I.
TtV'l.lt. Por your JelP written by
��e� '?� Translated by Manuel Perez Carballo
Quality Chess
www.qualitychessbooks.com
CO flTEflTJ
True lieI if\. CtteII First English edition, 2007 by Quality Chess Europe AB 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow, G62 7TA, United Kingdom Copyright © Lluis Comas Fabrego Translation © 2007 Manuel Perez Carballo The right of Lluis Comas Fabrego to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess Europe AB, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow, G62 7TA, United Kingdom e-mail:
[email protected] website: www.qualitychessbooks.com Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena California www.scbdistributors.com
Bibliography List of symbols Foreword
CI-lr:tPTER I Do I\.ot Tru/t tJte Clallicl .
The tip of the iceberg Dogmatic Limited Some more rigour would not be amiss . . . Applying what has been learnt Challenging the heavyweights Nobody is without sin =
CI-lr:tPTER II fT\!ddlesalT\.e rTlotiPI .
The blockaded passed pawn Minority attack An excellent example Reality is always more complex than theory II. Jupiter and its satellites: the f-file versus the strong point on e4 Can you dance? What are you telling me? The thin (and subtle) line between prophylaxis and passivity 1.
Translated by Manuel Perez Carballo from
5 6 7 9 9 15 17 19 20 24 29 29 30 32 34 39 44 45 46 51
"Mentiras Arriesgadas en Ajedrez" Edited by John Shaw Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Cover DeSign by Carole Dunlop after an idea by Jacob Aagaard Cover Photos by Ari Ziegler Printed and bound in Estonia by Tallinna Raamatutrukikoja LLC ISBN - 91-976005-7-1 ISBN13 - 978-91-976005-7-6
Neither so simple nor so dear The empire strikes back Exchanging queens (the relation between the opening and the endgame) New ideas in the pipeline
CI-lr:tPTER IV ·I-l0w are Ope'll"8 Qoveltiel Borl\.? Episode 1: The analysis of a model game as a source of inspiration Episode II: First-hand impressions Episode III: Preconceptions Episode IV: The devastating influence of preconceptions
52 57 60 66 69 69 73 74 76
Bibliography Episode V : Building new paths Episode VI and last: Applying the ideas so far discussed to modern positions The practical test Long-term structural and positional advantages versus time Applying the new concepts to opening theory Time versus Material: positional pawn sacrifices in the opening Thanks Mr Dvoretsky: Prophylaxis and logic in the opening I leave before I get kicked out Is it possible to completely neutralize the opponent's initiative?
77 79 81 82 85 91 95 96 98
CI1.r.tPTER V·TI'te Ope","S f:\.ccordi"8 to me . or WI'ty llil\e ...ct:Ja6 if\. tl'te �"8'1 If\.diaf\.
103
Creating something new Line 1: Playing a la Petrosian Line 2: Other nuances of the move ig5 Line 3: Near the storm Line 4: In the eye of the hurricane White gets rid of the black knights White only exchanges one enemy knight Miscellany: Three stories 1. Evaluations change 2. Whatever happened to...? 3. A Chess Symphony
CI1.r.tPTER VI . TI'te Otl'terI
104 105 107 110 114 115 118 119 119 119 121 125
Secrets ofModern Chess Strategy; John Watson; Gambit 1998 Secrets ofPractical Chess; John Nunn; Gambit 1998 Lasker's Manual of Chess; Emmanuel Lasker; Dover 2003 Modern Chess Strategy; Ludek Pachman; Pitman 1968 El Mediofuego en Ajedrez; Euwe and Kramer; Ediciones Limitadas Catalan 1984 My System; A. Nimzowitsch; David McKay Company 1947 The Praxis ofMy System; A. Nimzowitsch; Dover 1962 Tratado General de Ajedrez (4 Volumes); Roberto Grau; Editorial Sopena 1982 The Art ofSacrifice in Chess; Rudolf Spielmann; Dover 1995 A Guide to Chess Endings; Max Euwe and David Hooper; Dover 1976 Grandmaster Preparation; Lev Polugaevsky; Pergamon 1981 Botv innik's Best Games (3 Volumes); Mikhail Botvinnik; Moravian Chess 2001 Ajedrez en la Cumbre; Tigran Petrosian; Ediciones Eseuve 1989 Smyslov's 125 Selected Games; Vasily Smyslov; Cadogan Books 1994 Endgame Strategy; Shereshevsky; Cadogan Chess 1994 Paul Keres: The Road to the Top; Paul Keres; Batsford 1996 Opening Preparation; Dvoretsky and Yusupov; Batsford 1994 The Application of Chess Theory; Y.P. Geller; Pergamon Press 1984 Capablanca; Edward Winter; McFarland 1989
List of symbols t !! !? ?!
1-0
1/2-1/2
0-1 (ch)
(z) (izt) (01) (n)
Check A strong move A brilliant move An interesting move A dubious move A mistake A blunder White won The game was drawn Black won Championship Zonal Interzonal Olympiad nth match game
Foreword Deceived foUl
'""0"8
I still remember how excited I felt as a child at the magic moment of opening any chess book. What was shown there represented for me the key to gaining access to the hidden secrets of the royal game: new positional concepts, interesting opening systems, wonderful tactical blows, beautiful endgames. I eagerly devoured all the treasures I could find. I blindly believed in what the books said. Then, when I got to the playing hall and tried to apply the knowledge thus acquired to my own games, I usually found myself confronted with enormous difficulties: it was not as easy as I had been led to believe. At the beginning we only blame the deficiencies in our game on some vague flaw of our own, when applying in practice what we learnt in theory. Given time, young talents are expected to acquire greater ability and precision in this field, and therefore improve their results. However, time itself turns from an ally into an enemy: in the eyes of others, one is not making progress at the expected rate. People then talk about the promising young player reaching the limit of his potential. These turn out to be difficult years in no-man's land. But life goes on and if one is really passionate about what one is doing, one keeps playing and studying, with more or less intensity, the art of chess. Stages come and go: the apprentice becomes a FIDE Master, then an International Master and eventually a Grandmaster and surprisingly . . . one discovers that one has been deceived all along. It turns out that from that entire array of books that captivated us in our childhood, only a few were really worthwhile, and even these were full of lies and mistakes. The latter are caused by several reasons: the authors' lack of chess strength, scant ability to pass on their knowledge, superficial analysis, etc. This can have a damaging and enduring impact on our development as chess players. The present book has as its goal, first of all, to warn the reader about this aspect: if one is not ready to confront the study of any material in a critical, deep and creative way, to think and research for oneself, one is doomed to the most resounding failure.
8
True Lies in Chess
Secondly, in the present work I mount a staunch defence of chess ideas in the form of strategic concepts, positional principles, philosophies of the game, etc. Of late there has been a dangerous tendency to give clear precedence to concrete analysis over the written word. I would like to quote Lasker's opinion about this topic: "A spirit with a large and roomy brain who without error could keep in mind millions of variations would have no need of planning. Frail, weak man can clearly keep in mind only half a dozen variations since he has but little time to spare for Chess. And if he by chance had more time for it and in addition had genius for the game, to see through hundreds of variations would turn his brain. His reason was not made to be a substitute for a printed table. His mind has a marvellous faculty which enables him to conceive deep and far-sighted plans without being subject to the necessity of examining every possibility." [Lasker's Manual of Chess] The faculty to which Lasker refers is abstraction. We human beings have developed an exceptionally powerful technique to treat complexity: we ab�tract from it. Unable to control complex objects in their entirety, we ignore the non-essential details, dealing instead with the ideal model of the object and focussing on its essential aspects. Thus language has been born, the concept and the principle is but a simplified view of reality in such a way that we can interact with it. Abstraction is an essential tool to handle the complex world of the 64 squares. In my view a well-annotated game is one that encompasses the sum of, on the one hand, rigorous analysis, and, on the other, a generous written expression of the positional ideas underlying them. In this book I have tried to tackle the games with the aforementioned criteria. Thirdly, and finally, this work is an appeal for the reader to be creative. The only beautiful thing in chess - or in any other discipline for that matter - is that which contributes something fresh and original to the field. What is already known becomes boring to us in the end. Fortunately enough, chess is a tremendously complex and rich game. And I say fortunately because it means that there are still new and surprising horizons to be discovered. In order to delve more deeply into the unknown one only needs to be brave and to believe in oneself. Therefore the reader will find interesting ideas and opinions that the author has been accumulating over years of experience. I hope that this introduction to the way a grandmaster thinks will be useful for all those who want to improve their chess. Grandmaster LIuis Comas Fabrego
Ci\apter I Do ttot TrU/t ttt,cr Ciailici
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by wany. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
The Buddha's Kalama Sutra
Ttt,e tip oP ttt,e icebera "Scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith, the one unpardonable sin." Thomas Henry HuxLey (1825-1895) English biologist In the games that appear in the classic manuals the analysis is usually too one-sided. History is always written by the winners and often their research lacks objectivity. Later treatises blindly copy these "exemplary games" thus reinforcing the transmission of the inaccurate, sometimes utterly false, knowledge they try to show. It is mosrly young players and those who do not trust their own strength who are likely to be the victims of this partiality, this lack of honesty and rigorousness in the analysis. But because the proof is in the pudding, I am going to show a series of examples for the readers to familiarize themselves with the substance of this problem. The next game, analysis and notes are from the books My System and Chess Praxis by Aron Nimzowitsch, and from Secrets ofModern Chess Strategy by John Watson. Naturally I have added my own opinions and corrections.
W Janowski • Nimzowitsch
St Petersburg 1 914, Nimzo-Indian [E43]
l.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 e6 3.lLlc3 .ib4 4.e3 b6 5 .id3 .ib7 6.lLlf3 .ixc3t 7.bxc3 d6 8.YNc2 .
10
True Lies i n Chess
The modern treatment of this variation starts with S.O-O 0-0 9. 4'ld2 4'lbd7 (9 ... 4'lc6 1 0.e4 e5 1 1 . 4'lb3) 1 0.e4 e5 1 1 .l"1el l"1eS 1 2.f3 4'lfS 13. 4'lfl , when White is slightly better: the knight can be transferred to the e3-square to target the important central points f5 and d5 without getting in the way of the plan based on the f3-f4 push.
8 ...4Jbd7 9.e4 e5
Do not Trust the Classics
1 1..ig5 h6 12 .id2 .
White has provoked a slight weakening in the black kingside. If instead 1 2. ii,h4?! l"1eS followed by the manoeuvre ... ttJd7-fS-g6 with a good game.
12... �e8 If Black tries to achieve a general blockade of the position with 1 2. . . c5 13.d5 g5, there would follow the manoeuvre 1 4.h4! 4'l h7 1 5 .hxg5 hxg5 1 6.g3! with the idea of �g2, l"1h l , ttl h2 and ii,e2 with strong pressure against the enemy kingside.
13.�ael
"Now the posmon has taken on features typical of a Nimzo-Indian Defence. Please note the role of Black's c-pawn. If Black has to play . . . c5 in order to force White to play d5, then White's queens ide pawns will be hard to attack, e.g., Black won't be able to play . . . 4'la5, . . . ii,a6, and . . . Wd7-c6 to attack the forward c-pawn. On the other hand, if White plays d5 without being provoked by . . . c5, Black gains two important advantages: a fine square c5 for his knights, and more importantly, the possibility of opening the position against White's queenside by . . . c6. See the note to Black's 1 3th move." (Watson)
10 .0-0 0-0 As we will see, the b7-bishop is not best placed here in this system. On the one hand Black does not have enough resources to force the advance d4-d5 that he so desires without having to resort to the move ... c7-c5, and on the other, the absence of this bishop from its original diagonal will considerably weaken the f5-square, a typical target in this kind of central pawn structure.
idea being I S. . . ttl xd3, exploiting the c4-pawn's weakness - Comas) I S.cxd5 4'lxd3 1 9 . ttl xd3 l"1cS "The point of this line is that White can liquidate his doubled c-pawns and still be left with a seriously backward pawn on an open file, an idea which applies to many positions and was first enunciated by Nimzowitsch." (Watson) Nevertheless it is still necessary to note that the position is far from being clear due to White still having chances of counterplay on the kingside, e.g. f2-f3, l"1g2 followed by g3-g4-g5. Despite being on an open file, the c3-pawn is invulnerable. a2) 1 4.l"1e2 - Nimzowitsch. And now: a2 I ) 14 . . . WeS 1 5.d5!? - Comas ( I 5.l"1fe l "White, with the utmost perseverance, continues the policy of marking time. However, Black also has a score to register; the chance for White to play f4 has receded into the dim future." Nimzowitsch)
13 4Jh7?! ...
In my opinion a dubious move. "The idea is still that Black would like White to play d5 without ... c5 being in, since 13 . . . c5 1 4.d5 gives White a free hand to prepare g4 and f4 with an attack." (Watson) Black had several interesting alternatives in order to try to provoke White's problematic d4d5 advance: a) 1 3 ... l"1e6 - Nimzowitsch (?!Comas) This move tries to increase the pressure on the e4point, while at the same time hindering the f2-f4 break, one of the basic plans at the disposal of the first player in this kind of position with its goal being to activate White's rooks and the bishop pair. Now: a I ) 1 4.d5? l"1eS 1 5 .l"1e2 4'lc5 1 6. ttJ e l c6 17.g3 cxd5 (I 7 ... ii, a6! and Black is clearly better, the
Time is a very important factor for carrying out our plans. At this point the advance is very promising since White's attack on kingside succeeds before Black's possible counterplay on the queenside. For instance: 15 . . . l"1e7 1 6. 4'lh4 ttJc5 ( I 6 ... WdS!? 1 7. 4'lf5 l"1eS I S .l"1e3!? with the alternative plan of bringing the rook to the g3-square to exploit the weakening that the move ... h6 caused on Black's kingside) 1 7. ttJ f5 l"1d7 I S . f4 exf4 1 9. ii,xf4 ( I 9. l"1xf4!?) 1 9 . . . 4'lg4 20.l"1f3 White is clearly better. a22) 14 . . . WfS!? (Watson) 1 5 .l"1fe l l"1aeS 1 6 . 4'l h4 g6 1 7.g3 Wg7 (Quite a curious method of solving several problems at once: the
11
weakness of the f5-square and the development of the queens ide, while increasing the pressure against White's d4 and e4 points in accord with Black's main plan) I S. 4'lg2 White is slightly better according to Watson. I think that after I S . . . 4'lh7!? (going after the weakness on d4: the idea is ... 4'lg5) Black has a very promising position: for example if 1 9 .Wa4 l"16e7 20 .Wxa7 then 20 . . . exd4!. a3) 1 4. 4'l h4 - Nimzowitsch (! Comas)
Exploiting the temporary weakness of the f5 square and planning the prophylactic move f2f3, firmly strengthening the e4-square: 14 . . . g6 1 5 .g3! (Comas - with the idea of securing the centre once and for all with 1 6. f3; the only line analysed by Nimzowitsch is 1 5 .f4, when he gives the following variations: 1 5 . . . exf4 1 6 . ii,xf4 WeS [ 1 6. . . 4'l h5 17.Wf2 l"1f6 I S .g3 g5 1 9 .e5 4'lxf4 20.gxf4 l"1xf4, winning; 1 6 . . . g5!?] 1 7.d5 l"1e7 I S . ii,xh6 ttJg4 1 9 . ii,g5 f6 20. ii,cl 4'lge5 Black has a good game) 1 5 ... WfS and now: a3 I) 1 6.f3!? (following a constructive strategy without any hurry) 1 6 . . . l"1aeS 1 7.l"1e2 c6! The idea is to play ... d6-d5, exploiting the remote situation of the h4-knight, with a complex game. If Black plays passively White will have a strong attack after l"1g2 and g3-g4. a32) 1 6 . f4! (this attack is completely j ustified in the given situation due to the poor location of the black forces) 16 . . .Wg7 ( I 6 ...l"1e7 1 7.c5! exf4 [ 1 7 . . . bxc5 I S.Exe5 dxe5 1 9.Wb3 with a winning advantage] I S.cxd6 cxd6 1 9 .9xf4 d5 20.e5 ttJe4 2 1 . ii,xe4 dxe4 22.f5 White is clearly better) 1 7.c5!
12
True Lies in Chess
In this sort of position sometimes one has to act very vigorously. The pawn is offered with the object of opening important lines for White's heavy pieces. The following variations show how dangerous White's attack is: a32 1 ) 1 7 ... bxc5 I S.f5! with a decisive advantage ( I S .dxe5 dxe5 19. CiJxg6 and White is clearly better). a322) 17 ... exf4 I S.d5 and White is clearly better. a323) 1 7 ... exd4 I S.cxd4 CiJxe4 1 9.c6 tiJxd2 20J'he6 tiJxfl 2 l .cxb7 �bS 22Jl:e7 tiJxg3 23.hxg3 Wxd4t 24.@g2 tiJc5 25 .i.xg6 and White is winning. a324) 17 .. J'l:e7 I S.Wa4! ( I S.cxd6 cxd6 1 9.fx:e5 dxe5 20.d5 and the position is unclear; IS.fx:e5 dxe5 1 9.Wcl @h7) I S . . . bxc5 1 9.fx:e5 dxe5 20.d5 �ee8 (20 ... tiJb6 2 1 .Wa3) 2 l .c4 and White is clearly better. b) 13 . . . tiJfS Nimzowitsch (! Comas)
knight to f5 and the f2-f4 break. Now: bl) 1 4.h3 �g6 1 5 . tiJh2 bl 1 ) 1 5 ... Ele7 16.f4 ( l 6. tLl g4 - Watson - is good: 1 6 . . . tLl xg4 1 7. hxg4 Wd7 I S.f3 and White is slightly better) 16 . . . exf4 1 7.i.xf4 WeS Is.ixh6 tiJxe4 and Black is slightly better according to Watson. b 1 2) 15 . . . Wd7!? 16.f4 ( I 6.f3?! tLl h5 Black has the initiative due to the weakness of the dark squares on the kingside) 1 6 ... exf4 1 7.ixf4 lDxf4 I S.1"lxf4 and White's position has more prospects. b 13) 1 5 . . . c5! 1 6.d5 i.cs Black's position is very good. b2) 14. lD h4!? Again this seems to me the most ambitious option. 1 4 ...c5!? (Exploiting the weakness of the unprotected white knight. If instead 1 4. . .tLlg6!? then White could either play 1 5 . CiJf5 tLl e7 1 6.�g3 and be slightly better, or 1 5 . tLl xg6!? fx:g6 which leads to a pawn formation that is very interesting: Black threatens to block the kingside by means of the advance ... g6-g5 . 1 6.c5!? One always has to keep an eye on the advance of the doubled pawns! [also interesting is 1 6. f4 with an initiative] 1 6 ...dxc5 17 .dxe5 �xe5 I S.f4 �e7 1 9.e5 �d7 2o.ic4t and White is clearly better.) After 1 4 . . . c5!? White has a choice: b2 1 ) 1 5.tLlf5 ( I 5.d5? tLl xd5) 1 5 ... cxd4 16.cxd4 tLl e6 or 1 6 ... exd4 with very complex positions. b22) 1 5 .dxe5!? Carrying out a plan that was played for the first time by Botvinnik. 1 5 . . . dxe5 1 6. tiJf5 tLl e6 1 7.f3
Do not Trust the Classics o f carrying out manoeuvres such as � e I -b 1 , 1"lfl dl and �d3-fl and i.d2-e3 with very promising positions. Note that Black cannot use the d4-square as a base of operations thanks to the doubled-pawn complex c4-c3. c) 13 . . . c6!? - (Comas)
Better was IS ... tLl f6! with the idea ...i.cS.
19.i.g4 ics This leads us to a different subject: good bishop versus bad bishop. This is quite an original alternative, which no other author has pointed out. Black prepares to answer White's plan (removing the knight from f3 followed by the advance of the f-pawn) with a break in the centre, leading to complex play.
2o.��M2 i.a6 21.g3 lLl4g6 22.ie2
14.h3 Watson recommends 14.g3 and I agree with him that it is a better option. There could follow 14 . . . tLlg5 (l4 ... Wf6!? seems an annoying move, trying to prevent lD h4 by putting pressure on d4, but 1 5 .tLlh4! exd4 [15 . . .tLlg5 1 6 . f4 exf4 1 7.i.xf4 with some initiative] 1 6.e5 tLl g5 17.ixg5 Wxg5 I S.f4 WdS 1 9.cxd4 and White is clearly better) and now: a) 1 5 .tLlh4 tLlf6 ( l 5 . . .tLl e6 16. tLl f5) 16.f3 and White is slightly better (Watson) . b) I prefer 1 5. tLlxg5 hxg5 1 6.Wdl and White is clearly better due to the weakness of the g5pawn. •..
A prophylactic move trying to prevent White's f2-f4 break. ( l 4 .. .'IWf6 - Nimzowitsch)
15.lLlh2 tiJe6 16.i.e3 c5!? The idea is to transfer the knight to d5 eventually, although there is also the possibility
If the truth be told, this manoeuvre can be carried out here because Black has good prospects on the kingside due to the not-very-fortunate sequence h3, tLlf3-h2 which consolidated the position of the black knight on f4. Now driving it away with g2-g3 is much more difficult to accomplish and, furthermore, the exchange would not be very advisable because of the weakness that would appear on the e5 -square right after this. The possibility Watson recommends, 16 . . .Wf6!?, was also interesting, and if 1 7. tLl g4, then ... Wh4 with the idea ... tLld7-f6, offering to exchange a minor piece, which in theory would benefit Black since he has less space to manoeuvre.
17.d5 tiJf4 IS.te2 tiJf8
1 4 lLlhfB
I think this is the best move as Black prevents White's most effective plans: the transfer of the
13
"Nimzowitsch shows a typically modern flexibility; if he can't force d5 without playing . . . c5, well, he'll play . . . c5 anyway, but at a time when he has kingside prospects!" (Watson)
The position is unclear. Apparently White has achieved all that he initially wanted: Black has only been able to force d4-d5 by ... c7-c5 (now it becomes obvious how difficult it is to put pressure on the "weak" c4-pawn) and secondly, it looks as if the advance f2-f4 will come sooner or later. But as the continuation of the game shows, Black has enough resources to fight against the aforementioned break. This is to a great extent because of the bad situation of White's h-pawn,
14
True Lies in Chess
which would be better off on its initial square. Moreover, the weakness of the pawn structure on the queenside takes its toll at the end of the game.
22 ... lLlh7 23.h4 lLlf6 24.i.d3 �bS 25.�e2 �b7 26..id �be7 A prophylactic manoeuvre to hinder White's plans.
27.'�hl .ics 2S.�gl @ffi 29.h5 lLlhS 30.g4 After this move White can no longer achieve the long desired £2-f4 under ideal conditions.
3o ... lLlh7 31..ic2?! If 3 1 .g5!? hxg5 32 ..ixg5 lLlxg5 33.l"lxg5 f6 34.!'! g3 lLlf7 35 .l"legl lLlg5! 36.lLlf3, then 36 ... lLlh3! and Black is dearly better.
31...�b7 32.f4 f6 Black's position is very solid.
33.fxe5?! dxe5 34.lLlf3 lLlf7 35.�ef1 @gS 36.lLlh4 lLld6 Black is now clearly better.
37.lLlfS i.xfs! In this sort of blockade position a good bishop is usually as ineffective as a bad one.
3S.gxf5 lLlg5 39 ..ixg5 hxg5 40.i.a4 �f8 41 ..ic6 �bS 42.a4 @f7 43.@g2 �hS 44.�hl �h6 45.�al �c7 46.@fl �bhS 47.@e3 @gS 4S.@d3 �f7 49.a5 �xh5 50.�xh5 �xh5 5 1.axb6 �h3t 52.@c2 axb6 53.�ast @h7 54.�dS fia7 55.�aS �f7 56. @b3 �h5 57.�xh5t �xh5 5S ..ieS lLlxeS 59.�xeS �h2 60.�aS g4 61 .�a1 @h6 62.@a4 @g5 63.@b5 @f4 64.�gl @xe4 65.�xg4t @xf5 66.�xg7 �b2t 67.@c6 e4 6S.d6 �d2 69.d7 e3 70.@xb6 e2 7 1.�e7 �xd7 nJhe2 �d3 73.�c2 �dl 112-1f2
What conclusions can be drawn and lessons learnt after studying this game? In my opinion, there are several:
1. Who among us, in our yourh, would dare challenge the great Nimzowitsch's authoriry and defend White's cause? Let me tell you: very few. Why? Because of what I told you before: classic games are usually annotated one-sidedly by the winners or by authors hardly bent on serious and
rigorous analysis, and in their notes everything goes the winner's, or alternatively the superior player's, way. When these games are subjected to serious investigation we can always find new ideas, correct established evaluations and discover mistakes that have passed unnoticed for several generations. It is precisely because of this that I would like to challenge the readers, daring them to play this sort of position with both colours. That's why I'm going to sum up the rypical plans for both sides from the main diagram after White's lyh move.
White - The f2-f4 break to activate both the rooks and the bishops (remember that when in possession of the bishop pair one has to open up the position-always with caution, though) and begin an attack on Black's king. - The transfer of the white knight to the outpost on f5 followed by: A piece attack on the kingside via l"le l-e3-g3. A pawn storm on that flank, going after the comact point on g5 with f2-f3, g2-g4 and l"le l e2-g2. - The sacrifice c4-c5 to activate the bishop on c4 and disrupt Black's pawn structure. - A pawn storm with the pieces posted behind the pawns; for instance g2-g3, lLlh4 (e l)-g2 and f2-f4. - In the event of Black playing ... c7-c5, the possibiliry of taking dxe5(c5) and playing for the central d5-square.
Black - To put pressure on White's centre with the aim of provoking the positional concession d4d5, if possible without having to resort to the move ... c7-c5. - To take prophylactic measures against White's aforementioned plans, of which the move lLl f3h4 is the common element. - The innovative plan of going for the central break ... c6, ... d6-d5 while White is preparing his attack on the kingside: the only place where the latter actually has any prospects.
Do not Trust the Classics - Th e total blockade o f the position to exploit the superioriry of the knights in this sort of structure, by means of the move ... c7-c5.
2. A series of plans and rypical procedures that can be extrapolated to similar positions. 3. I think it is interesting to highlight one of the differences, not very often understood, between strategy and tactics. When speaking about strategy we ask ourselves, what and when; when speaking about tactics, how. Let's see again the position of the main diagram after White's l 3th move: what does Black want? To provoke White's undesirable advance d4-d5. How can this objective be pursued? In several ways: . . . c7c5, . . . l"le8-e6, . . .lLl f6-h7-f8-e6 or with the move ... lLld7 -f8-g6 in the long term. 4. There is no absolute truth and therefore no principle is inviolable. I say this because of the fact that Black's move ... c7-c5 almost always seemed unfortunate, as it left White with a free hand to attack on the kingside. And I say "almost" because I agree that this move is generally bad except when, for instance, a white pawn arrives on h3 or Black has a good grip on the f4square. For White too, d4-d5 is almost always bad if ... c7-c5 has not been played by Black, except when the black pieces are unfortunately placed and this move is useful to stabilize the centre and quickly launch an attack on the kingside. And, if you do not believe what I said in my last point, consider the following investigations.
"To think is to disobey already; to disobey is to think by oneself" Alexandre Dumas ( 1 802-1 870) French novelist Thoughts culled from Nimzowitsch's My System. In his discussion on doubled pawns, about the position in the diagram Nimzowitsch comments:
15
"To d4-d5 and c4 the answer will be ... b6 and the further advance c5 we had planned is shown to be impossible of execution. If a white pawn had been at b2 instead of c2 the close advance d4-d5 followed by c4, b4 and c5 would have been possible."
