h4 Ag4 28.h3 ± ) 27.§ dxd4 (27.cx d4 § xd5 28.cxd5 .IH5 = ) 2 7 . . . .ilf5 2 8 . § e l �g7= or 23.4::\xfS Axf5 24.exf5 �g7 25.l='l.el + �f8 26.l='l.ee3 §.cbS 27.l='l.dl §c5=. 23...E!, xbl + 24.�xbl fxe4 Yl-Yl And the opponents agreed to a draw, as after 25 . .ilxe4 h4 the chances are equal.
17 ...gxf6! Setting up the attack on White's g and h-pawns. The doubled pawn plays a key role in defending the g5-square. Of course 17 . . . �xf6?! 18.l='l. xd2 �e7 1 9.h4 ;!; was out of the question.
18.E!,xd2 h51 19.E!.gl Black would feel more than happy after 1 9.�e2?! hxg4 20.fxg4 l='l.h3 + .
19...hxg4 20.fxg4 Ac41 Just a great positional move, and as beautiful as chess moves often are, on the basis of its surprising disrespect for established wisdom. Or, more ac curately, it is a very precise weighing of different factors. The key point is that it is Black who stands to gain more from a light-square contest - albeit a very specific, "localized" light-square con test. Black's bad bishop will protect his pawns while he exchanges down with connected h- and g-passers in mind. 20 . . .<;t>d7? 2 1 .h3 -+ was again a naive continuation.
So, Black in these games did not really suffer as a result of the doubled f-pawns . But the following game i s impressive. I t was not initially obvious why Black allowed the doubling of his f-pawns, but when Black's profound concept did become clear, it was too late for White to react . . . (65) Ivanchuk - Anand Linares 1 992 Sicilian Defense [B66]
21.b3
l.e4 c5 2.l�)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4
Here White had to make a difficult
67
Chess Analytics also play 26 . . . .§ g8 2 7 . .§ ef2 Ae7 28. .§ xf7 .§g4 + .
decision. His main alternative was 2 l . Axc4 bxc4 22 . .§ d5 .§ b S ! + (22 . . . .§ xh2 23 . .§a5 oo ) 23 . .§ xb5 axb5 24. .§g2 .§h3, when Black would be also be on the top; it would be just too nice for him. 21 ... .11, x fl 22.§xfl (D)
2 7 . .11, e l f6 28. Ag3 29.exd5+ xd5 30.§f5!
d5
Forcing Black to lose some time.
30... c6 The only move. Alternatives are leading nowhere: 30 . . . �e6? 3 l .Axe5! .§ e8 32 . .§ xf6+ Axf6 33.Axf6+ �f7 34 . .§f2= or 30 . . . .§b7? 3 l .Axe5 �e6 (3 1 . . .fxe5 32 . .§ fxe5+ �d6 33 . .§ e6+ �d5 34 . .§ x e7) 3 2 . Ax f6 + ! �xf5 33.Axe7=. 31.§ef2?! (D)
22 ... §h3! And here we have the key - the h3square gives Black the bulk ofthe play, while his "bad bishop" performs a very crucial defensive duty with great ease. The light squares which are incontest ably White's - d5 and f5 - may provide some aesthetic compensation, but little in terms of tangible benefit. One must note that here White has three pawn is lands compared to Black's two, but most important is the fact that White's pawns are under attack.
More tenacious was 3 1 .l"lf3 l"lh7 32.l"lc3+ �b7, as the king belongs on e6 and thus Black would have a hard technical task ahead.
31 ... §h6 32.b2 d7 33.§e2 Ad6 34.§f3 §c8! Playable was 34 . . . �e6 as White cannot play 35.l"lc3 Axa3+! 36.�a2 .§b6.
23.§e2 After 23.Agl �d7 24 . .§ d3 Black gains a clear advantage : 24 . . . .§h4! (24 ... .§ xd3 25.cxd3 .§h8 26. .§f3 d5 oo ) 2 5 . l"l g3 (25 .h3?! .§ bh8 26 . .§ ff3 f5 ! 27. .§xf5 .§ xh3 oo ) 25 . . . .§g8 26.h3 .§gh8 27 . .§ ff3 f5! 28.exf5 (28 . .§ xf5 .§ xh3 29 . .§ xh3 .§ xh3 30.Af2 [30 . .§ xf7? .§hl 3 l . .§ fl Ag5 3 2 . l"l e l Ad2 -+ ] 30 . . . �e6 + as the white e4- and g4pawns are rather weak) 28 . . . e4 29.l"le3 (29.l"lc3? Af6) 29 . . . d5 + .
40.h4 E!dt 4t .Af2 Ad6 42.§g3 e4!
23 ... d7 24.g5 e6 25.gxf6 Axf6 26. .11,d2 Ae7
The central black pawn phalanx starts rolling!
35.Ael e6 Mission accomplished!
36. E!d3 E!h7 37. E!g3 Ac5 38.a2 §d7 39.E!c3 E!cc7 Not of course 39 . . . .§dl? 40.Af2 Axf2 4 l . .§ xc8 Ad4 42.c3 �d7 43.l"lf8 Axc3 44.b4 �e7 oo .
43.§xe4+
Of course 26 . . . Ah4 27.Ab4 leads nowhere, but it seems that Black could
43 . .§gl .§ xgl 44.Axgl fS -+
68
Doubled f-pawns every move. White now resolves to free his position by exchanges.
43 ... Ae5 44.§ xe5+ 44.c3 .§ d2+ 45 .\f/bl .§ xf2 -+
18.�e2!? � xe2
44 ... fxe5 45.�b2 §d2 0-1
18 . . . 4Jg6! seems better.
19.� xe2 �c7! 20.�e3 Af4 21. �h3 b5 22.�d4 Ab7 23.�e2 .Q.d6 (D)
The last game to conclude the "Si cilian Defense" theme is also quite in structive. Black held off all White's at tacking threats and then converted the endgame to a win. (66) Vouldis - Grivas Komotini 1 992 Sicilian Defense [B33]
1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.� xd4 �b6 5.�b3 �f6 6.�c3 e6 7.Ag5 Ab4 s.Ad3 h6 9 .Q.xf6 gxf6 10. �f3 �e7! (D) •
Now White has to seriously con sider his next plan and his next moves. It is not an easy decision to take as it seems that something has gone wrong for him or maybe it was just the "Grivas Sicilian" (4 . . . �b6)?
'I!� B �� �1·1�1� . '�' •f� � �, �j a B . •. ��� ������ B� ft M ll ����P.; � ". �4J&S �p,; �p,; '{' � �:ill% ft �:ill ft �:ill% ft •
l
I�j
�
• •
� !rl::r\
24.a4!? Playing f4 would weaken rather than activate White's position. But this change of direction (from the kingside to the queenside) is further evidence that White is lacking a plan. With time pressure approaching, White decides to complicate the position by any means instead of awaiting fate. This approach can only be commended from a practi cal viewpoint.
� �
The safest spot for the black king, supporting and being surrounded by a mass of pawns.
11.0-0 a6 12. �g3 A plan involving 4Jd2-c4 seems preferable.
12 ....Q.d6! 13.�h4 After 1 3 .�g7 'i1¥d8! and . . . �g8 White will have to suffer in an inferior ending.
13 . . . �e5! 15.�h5 �f4
14.�h1
24 ... bxa4! 25.§a1 a3! 26.bxa3 Ac5?! 27.a4 Ac6 28.c3 �a7 29.�f4! (D)
�g6
11m � B B �:e
� � f�'t�� . '� · y.?11- � �� � � � �- -,� � �' . '� '{;j � p,; •'it - �:m; �p,; �� � � �:ill% ft �:ill �
, �, � ' i .,
Now in order to achieve the f4-ad vance White will first have to play g3, weakening the long h l -a8 diagonal which the c8-bishop will shortly oc cupy. In general, White faces serious problems to come up with a decent plan.
� M M§M<;t>l
16.�f3 h5! 17.§ae1 Ae5 Black's superiority increases with
69
Chess Analytics 29 ...h4 29 ... Axf2? would in general open lines towards the black king and, more specifically, would lead to severe prob lems after 30.'�f3!.
30 . .§ae1! A xa4 31.e51 fxe5 32. .§xe5 Ad6 33 . .§a5 Axf4? A serious mistake. Simply 33 ....llc6 34.l"l xa6 'i>¥b7 35.1"\ xaS 'i>¥xa8 leaves Black clearly better.
34 . .§xa4 t:/c7 35 . .§xa6 .§xa6 36.Axa6 Ae5 37.c4 Af6 3S.Ab5 .§bS 39.t:/a3+ d6 40.t:/e3 .§aS Time trouble has passed and Black retains a plus. However, the presence of opposite-color bishops makes the conversion of this plus to a full point rather problematic.
41.t:/e4 .§a2 42.h3? White had to play 42.g3!. The black h-pawn will prove fatal ! 42... t:/b6! 43.f4 t:/d41 (D)
out difficulty, by just using correctly his e-pawn !
45 ... .§c21 46.fxe6 f xe6 47. .§e1 Af2 4S . .§fl Ag3 49. �g1 e5 50 . .§d1 e4 51.�fl .§f2+ 52.�g1 .§b2 53.Aa6 e3 54.c5 dxc5 55.�fl .§f2+ 56.�g1 .§a2 0-1 Of course, doubled f-pawns do not just occur in positions like Sicilian De fense types, but nearly in every open ing. Here we will study some queen's pawn games with this theme: (67) Najdorf - Stahlberg Zurich 1 953 Queen's Gambit Declined [D67]
l .d4 .!f.)f6 2.c4 e6 3 . ./f.)c3 d5 4.Ag5 Ae7 5.e3 ./f.)bd7 6 . ./f.)f3 0-0 7. .§c1 c6 S.Ad3 dxc4 9.Axc4 ./f.)d5 10.Axe7 t:/ xe7 ll . .!f.)e4 e5 12.0-0 exd4 13.t:/xd4 ./f.)7b6 14.Ab3 Ag4 1 5 . ./f.)g3 A x f3 1 6 . g x f3 t:/f6 1 7 . t:/ xf6 .if.) xf6 1S . .if.)f5 .§adS 19 . .§fd1 .if.)cS 20.�fl .§feS 2 l .�e2 �fS 22 . .§ x dS .§ x dS 23. .§g1 .if.)eS 24. .§g4 ./f.)e7 25 . ./f.) xe7 � xe7 (D)
By exchanging queens, Black in creases his advantage, as he can now create a passed pawn while at the same time prevent the white king from ac tively participating.
44.t:/xd4 White can hardly avoid the ex change. After 44.'i>¥b7+ 'itlf8, Black is threatening 45 ... 1"\al 46.1"\ xal 'i>¥xal + 47.�h2 Ad4!.
B lack has no weaknesses and White does (doubled and i so lated pawns on the kingside), but the pres ence of pawns on both wings gives the better prospects to the side with the bishop .
44...Axd4 45.f5 Black was planning ...Af2, .. .f5 and . . . e5-e4 - thus White 's reply. In any case, Black now coasts to victory with-
2 6 . .§e4+ �fS 27 . .§a4 a6 2S. .§f4 f6?1
70
Doubled f-pawns This kind of moves that increase the power of the bishop and might give White a passed pawn (f4, e4-e5) should be avoided. Preferable was 28 . . . l"ld7 or, even better, 28 . . . �d6.
50.fxe5 l"lc5 5 1 .l"l a7+ �e8 52.Af7+ �f8 53.e6 l"l xfS 54 . .11g6 l"le5 55.e7+ l"lxe7 56.l"la8+ with mate to follow.
50 . .§g8 4)e2+ 51.�d2 4) x f4 52.§xg7+ �d8 53.exf6 .§d7 The tactical point after 53 . . . �xd5 is 54.l"lg8+ �d7 55.f7.
29 . .§h4 h6 30. .§h51 Now White is ready to advance his kingside majority.
54. .§xd7+ �xd7 55..1lc6+! 1-0 Since after 55 . . .�d6 (55 . . . �xc6? 56.f7) 56 . .11xb5 the black pawns fall, Black had to resign.
30 .. .J�� c7 31.f4 �e7 32 . .§c5 .§d6 33 . .§cl?l b6?! Both sides should have played f5 on their 3 3rd move.
We conclude our theme with a quite recent game. Although far from flawless it nevertheless illustrates some interesting points:
34.f51 c5 35.f4 .§c6 36.a4! As Black plans to mobilize his pawn majority on the queenside, it is useful to open the a-file, as White might need it at a certain point.
36 ... b5 37. .1}.c2 .IdeS 38. .1}.e4 .§c7 39 . .1ld5 c4 40.e4 4) d 6 41.axb5 axb5 (D)
(68) Eljanov - Kramnik Moscow 20 1 0 Nimzo-Indian Defense [E37]
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.Jdc3 .1lb4 4. �c2 d5 5.a3 .1}.xc3+ 6.� xc3 .!de4 7.�c2 c5 8.dxc5 4)c6 9.e3 �a5+ 10 . .1}.d2 4) x d2 l l . � x d2 d x c4 12 . .1l x c4 � x c 5 1 3 . .§cl �e7 14.4)f3 0-0 15.b4 .§dS 16.�b2 .1}.d7 17.0-0 (D)
White has maximized the potential of his bishop, which is now clearly su perior to the knight. Also, the advance e5 is in the air (remember 28 . . .f6?!).
4 2 .�e3 .§a7 43 . .§gl �f8 44.�d4 .§c7 45 . .§cl! .!db7 Necessary, as White was threaten ing 46.b3, which can now be answered by 46 . . . �c5!. But this gives White time to take over the a-file.
White seems to stand slightly bet ter, because of his better placed pieces, especially his queen on b2 which con trols a lot of important squares.
46 . .§al .!dc5 47 . .§a8+ �e7 48.e51 .!db3+ 49.�c3 .!dcl
17 ... �f6!
There is no salvation anymore, as two sample variations can prov e : 4 9. . . l"l c5 50.l"la7+ �d8 5 Ule4 fxe5 52.l"l xg7 exf4 53.f6 +- and 49 .. .fxe5
An excellent idea. Black exchanges White's best-placed piece and takes control of the e5-square. His doubled
71
Chess Analytics f-pawns cannot be attacked by White and cannot be considered weaknesses.
18.ttYxf6 gxf6 19 ..Q.e2! A strong move, aiming to use the c-file for the white rook.
19 ...a5?! This advance is weak. Not bad was 1 9 . . . E: ac8 20.E:fdl
20.b5
26.4:)f5? There was no need for this. White could have gained a clear advantage with the simple 26.E: xd8+ E:xd8 27.E:c7 b6 28.E:c6 E:b8 (28 . . . E:dl 29.E: xb6 E:al 30.E:b8+ �g7 31 .b6 E: xa3 32 .b7 §b3 33.g3 ± ) 29.4:\fS! ilxf5 30.exf5 4Jd5 3 1 .�d3 �g7 32.�e4
White could settle for a draw with 20.bxa5 E: xa5 2 1 .E:c3 but he was cor rectly looking for something more.
20 ... 4:)e7 2l . .§fdl 2 1 . E: c7? would be too naiv e : 2 1 . . .4:\dS! 22.E: xb7 �c8 -+
21 4:)d5?! ..•
This is too ambitious. Black had to settle for 2 1 . . . E: ac8 2 2 . E: xc8 4:\xc8 23.<£ld2 �e8 24.a4 b6 25.4Jc4 E: xdl + 26.Axdl when the idea �f3-b7 does not work: 26 . . . �d7! 27.�f3 (27.�g4 �f8 28.f4 �e7 2 9 . �f2 f5 30.ilf3 �d8 ;!; ) 27 ... e5 28.�b7 Ae6!.
26... .Q.xf5 27.exf5 4:)d5 Now Black is fine.
28. .§d3 .§d7 29 .§c4?! •
White had to start thinking of split ting the point (29.E:cdl) but he still re mained ambitious ...
29 .§ad8 30 . .§a4 b6 3l . .§g4+ �f8 32 . .§h4 4:)e7! ..•
22.e4! White hurries. Also the prophylac tic 22.g3!?, with the idea of e4, would give him a pleasant position: 22 . . .f5 23.<£lh4! and �f3.
Declining the draw (32 . . . �g7). Black's remaining pieces would be more active.
33 . .§ x d7 .§ x d7 34 .§ x h7 4:) xf5 (D) •
22 ... 4:)f4 23 .Q.fl e5 •
Good or bad this was forced in or der to free the d7-bishop, but new a weakness has appeared - the f5-square.
24.4:)h4! A blunder would be 24.E: c7? be cause of 24 . . . �xb5! 25.E: xd8+ E:xd8 26.ilxb5 E:dl + 27.Afl
24 .Q.g4 .••
A bit better seems the immediate 24 . . . Ae6 although White's position is preferab le after 2 5 . E: x d8+ E: x d8 26.E:c7 §dl 27.f3 b6 28.E: c6 ± . 25.f3 .Q.e6 (D)
35 . .§h5? The alternative was 35.E:h8+ �g7 36.E:b8 (activity) 36 . . . E: d2! 37.E: xb6 4Je3 38.E:a6 when White seems to be doing well, despite his eventual loss of 72
Queen Sac around the King the bishop, but Black can first play 38 . . . f5 ! ( 3 8 . . . � d l ? 3 9 . <;t>f2 <£l x fl 40.�xa5 <£lxh2 4 1 . � a4 ± ) 39.�xa5 f4 40.� a4 � d l 4 1 .<;t>f2 � xfl + 42 .<;t>e2 � b l 4 3 . � b4 � xb4 44. a xb4 <£Jd5 45.<;t>d3 f5 46.<;t>c4 <£Jb6+ -+ . But he can play better: 38.a4! f5 3 9 . � c6 � d l 40.<;t>f2 <£lxfl 4 1 .b6 when the draw should be not difficult, as the knight is badly placed.
35 ... .!£le3 36.
37.f4 e4 38.§h8+
41.xe4 f5+ 45.<;t>d3 �bl and Black should win.
Queen Sac around the King Concept A spectacular queen sacrifice is a pleasure to watch and makes the game notable for future generations. Well, in practice, games won spectacularly are awarded one point, just like games won more mundanely, and this seems to be fair from a sporting point of view. But of course it is always a pleasure (for the winner at least!) to win by sacrificing the queen around the opponent's king. I do not mean a sacrifice for positional or long-term benefits, but a straightfor ward sacrifice to finish the game. Twelve beautiful examples will be examined below, some simple, some quite complicated, but all ofthem spec tacular and effective. Try to solve them alone before you go on to the solutions.
42 ...f51 43.Afl On 43.� xb6 <£lc2+ 44.<;t>d2 Black plays 44 . . . <£lb4+! 45.<;t>el a4 -+ .
43 . . . §b1 44.Ae2 45.
§b3+
45 . . . e3+! 46.<;t>g3 <£lc2 was lethal.
46.§ x b6 e3+ 47.f6 51 .h3 <;t>e7 52 ..\ia4 \t>d6.
49 ...a4 0-1 Conclusion In general, the strategic element of doubled f-pawns is a very sensitive sub ject and only experience derived from practice can enable us to understand when to employ it and when to avoid it. Our decisions should be greatly in fluenced by the examination of the rest of our pawn structure, as well as the harmonious disposition of our army in its entirety.
73
(69) Kasparov - Kramnik Novgorod 1 994 Sicilian Defense [B33]
1.e4 c5 2 . .!£lc3 .!£lc6 3 . .!£lge2 .!£lf6 4.d4 cxd4 5. .!£l xd4 e5 6 . .!£ldb5 d6 7.Ag5 a6 8. .!£la3 b5 9 . .!£ld5 Ae7 10.Jtxf6 Axf6 ll.c3 0-0 12 . .!£lc2 §bS 13.h4 .i£le7 14 . .!£l xf6+ gxf6 15.�d2 Ab7 16.Ad3 d5 17.exd5 �xd5 18.0-0-0 e4 19.Ae2 � xa2 20. �h6 �e6 2 1 . .!£ld4 �b6 22.§h3
Chess Analytics Our first example involves two of the most recent former world champi ons; it is not only spectacular but also very instructive.
27.h5!! A forced - and good - queen sac. 27.l"o\ xb6?
�c l + 3 3 . lld l l"ol f8 3 4 . l"ol d8 ! ) 30.gxf7 +- ; 2 8 . . . 4Jxh3 29.gxf7! �c6 3 0 . l"ol x c6 ll x c 6 3 l . fx e8�+ AxeS 32.llxh3 +- ; 28. . . fxe6 29.l"ol xh7+ �g8 30.l"ol xb6 Ac8 3 l .l"olc6 f5 32 . .ilh3
2 9 . §. x h7+ 'it'g8 30.g xf7+ 'it'xh7 3l.fxe8� 4) xe6 32.Jlf5+1 Accuracy to the end. Not so clear would be the natural 32.llxe6?! �e5.
27... 4) xf4 Black is also forced to accept the sacrifice, as his alternatives don't help: 27 . . . �a5 28.hxg6 �al + 29.�c2
32 . . . 'it'g7 33.�g6+ 'it'f8 34.�xf6+ 'it'eS 35.Jlxe6 �f8? 1-0 This loses outright, but even the "best" try with 35 . . . e3 36.fxe3 Axg2 37.Af7+ �d7 38.lle8+ �c7 39.�g7+ �d8 40.llxb5 llf3 4l .Aa4 +- could not save Black, who now resigned in view of 36.Ad7+. (70) Mackenzie - Mason Paris 1 878 French Defense [CO l ]
l .e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lL!c3 4)f6 4.exd5 exd5 5.4)f3 J}.d6 6.Jld3 00 7.0-0 4)c6 8.J}.g5 4)e7 9.Jlxf6 gxf6 10.4)h4 'it'g7 1V�·h5 §.h8 12.f4 c6 13.f!f3 4)g6 14.§.afl �c7 15.4)e2 Jld7 16.4)g3 §.ag8 (D)
28.hxg6! If 28.l"ol xb6?, then there would be not a queen sacrifice, but White would be lost after 28 . . . l"ol xg4 29.4Jxf4 l"olxf4 30.l"ol xb7 l"olxf2 -+ .
28... �xd6 (D)
A well-known position which can be found in most combinational train ing media.
There is not much hope in the other options either: 28 . . .
17:�h6+! The black king gets a dinner invi tation, unfamiliar with the fact that he will be the main dish!
74
Queen Sac around the King 17 . . . ® x h6 18.4:)hf5+ A xf5 19.4:) xf5+ ®h5 20.g4+ Also good enough is 20.§h3+ 4Jh4 2 l . § xh4+ '
2 0 . . . ® x g4 2 l .E!g3+ ®h5 22.Ae2 # 1-0 (71) Halen - Biever Basel l 959 Ruy Lopez [C88]
(72) Liu - Donner Buenos Aires 1 978 Pirc Defense [B07]
1.e4 d6 2.d4 4Jf6 3.4Jc3 g6 4.Ae2 Ag7 5.g4 h6 6.h3 c5 7.d5 0-0 8.h4 e6 9.g5 hxg5 10.hxg5 4Je8 ll.�d3 exd5 12.4Jxd5 4:)c6 13.�g3 Ae6 14.�h4 f5 15.�h7+ ®f7 (D)
1.e4 e5 2.4Jf3 4Jc6 3.Ab5 a6 4.Aa4 4Jf6 s.o-o b5 6.Ab3 Ae7 7.E!e1 4Ja5 8.4J xe5 4J x b3 9.axb3 o-o 10.d3 E!eS ll.f4 Ab7 12.4Jg4 d5 13.e5 4Jd7 14.4Jc3 4Jf8 15.d4 c5 16.4Je2 �d7 17. 4Jg3 E!ac8 18.c3 Ah4 19.4Jh5 �f5 20.4Je3 �d7 21.g3 Ae7 22.f5 Ag5 23.�g4 �d8 (D) The great Donner faces an "acci dent" in the hands of an unknown Chi nese player:
16.� xg6+!! ® xg6 17.Ah5+ ®h7 18.Af7+! Ah6 19.g6+! The main point of the queen sac. Bad was 1 9 . § xh6+? 'it'g7 20. Jlxe6 4Jd4 + .
19 ...®g7
Black's position looks (and it is) miserable: a pawn down and badly placed pieces. But there is more to come !
19 ... 'it'h8 20.§ xh6+ '
20.Axh6+ 1-0 And Black resigned as he will get mated.
24.4J xg71? Although this looks spectacular, the "cold" 24.4Jc2 h6 25 .h4 +- was objectively best.
(73) Lobron - Sjodahl New York 1 994 Queen's Gambit Declined [D65]
24... ®xg7 25.f6+ ®g6?!
1.c4 e6 2.4Jc3 d5 3.d4 4Jf6 4.Ag5 Ae7 5.e3 4Jbd7 6.E!cl 0-0 7.4Jf3 a6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Ad3 c6 10. �c2 E!e8 11.0-0 4Jf8 12.h3 g6 13. E!fe1 4J e6 14.Ah6 4Jg7 15.�b3 4:)d7 16.e4 dxe4 17.E!xe4 4:)f5 (D)
The alternative 25 . . . «t'h8 26.�xg5 4Je6 27.�h5 cxd4 28.4Jf5 �d7 29.Jlh6 was also curtains, although B lack should have tried it (or resign here !).
26.�f5+ ®h5 27.g4+ ®h6 28.h4 4Je6 29.�xg5+! The usual (effective) stuff1
29 . . . .£1 xg5 31.h5 # 1-0
3 0 . 4:) f5+
®g6
75
Chess Analytics The late Alex Wojo falls victim to a nice queen sac:
22.'lN x h7+! A x h7 23.J£\ xf6 �g7?! Objectively better was 23 . . .�d4+ 24.�hl �h6 25 .l''\xh6 �g7 26 . .§ xh7+ �xf6 27.fxe5+ �xe5 28.�c3 ± , but no one likes to defend such an endgame.
24.fxe5 'lNd4+ 25.�hl jlgS 25 . . . �f7 26 . .§ xh7+ �e6 27.�c3 and it's all over.
At first sight this position looks like the stuff of natural, isolated d-pawns, where White has his usual development and space advantage, with a long battle to be expected. But if you dig deep enough, you will discover the weakness of the black king and especially of the weak f7-square. 18. 'lNxf7+! 1-0 Black resigned as 18 . . .�h8 19 .�g5 �f6 20.l"!.h4 or 18 . . .�xf7 19.�c4+ �f6 20.l"!. e6+ �fl 2 l .l"!.d6 # is more than convincing.
26.Ah6+?! White starts to mix things up . 2 6 . � x e 8 + l"!. x e8 2 7 . �h6+ �h8 28.�xf8+ �h7 29 . .§f7 was easy and effective. 26 ...�f7 (D)
(74) Skalik - Wojtkiewicz Katowice 1 995 English Opening [A34]
27.J£\d7+?
l .c4 c5 2.J£\c3 Jf:lf6 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 Jf:l xd5 5.Ag2 J£\c7 6.J£\f3 J£\c6 7.0-0 e5 8.d3 Ae7 9.Jf:\d2 Ad7 1 0 . J£\ c4 f6 l l . J£\ e3 0-0 1 2 .Jf:\ ed5 J£1 xd5 13.Jf:\ xd5 jld6 14.Ad2 �h8 15.§.cl a5 16.a3 §.eS 17.§.c4 Ae6 18.§.h4 jlfS 19.e4 J£\e7 20.'lNh5 Ags 21.f4 g6 (D)
Throwing the win away. The simple 27.�xe8+ �xeS 28 . .§ xf8+ �d7 29 . .§ xa8 �xb2 30 . .§f4 ± was to be expected.
27... J£\f5! Of course not 27 . . .�e6? 28.�h3+ �f5 29.�xf8+ l"!.xf8 30. exf5+ +- .
28.Jf:\ xf8 28.exf5 �xh6 29.l"!. xd4 cxd4 30.�xb7 l"!.ad8 +
28... 'lN xd3? Black returns the favor. Good enough was the simple 28 . . . l"!. xf8 29.exf5 �xb2 30.fxg6+ �e7 + .
29.exf5? White again "declines" to take chances. Unclear was 29.e6+! l"!. xe6 30.exf5 gxf5 3 l . �xe6 �xe6 32.l"!.hf4.
76
Queen Sac around the King 29 ... .§ xf8 30.e6+ �e7 31.f6+ �xe6 32 . .§e1 +?! (D)
The presence of so many attacking white pieces around the black king is obvious. In such situations the attack ing side is usually able to benefit from his strategic superiority with a tactical shot.
Wrong, as now Black is close to winning (after many mutual mistakes). A somewhat better try was 32 . .§ e4+ �xe4 33 . .axe4 .§xf6 + .
32 ... �d6?
30.�xg7+!
Probably B lack was moving quicker than his thoughts. Simple and decisive was 32 . . . �d7 33 . .§e7+ �d8.
Although 30 . .§ xh6 also wins, the text move is decisive and elegant.
33.Af4+! �d7 34. .§e7+ �d8 35.Ac7+
The lesser evil was 30 . . . �e7 3l ..ae5! .§g8 (31 . . .�xe5 32.�f6+ �f8 33 . .§ xh6) 32 . .af6+ �d6 33 . .§d2+.
30 ...�xg7
Oops! The difference is obvious.
35 . . . �c8 36.Ah3+ �f5 37.,ilxf5+ gxf5 38.,ile5 0-1
31.,ilxh6+ �g8 32 ..§g5+ �h8 33 ..1lg7+ �gs 34.Af6+ �fs (D)
Now that White finally is winning, he lost on time! What can someone say about such a game? Maybe just "Fare well, Dear Alex." (75) Kunte - van Dijk Ottawa 2007 Queen's Gambit Declined [D37]
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3 . .i£)c3 Ae7 4 . .!£)f3 .!£)f6 5.Af4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Axc5 8.�c2 .!£)c6 9.a3 �a5 10 . .!£) d 2 Ab4 1 l . c x d5 e x d5 12.Ad3 d4 13.0-0 ,ilxc3 14. .!£)c4 �h5 15.bxc3 dxe3 16..§ae1 exf2+ 17 . .§ xf2 Ae6 18 . .!£)e5 .!£)g4 19 . .!£) xg4 ,il xg4 20 . .§b1 .§adS 2l.h3 Ae6 22 . .§ x b7 h6 23 ..§b5 �h4 24 . .§c5 .i£)b8 25.�e2 �e7 26..§h5 �d7 27.Ac2 .§fe8 28.�f3 .!£)c6 29. �g3 �f8 (D)
35.Ah7! The remaining white pieces finish the job! 35 ....!£)e7 36.,ilg7 * 1-0 (76) Petrosian,T.L. - Minasian Yerevan 2006 Ruy Lopez [C67]
1.e4 e5 2..i£)f3 .!£)c6 3.Ab5 .!£)f6 4.0-0 .!£) xe4 5. �e2 .i£)g5 6 . .1£) xg5 � xg5 7.d4 �e7 8.dxe5 .!£) d4
77
Chess Analytics 9.tNd3 tNxe5 10.Jld2 4)e6 11.E!e1 tNd6 12.tNh3 Jle7 13.Jld3 c6 14.4)c3 tNc7 15.f4 g6 16.g4 0-0 17.f5 4)g5 18.tNe3 Jlf6 19.E!fl d5 20.fxg6 d4 21.gxh7+ �g7 22.tNel dxc3 23.Jlxc3 tNb6+ 24.�h1 Ad4 25. tNh4 4)e6 (D)
4.e3 a6 5.Jld3 Ag4 6.tNb3 Jlxf3 7.gxf3 E!a7 8.4)c3 e6 9.c5 4)bd7 10.Ad2 e5 11. tNc2 g6 12.f4 exd4 13.exd4 Ah6 14.0-0-0 0-0 15.f5 Axd2+ 16."�xd2 4)h5 17.§hg1 tNh4 18.�b1 4)df6 19.fxg6 fxg6 20.A xg6 h x g6 2 1 .tNh6 �f7 22.tN xg6+ �e7 23.E!de1+ �d8 24.tNh6 E!f7 25.E!g8+ �c7 26.§f8 E!h7 (D)
White has sacri ficed a piece, achieving in return an unstoppable at tack.
26.tNf6+!
27.4)a4!!
2 6 . !=l xf7 + ! 'itlxf7 ( 2 6 . . . !=l x f7 27.h8� * ) 27. l==l fl + 'itle8 28.!=l xf8+ 4::\xfS 29.ltxd4 �xd4 30.h8� +- was quite convincing as well.
The text move comes completely unexpectedly. The knight suddenly joins the mating attack. There was an other winning option: 27.�g6 § d7 28.§ee8 4Jxe8 29.�xe8 §d8 30.�e5+ 'itlc8 3 1 . l==l f7 l==l d7 3 2 . �f5 �d8 33.4:Ja4 +- but 27.4Ja4!! is much more spectacular (and effective of course). The alternatives are of no real help: 27 . . .�h3 28.4Jb6 !=l xh6 29.l==l e 7+ fol lowed by 30.§c8 mate or 27 . . . �xf2 28.�xh7+! 4::\xh7 29.§e7 * .
26 . . . Jl xf6 2 7 . Jl x f6+ �h6 28.§f5! 4)g7 (D) Not ruining such a rare and glori ous mating construction: 28 . . A:lg5 2 9 . l==l xg5 lt xg4 3 0 . !=l xg4 �f2 3 1 .l==l fl +- ; 28 ... �c5 29.l==l afl +- .
28.4)b6 Here it was not too late for White to make a mistake: 28. l==l e7+? 4Jd7 29.4Jb6 and it seems that there is no defense against 3 0 . l==l c8 but. . . 2 9 . . . �e4+ ! ! changes the evaluation. Still, White could still draw after 30.\t'cl �el + 3 l .'itlc2 �e2+ 32.'itlcl �c4+ 33 .\t'bl �fl + with perpetual check.
29.§h5+! 4) xh5 30.g5 # 1-0 (77) Milov Luther Merida 2003 Slav Defense [D 1 1 ] -
28...tNe4+ 28 . . . �h3 29.§e7+ �d7 30.l==l c8 *
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3 . .£\f3 4)f6
29.§ xe4 1-0 78
Queen Sac around the King And Black resigned as he can not avoid mate. With the exception of the king and some pawns, White used all his pieces to deliver mate to the black king!
.!dd7 13.h4 .!de5 14.f4 .!dc6 15.�d2 b5 16.h5 §dB 17.g6 .Q.f6 18. .Q.d3 §bS 19.e5 dxe5 20 . .!de4 .Q.e7 21.gxf7+ �h8 22.�g2 .Q.b7 (D)
(78) Apicella - Bauer Aix les Bains 2003 Caro-Kann Defense [B l 9]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.ldc3 dxe4 4 . .£! xe4 .Q.f5 5 . .£lg3 .Q.g6 6 . .!df3 .!dd7 7.h4 h6 8.h5 .Q.h7 9 . .Q.d3 .Q.xd3 10.�xd3 e6 ll ..Q.f4 .£lgf6 12.0-0-0 .Q.e7 13.�b1 0-0 14. .!de4 �a5 1 5 . .£! x f6+ .£! x f6 16 . .!d e 5 §adS 17.�g3 �h8 18.§d3 .!dd5 19. .Q.d2 �b6 20.c4 .!df6 21 . .Q.e3 �a5 22.§b3 �a6 23. �f3 �g8 24.g4 .!dd7 25.g5 .!d xe5 26.dxe5 hxg5 27.h6 �xc4 28.hxg7 �xg7 (D)
White's attack seems to be strong enough, but still the question of how to continue remains difficult. Or perhaps not?
23.�g611 A beautiful move, revealing the heart of a true attacker. White makes no secrets about his wish to mate opponent's king.
23... .!db4 The other options were: 23 . . .hxg6? 24.hxg6+ .ilh4 25.l"lxh4 # ; or 23 ... § xd3 24.§dgl l"ldl + 25.�xdl �d8+ 26.�cl �f8 27 .J:ic5 l"ld8 28A:Jg5 +- .
24.E{dg1! .Q.fS Or 2 4 . . . 4J x d 3 + 2 5 . � b l l"l g8 26.cxd3 +- .
It seems that B lack can parry White's attack and, being two pawns up, even win the game. But White has at his disposal a well hidden ace:
25 . .!df6! Good enough was 25.4Jg5 +- .
29. .Q.xg5! .Q.xg5 30.�f6+!! 1-0
as
well
25 . . . .£l x d3 + 26.�b1 h x g6 27.hxg6+ .Q.xh1 28.§ xh1 # 1-0
A wonderful finish! Black resigned in view of 30 . . . .ilxf6 3 U 'lg3+ �g4 32.§ xg4+ J:ig5 33.§ xg5 # .
(80) Daskalov - Evstatiev Sofia 2004 Sicilian Defense [B80]
(79) Smeets - Werle Groningen 2002 Sicilian Defense [B80]
l.e4 c5 2 . .!df3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. .!d xd4 .!df6 5 . .!dc3 a6 6 . .Q.c4 e6 7. .Q.e3 .Q.e7 8.f3 d5 9.exd5 exd5 10..Q.b3 0-0 11.�d2 .!dc6 12.0-00 .ida5 13 ..!dce2 .£l xb3+ 14. .!d x b3
1.e4 c5 2 . .!df3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. .£! xd4 .!df6 5. .£lc3 .!dc6 6.f3 e6 7 . .Q.e3 .Q.e7 8.�d2 a6 9.g4 �c7 10.0-0-0 .£! xd4 11. �xd4 0-0 12.g5
79
Chess Analytics also now B lack eas i ly wins the endgame.
Ad7 15.g4 Ac6 16.J�)bd4 E!,e8 17. 4) g3 4)d7 1 8 . 4) gf5 4)e5 1 9 . 4) x e7+ '{;N x e7 20.Af4 4) c4 21.'{;Nf2 El.ec8 22.'it>bl '{;Nb4 23.Acl a5 24.h4 a4 25.g5 Ad7 26.c3 '{;Nb6 27.'it>a1 4)a5 28.'{;Ng2 (D)
34 . . . j'i xe4+ 3 5 . '{;N x e4 El, x e4 36.Ad4 E!.ce8 37.'it>cl El.e2 38.h5 b5 39.h6 gxh6 40.E!,xh6?! 0-1 White resigned "in time" in the face ofthe coming mate after 40 ... §c2+ 4 1 .'it'dl § aS. The last game is not actually a queen sacrifice but a pure blunder! Be ware: sometimes the queen is blundered and not sacrificed! In some ways this should serve as a warning to not get too carried away by the previous examples, but base such sacrifices on a firm foun dation . . .
It is always a pleasure when you can win a game with a queen sacrifice, but sometimes this just does not work and here we have one of these "nasty" cases. Black should continue with 2S . . . a3! 29.h5 axb2+ 30.�xb2 'ltfc7 + .
(81) Erdogdu - Howell Khanty Mansiysk 20 1 0 Giuoco Piano [C54]
l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3.Ac4 Ac5 4.c3 4)f6 5.d3 a6 6.0-0 Aa7 7.El.el d6 8.Ab3 0-0 9.h3 4)e7
29.E!.xd4 29.cxd4?
A move in fashion, planning to re group the knight on g6 and freeing the c-pawn.
29 ... 4)b3+ 30.axb3? But White falls for the decoy. He could have put Black's sacrifice into question with 30.'it'b l ! Af5+ 3 1 .§e4
10.4)h4 Most often met is 1 0 .
30 . . . a x b3+ 3 1 .'it>bl Af5+ 32.El.e4 dxe4 33.fxe4 (D)
33 ... E!,a4!
tt.Ag5?t
That's what White missed.
It seems that White had to go for l l .
34.Ae3 34.exf5 §caS and Black mates. But
80
A King's Golden Cage Ae6 14.
A King's Golden Cage Concept As I wrote in one of my several surveys, "Nowadays it is acceptable that all combinative motives can be catego rized and learned by training methods." One more combination "pattern" we will examine in the present survey. Of course only the diagrammed positions for these examples could have been given, without any comments about the previous moves. But in my opinion, a combination is only the tip of the ice berg, a natural consequence of the chessplayer strategy. The reader should study how the game "produces" the critical moment of the potential combi nation; how this is born in the mind of the chessplayer. You see, combinations are not born in the sky but are the result of correct strategy and evaluation. (D)
ll ...�h8! A good reply. White should be happy after 1 l . . .
12.4)f5 The alternative, 1 2.d4, is not good because B lack can p lay 1 2 . . . h6! 13.
12 ...h6 13 ...Q.e3 c51? Black would also have an easy game after the natural 1 3 . . . A x e 3 14.fxe3 ( 14.
15.exd5? A bad b lunder. Unfortunately 1 5 .4:\xh6 did not work because of 1 5 . . . c4! ( 1 5 . . . gxh6 1 6 . .\lxh6 � g8 17 . .ilg5 oo /=) 16.Axa7 � xa7 17.dxc4 dxc4 1 8 . .1lxc4 gxh6 1 9 . '{JJ e 3 b6 20.'{JJ x h6+ 4:\h7 + but White had try 1 5.4:\g3 Ae6 1 6.4Ja3=.
15 ... ..Q.xf5 16.�xf5 4)h41 0-1
White seems to be in trouble. His queen is attacked and 1 . .1le4+ g6 2 . .1lc2 Ag7 '1' looks like his only defense. But the truth is different. The uncomfortable placement of the black king can decide the game in no time!
l.g6+! fxg6 Or l . . .�xg6 2.Ae4+ �h6 3.�h8 # . But now the golden cage has closed its gates!
2.�xb2!
And White had to resign as his queen will be lost after 1 7. '{JJx e5 Ab8 18.d6 .\lxd6.
The second step: the black bishop must abandon the protection of the g5square.
81
Chess Analytics 2. . .Axb2 4.§h8 # 1-0
3 . 4) g 5 +
As always, this certain combination can be categorized, according to certain factors. These factors can be: l . The back rank is not adequately protected. 2 . There are or can be created, doubled g- (or b-) pawns in the opponent's castled position. 3 . The queen can be sacrificed, opening the road for the rooks (or other pieces). 4. The opponent's king can be driven to the h- (or a-) file. 5. The (doubled) rook(s) can de liver the final blow from the eighth rank. "During a chess competition a chessmaster should be a combination of a beast ofprey and a monk" -Alexander Alekhine. (82) Alekhine - Colle Paris 1 925 Chigorin Defense [D07]
1.d4 d5 2.c4 4)c6 3.4)f3 Ag4 4. �a4!? Axf3
6...Ab4?1 I do not really like the text move, which surrenders the bishop pair to White and improves his pawn structure. Black should have gone for the much better 6 . . . 4::\g e7! 7 .Ag5 (7.Ae3 g6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Ab5 Ag7 10.0-0 0-0= Fuster-Bronstein, Budapest 1 949) 7 ... �d7 8.l"\d1 (8.cxd5 <£\xd5 9.Ab5 .ll e 7 1 0 .Axc6 bxc6 1 l .Axe7 4::\ x e7 1 2 .0-0 0-0 13.l"\ac l l"\fb8 14.b3 a5= Gebhardt-Zaragatski, Hamburg 2005) 8 . . .h6 9.Af4 g5 1 0.Ae3 Ag7 1 l .cxd5 exd5 1 2 .h4 0-0-0 oo Ivanov-Watson, New York 1 984.
7.a31 A x c3+ 8 . b x c3 4) ge7 9.§b1 §b8 10.cxd5 �xd5
The main alternative is 4 . . . dxc4!? 5.e3 .llxf3 6.gxf3 e5 7.dxe5 �d5 8.4::\c3 �xf3 9.l"\g1 �h5 10 ..1lg2 4::\ge7 1 l .f4 0-0-0 1 2 .�xc4 g5 oo Braun-Rodshtein, Budapest 2006.
The other capture with 1 0 . . . exd5 is also pleasant for White: 1 1 ..1ld3 0-0 1 2 . �c2 ( 1 2 . 0-0 �d6 [ 1 2 . . . 4::\ c S?! 1 3 . �c 2 h6 1 4 .a4 4::\ b 6 1 5 . �a2 ± Borocz-Ruck, Zalakaros 1 995] 1 3.g3 4::\g6 1 4.Ab2 a6 1 5.�c2 4::\ce7 16.h4 l"\fe8 17.h5 4::\fS 18 . .\.icl h6 19.Af4 ;j; Smistik-Novak, Svetla nad Sazavou 1 996) 1 2 . . . 4::\g6 1 3.0-0 l"\e8 1 4.f4 �d6 1 5 .g3 4::\ a 5 1 6 . f5 4::\ fS 1 7 . Af4 ± Kempinski-Spyra, Karvina 1 994. The bishop pair is like heaven, at least in this kind of position.
5.exf3 e6 B l ack has also tried 5 . . . dxc4 6.Axc4 �xd4 7.4::\c 3 e6 8 ..1le3 (8.0-0 .ll d6 9 . l"\ d 1 oo /= Portisch-Mariotti, Budapest 1 975) 8 . . . �e5 9.Ab5 4::\ge7 10.0-0 0-0-0 1 l .l"\ad1 l"\xd1 1 2.l"\xd1 a5? (12 ... a6 1 3 .f4 �h5 14 . .\lxa6! �a5 1 5 .�xa5 4::\x a5 16.Ad3 ;!; ) 1 3.f4 �h5 14.b4! 4::\d 5 1 5 .4::\x dS 4::\ xb4 ( 1 5 . . . exd5 1 6.bxa5 d4 1 7.a6! +- ) l 6.Ae2! �xe2 1 7.�e8 # 1-0 Inkiov-Dubois, Clichy
1 t .Ad3 o-o 1 2.0-o �d6 13.�c2 4)g6 14.f4 4)ce7
82
A King's Golden Cage Not helpful is 1 4 . . J,jxf4 1 5 .Axh7+ \t'h8 1 6.Ae4 4Jd5 1 7J'l el ± . Black is constantly under pressure . . .
26 . . . .§ e8 27 . .§ e l .§ dd8 28 . .§ e2 �d7 29 . .§cel is another try for Black, although White retains his advantage.
27.§.el §.bd8 28.fyc6?!
15.g3 §.fd8 16.§.dl b6 17.a4 (D)
I rather like 28 . .§cdl 4Je7! 29. .§d3! (29.Axh7+?! 'itif8 30.Ae4 4Jxd5) where White keeps a nice advantage . 28... f1g5? (D)
White enjoys a healthy advantage. His bishop pair and the possibility to seize the initiative On both flanks is a welcome concept for every strong player.
This is a fatal mistake, which al lows a nice combination. Black had to continue with 28 . . . 4Je7! 2 9 . �xf6 (29.�b5 g6 30 . .§ cdl 4Jf5 3 l .�b4 [3l .Axf5 �xfS 32. �a6=] 3 1 . . .4Jd6=) 29 . . . gxf6 30.d6 .§ xd6 3 l ..§c7 .§Sd7 32.Axh7+ \t'f8 33 . .§ xd7 .§ xd7 34.Ac2 .§d2 3S . .§cl ;!; . At first sight it would seem that Black has neutralized the dangerous passed d-pawn, and there is no way for White to make use of the Black's tem porary weakness on the back rank.
t7... tcld5 ts.Ad2?1 1 8.f5! is more accurate: 18 . . . exfS 19.Axf5 ± as now Black cannot con tinue with 19 . . . c5? because of 20.dxc5 �xeS 2 U 'lb5 +- .
18...c5! Black must create pawn weak nesses in White's camp to find some counterplay.
19 .f5 e xf5 20.jl xf5 c x d4 2 1 .c x d4 tcl de7 2 2 . Ab4 fyf6 23.Axe7?1 White should maintain his slight advantage with 2 3 .Ah3 4Jc6! (23 ... .§ xd4?! 24.tk7 .§e8 25 . .§el .§dd8 26.Ag2 ± ) 24.d5 4Jxb4 25 . .§xb4 �d6 26 . .§e4 ;!; .
29.Axg6! This looks quite strange, since now the d-pawn cannot be protected any more. But Alekhine uses this move to support his strategic plan with tactical nuances. 29 ...hxg6? (D)
23 ... fyxe7 Of course not 2 3 . . . 4J x e 7? 24.Axh7+ \t'f8 25.Ae4! .§xd4 26 . .§ xd4 �xd4 27 . .§dl �e5 28 . .§ d7 ± .
24.§.bcl §.d5? According to modem middlegame theory, Black had to create a passed pawn of his own to maintain equal chances. This is best done with 24 . . . a6! 25 .d5 bS 26.axb5 axbS=.
25.Ae4 §.d7 26.d5 'lt1f6
83
Chess Analytics 1 5.�a4+ �d7 16.�xb4 �xd3 1 7 ..ila3 0-0-0 l S . §. fe l Axf3 1 9 . §. e 3 �d2 2 0 . §. xf3 �xb4 2 l . .ilxb4 §. d4 + Drozdovskij-Smeets, Oropesa del Mar 1 998.
Obviously 29 . . . �xg6? was bad be cause of 30.�xd7 with a simple mate threat, but what is wrong with Colle's move which, after all, opens a safe ha ven for the black king on h7? In fact the only move was 29 . . .fxg6 though it wouldn't have changed White's deci sive advantage: 30.�e6+ §.f7 (30 ... <>t'fS 3 l .§.c4! §.f7 [3l . . .§. xd5 loses nicely to 32.§.f4+ §.f5 33.§.e5!!] 32.§.cS wins) 3 l .§.cS §. xeS ( 3 1 . . .h6 32.f4; 3 l . . .<>t'f8 32.�eS+ §. xeS 33.§.cxeS # ) 32.�xcS+ §. fS 3 3 . §. eS �f6 3 4 . §. x fS + �xfS 3 5 .�c7! ( 3 5 . �c6 �dS 3 6 . d6 <>t'f7 37.�c4+ <>t'f8 38.�c7 <>t'eS 39.�xg7 �xd6 40.�gS+ �d7 4l .�xh7+ <>t'c6 4 2 .h4! ± but not 4 2 .�x a7? �d l + 43.�g2 �d5+ 44.f3 �d2+ 45 .<>t'h3 �h6+ 46.<>t'g4 �h5+ 47.�f4 �f5+ 4 S . � e 3 = ) 35 . . . �f3 3 6 . �bS+ �fS 37.�xa7 �d6 38.�b7 <>t'fS 39.�fl +- .
12 ... §.c8 Obviously 1 2 . . . �xd4? 1 3.Axc6+ .ilxc6 14.4Jxc6 favors White.
13.§d1 4) xe4 Black must capture the bishop, as after 1 3 . . . 0-0? 1 4.Af3 ± he will face huge difficulties in advancing his c pawn to c5.
14.�xe4 0-0 15.Af4 Aa8 With 1 5 ... Af6!? 16.§.d3 �e7 Black could obtain a position from the game Stefanova-S.Polgar, Vienna 1 996 (with the white rook on fl instead of a l ), in which Polgar successfully neutralized her opponent's initiative and won.
16.§.d3 c5 17.�e31
30.'�xd7!! §.xd7 31.§.e8+
Black would have an easy game after 1 7.d5 exd5 1S.cxd5 .ild6=.
The correct rook. The alternative, 3 l .§. cS+? §.dS -+ , would have ruined an excellent combination.
17... �e81 The text move avoids a devilish trap, which can be seen after 17 . . . cxd4? 1S.§. xd4 �eS 1 9.4Jd7 Ac5 (D)
31 ...
32...§.d8 33.§.exd8! 1-0 3 3 . §. cxdS? prolongs the game : 33 . . . �cl + 34.<>t'g2 g5 ± . But now Black had to resign. (83) Mamedyarov - Timofeev Moscow 2004 Semi-Slav Defense [D45]
.£1 xe4
2 0 .4Jf6 + ! gxf6 2 1 .Ah6 .ile4 (21 . . .<>t'hS? 22 .Ag7+! <>t'xg7 23.§.g4+ �hS 24.�h6 mates) 2 2 .�xe4 <>t'hS (22 . . .f5? 23.�g4+! fxg4 24.§.xg4+ <>t'hS 25 . .ilg7+ <>t'gS 26 . .ilf6 # ) 23.§.d2 §.gS 24.§.adl ± .
1 2.Jld3 c5 seems to be fine for Black: 1 3.dxc5 .ilxc5= 14.b4?! .ilxb4
White should consider continuing 1S.dxc5!? f6! ( 1 S . . . .ilxc5?! 1 9 .�g3 ± )
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3..£1c3 c6 4.e3 4)f6 5. .£1f3 .£1bd7 6. �c2 b6 7.Ad3 Ab7 8.0-0 Ae7 9.e41? Most players try 9.b3 here.
9 . . . d xe4 1 0 . 4) x e4 ll.Axe4 4)f6 12.4)e5
18.d5?!
84
A King's Golden Cage 19.4::ld7 e5! (19 ... .\lxc5? 20.4::lx c5 .§ xc5 2 1 . Ad6) 2 0 . Ag3 ( 2 0 . 4::\ xfS e x f4 2 1 .�xf4 ilxfS 22.cxb6 axb6 23.b3 oo ) 20 ... .\lxc5 2 1 .�e2 .§f7 22.4::l x c5 .§ xc5 23.b3 ::!; .
White missed the strong 29.�xf7! Jle4 30 . .§g3 �e5 3 1 .f4 �f6 32.�xf6 gxf6 33 . .§d4 Abl 34.a4 a6 35.f5 ± .
29 ... §xd6? (D)
18...exd5 19.cxd5 c4! 1 9 . . . Ad6 20.�g3 ::!; .
20.§ddl 20 . .§ d2 ilb4 2 1 ..§ddl Ad6 does not change anything.
2o...Ad6 Black would be also stand fine af ter 20 . . .f6 2 1 .4Jg4 (2 l .d6? fxe5 22.d7 �g6; 2 1 . 4Jc6 Axc6 22 .dxc6 .§ xc6 23 . .§ e l .§f7) 2 l . . .Ac5 22.�g3 �d7 23.4Je3 Axe3 24.fxe3 f5.
21.�g3 �b5?! (D)
Black should have continued 2 l . . . .§ c 5 ! 2 2 . 4::l x c4 ( 2 2 . 4::l d 3 Jl x f4 2 3 . 4J x f4 �e4 24 . .§ a c l �f5 oo ) 22 . . . ilxf4 23.�xf4 .§ xd5=.
22 . .£jc6! Axf4 23. .£le7+ �h8 24.�xf4 §cd8 25.§d2 �c5 26.d6 §d7?!
The text move loses by force, as White can present the "usual combina tion." Bad was also 29 . . .h6 30.�xf7 �g5 3 1 . .§ g3 �f6 3 2 . 4Jg6+ <;t>h7 33.4::\fS + +- but Black should try the interesting and far from completely clear line with 29 . . . �b4!? 30 . .§ de2 �xd6 3 l .�xf7 �dl + 3 2 . § e l �g4 33.f3 (33 . .§g3? §dl!) 33 . . .�d4 34.�fl �f6 3 5 . 4Jg6+! hxg6 36.§ e8+ �h7 37.�g8+ <;t>h6 38.h4! (38.�h8+ �g5 39.§8e5+ �xe5 40.§ xe5+ <;t>f4 41 .§e8 § d l + 4 2 . �f2 § l d 2 ::!; ) 38 . . . g 5 ! 39.�h8+! (39.§ 1e6 §dH ) 3 9. . . �g6 40.hxg5 § xeS 41 .�xe8+ �f7 42.�xa8 �d5 43.�e8+ �f7 44.�c8 ± or the modest but safe enough 29 .. .f6! 30.§e6 �g5 31 .�xg5 fxg5 ::!; .
30. .£jg6+!! hxg6 The alternatives are 30 . . . fxg6 3 1 .�xd6 § xd6 32.§e8 • ; 30 . . . § xg6 3 l . § xd8+; and 30 . . . �g8 3 l . § xd6 �xd6 32.t¥xd6 § xd6 33.§e8.
White, helped by B lack's 2 1 st move, achieved an advantage, but Black's last move increases it. Better was 26 . . . f5 ::!; .
3l.�h4+ �h5 Or 3 l . . . �g8 3 2 .�xd8+ § x d8 33.§ xd8+ �h7 34.§h3+ +- .
27.§cl b5 28.§c3! Threatening .§h3-h7+!.
32.� xd8+! § xd8 33. § x d8+ �h7 34.§ee8 1-0
28... §fd8 Black seems to be short of moves : 2 8 . . . g6 29.�f6 • ; 2 8 . . . h6 29 .4Jg6+; 28 .. .f5!? 29 . .§e3 ± .
B l ack resigned as the forced 34 ... g5 35.§h8+ �g6 36.§ xh5 <;t>xh5 37.§ xa8 leaves him a rook down.
29.§e3?!
85
Chess Analytics 1 S . dxe4 4:Jexe4 1 6 . 4:J x d6 � x d6 1 7 . �xd6 4:J x d6 1 8 . Af4 ;;!; Kogan Jonkman, Lisbon 2000. (b) 12 . . . 4:J5b6 13.4:Je4 Ae7 1 4.a4 ( 1 4 . .ile3 �h8 l S . f! ac l ;;!; Bri card Stefansson, B ischwil ler 1 9 99) 14 . . . �h8! ( 1 4 . . . a S 1 S . Ae3 .ilb4 1 6 . E! fe l �h8 1 7 . 4:J e S [ 1 7 . d4!?) 1 7 . . . 4:JxeS 18 ..\lxeS AxeS 19.f! xeS f6= Foisor-Delgado Crespo , Benasque 200 1 ; 1 4 . . . f! b8? l S .aS 4:Je8 16.d4! ± Ivanov,M-Kharitonov, Moscow 1 995) l S . a S fS ! oo Vagan ian-Kha l i fman, Eupen 1 994.
(84) Azmaiparashvili - Shirov Dubai 2002 Reti Opening [A07]
l.g3 d5 2 . .Q.g2 4)f6 3.d3 c6 4.4)d2 -'l,g4 5.h3 .Q.h5 6.4)gf3 4)bd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 .Q.d6 9.exd5 cxd5 10.g4!? The most usual move is 1 0.e4 0-0 (10 ... d4 1 l .�e2 0-0 12.g4 .llg6 1 3.4:Jh4 4:Je5 1 4 . 4:Jxg6 hxg6 1 5 .b4 ± King Norwood, Germany 1 994) 1 1 . exd5 4::l xd5 1 2 .�b3 ( 1 2.4:Je4!? Ae7 1 3 .�b3 4:J5b6 14.Ag5! �e8 1 5 .f!fe1 [ 1 5 .f!acl 4:Jxe4? 1 6.�xe4 ;!; Hodgson-De la Villa Garcia, Dos Hermanas 1 992] 1 5 . . . �h8 1 6.Ad2 f6 1 7 . .ilb4 f!g8 1 8 . 4:Jd4 ;!; Norwood-Girinath, Calcutta 1 994) (D)
10 . . . .Q.g6 1 1 . 4) h4 12.4) xg6 hxg6 13.c4
0-0
The alternative is 1 3 . 4:Jf3 f! e8 1 4 . 4:Jh4 4:Jb6 1 S .a4 a 5 oo Haziev Bakhtiyarova, U fa 2004.
13... 4)c5 14.4)b3 Or 14.exdS 4::l xd3 1 S.4:Je4 ( 1 S.�b3 4:Jf4) 1 5 . . . 4:Jxel 1 6.f!xe1 f!e8=.
14...dxc4 15.dxc4 �c7 16. .Q.e3 The alternative, 1 6.4:JxeS AxeS 17.g5 4:JhS 1 8.�b3, is also unclear. But in general Black should happy with the outcome o f the opening, since he is fighting on equal terms, having neutral ized White's (minimal) opening edge.
and now: (a) 1 2 . . . 4:J5f6 1 3 .4:Je4 ( 1 3 .4:Je4 4::l x e4 1 4 .dxe4 4:Je5 1 5 .�d5 .ilxf3 16.Axf3 �f6 17 ..llg2 f!fd8 18.Ae3 Af8 1 9.�e4 4:Jd3= Norwood-Adams, Ply mouth 1 9 89) 1 3 . . . 4:Je5 ( 1 3 . . . Ae7 14 . .ile3 b6 1 5 . f! fe 1 f! e8?! [ 1 5 . . . a6 1 6 . d4 ; 1 5 . . . f! e8!?; 1 5 . . . f! b8 1 6.d4] 1 6 . d4 Axf3 [ 1 6 . . . e xd4 1 7 . 4:Jxd4 ± ; 1 6. . . e4 1 7.4:Jfe5 x e6, e4] 1 7. .ilxf3 e4 [ 1 7 . . . exd4 1 8 . .ilxd4 ± ) 1 8.Ag2 f! e8 [ 1 8 . . . a 6 ! ] 1 9 . f! ae 1 ± [ 1 9 . �b5 !?) Vaganian-Torre, Moscow 1 994) 1 4.�a3 e4 (14 . . . .ilxf3 1 5 .Axf3 Ae7 1 6.4:Jxe5 4:Jed7 1 7.�e3 f! e8 18.�e1 Ae5 1 9 . 4:J x d 7 � x d7 2 0 . �g2 ;;!; Vaganian-Kaidanov, Glendale 1 994)
16 ...e4!? 17.4) xc5
Bad is 17 .gS?! 4:Jfd7 'i' .
1 7 . . . .Q. x c 5 18 . .Q. x c 5 � x c 5 19. �e2 §.fe8 20.§.acl Interesting is 20.f!ad1 when Black should avoid 20 . . . e3? 2 1 ..ilxb7 f!ab8 22 . .ildS f! xb2 23.�xb2 e2 24.�bS ± .
20... §.ad8 2l.§.c3 §.d4 22. �e3 §.ed8 23.§.el?! In my opinion White should have tried 23.gS 4:Jh7 24.h4 oo .
23... �b4?!
Why not 23 . . . gS! 24.a3 a5 'i' ? 24.g5! (D)
86
A King's Golden Cage
29 . .§.f3?
2 4 . a3?! �xb2 2 5 . .§ b 3 �c2 26 . .§ xb7 .§ xc4 27 . .§ xa7 l="\dl 28.l="\fl l="\c8 is about equal, although it seems that White should be on the alert.
An interesting moment of mutual blindness. Both players overlooked the well-known combination 29.l"'\e8+ 'it'h7 3 0 . � x d 2 ! �xd2 3 1 . l="' cc8 � x g 5 + 32 .'it'fl 4Jg3+ 3 3 . 'it' e l +- . The only logical explanation is that this was a rapid game, but still...
24... .§.d3? Black had to be satisfied with the modest 2 4 . . . 4Jh7 2 5 .Axe4 �xb2 26..§b3 �xa2 27.Axb7 4:lxg5 28.l"'\ a3 �d2 29.�xd2 l="\xd2 30.Ad5 +=.
29...� xf3 30.�xd2 �f4 And now Black wins!
25.�cl?!
31.�xf4 �xf4 32 . .§.dl �xg5+ 33. fl f8 0-1
A much better continuation than the game was the simple 25 . .§ xd3! .§ xd3 26.�c1 4Jh5 27.l"'\xe4 .§ d2 28.a3 �xb2 2 9 .�xb2 l="\ xb2 30 . .§ e8+ �h7 3 1 . l="' e7 ± . But keep in mind that this was a rapid game...
Sometimes we can come across similar patterns, which help us not to mate on the usual way, but just to win material or even strategical superiority. An excellent example is the following game between the two Ks:
25 ...�h5 26.Axe4 .§.d2? Too optimistic. Black had to play 26 ... l="\xc3 27.�xc3 �xc3 28.bxc3 b6 2 9 .Ad5 4Jf4 3 0 . 'it' h 2 �f8 ! ;!; (30 . . . 4:lxd5?! 3 1 ..§dl 'it'f8 32.cxd5 �e7 33.c4 ± ) .
(85) Kasparov - Karpov Moscow 1 985 Nimzo-Indian Defense [E2 1 ]
27.Ad5! .§.8xd5
l.d4 �f6 2.c4 e6 3.�c3 Ab4 4.�f3 0-0 5.Ag5 c5 6.e3 cxd4 7.exd4 h6 8.Ah4 d5 9 . .§.cl dxc4 10.Axc4 �c6 11.0-0 Ae7 12 . .§.el b6 13.a3 Ab7 14.Ag3 .§.c8 15.Aa2 Ad6 16.d5 � xd5 17.� xd5 Axg3 18. h x g3 e x d5 1 9 . A x d5 �f6 20.�a4 .§.fd8 2l . .§.cdl .§.d7 (D)
Black had counted on the text move when going in for this variation, as the alternatives are clearly lost for him: 27 ... �xb2 28.�xb2 l="\ xb2 29.l="\f3 'it'h7 3 0 . l="\ e7 +- ; 27 . . . .§ xb 2 2 8 . a 3 �b6 29.c5 +- . 28.cxd5 �f4 (D)
87
Chess Analytics has been detached from the rest of its camp's pawn structure and can be sup ported only by pieces. One very sensi tive issue that both sides must attend to with great care is the matter of piece exchanges. The question to be asked is: which piece exchange is favorable for each side, and consequently undesirable for the other? In general, the possessor ofthe iso lated pawn should avoid unnecessary piece exchanges without gaining any thing substantial in return. If he must accede to some exchange and has a choice, then it is best to avoid ex changes of the minor pieces (bishops and knights) and prefer those of the major pieces (queens and rooks). In an endgame with minor pieces, the chances of survival are especially high, while in a major-piece ending these chances are virtually nil. This survey focuses on what happens when the side with the isolated pawn has wrongly exchanged important minor pieces, thus minimiz ing chances for active play. Then the important strategic theme ofthe useless isolani becomes a reality!
22. �g4! §cd8? E qually bad was 2 2 . . . l"' e7? 2 3 . l"' x e 7 ! '{gxe7 24 . .ll x f7 + ! '{gxf7 2 5 . l"l. d7 h5 26.'(gh3 +- or 22 . . . l"'dc7 23.b4! ;;; or finally 22 . . . 1"\ddS 23.b4! ;;; . But Black could have achieved a per fectly playable position with 22 . . . l"\d6! 2 3 . lle4 (23 . l"' e4 l"' f8! 2 4 . l"l. f4 '(gd8 2 5 .'(gh5 4:le5!) 23 . . . 1"\ cdS 2 4 . l"' xd6 l"' xd6 25 .b4 l"' e6!=.
23.�xd7! The usual pattern. The queen is sacrificed in order to open the road to the back rank to win material by taking advantage of the opponent's king's placement.
23 . . . § x d7 25 . .11,e4+ 1-0
24. §e8+
'it'h7
Black resigned as he is losing too much material after 25 . . . g6 26.l"\ xd7 .lla6 27 . .llxc6.
Our first example is an excellent lesson on how to profit from such a pawn's negative factors:
Conclusion A king in a cage is like a bird with out a brilliant future . . . But of course this is a very definite combination mo tif which we should keep in our mind and either try to repeat, or avoid!
(86) Kortschnoi - Karpov Merano 1 98 1 Queen's Gambit Declined [D53]
l.c4 e6 2.l�� c3 d5 3.d4 .11,e7 4.4)f3 4)f6 5.Ag5 h6 6. .11.h4 o-o 7.§cl dxc4 8.e3 c5 9.Axc4 cxd4 10.exd4 4)c6 11.0-0 4)h5 12. .11, xe7 4) xe7 13.Ab3 4)f6 14.4)e5 Ad7 1 5 . �e2 §c8 16.4)e4 4) xe4 1 7 . � x e4 Ac6 18. 4) xc6 § x c6 19.§c3 �d6 20.g3 §d8 2l.§dl §b6 22. �el �d7 23.§cd3 §d6
The Useless Isolani Concept A pawn i s considered i solated when there are no pawns of the same color on the neighboring files. Thus, it
88
The Useless Isolani 24. �e4 �c6 25. �f4 'dd5 26. �d2 �b6 27.Axd5 l3,xd5 (D)
33 ... a5! 34.l3,xa4 �b5! Black's pieces become extremely active (compare them to the passive and less than harmoniously placed White's pieces) and they are ready to penetrate into White's camp. 35.l3.d2 (D)
White did not handle the position's requirements properly, as he exchanged all the minor pieces without benefiting thereby. As a result, he has been saddled with a useless isolani and arduous de fense in a worse position. Black has a clear plan: triple his heavy pieces along the d-file (e.g., . . . 1"18d7, . . . 'ifrd8) and then proceed with an eventual . . . e5, winning the white d4-pawn.
28.l3.b3 �c6 29.�c3 �d7 The rush with 29 . . . e5? 30.'\ftxc6 bxc6 3 1 .1"1cl exd4 32.1"1 xc6 d3 33.Rc l would reduce Black's advantage to the mmtmum.
30.f4
35 ...e51
The only way to avoid losing the d4-pawn. But now the white king is further weakened. Although Black can continue with a direct plan involving .. .f6 and . . . e5 he decided to focus on the opponent's king.
Black no longer is interested in the d4-isolani; the white king is the main target.
36.fxe5 l3.xe5 Threatening 3 7 . . . 1"1 e 1 +.
37.�al
30...b6
The alternatives are equally diffi cult for White: (a) 37.§£2 1"1 e l + 38.�g2 '\ftc6+ 39.d5! l"1 xd5! (39 . . . '\ftxdS+ 40.'ifrf3 + ) 40.'\ftf3 'ifte6 4 l .b4 1"1e3 42.'\ftf4 1"1h5 43.h4 g5 44.'\ftf6 'l¥¥e 4+ 45.§£3 !"'1 xf3 46.'\ftxf3 'l¥¥c 2+ 47.�gl '\ftxa4 48.'\ftxh5 axb4 -+ ; (b) 3 7 . d x e 5 1"1 x d2 3 8 . !"'1 x a 5 'ifte2 -+ .
30 . . . b5?! 3 1 . 1"1 a 3 ! creates some counterplay and of course should be avoided!
3l.l3.b4 b5! Threatening 32 ... a5 ! .
32.a4 bxa4 33.�a3 (D) No help is 33 .'ifrc4 1"1a5 34.'ifrd3 1"1 c8 3 5 . 1"1 d2 'ifrd6 3 6 . !"'1 c4 l"1 x c4 37.'\ftxc4 a3 38.bxa3 !"'1 xa3. Now Black executed the final phase of his instruc tive plan:
37...�e81 Forcing White's hand, as the threat
89
Chess Analytics .£} xd5 10.c x d5 .£} x d4 1 1 . .£} x d4 e x d4 12.i�\'xd4 0-0 13.e3 Ad7 14.0-0 c5 15.dxc6 Axc6 16.§.fd1 E!fd8 17.§.acl Axg2 18.�xg2 a6 (D)
38 . . . Elel + remains deadly.
38.dxe5 38. '1t>f2 El f5 + -+ ; 3 8 . El d l El e 2 39.Ela3 �e4 -+ . 38... §,xd2 (D)
In the position that has arisen the most significant strategic element is Black's backward d-pawn, which is also isolated. The fact that this pawn is not on d5 (see the previous example), when we would have a classic example of exploiting the isolated pawn, but on d6 makes White's task harder, as this pawn is less exposed and the black king closer to it. White does have the advantage, but must discover the correct plan and execute it accurately to fight for victory.
39.§.xa5 There are no chances left for White: 39.�el �d7 (39 . . . �d8 40.Elal �d4+ 4 l .'lt>fl �d5 -+ ) 40.e6 fxe6 4 1 . El a l �d4+; 39.Elf4 �xe5 -+ .
39 ...�c6 40.§.a8+ 40.�fl �b6+ -+ .
40...�h7 41.�b1+ g6 4 l . . .El c2 is equally good: 42.�fl E\cl .
42.�f1 �c5+
19.�c4 E!d7 20.§.d4 §.adS 21.a4 h6 (D)
Black did not fall for the "cheap" trap 42 . . . �xa8?? 43.�xf7+=.
43.�h1 �d5+ 0-1 White resigned as the coming 44 . . . Eldl is decisive. When the isolated pawn is not that far advanced, then the defense might be easier. Although this pawn can mostly be regarded as a backward and weak one, it seems that there are more saving possibilities. The following two ex amples are quite instructive:
After 2 l . . .d5?, White knows well what he has to do, in accordance with the principles of attacking an isolated pawn.
(87) Grivas - Pekarek Bucharest 1 984 Bogo-Indian Defense [E l l ]
22.a5? A serious error, after which there seems to be no way for White to win. The correct plan for White is the tri pling of the heavy pieces along the d-
1.d4 .£}f6 2.c4 e6 3. .£lf3 Ab4+ 4.Ad2 �e7 5.g3 .£}c6 6 . .£}c3 d6 7.Ag2 e5'8. .£}d5 Axd2+ 9.�xd2
90
The Useless Isolani file (�d3 and l':ldl) and then the ad vance of the b-pawn to b6, from where it would create an invasion point for the white rooks on c7. White could then regroup his pieces with l':lc4 and Bel and then l':lc7, applying terrible pressure on the b7-pawn; in this case White would have very good chances of vic tory. This is a typical and practically the only plan in such positions; White wo�ld then most likely win by "techni cal means.
A very similar position to the pre vious example, but with an important difference: the black rooks are not pas sive. Thus Black can keep the balance.
2 2 . . . �e6! 23 . .§.c3 � x c4 24 . .§. d x c4 �f8! 2 5 .�f3 .§.eS 26 . .§.b4 .§.e5 27 . .§. cb3 .§. x a5 28. .§.xb7 �e7 29 . .§.7b6 .§.c7 30.g4 h5!
24.�g4 B lack seems to be fine after 24.�d3 Bfc8 25.l':ldl Bc3= or 24.�f4 �e5=.
This move secures the draw in case Black loses the d6-pawn, provided that the queenside pawns are exchanged in the process. In that case, the rook end ing with a 3 :2 majority on the kingside will be drawn. White tried for a while.
24 . . . �e6 2 5 . �f3 26..§.adl �g7 27.�g2 (D)
.§.fc8
31.h3 hx g4+ 32.hx g4 �d7 33 . .§.3b4 .§.c6 34 . .§.b8 .§. ac5 35. .§.g8 .§. g5 36. .§.f8 �e7 37. .§.a8 f5 38.g xf5 .§. x f5+ 39.�g3 �f6 40. .§.g4 .§.g5 �-� 27... .§.b6!
(88) Tal - Makarichev Tbilisi 1 978 English Opening [A29]
Activity is the main goal; passiv ity leads to disaster. Wise words that we often forget!
l.c4 e5 2.1£)c3 4)f6 3.4)f3 4)c6 4. g3 Ab4 5.4)d5 4) xd5 6.cxd5 4) d4 7.4) xd4 exd4 8.�c2 �e7 9.Ag2 Aa5 to.o-o Ab6 n.b3 d6 12.Ab2 0-0 13.e3 dxe3 14.dxe3 a5 15.a3 Ad7 16. .§.fdl .§.ac8 17.Ad4 c5 18.dxc6 Axc6 19.Axc6 .§.xc6 20.�f5 Ac5 2l.b4 axb4 22.axb4 Axd4 23 . .§.xd4 g6 (D)
28 . .§.e4 �f6 29 . .§.f4 �e6 30. .§.d5 Or 30.l':l dd4 l':l b5 3 1 .�dl l':l c6 32.�d3 l':le5=. 30 ... .§.cl 3l . .§.fd4 .§.btl Too much activity is not always good: 3 1 . . .l':l a6? 32.�f4 Baa1 33.B xd6 l':lgl + 34.\tif3 ± .
32.e4 (D)
91
Chess Analytics
32 ... E(lxb4? A blunder. B l ack had to play 32 . . . �g8 33.�c3 .§. c6 34 . .§. c5 �f6!=.
33.E!xb4 1-0 B l ack re s igned in view of 33 . . . .§. xb4 34.�c3+. In general, endgames featuring a weak isolated pawn are a plain head ache: (89) Szabo - Penrose Bath 1 973 English Opening [A33 ]
White will maximize the potential of his pieces, bringing his king to d4 and his bishop to f3. The second phase consists ofthe kingside breakthrough. Black can hardly react to this plan, as the absence of an adequate number of offensive and defensive pieces leads him to passiv ity. This is a textbook example and con stitutes perfect proof of the value of "middlegame theory." The continuation ofthe game fullyjustified White's play.
22.
23 ... a6 24.E!b4 E!d7 25.
26.
27...
l.c4 c5 2.J�)f3 4)c6 3.4)c3 4)f6 4.d4 cxd4 5.4) xd4 e6 6.4)db5 Ab4 7. .Q.f4 0-0 8. .Q.d6 .Q.xd6 9.4) xd6 �b6 10.�d2 4)d4 ll.E(dl �xd6 1 2 . � x d4 � x d4 1 3 . E! xd4 d5 1 4 . c x d 5 4) xd5 1 5 . 4) x d5 e x d 5 16.e3 .Q.e6 17.
30...
3l.g4 E!d6 This position is very instructive. White's plan is simple and consists of two phases. During the first phase,
92
lf 3 1 . . .g5, then 32 . .§. c2 Af7 33.h4! .§.d7 34 . .§.h2 and the white's rook pen etration into Black's camp will be deci sive.
The Useless Isolani 32.a3 a5 33.h4 Af7 34.f51 Creating a real target, the black g7pawn!
34... §d8 35.§c2 §d7 (D)
2 1 . § c 2 §bc8 2 2 . §fc1 rtlf7 23.§xc8 AxeS 24.§c2 rt;e7 25.f3 Ah7 26.4)d1 4)d7 27.Ah3 a5 28.Ac1 e5 29.Ag5+ rt;eS 30.Ae3 exd4 3 l . A xd4 Ac5 3 2 . A x c 5 4) xc5 33.§d2 rtle7 34.4)e3 §dS 35.4)c2 Ac6 36.Ag2 4)e6 37.f4 4)c5 38.rt;f2 §d6 39.rt;e1 4)e6 40.4)d4 Ad7 41. rt;d1 4)c5 42.4)c2 Ae6 43.Af3 Af7 44.Etd4 4) a6 45.§d2 4)c5 46.e3 Ae6 47.4)d4 Ad7 (D)
35 . . .g6 36.fxg6 ilxg6 37.l�H2 �c6 38.§fl ilf7 (38 . . . § d6 39.§cl + �d7 40.ilxd5) 39.ilg2 §d6 40.g5 +-
36.g5! Fulfilling the second phase.
36... fxg5 The alternative is 36 . . . h x g 5 37.hxg5 ilg8 38.g6! (Black's bishop now is just an observer) 38 . . . § d6 39.Ae2! § d8 40.ilb5 §d6 4l .a4 § d8 (4 1 . . .�b8 42.§ c6) 42.§c6+- .
48.g41 White sets the correct plan in mo tion, namely the advance ofthe kingside majority (3 :2).
37.hxg5 hxg5 38.§g2 §d6 38 . . . �c6 39.§ xg5 Ae8 (39 . . .ilg8 40.f6) 40.a4 +-
48... 4)e6?!
39.§xg5 g6 40.fxg6 § xg6 1-0 B lack resigned in view of 4l .Axd5+ �c7 42.§ xg6 ilxg6 43.�e5. Finally the useless isolani fell into White's hands!
Black hopes to pressurize White's queenside pawns with his light-square bishop, but this plan fails to material ize and therefore Black should have refrained from exchanging more pieces.
49.g5! 4)xd4 50.§xd4 Ae6 (D)
(90) Grivas Renet Yerevan 1 996 Bogo-Indian Defense [E l 6] -
V£\f3 4)f6 2.d4 e6 3.c4 Ab4+ 4.4)bd2 b6 5.g3 Ah7 6.Ag2 o-o 7.0-0 d5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.4)e5 Ad6 1 0 . 4) dc4 Ae7 1 1 . 4) e3 ti'Yc8 12.ti'Yc2 g6 13.b3 c5 14.Ab2 4)a6 1 5 . §ac1 ti'Ye6 1 6 . 4) d3 4) b4 17. 4) x b4 c x b4 1 8.ti'Yc7 § ab8 1 9.ti'Ye5 Ad6 2 0 . ti'Y x e6 fxe6
Having nailed down Black's kingside pawns, White plans the h4-h5 advance, which will either lead to an
93
Chess Analytics open file for the white rook to invade or to a further weakening of Black's kingsi de structure. In both cases White's advantage will reach decisive proportions. Setting in motion the natu ral break is (as said) White's most di rect and effective (if not only) continu ation.
51.h41 .§.d7 52.h5 gxh5 After 52 .. J'ld6 White can continue either by bringing his king to d4 and his rook to h2, or by the direct 53.h6! l"l d7 5 4 . e4 dxe4 5 5 . l"l xd7+ 'it'xd7 56.Axe4 Ag8 57.'it'd2 followed by 'it'd3-d4 and f5, winning easily.
(91) Grivas - Papafitsoros Athens 2006 Queen's Gambit Declined [D32]
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Jtlf3 4)f6 4.4)c3 c5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Ag5 Ae6 7.e3 .ile7 S.dxc5 0-0 9.Ae2 Axc5 10.0-0 4)bd7 11 . .§.cl .§.cS 12.4)d4 a6 13.�b3 �b6 14.�xb6 Axb6 1 5 . .§.fdl .il x d4 16 . .§. xd4 4)e4 17.Ae7 4) xc3 1S.bxc3 .§.feS 1 9.Ab4 4)e5 20 . .ild6 4)c6 2 1 . .§.ddl .§.edS 22.Ac5 4)e5 23.Ad4 f6 24. .§.bt b5 25.a4 Af5 26 . .§.b2 4)c4 27.Axc4 bxc4 (D)
53.Axh5 Af5 54.Af3
The last detail! White will bring his king to g3, from where it will endeavor to exchange the light-square bishops.
56... .§.d7 57.f6!.
61.
In this position we notice that there are a lot of isolated pawns for both sides (a6, a4, c3 and d5). The most important factor is which side can attack them first and that is White, so he holds the ad vantage. Another important factor is the better placed white d4-bishop, that at the same time can attack and defend; his opponent can only defend and does not have a stable base.
2S..§.b6! Ac21 Worse i s 28 . . . 1"\ aS 2 9 . a 5 Ac2 30.l"ld2 Ab3 3 l .f3 l"l d7 32.g4! ± as White's clear plan (h4, g5 and l"lg2) can hardly be opposed by Black.
White now wins easily as the "ex tra" pawn on f5 is quiet powerful.
63 . . . .§.fs 64 . .§.h6 Abt 65 . .§. x b6 A x a2 66.f6+ .§. x f6 67. .§.xf6 Axb3 6S. .§.b6 1-0
29 ..§.al .§.aS White wins a pawn after 29 . . . a5 30.1"\bS /"laS 3 l .Ab6 l"l db8 32.Axa5 (32.Ac7 l"lc8 33.Axa5 l"l a7) 32 . . . Axa4 33.1"\ xdS ± .
An isolated pawn can be a prob lem even if it is not directly attacked, as it can easily disrupt the defending side's plans.
30.a5 .§.deS It looks like Black could put up
94
The Useless Isolani .§d7 50 . .§e5 .§d6 51.Ad4 .§d7 52.f4
tougher resistance with 30 . . . l"\db8 but White can continue with 3l .l"\a2 Jlb3 32.l"\d2 \t>t7 33 .Jlc5 l"\ xb6 34.axb6 \t>e6 35.e4! ± .
31.f3! As White has the queenside under control, he must seek, as is normally the case, to open a second front, and that will be on the kingside.
(92) Grivas - Hytos Athens 2007 Slav Defense [D l l ]
31 ...
l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.4)f3 4)f6 4.4)bd2 Af5 5.g3 4)bd7 6.Ag2 �c7 7.0-0 e5 8.4)xe5 4) xe5 9.dxe5 �xe5 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.4){3 �c7 12.4)d4 Ad7 13.Af4 Ad6 14. .§cl �b6 15.Jl.xd6 �xd6 16.�b3 0-0 (D)
32 ... 1"\cbS 33.l"\a2 Jlb3 (33 ...Adl?! 34.\t>f2 \t>t7 35.l"\d2 Ab3 36.Jlc5 l"\ xb6 37.axb6 \t>e6 38.e4 +- ) 34.l"\d2 ± 33 . .§b7
34. .§a2! White's advantage has increased, as a result of his active pieces. The one white rook controls the only open file and the second one goes to the d- or g file, creating more threats.
White holds a pleasant advantage because of the weak isolated black d5pawn and his better placed pieces. Im portant is also the fact that Black can not become active, thus he cannot claim any compensation for his worse pawn structure.
34... Ab3 35. .§d2 Aa4 35 . . . 1"\cbS 36.Jlc5+ \t>g8 37.l"\b6 ±
36.h4 Ac6 37. .§b6 Ab5
17. .§fd1
37 . . . \t>t7 38.g5 fxg5 39.hxg5 \t>g6 40.l"\h2 ±
1 7.\'1Yxb7? can only help Black: 17 ... l"\fb8 1 8.\'1Yc7 \'1Yxc7 1 9.l"\ xc7 l"\ xb2 20.a3 Ae6 � but 1 7.e3 b6 18.l"\c2 ± is a better try.
38.g5 fxg5 39.hxg5 .§ab8?! Losing the d5-isolani pawn. More stubborn was 39 . . . l"\ c6 40.l"\b7 l"\g6 41 .l"\g2 ± .
17 ... .§fe8 18.4) b5! Although the white knight seems to be a better piece than the black bishop, the latter can defend the isolani, so it is not a bad idea at all to exchange it. When playing against the isolani, most of the time it is a good idea to ex change the minor pieces. 18 ... Axb5 19.�xb5 .§adS? (D)
40.Jl.c5+ g6 44.e4 aS 45.l"\e5 +- was even better.
42 ... Ac6 43 . .§f5+
95
Chess Analytics avoided. By small tactical means the "stronger" side may exploit the disad vantages of the isolated pawn, by (usu ally) just grabbing it! Driving Forces Concept Nowadays it is acceptable that all combinative motifs can be categorized and learned by training methods. C ombinative motifs often reappear throughout the game (opening, middle and endgame). So, a chessplayer that wishes to find his Ithaca should be trained not only in positional/strategi cal themes, but also in the categorized combinations that can transform his positional advantage to a material one. The combination that we will examine in this survey is a basic one to learn and one ofoutstanding beauty and logic. Its most simple version is represented on the following diagram:
Although Black's position is diffi cult, his last move loses material. He should opt for 19 . . .�b6 20.�xb6 axb6 2 l . � c 2 §. x a 2 2 2 . li x d 5
20.�xb7! .§xe2 The main alternative is 20 . . . �b8 2 l .�xa7 §. xb2 22.Af3 �f8! 23.�bl! §.c2 (23...§.a8 24.�xa8 �xa8 25.§.xb2; 23 . . . §. xb l 2 4 . §. x b l � aS 2 5 .�c7 ± §. xa2?? 26.�b8) 24.�a4! ± .
21.-'1.xd5! An easy combination which wins material, the useless d5-isolani !
2l .§d7 •••
The alternatives also lose: 2 1 . . .<£\xd5 22.§. xd5 �xd5 (22 . . . �f8 23.§.xd8 �xd8 24.§.c8) 23.�xd5 §.xd5 2 4 . §. c8+ ; 2 l . . . §. e 7 2 2 .Axf7+ \t'xf7 2 3 . §. xd6 � xb7 24.§. xd8; 2 1 . . . \t'h8 22.Ab3 §.d2 23.§. xd2 �xd2 24.§.dl �a5 25.§. xd8+ �xd8 26.�xa7.
22 . .§c8+ .§e8 22 ...<£\e8 23.Axf7+ §. xf7 24.§. xe8+ §. xe8 25.�xf7+ \t'xf7 26.§.xd6 +-
23 .§xe8+ 4) x e8 24.�c8 �f8 •
24 . . . �e7 25.Axf7+ �xf7 26.§. xd7
25.Af3 t-o B lack resigned in view of 25 . . . �xdl + 26.Axdl §.xdl + 27.\t'g2 §. d6 28.b4 a6 29.a4 +- . Conclusion U seless i so lani s should be
White's advantage is obvious be cause of his material advantage, but the win seems to be far away. The g7-pawn will be lost soon and a perpetual check threat is looming. An experienced and well-trained player can easily discover the combination that changes rapidly the evaluation of the position. The so lution is simple and elegant!
l .§f8+! •
96
Driving Forces Not good i s 1 . �f6? �d4 + ! ( l . . .�e8? 2.�f8+ �xf8 3.gxf8�+ .§ xf8 4 . .§ xf8+ �xf8 5.�f2 +- ) 2.�xd4 .§ xd4 with a drawn ending.
1 ,§xf8 2.�h7+!1 •••
The famous Russian composer Le onid Kubbel was probably inspired by the previous example when he created the following study (Petrogubkommuna Chess Paper, 1 92 1 ):
The basic idea. The black king is forced to the "ideal" square.
(95) Kubbel l921 (D)
2
2 . . . �f7 3.gxf8�+ or 3.g8�+.
3.gxf8.!£} +
And White has a simple win. It became obvious that this par ticular combination can be categorized according to certain factors. These fac tors are: 1 . The knight presence/promotion which delivers the final blow. 2. The opponent's queen situated on the "ideal" square. 3 . The queen (or other piece) sac rifice that drives the opponent king to its "ideal" square.
1.�e4+
2 ... �c8 3.�b7+ �d7 4.<£\e5+ �e7 5 .�xc7+ �e8 6.�c6+ �e7 7.<£\g6+! fxg6 8.�e6 # 3.
The following game, in which for the first time we see this winning method, is well-known: (94) Labone - NN 1 887 (D)
If 3 . . . .§ d5, 4.<£\xb6 wins. But now comes the main dish!
4.�a8+1!
•
•
But i s this combination one that may be encountered in great master games? Well, of course the answer is yes. Let's see a famous example: Here White "kills" his opponent:
l . .§f8+ 1 .§ xf8 2 . � x h7+ ! 1
(96) Petrosian - Simagin Moscow 1 956 King's Indian Defense [E9 1 )
•
1 .£lf3 .!£}f6 2.c4 c 6 3 .£lc3 d6 4.d4 g6 5.e4 .Q.g7 6 .Q.e2 0-0 7.0-0 •
•
•
97
Chess Analytics .Q.g4 8.Ae3 .lf)bd7 9 . ./f)d2 .Q.xe2 10."�xe2 e5 ll.d5 c5 12..§ab1 ./f)e8 13.f3 f5 14.b4 cxb4 15 . .§ xb4 b6 16.a4 Af6 17.�h1 .Q.g5 18..Q.g1 ./f)c7 19. .§bb1 .lf)a6 20. ./f)b3 .lf)dc5 21 . ./f) xc5 bxc5 22.exf5 gxf5 23.g4 fxg4 24 . .1£)e4 .Q.f4 25 . .§b7 4Jc7 26.fxg4 .if)e8 27.g5 �c8 28 . .§e7 �h3 29 . .§f3 �g4 30. �d3 .Q.xh2 31..§ xf8+ �xf8 32 . .§ xe8+ .§xeS 33 . .Q. x h2 .§e7 34 . .1£) x d6 � xg5 35.�fl+ �g8 36 . .1£)e4 �h4 37.�e2 .§g7 38.d6 �h6 39.�d1 �h4 40. �e2 �h6 41. �fl .§f7 42.�g2+ �f8 43 . ./f)g5 �xd6 (D)
7 .d4 a6 8.d5 ./f)a5 9 . ./f) d 2 c5 10.�c2 e5 l l .b3 .lf)g4 12.e4 f5 13.exf5 gxf5 14. .1£)d1 b5 15.f3 e4! 16 . .Q.b2 e x f3 17 . .Q. xf3 .Q. x b 2 18.�xb2 ./f)e5 1 9..Q.e2 f4 20.gxf4 .Q.h3 21 . ./f)e3 .Q.xfl 22 . .§ xf1 ./f)g6 23 ..Q.g4 ./f)xf4 (D)
24..§xf4! .§xf4 25 ..Q.e6+ .§f7 Alternatives fai l to i mpre s s : 2 5 . . . �f8 26.'{;:Yh8+ �e7 27.�xh7+ �e8 (27 . . .�f6 28.�f7+ �e5 29.�g7+ '{;:Yf6 30.�g3 �fs 3 1 . 4Jg4+ �d4 32.�e3 * ) 28.�h5+
26 ..1£)e4 �h4 26 . . . §aa7 27.4Jf5 �fS 28.�f6 + as the coming 4Jh6+ is hard to meet.
44.�a8+! White cannot win material with 44A.:Jxf7? as B lack can continue 44 .. .'i�tdl + 45.Agl '{;:Yh5+ 46.'{;:Yh2 �f3+ with a draw by perpetual check.
27../f) xd6 �g5+ 27... �el + 28.�g2 �xe3 29.�xf7+ �fS 30.�h8+ �e7 3 1 . 4Jf5 + �xf7 32.�g7+ a � d 33.4Jxe3 +- or 27 . . . l'=laa7 28.4Jef5 �g4+ 29.�f2 �h4+ 30.�fl �d4 31 .�xd4 cxd4 32.c5 is a lost case anyway.
44... �g7 45 ..Q.xe5+!! Driving the opponent queen to the "ideal" square !
45 ... � xe5 46. �h8+!! �xh8 47. ./f)xf7+ 1-0
28.�h1 .§aa7 28 ... �xe3 29.�xf7+
Ten years later, Tigran Petrosian was able to repeat this combination in his 1 966 title match against none other than Boris Spassky:
29.Axf7+ .§ xf7 30.�h8+! 1-0 Black resigned as 30 . . . � x h8 31 .4Jxf7+
(97) Petrosian - Spassky Moscow 1 966 King's Indian Defense [E66]
Even a player of Anand's caliber has fallen victim to this "procedure":
1 . ./f)f3 .lf)f6 2.g3 g6 3.c4 .Q.g7 4. .Q.g2 0-0 5.0-0 .if)c6 6 . ./f)c3 d6 98
Driving Forces And Black resigned as he saw the coming combination after the forced 56 ... 'lt>g7 57.'i1Yd4+ Af6 (D)
(98) J.Polgar - Anand Wijk aan Zee 1 998 Sicilian Defense [B90]
1.e4 c5 2 . .£lf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. .£1 xd4 .£lf6 5. .£lc3 a6 6.Ae3 e5 7. .£Jf3 Ae7 S.Ac4 0-0 9.0-0 Ae6 10.'�e2 b5 ll.Ab3 Axb3 12.axb3 .£lbd7 13. .§fd1 t#!c7 14.Ag5 .§fcS 1 5 . .£J e1 t#Jb7 1 6 . A x f6 .£! x f6 1 7 . .£J d 5 .£J xd5 1S . .§ x d5 .§c5 19. .§ad1 .§xd5 20. .§xd5 .§cS 21.c3 b4 22.c4 g6 23.g3 .§c5 24. .§d1 a5 25 . .£lc2 �g7 26.t#!d3 .§c6 27. .£le3 t#!cS 2S.�g2 t:fe6 29.t#!e2 AdS 30. .£ld5 .§c5 31.t#!e3 Ae7 32 . .§d3 AdS 33. t#!d2 .§c6 34. t#!d1 �gs 35.h4 �g7 36.h5 Ag5 37.t#!f3 .§cS 3S. .§d1 .§c6 39. t#!e2 .§cS 40 . .§h1 �gS 4 l . f3 .§bS 4 2 . t#!f2 .§b7 43.hxg6 fxg6 44.c5 dxc5 45.t#Jxc5 AdS 46 . .§c1 �f7 47.t#!e3 �g7 4S . .§c4 .§d7 49.t#!c1 h5 50 . .§c6 .§d6 51 . .§cS t#Jd7 52.t#!c5 �h6 53 . .§bS Af6 54.t#!e3+ Ag5 (D)
58.'i1Yxf6+!! B xf6 59.Bh7+ \t>xh7 60.�xf6+ 'lt>g7 6l .�xd7. The side with the advantage can use this combination to force a winning endgame: (99) Grivas - Banikas Korinthos 1 997 King's Indian defense [E69]
1.d4 .£!f6 2. .£lf3 g6 3.g3 Ag7 4.J,tg2 0-0 5.0-0 d6 6.c4 .£jbd7 7. .£lc3 e5 S.h3 c6 9.e4 .§eS 10. .§b1 a5 l l .b3 e x d4 12 . .£j x d4 .£! c 5 13 ..§e1 a4 14.b4 .£je6 15 . .£lde2 h6 16.f4 g5 17.Ae3 gxf4 1S.gxf4 .£!fS 19. t#Jd2 .£!g6 20.f5 .£!e5 21.J,txh6 Ax h6 22.t#Jxh6 .£!h7 23 . .§ed1 .£l x c4 24 . .§d4 b5 2 5 .e5 .£j x e5 26. .§f1 f6 27.Axc6 .§a7 2S.AxeS t#Jxe829..£ld5 .§g7+ 30.�2Axf5(D)
White's position is obviously much better, as a result ofthe strong d5 -knight and the weak black king. So, it's not so strange that a winning combination ex ists.
