Rethinking the Chess Pieces

rethinking the chess pieces andrew soltis BATSFORD contents First published in 2004 © Andrew Soltis 2004 Section One...

Author: Andrew Soltis

354 downloads 3074 Views 20MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

rethinking the chess pieces andrew soltis

BATSFORD

contents First published in 2004 © Andrew Soltis 2004

Section One: Piece Values

ISBN 0713489049

Chapter 1:

"Pawn Equals One, Knight Equals Three...

5

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Chapter 2:

Mobility and Targets

23

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Chapter 3:

Board Range

34

Chapter 4:

Cooperation and Redundancy

45

Chapter 5:

The Personalities of the Pieces

62

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Great Britain by Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale for the publishers, BT Batsford Ltd, The Chrysalis Building Bramley Road, London, WI 0 6SP

An imprint of

ChrySalifBOOkS Group

Distributed in the United States and Canada by Sterling Publishing Co.,

387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016, USA

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

"

Section Two: Material Imbalances

Chapter 6:

Transactions

87

Chapter 7:

The Exchange

110

Chapter 8:

Queen Versus Pieces

135

Chapter 9:

Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns

169

Chapter 10:

Rook Versus Pieces

201

CHAPTER 1: ··PAWN EQUALS ONE. KNIGHT EQUALS THREE... The first thing you learned about chess is how the pieces move. The second lesson, I suspect, told you not to give up a more valuable piece for a weaker one. To explain what that meant you were shown a "chart of relative values" that said a bishop is worth three pawns or "units," a rook is worth five, and so on. And that's also the last real lesson about material that most players get. As a result, they are bewildered by what can happen when they first reach a position like this:

"

But after the natural 5...0-0 6 d3 h6 they play 7 lL'lxf7 and are told it's a bad mistake. Or a blunder. It may even be "the losing move" although the game has just begun. How is that possible, the beginner asks? After all, the chart you find in most primers says rook-plus-pawn is roughly equal to two minor pieces. Some charts say a bishop is worth a bit more than a knight and therefore White needs a pawn and a half in return to justify 7 lL'lxfl. But that explanation doesn't help much. Even if the beginner can grasp what half a pawn means - and some masters can't - why is conceding such a slight amount of material such a mistake? Dropping a piece is a blunder, of course. But can losing half a pawn really cost the game? The confusion continues when the beginner starts learning opening traps and comes upon the Dragon Sicilian variation that runs 1 e4 c5 2

White to play

lL'ln lL'lc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL'lxd4 g6 5 lL'lc3 �g7 6 �e3 lL'lf6 7 .i.c4 0-0 8 �b3 lL'la5? 10 e5!.

This began with a typical beginner's opening, 1 e4 eS 2 lL'ln lL'lc6 3 �c4 �c5 4 lL'lc3 lL'lf6. Then 5 lL'lg5 is the first example of a double attack that many players find over the board.

Three grandmasters, and count less mortals, have fallen into this one. The stronger victims usually play 1O...lL'le8 only to be surprised by 11 .i.xfl+! and 12lL'le6, winning the queen.

6 "Pawn Equals One, Knight Equals Three"

But why, the beginner wonders, can't Black play 10 liJxb3 ? After all, 1 1 exf6 allows 1 1 ... liJxal 1 2 fxg7 liJxc2+ 13 'it'xc2 �xg7. Then Black has two pawns, not one, and they are center pawns. .••

"Pawn Equals One, Knight Equals Three"

Another popular chart gave the minor pieces three units each and the rook 41/2, so the difference in J.+li)-vs.-J:t+� is half a pawn. A third chart, the most popular one in the West, assigns three units to each minor piece, five to the rook and nine to the queen, so 7 liJxf7 would be an equal exchange. In the second diagram, Black is either equal according to the first chart or ahead by half a pawn according to the second chart and by one pawn as per the third chart. How can he be worse?

White to play

The reason, say the masters, is that Black is worse. White is usually awarded plus-over-minus a advantage, shorthand for a clear edge. If you ask masters why moves like 7 li)xf7 in the first diagram and Black's position in the second diagram are bad, you will get different answers. For example:

The problem is that the charts are in conflict with experience. We know that rook and just one pawn is often excellent compensation for the pieces in an endgame. Reuben Fine, in Basic Chess Endings, said in general one pawn and rook was enough to draw against the two pieces. Add a second pawn and the rook has a serious advantage. This often affects middlegame decisions concerning a trade of queen.

Mueller - Acs

European Club Championship 2003

I J:tfl!? exd4 Otherwise White continues J:tafl and J:txf7.

2 "ile7 "ilxe7 Or 2..."ilg4 3 h3 "ilh5 4 "ilxd7 with advantage.

3 dxe7 J:tfe8 Black places his faith in the pieces, rather than risk 3...J:ttb8 4 J:txf7.

4 J.xf7+ Wh8 5 J:tel li)f6 A natural continuation is 6 J:td2 J.e4? (6 ..J:tec8! favors Black) 7 J.xe8 ltxe8 8 ltxd4 J:txe7, leaving White with J:t+� -vs.- 2 minors. Computers tend to favor Black but White should have no problems after 9 J:td8+ li)g8 10 J:td4, e.g. 1O ...�xc2 11 J:txe7 li)xe7 12 ltd8+ li)g8 13 J:ta8, confirming Fine. .

But White has better:

virtual zugzwang and

lost

7

after

12 li)c8 13 c3 g6 14 Wfl Wg7 IS J:te2li)a7 16 l%e6!. •••

There are other explanations for why 7 li)xf7 is bad in the first diagram. Giving up the pieces grants Black a lead in development. True, White is giving up two pieces that have just made their first moves. He is undoing his own development with 7li)xf7. But Black's development is also undone by 7 li)xf7. Soviet trainers regarded a. castled rook as being a developed rook, and after ...J:txf7 it is gone. In addition, it will cost Black at least one move that could be better spent on development to secure a new form of safety for his king after ...Wxf7. In a more familiar opening (I e4

e5 2 li)o li)c6 3 J.b5 a6 4 J.a4 6 g4! J.d5? li)f6 5 0-0 J.e7 6 ltel b5 7 J.b3 d6 Not 6 ...li)xg4 7 J.xe8 li)xfl 8 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 J.b7 10 d4 lte8) the

J.xb5!. But 6 ...ltec8 7 g5 li)e4 8 J:tfe2 It)d6 equalizes.

7 �xe8 lbe8 8 g5 ltJd7 9 J:tf4 Wg8 10 J:txd4 ltJb6 1 1 J:te5 J.f7 12 J:td8!

moves 11 li)g5 and 11 ...J:tfS are often seen as a way of repeating the position. But no one plays li)xf7, e.g. 12 J.e3 h6 13 li)xf7? J:txf7 14

J.xf7+ �xf7.

Two pieces are just much stronger than a rook, they say. One of the earliest computer chess programs designed in the Soviet Union employed seven variables in evaluating positions, beginning with a material assessment that read: Pawn=1 Knight=3lh Bishop=31/2 Rook=5 Queen=91/2 According to this recipe, 7 li)xfl gives up seven units (3112 plus 31/2) in return for six units (5 plus 1).

White to play

In a book position, where 1 J.c3 is routine, White played:

Trading rooks greatly enhances White's edge - one of the many cases when an "equal" exchange is far from equal. Black was soon in

White to play

The reason has nothing to do with "granting Black a lead development." After 15 li)d2,


development isn't a major part of the equation. Some computer programs, by the way, say the position after 14...�xf7 favors Black to the tune of "O.SO" - that haIf a pawn. If you ask other masters why 7 lbxf7 was bad in the first diagram they will answer in moves, not words. "You can't play it because 7 ...:Ixf7 8 .t.xf7+ �xf7 and if 9 f4, then 9...dS 10 fxeS .t.g4" and so on. But somethins. that's condemned as strongly as 7 0J xf7 must be bad for more basic reasons than lengthy analysis. And there is no analysis that explains why Black is losing in the first diagram on p.6. Other masters may try to find an explanation to give 0J xf7 a "?" - if not a "??" - in the fact that White is trading off his "good" bishop. But giving up the other bishop and a knight - or even two knights - for a rook and pawn would likely earn the same question mark. After all, White has two knights against rook and two pawns in the p.6 diagram. Why is there such uncertainty about a position that occurs right out of the opening? I suspect there are several reasons. (a) Many players today don't take seriously something that was discovered decades ago: Two minor pieces are more valuable in the middlegame than a rook and pawn(s). A rook does some things exceptionally well. It can attack pawns on both wings, confine the enemy king by rank or file, promote a passed pawn or stop an enemy pawn in its tracks. But these are factors that count most in an endgame, the time when the rook comes into its own.


Akopian - Kasparov

Khenkin - Adams German Bundesliga 2002

Ljubljana 1995

9

stages, such as when a rook is lifted from e l to e3 to g3 to attack g7 in the middlegame, or when it reaches the seventh rank in an ending, does a rook fulfill its potential. And fmally: (c) Two pieces often beat one. This is obvious to beginners but they are soon told this is naive. After all, a queen is much better than two knights.

White to play

Black to play

Black is a clear Exchange ahead but White's better king and passed pawn allowed him to put up 20 moves of resistance after 1...�f7 2 lbcs �e7 3 �c3. However, if the rook acts like a rook - with 1. :Ic4! - White can resIgn immediately. The rook cripples his king, knight and b-pawn, all at once. ..

The problem is that a rook can't act like a rook during the early part of a game whereas minor pieces can live up to their potential. The middlegame is the theater of attack, and as Rudolph Spielmann said, "Knight and bishop are much better fitted for attack than rook and pawn." The pieces may not coordinate well in the endgame, but they fit in superbly with a queen in the middlegame. In the next diagram we see Black has sacrificed a piece for two pawns. That's not enough but his centralized knight and threats, beginning with l ...lbxf3+ 2 'ii'xf3 .t.xb2, give him chances of survival.

1

But if you look at the pawnless ending of'ii'-vs.-2lbs, you find that the pieces almost always draw if they cooperate with one another.

�g2lbe2?

This wins material but preserving his strong knight with l ...lbf5 2 'ii'e2 .t.xb2 3'ii'xb2 liJd4 is superior. 2:Ixe2'ii'xe2 3 .t.xg 7 �xg7 4 lbgS! The charts say Black is at least equal now. But White's two minor pieces work splendidly with his q ueen, such as after 4...e6 5 'ii'e5+ � g8 6 lbe4. The game went 4 h6 S 'ii'eS+ �g8 and now instead of 6 lbe6? fxe6 7 'ii'xe6+ �g7 8'ii'e5+ �g8 9 .t.d5+ :Ixd5, which drew, White would likely have won after 6 lbxf7! �xf7 7 .t.g4!. For example, 7 ...:Ic6 8 :Ie l �g8 9 .t.e6+ �h7 10 .t.d5! :Icd6 11 'ii'xe7+ �h8 12 :Ie6!. .•.

There are two other factors in explaining the p.6 and p.7 diagrams:

(b) The value of pieces changes according to the availability of targets. Even if a rook controls an open file - as in a typical early middlegame - it often lacks the offensive power of a minor piece because it doesn't have the kind of targets that pieces do. Only in later

White to play

White has a considerable material difference, a +2 or +3 according to the typical chart or computer. Normally, a +2 advantage is enough to win, and here White has an edge that is several times greater than the edge that Black enjoys after 7 lbxf7 in the first diagram. In addition, White's pieces are well placed and Black's knights are far from active. Yet since Giambattista Lolli analyzed such positions in the 1760s, this has been known to be a dead draw. You can search for sophisticated explanations of why this is possible but there is an obvious one: the value of Black's

10


pieces increase vis a vis White's simply because Black has two of them and White has one. (If you add a third black knight, material would be roughly equal. Yet it's easy to see the queen has virtually no winning chances. The knights would have excellent winning chances - three against one - except that White can sacrifice the queen and draw due to insufficient mating material.) To put it another way, two pieces tend to beat one because the sum of the parts in any material imbalance is much greater if they work together. This principle of cooperation, Emanuel Lasker asserted in his Manual of Chess, is what Wilhelm Steinitz misunder stood when he tried to develop a scientific approach to the game. Lasker gave no illustration but this comes to mind:

Steinitz - Lasker Nuremberg 1896

gross underestimation of the power of coordinated pieces. 1

'ifbS? 'ir'hS!

Black threatens 2...g4.

2 'ir'xb7? �xh2+! 3 itJxh2?! :h4 And Black won after 3 f3 (3 'ir'c7 itJg4) :xh2 4 'ir'c7 :hl+ 5 �f2 'ir'h4+ 6 'ir'g3 'ir'xg3+ 7 �xg3 :xf l 8 :xfl :xe3.

A BIT OF HISTORY, A BIT OF MATH point-count approach Our originated with chess' medieval predecessor, Shatranj, as H. J. Murray noted in his History of Chess. He cited charts from Arab manuscripts that employed a chart format that is the reverse of ours: Instead of a pawn being used as the common denominator, the Arabs based theirs on the rook, the most powerful piece. But if we translate their format into ours, a typical Shatranj chart might read: Rook pawn=1 Knight pawn or bishop pawn= 17S Center pawn=2 Bishop=2 Queen=3 Knight=57S Rook=8

White to play

White has a nicely centralized position. But Black has five pieces that can attack the kingside, compared with one knight defending. What followed was a mistake of calculation but also a

Bear in mind, under the medieval rules, a queen could only move one square diagonally and a bishop only two squares diagonally. Never theless, the wise men of Shatranj recognized that these chart values changed during the course of a game. A rook typically increased in value, they said, just as it does in the related game of Shogi.


The first chart for the modem rules of our game appears to date from Studies of Chess, an English edition of Andre Philidor's Analyse des Echecs. Historian Robert John McCrary pointed out that the editor of the book's 1817 edition, Peter Pratt, created a chart based on 15 criteria: "range of action with the board open," "liability of obstruct ion," "extra points of support," "general range of local action," "general facility of transit" "power of transitive attack" "dislodgin� faculty," "circumscribing faculty ' and so on. Despite the clumsy jargon, the book's analysis resulted in a remarkably modem system of values. Pratt worked his numbers out to two decimal places, then rounded off: Pawn=1 Knight=3 Bishop=31/2 Rook=5th Queen=IO The

German Handbuch des of 1843 gave quite a different chart. Its principle differences were that bishops and knights were both roughly 3.3 and a rook was worth about 5.7. Note that the Studies chart means that the 7 itJxf7 liquidation in the first diagram is even and the Handbuch chart indicates it should favor White by a tiny amount (!). Several attempts have been made to establish a mathematical base for the relative values, such as by determining the average mobility of each piece (the mean of all possible moves a piece can make when placed on each of the 64 squares of an otherwise empty board).

Schachspiels

JJ

For example, a king has three moves when placed in one of the four comers. It has five moves on each of the other squares on the board's edge. It has 8 on the remaining 36 squares. The result of 4-squares-x-3-moves plus 24x5 and 36x8 is 420 possible moves. Divided by 64 leaves an average of 6.5625 moves for the king. The Russian mathematician and chess writer Yevgeny Gik repeated the process for other pieces and then divided the totals by 2.1875, the average mobility for pawns. The result was: Pawn=1 Knight= 2.4 King=3 Bishop=4 Rook=6.4 Queen=10.4 But this makes the bishop worth a pawn and a half more than a knight, so something must be skewed. Twenty years ago when I wrote about the various charts in Chess Life, I received several comments from mathematicians. One expressed confidence that there was a numerical basis for piece values. "Chess is a group algebra problem! " he explained. Another, David F. Meador, said a factor that should be considered in any chart was what he called "escape," the number of squares a piece can safely land on if attacked each enemy piece. He added another factor, "efficiency," and came up with: Knight=3.65 Bishop=3.92 Rook=6.44 Queen=10.23

12


But there are obvious problems with this chart, and with other math-based charts, too, such as the discounted value of the queen compared with a rook. Perhaps Howard Staunton was right when he said that trying to determine piece values "with mathematical exact itude appears to be an expenditure of ingenuity and research upon an unattainable object." Lasker, in his Encyclopedia of Vol. 1, said this "speculative" method at deducing piece values was first proposed by Leonhard Euler, known to chess players for his work in knight tours but also one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. Lasker, an accomplished mathematician in his own right who has a theorem named after him, tried to work out an elaborate point-count system, at least for the early part of the game. He explained his goal in his Games,

Manual:

"To fix the exchange value of the pawns and pieces and the move in order to decide whether we may sacrifice a pawn for so many moves gained in development and similar questions ..... Some of Lasker's conclusions seem quaint. For example, he claimed the king's bishop was worth half a unit more than the queen's bishop and that the king's rook was worth a whole unit more than the queen's rook. Under Lasker's chart, the Cochrane Gambit.. .

I e4 eS 2 �f3 �f6 3 �xeS d6 4 �xf7 �If7 S d4 . ... might be assessed this way: White gave up his KN (41h units) for the e-pawn (2) and f-pawn (lIn) and some moves of development.


Spielmann recognized that the relative value of the pieces is in flux during the course of a game, just as value of a pawn structure changes. As pieces are traded off, a strong pawn center means less and less, as Bobby Fischer noted, and by the ending the hanging pawns, "tum out, as a rule, to be weak," as Boris Spassky put it. If we say he gained two· tempi, Lasker's chart counts that as 1 unit for the first move and 4/5th for the second. Altogether that's nearly 51n units of compensation for the knight - more than enough. If we say only one tempo was gained, then 4 �xf7 is an equal transaction, per Lasker. (And according to Lasker's formula, Black is +2 in the p.7 diagram.) Lasker went on to say that he wanted to include point values for "dominating squares" but indicated the result might be a cumbersome numerical mess. It is hard to disagree: Chess isn't arithmetic.

STATIC, ABSOLUTE, AVERAGE The various charts depict the "absolute" value of the pieces, or their "static" value, their "exchange" value and that old standby, their "relative" value. The terms change but the point in all of them is to draw a line between a piece's theoretical value and its worth on the board now. Spielmann wrote: "All chess units have, in the language of the stock exchange, two prices, the par value and the quoted rate. The par value represents the absolute, the price from day to day the relative value."

Lasker created his chart to address the early part of the game but he spoke of "endgame value." This term may be best because it is in the ending that pieces are nearest to their "true" value. Endgame value is what counts in chess (unless the game is over in the middlegame). In the opening a rook pawn may only be worth a quarter of what a center pawn, as Lasker claimed, or half a pawn, as Spielmann suggested. But in the ending a pawn is a pawn is a pawn.

13

This pOSItIon might have been cited by Siegbert Tarrasch when he made his declaration - "A knight in the center, supported by its own pawns, and not subject to attack from enemy pawns, is no weaker than a rook." (He hedged a bit in The Game of Chess, saying that such a knight "is nearly as strong as a rook.") But scroll ahead 20 or so moves and suppose the other pieces and just one pair of pawns are traded off. That leaves the two unopposed pieces, White's knight and Black's light-squared bishop, plus the remaining pawns and kings. The knight has depreciated. It still has the same range and mobility. But its location is not nearly as significant as it once was. After ... f6 Black would have good reason to play for a win in this position.

When there are fewer pieces and pawns on the board, their value is less dependent on their location. "The simpler the position, the more absolute value carries weight," Spielmann said.

Nimzovich - Rubinstein Semmering 1926

Black to move

Thinking in terms of the "endgame value" of pieces allows us to properly evaluate a king. It has no trade value, of course, and that's why computers assign it an astronomical value, such as 200 pawns or units. But a king's offensive or defensive might is considerable. James Mason and Leopold Hoffer cited "German authorities" for saying the king has


the power of four pawns. (Von der Lasa had placed its value as greater than knight or bishop.) On the other hand a Soviet mathematician, A. Gulyaev, placed it at 2.S, the same value as he found for a knight. Lev Alburt put a king's offensive value at 21/z - yet Alexey Suetin said five was more accurate.


If Black tries to exploit the king's inability to protect his pieces with 9...AeS+ 10 �c7 g6 II lLld6 l:e7+ 12 �cS Ad7, White turns the tables with 13 g4! and wins. And then:

10 lLld6 b6 1 1 �c7 g5 1 2 �b8! gxh4 13 gxh4 a5 14 b5!

Even though it can only move one square at a time, in an endgame the king can be an awesome piece.

the first move and you can't develop a bishop until pawns are advanced: But experienced players aren't willing to admit - perhaps because they have gotten so used the chart that a knight is frequently more active, more threatening, in short, more significant than a bishop in the first ten or so moves of a game. That may sound trivial but it is more than a quarter of a 40-move game. The knights are featured performers in many typical opening positions, such as this from the English Opening:

Naiditseh - Blaubert Budapest 1995

The b-pawn is threatened by �b7xb6, and 14...lLld7+ 15 �c7 is of no help to Black because of 15...l:e7? 16lLlcs. The game ended with 14 ...Ac5 1 5 �b7 lLld5 16 lLle4 l:c7+ (l6.. l:xb5 17 �c6! ) 17 �b8 l:c4 (l 7 ...l:d7 IS l:xd5) 18 l:xd5 l:xe4 19 �c7 a4 20 �xb6 l:e3 2 1 �a7 l:xa3 22 b6 Resigns. .

While to play

1 �b3 lLle4 2 lLlf5 lLld2+ 3 �e3 lLle4+ 4 �d4! Axe2? The rook invades after 4...lLlf6 5 Ac3. But it is the king position that confers an advantage on White after 4...g6! 5 lLle7+ �f7 6lLlxd5lLlxg3 7 �e5Ae2+ S A e3.

5 �xd5 lLlf6+ 6 �e5 Ae2+ 7 �d6! Threatening to raid the queenside with �c7 ...

7...l:e2 8 �e7! ... and now threatening mate. The difference between the two kings is striking and ultimately decisive.

8 l:e2+ 9 �d8 l:e5 •..

SHIFTING VALUES Because of situations like that, in which a king proves superior to a rook, chessplayers need a good sense of the values of the different pieces. Chess isn't arithmetic - but neither is it checkers. Yet respect for the charts keeps many players from becoming Beginners quickly masters. appreciate that a knight is better than a bishop when the game begins. "Well, yes," says the experienced player, "but that's only because you can move a knight on

(reached after 1 c4 e5 2 llJc3 llJf6 3 g3 d5 4 cxd5 lLlxd5 5 .i.g2 lLlb6 6 lLlt3 lLlc6 7 0-0 j.,e7 8 a3 0-0 9 b4 j.,e6 10 Abl f6 1 1 d3 lLld4 12 llJd2 c6 13 lLlde4) Or in Defense:

the

Modem

Benoni

15

(position after the moves 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlt3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 lLle3 g6 7 e4 j.,g7 8 j.,e2 0-0 9 0-0 l:e8 10 lLld2 lLla6 1 1 13 lLlc7 12 a4 lLld7 13 lLlc4 lLle5 14 lLle3) GM Gennady Timoshchenko studied a database of 150,000 games and came to the conclusion that j.,x lLl often makes sense in the opening because a knight is simply the more useful piece then. "A well-written chess program should be aware of the fact that at the beginning of the game the knight is at the peak' of its strength relative to the bishop and its relative strength decreases" from then on, he wrote in the [CCA Journal, December 1993. In comparison, the rooks wait in the wings. Their chart value is largely potential until move 15 and often well after that. We regularly see minor pieces play a more significant role than rooks in openings with closed centers but also in several other openings such as the Ruy Lopez or Queen's Gambit Accepted:

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 lLlt3 lLlf6 4 e3 e6 5 j.,xc4 c5 6 0-0 a6 7 a4 llJc6 8 'iVe2 cxd4 9 l:dl .i.e7 10 exd4 0-0 1 1 lLlc3 lLld5 12 j.,d3 lLlcb4 13 j.,bl b6 14 llJe5 .i.b7

16



Only now can a rook act like a rook - if White continues IS :a3. The openings in which a rook makes a major contribution in the first 15 moves, such as the Benko Gambit or the :b1 lines of Gruenfeld Defense's Exchange Variation, are relatively rare. There is a paradox here: The early inferiority of some pieces lies in their superior potential value. We don't develop a queen early because we can't afford to lose it, or to lose time when it is attacked by inferior pieces. And only a beginner would develop rooks in an opening position by means of :ta3 or :h3. A beginner - or a renegade:

Bronstein - Deep Blue Jr. Brussels 1996

I e4 cS 2 b4 cxb4 3 a3 dS 4 exd5 "xdS S iLlo eS 6 axb4 i.xb4 7 :a3!?

He said 7 :a3 was a message to his opponent: "Here is your puzzle. Solve it please. Think if you can why a rook goes to a square attacked by a bishop. Doesn't it see or did it forget that it is stronger than a bishop?" 7 ...i.xa3 8 i.xa3 e4 Four years before, Bronstein used this opening against Deep Blue's great predecessor, Deep Thought II, and the machine defended with 8... ..a5, 8...i..d7 and 8 ... i.g4.

9iLlc3 "a5 10 iLlbS! To exploit d6, White has to up the ante to a rook (10... exf3 II "xf3 iLlf6 12 "d3! i.e6 13 "d6). Deep Blue Jr. spent 10 of the 30 minutes allotted for the entire game on 10...iLlc6 and eventually drew after a fierce tactical battle. Even a tiny material edge, such as i.-vs.-iLl, makes us cautious about losing it through premature develop ment. For example, in the Nirnzo Indian White often acquires the 2i.s after ...i.xc3. But then he keeps the dark-squared bishop out of the battle at c1, usually making it the last minor piece developed.

TRANSITORY

David Bronstein employs his favorite strategy when facing computers, offering an Exchange sacrifice that would give him the initiative and an enemy king trapped in the center. The sacrifice doesn't have to be accepted but Bronstein knew the machine couldn't resist.

As the game shifts from opening to middlegame, we notice other changes in the use of pieces. One of my Chess Life readers, Greg Beil, examined the mobility (number of squares attacked) in a random sampling of games. He found the average mobility changed markedly for the more powerful pieces as the game went on:

Moves

17

6-25 26-45 46-65

Queen ----6.6 ---7.0----9.6 Rook ----- 2.6---4.3----5. 1 Bishop ----3.1�--3.5----3.8 Knight ----3.3---3.3----3.3 This offers another explanation for the p.6 and p.7 diagrams and was understood 200 years ago. As 1. H. Sarratt, wrote in 1808, "Rooks White to play and Pawns ... increase in value as the game draws to a conclusion." White has the usual freer game he That is why he said giving up a minor piece for three pawns should obtains in this line of the Cambridge be avoided in the early part of the Springs QGD (I d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 game. But a piece for two pawns iLlo lilf6 4 iLlc3 c6 S i.gS iLlbd7 6 was often a good transaction in the e3 "a5 7 iLld2 dxc4 8 i.xf6iLlxf6 9 iLlxc4 "c7 and then 10 :el i.e7 1 1 ending, Sarratt added. i.e2 0-0 1 2 0-0 :d8 1 3 a3 i..d7 1 4 Jose Capablanca acknowledged b4 i.e8 15 'it'b3 :tac8). Black has the transitory nature of piece values the two bishops but with 14 pawns when he wrote, in A Primer of on the board they can't do much. Chess, that a knight becomes Neither can White's bishop. The weaker as pieces are traded off position is fairly equal. But ten but a rook becomes stronger. moves later ... Tirnoshchenko quantified this, saying computer programs should be adjusted so that a knight increases in value 3 to 5 percent after a trade of rooks and decreases 5 to 10 percent after a swap of queens. American IM Larry Kaufman, in his own database survey of 300,000 games, concluded Capa's observ ation about rooks and knights was true about pawn exchanges, not just piece exchanges. Soviet-era trainers Black to play gave this a different slant: Bishops increase in value compared with Black's superiority is becoming other pieces as the game goes on, they said. Even a casual look at the clear. The period of knight prominence is over and his bishops board can tell you that. have open lines and at least one The following position comes target, a4. This came about via 16 from the game Priehoda-Asrian, :tfdl b6 17 i.o 'it'b8 18 g3 iLldS Batumi 2002. 19iLle4 h6 20 .tg2 a6 211t1e5 "a7

18


22 lIc2 as! 23 bxaS 'ihas 24 lLlc4 -.a7 2S a4 cS! 26 lLlb2 Finally if we advance another 10 moves (26...lLlb4 27 lIcc1 cxd4 28

l:txc8 l:txc8 29 :'xd4 lLlc6 30 lLld6 l:td8 31 i.xc6 i.xc6 32 lLlbS -'a8 33 -.dl :'xd4 34 exd4 -.d8 3S f3 i.f6),

Tarrasch said any standard relationship involving a rook, such as queen vs two rooks, is going to change as the middlegame blends into the ending. He made other observations in The Game of Chess, based on what he called "relative value. " But then Tarrasch informed his readers - 200-plus pages into his book - that once they improve their chess skills, they should forget what they had read: ''We must be absolutely clear on this point. The estimates I gave in this respect in the section devoted to the elements are completely false for more advanced players."


the course o f a game. That i s what this book is about. Grandmasters have learned some things about material that they rarely share with others. They know for example, that the difference between a bishop and knight depends not just on the pawn structure but on the presence of heavy pieces. Capablanca, in Chess Fundamentals, pointed out that a bishop is superior to a knight when each side has a rook but the bishop may be inferior when the rook is replaced by a queen.

19

dark squares, that 2...l:tf8! ? 3 l:txf8+ �xf8 might have been tried. For example. 4 �d3 �f7 5 �e4 lLlf6+ and now 6 i.xf6 �xf6 7 �d5 �f5 8 �xc5 �g4 may only draw. But 6 �e5! should win.

3 �b3 lLlf6 4 lieS lLld7 S lidS lIe7 6 a4 �g6 7 hS+! �f7 8 g4! White's coordinated sealed the point with:

pIeces

8 ... �e8 9 as a6 10 gS! hxgS 1 1 l:txgS � f8 12 �c2 l:t17 1 3 �d3 1If3+ 14 �e4 l:tf7 IS l:tg6 lLlb8 16 �d5 lLld7 17 �e6 lLlb8 18 �d6

Spassky - Portisch

THE PRACTICAL PLAYER we find White has slipped into a lost position. There are improve ments, of course, such as 30 l:td2 and 32lLlbc4 but White hasn't made a gross error. Black's bishops dominate and he converted his edge routinely 36 -

lLlc4 i.xbS 37 axbS -.dS 38 �3 i.xd4+ 39 �g2 i.cS! 40 -.c2 -.d4 41 f4? -'g1+ 42 �f3? -.n+ White resigns.

Tarrasch had his own ideas about the changes in piece values during the course of a game. He said a knight is generally stronger than three pawns in the opening or middlegame but not necessarily in the ending. He added that the value of the Exchange increases as the game continues. Cecil Purdy turned that into a bit of advice: If you have to lose material early in the game, it is usually better to give up the Exchange than a pawn, he said.

Leningrad-Budapest match 1961

If Tarrasch, the most didactic of the didacts (and most pedantic of the pedants) knew that you couldn't hand down iron-clad rules, that should tell us something. The person who takes chess - and particularly his tournament results seriously, should push the chart to the back of the left side of his brain. He has to rely on other information when he makes practical decisions and answers questions such as: Should he sacrifice the Exchange for a pawn and initiative? Is it worth giving up the two bishops to win a pawn? Or vice versa? Does it help to trade rooks when he has the two bishops? When does giving up the queen for two rooks make sense? And so on. These decisions don't relate well to pawn=l , knight=3, etc. They are part of the special material relationships that change in

Black Resigns Black to play

One practical application is that with l:t+�-vs.-l:t+lll , masters don' t trade rooks without a very good reason.

1...1117 2 lIe8+! White's edge is vanishing after 2 l:txf7 �xf7 3 �d3 lLlf2+ 4 �e3 lLldl + or 4 �e2lLle4.

2 �h7 •.•

Black's practical chances are so slim with so many of his pawns on

The win is clear 18...lLld7 19 l:txg7.

after,

say,

Grandmasters also know that many imbalances - 2-minor pieces vs. 1I+�, or -.-vs.-3 pieces, etc. are closely related to the total amount of material on the board. A sacrifice of the Exchange may be sound when you have three minor pieces left, but quite unsound when you have only one. Trading rooks is a common mistake in other imbalances.

20 "Pawn Equals One. Knight Equals Three"

Kamsky - Salov

FIDE Candidates match, first game, 1 995

"Pawn Equals One. Knight Equals Three"

various bishop-vs.-knight situations that arise. These occur over and over and carry their own specific rules and characteristics. For example, queen imbalances emphasize pawn structure.' The initiative is a fairly minor concern unlike other imbalances, such as rook-vs. -two minor pieces. Relying on charts when deciding whether to go into one of these imbalances is fraught with danger.

Stocek - KristJansson Black to play

Plovdiv 2003

To ease the pressure on his king, Black played: 1.

l:tab7?

••

Anatoly Karpov explained why this is wrong: "In 99 percent" of "W'+l:t-vs.-2l:ts+piece positions, the second player should avoid trading rooks. The reason, he explained in his book about the 1 996 FIDE Championship, is that two rooks and a piece coordinate very well against queen and rook. That means 1 . . .l:tad7 ! would have put up much better resistance,

2 l:txb7 l:txb7 3 dS Trying to deal with the passed-pawn (which would have been much easier with a second rook) Black soon blundered and lost.

DECISION MAKING The imbalances that matter in chess are familiar. In Chapters Seven to Ten we will consider them in detail. They include the Exchange, queen-for-pieces and the

The passed pawn decides. Black fought on with 10 .. 84 I I bxa4 "W'b4 12 l:.cc2 "W'xa4 but was clearly lost after 13 cS "W'c6 14 bS fS IS l:td6 "W'e4 16 l:.b2 "W'f3 17 c6 "W'xbS+ 1 8 .

�gl.

Note

that

Black's

decision,

1...:cd7?, lead directly to a "pure"

"W'-vs.-2: ending, uncomplicated by other pieces. Since charts are based on "endgame value" this is when they should be most accurate. Experience shows that when you add minor pieces to each side, the queen becomes better and better than the rooks. As a practical guideline, this means it usually pays the player with the rooks to swap minor pieces as fast as he can. Speelman Batumi 1 999

Krasenkow

-

Black to play

Despite a premature ...d5-d4, Black should be able to hold with l .. .�h7, so that 2 e3 dxe3 3 l:txd8?? is not check. He misevaluated the outcome of:

1 ...l:tcd7? 2 e3! dxe3 3 :xd7 exd2 4 l:txd8+ �h7 S :8xd2 "W'c3 Black has given up his two rooks for a queen. That is usually considered a slightly unequal transaction that gives White a small material edge here. But here it is the pawn structure that decides. White has a powerful queenside majority. There followed: 6 l:.d3 "W'c2 7 l:.ld2 "W'bl+ 8 �h2 eS 9 as! bxaS 10 l:.c3!

3 ..txeS dxeS 4 "W'e3 After 4...l:.e8? S h6 e4 6 g4 l:.n 7 gS l:tf3 8 "W'el White was winning

the pawn race.

However, the more accurate 4. . . l:te7! 5 h6 e4 6 g4 l:.f3 7 'iVg5 %tm threatens 8 ... e3. Black should at least draw - and would win after 8 "W'h4? e3 9 g5 e2 1 0 g6 :f6 ! 1 1 "W'g3+ �b7 1 2 g7 :g6. The further away from the endgame - where "endgame value" reigns - the more unreliable that charts are. And that poses a problem for the tournament player. Most of the material decisions he faces - whether to give up a bishop for a knight or to sacrifice or to swap rooks - occur well before the ending. Finally, a chart is almost useless when dealing with other, less common imbalances. There is little benefit in knowing, for example that a rook is worth five or so pawns. Or that a queen is worth a bishop and six pawns. Heading into such a rare imbalance based on the chart is a recipe for disaster.

Grischuk-Shirov Moscow 2002

Black to play

Charts consider the material equal. But masters know that the queen will generally improve the power of its minor pieces at the expense of the opponent's minors. So:

1...,i,f6! 2 bS ..teS! Without a bishop, White's kingside pawns are vulnerable to the rooks - and Black's new e-pawn becomes dangerous.

2J

White to play

22


The chart tells us White has the edge and that is backed up by 1 J:[g I! g6 2 'ilkd8+ since his heavy pieces, working together, create mating chances, e.g. 2 .. .' � 'iVd4+ 4 �cI "f6 5 'ii'h6! and 6 'ii'h7+ or l:tdl -d7.

l 'ii'd 2?? A case when trading queens when ahead 10 material fails miserably.

1...'ii'xd2+! 2 �xd2 gS White's only hope is that he can win a queenside pawn before Black's pawns become dangerous. It's fairly easy to see that is impossible.

3 �e2 If White stops ...g4 with 3 J:[h l , the rook no longer performs much like a rook, and it should be no surprise that Black is winning after 3 ... e5 4 �e3 �e6.

3 g4 4 J:[ct h3 5 �f2 f4 6 J:[c7 g3+ 7 �f3 h2 8 J:[h7 eS ..•

White has gotten the most out of his rook and king and he is still, theoretically, ahead in material. Yet he is lost because of 9 .e4+ and 1O ... g2 after 1 0 �xe4 or 1 0 �xf4. ..

CHAPTER 2: MOBILITY AND TARGETS

The end was

9 J:[h6+ �g5 10 J:[h8 e4+ II �g2 �rs 12 J:[f8+ �eS 13 J:[h8 �d4 14 J:[h4 �e3 (zugzwang) 15 b4 bS 16 a3 86 17 J:[h8 13+ 18 �xg3 f2 19 �g2 �e2 White resigns. If we can't trust the chart, what can we rely on? Today's masters try to answer this in either of two ways. Some argue that the chart is skewed and the numbers just have to be tweaked. Kaufman, for example, said a queen should be seen as worth 9� units. A knight is worth 3 14 but that should be increased by 11 1 6"', he said, for each of his pawns more than five that is traded.

Piece value begins with mobility. The greater the number of possible moves of a piece, the more valuable it may be. Early on in a player's career he realizes that getting the greatest mobility for his pieces will trump other factors, such as pawn purity.

But while piece value begins with mobility, that mobility is severely limited through most of a game. One of the first rules you learned was that the knight is the only piece that can "go through" your own men or enemy pieces. The more obstacles on the board, the worse your other pieces become.

Even if this is mathematically correct it is virtually useless when you are playing a game of chess. The other approach, taken by some top grandmasters, is that charts, rules, and guidelines do not matter - only calculation does. But calculation has to be based on some element of evaluation. Chess is more than visualizing a position fOUT moves ahead. I suspect we can get better answers than this in judging and appraising material - and to start we need to examine what goes into a piece's value.

former h-pawn now has two possible captures, to the right as well as to the left, compared with only one while it was on the h-file. Kaufman's statistics database indicated a normal rook pawn is 0. 1 5 less valuable than other pawns. It simply improves in value after it shifts one file toward the center.

White has made the routine towards-the-center recapture hxg3. This may hurt him in the endgame because he can't create a passed pawn without help. For example, I g4 can be met by 1. . g5!. When White eventually plays g2-g3 and f2-f4, Black simply replies . . . f6 and the pawn majority is crippled. If the pawns had not been doubled, White could create a passed pawn with 1 h4. .

Yet when you have a choice between recapturing on g3 with a piece or with the h-pawn, hxg3 is usually best. This improves your mobility in two ways. First, your rook obtains several squares of range on the h-file. In addition, the

The best known example is the "bad bishop." No player seeks to make his bishop bad. "Badness" comes about when he has other things on his mind:

Kovalev-Arizmendi Olomouc 2003

Black to play

24 Mobility and Targets


White's b-pawn isn't dangerous because b2-b4 can be met by... �c4. Thanks to the bishop's fme diagonal Black doesn't have to worry about �d2 because he can keep the king contained with of ...�d4. In other words, he is p erfectly safe after 1 ... g5 (2 lDh5 ..i. g6). But Black was more ambitious.

Anand - Shlrov

Levenflsh-Rublnsteln

Dos Hermanas 1996

Vilnius 1912

25

Sometimes .the eighth rank is nearly as good.

Plachetka - Bareev Tmava 1989

1. g6?? •.

He wants to prevent lDh5 and play ...f5 .

2 lLle4! �e6 Otherwise bishop.

3 lDf6

traps

the

3 gS! There is no defense to lDf6. Black resigned after 3 ..fS 4 lDf6 .

hxgS S lDxh7 g4 6 fxg4.

Usually we don't become concerned about a piece's mobility unless it is really "bad." As Hans Kmoch put it in Pawn Power in Chess, "The bad bishop is of more significance than the good one" because a bishop with adequate range deserves no particular attention and doesn't upset the balance. Any piece can become bad, even a rook - the only piece whose basic range is not dependent upon which square it occupies. On any square of an otherwise empty board it controls 14 squares. (In contrast, a bishop controls as many as 13 and as little as seven squares depending on where it stands.) But the addition of just a few pawns can make a rook very bad. Grigory Levenfish, co-author of a celebrated book about rook endings, gave himself an awful rook early in his career:

Black to play

Black to play

White's king is cut off from the queenside but he would be able to put up some defense after 1... �c4 2 : dl and :d2.

1...:d8! 2 �f3:d2 After 3 :bl Black WInS with 3 ... �c4 and ... �b3.

3 :a2!? This trap is transparent (3... �c4 4 b3+) - and flawed (4...�c3). But Black preferred:

3 ...:dl ! White' s rook has no move and is vulnerable to ...�c4-b3. Levenfish resigned after 4 �e2 :hl S �d3

:gl 6 c4 :g3+.

1...:xfS! 2 "'g2! Anand said White would be much worse after 2 lDxf5 ..i.xf5 and 3...lDd7 because Black's minor pieces are so well placed, particularly that bishop on f5.

2 ...a4 3 �a2 :f4! Black offers the rook on another square for a different piece: 4 .i.xf4? exf4 would serve two purposes, opening up a good diagonal for the g7-bishop while eliminating White's best defender of dark squares.

4 c3! White prepares to get his king to safety with 5 .i.e3 and 6 O-O�O. A difficult middlegame began with

GOOD AND BAD

4...:h4 S h3 .i.fS! 6 lDxfS gxfS 7 "'g6.

Mobility is so valuable that we efforts, extraordinary make including sacrifices, to make a piece exceptionally good. In the middle game, Exchange sacrifices have become common as a way of making a minor piece very good.

Even in the endgame, when pieces normally have their greatest range and material values are clearest, there are sacrifices to improve mobility. Fine said getting a rook to the seventh rank is worth a pawn.

Black to play

Black shouldn't be lost but he has a problem defending his attacked pawn and rook (l ...:a8 2 :b3 and :b7).

1 ...:c8! Now the rook is "good" enough to draw (2lDd4 �f7 3 :b3 a4) .

2 lDxa5 h6 Black can't seize the seventh rank for long because White has :£2. But he has sufficient counterplay with ...:cl + or ...g5. For example, 3 :£2 :c3 4 :a2 g5.

3 h4 :c1+ 4 �f2 lDc3 And Black drew comfortably after 5 lDb3 lDe4+ S �e2 :c2+ 6

�el :a2.

Another common form of endgame sack-for-mobility occurs with bishops of opposite color. Making a bishop good is often worth a pawn.



Our sense of beauty in chess is heavily hinged on that psychology of safety: We like to be shocked by moves that violate the "thou shalt not" rule yet win. The Romantics, both players and composers, reveled in startling moves that put the most valuable piece en prise. So did the player-composers, such as Adolf Anderssen. For instance:

Ruggeri Laderchi - Kosten Correspondence 200 1

Anderssen

1 1 cS! Black to play

White has no problems after the natural 1 ...i.g5 2 �f3 �d6 3 i.e4 �c5 4 i.c2. 1.

..

f3! 2 �xf3 i.g5

. At the cost of a pawn, Black opened a diagonal for . . .i.c I ! .

3 �g4 Black's bishop would win two queenside pawns and stop the third from becoming dangerous after 3 i.c6 i.cl 4 i.xa4 .i.xb2 5 c4 .i.xa3.

3...i.cl 4 �h5 �f6 Here White played 5 i.c6 and a draw was agreed in view of 5 . . .�g7 6 .i.xa4 i.xb2. A crucial contin uation would have been:

5 c4! i.xb2 Too slow is 5 ... �g7? because of 6 c5 .i.xb2 7 c6.

6 �xh6 i.xa3 7 .i.e4 �e5 8 i.bl �d4 9 g4 �c3! Black finds it useful to keep the c-pawn on the board to block White's bishop from the a2-g8 diagonal. This becomes significant after:

10 g5 �b2

1 846

27

Makaricbev - And. Sokolov Moscow 1 9 8 1

I e4 c5 2 ttJf3 e6 3 c3 d5 4 e5 d4 5 cxd4 cxd4 6 i.b5+ i.d7 7 ttJxd4 .gS 8 ttJf3 .xg2 9 :gl .b3 10 ttJc3 b6 1 1 d4 ttJe7 12 i.fl .hS 13 i.e2 ttJbc6 14 ttJe4 ttJfS IS a3 i.e7 16 ttJg3 ttJxg3 1 7 bxg3 .fS 18 i.d3 1fg4 19 i.e3 :d8 20 b4 a6 21 i.e2 .e4 22 ttJd2 'ii'h7 23 ttJb3 ttJb8 24 i.d3

Now it's White 's tum to sacrifice to open a diagonal.

1 1 ...i.xcS Not I l . ..�xb l ? because 1 2 c6 i.d6 1 3 g6 a3 1 4 g7 a2 1 5 gS Ci0 a l Ci0 1 6 .g6+ and .xd6 wins.

12 i.fS a3 13 i.e6 Thanks to the bishop 's ability to sacrifice itself at a2 White can draw ( 1 3 ...a2 14 i.xa2 �xa2 1 5 g6).

SAFETY MINDED There is a second limitation on mobility and it comes from another beginners' rule - Thou shalt not place a more valuable piece on a square attacked by a less valuable one. Tigran Petros ian said this saddles every player with a huge intellectual handicap: "It is precisely for this reason that a player doesn't think of how he can place his queen under attack of a pawn, or a rook under attack of a bishop. This is the greatest psychological difficulty which victimizes a player in the process of the struggle."

White to mate in five

The solution IS 1 .el!, preventing the e-pawn from promoting with check and thereby buying White two moves of freedom of action. For example, 1 dxel(if) 2 :d4 and 3 :a4+. .•.

But the practical player programs himself to screen out pretty moves. He uses his queen carefully because there are too many ways to lose value with it, giving up the queen for, say, a rook or bishop. He takes it for granted that the pieces may be developed in order of value: Pawns first, then knight, bishop, rook, and only then the queen. Concern for the queen's safety can lead a strong player to make his queen very bad.

24...'ii'g8? To avoid a huge material loss Black makes a concession in mobility that he hopes will be temporary. He is essentially playing without a queen for the foreseeable future. That meant White was free to take his time before oeening the center - 25 ttJaS b6 26 lLlc4 bS 27

ttJaS ttJc6 28 ttJb3 b5 29 .f3 h4 30 i.e4 ttJb8 31 ttJcS hxg3 32 fxg3 :c8 33 d5 exdS 34 i.xdS i.c6 35 0-0-0. It was only when Black tried

to activate his heavy pieces that he fell a.p art 3S ... :h2 36 :gfl i.xd5

37 1fxdS :c6 38 :hl 1f_ h7? 39 :xh2 .xh2 40 :hl Resigns. -

Moves like 24. ..•g8 are a form of temporary sacrifice. Instead of


pennanently giving up material for improved mobility, as in the diagrams on p.25-26, Black made a short-tenn mortgage of the queen's mobility in return for safety. There are times when the mortgage is a very good investment:

Porreca - Bronstein Belgrade 1 954

I e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 �c3 dxe4 4 �xe4 i.f5 5 �g3 i.g6 6 h4 b6 7 �h3 i.h7 8 i.c4 �f6 9 �f4 �bd7 10 0-0 "c7 1 l l:[e1 i.g8!


19 i.xd3 "d6 20 a5 a6 2 1 l:[aJ g5 22 h5 "f4 23 "e2 �c7 24 c3 l:[he8 25 �e4 �xe4 26 "xe4 "xe4 27 i.xe4 �f6 28 i.f3 g4.

For example, l . ....f6 2 e5 "f4 3 g3 ! "g4 4 l:[b l �g8 5 e6! fxe6 6 � e5 or 3 . ...f3 4 l:[b I "c3 5 f4 ! and 6 l:[d3 . .

1 . .... a2! 2 f4 i.xa4! The conclusion is that pieces have inherent value based on their mobility - but that mobility is often voluntarily reduced for good reason.

GOOD SACKS VS. BAD PIECES Whenever an opponent reduces the mobility of a piece - particularly a heavy piece - it changes, however minutely, the value of his forces rehttive to his opponent's. That means opportunities can arise elsewhere on the board to exploit the absence of a bad queen, bad rook, and so on. Exploiting those opportunities may take the fonn of a real sacrifice.

Lipnitsky Tolush -

Soviet Championship 1 950 Bronstein explained that when Black inevitably plays ... e6, he faces the prospects of a piece sacrifice on e6 for two pawns and a dangerous attack. His 1 1 th move avoids that, at the cost of temporarily taking the bishop off perhaps the best diagonal on the board.

Black, in appropriate desperation, allows his queen to be trapped. Spielmann said sacrifices have "the common aim of increasing the effectiveness of other pieces . . . if possible suddenly," and this fulfills the definition. Black needs to make it happen suddenly because the mortgage on the white queen's mobility won't last forever.

3 i.bl Not 3 bxa4? "xc4 4 d6 b3 (or 4 e5 i.xf4).

3 .....xb3 4 l:[d3 "xbl! Black is quite lost after 4 .....xd3 5 i.xd3 . By trading a pair of bishops he liberates his queenside pawns.

5 l:txbl i.c2 6 l:[bdl .i.xdJ 7 lhd3 l:[xe4 Ordinarily rook and three pawns are no match for a queen. But the piece at h2 isn't perfonning like a queen. After 8 d6 .i.xf4 9 'i6'h3 l:[xc4! 10 "c8 l:[d4! Black should not lose.

8 �d2 i.xf4 9 "h3 ):te2

16 "13 0-0-0 17 �g3 i.h7! 18 a4? i.xd3! Black doesn't give White a second chance for �e5 ! ' Black eventually won the ending after

Black to play

White has just played �c4. Both queens seem awkwardly placed but White's queen is actually in a good position to support e4-e5. That advance would win after the natural l .. ...f6 or l .....c3.

The queen finally gets to act like a queen (I l . ..l:[a8? 1 2 l:[xd2 i.xd2 13 "h4 ! g5 14 "e4+ and wins).