And he cominues: "What we have just learnt about the chief weakness of compact (easily defendable) double pawns (which we would class as active, or dynamic, weaknesses) enable us to formulate this rule, that it pays to incite the possessor of a pawn-mass, whose attacking value is lessened by the presence of doubled pawns, to an advance." Later on he adds: "We must differemiate an active and a passive (static) weakness. Let us imagine in the previous diagram a white pawn on d5 instead of d3, a white king at gl and a rook at e2, and a black king at f8 and a rook at c8. Here the static weakness of the double pawn is great; for after 1 . ..c6 2.dxc6 l"lxc6 or 1 . ..c6 2.c4 cxd5 3.cxd5 l"lc3 followed by ... l"la3, Black will in either case get the advamage. The rule is therefore: given a passive weakness in doubled pawns, an advance against these pawns is indicated, whereby the dissolution or undoubling of the enemy doubled pawns need cause us no fear. The evil is in fact only half dissipated, a part of the weakness is got rid of; but for what remains behind, the player has to suffer the heavier penance." Doesn't this ring a bell? It is very similar to what we have seen in the previous game. Getting back to the point, from all this we can conclude that nobody in his right mind should
Do not Trust the Classics
True Lies i n Chess
16
dare play as White the manoeuvre d3-d4-dS since this would provoke Nimzowitsch's much trumpeted static and dynamic weaknesses. But let's see what happens in the following variation of the Four Knights:
� Spassky * Gligoric
Sarajevo 1 9S6, Ruy Lopez [C49]
l.e4 eS 2.li:lc3 li:lf6 3.ti.:lO li:lc6 4..tbS .tb4 5.0-0 0-0 6.(2) 32.�b5 'it>d7 33.Gtlxd5 Gtlxd5 34.ha4 ttJb6 35 .�b3 �xd4 and the position is unclear. Well then, White must have done something wrong? Bur it is very difficult to find objective and honest answers if one is not ready to acknowledge one's mistakes. And I think Botvinnik's book on occasion has this blemish.
28
True Lies in Chess
To play chess well is not the same as understanding what happens on the board In the previous game there ate two very interesting moments: I am referring to the assessments the author makes regarding the moves 1 2... a5 and 23.h4. In the first one Borvinnik gives the right evaluation of this move but he is unable to put down in words why it is good; whereas in the second one we are again confronted with the strongest alternative but this time its motivation is wrong. This raises the curious paradox that we can have mistaken theoretical ideas, or none at all, about what we do, and yet do it well. How is this possible? Human beings have two types of knowledge: theoretical and practical. For instance: it is almost certain that we can all ride a bicycle-practical knowledge-without the need to know Newton's laws of mechanics-theoretical knowledge. In order to ride a bike only a good deal of patience and a lot of practice are required. We can completely ignore the physical principles that keep the bicycle balanced. On the other hand, the sort of practical knowledge gained by years of experience in the vicissitudes of our game has a rather unspoken character, and we have great difficulties when we rry to express this experience in statements of theoretical knowledge. As Professor of Philosophy Juan Antonio Rivera puts it, "When we attempt these transfers there are important spillages of informative liquid, which have to do with the specific circumstances in which the practical learning took place and with which ones were crucial for this to take place." There are many authors who have huge practical knowledge but whose theoretical knowledge is fairly poor. Many of them shield their limitations by publishing collections of their own games. Why? Firstly, because it is easier and secondly because very often they don't know what to tell us, or how. Many of these books, although they usually have a high standard of analysis, tell us very few things that are really interesting and
useful. Haven't you ever had the feeling that after having read some of these game collections that you haven't learnt a single thing? Isn't it much more pleasant and useful to read any of the books written by Dvoretsky or Nimzowitsch or Watson? These authors have deep theoretical knowledge and strong practical ability. What's my complaint? Very few top players have written good theoretical books on our game. I'm starting to surmise that in fact they play very well, but that's where their talent ends. I hope I am wrong. Kasparov has been one of the few who has made a considerable effort in this respect. I would like to reproduce his opinion about the task that famous chess players should tackle: "Because nothing is more important, there's no more beautiful goal for an eminent chess player than to transmit his experience to others who will come after him. Indeed, the main thing in chess (as in any other human sphere, on the other hand) is to keep what has been accumulated, increase it, and pass it on to those who will come afterwards." The problem is that if a player is unable to put into words his practical knowledge, how is he going to be able to pass it on to future generations? In chess the only important thing is the search for truth. I'm sorry, it's not enough that you tell me you play chess very well (or you ride a bicycle very well, for that matter). Show me that you have a really interesting opinion on our game to share. That is, if you can, of course...
Cttapter 2
Tttcr blocl\adcrd pallcrd paw'\. The topic of passed pawns, closely related to the idea of the blockade, was studied in detail by Nimzowitsch. What he proved back then, that passed pawns could be either strong or weak depending on the extent to which they could be controlled and blockaded, is still "rrue" to this day. Let's discuss the following position:
puts pressure on the important e4-pawn. It is protected from the attack of the enemy forces and supporrs the central break ... f7-f5 , with the subsequent weakening of the d5-pawn, and the expansion of the black queenside by means of an eventual . . . b6-b5. Another drawback in White's type of pawn position is that it is static and often ends up simply obstructing his own forces (note the lack of activity of the c3-knight; just as a mental exercise, let' s imagine eliminating the d5-pawn) . This is, more or less, the impression gathered from the current middlegame strategy manuals (John Watson's Secrets ofModern Chess Strategy or his predecessor, Nimzowitsch's My System) : that if one can firmly place a knight on the square in front of the passed pawn the position is good and without problems, even slightly better. Such an assertion would be insufficient and superficial and because of this I would like to qualify some of the points that have been mentioned before continuing.
Traditionally positions like this, with a passed pawn and without any weaknesses in White's camp, were considered advantageous for the first player. But nowadays it is well known that the ideal situation of the black knight can balance things out, and even give the advantage to Black. This is mainly because of the excellent blockading position this knight occupies, from where it
1. The central break ... f7 -f5 is not so easy to carry out given that it entails in many cases the weakening of several vital points in Black's camp, among them the e5 -pawn, leaving it at the mercy of the enemy attack, and the e6-square, which can become an excellent outpost for an enemy piece. Moreover the safety of Black's king is compromised.
30
True Lies in Chess
2. The expansion of Black's queenside by means of . . . b6-b5 may also lead to difficulties. If Black blithely pushes his pawns in this part of the board, they run a great risk of losing touch with the rest of Black's army. Why? It turns out that the "harmless" d5 -pawn is a difficult obstacle to avoid for the black pieces that have to move from the kingside to the queenside in order to effectively support an offensive there. In fact in many cases it is White who launches a minority attack on this flank exploiting the control of the half-open c-file and Black, far from thinking of attacking, has to deal with much less ambitious tasks.
is a world full of nuances that can only be acquired through continuous practice and study. One cannot come to the game armed just with a handful of general principles and expect to play well. 1 am going to show a series of examples where the blockaded passed pawn had great significance in the outcome of the fight.
rT\!t\.orit., attac,," h5 'lWh2t 67.@g4 b3 68.ge1 Wfc2! 69.@h5 'lWxe4 70.�xe4 tLJc2 71.gxe5 b2 72.ge7t @f8 73.gxc7 bl'IW 74.gc8t @e7 75.gc7t @d8 76.gd7t @e8 77.gxd6 tLJd4 0-1
29 ...hxg5 30."lMfxa4
21 .g3! Preventing the possible counterplay . . . "lMfd8h4: from there the queen would exert unpleasant pressure along the opponent's 4th rank and on the f2-square; on top of that Black could also offer to trade the dark-squared bishops with . . .i,g7-h6.
2 1 . 'lWfG 22.'lWd3 tLJd4 .•
In this position the centralized knight's supposed advantage is more of an optical illusion, rather than a real one, because it will never be able to work effectively with the rest of Black's uncoordinated army. It is very instructive to see how Ivanchuk, through a careful combination of prophylactic play and attacking actions, creates many problems for the opponent. Better was 22 . . ...th6! fighting for equality.
23.@g2!
If 23.i,b2? then 23 . . . !1a2 24.i,xd4 exd4 25.f4 !1fa8 and White's position is very unpleasant.
23 ... ga4!? With this manoeuvre Black gains control of the a-file; bur as we are about to see, White has enough resources to control the invasion
Without any doubt this is the best move of the game. With the text White makes the plan !1fl-h1 followed by h4-h5 feasible, thanks to the overprotection of the f2-square; but at the same rime the move manages to neutralize, once and for all, the enemy actions along the a-file. It is very important to note that the possible pressure Black could exert along the 3'd rank after, say, ... !1f8-a8 and ... !1a4-a3 is totally ineffectual as on this part of the board White has no weakness. Moreover, the potential invasion of White's f3square by the d4-knight would have no bearing on the play.
25 ...tLJf5 If 25 . . . !1fa8 then 26.i,g5 "IMf£7 27.!1h 1 !1a3 28."lMfd l ! (the idea is h4-h5; if 28."lMfb l then
If 30 . . . "lMfxh5 then 3 1 .�xh5 @g8 32.i.c l lLld4 33.i,xh6 and White is clearly better. The following manoeuvre can only be described as brilliant and shows the Ukrainian's immense talene. It is a shame that his nerves have prevented him from achieving even greater success in his chess career, as he certainly deserves it.
31 .'lWxf7t �xf7 32.Ad2 gfG 33J'lbbl !!
True Lies in Chess
so
This is the key. White will gain control of the a-file, along which he will threaten to develop very unpleasant pressure. It is symptomatic that Black's a3-rook is ineffective, cut off from the rest of the army.
Cttapter �
33 .!!a2 34.�hdl! lLld4 35.�al �xal ••
3S . . .!:1b2 36J 1a7 and White wins.
36.�xal lLlb3 37.�a8t �f8 38.�xf8t hf8 39 .ie3 lLld4 40.b5! •
Neutralizing any kind of counterplay that the second player might initiate after ... b7-bS. White wins now thanks to the weakness of both the h6-pawn and the hS-square, which he so cleverly provoked in the middlegame.
40 ... lLlb3 41.'ifih3 lLlc5 42.J.f5 ttla4 43.'ifig4 1-0
If 43 . . .ttl b2 then 44.�hS ttl xc4 4S ..txh6 with an easy win. By any standards, an impressive game by Ivanchuk, one of the great geniuses of our time.
The phase of the game that has evolved least during the last 90 years is undoubtedly the endgame. I would even say that recently there has been a regression in the quality of play during this phase of the game, and I'm not talking only at the amateur level but also among grandmasters and even in the world elite. What factors have influenced this deterioration? I don't believe we can blame it on one particular cause, but rather on a group of them: the ever quicker time controls, the disappearance of adjournments, the explosion of chess information through the Internet that in general only favours the study of the openings, and lastly, the rise of a certain type of chess player, characterized by his pragmatism and, very often, his lack of interest in the search for truth. The chess player confronted with an endgame is like a traveller faced by a desert: a vast expanse ahead, stretching beyond what the eyes can see, and many paths to choose leading only to disaster. How important it is to make the right choices from the very first moment, to know how to read the subtle signals of the path, and to be aware of where one is heading! In comparison, the middlegame is more like a jungle: this landscape determines, to a certain extent, your next steps. The ending is the paradigm of strategic play; it is because of this that the final stage of the contest is the worse-handled one by the current programs, characterized by their more or less acute short sightedness.
In line with this, the relaxation in the study and investigation of the endgame is also influenced by the presence ofa wide range ofclassic books, wrinen by renowned authors who enjoy excellent reviews, as well as the general and implicit impression that on this subject everything has already been said. In fact, we might think that due to the limited number of pieces at this stage that it is fairly easy to discover a mathematically correct solurion to the diverse scenarios we might face. It is true that nowadays there are tablebases containing perfect analyses for every kind of ending with up to six pieces on the board. Bur let the reader make no mistake: most of the positions we find in practical play belong to the so-called complex endgames, that is, those characterized by the presence of a great number of pieces and pawns on the board, and it is precisely in these where it is extremely complicated to extract the truth, all the trurh and nothing but the truth. Why is it so important to carry out a rigorous and thorough investigation of endgames? Let's see what Smyslov has to say: "My father instilled in me the pleasure of the analysis of the so-called 'simple' positions, those in which few pieces participate... For a novel player, to remember the value and the movement of the pieces is not difficult. But to feel their peculiarities, to know the type of positions where they can develop all their potential and those where they are ineffective, what they like and dislike, to understand and feel all this is much more difficult bur also much more important."
True Lies in Chess
52
The problem is that most treatises are not as rigorous as they should be and therefore one is given a distorted picture of the position under study, which may lead to subsequent problems when it comes to correctly understanding the situation we face at the board. I am now going to show a series of examples where analyses and the alleged, and universally accepted, superiority of the bishop pair are called into question. Please don't misunderstand me: I would be the first to defend the effectiveness of the bishops. I am simply telling you that nothing is as easy as some would have you believe ...
l'\.C!ittter 10 li"lP1C! 'lor 10 clear This position, taken from Nimzowitsch's My System, was included subsequently in Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. It is shown as an example of the bishop pair's superiority in positions where the pawn structures are not optimal.
� Harmonist * Tarrasch Breslau l SS9
by restricting the white knight on f3 and then exchanging it." I totally disagree with the evaluation given in these two manuals; if Black achieved victory, it was because of White's weak play and not for any other reason. I think that both authors were strong enough to understand this and either they analysed the position superficially or, what is worse, they chose the example knowing that the suggested conclusions were false.
29.tlJg3?!
making the e3-square available for the king with the idea of containing the advance of the enemy monarch. For instance, if 2S . . ..ib 1 then 29.a3 �b5 30.liJf3 h3 3 1 .g4.
Let's see a very similar example annotated by the authors of another celebrated book.
28 ...ibl 29.a3 Ad3t
� Taubenhaus • Tarrasch Monte Carlo 1 903
30.@el
29... tlJh4 30.tlJxh4 hh4 3 1 .tlJe4 Why not 3 1 .liJh5 �f5 (3 l . ...ig2 32.liJg7t �d7 33.liJf5 .idS 34.liJxh6) 32 .�g3 �dS (32 ... .ie7 33.liJg7t �g6 34.f5t �xg7 35.f6t .ixf6 36.exf6t and the position is equal) 33.liJf6 .ig2 34.h4, when the black king has no way to penetrate? Remember that without the king you can hardly win any ending. What was wrong with 34.liJf6?
34 ... @d5 35.tlJfl 35.liJf6t ixf6 36.exf6 .ixh3 and now it is not so clear because Black can combine threats on both sides.
35 ... h5 36.�f.3 .ifS 37.@e3 37.liJdl was still interesting, the idea being 37 ....ixh3 38.liJe3t �e6 39. �e4 h4 40.�h2 with compensation. The white army's centralization is an element to take into account.
37 ... b5
[email protected] a5 39.@e3 b4
[email protected] @c6! The black king is heading for the a4-square with devastating consequences; the pressure he will exert from there will force White to improve Black's weakened queenside pawn structure.
53
41.axb4 cxb4 42.cxb4 axb4 43.tlJe4 @d5 44.tlJd6 hd6 45.exd6 c3 46.bxc3 h3 0-1
Interesting was 29 ..ig3!? When one has a space advantage it is generally good to avoid exchanging pieces. This was one of those cases, because Black is unable to continue making progress. Another option to secure the draw was to exploit the possibility of reaching an endgame with opposite-coloured bishops. Based on this idea it was entirely feasible to play 29.liJd6 .ixd6 (29 . . ..ixf3 30.f5t; 29 ... f5 30.liJcS) 30.exd6 f5 (30 . . .�xf3 3 l .f5t) 31 .liJe5 and the position is balanced; if 3 l . . .liJ fS then 32.d7.
31 ...il.e7 32..igl il.c6 33.il.fl il.d7 34.Ag3
Let's see what Watson has to say: "Black has two bishops, but his majority is crippled (from an earlier ... dxc6 in the Ruy Lopez), and White's knights are reasonably centralized. Nevertheless, Black has excellent winning chances. He begins
Final Conclusions?
This ending is included in A Guide to Chess Endings by Max Euwe and David Hooper. It is interesting to read what they write because I think this book is a valuable guide for this rype of ending. "When there are no passed pawns, the bishops can still win if there is no central outpost for the knight and the king can penetrate. Here Black invades through d5-e4-d3, due mainly to the slight weakening of White's pawn structure derived from the middlegame; but very often the bishops by themselves have the ability to provoke such weaknesses to create access routes for their king." All very well, but this is in contrast with the authors' slackness in the search for truth, in the form of a better defence for White in this position.
28.tlJf.3?! In view of what has been said in the above note, undoubtedly much better was 2S . .if2!
30. �d2 was better. The white king has to be near e3. After 30 ....ifl 3 1. .�f2 (3 1 .g4 hxg3 32.hxg3) 3 l ....ixg2 32.liJxh4 .ie4 33.�e3 �d5 34.liJf3 I don't see why White should lose this position.
30 ....ie4 31 .@e2 il.d3t 32.@el ie4 33.@e2 id3t 34.@el @d5 35.il.fl h3 36.g3 b6 37.tlJgl White could at least try! 37.liJg5 .ixg5 3S.fxg5 and Black is better, but is he winning? It is difficult to answer this question without deep analysis but I think that this option should at least have been mentioned.
37 ... .ifS 38.tlJf.3 �e4 Please make yourself comfortable!
39.tlJdlt @d3 40.tiJfl il.e4 41.tlJe3 il.e7 42.g4 h5 43.g5 a5 44. �dl b4 45.cxb4 cxb4 46.axb4 axb4 47.tlJc2 c3 48.bxc3 b3 0-1 It is undeniable that White played horribly in this game. I'm not sure this was the best example for an endgame manual . . . I now want t o study what is undoubtedly the most celebrated fight between two bishops and
54
True Lies in Chess
two knights. The conclusions reached so far are anything but clear.
'it' Lasker * Chigorin Hastings 1 895
Final Conclusions?
in what one says, because it is useful to encourage the readers to take a critical view of every work, no matter how famous its author might be. By the way, let's not forget that chess is a game that teaches us to think for ourselves - leave automatic reactions fo r Fritz and company. Lastly, I would like to attack the study of this interesting position from a new point of view: most books talk about the tremendous battle of the bishops against the knights that took place in it; for me the main actors in this game were the rooks, and their fierce fight to reach favourable positions and neutralize the action of the enemy heavy pieces, and it is from this new perspective that I would like the reader to confront the analysis of this game.
22.hxg6 tLJxg6 23.d5! and White i s clearly better) 2 1 .h5 (2 1 .i.cl ga6 22.a3 E1a5 is just in time) 2 1 . . .ga6 22.hxg6 gxa2 with counterplay. You will say: of course this is the result of violating a strategic principle. I would like you to notice the radical change that the evaluation of this variation would suffer if the little pawn on a2 were instead on a3 (even better if the id2 were on c l , of course) : Black would then not have enough time to neutralize the advance h4-h5 and therefore he would face unpleasant problems. Overblown strategic principles usually crumble because of such trivial details. b) 1 9 ... fxg6!?
18.!!agl?!
This is one of the most famous endings, and is often reproduced in chess manuals. I would like to share my opinion regarding the quality of the analyses in a couple of them. The first one, Roberto Grau's Tratado General de Ajedrez: Estrategia Superior, is a book which, as already noted in this work, has a high quality in the way the different topics are presented but not so much in the content itself. In this game, for instance, the author is unable to identify any of the several mistakes that exist and to propose alternatives accordingly, supporting them with notes and above all with adequate analysis. Moreover the evaluation he makes of the position is also mistaken. I am sorry to say that these mistakes are repeated throughout the treatise rather too often. The second book I will mention is much better: it is the celebrated work by Mikhail Shereshevsky Endgame Strategy but even here I think there are plenty of mistakes. It is obviously very difficult to unravel the truth in chess, but I think that authors should make every possible effort to reach it, that is, to get deeper in the analysis, and secondly they should acknowledge that one can be completely wrong
Better was 1 8.f5, a move suggested by Shereshevsky. With the bishop pair it is almost always necessary to open up the position ... But what I'm most interested in now is what Lasker might have been thinking to prefer the text move to this sound alternative. I suspect that one of the problems he faced when trying to reach a decision was that he thought that perhaps there was a direct solution in the form of an attack along the g-file. That is, he overestimated White's advantage. And very possibly he only realized too late that things were not going to be that easy. Well, I also think that the situation arising after 1 8 .!!ag1 is still better for White but to a lesser extent than after 1 8.f5 . I say this because if one looks a t the analysis Shereshevsky made of the position, one reaches the conclusion that after the best moves for both sides Black could end up reaching a better position at one point: or at least he doesn't suggest anything better for White.
18 ... c4 19 .ic2 •
It is very interesting to analyse the alternative 19 . .L:g6!? It is very likely that this move takes the reader aback: why exchange one of the bishops, and the good one at that? The aim of the move is either to try and activate the white rooks or, failing that, to cripple Black's pawn structure. There are two main variations: a) 1 9 ... hxg6 20.h4 gc6! (20 ... tLJc6 2 1 .h5 tLJe7
55
the board without finding any effective post. b2) 20.gg5!? gc6 2 1 .ga5 a6 (2 l . ..gb6 22.gxa7 gb2 23.dl with the subsequent expulsion of the black rook) 22.gb 1 (22.e4 gb6!) 22 ... gf5 23.ge5! Were it not for this square, Black would have a satisfactory position; as it is, he is clearly worse. b3) 20.gb 1 ! A prophylactic move whose aim is to neutralize the action of Black's rooks while keeping White's active. 20 ... gc6 (20 ... gf5 A natural move to activate the black rook along the 5th rank, but 2 1 .gg5! and Black has no time to drive the rook away from this position with . .. h7-h6 or ... tLJd8-f7: after e3-e4 his position is worse) 2 1 .gb4 ga6 22.a4! followed by e3-e4 with advantage.
19 £5 20.�c1?! ...
At first sight this looks like a strange decision: White can now create an impressive centre after e3-e4 and, more importantly, has the possibility of obtaining a better king in the future, thanks to that very centre. But if we analyse the position dynamically we will realize that this centre will essentially lack mobility. What is the key to this position? The rooks. When they are still on the board in the endgame the activity they can achieve usually ends up being very important for the outcome of the game. I will try and show this with the analysis of the following variations. b I ) 20.e4?! A natural and bad move. 20 ... gc6! 21 .gb 1 ga6 22.gb2 (22.gb4 gxa2 23.gxc4 gxf4) 22 ... tLJ f7! (Preventing the possible activation of the E1g3 through g5 and b5.) 23.f3 b6 with the idea . . . gc8, .. .';!;>f8-e7 and ... ga6-a5 and this rook will be tremendously effective along the yh rank due mainly to the vulnerability of the a2- and h2pawns, while the white rooks would drift across
White's play seems inconsistent to me. 20.e4?! is an attempt to open lines and activate the white rooks and bishops, even at the cost of weakening the pawn structure. There might follow 20 ... gc7!, using the weakness of the f4-pawn in order to stabilize the position. 2 1 .exf5 exf5 22.E1g5 E1cf7! But why not 20.h4? This is a very natural move which none of the aforementioned authors has suggested. 20. . J"lf7 2 1 .h5 tLJe7 (2 l . ..tLJf8 seriously weakens the control of f5 against an eventual e3-e4) 22.f3 followed by e3-e4 with a firm grip on the position. Black's play would be very constrained: the black knights lack effective and stable outposts. A possible variation could be 22 ... b6 (22 . . . E1c6 23.ia4 wins for White) 23.e4 tLJb7 24.ic1 h8 25.ia3 when White is slightly better. It is possible that Lasker was afraid that in variations of this nature he might have some problem in the future with the defence of his h-pawn against an eventual manoeuvre like ... tLJe7 -g8-f6. Statically the reasoning is sound but such a manoeuvre also entails a destabilization of important central points, d5 and f5 , as well as dangerously removing the black king from the centre of the board. Put in another way: I think that the white pieces' activity would prevent Black from carrying out such active plans. For instance 25 ... tLJg8 26.exf5 exf5 27.d2 tLJe7 28.gel and White is clearly better.
56
True Lies in Chess
20 ... !H7 2 1 ..ia3 Very interesting was 2 1 .i.a4!? to prevent Black's following manoeuvre; it also secured White the advantage. For instance, 2 1 . ..'tk6 22 . .ia3 with the initiative.
21 ...!k6!! If this game is exemplary for any reason in particular, it is because of the ability Chigorin showed in handling the rooks, compared to his opponent. The rook is heading for a6 and, thanks to the pressure this piece will exert, any active operations by the opponent in the centre and queens ide will be hindered.
22..ie5 �a6! If 22 ... a6? then 23.Elb l ! (23 ..ia4 b5 24.ic2 is the variation Shereshevsky suggests, with the idea a2-a4 and opening lines on the queenside for the heavy pieces, although the position is far from clear after, for instance, 24 ... lLl b7 25 .ia3 [25.i.b4 a5 26.ia3 liJe7] 25 ... l2Je7 26.he7 Elxe7 27.Elb l lLld6) Now there might follow 23 ... lLl fS (23 ... Eld7 24 ..ib6!; 23 . . .lLl e7 24.i.b6!) 24.i.b6 �cS 25 . .ixdS! ElxdS 26.Elb6 and White is clearly better.
23.a4 tlJe6 24J�b 1 �d7 25.�ggl tlJge7 26.�b2 I do not understand why the reasonable possibility 26.i.xe7!? was not even considered by the commentators.
26 ... tlJd5 27.<j;ldl �a5 28.�gb1 b6 29 ..ia3
I understand this move but I don't like it. Black tries to stabilize f5 once and for all against an eventual e3-e4. But why not carry out a similar rook manoeuvre on the kingside? 29 . . .1'H7! 30.�b5 �f6! followed by ... �h6 with a very good position: 31 .�xa5 liJxa5 3U'lb5 �h6 33.i.xf5 lLlc7
30.�b5 �a6 Shereshevsky considers 30 ... Elxb5!? to be dubious because it opens the a-file to White's advantage. My question is: what benefit can White gain from opening this file? I think that it is a lack of understanding of the real value of open files and the activity of the rooks. The defence of the b5-pawn is more problematic than that of the a7and c4-pawns. Why? Because Black can defend these pawns while maintaining the flexibility of his pieces. White cannot do likewise: he has to invest the activity of his pieces on the defence of his advanced pawn.
31..ic1? White knows there is little to do on the queenside and tries to revitalize the manoeuvre e3-e4. The idea is good but the tactical execution is clearly inaccurate. Much better was 3 1 .Ela I ! lLldS 32.�bb l lLl f7 33.�g l ! (White has ro prevent ...g6-g5!) followed by .icl , Ela3, f2-[3, 'it>e2 and e4.
31...tlJd8 32.�a1 tlJf7 33.�bb1 tlJd6 Here Shereshevsky's 33 ... g5! was much better.
34.fXg5 lLlxg5 35.i.b2 liJe4t! 36.ixe4 fXe4 and White ends up with the bad bishop. The rook on a6 has annoying pressure on the a4-pawn and an excellent path to move along the 5rh rank. That's why I said at the beginning of the game that it was almost always good to open up the position with the bishop pair.