55.f4! exf4? Black had to try 55 ...Axf4 although he would not have many chances to survive after 56.gxf4 'i1Yg4+ 57.'i1Yg3 'i1Ye2+ 58.\t>h3 'i1Yfl + 59.'i1Yg2 'i1ltxg2+ 60.'lt>xg2 exf4 6U 'lh8+ 'lt>g7 62.Ba8.
31. t#J xh7+!! The white queen sacrifice is simple and obvious, but still gives much plea-
56. .§hS+! 1-0 99
Chess Analytics sure, as Black can accepted it with three different pieces, but none guarantees his survival.
There was no decent alternative: 32.�e3 Axe2 33.�xe2 �g3+.
32 . . . 4:)f2+ 34. .Q.xg4 h5
3 l . . . .§. x h7 3 2 . 4:) x f6+ �f7 33.4:) xe8 � x eS 34 . .§. x d6 .Q. xh3 35 . .§. h l .§.f7+ 36.�el .Q.g2 37 . .§.h8+ �e7 38 . .§.a6 .tl:)d3+ 39.�d2 .tl:) xb4 40 . .§.a7+ �f6 41..§.h6+ �g7 42 . .§.xf7+ �xf7
33.�gl
.tl:) x g4
34 ... �e8 is much stronger.
35 . .Q.xh5 .§.e6?! Again Black should get back on the right track with 35 . . . �e8 36./"lfl l"lel 37.l"l af3 �e5. 36. .§.fl �h6? (D)
42 . . . �xh6 43 .�c3 Ac6 44.l''la7 �g5 45.l"la5 �f4 46.a3
43.4:)c3 a3 44..§.h4! 1-0 The next example does not feature a queen sacrifice, but it is still instruc tive: (100) Skembris - Grivas Khania 1 987 Budapest Gambit [A52]
l.d4 .tl:)f6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 .tl:)g4 4. 4:) f3 Ac5 5.e3 .tl:)c6 6 . .Q.e2 .tl:)gxe5 7.4:)c3 0-0 8.4:) xe5 .tl:) xe5 9.0-0 .§.e8 lO.�hl a5 ll.f4 .tl:)g6 12.e4 Ab4 13.f5 4:)e5 14.4:)d5 .Q.f8 15.f6 g6 16. .Q.g5 d6 17.�d2 .Q.e6 1 8 . .Q.h6 �h8 1 9 . .Q. x f8 .§. x f8 20.�h6 .§.g8 21.4:)e7 b6 22. .§.acl �f8 23.4:) xg8 �xg8 24.�h4 a4 25 . .§c3 .§a5 26. .§.fcl .tl:)d7 27. .§.a3 g5 28.�f2 .§.e5 29 . .§. x a4 .tl:)c5 30. .§a3 4:)xe4 3l.�f3 (D)
36 . . . d5 37.cxd5 �c5+ 38.�hl l"lxf6 39.l"l af3 l"lxf3 40.Axf3 �c4 was still winning .
37 . .§h3! �f8 38 . .Q.g4! .§e4 39.Af5 .§.f4 4o. .Q.h7+ After his 'adventure' White is now satisfied with the draw. He could try 40.l"le3 �a8 (40... l"l xf1 +? 4l.�xfl �d8 4 2 . l"l e7 ± ) 4 1 . /"l fe l l"l x f5 4 2 . l"l e8+ �xe8 43.l"l xe8+ �h7 44.l"le7 l"l c5 45.l"l xf7+ �g6 46.l"ld7 l"l xc4 47.f7 �g7 although Black holds the draw without serious difficulties.
40 . . . �h8 4 l . .§. x f4 g x f4 4 2 . Ae4+ �g8 43 . .Q.h7+ �h8 44.Af5+ Yl-Yl We will conclude this survey with a very nice example, where both sides performed our motif:
Black can win by simply repeating our main idea; driving the white queen to the "ideal" square:
31 ....Q.g4! 32.�xg4
(101) Ilandzis - lvanov,I. Burgas 1 987 Queen's Gambit Declined [D55]
l .d4 d5 2.4:)f3 .tl:)f6 3.c4 e6 4.4:)c3 .Q.e7 5.Ag5 0-0 6.e3 b6
1 00
Driving Forces 7:t:/c2 Jl,a6 8.cxd5 Jl,xfl 9.�xfl e x d 5 10 . .£le5 c6 1 1 .h4 .£l fd7 12.Jl,xe7 'ltJxe7 (D) ,."""""""'
A blunder. White had t o try 37.4Jc3 ± .
37....§ xf3+!
13 .£l xc6! •
The usual method !
The prelude to the upcoming main combination. 13 .£j xc6 14..£j xd5 'ltJd6 (D)
38.�xf3 .£!d4+ 39.�e3 .£l xb5 40.e5 h6 41.�d3 .£l c7 42.�c4 �f8 43.b4 �e7 44.b5 �d7 45.�c5 (D)
•••
15. 'ltJxc6! An easy but effective follow-up which started with White's 1 3th move. Now he gets a winning position.
45 ... .£je6+? Returning the favor. Black could draw w ith 45 . . . h5 4 6 . g x h 5 g x h 5 47.�b6 (47.4Jxh5 4Jxb5) 4 7 . . . 4Jxb5 48.�xb5 h4 49.�c4 h3 50.4Jxh3 f6!=.
1 5 . . . '1f1 x c6 1 6 . .£! e7+ �h8 1 7 . .£! xc6 .§feB 18 . .§c1 .§c7 19.�e2 .§ac8 20.d5 g6 20 . . . 4Je5 2 1 .4Jxe5 §xcl 22.§xcl § xcl 23.d6+-
21.�d2? 2l .§c4 +-
21 ....£lf6 22.f3 .£! xd5 23 ..£! xa7 .§aS 24. .§xc7 .£! xc7 25 . .£lc6 .§ xa2 26 . .§b1 +/- �g7 27.e4 .£j e6 28.�e3 .£lc5 29. .£lb4 .§a7 30. .£ld5 b5 31 . .§cl .£le6 32.g4 .§a2 33 . .§c2 .§a1 34. .§c3 .§h1 35 . .§b3 .§ x h4 36. .§xb5 .§h3 37. .£lf4? (D)
46. .£j x e6 fxe6 46 . . .�xe6 47.�c6 �xe5 48.b6 +-
47.�b6 h5 48.gx h 5 g x h 5 49.�a7 h 4 50.b6 h 3 5 1.b7 h2 52.b8'1t1 h1 'ltJ (D)
101
Chess Analytics 53.�b7+!
The "weaker" side should opt for the following: ( l ) Exchange some pieces. Then there is normally no problem holding the draw. (2) If under pressure, think to ex change some pieces, even at the cost of a pawn. Then by opting for an ending with 3 :4 or 2:3 pawns on the same flank he gets fair chances to hold the draw.
Achieving a winning pawn ending. The rest was simple:
53 . . . � x b7+ 54. � x b7 �e7 5 5 . �c7 �f7 56. �d7 �f8 57.�xe6 �e8 58.�d6 1-0 Conclusion As is the case with all combina tional themes, this one can be taught and learned. It occurs quite often compared to similar combinations and it is easy to formulate and execute. But it still must be admitted that it is extremely beautiful!
But then the question arises: Which ending is the most "acceptable" for the defending side? Here comes the "value" table (one piece for each side): ( l ) Bishops (2) Rooks (3) Queens (4) Knights
Emptying the Queenside Concept A queenside without pawns (along with the central pawns) is rarely met and even more rarely noticed. In my opin ion, this happens because chessplayers tend to think (for the most part) that there are not enough satisfactory chances to achieve anything more than a draw, as the limited number of pawns remaining will, most of the time, help the weaker side. Well, this is a com p letely wrong attitude for a chessplayer 's way of thinking. Al though it cannot be argued that there is some fair amount of truth behind this thinking, we must keep in mind that every position is unique and on the chessboard both pawns and other, stron ger pieces exist! Actually a board with out central and queens ide (or central and kingside) pawns, but full of other pieces, is a hard nut to crack. There exist many more open files and diagonals, giving the minor and maj or pieces more room to act and eventually there might be a real tactical battle looking for a place to happen.
In our first example things went easily for both sides, leading to a nor mal result. (102) Timman - Spassky Montreal 1 979 Ruy Lopez [C9 l ]
l.e4 e5 2.4:){3 t£)c6 3. .Q.b5 a6 4. .Q.a4 t£)f6 5.0-0 .Q.e7 6.E{el b5 7.Ab3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.d4 .Q.g4 10.d5 i£) a5 l l . .i}.c2 c6 1 2 .h3 Ac8 1 3 . d x c6 �c7 1 4 . 4:) bd2 � x c6 15.4:)fl t£)c4 16.4:)g3 §eS 17.a4 .Q.b7 18 . .Q.d3 .Q.fS 1 9 . �e2 d5 20.a x b5 a x b5 2 1 . § xa8 A x a8 22.exd5 t£) xd5 23.4:)f5 (D)
1 02
Emptying the Queenside White seems to stand slightly bet ter. . .
23...e41 With this neat combination, Black succeeds in exchanging most of the pieces plus the queenside pawns, get ting nearer to the draw.
24.,ilxe4 4:\xc3 25.bxc3 25 . .11x c6 .§. xe2 26 . .\lxaS .§. x e l + 27.
25 . . . .§ x e4 26.� x e4 � xe4 27. .§xe4 Axe4 2S.4:\5d4 b4 2S . . . 4Jd6 29 ..1la3
29.4:\d2! Securing the draw.
29 . . . 4:\ x d2 30.,il x d2 b x c3 3l.Axc3 Y2-Y2 The central and queenside pawns are gone. What is also important is that most of the pieces are exchanged and the remaining minor pieces cannot cre ate any threats. So, a draw is the natu ral outcome. (103) Kramnik - Kasparov Moscow 200 1 Queen's Gambit Accepted [D27]
26 . .1lxa4? Wrong! White could and should have played 26.4Jxe6! when B lack would have had to go on with 26 ... �cS! (26 . . . fxe6? is weak: 27.4Je5! 4Jxe5 [27 . . . �d6 2S. 4Jxg6 h xg6 29 . .11 x a4 .§. xa4 30.�xg6 .ll fS 3 L\;lxg7 .ll x g7 32.�eS+ ±] 2S ..Ilxe5 .llf6 29.El.c7 �hS 30 . .§. d7 �xd7 [30 ... �gS 3 l ..llxf6 gxf6 32.�f4 �fS 33.�c7 +- ] 3 l ..ll xd7 4Jc5 3 2 .�h5 .§. aS 33 . .\lbS ± ) 2 7 . 4Jb6! ( 2 7 . .ll x a4? .§. x a 4 2 S .
26... .§xa4 27.�dl
l.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3 . .1£\{3 e6 4.e3 a6 5 . A x c4 c5 6.0-0 4)f6 7.Ad3 b6 S.dxc5 .1lxc5 9.a3 .1lb7 10.�e2 0-0 11 . .1£\bd2 .l£\bd7 12.b4 .1le7 13 . .1lb2 a5 14.b x a5 .§ x a 5 15 . .1lb5 �bS t6.a4 .§cS 1 7. .§fcl .§a7 lS. .§xcS+ � xeS 19 . .§cl �aS 20.4:\d4 .l£\c5 21..1£\c4 4:\d5 22.e4 4:\f4 23.�g4 .l£\g6 24.4:\ xb6 �dS 25. .1£\c4 .!£\ xa4 (D) Our second example is quite in structive. Of course, there are no queenside pawns, but on the other hand this is not an important factor, as only a pair of rooks have been exchanged.
1 03
No better were the other options: 27.�f3 .§. xc4! 2S . .§. xc4 4Je5 29.�b3
Chess Analytics 47.�c2 �g5 -+
28.Jla3?
47... �f6 48.�c2 .i£)g5 49. .§.a3
Although not pleasant, White should have entered a worse position minus a pawn: 28.�c2 ilg5 29.l"lbl ilxe4 30.�xe4 l"\xc4. Then his main object should be to transpose to a draw ing ending with 3 :4 pawns on the same wing, as has been already described.
49.�e2 �c6 -+
49...�e6 50.h4 �h3+ 51.�1 (D)
28... .§. xc4! Black wins material (two pieces for a rook).
29 . .E!.xc4 Jlxa3 30.�b3 Aa6! 31 . .§.a4 Ac5 32 . .§.xa6 What else? I f 3 2 A:J x e 6 , then 32 ... �d2! wins on the spot.
32 . . . � x d4 34.�c2 (D)
33 . .§. a8+
.i£)f8
51 ... 4:)e6 Black is attacking the white king with three pieces; White is defending with two. Obviously, Black must be on a certain path to victory. The rest of the game was not that difficult:
52 . .§.b3 Or 5 2 .�e2 �f4 5 3 . �f3 �h5 54.l"lb3 �f6 55.l"lb7 �e6 56.l"lc7 �a2 57. �g2 �g4! -+ .
52 ... �g4 53. �d3?!
Two pieces vs. rook with four pawns for each side on the same flank and a healthy pawn structure, are nearly always a win for the pieces. The first step for Black is to activate all his pieces.
34 ...g6 35.g3 �g7 36.�g2
This loses quicker, but even with the best 53.�h2 White would be much happier, as after 53 . . . �c5 54.f3 �h5 (54 . . . �d7 55.l"la3 �b7 -+ ) 55.l"la3 g5 56. �g2 g4 -+ the e4-pawn is lost.
53 . . . 4:) c 5 54.�f3 55 . .§. xf3 .!£) xe4 0-1
And White decided that he had enough and resigned.
3 6 . l"l c8 � a l + ! 3 7 . �g2 Jid4 38.l"lc7 �e1 39.l"lb7 e5 -+ as the black knight comes to the excellent e6-square.
36 ... e5 37. .§.a4 �d6 38.�c4 4:)e6 39. �d5 �b8! 40 . .§.a8 �b2 41 . .§.a2 �c3 42. �d2 �b3 43. �d5 �b8 44. .§.a8 �c7! After repeating some moves, test ing White, Black returns to the right path.
45 . .§.a6 Ad4 46. �c6 �e7 47. .§.a8
� x f3
(104) Timman - Kasparov Hilversum 1 985 Ruy Lopez [C93]
1.e4 e5 2 ..i£)f3 4:)c6 3.Ab5 a6 4.Aa4 .i£)f6 5.0-0 Ae7 6. .§.e1 b5 7.Ab3 d6 s.c3 o-o 9.h3 Ab7 10.d4 .§.e8 l l . .i£) bd2 Af8 1 2.a3 h6 13.Ac2 4:)b8 14.b4 4:)bd7 15.Ab2 g6 16.c4 e x d4 17.c x b5 a x b5 18.4:) xd4 c6 19.a4 bxa4 20.Jlxa4 �b6 2 l . b 5 c x b5 2 2 . A x b5 d5
1 04
Driving Forces 2 3 . §. x a 8 -'l_ x a8 24.ti'Ya4 .lt! c 5 25. ti'Yc2 §.b8 26.exd5 .It! xd5 (D)
White has lost his way. Also wrong would be 29.Ac6? Axe5 30."i!Jxc5 (30 .Ax aS <2lb4 3 1 . "i!Je2 <2lbd3 -+ ) 30 .. J:'l.xb2 3 l ."i!Jxd5 Axd4 3 2 . � eS+ 'it'h7 33."i!Jxd4 �bl + -+ but White had to accept a worse position with 29.<2lef3 <2lf4 30 .Aa3 <2lxg2 3 1 . � eS+ � xeS 32.AxeS <2le6 + . 29 ... Axc6 30.-'l_xc6 (D)
The only difference with the pre vious example is the absence of the e pawns. This means that even i f either side loses a pawn, by exchanging all the pieces (but one !) he can be guaranteed of a draw.
27.4)c4?! Too ambitious. White should focus on defense with 27.Aal <2lf4 2S.Afl =. 27... ti'Yc7 (D)
30.<2Jxc6 � xb5 3 l .Axg7 'it'xg7 -+
30 ... .It!f4! 3t.Ab5 Also not encouraging was 3 1 . � eS+? � x eS 3 2 .AxeS <2lce6 33."i/Jxc7 <2lxc7 34.Ac6 Axd4 35.Axd4 <2le2 + -+ or 3 l ."i!Jxc5 � xb2 32 .<2lb5 <2le 2 + ! 3 3 . \t' h l ( 3 3 . � x e 2 � b l + ) 33 ... "i!Ja5 34.�fl <2ld4 -+ .
31 ... §.xb5?
28.4)e5?1 A second inaccuracy in a short time. White should have played 28.�eS! � xeS 29.AxeS "i!Je7 (29 ... <2lb4? 30."i!Jc3! Ag7 3 1 . "i/J x b4 <2ld3 3 2 . "i!Ja3 <2lxb2 3 3 . A xf7+ \t'xf7 3 4 . <2Jd6+ �gS 35 ."i/JxaS+ 'it'h7 36."i!Jc6 ± ; 29 . . . Ag7? 30.<2lb5! "i!Je7 3 1 . <2lbd6 ± ; 29 . . . <2lf4 30.<2le3 Ae4 3 l ."i!Jc4 "i!Je7 32 .Aa3=) 30."i!Je2 "i/Jxe2 3 1 .<2lxe2 <2lc7 32 .<2lb6 Ab7 33.Ad7 and he will be able to hold the draw.
Black's position is so good that he can even afford m istake s ! With 3 1 . . .<2lce6! 32 ."i!Jxc7 (32."i!Je4 Axd4 33.Axd4 � xb5) 32 ... <2lxc7 he could win on the spot.
32.4) xb5 ti'Yc6 33.f3 ti'Y x b5 34.-'l_xg7 �xg7 (D)
28 ...-'l_g7 29.4)ec6?!
1 05
Chess Analytics Black has again won two pieces for a rook, but he still must work for his bacon! As in the previous example, he should create an attack against the white king, as a potential queen exchange would definitely i ncrease White ' s chances for survival.
if)d7 20.if)e1 �a4 21.�xa4 E!xa4 22.f3 if)ef6 23.Ad1 E!a2 24.if)d3 �fS 25.Ab3 §.aS 26.e4 if)bS 27.c5 bxc5 28.dxc5 dxc5 29.,1£) xc5 Ac8 (D)
35. �c3+ �gS 36. �e5 if)fe6 37.E!a1 �b7 3S.�d6 h5 39.�h1 �h7 40.§.c1 �a7 41.§.b1 if)g7 4 2 . §.bS if) ce6 43. �e5 Jf)d4 44.§.b1 h4! (D) It seems that black would be able to hold his slightly inferior position. But this is easier said than done! His pieces are placed passively, while White's pieces are active and threatening. One must also add the advantage of the two bishops.
30.e5! The black knights are ready to oc cupy excellent positions and, in har mony with their queen, to deliver the final blow to the white king.
4 5 . �bS �e7 46. �b4 �f6 47.�fS if)e2 4S.§.d1 if)f5 49.�bS if)e3 50.�dS �f4 51.§.e1 if)fl 0-1 5 1 . . A:'lf5 led to a forced mate : 52.l''lx e 2 4:Jg3+ 53.C.t)gl �cl + but the text move is also good, forcing White to resign as after 52.l"l xfl 4:Jg3+ 53.'gl �e3+ the end is near.
Gaining more space.
30... Jf)eS? A fatal mistake. Black should go in for 30 . . . 4:Jd5! 3 L�xd5 (31 .4:Je4 ild7 32.l"ldl ilc6 ;!; ; 3 1 .l"ldl 4:Ja6! 32.ilxd5 exd5 33.l"l xd5 4::l x c5 34.l"\ xc5 ile6=) 3 l . . . exd5 3 2 . 4::l d 3 ilf5 !? (32 . . . 4:Jd7 3 3 . 4:Jb4 ± ; 32 . . . 4:Ja6 3 3 . 4:Jf4 ilb7 34.ila3+ 'g8 35.ild6 ± ) 33.4:Jf4 l"\a5 34.ilc3 l"lb5 35.ild4 'e8 36.4:Jh5 'f8 3 7 . l"\ c7 4:Ja6 3 8 . l"l a7 where White stands better but Black has fair chances to fight for his half-point.
31.Aa41
(105) Kramnik - Karpov Dos Hermanas 1 997 Nimzo-Indian Defense [E32]
Threatening ila3 or l"\ d l .
31 ... if)c7
1.if)f3 if)f6 2.c4 e6 3.if)c3 Ab4 4. �c2 0-0 5.a3 Axc3 6. � xc3 b6 7.b4 Ab7 s.Ab2 d6 9.e3 Jf)bd7 10.d4 if)e4 1 1 . �b3 a5 1 2.Ae2 a x b4 13.axb4 E! x a1+ 14.Axa1 Jf)df6 15.0-0 �d7 16.Ab2 §.aS 17.b5 c6 1S.bxc6 �xc6 19.E!c1
Alternatives as 3 l . . .'e7 32.ila3 'd8 3 3 . l"l d l + '!lc7 34.Axe8 l"\ x a3 3 5 . ilx f7 or 3 l . . . f6 32 .ilxe8 'xe8 33.exf6 gxf6 34.ilxf6 do not seem to help much either. 32.Aa3 �gs (D)
1 06
False Guards
33.lde4! El,xa4 There is nothing positive for Black anymore : 33 . . . 4Jba6 34 . .ll d 6 .ll b 7 ( 3 4 . . . 4Jd5 35 . .ll c 6 +- ; 34 . . . l h7 35 . .llb 5! f5 36.exf6 4Jxb5 37.l':'!xc8+ 'it'f7 38 ..§.£8+ i>g6 39.Ae5 +- ) 35.itxc7 .ll xe4 (35 . . . § c8 36.4Jd6) 36.fxe4 § c8 37.Ab5 § xc7 (37 . . . 4Jxc7 38.Ad7) 38.§dl.
34.E!,xc7 .1}.a6 34 ...Ad7 35.Ad6 (threatening §b7 or 4Jc5) 35 ... §al + 36.
ignore the power of our pawns and are bravely placed on these "prohibited" squares, as their capture leads to heavy material or positional disadvantage. Then we have the case of a "false guard"; a pawn that cannot really do its job, the one that we had set out for it when placing it in a certain square. It is not strange that when it is proven that this pawn is a false guard, its owner's position turns usually into a nightmare. Let's see why: (106) Ponomariov - Carlsen Wijk aan Zee 2007 Slav Defense [D I O]
l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.4)c3 4)f6 4.e3 a6 5.4)f3 .11f5 Most chessplayers prefer 5 . . . b5 as in the games Radj abov-lvanchuk, Odessa 2007 and lvanchuk-Bacrot, Odessa 2007.
35.4)c5! 1-0
6.4)e5 h6?!
B l ack resigned in view o f 35 ... § xa3 (35 ... §c4 36.4Jxa6) 36.4Jxa6. Conclusion An "empty" queenside doesn't guarantee an easy draw; there is plenty o f play still left, depending on the re maining pieces.
More precise is 6 . . .4Jbd7 7.'�b3 '(/Jc7 8 . cxd5 4J x e 5 9 . dx e 5 4J x d 5 10.4Jxd5 cxd5 l l .Ad2 e6 1 2.§cl '(/Jd7 13.Ae2 Ae7= Gelfand-Svidler, Monte Carlo 2006. Somewhat worse is 6 . . . e6 as after 7.g4! Ag6 8.h4 dxc4 9.4Jxc4 h6 (9 . . .h5!?) 1 0.4Je5 Jlh7 1 1 .g5 it gives the initiative to White.
7.�b3 El.a7 False Guards Concept It is of primary concern to try to keep the enemy forces away from (what we consider) important squares in or der to avoid any undesirable conflicts. This action is an important part of mod ern strategic planning. In our efforts to control those important squares, we mostly use our pawns (and sometimes also pieces), creating small defensive spheres on the board. A problem starts when the enemy pieces occasionally
Black had no real alternative, as after 7 . . . b5 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.a4! h i s queenside would collapse.
8.cxd5 cxd5 9 . .1}.d2 e6 lO.El.cl 4)bd7?! (D)
1 07
Chess Analytics Good or bad, Black had to play 10 . . . iie7 1 1 .iii'a 4+ c,t>f8 1 2Ajb5 .§ aS 1 3.�c7 .§a7 1 4.�b5 .§aS 1 5.�c7 .§a7 1 6.iia5 (16.iib4!? is an interesting op tion) 1 6 . . . b5 1 7 .�xb5!? ( 1 7 . iii' d l !? Kanep-Semcesen, Hallsberg 2004) 1 7 . . . a x b 5 1 S .AxdS .§ x a4 1 9 . .1"\ cS Ab4 + ! ( 1 9 . . . .§ x a 2 20.iic7+ �eS 2 l .iixb5 +- ) 20.'it'dl 'it'gS 2 1 ..1"\ xbS 'it'h7 22.a3 iid6 23 . .1"\cS iixe5 24.dxe5 �e4 25 .'it'e1 b4 26.iib5 .§ a7 27.a4 .§ xdS 2S . .§ x dS l"lc7 29 . .§ f1 .§ c l + 30.'it'e2 .§c2+ 3 l .'
13 ... � xd7?! Black should have played 13 ... 'it'xd7! although his position is far from attractive: 14.�e2! (14.�a4 bS 1 5 .�c5+ 'it'e7 1 6.f3 [16.a4?! �bS 17.a5 .§ cS 1 S .iib4 c,t>fs 1 9 .c,t>d2 c,t>gS oo Vaganian - Frolov, Tog l i atti 2003 ] 16 ... .§eS 17.e4 dxe4 1S.fxe4 Ag6 1 9.e5 AxeS 20.Ab4 '
14. 4] a4! 0-0 1 5 . 4J b6 �d8 16.4]c8 (D)
tt.Ab5! Is there a real reason for Black playing 4 . . . a6 if he cannot keep the white pieces away from the b5 -square? Well, the a6-pawn is a false guard as it has failed in its mission. Previously White had chosen 1 1 .�xd7? leading to an unclear position after 1 1 . . . �xd7 1 2 .�e2 �bS 1 3 . �f4 iid6 1 4 .iib4 iixb4+ 1 5 .iii' x b4 �c6 1 6.�c5 .§ aS 1 7.iid3 g5 1S.Axf5 gxf4 1 9.iih3 fxe3 20.fxe3 �e7 2 l .'it'e2 hS as in the game Radjabov-Morozevich, Moscow 2002.
White has finally exploited the clumsy position of the enemy rook on a7 !
11 ... .1l,d6
16 ... � xc8
Black cannot accept the "sacri fice": 1 l . . .axb5? 1 2.�xb5 leads to his immediate demise. A clear case of a false guard appeared on the board and it really troubles him!
12.lil xd7 Jclxd7 13 . .1l,xd7+ (D)
As the line 1 6 . . . .1"\ aS 1 7 A jxd6 iii'xd6 1S.iib4 iii'd7 19.iixfS is winning for White, Black decided to muddy the waters, but to no avail :
17. .§ xc8 .§xeS 18.�b6! .1l,b8 19.0-0 �h7 20. .§cl! White wants to exchange Black's only active piece.
20... .1l,c2 After 20 . . . .1"\ xcl + 2 l .Axcl Black's pieces on the queenside are doomed. The rest of the game was easy enough for White:
2l.Aa5 �g6 Or 2 l . . . .§ c6 23.�d7 +- .
1 08
2 2 . iii' d S
.§ aS
False Guards 2 2 . �b4 .§c4 2 3 . �d2 Af5 24 . .§ xc4 d xc4 2 5 . Ab6 .§aS 26.�e2 e5 Or 26 . . . Ad3 27. '({yf3 +- .
27.� xc4 exd4 28. � x d4 f6 29.f4 Or 29.g4 Abl 30.'({yd5.
29 ...-'tbl 30. �d5 1-0
12 ...g5 13.a4 .£!g6 14.Aa3 .§f7 15.a5?1 1 5 .b5 Af8 1 6.b6 axb6 1 7.cxb6 cxb6 18 . .§.bl is much better for White.
t5 ... Afs t6. .§bt 16.a6 b6 1 7.cxb6 cxb6 1 8.b5 g4! plays into Black's hands: 1 9.Axg4? .llxg4 20.i{yxg4 .§. c8. 16 ... .£jf6 17.f3 h5 (D)
Around 30 years ago, in the year 1 982 (my god, I must be really old!), I played four interesting games, all con nected w ith the theme of a "false guard." (107) Benjamin - Grivas Copenhagen 1 982 King's Indian Defense [E97]
l.d4 .£!f6 2.c4 g6 3 . .£lc3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.Ae2 0-0 6. .£lf3 e5 7.0-0 .£lc6 8.d5 .£le7 9.b4 .£le8?1 Definitely a weak move compared to 9 . . . a5 or 9 . . . 4Jh5. 10.c5 f5 11 . .£jd2 (D)
White has not succeeded in creat ing serious counterplay o n the queenside, and has allowed Black to get a typical, dangerous attack. He now undertakes a plan not seen that often, transferring his king to the center, where it can be a bit safer.
1 8 . 1it'f21? g4 1 9 . 1it'e l .§g7 20.cxd6 cxd6 2l.lit'd2 g31 22 . .§hl
ll ...f4?1 Keep in mind that at those times I was an inexperienced 1 6-year old boy, so my chess understanding was a bit low ! But the well-known American grandmaster did not find the best moves, probably shocked by my 9th and 1 1 th moves ! But of course, shocking someone is not the appropriate way to play chess, at least not always!
22 .hxg3 fxg3 23 . .§.hl
22 ...gxh2 23 . .§xh2 h4 24. �b3 .£lh5 25.b5 (D)
12 . .£!c4?1 1 2.Ag4! g5 1 3.
Chess Analytics 25 ... 4)h8! Black plans the . . . h3 advance, so he needs the help of his knight from the g5 -square (. . . 4Jh8-f7-g5).
26 . .1lb4 4) g3 27 . .1ld3 4)f7 28. �a3 §g6 29.b6 a6 30. .1lc2 4)g5 31.4)e2 (D)
Black's extra exchange. But thanks to various cross-pins, Black can be still in the game:
37... § xb6! Proving that the a5 -pawn and the c5-bishop are false guards of the valu able b6-pawn.
31 ... .1ld7!? Not bad, but 3 l . . .h3 32.gxh3 Axh3 seems stronger.
32.4) xd6 Forced, as otherwise . . . Ab5 and . . . §.c8 with advantage to Black.
32 ... 4) xe2 33.4) xb7! 33 .�xe2? Axd6 34.Axd6 §. xd6 35 .t1fxd6 Ab5+.
33 ... �c8? Much stronger was 33 . . . Axb4+ 34.t1txb4 t1tb8 35.4::lc 5 Ab5 36.Ad3 4Jd4, when White definitely has com pensation for the piece, but Black has the piece!
38.�b4!? 38.Axb6? t1txc2+ 3 9 . �fl §. c8 leads to a short end, but maybe White could have tried 3 8 . §. xh4 §. xa 5 39.t1txa5 t1txc5 40.-'tdl t1te3+ 4l .�fl t1t c l -+ ;!; 38.Ab3 b4! (38 . . . §. x a 5 3 9 . d6+ �g7 40.d7) 39. Axb4 §. b5 40.d6+ �g7 4 l . §. xh4 §. ab8 42 . d7 t1txd7 4 3 . Aa4 t1tb7 4 4 . Ad2 §. x a 5 45 . Axa5 t1ta6+ 46. t1td3 t1t x a 5 with equal chances in an unclear position.
38 . . . §ba6 40.§xh4 (D)
39 . .1lb3
§ x a5
34.4)c5! .1lxc5 35 . .1lxc5 .1lb5 36.§xb5 The other option with 36.§. xh4!? 4Jg3 37.Ad3 Axd3 38.b7 (38.�xd3 t1tb7 oo ) 38 . . . -'txbl 39.bxc8t11+ §.xc8 40.t1fb2 4::lxf3+ 4 l .gxf3 4::lx e4+ 42.�dl 4::lx c5 43.t1fh2 §.f8 gives chances to both sides. 36 ... axb5 37.Cit'xe2 (D) White felt that he could maintain a strong advantage in this position when he entered the variation starting with 32.4Jxd6. His bishop pair and passed b- and d-pawns could easily overcome
I had now to play my 40th move (first time control) and I was feeling uncomfortable . . .
40... §a2+! Again proving that the b3-bishop is a false guard of the a2-square. Black, by returning the extra exchange, is able
1 10
False Guards to stay in the game.
puts White into zugzwang.
41.Jlxa2 §xa2+ 42.
47.§bl §c6 48.
Material has been restored, but Black's pieces are well-placed for the coming battle.
4 8 . �b7+ �c7! (48 . . . �xb7 49 . .§ xb7+ lt'f6 5 0 . \t'c4) 49. �xc7+ .§xc7 50.'.t'c4 4:Jd2+.
43.§hl?
48... §c7!
White could have saved himself by entering a complicated variation start i ng w ith 4 3 . �xb 5 ! 4:lxf3 44. �c6! (44 . .§ h l ? .§ d2 + 4 5 . 1t'c3 .§ c 2 + ) 44 . . . 4:\el + 45.\t'c4 .§ c2+ 46.\t'bS (D)
Providing real and not false pro tection to the black king, allowing the rest of Black's forces to become threat ening. White lacks useful moves and it is no surprise that the end was near:
49.Ab6 §c2 50.§b3 t?!e6! 51.Ac5 i£)d2 52.t?lb7+
46 . . . �b8+ (46 . . . �xc6+ 47.dxc6 4:Jd3 48 . .ll b 6 .§b2+ 49.'.t'a6 4:Jb4+ 50.\t'b7 4:lxc6 5 l .lt'xc6 .§b4 is a draw, but Black will suffer for it!) 47.\t'a4 .§a2+ 48 . .lla 3 �a7+ 49.\t'bS �b8+ 50.\t'a4=.
43 ... .£) xf3 44.d6 Unfortunately for White a forced move, as everything else loses on the spot: 44 . .§ h 5 �a6; 44 . .§ a l �h3; 44.�xb5 .§ d2+ 45.1t'c3 .§ c2+; 44. .lle7 �c2 # .
4 4 . . . §d2+ 46.t1fxb5 (D)
4 5 .
(108) Grivas - Condie Copenhagen 1 982 Slav Defense [D 1 8]
l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.i£)c3 l£)f6 4 . .£)f3 d xc4 5 .a4 Jlf5 6.e3 e6 7.Axc4 Jlb4 8.0-0 l£)bd7 9.t1fb3 a5 1 0 . i£) a2 Ae7 l t .Ad2 t?lc7 12.§fdt l£)e4 13.Ael 0-0 14.§acl l£)b6 15.Jld3 l£)f6 16.jlxf5 exf5 17.i£)c3 t?ld8 18.i£)e5 §a7 19.i£)d3 l£)bd5 20. .£) xd5 .£) xd5 21.i£)e5 (D)
§ xd6
White seems to have gotten out of the opening with slight pressure in the queenside, but nothing really serious. 21 ... jld6? (D)
46...
111
Chess Analytics
A serious mistake. Black should have played 2 l . . :�c8 22 . .:£lc4 .lld8 ;:t;; . Suddenly my heart started a quick dance ! I "felt" that there must be some thing connected to the c6-pawn and the black pieces on d8-, a7- and d5-squares.
22.�xc6! The b7-pawn was supposed to be an excellent guard for the c6-pawn; alas this proved wrong!
22 ...bxc6 The alternative 22 . . . .llx e5 23.§c5 .ll x h 2 + 24.�xh2 .:tle7 ( 2 4 . . . t¥h4+ 25.�gl .:tlf6 26.f3! t¥h5 27.§ xa5 +- ) 25 . .llc 3 b6 26.§b5 §a6 27.d5 ± was not too encouraging either.
23.4) xc6 �h4?! Black avoided 23 . . . .ll x h2+ as he thought that after 24.�fl (24.�xh2? �d6+) 24 . . . �h4 (24 . . . 'ii¥d7 25 . .:tlxa7 t¥xa7 [ 2 5 . . . .:tl x e 3 + 26.t¥xe3 t¥xa7 27.g3 +- ] 26.�xd5 t¥a6+ 27.�b5 +- ) 25 . .:tlxa7 .:tlf6 26.f3 'ii¥h5 27 . .llf2 §e8 28.�b5 he would not have any com pensation for the lost pawn, but this was his best try. Although White is winning on the queenside, Black might create some serious counter-chances on the kingside.
27.�dl! Returning part of the extra mate rial in order to liquidate into a won endgame should be a guide for every serious chessplayer.
27... �e4 27 . . . t¥xdl 28.§xdl fxe3 29.fxe3 .:tl x e 3 3 0 . § c l § b8 3 1 ..:£lb5 .ll b 4 32 . .llxb4 axb4 33.a5 cannot considered difficult for White. That's why Black chose to keep the queens on the board.
28. �c2 �f3 29. �dl �e4 30.�c2 �f3 31.4)b51 After a repetition of moves aiming to win time on the clock (a useful strat egy), White continues with the right move. His knight must return to the battlefield, as it has concluded its mis sion on the queenside.
31. .. -'tbS 32.4)c3 Although 32.t¥c6! fxe3? 33 . .:£lc3 is stronger, I was just thinking of my note after my 27th move.
32 . . . fxe3 33.4) x d 5 e xf2+ 34.-'txf2 � xd5 (D)
24.g3 �g4 25 . 4) x a 7 f4! 26.�cl! �f3 (D) Forced, as 26 . . . .:£lxe3 27.fxe3 fxg3 28.hxg3 .llxg3 29.'ii¥d l 'i!¥g6 30.�fl + does not solve Black's problems.
1 12
False Guards Now White's extra pawn will tell in the coming endgame. The rest was not that difficult, although a certain care was needed in view of White's some what unsafe king's position.
35.'(\?/c5 \!\?lb3 36.'(\?/xa5 '(\?/ xb2 37.'(\?/c3 '(\?/a2 38.'(\?/c4 '(\?/a3 39 .§c3 '(\?/b2 40 . .§c2 '(\?/at+ 41.
•
original and very effective tactical shot.
29 4) xe4!! •••
•
Again the d3-pawn proved to be a false guard!
30.dxe4 .§dS 3l.
3l .§xd2 32.
52 .§a6! .§ x d5 '(\?/xd5 54.a8'(\?/ 1-0
(110) Grivas - Trikaliotis
5 3 . '(\?/ x d 5 !
•
(109) Koustas - Grivas Athens 1 982 Ruy Lopez [C77]
l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3 . .Q.b5 a6 4 . .Q.a4 4)f6 5.d3 d6 6.c3 .Q.e7 7.4)bd2 0-0 8.4)fl b5 9 . .Q.b3 d5 10.'(\?/e2 d4! 11.4)g3 a5 12.a3 .Q.e6 13 .Q.xe6 fxe6 14.a4 dxc3 15.bxc3 b4 16 . .Q.b2 bxc3 17 .Q. xc3 jlb4 18.A x b4 a x b4 19.0-0 4) d 4 20. 4) x d4 '(\?/ x d4 2 1 .'(\?/a2 .§ a 6 22 .§ a c l '(\?/ d 7 23. '(\?/c4 .§ x a4 24. '(\?/ x c7 '(\?/ x c7 25 .§ xc7 .§bS 26 .§bl b3 27 .§c3 b2 28.4)fl .§al 29.4)d2 (D) •
•
Khania 1 982 Old Indian Defense [A55 ]
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 d6 3.4)c3 4) bd7 4.4)f3 e5 5.g3 Ae7 6.Ag2 0-0 7.00 c6 8.e4 .§eS 9 . .§el jlfS 10.h3 a6 ll.b3 b5 12.cxb5 cxb5 13.Ab2 -'lb7 14.d5 4)b6 15.4)d2 4)fd7 16.b4 g6 17.Afl f5 18.4)b3 .§c8 19.4)a5 .Q.aS 20.a4 4)c4 21.4) xc4 bxc4 22.exf5 gxf5 23. '(\?/h5 4)f6 24. '(\?/ xf5 4) x d 5 25 . .§e4 4) f6 26 . .§ xc4 .§ xc4 27. A x c4+ d5 28. .§dl Ag7 (D)
•
•
•
•
White was counting on his last move to hold the position, as now 29 . . . .§ xb l + 30.4Jxbl .§aS 3 1 . .§ c2 is harmless. However, Black's positional advantage gives rise to a spectacular,
1 13
Chess Analytics 29.lde4! The various cross-pins (d-file, a2g8 diagonal) help White gain a decisive advantage. The black d5 -pawn is a false guard, as in reality guards nothing!
29 ... �h8 A little bit more persistent was 29 . . . 4Jxe4 although Black would not avoid defeat after 30. � x e 4 �d6 3L ilxd5+ �h8 32.�g2 l"'ld8 33 ..\lxa8 �xdl 34 . .\lxeS �d7 35.Axg7+ �xg7 36.b5 axbS 37.axb5.
30.4) xf6 '*xf6 30 . . . Axf6 3 l .Axa6 Ac6 32.Ad3 �e7 33.b5
31. '*xf6 Axf6 32.Axd5 §.d8 33.Ab3 t-o Conclusion Beware of the unexpected. Do not let your eyes betray your plans; false guards are everywhere ! Double-check your already protected squares and do not feel so confident about them; they might be secretly false guards ! The Double Exchange Sacrifice Concept The positional and tactical element of the exchange sacrifice (rook for bishop or knight) is a very important topic whose exploration requires ad vanced skills and competitive experi ence. When we come to a double ex change sacrifice, then we must realize that this is a difficult subject to master, as the chessplayer is requested to over come the dogmatic rules with which he has been brought up, in particular the quantitative evaluation of material. In the opening and middlegame our pieces should be identified as units that, by cooperating harmoniously, shape our
plans that in tum are executed by means of moves. Each unit is an integral part of our position and we can determine our advantage or inferiority only by tak ing all units into account. Naturally, it is not easy to identify which of our pieces (or even the opponent's pieces) carries out the most significant function. We have to take several strategic ele ments into consideration, such as the center, open lines, initiative, attack, etc. When carrying out such evaluations the value of our rooks barely differs from that of our minor pieces, since an ad vantage is conferred by their fruitful cooperation and not their individual, predetermined value. If we accept that, as a rule, the superiority of the rook is realized in the endgame, we naturally come to the conclusion that an exchange sacrifice (or two ! ) in the opening or middlegame may be acceptable for many reasons: 1 . To exploit our better develop ment. 2. To destroy the opponent's pawn structure. 3 . To open lines in order to attack. 4. To assume the initiative. 5. To control important squares. More on this subject (as many more other!) can be found in my book Chess College - Efstratios Grivas (Gambit 2006) and Kalite Fedasy & Konumsal Feda (TSF 20 1 0). So, here are two ex amples to help us understand the way that this mysterious double exchange sacrifice can work. Note that the whole game is annotated, as I think that it is extremely important to understand how the idea was born; through necessity or simply imagination, and how it was re alized.
1 14
The Double Exchange Sacrifice (111) Trindade - Grivas Belfort 1 983 Ruy Lopez [C80]
l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3.Ab5 a6 4.jla4 4)f6 5.0-0 4) xe4 6.d4 b5 7.Ab3 d5 (D)
8.c4?
9 . Ac2?! does not help: 9 . . . fS 1 0.dxeS �xd1 1 1 .ltxd1 ( 1 l .E\ xd1 lieS 1 2 .Ae3 Axe3 1 3 . fx e 3 �b4 + ) 1 l . . .Jlb4 + .
9 ... 4)f6!? Black's main alternative is 9 . . .�d6 but this cannot give more than a draw: 1 0.dxeS �fS 1 1 .�e4 ( 1 1 .Eid1? �fd4 1 2 .�xd4 �xd4 1 3.�e4 JlfS 1 4.�xd4 �xd4 1 S .Ei xd4 cxb3 + Kristjansson Amado, Vrnj acka B anj a 1 96 3 ) 1 l . . .Ad7 1 2.Jlc2 �b4 13.Eid1 �xc2 1 4 . E\ xd7 � x d7 1 S .�xa8+ �d8 ( 1 S . . . 'it'e7? 1 6 .�c3 c6 1 7 .AgS+ ± ) 16.�c6+ �d7 1 7.�a8+=. 10.dxe5 4)d5 ll.jlc2 (D)
A bad move but with an effective surprise value. At that time, I not only got confused but I felt "obliged" to beat my Brazilian opponent at any cost to punish him for his "ruthlessness."
8...dxc4?! Although the text move cannot be strongly criticized, 8 . . . Ag4! seems much stronger: 9.cxdS (9.dxeS dxc4 1 0 .�e2 �cS + [ 1 0 .. .'�td3? 1 l .�xd3 cxd3 1 2 . AdS �b4 1 3 .Axa8 �cS 1 4.�a3 Ae7 1 S.Ad2 aS 1 6.ltxb4 axb4 l -0 Caruso-Ruzzier, Padova 1 998]) 9 . . . �xd4 10.l'�e1 fS (10 . . . Axf3 1 l .gxf3 �xb3 1 2 . axb3 �d6 1 3 . Ei xeS+ Ae7 1 4 .�e2 [ 1 4 .�c3?! 0-0 1 S .Af4 Af6 1 6 . Ei e2 �fS 'i' Kavalek-Ratolistka, Kosice 1 96 1 ] 14 . . . 'it'f8 1 S .�c3 oo as White finds compensation for his bad pawn structure in his piece activity and better cooperation) 1 1 .�c3 �f6! + . A common mistake that B lack should avoid is 8 ... Ae6? 9.cxdS AxdS 1 0.�xeS � x e S 1 l . d x e S c6 ( l l . . . Axb3 1 2 .�xb3 ;!; B lazkova-Slaj s , C eske Budejovice 1 999) 1 2.Ac2 JlcS 13.�e1 �h4 1 4.Ae3= Vitolinsh-Sideif Sade, Beltsy 1 979.
9.�e2!
White has sacrificed a pawn but as compensation he has gained time for easy development, a space advantage and safer king. Well, still Black has the pawn!
ll ...Ac5 12.E!dl 4)ce7? I think that Black should strongly consider returning the pawn w ith 12 . . . �cb4! 1 3.Ae4 (13.�c3 c6 14.�e4 �xc2 1 S.AgS �c7 1 6.�xc2 [ 1 6.�d6+ 'it'f8 1 7.�xc2 ltxd6 1 8.exd6 �xd6 + ] 1 6...MS + ) 1 3. . .c6 14.a3 �d3 1 S.Axd3 cxd3 16. �xd3 �b6 17. �c2 when he is able to achieve a perfectly acceptable position.
13.4Jc3 jle6 14.a4? 1 4 . �e4 Jlb6 1 S .�egS �d7 (1S ... h6? 16.�xe6 fxe6 17.�d4 Axd4 1 8 .�h S + 'it'd7 1 9 . Ei xd4 ± Jakirlic Wilkins, Penrith 2003) 16.�xe6 fxe6
1 15
Chess Analytics 17.�g5 .§f8 is not very clear but White could gain a significant advantage with 1 4.�g5! �d7 1 5.�xe6 fxe6 ( 1 5 . . .�xe6 16.�f3 .§d8 1 7.�e4 ± ) 1 6.�h5+ g6 1 7.�h3 0-0 18.�e4 �c6 19.�g5.
2 l . Axh7+ �h8 22.Ac2 +- ) 2 l .�c6+ �f8 22.Af4 but this can be considered
14... �c8! 15.{)xd5 After 1 5.axb5 �xc3 1 6.bxc3 axb5 17 . .§ xa8 �xa8 18.�g5 �c8 1 9.lLe3 � x e 3 2 0 . �xe3 h6 2 l . �xe6 �xe6 22.�e4 �c6 23. �h4 �e6 Black equal Izes.
15 ...Axd5 1 5 . . . �xd5 16.axb5 axb5 1 7 . .§ xa8 t¥xa8 18.�g5 �c8 1 9.�f3 c6 20.�g3 seems unpleasant for Black.
t6.{)g5 Ab6? (D)
21.{) xf7! The f7-pawn is of minor impor tance as a material gain, but the addi tional light-square weaknesses that are created around the black king and its presence in the center are decisive fac tors.
t �P'� ...J.i t l�·��· �� /�r � Too j�" �0 j� '�t'm�� �f= /,Wh '�'� �-� � � '�" � �1> ,�� ,� 1> ��1> �
,,�
i����1m ft �:lli
H'� �
�/@ n 'H. � �
2l ... §f8
0
� ���
Black misses his chance. He should have played 1 6 . . . h6 1 7 . �e4 Ab4 18.lLd2 Axd2 19.�xd2 �xe4 20.la.xe4 .§b8 2 l . axb5 axb5 when he would be able to breathe freely. White still can maintain some kind of initiative thanks to his better placed pieces, which fully compensate for his pawn deficit.
17.§xd5! Although 17.�xh7 is also strong, this positional sacrifice is an excellent one. Black's light squares become weak and White gains some important tempi to continue his attack against the black king.
17 . . . {) xd5 19.Af5! �c6
20 . . . a x b 5 2 l . .§ x a8+ �xa8 22.Ae4 +- is not an option either.
18. \�'Yf3
�d7
Unfortunately, the black king can not fi nd a safe shelter: 2 1 . . . 0-0 (2l . . .�xf7 22.Ad7+) 22 .Ae6 .§ ae8 23 .Axd5 c6 24.Axc6 t¥b4 2 5 .�e4! .§ xf7 26.Axe8 .§ xf2 27.Ae3 Axe3 28.t¥xe3 simply terminates Black's sur vival chances.
22.e6 g6 22 . . . h6 23.�e5 �d8 24.e7+! �xe7 25.b3! (25.�g6+ �d6 26.Af4+ �c6 27 .Ae4 is also fine) is also a lost cause for Black.
23.Ac2?! 2 3 . Ae 4 ! c6 2 4 . �d6+ �e7 25.�xb5 .§xf3 26.Axf3 is a very simple Will .
23 ... �c5 Black had to take account of the 24.Aa4 threat.
Judging by the outcome of the game, Black should have preferred 1 9 . . . �e7 2 0 . � x d 5 .§ d8 ( 2 0 . . . 0-0
1 16
24.Ag5 c6 25.§dl §a7 (D)
The Double Exchange Sacrifice
Or 25 .. .l''\ b8 26 . .ila4 and Black has to resign. 26 . .§ xd5 �xf2 + 27.�xf2 Axf2+ 28.�xf2 cxd5 29.Aa4+ .§b5 30.'it'e3 .§xt7 3 l .Axb5+ axb5 32.ext7+ 'it'xf7 3 3 . 'it'd4 'it'e6 34 . .ild2 +- i s equally good.
26.E{xd5! A second exchange sacrifice on the same square ! But this time this sacri fice must be considered the introduc tion to a winning combination and not a positional one as it was the case on the 1 7th move.
26... � xf2+ 26 . . . .§axt7 27.ext7+ .§ xt7 28 . .§ xc5 .§ xf3 29 . .§e5+; 26 . . . cxd5 27.Aa4+
27.�xf2 .1}.xf2+ 28.�hl! .1}.b6 29.4)d6 # 1-0 I was so dizzy and in a great time trouble, that I did not feel that this was possible. In those times when I had a quarrel with my girlfriend she would upset me by just shouting "Trindade" to me ! (112) Conquest - Grivas Afitos 1 99 1 Reti Opening [AO 1 ]
t.b3 g6 2.Ab2 4)f6 3.g3 Ag7 4. .1}.g2 d5 5.c4 d4 6.4)f3 c5 7.b4 0-0 8.bxc5 4)c6 9.0-0 4)d7 10.d3 4) xc5 11.4)bd2 E{e8!? (D) Alternatives are: (a) l l . . .h6 1 2 .Aa3 �a5 1 3 .Axc5 �xc5 1 4 . �a4 Ad7 1 5 . .§ ab l �a5
16.�xa5 4::\x a5 17.4Jb3 4::\ xb3 18 . .§ xb3 b6= Dizdar-Lalic,B, Sarajevo 1 988. (b) l l . . .a5 1 2 . .§bl .§e8 1 3.Aa3 4Ja6 14.4::\e l 4Jab4 oo Miles-Sokolov, Belgrade 1 988.
12.Aa3 White can also choose: (a) 1 2.a4 e5 13.4Jb3 4Je6 1 4.Aa3 .§b8 (14 . . . Ad7 1 5.4Jfd2 4Ja5? 16.4Jxa5 �xa5 1 7 .Axb7 .§ ab8 1 8 .Ad5 4Jc5 19.Axc5 �xc5 20.4Je4 �c7 2 1 .�c2 Ae6 22.Axe6 .§ xe6 23 . .§fbl ± Giertz Konopka, Marbach 1 994) 15.4Jfd2 Af8 16.Axf8 'it'xf8 oo Keene-Reichenbach, Mannheim 1 975 . (b) 1 2 .4Jg5 .ilg4 1 3 . 4Jde4 4Ja6 1 4.h3 Ad7 1 5 .Aa3 h6 16.4Jf3 �c8 17.'it'h2 4Jd8 18 . .§bl iic6= Heimsoth Beeker, Essen 2004.
12 ...�a5 l3.�cl 1 3.Axc5!? �xc5 is an interesting alternative: (a) 1 4.�a4 �b4 1 5.�xb4 4::\ xb4 16.a3 4Jc6 1 7 . .§fbl .§b8 18.4Jel Ad7= Schebler-Ahn, Leuven 1 998. (b) 14 . .§ b l �a5 1 5 .�b3 .§ d8 16.�b5 �c7 1 7.4Jb3 Af8 18.4Jc5 e6 19.4Je4 Ae7= Dizdar-Popovic, Caorle 1 982. (c) 1 4 . 4Jb3?! �h5 15 . .§ b l .§ d8 1 6 . � c l Ag4 '1' Abed - S i ebarth, Willingen 2003 .
l3 ... 4)a4 14.4)b3 �c7 14 . . . �h5 1 5.�g5! �xg5 16.4Jxg5 4Jc3 17 . .§fel Ag4 18.4Jf3 e5 oo looks
1 17
Chess Analytics like a fair option.
15. �c2 Jld7 16.E{ael White is getting ready to break up the center with the help of the e3-ad vance. This seems to be his only dan gerous plan at the moment.
16 ... E{ad8! Black is now all set to continue with . . .h6 and . . . eS, developing a strong initiative. White therefore feels obliged to seek complications.
26.Axb7 l"!e7 Black's stands slightly because of White's shattered pawn structure.
2 l . .. Jl x d4+ 22.\t>hl Jilc5 23.Eldl White should have complicated matters further with 23.AxeS! AxeS 24.Ae4 .1lh3 2S.l"!f3 (2S ..1lg2 AfS=) 2S . . . b6 26.�b2 l"! d8 27.�d2 Ae6 28.�f4. 23...E{d8 24.�e2 b6 25.Jld5 (D)
17.e3 d x e3 18.fxe3 Jlf51 19.l�)fd4 This was a must, as 19.e4?! Ag4 would ensure Black a permanent posi tional advantage in view of the weak light-square complex in White's center. 19 .. .l�) xd4 20.Jilxd4 (D)
25 ... §xd5!
20.exd4 l"!xd4! is not much of a difference.
20 ... §xd4! A very interesting (and more or less forced) exchange sacrifice for purely positional compensation (occupation of important central squares and better pawn structure). Instead, 20 . . . Ad7?! 2 1 .l"!bl b6 22A:JbS AxbS 23.l"! xbS can only be preferable for White. Of course there is nothing strange with that; such things happen in a lot of games.
21.exd4 White had to accept the sacrifice, as after 2 1 . � x a 4 �d7 ! 2 2 . � x a7 (22.�xd7? l"! xd7 23.d4 Ad3 24.l"!f2 eS 2S .dxeS Axe4 + ) 22 . . . El xd3 23 .Ab4 l"! e8 2 4 . a 3 l"! x e4 2 S . �xb7 �xb7
A second exchange sacrifi c e , shortly after the first one. This new sac rifice is justified by the subsequently increased activity of the black minor pieces, in sharp contrast to the "clumsy" white rooks. Now, this action is some thing you do not really come across too often (see the comment to the 20th move). A double exchange sacrifice, if correct, gives extreme pleasure as it is something you do not do daily!
26.cxd5 �d7 27.§f4? White overestimates his chances. After 2 7 . �f3 ! e S ! (after 27 . . . f6 ! ? 28.AxeS! bxeS 29.l"!bl .1lh3 30.l"!fel Ag4 3 1 .�e4 AfS Black could agree to a draw by repetition) 28 . .1lxeS AxeS 29.l"!el Jid4 an unclear position arises, despite the fact that materially Black is two exchanges down. This confirms the validity of his earlier choices.
27 ... � x d5 + 28.�g2 Jle6! 29.§xd4?
1 18
White feels compelled to return
The Double Exchange Sacrifice part of the extra material as he could find no useful course of action, while Black's threats in the direction of the white king were becoming annoying. After 29.h4 �d6 30.\t'h2 AeS 3 l .§.b4 AdS no one may feel attracted to White's position, but still this seems to be the only try. As this was the third exchange sacrifice in this game, I feel that neither ofthe two opponents really liked his rooks !
2 9 . . . � x d4 30 . .Q.b2 �d8! 31.\t>gl .Q.d5?! The simplest was 3 l . . .Axa2! and then . . . AdS, with an extra pawn com pared to the game.
32. �e2 �d7 33.a3 (D)
41 ...4)h6? B lack would win eas i ly w ith 41... �dS, intending 42 ... 4Je3!!. With his last move he believed that the win was very near. However, he had overlooked White's next move, after which a queen exchange is forced and this results in an endgame where White holds the draw without much effort.
42.�e21 � xe2+ So Black was forced to exchange queens, losing h i s most valuable weapon, the attack against the white king.
Black's position seems to be quite nice, but still he has to find an accept able plan. Attacking the white king can not be a bad one!
33 .. .lde6! Threatening ... 4JgS-h3+.
34.�e3 f6 35.h4 .idg7! 36.\t>h2 .idf5 What would you prefer, the black f5 -knight or the white d l -rook?
37.�f4 �e6! Threatening 38 . . . �e2+.
38. �d2 .Q.c6 39.E!el �d6! 40.�f2 � xd3 Another winning line was 40 ... 4Jxh4 4 l .AeS fxeS 42.gxh4 e4+.
41.h5 (D)
43. E! x e2 \t>f7 44.E!c2 .Q.e4 45.hxg6+ hxg6 46.E!c7 a6 47..Q.d4 b5 48..Q.c5 4)g8 49.E!a7 White wins back one of his less three pawns, achieving equality as the black kingside pawns lacks activity.
49 . . . .Q.d3 50 . .Q.b4 ,ilc4 51.E!xa6 e5 52.E!c6 .Q.d3 53.E!d6 .Q.c4 54.E!c6 .Q.d3 55.\t>gl 4) h6 56.\t>f2 .idg4+ 57.\t>el e4 �-� There is no way for either side to try for something more. A truly sad end to a very interesting game with two ex change sacrifices on d4 and d5 ! . The reader should also take i n ac count the famous game Topalov Aronian, Wijk aan Zee 2006, which has been analyzed in a lot of sources and magazines and was voted the best game oflnformator 96. In this game a double
1 19
Chess Analytics exchange sacrifice was realized by White; both his rooks were sacrificed on e4·! Here is the game (without notes): (113) Topalov - Aronian Wijk aan Zee 2006 Queen's Indian Defense [E 1 5]
1.d4 lL!f6 2.c4 e6 3.lL!f3 b6 4.g3 Aa6 5.b3 Ah4+ 6.Ad2 Ae7 7.Ag2 c6 8.Ac3 d5 9.lL!e5 lL!fd7 10.lLJxd7 lLJ xd7 11.lL!d2 0-0 12.00 lL!f6 13.e4 b5 14.e xd5 exd5 15.§e1 §b8 16.c5 Ac8 17.lL!f3 lL!e4 (D)
18. § x e4 d x e4 1 9 . lL!e5 �d5 20.�e1 Af5 21.g4 Ag6 22.f3 b4 23.fxe4 �e6 24.Ab2 Af6 25.lL! xc6 �xc6 26.e5 �a6 27.exf6 §fe8 28. �fl �e2 29. �f2 �xg4 30.h3 �g5 31.Ac1 �h5 32.Af4 §bd8 33.c6 Ae4 34.c7 §.cS 35.§e1 �g6 (D)
Conclusion A double exchange sacrifice is not a daily occurrence, but it should be kept in mind. The compensation should be evaluated and the tactics calculated pre cisely and correctly. Yes, chess is a rich and deep game ! Losing a Queen Concept Losing a queen is not a happy mo ment for a chessplayer. It is a (nasty) feeling that every chessplayer in the world has experienced! Well, barring the games that a queen is lost without any material compensation, in most of the cases the blundering side can put up some resistance. We will examine some positions where the blundering side got as compensation for his queen a pair of minor pieces (or a rook). Our first example is a model about what not to do !
(114) Tsomis - Grivas Athens 1 984 Ruy Lopez [C8 1 ]
1.e4 e5 2.lL!f3 lL!c6 3.Ab5 a6 4.Aa4 lL!f6 5.0-0 lLl xe4 6.d4 b5 7.Ab3 d5 8.dxe5 Ae6 9.�e2 Ac5 1 0 . lLJ bd2 lLJ x d2 1 l . j}. x d2 0-0 1 2.h3 �d7 1 3.c3 d4 14.Axe6 � xe6 15.cxd4 lLJ xd4 16.lLJ x d4 Axd4 17.Ac3 Axc3 18.bxc3 f6 19.§.fe1 §ae8 20.a4 (D)
36.§. xe4 §. xe4 37.d5 §ce8 38.d6 §e1+ 39.'it'h2 �f5 40.�g3 g6 41.�g5 � xg5 42.Axg5 §d1 43.Ac6 §e2+ 44. 'it'g3 1-0
1 20
Losing a Queen White seems to be under pressure, as his e- and c-pawns are rather weak.
White wanted to avoid 9.0-0
20 ... �xe5?? Completely missing the idea be hind 2 0 . a 4 ! . I should have p layed 20 . . . c6 although after 2 l .axbS axbS 22.f4 fxeS 23.fxeS White probably will save the half-point, but not without hard work.
9 ... .£)f5? 9 . . . �xd3! 1 0.�xd3 .£\g6 1 1 .�d2 .£\deS! ( 1 1 . . .cS? 1 2.0-0
21.�a2+! Thanks for the queen!
21 ... �h8 22.f!xe5
1 0 . .£) x f5 �a5+ (D)
Of course I could resign here. I just played on in order to calm down.
·�
j}_ x f5
1 l . j}. x f5
-� . �
��""""1')��w==�
22 . . . f! x e5 2 3 . a x b 5 a x b5 24. �a7 c5 25. �b7 b4 26.§a8 f!g8 27.c x b4 c x b4 28.�b8 § x b8 29.§xb8+ §eS 30.f!xe8 # 1-0
r� � :t · ·� :t r�� � :t � ...... .
�m imim �
� � �·� �� -� � � �, �mwP� �� ·
What is more strange is the fact that this was my only defeat in a round-robin tournament where in the end I finished second and achieved my second IM norm!
'
m
4), "' �
�
�
�./ij.
m
'.!1. ���• %%N K
"' � 4), ?'$"
���� .!1 ?'�
,9 -�� ma �
�-
The reader should keep in mind that at the time this game was played, I was just a 14-year old boy with little understanding of chess. Nowadays, 14year old boys are grandmasters but in my time we where just still learning the rules ! Well, the times they are a changin', aren't they?
Straight blunders occur every day. I am sure that you have seen various versions of the following example in your visits to the local club or you have been the victim! After all, we are living a blunderful life!
12.�d2??
(11 5) Grivas - Papoutsis Athens 1 980 Caro-Kann Defense [B l 8]
1 2 . Ji. d 2 � x fS 1 3 . �b 3 0 - 0 - 0 1 4 . 0-0= i s natural and forced.
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3 . .£lc3 dxe4 4 . .£) xe4 Af5 5 . .£)g3 Ag6 6 . .£)f3 .£ld7 7.Af4 This is a harmless line for Black. Of course 7.h4 is the most commonly played move.
7...e6 8.Ad3 .£)e7 8 .. A:Jgf6 is again the natural move: 9.0-0 J:Le7 1 0.Ele1
12... Ab4 Although my opponent hesitated a bit, puzzled by my reaction, he had no reason not to grab my queen. As far as I remember I was ready to cry but in the end I decided just to pull myselfto gether and try to fight (a lost cause of course).
9.c4?!
121
13.Ad3 Axd2+ 14.j}.xd2 �c7 15.0-0 0-0-0?! (D)
Chess Analytics 2 l . . .bxc6 was forced.
22.b5? White did not seize his opportunity. With 22 . .£ld4! �c7 23 . .£lb5 �f4 24.g3 he could even play for a win!
22 ... t:/c7 23.a5 e5?
White has only the bishop pair for his queen. This should not be enough if B lack knows what to do (exchange pieces and get to the endgame is a rea sonable plan) which probably was not the case in this game, as he started pro ducing small inaccuracies. Black had no reason to castle queenside asking for complications. Castling kings ide (or same castle in general) should be fine with such a material advantage.
t6.b4 h6 17.a4 g5 18 . .Q.c3 4)f6?! 1 8 . . . g4 1 9 . .£ld2 'it'b8 ( 1 9 . . . e 5 20.dxe5 .£\xe5 2 Ulf5+ 'it'bS 22.c5 h5 23 . .£le4) is more natural.
19.§fdl 'dd7 Admitting his mistake on the pre vious move, but in the meantime he has lost precious time.
This offers nothing positive and at the same time it weakens the light squares. 23 . . . �f4 24 ..\.id4 g4 25 .Ae3 �f6 26 ..£ld4 .f:lc5 27.Ae2 l"!d7 + was correct for Black. 24. .Q.f5! Yl-Yl 24.b6 axb6 25 . .\.if5 'it'b8 26.l' h d7 l"! xd7 27.axb6 �dS 28.Axd7 �xd7 29.Axe5+ l"! xe5 30 . .£\xe5 �e6 + . I did not want to further tempt fate, so I of fered a draw. My opponent was happy to hear it and he agreed immediately! Was I lucky to escape or unlucky not to continue? Well, this was just a bad game for both sides, so we cannot draw fair conclusions. But it proves that even with a superior material advantage we must form plans and correctly execute them. But let's move to more "serious" examples: (116) Grivas - Timoshchenko Plovdiv 1 988 King's Indian Defense [E68]
20.d5 §he8?! 20 ... g4 2 Ulxh8 gxf3 22.Ad4 .f:le5 23 . .lle4 fxg2 preserved Black's advan tage, although White has some chances. 21.dxc6 t:/ xc6?! (D)
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 g6 3.'dc3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0-0 6.4)f3 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Jl,e2 exd5 9.cxd5 .Q.g4 10.0-0 4)bd7 1l.h3 Jl,xf3 12.Jl,xf3 §e8 (D)
1 22
Losing a Queen This is a well-known position, at least for those who are fond of the Four Pawns Attack system in the King's In dian Defense. There are many ways for White to proceed and the one chosen in the game seems to be the most double-edged.
13.g4!? h6 The most common and best reac tion. 1 3 . . .<2lfS 1 4.g5 <216d7 1 5.h4 fibS 16.h5 is dominating for White, as in Brionne-Frois, Groningen 1 98 1 .
23.�f2 §hl :;:: .
18 . . . e xf4 20.�h2
1 9 . A x f4 Ad4+
No help was 20.'�g2 <2le5 2 l .�xe5 §xeS 22.�f3 �e7 + .
20... 4)e5 21. �g3 After 2 l .�g2 �d7! I could not de cide on a proper continuation. Perhaps exchanging queens and trying to defend a worse endgame was the best option: 22.�h3 �xh3+ 23S'l)xh3 <2Jd3 24.§f3 <2lxf4+ 25.E! xf4 § adS 26.§dl §e5 + .
14.h4 h5! 15.g5
2l ... �d7!
1 5 . gxh5? <2Jxh5 16.�xh5 �xh4! can be good only for Black. 15 .. .l£)g4! (D)
B lack activates all his pieces. 2 1 . . .�xc3?! 22.�xc3 �xdS 23.E!adl=/ oo or 2 l . . .c4?! 22.E!adl <2ld3 23.§ xd3 cxd3 24. �xd3=/ oo would be just na Ive.
22 . .§.ael?!
Passive is 1 5 . . . <2lh7?! 16.�g2 §bS 1 7 .e5 d x e S 1 S .f5 ± C ol in-Rayner, Hastings 2005 . Black must be active in order to maintain the balance.
For better or worse, White could only play 22.�h3 §adS 23.Eiael <2lg4+ 24.�g2 �xc3 25.�xc3 �xd5+ 26.�f3 �xf3 + 2 7 . � x f3 fS 2 S . gx f6 <2l x f6 29.§ xeS+ § xeS 30.�e3 b6 + and try to defend this endgame a pawn down. 22 ...Af21 (D)
t6.e5?! Too optimistic. White should have chosen 1 6 . �xg4 h x g4 1 7 . E\ e l c4 1S.�xg4 (1S.�e3 �xc3 19.bxc3 § xe4 20.�xg4 �e7 2 l .�f2 <2lc5 was unclear in Kouatly-Kindermann, Tmava 1 987) 1S . . . <2lc5 1 9.h5 �xc3 20.bxc3 <2lxe4 2 1 .hxg6 fxg6 22.�e3 oo Charpentier Minero Pineda, San Jose 200 1 .
16 . . . d x e5 18.'(�/xg4
1 7 . A x g4 h x g4
lS.fS does not solve White's problems: lS . . . gxfS 19.E! xf5 e4 20.�xg4 <2l e 5 ! ( 2 0 . . . �d4+?! 2 l . �fl <2l e 5 oo Albarran-Della Morte, Vicente Lopez 2004) 2 l .�x e4 <2lg6 2 2 .�g4 E! e l +
I did not see this coming! Suddenly I realized that I was fighting for a lost cause. B lack would win material (23.E! xf2 <2lg4+ 24.�xg2 E! xel) and soon the game. So, I thought that I must try to be creative !
23 . .§. xe51? A xg3+ 24. � x g3 .§.xe5 25.Axe5 (D)
1 23
Chess Analytics should keep it in mind. Probably Black has other ways to exploit his material advantage, but this is the most clear-cut.
30.�f6+ �xf6 3l.E!xd6 3 1 .gxf6 § xd1 is even simpler.
3l ... � xb2 32.§xg6+ �h7
White sacrificed his queen for two minor pieces. In general Black's mate rial advantage would be too much to ignore, but in this particular position White has two other pluses; his passed d-pawn and the weaknesses in the dark squares around the black king. Black must react carefully, never thinking that he can win on automatic pilot.
If White's h-pawn were already in h5, then he would have good surviving chances, but there is no '"if' - not in a chess game, or in the real life !
33. §e6 � x a2 34.g6+ �g7 3 5 . Ae5+ �h6 36 . .1}.f4+ �h5 37.§d6 �e2! Keep in mind the important note in 26 . . .f5!.
38.Ag5 �e5+ 39.Af4 �e2 40. .i}.g5 �e5+ 41 . .1}.f4 �c3+ 0-1 (117) Yuneev - Grivas Leningrad 1 989 King's Indian Defense [E76]
25...�e7! 26. .1}.f4 Unfortunately after 26J'\e1 §e8! 27.d6 t¥xe5+ 28.§xe5 § xe 5 29.d7 Black wins with 29 . . . §e3+ 30.\t'f4 §d3 31 .4:le4 b6 32.4:lf6+ 'it'f8 33.'it'e4 §d4+ 34.'it'e5 'it'e7.
26 ...f5! Gaining access on the important g4-square and avoids a potential 4Je4.
27.d6
l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 Again the "4PA" of the King's In dian Defense. Is there any relationship between the opening and losing the queen? 5 ...0-0 6.�f3 c5 7.d5 e6 (D)
A last try. Not difficult for Black is 27.gxf6 tlfxf6 28.§e1 § f8 -+ .
27...�e6 28.E!dl E!d8 29.�d5 (D)
8.dxe6 fxe6
29 ... E!xd6! Returning some material to ensure the annihilation of our opponent's counterplay is an important rule and we
The main alternative is 8 . . . Jlxe6 9 . Ad3 4:lc6 (9 . . . Ag4 1 0 .h3 Axf3 1 l .t¥xf3 4:lc6 1 2.0-0 §b8 1 3.Ae3 a6 1 4 . § ad 1 ;!; Si monyi- Grivas , Vrsac 1 983) 10.f5 Ad7 1 1 .0-0
1 24
Losing a Queen 1 987) 1 3 . . . 4Jxd5 14.exd5 l"le8 1 5.Ag5 '(i¥a5= Lanka-Gufeld, Jurmala 1 978.
9 .Ad3 .!£l c6 10.0-0 .i£l d4 ll.�hl!? (D)
A blunder! Black was forced to play 16 . . . 4Jxf5 17 . .\.txf5 l"l xf5 18.l"l xf5 Axf5 19 ..\.tg5 '(i¥g4 (19 . . . hxg5? 20.4Je7+ �hS 2 1 . 4J xf5 +- ) 2 0 . 4Je7+ �h8 21 .4Jxf5 '(i¥xf5 22 .'(i¥xh5 �g8 oo . It must be noted that the other option 16 . . . .\.txf5? is also bad: 17.Ag5 '(i¥g4 18.4Je7+ �h8 1 9 . .\.ixf5 '(i¥ x d 1 2 0 . l"l a x d 1 h x g 5 2 1 .4Jg6+ �g8 22.4Jxf8 l"l xf8 23.g4 ± .
t7.Ag5! As in the previous game, I did not see this coming! Well-known (even on those days !) i s 1 1 . 4Jg 5 e 5 ( 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 . 4Jf3 e5 1 3.4Jh4! '(i¥e8 1 4.f5 gxf5 1 5 .4Jxf5 Axf5 [ 1 5 . . . 4Jxf5?! 1 6.exf5 e4 17 . .\.tcZ '(i¥e5 18 . .\.tf4 '(i¥d4+ 19.'(i¥xd4 cxd4 20.4Jxe4 ll,xf5 2 1 . 4Jxf6+ B xf6 22 . .\.txf5 B xf5 2 3 . .\.txd6 ± Inkiov-Grivas, Athen s 1 994] 16.exf5 b5 1 7.b3 +=) 1 2.f5 h6 1 3 .4Jh3 g xf5 1 4 . e xf5 b 5 oo Christiansen-Kasparov, Moscow 1 982.
11 ... .!£lh5 1 1 . . ..\.td7 12 ..\.td2 Ac6 13.4Jg5 h6 14.4Jf3 4Jh5 oo Yuneev-Fedorov, St Pe tersburg 1 994 or Vakin-Minasian, Alma-Ata 1 99 1 are fair alternatives.
12 . .!£l g5 h6 13 .!£lh3 e5 14.f5 •
The only move. Bad is 14.fxe5? .\.ixh3 1 5.gxh3 '(i¥h4 + .
14... t?lh4 15 .!£ld5 •
1 5 .Ae3?! did not satisfy White: 15 . . . gxf5 16.exf5 4Jf6 17 . .\.ifZ '(i¥g4 '1' Bousios-Grivas, Thessaloniki 1 983. 15 ...g xf5 t6.exf5 e4? (D)
�f7
18 . .!£le7+
1 7. . . h x g5 19 . .!£lg6 .i£l g3+
And I was a bit lucky that my queen can at least escape.
20.hx g3 t?lh6 2l . .i}.xe4! Precise! 2 1 .4Jxf8 exd3 is not clear.
2l .§e8 22 .i}.d5+ �f6 •..
•
Before the game I was thinking about some kind of an attack; but I never did think that I would carry it out with my king!
23.g4 Ad7 24.t?ld3 .§e2 25 .!£lgf4 •
2 5 . l"l a e 1 ! l"l ae8 26.l"l xe2 l"l xe2 27.'(i¥g3 Af8 28.l"le1 seemed to be a safe way for White to crown his advantage. After 25.4Jgf4 I was quite disappointed with my position. I even thought about resigning, but in the end I decided to carry on and give up my queen. After all, I had nothing more to lose than my lost position!
25 . . . g x f4! 26. g 5+ 27 .!£l x g5 �x g5 (D)
1 25
•
t?l x g 5
Chess Analytics Well, my position does not look that bad. My bishops are fine, my knight and rooks are active (the second one comes to h8) and even my king can help! I felt that I had some chances, until my opponent's next move hit me like a rock!
28.§xf41 After a long thought White found (probably) the only good move. 28.g3? f3 2 9 .l' h f3 l."! h8+ 3 0 . � g l 4Jxf3 + 3 l .�xf3 .lld4+ 32.�fl l."!fU o r even worse 28.l."!ael? l."!h8+ 29.�gl .llxf5 30 .�dl l."! he8 + would make B lack happy.
28... 4) xf5 28. . . l."!h8+ 29.�gl �xf4 30.l."!fl + �g4 (30 ...�g5 3l .�g3+ �f6 32.�g6+) 31 .M3+ �g5 32 . .\lxe2 4Jxe2+ 33.�xe2 .lld4+ 34.l."!f2 +- was not a solution ei ther.
36.�f2 .lld4+ 37.�g3 .lle 5+ 38.�h3 l."!h8 39.�d3+ �g7 40.l."!fl ! +- .
32... §e8 3 2 . . . 4J x g 3 + 34.l."!gl +-
3 3 . �g2
.ll e 5
33.§el .1lh6 34. �c3 4) e3 35. .1lxb7 .1lf5 36.Af3 §e7 37.g4 ,ild7 38. �d3+ \t>g7 39. � xd6 .1lg5 1-0 And my flag felled before White could play 40.l."! xe3! l."! xe3 4 l .�xd7+. Conclusion It would be better not to lose your queen, but if this nasty thing happens, then look for some compensation; you might find out that there is plenty! Then put your head down and try your best; after all you have nothing to lose! Los ing a queen (without a concrete reason) is always a good first step to defeat!
29.§g4+ Or 29.l."! afl l."! h8+ 30.�gl l."!e5 3 1 . �f3 but White should avoi d 2 9 . l."! xf5+? it xf5 3 0 . � x e 2 l."! h8+ 3 l .�gl .lld4+ 32.�f2=.
29 . . . \t> xg4 30. � x e2 + \t>g5 3l.�d2+ \t>g6 (D)
Twins
Concept Combinations that can be repeated are not unusual and something that may be classified. The combination in ques tion is one ofthe most beautiful in chess h istory and even the great Tigran Petrosian comments that when he first came across it he was so impressed that he forever remained a devotee of chess! This survey is based on articles by Tim Krabbe (Chess Curiosities; 1 985) and Jan Timman (New In Chess Magazine; 1 997/3, 1 997/5 and 1 999/5).
32.g3! 32.g4 also wins but White must play with accuracy: 32 . . . l."!h8+ 33. �g2! (33.�gl? itd4+ 34.�g2 4Je3+ 35.�g3 itxg4 36.�xe3 l."!h3+ 37.�xg4 l."! xe3 "1' ) 3 3 . . . 4Jh4+ 34 . �fl ( 3 4 . �g3 Jle5+ 3 5 . �f2 .ll d 4+ 36.�e2 itxg4 + 37 .�d3 ± ) 3 4 . . . l."!f8+ 3 5 . � e l l."! e8+
(118) Tylkowski -Wojciechowski Poznan 1 93 1 Bird's Opening [A03]
l.f4 d5 2.e3 c5 3.4)f3 4)c6 4 . .1lb5 ,ilg4 5.0-0 e6 6.d3 Ae7 7.4)c3 d4 8.4)bl 4)f6 9.e4 0-0 10..1lxc6 bxc6 11.c3 dxc3 12.4) xc3
1 26
Twins .Q.xf5 13 . .§xf3 4)g4 14.®hl �d4 1 5 .�gl � xg l + 1 6 . ® x gl .Q.d8 17 . .Q.e3 4) xe3 18 . .§ x e3 .Q.b6 19 . .§dl h6 20.e5 f6 21.exf6 .§xf6 22 . .§f3 c4+ 23.d4 c5 24.d5 exd5 25 . .§xd5 ®h7 26. .§d7 .§d8 27. .§b7 .§g6 28. .§g3 .§xg3 29.hxg3 (D)
Forced. If 32.
32 ...c41! Taking d3 under control. The threat now is . . . c2 .
33 . .§b4 a5!! The conclusion ofthe combination. The white pieces lose their coordina tion and the c-pawn will promote.
34.4) xc4 If 34.l"l xc4, then 34 . . . cxb2 35.a4 bl�+ 36.�h2 �b3 -+ .
34 ... c2 35.4) xa5 cl �+ 36.®h2 �c51 The start ofthe combination is easy to predict; Black has to put pressure on the white pawns.
29 ... .§d2! 30.4)a4? Wrong, as White could not even conceive of what would follow. He could save the draw with 30.a4! l"l xb2 3l .a5 l"lb3! (after 3 1 . . .ilxa5? 32.l"l xb2 ilxc3 33.l"lc2 ild4+ 34.�fl c3 35.g4 it is not clear if Black can draw) 32.axb6 axb6! 33.
Black wins the knight. It is not clear that Black had foreseen this beforehand, but luck favors the brave!
37. .§b2 The point is that after 3 7 . l"l a4 (37.l"lb3 �xa5 38.a3? �h5+ 39.�gl �dl +) B lack wins with 37 . . . �h5+ 38.�gl �dl +.
37... �xa5 38.g4 �e1 39.g3 h5 40.gxh5 ®h6 (D)
30... .§xb2!! The main theme and the actual start of the combination. 31.4) xb2 c3 32 . .§xb6 (D)
And after fifteen more moves White resigned. 0-1 Two years later and in a far-away town and in an era that there were no publications (almost), databases or internet ( !), a similar combination took place. This is the version that it was published in some sources:
1 27
Chess Analytics (119) Ortueta - Sanz Madrid 1 933 (D)
And Black has no way to improve his position further:
l ... §.d2! 2.�a4?! But here White could save himself with 2.a4! l"! xb2 3.a5 l"!b3 4.axb6 axb6 5.'tla4 l"!a3 (5 ...b5? 6.£lxc5 l"!bl + 7.\t'f2 c3 8.f:ld3 +- ) 6.l"! xb6 l"!xa4 7.l"!b5=.
2 ... §.xb2! 3.� xb2 C3 4.§.xb6 c41! 5.§.b4 a5!! 6.� xc4 c2 (D)
16 ... �xf3 17.gxf3 �b3 White simply advances his pawns and reaches a drawn queen ending:
18.f4 �xa3 19.f5 �b3 20.f6 gxf6 2l.h5 a3 22.h6 a2 23.h7 al � 24.h8� Yz-Yz B ut "of course" thi s was the "wrong version" of the game. The fol lowing was the actual game: (120) Ortueta - Sanz Madrid 1 933 French Defense [COO]
"And White resigned." It looks like White is busted, but actually there is a defense:
7 . §b3! c l � + 8.�f2 � x c4 9.E!h3+ The saving move. If the white h pawn were on h3, then White would lose this position.
9 ... �g6 10.a3
l .e4 e6 2.d3 d5 3.�c3 �f6 4.e5 �fd7 5.f4 Ab4 6.Ad2 o-o 7 . � f3 f6 8.d4 c5 9 . �b5 fxe5 10.dxe5 § xf4 ll.c3 §.e4+ 12.Ae2 Aa5 13.0-0 � xe5 14.�xe5 §.xe5 t5.Af4 §f5 t6.Ad3 E!f6 t7.�c2 h6 18.1;te5 �d7 19.Axf6 � x f6 2 0 . § xf6 � x f6 2 1 . §fl �e7 2 2 .Ah7+ �hs 23.�g6 Ad7 24. §.f7 �g5 2 5 . � x g5 h xg5 26.§xd7 �xh7 27.§.xb7 (D)
Here John Nunn thought that Black could win by taking his pawn to a4, his king to c4 and then liquidating into a winning pawn ending. But this is not true, as White can defend:
10 ... a4 ll.§.g3+ �f5 12.§f3+ �e4 13.�g3 �d5 14.h4! �b3 15.�h3 �c4 16.�h2 (D)
1 28
Twins 27... Ab6?! According to Capablanca, here B lack could get the advantage with 27 . . . c4!. But in fact this is of less sig nificance as it has nothing to do with our theme.
28.c4 dxc4 29.lL!c3?1 29.4Jd6! was a far better try; prob ably White would be able to draw. 29 .§.d8 30.h3 (D) .••
with 2.fxg7+ '!le7 3.l:"lh8 l:"l xb3 4.l:"l xg8 '!Jf6 5.4Je6!. 2 . .§.xf7+ �g8 (D)
As more or less in the previous game!
30 .§.d2! 3l.lL!a4 .•.
Now Black's extra material on the kingside doesn't allow the saving re source 3 l .a4: 3 l . . . l:"l xb2 32.a5 l:"l b3 33.axb6 axb6 34.4Ja4 c3 35.4Jxc3 l:"l xc3 36.l:"l xb6 l:"le3 -+ .
31 .§.xb211 •••
As usual, imagination wins versus material !
3 2 . lL! xb2 c3! 33 .§. x b6 c41! 34 .§.b4 a511 35.lL! xc4 c2 0-1 •
Not of course 2 . . . '!Je8? in view of 3.Aa4+.
3 . .§. xb711 lL! xb7? Here the main problem is Boris Gelfand's analysis, which states that Black can defend with 3 . . .fxg5! 4.l:"lxa7 l:"lxb3 5.l:"l xa5 l:"l xe3+ 6.'!Jg4 '!Jf7. So, actually the study is incorrect but still beautiful because of the various com binations and defenses.
4.c6 .§.xb3 5.c5!!
•
This combination inspired the great Jan Timman to construct some thematic studies:
The well-known theme. With this move, the black pieces are kept away from d6 and b6. 5 . . .§.b5 6.a4!! fxg5! (D)
(121) Timman 1997 (D)
White i s a p awn-up but h i s queenside has problems, s o h e has to act.
l.f6! gxf6 Forced. If l . . . l:"l xb3, then 2.l:"lh8+ Ag8 3.f7 and if l . . .Ag8, White wins
1 29
.
Chess Analytics (123) Timman 1999 (D)
The best defense, as Black has a hidden resource . . .
7.�h31! The point is that 7.axb5? is impos sible in view of 7 . . . 4Jxc5 8.c7 4Je4+ 9.�g4 4Jd6 -+ . White's last move is an enormous surprise. Although a rook and a knight down, White is in no hurry to win material back, but starts by hiding his king!
7...g4+ 8.�h4! And White wins the ensuing queen ending: 8 . . . g3 9.axb5 g2 10.cxb7 gl YJ1 l l .b8Yl1+ 1-0 The following version is also more economical and therefore the improved and correct one:
As far as material is concerned, the situation is roughly equal. White is ob viously counting on his passed c-pawns.
1 ..Q.b4! l .c6 4Jd6 at once yields nothing, so White will have to start by trying to dominate the enemy knight.
1 ... .§.b1 There is no other defense to the threatened 2.c6: l . . .E\gl + 2.�f2 El g8 (2 . . . Eicl 3.c6 E\ xc4 4.c7 E\c6 5.f4 e4 6.f5 +- ) 3.c6 4Jd8 4.�e7! +- .
(122) Timman 1999 (D)
2.a31 Tempting is 2.c6 E\ xb4 3 .c5, but this fails to 3 . . . 4Jxc5 4.c7 4Je4+! 5.fxe4 Elc4.
2...a5 3.c6 Only now can the bishop be sacrificed.
3...axb4 4.c511
1.c6 .§. xb4 2.c51! It is a draw after 2.axb4? 4Jd6 3.c5 4Jf5+ 4.�g4 4::lx e3+ 5.�f3 4Jd5 6.4Je6 �f7 7.c7 4Je7 8.4::\dS+ �e8 9.4Jc6 4Jc8.
2 ... .§.b5 3.a411 fxg5 4.�h311 g4+ 5.�h4! And White wins as in the previous version. 1-0 As Jan Timman states, he was not entirely satisfied with the two previous studies, a clear indication of a dedicated and great chessplayer! So, his final, third version is far more excellent and refined compared to the previous two, which might have seemed "unfinished."
The usual motif.
4...bxa3 4 . . . 4Jxc5 fails to 5.c7 4Je4+ 6.fxe4 Elcl 7.axb4 and a white pawn will pro mote.
5.c7 Now the black rook has to hurry back to the last rank to stop the white passed pawns.
5 ... .§.g1+ 6.�h31 For two reasons, both ofwhich will become apparent, the only good square for the king.
1 30
6 ... §g8 Another try is 6 ... a2 7.c8Yl1+ E\g8
The f4 Break which fails to 8.4Jd8!! 4Jxd8 (8 . . . l:"l xd8 9 . i1Y x b 7 a l i1¥ 1 0 .i1Yg7 * ; 8 . . . a l i1¥ 9.4Jf7 * ) 9.i1Ya6, capturing the a-pawn.
gotten, so this survey was a good chance to come back to interesting and old combinations, mixed with relatively recent studies. Both amusing and in structive . . .
7. .£Jd8! §xd8 8.c6! Here is our theme again! Now we see why the king had to go on h3 ; on the second rank, a check on d2 would be annoying.
The f4 Break
8 ... §.g8
Concept The f4 ( . . .f5) break in general looks like an easy concept, as it can be seen in a vast number of games. This of course is self-evident and we will not argue ! But here we will examine the case when the f4-break is fully restricted by the black e5- and g5-pawns and it does not have the support of its g3pawn. In this rare case, a sacrifice of a piece is in the wind and the justifica tion can come in different forms of com pensation. The most usual i s the opponent's king but, other strategic and tactical assets could also be taken into account. But let's look at more ex amples to fully understand this concept:
The best defense. If 8 . . . a2, then 9.cxd8i1¥+ 4::\xdS 1 0.c7. 9.cxb7 a2 (D)
10.b8�! This is the only way to queen which wins, as will soon become clear. The alternative 1 0.c8i1¥? only draws after 1 0 . . . a l i1¥ l l .i1Yxg8+ \t>xg8 1 2.b8i1¥+ \t>f7 13.i1Yc7+ \t>e6.
(124) Grivas - Poluektov Limmasol 1 997 Chigorin Defense [D07]
lO . . . a l � l l . � x g8+ � x g8 12.c8�+ �f7 13.�d7+ �g6 The other option, 1 3 . . . \t>fS, also loses : 1 4.i1Yg7+ \t>e8 1 5 .i1Yg8+ \t>d7 16.i1Yxh7+ \t>d6 1 7.�e4 +- .
14.�g7+ �h5 15.�f7+! And this is the second reason for White's sixth move; the white king as sists in weaving a mating net!
l.d4 d5 2.c4 .£!c6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 I think this is one of the best set ups against the Chigorin Defense. 4.4Jf3 Jlg4 gives Black too many
1 5 ... � x h6 16.� x f6+ �h5 17.�g5 # 1-0 Conclusion The well-known Prokes theme in the studies is in full force in the above examples. Combinations can be learned and classified, as they tend to recur . . . Well, everything is new if well for-
131
Chess Analytics 13 ..Q.d3 f6?!
6.J}.d2 Also good is 6.a3 .llx c3+ 7.bxc3 4Jf6 8.4Je2 0-0 (8 . . . h5 9.c4! '\!;¥xc4? 1 0.4Jf4 '\!;¥c3+ 1 l.. �d2 '\!;¥b2 1 2 .4Jd3 �b6 1 3 . f1 b 1 �a6 1 4 . 4Jc5 '\!;¥ x a 3 1 5 . f1 a 1 'l!;¥ b 2 1 6 . 4Ja4 +- Grivas Miladinovic, Athens 2000) 9.c4 'l!;¥d6 1 0 . d 5 4Je7 1 1 .4Jc3 c6 1 2 .e4 a6 (12 . . . b5!? was my suggestion in a sur vey that I wrote for ChessBase Maga zine) 1 3.a4 ;!; Grivas-Karpatchev, Corfu 2007.
6....Q.xc3 7.bxc3 White plays for a strong center and/ or the bishop pair. 7 . .ll.x c3 exd4 8.4Je2 is the modem line, but I believe that Black doesn't stand badly.
Another passive move. For better or worse, B lack had to try 1 3 . . . f5 1 4.exf5 gxf5 1 5 .0-0 4Jf7 16.f1b1 0-0-0 17.Ac3 ± .
14.E!bl h5 Black believes that he can push White 's pieces back and avoid any opening of the center...
15.0-0 h4 16.4:)e2 Now White is ready for the f4break; Black decides to stop it "forever" . . . t6...g5 (D)
7... 4:)ge7 The main alternative is 7 . . . exd4 8.cxd4 4Jf6 9.4Jf3 0-0 10 . .1le2 4Je4 ( 1 0 . . .b6 1 1 .'\!;¥b3 �xb3 1 2 .axb3 Ab7 1 3.0-0 a5 14.§fcU Grivas-Tsantiris, Athens 1 997) 1 1 .0-0 a5 1 2.�c2 4Jd6 1 3.f1fcl ;!; Grivas-Karagiannis, Kavala 1 999. B lack has also tried 7 . . . '1!;¥d6 8.4Je2 4Jf6 9.4Jg3 0-0 1 0 . .1le2 4Je7 1 1 . 0-0 ;!; c5?! 1 2 .dxe5! '\!;¥xe5 1 3 .f3! 4Jed5 1 4.'1!;¥cl �e7 1 5 .e4 4Jc7 16.a4 .ll.d7 1 7 . .1lf4 f1 fc8 1 8. f1 d 1 ± 4Jce8?
Black has chosen an unusual open ing set-up. He has decided to keep the position closed, neutralizing White's bishop pair and he also has ideas such as placing one of his knights on d6 and the other one on f4, which looks very promising. Although White seems to be on top as he enjoys a well-protected passed pawn, the bishop pair and a sig nificant spatial advantage, there is the question of how to proceed. So, in sum mary, White 's advantages are quite valuable and he should try to benefit in a direct way.
17.f4!!
10...c5?! It was wiser to try to find a good post for the unlucky d8-knight: 10 ...b6!? 1 1 .4Je2 4Jb7 1 2.4Jc3 0-0 1 3.AeU .
1 1 .4:)e2 .Q.d7 1 2 . 4:)g3 g6
A sacrifice like the text comes into consideration. White 's b ishop pair comes to life, his passed pawn is ready to advance and the black king will come under fire. Of course he will be a piece down, but all his remaining pieces will be active and ready to exploit the pres-
132
The f4 Break ence of his opponent's king on the cen ter. In view of the above, his compen sation should be more than enough.
17...gxf4 17 . . . exf4 18.
�e7 24.l"lbfl l"l af8 25 .Ae2 he will probably not.
2l ..Q.g5!1 § xh5 2 1 . . .fxg5?! 22 .�f8 # or 2 1 . . .