1 l ...l:[xd3 12 "xd3 .i.g5 13 "d5! �h6 14 "xg5+ �xg5 15 d8('i6')+ �h6 Black finally has material compensation. This is temporary since White can win the queenside pawns ( 1 6 'i6'h8+ �g5 1 7 ..� ! ). But White's lack of a passed pawn ensured a draw. Situations like that are admittedly rare. But don't miss the point: Since piece value is primarily based on mobility, whenever your opponent makes one or more pieces bad, he is giving you chances to force matters, through extraordinary measures, to reach a more favorable position. Here's a more dramatic example:

Korchnoi - Luther Essen 2002

1 d4 e6 2 c4 d5 3 �c3 c6 4 �f3 �f6 5 g3 dxc4 6 i.g2 �bd7 7 0-0 b5 8 i.gS i.b7 9 a4 Wb6 The queen is needed to defend the pawns and, in some cases, to stop a5-a6, e.g. ( 1 0 �e5 lld8 1 1 a5 "a6).

1 0 �e5 �xe5 1 1 as "a6 Black avoids I l . . :ii'c7 1 2 i.f4 �fd7 1 3 a6! at a cost that is temporary but (in tenns of mobility) considerable. His queen will not have a single safe move now.

12 �d3 e6 13 i.f4 i.d6 1 4 i.xd6 "xd6 15 �f5 "f8 The queen also joins in the mortgage. But now Black can castle and bring his pieces back to active squares.

29

12 dxeS �d5 13 �e4 h6 14 .i.e3 White acts boldly to stop 14 . . . c5 and prepare 15 i.c5, as well as a remarkable sacrifice based on the absence of an enemy queen.

10 d6! l:[xd2 1 1 d7

14 ...�xe3 15 fxe3 lld8 "xd8+!? �xd8 17 l:[xf7

16



lIel lbd7 14 g4 i.g6 15 ttJfl f6 16 ttJe3 i. f7 17 d4 l:teS IS d5! c4 19 b4! White shifts from confining the enemy bishop (9 h3, 1 0 d3 and 1 4 g4) to restricting the black knights. Now 1 9 ... cxb3 20 axb3 is worse, since White has a strong initiative after 2 1 i.d2 and 22 c4 .

It is understandable that neither player appreciated what was happening. Black continued

19 ...lbb7 20 a4 "ilc7 2 1 as! g6 22 h4 �g7 23 �g2 h6 24 lIhl lIhS 25 h5! gS

knights, White has a de facto superiority of material that wins.

26 ttJf5+ �f8 27 i.e3 l:th7 28 lbd2 i.gS 29 0 i.dS 30 i.f2 i.e7 31 lIhel i.dS Even if Black saw the unfolding elan ("fIfl , i.d l -e2, lbe3 and et'.I2xc4) he could do nothing to stop it because of the severe restriction that left him with virtually nothing but bishop moves. 32 "fl ! i.f7 33 i.dl! i.e8 34

.i.e2 l:teS 35 lbe3 lbbS 36 lb2xe4! bxe4 37 lbxe4

17 ... h4? 18 lIdl+ �e8? 19 l:tdd7 e3? missing superior moves

31

queen's vast mobility means a lot in an ending - particularly if there are pawns and pieces to attack or an open king to check. In the middlegame a bishop may enjoy a beautiful, clean diagonal. But if it doesn't have anything to hit, it can be inferior to a knight. This is a common theme in positions like the following.

1 d4 dS 2 e4 e6 3 ttJc3 lbf6 4 lbo i.b4 5 exdS exd5 6 i.gS tiJbd7 7 e3 cS 8 i.d3 "ilaS 9 "c2 c4 10 i.f5 0-0 1 1 0-0 l:teS 12 lbd2 g6 13 i.h3

-

( 1 7 ...i.b4; IS .....t>cS; 1 9 ... i.cS) that might have won. But then White played 20 lbd6+! and offered a draw. That was a blunder since Black was quite lost (20 ... i.xd6 2 1 exd6 cxb2? 22 l:tfe7+ �f8 23 l:td8 mate or 22 .. :ii'xa5 22 l:tde7+ �d8 23 l:txb7) thanks to the queen's predicament.

TARGETS The badness of heavy pieces is temporary, based on pawn structure and piece placement that is bound to change, like White's queen on p.28 or Black's queenside mess above. You also can make an opponent's minor pieces bad by changing the pawn structure. A sophisticated example of this was:

Bronstein Winiwarter -

Krems 1 967

1 e4 eS 2 ttJO ttJe6 3 i.b5 a6 4 i.a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 i.e7 6 'ife2 bS 7 i.b3 d6 S c3 i.g4 9 h3 i.h5 10 d3 0-0 1 1 ttJbd2 ttJaS 12 i.e2 e5 13

White's last six pawn moves were designed to deprive the black knights of squares. His ISth move took away ... ttJc6 (or ...ttJe6), his 1 9th drove a knight off a5, and his 20th and 2 1 st stopped ... ttJb6. The final steps, 22 h4 and 25 h5, made sure ...lbg6 was out of the question. And when Black kept the h-file closed with 25 ... g5, he completed the picture by denying himself ...lbf8-h7-g5. Black's knights have been virtually eliminated as a factor in the game. But one player's mobility - or lack of it - doesn't decide games. White still needs a target. Bronstein had one, c4. He can bear down on that square with maximum force (queen, bishop, two knights) and then sacrifice on it for two pawns. That opens the position sufficiently and, thanks to Black's clumsy

The pawns march on after 37 . . ...d7 38 lbb6 (or 38 lbe3) and i.xa6. Similarly 37 ...i.e7 38 lbb6 Ild8 39 i.xa6 lDxa6 40 "xa6, and the threat of 4 1 "ii-moves and 42 a6 is decisive. The game ended with:

37...i.bS 3s lbb6 i.xe2 39 "ilxe2 i.e7 40 ttJxcS "xe8 41 i.a7! ttJd7 42 "ilxa6 Resigns Max Euwe, and two co-authors, made a sweeping generalization in The Logical Approach to Chess:

"The value of a piece lies in its power of movement, and only in its power of movement. There are no exceptions to this rule." But as noted above, mobility alone doesn't win games. Mobility plus targets does. For example, a

13 ...�xe3! This seems out of synch with Black's 1 2th move. But on 14 "ilxc3 "xc3 1 5 bxc3 tiJe4 1 6 lbxe4 dxe4 Black stands well despite that nice dark-squared bishop at g5 with its range of six squares. After ...ttJb6 White may have to trade his light-squared bishop and Black's knight will be much more valuable at d5 than the sole surviving bishop.

14 bxc3 ttJe4 IS lbxe4 dxe4 Now 1 6 i.f4 lbb6! favors Black despite the bishop's range and the weakened dark squares on the kingside. Recent theory regards 1 6 i.xd7 ! �xd7 1 7 i.f4 as best. Then neither bishop has targets but 1 7 ...i.c6 1 8

32


dS � ? 1txdS 1 9 l:tfd l has been played to increase the scope of White's heavy pieces. Even in a relatively open position, two knights can outplay two bishops when the bishops don't have targets.

Petrosian - Borisenko

Soviet Championship 1 9S0

Black to play

Black will lose the d-pawn but he has good chances of saving the game with I...'ii'xd2+ 2 l:txd2 dS � . For instance, 3 !Dc7 dxc4 4 !Dxa8 cxb3 ! S axb3 l:txa8 and the target at b3 gives Black at least equality. Or 3 cxdS �d7 4 !Da3 (4 !Dbc3 c4! 5 bxc4 l:tfc8 but 4 lDd6 and !De4 may be best) as! s lbc4 l:tfb8 and ...a4.


The only question is whether Black can inflict damage on the kingside. He dido 't: 5. . .�e5 6 g3 g5 7 l:te1 l:td8+ 8

�e2! h5 9 �f2 f6 10 l:td1 l:ta8 1 1 a 4 h 4 1 2 !Dd5 hxg3+ 1 3 hxg3 � Id5 (or 1 3 ... l:tb8 14 !De7+ and !Dc6) 14 l:txd5 q;f7 15 l:td7+ �e6 16 l:tb7 and wins.

Mobility-plus-targets - that is the short-form defmition of piece value. There are other factors that influence material transactions such as piece trades and sacrifices, as we will see in the next three chapters. But basic decisions should weigh both mobility and the availability of targets. Taking an irrevocable step, such as a trade 0'£ pawns, can increase your pieces' mobility. But if it fails to meet the other standard it can be a positional blunder.

Popov - Nikolayevsky

Ukraine-Byeolorussia match 1 962

1 d4 !Df6 2 e4 e6 3 !Do b6 4 !Dc3 �b4 S 'ii'b3 e5 6 a3 �a5 7 �g5 'ii'c7 8 e3 �xc3+! 9 bxc3 !Dc6 10 �f4 d6

1...'ii'b6? 2 'ii'xd6 l:tfd8 3 'ii'xb6 l:txd1+ 4 �xd1 axb6 5 !Dec3 Black seems to have improved his chances by connecting his queenside pawns and gaining the half-open a-file. In reality, his chances have deteriorated since the diagram because his pieces have nothing to attack on the queenside. 'White's knights are in no way weaker than Black's bishops," wrote Boleslavsky in the tournament book.

A standard policy is 1 1 l:tdl and then I l ...eS 1 2 dxeS dxeS 1 3 �g3.

1 1 dxcS??

The mobility of White's rooks is enhanced but this leads to a positional rout. The reason is that White's chief target, at d6, is easily defended by Black's heavy pieces. But after 1 1 dxcS Black's chief target, c4, can be overwhelmed by Black's minor pieces. White's mobility has been improved but the net impact on targets is disastrous.

33

The game shifted sharply in Black's favor after:

16 .i.e3 �a6 17 !Dd2 !DaS 18 'ii'a 2 l:tab8 19 l:tdbl 'ii'd7 20 a4 'ii'e6 Following Purdy'S rule, White gave up the Exchange, rather than a pawn.

1 1 ...bIcS 12 �e2 0-0 13 0-0 !Dd7! 14 e4 !Db6 lS l:tfdl e5

21 l:tbS! .i.xbS 22 nbS !Db7 23 'ii'b3 !De8 24 l:ta6 'ii'd7 25 'ii'a 2 !Dd8 26 !Dn

Black must win the c4-pawn be.cause he can attack it with four pieces, while White can only defend with three.

�g4 !De6 29 0 a6! 30 'ii'a4 !Da7.

But he never got a chance to continue with .i.f2 and !De3-dS and lost after 26 ... l:tb6 27 l:taS 'ii'b7 28

Board Range

some experience with larger boards. After Jose Capablanca famously proposed refonns in chess that required a l O-by- I O board he was induced to experiment with a much bigger one.

CHAPTER 3: BOARD RANGE We've seen how pieces can temporarily lose value because of the confining presence of nearby pieces and pawns. But there is a more fundamental limitation on a piece's mobility, one that lasts throughout a game, even after all pawns are gone. This is, of course, the size of the board. The mobility of three of the pieces is closely tied to the board's size. On a smaller board the queen, bishop and rook become weaker. On a larger board they increase in range. This was one of the unexpected results of early research in computer chess. In 1956 a computer program was run at the Los Alamos National Laboratory using a six-by-six board. The scaled-down game was played without bishops. White's first rank pieces from a 1 to fl were rook, knight, queen, king, knight and rook, the same as Black's lineup on the opposite edge, from a6 to f6. The pawns in front of them could only move one square on their first tum and there was no castling. Maniac, programmed by Stan Ulam and running on a Univac Maniac computer, beat its human opponent in this poorly played but historic game:

Maniac-Human

Los Alamos 1 956

1 d3 b4 2 4::l0 d4 3 b3 e4 4 4::le 1 a4 5 bxa4? 4::lxa4 6 'it'd2? 4::lc3 7 4::lxc3 bxc3+ 8 'it'dl f4 9 83 l:tb6?

Black has a substantial edge in space and can use it with 9 .. .'ir'a4 ! .

10 a4 :a6 1 1 a s �dS 12 .&3 'ii'b s 13 .a2+ 'it'eS 14 l:bl? l:l8S 15 l:xbS l:txa2 16 l:bl l:aS 17 0 l:a4? Black could have stalemated the enemy kings ide with 1 7 . . . e3 ! and then overwhelmed the queenside with, for example, .. :lf5, ... �f6 and ...l:td5-d6-a6. . .

18 fxe4 c4?? 19 4::l0+ 'it'd6 20 eS+ �dS 21 exf6('ii') 4::lcS 22 .xd4+ 'it'c6 23 4::leS mate If you experiment with this mini-chess, you may be surprised to discover that the knight is much better than a rook - and nearly as good as a queen. The knight's range hasn't changed, of course. But the scope of other pieces has been sharply reduced by the smaller board. The reverse happens, to a lesser degree on boards that are larger than eight-by-eight. In Shogi, played on a nine-by-nine board, only the rook and bishop are the same as our pieces. But they are by far the strongest pieces on the 8 1 -square board. A typical chart of relative values for Shogi would start with pawn=one, as with our game, and go up to rook= 1 5 and bishop= 1 3 . They dominate the short-range pieces. We don't play chess on a nine-by-nine board but there is

In 1929 Capablanca and Geza Maroczy played four exhibition games of another chess variant on a 1 6-by- 1 2 board: Each side had two full annies on their first ranks (two kings, two queens, four rooks, four knights, four bishops) behind 1 6 pawns each. In other words, there was twice as much material as in a nonnal game, occupying a board that was three times as large. Otherwise the rules were normal. The winner was the first to checkmate a king. Capablanca and Maroczy played conservatively in the first game. They kept their rooks and queens on their first two ranks and arrayed the bishops no further than the third rank for most of the game. The long-range pieces were therefore very long in range - enjoying control of ten-square-Iong files and diagonals in some cases. The flTst capture of pieces, a trade of bishops, occurred at move 25 and Capablanca didn't gain the fir�t material edge, an extra pawn, until the 58th move. The game became a rout seven moves later and Capa delivered mate on move 93. What does this experiment tell us about material? Just as with Maniac's mini-chess, board range had altered piece values. Bishops were considerably stronger than knights, for example. Pawns were only significant in the way they

35

sealed off parts of the board. They had virtually no offensive power. Perhaps because of their uncertainty about values, the two seemed masters avoid to imbalances. There was only one "sacrifice" - giving up a bishop for a knight. Altogether Capablanca won two games and drew two. One further comparison is worth considering. In Xiangqi, or Chinese chess, pieces occupy intersections rather than squares. There are nine files and 10 ranks in our sense of the words, and as a result there are 90 points that can be occupied, nearly 50 percent more than our 64 squares. This benefits the Chinese chariot, which moves and captures like our rook. It is not only the strongest piece on the board but at least twice as strong as any other piece, including the horse, which moves like our knight. The horse gains nothing from the larger board, but the chariot clearly does.

EIGHT BY EIGHT So what? We're stuck with an eight-by-eight board, aren't we? True, but board range should influence our decisions, particularly from the late middlegame on. For example, if all the pawns on one wing are liquidated, the short-range pieces will benefit at the expense of long-range pieces. The action is limited to a smaller battleground. This was a lesson from the first Petrosian-Botvinnik game.

36 Board Range

Petrosian-Botvinnik

Soviet Championship 1 95 1

White to play

In a difficult position White's best appears to be 1 "e5. B lack's pressure is reduced if he allows a trade of queens or, after 1 . . ...c5 2 ':g7, a trade of rooks.

l "xd5! This may be less risky than 1 "e5. White forces queens off the board at the cost of the Exchange.

1. ..xd5 2 ':xd5 J.c6 3 J:tlh5 J.xd5 4 ':xd5 ':e7 5 ':e5 J.h6 6 ':e4 'J:tc6 7 ':xa4 ':exe6 ..

Because there are pawns on only one wing, basic technical principles are altered. A trade of rooks is normally a boon to a player with an Exchange advantage. But here a trade would ease White's defense. With the targets limited to one wing, long-range pieces are less signif icant.

Board Range

comparing mobility with range. They are not the same thing. A knight may have just as many legal moves as a bishop in a typical middlegame. But because it cannot influence events four or five squares away, we tend to regard the bishop as superior. When play is confined to one wing, range is no longer a top priority. Knights and kings are the big winners when the board is shortened. The rooks and bishops, like Botvinnik's in the last example, may have more range (because there are fewer obstructions) but less impact. "When is a bishop stronger than a knight?" Larsen asked in the Piatigorsky Cup 1 966 tournament book. "In an open position, say the books, but they should add, if there is play on both sides of the board." We know that giving up a bishop for a knight can be a serious error in a game with action on both wings. Trading a knight for bishop can be just as great an error in a one-wing game.

Piket - Kasparov

KasparovChess Grand Prix 2000

Black avoided the rook trade but after 2 1 inconsequential moves he invited it. That didn't help him either and a draw was agreed 26 moves after that. White to play

would have expansion).

stopped

his

pawn

Korchnoi - Antoshin

Soviet Championship 1955

However, in this position it is the location of the pawns, not the number, that matters.

1 ':xd3? White's knight is superior to the bishop because the only targets lie on the kingside. The white pawns screen the bishop from playing a major role. White would have had excellent winning chances after 1 ':a7 ! . For example, l .....e6 2 ':b2 (intending 3 ':b6) ':4d7 3 ':xd7 ':xd7 4 ':b6 "e8 5 liJg4 "d8 6 ':c6 followed by ':c8 or liJe5.

1 .:xd3 2 liJxd3 'ir'xd3 3 ':a2 'ifb3! 4 "c2 "xc2+ 5 ':xc2 h5! ...

Thanks to White's faulty exchange Black should hold. The endgame is a book draw with best play and the reason is . . . board range. Specifically it is Black's defensive range that matters. His pieces have enough reach to defend against a passed white pawn and also to protect Black's own pawns. Under normal conditions, a rook ending with four kingside pawns against three is not a win as many examples have shown.

8 ':e4 ':f6

To appreciate what happens when the board is shortened, it is worth

Timoshchenko's database survey indicated that the average bishop is equal to the average knight when there are · four pawns each on the board. If there are more pawns, the knight is better. Fewer pawns, the bishop is better. (Kaufman's survey said the break-even point was five, not four.)

37

In the next position White has one of the best versions of this ending you can get because of the pawn structure (no earlier . . . h5! that

Black to play

Yet he cannot create a meaningful passed pawn. The action is limited to such a small theater that Black's king doesn' t have to do anything except stand in the way of a passed pawn - if one is created.

1. .:a2+! 2 ¢'e3 ':a3+! 3 ¢'d4 •.

Black can draw with 3 ....:0 ! , e.g. 4 ¢'e5 f6+ 5 ¢'f5 ':fl followed by . . .':f2-fl -f2 etc, as pointed out by Levenfish and Smyslov. White can't even create a passed pawn. (In the game Black allowed his opponent a winning passer, 3 .:g3?? 4 ':1'8! f6 .•.

5 e5! ':xg4 6 e6 ':xf4+ 7 'itJd5 ':f5+ 8 �d6 ':xh5 9 e7).

But see what happens if we enlarge the theater of action: Shift one of White's pawns to the other wing in the last diagram and Black's defenses are stretched to their limit. His king cannot both blockade the passed pawn and defend the kingside. This is true even if he has an otherwise good pawn formation.

38 Board Range

Spassky - Antoshin Sochi 1 965

Board Range

emphasis shown by the last two diagrams - and the next few.

If we shift the e-pawn one file over:

KINGS AND WINGS The king is a superb defender when the action is limited to a small chunk of terrain. But it may fail miserably when called on to cover squares two or more files away. Carlo Salvioli applied this to bishops of opposite color endings in a pair of studies in 1 887. White to play

The rook will defend the g-pawn and be able to interpose on b3 . The crucial test of White's strategy arises in the pawn ending after 1 l ...�f5 1 2 l::tb3 l::txb3 1 3 �xb3 �e6 14 �b4 �d6. It is won for White after 1 5 �a5 �c7 16 �a6 �b8 1 7 �b6! f6 1 8 �c6. In the game Black tried 11 ...�f5 12 l::tb3 l::te2+ 13 �d5 c;t>g4. But

once his rook was driven into submission he ended up losing on the kingside (14 b6 l::te8 15 b7 l::tb 8

16 �e5! f5 17 �f6 f4 18 gxf4 �xh4 19 �xg6 �g4 20 f5 h4 21 f6 h3 22 n h2 23 l::tb l and wins).

Board range is a factor more often in the late middlegame and ending than at any other time. Endgame haters will have to forgive the

short-range pieces suffer as the middlegame turns to ending, the rook prospers. Richard Reti explained Tarrasch's rule about rooks belonging behind passed pawns in these words: "The chief reason for this is that when it is placed behind the pawn, every move made by the pawn increases the rook's field of action, and, on the contrary, when it is placed in front, every move of the pawn will diminish the rook's effectiveness." For example:

Black to play. White wins.

Black has a fine pawn configuration and an optimal square for his rook. Nevertheless, White can make steady progress because he can afford to bring his king to the queenside while Black cannot.

1 �g2 l::td2 2 �f3 :e2 3 l::tb6 l::td2 4 �e3 l::te2 S b4 l::tb2 6 bS �f8 7 l::tb7 �g7 8 �d4! �xf2 9 l::te 7! l::tb2 10 �e4 �f6 1 1 l::te3!

39

This is a win because the defender's king won't be close enough on d8 to stop both pawns. 1 . ..�d8

White to play. Black draws.

Black draws because his king can reach a dark square, d8, that is close enough to both pawns to stop an advance.

1 �e6 .i.b4 2 .i.e4 �d8 Black draws as long as his bishop remains on the a3-f8 diagonal. For example 3 �f7 .i.a3 4 e6 .i.b4 and so on. Vladimir Simagin, the Soviet theoretician, once tried to establish a rule of thumb - literally - for such positions. He said if you cannot touch both pawns with the outstretched fingers of one hand, the position is a win. He meant if there are at least three files separating the pawns. Actually, a two-file separ ation is sometimes a draw and sometimes a win.

If the bishop goes to the other diagonal, l .. ..i.h4 2 �e6 �d8 3 f6 .i.g5, White exploits the short range of the black king with 4 f7 .i.e7 5 c7+! �xc7 6 �xe7 or 4... .i.h6 5 �f6 .i.f8 6 �g6 and �h7-g8. The king can never defend the bishop on f8 because of c6-c7 .

2 c;t>e6 .i.b4 3 f6 .i.a5 All bishop passes are the same. 5 f7 .i.b4 The bishop is better off now than on e7, as in the note to 1 ...�d8. But it fails to stop White's winning maneuver.

6 �f6! .i.c3+ 7 �g6

White to play

If this were Black's move he would obtain the edge with 1 . . .:a4 ! and then 2 l::td 1 d4.

1 a4! The rook at a 1 both protects this pawn and supports its advance. Each further step by the pawn gives the rook more range.

1...l::te4 2 a5 l::tc7

Now 7 ... �e7 allows 8 c7, and 7 ... .i.b4 allows 8 �g7 and 9 f8�+.

Black must blockade the pawn since l ...d4 3 a6 d3 4 a7 d2 5 a8� is with check.

RANGE AND TECHNIQUE

3 a6 l::ta7 4 �f2 �f8 5 �e3 �e7 6 �d4 �d6 7 l::ta5

Board range has a great impact on basic endgame principles, partic ularly endings with rooks. While the

The rook threatens to take on d5 with check. If 7 ...�c6 then 8 g4 begins to squeeze Black.

40 Board Range

The rook's range also explains the "checking distance." This is a vital defensive technique when a rook is trying to battle a king and passed pawn single-handedly. A minor piece cannot hold up the pawn's advance but a rook can if it has sufficient distance.

Board Range

saying sufficient board range. But in the latter, he doesn't. The battle between the rook and king/pawn has been shortened to four ranks rather than five and this makes all the difference.

with a queen but then 22 lDxe6 "xe6 23 e5 threatens i.d5.

22 �e3 "ad7?

WHEN THE BOARD IS TOO SMALL

White to play wins. Black to play draws.

If it is Black's tum to move, he bars any White progress with 1 ...:cS+! followed by attacking either the king or pawn on each subsequent move. The key point is that after 2 �d5 l1bS 3 �c5 l1cS+ 4 �b6 l:bS+ White must either relinquish the pawn or retreat to a5 or c5 and allow further checks. But if it is White's move he can force the pawn to the seventh rank beginning with 1 b5 ! . Then the battle between rook and king+pawn is limited to four ranks, not five and that makes all the difference. The checking defense fails: 1 ...11cS+ 2 �d5 :bS 3 �c6 l:cS+ and now 4 �b7! followed by 5 b6 after the rook moves. Depending on what is happening in other sectors of the board, that is likely enough for White to win. In the first situation Black has the checking distance - another way of

If there is action on both wings, we can draw some conclusions about board range and the total amount of material. Reducing the number of pieces and pawns by trades may increase the value of long-range pieces because they suffer the most from traffic. A corollary is: Increasing the amount of material can reduce their value. But how can the sum of material increase? Through promotions: The board can be too small for a second queen.

Reshko - Faibisovich

Leningrad Spartakiad 1 969

This is why he preferred 1 7 i.c3 to 1 7 i.xfS �f8. But he exaggerated the value of the bishop. The most important factor here is not the piece at c3 but the clumsiness of the extra queen on such a busy board. White believed 1 7 ...f5 was necessary. But then I S lDe3 "a4 1 9 l:a l "ad7 20 i.a5! is difficult for Black because the queens get in the way (20 ...lDc7 2 1 lLld5 l:b7 22 e5 l1a7? 23 e6 !).

17.....a4 Better is 1 7 . . . f6 with idea of I S f5 g5 after which 1 9 h4 h6 20 lDe3 "a4 2 1 lLlg4 is unclear.

IS f5 f6 19 11'h6 1 c4 g6 2 �c3 c5 3 g3 i.g7 4 i.g2 �c6 5 e4 d6 6 d3 lDf6 7 lDge2 0-0 S 0-0 a6 9 h3 l1bS 10 f4 lLleS 1 1 i.e3 lDd4 It is hard to imagine now but Black will have a second queen in five moves. 1 2 "d2 b5 13 l1ael b4 14 lDdl

b3 15 i.xd4 bxa2 16 i.xg7 al(11') 17 i.c3!

"For the queen White has all of two minor pieces," Reshko wrote. "But the main thing is the dark-squared bishop which has no opponent on an important diagonal."

4J

Here 1 9 ... g5 is risky because of 20 e5 and i.d5+.

19 ... e5 Black wants to defend his kingside with heavy pieces along the second rank, ...l:b7 or even . . ...d7-g7. But better was 1 9 ... gxf5 20 exf5 i.b7 because Black can meet lDf4-e6 with ... lDg7. 20 fIe6 i.xe6 2l lDf4 i.n An easier imbalance to understand is 2 1 ... lLlg7? 22 "xg7+ �xg7 23 lLlxe6+ and lLlxdS, with three pieces for a queen and a likely win. Black could have defended the bishop

Black should eliminate the bishop with 23 ...:b3 and 24 . . .l1xc3, creating yet another imbalance, "-vs.-:+i., just like what White could have had with 1 7 i.xfS. Although Black would be ahead in material, his second queen hurts him and the outcome would be unclear.

23 �g4 :b3 24 �h5! i.e6 Or 24 ... gxh5 25 lLlxf6+ lLlxf6 26 i.xf6 and after Black gives up a queen he is at least a pawn down.

25 l:xf6! "Se7 Black resigned

before 26 :xg6+! . This i s an extreme situation but it's a useful demonstration of the relation between the amount of material and an eight-by-eight board. The presence of so many pawns and pieces plainly damaged Black's chances. But a second queen also finds itself with too much company on a slightly more open, less congested board

Karpov - Korchnoi Dortmund 1 994

Black to play

42 Board Range

1 ... .i.h6! 2 f7 .i.xf4! There are two kinds o f queen sacrifices here. Black offers to give up his queen but, alternatively, allows White to promote a pawn. In the first sack, Black would mate after 3 fS(lO)+ 'ith6 4 lOxe6 .i.xe3+ 5 �h l �b l .

Board Range

Korchnol - German Stockholm 1 962

Sadler - Kaidanov Andorra 1 99 1

White must refuse the offer with 4 gxf4, which might save him because of 4 ...'ii'c8 5 'ii'c5 ! 'ii'xc5 6 lOf5+ �h5 7 lOg7+ or 4 ...'ii'17 5 lOxg4+ <j;g7 6 a6.

3 f8{'ii'} ? .i.xe3+ 4 'iirh l .i.h6 5

'ii'f2 .i.g7

The second sacrifice - allowing White to promote - leaves Black with rook, bishop and pawn. That is enough or nearly enough compensation for the queen, depending on which chart or master you ask. But here there is an additional factor - the presence of an extra pair of queens. White's second queen failed to live up to its book value and his position quickly collapsed:

6 a6 l:tf3 7 'ii'e 1 .i.xa6 8 .i.e2 l:tli 9 'ii'c5 c3! 10 'ii'cxc3 .i.xe2 1 1 'ii'xe2 'ii'f6 1 2 'ii'c1 .i.h6 13 'ii'b 1 'ii'fS 14 �gl l:tc7 White resigns Korchnoi recalled afterward how he reached a comparable position at his first Interzonal tournament (see

n ext diagram).

The game was adjourned here in what should be a materially favorable position for White. But before play could be resumed Korchnoi offered a draw, which was accepted.

one of them for what would normally be considered insufficient compensation. This is a theme in those strange opening lines in which both players promote.

White to play

"During the analysis I discovered something very remarkable: the board is simply too small for two queens ... They get in each other's way," he wrote. "I realize that might sound stupid, but I fully mean it. The advantage is much less than one would expect by counting material."

It may not arise often, but there is a practical application here: If you find yourself with two queens, it pays to look for a chance to sack

traded one pair of gueens with 18 ... 'ii'ee3 19 'ii'xc3 "xc3 but he was a pawn down and lost after 20 lOf3 lOe4 21 'ii'xli. Perhaps the most dramatic demonstration of the ineptitude of two queens was this fossil:

Franz - Mayet

1 d 4 d 5 2 c4 e6 3 lOc3 c 6 4 e3 lOf6 5 lOI3 lObd7 6 .i.d3 dxc4 7 .i.xc4 b5 8 .i.e2 .i.b7 9 e4 b4 10 e5 bxe3 1 1 exf6 exb2! 12 fxg7! bxal{'ii'} 13 gxh8{'ii'} 'ii'a5+

Berlin 1 858

Now 14 .i.d2 'ii'xdl + 1 5 .i.xdl 'ii'f5 is fairly normal and fairly even.

14 lOd2 'ii'f5 15 0-0 0-0-0 16 'ii'b3 lOe5 17 'ii'b4 'ii'c2? Also poor is 17 ... .i.d6? 18 lOc4 ! but 1 7 ... .i.e7 1 8 'ii'g7 .i.f6 may equalize

18 'ii'f6! !

His decision to offer a draw was not just a matter of mobility but also of targets. Normally a queen loves to have a lot of material on the board, the more the better, because it increases the number of enemy targets for double attacks. But in positions like this there isn't enough unprotected material for a second queen to be worth as much as the first queen. If you could somehow remove a pair of queens from the board, White has winning chances. One good plan would be to swap a pair of rooks and bring his king to a square near d6.

43

White to play

White has just promoted on fS . According to a popular German chart of the day - 'ii'=9, l:t=4Ih, .i. or lO 3 - he is ahead by two units. Yet the real key to the game is the d-pawn. If White captures it safely, he wins. =

1 'ii'f3+?

The main point is that 1 8 . . . lOd7, which attacks both queens, allows 19 'ii'xb7+! �xb7 20 'ii'xd8 'ii'xd4 2 1 lOb3 ! with a winning initiative (2 l . ..'ii'd6?? 22 lOa5 mate or 2 l . ..'ii'd5 22 .i.f3 'ii'dd3 23 .i.xc6+! �xc6 24 lOd4+ 'ii'xd4 25 'ii'c8+ and 26 'ii'xc2). White would have a big positional edge after quiet moves, such as 1 8. . .l:td7 1 9 lOb3. Therefore Black

Savielly Tartakower wrote that it was "hard to believe that the two queens cannot, between them, engineer a perpetual check." In fact, the queens can do more than check. They would win with I 'ii'cf5+! 'iird4 2 'ii'f2+ �d5 3 'ii'8f7+ �d6 4 'ii'xh7 or 3 . . .l:te6 4 'ii'2 f3+.

1 ...ct>d4 2 'ii'efS l:te3 Now 3 'ii'd7+ �c5 4 'ii'xh7 favors White slightly.

3 'ii'3e4+ 'it>c5 4 'ii'f8+ l:td6 5 'ii'f2+ l:td4

44 Board Range

The chances have tilted in Black's favor, e.g. 6 'ii'ee3 b4 and ... b3 .

6 'ii'f8+? .i.d6 7 'ii'f2. d2!

'iPe4 16 'ii'f3 + �d4 17 'iPxh7 'iPc4 18 'ii'e4+ l:d4 19 'ii'c2+ 'iPdS 20 'ii'fS+ .i.eS 21 'ii'f3 + 'iPc4 22 'ii'd l l:d3 23 h4

CHAPTER 4: COOPERATION AND REDUNDANCY

To stop the d-pawn White must sacrifice his queen. The resulting position is roughly equal in tenns of material but the d-pawn decides.

8 'ii'xc6+ 'iPxc6 9 'ii'xd4 l:cS+ 10 'iPh6 l:dS? The king needs d6 to escape checks. With IO ....i.f4+! I I 'iPxh7 l:d5 he promotes without much difficulty. There followed:

1 1 iVb6+ 'iPd7 12 iVb7+ 'iPe6 13 'ii'c8+ 'iPeS 14 'ii'h8+ 'iPf4 15 'l'f6+

23 .i.c3 24 hS l:e3 ••.

Black wins with . . .l:e 1 and White has only two more checks.

What doomed White was a failure to appreciate a fundamental principle: Pieces become more valuable when they work together ( I 'ii'c f5+!) but less valuable when they duplicate the work of one another. That principle deserves its own chapter.

The final factor that influences piece values is the mix of material on the board. Some aggregations of pieces will increase the worth of each piece because they cooperate well. Other mixtures will depreciate their values because pieces duplicate the work of one another. They become redundant.

A lone piece, even a queen,

suffers from lack of cooperation. This often surprises the beginner, who quickly appreciates the awesome power of a queen. When placed in the center of an empty board a queen controls 27 squares. But a rook and bishop will control up to 27 squares. Why is the queen generally considered so much more valuable than a rook and a bishop? The answer lies in positions like this.

If it is White's move, he wins with I 'ii'd8+ and 2 'l'd3+/3 'ii'x b5.

The queen acts like two pieces. In truth, it perfonns the work of three. On its first move it is a dark-squared bishop. On the secor,d, it becomes a rook. And on the third it's a light-squared bishop. In this case, the queen's huge chart value is justified. But if it is Black's turn, he has the edge with 1. l:gS!, e.g. 2 iVb4 .•

.i.xg2+ 3 'iPh2 .i.dS.

The frrst situation shows the concentrated power of a single piece: When the queen can execute a double attack, one piece beats two. The second situation shows the rewards of cooperation: When the pieces cooperate to attack a single target, then two beats one. Players often think that once they capture the enemy queen for insufficient compensation, the win is very easy. It usually isn't because in the absence of double attacks, the queen needs the assistance of a second piece. Even a pawn, supported by a king in an endgame, is safe against a lone queen. The queen can stop the pawn's advance by occupying a square in front of it, or through pins and checks. But it cannot win the pawn without help. Nor can the queen deliver mate by itself under nonnal circumstances.

46 Cooperation and Redundancy

Moissenko - Hector Plovdiv 2003


checks. A move like 7 . . . :g1 or 7 .. .l:th 1 was necessary.

queen can suffer as a result of "equal" exchanges (minor piece-for identical-piece or pawn-for-pawn) because there are fewer targets left to attack. On the other hand, it can profit hugely by material transactions that create new targets.

Nisipeanu - Bruzon Moscow 200 1

47

White overlooks a second and even stronger chance, 2 :a7 ! . Then 2 . . . ttJd8 3 :a8 and 4 :xd8+ brings about 'if+28s vs. :+38s. This ending is relatively unexplored but experience (such as Korchnoi Sakharov, Soviet Championship 1 964-65) indicates White should win without enormous difficulty. Note that 2 ...:b l + 3 �h2 �e5 + 4 g3 :fl is ho.peless because of 5 'it'e8+ �g7 6 'it'xe6.

2 �g7 3 :87 :b1+ 4 �h2 �e5+ 5 g3 :b2+ 6 �hl :b1+ 7 �g2 :b2+ ..•

White to play

White is the equivalent of a rook ahead but seems to need a blunder from his opponent or the cooperation of his own king and queen in order to win. It turns out that he needed both.

1 5! gxf5 After 1 . . . exf5? 2 e6 fxe6 White wins with 3 'iff6+ �gS 4 'ifxe6+ �g7 5 'ifd7+ 'it'g8 6 Wd5+ �g7 7 'itb7+ and then 7 ... 'it'g8? 8 'itb3+ or 7 . . .�f8 S 'ifxh7. The toughest defense is 7 .. .'t>h8 but then 8 'it't7! threatens 'iff8 mate and forces Black to put his rook on a vulnerable square (S . . . :c8 9 'iff6+ and 1 0 'ife6+).

2 'ifd4 :82 3 'ifb4 White secures the fourth rank from checks before advancing the king. 3

...

:c2 4 �f4 :e2 5 'ifc3 'it'g8?

If Black is not going to keep the rook on his second rank he should safeguard it on a square like a2.

6 'ifd3 :el 7 'ifd2 :81?? Rooks are often placed at remote squares like this in order to be able to deliver both file and ranks

8 g6! hxg6 9 �g5 �g7 10 -.h2 Resigns

Black clearly has no choice but to keep on checking.

The threat of 1 1 'ifh6+, 1 2 �f6 and 1 3 'ifg7 mate wins. Only in chess variants and problems are there super-queens that can mate by themselves. In the 1 7th century Pietro Carrera - the Sicilian whose analysis of 1 e4 c5 gives us the name of that defense suggested that chess adopt a new piece, a combined bishop and knight called a Centaur. Other versions of this piece have been proposed over the years with names such as a Prime Minister, Princess, Cardinal, Wazir and Baron. Whatever it is called, the �-plus-ttJ piece would be able to mate a cornered king single-handedly (e.g. on f6 vs. �hS). Our queen has more mobility and board range. But the �-plus ttJ's ability to mate by itself makes it about the same in value. Centaur aside, the huge value we place on our queen is justified only when there are opportunities for double attack. Among the practical applications: When one player has a queen and his opponent doesn't, the

8 �hl :b1+ 9 �g2 :b2+ 10

�f1

White to play

White has just liquidated pawns and won one in the bargain. That leaves him with a material edge of about two units, which is usually about enough to win by force.

1 :xa6?

10 :f2+!

But he misses an opportunity to put the game away. After 1 :xe6! fxe6 2 -'xe6+ rt;g7 3 'ifd7+ he must win another pawn because 3 . . .�gS?? allows the queen to act like a queen (4 'ifd6!).

This would fail, of course, if the white rook were protected (2 :a7 !). But now on 1 1 �el ? .txg3, Black can begin thinking about playing for a wm.

Then 3 . . .�f8 4 'ifxh7 :xb2 5 'ifxg6 or 4 . . .g5 5 'iff5 �g7 6 'ifd7+ �f8 7 'ife6! �g7 8 b3 is a probable win. This kind of rook-for-pieces -and-pawns liquidation - hardly a sacrifice - is a common theme in 'if-vs.-pieces endings.

A draw was agreed after another 25 moves. White's king managed to get to e8 but because Black played ... �f6 and ... ttJe5, it couldn't get any further.

1 ...l:bb2 2 'ife8+?

.•.

11

�If2 �d4+

12 �f3 �xa7

If there is no chance for double attack - because the enemy king is


shielded from checks, for example an unassisted queen is inferior to two rooks. This puzzles beginners because they can see that two rooks on central squares - say d4 and e5 of an otherwise empty board will control 28 squares. That's only one square more than a queen or :+�. Why is the queen inferior to the rooks but better than :+�? The best explanation here is two beats one if the two cooperate. The rooks' power is devastating when they can double against a target.


two pawns (7 . . .:e6 8 a5 :de8 9 a6 :xe5 t o 'ifb7 :xh5+ 1 1 �g 1 and a6-a7). He would win with 8 . . .:a8 ! .

1 ... :cc8! 2 a4 :a8 3 1kc7 lIdc8 4 'ih>7 :e8! Black will win one of the pawns if his rooks are allowed to team up (5 'ifb5 :e6 and ... :ea6 or . . .:ae8).

S "c6! ]:tac8 6 "d7 :cd8! Now 7 'ifb5 ! gives White chances - but only if Black corrupts his rook cooperation by grabbing

Riga 1 995

now

8 ... :dxeS 9 a6 l:tSe7! Again it is better to keep the rooks coordinated than limited to the first rank, as they would be after 9 ...:xh5+ 10 �g l l:td5 1 1 a7 l:tdd8.

Now on 1 5 . . ...g 1+ White reaches positions like the game with 1 6 �h5 and 1 7 lLlg5+/1 8 �g6. The end was:

IO "c6 :f8! Black to play

Linares 1 998

Material is roughly equal but White is lost because a queen is awful at defending isolated pawns against doubled rooks.

Ivanchuk - Short

7 "c7 :dS 8 as It doesn't really matter which pawn White loses first.

Shirov - Anand

Black to play

49

With one rook safe on this square, Black cannot be stopped from doubling on the a-file ( 1 1 ..,, 6 :a8 and ...:ea7) The game lasted another 1 1 moves and could have been stretched out well beyond that. But the outcome was clear after 1 1 �h3 :a7 1 2 g4 :fa8 1 3 �h4 :xa6 followed by putting a rook on g5 and engineering ... 5 ! .

TEAMWORK Cooperation always increases the total value of pieces value, even if only marginally. The whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts, as Lasker put it. You would think computers would appreciate this but they rarely do.

White is materially better but by a fairly small amount. In addition, there are positional factors that help Black. White's pawns are shattered and his king must help the pieces to advance them. But activating the king would increase the prospect of a double attack or perpetual check. Black would seem to have good drawing chances.

I fS! �f7 2 l:tg3 "hI 3 h3 "e4 4 :g4 "hI However, after White takes a few steps to put his house in order, he is winning. His progress is inexorable.

S h4 "h2 6 lLlfl ! "eS+ "dS+ 8 :e4

7

�f3

IS .....d7 16 lLlgS+ �g8 17 �hS "d8 18 �g6 "d7 19 hS 'ih>s 20 lLle4 Resigns There was no answer to 2 1 lLld6 and 22 l:te8+. whole-is-greater-than-theThe sum principle also explains why some grossly one-sided endgames are much tougher to win than you would think. Even with only seconds left on his clock, Kasparov's task seemed to be mindlessly easy in the following. It wasn't. He didn't use his pieces well and neither did Krarnnik. The result was a comedy of errors:

Kasparov - Kramnik

Paris Grand Prix 1994

Computers tend to regard White's advantage as less than a pawn until move 1 4 - when, in fact, BIack has been lost for some time. Play continued:

8 .....d1+ 9 �g2 "dS 10 lLlg3 "c6 1 1 �h3 "c2 12 f3 "dl 13 �g4 "gI 14 l:te6 "d4+? The only way to prolong matters was 1 4 .....f2 so that 1 5 lLle4 "g2+.

IS lLle4

White to play


Having just promoted on b8, White's queen should restrict Black (1 "'g8 !).

1 "'f8? A queen can't easily overwhelm a knight ( l ...�g5 2 �d5 lLlh4 or 2 �e7 �g4 3 �f6 �f4).

1...�g4? 2 "'g7+ �f4 3 �d5 �e3? With 3 ...lLlg5 Black can still pose roblems (but 4 "'c7+ �g4 5 �e5 p li) f3+ 6 �f6 should suffice).


�c4 and 3 "'h5, followed by "'xf7 mate. It isn't the superiority in

range or "value" that mates Black. It is two pieces attacking a square, f7, that has one defender. This is the theme of numerous basic combin ations, such as last-rank mates and cases like:

Vallejo Pons - Spassov

Even posItions that seem perfectly sound can tum out to be vulnerable once their lack of coordination is exposed. In the next diagram Black's pieces appear more active yet they don't connect to one another. His queen would serve better, for example, at b6 where it protects his other pieces and the a-pawn and prepares ...l:td8.

Plovdiv 2003

J. Polgar - Timman Wijk aan Zee 2003

4 "'g3 f4 It takes finesse moves (5 "'g7! ) to win fast. Instead, White flounders.

5 "'h3? �e2 Now 6 �e4??? lLlg5+ - but 6 "'f5 ! would have won the pawn.

6 "'g4? �e3 7 "'g6 lLlh4?? White still has work to do after 7 ...lLlrl2.

8 "'e4+ �f2 9 "'xf4+ And White mates in six moves. Cooperation reaches its highest fonn in combinations and mating attacks. "True attacks are realized with many coordinated pieces and rarely with one or two," Philidor wrote. Or as Pyotr Romanovsky put it in Middlegame, "The combin ation, in chess art, represents the highest expression of the hannony of chess forces." Often a combination features attacking and defending forces doing battle over a single square or group of squares. When the attackers outnumber the defenders by 2-to- l , 3-to-2, 4-to-3 or more they win the battle for the square. The beginner learns this with the simplest opening trap 1 e4 e5 2 -

51

Black resigned after 4 ...l:tc8 5 b4 "'e4 6 "'d2. FORTRESS Cooperation helps explain why a fortress succeeds. This is a common defensive motif in endgames: one player is way behind in material but establishes an air-tight perimeter. Going back to that empty chessboard, we can see that a knight and a bishop on central squares will control up to 21 squares, far fewer than a queen. Yet in a pawnless ending of "'-vs. -�+li), the computers and endgame researchers have left us with no general conclusion: There are many winning positions for the queen. But there is one iron-clad draw and it is similar to what happened on page 47.

White to play Black to play

1 "'h7+ l:txh7 2 l:txh7 mate The corollary of whole-is-greater is that pieces decline in relative value when they don't cooperate. Capablanca alluded to this when he described how to evaluate a position. There are three basic ingredients - force, freedom of action and "coordination," he wrote. By force he meant material. He summed up freedom of action in his sweeping claim, "A cramped position is a bad position." Capa explained his third criterion: "An open position with freedom for the pieces, but with the pieces so placed that their action cannot be coordinated for some time, is a bad position."

1

g6??

...

White would have had a nice edge after L ....e5 2 l:te l , and a winning endgame after 1 . ..'Wh4 2 "'xb4 and 3 l:tc I . But the natural move Black chose spells immediate disaster, even though it was specifically designed to avoid tactical problems.

2 l:tc1 "'e5 Or 2 ......f5 3 "'d4 !, when the bad coordination is shown by 3 ... lLlb7 4 �xa6 or 3 ...lLle4 4 �d3 "'g5 5 f4, winning.

3 f4! "'f5 Also lost is 3 ... lLle4 4 fxe5 lLlxd2 5 �f2 lLle4+ 6 �e3 and �xa6.

4 "'d6!

White to play

It doesn't matter where you start the White pieces. As long as Black's king is in the comer, at g8, h8 or h7, White cannot win because his king is shut out, as composer Max Karstedt showed in 1 903 . Black's minors cover the key penetration squares (fS, f7, f6, g6 and h6) and Black's king protects the bishop, which in tum protects the knight.



Thoren - Faibisovfch

There are no zugzwang posItIOns because Black can always pass with his king or bishop. Black's pieces work together, White's don't.

Norrkoping 1 999

Other fortresses with these pieces tend to break down. But it takes a long time to knock in the door if the minor pieces cooperate in defense. For example:

Black to play

1...'ii'e5+ 2 c3;f2 �d4! Black is closing in on zugzwang, e.g. 3 ..tfl 'ii'f5+ 4 c3;e2 'it'd3+ 5 �e l 'ii'f3 ! 6 ..te2 'ii'g3+ 7 �fl ? �e4 8 ..tc4 'ii'c 7! 9 ..te2 'ii'h2 ! and the king gets to e3 and wins. White to play

White wins by force but it takes him 42 moves to capture one of the pieces. Even after he gets out of check (1 �b8 ltJc6+ 2 �b7 ltJb4+ 3 c3;a7 ltJc6+ 4 �a6 ..tc4+ 5 �b7 ltJd8+ 6 �a7 ltJc6+ 7 �a8 !) White makes progress slowly and the fastest way requires some unlikely moves (7 .....td3 8 'ii'b7+ �d6 9 'ii'b 2! ..te4 1 0 'ii'b6 ..td5 1 1 �b7 ..tf3 12 'ii'a 6! etc.). If it is two bishops, rather than bishop and knight, that are fighting the queen (no pawns), the outcome is surprising. This ending was once thought to be an easy draw. But computer analyses now show that even against the best defense it is generally a win. This was illustrated in:

cooperation. In one form of cooperation, pieces attack the same square ("two beats one"). In the other, they can pool their resources and attack a range of squares. Bishop and knight do a little of each but because they can attack the same squares they can also defend one another. Two bishops cannot defend one another. Two knights can defend one another - but in the pawnless ending they shouldn't because it destroys their mobility. 'ii'-vs.-2ltJs is usually drawn with best play (another computer discovery). Yet the ending can be lost if the knights just protect one another.

3 ..te2 'ii'f5+ 4 �el 'ii'c 2 5 ..tf4

..•

Despite appearances, this is an easily won position. Black's king is part of the mating attack and the bishops end up in zugzwang. A king move drops a bishop to 1 3 . . .'ii'b 1 .

1 3 ..tg2 'ii'b l White Resigns In view of 14 �fl 'ii'd l ! . Why do 2..ts perform worse than ..t+ltJ against a queen in such positions? The answer lies in the difference between two kinds of

White to play

Modem players once thought Black would have an easier time if his king hid behind the knights but computer analysis has poked holes in that theory. Black's king should protect the knights and not allow them to be attacked by the white king.

MISMATCH

Or 5 ..tfl 'ii'b l + 7 �f2 'ii'f5 + with progress as in the last note. There followed:

5 c3;e4 6 ..td2 'ii'b l+ 7 �f2 'ii'b6+ 8 �O 'ii'd4 9 ..tel 'ii'a l 10 �f2 'ii'f6+ 11 �gl c3;e3! 12 ..to 'ii'g6+

53

White to play

Among the wins is 1 �d4 �b2 2 'ii'b7+ �c2 and now the intuitive move is 3 'ii'b5 , to crowd the king, but 3 'ii'e4+ �b2! 4 'i'h7! �b3 5 'ii'b l+ saves time. However, if knights cooperate in the other way, by standing together to attack a range of squares, they form a wall. The draw becomes fairly simple. The next position (similar to the second diagram on p.9) was known to be a draw as early as 1 763, thanks to Giambattista Lolli.

Cooperation also explains why many endgames are decided by a technique called "mismatch." One player wins by creating a numerical superiority at some sector of the board.

Flohr - Bernstein Zurich 1 934

White to play


Black threatens to draw by eliminating the pawns with l . ..�xb3, e.g. 1 lZ'le5 �xb3 2 �xb3 �f4.


A. Sokolov - Krasenkow

White can win by threatening to employ two plans, either penetrating on the queenside or on the kingside. But first he needs to create a kingside target.

Russian Championship 1 995

1 b4?

1 h4 g6 2 hS!