34.£3 tlJf7?! Shereshevsky recommends 34 . . . Elf7, but obviously it is not as strong as on move 29. If instead 34 . . .Elg7 (with the idea of playing . . . g6-g5) 35 ..ia3 lLl f7 36.e4! lLlxf4 37.�b4, White is clearly better.
35.�a3! g5?? Now this move is a decisive mistake!
36.<j;le2! Bad was 36.fXg5 lLlxg5 37.lite2 �g7 3S.e4 fXe4 39.fXe4 lLlf6 according to Shereshevsky. For example: 40.i.xg5 Elxg5 4 1 .�f1 �g2t 42.�f2 �xf2t 43.'it>xf2 Ela5! What a rook!
36...gxf4 37.e4 tlJf6 38 ..ixf4 tlJh5 39..ie3? I agree with Shereshevsky's suggestion 39.�gl t
IitfS 40.i.cl and White has everything: centre, better king and now better rooks.
39 ...£4 40.i.fl �a5 Shereshevsky recommends 40 . . . e5! (the idea being 4 1 .Elgl t 'it>fS 42.dxe5 lLlxe5 43.�g5 �d2t!) but after 4 1 .a5 White manages to weaken Black's structure on the queens ide and gets a big plus.
41 .�glt <j;lfS 42.gaa1? I think Lasker got almost no moves right with his rooks. Much better was 42.e5 (Shereshevsky) 42 . . . b5 43.�gal and White is clearly better (43.�aal favours White too).
42 e5 •..
Now Black manages to block the posmon again!
43.�ab1 tlJg7 44.�b4 ge7 45 . .ib1 tlJe6 46.�dl?!
29 ...g6?
A beautiful manoeuvre exploiting one of the drawbacks of the bishop pair: their inability to concentrate their efforts on controlling the squares of one colour.
57
Final Conclusions?
Shereshevsky suggests an unclear manoeuvre 46.�a2 lLld6 47. dxe5 �xe5 4S ..id4, but now after 4S ... Elh5 the complications would continue.
46 tlJed8 47.�dl? •..
Vasyukov suggests 47.dxe5! lLlc6 4S.e6 lLlfe5 49.i.c2 lLld3 (49 ... �g7!? and there is still some fight) 50.�b5 and White is slightly better.
47 tlJe6 48.�b5 ..•
4S.Elxc4 lLld6 (if 4S . . . lLlxd4t? 49.�dxd4 and White wins) didn't work. This was the move Lasker overlooked.
48.. J��xa4 49.dxe5 tlJfxe5 The game is already decided.
50.i.h4 �g7 51. <j;lfl �g6 52.gdd5 gal 53.i.d8 tlJdJt 54.hdJ cxdJ 55.�xdJ �ag1 56.�f5t <j;le8 57 .ig5 �6xg5 0-1 •
I wouldn't want to give the reader the impression that I underestimate the strength of the two bishops. They are certainly a fearsome pair in the endgame. The well known saying "the worst bishop is better than the best of knights" can be better applied to the final stage of the game. r simply criticize the fact that the examples appearing in the theory manuals are very superficially analysed and that we always find the same ones time and again. In this respect Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy, which I've mentioned before, is a wonderful oasis from the repetitiveness of many other endgame works.
W Alterman • Psakhis
Tel Aviv 1 994
58
Final Conclusions?
True Lies in Chess
This is a different example from the ones shown in the endgame books with two bishops against bishop and knight. On the one hand Black has an excellent outpost for his knight on d5 from where it puts pressure on the weak e3-pawn; on the other hand, he has more space and better control of the light-squares complex. All these virtues would have, in theory, to counterbalance the action of the two bishops even in the long-term, as Watson defends in his book Secrets ofModern Chess Strategy. Nevertheless the strength of the bishops is such that it is very likely that, despite all this, Black has a strategically lost position.
face the very unpleasant manoeuvre .tf2-g3 and �c4-a6 and eventually ib7. Lastly, if he attempts to make do with a defence along the third rank with . . . l'lf6, then after �f2-g3-e5 followed by ic4-e2, it is evident that his rooks are going to suffer unpleasant harassment from the bishop pair. These strategies highlight several advantages of its possession: the greater ease of the bishops to attack the opponent's knight, and not the opposite, with the subsequent possibility of transposing into another type of favourable ending; and the one already mentioned about the domination the bishop pair exerts on the enemy tooks' play.
24JUel!
25 . J'!f6 26 ..ig3! lLle7
One of the great virtues of the two bishops is their ability to control the opponent's rooks both from a defensive (control of invasion squares, effective defence of vulnerable points ... ) and an attacking point of view. This means not only the possibility of harassing the rooks with their aggressive acrion but also nullifYing the rooks' effective defensive capability over their own vulnerable points. Because of this White can momentarily surrender control of the f-file since there is no invasion point along it thanks to the action of the f2-bishop.
26. . .E1g6 27.@h2 !"lf8 28.!"lc2 and White is clearly better.
24...i.e6 25J�acl The defence of Black's c6- and e4-pawns presents many obstacles. Let's imagine all the possible defensive scenarios that the second player can come up with from the diagram. If Black keeps his bishop to protect the c6-pawn from, say, d7 it has to face several unpleasant ideas: how would he then solve the problem of the defence of the e4-pawn after the manoeuvre �f2-g3-e5 and �c4-a2-b l ? White would also have an additional possibility in the exchange �xd5 reaching an ending with opposite-coloured bishops where there is a huge difference in the activity of the opposing sides (imagine the bishop on e5 and a rook on c7 for instance) ; or he could try the possible break b4-b5 aimed at the proud knight on d5. If, on the other hand, he decides to defend the c6-pawn with his rook from c8, then he has to
More precise was 32.j.g4! showing two of the virtues of the bishops: their swiftness in transferring from one sector of the board to another, and their ease in attacking weak points in the enemy position. An instructive variation could be the following: 32. . . mg8 (32 .. JUB 33.�f5 and White is clearly better) 33.j.h5 !"le6 (33 . . . mh7 34.�d6) 34.ib8 a6 35.ia7 (Black is virtually in zugzwang thanks to the domination exerted by the bishops) 35 . . . a5 36.ic5 a4 37. !"lf5
an excellent outpost and, more importantly, it complements the action of the id5: this is what I call coordination. It was necessary to play 33.�g4! preventing the aforementioned manoeuvre: 33 . . . @g6 34.a4 a6 (34 ... b4 35 .id6 and the queenside pawns are easy prey for the white forces) 35.axb5 axb5 36.!"la7, and White's advantage is quite clear. We see that the white rooks which before occupied modest positions have been the first ones to invade the enemy position, and all because of the dominating bishops.
33... lLlf5! 34..ifl a6 35.axb5 axb5 36.h4 36.E1a7 !"le7
36 ... ge7 37.h5 lLld6 38.�a6 lLlc4 39.b4 gO 4o.ig4 g6 41 .ga8 �g7 42.hxg6 �xg6 43J�g8t �h7 44.ge8 �g6!
.
Even despite the serious mistake made by White, Black has to be extremely careful. If for instance 44 . . . tLld6 45.E1d8 tLlc4 46.ih5, then White is clearly better.
27..ie2 .idS Black has chosen a fourth defensive system: using his bishop and the d5-square to secure the weakness of the c6- and e4-pawns. Nonetheless this strategy also suffers from a fundamental drawback, namely that not all of his pieces can occupy this ideal central square: we have a clear case of a superfluous piece. It is odd how in chess many of the classic rules find their exact modern opposite. In this case the illustrious predecessor would be the very well known idea advanced by Nimwwitsch of overprotection of the strategically important points. It is very illuminating how from now on the black knight begins to wander across the board like a lost soul in search of a quiet outpost where he can find shelter from the bishops' aggression.
59
45.l3a8
There follows the transfer of the white king to the queenside via f2-e2-d2-c3-b4-a5-b6-c7 with devastating consequences.
32...lLl e7
28.ie5 gO 29.gfl gxf1 t One alternative was 29 . . .E1ef8 but if Black exchanges all the rooks his queens ide is going to suffer considerably: the attack ie5-b8 forcing Black to place his pawns on light squares will give the white king an easy path into that sector. Another option would be 29 . . . tLlf5 30.g4 tLlxe3 3 1 .!"lxf7 ixf7 32.!"lxc6 and White is clearly better. If in these positions we add a more active rook to the intrinsic plus of the bishop pair, then it's terminal.
30.gxf1 lLlg6 31..ig3 b5 32.gal!?
White's biggest problem is that he cannot bring his king to the fight, and without the king pracrically no ending can be won.
45 .. J3f6 46.gd8 .ie6 47..ie2 .idS 48..ih4?! Or 48.ig4 and White is slightly better.
48 ... gd6! 49.gxd6t lLlxd6 33.a4?
White's only mistake in this fine game, spoiling all the previous work. It turns out that after the manoeuvre ... tLlf5-d6-c4 the knight occupies
Once the rooks are exchanged White's chances vanish.
50.i.g3 lLlf5 51.�f2 h5 52.if4 .i0 1/2-1f2
60
True Lies in Chess
EHctt,a"8i� queerv Cttt,e relatiot\. betweet\. ttt,e opet\!"8 at\.d ttt,e et\.daaR\.e)
2 1 .LcS iWxcst 22.h l ctJbxd5 23.ctJxdS ixdS 24.c3 e4 25.vtigl Y2-Y2 Schmid - Ghitescu, Lugano 1 965.
In modern times players attach great importance to their theoretical preparation, as far as openings are concerned, very often neglecting their technical preparation in the study of the endgame. Their naIve line of argument for such behaviour would be something like "Why should I study endings in depth? I have enough work managing the opening and the middlegame." The problems these two initial stages of the game present are so vast that, very often, the study of the last stage of the game is all but ignored. I would like to warn the reader that the soundness of many opening systems depends on the correct evaluation of the possible endings arising from them. As a result we have the paradox that in order to master a specific opening one needs to have good endgame technique. Forget about becoming a "grandmaster of the opening" if you have serious deficiencies in your endgame technique! I will show some examples to better explain what I want to prove.
1 3 ...i.xd5 14.exd5 fib5
'it' Smyslov * Tal Candidates Tournament, Yugoslavia 1 959 Sicilian Najdorf [B92]
l.e4 e5 2.tLlf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlfG 5.tLlc3 a6 6.i.e2 e5 7.tLlb3 i.e7 B.O-O 0-0 9.i.e3 fie7 10.a4 i.e6 1 1.a5 fie6!? This is a very interesting idea. Black wants to prepare the freeing move ... d6-d5, but he is also trying to hinder White's typical plan ctJc3-d5 followed by a pawn expansion on the queenside beginning with c2-c4. A model game in this respect is Geller - Fischer, Curacao 1 962.
12.i.f3 tLlbd7 13.tLld5! White must act quickly, otherwise it will be very difficult to make progress. For example 1 3 .l"1e1 l"1fcS (stopping the manoeuvre ctJc3d5) 14.l"1e2 b5 I S .axb6 ctJxb6 1 6.ctJaS vtic7 1 7.l"1d2 h6 1 8.ie2 l"1cb8 1 9 .f3 dS 20.exdS ic5
Much worse was 14 ... vtic4 1 5 .ctJd2 vtih4 ( 1 S . . . vtibS 1 6.vtib l ! followed by c2-c4 with a clear advantage) 1 6.g3 vtih3 1 7.l"1a4. But now a very interesting situation arises: how is White going to force the desired push c2-c4?
1 5.fid3! There is simply no way to achieve the desired objective. Moreover, White's only alternative in order to fight for the advantage lies in this queen exchange. It is obvious that if a player lacked solid foundations in the endgame then this whole opening system would be worthless. No, don't look for alternatives earlier in the game: no matter where you hide, you cannot escape the endings! Let's see what Smyslov said about the text move: "The correct way of handling the position. The exchange of queens at d3 favours White, as he gains the possibility of rook operations on the c file. With the advantage of the two bishops and strong queens ide pressure, he can be hopeful of success in the endgame."
Final Conclusions? the endgame, forcing the opponent t o adopt a permanently passive stance. For instance 1 8.l"1fc l l"1ac8 ( 1 8 . . .ctJd7 1 9.d6! I t i s important t o open the game so that the bishops can display their full potential. 19 ...ixd6 20.i.xb7 l"1a7 2 1 .id5 The endgame is extremely unpleasant for Black.) 1 9.d6 ixd6 20.ixb7 White is clearly better. b) IS ... vtixd3 1 6.cxd3 l'1fb8!? (Black tries to get more space for his army after the break ... b7-b6; but this manoeuvre has the drawback ofweakening the c6-square, which will eventually be occupied by the white knight or rooks with unpleasant consequences for Black) 1 7.l'1fc l b6 1 8 .axb6 ctJxb6 (Black tries to exploit the vulnerability of the dS-pawn. However, we should be aware that this pawn also has the potential to become very strong: firstly, in some variations it can become a dangerous passed pawn; secondly, it controls space severely limiting the black pieces' mobility: note the poor role the bishop on e7 is playing; thirdly, it generates an excellent outpost on the c6-square; and lastly, and most importantly, it can be defended by its own pieces in an active way. With the following manoeuvre White heads for the strong point.) 1 9 .ctJaS! ifS ( 1 9 . . .ctJbxd5 20.ctJc6 l'1b7 2 1 .ctJxe7t l'1xe7 22.ig5 and White is on top, exploiting the tactical strength of the bishops in the form of the pin) 20.ctJc6 l'1b7 2 1 .l"1aS! and White is clearly better.
Again c2-c4 is threatened.
16 ...fixd3 17.cxd3
This position contains a series of very interesting nuances. As has already been said, White has doubled and isolated pawns on the d-file and a very advanced pawn on as, but are they weak? From a static point of view they are, but one has to emphasize their dynamic potential: they provide excellent outposts for their pieces on c3, c4 and c6; they also control space limiting the mobility of the enemy forces and as a consequence of this Black is unable to reorganize his forces to carry out an effective attack on those "vulnerable" points. As always, it is only a weakness if the opponent can exploit it.
17 ...g6!?
1 5 .l:UeB ..
Other possibilities were: a) I S ...vtixd3 1 6.cxd3 ctJcS 1 7.ctJxcS dxcS A typical situation with mutual weaknesses, where the time factor is paramount since whoever gets the initiative usually doesn't let it go until
61
As I have said before, White is not limited to a passive defence! 2 1 ...ctJc8 22.b4 The white pieces and pawns cooperate perfectly, transforming his position into an impregnable fortress.
16J3fc1
A move whose object is to improve the position of the black king, but which has certain drawbacks, including White's possible expansion on the kingside with g2-g4-g5. There were several alternatives: a) 1 7. . .h6 An interesting move: on the one hand Black adopts some prophylactic measures giving his king a luft and preventing the possible pin ie3-gS; on the other hand, it is also a constructive move since, eventually, Black can offer a bishop exchange on gS, at the same time giving more freedom of action to his d7-knight and e7-bishop. Now: a l ) I S .ctJd2!? (the white knight is heading to the outpost on c4 from where it will exert
62
True Lies in Chess
a strong influence on the enemy position) 1 8 ... ltlc5 ( l S .. Jlxe l t 19 .�xcl i.dS 20.ltlc4) 1 9.�c3! (with the unpleasant threat of doubling on the c-file; also possible was 1 9 .i.xc5 �xc5 20.E:xc5 dxc5 2 1 .ltlc4, when White is slightly better) 19 . . . E:c7 20.E:ael E:acS 2 1 .d4 exd4 22.i.xd4 i.dS 23.bc5 E:xc5 24.�xc5 E:xc5 25.E:xc5 dxc5 26.ltlc4 ltld7 27.d6 b5 28.axb6 �xb6 29.ltla5 White has a huge advantage. a2) 1 8.�c3!? with variations similar to the continuation of the game. a3) 1 S.E:c4!? i.d8 19.i.d2 (l 9.E:acl E:cb8!) 1 9 ... �xc4 20.dxc4 E:cS 2 1 .i.e2 ltl e4 22.i.b4 f5 and White is slightly better: he has the classic bishop pair ending. b) 17 ... �xc 1 t (I think this is one of the essential positions to analyse in this situation: after 1 7 ... h6 or 17 ... g6, if White so wishes, then 1 8.ltld2 practically forces Black to exchange one rook due to the fact that he cannot allow the manoeuvre ltld2-c4 and �a3-c3, because White's pressure would be extremely unpleasant.) 1 8 .�xel �bS!? (Threatening an eventual ... b7-b6 to exploit the instability of White's a-file. Another possibility is 18 ... i.dS!? Black is again trying for the break ... b7-b6 while also stopping the manoeuvre lLl b3-d2-c4. There follows 1 9 .i.d2! and White is slightly better since now this bishop is heading for the b4-square from where it will exert unpleasant pressure: 19 ... b6 20.i.b4 lLlc5 2 1 .axb6! and White is clearly better.) 1 9.1Lld2:
unpleasant threat g4-g5 followed by i.f3-g4) 21 ... lLle8 22.i.g2 (22.g5 lLlg7 23.i.g4 tLl f5) 22 . . . lLlg7 23.f4!
Final Conclusions?
18.E:c3!? 1 8.l''k 4 !? was another interesting option, the idea being 18 ... E:xc4 1 9.dxc4 e4 20.ie2 lLle5 2 1 .lLld2 and White is slightly better. Of course, also possible was 18.lLld2, transposing into previously analysed variations.
18... E:xc3 1 8 ... idS 1 9.E:ael !"lcb8 20.g4! and White is clearly better.
19.hxc3 E:c8 20.c4 e4
This break is very strong with the knight on c4: 23 ... exf4 24.M4 and White is clearly better. b2) 19 ... h6 20.tLl c4 !"lcS and White is slightly better: in this case his basic plan is also to force the f2-f4 break after i>g1 -fl-e2 and if3-e4. b3) 1 9 . . . b6 20.E'k6! bxa5 2 1 .lLlc4 !"lb3 (2 l . . .E:b5 22.!"lxa6 lLl xd5 23.lLla3 and White has a huge advantage) 22.ie4! White is now clearly better: 22 . . . E:b4 23.f3 and White completely stabilizes his position. c) 17 ... i.d8!? Undoubtedly this is another essential position to evaluate: Black prevents the manoeuvre tLl b3-d2-c4. 1 8 .id2! But now this move is annoying (with the intention of putting pressure on d6 while defending a5 again to free the b3-knight) . 1 8 . . . b6 ( l 8 ... g6 1 9.ib4 lLl e8 20.E:c4 and White is slightly better) 1 9.�c6 !"lcb8 20.�xd6 bxa5 2 1 .lLlxa5 �xb2 (2 l . . .ixa5 22.ixa5 �xb2 23.E:c6 and White is clearly better) 22.lLlc4 E1b5 23J::'1c6 with a clear advantage for White.
"The only possibility of activating his game. Otherwise White continues 2 1 .�b l , with pressure on the b7-pawn." (Smyslov) But the price for this tenuous activity is the improvement of the white pawns and the opening of lines for the white army.
role models for anyone wishing to improve their technique in this extremely subtle stage of the game.
King's Indian Classical Variation ... ltla6 System [E94J l.d4 llJf6 2.c4 g6 3.t!ll c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 s.llJa 0-0 6 ..ie2 eS 7.0-0 llJa6 8J�el c6 9 ..ifl exd4 10.llJxd4 llJg4 1 1.h3 Wh6 12.hxg4 Wxd4 13.gS Wxdl 14.E:xdl ieS!? A move invented by Huzman.
lS ..ie3
21 .dxe4 E:xc4 22.llJd2 E:c2?! The action of the black rook is not backed up by the minor pieces and this makes it totally harmless. From now on White will manage to regroup his army and drive away the invader. Alternatively, if22 . . . E:b4! then 23.E:el and White is slightly better.
23 ..idl E:c3 24. <j;lfl "White aims to strengthen his posmon by transferring his king to e2, and his bishop to d4." (Smyslov)
24 ... llJcS 2S ..td4 E:d3 26.,hcS! dxcS 26 . . . !"lxd2!? 27.ie3 E:b2 28.E:c1 lLl xe4 29.!"lc8t i>g7 30.i.d4t - Smyslov.
27.<j;le2 E:xd2t?! If 27 ... E:d4 then 2S.f3. "White's central pawns may become very dangerous. The a5-pawn restricts two black pawns, and 28 . . . c4 is not possible due to 29.!"la4. By sacrificing the exchange and thus winning the important e4-pawn, Tal hopes to create a fortress on the black squares." (Smyslov) As the subsequent course of the game showed, that was not possible.
28.<j;lxd2 ltlxe4t 29.<j;lc2 llJd6 29 ... lLlxf2 30.i.f3 f5 3 1 .E:b1 and White wins.
30 ..ie2 b I ) 19 ...g6!? 20.lLlc4 �c8 (20 ... tLleS 2 1 .d4!) 2 1 .g4! (highlighting one of the problems of the move ... g7-g6: now Black has to confront the
63
With a clear advantage for White which Smyslov subsequently realized with great skill. Without any doubt Smyslov is one of the best
A balanced position has been reached, where White faces many obstacles in organizing an effective attack against the d6-pawn due to the activity of Black's minor pieces. It is well known that whoever refrains from occupying the centre with pawns gets in return open lines as well as active outposts for their knights. Surely this would be the standard comment we would find in any book with didactic aspirations. But the aim of this treatise is to go beyond, getting deeper into the positional details of the present situation. Therefore I think it is essential to answer two basic questions. On what methods does Black base his defence of the d6-pawn? What are the future plans for both sides? Black's method of defence is very simple but effective: counterattack. The only option at White's disposal to overcome the wall erected by his
64
True Lies in Chess
opponent entails driving away the e5-bishop with f2-f4; but this move has the drawback of weakening his own e4-pawn, turning it into an easy target for Black's c5-knight. Therefore, what are White's main ideas for the future? I will try to summarize them: 1) To evacuate the hS-a l diagonal and, more precisely, improve the somewhat exposed situation of his c3-knight with ctJc3-e2 and maybe d4; in this case Black will always have to be on the lookout for the advance f3-f4 and e4-e5 trying to exploit the instability of the c5-knight. 2) To try the direct advances f3-f4 and b2-b4 despite everything, counting on the possibility of opening the position in a situation where the white rooks are better placed (which they probably would be, due to White's space advantage) . 3) To speculate on a possible exchange sacrifice on d6. With this White gets the bishop pair and excellent control. On what is Black's counterplay based? Basically, on the pressure his pieces exert on the opponent's centre and queenside, in the latter case usually supported by pushing the a-pawn to create new targets in this sector. Let's see some variations. If White tries, for instance, a direct attack, he finds out that after 1 5 .f4 ixc3! 16 .bxc3 ctJc5 (with the usual counterattack against the e4-pawn) 17.ia3?! (if 1 7.l'hd6 ctJxe4, the position is equal; or 1 7.e5 dxe5 I S.ia3 b6 and Black is slightly better) 17 ... ctJxe4 I S .Ele l EleS 19 .id3 ( l 9.Ele3?! id7 20.Elael? ctJxc3!) 19 . . . d5 20.cxd5 cxd5 2 1 .c4 (2 1 .ib5 Ele6 22.c4 d4 and Black is clearly better) 2 1 . ..ie6 22.ixe4 dxe4 23.Elxe4 and Black was slightly better, Ivanov - Glek, St Petersburg 1995.
IS ... liJcs 16.8 .ie6! The best option at this point in my opinion. The basic idea of this move is to present White with the utmost difficulties in carrying out the useful manoeuvre ctJc3-e2-d4. Other alternatives were: a) 1 6 . . . EleS 1 7.Elab l ! ie6 1 S.b4! ixc3 1 9 .bxc5 dxc5 20.Elxb7 and White is clearly better. b) 1 6 ... a5 (this was played in Eljanov - Comas Fabrego, Ubeda 200 1 ) 1 7.Elab l !
After much thought, Eljanov found this novelty at the board. White prepares, eventually, the manoeuvre ctJc3-e2-d4 to counteract Black's counterplay on the long diagonal. From now on Black will also have to reckon with the possible advance f3-f4. Previously 17.Elac l ?! had been played, but the main drawback of this move is that it is too slow: 17 ... EleS I S.Elc2 a4!? 1 9 .ctJe2 a3 20.b4 ctJa6 2 1 .b5 ctJb4 with counterplay. Or l 7. . .EleS!? (another important option is 1 7 ...ie6 I S.f4! ixc3 1 9.ixc5! dxc5 20. bxc3 transposing into an ending which we will consider later) I S.ctJe2 (After this move Black always has to keep an eye on the advance f3-f4 and e4-e5 exploiting the instability of the c5-knight. Again, premature was I S.f4 ixc3 1 9.ixc5 ib4! when Black easily holds the balance with this resource: 20 .ixb4 axb4 2 1 .Elxd6 ig4 22.id3 Elxa2 and Black has good counterplay.) I S ... a4 1 9.ctJd4 (The attempt at a direct attack against d6 was still doomed to failute. For instance 1 9 .f4 ig7 20 .ixc5 [20.e5 if5 ! A thematic attack against the b l -rook. 2 1 .Elbcl ctJd3 22.Elc3 ctJxb2) 20 ... dxc5 2 1 .e5 h6! Black is slightly better since the white centre is unstable. But 1 9 .ctJf4!? followed by ctJd3 was interesting.) 19 ... f6 This is the only viable plan at Black's disposal since his counterplay on the queenside has been temporarily neutralized. 20.gxf6 ixf6 2 1 .g3! (another possibility was 2 1 .ctJe2 ie5 22.f4 ig7 23.e5 [23.ixc5 dxc5 24.e5 g5 25 .g3 ig4 with counterplay) 23 . . .if5!; or 2 1 .ctJc2 ie5 22.f4 ig7 23.e5 if5! 24.Elbcl ctJe4 25.exd6 ixb2 and Black is clearly better)
Final Conclusions?
65
2 l .. .ie5 22.cj;>f2 Ele7 23.ig2 id7 24.ctJe2
advantage enough to achieve victory?
I think that White's position is preferable, as he can calmly prepare effective pressure against d6 combined with the central push f3-f4, eventually followed by either e4-e5 or the expansion on the queenside with b2-b3-b4 according to the circumstances. Even so, White has to be careful because the black pieces have great aggressive potential. For example, my game continued 24 ... El£7 (very interesting is 24 ... ElaeS) 25.f4 EleS 26.ixc5 dxc5 27.Elxd7 Elxd7 2S .fxe5 Eld2 with counterplay for Black, although after severe time-trouble White ended up winning, Eljanov - Comas Fabrego, Ubeda 200 1 .
The truth is that after analysing the option 20 ... ElfdS! I have not been able to reach a definitive conclusion. I challenge the reader to analyse this interesting ending in detail. On the other hand, if 1 7 ... ElfdS I S.Eld2 a5 19 .Elbd l , the black rook is now not well-placed on dS.
18.�d2 as 19.�c2 Another alternative worth considering is 19 .Elbdl a4 20.Elxd6 ixd6 2 1 .Elxd6 ctJd7 and the position is unclear.
17J�abl! Undoubtedly the move that presents Black with the greatest difficulties. The aforementioned knight manoeuvre is threatened and in some variations the reactions f3-f4 and b2-b4 are also possible. Less precise is 1 7.Elacl a5 I S .Elc2 a4 19.ctJe2 a3! 20.b3 (20.b4 ctJa4) 20 ... ctJxb3! with dangerous counterplay.