18.ltl xf4 b6
22.�xh5 fxg5 23.�h7+! 1-0
Black declines the offer, as after 18 . . . exf4 19.ilxf4 �a6 20.e5 h3 (20 .. .f5 2 l .e6
The above example was nice, but I think that even nicer is the next one: (125) Svidler Malaniuk Maikop 1 998 Ruy Lopez [C75] -
l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3 ..Q.b5 a6 4 . .Q.a4 d6 5.c3 .Q.d7 6.d4 4) f6 7.�e2 .Q.e7 8.d5 4)b8 (D)
M�m a i"Si''iiiJ� �-=� �i r /Gi i � � � � Ill � � D i &v.�!..a.. '� o?" ..l
· '·�� j� j� l� � pftj� �'- �p i:� WJ� �4J� � � ':r: 'ji�� ' · § 4J� � � ;g
� r� .J1. �� ·' ' �
19.4)h5 The open f-file and the attacking white pieces ensure the win.
19 ... 4)g8 20. �f3 2 0 .
B lack's position isn't exactly a work of art, but he should at least try to survive with 20 . . .
'
,. '
.
.
� R.M..r� � r g �.4.0 .i!:. �.,ill "' "-' ' � �- "
" -· "
9 ..Q.c2 To exchange on d7 or not to ex change on d7 - that is the question. In general, keeping pieces on the board benefits the player with the spatial ad vantage. In this position White has more space for his pieces because of his for ward post on d5 . But on the other hand, his light-square bishop is Black's good bishop. For a similar discussion, see the games Topalov-Yusupov, Novgorod 1 995 and Tischbierek-Sale, Budapest 1 996. So, the alternative is 9.ilxd7+
133
Chess Analytics 9 ... c6 10.c4 a5 11.4)c3 4)a6 12.0-0 0-0 13.h3 A useful move; White restricts an eventual . . . ltg4xf3 exchange - he is the one with more space!
13 ...h6 14.Jl,e3 c5 Black goes for a complete block ade.
15.4)ell The knight belongs on d3 ; from there it will support the two main breaks for White, b4 and f4.
21.Jl,xf4 4)h7 22.e5! Now the "monster" on c2 enters the battle with lethal threats for the black king.
22 ...Jl,h4 Black's defense is going nowhere: 22 . . . ltg5 23.l"lafl (23.Ah2!?) 23 ... ltxf4 24.l"l xf4 <£lg5 (24 . . . l"lf8 25.e6 +- ) 25.h4 dxe5 (25 . . . �xe5 26.hxg5 l"laf8 27.�f3 �e7 2 8 . <£le4 +- ) 2 6 . l"l 4f2 <£lh7 2 7 . l"l x f7 + �xf7 2 8 . l"l x f7 + � x f7 29.�h5+ +- .
23.e61 fxe6
15 ...g5? A dangerous decision since the blockade is a bit fragile. Better was 1 5 . . . <£Jh7 16.f4 ltf6 (16 ... exf4 1 7.ltxf4 +=) 1 7.f5 ;!; . 16.a3 �g7 17.4)d3 �e8 (D)
The alternatives were 23 . . . ltxf2+ 24.�xf2 fxe6 25.�g3+ +- and 23 ...ltxe6 24.dxe6 ltxf2+ 25.ii¥xf2 ii¥xe6 26.�g3+ <£Jg5 27 .h4 +- .
24.�g4+ Jl.g5 25.Jl,xd6 exd5 26.�f3 26.Ae 5 + also wins: 26 . . . �xe5 27.�xd7+ �e7 28.�f5 ii¥f6 29.�xd5 �e7 30.�d3 �e6 3 1 .<£ld5 +- .
26... .§f8 Desperation: 26... d4 27.Ae5+ �g8 28.<£ld5 Ac6 29.h4! +- ; 26 . . . ltf6 27. �g3+ Jlg5 28.<£lxd5 +- ; 26 . . . Ae3 27.Ae5+! +- . 27.Jl,xf8+ 4) xf8 (D)
18.f4! Drastic and good. Black is not well organized to withstand White's attack. The slow 18.�h2?! (with the idea g3 and f4) 18 . . . <£lc7 19.g3 �c8! oo would only help Black.
18 ...gxf4 19.4) xf4 .§h8 Here again, accepting the piece doesn't help: 19 . . . exf4 20.Jlxf4 l"lh8 2 l .e 5 ± and B lack is in trouble. His extra piece is not good even for pas sive defense.
20 . .§f2?! 2 0 . <£l h 5 + is good enough: 20 ... <£Jxh5 21. �xh5 f6 22. �h4 +- .
20...exf4 B lack sooner or later had to accept the sacrifice . . .
28.4) xd5 White wins, as Black's pieces on the queenside are not contributing to the defense .. .
28... Jl,e6 29 . .§el S impler was 2 9 . l"l afl ltxd5 30.�c3+! �g8 3 1 . l"l x f8+ �xf8 32.l"l xf8+ l"l xf8 33.cxd5 +- .
1 34
The f4 Break 29 . . . '*c6 31.'*g3
30. '*c3+
�g8
9.f4! A nice, active continuation, which engulfs the board in flames.
3 1 . <£lf6 + ! Axf6 3 2 .l''!x f6 �d7 33.l"le3! +-
31 ... J;l.xd5 32.cxd5 '*c7 32 . . . �xd5 33.h4 +-
33.d6 '*g7 34.�h2 3 4 .�b3+ <;t>hS 3 5 . l"l f7 �d4 + 36.<;t>hl was curtains. Although White missed various quick wins, his position is so good that he could not avoid win ning!
34...c4 35.h4 And Black finally resigned in view of 35 . . .Ad8 36.l"l xf8+! <;t>xf8 37.l"l e8+ <;t>f7 38.�f3+ <;t>xe8 3 9 . Aa4+ �d7 40.�h5+ <;t>fS 4 l .Axd7 +- . This was a fine effort by Peter Svidler. His open ing setup proven to be very effective after the slightly surprising break on the kingside. The attack was crisp and beau tiful. 1-0 A theoretical, cruel discussion is next:
9 ...gxf4? Black is not well prepared for this extremely aggressive variation. He should opt for 9 . . . d5 1 0.exd5 4:lxd5 l l .fxe5 gxh4 1 2 .�xd4 Ae6 13.<£1c3 4:lb6 14.�xd8+ l"l xd8 1 5 .Axe6 fxe6 ;!; Rouffignac-Feryn, La Fere 2010. 9 . . . gxh4?! 10.fxe5 ± also doesn't help.
10.l3.xf41 A killing sacrifice - after the pawn, the rook is sacrificed on f4 !
10 ...exf4 There is no serious alternative to save Black: 1 0 . . . <£le2+ l l .Axe2 exf4 1 2.e5 ( 1 2.�d4 c5 13.�xf6 �xf6 14.Axf6 0-0 1 5.<£lc3 l"l e8 16.l"lfl b5 17.l"l xf4 a6 18.4:ld5 l"lb8 1 9.l"lg4+ <;t>f8 20.Ag7+ <;t>gS 2 1 .<£Jf6 # 1 -0 Akhrass-Taha, Beirut 2009) 1 2 . . . �e7 1 3.exf6 �c5+ 1 4.Af2 �g5 1 5 .h4 �a5 1 6.Ab5 <;t>d8 17.<£lc3 c6 1 8.�d6 l"le8 19.l"lel l"lxel + 20.Axel �b6+ 2 1 .Af2 �a5 22.a3 h5 1 -0 Nozdrachev-Polyakov, Moscow 2009.
ll.'*xd4 c5 Now l l . . .d5 came late in the game Rogers-Machalova, Znojmo 1 999 : 1 2.Axf6 �d6 1 3.Axd5 +- .
12.'*xf6 Taking black's king central position into account, White should go in for 1 2 .�c3 l"lg8 1 3.Axf6 �c7 14.<£la3 a6 1 5.Ad5 +- . But of course the text also wins.
12 ... '* xf6 13.J;l.xf6 l3.g8 14. .£Jc3 f3 15.g3 (D) Game over!
15 ... )3.g6 16.e5 d6 17.l3.d1 Af5 18.)3. xd6 J;l. x c 2 19 . .£J d 5 �f8 20.Ltlf4 l3.g8 21.l3.d7 b5 22.Ad5
135
Chess Analytics Going for mass exchanges down the d-file is not the proper way - Black's d-pawn will be under pressure.
l l .§ad1 4) xd4 1 2 . '/Pi x d4 '/Pixd4 13 . .§xd4 J,1.xc3 14.bxc3 e5 15.§d3 Also not bad was 1 5 . .1lxf6 exd4 ( 1 5 . . . gxf6 1 6 . l"\ d6 ;!; ) 1 6 . .1lxg7 l"' gS 1 7 . .\lxd4 ± .
.§c8 23. .§xf7+ �e8 24. .§e7+ �f8 25.4)e6 # 1-0 And finally, a game where the f4break turned out not to save or sacri fice material, but to win some material instantly!
15 ... 4) xe4?! Or 1 5 . . . g5 16.Ag3 4Jxe4 1 7 . .1lxe5 0-0 18 . .1ld4 ± . Black should think of counter-chances: 1 5 . . . g5 16.Ag3 d6!? 1 7 . l"' xd6 4J x e 4 1 8 . .1l x e 5 4J x d6 19 . .\lxhS Ae6 ± .
1 6 . §e3 d6 1 7 . .§ x e4 18.Ah5+ �d7 19.§e2 g5 (D)
f5
(127) Hou Sharevich Khanty Mansiysk 20 1 0 Sicilian Defense [B4 l ] -
l.e4 c5 2.4){3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 a6 5.Ae2 4)f6 6.4)c3 '/Pic7 7.0-o Ab4 s.'/Pid3 .ldc6 9.Ag5 h6 It seems that met more often is 9 . . . 4Jxd4 1 0 .�xd4 Ac5 l l . �d2 b5 12 ..1lf4 e5 13.4Jd5 4Jxd5 14.�xd5 .llb7 1 5 .�xe5+ �xe5 1 6. .1lxe5 0-0 17.l"'fdl .llxe4 18 . .1ld6 .llxd6 Yz-Yz Brkic-Smirin, Rijeka 20 1 0. 10.Ah4!? (D)
This was Black's mini-combina tion, as she now regains the piece and it seems that her position is not that bad . . .
20.f4! But not so ! White wins material and her rooks become active, but the most important factor is the weak black king.
20 . . . g x h4 2 l .f x e 5 d x e5 22.§xf5 �c7 23.§f7+ �d6
A new move. 1 0 . .1lxf6 gxf6 l l .l"'adl h5 1 2 Si'ihl 4Jxd4 1 3.�xd4 .ll e 7 1 4 . f4 b5 oo Shirov-Ivanchuk, Tallinn 1 996.
10 ... '/Pid6?!
Further material will be lost after 23 . . . '
24.§f6+ �c7 25.§ xe5 Ad7 26.§e7 �d8?! Black hurries to unpin. A move like 26 . . . l"' af8 leads to a lost pawn ending: 27.l"\xf8 l"\xf8 28 . .\lg4 l"'d8 29.'
136
Planning 3 0 . § xd7+ § x d7 3 L\l. xd7 �xd7 3 2 .�f3 +- . B lack only chance was 26 ... § ad8 27.Af3 ± .
27.Etef7 Ac6 (D)
your mind open and try to discover moves that our chess "logic" does not accept at once. "Logic" is never to be found in our eyes, but in our brains ! Planning
28.Af3! After the exchange ofBlack's only active piece, the white rooks will domi nate the board. This is what I call tech nique in converting the advantage to the full point!
28... .il,xf3 29.§xf3 b5 30.§3f6 �e8 3l.§g7 h5 32.h3! Fixing one of the targets!
32 ... �d8 33.c4! bxc4 Now all Black's pawns are weak and her rooks are all still on their initial squares!
34.Etc6 Time to collect material.
34...a5 35.Etxc4 §a6 36.§xh4 Ethh6 37.Etf4 Ethf6 38.§xf6 Etxf6 39.§g5 §c6 40.§xh5 a4 4t.Eta5 Etc4 42.§a7 �c8 43.a31 The last finesse!
43 ...�b8 44.§f7 Etc3 45.Etf3! 1-0 Conclusion A good chessplayer should work logic and fantasy into his thinking. In reality, ifyou dig deep enough, you find that fantasy i s but extended logic. Moves as in the above examples (f4) do not look logical first sight, but could be the strongest in the position and so, then become the most logical! Keep
Concept The most important element in modem chess practice is probably cor rect planning. The plan is associated with judgment and execution, valuable concepts that cannot be separated and which, most of the time, determine the fate of our positions. Nowadays, chess games between decent players are full of small plans of different types and ideas, based on purely strategic and tac tical motives. The one who will judge, plan and execute better than the oppo nent earns the right to win the game. A closer examination of games played between strong players will prove that there is some harmony among their moves, some central idea that guide the movements oftheir forces. This is what we call a plan. A good chessplayer refuses to act without any plan, even ifthis plan some times turns out to be mistaken in the long run. First of all, it is important to identify the most important strategic and tactical elements of each particular position. According to the needs of that position, we should create our plan and stick to it. Games where only one plan is used are rarely seen these days. We are usually obliged to create several small plans, which of course are just parts of our main design: winning! Many weak players are not able to construct an acceptable plan. This has nothing to do with intelligence, but just with basic education. Nowa days, with so many books, electronic
137
Chess Analytics help and trainers available, anything can be learned and, by constant practice, it can be understood and assimilated. Without basic education and knowledge we can't go very far. So, the first step is to understand the basic strategic and tactical elements that govern our royal game. Then, it is time to learn about judgment, planning and execution. If we can practice all of the above prop erly, we are ready to climb the (chess) mountain of Olympus. Plans are nec essary and can be found in every phase of a chess game. From the early open ing to the late endgame, chessplayers create the necessary plans, derived from as varied factors as the occupation of an important square to a violent attack. More usual are the plans we draw right after the end of the opening phase, but this is of course not always the rule. Nowadays, with opening theory having gone very far, the choice of a certain opening very much depends on a plan we would like to use ! Some general advice could be pre sented to the reader as follows: l . Notice and understand the main merits and disadvantages of each side Gudgment). 2. Notice the immediate threats of both sides, but especially of your op ponent! 3 . Determine what is (are) the main, most significant target(s) and how the plan should be executed. 4. Examine what might be the opponent's reaction to your plan. 5. Examine what your opponent's possible main plan is (could be) and how you should react to it. 6. If you can choose among two or more good plans, select the one that you think can bring more benefits.
7. Follow your plan. Do not change it without a really good reason. Three important examples on judg ment, planning and execution follows: (128) Ivanchuk - Aronian Linares 2007 Queen's Gambit Declined [D38]
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.lL!f3 d5 4.lL!c3 Ab4 5.Ag5 lL!bd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.�c2 c5 8.a3 Axc3+ 9. �xc3 h6 1 0 . A x f6 � x f6 l l .e3 0-0 t2.Ae2 b6 n.o-o Ab7 The position is characteristic for the Tartakower-Makagonov-Bondarevsky variation of the Queen's Gambit De clined. The main differences are that in the Queen 's Gambit Declined, the queens fmd themselves in opposition on the a3-e7 diagonal, and the black bishop is developed slightly more actively on e6.
14.E!fcl §.ac8 15.dxc5 �xc3 16.§.xc3 §.xc5 (D)
Black cannot maintain the com pactness of his structure with 16 . . . bxc5 because of 1 7.b4, ensuring White the control of the d4-square. The point be hind Ivanchuk's novelty is revealed af ter 1 7 . . . cxb4 1 8.l''lx c8 l"\ xc8 1 9.axb4 ;!; when the queen 's rook is ideally placed on its initial square. Here White has to find a plan to maximize his chances of success.
138
17.E!ccl!
Planning A paradoxical move and an impres sive plan! White is not sufficiently well prepared to fight for the control of the c-file w ith 1 7 . l':'!. a c l because o f 1 7 . . . l':'!.fc8 when 18.l':'!.xc5 bxc5 19.b4 cxb4 leads to simplification and a prob able draw, in spite of Black's isolated pawn. One general rule states that the side playing against the isolani should keep as many major pieces on board and try to provoke the exchange of minor pieces, in order to successfully attack the relative weakness of the central pawn . From this perspective, Ivanchuk's willing retreat is easy to understand, but still very difficult to play it over the board.
White to improve h i s position. Ivanchuk prefers to strengthen his po sition and wait for the right moment to grab this pawn - this is another instruc tive moment.
23 ... §c5 24.<;tlh2 <;tle7 25.§d2! Doubling the rooks on the d-file is a natural follow-up.
25 . . . §b5 27. .1£\el!
26 . .Q.a2
§.bc5
Covering the c2-entrance.
27...a5 Unfortunately B lack cannot ex change rooks yet: 27 . . . l':'!.cl 28.l':'!. xcl l':'!. xcl 29.4Jd3 l':'!.al 30.<2lb4 ± .
28.§bdl §dB 29.<;tlg3 §b5 30.f3 (D)
17... §.fc8?! Obviously missing White's idea. Safer would have been 17 . . . l':'!. xc l + ! 18.l':'!.xcl l':'!.c8 with a defensible position for Black. As said before, major pieces should be exchanged!
lS.§.dl! Of course. Black's activity along the c-file will have a temporary char acter, while the pressure against the d5pawn will be permanent.
.1£\ fS
White has a pleasant position, but is still a long way from achieving some thing more tangible.
Now White is ready to kick the black rook out of his camp, leaving the black rooks nothing to do on the c-file.
Rather careless. Black should have brought the other rook to safety with 30. . . l':'!.c5.
18 . . . §.c2 20.§.abl!
20 . . . §. 2c7 22. .Q.b3
1 9 . .Q.b5
30 ... §c8?
2 l . .Q.a4
.l£\e6
And the light-square bishop also gets an optimal position on b3, putting pressure on the isolated black d-pawn.
22 ...<;tlf8 23.h3! Another interesting moment. White could win the weak pawn with 23.�xd5 Axd5 24.l':'!. xd5 but after 24 . . . l':'!. c l + 25.l':'!.dl l':'!. xdl + 26.l':'!.xdl l':'!. c2 27.l':'!.bl '3Je7 Black would have full compensa tion and there seems to be no way for
31.4:\d3! Suddenly, the rook is trapped. The threat a4 is hard to prevent in an ad equate way.
31 ...d4 Other moves also lose this pawn, for instance 3 l . . .a4 32.<2lb4 <2lc7 33.e4 when 33 . . .dxe4 34.l':'!.d7+ leads to a dev astating attack, or 3 1 . ..<2lc5 32.<2lf4 <2la4 33.�xd5 Axd5 34.<2lxd5+ when the central knight compensates for the pres sure against the b2-pawn.
139
Chess Analytics 32. .1lxe6
33.4)f4+
wants to transfer his queen directly to attack on g3, so he avoids closing the route with 9.Jle3. ln a way, this doesn't look like an extremely important plan to present here, but I believe that it shows the original way of thinking of a strong grandmaster and the way a seri ous chess game is developed.
9 ...0-0 10.4) xc6 bxc6 11.'�'/tg3 Now White wants to provoke ... g6, as then the advance f4-f5 would be stronger. B lack has to react carefully.
11 ... 4)d7?1 White is basically winning now, but Black went down rather quickly, possibly demoralized by the unexpected course of events.
This weakens the d-pawn. Black should opt for 1 1 . . . .§ e8 ;1;:
35 ... §.bc5 36.e4 §.c4 37.§.d6 §.4c6 38.e5 §.c2 39.§.x c2 §.xc2 40.§. xb6 Ac6 41.b4 g5 42.4)h5 axb4 43.axb4 .1ld5 44.4)g7 §.e2 4 5 . 4) f5 +
White simple reinforces the pres sure on the d-file. Wrong would be the seemingly strong 14.c5? <2\xc5 15.l"lxd6 i n view of 1 5 . . . <2\b7 1 6 . l"l d3 �xg3 17.l"lxg3 .lle 5 18.f4 .lld4+ 1 9.�hl �h8 20.Jlg5 f6 2 1 ..1lh4 e5=. 14...
•
1 2.Ah6 .1lf6 13.§.adl �c7 14.§.d2!
(129) Zvj aginsev - Pelletier Panormo 200 1 Sicilian Defense [B28]
l.c4 4)f6 2.4)c3 c5 3.4)f3 e6 4.e4 4)c6 5.Ae2 a6 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 cxd4 8.4) xd4 .1le7 (D)
�� p ,���1�r..,.J.i1 �1 1-�� � 1� �//, � ,. .// . . �.r�r.�� �&1. • �.////.< � � � �
l"�
t5.Ag51 Another good move. Exchanging the dark-square bishops ensures the weakness of the black d-pawn.
-
15 ....1le5?!
it �r.:' �/." � -��r.:�'/. it �r.::ili"
� ��-a�
A well-known position, in which different moves have been tried, with the most often met being 9.Jle3.
9.�d31?
Good or bad, Black had to submit to a passive position with 1 5 . . . Axg5 16.�xg5 f6 1 7.�g3 4:le5 18 . .§fdl .§b8 (18 . . . <2\f7? 19.c5 ! +- ) 1 9.b3 .§ d8 al though after 20.Ah5! ± , with the idea f4, and White stands clearly better.
A very interesting p lan. White
1 40
1 6.f4 .1l x c3 1 7 . � x c3 f6
Planning 18.Ah4 .£lc5 19. �d4
press you for a long time - the main idea looks "horrible" at first sight, but the logic behind it is very clear.
1 9.'i1)re3 4Jb7 20.e5 would be more accurate but still with the text move White preserves his huge advantage which is based on the control of space, the bishop pair and a strong plan: a com bined attack on center and king.
(130) Krasenkow -Sakaev Copenhagen 2003 Queen's Indian Defense [E l 2]
19 ... .£Jb7 20.e5!
l.d4 .£!f6 2.c4 e6 3 . .£lf3 b6 4. .£lc3 Ab7 5.a3 d5 6.cxd5 .£l xd5 7.�c2 .£l xc3 8.bxc3 Ae7 9.e4 0-0 10.Ad3 c5 11.0-0 �c8 12. �e2 Aa6 13 . .§.d1 Axd3 14. .§xd3 .£!d7 15.e5 �c6 16.Ag5 .§.ae8 17. .§.ad1 f6 18.exf6 Axf6 19.Axf6 .£l xf6 20..£Je5 �c7 21.c4 cxd4 22 . .§. xd4 .§d8 23.�e3 .§xd4 24.�xd4 .§.c8 (D)
Another difficult but justified de cision. The opening of the d-file and the lack of coordination of the black pieces are more important assets than the weak d-pawn.
20 ... dxe5 21.fxe5 c5 22.�e3 f5 23 . .§.fd1 a5 24.a4 .§.a6 25 . .§.d3 .§.b6 26.b3 Cit>g8 (D)
Each side has a weak pawn but White seems to have the more pleasant game, as he fully controls the only open file ofthe board and his pieces are more actively placed. But a concrete plan is in need.
27.Ah51 A nice move, preparing an attack on the black king, which will come via the g3-square !
27... .§.b4 28.�f4 Clearing the way for a white rook to land on g3, when the idea iif6 would be strong.
25.g4!
The white queen returns to its best square ! The coming l"l d7 is hard to meet, so Black resigned. A crystal-clear plan which worked efficiently. 1-0
As on the queenside and on the center, White cannot achieve anything tang ible, he should fo cus on the kingside. So, he should advance his kingside pawns, creating activity on this side, gaining more space and kicking the f6-knight away. Importantly, there is no way Black can benefit from the white king's voluntary weakening.
The last game to be examined is quite typical for similar pawn structures. It was one of these games that can im-
B lack could consi der 2 5 . . . g5!? 26.h4! gxh4 (26 . . . h5 27.gxh5 gxh4 2 8 . h6! ± ) 27.g5 4Jh5 28. 4Jg4 iiYg7
28... �b6 29.Af6! �c7 B lack cannot take the p i e c e : 29 . . .gxf6 30.l"lg3+ 'it'h8 3 1 .'iiYh6.
30.�g3!
25...h6
141
Chess Analytics 29.4Jh6+ �h8 30.�xh4 ± as an alter native.
26.h4 �c5?! Black should retain the queens on the board with 26 . . . .§f8 27.h5 �b7 28.�d6 .§e8 ± . He could then hope to benefit eventually from the weakened white king . . . Anyway, in the endgame, his survival chances are close to zero.
27.g5 hxg5 28.h xg5 � x d4 29.§.xd4 4)h5 The alternative 29 . . . 4Je8 fails to improve Black's position: 30.�g2 .§c7 3 l .�g3 �f8 32.�g4 �e7 33.�h5 4Jd6 34.f4 4Jf5 35 . .§d3, when White has a simple plan: �g6-h7, g6 and a4-a5.
38.�e4 �h5!=) 37 . . . �h5 38.�d5 4Je2 (38 . . . 4Jf5? 39.�e4 g6 40.�d3! +- ) 39. �e4 �h4 40.4Jc6 d3 4 1 .�xd3 4:lxf4+ 42.�e4 �xg5 43.4:lxa7 4:'le2=] 36 . . .�g6 37.a4 [37.�xd4 �f5; 37.c5 b x c 5 3 8 . 4J x c 5 4Je2 3 9 . a4 a 5 ! =] 37 . . . 4Je2! [37 . . . 4Jf5? 38.4Jb4! ± ] 38.c5 [38.a5 bxa5 39.c5 4Jc3 40.�xd4 4:lb5+ 4 l .�e5 a4 42.c6 a3 43.4Jb4 a5 44.4Ja2 4Jc7=] 38 . . .bxc5 39.4Jxc5 a5! 40.�e4 d3!=) 34 . . . 4Jxf4 35.�e4 .§f8 (35 . . . 4Je2 36.g6+ �h6 37 . .§d7 4Jg3+ 38.�d5 ± ) 3 6 . .§ d7, when White 's advantage would be obvious but Black has some how improved his chances, as would be no longer be simply lost!
30.�g2 �h7
34.§d7+ �g8 35.�g4!
Alternatives such as 3 0 . . . .§ f8 3 1 . 4Jg6 .§ e8 (3 l . . . e 5 32 . .§ e4 4Jf4+ 33 . .§ xf4! +- ) 32.�f3 e5 33 . .§ e4 and �g4 +- or 30 . . . .§c5 3 l .g6 .§ c8 32 . .§d7 .§aS 33.�f3 4Jf6 34 . .§e7 were not re ally helpful.
Naive would be 35 . .§e7! 4:lxf4! 36.4:lxf4 e5.
35 §a5 37.4) xg6 (D) ••.
36.4)e5
§ x a3
31.f4?! A slip. Correct was 3l .�f3! .§c5 (3 l . . . .§ f8+ 3 2 . �g4 .§ f5 3 3 . 4:'ld3 g6 34 . .§d7+ 4Jg7 35 . .§xa7 +- ) 32.�e4 b5 (32 . . . .§a5 33 . .§d6! +- ) 33 . .§ d8! bxc4 (33 . . . g6 34 . .§ d7+ �g8 3 5 . �d4 +- ) 34.g6+ �h6 35.f4 4Jf6+ 36. �e3 +- .
31...§.{8 32.�3 §.f5 33.4)d3 (D)
White is winning. The black king has been caught in multiple mating nets.
37 4)g7 •.•
Or 37 . . .4Jg3 38 . .§e7 4Jf5 39 . .§ xe6 4Je3+ 40.�h5 4:lxc4 4 1 .4Je7+ �f7 42.f5 +- .
38.§d8+ �f7 39.4)e5+ �e7 40.4)c6+ �f7 41.§d7+ �f8 33 g6?! •..
Black returns the favor. He should continue w ith 3 3 . . . e 5 ! 3 4 . 4J x e 5 ! (34.�g4 exd4 35.�xf5 4:'lg3+ 36.�e5 [36.�e6 �g6 37.4Je5+ (37.�e5 4Je2
4l...�g6 42.4Je7+ �h7 (42 ... �f7 43.4Jf5 + +- ) 43.f5 +- wouldn't make any difference.
42.g6 4)e8 42 . . . 4Jf5 43.�g5 +43.§f7+ And Black resigned in view of 43 . . . �g8 4 4 . 4J e 7 + �h8
1 42
Recipes from the Grandmaster's Kitchen 4S.§h7 * . The final violent attack was particularly impressive. We do not see such attacks in endgames that often. 1-0 Conclusion I will conclude with two very nice quotes relevant to our theme: "The per son who knows 'how' will always have a job. The person who knows 'why' will always be the boss" - James Whitaker. "There is a difference between know ing the path and walking the path." Lawrence Fishburn in The Matrix . Do you recognize patterns of judgment, planning and execution? Recipes from the Grandmaster's Kitchen Concept This i s a collection of analyzed games which I did back in 2007. Nearly each game has a story to tell and some thing to teach . . . I am always asking my trainees to analyze games in depth especially their own after a tournament finishes. I strongly believe that this is the correct way to chess perfection. Well, nothing new under the sun; every decent trainer does the same ! Achieving a grandmaster norm Since June 2006 I have been the Head Trainer of the Turkish Pre-Na tional Men Team. My squad then con s i sted of grandmasters Mikhail Gurevich, Suat Atalik and international masters Umut Atakisi, Emre Can, Mert Erdogdu, Yakup Erturan, Boris Esen, Emre Can, Mustafa Yilmaz, Burak Firat and Kivanc Haznedaroglu. I work with my IM boys about a week every month, preparing every subject of our respectful sport, to help them become better players and achieve
the grandmaster title. This game, played in the last round of the Pardubice Open in Czech Republic, was of a very im portant sporting value. IfKivanc could win it, he would get his first grandmas ter norm. My notes were written while I was watching Kivanc's game live on the internet. (131) Haznedaroglu - Warakomski Pardubice 2007 Modem Defense [B 1 5]
l.e4 g6 2.d4 Ag7 3.4Jc3 c6 4.Ae3 d5 5.h3 dxe4 6.4) xe4 4)h6 An i ntere sting p lan, although Black's main strategy can be seen in the alternatives: (a) 6 . . . 4Jd7 7.�d2 (7.4Jf3 4Jgf6 8 . 4J xf6+ 4J x f6 9 . iic4 [ 9 . li e 2 0-0 (9 . . . 4JdS 1 0 .ild2 �c7 1 1 . 0-0 0-0 1 2.�c l ;!; Lagvilava-Rubene, Yerevan 1 996) 1 0.0-0 AfS 1 l .c3 �c7 1 2 .�c1 § fe8 1 3 . § e 1 Yz - Yz Leiro G iralt Fernandez, Spain 1 996; 9.c4 �aS+ 10.i.ld2 �b6 1 1 .i.ld3 JlfS 1 2.JlxfS gxfS 1 3 .0-0 e6 1 4.ilf4 0-0 1 S .ild6 §fd8 1 6.cS �xb2 17.§b1 �xa2 18.§ xb7 �a6 1 9 .�b3 oo /= Trefny-Pribyl , Pardubice 1 992] 9 . . . 4JdS [9 . . . 0-0 1 0.00 �d6 l l .§e1 Ae6 1 2 .ilfl bS 1 3.�cl 4JdS 1 4.ilh6 ;!; Zulfugarli-Ibragimov, Azerbaijan 1 999] 1 0.0-0 0-0 l l .AgS h6 1 2 .Ah4 Ae6 1 3 .ilb3 4Jf4 1 4 .Ag3 Axb3 1 S .axb3 4Je6= Rendle-Thomas, West Bromwich 2004) 7 . . . 4Jgf6 8.4Jxf6+ (8.4Jg3 0-0 9.4Jf3 �c7 1 0.ilf4 �b6 1 l . ilc4 �xb2 1 2 . 0-0 �b6 13.§fe1 oo /= Korbut-Gromova, St. Pe tersburg 2004) 8 ...4Jxf6 9.0-0-0 (9.4Jf3?! 4Je4 1 0.�d3 �aS+ 1 l .c3 i.lfS 1 2 .�d1 0-0= Shadrina-Labutin 1 997) 9 . . .Ae6 1 0.\t'b1 0-0 1 1 .4Jf3 4Je4 1 2 .�e1 4Jd6 1 3.h4 ilg4 14.ile2 4JfS 1 S.4JgS 4Jxe3 16.fxe3 ilxe2 1 7.�xe2 ;!; (D)
1 43
Chess Analytics 1 978) 13 . . . e5 14.Axg7 �xg7 1 5 .0-0 .§fe8 16 . .Eie1 +=.
10... 4)a6!? 10 ... 0-0 1 l .c3 4Jd7
ll.c3 4)c7 12.Ac4 4)d5 13.00! 0-0
1 3 . . . 4Jxe3?! 14.fxe3 (x f7) 14 . . . 0-0 1 S.4Jg5 ±
t4.Ah6 f6 Chiburdanidze-Fischdick, Manila 1 992. (b) 6 . . .�fS 7 . 4Jc3 (7.4JcS 4Jd7 8.4Jxd7 'li¥xd7 9.4Jf3 hS 1 0.�c4 Ae6 1 1 .Axe6 �xe6 1 2.0-0 ;!;: Zimmermann Treffert, Hessen 1 999; 7 . 4Jg3 Ae6 8.4Jf3 4Jh6 9.Ad3 4Jf5 10.AxfS i.txfS 1 1 .0-0 �c8 1 2 .�d2 0-0 1 3 .Ah6 "' Guimaraes-Rios Filho, Rio de Janeiro 1 995) 7 . . . 4Jf6 8:i1l'd2 4Jbd7 9.0-0-0 (9.Ah6? Axh6 10.�xh6 Axc2 1 l .g4 �e4 12 . .§h2 AdS 13.f4 "i1l'aS 14.0-0-0 0-0-0 + Herbrechtsmeier-Koch, France 200 1 ) 9 . . .'1i¥aS 1 0.4Jf3 ;!;: . (c) 6 . . .4Jf6 7 . 4Jxf6+ Axf6 8.c3 (8.'1i¥d2!? 0-0 9.0-0-0 ;!;: ) 8 . . . 0-0 9.Ac4 4Jd7 1 0.4Je2 eS 1 1 .0-0 exd4 1 2 .4Jxd4 4Jb6 1 3 . � e 2 4JdS 1 4 . Ah6 Ag7 1 S .Axg7 �xg7 16 . .Ei e 1 4Jf4 1 7.Afl 'li¥f6= Wildi-Vonthron, Germany 1 998.
1 4 . . . i.txh6?! 1 S . � xh6 �xb2? 16.i.txd5 cxdS 17.4JgS +-
1 5 . .§el .§ae8 t 6 . .§e2 �c7 17.�d2 17.Af4!? looks also like a good al ternative: 17 ... e5 18.i.tg3 bS 1 9.Ab3 ;!;: .
1 7 . . . g5 19.Axd51
1 8 . A x g7
Cit> x g7
Motif training ! Recently (June 2007, in the Foca [Turkey] training camp) we had studied a game Adams Seirawan, Bermuda 2000, where a simi lar idea was introduced. The alternative 1 9.Eiael 4Jf4 20 . .§e3 e6 is unclear and leads to different play. 19...cxd5 20. .§ael (D)
7 . 4) g3 �b6! 8.'�cl 4)f5 9.4) xf5 Axf5 10.4)f3 (D)
1 0.c3 0-0 1 1 . 4Jf3 4Jd7 1 2 .i.te2 �aS 1 3.Ah6 (13.0-0 eS 1 4.dxeS 4JxeS 1 S . 4J x e S A x e S 1 6 . fi d 1 .§ fe8= Velandia-Minaya Molano, B ogota
The pawn structure is very similar to a Catalan with reversed colors. White enjoys a slight advantage because of his pressure on the e-file and sometimes even on the kingside, while the chief plan for black counterplay, a minority attack with . . . bS-b4, does not seem to be available
20...e6 20 . . . i.te4 2 1 .4Jh2 e6 22.4Jfl �d6 23.4Jg3 .llg6 24.Eie3 ;!;:
1 44
Recipes from the Grandmaster's Kitchen 21.4:)h2 h5 Although it further weakens his king, Black must win some vital space and squares for his bishop.
2 2 . 4:) fl �d6 23 . .§e3 h4 24.�e2 ct/f7 25 ..£lh2?! 25.1£Jd2 is accurate, as White can even create play on the queenside, with ideas such as I£Jb3 and a4-a5.
25... �a6! By exchanging queens, Black re duces White's pressure on his king and he can even get some play in the semi opens b- and c-files.
The alternative 29. �xf4 .ilxh3 30.1£Jf3 ilf5 31 .1£Jxh4 ile4 32.l"l,fl is not sufficient for more than a draw: 32 . . .f5 33.§ xe4 dxe4 34.�xe4 �xb2! 35.1£Jxf5 �xg2+ 36.�xg2 l"l, xg2+ 37.'#Jxg2 exf5 38.§ xf5+ '#Je6.
29... -'l,e4? And B lack slips! After the correct 29 . . . �a5! 30.�xf4 �d8 3 l .�xh4 §h8 32.�f2 § eg8 33.§e3 �d6 Black's po sition seems preferable as he seems to have everything under control, although White has chances because of the weak position of the black king.
30.�xf4 f5
26.�d2!? White has to play for a win and bravely sacrifices a pawn. Equal is the objective 26.�h5+ ilg6 27.�g4 ilf5 or 26.�xa6 bxa6 27.l''l3 e 2 (27.b3 l"l, c8 2 8 . l"l, c l l"l, c 6 29.c4 J"l, fc8 30.c5 e 5 3 1 .1£Jf3 ile4 32.dxe5 l"l, xc5 'I' ) 2 7. . . '#Jg6 28.1£Jg4 l"l,c8 29.1£Je3.
Better than 30 . . . .ilf5 3l .l"l,f2 §g5 32 .�xh4 '#?g7 33.1£Jf3 ± .
31.4:)g4! (D)
26...� xa2 (D)
3l ... .§xg4?
26 . . . �d6 is safer, but Black takes up the challenge.
27.f4! White's main idea. While the op ponent queen i s m i sp laced in the queenside, he will create an attack di rected at the opponent's king.
Black panicked, but he should calm down and settle for an inferior endgame after 3 1 . . .§g7 32 .1£Je5+ '#Jg8 33.�xh4 �a5 3 4 . '#?h2 �d8 3 5 .�xd8 § xd8 36.§al a6 37.g3 ;!; .
32.hxg4 h3 33.gxf5 h xg2+ 34.ct/gl White is nearly winning! Just take a look at the lonely queen at a2 !
34...exf5 34 . . . l"l,h8 35.fxe6+ '#Jxe6 36.�e5+
35 ..§ xg2!
27...gxf4 27 . . . l"l,g8 28.fxg5 l"l,xg5 (28 .. .fxg5? 29.1£Jf3 l"l,g7 30.§ e5 ± ) 29. 1£Jf3 §g7 30.1£Jxh4 ile4 3 l .�e2 gives White suf ficient compensation.
28. .§3e2 .§g8 29.ct/hl
3 5 . § xe4? l"l, xe4 36 .�xf5+ '#Jg7 37.§ xe4 dxe4 38.�f2=
35 . . . �a6 36. �c7+! .§e7 37 ..§g7+! ct/xg7 38.�xe7+ ct/h6 39.ct/f2
1 45
Chess Analytics Allowing the rook to come to help his queen. Black resigned as there is no salvation anymore in view ofthe threats �h4+ and E:gl +. So, Kivanc achieved his first grandmaster norm. Congratu lations! (Nowadays he is a grandmas ter, as are other trainees from my squad; Esen and Can, while others are coming along, as Yilmaz, Erdogdu, etc.). 1-0 Opening Diagonals
Concept Chessplayers rarely glance at this important subject. But the presence of open (or potentially open) diagonals is very significant. A "clever" and "alert" chessplayer should always care about open diagonals, trying to invest in their power and make the best of them. The concept is rather simple, but the way of handling it can vary. When on the at tack, it is critical to open files and di agonals as soon as possible and at the least cost. Our first example will deal with a brutal attack in a famous game; the doubled f-pawns failed to protect their king: (132) Kholmov - Bronstein Kiev 1 964 Sicilian Defense [B99]
l.e4 c5 V£)f3 4)f6 3 . .£lc3 d6 4.d4 cxd4 5.4) xd4 a6 6.Ag5 e6 7.f4 Ae7 8. �{3 �c7 9 .0-0-0 4) bd7 10.g4 b5 l l .ji xf6 gxf6 12.f5 4)e5 13. �h3 0-0 (D)
14.g5 A novelty at that time. Later, White often tri ed 1 4 . �h6 (and 1 4 . E: g l ) 1 4. . .\t'h8 1 5.g5 E:g8 16.g6 fxg6 17.fxe6 �b7 18..£ld5 �xd5 19.exd5 f5! 20.Jlg2 �f6 oo . In the stem game for 13 ... 0-0, Gligoric-Fischer, Bled/Zagreb/Belgrade 1 959, White played 14 . .£lce2. 14 ... b4? Objectively, Black is fine after 14 . . .fxg5! (as Kholmov confirmed in his 1 982 book) 1 5.fxe6 fxe6 1 6 . .£lxe6 �d7 1 7 . .£ld5 (after 1 7 . .£lxf8?! �xh3 18.�xh3 .ll xh3 the white f8-knight is trapped) 1 7 . . . �xe6 (or, possibly, 1 7 . . . E: f3!?) 18.�xe6+ .llxe6 19 ..£lxe7+ 'itlf7= which occurred in several later games. There fore, White's novelty failed to refute the variation. . .
15.gxf6 Axf6 16.l3.gl + �h8 17.�h6! �e7 (D)
Now it looks like Black has per fectly defended against White's threats. And this is partly true, as White cannot bring more pieces to the attack; or per haps he can?
18.4)c6!! But instead the game provided an amazing example of the deflecting .£ld4-c6 sacrifice. This idea enriched the arsenal ofWhite's attacking ideas in the Sicilian. White wants to open the b l h 7 diagonal for his light-square bishop, creating a lethal threat on h7.
18... 4) x c6 Now the attempt 19.E:d3? is par-
1 46
Opening Diagonals ried by the bishop's check from g5 , and after 20 . .§ xg5 Black plays 20 .. .f6. But White found a better move.
19.e5!! White "cleaned" the e4-square and the b 1 -h7 diagonal, making his remain ing minor pieces active. 1 9 . .§d3 ilg5+ 20 . .§ xg5 f6 leads nowhere.
19 .1}.g5+? •••
After 1 9 . . . il x e 5 2 0 . f6! ilxf6 (forced ! ) 2 1 .ild3 ilg5 + 22 . .§ xg5 f5 ( 2 2 . . . f6 2 3 . .§ g 3 ! [ 2 3 .ilxh7 fxg5 24 .ile4+ 'g8 25 . .§gl .§ a7 26.4Jd5 'lJ!g7 27 . .§ xg5 'lJ!xg5+ 28.'lJ!xg5+ .§g7 29.4Jf6+ 'xf7 25 . .§ xd6 ± and White i s clearly better, but, as Kholmov notes in his book, it is hard to say with confi dence that White is winning. The worst of Black's options 19 . . . dxe5? loses to 20.4Je4 ilg5+ 2 1 .4Jxg5 f6 22.4Jxh7.
20 .§. xg5 f6 2 l .e x d6 i!Jf7 22 .§.g3! bxc3 (D) •
•
23 .1lc4! •
A nice move, after which Black is paralyzed. 23 .ile2 .§ d8 2 4 . ilf3 ! ( 2 4 . .§ dg l ? .§ a7 2 5 .ilh5 'lJ!f8 oo ) 24 . . . cxb2+ 2 5 . '
23 cxb2+ 24.<;t>bl .i£}d8 •••
Alternatives such as 24 . . . .§ g8 25 . .§ xg8+ 'lJ!xg8 26.d7! ilxd7 27 . .§ xd7 'lJ!gl + 28.'xb2 .§ b8+ 29.ilb3 +- or 24 . . . .§e8 25 .d7 ilxd7 26 . .§ xd7 .§e7 27.ilxe6 �f8 28 . .§g8+ +- or, finally, 24 . . . .§ d8 2 5 .fxe6 'lJ!f8 26.e7 4Jxe7 2 7 . 'lJf x f8+ .§ x f8 2 8 . d x e 7 .§ e8 29 . .§d8 +- confirm Black's misery.
25 .§.dgl?! •
Kholmov even put a question mark to this move, calling it a technical inac curacy. His line with 25 .d7 is much stronger: 25 ... ilxd7 (25 . . .ilb7 26 . .§dgl White wins at once) 26 . .§ dg l and .§g7 +- .
25 .§.a7 26.d7!? •••
Also winning is 26.ile2 exf5 27.ilh5.
26 .§. xd7 •••
26 . . . ilxd7 27 . .§g7
27.fxe6 ./£} xe6 28 .1}.xe6 .§.dl+ •
The only move.
29 .§.xdl .1}.xe6 30.<;t>xb2 •
Anyway, Black does not have the resources to resist.
30 .§.b8+ •••
==;�=.,
30 ...ilxa2 31..§d7 .§b8+ 32.'a3! +-
31.<;t>al .ilxa2?! 32 .§.gd3 '{f;fe7 33.<;t>xa2 '{f;fe6+ 34 .§.b3 1-0 •
•
The next example also includes a brutal attack; diagonals (and files) are opened around the center and the black king, making Black's position unde fendable . . .
147
Chess Analytics (133) Ivanchuk - Topalov Novgorod 1 996 Sicilian Defense [B85]
l.e4 c5 2.4)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4)f6 5 . .£lc3 a6 6.jle2 e6 7.0-0 Ae7 8.f4 0-0 9.�hl t:/c7 10.a4 4)c6 ll.Ae3 §.e8 12.Af3 §.b8 13.g4 Afs t4.g5 .£Jd7 t5.Ag2 4)xd4 16.jlxd4 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.§.a7 t:/d8 19.b4 e5 20.Ae3 exf4 2 1 . A x f4 4) e 5 2 2 . 4) d5 Ag4 23.t:/d2 4)c6 (D)
would have preserved his advantage with 25.gxh7+ (but not 25.l"!c7?! xh7 30.t'txc6 ± ) 28.t'td5+ �e6 29 .gxh7+ 'xh7 30.�xc6 l"! c8 3 l . � x b 5 ± ] 2 6 .gxh7+ <;t>xh7 oo or 2 5 . <£\ xf6 +?! t'txf6 2 6 . �d5 + <;t>hS 27.t'txc6 �xg6=) 25 . . . <;t>xh7 26.l"!a3 planning l"!g3.
25.gxf7+ �h8 25 ... <;t>xf7? 26.�g5+ +-
26.Ag5! t:/d7 26 ... l"!e7? 27.
27.fxe84) §.xeS
White's position is more active, but it seems like that his a7-rook will have to retreat, reducing his advantage. So, either a tactical solution should be found or else he has to accept that Black's position perhaps is not that bad . . .
After 27 . . . �xeS White wins by opening the h l -a8 diagonal: 28.e5! (or 28.<£lf6! gxf6 29.�xf6+ Ag7 30.�xg7+ <;t> x g7 3 l . t'td4+ <;t>gS 3 2 . e 5 ! +- ) 28 . . . d x e 5 2 9 . x g7 32 .t'tg5+ +- ) 30 .t'td3 gxf6 (30 . . . g6 3 l .t'te3! +- ) 3 l .�xf6+ Ag7 32.Axg7+ <;t>xg7 33.t'td6! +- . It is now the other bishop that takes advantage of the long diagonal. 28.t:/f2! �g8 (D)
24.g6!! An excellent solution, which opens the h4-d8 diagonal by making room on the g5-square for the bishop!
24... 4)xa7?! Allowing the exchange of rooks does not help. Black should also have avoided variations like 24 . . . hxg6 2 5 . l"! xf7 ! (or 25 .�g5 t'tc8 [25 ... �e7 26.
29.e5! As above, the opening of the sec ond important diagonal, h l -a8, allows the other white bishop to join the battle.
29 ...h6 B lack lacks a proper defense: 2 9 . . . d x e 5 3 0 . hS
148
Opening Diagonals 32.�xf8+ l'hf8 33.l"! xf8 # or 29 . . . .ile6 3 0 . 4Jb6 ( 3 0 . 4Jf4 Ac4 3 l . e 6 �c7 32.4::\d S +- ) 30 ... �c7 3 l .Ad5! Axd5+ 32.4::\x dS �b7 33.'�f3 �d7 34.e6! + or, finally, 29 . . . 4::\cB 30.4Jc7! �xc7 3 l ..ild5+ +0
13..ile3 g4 14.4)e1 4Ja5 15.Ac2 f5 16.4)d3 �bS 17.a4 f!cS 1S.�e2 �a6 19.�el b6 20.4)a3 .ilxa3 2 1 . f! x a 3 4) e7 2 2 . 4) b4 �b7 23.Ad3 4)c4 24.J}.xc4 dxc4 25.a5 b5 26.a6 �as (D)
30.4)b6 30.Ae7! Axe7 (30 . . .Af5 3 l . exd6 4Jc6 3 2 . � xf5 +- ) 3 l . �f7+ �h8 32 . .ile4! .ile6 33.�g6 Ag8 34.l"!f7! looks even better!
30 .. :t?tc7 3l ..ild5+ �h7 If 3 1 . . .�h8, then 32.�xf8+! l"! xf8 33.l"!xf8+ �h7 34.Ae4+ g6 35.M6! and White wins. White's bishops work ex cellently on every diagonal of the board! 32.,ile4+ �gS (D)
It looks that Black has big prob lems as his queen will now be tempo rarily out of play, but there is no way White can use it to his advantage.
27.�e2 4Jd5! 2S.4)xd5?1 A dubious decision which allows Black to activate his forces. Better was 28.�b2! 4::\ xb4 2 9 . �xb4 �d5 (29. . .�e4? 30.�d6+ l"! c7 3l .d5 �xd5 32 . .ilxa7+ ± ) 30.�d6+ �xd6 3l .exd6 Ac6 32.Af4 ;!; .
2S... �xd5 32 . . . g6 was no real help because of 33.4::\d S and 4Jf6+.
33.4Jd5! �d7 34.4)e7+ And B lack resigned in view of 34 . . ..ilxe7 35.�f7+ �h8 36.�g6. 1-0
Now the difference between the bishops is obvious. Black's bishop will apply pressure along the long diagonal h l -a8, while its counterpart will do nothing !
29.f4 Weak square complexes can easily decide a game, long before the actual result is registered: (134) Van Wely - Topalov Dortmund 2005 French Defense [C02]
29.f3 l"!cg8 doesn't help White.
29 ...h5! Black prepares his own offensive on the kingside. The threat ...h4-h3 will open the long diagonal and Black will benefit from it ( . . ..ilc6 is coming).
30.f!bl h4 31.�fl
l.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 4)c6 5.4Jf3 .ild7 6.a3 f6 7.Ad3 �c7 S..ilf4 0-0-0 9.0-0 c4 10..ilc2 �b6 l l .b3 c x b3 1 2 . ,il x b3 g5
A wise decision. The white king has to run from the dangerous diago nal.
31 ... J}.c6 32.Jl,gl �as 33.f!b4 f!bS
1 49
Chess Analytics As B lack is in no hurry (where is White's counterplay?), he also takes some measures on the other side (the two weaknesses rule?) - the a6-pawn is also weak! 34..§a2 .§b635.�elh3! 36.g3(D)
43.'�fl l"! xa6 44.l"!axb5 l"!cb6 45.l"! xb6 axb6 46.l"!b2 b5! will also lose.
42... .§cc6! Now a black rook will enter the attack by force.
43.�f2 Once more 43.l"!axb5 is not of a help: 43 ... l"! xb5 44.l"!xb5 l"! xa6 45.�b2 l.ic6! 4 6 . l"! b 4 l.ia4 4 7 . '� c l l.ib3! 48.§ xb3 cxb3 -+ .
43... .§xa6 44.§axb5 Or 44.l"!bxb5 l"! xa5 45.l"! xa5 l"!b6 46.l"!al l"!b3 -+ .
44... .§al + 45.§bl 45.�d2 �d3 *
36 ... .§c81 There is nothing left for this rook on the kingside - the a6-pawn is the target now! Just compare the two bish ops . . .
37.Ae3 Ad7 Topalov has improved the position of all his pieces and is now ready for more active actions. Unfortunately White must just sit and wait - he hasn't any counterplay.
38 . .§a5 �hl + 39.�d2 J}.c6 4o.�f2 Ad5 4t.�gt 4 l .l"!bxb5? allows a black rook to j oin the attack on the white king: 4 1 . . . l"! cb8 4 2 . l"! xb6 (42 . l"! b4 l"! x b4 43.cxb4 l"! xb4 -+ ) 42 ... l"! xb6 -+ . 41 ... �e4 42.�cl (D)
45 . . . .§ x bl + 46 . .§ x b l .§a6! 47.�d2 �hl+ 0-1 Good home preparation can result in brutal attacks; chess-machines are very helpful! (135) Almasi - Khalifman Ubeda 1 997 Ruy Lopez [C89]
l.e4 e5 2.l�)f3 4)c6 3.Ab5 a6 4.J}.a4 4)f6 5.0-0 Ae7 6. .§el b5 7.Jl.b3 0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 4) xd5 10.4) xe5 4) xe5 ll . .§xe5 c6 12.d3 J}.d6 13 . .§el �h4 14.g3 �h3 t5.f!e4 �d7 t6.4)d2 Ab7 17.�1 (D)
The notorious Marshall Gambit of the Ruy Lopez. White's position is hopelessly pas s i v e . Again 4 2 . l"! b x b 5 ? loses to 42 . . . l"! cb8 (mate in 1 6 !). 42.'�el l"!cc6
17... c5! Opening up the important h l -a8 diagonal should be a priority for Black.
1 50
Opening Diagonals 18.E{el �h8 19.a4 4)f4! This was a strong novelty at the time, so strong that nobody has repeated this line for White since then! 1 9 . . . b4? is bad because of20.4Je4 bxc3 (20 . . .f5? 2 l . A x d 5 A x d 5 2 2 . 4J xd6 � x d6 23.Af4 ± ) 2 l .bxc3 �c6 22.Axd5 �xd5 2 3 . 1"\ b l Ac7 2 4 . c 4 ± and 1 9 . . . f5? 20.axb5 axb5 2 1 .1"\xaS Axa8 22 .Adl g5?! 23.4Jf3 ± was tried in the game Ivanchuk-Sokolov, Amsterdam 1 996.
20.4)e4? The main, preferable alternative is 2 0 . f3 c4 ( 2 0 . . . 4J x d3 2 1 . �x d 3 c4 2 2 . A x c4 [ 2 2 . 4J x c4?? Ac 5 + -+ ] 22 . . . bxc4 23 .�xc4 l"\ ac8 [23 . . . f5!?] 24.�fl Ac5 + oo /= 20 . . .4Jh3+ 2 1 .'it'hl 4Jg5 22.axb5 [22.4Je4 4Jxf3! 23.�xf3 f5 oo ; 2 2 . �f2 f5 oo / =] 2 2 . . . a x b 5 23.1"\ xaS Axa8 24.Adl f5 oo ) 2 l .gxf4 (21 .dxc4 Ac5+ 22.'it'hl 4Jd3 23.l"le2 l"lae8 + ) 2 l . . .cxb3 22.4Jxb3 (22.axb5 Axf4 oo /=) 22 . . . bxa4 oo /=. But in any case, White's position is not that attrac tive ...
20... 4)h3+ 2l.�hl 2 l .'it'g2? f5 -+
2l c4! •..
Also good seems 2 1 . . . 4Jxf2+ 22.'�xf2 f5 23 .�g2 (23 .�e2?! fxe4 [ 2 3 . . . c4 2 4 . dxc4 ( 2 4 .Ac2 c x d3 2 5 .�xd3 fxe4) 24 . . . Axe4+ 25 .'it'gl Ab7 + ] 24. dxe4 Axg3 ! -+ ) 23 . . . c4 (23 . . .fxe4 24.dxe4 l"\ ae8 oo ) 24.Ac2 l"l ae8! (24 . . . cxd3 2 5 . A x d3 fxe4 [25 . . . Ac5 26.Ac2 l"\ ae8 27.Af4 oo ] 26.Axe4 l"\ae8 27.Ad2 l"\ xe4 28.l"\ xe4 Ac5 29.Af4 �d3 30.1"\ael bxa4 =i= ) 25.d4 (25.Ad2 cxd3 26.Axd3 Ac5 + ) 2 5. . .fxe4 26.Ae3 b4 + . 22.dxc4 (D) White is in trouble: 22.Adl cxd3 (22 . . . 4Jxf2+ 23.�xf2 f5 24.Af3 fxe4 25.dxe4 l"\ae8 26.�e2 Axg3 27.hxg3
�h3+ 28.�h2 l"\ xe4!! 29.Ae3 �xh2+ 3 0 . 'it' x h 2 l"\ xf3 3 1 . Ad4 =i= ) 2 3 . Af3 l"l ae8 + or 2 2 .Ac2 c x d3 2 3 . Axd3 4Jxf2+! 24.�xf2 f5 25.�g2 (25.�d4 fxe4 2 6 . Ax e4 l"\ ae8 27.Af4 l"\ xe4! 2 8 . l"\ x e 4 A xf4 ! 2 9 . � x d7 A x e 4 + 30.'it'gl Ae3 *) 25 . . . 1"\aeS 26.Ac2 b4! + doesn't seem like a helpful alternative.
22 ... 4) xf2+! Black could also go for 22 . . . Ac5 2 3 . f3 Axe4 24.fxe4 4Jf2+ 2 5 .\t'gl (25.'it'g2? �h3+ 26.'it'f3 �h5+ 27.\t'g2 f5 ! -+ ) 25 . . .f5! (25 . . . 4Jxe4+? 26. 'it'g2 4Jf2 27 .Ae3 ± ) 26.Ae3 Axe3 27 .1"\ xe3 fxe4 + but the text is good enough.
23.'li\'xf2 f5 24.'*d4 White's options are many, but none seems to help: (a) 24.axb5 fxe4 25 .�e3 �h3! 26.bxa6 l"\ xa6 27.l"\ xa6 1"\fl + 28.1"\ xfl �xfl + 29.�gl e3+ 30.l"\c6 Axc6 # . (b) 24.Af4 fxe4 2 5 .�e3 l"\ xf4 ! 26.gxf4 Axf4 27.1"\adl (27.�xf4 e3+ 28.'it'gl �c6 � a "i' e oo ) 27 . . . �xdl 28.Axdl Axe3 29.l"l xe3 bxc4 + . (c) 24 .Ae3 Axe4+! (24 . . . �e6 25 .Ac2 fxe4 26.�e2 bxc4 27.1"\adl l"lf3 +) 25.\t'gl f4! 26.Axf4 (26.gxf4 l"lf6 -+ ) 26 . . . l"\xf4 27.gxf4 Ac5 -+ . (d) 24.cxb5 fxe4 25.�g2 (25.�e3 Ac5! 26.�xc5 e3+ 27 .Ad5 Axd5+ 2 8 . 'it'g l l"l f2 ! 2 9 . A x e 3 �h3! -+ ) 25 . . . l"lf2! 26.�xf2 e3+ 27.�g2 Axg3!! 28.l"\xe3 �f5! -+ .
151
24...fxe4
Chess Analytics 33 ... g5! 34.�a4 �f5+ 35.\t>g2 axb5 36.� b4 �f3+ 37.'it'h3 � f6 and mate follows.
34. .§.a4 .E!.h5+ 35 . .§.h4 .§.xh4+ 36.1i:ftxh4 �e2 And White resigned in view of 37.� xf2 �xf2 38.bxa6 �xh2+ 39.'it'g4 �xb2 -+ . 0-1 Of course, sometimes material has to invested for conquering important diagonals. 25.c5 e3+ 26.'it'gl �h3 27.Ad5 �f2 -+ would be curtains.
(136) Smyslov - Kasparov Moscow 1 98 1 Reti Opening [A30]
25 ... �h31! Threatening . . . Axg3! and . . . �f2!. The immediate 25 . . . �f2? would allow White to escape: 26.�fl ! (26.Axf2 e3+ 27. 'it'g 1 �h3 -+ ; 26.c5 �g4 27 .Axf2 �f3 + 2 8 . 'it' g l e3 -+ ) 26 . . . l''!.x b2 27.�fb l �e2 28.�a2! oo .
1.4)f3 c5 2.c4 4)f6 3.g3 b6 4.Ag2 Ab7 5.0-0 e6 6.4)c3 Ae7 7.b3 0-0 8.Ab2 d6 9.e3 4)bd7 10.d4 a6 ll.�e2 4)e4 12.§fdl �b8 13.4) xe4 Axe4 (D)
26.�xd6 White is lost anyway: 26. 'it'gl �f2! 27.'it'xf2 �xh2+ 28.\t>fl �f8+ 29.1H4 Axf4 -+ or 2 6 . �d2 .ll x g3 27.�g2 �xg2+ 28.'it'xg2 ilxel 29.� xel bxc4 30.Axc4 � ac8 3 1 .b3 �c6-+ .
26....§.f2! 27.Axf2 e3+ 28.�d5 Axd5+ 29.cxd5 exf2 And the extra material assures Black's win.
30. .§.fl .§.f8 3l.axb5 3 1 .d6 �f5 32.'it'g2 �f3+ 33.'it'h3 �f6 -+
31 ... �g4 3 1 . . . h5! with the idea . . . h4, hxg3 and if gxh4 then . . . �f3 mate, wins quicker.
32.1i:ftg2 32 ..\ldl �e4+
32... �f3+ 32 . . . �e4+ 33.'it'h3 �f5+ 34.'it'g2 �f3+ is just a transposition.
33.1i:fth3 .E!.f5
14.4)e5? The start of a wrong combination; White didn't correctly evaluate the re sulting position.
14 . . . A xg2 1 5 . 4) x d7 �b71 16.4) xf8 Af31 17.�d3 .§.xf8 White is an exchange up but it is hard to believe that the f3-bishop is less important than any white rook! Black's control over the light squares around the white king should be more than enough compensation.
18. .§.d2 f51 Now the black rook will come to help in the attack (...�f6-h6/g6) and the
1 52
Small Advantages black queen has found a nice diagonal (h5-e8) to join as well!
1 9 . § e l �c8! 20.�c3 §f6 2l.a3 (D)
2l ... �e8! A major piece comes to help the black bishop. The threat of course is . . . �h5-h3.
22.dxc5 22.e4 loses to 22 .. .fxe4 23.d5 exd5 24.cxd5 �h5 25.h4 �g4 26.\t>h2 l"i:h6 and 22.�d3 to 22 ... �h5 23.�fl l"i:h6 24.h4 Jlxh4.
22 ... �h5 Now the immediate threat i s . . . �xh2+!.
23.h4 �g4 The text also wins, but most accu rate was 23 . . . l"i:g6! 24.e4 Jlxh4 25.exf5 Axg3.
24.�h2 bxc5 24 . . . e5! 25.cxd6 l"i:h6 mates !
25.§hl §g6 26.�gl _il xh4! 27.�a5 h6 0-1 Conclusion The concept of open files and di agonals is broad and generally includes all kinds of positions. The guide re mains the same for both: look carefully for them and properly exploit them! Small Advantages
Concept We o ften encounter positions
where one side has an infinitesimal or practically invisible advantage. There are numerous annotated games in which we read about a small positional advan tage that is in itself insufficient for vic tory, or about the active moves of the opponent that neutralized it. The truth lies somewhere in between. A "negli gible" advantage can, through a series of active moves, be converted into vic tory, but only ifthe defending side fails to make full use of its defensive poten tial. Overall, the positional advantage is a very broad concept. We could at tempt to draw up some rules regarding the obligations of the side that wishes to increase its infinitesimal advantage . 1 . Creation of new weaknesses in the opponent's camp, along with (if possible) threats against his king. 2. Transformation of the positional advantage into a material plus. 3. Transition to a won ending. In most cases this process requires sensitive, initially "incomprehensible" maneuvers in tune with a concrete strat egy that must be carefully designed and carried out. However, the most signifi cant factors are effort, faith and dedi cation to the goal of victory, without burning bridges. Here we will analyse six very interesting and instructive games in which a small advantage was held by one side and we will see the various ways that the "stronger" was able to benefit from the handling of its small advantage! (137) Ribli - Karpov Amsterdam 1 980 Catalan Opening [E05]
l .d4 4) f6 2,c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4. .1lg2 .ile7 5.4:\f3 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.�c2 a6 8.�xc4 b5 9.�c2 .1lb7 (D)
1 53
Chess Analytics 18... E{fc8
10.J}.f4 Immediately attacking the c7pawn. White's other main options are 1 0.Ad2 and 10.iig5 but none of these moves has caused insuperable difficul ties for Black. But of course, opening theory changes daily and what is good today might be bad tomorrow...
As the main fight will take place on the queenside, it is more logical to place the f8-rook on c8. The alterna tive i s l S . . . § aeS 1 9 . i[J e 5 .fixg2 20.'
10.. .l�)d5 Attacking the bishop on f4 looks natural but Black may have fewer dif ficulties to contend with after either 10 . . ..fid6 or 1 0 . . . 1[Je6.
1 1.4)c3 4) xf4 12.gxf4 4)d7 13.§fdl �c8 14.4)e41 An important innovation (at that time) by Ribli which creates problems for Black in a position that was once considered harmless for him. Black's next move looks like an equalizer, yet slight difficulties remain. The problem is that White was first onto the d-file and he is able to launch an invasion with his rooks.
14 ...c5 And not 14 . . . Axe4 1 5 .'{;Yxe4 e5 because of 16.1[Jg5!.
15.dxc5 4) xc5 16.4) xc5 �xc5 17.�xc5 Jlxc5 18.El,acl The other main option is 1S.I[Je5 A x g 2 1 9 . '
The position is "almost" a draw, but actually achieving this result is far from easy. The fact that even Karpov can lose this position is testimony to how diffi cult it is for Black. His main problems can be found in his queenside weak nesses on the light squares and the somewhat better placed white pieces.
20...f6 In the game GavrikovAzmaiparashvili, USSR 1 98 1 B lack tried to improve with 20 . . . § e7 but White still kept some pressure after 2 1 .e3 ( 2 1 .b4! Ad6 2 2 . § xe7 Axe7 23.i[Jxf7 '
1 54
Small Advantages nesses on the queenside and on the light squares in general.
21 ..£jf3 -'l,fS After 2 1 . . . �f7 White p lays 22.§d7+ Ae7 23.l"\cc7 and keeps some nasty pressure, while after 2 1 . .. �f8?! 22.§d7 Ae7 White can achieve a pleas ant position with 23.l"\ xc8+! (23.§cc7?! § xc7 24.§ xc7 Jld6 25.l"\d7 Axf4 26.e3 A e 5 ! 2 7 A:J x e 5 fx e 5 2 8 . l"\ b7 Yz - Yz N ovak-Prandstetter, Prague 1 9 8 1 ) 23 . . . l"\xc8 24.4Jd4 ± .
26...bxa4 27.bxa4 Ac5?! 27 . . . a5 was subsequently recommended as an improvement but after 28.4Jb5 § xc l 2 9 . l"\ x c l § e8 White keeps an edge with 30.'�f3. It must be also noted that 27 . . . .ilc3?! is no help, especially after 28.4Je2 .Q.b2 29.l"\d7+ �g8 30.§ cc7 ± .
22.e3 g6
28.l3.c4! Aa3
Once again 2 2 . . .'�1f7 i s met by 23.l"\d7+ �e8 24.l"\cc7.
23.b3 -'l.b4 Or 2 3 . . . Aa3 2 4 . § x c8+ § x eS 25.l"\d7 etc.
24.h3 This time 24.§ xc8+?! l"\ xc8 25.l"\d7 is not so good as after 25 . . . l"\ c2 26.4Jd4 § xa227.4Jxe6 Black can launch a coun terattack with 27 ... .ilel ! .
B lack can also transpose into a rook e ndgame w ith 28 . . . .il x d4 29.l"\cxd4 § e8 though after 30.§b4 White is better in view of the more ac tive position of his rooks and the weak ness of the a6-pawn. He will place his rooks on the sixth rank, putting pres sure on both Black's a- and e- pawns, and then he will improve the position of his king.
24...�f8
29.l3.xc8 l3.xc8 30.l3.bl!
B lack should strongly consider 24 . . .Jla3!? 25.l"\ xc8+ l"\ xc8 26.l"\d7 l"\c2 27.l"\a7 §c6 28.4Jd4 ;;!; . Although White stands slightly better, it remains to be seen if he can strengthen his position any further.
25 . .£ld4 �f7 (D)
Now we see how useful White's 26th move was; his rook is invading via the b-file.
30... l3,c4 After 30 . . . l"\ c7 White penetrates with 3 1 .§b8 threatening to bring the rook to either h8 or a8.
31.l3.b7+ -'l,e7 32.l3.a7 e5 As B lack cannot continue with 32 ... l"\xa4? 33.4Jc6 he is forced to cre ate new targets.
33.fxe5 fxe5 34 . .£lf3 l3. xa4 35 . .£1 xe5+ �f6 36..£jc6 Ac5 36. . .Ad6 37.l"\ xh7 l"\ c4 might have made it more difficult for White in view ofthe danger ofBlack's passed a-pawn. It seems that Black has defended well and there do not seem to be many problems remaining for him to face/
26.a4!
37.l3.xh7 Finally White has won material, while Black's counterplay doesn't look too serious.
Looking for new targets and weak-
1 55
37...l3,a2 38.�f3 a5 39.h4 a4 (D)
Chess Analytics 4.g3 Aa6 5.b3 Ab4+ 6.Ad2 Ae7 7.Ag2 c6 s.Ac3 d5 9.lL!bd2 Ab7 10.4:)e5 0-0 11.0-0 ll:)a6 12.e4 c5 1 3 . e x d5 e x d 5 14 . .§el c x d4 1 5 . A x d4 ll:)c5 1 6 .4:)g4 d x c4 17.4:) xc4 Axg2 18.�xg2 (D)
40.�e4! A tactical improvement ofWhite's position - that's what we call technique; �he way to improve the position by us mg small tactics!
4o... Afs If 40 . . J'ixf2?, then 41 .
41..§a7?! But here White doesn't react prop erly. 41 .f4 .llg7 42.h5 gxh5 43.:8xh5 ± was good.
4t ...Ad6?! The final mistake. B lack should have gone for 4 1 . . . :8 xf2 42.
42.f4 Now Black is simply lost.
42... .§h2 42 . . . a3 43.
43 . .§a6 �f7 44.4:)e5+ Axe5 4 5 . � x e5 �g7 46 . .§a7+ �h6 47. .§xa4 .§xh4 48.�f6 Elh5 49.e4 .§h4 50.e5 Elh5 5 1 .e6 .§f5+ 52.�e7 �g7 53.�d6 .§f8 54. .§a7+ �f6 55 . .§d7 1-0 (138) Torre - Sokolov London 1 984 Queen's Indian Defense [E 1 5]
In the mid- 1 980s, this position (and generally this variation) was in fashion and many important games were played with it.
18 ... 4:)e6?! The main alternative is 18 . . .
19.Axf6 Well played. Nothing is gained by the naive 1 9.Ab2 'i:£/xdl 20.
19 ... Axf6 20.'�xd8 AxdS An awkward recapture, but Black cannot permit the shattering of his kings ide pawns after 20 . . . :8 fxd8?! 2 1 .
l.d4 ll:)f6 2.c4 e6 3.lL!f3 b6
1 56
Small Advantages pawn structures are virtually symmetri cal, so only his slightly more active rooks and more mobile king differenti ate the two positions.
29 ...�f8 30. .§c7 .§c8
22.lf)ge3 If 22.Eld7 Black can defend with 22 . . . .§ ad8 ( 2 2 . . . .§ fd8? ! 2 3 . El e7 b5 2 4 Ajce5 ;!; ) 2 3 . .§ ed l ( 2 3 . El e7 b 5 24Aja3 [24Ajce5?! h 5 ] 24 . . . Aa5=) 23 . . . .§ xd7 24 . .§ xd7 .§ d8 25 . .§ x d8+ .ilxd8 26.�f3 f5!=.
22 ...b5! B lack must be active and try to neutralize the superiority of the white knights on the light squares.
23 . .£Jd6 a6 24. .§d5 .§fd8 24 . . . Jlxd6!? 2 5 . .§ x d6 .§ fd8 26 . .§ed l �f8 27.f4 is again slightly better for White, but Black might have tried it, as he would be very close to having equalized.
25 . .1£) b7! .§db8 After 25 ... .§ xd5 26.4Jxd5 the white knights are dancing in Black's camp.
26. .1£)c5 .lf) xc5 27 . .§ xc5 .1lb6 28.§.c6 .1lxe3 29.§.xe3 (D)
Black's rooks need to "breath"; they cannot stay passive forever on a8 and b8. On the other hand, this ex change gives White's king more free dom to act, as it is no longer in danger from the black rook pair.
3 1 . .E!ee7 .§ x c7 32 . .§ x c7 a5 33.�f3 .§a6 33 . . . a4 34 . .§b7 axb3 35.axb3 h5 leads to an ending which is supposed to be drawish, although in practice it is very difficult for Black.
34.§.c5 b4 34 . . . .§b6 35 . .§c8+ �e7 36 . .§ a8 a4 37.bxa4 bxa4 38 . .§ xa4 h5 is again a mirror case of the comment on the 3 3rd move.
35.�e4! It is time for the white king to take over.
35 ... �e7 36.�d4 �d6 37. .§g5 g6 38. .§d5+ �e6 38 . . . �c6 was possible. White will try to penetrate on the other side with 39.�e5 .§ aS 40 . .§d2 f5 41 .h4 threat ening h5 and �f6. It is not absolute sure that White can triumph but one must admit that he is on the right track. 39.�c5 (D)
More exchanges have taken place, but White still has the advantage, al though it is minimal - the respective
157
Chess Analytics 39 ... §a8
dangerous counterplay.
With two moves to go, Black lost on time. White's chances are excellent, since his king will soon reach b5 after 40.§.d2. 1-0
30... §6f7 I f now 30 . . . l"'\ xf3? 3 1 . .1lxf3 e4 White would have the finesse 32.l"'\g4 exf3+ 33.�fl +- .
3 l .b3 §f6 3 2 . �d3 �h8 33.§h5 �g8
(139) Timman - Balashov Sochi 1 973 King's Indian Defense [E88]
l.d4 4Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.4Jc3 Jig7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Ae3 e5 7.d5 c6 8. �d2 cxd5 9.cxd5 4Ja6 10.Ab5 4J h5 1 1 .4Jge2 f5 1 2 .e x f5 gxf5 13.0-0 4Jc7 14.Ac4 4Jf6 15.a4 �h8 16.Ag5! 4Jce8 17.4Jg3 f4 1 8 . /fJge4 h6 1 9 . A xf6 4J x f6 20.Ad3 a6 21.g4 fxg3 22.hxg3 4J xe4 23.4J xe4 Af5 24.�g2 Axe4 25.Axe4 �b6 26.§hl §f6 (D)
Black's passivity is obvious; he can practically only move his king, waiting for White to do something. But still is not easy to see how White will benefit from this passivity...
34.Ah7+ �hs 35.Ae4 �gs 36.Af5 Probably 36.§.f5 , to relieve the pressure against f3, is more accurate, but White had no reason to be in a hurry; Black cannot do anything here, because all his pieces are already in their ideal positions and cannot improve any fur ther!
36 . . . �h8 38.§c4 (D)
White stands better, as he has the better pawn structure and (what is re ally important) the better bishop. Actu ally, White's bishop is his pride, espe cially compared to its counterpart, as the light squares around the black king are rather weak. But White cannot win only on one side; he has to be global and try his chances everywhere !
27.§acl The first step is taken; the c-file now belongs to White.
27... §af8 28.§c4 a5 29.�c3 �g8 30.§h4! Caution is required. IfWhite plays 30.b3?! at once, then Black has the stroke 30 . . . §.xf3! 31..1lxf3 e4 giving him
37.§ch4
�c5
38 . .1lg6 offers nothing after 38 . . .�g8 (38 . . . §. xf3? 39.l"'\ xh6+ .llxh6 40.l"'\xh6+ �g7 41.l"'\h7+ �g8 42 . .1lf7+! l"'\ 8xf7 43 .�g6+ �f8 44.§. h8+ �e7 45 .�e6 # ; 38 . . . �cl !? oo ) 39.l"'\c4 �a3 40 . .Ilh7+ �h8 when White has noth ing better than to retreat back: 41 ..1le4.
38... �a3? Black's first real mistake; he be comes impatient and gives away the g 1 a7 diagonal. He should have retreated with 38 . . . �b6 when White should also retreat with 39 . .1le4 and prepare for
1 58
Small Advantages � f5, as noted.
39.g4 Preserving a spot at g3 for the king.
39 . . . �b2+ 41.�e31
40. �g3
�al
The key move - the white queen is excellently placed here, as it combines attack on both wings while defending its king.
4 t . . . �dl 43.§h2?1
4 2 .Ae4
�g8
White's next step is to drive the black queen back from its active post. Another move in this vein was 43. �g2! §£4 (43 . . . i1)ral 44.g5 hxg5 45 .la,h7+ �f7 46.� c7+ +- ) 44.�hl when Black cannot go for 44 . . . � xg4+ (44 . . . � xe4 4 5 . i1)rxe4 i1)rd2+ 46.�g3 ± ) 4 5 .fxg4 i1)rxg4+ 46.�h2 +-.
43 ...§f4 44.§hc2 �a1 45.E!cl �b2 46.§hl The end of the rook maneuver. White aims now to prevent B lack's bishop getting to g5, when Black would even have the better game! Nothing would have been gained by the prema ture 46.�c8?! Ja,f6!.
46... §8f6 47.§c7! Exchanging a pair of rooks will relieve the pressure against f3, easing White's task.
47... §f7 48.§xf7 §xf7 Not 48 . . . �xf7?! because after 49.'li¥b6 the white queen penetrates de c i s ively: 49 . . . 'li¥c3 5 0 . i1)r xd6 � xe4 5 1 .i1)re6+ �f8 52.i1)rf5+.
49.Af5 E!f6! The only move, preventing imme diate mating threats or heavy material loses. 50.§cl! (D)
Bad was the tempting 50 .Ae6+ �h8 5 l .g5 �f4! 52 .gxh6 Af8 when Black's position is not that bad any more.
50...e4! Active defense! After 50 . . . i1)rd4 5I .i1)rxd4 exd4 52.�c7 Black's chances for holding the draw are minimal.
51.f41 Of course not 5 l .Axe4 � f8 and White 's king is more exposed than Black's. With the text move White stops Black's counterplay.
51 ... §f8 52.§c4 h5 Again adding fuel to the fire.
53.E!xe4 Shattering the pawn formation is unavoidable because 53 .Ae6+ c;t>hS 54.g5? fails to 54 . . . � xf4! ! 5 5 . � c8+ ( 5 5 . � x f4? i1)re5 * ; 5 5 . i1)rx f4 la,e5 56. � c8 ;!; ) 5 5 . . . � f8 56.� xf8+ Axf8 57.i1)rxe4 i1)rd2=.
53 ... hxg4 54.Axg4 Ah6 If Black wanted to go in for the ending (which he cannot avoid any way), his best chance is 54 . . . i1)rc3: the black bishop will reach b4 and even when White wins the pawn on b7, he can fight on as the other pawns are pro tected in a natural way.
55.E!c4 tNf6 S l i ghtly better was 5 5 . . . �h8 56.Ae6! (56.'li¥d4+ i1)rxd4 57.� xd4 Ag7 58.�c4 Ab2 59.b4 axb4 60.� xb4 Acl 61 .Ae6 ± ) 56 . . . i1)rg7+ 57.�f3 ± .
1 59
Chess Analytics 56.�e6+! Cit'h8 57. � x f6+ E!,xf6 58.Ae6 E!.f8 59.Cit'g4! With the charming threat of 60.'ifilhS .ilxf4 6 1 . �g6 and the black king finds itself in a mating net.
59 ...Cit'g7 60.§.e4 60.l''k7+ �g6 6l .fS+ �f6 62.§ xb7 �d2! is not that clear; see the note to Black's 54th move.
Ag6 10.4) xg6 hxg6 1 1.Ab2 e6 1 2 . Ad3 Ae7 1 3 . 4) e2 �a5+ 1 4 .Ac3 Ab4 1 5.0-0 A x c3 1 6 . � xc3 � x c3 1 7 . 4) xc3 Cit'e7 1 8 .E!,fc1 E!.hc8 1 9 . 4) e 2 d x c4 20.bxc4 e5 21.Cit'fl exd4 22.exd4 4)b6 (D)
60...Cit'f6 61.Cit'f3 E!.e8 62.E!,e2 The pressure against f4 has been reduced, giving White more maneuver ing room for his rook.
62 ... §.e7 63.E!.h2 Ag7 64.§.c2 Ah6 65.E!.c8 (D) White holds a tiny advantage as a result of his somewhat better minor piece and slightly more active pawn structure. But it seems that Black can easily hold . . .
23.4)g11? Heading for f3, where the knight would easily jump to e5 when needed.
65 ...b5!?
23 ...bxc4
As the end is in sight, Black plays his last card.
66.§.h8! 66.axbS?! §b7 only helps Black.
66 . . . Cit'g7 67 . E!,g8+ Cit'f6 68.§.h8 Cit'g7 6 9 . §.d8! bxa4 70. b x a4 E!.b7 7 1 . §. x d 6 E!.b4 72.§.d7+ Cit'g6 73.E!.f7 E!,xa4 74.d6 Ag7 A pretty finish would occur after 74 . . . § d4 7 S . d7 a4 76. § fS ! �g7 77..ildS! +0
75.f5+ Cit'h6 76.f6 1-0 (140) Nikolic - Short Moscow 1 994 Slav Defense [D l O]
The alternative is 23 . . . eS! 24.�f3! (24.exbS?! e4 25.�e2 axbS =F or 24.dxeS § xeS 2S.exbS § xcl + 26.§xcl axbS=) 24 . . . bxe4 (24 . . . exd4 2 S . § e l + �d6 26.exbS axbS 27.�xd4 ;i; ) 2S .�xe4 �xe4 (2S . . . exd4 26.�b3 ;i; ) 26.§xe4 exd4 27.§ el + '<'!if8 28.§ xd4 § e2 and Black is very near to full equality.
24.Axc4 4) xc4 Black did not like to suffer the endgame after 24 . . . eS 2S .dxeS §xeS 26.Ab3 (26.§el +?! �f8 27 . .ilb3 aS=) 26 . . . § xc l + 2 7 . § x e l § e8 28.§ xe8 �xeS 29.�f3 and this is quite under standable, as the white bishop is a pow erful weapon.
25.E!.xc4 4)d5 26.4)f3 f6
l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.l�)c3 4)f6 4.e3 a6 5.�c2 b5 6.b3 Ag4 7.4)ge2 4)bd7 8.h3 Ah5 9.4)f4
Black should not create any further weaknesses in general, but he also couldn't allow a white knight on e5. He
1 60
Small Advantages could have opted for 26. . . l:"l c7!? 2= as an alternative defense. 27.§.el + ®d7 (D)
g5=. With the text move White fixes Black's weakness on g6.
32 ... §.h8 32 . . .
33.g3 4Jd5 34.§.3c2 E!e8 34 . . .
35./dc5+ ®d8 35 . . . �d6?! 37.l:"l xc6+ ±
3 6 .
36.a31 a5 37.4Ja4 38.§.xc6 E!xa3 39.§.6c5
28./dd2! Now the white knight is heading for c5, from where it will be able to at tack various important points in Black's camp, such as a6 and e6. Although the black knight seems to be very strongly placed in the center, it is actually doing nothing serious, as it attacks no impor tant point in White's camp. So, the black knight is doing an illusionary job! Ifyou add to the above the more active white rooks and White's somewhat better pawn structure, it will be easily under stood why White holds a nice advan tage.
28... /dc7
28 . . . l:"lab8 29Ajb3 �d6 30.
29.4Jb3 E!ab8 After 29 . . .
30.§.c3 §.e8 B lack must be on the alert: 30 ...
3l.§.ecl E!b6 32.h4 Now it is White's time to be on the alert: 32.l:"lg3 g5 33.h4? l:"lh8! 34.hxg5 § xb3! -+ . Winning a pawn does not always guarantee a win: 32.
§ b4
E!b3
Black can defend after 39.
3 9 . . . ®e7 40.§. x d5 E! x a4 41.§.c7+ ®e6 42.§.dd7 (D)
White has achieved the best out of his position, but ofcourse Black can still defend. This is easier said than done though, as very accurate handling (and suffering) is essential.
42... ®f5 A serious option was 42 . . . §g8, but White can still stay on top with accu rate play: 43.g4! g5 44.h5! (44.l:"le7+ �d5 45.l:"lcd7+ [45.hxg5 fxg5 46.l:"lxg7 l:"l xg7 47.l:"l xg7 �e4! oo /=] 45 . . . �c4 46.hxg5 fxg5 47.l:"l xg7 l:"\ xg7 48.l:"lxg7 l:"lal + 49.�g2 a4 50.§ xg5 a3 5 l .l:"la5 �b3! [51 . . .a2? 52.g5 �b3 53.g6 l:"lcl 54.f4 a l iff 55.l:"lxal §xal 56.f5 l:"la8 57.f6 § g8 58.g7 �c4 59.�f3 �d5 60.f7 +- ] 5 2 . g5 § d l 5 3 .g6 l:"l xd4 54.�f3 § d6 5 5 .g7 l:"l g6 56.l:"la7 a2 57.�e4 § xg7=) 44 . . . g6 45 .h6 § b4
161
Chess Analytics 46.h7 .§ h8 47.l"lg7 'it>d5 48 . .§ a7 +- . Black could take into account the im mediate 42 . . . g5!?, but White can prove an advantage: 43.h5! (43.hxg5?! fxg5 44 . .§ xg7 .§ xd4 45 . .§ xg5 .§ a8 oo /=) 43 . . . .§ h8 44.g4 .§ b4 45 . .§ xg7 .§ xd4 46. .§ge7+ 'it>d5 47.l"led7+ 'it>e4 48.f3+ 'it>d3 49 . .§ xd4+ 'it>xd4 50.l"la7 ± .
21.4) xe5 (D)
43. .§c5+ �e4 Or 43 . . . 'it>e6? 44 . .§ xg7 .§ xd4 45 . .§ xa5 .§g4 46.'it>g2 +- .
44. .§xg7 � xd4 45 . .§cl .§f8?! 4 5 . . . .§ a 2 ? 46 . .§ d7 + 'it>e5 47 . .§ e 1 + +- was easy, but Black had to opt for 45 . . . g5! 46.hxg5 fxg5 47 . .§ xg5 .§a2, when he could find counterplay based on his active king and rooks, as well as his passed a-pawn.
46 . .§ x g6 �e5 47 . .§g7 f5 48.�g2 .§a2 48 . . . f4 49.g4 f3+ 50.'1t>g3 +- or 48 . . . .§ d4 49 . l"l c5 + .§ d5 50 . .§ x d5+ 'it>xd5 5 l . l"l a7 +- was curtains anyway.
49 . .§d7! a4 Or 49. . . 'it>e6 50.l"la7 'it>d5 S l ..§dl + 'it>c5 52.h5 +- .
50 . .§el + �f6 51 . .§de7 �g6?! 5 l . . . .§f7 52 . .§ 7e6+ 'it>g7 53 . .§a6 'it>h7 54 . .§ee6 +-
White's knights seem to be a bit better placed, as the one on e5 already is creating some threats and the other is ready to come and help (to b5), also at tacking the queenside. But Black can defend, neutralizing White's knights' temporary activity.
2l ... .§ac8?1 Although the text move cannot be considered a real mistake, Black could have been more accurate and kept ap proximate equality by exchanging the strong e5-knight for his "useless" f6knight: 2 1 . . . 4:.\d7! 2 2 . 4:.\xd7 .§ x d7 23.4Je4 4Jd3 24.4:.\cS 4:.\xcS 25 . .§ xc5 'it>f8=, but not by exchanging his other knight with 2 1 . . .4:.\d3?! 22.4:.\xd3 .§ xd3 23.4:.\bS 'it>f8 24 . .§c7 a6 25.4Jd4 4:.\dS 26. .§b7 ;!; .
52. .§1e6+ .§f6 53.h5+
22.4)b51 a6?!
Black resigned in view of53 ... 'it>g5 54 . .§ g 7 + 'it>h6 5 5 . .§ x f6+ 'it>xg7 56. .§ xf5 +- . 1-0
(141) Grivas - Solak Kallithea 2007 Slav Defense [D 1 5] l .d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.4Jf3 4)f6 4.4Jc3 dxc4 5.e3 b5 6.a4 b4 7.4)bl Jl.a6 8.Ae2 e6 9.4)bd2 c3 10.bxc3 b x c3 1 1 . 4) b l Ab4 1 2 .0-0 c5 1 3 . Aa3 0-0 1 4 . A x a6 4) x a6 1 5 . �d3 �a5 1 6 . .§cl .§fc8 17. 4) x c3 c x d4 18.A x b4 4) xb4 1 9 ." � x d4 .§d8 20.�e5 � x e5
Black could hardly defend with 22 . . . 4:.\fdS?! 23 . .§ xc8 .§ xeS 24.4:.\xa7! (24.4:.\xf7 a6 [24 . . . 'it>xf7? 2 5 . 4:.\d6+] 25.4Jbd6 .§ c6! [25 . . . .§ c2?! 26.4:.\gS ± ] 26.a5 [26.h4 aS 27.g3 'it>f8 28.e4 4Jc3 29 . .§a3 'it>e7 30.e5 l"lc7 oo /=] 26 ... 4Jd3 2 7 . g3 'it>f8 2 8 . e 4 4:.\c3 29 . .§ a 3 ;!; ) 24 . . . .§c5! 25.4:.\bS 4Jb6 26.f4! (26. .§bl 4:.\xa4 27.4Jd6 f6 28.4Jec4 4Ja6=) 26. . .f6 27.l"lbl fxe5 28 . .§ xb4 exf4 29.exf4 4:.\dS (29 ... 4:.\xa4? 30.4Jd6 +- ) 30 . .§e4 ± , but he should do it with 2 2 . . . .§ xc l + 23 . .§ xc l 4:.\fdS! (23 . . . a6? 24.4Jd6 ± ) 24.'it>fl! (24.4:.\xa7?! 4Jc3! 25.'it>fl 4:.\xa4 26 . .§ c7 f6 27. 4:.\ac6 4:.\xc6 28.4:.\xc6
1 62
Small Advantages E'!dl + 29.'it'e2
23 ... 4)c2? Black was shocked and did not find the most stubborn defense w ith 23 . . . § x c l + 2 4 . E! x c l
24.4)xcS 4) xal 25.4)e7+ 'it>fS 26 . .§. xal! Simple and effective. Black was only counting on 26.4:17c6?
26 . . . 'it> x e7 27.4) c6+ 'it>d7 2S.4) x dS 'it> x dS 29.'it>fl 'it>c7 30. .§.bl 4)e4 31 . .§.b4 1-0
Many players would offer a draw here, but Gelfand correctly decided that he would risk little by playing on. Af ter all, Black's pawn structure is slightly better (2 pawn islands vs. White's 3).
36...f5! Black gains more space and pro voke White to more weaknesses.
37.gxf5 What else? White cannot stay put: 37:!tic2 'it'f6 38:!tid3? �e4+! 39.�xe4 (39.�f3 a5 -+ ) 39 . . .fxe4 -+ .
37...'it>f6 3S.�a3! A correct reaction - White i s obliged t o be aggressive and seek counterplay by activating his queen.
3S . . . 'it> x f5 39.�fS+ 40.�xh6 'it>d3 (D)
'it>e4
(142) Howell - Gelfand Amsterdam 20 1 0 Petroff Defense [C42] l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)f6 3.4) xe5 d6 4.4)f3 4) xe4 5.d4 d5 6.Ad3 4)c6 7.0-0 Ae7 S.c4 4)b4 9.Ae2 0-0 10.4)c3 Af5 ll.a3 4) xc3 12.bxc3 4)c6 13 . .§.el .§.eS 14.cxd5 � xd5 15.Af4 .§.acS 16.h3 h6 17.g4 Ag6 1 S.Ad3 A x d3 1 9 . � x d3 �d7 20.d5 Af6 21 ..§.xeS+ .§.xeS 22..§.bl 4)e7 23.c4 4)g6 24.Ag3 b6 25. �f5 �dS 26.a4 4)h4 27.�d3 4) xf3+ 2S.� x f3 Ae5 29 . .§. e l A x g3 30 . .§. xeS+ �xeS 31.� xg3 �el+ 32.'it>h2 �e7 33.�f4 g5 34.�f5 'it>g7 35.�d3 �e5+ 36.'it>g2 (D)
Black sacrificed a pawn in order to give to his king mobility and now he is ready to start the harvest. White must be on the alert.
41.�e6! 4 l .�c6 also seems to be good: 4 l . . . �e4+ (4l . . . 'it'd4 42.'it'f3 �f4+ 43.'it'g2=) 42.f3 �xc4 43.�g6+ 'it'c3 44.�xg5 'it'b3 45.h4 �e2 ;!; .
1 63
Chess Analytics 4t ...�f4 42.a5 �xc4
59.�h2
After the naive 42 . . . 'it'xc4? White can even win: 43.axb6 axb6 44.d6+ +- .
43.axb6 axb6 44.�e3+ �c2 45.�xg5 Now both sides have achieved passed pawns - the race begins!
59.\t'g2 �d2+ 60.�f2 t¥g6+
59 ... �d2+ 60.�hl 60.�g2 �ff4+ 6 1 . \t'h3 (61 .'it'hl �dl + 62.�gl �fxf3+ 63.\t'h2 �de2+) 6 l . . .�d7+ 62.�g4 �xf3+
60 . . . � d l + 6 1 .�h2 �e2+ 62.�g2 �f4+ 63.�h3 �e6+
45 . . . b5 46.h4 b4 47.h5 b3 48.h6 �d3!
And White resigned in view of 64.�g4 �xf3+ 0-1
Despite the extra pawn, White has to defend.
49.�g7 b2 50.h7 � xd5+ 5l.f3 �d2+ 52.�h3 White could also play 5 2 .\t'g3! though then he had to calculate the fol lowing long line: 52 . . . blt¥ 53.�g6+ �d3 54.�xd3+ \t'xd3 55.h8� �gl + 56.'it'f4 �d4+ (56 . . . c5!? =i= ) 57.�xd4+ 'it'xd4 58.\t'g5 c5 59.f4 c4 60.f5 c3 61 .f6 c2 62.f7 clt¥+ 63.'1t'g6=.
52 . . . b l � 53.�g6+ 54.�g2+ �b3 (D)
�d3
55.h8�? And the "pressure" paid offi Cor rect was 55.�g8+! �c4 56.�b8+ \t'c2 57.�xbl + \t'xbl 58.h8�=.
55 ...�f5+ Material is equal but with four queens on the board the most impor tant factor is who is on move.
56.�h2 56.�g4 t¥hl + 5 7 . \t'g3 t¥xg4+ 58.fxg4 �xh8
56 ...�f4+ 57.�g3 57.'it'h3 t¥bf5+ 58.�g4 �xf3+
57 . . . �c2+ 58.�h3 �cf5+
Conclusion A small advantage does not guaran tee victory, but with it, we must press ahead; it is up to us to make full use of it. The Endgame Keep Your Rooks Active!