Since the pawns are more precious than the knight, the way to win is 1 lZ'le 1 !. Black must use his king to win the knight ( l .. .�f2 2 b4 �xe 1) and that leaves only his bishop to fight two pawns. That is a classic mismatch and, as usual, two beats one - 3 b5 �e2 4 b6 �d5 5 f4! . Black should try to hold up the advance of the b-pawn with 1 . ..�e8. But White creates a 3-to- l mismatch by adding his king to the mix: 2 �b4! �e2 3 �c5 �xel 4 b4 �e2 5 f4 �e3 6 f5 �e4 7 f6 �e5 8 b5! and wins (8 ... �xb5 9 f7 or 8 . . . �xf6 9 b6).

1. . �e8! 2 lZ'lel �bS! .

Black can draw because his king remains in a position to stop White' s king from pushing the b-pawn. N o mismatch i s possible.

3 lZ'lc2+ �f4 White's only trick was 3 . . .�xf3 4 lZ'ld4+. 4 �d2

�c4 S lZ'le1 �a6 Draw

55

If White now gets to play �xh6 his own h-pawn should decide the game.

2 ... gxhS 3 gxhS d4 27 �hl �c3 2S .i.bS �d2.

If a pair of rooks had been traded, White could stop ... 0+ by keeping his king at g2 and bishop on the long diagonal.

White wins with Ag l +-g7xf7 ! . Black would also lose, in a slightly different manner, if his minor piece was a knight at, for example, f6 in the last but one diagram.

Black to play

But much more difficult is the case of a dark-squared bishop. Even though it would not defend fl, it

White has the "harmonious" bishop and can defend f2 with his

Is...AbdS! Now was the time to get rid of the redundancy. Once a pair of rooks are gone, Black's king reaches e l and wins the f-pawn and the game. And

Erevan 1 976

1 1:[(6! .i.dS 2 g4 hxg4 3 hxg4 .i.c4 4 f4 .i.dS 5 fS gIfS 6 gIfS .i.b3 7 Ab6 .i.dS S f6+

14 .i.eS 0+ IS �h2 Ad2 16 An �f4 17 .i.hS AbS IS .ig4

l...gS! 2 h3 �g6 3 .i.c6 hS 4 .i.eS+ �h6 5 .i.f7 Aab2 6 .i.eS h4!

Gulko - Vasiukov

White to play

61

Redundancy plays an under appreciated role in chess. It may not hurt pieces as much as cooperation helps them - but should be a consideration in many basic decisions involving which piece to trade and when. But before we get to those decisions, it is worthwhile to reexamine the different roles that each piece can play.


CHAPTER 5: THE PERSONALITIES OF THE PIECES Piece value goes beyond mobility and targets because a piece does more than move and attack. It can also defend, support another piece's attack, blockade, restrict, interpose, pin and so on. Some pieces perfonn some roles better than others and this happens in a way that often has little to do with chart value. A rook, for example, is a powerful attacker but, as Edgar Mednis put it, "a very clumsy defender and even the king can attack it with impunity." Some piece functions (blockad ing, screening) are best perfonned by less valuable pieces, the less valuable the better. So, for example, if you are headed for an ending in which you need to blockade a pawn, trading knights rather than rooks may be disastrous. A strong player understands the many roles of their pieces but a weak one "is only aware of their values," wrote Gerald Abrahams. So let's review the roles and how they shape the personalities of the pieces. A piece can:

ATTACK PIECES Pieces capture the same way they move. This is obvious to us but in some (i.e. Oriental) fonns of chess it isn't true for every piece. We take other aspects of attack for granted, such as: Dissimilar pieces can attack one another without risk of capture by the target.

For example, a rook can safely threaten a bishop or vice versa without putting itself en prise to the other piece. Pieces of the same sort cannot do this.

Here 2 . . .ltJd6 loses to 3 'ii'd 5. 3 'ii'e 6! And the knight is captured next move. Now consider two long-range pieces, the rook and bishop. They can attack one another from across the board, and this makes the battle between them more difficult. In the next position, another visualization test, only White is allowed to move. His task is to capture all seven bishops but without putting the rook en prise.

63

restrict the knight's activity." In other words, a lD on f3 attacks a bishop on e5 or g5 but if the bishop retreats to f6 it prevents knight from advancing. When Vasily Smyslov was learning the game he developed what he called a "feel" for each piece in these kind of matchups, ''what they ' like' and what they 'don't like' and how they behave in different conflicts of their chess fate." This helps explain his early mastery in simple endgames featuring rooks and knights. Another point about the attack function that we take for granted is: Stronger pieces attack weaker pieces more easily than vice versa.

White to play and win the knight

This could be a visualization test. How can White capture the knight? In Kasparov-Kramnik, p.49, we saw a queen struggling against a knight but in that case each side had the help of a king. Here, with just one piece versus one piece, it will not last long. Even average players may be able to envision the forced win of the knight. The method, not surprisingly, is direct attack. By threatening the knight - while being immune to capture by it - the queen quickly drives it toward the side of the board.

1 'ii'e4 ltJn Or l ...liJd7 2 'ii'f5 ! ltJb6 3 'ii'b5 ltJc8 4 'ii'c5 ! .

2 'ii'rs ltJb6

White to play

Many players will find this impossible to do mentally. Others will take a dozen or more moves. (A second test: Add an eighth black bishop, at d2, and see how many bishops can be captured under the conditions stated.) The relationship between pairs of dissimilar pieces fascinated early chess thinkers. Howard Staunton, for example, pointed out in his Handbook that a king separated from an enemy knight by one diagonal square is safe from checks for three moves. LaBourdonnais noticed that if a knight attacks a bishop "the bishop can be advanced or retreated one square in order to

Of course, you say. Doesn't everyone know this? Yes, but we take it for granted so much that we often discount its role in technical endings. Kasparov once told a revealing story about a game he adjourned against an obscure opponent, Leonid Zaid, in a 1 977 Soviet event. Kasparov, then 14, had lost a rook for a bishop and pawn but was hopeful of holding the ending when he called Mikhail Botvinnik for advice. He began describing the position but him, interrupted Botvinnik according to Kasparov Against the World.

"Garry, just tell me one thing: Is your bishop protected by a pawn?" Botvinnik asked. No, said Kasparov. "Then you are lost," said the fonner world champion. When play resumed the bishop couldn't attack the rooks but the rooks kept threatening the bishop, which never found a haven. Zaid

64 The Personalities of the Pieces


eventually won thanks to double attacks by the rooks. The lesson was not lost on Kasparov.

knight much more easily than the enemy rook can attack his bishop.

Pinter - Kasparov

FIDE World Championship 2002

French Team Championship 1 993

Anand-Malakahov

White to play

Black to play

1...i.g3! The drawing move. With the bishop planted at g3, there is no chance of the rook making a decisive double attack, stich as threatening mate as well as lbit.. Pinter went through the motions of trying to squeeze the black king into submission (2 llg4 �n 3 llg5

�12 4 llr5+ �e3 5 �g2 �e4 6 lin �d5 7 lle7 �d6 8 lle2 �d5 9 �f3 �d6 10 �g4 �d7 1 1 �r5 ¢>d6 12 lle8 �d7 13 lle6 �c7 14 �e4 �d7 15 �d5 �c7 16 lle7+ �b6 17 lin it.h2 18 1112 it.g3 19 llc2 �b7 20 ¢>e6 �b6 21 �d7 �b5) but eventually conceded the draw.

A knight fares worse against a rook than a bishop - not because it is "weaker" than the bishop but because it has a shorter range. In endgames of ll+it.-vs.-ll+lD, the first player often enjoys two advantages. First, his bishop can attack the rook more easily than the enemy knight can attack his rook. Second, his rook can attack the

White can queen by force with 1 0 llgS ! �g7 1 1 as �f6 1 2 a6. He actually played 10 it.c8 and won in another 1 7 moves.

ATTACK PAWNS Aside from attacking enemy pieces, we evaluate the queen, rook, bishop and knight in terms of their ability to attack and capture pawns. In the endgame, the rook's vertical power allows it to threaten and win a moving pawn, something imposs ible for bishops and knights. The rook can also sweep up pawns their natural prey - along ranks. An example cited by Viktor Belchikov in 64 illustrates this.

White sacrificed a pawn six moves ago and now proceeds to embarrass both black pieces. 1 it.e2! llh4 2 lla8 lDc3 3 it.o

targets are frozen on squares. But a bishop's ability to attack distant pawns early in the game helps it serve, in the words of Yakov Rokhlin, as a "reconnaissance scout" that can test the intentions of enemy pawns. By attacking the pawns from a distance, such as in a fianchetto, the bishops help define the terrain of the middlegame.

DOUBLE ATTACK One last point to make about the attack function A piece's offensive value increases sharply if it can deliver double attacks. Smyslov exaggerated a bit when he said, "Chess is a game of double attack." But one function that all pieces can perform is a crushing fork.

b6 4 11b8

This wins back the pawn (4 ...11b4 5 11b7+) but Black would have good play if he coordinates his pieces with S ... �f6 6 llxh7 lDe4 ! , e.g. 7 llb7 lDd6 and ...g5-g4. White does better by attacking dissimilar pieces when has a chance - 6 llc7 since 6 ... lDe4?? 7 c3 loses (although 6 ...lDds 7 llxh7 lDe7 8 �f2 eS is still difficult).

4 ...e5? 5 llxb6 e4? 6 g3! llh6 Or 6 ...11h3 7 �g2.

7 i.g4! �f8 The black rook is immobilized by the bishop, while the white rook, facing no threat from the knight, runs rampant. White should keep the knight out of play by attacking it with 8 lle6! , 9 lle5 and 1 0 llc5! followed by I I llxa5.

8 lla6 lDdS 9 llxaS lDe3

65

KarJakin - Kosteniuk Brissago 2003

White to play and win all the pawns

In this mock game, White's task is to capture all the pawns before they queen. The vertical attack ( I lla 1 a6 2 llbl b6 3 llal a5 4 llc l c6) is too slow. But thanks to the rook's lateral power, White wins with 1 llh7 as 2

llxn bS 3 llxe7 a4 4 llxd7 b4 S llxc7 a3 6 lla7!.

Minor pieces usually cannot force the win of anything, in the opening, middlegame or ending, until its

White to play

l "xa6! The first points of the combination are 1 ...llxa6 2 llxc8+ and 1 .. .it.xb3 2 11xc8.

1.. llxc1+? .


Black thinks the combination lasts four moves. Better was l ...l%cb8! and then 2 'ii'd3 .i.xb3 3 l%xb3 e4 with counterplay.

2 l%xc1 l%xa6 3 l%c8+ 'ii'e8 Now 4 .i.xd5+?? �f8 5 l%xe8+ �xe8 6 .i.b7 l%a7 7 a6 looks impressive but 7 . . .�d7 followed by . . . �c7 and ...l%xb7 wins the pawn ending.

4 l%xe8+ �f7 Black may have been counting on 5 .i.a4 e4.

5 l%a8! ! Resigns This was the real end of the combination, a winning fork (5 ...l%xa8 6 .i.xd5+ and 7 .i.xa8). But bishops, like kings and pawns, execute forks relatively infrequently. The knight, on the other hand, compensates for its lack of range through forks. The knight can make triple attacks, such as a "family check" that attacks a king, queen and rook simultaneously. Here's a similar version, cited in 64 by Anatoly Matzukevich.


Bronstein once said, the most powerful weapon in chess is the tum to move.

1 l%d6+ tiJe6 On 1 ...�f5 White passes up the big fork in favor of mate with 2 l%b5+ �g4 3 l%xg5 or 2 ...�e4 3 J:te5. 2

The queen can also perform triple and even quadruple attacks when it captures on a square that opens up three or more lines. For example:

Matzukevich - Yevdokimov Correspondence 1 983

l%xe6+! �xe6 3 tiJd4+ Resigns

As noted earlier, the queen's ability to deliver double attacks accounts for the huge value we assign it. The opportunity for those attacks often grows as the game progresses, as more and more enemy pieces and pawns lose their mutual protection. But there are some notorious opening traps based on a queen's forking power.

1 e4 c5 2 lDo tiJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tiJxd4 lDf6 5 tiJc3 g6?! 6 lDxc6 bxc6 7 e5 tiJd5? 8 lOxdS cxdS 9 'ii'xdS l%b8

Pakhomov-Fyedoseev Rostov-on-Don 1 98 1

67

The exercise is a good one but the cards are stacked against Black. For example, 1 . . ..i.g7 2 'ii'd8 and now 2 ... .i.e6? 3 'ii'e7 or 2 ....i.f5? 3 'ii'g5 lose outright. Better is 2 . . . .i.h3 but then 3 'ii'g5 .i.h8 4 'ii'h 5; 3 ....i.c3 4 'ii'g3 ; 3 . . ..i.d4 4 'ii'h4 or 3 ... .i.b2 4 'ii'd5 .i.f6? 5 'ii'f3 .

PIN

White to play

White wins with I l%e7! because l . . ..i.xe7 2 'ii'xe7 would fork the bishop and both rooks. The queen's forking power is so vital to its value that some teachers trained Soviet-era youngsters by pitting two players against one another in a mock pattIe like the following. The terms are: White ''wins'' if he can capture a bishop within 20 moves. Black "wins" if both bishops survive the 20 moves.

A pin is a combined form of attack and restriction, and it can only be performed by the long-range pieces. Nirnzovich pointed out there are three actors in a pin - the pinning piece, the pinned piece and the more valuable piece that stands behind the pinned piece. The pinned piece is virtually barred from moving. But it can be protected, often by the piece behind it, and the pinning piece usually needs some help to safely capture it.

Gelfand - Bruzon Olympiad 2002

10 e6! White threatens I I 'ii'e 5.

10 .i.g7 1 1 exf7+ �f8 ...

White to play

White's king appears to be in as much danger as Black's. But, as

Black to play

12 .i.h6!

Two more forks - 1 2 ... .i.xh6 1 3 'ii'e5 and 1 2 ...l%xb2 1 3 'ii'e 5. Black can hold the position with 1 2...'ii'c7 1 3 .i.xg7+ �g7 but is clearly worse.

Black to move

The three actors here are White's rook, the pinned bishop and the black queen. The third actor has relative freedom and could have gotten out of the pin as long as it

68 The Personalities ofthe Pieces

protected the bishop - 1 . . ....c8 !, after which ...�e6 or ....i.f5 releases the pin.


diversion from e5. But it is still protected by a rook, so 2 �xf7+ must fail.

2 "'xh7+! �xh7

1...l:tb6? This way of dealing with the pin trying to trade off the pinning piece - fails because it will leave Black's rook vulnerable to a double attack.

2 l:td2! A pinning piece often has more freedom than the pinned piece and the piece behind it. This rook could move along the file and still maintain the pin, and this move wins either the bishop or the queen, e.g. 2 ......c8 3 "'d4.

2 ...l:te8 3 "'d5 l:te7 4 .i.h3 Resigns Pins are not just methods of winning a pinned piece or pawn. Since the target that lies behind the pinned piece is more valuable, the pin often provides opportunities for combinations, such as the following.

Maksimenko - Pet. Nielsen Germany 2003

Or 2 ... �f8 3 "'xg7+ and mates.

3 l:th3+ �g8 4 lLlg6 Resigns DEFEND A piece can defend a second piece on the square it occupies or on one it moves to. The first piece may lose its ability to move on its own while it performs this duty. But not necessarily. The ideal situations are ones in which the first piece can do everything - defend, support an advance and move, as in the case of a rook behind a passed pawn (e.g. on p.39). A bishop is an excellent defender because it can move and yet maintain protection of what it defends. That is impossible for a knight and often difficult for a king. Reti said this fundamental difference between long-range pieces and short-range ones often appears in endgames.

White's bishop appears to be severely restricted by enemy pawns but that appearance quickly changes.

2 .i.xe4 2 ...�b6 3 .i.xh7 e5 Another lost pawn ending 3 ...�xa6 4 .i.d3 ! �b5 5 f4 ! .

IS

4 d5 lLld6 5 .i.d3 e4 6 �e2 In the face of �g2-g3 and h2-h4, or �fl -e l -d2, Black must try to win one of the passed pawns. The bishop's ability to defend them and move - is crucial.

6 ...lLlc8 7 �g2 �c5

White to play

1 �f2! g5 Black loses more quickly after 1 .. ..i.c7 2 a5! and he ends up in zugzwang soon after 1 .. .g6 2 �h4 �c7 3 �g5.

2 .i.el a5 Or 2 ... �c7 3 �c3 ! �d8 4 �e5, with play like the game.

3 �d2 h6 4 �c1

This way of defending both pawns (8 ...�xc4 9 d6 lLlxd6 1 0 a7) decides.

8...lLlb6 9 a7 lLla8 10 �a6 Resigns

White to play

Bar 2003

The main threat, 3 a7, wins a pawn.

8 �c4!

What now? The pinned f-pawn has been weakened by the knight's

Savanovic - Popchev

Black is lost in pawn endings such as 1 ...lLld6 2 exd5 �b6 3 dxe6 fxe6 4 �g2 lLlxb7 5 axb7.

Olympiad 2002

I lLlxc6!! lLlxc6

moves - whereas endings with knights (and all pure pawn endings) are more about calculation.

1 e4! dxe4

AzmaiparashvIU - Lesiege

White to play

69

In view of 1 0...�xd5 I I �b7+ or 1 0...�b6 I I d6! . Reti's observation may be extended to explain why bishop endings are often dominated by maneuvers rather than forcing

More direct is 4 �c3 �c7 5 �g7 h5 6 .i.c3. In these lines Black must play with the bishop because a king move will allow �d5 or �f5. 4...�eS 5 �d2 .i.g3 6 �c3 �c7

7 .i.el hS 8 .i.d2 �d8 9 f4

Only now is White ready for this break. He wins after 9 ...g4 1 0 hxg4 hxg4 1 1 f5+ and �f4.

9 . gxf4 10 .i.xf4 �f6 .

.

Black has run out of passes ( 1 O...�f6 1 1 �c7 or 1 O. . . h4 1 1 �e5). Now White can win with I I �d5 �f5 1 2 �g3 but he preferrred:

11 .i.h2 �e6 12 .i.eS!



Karpov-Kasparov

World Championship, 7th game 1 987

the bishop (e.g. white -te3 is supported by 'iff2 to attack a pawn on a7). Similarly, if rooks are doubled on a file to attack a pawn, the queen belongs behind them, not in front or in the middle:

Ftacnik - Narciso Dublan Lisbon 200 1

White hasn't moved his king since the last diagram while Black's king has more or less stood in place. The bishops performed all the work. Black must allow the advance of either the bishop or the king (l2 ...�d7 1 3 �f5 and 1 2 ...�t7 1 3 �d5).

12 -tg5 13 -tc7 -td2 14 -txb6 -tb4 .••

Having won the pawn that held the black queenside together, White needs a final maneuver to put Black's bishop in zugzwang.

15 -ta7 �d6 16 -tb8+ �e6 17 i.f4 -tel 18 -te3 -tb4 19 -tf2! Resigns The black bishop can't move ( 1 9 ...-ta3 20 -te l ) and giving up the king opposition is also fatal ( l 9 ...�f6 20 �d5). The bishop's role as defender helps explain why bad bishops aren't so bad. A bad i. lacks mobility, which is another way of saying attacking power. But bad bishops do a good job of protecting pawns as Philidor pointed out more than two centuries ago. In the following position Black's priorities would seem to be trading off White's pawns and putting more of his own pawns on light squares.

71

Reti cited another case involving the king, the mating motif in which a white bishop on d3 retreats to c2 so that his queen can go to d3 and threaten "'xh7. If the position of queen and bishop are reversed, then -txh7+ is just a check. This use of queen and bishop is a common theme (Turton) in problems - and in real life:

Veresov - Bronstein Moscow 1 960

Black to play

1 ...a5! But trying to trade with l .. .b5? fails to 2 a5, after which the queenside is ripe for the rook.

2 l:c4 e5! Black's pawns are more vulnerable on advanced squares. But he has created counterplay with ...e4+ and a possible king raid culminating in ...�xa4. White tried 3 l:g4 -te7 4 l:g7 e4+ 5 �e3 i.c5+ 6 �e2 but eventually conceded the draw following 6 -td4 7 l:g5+ �c4 8 l:f5 �c3! (not 8 . . .�b4 9 l:f4) 9 .•.

l:h5 �c4.

White to play

1 l:e2! This threatens 2 l:d2 and 3 l:xd5. Black's best defense is imitation.

1...l:e7 2 l:d2 l:d7 Now 3 e4 d4 fails to achieve the desired result (4 l:c4 "'f6; 4 i.e3 a5 or 4 . . ....e8). But White can use his space advantage to continue:

3 l:c3! l:c8 4 l:cd3 SUPPORT

A piece can support an attack by one or more other pieces on a target. In practice, the stronger piece usually does the supporting, the lesser piece makes the capture "Strongest in the rear," as Tal put it. That is, if you want to use a queen and bishop to attack a distant pawn, the queen usually belongs behind

And White won the d-pawn (4 ...li)e7 5 e4). Alekhine helped make "strongest in the rear" famous in games like his defeat of Nirnzovich at San Remo 1 930. But when the target is a king, the guideline has to be modified. Alekhine beat Rubinstein at Dresden 1 926 with "strongest in middle": He shifted his queen from being in front of doubled rooks, which were directed at White's g-pawn, to being in between them.

Black to play

Black's bishop transforms itself into support for the queen.

1...-te4 2 l:hdl h6! 3 -th3 -th7! White has no adequate defense to ......g6-b l mate. He freed d2 for escape with 4 l:d7 but that allowed Black to switch gears with 4...l:fe8 5 �d2 -tf5!, since 6 -txf5 "'xf5 wins. (White played 6 "'c3 i.xh3 7 "'xf6 gxf6 and resigned.)

RESTRICT All pieces restrict the movements of enemy pieces by guarding vacant squares that they have in common. Lasker said one of the great assets of a bishop was that it could

72


perfonn "long-range" restriction. It can limit the freedom of enemy pieces from a relatively safe distance.

Kourkounakis - Istratescu Chania 2000


greater range will enjoy the upper hand in the confrontation. For example, a white bishop on d5 will restrict, in fact stalemate, a black knight on d8. The knight also restricts the bishop, by denying it the ability to move safely to b7, c6, e6 or fl. But no one would regard the bishop as the inferior piece. Compare this with the familiar middlegame theme in which Black has an isolated pawn at d5 and a white liJ at d4 restricts a black bishop at d7. Then the knight, short-range piece, seems superior to the long-range one.

White to play

White's bishop controls the longest light-squared diagonal on the board. But Black's threatens to trade it off ( L .i.c4) and reach a won pawn ending. 1 �dl? White can draw with I i.d5 ! because 1 . .i.c4 2 i.c6 �b3 allows 3 �d5! when 3 ... i.xd5?? loses. .

1 ...i.c4 1 i.bl �b3 3 �c1 i.f1!

In the first case, the d8-knight is more restricted because it has no move, while the d5-bishop can retreat. In the second case, both pieces can retreat but the bishop "feels" more constricted, as Smyslov might say. Since both pieces do some restriction, it is vital for the dominated piece to look for the opportunity to switch roles and become the dominator.

Kasimdzhanov - Bologan Pamplona 2002

Both of White's pieces are restricted by their opposite number.

plus-over--minus edge. Black seeks refuge in the ending even though that may doom his a-pawn.

1..:ir'c7 1 "'xc7 Ibc7

�f8?

3

�al

1. �f6 l liJd 1 •.

The knights are a sorry lot after 2 b4 i.d2 3 liJb 1 i.d3 4 lDba3 e2 5 �f2 �f5 since 6 lDd4+ �e4 7 liJxe2 i.xb4 traps one of them.

Black misses his chance to tum the tables. With 3 . . .�b7 4 �a3 �b4 5 liJc6 (5 liJxb3 d4! 6 liJxd4 �b2 7 liJc6 i.d7) �b6 6 lDxa5 and now 6 . . . d4 ! 7 exd4 i.d5 ! , the bishop suddenly dominates the knight.

l ... el 5 b4 h5

True, White would retain an edge after 8 �fl �b4 9 ¢>e2 �xd4 1 0 �e3. But he is far from a win. After 3 . . . �f8? White's task is easy.

i.e4!

4 liJxb3 �b7 5 liJxa5 �xbl 6 i.d7 7 liJd4

lLlc6

The knight dominates the bishop once more and Black soon resigned.

One of the reasons a king is so powerful a piece in the endgame is that it can restrict and capture, i.e. ¢> on c6 prevents a lD on a8 from moving and will capture it after �b7. But a bishop on b5 only restricts a knight on b8. It cannot win it - except by means of the ultimate restriction, zugzwang. Bishops are wonderful at running knights out of moves.

3 liJfl i.d5+ 4 �gl i.e3 !

White can only move one knight and the pawns and soon those options are taken away.

6 liJel �e5 7 lDcl i.c6 8 lDe l 9 b5 White resigned before 9 ...i.b6

leaves him without a move.

A more elaborate example of the theme is an ending that features two bishops facing bishop and · knight. The defender would seem to be better off than with two knights.

Karpov-Ivkov Bugojno 1 980

Keller-Petrosian Zurich 1961

4 i.cl+ �c4 5 �dl �d4 6 i.d l Hoping for 6 . . .�xe4? 7 i.c2+ and i.xh7.

White to play

6 ...i.d3 ! 1 i.d5!

And Black wms after 7 i.f3 i.xe4. But restriction is usually a double-edged battle. A piece doing the restricting is, in tum, restricted by the other piece, simply because they share squares in common. We often assume the piece with the

73

Black blundered with l . ..lDc6+?, aHowing a trade to a bishops-of opposite-color in which Black's kingside pawns fall - 2 i.xc6+! �xc6 3 �c5 i.c4 4 �e4! Resigns (because of i.f8xg7). Better was:

Black to play

The knight inhibits the bishop enough to make this a typical

Black to play

1

•..

i.xd5 1 �xdS lDxg4 3 i.gl !


All but one of the knight's squares are controlled by the bishop and White threatens to win with �cSxbS.


of restriction, as in the following problem by Josef Kling.

3...ltJe5 4 ¢>c5 ltJo 5 �f2 ltJd2 6 �xb5 ltJe4 7 �el !

A rook placed two diagonal squares away from the knight denies it four moves, as in this example cited by Taylor, which first appeared in an ancient Shatranj manuscript:

9 �f2 ltJb5 1 0 �b6 ltJd6 1 1 i.c5 ltJb5 12 �f8 ltJc7+ 13 �a5 An illustration of Staunton's observation: when the king is one diagonal square away, it is as safe from knight checks as if it were six. or seven ranks away.

13 ... ltJd5 14 �xg7 ltJf4

Averbakh used the word "hobble" to describe this technique and the knight is truly hobbled after 2 ... �a6 3 �b4! �b6 4 �c3 tl)b l+ S �b2 tl)d2 6 �c2 and wins, as given in the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings. But more testing is: White to mate without moving the king

The task seems impossible but is quite simple once you realize the proper technique. Mate is forced in 23 moves. The trick is to restrict the king by "checking" it like a knight (although not with the stalemating I "g3??). White begins with 1 "h6+ �g2 2

"h4! �gl 3 "h3! �f2 4 "g4!.

Eventually the king i s forced t o a4, after which �2! forces �a5 after which "&3 is mate. ...

15 �xf6 ltJxh5 16 b5+ �b7 1 7 �e5! And White wins. Heavy pieces naturally restrict the most. A rook is particularly in Nirnzovich's impressive "absolute seventh rank" or in the basic �+l:t-vs.-� endgame. We think of a queen more in terms of attack but it can do a remarkable job

Another instructive point is that the fastest win after l .. .tl)e l 2 �c4 tl)g2 3 �d3 tl)e 1 + 4 �d2 tl)g2 lies in S l:tbS+ and 6 l:tb4!, which cuts off knight escapes to the fourth rank and dooms it to 7 l:tg4.

2 l:tf4!

Now if Black tries to blockade the b-pawn with 7 . . .¢>c7 it is driven away by 8 �a6, b4-bS-b6 and, when the knight moves, �g3 (+).

7 ...ltJd6+ 8 �a6 �c6 The bishop again wins on the king side after 8 ...ltJxfS 9 bS ltJd6 1 0 b6 �c6 1 1 �b4 and �f8xg7.

75

One of the most sophisticated themes of restriction features the knight as victim. FIDE Master Gordon Taylor used a term from Go, "Tesuji," to describe it in Inside Chess in 1 989: Pieces perform Tesuji when they occupy certain squares near the knight. For example, a king one diagonal square away takes away two of the knight's moves. The queen defeated the knight on p.62 by taking away all but two of its eight moves after 1 "e4 and then all four of its moves after 3 "e6 ! .

2 tl)b3+! 3 �b4 ltJc1 4 �c4! .••

White to play and win

The rook would also have diagonal Tesuji if it were at d I , hS or hI . But occupying any of these squares is not enough for White to win. He must restrict the knight further before it can be successfully attacked.

1 l:tf5! Now on 1 ...ltJh2? White has a killing Tesugi in 2 l:tf4 ! . The knight has no moves and White wins it by bringing his king to g2 (or to f5, followed by l:tf2). Similarly l . . .ltJh4 2 l:tf6! cuts off most of the knight moves, leaving 2 ...ltJg2 3 Wd4 ltJe l 4 l:tf2! . Black can try to dislodge the f6-rook with 2 ...�c7 3 �d4 �d7 4 �e4 �e7 but S l:th6 ltJg2 6 l:th2 ltJe l 7 l:te2 again wins.

1...ltJd2! Quickly losing is L..ltJgI 2 �d4 ltJe2+ 3 �d3 ltJg3 4 l:tgS tl)fl S We2 tl)h2 6 l:tg2.

Taylor called this lateral Tesuji by the king. By denying the knight access to b3 and d3, White threatens to complete the encirclement with S l:tf2 and 6 l:tc2. 4 tl)e2 5 l:tg4! On S . . . ltJc l White kills the knight with 6 l:tg2 and 6 l:tc2. .••

5 �c7 6 �d3 ltJc1+ 7 �c2 tl)a2 8 l:ta4 .•.

Note that after 1 l:tfS the rook never attacked the knight again until it was ready to win it. Practical examples of Tesuji abound. The following game is instructive because Black's king is so badly placed that it is vulnerable


to pins and checks that win the knight.

Karpov - Ftacnik Olympiad 1 988


Limiting the knight succeeds, but attacking it (3 J:r.c3 .!Db2) goes nowhere.

3 ...�g5 Here 3 ... .!Db2 fails to 4 J:r.d2 .!Da4 5 J:r.d4+.

4 �d5 .!Db6+ The knight dies immediately on a5 by means of 5 J:r.a3 lLlb7 6 J:r.a7 .!Dd8 7 J:r.d7.

Botvinnik rewrote endgame theory in his game with Nikolay Minev at Moscow 1 956 when he showed that the best policy in "'+knight pawn-vs.-'" - was to centralize the queen - and allow the king to shepherd a passed pawn - rather than use the queen as shepherd. Similarly:

Baburln - Borgo Linares 1 996

5 �e5! lLlc4+ And here 5 ....!Da4 loses to 6 J:r.b3 (threatening 7 �d4) lLlc5 7 J:r.b5 .!Da6 8 �d6 - with check - and J:r.b6.

6 �e4 lLlb6 Black to play

There is a natural instinct for the defender in four-piece endings to keep his forces as close together as possible. This works in many positions but was undermined in the 1 980s by computer analysis of �+... vs �+J:r., which demonstrated that the best defense often required the rook to be separated by several squares from the king in order to provide checking d�stance. However in �+J:r. vs. �, the distance between the defender's king and knight should be kept to a minimum.

1. .!Dc4 .•

The knight can try to reach relative safety at 12 via another route. But it won't get there after l . ...!Da4 2 J:r.a7! .!Db2 3 J:r.a2 .!Dc4 4 J:r.c2 lLlb6 (4 ....!De3 5 J:r.c3) 5 :lb2 .!Dc4 (5 ....!Dc8 6 �d7) and now 6 J:r.b3+! followed by 7 �d5 .!Da5 8 J:r.b5. No better is 2 ....!Dc3 3 J:r.a3 or 2 ... lLlc5+ 3 �d5 lbd3 4 J:r.a3.

2 :0+ �g4 3 J:r.d3!

77

6 "'d5+ 'iVc6? This shortens matters but White's winning progress would be obvious after �e3, 12-f3 and �f4-g5 followed by �f6l'it'xfl or g3-g4.

7 �e4! f6 8 d7 Resigns One unappreciated aspect of endgame play is the way a knight can defeat another knight by means of restriction. White fatally misunderstood that in the following position, thinking that a trade of rooks would ease the defense.

Feokitistov - Voitsekhovsky Moscow 1 996

Much like the game continuation is 6 ... �f6 7 J:r.d4.

7 J:r.d8! .!Dc4 8 J:r.d4 .!Db6 The rook has established Tesuji, leaving White's king to complete the kill.

9 �e5 .!Dc8 Otherwise 10 �d6 and 1 1 �c7.

10 �e6 lLla7 Or 1 O....!Db6 I I l:h4 .

1 1 �d7 Resigns Because of 1 � . . .!Db5 .

12

J:r.d5+.

SIMILAR PIECE RESTRICTION Another sophisticated kind of restriction arises between one piece and its opposite number. We know from opposition what a superb job one king does in restricting the other king, and we saw bishop-vs. -bishop restriction on p.72. The same applies to other pieces. Queens, for example, restrict one another well but we don't take notice of this before the ending.

White to play

White has an extra pawn on d6 but trading queens ( 1 "'a8+) will fail until his king is close enough to protect it.

White to play

1 �g2! "'d8 Thanks to the powerful central square of his queen, White's king can march to victory in variations such as 1 ......a7 2 "'e5+ �d8 3 �f3 "'a3+ 4 �f4 "'cl + 5 "'e3 "'c4+ 6 �g5 "'d5+ 7 �f6 "'xd6+ 8 �xfl and the kingside pawns fall.

2 "'5+ "'d7 3 "'e5+ �d8 4 �O! It was still too early for 4 1Wh8+ "'e8 5 "'xe8+ �e8 6 �f3 �d7.

4 ...�c8 5 "'c5+ �b7 Or 5 ... �d8 6 "'a5+ and White wins because now his king is close enough for 6... �e8 7 "'a8+.

White draws easily with 1 .!Dxfl! J:r.xb7 2 lLld6+.

1 J:r.xb6? But why be fancy, White wonders, when he can force rooks off and then take the pawn.

1 ....!Dxb6 2 .!Dxf7? .!Dc4! This wins by shutting the escape hatch at d6. If the knight hides at h8, Black wins it with ...�f6/ ... g5 and ...�g7.

3 .!Dd8 lLla5! 4 lLlf7 Otherwise 4 ... �f6 and 5 ...�e7 wms.


4 liJb7! .•.

Now 5 h4 �f6 6 liJh8 g6 and 7 . . .�g7 is lost.

S f4 The only way to save the knight.


appeared in Novoye Vremya in 1 894. (Alexey Troitsky published a similar study a year later and the theme became part of composition lore.)

S ... �xf4 6 g4 �g3 Obtaining a second extra pawn is decisive (7 g5 hxg5 8 liJxg5 liJc5 9 �fl li'h4 1 0 liJf7 �xh3 and wins). This theme was emphasized by exercise for Soviet another beginners. Each player starts with one knight on an otherwise empty board. White moves first and tries to "check" the enemy knight. If he can do this in 1 5 moves he wins, if not, Black wins.

White to play and win

1 c4 liJd2! If this knight tries to head off the pawn by going to b6, via c3 and d5, White pushes his pawn to c7 and eliminates the knight with liJd7 and then queens.

S...li'e2 6 li'd7 �d3 7 �c6 liJc3 8 �cS liJe4+ 9 li'dS liJc3+ 10 �eS! liJb1 l l liJf7 liJd2 12 liJe6 liJc4+ 13 �f4 �c3 14 liJe7 �d3 lS liJc6 liJd2 16 liJceS+ �c3 17 liJd6 liJb3 18 �e3 liJd2 19 liJd8! liJf1+ 20 �fl liJd2 21 liJdc6 �c2 22 �e2 liJb1 23 �e3 li'b3 24 �d4 �c2 2S liJe4 liJd2 26 liJf6 liJb3+ 27 �c4 liJd2+ 28 li'b4 �b1 29 liJd4+ �c1 30 liJd3+ li'd1 31 liJcs liJb1 32 �b3 liJd2+ 33 �c3 liJb1+ 34 li'b2 liJd2 3S liJg4 liJf1 36 li'c3 liJd2 37 liJe3+ �c1 38 liJe2+ �bl 39 �xd2 �b2 40 liJc4+ �a1 41 li'c2 li'a2 42 liJc3+ and 43 liJb3 mate. A footnote to this is the rare case of �+2liJs-vs.li'+liJ. It really has occurred in grandmaster chess briefly.

Benko - Bronstein Budapest 1949

2 cS liJb3 3 c6 liJd4 4 c7 liJbS Now 5 c8(W) lbd6+ draws because of insufficient mating material. White to play

It may sound easy for Black to defend. But in a position like this he loses by force in a few moves.

1 liJg3 liJb6 Or 2 ...liJc7 3 liJe4 liJb5 3 liJc3 "check."

2 liJe4 liJa8 3 liJd6! White wins through zugzwang. One of the most famous examples of liJ-vs.-liJ restriction was composed by Emanuel Lasker and it

BLOCKADE The ability to blockade enemy pawns is most important in the late middlegame and endgame and that reveals another basic weakness of strong pieces: They are too strong to blockade. A blockader generally holds a particular square until it is attacked by a weaker piece. Rooks, even when protected, are notoriously poor blockaders because they can be threatened by minor pieces. Queens are worse, e.g. as seen on p.20. On the other hand, a king is a fine blockader in the endgame, particularly since it enjoys the right, along with the heavy pieces, of being able to attack the pawn it blockades. A bishop is a great blockader in bishops-of-opposite color endings but not in same-color endings. And Nimzovich praised the blockading ability of a pawn when he wrote: "Who checks an ambitious pawn best? A pawn. Who protects one of its own pieces best? A pawn. And which of the chessmen works for the least wages? Again the pawn."

S c8(liJ)! ! This wins because White can use his cavalry to restrict Black's lone knight. Portisch and Sarkozy in Six Hundred Endings mistakenly gave a 2liJs+�-vs.-2liJs position as drawn because the defender could give up one of his knights to stop the pawn from queening. But the position was lost because the superior side can promote to a third knight. In this case three beats one by restriction. Lasker did not give more to his study but in a real game play might continue with periodic Tesujis:

79

Black to play

Again there is an instant draw if the pawn queens (... liJe3+). There followed:

104 ... f1(liJ)+ lOS li'c3 �f3 White can still lose if his king is driven into a comer and is mated. Of course, this requires extra ordinary assistance from White. But Benko ended matters abruptly.

106 liJh2+! liJxh2 Draw

One reason that a knight is so good at blockading is that once it is forced to give way and allow the pawn to advance, it can usually find a way to give itself up to stop promotion. Since knights are so "cheap" that may draw. This is one reason why liJ+�-vs.-liJ is typically drawn but 'ih�-vs.-" is often won. The knight's agility to get into position for blockade or sacrifice is something that study composers know well - and practical players should know better.

80


Grigoriev (fragment) 1 93 8

The Personalities of the Pieces 81

the winning position mentioned earlier (7 ttJc7 b3 8 ttJe6+ �c4!).

6 ttJe8+!! White draws, as we've seen, after 6 ...�c5 7 ttJf6 �d4 8 ttJeS b3 9 ttJd6 �c3 10 ttJe4+ �c2 1 1 ttJd6! and 12 ltJc4.

White to play and draw

Black threatens to win with 1...'�c5 and 2 ... b3. Yet White can draw - even if the pawn reaches b2 - provided his knight reaches one of the access squares to b l , such as a3, c3 or d2.

The opposite side of the coin is Dissimilar blockade-breaking. pieces are good at this because they can attack the blockader without being exposed to capture. Similar pieces have a hard time breaking a blockade - with one exception, the queen.

Kasparov I. Sokolov -

Sarajevo 1 999

1 ttJc7+ �c4! On 1 .. .�d4 White can wait for 2 ... b3 and then draw with 3 ttJb5+ and 4 ttJa3!.

2 ttJe8!! This unlikely move draws. The knight has three ways of reaching an access square. There is ttJf6-e4-d2 as well as ltXi6-e4-d2. For example, 2 ... b3 3 ltXi6+ �b4 4 ttJe4 b3 5 ttJd2 and 3 . . .�d3 4 ttJb5 b2 5 ttJa3. There is a also third route (ttJc7-b5-a3) which works once Black's king out of position.

2 ... �cS! 3 ttJf6 �d4! Tesuji - or Staunton.

4 ttJeS! �eS Or 4 ... b3 5 lZkl6 �c3 6 ttJe4+ �c2 and now 7 lZkl6! b2 8 ttJc4 b l� 9 ttJa3+.

S ttJc7 �d6 This looks like the magic square for the king since 6 ttJb5+ �c5 is

easy to see the blockade cannot be broken easily.

SCREEN Yuri Averbakh, in a 1 980 article, "On the Interaction of Pieces," in Shakhmaty v SSSR, pointed out that at the start of a game we see three different piece relationships: There is defense - because virtually all of a player's first-rank pieces and second-rank pawns are defended by other pieces. There is blockading - because the pawns get in the way of all of their own first-rank pieces except the knights. And there is also a third relationship. The pawns serve as a screen against enemy attacks. Screening, whether by pawns or pieces, is most valuable in middlegames and is a common theme in combinations, such as when a piece or pawn is sacrificed to prevent an enemy piece from taking part in defense.

In Xiangqi, the footsoldier (pawn) cannot retreat, so its attacking power suffers greatly when it is pushed "too far." Nevertheless, an advanced footsoldier is compen sated for this by being able to move laterally. This gives it great screening ability. Our pawns, unfortunately, cannot step to the immediate left or right as the Chinese pawns can. But when fixed in the center they are a huge asset in the middlegame since they serve as screens against attack by long-range pieces. This was illustrated by the most powerful center in a world championship match.

Botvinnik - Tal

World Championship match, 1 7th game 1 96 1

Papaioaonou - Kveioys Plovdiv 2003

Black to play

1 ...'iVxe5?

White to play

Black had to stop the b-pawn. But this way, which assumes he can establish an iron blockade on b7, fails quickly. He must try 1 ...'itb4 ! .

2 1i'b1 ! -.dS 3 b6 1i'b7 4 1i'b4 There is no defense to -.c5-c7. Black resigned after 4 ... e5 5 -'c5 �g6 6 -'c7. Replace the queens with rooks, or knights, bishop or kings and it is

White to play 1

l:.g7 h6 2 l:.1gS! Resigns

Mate follows 2 ... ..txg5 3 hxg5 �g7 4 -.xh6+ �g8 5 gxf6.

White cannot maintain an outpost on d6 for long ( 1 l:td6 l:tfd8 and. . .ttJe8) and a retreat would admit his center is overextended, for example, 1 l:.d2 "'e6 and ......c6 or ... f6.

1 ttJc3! ttJxdS 2 cxdS l:.adS 3

..te4

The Exchange sacrifice secures a substantial positional edge. The

82

The Personalities of the Pieces 83


contrast in minor pieces, thanks to the pawn screen, is striking.

3 ... �a8 4 'itg3 bS? Black was counterplay but weakening.

stumped for this is awfully

5 'itf2! 'itd7 6 �xc5 lUe8 7 'itg3 Itc8 8 b4 'it>h8 White can do what he wants with his queen and pieces because they are shielded by the center. Now was a good time to use it to open lines, with 9 e6! fxe6 10 'itxg6! , e.g. 1 O ... �xc3 II 'it>hl 'itg7 12 'itxh5+ and Itg l wins.

1 'itd3+ e4!

attack distant targets. But pieces, rather than pawns, perform valuable service as screens in endgames. For example, they can bar an enemy piece from preventing pawn promotion.

Even when the screening piece is unprotected, it can perform extraordinary feats in the endgame.

Kulaots - Franssila

Obviously White wins if he can check on the last rank. In the face of threats of Itd7, Itc7 or lte7, etc, Black resigned.

This is what Black had counted on. White doesn't have a chance to exploit the double attack and play 2 ltJxd5. If he answers 2 ltJxe4 Black has 2 ... f5 ! , winning material (3 ltJc3 ltJxc3 or 3 ltJd2 .i.b4).

However, this is an optical illusion. Black's bishop acts as a screen with 1 .i.g7! and draws due to stalemate, e.g. 2 1th4 .i.d4 etc.

White had to play 2 'itxe4+ f5 3 'itc2 and defend his weaknesses after 3 . . .ltJxe3 4 fxe3.

Rilton Cup 2003-4

...

Screening is also important when we need to answer a strong threat, such as a check to the king. Rather than retreat the attacked piece, we interpose a weaker, protected piece - often the weaker the better.

9 'itO? a6 10 hl

White to play

What might have been a difficult technical affair. ..

1 Itc4+! Resigns . . . is over immediately because 2 1tb4 will ensure he comes out a whole queen ahead.

10 f5! ...

Interposition is self-pinning. The interposing piece becomes pinned and cannot safely move except along the line of the pin. Nirnzovich famously said the pinned piece has no defensive power. However interposing even unprotected pieces can work if it turns defense into counterattack.

Maze - Murey Paris 2003

2 Itxe4?

2 ltJxc3 3 Itd4+ ...

A screening move that seems to save White.

3 ...ltJe4! Black wins: 4 'itxe4+ 'itxe4 5 Itxe4 Itxdl +; 4 f3 Itxd4 5 .i.xd4 Itd8! and 4 Ite 1 Itxd4 5 �xd4 f5 6 f3 .i.h4 or just 4 . . . f5.

CHECK Checking is actually just a form of attack that is limited to one target piece, the king. But since a check is the ultimate forcing move it proves so effective in combinations, forks and endgames that it deserves separate recognition.

Black has equalized and went on to win after White played 13 'itd3? instead of 1 3 �xe8.

One of the weaknesses of a king is that it cannot check. (If it could, the king would be stronger than a rook - and vast amounts of endgame theory would have to be changed from "draw" to "win" and vice versa.) On the other hand, one of advantages of a queen is the potential for delivering perpetual check singlehandledly.

Inevitably, all pawn screens break down, due to trades or captures. Their absence usually isn't missed in the ending because by then there aren't as many long-range pieces to

The checking ability of a rook often depends on board range, as we saw on p.40. In many endings the rook must be flexibly placed in order to be able to check on either files or ranks. This is a key principle

The center must disintegrate ( 1 1 �c2 allows l l ...�ffi ! 1 2 �xffi Itxc3 !). Without the pawn shield, White's pieces and king become targets.

Hegde Palatnik -

Calicut 1 988

1 1 exf6 �xf6 1 2 �xg6 'itg4

White to play

White to play

Black liberated his pieces with . . . d5 but seems to have blundered.

84


The Personalities ofthe Pieces 85

in :t+�+B""'-vs.-:t, for example. In the following two examples - of the rare :t-vs.-3 pieces ending checks are the prime drawing technique.

The rook is trapped on a nearly empty board, e.g. 2 . . . :ta2 3 i.d5+; 2 ....l:c2 3 it.d5+ �h7 4 it.e4+; 2 ....l:g6 3 i.d5+ �h7 4 lDf8+. The rest went:

Treer - Farhni

�h7 SlDf8+ �h6 6 it.e3+ Resigns

Correspondence 1 927-9

2 ...:th2+ 3 �g3! :td2 4 it.dS+!

If we change the mix of pieces to two knights and a bishop, the defender has another drawing resource, sacrificing the rook for the bishop to create insufficient mating material. The bishop can evade the sack but then the rook saves the day with checks.

Karpov - Kasparov Tilburg 1 99 1

PASSffRlANGULATE Pieces can't really pass. But they can temporize and maintain roughly the same position even after moving. This is critical in near zugzwang positions, both for offense and defense. J(jngs, bishops, rooks and queens can temporize. They can even lose a move. Queens are particularly agile because they can triangulate with forcing moves. This is rarely significant before the ending.

Pytel - Bauer France 1 996

Black to move

The move instinctive is l ...�f7??, creating a kind of Tesuji. But White wins with 2 lDg6 or 2 lDe6, because then Black cannot pass with 2 ...�f8 and must allow 3 �g8 and queens. Black draws with I. �fS! (2 lDe6+ �f7). As long as Black's king is on the same color square as the knight when it is White's tum to move, there is no zugzwang. White's knight cannot lose a move. ..

Black to play

When such endings were analyzed in the 1 9th century, Staunton concluded that two bishops and knight usually wins "without much difficulty. "

A more typical endgame situation, given by Belchikov as a test for juniors, is:

I .. :tg2 ?? .

But it is much harder than that. Black can draw if he keeps the rook in a position for rank and file checks, e.g. l .. .:tb 1 . It is tempting to start, instead, with l ...l::th l + 2 �g5 :te l , e.g. 3 �g6 :td l ! (not 3 ... :tb l 4 it.g4 ! and mates because Black can't check at gl or b6). Then 4 it.xdl is stalemate and 4 lDf6+ �h8 5 i.e5 allows 5 . . .:gl + 6 �h6 :tg6+! . But 6 it.$4 wins because 6....l:e 1 permits 7 lDd7+ �g8 8 it.e6 mate and on 6...:tg2 7 �h6 Black has no checks.

2 it.f3!

Black to play

Black should keep his rook flexible for checks on files or ranks.

I.. .l:al ! 2 i.g6 :to + 3 �e7 .

Of course, 3 i.f5 .l:xf5+ is an instant draw.

3 ....l:al ! 4 lDf7+ �g8 S lDh6+ �h8 6 lDrs :ta7+ White played on for another nine moves - before allowing . . . :tf6+! in a position where �xf6 would have been stalemate.

White to play

1 "a8+! .l:fS 2 "a2+ .l:f7 3 "dS! Zugzwang: I . .�f8 walks into 2 "d8 mate, and a safe bishop move, to bI or f5, allows 4 h7+ it.xh7 5 �h6 and wins (5 . . .it.f5 6 "d8+ :tf8 7 "g5+). .

Pawns cannot pass. Neither can knights because they must always move to a square of a different color. One of the unique failings of a knight is its inability to lose a move. This has practical applic ations in endgames such as:

White to move

Black can avoid capture if he makes sure he goes to the same color square of the knight. For example, 1 lDd3 a5?? loses to 2

86


ltJc5, forcing 2 . . .a4 3 ltJxa4. But 1 .. .a6! works, e.g. 2 ltJc5 a5 3 ltJb3 a4 4 ltJc l a3 and the best White can do is stop the pawn from queening by blockading it on a2. The different roles that pieces play shapes their personalities and the material decisions we make. For example, bishops of opposite color cannot attack one another. That means they are great at maintaining a blockade in an ending. But in a middlegame, trading other minor pieces to reach bishops-of-opposite color can be the best way to obtain a mating attack, because one bishop

cannot defend squares attacked by its rival. Also, a rook has great powers to restrict, to pin and to check. But those functions may not be significant until the late middle game, so sacrificing the Exchange before that is often a strong idea. The decisions we are talking about - whether to trade or sacrifice and what to trade or sacrifice - are fundamental to chess. They are why charts of relative value were created in the first place. How this decision-making has changed in the last century is the subject of the next chapter.