17.. JHb8!? A move that is prophylactic and constructive at the same time. Black anticipates the manoeuvre b2-b4 and f3-f4 eventually preparing the active move ... b7-b5. Instead, after l 7... a5 I S.f4! ixc3 1 9 .ixc5 dxc5 20.bxc3 we reach a situation where White's position seems at first sight clearly preferable due to the weakness of the b 7 -pawn, his majority of mobile pawns on the kingside, control of the open file and, potentially, better king. However, if one is not playing at the top level, the question to ask should be: Is White's
This is an interesting and typical exchange sacrifice in this variation: in return for the material deficit White gets the two bishops, an extra pawn and a better king than the opponent's. Without doubt, another ending that is worthy of consideration.
19...a4 Worse is 1 9 .. .f5 20.gxf6 ixf6 2 1 .ctJe2 a4 22.Eldl l"1dS 23.l"1cd2 and White is clearly better.
66
True Lies in Chess
But 19 ... b5!? 20.cxb5 cxb5 2 1 .ctJxb5 ixa2 22.Elal ib3 23.Eld2 ie6 was very interesting, with an extremely complex position.
Queen's Gambit Accepted [020] 3.e4 e5
20.ctJe2 a3 2 1.b3
l .d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.lLlf3 exd4 5.hc4 lLlc6 6.0-0 i.e6 7.i.b5 i.c5 8.lLlbdl lLlge7 9. .!iJg5 Y;Yd6 10 . .!iJxe6 �xe6 1 1 ..!iJb3 �d6 12.i.f4 YNxf4 13.lLlxc5 0-0 14.'1Wc1!?N
If 2 1 .b4 then 2 1 . ..ctJa4. The infiltration of this knight is tremendously annoying, and it forces White to take many precautions in order to avoid this sort of thing.
Final Conclusions?
15.f4! Gaining enough compensation by starting an offensive on the kingside exploiting his mobile majority in this part of the board.
15 Y;Yc8 •..
IfI5 ... ElabS 1 6.1'!f3 , with the initiative: the black queen begins to experience some inconvenience.
16.Y;Yel!
21 ...lLld3 22JM2 lLlb4 23.lLld4 Ele8
The best square for the white queen, threatening a transfer to the kingside and defending the important central pawn on e4 against Black's eventual manoeuvre ... b7-b6 followed by .. :&cS e6. Worse was 1 6.�d2 ( l 6.f5!?) 16 . . . a6 ( I 6. . . b6 17.CUd3 �e6) 17.ia4 b6 I S.ctJd3 �e6.
16 ...a6 17.i.a4 b6 Or 17 ... EldS I S.f5!? ctJe5 1 9.�g3 ctJ7c6 20.txc6 ctJxc6 2 1 .ctJd3 1'!eS 22.e5 with a strong attack.
67
This is the new idea: the queen exchange is virtually forced. Instead, after 1 4.if6 hf6 1 5 .exf6 �f5 master practice has shown that the position is balanced. After 1 4.�e l ! there follows 14 ... Wxe 1 1 5.Elfxe1 CUxe5 1 6. ctJd4 transposing to the main line of the game, where White is slightly better. The fact that the white rook would later move to cl from e l instead of d l has no relevance at all.
14.gfxdl lLlxe5 15.lLld4 i.d7 16J!abl b6 17.gdc1 In the variation arising from the novelty, the move would be 17 .Elec 1 . Sometimes things really are this easy.
17 ... gfc8 18.i.a6 gc5! 19.1Llb3 gxc1 t 20.gxc1 i.e6 21.'it>f1 lLlg4 22.'it>e2 lLlf6 23.f3 lLld5 24.i.el f5 25.i.dl
18.lLld3 gd8 19.9c1 b5 20.i.b3 a5 21 .gc5!? a4 22..ic2 And White's position offers many prospects.
And Black has counterplay in the form of the potential of his a3-pawn and the tactical motifs arising from it, as well as possible breaks in the centre with ... d6-d5. I would like to emphasize the fact that if you are reluctant to play and study the endgame in detail, then you will have to avoid many opening systems that are extremely interesting: in the present case, for Black, the system beginning with 7 ... CUa6; and, for White, the important alternative S.Ele l . A player with such important limitations could never achieve true mastery in opening play.
I'\.ew ideal if\. ttt,e pipelil\,e To end the chapter I will show a couple of new ideas where the most important thing is the correct evaluation of the endings ensuing from them.
This is an interesting novelty that has gone unnoticed until now. I guess this has a lot to do with the fact that when material down it is highly unusual to offer a transition into the ending in order to win the game! But it turns out that without queens Black finds it very difficult to defend both his queenside and his over-extended d-pawn. Moreover, White has valuable long-term advantages such as having the bishop in an unbalanced position, as far as the pawn structure is concerned, and a potentially better king. If Black, on the other hand, declines the transition into this complex ending then he has to withdraw the queen from the dominant position she currently occupies, and also give up the nice outpost on h6 where the queen usually goes ro in this variation. I challenge the reader to study this interesting endgame. Below I am only going to show the outline of what happens if Black refuses to exchange.
14...Y;Yg4 If 1 4 ... �xc l 1 5 .Elaxcl and White is slightly better.
Griinfeld Defence 5.i.g5 Variation [D9 1 ]
W Beliavsky • Kamsky Linares 1991
l .d4 .!iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. .!iJc3 d5 4. .!iJf3 iLg7 5.i.g5 lLle4 6.i.h4 lLlxc3 7.bxc3 c5 8.cxd5 Y;Yxd5 9.e3 lLlc6 10 ..ie2 cxd4 1 l.cxd4 0-0 12.0-0 e5 13.dxe5 Y;Yxdl If l3 ... �a5 then l 4.�e l !N
The resulting endgame is tremendously unpleasant for Black: most of White's forces have more attacking potential than their black counterparts, his king is better, and his pawn majority is mobile. After a long and exhausting effort Kamsky was unable to defend his position.
Cttapter II f-low are OperV"8 Qoveltiel Bor",?
"He who gets lost finds new paths." Vaihinger ( 1 852-1 933) German philosopher.
Hans
Generally the image of an opening expert is a person surrounded by monographs and thick volumes of encyclopaedias. Nothing could be further from the truth. This might seem strange to the reader. I will go further: I am going to assert that the real opening specialist is that player who has a perfect mastery of the middlegame and the ending. Why? It turns out that all the stages are intimately related and one cannot master one of them without having a deep understanding of the others. The aforementioned encyclopaedias are the clearest example of that famous statement "information is not the same as knowledge". Think about it: What use is standing in front of something valuable when one does not have the ability to appreciate its worth? And this ability, make no mistake, is only acquired after a deep and thorough study of all the nuances of our game. In the next pages I want to introduce the reader to the complex process involved in the birth of opening novelties. You will see that it is not a question of, to put it bluntly, trying out all the possible alternatives in a given situation, but rather a subtle process of association ofa complex of ideas suggested by practice and the general study and research of specialized literature.
The first novelty we are going to study emerged after a series of events that I will explain.
Epirode I: lite Of\.allJrir oP a ntodcrl sante ar a rource oP i'l!piratiol\. � Keres ,., Fine Ostend 1 937, Queen's Gambit [04 1 ]
l . lLl f3 d S 2.d4 lLlf6 3.c4 e 6 4.lLlc3 c S S.cxdS lLlxdS 6.e4 lLlxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 i.b4t 9 ..id2 .L:d2t 10.Wixd2 0-0 1 1..ic4
"This position is characteristic of the opening variation starting with 6.e4. White possesses a strong pawn centre and excellent piece development, but the black position has no
True Lies in Chess
70
weaknesses and contains good prospects for counterplay once his development is complete. Mechanical play by White would allow Black to exchange major pieces along the c-file and then reach an advantageous ending. White can now adopt two possible plans. The first consists of an attempt to realize his preponderance in the centre and create a passed pawn by d5, and the second is a concentration of all his pieces on a kingside attack. It is naturally hard to say which of the two plans offers the better chances of success and therefore it is reasonable to keep both possibilities open for the time being. Since the move 1 1 .ic4 is of use in both cases it appears to me to be more logical than the other possible moves that are played here, 1 1 .ie2 and 1 1 .id3." (Keres) Only a couple of things: firstly, it is not at all clear whether the mentioned endgame with the white pawn centre against a queenside majority is better for Black. It has been shown in modern games that it all depends on the position and activity of the opposing armies. Secondly, White has an additional plan based on a minority attack on the queenside, a plan first carried out by the ex-World Champion Tigran Petrosian.
1 1 . tLJd7 .•
"Black, too, has to solve the problem of creating a plan. With the text move he transfers his knight to the kingside as protection against an eventual attack. Another possibility was 1 1 . . .tLlc6 so as to use the knight to generate play on the queenside. Tournament practice has shown thatthis plan, too, gives Black a reasonable game." (Keres) 12.0-0 b6 1 3 .l"lfd 1 ib7 1 4.Wf4 Wf6! 1 5.We3 l"lfdS 1 6.e5 Wh6! Reshevsky - Fine, Hastings 1 937. I mention this game because of its original manoeuvre exchanging the black queen. If now 1 7.Wxh6? then after 1 7 . . . gxh6: Black's positional advantage would be beyond dispute because of the pressure he can exert on the opponent's centre and queenside. The weakness of the black pawns on the kingside cannot be exploited.
How are Opening Novelties Born? and the possibility o f invading the opponent's 7'h rank, thus putting pressure on f7.
16 .. .'I�·c7 17.Wfh4
"Obviously a queen exchange is out of the question for White." (Keres) In the ending White's central pawns lose their offensive effectiveness and become clear targets of attack for the second player.
17.. JUd8
For instance 1 S.l"lacl ll.acS 1 9.ib3 tLl b4 and Black is clearly better.
12.0-0 b6 13J�adl ''fu we have already noted, placing a rook on the c-file would serve no purpose and would lead sooner or later to further exchanges. The text move initiates a sound plan. He places his rooks behind the two centre pawns and is always threatening d5 or e5, so that Black has to pay great care to his defence." (Keres) 1 3.a4!? is the start of the plan preferred by Petrosian and which subsequently would also be adopted by players such as Yusupov and Beliavsky. More dubious would be 1 3.d5?! tLlc5! and Black has an excellent position thanks to the strong situation of his knight.
13 ....ib7 14.:gfel :gc8 1 5.,ib3 tLJf6 " Many commentators have criticised this move and recommended that Black should bring his knight to fS to protect his kingside. Undoubtedly the knight is bener placed on fS for defensive purposes, but on the other hand Black would then experience much more difficulty in getting a counterattack going. Such passive play is not to everyone's taste and therefore Fine's choice is not to be censured, especially since Black arrives at a tenable position with it." (Keres)
16.Wff4 1 6.d5!? This was the alternative I came up with during the analysis of the game; later on I found in my database that this was the option chosen by Olafsson in a more recent game). 1 6 ...exd5 1 7.exd5 l"lc5 ( 1 7 ... Wd6!? I S.ttJd4 tLlg4!) 1 S .d6!? ixf3 1 9.9xf3 White's position is clearly to be preferred due to his passed pawn
"Now both sides have completed their development and must devise concrete plans for the middlegame. By posting his knight on f6 Black is adequately protected against the threat of d5 and is also ready, in the event of e5, to play . . . ttJd5. In reply to I S .ttJe5 , Black has the unpleasant answer 1 S . . . Wc3, when 19.1l.e3 will not do due to 1 9 ... Wxd4. White must find an active plan because othetwise Black would start to create awkward counterplay with . . . b5 followed by . . . a5. After long thought White decided on the following plan. He would like to make a pawn sacrifice, by d5 and if then . . . exd5 to continue the attack by e5. But this is not possible immediately, since after I S .d5 exd5 1 9 .e5, Black replies 1 9 ... lbe4 and ifWhite tries the intended exchange sacrifice by 20.l"lxe4 dxe4 then his rook on dl is en prise and he cannot continue with 21 .ltJg5. Therefore, in preparation of this combination, White first removes his rook from the d-file. It turns out, however, that the entire plan is
71
unlikely to work against proper counterplay, since the numerous preparatory moves necessary for White's combination can be thwarted by only one prophylactic defensive move on Black's part, viz. . . . h6. In the game White attains success only because Black is too late in observing the danger threatening him and plays too dogmatically for the realisation of his queenside pawn majority." One of the characteristics I appreciate most in Keres' notes to his games is his sincerity, his relentless search for the truth and an admirable self-critical aspect that is difficult to find in the annotations of other great players, such as Botvinnik for instance. One would think that the latter does everything well. John Nunn pointed out a flaw in the above analysis: after I S . . .Wc3 1 9.f1e3 Wxd4
White has 20.f1ed3 winning the queen. So Nunn recommends meeting I S.ltJe5 with I S . . . b5. Of course no analysis, however rigorous, will ever be perfect. It would be very useful for all of us to learn to acknowledge our own mistakes.
18J�e3? "As already mentioned, White's plan offers little chance of success against correct play. White should, therefore, immediately begin kingside action by I S.e5!." (Keres) I S.e5 (If this is White's best continuation in this position then I think I can say that Black is already better from the start. Curiously enough the Encyclopaedia evaluated the variation as better for White at the time; trust no one!) IS ... tt:ld5 ( 1 S ... ixf3 ? 1 9.exf6 ixd l 20.Wg5 @fS
72
True Lies in Chess
2 1 .�xg7t @e8 22.!"lxe6t!; 18 ... ctJd7 1 9.ctJg5 ctJf8 20.ctJe4 he4 2 1 .�xe4 and White is slightly better) 1 9.ctJg5 h6 20.ctJe4 ctJc3 2 1 .ctJ f6t
�f7t and �xb7, or the simple 28.hc8, when he would regain the attack with an enduring attack." John Nunn disagreed: "Black can meet both threats by 27 .. J"1b8 when proving an advantage for White is not at all easy." The truth is often elusive. (White's alternatives on move 27: 27.�f4t @e7 28.�f7t @d6; or 27.liJxh7t @e8 28.�h5t @e7 29.�f7t @d6, in both cases the position is unclear) . "Black has every prospect of beating back the enemy attack and retaining his positional advantage." (Keres)
"With a very strong attack." (Keres) I don't agree with this evaluation; I think that Black's defensive possibilities are greater than White's attacking resources, as the following variations show: 2 l . . .@h8! 22.E1d3 �c6! 23.d5 (23 .!"lg3 ctJe2t! and Black wins) 23 . . . exd5 24.h3 (24.@hl d4 25.!"lg3 ctJe2 26.!"lxg7 @xg7 27.�g4t @h8 and Black wins again) 24. . .i.a6! (24 ... d4 25.!"lg3 d3 26.�g4 with an attack) 25 .!"lg3 ctJe2t 26.!"lxe2 .txe2 and Black is clearly better.
IB b5! .••
"A very strong move that not only prepares the advance of the queenside pawns but also gives the queen the important square b6." (Keres)
19JMei If 1 9 .1iJe5 �b6 20.!"lg3 liJxe4 Black easily neutralizes White's wing attack by striking back in the centre.
19 ... a5 We are now at one of the critical moments of this interesting contest. Let's see what Keres thinks about it: "Black still discerns no danger and imagines he will be able to continue his queenside advance unhindered." Then Keres rightly recommends the following continuation as a better option than the one that happened in the game: 19 ... h6! 20.e5 (20.g4 �f4 and Black is clearly better; 20.d5 exd5 2 1 .e5 liJe4 and again Black is clearly better) 20 ... ctJd5 2 1 .!"le4 �e7 and Black is slightly better.
How are Opening Novelties Born?
20.a4 b4?
23.c!Llg5 c!Llf8? Better was 23 ... h6! when "Black could have resisted": 24.e6! hxg5 25.exf7t @xf7 26. !"le7t @g6. I f 26 ... @g8 then 27.�xg5 �c3
If 2 l ...e5 then 22.�g5 (22.lLlg5 !"ld6 23.f4 with the initiative) 22 ... lLld7 23.lLlh4, with an attack ( Keres) . White gets a strong attack without having to sacrifice any material.
22.e5 c!Lld7 22. . . lLle4 would be met by 23.e6! fxe6 24.!"lxe4 dxe4 25.lLlg5 �c3! (25 . . . h6 26.�xe6 �c3 27.liJxd8t @h7 28. !"lfl and White is clearly better) 26.i.xe6t (26.�xh7t @ f8 27.lLlxe6t @e7 28.�h4t �f6 and Black is slightly better) 26 . . . @f8. " However, it seems unlikely that Black, in view of his broken kingside, can put up so successful a defence. And a closer analysis shows that White has a more enduring continuation of the attack. He must play 26.i.xe6t @f8 27.!"lfl ! . With this White threatens 28.�f4t, followed by
24.c!Llxh7! c!Llxh7 24 . . . lLlg6 25.'�'h5 lLlf4 26.�f5 with a clear advantage for White.
25J'�h3 YlYcl 26.YlYxh7t @f8 27J3he3 d4 28.YlYh8t �e7 29.YlYxg7 l:'!:f8 30.YlYf6t �e8 3 1.e6! 1 -0
Comas Fabrego * Dorfman
2 1.d5!
2 1 . .. exd5
try; if 30.i.f5 liJf6 3 1 .!"lxb7 !"le8 32.!"lfl and the position is unclear. For this reason John Nunn suggested 27.�h3! instead of 27.�d4 and wrote "when Black cannot meet the threats based on iWd3t and l"1 1 e6t, for example 27 ... l"1f8 28.i.d l !''') 30.!"l 1 e3 and White is clearly better.
Episod¢ II: Firsti·ttat\.d i"lPrcusiof\.S
20 . . . bxa4 21. .�xa4 h6 and Black is slightly better. "At last White succeeds in carrying out the thrust he has so long and assiduously planned. With the ensuing pawn sacrifice White drives away the last piece protecting the enemy king and so obtains a powerful attack that can hardly be met successfully in over-the-board play. The following complications are very interesting and provide the analysts with a very fruitful field of research." ( Keres)
73
Mondariz (z) 2000, Nimw-Indian [E55]
l.d4 c!Llf6 2.c4 e6 3.c!Llc3 i.b4 4.c!Llf3 c5 5.e3 0-0 6.i.d3 d5 7.0-0 dxc4 8.hc4 c!Llbd7 9.YlYe2 b6 1O.l:'!:dl cxd4 I l .exd4 hc3 1 2.bxc3 YlYc7 13.i.d2 i.b7 1 4.i.d3 l:'!:fe8 1 5.l:'!:el l:'!:ac8 1 6.l:'!:acl If 1 6.lLle5?! then 16 ... lLl xe5 1 7.dxe5 �c6! 28.h4! (or also 28 .hd5t i.xd5 29.�xd5t @h8 30.�h5t with an attack) 28 ... �f6 29.i.xd5t i.xd5 30:�xd5t @h8 3 1 .!"lxd7 "and White has some winning chances owing to his opponent's weakened kingside. Perhaps in this variation 28.h3 is still stronger so that, in the last line, White's h-pawn will not be attacked. The variations given provide convincing proof of the difficulties with which Black has to contend even if he finds the best defence. It is therefore understandable that, in the given time-limit, it is difficult to decide which of the many dangerous variations offers him the besr chances of saving the game." (Keres) After 26... @g6 there follows 27.�d4 �c3 28.i.c2t @h5 (28 . . . Wxc2 29.!"lxg7t @h5 30.g4t @h4 3 1 .�e3; 28 ... @h6 29. !"l l e6t ctJ f6 30. !"lxf6t) 29.�dl t @h6 (29 ... g4!?, suggested by Deep Junior, is a very interesting defensive
An important in-between move preventing the transfer of White's pieces ro the kingside. 1 8.f3 � d7 1 9 .@h1 a6!? and Black is fine. 1 6.c4!? is met by 16 . . . Wd6! (threatening ... i.xf3 ; worse was 16 ... i.xf3 1 7.iWxf3 e5 1 8.d5 e4 19 ..txe4 �xc4 20 . .tf5 !"lxel t 2 1 .!"lxe 1 with the initiative) 1 7.i.c3 0 7.i.e3 e5 1 8 .dxe5 liJxe5
74
True Lies in Chess
1 9 .'Llxe5 "Wxe5 and Black's position is excellent) 17 ... "Wf4! with counterplay. During the game I considered 1 6.a4!? for a long time. The minority attack thus initiated by White tries to get rid of the weakness of the isolated a-pawn. Now Black has several alternatives: a) 1 6 . . . id5 1 7.ltJe5! White must avoid the exchange of the light-squared bishops. 17 . . . ltJ xe5 l S.dxe5 ltJd7 1 9."Wh5 and White gets promising prospects of attacking the enemy kingside because of the chance of transferring his major pieces to that sector. For instance: a l ) 1 9 . . . 'LlfS!? 20.l'!e3 l'!edS and the position is unclear (if 20 . . .i.c4 2 1 .i.xh7t ct:l xh7 22.l'!h3, White is clearly better) . a2) 1 9 . . . g6 20."Wh4 i.c4 2 1 .i.c2 "WbS 22.�g5 i.d5 23.l'!e3, Hillarp Persson - Ionescu, Batumi 1 999. But what I was really afraid of was... b) 16 . . . a5!
I remember that when I told Dorfman about this move he was perplexed at first. In fact it seems illogical to weaken both the b5-square and the b6-pawn at the same time "for nothing", although it is clear that White also has his share of weaknesses in the form of his hanging pawns on the c- and d-files. But what is more important is that suddenly the first player doesn't have a clear plan to improve his position. If 1 7.c4 then 1 7. . ."Wd6 ( 1 7 . . . h6!?) 1 S .i.e3 ( I S .i.c3 "Wf4) 1 S . . . e5 (I S . . . ct:l g4) 1 9 .dxe5 ct:l xe5 20.ct:lxe5 l'!xe5 with a complex position.
1 6 ...§'d6! Preventing the mobilization ofWhite's centre, for if 1 7.c4 then 1 7 . . .ixf3 .
1 7..ia6 §'d5 18 ..ib5
1/2-1f2
Epi/od� III: Prcrcof\.c�pti0'l! � Portisch .., Petrosian
How are Opening Novelties Born? This kind o f comment has been reproduced in some famous books on the middlegame. What is the image that is being etched in the subconscious of the chess player who, with the best of intentions, tries to absorb the knowledge imparted by the classical authors? More or less it is the following: Undesirable positions
Lone Pine 1 978, Nimzo-Indian [E52J
l .d4 ct:lf6 2.c4 e6 3.ct:lc3 .ib4 4.e3 b6 5 ..id3 .ib7 6.ll:lf3 0-0 7.0-0 d5 8.a3 .id6 9.h4 dxc4 lO.hc4 ct:lbd7 1 1..ib2 a5 In his excellent book Ajedrez en fa Cumbre Petrosian comments on this move: "An essential part of Black's plan, linked to the preparation of the . . . e6-e5 advance. Since neither 1 1 .:gbl nor 1 1 .bxa5 promises White anything, he gladly pushes the pawn to b5, where he can blockade the two black pawns on the b- and c-files.
If Black tries to get rid of it with ... c7-c6 White, by playing a3-a4, substitutes the function of the b5-pawn with the a4-pawn, which is going to restrain another pair of black pawns, the ones on a5 and b6. If one adds the fact that White has one more pawn in the centre, then one can conclude from a general reasoning that he has a clear advantage."
Petrosian was an independent thinker who was not easily influenced by general considerations. That's why he doesn't stop there in his notes on this position, but adds: "Some years ago I examined this position, realizing that in the games played White was not successful. Without trusting the normal continuations I tried to improve White's play, and the strange thing was. . . Generally, i n the course o f the analysis White looks beautiful and the positional advantage was apparent. But only when I reached the method move by move, it became apparent that Black,
75
with his pieces happily placed, completely turned all that beauty of the white position into nothing." Before carrying on I think it is necessary to make clear a series of extremely important points. In Spanish-speaking literature the work Tratado General de Ajedrez by the author Roberto Grau is very popular. In it he puts special emphasis on Philidor's aphorism "The pawns are the soul of chess"; based on this the author classifies pawn structures into good, not desirable, bad ... in the style of the previous diagrams. Current chess has superseded, fortunately, most of the simple principles handed down by classical chess authors, and this one is no exception. Such a static view of the position amounts to a very poor perception of what is actually happening and nowadays, as Petrosian points out, piece play is a factor highly valued by contemporary grandmasters. Secondly, I would like to give my opinion on one of the most important and controversial topics in modern chess. In his excellent book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy John Watson holds that current chess has favoured a more analytical approach to the game, analysis being understood as the concrete investigation of all the possible situations from a given position, to the detriment of a more conceptual view based on strategic rules and principles. It is true that modern chess is much more specialized and that very often the analysis of certain variations extend to the 35'h move or beyond. But I don't think that this process of investigation is solely based on such a method of brute-force analysis of all the imaginable logical possibilities, worthy of a computer but not of a person. We humans have developed an exceptionally powerful technique to deal with complexity: we abstract from it. Being unable to grasp complex objects in their entirety, we ignore the non essential details, dealing instead with the ideal model of the object and focussing on its essential aspects. Thus is born language, the concept and the principle that is no more than a simplified
True Lies in Chess
76
view of reality in such a way that one can interact with it. Abstraction is essential to understand this complex world. Therefore I think that, when possible, concrete analysis has to go hand in hand with a clear explanation of the ideas accompanying this or that continuation, since the concept is flexible and can be used in a multitude of similar positions and therefore the study of a game becomes instructive. And if the concept to explain a given positional phenomenon does not exist, one has to be brave and formulate it. However, one has to be extremely careful because the blind application of a principle only leads to a mere limitation of our intellectual and creative capacity and therefore to an impoverishment of our level of play. One more reason for analysis and positional evaluation to go hand in hand in the search for truth.
Epi/ode IV: Ttte deva/tati� H\Pluef\ce of! precofl,Ceptiorv Under the effects of these disparate impressions I started studying the main variation of the Semi-Tarrasch because I was so impressed by the strength of this kind of structure for Black, keeping potential counterplay and therefore winning chances. The first line I chose for my investigations was the minority attack plan in which I felt an incisive idea trying to emerge. In the games played to date with this plan Black had not been able to overcome the positional preconceptions in vogue. I think the next game is tremendously illustrative of what I am saying.
� Yusupov * Eslon Can Picafort 1 9S 1 , Queen's Gambit [D4 1 ]
l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 e6 3.lLl8 dS 4.lLlc3 cS S.cxdS lLlxdS 6.e4 lLlxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 i.b4t 9 ..id2 .L:d2 1O.VNxd2 0-0 1 1 .i.c4 lLl d7 12.0-0 lLlf6 1 2 ... b6 1 3.a4!?
How are Opening Novelties Born?
17.axb6 axb6 1 8J�ac1 VNb8 19.E:h1 VNa8 20.E:al VNb8 21 .eS! Transformation of the elements: from domination of the centre into control of the important outpost on d6 where a white knight is heading.
21...lLld5 22.lLlg5 h6 23.lLle4 VNc7 24.lLld6
With this minority attack White begins an interesting plan whose aim is on the one hand to weaken the enemy queenside and on the other to get rid of the weakness of the isolated a-pawn. In the following game Black's resistance was minimal despite him being an ex-World Champion. The game continued 13 ...ii.b7 1 4.Elfel ElcS 1 5 .�d3 lLl bS ?! 1 6.a5 lLlc6 1 7.axb6 lLlxd4? ( 1 7 . . . axb6 I S .�b2 and White is clearly better: the b6-pawn is much more vulnerable than the white centre) l S.lLlxd4 '&xd4 19.bxa7 ElfdS 20.Ela3 (20.Eled l ! was winning) 20 ...ii.aS 2 1 .h3 h6 22.Elcl '&b6 23.ElxcS ElxcS 24.Ela2 Elc7 25.'&e3 '&b3 26.Elal Eld7 27.�fl White had a decisive plus in Petrosian - Tal, Moscow 1 972.
