Chess Analytics: Training with a Grandmaster

(

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.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.c2 c.t>e5 47.d3 f4. 41 . .§d3 .§h2 42.b3 .§c2 (D)

52 . . . e6 53 . .§g5

53.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.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.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.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.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.¥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 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? 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 .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+ 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.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 '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 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.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.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.'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 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.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

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.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 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 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.'f6 52.E{xe7? This looks good enough, but still 52.f4 4Jd5 (52 . . . § c3 + 53.'xh5 65.4Jg7+! and White wins but only with this move! [65 .g6? 'g4 Cit>c3 51.4)f5 "Losing" a tempo cannot be the correct reaction! 5 l .'it'g5 '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.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.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 . . .f8.

7.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 . 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 . 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.'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.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 . . . .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.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.
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 ... 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 .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.