CHAPTER 8. TRANSACTIONS We think about material most After several more exchanges, a when it matters - when deciding draw was agreed. whether to force or to allow A combination is the voluntary transactions of pieces and pawns. and temporary surrender of material There are three basic types of in a forcing sequence of moves. transaction and we divide them by Once the combination is over, the the inexact terms "trade," player who began it has improved "combination" and "sacrifice." Our . his lot (if the combination works!). understanding of each of the three Usually, he regains the material he has changed - in some ways gave up with interest or delivers significantly - in the last 50 years. mate. A trade is a swap of identical Combinations existed in the pieces (rook for rook, pawn for proto-chess games of Chaturanga pawn) or of pieces of approximately and Shatranj and were given a new equal material (bishop for knight). impetus in the writings of Giacchino Beginners are told these exchanges Greco, Greco 1 620. circa are value-neutral: You neither profit demonstrated their beauty and nor lose ground significantly. Make effectiveness. One of his examples enough trades and a draw is almost was: unavoidable. Campora - Onlschuk Buenos Aires 2003

1 e4 e6 2 d4 ltJf6 3 .i.d3 ltJc6 4 ltJo .i.e7 5 h4 0-0 6 e5 ltJd5

1 e4 e5 2 ltJo ltJc6 3 ltJc3 ltJf6 4 .i.b5 ltJd4 5 ltJxd4 exd4 6 e5 dxc3 7 exf6 'ii'x f6 S dxc3 .i.c5 9 'ii'e2+ 'ii'e6 10 .i.f4 c6 1 1 .i.d3 d5 12 0-0 'ii'xe2 13 .i.xe2 .i.f5 14 .i.d3 .i.xd3 15 cxd3

7 .i.xh7+ �xb7 S ltJg5+ Neishtadt said a combination "exposes false values and confirms true ones." Material can be a false way of evaluating the position. White's preponderance of pieces near the king is the true one.

88

Transactions

8 �xgS 9 hxgS+ �g8 10 'Wh5 ..•

f5 1 1 g6 l:[e8 12 Wb8 mate

Greco also analyzed the non-forcing offer, whose acceptance depends on the opponent. For example, Greco gave 1 e4 eS 2 lbfJ

lbc6 3 �c4 �cS 4 c3 lbf6 5 lbg5 0-0 6 d3 h6 and now 7 h4, showing that 7...hxgS 8 hxgS lbh7 9 'Wb5 wins.

Transactions 89

for an Olympiad game: In view of the peril for his team, he asked their permission in advance.

Bronstein - Rojahn Olympiad 1 956

1 e4 e5 2 lbfJ lbc6 3 �c4 lbf6 4 lbgS dS S exd5 lba5 6 d3 h6 7 lbfJ e4 8 dxe4?! lbxc4 9 'Wd4

A sacrifice is also voluntary but the material lost is not regained and there may be no clear point (as there is in combinations and trades) when the outcome can be definitively evaluated. When the fireworks are over, the best you can usually say is "White has enough for his sacrifice" or "White doesn't have enough not "White compensation" wins." Another difference is that the typical mistake to make in a combination is to miscalculate, such as by overlooking a strong move by before opponent the the combination ends. The chief mistake in a sacrifice is to misevaluate, that is, to visualize the proper moves but to misjudge the position after the forcing moves end. There is a third difference: A sacrifice is based on that vague, indefinite entity called "compen sation." This means there is an element of uncertainty. "A sacrifice is always risky," Bronstein wrote in Sorcerer's Apprentice. If an offer of material "does not contain an element of risk, it is not a sacrifice but a simple exchange. Maybe a very complicated one but still an exchange," he said. Bronstein recognized the risk factor when he prepared a lb-for-2-pawn sacrifice

GRAY AREAS So we have three neatly separated terms: trade, combination and sacrifice. But the improving player learns that none of this is nearly as simple as it seems. Trades may be value-neutral when material is equal. But when there is a material imbalance, trades can tum a roughly even position into a very favorable one - or a favorable one into a win.

Krasenkow - Karpov Polanica Zdroj 1 998

A trade of bishops would win for White because of his powerful rook ( l .. .l:[xe4 2 l:[d7+ �f6 3 l:[xc7).

2 l:[d7+ �f8

It is the presence of both rooks and bishops that dooms Black after the natural l . ..�f6. Then 2 b6! �xb6 3 �d5 threatens mate as well as .i.xc4 and l:[d6+. Black also loses if he allows a trade of bishops (2 ...l:[xe4 3 l:[xc7) or of both bishops and rooks with 2 . .. �b8 3 l:[d8 l:[xe4 4 l:[flH! �g7 5 l:[xb8 l:[e7 6 l:[c8! and 7 l:[c7.

3 �xg6 l:[xf4+

Or 3 ...�xf4 4 l:[xb7 and wins.

4 �gS lIc4 S hS

Thanks to his improved positions of his rook and king, White is winning after S...�f4+ 6 �f6 l:[c8 7 h6! because of 7 �xh6 8 l:[b7. Black resigned following 7 �g8 8 �fS l:[e8 9 �e6+. �h8 10 �c4 in view of �g6 and l:[h7 mate. ...

...

White's compensation lies in his pawn screen in the center. Black should destabilize it, such as with 9 ...lbd6 lO e5 lbfS and 1 0 lbc3 c6 (or lO ...lbfxe4 I Ilbxe4 'We7).

White to play

9 lbb6 10 c4 c5? .••

Black overestimates his chances. He should still try 1 0. . . c6, even if it means giving the material back with 1 1 c5lbbxd5 1 2 exd5 'Wxd5.

1 1 'Wd3 �g4 12 lbbd2 �e7 13 0-0 0-0 14 lbe5 �h5 15 b3 lbbd7 16 �b2! lbxeS Usually trades favor the player who is ahead in material and diminish the value of a pawn center. Here the trades enable the pawns to advance with great effect.

17 �xe5 lbd7 18 .i.c3 .i.f6 1 9 l:[ael �xc3 2 0 'Wxc3 'Wf6 21 eS 'WfS 22 f4 Bronstein won without much ado in 1 6 moves.

In the absence of a passed pawn, a draw may seem likely. But the game's outcome will depend on which pieces are exchanged, if any. For example, 1 l:[cl seeks a trade of bishops, which would win. But 1 l:[c 1 allows a different trade, of rooks - l . ..�a5 2 .i.xb7 l:[xf4+! 3 �xf4 �d2+ - and that ensures a draw.

1 l:[dl! A swap of pawns, 1 �xb7 l:[xf4+ 2 �h3, also fails because White won't have enough pawns left to win after 2 . . .�d8.

1. l:[c4 ..

Notice that no pieces were actually traded. But White's ability to offer trades, after 1 l:[d 1 and in the 2 ... 'it>f8 lines, allowed him to tum a drawish position into a mate in ten moves. No wonder Botvinnik said, "The foundation of chess is exchanges." We have a clear idea of what a trade is. Defining a sacrifice is trickier because it leads into gray areas that overlap with trade and combination. For instance, if you give up a queen for two knights and a bishop is it a sacrifice? Perhaps even though the result may be more "equal" than a trade of bishop for knight. Spielmann objected to calling Exchange-for-two-pawns a sacrifice because it is hardly a material loss. (He preferred "White wins two pawns for the Exchange. ")

90

Transactions

Transactions

Even fuzzier is the line that separates sacrifice from combin ation. Botvinnik helped obscure the border when he wrote, "A combination is a forced variation with a sacrifice," with the emphasis on the last word. In essence, a combination should be the opposite of a sacrifice. Its goal is to win material (or deliver mate) in the short run, not give it up for unforeseen rewards in the long run. A combination is, in Spielmann's famous phrase, a sham sacrifice. But the distinction between combination and real sacrifice blurs easily. For example, a sacrifice 10 the endgame is more like a combination, usually aimed at promoting a pawn in the next half dozen or so moves. There is rarely any true risk.

Vasiliev - McMahon Plovdiv 2003

2 axb6 White may not be able to calculate the Exchange offer out to a forced win - or at least not with certainty. But he can follow the rule of thumb that two passed pawns on the sixth rank beat an unassisted rook (2 ...:'c6 3 b7; 2 ... Ilb7 3 c6).

2 ...:'e7 3 c6 lte8 A better practical chance was 3 . . .�d6 because White might have been led into 4 c7? l:.e8 S �eS+ �c6! or S �f6 �c6 6 �d8 �b7. (But 4 �cS+! wins.)

4 b7 �d6 5 �e5+! Resigns

Real sacrifices are relatively scarce in the ending because there are fewer positional factors to serve as compensation than there were in the middlegame. Keres, in Chess Life, recognized there is a traditional division between a combination based on forcing variations and an intuitive sacrifice based on compensation. But he said there was a third kind of material offer that fits in between.

Keres - Westerinen Tallinn 1 97 1

White to play

White can defend the attacked c-pawn and try to invade with his king at gS. But much better than 1 :'c1lilb8 was:

1 :'b6+! lilxb6

There was no hope in 1 . . .�t7 2 :'xa6lilxcS 3 :'f6+.

White to play

1 �xd5!

Keres explained this was "not quite intuitive, but neither is it based completely on specific calculated variations. " He said he had a "feeling that something must be happening around dS." After examining a few variations he found a sequence that seemed to make the sacrifice work.

1 .. exd5 2lile5! .

Not 2 :'xd5 1i'c8! and Black escapes with his piece.

2...lilxe5 Keres calculated one fairly short variation - 2 ...d4 3 lilxc6 �xc6 4 :'xd4 �d7 5 �c7! and wins - and one eight-move line that leads to an edge after 2 ... f6 3 lilxc6 �xc6 4 1i'e6 ! . "I hope it's all correct!" he added, indicating he wasn't sure even after the post-mortem.

3 1i'xe5 0-0 Black avoids 3 . . . f6 4 1i'xd5, threatening 5 :'xe7+! , but this move accepts a pawn-down ending that he lost despite the bishops of opposite color. The boundary between sacrifice and combination is best determined by the immediacy of threats. Greco's 7 �xh7+ led to instant mating threats on p.87 and White is threatening to queen in a few moves after 1 :'b6+ and 2 axb6 on p.90.

91

1 �xd5 doesn't automatically put it in the category of sacrifice. IDltIate often Grandmasters "combinations with no clear idea of threats or consequences," Yuri Averbakh wrote in his game collection. "The quality of a combination is not impaired by what a player sees or did not see at the board. Rather the opposite." Despite the gray areas there are some truths we can acknowledge and principles we can follow about the different kinds of transactions, beginning with trades.

TRADES Remarkably little advice has been offered by the wise men of chess. One writer, James Mason, spent two paragraphs on the subject in The Princip les of Chess and his advice wasn't particularly practical. He said, for example, that when it is a matter of equal pieces and there are no other considerations, "it is better to take first than to suffer the adversary to do so, as certainty is better than contingency." Nirnzovich devoted a small chapter of My System to trades, saying they were beneficial when they obtain an open file, "destroy a defender," or serve to avoid loss of time. "The question of tempo plays an essential part in every exchange," he wrote with typical exaggeration.

But Bronstein never made a major threat until well after 8 dxe4 and 9 1i'd4 on p.88, so it was a true sacrifice. Kasparov praised one of his Exchange sacrifices by saying, "The ultimate beauty of the capture at b7 lies in the absence of any concrete threats."

Nimzovich aside, there is some consensus about what the beginners should be told about trades. It can be summed up by:

Keres's 1 �xdS is much closer to combination than sacrifice because threats begin to arise after 2 lile5. Lack of certainty about the result of

(1) If you have a material edge, trade pieces, not pawns. Conversely, when behind in material, trade pawns, not pieces.

92

Transactions

This guideline is ancient, its author unknown, and it has passed into the universal chess canon. Krarnnik explained that he played 28 .xb6 against Topalov at Roquebrune 2003 "because I was told in childhood that if you have extra material it can do no harm to exchange � ome pieces, especially , the queens. (2) If you have a positional edge, "pieces should be exchanged only when it brings concrete advantages" (Botvinnik). Or, as Tarrasch put it, trade "only those pieces that do not contribute" to the advantage.

Transactions

Or l l .. .gxh3 12 :xh3 g6 1 3 0-0-0 and 14 :dh l with a brutal attack. Black tries his best now to force queens off the board.

12 O-O-O! g5! ? 13 liJh5 g2 14 :hgl .f7 15 .e2 .xf2 16 :xg2 .xe2 17 :xg5+ �f7 18 �xe2 But the queen trade only magnifies the difference between the remaining pieces.

18 ... �e7 19 :n :xn+ 20 �xn

Karpov - Yusupov Tilburg 1 993

1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 e6 3 liJf3 b6 4 g3 �b7 5 �g2 �e7 6 liJc3 liJe4 7 �d2 �f6 8 .c2 liJxd2 Since Black must trade off or retreat the knight, he obtains the compensation, at least theoretical, of the "minor Exchange."

9 .xd2 d6 10 d5 0-0 1 1 liJd4 e5

(3) Don't trade well placed pieces for less well-placed ones. Nimzovich said this makes sense because the location of the piece is in itself a positional advantage. Explaining why a white knight on e5 shouldn't be swapped for one on d7, he wrote, "When a farmer loses a suckling pig through illness he mourns not only the little pig but also the good food he gambled on it. "

Bezgodov - A. G. Panchenko Voronezh 2002

1 d4 f5 2 liJh3 liJf6 3 �g5 e6 4 e3 �e7 5 liJf4 0-0 6 liJd2 Black now trades off his only developed minor pieces - and at a loss of time.

6 ... liJe4? 7 �xe7 .xe7 8 �d3 liJxd2 9 .xd2 c6 10 g4! White exploits his lead in development in traditional gambit style.

10 ...fxg4 1 1 h3! g3

The exchanges have left three active pieces against a lone king.

20 ... d5 21 :g7+ �d8 22 :xh7 liJd7 23 liJf4 liJf6 24 :17 Resigns

But these guidelines come with the usual problems: They often one another. contradict For example, a player ahead in material often has better placed pieces than his opponent, so trading them ofT may satisfy (I) while contravening (2) and (3). And any rule about trades carries with it the universal caveat: "unless there is a good reason." Nirnzovich understood have would the soundness of Karpov's thinking in the following even though it costs White a prize pig.

12 liJc6! The knight can't be supported and will be traded ofT but there is good reason for 1 2 lDc6. White wants to have the only remaining knight.

93

And White, with liJb5 coming up, enjoyed a· substantial positional edge.

"EVEN" TRADES Leaving positional considerations aside for the moment, Kaufman's statistical analysis of 300,000 games offered this conclusion: Every "even" exchange is apt to favor one side or the other, sometimes by a substantial amount. This sounds paradoxical but is consistent with what we know about the way piece values change in the course of the game. They change because trades of pieces and pawns will improve or decrease the value of the material that remains on the board. We can readily see that in certain endings, such as with rooks and bishops of opposite color. The presence of rooks gives the superior side more winning ideas, such as mate or an Exchange sacrifice.

Nikolic - Huebner Interpolis 1 987

12 •d7 .•.

Black cannot safely win a pawn with 1 2...�xc6 1 3 dxc6 .e8 1 4 0-0 liJxc6 1 5 .d5.

1 3 lDxb8 :fxb8 1 4 h4! White finds a way of making Black's f6-bishop bad (14...a6 1 5 �h3 and lDe4).

14 ... a5

Opening up lines with ... c6 would help White after he plays dxc6, trades bishops and. plants a knight on d5.

15 a4! :m 1 6 e4 h5 17 0-0-0

White to play

White's pieces are well placed but ... :b5 will shield Black's most

94

Transactions 95

Transactions

obvious target, b7. As on p.S9, White lacks a passed pawn· but has other methods of winning.

Tarraseh - Rubinstein San Sebastian 1 9 1 2

1 �eS .ta2 2 ..t>f6 l:tbS 3 l:txa4 Trading rooks, 3 l:txb5??, kills White's chances. Now 4 ... l:txg2 5 �e7, threatens 6 l:taS mate.

...

Otherwise Black's rook is tied to b7 and White proceeds with 9 f4 and 1 0 g4.

9 l:txb7+ �e8 10 .teS l:ta2 1 1

l:te7+ �d8

There's a third way for White to win: checkmate. It arises in lines such as 1 l .. .�ffl 1 2 g4 l:tg2 1 3 .td6 �gS 14 l:teS+ �h7 1 5 .te5! with the idea of �e7 and l:thS mate.

1 2 l:txf7! .txf7 13 �xf7 White won eventually after 1 3 ... l:txg2 1 4 f4 �d7 1 5 �g6 �e6 1 6 .td4 �d5 1 7 .tg7 - although 1 7 f5 ! would have won faster. observation also Kaufman's applies to many early and late middlegame situations. For example, a player with the two bishops generally benefits by trades of rooks. This can be explained by saying that the trade cuts down rook counterplay, clears the path for his king and allows the bishops to dominate.

Now 17 �e4 .tc6+ loses. The game ended soon after a Tesuji, 1 7 �e2 �xe2 18 tiJf4 .txa4 1 9 tiJe6

I n that example, i t was fairly clear which pieces Black wanted to swap. But the issue becomes more subtle with queens present. In the next diagram a swap of queens or rooks - or both - seems likely in the next ten moves.

i.b3! 20 lLlxd4 + �b2.

4...11bS 5 l:ta8+ �d7 6 .td4 .tdS 7 l:tm

7 l:tb3 8 l:tb8 l:txa3

eliminating White's two-bishop edge, Black has improved his position by roughly a half pawn. He has good winning chances, e.g. 4 b4! d4! 5 cxd4 �e7 6 tiJe4 �e6 7 tiJc5+ �d5 8 tiJxa6 l:tf7! .

14 a4 i.d7 15 �f3 �c3! 1 6 �xe3 d4+!

3... llxb2 4 .teS!

White has two ways of creating a winning passed pawn: with f3-f4, g2-g4 and f4-f5, and with an Exchange sacrifice on f7.

The rook trades have allowed the king, with the help of the bishops, to threaten the d- and a-pawn. White is almost out of moves ( 1 3 a3 a4 and ... .tc l xa3).

Black to play

1...l:tb2! This seems illogical. Black trades off an active rook for a passive one. But there's a different logic involved: Since the two bishops constitute a material edge, trades in an otherwise materially equal position will favor the player who has the .ts.

The impact of rook trades is also felt in imbalances l ike the following.

Aseev - Mikhalevski

St. Petersburg-Beersheva 1 999

But which trade will favor White and which will favor Black?

Kasparov - Kramnik Moscow 2001

2 llxb2 i.xb2 3 l:td2 i.d4 White would have the more useful rook after 4 l:tc2, e.g. 4. . . .txf2? 5 �f2 .txd3 6 l:tc5. But following 4 ...l:td7 5 l:tc6 .tb5 6 l:tc8 a4 its activity has been controlled. White decides instead to bring his knight to f4.

4 tiJh3 �e6 5 l:te2 �d6 6 fS l:te8! The bishops will command the board after 7 l:txcS .txc8 g g4 .te3 ! . 7 .tdl l:txe2+ 8 .txe2 �eS 9 g4 .te3! 1 0 �f3 �d4 1 1 .tb3 .tb7 Faster was 1 l .. ..txd3 12 .txd5 .tfl .

12 �e2 .ta6 13 i.e2 i.bS

Black to play

Black has two pawns and a rook for two minor pieces, which is usually more than enough. But White has the two bishops. Some masters may prefer his position before they see. . .

1.. ..tfS! But after this, Black's advantage becomes distinct.

2 l:txe8 �xe8 3 .txfS l:txf5 It's not a large edge but enough to work with. By trading his (redundant) rook at eS and

White to play

White has reason to believe he has an edge because of the cooperation of his minors and because all the pawns lie on one side of the board, diminishing the value of a rook. Black wants to trade heavy pieces. White should limit the trades to queens. For instance 1 tiJe4! 'iib l 2 h4 .xc I 3 l:txc 1 and now 3 ...l:tec8 4 l:te l ! favors White, as Kasparov pointed out.

1 .e1 ? l:tee8!

96

Transactions

Now 2 lIa4 'ifb l ! 3 'ii'xb 1 ?? l:txb 1 loses. White mistakenly believed he would be better off with a trade of rooks, rather than queens.

2 IIxc8 IIxe8 3 c!lJg4 lIe8! Black is equal because he can use his rook to advance the e-pawn (and doesn't fear 4 c!lJxe5? "d4). White failed to appreciate how much trouble he was getting into. 4 i.d3 "d4 S i.e4? rs! 6 i.xfS

lIa8

The threat of . . .:a 1 must win material. White saved himself by reaching an Exchange-down ending after 7 i.bl �2 8 h4 lIal 9 �h2 "xbl l0 "xeS in which Black had too few pawns to win.

PARADOX Another illustration of how "even" exchanges are not necessarily even arises in some knight-for-bishop trades: A trade that is favorable in a materially equal position may actually be harmful in a pawn-up position. The paradox can be illustrated by positions like this.

Karpov - Anand

Candidates match 1 99 1

Black to play

Transactions

1 ...c!lJc4+?

Almasi - Karpov Groningen 1 995

Anand called this "a real mistake" and explained: "In endings with a bishop and knight each, exchanging dissimilar pieces has the effect of improving the defender's drawing chances."

eS

Anand didn't elaborate on his comment. But the reasoning behind it goes this way: Since Black was a pawn ahead in the diagram he would benefit from trading similar pieces, c!lJ for c!lJ or i. for i.. But once dissimilar pieces are swapped (2 i.xc4), trading the remaining pair of minors is more difficult. Black's bishop cannot attack a white knight on c3 or d4. The extra pawn is harder to promote and White's drawing chances have increased. The situation would be different if material were equal - if, say, you add a white e-pawn to the diagram. Then 1 ...c!lJc4+ 2 i.xc4 would be a valid way of keeping Black's winning hopes alive. He would have a much smaller - and purely positional - edge. But White would be the one trying to swap the last pair of pieces and that would be difficult because they are dissimilar. Karpov understood the subtleties when he was on the other side of both the board and the outcome:

S...h4 6 �d4 i.e6 7 i.d3 i.f3 8 i.o �d7 9..ic4 c!lJcS! White's defense is solid after 9 ... c!lJxc4? 1 0 c!lJxc4 �c6 1 1 b4. Karpov said he had to resort to "trickery" to win.

1 0 i.bS+ �c7 1 1 i.a4 c!lJe7 1 2 i.b3 �d7

2 i.xc4 IIxc4 3 IId4 lieS 4 a4!

White should now continue 5 fxe5 IIxe5+ 6 �f2 and axb5. Black would have to try to win by creating a kingside passed pawn without losing the b-pawn or swapping too many pawns altogether. But that is a much more difficult task than he faced in the diagram.

97

White to play

Black, a pawn up, would like to trade pieces. But which? In general, the easiest minor piece endings to win are c!lJ-vs.-lD. Then comes i.-vs.-..i (of the same color), followed by i.-vs.-c!lJ, then c!lJ-vs.-i. and finally bishops of opposite color.

Even if the king is driven off d4 and Black gets the "right" piece trade, he cannot win if White maintains the blockade, e.g. 12 ... c!lJc6+ 1 3 �d3 �d6 14 c!lJc4+ �c5 1 5 c!lJd2 ..id5 1 6 ..ixd5 exd5 1 7 c!lJD. There followed:

13 c!lJc4 c!lJcs 14 c!lJe3 c!lJa7 IS ..ia4+ i.c6 1 6 i.dl ! c!lJbS+ 1 7 �d3 �d6 1 8 c!lJg4 �e7 19 i.a4 c!lJa7

Therefore Black would love to swap bishops. But White had avoided that three moves earlier and is likely to continue doing so. Trading knights is a distant second in Black's list of priorities and any other trade ranks far below that.

1..id3! It is worth giving up a second pawn for White to reach c!lJ-vs.-..i. On l . ..gxf4 he avoids 2 gxf4 c!lJh4 ! , which gives Black fine chances because of ... c!lJg2 and . . . c!lJD. Instead, White would play 2 i.xf5! fxg3 3 hxg3 exf5 4 c!lJd3 with a good blockade developing from 'iPd4/c!lJf4.

1. ..c!lJd6! 2 c!lJg4 gxf4 3 gxf4 hS 4 c!lJe3 i.e4 S i.e2! Computers like 5 i.xe4? but trading bishops is fatal when there are so many pawns on the board.

20..ixc6? "White loses his nerve!" Karpov wrote in New In Chess. The knight ending would be won even if Black loses the h-pawn or the b-pawn, e.g. 20 ... c!lJxc6 2 1 �c4 f5 22 c!lJe3 �d6 23 �b5 �c7 24 c!lJc4 c!lJd4+ 25 �a6 c!lJf.3! .

20...c!lJxe6 21 c!lJe3 �d6 22 c!lJc4+ �cS 23 c!lJd2 �dS 24 c!lJf3 eS! Black's pawns won soon after 2S c!lJxh4 (25 fxe5 c!lJxe5+) exf4 26 c!lJrs c!lJeS+ 27 �e2 �e4!.

Transactions 99

98 Transactions

In this and other transactions there is a litmus test. To paraphrase Tarrasch: What goes off the board isn't important. What stays on is. This means trades have to be j udged by the pieces that remain and not by those that disappear as a result of a trade, sacrifice or combination. This may contradict those guidelines about not trading well-placed pieces. For instance, an entrer:'-ched black knight on c4 may look Impressive in a middlegame or ending. But if the c-fiIe is open and the knight stands in the way of Black's rook on c8 it may only hurt the cause. "�h�t goes off... " has many applIcations. Capablanca's advice about Exchange-up endings is one. Giving up a rook for piece and pawn a la Capa is not an equal transaction. But it is what remains on the board - the extra pawn that can be promoted - that matters. "What goes off... " can justify some grossly unequal transactions.

counterplay ( ... l:t8c2 and the passed e-pawn). There is a way for him to calculate his way to victory - 1 'ii'h5 so that I ...l:t8c2+ 2 ¢>g3 and White threatens 3 l:te8+ ! . But White chose a stunning . alternative. He preferred to do his calculating in a very favorable ending where there was much less chance for an unpleasant surprise.

1 l:te7!? lUc2 2 l:txd7 l:txe2+ 3 ¢>xe2

Euwe - Alekhine

S �e6! Now White can calculate with certainty. He has it worked out to a mate (which he threatens immediately).

S h6 9 l:te7 l:td4 .••

Or 9 ...e2 10 ¢>d7 l:td2 1 1 �c7 and 1 2 d7.

New Delhi 2000

Was this an equal transaction? Of course not. White gave away all of his material edge. But he converted it to a huge positional plus based on his passed pawn, the better king and his rook on the seventh rank. From his experience, White believed this should be enough win without a lot of finesses. For example, if Black tries for counterplay with 3 . . .l:tc2+ 4 ¢>e3 l:txa2 5 l:txb7 ¢>f8? he loses immediately to 6 l:tb8+ and 7 d7. Also bad is 5 . . .l:ta3+ 6 �d4 l:td3+ 7 ¢>c5 a3 8 :a7 and b5-b6.

3 b6 4 l:tb7 l:tc2+ 5 ¢>e3 l:tc3+ 6 �d4 :d3+ 7 �e5 . With the king to shepherd the pawn, White can even allow Black to advance his passer.

7 ... e3

S b5 9 "xc7 "eS ..•

Black Resigns Both players would promote 1 2 ... e2 1 3 d7 e l (iV) 14 d8('iV)+ �h7 - but White mates with 1 5 ¢>f7 and "g8. Because trades influence every material imbalance to a significant degree, we'll pay special attention to them in the chapters that follow.

SACRIFICE

White to play

White's material edge is obvious but he has to deal with Black's

1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 g6 3 liJc3 d5 4 1Wb3 dxc4 5 'ii'xc4 Jtg7 6 e4 0-0 7 liJo a6 S i.f4

10 ¢>d7 1le4 1 1 Ilxe4 fxe4 12 ¢>e7!

..•

Shirov - Grischuk

World Championship match, 1 2th game 1 935

Our notion of what can be sacrificed and when - and what constitutes compensation - has changed drastically in the last half century. We simply think differently about sacks than the pre-World War II players did. Consider the different explanations that have been offered for this strange game.

White won in 4 1 moves. Black's faulty sacrifice was considered bizarre at the time, and there have been many rationales since. Among them: (a) Alekhine was drunk. This was Alexander Kotov's explanation in his novel about the first Russian world champion. In other words, 8 ...b5 was simply an oversight that failed to notice 9 "xc7 was possible. (b) Alekhine miscalculated. According to Euwe's biographer, Alexander Munninghoff, Alekhine had prepared 8 . . .b5 9 'ihc7 extensively. But in going over the analysis on a board, he reset the a-pawn improperly, at a7, rather than a6. This /apsus manus meant that 9 . . .b4 1 0 liJa4 liJxe4, as Alekhine intended, would lose to 1 1 tLlb6! . In other words, 8. . . b5 is a (faulty) combination. (c) Alekhine misevaluated. This was Kasparov's explanation. Black

1 00

Transactions

Transactions 1 0 1

could have redeemed his play with 9 .. .'ii'xc7 ! 10 �xc7 �b7. In other words, Alekhine didn't understand compensation.

to liberate his game even if he didn't get the pawn back quickly.

In fact, this variation resurfaced as a real opening 35 years later, with excellent chances for Black after II e5 ltJd5 1 2 ltJxd5 �xd5. The position hadn't changed. What had changed was the idea of how much counterplay Black needed to offset the loss of a pawn.

Soviet Championship 1 955

In Alekhine's day, sacks were more or less considered the exclusive property of the player with advantage. "Sacrifices only prove someone has blundered," Tartakower said. Spielmann said in most cases, sacrifices "serve to existing increase already advantages." In addition, compen ation had to be visible, not vague. Lasker, for example, said three or four moves of development could compensate in the opening for the sacrifice of "an important pawn." Sacking a pawn for something less distinct was considered more like gambling. But by the 1 950s, Soviet masters routinely sacrificed pawns in doubled-edged positions in which not a shred of advantage could be claimed - and for compensation that could be described only as "queenside pressure" or "good attacking chances." This was influenced by their choices of opening. Once the Russian and Ukrainian masters began to rely on sharp defenses such as the Sicilian and King's Indian, they realized Black must sacrifice in some positions or he will be positionally squashed. In the Najdorf lines with ... e5, for example, Black learned to play . . .d5

Shcherbakov - Spassky

1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 S ltJc3 a6 6 �e2 eS 7 ltJb3 �e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 �e3 ltJbd7 10 a4 b6 1 1 f3 �b7 12 "d2 "c7 13 llfdl l:tac8 14 �f1

Tal - Boleslavsky


1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ltJc3 �g7 4 e4 d6 S f3 0-0 6 �e3 eS 7 dS In the Soviet chess yearbook of 1 95 1 -2 Boleslavsky said this move was most exact since 7 ltJge2 invited 7 ... exd4 8 ltJxd4 c6 9 ltJc2 l:te8. That would doom Black's d-pawn but Boleslavsky had become convinced that it could be safely sacrificed in lines such as 1 0 "d2 d5! II 0-0-0 "a5 1 2 cxdS cxd5 13 exdS ltJbd7.

7 ... cS

After 7 . . .ltJbd7 8 "d2 tDhS Black implicitly offers another sack, 9 g4 ltJf4 (not 8 ... ltJhf6?).

8 g4 ltJe8 9 h4 fS

14 ...dS!? A standard idea at the time. The conventional wisdom of the 1 9S0s assumed that if White carried out a maneuver such as tDcl-a2-b4, Black was strategically lost. Another version was 1 3 ...l:tfd8 14 "el d5! and then 1 5 exdS iLb4 16 l:td3 e4.

If Black doesn't do this now, he will be limited to queenside play after ltJge2-g3 and that was regarded as a prescription for self-mate.

10 gxfS gxfS 1 1 exfS �xfS 12 ..td3

I S ltJxd5 A bit better was 1 5 exd5 �b4 1 6 d6 "c6.

IS ...tDxdS 16 exdS "xc2 17 "xc2 l:txc2 White still has a slight edge after 1 8 l:tabl l:td8 1 9 d6 and 20 as but Black has active pieces and, after a few miscues, he won. More sacrifices were demanded by the nature of Black's burden in the King's Indian Defense.

12 e4! .•.

For better or worse, this is best. White's positional edge is clear after 12 ...iLxd3 13 "xd3 lbd7 14 tDe4. As Kasparov later told students of the Botvinnik School, if you're

uncomfortable being a pawn down, don' t play the King's Indian.

13 fxe4 "e7 14 exf5! Black's compensation is evident after 1 4 ltJge2 �g4!. After the text, however, White has the edge ( 1 4 .....xe3+ 1 5 "e2 "g3+ 1 6 �d2). Sacrifices of the early 1 950s typically consisted of a pawn or the Kotov Exchange. Alexander acknowledged this, in effect, when he wrote, "The most difficult thing in chess is the correct and timely sacrifice of a pawn." He added that when you sacrifice something greater, it should be part of a combination. But a grandmaster consensus was soon formed that broadened the conditions for offering material: You could sacrifice a minor piece under a variety of circumstances "in better or worse positions," as Tal put it. At first some players seemed almost embarrassed when this succeeded. In 1 958 Alexander Tolush got out of a bad position by means of a piece sack that turned out, in the post-mortem, to be unsound. After he won the game, he wrote that his opponent: " . . .spent large amounts of time and couldn't find the right defense. One can conclude that the sacrifice of the knight in psychological terms was fully justified. Such a method of play has come into fashion recently and often brings success." By the 1 970s Tal announced that it was not only impossible to analyze some sacks correctly - it wasn't even necessary: "Many sacrifices don't require concrete analysis. A glance at the position is

102

Transactions

Transactions

sufficient to convince one that the sacrifice is correct." How this remarkable change came about - and changed further in the 1 980s and 1 990s - is illustrated by the evolution of the best-known Exchange sacrifice, . . .l:txc3 in the Sicilian Defense.

ROOK TAKES KNIGHT The sack on c3 was virtually unknown before World War II but became almost a national weapon of the Soviets in the 1 950s. Its reputation has grown so great that when Sergey Movsesian allowed Kasparov to play it against him in 2000 ...

Movsesian - Kasparov Sarajevo 2000

Vladimir Simagin, who did as much as anyone to make the "Soviet Exchange sacrifice" famous, systematically analyzed . . . l:txc3 in an April 1 959 article in Shakhmaty v SSSR titled "Rook Takes Knight." Simagin focused on examples in which the elimination of the knight eventually costs White the e-pawn. Because of the sharp, asymmetrical nature of the Sicilian, a minor piece plus one pawn and the initiative is usually enough compensation for the rook, Simagin concluded. Players sitting on the White side of the board quickly learned that it was too much compensation. Suetin recalled in a 1 969 collection of his best games how he got to play . . .l:txc3 and ...lDxe4 for the first time in 1 948. "Today, of course, a similar ' sacrifice' seems to me no more than a favorable trade which, alas, doesn't happen often," he wrote. In other words, it had become part of the chess culture. That thinking included a recognition that Black doesn 't need the assurance of winning the e-pawn - or any pawn - before he sacks on c3.

Ravinsky Simagin -

Moscow 1 957

White to play

. . . Kasparov ridiculed his opponent's lack of judgment. You simply can't allow such a sack, he suggested. "From my perspective, it's a matter of chess culture." Black had the initiative after 2 bxc3 1i'c7 3 lDe2 �e7 4 g5 0-0 and ...lDa4 and won.

White played 1 �d4? which gave Black what he considered the minimum requirements - a pawn and the initiative - to justify 1 . . .l:txc3! 2 bxc3 lDxe4 3 lDd2 l2Jxd2 4 1i'xd2 i.c6. In the Shakhmaty article Simagin wrote that White must play 1 l2Jd2 to defend e4 and discourage the sack. But today that would hardly stop a devoted Sicilianista from 1 . ..l:txc3!? 2 bxc3 �c6 3 �f3 d5 with what looks to be good chances - using early 2 1 st century eyes. We arrived at this point because the minimum requirements for " .l:txc 3 changed, almost with every new generation. In the main line of the Dragon Sicilian, the sacrifice has long been recognized as a means of killing White's attack. But it only gained widespread attention in the 1 960s, in positions in which Black had already accepted a pawn sacrifice (h2-h4-h5 met by...l2Jxh5). Then, with l2J+l', vs.l:t Black is only slightly worse, the grandmaster consensus said. But by the 1 970s, . . .l:txc3 was played in a main Dragon line in which Black stopped h4-h5 with . . . h5. Even though he didn't always get a pawn as compensation, Black was regarded as well otT because of the weakness of White's kingside in an endgame. Today, not even a kingside weakness is needed for Dragon devotees to play . . .l:txc3 with confidence. LaUe - Hodgson, East Kilbride 1 998 went:

1 �d3? l:txe3!

White to play

1 03

1 e4 eS 2 l2Jf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 lDxd4 l2Jf6 5 l2Je3 g6 6 �e3 �g7 7 f3 l2Je6 8 1i'd2 �d7 9 �e4 l:te8 10 �b3 ttJe5 1 1 0-0-0 1i'a5 12 �bl

Spielmann, who wrote "Every sacrifice, of whatever type, is only made possible by some mistake on the adversary's part," would have had a hard time explaining:

12 ...l:txe3 ! ? Instead o f a standard device such as 1 2 . . .lDc4 1 3 �xc4 l:txc4 Black gives up the Exchange for no obvious compensation.

13 1i'xc3 1i'xc3 14 bxc3 0-0 Black doesn't have any pawns for the Exchange and there is no attack on the white king. What helps justify ...l:txc3 is the presence of several minor pieces, which enables Black to pressure the queenside ( . . .l:tc8, . . ..i.e8 and . . .lDfd7). Even though White stopped that idea with 1 5 �f4 ! l:tc8 1 6 .i.xe5 dxe5 1 7 ttJe2 Black had ample positional compensation after 1 7 ...b5 and won quickly after a blunder

THE TANGmLE INTANGmLE To grandmasters, compensation is like art: they know it when they see it. Compensation is hard to define, still harder to quantify. There are various ways of trying to measure it but the methods don't necessarily agree, as the following much discussed example shows.

104

Transactions

Transactions

Lyublinsky - Botvinnik

Moscow Championship 1 943

loss that amounts to one to two pawns, depending on which chart. If we rely on computers, White is better by a measure of about 1.5 that is, one and a half pawns. In fact, some computers regard White as having the edge for several more moves of this game.

Black to play

"Redundant" minor pieces rather than the two bishops - would defend the c5-pawn much better. If rooks are swapped along the open file, Black cannot defend that pawn against liJa4, 'it't2 and .i.xc5. He faces the prospect of a pawn down, bad .i.-vs.-good liJ ending. However:

If we tum to human intuition, we know sacrifices "like this one" are sound. Experience, Tarrasch said, indicates a rook and two bishops are worth two rooks and a knight. (Today's grandmasters dispute Tarrasch.) Looking at this specific position, we can see that Black has straightened out his pawn structure and sharply diminished the scope of White's rooks. Another factor is practical. Masters know it is much easier to handle the black pieces in a position like this than the white ones.

1 ...l:td4! Now 2 .i.xd4 cxd4 turns Black's dark-squared bishop into a terrific piece that can reach g5 and e3. However, it is White's minor piece that matters. White will have to capture on d4 with something and he should leave himself with a knight that can take up duty on d3.

2 liJe2 �c8 3 liJxd4?! cxd4 4 .i.f2 White needs to open the position for his rooks and the only option he has is b3-b4, e.g. 4 .i.d2 c5 5 a3.

4 cS •••

There are at least three ways of evaluating this position: If we rely on chart values, Black has sacrificed a rook for a piece, a

But as the game went, after 3 ... cxd4 Black's bishops have turned from a liability to an asset. Also, center pawns are worth more than bishop pawns in the middlegame. (Spielmann indicated they were worth about � more.) In any case, a protected passer has been created and that is definitely worth than a routine pawn. What all this suggests is that in the above diagram Black is about two pawns better off than if he had not played l . ..l:td4. (This supports Purdy's rule that giving up the Exchange is "cheaper" than a pawn in the early stage of a game.) The soundness of the offer was borne out by Black's progress:

5 l:to fS 6 .i.g3 .id7 7 l:tadl

White still needs open files but Botvinnik wrote, "It was, of course, dangerous for White to exchange pawns by exf5/... gxf5 because Black would ultimately have created two connected passed pawns in the center."

1 05

h3 �xh3 27 b4 �fS 28 .i.d6 d3 29 bxaS h3 White resigns HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH? While the concept of positional compensation has expanded steadily since the 1 930s, there are natural limits. The cutoff - for how much is too much to sack on purely intuitive grounds - seems to be a rook. When you give up a rook you need threats that are both strong and immediate. Spielmann said there was only one known game in which those threats weren't part of what he called the "deal."

Maroczy - Tartakower Teplitz-Schoenau 1 922

7 ... f4! 8 �f2 gS 9 g4 fxg3 10 .i.xg3 White has grave problems defending f3 after 10 hxg3 .ih3 and ...l:tfB.

Adding up the consequences of the sacrifice we could say: If it hadn't been for l . . .l:td4, Black would have lost the c5-pawn. In addition, if after �xc5 there was a trade of dark-squared bishops, Black would have been saddled with a bad bishop against the knight. White would have had an edge that in computer terms is perhaps + 1 .3 .

10 ...�h3 1 1 l:tf2 hS! 12 l:tfd2 h4 13 ..if2 l:tf8 14 l:td3 l:tf4

Black to play

White's rooks don't play and he has no targets (after ...�d8 ! ) His chances went slowly downhill:

1...l:txh2! ! 2 �xf2 'it'xf2+ 3 �hl liJf6!

.

15 �hl �h7 16 l:tgl .i.d8 1 7 'it'e2 'it'f7 18 'it'd I 'it'hS 19 .i.e3 ! ? Desperation, in view o f 1 9 .i.el g4.

19 ...'it':d3+ 20 'it'xf3 l:txf3 21 .i.xg5 l:txd3 22 �xd8 l:te3 23 �b6 l:txe4 24 .txcS l:te2 25 l:tdl �g4 26

Reti noted that White is not limited to forced moves now and his pieces seem to be well placed. "But as Tartakower has cleverly realized, it is only by extremely protracted, unwieldy tactics that they can regroup themselves for protection of the kingside," he wrote.

J 06

Transactions

What is remarkable about the sacrifice is that Black couldn't have known by calculation that it was sound because his threats lie so far in the future. His initiative must wait for . . . lDh5, . . .id7 and ...l:tfS. other Black's words, In compensation consists of White's weaknesses. (The long-term brilliancy prize judges refused to honor this game because, by 1 922 standards, it was irresponsible to sacrifice a rook on such tenuous grounds.) Spielmann concluded that rook sacrifices are essentially different from all lesser offers because of the size of the material deficit and the possibility of counter-sacrifice. Since Tartakower's great win there have been few slow-developing rook sacrifices. For example, in Alekhine-Book, Margate 1 938, White sacrificed a rook, then spent two tempi on pawn moves before he was able to bring his two undeveloped queenside pieces to decide the game. Other examples include Portisch-Tal, Amsterdam 1 964, Bronstein-Ljubojevic, Petropolis 1 973 and Polugayevsky Torre, Moscow 1 98 1 . Each was based on varying degrees of calculation or intuition. Polugayevsky's offer was all calculation: he had analyzed it at home almost to mate. A similar case arose when Jan Timman offered Nigel Short a rook in their 1 993 Candidate finals match. Timman relied on intuition - but Short refused the offer on the grounds that it must be a prepared trap.

Transactions

TOTAL MATERIAL Another way our sense of sacrifice changed since the 1 930s is the appreciation that soundness is usually related to the total amount of material on the board. Since most sacrifices depend on the coordin ation of the remaining pieces there have to be enough pieces to coordinate. Suppose we had magically removed a pair of rooks from the board back in the first diagram on p. 1 04. This would be an equal trade and would not change matters according to the chart of values. Some computers believe the rook trade would help Black. But Botvinnik was definite: l .. .:td4 "is only possible if Black retains the other rook for the attack." He was right. The total-material principle applies to many sacrifices involving heavy pieces. Nikolay Minev offered the "almost mandatory condition" for sacrificing a queen for two minor pieces: The sacrificer "must have all four, or at least three" minors after giving up the queen. That overstates the case but it is a worthwhile guideline to keep in mind whenever you consider a queen sacrifice. Memorable sacrifices of queen for two pieces, from the 50th LaBourdonnais McDonnell match game to the second Kasparov-Karpov match game of 1 990, began with . four minor pieces each. Even if the compensation includes other positional goodies, such as passed pawns, the sack may be doomed by the scarcity of material on the board.

Bronstein Shamkovich -


White to move

1 f3 'i'g6! Black threatens to win the queen (2 . . . ig5) and makes an offer (2 fxe4 fxe4 3 'i'd2 :to or 3 ...ig5). White finds an inspired defense.

2 �g2 ! ! iogS White must have seen that 3 fxe4 ixf4 4 lLlxf4 'i'-moves 5 exd5 cxd5 gives him insufficient compensation after 6 e6 or 6 :tcd 1 .

3 l:[xc6! 'i'h5? Black accepts what he called "a Greek gift ... not guessing at the remarkable thinking of the opponent." Instead of capturing the queen he could win by accepting the Exchange, 3 . . .'i'xc6 4 'ii'xg5 'i'c2. That is a smaller material edge than Black receives in the game. But it works because he would get to make the threats. In a key line, 5 id4 :te6! 6 fxe4 'i'xe4+ 7 �f1 f4, he forces White to offer his queen for two pieces and two pawns. After 8 gxf4 :g6 9 'i'xg6 'i'xg6 White's pieces are poorly coordinated and the exchange of one pair of rooks has helped Black. White would be lost.

107

4 fxe4! ixf4 S lLlxf4 'i' f7 6 exd5

The pawns serve as both a screen and as potential queens.

6...'i'b7? Black should trade rooks with 6. . . :tc8 ! . In mutual time pressure he might have reasoned that removing all four rooks from the board would leave his queen fighting a losing battle against the two pieces and strong pawns. However, because the queen can invade along the c-fiIe and light squares, Black would have at least equal chances.

7 ia3? With two minutes to make eight moves, White missed 7 :tg6 ! with strong winning chances. For example, 7 ..'i'h4 8 l:[e2 �h7 - which seems to neutralize White's rooks - allows 9 :g5 'i'cs 10 e6 l:[e7 and now 1 1 ioxg7! l:[xg7 12 :txg7+ �xg7 1 3 e7 �f7 14 exfB{'i'}+ and 1 5 :e5 is a case of rook, knight and two pawns outmuscling a queen. .

7 :tc8! •.•

Black doesn't miss a second chance to swap rooks. After 8 ixfB l:[xc6 9 dxc6 'it'xc6+ and . . . �xfB he has a pawn more than in the last line and, since it can be used to dislodge

1 08

Transactions 1 09

Transactions

the knight with . . . g5, he has good chances.

8 :teel l:lfe8 9 e6? After this the White pieces and pawns become scattered. Better was 9 �d6 l:lxc6 10 dxc6 and c6-c71 l:tc4.

9...l:txc6 10 l:txc6? This loses but 10 dxc6 'ii'a6, which Black regarded after the game as better for White, gives Black all the winning chances.

10 ... g5! And since a knight move allows 1 l . . .:txe6! , White tried 12 e7 gxf4 13 gxf4 'ii'b5 and resigned six moves later.

TEST CASE A good test of Minev's guideline is an opening variation that appears regularly in master chess and involves the sacrifice of a queen for two minor pieces:

1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ttJc3 �g7 4 e4 d6 5 13 0-0 6 �e3 e5 7 d5 ttJh5 8 W"d2 W"h4+ 9 g3 ttJxg3 10 W"f2 ttJxfl 1 1 W"xh4 ttJxe3 12 �e2

to the two-bishop tandem. It also satisfies Minev's standard, since Black will have all four minor pieces for the middlegame. There are many positional factors, of course. Black has the greatest chances of changing the pawn structure (. . .c6, ... f5), for example. Recent experience is mixed. In a database of 1 00 games played 1 990-2004, White won 44 and Black won 30, the other 26 were drawn. Black had his greatest success when his minor pieces overwhelmed White in the middlegame, before significant trades. A 1 990 Soviet game, Nenashev-Neverov, went:

12 ...ttJxc4 13 l:tel liJa6 14 ttJdl liJb6 15 ttJh3 �d7 16 liJe3 f6!

�c3 liJd4 30 liJxf6+ �h8 31 liJxh7 l:tf3+ White Resigns In view of mate after 32 �b4

liJc2+! 33 �xb5 a6+ and mates, or 32 �d2 l:tf2+ 33 �el :lfl+ 34 �d2 liJc4+.

In almost all of White's 44 wins his edge only became clear after he significantly reduced the total amount of material on the board. But trading pieces is not simple because of the lack of open files. Browne-Biyiasas, u.S. 1 9 8 1 went

12 ... liJg2?! 13 W"gS ttJf4+ 14 �d2 liJd7 15 liJge2 liJh3 16 W"e3 a6 17 �c2 f5 18 b4! fxe4 19 fxe4 liJb6 20 cS! ttJc4 21 W"d3 liJa3+ 22 �b3 liJf2 23 'ii'e3

18 b3 liJcs 19 liJf2 as 20 �d2 c6 21 bxc6 bxc6 22 ttJfg4! �xg4 23 W"xg4 :le8 24 h4 �h6 25 hs �g5 26 flh3 liJbd7 Black still appears to stand well, e.g. 27 hxg6 hxg6 28 �h l l:tg7.

27 :lxg5! fxgS 28 hxg6 hxg6 29 liJc4

Black should not rush ... f5 because White's rooks, which are fairly useless now, would be the first to benefit.

1 7 l:thgl l:t17 18 liJf2 ttJc5 19 ttJfg4 �h8 20 ttJh6 i.xh6 21 W"xh6 l:tg8 22 l:tg3? �b5+ 23 �d2 ttJd3 24 :lcgl ttJf4

Now on 23 . . . liJxh l 24 �xa3 liJf2 25 cxd6 cxd6 26 l:tfl ttJg4 27 lbf8+ �xf8 the position has been simplified to W"+2liJs-vs.-:l+2�s

+liJ.

But White's pieces are much more active than Black's and he is winnin.g after 28 W"b6 followed by liJa4, flc7 and .!Db6.

Black will have two bishops and two pawns for the queen. That is roughly equal according to charts that give extra weight to bishops or

Further trades helped White to win. Another successful policy for White is a counter-sacrifice of the Exchange or a piece to obtain the initiative. White gave back material in 3 1 of the 1 00 games and won 22 times. For example, Wells-Neverov, Homorod 1 993 followed Neneshev Neverov until:

In addition to 25 . . . liJe2 Black threatens to trap the queen with 25 . . .g5 ! and ...l:tg6.