13.�fel b6 14.a4 The same plan as in the Petrosian - Tal game.
14....ib7 IS.�d3 The placement of Black's f6-knight offers some attacking prospects for White in the centre and the kingside in connection with the eventual manoeuvre e4-e5 and lLl f3-g5, targeting the d6square at the same time.
15 ... :Sc8 16.a5 VNc7 If 16 ... h6!?, preventing the manoeuvre lLl f3g5 for good, then 1 7.axb6 axb6 I S.Elab 1 '&c7 1 9.Elb3! ElfdS 20.h3: With the possible plans '&d2-b2 putting pressure on the weak pawn on b6 or also ii.d3b l followed by e4-e5, lLlf3-h2 and Elb3-g3, when White's pressure would be particularly unpleasant. In any case White's prospects seem clearly better thanks to the fact that there doesn't seem to be any clear counterplay for Black.
77
conclusions that were firmly established in the subconscious of the author.
The novelty Queen's Gambit [D41J
l.lLlf3 c5 2.c4 lLlf6 3.lLlc3 d5 4.cxd5 lLlxd5 S.d4 e6 6.e4 lLlxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 i.b4t 9.i.d2 .L:d2t 10.VNxd2 0-0 1 1.i.c4 b6 12.0-0 .ib7 13.�fel lLl d7 14.a4 �c8 15.i.d3 a5!?N
From now on Black's position is torture.
24 ... �a8 25J�abl E:ad8 26J!ec1 VNe7 27.8 .ia8 If 27. . .l'hd6 then 28.exd6 '&xd6 29.�e4 and although still not easy, White's position is strategically winning.
28.i.c4 gb8 29.E:b2 gfd8 30.E:bc2 lLlc7 31 .i.d3 lLle8 32.lLlb5 VNd7 33.VNb4 White's advantage is evident.
Epi/ode V: 8uildi� f\ew pattv "The great are great because we are on our knees. Let's rise up!" Max Stirner ( 1 S06I S 56) German philosopher And now the time has come to introduce the idea that for so long has been trying to come to the fore. It's not simply a novelty, in the sense of a new move, but an original way of understanding the position as a whole, hence its complexity but also its great beauty. I hope the reader can appreciate the audacity it required at the time to overcome a series of
This is a conceptual novelty. It is not clear whether the b6-pawn is more vulnerable than the a4-pawn. Against the eventual exchanging manoeuvre ii.d3-b5 there might follow ... liJd7-f6 harassing the enemy centre. In some variations the b4-square could become an excellent outpost for the black queen, creating interesting counterplay on the queenside or in many cases a favourable queen exchange. It is important to leave the black knight on its current square from where it defends the b6-pawn and prevents the plans connected with the advance e4-e5, like the ones seen in Yusupov - Eslon, and also making very difficult the possible advance d4-d5 because of an eventual ... lLld7-c5. In this case we are talking about dynamism because Black's defensive mechanism is counterplay against the enemy centre and queenside. Thanks to the pressure exerted on these parts of the board White cannot freely manoeuvre to effectively attack Black's b6pawn.
7S
True Lies in Chess
16.�adl! With the clear intention of creating a passed pawn in the centre. Other possibilities are: a) 1 6.i.b l ? (a hasty attempt) 16 . . .�e7 1 7.eS (l 7.�d3 �b4 l S.eS g6 and Black is clearly better) 17 . . .i.xf3 l S.�d3 �h4! and Black is on top. b) 1 6.E:a3 �e7 1 7.l"lb3 i.c6! (using the weakness of the a4-pawn) lS.i.bS i.xbS 1 9.E:xbS E:c4 and Black is slightly better. c) 1 6.l"lab l And then: el) 16 ... �c7 1 7.E:eel (1 7.dS lLlcS) 17 ... �bS Simplification reduces the strength of White's centre and increases Black's prospects of counterplay on the queenside. el l) l S .h3 h6!? ( 1 S ... �aS 1 9.�e2 E:xel t 20.l='lxel lLl f6 2 1 .0d2 and the position is unclear) e l 2) I S .�gS h6 1 9.�h4 ( 1 9.�e7 lLl f6) 1 9 . . . E1xel t 20.E:xel E1cS with counterplay. c2) 1 6 ... h6!?
A typical move to consolidate the kingside. The black queen is very well placed on the dS-square: it is not at all easy for White to make progress. After 1 7.�e2 E:c3! Black is slightly better.
16 ... h6!
An extremely important prophylactic move improving the position of the kingside. If 16 . . .�c7 then 1 7.dS! exdS l S .exdS �d6 (it is necessary to block the passed pawn; if l s ... lLlcS then 1 9 .d6 with an attack) and now: a) 1 9 .1Llh4!? g6 20.�gS !? with the initiative. b) 1 9.1LlgS lLlf6! ( l 9 ... h6 20.i.h7t!! @hS 2 1 .lLle4 and White is clearly better) 20.lLle4 lbxe4 2 1 .i..xe4 and the position is even.
How are Opening Novelties Born?
c) 1 9 .1Lld4!? (a tremendously interesting move: Black cannot prevent the invasion of the white knight) 1 9 . . .g6 ( l 9 . . .�xdS 20.�e4 �xe4 2 1 .E:xe4 �xe4 and White is slightly better) 20.�h6 lLl f6 2 1 .lLlbS �xdS 22.i..e4 0 xe4 23.E:xdS i..xdS and White is clearly better.
The passed pawn succumbs without enough compensation in return.
17.�f4
18.�xc7
If 1 7.�b 1 then 1 7 ... E:c4! (again exploiting the weakness of the a4-pawn) l S .dS lLlcS 1 9.dxe6 lLlxe6! and Black is slightly better.
If 1 7.h3 then 17 ... �c7 1 8 .d5 exd5 1 9 .exd5 i.xdS! 20.i..f5 (20.E1e7 E:cdS 2 1 .�fS i.x8 22.gxf3 0eS! and Black is clearly better) 20 ...�xf3 2 1 .gxf3 lLl cS!? and Black is clearly on top. Or 1 7.dS ?! (Black has his pieces well placed to fight against this advance) 1 7. . .exdS 1 8 .exdS E:cS 1 9 .i.bS ( l 9.d6 Lf3 20.gxf3 �h4! with a strong initiative on the kingside; the a4-pawn is also "hit") 19 ... lLl f6 20.d6 E1dS (20 ... i.xf3 2 1 .gxf3 E:gst 22. Wfl E1dS 23.�xdS lLlxdS 24.E:xd5 and White is clearly better) 2 1 .�f4 gS! 22:�g3 lLle4 and Black is slightly better.
17...�c7!
Interesting are both 17 . . . �c6!? and 17 ... E1c3!? (starting typical counterplay on the c-file) l S.�bS lbf6!?
79
l.d4 lbf6 2.c4 e6 3.tLlf3 d5 4.tLlc3 c5 5.cxd5 tLlxd5 6.e4 tLlxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 J.b4t 9.J.d2 hd2 10.�xd2 0-0 1 1 .J.c4 b6 12.0-0 J.b7 13J3fel tLld7 14J'�adl �c8 15.i.b3 �f6!?
l S.�h4 lLlf6 1 9 .eS (l 9.E:b l E1fd8) 1 9 ... i.xf3 ( 1 9 . . . lLldS!?) 20.gxf3 0dS 2 1 .�e4 g6 and Black is slightly better. After 1 8 . . . E:xc7 Black's position is much more comfortable.
After such an extensive account the reader may be thinking "So much work to discover one new idea!" Make no mistake, the account has been long but in my brain the ideas arose and connected at lightning speed. This is the true miracle of the human mind.
Epi/ode VI al\,d la/t: r:tPPlyi"S ttt,e ideal Par di/(ulled to "loderl\, pO/ltiol\,l
10
"Insist on your mistakes because that is your true personality." Julio Cortazar ( 1 9 1 4- 1 984) Argentinean writer When one has carried out a thorough analysis of a series of games in a specific variation it is much easier to find new ideas in other lines of the same system. This phenomenon, which bears the technical name of synergy, is mentioned in John Nunn's excellent book Secrets of Practical Chess. Reading it is highly recommended: it is an ode to common sense.
A very interesting idea. Black intends to finish his development with either ...E:fdS or . . .E1fe8. From f6 the queen can eventually go to the g6- or h6-squares offering an exchange similar to the one seen in the game Reshevsky - Fine. In any case, the most important fact is that for the time being White does not have the natural advance d4-d5 at his disposal due to the perfect counter ... lLld7-cS. Another idea that would be very interesting to carry out in practice is I S ... b5. Black starts a demonstration on the queenside as in the game Keres - Fine. We would have to evaluate the slight weakening of the pawn itself and of the dark squares that this advance provokes. Another important option is l S ... E:eS 1 6.'lWf4 and now: a) 1 6 ...�f6 l7:�d6 E:ed8 l 8.�a3 and: a l ) 1 8 ... aS? 1 9 .�a4 �f4 20.�e7 with a further split: a l l ) 20 ... �f6 2 1 .�d6 lLl c5 22.�xb6 (22.dxc5!? E1xd6 23.cxd6 with compensation) 22 ... lLl xa4 23 .�xb7 and White is clearly better. a 1 2) 20 ... �c7 2 1 .d5 with an attack in Van Wely - Cu. Hansen, Ter Apel 1 993. a2) 18 ... a6 19.�b4 as 20.�bS i..c6 2 1 .'lWe2 Although White is slightly better, I think that
80
True Lies in Chess
Black should survive: 2 1 . . . .ib7 22.d5 tLl c5. b) 1 6 ...'iWc7!?
Black persists in his attempt to exchange queens to limit the strength of a potential white passed pawn in the ending, because then the black king could enter the scene. b I ) I 7.'iWh4 h6! (a standard move against White's attack; if instead I7 ...tLl f6 I 8.d5 exd5 1 9.e5! tLle4 20.�xe4 dxe4 2 1 .tLlg5, White is clearly better) I 8.d5 exd5 1 9.exd5 !'lxe l t 20.�xe l (20.CtJxeI 'iWd6 and Black i s slightly better) 20 ... ttJf6 Black has an excellent position. b2) 1 7.'iWxc7 !'lxc7 I 8.d5 ( l 8 ..ia4 !'ld8 1 9 .d5 ttJc5 20.d6 �cc8 2 1. .�c2 f6 and Black is slightly better: in many endings the d6-pawn is a huge liability) 1 8 ... exd5 I 9.exd5 ( l 9 . .ixd5 tLlc5) 19 . . .�xe I t 20.!'lxe1 tLl f6 2 1 .d6 �d7 22.ttJe5 (22.�e7 .ixf3 23.gxf3 �f8 24.�xd7 ttJxd7 and Black is clearly better) 22 ... �xd6 23.ttJxfl l"1d2 Black runs no risk. There is still another possibility to analyse: I 5 ... a5!?
Black mobilizes his maJonty to harass, eventually, the enemy bishop. If White answers with a2-a4 this pawn and the bishop could become targets for Black's attack. a) l 6.a4 tLl f6 ( l 6 ...'iWf6!?) I 7.d5 exd5 1 8.exd5 �c5 1 9.d6 .id5 20 ..ixd5 �xd5 2 1 .'iWf4 tLl h5 and the position is level. b) l 6.d5 tLlc5 I 7.'iWb2 'iWf6 (most of the endings are good for Black) 1 8 .'iWxf6 gxf6 1 9 .ttJd4 tLlxb3! 20.axb3 �fd8 Black is slightly better thanks to the superiority of the bishop over the knight. c) 1 6.'iWf4! with four possibilities:
How are Opening Novelties Born? counterplay) 20 ..ia2 !'lc2 2 1 ..ib l !'lc4 again with counterplay. c4c) 1 8.e5!? A typical pawn sacrifice. l S ... ttJeS 19.ttJ d4 ttJc7 20.ttJf5 ttJe6 2 1 .'iWg4
With this manoeuvre the assault on the e5-pawn begins. Black has a very promising position. For instance 20 ..ia4 ttJxe5; or if 20.\t>hI �c5 when the position is unclear; or 20.1Wg5 .ixf3 2 1 .'iWxg6 hxg6 22.gxf3 �c5 23.f4 g5 24.f5! (24.fxg5 ttJxe5 25.�e3 tLl g6 and Black is slightly better) 24 ... exf5 25 .e6 fxe6 26.�xe6 �h7 27.�e7 and the position is even.
Tt\.e practical tcut
White's initiative is fairly unpleasant.
1 6.�e3 If I 6.d5 then 16 ... ttJc5 (again the key square) 1 7.e5 ttJxb3! and Black is clearly better; and 1 6.'iWb4 is met by l6 ... 'iWf4! I 7.'iWe7 �c7 with a complex position.
16 .. J��fd8!? c l ) 16 . . .'iWf6 l 7.'iWd6! �fd8 IS ..ta4 .ic6 19 ..ixc6 tLlbS 20 ..id7 ttJ xd7 2 1 .�cl and White is clearly better. c2) I6 . . . b5 l7.d5! e5 07 ... exd5 I 8 . .ixd5 with an attack) 1 8.'iWd2 and White is slightly better. d) 16 ...�c7!? I think this is the best option: c3a) I 7.Wfh4 �fe8! (anticipating the threat d4d5) l S ..ia4 ( I S.d5 exd5 I 9.exd5 !'lxe l t 20.�xeI ttJ f6 and Black is slightly better) I8 ... h6 1 9. tLl e5 ttJxe5 and Black is on top. db) I 7.'iWxc7 Elxc7 1 8 .d5 tLlc5 1 9.d6 ( l 9.tLle5 f6 20.d6 Elcc8 2 1 .ttJd3 ttJxb3 22.axb3 e5) I9 ... �cc8 20 ..tc2 f6 with counterplay. c4) I 6 ... tLl f6 1 7.d5 exd5 c4a) I 8.,ixd5 .ixd5 1 9.exd5 tLl xd5 20.'iWf5 �c5 2 1 .tLlg5 ttJ f6 22.tLl xfl �xf5 23. tLl xd8 l"1d5 and the position is level. c4b) I S.exd5 b5! (Black's counterplay begins) I 9.a3 (l 9.a4 �c3 20.ttJd4 bxa4 2 1 . tLl c6 .ixc6 22.dxc6 axb3 23.l"1xdS �xd8 and Black is clearly better) I9 ...a4 ( l 9 ... �c3 20.�e3 �xe3 2 1 .fxe3 'iWb6 22.d6 .ixf3 23.'iWxf3 �e8 with
81
The beginning of a plan whose aim is to provoke the advance of the white pawns in order to weaken them. Also interesting is I 6. . .l"1c7!? l 7.d5 !'ld I S .'iWd2 �xf3 1 9.dxe6 fxe6 20.'iWxd7 �xf2 21 .'iWxe6t 'iWxe6 22 ..ixe6t �hS 23 ..id5 with equality.
17.d5 lLlc5 18.e5 �g6 19.d6
To close this section I would like to show a game that brought two of the world's leading experts in this system face to face. I am referring to Beliavsky and my friend Jordi Magem to whom some months earlier I had mentioned the novelty we are examining. He didn't know in depth the conclusions I had reached, but nevertheless he has a good knowledge of the nuances of this kind of structure.
W Beliavsky ,., Magem Badals
Linares open 2002, Queen's Gambit [D4 l l
l.e4 e5 2.lLlc3 lLlf6 3.lLla d5 4.cxd5 lLlxd5 5.d4 e6 6.e4 tLlxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 .ib4t 9 .id2 h:d2t 10.�xd2 0-0 1 l ..ie4 tLld7 12.0-0 b6 13.a4 .ib7 14JUel rle8 15.i.d3 a5!N •
1 9.dxe6 fxe6 20.�d6 �fS with counterplay.
19... lLld7!?
16.h3?!
82
True Lies in Chess
Confronted with the novelty Beliavsky reacts in a very neutral way. This move doesn't add anything special to the position and Black soon takes over the initiative.
16...�e7
How are Opening Novelties Born?
26 .. J3cxd4 27.lLlc6 gxe4 28.gal �a8 29.gbS lLldS 30.6 gf4 Black could have gained a bigger advantage with the more natural 30 ... !'le2!,
1 6 . . . "@c7!?
17J3abl �fd8 18.i.bS lLlf6 19.�d3 �c7 19 . . .h6!?
20.gb3
If 20.e5 then 20 . . .4:ld5 2 1 .4:lg5 "@c2! so that if 22.�xc2 !'lxc2 23 ..id3 !'lal! 24.�xh7t )i:;f8, Black has no problems at all.
20...h6
A typical defensive move preventing a possible 4:lg5. However, it was better to play 20 . . . "@f4!, the idea being 3 1 .!'lxa5 l"lxa5 32.4:lxa5 ltJ f4 and Black is clearly better.
31 .E:a3 ga6 32.lLlxaS lLlb6 33.h8 and again White is clearly better.
25.fxe6 gxf1 t 26.gxf1 '?tfe7 27.gel
This variation entails a piece sacrifice in return for two pawns with the object of preventing Black from castling, leaving his king exposed ro a persistent attack and the h8-rook out of play for a long time.
IS .. .'!&xa4 21 .Wfd6
19 ..ixd5 exd5 2o.Wfxd5 tLlb6
Worse is 2 1 .'lWcs?! �f8 22.'lWe3 'lWd7! when Black is clearly better.
2 1 ...Wfd7 2 l . ..il.f8 22.'lWf6
22.'?tfxb4 Clearly inferior is 22.l"Iad l ?! 'lWxd6 23.exd6t \tld7 (the only move) 24.l"Ie7t \tlc6 2s.l"Icl t i>bs 26.!1xfl �b2 27.d7 l"Ihd8 28.il.xd8 l"Ixd8 29.l"Ixh7 as! and Black is clearly better.
22 ... i.f8
In the endgame White is close to victory.
If 22 ... ttJds ?! then 23.'lWa3!? (in a previous game 23.'lWe4 had been played but I think this continuation is better) 23 ... �f8 (23 ... l"Ib8 24.�f6 [if the white bishop manages to occupy this position without the black king having castled, it can be said that, in general, things are going well for the first player] 24 ... �f8
90
True Lies in Chess
[24 . . . Ei:gB 2S .Ei:adl Ei:bS 26.Ei:d4 Lf6 27.exf6t @dB 2B .Wd3 l"leB 29.l"ldl Ei:cS and White is clearly better] 2S.Wf3 l"lgB 26.Ei:adl :B:bS 2n�d3 and White is clearly on top) 24.Wf3 �e7 2S.Ei:adl ! This tactical manoeuvre is decisive. 2S . . .�xgS (2S . . . Ei:dB 26.�xe7 @xe7 27.Ei:d4 WfS 2B.Wa3t @e6 29.WcS Ei:heB 30.Ei:xd5 l"lxdS 3 1 .Wc6t @e7 32.WxdS winning) 26.e6!! fxe6 27.Ei:xdS Wf7 2S.Wxf7t @xf7 29.Ei:xgS Ei:hdS 30.l"lgeS Ei:d2 3 1 .Ei:Se2, winning. Of course if you don't know how to win endings then forget about getting any advantage in the opening!
23.W1c3 23.We4 WdS 24.Wf4 i.g7
23 ...W1c8!
ig7 and the position is equal according to ECO; 2S .l"lacl We6 26.Wa3 �8 27.Wa6 �e7) 2S . . . 0-0 (the only move; 25 . . . fxe6 - Chekhov - 26.Ei:acl Wd7 27.Ei:cdl Wf7? 2B.Wxa8t and wins) 26.�e7 fxe6! 27.�xfB WxfS 2B.Wb3! Wf7 29.Ei:xe6 �xb2! and the position was equal in L.B. Hansen Ribli, Polanica Zdroj 1993.
2S...W1e6!
If 2S ...i.g7 then 26.W1a3!! �fS 27.Wf3!! (Completing the queen circuit! This is one of the most critical positions of the middlegame.) 27 ...�e7 2B.e6 fxe6 29. l'::lad l
24 ...W1d7
24.W1d2!!N
The white pieces occupy positions o fmaximum activicy. For instance: a) 27. . . Ei:c8 28.Ei:c7!! �xf6 29.exf6 Wxf6 30.Ei:xcBt and White is clearly better. b) 27. . . ttJ d7 2B.�xe7 Wxe7 (2S ... @xe7 29.Wb4t @eB 30.Wa4 Ei:dS 3 1 .Ei:c7 and White is much better) 29.Ei:c7 and White is again on top. c) 27... g5 2B.:B:c7 ixf6 29.exf6 Wxf6 30.Wb4 Ei:g6 31 .Ei:el t @d8 32.l'::lcc l !! winning. d) 27 ...�xf6 2B.exf6 Wxf6 29 .Wb4 Ei:cB (the only move) 30.Ei:xcBt!! ttJxcB 3 1 .Wb7 and once again White has a clear advantage.
29 . . . Wc8 (if 29 ... WbS then 30.i.xe7! @xe7 3 1 .Wb7t @f6 32.Ei:xe6t!! - Junior - 32 ... @xe6 33. l'::l e l t @fS [33 ... @d6 34.We7t @d5 3S.Ei:dl t @c4 36.Wc7t wins for White] 34.We4t @gS 35 .h4t @h5 36.Wf3t @h6 37.Wf4t @hS 3B .g4t @xh4 39.l'::le4 winning) 30.�h6! (Black's position is extremely unpleasant) 30 ... l'::l b S (30. . . ttJdS 3 1 .l'::lx dS!; 30 ... Wc4 31 .b3; finally, 30 ... l'::lg S 3 1 . Ei:cl Wd7 32.Ei:c6 l'::ldS 33. l'::l cxe6 and in all cases White is clearly better) 3 1 .Ei:c l Wd7 32.Ei:c6 eS 33.l"lxeS and White is on top.
26 ..if6 :g g8 27.:gad!
2s.W1e3!
The triangulation process continues. The alternatives were not so effective, for instance: 25.Wf4 WfS; or 2S .\We2 �g7 26.Ei:adl (26.e6 fxe6 27.l"ladl Wf7 2B.Wxe6t Wxe6 29.:gxe6t and the position is unclear) 26 ... Wc6 27.Ei:c l WdS 2B. Ei:cdl Wc4 and Black is clearly better; after 25.Wc3 the position is equal.
91
king will remain in a very precarious position for a long time and his gB-rook is also out of play. Furthermore White has two pawns for the piece. Black's position is tremendously difficult and I urge the reader to analyse the rich possibilities ensuing from the situation of the diagram.
TInte verlUI material: pO/itiortal pawrt lacriPicel irt ttte opel'\!"8
If 24 ... �g7 then 25.Wd6 We6 26.Ei:adl Wxd6 (26 ... ttJd7 27.Wc7 and White is clearly better) 27.exd6t @d7 2B.Ei:e7t @c6 29.Ei:xf7 �eS 30.l"lc7t @bS 3 l .f4 i.xb2 32.Ei:b l . O r i f 24 . . .We6?! then 2S.�f6 l"lg8 26.:B:ed l ! i.e7 27.l"lac l !
Losing is 23 ...We6 24.�f6 (24.Ei:adl �e7 2S.:B:d6 and White is clearly better) 24 ... Ei:gB 2S .Ei:adl i.e7 26.Ei:d6 Wc8 (26 ...Wc4 27.\Wf3 winning) 27.Ei:c6 Wd8 2S.Ei:c7 ttJ dS 29.Wc6t @fB 30.Ei:d7 WeS 3 1 .WxdS �xf6 32.Ei:xf7t 1 -0 Yusupov - Dominguez, Yerevan 200 1 ; 23 ... Ei:cB? - Chekhov - 24.e6 and wins; 23 ... �e7 24.e6 wins too.
The beginning of a very interesting manoeuvre whose aim is to create havoc among the black forces. Worse is the usual 24.Wf3 �g7 (24 ...We6 2S.if6 Ei:gB 26.Ei:ad 1 with compensation; 24 ... WfS 2S .Wc6t Wd7 26.Wf6 and wins; 24 ... �cS 2S .Wf6!) 2S .e6!? (2S .Wa3 �f8 26.Wf3
How are Opening Novelties Born?
All grandmasters worthy of their name must be able to master both sides of the coin. In the previous chapter we have talked about how important it is to know how to handle situations where structure, material and long term positional advantages have prioricy over development and, therefore, over time. But one cannot understand what is really happening in the position until one is able to sit at the other side of the board, metaphorically speaking. Everyone knows games where, for example, Kasparov fought in a certain kind of position both as White and as Black. How is this possible? Isn't that against a purist's view of chess? The truth is that it is extremely difficult to unravel the absolute truth of any system of play and this margin of unavoidable uncertainty is what allows players to face both sides of the struggle. I would like to remind you once more that knowing only half the truth is not to understand it at all. Accordingly it is very important to design a repertoire that is balanced, that makes it possible to fight with the most diverse, even contrasting, positional resources. Try not to always play the same type of positions, be a complete player: it will be very good for you. I am now going to show some variations in which time, as well as other advantages, is more important than the accumulated material. These lines stem from the same system against the QGA chosen by Black. L
Ej>ueC!�I Ganl,bit f\ccepted
3.e4 ttJ f6 Variation [020] Or, perhaps 27.Ei:ac l !? Undoubtedly this is the type of position White was aiming for: the black
l.d4 dS 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 ttJf6 4.eS lildS S.,ixc4
92
True Lies in Chess
�h6 6.Ad3 lt:lc6 7.�e2 i.g4 8.8 J.e6 9.�hc3 ic4?! This manoeuvre won some popularity in the 90's. If White doesn't play energetically the second player gets a very comfortable position.
10.Lc4 lt:lxc4 1 1.e6
How are Opening Novelties Born?
actually decreases the number of forces which he has actively participating in the struggle." I think this last point is very important: unlike with the development sacrifice, the obstructive runs at a different speed. As we will see in the analysis of this position, White's subsequent play is very often unhurried, full of manoeuvres. This is due to a great extent to the fact that these sacrifices usually carry with them other positional pluses. In the present case Black's extra pawn is doubled and isolated, thus creating a constellation of weaknesses that are hard to defend, in the short-term, for the second player. The mistakes the White players made in the aforementioned games were in essence all the same: they rushed to recover the sacrificed material.
1 1 ...fxe6 12.0-0!N
This interesting obstructive sacrifice was used for the first time by Volkov in 1 999. The idea is very good but the subsequent play of the Russian GM was very similar to a previous game of Van der Wiel against Van Wely in 1993 where White didn't play the strongest continuation (in that game 1 1 .�b3 � b6 was played first, and only then 12.e6). What are the most salient characteristics of this kind of sacrifice? I will take this opportunity to urge the reader to study a brilliant book by one of the great tacticians, Rudolf Spielmann: I am referring to his work The Art of Sacrifice in Chess. There the author says: "This sacrifice is akin to the sacrifice for development. At any rate, both have the same object: to get ahead in development. But the respective ways and means are different. With the obstructive sacrifice the attacker attempts to hold up the enemy's development. This course definitely demands more action than does the simple sacrifice for development." And later on: "It is otherwise in the case ofthe obstructive sacrifice. Here the attacker gives up not only material but time as well. His own development derives no immediate benefit from the sacrifice, which
Strictly speaking this is the novelty I contributed to the system. White finishes his development quietly and in many lines he doesn't even try to recover any material. Objectively worse is 1 2.iWb3 ttJb6 1 3.ie3?! 03.iWxe6? - Volkov - 13 ... iWd7! and with the unavoidable arrival of a black pawn on e6 the second player overcomes all his opening difficulties) 13 ...iWd7 14.tLlf4? (better is 1 4.0-0) 14 . . . tLld5! Black's position was better in Van der Wiel - Van Wely, Brussels 1 993.