Concept As I have explained in my books, there are five basic principles that must be followed faithfully in rook endings: 1 . Rook behind the pawn : The placement of the rooks in relation to the pawns is very significant. The rook must be placed behind the pawn, whether the pawn is ours or the opponent's. With every move the pawn makes, the radius of our rook will in crease and that of the opponent's will decrease. 2. Active rook: In all rook endings, the active handling ofthe rook is almost always the indicated course of action. The initiative and attacking possibili ties must always figure in our plans and moves. 3. Active king: As in all endings, the active king has the first say, as the endgame is its finest hour. Particularly when it can cooperate harmoniously with the rook, it can dynamically help
1 64
Keep Your Rooks Active ! us solve the problems posed by the po sition. 4. Planning: Our moves must be part of one or more plans. Active plans must be directed towards the sector of the board where we are superior and, correspondingly, defensive plans must be directed towards the area where we are inferior. 5 . Combination of all the above: When we are able to combine all of the above-mentioned elements, then we will be able to extract the maximum from our position! Mark Dvoretsky makes a general comment: "Rook activity is the comer stone in the evaluation and play of rook endgames. This activity may take di verse forms: from attacking the enemy pawns, to the support of one 's own passed pawns, to the interdiction or pursuit of the enemy king. There are indeed times when the rook must re main passive, and implement purely defensive functions. But even then, one must stubbornly seek out any possibil ity of activating the rook, not even stop ping at sacrificing pawns, or making your own king's position worse." In this survey we will examine (with the help of three very good and similar enough examples) the value of active rooks. All ofthe above principles can be found in these examples . . . (143) Flohr - Vidmar Nottingham 1 936 Queen's Gambit Declined [D62]
'iPif6 20.Ab3 Aa4 21.-'l,xa4 4) xa4 22.E!c1 4)c5 23.E!ed1 tPib6 24.4)e2 4)d7 25. 'iPJd4 'iPJxd4 26.4) xd4 .£le5 27.b3 �8 28.�1 E!xc1 29.E!xc1 (D)
29 ... .£Jc6?! Although White has been able to make things go just as he wished, it is still doubtful whether he could have achieved more than a draw after 29 .. .':tle7. Now he has the opportunity to transform one type of advantage into another.
30.4)xc6 E!cS 31.E!c5?! C orrect was 3 l . � e 2 ! bxc6 (31 . . .l"'l xc6? 32.l"'l xc6 bxc6 33.b4! �e7 34.�d3 �d6 35 .�d4 and White holds a typically winning position) 32.l"'lc5 transposing.
3l...bxc6?! Black did not make use of his op portunity. Here, better was 3 1 . . . l"'l xc6 32.l"'l xc6 (better is 32.l"'l xd5 although after 32 ... l"'lc2, Black's active rook com pensates for the loss of the pawn) 32 . . . bxc6 33 .b4 �e7 34.�e2 �d6 35.�d3 c5 36.bxc5+ �xc5 37.�c3 a5 reaching a drawn ending.
32.�e2!
1 .c4 e6 2.4)c3 d5 3.d4 4)f6 4.-'l,g5 Ae7 5.e3 0-0 6.4)f3 4)bd7 7.'iPic2 c5 8.cxd5 4) xd5 9.Axe7 'iPJxe7 10.4) xd5 exd5 11.-'l,d3 g6 12.dxc5 4) xc5 13.0-0 -'l,g4 14.4)d4 E!ac8 1 5 . 'iPid2 a6 16.-'l,c2 'iPJg5 17.f3 -'l,d7 18.E!fe1 E!fd8 19.E!ad1
King centralization is rather impor tant. After 32.l"'l a5?! c5! 33.l"'l xa6 c4, Black sacrifices a pawn, activates his forces, and draws without trouble. An other inaccurate move would be 32.b4?! �e7 33.�e2 �d6 34.�d3 l"'lb8 35.a3 l"'lb5, when Black will have no prob lems maintaining equality. 32 ... �e7 (D)
1 65
Chess Analytics
The black d-pawn is no longer iso lated, but instead Black is saddled with an isolated a-pawn, together with a backward c-pawn.
33.
34 ... .§a8 35.
White retains the advantage, since his passed d-pawn is quite dangerous; (c) 39 . . . g5! (this simple move has, for some reason, been overlooked in the endgame books) 40 . .§c3 ( 40.g3 g4! [40 . . . d4?! 4 l . exd4 .§e2 42 . .§a5! h6 43 .a4! (43 . .§ xf5 .§ xa2 44 . .§f7+ �b6 45 . .§ c7 .§xh2 46. .§ xc6+ �b5 47.d5 ± ) 43 . . . .§b2 44 . .§ xf5 .§ xb4 45.�c5 .§ xa4 46. .§f7+ ± ] 41 .f4 [41 .fxg4 fxg4 42 . .§c3 .§f8=] 4l.. . .§ e4 42 . .§c3 .§ c4=) 40 .. .f4 4 l .exf4 gxf4 42 . .§ xc6 .§d8+ 43.<;t>c5 d4 44 . .§ e6 d3 45 . .§el .§g8=.
37.a3 .§aS The alternative was 37 . . . .§b6, but here the black rook might even stand worse than it does on a8.
38.e4! A seemingly illogical move but Black has only one "real" weakness on a6 and White exchanges his weak e3pawn, activates his king and rook along the fifth rank and then sets about creat ing weaknesses for the opponent on the kingside. He executes a standard tech nique, called "enlarging the battle field! ."
38 . . . f x e4 40.
39.fx e4
d x e4
36 ... .§b8? Passive play cannot be helpful! The a6-pawn had to be defended by the king to allow the black rook to become ac tive. So, Black had to go in for 36... �c7! 37.�c5 �b7 38.�d6 .§e8 39 . .§a3 (in tending .§c3) and now: (a) 39 . . . f4? 40.exf4 .§ e 2 4 l .g4 .§ xh2 42.f5 +- as Black cannot defend against the passed white f-pawn; (b) 39 . . . d4 40.exd4 .§e2 41 ..§c3 .§ xg2 (4 l . . . .§d2 42 . .§c4) 42 . .§ xc6 .§xh2 43.a4 g5 44 . .§ c7+! �b6 45 . .§g7 and
40... .§a7?! Black continues to wait and see. Here again, it was necessary to free the rook from the defense of the pawn, by sending the king over to b6: 40 . . . �c7! 41 ..§e5! (41 .�f4? .§f8+ 42.�g3 �b6= is bad but probably playable is 41 .h4!?
1 66
Keep Your Rooks Active! 'it>b6 42.g4 [42. 'it>f4? .§ d8 43. 'it>g5 .§d3 4 4 . g4 .§ d4 4 5 . h 5 .§ e 4 = ] 42 . . . .§ f8 43.h5 ± ) 4 l . . .'it>b6 42.g4 (42.l"!e7? a5! 43 . .§ xh7 axb4 44.axb4 .§ a4 45.l"!g7 .§ xb4+ 46.'it>f3 .§h4! 47.h3 .§h6 48.'it>g4 c5 49.'it>g5 .§h8 50 . .§xg6+ 'it>b5 5 l .l"!g7 c4=) 42 . . . l"!f8 (42 . . . a5? 43 . .§ xa5 .§ xa5 44.bxa5+ xa5 45 .'it>d4 +- ) 43.a4 ± .
55.l"! xa6 l"! d3 56 . .§ xc6+ 'it>f7 57.a4 .§ xg3 58 . .§ xh6 +- . 51 . .§e8 c5 (D)
4Vit>f4 h6 Otherwise the king enters deci sively on h6 : 4 l . .. .§a8 42 .'it>g5 .§ a7 43.'1t>h6 'it>e6 44.g4 'lt>d6 45 .h4 'it>e6 46.g5 'lt>d6 47.a4 +- .
4 2 . h4! ®e6 43. ®g4 .§aS 44.h5! g5 (D)
The pawn ending after 5 l . . . l"! e7+ 52.l"! xe7 'it>xe7 53.'it>e5 is hopeless.
52 . .§d8+1 ®c6 After 52 ... 'it>c7 53.l"!h8 Black can re sign: 53 . . . cxb4 5 4 . l"! h7 + (54.axb4 +- ) 5 4. . . 'itlb8 55.l"! xa7 'it>xa7 56. axb4 'it>b6 57. 'it>f5 'it>b5 58. 'it>g6 xb4 59.\t'xh6 a5 60.�xg5 a4 61 .h6 a3 62.h7 a2 63.h8�.
53 . .§c8+ ®b6 54. .§xc5 .§h7 From one pathetic post to another! Or 44 . . . gxh 5 + 4 5 .'it>xh5 .§ g 8 46.g4 +- .
55 . .§e5 ®c6 56 . .§e6+ ®b5 57.®f5 E!f7+ 58. .§f6 And Black wisely resigned. 1-0
45.g3! White has created and fixed a third weakness, the h6-pawn. After returning his king to the center, he has taken the f4-square under control. 45.'1t>f3? would have been less accurate, in view of 45 . . . .§f8+ 46.e4 .§f4+.
45 ... .§a7 46.®f31 Now the king is transferred to the other flank.
46... .§a8 47.®e4 .§a7 48.®d4 ®d6 49.®e4 ®e6 50. .§e5+! And Black's choices are not help ful; he will either allow a rook on e8 or a king on f5 .
50 ... ®d6 If 50 . . . 'it>f6, then 5 l . .§ c5 l"! c7 52 . .§a5 .§a7 53.'1t>d4 e6 54.'it>c5 .§ d7
(144) Dreev - Chandler Hastings 2000 Queen's Gambit Declined [D37]
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.4Jf3 d5 4.4Jc3 Ae7 5.Af4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Axc5 8.a3 4)c6 9.cxd5 4J xd5 10.4) xd5 exd5 11.Ad3 Ab6 12.0-o Ag4 13.h3 Ah5 t4.b4 a6 15.Ae2 d4 16.exd4 Axf3 17.Axf3 � x d4 18.Ae3 � x d l 1 9 . .§fxdl Axe3 20.fxe3 .§fe8 2l.®f2 .§e7 22.Axc6 bxc6 (D) The weak pawns on a6 and c6 are the cornerstones of Black's problems. Here he has an extra target to aim for; the weak e-pawn, but this doesn't seem to be enough.
23 . .§d6! 1 67
Chess Analytics
The right follow-up. Wrong would be 23.E:acl?! because of 23 . . . E: e6!.
23 ... f!c8 23 . . . a5 is not helpful in view of 2 4 . E: xc6 a x b4 2 5 . a xb4 ± E: x a l ? 26.E:c8+. Black could also think to "be active" with 2 3 . . . E: ae8 but after 24.E:xc6 (24.E:el? E:e6 25.E: xe6 E: xe6 2 6 . E: c l �f8 2 7 . E: c 5 E: f6+ 28.�e2 E: g6 = ) 2 4 . . . E: x e 3 2 5 . E: xa6 E: e 2 + 26.�fl E: b2! (26 . . . h5 2 7 . E: a8! +- ) 27.E:el E:c8 28.E: c6! (28.E:e2?! E:bl + 29.�f2 h5 ± ) 28 . . . E: a8 29.E:ecl! and after the exchange of one pair of rooks, White wins.
24.§cl §ec7 25.f!c5 The presence of an extra pair of rooks is in White's interest in this spe cific position, as both his rooks are sig nificantly more active than their black counterparts.
25 ...1it>f8 26.e4! Preparing the protection of the d6rook.
26... 1it>e7 27.e5 f6 Black has to kick the d6-rook and this is his only way. But White succeeds in exchanging his only weakness and reaches an ending as in the previous example. If Black stays put, then White will activate his king and he will push his kingside pawns creating some extra weaknesses on the kingside. 28.f!d3! fxe5 29.1it>e3 (D)
29... 1it>f6?! 29 ... E: d7 30.E:xe5+ �d8 holds out longer: 3 1 . E: h5 h6 3 2 . E: a 5 E: a8 33.E: xd7+ �xd7 34.�e4 ± . The king has to defend the weak pawns in order to liberate the rooks' activity.
30.Iit>e4 g6 31.§dc3! The game is practically decided, since Black's king is now cut-off from its weak pawns.
3l . . . lit>e6 3 2 . § x e 5 + 33.f!f3+ lit>g7 34.®d4
lit>f6
It's time for the white king to do its job, penetrate via the a-file.
34...f!d7+ 35.1it>c4 f!b8 36.f!c5 §b6 37.1it>b3! §d6 38.1it>a4 h5 39.h4 §d7 Or 39 . . . E: e 6 4 0 . � a 5 41 .�xa6 +- .
E: b 5 +
40.Iit>a5 §b8 41.§xc6 The weak black pawns start fall ing - the rest was rather easy:
4l . . . lit>h6 42.1it> x a6 §d2 43. f!g3 §g8 44.b5 f!d4 45.b6 §a4+ 46.1it>b5 f! xh4 47.b7 §hl 48.§c8 f!bl+ 49.®a6 1-0 (145) Nikolic - Movsesian Polanica Zdroj 1 996 English Opening [A46] l .d4 e6 2.4)f3 c5 3.g3 cxd4 4.4) xd4 a6 5.Ag2 4)f6 6.0-0 d5 7.c4 dxc4 8.�a4+ 4)bd7 9.�xc4 4Jb6 10. �b3 e5 l l . 'df3 J}.e6 12.�c2 f!c8 13.4Jc3 �c7 14.4)g5
1 68
Keep Your Rooks Active! .Q.d5 15 . .Q.h3 .§dS 16 . .Q.e3 .Q.c6 1 7 . .§adl .§ xd l lS . .§ x dl .£) c4 19..Q.cl .£)d6 20..£)d5 �a5 21 . .£)c3 .Q.e7 22..Q.g2 .Q.xg2 23.\l7xg2 �c5 24. �a4+ �c6+ 25. � x c6+ bxc6 26..£)f3 .£)d7 27.b3 f6 2S..£)a4 \l7f7 2 9 . .Q.a3 \l}e6 30 . .£) e l .£) b7 3 l . .Q. x e7 \l} x e7 32 . .£) c 2 .£)bc5 33 . .£) xc5 .£) xc5 34 . .£)e3 .£)e4 35 . .£)f5+ \l}f7 36.\l7f3 .£)g5+ 37.\l7e3 g6 3S. .£)d6+ \l}e7 39 ..£)b7 .£)e6 40 . .§cl .§cS 4 1 ..§c4 .§c7 42 ..£)c5 .£) xc5 43 . .§xc5 (D)
51.f4! As in the previous examples, White must create entrance points for his king, so exchanging some pawns is obliga tory.
51 ...exf4 Forced. If 5 l . . .l:':la7, then 52.fxe5+ fxe5 53.�e4 +- .
52.exf4 \l}c7 53.h5!
Exchanges haven't helped Black dramatically; even the rook endgame is very difficult for him.
43 ... \l}d6?! Black should try 43 . . .h5!, as now his h-pawn will be rather weak.
44. .§a5 .§a7 45.g4! An i mportant move, keeping Black's h-pawn at bay. White's plan now is to gradually strengthen his po sition on both flanks (b4, a3 and h4) and by advancing his kingside pawns to create even more weak points in Black's position. Black has very little counterplay.
As Black's two weaknesses on a6 and c6 would not mean anything here, White creates a third one on the kingside. Also good was 53.�e4 �b6 54.h5 ± .
53...gxh 5 If 53 ... g5, then after 54.�e4, the king breaks through to the black pawns. 53 . . . l:':l g8 also doesn't help: 54.l:':l xa6 gxh5 55.gxh5 l:':lg4 56.�e4 +- . 54. .§ xh5 .§gS 55 . .§h4! (D)
45 ...h6 4 5 . . . c5? loses to 46.�d3 �c6 47.�c4 +- .
46.h4 .§aS Black is obliged to wait, as 46 .. .f5? also does not help: 47.gxf5 gxf5 48.f4! winning a pawn.
47.b4 .§a7 4S.a3 .§aS 49.\l7d3 .§a7 50.e3 .§aS (D)
Bad would be 5 5 . l:':l xh6? l:':l xg4 56.l:':l xf6 l:':l g3+ 57.�e4 l:':l xa3 with a drawn ending. The passivity of the white rook is provisional upon the ar rival of the white king to the defense.
1 69
55 ... \l}d7?!
Chess Analytics Too passive. Black had to try to be active by playing 55 .. .f5!? 56.gxf5 l"l.g3+ (56 . . . l"l.h8 57.l"l.h5 �d6 58.�e4 l"lh7 59.f6 �e6 60.l"l.c5 l"l.c7 6l.l"l.f5! [6l .a4? �xf6 62.b5 axb5 63.axb5 l"l. e7+=] 61 . . .l"l.f7 62.l"le5+ �xf6 63.l"l.f5+ \t'e6 64.l"l. xf7 \t'xf7 65.\t'f5 +- ) 57.�e4 l"l.xa3 although he would probably lose after 58.f6!.
73 . . . \t'e7 74.\t'f4 (planning \t'e4-d5) 74 . . .\t'd7 75.l"l. xf6 +- White wins. Conclusion Keep your rooks active; if you do not know why, they do ! (or probably you will find out too late why you should have . . . ).
56.�e4 �e6 57.�f3
A Trapped Rook
Now the white rook can again become active.
57... §.h8 58.E!h5 E!h7 59.�g3 Planning l"l.a5 and \t'h4-h5. White has achieved an ideal position, while Black has only weak pawns. Black is condemned to passivity with no hope for a good result. . .
Concept Again, a simple concept: a pawn permanently traps an unfortunate rook and then the king finishes the job. I wit nessed the first example; the next I cre ated and the other three I came across in magazines . . .
59... §.d7 60.E!a5! E!a7 61.�h4 �f7 62.�h5 �g7 63.f5 �h7 63 ...\t'f7 loses to 64.l"lc5! (64.\t'xh6 l"l. a8 6 5 . \t'h7 l"l. g8 66 . l"l. x a 6 l"l. xg4 67 . l"l. a7 + \t'f8 68 . l"l c7 also wins) 64 ... l"lc7 65.a4 +- . 64.E!c5 E!c7 (D)
(146) Miles - Gdanski Iraklio 1 993 Queen's Pawn Game [D03]
l.d4 �f6 2.�f3 g6 3.c3 Ag7 4.Ag5 0-0 5.�bd2 d5 6.e3 �bd7 7.Ae2 E!eS 8.0-0 e5 9.�b3 c6 l O . §.cl �b6 l l . � fd2 � fS 12.dxe5 E!xe5 13.Af4 E!eS 14.c4 �ds 1 5 .Ag3 h5 t6.h3 �e6 17.cxd5 cxd5 18.,ile5 ,ild7 19.�f3 �b6 20.�d2 Aa4 21.�a5 .ilxb3 2 2 . � x b6 a x b6 23.a x b3 � d7 24.,il xg7 � x g7 25. E!fdl �f6 26.�d4 � xd4 27.E!xd4 E!ec8 (D)
65.a4! �g7 After 65 . . . l"l b7 66. l"l. xc6 l"l. xb4 67.l"l.xa6 White wins easily.
66.b5 a x b5 67. a x b 5 E!b7 68.bxc6 E!c7 69.E!cl E!cS Or 69 . . . \t'h7 70. l"l. d l l"l. x c6 7 U 'ld7+ \t'g8 72 .\t'g6 \t'f8 73.l"l.f7+ \t'e8 74.l"l xf6 l"l. c4 75.\t'h5 +- .
70.c7 �f7 7 1 . E!c6 72. �h4 �f7 73.�g3 1-0
28.§.bl!
�g7
And B lack resigned as after
Impressive - White understands that Black w i l l get suffi c i ent
1 70
Keep Your Rooks Active! counterplay with the exchange of one pair ofrooks, so he preserves them! One of his rooks will defend and other will attack the opponent's weaknesses.
28... §.c2 29.Af3 E!.a5?! The start of a wrong plan. Black had to opt for 29 . . . l"l ac8 30.g4 hxg4 31 .hxg4 ;!; .
30.b4! E!.b5 30 . . . l h 2 32.l"l xd5 ±
3 l..� x d5
And Black resigned, as White's plan is simple: he will bring his king to a4 and while the black king will be on c6, the move g3 will create zugzwang and eventually the win of the unfortu nate black rook.
31.b3 4)e4 (D)
(147) Grivas - Klokas Athens 2007 King's Indian Defense [E90]
32. .§el! A very strong move, probably missed by Black when he was thinking about . . . l"la5-b5.
32 ... .§d2 Black cannot take the f2-pawn any way: 3 2 . . .
l.d4 4Jf6 2.c4 g6 3.4Jc3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.4Jf3 0-0 6.h3 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.�xd8 .§ xd8 9.Ag5 §.e8 10.4)d5 4J xd5 ll.cxd5 c6 12.Ac4 4Jd7 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.Ae3 4)b6 t5.Ah3 Ae6 t6.4Jd2 Af8 17.�e2 A x b3 18.axb3 Ab4 19 . .§hcl Axd2 20.� xd2 E!.ed8+ 2l.�e2 §.deS 2 2 . j\ x b6 a x b6 23. E!. x a8 .§xa8 24.§.xc6 .§a2 25 . .§c2 .§al 26.f3 .§a7 27.§.c8+ �g7 28.�d3 E!.d7+ 29.�c2 E!.d6 30. .§c7 h5 (D)
33.§.dl! E!,xdl +? The lesser evil was 3 3 . . . l"l b 2 34.Axe4 dxe4 35.l"l xe4 l"l xb3 3 6. .§dd4 l"lb2 37.g4 hxg4 38.hxg4 ± .
34.Axdl 4Jc3 35.Af3 �f6 36.�fl �e5 37.Ae2! Another exchange that increases the quarantined rook's misery.
37... 4) xe2 38.�xe2 f5 39.f4+ �d6 40.h4! Cutting off any counterplay.
White is a pawn up and his rook is active, but there seems to be no win in sight.
31.b4! E!.d4?
40... �c6 41.�d2 1-0 (D)
171
Chess Analytics Falling straight into the trap! Black had to play 3 1 . . .\t>f6 32 .b5 h4 33.\t>c3 (33.§c6? § xc6+ 34.bxc6 r:tle7 35 .b4 b5) 33 . . . \t>e6 34.§c8 ± .
32.b5 §.b4 There would be no salvation either with 32 . . . §d8 33.§c6 §b8 34.r:tlc3 but nevertheless Black had to try this.
33.�c3 §.xb5 34.b41 1-0 The rook is trapped and it will be captured soon. Black resigned. (148) McShane - Gordon Hinckley Island 2009 Sicilian Defense [B50]
After much maneuvering, it wasn't entirely clear how White could make progress here. But he sets a trap with his next move.
67.d4 exd4?
1.e4 c5 2.4)f3 d6 3.4)c3 4)f6 4.e5 dxe5 5.4)xe5 4)bd7 6.4)c4 e6 7.J}.e2 4)b6 8.b3 Ae7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0 . J}.f3 4)fd5 l l .J}.b2 4) x c3 1 2 . J}. x c3 4) xc4 1 3 . b x c4 Af6 14.J}.xf6 �xf6 15.�c1 �f4 16.d3 �xcl 17.§.fxc1 §.bS 18.§.ab1 b6 19.§.b3 Jlb7 20.J}.xb7 §.xb7 21.a4 §.fb8 22.�fl �f8 23.a5 �e7 24.axb6 axb6 25.§.a1 g5 26.�e2 h5 27.h4 g x h4 28. §. h 1 E!gS 2 9. �f3 §.g4 30.§.hb1 E!g5 3 1 . §. x b 6 E!f5+ 32.�e2 §. x b6 33.§.xb6 §.g5 34.�fl §.f5 35.§.b1 �d6 36.§.e1 §.f4 37.§.e3 §.g4 38.§.h3 �e5 39.f3 §.f4 40.�e2 �f6 41.§.h1 �g5 42.�f2 E!f5 43.§.e1 �f4 44.§.e4+ �g5 45.�e3 e5 46.�e2 f6 47.�e3 h3 48.gxh3 �g6 49.�f2 �f7 50.§.e1 �e6 5 1 . §.a 1 �d6 5 2 .§.a6+ �c7 53.E!a7+ �d6 54.§.f7 E!f4 55.§.h7 E!f5 56.§.h8 �d7 57.§.h7+ �d6 58.§.h6 �d7 59.�e3 �d6 60.§.h8 �c6 61.§.c8+ �d6 62.�f2 E!f4 63.�g3 E!f5 64.h4 §.f4 65.c3 E!f5 66.§.d8+ �c6 (D)
67 ... cxd4 was the right way to cap ture, when 68.cxd4 §f4! (68 . . . exd4? is still a blunder because of 69 .§ xd4 with the threat of§f4) 69.dxe5 fxe5 70.§d5 §f5 and Black holds on.
68.f4! 1-0 And B lack resigned, as after 68 . . .\t>c7 69.§a8 dxc3 70.\t>f3 White will play \t>e4, winning Black's help less rook! (149) Radjabov - Shirov Linares 2008 Sicilian Defense [B92]
1.e4 c5 2.4)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4)f6 5.4)c3 a6 6.J}.e2 e5 7.4)b3 J}.e7 8.J}.g5 Ae6 9.Axf6 J}.xf6 10. �d3 4)c6 11.0-0-0 4)d4 1 2 . 4) x d4 e x d4 1 3 . 4) d 5 Jl x d 5 14.exd5 0-0 15.�f3 §.eS 16.Ad3 §.e5 17.�b1 �a5 (D)
1 72
Keep Your Rooks Active! Now Black goes for the d5-pawn. So White has to react, otherwise it will be a simply drawish endgame after the exchanges on d5.
23 ...f5 There is no way out: 23 . . . .§ xd3 2 4 . c x d 3 +- or 23 . . . Jlf6 2 4 . Jle4 (24.g5 +- ) 24 . . . d3 2 5 .Axd5 l"l c5 + 26.�b3 .§ xd5 ( 2 6 . . . l"l c3 + 27.�a2 l"l x c 2 + 28 .�a3 .§c3+ 2 9 . Ab3 +- ) 27.l"lxd3 +- .
18.g4! White prepares h4 with g5 to fol low. I think that this exact position is quite playable for both sides. But White looks preferable - at least according to statistics !
24.gxf5! Ac curate. Wron g would be 24.Jlxf5? .§ xf5 25.gxf5 .§c4! -+ .
18 ... � x d5 1 9 . � xd5 f! x d5 20.f4 Ah4? (D)
24 . . . f! xd3 26.E!c1!
20 . . . g6? 2 l .b4! l"l c8 2 2 . a4 l"l c3 23. �a2 +- as �e4 is to come, trapping the d5-rook. But Black had to go for 20 . . . g5 when nothing is clear yet - the rook can escape . . .
White won the exchange and he goes on to take the full point.
25.cxd3
26 . . . f! x f4 27.f!hf1 28.f!xfl AdS 29.a5! 1-0
E! x f5
f! x f l
An instructive and important game for the theory of the variation. (150) Kramnik - Naiditsch Dortmund 20 1 0 Catalan Opening [E04]
21.b4! Now the rook is trapped on d5 !
21 ... f!c8 22.a4! The most precise. Now it's impos sible to save the rook on d5. 22.c4!? dxc3 23 .�xh7+ �xh7 24 . .§ xd5 c2+ 25 .�cl �f2 and Black retains some drawing chances, while after 22.Jle4? d3! Black escapes!
1 .d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.4)f3 d5 4.g3 dxc4 5.Ag2 c5 6.0-0 4)c6 7.�a4 Ad7 8.�xc4 cxd4 9.4) xd4 E!c8 10.4)c3 4) xd4 11.�xd4 Ac5 12. �h4 o-o 13.Ax b7 E!bS 14.Af3 E!b4 15. �g5 Ad4 16. �d2 �c7 17.4)d1 E!fb8 18.a3 E!c4 19.4)e3 E!a4 20.E!b1 e5 (D)
22 ... f!c3 22 . . .Jlf6 23.Jle4! d3 24.c3!! l"l xc3 25 . �xd5 l"l a3 26.�a2 +- or 22 . . . f5 23.gxf5 +- .
23.'it>b2 Another winning move was 23.l"l cl!?: 23 . . .f5 24.gxf5 g6 25.l"lhgl! �f7 2 6 . fxg6+ hxg6 2 7 . l"l g4! �e7 28.l"lcgl Af6 29.l"l4g3 �f8 30.l"l xg6 �f7 31 .l"lh6 +- .
White is a pawn up, but Black has some pressure on the queenside in re turn.
21.b4! This seems like an " illogical" move, as Black can achieve sufficient
1 73
Chess Analytics pleasant for Black.
counterplay . . .
2l ...a5 22. �c2! An important move, which consoli dates White's advantage. 22 ... �xc2 23.l�� xc2 (D)
30.E!dl h5 3 1 . E!d8+ �h7 32.�fl! Now allowing any activity...
32...h4 33.f3! :§e7 As sooner or later Black would be obliged to return the exchange, I think that this could be the most precise mo ment to do so: 33 . . . .§e3 34.\flf2 .§exa3 35 . .il x a3 h x g 3 + 36.hxg3 l"' x a 3 37.<£Jc6 ± .
34.g4 Now White controls even more sensitive squares than previously.
34... :§c7
23...Af5?! 23 ... Ac3! was worth trying, as converting White's extra pawn is not a trivial task: 24 . .ilb2 .ilxb2 25 . .§ xb2 axb4 26.axb4.
24.�xd4! Axb1 25.�c6! Avoiding 25 . .ilc6? exd4 26 ..ilxa4 axb4 where after 27 . .ilf4?! (27.axb4=) Black has 27 . . . bxa3! 28. .ilxb8 a2 and White is unable to stop the a2-pawn, but he can probably save himself with 29 ..ilc2 al� 30 . .§ xb l �a5 =i= . 25 ... E!e8 26.� xa5 (D)
Black could think of 34 . . . \flg6!? 35.<£Jc6 ± .
35.�e2! �d7 After 3 5 . . . l"' c 2 + , White has 36 . .§d2.
36.�d2 f6 37.f4 �c5 38.;§d4 �g6 After 38 . . . .§ xa5?! (or 38 . . . <£Je6 3 9 . l"' e4! ± ) 39.bxa5 fJb3+ 40.\fld3 fJxd4 4 l ..ilxd4! it is hard to believe that Black can make it. Note that White should avoid 4 1 .\flxd4 .§ c2! oo with the idea of 42.Ac3? .§ xh2 43.a6 .§e2-+ .
39.�c3 The white king is getting close to the a4-rook.
39 ... �f7 40.f5 Also good was 40 . .§ c4 as Black cannot go in for 40 . . . .§ x a 5 ? (40 . . . <£Je4+ ± ) 4 l .bxa5 <£Ja4+ 42 .\flb3 .§ xc4 43.\flxc4 fJxb2+ 44.\flb5 +- . 40... �e4+ 41.�b3 �c5+ (D) This is what White had dreamed about when he played his 2 1 st move! Black is an exchange up but his rook is out of play and trapped. Perhaps, it would be correct to say that White is technically winning.
26 . . . -'l_e4 27.-'l_b2 28.exf3 e4 29.fxe4 E!xe4
-'l_ x f3
After 29 . . . <£Jxe4, 30 . .§ e l ! is un1 74
Losing a Drawn Rook Ending 42. a2! .{)a6 Not much better is 42 . . . 4Jb7 43.4Jc4 or 43.4Jxb7 § xb7 44.�b3 and White's queenside pawns should decide the game.
perts are mainly focused on complicated cases. In this chapter I will present three "accidents" that happened to two of my most promising trainees.
43 . .§c4! .§xc4 If 43 . . . 4Jxb4+, then 44.�b3!. 44. ..£) xc4 .{)c7 45 . .£)a5! Black's rook is under arrest again.
45 . . . .£) a6 46.b3 .{) c 5 + 47.c4 .{)e4 4 8 . b 5 .{) c 3 + 49.Axc3 .§xa3 (D)
The rook is finally free, but the price Black paid for its liberation was too high.
50.c4 .§a2 51.b5 1-0
(1 51) Kamsky - Yilmaz Baku 2009 Sicilian Defense [B8 1 ]
l .e4 c5 2 . .£)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4 . .£) xd4 .{)f6 5 . .£)c3 a6 6.h3 e6 7.g4 d5 8.Ag2 .{) xe4 9 . .{)xe4 dxe4 10.A x e4 e5 l l . .{) b3 � x d l + 12.xdl h5 13.g5 .{)c6 14.Ae3 Ae6 15.e2 0-0-0 16.h4 .{)d4+ 17 . .£) x d4 e x d4 1 8 . Af4 Ad6 1 9 . A x d6 .§ x d6 20 . .§hel Ad7 21.d2 .§f8 22.Ad3 f6 23.f4 f xg5 24.fxg5 .§f4 25. .§e4 .§f2+ 26. .§e2 .§f4 27 . .§h2 .§e6 28 . .§fl .§ xfl 29.Axfl .§e4 30.Ae2 Ag4 31 . .§f2 Axe2 32 . .§xe2 .§ xh4 33 . .§e7 g6 34. .§g7 .§g4 35 . .§xg6 .§g3 36 . .§g7 h4 37 . .§h7 h3 38.g6 .§ x g6 39. .§xh3 .§g4 40. .§h7 .§g5 41.d3 .§g2 42..§h4 c7 43. .§xd4 c6 (D)
Conclusion A trapped rook is the start of a se rious headache - avoid it at all cost and make yourselfand your rook happy! Of course, neither one of the losers of the previous games wanted h i s rook trapped, but sometimes it is difficult to forecast the circumstance ... Losing a Drawn Rook Ending
Concept Every decent chessplayer should know and handle simple endings well, especially rook endings which are quite commonly encountered in practice. Actually, as far as the simple versions of these endings are concerned, there is not much analysis available, as ex-
Of course this is a theoretically drawn position, as White cannot really benefit from his extra pawn, since the material is limited and on one side of the board.
44. .§c4+ But of course White can try his chances without the slightest risk.
44 ... b5 45.b3 .§h2 46 . .§g4 a5
1 75
The waiting policy with . . . �c6-c7
Chess Analytics was a fair option. But there certainly is nothing wrong with the moves played by Black.
47.l3.g5+ �a6 48.a4 .§. h l 4 9 . .§.g6+ b 6 50 . .§.g7 l3.h4 5l.c3 l3.h3+ 52.�d4 l3.h4+ 53.�d5 l3.h5+ 54.�d6 .§.h6+ 55.�c7 l3.h3 (D)
63 ... �a6? Black has lost his way and is now losing. He could still achieve a draw with the previously mentioned 63 ... 8h3 and if 64.Bc7+ then 64 . . .�a8.
64.l3.c7! l3.h3 Too late. Not that 64 . . .b5 65.8 c6+ �a7 66.axb5 +- was of any help.
65.b5+ �a5 66 . .§.a7+ �b4 67.�b7 l3.h6 68. .§.a8 Now White will exchange his a pawn for Black's b-pawn, achieving a theoretically won position, in view of the relative positions of the kings.
It seems that White has not gained amything by his king's intervention, but this is not entirely true.
56.l3.e71 �a7! 56 . . . B xc3+? would be too naive; after 57.�b8, Black will be mated!
57.�c6+ �a6 58.�c7 �a7 59.�c8+ �as 60. .§.c7 l3.d3 Not bad, but 60 . . . B h8+ 61 .�d7 �b8 was good enough and probably more accurate. The black rook must be able to deliver checks anytime.
61.l3.c4 �a7 Exchanging pawns with 61 . . .l"!.d5 62.b4 axb4 (but not 62 . . . b5? 63.Bc6 �a7 64.c4! +- ) 63.cxb4 b5 is the natu ral policy for the defender.
62.b4 axb4 63.cxb4 (D)
68 . . . .§.g6 69.�a6! � x a4 70.J3.b8 �b4 7 1 . J3. xb6 .§.g5 72.l3.h6! �c5 72 . . . 8 xb5 73.Bh4+ �c5 74.8h5+
73.l3.c6+ 1-0 And Black resigned as White fi nally wins the ending: 73 . . .�d5 74.Bcl and with the blacking cut off, the pawn promotes. (1 52) Negi - Yilmaz Czama 2010 Sicilian Defense [B94]
t.e4 c5 2.i£)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. 4::) x d4 i£)f6 5.i£)c3 a6 6 . .Q.g5 i£)bd7 7.f4 'I!Jc7 8:�f3 h6 9 . .Q.xf6 i£)xf6 10.f5 e5 ll.fxe6 fxe6 12.00-0 .Q.d7 13.g3 0-0-0 14.Ah3 l3.e8 1 5 . .§.hel i£)h7 1 6.'1!1e2 i£)g5 17..Q.g4 g6 18.h4 h5 19.hxg5 hxg4 20.e5 dxe5 21.i£)b3 ,ilb4 22.l3.d3 ,ilc6 23.'1!1xg4 e4 24 . .§.de3 �b8 25.a3 Axc3 26. .§. xc3 'I!Je5 27.�bl 'I!Jf5 28.'1!1dl 'I!Jd5 29.'1!1c1 l3.ef8 30.4)c5 e3 31.'1!1xe3 l3.hl 32.i£)b3 l3.f3 33.'1!1cl .§. xel 34.'1!Jxel l3.f5 35. J3.d3 'I!J h l 36. '1!J x h l .i}. x h l 37.4)d4 .§.fl+ 38.�a2 e5 39.4)e6 Ae4 40.l3.d8+ �a7 4l .c3 .§.gl 42..£)c5 Ac6 43.l3.d3 l3.e1 44.c4 e4 45.l3.d6 e3 46. .§.xg6 e2 47.l3.e6 Af3
1 76
Losing a Drawn Rook Ending 48.g6 E!gl 49.l�)d3 E!xg3 50.E!e3 E!xg6 51.E!xf3 E!d6 52.l�)el E!dl 53.4)c2 E!c1 54.E!e3 E!xc2 55.
After a fierce fight a drawish rook endgame has appeared on the board. 3 :2 pawns on one side without weaknesses is a hard nut to crack and clearly de mands the generous help of the oppo nent.
56 ...a5
79.E!h8+
Although White has made no real progress (he really couldn't anyway) Black should be on the alert. Perhaps Black was feeling too relaxed and too confident of the draw . . .
85 ...
The correct follow-up, getting ready for further exchanges.
86.�a5! This is what Black overlooked.
57.E!c2 E!hl 58.E!d2 E!cl 59.E!c2 E!hl 60.c5
86 . . . E! xc5 88.E!e8+
6 l . . . b6! is the quickest way to draw: 62.c6 (62.cxb6 Sh4+ 63.'
88 . . . �d7 90.E!xb7+ �c8
62.b4 axb4 63.axb4 E!h3 Again 63 . . . b6! with the principle idea of exchanging as many pawns as possible (without "weakening" the po sition of course) was good enough: 64.c6 b5+ 65 .'
87.
E!cl
88.S xb7 also wins.
89. E!b8
E!bl
90 . . . 'itld6 9 1 .Bh7 sb2 92.'
91.E!c7+ �b8 92.E!g7 Black is losing as his rook is placed on the wrong part ofthe board; it should be on the h-file in order to check the white king away from the third rank.
9 2 . . . �c8 9 3 . E!g8+
64.b5+
72 . . . E!hl 73.
1 77
Chess Analytics 98.f!c3!
44.§c4 h6! 45 .§e4 h x g5+ 46.hxg5 �f8 47 .§d4 �f7 48.�e5 §b7 49. .§d5 .§a7 50. .§c5 (D) •
By using the usual "bri dge" method, White cashes in the full point.
•
98 .§b2 99.§d3+ �e7 100.�c7 §c2+ 1 0 1 . �b8 §b2 1 02.b7 §a2 103. f!d4! E{a1 104.�c7 .§c1+ 105.�b6 .§b1+ 106.�c6 §b2 107.§d5! 1-0 And the •.•
rook comes to b5 (the "bridge"). (1 53) Mamedov - Kamsky Baku 20 1 0 Sicilian Defense [B42]
50 §d7? ••.
1.e4 c5 2./£)f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.1£) xd4 a6 5.Ad3 g6 6.0-0 Jl,g7 7./£)b3 d6 8.a4 /£)e7 9./£)c3 /£)bc6 10.a5 d5 ll.Jl,d2 0-0 12./£)a4 §bS 13.Ae3 Ae5 14.Jl,b6 Ac7 15.�d2 Ad7 16.f4 e5 17.f5 d xe4 18.f6 A x b6+ 19./£) xb6 4)f5 20.Jl,xe4 Jl,e6 21. �xd8 §fxd8 22.4)c5 §d6 23.§fd1 § x d 1 + 24.§xd1 /£) xa5 25.b4 4)e3 26.§d7 /£)ac4 27./£)xc4 A x c4 28.Jl, xb7 /£) xc2 29.A xa6 Jl,e6 30./£) xe6 fxe6 31.Ac4 l£)d4 32.b5 /£) xb5 33.Axe6+ �h8 34.g4 l£)d4 35.Ad5 /£)e2+ 36.�f2 l£)f4 37.h4 /£) x d5 38. § x d5 �g8 39 . .§xe5 �f7 40.g5 §b7 (D)
To draw, Black should keep his rook on a7 and just play with his king: 50 . . .�f8 5 l .�d5 �f7. When the white king approaches the queenside with 52 .�c6, planning §d5-d7, the rook should go after the g5 -pawn via the g file: 52 . . . §al! 53.§d5 §gl . He should also avoid an eventual §e5-e7+ ex change, as the pawn ending is lost.
51.§c6? Here White missed a winning con tinuation: 5 l .§a5! §b7 52.�d6 §b6+ 53.�d5 §b7 54.�c6 §b8 55.§a7+ �f8 56.§g7 +- .
51 ... .§a7 Back to heaven again!
52.�d6 f!a5! 53.§c7+ �f8 54 .§c5 .§a6+ 55.§c6 §aS •
5 5 . . . § a 5 5 6 . �e6 § a8 i s also drawn.
56.§c5 §a6+ 57.�e5 §a7 58 . .§b5 �f7 59.�d6 §a6+ 60.�d5 (D)
Here it is Kamsky who suffers and in the end loses this drawn ending!
4 1 . �f3 § a7 4 2 . �f4 §b7 43.§e4 §a7 Black can draw by just maintain ing the rook on the seventh rank and of course exchange the h-pawns.
1 78
Losing a Drawn Rook Ending 60... §a8?
6 l . § x h 5 + � g s 6 2 . §g5 §gl 63.�e2 �h7 64.�f3 § b l 65 .f!h5 + � g 8 66./cld3 § d l 67.�e2 §b1 68.§c5 .ilxf4 69.gxf4 4) x f4+ 70. /cl x f4 § xb4 7 1 . �e3 f!b3+ 72.�d4 §f3 73./cld3 f6 74. §c8+ �h7 75. §e8 e5+ 76.4) xe5 fxe5+ 77.�xe5 (D)
A fatal mistake. The well-known 60 ... Ra7 should draw.
61.§b7+ �fS 62.§g7 f!a5+ 63.�e6 §a6+ Black probably forgot about the mate after 63 . . . § xg5 64.§a7.
64.�e5 §a5+ 65.�f4 Now Black loses a second pawn and the game as well.
65 . . . § a4+ 66. �e3 §a3+ 67.�d4 § a4+ 68.�c3 §a3+ 6 9 . �b4 §h3 70. § xg6 §h7 71.§h6! 1-0 And Black resigned in view of 7 l . . .§ xh6 72.gxh6 �f7 73.h7.
(154) Sokolov - Banikas Khanty Mansiysk 20 1 0 Queen's Indian Defense [E 1 2]
l .d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3./clf3 b6 4.a3 .ila6 5. t:/c2 .ilb7 6./clc3 c5 7.dxc5 .il xc5 s . .Q.f4 0-0 9.§dl /cl h 5 1 0 . .Q.g5 .ile7 ll . .Q.cl a6 12.g4 4)f6 13.g5 /clh5 14.§gl t:/c7 15.§g4 b5 16.cxb5 axb5 17.t:/d3 b4 18.a x b4 d5 1 9 ./cl b5 t:/dS 20 . .Q.d2 4)c6 2 1 . t:/e3 d4 22./cl b x d4 4) x b4 23 . .Q.h3 t:/b6 24.�fl §fdS 25.§c1 /cld5 26.t:/b3 t:/xb3 27./cl xb3 §a2 28./cla5 § xb2 2 9 . /cl x b7 § x b7 30. §d4 .ila3 3 1 . §cc4 §bbS 32 . .Q.g4 g6 33 . .il x h5 g x h5 34. §h4 /cl e7 35. § x h5 /clg6 36.§h3 § b l + 37.�g2 .ile7 38. .ile3 §b2 39./clh4 /clf8 40.�f3 §d5 4 1 . §g3 §b3 42./clg2 § xg5 43./cl f4 /cl g6 44. /cl d3 § xg3+ 45.h xg3 §bS 46.�g2 �g7 47.§c6 .ilf6 48.f4 h5 49 . .Q.f2 §dS 50.§c7 §d5 51.�f3 .ildS 52.§b7 .ile7 53 . .Q.el .ilf6 54. .Q.b4 �g8 55./clf2 .ildS 56.e4 §d4 57.�e3 §c4 58.§b8 �h7 59.�d3 .ilc7 60.§b5 § c l
This is a theoretical draw - the pawn is not too advanced, Black's king is close enough and his rook has the long side to operate on.
77 . . . �g7 78.�e6 §f6+ 79.�e7 §a6 SO.§dS §a5 81.§d5 §a7+ 82.§d7 §a5 83.�e6+ �g6 84.e5 §a6+ 85.§d6 §aS 86.�e7+ �g7 87.e6 (D)
87... �g6! This is one of the key positions in this kind of endgame. Black must be careful - he must not move his rook from the eighth rank or the a-file: 87. . . §al? 88.�e8! §aS+ 89.§d8 § a6 90.e7 § a7 9 l . § c8 § a l 9 2 . § c 2 or 87 . . . § b8 SS.§dS §b7+ 89.�d6 §b6+ 90.�d7 §b7+ 91.�c6. Therefore, as Black rook's best
1 79
Chess Analytics square is on a8, he has only one other move.
SS .§dS .§a7+ S9 . .§d7 .§aS 90. .§b7 �g7 91 . .§c7 �g6 92. .§c1 .§a7+ 93.�d6 .§a6+ 94.�d7 .§a7+ 95 . .§c7 .§aS 96.�e7 �g7 97.�d7 �fS •
97 . . .�f6 was also good enough.
9S. .§b7 (D)
White can ' t make progress, as Black has defended accurately.
Technical Rook Endings
Concept Rook endings always attract us as they are rich in possibilities, interest ing maneuvers and plans. Technical rook endings should be a part of a chessplayer's education, as they consist of about 40% of all endings played. In my book Practical Endgame Play Mastering the Basics (Everyman 2008) I analyzed a lot of these technical end ings, while I created, in an ECO style, a schematic of most of the types ofrook endings. We will start with two typical endings where the advantage of the one side is undisputable but of course there many things to come yet. Not all rook endings are drawn ! (1 55) Lein - Littlewood Hastings 1 980 Catalan Opening [E04]
9S... .§eS? But here comes the b lunder. 98 . . .�g7 was natural and guaranteed the half-point.
99 . .§b1! 1-0 And Black resigned as he realized what he had done. His king will be forced from the important promotion s quare : 99 . . . § a8 1 00 . e 7 + �f7 l O l .§fl +. This was Banikas' only de feat in the Olympiad! Conclusion We can never know why Black played as they did in the previous games; they knew of course what to do as we examined such positions, but time-trouble, pressure and chess blind ness "helped" them not to score the draw! But thinking in chess terms we have to note that they "forgot" to keep their rook active and probably they were a bit too relaxed . . .
1 .4Jf3 4)f6 2.d4 e6 3.g3 c5 4 . .il,g2 4)c6 5.0-0 d5 6.c4 dxc4 7."�a4 .il,d7 S.�xc4 cxd4 9.4) xd4 .§cS 10.4)c3 4) x d4 11.�xd4 Ac5 12. �h4 .il,c6 13 . .§d1 �a5 14.Ag5 Ae7 15. .il,xc6+ .§xc6 16.4)e4 �e5 17 . .il,xf6 .il, xf6 1S.4) x f6+ �xf6 1 9 . � xf6 g x f6 20 . .§ac1 �e7 21 . .§xc6 bxc6 (D)
White's advantage is obvious and permanent. This is based of course on B l ack ' s shattered pawn structure (doubled and isolated pawns). All these
1 80
Technical Rook Endings 34.l"'lc5 +- , points up the problems in his position.
looks nice but the main question re mains: how White will take advantage of them; what is his plan? He will start with some "microplans": applying pres sure with his rook on both sides of the board, centralizing his king and then trying to create a passed pawn - simple, isn't it?
34. .§a4 .§d5 35.�e2 White now protects his second rank in order to give more freedom to his rook. Also his king is heading for the queens ide.
35... .§b5 36. .§c4 �d6 37.�d3 E!bS 38.h5! E!hS 39 . .§h4 .§h6
22.E!d4! The start of the first microplan.
Now, as Black's rook is passive, the white king begins its important role. 40.�c4 e5 4t.f4 f6 (D)
22 ... E!b8 23.b3 E!b5 This is probably the best square for the black rook, as it can protect both its a- and h-pawns, by advancing them to the fifth rank. On the other hand, these pawns are getting "nearer" to the white king . . .
24. .§a4 a5 25.�g2 The second microplan begins.
25 ... .§c5 26.�f3 .§e5 27. .§c4 �d6 28. .§h4 h5 (D) 42.b4! As Black's weakness on a5 is not accessible any longer, White exchanges it and creates a second outside passed pawn!
42 ...axb4 Or 42 . . . a4 43.l"'lh3 �d7 44.�c5 �c7 45.a3 +- .
43.� x b4 �d5 44.a4 c 5 + 45.�c3 �e4
29.g4! And here comes the third microplan, the creation of a passed pawn. But Black is also getting rid of a serious weakness . . . However, this is modern chess; a continual exchange of advantages to realize more valuable objectives.
Black tries to be active, as the pas sive retreat 45 . . . �c6 loses to 46.�c4 �b6 4 7 . �d5 e x f4 4 8 . e x f4 � a S 49.�xc5 �xa4 50.�d6.
46.fxe5+ �xe3 46 . . . �xe5 47.�c4 \t'd6 48.a5 �c6 49.l"'lhl +-
29 . . . h xg4+ 30. E! x g4 �e7 3l.h4 .§d5 32.e3 f5 33. .§c4 E!d2 Black is in trouble. Alternatives such as 33 . . . �d6 34.h5 f4 3 5 . l"'! d4! (35.l"'! xf4 l"'! xh5 36.l"'! xf7 ± ) 3 5 ... �e5 36.l"'!xd5+ exd5 37.h6 �f6 38.�xf4 +- ; 33 . . . c5 34.l"'!a4 +- ; or finally, 33 . . . l"'!d6 181
47.e6! A grave mistake would be 47.exf6? l"'! xf6 48.h6 l"'!f8 49.h7 l"'!h8 50.a5 f4 5l .a6 f3 52.a7 f2 53.l"'lhl �e2=.
47 ...f4 48.e7 .§h8 49.�c4 f3 50.�xc5 f2 51.E!hl �f3 Black is lost anyway: 5 l . . .l"'! xh5+
Chess Analytics 52.§. xh5 fl� 53.e8�+ +- or 5 l . . .�e2 52.�d6 f1 � 53.l"l xfl �xfl 54.\t'd7 +- . 5 2 .�d6 �g2 5 3 . § a l fl ttl
54.§xfl �xf1 55.�d7 f5 56.e8t:f § xeS 57.�xe8 f4 58.h6 1-0 (1 56) Ponomariov - Papaioannou Plovdiv 2003 Scandinavian Defense [BO 1 ]
l.e4 d5 2.exd5 t:fxd5 3 . .i£)c3 t:fa5 4.d4 c6 5.Jlc4 Jlf5 6.J}.d2 .!£) f6 7 . .!£)f3 e6 8 . .!£) d 5 t:fdS 9 . .!£) xf6+ g x f6 10.Ab3 .!£) d7 11. t:fe2 t:fc7 12 . .!£)h4 Ag6 13.0-00 o-o-o 14.g3 �bs 15 . .!£)g2 Ad6 16.h4 h5 17. .!£)f4 Af5 18. .1£) xh5 c5 19.g4 § xh5 20.gxf5 §.xf5 21.Ae3 c x d4 2 2 . J}. x d4 Jlc5 2 3 . A x c5 .!£) xc5 24. § x d8+ t:f x d8 25.h5 .!£) xb3+ 26.axb3 t:fd5 27.t:fdl �c7 28.h6 t:fxdl+ 29.�xdl (D)
3l ...a6 32.c4 §.hS 33.�e3 §.h7 34.�f4 First White tests his chances on the kingside. He threatens \t'g4-h5 and §.gl -g7, winning. No harm done, as Black has no counterplay.
34... §h81 35.§.h3 35 .�g4 doesn't help: 35 . . . l"lg8+ 36.\t'h5? (36.�f4) 36 . . . §.g5+! 37.�h4 §.g6=.
35 ...§.g8 36.h7 §.hS 37.�e4 After the harmless try, White refo cuses on the correct path ..
37...�d6 38.�d4 �c6 39.§.h6 §.dS+ 40.�c3 §.hS 41.§.h5 �d6 42.c5+ �c6 43.�c4 (D)
Black is in zugzwang and has to give ground to White.
43...b6
White has already created a passed pawn and his rook is ideally placed be h i n d it. B lack cannot get any counterplay, as his pawn structure does not allow him to create his own passed pawn, so he is doomed to passivity and has to await White's plan. But how White can convert his advantage? He will have to create a second passed pawn on the other side of the board, as in the previous example. Note that the one f-pawn keeps the three black pawns on the kingside at bay!
29 ... §.d5+ 30.�e2 §.dS 3l.b4
If 43 . . . f5 , then 4 4 . �d4 �d7 45.l"lh6 �e7 46.\t'c4+- or 43 . . . �d7 44.b5 axb5+ 45.�xb5 �c7 46.§.h6 f5 47.b4 +- .
44.cxb6 �xb6 45.b51 1-0 The game could wind up as fol lows: 45 . . . a5 (45 . . . axb5+ 46.§. xb5+ �c6 47 .l"lh5 �b6 48.b4 +- ) 46.\t'b3 f5 47.�a4 �c5 48.f4 f6 (48 . . . �d4 49.b6 �e3 5 0 . b7 �xf4 5 1 . §. h4 + �g3 52.§.c4 +- ) 49.§.h6 e5 50.b6! (50.§. xf6 exf4 5 1 . l"l x f5 + �b6 5 2 . §. f6+ �b7 [52 . . . �c5 53.�xa5 +- ] 53.l"l xf4 l"\ xh7 54.�xa5 l"l g7=) 50 . . . exf4 5 l . b7 f3 5 2 . §. x f6 �d5 5 3 . l"l xf5+ �c6 54.§. xf3 +- .
The queenside "plan" starts.
1 82
Technical Rook Endings Here is another technical ending: (1 57) Grivas - Papadopoulos Kallithea 2006 Queen's Indian Defense [E 1 9]
l .d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.4Jf3 b6 4.g3 Ab7 5.Ag2 Ae7 6.o-o o-o 7.4Jc3 4)e4 8.�c2 4) xc3 9.�xc3 d6 10.b3 4)d7 1l.Ab2 f5 12.�e3 'it'h8 13.�xe6 Ae4 14.c5 bxc5 1 5 . d x c 5 4) xc5 1 6 . �c4 Af6 17.Ad4 .i}. x d4 18.4) x d4 .i}. xg2 19.'it'xg2 a5 20.�d5 �f6 21 . .§.acl �f7 22.�xf7 .§.xf7 23 . .§.c2 'it'g8 24.4)c6 .§.a6 25.4J xa5 .§. xa5 26.b4 .§.b5 27.bxc5 .§.xc5 28. .§. xc5 dxc5 29 . .§.cl .§.e7 30.'it'f3 .§.e5 3l . .§.dl c4 32 . .§.cl .§.a5 33 . .§. xc4 .§. xa2 34 . .§. xc7 .§.a4 35 . .§.c5 g6 36. .§.c7 .§.b4 37. .§.d7 .§.a4 (D)
maneuver around his king. But 38.h3 h5! 39.h4
38 ... .§.b4 39.h3 h51 A somehow forced reaction. Black must exchange as many pawns as pos sible. Also, his king must be liberated from protecting of his "weak" h-pawn.
40. .§.d4 White would feel happy if he could emerge with a passed e-pawn, but this cannot be achieved. After 40.h4 .§.b2! (40 . . . .§. b6? 4 1 . t7 42 . .§.el
40... .§.b2 41.g4 hxg4+ 42.hxg4 fxg4+
If Black's f-pawn were on f7, then the draw would be simple and easy, with the . . .h5 advance to come. Now, this position is full of poison for him, so he must be very careful. White must opt for the thematic g4- or e4-advance (de pending on Black's reactions), under favorable circumstances. But there are also two important drawbacks i n White's position: the active black rook and the presence of a pawn on g3, which is preventing the maneuver
38.e3
Here comes the fist serious ques tion: what happens if Black just stays put? Well, after 42 ...t7 43.g5 (43.e6 44 . .§. a4 t7 45.f4 .§. c7 47.f3 .§.cS! (a forced continuation, avoiding the immediate penetration of the white king. After 47 . . . .§. b7? 48 . .§.a5 .§. b4+ 49.f6 .§. xe3 52 . .§. a8+ t7 White wins) 48 . .§. a7+ e6 .§. xg5 55.e5 .§.fS=) 49 .. .fxe4 50.fxe4
White would prefer not to push his e-pawn so early, as he needs room to
1 83
Chess Analytics 56.l"lc5 .§ a7 57.\t'd5 .§al 58.\t'd6 +- ] 5 3 .\t'e4 [53 . .§ a6 .§ e l 54.\t'f4 \t'g7] 53 . . . .§gl 54.\t'd5 .§ xg5 55.\t'd6 .§gl 56. .§a8+ \t'g7 57.e6 .§dl + 58.\t'e7 g5! [ 5 8 . . . .§ b l ? 5 9 . \t'eS g5 6 0 . e 7 +- ] 59.\t'eS \t'f6 60.e7 .§el 6l..§a6+ \t'f5=; 5 l . .§ a6 \t'g7 52.e5 .§cl 53.\t'e4 .§gl 54.\t'd5 .§ xg5 55. \t'd6 .§gl =) 5 1 . . . .§a5 52..§d5 .§a7 53.\t'e5 \t'e7 54..§b5 .§c7! (D)
.§ g l =) 54 . . . \t'f6 55.\t'f4 g5+ 56.\t'g3 .§gl + 57.\t'f2 .§bl 58 . .§ a6+ \t'f7=.
53....§e1 54.�g5 .§gl+ 55.�f4 §a1 56.§d6 56 . .§b3 \t'f6
56... .§a3 57 .e5 If White is not able to penetrate Black's camp through the kingside, then he needs the e5-square for his king. If that is not possible, then at some point he will have to try the e5 advance.
57 . . . .§ a l 58.§d7+ �e6 59 . .§d6+ �f7 60 . .§f6+ �g7 61 ..§c6 �f7 62.�g3 .§a5 63.�f4 §al 64 . .§b6 §a2 65.�e3 §a4 66.f4 §a3+ 67.�e4 §a4+ 68.�f3 §al! (D) (54 . . . \t'f7? 55.\t'd6 .§a6+ 56.\t'd5 .§ a l 57 . .§ b 7 + \t'f8 58 . .§ c7 .§ g l 59. \t'e6 +- ) White cannot make any progress: 55.\t'd5 (or 55 . .§b6 .§c5+) 55 . . . .§d7+.
43 . .§ x g4 �f7 44 . .§a4 �f6 45.�g3 .§b3 46.�f4 §b2 47. .§a6+ �f7 48.f3 .§b3 49.e4 White would be happy if he could place his king on e5 with his pawns on e4 and f4, as then he will get winning chances. But this is only an illusion: 49 . .§d6 g5+! 50.\t'e4 .§bl 5 1 .\t'f5 .§gl! ( 5 l . . . .§ fl ? 5 2 . .§ f6+ \t'e7 5 3 .\t'xg5) 52.e4 .§g3 53 . .§f6+ \t'e7 54.\t'e5 .§h3 55 . .§f5 .§g3=.
49 ... §c3 50.§a7+ �e6 51.�g4 §e3 52. .§a6+ �f7 53 . .§b6 Nothing can be achieved with 53 . .§ a4, trying to achieve a position with f4 and \t'g5, as again Black's ac tive rook i s on the alert: 5 3 . . . .§ e l ! 5 4 . .§ a 3 ( 5 4 . f4 .§ g l + 5 5 . \t'f3 .§ fl + 56.\t'e3 \t'e7 [56 . . . .§el +? 57.\t'd4 .§fl 58.\t'e5 +- ] 57 . .§a6 \t'f7 58 . .§ c6 \t'g7 59 . .§ c7 + \t'f6 60.e5+ \t'e6 6 l . .§ g7
This is the right defense for Black, not allowing \t'g4-g5-h6. If the white king had already been on g4, then he would win with 69 . .§b7+ \t'e6 70.\t'g5.
69. §f6+ �g7 70 . .§d6 �f7 71.§d7+ �f8 72.§c7 §a2 73.�e3 §a4 74. .§d7 .§a3+ 75.�e4 .§a4+ 76 . .§d4 .§a5 77.§d7 §a4+ 78.�{3 §al! 79.§c7 .§a2 80.�g3 §al 81 . .§b7 §a2 82.§d7 .§al 83.�f3 §a2 84.f5 "Accepting" the draw, as White has already tried every possible idea. The end was easy:
84 ... gxf5 85.�f4 �e8 86.§b7 §a6! 87.�xf5 §c6 88.e6 .§cl! (D)
Yl-Yl
1 84
Technical Rook Endings
B lack defended excellently, a model one for this kind of position. He kept his rook active and he did not fear any ghosts. White was unlucky in that his pawn structure did not help him. (1 58) Hiibner - J.Polgar Dortmund 1 996 Griinfeld Defense [D77]
t.d4 lL!f6 2.lL!f3 g6 3.g3 Ag7 4.Jl,g2 0-0 5.0-0 d5 6.c4 lL!c6 7.lL!e5 dxc4 8.lL! xc6 bxc6 9.lL!c3 .§b8 10.Jl,xc6 Jlb7 ll.Af3 Axf3 1 2 .e x f3 lL!d5 1 3 . �e2 lL! b4 14. � x c4 lL!c2 15 . .§bl .§b4 t 6 . � d 5 lLJ x d4 17.Ae3 e6 1 8 . � x d8 .§ x d8 1 9 . <;f7g2 .§db8 20. .§fdl h5 21.lL!e4 lL!f5 22.Axa7 .§a8 23.Ac5 .§xb2 24. .§xb2 Axb2 25 . .§d2 Aa3 2 6 . Jl, x a3 .§ x a3 27 . .§c2 c6 28.f4 ®f8 29 . .§ xc6 .§ xa2 30. .§c8+ ®g7 3l..§c7 <;f7g8 32 . .§d7 lL! e3+ 33.®f3 lL! d 5 34.lLJg5 lLJf6 3 5. .§ xf7 lLJg4 36.h3 .§xf2+ 37.®e4 lL!h6 38. .§a7 .§e2+ 39.®f3 .§e1 40.<;f7f2 .§b1 41.lL! xe6 lLJ f7 42.g4 h x g4 43.hxg4 .§b6 44. .§e7 .§b3 45.®e2 .§a3 46.g5 .§b3 47 . .§a7 .§b6 48.lL!c5 lL!d6 49.®d3 .§bl 50 . .§a6 .§ d l + 51.<;f7e2 .§d4 52.®f3 ®f7 53 . .§a7+ <;f7e8 54.lL!d7 lL!f7 55.lL!f6+ ®f8 5 6 . lL! d7+ ®e8 57.lL!e5 lLJ x e5+ 58.fxe5 (D)
Here White can win, as Black has no time to cut off the white king along the f-file.
58... <;f7f8 Black tries to defend his pawn. If instead 5S ... l"\b4, then 59.1"\a6 (59.1"\g7 l"\b6 60.c,'l;>e4 l"\ a6 61 .1"\c7 �dS 62.1"\c5 l"1 a4+ 6 3 . �d5 l"\ g4 64.�d6 l"\ xg 5 6 5 . 1"1 a 5 + - w i n s a s well) 59 . . . �f7 (59 . . . 1"1b5 60 . l"\ x g6 [60.�e4 1"1b4+ 6l .'.t'd5 +- ] 60 . . . § xe 5 6 1 .'.t'f4 l"\ a 5 62.1"1f6 +- ) 60.1"1f6+ �g7 6l .e6 l"\b5 (61 . . . 1"\ a4 62.e7 1"\ aS 63.�e4 1"\ e S 64.1"\e6 � f7 65 .c,'l;>d5 +- ) 62.c,'l;>f4 l"\ a5 (62 . . . 1"\ b4 + 63.�e5 1"1 b 5 + 64.�d6 l"\xg5 65.e7 [65.1"1f7+ �gS 66.1"\a7 1"\gl 67 . 1"1 aS+ �g7 6S.e7 +- ] 65 . . . �xf6 66. eS'ilY) 63 . e7 1"\ aS 64 .�e5 l"\ a 5 + 65.�d6 1"1a6+ 66.�c5 1"1a5+ 67.�c6 §aS 6S.l"\fS! (the main motif in this end ing) 6S . . . l"1 x fS 6 9 . e x fS'llY + � x fS 70.�d6 +- and White wins the pawn ending. 59 . .§a6 (D)
1 85
Chess Analytics 59 <(tlf7?! •••
A more stubborn defense can be seen with 59 .. .'it'g7 although it should not be enough: 60 ..§.f6! (and not 60.e6? \tlf8 6 1 . .§ a7 .§ d6 [61 . . . .§b4 62.l''lf7+ \t'e8 63 . .§f6 \tle7 64 . .§ xg6 .§ a4 65 .\tlg3 (65 . .§f6 .§b4 66 . .§f4 .§xf4+ 67.\tlxf4 \t'xe6 68.\tlg4 \tlf7 69.\tlh5 \tlg7 =) 65 . . . .§ e4 = ] 6 2 . e 7 + [62 . .§ f7 + \tle8 63 . .§f6 \tle7 64 . .§ xg6 .§ xe6 65 . .§ xe6+ \t' x e 6 = ] 62 . . . \t'f7 6 3 . \t'e4 .§ e6+ [63 . . . .§dl=] 64.\tld5 .§el [64 ... .§ xe7? 65 . .§ xe7+ \tlxe7 66.\tle5 +- ] 65.\tld6 .§ d l +=) 60 . . . .§ d l 6 1 .\tle4 (6 1 .\tlf4? .§el is a draw as the white king is cut off from the e-file and the d5 -e6 route) 61 . . . .§el + (61 . . . .§g1 62.e6 .§ xg5 63.e7 \t'xf6 64.e8� +- . It must be mentioned that this end ing would be drawn if the black king were on g7 and the black rook on f5, but here Black just does not have the required time to "fix" his position) 62.\t'd5 .§gl (62 . . . .§dl + 63.\t'e6 .§gl 64 . .§f7+ \tlg8 65 . .§ a7 .§ xg5 66.\tlf6 .§ g l [66 . . . .§ f5 + 67. \tlxg6 +- ] 67.e6 .§ fl + 68.\tlxg6 \tlf8 69 . .§ f7 + .§ xf7 70.exf7 +- ) 63.\tle6 (or 63.\tld6 .§xg5 64 . .§f3 [64. .§fl .§g2=] 64 . . . .§gl 65.e6 .§dl + 66.\tlc6 .§el 67.\tld7 g5 68.e7 \t'g6 69 . .§fl! +- ) 63 . . . .§ xg5 (D)
And now the more advanced white pawn decides: 64 . .§f7+ \t'g8 65 . .§d7 .§gl 66.\tld6 \tlf8 (66. . . .§dl + 67.\tle7
.§al 68.e6 \t'g7 [68 . . . g5 69 . .§ d5 +- ] 69.\t'd6+ \tlf6 70 . .§f7+ \tlg5 7 1 .e7 .§el 72.\tld7 .§ d l + 73.\tle8 \tlg4 74.\tlf8 .§ e l 7 5 . e8� .§ x e8+ 76. \tlxe8 g 5 77.\tle7 +- ) 67 . .§d8+ \tlg7 68.e6 .§ d l + 69.\tlc7 .§ e l 70.\t'd7 .§ d l + 7 1 .\tle8 .§el 72 . .§d7+ \tlf6 (72 . . .\tlh6 73.e7 g5 74.\tlf7 \tlh5 75.e8� .§xe8 76.\tlxe8 g4 77 . .§ g7 +- ) 73 . .§f7+ \tlg5 (73 . . . \tlxe6 74 . .§ e7+ Wf5 75 . .§xel g5 76.\tlf7 +- ) 74.e7 \tlh4 75 . .§f6 g5 76.\tlf7 +- .
60. §f6+ <(tlg7 6 t .e6 E!dl 62.§f7+ <(tlg8 (D)
63.<(tle4! Of course ! White is now winning!
63 §gl 64.E!f3 E!el + ••.
Black could try one last trick with 64 . . . \t'g7 65.e7 .§el + 66 . .§ e3 .§ xe3+ 67.\tlxe3 \t'f7 68.\t'e4 \tle8 but White still wins: 69.\tld5! \tld7 70.e8�+! +- .
65.<(tld5 <(tlg7 66.§f7+ <(tlgS 67.<(tld6 1-0 Conclusion A chessplayer should not be that dogmatic when dealing with the con cept ofweaknesses. A weakness is iden tified when it can be attacked and even tually resulting in an advantage (mate rial, better piece placement, etc.). Ex changing one advantage for another one is one of the cornerstones of modern chess and we should be aware of it.
1 86
The Isolani in the Endgame The Isolani in the Endgame
Concept The isolated pawn with its pros and cons are quite familiar to any decent chessplayer; it is one ofthe subjects that trainers focus on quite early in the edu cational process. As it is well-known, an isolated pawn can be really very weak as the endgame is approaching. There it can be demonstrated to be very weak, a permanent headache, not only because it is vulnerable by its nature (it cannot be supported by any other pawn) but also because it disrupts the coop eration among its forces. Of course, in most of the cases the "weaker" side can share the point by means of a difficult defense, but in gen eral, as defending skills are not a human's being strong point - it fails to satisfy . . .
The diagrammed position is very instructive. White's plan is simple and consists of two phases. In the first phase, White will maximize the poten tial of his pieces, bringing his king to d4 and his bishop to f3 . The second phase consists of the kingside break through. Black can hardly react to this plan, as the absence of an adequate number of offensive and defensive pieces relegates him to passivity. This is a "textbook" example and constitutes complete proof of the value of "endgame theory." The continuation of the game fully justified White's play.
22. �d2 �f8 23.§.a4 Creating some more weaknesses is always an enjoyable feature!
23 ... a6 24.§.b4 §.d7 25.�c3 �e7 2 5 . . . d4+? 26 .l''ix d4 l"\ xd4 27.exd4 ± Axa2? 28.b3 loses a piece.
26.�d4 �d8 27.Ae2! The king has found its proper place; now it's the bishop's tum.
(1 59) Szabo - Penrose Bath 1 973 English Opening [A33]
27... �c7 28.Af3 b6 29.E!b3
1.c4 c5 2.l�)f3 .i£)c6 3 .i£)c3 .l£)f6 4.d4 cxd4 5 .1£) xd4 e6 6. .1£)db5 Ab4 7 .1}.f4 0-0 8. .1}.d6 .1}.xd6 9 .1£) xd6 'li;'Yb6 10. 'li;'Yd2 .l£)d4 ll.§.d1 'li;'Yxd6 1 2 . 'li;'Y x d4 'li;'Y x d4 1 3 . §. x d4 d5 14.cx d5 .!£) x d5 1 5 .1£) xd5 e x d5 16.e3 Ae6 17.�d2 §.fd8 18 .1ld3 §.ac8 1 9 .f4 f6 20.§.c1 §. x c 1 21.�xc1 h6 (D) •
•
•
•
The rook will be needed in the kingside, so it has to return. 29 §.d8 30.§.c3+ (D) •..
•
•
30... �b7? This is easily the losing move. The king belongs in the center, either to keep the pressure on or just to defend. White would be better after 30 . . . 'it'd6 3 1 .h3 l"'b8 32.g4 ± but far from winning.
31.g4 §.d6
1 87
Chess Analytics lf 3 l . . .g5, then 32.l:"lc2 Af7 33.h4! l:"ld7 34.l:"lh2 and the white's rook pen etration into Black's camp will be decisive.
32.a3 a5 33.h4 Af7 34.f5! Creating a real target, the black g7pawn! 34... §d8 35.§c2 E!d7 (D)
35 . . . g6 36.fxg6 ilxg6 37.§£2 'if/c6 38.l:"lfl Af7 (38 . . . l:"ld6 39.l:"lcl + 'if?d7 40.Axd5) 39.Ag2 l:"l d6 40.g5 +- . Completing the second phase.
36.g5 fxg5 The alternative is 36 . . . hxg5 37.hxg5 Ag8 38.g6! (Black's bishop now is j ust an observer) 38 . . . l:"l d6 39.Ae2! l:"ld8 40.ilb5 l:"ld6 41 .a4 l:"ld8 (4 l . . .'if?b8 42.l:"lc6) 42.l:"lc6 +- .
37.hxg5 hxg5 38.§g2 §d6 38 . . . 'if/c6 39.l:"l xg5 ile8 (39 . . .Ag8 40.f6) 40.a4+-
39.§xg5 g6 40.fxg6 §xg6 1-0 B l ack resigned in view of 41 .Axd5+ 'if?c7 42.§ xg6 Axg6 43. 'if/e5. Finally the "useless" isolani has fallen into White's hands! A similar case can be seen in the next game. Black seemed as if he were holding the draw without much trouble, but the truth is that his passivity was not of a real help and very quickly he felt into a lost position. (160) Nikolic - Portisch Ter Apel 1 994 Queen's Gambit Declined [D58]
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3 . .£\c3 Ae7 4 . .£\{3 .£\f6 5.Ag5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Ah4 b6 s.Ae2 Ab7 9.A x f6 A xf6 1 0 . c x d5 e x d 5 l l .b4 c5 12.bxc5 bxc5 13.§bl Ac6 14.0-0 4:\d7 15.Ab5 �c7 16.�c2 §fc8 17. §fcl §ab8 18.d x c5 A x c3 19.A xc6 � x c6 20.§ xb8 E{ x b8 2 l . � xc3 � x c5 22.g3 � x c3 23.§ xc3 .£\f6 (D)
Here White stands slightly better because of his superior pawn structure. But Black can defend.
24.§c2! An important prophylactic move, as the a2- and f2-pawns need protec tion. And White does not allow any counterplay by placing his rook on his seventh rank. Later he will improve his king and knight.
24... 4:\e4 25 . .£\e5 In such endings the outpost in front of the isolated pawn is not that impor tant; the most important element is to attack it!
25 ... §b7 26.
26...
28 ... .£\f6 29.h3 g6 30.f3 h5?! As the defender should, Black tries
1 88
The Isolani in the Endgame to exchange pawns. But here Black should stay put with 30 . . .�d6=. 3l.g5 �e8 32.Cit>d3 �c7 (D)
51 . E! b 5 + Cit>c7 5 2 . E!c5+ Cit>b6 53.�e3 �e6 54.E!b5+ Cit>c7 55.d5 �g5 56.f4 �h3 57.f5 E!e7 58.�c4 �f2+ 59.Cit>c3 E!el 60.E!a5 Cit>bS 6t.d6 E!cl + 62.Cit>b3 f6 63.�d2 E!cS 64.E!b5+ Cit>aS 65.E!b4 �d3 66.E!c4 E!dS 67.�e4 Cit>bS 6S.E!d4 �e5 69.� xf6 E!fS 70.�e4 �d7 71.E!d5 E!eS 72.�c5 E!e3+ 73.Cit>b4 Cit>cS 74.�xd7 Cit>xd7 75.Cit>b5 E!h3 76.Cit>a6 1-0 Simple rook endings are easier to
33.E!c5! Now Black is in trouble, as White threatens .§ a S and 4Jc6 or .§ c6-f6 among others.
hold: (161) Bareev - Farago Rome 1 990 Nimzo-Indian [E32]
33 ...d4 Black has to sacrifice a pawn, since 33 . . . �d6? 34 . .§c6+ �e7 (34 . . . �xe5? 3 5 . f4+ �f5 36 . .§ f6 * ) 3 5 . .§ f6 +- is hopeless and 33 . . .�e8 leads to a diffi cult position after 34.f4 �e7 35.h4 �e8 36.l''lc6 ± .
34.exd4 �e6 35.E!a5 � xg5 36.� xg6+ Cit>f6 Or 36 . . .fxg6 37 . .§ xg5 .§b6 38 . .§a5 a6 39.f4 ± .
37. � f4 h4 38. � h 5 + Cit>g6 39.�f4+ Cit>f6 40.E!a6+ Cit>f5 4 1 .�g2 � x h3 42.E!a5+ Cit>e6 43.Cit>e3 Cit>d6 44.�xh4 (D)
l.d4 e6 2.c4 �f6 3.�c3 Ab4 4;�c2 0-0 5.a3 Axc3+ 6.�xc3 b6 7.Ag5 Aa6 8.e3 d5 9.�f3 �bd7 1 0 . c x d 5 A x fl l l . E! x f l e x d5 1 2 . � e 5 � xe5 1 3 . d x e5 � e4 14 . .1l, x d8 � xc3 1 5 . .1l, xc7 �b5 1 6 . .1l,d6 � x d6 17.exd6 E!fdS 18.Cit>e2 E! x d6 1 9 . §fdl E!ad8 20.E!acl Cit>fS 2 1 . §c7 E!6d7 22. E!dcl We7 23.Wd3 El. xc7 24.El.xc7+ El.d7 25.§c8 (D)
And White went on to win the end ing, as he is a healthy pawn up.
White retain s some winning chances, as his king and rook are more active than their counterparts. But Black can defend.
44 E!e7+ 45.Cit>d2 Cit>c6 46.�f5 E!d7 47.Cit>e3 Cit>b6 48.E!e5 �g5 49.a4 �e6 50. Cit>d3 �d8
An inaccuracy. He had to go in for 2 5 . . . a 5 ! , taki ng measures on the
25 h5?! ••.
• . •
1 89
Chess Analytics queenside, although after 26.g4! White still maintains an advantage. 26.b4! (D)
36 . .§f8 !ifle6 37 . .§c8 !ifld6 38. .§c6+ !ifle7 (D)
Now White can create a strong out post on b7 by advancing his queenside pawns.
The combinative initiative on all sides of the board should guarantee White the win. Now Black has to chose between a passed pawn for White (af ter 39 . . . hxg4 40.fxg4 and 4 l .h5 or an extra weak pawn on h5, as in the game.
39.g4!
26 . . . !ifle6 27.!ifld4 f6 28.h4 !iflf5 29.f3 !iflg6 29 . . . g5 doesn't help: 30.hxg5 fxg5 3 l ..§f8+ 'it'g6 32 . .§e8 ± , so Black has to remain passive. 30.a4! !iflf7 3l.a5 (D)
39...!iflf7 40.gxh5 gxh5 41 ..§c8 Now it will be too difficult for Black to hold with three weaknesses, a7, d5 and h5.
4t ...!ifle6 42 . .§e8+! litld6 42 . . . 'it'f7 43 . .§b8 and 44 . .§b7.
43 . .§h8 .§c7 44 . .§d8+ !ifle6 45 . .§xd5 White won a healthy pawn and soon the game:
3l ... lifle6?! The defender must exchange pawns, so Black should have tried 3 l . . .bxa5 32.bxa5 'it'e6 as then he could have some counterplay against the white a-pawn. White would still better, however, after 33 . .§ e8+ 'it'f7 34 . .§b8 'it'e6 35 . .§ c8 ( 3 5 . a6 .§ d6) 35 . . . .§d6 36. .§e8+ 'it'f7 37 . .§b8 'it'e6 38. .§b7 .§a6 39 . .§b5 .§d6 40 . .§ c5 ± , but perhaps Black can defend.
45 ... f5 46.e4 fxe4 47.fxe4 .§h7 48. .§d8 .§c7 49. .§e8+ litlf6 50.e5+ !iflf7 51 . .§h8 .§c5 52 . .§ xh5 !ifle6 53 . .§h6+ !ifle7 54.!ifle4 .§ x b5 55.!iflf5 1-0 The main question remains - par ticularly troubling for weaker players - how will the extra pawn be converted to a full point after the pawn is won? The following game helps answer this question: (162) Ribli - Adorjan Budapest 1 979 Queen's Gambit Declined [D32]
32.a6! !ifld6 33.b5 litle6 34.g3 g6 35 . .§e8+ !ifld6 If 35 . . . 'it'f7 then 36 . .§ b8 and 37 . .§b7.
l.c4 c5 2.4)f3 4)f6 3.lL!c3 e6 4.e3 4)c6 5.d4 d5 6.c x d5 exd5
1 90
The Isolani in the Endgame 7.Ab5 Ad6 8.dxc5 Axc5 9.0-0 00 10.b3 Ag4 ll.Ab2 E!c8 12.E!cl �d6 1 3 . Ae2 a6 14.h3 A xf3 1 5. A x f3 E!fd8 1 6. �c2 Aa3 1 7.E!fd l A x b2 1 8 . � x b2 �e5 19.�d2 (D)
nesses in his kingside pawn formation. 3 . By a j udicious advance of White 's kingside pawns, expose and take advantage of Black's positional weaknesses. 4. With Black occupied on the kingside, make a decisive penetration on the queenside. The course of the game will show various critical aspects of this plan.
25.E!d2! Protecting the queenside and deny ing the black's rook access to the sec ond rank. Dubious would be 25.l"l.d7? l"l.cl + 26.\t>h2 l"l. c2 27.a4 b5 28.\t>g3 l"l.b2 29.l"l.d3 \t>e7 and Black's activity should assure a draw. 25 ... E!cl+ 26.�h2 (D)
In this game White wins the iso lated pawn quite early, as Black could not defend it.
19... 4:)e7 19 . . .'�:Je4? loses to 20.4Jxe4 dxe4 2 1 J h c6 and 19 . . . d4 20.Axc6 l"l. xc6 2 l .exd4 leads to the same result.
20.4:) xd5! A small combination which wins the isolated pawn.
20 . . . 4:) e x d5 2 1 . E! x c8 E! x c8 22.Axd5 4:) xd5 23.�xd5 � x d5 24.E!xd5 �f8 (D)
26 ...h5?1 Voluntary weakening the kingside is wrong, since this just helps White. He should stay put with 26 . . . \t>e7.
27.�g3 �e7 28.�f4?1 Losing time. it would be more to the point to continue with 28. \t>h4! g6 29.\t>g5 and 30.\t>h6, when White's ac tive king would make things easier. So White is a solid pawn up but he has no other advantages. White's win ning process will require time, care and patience. The correct plan should con sist of the following four parts: 1 . Protect White's queenside from Black's rook. 2. Force Black to create weak-
28 . . . b5 29.�e5 f6+ 30.�f5 E!c5+ 3l.�e4 g6 (D) 32.�d3! S ince White 's king cannot pen etrate on the kingside, it tries the other wing. It is too early to advance pawns, as White should create some weak nesses first.
191
Chess Analytics 48 . . . .!"'\gl ! 49.g4 e4!.
47
•
With his rook's maneuvers, White has put Black very close to zugzwang. If Black's rook moves, then decisive is 49 . .!"'\d5 and ifBlack's king moves, then decisive is 49.e5.
48 b4! ..•
32 .§c1 33 .§c2 .§dl + 34.
•
a5 Forced, as otherwise White would penetrate with
35 . .§d2 .§cl + 36. e6 38.e5 39.d3 .§hl 40 .§c2 d5! •
Black cannot allow 4 1 .l'k5+.
4 1 .e4+ d4 .§dl+ 44.e3 .§all Black correctly keeps the white pawns under attack. In this way he does not allow the white pieces to become active. 45.f4
Best. After 48 . . . a4 49.bxa4 bxa4 White can put Black into zugzwang: 50 . .!"'\c2! '
49 .§c2
•
Black must prevent the thematic zugzwang position ari sing after 50 . . . '
51.g41 Again 5 l .e5+? would be wrong: 5 1 . . .fxe5+ 52 .
5 1 . .§ h l ! 5 2 . g x h 5 .§ x h4+ 53 .§g4 .§ x h5 54 . .§ x g6
•
46.f3! Since there is no reason to believe that Black's pawns can become further vulnerable, part 2 can be considered to be completed. Therefore it is time to start part 3 .
46
•
Prophylaxis! It would be too early for 47.e5+? fxe5+ 48.'
Again protecting the second rank, while getting the rook into position to swing it to the fifth or eighth rank. The exchange of the kingside pawns has yielded the following benefits to White: 1 . The f5-square for his king. 2. The fifth rank is now much more accessible to White's rook for attack-
1 92
Knight and Three Pawns vs. Rook ing the black a-pawn. White will try to set up a position where both of these factors will come into play.
55 ... .§h4+?1 This loses because White will be able to put Black into zugzwang. Andras Adorjan published a lengthy analysis to demonstrate that Black can draw after 55 . . . fl c5!. His main line is 56.fld2 a4! 57.f\d4 a3! 58.f\ xb4 fl c 2 59.f\b6+ �e7 60. �f5 f\ c 5 + 6 1 . �g4 f\ g 5 + 62.�f4 (62.�h3 flh5+ 63.�g2 f\ c5!) 62 . . . f\g2 63.fla6 f\ xa2 64.�f5 f\ f2 65.f4 a2 66.b4 �d7! 67.b5 �c7! 68.e5 fxe5 69.�xe5 f\e2+. In this position, Black's king can hold the b-pawn, while the rook can hold the f-pawn, and thus it is a draw. But the analysis in not en tirely correct, as White can play 59.fla4! f\ xa2 60.fla7! (D)
Black resigns, as White wins an other pawn while retaining a significant advantage. A very instructive game. Conclusion Those saddled with isolated pawns should try to avoid playing endgames, as they will face extreme problems. If there is no other way, they just should defend "like a machine," trying to be active whether or not the pawn can be held. Pure rook endings are easier to handle. Knight and Three Pawns vs. Rook
. . . when Black again is in zugzwang: 60 . . . fl a l (60 . . . �d6 6 1 . b4 �e6 62.f\ a6+ �e7 63.�f5 f\b2 64. f\ xa3 f\ xb4 6 5 . f\ a7 + +- ) 6 1 . f\ a6+ �e7 62.�f5 fla2 63.f4 +- .
Concept In this survey we will examine a case that it is considered to be easy; a knight and three connected pawns on one side of the board versus a rook. Most chessplayers would feel that this is a piece of cake, but trouble always exists: (163) Eljanov - Haznedaroglu Novi Sad 2009 Semi-Slav Defense [D46]
56.�e3 .§hl 57 . .§c21 .§el+ 58.�f4 .§a1 59. .§h21 Putting Black into zugzwang again. IfBlack's rook moves, White wins with 60.f\h5.
59 . . . �f7 60.�f51 .§cl 61 . .§h7+ �g8 62. .§a7! 1-0 (D)
l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.�c3 �f6 4.e3 e6 5.�f3 �bd7 6.-'ld3 Ad6 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 dxc4 9.-'txc4 e5 10.Ae3 �e7 ll.h3 b5 12.Ab3 a6 13.a3 c5 14.�d5 � xd5 15.Axd5 .§a7 16.Ag5 �e8 17.dxc5 Axc5 18.b4 Ae7 19.Ae3 .§c7 20 . .§cl
1 93
Chess Analytics E{xcl 2l.�xc1 4:)f6 22.-'l,c5 Axc5 2 3 . � x c5 -'l,e6 24.-'l,c6 -'l,d7 2 5 . -'l, x d7 4:) x d7 26.�c6 �cS 27.E{cl �xc6 2S.E{xc6 EtaS 29.§c7 4:)f6 30.4:)xe5 4:) xe4 31.4:) xf7 §fS 32.f3 4:)d2 33.4:)d6 4:)bl 34.§a7 4:) x a3 3 5 . E{ x a 6 4:) c 2 36.4:) xb5 4:) x b4 37.E{d6 h6 3S.4:)c3 §cS 39.4:)e4 4:)c6 40.h4 4:)e7 41.h5 EtaS 42.1it>h2 4:)f5 43.Etd3 §a2 44.1it>h3 lit>f7 45.g4 4:)e7 46.§d7 §c2 47.1it>g3 E{c6 4S.E{a7 (D)
Three connected pawns and a knight versus a lonely rook usually is a mismatch. But sometimes even this is not enough!
54... §cl?
White is a pawn-up but the reduced material helps the weaker side consid erably. Still there is much work to be done to save the half-point.
4S... §cl? 48 . . . §b6 or 48 . . . �f8 was correct. Now White's task is easier.
49.4:)d6+ lit>e6 50.4:)eS! E{cS After 50 . . . g6 5 l .hxg6 4:lxg6 White wins the h - pawn : 5 2 . § a6+ �f7 53.4Jd6+.
51.4:) xg7+ 5 1 . § a6+ �d7 52.4Jxg7 was even simpler.
Black must try to stop the advance ofthe pawns and for this he has to block the h-pawn with his king. He should have played 54 . . . § c3 ! 5 5 . 4Jf5 § a 3 56.4Jd6 �g5! 57.4Je4+ �h6 58.'
55.4:)f5 §al Now 55 ... §c3 56.4Jd6 �g5? fails to 57.4Je4+.
56.f4 §gl+ 57.1it>f3 E{el Or 57 . . . § fl + 5 8 . �e4 § e l + 59.4Je3 and the pawns will advance further.
5S.4:)g3 1-0 Even more spectacular is the next game, where an absolutely elite player couldn't finish the job: (164) Aronian - Topalov Morelia 2006 Nimzo-Indian Defense [E55]
5l ... lit>f6 52.E{xe7? This looks good enough, but still 52.f4 4Jd5 (52 . . . § c3 + 53.'
5 2 . . . 1it> x e7 54.4:) xh6 (D)
53.4:)f5+
lit>f6
l.d4 4:)f6 2.c4 e6 3.4:)c3 Ab4 4.e3 0-0 5.Ad3 c5 6.4:)f3 d5 7.0-0 d xc4 S.-'l, x c4 4:)bd7 9.a3 c x d4 1 0 . a x b4 d x c3 l l .b x c3 �c7 1 2 .-'l,e2 4:)d5 13.-'l.d3 � x c3 14.Eta3 �f6 1 5 .�c2 h6 16.b5 4:)b4 17.-'l,h7+ lit>hS lS.�bl a5
1 94
Knight and Three Pawns vs. Rook 1 9 . .1le4 4)c5 20 . .1ld2 .1ld7 2 1 . .1l x b4 a x b4 22.'(¥¥ x b4 E! x a3 23.'(¥¥ x c5 §fa8 24.4)e5 b6 25.'(¥¥c7 .1lxb5 26..1lxa8 § xa8 27.§dl .1la4 28.§d4 .ileS 29.g3 'it'h7 30.'it'g2 §a5 3 1 . 4) c4 §a2 32. E!f4 'lt¥c3 33.'(¥¥ x b 6 § a l 34. '(¥¥ b7 '(¥¥ c l 35.'it'h3 f6 36.§g4 .1lg6 37.§xg6 'it' xg6 38.'(¥¥ e 4+ 'it'f7 39. 4) d6 + 'it'e7 40.4)f5+ 'it'd7 41.4) xg7 'lt¥fl + 4 2 . 'it'h4 '(¥¥ x f2 43. '(¥¥ x e6 + 'it'c7 44. '(¥¥ c 4+ 'it'b7 45. '(¥¥ e 4+ 'it'bS 46. '(¥¥ f 4+ '(¥¥ x f4+ 47.e x f4 §a2 48.h3 'it'cS 49.'it'h5 §a3 50.4)f5 'it'd7 51.'it'xh6 'it'e6 52.'it'g6 §a5 53.4)g7+ 'it'e7 54.h4 §a6 55.4)h5 §aS 56.4)g7 §a6 (D)
White has repeated the position once, and now he makes a mistake that is not obvious, but is serious:
57.g4? According to grandmaster Marin's analyses, victory could have been achieved by 57.4Jf5+! �f8 58.g4! (af ter 58.h5? '
57 . . . f5+ ! ! 59.4)h5
58.'it' x f5
'it'f7
There were no other available squares for the knight. 59 ... E!a5+ 60.'it'e4 §a3!! (D) Now B lack regains one of the pawns , reaching, according to a ChessBase report, a theoretically drawn endgame. Well, who can argue with the
Nalimov Tablebases?! So, the rest ofthe game can be left without notes.
6 1 .g5 §h3 6 2 . 'it'f5 § x h4 63.g6+ 'it'gS 64.'it'g5 §h1 65.4)f6+ 'it'fS 66.4)h5 §gl + 67.'it'h6 §hl 68.f5 'it'gS 69.'it'g5 §gl + 70.'it'f6 E!g4 7 1 .4)g7 E!a4 72.4)e6 §a5 73.4)c7 'it'fS 74.'it'e6 E!a7 75.4)b5 E!e7+ 76.'it'f6 §d7 77.4)c3 §d6+ 78.'it'g5 'it'g7 79.4)b5 §d5 80.4)c7 f!e5 81.4)e6+ 'it'gS 82.'it'f6 §a5 83.4)c7 E!c5 84.4)e8 §cl 85.4)d6 'it'fS S6.4)e4 §c6+ 87.'it'g5 §c4 88.4)g3 §c3 89.4)e4 §c4 90.4)f6 E!cl 9 1 . 4) d7+ 'it'gS 9 2 .f6 §fl 93.4)e5 § g l + 9 4.'it'f5 § f l + 95.'it'e6 §e1 96.'it'd6 §e2 97.4)c6 §g2 98.'it'e6 E!e2+ 99.'it'd7 'it'fS 100.'it'd6 §g2 1 0 1 .4)e5 § d 2 + 102.'it'e6 §e2 103. 'it'f5 § f 2 + 104.'it'g5 §g2+ 105. 'it'h4 §f2 106 . 4) g4 §g2 107.4)e5 §f2 108.'it'g5 §g2+ 109.'it'f4 §f2+ 1 10 . 4) f3 E!fl l l l .'it'e3 'it'g8 1 1 2. 'it'f4 'it'fS 1 1 3. 'it'e4 'it'g8 1 14.'it'e3 §al 1 1 5 .'it'f4 E!fl 1 16 . 'it'g4 E!f2 1 1 7. 'it'g3 §fl 1 18.'it'f4 E!f2 1 1 9. 'it'e4 §fl 1 20.'it'e3 E! a l 1 21 .'it'd4 §fl 122.'it'e4 E!f2 123.g7 E!g2 �-� And what about top-rated Magnus Carlsen? Even if this was a blitz game, it shouldn't create too many problems for the youngster. But the experienced
1 95
Chess Analytics Ivanchuk created maximum problems for him and he was rewarded!
Allowing the black king to get in front of the pawns. More accurate was 54.'it'g6 l"\a8 55 .h5 +- .
(165) Carlsen - Ivanchuk Moscow 2007 Nimzo-Indian Defense [E39]
54...Cit>f7! 55.4)g3 §a3 56.4)h5 § a 5 + 57.f5 §b5 58. 4) f4 §a5 59.h5 Cit>g7 60.4)e6+ Cit>h7 6t.Cit>f6
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.4)c3 Ab4 4. �c2 c5 5.dxc5 0-0 6.4)f3 4)a6 7.a3 Axc3+ 8.�xc3 4) xc5 9.e3 b6 10.Ae2 d5 11.cxd5 4) xd5 12.�c2 Aa6 13.Axa6 4) xa6 14.0-0 §c8 1 5.�e2 4) c 5 16.Ad2 4)b3 17.§adl 4) x d2 1 8. § x d2 �c7 19.§fdl h6 20.4)d4 �c4 21.e4 �xe2 22.4)xe2 4)e7 23.§d7 4)c6 24.f4 §fd8 25.4)c3 §xd7 26.§xd7 4)a5 27.§xa7 4)c4 28.4)b5 4)xb2 2 9 . 4) d6 § c l + 30.Cit>f2 §c2+ 3 1 .Cit>g3 4)d3 32 . §a8+ Cit>h7 33.4) x f7 §c3 34.Cit>g4 4)f2+ 35.Cit>h4 4) x e4 3 6 . § h8+ Cit>g6 37.4)e5+ Cit>f5 38.§f8+ 4)f6 39.g3 § x a3 40.§f7 §a2 4 t .Cit>h3 b5 42.§xg7 b4 43.§f7 b3 44.4)g4 b2 45.§ x f6+ Cit>e4 46. § x e6+ Cit>d4 47.§b6 Cit>c3 48.4) x h 6 §a4 49.§xb2 Cit>xb2 (D)
Not bad, but better was 61 .h6 l"\b5 62 A:Jg7 l"\a5 63.'h6! (D)
62.4)f8? Now I am not sure that White can still win. He could have won with 62.g5+! 'it'xh5 63.4Jg7+!.