25 h4 .!De2 26 l:txg6?! ttJxgl 27 l:txg8+ �xg8 28 liJg4 liJxf3+ 29

23...liJg4 24 W"g3 ttJbS 25 liJxbS axb5 26 :lhfl ttJf6 27 liJc3 �d7 28 W"e3 liJg4 29 W"e2 l:tf4 30 .!Dxb5 c6 3 1 liJc7 l:tars 32 liJe6!

And White began to harvest p'�wns. He won after 29...liJf6 30

flh6 :lg7 31 liJxd6 l:td8 32 l:txcs 1::txd6+ 33 �e2.

The decisions about whether to trade, sacrifice or start a combination are fundamental to chess. In the final four chapters we will examine how specific imbalances come about, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they are affected by trades of other pieces.

The Exchange 1 1 1

CHAPTER 7:

TH E EXCHANGE I. Sokolov - Kramnik

Some imbalances are fairly "even" but rare, such as "-vs.-3 minor pieces. The Exchange (l:l-vs.-piece) is not close to even but increasingly common today and that makes it an appropriate place to start.

Wijk aan Zee 2004

But tournament chess is not played with fractions. Most players translate Tarrasch into a guideline: One pawn may be sufficient compensation, two pawns almost always is.

TYPICAL MISTAKES While Exchange-trapping is rare, Exchange sacrifices are often encouraged, enticed or all but forced. Good sacks, like the following, are often misevaluated by an opponent:

Acs - Conquest Olympiad 2002

Gligoric - D. Byrne San Antonio 1 972

What would make it "even"? Tarrasch offered the most widely accepted equation when he put the difference between rook and minor piece at 1 'h pawns. He said this "holds more for the endgame, not for the opening and the first part of the middlegame." That is the most widely accepted formula today but the debate has been going on for generations. Staunton Sarratt, and later Capablanca, felt two pawns was just about right. Petrosian said one pawn. Steinitz said a rook was slightly superior to a knight and two pawns but slightly worse than a bishop and two pawns. Purdy said proper compensation depended on the total number of pawns on the board. Kaufman's database survey concluded that the Exchange was worth one and three quarter pawns and this was reduced to one and a quarter if the player with the minor piece held the two bishops.

contrast with imbalances in which the other player mltIates the imbalance (e.g. when he hunts down a queen and wins it for pieces). The Exchange rarely comes about as a result of "Exchange-grabbing," the way we talk of pawn-grabbing, because rooks are too elusive. One exception that stands out:

White to play

1 J:[xc7! "xc7 2 J:[xf6 J:[xf6 3 "xf6 When is one pawn enough? When it comes with positional trumps, such as passed pawns, or with tactical ideas, such as d5-d6 and .i.c4(+) here. The ideas don't have to be specific threats. Here the sacrifice is ustified in variations such as 3 ......c l + 4 ttJe l "c7 5 d6 J:[xd6 6 "e5! and wins.

j

3 ..J:[18 4 'ii'b2 J:[c8 S d6! .

Without much calculation White could conclude his two passed pawns gave him the edge in the ending:

S.....cl+ 6 "xcI J:[xcl+ 7 �e2 l:lc8 8 ttJgS a6 9 .i.a4 Resigns The Exchange typically comes about when a player sacrifices rook-for-piece or concedes it to avert greater material loss. This is in

Black to play White to play

1 ttJc6! White threatens to trap the as-rook with 2 J:[ac l and ttJe7+-cS! .

1.....c4? 2 J:[acI "a4 Black intended to answer 3 ttJe7+ �hS 4 ttJcs with 4... ttJxh2 !?

3 .i.g3! White has a second way of trapping the rook, which must compete with its brother for a haven (3 ...J:[aeS 4 .td6) .

3...ttJf6 4 liJb8! White converted his Exchange advantage and won after 4.....e4 5 J:[c6 J:[axbS 6 .txb8.

With 1 . . ...c7 Black has excellent counterplay, e.g. 2 .i.a3 f5 ! 3 exfS "c6 and, after the threat of ... e4 is parried, ...J:[aeS.

1 .fS? 2 exfS ..

White must capture with his rook once Black plays . . .e4. But 2 . . . e4 3 J:[xe4! .i.xe4 4 "xe4 grants him more than enough compensation (4 .....d7 5 .i.b2 J:[ae8 6 "d5+ and 7 g4).

2....i.f6 3 J:[bl e4? Black should still avoid forcing the sacrifice and instead play .. 3 .....c8 (4 g4? "c6 or 4 'tt'xd6 "xfS).

4 J:[xe4 .i.xe4 S "xe4

White has the winning chances because of his two-pawn

112

The Exchange

compensation and because Black's rooks don't pll�y. White eventually won after S.....e7 6 'iVd3 :re8 7 i.a3 :ad8 8 ¢>n 'iVb7 9 :dl :e4

10 'iVdS+ 'iVxdS 1 1 :xdS b5 1 2 i.xd6.

The hardest part of giving up a rook for piece is psychological as Petrosian noted. "Don't fall under the hypnosis of the strength of the rook against a minor piece," he advised students. He gave this example in a 1 982 lecture:

Portisch - Petrosian San Antonio 1 972

The Exchange

The bottom line to any Exchange sacrifice is how it affects the other pieces ("What stays on ... "). Here Black's e-pawn has been transformed from a liability to an asset and he has much greater control of the center. What about the other reasons why White stood better in the diagram? White's rooks are no longer a major factor and his knight seems out of play. "Black's advantage indisputable," is Petrosian concluded. (A series of inexact moves allowed White to draw). It's easy to understand Portisch's puzzlement over 1 .. .eS. But even in the endgame, when piece values should be clearest, there is some dispute and some gross misj udgments - about how to handle an Exchange advantage:

Plaskett - Leitao Bermuda 1 998

White has a positional edge because of his entrenched knight and the target pawn at e7. Trying to induce a positional blunder ( 1 ...f6) or disorient Black's minor pieces.

2 i.e7? rs 3 i.xf8 ltJxf8

White to play

1 :b3! To trade or not to trade? According to what Fine called the "basic rule" a trade favors Black.

1 . ..:a2! But Fine has repeatedly smce

been

Basic

disputed

Chess

McShane - Baburin Kilkenny 1 998

2 :b7+ ¢>d6 3 :d7+ ¢>e6 4 :d4?

But now it is White who passes up the trade. He fails to appreciate that 4 i.b3+! ¢>xd7 5 i.xa2 and 6 h4 would give him an iron-clad fortress. The text allowed Black to pursue a double attack on f2. After another inaccuracy - 4 ... :c1 + 5 ¢>g2 :b2 6

:e4+ �r6 7 h4 h6 8 :r4+ ¢>g7 9 i.e8 :c7 10 i.a4 :cS 1 1 i.d l ? ( 1 1 i.e8) gS! 12 hIgS bIgS 13 :g4 :dS! - White submitted to a trade

COPYING CAPABLANCA

1 i.gS

Portisch spent ten minutes over his reply - all of it with his eyes on his opponent, not on the board, Petrosian recalled. "He couldn't understand whether I had sacrificed or blundered."

saw on p.60. Portisch and Sarkozy gave this advice for the defender: "It is generally easier to cope when the Exchange down if there is only one rook on the board." They were specifically referring to imbalances like this, 2:s-vs. -:+i.+�. Here Black correctly preserves the second rook, redundant or not, in the hope of attacking f2.

under much less satisfactory circumstances, 1 4 :d4 :xd4 1 5 exd4 :d2 and 1 6... :xd4. With no extra pawn for the Exchange, he was lost and resigned after 1 5 more moves.

White to play

1...eS!

Endings appeared in 1 94 1 , as we

113

The material difference of the Exchange may seem great but it is essentially one piece against another. For that reason the most effective way of winning an Exchange-up endgame is often the conversion to a more tangible edge, such as an extra pawn. The classic technique, identified with Capablanca, is seen in examples such as:

With a light-squared bishop Black could put up better resistance. A dark-squared bishop quickly proves to be redundant and that allows the white king to penetrate.

1 :b6+ ¢>c7 2 ¢>dS ¢>b7 3 :h7+ ¢>a6 Or 3 ...¢>b8 4 �c6 followed by :b7(+) and :xb6.

4 ¢>c6 i.d4 White can chase the enemy king around the edges of the board without coming close to a mate. But he wins with:

S :d7 i.cs 6 J:[d8 <j;a7 7 ¢>bS Resigns Black cannot stop 8 :d7+ followed by 9 �c6 and :b7(+)xb6!. White wins with the extra pawn. When the rook cannot be given back quickly for a minor piece, it may still win because of its power to restrict. The rook allows the superior side's king to elbow the other king into submission. Other factors, including extra pawns, may take a back seat.

l J4

The Exchange 1 1 5

The Exchange

Speelman Nataf -

Esbjerg 2001

cage. That creates zugzwang. Second, with the enemy king out of action, White can sacrifice the Exchange for a pawn. In either case, it is the rook that makes White's king stronger than Black's. Play continued:

8 ...�f6 9 Ac6 �e6 10 Aa6 �f6 I I �dS �f7 12 Aa7+ �f6 13 Ad7 wgS

location of the pawns tends to be at least as important as the total number. Since the rook benefits from a larger board, making an Exchange becomes count problematic if all the pawns are on one wing. Even world champions have failed to appreciate this:

Short - Karpov

Candidates match, fourth game 1 992

Black to play

I ...Af8?? Unlike the Plaskett-Leitao game, trading rooks here is fatal because of Black's king position. He could have made matters difficult with l ...�h7 2 Adl .i.e5 3 AbS �g6! 4 Axb6 �f5.

2 Axf8+ �xf8

The trade increases the number of ways White can win. They now include mate threats, elbowing and other opposition-related techniques.

3 f4! ! The winning move. It stops Black from setting up a blockaded position (3 �h3 �e5 4 �g4 .i.f4 5 Ab 1 �f7 6 Axb6 �e6).

3 ... gxf4 4 �f3 .i.eS Note that with Black's king at f7, a position that might have occurred earlier in the game, Black could defend with 4 . . .�e6! 5 �f4 �d5 and ... .i.d4-c5.

S We4 �e7 6 Abl �f6 7 Axb6 We6 8 f3 As long as White preserves one pawn he can win because of two factors. First, he can nudge the black king to the door of a mating

14 Ad8 Not 14 Axd6? .i.xd6 1 5 �xd6 �f6. But after the text, 14 ...�f6 loses to 1 5 Afll+ Wg6 1 6 �e6 or 1 5 ...�e7 1 6 Af5.

14 ... Wh4 IS Ag8! �hS White would carry out after quickly "Capablanca" 1 5 ...�h3 1 6 Ag4! Wh2 17 Ag5 ! , threatening J:lxe5 . After 1 5 . . . �h5, play continued 1 6 Ag4 �h6 1 7 �e6 �hS 1 8 �fS

Wh6 19 Ag2 �h7 20 Ag6 �h8 21 �e6 �h7 22 �f7! , winning a pawn through zugzwang (22 ... WhS?? 23 J:lh6 mate). Black resigned after 22 ... .td4 23 Axd6 i.e3 24 :g6 �f2 25 Wf6

.i.e3 26 �gS i.d2 27 :d6 .i.e3 28 :d7+ �g8 29 �f6 .i.b6 30 �g6 in view of 30 ... �fll 3 1 Af7+ and :xf4. Whenever you consider going into an Exchange endgame, the

OPENING, MIDDLEGAME OR ENDING occur sacrifices Exchange relatively rarely after move 30. When a player gives up a rook for a piece he usually expects to make his compensation count well before a trade of queens. Endgame sacrifices of the Exchange are typically designed to create and promote a passed pawn. They are often played with a high degree of confidence. "I had in fact no time to think about this sacrifice," Shirov said after giving up a rook for a knight to liberate his queenside pawns against Artur Yusupov at Munich 1 993. "I just did it." There was ample precedent for this attitude:

Alekhine - Flohr

Black to play

Nottingham 1 936

Distrusting the endgame, Black played:

1.....hS?? 2 Ad7!

But now he appreciated that 2 . . .e5 3 �c4 is dead lost. Black conceded a pawn with 2 . .lLIfS 3 "xe6 o!iJh6 and after 4 .tc4 'ii'eS White won the 5 'ii'xeS endgame. (He could have finished more quickly by cashing the Exchange in for a winning attack, 5 :xf7+! 'i'Jxf7 6 "xf7+.) However, since all the pawns were on the kingside, Black's mistrust of a queen trade was unfounded. He should have been able to draw after 1 . . ...c6! . Due to the fewer targets on a shortened board, the rook lacks bite in a 2 'ii'xc6 ending. .

White to play

I :xe6 Alekhine didn't give this an exclamation point in the tournament book, explaining that it was "one of an combinations that the experienced player does not need to calculate to a finish. He knows that

II6

The Exchange

under given circumstances the kingside pawns must become overwhelming. " How does he just know ? A good rule of thumb is that creating a protected passed pawn in positions like this is worth the equivalent of a second extra pawn.

1...i.xe6 2 .ixe6 l:tfb7 3 .ib3 There is no defense once White creates a passed pawn, such as 4 h6 gxh6 5 g6. Black resigned after

3 l:thS 4 h6 gxh6 5 g6 l:tgS 7 fS l:tf8 S iLc2 h5 9 l:td6 l:te7 10 f6 l:te1+ 1 1 �d2 l:to 12 f7 h4 12 l:td7. .•.

Alekhine, of course, had a big edge before I l:txe6. But as the nature of compensation expanded in the late 20th century, endgame sacks were increasingly carried out in double-edged, rather than just favorable, positions.

The Exchange

1 l:txc3! bxc3+ 2 �xc3 �e7 White has adequate compen sation in the passed c-pawn and that is why the natural follow-up, 3 e4, allows Black to equalize by eliminating it with 3 ... l:txd6! 4 cxd6+ �xd6.

3 ttJc4 fS!

It was more important to stop e3-e4 and d4-d5 than to keep a White knight out of e5. a-B,

4 ttJde5 ttJxe5 5 lLlxe5 a4

Now 6 ttJc4 and ttJb6 offered compensation, according to Black.

6 l:ta3?! l:tbS 7 f3 l:tb3+! Fine wasn't wrong all the time. It is worth a pawn to swap a pair of rooks.

S l:txb3 axb3 9 �xb3 l:tal

Kohlweyer I. Sokolov -

Leeuwarden 1 993

White to play

Black's last move, ...�f8, signaled that White's more centralized king wouldn't be an asset for long. There is no way for White to build up an attack on the a-pawn, so he opted for a fairly low-risk sacrifice.

Black's rook must win a kingside pawn. What White needs to draw is king support for his pawns. With 1 0 �c3 ! l:ta3+ 1 1 �d2 l:ta2+ 1 2 �d3 l:txg2 1 3 e4 and d4-d5 he would have reasonable chances ( 1 3 ...fxe4+ 14 fxe4 l:txh2 1 5 d5 exd5 1 6 exd5 l:th l 1 7 �e4).

THE SACRIFICE EVOLVES In many ways, the Exchange is the perfect material to sacrifice for the initiative. The rook you give up may not be useful before the ending - and your opponent's extra rook typically cannot be used well in defense. But the extra minor piece you obtain as a result of the sack can become the star of the middlegame. If there were no endgames in chess, the sacrifice of the Exchange, particularly for an outpost knight, might be as common a theme as, say, the minority attack or i.xlLl to double enemy pawns. This took a while to become conventional wisdom. Exchange sacrifices were relatively rare until the mid-20th century. Before then they were a specialized weapon, often used to advance the favored winning formula of a particular author. For example, the composed games that Greco left us include Exchange offers but only as part of mating combinations. One of his examples ran:

mention to failed Greco 1 2 ... ttJe5! ( 1 3 .ib3 h6 1 4 ttJxe4 or 14 'ii'h 5 g6 1 5 'ili'h4). The text loses by force.

13 'ii'h5 h6 14 ttJxf7 'ii'f6

Or 1 4 ...J:[xf7 1 5 .ixf7+! and wins, 1 5 . . .�h8 1 6 .ixh6 or 1 5 . . �f8 1 6 .ia3+ ttJe7 1 7 .ic4 'ii'e8 1 8 'ii'd5 ! . .

1 5 ttJxh6+ �hS 16 ttJf7+ �gS 1 7 'ii'hS mate

More than a century later Philidor analyzed Exchange sacrifices that pursued purely positional goals. For Philidor that meant freeing a pawn majority. He examined:

1 e4 e5 2 .ic4 c6 3 d4 exd4 4 'ii'xd4 d6 5 f4 .ie6 6 .id3 d5 7 e5 c5 S 'ii'n ttJc6 9 c3 g6 1 0 h3 hS 1 1 g3 ttJh6 1 2 ttJf3 .ie7 1 3 84 ttJfS 14 �O h4 15 g4 lLlg3+ 16 rjolg2 ttJxhl 17 �xhl ... and concluded White had the better game because of his safer king and mobile pawns. Elsewhere in Analyse des Echecs Philidor considered:

I e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 JLc4 JLc5 4 c3 d6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 .ib4+ 7 ttJc3 lLlf6 8 0-0 JLxc3 9 bxc3 ttJxe4 10 l:tel d5

White to play

10 ttJd3? l:tgl Black's rook is faster than the pawns and White resigned soon after 1 1 e4 fxe4 12 fxe4 l:txg2 13 d5

exd5 14 exd5 l:txh2 1 5 ttJe5 l:td2! 16 �c4 h5 17 d6+ �e6.

117

1 1 l:txe4+ dxe4 12 ttJg5 O-O??

Black's last move, . . . ttJe3, was intended to stop f4-f5. Philidor wrote that furthering White's plan justifies a sacrifice.

J J8

The Exchange 1 1 9

The Exchange

1 l:txe3 dxe3 2 "xe3 l:txa2 J l:tel ! ti'xb3 4 "e4 White's compensation would have been clearer with 4 e6 or, as the game goes, with 5 "xg6+.

up a rook for a bishop to dominate the light-squares in winning the final game of his 1 843 match with Pierre St. Amant. Scrolling ahead half a century:

4 .....e6 5 f5 gd5?

Much better is 5 ... 'iVb3 , threatening 6. . .li.'lc5 or 6. . .lDxe5.

6 gxfS "d5 7 ti'xd5+ cxd5 8 �xb5 liJb6

Steinitz - Tchigorin

World Championship match, 20th game 1 892

(b) eliminates Black's most versatile piece, Cc) enables White's knight to become a star on e5, Cd) creates a passed b-pawn, and (e) opens the a3-fS diagonal. Add the weakness of Black's queenside pawns and you have the recipe for a strategic rout. For example, 3 .....e7 4 liJe5+ �g8 5 "xe7! �xe7 6 lDxc6 l:tb7 7 �e2 l:td7 8 lDb8 l:td8 9 lDxa6 �xa6 1 0 �xa6 l:tb8 and now Steinitz's suggestion of I I �b5 allows Black to put up resistance with 1 1 ...�d8! ' But I I �c8! l:txc8 12 b7 l:tb8 13 a6 wins, as pointed out by Grigory Ravinsky.

3 'iVb7 4 liJe5+ �g8 •..

Black to play

9 f6 Here Philidor cited the rule, which he said had been made by few players before him: When you have a light squared bishop, you place your pawns on dark squares. For example, if White's bishop were dark-squared Black could defend with ...�f7-e6. Note also that 9 e6 l:tb2 1 0 e7? l:txb5 favors Black.

9 l:tb2 10 �d3 �n?? .•.

Missing 1O . . .l:tb3 I I l:te3 lDc4. White could now win with I l lDh5 ! . There followed:

1 1 �f5 lDc4 12 liJh5 l:tg8+ 1 3 �g4 lDd2? 1 4 e6+ �g6 15 n and wins

Positional Exchange sacrifices gained further recognition when they were played at the critical stages of two of the biggest matches of the next century. Staunton gave

Steinitz - who had won the world championship title by converting an Exchange advantage in the final game of his 1 866 match with Anderssen - is in danger of losing it here. The score stood eight wins for Tchigorin to seven for Steinitz, with victory going to the first player to achieve 10.

Steinitz planned to meet 4...�e8 with a more traditional follow-up to a sacrifice, 5 �h5+ g6 6 liJxg6! hxg6 7 �xg6+ �d7 8 'iVfS! , with a winning attack.

5 �a4 'iVe7

Black stops 'iVd6 but allows White to force a won endgame. White has better:

6 �b4! 'iVf6 7 'iVc3 h6

1...l:tb8 2 l:tb6!

•••

Black should try to bolt the door with 2 ... �b7.

3 cxb6

This is a multi-purpose sacrifice because it (a) avoids trades of rooks and queens on the b-file,

So much for ancient history. The practical player wants to know when an Exchange sacrifice works best and when forcing the win of the Exchange is wrong. The answers lie in certain optimal conditions for creating the imbalance. These are not absolute requirements, just the ideal circumstances for success. A sacrifice works best: (aj When it substantially changes the impact of minor pieces

It is the minor pieces that matter most when you sacrifice the Exchange - either the enemy minor piece that is captured or its opposite number, your piece, that remains on the board. One of the most common themes is the elimination of an opponent's dark-squared bishop to benefit your own. White does this in a standard line of the Exchange Gruenfeld and Black has made similar offers in the Dragon Sicilian. Bronstein helped popularize the King's Indian when he gave up his queen's rook for white dark-squared bishop in two games of the 1 946 Moscow-Prague match. More sophisticated examples include Anand-Shirov, p.25, and the following.

The mature Steinitz took many risks but rarely with material. This move, which would be considered routine today, was viewed as remarkable in 1 892.

2 lDxb6?

WHEN IT WORKS

Yusupov - Kasparov Barcelona 1 989

8 �d6 l:txb6 9 axb6 �xb6 10 'iVxc6 White won in seven moves. He retained his championship title three games later.

1 liJo liJf6 2 c4 g6 J lDc3 �g7 4

e4 d6 5 d4 0-0 6 �e2 e5 7 d5 a5 8

�g5 h6 9 i.b4 lDa6 10 lDd2 'iVe8 1 1 0-0 lDh7 12 aJ �d7 13 b3 fS 14 ed5

J 20

The Exchange 12 J

The Exchange

worthwhile. But if it's a really good knight...

Veresov Suetin Byelorussia Championship 1 96 1 -

14 ...gxf5! This is positionally desirable because it denies e4 to White's It)s and retains the prospect of opening the long diagonal with ... e5-e4.

1 d 4 e6 2 c4 lZ'lf6 3 lZ'lc3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 g 6 6 e4 d6 7 lZ'lo i.g7 8 i.g5 h6 9 �h4 a6 10 lZ'ld2 b5 1 1 a4 b 4 1 2 lZ'lcbl 0-0 13 i.d3 l:te8 1 4 0-0 "'c7 1 5 "'c2 lZ'lbd7 1 6 ttJc4 b3 1 7 "'xb3 ttJxe4 18 i.xe4 l:txe4 19 i.g3

The ideal condition occurs when an Exchange sack helps one player's minor pieces and hinders his opponent's. In the following example, White's compensation lies in both his suddenly powerful bishop at g2 and the hapless black knight.

15 i.h5 "'c8 If Black mortgages the mobility of his heavy pieces with 1 5 ...�8 16 i.e7 :c8, White goes after the f-pawn with 17 "'c2 and i.g6.

16 i.e7 l:te8 "My bishop on g7 isn't worse than his rook on a l ! " Kasparov said after the game. He felt the offer should have been refused with 1 7 i.h4, and if 1 7 ...l:t�, then 1 8 i.e7.

17 i.xe8 "'xe8 18 i.h4 e4 Even though White gave up his light-squared bishop for the rook, it is Black's dark-squared bishop that He has benefited. excellent compensation, e.g. 19 l:tc l lZ'lc5 20 f4 lZ'ld3 or 20 l:tc2 lZ'l� and ... lZ'lg6. White cannot return the material with 1 9 lZ'le2 i.xa I 20 "'xaI because 20. . .�5 would win a piece. (White played 19 "'c2 "'h5

20 i.g3 l:trs 21 i.f4? "'g4 22 g3 lZ'lg5 23 �hl lZ'lO and later won due to a blunder.)

Sacrifices to eliminate a knight, rather than a bishop, usually require some other compensation, such as pawn structure damage, to make it

can also limit the scope of others. In Kasparov's celebrated sacrifice of rook-for-bishop against Shirov at Horgen 1 994, he severely restricted his opponent's two remaining minor pieces. "You will not find anywhere in the world a computer that would comprehend my sacrifice," Kasparov said. Then, smiling, he added, "You might not find a human that would have done it." Shirov said his losing move was simply allowing the sacrifice.

Nikolic - van WeJy

Dutch Championship 1 998 Black has open files for his rooks, the two bishops and a lead in development - and he should stand better than he does after 1 9 ... i.� 20 lZ'lc3 l:te8 2 1 l:tfe 1 .

19 l:tb8 20 "'c2 l:txc4! ..•

The key to evaluating the diagram was the targets. White appeared to be OK because his terrific knight protected Black's chief target, b2, and attacked d6.

21 "'xc4 l:txb2 22 l:ta3 ttJb6 23 "'e4 i.f5 24 "'e8+ �h7 25 l:to lZ'lxd5 "Black owns the entire board," Suetin wrote. He won eventually after 26 lZ'la3 l:tb4 27 l:tdl l:td4! 28 l:tc1 l:te4 29 "'a8 lZ'lc3 30 l:txc3 (30 l:tfl l:txa4) i.xc3 31 "'xa6 i.b2. one eliminating Besides dangerous piece, a good sacrifice

This move effectively stops the knight from reaching c5 - or even getting to a6, because 4 ...a5 would be met by 5 b5 ! .

,

4

.•.

£5

5 i.e3 lZ'ld7

On 5 ... i.d8, preparing . . .lZ'ld7, White has a strong 6 lZ'ld4 with the main threat being 7 i.g2 ! '

6 l:tc7 l:tad8 7 lZ'ld4 Black must give back the Exchange. He was lost after 7 ... i.f6 8 lZ'le6 g6 9 i.g2 d4 10 i.h6. The availability of targets explains the effectiveness of the defensive Exchange sacrifice. Good defenders have often recognized that the best way to cripple an attack is to trade off the most dangerous minor piece. But the idea of eliminating it by sacrifice is fairly new. It wasn't a feature of the games of great defenders such as Steinitz, Lasker or Capablanca. But today it is a standard device:

1 e4 c5 2 lZ'lo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lZ'lxd4 lZ'lf6 5 ttJc3 lZ'lc6 6 i.g5 e6 7 "'d2 i.e7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 f4 ttJxd4 10 "'xd4 "'a5 1 1 i.c4 i.d7 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxeS i.c6 14 �d2 lZ'ld7 15 lZ'ld5 "'c5 16 lZ'lxe7+ "'xe7 1 7 l:[hel l:tfd8 18 "'g4 lZ'lfS 19 �d3

Black to play

At the apparent end of a combination by White, there was no choice for Black.

1...ttJxdS But it wasn't the end of the combination.

2 l:txd5! ! exd5 3 i.xb6 l:tfS 4 b4!

This vanatlon, with 17 ...l:tfd8, replaced lines in which Black continued ...l:lfc8 or ...lZ'lb6 - and

J 22 The Exchange

The Exchange

Ubilava - Timoshchenko

often ended up getting mated after "g4 and .i.h6.

Chelyabinsk 1 974

19...l:txd3! ?

J 23

21 l:txd4 exd4

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 .i.b5 e6 4 0-0 lLlge7 5 lLlc3 a6 6 .i.xc6 lLlxc6 7 d4 cxd4 8 lLlxd4 d6 9 lLlxc6 bxc6 10 'ii'h5 g6 1 1 "h3 l:tb8? 12 l:tdl .i.g7

The sacrifice is actually conservative. Black obtains a kind of middlegame fortress, which may lead to a draw, rather than take his chances with 19 .. .l:tdS .

20 cxd3 "d7 By eliminating the bishop, Black secures his king's safety, in particular the target square h7, and creates powerful counterplay against the targets at d3, a2 and g2 . Experience with 2 1 .i.b4 shows that Black has good chances after either 2 l . . .'ii'd5 22 .i.xfS l:txfS 23 �b l "xg2 or, by keeping pieces on the board, 2 l .. .111 g6 22 .i.d6 f5 23 "e2 .i.dS and .....c6(+). How the minor pieces are affected by an Exchange sack is the most important criterion but not the only one. A second condition that makes for a sound Exchange sacrifice is: (b) When the rooks can 't behave like rooks

The more traffic on the board, the less effective a rook will be and the stronger a minor piece will be vis a vis the rook.

Smyslov - Steiner Groningen 1 946

1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 lLle4 4 lLlf3 .i.b4+ 5 .i.d2 lLlxd2 6 lLlbxd2 lLlc6 7 a3 .i.xd2+ 8 "xd2 "e7 9 "c3 0-0 10 l:tdl l:te8 1 l l:td5! White announces his intention to hold on to the eS-pawn even at the cost of the Exchange.

1 1 ... b6 12 e3 .i.b7 13 .i.e2 l:tad8 14 0-0 lLlb8

15 l:tel ! Much str0ll:ger than I S l:td2 .i.xf3 16 .i.xf3 .xeS with material equality.

22 h4!

15 ... .i.xd5 16 cxd5 d6 This move does nothing for Black's rooks. But 1 6 ... c6 or 16 . . . c5 fail because of 1 7 d6 and b2-b4 or .i.c4.

1 7 .i.b5 l:tfS 18 e4 a6 19 .i.d3 dxe5 Slightly better is 1 9 . . . l:tfe8 20 exd6 cxd6 21 lLld4.

20 lLlxe5 l:td6? 21 lLlc4 l:th6 22 lLle3! White will win back the Exchange (23 lLlfS) or the c-pawn. Black resigned soon after 22 ..... h4

23 "xc7 l:tf6 24 g3 "h5 25 e5 l:th6 26 h4 'ii'f3 27 l:tc4 b5 28 l:tf4 'ii'h 5 29 lLlg4 l:tg6 30 .i.xg6 'ii'xg6 31 e6.

By preserving the eS-pawn, I S l:te l was a file-clogging sack, as we also saw on p.8 1 , p. 1 04 and p. 1 l 8. In each case the new pawn structure rendered the rooks ineffective without damaging the scope of the sacrificer's minor pieces. Pawns are excellent screens for doing that. There are also instances when it is a minor piece, not pawns, that does the restricting.

13 'ii'g 3! .i.e5 Black's lot is ugly after 1 3 ... eS 1 4 'ii'd3 but he underestimates White's next move.

14 'ii'xe5!! dxe5 15 l:txd8+ �xd8 16 .i.g5+ �e8 "The combination is built upon the theme of excluding Black's pieces from play," wrote the veteran trainer Vladimir Zak. Black is lost after 1 6 . . .�c7 1 7 .i.f6 l:tg8 1 8 .i.xeS+.

17 .i.f6 l:tg8 18 l:tdl .i.d7 19 lLla4 Counting the pieces off the board tells you White is down the Exchange. But looking at the ones on the board tells you he is essentially a knight ahead because Black's king rook doesn't play. Black can free his bishop with 1 9 ... cS 20 lLlxc5 .i.b5 but after 2 1 a4 he is losing.

19 ...l:tb4 20 lLlc5 l:td4! Black neutralizes the d-file and undoubles his pawns.

White realizes where his true compensation lies. He disdains the a-pawn in order to take time to stop 22 . . . gS and . . . :g6.

22 ...e5 23 f3 .i.e6 Shakhmaty v SSSR said Black missed his chance with 23 . . . gS 24 hxgS (24 hS g4) l:tg6 and 2S ... h6. Even then 25 lLlxa6 h6 26 lLlcs hxgS 27 .i.xeS g4 28 ..tf2 leaves White in command.

If instead 24 . . . a5 25 �f2 l:tg6 White can continue 26 .i.xeS l:txgS 27 .i.xd4 followed by c2-c3 and b2-b4, while Black struggles to use his rook to stop the a-pawn.

24 b3 as 25 g4! Now the opportunity is gone (25 ... g5 26 h5 ! ) and Black could resign. The game ended with:

25 ... h5 26 g5 .i.h3 27 �f2 l:tfS 28 �e2 l:tg8 29 a4 l:tfS 30 b4! axb4 31 a5 .i.c8 32 �d3 l:tg8 33 �c4 Resigns The flip side of this criterion is: When you win the Exchange, it is vital to keep your rooks active. Even when it seems to reduce enemy counterplay, closed files may make your task harder.

J 24

The Exchange J 25

The Exchange

Petrosian - Korchnoi Soviet Championship 1 9S5

Black to play

l. ..llJt3! A reverse of Capablanca: Here it is much easier to convert the advantage of an Exchange - despite the king problems that arise - than that of an extra pawn ( 1 ...fS 2 i.xeS).

restrict them and that leads to another criterion. An Exchange sacrifice works best:

there were more material, say a rook and minor piece added to each side.

(c) When there are several minor pieces on the board

Now that 'ifeS/llJf6+ is stopped, there isn't enough tactical energy in the position for White. He might have drawn by sitting on the position and trying to liquidate the queenside pawns (S a5).

Alexander Konstantinopolsky, in the 19S3 Soviet chess yearbook, said there were three basic reasons for an Exchange sacrifice to fail. The first arises when the sacrificer loses the initiative and has to deal with counterattack. This explains why Kasparov has stressed that the total amount of material on the board influences the soundness of an Exchange sacrifice. The sack will fail if the initiative is lost, and the initiative is often lost when it runs out of material to support it.

But this is too slow. The porous kingside won't matter once the rooks swann (S . . .l:tc6! 6 hS 'llVc 8 7 hxg6+ hxg6 8 'ii>b l l:th8 and . . . 'iff5).

••.

'iffS 10 fxe4 'ifxe4+ 11 'ii>a 2 g4 1 2 'ii'h2 'iffS 1 3 'ifg3 l:te2 1 4 l:thl btgcS 15 'ifd6 'ife6 16 'iib4 bS 17 l:thS! l:t8c4 18 'ii'b3 'ife4? 19 l:teS he drew.

Rooks can't behave like rooks when there are enemy pieces to

White to play

If White loses his extra pawn ( I llJd4 'ifxdS) o r allows Black's bishop into play ( I gS i.f5 or I llJe I i.d7 and . . . i.a4) he can be worse.

1 l:td4! i.xd4 2 exd4

'ifg1+ 10 'ii>h3 hxg4+ 1 1 'ifxg4 'iffl + 12 �g3 'ifg1+ 13 'ii>h3 'ifxg4+ 14 'ii>xg4 l:te8 but he was

S a3 l:tgS?

White has been granted time to create kings ide chances. After a few more inaccuracies - 8 'ifcS 9 'ii>b l

5 h4? 'ii>g7 6 �h3 l:te8 7 13 'ifal !

In reduced circumstances, only the heavy pieces count (8 'ii>g2 l:tc8). White sought refuge in the ending with 8 g4 'ifh1+ 9 'ii> g3

Now 5 hS 'iff5 ! and Black's heavy pieces begin to dominate ( . . . l:tc6 and ...l:tec8).

6 13 l:tc6 7 hS gS S h6!

.••

Taimanov - Suetin

2 gxf6! llJxgl 3 l:txgl g6 4 h4

already lost.

White to play

White has nothing better than 1

'iff6, after which Black would likely

force a draw with l .. .'ifc 1+ 2 �g2 llJe1 + 3 �fl 00+. But White said he continued to play for a win "through inertia."

1 l:txd3? 'ifxd3 2 e4 l:td8 3 llJdS White has an excellent knight and, for the time being, two extra pawns. That would be enough if

St. Petersburg 1 997

3 'ifd1+ 4 'ii>g2 'ifd4!


'ii>f7

Zakharevie - Gullev

Konstantinopolsky gave two other reasons for a failed Exchange sacrifice: when the sacker is forced into an unfavorable ending - which is what happened here - or when he cannot maintain the strong position of his unopposed minor piece. White retained the unopposed knight at dS but it had little help from other pieces. In contrast, White maintained the initiative in the next example mainly due to his large supporting cast.

an has sacrifice White's immediate impact on the minor pieces. His dark-squared bishop is strong and Black's knight loses its best square. But 1 l:td4 would fail if White had fewer pieces. White needs his light-squared bishop, for example, to attack the kings ide after 2 ... llJd7 3 i.xh6 l:te8 4 i.d3 ! ltJf6 S i.xg6. The sack would also fail if you subtract White's king rook and Black's queen rook.

2 ...ltJa6 3 ttJeS l:tdS 4 'ifd2 'iff8 Or 4 . . .'ifxdS S 'ifxh6 'ifxd4 6 llJxg6! fxg6 7 'llVxg6+ 'ii>h 8 8 i.b2 ! and wins.

S i.e4 llJe7 6 d6 ltJe6 7 i.a3 'ifg7 8 l:tel The presence of White's rook is vital in lines such as 8 ... i.d7 9 ltJxd7 l:txd7 1 0 i.xe6 fxe6 1 1 l:txe6. Black played 8 ... g5 9 'ifd3 'iff6 and resigned after 10 l:te3 ! 'ifg7 1 1 l:tt3

f6 1 2 d7!.

126 The Exchange The fourth major criterion for the soundness of an Exchange transaction concerns pawn structure. A good Exchange sacrifice occurs:

(d) When it inflicts significant pawn damage We discussed the consummate pawn-wrecking sack, . . .':xc3 in the Sicilian, in the last chapter. But Simagin's focus on the vulnerability of the white pawns at c3 and e4 neglects the other weaknesses. All truee of White's queenside pawns as well as the a3, a4, b2, and c4 squares - are vulnerable after the capture on c3. "If you take on c3 and the knight goes to a4, Black is fine," as Kasparov said of his game on p. 1 02. The nakedness of squares such as b2 and a3 is often exploited by bishops as well as knights.

The Exchange 127

3 ...J.xaJ 4 �h2 J.b2! The bishop sweeps up (S lObi ':c4 6 ':d3 "xe3! 7 ':xe3 d4).

S "g3 J.xe3 6 ':a4 J.d4 7 ':0 . ':xe2

Black has won all truee queens ide pawns and the outcome was transparent after 8 ':b I J.b2.

or 6. . .J.xh6 7 "xg6+ J.g7 8 lOxf6+ "xf6 9 "xe8+.

5.....a5 Black can defend with 6 lOxh7 "fS or 6. . ...hS but not after:

6 b4! "5 7 "e3

The weakness of squares as well as pawns is apparent in another standard sacrifice, ':xe6. All the light squares on the kingside are softened to some degree. In the next example, g6 becomes a target when it no longer has an f-pawn to support it.

Krasenkow - Rozentalis

Polish Team Championship 1 997

Vulfson - Gulko Moscow 1 974

Resigns After 7 .....xc2 White mates, the key variation being 8 "xe6+ �h8 9 "fl ':g8 10 "xh7+! . Even when there are no immediate trueats to fl, h7 or g6 the sacrifice on e6 can otTer compensation because of Black's difficulty in organizing a long-term defense:

Black to play

1 ...J.e6? White to play

The losing move.

2 "d3 g6

White's position is difficult but I lDh4 would otTer some hope, e.g. l ...e6 2 itlxfS gxfS 3 ':xc4! .

Or 2 . . .lDbd7 3 J.xf6 lOxf6 4 lOgS.

l itld2? ':xc3! 2 bxe3 e6 3 h3

The absence of an f-pawn means White tlueats will include not just lDxe6 but lDxh7. For example, S ...J.f8 6 lOxh7! �xh7 7 "xg6+ �h8 8 J.gS lObd7 9 lDe4 and wins,

If White stops ...J.cS with 3 lDb3 he is clearly worse after 3 . . . J.xc2 4 ':xc2 'ihb3 . But ...J.cS was not Black's main idea.

3 J.h6 ':e8 4 ':xe6! fxe6 5 lDgS

l S...':fB 1 9 "e2 lOe7 20 ':el J.d6 2 1 J.bl

Bologan - Rozentalis Belfort 1 998

1 e4 e5 2 lOo lOf6 3 lOxeS d6 4 lOO lDxe4 5 d4 d5 6 J.d3 J.e7 7 0-0 lOe6 8 e4 lOf6 9 loc3 0-0 10 h3 lDb4 1 1 J.e2 dxc4 12 J.xe4 c6 13 aJ lDbd5 14 1:tel J.e6 15 J.d3 h6 16 i.d2 By connecting rooks White is poised to follow the sacrifice with 'ii'e2 and ':el . Black should have anticipated this with 16 .....c8 ! .

16...':e8 1 7 ':xe6! fxe6 18 J.g6! The rook must be driven from e8.

White's compensation lies in the strength of his light-square bishop and the weakness of the squares e6, fl, g6 and h7. He believed he had ample pl�y' after 2 1 ...':e8 22 lDes lOcdS 23 'ii' d3.

21.....e7? 22 lOe5 J.xe5

This capture was inevitable in view of lOg6 or 'ii'd311Og4. But now there is no minor piece to defend h7.

23 dxe5 lOfdS 24 lOxdS lOxdS 25 "e4! gS 26 "g6+ White gets his first taste of material compensation. His advantage was evident after 26.....g7 27 "xe6+ �hS 28 h4! lOf4 29 'ii'e4 ':ad8 30 J.c3 and Black collapsed with 30 ... lOdS 3 1

hxg5 hxgS 3 2 J.d2 lOf4 3 3 J.b4 "f7? (33 ...':fe8 34 e6) 34 e6 1Oxe6 35 J.xfB Resigns.

Exchange sacrifices that disrupt the enemy pawns can leave the sacrificer in the enviable position of being the only one who can change the pawn structure. This, in itself, is a form of compensation. Even though his opponent may control a half-open file with his unopposed rook, it can be severely restricted if there is no way to exchange pawns

128

The Exchange

and open the file completely. Nothing is more frustrating than to have an advantage in material that can't be used because of static pawns.

The Exchange 129

translate into pressure because Black's knight cannot be driven off e5 by an f-pawn and because f6 is rock solid.

Benko - Keres

Los Angeles 1 963

Razuvaev - Tivlakov Rostov-on-Don 1 993

I d4 lDf6 2 c4 e6 3 lDo b6 4 g3 i.e7 5 i.g2 i.b7 6 lDc3 0-0 7 d5 i.b4 8 i.d2 lDa6 9 0-0 lDc5 10 lDel l:te8 II lDc2 i.xc3 1 2 i.xc3 exd5 13 cxd5 lDce4 14 lDe3 lDxc3 15 bxc3

25 h4? "xf6! 26 l:txf6 �xf6 27 "d4 Black then provoked White into creating a new target with e3-e4.

27...:le8 28 �1'2 �g7 29 �el f6 30 �d2 lDg4 31 e4 lDe5 32 "c3 l:te7 33 "a3 a5 34 �2 lDf7 35 .i.c2 l:teS 36 "a3 �f8 37 .i.a4 .i.g4 38 "d3 �e7 And White panicked at the prospect of the loss of his e-pawn after ... �d8, . . . l:te7, ...lDe5-d7-c5.

39 c5? dxcS 40 �5 lDd6 41 'iVc6 �d8 and Black woo.

White to play Granted a little time to safeguard his position, by protecting the b-pawn and stopping ...lDd4, White should have an excellent game. He can then double rooks on the d-file and, if Black defends d7 with... lDe5, drive the knight off with f2-f4.

I i.c3? ! i.xc3 2 bxc3 l:te8 3 lDe3? But this is a bad mistake which magnifies the positional risks of 1 i.c3. Necessary was 3 lDf4.

3 l:txe3! 4 fxe3 "e8 .•.

The e3-pawn must fall (5 �f2 "e4).

5 'it'c2 "xe3+ 6 �hl lDeS 7 l:tfl l:te8 8 l:tf4 f6

Black's sacrifice works because he has targets and White doesn't, due to the pawn structure. White' s control o f the d- and f-files doesn' t

This means that unlike the usual middlegame Exchange sacrifice, when tempi are precious, time is on the side of the sacrificer. He can afford to improve the position of his pieces slowly. For example, 9 l:te4 'tff2 to l:td l , the kind of position only a computer would like, allows Black to prove his superiority with 1 0...l:te7 1 1 l:tf4 "e3 1 2 l:te4 "g5 or 10 . . .. f5, to exploit the pin on e4. .

9 "e4 lDg6! 10 "xe3 l:txe3

Black . would be close to a winning position after 1 1 l:tf2 lDe5 followed by ...�f7-e6, or 1 1 :f3 l:txe2 1 2 l:txd7 lDe5. White tried to escape in the rook ending, I I l:txd7 lDxf4 12 gxf4 l:txe2 13 l:txa7, with the idea of 14 f5 ! . But he was losing after 13 ... l:tI'2! 14 :b7 :xf4 IS

l:txb6 l:txc4.

Inability to change the pawn structure often makes heavy pieces look stupid - just as it enables minor pieces to appear brilliant. The result is that gross disadvantages in material can turn out to be favorable in terms of mobility and targets.

There is one other criterion that can influence the evaluation of an Exchange imbalance. Giving up a rook for a piece may be justified:

(f) When it gains the two bishops

15 .. .lhe3! 16 fxc3 d6 Tiviakov explained his last two moves in Shakhmatny Vestnik: White's pawn structure is inflexible without any real chance of opening lines for his rooks. Black gets the use of e5 and c5 as "eternal outposts" for his knight. White will have to defend d5 with his c- or e-pawns, making his bishop worse. "Black's position is better: only he has winning chances," he concluded.

17 "d4 lDd7 18 l:tf4 "e7 19 l:tafl lDe5

The rest of the game could be broken down into four stages. First, White tried to create kingside targets.

20 .te4 l:tf8 21 i.d3 .i.c8 22

"e4 g6 23 l:tf6 �g7 24 c4 .i.d7 But he liquidation.

allowed

a

favorable

Steinitz believed the two bishops conferred an advantage that was part material and part positional. He didn't try to quantify the material value but there is evidence that it is worth one half a pawn to a full pawn. (More on that in Chapter Nine.) This means that one pawn plus the two bishops should be sufficient compensation for the Exchange. If, on the other hand, it is the player with the Exchange who has the 2.i.s, he typically enjoys winning chances against two extra pawns. Frequently the theoretical value of the bishops can be converted to something more concrete because the bishops find opportunities to be cashed in for an extra pawn.

130

The Exchange 1 3 1

The Exchange

Geller - Keres


exf4 lDe6 1 3 .i.eS+ �dS 14 .i.xg7 :c8 IS .i.xe6+ �xe6 16 �o :c4 17 .i.c3 �d5 18 h4. It is less risky to force the win of the Exchange when it means giving your opponent one pawn plus the bishops. Yet computers - and occasionally strong players misevaluate the chances.

Suetin - Spassky


Black to play White threatens the knight and need not fear 1 . . .fxe5 because of 2 :xe4 .i.xe4 3 .i.xe4 lDc6 4 b5 :d8 5 :c l .

1...lDd6? Correct was 1 .. .lDg5. Black misevaluated the Exchange sacrifice he was forcing.

2 .i.xh7! fxeS 3 :xd6 .i.dS 4 :6xd5 exd5 5 :xd5 :c1 Steinitz said two bishops and two pawns "are considerably stronger than rook and knight." This is another of those 1 9th and early 20th century generalizations that seems quaint today. Modem grandmasters emphasize the exceptions over rules and say the ultimate truth depends on calculation. Here there is no exception. White's two bishops can be converted to a winning, third pawn after, say, 5 ...lDd7 6 .i.c3.

6 �n lDc6 7 �e2 :d8 8 :xd8 lDxd8 9 .i.c3 �e6 10 .i.g8+ �d6 1 1 f4! Thanks to the bishops, White can protect his own pawns and win the g-pawn, after which his passers must win. He did after 1 1 ... exf4 1 2

I e4 c5 2 tOo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tOxd4 lDf6 5 tOc3 a6 6 .i.g5 e6 7 f4 h6 8 .ih4 'it'b6 9 a3 .i.d7 10 "d2 tOc6 1 1 lDb3 .i.e7 12 .i.f2 "c7 13 .i.e2 b5 14 0-0 0-0 15 :adl :fd8 1 6 .i.g3 :ac8

lDd3 .i.b6+ 29 �hl lDe4 30 :e2 �e7 31 :fel f5 32 lDbc1 h5!. GRUENFELD EXPERIENCE There is no typical Exchange imbalance. But a good model that recurs over and over arises in a Gruenfeld Defense variation that first came into fashion more than 50 years ago:

1 d4 tOf6 2 c4 g6 3 tOc3 dS 4 cxd5 tOxdS 5 e4 lDxc3 6 bxc3 cS 7 .i.c4 .i.g7 8 lDe2 0-0 9 0-0 cxd4 10 cxd4 lDc6 II .i.e3 .i.g4 12 0 lDaS

14 ...a6 and 1 5 . . .b 5 . The most promising of the five options appears at first to be the riskiest:

13 .i.d3 .i.e6 14 dS .i.xal IS "xal f6 16 .i.h6 :e8 This Exchange sacrifice was first offered in the 1 940s and scored some famous victories. But it fel l under a cloud after 1 7 lDf4 .i.d7 came into fashion, e.g. 1 8 e5 dxe5 1 9 "xe5 'iVb6+ and .. ...f6. Since then there has been shifts in strategy, with White switching from kings ide attack, to queenside (:b 1 ) and back. Fortunes have also changed: White was winning during 2000-2004 after Black's long run of success in the mid- 1 990s .

At the start of a typical Sicilian middlegame White forced matters with:

1 7 e5? dxe5 18 fxeS lDxeS 19 "d4 lDc6 20 .i.u7 tOxd4 21 .i.xd8 lDxe2+ 22 lDxe2 .i.xd8 23 li.:lc3 .i.c6 Four of White's five major options here will create imbalances. He can: - Surrender the two bishops to relieve Black's pressure, 1 3 :c l lDxc4 14 :xc4. This has proven lackluster.

Because play has been forcing since 1 7 e5, White likely foresaw this position and considered it favorable. But there is little to recommend it. Without making a serious error White found himself losing after 24 :d6 .ie7 25 :d2

�f8 26 tOa2 .i.d8 27 tOb4 .i.b7 28

- Grab a pawn with the "Seville Variation," 13 .i.xf7+ :xf7 14 fxg4. This is still regarded as offering good winning chances for both players. - Sacrifice a pawn with 1 3 .i.d3 .i.e6 14 :c l .i.xa2. This has looked dubious recently. - Play quietly with 1 3 .i.d3 .i.e6 1 4 "a4. This avoids an imbalance but allows Black to equalize with

The factors in White's favor include: (a) Black has given up his best minor piece and his knight is exiled to a5, (b) there are 1 2 remaining pawns left on the board, somewhat reducing the scope of rooks and (c) White has the good bishops. This suggests his risk is fairly minimal. A survey of 1 00 master games played over a 1 6-year period ( 1 988-2004) found remarkable parity: White won 3 8, Black won 38, and 24 were drawn. Less than a third of the games reached the ending, a revealing statistic. Another database survey of 1 1 3

132

The Exchange

games played from 1 978-2004 found 47 White wins, 50 Black wins and 16 draws. In the overwhelming majority of White victories, he scored by kingside attack. There was a high number of counter-sacrifices. White got back the Exchange in the middlegame, either by trapping a rook or by Black counter-sacrifice, in nearly a third of the surveyed games. Play may continue:

The Exchange 1 3 3

The principal exceptions occur when a queen swap halts a significant initiative or eliminates serious chances of mate.