After this move the black queen starts having serious trouble. Also interesting is the alternative 16. �b3! ? �xd4 ( l 6 ...� d5 1 7.�c5 � a5 [ 1 7 ... b6 I S.tLlcxe6] I S.�bS tLl xf4 1 9 .iWxa5 a6 20.ixf4 iWxf4 2 1 .Elad i with an attack) 1 7.J.xd4 Elxd4 I S.iWxe6t �xe6 1 9 .�xe6 with compensation. Going back to the diagram: 16 . . . iWf7 1 7.iWb3!! (the key move: White gives up another pawn to speed up his attack on the black king; instead after 1 7.�gS �gS [ 1 7 ...iWf6 l S.tLlgxe6 Eld6) I S .�e l h6 19.�gxe6 Eld6 the situation is complex) 1 7... �dS ( l 7. . . �xd4?! l s.ixd4 �xf4 [ l S ... Elxd4 1 9.�xe6! EldS 20.�4c5 h5 2 1 .a4 hxg4 {2 l . . .aS 22.Elad l Eld6 23.�xb7 wins} 22.fxg4 �g6 23.iWf3 and the weakness of the fS-bishop proves decisive!} 19.�xe6t <j{bS 20 . .ie5 iWe3t 2 1 .<j{hl and the black kingside is no more) l S.�cS! � a5 ( I S . . . b6 1 9.tLlcxe6 Eld6 20.tLlg5 iWgS 2 1 .�e4 EldS 22.�xd 5 �xd5 23.iWxd5 Elxd5 24.�c3 Eld7 25.d5 and White is clearly better) 1 9.iWbS! (this piece attack against the enemy king is extremely dangerous) 1 9 ... tLl xe3 09 ... tLlxf4 20.iWxa5 a6 2 1 .iWb4 b6 22.tLlxa6 tLldS 23.Elac l ! and White is clearly better) 20.iWxa5, winning. b) 12 ... g6 1 3.iWb3 � b6 1 4.Eld l !
12 .'IWd7 .•
a) 1 2 . . .� b6!? (a logical alternative: the c4knight occupies an unfavourable position in some variations; from its new location it controls the important central square dS) 1 3 .�e4! (this is the most incisive continuation; instead 1 3 .ie3 would be too slow) 13 ... �dS ( 1 3 . . . e5 14.dxeS iWxdl 1 5 .Elxdl e6 16.�f4 EldS 1 7.id2 and White is clearly better) 14.ie3 0-0-0 I S .tLlf4 �f5 16.g4!
. . �� , '% , $! f}% ��fJ ��)��"�?� �� , "' ' % .�� � � ��i I� ; � �% �%0'� �% "/ .�� t. ...
' / ..
�
� fj � �. �� t.�lLJm ...%�t.f'A" �
�� ����/���� fj t�. • • tfj %_ "'%�i� im'"
P-
3 �
This i s clearly the strongest continuation. White threatens to open up the position with unpleasant consequences. In a recent game I played 1 4.iWxe6, which is interesting although probably nor the best move. There followed 1 4 ... iWd7! ( I 4 ... �xd4? l S .ttJ xd4 [ 1 5 .iWe5 tLlxe2t 1 6.�xe2 ElgS) 1 5 ...iWxd4t 1 6.ie3 iWf6 [ 1 6... iWd7 1 7.�eS ElgS l S.�bS;
93
1 6 ... �d6 1 7.iWe4 .ig7 l s.iWxb7 and White is clearly better) 1 7.iWe4 0-0-0 l S.�bS, and White's attack is very dangerous) 1 5 .iWxdlt <j{xd7 1 6.dS �b4 1 7.Eldl ig7? This is probably the decisive mistake; Black should have tried to get rid of the strong d5-pawn by means of an eventual ... e7-e6 with chances of equalizing the game. I S.a3 �a6
19.ie3! The beginning of a manoeuvre that earns a significant advantage; White exchanges his opponent's only active piece: the g7-bishop. 19 ... Elad8 20.id4 .ixd4t 2 Ulxd4 tLlc5 (2 l . . .e6 22.dxe6t <j{xe6 23.Elad l Elxd4 24.tLlxd4t <j{e7 25.Elel t <j{d7 26.tLle4 and I think it is hardly necessary to mention the difference that exists berween the two sides' knights) 22.Elad l <j{cS 23.b4 ttJ cd7 24.a4 <j{bS 25'tLlf4 The advantage is now huge. 25 ... tLl f6 26.�e6 l"lcS 27.a5 �bd7 2S.b5 tLl eS 29.a6 bxa6 30.Ela4!, winning Comas Fabrego - Markowski, Istanbul 2003. After the diagram one option is 14 ... i.g7 I S .�xe6. Recovering the pawn is now good enough, e.g. 1 5 ...�d6 ( I 5 ... iWd7 1 6.iWe4 [ l 6.�xdlt <j{xd7 1 7.d5!?) 16 ... 0-0 [ 1 6. . . �f5 1 7.dS �xe4 l S.fxe4 tLle5 1 9.�d4 and White is clearly better) 1 7.d5 and White is clearly on rap; and if 1 5 ... �xd4 16.�xd4 ixd4t 1 7.<j{h l cS I S.�b5, White's advantage is obvious) 1 6.iWe4 0-0 1 7.d5 ttJe5 I S.tLld4 and White emerges on top. Another option is 14 ... iWd7 I S .d5 exd5 16.ttJxdS �xd5 1 7.l"lxdS with a strong attack.
13.lt:le4! 0-0-0 If 13 ... b6!? 14.iWb3 tLld6 ( l 4 ...tLl4a5 1 5.iWc3 with an attack) 1 5 .lt:lg5 tLlfS 16.tLlxe6 tLla5
94
True Lies in Chess
( l 6 . . .liJcxd4 1 7.liJ 2xd4 liJxd4 1 8.liJxd4 �xd4t 19.i.e3, winning) 1 7.�b5!!. After this blow White's advantage is beyond dispute.
II. fi>ucrcr�r GOR\.bit f.\.cccrptcrd
14.liJg5!
I.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 liJc6 4.liJO .ig4 5.d5 liJe5 6 ..if4 liJ g6 7.i.e3 e5
A very usual manoeuvre in this variation: after Black castles queenside the weakness of f7 becomes apparent.
3.e4 4:lc6 Variation [020]
7 ... liJf6 is met with 8.i.xc4!?
14... liJxd4 14 . . . liJd6 1 5.liJf4 e5 1 6.liJfe6 exd4 17. liJxd8 mxd8 1 8.l'l:e 1 e5 1 9.f4! In this open position Black's lack of development together with the delicate situation of his king must tell.
15.'11;l[xd4 'lWxd4t 16.liJxd4 lhd4 17.b3 liJb6 If 17 ... liJd6 1 8 .liJxe6 l'l:d5 19 . .tb2 c6 20.Elae 1 md7 2 1 .l'l:f2, White gradually increases his positional advantage.
18 .. J;d6 19.�el g6
1 9 ... �d7 20.lbxf8t �xf8 2 1 .i.a3 and White is clearly better.
20.i.f4 2o.ib2 l'l:g8 2 1 .ia3 l'l:d7 22.lbxf8 l'l:xf8 23 .i.xe7 and White is slightly better.
20.. .l;d7 21 ..ie5 �g8 22.g4
With compensation because of the persistent positional pressure.
10 ...i.xf3 1 1 .gxf3 and it is extremely difficult for Black to complete his development) 1 1 .0-0-0!? (This was undoubtedly the most incisive move: the white king is perfectly safe on the queenside. However, also interesting is 1 1 .0-0 i.xf3 1 2.gxf3 b5 [ l 2 . . . �d7 1 3.l'l:fd l �h3 1 4.i.fl �h5, or 14 ... �xf3 1 5 .dxc6, 1 5 .dxc6 bxc6 1 6.�a4 liJe5 1 7.�h l with the initiative] 1 3 .i.b3 cxd5 14.liJxd5 e6 1 5 .liJxf6t gxf6 1 6.�e4 with an attack) 1 1 . . . .ixf3 (if 1 1 ...b5 there might follow 1 2 .i.e2 ixf3 1 3 .i.xf3 cxd5 14.liJxd5 liJxd5 1 5 .i.xd5 l'l:c8t 1 6.�b l e6 1 7.i.c6t winning) 12 .gxf3 �c7 ( l 2 . . . b5 1 3.liJxb5 cxb5 14.ixb5 t liJd7 1 5.mbl and White i s clearly better) 1 3 .mbl and Black is hanging on the verge of the cliff.
8..ixc4 a6
18.liJxe6
This is White's main idea. Once his knight gets to e6 Black's development is tremendously compromised even in this endgame-like position.
How are Opening Novelties Born?
To avoid the aforementioned exchanging manoeuvre i.c4-b5. This is a very interesting pawn sacrifice with the aim of obtaining a clear lead in development as well as open files or, if Black turns it down, importam positional concessions. I would like to repeat Rudolf Spielmann's thoughts on the essence of true sacrifices: "The faculty, upon occasion, of converting energy into matter and matter imo energy, constitutes one of the most wonderful characteristics of chess, and reveals, perhaps, the innermost secret of its fascination." If now 8 ... liJxe4 (If 8 ... e5 9.i.b5t and White is slightly better; this is another of the main ideas of the variation: exchanging the light-squared bishops favours the first player, as practice has shown. Instead 8 ... a6 9.h3 i.xf3 1 0.gxf3 also favours White slightly. Finally, 8 . . . e6 9.ib5t liJd7 1 0.dxe6 i.xe6 I l .liJd4 and White also has an advantage.) 9.�d4 liJ f6 (9 ... ixf3 1 0 .gxf3 liJd6 1 1 .i.b3 c6 1 2.liJc3 with compensation, e.g. 12 ... liJf5 [ l 2 . . .cxd5 1 3 .i.a4t and White wins] 1 3 .�e4 lbxe3 14.dxc6 and White is clearly better) 1 0 .4:lc3 (this is probably a more accurate move than 10.0-0 as it leaves open the option of castling queenside later on, followed by the manoeuvre l'l:h l -e l with obvious pressure on the centre of the board) 10 . . . c6 ( l O ... e6 1 1 ..tb5t winning;
9.liJbd2!?
A clear improvement in this system. Previously this knight was developed via c3 but it had no good prospects of active play there, whereas from d2 it has two excellent routes to access attacking positions: liJd2-c4 (with pressure on d6 and e5) and eventually liJc4-a5; or if Black plays the thematic . . . b7-b5 then liJd2-b3-c5.
9 liJf6 10.h3 ..•
Another importam step in White's plan. With the text move he gains permanent comrol of the f4-square. On the other hand the presence of the knight on f3 makes it extremely difficult for Black
95
to carry out the manoeuvre ... liJg6-f4 because of the problems he would have in controlling his e5-square.
10...i.d7 1 O ... ixf3 1 1 .�xf3 tiJ h4 1 2.�g3 and White is slightly better.
1 1 .0-0 .id6 1 2 ..idJ 0-0 13.liJc4 White's advantage is very comfortable.
Tttof\.1v ntr Dvorcrtrl\�: Proptt�loKil of\.d loaie if\. tttcr Opcrtl!"8 Mark Ovoretsky has written many of the most brilliant chapters in modern chess literature, and if any reader does not yet have the privilege of owning any of his books, then I strongly recommend them to you now. They made a strong impression on me, particularly because of a couple of concepts that are deeply researched in his work, which have tremendous potential regarding the thorough development of a chess player: prophylaxis and logic in the opening. The idea of prophylaxis comes originally from Nimzowitsch. It essentially means "taking measures with the aim of preventing certain phenomena that would be undesirable from a positional point ofview". This playing philosophy can be applied to many situations in a game. Ovoretsky's great virtue has been to rescue from oblivion such a cherished treasure, adapt it to modern times, and show some excellent examples on the topic. Regarding the application of logic to the opening, this is a more complex element to master but at the same time, and because of this, much more beautiful. Let's see what Ovoretsky says about it: "Clearly, logic does not function in a vacuum. It operates on our specific knowledge of chess openings and also on the typical precepts and judgements which we have acquired; it helps us to relate these factors to a particular chess position and hence to work out the correct decision. The more ideas we possess, the greater will be the scope for logic; and the deeper and more accurate our reasoning will become." (Opening Preparation, page 35)
96
True Lies in Chess
No idea is useful unless one is able to assimilate it and apply it to one's own games, creating in the process something new. I can show the reader two interesting opening plans that have their origin in the aforementioned concepts. The first one comes from one of the many aspects ofprophylaxis; the second one is an ode to logic in the opening.
12.'it>bl Or 1 2 .1Wf2 d6 1 3.g4 0-0 1 4.1'!gl ttl fd7 1 5.f4 lLlc4 1 6.gS b4 1 7.i.xc4 i'9xc4 I S.f5 bxc3 1 9.f6 i.dS 20.beg7 1'!eS 0- 1 Motylev - Alekseev, Tomsk 200 1 .
12...d6 13.Wff2 0-0 14.g4
I leave! be!Pore I Bet Iticlte!d out Knowing the right time to withdraw from a position without being kicked out is one of the most interesting and subtle prophylactic aspects that chess teaches us.
Sicilian Defence Taimanov Variation (English Attack) [B4S]
How are Opening Novelties Born? at his disposal, with the eventual idea lLl a4b6, establishing an unpleasant blockade on the queens ide. The move 14 ... ttlfd7 answers perfectly the needs of the position: Black anticipates the advance g4-g5 which sooner or later White has to carry out; at the same time it makes the two aforementioned plans of counterplay available. In order to carry them out good control of the b6-square is essential. For instance the immediate 14 ... b4 I S .ttla4 ( I S.ttle2? as and Black is slightly better) 1 5 ... i.b7 ( l 5 . . .i.d7 1 6.ttlb6 1'!abS 1 7.g5 with the initiative; 1 5 ... ttl fd7) 1 6.1'!g l ! ? ttlfd7! ( l 6 ... ttlc6 1 7.i.b6 i'9cs l S .i.e3 ttld7 1 9. f4; or 1 6. . . 1'!fcS 1 7.g5 ttlfd7 l S . ttl b6; in both cases White is slightly better) 17.ttlb6 with slight but annoying pressure in the game Leko - Lutz, Essen 2002.
lSJ:&gl
l.e4 cS 2.lLIO lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLIxd4 e6 S.lLIc3 Vfic7 6 ..ie3 a6 7.Vfid2 lLlf6 8.0-0-0 .ib4 9.0 A key position has been reached.
This is Kasparov's contribution to the variation. 1 5 .f4? b4! didn't work.
14... lLlfd7!
A fashionable variation against the Taimanov.
9 ... lLleS 1O.lLlb3 bS 1 0 ... d5 1 1 .i.d4 and White is slightly better; if now 1 1 .. .dxe4?? 12.i.xe5 and White wins. Another option is 10 ...i.xc3 I l . bxc3 d5 12 .i.d4 0-0 1 3.i'9g5! with some initiative.
1 1..id4 .ie7 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.i'9g5 tDg6 ( l 2 ... d6 1 3 .a3 i.xc3 14.i.xc3 and White is clearly better) 1 3 .i.xf6 gxf6 14.i'9xf6 and White is slightly better.
This was an important theoretical novelty at the time. As Dvoretsky points out: "The deepest moves, the best positional solutions are the ones that combine the development of one's own plan with preventing the opponent from carrying out his." How did Black come up with this idea? First one has to understand the basic plans for both players. It is obvious that White's attacking plan includes the move g4-gS followed by the typical pawn storm on the kingside h2-h4-hS , g5-g6 to open lines on this flank. Black must neutralize this action either with counterplay on the queenside with ... b5-b4 followed by ... as-a4 or with a central counter whose essential idea is the manoeuvre ... i.cS-b7 putting pressure on e4 and making possible an eventual . . . d6-d5. Analysing a previous game between Leko and Lutz, I reached two important conclusions: against the immediate 1 4 ...i.b7 the positional treatment l S.i.b6 i'9bS 1 6.ttla5 was unpleasant; while the plan beginning with ... b5-b4 loses a great deal of its effectiveness if White has the reply ttlc3-a4
97
I S .g5 is not convmcmg either: 1 5 . . .i.b7!? ( l S . . . b4! ? 1 6.ttle2 [ 1 6.ttla4 1'!bS 1 7. f4 ttl g6 I S.f5 i'9c6 and Black is clearly better] 1 6... a5 1 7. f4 a4 I S.ttld2 ttlc6 1 9.i.e3 i.b7 with counterplay) 1 6.f4 b4! and Black is clearly better.
lS ....ib7 Jesus de la Villa's recommendation is also interesting: 15 ... b4 16.ttla4 i'9c6!? 1 7.ttlb6 ttlxb6 I S.hb6 as! with the idea that if 1 9.i.xa5? i'9a4 2o.1Wb6 i.dS and Black wins. (Editor's Note: Topalov's second Cheparinov recently demonstrated a flaw in this idea: instead of I S.i.xb6 he has twice played l S.ttla5! and only captured on b6 after the queen moves. This way Black's pawn remains blocked on a6.)
16.gS �fc8 17.a3 When one has to make this move in this kind of set-up, it's because something has gone wrong.
17 ... lLIc4 1 8.ixc4 Wfxc4 Worse is 1 8 . . . bxc4? which featured in the game Kasparov - Ye Jiangchuan, Bled (01) 2002. In this case Black's attack along the b-file will be easy to neutralize, and carrying out any central counterplay would be very complex. Now instead the idea . . . a6-a5 and ... b5-b4 is very annoying indeed.
19.1LlaS Wfc7 20.lLIxb7 Wfxb7
1 6.tDa4? (with the b6-square well defended this knight can end up in much trouble, but 1 6.ttle2 was not good either: 16 ... lLlxg4 1 7.i'9g3 [ 1 7.i'9g2 ttl gf6 I S.e5 i.b7 and Black has a decisive advantage] 1 7... ttlgf6 1 8.1'!gl g6 1 9.e5 dxe5 20.bee5 ttld5 and Black is clearly better) 1 6... lLlxg4 17.1Wg2 ttlgf6 l S.i.d3 e5 1 9.1'!dgl ttle8! and Black was winning in the game Vallejo - Comas Fabrego, Ayamonte 2002. The loss of the a4-knight cannot be prevented, and all thanks to the prophylactic move . . . tDfd7!.
Black has an excellent game. [Typesetter's note: from analysing this position extensively myself, I would like to add that it is actually very uncomfortabLefor White... ]
98
True Lies in Chess
II it pOllible to cO"lPletely rteutrarlZe tlte opporte'l,t'l ir¥tiiative?
� Shirov .. Movsesian Sarajevo 200 1
As has been said before, the appropriate use of
logic when studying openings, with the purpose of finding strong novelties, presupposes a deep knowledge of their typical plans. I would like to emphasize the fact that opening logic doesn't work in purely abstract terms. A common dream among players is that if one could have a perfect method of evaluation and reasoning, we would be able to solve any situation we came across and therefore find the best move. But such a method would have a big problem: it omits an investigation of the future positions that could arise from the present situation. It is not possible to find the best move in a given position without knowing the future consequences of it and these can only be reached through profound analysis and great experience in the nuances of the system. I hope that the next example will illustrate what I have j ust explained:
Sicilian Defence Scheveningen Variation Classical Attack with �e l -g3 [B85]
l .e4 c5 2.tLla e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlc6 5.tLlc3 �c7 6.�e2 a6 7.0-0 tLlfG 8.i.e3 i.e7 9.f4 d6 1O.�el 0-0 1 1.�g3 tLlxd4 12.hd4 b5 13.a3 �b7 14J'l:ael Without any doubt this is one of the most important posItIons of the Scheveningen Variation. The most popular plan from the diagram is ...�c6 with the idea of playing ... W1c7b7 and . . . b5-b4 putting the enemy centre and queenside under pressure. When I started analysing the system I took into consideration two model games by one of the greatest specialists in the variation: Alexei Shirov. In both of them a position of the type shown in the next diagram was reached:
How are Opening Novelties Born?
99
the manoeuvre i.e2-f3 as we will see in the following model game.
16.�d3 e5! 17.fxe5 tLlh5!
hl ia8!?N
This waiting move is a very strong novelty. It is essential to keep the c-file clear so that the black
This is the key to Black's prophylactic play. White isn't given the necessary space required to adequately prepare his offensive. Curiously enough, the first time I tested this system in practice in the game Lacasa - Comas Fabrego
How are Opening Novelties Born? of the 1 993 Spanish Team Championship I didn't play the text move. This is easy to explain: I simply didn't remember what I had studied. This is one of the drawbacks of being away from competition for too long. In that game Black played the interesting, but inferior, 1 6. . . lt>h8.
17.:Sdl l3d8! The black rook moves to the same file as its white counterpart to facilitate future simplifications that will minimize the dangers of White's eventual attack on the kingside.
18.gfe!!? @h8! A typical manoeuvre when the white bishop has occupied the f3-square. The objective is to prevent possible problems with the black king as a consequence of an eventual ttlc3-e4-f6 after e4-eS .
19.b3 '!We8 Also interesting was 1 9 ... �c7 20.e5 dxeS 2 1 .LeS �a7!? 22.i.xa8 �xa8 23.Elxd8 :Sxd8 24.ttle4 ttle8 2S .i.b2 WdS with equality.
20.eS dxeS 2 1.fx.e5 lLld7 2 l . ..ttldS!?
22.ha8 '!Wxa8 For instance 23.ttle4 Wc6 with counterplay: Black's position is excellent.
101
Cttapter 5 Ttt,e Ope'lJ'l8 �ccordi� to file · or Wtt,y l lilt,e ...� a6 it\. ttt,e t\!t\8'/ It\.diat\. In Ajedrez en fa Cumbre Petrosian dedicates a chapter to explaining the reasons he liked to employ the unusual move ig5 against some of the defensive systems used by Black at the time. In this regard it is worth mentioning his valuable contribution to a well known variation which was invented to fight against the King's Indian Defence. Of course the line I am referring to is the one which bears Petrosian's name. The main argument he presents in favour of adopting almost forgotten lines or, with a similar philosophy, using systems where there is no theory as they are in the early stages of investigation, is the following: " .. .in a struggle with a more experienced master - one who not only knows published theory bur who has the variations etched into his hide - my lack of experience put me at a disadvantage." When one is younger one often confronts this dilemma: To play the main lines or to go for secondary systems? Beyond their practical value, the use ofvariations "seldom visited by eminent grandmasters" may have instructional value if their use comes after serious and creative analysis. One ends up identifYing oneself with the variation thus created. I can explain from my own experience the pride one feels if one is fortunate enough that "his variation" is later accepted and used by players of international renown. I would like to stress that the purpose of such systems is not j ust as surprise weapons nor is it to
constantly escape theory, as might be concluded from Petrosian's article, hoping that the opponent will not know how to solve the problems over the board. It is instead something deeper, with its own value and justification. Is every player ready for such excursions into the world of the unknown? In my view the answer is no. For that, one must understand the game, master the positional and tactical procedures and know how to apply them to all sorts of situations. But I would like to warn the reader that becoming obsessed with such a philosophy, that is, exclusively using little-known opening systems, can also become seriously detrimental: such a player runs the risk of becoming isolated from the creative and evolutionary currents of the game, as well as losing touch with the way top players understand the variations they employ. For in the main variations we can see how the top grandmasters think, how their understanding of the fashionable lines progresses. Obviously studying these main opening systems should also have a clear creative component: try to provide something new, look for improvements, engage in the discussion of the variation. To find ideas that nobody had seen before in well-trodden paths also produces great pleasure. It also enormously increases one's self confidence. That is why I recommend that an ambitious player combines the two approaches in his
1 04
True Lies in Chess
opening preparation: try (0 create new systems, create your own identity; but at the same time don't lose (Ouch with the main variations in your theoretical discussion. Regarding the working methodology when facing the analysis and investigation of new lines of play I would like (0 strongly recommend the book Grandmaster Preparation by Lev Polugaevsky. There the author makes a thorough examination of the process that led (0 the birth and subsequent evolution of what later on, and well deservedly, would become known as the Polugaevsky Variation.
But now I would like (0 introduce the reader (0 the finer points of a system that has been one of my greatest pleasures for a long time. It is a line characterized by the move . . . lLla6 against the Classical Variation of the King's Indian. Let's see the basic position:
l .d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5.lLlO 0-0 6.i.e2 lLla6 (Basic Position)
Why does Black choose this strange move, delaying the advance . . . e7-e5? What is its strategic foundation? I took the decision (0 include this then litde known option into my repertoire in 1 989. The variation had just been born in 1 988 thanks to
the efforts and courage of a group of talented players: primarily Glek, Yurtaev, Kovalev and Asanov. Firstly, this provided space to develop my creativity when investigating the new system, as I was basically in unexplored territory. Secondly and no less importantly, with this move I avoided the most favourable versions of two White systems, as we will see below, that are very unpleasant for Black if he wants to fight for a win: the Exchange Variation and the Petrosian Variation (yes, the Petrosian Variation, what a coincidence!) . And finally, the alternative to this system was the Yugoslav Variation arising after 6 ... e5 7.0-0 lLlc6 8.d5 (Black's pressure on d4 forces this advance) 8 . . . lLle7. This line usually leads to variations that have been copiously analysed until move 30 or beyond, and where one slip can mean defeat. I just want to say that I don't like these kind of lines at all: if you have a bad day or your memory fails then anyone can beat you. But all this would not be enough if the knight manoeuvre didn't have a strategic foundation. Its detractors will say that the a6-knight occupies a poor position on the edge of the board. That it doesn't put any immediate pressure on the enemy centre is quite evident. What then are the virtues of this mysterious move? The argument that after this move Black's pressure on the enemy centre decreases is false: it's just that the mechanisms to carry out this pressure change. Indeed after the typical manoeuvres ... e7-e5, ... �d8-e8 and eventually ... �c8-g4 it is very difficult for White to keep his central pawns intact. (This is the main difference compared to the passive system . . . e7-e5 followed by ... lLlb8-d7; in this case Black's central pressure is insufficient) . A couple of details: I would like to warn the reader that the queen manoeuvre to e8 and the subsequent aggressive move of the bishop to g4 can be carried out thanks to the placement of the a6-knight since from this square it defends the vital c7-pawn against the possible attack lLlc3-d5 and it doesn't obstruct the line of development of the light-squared bishop. The other reason put forward by its detractors,
The Opening According (0 Me - or Why I Like . . .ltla6 in the King's Indian that is, the bad placement of the knight, is only of a temporary nature. It has already been said in the previous paragraph that practice has shown that White, in many variations when confronted by Black's pressure, cannot do without the moves dxe5 or d4-d5. It can also happen that Black is the one who decides to exchange with ... exd4 with active piece play. In any of these cases it turns out that the knight is perfectly poised on a6, controlling the enemy pawn expansion on the queenside and just one move away from its ideal c5 -square. But since a picture (and perhaps a diagram) is worth a thousand words we will now go on to study concrete variations. I must warn the reader that this chapter is not intended as a practical guide of how to play against all of White's possibilities. I am just going (0 show those lines where I have something interesting to say, contributing something new to the theory of the system in the process.
lil\« I: PloyillS a 10 P«tro/iol\ � Gomez Jurado • Comas Fabrego Foment 1 995 (Starting from the Basic Position)
7.i.g5 h6 8.i.h4 e5 9.d5 White transposes into the Petrosian Variation. The main difference with the usual lines, where the black knight is on d7 instead of a6, is that in the latter case the direct control that Black exerts over the key f5-square gives him good prospects of active counterplay in the near future.