62...§a6+! 63.Cit>e7 I f 6 3 . 4Je6, then 63 . . . l"\ b 6 ! (63 . . . /"!a4? 64.g5+ '.t>xh5 65.4Jg7+! and White wins but only with this move! [65 .g6? '
63 ... §a4! A pawn falls and the draw is near. The black king is far from the kingside, so White's task should be easier.
50.Cit>g4 Cit>c3 51.4)f5 "Losing" a tempo cannot be the correct reaction! 5 l .'it'g5 '
51 ... ®c4 52.h4 ®d5 53.Cit>g5 Cit>e6 54.g4?!
64.f6 § xg4 65.4)g6 §b4 66.f7 §b7+ �-� But of course, drawing this ending must be an exception. The knight and the pawns should win and the follow ing two cases show the correct way to do it.
1 96
Knight and Three Pawns vs. Rook (166) Granda Zuniga - Rowson Turin 2006 Catalan Opening [E05]
1.ldf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 4)f6 4.-'l,g2 -'l,e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.d4 dxc4 7.'/f1c2 a6 8.a4 c5 9.dxc5 4)c6 10.Ae3 4)d5 11.-'l,d2 4)a5 12.4)a3 Jdb3 13 . .§ad1 Ad7 14.e4 A xa4 15.exd5 exd5 16.4)g5 g6 17..1lb4 4) xc5 18.'/f1e2 -'l,xd1 19. .§xd1 thc7 20 . .§ xd5 .§adS 2 1 .'/f1 xc4 .§ xd5 22.'/f1xd5 b5 23.4)c2 4)a4 24.-'1,xe7 '/f1xe7 25.h4 4) xb2 26.4)e3 .§d8 27.'/f1b3 4)d3 28..1ld5 4)e5 29.'/f1c3 h6 30.4)e4 h5 3Vit'g2 b4 32.'/f1a1 a5 33.'/f1xa5 4)g4 34.4) xg4 hxg4 3 5 . 4) g 5 Cit>g7 36.-'1, x f7 .§ d 1 37.'/f1a8 '/f1e1 38.'/f1g8+ Cit>f6 39.th xg6+ Cit>e7 40.'/f1e6+ '/f1 xe6 41.-'1,xe6 .§d6 42.-'l,xg4 b3 43.Jlf5 .§d5 44.jle4 b2 45.1df3 .§d1 46.g4 Cit>d6 4 7 .h5 Cit>e6 48. Cit>g3 b 1 'Iff 49.-'l,xb1 .§ xb1 (D)
I think that this is a model game on how to correctly proceed.
50.4)g5+ Cit>f6 51.Cit>f4 .§b4+ 52.4)e4+ Cit>g7 53.g51
56.f4 .§a5 57.Cit>g4 .§d5 58.f5 The pawns are unstoppable now.
58... .§d1 59.f6+ Cit>f7 60.g6+ Cit>e6 61.Cit>g5 .§gl+ 62.Cit>h6 .§g4 63.Cit>g7 1-0 (167) Piihtz - Hou Yifan Krasnoturinsk 2007 French Defense [ C 1 3 ]
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Jdc3 4)f6 4.Ag5 Ae7 5.e5 4)fd7 6.h4 4)c6 7 . .§h3 h6 8.-'l,xe7 '/f1 xe7 9.'/f1d2 4) b6 1 0 . .§g3 .§g8 1 1 . 4) f3 a6 1 2 . 4) d 1 '/f1f8 13.a4 a5 14.4)c3 Ad7 15.Jdb5 o-o-o 16.b3 f6 17.0o-o fxe5 18.dxe5 Cit>b8 19.Cit>b1 4)b4 20 ..§g4 -'1,e8 21.Ad3 'lffe7 22.jlg6 Jl xg6 23. .§ xg6 c5 24.'/f1f4 4)d7 25.'/f1g4 4)f8 26. .§xh6 'lftf7 27. .§h5 g6 28. .§g5 4)h7 29.4)d6 '/f1g7 30.'/f1xe6 4) xg5 31.4) xg5 '/f1c7 32.c3 4)c6 33.'/f1xd5 4)e7 34.'/f1c4 'lftc6 35.4)e6 .§d7 36.4) xc5 .§c7 37.4)e6 '/f1 x c4 38.4) x c4 .§c6 3 9 . .§d6 .§e8 40. 4) x a5 .§ xc3 4 1 .Cit>b2 .§cc8 4 2 . .§b6 4) d 5 4 3 . .§ x b7+ Cit>aS 4 4 . .§b5 4) c3 45 . .§c5 4) d 1 + 46.Cit>c2 .§ x c5+ 47.4) xc5 .§ xe5 48.Cit> x d 1 .§ xc5 49.4)c4 Cit>b7 50.Cit>e2 Cit>c6 51.f4 Cit>d5 52.Cit>f3 .§c7 53.Cit>g4 .§b7 54.4)e5 .§ xb3 5 5 . 4) xg6 Cit>e6 56.4)e5 .§a3 57.h5 Cit>f6 58.4)d7+ Cit>g7 59.4)b6 Cit>h6 60.Cit>h4 .§b3 61.a5 .§b5 62.g4 .§ xa5 (D)
Correct! The black king should not be allowed to come to h6.
53 ... .§a4 54.f3 .§b4 55.Cit>g31 Now White prepares the further advance of his f-pawn, after his knight moves of course.
55 ... .§b5 Or 55 . . . Ela4 56.4Jd6 Eia6 57.4Jf5+ 'i£tf7 58.�g4.
1 97
Chess Analytics Another relatively easy case - the pawns cannot be blocked, even if the enemy king is in front.
63.g5+ h7 64.<;!7g4 E! a 1 65.l�)d5 The knight should approach its king in order to create a shield from the rook's checks.
65 . . . f!h1 67.'tld7
66.4)f6 +
<(t>h8
67S�i'f5 l"!fl 68.g6 '!lg7 69.<£lg4 +-
67... f!d1 68.4)e5 h7 69.
71.<;!7e6 g7 72.h6+ 72.f5 l"!a6+ 73.<£ld6 was more ac curate - the pawns should be placed on the same rank to secure the win, as in this way they cannot be blocked.
Conclusion In order to finalize the win, the side with the pawns should apply the follow ing: I . Advance the pawns to the same rank. 2. The middle pawn should not stay back by itself one rank. 3 . The opponent's king should not be able to block the pawns efficiently. 4. The knight should be able to pro tect the king from horizontal or verti cal checks. 5. The king of the stronger side should advance in harmony with his pawns. 6. When one of the pawns has to be jettisoned, it shouldn't be the middle one and we should be sure that we have a forced win.
72... <;t>g6 73.'tle5+
Rook vs. the Bishop Pair
Again, 73.f5+! was quicker.
73 ... <;!7h7 74.f5 E!a6+ 75.<;!7e7 E!a5 White is lucky that her knight is well placed: 75 . . . l"! a7+ 76.<£Jd7 and supports the pawns and the king.
76.<;t>d6 E!a6+ 77.4)c6 E!a8 78.4)e7 E!a1 79.<;!7e6 E!e1+ 80.<;!7f7 E!g1 (D)
Concept This is a theme dedicated to pure endgames, when the rook has to face the bishop pair. In general the bishop pair is nearly ineffaceable when there are many pawns on the board and the rook's owner does not have any passed pawns as counterplay. But here we will not examine such "easy" cases, where I believe that the bishop pair should win in 75% of the cases, but positions with limited material, where the realization of this "advantage" is difficult. (168) Smyslov - Blackstock London 1 988 Budapest Gambit [A52]
81.g6+! Typical and good. White returns a pawn to reach a forced win.
81. .. <;!7 xh6 82.f6 E!g2 83.g7 1-0
1.d4 4)f6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 4)g4 4.'tlf3 'tlc6 5.Af4 Ab4+ 6.'tlbd2 t/Je7 7.e3 4)gxe5 8.4) xe5 4) xe5 9.Ae2 0-0 10.0-0 Axd2 11. t/1xd2 d6 12.b4 a5 13.a3 E!d8 14.t/Jc3 f6
1 98
Rook vs. the Bishop Pair 15 . .§.fcl Jlf5 16.f3 axb4 17.axb4 b6 18.e4 Jl,g6 19. .§.xa8 .§.xa8 20.c5 bxc5 21.bxc5 Af7 22.cxd6 cxd6 23.�d4 h6 24. .§.dl .§.dS 25.�b6 .§.d7 26.�b4 Wh7 27.Jlg3 �e6 28.f4 �b3 29. �xb3 .Q.xb3 30.fxe5 Jl,xdl 31.e6 .§.e7 32.Jl,xdl .§. xe6 33.J}.g4 .§.e8 34.Axd6 g6 35 . .Q.f3 Wg7 36. Wf2 .§.dS 37.e5 f x e 5 38.A x e5+ W h 7 39.We3 .§.eS 40. Wd4 .§.dS+ 4 1 . We4 .§.d2 42.Ad4 .§.a2 43.We5 .§.a6 44.Ab7 .§.a4 45.Ac6 .§.b4 46.Ad5 .§.a4 47.Ac5 .§.a5 48.J}.d6 Wg7 49.We6 .§.a6 (D)
draw with 6 1 . . . h 5 ! 62.gxh5 (62.g5 .§b7+ 63.�f8 [63.�f6 .§b6] 63 . . . .§f7+! 64. �e8 .§ e7+!) 62 . . . .§ b7+ 63 . �f6 (63.�f8 �h6! 64.hxg6 �xg6 65 .Ag3 �f6 66.Ac4 .§ b4 67 . Aa6 �g6= ) 63 . . . g x h 5 64 .�g5 .§ g7+ 65 .�xh5 .§g5+!.
62.h5! Mate follows, so Black had to resign.
As already mentioned, the bishop pair almost always comprises an envi able and powerful force. Still, even in this case, the position is drawn as the material is greatly reduced. Black must seek the exchange of the g-pawns, af ter which he will be able to sacrifice his rook for the dark-square bishop, reaching a theoretical draw. White's only good idea is to try mating his op ponent but this easier said than done!
50.Ab7 .§.b6 5 t . Acs Wh7 52.We7 .§.b2 53.g4 .§.f2 54.Ae6 .§.fl 55.Ae5 .§.f2 5 6 . J}.f6 .§.f4 57.Wf7 .§.a4 58.Ae5 .§.a7+ 59.Wf6 .§.a6 60.h4 .§.b6 61.Wf7 (D) 61 ... .§.b5? Black had defended excellently up to this point and could have secured the
(169) Karlovich - Georgiev Thessaloniki 2009 Sicilian Defense [B88] l.e4 c5 Vilf3 d6 3.Ac4 .£)c6
4.d4 cxd4 5.-£) xd4 .£)f6 6 . .£)c3 e6 7.0-o Ae7 s.Ae3 o-o 9.Ah3 Jld7 10.a4 a6 ll . .§.el .£)a5 12.J}.a2 .§.cS 13 .�e2 .§. x c3 1 4 . b x c3 .£) xe4 15.�h5 .£) xc3 16.Ad2 g6 17.�h6 .Jil xa2 18 . .§. xa2 .£)c4 19.Ac3 e5 20 . .£)f3 .§.e8 2 1 . .§.aal Ac6 22. .§.adl Af8 23.�h3 f6 24.�g4 d5 25 . .£)d2 .£) xd2 26. .§.xd2 �c8 27.�h4 d4 28.J}.a5 �d7 29.c4 �f5 30 . .§.b2 �e6 3 l . Ab6 g5 32.�h5 �xc4 33.h4 h6 34.hxg5 hxg5 35.�g6+ Ag7 36 . .§.ebl �f7 37.�f5 A x a4 38.J}. x d4 e x d4 39 . .§. x b7 .§.e7 40 . .§. x e7 � x e7 4 1 . �d5+ �f7 42 . .§.h8+ Afs 43. � x d4 Ab5 44.�d8 Ac6 45 . .§.b6 �d7 46. � x d7 J}. x d7 47. .§. xa6 (D)
1 99
Chess Analytics White can draw by just holding the black king away from f3 : 58.1"\b3 Af6 59.1"\a3 f4 60.gxf4 gxf4 6l .'lt'gl Ad5 62.1"\a5 Ac4 63. 'it'g2. But ofcourse this is not yet the final mistake.
58 ...Ab4 (D)
Black is aided by the fact that his pawns are more central, but still the re duced material doesn't help him.
47... f7 48.g3 This creates a bad weakness on f3 and forms an easy plan for Black: to place his king on f3 and attack the f2pawn. White should have stayed put with her pawns and just move the rook or the king, but on the other hand Black cannot take advantage of it without White's help.
48... g6 49.§.a7?! An inaccuracy. 4 9 . 'lt' g 2 lic8 50.l''!.a7 'lt'f5 5 1 .f3 iid6 52.1"\ a8 lib7 53.1"\a7 Ad5 54.1"\a5 'lt'e6 55.g4 was the correct continuation and although Black can press, I do not think that in the end he can win without "help."
49...jtc6 Now Black controls the important h l -a8 diagonal and the f3-square of course!
50. §.c7 Ae4 5 1 . §.c8 jtd6 52.§.d8 Ae5 53.§.d7 53.'lt'fl? 'lt'f5 54.'lt'e2 �g4 55.1"\c8 Ab7 56.1"\c4+ �h3 was lost.
53 ...f5 54.§.a7 g4 55.§.a3 It seems that White can control the f3-square, not allowing the black king to enter it, so he keeps his opponent's winning plans at bay.
55 ...f5 56.h2 Ad6 57.§c3 Ae7 58.§c7?!
59.§.cl? But this is! White should try to be active and attack the black g-pawn with 59.1"1g7 lic3 (59 . . .Ad2?! 60.f4!) 60.§g8 liel 6l .'lt'gl lid2 (61 . . .'lt'f3 62.1"\ xg5 ltxf2+ 63.'lt'h2=) 62.1"\d8 (62.f4? 'lt'xg3 63.fxg5 ilg2 64.1"\e8 f4 65.g6 ile3+ 66. 1"\ x e 3 + fx e 3 6 7 . g7 Ad5 -+ ) 62 . . . ila5 63.1"\g8 when Black has no winning plan, as 63 . . .'lt'f3 64.1"\xg5 Ab6 65 .'lt'h2 leads to a draw.
59... f3 And now Black wins, as he carries out the plan mentioned in the first dia gram.
60.gl Ad3 6 t . §d l e2 62.§al Ac5 63.§a2+ f3 64.§b2 g4 65.§.d2 Ae2! That's the trick - the f2-pawn is gone and the rest was easy.
66.§d5 Axf2+ 67.hl xg3 68.§.xf5 Af3+ 69.§xf3+ xf3 0-1 With more pawns on the board and more weaknesses, things are easier for the bishop pair. With the help of the king, an assault can be successfully di rected toward the weaknesses.
200
Rook vs. the Bishop Pair (170) Ljubojevic - Miles Tilburg 1 985 Sicilian Defense [B30]
l.e4 c5 2.ll:)c3 ll:)c6 3.lclf3 g6 4.a3 Ag7 5.E!bl e6 6.b4 b6 7.Ab2 d6 8 . Ab5 ll:)ge7 9 . lcl d 5 0 0 10.ll:)f6+ �h8 ll.lclg5 h6 12.h4 a6 1 3 . A x c6 lcl xc6 14. �f3 e5 1 5. ll:) fh7 �g8 1 6 . ll:) x f8 h x g5 17.ll:) xg6 g4 18.�e3 lcld4 19.�g5 � xg5 20.hxg5 fxg6 2l.bxc5 bxc5 22.Axd4 cxd4 23.d3 Af8 24.�e2 E!a7 25.c4 dxc3 2 6 . § hcl E!c7 27. E!b3 �f7 2 8 . § c x c3 E! x c3 29.E!xc3 Ad7 30.E!c7 �e6 3l.E!a7 Ab5 32.a4 Axa4 33.E! xa6 Ad7 34.g3 Ae7 35.E!a8 Axg5 36.§b8 Act 37.E!b3 �f6 38.E!b7 Ae6 39.E!c7 Aa3 40.E!a7 Ac5 41.§c7 Ad4 42.�fl (D)
Black's plan is now simple: he will place his bishop on f5, protecting all his pawns and attacking the white d-pawn, and then he will penetrate with his king via the queenside, targetting the d pawn.
4 5 . E!c6 �e7 46.�el �d7 47.§a6 Af5! 48.�e2 �c7 49.E!a8 White is in zugzwang, so he has to al low the black king's entrance: 49 . .§f6 Ac5 (49 . . . e4? 5 0 . .§ f7 + ; 49 . . . �b7 50 ..§d6 Ab6 51 ..§d5) 50 . .§a6 Ab6.
49 . . . �b6 5 0 . § b8+ �a5 51.E!b7 �a4 52.E!b8 �a3 53.E!b7 (D)
If 53 . .§d8, then 53 . . . �b2 54 . .§d6 \t'c2 55 . .§ c6+ Ac3 56 . .§ d6 g 5 ! (zugzwang) 5 7. .§ d5 Ad4 -+ .
53 ...Ae6! Here White has two weaknesses, the d- and f-pawns, so Black has excel lent winning chances.
42 ... d51 43.exd5 If White allows Black to capture on e4 with 43 . .§ c6 dxe4 44.dxe4 then his two weaknesses ( e4 and £2) remains and Black can attack them via bl or g6: 44 . . . �f7 45 . .§ c7+ �g8 46.�e2 g5 47.�el (47 ..§b7 Ac4+ 48.�el Ad3) 47 . . . Af7 48.�e2 Ag6 49.f3 (the f2 weakness is gone but a new one has appeared at g3) 49 . . . Ah5 5 0 . fxg4 Axg4+ 5 1 .�d3 (51 .\t'el Af3) 5 1 . . .Af3 52 ..§e7 g4 -+ , as ...\t>fS and ...M2 decide.
Best. After the i naccurate 53 . . . Ka2?! 54.Rb8 Bb2 5 5 .Rb7 Kb l 56.Kd2 Black can make no progress (he has to come back to this position). Now he gives up an unimportant pawn in order to march with his king.
54.E!g7 White has no choice, as he cannot save himself by guarding the b-file: 54 . .§b8 AdS 5 5 . .§b5 Af3+ 56.�el Ac3+ 57.�fl Adl and ... Ab3 with . . . �b2-c2 to follow.
54 . . . Ad5 56.�fl �b2
5 5 . E! xg6
Af3+
The king finally succeed to pen etrate. 57.E!a6 �c2 58.§e6 (D)
43 ... Axd5 44.�e2 Ae6
201
Chess Analytics 7. � x d8+ x d8 8 . Ae3 .£) fd7 9 .£)ge2 b6 10.000 .£)a6 ll.g3 .£)c7 12.f4 e6 13 . .Q.h3 e7 14 .§hfl h6 15.e5 .Q.b7 16.g4 .§ad8 17 .£)g3 f6 1 8 . .£) ce4 f x e 5 1 9 .f5 .Q. x e4 20. .£) xe4 gxf5 21.gxf5 .£)f6 22 .§gl .§ xd l + 23. x dl .Q.f8 24 . .£) xf6 xf6 25 .§fl exf5 26 .§xf5+ g7 27 .§ x e5 .Q.d6 28 .§e4 .Q. x h 2 29.e2 h 5 30 .§e7+ f6 31..§d7 .Q.e5 32.b3 h4 33.f3 .§g8 34.Ag4 h3 35 .§h7 h2 36 .Q.f4 .§f8 37.-'1,xe5+ g6+ 38.e4 x h7 39 . .Q.xh2 (D) •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
58 d2! .•.
The f-pawn is the real target. The d-pawn will be captured by the bishop and then it will be placed on f3.
59 .§e8 .Q.e2+ 60.g2 el 6 1 . .§f8 .Q.fl+ 6 2 . g l .Q. x d3 63 . .§f7 .Q.e4 64. h2 •
•
•
64.E!f8 lif3
64... fll Not falling for White's last trap: 64 . . .Jlxf2? 65.l''l.xf2=.
65 . .§f8 .Q.f3 0-1 The Bishop Pair vs. the Exchange
This is a very sensitive theme which we do not usually come across in chess magazines and other publica tions. The bishop pair can be excellent compensation for sacrificing or losing (blunders exist! ) the exchange, espe cially when the opponent has a knight. Their combined power in cooperation with other pieces can form a determined line of defense. The first example is from the last match between two fa mous players. The next two were firstly analyzed by endgame expert Karsten Muller, who kindly provided most of the analysis and I would like to thank him for that. (171) Spassky - Fischer Belgrade 1 992 King's Indian Defense [E80]
l.d4 .£)f6 2.c4 g6 3 . .£)c3 .Q.g7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 c5 6 . d x c 5 dxc5
White is an exchange down but his bishop-pair is strong and form a wall of problems for Black who has to play his best in order to cash the point.
39 ... .§e8+ 40.f5 .£)e6 41.f6 .£) d4 42.-'1,d6 .§e4 43 . .Q.d7 .§e2 44.a4 .§b2 45 .Q.b8 a5 46 . .Q.a7 .§xb3 47.e5 •
White tries to combine his active pieces and save the day. As things are more difficult as it looks, Black has to be accurate.
47 .£){3+ 48.d6 4 9 .Q.e6 .§b4 50.c6 ••.
.£) d 2
•
But finally White's activity is not enough compensation for his material deficit.
50 .£)b3? •..
Black had to opt for 50 . . . 4Jxc4 5 1 ..1lxc4 .§ xc4 5 2 .Jlxb6 ( 5 2 . �xb6 .§ x a4 5 3 . � x c 5 �g6 5 4 . .1lb6 .§ a 2 55. �c4 a4 -+ ) 52 . . . .§ xa4 53. �xeS .§al
202
The Bishop Pair vs. the Exchange ( 5 3 . . . l:' h 2 54. \t'c4 a4 5 5 . \t'b4 'it>g6 56.i.te3 'it>f5 57.-'l.cl 'it>e4 58.-'l.a3 'it>d4 59.\t'xa4 \t'c4 -+ ) 54.\t'b5 a4 55.i.td4 El d l 5 6 .-'l.c5 El d5 5 7 . 'it>c4 fi x e S + 58. \t'xc5 a 3 - + .
51 . .Q.d5 The careless 5 1 .i.txb6? returns the favor: 5 1 . . .4Jd4+ 52.\t'xc5 4Jxe6+ -+ .
51 ... .§xa4
l.e4 c5 2.{)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.{) xd4 a6 5.{)c3 e6 6 ..Q.e3 '1Pfc7 7. '1Pfd2 {)f6 s. .Q.e2 {)bd7 9.f3 .Q.e7 10.g4 {)e5 ll.g5 {)fd7 12.f4 {)c4 13 . .Q.xc4 '1Pf xc4 14.b3 '1Pfc7 15.f5 {)e5 16.0-0-0 .Q.d7 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.{)ce2 {)g4 19 . .§hgl {) x e3 20.'1Pf x e3 '1Pfa5 2 1 . Cit'bl 0 - 0 - 0 22. '1Pfd3 Cit'b8 23.{)f4 '1Pfe5 2 4 .§g4 .§c8 25 .§d2 .§hf8 26.{)de2 .ilb5 27.'1Pfd4 .§c5 28.'1Pf xe5 .§ x e 5 2 9 . {) d4 .Q. d 7 30 .§ e 2 .Q. x g5 31.{)d3 .§fl+ 32.Cit'b2 .§a5 33.b4 .Q.f6 34.bxa5 .Q.xd4+ 35.c3 .Q.f6 (D) •
5 1 . . .4Jd4+ 52. 'it>c7=
•
52 . .Q.xb6 .§a1 53 .Q.xc5 a4 •
B lack cannot w i n even after 53 ... 4Jxc5 54.\t'xc5 a4 55.'it>d6 a3 56.c5 Eldl 57.c6 a2 58.c7 al Yf1 59.c8Yf1 Yf1f6+ 60.Yf1e6=. 54 .Q.b4 a3 55.c5 {)d4+ 56.Cit'd7 .§dl (D)
•
•
After his mistake on the 5 1 st move Black has played well and he created the maximum problems to White. Un fortunately for him the bishops are strong and achieve their targets when combined!
57 .Q.xa31! {)c2 •
Or 57 . . . 4Jb5 5 8 . i.tb4! ( 5 8 . c6? El xd5+ 59.\t'e6 Eldl -+ ) 58 ... Eixd5+ 59.®c6=.
58.c6 .§ xd5+ 58 . . . 4Jxa3 59.c7 El xd5+ 60.'it>c6 Eldl=
59. .Q.d6
36. .§gg2?1 A bit passive. White should con sider 36.e5 dxe5 37.4Jxe5 �b5 38.c4 i.te8 39.Eige4 or 36.Eif4 Elhl 37.Eiff2 �b5 38.Eie3 \t'c7 39.e5 dxe5 40.4Jxe5 when White's knight has found a good post, which is very important.
36 ... .Q.b5 37 .§d2 .§f3?1 •
Draw agreed: 59 . . . 4Jd4 60 . c7 fl xd6+ 6l .'it>xd6 4Jb5+ 62.'it>d7 4Jxc7 63.®xc7 �-� (172) Chraibi - Winnicki Hamburg 2005 Sicilian Defense [B54]
White has won the exchange but Black's compensation is excellent as she has at her disposal the bishop pair, a pawn, an active rook and certainly a much better pawn structure. So, the position should be dynamically bal anced.
37 . . . 'it>c7!? according to the old positional rule that "the worst placed piece should be improved" was more precise.
38.Cit'c2? Again it was better to improve the prospects of the knight: 38.Eig3 El fl 39.e5! dxe5 40.4Jc5 and White is not
203
Chess Analytics worse: 40 . . . .Ilc4 4 1 ..§.h3 .llg 5 42 . .§.d7 .§.f2+ 43.�al .§.fl +=.
5 1 . l"\ xg7 [ 5 l .�xc2? l"\ a 2 + -+ ] 5 1 ...l"\a2 =i= ) 50.l"\e2 Af6 + .
38... Ac4?
47... Ah3 48. .§gc2 .§e3 (D)
38 . . . 1:ta4+ 39.�b2 .llc6 would be very unpleasant for White in view of his weak pawns. A sample variation might go 40.e5 (40 . .§.g4 h5 4 1 .l"\g3 .ll x e4 or 40 . .§. ge 2 ? .ll b 5 4 1 . �c 2 .ll g 5 -+ ) 4 0 . . . d x e 5 4 1 . 4Jb4 l:t b 5 42.4Jc2 .llc4 + .
39.a3 .§fl?l Again, activating the king with 39 . . . �c7 is of primary importance.
4o.4)b2! Ab5 40 . . . .lla 2 was called for; White can keep the balance: 41.4:\dl .§.f4 42.4Jf2 �c7 43.4Jg4.
41 . .§xd6 .§f3 42 . .§xe6?! Without the c3-pawn, White's king lacks shelter, and this will be his undo ing in the end. 42.4:\dl! �c7 43.l''lx e6 .llc4 44 . .§. xf6 gxf6=.
42 ... .§xc3+ 43.®dl The other king's moves also offer nothing: 43.�bl .lld7 44 . .§. d6 .llc6 '1' or 43.�d2 .§.b3 =i= .
43 . . . Ad7 45. .§dd2
44 . .§d6
®c7
4 5 . l"\ d3?! .ll a 4+ 46.�e l .§. c l + 47.4:\dl .§.al gives Black a strong bind. A real nightmare for the poor pinned knight.
45 ... .§xa3 46 . .§c2+?1 46. 4Jc4!? Aa4+ 4 7 . � e l .llh 4+ 48.�e2 l:tb5 49 . .§. c2 (49.l"\xg7+ �c6 50.l"\c2 l"\a2! 5 l .�dl Aa4 52.4Je3+ .llx c2+ 53.4Jxc2 .§.a4 54 . .§. xh7 .§.xe4 =i= ) 49 . . ..1lf6 '1'
49.e5 4 9 . �d2 .§. x e4 50 . .§. 2 c4 .§. e8 5 1 .4Jd3 .lld7 is horrible for White. But he should have tried 49.4Jc4!? .§. xe4 50.4Jb6 �a7 5 l .�d2 (5 1 ..§. c8? AxeS 5 2 ..!''\x cS .§. d4 + 5 3 . �e 2 .§. d8 -+ ) 5 1 ...l"\e8 + .
49 ...Ag4+ 49 . . . Ae7 50.�d2 .llx c5 5 l . § xc5 §e4+ was the natural follow-up.
50.®d2 Ag51 5 1 .e6 .§e5+ 52. ®d3 Af5+ 53. ®d4 §e4+ 54.®d5? 54 .�d3 was forced, although Black's winning chances are excellent: 5 4 . . . § e 3 + ( 5 4 . . . g6 5 5 . .§. x f5 gxf5 56.§c5 § xe6 57 . .§. xf5 .lle 7 + ) 55.�d4 Axc2 56.§ xg5 § xe6 57.§ xg7 §h6 + .
54...Af6 55.4)c4? A blunder, but also hopeless was the alternative 55 .§d2 §e5+ 56.�d6 § xe6+ 57 .�d5 §e5+ 58.�d6 § e8 59.l"\cd5 .§. c8 -+ .
55 ... .§d4# 0-1 (173) Hausner - Muller Hamburg 1 990 Catalan Opening [E09]
46 ... ®b8?1 46 . . . .llc6 + certainly looks more promising.
47. .§c5 47.e5 .llx e5 48.4Jc4 doesn't solve White's problems in view of 48 . . . .§.al + 49.�d2 lic6! (49 . . . .ilf5 50.4Jxe5 Axc2
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.4)f3 c6 4.g3 .£lf6 s.Ag2 .£lbd7 6.4)bd2 Ae7 7.0-0 0-0 8.�c2 b6 9.e4 dxe4 1 0. 4) x e4 4) x e4 l l . � xe4 Ab7 12 . .§dl �c8 13.�c2 c5 14.d5
204
The Bishop Pair vs. the Exchange exd5 15.cxd5 .il.d6 1 6.b3 §e8 17.Ab2 f6 18.J�� h4 tP/c7 19.�f5 �e5 20.§el §adS 2l.§adl .il.cS 22.f4 �f7 23.�e3 §e7 24.�f5 §ee8 25 . .1l.e4 h 6 26. tP/d3 b5 27.§cl c4 28.tP/f3 Ab4 29.§edl Ac5+ 30.
White has an extra exchange, but he should not underestimate the power of the bishop pair.
42.Axa7?
45 . . . -'txd6 46.Ael g5 47.fxg5 fxg5 4 8 . -'l. x g S (48. �f2 .,Q,xf3 4 9 . � x f3 ltf4 - + ) 48 ...lta3 49.�f2 cl'?tr 50.Axcl Axel (D)
is theoretically lost as both white pawns will fall prey to the bishops and the pawnless ending two bishops versus knight is always won for the bishops, if the side with the knight can't force an immediate draw. This fact was discov ered by Ken Thompson using a com puter database. His result overturned pre-database theory, which assumed that the ending is drawn ifthe defender can reach the "Kling and Horwitz" po sition (W: �d5, Aa4, A£8 B: �b6, <£lb7 - see J.Nunn in Secrets ofMinor Piece Endings, p.277). John Nunn deals with the subject very extensively in Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings (pp.265-28 1 ). Finally, 45 . .§. fl is playab l e : 45 . . . <£lb5 (45 . . . <£le4? 46.Ae l A x e l 47. l='l x e l <£l d 2 4 8 . l='\ xe2 ± ) 46. �g3 (46.Ac1 ? Axel 47. l='l x e l <£le3 -+ or 46 .�f2 <£le3 47. <£ld4 Ab2 48 . .§. e l [48.<£lxe2 Axe2 49.Ad4 <£le4+ 50.�e3 lta3 oo ] 48 . . . A x e l 49.Axe l <£l x a 2 50.�e3 Ah7 5 l .�d2= or, finally, 46.l='lel Ab4 47.l='lc1 <£le3 48.�f2 oo ) 46 . . . Ad3 ( 46 . . . <£le3 4 7 . <£Jd4 .,Q,b2 48.Ae l ! A x e l 49 . .§. x e l <£l x a 2 50.l='\ xe2=) 47.l='lel <£le3 48.<£ld4 Ab2 (48. . .<£lxa2 49.l='lal .,Q,b2 50.l='\xa2 Axd4 5 1 . l='l xe2 Axe2 52 . .,Q,xd4=) 49.<£lxe2 ltxe2 50.ltd4=. -
Allowing the c-pawn to advance further; this can turn out extremely risky. With 42. �f2 White would stand better.
42 ...hxg4 43.hxg4 c3 44.Ae3 44J�el e2 45.-'le3 transposes.
44...c2 45.§el Certainly not 45 . .§.al? <£Je4 46.-'l.el Ae5! 47.a4 Ad4 (the raking bishop pair, sometimes called the Horwitz Bishops, dominates the board and White is com pletely lost) 48 . .§. a2 Ae3 49 . .§.al <£ld2 50.�g3 (50 . .§. a3 Axf3+ 5 1 .�h3 Axf4 52 . .§. xf3 <£lxf3 53.Axf4 <£Jgl + 54.�g2 <£le2 55.Ae3 c1 'i'f1 56.Axcl <£lxcl 57.a5 <£ld3 58.a6 <£lf4+ 59.�f3 <£Je6 60.a7 <£le7 -+ ) 50 . . . Axf3 5 l .Axd2 Axd2 52.�xf3 c1 '?tr 53.l='lxcl Axel 54.a5 Aa3 55.a6 Ae5 -+ . Another practical try is 4 5 . l='l xd6? but the pos ition after
205
Chess Analytics 45 .Q.b4 (D)
64.'Ct'd2! was called for, when it is not totally clear if Black is winning: 64 . . . �xf4 65.'Ct'xc2+ �f3 66.Ab2 + .
•..
64 �d3! 65. .£le3 Af7 66.a3 .£la4 67. .£lg2 .£lc5 68 .£jel+ �c3 69. �e3 Ag6 70 . .Q.d2+ �b2 71 . .£j xc2 A x c2 And Black wins. 72 . .1}.b4 .£le6 73.Ad6 �b3 74.�d2 Ae4 75.�e3 f5 76.Ae7 g6 77.Ad6 Ac6 78. �d3 Ab5+ 79. �e3 �c4 80.Ae5 �d5 81.Af6 .£lc5 82.Ae7 .£le4 83.Af8 .£jd6 84.�{3 .£lc4 85.Ae7 �d4 86.Ab4 Ac6+ 87.�g3 �e4 88.Ac5 .£1 b2 89.Ad6 .£ld3 90.Ac7 .£lc5 91 ..1}.d6 .£le6 92.Ab8 Ae8 93.Ad6 .£ld4 o-1 ..•
•
After 45 . . . <£\c4?! 46.Acl Axel 47.f1. xcl <£\d2 White has the resource 48.f1. xc2! ± .
46 .§.e2? •
White is in panic! He could hold the balance with precise play: 46.f1.cl! <£\c4 47.�f2 <£\b2 (47 ... Aa3 48.<£\d4 Axel 49.Ax c 1 =) 48.<£\d4 (48.<£\el? <£\dl + 4 9 . � e 2 A x e l 5 0 . � x e l <£\ x e 3 -+ ) 4 8 . . . <£\d3+ ( 48 . . . <£\ d l + 49.�e2 <£\c3+ 50.'it>f2=) 49.�e2 <£\xcl + 50.Axcl=.
46 Ad3 47. .£ld4 .£jc4 48.Acl •.•
White's rook i s trapped after 48.<£\xc2 Axc2 49.Acl Ad3 50.f1.f2 Ael 5 l .f1.f3 Ae4 -+ .
Conclusion The bishop pair is a strong weapon when facing a rook but reduced mate rial can help the defender. The power of the bishop pair can also be seen in those situations in which the side with the bishops is down the exchange. The bishop pair may then provide very good compensation.
48 Ac3 •••
Now Black wins the exchange back while preserving his strong passed c pawn alive.
49 . .£lb5! 49.l'hc2? Axd4-+ .
49 .Q. x e2 50 . .£j x c3 A x g4 5t . .£ld5 Ae6 52 .£lb4 Af5 53.�f2 Ae4 54 .£la6 �e6 55 . .£lc5+ �d5 56 .£lb3 . • .
•
•
•
White must avoid 5 6 . <£\xe4? 56 ... �xe4 57.�e2 �d4 -+ .
56 .Q.f5 57.�e2 Ag6 58 .£jd2 .£lb6 59 . .£lfl �d4 60.Ab2+ �e4 6 1 ..1}.cl �d4 62.Ab2+ �e4 63.Acl •••
•
63 . <£\e3? <£\a4 6 4 . A c 1 <£\c3+ 65.�d2 <£\xa2 -+
63 ... .Q.h5+ 64. �f2?
Pawns on the Seventh Rank
Concept By definition, a pawn is passed when it can advance to promotion with out encountering any opposing pawns in its path. Possession of a passed pawn and the ability to exploit its potential is a strategic element that can often deter mine the result of the game. In general, the side possessing a passed pawn has clearer plans and aims. The other side usually seeks ways to blockade it or, if this proves impossible, obtain counterplay on another part of the board. One good option is "harassment" of the opponent's king. In practice this
206
Pawns on the Seventh Rank option often proves very effective, but unfortunately it is not always available! When a passed pawn (or even better, two !) succeeds in advancing to the sev enth rank, it becomes a nearly unstop pable force. Two connected passed pawn well-advanced can be worth their weight in gold! In many cases they have proved stronger even than a queen. Well, of course there always exist ex ceptions and that what we will exam ine first in this survey. (174) Kokolias - Sigalas Athens 2005 Semi-Slav Defense [D3 l ]
l .c4 c 6 2. 4) f3 d 5 3.d4 e6 4.4Jc3 dxc4 5.a4 Ab4 (D)
18... 4)g4 18 . . . h6 seem to be most players' preference these day s : 1 9 . l"! fe l (19.l"lfcl iic6 20.�b2 [20.e5
t9.Ab5
The famous and extremely compli cated Noteboom variation. Usually White generates a better center and at tacking possibilities, when Black aims for the endgame counting on his strong queenside pawns. All in all, we have a tactical battle ahead with possibilities for both sides.
6.e3 b5 7 . .il,d2 Ab7 8.axb5 A xc3 9 . A xc3 c x b5 10.b3 a5 ll.bxc4 b4 12 ..il,b2 4)f6 13.Ad3 0-0 14.0-0 4)bd7 15.�c2 �c7 16.e4 e5 17.c5 exd4 B lack's main alternative i s 1 7 ... ,lh6 1 8.l"!fcl exd4 1 9 . .£ixd4 .ll xd3 20.�xd3 �c6 oo Levitt-Flear, London 1 990. 18. .il,xd4 (D)
White has some alternatives at his disposal: (a) 1 9.lic4!? (a l ) 1 9 . . . �f4 2 0 . c 6 .ll xc6 2 l .Jixf7+ �xf7 22.�xc6 l"!fc8 23.�b5 l"!cb8 24.�g5
207
Chess Analytics Nesterov-Relange, Groningen 1 993) 20 .. .4:.)de5 2 1 .
24... �a7! 25.E!f2 White is in trouble. The other op tion, 25.f5 a4 26.f6 a3 27.'it'hl § a8 28.i>Yh5
25 ... a4 + 26.�g4 f5! 27.exf5 a3 28 . .Q.e5 b3 29.f6 b2 30.E!dl 4) xe5 31.fxe5 (D)
2l.f4 White has also tried 2 l .i>Yb2 f6 2 2 .Axe5 fx e5? ( 2 2 . . . i>Yxe5 i s safe: 23 .i>Yxe5 fxe 5 2 4 . c6 lic8 2 5 .§fc l Ae6=) 23.c6 Ac8 ( 2 3 ... Aa6 24.i>Ya2+ 'it'h8 25. i>Yxa5 ± ) 24.§fcl (24.1ic4+ 'it'h8 2 5 . 1id 5 Aa6 oo ) 24 . . . i>Yb6 25 .i>Yxe5! a4!? 26.§c5? (26.1ixa4? §xa4 27.§xa4 i>Yxf2+ 28.'it'hl i>Yfl +; 26.i>Yc5! i>Yxc5 27.§ xc5 b3 28.Ac4+ [28.§xa4 b2!] 28 . . . 'it'h8 29.Axb3 +- ) 26 . . . b3 oo Zueger-Klinger, Bern 1 99 1 . We are still of course in theoretical ground and surely both opponents have done their extensive homework; it is impossible to play this variation otherwise.
2 1 . . . 4)c6 22 . .Q.b2 23. .Q.xa6 E!xa6 (D)
3l ... �f7?! Black loses his way in this laby rinth of tactical variations. He could crown his efforts with the logical 3 l . . .'it'h8!. Although it does not look easy, he can win after 32.fxg7+ �xg7 33.§xf8+ �xf8 34.�d4 § e6!.
32. �e2 �b3?! Again 32 . . . �e6!, blocking the white pawns. 33.E!ffl (D)
.Q.a6
33 ... a2? Black loses his entire advantage. He should have played 3 3 . . . § aa8! 34.i>Ye4 §ab8! -+ .
24.�e2? A wrong idea. Preferable is 24.�c4 i>Yb7 25.§f3 'it'h8 26.§g3 f6 27.e5 with some initiative to White, as in Becker Kaid, Goch 1 995.
34.f7+ �h8 Bad is 34 . . . § xf7?? 3 5 . § d8+ or 34 ...i>Yxf7? 35.§xf7 al � 36.§ xf8+ 'it'xf8 37.'it'f2 ± .
208
Pawns on the Seventh Rank 35.'�xa6
41 ..!':\fel transposes to the draw given above.
White had a second and more in teresting way to draw: 3 5 .e6 bl 'it! (35 .. .1':he6? 36.l''\ d8! h6 37.1'hf8+ �h7 38 . .§h8+ �xh8 39.f8'itf+ 'it'h7 40.'itff5+ 'it'h8 4 1 . 'itifxe6 'itixe6 42. 'itixe6 al 'it! 43.'ir.i'c8+ �h7 44.'itif5+ 'it'h8 45.'itib l ; 3 5 . . . 'itixe6? 36 . .§ d8 .§ xd8 37 .'itixe6) 36.e7 .§aa8 37.e8'iti al 'it! (D)
39...t.?/b6+40.�hl t.?/a841.d7(D) h
"---·
;;
... >AI
Three pawns on the seventh rank, ready to queen! But White is unlucky as Black has a clear way to draw!
41 ...t.?/xg2+!
when we have a very rare situation with five queens on board. But this cannot be considered a tactical position, as with a forced series of moves the draw be comes clear: 38 . .!':\ xb l 'itibxbl 39 . .!':\ xbl 'itixbl + 40.'itiel 'itixel + 4l .'itixel .§ xf7. F inally it must be mentioned that 35 . .§ d8? does not work: 35 . . . .§ xd8 36.f8'itf+ .§ xf8 37. .§ xf8+ 'itig8 -+ .
35...bl� 36:�d6! t.?/b8 37.e6 (D)
4 1 . . .h6? 42.exf8'iti+ 'itixf8 43.d8'it! 'itffxd8 44 . .§ xd8+ 'itfxd8 45.f8'itf+ 'itfxf8 46 . .§ xf8+
42.�xg2 t.?/g6+ 43.�hl t.?/e4+
�-� White cannot avoid perpetual check. A really impressive game. (175) Kramnik - Kasparov Linares 1 999 Griinfeld Defense [D88]
l .d4 /clf6 2.c4 g6 3./clc3 d5 4.cxd5 � xd5 5.e4 � xc3 6.bxc3 Jig7 7.Ac4 c5 8.�e2 �c6 9.Ae3 0-0 10.0-0 Ag4 l l .f3 � a 5 12.Ji x f7+ E! x f7 13.fxg4 E! xfl+ 14.�xfl cxd4 15.cxd4 (D)
37... t.?/xd6 37 . . . al'iti leads to another draw: 38.'itixb8 'itixb8 39. .!':\xal 'itic8 40 . .§fel 'itixc5+ 4 1 .�h l 'itie7 (41 . . .'itif2 42 .e7 'itixf7 43.exf8'iti+ 'itixf8) 42 . .!':\ adl g5 43 . .§d7 .§xf7 44 . .§ xe7 .§ xe7.
38.cxd6 alt.?/ 39.e7!? 39 . .!':\ x b l 'itfd4 + 4 0 . �h l 'itfxd6
15 ...e5!? The "old" option is 1 5 . . . 'itib6 16.'it'gl 'itie6 1 7.'itid3 'itixg4 18 . .!':\fH
209
Chess Analytics Karpov-Kasparov, Seville 1 987. Of course, many games have been played since.
1 6.d5 .£)c4 17. �d3 .£) xe3+ 18.�xe3 �h4 19.h3 Ah6 20. �d3 .§f8+ 2Viti'g1 �f2+ 22.�h1 �e3! 23.�c4 2 3 . iii' x e3 is not dangerous for Black: 23 . . . Axe3 24 . .1":\dl .§f2 25.4Jgl �f7 2 6 . l":\ d3 Ab6 2 7 . l":\ f3 + �e7 28J''l xf2 Axf2 29.4Jf3 �d6 30.g3 Axg3 31 .\tlg2 Af4 32.�f2 �c5 33.�e2 b5 34.�d3 Y:z-Y:z Kramnik-Shirov, Cazorla 1 998. 23...1>5 24.�xb5 .§f2 25.�e8+ (D)
Obviously the strong passed d pawn on the seventh rank is quite valu able. Now White's plan is clear: to push the central e-pawn, creating two con nected pawns on the seventh rank! There is not much that Black can do about that - or maybe there is?
31 ...h6!! The point ofthis move will become clear in a few moves. No help was 3 1 . . .�g8? 32 . .1":\gl Axe5 33.�e6+ l":\f7 34.iii' x e5 iii'xd7 35 . .1":\bl ± .
32.e6 25....Q.f8! A strong novelty. Previous ly 25 . . . .1":\ fS had been played: 26.iii'e 6+ \tlh8 2 7 . g 5 la, x g 5 2 8 . iii' x e 5 + Af6 29.iii'd6 Ag7 30.4Jgl iii'xe4 3 1 ..1":\cl ;!; Van Wely-Shirov, Belgrade 1 999.
32.iii'e7 \tlh7 33.e6 iii'd 5 34 . .1":\gl l":\f3!=. 32... �h7! 33 . .§g1 (D)
27.d6! � xe2! Black avoided 27 ... iii' xe4 28 . .1":\gl Axd6 29.iii'xd6 iii' x e2 30.'�b8+ �g7 3 l . � x a 7 + l":\ f7 3 2 . iii' c 5 llil iii' x a 2 33.iii'x e5+ �g8 3 4..1":\ a l where although he will not lose, he will have to suffer for the half-point.
28.�xe5+! White rightly avoided a draw: 28 .d7 iii' xe4 29 . .1":\ g l l":\ f3 ! 3 0 . g 5 (30.gxf3 iii'xf3+ 31 .\tlh2 �f2+ 32.l":\g2 �f4 ;!; ) 30 . . . Ae7! 3 l . g x f3 iii' xf3 + 32.l":\g2 iii'fl + 33.�h2 iii'f4 ;!; .
28....Q.g7 29. �e8+ .§f8 30.d7 �d3 31.e5! (D)
Forced, as Black was threatening to win with 33 . . . .1":\fl +: 33.e7?? §fl + 34.§ xf1 iii' xfl + 35 .�h2 Ae5+ 36.g3 �f2+ 37.\tlhl iii'f3+ 38.�gl Ad4+ 39.�h2 iii'f2+ 40.�hl �gl # .
33 ... .§f3! Now the idea behind 3 1 . . .h6! be comes clear. White cannot avoid the draw.
210
34.�b8
Pawns on the Seventh Rank 34.e7?? � xh3+ 35.gxh3 �xh3 * is, of course, out of the question! 34... E!xh3+ 35.gxh3 �e4+1 7'2-7'2 And the players agreed to a draw. It is strange that there was another iden tical game which lasted two more moves: 36.�g2 �e1 + 37.�g1 �e4+ Y2Y2 Kundrak-Toth, Miskolc 1 999. But probably this wasjust an "imitated" game between two lower rated players . . . So, one might get the wrong im pression that passed pawns on the sev enth rank are not dangerous at all ! In my opinion, the above games are the exceptions that prove the rule: pawns on the seventh rank are an unbelievable force ! See the next game: (176) Kortschnoi - Najdorf Wijk aan Zee 1 97 1 Queen's Gambit Declined [D4 1 ]
l.c4 4)f6 2.4)c3 e6 3.4)f3 d5 4.d4 c5 5.cxd5 4) xd5 6.e4 4) xc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Ab4+ Black has also tried 8 . . .<£Jc6 9.ltc4 b5!? 1 0.lte2 ( 1 0 ..ild3?! ltb4+ 1 l ..ild2 ltxd2+ 1 2 .'l£txd2 a6 1 3.a4 0-0 1 4.�c3 .ll b 7= Spassky-Fischer, Reykj avik 1 972) 1 0 ... .ilb4+ 1 1 .ltd2 �a5 1 2.a4 1 3 . � x a4 bxa4 Grivas += Kourkounakis, Corfu 1 993.
9.Ad2 Axd2+ White obtains a clear advantage after the inaccurate 9 . . . 'l£ta5?! 10.�b1! .llx d2+ 1 l .�xd2 �xd2+ 1 2.'it'xd2. 10. � xd2 0-0 ll.Ac4 b6 (D)
Another option for Black is to de velop his b8-knight to c6: 1 1 . . .xh7 20.g8 2 1 .�h4 � e8 2 2 .'l£th7+ 'it'f8 2 3 . e6!) 2 1 .h4!! (threatening 2 2 .h 5 + ;t>xh5 23.g4+ 'it'g6 24.'l£ff5+ 'it'h6 25.'l£th7+ 'it'xg5 2 6 . �h 5 + ;t(f4 2 7 . �f5 * ) 2 l . ..�c4! ( 2 1 . . .
211
Chess Analytics 2 l . . :li'Yd7 22.e6!; 2 1 . . .f5 22.l"!.d4!; 21...f6 22.h5+ 'it7xh5 23.g4+ 'it7h6 24.�h2+) 22.h5+ 'it7h6 23.4:Jxf7+ 'it7h7 24.�f5+ 'it7g8 25.e6! (this vital point to justify White ' s play was part of Lev Polugaevsky ' s deep preparation) 25 . . . �f6 (White was threatening both 26.e7 and 26.h6) 26.�xf6 gxf6 27.l"!.d2! (27.4:Jd6?! 4:lxd1 28.e7 l"!.cl! is unclear) 27 . . . l"!. c6!? (also interesting is 27 ... 4:Ja4 28.4:Jd6, though White of course retains his advantage) 28.l"!. xb2 l"!. e8? (Black's position was highly unpleasant, but he could have set White more problems with 28 ... Jlc8!. White retains a plus with either 29.e7 l"!.e8 30.4:Jd8 or 29.4:Jh6+ 'it7h7 30.4:lf5 l"!. xe6 3 l .l"!.cl) 29.4:lh6+! 'it7h7 30.4:Jf5 l"!. ex e6 3 l . l"!. x e6 l"!. xe6 32.l"!.c2 l"!. c6 33.l"!.e2 Ac8 (or 33 ... l"!.c7 3 4 . l"!. e6) 34 . l"!. e7 + 'it7h8 3 5 . 4:Jh4 f5 3 6 . 4:Jg6+ 'it7g8 3 7 . l"!. x a7 1 -0 Polugaevsky-Tal, Moscow 1 969.
12.0-0 Ab7 13 ..§fe1 .!dd7
18.4)g5! 4)f8 19. .!de4 Axe4 Forced as otherwise the knight will land on d6-square.
20.� x e4 .§dS 2 1 .h4! �e7 22.�g4 .§a3?! Black overestimates his chances. He should have played 22 . . . �a3 ;l; .
23.Ac4 b5 24.Ab3! a5 It seems that Black has created suf ficient counterplay in the queenside. But "Viktor the Terrible" unleashes a great "positional" combination. 25.d5! a4? (D)
13 ... 4:Jc6 will transpose to 1 1 ... 4:Jc6 notes.
14. .§ad1 .§c8 15.Ad3 1 5.Ab3 4:lf6 16.d5 exd5 1 7.exd5 l"!. c5 1 8 .d6 is also good, Olafsson Unzicker, Lugano 1 970.
15 ... .§e8 16.�e3 White's other options are: (a) 16.Ab1 h6 (16. . .4:Jf8 1 7.l"!.e3 �d6 1 8 .�b2 l"!. ed8 Yz-Yz Prusikin Levin, Germany 2 006) 1 7 .h3 �c7 18.4:Jh2 �c3 1 9.�f4 4:Jf8 20.l"!.e3 oo Grooten-Horvath, Leeuwarden 1 995. (b) 16.h4 h6 17.Ab5 l"!.e7 18.Jlxd7 l"!. xd7 1 9 .4:Je5 l"!. dc7 20.�f4 �d6= Mamedyarov-Marcelin, lstanbul 2003. (c) 1 6 . �f4 �f6 1 7 .�g3 �g6 18.�f4 �f6 19.�g3 �g6 20:li'ff4 �f6 ;j; Yz - Yz Pedersen-Gyimes i , Germany 2005. 16... .§c3 17.e5 �c7 (D)
In view of what happened, Black should have tried 25 ... exd5 26.Axd5 ± . But who can blame Miguel Najdorffor not seeing the future . . .
26.dxe6! axb3 Black had no choice but to accept the sacrifice, as 26. . .fxe6 27.l"!. xd8 axb3 (27 . . . �xd8 28.Axe6+) 28.l"!. xf8+ 'it7xf8 29.l"!.cl is out of the question.
27.exf7+ �h8 Unfortunately for Black, he cannot continue with 27 . . . 'it7xf7 28.l"!. xd8 bxa2 (28 . . . �xd8 29.e6+ 'it7g8 [29 . . . 4:lxe6
212
Pawns on the Seventh Rank 30.�xe6+ \l'JfS 3l .§e5 g6 32.§d5 �e7 33.�c8+ \l'if7 34.§d7 bxa2 35.§ xe7+ \l'ixe7 36.�c5+] 30.e7 �eS 3 1 .�b4! §aS 32.exf8�+ �xfS 33.�xb3+ \l'JhS 34.�xb5 +- § xa2? 35.§e8) 29.§a8! § xaS 30.�f3+ \l'ig6 3 1 . �c6+ �e6 3 2 .�xa8 4Jd7 3 3 . § e 2 4J x e 5 34.§ xa2 +- .
28.§.xd8 �xd8 29.axb3 �e7 30.e6 §.a6 (D)
36.�c8+? White falls into Black's clever, last trap. 36.�c5 was decisive: 36 . . . �xc5+ (36 . . . �e4 37.f8�+ § xfS 38.�xf8+ \l'ih7 39.�c5) 37.§ xc5 ms 38.§xb5.
36... �h7! Not of course 36. . . § xc8? 37.§ xc8+ \l'ih7 38.f84J+!! \l'JgS 39.4Jg6+ \l'Jh7 40.§h8 * . 30 . . . § xb3 3 1 . § c l h6 3 2 . § c8 § b l + 3 3 .\l'Jh2 § e l 3 4 . § e8 �d6+ 35.�g3 is curtains. Now it seems that Black will get the important e6-pawn and probably the game, but the great Viktor had a differ ent opinion!
3l.f4!! h6 After the "obvious" 3 l . ..§ xe6 and the forced continuation 32.§ xe6 �xe6 (32 . . . 4Jxe6 33.�xe6) 33.�xe6 4::l x e6 34.f5 4Jf8 35.h5! g6 (35 . . . h6 36.g4! g6 37.f6) 36.h6!! gxf5 37.\l'Jf2, White wins as he will capture the black b-pawn with his king, allowing his own b-pawn to queen. In the meantime Black can only play his knight around the f8-square, as his king is locked in a golden cage!
32.f5 Now, White's protected and con nected passed pawns will carry the day.
32 .. .l£)h7 33.§.cl §.aS 34. �f4 4)f6 35. �c7! Breaking down Black's blockade. 35 ... �b4 (D)
37.�xa8?! 37.�c3 �xh4 38.§f1 4Jg4 39.�h3 �xh3 40.gxh3 4Je5 4 1 .§cl g6 42.§c5 4Jxf7 4 3 . e x f7 § fS 4 4 . § xb5 § x f7 45.fxg6+ \l'ixg6 also led to a draw, but White should have tried it.
37... �d4+ 38.�fl �f4+? Black blunders in tum. He could have achieved an undeserved draw with the simple 38 . . . �d3+!.
39.�e2 �e5+ 40.�dl l-O Now White can avoid the perpetual check as h i s king escapes to the queenside, so Black resigned. Conclusion Connected passed pawns on the seventh are a tremendous weapon that can easily compensate for a piece or even more. It is absolutely necessary to clear the path to their promotion, while the defending side should be focused in counterplay against the opponent's king.
213
Chess Analytics 31.�h2!
A King's March Concept The king is a strong piece (Will iam Steinitz) and can even have an ac tive role in some special middlegame positions, participating in the attack. This motif is of course quite rare in practice, because the attacking side must be extremely careful and watch out that his king will not stumble! But of course when we come across of such examples we can admire the courage of the king that ignores the basic rules that we usually became familiar with in childhood. (177) Short - Timman Tilburg 1 99 1 Alekhine's Defense [B04]
l .e4 lL!f6 2.e5 lL!d5 3.d4 d6 4.lL!f3 g6 5.Ac4 lL!b6 6.Ab3 .ilg7 7. tf!Je2 lL!c6 8.0-0 0-0 9 .h3 a5 10.a4 dxe5 ll.dxe5 lL!d4 12.lL! xd4 tf!J xd4 13 . .§e1 e6 14.lL!d2 lL!d5 15.lL!f3 tf!Jc5 16. tf!Je4 tf!Jb4 17.Ac4 lL!b6 18.b3 lL! xc4 19.bxc4 .§e8 20. .§d1 tf!Jc5 21. tf!Jh4 b6 22.Ae3 tf!Jc6 23.Ah6 Ahs 24. .§d8 Ab7 25 . .§adl .ilg7 26 . .§8d7 .§f8 27.A xg7 � xg7 28 . .§ 1d4 .§ae8 29.tf!Jf6+ �g8 30.h4 h5 (D)
White is dominating, but there seems to be no way to improve his pieces' placement, as all of them are in really good squares already. Well, all but one! The king, now entering the battle, heads for the h6-square and helps to mate its black counterpart!
31 ... .§c8? Black misses the threat. Although his position is beyond repair, he should try 3 l . . . .ilc8 when White would have to find a strong continuation starting with 32.g4! hxg4 (32 . . .Jlxd7 33.gxh5 gxh5 34.�g5+ �h8 35.�xh5+ �g7 36. l"l. g4 * ) 3 3 .4:'lg5 g3+ ! (33 . . . .ilxd7 34.h5 g3+ 3 5 .fxg3; 33 . . . Jlb7 34.f3) 34.�xg3 (or 34.fxg3 .ilb7 35.4:'le4 �xa4 36.h5 �xc2+ 37.4:'lf2 gxh5 [37 . . .�f5 38.hxg6!] 38.l"l. d3 Jle4 39.l"l.d2 �bl 4 0 . l"l. d l �c2 4 1 . l"1. 7d2 � x c4 42.l"l.d4 +- ) 34 . . . Jlxd7 35.�h2!! +- .
32.�g3! .§ce8 33.�f4! Ac8 34.�g5! 1-0 (D)
The white king fulfilled its mission and Black had to resign. The most "ancient" example we have discovered is nearly 200 years old. It was played in Paris between two leg ends: Our first example is a well-known one. In the diagrammed position Nigel Short surprised the whole chess world with his beautiful idea.
214
Deschapelles -De Labourdonnais Paris 1 83 6 (D)
A King's March l . iii'e 6+ 'it'h7 2 .iii' x d5 ( 2 .4:lxc4? iii'c 5+ -+ ) 2 ...Axd5 3 . .§ d2 .llg8 4.'3i'f2 gives White a clear advantage and should be preferred instead, but the text move turns out to be more effective in the game and difficult to "ignore! "
l ...b5!
Black is ready to reap the harvest of his efforts by queening his e-pawn, among other things. But again, the at tacking position of the white king forces the result. Vil xh6+ gxh6 The other option is l . . .'it'h8 2Ajf7+ 'iff g 8 3 . iii' x g7+ '3i'xg7 4 . .1lf6+ '3i'g8 5.4Jh6 # .
2.�h8+!! Crowning an excellent combina tion. A lonely king and a bishop have proven stronger than the rest ofBlack's ��Y· As is nearly always the case, qual Ity IS more important than quantity!
2...
(178) Teichmann - Consultants Glasgow 1 902 (D)
2.
2...a5? Black takes the bait! He should play 2 ...iii'd 3+ when nothing is clear cut. An i l l ustrative variation i s 3 . .§ e3 (3.'it'h4 '3i'h7) 3 . . . iii' d 2 4.'3i'h4 'ifih7 5 . .§g3 .§g8 6 ..§g6 Axg2 7.4:le8 iii'f2+ 8 . .§g3 iii'f4 ;!; .
3.
3...g6
All White's forces are well-placed and give him the advantage. There is one more piece to come into play and that can only be the king! If it is able to get to g6, mate will follow.
l.
1 . . .h5 does not allow the white king to march, but Black loses with 2 . iii' e 6+ ! ( 2 . 'it'g3 iii' d 3+ 3 . 'it'h4 b5 4.'it'xh5?? iii'g3 -+ ) 2 . . .'3i'h7 3.4:lxc4+- .
A waiting move as 3 . . . .§ a8 allows White to enter a winning endgame with 4.iii'e6+! (4 . .§e3 is ambitious, but it does not lead to anything after 4 ...'3i'h7 5 . .§g3 .§g8 6 . .§g6 b4 7.g3 bxc3 8.bxc3 iii'd2 9 .iii'c7 .ll d 5 ! [9 . . . iii' d 5? 1 0 . .§ xf6 +- ] 1 0.4:le8? [ 1 0 .4Jf7 Axf7 l l .iii' x f7 a4 1 2 . a 3 iii' c l ! = ] 10 . . . iii' g 5+ l l . .§ xg5 hxg5 + 1 2 .'3i'g4 .§ xe8 1 3 .iii' d 7 .§ e 5 14.h4 .llg2 - + and i t i s Black who i s winning!) 4 . . . iii'x e6 5 .fxe6 .§d8 6 . .§ d2! 'it'f8 7.e7+ '3i'xe7 8.4:lf5+ '3i'e8 9.4:lxg7+ 'it'e7 1 0.4:lf5+ 'it'e8 l l ..§ xd8+ '3i'xd8 12.g4 +- .
4.f!e3! �xg2
215
Chess Analytics The other option was 4 . . :�c5 5.g4 ile4 6 . �e6+ �h8 7 . �x e 4 �xd6 8.fxg6 +- .
46.ilg7 * is nice and effective! (180) Tibensky - Franzen Stary Smokovec 1 985 (D)
5 . .§g3 �f2 5 . . . g5+ 6.�h5 �xg3 7.�g6 (D)
. . . and the king triumphs !
6.fxg6 �f4+ 7 . .§g4 �f2+ 8.�h5 1-0 Mate is near. The king has fulfilled its middlegame duties! (179) Tarrasch - Reti Vienna 1 922 (D)
All White's pieces seem to be placed in their best positions. All but one!
27.�h4! g6 28.�g5 .§bb8 29.�h6 .§fc8 The main alternative, 29 . . . �c6, also fails to save B lack: 3 0 . <£Jd2! ( 3 0 . �xg6+? fxg6 3 1 . § g7 + �h8 3 2 . § h7 ;J; ) 30 . . . § b4 3 1 . <£Jf3 ! ilc5 (3 1 . . .�e4 3 2 . § xf7! �xd3 3 3 . § g7+ �h8 3 4 . § xd3) 3 2 . § x f7 ! § xf7 (32 . . . �xf7 33.�xg6+ �e7 34.�g5+ �f7 35.�f6+ �e8 36.§d8 # ) 33.�xg6+ �f8 34.§d8+ �e8 35.<£Jg5! +- .
30. .§xf7! �xf7 31. �xg6+ �e7 32.�f6+ �e8 (D)
White's king is active and in con trast to its "ugly" opponent, can enter the battle and cooperate with its pieces.
37.�g3! lL! xc3 38.�f4 lL!b5 39.�e5 Just compare the kings!
39... .§e8 39 . . . �g8 40.§g7+ �h8 4U:'1b7 <£Ja3 42.�xe6 �g8 43.�xd5 and the d pawn (among others !) will decide.
40.�f6 1-0 And Black resigned, as 40 ... �g8 4 l .§ g7+ �h8 42.§b7 <£Jd6 43. §d7 <£Jc4 4 4 . �f7 § g8 4 5 . § d8 § x d8
33.lL!d6+! Also winning is 33. �g6+ �e7 (33 .. .\fif8 34.�g7+ �e8 35.<£Jd6+ cxd6 36.exd6 +- ) 34.�g7+ �e8 35 .<£Jd6+ cxd6 36.exd6 §c7 37.dxc7 +- .
33 ... c x d6 34. � x e6 + �f8 35.exd6 .§b7
216
A King's March There is no salvation any more: 35 . . . �c3 36.�e7+ �g8 37.l'�d3 �h8+ 38.�g6 +- .
(182) Rivas Pastor - Rodriguez Lorca 2005 (D)
36.d7 .§. x d7 37 . .§. xd7 �b6 38. .§.f7+ <jfjlgS 39 . .§.g7+ 1-0 Black resigned as he will be mated in the next move. (181) Pedzich - Ehrenfeucht Police 1 992 (D)
White stands clearly better, as he has full control of the only open file on the board. I am sure that there must be more than one way to win, but in the game White tried the most effective: the participation of his king in a direct at tack against its counterpart!
l.
Materially speaking, Black seems to be doing fine. But the main problem of his position is his king, which is un der heavy attack. White can attack it with all his forces, including his king!
29.
30.J1,xg7 .§.f5+ 30 . . . �xg7 3 1 . �h6+ �g8 32.<£lf6+ .§ xf6 33.�xf6 leads to mate in the next move.
White is in a big hurry! He should first play 5 .bxa4 reaching a won end ing after 5 . . .�xa4 6.l"l xb7 �xa2 7.�h4 �c2 8.�g5 �f5+ 9.�xf5 exf5 (9 . . . gxf5 1 0 . � x h 5 �g7 l l . g4 +- ) 1 0 . l"l b 5 ! (10.l"ld7 .§ a8 l l . .§ xd5 .§a2) 1 0 . . . .§ d8 l l .�f6 .§ d6+ 1 2 .�e5 .§a6 1 3 . l"l xd5 .§ a 2 1 4 . �f6 l"l a6+ 1 5 . �e 7 .§ a 2 16.l"lc5 +- . 5 ...axb3 6.axb3 �fl? (D)
3l.<jfjlh6 f6 3 1 . . . .§h5+ 32.�xh5 gxh5 33A:Jf6 # is a nice end to a king march!
32.4) xf6+
33 . . . .§. h 5 + 34. � x h5 g x h 5 35.4) xe5+
B lack could save himself with 6 . . . �xb3! 7 . �g5 �b l 8 . \t>h6 �f5 9.�xf5 exf5 10. .§ xb7 l"ld8 1 1 ..§b5 \t>f8.
7.h6 f6 9.l"lg7+ �h8 1 0 . l"l f7! \t>g8 l l . .§ xf6 .§ xf6
217
Chess Analytics An effective queen sacrifice' Not of c ourse 5 . . . l"l g8? 6 . �f6+ l"l g7 7.�xg7 * .
1 2 .�xf6 +- ; 7 . . .'�d3 8J! xb7 �f5+ 9. �xf5 e xf5 1 0 . b4 l"l c8 l l .b5 l"lc2 1 2.'iftf6 l"!xf2 13.l"l xf7 f4 14.l"lg7+ 'iftf8 1 5.exf4 l"!xf4+ 1 6.'iftxg6 l"! xd4 1 7.b6 l"lb4 1 8.b7 +- .
6 . � xg4 )3g8 7.�e2 )3g6+ S.lit>h5 f51 0-1
8.1it>h6 �e2 9.f3 f6 10.)3g7+ lit>hS 11. �c7 1-0
And White loses material and the game.
B l ack resigned in view of l l . . .�xe3+ 1 2.f4. The attacking side of course may still have to be wary of danger and make sure the tables are not quickly turned.
Of course, the king does not always have to be in middle of the battle. There is no point going in for a march with the king without a concrete objective. It will usually end in disaster. Take a look at the next two examples . . .
(183) Vukovic (D) (184) Grivas - Drepaniotis Athens 1 982 English Opening [A3 1 ]
White has a technically won posi tion. Black's weak pawn structure and king should not keep White from scor ing the full point.
1.d4 �f6 2.�f3 c 5 3.c4 cxd4 4.� xd4 e5 5.�b5 d5 6.cxd5 Ac5 7 . � 5c3 0-0 8.a4 a6 9 . � a3 b5 1 0 . a x b5 a x b5 1 1 . � c x b 5 �e4 12.e3 Ab4+ 13.1it>e2 �h4 14.g3 � h 5 + 1 5 . f3 � xg3+ 1 6 . h x g3 �xh1 17.1it>d3 e4+ 18.1it>xe4 (D)
1.1it>h4? l .l"ldl is the correct follow-up.
1 ... � xel+ 2.1it>h5 �xfl 3.h4 �f3 4. �g5+ lit>hS (D)
White 's opening "experiments" haven proven disastrous and his king does not seem to have a bright future in the center of the board. Well, White knew that he was lost, so he had noth ing to lose; on the other hand Black felt obliged to score the point, which sub jected him to some psychological stress.
5.1it>h6? It was time for a perpetual check with 5.�f6+.
18...Aa6 19.E!b1 �h5 20.Iit>d4 E!cS?! The first inaccuracy. 20 . . . �g6!
5 ... �xg41
218
A King's March 2 1 .e4 ( 2 1 .Ac4 4Jc6+) 2 1 . . .'l1¥ b 6 + 22.'il'id3 .ilxa3 was easy and effective.
(185) Karpov - Zaitsev,A. Kuibyshev 1 970 Caro-Kann Defense [B 1 7]
21.e4 .1lc5+ 22.�d3 �e5?1 22 . . . 4Jd7 23.b4 Af2 is again win ning, as the upcoming ... 4Je5+ is deadly. 23 . .1le3 .1lxa3 24.bxa3 (D)
l.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3 . .i£)c3 dxe4 4 . .1£) x e4 .!£) d 7 5 . .i£) f3 .i£) gf6 6. .!£) xf6+ .i£) xf6 7. .i£)e5 .1lf5 8.c3 e6 9.g4 .1lg6 10.h4 .1ld6 11. �e2 c5 12.h5 .1le4 13.f3 cxd4 14.�b5+ .i£)d7 15 . .i£)xf7 .1lg3+ 16.�e2 d3+ 17.�e3 �f6 18.�xe4 �xf7 (D)
-� ��
�
���T� -�1 -�!1iR�R-���-��� - .ft 0� ��
'Pm�ii:FA �mY.;i�_//-mi·ft� ii: ��m m � ti �� �� g
24... �c3+? This is a well-known problem: when everything looks good, you miss the correct way. Black had to play the simple 24 . . . .ilxb5+ 25.l"l xb5 l"l xa3+ 26.'il'ie2 l"la2+ 27.Ad2 l"lcc2 which would have been enough for White to resign.
-
White did not handle the opening with accuracy and as a result his king was "forced" to take up an unpleasant central position in the middlegame !
19 . .§h3
25.�e2 .1lxb5+ 25 .. .'ii¥ xa3 26. 'il'if2 and White is doing fine.
White's weakest point, f3, must be defended.
19 ...a6 20.�g5 h6?
26 . .§xb5 .§xa3 27.�d2 �al? The ending after 2 7 .. .'t1hd2+? 28 . .ilxd2 4Jd7 29.Ah3 l"l a7 30.f4 is pleasant for White but Black should have kept the queens on board with 27 . . .'t�H6.
28..1}.d4! �a2 29.�xa2 .§xa2+ 30.�e3 .§a3+ 31 ..1ld3 Suddenly it is White who holds the advantage!
31 ...f6 32. .§b7 +/- .i£)a6? 33..§a7 1-0 This is an example of how "not to play" in the opening ! Do not bring your king out into the battle too early; you will not always be as lucky as White was in this game !
A critical mistake, throwing the win away. Black could force a clearly better (if not winning) position with 20 . . . e5! 2 l .l"l xg3 4Jc5+ 22 .'il'ie3 0-0 23.Axd3 (23.Sh3? sad8 24.Ad2 4Je4! 25 .'il'ixe4 [25.fxe4 'ii¥f2 # ] 25 . . . 'li¥d5 + 26.'il'ie3 'ii¥c 5+ 27.'il'ie4 l"ld4+ 28.'it'e3 S xg4+ 29.'it'xd3 S xg5 30.Axg5 e4+ 3 l .fxe4 'i!¥xg5 -+ ) 23 . . . 'ii¥f4+ 24.'ii¥x f4 exf4+ 25.'it'd4 4Jxd3 (25 .. .fxg3 26.'it'xc5 g2 27.Ac4+ �h8 28.Ag5) 26.l"lg2 l"lad8+ 27.�c4 4Je5+ 28.'it'b3 Sdl + .
2l.�e3! The only move, as the alternative 2 1 .'ii¥g6? loses as follows: 2 1 . . .4Jc5+ 2 2 .'it'e3 ( 2 2 .'it'd4? 0- 0-0+! 2 3 .'it'xc5 [23.'il'ic4 'ii¥d7 24.a4 'li¥d5+ 2 5 . �b4 'li¥b3+ 2 6 . 'it' x c 5 l"l d5 # ] 23 . . . 'ii¥ c 7+
219
Chess Analytics 24.�b4 .§. d4+ 25.cxd4 �d6+ 26.�a4 'I¥Yc4+ 27.b4 �xb4 # ) 22 . . .M4+ 23.�f2 'I¥Yxg6 24.hxg6 d2 25.�xd2 �xd2 -+ .
21 ...e5?1 Black should force a draw with 2 1 . . . 4Jf6+ 2 2 . � x d3 4Jxg4 2 3 .fxg4 'I¥Yxfl+ 24.�c2 �xh3 25 .'1¥Yxe6+ �d8 26.'1¥Yd5+ �c8 27.'1¥Yf5+ �b8 28.�f4+ �xf4 29.'1¥Yxf4+ �c8 30.�c4+. He did not understand that he could not play for a win anymore, and as a result he was punished!
�c7 4 5 . � a7+ �dS 46." � x a6 � xh5 47.f4 �f5 4S.�aS+ �c7 49.�a5+ �c6 50.c4 b4 51.�xb4 .§.e6 52.fxe5 �c7 53.�a5+ �b7 54. �b5+ .§.b6 5 5 . �d5+ �c7 56.�bl �f2 57 . .§.4e2 �f5+ 5S. �e4 � x e4 + 59 . .§. x e4 /d c 5 6 0. .§.4e3 4)e6 61.�c2 g5 62.�c3 h5 63.b4 .§.a6 64.c5 .!3.a3+ 65.�c4 .§. x e3 66 . .§. x e3 h4 67.b5 �dS 6S.b6 �d7 69 . .!3.d3+ �cS 70. .§.d6 h3 71 . .§.xe6 g4 72 . .§.h6 1-0
22.�xd31 Af4 23.�gl! The white queen must keep an eye to the d7-knight and its "entry" square, c5.
23 . . . 0-0-0 24.�c2 A x e l 25 . .§. xcll (D)
Conclusion A king's march can be shown to be decisive in positions in which we are in full control and our opponent is lack ing effective counterplay. As it is our "only" badly placed piece it is logical to think of ways to improve it, as it can easily deliver the decisive blow. But of course we should be very careful with such action . . . Pawn Endings
White returns the pawn, but he completes the mobilization of all his pieces. The weaknesses in Black's po sition, the pawn structure and worse minor piece, will soon begin to weigh heavily. From this point the game does not have a real connection to our sub ject. The end was an impressive piece of technique:
25 . . . � x a2 26 . .§.h2 .§.hfS 27 . .§.d2 �a4+ 2S.�bl + = �c6 29.Ad3 �c7 30. .1l,e4 �b6 31.�h2 .§.deS 32 . .§.cdl 4)f6 33.Ag6 .§.e7 34 . .§.el �b5 35 . .§.de2 /dd7 36.Af5! +/- .§.xf5 37.gxf5 �d3+ 3S.�al � xf5 39. �h4 /df6 40.�c4+ �dS 4 1 . �c5 /dd7 42.�d5 �cS 43. .§.e4 b5 44. �aS+
Concept Pawn endings are fundamental to the education of an aspiring chessplayer. The reason is obvious: no matter what kind of ending we encoun ter, there will always be moments when the possibility of a transition (through exchanges) to a pawn ending will force us to properly evaluate its positive or negative properties and accordingly make our decision. Many games never reach the endgame . However, every good chessplayer, even in the heat of the battle, must consider the endings that can possibly arise in the course of the game. Our opening moves must take into account the consequences they may impose on a future ending. Doubled,
220
Pawn Endings isolated, immobilized or passed pawns, strong and weak squares - in general, all the positional elements, positive or negative - must be considered and evaluated. Anticipation of a favorable ending or fear of an inferior one will often influence our decisions in the middlegame, in the sense of selecting or rejecting certain continuations. When dissatisfied with a prospective ending we will often opt for unclear complica tions or serious material or positional concessions. In the end, our evaluation of the endings that may arise will af fect the entire course of the battle. In comparison with other types of endings, very few games actually reach a pawn ending. Based on this fact, many chessplayers tend to underestimate its rich content and significance. It would be wrong to assume that perfect knowl edge of its technical side is easy to mas ter and that, consequently, its study is unimportant. A pawn ending lurks be hind every position and proper knowl edge and evaluation can prove very use ful to our decision-making process. Pawn endings have their own spe cifics that set them apart from other types of endings. Their main character istic is the significant role of the king, which transforms itself from a subject of protection by the other pieces to the most useful piece in combat. As a rule, the active participation of the king in the proceedings decides the outcome of a pawn ending. Also, the value ofpawns i s greatly increased, thanks to their unique ability to promote to any other piece. Consequently, the basic aim in a pawn ending is to create a passed pawn and promote it. The transformation of the pawn can be considered as an origi nal way of gaining material! Such a drastic change in the material balance
between the opponents is usually suffi cient to cease further resistance. The threat of promotion, or even that of cre ating a passed pawn, is a powerful weapon in itself. In pawn endings, the king is the main motivating power, guiding and coordinating the advance of the pawns. As a rule, the king heads for the center, from where, according to needs, it may be directed to either flank, usually to attack enemy pawns. The king also ex ecutes complex maneuvers, aiming to occupy or defend critical squares, or to force the opponent to move, i.e., to cre ate a position of zugzwang. Behind the veil of simplicity that covers pawn end ings, quite often one can discover true gems and fantastic opportunities! (186) Krasenkow - Gelfand Polanica Zdroj 1 997 English Opening [A28]
1.c4 e5 2.l�)c3 4)f6 3.4){3 4)c6 4.d4 exd4 5.4)xd4 Ab4 6.g3 4)e5 7.�b3 Ac5 8. .Q.e3 d6 9.4)a4 0-0 1 0 . 4) xc5 d x c5 1 1 . 4){3 4) x f3 + 12.exf3 b 6 13 . .Q.g2 .Q.b7 14.0-0 �d6 15.§ad1 �c6 16.�d3 §fe8 17.§fe1 h6 18.h3 4)h7 19.b3 4)f8 20.\t>h2 4)g6 2 1 . �c3 § adS 22.§xd8 § xd8 23.Jl.cl f6 24.Jl,h1 24 ... �d6 25.f4 Jl,xh1 26.\t>xh1 4)e7 27.�f3 �c6 28.\t>g2 \t>f8 29.�xc6 4) xc6 30.f5 4)b4 31.§e2 §e8 32.§d2 §e1 33.Aa3 4)c6 34.§d7 §e7 35.§xe7 \t>xe7 Yz-Yz (D)
22 1
Chess Analytics Here Black offered a draw which was immediately accepted by White. But there is a problem in this deci sion, as he seems to be winning: 36.�f3 (36. ..1lb2 doesn't help: 36 . . . 4::lb4 37.a3 4::lc 6 [with the threat .. A:Ia5] 38 ...1lc3 4::l d 4 39 . ..1lxd4 c xd4 4 0 . �f3 �d6 4 1 .
Now Black's plan is . . .�d6-c5 and . . . a6, . . .b5, winning. It is true that both sides have doubled pawns, which don't seem to help either, but the big differ ence is the white pawn on c4 - if it were on c2 the draw would be assured. Black can create an assault on c4 and eventu ally un-double his queenside pawns. So, 38.�e4 (the alternative is 38.�g4 a6 39.f4 c5 40.�f3 b5 41 .�e4 �d6 [Black must avoid an early exchange : 4 l . . .bxc4? 42.bxc4 a5 43.�d3 a4 as here White can achieve a draw with 44.a3!=] 42 .�d3 �c6 which trans p o s e s : 4 3 . �c 2 �b6 4 4 . �b 2 a 5 [44 . . . bxc4? 45.bxc4 a5 46.a4=] 45.a3 a4! -+ ) 38 ... �d6 39.�d4 (if39.f4, then 39 . . . c6 43.a4 (43.a3 bxa3+ [43 . . .�b6 44.�a2 �a5 (44 . . . a5 45.a4=) 45.�b2 bxc4 46.bxc4 �a4 -+ ) 44.�xa3 �b6 45.g4 �a5 46.h4 �b6 47.h5 �a5 48.g5 �b6 49.�b2 a5 50.g6=) 43 ...�b6 44.�c2 �a5 45.axb5 axb5 46. �d3 h5! (46. . .bxc4+? 47. �xc4 d5 'b5 4 9 . g4 �b6
50.�d6=) 47.g4 h4 48.g5 �b6 49.�c2 and now the triangulation decides : 49 . . . �a6! 5 0 . cxb5+ ( 5 0 . �d3 �a5 5 1 .g6 �b6 52.�c2 �a6 53.�d3 �a5 54.cxb5 �xb5 -+ ) 50 . . . �xb5 5 1 .�d3 c4+! 52.bxc4+ �c5 53.g6 b3 54.�c3 b2 55 .�xb2 �xc4 -+ ] 40.g4 a6 41.h4 b5 42.cxb5 axb5 43.g5 �d6 44.�d4 c5+ 45.�e4 �c6 46.h5 �d6 47.�e3 �d5 48.�d3 c4+ 49.�e3 c3 50.g6 c2 5 1 .�d2 �e4 52.�xc2 �xf4 53.�d3 �xf5 -+ ) 39 . . . c5+ 40.�e4 a6 4 l .f4 b5 42 .�d3 h5 (also good is 42 . . . �c6 43.�c2 a5 44.�b2 a4! 45.a3 [45.�c2 bxc4 46.bxc4 a3! 47.�cl �b6 48.�c2 �a6! 49. �d3 � a 5 5 0 . �d 2 �a4 5 l . � c 2 b 3 + 5 2 . a x b 3 + �b4 -+ ] 45 . . . bxa3+ 46.�xa3 axb3 47.�xb3 h 5 -+ ) 43 .g4 h x g4 4 4 . hxg4 �c6 45.�c2 a5 46.�d3 �b6 47.g5 a4 (D)
48.�c2 (48 . g6 a x b 3 4 9 . a x b 3 bxc4+ 50.�xc4 [50.bxc4 �a5 5 1 .�c2 �a4 -+ ] 50 . . . �c6 -+ ) 48 . . . bxc4 49.bxc4 a3! 50.�b3 �a5 5 l .g6 �b6 52.�c2 and now 52 . . . �a6! decides. The next example is very com plicated and I would consider it as a one-game lesson. Yes, pawn endings can be really complicated, but very good work-laboratori es for a chessplayer's education!
222
(187) Muzychuk - Ju Ningbo 2009 Sicilian Defense [B90]
Pawn Endings
l.e4 c5 2.4)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4)f6 5.4)c3 a6 6.Ae3 e5 7.4)de2 Ae7 8.4)g3 Ae6 9.Ae2 00 10.0-0 4) bd7 1 1 . 4)d5 -'1, x d5 12.exd5 4)e8 13.4)f5 Ag5 14.f4 e x f4 1 5 . A x f4 g6 16.4)e3 4)g7 17 . -'1, x g5 � xg5 1 8 . 4) c4 4)b6 19.4) x b6 �e3+ 20.�hl � xb6 2l.b3 4)f5 22.�d2 4)e3 23. .§fel .§ae8 24.c4 §.e5 25 .Af3 .§fe8 26 . .§acl �d8 27.§.e2 4)f5 28.§.cel .§ x e2 2 9 . §. x e2 §. xe2 30.-'1,xe2 �f6 3l.�gl �e5 32.g3 a5 33.Af3 b6 34.�g2 h5 35. �e2 �d4 36.h4 �g7 37.�f2 �e5 38.�h3 4)e3 39.�e2 �f6 40.�h2 4)f5 41.�f2 �e3 42.�b2+ 4)d4 43.-'tdl �e7 44.�g2 4)f5 45.�f2 �f6 46.-'1,c2 �e5 47.Axf5 � xf2+ 48.�xf2 � xf5 49.�f3 (D)
49...�e5? Black should have gone in for the plan with . . . g5 while the white king was on f3 . Why? You' ll see soon! Correct move order was 49 . . . f6! and now: (a) 50.a3? g5! 5 l .b4 (51 .hxg5 fxg5 52.g4+ hxg4+ 53.�g3 �e4 54.�xg4 �d4 5 5 .�xg5 [55.a4 'c3 56.�xg5 �xb3 -+ ] 5 5 . . . a4! [55 . . . �c3? 56.�f5 �xb3 57.�e6=] 56.bxa4 �xc4 -+ ) 5 1 . . .gxh4 52.gxh4 a4 (Black also wins after 52 . . . �e5 53.'e3 f5 54.bxa5 bxa5 5 5 . a4 f4+ 5 6 . �d3 f3 5 7 . \t> e 3 f2 58.�xf2 �d4 59.�f3 'xc4 60.�f4 �xd5 6 l .�g5 �e4 6 2 . �xh5 �f5 ! [62 . . . d5? 63.�g6 d4 64.h5 d3 65.h6 d2
66.h7 dl� 67.h8� �g4+ 68.�f6!=] 63.�h6 d5 64.h5 d4 65.�g7 d3 66.h6 d2 67.h7 dl� 68.h8� �d7+ 69.�f8 �d8+ 70.�g7 �e7+ 7 l .�g8 \t>g6! -+ but not with 52 . . .axb4? 53.axb4 �e5 54.\t>e3 f5 5 5 .b5! f4+ 56.'f3 �d4 57.�xf4 \t>xc4 58.�g5 �xb5 59.\t>xh5 �c5 60.\t>g6 b5=) 53.�e3 \t>e5 (D)
54.�d3 f5 55.�e3 f4+ 56.�d3 f3 57.�e3 f2 58.\t>xf2 �d4 59.�f3 �xc4 60. �f4 'b3 6 l . �f5 \t>xa3 62.�e6 �xb4 63.�xd6 a3 -+ . (b) 50.a4? g5 5 1 .hxg5 fxg5 52.g4+ hxg4+ 53.�g3 �f6 54.�xg4 \t>g6 -+ . (c) 50.�e3! Best. White's alterna tives are easy to handle as it was shown. Now Black again is on crossroads: (c l ) 50 . . . �g4?! 5 l . a3 (51 .�f2? g5 52 .a3 [52 .hxg5 fxg5 5 3 . a3 �f5 -+ ] 52 ... gxh4 53.gxh4 �f4 -+ ) 5 1 . . .�xg3 52.b4 axb4 53.axb4 f5 54.�e2! �g2 55.�e3=. (c2) 50 . . .\t>e5?! 5 l .a3 b5! 52.cxb5 �xd5 53.a4 (53.b4 axb4 54.axb4 �e6 55.b6 [55.�d4 g5; 55.�e4 �d7 56.b6 �c6 57.b7 �xb7 58.\t>d5 �c7 59.\t>e6 g5 60.\t>xf6 gxh4 6l .gxh4 d5 62.�g5 (62.�e5 \t>c6 63.�d4 \t>b5=) 62 . . . d4 63.�f4 �c6 64 .�e4 �b5 65.�xd4 �xb4=] 55 ... �d7 56.b5 �c8 57.�e4 �b7 58 .\t>d5 �xb6 59.�xd6 �xb5 60.�e6 g5 6 1 .\t>xf6 gxh4 6 2 . gxh4 �c5=) 53 ... �c5 54.\t>f4 (54.\t>e4 d5+ 5 5 . �f4 \t>d6 5 6 . � e 3 g5 5 7 . \t> d4 [57.g4? d4+ ! -+ ] 57 . . . gxh4 58.gxh4 f5=; 54.�e2 d5 55.\t>f2 [55.�e3? g5
223
Chess Analytics 56.g4 d4+ 57.'�i'f2 hxg4 58.h5 d3 59.h6 g3+ 60.�xg3 d2 -+ ] 55 . . . d4 [55 . . .g5 56.g4 hxg4 57.h5 d4 58.b6 �xb6 59.h6 d3 60.h7 g3+ 61 .�xg3 d2 62.h8� dl � 6 3 . � x f6 + = ] 5 6 . � e 2 g5 5 7 . c6 60.g6 �e4 63.�xh5 f5 64.�g6 f4 65.h5 fxg3 66.h6 g2 67.h7 gl � 68.h8� �b6+ -+ ] 57 . . . g4 58.<1t'd3 f5 59.b6=) 54 . . . d5 55.g4 hxg4 56.�xg4 f5+ 57.�f4 d4 58.<1t'f3 �d5 59.
And again, here Black can choose from several different queen endings: (c3 1 ) 54 . . . h4 5 5.bxa5 bxa5 56.c5 dxc5+ 57.�xc5 h3 58.d6 h2 59.d7 hl � 60.d8� �cl + 6 l .
61.�c6 �g6+ 62.b6 �e5 + . Here Black has kept an extra pawn outside the ambit of current data bases with appreciable winning chances since if64.�h4, 64 . . .
50.
5 1 . . .b5! as analyzed above leads to a draw and of course 5 1 . . .
52.g4! This is the point - White gets her own passed pawn. Note that with the white king on f3 she would not have had this idea.
52 ... hxg4 53.h5 f5 54.h6 f4+ 55.�f2
224
(188) Ree - Ftacnik Kiev 1 978 Griinfeld Defense [D99]
Pawn Endings
l .d4 4)f6 2.c4 g6 3.4)c3 d5 4.4)f3 Ag7 5.�b3 dxc4 6. �xc4 00 7.e4 Ag4 8.Ae3 4)fd7 9.�b3 4)b6 10. .§dl e6 11.Ae2 4)c6 12.e5 4)e7 13.0-0 Axf3 14.Axf3 4)f5 1 5 . 4) e4 4) xe3 1 6 .f x e3 4) d 5 17.4)c5 b6 18.Axd5 exd5 19.4)a6 .§c8 20.4)b4 c5 2 1 .d xc5 Axe5 22. 4) x d 5 �h4 2 3 . 4) f4 .§ x c5 24. .§d7 .§c7 25.g3 �g4 26. .§xc7 Axc7 27.4)d5 Ae5 28.4)f6+ Axf6 29 . .§xf6 �d7 30 . .§f2 .§e8 31.h3 .§e5 3 2 . �g2 .§h5 33.h4 .§b5 34.�c4 .§c5 35. �e4 .§cl 36. �aS+ .§c8 37. �f3 .§e8 38.a3 .§e5 39. .§c2 �g7 40.�f4 �d5+ 41.�f3 �d3 42 . .§c3 �bl 43. �e2 a5 44.�h2 .§f5 45. .§c2 .§fl 46.�g2 �e1 47.e4 �d1 48. .§e2 h5 49. .§d2 .§hl+ 50.�xhl � xd2+ 51.�g2 �xg2+ 52.�xg2 �f6 53.�f3 �e5 54.�e3 a4 55.�d3 f6 56.�e3 (D)
57.g4! hxg4 57 . . . gxh4 also loses: 58.gxh5 h3 (58 .. .f5 59 .h6!) 59.�f2 +- .
58.h5! �e6 58 . . . f5 59.h6! f4+ 60.�d3 �f6 61 .e5+ +-
59.�f2! Now White goes to regain his pawn.
59 . . . �f7 60. �g3 �g7 61.�xg4 �h6 62.�f5! � xh5 Black has nothing to hope any more. 62 . . . b5 63.�g4! �g7 64.e5 + wins in view of White's outside pawn.
63.�xf6 g4 64.e5 g3 65.e6 g2 66.e7 gl� 67.e8�+ And the ending is won for White !
67... �h4 68.�h8+ 68.�xa4+ �g3 69.�b5 was good enough, as the white king will go to c6, collecting Black's last pawn. But of course, a pawn ending is the safest way to finish the job !
68 . . . �g3 6 9 . �g7+ �f2 70. � x g l + � x g l 71 .�e5 �f2 72.�d5 �e3 73.�c6 �d2 74. � x b 6 �c2 75.�a5 � x b 2 76.�xa4 �c3 1-0
Although it looks like Black holds the advantage because of his better placed king and the weaker white pawn structure, there is not much that he can do.
And to conclude here is a notori ous ending which I have first analyzed in my book Practical Endgame Play (Everyman 2008, updated with some recent games):
56...g5? There is no way for Black to prove his "advantage": 56 . . . b5 57.�f3 g5 58.�e3= or 56 . . . �e6 57.�f2 �d6 (57 . . . g5? 58.g4 hxg4 59.h5) 58.�e2= or, finally, 56 . . . �d6 5 7 . �f3 �e6 58.�f2=. But the text move loses, as it loses nearly every time that the white king is not on f3 in that case . . . hxg4 would be check! -
225
(189) (D)
Chess Analytics After a well-known opening varia tion ofthe Dragon Sicilian [B77] l.e4
52.h8� �e7+ 0-1 Stoinev-Tsvetkov, Pleven 2006.
c5 2.4)f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) xd4 4Jf6 5.4Jc3 g6 6.Ac4 Ag7 7.Ab3 0 - 0 8.f3 4)c6 9 . Ae3 4) xd4 10.Axd4 �a5 11. �d2 Ae6 12.00-0 b5 13.�bl §.fc8 14. §.hel Axb3 15.cxb3 b4 16.4)d5 4) xd5 17.A xg7 4J c3+ 1 8 . A x c3 b x c3 1 9 .b x c3 §. xc3 20.§.e3 §.ac8 2 1 . §. x c3 � x c3 2 2 . � x c3 §. x c3 23.�b2 §.c7 24.§.cl §. x c l 25.�xcl an interesting ending
26... �e8 27.�c3 �d7 28.�c4 �c6 29.h4
-
-
arises. Both sides have played on prin ciple: White believes that he can take advantage of his queenside pawn-ma jority and Black thinks that he can hold the draw. Well, Black is more correct in his thoughts, and let's see why.
The only troublesome method. White should not to allow Black to play . . . g5, as then Black's defenses would be easier. 29.b4? g5! is fine for Black.
29 h6 ..•
29 . . . h5? is an awful move: 30.b4 e6 3 1 . g4 f6 ( 3 1 . . . 'c6 35.f5 +- . Black should be very careful with pawn moves, as pawns cannot return back! 30.b4 (D)
25 ...�f8 2 5 . . . g5? to prevent the coming 29.h4 does not work: 26.