Tal - Lengyel

Mishkolc 1 963

If the player down the Exchange already has the 2iLs, it is almost always in his opponent's interest to arrange a swap.

Plovdiv 2003

Black cannot be stopped from getting his knight back into play ( 1 7 Ab I a6 I S "d4 iLf7 1 9 f4 ltcS and ... b5/...lDc4. ..•

l.....c6?

Material equality is back and Black held the draw in 67 moves.

TRADES A queen swap generally helps the player with the Exchange. This follows the general rule about trades favoring the materially superior side and, in addition, the rook loses some of the redundancy it shares with a queen.

San Francisco 1 99 1

Black to play

Or I S . . . iLf7 19 e5 g5 20 e6.

20 dxe6 iLxe6 21 exf6 iLf7 22 ltdl ltc6 23 iLbS "xf6 24 "xf6 Axf6 2S iLxe8 iLxe8

But saying trades will help the materially superior side is deceptive because of that one-and-a-half pawn dividing line. Are you the "superior side" if you have a rook but your opponent has a piece and two pawns? The best answer is ... "probably."

Ftacnik - Browne

17 Ac8 18 itJf4 iLd7 19 eS e6

Black will keep an extra pawn after ... h l ('ir') and enjoy strong winning chances.

Bareev - Azmaiparashvili

17 �h l

The inunediate 1 9 . . .itJc4 invites a controversial sacrifice on g6, e.g. 20 e6 ..ta4 2 1 lDxg6 hxg6 22 iLxg6. Black can avoid this with 20 ... lDe5 2 1 exd7 "xd7 but he is slightly worse after 22 'ir'bI. A game, Kharlov-Mamedyarov, Batumi 2002, now went:

S iLxcS! gxh2 6 lte7+ �c6 7 iLxa7 l:th7!

The mating attack, I . ..Ab5 2 �g2 "d5+ 3 �h3 "f3 or l .. .ltdl + 2 �g2 "d5+ 3 f3 'ir'b5, would have won.

2 "e4+! fS 3 "0 "c4 4 �g2 Ab5? Black is still winning after 4 . . .g5 5 h3 �g6.

S h4 "e4? 6 "xe4 fxe4 7 g4 White drew with normal care. In endings a trade of rooks is likely to benefit the player with the Exchange. But as noted in the diagrams on p.60 and p. 1 1 2 there are exceptions here too. Kaufman said the value of the Exchange becomes more than two pawns when queens and a pair of rooks are off the board. Trading minor pieces is likely to help the player with the rook. But there is a major exception: when it is a iL-for-lD trade that gives the opponent the two bishops.

Black to play Although he only has one pawn, Black is better because of the two bishops and because White's rooks have no useful files. In fact, it is Black who wants to open a file.

l...hS! 2 a4 White prepares 3 iLa3, and if 3 ...iLc7, then 4 Age l and lte7+.

2 iLcs 3 ltel h4 •.•

White cannot challenge an opened h-file because h I is covered by the bishop. Now 4 g4 h3 weakens his pawns for exploitation by . . . l:th4.

4 iLaJ If White trades bishops, 4 ...iLxa3 5 l:txa3, he can draw fairly easily (5 ... hxg3 6 hxg3 l:th3 7 lte3).

4 hxg3 ! •..

Black's rook needs targets. Now 5 hxg3 iLfl 6 lte7+ �c6 followed by ... iLxg3 and/or . . .Ah2 would be so strong White must accept the piece sacrifice.

White to play

l ltd2! The decisive factor here is board range. As long as there are pawns on both wings White should offer and Black should refuse - to swap rooks.

1 ltxd2? •••

Better was 1 .. .lDd5, despite the pin, and if 2 iLfl, then l . ..iLxfl 2 �fl ltd7.

2 ..txd2 �e6 3 ..te3 'itdS 4 l:th4 h6 S iLxcs bxcS

/34

The Exchange

White steadily made progress with 6 �e3 f5 7 �d3 lile6 8 l:ta4 lilc7 9 g4 and eventually won.

2 :le3 .i.c6). Now l . ..'ilhe4?? or l .. ..i.xe4 2 l:tg4 "xg4?? allows mate on dS.

1 .. .i.xe4 2 l:tg4 "e7 3 l:txe4 lilc6 4 l:tgl .

One final point: We know the rook's board range is likely to be reduced by traffic. But how much traffic will really affect the chances of winning? Purdy put it this way: the Exchange is barely worth a pawn and a half when there are 14 or more pawns on the board. Pawn trades will increase that to slightly more than two pawns, he said. This is overly when there are 10 will the side with chances against a pawns. J.

generous. Only pawns or fewer rook have real piece and two

Polgar - Bareev Linares 1 994

With 12 pawns on the board, White would benefit according to Purdy by a queen trade. But his rooks don't have enough open lines after 4 "d7 "xd7 5 l:txd7 l:tcS. Instead, White wants to develop an attack on the g-file with h2-b4-h5 and l:teg4.

4.....d6 5 "e2 l:td8 6 h4 h5! This secures the safety of the kingside ( . . .lile7-f5). Even if White trades both queens and a pair of rooks there is still no q\Jeenside breakthrough, e.g. 7 l:tdl 'ifxdl + S "xdl l:txd l + 9 �xdi �eS 10 l:ta4 �d7 1 1 b4 a5. That was similar to what happened in the g_ame - 7 "e3 'ilMs

8 �c2 lile7 9 'ife2 lilfS 10 l:tdl "xdl+. Black could plug up the-file with ._.lild6 if necessary.

White to play

1 .i.e4! White is slightly worse if Black is allowed to coordinate (1 l:tde l lild7

Our understanding of how much the Exchange is worth and how its value is affected by matters such as pawn total and board range has changed almost constantly in the last 200 years. For the last several decades, the virtues of Exchange sacrifice have been extolled with increasing frequency. The pendulum may have swung too far - a rook is a rook, after all - and the 2 1 st century may see a reversal of fortunes.

CHAPTER B:

QU EEN VERSUS PI ECES When a player gives up - or is forced to give up - his queen for enemy pieces, it sets up a battle between two principles: cooperation versus double attack. In the most general terms, the pieces have the edge if they coordinate well and find targets. The queen has the edge if it can use checks and forks - that is, to do what a queen does best. The queen must be able to act like a queen to have any chance against the pieces. Here's a drastic case of when it doesn't.

Selesniev - von Bardeleben Match 1 920

1 :lxc3! l:ta8 Black has no choice.

2 l:ta3 nxa7 3 bxa7 "a8 Black had to blockade the pawn with the only piece available.

4 .i.gS! Resigns

Almost ' anything wins but White's last move was convincing because .i.dS-c7-bS! will sentence the queen to a life term. That kind of cage is extraordinary. More commonly the queen is limited by normal pawn traffic. His own pawns can be just as confining as enemy pawns.

1 e4 d6 2 d4 lilf6 3 lilc3 g6 4 .i.c4 .i.g7 5 "e2 lilc6 6 e5! lilxd4 7 exf6 lilxe2 8 fxg7 l:tg8 9 lilgxe2 l:txg7 10 i.h6 l:tg8 1 1 0-0-0

White to play White's positional edge is huge but he seems to lack a point of breakthrough. The kingside squares look weak but bringing the queen to them via 1 "a5, 2 "e l and 3 �4 is slow.

With two pawns and a queen for three minor pieces, Black has a substantial chart edge. Computers also favor Black solidly_ Yet experience solidly favors White.

136 Queen versus Pieces

The reason is that Black's pawns get in the way of his heavy pieces. If he arranges the pawns in a hedgehog formation, he is quickly overwhelmed, as shown by the first Short-Miles game (London 1 984) l l ...e6? 12 h4 .id7 1 3 ltJe4 f6 1 4 ltJf4 q;n ( 1 4. . .d5 1 5 ltJxd5 or 1 5 .ixd5) 1 5 lIheI lIe8 1 6 g4 and White was soon winning. The best square for Black's bishop would appear to be f5 but 1 l ....i.f5 1 2 ltJd4 e5 1 3 ltJf3 ! creates tactical problems ( 1 3 . . .'it'f6?? 1 4 .ig5; 1 3 . . .'it'e7 1 4 ltJd5). Best play for Black may be:

1l ....ie6 12 .ixe6 fxe6 White has good chances because the pieces are better than the queen at exploiting the pawn congestion after 1 3 f4 or 1 3 h4 and 1 4 lIhe l . When the queen is free to act and execute double and triple attacks, the tide turns.

Karpov - Kamsky

FIDE world championship match, ninth game 1 996

Queen versus Pieces 1 3 7

of a large army to advance together is impossible in chess since you are allowed only one move at a time. There are likely to be moments when a moving piece breaks rank. This moment can be exploited.

2 'it'c4! Karpov said it seemed "unbelievable" that with one move the queen takes aim at six targets the two pawns, both rooks, the c6-bishop and the king. Only two of them are immediately threatened, but 3 'it'xe6+ would create a second fork. The natural 2 ....ib7 invites 3 'it'xe6+ q;h8 4 'it'd7 :b6 5 :c3 lIg8 6 .ie5 or 4 ...:g8 5 .i.e5. Black played 2 ...:ca8 3 'it'xe6+ �h8 but was lost after 4 .ie5

(4 . . .:e8? 5 'it'fl ! , another fork).

MISAPPRAISAL Despite the charts - or perhaps because of them - 'it'-vs. -pieces is misappraised more often than any other material imbalance. This can happen even in heavily analyzed openings.

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ltJo ltJf6 4 ltJc3 e6 S .igS dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .ih4 gS 9 ltJxgS hxgS 10 .ixgS ltJbd7 1 1 g3 b4(?) 12 ltJe4 ltJxe4 13 .ixd8 �xd8 14 . .ig2 f5 IS exf6 ltJdxf6

White has given up three pieces for the queen and a pawn. He should not be worse in a material sense. But articles in Shakhmatny Bulletin and elsewhere in the 1 950s rated the position as favorable for Black, citing 16 'it'e2 ltJd6 1 7 .ixc6 l:tb8. GM Vladimir Bagirov recalled how he went into this line as Black at Sarajevo 1 980 because "all the manuals" favored Black and because he liked the position after 1 8 'it'e5 .ie7 1 9 'it'a5+ :b6 that he had prepared in advance. "But alas I didn't reach it," he wrote - because White won outright with 1 6 .ixe4 ltJxe4 1 7 'it'f3 ! ( l 7 . . .ltJd6 1 8 'it'f6+).

Quite naturally Black wants to coordinate his pieces better ( . . .:ca8 and . . . .id5). But getting all the units

Black has just a rook and knight as compensation and most chart-based evaluations favor White by more than a pawn. But it should be obvious that only Black has winning chances.

3 'it'gS :d3 4 'it'g4 :c3 S �h2 ltJf4

Black's inability to safely coordinate his pieces cost Black two other games in international events during 1 979-80 before this variation was consigned to the "refuted" pile. On the other hand, when there is little chance for double attack by the queen, his opponent often has the better chances despite a clear chart disadvantage.

Elyanov - Alexandrov Aeroflot Open 2003

Black's pieces and pawns protect one another well, and lie can make progress on the dark squares. White's king cannot play a significant role but Black's can. Most important, White has no targets to attack. Black does, the pawns at f2 and f3 and potentially the king.

6 'it'd7 f6 7 �g3 �h7 8 'it'fS+ �h6 9 'it'd7 :c1 The threat is ... :h l -h3+.

10 �h2 :n

Black to play

1...:a6?

1 :d8+ 'it'xd8 2 .ixd8 :xd8

White to play White has nothing better than to grab the queen.

Note that the initiative plays little role here, and that is not unusual in 'it'-vs.-pieces. The initiative is typically decisive in cases such as when a queen has just been captured and the pieces are tactically vulnerable for a few moves (as in the diagrams on p. 1 36). But once that window of opportunity for the queen is over,

Queen versus Pieces 139


the pieces may control the timetable. They can take their time.

CALCULATING AND OTHER BURDENS

D. Gurevich - Seirawan

U.S. Championship 2000

Before World War II a queen sacrifice usually meant a combination leading to mate. One of the most extensive early surveys of queen sacks, a 20-page article in the 1 955 Soviet chess yearbook by Alexander Konstantinopolsky, gave nearly 50 examples. But only a third could loosely be considered positional, or in Spielmann'S term, real sacrifices.

1 1 'W'd2? The losing move. White's queen had to w!1tch both f2 and g7, e.g. I I 'W'a7 ! �g6 1 2 'W'e3 �h5 1 3 'iWa7 ! since 1 3 ... �h4 1 4 'W'xg7 :'xf2+ 1 5 �gl :'g2+ 1 6 'W'xg2 is a drawn pawn ending. Similarly, on 1 l ...�h5 1 2 'W'xg7 :'xf2+ 1 3 �gl :'xf3 White draws with checks.

1 1 .. .'�h5! 12 'iWa2 �h4 13 'W'a7 llJh3! 14 'W'xg7 :'xf2+ 15 �hl :'xf3 16 'W'g8 :'f1+ 17 Cit>h2 :'f2+ 18 �hl llJg5! White must lose if he allows . . . �g 3 or . . .llJf3. He resigned after 1 9 'iWc4? tLlf3 20 'iWa2 ! ? because 20 ... :'h2+! leads to a won pawn ending. There have been many other cases like this and they have contributed to a widespread wariness by masters of queen imbalances. They love to sack - or win - a queen. But at the same time they've developed a mistrust of what chart values say about the resulting positions.

Another contemporary source, the Weltgeschichte des Schachs volume devoted to Soviet games of 1 953-60, contained an impressive total of 45 queen sacrifices. Only 1 9 were positional sacks (and four of them lost). In the decades since then, queen sacrifices have proliferated - in part, because they're fun. Anyone who has ever handled the pieces knows it brings a lot more pleasure than playing the other side, with the queen. But the pieces bring with them a higher calculating burden. The player with the queen usually has fewer options ("candidate moves") to consider. The variations he must count out may run fairly long mainly because of the queen's ability to check and check. But his opponent usuaIly has more numerous and more complex variations to evaluate. In the last example, the player with the pieces had relatively few ways of winning. In the next, he had a decisive several and combination to boot. But that contributed to his doom.

3...�f8 4 'it'xg4 'W'a4! 5 llJO?? White misses 5 4Jh7+ 'it'gS 6 e7 ! 'iWxd4+ 7 'it'h3 and gueens or 5 . . . 'it'e7 6 4JcS+ 'it'xe6 7 It'\g5+ �d7 S 4Jxb6+.

5 ..'ifb4! .

The queen moves are co �par atively easy to find. On 6 4Jf7 'ifb 1 ! Black threatens mate on f5 and a winning check on e4.

6 e7+ �xe7 7 4Jc8+ �d8 8 llJa7 . 'it'e8! White to play When handling the pieces against a queen, there is often a contrast between the "best" move and the practical move. Here the practical move, 1 i.d4, would maintain a solid edge but leave White a lot of work to do.

1 :'xd5! White's decision is objectively correct but the consequences are enormously difficult to deal with when there is a clock ticking.

1... exd5 2 e6 'W'a7 White can now emerge with three pieces for the queen after 3 e7 llJf6 (3 . . .'W'xe7 4 llJf5+) 4 eS(llJ)+ llJxeS 5 llJxeS+ q;,gS 6 4Jf6+ 'it'g7 7 i.d4. That should win because the pieces will coordinate well with the king and the knights wiIJ have greater impact on the shorter board that arises once the queens ide pawns are liquidated.

3 i.d4+! This adds an extra pawn to White's 3-piece compensation and should win more quickly. But the consequences are harder to calculate:

The pieces are losing their coordination: White is in zugzwang 9 �h3 loses a knight to 9 ... 'W'a3 as does 9 'it'f4 'iWf8+ 1 0 'it'e3 'W'e7+.

-

9 4Jc6 'W'f8 10 i.f6!? 'W'xf6 1 1

4Jcd4

White has switched from linking his pieces for offense to linking them for defense. But as noted on p.53, the knights become fataIly immobile this way. The fortress broke down after 10 'W'h8 1 1 'it'f4 .••

'it'e7 12 g4 'W'f6+ 13 �e3 �d6 14 llJc6 �c5 15 llJcd4 'it'b4 and Black won in another 16 moves.

The player with the queen assumes a greater calculating burden than his opponent under one major condition: If he is the one who initiates the imbalance and is

J 40 Queen versus Pieces

Queen versus Pieces 14 J

betting that the pieces won't coordinate well before he can inflict damage. Then he has to be sure that he can exploit the window of opportunity.

understands he is crossing a point of no return and that the chances of a draw are may be substantially reduced.

Kramnlk - Anand Las Palmas 1 996

Tarrasch - Spielmann Mannheim 1 9 1 4

Krarnni k said he wavered before concluding · that 2 1xfB is "if not stronger, at least more interesting." He gets a rook and bishop for the queen but also has a powerful plan of pushing the d-pawn. The onus is soon on Black to find moves to draw rather than on White to win (as it would be after 2 "'xa4).

2 . 1xdl 3 1e7 ..

As often happens right after a queen sack, there are pitfalls. If Black goes after the a-pawn he is clearly worse, e.g. 3 . . ....d7? 4 :'xd l "'a4 5 10 "'xa2 6 :'a3 'iVb2 7 lba7 and d6-d7, or 5 %ted3 "'xa2 6 1xf6 gxf6 7 d6.

White now met the threat of ... 1a4 with S :te2? but lost after

S...:'cI ! 9 1xcI "'xcI 10 ltJO 'ii'x d1+ (or 1 0 :'e 1 "'c5 ! ) .

However, the natural 8 :'d2 is quite safe and many players would prefer to handle the White pieces after 8 ...1a4 9 �f2 1xd I 1 0 :'xd1 "'xa2+ 1 1 l:td2 and 12 liJc6.

Black to play Black would have a fine game after l . ..:'fc8 and, if 2 d5, then 2 ... ltJa5 and ... 1b5/...1tJc4.

1 ...ltJbS 2 dS ltJb4 3 "'xb4! This game has been cited as an example of when not to sacrifice the queen. Actually this move is more or less forced since he is worse after 3 ltJdc3 ltJa3 and lost after 3 ltJd4 ltJxd4 4 1xd4 'iVxa2.

3 ..ltJd4 .

No better is 3 ... liJc3 4 "'xc3.

4 "'xd4 1xd4 S liJxd4 Both players saw this far and came to different conclusions. Contemporary annotators, as well as Alexander Koblents, in Lehrbuch der Schachstrategie, concluded Black is winning because of White' s precarious pieces.

S ...:'fcS 6 l:txcs lhcS 7 :'12 "'&3

IRREVERSmILITY Queen imbalances, whether they arise from sacrifice or the forced win of the queen, come with psychological overtones. Chief among them is the conviction that there is no turning back. Many other material imbalances have a way of being reversed. If you win the Exchange, for example, there is often a method of giving it back later, a la Capablanca. After all, rooks can attack minor pieces fairly easily in the endgame. Similarly if you play liJx1 in the middlegame there is a fairly good chance you ' ll have a few opportunities for 1xliJ before the late endgame. But "'-vs.-pieces, like mmor piece-vs.-pawns, is hard to undo. The player giving up his queen

3......c7

After a Black capture on d6 and a White capture on c6, Black feared following the strong c-pawn, l ......xd6 2 dxc6 "'xdl + 3 :'xd l and played:

1 ...1a4! White has two promlsmg responses, 2 "'xa4 and 2 1xfB, and they lead to roughly the same size of advantage, a plus-over-minus in Informant-speak. Both moves are good and, as Vladimir Krarnnik wrote in 64, "The choice of two goods is often more difficult than the choice between two evils." After 2 "'xa4 "'xd6 3 "'xa7 liJxd5 White cannot play 4 :'d l ? liJxe3 ! and should avoid 4 :'d3 "'e5. That leaves 4 1xd5 "'xd5 5 "'xb6, which Krarnnik said would offer White good winning chances. But Larry Christiansen, in Inside Chess, said 5 ... :'c2 would create difficult technical problems "at the very least."

2 1xf8!?

There is a temptation to return to a more recognizable material imbalance, something that is easier to understand. But 3 . . .liJxd5? (hoping for 4 :'xdI "'xe7!) loses to 4 .i.xd8 liJxe3 5 195 ! ltJxg2 6 %txd 1 . The point of no return has been passed.

4 :'xdl liJd7 S i.h3 h6

6 1fS! Yakov Neishtadt once observed that giving up the queen "requires attention not only to the attacking possibilities of the pieces but also to their capability of defending one another from attack by the queen."

J 42 Queen versus Pieces This bishop is already thinking of defense. By putting it on the h3-c8 diagonal, White prepared threats of winning material (�b4 followed by :e7). But on f5 the bishop also stops •c2, the best way of activating the queen. For example, 6 �b4? .c2 ! 7 :del :c4 and Black is back in the game.


Spassky - Short

identical pieces than in an equally favorable .-vs.-pieces ending.

London 1 982

Sutovsky - Macieja Olympiad 2002

...

6 b5? .•.

The helplessness of the queen is underlined by 6 . . .g6 7 d6 .c6 8 �xd7 .xd7 9 �f6!, and the queen cannot move because of d6-d7. Black had superior survival chances with 6 . . .'ii'b7, freeing the rook along the file. But shifting the queen to the sidelines smacks of defeatism.

7 �b4 l:td8 8 l:te7 .c4 9 l:txd7!

This simplifies into a battle between the lone queen on one side and the rook, bishop and d-pawn on the other.

9...:xd7 10 �xd7 .xb4 1 1 d6 .a4

The pawn is too advanced for any other defense. Black must attack unprotected pieces and hope for perpetual check. It wasn't enough:

12 :d3 .e4! 13 �xbS .e1+ 1 4 �g2 .e4+ 1 5 �gl .e1+ 16 �g2 .e4+ 17 �fl ! .h1+ 18 �e2 .e4+ 19 �n .h1+ 20 �e2 .e4+ 2 1 �dl .g4+ 2 2 f3 .h3 23 d7 Resigns When a queen imbalance is undone, it usually comes about because of technical difficulties that the superior side - typically the player with the queen - encounters. Many grandmasters would feel more comfortable in an ending with

White faces another practical dilemma: 6 'ii'b3 may be theoretically best but is hard to play. He makes a pragmatic decision.

White to play

1 c4! .xc4! Not 1 ...�xg2 2 :a6 'ii'b7 3 :b6 or l .. .�xc4 2 :cl ! .

2 :e3! bxe3 3 �xe4 �xe4 4 'ihe3 �e7

Computers and charts disagree over how much better White is but one thing is clear: Black's fortress-building bishop at c4 is the key to his defense.

5 :a4? White misses his window of opportunity to create targets (5 f5 ! exf5 6 e6 fxe6 7 'ii'xg7).

5 ...�a6 That misstep leaves him with a second-best plan, pushing the b-pawn. White considered 6 'ii'b3 l:tc6 7 'ii'b8+ and 8 b4 as a plus-over-minus edge JD his Informant notes. But once Black's king is castled his pieces come alive, e.g. 7 ...�d8 8 b4 0-0 9 b5? :c8 9 .d6 �xb5 and he can play to win.

6 l:txa6!? :xc3 7 :a8+ �d8 8 bxc3 White's counter-sacrifice gives him an advantage that is easier to understand. It may be no larger an edge than after 6 'ii'b3 but one he can handle more surely, such as 8... f6 9 �b6!. (However he played 9 exf6?! and only drew after 9 ... gxf6 1 0 g4 :g8 I I h3 �f7 etc.)

WINNIN G WAYS Before we get to specific imbalances, it is worth pointing out another basic difference between having the queen and having the pieces: The queen usually has more ways of winning than the pieces. But the pieces usually have more ways of drawing. Both sides typically try to win by promoting a pawn. But the pieces generally don't have as many opportunities to win by more direct means, such as sacrifice and mating attack.

Black to play

1 ...liJee6? Black needed this defend b6 ( l ...liJc8!).

knight

to

2 l:tebl liJb8 3 :xb6+! 'ii'xb6 4 l:txb6 �xb6 5 liJn liJbc6? And here he underestimates the coming sack. Black needed to reinforce c4 with 5 ...�b5.

6 liJe3 liJe7 7 liJxe4+!

Computers tend to regard this as an error that throws away all of White's advantage. But computers don't appreciate targets and the initiative. This is the only way to set up points of attack for the queen before Black organizes a defense ( . . .�b5, ...liJbc6, . . .�a6, ...l:tb8)

7...dxc4 8 'ii'xe4 liJb7 9 'ii'b3+ �e7 10 e4

1 44 Queen versus Pieces The player with the queen typically has more chances for a successful sacrifice than the side with the pieces. Why this is true is unclear.


Yusupov - Hort

German Bundesliga 1 994

10...J.c6 11 J.e3 11b8 12 dS! tDd8 13 "'c3.

The player with the pieces has more ways of drawing than his opponent largely because he has more pieces. For instance, if the queen is about to promote his only queenside pawn, the other side may be able to give up a piece to stop it and still draw by holding the fort on the kings ide. But the player with the queen doesn't have the lUXUry of giving it Up for a passed pawn except in extraordinary (i.e. stalemate) positions. When the player with the queen is looking for ways to draw he often fmds himself limited to perpetual check. But the pieces can also (a) blockade a potentially wirming pawn, (b) foment counterplay by piling up against a target or (c) cobble a fortress.

Bucharest 1 954

White would win if allowed to play his king to h6 but Black can foil that with ...:g8-g7. White needs another target.

21. ..:g8 22 g4 lIg7 23 'it'e8+ lIgS 24 .17 J:lg7 25 'tIt'e6 lIgS! 26 hS gIhS 27 gxhS

It may be that the pieces usually need time to carry out an attack and don't need, or can't use, the immediacy that a sacrifice provides. On the other hand, a queen and minor piece is often enough to carry out a decisive king attack once defensive pawns are swept away by sacrifice. That's the case here. White's queen could only prove its value if it could get past the pawns and invade on the dark squares. Black held on for a while but was lost after

Filip - Korchnoi

19 ...lIxe3+! 20 �xe3 lIbS 21 h4

Black to play

White to play

I ltJeS This appears to win because the queen and knight are under attack and both 1 .. .J.xe5 2 lIg5 or 1 . . ."'a6 2 lIxe7 appear hopeless.

1 ...ltJe2+! 2 �f2 J.xeS! 3 lIgS tDf4! 4 :'xg6+ fxg6 Black gets rook, piece and pawn for the queen. This is enough because the pawn is the passed a-pawn. White's best blockader turns out to be his king.

S 'it'e4 J.d6 6 �el ! :'f7 7 �dl as S �c2 a4 9 �b2 aJ+ 10 �a2 ltJe2 1 1 :'b3 lin More testing is I I . . .1I£2! since 1 2 J.xf2 ltJc I + wins for Black. However 1 2 �al ! leaves Black nothing better than 1 2 . . . J:lfl + with a draw by perpetual check.

1 2 'it'e6+ �hS 13 lIxaJ ltJc3+ 14 �b3 lIbl+ IS �xc3 1baJ+ 16 �c2 :ab3 17 'it'f7! 1I1b2+ 18 �dl lIb1+ 19 �e2 The presence of bishops favors White ( 1 9 . . .:b8 20 J.d2 and J.c3+). But Black found a way to build a fortress.

1. R-xeS! ••

27...J:lgS! 2S 'it'f7 b6! The fortress is in place. White made an elaborate attempt to win by bringing his king to fl via c6-d7-e8. But that failed to break the defensive wall and a draw was eventually agreed . Now for specific cases. We will consider three basic imbalances queen versus two or more minor pieces, queen versus rook and one or two minor pieces, and queen versus two rooks.

QUEEN VERSUS MINOR PIECES

A sacrifice of queen for two pieces - unless it leads to a mating attack or a powerful bind - requires pawns and positional assets thrown in. As little as two extra pawns and good open lines can be sufficient, provided at least one pawn is potentially an outside passer.

This looks like a faulty combination that loses a piece. Actually it is a sacrifice of queen for two pieces (and it violates Minev's guideline since Black has only two minor pieces to begin with).

2 .i.xc6 .i.xf4 3 "f6 .i.xh6 4 .i.xd7 11xd7 But Black is risking very little since his king is safe and there is no passed pawn in White's future. With two bishops and two extra pawns, both on the queenside, Black holds the only serious wirming chances.

S l:[fel R-f8 6 h4 l:[ad8 7 hS? In the absence of a passed pawn, White must establish targets, in particular the king for mate or perpetual check. This loosens Black's kingside but he should blockade first with 7 .l:.d4.

7 ... d4 8 hxg6 hxg6 9 J:td3 .i.a6 1 0 l:ledl ? A misjudgment o f the power of rook, bishop and two passed pawns. He should try to swap rooks with 1 0 l:[h3 .i.g7 I I 'it'c6 and .l:.e8+! to make the king vulnerable, e.g.



Bagheri - Murey

l l .. .d3 1 2 lle8+! llxe8 1 3 'ii'xd7 .i.b5! 14 'ii'xb5 lle l + I S �h2 d2 1 6 lld3.

NAO Championship 2003

10 ....i.xd3 1 1 llxd3 llc8?! 1 2 'ii'0 ?

1 d4 e6 1. lDo c5 3 c3 ltJf6 4 .i.g5 'ii'b6 5 lDbd2 1Wxb1. ! 6 ltJc4 1Wxc3+!

Both players underestim�te Black's winning chances. WhIte would have some prospects of holding the ending after 12 llxd4 ! .i.g7 1 3 'ii'xg7+ �xg7 14 nxd7.

12 ....i.g7 13 'ii'e4 llcd8 14 f4 lld5 15 g4 .i.f6 16 �g2 �f8 17 �f3 b5

Black can always break a blockade with . . . llc3. The game ended with White trying desperately for perpetual and eventually blundering:

18 'ii'e l �g8 19 'ii'b4 ll8d7 20 'ii'b3 a5 21 a3 llc5 22 'ii'b l lldc7 23 �e2 a4 24 'ii'h l ll7c6 25 'ii'b l llc8 26 'ii'h l llc2+ 27 lld2 lle8+ 28 �dl llc3 29 'ii'd5 llxa3 30 'ii'xbS lla1+ 3 1 �c2 llc8+? 32 �d3 llel 33 llc2 lld1+ 34 �e1.? d3+! 35 �xdl dxc2+ 36 �el a3 37 'ii'a6 .i.b2+ White resigns Add any more compensation to the two pieces and two pawns, and the advantage turns sharply in favor of the pieces.

10 c3 .i.a5 1 1 ltJc7+ "'xc7 12 .i.xc7 .i.xc7

Much better than 6 . .1Wbs. .

7 .i.d2 1Wxc4 8 e4 1Wxn + 9 �xn lDxe4 With two pieces and three pawns for the queen Black should win. This became obvious after sloppy play by White (10 1Wc1. lDxd2+ 1 1

liJxd2 ltJa6 12 h4? .i.e7 13 llh3? ltJb4 14 'ii'b3 cxd4 15 llg3 0-0 16 h5 d5 1 7 ltJo ltJc6 18 llel .i.d6 18 llg4 e5).

Three pieces are almost always enough compensation for th� queen in the middlegame or endmg. In Chess the Easy Way Fine wrote that a queen was equal to three �inor pieces and a pawn. Purdy be�!eved . this was a "mental aberratIon and he meant to say "minus" a pawn. Fine chose a third formula in Basic Chess Endings when he said three pieces are roughly equal to a queen, . with no extra pawn for eIther sIde . Yet there is a widespread suspicion that earlier in the game the queen needs at least one extra pawn to have a chance against three pieces. This is sho�n by a st?Ck Sicilian Defense sacnfice that anses in lines such as:

1 e4 c5 1. lDo ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 d6 6 .i.c4 e6 7 .i.e3 .i.e7 8 .i.b3 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 f4 lDa5 1 1 "'0 b5 Black's last move is natural but allows:

12 e5 .i.b7 13 exf6! .i.xo 14 fxe7 1Wxe7 15 llxO

Soviet-era charts held that a queen was worth 9'h units, a knight was worth three and a bishop three and a half. This meant that the only combination of minor pieces that is exactly equal to a queen wo�ld be two knights and a bIshop. (Spielmann agreed with this.) Here White has two bishops and a knight for queen and pawn - an imbalance that would appear to favor Black. Yet 1 1 ...bS has virtually disappeared because of distrust of Black's position after, say, I S . . ltJc4 1 6 .i.xc4 bxc4 1 7 nel , followed by ltJdl and .i.d2-c3. .

Despite the 'chart, conventional wisdom is biased against the queen when it faces three pieces. That may change as a new generation of masters emerges. One illustration of this is an odd variation of the Sicilian Defense that began appearing in grandmaster .games around 2000:

I e4 c5 1. ltJo ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 e6 5 ltJc3 1Wc7 6 ltJdb5 'ii'b8 7 .i.e3 a6 8 .i.b6!?

If this is good for White then Black's fifth move may be refuted.

8 ... axb5 9 lDxbS .i.b4+

This is the best way to take the sting out of 1 0 ltJc7+ and 1 0 .i.c7. White has the edge after 9 ... .:.a4 1 0 ltJc7+ �e7 I I c4.

White' s basic idea is to use his extra pawn as part of a general pawn advance on the queenside, with a2-a4 and b2-b4, that ties up Black's pieces. After Ruslan Pon0!f1a�ov won a game in 1 999, thIS hne earned a degree of respectability but it is still very young and difficult to trust. Typical play is: 13 "'g4 g6 14 .i.c4 ltJge7 15 "'e2 0-0 16 0-0 and now 16 ... b6 17 a4 .i.b7 18 b4 or

16 dS 17 .i.b5 e5 18 exd5 ltJxd5 19 :'fdl .i.e6 20 "'0 ltJde7 21 a4 .•.

have been tried, with good results for White. Nevertheless, the practical player can follow a rule of thumb: three minor pieces, unless grossly are adequate uncoordinated, compensation for a queen, even for . a queen plus pawn. Two mmor pieces need pawns and other goodies to balance the queen.

QUEEN VERSUS ROOK AND PIECE(S) The typical advice offered for "'-vs-lhminor piece is: (a) If it reaches an ending wi!h . equal pawns, "the queen WIll wm

J 48 Queen versus Pieces (though not Fine wrote.

without

difficulty)"

(b) If the pieces have an extra pawn they are "generaJly considered equivalent to a queen," wrote Portisch and Sarkozy. (c) If the pieces have two extra pawns they have real winning chances, particularly if there are many pawns on the board. Perhaps the most accurate conclusion is that the rook and piece need one and a half pawns to balance the queen. "In order to draw a fine line between profit and loss it's necessary to cut a pawn in two," Neishtadt wrote. Spielmann felt this was true if the minor piece was a knight. If it was a bishop, one pawn was enough, he said. Kaufman's database indicated the difference between the two pieces was marginal. Nevertheless, many masters simply don't trust generalizations like these when they have to evaluate positions over the board. They often doubt, for example, that 1I+piece+28s offers real winning chances.

Queen versus Pieces J 49 Black can win by unpinning the e-pawn with l .. .lIe6!, e.g. 2 lDd4 lIe5 3 "f4 lIh5. But he chose to win the queen.

1 ... i.e7? 2 lIxe4! i.xe4 3 lIxe4 i.xgS? Here 3 . . .'ii'xc2 4 lIxe7 lIxe7 5 'ii'xe7 lIxh6 6 'ir'e8+ is a draw by perpetual check. But Black apparently didn't believe that he would be worse if he had a queen facing a rook, knight and two pawns.

4 lIxe8+ �h7 S lDxgs+

White loses with 5 l1xh8+?? �xh8 6 i.xg5 'ir'xc2 because he only has bishop and knight for the queen.

S...�xh6 6 lIxh8+ �g7 7 lIh7+ �g8 8 ltxf7 White's pieces protect one another well · and he can retain at least one queenside pawn for potential queening. This translates into serious winning chances.

Not 13 ...�h6?? 14 lth8 mate or 13 ... �17?? 14 lIflH.

14 lDgs+ draw! ? White would still have the better of 14 . . .�g7 I S lIb7+ �g8 16 lt17. A similar case from the archives shows a Soviet master letting slip a once-in-a-lifetime chance to defeat Paul Keres. "As strange as it may seem," said the tournament book, Black offered a draw just when his advantage was becoming evident.

Keres - Kasparyan .


I e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 lDe3 dxe4 4 lDxe4 i.fS S lDg3 i.g6 6 lDh3 lDd7 7 i.e4 lDgf6 8 lDf4 eS 9 dxeS? 'ir'aS+ 10 i.d2 'ir'xeS+ 1 1 lDge2 i.eS 12 0-0 O-O-O! 13 lDg3 'ir'd4 14 i.d3 lthe8 15 b4! i.xb4 16 e3 i.xe3 17 lDge2 i.xal 18 lDxd4 i.xd4 1 9 'ir'e2

This doesn't mean that the queen usually wins when the difference is one pawn or loses when it is two. In fact, the likely result when there is a one-pawn deficit is a draw. One reason is that a rook and piece cooperate very well in defense and in the creation of a fortress, regardless of the number of pawns. This is underlined by the Nimzo Indian variation that goes:

1 d4 lDf6 2 e4 e6 3 lDc3 i.b4 4 e3 0-0 S �d3 dS 6 lDo eS 7 0-0 lDe6 8 a3 �aS 9 exdS exdS 10 dxeS i.xc3 11 bxc3 i.g4 12 �b2 lDeS 13 e4 lDxo+ 14 gxO �h3 IS exd5 "xdS 16 i.xf6 gxf6 In a Portisch-Tal Candidates match game from 1 965 White saw through 1 7 i.xh7+?? �xh7 1 8 'ir'xd5 ltg8+. He prepared the i.xh7+ combination with 17 �hl and eventually drew after 17 ...lIfd8

1 8 1Ig1+ �h8 19 �e2.

Taimanov, in an early version of his book on the Nirnzo, wrote, "Not 19 i.e4? in view of 19 ... i.g2+! ." However, this is precisely what happened in BeJyavsky-Tal, Riga 1 975, which continued 20 �xg2

8 ...'ir'xe2 9 lIxb7 'ir'e1+ 10 �h2 'ir'f4+ 1 1 �h3 'ir'xfl

'ir'gS+ 21 �hl lIxdl 22 }laxdl 'ir'xeS 23 ltd5! .

And. Tzermiadianos - Simeonidis Greek Championship 2002

Black's king position may have concerned him but he is obviously superior after 1 9 ...lDc5 or 1 9".i.xd3.

12 1Ib8+? ! Yet White also concluded he could not win despite 12 lt17! when he has all the chances ( 1 2 .....xb2 1 3 ltxa7).

Black to play

12 ...�g7 13 lDe6+ �h7

Regardless of the arithmetic truth, marking the dividing line at 1 1.12 pawns makes some sense because the queen tends to have the edge when the difference is one pawn and the pieces have the edge when it is two.

Black to play

150 Queen versus Pieces White would have been quite lost after 20 lhg2 'ii'xd1 +. But there is a world of difference between being an Exchange down with only a pawn as compensation and holding rook, piece and pawn against a queen. Even though one and a half pawns is a good dividing line in both the Exchange and 'ii'-vs. ':+piece imbalances, there is a greater margin of error in the latter case. Here White threatens ':h5xh7+ in addition to ':xc5 and that gives him the better chances, even with only one extra pawn. Play continued 23 . . . iH8! 24 ':d7 (24 �xh7 'ii'h6) ':e8 and Black managed to draw after 25 ':xb7 lte7 26 ltb4 lte5 27 �xh7 ltg5 ! . Note that White had doubled f-pawns and yet the net effect of the pawn structure favored him. This is because his bishop was entrenched on e4 and had considerable range. In the absence of a passed pawn, the winning chances in such endings often depends on the range of the bishop.

de Firmlan - Dautov Essen 1 999

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �e3 dxe4 4 �xe4 �fS S �g3 �g6 6 h4 h6 7 �f3 �f6 8 �e5 �h7 9 �e4 e6 1 0 'ii'e2 �dS 1 1 �d2 �d7 12 0-0-0 �xeS 13 dxeS 'ii'e7 14 f4 0-0-0 1 5 lth3 �b4 16 �xdS �xd2+ 1 7 ':xd2 ltxdS 18 ':xd5 exdS Now a knight move will threaten l'lc3. But is it a threat? On 1 9 �e4 �xe4! 20 ltc3 'ii'xc3 2 1 bxc3 h5 ! Black has as rock-solid a position as in the game.


19 �f5 �xf5! 20 ':e3 'ii'xc3 21 bxe3 h5!

This is when the mix of pieces includes the two bishops. Kasparov said ':+piece+£>' is enough compen sation for the queen - that is, to play for a win - when the 2�s are included. That makes sense if you quantity the bishop pair at an extra half a pawn, since the player with the pieces then has, in effect, one and a half pawns, not one, as "comp."

Unzicker Keres -

Black has no weaknesses, his bishop is solidly implanted on the best light-squared diagonal on the board and his last move stops g2-g4 and h4-h5. If Black is allowed to freeze the pawn structure further with . . .�b8 and . . .ltc8-c4 he may have winning chances, even with no extra pawn.

Moscow 1 956

..•

ltxa5 28 'ii'd8+ �b7 29 'ii'd7+ �a6! (playing to win) 30 "c8+ 'it'b5 31 �b2 g6 32 g3 �g4. THE TWO �'s

One pawn can be enough for the rook and piece - but so can no pawns. The confusion is due in part to what we mean by "adequate compensation." If the pieces are just trying to draw they may be able to do that with no pawns, thanks to the propensity for building a fortress. But if the pieces are trying to win, two pawns are more or less the minimum requirement - with one major exception.

Black would have lost both queenside pawns anyway ( 1 1 .. . 'ifxe4 1 2 �d2). He resigned after 1 2

�xaS ihe4 13 �d2 it'd3? 14 l'lxc4 �h7 1S �c2.

The power of the two bishops has long been appreciated in openings with no other material imbalance, such as the Nirnzo-Indian, Berlin Defense, Four Knights and so on. But the power of the bishops in a queen imbalance has changed theory further in lines such as the Rauzer Variation of the Sicilian:

1 e4 cS 2 itJf3 itJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 itJxd4 itJf6 5 �c3 d6 6 �gS e6 7 "d2 a6 8 0-0-0 h6 9 �f4 il.d7 10 itJxc6 �xc6 1 1 f3

White tried 22 c4! dxe4 23 'ii'xc4+ �b8 i4 'ii'd4 but Black had adequate counterplay after 24 ltc8.

The game was ultimately drawn after 25 c3 b6 26 a4 l'lc5 27 a5!

7...itJc4 8 d6 �e6 9 �a5 �cS 10 �b4 �d7 1 1 ':c2 a5

White to play Black is seeking a good-�-vs. -bad-� position but overfinesses:

1 �xe7 :tc8? This is designed to keep White from controlling the only open file after 1 .. .'ii'xe7 2 �a2 and ltc l .

2 �xd6! ':xc2 3 �xe2 White has one extra pawn but his advantage is substantial because of the way two bishops work with the d-pawn. This becomes visible after:

3 ... f6 4 �b3 �f4 5 l'ldl ! itJd7 6 ltd2 �b6 7 �c7! This trick (7 .....xc7 8 prompted Black's collapse.

d6+)

The prevailing wisdom circa 1 960 was that 1 1 . . .'iWb6 was best because 1 1 .. .d5 would invite " 1 2 "el �b4? 1 3 a3 �xc3 14 "xc3 or 1 3 ...�a5? 1 4 exd5 �xd5 1 5 b4 ! " with a big edge, a s claimed by Die Sizilianische Verteidigung ( 1 9 6 1 ), among other contemporary author ities. However:

1 1 ...dS 12 it'el �b4 13 a3 �a5 14 exd5?! itJxd5 15 b4 itJxf4! 16 ltxd8+ .i.xd8


152 Queen versus Pieces Black has a rook and bishop - no extra pawn - for the queen. But the strength of the 2�s, in particular the dark-squared bishop, and the loosening of White's queenside indicates Black should enjoy good chances. That judgment has withstood the test of time. When White has gotten the upper hand over the last two decades it usually wasn't because he exploited his slight material edge. Rather, he typically wins by launching a kingside attack ( 1 7 h4 followed by driving the knight off f4 and playing g2-g4-g5). Black responds with his own attack and the outcome often depends on who flinches first. For example, Ernst Lerner, Gausdal 1 992 went:

17 h4 0-0 18 "e3 lZ'ld5 Black may do better by preserving material with I 8 ...�c7.

19 lZ'lxds �xds 20 g4 as! White's king is the safer one and he stands slightly better after 20 ... b5 21 g5 h5 22 ..ti>b2 �e7 23 �d3 as in a previous Ernst-Lerner game.

21 b5 �e7 22 gs hs 23 �b2 %tfc8

Black has only a rook and two pawns for the queen but his threat of ... lhfl provided him with winning chances (29 J.h3?? %tc4) and he eventually drew. Note that Black did not have the "two bishops" in the usual sense, in which one player has the bishops and his opponent has a bishop and knight or two knights. When Kasparov said the a rook, pawn and the 2J.s were sufficient compen sation for the queen he had that sense in mind. But in queen imbalances there is another sense: the "two bishops" can simply mean one player has two of them and his opponent doesn't, as in the last two diagrams. In that sense the 2J.s may still be a sigrtificant advantage because they attack squares of both colors. The opponent cannot defend by shifting potential targets to squares of one color. The queen turns out to be a poor defender when faced with an opponent who holds both the two bishops and the initiative. Another recently popular opening line runs:

1 e4 eS 2 lZ'lfJ d6 3 d4 exd4 4 lZ'lxd4 lZ'lC6 S lZ'lc3 g6 6 J.e3 J.g7 7 fJ 0-0 8 "d2 lZ'le6 9 0-0-0 dS 10 �bl lZ'lxd4 11 eS lZ'lrs 1 2 exf6 J.xf6 There has been a lot of attention paid to: Now 24 c4 J.xc4 25 �xc4 %txc4 26 %tel �c5! is fine for Black.

There is similar experience with a Gruenfeld line that also came into fashion around the turn of the 2 1 st century:

24 "C4 �xa3+! 25 �xa3 Ibe2 26 %tb2 1Ic3+ 27 �b2 %tb3+ 28 �al lIe8

13 lZ'lxdS "xdS! 14 "xdS lZ'lxe3 15 'ii'd2 ti)xdl 16 'ii'x dl J.e6

1 d4 lZ'lf6 2 c4 g6 3 lZ'lc3 d S 4 exds lZ'lxds 5 e4 lZ'lxc3 6 bxc3 J.g7 7 ti)fJ cs 8 J.e3 "as 9 "d2 lZ'lc6 10 .l:bl O-O!? 1 1 l:tbs Black must either sacrifice his queen or concede his last move was a blunder that drops a pawn. There is no extra pawn but the dark-squared .t is so strong that Black has had the better of results since the sacrifice began appearing in 1 997. If White can protect his dark squares, principally b2, he should be safe (but not necessarily winning after, say, 1 7 J.b5 a6 1 8 �a4 and J.b3). Adams-Ivanchuk, Dortmund 1 998 illustrates the pitfalls:

1 1 cxd4! "xe3 lZ'lxaS ...

12 lhas dxe3 1 3

17 �d3 lIfd8 18 'ii'e 1 lId6 1 9 "aS b6 Also promising is 1 9 ... J.d4 and 20 . . . lIad8.

20 "el lIe8 21 a3 lieS 22 g4 lIcdS 23 "g3 bS Ivanchuk said he had been planning a sack on d3 and White allowed him to carry it out "under optimal circumstances."

24 b3? h4 25 "0 lIxdJ! 26 exd3 11xdJ This will leave Black with 2J.s and a pawn for the queen but he exerts enough of a bind to make up for the deficit. White has problems defending b2 after... %tb3 and nearly lost following 27 'ii'e2 lIb3 28 %tdl gS! (White has the upper hand after 28 . . . lIxb2+ 29 "xb2 J.xb2 3 0 �b2 J.c4 3 1 f4) 29 lId2 �g7 30

"e4 a5 31 �c1 bS 32 �dl a4).

Once again the compensation is lI+piece and the two bishops. Black has done well against quiet moves such as 14 lDd4, e.g. 14 . . . J.d7 1 5 J.e2 lIfc8 and ... lZ'lc4. A sterner test may be the bridge-burning 14 h4. For example, 1 4... �e6 IS lZ'lgS J.xa2 16 h5 with great complications. There are lessons to learn from the last three examples. In the Rauzer and Gruenfeld lines, White's best policy was to go for mate, rather than simplify, even though he is "ahead" in material. The reason is that the player with the pieces can be vulnerable to attack during the window-of-opportunity period. Secondly, the pieces should not be in a rush to regain material (28 . . . g5 ! , 32 ... a4 i n the Dragon) and should

1 54 Queen versus Pieces even be willing to sacrifice further to maintain pressure.

TOTAL PAWNS The other key factor in this imbalance is the total number of pawns on the board. In general, the more pawns, the greater the winning chances of the superior side. This tends to be true whether the difference in pawns is two, one or zero. Even when the player with the pieces enjoys two healthy extra pawns, the win is difficult if they are the only pawns on the board.

Karpov - Timman Brussels 1 988

Black to play

Queen versus Pieces 155 and the loss of the b-pawn. The result would be queen and pawn versus rook, bishop, f-pawn and g-pawn "in which Black retains chances to draw." He didn't give variations but Timman did:

2 i.dS iVb2

Black's idea is ...l1h8, which he said would draw.

3 .i.xc4 l1h8! 4 lbh8 "'xh8+ 5 �gl �xb7 6 11xg4 White can stop the a-pawn with l1e4-e2 but Black should be able to blockade on the kings ide. The situation is similar when it is the player with the queen who has the upper hand. Pawn swaps tend to dissipate his chances. Other factors that encourage a draw, as Muller and Lamprecht in Fundamental Chess Endings noted, are when "the pieces have safe outposts and can't be forced into zugzwang." This is illustrated by a Catalan line that came briefly into fashion in the 1 980s:

1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 i.g2 dxc4 5 lDo c5 6 0-0 lDc6 7 ..a4 cxd4 8 lDxd4 "'xd4 9 i.xc6+ i.d7! 10 l1dl "xd1+ 1 1 "'xdl i.xc6

Black played l . ....d2?, after which 2 i.fl ! l1xb7 3 l1xa6+ �b8 4 11f8+ Q;c7 5 i.g2 left him with no king safety. He resigned after 5 ......d7 6 l1h8 c4 7 .i. e4 ! . Let's examine the only move that would have kept the game going:

That gives White a "+L!.-vs.-211 middlegame that IS particularly favorable because of the minor pieces and b-pawn.