9 .. g5 10 ..ig3 lLlh5 I l .h4 g4 .
One of several possible options. Also very interesting is l l .. .ttJxg3 1 2.fxg3 gxh4 13.ttJxh4 ( I 3.E1xh4 f5) 13 . . .�g5. If the black knight were on d7 the first player could try the theoretical 1 4.�g4, although even in that case Black has a very interesting alternative which has not been employed in practice yet, 1 4 .. .f5!. Now instead it is obvious that White is hard pressed to defend against Black's initiative.
105
12.lLlh2 The other main alternative is 1 2.lLld2!?
Undoubtedly this is a very interesting option. Again we can make comparisons to understand the reasons behind this: with a knight on d7 Black would have the strong continuation 1 2 ... f5 1 3.exf5 lLl df6! with excellent play. Now instead new forms of counterplay must be found. For example: 12 ... lLlxg3 1 3. fxg3 h5 14.0-0 c6 1 5 .�h l ( l 5 .�h2 �h6 with the idea of . . .�f4) 1 5 ...�h6 with counterplay. Among others, one possible plan for Black could be . . . lLl a6-c7-e8-g7 followed by ... £7-f5 . For instance 1 6.lLlb3 ( l 6.i.d3 �b6) 16 ... lLlb4 1 7.a3 �f4 with an attack. 1 2 ... f5!? 1 3 .exf5 lLlc5!? This is an interesting alternative worthy of deeper analysis.
12 ...lLlxg3 1 3.fxg3 h5 14.0-0 '\We7!?
1 06
True Lies in Chess
At the time this move was a theoretical novelty. Black makes a useful move for his plan of securing conuol of the very important e4-square. White, as we will now see, has no equivalent move. Worse than the text move was the immediate 14 ... fS because of I S.exfS .ixfS 1 6 . .id3 "lWd7 1 7.ctJe4 with some positional advantage for White.
Before proceeding with the study of the ctJa6 system I would like to clarifY a couple of details. Why doesn't Black play the move ...ctJa6 more often in reply to the Petrosian Variation? It's simply a nuance with the move-order leading to the main position.
15.'I1*fc2
l.d4 lLlfG 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.lLlf3 0-0 6.Ae2 e5 7.d5 lLla6
Other possibilities were: a) I S ..id3 ctJcS 1 6 ..ic2 ( l 6.b4 ctJxd3 I7."lWxd3 fS I S.exfS e4 and Black is slightly better) I6 . . . fS ! 1 7.exfS ( l 7.b4 ttJa6! - what a bad knight! - I S.a3 [ I S .exfS is answered with I S . . . e4!) I S. . . f4 with an attack) 17 ... e4! and Black has a clearly better position. b) I S."lWd2 fS 1 6.exfS .ixfS 17 ..id3 e4 l S .1'lae1 ltJcS 19 . .ic2 1'laeS and Black is clearly better.
The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like ... ctJa6 in the King's Indian
1 07
This is the option I suggest. Black deviates from the more usual variation 9 ... "lWeS 1 0.ixf6 .ixf6 1 1 .cS.
It turns out that after this sequence, first ... e7-eS and then . . .ctJ bS-a6, White has a very unpleasant reply.
8.lLld2! In this case after 7 ... cS! S.dS e6 9.0-0 Black, without exchanging on dS to prevent White from landing the d2-knight on c4 and thus completing the development of his queenside, has a series of constructive moves like ... 1'leS, . . . 1'lbS, ... b6, ... a6 which have no equivalents in White's crowded position.
1 5 ... lLlb4 16.'I1*fb3 If 1 6."lWb l as 1 7.a3 ttJa6 l S .b4 fS! and Black is slightly better.
16 ... a5 17.a3 lLla6 18.'I1*fc2 lLlc5 1 9.1'lae1 19 .b4 axb4 20.axb4 1'lxal 2 1. 1'lxa 1 ctJa6 22.1'lb 1 fS , when Black is slightly better, was not enough either.
This line leads to deeply analysed positions where White has an unpleasant initiative.
10.dxe5 This is probably the most critical variation. Another main option is 10 ..ig3 ctJhS I I .dxeS ctJxg3 1 2 .hxg3 dxeS!?
Another attacking line worth serious analysis is the one arising from the position of the bishop on the gS-square.
19 ...a4 Thanks to the strong position of his cS-knight Black can calmly continue preparing the break . . . £7-fS .
20.Adl .th6 2 1.1'lf2 .td7 22.@hl f6 23.lLlfl 'I1*fh7 24.'%'fbl 5 25.Ac2 f4 And Black wins
Mter this prophylactic move Black faces enormous difficulties in finding active counterplay. White has prevented the standard manoeuvre S . . . ctJa6-cS, as now that the e4pawn is overprotected he has the counter b2-b4, chasing away the knight. On the other hand S ... ttJf6-eS with the idea of ... £7 -fS is not advisable either since after the break h2-h4-hS White's position is clearly preferable. And if Black awaits developments, White can calmly prepare an unpleasant pawn storm on the queenside. Practice has seen the following very interesting continuation with the idea of reaching this kind of position .
l.d4 lLlfG 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 Ag7 4.e4 d6 5.lLlf3 0-0 6.Ae2 lLla6 7.lLld2!?
(Starting from the Basic Position)
7 ..tg5 h6 8 ..th4 e5 9.0-0
9... g5!?
(l2 ... .ixeS!? with the idea of getting rid of the potentially bad bishop undoubtedly deserves deeper analysis.) Why is Black content with being left with the g7-bishop shut in by its own pawns? For several reasons: this bishop defends the king's position, makes possible ambitious plans (the transfer of the a6-knight to d4 or the expansion ... £7-fS) and, finally, in an eventual endgame common knowledge holds, rightly so in my opinion, that the worst bishop is usually better than the best knight. Now there are several possibilities:
I DS
True Lies in Chess
a) 1 3 .CLlh2!? (an interesting idea: White directly targets the weakness on fS) 13 ... c6 1 4.i.g4 (This move leads to an ending where I think Black shouldn't have any problems if he plays carefully. Instead 1 4.CLlg4? Wxdl I S.2:fXdl i.xg4! 1 6.i.xg4 2:fdS was worse in Piket - Comas Fabrego, Istanbul (01) 2000) 1 4. . .Wxd l l S .2:fXdl i.xg4 1 6.CLlxg4 :1'lfdS 1 7.CLle3 hS! (a very important move: Black has to stop White from fixing this pawn on h6 where it could become a permanent weakness in the ensuing endings) l S .CLlfS i.fS 1 9 .f3 (a necessary move against Black's eventual manoeuvre ... �gS-h7-g6 and ... CLla6cS, threatening . . . CLlxe4) 1 9 ... �h7! 20.�f2 �g6 2 1 .�e2 CLlcS The position is completely balanced. b) 1 3 .Wcl c6 1 4.2:dl ( 14.CLlh2 �cS I S .2:dl Wb6 1 6.i.g4 Wb4 1 7.b3 fS with some initiative) 14 ... We7 l S .a3 ( l S.lLlh2 i.e6 1 6.b3 2:adS 1 7.We3 WcS I S.WxcS CLlxcS 19.i.g4 .ixg4 20.CLlxg4 2:d4 2 1 .CLle3 2:fdS 22.f3 l'!d3 23.lLlfS i.fS 24.�f2 CLle6 2S.2:xd3 l'!xd3 with counterplay) l S ... lLlcS 16.Wc2 CLle6 1 7.g4 and Black is clearly better: Paszek - Petkevich, Germany 1 999.
10... CLlh5 I l.CLld4 CLlf4 12.i.g3 he5 13.l'!cl!? Defending the c3-knight against the eventual positional threat ...i.eSxc3. Another option to consider is 1 3.i.xf4 gxf4! (Reaching a very interesting position with the classic struggle of better pawn structure versus Black's greater activity. As always the question in such situations is how this activity is going to evolve: will it increase or will it come to a standstill? Worse was 1 3 ....ixf4 1 4 ..ig4 and White is clearly better.) 1 4.h3.
To exchange the light-squared bishops, thus gaining control of fS. Now Black has several options: a) 1 4 ... lLlcS!? b) 14 ... �gS I S .i.g4 i.xg4 1 6.hxg4 �h7 ( 1 6 ... i.xd4 1 7.�xd4 �xg4 I S.CLldS Wg7 1 9 .�xg7t �xg7 20.lLlxf4 2:aeS 2 1 .lLlhSt �g6 22.lLlg3 and White is slightly better) 1 7.lLlfS l'!gS I S.f3 hS 1 9 . �f2! and White is clearly better. c) 1 4 . . . �h7!? (Black's counterplay should develop along the g-file) I S.i.g4 2:gS 1 6.i.fSt! (better than 1 6.i.xcS which gives Black more options) 1 6. . .i.xfS 1 7.CLlxfS CLlcS (This seems the best option. If instead 1 7 ... l'!g6, with the idea of playing . . . WgS and ... 2:gS, I S .�f3 CLlcS [the black knight goes to e6 from where it defends the f4-pawn and threatens to occupy the gS-square] 19 .CLldS! [the white knight exertS very unpleasant pressure from this position] 1 9 . . . CLle6 20.2:ad l ! [White's initiative i s becoming very dangerous] 20 ... lLlgS 2 1 .WhS CLl xe4 [2 1 . ..B 22.g3 and White is clearly better) 22.CLlde7 and White is clearly better) I S.�f3 c6!? (As is obvious from the previous variation, it is very important to stop White's c3-knight from gaining access to the dS-square. The weakness of the d6-pawn is difficult to exploit and even its possible capture is unimportant in the game as a whole.) 1 9 .2:adl Wf6 20.lLle2 tt.!e6 2 1 .h4 2:g6,and if 22.lLlxd6 (22.hS l'!gS 23.CLlxd6 l'!xg2t! 24. �xg2 CLl gS with an attack) 22 . . . 2:agS Black has an unpleasant attack. d) 1 4 ... lLlb4!? (this is a typical manoeuvre in this system: before carrying out any active operations on the g-file, Black improves the position of his a6-knight by moving it closer to the vital central squares) I S .a3 (if instead I S .2:cl �h7 1 6.i.g4 2:gS 1 7. .ifSt i.xfS I S .lLlxfS WgS 1 9.WB tt.!d3! Black wins a very important tempo for the attack) I S ... CLlc6! 16.CLlxc6 bxc6 and Black's position has many prospects.
13 ...i.e6!? In some variations it might be in Black's interest to keep his pawn on c7 so that he might, eventually, neutralize the enemy action along the d-file and the h2-bS diagonal, thus
The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like . . . CLl a6 in the King's Indian making possible the simplifications we will see in the following variations. Another option was 1 3 . . . c6!?
14J�el!? Another possibility to bear in mind is 14.CLlfS!? i.xfS IS .exfS 2:eS!?
1 09
Going deeper into the critical line of this variation. Although also very viable is 14 ... Wf6!?; e.g. I S.CLlf3 c6 1 6.lLlxeS dxeS 1 7.i.fl (l7.Wb3 CLJcS I S .Wc2 2:fds 1 9.2:cd1 [ 1 9.CLJdS cxdS 20.cxdS 2:acS 2 1 .dxe6 �xe6 22.i.c4 CLlcd3! winning] 1 9 ... aS 20.i.fl 2:d4 2 l .f3 l'!adS 22.$..£2 CLlcd3 23.i.xd3 CLlxd3 24.i.xd4 lLlxe l 2S .i.xeS lLlxB and Black is clearly better) 1 7 ... 2:fdS with counterplay.
15.h4 IS .i.fl as and the position is unclear.
15 ...'I&f6!
Not IS ... i.xc3?!: this exchange is dubious because Black is unable to organize, at this point, effective central counterplay that would counteract White's possible attack against his weakened kingside. For instance: 1 6.2:xc3 �xe2t 1 7.�xe2 Wf6 I S.f4! (opening the position at once) I S ... 2:aeS 19.�h5 WxfS 20.fXgS WxgS 2 1 .�h3 with an attack. Another possibility that is not quite good enough to equalize is: I S . . . CLJcS 1 6.b4 i.xc3 1 7.2:xc3 CLJe4 I S.2:e3 lLlxe2t 19.�xe2 CLlxg3 20.hxg3 2:eS 2 1 .2:xeSt �xeS 22.�hS and White is slightly better. After I S ... 2:eS!? there are the following possibilities: a) 1 6.l'!el i.xc3 1 7.2:xc3 2:xe2 I S.2:xe2 CLJxe2t 1 9 .Wxe2 Wf6 After exchanging a couple of rooks, White's attacking chances have considerably decreased; White's g3-bishop runs into the d6pawn; Black's position is good. b) 1 6.iJ3 To avoid exchanges, but this is not the best place for the white bishop. 1 6 ... c6 17.CLJe4 ( l 7.2:el CLJcS 1 8.i.xf4 i.xf4 1 9.2:xe8t WxeS is about equal) 1 7 ... CLlcS! I S .CLJxcS dxcS and the position is balanced. c) 1 6.i.g4!? With similar intentions to the previous variation. 16 ... c6 1 7.CLle4 CLlcS!
14... CLlc5!
16.l"ildh5 There are many alternatives, all of them characterized by a fierce exchange of blows. a) 1 6. bxcS ixd4 1 7.lLlbS i.xcS I S.CLlxc7 2:acS 19.1Ll d5 i.xdS 20.cxdS i.b4 2 1 .2:xcS 2:xcS 22.i.g4 2:c4 23.2:e3 (23.Wa4 Wd4 with counterplay) 23 ... hS 24.id7 Wb2 and Black is clearly better. b) 1 6.CLlcbS CLla6 ( l 6. . . lLlxe4 1 7.iJ3 CLlxg3 I S .fXg3! l"ilg6 1 9.CLlxe6 fXe6 20.CLlxc7 2:acS 2 1 .lLlxe6! is decisive) 1 7.CLJf3 (1 7.Wd2 c6 I S.lLlxe6 fXe6! 1 9.�xd6 i.xd6 20.�xd6 2:adS 2 1 .i.xf4 gxf4 22.eS Wf7 and Black is clearly better; 1 7.CLlxe6 fXe6) 17 . . . CLlxb4 I s .lLlxc7 CLlxa2 1 9.i.xf4 i.xf4 20.2:c2 CLJ b4 and Black is slightly better. c) 16.CLlxe6 fXe6! d) 1 6.i.xf4 i.xd4 and Black is much better.
16 a6 ..•
1 10
True Lies in Chess
16 ... c6 1 7. bxcS and White has an obvious advantage.
lif\e 3: flear tlte Itorl1\. Classical Variation with 8.!'!el Now let's analyse the more usual lines of the system. (Starting from the Basic Position)
7.0-0 eS 8':!'!el c6 9.,if1
17.tiJxc7 Other possibilities don't seem to cause Black any trouble. For instance: a) 1 7.bxcS axbS 1 8.CZldS iLxdS 1 9 .cxdS dxcS 20J''lx cS :8xa2 and Black is slightly better. b) 1 7.liJdS iLxdS 1 8.liJxc7 �xe4 1 9.1iJxa8 CZlxg2 20.liJb6 CZlxe l 2 1 .'iWxe l liJd3 22.iLxd3 i.xd3 23.liJd7 'iWf3 24.i.xeS Wg4t 2s.iLg3 'iWxd7 and Black is slightly better. c) 1 7.ixf4 Wxf4 1 8 .g3 'iWf6 19 .1iJxc7 ixc3 20.bxcS hel 2 1 .Wxe l :8ad8 and Black is clearly better.
17 ....ixc3 18Jhc3 If 1 8.bxcS Lel 1 9.CZlxa8 i.xf2t 20 .iLxf2 dxcS 2 1 .liJc7 CZlxe2t 22.'iWxe2 Wf4 23.�b2 �xc7 24.�f6 @h7 and Black is slightly better.
18 ... llJxe2t 19.!'he2 �xc3 20.bxcS dxcS 20 ... E!ac8 2 1 .ixd6 and White is clearly better.
The Opening According [ 0 Me - or Why I Like ... liJa6 in the King's Indian 1 1 .. .CZlb4 was later played by Topalov, bur it's weaker. There might follow 1 2.i.e2 cs 13.i.e3 :8e8 14.h3! hf3 I S .i.xf3 and the presence of the f3-bishop favours White, as his centre is much more stable. After 1 1 .. .:8e8! there follows 12.h3 iLxf3 1 3 .'iWxf3 CZlb4! 14.E!acl cS I S .ie3 CZlc6! (this is the basic middlegame position) 1 6.E!cd 1 (if 1 6.:8ed l !? 'iWe7! the weakness of the e4-square becomes apparent: 17 .iLgS 'iWe6 1 8 .Lf6 [ 1 8 .:8el CZld4] 18 ...'iWxf6 1 9.'iWxf6 ixf6 20.:8xd6 iLxc3 2 1 .:8xc3 :8xe4 and the position is equal) 1 6 . . .'iWaS! (exploiting the vulnerability of the e l -rook) 1 7.if4 (if 1 7.:8d2 :8e6!, beginning an excellent regrouping aimed at controlling once and for all the d4-square and stabilizing the d6-pawn: 1 8.:8edl CZle8) 17 ... CZld4 1 8.'iWd3 :8ad8 19.id2 'iWb6 (Black's plan consists of constanrly harassing the enemy queenside) 20.igS :8c8 2 1 .icl CZld7 22.f4 a6 23.g3 liJb8 24.ig2 liJbc6 2S .liJdS 'iWaS 26.a3 b5, Garcia Luque - Magem Badals, Spain 1 990: Black has excellent counterplay.
10...adS!? Now Black has at his disposal two main options. A. Black increases the central tension.
9 ...i.g4 10.dS Another highly rated possibility is 10.ie3!? although I think that in this case after 10 ... exd4! Black gets a very sound position. With this move Black begins a plan whose aim is to put pressure on the central dark squares and the enemy queenside. For instance 1 1 .iLxd4 E!e8!.
This is an interesting idea. Black prepares his kingside counterplay without giving up the possibility of activating his a6-knight through c5. Worse is instead 1 0 ... liJe8 I l .h3 id7 1 2.cS! (I don't understand why so far no-one has played this strong move) 1 2 ... tDxcS 13 .b4 and White is clearly better.
III
12 ..ixa6?! A very instructive error. The weakness of Black's queenside pawns is deceptive and the possible transfer of a white knight [0 the "ideal" c6-square will remove a very important piece from the main theatre ofoperations, the kingside. Other options were 1 2.h3 id7 ( I 2 ... ic8!? in some variations it is better that this bishop is on c8, increasing the safety of the b7- and d6-pawns) 13.liJd2 ( I 3.iLe3 f5 ; instead, 13 .a4!?, suggested by the Israeli player Greenfeld, is extremely interesting) 13 ... fS 1 4.tDc4 bS I S .liJa3 b4 with counterplay.
12 ... bxa6 1 3.�d3 i.c8! Black keeps his valuable light-squared bishop and prepares the expansion on the kingside with . . . 0-fS.
14.llJd2 fS IS.llJc4 f4 16.a4 �h4 17.i.d2 1 7.CZla5 liJ f6 with an attack.
17 ...gS 17 . . .f3 was another very valid option.
18.f3 1 8.liJa5 :8f6 with a useful initiative.
18 ... g4 19.fxg4 .ixg4 20J�f1 �f6 21.ie1 �h5 22.h3 Ad7 23.�f3 �h6
l 1.adS llJe8
21.llJxa8 :8xa8 The position is unclear. All these continuations are only approximations of the numerous possibilities the position offers. Bur I think that the reader can appreciate the richness of ideas this line contains. Now we are gradually going [0 delve deeper in the more critical variations of this system.
And Black continued building up his attacking position on the kingside in Candela Perez Comas Fabrego, Burgos 2003. As we have seen, this line usually leads to positions with a blocked pawn centre, giving the struggle a rather slow character.
1 12
True Lies in Chess
In complete contrast, we are now going to study what is in my view the main variation of the system beginning with S.�el c6 9.�fl . In this line Black doesn't shy away from hand-to-hand combat.
1 7.Eledl �e5 I S.iWe2 iWa5 1 9 .�d2 iWc7 20.f4 �d4t 2 1 .
As you can see, one little nuance completely changes the evaluation of a situation: that is the beauty of chess! (I would go even further: this type of position can be reached with a black pawn on a7 instead of on a6 and this again has favourable repercussions for Black as the eventual manoeuvre i.c8-a6 makes White's intended plans difficult to achieve) . We will see how this static and narrow view often had a negative influence on Tarrasch's decision-making throughout this contest. In contrast, Chigorin was a more complete player: in fact in his moves one can see elements belonging to both philosophies of play, dynamic and static.
9.i.e3 i.d6
The Others together, very effectively consolidating Black's wrecked pawn structure on the queenside. In practice there are many standard situations that have this characteristic: remember the famous structure discovered by Borvinnik (White: e4, c4, c3, CLldS or i.d5 or :1'\dS; Black: eS , c5, b7, tt:lc6), or the famous game Keres - Flohr, Semmering 1 937 (White: isolated c3pawn and CLld4). Basically we are talking about a form of cooperation or collaboration between pieces and pawns which may be more or less subtle but which is easy to visualize for those players who are not stifled by orthodoxy. In the present game the reader will be able to enjoy some more fillings...
1 27
14.c4 i!bd8? Chigorin wastes another valuable tempo in carrying out his main counterplay, and so loses the initiative. According to VN. 14 ... fS!? was better, but after I 5 .cS!? (dangerous was I 5 .exf5 :1'\xfS 1 6.tt:lc3 e4 1 7.i.gS Wl'e8 1 8 .:1'\fe l :1'\xf3! 19.9xf3 CLle5 with a strong attack) 15 ... tt:lxc5 1 6.i.xc5 i.xcs 1 7.CLlxcS '&xcS 1 8.:1'\ac l !
10.0-0 0-0 1 l.fid2?!
In order to evaluate this position, couldn' t we use the same words Tarrasch used to evaluate the previous one? Of course we could. But make no mistake, after 1 O.tt:lbd2! (Leko's idea 1 0.b3 intending 1 1 .i.a3 is also interesting) with the idea CLlc4 (probing e5) and eventually CLla5 , White effectively gets t o anack the weak points in the black structure, in this case as and c6, with tremendously unpleasant pressure. So where is the mistake in Dr Tarrasch's comment? Undoubtedly it is in having too static a view of the position. The disposition of the rest of the pieces and the time factor, both dynamic aspects, play a decisive role in making an accurate evaluation of the possibility of exploiting the opponent's weaknesses. Tarrasch only evaluates the pawn structure and factors arising from it (open files, weak pawns, bishop pair...). In the game we are studying the fact that the white knight being on c3, as we will see below, greatly limits the possibilities of the first player to exploit the weaknesses in the opponent's queenside.
A typical move in the style ofTarrasch; its aim is to anack the opponent's weak pawns and squares with manoeuvres such as CLlc3-a4 and '&d2-c3 (or a5) . According to VN. I 1 .CLla4 was better. I would only like to add that this position has appeared in practice with White to move (Black having lost one tempo because of the manoeuvre i.e7-d6) and yet the evaluation is still unclear. If instead I 1 .CLl d2, then 1 l ...a5! 1 2 .CLlc4 ( l 2.CLlb3 a4) 1 2 ...i.a6. H ... fie7
Regarding this move, with your permission, I would like to introduce an ugly new concept into chess terminology: the filling. Surely we all have had the unpleasant experience of going to a dentist. We have a bad tooth, full of cavities and decay, and suddenly the dentist, as though we were his worst enemy, stares drilling the tooth. When he finishes he adds a bit of amalgam here and there and. .. oh, miracle! What was very fragile and useless has regained its strength and effectiveness. Something similar happens in many kinds of broken pawn formations: by themselves they are extremely weak but, with a piece in the right place, what at first sight was vulnerable becomes a powerful force of nature. In the current position the d6-bishop holds everything
12.lLla4 i!b8! 13.b3 .ibn!
As Chigorin himself pointed out, it was bener to play 13 ... CLl b6! 1 4.CLlb2 ( l 4.CLlxb6 cxb6 and Black is slightly bener) 14 . . .c5 1 S .c4 ( l 5 J�fel i.b7 after this move it is apparent that the concept of "weakness" is somewhat more subtle than classical manuals have told us; ask the e4pawn if you don't believe me) 1 5 . . .f5! and the initiative is in Black's hands. This line illustrates another important element in chess: the need to consider the different areas of the board as related parts of the same unit. In the current position the voluntary weakening of Black's queens ide, and as a consequence White's subsequent attempt to exploit these weaknesses, has given the second player the chance of winning the upper hand on other parts of the board, in this case the enemy centre and kingside. Very similar ideas can be found, for instance, in the Sveshnikov Variation of the Sicilian.
I think White has the better prospects. For instance: 18 ... '&d6 ( l 8 ... WI'e7 1 9.'&c3 :1'\be8 20.'&c4t! The black king is pushed to an unfavourable position. 20 ... �h8 2 1 .'&c5 It is in the ending that the structural weaknesses of a position generally become apparent. 2 1 . . .WI'xcS [2 l . . .fxe4 22.0d2 :1'\f4 23.:1'\fe 1 and White is slightly better] 22.:1'\xcS fxe4 23.CLld2! and this position is much more pleasant for White, despite being a pawn down, because his knight is better than the enemy bishop) 19 .WI'c3 It's important to prevent the b7-bishop from getting free with the manoeuvre ... c6-cS . 1 9 . . . cS ( l 9 ...fxe4 20.CLlxeS [20.WI'c4t!? �h8 2 1 .CLlgS Wl'g6 22.CLlxe4 and White is slightly better] 20 ...:1'\f5 2 1 .'&c4t Wl'd5 22.CLld7 [22.0xc6!? reaching a superior rook ending] 22 ... l"le8 23.0c5 i.c8 24.1"lfel and again White has a more pleasant posicion) 20.:1'\fd 1 Wl'f6 2 1 .CLlxeS and White is clearly better; e.g. 2 1 . . .fxe4 22.WI'xc5 i.c8 23. l"ld7! and the complications favour White. For example, 23 ... e3 24.'&c4t cj;Jh8 25 .CLlOt �g8 26.CLlgSt cj;Jh8 27.l"l0 winning. However, instead of 14 . . . fS the continuation 14 ... cS! l S .CLlc3 f5 1 6.CLldS '&e8, with counterplay in the centre and the kingside, seems more consistent with 13 . . . i.b7.
1 2S
True Lies in Chess
IS.�aS 1 5.c5?! But now this move, without Black having played the weakening expansion . . . £7 -f5, would be dubious since the f3-knight is somewhat passive, the e4-pawn can become vulnerable and Black has at his disposal the excellent filling square d6 for his rooks.
of understanding of dynamic factors such as time is apparent once more.
23 ... .!LlhS! 24 . .!Lldl
28.�e2 The threat was . . .�xf2t.
28 ...Wig6! "The threat is 29 ... �xe4 30.Elxe4 Elxdl t!" (VN.)