26.�d2 In a recent game White overdid it: 26.b4 'xh5 �f5 47.�h6 e5 48.h5 e4 49.
30...a6! Black cannot really do without this move. If he keeps his a-pawn on a7, then White pushes his pawns on a5 and b5 and then he will penetrate via the c5 -square, as can be seen: 30 ... e6? 3l.a4
226
Pawn Endings \t'xb6 47.�d6 e5 48.\t'e7 e4 49.\t'xf7 e3 50.\t'xg6 e2 5 l .f7 el� 52.f8� +- ] 44.\t'c5 \t'c7 45 . a 6 +- ) 4 3 . e 5 d5 44.\t'c5 �d7 45 .b6 axb6+ 46.�xb6! \t'c8 47.\t'c5 \t'b7 48.\t'd6 d4 49.\t'e7 d3 50.�xf7 d2 5 1 .\t'g8 dl � 52.f7 �d5 53.f8� �xe5 54.�f7+ \t'a6 55.�xg6 \t'xa5 56.�f6 (D)
46 .f7 +- ) 4 2 .b6 a xb6+ 4 3 . \t'xb6 (43.axb6? d4!=) 43... \t'c8 (43 ...d4 44.a6 d3 4 5 . a7 d2 46.a8� dl� 47.�a7+ \t'd8 48.�e7+ \t'c8 49.�c7 * ) 44.\t'c5 \t'b7 45.\t'd6 d4 46.\t'e7 d3 47.\t'xf7 d2 48.\t'g7 dl � 49.f7 �xg4 50.f8� (D) and this queen ending appears to be winning for White.
3l.a4 e6 32.b5+
and now: (a l ) 50 . . . �xh5 5 l .�e7+ \t'a8 (5 1 . . .�a6 52.�b4 \t'a7 53.�b6+ \t'a8 54.�c6+ \t'b8 55.a6 +- ) 52.�d8+ �b7 53.�b6+ \t'c8 54.�xe6+ +- . (a2) 5 0 . . . �c4 5 l . �xh6 �f4 ( 5 1 . . . g4 5 2 . \t'g5 g3 5 3 . �f3+ �d5 54.�xg3 �xa5 55 .�b3+ +- ) 52.�e7+ \t'a6 53.�xe6+ \t'xa5 54.�f6+-. (a3) 50 . . . �e4 5 l . �e7+ \t'a8 (51 . . .�a6 52.�c5 �b7+ 53.�xh6 g4 54.�c4+ �xa5 55.�a2+ \t'b5 56.�b3+ \t'c6 5 7 . � xe6+ \t'c5 5 8 . �xg4 +- ) 52 .�xe6 g4 53 .�a6+ �b8 54.�d6+ \t'a7 55.e6 g3 56.�xg3 �xe6 57.�c7+ �a8 58.�d8+ \t'b7 59.�b6+ +- . (b) 34 . . . \t'c6 35.b5+ �b6 36.\t'b4 \t'c7 37.a5 \t'b7 38.f6 \t'c7 39.g5 hxg5 40.hxg5 \t'b7 41 .\t'c4 �c7 42.\t'd4 �c8 ( 4 2 . . . \t'b7 4 3 . e 5 ! d 5 [43 . . . d x e 5 + 44.\t'xe5 �c7 45.b6+ axb6 46.axb6+
Another option is 32.g4 �b6 33.b5 (33.f4 is only a transposition: 33 . . . \t'c6 34.f5 g5 35 .hxg5 hxg5 36.fxe6 fxe6 37.b5+ axb5+ 38.axb5+ \t'b6 39.\t'b4 \t'b7 40.\t'a5 <;tJa7 4 l .b6+ <;tJb7 42.�b5 e5 43.<;tJa5 d5 44.exd5 e4 45 .d6 e3 46.d7 e2 47.d8� el �+ 48.�b5 �e8+! 49.�xe8 Yl - Yl B ukavshin- B e l ous Kirishi 20 1 0) 33 ... a5? (33 ...axb5+ trans� poses to the previous note) 34.f4 �b7 35 .<;tJd4 <;tJb6 36.f5 <;tJb7 37.f6 �b6 38.g5 hxg5 39.hxg5 <;tJb7 40.e5 d5 4l .<;tJc5 <;tJc7 42.b6+ <;tJb7 43.<;tJd6 d4 44.<;tJe7 d3 45.<;tJxf7 d2 46.�g8 dl� 47.f7 �xa4 48.f8� �c6 49.<;tJg7 ± .
32 . . . a x b5+ 33.a x b 5 + �b6 34.g4 (D)
227
Chess Analytics Now Black must be on alert, as he can draw by j ust moving his king around with . . . 34...�b71 The wrong continuations are: (a) 34 .. .'�a5? 35.e5! +- . (b) 34 . . . g5? 3 5 .h5 f6 (35 . . . �b7 36.f4! f6 37.f5 +- ) 36.�b4 d5 37.exd5 exd5 38.'�a4 d4 (38 .. .'�c5 39.�a5 d4 4 0 .b6 d3 4 l . b7 d 2 4 2 .b8� d l � 43.�c7+ +- ) 39.�b4 d3 40.�c3 �xb5 4 l .�xd3 �c5 (4l . . .f5 42.f4) 42.�e4 «t>d6 43.«Ti>f5 +- . (c) 34 .. .f6? 35.h5 +- . (d) 34 . . . h5? 35.gxh5 gxh5 36.�b4 «Ti>b7 37.«Ti>a5 d5 38.exd5 exd5 39.�b4 «t>b6 40.«Ti>a4 d4 4 l .�b4 d3 42.�c3 «Ti>xb5 43.«Ti>xd3 �c5 44.�e4 +- .
35.f4 �b6 36.f5 g51 36 . . . «Ti>b7 37.fx e6 fxe6 38.�b4 �b6 39.�a4 �b7 40.�a5 «t>a7 4 l .b6+ �b7 42.�b5 e5 43.«Ti>a5 d5! 44.exd5 e4 45.d6 e3 46.d7 e2 47.d8� el �+ 48.«Ti>b5 �e5+ 49.«Ti>c4 �e4+ seems good as well.
37.h5 37.hxg5 hxg5 38.fxe6 fxe6 39.�b4 transposes to the above mentioned game Bukavshin-Belous, Kirishi 20 1 0.
37 . . . �b7 38.�b4 �b6 39.fxe6 fxe6 40.�a4 �b7 41.�a5 �a7 42.b6+ �b7 43.�b5 e51 44.�a5 d5 45.exd5 e4 46.d6 e3 47.d7 e2 48.d8� el�+ 49.�b5 (D)
49... �e8+1 And stalemate is a re
ality! Yz-Yz
Conclusion Knowledge in pawn endings is es sential for overall success. This survey's conclusions are more or less founded on this concept. Here are two quotes by Rick Kennedy, which I think fit in: "The fear of the pawn is the begin ning of wisdom." "Pawns are born free, yet are ev erywhere in chains . . . "
Rook and Knight
Concept This survey is focused on the co operation ofrook and knight when sup porting a passed d-pawn in the endgame. And this is done when the opposition has the same piece configu ration, a rook and knight. Here we will study the way that the advantage should be converted and the various possibili ties for both sides but of course mostly for the winner! Modem chess requires cooperation between pieces to complete the attainment of the ultimate target, the full point. So, the placement of the pieces and the way that they are oper ating can determine the final result. Let's start with an old example: (190) Benko - Rossolimo New York 1 962 Queen's Indian Defense [E 1 4]
l.d4 .£)f6 2.c4 e6 3.i£)f3 b6 4.e3 Ab7 5.Ad3 c5 6.0-0 Ae7 7.b3 0-0 8.Ab2 cxd4 9.exd4 d5 1 0 . .£) bd2 .£) bd7 l l .�e2 i£) h 5 12.g3 g 6 13.§acl i£)g7 14.§fdl §c8 15 . .£)fl i£)f5 16 . .£)e3 i£} xe3 17.�xe3 §e8 18.Afl Af8 19.Ag2 �e7 20 . .£) e l .£) f6 2 1 .c5 b x c5 22.dxc5 e5 23.f4 �xc5 24. �xc5 Jl,xc5+ 25.�hl .£)e4 26. .£)d3 Ad4 27. A x d4 e x d4 28.Af3 Aa6
228
Rook and Knight 2 9 . § x cS § x eS 30.�gl E!c3 3l.lf)b4 § xf3 32.4) xa6 (D)
trying to protect this extra material in stead of seeking piece coordination. (191) Rublevsky - Tiviakov Kerner 2007 Sicilian Defense [B5 1 ]
B lack has the advantage, as his pieces cooperate well, while their coun terparts are "missing" each other. His extra doubled d5-pawn is of little sig nificance for the time being.
32 ...d3 33.4) b4?
l.e4 c 5 2.4Jf3 4)c6 3.Ab5 d6 4.Axc6+ bxc6 5.0-0 e5 6.c3 4)f6 7.§el Ag4 S.h3 A xf3 9 . � x f3 Ae7 1 0.d3 0-0 1 1 . 4) d 2 4) eS 12.4)c4 4)c7 13 . .Q.e3 4)e6 14.b4 cxb4 15.cxb4 Ag5 16.§acl Axe3 17.fxe3 �d7 1S.§edl §adS 19.d4 exd4 20.exd4 4Jg5 2l.�f5 4) xe4 22. � x d7 § xd7 23.4Ja5 f5 24.4) xc6 f4 25.E!d3 d5 26.§a3 §aS 27.b5 §b7 2S.§bl 4)d6 (D)
33.b4! is better, although B lack re tains a nice material advantage: 3 3 . . . 4Jc3 ( 3 3 . . . d 2 3 4 . 4:\ c S ! 4:\ x c 5 35 .bxc5 l"l,c3 36.l"l, xd2 l"l, xc5 + ) 34.l"l,d2 4:\b l ! 3 5 . l"l, d l d2 36.4:\cS (36 . l"l, x b l l"l, c3 -+ ) 3 6. . .l"l, c 3 37.4Jb3 l"l,d3 38.�fl 4:\c3 39.l"l, xd2 l"l, xd2 40.4:\xd2 4:\xa2 + .
33 ...d2 Now Black threatens . . . l"l,f2-e2.
34.�g2 White cannot stop B lack. I f 3 4 . 4:\ x d S , then 34 . . . l"l, d3 3 5 . 4:\b4 §,d6 -+ .
White stands slightly better as his pressure on the queenside is significant. His pieces are better placed, but Black is not without chances.
29.E!a5 a6?!
34 ... §f2+ 35.�gl §e2 The typical maneuver was com pleted and Black now wins.
36.�fl § x h2 37.�gl §e2 3S.4)c2 38.�fl 4:\xg3+
3S... 4)c3 39.�fl §h2 40.�gl 4)xd1 41.�xh2 4Jc3 42.4)e3 d4 0-1 Sometimes the weaker side prefers to give up a pawn in order to seek sal vation in a more simplified endgame. And it is true that many times this tar get is achieved. But this happens mainly because the stronger side was simply
A try to reduce the pressure by ex changing pawns. But as Black is giv ing up a pawn, perhaps he had to try 29 . . . 4Jc4 30.l"l,a6 4Jd2 3 1 .l"l,b2 4Je4 32.a4 ;!;; .
30.b6 4)c4 Forced. If 30 . . . h6?, then 3 1 .l"l, xd5 4Jc4 32.l"l,b4! 4:\xb6 33.l"l,a5 and Black is in deep trouble.
31.§xd5 § xb6 32.§xb6 4) xb6 33.E!f5! g6 34.§xf4 4Jd5 35.§e4 §cS
229
Or 35 . . . �g7 36.a3 l"l,c8 37.l"l,e6 ± .
36.§e6 §c7
Chess Analytics B lack prefers a wait-and-see policy. If instead 36 ... 4Jc3, then 37.a3 'it'f7 38 . .§ d6 4Jb5 3 9 . 4J e 5 + 'it'g8 40 . .§ xa6 4Jxd4 4 1 .a4 ± .
4 5 . E!.e7 'itffS 46. E!, x h7 g5 47.4)g6+ Black resigned in view of47 ... rtlg8 48 . .§h8+ +- . 1-0
37.E!,d6 4Jc3 38.4)e5 'itlg7 Maybe the most stubborn defense. B lack wouldn 't be happy with 38 ... 4Jxa2 in view of 39.d5 (39. .§ xa6 4Jc3 40.'it'f2 ± ) 39 . . . .§e7 40 . .§ d8+ rtlg7 4 1 .4Jd3 �f7 42.d6 .§ e8 43 . .§ d7+ 'it'g8 (43 . . .'�e6 44.4Jc5+ 'it'd5 45 .4Jb7 +- ) 44.4Jc5 ± . The white rook and knight, supported by the far-advanced d-pawn, cooperate perfectly. 39.d5 4) xa2? (D)
The knight is truly drifting away from the scene of the fight and losing the right to influence the proceedings. Black should rather opt for 39 . . . .§e7 40.4Jd3 .§ e2 4 l . .§ xa6 4Jxd5 42.a4 ± .
And the last example is from a re cent FIDE world championship tourna ment, where Anand showed great tech nique: (192) Anand Grischuk Mexico City 2007 Ruy Lopez [C88] -
l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3.Ab5 a6 4.Aa4 4)f6 5.0-0 Ae7 6.E!,el b5 7 . A b3 0 - 0 8.a4 b4 9 .d3 d6 10.4)bd2 4)a5 ll . .i}.a2 c5 12.c3 4)c6 13.d4 bxc3 14.bxc3 exd4 15.cxd4 4)b4 16.,ilbl ,ilg4 17.h3 Ah5 t8.g4 Ag6 t 9 . d 5 4Jd7 2 0 . 4) c4 E!.bS 2 1 . Af4 4J b6 2 2 . 4) x b6 E!, x b6 23.4) d2 Ag5 24.,1l xg5 � xg5 2 5 . 4J c4 E!,bb8 26.�d2 � xd2 27.4)xd2 f6 28.4)c4 E!.fd8 29.f4 Af7 30.E!.a3 g5 3l.h4 gxf4 32.E!.f3 ,ile8 33.E!.xf4 'itfg7 (D)
40.E!,e61 'itlfS 41.d6 E!,c8 White also wins after 4 l . . . .§cl + 42. 'it'h2 .§ dl 43.d7 -+ .
42.E!,f6+ A nice move, driving the black king away.
42 ...'itfg8 42 . . .�g7 43.d7 .§ d8 44 . .§f7+ 'it'h6 45.4Jc6+-
43.d7 White can now capitalize on his unstoppable passed pawn - his rook and knight are cooperating very well.
43 ... E!,d8 44.E!.f7 4)b4 The black knight tries to return and help but in vain - it is too late.
White stands better, as his knight is very well placed (pressure on d6) compared to its counterpart which is doing little.
34.h511 A fantastic move. All White 's pieces (with the exception of the e l rook) were placed on optimal squares already, but the attack did not seem strong enough yet. For instance, after
230
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn 44.d6 .§ b8 45.d7 .§ d8 46.�e3. How ever, Black can hope, because ofthe re duced amount of material left on the board.
the immediate 34J''l efl l.l.xa4 35 . .§ xf6 Ab5 the situation is not entirely clear. The intervention of the modest h-pawn radically tips the balance in White's fa vor.
4t.d6 Axb1 42.l3.xbl l3.xe4 Now White's rooks and knight sup ports the far advanced d-pawn very well.
34... Axa4 If Black blocks the h-pawn with 34 . . .h6, the weakness of the g6-square would make itself felt after 35 . .§ efl Jlxa4 36 . .§xf6 Jlb5 37 . .§g6+, with a decisive attack.
35.h6+ �xh6 36.l3.xf6+ �g7 After 36 . . . �g5 37 . .§efl the black king will be in trouble as a result of the cooperation of the white rooks and knight. The black monarch looks so lonely there . . .
37.g5 The d6-pawn will perish soon and with it any hope of maintaining a rea sonable position. Black is in big trouble now.
43.l3.f7+ �g8 44.l3.e7 The seventh rank is already occu pied - the advantage is increasing.
44... l3.d8 45.l3.dl! Rooks belong behind passed pawn s ! The black b4-knight hasn't move yet!
45 ...c4 46.d7 l3.f4 46 . . . c3 47 . .§ e8+
47.l3.fl! Exchanging the rook that defends the eighth rank (47 . .§e8+ .§f8) guaran tees the win.
47 . . . §.ff8 48.l3. x f8+ � x f8 49.l3.xh7 c3 50. .!ilg6+ Black resigned in view of 50 . . .�g8 51..§h8+. 1-0
37... l3.f8 38.l3.xd6 Ac2 39. .!ile5 l3.f4 (D)
Conclusion Technique is good training, mak ing points is pure knowledge; all are in great need . . . Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn
40.l3.f6?! A clever idea, but White should have opted for 40 . .§ d7+! �g8 4 1 .d6 Jlxbl 42 . .§ xb l .§ xe4 43 . .§e7 .§ d8 44 . .§dl ± which transposes to the posi tion after White's 45th move.
40... l3.h4?! On the last move before the con trol, Black does not find a curious tac tical resource: 40 . . . 4Jxd5!? 4 l .exd5 .§e4!!. White's pieces are hanging sud denly, but he can maintain an advan tage with 42 . .§ xe4 .§xbl + 43.�f2 Axe4
Concept The ending of .§ + ft versus A+ft usually is an easy win for the side with the rook. However, the attacking side must be careful, avoiding certain excep tional cases which lead to a draw. Rook pawns (a- and h-) require the utmost attention. As here the concepts that ap ply to all other pawns are not in force; the king and the rook must cooperate in order to force and cut off the enemy king as far as necessary, to a file from which it will be unable to return to the battlefield in time to secure the draw.
23 1
Chess Analytics As there are a lot of drawing possibili ties, the theoretical understanding of this particular ending is mandatory. We can create a table indicating the file on which the defending king must be cut off to implement the winning plan; that file is determined according to the placement of its own pawn. Naturally, in several cases the win can be achieved by cutting the king off even in a file nearer to the pawns. Edge Pawn a2 l h2 a3 I h3 a4 I h4 a5 I h5 a6 I h6
Cut-off File eld fI c glb hla hla
•
The only way not to lose the bishop. Black proceeds with his plan (3.Ad8? § d2).
3 !!h2! 4.l(flcl liflc3? ..•
Black should not allow the white king to escape to the flank opposite his pawn. A simple win is in the cards with 4 . . . §h5! 5 .Ab6 § dS!.
5.<;fldl! Or S.�bl ? § b2+ 6.�al (6.�cl §a2!) 6 . . .�b3! 7.Ab6 §h2!.
5 !!d2+ 6.<;flel ..•
6.'it'cl § a2! with a double threat.
6 <;fld3 7 .1lb6 !!h21 8 .1}.d8 !!hl+ 9.<;flf2 !!hS 10 . .1}.b6 !!e8 ll.<;flfl ••.
In general, we should know that when the pawns are placed on a41h4, a51h5 and a61h6, then the defending side's king cannot be forcibly cut-off on a desirable (for the stronger side) file. And if it has escaped to the oppo site flank of its own pawn, then the po sition should be characterized as a draw. Let's start with a basic example coming from my book Practical Endgame Play - Mastering the Basics (Everyman 2008), which can be really helpful in terms of understanding the various problems that both sides can face in their effort to reach the desired result. (193) (D)
l ... !!c2+ 2.<;flbl <;flb3 3 .1la7
•
•
Wrong is l l .�gl? 'it'e2! and the white king will be cut-off in the uncom fortable h-file. ll ... <;fld2 (D)
12 .1lc5? •
White could hold the draw with 1 2.'it'f2! (or 1 2.'it'g2) 12 . . . §f8+ 1 3.�g2 �e2 14. �g3! as Black cannot force the white king to move to the h-file.
12 !!e51 13 ..1lb4+ •.•
The alternative effort 1 3.Ab6 §f5+ 1 4 .�g2 'it'c3! 1 5 .'it'g3 'it'b4 1 6.'it'g4 § xa5 1 7 .Axa5+ 'it'xa5 1 8.'it'f3 �b4 19.'it'e2 'it'b3 20.'it'd2 �b2 would also be in vain.
13 <;fld3 14.1(flf2 §b5! 15 ..1lel §f5+ 16.<;flg3 <;fle2! 17.<;flg4 •..
Or 1 7 . Ab4 ( 1 7 . Ac3 1 7 . . . §b5 1 8.Ac3 §b3!. 17 §c51 (D) .••
232
§ f3 + )
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn
Winning either the bishop (18.�b4 l"lc4+) or the pawn (18.�g3 l"lxa5). 0-1 So, a mistake by the defending side handed the full point to the opponent; this is something that happens often in this ending, as the defense must be ac curate, while the stronger side has the luxury ofbeing "inaccurate!" Of course, this is the "right" of the side ahead in material ! Let's see a second important and instructive example: (194) (D)
This is an important theoretical position. The evaluation and the recom mended methods ofplay have varied for decades. Of course, things have been settled from theoretical point of view after the creation of the six-piece tablebases, but in many cases one un derstands very little about the endgame by learning that a couple of moves draw, while all the others lose in 3 8 moves or less.
A good source to rely on is Yuri Averbakh ' s five-volume endgame manual His analysis does not contain any real mi stakes and although the tablebases sometimes recommend lines that win in one or two moves earlier (36 instead of 3 8, for example), it is more important to stick with the "human lines," because they are easier to explain as a part of the same general plan. Com puter lines sometimes rely on casual tactics, which are nice, but are more difficult to remember if you get this endgame in an over-the-board game. To start with, the diagrammed po sition is drawn. Black's only winning chance consists of sacrificing the ex change for the a4-pawn, but he cannot achieve this under favorable circum stances. Things would be different if the pair of pawns was placed on any other file, but it is known that rook pawns offer additional saving chances in pawn endings. In order to reach the desired result, White has to avoid three ( ! ) main situations: 1 . His king has to avoid being forced onto the b-file or beyond. 2 . His king has to avoid being forced onto the fifth rank or beyond. 3 . His king has to avoid being trapped in the immediate neighborhood of the pawn! The first two points are easy to ex plain. In case of an exchange sacrifice, the king has to be in time to reach the b 1-square. However, the last aspect is far from obvious and, for many decades, remained unnoticed by theoreticians. But a significant question remains: how does the rook wins if it is able to capture the opponent's pawn? Here is the solution:
233
Chess Analytics Rook pawns are an exception to what we know so far, assuming of course that the defending king occupies the promotion square. If this square is of the same color as that on which the bishop moves, then the king is in the wrong comer and thus the side with the rook wins easily. If however the defending side has a bishop moving on the opposite color, then the win is attainable only if the pawn has not crossed its fourth rank.
(195) (D)
10.�g6 .Q.c4 The rook must follow the bishop's steps and move accordingly so as to prevent any checks.
l l.E!h7+ �gs t2.E!d71 �hs 13.h6 .Q.a2 14.h7 .Q.bl + 1S.�h6 1-0 (b) 3... �fs 4.h4 .Q.d3 s.E!g3 Ae4 6.!agSI The white king must now clear the path of its pawn by retreating via the h5-square, at the same time without al lowing the opponent's king to return to h8. Here it becomes evident why the pawn must not have crossed its fourth rank.
6 �f71 .•.
The best defense, as 6 ...Ad3 7.'it'h5 Ae2+ 8.'it'g6 �g8 9.E!d5 �f8 10.h5 is a simple win for White.
7.!ag3 Ac2 Or 7 . . . 'it'f8 8.�g5! �g7 9.�f4+.
S.�hS (D) The winning process is long and laborious. The first step is to force the defending king to the f-file.
V� gS Abt 2.�h6 �gs Nothing is changed by 2 . . . Aa2 3J::! h7+ �g8 4.E!g7+.
3.!ag7+ (D)
8... �f6
And now Black has two main op tions: (a) 3 . . . �h8 4 .h4 Ad3 S.hS
Abt 6.!ab7 Aa2 7.!ab8+ Ags S.
Alternatively, 8 . . . Abl 9.E!g5 (in tending 'it'g4-f4 and h5-h6) 9 . . . Ac2 1 0.'it>g4 Ag6 l l .h5 Abl 1 2 .h6 Ag6 13.'it'f4 'f6 14.E!b5 Ad3 1 5 .E!b7! and 1 6.h7 or 8. . . Adl + 9.'it'g5! 'it'g7 1 0.E!c3 Ae2 l l .h5 Afl l 2.h6+ �h7 13.E!c7+ �h8 14.h7 and 1 5 . �h6.
9 . !agS .Q. d l + 1 0 . �h6 �f7 ll.!ag7+ �f6 Or l l . . .'it'f8 1 2 .'it'g6 Ae2 13.'f6 intending E!g5, h5-h6, E!g7 and h7.
Or 9 . . . 'it'f8 1 0.h6.
234
1 2 . �gl .Q.e2 1 3 . !ag2 Ad3
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn
t4 . .E!f2+ Af5
We have reached the diagram in ( 1 94).
Or 1 4 . . . 'it'e7 1 5.h5 ilbl 1 6.\t>g7.
15.h5 �e6 16 . .§ xf51 � x f5 17.�g7 1-0 At the start of 2008 I was playing the C group at Corus in Wijk aan Zee and I was lucky enough to be present to watch the following game (that was played in the A group section). I have to say that I was impressed by Radjabov's excellent knowledge of the ending. The analysis of this game was made by the outstanding grandmaster and author Mihail Marin: (196) Radjabov - Van Wely Wijk aan Zee 2008 Semi-Slav [D4 3]
46.�c2 .§h7 47.Aa6 .§c7+ 48.�dl! The only good move ! 48.�b2? is analyzed in Example 4.
48 ... .§c6 49.Ab5 .E!c3 50.Aa6 .E!a3 51.Ab5 .§a2 (D)
52.�cll
l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.1ilc3 4)f6 4.4Jf3 e6 5.Ag5 h6 6.Ah4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 s.Ag3 b5 9 .Ae2 Ab7 10.0-0 4) bd7 1 1 . 4J e5 Jlg7 1 2. 4) xd7 4) xd7 1 3 . Jld6 a6 t4.Ah5 Af8 t5.Axf8 .E!xf8 t6.d5 cxd5 17.exd5 4)f6 18.dxe6 �xdl 19.Axf7+ �e7 20 . .§axdl .§fd8 2 1 .4)e2 Jle4 22.f4 b4 23.fxg5 hxg5 24.4)g3 .§xdl 25. .§xdl Jlh7 26.4)h5 c3 27.4) xf6 �xf6 28.bxc3 b x c3 29 . .§cl c2 30.�f2 .§d8 3l.�e2 .§d4 32.h3 Ae4 33.Ah5 � x e6 34.g3 �e5 3 5 . h4 g x h4 36.gxh4 .§d5 37.Jlf3 .§ d l 38.Jl x e4 ,E! xc l 3 9 . � d 2 .§gl 40.Axc2 �d4 4t.Ad3 a5 42.a4 .§hl 43.Ab5 .§h2+ 44.�dl �e3 45.�cl .§ xh4 (D)
We notice an important element. Being a long-range piece, the bishop, too, can act on both wings. Here, the control of the d3-square is as important as the defense ofthe pawn. For instance, the careless 5 2 .Ac6? would lose to 52 . . . .§ d2+! 53.\t>cl (53 .\t>e l allows 53 . . . .§ c2 with a double - and deadly threat) 53 . . .'it'd3 followed by . . .�c3 . However, 52.Ae8 is playable, too. Af ter 52 ... .§ d2+ 53.\t>e l ! the bishop is safe on e8, because the interposition of the black king on the e-file prevents the double attack ... .§e2+.
52...�d4 53-�dl �c3 54.�el .§d2 55.Aa6 .§d4 56.Jlb5 �c2 (D)
235
Chess Analytics Finally, Black switches plans. He will try to push the enemy king as far away as possible.
57.�e2 .§e4+ 58.�f3 .§e7 59.�f2 �c3 60.�f3 �d4 6t ..Q.a6 .§e3+ 62.�f2! One important defensive method is the diagonal opposition. On the care less 62.'
than he would have wished. 80.�f5 (80.Ad7 is met by the familiar maneu ver 80 . . . §e7 8Ulb5 §t7+) 80 . . . §e4 81.Ac6 §e5+! 82.�f6 (or 82.'
78... .§e7 79.�f3 �c3 80. .Q.a6 �d4 81.-'tb5 .§e6 (D)
62 ... �e4 63.Ah5 �f4 64..Q.a6 .§e4 65 . .Q.b5 .§e6 66 . .Q.c4 .§e4 67..Q.b5 .§d4 68.�e2 .§d6 69 ..Q.d3 .§h6 70..Q.b5 �e4 71 . .Q.d3+ �d4 72 . .Q.b5 .§h2+ 73.�f3 .§a2 74 . .Q.d7 .§a3+ 75 .�f2 �d3 76.�f3 �d2+ (D)
82.�f2! Radjabov deals correctly with the last dangerous moment for White in this game. 82 . .1ld7? loses to 82 . . . § e 3 + 83.\t>f2 '
82 ... .§e5 83.�f3 �c5 84.�f2 �b6 85.-'td3 �c5 Yl-Yl
77.�f4! The king has to approach the dan gerous fifth rank to maintain the diago nal opposition. 7 7 . '
77... .§e3 78.-'tb5! Again, the control ofthe d3-square is essential. After a careless move such as 78.Ac6? Black establishes a fron tal opposition with 78 . . . '
And, having convinced himself that Radj abov knows "everything" about this endgame, van Wely resigned himself to the inevitable. In 1 954, Baranov discovered that Black can avoid being driven too far away and that the logical result would have been a draw. His conclusions are still valid, but only when the defending king escapes the zone surrounding the pawns. Later, the renown endgame ex pert Maizelis (who was one o f Averbakh's collaborators for the first edition of his books, published in the late 1 950s) discovered the dangers fac ing the king in the neighborhood of the pawns. Let's return to the previous
236
,
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn game at the point when White could have gone wrong, his 48th move: (197) (D)
Here is a sample based on the analy s i s of the endgame expert Maizelis:
48 Cit>d2 49.Cit>b3 .§c6 50.Ab5 .§c3+ 51.Cit>b2 •.•
Black's pieces are not optimally placed yet. To win, he has to carry out a major regrouping. His king should reach b4 to restrict the bishop's mobil ity, but the enemy king should not be allowed to escape from the dangerous zone at the same time!
59.Jlb5 §c8 and now, apart from king retreats which is precisely what Black aims to provoke, White has only one move: 60 .Ad7, but this places the bishop on a vulnerable square, allow ing the rook to switch to lateral attacks, without letting the king escape from the corner : 60 . . . § d8 ! 6 1 . Ab 5 § d2 + 62.'it'cl 'it'c3 and Black has made fur ther progress and now the same method as on the previous step ensures the win: 63.'it'bl �b3 64.�c1 § d8 (D) �
5t .§h3 52.Ad7 .§h4 53.Aes .§b4+ 54. Cit>a3 Cit>c3 •..
Black has strengthened his domi nation, but the b4-square is not avail able yet.
55.Af7 .§bt 56.Aa2 White stubbornly keeps his king on a3, keeping b4 defended, but his bishop will not be able to return to the b5-e8 diagonal under favorable circum stances. The voluntary retreat 56. 'it'a2 leads to a crucial position after 56. . . §cl 57.Jle8 �b4 58.'it'b2 § c5 (D) B lack has made his regrouping and White will get in successive zugzwang positions. It is typical for such endings that the rook restricts both enemy pieces at the same time. The next step is to push the enemy king to the back rank:
White is in zugzwang again. The only move that maintains the pawn de fended and avoids mate in one i s 65 .Jlc6 but this loses the bishop to 65 . . . §c8.
56 .§cl .•.
Avoiding the trap 56 . . . §al? with complete domination and . . . draw by stalemate - this is one of the tricks to be aware of1
57.Ab3 .§al+ 58.Aa2 Cit>d4 The king retreats to enable lateral attacks by the rook. With the a4-pawn vulnerable now, White cannot save the game.
237
Chess Analytics Black's concept was wrong but in the end he was lucky to cash the point. Well, luck favors the stronger. . .
59.
(198) Salwe - Rubinstein Prague 1 908 Four Knights Game [C49]
A desperate attempt to return with the bishop to the b5-e8 diagonal. 60.i.l.bl leaves the c4-square unde fended, allowing a relatively easy win after 60 . . . 'it'c4 6L �.f5 'it'b4 62 .Ad7 §d1 63.Ab5 § d2+ 64.'it'cl 'it'c3 and so on, as in the variation starting with 56.'it'a2 above. 60.i.l.b3 keeps the c4square defended, but deprives the white king of the b3-square and places the bishop on a vulnerable square : 60 . . . '3k5! 6 1 . 'it'c3 § e 3 + ! . With the bishop on a favorable square, the white king could escape now to the right wing, but here this is impossible: 62. �b2 'it'b4 63.Adl §g3 64.Ac2 §g2 65.'it'cl 'it'c3 and it is all over.
60 ... 13,e7 6t.Ah5 Or 6 l .Ag8 �c5 62.�c3 § e3+ 63.'it'b2 �b4 with a familiar position.
61 ...
l.e4 e5 2.�f3 �c6 3.�c3 �f6 4 . .Q.b5 Ab4 5.0-o o-o 6.d3 d6 7.Ag5 �e7 8.�e2 �g6 9.�g3 h6 10..Q.e3 c6 ll.Aa4 d5 12.c3 Ad6 13.Ac2 E!eS 14.13,el Ae6 15.d4 d xe4 1 6 . .,1l x e4 e x d4 1 7 . .,1l x d4 � x e4 1 8 . � x e4 .ll f S 1 9.b4 b6 20.a3 t:/c7 21.�fd2 f5 22.�g3 c5 23.t:/f3 t:/f7 24.13, x e6 t:/ x e6 25. .Q.e3 �h4 26.t:/h5 t:/f6 27.13.cl §.adS 28.�f3 � xf3+ 29. t:/xf3 g6 30.�e2 'lJJ/ f7 3l .h4
Finally, the bishop has returned to the "good" diagonal, but in the meantime, Black has carried out his essen tial regrouping.
63 ... 13,c7 64.Ae8 13.c5 65.Ab5 E!cS And we have reached a familiar zugzwang. 0-1 Here is an old and very famous example. For many years it was sup posed that it was an ideal execution by Rubinstein! But of course the truth is that many mistakes took place and
According to endgame tablebases Black wins with best play in 48 moves !
6o... E!f7 6t.Ah6 13.f3+ 62.
238
Now, as we have seen in the previ-
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn ous examples, White should be able to survive! Rubinstein obviously wanted to push the enemy king away from the pawn and then sacrifice the exchange. This plan does not work against the best defense. The correct plan is actually the opposite: to keep the white king closer to the pawn, so his bishop won't be much help in defense.
63.Ag5? White missed his defensive idea with 63.\t'f2!=.
63 ... �f5? 63 . . . l:"1 f3 ! was again correct. Rubinstein managed to win the game, but only by a. . . mistaken method! He chased the king away from the danger zone and eventually succeeded in driv ing it to the fifth rank, after which the win was relatively easy.
74.Ag5 .§.g4! After White's incorrect 71 st move, Rubinstein plays nearly always the strongest continuations.
75.Ae7 .§.g7 76.Afs 76 . .£lg5 l:"1 xg5 77.hxg5 \t'xg5 -+
76 . . . .§.d7+ 77.�c6 .§.d4 78.Ae7 �e6 7 9 . �c5 .§.d5+ so.�c4 E!.f5 st.Ads �d7 82.Ab6 82 . .£lg5 l:"1 xg5 83.hxg5 h4 84.g6 \'!Je7 -+
82 ... .§.f4+ 83.�d3 .§.xh4 Black has won the pawn and the rest is relatively easy.
84.�e2 �e6 85.�f3 .§.g4 86.Af2 �5 87.Ag3 h4 88.Ah2 (D)
64.�f2! Finally, White found the correct idea.
64...�g4 65.�e2 .§.f3 66.Ah6 �g3 67.Ag5 .§.f8 68.�e3 .§.e8+ 69.�d3 �f3 70.�d4 .§.e6 (D)
A similar position to that which we saw in Example 3 .
88... .§.b4? But here Black goes wrong. Cor rect was 88 . . . h3! 89.Ag3 l:"1g7 90.Af4 l:"1g2 91 ..£ld6 §d2 -+ .
89.�g2! And now, according to databases, this is a drawn position!
89 ... �g4 90.Ae5 .§.a4 91.Ad6 .§.a2+ 92.�hl �h3 93.Ac5?
71.�d5? But not like that! White should have opted for 7 1 .\t'c4 \t'e4 72.\t'c3! (the only move) 72 . . . l:"1 d6 73.\t'c2!! (again, the only move) - White must keep diagonal opposition - this is the key idea in this ending.
71 ... .§.e4! Now White is busted.
72.Af6 �f4 73.Ads �f5
And White returns the favor! 9 3 . \t' g l § a l + 94. \t'f2 = was good enough.
93 ... .§.al + 94.Agl �g41 This is the winning method already presented above.
95.�h2 .§.a2+ 96.�hl �g3 97.Ac5 .§.h2+ 98.�gl .§.d2 99.�hl h3
239
Chess Analytics And White was forced to resign . . .
0-1 Mistakes are the salt and pepper of modern knowledge. The next four ex amples are quite instructive, as much "salt and pepper" can be found! But the winning and defending methods are the same and one must study them: in the right zone - not too close to the pawn.
(199) Mortensen - Baburin Copenhagen 1 994 Alekhine's Defense [B03]
1.e4 �f6 2.e5 �d5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 �b6 5.exd6 cxd6 6.a4 a5 7.�c3 g6 8.Ae3 Ag7 9.§.c1 0-0 10.�f3 Ag4 u.b3 d5 1 2.�b5 d xc4 13.bxc4 �c6 14.Jle2 e5 15.d5 �b4 16.0-0 §.c8 17.d6 Axf3 18.Jl,xf3 � xc4 19.d7 §.c6 20.Aa7 �b2 21.'�"d2 �2d3 22.j,lxc6 bxc6 23.§. x c6 � xc6 24. � x d3 � d4 2 5 . Jlc5 � x d7 26.j}, x f8 -'l, xf8 27.� xd4 exd4 28. �b5 �c7 29.g3 Jlb4 30.§.d1 Ac3 31.§.b1
71 ...
77
77 ... \t'c7! was the only move!
78.
78
Of course it is not easy to defend. Here 79 . . .�d7!= was correct.
240
80.§.c6+?
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn 1 04 . <;t>c6 ilc3 1 0 5 .<;t>c5 ilb4+ 1 06.<;t>c4 wins.
White could achieve a winning position with the well-known SO.§hl! ilb4 Sl .§dl +- .
104 . . . .Q.c3 106.�d7?!
80... �d7 81.E!c4 .Q.b4 82.�b6 �d6 83.E!d4+ �e5 84.l3,d8 �e6 85.�c6 �e5 86.E!d3 (D)
1 0 5 . E! d l
.Q.b4
The final "mistake." The correct continuation according to theory was 1 06 . § d 5 ! ilc3 1 07 . <;t>d6 ilb4+ 1 08.<;t>c6, although Black could then claim a draw by threefold repetition!
106 . . . �e5 107. �c6 �e6 108.�b5 �e5 109. �c4 �e6 1 10.E!d5 .Q.el l l l . �d4 .Q.c3+ 1 1 2. �c4 .Q.el 1 1 3 . E! d l .Q.b4 114. �d3 Yl-Yl (200) Aloma Vidal - Cabrera
86... �e4? The black king moves to the unfa vorable zone. Black could have drawn with a lot of other moves, such as 86. . . <;t>e6, 86 . . . <;t>f5 and 86. . . <;t>f6.
87.E!d51 .Q.c3 88.E!h5? Both opponents seem to ignore basic rules of the ending. Correct was 88 .<;t>c5 ilb4+ 89.<;t>c4 +- .
88... �d4! Back to the draw!
89.E!h4+ �e5! 90.l3,hl �d4 9 1 . �b5 .Q.b4 9 2 . E! d l + �e5 93.E!d8 �e6 94.�c6 �e5 95.E!h8 .Q.c3 96.E!h5+ �d4 97.E!h4+ �e5 98.l3,c4 .Q.b4 99.E!cl �e6 lOO.E!dl �e5 101.E!d3 (D)
101 ...�e4? Repeating the same mistake !
102.E!d51 .Q.c3 103.�d6 .Q.b4+ 104.�e6?1
Calvia 2007 Dutch Defense [A85]
l .d4 f5 2.c4 �f6 3.�c3 e6 4.�f3 .Q.b4 5 . .Q.f4 b6 6.e3 .Q.b7 7..Q.e2 .Q.xc3+ 8.bxc3 d6 9.c5 dxc5 10.dxc5 � x d l + l l. E! x d l �d5 12 . .Q.e5 �d7 13.c4 � 5f6 14.c6 .Q.xc6 15 . .Q.xc7 �e4 t6.�d4 E!c8 17. .Q.g3 �e7 18.0-0 �c3 19.E!d3 � xe2+ 20.� xe2 .Q.a4 21.E!cl a6 22 . .Q.d6+ �f6 23.f4 .Q.c6 24.�d4 .Q.b7 25.E!b3 E!hd8 26.a4 .Q.e4 27.a5 b5 28.l3,bc3 bxc4 29.E!xc4 E! xc4 30. l3, x c4 h6 3 l . E!c7 g5 32.l3,a7 gxf4 33.exf4 .Q.d5 34.l3,xa6 E!c8 35.E!a7 E!cl+ 36.�f2 �c5 37 . .Q.e5+ �g6 38.�e2 E! a l 39.E!g7+ �h5 40. � x f5 E! a 2 + 4 1 .�e3 exf5 4 2 . �d4 � e6 + 43.�xd5 � xg7 4 4. .Q.xg7 l3, xa5+ 45.�e6 �g6 46 . .Q.e5 E!a6+ 47. .Q.d6 E!a2 48.h4 h5 49.g3 E!g2 50.�d5 E! x g3 5 1 . .Q.e7 E!d3+ 52 .�e6 E!e3+ 53.�d 6 �f7 54. .Q.g5 E!e4 55.�d5 E!e1 56.�d6 E!al 57.�e5 E!a5+ 58.�d6 E!b5 59..Q.d8 E!b1 60. .Q.g5 E!e1 61.�d5 E!e4 62.�d6 �e8 63 . .Q.h6 �dB 64 . .Q.g5+ �c8 6 5 . .Q.h6 �b7
24 1
Chess Analytics 66 .Q.g5 <;t>b6 67 . .Q.f6 .§. x f4 68.c6 70. .Q.f4 .§. h 1 71 ..Q.g5 .§.f1 72 . .Q.f4 .§.f2 73.g5 llt>e4 75 . .Q.d6 .§.d2 76 .Q.e7 .§.d5+ 77.<;t>g6 <;t>f4 78 . .Q.g5+ <;t>g4 79.<;t>f6 .§.d6+ 80.e5 .§.g6 81.<;t>e4 .§.e6+ 82.<;t>d4 (D) •
•
According to the endgame tablebases, this position is a draw. In terestingly, if the white king were on f2, B lack would be winning ! Black should try to get the white king closer to the h-pawn and then attack it, forc ing the white bishop to leave its post on g5. The other plan - to push the white king far away from the pawn and then sacrifice the exchange - does not work against best defense.
f3 93.d5? White voluntarily leaves the safe zone. 93.'it'd3 was correct.
93 ... .§.e4! 94.1tf6 <;t>f4 95 . .Q.ds f5! Black has finally found the correct plan.
96 . .Q.g5 .§.g4 9 7 .Q.d8 .§.g8 98. .Q.e7 .§.g7 (D) •
99.Af8 E!d7+ 100.<;t>c6 .§.d8 1 0 1 . Ae7 .§.e8 1 0 2 . Ag5 .§.g8 103.Ae7 <;t>e6 104.Ac5 .§.c8+ 105.Wh5 Wd5 105 ...'it'f5 also wins.
106.Jta7 .§.c2 107.<;t>b4 .§.h2 1 08. <;t>b3 .§. x h4 109.Wc3 <;t>e4 uo.<;t>d2 f3 o-1 (201) Kuzmicz - Musialkiewicz Warsaw 2009 Sicilian Defense [B20]
82 ... <;t>f3 83.Wd5? White had three moves, which would draw with correct play: 83.'it'c4, 83.'1t>c3 and 83.'it'd3.
83 .§.e4! 84.j';if6 .§.a4? .•.
Only 84...'it'f4! 85.Ad4 'it'f5 86.M6 l"lg4 87.�d8 l"lgl 88.�e7 l"lg7 89.�b4 'it'g4 90.Ael l"lf7 9 1 .'it'd4 1"\fl -+ or 84 . . . 'it'e3! win - the former in 27 moves and the latter in 29 moves.
85.Ag5? 85.'it'e5!=
85 ... <;t>g4?
l .e4 c5 2.d3 e6 3 .g3 4)c6 4.Jtg2 g6 5.f4 Jtg7 6 . .£Jf3 4)ge7 7.0-0 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.Jte3 f5 10.4)a3 b6 l l .§.e1 .Q.b7 1 2.exf5 4) xf5 1 3 . Af2 '*d7 14.4)g5 .§.ae8 1 5 . '*b3 l£l a 5 1 6 . '*b5 '*c8 17 . .Q. xb7 4) x b7 1 8 . '*a6 h6 1 9 . 4) xe6 .§. xe6 20 . .§. xe6 '* x e6 2 l . '* x b7 '*e2 22.'*d5+ Wh7 23. .§.b1 '*d2 24.'*e4 d5 25. '*xd5 .§.e8 26.4)c4 '*c2 27 .£la3 '*d2 28.'*f3 .§.dB 29.4)c4 '*c2 30.'*d1 '* xd3 31.'*xd3 .§. xd3 32.a4 4)d6 33.4) xd6 .§. xd6 34. .Q.e3 c4 35.a5 bxa5 36. .§.a1 .§.d5 37. .Q.xa7 .§.d2 •
•
85 . . . l"le4!
86.<;t>e5! .§.b4 87.Jtd8 .§.b5+ 88.<;t>e4 .§.b8 89 .Ag5 .§.e8+ 90.<;t>d4 f5 91.g4 92.<;t>d4
242
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn
38 . .§ x a 5 .§ x b2 39 . .§a4 .§b7 40 . .(tf2 A xc3 4 1 . .§ x c4 Jtg7 42.Wg2 .§d7 43.Wf3 .§d3+ 44.Ae3 .§d7 45.h3 h5 46. .§c6 .§b7 47. .§a6 .§b3 48 . .§a7 Wg8 49.We4 .§b4+ 50.Wd5 .§b3 51 ..§e7 Af6 52 . .§e4 Wf7 53.g4 .§bl 54 . .§a4 .§ d l + 55.We4 .§h1 56..§a7+ Wg8 57. .§a6 Wf7 58.gxh5 gxh5 59.Wf5 Ae7 6o ..§a7 WfS 6t.Wg6 Ad6 62.Wf6 WgS 63 . .§g7+ WhS 64.Wf7 .§ft 65 . .§g5 A x f4 66 . .§f5 .(t x e3 67 . .§ x fl Wh7 6s. wf6 Wh6 69.Wf5 Ab6 70. .§dt Ac7 7t . .§d7 Ag3 72 . .§ds h4 73. Wf6 Wh7 74. .§d5 WgS 75. .§h5 Af2 76.Wg6 Ag3 (D)
White is winning, as long as he can keep the enemy king in the right corner.
77. .§b5? But not like that ! Correct was 77.§f5! Ah2 78.§d5 'il'if8 79.§d4 Ag3 80.§e4 and Black is in zugzwang.
77... wfs! Black escapes the box and finds salvation.
(202) Deszczynski - Bologan Warsaw 2009 Sicilian Defense [B5 1 ]
l.e4 c5 2 . .£lf3 d 6 3.Ab5+ .£ld7 4.d4 .£!gf6 5 . .£lc3 a6 6 . .(t xd7+ .£J xd7 7.Ag5 h6 s.Ah4 g5 9.Ag3 Ag7 10.0-0 0-0 ll . .§el b5 12.e5 dxe5 13.dxe5 b4 14 . .£je4 �b6 1 5 .�d5 .§a7 16 . .§adl Ab7 17.�c4 .(taS 18.�e2 �g6 19.c4 .§cS 20.h3 .£jf8 2l.h4 g4 22 . .£jh2 h5 23 . .£lg5 f6 24 . .£le4 � x e4 2 5 . � x e4 .(t x e4 2 6 . .§ x e4 f5 27..§eel .£le6 28..£jfl f4 29.Ah2 .§fS 30 . .§d5 .§f5 31 ..£ld2 .§c7 32 ..£lb3 Wh7 33.Wht f3 34. .§e4 Ah6 35.Ag3 Wg6 36.Wgl .§fS 37 . .£l d 2 .(t x d 2 38 . .§ x d2 .£l d4 39 . .§exd4 cxd4 40. .§xd4 a5 4l.b3 a4 42 . .§d5 .§a7 43 . .§b5 a x b3 44.a xb3 .§ a l + 45.Wh2 fxg2 46.W xg2 .§dS 47 . .§ x b4 .§ddl 4S..(th2 Wf5 49.c5 .§act 50. .§f4+ We6 5 1 .b4 .§dS 52 . .§e4 .§bS 53.Af4 Wd5 54 . .(t x c l W x e4 55.Ad2 W x e5 5 6.f3 g xf3+ 57.Wxf3 .§fS+ 58.We3 Wd5 59.Wd3 e5 6o.Ae3 .§bs 6t.Wc3 .§b7 62.Wb3 .§f7 63.Wc3 .§f3 64.Wd3 e4+ 65.We2 Wc4 66.c6 .§f7 67.Ad2 Wd5 6S.b5 Wc5 69.We3 W xb5 70.W x e4 W x c6 7t.Af4 Wd7 72 .We5 We7 73.Ag5+ WfS 74.Af6 .§b7 75.We6 .§b6+ 76.Wf5 Wf7 77.Ag5 .§b5+ 78.We4 We6 (D)
78.Wf6 wes 79.We6 WdS 80 . .§g5 Wc7 81 ..§c5+ Wb6 82.Wd5 Wb7 83..§c6 Af2 s4. .§h6 Ag3 85 . .§h7+ Wb6 s6. .§h6+ Wb7 87. .§g6 Af2 ss.we4 Ag3 89.Wf3 Wc7 90.We4 Wb7 9t.Wd5 Af2 92 ..§g7+ Wb6 Yz-Yz
243
Chess Analytics This is drawn, but White must know how to defend. As previously stated, the key idea is to avoid the area close to the h-pawn.
After a series of bad moves, White found the correct defense.
79.citfd4 §b4+ 80.citfd3 citfd5 81 .1l,f6 §f4 82 .1l,g5 §f3+ 83.citfe2 citfe4 84 .1l,e7 §b3 85. citff2
93 . . . §.f3+ 94.citfe2 «itlg3 95 .1l.e7 §f5 96 .1l,g5 §.e5+ 97.citfd3 citff3 98.citfd4 §.el (D)
•
•
•
9 l . . . .§f3!
92 .1l,g5+ citfg4 93. citff21 •
•
•
This move does not lose, but it would be easier to defend after 85.'it'd2!.
85 ... §b2+ 86. citfg3? Now the white king gets locked up near the h-pawn. Black will create mat ing threats, forcing the enemy bishop to abandon the pawn. O f course 86.\t'e 1 != would do the job. . .
86... §b7! 87 .1l,g5 §f7 88.citfg2 §b7? •
It is clear that even a strong player such as grandmaster Viktor Bologan isn't familiar with this endgame . . 88 . . . 'it'd3! 89.'it'g3 'it'e2 90.�g2 .§d7 91..ilf4 .§d4 92.'it'g3 .§c4 93 ..\lgS .§g4+ 94.'it'h3 (D) .
99.citfd5? Only to mess it up again! As noted, White should not go above the fourth rank in such positions, so 99.'it'c4 was a must.
99 ... §.e41 Finally, Black wins with the usual trick.
100.citfd6 Black's task would be much more difficult after 1 00.�d8 but of course he still wins: 1 00 . . . \t'f4 1 0 1 ..\lgS + 'it'fS 102.�d8 .§g4.
100... citfg3 101.citfd5 §.xh4 0-1 94 . . . 'it'f3 95.�e7 .§g3+ 96.\t'h2 �g4 97 ..\lgS .§f3 98.\t'g2 .§f8 99.�e7 .§ e 8 1 00 . �g5 .§ e 2 + 1 0 l . 'it'f1 'it'f3 1 02 . .ilf6 .§ e8 1 0 3 . .ilc3 ( 1 0 3 .�g5 �g3 -+ ) 1 03 . . . 'it'g3 104 . .il e 1 + 'it'g4 105.�f2 'it'f3 -+ .
89.citfg3? Missing 89.'it'f2!=.
89 ... §.b2? 89 . . . .§f7!
Although our first example had pawns on a5 and a6 (h5/h6), to this point we have seen games where the pawns were placed on the fourth and the fifth ranks. In this case the situation is slightly different, as the defending side has a spatial advantage of space as a result of the presence of pawns on those ranks. But of course, all previous con cepts, methods and ways are also valid here.
90 .1l,e7? •
90.�h6!
90... §.b3+? 91.citfg2? citff4?
244
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn the e-file then apparently it would be a draw.
(203) Kramnik - Ponomariov Moscow 2009 Queen's Gambit Declined [D38]
60... .Q.g3
1 .d4 e6 2.c4 �f6 3.�f3 dS 4.�c3 Ab4 S ..ilgS �bd7 6.cxdS exdS 7.e3 cS S.dxcS �aS 9 . .§c1 � e4 1 0 . � xdS � x c3 l l . b x c 3 ,ilxc3+ 12.<{tld1 0-0 13.Ac4 �f6 14.,ilxf6 Axf6 1S.<{tle2 bS 16.c6 .Q.a6 17.�fS �a3 18.Ad3 .§fdS 1 9.c7 � x a2+ 2 0 . � d 2 .§ x d3 21.�xd3 b4 22.<{tlf3 ,ilb7+ 23.
Or 60 . . . �f6 62.l"le3 +- .
6 L § f3 +
�g6
61 . .§f3 6 1 . l"l e 3 +- i s the same, but 61 .l"l b6+? �f7 62.�f5 �e7= allows Black's king to escape the dangerous comer.
61 ... .(1.e1 61 . . .�h6 62 .l"lf6+ �g7 63 .�g5 !:i.c7 64.l"le6 �f7 65.l"le4 !:i.g3 66.l"le3 �g7 67.l"lf3 !:i.el 68.l"lfl Ag3 69.�h5 �h7 7 0 . l"l f7 + �g8 7 l . �g6 Ah2 72.l"ld7 �f8 73.l"ld4 Ag3 74.l"le4 and zugzwang! We will see this method (and final position) in the game as well.
62 . .§e3 Af2 Similar is 62 . . . !:i.g3 63.l"le6+ �f7 64.�f5 +- .
63 . .§e6+
64... .ilg3 6S. .§e4 Af2 66.<{tlgS Ag3 67. .§e2 See the 64.l"le2! line.
67 . . . <{tlg7 6S . .§e7+ 69.
<{tlfS
7 0 . �e6! Ael (70 . . . Ad4 71 .l"lh7 +- ) 71 .l"lc7 Ag3 72.l"la7 !:i.h2 (72 . . . Ael 73.�f6 Ac3+ 74.�g6 Ael 75.l"la4! Ag3 76J'!e4 +- ) 73.l"lf7+! �g8 (73 . . . �e8 74. l"l h7 +- ) 74.�f6 Ag3 75.�g6 - 61 . . .�h6
SS.<{tlf3! .(1.d2 S9.
70... .Q.g3 71. <{tlg6 Ah2 72. .§e4 Ag3 We have already seen that White must reach this position with Black to move, thus forcing zugzwang.
73.<{tlf6 .ilf2 74.<{tlg6 74 . l"l e7! Ad4+ 7 5 .�e6 Ac3 76.l"!h7 Ael 77.l"lc7 !:i.g3 78. l"l a7 70.�e6!
245
74...Ag3 7S. .§e2 Ad6 76.
Chess Analytics (204) Pinter - Kasparov Auxerre 1 993 King's Indian Defense [E65]
Jlg3 76 . . . .\le7+ 77 .�fS .lieS 78 . .§e4 ilf2 79.�f6 .lieS (79 ... ilg3 80.�g6) 80 . .§ a4 .\le7+ (80 . . . �e8 8 1 . �e6) 8l .�e6 .llgS 82.l"ia7 �g8 83.�fS Ae3 84.l"ia3 lieS 8S . .§aS .lld6 86. .§a4 Ag3 (86 . . . Ae7 87 . �g6) 87. �g6 �f8 88 . .§e4 +- .
77.'1]f6 Jlf4 7S.§.e4 J,td6 78 . . . Ae7 79 . l"i e4 ild8+ 80 .�fS �f7 8l..§d4 .\le7 82 . .§d7 +79.§.d4 (D)
79 ... Jlc7 More resilient, but equally hope less is 79 . . . ile7+ 80.�fS 'it'f7 (the king won't escape: 80 . . . �e8 8l .'it'e6 �f8 82.l"if4+ 'it'e8 83.l"ia4 +- ) 81.l"id7 �f8 82.�e6 AgS 83.l"ib7 ild2 (83 . . . �g8 84.�fS i.id2 8S.�g6 �f8 86 . .§bS i.icl [86 . . . .\l e l 87. l"i fS + ] 8 7 . l"i h S +- ) 84 . .§ f7 + ! �g8 (84 . . . �e8 8 S . l"i h7) 8S.�f6 .flel 86.'it'g6 .llg3 87.l"ie7 �f8 88 . .§e4 +- .
SO.'I]g6 Jlg3 Sl.§.e4 This is the position we saw above after move 72 when White was to move. Now it is Black's turn and he is in zugzwang. 1-0
l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.Jld3 0-0 6.�ge2 c5 7.d5 e6 S.0-0 exd5 9.cxd5 §.eS 10.h3 �bd7 11.�g3 a6 12.a4 §.bS 13.a5 h5 14.Ag5 b5 1 5 . a x b6 � x b6 16.§.a2 �e5 17.Jle2 �h7 1S.Ae3 h4 1 9 . � h l g5 20.�d2 �ds 21. �c2 �fS 22. �cl J,tf6 23.f3 �fg6 24.�f2 §.b6 25.§.dl �f4 26.Afl �h5 27:�c2 �g3 2S.b3 §.e7 29.�bl �g6 30.�d2 �f4 3l.�c4 §.b4 32.�d3 �g6 33.§.a3 §.c7 34. �d2 §.bS 35.e5 d x e5 36.d6 §.c6 37.� xc5 Jlf5 38.�d5 §.xc5 39.�xc5 e4 40.fxe4 Axe4 4 1 . �c7 � f4 4 2 . � x dS+ J,i x dS 4 3 . Jl x f4 g xf4 44.Jld3 Jlb7 45.§.el Af6 46.d7 Ac6 47.§.eS+ § xeS 4S.dxeS�+ AxeS 49.§.xa6 Jld4+ so.'l]h2 Ah5 5t.§.d6 Jlf2 52.§.dS+ 'lig7 53.b4 f5 54.§.bS J,ta4 55.�d2 'l)f6 56.§.aS Ad7 57.b5 'l]e7 5S.§.a6 Ae6 59.§.a4 Jld5 60.§.al Ae4 61.Afl 'l]d6 6 2 . � f3 Wc5 63.§.cl + 'l)b6 64.Ac4 'lieS 65.Jlfl + ®b6 66.�e5 J,td4 67.�d7+ ®a5 6S.§.dl � xf l + 69. §. xfl ®xb5 70.�fS 'l]c4 71.�g6 Af6 72.§.xf4 Ag5 73.§.fl ®d3 74.g3 'l]e2 75.§.al f4 76.§.a2+ 'lle3 77.§.a3+ Wf2 7S.gxf4 Ah6 79.§.a2+ 'l]fl SO. §. a l + Wf2 S l . §.gl J,i xg6 S2.§.xg6 Axf4+ S3.'1ihl Ag3 (D)
If the king is free, the attacker has to push him one file further than in the previous examples, namely to the op posite edge of the board. In Kasparov's game against Pinter, the former world champion managed to avoid this and achieve a draw.
246
Rook and Rook-pawn vs. Bishop and Rook-pawn
84.§g4 �fl 85.E!g5 �f2 86.§f5+ �e3 87. �g2 �e4 88.§f7 �d5 89.§e7 �d6 90.§e2 �d5 91.�f3 �d6 92.�g4 �d7 93.�f5 �d6 94.§e8 �d7 95.§e6 �c7 96.�e4 �d7 97.�d5 �c7 98.§e7+ �b6 9 9 . §f7 .i}.h2 100. §f2 .1lg3 1 0 1 . §c2 �b7 102.§c6 .1}.f4 1 03 . �c5 .1lg3 104.�d5 .1}.f4 105 . § c 2 .1lg3 106.�e6 �b6 107.�d7 �b5 1 08. §c6 .i}.h2 109.§c2 .1lg3 1 10 . �e6 �b6 l l l . �f5 �b5 1 1 2. �e4 �b6 113.�f3 �b5 114.�g4 Yz-Yz Of more interest is the next game. Just like in the lines above, the king was trapped in the vicinity of the pawns. Apparently, this should be less danger ous, because the king has more space available, but on the other hand the bishop's "good" diagonal is shorter!
49 .§d4 + �c6 50.�d8 .1lf5 51.�e8 .1}.e6 52.�f8 �c5 53.�g7 �c6 54.�g8 �c5 55.�f8 �c6 56.�g7 �c5 57.�h8 �c6 58.�h7 �c5 59.�h6 .1lf5 60.�g5 .1}.e6 6 1 . �f6 �c6 62.f5 .1}. x f5 63.� x f7 �c5 64.�f6 .i}.c2 65.�e7 .1lf5 66.�d8 �c6 67.§f4 �d6 68.§b4 �c5 69.�c7 .1ld3 70.§d4 .i}.e2 71.�b7 Aft 72.�a7 .1}.e2 73.§e4 .1ld3 74.§b4 .1lc4 75.�a6 �d5 76.�a5 �e5 77.§bl g5 78.h xg5 �f5 79.§gl �g6 80.�b4 h4 81.�c5 h3 82.�d4 .1}.e6 83.�e5 .1}.d7 84.�f4 .1}.c6 85.�g3 � x g5 8 6 . § d l h 2 87.�xh2 �f4 88.c4 bxc4 89.§d4+ �e5 90.§xc4 �d5 (D)
(205) Kasparov - Yusupov Linares 1 993 Queen's Gambit Declined [D35]
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3 . .£lc3 .1le7 4.cxd5 exd5 5 ..1lf4 .£!f6 6.e3 .1lf5 7. .£lge2 0-0 8. .£lg3 .1}.e6 9.Ad3 c5 10.dxc5 .1}.xc5 11.0-0 .£!c6 12.§cl .1}.d6 13 . .£lh5 Ae7 14. .£lb5 .£! xh5 15."�txh5 g6 16.�f3 §c8 17.§fdl �d7 18.h3 §fd8 19.�g3 .£l b4 20 . .£!c3 .£l x d3 2 1 . § xd3 .1lf5 22.§d2 �e6 23.§cdl h5 24.h4 E!c5 25.f3 �c6 26.e4 § x c3 27.bxc3 �b6+ 28.�h2 d x e4 2 9 . § x d8+ .1}. x d8 30 . .1}.e3 �a5 3l.�b8 �c7+ 32.�xc7 .1}. x c7+ 33.�gl exf3 34.gxf3 b6 35.�f2 �f8 36.§d4 �e7 37 . .1lf4 .1}.xf4 38.§xf4 �d6 39.�e3 �c5 40.§d4 .1}.e6 41.a3 a5 42.�e4 b5 43.�e5 a4 44.f4 �c6 45.�f6 �c5 46.§b4 .1}.c4 47.�e7 Ae6 48.§e4 �d5
91.§b4 �c5 The black king cannot escape to queenside, at least not before he places his bishop on b3.
9 2 . �g3 .1lb5 93.�f4 �b6 94.�e3 �a5 95.�d4 .i}.e2 96.§bl .1lh5 97.§el .1lf7 98.�c5 .1lb3 99. §e8 �a6 100.�c6 �a7 101.�b5 1 0 1 . l"! e7 + �b8 ( 1 0 1 . . . �a6 1 02 . �c5 and the king i s boxed) 1 02.l"!c7 was rather simple. 101...�b7! (D) l O l . . . Ad l ?! 1 0 2 . l"! e7 + �b8 1 03.�b6 �c8 1 04.l"!e4 Ab3 105.l"!d4 creates zugzwang.
247
102.§e7+?
Chess Analytics
Letting the king out of the box. 102.l"!d8 'tic7 103.l"ld4 is secure.
102 ...�c8 Now it's a draw...
103.�c6 �d8 104. .§d7+ 104.l"!e2 Ac4 105.l"!e4 Ab3=
104 . . . �e8 1 0 5 . �c7 106 . .§d2 .il.b3 107 . .§e2+ 108.�d6 ,ilc4 109 . .§e7+ 1 10 . .§e4 .il.b3 l l l . �d7 1 1 2 . .§f4+ �g6 1 13 . �d6 1 1 4. �e5 �g6 1 1 5 . .§f3 1 1 6 . .§f6 ,ilc4 1 17. �f5 118.�g5 ,ilc2 �-�
,ilc2 �f7 �f8 �f7 �g5 �g7 .il.b3
Curiously, the evaluation remains the same: the side with a rook should win by successive zugzwang positions. For a while, Kasparov conducted his technique in the best way, but then let the enemy king escape, with an inevi table draw...
Conclusion According to grandmaster Alexander Baburin, the defending side should avoid two main situations: 1 . His king is locked in the low right comer (f2/f7, fl/f8, g2/g7, etc) with the rook cutting it off along the e file. 2. His king is above the fourth (fifth) rank and is left of the e-file (i.e., the white king is on d5, while Black has a rook on e4).
So, in conclusion we could create a detailed guide of important factors: 1 . The stronger side wants to sac rifice the exchange back, when the de fending king is too far away. 2 . Therefore the defending side must not allow his king to be driven beyond the c- or f-file. 3. The defending side should not move his king above the fourth (fifth) rank either. 4 . Usually the defending side should place his king in diagonal op position to the enemy king (i.e., 'tic2 vs. 'tle4). 5. The defending side does not want his king to be too close to his pawn either - there the king will be in real danger. The S quare
Concept This title is perhaps misleading as this survey is focused on the ending of .§ +A +ft vs. A +
248
The Square pieces for the rook. This is the case most often encountered, as the stronger side usually succeeds in efficiently restrict ing the knight. 3. To isolate the defending king from its pieces and create mating nets. This is another good case, as the knight usually finds shelter on the edge of the board, where it can't assist its king. Let's start with a famous game:
77.Ac5 + ®g8 78.®d6 ®f8 79.Ad4 Ag4 so.Ae5 Af5 st.l3.h7 ®g8 82 . .§.c7 ®f8 83.®c6 ®g8 84.§.e7 ®f8 85.Ad6 ®g8 86. .§.e8+ ®f7 87..§.e7+ ®g8 88.Ae5 ®f8 (D)
(206) Kasparov - Karpov Lyon 1 990 Scotch Game [C45]
l.e4 e5 2.l�)f3 l£)c6 3.d4 exd4 4.l£) xd4 l£)f6 5.i£) xc6 bxc6 6.e5 �e7 7.�e2 i£)d5 8.c4 l£)b6 9.i£)d2 �e6 10.b3 a5 ll.Ab2 Ab4 12.a3 Axd2+ 13.�xd2 d5 14.cxd5 cxd5 15 . .§.cl 0-0 t6 . .§. xc7 �g6 17.f3 Af5 ts.g4 Abt t9.Ab5 .§.acs 20.§. xc8 §. x eS 21.0-0 h5 22.h3 hxg4 23.hxg4 Ac2 24.�d4 �e6 25 . .§.f2 .§.c7 26.§.h2 l£)d7 27.b4 axb4 28.axb4 i£)f8 29.Afl Ab3 30.Ad3 Ac4 3t.Af5 �e7 32. �d2 §.c6 33.Ad4 §.a6 34.Abt .§.a3 35 . .§.h3 .§.b3 36.Ac2 � x b4 37.�f2 l£)g6 38.e6 .§.bl+ 39.Axbl � x b l + 40.®h2 fxe6 41 .�b2 � x b2+ 4 2 . A x b2 i£)f4 43.§.h4 i£)d3 44.Ac3 e5 4 5 . ®g3 d4 46.Ad2 Ad5 47.l3.h5 ®f7 48.Aa5 ®e6 49 . .§.h8 l£)b2 50 . .§.e8+ ®d6 5 t .Ab4+ ®c6 5 2 . §. c8+ ®d7 53.l3.c5 ®e6 54.§.c7 g6 55.§.e7+ ®f6 56.§.d7 Aa2 57.§.a7 Ac4 58.Aa5 Ad3 59.f4 exf4+ 60.®xf4 Ac2 6t.§.a6+ ®f7 62.®e5 i£)d3+ 63.®xd4 l£)f2 64.g5 Af5 65.Ad2 ®e7 66.®d5 l£)e4 67.§.a7+ ®e8 68.Ae3 i£) c3+ 69.®e5 ®d8 70.Ab6+ ®e8 7 1 . §.c7 l£)e4 72.Ae3 i£)g3 73.Af4 l£)h5 74..§.a7 ®fs 75.Ah2 l£)g7 76.Agt l£)h5
Here the game was adjourned for the second time. Judging from every thing, the position is a winning one for White, and in end the logic of chess tri umphed. To win the game, Kasparov has to walk his king to the d8-square. He can only do it by having his rook moving around a magical square which is described by a7, a3, e3 and e7 squares.
89 . .§.a71 Drawing one side of the square.
89 ... Ag4 90.®d6 Ah3 The alternative is 90 . . . .llf5 91 .:8a3 �e8 (9l . . .�t7 92.:8e3 .llc2 [92 ... ile6 93 .�c7 r:JJ e7 94.ilb2! <£Jf4 95 .ila3+ �t7 96.:Bf3 +- ; 92 ...ilg4 93.�c7 �e6 94 . .llh 2+ �t7 (94 . . . �d5 95.:8e7 .llf5 96.�d8 ilc2 97.�e8 +- ) 95.�d8 ile6 (95 . . . <£lg7 96.:Be7+ �f8 97 . .lld6 �g8 98.ile5 <£Je6+ 9 9 . �e8 .ll f5 1 00.:8b7 +- ) 96. :8 a 3 <£Jg7 97.:8 a7+ �g8 98.�e7 +-] 93.�d7 .lla4+ 94.�d8 �e6 95.ilh2+ �d5 [95 . . . �f5 96.:8e5+ �g4 97 . :8 e4 + +- ] 9 6 . �e7 �d4 97.:8a3 +- ) 92.:8e3 �t7 93.�c7 ile6 (93 . . . �e6 94 ..llh 2+ �d5 95.:8e7 .llc2 96.�d8 ila4 97.:8e5+ �d4 98.:8e6 ilc2 99.r:JJe7 +- ) 94.�d8 ild5 95.ilb2 <£lf4 96.:Be7+ �g8 (96 . . . �f8 97.ila3 �g8 98.:8e8+ 'it'g7 99.�e7 +-) 97.:8a7
249
Chess Analytics 4:Jd3 9 8 . �d4 �f8 99 . .8 d7 �c4 1 00.l"\d6 +- .
91.§a31 The second side of the square is born. But why has the rook landed on the a3-square? It prevents the black knight from jumping to the g3-square.
91 ... Ag4 92.§e31 The rook draws the third side ofthe square, preparing the white king's jour ney to d8. Now nothing can prevent the white king from making its way into the enemy position.
92 ...Af5 93. �c7 �f7 94. �ds
97...�f8 98.Ae5 The domination is complete: the knight on the edge has no moves. White can easily force the black king to the comer.
98 ... Ad3 99.Eta7 Ae4 100.§c7 Kasparov is looking for a free square on the 8th rank for his rook. It was possible to play 1 00.�d6+ �g8 101 .�e7 4:Jg7 1 02.�e5 +- directly.
100 ...,1lb1 After 1 00 . . .�f5 good is 101 .�d6+ <;tJgS 1 02.<;tJe7 4:Jg7 103.�e5 +- . 101.Ad6+ �g8 102.�e7 (D)
The king's journey is over and White drives the black king from the f file.
94... Ag4 (D)
And B lack resigned as after 1 02 . . . 4:Jg7 1 03 . l"\ c8+ �h7 1 04.Ae5 4:Jf5+ 105.�f8 he has no defense against 1 06.Rc7+. 1-0
95.Ab2! Kasparov makes an important bishop move precisely at the moment when the black knight cannot move. It opens the road for the rook to return to the e7-square.
A broader square maneuver can be seen in the next example. Although it was under more favorable circum stances, it was still the only correct treat ment:
95 ... Ae6 (207) Westenberger - Heinzel Germany 1 988 Sicilian Defense [B23]
After 9 5 . . . 4:Jf4 96 . .8 e7 + �f8 97.�a3 �g8 98.l"\e4 4:Je6+ 99.�e7, Black loses one of his pieces.
96.Ac31 An accurate waiting move which puts Black in zugzwang.
96... Af5 96 ... 4:Jf4? 97.l"\f3 +-
97.§e7+ Returning where it all began, the rook finishes the square journey.
1.e4 c5 2 . .£lc3 e6 3 ..£lge2 .£lc6 4.g3 d5 5.exd5 exd5 6.Ag2 d4 7. .£lb1 Ad6 s.d3 Ag4 9.h3 Ahs 10. .£jd2 f5 11 . .£lf3 .£lge7 12.0-0 00 1 3.c3 �d7 14.cxd4 c x d4 1 5 . �b3+ Af7 1 6 . �a4 Ac5 17.Ad2 Etad8 1S.Etfct Ab6 19.b4 .£lg6 20. .£jf4 .£!ce5 21. �xd7 § xd7
250
The Square 22.4) xe5 4) xe5 23.h4 g6 24.a4 �g7 25.b5 h6 26. .Q.b4 .§.e8 27.a5 .Q.d8 28.a6 bxa6 29 . .Q.c6 4) xc6 30.bxc6 .§.c7 3l . .Q.d6 .§.c8 32. .§.xa6 g5 33.hxg5 h xg5 34.4)g2 .§.e6 35. .Q.c5 .Q.f6 36. .Q.xa7 .Q.e8 37. .§.a5 .§.exc6 38 . .§. xc6 .§. x c6 39 . .§. xf5 .§. c l + 40.�h2 .§.dl 4 1 .f4 g4 42 . .§.c5 .§. xd3 43.f5 .§.c3 44.4)f4 �f7 45 . .§.d5 .§.c2+ 46.�gl .Q.c6 47 . .§. x d4 .Q. xd4+ 48 . .Q. xd4 .Q.b5 49.f6 .Q.c4 50 . .Q.e5 �e8 51.4)g6 .Q.f7 52.4)f4 �d7 53.�fl �c6 54.�el �c5 5 5 . 'd d3+ �c4 56.4)f4 .§.a2 57.�fl .§.a5 58. .Q.c7 .§.al+ 59.�f2 �d4 60.4)e2+ �d3 61.4)f4+ �e4 62.4)g2 .§.a6 63. .Q.f4 .§. x f6 64.4)e3 .Q.e6 65.'dfl .§.f8 66.4)d2+ �d3 67.4)fl (D)
knight on h4 with 76.<£\g2? a nasty sur prise would await: 76 . . . §.fl * .
76... .§.a2 Mission accomplished. Now the second phase begins.
77.�el �e4! Black allows the knight to go to h4, as he has calculated that the white king cannot go to the kingside.
78.4)g2 .Q.c4 79.4)h4 (D)
So now we have a nearly identical case as the first example.
79 ... .§.e2+! SO.�dl But here it is easier for Black, as the white king cannot hide on the kingside: 80.'�fl ?! §. h2 + S l . � g l §. xh4 -+ .
80...�d3! Mating threats are in the air, as the white pieces cannot be helpful by pro tecting their king.
Here the white knight is not pro tected by its pawn, so the task is easier. First Black activates his rook, very simi lar to the previous example.
67... .§.a8 68.4)d2 .§.a4 69 . .Q.g5 .Q.d5 The knight is fully dominated by the black bishop.
70.�el .§.a2 7 1 ..Q.f4 .§. a l + 72. �f2 .§.dl Black's plan is first to drive the white knight away from the d2-square from where it controls the important f3square.
73.4)fl Af3 74 . .1l,g5 .Q.e2 75.'de3 .§.al 76. .Q.f4
81.4)g6 .Q.b3+ 82.�cl .§.c2+ 83.�bl .Q.a2+! 84.�al �c3 85.l�� e5 .§.g2 Quicker was 85 . . . Ad5 86. <£\d7 �b3 87.ile3 §.b2 88.<£\f6 §.h2 89.�bl §.hl + 90.ilc1 ilc4.
86.4)d7 .Q.e6 87. .Q.e5+ �c2 And White resigned as mate is near: 88.Ad4 §.d2. 0-1 The final example shows the way that the defending king can be pushed back and how the knight can be re stricted and eventually lost!
If White were to try to place his
251
Chess Analytics (208) Azmaiparashvili - Romero Holmes Leon 1 994 King's Indian Defense [E94]
1.d4 4)f6 2.c4 g6 3.4)c3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.4)f3 0-0 6.Ae2 e5 7.Ae3 4)bd7 S.0-0 c6 9.d5 c5 10.4)e1
4)d6 74.Ac6 4)c4 75.Af3 4)d6 76. <jfjld2 4)c4+ 77.
7S...Af4 79.f!a5 4)f7 SO.§a4+
s4.Ad5+!
ss ... Ag3 s6.
SS . . . 4)c7+ S9.
Ag3
Fully dominating the knight.
91 ... Ag3 92.
The ending is very young still, as much work must be done - the black king has to be pushed back.
69 . Af5 Ac1 70.<jfjld1 Af4 71.
Conclusion The ending is won but it is neces sary to work things out with concrete plans. The only problem to be con cerned with is the 50-move rule, as the pawns are blocked and both opponents are usually facing time trouble in the last stages of the game!
252
Queen vs. Rook Queen vs. Rook
Concept This ending of queen versus rook looks like an easy one, but there are many details to be studied and applied. The queen wins, but the main obstacle is the 50-move rule and the limited time to think that both opponents have at their disposal, as in these late phases of the game they have usually consumed most of the time and they live on the 30-seconds/per move increment. In this survey, we will borrow from Derek Grimmell's excellent study of this ending in his Queen versus Rook Endgame Tra in ing Database (ChessBase 2008). It is probably the most accurate work I have ever seen in this subject and I found it very helpful. But let's examine some important con cepts, starting with the ways to defend: 1 . Close defenses: In which the king and rook stay within two squares of each other for mutual support and defense. 2. Distant defenses: In which the rook separates from the king while re maining no more than one rank or file away so as to rejoin it if needed. 3. Cut-off defenses: In which the rook sets up a barrier to the white king 's progress and the black king supports this barrier from some distance. 4. Harassment defenses: In which the rook hides behind the white king and threatens a series of harassing checks from either of two directions. And how does the queen win this ending? 1 . By giving mate: Although this seems obvious, the queen has several mating patterns and threats available in this ending which almost never appear in any other type of position.
We will call these "microwave mates" because their scarcity in other positions makes it likely that a defender will overlook them, allowing the queen a one-move mate with a delightful sur prise quality (for the attacker). 2. By forking the rook: The rook must often separate from the king be cause of the suffocating presence of the opposing pieces. When this happens, either the queen must find a way to fork the rook, or it must force the rook to return to its king and endure the pro cess of suffocation. Several standard techniques make these goals simpler to achieve. They improve the queen's ability to fork the rook. In the sample games, the student will see several cases in which strong international players missed one-move forks, or demonstrated a lack of famil iarity with the proper forking tech niques. 3. By creating a zugzwang posi tion: A well-prepared defender can avoid both ofthe first dangers by proper positioning. The stronger side must be familiar with a number of zugzwang positions. The Philidor Position is the most well-known. And finally, how does the rook draw this ending? 1 . By stalemate tricks: The queen's main strategy is to force the rook to ward the edge of the board to create zugzwang (although there are a few zugzwang positions that can occur in the center of the board). When this happens, an over-eager attacker can easily fall into a stalemate trap. Even when the attacker avoids actual stalemate, the defender can of ten prolong the defense through aware ness of stalemate defenses, times when it is safe to place the undefended rook
253
Chess Analytics on an attacked square because captur ing the rook would produce stalemate. Again, we will see cases in which international players missed stalemate defenses and missed potential draws as a result. 2. By skewer or pin of the queen: We understand that this ending is likely to occur late in a playing session. It is easy for a fatigued attacker, facing stub born defense, to fall into a pin or skewer ofthe queen. In rare circumstances, this can allow the rook to win. 3. By the 50-move rule: This is the weaker side's real defensive strength. Let us be clear about one fact: against a skilled and knowledgeable attacker, even the best defense will lose well short of the 50-move rule. And yet for a skilled and knowledgeable defender, this ending is much easier to defend than it is to win. Black's two main ways of reaching the 50-move rule are: 3 . 1 . By confusing the opponent: There are at least five types ofpositions in this course in which the weaker side can choose an objectively inferior de fense that sets the attacker tremendous problems. An unprepared attacker is vir tually certain to choose the wrong ap proach and lose time. 3.2. By superior knowledge: There are yet more positions in which supe rior knowledge enables the defender to recognize weak moves and exploit them to slip away along the edge of the board or toward the center, and thus prolong resistance. The rule of thumb in this ending is that two escapes should draw; three escapes will draw. Our first example is the most cru cial of the survey:
This is the most important position to know; the so called "Philidor Posi tion." In this standard position, Black must be on move.
l ... §h7 All alternatives also lose: l . . .�a6 2 . �cS; 1 . . . /"! bS 2 . �a5 * ; l . . . l"! b4 2.�a5+; l . . .l"!b3 2.�d4+ �bS 3.�f4+ rtJa7 (3 ... �cS 4.�fS * ) 4.�a4+; l . . .l"!b2 2.�d4+; 1 . . ./"!bl 2 .�d4+ rtJbS 3.�f4+ �as 4.�fS+ �a7 5.�f2+ �bs 6.�h2+ �a7 7.�a2+; l . . .l"!f7 2.�d4+ rtJbS (2 . . . �aS 3 . �a l + ) 3 . �b 2 + �aS 4.�a2+; l . . .l"!g7 2.�d4+.
2. �a5+ 'it'bS 3. �b4+ 'it'a7 4.�a3+ 'it'bS 5.�b3+ 'it'a7 6.�a2+ 'it'bS 7.�g8+ 1-0 But what about in practice? Theory is all well and good but what happens when we get to a practical game? Let's examine an example between two great and well-known players: (210) Gelfand - Svidler Moscow 200 1 Catalan Opening [E05]
1 .4)f3 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.d4 d5 4.g3 Ae7 5.Ag2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.�c2 a6 8.a4 Ad7 9.�xc4 Ac6 to.Ag5 Ad5 11. �d3 Ae4 t2.�e3 4)bd7 13.4Jc3 Ac6 14.�d3 h6 15.Axf6 4) xf6 16.e4 b6 17.§fdl Ah7 18.d5 Ac5 1 9 . 4J e5 e x d5 20. 4) xd5 4) x d5 2 l . e x d 5 �f6
2 54
Queen vs. Rook 22 . .£ld7 t:/ x f2+ 23.�hl .§fd8 24. .§fl t:/e3 25.t:/f5 t:/e7 26. .£1 xc5 b x c5 27 . .§ael t:/d7 28. t:/ x d7 .§ x d7 29 . .§cl A x d 5 30 . .§ x c5 ,il xg2+ 3 1 .� xg2 .§d2+ 32 . .§f2 .§xf2+ 33.�xf2 .§b8 34. .§c2 .§b4 3 5 . �e3 .§ x a4 36 . .§ x c7 .§b4 37 . .§c2 a5 38.�d2 a4 39 . .§c8+ �h7 40.�c3 .§b3+ 41.�c2 .§f3 42 . .§a8 .§f2+ 43. �c3 .§ x h2 44 . .§ x a4 .§h3 45.b4 .§ xg3+ 46.�c4 h5 47. .§al h4 48.b5 .§e3 49.b6 .§e8 50.b7 .§b8 51 . .§bl g5 52.�d5 h3 53.�e4 h2 54.�f5 .§xb7 55 . .§hl .§b2 56.�xg5 �g7 57.�g4 �g6 58.�g3 �g5 59. .§fl f5 60.�h3 .§f2 6 1 . .§a l .§e2 62. .§hl �f4 63 . .§fl+ �e4 64.�g3 �e5 65 . .§ a l f4+ 66. �f3 .§a2 67. .§hl .§b2 68.�g4 .§f2 69.�h3 �e4 70 . .§el + �d3 71 . .§al .§d2 72 . .§a3+ �c2 73 . .§a2+ �bl 74 . .§ x d2 h l t:/ + 75.�g4 �cl 76..§d3 t:/e4 77..§{3 �d2 78..§xf4(D)
White is already closer to the first than the eighth. Knowing when and how to go either direction can save a great deal of trouble in this ending.
82 . .§f5 t:/e3+ 83.�g4 �e4! 84. .§f8 t:/gl + 85. �h5? 85.�h4 is best, although B lack mates in 1 8 moves starting with 85 ... �c5.
85 ... t:/g7? Overlooking the decisive 85 ... �c5+. This often happens to at tackers!
86. .§fl t:/e5+ 86 . . .�g3 here or in the next moves is correct, pushing the king to the shorter edge of the board.
87. �g4 t:/e6+ 88. �g5 t:/g8+ 89.�h4 If 89.�h5 then 89 . . . �g3.
89 ... t:/g6! 90.�h3 90.§f2 is a bit better defense, al though after 90 . . .�d6 Black mates in 1 8.
90... �e3 90 . . . �g5! pushing the king back is the right concept.
91.�h4 t:/h7+ 92.�g3?! 92. �g5! saves White at least seven moves.
92 ...t:/g8+ 93.�h3 93.�h4?! �c4+
93 ... t:/g5! 94. �h2 �e2 Let's look at a well-known example of what a tenacious defender can do against a super-grandmaster.
78 . . . t:/g6+ 80.�f2 t:/g5
79.�f3
�d3
Not a mistake, but 94 . . .�g4 should be the usual restriction method!
95 . .§gl t:/f4+ 96.�h3 t:/h6+ 97.�g3 t:/e3+ 98.�h2 (D)
80 . . .�c6 is a bit better, although it doesn't make a big difference. But with the 50-move rule every move counts.
81.�f3 t:/gl 8 1 . . .�g6! is more effective, be cause Black is driving White toward the first rank, rather than the eighth, and
255
Chess Analytics 110...�e5+
98... Cit'f2?!
1 1 0 . . .�e4 is the most precise.
98 . . .�d4! puts White in zugzwang and mates soon: 99.§g3 'it'f2 1 00.§g2+ \t>fl 1 0 1 .'it'h3 �h8+.
lll.lit'f7 �d5+ 112.1it'g7 �d6 1 1 2 . . .�e4!
99 .§.g2+ lit'fl 100 . .§.g4
113.1it'g8 1it'g6 114 . .§.g7+ Clt'f6 115 . .§.f7+ lit'e6 116.1it'g7 �g3+
•
Now Black has lost all the ground he had gained and more.
100 . . . �e5+ 1 0 1 . 1it'h3 lit'f2 102.Cit'h4 Cit'f3?! This is an especially difficult posi tion to solve at the board. Yet this is a common pattern; corrected was 102 . . . �h2+! 103.'it'g5 'it'f3. Not only does it work here, but it is usually the best procedure everywhere except the comer of the board.
103 . .§.g6! Gelfand knows his defensive tac tics in �v§ endings. Svidler has gained no ground since move 85.
103 . . . �e7+ 104.Cit'h5 Clt'f4 105.Cit'h6?! White misses the stalemate trick 105.§f6+! which would already come close to guaranteeing a draw by the 50move rule. The attacker must be very careful about approaching the defender on the (relative) sixth rank.
105 ... �h4+ 105 . . . 'it'f5! mates in 1 2 .
106.Cit'g7 1it'f5! See the comment to the 1 02nd move.
107. .§.h6 �e7+ 108.1it'g8 1it'g5 1 08 . . .�d7 1 09.'it'f8 'it'g5 is the kill ing sequence. 109 .§.h7 �e8+ 110.Iit'g7 (D) •
1 16 . . . �e5+! 1 17.'it'g8 �d5 forces the Philidor Position in about five moves.
117.1it'f8 �h4 118.1it'g8 �g5+ Black should force the position in the comments of the 1 1 6th move: 1 18 . . . �d8+ 1 19.§f8 ( 1 19.\t>g7 �g5+ 1 20 . 'it'f8 �h5 ! ) 1 1 9 . . . �d4 1 20 . § f7 �d5.
1 19 . .§. g7 �d8+ 1 20.Iit'h7 �h4+ 12l.lit'g8 �h5 122. .§.a7 It is already too late to capture the rook before the 50-move rule applies. Gelfand's play suggests that he had al ready made a deep study of the queen versus rook endgame.
l 22 . . . �g6+ 123.1it'h8 �f6+ 124 .§.g7 �h6+ 125.1it'g8 �h2 126 . .§.g6+ Clt'e7 1 27 .§.g7+ Clt'e8 128 .§.g6 �h5 129.1it'g7 1it'e7 Yl-Yl •
•
•
What can we conclude from this game? Svidler is clearly a great chessplayer. He missed a few immedi ate opportunities such as the fork at move 85, but the main problem was that he was unable to solve a concrete prob lem at the board several times. In other words, he could force Gelfand back until a win was there for the taking, but did not know the dozen or so basic but non-obvious ways to deliver the kill ing blow. By contrast, Gelfand gave the im pression of knowing which positions give the queen the greatest difficulty. He seemed to steer towards these, even when they were objectively less good. Remember his example of tenacious defense.
256
Queen vs. Rook (211) Ivanchuk - Lautier Horgen 1 995 Sicilian Defense [B48] 1.e4 c5 2.lL!f3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lL!xd4 lL!c6 5.lL!c3 t/Jc7 6.Ae3 a6 7.Ad3 lL!f6 S.0-0 lL!e5 9.h3 Ac5 10.
importantly, it creates the chance to get into "harassment" defenses, rather than moving at once to a "close defense."
97.t/Ja7+ .§b7 97 . . . �c6 moving towards the cen ter gives White more options to make mistakes.
9S.t/Jc5+
99.
102.
102 ... .§f7 Lautier continues to fall back us ing his chances. lvanchuk is further
257
Chess Analytics from mate than he was on move 95.
1 03.�g5+ d5 .§t7 getting offthe back rank; again Ivanchuk is no closer to mate than when he started. The best move is very hard for White to find at the board.
105.
105 ... §h7 Now it's a trivial win and lvanchuk finishes the job smoothly. If 1 05 ... .§b7 then 1 06.�c5+ <:tlg7 107.�d4+ <;t>g8 1 08.<;t>f6! and with the checking square under control; Black is doomed.
106.�f6+ g7 1 08.�e7+ <;t>g8 ( 1 08 . . . <;t>g6 1 09.�f6+ <;t>h5 1 1 0.<;t>f5) 1 09 . �e8+ <;t>g7 1 1 0. �f7 + <;t>h6 l l l .�f6+ <;t>h5 1 1 2 .<;t>f5
1 5 . � x b7 � x b7 1 6 . Jld5 �a7 17. A x aS � x aS 1S. Aa3 �c6 19.§adl b5 20.axb5 axb5 21.§d2 g6 22.Ab4
107 . . . §g7 l OS.�eS+
109 . . . §g4 1 10. �h5+
69.§f2 �d5+ 70.
71.
l .e4 d6 2.d4 lL!f6 3.lL!c3 e5 4.lL!f3 lL!bd7 5.Ac4 Ae7 6.0-0 00 7.§el c6 S.a4 b6 9.b3 a6 10.d5 cxd5 1 1 . lLJ xd5 lLJ x d5 12.�xd5 �c7 13.�xaS Ab7 14.�a7 §aS
Again 7 1 . . . �dl was more precise.
72.
258
76. . . <;t>f4+! forces the Philidor Po-
Queen vs. Rook sition by a well-worn path.
77.�g2 �e4+ 78.�g1 78 .�h3 is more stubborn : 78 .. :�'hl + 79.�g4 '3i>f2 and mate in 1 3 .
78... �d4+?! 78 .. :�d5 79.l''\ g2+ �f3
79.�g2 �f4?! 79 . . .'ii¥d 5+ 80.'3i>h3 �f2
80.�h3 �h6+ 81.�g4 �g6+ (D)
We have played 1 2 moves, and White is now 1 2 moves further from mate than at the outset!
82.�f4?! 82.�h4! is by far the toughest.
82... �d6+?! 82 . . . 'ii¥f6+! 83.�g4 '3i>f2 (a pattern well-known) ends resistance.
83.�g4 �g6+ 84.�f4?! �f6+! 85.�e4? 85 .'3i>g4 is mate in 1 4.
85... �h4+ 0-1 Here come now three fresh ex amples in which the stronger side showed (more or less) good understand ing of this ending. Grimmell's analy ses were probably studied in depth! (213) Moradiabadi - Nielsen Athens 20 1 0 Catalan Opening [E04]
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.4)f3 4)f6 4.g3 dxc4 5.Ag2 a6 6.0-0 4)c6 7.Ag5 Ae7 8.e3 0-0 9.4)bd2 e5 10.4) xc4 e x d4 1 1 . 4) x d4 4) x d4
1 2. � x d4 � xd4 1 3 . e x d4 .§.dB 14. .§.ad1 Ag4 15 ..§.cl c6 16.4)b6 .§.abs t7.Af4 Ad6 t8.Ae5 Ae6 1 9 . A xf6 g x f6 20.d5 c x d5 2 1 . A x d 5 Ae5 2 2 . A x e6 fxe6 23.4)c4 Ad4 24. .§.c2 .§.d7 25.4)d2 �f7 26.4)f3 Ab6 27. .§.e1 .§.bd8 28. .§.e4 e5 29. .§.h4 �e6 30.4)g5+ �f5 3 1 . 4)e4 h5 32 . .§.c3 .§.d3 33.�f1 .§. x c3 34.b x c3 �g6 35.�e2 f5 36.4)d2 e4 37.f3 exf3+ 38. 4) x f3 .§.e8+ 39.�d2 Ae3+ 40.�c2 Ah6 4 1 . .§.d4 .§.e2+ 42.�b3 Af8 43. .§.d7 b6 44.a4 .§.f2 4 5 . 4) h4+ �f6 46 . .§.c7 .§. x h2 47 . .§.c6+ �f7 48. 4) x f5 .§.f2 49.4)d6+ A xd 6 50 . .§. x d6 .§.f6 51 ..§.d5 �g6 52.�b4 �h6 53.c4 .§.g6 54 . .§.d3 �g5 55.a5 �g4 56.a x b6 .§. x b6+ 57.�c5 .§.b8 58..§.c3 a5 59.�d5 a4 60.c5 .§.dB+ 61.�e6 .§.aS 62 . .§.a3 .§.b8 63.c6 .§.b3 64.c7 .§. x a3 65.c8� .§. xg3 66.�e5+ �h4 67. �d8+ �h3 68.�d7+ .§.g4 6 9 . �d3+ �h4 70. �e3 .§.g3 71. �f4+ �h3 72.�xa4 h4 73.�f5 .§.g2 74.�d4 .§.g3 75.�d8 .§.g2 76.�f4 .§.g3 77.�e7 .§.g4+ 78.�f3 .§.g3+ 79.�f2 .§.g2+ 80.�fl .§.g3 81.�e4 .§.g5 82.�hl+ �g3 83.�g2+ �f4 84. �h2+ �g4 85.�g2 �h5+ 86.�h1 .§.g3 87.�e2+ �g5 88.�h2 �h6 89.�e5 �g6 90.�f4 �h5 91.�f6 .§.h3+ 92.�g2 .§.g3+ 93 -�f2 .§.g5 94.�h8+ �g4 95.�g2 .§.g6 96.�h7 .§.g5 97.�h6 .§.f5 98. �e3 .§.f4 99. �e2+ �f5 100.�h3 .§.e4 1 0 1 . �h5+ �f6 102. �h8+ �f5 103. �h7+ �e5 104. �g6 .§.d4 105. �g5+ �d6 106.�g2 �c6 107.�f3 �b6 108.�e3 .§.c4 1 0 9 . �d3 .§.c6 110.�xh4 (D)
259
Chess Analytics (214) Svidler - Howell Amsterdam 20 I 0 Reti Opening [A l 6]
110 ... �b7?1 Black decided to stay in the cor ner, which is a bad policy in general. He should focus moving towards the center with 1 1 0 . . . �c5! when White needs 25 moves to mate.
lll.t\'d8 E!b6?! l l l . . J''k 1 was again correct, not allowing the white king to approach. 112.�c4 Now White mates in 1 6.