Yet the sacrifice begun by 7 ... cxd4 enjoyed fad status in the 1 980s as a drawing line. If Black can liquidate the queenside, he would draw because the board has been reduced to a kingside in which his pawns provide a screen against double attacks by the queen. This strategy gained attention after Kasparov - Andersson, Niksic 1 983 ended in a draw after 13 i.e7 •..

14 axbS .i.xb5 15 lDxc4 0-0 16 b3 l1fd8 17 "'c2 l1dc8 18 .i.a3 .i.xa3 19 l1xa3 h6 20 "'c3 .i.xc4 21 bxc4 l1c7 and. . . l1ac8/. . . lDe4.

But in recent years White has enjoyed a substantial winning score in this line by more careful play. After trading dark-squared bishops he can build a pawn structure of e4-f3-g3-h2. Then with his king safe at f2 he may be able to trade minor pieces on the queenside and penetrate with his queen. Black's pieces can secure safe outposts but that won't be enough to draw if he loses a queenside pawn.

QUEEN VERSUS ROOK AND TWO MINOR PIECES This is considered a gross mismatch, roughly a +2 difference in favor of the pieces. With an equal number of pawns in the later stages of a game the queen "will usually be unable to defend everything," Fine said.

l...c4! Karpov gave this overview, in New In Chess. White would eventually capture this pawn and, in fact, all the black pawns. But he would have to allow a trade of rooks

b5 13 a4 a6 14 nb5 .i.xb5 allows 15 "c2 l1c8 16 l1xa6! .i.xa6 17 "a4+ lDd7 18 "xa6 and lDxc4.

Black has one extra pawn but can't keep it. For example 12 lDd2

Knowing this allows experienced players to make fairly quick

decisions positions.

10

otherwise

difficult

Teschner - Spassky Riga 1 959

White to play After 1 itlxd4 White has only "+L!.-vs.-211s+i., a huge deficit. But in queen imbalances the total amount of material on the board always matters. Here 1 itlxd4 offers survival chances since the natural 1 . . .lDc5 2 f5+ l1xf5? loses a rook to 3 lDxf5 Q;xf5 4 b4 lD-moves 5 1Wh7+.

I lDd6? l1xd6! Even with his king exposed, Black knew he was winning because he will emerge with rook, bishop and knight for the queen.

2 fS+ Q;xfS 3 "'xd6 lDf6 4 exd4 i.c6 Black has a +2 material edge and won after capturing White's d-pawn and pushing his own. With no pawns on the board he could not have won. But with three pawns apiece the winning process was fairly mechanical - and lengthy. It took another 44 moves, and that is typical of "'-vs-11+2 pieces endgames. They last much longer

1 56 Queen versus Pieces than is generally expected. A model case was Smyslov-Filip, Munich 1958. White had rook, bishop, knight and one pawn against a queen and two pawns. Black lasted more than 60 moves until he resigned in the face of mate. For the queen to have any chance against II + 2 pieces it must have pawns that restrict the pieces or threaten to promote. White found the correct plan in the following example - up to a point.


7 ... a3+! 8 �c3 White is fatally compromised on the light squares even after 8 �b 1 id7! 9 g4 ie6 1 0 c5 ttJd5 and . . .:a4.

8 l:tc8 9 "'c1 �dS

the pieces are coordinated, they are usually in for a battle. This example shows how the queen wins.

Shnelder - Chekbov USSR 1 982

•••

Now 10 c5 :a8 1 1 "'c2 if7 and ... tDd5+ will win in time.

Fressinet - Radjabov Pamplona 200 1 12002

Black to play

1...f6!

White to play

1 b3! White visualizes an optimal pawn structure, with c2-c4 and f2-f3, to reduce the bishop's scope and keep the knight out of d5 and e4. The abandoning of the second rank line of defense is a relatively minor worry because White's king will be fairly safe on dark squares.

1. ..�c6 2 �b2 tDdS 3 "'d2 tDf6 4 0 tDdS S h4 :a8 6 c4! tDf6 7 b4? But this fatally weakens c4. White feared ... a3+, and perhaps longed for counterplay from b3-b4-b5. But 7 "'d6 offered better resistance.

16 g4 ]:te2 17 "'cS 'it't7 18 "'15 g6 19 "f4 �e6 20 "'c7 h5! 21 "'d8 �f7 22 gS tDd5 23 "'h8 tDe7! 24 "'h7+ �e6 25 "'g7 �dS 26 "'f6 :e6 27 "'g7 tD15 28 "'a7 �eS! 29 �f2 :d6 30 "'81+ �e6 31 "'b8 �f7 32 "'e5 lle6 33 "'c7+ lle7 34 'i6'b6 �g7 White resigns When the player with the queen has two passed extra pawns, the edge begins to tilt towards him. Then the game may tum into a battle between three offensive units on each side - queen and two pawns against rook and two pieces. Even if

.

Black is close to winning now and he converted his edge with:

6 ..t>d2?! h4 7 tDo 'i6'b2+ 8 �d3

'i6'b1+ 9 �c3 h3 1 0 tDh2 'ii'g l 1 1 �f4 'ifa1+! 12 'it'd3 a3! 13 l:te7

"'xa2 14 l:tel 'ifxb3+ IS �d4 'iVb2+ White resigns

10 "'xa3 ixc4 1 1 �d2 :d8+ 12 �el :e8+ 13 �f2 :e2+ 14 �gl :n2 IS "'e3 bS!

Black has won a pawn but what is more significant is that he has anchored his bishop. When the minor pieces are protected, by pawns or by other pieces, the queen is more or less reduced to chasing the king. Black can, as usual, take his time:

2 .. ...xg2 3 tDd4 'ifxh2 4 Itf7 'ifeS s lhb7 hS!

Pawn structure plays a greater role in "'-vs.-pieces than in any from other imbalance aside �-vs.-tD. We saw the uselessness to the queen of doubled pawns in diagrams on p.46 and p . I 3 7 and of static pawns on p. I 50. A strong pawn structure, on the other hand, can severely reduce the range of the pieces and give the queen the upper hand. In the last example White tried to reduce their range with 1 b3, 4 0 and 6 c4. Black is trying to do the same here. This gives him an opportunity to eillage pawns with his queen (2 ttJeI "'e2).

2 ie3? White had to defend the kingside with his king despite the potential double-attack traps. After 2 �d2 ! "'xg2 3 �e2 he should not lose, even after Black raids the abandoned queenside with 3 ......g6! and . .....c2+ .

When the 'if-vs.-ll+2 piece imbalance is double-edged, the queen's winning chances usually depend on its ability to husband passed pawns. If it can make the pawns an offensive threat, extra pawns may not matter. This is a theme in two opening tabiyas. The less familiar one is:

I e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 tDd2 cS 4 exdS "'xdS S tDgO tDf6 6 i.c4 'ir'c6 7 a4 a6

Now 8 0-0 tDbd7 favors White slightly.

8 ibS?! axbS 9 axbS 'ifxO! 1 0 "'xf3 A different imbalance is 1 0 llxa8 "'xg2 1 1 16'0 16'xO 1 2 tDxO . Black temporarily has two pieces for a rook but must lose one of his pieces ( I 2 ... i.d6 1 3 dxc5). Yet his remaining pieces coordinate well enough to compensate, according to Chistyakov, who cited a game of his that went 1 2 ... tDfd7 1 3 tDe5 cxd4 1 4 tDxd7 �xd7 1 5 llxb8 i.d6 1 6 lIa8 l:te8. Black benefits because there is only one open file and White's pawns are not particularly healthy.

10 ... :xal 1 1 tDb3 :a4 12 dxcS Not 12 tDxc5 :xd4 1 3 tDxb7 lle4+ ! . Another Chistyakov game went 1 2 16'g3 tDbd7 13 'ifc7 lla8 1 4 dxc5 �e7 1 5 c6 bxc6 1 6 bxc6 tDc5 17 tDd4 tDd5 and Black won.

12 ...tDbd7

J 58

Queen versus Pieces J 59

Queen versus Pieces

Black gets at least three extra pawns to help the queen battle the rook and two bishops. That is roughly equal according to most charts but humans lean toward the pieces.

It is the strength of the pawns, not their number, that matters in positions such as 13 'ii'g3 liJd5! 1 4 c6 bxc6 1 5 bxc6 �7b6 o r 1 3 0-0 �xc5 14 �xc5 �xc5, which favor Black.

In one of the first games featuring this line, Boleslavsky Ragozin, Moscow 1 942, White "confessed he followed general considerations and was sure" his pieces were stronger, according to Suetin, Boleslavsky's friend. White did win but only because Black failed to push his pawns fast enough

(23 �d2 c5 24 l%ael 'ii'xb2 25 �f4 'ii'f6? 26 �xg3 d4 27 :e6 'ii'g5 28 �h2 c4 29 f4! and f4-f5-f6).

The second tabiya is better The White side has suffered known and easier for the player with . badly since the 1 970s because Black the queen to handle. The verdict of found a strong plan of running the theory, once leaning in favor of the d-pawn to d2, e.g. 23 �d2 'ii'xb2 24 pieces, has turned against them in �f4 d4! 25 �xc7? d3 26 .i.xg3 d2! recent years because the player with and ...:d8 with the better game. the queen has learned a lesson: he One of the few White victories in must push pawns. This line comes memory was based on a coordinated about via: piece attack 25 .i.xg3! c5 26 :ae1

1 e4 e5 2 �f3 �c6 3 �b5 a6 4 �a4 �f6 5 0-0 lLlxe4 6 d4 b5 7 �b3 d5 8 dxe5 �e6 9 c3 �c5 1 0 �bd2 0-0 1 1 �c2 f5 12 �b3 �b6 13 lLlbd4 lLlxd4 14 lLlxd4 �xd4 1 5 cxd4 f4 1 6 f3 lLlg3 1 7 bxg3 fxg3 1 8 'ii'dJ �f5 1 9 'ii'xl'S :xfS 20 �xf5 'ii'h4 21 �hJ 'ii'xd4+ 22 �bl 'ii'xe5

-

d3 27 :e7 'ii'f6? 28 :d7 :d8 29 .i.e5! 'ii'h4 30 :xg7+. But 27 ... d2! muddies matters.

QUEEN VERSUS TWO ROOKS Let's consider what the sages had to say: Sarratt said a queen was worth two rooks and a pawn in the opening but only two rooks towards the end of the game. Staunton agreed with 2:s+8 as the proper compensation "in average situations ... but towards the end of a game she is hardly so valuable as two rooks."

Fischer - Bilek

Mason said if you consider "the game all through, it is everyday experience that the queen is worth rather more than two rooks."

Havana 1 965

But opinion turned against the queen in the early 20th century: Fine said that in endings with an equal number of pawns and no minor pieces, the rooks win. If the side with the queen has an extra pawn, the game should be drawn, he said. If the queen has more than one extra pawn, she should win. Both Lasker and Tarrasch said giving up two rooks for a queen is generally bad. They added a caveat - if the player who ends up with the rooks lacks king safety, then the queen ' s capacity for checks and double attacks will compensate. Bronstein said the two rooks are superior to the queen "but only if they are actively placed and their actions are coordinated." Purdy said the rooks will beat a queen in an ending but are roughly equal to a queen earlier on. He said the queen is generally worth one pawn more if the enemy king is exposed. Fischer said nothing specifically but his games spoke for him. He repeatedly gave up the rooks. The best-known example was his victory over Portisch at Santa Monica 1 966 when pawns were equal but his superior coordination (queen and knight against two rooks and bishop) made his victory appear easy. In fact, his play indicated the wise men of the 1 9th century were right after all. Without the complication of minor pieces, the best example from Fischer's games was:

White to play Fischer reportedly spent minute on his next move.

one

1 :xg7! 'ii'xg7 2 :xg7 �Ig7 3 'ii'f4 :ac8 4 h5! White has an extra pawn and will add a second when he gets his queen to g6. But his f-pawns are doubled and seemingly useless. Nonetheless the issue never appeared in doubt:

4 c5 5 'ii'g4+ �f7 6 'ii'g6+ �e7 7 dIC5 :xc5 8 'ii'xh6 :g5 9 b3 e5 10 �b2 :f7 1 1 a4 �e6? 12 'ii'h 8! :e7 13 h6 �f7 14 'ii'h7+ �f8 15 'ii'd3 �f7 16 h7 :h5 17 'ii'd5+ :e6 18 f4! •..

The threat of 1 9 f5 wins. Skillful use of the queen allowed White to perform a minor miracle. He transformed the doubled pawns into connected passed pawns that forced resignation after 18 ...f5 19 fxe5

:Ih7 20 'ii'd7+ :e7 21 'ikxf5+ �e8 22 f4 �d8 23 e6.

When you establish the 'ii'-vs.-2:s imbalance, you are crossing a point of no return that carries more risk than many players recognize. The player with the rooks will have winning chances if he can double against targets (p.48) or

Queen versus Pieces 1 61

1 60 Queen versus Pieces coordinate with other pieces, as Bronstein said. The player with the queen may win if he can push a promotable pawn or organize attacks against the king with other pieces. If none of these conditions exist, the rooks generally should be able to draw - provided they stay coordinated. But they may lose if they try to win by pawn-hunting. Once again in a queen imbalance it is easy to overestimate or underestimate one's chances by misjudging pawns.

Thipsay - Miles Calcutta 1 994

6 g3 g6 7 ".6 Wg7 8 b3 hS 9 h4 neS! 10 "as l:tf5 1 1 e4 l:te8 12 f4! Much better than 1 2 "xa7 l:te3 ! 1 3 'ii'b8 l:teO 14 a4 l:txf2+ when Black's rooks are working together. White would be justified in playing for a win now. But he passes up opportunities to advance his queenside pawns and signals his interest in a draw.

There are several basic mechanisms that bring about "-vs.-2 ns, such as when the rooks double against a pawn protected by the queen and capture it, as on p. 1 59. There are also less common, more tactical routes.

Listengarteo - Tal Kharkov 1 953

1 2 l:te7 13 "d8 l:te6 14 "as a6 15 "d8 l:te6 1 6 "e7 l:tff6 17 "eS Wh7 18 "e7 ned6 19 Wfl Wg7 20 "e5 l:td2+? •.•

than the rooks. Kaufman's survey found that the chart-based claim of "+,0, being equal to 2 l:ts "is only true with no minor pieces on the board. With two or more minors each, the queen needs no pawn to equal the rooks."

Short - Gulko

Hastings 1 988-89

But Black presses for the full point rather than 20... nc6.

21 WfJ l:txa2 22 "xeS as 23 "d4 l:tc2 24 "d3 l:tel 25 "d2 nbl 26 "c3! l:tdl 27 c5

Black to play

1.. ...xd2 2 nxc8+? White wants more than the equality of 2 liJbxd2 and thought he would be able to exploit the c-file and bad bishop after 2 ...liJxc8 3 liJbxd2 and 4 nc I .

Black 10 play

Black is slightly worse after l ...liJxe4 2 nxe4 c6 3 l:tfe l . Rather than try 1 ...c6! , which leaves matters relatively even, he elects to take the plunge.

1. ....d2! ? 2 l:te2 liJxe4 3 l:txd2 liJxd2 4 "xb7 liJxfl 5 wxn eS When he sacrificed the queen Black may have misjudged the rook coordination he would have after 5 ... nab8. It is fine after 6 "xa7 llxb2 but poor following 6 "c6! l:te7 7 b3, threatening "c5.

2...We7! By disconnecting his rooks, Black handed his opponent two winning methods - pushing the c-pawn or capturing the a-pawn (after which the connected passers win at their leisure). Black's survival now depends on reuniting his rooks before White gets his king to the queenside.

27...t:.d7 28 We4 l:tb7 29 c6 l:te7+ 30 Wd4 Wh7 31 Wc5 nf5+ 32 Wb6 l:te6 33 Wa7 l:tff6 34 Wb7 l:te7+ 35 c7 l:td6 36 "cS l:tdd7 37 Wb8 Resigns

Now he sees that 3 l:txh8 "xa2 favors Black considerably.

3 liJbxd2 l:txc8 So it is Black who enjoys the c-file. He increased his edge after 4

l:tal �bS 5 liJn liJd7 6 liJe3 liJb8! 7 h3 �e2 8 l:tel ? �xfJ 9 gxfJ l:tc3 and won in 20 moves.

What added to Black's edge in the 3 l:txh8 "xa2 line was the presence of two pairs of minor pieces. This is a crucial point that can't be emphasized enough: extra pieces usually help the queen more

White to play

Short, who struggled with the two rooks earlier in his career in the position on p . 1 43, jumped at the chance to play:

I l:txg 7+! "xg7 2 l:tg4 "xg4 3 "xg4+ Wh8 4 h6! White will eventually lose this pawn. But the short-term prospect of a mate on g7 or a check on the d4-h8 diagonal will allow him to establish other threats involving the knight.

4...ne7 5 liJd4 liJf6 6 "gS �d7 7 b4 liJg8 8 �fS! Black's bishop is bad but once again this is a matter of "What goes off... .. By trading bishops White opens up the light squares such as f5 and e6 for his knight.

8 ...nf6 9 �xd7 nxd7 10 liJfS

J 62

Queen versus Pieces

Queen versus Pieces J 63

The queen reaches the long diagonal now. The immediate threat is I I "g7+. 10 ... J:[g6 1 1 "e3 An 12 "d4+

J:[ff6

Here White played 13 "xdS? J:[gS 14 g4 J:[xg4 IS "d7? lDxh6 1 6 lDxh6 J:[g1+ 1 7 ¢>b2 J:[xh6 1 8 "xb7 and won i n due time by pushing pawns.

But a queen and knight working together should win faster than that, and maintaining their strong position with 13 g4! would have done it ( 1 3 ...J:[g5 14 lDe7). The corollary for the player with the rooks is that he should look for ways to swap minor pieces. An illustration of this theme is a sub-variation of the Tarrasch Defense: I d4 dS 2 e4 e6 3 lDfJ eS 4 exdS

But after 19 ... lDd7! Black's minor pieces provided enough counterplay to draw (20 ..tf4 g5 2 1 .i.d6 "f5). Later- in the tournament the game Chernin - MarJanovic saw the superior:

17 ..txf6! gxf6 18 bxe4 dxc4 19 ..txa8 Axdl 20 Afl\dl By eliminating one pair of minors, White profited in two ways. He can more easily trade the final pair and he has kingside weaknesses to attack.

20.....a3 21 Aac1 hS 22 h4 "xa2 23 ..td5! ..txd5 24 AxdS

exdS 5 lDc3 lDe6 6 g3 lDf6 7 ..tg2 ..te7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ..tgS e4 10 lDeS ..te6 1 1 lDxe6 bxe6 12 b3 "as 13 lDa4 J:[fd8 14 e3 eS IS lDxeS ..txeS 16 dxeS "xeS

The trade of bishops dooms both queenside pawns since the rooks can double up against each of them. The queen is quite helpless against this simple strategy and can only try for counterplay elsewhere. Even if Black wins a kingside pawn, the ending is lost because White can team up against a new target, at f6, and liquidate down to a pawn-up pawn ending:

In Yusupov Marjanovie, Subotica 1 987 White carried out a queen sacrifice - 1 7 bxc4 dxe4 1 8 .i.u8 J:[xdl 19 J:[fxd., threatening 20 Ad8+.

24... a5 25 J:[e5 a4 26 J:[he4 ¢>g7 27 Ab4 "a3 28 J:[Se4 "aI+ 29 ¢>g2 a3 30 Ae5 "dl 31 l:taS "d6 32 l:te4 "d7 33 e4 "d3 34 l:tea4 "e2 3S l:txa3 "xe4+ 36 AfJ

Once agam pawn structure decides. If Black's pawns could defend one another he could put up some resistance. But here White can take his time to double rooks against f6.

36...¢>g6 37 Aa6 "d4 38 l:tf4 "dS+ 39· ¢>h2 "d8 40 l:te6 "e7 41 l:ta6 "d8 42 l:taxf6+ "xf6 43 l:txf6+ ¢>xf6 44 ¢>h3 ¢>fS 4S fJ f6 46 �g2 ¢>g6 47 g4 Resigns The addition of other material helps . the queen so much that Kaufman claimed that if you begin a game with one player removing his queen and . the other his rooks, the queen would have a big edge. (Staunton and Sarratt would surely have agreed.) This is something the reader can test for himself. One of the few examples from opening theory that approaches that is:

1 e4 e5 2 lDfJ d6 3 d4 exd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 g6 6 ..te3 ..tg7 7 fJ 0-0 8 "d2 lDe6 9 0-0-0 d5 10 lDxe6 bxe6 I I exd5 exd5 12 lDxdS tiJxdS 13 "xd5 "e7 When 14 "c5 'ii'b7 first appeared in the early 1 950s Black held his own. So White began to experiment with:

14 "u8 .i.fS IS "xfS+ ¢>xfS 16 J:[d2

This position became a center of theoretical attention circa 1 955 because if White is better - as his material edge indicates - then 9 ...d5 is dubious and the Dragon would be seriously damaged. The two foremost opening authorities of the West, Max Euwe and Ludek Pachrnan, concluded White had the edge after 16 l:td2. But when this evaluation was tested over the board, the results favored Black. A database check finds 1 0 White wins, 27 Black wins and eight draws. This is somewhat deceptive because stronger players abandoned 1 4 "xa8? long ago. For example:

16... h5 17 ..te2 'ii'b8 Or 1 7 .. .'.t>g8 1 8 h3? 'ii'b 8 1 9 c4 .i.c3, and Black wins as in a 1 956 game. 18 b3 ..te3 19 l:td5 .i.e6 20 l:td3

'ii'b4

Now 2 1 ¢>b I ? ..tf5 22 Ad8+ ¢>g7 23 Ahd l ..tf6! and .....c3 won for Black in Stolyar-Beilin, Leningrad 1 955. Better is 21 cit>dl as 22 a4 ..txb3 !

23 J:[xc3! "xc3 24 .th6+ cit>g8 25 exb3 "xb3+ 26 �el "u4 27 ¢>f2 'ii'b4 26 ..te3 and White, with A+2.ts-vs."+2.0,s, managed to draw in Shkrovina - Estrin, Correspondence 1958.

Queen versus Pieces 1 65

1 64 Queen versus Pieces

TRADES There is no better imbalance than queen-vs.-pieces to illustrate Kaufman's conclusion about trades - "every 'even' exchange is apt to favor one side or the other, sometimes by a substantial amount." Trades will generally hurt the queen as we saw in the second diagram on p. 1 62. But there are exceptions, based on the availability of targets and the degree of piece cooperation. For example, the queen can have an easier time grabbing pawns after trades. The targets become more vulnerable when there are fewer defenders on the board.

Bareev - Ivanchuk Wijk aan Zee 2003

second rank is gone. A trade of minor pieces, particularly bishops, would also hurt Black.

This threatens �b5 and ensures a trade of rooks. The immediate 1 �b5 l:ted8 2 "'g5 allows 2 . . . l:td5 3 "'xe7 l:txb5 4 "'xa7 l:ta5, which White called in the Informant. In symbol-language this means Black should draw - not that he has any winning chances, let alone chances that are equal to White's.

7...:Ldc6 8 "'d2 l:td8 9 �d3? This meets the threat of 9 ... liJc3 but 9 �e4! would serve that purpose better. Then 9 ... liJc3? 1 0 ....xd8+ �xd8 1 1 �xc6 liJxb l 1 2 .txb7 should draw thanks to the bishops of opposite color.

"="

1. liJd5 •.

White would have good winning chances after l ...�g6 2 �b5 liJf5 3 l:txe8+ l:txe8 4 "'c7 and "'xa7.

2 l:txe8+ l:txe8 3 �c4 liJc3 4 "'c7 b5 5 �b3 The pawns begin to fall. In his notes, Bareev cited 5 ... h6 6 ....xa7 �g6 7 "'c5 l:te4 8 f3 as a sample winning line. A Black attempt to liquidate all queenside pawns with 6... l:te l + 7 �h2 l:te2 fails to 8 "'c5 �g6 9 "'xb4 liJxa2 10 "'xb5 .

5... a6 6 f4! Black's pieces are uncoordinated and he had no good defense of f7 or against g2-g4.

Black to play

1 ...liJxd4! But not l .. .liJcb4? 2 axb4 "'xc l because White has 3 liJc5 ! .

2 "'xd4 "'xel Black has (temporarily) won a pawn since 3 l:txc I ?? is out of the question. White can accept the queen sack with 3 liJeg5 but 3 . . . .txg5 4 �xh7+ �xh7 5 l:taxc l �xc 1 must win for Black � vs. l:t+2�s).

3 liJd6! "'xe1+ 4 liJxel l:txd6 5 �c2 .tr6 6 "'d3 g6 7 l:tbl

6...liJe2+ 7 �h2 Resigns

White to play White has just captured the queen on h5. Theoretically Black has ample compensation. With a bishop planted on g6, he should be able to defend his king, perhaps creating a kingside fortress. It seems unlikely that White can win on the queenside because he would have to capture all three black pawns while retaining his own. Yet:

l l:tel

Another exception arises when there is a conflict with the principle of cooperation: Trades help the queen when his opponent needs supporting material to make his positional edge work.

In this position Black is a tempo or two ahead of where he normally is in an isolated-pawn middlegame. Rather than allow White to organize his forces with �g5 or liJc5, he decided to sacrifice his queen on c 1 .

such as 9 . . .l:tc4.

9 l:tcd6 10 g3 liJb6 1 1 "'e3 �g7 .•.

Time is again on the side of the pieces. Even when a queen has the help of one or two minor pieces, there often comes a point when they have reached good squares and he cannot improve his position ( 1 2 �e4 lLlc4). But his opponent has an army and each move means progress for him.

1 2 b3 liJd5 13 "'d2 �c3 14 "'e2 liJf6!

This threatens ...�xe 1, stops �e4-g2 and prepares to invade with a rook at d2. White struggled for another 15 moves but the handwriting was on the wall.

15 �c2 l:td2 16 "'e3 liJd5 17 "'g5 f6 18 ....g4 �d4 19 liJd3 e5 20 l:tel .i.c8 21 ....e4 liJc3 22 "'c6 �f5 23 liJxe5!? �xll+ 24 �hl l:txc2! 2S "'c7+ l:td7! 26 "'xd7+ �xd7 27 l:txc2 fxeS 28 l:txll as 29 l:td2 �e6 White resigns

Psakhis - Sveshnikov Kislovodsk 1 982

Therefore Black should meet 9

�e4 with slow improving moves

Black has a rook. bishop and pawn for the queen but that doesn't tell the story. "Black controls the entire board," Sveshnikov wrote. However that control requires the presence of a lot of material. If he trades rooks, for example, the potential for a killing invasion of the

But the basic premise is solid: Trades tend to obscure the chart value of the queen by diminishing its ability to work with other pieces. This is particularly important when you've just won the queen for insufficient compensation as on p. I 64. Keeping other material on


1 66 Queen versus Pieces the board will allow you to stop your opponent from coordinating his forces. Here's a typical example:

Kasparov - Karpov Linares 2001

Black was desperate to organize a defense with ... 'lldS-f7 but this is too weakening. He had to try 2 ....:.h6.

3 l:tgl! White invades the kingside now since 3 ....:.xh4 fails to 4 ':'xc5 i.xc5 5 -'e6 ! . Among his threats is 4 ':'h5 and if 4 .. .'�f7, then 5 ':'xc5 and "c4+.

3 ... iDd8 4 "g4 Black resigned after 4 .. .'�e8 5 ':'h5 ':'f8 6 ':'xc5! .i.xc5 7 "h5+.

White to play

White has just captured the queen on c7. But it doesn't appear he can make quick progress because his winning plans are limited to pushing his passed pawn and probing for a kingside target. Black can always find a new blockader for the h-pawn, e.g. 1 ':'h5 'i'xh5 2 'i'xh5 .i.d6 3 c3 iDe6 and... .:.d7-d8.

1 ':'CS! White reasons that, given time, he should be able to penetrate on the kingside with his heavy pieces. But this plan succeeds only if Black's knights are kept out of play. The rook was needed on the fifth rank to stop ...iDe5 but now it also prevents ...iDe6 (because of'i'xe6).

Masters agree that a trade of rooks will, in general, hurt the queen, particularly in "-vs.-':'+ piece imbalances. But they disagree on why. Some say a trade helps the other player by reducing his rook redundancy. Others say the queen attacks better with the help of a rook. Another explanation is that the queenless player has a better chance of creating a fortress when his opponent has less material. There is no consensus but rather a sense that each case is unique, like the following.

Kamsky - Karpov

FIDE championship match, second game 1 996

White played 1 ':'al(!) and won after an elaborate buildup with a rook on c5, queen on c7 and the advance of the f-pawn to create decisive weaknesses. But why would I ':'xeS+ be wrong? Karpov wrote that preserving rooks was simply the right decision in principle. (But this contradicts his comment on the. diagram on p.20.) The magazine 64 gave a different reason, saying a trade would allow Black good chances of creating a fortress with his rook and knight on the sixth rank. And Kamsky explained 1 ':'a 1 by saying "White can exchange rooks at any time" but wanted to inflict maximum damage first. In other cases, the best rule to follow may be Tarrasch's - you should trade when you have a positional edge as long as you don't trade the pieces that form the basis of that edge. This is good advice when the chief positional asset is a passed pawn. White failed to appreciate that in the next example when he followed a bad queen capture by allowing a bad trade of rooks.

Better is L.b3 ! because 2 cxb3 axb3 3 a3 ':'xa3 ! is a rout. But 2 fxe5 is fairly even.

l ..."xc4 2 .i.xc4 ':'xc4 3 -.d3 ':'ac8 4 ':'el .i.f4 5 ':'e4? Black has a positional advilntage. A second rook is not essential to that edge and he would benefit by a trade. After 5 ....:.xe4 Black will either be able to push his winning pawn or penetrate with his rook. As a result 5 ':'e4 costs White the game and 5 b3 should have been tried.

5 ....:.xe4 6 fxe4

The rook dominates after 6 "xe4 ':'hS! 7 a3 b3 S "e l ':'h2 9 cxb3 axb3 10 a4 ':'c2.

Tilburg 1 997

l....:.d7 2 c3!

.

White surely has no edge in the "-vs.-':'+.i.+.0, ending that results. More in the spirit of the position not to mention the spirit of Shirov is 1 f4 with the idea of l ....i.xf4? 2 ':'xf4! exf4 3 ':'e l +. Then 3 . ....e3 4 ':'xe3+ is quite a different ending, "+i.-vs.-2':'s+2.0,s, and one that White should win.

Shirov - Kasparov

Now White can meet 6 ....:.hS with 7 a3 .

Another restricting move. It takes away last-rank tricks (2 'i'e3 ':'xh4! ) and reduces the effectiveness of . . .lDdS-e6 and ... .i.f6.

2 .. f6?

1 ':'c4?

6...g5!

White to play

White to pLay

But the pawn has become very strong and the rest is a classic example of an unassisted queen

1 68 Queen versus Pieces flailing about in search of tricks to prolong the game.

7 a3 bxa3 S iVa6 Or 8 iVxa3 g4 9 iVxa4 g3 1 0 iVa7+ �f6. The game ended with:

S...:dS 9 iVb6 g4 10 c4 g3 1 1 c5 g2 12 cxd6+ :xd6 13 iVc7+ �f6! 14 iVxd6+ �g7 White resigns Finally, when a player has a material edge - but few or no pawns - the outcome hinges on king vulnerability. If it is the player with the queen who holds the advantage he has to think in terms of mate and avoiding fortress - and that usually means avoiding trades.

Bronstein - Panno

stop that idea with ...tDf8 but then White can attack the knight with his queen and rook, while his king reaches g5 and h6.

1 :as :c7 2 �f2 �e7 3 iVe5 �f7 4 :hS :c2+ 5 �e3 tDfB 6 iVdS+ tDe6 7 iVeS tDfB S �f4 :cS Here the combination based on double attack - 9 :xh5 gxh5? 1 0 'ilhf5+ and 1 1 iVxc8 - is refuted by 9 ... lLle6+.

9 �g3 :dS The rook is needed on the first rank to defend the knight. On 9 ...:c4 White wins with 1 0 iVd5+ �e6 1 1 iVd8 ! .

10 iVc7+ :d7 1 1 iVc4+ �e6 1 2 iVb4! :e7 1 3 �h4! :eS 14 �g5 �f5

Petropolis 1 973

CHAPTER 9: BISHOPS VS.

KNI GHTS VS. PAWNS Entrre books have been written about the battle of � -vs. -tD. This chapter will focus on a select group of practical questions, such as when it is proper to exchange a bishop for a knight and how to evaluate bad bishops, opposite-colored bishops and the two bishops when making transactions. These issues only became pertinent some five-plus centuries ago when the new rules of chess were adopted. A remarkable discovery was made then: the bishop was about equal to the knight. There had been cases of pieces of equal value in other variations of chess but none were known in the forerunners of the "Western" game. The idea that � -equals-lLl seems to have caught on fast. The earliest game using the modem rules that has survived, circa 1 485, began:

White to play

A trade of rooks kills White's chances because Black can create a fortress. White should also avoid an Exchange sacrifice - rook for bishop and pawn - because it means no more than a draw. After considerable maneuvering White found a winning idea: bringing the rook to h8 where it will threaten to drive the king into a mating net with :h7+. Black can

15 �b6! The threat of 'itb2-g7+ decides.

Black resigned after 15 ...:e7 16 iVb3+ :e6 17 'i6'b2! Few players have a comfortable amount of experience with either side in these imbalances. Queen versus pieces is just too rare. The next chapter features imbalances that everyone has played many times but the proper handling is no less elusive.

1 e4 d5 2 exdS iVIdS 3 lLlc3 iVdS 4 lLlfJ lLlf6 5 �c4 �g4 6 h3

The players missed 6 �xt7+, the kind of combination Greco would popularize more than a century later. But what is more significant is that both White and Black seemed to understand the relative equality of the minor pieces. White encourages a swap with his last move and Black complied with 6 ... �xf3 7 iVxf3 . (After Black blundered with 7 ...e6? 8 iVxb7, White's winning technique included the trade of a bishop back for a knight.) Since that era three points of view have competed for attention. Some players assume the bishop is the better piece because of its superior range. Others preferred the knight for its hopping ability and because the bishop is limited to squares of one color. Staunton, for example, claimed that the bishop had been proven "mathematically" to be more valuable. But LaBourdonnais wrote, "Usually a bishop with pawns is not as good as a knight with the same number of pawns because the bishop has not the knight's ability to attack pawns of any color." Steinitz felt the bishop was so much better that the difference between the two amounted to "the minor Exchange." But as late as 1 897 one of the strongest American players, Emil Kemeny could still insist, "as a rule, a knight is of more value in the endgame than a bishop."

J 70


The third point of view to emerge said that the pieces were roughly equal. This was based on a sophisticated argument that any generalization about bishops and knights was bound to have exceptions. This point of view said the exceptions balanced out: There were as many exceptions to the claim that the bishop is the superior piece as there are to the assertion that knight is better. Sarratt, in Treatise on the Game of Chess, identified " 1 1 particular cases" of the knight's clear superiority, compared with 1 2 typical cases of the reverse. Even Mikhail Tchigorin, who is often supposed to be a diehard knight partisan, held this middle position. In his commentary on Common Sense in Chess, Tchigorin argued: "Citing the two bishops, Lasker, of course, says that two bishops outstrip two knights in strength ... (But) neither in the bishops nor in the knights strictly lies an advantage... " To Tchigorin, the better piece was the piece that better allowed him to attack. Sometimes that piece was a bishop and sometimes a knight.

de Riviere - Tchigorin

Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns J 7J

0-0 1 1 b5 ':e8 12 0-0 i.a5 1 3 ':e l e4 1 4 ttJd2 ttJf8 1 5 ttJb3. idea then is A thematic 1 5 . . .i.xc3, which leaves White with a bad bishop. But that would have denied Tchigorin the attacking chances he obtained from 1 5 ... i.c7! 16 a5 i.b8 17 bxc6 bxc6 1 8 a6 'fIc7, which ultimately won. When he could attack with bishops, Tchigorin preferred bishops to knights.

8 . i.e7 9 b4 0-0 10 0-0 .

.

Good enough for a slight edge is I O. . e5 1 1 dxe5 ttJxe5 1 2 ttJxe5 i.xe5! 1 3 i.b2 d4 but Tchigorin makes a typical decision. .

10 ...i.xO! ? 1 1 i.xt3 eS Now 1 2 dxe5 ttJxe5 1 3 i.e2 'fIe7 is a nice attacking setup for Black.

Paris 1 883

12 g3? e4 13 i.g2 ttJe8 14 a4 f5 15 f4 Wff6!?

1 ttJO dS 2 d4 ttJf6 3 e3 i.g4 4 i.e2 ttJbd7 5 c4 e6 6 ttJc3 c6 7 a3 i.d6 8 cS?

Few of his contemporaries would have failed to take en passant, followed perhaps by ...g6, ...ttJdf6 and ... ttJg7-e6-g5. Tchigorin pins his hopes on the superiority of knights in a closed center and on the opening of the g- or h-files.

The queenside attack with c4-c5 and b2-b4 was popularized by Zukertort before Tchigorin helped discredit it. Another of the Russian's wins, vs. Solovtsov, match 1 893, went 1 d4 d5 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 e3 c6 4 c4 e6 5 ttJc3 i.d6 6 c5 i.c7 7 b4 ttJbd7 8 i.e2 e5 9 i.b2 'fIe7 1 0 a4

16 i.b2 'fIh6 17 'fIb3 ttJef6 18 ttJe2 'fIhS 19 ':fel a6 20 as?? Perhaps de Riviere saw only the tactics of 20 b5 axb5 2 1 axb5 ':xa 1

22 ':xaI ?? 'fIxe2. By closing the queenside he commits positional suicide.

20...h6 21 ttJe3 gS 22 'fIdl 'fIg6 23 i.c1 ':f7 24 ':a2 ttJrs 25 �hl ttJe6 26 i.h3 ':g7 27 ':f2 g4 28 i.n �f7 29 ':g2 h5 30 �gl ':h8 31 ttJe2 h4 32 gxh4 ':xh4 33 ttJg3 ':gh7 34 ':le2 ttJhS 35 ttJxhS 'ihhS 36 ':ef2 ttJgS! 37 �hl ttJt3 White resigned in view of 3 8

'fIe2 g3 ! . That third point of view is important - not just because it evaluates bishops and knights as equals but because it emphasizes exceptions. i. -vs. -ttJ imbalances abound in exceptions. Perhaps this is because our knowledge of the game hasn't evolved sufficiently to incOIporate the exceptions into rules. As Petrosian said, good players know all the general principles and rules, and stronger players find the exceptions. But there is a third group "whom we call geniuses," he added. They eventually come along and formulate new principles that consolidate the exceptions into the old principles. That becomes the new canon of chess and the cycle begins again. This, Petrosian wrote, is why "chess is inexhaustible."

maneuver a knight to capture a bishop early in a game. Kasparov, for example, spent two moves, 1 3 ttJh4 and 1 4 ttJg6, in order to capture a bishop on f8 in his third match game with Short. He felt this gave him an edge, even though there had been no pawn trades at all. The rationale is, as Tarrasch put it, "The future belongs to him who has the bishops." The bishops will improve in range as the board is trimmed of traffic. (Tarrasch added his own exception - the "only" time when a knight is superior is when it stands on a center square, meaning on its fourth to sixth ranks, and is protected by a pawn, he said.) Reti, in Masters of the Chessboard, said pawn trades not only benefit a bishop but also diminish the value of a knight. This is starkly evident when the knight needs pawn support on an outpost square.

Khalifman - Sheherbakov

Russian Championship 1 995

THE MODERN VIEW Today's GMs tend to agree that the minor pieces are roughly equal but at the same time they believe there are more exceptions when the bishop is superior than when the knight is. They may not 8.0 as far as Fischer and claim .i.-vs.-liJ is a "half point advantage." But they will routinely

Black to play

Black has just traded ofT his dark-squared bishop for a knight on e3. It is time for him to choose a middlegame strategy. 1 .ttJe6 ..

Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns J 73

J 72 Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns

The immediate 1 . . .f5 grants White too much center play after 2 exf5 i.xf5 3 f4 ! . Instead, Black intends to play 2 ...ltJed4 and 3 . . . f5. Then White's strong knight would be "bypassed" by Black's pieces, as Khalifman wrote.

2 ltJb6! l:tb8 3 ltJxc8! White follows an unwritten but useful rule: one strong square (d4) rarely makes up for the difference between two bishops and two knights.

3 ...l:txc8 4 l:tac1 "h4 Trading queens (4 . . ...g5) would ease Black's immediate problems. But in the endgame a strong centralized knight depreciates in value as we saw in the diagrams on p. 1 3, and White would have a substantial edge with queens off. There followed:

The knight at d4 turns out to be trapped and that immediately costs Black the game.

14 ...l:te8 15 i.al f6 16 "d3 Resigns Obtaining the two bishops is often worth time. But is it worth material? There are, of course, occasions when it is. Masters once considered these to be the rare exceptions (as computers generally do). But contemporary players believe that the exceptions are not rare and this point of view has become part of master intuition.

Shirov - Kasparov Dortmund 1 992

5 g3 "h5 6 i.g2 l:th6 7 h3 l:tf6 8 "e2 "b6 9 i.c3 ltJed4 10 "e3 "h5 1 1 f4

8 ltJa4 f6! and Kasparov blamed 1 i.xf6. "The value of the dark squared bishop in the King's Indian is too great (especially since White has castled queenside) to swap it for such a trifle," he explained in New In Chess. b4

But this is based on the human belief that creating imbalances by giving up the two bishops may be simply too risky to deal with when the center is open. After 4 cxb5

nbS 5 ltJdJ ltJxd3 6 i.xd3 b4 7 ltJe2 i.e6 8 ltJc1 l:tec8 a computer would favor White Kasparov preferred Black.

White usually continues queenside plan with I ltJb3.

his

l .i.xf6 White would continue the kingside pawn storm after I I .. .l:te6 1 2 "f2. Black shortened the game by destroying his strong point.

11 ...exf4? 12 gxf4 "c5

He has no compensation for the bishops and no counterplay either.

13 �bl l:th6 14 f5!

"Frankly speaking, this decision amazed me," Kasparov wrote. He confessed that even though this move wins a pawn he hadn't considered it. 1.. ...xf6 2 "xd6 "xd6 3 l:txd6

ltJe5

White went on to lose after 4 f4 ltJg4 5 e5 ltJf2 6 l:tgl i.f5+ 7 �c1

Being able to change the pawn structure is an important element of evaluation as we saw in the examples on p . 1 28- 1 29. Often bishop-takes-knight is a positional requirement of a favorable change.

Gheorgescu - Stein Bucharest 1961

while

Both may be right: If a human could be as confident of his tactical sight as a computer he might play I i.xf6 automatically. If, on the other hand, a machine was haunted by memories of past blunders the way humans are it might reject such a move that gives up the 2i.s for a mere "trifle."

BISHOP TAKES KNIGHT

White to play

change the center (7 . . . i.xc3 in the Four Knights Game or 3 i.xf6 in some Trompowsky lines).

We know that bishop-takes-knight is often played for purely positional - rather than material - reasons. And we also know that often this trade succeeds. So in nearly every game we are confronted with a question: Under what circumstances is i.xltJ justified? The most common positional benefit from i.xliJ is doubling enemy pawns. The may be done to create a pawn majority on one wing (e.g. 4 .i.xc6 in the Ruy Lopez), to inflict the opponent with exploitable targets (... i.xc3+ in the Nimzo-, Queen's Indian and Winawer French Defenses) or to leave enemy pawns static and unable to favorably

Black to play Black's two bishops have a future but not much of a present if he has to defend the-pawn by means of l .. .i.f8 or l ...i.e8.

1...i.xc3! 2 "xc3 e5! Black wants to destroy the enemy kingside with ...exf4 and ...ltJe5. Without . . .i.xc3, the ... e5 plan would have made his dark-squared bishop dreadful and surrendered d5 to a white knight.

3 (xeS ltJxe5! 4 l:txd6? Safer is 4 "xc7+ �xc7 5 ltJd4 although Black has plenty to work with after 5 . . .i.g4.

4.....xc3 S bxc3 hxgS White's pawns are a mess and he was losing after 6 l:tdS l:tde8 7 bxgS

l:txh1+ 8 i.xhl i.c6 9 l:tdl l:th8 10

J 74


lbd4 :'h3. The kingside collapsed

because of ... e5, an advance that made positional sense only after ... i.xc3. But, as noted earlier, no imbalance defies generalizations the way .txlb does. Sometimes doubling enemy pawns is sufficient compensation and sometimes it falls way short. Even in Morphy's day it was appreciated that i.xlb is sound, regardless of whether pawns are doubled, if it secured a strong center square for a queen or knight. For example, it has long been known that the best answer to 1 e4

e5 2 lbl3 lbc6 3 .tbS d6 4 d4 exd4 5 'ii'xd4 .td7 is 6 .txc6 and the best way of dealing with 1 e4 e5 2 lbo d6 3 d4 exd4 4 "xd4 lbc6 is S .tb5. Even in a modem opening

such as the Sicilian Defense there is a solid way of avoiding the main lines of 1 e4 c5 2 lbo d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 by playing 4 "xd4 lbc6 S .tbS i.d7 6 .txc6 and maintaining d4 as an outpost. So where does that leave us? Is there a new rule to make sense of the exceptions, as per Petrosian? Josif Dorfman, in The Method in Chess offered this: "The exchange of bishop for knight can only be justified when the pawn structure is fixed." He gave as an example 1 d4

lbf6 2 lbO cS 3 dS b5 4 .tgS .tb7.

Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns 1 75

Here 5 i.xf6 is best and is justified by the weakness of the black king after 5 . . . gxf6 and the inflexibility of his pawns after 5 ...exf6. But Dorfman's rule is too narrow. It needs, at minimum, to be expanded beyond "fixed" pawn structures to include fluid but favorable ones. For example, one of Dorfman's own games went 1 liJl3 d5 2 c4 c6 3 b3 i.g4 4 e3 and now he played 4 eS S h3 .txO. Black had to give up the bishop once he seized more center with his e-pawn. This also occurs in the Torre Attack with 1 d4 lbf6 2 lbO e6 3 i.g5 h6 and now 4 .txf6 "xf6 S e4. The center is hardly fixed but does favor White . .••

When a set pawn structure is neither favorable nor unfavorable, .txlb can still be beneficial if it creates pressure on squares of the opposite color of the bishop. For instance, it became increasingly popular in the 1 980s for White to secure more control of light squares in the center, e4 and d5, by exchanging off a dark-squared bishop, .tg5xf6 in closed openings. This occurs in the Catalan, the Tarrasch and anti-Tartakower QGD, the English, King's Indian, Blumen feld and so on. In some cases, such as when both players have fianchettoed their light squared bishops (e.g. 1 d4 liJf6 2 lbo e6 3 g3 bS 4 i.g5) there is a long-range goal of swaEping down to a favorable "+ttJ-vs.-"+.t ending after, say, 4 ...i.b7 S lbbd2 .te7 6 .t {2 0-0 7 0-0 followed by .txf6 and ttJel . But there are still other exceptions that don't fit into the expanded rule. For example in the

Bum French, 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 lbc3 lbf6 4 .tgS dxe4 5 liJxe4 .te7, White routinely plays 6 .txf6 to

avoid the further simplification of the position (6 lbxf6+ .txf6 7 .txf6) or the retreat of the knight. White's compensation lies in his superior center and well-placed knight. Exceptions that have little to do with pawn structure arise in closed openings such as 1 lbl3 d5 2 b3

liJf6 3 .tb2 .tg4 4 e3 e6 S h3 .txO 6 "xl3 .te7 and 1 lbl3 dS 2 g3 lbf6 3 .tg2 c6 4 0-0 .tg4 5 d3 lbbd7 6 ttJbd2 e6 7 h3 .txO 8 liJxl3 .te7. What helps justify i.xlb

is a matter of time: Black gains a move by avoiding a retreat after h3 (even though tempi don't matter greatly in closed openings). This provides support for another generalization, suggested by Kauf man. Based on his database survey, he found that the two bishops were worth almost the same as a tempo. So, if you have to decide whether to spend a tempo on retreating a bishop, or trading it off, "it's a tough call," he wrote in Chess Life. numerous There are also instances of the reverse - when it makes sense to spend a tempo to avoid .txlb by your opponent (which would secure control of a key square). After 1 f4 dS 2 lbo cS 3 e3, Steinitz recommended 3 a6 because he felt the natural 3 . . .lt'lc6 was punishable by 4 .tb5! followed by .i.xc6 and ttJe5 and f2-f4. A modem version of that is 1 lbo lbf6 2 c4 b6 3 d3 cS 4 e4 d6 and in Malakhov P .Nikollc, Selfoss 2003, White spent a tempo on 5 h3 to avoid ... .tg4xf3 ! and ... lbc6-d4. But here again there are many exceptions when a2-a3 or h2-h3

before a pinning move is just a beginner's mistake, a waste of a move. As it stands now there are more exceptions than rules. Perhaps the 2 1 st century will give us a better guideline that assimilates all the exceptions and "tough calls."

THE BALANCE �ALANCED One thing we can say with confidence is that when each side has the same minor pieces, .txlt'l unbalances . the position at the least material cost. It accentuates the antagonism of the remaining pieces and makes further piece exchanges more difficult.

Ivkov - Timman

BledlPortoroz 1 979

Black to play

...

-

White was in a rush to swap pieces in apparent preparation for a draw offer. A draw seems likely since Black cannot oppose rooks ( l . ..:'ac8?? 2 :'xc8 :'xc8 3 :'xd5) and he would achieve little after l . ...te4 2 lbd2 or 1 .. ..tb3 2 :'xd8 :'xd8 3 �fl .

1 .. .txl3! .

1 76 Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns White was so shocked by this that he panicked with 2 ':'xd8 and lost eventually after 2 ...i.xg2 3 J:[d7 i.h3 4 ':'c6 �g7. Let's see what Black had in mind:

2 i.xf3 ':'ac8

Black threatens 3 ...llJd4 4 ':'xc8 llJxf3+ or another favorable trade of rooks such as 3 e3 ':'xd 1+ 4 ':'xd 1 ':'c3 or 3 ...':'xc 1 4 ':'xc 1 ':'d2.

3 ':'xc8 ':'xdl + 4 �g2 ':'al 5 ':'c3 llJd4

"The bishop is stronger but the knight is more cunning," says the Russian aphorism (6 e3 ttJbS). Black can fight tactics - 6 i.dS with the idea of 6 ...llJbS 7 ':'f3+ - with tactics, 6 .. ..:.g 1+! 7 �h3 e6 8 i.c4 hS and a possible mating attack (...g5-g4+). In retrospect you can argue that 1 ... i.xf3 was the only way to get Black's knight to d4 or both of his rooks into play. But what made his strategy work is that it prolonged the struggle by avoiding simplif ication. That was also White's thinking in the following:

Azmaiparashvili - Yurtaev Pavlodar 1 982


i.e6 2 J:[c l . But that walks into 2 ... llJb4! (3 ':'xc8? ':'xc8 4 llJxb4 ':'c l + and mates). When you see a tactical surprise like that there is a temptation to become wary of the position and head towards a draw by swapping all the minor pieces ( 1 llJxc6 i.xc6 2 i.xc6) .