1 1 2 . . . §c6+ 114.t\'d5+
1 1 3 .�b5
§c7
l l4:�e8 is good as well.
114...�a7 After 1 14 . . . �c8 we will again meet a well-known pattern: 1 1 5 .�a8+ �d7 1 16.�b6. 115.�a5 §h7 (D)
1 1 5 . . . .§ b 7 1 1 6 . �d4+ 1 17.7lla6 �c8 1 18.�h8+.
�b8
1 1 6.t\'d4+ �b8 1 17.t\'f4+ �a7 1 18. t\'e3+ �b8 119. t\'g3+ �a7 120. t\'gl+ And B lack resigned in view of 1 2 0 . . . �b7 ( 1 2 0 . . . 7ll b 8 1 2 1 . �g8+) 1 2 1 .�b1 + . 1-0
1.4:)f3 4:)f6 2.c4 g6 3.4:)c3 d5 4. t\'a4+ .Q.d7 5.t\'b3 dxc4 6. t\'xc4 a6 7.e4 b5 8.t\'e2 Ac8 9.d4 Ag7 10.g3 c5 ll.dxc5 0-0 12 . .Q.g2 .Q.e6 13.e5 4:)fd7 14.0-0 4:) xc5 15.f!dl 4:)bd7 16.4:)d4 .Q.c4 17.t\'e3 4:) xe5 18.4:)c6 4:) xc6 1 9 . f! x d8 §axd8 20.t\' xc5 .Q. xc3 2 1 . .Q. x c6 E!dl+ 2 2 . �g2 .Q.f6 23 . .Q.b7 Aft + 24.�f3 §fd8 25 . .Q.e4 §el 26.t\'c2 .Q.g7 27.g4 h5 28.gxh5 f5 29. .Q.b7 gxh5 30.t\'c7 .Q.e2+ 3l.�g3 E!gl+ 32 . .Q.g2 §d3+ 33 . .Q.e3 E! x a l 3 4 . t\'c8+ �f7 35. t\' xf5+ .Q.f6 36.h4 § x e3+ 37.fxe3 .Q.g4 38. t\'h7+ .Q.g7 39 . .Q.e4 �f8 40 . .Q.g6 § x a2 4 1 . .Q. x h5 .Q. x h5 42 . t\' x h5 § x b2 43.t\'f5+ .Q.f6 44.e4 §c2 45.h5 E!c3+ 46.�g2 §c2+ 47.�f3 §c3+ 48.�e2 b4 49.h6 §c2+ 50.�e3 §h2 51.t\'g6 b3 52.h7 .Q.g7 53.e5 E!h6 54. t\'f5+ �e8 5 5 . �d2 e6 56.t\'e4 �f7 57.�c3 E!h5 58. � x b3 E! x e5 5 9 . t\'h4 E!d5 60.h8t\' .Q. x h8 61.t\'xh8 a5 62.�c4 E!f5 63.�d4 §d5+ 64.�e4 §f5 65.t\'h7+ �e8 66.t\'g7 E!d5 67.t\'f6 �d7 68. t\'f7+ �d6 69. t\'e8 E!e5+ 70.�f4 E!f5+ 71.�g4 �e5 72.t\'d8 a4 73. t\'a5+ �f6 74. t\' x a4 �e7 75.t\'a7+ �d6 76.t\'b8+ �d7 77.t\'b7+ �d6 78.t\'c8 �e7 79. t\'c7+ �e8 80. t\'d6 �f7 8 1 . t\'d7+ �f6 82.t\'e8 §g5+ 83.�h4 E!f5 84.t\'f8+ �g6 85. t\'e7 §e5 86. �g4 §e4+ 87.�f3 §el 88. t\'h4 §e5 89. t\'e7 §el 90.�f4 §fl+ 9 1 .�e5 § e l + 9 2. �d6 § d l + 9 3 . �c6 §el 94. t\'h4 E!e5 95 .�d6 §h5 96.t\'e4+ �g7 97.�xe6 (D)
260
Queen vs. Rook
Svidler learned his lesson (see his previous game) and he is merciless!
97 . . . §h6+ 99.�d4+
98. �e7
§g6
99.�h4 is a move shorter.
99 ... �g8 100.�e51 §g1 Best. lf l OO ... l"!a6, then 10l .�g3+ �h8 (101 .. .�h7 102.�d3+) 102.�c3+ �h7 1 03.�d3+.
1 0 1 .�d5+ �h7 102.�d3+ �g8 103.�f6! Now that the checking square (fl ) is covered, the king approaches.
103 . . . §g7 104.�d5+ �h7 105.�h1 + �g8 106.�h5 E!a7 106 ... l"!g1 107.�t7+ �h8 108.�a7 l"! g8 1 09.�c7 l"!f8+ 1 1 0.�g6 l"! g8+ l l l .�h6
22.-'td3 g6 23.4) xa5 -'th3 24.�d2 §feB 25. E!de1 -'l.g2 26.§ xe8+ 4)xe8 27.4) xc6 4)d6 28..Q.b5 .Q.xf3 29.E!e7 .Q.g2 30.4)e5 §f8 31.�e1 f3 32.4)g4 c6 33.-'td3 E!f4 34.§e6 4Jf7 35.4Jf2 E!xa4 36.§xc6 4Je5 37.E!c5 4J xd3+ 38. 4) xd3 E!h4 39.b4 -'th3 40.b5 -'tf5 41.4)f2 E!b4 42. �d2 �g7 43. �e3 �f6 44.�xf3 �e7 45.c3 E!b3 46.�f4 §b2 47.4)d1 § xh2 48.b6 §h4+ 49.�f3 �d6 50.4)f2 �xc5 51.b7 §c4 52.b8� E! x c3+ 53.�f4 h5 54.4)e4+ .1}. x e4 55.�xe4 §c4+ 56.�e5 §g4 57.�b2 �c4 58.�c2+ �b4 5 9.�d5 E!g5+ 60.�c6 §g4 61.�b6 �a3 62.�c5 E!g5+ 63.�c6 §g4 64.�b1 §c4+ 65.�d5 E!g4 66.�e5 §g5+ 67.�e6 §g4 68.�f6 E!g3 69.�a1 + �b3 70. �d1 + �c4 71. �e2+ �b3 72. �d1 + �c4 73. �e2+ �b3 74. �b5+ �c2 75. �c6+ �d2 76. �d6+ §d3 77. �f4+ �c3 78.� x g6 E!d5 79. �f6 �d3 80.�e6 §d4 81 .�f3+ �c4 82.�xh5 (D)
107.�d5+ And Black resigned in view of 1 07 . . . �h7 (107 . . . �h8 108.�hl + �g8 1 09.�gl +) 108.�hl + �g8 1 09.�gl +.
1-0 (215) Jones - Kabanov Khanty Mansiysk 20 1 0 Scotch Game [C45]
1.e4 e5 2.l�)f3 4)c6 3.d4 exd4 4.4) xd4 .Q.c5 5.4) xc6 �f6 6. �f3 bxc6 7.4)d2 d6 8.4)b3 .Q.b6 9 ..Q.d2 � x f3 10.g xf3 4J e7 l l .a4 a5 12 ..Q.e3 .Q.xe3 13.fxe3 0-0 14.0-00 f6 1 5 . 4) d4 f5 1 6.e5 d xe5 17. .Q.c4+ �h8 18.4)b3 f4 19.exf4 exf4 20.§he1 4Jf5 21.§e5 4)d6
As the defending king is well cen tralized, the win is one of the longest; it takes 28 moves.
82 ... �d3 82 . . . l"! d3 keeps the win i n 2 8 moves but the text reduces it to 26!
83. �c5 �e4 84. �f5+ �e3 85.�e5 §d3 86.�f4+ �e2 87.�e4 §d2
26 1
Chess Analytics Black doesn't defend with accu racy. Again, 87 .. .l'k3 was a bit better.
mare for the queen and heaven for the rook!
88. �f3+ 'it'e1 89. �h5 89.'it'e3? would be a clear blunder: 89 . . . .§ d3+! 90.'it'xd3 but also the text could be improved by 89:twh l + 'it'e2 90.�cl!.
89 ... 'it'f2 90.�h1 91.'it'f4 .§d2 92.�h2+?1
.§e2+
9 2 . �e4! .§ e 2 93 .�d4+ 'it'g2 94.'it'g4 and mate in 14.
92 . . . 'it'e1 94.'it'e4! (D)
93. �g1 +
®e2
White has made progress and now needs "just" 1 7 moves.
94 . . . .§c2 9 5 . �g2+ 'it'd1 96. �fl + 'it'd2 97. 'it'd4 .§b2 98.�f2+ 'it'c1 9 9 . � e 1 + 'it'c2 100.'it'c4 White is pushing the black king on the edge by the usual methods.
100 . . . .§a2 1 0 1 . �e2+ 'it'b1 102. �d1 + 'it'b2 103.'it'b4 .§a8 104.�e2+ The rook was forced to leave the king's protection and now White easily picks it up: 104 . . . 'it'cl 105.�fl + 'it'c2 106.�g2+. 1-0 Conclusion The ending is of course won for the queen, but as it is not met often, even very strong players do not know how to handle it perfectly. The usual time trouble is a negative factor as well and the 50-move rule becomes the night-
Miscellaneous Critical Games
Concept Did you ever think how you should approach a critical game? A game that you need a certain result (draw or win) in order to achieve your aim? If you needed a win, you probably thought that you were obliged to go in for sharp con tinuations, burning the bridges behind you . . . You probably thought and came to the conclusion that you should create complications quickly, sacrificing ma terial to attack and avoid all the "equal" variations. And if you needed a draw probably you thought that you were obliged to go for a quiet game and seek exchanges, which would bring the game to a peaceful end. But these strategies don't pay off and do not always bring the desired results. The odds ofwinning or losing are nearly equal. It's good to for you to have the initiative, but with out undue risk! S o , in the first case, a good chessplayer tries to maintain a small initiative and continually pushes the opponent, giving him the chance to make a mistake. Do not believe that to win a crucial game you should play perfectly! It is sufficient to "drive" your opponent into making a mistake under pressure, which of course you should take advantage ofl What you really need in a critical game is to increase your attention and your temper. In the second case you should be the one to seek the initiative, even in the early stages. To achieve the draw
262
Critical Games you should make your opponent aware of the possibility of losing and under stand that there is no way that your op ponent will accept a draw before a king versus-king ending comes about if you play quietly. What happens now if you are the one whose opponent needs to win? What should you do in this case? Let look at two key situations: First, your opponent goes in for an attack and has the initiative. You might expect that good defense and simply rejecting the threats would bring the desired result. There are a lot of cases in which the defending side has won this way, coun tering with excellent ideas and beauti ful defensive play and then counter-at tacking the weaknesses created by the opponent's attack. More correct is to accept the challenge of your opponent and get into the proposed complica tions, seizing the initiative. The initia tive is the most important factor in chess today. Kasparov did not hesitate to even sacrifice the exchange to gain the ini tiative. Moreover, do not forget the psy chological aspect. Giving the opponent the initiative plays into his hands and gives him courage ! Secondly, your opponent follows the quiet street of the small advantage and he is pressing you slowly and does not avoid some "equal" variations. The most important thing is to avoid remain ing passive and try to be a bit more ac tive. Passivity leads to a continuous undervaluation ofyour position with all the related consequences and usually leads to certain defeat! Play calmly and seize the initiative with active play. But beware: nothing is absolute in chess. There are exceptions, for ex ample, if you know that your opponent is not good attacking, while you 're
flawless defending, then it makes more sense to defend passively if he attacks you. But this should be somewhat rare. We will exam all the above situations in the following examples. In all of them, one ofthe players had a good rea son to win; for the other a draw would be fine . . . We will start with a famous game from St. Petersburg 1 9 1 4 . Emanuel Lasker was in a must-win situ ation, a half-point behind Capablanca, with only three rounds remaining. Of course, this game has been analyzed in many sources and it is rather well known, but still is a superb example! (216) Lasker - Capablanca St Petersburg 1 9 1 4 Ruy Lopez [C68] (Notes based on those of Garry Kasparov)
l.e4 e5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3.Ab5 a6 4.,1lxc6 A very surprising choice. The Ex change Variation of the Ruy Lopez was a dangerous weapon in Lasker's hands. But nobody in the audience or among the participants believed that this quiet opening would work against Capablanca, whose excellent technique was already widely recognized. With the charming self-confidence of youth, Jose Raul unfortunately shared this mis conception and did not recognize Lasker's real intentions.
4...dxc6 5.d4 Now Lasker is in a hurry to open the position for his knight pair...
5 ... e x d4 7.4) xd4
6 . � x d4
� xd4
Even the queens are off the board. Is this the way to play for a win in a decisive game? Keep in mind that in the Exchange Variation, the bishop pair can be very useful to Black, but White has
263
Chess Analytics a pawn maj ority on the kingside. Capablanca comments: "For many years, the great Lasker considered that this position was theoretically won for White because of White's preponder ance of pawns on the kingside. It is true that if all the pieces were to be ex changed ... White should win . . . His fa mous predecessor, Steinitz, on the other hand, never had any faith in the effi cacy of this system. He maintained that with the two bishops and free game Black had more than enough compen sation. . . I am inclined to agree with Steinitz."
7... Ad6 Nowadays the move 7 . . . Ad7 is supposed to be the main line. With the text move B lack plans to castle kingside, as he believed that his king ought to remain on the weaker side to oppose later the advance of Whi;e's pawns. But Black later found ways to enhance his bishop pair by castling queenside and then opening lines.
8. .i£)c3 .i£)e7 9.0-0 0-0 10.f4 Capablanca criticized the text move, as it leaves the e-pawn weak.
10 .§e8 .••
Later Dr. Tarrasch suggested a "better" line: 10 . . .f5 l l .e5 Ac5 1 2 .Ae3 Axd4 1 3.Axd4 b6 and despite White's strong passed pawn Black has enough defensive resources. So strong was the impression of Lasker's original plan that the commentators tried to improve Black's play at the earliest possible stage ! But Capablanca was right in his assessment: Black had little to worry about.
ll . .i£)b3 l l .e5 Ac5 1 2 .Ae3 .i£Jd5 1 3.4Jxd5 cxd5 would be fine for Black. ll f6 (D) •••
12.f5!? Under the classical rules of the Steinitz positional school, this move has to be condemned. White gets a weak and backward pawn on e4, B lack a stronghold on e5, with a devaluation of White ' s pawn advantage on the kingside - too many negative points for just one move. But Lasker's eagle eye had seen much further. "It has been wrongly claimed that this wins the game, but I would like nothing better than to have such a position again" Capablanca
12 b6! •..
And here 12 . . .Ad7 13.Af4 .§adS was recommended by stern post mortem analysts. But obviously the bishop is better placed on b7, where it a�acks the pawn on e4. The other op tion was 1 2 . . . g 5 ! ? 1 3 . fxg6 .i£J x g6 1 4 . l"i xf6 Ae5 1 5 .l"if2 Axc3 1 6.bxc3 l"i xe4 1 7.Ag5=.
13.Af4 Ab7?! An inaccuracy. In general Black should be happy to undouble his c pawns, but here the pawn on d6 will become a permanent weakness. Neces sary was 13 . . .Axf4! 14.l"i xf4 c5! 1 5 .l"idl Ab7 16.l"lf2 l"lad8 (16 ... l"iac8!? with the idea . . . .<£Jc6-e5) 1 7 . l"l fd2 ( 1 7 . l"i xd8 l"l xd8 18.l"id2 l"l xd2 19.4Jxd2 4Jc6=) 17 . . . .§ xd2 18.l"lxd2 .<£Jc6 19.l"ld7 l"l c8 and after . . . .i£Je5 Black is fine. This plan was recommended by Capablanca - but
264
Critical Games alas, only after the game was over. John Watson quotes: "With modem eyes, all this seems almost self-evidently true; and yet for years, commentators have claimed that White had a large or even winning advantage after 1 2 .f5!?."
14 ..Q.xd6 cxd6 15.4)d4 E!ad8?! Capablanca doesn't take White's plan seriously. The knight on e6 will be a bone in his throat. So 15 . . . ilc8 was obligatory. Maybe the Cuban was too proud to recognize his mistake so soon.
t6.4)e6 E!d7 17.E!adl 4)c8 Interesting was 17 . . . c5 but White keeps the advantage after 1 8 .l'H3! ( 18.�d5 ilxd5 19.exd5 b5 20J'lf3 ;t or 18.l"lf2?! d5 19.exd5 �xd5 20.�xd5 § xd5 2 1 . § fd2 § xf5 2 2 . § d8 § x d8 2 3 . § xd8+ �f7 2 4 . § d7+ � x e 6 25.§ xb7=) 1 8 . . . �f7 ( 1 8 . . . d5?! 19.§g3 g5 20.fxg6 hxg6 2 l .exd5 ± ) 19.�f2.
18.E!f2 b5 1 9 . E!fd2 E!de7 20.b4 ctlf7 21.a3 (D)
27.ctlf3 E!g8 28.ct;f4 28.§gl would be more accurate ...
28...g6 As now the immediate 28 . . . g5+ should have been tried.
29.E!g3 g5+ The last move to be criticized by the annotators. But it's too late for good advice. 29 . . .gxf5 doesn't offer any re lief: 30.exf5 d5 3 l .g5! hxg5+ 32.hxg5 fx g 5 + 3 3 . � x g 5 + �f8 3 4 . f6 § a 7 35.�e5! +- .
30.ct;f3 4)b6 3l.h xg5 h xg5 32.E!h31 Lasker continues to execute his plan without any diversions. 32.§ xd6 would have given Black some extra breathing time: 32 . . . �c4 33.§dl §h8.
32 ... E!d7 The knight is chained to the b6square. After 32 ... �c4 33.§al the com bined invasion of the white rooks on the a- and h-files demolish Black's de fense.
33.ctlg3 The final preparation.
33 ... ct;e8 34.E!dhl .Q.b7 (D)
21 ....Q.a8? The question mark is deserved, not by the move, but for the idea of open ing the a-file, which can be used effec tively only by the white rooks. Of course, Black has lost the strategic battle, but the exchange sacrifice, 2 1 . . .§ xe6 22 .fxe6+ § xe6, would have given him the best fighting chances.
35.e51 For 23 moves ( 1 2.f5!?) Black hasn't been able to prevent this pawn from advancing!
22.ct;f2 E!a7 23.g4 h6 24.E!d3 a5 25.h4 axb4 26.axb4 E!ae7?!
35 . . . d x e5 36.4)e4 4) d 5 37.4) 6c5 .Q.c8 38. 4) x d7 .Q. x d7 39.E!h7 E!f8 40.E!al
A sad retreat. It would be better to play 26 . . . § a3 followed by . . . �b6-c4.
Painful punishment for the 24th move.
265
Chess Analytics 40 . . . �d8 42.ldc5 1-0
4 1 . §a8+
A critical position at a critical stage of the 1 9 5 1 world championship match. This was the 23rd game (out of a total of 24) and Bronstein was leading with an 1 1 Yz- 1 0\lz score when it began.
Ac8
And Black resigned, and the old chess wizard Lasker had become the winner of this historic contest. The psy chological effect of this brilliant victory was long-lasting. A shaken Capablanca lost with white in the next round to Dr. Tarrasch. And even seven years later, in his world championship match against Lasker, he never played 3 . . . a6 in the Ruy Lopez! The next game probably will make you sleepy, at least for the first 3 5 moves or so!
35 ... Axcl?l Black decided to win a (useless) pawn but he had to give the bishop pair versus the knight pair advantage to his opponent. A bad decision that cost Black the title of the world champion! He had to opt for 35 . . . 1£i>f7 36.1£i'c2 (36.�xa6? bxa6 37.Ac7 Axel 38.1£i'xcl 4::l x b3+ 39 .l£i'c2 4:Ja5 + ) 36 . . . 4:Jb4+ 37.1£i'bl 4:Ja6=.
36.�xcl .£\xb3+ 37.�c2 .£\a5 The knight-pair is stuck on the rim and White only has to open the center.
(217) Botvinnik - Bronstein Moscow 1 95 1 Griinfeld Defense [D7 1 ]
38.�c3 �f7 39.e4?!
l .d4 .£\f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 4.Ag2 d5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6 . .£\c3 Ag7 7. .£\h3 Axh3 8.Axh3 .£\c6 9.Ag2 e6 10.e3 0-0 ll.Ad2 §cS 12.0-0 .£\d7 13 . .£\e2 �b6 14.Ac3 §fd8 1 5 . .£\ f4 .£\f6 1 6 . �b3 .£\e4 1 7 . � x b6 a x b6 18.Ael .£\a5 t9 . .£\d3 Afs 20.f3 .£1d6 2t.Af2 Ah6 22.§acl .£\ac4 23.§fel .£\a5 24.�fl Ag7 25.g4 .£\c6 26.b3 .£\b5 27.�e2 Af8 28.a4 .£\c7 29.Ag3 .£\a6 30.Afl f6 3l.§edl .£\a5 32.§xc8 §xeS 33.§cl § xcl 34. .£\ xcl Aa3 35.�dl (D)
Too early. Accurate was 39.�d6 4:Jc6 40.e4.
39...f5?1 B lack had to go for 39 . . . dxe4 40 .fxe4 e5! 4 l .dxe5 (41 . d5?! 4:Jc5) 4 1 . . .4:Jc5 or 39 . . .4:Jc6, restricting the bishops. 40.gxf5 gxf5 4t.Ad3 �g6 (D)
Here the game was adjourned and White had to seal his move.
42.Ad6? White missed 42.Ab l ! 4:Jc6 (If Black chose 42 ... fxe4 the game opens up after 43.fxe4 dxe4 44.Axe4+ 1£i'g7 and White's bishops obviously prevail. An interesting variation was found by Salo Flohr: 45 .Axb7! 4::lxb7 46.1£i'c4+-
266
Critical Games followed by �b5-a6-b6 and the a-pawn eventually queens. The other options are 42 . . . 4Jc4 43.Af4 with the idea ita2 and 42 . . . dxe4 43.fxe4 �g5 44.exf5 exf5 45.Ad6 ± ) 43.exd5 exd5 44.Aa2 4Je7 (44 . . . 4Jab4 45.itb3 +- ) 45.ith4 ± .
42 ... .£jc6 43.Abl \t'f6?
5 1 .ith3! (51 .Axe7 �xe7 52 .itg6 4Jc6 53.Axh5 4Ja7 54.�b4 4Jc6+ 55.'
And now B lack in turn missed 43 . . .4Ja7! (with the idea . . .b5) 44.exd5 exd5 45.ita2 b5 46.a5 (46.Axd5 bxa4) 46 . . . b4+! (46 . . . 4Jc6?! 47.Axd5 4Jxa5 48.f4 ;:!; ) 47.�d3 4Jb5 48.ite5 4Jac7 49.�c2 �f7 50.�b3 4Ja6=.
44.Ag3! After 4 4 . e xd5?! exd5 4 5 . Aa 2 �e6= o r 44.h4?! 4Jab8 45.itf4 4Jd7 46.Ag5+ �g6 47 .exd5 exd5 48.ita2 h6 49. Af4 4Je7! (49 . . . 4Jf6?! 5 0 . A e 5 ) 50.Ad6 4Jc8!= White cannot make headway.
44...fxe4 If 44 . . . 4Jab4, then 4 5 . A e 5 + ! (45.Ac7? would only lead to a draw af ter 45 . . . dxe4 46.fxe4 fxe4 47.Axe4 4Jd5 ;:!; ) and Black's king is pushed to g6: 4 5 . . . �g6 (45 . . . 4Jxe5 46.dx e 5 + �xe5 47.'
45.fxe4 h6 46.Af4 h5 Or 46 . . .�g7 47.exd5 exd5 48.Aa2 4Jab4 49.Ab3 �g6 50.itd6+- .
47.exd5 exd5 48.h4 .£!ab8 49.Ag5+ \t'f7 50.Af5?1 Accurate was 5 0 . Jlc 2 ! 4Ja7 5 1 .Jldl �g6 52.Af3 +- .
50... .£!a7 More resistant was 50 . . . 4Je7 but White had a good choice anyway:
52 ... .£jc8?! Black's final mistake. Again he should play 52 . . . 4Je7! 53 . Ac7 �e6 54.Axb6 4Jac6 55.Ae2 4Jf5 56.Axh5 4Jxh4 57.itc5 ± and Black would have good chances to save the half-point.
53.Ae2 <;&g6 54.Ad3+?1 54.Af3 4J8e7 55.Ac7 wins.
54 ... <;&f6 55.Ae2 <;&g6?! A better chance can be found in 55 . . . �f5 ! 56.ith2 '
56.Af3 .£!6e7 Or 56 . . . 4J8e7 57.Ac7 (57.Ag5 4Jf5 5 8 . it x d 5 4Jfx d4 5 9 . Ae4+ �f7 60.ite3 ± ) 57 . . . 4Jf5 58.Axd5 4Jfxd4 59.itxb6 +- .
57.Ag5! 1-0 And B lack resigned in view of 57 . . . 4Jc6 58 . .ll x d5 4Jd6 59.Af3 b5 (59 . . . �f5 60.itcl ! b5 61.Axc6 bxc6 62.a5 +- ) 60.itf4 4Jf5 61 .Axc6 bxc6 62.a5 4Je7 63 .�b4 �f5 (63 . . . 4Jd5+ 64.�c5 4Jxf4 65.a6 +- ) 64.a6 4Jd5+ 65.�c5 �xf4 66.a7 4Jc7 67.�xc6 +- . This win allowed Botvinnik to equal ize the score and retain the title as the last game of the match ended in a draw ( 1 2- 1 2).
267
Chess Analytics In the next game Kasparov re quired only a draw to win the world championship, but plays a sharp asym metrical defense, willingly going for the jugular, but also putting his own at risk! The Sicilian Defense is a two-edged sword that can cut both ways. The les son here is: if you want a draw, then play for the win. (218) Karpov - Kasparov Moscow 1 985 Sicilian Defense [B85]
l.e4 c5 2.4Jf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.4) x d4 4)f6 5.4Jc3 a6 6.J}.e2 e6 7.0-0 Ae7 8.f4 0-0 9.�hl '(JJJc7 10.a4 4)c6 ll.J}.e3 .§e8 12.Af3 .§b8 13.'(JJJd2 Ad7 14.4)b3 b6 (D)
The preference of most chessplayers . The other option is 1 4 . . . b 5 1 5 . ax b 5 axb5 1 6 . �e2 ;!; Petrosian-Ter Sahakyan, Yerevan 2009.
15.g4 Karpov makes an uncharacteristi cally aggressive departure from a pre vious position obtained in this match he is playing to win... The text move weakens his own kingside in an effort to storm Black's castled position.
15 ... J}.c8 Making room for the f6-knight.
16.g5 White gains space on the kingside to build an attack.
16 ... 4)d7 17.'(JJJf2 As a testament to the speed of mod-
em information flow, this whole line of play was tested just days before this game in the Montpellier Candidates' tournament. In that game, White tried 1 7.Ag2 which was met by 17 . . . 4:\a5 (17 . . . Af8 lS.l'hdl b5 19.axb5 axb5 20.�e2 Aa6 2 U " l a l �b7 2 2 .4:\a5 4:\xa5 23.l"!xa5 ;!; Wang Hao-Ma Qun, Guangzhou 20 1 0) 18.�f2 Af8 1 9.l"!adl 4Jc4 2 0 . A c l b5 oo Sokolov-Ribl i , Montpellier 1 985. Karpov departs from this line of play in an effort to improve on White's attack.
17...J}.f8 Black could even think of l7 ... 4:\a5 lS.l"!adl or even go for the modem treatment: 1 7 . . . Ab7 1 8 . Ag 2 4:\a5 19.l"!adl 4:\xb3 20.cxb3 Ac6 2 l .b4 oo Anand- Ivanchuk, Morelia /Linares 2008. 18.J}.g2 Ab7 19 . .§adl g6 (D)
20.J}.cl A nice idea, clearing the third rank having in mind to proceed with l"!d3h3. 20.f5?! 4Jce5 or 20.�h4?! Ag7 2 l .l"!f3 4Jb4 22.l"!h3 4:\fS was not much for White.
20... §bc8?! Most commentators criticized the text move, proposing 20 . . . 4:\c S ! 2 1 . 4:\xc5 bxc5 22. l"!d3 4:\d4 23.l"!h3 �e7! oo and they were actually right!
21 . .§d3 White's plans are clear as he as sembles an attack. The attack is dan gerous despite its obviousness.
268
Critical Games 21 ... 4:)b4 22.§h3 Ag7?! Black should seriously consider opting for the active 22 . . . f5! 23 .gxf6 �xf6 24.f5 (24.�d4? eS! 25.�xb4 dS 2 6 . � x d 5 �xdS 2 7 . � e l � x f4 + ) 24 . . . exf5 25.exf5 Ag7 26.1"lh4 ;;!; . 23.Ae3? (D)
No attacking plan seems decisive, because White's knights are too far from the kingside; therefore, Karpov allows Black the time to better prepare his de fense. This position is White 's high watermark; that point at which White's winning chances are greatest. How should White proceed? Let's consider the most obvious, 23.�h4?, when Black could play 23 ... �f8, bringing White's attack to a halt: 24.f5 exf5 2 5 .e xf5 Axg2+ 26.'
d5!! 32.�xfS+ [32.�xb6?! �xh3 33.�f4 Ae5+ 34.'
23 ... §e7! One of the most interesting plans I have ever seen! B lack cleverly takes prophylactic measures against White's f5 advance by "pre-doubling" his rooks on the soon-to-be open e-file and at the same time protects his second rank and points such as the sensitive h7. Wrong would be the tempting 23 . . . .1lxe3? 24.bxe3 �xe3 in view of25.Ad4 �xe2 26.1"l xh7! +- .
24.�gl Suddenly White does not know how to proceed. Opti ons such as 24.Ad4 eS or 24.�d4 eS 25.�de2 exf4! (25 . . . �xe2? 26.f5) 26.�xf4 B eeS or, finally, 24.f5 exf5 2 5 .exf5 .ll x g2+ 26.�xg2 (26.'
269
Chess Analytics ( 3 0. . . 4Jf6=) 3 1 .bxc3 4Ja2 and Black at tacks too many spots on White's camp. 30... 4)f6 (D)
25...f51 This effectively puts an end to White's attacking hopes.
26.gxf6 The main alternative was 26.'1¥\'d2 e5! (26 .. .fxe4!? 27.'1¥\'xd6 'l¥\'xd6 28.l'hd6 e5 oo ) 27 . exf5 gxf5 28Ajd5 4::l x d5 29.Axd5+ �h8 30.c3 exf4 3 1 ..ilxf4 4Je5 oo . Black should be happy with such variations as now he is fully back in the game.
26 ... 4) xf6! Black avoids 26. . .Axf6?! as after 27.'1¥\'d2 d5 28.e5 Ag7 29.4Jd4 the black rooks are not doing much on the e-file. He launches an attack ofhis own which involves the sacrifice of his b pawn.
27.§g3 To prevent . . . 4Jg4. 27.Jlxb6 could be played, but Black would be happy after 27 . . . '1¥\'bS! (27 . . . 4Jg4? 28 . .ll x c7 4Jxf2 29.Axd6 ± ) 28.M3 e5! oo /= as the black rooks will become active.
27... §f7!? Kasparov resists passive (but fully playable) defensive moves like the re treat 27 . . . 4Jd7, trying to profit by White's time-trouble.
28.Axb6 What else? White is obliged to ac cept the challenge.
28... �b8 29.Ae3 4)h5 30. .§g4
31 . .§h4! Obviously White should avoid 3 1 . B g5?! Ah6 3 2 . !"l g3 4Jh5 33.!"lf3 !"lef8 34 . .llh3 Ac8! + but he cannot also go for the best 3l .!"lg3 4Jh5 and accept the draw.. .
31 ...g51 Destabilizing and strong. Black has the initiative as he plays for a win against White who is in desperate time trouble.
32.fxg5 4)g4 32 . . . 4Jxe4!? was also possible : 33.'1¥1'e2 4::lx c3 34.bxc3 4Jd5 oo /=.
33.�d2 Now 33.!"l xg4 is not quite enough after 33 . . . !"l xf2 34.Axf2 4::lx c2 + .
3 3. . . 4) x e3 34. � x e3 4) x c2 35.�b6! Probably best, although White could go for 35.'1¥1'h3!? 'l¥\'a7+ 36.�hl 4Je3 37.!"l xd6! (37.!"lel 4Jxg2 38.'1¥\'xg2 'l¥\'b6 + ; 3 7 . !"l g l !"l f2 [37 . . . 4Jxg2 38.'1¥\'xg2 '/'£ff2 oo /=] 38.!"l xh7 4Jxg2 + ) 37. . .4Jxg2 38.'1¥\'xg2 'i¥1'e3 39.'/'£te2 '/'£txe2 40.4Jxe2 !"lfl + 4 1 .�g2 !"lef8 42.4Jg3 § lf2+ 43.�h3 AcS! oo /=. But here it is obviously Black who is pressing, de spite a two-pawn deficit. 35 ... Jl,a8! (D)
3 0 . !"l f3?! fai l s to 3 0 . . . .ll x c 3 !
270
Critical Games 39 . . . 'li¥a7+ did not help: 40.<;£;lhl l"'\ xe6 4 1 .'li¥xe6+ 'li¥f7 42.'li¥c8+ Af8 43.4:\dl! (43.'li¥xa8? 4Je3 -+ ) 43 . . . l"'' a 2 44.g6! hxg6 45.'li¥c3 Jlg7 46.'li¥c8 ;t; .
40.e5?
36.E!,xd6? The losing move. 36. 'li¥xb8 was the best way to fight back: 36 . . . l'h b8 37.Ah3! l"'' xb3!? (37 . . . l"'' e7 38.l"'\ xd6 l"'\ x b3 3 9 . l"'' d8+ [ 3 9 . A x e6+ l"'' xe6 40.l"'\ xe6 4Jd4! 4 1 .l"'' e8+ <;£;lf7 42.l"'\ xh7 <;£;lxe8 4 3 . l"'' xg7 .ilc6=] 39 . . . <;£;lf7 40.l"'\ xa8 l"'\ xb2 41 .e5!? [41 .4Je2 4Jd4 42.g6+ (42.4Jxd4? Axd4+ 43.<;£;lhl <;£;lg7 + ) 42 . . . <;£;lxg6 43.l"'' g 4+ <;£;lh6 44.l"'\h4 ;t; ] 4 l . . . .il x e 5 4 2 . l"'\ xh7+ .ilg7 oo /=) 38.Axe6 l"'\ xb2 39.l"'' xd6 (39.l"'' fl? Axc3 40.l"'' xf7 4Jd4 41 .l"'\a7+ 4:lxe6 42.l"'\ xa8+ <;£;lg7 43.l"'' a7+ <;£;lg6 44.l"'\ xa6 <;£;lxg5 -+ ) 39 . . . .ilxc3 40.§f4! .ild4+! 4 l . 'g2 ! .ilxe4+! 42.l"'\xe4 .ilc5 43 . .ilxf7+ 'xf7 44.l"'' f6+ <;£;lg7 45. l"'' e 2! 4:\el + 46.'fl 4Jc2=. However, White didn't have the time to explore such complications.
36 ... §.b7! 37.'li\'xa6 E!,xb3? Both players are now in a time scramble and Kasparov misses the crushing 37 . . .4Jb4! -+ .
38.El,xe6 E!,xb2 39.'li\'c41 Threatening mate 40.l"'' e 8++! .
39 ... �h8 (D)
Ill
one by
A weak move made in time trouble. 40.l"'\ xe8+ 'li¥xe8 4 1 .4:\dl 4Ja3 42 .�d3 l"'\a2 (42 . . . l"'' b l?! 43.e5 h6 44.l"'' d4! oo ) 43.g6 (43.4Je3? 'li¥f8! -+ ) 43 . . . l"'' xg2+ 44.<;£;lxg2 'li¥xg6+ oo was interesting but the most acc urate was 4 0 . g6 ! h6 4 l . l"'' x e 8 + 'li¥xe8 4 2 . 4:\ d l 4Ja3 (42 . . . 'li¥xg6 43. 4Jxb2 �b6+ 44.<;£;lhl 'li¥xb2 4 5 .'li¥c8+ <;£;lh7 4 6 . 'li¥f5 ;!; ) 43.l"'\ xh6+! (43.'li¥f7 'li¥xf7 44.gxf7 l"'\bl 45.Af3 4Jc4 46.§£4 l"'' b8 + ) 43 ... Axh6 44.'li¥c3+ .ilg7 45.'li¥h3+ 'g8 46.4Jxb2 'li¥xg6 47.'li¥b3+ <;£;lh7 48.'li¥xa3 'li¥b6+ 49.<;£;lhl .ilxb2 50.�h3+= with a draw, which of course would still hand to Kasparov the world championship.
40 . . . 'li\'a7+ 4 1 . �h l A xg2+ 42.�xg2 .£Je3+ 0-1 42 . . . 4Jd4+ was good as well. As they say in tennis, "Game, set, match." White resigned the game, match, and championship here: 43.<;£;lg3 (43.'h3 'li¥d7! 44 . l"'\ d4 .il x e 5 ! ) 43 . . . A x e 5 + 44.l"'' xe5 l"'\ xe5 45.�c8+ <;£;lg7 -+ . In the next game the roles are re versed, as it was now Kasparov in a must-win situation! This was the 24th (and last) game of the 1 9 87 world championship match. Karpov was lead ing 1 2- 1 1 and Kasparov had to win in order to equalize the score and keep his title, according to the rules, as he was the champion and Karpov the chal lenger. Nowadays this rule is no longer valid, as it was a bit unfair to the chal lenger. . . (219) Kasparov - Karpov Seville 1 987 Reti Opening [A 1 4]
27 1
Chess Analytics (Notes based on those of Nigel Davies)
l .J£l f3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 4)f6 4..1l,g2 .1l,e7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 I t ' s interesting to note that Kasparov, when desperately seeking a win, decides upon the supposedly quiet Reti Opening. His reasoning is that the absence of early exchanges makes the Reti perfect for producing a game full of tension.
1 2.�f4, avoiding exchanges and target ing d5.
ll.d3 .1lf6! Exchanges are on Black's menu, so he tries to use his opportunities.
12.�c2 .1l,xb2 13.�xb2 4)d6 14.cxd5 .1l,xd5 (D)
6 ... b6 7. .1l,b2 .1lb7 8.e3 4)bd7 9.4)c3 4)e4 (D)
Karpov, needing only a draw to regain the world championship title (which he had lost in the previous match ! ), seeks simplification via ex changes.
10.4)e2!? Kasparov in tum avoids them! The standard move is 10.�e2, after which 1 0 . . . a5 I L§fdl �J6 1 2.d4 gave White a slight edge in the game Botvinnik Stahlberg, Moscow 1 956. An interest ing alternative is 1 0 . cxd5!?. For ex ample, the game Ljubojevic-Beliavsky, Linares 1 992, continued 1 0 . . . �xc3 l l .lixc3 .ll x d5 1 2 .�e2 c5 1 3 JHdl �c7 1 4.l''iac l �b7 1 5 .d3 � fd8 16.e4 Jlc6 17.�b2 .llf8 18.h4 b5 (18 . . . a5!?) 1 9.Aa5! �dc8 20.a3 �a6 2 l .b4 .llb7 22.�e5! �b8 and now 23.d4! opened the center to White's advantage.
10 ... a5 After 1 0 . . . Af6 White can keep B lack under pressure with l l .d4!? c5
Karpov is careful to avoid any pawn weaknesses. After 1 4 . . . exd5!? 1 5.d4 c5 16.dxc5 bxc5 Black would have the potential weakness/strength of hanging pawns. Whatever you call it, it is not a symmetrical pawn structure, and so White should be a bit "happier" than Black.
15.d4! It's tempting to play 1 5.�f4 Ab7 1 6.�h5 ( 16.d4 c5), but then 1 6 . . .f6 blocks the threat against g7 and leaves B lack with a solid gam e : 1 7 . �f4 �e7 oo .
15...c5 The natural follow-up. Black wants to exchange his backward c-pawn and achieve a perfectly symmetrical pawn structure.
t6.E!,fdl E!,c8?! Kasparov later suggested 16 . . . c4!?, after which 1 7 . �f4 ( 1 7.bxc4 �xc4 18.�b5 �d6 is fine for Black) 17 . . . b5 18.�xd5 exd5 19.�e5 �f6 brings about a complex and double-edged game in which Black's queenside pawn major ity compensates for his weaknesses. Karpov's move is solid and sensible, but it allows White to keep a minimal edge.
272
Critical Games It must be noted that 16 . . .'�Yf6? is bad in view of 17.4Je5! l"\fd8 18.�xd5 exd5 1 9.4Jf4 ± and after 16 . . . �e7, White achieves a more pleasant position with 1 7.4:\c3 �b7 18.4Ja4! ;l; with pressure on the queenside and the center.
17.1df4 ,ilxf3 Further simplification and the loss of the light-square bishop aren't seri ous when Black has already evacuated the a8-h l diagonal. It's too late to play 1 7 . . . c4?! because White could leave Black's pawns split with 18.4:\xdS exd5 19.bxc4 dxc4 20.a4!. 17 . . .Ae4? loses to 1 8 . d x c 5 4:\ x c 5 1 9 . '�e 5 4:\cb7 20A:Jh5 +- .
18.,ilxf3 'l!!/e7 19.l3.acl Simple and natural. There was not much in 1 9 . dxc5 4:\xc5 (19 . . . 1"\ xcS?! 20.4:\d3! [20 .'�d4?! 4:\e5!] 20 . . . l"\ cc8 2 l . l"' ac 1 ;l; ) 2 0 . � e 5 (20 . b4 4Jc4! 2 l .�d4 4Ja4 oo ) 20 . . . l"\ fd8 2 1 . 4:\dS �a7 oo . 19... l3.fd8 20.dxc5 .£j xc5 (D)
pawn is also weak, but there is a big difference; Black has no access to the aS-square for any of his rooks to put pressure on it, so White keeps a slight edge.
23 .£J f5 24. l3.bl! l3. x d l + 25.l3.xdl 'l!!/c7 ••.
25 . . . �a5 doesn't help too much especially after 26.l"\ c 1 ! ;l; .
26 .£!d3! h6?! •
A slight mistake which allows White to increase his advantage. He should either play 26 . . . g6! 27.�g2 4:\xd3 28.1"\ xd3 ;l; or try to initiate fur ther exchanges with 26 ... 4:\xd3 27.l"\ xd3 l"\d8. But here White also keeps a nice edge with 28.l"' c3 �d6 29.�b2.
27.l3.cl .£le7?! The immediate 27 . . . 4Jd6! was bet ter. Karpov comes to the conclusion that his knight is better on d6, but only after losing time. 2 7 . . . 4:\ x d3? loses to 28.l"\xc7 l"\ xc7 29.�e4! l"\c1 + 30.�g2 4:\e1 + 3 1 .�h3 +- .
28.'l!!/ b5 .£lf5
It looks like Black has managed to equalize, but this is not entirely true. White's f3-bishop is a good piece and in general his pieces are a bit better placed. But of course this is not enough; a good plan must be founded.
2l.b4! An excellent move which keeps a nagging edge. The b6-pawn is tagged as a weakness.
21 ...axb4 22.'l!!/ x b4 'l!!/a7 23.a3 One could argue that White's a-
After 28 . . . �a7 29.l"'c3! (29.4:\xcS? �xa3! [29 . . .bxc5? 30.a4 ± as White's a pawn would be very dangerous] 30.4:\d3 l"' x c 1 + 3 1 . 4:\ x c 1 � x c 1 + 32 .�g2 �c8=) 29 . . . 4:\xd3 30.l"\ xd3 �a5 3 l . � x a 5 b x a 5 3 2 . l"\ d7 4Jc6 33.�e2 White keeps a slight but per manent advantage in the endgame, based on his better light piece and his more active rook.
29.a4 4Jd6 Karpov admits his previous inac curacy.
30. 'l!!/ bl 'l!!/a7 After 30 . . . �d8?!, White wins a pawn: 3 1 .4:\xcS b x c 5 (3 1 . . . 1"\ xcS?! 3 2 . l"\ xc5 bxc5 3 3 . a 5 ! ±) 32.l"'d1 c4 33.�b4 c3 34.�e4! c2 35.�xc2 l"\ xc2 36.l"\ xd6. 31.4Je5! (D)
273
Chess Analytics 33.�dl? White in tum misses his way. He should play 33.'iil'b 5! <;t>h7 (33 . . . <;t>f8 34.1£\c6 'iil'a8 35. 'iil'd 3! g6 36. 'iil'd4! +- ; 33 . . . 1£\d6 34. 'iil' c 6 +- ) 3 4 . 1£\c6 'iil' a 8 35.<;t>g2!! and White wins, as the com ing i£\e7 wins a piece: 35 . . . 1£\c5 (35 .. .f5 36.1£\e7 i£\d6 37.'iil'd7 +- ) 36.1£\e7 'iil'b8 37.'iil'e 8+- .
33 .£je7? ..•
3l...L�� xa4? This should have lost on the spot. Also bad was 3 l . . :�xa4?, after which 32.'iil'xb6 'iil'a 3! 3 3 . l"! d l i£\f5 (33 . . . 1£\eS 34.:§d8 :§ xd8 35.'iil' xd8 'iil'a l + 36.<;t>g2 'iil' x e5 37.'iil' x e8+ <;t>h7 38.'iil'x f7 ± ) 34.:§d8+ :§ xd8 35.'iil' xd8+ <;t>h7 36.1£\xf7 which wins a pawn but leaves White with some technical difficulties to solve: 36 . . . 'iil' a l + ( 3 6 . . . 1£\d3? 3 7 . �e 2 ! [37.�e4? i£\xf2!=] 3 7. . . 'iil'a l + 38.<;t>g2 i£\ e 5 3 9 . � h 5 ! i£\g6 4 0 . 'iil' e 8 +- ; 36 . . .'�cl +? 37.<;t>g2 'iil' c 2 [37 . . .'�b2 38.e4 i£\e7 (38 . . . 1£\e3+ 39.<;t>h3 'iil' xf2 40.'iil'h8+ <;t>g6 41 .1£\e5+ <;t>f6 42.'iil'f8+ <;t> x e 5 4 3 . 'iil' x g7+ <;t>d6 4 4 . e 5 # ) 39.'iil'h 8+! <;t>g6 40.'iil'e8 <;t>h7 41 .�h50] 38.'iil'h8+ <;t>g6 39.1£\e5+ <;t>f6 40.1£\g4+ <;t>g6 4 1 .�c6 ! +- ) 37 . <;t>g 2 'iil' f6 38.'iil'f8 ± . It was better to play 3 1 . . .1£\f5 32.'iil'b 5 (32 .1£\c6 'iil'xa4 33.'iil'xb6 i£\d3) 32 . . . 1£\d6 33.'iil'b4 � . 32.§xc8+ .£! xeS (D)
Black should play 33 . . . i£\c5! as af ter 34.'iil'd8+ <;t>h7 35.'iil'xc8? (35.<;t>g2! is better: 35 .. .f6! 36.1£\c6 'iil'd7 37.'iil'xd7 i£\xd7 38.1£\dS i£\c5 39.1£\xe6! i£\xe6 40.Ag4=; 35.�dl f5! 36.'iil' x c8 'iil'a l 37.'iil'd8=), he gets his piece back with 35 . . . 'iil'a l + and remains a pawn up. The problem for Black is that he is facing huge time-trouble and this didn't hap pened by chance; White 's pressure forced him to consume time to solve his problems . . .
34.�d8+ �h7 35 .£lxf7 •
35.�h5 is possible, but Black can somehow defend with 3 5 . . . 1£\ c 5 ! ( 3 5. . .f6? 36.1£\d7! +- ; 35 . . .g6? 36.'iil'e8! i£\g8 37.�xg6+ +- ) 36.1£\xf7 (36.Axf7? 'iil'a l + 37.<;t>g2 'iil'x e5 38.'iil'x e7 'iil'e4+=) 36... 1£\gS, although White retains the ad vantage after 37.h4 ± .
35 .£jg6 36. �e8 •••
36.1£\d6 was also possible, but White had to find "more" difficult moves to retain his advantage: 36...1£\c5! (36 . . . 'iil' e 7 37.'iil' b 8 ± ) 37. 1£\cS 'iil'd 7 (37 . . . 'iil' b 8 3 8 . Ad l ! ± ; 37 . . . 'iil' a l + 38.<;t>g2 b 5 39 .h4 'iil' f6 40. 'iil' d 4! ± ) 38.'iil' x d7 i£\xd7 39.�e4 h 5 40. 1£\d6 (40.1£\e7 i£\df8) 40 . . . 1£\dfS 4l.�c2! <;t>g8 42.1£\cS b5 43.1£\a7 b4 44.1£\c6 ± .
36 �e7 .••
36 . . . 1£\c5? loses to 37.�h5 'iil'a l + 38.�g2 'iil'f6 39.f4! +- .
37.�xa4 � xf7 38.J,te4 Now Black is forced to hand over
274
Critical Games the b-pawn. So, a long defense in a dif ficult ending is ahead of him . . .
38... �g8 39.�b5 39.Axg6 �xg6 40.'/'£rb3 ± also wins a pawn, but it wouldn't be wise to ex change more pieces in this endgame.
39 ... .£)f8 40.�xb6 White has finally won a pawn and Black's pawn structure is weak. But the win still looks far away. . . 40... �f6 4t.�b5 �e7 (D)
49... �g8 Or 49 ... �b7 50.\t'f3! �f7+ 5 1 .\t'e3 �b7 52.Ac4 and Black is in trouble.
50..(.tc4 �g7 51.�e5+ �g8 After 51 ...�f6 White can exchange queens with 52.�xf6+ \t'xf6 and continue with 53.f4 e5 (53 . . . \t'e7 54.e5 �d7 55 . .lld3 \t'f7 56.\t'f3 +- ) 54.\t'f3 �d7 55.\t'e3 �c5 56.Ad5 as the com ing \t'd2-c3-c4 seems to win for him. But with the black pawn on h6, this position would be a draw, as B lack could exchange on f4 and play . . .g5L
52.�d6 It is too early for 52 .f4?! \t'h7L
52 ... �g7 53.Ab5 �g8 54..(.tc6 �a7 55.�b41
42.�g2 The sealed move. Overnight the entire chess world wondered if White could force a win.
55 .e5 �aS! 56.Ae4 �el 57.�d3 \t'g7 58.'/'£rd4 was also possible, but the text is more accurate. Anyway, White is in no hurry! 55 ... �c7 56.�b7! �d8 (D)
42 ...g6 Black's other option was 42 . . . g5 43 .f4! �f6 44 .\t'h3 (with the i dea 4 5 . fxg5 hxg5 46 . �g4) 44 . . . gxf4 45.exf4 ± or 42 . . . �f6 43.h4 g5 44.h5! (44 .hxg5 hxg5 4 5 . �e8 ± ) 44 . . . �f7 45.g4 ± .
43. �a5 �g7 44. �c5 �f7 45.h4 h5?! A horrendous move, given the fact that Karpov and his seconds had the chance to study this endgame overnight. The pawns on are far too weak on g6 and h5 and White can even swap queens now (see the comments below), so B l ack should have waited with 45 ... \t'g7 ± .
46.�c6 �e7 47 . .Q.d3 �f7 48.�d6 �g7 49.e4 The pawn is en route to e5 in order to increase White's control of terrain.
The queen exchange would lead to a winning endgame for White - see the comment to the 5 1 st move.
57.e51 Placing B lack in zugzwang. Karpov sat for 45 minutes trying to find a move.
57... �a5 After 57 . . . �d3 White p lays 58. .lle8 �f5 59.�f3! when the minor piece endgame would be an easy win the knight cannot even come out of its cage !
275
Chess Analytics 58.Ae8 �c5 59. �f7+ �h8 60.Aa4! �d5+ 61.�h2 �c5 If instead 6l . . ..iJh7, 62 ..llc 2 �xe5 63.�e8+ +- .
for nerves ! This is a good example of how not to play in a critical game where you only need a draw: (220) Gurevich - Short Manila 1 990 French Defense [CO l ] (Notes based on those of Nigel Short)
6 2.Ab3 �c8 63.Adl �c5 64.�g2 1-0 (D)
l.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.lL!f3 Ag4 5.h3 Ah5 6.Ae2
Black resigned as there is no hope anymore: 64 . . . �b4 (64 . . . �c8 65 . .1lf3 �c5 66.�e4 +- ) 65.�f3 �c5 66.�e4 �b4 67.f3! (but not 67.Axg6??
Later Kasparov played 6.�e2+!? against Short and achieved a big advan tage after 6 . . . �e7 7 . .1le3
6 ...Ad6 7.l2)e5?! Much more sensible was 7.0-0.
7 ... Axe2 s. �xe2 lL!e7 9.0-o o o to.Af4 §es White has fallen slightly behind in development which allows B lack to seize control of the e-file. ll.�g4 (D)
ll ... Axe5! This is a wise exchange which leaves White with an ineffective bishop.
276
Critical Games 12.Axe5 1 2.dxe5?!
12 ... 4)g6 13.Ag3 .£!d7 After 1 3 . . . c6 I daresay White would have played 14.Axb8 to get rid of his inert bishop, although Black still keeps a p leasant game: 1 4 . . . .§ x b8 1 5 .
14.4)d2 4)f6 15.�f3 c6
26.r:t;;e2?
This threatens 16 . . . '[';1b6 1 7.
A much better defensive idea was 26.!il.h2!, to answer 26 . . . h5 with 27.g4, preventing the white pawns being fixed on the kingside.
26 ... h5! 27.r:t;;d3 h4 28.Ah2
16.�b3 �b6 17.�xb6 axb6 18.a3? In such positions it's vital to use your pawns to create space and poten tial counterplay. Here Short recom mends 18.a4! in order to fix the black pawn on b6. Then a positional attack by Black on the queenside beginning with . . . b5, as occurs in the game, would be ruled out, or at least made much harder to implement. Black's alterna tive plan - an attack along the e file would also be hindered to some extent by White's perpetual idea of !il.c7, win ning the b6-pawn if the black pieces are e ngaged i n action away from the queenside.
18... 4)e4 Now everything runs smoothly for Black. White is soon reduced to com plete passivity.
19.4) xe4 f!xe4 20.§fdl b5! Not giving White a second chance to play a4.
2V�fl f6 22.f3 f!e6 23.f!el r:tlf7 24.§xe6 r:t;}xe6 25.f!el + r:t;Jd7 (D)
White now has a vulnerable pawn structure on both wings. Short's play is now a model of how to win such posi tions.
28 ... .£le7 29.Af4 .£if5 30.Ad2 b6 31.§e2 c5 32.Ae3 b4! An excellent clearance sacrifice. Now the black rook will join the battle !
33.a x b4 c 4 + 34.r:tlc3 4) d 6 35.f!el E!a4 This wins the pawn back in view of the threat . .
36.r:t;}d2 f!xb4 37.f!al? White can't stand the slow death any longer. He had to try 37.\t'cl .§ a4 or 37 . .§bl .§a4. Of course, in both cases Black still stands better.
37 . . . f! x b2 39.f!xg7
38. f!a7+
r:t;; e 6
This counterplay is much too late.
39 ...b5 40.Af2?! This loses quickly. More stubborn was 40 . .§ a7 b4 + .
40 ... b4 41.r:t;}cl c3 42.A x h4 .£lf5 0-1 White resigned, as 43 . .§g4
277
Chess Analytics 1 0.0-0! 0-0! ( 1 0 . . . dxe4? 1 1 . 4::\ g S ± ) 1 1 .cxd5 ,Q,a6 1 2.l"'e1 4Jbd7 =i= . 9 ...exd5 10.Axc8 �xeS (D)
Our final example was played in the last round of the 1 986 Dubai Olym piad. Kasparov was again in a must-win situation, as otherwise the team gold medal would have been won by En gland.
ll.cxd5?
3...b5 In those days the Benko Gambit was played by Kasparov in some games. It suited his aggressive style and had proven a good choice against weaker players. With a 300-piont rat ing differential, the stronger play can take some additional risks . . .
A bad move. White had to opt for 1 1 . e xd5 �h3!? ( 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 . 0-0=) 1 2 .�e2+! ( 1 2 .4::\ g S? �f5! [12 . . . �g2 1 3.�f3 �xf3 14.4Jgxf3 0-0 1 5.h3 l"'e8+ 1 6 . \tld U ] 1 3 . �e2+ 'iftd7 1 4 . 4Jge4 4::l x e4 1 5 . 4Jx e4 l"\ e8 1 6 . f3 �e5 + ) 1 2 . . . 'iftd7 1 3. 4Jb3 l"\e8 1 4.Ae3 4Je4 1 5 . 0-0-0 'iftc7 1 6 . 4Jfd2 = . Now the asymmetrical pawn structure favors the stronger player, especially when he has some good plans to follow - h i s queenside majority i s more active than White's kingside one.
11 ... 0-0 1 l . . . �a6!? 1 2 . � e 2 13.'iftxe2 4Jbd7=+
4.a4 b4 5 . 4) d 2 g6 6.e4 d6 7.4)gf3
�xe2+
12.0-0 c4!
Usually White tries 7.b3!? here and ,Q,b2, g3, ,Q,g2 or 7.g3. 7.,Q,d3 is also possible: 7 . . . e5 8.dxe6 Axe6 9.f4 4Jc6 1 0.4Jgf3 Ah6 1 1 .4Jb3 oo Jones-Baeta, Arco 20 1 0.
The majority rolls!
13.�c2?1 Perhaps a bit better was 1 3.�e2 c3 14.bxc3 bxc3 1 5.4Jc4 �a6 16.4Jd4 l"'e8 17.<£lb5 l"\ xe4 18.'�a2 <£le8 + .
7... Ag7 8.g3
13 ...c3 14.bxc3 bxc31
Now the text move is not accurate. Better is 8.1td3.
8...e6! The opening of the center will fa vor Black, as his pieces can find more active squares. White has problems de veloping his queenside.
9.Ah3
There is no need to exchange queens : 14 . . . � x c3?! 1 5 . l"' a 2 ! 4Ja6 1 6.�b1 l"\fc8 1 7.,Q,b2 �c2 1 8.,Q,xf6 �xb1 19.l"\xb1 Axf6 =1' .
15.4)b3 �g4! 16.4)fd4 �xe4 17.�xc3 4) xd5 1 7 . . . �xd5 1 8.1tb2 4Je4 was as good as the text.
What else? lf9.ltg2, then 9 . . . exd5
278
18.�d2 4)b6!
Critical Games Black has won a pawn and in the end he already has what he wished for.
32.4:\xd6 4:\d3! 33 . .1"\dl 4:\3b4 34.�d4 a5 + .
19.E!el �d5 20. �dl 4)8d7 21.§a2 Axd4
3l ...dxe5 32.§xe5 4)f6 33.E!e7 a5 34.4)d6
Also good was 2 l . . . .§fe8 22.iie3 4:\c4 -+ .
34.l"\a7 4:\e4! + was good for Black.
22.E{d2 4)e5?! Simpler was 22 . . . iixf2+! 23.Wxf2 �f5+ 24.�g2 .§feB 25 . .1"\ xeS+ l"\ xe8 26 . .§ xd6 4:\e5 -+ .
34... §d4! Black had to win the game "again," and he does it in a great way! Probably this is the only move to do so! 35 . .1£lxf7 1it>f8 36.E!a7 (D)
23.4)xd4 4)bc4 24.§c2 24. l"\ de2? �xd4 25 .�xd4 4:\f3 + 26.�g2 4:\xd4 27.l"'e4 4:\c2 28.l"\ le2 4:\2a3 -+
24... E{ac8 25.f!c3 25.iie3?! 4:\xe3 26.fxe3 4:\f3+! -+
25 4)b6 •••
Why not �xa4 -+ ?
25 . . . �a5
2 6 . l"' c2
36 E!d7!
26.Ab2 § xc3 27.Axc3 E!c8
•••
The transition to a knight ending is the best way to convert the advan tage. The outside black a-pawn will be a decisive factor.
27 . . . �c4 28.iial 4:\xa4 -+ 28.-'lal (D)
37.E!xd7 4) xd7 38.4)d6 lit>e7 39.4)c4 a4 40.Iit>fl lit>e6 4l.lit>e2 lit>d5 42.4)e3+ If 42.4:\a3, 42 . . . �d4 wins and the pawn ending; 42.�d3 4:\e5+ 43.4:\xe5 �xe5 is also won for Black.
42 1it>d4 43.1it>d2 .••
28... E{c4?1 After Black quickly won a pawn and the initiative, he relaxed too much and now he has even lost some of his advantage, which he could have main tained with 28 . . .4:\bd7 + or 28 . . .a5 :;: .
29 . .1£lb51 E!xa4 lf29 . . . 4:\f3+?, then 30.�xf3! +- and i f 29 . . . l"' e4 , White defends with 30 . .1"\fl !=.
30.�xd5 .i£l xd5 31.Axe5 Maybe White should consi der 3 l .�g2 after which Black would have to find some accurate moves: 3 l . . .f6!
43.4:\c2+ 'it>c3 44.4:\a3 4:\f6 45.f4 4:\e4! 46.g4 4:\d6 -+
43 ... 4)e5 44.1it>c2 .i£ld3 44 . . . We4 also wins: 4 5 . f4 4:\f3 46.4:\fl ( 46.4:\g4 h 5 4 7 . 4:\f2 + �e3 48.4:\d3 4:\xh2 49.4:\e5 4:\fl 50.4:\xg6 4:\xg3 5 l .�c3 We4 52 .�b4 Wf5 -+ ) 46 . . . h5 47.�c3 a3 48.'it>b3 'it>d3 -+ .
45 .1£ldl 4)el + 46.1it>b2 .i£lf31 47.h4 .l£le51 •
Kasparov plays this ending like a machine! 47 . . .'it>d3? would be wrong in view of 48.4:\e3 We2 49.h5! gxh5 50.4:\d5! �xf2 5 1 .4:\f4 h4 52.gxh4 4:\xh4
279
Chess Analytics 53.�h5 when White draws!
48.
50 . . .
5 1 . .£i d 5
.£!g4!
52.�f4 h4 53 .�h3 �xf2 -+
52 . . . .£l xf2 53 . .£lf5 .£!e4 54.
Concept Opening preparation plays a vital part in the everyday working program of strong chessplayers. Usually this preparation does not target a certain opponent, but the problems and secrets of certain positions in question. A well prepared chessplayer should try to cre ate a logical repertoire, according to his needs and his preference in certain types of positions in the coming middlegame. The opening phase is a passing phase and it is just one way to the most im portant part of the game, the
middlegame. With the above in mind, we should focus on achieving "pleas ant middlegames." This meaning is double edged as there is a decent chance that both opponents will achieve it! Of course, players with different styles of play cannot be both happy! A chessplayer working on his opening repertory and on certain varia tions, should try: 1 . To collect and study everything that exists on the theoretical base. 2. To understand the various positional and tactical elements. 3. To study possible endgames. 4. To study illustrative games. 5. To create new ideas, plans and moves of a good value. The last one is the most difficult in theory and in praxis, but usually it is the one that produces the wins. It is probably impossible or very nearly so to find a strong novelty that can change the evaluation of a particular position quickly. But it is a good probability that in every position a new plan can be found. This plan normally is guided by certain moves leading to new positions. The careful study ofthese positions will give us certain superiority over our op ponent who will find himself in com pletely new territory. He will have to spend valuable time without any guar antee that he will be able to find the best answers. Thus he will get a great prac tical advantage over the board. (222) Grivas - Jadoul Dubai 1 986 King's Indian Defense [E74]
l.d4 .£if6 2.c4 g6 3. .£lc3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.Ae2 0-0 6.Ag5 c5 7.d5 h6 8 . .1}.f4 e6 9 . d x e6 .1}. x e6
280
Strength of a Novelty 10.Axd6 E!,e8 11 . .£)f3 .£)c6 12.0-0 .£)d4 13.e5 .£)d7 14 . .£) xd4 cxd4 15.� xd4 .£) xe5 16.Axe5 � x d4 17.Axd4 Axd4 18.E!.acl (D)
Instead ofthe text move, White has tried to get more with some other moves, but in vain: (a) 25.f4 a4 26.f5 Axf5! (26 . . . gxf5? 27.l"lg3+ �f8 28.bxa4 l"lxg3 29.hxg3 l"lb2 [29 . . .Axc4 30.l"l xf5 Ab3 3l .Axb3 l"lxb3 32.l"lf3 l"lb6 33.l"la3 l"la6 34.a5 �e7 35.�f2 �e6 36.7t'e3 �d5 37.7t'f4 l"lf6+ 38.7t'g4 l"la6 39.7t'f5 �c4 40.g4 �b4 4 l . l"l a l 7t'c3 4 2 . l"l c l + �d4 43.l"ldl + �e3 44.l"lal �d4 45.g3 7t'e3 46.l"la4 7t'f3 47.l"la3+ �g2 48.g5 h5 49.�e5 7t'h3 50.�d4 �g4 5 1 .�c4 l"la8 52.�b5 h4 53.gxh4 �xh4 54.l"lf3 l"la7 5 5 . l"l f5 1 - 0 Grivas-Kourkounakis, Khania 1 982] 30.Axf5 Axf5 3 1 .l"l xf5 l"lb4 32.a5 l"l xc4 33.l"lf4 l"l c6 34.l"l a4 l"l a6 3 5 . �f2 ± U hlmann-S znapik, Z innowitz 1 9 8 1 ) 2 7 .Axf5 gxf5 2 8 . l"l g 3 + ( Yz - Yz Lukac s-Polgar,J Budapest 1 99 1 ) 28 ... �f8 29.bxa4 l"lxa4 30.l"lcl l"l b2 3 1 .c5 l"l aa2 32.c6 l"lc2 33.l"l xc2 l"l xc2 34.l"lf3 l"l xc6 35.l"l xf5 l"l c2 36.l"lf2 l"lcl + 37.l"lfl l"l c2 38.l"lf2 Yz-Yz Grivas-Gavrilakis, Iraklion 1 983. (b) 25.l"lg3 l"la2! (25 . . . a4? 26.bxa4 l"l a 2 [26 . . . l"l xg3 2 7 . hxg3 A x c4 28.l"lbl ± Loffler-Rudolf, Germany 2004] 27.l"lc3 l"l bb2 28.Ad3 l"l xa4 29.c5 ± Stuart-McLaren, Auckland 1 997) 26.l"lc3 (26 . .\ldl? a4 27.bxa4 Axc4 28.l"lel l"lbl -+ ) 26 ... l"la3=.
This is a well-known (at least for KID players) pawn sacrifice, which according to theory leads to a drawish endgame. Of course, both sides can avoid this continuation, choosing alter natives on previous moves.
18 E!,ad8 .•.
1 8 . . . a5 did not fare well after 19.l"lfdl Axc3 20.l"l xc3 b5 2 l . cxb5 Axa2 22.�fl ± Grivas-Nikolic, Cap d'Agde 1 983 .
1 9 .b3 A xc3 20. E!, x c3 E!.d2 2l.Af3 E!,xa2 22.J,txb7 E!.b8 Accurate. 2 2 . . . a 5 ? ! 2 3 . c 5 ± Likavsky-Helbich, Slovakia 1 998.
23.Ae4 23 .Af3 was not much for White after 23 . . . l"la3 24 ..\ldl a5 25.l"lcl l"l c8 2 6 . l"l e l a4 27.bxa4 l"l x c4 28.l"l xc4 Axc4 29.Ac2 Ad5 30.h4 Ac6 31 .l"ldl l"l a 2 3 2 .Ab3 l"l a 3 3 3 . l"l d6 l"l x b3 34.l"l xc6 l"lbl + 35 .�h2 l"lb4 Yz-Yz in Polugaevsky-Kasparov, Bugojno 1 982. 23 ... E!.a3 24.Ac2 a5 (D)
25 �g7 •••
It seems that Black has difficulties even with the alternatives: (a) 25 . . . Af5? 26.Adl l"ld8 27.h3 Ad3 2 8 . l"l fe l l"l a l 29.c5 ± Alburt Timoshchenko, Beltsy 1 977. (b) 25 ... a4? 26.bxa4 B xe3 27.fxe3 l"lb2 28.l"lcl Axc4 29.Ae4! (29.Axg6 Ab3 3 0 . l"l b l [30.Ah5 l"la2 3 1 .Af3 l"l xa4 32.�f2 7t'g7 33.l"lc5 Ae6 34.e4 l"lc4 35.l"la5 l"lb4 36.7t'e3 l"lc4 37.�f4 l"lb4 38.h4 l"lb2 39.l"la7 Ba2 40.l"le7 l"l b2 Yz - Yz Maksimovic-Kl undt,
281
Chess Analytics Wuerzburg 1 989] 30 . . . � xbl + 31..\lxbl Axa4= Muse-Klundt, Germany 1 985) 2 9 . . . Ae6 30 . � a l Ac4 3 l . a S iia6 32.Ad5 ± . (c) 2S . . . �d8? 26.h3 �d2 27.�cl 'it'f8 28.Ae4 � d4 29.iixg6 a4 30.bxa4 � xa4 3 l . c S � ac4 3 2 . � xc4 � x c4 3 3 . � eS ± Farago-Nagle , Budapest 2004. But this is not quite true. With . . . (d) 2 S. . . � a2! (proposed by grand master Rainer Knaak as the best) 26.iixg6 �b2! (26 . . . a4?! 27.bxa4 iixc4 28.Abl � ab2 29.iid3 Axd3 30.� xd3 � a2 3 l .g3 [31 .h3 � xa4 32.�cl �ab4 33.�g3+ ± Uhlmann-Schmidt, Warsaw 1 980] 3 l . . . � xa4 32.�el � a6 33.�e2 'it'g7 34.'it'g2 ± [with one pair of rooks this position is a certain draw, but with the presence of all four rooks White has excellent winning chances, as he can put more pressure on Black's weak pawn-structure] 34 . . . � ab6 3 S .�dd2 �b3 36.f4 �8bS 37.'it'h3 �hS+ 38.'it'g4 � hb S 39 .'it'h4 � 3b4 4 0 . h3 'it'g6 4 l . � d6+ 'it'g7 42.�e3 �b3 43.�e7 � b7 4 4 . � xb7 � x b7 4 S . fS � b4 + 46.�hS �b3 47.h4 � f3 48.g4 �h3 49.f6+ �h7 SO.�d7 'it'g8 Sl.�d8+ �h7 S 2 . � f8 1 -0 Bareev-Watson,W Sochi 1 988) 27.Ae4 � 8xb3 28. � a l Axc4 29.� xb3 Axb3 30.� xaS � a2 3l.�xa2 Axa2 32.f4 f6 33.�f2 'it'f7 Yz-Yz Bareev Akopian, Moscow 1 9 89 and B lack should be satisfied.
26.§.cl! This looks like the best, as other option are clearly pleasant for Black: (a) 26.h3?! � a2! (26 . . . � c8? 27.�bl a4 28.bxa4 � xe3 29.fxe3 � xc4 30.Adl �c3 3l .�al Ac4 [3l . ..� xe3 32.aS AdS 33.a6 �g3 34.Af3 Axf3 3S.�f2 � xg2+ 36.�xf3 +- ] 32.�f2 �d3 33.Af3 �d2+ 34.�el � b2 3 S . aS Aa6 36.AdS ± Seirawan-Benjamin, Los Angeles 1 99 1 ; 2 6 . . . � d8? 27.�cl � d2 28.�fl �a2
29.�e2 �d8 30.�el a4 3 l . Adl axb3 32.iixb3 � xe2+ 33.�xe2 �f6 34.�e3 gS 3S .Aa4 ± Toth-Iskov, Oslo 1 978) 27.�cl �b4 28.Adl a4 29.bxa4 � xc4 30.� xc4 iixc4=. (b) 2 6 . � fe l ? � a 2 27. � c3 � a3 2 8 . f4 a4 2 9 . fS gxfS 30. � g3 + �f6 3 l .bxa4 � xg3 32 .hxg3 Axc4 33.�bl �e8 34.�b4 �el + 3S.�h2 AdS 36.�f4 � e2 37.AxfS � xg2+ 38.�h3 � d2 39.Ae4+ �g7 40.AxdS � xdS 4 l .�g4 hS+ 42.�f3 �d3+ 43.�f2 � a3 44.�b4 �g6 Yz- Yz Lukacs-Sznapik, Lodz 1978. 26.�cl was then my "novelty," one that I had researched in depth during my preparations. And indeed I was re ally happy that I was given the oppor tunity to use it in such an important event as the Dubai 1 986 Olympiad, where I represented my country. This game was in the match against Belgium.
26... §.a21 Black again must be accurate. Worse is 26 . . . � d8?! 2 7 . �fl � c8 28.�el �cS 29.�d2 �a2 30.�c3 a4 3 l . � xe6! fxe6 32 .bxa4 � aS 33.cS ! ± Zaichik-Rodriguez Cespedes, Tbilisi 1 977. Actually one should call 26. . . � a2! the real novelty, but I had no clue about the above game.
27.Adt! White even lost after the over-am bitious 27.cS? a4 28.b4 (28.bxa4 � xc2) 28 . . . � xb4 29 .Ad3 �b7 'i" Raetsky Schebler, Germany 2000. 27...a4 28.bxa4 §bb2 29.c5 (D)
282
Strength of a Novelty 29 ... Ad5t No help is 29 .. .l''\xf2? 30.�f3! :§fc2 3 l . :§ xc2 :§ xc2 32.c6 :§ a2 33.:§e4 and White will win. 30.c6 E!xf2 3l.E!g3 (D)
probably we could fill two or three pages with them; surely this is a sub ject for some other survey !
3 2 .c7 Ab7 33.Af3t Aa6 34.Ac6 Now Black is lost. Wrong would be 34.c8�? Axc8 35.:§ xc8? :§al +.
34 . . . E!ac2 3 5 . E!c3 E! d l + 36.E!xdl E!xc3 37.E!d6! (D)
31 ... E!fd2? A losing move in time trouble (Black had to find a lot of good moves over the board). Black had to enter the following line : 3 l . . .:§ xg2+ 32.:§ xg2 :§ xg 2 + 3 3 . \t'fl :§ xh 2 3 4 . c 7 Ae6 35.c8� �xc8 36.:§xc8 :§a2 37.:§c7 (D)
Black's king cannot be a part ofthe battle, as apposed to his counterpart that is about to enter the fray. The rest of the game seemed to be quite easy:
37... E!c5 38.�f2 E!c3 39.�el g5 40.�d2 E!c4 4 t .Ad5 E!c5 42.E! x a6 E! x d5+ 43.�e3 E!c5 44.E!a7 �g6 45.a5 f5 46.E!b7 f4+ 47.�d4 E!c1 48.a6 1-0
This is the position that I had in mind in my preparations. Although I spent an overwhelming amount of time on it, I did not come to a clear conclu sion. Black's three united passed pawns can become really dangerous. On the other hand, White is a piece up and for his part also has a passed pawn. As I felt that I had many winning chances and few losing ones, I decided that this was a nice position to have. No sur prises in the opening, plenty of time to think about and much needed informa tion obtained before-hand! Do not ask me for variations; there are many and
(223) Petursson - Grivas Katerini 1 993 King's Indian Defense [E73]
l.d4 .£1f6 2.c4 g6 3 . .£\c3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.Ae2 0-0 6.Ag5 .£\a6 7.�d2 e5 8.d5 �e8 9.Adl As usual, White can has several other options : (a) 9.h4 �c5 10.�xf6 ( 10.f3? �h5! xg3; 1 0.Af3 a5 l l .h5 �xh5 1 2.Axh5 gxh5 13.0-0-0 [ 13.:§ xh5? f6 -+ ] 13 .. .f5 1 4 .f3 �g6 1 5 . :§ e l a4 1 6 .�h3 b6 1 7.�f2 �a6 18.�b5 Axb5 1 9. cxb5 :§a5! + Beck-Bode, Schoeneck 1 99 1 ) 1 0 . . .�xf6 l l .�f3 ( l l .h5 a 5 1 2.�e3 �e7 1 3.�h3 �d7 1 4.b3 �g7 1 5.hxg6 YI - YI Kaidanov- Schlos ser, Austria
283
Chess Analytics 1 99 1 ) 1 l . . .a5 1 2.0-0-0 �g7 1 3 .h5 f5 14. hxg6 �xg6 oo Piket-Polgar, Aruba 1 995. (b) 9.f3 4Jh5 10.�d1 (10.�d3 f5 [10 . . A:Jf4 1 1 .�c2 4Jb4] 1 1 .4Jge2 f4!? [ 1 l . . .�d7 1 2.exf5 (12.0-0-0 f4 13.�h4 g5! 14.�f2 g4 1 5.�b1 4Jf6 16.4Jc1 gxf3 17 .gxf3 �h5 18.�e2 �3 oo Dao Thien Hai-Videki, Budapest 1 996) 1 2 . . . gxf5 13.0-0 4Jc5 14.�c2 a5 1 5 . .§ ae1 �g6 16.�e3= Serper-Korotylev, St Peters burg 1 993] 1 2 . �h4 [ 1 2 .0-0-0 �f6] 1 2 . . . g 5 ! [ 1 2 . . . �f6 1 3 . �f2] 1 3 . �f2 [1 3.�xg5? �g6 14.�h4 �xg2] 1 3 . . . g4 14.0-0-0 �h8 1 5.�b1 �f6 16.4Jcl gxf3 17.gxf3 �e7 18.4Jb5 c5 1 9.dxc6 bxc6 20.4Jc3 4Jg7! 2 1 .�e2 l"!d8 22.4Jb3 4Je6 23 . .§hg1 4Jac5 24.4Jxc5 dxc5 25.�e1 4Jd4 2 6 . 4Ja4 �e6 2 7 . � x d4 cxd4 28.�a5 .§ g8 29.4Jc5 �f7 30.b4 .§ g6 3 1 . l"! xg6 hxg6 32 . .§ g 1 �g7 33 .�c2 l"!h8 34.l"! g2 .§b8 35 .a3 l"!h8 36.�d2 Yz-Yz Dao Thien Hai-David, Wijk aan Zee 1 997; 10.g4? 4Jf4! 1 1 .�xf4 exf4 1 2 .�xf4 f5 1 3 . exf5 gxf5 1 4 . g5 4Jc5 1 5 .�fl �e5 1 6.�d2 f4 1 7 . l"! e 1 a5 18.h4 �f5 1 9.4Jh3 �g6 20.4Jf2 �h8 =i= Buckley-Fishbein, Philadelphia 1 99 1 ) 1 0 . . . f 5 1 1 . 4J g e 2 �d7 ( l l . . . fxe4 1 2 . 4::\ x e4 [ 1 2 .fxe4 �f7 1 3 . �e3 4Jf4 14.4Jg3 h5 with counterplay] 1 2 . . .4Jf4 1 3.0-0 �f7 [ 1 3 . . . �f5 14.�c2 4::\x e2+ 1 5 .�xe2 � ] 1 4 .�c2 h6 1 5 . �h4 g5 1 6 . �f2 b6 oo ) 1 2 . a3 ( 1 2 .�c2 4Jb4 [ 1 2 . . . �h8 1 3 .�e3 4Jb4 1 4 .�b1 a5 1 5 . a3 4Ja6 1 6. b 3 b6 1 7 .�c2 4Jc5 18 . .§b1 fxe4 19.4Jxe4 4::\x e4 20.�xe4 4Jf6 2 1 . 4Jc3 �f5 oo Kummer-Freitag, H artberg 2 0 0 3 ] 1 3 . �b 1 a5 1 4 .a3 [14.exf5 gxf5 1 5 .0-0 �h8 1 6.a3 4Ja6 1 7 .�c2 l"! g8 1 8 . f4 �g6 =i= B onsch Langheimich, Germany 2005] 1 4 ... 4Ja6 1 5 .�c2 f4 16.�h4 g5 17.�f2 g4 18.00-0 �h8 19.�b1 4Jf6 20.4Jc1 �h5 oo Farago-Tratar, Maribor 1 994) 1 2 . . . .ili6
1 3 .�e3 f4 1 4.�f2 �e7 1 5 .�c2 �h4 16.g3 �g5 1 7.g4 4Jg3 1 8.hxg3 fxg3 1 9 . �e3 g2 20 . .§h3 �h4 + 2 l . �f2 �xf2+ 22.�xf2 �xg4 23 .�h6 �xh3 24.�xh3 �g5 25.�g3 �d2 26. .§cl .§f7 27.4Jb1 g1�+ 28.�xg1 .§ xf3+ 29.�xf3 .§f8+ 30.�g3 �xe2 31 .4Jc3 l"!f3+ 0- 1 Yakovich-Nadyrhanov, Smolensk 1 997. (c) 9.4Jf3 4Jh5 10.g3 f5 oo Gulko Djurhuus, Manila 1 992. 9 4)h5 (D) ...
Also not bad is 9 . . .�d7 1 0.4Jge2 4Jh5 (10 . . . h5 1 1 .0-0 4Jc5 1 2 .�c2 a5 13 . .§ ae1 l"!a6 14.b3 � Petursson-Prie, Reykjavik 1 993) 1 1 .4Jg3 4Jf4 1 2.0-0 4Jc5 1 3.�c2 a5 1 4.a4! (14.�xf4 exf4 1 5 . � x f4 b 5 1 6 . c xb5 � x b 5 oo /= ) 1 4 . . . �b8 !? 1 5 . l"! ab 1 ( 1 5 .�xf4 exf4 16.�xf4 �a [check] oo /=) 1 5 . . . �a7= Yusupov-Nikolaidis, Yerevan 1 996.
10.,1lxh5?! In my opinion White should con tinue with 10.�a4! �d7 1 1 .�xd7 �xd7 12.4Jge2 f5 1 3.f3 4Jc5 1 4.b4 4Ja4 1 5.00 a5 1 6.a3 4Jf6 1 7.l"!ab1 4Jxc3 18.4Jxc3 b6 1 9 . /"! fc l � Heinig- Schenk, B ad Woerishofen 200 l , but who can resist shattering the opponent's pawn struc ture? 10 ...gxh5 11.4)ge2 (D) Or 1 1 .4Jf3 f5 1 2.exf5 �xf5 13.4Jh4 �d7 ( 1 3 . . . 4Jc5 14.4Jxf5 .§ xf5 1 5 .0-0 �g6 16.�e3 .§af8 17 . .§ ad1 � Leitao Gormally, Mermaid Beach 1 998) 14.f3 4Jc5 oo .
284
Strength of a Novelty 14 f5 .•.
Only now! (14 . . .�xg2? 1 5 .l"'\g1).
15.f3 After 1 5 .exf5 White's position can easily become critical: 1 5 . . . .il xf5 16.<2\g3?! ( 1 6.0-0 Ah3 17.<2\g3 .\lxg2 18.'xg2 h4 oo ) 16 . . . Ac2 ! ( 1 6 . . . .ild3 1 7 .0-0-0 Axc4 1 8 .b3 h4 1 9 . bxc4 [ 1 9 .<2\ge4 Ab5] 1 9 ... hxg3 20 .hxg3
ll ...f6! This was a strong novelty then. To my knowledge, White never again tried 10 . .\lxh5?! after this game. Until this game, Black had repl i e d 1 l . . . f5?! 1 2.exf5 .llxf5 1 3.<2lg3 and now: (a) 13 . . . e4 14.Ah6! ( 1 4.0-0 flg6 1 5 . .1le3 l"'\ae8 16.'h1 [16.<2\xf5!? l"'\ xf5 1 7.'h 1 ] 1 6 . . . Jld7 [ 1 6 . . . h4 1 7. <2\xf5 l"'\ xf5 18.f3 exf3 1 9.gxf3 flh5 20.f4 ;i; ] 1 7.f3 exf3 18.gxf3 oo Petursson-Glek, Belgrade 1 988) 14 . . . xg7 17.f3! ;!; . (b) 1 3 . . . Ag6 1 4 . 0-0 ( 1 4 . <2\ge4
15 ...b6 Preparing ...
16.exf5 Axf5 17.J£lg3 .1ld7 17 . . . <2\c5 18.<2\xf5 flxf5 19.0-0 a5=
18.0-0?! White had to try 18.0-0-0 oo .
18 h4?! •••
B lack missed 18 . . . l"'\f4! 1 9.<2\ge4 l"'\af8 20.'h1
19.J£lge4 4)c5 1 9 . . . l"'\f4!?
20. 'i¥!tg5 'i¥!t xg5 2 1 . 4) xg5 a5 22.E!adl E!f4 23.4)ge4 E!af8 24.h3 (D)
12 . .1lh6 Alternatives can be good only for B lack: 1 2 . .ilh4? flg6 1 3 . <2lg3? flg4; 12.Ae3 h4! not allowing the e2-knight to get to g3, and then he can calmly continue with .. .f5.
1 2 ... ,1l x h6 1 3 . 'i¥'f x h6 'i¥!tg6! 14.'i¥!td2 After 1 4.flxg6+ hxg6 Black can feel fully satisfied. His good c8-bishop has stayed in the game and he has at his disposal various plans as . . . c6 and .. .f5.
24 ... 4) xe4 More precise was 24 . . . Af5 ! 25.l"'\fe1 (25.<2\e2 <2\xe4 26.<2\xf4
25.fxe4 'it>g7 26.E! xf4 E! x f4 27.E!fl E! xfl+ 28.'it>xfl 'it>f6 This is a drawish endgame. White tried till the end to create some winning chances but Black responded with ac curacy (although it was not that diffi cult).
285
Chess Analytics 2 9 . '1ftf2 'lftg5 30.'1fte3 Ae8 3l.b3 Ad7 32.4)dt Aes 33.4)f2 Ad7 34.4)d3 Ae8 35.b4 a x b4 36.4) xb4 ®f6 37.4)a6 c5 38.dxc6 Axc6 39.4)b4 Ab7 40.a4 40.<£Jd5+ .ll xd5 41 .cxd5 b5=
40...'Iftg5 4l.'lftf3 'lftf6 42.4)c2 Ac8 43.®e3 Ae6 44.4)a3 '3;e7 4 5 . '1ftd3 ®d7 46. 4) b l '3;c6 47. 4) d 2 'lftc5 48.'3;c3 Af7 4 9 . 4) b3 + 'lftc6 50.a5 b x a 5 5 1 . 4) x a 5 + 'lft b 6 5 2 . 4) b3 Ag6 53.'lftd3 ®c6 54.4)d2 'lftc5 55.4)f3 Af7 56.4)xh4 Axc4+ 57.'1fte3 d5 58.exd5 Yz-Yz The third example is an impressive one; "short and sweet! " (224) Yilmaz - Grivas Nea Makri 1 990 Sicilian Defense [B30]
l.e4 c5 2.4)f3 4)c6 3.b4?! ex b4 4.d4 d5 5.exd5 �xd5 6.c4 bxc3 7.4) xc3 �a5 8.d5? (D)
i irl�iri®���E
'� f• '• '�
� 1 � �� 1 �� 1
i�-·-�-ts "N
'.:'iJ���r$ .u. d
�
�/."'\�
m
?'� .!.1 ?'.1.1:
���Jl� §
Back in 1 990 I had to face the Turk ish IM in a zonal tournament (prelimi naries of the world championship). As my opponent was a sharp player, fond of sacrifices and gambits, I should not have expected anything else than a side line of a Sicilian Defense. As I was ana lyzing this particular position some thing "strange" hit me !
8...e6! An excellent novelty!
(a) 8 ... �xc3+? 9 . .lld2 �a3 (9 ...�f6 1 O.dxc6 bxc6 1 l .Aa5 .llg4 1 2 . .lle 2 <£Jh6 1 3.0-0 oo /= e5? 14.<£Jxe5 Axe2? 1 5 . �d7 # 1 -0 Csapo-Szilardfy, Budapest 2005) 1 O.dxc6 bxc6 1 1 . �c2 �d6 ( 1 1 . . . .lld7 1 2.l"lb1 e5 13.l"lb3 �e7 14 . .llc4 f6 1 5 .0-0 oo /= <£Jh6 16.l"lfb1 �d8 1 7 . A x h6 gxh6 1 8 . l"l d 1 �c7 1 9.<£Jh4 .llg4 20.l"ldb1 l"ld8 2 1 .h3 Ac8 22.<£Jg6 hxg6 23.�xg6+ rJJe 7 24 .�f7+ 1 -0 Steinbacher-Wenzel, Germany 1 994) 1 2 . .ll f4 �b4+ 1 3 . Ad2 �d6 1 4.Ae2 <£Jf6 1 5 . 0-0 <£Jd5 16.l"lfd1 e6 17.<£Je5 oo /= .lle7 18.<£Jxc6 0-0 19 . .llb4 <£Jxb4 20.l"l xd6 <£Jxc2 2 1 .<£Jxe7+ rJJh8 2 2 . l"l b 1 a S 2 3 . Af3 l"l a 7 2 4 . <£J xc8 (24 . . . l"l x c8 2 5 . l"l c6) 1 -0 Yil maz Veinger, Kusadasi 1 990. (b) 8 . . . <£Jf6? 9 . .ll b 2 ! ( 9 . dx c6? �xc3+ 1 0 .ia.d2 �xc6 1 1 . l"l c 1 �d6 1 2 . l"l c3 e6 1 3 . � c 1 Ad7 + Husak Hlavac, Tatranska Lomnica 1 997) 9 . . . <£Jb8 1 0.Ad3 oo /=. (c) 8 . . . <£Jb8? 9 . .lld2 <£Jf6 1 0.ia.c4 (10.l"lc1 �d8 l l .<£Je5 a6 1 2 .�a4+ ± Llorens-Sepulveda, Santiago 2005) 1 0 . . . g6 1 1 .<£Je4 �c7 1 2 .Ab5+ .lld7 13.l"lcl �d8 14.<£Jxf6+ exf6 1 5 .�e2+ .lle7 16.d6 0-0 1 7.dxe7 '{Jyxe7 18.�xe7 l"l e8 1 9 .�xe8+ 1 -0 Schnurr-Prange, Schloss Schney 1 992. (d) 8 . . . e5? 9.dxc6 Ab4 1 0 . .lld 2 (10 . .lld3 Axc3+ 1 1 ..lld2 bxc6 1 2.0-0 Axd2 1 3 .<£Jxd2 .lle6 + Gaillard-Frane, B ethune 2 0 0 5 ) 1 0 . . . ia. x c 3 l l . l"l c l .\lxd2+ 1 2.'{jyxd2 �xd2+ 1 3 .'JJx d2=. (e) 8 ... .llg4? 9.Ad2 (9.dxc6 �xc3+ 10 . .lld2 �xc6 1 1 .l"l c 1 la.xf3 1 2 .gxf3 �e6+ 1 3 .Ae3 <£Jf6 14 . .\lb S + <£Jd7 1 5 .l"lc7 1 -0 Basanta-Wu, Vancouver 2003) 9 . . .Axf3 (9 . . . <£Je5 10.<£Jxe5 Axd1 1 1 . .\lb S + 'JJ d 8 1 2 . <£J x f7 + 'JJ c 8 13.l"lc1 +- ) 1 0.gxf3 <£Je5 1 1 .<£Jb5 �b6 1 2.'{Jya4 +- . As becomes obvious, White should
286
Strength of a Novelty feel satisfied playing these positions, as it seems that he has at least an unclear position to handle. But after the text move his whole plan becomes suspi cious. 9.dxc6 (D)
E il@ ii@���¥E
�il@ �----�il@ � � t B B t �� t B ft B t B
m"� '• �td�rzy �
.!.1 m m :;;� .!..!. !i'.L\; iW!li 1"1' 'l"fd [email protected].. � �g�� w� - � o
The main alternative is 9.�d2 Ab4 (9 . . . exd5?! 1 0 .�b5 �b4 1 1 . 4::\ xdS Axd2+ 1 2 .�xd2 �xd2+ 1 3 .�xd2 �f8 1 4.�xc6 bxc6 1 5 .4Jc7 §:b8 16.§:ab1 §: x b 1 1 7 . §: xb 1 4::\ e 7 1 8 . §: b8 g6 1 9 . § a8 = B ereza- Schebler, Dos H ermanas 2 0 04) 1 0 . � c 1 ( 1 0 . § c 1 exd5 + ) 1 0 . . . exd5 1 1 .a3 Ad6 1 2 .Ab5 ( 1 2 .4::\b S �d8 1 3 .Af4 Ab8 1 4.Axb8 §: x b8 1 5 . �f4 �f6 ! -+ Goumas Katsiris, Athens 2 0 0 3 ) 1 2 . . . 4Jge7 13.4Je4 �d8 1 4.4::\xd6+ �xd6 1 5. Ab4 �f6 16.0-0 0-0 17.Axc6 bxc6 18.§e1 §: e8 + Shirazi-Bonin, New York 1 990.
9 ... Ab4! to.Ad2 10.cxb7 Axc3+ 1 1 .Ad2 ( 1 1 .4Jd2 Axb7 1 2. §:b1 �c6 13.§:b3 4Jf6 14.�c2
poses to the previous note, the other options are: (a) 1 1 .�e2 �xd2+ 1 2 .4::\x d2 4Je7 1 3 .0-0 0-0 1 4 .4Jc4 ( 1 4 . cxb7 �xb7 1 5.�f3 l"l ad8 16.�b1 §: xd2 17.�xb7 4Jg6 18.a4 4::\e S 19.l"lfc1 l"lfd8 20.l"lc8 4::\ xf3+ 2 1 .gxf3 §: xeS 22 .�xc8+ l"l d8 23.l"lc1 g6 24.�c7 0- 1 Hvenekilde Nilssen, Tastrup 2000) 14 . . .�g5 1 5.c7 4::\ d S 1 6 . �f3 4::\ xc7 1 7 . �d6 4::\ b S 18.�b4 4Jd4 19.Ae4 e5 20.�h1 Ae6 2 1 .4::\e 3 f5 22.�d5 �xd5 23.4::\xdS 4::\c2 0-1 Tempone-Scarella, Chaco 1 996. (b) 1 1 .)"\cl Axd2+ 1 2 .4::\x dZ 4Jf6 13.�d3 ( 1 3.cxb7 Axb7 14.�b3 §:d8?! [14 ... �e5+ 1 5 .�d1 l"lb8 -+ ] 1 5.�b5+ �xb5 16.Axb5+ �f8 17.l"lc7 �xg2?! [17 ... §:b8 + ] 18.l"lg1 Ad5 19.l"l xa7 g6 'l' Malzahn-Felser, Bad Segeberg 2000) 13 . . .bxc6 14.§:xc6 0-0 1 5.�c2 �e5+ 16.�fl Ab7 17.§c3 §ac8 18.4Jc4 �d4 1 9.�e2 4Je4 20.�xe4 �xe4 2 1 .§:d1 �xc4+ 0-1 Lohn-Klemm, Dudweiler 1 996.
ll A x d2+ 12 .!£) xd2 .i£)e7! 13.cxb7 Axb7 (D)
•••
11.'1\¥Ycl White is unable to find a proper move and probably he had already "un derstood" his future ... As 1 l .cxb7 trans-
287
•..
•
Chess Analytics This is a nearly lost position for White, making this variation unplayable for him.
14.E!b1 1 4.'lii'b2 0-0 1 5.Ae2 Aa6 16.Axa6 "i1i' x a 6 1 7 . "i1i'b4 4Jg6 1 8 . "i1i'c4 "i1i'a5 1 9J':l.bl �fd8 20.'ffi'b4 "i1i'e5+ 2 1 ."i1i'e4 "i1i'c3 2 2 . � d l � ab8 23 . "i1i' e 3 � d3 24.'ffi'xa7 �bd8 (24 . . . "i1i'xd2+! 25.� xd2 � b l + 26.l"\dl �bxdl + 27.'3le2 4Jf4 # ) 25.0-0 � xd2 26.l"\xd2 "i1i'xd2 27.a4 "i1i'd5 0- l Nystrom-Penttinen, Espoo 1 994.
14 Ac6 15.Ae2 E!d8 16 .§b2 'li?/g5! 17.E!g1 0-0 18.idb3 'li?/e5 19.f4 'li?/f6 20.g3 .§c8 21.E!c2 Aa4 2 2 .§ x c8 .§ x eS 23.'li?/e3 A x b3 24.axb3 a5 25.f2 ./df5 26 . .§c1 .§xc1 27.'li?/xc1 'li?/d4+ 28.f3 h5 29. 'li?/ d 1 'li?/c3+ 30.f2 'li?/c5+ 3 l . f3 'li?/c6+ 32 .f2 'li?/b6+ 33. f3 ./d d4+ 34. g2 .id xe2 35.'li?/xe2 'li?/ x b3 36.'li?/xh5 'li?/d5+ 37.'li?/f3 a4 0-1 •••
•
•
With the use of the forepost we achieve the blocking of a file that we are not immediately able to control. Behind the forepost we can double our rooks or maneuver them with complete freedom. At an appropriate moment the forepost can be removed, allowing our rooks to spring into action. If necessary, the file can be blocked again in the same way. The piece occupying the forepost may simultaneously be able to create threats, so that the opponent is unable to fulfill all defensive requirements of his position and allow the invasion of our rooks. In this survey we will exam ine a forepost deep in the opponent's camp, on a7 (h7) and even on some neighboring squares! (225) (D)
Conclusion The theoretical value of the "strength of a novelty" is important not only in our modem era; it was always essential. This is the main example, describ ing the concept.
The a7 Forepost
1.Aa7! Concept The strategic e l ement of the forepost is directly related to those of the open file and the outpost. From this one can deduce the actual definition of the term (which was introduced into English-language chess literature in my books series Chess College, Gambit 2006), i.e., an outpost on an open file, on which we can place a minor piece. But what is the use ofthe forepost? Why is it so important?
Unexpectedly, White conquers the a-file by temporarily blocking it on a square deep in B lack's camp; Black cannot do anything about it.
1 ./df5 2.E!a6 .§fc8 3.E!ca1 e5 4.Ac5 E!xa6 5 .§xa6 •••
•
White took control of the a-file without much trouble and his chances to win are fairly increased. 1-0 Of course, the above example is constructed, but it could easily happen in an actual game. Here is one of the
288
The a7 F orepost the white queen away from this diago nal.
oldest and at a high level:
36 . .Q.b6 �e7
(226) Spassky - Karpov
Leningrad 1 974 Ruy Lopez [C95]
l.e4 e5 2.l�� f3 4Jc6 3..Q.b5 a6 4. .Q.a4 4Jf6 5.0-0 .Q.e7 6.§.el b5 7.Jtb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 4)b8 10.d4 4)bd7 11.4)bd2 Ab7 12.Jtc2 §.e8 l3.4Jfl Jtf8 14.4Jg3 g6 15.a4 c5 16.d5 c4 17..Q.g5 §.b8 18.�d2 .Q.c8 1 9 . a x b5 a x b5 20.§.a2 .Q.g7 21.§.eal 4Jc5 22.�e3 E!e7 23.4Jd2 §.c7 24.b3 cxb3 25.4J xb3 .Q.d7 2 6 . 4) x c 5 E! x c5 27.�d2 �c8 28.4)e2 4)e8 29.Jtd3 f5 30. .Q.e3 §.c7 31.f3 f4 (D)
B l ack could even go i n for 36 . . . la.h4!? 37.la.xd8 Axf2+ 38.\t'xf2 .§ xd8 39 . .§a7 ;!; .
37.f!a7 §.ebB 38.E!xb7 §.xb7 (D)
39.
39 ... -'l_h4 40.�gl
4Jf6 42 . .lla 5 ;!; . 4t ... §xa7 42.-'l_xa7 �dS 43.�b6 �c7 44.�xc7 .l£\ xc7
White already occupies the a-file (the only open one), but Black's rooks are not so badly placed, and even have some pressure along the c-file.
32.Aa71 This appears to be the first time that this concept appeared in a game be tween strong players.
The position is now equal and very near to the draw.
4 5 . -'l.bS Jil eS 4 6 . i£) c l AdS! 47.Aa7 Aa5 4S.c4 bxc4 49.Axc4
32 ... §,bb7
The next example is quite famous and
After 3 2 . . . .§ a8 3 3 . 1H2 ! .§ x a 2 34.�xa2, i t would b e easier for White to penetrate into Black's camp.
well-known, as it is the demolition of a strong grandmaster:
(227) Karpov - Unzicker
33.�ell White is targeting the b6-square, so his queen must be transferred to the g 1 a7 diagonal.
33 ...�dB 34. �f2 §.c8 35.E!a6 .Q.f6! Precise defense; Black tries to kick
Nice 1 974 Ruy Lopez [C98]
l .e4 e5 2 . .1£\ f3 4)c6 3 .Ab5 a6 4.-'l_a4 .iil f6 5.0-0 Ae7 6 . § e l b5 7.Ab3 d6 S.c3 0-0 9.h3 .l£\a5 10.-'l_c2 c5 ll.d4 �c7 12 . .1£\bd2 .l£\c6 13.d5 i£)dS 14.a4 §bS 15.axb5 axb5 16.b4
289
Chess Analytics ,£\ b7 1 7 . � f l .ll. d 7 18 . .Q.e3 §aS 19. �d2 §fc8 20..Q.d3 g6 21..£\g3 .ll,f8 22.§a2 c4 23 . .\lbl �ds (D)
weaknesses: as he cannot win (at least directly) on the queenside, he opens a second front on the kings ide. And that's the power of the spatial advantage, as pieces can be transferred from one side to another in no time.
29.�h21 Ag7 30.f4 f6 B leak is 30 . . . exf4 3 1 .�xf4
3l.f5! g5?!
Karpov was probably "inspired" by the previous game . . .
24.Aa7! Now every white piece has the op portunity to take up natural and strong positions. At the same time, Black's normal "blood circulation" has been disrupted, and the guilty party in this instance is the knight on b7.
24... �eB 25.Ac2 Here comes the rooks' doubling on the a-file.
25 . . . � c7 27.Abt AeB
26. E!eal
Black should refrain from creating new weaknesses on the kingside. He should strongly consider 3 l . . .Ad7 3 2 . 4::\ f l ± or 3 l . . .gxf5 3 2 . e xf5 4Jf7 33.4::\fl ± . 32.Bc2! The bishop will be transferred to the d l -h5 diagonal.
32 ... Af7 33.�g3 � b7 33 . . .h5 looks like the only move, but in fact helps White to completely open the kingside: 34.Adl h4 35.4::\gfl Ae8 36.g3 hxg3 37.4Jxg3 Af7 38.4Jf3 i£ff8 39.h4 gxh4 40.4Jxh4 +- .
tt:fe7
The main problem of B lack ' s cramped position i s that h e cannot ex change any pieces and he does not have enough space for their regrouping, so he stays in a passive position, waiting for White to show his hand. 2B.�e2 �dB (D)
34.Adt h6 On principle, this move should not be made until it is forced. The weaken ing of g6 only accelerates Black's de fense.
35.Ah5! After the exchange of the light square bishops the light squares will be rather weak and White will use them to invade. 35 ... tf:JeB 36. tf:Jdl! �dB (D)
White's spatial advantage is great but Black's position is solid and defen sible. So, White uses the rule of the two
290
The a7 Forepost White holds a small advantage, but it is not easy to propose a good plan, or is it?
37. .§a3 As Black has no useful move, White takes his time to make the first time control (move 40) and then to de cide how to finish the job!
37 . . . �f8 38 . .§ 1a2 3 9 . 4) g4! �f8 40.4)e3 4t.Jtxf7+ 4)xf7
�g8 �g8
27.Ah7! A reflection of a7-square; the idea remains the same.
27... .§f8?! Too passive. Black should opt for 27 ... §g7 28.Jlf5 §gg8 29.4Jg3 ;!;; .
If 4 l . . .�xf7, then 42.�h5 �xh5 43.4Jxh5 �f7 44.1a,b6! and the end is near. . .
28 . .§h6! 4) c7 29.4)g3 4) f7 30. .§h2 4)e6 31.4)d3! Correctly preserving the knight, as Black lacks any other serious plan than exchanging some pieces.
42. t'Yh5 4)d8 42 . . . 4Jh8 keeps the white queen away from g6, but cannot save the game: 43.4Jg4 �xh5 44.4Jxh5 �f7 45 .Ab6 +- .
43. t\'g6! �f8 44.4)h5 Black resigned as the threats 4Jg4 and ia,b6 cannot be met. The threat of moving the a7-bishop has been a con tinual nightmare for Black! 1-0
3 1 . . . 4)g7 33.4)f2
32 . .§chl
�e7
The premature 33.Ag6?! § xh2+ 34.§xh2 §h8 gives White nothing. 33 ... .§d8 (D)
(228) Kasparov - Karpov Moscow 1 985 Queen's Gambit Declined [D3 1 ]
l.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.4)c3 Ae7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Af4 c6 6.e3 Af5 7.g4 Ae6 8.h4 4)d7 9.h5 4)h6 10.Ae2 4)b6 11 ..§cl Ad6 12.4)h3 Jtxf4 13.4) xf4 Ad7 14 . .§gl g5 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.�d2 t\'e7 17.b3 g5 1 8 . 4) d3 0-0-0 1 9 . .§hl f6 20. t\'gl 4) f7 2 1 . t\'g3 t\'d6 2 2 . t\' x d 6 4) x d6 23.f3 .§dg8 24.4)c5 �d8 25.Ad3 Ac8 26.4)e2 4)a8 (D)
34.Af5?! There is no point to this. As in the previous game, White should open a second front: 34.�c3! �e6 35 .e4 4Jd6 36.a4 ± .
34 . . . .§ xh2 3 5 . .§ x h 2 4) x f5 36.gxf5 .§h8! 37. .§xh8 4) xh8 Now White lost most of his advan tage and the game steered for the safe waters of a draw.
38.e4 4) f7 39. 4)g4 4)d6! 40.4)e3 dxe4 41.fxe4 b6 42.b4?! White's last inaccuracy. He should opt for 42.e5 4Jf7 (42 ...4Je8?! 43.4Je4 ± ) 43Ajg4 fxe5 44.dxe5 c 5 45 .�d3 ;!;; .
42 . . . Aa6! 44. �d3 4)a3+
29 1
43.4)g4
4) b 5
Chess Analytics White has nothing better than 45.'it'd2 4Jb5 46.'it'd3 4Ja3+. �-�
26 . . . Ad8 27.'it'e2 4Jc4 28.Ab7! 4::\x a5 29.Axa8 l"\ xa8 30.bxa5 'it'eS 3 l .e4 ± .
27.�e2? Neighboring squares around a7 could be used as well to reach the goal:
27.Ab5! would win: 27 . . . l"\ x a 5 28.Axc6+ 'it'dS 29.bxa5 +- . 27... .§.b8 28. .i}.b51 (D)
(229) Tu Hoang - Komliakov Moscow 1 994 Slav Defense [D l l )
l .d4 d5 2.4)f3 4)f6 3.c4 c6 4.g3 .ilf5 5.4)c3 e6 6. �b3 �b6 7.c5 � x b3 8.ax b3 4)e4 9.4)h4 4) xc3 10.bxc3 ,ilc2 ll.b4 h6 12.f3 .ile7 1 3 . 4)g2 .ilh7 1 4.e3 0-0 15.�d2 .§.c8 16.4)el .i}.d8 17.4)d3 4) d7 18 . .i}.b2 a5 1 9 . Ae2 a x b4 20.cxb4 �f8 21.Ac3 b5 22.cxb6 4) xb6 23.4)c5 ,ile7 (D)
28... .§.xa5? Black blunders again. More stub born was 2 8 . . . l"\ c7 2 9 . 4Ja 6 l"\ ccS 30.Ad3 (30.4::\xbS? cxb5 + ) 30 ... Axd3+ 3 l .'it'xd3 §b7 32.4Jc5 ± .
29.Axc6+ �d8 30. .§. xa5 30.bxa5 was good as well.
30... 4)c8 3l.b5 White wins.
31 ... .i}.d6?! 32.4)d7! 1-0 Conclusion It seems that B lack should be more or less fine, but the truth is that White stands better.
24. .1}.a6! Not exactly the a7-square but a very near one to it; the idea remains the same.
24 . . . .§.c7 26. .§.hal
25 . .§.a5
.§.ca7
Both sides have done their duty and doubled their rooks on the a-file. White keeps the advantage, as any time he moves his a6-bishop, Black would be obliged to hand White a passed pawn after . . . l"\ xa5 when White will reply bxa5.
26 ...�e8? A blunder. B l ack had to try
In general, the combination of an open file, a forepost and an outpost is a significant strategic advantage in itself and may easily suffice for victory. A forepost deep in the opponent's camp can especially create many more diffi culties for him, as he may not haveat his disposal enough space to maneuver. David Bronstein (1924-2006) Genius of Attack
Concept He came within one draw of be coming world champion, and was one of the strongest players in history to not win the title. David Ionovich Bronstein was a remarkable creative genius and a
292
David Bronstein master of scintillating tactics that en thralled the chess world for many de cades. He belonged to this rare category of great chess players who never be came world champions, although they fully deserved it. David Ionovich Bronstein was born on February 1 9th, 1 924 in Bila Tserkva (near Kiev), Ukraine and died on December 5 th, 2006 in Minsk, Belarus. He won international fame as a chess player at the 1 948 Interzonal and the Candidates Tournament in Budapest in 1 950, where he defeated Boleslavsky to become the challenger for the world title. He also married Boleslavsky's daughter Tatiana. Bronstein came agonizingly close to actually taking the crown from Mikhail B otvinnik i n Moscow's Chaikovsky Concert Hall, when he was leading by a full point after 22 games (of 24). He lost game 23 and then drew game 24, the drawn match resulting in Botvinnik retaining his title. David Bronstein was also a great chess writer, and his book on the 1 953 Candidates Tournament, Zurich Inter national Chess Tournament 1953, was acclaimed worldwide, as was a later effort, The Sorcerer s Apprentice. Chess fans especially appreciated his habit of explaining the ideas behind moves, in stead of using the traditional method, which he called "analysis of moves that never made it to the scoresheet." Bronstein was also a pioneer in popu larizing the King 's Indian Defense, which had been considered dubious until he showed how to play it in his games and in a famous book on the King's Indian. As a tribute to his memory, here are five examples of his art - masterpieces of both attack and defense . . .
(230) Bronstein - Mikenas Rostov-on-Don 1 94 1 Latvian Gambit [C40]
l.e4 e5 2.idf3 f5?1 The dubious Latvian Gambit. Such early pawn advances cannot be recom mended in modem chess. We will soon understand the reason!
3.4) xe5 �f6 4.d4 d6 5.4)c4 fxe4 6 . .1}.e2 4)c6!? (D)
This is an interesting try, as the al ternatives failed to satisfy: (a) 6 . . .�d8 7.
293
Chess Analytics 7 .1£)e5 ...
Best, as 7.c3 looks too naive: 7 ...d5 (7 . . . ile7 8. 0-0 �f7 9.d5 ± Konsek Wirth, Germany 1 999; 7 . . . �f7 8.0-0 4Jf6 9.f3 exf3 1 0.I:hf3 ;!; Tietzen-Hirsch, Passau 2000; 7 . . .Ad7?! 8.0-0 �d8 9.f3 exf3 1 0 . ilxf3 4Jf6 1 1 . l"l e 1 + ile7 1 2 . �e2 ± Schabanel-Broca, France 2004) 8Aje3 Ae6 (8 . . .Ad6? 9.4Jxd5 �f7 10.c4 Ae6 1 1 .4Jbc3 ilxd5 1 2.cxd5 4Jb4 1 3 .4:Jxe4 ± Elis-Schoerghuber, Bonn 1 998) 9.0-0 0-0-0 (9 . . . Ad6 10.f3 [10.Ag4 h5 1 1 .Axe6 �xe6 1 2.c4 dxc4 1 3.d5 �e5 14.g3 4Jd4 oo Ulyanovsky Cruz, L isbon 2 0 0 3 ] 1 0 . . . exf3 [10 ... �h4? l l .g3 ilxg3 12.hxg3 �xg3+ 1 3 . 4Jg2 ilh3 1 4 . l"l f2 4Jf6 1 5 .Af4 ± Scherer-Pape, Germany 1 994] 1 1 .Axf3 �h6 1 2.g3 0-0-0 13.4Jf5 �f6 14.4Jxd6+ .§ xd6 1 5 .Axd5 ± Goldgewicht Senechaud, Parthenay 1 992) 10.f3 �h4 l l .fxe4 dxe4 1 2.Ag4 Axg4 1 3.�xg4+ �xg4 1 4 . 4J x g4 Ad6 1 5 .Ag5 l"le8 1 6 . 4Jd2 ;!; Bademian Orchanian Burgos, Mar del Plata 1 993.
The alternative 7 . . . 4Jd4 is also not able to solve Black's problems: 8.4Jc3 ( 8 . 0 - 0 ilf5 9 . f3 [ 9 . Ae 3 4:l x e 2 + 10.�xe2 ;!; Pinos Rubio-Perez Vecino, Valencia 2004] 9 . . .exf3 10.Axf3 4:lxc2 [ 1 0 . . . 4J x f3 + ? 1 1 .�xf3 ± Huyck Dutreeuw, Gent 1 994] 1 1 .4Je3 4Jxe3 1 2 .Axe3 oo /=; 8.c3 4:lxe2 9.�xe2 �g6 10.4Je3 4Jf6 1 1 .0-0 ile7 oo Rouc-Smid, Plzen 2004) 8 . . . Af5 9.4Je3 (9.ile3 4:lxe2 10 .�xe2 0 - 0- 0 l l .Axa7 4Jh6 1 2 .h3 Ae7 1 3 .4Ja5 ± Groenegress Soelter, Horn 1 979; 9.Ah5+ g6 10.Ae3 Ag7 1 1 .Ae2 [ 1 1 .Axd4 �xd4 1 2 .�xd4 Axd4 1 3 . 4Jb5 Ag7 oo Artal Alegria Loscos Vi1afranca, Aragon 2 0 0 3 ] 1 1 . . .4Jxe2 [ 1 1 . . . 4Je7? 1 2 .Axd4 �xd4 13.�xd4 Axd4 14.4Jb5 ± Levine-Lynn, Dunedin 1 9 8 3 ] 1 2 . � x e 2 �e7 ;!; ) 9 . . . 4Jxe2 1 0 .�xe2 0-0-0 ( 1 0 . . . Ag6 1 l .�b5+ �f7 1 2 .�xb7 ± Magnier Osman, France 1 998) 1 1 .4Jxe4 ( 1 1 .�c4 a6 [ 1 1 . . .Ad7!? 1 2.4Jxe4 �g6 1 3 .Ad2 l"l e8 1 4 .4Jg3 h5 1 5 .0-0-0 ;!; Real de Azua-Orione, Moron 2003] 1 2.b4 Ad7 13.Ab2 l"le8 1 4.a4 �b8 1 5.l"lb1 [with attack] 1 5 . . . �e7 16.b5 a5 17.b6 cxb6 18.�d4 �a7 19.Aa3 �d8 20.4Jc4 1-0 Lane-Woj nar, Queenstown 2 0 0 6 ) l l . . .Axe4 1 2.�g4+ �b8 1 3.�xe4 ± .
8.0-0 This looks much better than 8.4Je3 'i:Jfe7 9.4Jc3 4Jf6 ;!; Dubisch-Phipps, Se attle 1 982 or 8.4Jxe5 'i:ffx e5 9.4Jc3 4Jf6 1 0.Ab5+ �f7 (10 . . . �d8?! 1 1 .Ae3 a6 1 2 .Ae2 Ae7 1 3 .0-0 Af5 1 4 .ild4 ± Zieher-Urban, Germany 1 989) 1 1 .0-0 ilg4 1 2 .Ae2 Axe2 13.'i:ffx e2 l"le8 ;!; .
8 .1£) x c4 10. .Q.b5+ �d8 • • .
9 .Q. x c4 •
�g6
The other option i s 1 0 . . . Ad7 1 l .Axd7+ \t>xd7 1 2 .4Jc3 4Jf6 13.�d4 ( 1 3.l"le1 l"le8 14.�d4 ± Borisek-Picco, Nova Gorica 2000) 13 . . . c5 1 4.dxc6+
294
David Bronstein bxc6 1 5.f3 ± .
n.Af4 h5?! Black is looking for trouble. He should go for the natural 1 1 . . .f:lf6 - and pray.
20 . . . §xf8 2l .'{;){e7+ r:tlc8 22.dxc6 and mate follows soon. 21.Axc6! bxc6 (D)
12.f3! Opening the center and clearing the way to the black king. This should be the main approach for every serious chessplayer when the opponent king has remained in the center.
12 ...Af5 13.l�:)c3 exf3 I would prefer 13 . . . f:lf6 14.'{1)rd4 a6 1 5 . .\ie2 ± .
14:{�·xf3 Axc2 15.Ag5+! 4]f6(D)
22.4Jb5+! cxb5 23.�xb5 §.e8 23 . . . §axf8 24.§e7+ r:tlc8 2S.'{;)rd7+ r:tlb8 26.'{1)rb7*
24.§.e7+! 1-0 Black resigned as he is unable to avoid getting mated. In this game White was able to sacrifice most ofhis pieces! (231) Veresov - Bronstein Moscow 1 960 Bogo-Indian Defense [E l l ]
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Ab4+ 3.Ad2 a5 4.4Jf3 .i£)f6 5.4Jc3 d6 6. '*c2 4]c6 7.g3?!
1 5 .. .'�xg5 16.'{1)rxf8 *
16.§.ae1! All White's forces join the battle. Not so clear was 16.'{1)re2 '{;)rxg5 1 7.§ xf6 '{;)reS or 1 6 . '{1)rh3 '{;)rxg5 1 7 . § x f6 c6 18.dxc6 bxc6.
16 ...c6 Alternatives also lose: 16 . . . '{1)rxg5 1 7 . '{1)rx f6 + ! .\ie7 1 8 . '{1)rf8 + ! § xf8 1 9.§ xf8+ Axf8 20.§e8 * ; 1 6 . . . Ae7 17.'{1)re2.
The main line today goes 7 .a3 .\ixc3 8.Axc3 dS (8 . . . '{1)re7 9.e4 e 5 1 0 .d5 f:lb8 1 l . Ae 2 Ag4 1 2 . 0 - 0 ;!; Tkachiev-Delchev, France 200 1 ) 9.e3 0-0 1 0 .b3 Ad7 1 1 ..\ibU Khenkin Winants, Brussels 1 998.
7...e5 8.dxe5?! More natural seems to be 8.d5 f:le7 9.e4=.
17.Axf6+! 1 7.dxc6? '{;)rxg5 18.cxb7 §b8 oo
1 7 . . : � x f6 1 8. '*e2 '*d4+ 19.\t>h1 Ag6 1 9 . . . cxb5 20.'{;){e8+ rtlc7 2 1 .§f7+ .lie7 22.§exe7+ r:tlb6 23.'{1)rxb5 *
20.§.xf8+! The series of hammer-blows be gins!
20 ... \t>c7 295
8...dxe5 9.0-0-0 (D)
Chess Analytics 9 ...Axc3 Also good is 9 .. :i!Je7 10A:Jd5 4Jxd5 l l .cxd5 Axd2+ 1 2 .l''!xd2 4Jb4 1 3.'iik4 e4.
10.Axc3 '/Ne7 11.Ag2 .£!b41? 1 1 . . .0-0 is also fine for Black.
12.'/Na4+ After 1 2 .Axb4 axb4 1 3.�bl 0-0, Black's attack will carry the day.
12 ... Ad7 13. '/Na3 1 3.�b3 4Je4 14.Axe5 4Jxf2 looks good for Black.
13 ... Ac6! 14.Axe5
opt for 1 8 .�b3! Ah7 1 9 . 4Jd4 c 5 20.4Jb5 a 4 2 1 .�a3 �xf2 22 .e4 �f6 23.�e3 a3! oo .
18... Ah7 19.13d7?1 White's last chance could be found in 19.4Jd4 c5 20.4Jb5 �xf2 2 1 .e4 �f6 2 2 . 4Jd6 .§ a6 although I still prefer B lack.
19... Etfe81 Not clear i s 1 9 . . . �g6 20.�d2! (20.4Jd4?! �h5 2 l .Ag2 c5 2 2 . 4Jf3 .§fe8 + ). 20.'it>d2 (D)
White is obliged to accept his opponent's pawn sacrifice as after 14 . .§hgl 0-0 1 5.4Jd2 ( 1 5.4Jxe5?! Axg2 1 6 . .§ x g2 4Je4 1 7 .� b l f6 1 8 .4Jd3 4Jxc3+ 1 9.�xc3 �xe2 + ) 15 . . . Axg2 16 . .§ xg2 .§fd8 =i= he will suffer.
1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 . A xf6 '/N x f6 16.Etd2 Ae4! 17.13hd1 (D) Or 20.Afl �g6 2 1 ..§7d3 4Jxd3+ 22 . .§xd3 �f6 + .
20...Af511
How should Black continue his at tack?
17 ...h6! A fantastic idea. B lack intends to form a lethal battery along the b 1 -h7 diagonal ( . . .Ah7 and . . . �g6/f5). Most players would have focused just on the queenside, playing something like 1 7 ... b5 18 . .§d4 4Jc2 1 9.�xf8+! .§ xf8 20 . .§ xe4 4Jb4 2 1 .a3 4Jc6 22 .cxb5 �f5 23 . .§ c4 �xb5 24 . .§c2 oo /=, but that's the difference between a great master and a simple master!
The most logical but also the most difficult move of the game. Black for gets about the potential threats of his previous plan and just plays the best continuation, confirming his "indepen dent" mindset.
21.'/Nc3 There was no chance anymore: 2 l .Axf5 �xf5 22 . .§d3 4Jxd3 23.�xd3 .§ adS 24.4Jd4 �xd3+ 25 .�xd3 .§xd4+ 26.�xd4 .§d8+.
21 ... Axh3 22.'/Nxf6 gxf6 0-1 A "fresh mind" never loses its hab its, even after many years . . . Here is more proof- and another short master piece:
18.Ah3? White has lost his way. He should
296
(232) Aseev - Bronstein Moscow 1 982 Caro-Kann Defense [B 1 6]
David Bronstein l .e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.4)c3 dxe4 4.4) xe4 4)f6 5 . .£1 xf6+ gxf6 6.Ac4 Af5 7. .£Je2 .£Jd7 s. .£Jg3 Ag6 9.0o e6 10.h4?! (D)
� �fl� ·�-�
��,•a•JM' R:tR:ti�� ·/- i a", .�. u "a a"� it{i -� �w � . "t ' � �� ���'0� ·� ���? � �
"'�'
�g
-
� ���ft � ft �� ft �
/H'� t:::!:f;
(233) Reshevsky - Bronstein Zurich 1 953 King's Indian Defense [E69]
�S
i . '�" . '1 �\ 'r� � � r�
White resigned because of 1 5.fxg3 "&xd4+ and 16 . . . "&xc4.
�!'@� �� �'§� � �w�
If White wishes to play this pawn advance, he should do it before castling.
10...f5! An excellent response. White would probably be happy with the natu ral 1 0 . . . h5 1 1 . § e 1 Ae7 ( 1 1 . . . f5? 1 2 .Ag5 Ae7 1 3 .Axe6! ± ) 1 2 .Ad3 Axd3 1 3 .ifrxd3 "&c7 (13 ... f5 1 4.Ag5 .\lxg5 1 5.hxg5 ifrxg5 [15 ... �f8 1 6.g6] 1 6Ajxf5 ;!; ) 1 4."&f3 0-0-0=.
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Ag7 4.Ag2 0-0 5 . .£lc3 d6 6.4)f3 4)bd7 7.0-0 e5 8.e4 §e8 9 .h3 e x d4 10.4)xd4 .£Jc5 ll.§el a5 12.�c2 c6 1 3 . Ae3 4) fd7 14.§adl a4 1 5 . 4) de2 �a5 1 6.Afl .£l e 5 17.4)d4 a3 18.f4 4)ed7 19.b3 4)a6 20.Af2 4) dc5 2 l . §e3 .£! b4 22.�e2 Ad7 23.e5 dxe5 24.fxe5 §adS 25.g4 4)e6 26.Ah4 .£! xd4 27. § x d4 �c5 28. §de4 Ah6 29.'it'ht Ae6 30.g5 Ag7 3l.f!f4 Af5 3 2 . 4) e4 A x e4+ 33.§fx e4 4)a6 34.e6 fxe6 35.§ xe6 §f8 36.§e7 Ad4 37.§3e6 �f5 38.§e8 .£Jc5 3 9 . § x d8 4) xe6 40.§ x f8+ 'it'xf8 41.Ag3 (D)
ll.h5 After 1 l .Ag5 Ae7 1 2 .Axe7 "&xe7 1 3.h5 ifrh4 1 4.'iii'f3 f4 1 5AJe2 Axc2 16."&xf4 "&xf4 17.4::lx f4 0-0-0 '1' , Black should be happy.
11 �h4 12. �f3?! ..•
Bad is 1 2.hxg6? hxg6 13.1"\el f4 1 4 . ..ll x f4 "&xf4 + but maybe White should try 1 2 .§e1 f4 1 3 .4Je4 Axh5 1 4 . "&d2 § g8 1 5 ."&xf4 § g4 1 6. "&h2 § xe4 1 7. § xe4 "&xe4 18.ifrxh5 4Jb6 1 9.Ad3 "&xd4 20."&xh7 "&f6 '1' .
White tried to save his game by transposing to an opposite-color bish ops endgame, even a pawn down.
12 ...Ad6 13.hxg6
41 ... � xg5!
Or 1 3 . l"l e 1 A x g 3 ( 1 3 . . . 4Jf6 1 4.hxg6 hxg6 1 5.�fl) 1 4."&xg3 ifrxg3 1 5.fxg3 Axh5 + .
And Black accepted the challenge, as 4 1 . . .4::l x g5? 42.Ad6+ �g7 43."&e7 ;!; was not an option.
13 hxg6 14.§el?
42. �xe6 � xg3
•..
Hard to accept it but White should have continued the fight by playing 14.§d1 f4 1 5 .Axf4 Axf4 + .
14... Axg3 0-1
Black's advantage is quite serious and this is not just because of his extra pawn, but more as a result of the excel lent cooperation between his queen and bishop. This cooperating tandem ere-
297
Chess Analytics ates mating threats and also keeps an eye on the weak white a2-pawn.
43.l¥Yc8+ A useful check, as the black king must come out of its shelter and in some lines White can exchange queens by exploiting its position.
43 ... ®e7 44.l¥Yg4 It appears that the b7-pawn is poi soned: 44.'iiYxb7+? 'i£i>d8 45.'iiYa8+ 'i£i>c7 46. 'iiYa 5+ Ab6 47 .'�'d2 'iiYg l * .
4 4. . . l¥Yc3 4 5 . ®g2 46.l¥Ye2+ ®d6! 47.®f3
l¥Yb2+
Now the queen exchange is un pleasant for White : 47.'liYxb2 axb2 48.Ad3 'i£i>e5 49.'�f3 Ac5 50.Abl 'i£i>f6 5 l .'i£i>e4 h5 52 .Ac2 g5 53 .libl Ad6 54.Ac2 g4 55.hxg4 hxg4 56 . .fibl g3 57.'i£i>f3 Af4 -+ and the black king goes to c l .
4 7. . . .Q.c5 48.®e4 l¥Yd4+ 49.®f3 l¥Yf6+ 50.®g2 ®c7! The black king will find shelter on the queenside, allowing his forces to execute their plans without interference.
51.l¥Yf3 l¥Yb2+ 52.l¥Ye2 l¥Yd4 53.®f3 h51 Of course! The last reserves enter the fray ! B lack needs his kingside pawns to assist his attack.
54.®g2 g5 Black missed a shorter win with 54 . . . h4! 55.'iiYe l 'iiYg l + 56.'i£i>f3 'iiYh l + 57.'i£i>g4 'iiYh2 58.'i£i>g5 'iiYx a2 -+ .
5 5 . ®g3 l¥Yf4+ 56.®g2 g4 57.hxg4 hxg4 58.®h1 ®b6 58 . . . g3? 59 .Ah3 'iiY c l + 60 . .fifl (60.'iiYfl 'liYb2) 60 . . . 'i£i>b6 61 .'i£i>g2 is not clear. Black's winning method is based on zugzwang. 59.®g2 ®c7 60.®h1 (D)
60 . . . .Q.d6! 62.l¥Yg2 White is in
6t .®g1
®b6
zugzwang:
62.'i£i>h l
'iiYh6+ 63.'i£i>gl Ac5+ 64.'it'g2 'iiYh3 * .
6 2 . . . .Q.c5+ 63.®h1 l¥Yh6+ 64.l¥Yh2 l¥Ye31 Again White is in zugzwang.
65.b4 .Q.d4 0-1 Of course 65 . . .Axb4 was also win ning. White resigned as he is mated af ter 66.c5+ 'it'a7 67.'iiYg 2 g3! 68 . .fie2 (68.'iiYc 2 'iiYg l *) 68. . . 'iiYh 6+. It must be mentioned that this is quite a famous game, first analyzed by the great world championship candidate, grandmaster David Bronstein. A chessplayer should also try to understand the "worst-piece principle." In situations involving strategic maneu vers (when a time factor is not of deci sive importance), a chessplayer should look for the piece which stands worse than the others. Making this piece more active will often tum out to be the sur est way to improve the position as a whole. Using the worst-piece principle makes it easier to search for the stron gest continuation. (234) Porreca - Bronstein Belgrade 1 954 Caro-Kann Defense [B 1 8]
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3 . .£lc3 dxe4 4 . .£! xe4 Af5 5 . .£lg3 .Q.g6 6.h4 h6 7 . .£!h3 Ah7 s . .Q.c4 .£!f6 9 . .£lf4 .£!bd7 10.0-0 l¥Yc7 ll . .Eie1 (D)
298
David Bronstein 16...0-o-o 17. .£lg3 Ah7 Back to life!
18.a4 18.c3 g5 oo was the natural continuation.
18 ... Axd3? Both opponents missed that 18 . . . 4Jb6 wins a pawn!
19.Axd3 ti\'d6 20.a5 a6 21.E!a3 g5 (D) B lack probably mishandled the opening and now he faces grave prob lems. He is looking for a way to com plete his development but this does not seem to be an easy task.
n ... Agst Temporarily retreating and strengthening the valuable e6-square, as the immediate 1 1 . . . e6? fails to 1 2 .Axe6 fxe6 13A:Jxe6 +- .
12.l�� d3 A double-edged position would arise after the natural 1 2.a4 0-0-0 13.c3 e6, so White tries to regroup his pieces.
12 ... e6 13.Af4 .ild6 14.Axd6 ti\'xd6 15 . .£lf5 ti\'f8 (D)
·1� ���JJi �-� --� �m-�1.,'!�if'� 1� �� � %%J�" , R 1 R 1 ll). ;:ll .
-
• D D/."'\D �% � �% " {.;�� R%J�j� R% �:a: b !1!4iR R ill///:y, "'!l! ��y, "'�� ft �.m ft R i.m ft � 'i"'i
�
.��'i"?d �gp�
�······· �g�
Black's position, with all those pieces on the edge of the board, does not look rosy, but as there is nothing concrete for White, it can only be improved!
16. ti\'f3?! White loses his way. He should have tried 16.4Jf4!? �d8! (16 . . . 0-0-0? 17.Axe6 fxe6 18.<£\g6 �b4 19.c3 +- ) 17.4Je3 Ah7 18.a4 �c7 ;!; .
Black has succeeded in completing his development, he regrouped his pas sively placed pieces and now he has entered a double-edged middlegame.
22.h5 ti\'f4 22 . . . �xd4 23.Axa6 �c7 24.Afl oo
23. ti\'e2 �c7 Black avoided giving White attack ing chances with 23 . . . �xd4 24.Axa6 bxa6 25.�xa6+ �c7 26.l''ic3 oo /= .
24.c3 E!he8 2 5 . 4)e4 4) x e4 26. ti\' xe4? As the ending is favorable for Black (weak pawns on a5 and h5) White should have preserved the queen s : 26.Axe4
26 . . . ti\' x e4 2 7 . A x e4 28.Af3 g4! 29.Ad1 E!gS
4)f6
29 . . . §.d5! :;:: was even stronger.
30.E!e5 E!d5! 31.E!a4 E!g5 Black wins material and the game.
32. .1lb3 E!dxe5 33.dxe5 4)d7! 34.Ad1 .£1 xe5 3 5 . E!e4 E! x h5 36.Jlxg4 4) xg4 37. E! xg4 E! x a5 38.E!g7 E!f5 39.g4 E!f6 40.�g2 �d6 41.�g3 e5 42.E!g8 �d5 0-1
299
Chess Analytics Conclusion David Bronstein did not made it to the world champion's highest title, but he won a place in our hearts for his in dependent and fresh ideas. Such play ers never are forgotten, as they still live through their masterpieces they left be hind. I have always thought that physi cal death is just a part of life; the most important thing is that one's ideas will stay alive and kicking and in this way a human never actually in fact dies. David Bronstein was of the few immortals who made it both to heaven and to our hearts and memories . . . Facing a Good Friend
During the 4th Kallithea Open at Khalkidiki (Greece) which was held in the early days of May 2007, I had to face my best friend over the board. At that time, after the fifth round, we shared second place, a half-point behind the tournament leader. Obviously, a win would allow me to have a serious run at winning the tournament, but on the other hand, facing your best friend is not something that is always pleasant. Generally, in life you have to do things that you do not have a good feeling about, but who told you that life is fair?
A flexible move revealing White's intentions: I do not wish to enter a theo retical battle; I just want to develop my pieces. This is all quite understandable; my friend is not playing too much OTB chess nowadays, but he remains a strong tactician with an acceptable po sitional feel. All in all, I consider him underrated. 2 .'fjf3 <£\f6 3.e3 Af5 4.Ad3 .llxd3 5 .'�xd3 c6 6.<£\bd2 g6 7.0-0 Ag7 8.c3 0-0 9.e4 <£\xe4 1 0 .<£\xe4 dxe4 1 1 .�xe4 e6 1 2.fle1 �d5 13.Af4 <£\d7 1 4.�xd5 'li-'li Hosek-Lamper, Ostrava 2003 is a somewhat similar line.
2 ... c6 3.Ad3 4)f6 4.4)d2 Usually White opts for the imme diate 4 . <£\f3 Ag4 5 . <£\bd2 ( 5 . c4 e6 6.�b3 �b6 7.<£\e5 .llh5 8.c5 �c7 9.00= Svidler-Greenfeld, Tilburg 1 994) 5 ... e6 (5 . . . <£\bd7 6.h3 Ah5 7.c4 e6 8.00 Ag6 9.Axg6 hxg6 10.�c2 Ae7 1 1 .b3 0-0 1 2.Ab2 a5 13 .a3 �c7 1 4.e4 'li-'li Mitkov-Akobian, Alajuela 2006) 6.c4 Ad6 7.�b3 b6 8.�c2 .£\bd7 9 .h3 .llx f3 1 0 .<£\xf3 0-0 1 1 . 0-0 fl c8 1 2 .b3 c5 1 3 . .llb2 b5 14.�e2 bxc4 1 5.bxc4 cxd4 16.cxd5 .£\xd5 1 7.<£\xd4 <£\c5 18.Ac4 ;!; Khalifman-Comp Hydra Bilbao 2005.
4 ...g6 Also not bad i s 4 . . . Ag4 5 .<£\e2 (5.f3?! Ah5 6.b3 <£\bd7 7 . .\lb2 �c7 8.g4 Ag6 9.f4 e6 1 0.Axg6 hxg6 1 1 .�f3 Ad6 � Lasio-Malakhov, Lunigiana 1 998) 5 ... <£\bd7 6.f3 .llh 5 7.<£\f4 Ag6 8.<£\xg6 hxg6 9.f4 e6 10.c3 Ad6 1 1 .00 �e7 oo Norowitz-Stripunsky, New York 2003.
5.4)gf3 5.f4?! Af5 6.<£\gf3 e6 7.0-0 <£\bd7 8.<£\e5 h5 9.�e2 Jlg7 1 0.b3 0-0 is fine for Black, as in Abdulla-Mohammad, Dhaka 2007. 5 ... Af51? (D)
300
Facing a Good Friend (d) 6.Ae2 .ilg7 7.0-0 0-0 8.4Jh4 .ilc8 9.c3 4Je4 10.4Jhf3 f5 1 1 .4Je1 4Jd7 1 2 . f4 4Jdf6 1 3 .4Jd3 4Jxd2 1 4 . .\lxd2 4Je4 1 5 . .\le1 b6 1 6 . 4J e 5 Ab7 = Hawkins-Rutter, Birmingham 2006.
6... .ilxd3
Black fights for the "better" bishop advantage (dark-square bishops) by exchanging the other pair, the light square bishops. Possible also is 5 ....\lg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.c3 M5 8.�c2 .llxd3 9.�xd3 4Jbd7= Abouchaaya-Rogers, Sydney 1 994, but after all, ifyou do not try hard to beat your friend, then whom will you try to beat?
6.�e21? An interesting, flexible idea. White is just aiming to exchange some pieces, mainly by achieving the e4-advance. Alternatives are: (a) 6.0-0 .llg7 7.4Je5 4Jbd7 8 . .\lxf5 gxf5 9.4Jdf3 0-0 1 0 . c3 4Je4 1 1 .4Jd3 �h8 1 2.�b3 §b8 1 3.c4 e6 1 4.Ad2 § g8 oo Forbrich- Stenner, Germany 1 99 1 . (b) 6.4Je5 .\lxd3 ( 6. . . 4Jbd7 7.f4 .ilxd3 8.cxd3 Ag7 9.b3 0-0 1 0.0-0 4Je8 1 l ..ilb2 4Jd6 12.�h1 § e8 13.�f3 f6 1 4.4Jxd7 �xd7 1 5 .e4 dxe4 16.dxe4 f5 1 7.e5 4Jb5 18.�d3 §ed8 Yz-Yz Mair Wallis, Austria 2002) 7 .cxd3 4Jbd7 8.00 �c7 9.f4 e6 1 0 .4Jdf3 .ll e 7 l l .b3 4Jxe5 1 2 .4Jxe5 4Jd7 1 3 .Ab2 4Jxe5 1 4.dxe5 a5 1 5 .�h1 �b6 16.§f3 a4 1 7.g4 axb3 18.axb3 § x a 1 1 9 .Axa1 �b4 oo Baraba-Schell, Leimen 200 1 . (c) 6 . .ilxf5 g xf5 7 . 4Jb3 4Jbd7 8 . Ad2 § g8 9.g3 e6 1 0 . 4Je5 Ad6 1 1 .4Jxd7 4Jxd7 1 2.�e2 �f6 1 3.c4 dxc4 1 4.�xc4 4Jb6 15.�c2 0-0-0= Specht Petri, Naumburg 2003 .
The alternative is 6 . . . .ilg7 7.c3 4Jbd7 8 . e4 dxe4 9 . 4Jx e4 4J x e 4 1 0 ..ilxe4 Axe4 1 1 .�xe4 4Jf6 1 2 .�h4 Yz-Yz Kukofka-Raupp, Germany 2000. In this position it is difficult for Black to dream about something more than a draw, especially after 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 . .ilh6.
7.�xd3 4)a6!? Black has decided to delay castling and avoid a pawn exchange on e4 (af ter White's potential e4-advance). So, it is important to keep an eye on the e6square and the maneuver starting with the text move ( . ..4Ja6-c7) is now quite understandable.
8.c3 .ilg7 9.e4 4)c7 Of course 9 . . . dxe4 1 0.4Jxe4 4Jxe4 1 1 .�xe4 �d5 12.�e2 4Jc7 13.M4 4Je6 14 ..ile5 is too drawish and Black felt that he should avoid it. 10.e5 4)d7 (D)
IEB ::ij: / ·.r,�u -,.:�B ' '0�/ �
t ;t t " • t• '�jft'� � t �� � � �� �• ·y,lr�l' � '• � � �; � n
�..afi llii(;!f� !L<" ... ��� "/ /./,.
?Ill� �
..�
� �v4){;� w '' �«/ j���� .a, v4){; >N .a, <"4){' � �� .Jl. � if!@&.iAR J!. p.ru a� ,�k � � �)6J'f � � ll.h4! The right follow-up. White should avoid something like 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.§e1 c5 when B lack has achieved a kind of French Defense pawn structure i n which the absence o f the light-square bishops is essential.
301
11 ... 4)e6 12.4)fl?l 1 2.h5!? 4Jf4 1 3.�fl 4Jxh5 14.4Jb3
Chess Analytics The answer was no ! After all, the game of chess is made for brave hearts, right?
f5 is just playing into Black's hands, but better was 1 2.4Jg5 4Jdf8 13.4Jdf3 h5 1 4.Ae3 '{;¥b6 1 5 .0-0-0 � .
12 ...h5
1 9 . .§.ad1 .§.c8 20.b3 c x d4 21.cxd4 4)e6 22.Ae3 .§.c6! (D)
1 2 . . . c5!? 1 3 .4Jg5 '{;¥b6 1 4 .4Jxe6 '{;¥xe6 15 .h5 0-0-0 is about equal and it was a serious alternative for Black to consider. The problem with the text move is that it makes the possibility of a future .. .f6 more difficult in view of the weakness on g6.
13 . .£\g5 4:\dfS 14.4:\g3 �b6 14 . . . 4Jxg5 1 5 .Axg5 f6 16.exf6 exf6 17.Af4 '{;¥e7+ 18.4Je2 0-0-0 19.0-0-0 is about equal again, but as has already been mentioned, Black is avoiding all "easy" looking positions, contrary to his "playing style." This kind of lack of objectivity cannot be considered seri ous and should find no followers.
15.0-0 4:\ xg5 16.j}_xg5 4)e6 Of course 1 6...'{;¥xb2? 1 7 .Bfb1 '{;¥a3 18.B xb7 is murderous.
17.Ae3 (D)
�1(�, Jli �� � .t � m ffJI.t � � .t · �-.t / lli11 �
• �r lli11-'mfr ����-•
� - �?"��?� ��'-""" �?"$}'��'@ � · MY$!�� .J.1 �.:lli1. ��!i§iiiif�� .:!.1.,p � //// fl f 'iiii �r b b§�
B lack prepares . . . 0-0 and . . . Bfc8, invading via the c-file. White has to act.
23.f41 Ah6? The first serious mistake. Black had to continue with 23 . . . '{;¥a6! 24.'{;¥b1 (24.'{;¥d2 f5!; 24.f5 '{;¥xd3 25.B xd3 gxf5 26.B xf5 Ah6 27.Axh6 B xh6 28.4Jxh5 Bel+ 29.�h2 BC2 ()()) 24 . . . BC3 25.Bf3 Ah6 when chances should be about even, in an unclear position. It must be also noted that both players have con sumed too much time to get to this po sition and both have started to be pressed by the relentless chess clock!
24.f5 Axe3+ 25.'�xe3 The difference is visual; the white queen is excellently placed near the weak black king. 25 ... gxf5 26.4) xf5 (D)
,,,
Now White i s set for the f4-f5 ad vance.
17 ... 4:\c7! 18.Ag5 1 8 . f4?! e6 1 9 . b 3 Af8 2 0 . 4Je 2 (20.c4 Ae7) 2 0. . .c 5 i s what Black was wishing for. 18.b3 is also interesting and must be preferable in my opinion, but White is aiming to repeat the posi tion, with a "friendly" draw.
18...c5!?
3 02
FIDE World Cup 2007 26 ... f!g8?
Ivanchuk-Beliavsky, Batumi 1 999.
The second mistake. Black pan icked and lost clear perspective that could help him to find the forced de fense with 26 . . .l'�h7 27.i;i'd3 (27.i;i'g3 �f8 28.i;i'd3 i;i'a6) 27 ...
9.4)e2 White has also played 9.f3
27.�f3 f!c2? A good lesson on how to avoid blunders looks like an urgent need for Black! There was nothing else other than 27 . . .
28.lf)e3!
9 ... 4)bd7
This simple retreat which B lack completely missed, wins for White. I resigned and I walked out with my op ponent, discussing various other things than chess. While I felt badly for my self, I felt proud of my friend! Well, some friend! This was my first loss in about 1 5 months .. . 1-0 FIDE World Cup 2007
In the fall of 2007 I was asked by ChessBase to comment on some games in the FIDE World Cup, a knock-out tournament that was to be held in the d i stant S i b erian city of Khanty Mansiysk. My comments were written right after the end of each round and they were presented two or three hours later.
9 . . . c5 1 0.dxc5 dxc5 l l .i;i'c2 h6 1 2.�h4 i;i'e7 13.0-0-0 .§d8 14 . .§ xd8+ i;i'xd8 1 5 .
10.�d3 The main alternative is 1 0.i;i'c2 c5 1 l ..§d1 ( 1 1 .
(236) El Gindy - Ponomariov Khanty Mansiysk 2007 Nimzo-Indian Defense [E32]
l.d4 4)f6 2.c4 e6 3.4)c3 Ab4 4. �c2 0-0 5.a3 Axc3+ 6. �xc3 b6 7.Ag5 Ab7 s.e3 d6 Another try is 8 . . . c5 9.
Black seems to be fond of either 10 . . . �a6 1 l .b4 ( 1 1 .
303
Chess Analytics §fc8= Ivanchuk-Kasparov, Rethymnon 2003] 1 5.§d1 cxd4 [15 . . .'�c8?! 16.0- 0 4Jd5 1 7 . �xc4 4:\xc3 1 8 .�xc3 �b7 1 9 .f3 h6 2 0 . �h4 § fc8 2 1 .e4 cxd4 2 2 . �xd4 4Jf8 2 3 . § d2 ;!; Navara Pelletier, Fuegen 2006] 16.§ xd4 'l!Jc7 17.0-0 §fc8 18.§fd1 �c5 19.Ah4 �h5 2 0 . �xf6 4:\xf6 2 l . § x c4= S h irov Naiditsch, Sochi 2006) 1 l . . .c5 1 2 .b5 Ab7 13.4Jc3 a6 14.f3 h6 1 5.�h4 �e7 16.�e2 cxd4 17.�xd4 e5 18.�d1 g5 1 9 . Ag3 axb5 20.4:\xbS d5 2 1 . 0- 0 ;!; Kasparov-Grischuk, Rethymnon 2003 or 1 0 . . . h6 1 1 . Ah4 c5 1 2 . 4Jc3 �e7 1 3 . §d1 ( 1 3.Ae2 cxd4 1 4 .�xd4 e5 1 5.�d1 �xg2 16.§g1 Ac6 17.Ag4 oo / = Bareev-Karpov, Cap d 'Agde 2002) 13 . . . §fd8 14.�e2 cxd4 1 5 .�xd4 4Jc5 16.Axf6 �xf6 17.�xf6 gxf6 18.§d4 (18.4:\bS d5 19.cxd5 �xd5 20.4Jc7 �b3 2 1 .4:\xaS �xd1 22.�xd1 § xa8 23.�c2 § c8 24.'it>d2 'lt>f8= B areev-Karpov Wijk aan Zee 2003) 18 . . . 4Jb3 19.§h4 'lt>g7 20.'lt>d1 d5 21 .'lt>c2 4Ja5 22.cxd5 Axd5 23.4:\xdS § xd5 24.§d1 § c8+ 25.'it>b1 §cd8 26.§ xd5 §xd5 27.'lt>c2 §c5+ 28.'lt>d3 ;!; Bareev-Leko, Monte Carlo 2003 . But the text move chosen ?Y Ruslan is a good example of play mg the opening according to the opponent's strength.
11 . .£\c3 a4 12. .Q.e2 The alternative is 1 2 . Ah4 §aS 13.f3 �a8 (13 ... c5 14.�e2 d5 1 5.cxd5 exd5 16.0-0 §e8 17.§fe1 Aa6 18.�d2 Axe2 1 9 . § xe2 ;!; Masse-Mikanovic Toronto 2004) 14.�e2 (14.0- 0 - 0 dS 1 5 .�c2 § d8 1 6.'lt>b1 Yl-Yl Morovic Fernandez-Arencibia, Havana 2004) 14 . . . d5 1 5 .cxd5 Aa6 1 6 . �d2 exd5 (16 . . . 4:\xdS 17.0- 0 c5 18.�xa6 �xa6 19.4:\xdS exd5 20.dxc5 4Jxc5 21 .§ad1 4Jb3 2 2 . 'l!id3 'l!ixd3 2 3 . § xd3 § e8 24.§fd1 ;!; Farrell-Aloma Vidal, Calvia 2007) 17.Ad1 Ac4 18.'lt>f2 §e8 19.§e1 b5 20.'lt>g1 ;!; Khismatullin-Kiriakov ' Tomsk 2004.
12... .§a5 (D)
13.h4!? A new move. Instead of transpos . mg to the above comments on White's 1 2th move with 13.ilh4, the less ambi tious 13.�xf6 �xf6 14.0-0 �g5 1 5.f3 c5 16.�d1 cxd4 17.exd4 §fa8 1 8.Ac2 4Jf6 19.'l!ie2 d5 20.cxd5 4:\xd5 21 .4:\xdS �xd5= as in Sutter-Pelletier, Switzer land 2005, has also been tried.
13 ... �a8 13 . . . �xg2? 14.§g1 �a8 1 5.0- 0-0 gives White a strong attack and should be avoided.
14 . .Q.xf6?! This move has nothing in common with the previous one (13.h4!?). 14.f3 is preferable.
14... .£\ xf6 15.f3 e5 16.0-0-0?! 1 6.d5 looks safer.
16 ...e4! 17.�c2 17.fxe4?! 4:\xe4 can only be help ful to Black.
1 7 . . . e x f3 19. .§hgl
18.gxf3
.Q. x f3
Black has sacrificed a pawn to try to whip up an attack against the black king. But still it seems that Black's de fense will not be broken easily and then the extra pawn will carry the day.
1 9 . . . .Q.e4 20 . .Q.d3 .Q.g6 2l . .§dfl �d8 22.�g2 �e7 23. .§f3 �h8 24.e4?! Black is doing fine even after 24.Axg6 fxg6 25.e4 §h5 but White had to try it.
304
FIDE World Cup 2007 24....§.h5 25. .§.f4 c5! 26.d5 E!.e5
51 ...�f7?
Now Black is a healthy pawn-up, combined with a positionally better game as a result of the control of the dark squares and the weak white e4pawn. It seems that another David-vs. Goliath battle will soon finish in favor ofthe stronger side, contrary to history...
Black's chosen plan with the ex pansion of his kingside pawns was a dangerous one. He should now have second thoughts about his strategy and go for a draw with 5 l . . .gd8 52.�d5 g xd6 ( 5 2 . . . � x d 5 5 3 . g g 2 �f4 5 4 . g x g4 + h x g4 5 5 .'(';Yh4 g x d6 56.'(';Yxg4+ �f7 57.'(';Yc8) 53.�xf4+ '(';Yxf4 54.g xh5 g d2 55.gh8 § xb2+.
27. .§.f5 .£lh5 2S. .§. xe5 dxe5?! 28 . . . '(';Yxe5 was rather natural and strong.
52. .£ld5 E!.hS
29.�g4 .£lf4 30. .ilc2 f6?!
52 . . . �xd5 53.cxd5 § h8 54.§g2 '(';YeS 55.'(';Yfl h4 56.§g5! +-
30 . . . ga8 3l .�bl h5 32.'(';Yg3 �g8 was the right track for B lack.
53. .£le3?
3l . .§.el?l
White throws away his chances. He should continue with 53.�xb6 '(';Ye6 54.'(';Ydl h4 55.'(';Yxa4 '(';Yxd6 56.�d5 ± .
White had to try 3 l . A x a 4 (3l .
53 . . . �e6 54 . .£! f5 � x c4+ 55.�al �eS 56.d7+ � x d7 57.�dl+ �c6 5S.�d6+ (D)
31 ....§.aS 32.�d2 .ilh5 33. �g3 JleS 34 . .§.gl .ild7 35 . .ildl g6 36.Jlg4 �g7 37.Jlxd7 �xd7
.......lA ,
Black is clearly on his way to the win. A healthy extra pawn and a safe king. But several technical difficulties still have to be overcome.
.
�i%;D®� '<;�" ' "�%;iD'<;' �� � 'r .tl"'r-{ r .tl"'· % � ' � li'� ii'�'"Z..J 1 � 1 -it'- ft YJ � �m �y, . � • �� �� ' � ;ifq m �, �a . � � '� .�. . w � �·
3S. .§.fl E!.fS 39 . .§.el h6?! As 39 . . . h5 40.ggl does not help much, I think that Black ought to open the f-file by 39 .. .f5. Then he would have good chances to convert his material advantage.
40.�c2 g5 4 1 . .§. h l �g6 42. .§.h2 h5 43.�bl �h6 44. .£!dl �h7 45 . .£lc3 �g6 46.�a2 .§aS 47 . .§. d 2 g x h4 4S. � x h4 �g5 49.�hl �g4 50..§.h2 �g6 51.d6 (D)
.
'
-�
5S... �b5? Again the "playing-the-opponent" strategy. B lack had to be satisfied with a draw : 5 8 . . . �b7 5 9 .'(';Yd7+ �b8 60.'(';Yd6+.
59.�d7+ �a5 60. .£jd6 �fl+ 61.�a2 .§aS 62 . .§.c2! �d3 63.E!.c3 Also not bad also was the straight forward 63.§ xc5+ bxc5 64.'(';Yc7+ �a6 65.'(';Yc6+ �a5 66.�b7 # .
63 ... �e2 64. .§.c4 As mate follows, B lack resigned. A painful defeat. White attacked the black king on the kingside but finally mated him on the queenside ! 1-0
305
Chess Analytics The play-offs ofthe first knockout stage were held November 26th, 2007 in Khanty Mansiysk. I would like to mention the success of M ikhail Gurevich, who eliminated the respect able American grandmaster Gregory Kaidanov. Gurevich has been represent ing Turkey since 2005 and he has be come an important figure in Turkish chess life. Just before the start of the play-offs, the Turkish Chess Federation President Mr. Ali Nihat Yazici phoned Mikhail Gurevich and stated his per sonal and the TSF's officials support and trust. As he was sure of Mikhail qualification, he also stated his opinion that against Adams (a forthcoming match) his chances would be rather good! Finally, I have to comment on the huge moral support of Turkish fans, which is really important for the psy chology of any chessplayer. As nowa days I am working as Head Trainer of the Turkish men team and am (at the same time) in Antalya (Turkey) for the World Youth Chess Championship, I was able to have a unique position for insight into the above ! (237) Gurevich - Kaidanov Khanty Mansiysk 2007 Queen's Gambit Declined [D30]
l.c4 e6 2 . .£lf3 d5 3.d4 .£jf6 4.e3 A modest but interesting way of handling a rapid game. White's strat egy is simple: develop his pieces mod estly but harmoniously and wait for his chances.
6.Bd3 Some players have tried 6.1£:\bd2: 6 . . . cS 7.�d3 l£:\c6 8.�b2 dxc4 9.bxc4 b6 1 0.0-0 �b7 1 1 .l"l c l ( l l .a3 '{Jfc7 1 2.'{Jfe2 l"lfd8 13.l"l ad1 l"lac8 14.l"lfe1 cxd4 1 S .exd4 '{Jff4 oo Riediger-Epding, Bayem 2005) 1 1 . . . l"lc8 1 2 . '{Jfe2 '{Jfc7 13.l"lfd1 h6 1 4.�b1 §fd8 Simantsev Julin, Kiev 2004. The resulting posi tions are very similar to Queen's Indian Defense formations.
6 ...b6 A bit passive is 6 ... 1£:\bd7 7.0-0 l"le8 8.�b2 c6 9.1£:\bd2 1£:\fS 1 0.1£:\eS �d6 l l .f4 ::t Fritz-Fehres, Tiefenbach 2004 but again Black can choose some of the above mentioned QID set-ups with 6 . . . cS 7.0-0 cxd4 (7 . . . b6 8.�b2 l£:\c6 9.1£:\bd2 cxd4 1 0.exd4 dxc4 1 l .bxc4 �a6 1 2.l"lcl l"l c8 1 3 .'{Jfe2 1£:\b4 1 4.�b1 1£:\bdS 1 S . I£JeS ::t Malaniuk-Gyimesi, Warsaw 2005 ; 7 . . . 1£:\c6 8.�b2 l£:\e4 9.1£:\bd2 fS?! 1 0.l"lcl �d7 1 1 .cxdS exdS 1 2 .dxcS 1£:\xcS 13.�b1 ::t Karayannis Tassopoulos, Ermioni 2006) 8.exd4 l£:\c6 9.�b2 (9.a3 dxc4 1 0 .bxc4 b6 1 1 .�b2 �b7 1 2 . 1£:\bd2 '{Jfc7 1 3.l"lc1 § adS 14.'{Jfe2 '{Jff4 1 S . l"lfe1 oo Herich Dichmann, Munich 2006) 9 . . . 1£:\b4 1 0.�e2 b6 1 1 .a3 l£:\c6 1 2 .�d3 �b7 1 3 .1£:\bdZ l"l c8 14.l"lcl dxc4 1 S.bxc4 '{Jfd6 1 6.'{Jfe2 oo Kuzubov-Laznicka, Polanica Zdroj 2007.
7.cxd5 exd5 7 . . . 1£:\xdS 8.0-0 �b7 9.�b2 l£:\d7 10.1£:\bd2 cS 1 1 . '{Jfe2 offers White a tiny but pleasant opening advantage, as in Bustamante Montoni-Mata Gonzalez, Villahermosa 200 1 .
8.0-0 c5 9 . .£le5 .Q.b7
4 ... .1le7 5.b3 0-0 Another way to handle the open ing is S . . . c6 6.�d3 l£:\bd7 7.0-0 0-0 8.�a3 �xa3 9.1£:\xa3 '{Jfe7 1 0AJb1 eS 1 1 .1£:\xeS �£:\xeS 1 2 .dxeS '{JfxeS 1 3.1£:\d2 l"l d8 1 4 . '{Jfc2 h6= Khadempour Boguszlavszkij, Budapest 2005.
9 ... cxd4 10.exd4 �b7 1 1 .�b2 1£:\c6 1 2 .1£:\d2 +=
lO . .Q.b2 .£lbd7 11 . .£lxd7 Now, after 1 1 .1£:\d2 �£:\xeS 1 2.dxeS l£:\e4 the presence of White's e-pawn and Black's c-pawn, allows the latter
306
FIDE World Cup 2007 to equalize.
l l . . . � x d7 13 . .§cl �e6 15 . .§fdl
20 . . . �d7 2 1 .AbS! �d6 22.4JfS +-
1 2 . 'd d 2 .§ac8 14. �e2 .§fd8
A double-edged position has ap peared on the board, in which different pawn structures were to be seen in the near future. 15 ... .§c7 16. .1df3 .lde4?! (D)
21.,1lxe41 Black's kingside has been left un protected and White rushes to exploit this important but short-term advantage.
2l ... dxe4 22.'df5 ,1lxb4 There was no salvation anymore: 22 . . . llf8 23 .4Jh6+! 'it'h8 (23 . . . gxh6 24.�g4+ llg7 2S .�xg7 # ) 24.4Jxf7+ 'it'g8 2 S . 4J xd8; 2 2 . . . lld6 2 3 . �h S ! (23 . �g4? ll e S ) 23 . . . g 6 ( 2 3 . . . lleS 24.llxeS �xeS 2S .4Jh6+) 24.�gS 'it'f8 2S.llf6 l"l. d7 26.�h6+ 'it'e8 27.4Jg7+ 'it'f8 28.�xh7.
23. �g4 g6 24. �h41 �c7
He should have tried 16 . . . lld6 oo .
17.dxc5! .§xc5 Worse was 17 . . . bxcS?! 1 8 . 4Jd4! �g6 ( 1 8 . . . �h6 1 9. 4JfS) 1 9.f3 l"l. cc8 20 .4JbS a6 2 1 .4Ja3 fS 22 .fxe4 fxe4 23 ..fibl ± .
18.'dd4 Now White has obtained a pleas ant advantage because of the weak black isolated d-pawn and his more harmoniously placed pieces.
A small trick as the alternative 24 . . . 'it'f8 2 S .lleS! �xeS ( 2 S . . . �a8 26.�h6+ �e8 27.4::lg 7+) 26.�xd8+ �e8 27.�f6 gxfS 28.l"l.c7 'it'g8 29.l"l. xb7 was easily wining for White.
25.g4! 2S.l"l. xc7?? l"l.dl # was too much for Black to hope for.
25 . . . � x c l + 26.,1lxcl .§dl + 27.�g2 gxf5 Or 27 . . . /' h c l 2 8 . �d8+ llf8 29.4Jh6+ 'it'g7 30.gS l"l.c6 3 l .�d4+ f6 32.'�d7+ 'it'h8 33.�f7
28.,1lb2 .§d6 29 . .1lf6! .§dl
18... �c8? The only logical follow-up for Black should be 18 . . :�d7 1 9.a3 Af6 20.b4 l"l. xc l 2 l .l"l. xcl l"l. c8 22.l"l.xc8+ �xc8 23.g3 ;!; . 19.b4! .§ xcl 20. .§xcl �b8 (D)
29 . . .fxg4 30.lle7
30.�h6 1-0 The next game was one of the ma jor surprises of the event: (238) Macieja - Radjabov Khanty Mansiysk 2007 Ruy Lopez [C63]
l.e4 e5 2.'df3 .ldc6 3..1lb5 f5 (D) The seldom-played Jaenisch Varia tion of the Ruy Lopez, probably pre pared by Radjabov beforehand espe cially for this event.
4.d3
307
Chess Analytics S omewhat naive would 10.4Jd3?! 4::l xe4 1 1 .4Jxc5 4::lx g5 'i' .
be
10... §.xf6 ll.�d3 Ad4! 1 1 . . .�b6 would transpose to the notes after 9 . . . 'ii1te8.
12.c3
4.4Jc3 is considered to be the main line but things are not so clear-cut and I am pretty sure that Radjabov would have come-up with some fresh ideas.
4 ... fxe4 5.dxe4 �f6 6.0-0 Ac5 Unpleasant for B lack is 6 . . . 4Jxe4?! 7 . B e l 4Jf6 (7 . . . d5 8 . 4J x e 5 �c5 9.'ii1rh 5+ +- [9.Bfl? 'ii1td6 oo Pirklova Havrdova, Svetla nad Sazavou 1 994]) 8.Axc6! (8.4Jxe5 4Jxe5 9.Bxe5+ �e7 1 0 . 'ii1t e 2 +- ) 8 . . . bxc6 9 . 4J x e 5 �e7 10.'ii1fe 2 Ab7 1 1 .�g5 ± .
7 . A x c6 b x c6 8.� xe5 0-0 9.Ag5
Black achieves enough compensa tion after 1 2 .4Jd2 d6 1 3 . 'ii1re 2 'ii1tg6 1 4.�hl �a6 1 5 .Babl Baf8 because of his bishop pair and his active pieces, Spassky-Antunes, Thessaloniki 1 988.
t2 ...Ab6 13.�d2 d6 13 . . . Aa6 is interesting: 1 4 .c4 ( 1 4 . e 5 8 f8 1 5 . c4 'ii1tg6 1 6 . 'ii1r e 2 d5 1 7.4Jb4 �c8 18.cxd5 �h3 19.g3 �xfl 2 0 . 8 xfl oo Y2 - Y2 Schaefer-Micic, Dortmund 1 99 1 ) 1 4 ... 8h6 ( 1 4 ... d5?! 1 5 .'ii1ta4! ± Shinkevich-Geller, Vladimir 2002; 14 . . . 8 d6 1 5 .'ii1rb3 Ad4 1 6.c5+ 8 e6 1 7 . 4Jf4 Axfl 1 8 . 4Jx e6 'ii1t xe6 1 9 . 'ii1r xe6+ dxe6 2 0 . �xfl �xb2 2 1 .8bl � ) 15.'ii1rb3 �d4 16.4Jf3 c5 oo /=. 14.c4 (D)
White's other options are 9.4Jc3 and 9.'ii1re 2.
9 'iJ'Ye8 •••
The most principled continuation. Of course Black's possibilities include 9 . . . d6 10.4Jd3 (10.4Jxc6?! 'ii1te8 oo /=) 10 . . . �b6 1 1 .4Jd2 ( 1 1 .4Jc3 Aa6 1 2.�hl 'ii1te8 oo /= van Blitterswijk-Hendriks, D i eren 2 0 04) l l . . . 'ii1t e 8 1 2 .�xf6 Bxf6 oo /= Gurevich-Jonkman, Cappelle la Grande 1 994 or 9 ... �a6 1 0.4Jd3 'ii1te7 (10 ... �e7 1 1 .4Jd2 4::lxe4 1 2.�xe7 'ii1txe7 1 3.4Jxe4 'ii1txe4 14.4Jc5 'ii1tc4 1 5 .4Jxa6 'ii1r xa6 1 6 . 'ii1t xd7 'ii1t b 6 1 7 . b 3 B ad8 1 8 . 'ii1t e 6+ �h8 1 9 . 'ii1r e 3 ± S i sn iega Burke, New York 1 984) 1 1 .4Jd2 �d4 1 2 .4Jb3! (12.4Jf3 'ii1txe4 13.Bel 'ii1rf5 oo Aginian-Dimovska, Dresden 2004) 1 2 . . . Ab6 1 3 . e 5 �xd3 1 4 . exf6 gxf6 1 5 .'ii1t xd3 fxg5 16.c4 � .
Not much is offered by 14.'ii1te 2 'ii1tg 6! ( 1 4 . . . �a6 1 5 .c4 'ii1tf7 1 6.b3 � Bruzon Bautista-Gomez, Santa Clara 2000) 1 5 .�hl �g4 16.f3 �e6 oo /=.
14... 'iJ'Yg6?! A new move but not a satisfactory one in my opinion. 1 4 . . . B h6 1 5.8el ( 1 5 . c5 ilxc5 1 6.4Jxc5 'ii1t e 5 1 7 . 4Jf3 'ii1tx c5) 1 5 . . . 'ii1te7 16.4Jfl 'ii1rg5 17.'ii1rd2 'ii1r h 5 oo /= was seen in Aginian Shukurova, Elista 1 998.
10.Axf6
308
15.�hl
FIDE World Cup 2007 A useful defensive move. Bad is 1 5.c5? llh3 16.�b3+ 'it>h8 17.4Jf4 fi xf4 18.�xh3 Axc5 + .
15 ..._ilg4 16.f3 .ile6 17.f4 Although the text move is fine, 1 7 .c5! also looks to be quite strong: 1 7 . . . dxc5 ( 1 7 . . . ollx c5 1 8 . 4Jxc5 dxc5 19.f4 ± ) 18.f4 c4 19.4Je5 �e8 20.�c2 ± . 17 ..._ilg4 18.�el l3,e8 (D)
29 ... 13,dl+ 29 ... �xc6 30.�xd4 cxd4 3 l . fi xc6 Ab7 32.fie6
30.13, xdl �xdl + 3Vli>h2 �d6 32.4)e5 Also possible was 32.4Jxa7 Jla6 3 3 . a4 �b6 34.4Jb5 Axb5 3 5 .axb5 �xb5 36.e5 +- .
19.c5! The thematic advance which al lows White to gain the advantage.
19 ..._ilxc5 Actually Black had no real choice, as the alternative capture with 19 ... dxc5 20.4Je5 �h5 2 1 .4Jxg4 �xg4 22 .h3 ± was not acceptable . . .
20.4:\ xc5 dxc5 2l.h3 .ilc8 2 1 . . .�h5 22.�e3 c4 23.fiael ±
22. �e3 �h6 23. 13.f3 13,d8 24.4)c4 White has gained a clear and long term advantage. The material in quan titative terms is equal but just compare the white e- and f-pawns to the black c5- and c6-pawns. Then it is easy to un derstand the qualitative differences.
32 ... _ilb7 33.4)d3 c4 34.bxc4 13.e8 35.4:\e5 The game is basically over and the rest was not really too interesting (al though a bit of precision is needed of course!).
35 ... c5 36.13,f2 13,d8 37.13.b2 .ila8 38. 4)f3 13.f8 39.e5 �e6 40.�xc5 �f5 40 . . . Axf3 4l .gxf3 �f5 42.�d5+ �h8 43.�e4 �d7 44.f5 +-
4 1 . �e3 .ile4 42.c5 Ad5 43.13.d2 .ila8 44. 4) d4! � x f4+ 4 5 . � x f4 13, x f4 46.4)e6 13,c4 47.4)g5 47.fif2 ! was better but anyway B lack was obliged to resign as after 47... fif4 48.e6 there is no salvation. 1-0 (239) Adams Gurevich Khanty Mansiysk 2007 French Defense [C07]
24 ... 13,d4 25.b3 �h4 26.13.afl 13.f8 26. . . Jla6 27.e5 fif8 28.e6 +/-
27.4:\e5 �f6 28.13,cl �d6 (D) 29.4:\ xc6! A small combination that wins material.
-
l .e4 e6 2 .d4 d5 3 . 4:\ d 2 c5 4.4)gf3 cxd4 5.exd5 �xd5 6.Jl,c4 �d8 6 . . . �d6 is more common, but Mikhail Gurevich likes to explore rare lines.
309
Chess Analytics 7.0-0 l£:lc6 8.i£:lb3 a6 (D)
1 5.a4 b4 16.
9 ...b5?!
Black alternatives are: (a) 8 . . . Ad7 9 A Jb xd4
9.�e2 Probably the most dangerous set up for Black. White wishes to place his rook on d 1 , creating pressure against Black's queen along the d-file. There is not much in 9.
This early expansion cannot be good as it weakens Black's queenside. Modest but sensible seems to be 9 ... Ad6 10.l"l.d1
1 0 . �d3 l£:l f6 l l . E!. d l �e7 12.l£:lbxd4 l£j xd4 13. l£:l x d4 �c7 14.c3 �c5?1 Black did not like 14 . . .0-0 1 5 .a4! b4 16.cxb4 Axb4 1 7.Ag5 ± but prob ably he could not afford anything dif ferent. Moving the same piece twice before you complete your development is not advisable.
15.�g5! Now 1 5 . a4?! does not work: 1 5 . . . Axd4 1 6 . cxd4 bxa4 1 7 . l"l. xa4 Ab7 oo .
15 �b7?! ..•
Perhaps Black had to try 1 5 . . ..ilxd4 16.cxd4
3 10
�t . ������!! ,��-!�1 �1 R R t �fs � 1� • • �m�r.s'· !·&5� �.�� ��"$���" �$ 'r$lJ.Jf61 -g�� J.!:. �� { � �· ';. ·: i
J.!:. ;:�
FIDE World Cup 2007 27. .§e1
17.Ae4!
A l s o good is 2 7 . § d3 il x d4 28.cxd4 -&"c1 + 29.§d1 �c7 30.�f6+ �g8 3 1 . �g5+ �h8 32.Bd3 ± . 27... .§fS?! (D)
Exchanging Black's most danger ous piece is a welcome strategy. At the same time the transfer of white's rook to the kingside (§ d3-g3/h3) is pre pared.
17 ...jlxe4 If Black tries to castle queenside with 1 7 . . . 0-0-0, then 1 8 .b4 Ad6 (18 ... Axd4 19.cxd4 �b8 20.a4) 1 9.a4! will ruin his defense.
18. �xe4 0-0 19. �h4! .§fd8 B lack is forced to give up his valu able f-pawn: 1 9 . . . f5 20 .�g5+ �h8 2 1 .�f6+ �g8 22.§d3 f4 23.§h3 +- ; 1 9 . . . Ae7 2 0 . § d3 f5 2 1 .�h6 Ad6 22.§h3 +- .
27 . . . ilxd4 was forced: 28.cxd4 �xd4 29.�xf7 �e5 30.Bge3 �xb2 3 l . B xe6 B xe6 32.�xe6 ± .
28.4] xe6
20.�xf6?!
Although the text move wins, 28.§ xg7! �xg7 29.Be3 finishes the game in style.
More precise was 20.§d3! §d5 2 1 .§h3 h5 22.�xf6 +- .
20...Afs 21 . .§d3 Ag7 22. �g5
28... �e5
2 2 . B g3? �xg3 23.�xd8+ B xd8 24.hxg3 Axd4 25.cxd4 § xd4= was too naive for a player of Adams caliber.
22 ... �e5 23.�g4 .§d6 24 . .§g3 .§cS 25. �h4 �h8 Although Black faces many prob lems (a pawn down, a weak king) he should put up a more stubborn defense with 25 . . . §d7!? 26.a3 'it'h8 ± .
26.�e71 White's penetration with the queen will be proven decisive.
26...�c5 I think that Black's last chance was 26... �d5 27.�xf7 Axd4 28.cxd4 �xd4 29.h3 �xb2 30.Be1 ± .
28... B xe6 29.B xe6 fxe6 30.�xg7 *
29 . .§ge31 A painful defeat for Gurevich as he had to pack and go back home. His han dling of the opening needs to be re-ex amined. 1-0 Conclusion Work on your games and also on other important games. Analyze them in depth and try to understand on your own the critical moments and the way to improve your play.
311
Chess Analytics Player Index Numbers refer to games - bold indicates the player had White Ackerman, H 57 Adams, E 31 Adams, M 12, 239 Adorj an, A 1 62 Alden, J 42 Alekhine, A 82 Alexander, CHO'D 38 Almasi, Z 7, 135 Aloma Vidal, R 200 Anand, V 10, 1 1 , 65 98, 192 Apicella, M 78 Aristazabal 46 Aronian, L 1 1 3 , 1 28, 164 Aronin, L 54 Aseev, K 232 Azmaiparashvili, Z 84, 208 Babarin, A 1 99 Balashov, Y 1 3 9 Ballona 46 Banikas, H 99, 1 54 Bareev, E 55, 161 Bauer, C 78 Beliavsky, A 58 Benjamin, J 107 Benko, P 190 Bernstein, 0 30 Biever, R 7 1 Bisguier, A 76 Blackstock, L 1 68 Bogojulbow, E 22 Bologan, V 202 Botvinnik, M 26, 217 Bradford, J 47 Bravo Sedamanos, H 50 Bronstein, D 40, 1 32, 2 1 7, 230, 23 1 , 232, 233, 234 Brynell, S 23 Bukic, E 45 Byrne, R 47 Cabrera, A 200
Capablanca, J 30, 35, 2 1 6 Capelan, G 5 1 Carlsen, M 1 06, 1 65 Chandler, M 28, 1 44 Chiburdanidze, M 18 Chraibi, M 172 Colle, E 82 Condie, M 1 0 8 Conquest, S 112 Consultants, 1 7 8 Crouch, C 3 9 Daskalov, E 80 Dautov, R 1 Deszcynski, A 202 Donner, J 72 Dreev, A 144 Drepaniotis, P 1 84 Ehlvest, J 53 Ehrenfeucht, W 1 8 1 El Gindy, E 236 Eljanov, P 68, 163 Erdogdu, M 81 Esen, B 1 2 Evstatiev, G 80 Fahrni, H 37 Farago, I 15, 1 6 1 Fernandez, J 56 Fischer, R 1 7 1 Flohr, S 143 Franzen, J 1 80 Ftacnik, L 1 88 Galliamova, A 1 4 Ganchev, P 52 Gashimov, V 6 Gdanski, J 1 46 Gelfand, B 8, 24 60, 142, 1 86, 210 Georgiev, Kr 1 69 Gordon, S 148
312
Player Index Granda Zuniga, J 166 Grischuk, A 23, 1 92 Grivas, E 1 8, 25, 48, 66, 87, 90, 91, 92 99, 1 00, 1 07, 108, 1 09, 110, I l l , 1 1 2, 1 14. 115, 116, 1 1 7 124, 141, 147, 157, 184, 222, 223, 224, 235 Groszpeter, A 64 Gurevich, M 220, 237, 239 Gutierrez, P 1 26 Halen, H 71 Halkias, S 48 Hausner, I 173 Haznedaroglu, K 131, 1 63 Heinzel, 0 207 Hjartarson, J 27, 43 Hou, Y 127, 1 67 Howell, D 8 1 , 142, 2 1 4 Hubner, R 158 Hytos, V 92 Ilandzis, S 101 lvanchuk, V 65, 1 28, 133, 1 65, 211 Ivanov, I 1 0 1 lvkov, B 0 Jadoul, M 222 Janoczy, E 36 Jobava, B 7 Jones, G 215 Ju, W 1 87 Kabanov, N 2 1 5 Kaidanov, G 2 3 7 Kamishov, M 32 Kamsky, G 1 0 , 151, 1 53 Karlovich, A 169 Karpov, A 21, 85, 86, 1 05 , 1 37, 185, 206, 2 18, 2 1 9, 226, 227, 228 Kasparov, G 59, 69, 85, 1 03, 1 04, 1 36, 1 75, 204, 205, 206, 2 1 8, 2 19, 22 1 , 228 Khalifman, A 43, 53, 1 3 5 Khismatullin, D 2 1 2
Kholmov, R 132 Klokas, K 147 Kokolias, K 174 Komliakov, V 229 Korchmar, E 44 Kortschnoi V 3, 86, 176 Koustas, A 109 Kozul, Z 4 Kramnik, V 63, 68, 69, 103, 105, 150, 175, 203 Krasenkow, M 2, 130, 186 Krause 51 Kritz, L 4 Kryvoruchko, Y Kubbel (study) 95 Kunte, A 75 Kuzmicz, K 201 Labone, 0 94 Larsen, B 58 Lasker, Em 216 Lautier, J 2 1 1 Lein, A 155 Leko, P 24 Leonhardt, P 37 Lilienthal, A 54 Littlewood, P 1 55 Liu, W 72 Ljubojevic, L 1 3, 1 5 , 170 Lobjanidze, D 20 Lobron, E 4 1 , 73 Loginov, V 60 Lowcki, M 33 Luther, T 77 Macieja, B 238 Mackenzie, G 70 Makarichev, S 88 Malaniuk, V 1 25 Mamedov, R 153 Mamedyarov, S 83 Marino, M 56 Mason, J 70 McCambridge, V 27 McShane, L 148
313
Chess Analytics Mikenas, V 40, 230 Miles, A 1 7, 146, 1 70 Milov, V 77 Minasian, A 7 6 Moradiabadi, E 2 1 3 Mortensen, E 1 99 Movsesian, S 1 45 Muller, K 1 73 Musialkiewicz, J 2 0 1 Muzychuk, M 187 Nadanian, A 20 Naiditsch, A 1 50 Najdorf, M 67, 1 76 Negi, P 152 Nielsen, P 2 1 3 Nikolic, P 140, 145 Nilsson 42 Nisipeanu, L 64 Ortueta, E 119, 120 Piihtz, E 167 Panno, 0 50 Papadopoulos, I 1 57 Papafitsoros, K 9 1 Papaioannou, I 1 56 Papoutsis, G 1 1 5 Pedzich, D 181 Pekarek, A 87 Pelletier, Y 1 29 Penrose, J 89, 1 59 Petrosian, T 96, 97 Petrosian, TL 76 Petursson, M 223 Piket, J 59 Pinter, J 204 Pipkov, L 52 Polgar, J 11, 98, 1 5 8 Poluektov, Y 1 24 Polugaevsky, L 3 Polyak 44 Ponomariov, R 106, 156, 203 236 Porreca, G 234 Portisch, L 34, 1 60
Ra�abo� T 149, 196, 238 Rakolta, P 36 Ramos, M 126 Ree, H 188 Renet, 0 90 Reshevsky, S 233 Reti, R 1 79 Ribli, Z 137, 1 62 Rivas, M 182 Rodriguez, E 1 82 Romanishin, 0 45 Romero, A 208 Rossolimo, N 1 90 Rovner, D 32 Rowson, J 1 66 Rubinstein, A 1 9 8 Rublevsky, S 1 9 1 Rudakovsky, I 9 Sakaev, K 1 3 0 Salov, V 1 3 Salwe, G 198 Sanz, J 1 1 9, 1 20 Saverymuttu 19 Schmidt, W 221 Schwager, K 57 Seirawan, Y 2 1 , 41 Shamkovich, L 5 Sharevich, A 1 27 Shipov, S 17 Shirov, A 84, 1 49 Short, N 1 6, 55, 6 1 , 1 40, 177, 220 Sigalas, F 1 74 Simagin, V 96 Sjodahl, P 73 Skalik, P 74 Skembris, S 100 Smeets, J 79 Smyslov, V 9, 28, 136, 168 Sokolov, A 1 38 Sokolov, I 154 Solak, D 1 4 1 Soltis, A 5 Spassky, B 97, 1 02, 171, 226 Speelman, J 39
314
Player Index Spielmann, R 22, 49 Stahlberg, G 67 Sulava, N 1 Svetushin, D 25 Svidler, P 125, 2 1 0, 214 Szabo, L 84, 159 Tal, M 88 Tarrasch, S 179 Tartakower, S 33 Teichmann, R 178 Teschner, R 34 Thomas, G 3 5 Tibensky, R 180 Timman, 1 61, 62, 102, 104, 139, 1 77 Timman, 1 (studies) 1 2 1 , 1 22, 1 23 Timofeev, A 83 Timoshchenko, G 1 1 6 Tiviakov, S 1 9 1 Topalov, V 6, 8 , 63, 113, 1 3 3 , 1 34, 1 64 Torre, E 138 Torre, C 3 1 Trikaliotis, G 1 1 0 Trindade, H 111 Tsomis, D 119 Tu Hoang, T 229 Ty1kowski 118
Van den Berg, P 1 9 Van Dijk, T 75 Van Wely, L 16, 134, 1 96 Van Wijgerden, C 62 Vereson, G 23 1 Vidmar, M 1 43 Vogt 38 Volokitin, A 212 Vouldis, A 66 Vragoteris, A 235 Vukovic (position) 1 83 Warakomski, T 1 3 1 Werle, 1 7 Westenberger, H 207 Winnicki, A 1 72 Wojciechowski, A 1 1 8 Wojtkiewicz, A 74 Wolf, H 49 Yilmaz, M 1 5 1 , 1 52 Yilmaz, T 224 Yuneev, A 117 Yusupov, A 205 Zaitsev, A 1 85 Zvjagnisev, V 129
Unzicker, W 227
315
Chess Analytics Opening Index Informant codes in brackets - Numbers refer to games Alekhine's Defense [B03] 1 99 [B04] 1 77 Benko Gambit [A57] 22 1 Bird's Opening [A03] 1 1 8 Bogo-Indian Defense [E l l ] 87, 23 1 [E l 6] 90 Budapest Gambit [A52] 1 00, 1 68 Catalan Opening [E04] 1 50, 1 55 , 2 1 3 [E05] 1 37, 1 66, 2 1 0 [E09] 1 73 Caro-Kann Defense [B l 6] 232 [B l 7] 1 85 [B l 8] 1 1 5, 234 [B 1 9] 58, 78 Chigorin Defense [D07] 82, 1 24 Dutch Defense [A84] 2 [A85] 200 English Opening [A l l ] 25 [A l 4] 2 6 [A28] 1 86 [A29] 88 [A3 1 ] 1 84 [A33] 89, 1 5 9 [A34] 74 [A46] 145
Four Knights Game [C49] 1 9 8 French Defense [COO] 1 20 [CO l ] 70, 220 [C02] 1 34 [C07] 239 [C 1 3] 1 67 [C l 4] 22, 23 Giuoco Piano [C54] 8 1 [C55] 1 26 Griinfeld Defense [D7 1 ] 2 1 7 [D77] 1 5 8 [D85] 27 [D88] 1 75 [D99] 1 88 Irregular Defense [A4 1 ] 60 King's Indian Defense [E65] 204 [E66] 97 [E68] 1 1 6 [E69] 99, 233 [E73] 223 [E74] 222 [E76] 1 1 7 [E80] 1 7 1 [E88] 1 3 9 [E90] 62, 1 47 [E9 1 ] 96 [E94] 208 [E97] 1 07 E99] 5 9
316
Opening Index Latvian Gambit [C40] 230
[D65] 73 [D67] 67
Modem Defense [A42] 5 [B 1 5] 1 3 1
Queen's Indian Defense [E 1 2] 7, 1 30, 1 54 [E 1 4] 1 90 [E 1 5] 1 1 3, 1 3 8 [E 1 9] 3, 1 57
Nimzo-Indian Defense [E2 1 ] 85 [E32] 28, 1 05, 1 6 1 , 1 62, 236 [E37] 68 [E39] 1 65 [E55] 1 64 Old Indian Defense [A53] 1 5 [A55] 1 1 0 Petroff Defense [C42] 8, 2 1 , 24, 1 42 Philidor's Defense [C4 1 ] 2 1 2 Pirc Defense [B07] 72 Queen's Gambit Accepted [D26] 1 4 [D27] 1 7, 1 03 Queens's Gambit Declined [D30] 237 [D3 1 ] 228 [D32] 20, 9 1 [D35] 1 6, 205 [D36] 6 1 [D37] 75, 1 44 [D38] 1 28, 203 [D4 1 ] 1 , 1 76 [D53] 86 [D55] 1 0 1 [D58] 1 60 [D62] 1 43
Queen's Pawn Game [D03] 1 46 [D04] 235 Reti Opening [A0 1 ] [A07] [A 1 4) [A 1 6) [A30]
1 12 84 219 214 1 36
Ruy Lopez [C63) [C67] [C68] [C75] [C77] [C80) [C8 1 ) [C84] [C88] [C89] [C9 1 ) [C92] [C93] [C95] [C98]
238 76 216 1 25 1 09 111 1 14 18 7 1 , 1 92 135 1 02 10 1 04 226 227
Scandinavian Defense [B0 1 ] 1 5 6 Scotch Game [C44] 1 9 [C45] 206, 2 1 5
317
Chess Analytics [B66] [B67] [B80] [B8 1 ] [B83] [B85] [B88] [B90] [B92] [B94] [B9 6] [B99]
Semi-Slav Defense [D3 1 ] 1 74 [D43] 1 96 [D45] 83 [D46] 1 63 Sicilian Defense [B20] 20 1 [B23] 207 [B28] 1 29 [B30] 1 70, 224 [B33] 66, 69 [B4 1 ] 1 27 [B42] 1 53 [B48] 2 1 1 [B50] 148 [B5 1 ] 1 9 1 , 202 [B54] 1 72 [B55] 1 3
Slav Defense [D 1 0] [D l l ] [D 1 5] [D 1 8]
318
63, 65 4 80 151 9 1 33, 2 1 8 1 69 1 1 , 1 2, 98, 1 87 1 49 1 52 64 1 32
1 06, 1 40 6, 77, 92, 229 141 1 08
Bibliography
A Chess Odyssey; Efstratios Grivas; ChessCafe.com 2007 Chess College 1: Strategy; Efstratios Grivas; Gambit 2006 Chess College 2: Pawn Play; Efstratios Grivas; Gambit 2006 Chess College 2: Pawn Play; Efstratios Grivas; Gambit 2006 Chess College 3: Technique; Efstratios Grivas; Gambit 2006 Chess Today (Internet Newspaper); Alexander Baburin; 2006-20 1 0 ChessBase Mega Database; Various Contributors; ChessBase 20 1 0 Iriformator; Various Contributors; Informator 1 966-20 1 0 Modern Chess Planning; Efstratios Grivas; Gambit 2007 New in Chess (Magazine & Yearbook); Various Contributors; Interchess BV 1 984-20 1 0 Practical Endgame Play - Mastering the Basics; Efstratios Grivas; Everyman 2008 Queen versus Rook Endgame Training Database; Derek Grimmell; ChessBase 2008
319
Chess Analytics
About the Author
Efstratios Grivas is an international grandmaster and highly experienced chess trainer and chess author. He lives in Athens, and he is also a FIDE (World Chess Fed eration) Senior Trainer (Secretary of the FIDE Trainers' Commission), an International FIDE Chess Arbiter and an International FIDE Chess Organizer. He has repre sented his country on a great many occasions, taking fourth place in the 1 985 World Junior Championship, an individual gold medal at the 1 989 European Team Cham pionship and an individual silver medal at the 1 998 Olym piad (World Team Championship). In 20 1 0 he was awarded the highly acclaimed FIDE TRG Awards, the Boleslavsky Medal (best author) for 2009. Efstratios Grivas works with both the Greek and Turkish Chess Federations as a national trainer. His books and articles have been published by, among others, Everyman Chess, Gambit Books, New In Chess, ChessBase and ChessCafe.com. Chess Analytics: Training with a Grandmaster, is his first book for Russell Enter prises.
320
Game�/Che��
�J11 m lwt.i�C'� ThetMethod of �QgiGal ,�nalysis You are i nvited to take an i n structive j ourney with one of the most successful chess coaches of our e ra , G re e k g randmaster Efstratios G rivas. Over 40 critical aspects of the royal game a re examined by this experienced, well-respected tra i ner. G rivas presents a l most 240 g a m es , most with c o m plete scores to assist compre h e n s i o n , i l l ustra t i n g h i s themes w i t h practica l , i ns i g htful e x a m p l e s a n d exp l a n ations. A n d t h e convenient structure o f t h e book i s such that the reader may pick and choose the topics i n any order. There i s a broad ra nge of the su bjects which are covere d . You wi l l find well-known subj ects l i ke back-rank mate combinations , chapters about isolated pawns, strong square s , etc . , as well as less commonly p resented pattern s , such as the chapters False Guard s or The King ' s Golden Cage. Topics include: Pinning, Shattered Pawns, The W e a k d S -s q u a re , D o u b l e d f- p a w n s , The D o u b l e Exc h a ng e Sacrific e , The f 4 B re a k , P l a n n i n g , O p e n i n g D i a g o n a l s , S m a l l Adv a n t a g e s , Sacrifices for the I n itiative, Rook vs . Bishop Pair, Pawns on the Seventh Rank and many more! The guiding principle of these themes is their practical val u e . T h i s i s particularly true i n t h e e n d g a m e sectio n where t h e author deals with structures which occur relatively often but a re rarely presented in chess lite rature. The structure of each chapter is clear and methodica l . The concept is explained in a few lines and i l lustrated in carefully selected, annotated master games. A conclusion with practica l hints rounds off each section. Chess Analytics: Training with a Grandmaster will help add a new dimension to your g a m e .
I SBN
$24 . 95 978-1 -936490- 4 1 - 7 5 2 4 9 5 >
Russell Enterprises Inc.