1 i.xc6! "Such a decision does honor to any chessplayer," wrote Shakhmaty v SSSR.

1. .i.xc6 2 ':'c1 i.d7 .

Black plays the next several moves as if he is well within the draw perimeter. But he slides into an ending in which White has the outside passed pawn, a decisive advantage. Instead, Black should take control of the file with 2 ...i.e4 3 ':'xc8 ':'xc8 4 f3 ':'c 1 + S �f2 i.fS and find ways to use his bishop. For example, on 6 llJdS �f8 7 a4 he has 7 ...i.e6! 8 axbS ':'cS. (But White can remain on top with 6 e4 i.e6 7 ':'c2 ':'h 1 8 h4 h6 9 J:[c7.)

White's king will reach b4, after which, at minimum, he can engineer a passed a-pawn. He won after

8...i.d7 9 �c3 �e5 10 llJcl �d6 11 �b4 �c6 12 llJd4+ �b6 13 f4 r6 14 a4.

In the last two examples there was one bishop for each player. But in recent years there have been many cases of a grandmaster giving up one of his two bishops - even if it is the better of the two - for the sole purpose of unbalancing a position. Surely Tarrasch would have been horrified by moves like 1 l . ..i.xd4 in the following.

Psakhis - Chandler Hastings 1 988

1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 llJc3 llJr6 4 eS llJrd7 5 r4 c5 6 llJf3 llJc6 7 i.e3 cxd4 8 llJxd4 i.c5 9 "d2 0-0 10 0-0-0 a6 11 �bl

Black has a good plan of ...llJcs and ... b4. He was able to sacrifice a (!awn soundly with 17 llJe2 llJc5 18 ttJg3 llJe4 19 "e2 llJa5! in order to reach a good knight versus bad bishop position after 20 llJxe4 dxe4 21 J:[xd8+ "xd8 22 ':'dl "e7 23

i.xe4 i.xe4 24 "xe4 llJc4. BAD BISHOPS

Examples like that teach us what a bad bishop looks like. But how much does the difference between a good bishop and a bad one mount to? We know it may - or may not be enough to decide the outcome of an equal-material ending. In the middlegame, the better bishop may be worth a pawn - or more. One of the standard pawn sacrifices of the last half century arises in positions like this:

Wade - Smyslov Havana 1 965

3 ':'dc2! e6

1 e4 llJf6 2 llJc3 d6 3 d4 g6 4 i.e2 i.g7 5 h4 h5 6 llJh3 llJc6 7 llJgS 0-0 8 i.e3 e5 9 dS

Black needs kings ide play and 3 ...gS would have been a good way to start.

4 �n �r6 S �el d5 6 J:[xc8 J:[xc8 7 J:[xc8 i.xc8 8 �d2 Here l l ...llJxd4 12 i.xd4 bS 1 3 "e3 virtually ensures another trade of minor pieces that would favor White slightly.

1 1 . .i.xd4!? 12 i.xd4 bS 13 i.n .

White to play

The natural response to Black's last move, ... llJc6, would be I llJds

Black can obtain the better game b.y activating his bad bishop via 1 3 We3 b4 14 llJa4 llJxd4 and . . ...as and ... i.b7-c6.

13 .....e7 14 g4 i.b7 15 i.g2 l:tacS l6 l:thel l:trd8

9 ..llJd4! 10 i.xd4 .

If Black is allowed to fortify the knight with ... c5 (or attack the


1 78 Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns center with ".c6) he will have won the battle of the opening.

10 ... exd4 1 1 "'xd4 c6 Black has ample play and he won the tactical duel with 12 dxc6 bxc6

13 0-0 ltJd5 14 'ii'c4 ltJf4! 15 "'xc6 .txc3! 16 .to .txb2 17 "'xa8 .txal 18 l:txal 'iVb6, threatening 19....tb7. Sacrifices such as 9".ltJd4 are sound when two conditions are met - (a) the opponent's pawns are fixed on one color and (b) he must give up his good bishop for a knight. The result is that the sacrificer obtains the two bishops and his opponent has a bad bishop. The two factors, added together, are worth a pawn. (This has been confirmed by Kaufman's database survey. ) But even when condition (b) is not met and the 2.ts are not part of the compensation, the sacrifice may well be worthwhile simply because of a bad bishop.

Sadler - Bologan

Enghien-les-Bains 1 999

1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 tLlc6 3 ltJo e6 4 a3 d6 5 ltJc3 g6 6 e4 .tg7 7 h3 0-0 8 .te3 l:te8 9 .td3 ltJd7 10 .te2 e5 1 1 d5

1 1 ...ltJd4! The sacrifice both avoids a poor position ( 1 l . ..ltJe7 12 g4 ! ) and obtains excellent play on the dark squares.

1 2 ltJxd4 exd4 13 .txd4 .txd4 14 "'xd4 ltJc5 IS l:tdl "'g5

Black has compensation because of the dark squares and White's poor bishop ( 1 6 O-O? .txh3 , 1 6 g3 ltJb3 1 7 "'d3 f5 or 16 .tn f5 1 7 0-0 f4!). But bad bishops are not nearly as bad as their reputation. Steinitz and Tarrasch denounced them and implied a bad bishop was enough to lose a game. But in the later 20th century the image of bad bishops greatly improved because of their ability to defend pawns (as in the diagram on p.70). That illustrates Mihai Suba's epigram, "Bad bishops protect good pawns." This is, in fact, an old perception. Philidor's oft-cited rule from the diagram on p . l l S was that pawns should be placed on the opposite color squares of your bishop when you have the attack or passed pawns. But Philidor added guess what? - an exception: "In some situations for defense it is necessary to place the pawns on the same color as the bishop." Bad bishops are a fact of life for Black in the Sveshnikov Sicilian (his dark-squared .t) and in the French Defense after e5xf6 (his light-squared .t). In both cases the bishop does a fine job of protecting pawns, d6 and e6 respectively, that are the backbone of Black's strong points, at e5 and d5. One implication of this for the tournament player should be written in stone: Whenever the possibility

arises of exchanging off an opponent's bishop, remember that piece values depend on targets, not just mobility. A bad bishop may be the key to the enemy defenses and should be eliminated, such as when Fischer played 22 ltJxd7+! ! against Petrosian in their 1971 Candidates match. This makes good sense in many similar positions:

Short - Timman Reykj avik 1 9S7

4 l:te2! :te8 5 .ih2 gxh4? The players agreed afterward that Black should have gotten his king off the hot diagonal with 5" .b6 and 6".'it'b7.

6 "'xh4 ltJgS 7 .tg4 "'g7

Now S l:tb5 threatening l:txd5 is strong but so is overwhelming e6:

8 :tbel b6 9 "'hS "'d7 10 f4! ltJe4 1 1 l:txe4 dxe4 12 d5 Black resigned after 12 ... ltJd8 13 "'eS :f5 14 dxe6! "'d2 17 'ii'xe4 l:tdS 18 e7+ 1i;c7 19 f5+.

Petrosian appreciated the defensive value of a bad bishop long before his game with Fischer. He explained his thinking when he annotated one of his finest endgames.

Petrosian - Bannik

Soviet Championship 1955

White to play

1 .tLlf7 ..

Black announces his intention to trade off the e5-knight. Although he would be a pawn down, he has good reason to believe he would only be slightly worse after 2 ltJxf7 l:txf7 3 .txe6 l:te7 4 l:te2 l:tdeS.

2 tLlxd7! But although material is equal, White has reason to believe this exchange is much better. It makes both of his bishops strong because the dark-squared one will have a fme open h2-bS diagonal and the other will have two royal targets in its sights.

2 ......xd7 3 .tf4! gS Of course, not 3 " .l:txf4 4 .ixe6.

White to play

Petros ian said he was tempted to play I .txb6+ because Black must forge on with an ugly bishop and the remaining white knight could hop about squares such as e4, f5 and h6. "But on deeper investigation" he recalled seeing that Black would eventually play " .l:txd l + and ".l:tdS.

1 80



That would force White to choose between ceding the d-file or allowing a trade of the last rooks. If he picks the latter, Black's king would go to e6 and set up "an impregnable position" in which "his 'bad' bishop would play an important role."

Morozevich - Nikolic Wijk aan Zee 2000

1 i..c S! J:txd1+ 2 J:txdl i..xcs 3 lLJxcs

OPPOSITE COLORED BISHOPS

bishop, and (b) the defender can't ease pressure by trading bishops.

The drawing power of "i..s of opps" is notorious in the endgame. One side's bishop enjoys superb powers of blockade and restriction from a distance.

The consequence of (a) is that the player with the initiative is, in effect, a piece ahead. This is particularly clear when there are queens and rooks on the board to fuel the attack but no knights to provide defense.

Nunn - Van der Sterren Thessaloniki 1 988

Svidler - Sakaev

St. Petersburg 1 996

White to play

1 b4 axb4 2 lLJxb4! After 2 cxb4 lLJd4 Black has fewer problems (and after 3 i..xd4?! exd4, some chances for advantage).

2 ...i..xb4 Thanks to the exchange of bishops, the knight can exploit the holes at c5 and h6 and threaten the f-pawn. Black held out for nearly 50 moves but the trend was obvious after 3 Ae8 4 lLJe4 J:te6 5 g4! as 6 J:td3 lLJd7 7 �c2 b6 (with 8 . ..lLJc5 is mind) 8 J:tfJ! �d8 9 a3 cS (otherwise 1 0 b4 and c4-c5) 10 �c3 ••.

�e7 1 1 J:td3 Ac6 12 AdS lLJf8 13 lLJg3 lLJe6 14 lLJfS+.

"Bad bishops protect good pawns" also helps explain why the positional recipe of the diagram on p. 1 73 often fails. When a player plays i..xlLJ and then places his pawns on the squares of the departed i.., the new pawn structure can come under heavy pressure because it lacks crucial protection from the bishop he just gave up.

This bishop was somewhat bad but perfonned "important defensive functions," as White put it. If Black had met the lLJa6 threat instead with 2 ...J:tbd8 he would encounter problems defending the c-pawn after 3 tvc4! (3 . . . c5 4 tbd5 and 3 ... Ac8 4 i..xb6).

3 cxb4 cS Black assumes the solid pawns supporting . . . lLJd4 will make up for any other problems on his side of the board.

4 J:tac1 tvc6 To avoid 4 . . .J:ta8 5 1rb5.

5 tva2 �h8 6 AdS Black gets no chance for 6. . . tbd4 because that loses the c-pawn. Since his dark-squared bishop is gone his pawn structure will crumple after a4-a5. Black resigned 1 2 moves after 6...Aa8 7 as lLJc7 8 Add 1

tvxe4 9 tvn lLJe6 10 axb6.

Black to play White to play With 1 . . .a5! Black wins easily. For example, 2 i..d5+ �e7 3 i..e4 i..e8 4 �c3 a4 5 �b4 �d6 6 i..c2 �d5 or 6 �c4 i..c6.

1 ....i.g4? 2 �cS i..x fJ?? 3 i..xfJ i..xh4 Black will be, at least temporarily, three pawns up. But he has no winning chances because of the opposite-colored .i.s. The game petered out with 4 �b6 i..xgS S

�xa6 �f6 6 �bS �eS 7 �c4 �f4 8 i..c 6 i..d 8 9 i..e8! �f5 10 �d3 Draw.

But in the middlegame "i..s of opps" usually increases the success rate of an attack, particularly a kingside attack. The main reasons for this are two: (a) the defender can't use his bishop to protect squares attacked by the other

White controls the dark squares. Black has the light ones. But White has a target, g7, and his attack should succeed if he executes a methodical plan, such as tve3, f2-f4 and J:tf3-g3.

1 i..d 4! First he must take pains to keep Black's bishop out of the game since 1 f4 d4! would be worth a pawn to Black to make his bad bishop better and create potential threats against g2.

1 ...tvh4 2 f4 J:tn 3 tve3 tve7? Black doesn't appreciate the hopelessness of this kind of defense. His bad bishop defends a good pawn but plays no kingside role. That means his other pieces should

J 82 Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns

try to make up for the bishop by hitting at targets on dark squares. For example 3 . . ...h6! so that 1:f3-g3 is met by . . ...xf4.


Speelman - Haznedarogolu Plovdiv 2003

4 1:0 h6 5 1:g3 �h7 6 h3 �d7 7 �h2 �eS S "e2 The queen must reach g6, where it will threaten "xh6 whether the king is on hS or gS. S ...�gS 9 'ikg4 "d7 The only way Black can put up resistance is with . . . e5. For example, 1 0 "g6 e5! 1 1 �xe5 "c6.

White to play

10 �e5! 1:e7

There are reasonable plans for White involving �b2 and g3-g4. But he appreciated how weak his opponent is on light squares - and that the piece that best defends them is the knight.

1 �xh6! �xh6 2 1:e6

1 1 �f6! 1:17 12 "g6 Now White can meet 1 2 ...e5 with 1 3 fxe5 ( 1 3 ...�f8? 14 e6! and wins). The rest was 12 ...�f8 13 �e5 �gS 14 "xh6 "e7 15 1:g4 �b5 1 6 "g6 �eS 17 1:g5 (threat o f 1:h5) l:txf4 IS "xg7+ "xg7 19 1:xg7+ �f8 20 1:xb7 1:a4 and Black resigned. Once you appreciate the inexorable nature of an attack based on bishops of opposite color, you can make decisions with confidence in positions like this:

White has iron control of the e-file (2 ...1:eS 3 �e4 f5? 4 �xf5 or 3 ...lhe6? 4 dxe6+ "xe6 5 �d5). This means he has a free hand to attack g6, the most vulnerable light square.

2...�g7 The bishop has a wonderful diagonal at h6, but no targets. White's bishop is slightly bad but it has a target. Verdict: White is the only player who has serious winning prospects.

3 g4 1:hS Better was 3 ... h4 but White continues the pressure with 4 .i.e4 1:gS 5 "d3 .i.f8 6 "f3 �g7? . (6... .i.e7) 7 g5 f5 S �xf5 or 7 .....dS S "g4.

4 .i.e4 fS 5 gxfS g5 6 f6! .i.xf6 7 1:xf6+ Resigns

THE TWO BISHOPS Steinitz said two bishops were "considerably stronger than two knights." Capablanca said two bishops were "almost always" better than two knights. But this infonnation, which is quoted over and over, isn't particularly useful to the tournament player because 2�s-vs.-2tDs is rare. Timoshchenko 's database found 2�s-vs. -�-tlO occurred 1 2 times as often as 2�s-vs.-2tDs when each side had four pawns apiece and more than eight times as often when each side has six pawns. The "two bishops" is the most controversial of the bishop-related imbalances. Steinitz considered 2�s-vs. -�+tD to be only slightly superior to � -vs. -tD. Yet Gufeld and Kalinichenko wrote, "The power of a pair of bishops is close to that of knight, bishop and pawn." In other words, the two bishops are worth an extra pawn. Some charts lend support to that by awarding two points to each minor piece but five to a pair of bishops. The most credible point of view is somewhat more conservative. It begins with the premise that a single bishop isn't much better than a single knight. "Once a player no longer has both his bishops, knights and bishops become practically equal," Purdy wrote. Kaufman's database survey came to the same conclusion: "An unpaired bishop and knight" such as in positions in which the minor pieces are �-+tD-vs.-2tDs or �-vs.- ttJ - "are of equal value." But, Kaufman added, a pair of bishops are worth on· average an extra half pawn. Timoshchenko's

earlier database offered evidence for this. It found that 2.i.s scored at least 62% against .i.+tD when each side has at least two pawns each. What does that mean to the practical player? We saw in the diagrams on p . 1 3 0 and 1 5 1 that obtaining the 2.i.s can justify Exchange and queen sacrifices. Under what circumstances do the bishops justify a pawn sack? The answer depends on several variables and three stand out. When weighing a pawn sacrifice that obtains the 2�s, either by you or your opponent, you should ask: (a) Which, if any, of the bishops will be bad? (b) Are the pawns fixed? and (c) What trades are likely? It is rare that all of these will favor one side or the other, and the tournament player has to detennine when one of them cancels the others or overrides them. Take, for example, the starting point of the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez

(1 e4 e5 2 tDo tDc6 3 .i.b5 a6 4 .i.a4 tDf6 5 0-0 .i.e7 6 1:el b5 7 .i.b3 0-0 S c3 d5 9 exd5 tDxd5 10 tDxeS tDxe5 11 :lxe5 c6). One of the less traveled but solid contin uations is 1 2 �xd5 cxd5 1 3 d4

.i.d6.

White to play

Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns 185

184 Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns

White keeps his extra pawn for the foreseeable future and grants Black the two bishops. But there are other key factors based on the first two questions - White's bad bishop (a plus for Black) and the fixed pawn structure (a plus for White). Dorfman claimed the two bishops are not an advantage at all when the pawn structure is fixed, and here the only changes that are likely are a2-a4xbS by White and ... b4xc3 by Black. Nevertheless, experience shows that the two bishops are good compensation. White's bad bishop is more significant than the inflexible pawns. (Black's light squared bishop is technically bad but can be devastating if it gains access to the kings ide light squares, where White's bad bishop plays no role. White risks losi�g after, say,

The jury remains out on Geller's idea but there is evidence that Black has compensation.

GIVING UP THE PAIR A related question is: If no pawn is being sacrificed, what happens when you or your opponent give up the 2�s? Again there are many considerations. But one question to keep in mind is whether you can force the trade of one of the enemy bishops.

Garcia Palermo - Knaak Camaguey 1 987

12 d4 �d6 13 ':el "'h4 14 g3 'Wh3 15 �e3 �g4 16 "'d3. Black can �lay Geller's idea of 1 6 ltJxe3 1 7 l:lxe3 c5. ••.

Again Black has the two bishops and this time neither player has a bad bishop. White's bishop can protect his kingside by �g2-dS. But Black's dark-squared bishop more than offsets that because it has a target, d4, after ... �c7-b6 - thanks to the fluid center.

This means that the two bishops are overvalued in middlegames in which there is only one good diagonal because the other player can likely convert the unfavorable �+lLl-vs.-2�s to the fairly even ttJ-vs.-�.

Skembris - Chuchelov

Cappelle la Grande 1 999

4...i.c6 5 l:lg3 ':e6 6 �d4 ':g6 7 ':xg6 hxg6 8 ':el �e4

9 i.xg7+ �xg7 1 0 liJd4 "'d7

The third question is pertinent because White will have a positional advantage if he can trade bishops and reach good liJ-vs.-bad �. - A key line runs 14 ':e3 "'h4 15 h3

Now suppose White continues instead into another Marshall tabiya,

In this position one good dark-square diagonal stands out and White will challenge it with �d4. Even if Black hadn't played ... �h8 he would be forced to exchange bishops because he could not allow White to own the long diagonal (by meeting i.d4 with ... �f8).

chances. He can operate with ideas of g2-g4 and a timely ttJdS.

Black has plugged up the e-file and improved his king position. Nevertheless his position has worsened since the diagram.

14 ':e1 "'h4 15 g3 Wh3 16 �e3 �g4 1 7 "'d3 f5 18 f4 ':ae8.)

"'f4 16 ':e5 "'f6 17 ':e1 "'g6 1 8 "'0 �e6 and now 19 �f4!? �xf4 20 "'xf4 �xh3 returns the pawn for a favorable endgame after 21 "'g3.

This illustrates a recurring theme: Thanks to the pawn structure, some diagonals are too valuable to belong to one player. For example in the main-line Caro-Kann with . . . �f5, there is a consensus that White's only bid for advantage is to trade off bishops with �d3 . The c2-h7 diagonal is too valuable to remain the property of Black.

Now it is Black who wants to trade minor pieces, and avoid 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 lLlO ! and lLlgS. There followed:

White to play

1 1 ttJb5 a6 12 ttJc3 �c6 13 "'d4+ �h7 14 l:lxe8 "'xe8 15 �f2

This occurred a few moves after Black planted a knight on e4, prompting �xe4. The result seems to be equal: White has more space but Black has the two bishops. Black's position is a little loose but after ... �d7/... ':e8 his forces will be well coordinated. Yet with routine moves on both sides White obtains a slight but definite edge:

1 ':f3! �d7 2 b3 �h8 3 h3 ':e8 4 ttJc2!

White to play

1 �xf6! �xf6 2 ttJd4 White's first move makes sense only if followed by his second. Black cannot concede the long diagonal and that means he will be worse in the i.-vs. -liJ middlegame. (But if Black could avoid an exchange of bishops - say if the moves ... a6 and .. . l:ac8 had been added so that the could play 2 ... �e8 here - he would stand better.)

2 ... �xg2 3 q;.xg2 a6 4 ':d3

Black's bishop has the range but White has the better winning

White will enjoy a lasting edge in the lLl-vs. -� ending with rooks (4 ... 'iVb7+ S "'0) - or in the heavy piece middlegame (4 . . . �xd4) because of the weak-pawn.

186 Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns

Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns 187

TRAFFIC

knight after 2 ...ltJb8 3 i.h3 l:.a l 4 b5! (not 4 l:.xb8 �c3).

Trades of pawns will, of course, change the value of bishops and knights. Timoshchenko came to the conclusion that knights decrease by three to five percent after each pair of pawns are swapped. Kaufman went further and concluded that the 2�s were worth less than half a pawn when less than half of the 1 6 pawns had been traded - but more than half a pawn when most of the pawns have been traded.

3 �e2 i.gl 4 �c3+ f6 5 h4 �h6 6 :xb8 ltJxb8 7 �c8 b6 8 i.d2+ �g7 9 �e3!

However, conclusions based on databases should be taken with a grain of salt when the bishops have targets or when the pawns are mobile.

Once bishops are traded Black must lose the b-pawn. The rest was:

9 i.xe3 10 �xe3 �f7 11 g4 �e8 12 gxhS gxhS 13 �d4 bS (Black

bishops in a game, it may not matter much if you get to play ll'lx�. Amateurs often have trouble with (b). They may feel that the advantage of a bishop over a knight is greatest when there are no heavy pieces on the board. True, there are times when the difference in minor pieces alone is crucial. In the endgame, "a bishop with passed pawn is substantially more powerful than a knight," wrote Portisch and Sarkozy. But, they added, "this superiority is even more p;,onounced if each player has a rook.

Leon 1 993

cannot hold both the b-pawn and the h-pawn in view of �c4-b5 and �f5-g6+) 14 f4 �f7 15 �b7 �f8

1 �d7! �g7 2 :c8! :b8 Black loses the b-pawn after 2 ...:xc8 and he stalemates the

7 �c4! gxf4 8 gxf4 ltJxf4 9 l:.f6

9 ltJg6 •••

10 l:.xf7+ �e8 1 1 e6

The main threat is 1 2 i.b5+ 'it>d8 1 3 l:.d7+ �c8 14 �a6+.

Two guidelines should be kept in mind when deciding whether to trade pieces in a bishop imbalance:

(b) The �-vs. -ltJ edge is relativ ely minor. This means a trade of rooks when you have :+i.-vs. :+ltJ or of bishops when you have 2i.s-vs.-.i+ltJ is probably bad and may be very bad. A corollary is that if there has been an exchange of

Black overlooks White's ninth move and shortens the game by several moves.

Or 9 ... ltJh3+ 1 0 �g2 ltJg5 1 1 h4 l:.c8 1 2 l:.f4! and wins.

TRADES

Despite the presence of 1 2 of the 1 6 pawns, White has a serious edge, and this becomes clearer when rooks are traded. The future really does belong to these bishops.

S...�f8 6 f4 gS

Geller - Flohr

traps the knight).

White to play

White has a winning plan of f2-f4 and �f2-e3 but must stop . . .b5 first.


16 fS! �f7 17 �c6 ltJa6 18 �xb5! Resigns (because 18 . . .ltJxb4 19 �c3

(a) The 2�-vs.-.i+ltJ advantage is significant and is magnified by swaps of heavy pieces. (This was illustrated by the previous example and earlier on p.94).

2 :xc3 ltJe6 3 eS b6 4 l%c6 l:.b8 5 �fl!

Trading queens is also a major decision.

...

D1escas - Leko

had roughly even chances after l . . .� l +.

1 1 ltJe7 12 l:.xh7 �d8 13 �a6! Resigns •..

White to play

l "c3

The player with the bishop should welcome queen trades in such positions and...

1.....xc3?? ... his opponent should avoid them. This is a disastrous decision since Black can't advance his queenside pawns or trade off White's a-pawn. Black would have

In view of 13 ...:a8 14 l:.h8+ and 1 3 ...ltJc6 14 l:.d7+ �e8 1 5 i.b5 ! .

Perhaps the most famous endorsement of bishops was Tarrasch's claim that one rook and two bishops "are not inferior" to two rooks and one knight. That suggests the 2�s are worth more than a pawn. But when modem GMs are offered a chance to obtain the Tarrasch imbalance, they tend to

J 88


prefer compensation for the Exchange that is more concrete.

Svidler - Adams Elista 1 998


Black offered a draw. White, on the advice of his team captain, refused but he acknowledged the offer was "absolutely justified."

THE QUEEN DEBATE Another source of dispute is 'if+lLl-vs. -'if+.t. Capablanca said a queen and knight "often" outplays a queen and good bishop. Dorfman was more definitive: "Usually queen and kni�ht dominate over queen and bishop. ' But other strong players have doubts about how often "often" and how usual "usually" is.

White to play

White could simplify with 1 ltJxc8 l:taxc8 2 d4 and obtain "Tarrasch" plus an extra pawn.

2 i.xgS .tfS 3 .tf4 l:tad8 4 'ife2 l:tfe8 5 l:tel White has two pawns for the Exchange, a more solid fonn of compensation than he could have gotten from 1 ltJxc8.

5 ...�g7 6 O ltJe5 7 .tc2 c5!

Reshevsky - Unzicker Santa Monica 1 966

World Championship match, second game 1961

Black to play

White to play

One move after the time control ended, White offered a draw. Black accepted but later couldn't explain his decision. He has excellent winning chances after 1. l:ba7 2 .. 'ifu7 Wfb3 3 'ifa8+ �h7 4 'ifxe4 ihc3 and can even offer a trade of queens after 5 'ife2 'ife3+ (6 'ifxe3 lDxe3 7 �f2 ltJg4+ or 6 �fl 'ifh3+ 7 'it>el b4).

White has a queenside majority, something that should benefit from a trade of queens for the reasons that Portisch and Sarkozy offered. However, I a4 'ifc3 ! allows Black to defend (2 'ifxc3 tDxc3 3 a5 rj;e7 4 b5 'it>d6!). 1 a3 'ifc3 2 'ifg5 'iff6

Tal - Botvinnik

Anand - Kamsky

But White felt I ltJxc8 and 2 d4 offered just "some compensation." He preferred: He evaluated l ...i.f5 2 ltJxg5 i.xd3 3 ltJf3 i.c4! as leading to equality and had planned 2 f3 g4 3 i.f4 gxf3 4 'iixf3 ltJg4 5 ltJd6 i.e6 6 l:te l .

found the superiority of 'if+ltJ was greatest - a 58 percent winning rate - when there were seven pawns apiece (no extra pieces). This fell to 54.4 percent with six pawns each and remained between 49 and 5 1 .5 percent for less than six. In other words, a trivial difference. Even with numerous pawns, the best defense for a player with 'if+tD against 'if+.t may be to offer a trade of queens.

FIDE Candidates match, fifth game 1994

Spielmann felt that 2i.+l:t+� for 2l::ts+ltJ is even. Kaufman's data base confinned that but found that if a pair of rooks is traded, the second player is slightly better. (His redundancy has been reduced.)

1 lLle4 ltJg4

outside passed pawn, he will usually win in materially balanced positions without queens, Portisch and Sarkozy wrote. But with queens on, the knight can try to blockade the pawn on a square not controlled by the bishop while the queen seeks counterplay elsewhere. In addition, the queen and bishop suffer from redundancy, since they both use diagonals. When the bishop is bad, the knight's superiority escalates.

White to play

White played 1 'ifd3 and offered a draw. Karpov expressed astonish ment at this in view of what he called White's "classic strategic advantage." In short-range operations, with pawns confined to one wing, 'if+lLl naturally coordinates better than 'if+.t. Even when there are pawns on both wings the presence of queens can help the knight. If the player with the bishop has an

..

Nevertheless, the supenonty of 'if+lLl is vastly overstated. When the pawns are flexible and the bishop is not bad, the edge is slight. Kaufman said the difference was "trivial" in his database survey. Timoshchenko

Both players believed the ltJ-vs. -i. ending without queens would be easier for Black. The text is bad - but only because 2 ... f6! might have drawn quickly after 3 'ifxg6 'ifxa3 . 3 'ifg3 'iff4 4 'ifd3 'ifel 5 a4

'it>g8?

1 90



Black misses another chance with 5 ......c3 ! , e. g. 6 "'a6 "'c7 7 1i'b5 ltJc3 8 "'a6 ltJd5 9 b5?? ltJb4.

6 as "'e1 7 "'d4 White can create a passed pawn which wins since the knight cannot blockade.

7 ... a6 8 bS! nbS 9 a6 "'as 10 a7! A trade of queens - or minor pieces - would be fatal. Note that Black never got a chance to blockade. White wisely avoided 1 0 "'a7 ltJc7 1 1 1i'b8+ �h7 1 2 a7 b4 13 "'xc7 "'xc7 14 a8('if) b3 which should draw. The game ended with 10 ...b4 1 1 i.c4 f6? 1 2 i.bS b3? 1 3 "'a4! Resigns but 1 l ......a3 1 2 i.xd5 exd5 1 3 1i'b6 and 1i'b8+ also loses.

The fear of ending up with queen and bishop against queen and knight is largely unjustified. But like many fears it doesn't go way. Players often commit positional suicide, such as making their unopposed bishop bad, to avoid it.

Black should seek a swap of bishops and, failing that, try to limit White's other bishop.

1 ... cS! Not l . ..d5? 2 cxd5 .i.xd5 3 c4 and i.b2 and this bishop (and Black's king) becomes a factor.

2 i.cl �f8 3 "'e2 "'c6 4 "'c2?! White fails to appreciate he is slipping into a lost position. He should open lines with h2-h3 and g2-g4.

4 ... dS S i.f3 "'d7 6 cxdS i.xdS 7 i.e2 For the rest of the game White remains terrified of the reduction to "'+ltJ vs....+ i.. He is worse after 7 .i.xd5 "'xd5 8 �gl ltJe6 but far from lost.

7 ... ltJe6 8 i.e3 �e7 9 "'d2 "'c6 10 .i.n c4! 1 1 d4?

Suba - Smyslov Las Palmas 1 982

White was losing control of e4 in any event but it was time to fight back with I I dxc4 i.xc4 1 2 i.xc4 "'xc4 1 3 �gl and i.d4-e5 . l 1 ... aS

12 'iWb2 ltJc7 13 i.cl ltJbS 14 "'c2 �f6 IS �gl i.e4

Black to play

White can't penetrate with his queen or force a trade of queens.

Black has made steady progress. Although he eventually won due to a blunder, his edge was manifest after 1 6 ...n �f7 1 7 .i.d2 ltJd6 1 8

"'h4 b 6 19 "'bS+ �g8 2 0 "'g6 i.dS 2 1 .i.el i.f7 22 '-g3 "'e4! 23 "'h4 �h7 24 .i.n .i.dS.

PAWN VALUES

each game and that helped influence the outcome:

The bishop and knight imbalances considered so far usually come about by way of trades. There is a related imbalance - piece against pawns - that normally comes about from sacrifices. Before we consider piece-vs. -pawns it is worthwhile to examine how a pawn changes in value in the course of a game.

In the first game, Kasparov was Black (or - I unit according to Lasker) and played without both RPs (another -I). That makes a total of minus 2. He won. In the second, Kasparov played without his a-pawn (-ih) and d-pawn (-2). But he was White (+I), so the overall odds was minus Ilh . He drew, thanks to Black's ability to hide his king behind a wall of queenside pawns. In game three, Kasparov was again Black and played without his a and b-pawns, for an overall deficit of minus 2 � units - the biggest odds of the match, per Lasker. He lost.

We know a pawn decreases relative to a minor piece as the game goes on. And we recognize that a piece is generally superior to three pawns in the opening and middlegame but often worse in the ending. A pawn also changes in value relative to other pawns. In the ending a pawn is a pawn is a pawn. But each pawn begins life under different circumstances. Their file determines much of their future. Some are more valuable than others - at least for the frrst 20 moves because they are closer to the center. Lasker's chart of exchange values for the opening stage began by placing the "value of the first move" - that is, being White - at one unit. It continued: Rook pawn= ih unit Knight pawn= I y.; Bishop pawn= 1 ih Center pawn= 2 This strikes modern players as bizarre. A center pawn is worth four times as much as a rook pawn? An indirect test of Lasker's chart was the 200I charity match between Kasparov and British amateur Terence Chapman. In all games Kasparov gave two-pawn odds but the identity of the pawns changed in

In the fourth game Kasparov played White without his a- and e-pawns, another relatively small deficit, 1 ih, and he won. Kaufman tested Lasker's chart in another way, as he reported in the January 2003 Chess Life. Kaufman used 25 different versions or settings of strong computer programs to play matches of 50 games to see what would happen if a game began with missing pawns. He concluded that Lasker vastly overrated the value of center pawns and "somewhat" underestimated the value of rook pawns but was otherwise fairly accurate. At some point in the middlegame, often after move 25, a pawn's rank becomes much more important than its file. Here we have even less to guide us than Lasker's chart. In general, protected and/or passed pawns should improve in value each time they move. We've seen examples such as the diagrams

1 92 Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns

on p. 1 4 1 and p. 1 5 8 when an advan ced passer more than compensated for a material deficit. Gufeld proposed a general rule that a pawn on the second or third rank increases in value by 50 percent by every additional rank:. This seems wildly excessive since the pawn would be worth a minor piece on the sixth and a rook on the seventh. Chistyakov, in the December 1 988 Shakhmaty v SSSR, cited "a Rubinstein aphorism" - "A pawn that has advanced to the sixth rank plays the role of a piece." But there is no solid analysis of how pawns change in value and we'll have to leave it at that.

PIECE VERSUS PAWNS A really bad bishop has been sarcastically described as a "big pawn." Yet there are few examples of a GM giving up a bad bishop for two pawns - and fewer cases of this being successful. Minor pieces are simply much stronger than pieces until the endgame. How much stronger? Let's hear again from the wise men: LaBourdonnais said a bishop "is worth at least three pawns." Steinitz said a knight "is only very slightly stronger in general than three pawns" but a bishop is "much better than three pawns." Bronstein said a knight was worth three pawns but a bishop was worth four. Sarratt advised against sacrificing a piece for three pawns before the ending unless it met one of two conditions - it stopped castling or it ruined the enemy pawn structure.


Spielmann said sacrificing a piece for three pawns in the middlegame made sense only if there is a chance for attack. In defensive positions "it frequently happens that even four healthy pawns are not sufficient compen sation for the piece." He may have had the 22nd game of the Alekhine-Capablanca match in mind: After 54 moves the only material left WllS a white rook and four isolated pawns against Black's rook and knight. Black managed to avoid trading rooks, picked off all four pawns and even played a dozen moves for a win before conceding the draw. Since Spielmann's day, a new point of view has arisen that emphasizes the difference between two types of piece sacrifice. One is primarily based on material compensation, ideally for at least three pawns. The other type of sack is founded primarily on threats, pressure and the initiative. Since the latter is more about calculation than piece value, we will concentrate on the first category, the sacks that look towards the ending. In the basic endgame, a knight usually draws against two pawns and often loses against three isolated pawns (no other material). Fine appears to be wrong when he suggested the knight has a tougher time battling three connected pawns than three isolated pawns. The king and knight cannot coordinate well against distant targets and, as Averbakh put it, a draw is only possible "if the pawns are not widely separated."

Svidler - Anand Dos Hermanas 1 999

Azmaiparashvili Shirov

White to play

Black to play

Fine wrote that when the pawns are isolated, the defending king can usually deal with one of them while his knight handles the other two. Here White can't push the kingside pawns without his king and his king can't go far from the black pawn. Seeing that 1 �xd4 allows 1. ..lZ'lb5+, he offered a draw. But to his chagrin he was later told that 2 �c5 lZ'lxa7 3 'iPb6 lZ'lc8+ 4 �c7! wins because of the trick 4 ... lZ'le7 5 h7 �g7 6 f6+! . Black also loses after 4 ... tt)a7 5 �d7 tt)b5 because his knight is in Tesuji, 6 h7 �g7 7 f6+ 'iPxh7 8 fl �g7 9 'iPe7. A bishop does a much better job of defending against pawns, isolated or connected, than a knight. It can perform feats of magic in stopping an enemy pawn mass because it can draw an inviolable line across the board. The following position arose in a highly debated QGD variation that was thought to favor White: If Black seeks refuge in an ending, the kingside pawns seemed to outweigh the extra bishop.

-

Madrid 1 996

1. ..�7! But this improvement is based on the realization that the pawns can be halted before they reach a line of light squares such as £5, g6 and h7.

2 'ii'xb7+ �xb7 3 l:te7+ l:td7 4 �xb8 �xb8 5 l:txd7 Even though 5 l:te5 may win a third pawn, White follows a sound principle: Pawns become more dangerous after the rooks are traded.

5 ... .i.xd7 6 �g2 �c7 7 �t3 The pawns cannot go far without king support (7 h5 �d6 8 h6 �f5 9 g4 .i.h7 10 f4 �e6 I I g5 �f5).

7 �d6 8 �f4 •••

8...�c6!

1 94



"Such a move has to be found at home if you play the Botvinnik Variation! " Shirov wrote. White would win after 8 ...�e6? 9 �g5 .ltc6 1 0 f4! , e.g. 1 0....lte4 1 1 g4 .lth7 (otherwise 12 f5+ shuts out the bishop) 1 2 h5 followed by �h6. 9 �g5 .ltO!

been dozens of such examples. When the player with the bishop has pawns that he can attack with his king, he usually enjoys good winning chances.

Krizsany - Parkanyi Karkany 1 998

This stops t2-f4-f5 and estab lishes an unbreakable barrier on the light squares.

10 �fS �d5 1 1 g4 �d6 12 hS �d5 13 �f4 .ltdl

SACRIFICES AND TRADES Despite the last two examples, the pawns cannot be underestimated. They can exploit their numerical superiority in that endgame technique, the mismatch. If the enemy king is committed to stopping pawns on one wing, his minor piece often loses the battle against king and pawns on the other.

Geller - Kopylov


7....ltfS The bishop will win a queens ide pawn if given time. S g6 But Black doesn't have time because h5-h6-h7 wins if the bishop ' leaves the key diagonals. He resigned after S ...�c6 9 �h4 .lte6 10 h6 gxh6 11 �h5 ..td6 12 �xh6 �e7 13 g7 in view of 1 3 ... .ltg8 14 �g6 'iti>e6 1 5 a4 and so on. If several pieces and pawns are added to the board, the identity of the unopposed minor can be decisive: An extra bishop may win, an extra knight may lose.

Kamsky - Gelfand

White to play

Linares 1 993

1 �O �g7

White conceded the draw after repeating 14 �g5 .lto 15 �f4 .ltdl since on 15 h6 .lte4 16 f4 .lth7 ! his king can't reach h6. -

Endgame lore has developed in the last century, not as much as in some previous centuries, but quite a bit nonetheless. Spielmann, compar ing minor pieces, wrote, "A bishop is far better equipped for the struggle against passed pawns, so much so that it can frequently challenge three sound passed pawns successfully. Offhand I can recall three modem examples (of) an ending where a bishop prevailed against three sound pawns." But since Spielmann's day there have

The general rule is that the king must shepherd the pawns. If Black hurries with 1 ... f5?, he ends up in zugzwang, e.g. 2 .ltd3 ! f4 3 �g4 �g7 4 �f5 and then 4 ... f3 5 .lte4 f2 6 .ltg2 �t7 7 .ltfl .

2 �g4 �f6! 3 �bS �eS 4 �xh6 �f4?? This loses because White can attack the d-pawn while the other king is preoccupied with the bishop. The right way is 4 ...g4 5 �g5 f5 6 .ltg2 (6 �h4 �f4) g3 7 b3 f4 8 �g4 �d4 and ...�c3, which draws.

5 �g7 f5 6 �f6 g4 7 �e6 g3 8 .ltb3 And White won because after both players queen, 8 ...�g5 9 �xd6 f4 10 �eS 0 1 1 d6 g2 12 d7 gJ('ii') 13 d8(W)+ �h5 he has 14 Wfh8+

�gS I S 'i'g7+.

Black to play

Perhaps concerned about .ltd6 and ':f8 mate, Black played:

1 ...�e7 2 ':bS! ':xbS? In principle this trade is very good for a defender who is down only one pawn in a bishops of opposite color ending. But White has another winning idea.

3 .ltxbS �d7 Black simply drops another pawn after 3 ... a6 4 .lta7 .

4 .txa7! �c7 5 f4 �b7 6 .ltxb6 �xb6 7 gS With three pawns for the bishop - and potential passers on both wings - White has much better chances than in the bishops-of opposite-color ending.

White to play

This posItion arose one move after a new move by Black that improved on an opening line previously considered slightly favorable for White. If the minor piece on f6 were a knight, White's pawns would give him a slight edge. He would make slow progress after, say, 1 lid I followed by c2-c3, �c2, c3-c4 and �c3. A trade of all four rooks would likely win for him.

1 96

Bishops vs. Knights vs. Pawns 1 9 7


However, with a bishop instead of a knight, Black can attack on both wings and this gives him the edge. Play continued:

When a player gives up a piece for three pawns with the idea of winning by queening rather than attack, he is guided by a few 1 c3 h5! 2 l:tdl h4 3 h3 l:the8 4 principles. Getting queens ofT the l:td7+ �g6 5 �dl l:tab8 6 l:tdd2 board is usually priority number l:tb6 7 l:tfe2 l:teb8 8 l:tfl �g5 9 one. Other trades also tend to help him l:tde2 l:t8b7 10 a4!? Both sides are playing for a win even though his opponent may be and White just crossed the Rubicon. ahead in material according to By advancing the queenside pawns charts that award 3 1n or more units he will either lose or trade one of to a piece. A swap of rooks is generally good for the pawns, as in them ofT. 2 ...l:txb8 on p . 1 95. The player with 10...�f6 1 1 �c1 l:ta6 12 l:te4 the piece benefits by keeping rooks l:tba7 13 b3 . on, as in the last two diagrams. Not 1 3 l:tfT4? �g5. The trade of Rook-takes-rook often turns a draw pawns should help the defender - into a win or vice versa. that is, White now.

13 ... �xc3 14 l:tg4+ �h5 15 l:tfS+ �h6 1 6 l:txh4+ �g6 17 l:tcs �f6 18 l:tg4+ �h6 19 �c2 l:te6 20 as l:te3 21 b4

Tal - Ragozin


It is close but White wins by a single tempo in a variety of continuations. The game went

3...liJc6 4 b5 liJd4 5 b6 �d7 6 h4 �c6 7 hS liJe6 8 h6 liJf8 9 �g3! �xb6 10 �f4 �c7 1 1 �fS (Tesuji) �d 7 12 �f6 gS, with the idea of creating a passed f-pawn.

Unzicker - Najdorf

Piatigorsky Cup 1 966

7 lbb6! �e5 8 �g3 :b3+ Black wins after 8 .. f4+ 9 �g4 f5+ 1 0 �gS :b3 I l lbc4+? �dS 1 2 tObd6 because the immobile knights can't defend against 1 2 .. £1 13 gx£1 :x£1. .

.

However, White can coordinate his knights with 1 1 lbd7+! �dS 1 2 lbdcs and hold out with tOxa6.

9 'iPh4 :c3 Black to play

1......xd5! 2 �d'8 lbxd3 The threat of 3 ... lbf2+ wms material.

3 "'13 "'xf3 4 :xO lbe5 Since S �xg7? tOxf3 is lost White must inflict damage on the queenside.

White to play White to play

1 �fl ! After this, Black cannot avoid simplification by way of �g2/ tOxb7. His chances of survival will depend on whether he can limit his losses to one pawn.

1 ...:c6 2 b4 f5 3 �g2 :b6 4 ¢>b3 e5 5 lbxb7! Black threatened to close the diagonal with S ... e4.

5...'iU7+ 6 c4 :xb7 7 �d5! White prepares a decisive 'iib6, which Black must prevent. For example, 7 ...'ii'hS 8 'iib6 "'dl + draws. But 8 "'d2 and �xb7+ leads to a queen and pawn ending that favors White, e.g. 8 ...e4 9 cS "'h7 10 a4 ¢>a7 1 1 �xb7 "'xb7 1 2 "'d4.

7 ...... d7? 8 'ifb6! ¢>b8 9 "'xa6 e4 10 "'xb7+

Earlier, in a Sicilian Defense middlegame, Black gave up two knights for rook and two pawns. White missed his opportunities for kingside attack. Black then correctly forced an endgame even though that meant doubling his pawns and giving up his second extra pawn. He appears to be winning. His first threat is ... �e7 and . .:b4 to trap the knight. .

1 lbd2 �e7 2 lbb3 :b4 3 lb3c5 White averts the first crisis but will face a new one if Black can get his king to dS and threaten ...:xcS.

3 .. f5 4 �gl :b5 5 ¢>f2 �f6 6 tOd7+ �e6 .

10 lbc5! :xc5 Black had nothing better. White drew the queen ending after 1 1

lbd7+ �d6 1 2 lbIC5 �xc5 1 3 �g5 �bS 14 ¢>h6!.

This imbalance i s a battle between the pieces' ability to cooperate and the rook's power to advance his own pawns and to attack enemy pawns. When deciding whether to go into rook-vs. -pieces you have to keep in mind that the rook's power is rarely realized before the ending. That's when it can best offset pieces - even when there is no pawn compensation.

5 :a3 �xf8 6 :xa7 b6 7 :b7 J.c5 So it is rook against bishop and knight, no extra pawn. If White takes time out to bring his king into action, Black should win by securing his kings ide and advancing his own king. Instead, White plays without his king: it never moves again. He saves the game by keeping his rook active and pushing his pawns before Black's pieces work together to stop them:

8 b4! �e3 9 a4 lbc6 10 as bxa5 1 1 b5! lbeS 12 b6 �g7 13 :e7! �f6 14 b7 �a7 15 :e8 lbd7 16 :a8 �b8 19 :xaS

206

Rooks versus Pieces

Rooks versus Pieces 207

conclusions in their home analysis. Kasparov believed White had a big edge, in view of his two extra pawns and Black's weakened pawns.

Timoshenko - Rogozenko CappeUe la Grande 1 998

I h4

Black's final error was to misjudge where his king belonged -

The rest was: 1 7...�e6 18 1%a3 h5

19 1%c3 h4 20 g3 hxg3 21 hxg3 �d6 22 1%e8 �e7 23 g4 gS 24 1%g8 f6 2S 1%g7 �e6 26 1%f7 Draw.

Black to play

1 ...�e6? WHICH PIECES? Two centuries ago Sarratt, the self-styled "Professor of Chess," said any two pieces could be safely given up if a rook and two pawns were the compensation. In Basic Chess Endings Fine went further and said rook and two pawns "is always a win" against two pieces in the ending. But Steinitz expressed a more discerning view when he said the outcome may depend on which pieces remained. He said two bishops were "about equal" to a rook and two pawns and a knight and bishop were a little weaker. We know that in general bishops and rooks improve as pawns are traded. But a pair of bishops may prove clumsy because they cannot defend the same squares. This becomes apparent when the rook can establish a distant passed pawn.

Black responds aggressively to the threat of 2 �xf6, compared with 1 ...�c8. But he underestimates White's next move.

2 �xf6! �xf6 3 l:td6 1%e6 4 1%xe6 fxe6 5 fxg4 �e3 The win of the pawn is only temporary. But White has strong winning chances because the bishops are poorly suited for defending against a passed pawn.

6 l:tdl �xe4 7 b4!

The faster pawns will win (7 1%d6? eS 8 1%xa6 �f3 and ...e4).

20 1%b5+ �d6? 21 g5! hxgS 22 hxgS eS 23 g6 �h6 24 e4 �g7 25 l:taS e4 26 �e2 e3 27 �d3 �e4+ 28 �e2! �c6 29 1%a7 �d4 30 l:te7 �.xg6 31 l:tOO+ �b7 32 l:txg6 and

wms. Black lost because there were pawns on both wings and because his king couldn't cooperate well with the bishops. On a smaller board - without a distant passer to worry about - the bishops can hold their own.

Kasparov - Kramnik

World Championship, 1 1 th game 2000

7 �g7 8 bS nbS 9 axbS �f6 ..•

Black should restrict the rook, e.g. 9 ... iLdS 1 0 1%d3 �aS 1 1 l:ta3 �b6 1 2 l:ta6 �g 1 . There followed:

1 0 l:td7 iLeS 1 1 h4 h6 12 b6 �c6 13 1%h7 iLf4 14 �b2 �e4 Black's pawn is much slower ( I 4 ... eS? I S b7 e4 16 1%xh6+ and wins). White now made steady progress 15 1%d7 �e6 1 6 1%a7 �f3 -

17 �b3 �e3 18 1%a4! �eS 19 1%b4 iLb7.

But Krarnnik didn't think White's edge was significant. He gave I g3 fS ! 2 eS .i.cS+ 3 �g2 eS 9 ltJc4 bS 1 0 e S and B . . .�e6 9 f5 + gxfS 1 0 exf5+ �f5 1 1 g4+.

9 ltJxfi White's pieces count more than the pawn army and he won after

9...a4 10 e5 a3 1 1 Jtal l:tge8 1 2 ltJg5! l:ta5 13 ltJe6+ �d7 1 4 .i.d5 a2 IS g4! .

Rethinking the Chess Pieces

Rethinking the Chess Pieces

Rethinking the Chess Pieces

Non-Attacking Chess Pieces (3rd edition)

Pieces

Fugitive Pieces

Fugitive Pieces

Fugitive Pieces

Picking Up the Pieces

Modern Chess Tactics: Pieces and Pawns in Action

Broken Pieces

Family Pieces

Fugitive Pieces

Fugitive pieces

Missing Pieces

Broken Pieces

28 Pieces

Family Pieces

Fugitive pieces

Fugitive Pieces

Fugitive Pieces

Chess

Chess

Zimbabwe: Picking Up the Pieces

Chess

Pieces of Hate

A Million Little Pieces

Pieces Of Eight

Pieces Of Modesty

Epitaphs and Elegiac Pieces

Rethinking the Scientific Revolution

Rethinking the Chess Pieces