18 ... .!Llf6 19.f3
19 .. J�d3 20.Elfel Elfd8 21 .�abl?! White makes an important inaccuracy. Mter 2 1 .Elad l !? the possible capture of the c7-pawn and the manoeuvre �a4-c3-d5 are on the cards, and there's no way for Black to exploit his pressure on the d-file. For instance: 2 1 ...�c6 (2 1 . ..El3d7 22.�c3 c6 23.l"1b l �cS 24.�d5 cxd5 [24 ... EleS 25.�b6 l"1d3 26.l"1b3 EledS 27.�d5 and White is clearly better] 25 .Elb6! and White is clearly on top) 22.Elb l �cS 23.�b3 El3d7 (23 ...�h5 24.� c3 �h4 25.� d5 �xe l 26. Elxe l and White is clearly better) 24.�c3 and White's advantage is obvious.
21. ...ie6 22 . .!Llb2 �3d7 23.�bcl? This mistake hands the initiative to Black. Much better was the immediate 23.�dl h6!? (23 ... �h5 24.�c3 Elxd2 25.�xd2 �xd2 26.0d5 wins for White) 24.Elb2 �h5 25.�c3 0f4 26.Eleb l ! (26.�xf4 exf4 27.�d5 �xd5 2S.cxd5 Elxd5) 26 ...� d3 27.ElbS �xc5 2S .hc5 0xc5 29.Wxc5 l"1xd2 30.ElxdSt ElxdS 3 1 .�d5 and White is clearly better. In this line Tarrasch's lack
After 27.Elfl f5 2S.exf5 We2 (2S ... Wxf5 29.�c3 followed by 0c3-d5) 29.�c3 Wxc4 the position is still unclear. The beginning of an excellent queen manoeuvre with the aim of testing not only the defensive ability of the position, bur also of the player with the white pieces. Undoubtedly this is a very modern concept which Karpov would love.
This shows Tarrasch's marked inclination towards static elements such as material and pawn structure to the detriment of dynamic factors. Better was l S.�c3! c6 ( 1 S . . .f5 1 9 .�d5! fxe4 20.�g5 �xg5 2 1 .hg5 or lS ... Wxc4 1 9.Elfc l and White i s clearly better in both cases) , as c7-c6 is an important positional concession. Also interesting was 1 9.�c3 �g4 20.�d5 �xe3 2 1 .fxe3 with the initiative according to VN, although after 2 1 . . . c6 Black has counterplay. The other option, 1 9.'lWxc7 �g4! ( l 9 ... �xe4 20.�xe4 � xe4 2 1 .�b6 �c3 22.Elfel and White is slightly better; 1 9 ... Eld7 20.Wb6 �c6 2 1 .�c3 �g4 22.�d5 with yet another filling) 20 .Wxb7 �xe3 2 1 .fxe3 Elxd2, gives Black counterplay.
27..!Llfl
27...�h6
IS ... cS 16.b4! Wie6 17.bxeS .ie7 18 . .!Lld2
29.Wic3 24... �f4 This is not the most accurate attacking continuation: the h5-knight is a very valuable piece in this kind of fixed pawn structure. I find it strange that VN. overlooked this. Better was 24 . . . Wg6 25.�b3 (25.�fl �h4 26.�f2 and the white knight gets further away from the excellent d5-square) 25 ...�g5 26.�xg5 Wxg5 27.�e3 �f4 Now this knight is an attacking piece creating dangerous threats. 2S.Elc2 (2S.Wxa6 �xg2 29.�xg2 !'laS!) 2S ... �d3 29J�ee2 � f4 with equality. Bur perhaps the move with the best prospects is 24 ... �h4!? 25.Elfl (if 25.�f2 Black manages to stop the annoying �dl -c3-d5 for good and can calmly prepare his attacking options) 25 . . .Wg6 26.�b3 �g5 27.�xg5 (27.@h l � g3t) 27 . . .Wxg5 2S.�c3 � f4 Again the black knight is very dangerous. 29.g3 (29.Elc2 Eld2 winning) 29 . . .f5 (29 . . . h5!? 30.Wxa6 h4 31 .g4 Wh6 with the initiative, e.g. 32.�a5 � d3) 30.Wxa6 Wh6 3 1 .gxf4 O l .Wa3 � d3 winning) 3 l ...!'laS 32.WxaSt �xaS, and the attack against the white king persists despite the simplifications.
2S ..hf4 exf4 26 . .!Ll b3 i.h4 "Now, on 27.Elfl , would follow 27 . . . f5! . He has to drive the knight away from the c3-square, from where it could get to d5." (VN.)
1 29
The Others
29 .Eld2 Elxd2 30.�xd2 Wf6with compensation: e.g. 3 1 .!'le2 We5 with counterplay.
29 ...WihS!
This is the decisive mistake although White's position was extremely difficult to play. More resilient was 3 1 .Elce2 although Black has already taken control of the game.
3 1...hf3 32.Wixf3 !!xd2 33 . .!Llxd2 !!xd2 34.�f1 h6 3s.Wixf4 AgS 36.Wif3 i.e7 37.�hl !!xa2 "And so Black has restored material equilibrium, retaIning a tangible positional advantage. He has an active rook, a distant passed pawn on a6, the e7-bishop will attack the weak white pawns in the centre, and White's pieces are tied to the defence of the g2-square." The position is desperate for White.
38 . .!Lld3 .igS 39 . .!Llb4 !!b2 40.liJdS e6 41 .liJc3 !!b3 42.!!dl �h7 42 ... Wc2! wins at once. (VN.)
43.h3 .ie7 44.!!d3 heS 4S . .!Ll e4 !!bl t 46.<j;Ih2 .igl t 47.<j;Ihl J.d4t 48.<j;Ih2 Lest 49.g3 Can B lack lose such a position? You ain't seen nothin' yet . . .
49 ... !!b2t SO.<j;Igl f5 S 1 ..!LleS as S2 . .!Lld7
29 ... f5 was the logical continuation of the attack, to clear the as-h 1 diagonal and bring the c6-bishop into the attack with very good prospects. But Black is still putting his opponent's nervous system to the test.
30.eS? And it works. This move, activating Black's bishop, is an important concession. Also bad was 30.Eld2? !'lxd2 3 l .�xd2 �xf2t and Black is clearly better.
30 ...�g6! 3 1.!!d2?
S2 ....ie7?? Surely the reader will remember Chigorin's famous error in the last game of his match against Steinitz. You can see that it was not an isolated instance! Of course 52 ... �d6 wins.
S3 . .!LlfBt 1-0
I have shown this game for several reasons:
True Lies in Chess
130
Firstly, I think that Black's play was extremely original and Chigorin showed he was also very good at playing with the bishop pair. We all have the image of this player in his favourite defence against the queen's pawn, fighting with his knights and better pawn structure against the enemy bishop pair. This game proves that he was above all a universal player. Secondly, consider Lasker's opinion: "Anderssen and Chigorin acted according to the events at hand, but Capablanca acts in accordance with the logic of the position's permanent character. He calculates only that which is durable, for example the strength of his position, the pressure on a weak point, and mistrusts incidental events such as a problem mate ... but he has the ability to make fine, sharp combinations which take advantage of the particular moment." If we substituted Tarrasch for Capablanca the idea would basically be as valid (maybe the former was weaker in the field of combination) . But I would like to warn the reader that the days of simple and logical chess are gone. As one gets better one discovers the growing importance of mastering unclear positions. That is why Chigorin was a player ahead of his time.
� Rauzer * Yudovich Moscow 1 93 1 , Queen's Gambit [060]
l.d4 lilf6 2.c4 e6 3.lilc3 dS 4.igS c6 S.lilB lilbd7 6.�b3!? A very interesting alternative with the aim of preventing both the Cambridge Springs Variation and the more usual lines of the Orthodox Variation.
6...ie7 If 6 ... �aS there would follow 7.id2! with advantage to White.
7.e3 0-0 8.i.e2 dxc4 9.�xc4 lildS 10.he7 �xe7 1 1.0-0 Due to the presence of the queen on c4 the typical simplifYing and freeing manoeuvre 1 1 ... 'tJxc3 and 1 2 ... eS cannot be carried out because after 1 2.�xc3 the eS-square is under
White's control. Also, and for the same reason, Black cannot continue the mobilization of his queenside with ... b7-b6.
1 1 ..J�e8 The game Rauzer - Verlinsky from the same championship continued 1 1 ...lLJ Sb6 1 2.�b3 eS 13.a4 exd4 14.'tJxd4 as l S J 3:fd 1 �b4 1 6.'tJe4 and White enjoyed a comfortable plus.
12. !3fd 1 Once again preventing Black's simplifYing manoeuvre due to the weakness of the back rank.
12 ...lilsb6 13.�b3 eS
14.a4!
The Others But this "bad" pawn, i f defended by a "bad bishop" , accomplishes very important tasks: it controls the half-open c-file, defends the bS square from invasion and, on the attacking side, contributes to establishing a good outpost for a black knight on dS from where it can be transferred to b4, fighting against a possible doubling of the white rooks on the c-file. Furthermore Black could at some point have the break ... c6-cS at his disposal, winning more space for his pieces. More resilient was l S ... 'tJxc3!? 1 9.�xc3 id7 when White is only slightly better. For example: 20.'tJc4 !lacS (20... 'tJdS 2 1 .�a3 �xa3 22.bxa3! f6 23.'tJd6 !le6 24. 'tJ b7 followed by a3-a4-a5 with unpleasant pressure on the queenside) 2 1 .�a3 c5 22.'tJe5 !ledS (22 ... cxd4? 23.�xe7 !lxe7 24. 'tJxd7 l"1xcl t 25 .l"1xcl 'tJxd7 26.!lc7 d3 27.�d1 and White is winning; or 22 ... .ie6?! 23.�b5 l"1fS 24.'tJc6 �d7 25.�a4 .id5 26.lLJb4 �e7 27.'tJxd5 'tJxd5 2S.dxc5 l"1xc5 29.l"1xc5 �xc5 30.l"1d l , when White is slightly better) 23.'tJxd7 'tJxd7 24.l"1c2 and White has an edge. Also very interesting was l S . . ..id7!? when White still only has a small advantage.
19.1ilxdS!
A typical reaction against the b6-knight with the aim of creating a lack of coordination among the opponent's forces or alternatively weakening Black's pawn structure. From this moment on White's initiative keeps growing slowly but inexorably. If 1 4 ... exd4 1 5 .'tJ xd4 'tJcS 1 6.�b4, the idea being 1 7.aS with very unpleasant pressure.
ls.lild2 lilf6 16.aS lilbdS Bad was 1 6 ... i.e6 due to 1 7.�a3 �xa3 l S.l"1xa3 'tJbd5 1 9.'tJdxe4 and White is clearly better.
17.a6 b6 lSJ3dc1 .ifS? This is probably the decisive mistake. What was its origin? It is once again a case of stigmatising a vulnerable pawn, in this case the one on c6, on an half-open file. Back then such weaknesses had a very bad press.
At this point I would like to consider an interesting question: who holds the copyright of chess plans? I say this because when studying this manoeuvre I instantly thought about the next game between Botvinnik and Alekhine, AVRO Holland 1 935:
It's almost certain that everybody knows the broad outline of the plan that was carried out in it: 1 1 .'tJxdS! exdS 1 2.�b5 .id7 1 3.�a4 'tJbS 14.if4 �xb5 1 5 .�xb5 a6 1 6.�a4 .id6 1 7.,ixd6 �xd6 l S .l"1ac1 l"1a7 1 9.�c2! and thanks to the control of the c-file (aided by the weakness of the c6-square) White achieved a memorable victory. All the commentators praised Botvinnik's play. But make no mistake: the original idea was not his. Look at the continuation of Rauzer's game, which rook place seven years before the famous battle berween the rwo Russian superstars. Let's give credit where it's due.
19 ... cxdS 20 ..ibS i.d7
14...e4
This move transforms the advantage: White willingly eliminates Black's backward c6-pawn but in exchange he gains control of the c-file, with unpleasant pressure against the new d5-pawn.
131
Other options were not any better, for instance 20 ... !ledS 2 1 ..ic6 !lacS (2 l . ..!''!a bS An attempt to keep the rooks on, planning to carry out a kingside attack with ... l"1dS-d6, . . .'tJf6-g4, planning some sort of sacrifice on this sector. In any case this plan is doomed to failure mainly due to White's pressure against the d5-pawn, the open c-file and the solidity of the sector where his king is sheltered. 22.l'k2! Defending the second rank and the f2-pawn in particular. 22... !ld6 23.Elac1 l"1bdS [23 ... 'tJ g4 24 ..ixd51 24 ..ib7 'tJ g4 25.'tJfl [25.h3 CLlxf2 26/Jtxf2 .ixh3 27.'tJfl!1 25 ... �h4 26.h3 CLl f6 27.'tJg3 White is clearly better.) 22.ib7 l"1c7 23.�a3! Mter the queen exchange
1 32
True Lies in Chess
Black loses control of the open file) 23 ... Wxa3 24.bxa3! This pawn is a new battering-ram to attack the enemy queenside by means of an eventual advance a3-a4-a5. 24 ... l"lxcl t (24 ... lLleS 25.l"lxc7 lLlxc7 26.l"lcl lLl e6 27. lLl b l and the weakness of the d5-pawn is decisive) 25 .l"lxcl and here White has a very promising plan: lLld2b l -c3 with unpleasant pressure against d5 and the eventual threat lLlc3-b5.
2 1..ic6! A simple tactical blow by means of which White wins control of the crucial c-file.
21. ..,hc6 22.�xc6
counterplay with ...We7-b4, whereas with the rook on c6 there is none at all. We must be aware that it is very difficult to establish the absolute truth when comparing two alternatives in a competitive game. Therefore, which one to choose? It is a matter of taste: players like Karpov or Petrosian, both of whom attached great importance to prophylactic measures (preventing any enemy counterplay), would be strongly inclined towards 23.l"lac l ; whereas more incisive players like Tal or Kasparov would be more likely to choose 23.Wc3. But do barh moves have equal value?
23.%Vc3!
22 ...�ec8 Worse was 22 .. J''lacS 23J�lacl l"lxc6 24.l"lxc6 as after 25 .Wc3 Black cannot prevent a devastating invasion of the 7th or Sth rank. We now reach a crucial moment, psychologically speaking, where the style of a chess player usually tells. The dilemma is: which piece should defend the c6-rook? Or, asking the same question in a different form, which piece should try to invade on c6, the queen or the rook? On the one hand, the attacking pressure a white queen would exert from c6 would undoubtedly be superior to that of a rook. Besides the threat of invading the c-file via c7 or cS there is the attack on the d5-pawn and the possible and unpleasant manoeuvre Wc6-b7. But from a defensive point of view it is also true that with a queen on c6 Black has
I think Rauzer took the right decision although I cannot be 1 00% sure. Perhaps the arher move is equally correct! Counterplay based on the invasion by the black queen via b4 has few prospects of creating real trouble given that the queen is acting on her own and is unable to attack anything vital. In contrast, the penetration of the white queen is generally connected with the capture of the a7-pawn and therefore the creation of a very dangerous passed pawn, only two squares away from promotion. Anyway, it is very interesting to analyse the other option. Mter 23.l"lacl l"lxc6 24.l"lxc6 Wd7 25.Wc2 lLle8 26.h3 l"ldS Black has built a kind of fortress, although it is obvious that he has no counterplay at all, but can White make any progress to reach a winning position? (It is curious and confusing that my heart tells me he can, but analysis tell me he cannot. Which one to believe?) Before continuing my investigation I tried to discover what the basic strategies are in this kind of dominating situation. And where is one to look first? In one's own mind, of course. One of the most important differences between a grandmaster and an amateur is the much higher number of positions, combinations, structures and typical plans the former has etched into his long-term memory. This allows him to make a much quicker and more accurate evaluation and plan for the situation at hand. What for the master is immediate and clear, for the amateur is difficult and ambiguous because the latter
The Others has no reliable points of reference to hold on to. Attempting to find a logical solution to the problems of a position starting from scratch is immensely difficult for players of any category. It's also important to say that such memories have no concrete and precise shape. Rather one remembers general ideas. For instance, for the situation in the above diagram characterized by the absolute lack of any enemy counterplay, the white forces' virtually optimal placement (except for the knight) and the presence of only one weakness in the black camp (the c-file), I immediately recalled the outline of two model games: one by Petrosian, but for the other one I couldn't remember the player. In the first case the basic plan was to transfer the king to the queenside before opening a second front on the kingside, applying the well known stratagem of "you need two weaknesses to win". In the second one, the transfer of the king to the queenside was the prelude to simplifications and a transition to the endgame to exploit the greater activity of the white monarch. It didn't take me long to find these two games because I knew exactly where to look for them. In Petrosian - Unzicker, Hamburg 1 960, the following situation was reached:
"White has an advantage on the queenside, but a close examination will show that there is no clear way to make progress" (Watson). The plan carried out by Petrosian still draws admiration today because of its simplicity. There followed 29. �fl �gS 30.h4 h5 3 1 .l"l l c2 �h7 32.�el �gS 33.�dl �h7 34.�cl �gS
1 33
35.�bl �h7 36.We2 Wb7 37.l"lc l �g7 3S.Wb5! WaS 39.f4 cj;lh7 40.We2 Wb7 4 1 .g4! hxg4 42.Wxg4 We7 43.h5 Wf6 44.�a2 �g7 45.hxg6 Wxg6 46.Wh4 fie7 47.Wf2 �fS 4s.lLld2 l"lb7 49.lLlb3 l"la7 50.Wh2! fif6 5 UkS! !"lad7 52.lLlc5! b3t 53. �xb3 l"ld6 54.f5! l"lb6t 55. �a2 1 -0 The other game was Psakhis - Hebden, Chicago 1 9S3:
The continuation was 43.�fl fia7 44.�e2 fib6 45.�d3 fia7 46.�c4 Wclt 47.�b3 We7 4S.g4 .ib6 49.�c4 ia7 50.�b5 WeSt 5 1 .fic6 WdS 52.�c4 We7 53.Wd7 We6t 54.Wxe6 fxe6 5 5 .l"lxfS �xfS 56.�b5 �e7 57. �a6 ixf2 5S.c4 cj;ldS 59.�b7 fie l 60.b5 fif2 6 1 .b6 .id4 62.fia4 d5 63.cxd5 exd5 64.exd5 e4 65.�c6 �cS 66.d6 e3 67.fib5 fif6 68.fia6t �b8 69.�d7 1 -0 Therefore, was it possible to do something similar from the position in the analysis diagram? I'm not so sure about this. First of all, the reader has to consider that the peculiarities of a given situation may make it necessary to adapt the ideas seen in the model games. If the two positions are not exactly the same, then maybe there should not be identical procedures either. For instance, the plan of transferring the king to the queenside in order to then create a second front by means of the break f2-f3 is a double edged weapon. Indeed, the white king is not so safe (it is obvious that if White wants to play for a win he must penetrate with his pieces into the enemy position, but then his own rearguard is somewhat neglected, giving chances of perpetual check to the second player; meanwhile the black king is absolutely safe on his flank).
1 34
True Lies in Chess
On the other hand, it is interesting to try to open a new front on the kingside while keeping the white monarch there where, in this particular case, he is better protected. For instance: 27.'&cl This seems the best place for the white queen if White wants to carry out the break f2-f3: from here she protects the important e3pawn, supports the c6-rook, can be transferred to the f-file via fl , and finally is kept away from the eventual attacks of the enemy knight. (Also interesting is 27.b3!? g6 2S.'itt h l 'itt g7 29.f3 exf3 30.tLlxf3 .) 27 ... g6 (27 ... h6?! 2S.f3 exf3 29.tLlxf3 f6 [29 ... '&e7 30.tLle5 f6 3 1 .tLlg6 '&e4 32.tLlf4 tLld6 33j'k7 tLlf5 34.Elxa7 and White is clearly better) 30.tLlh4 with some initiative) 2S.f3 '&e7! (2S ... exf3 29.tLl xf3 '&e7 30.tLle5 with the initiative) 29.fXe4 dxe4 This position is difficult to evaluate. Another interesting option, although it doesn't seem quite enough, is the attempt to reach an endgame by sacrificing some of the white forces. Let's suppose for instance that the following position is reached:
23 ...'lWd7 If 23 ... Elxc6 then 24.'&xc6 ElfS (after 24. . .EldS the rook would occupy a much more vulnerable square) 25.Elcl '&b4 26.Elc2! (the key move, which had to be anticipated when playing 23.'&c3!) 26 . . .'&a5 The queen can choose between many squares but she cannot create serious threats from any of them. 27.'&b7 Wib5 2S.tLlfl '&b3 29.ElcS and White has a decisive advantage. The position of White's kingside after h2-h3 is impregnable and after the fall of the a7-pawn the a6-pawn decides the game.
24.Elel Elxc6 25J��xe6 'lWxe6 26.Elxc6 ttJe8 27.ttJbl! �f8 28.tLlc3 gd8 29.1t1b5 gd7
30.g4!!
l . ..'itt h7 ( l . . .'ittg S?! 2.tLlxa7! '&xa7 3.ElcS '&d7 4.ElxdS '&xdS 5 .'&c6; the a6-pawn is very strong and therefore Black's position is difficult) 2. 'itta4 'ittg7! (2 ... 'itt h S? 3.Elc7 tLl xc7 4.'&xc7 Wixc7 5.tLlxc7 'ittg7 6.tLlb5 Eld7 7.tLlxa7 and White wins) 3.Elc7 CiJxc7 4.'&xc7 '&xc7 5.tLlxc7 'ittf6 6.lLJb5 (6.'itt b 5 Eld6!) 6 ... 'itte7! (6. . . Eld7 7.CiJxa7!! winning) 7.tLlxa7 'itt d6 S.'itt b 5 'ittc7 The black king arrives in time to defend the queenside. Therefore one might conclude that White chose the best option.
The Others
3 3. . J'�c7 34.gh8 h 6 35.b5 gel t 36. 'ittg2 'itt e6 36 ... Elbl 37.ElaS Elxb5 3S.Elxa7 and White wins thanks to his a6-pawn and Black's weak pawns on the 6th and, especially, 7th ranks. 37J3a8 ge7 38.@g3 g6 3S . . . g5 39.ElhS winning.
39.h4 @f6 40.gd8 �e6 41.g5 Securing the invasion of the king.
41. .. hxg5 42.hxg5 ge2 43.ga8 ge7 44.gb8 Ele2 If 44. . . 'itt d6 then 45 .Elb7 (45.'ittg4! is the most accurate technical procedure; any move Black makes considerably worsens his position: 45 ... Elc2 [45 . . . 'itte6 46.Elb7 @d6 47.@f4, now 47. . . Elc2 transposes to the main line, whereas 47 .. .!hb7 reaches the pawn endgame with an extra tempo, making White's victory even easier) 46.Elb7 Elxf2 47. Elxa7 Ele2 [47. . . Elf3 4S. Eld7t) 4S. Elb7 Elxe3 49.Elxb6t and the united passed pawns win easily, while the black e-pawn can be comfortably controlled by the white monarch) 45 ... Elxb7 46.axb7 'ittc7 47. 'ittf4 'ittx b7 (47 ... a5 48.bxa6 b5 49.f3!! This is the key move, the idea being 49 ... b4 50.fXe4 b3 5 1 .exd5 b2 52.d6t 'itt b S 53.d7.) 4S.'itte 5 and wins.
45.Elb7 gb2 46.Elxa7 Elxb5 47.gb7 Elbl 48.a7 Elal 49J�xb6t @f5 50.gf6t @xg5 5 1.Elxf7 Elglt 52.@h2 Elal 53.@g2 1-0
No endgame is won without the king! (Or almost none . . . ) This is one of the more subtle moves in the game. White ensures that his king will play an active part in the struggle via gl -g2g3-f4 for if Black tries to prevent this plan with . . . g7-g5 he would create a fatal weakness on the sixth rank. 30.g4 also fixes Black's kingside pawns so that they cannot form a chain, and therefore the rook will attack them easily.
'i!7 Bondarevsky * Aronin
30 ... @e7 31.ge8
6...b6
Or 3 1 .'ittg2 'itt dS 32.@g3 lLJc7 33.tLlxa7 tLlxa6 34.lLJb5, when White is clearly better.
31. .. 1t1d6 32.ttJxd6 @xd6 33.b4! This pawn advances to sacrifice itself for the sake of its colleague on a6, which is the really important one in this position!
135
the edge of the board.
9.0-0 \We8 10.\We2 d5?! I think that this move is the cause of all the difficulties Black faces for the rest of the game. In any case it weakens the position without providing anything positive in return. The e5-square will become an excellent outpost for the f3-knight and the h2-b8 diagonal remains open for good. Better was 1 O ... '&b7 I l .a4! following a plan very similar to the game. Dubious would be I l .e4?! cxd4 1 2.cxd4. A pawn centre is useful when its advance threatens to create difficulties for the enemy. This would not be the case here since neither e4-e5 nor d4d5 seems to trouble Black. Instead White would have committed himself to defending his central pawns, which would severely limit his attacking chances. 12 . . . Elac8 1 3.Elac l Elxcl 14.E!xcl ElcS and the simplifications would help to relieve Black's position.
1 l .h3 A prophylactic move that also prepares the occupation of the outpost on e5. I l .lLJe5 tLlh5 would be too hasty.
1 1. .. \Wb7 12.ttJe5 Elae8 Another option is 1 2... lLJe4 1 3.tLlxe4 dxe4:
Moscow 1 9 5 1 , London System [A48)
I.d4 ttJf6 2.ttJf3 g6 3.if4 i.g7 4.e3 0-0 5.ttJ bd2 c5 6.c3 The main idea of this central pawn formation is to restrict to the utmost the activity of the g7-bishop. Bad would be 6... CiJh5 7.ie5 f6 S.g4!.
7..id3 7.h3!? or 7.ie2!?
7 ...i.a6 8 ..L:a6 ttJxa6
White has achieved a small victory thanks to the unfortunate placement of this knight on
White has the better posmon. What is the nature of his positional plus? On the one hand therets a group of factors already mentioned: a strong centralized knight and better bishop; furthermore in the opponent's position there can be seen certain drawbacks: the a6-knight, the e4-pawn, which is too far advanced, and the weakened light squares on the queenside,
1 36
True Lies in Chess
especially c6 which is attacked by the white knight on e5. According to Steinitz's theory White must attack if he doesn't want to lose the advantage. What points should he attack? Of course the most vulnerable ones. How to do this? With 1 4J'hd 1, improving the position of his heavy forces and threatening at the same time 1 5 .d5, fixing the weakness on c6 and highlighting the vulnerability of the e4-pawn. And now: a) 1 4 .. J:�ad8 1 5 .�b5! Attacking the weakness on c6. 1 5 ... cxd4 (if instead 1 5 ... e6 1 6.�c6 �xc6 1 7.ltJxc6, White is clearly better: he occupies a very dangerous outpost; or 1 5 ... .ixe5 16 ..ixe5, when the safety of the black king is compromised for the rest of the game) 1 6.exd4 ltJb8 1 7.iHe l ! Switching targets. 1 7 . . . a6 1 8.�e2 f5 1 9.f3 exf3 20.CDxf3 and White is clearly better. Note how by attacking the opponent's weak points White has been able to transform his advantages into more significant and lasting ones. There's nothing left of the weak pawn on e4 or the attack on c6 but now the weak points e5 and e6 and the backward e7-pawn, all of them on an open file, are very serious. b) 14 ... e6 1 5 .CDc4 �c6 1 6.ltJd6 CDc7 1 7.dxc5 bxc5 1 8.�c4 and White is clearly better. c) 14 . . . E:fd8 1 5 .i.g3! White, taking advantage of the dominant position of his e5-knight, completely changes the setting of the action. What does the superiority of a piece placed on a dominant position bring? Among other things the possibility of transferring the focus of the fight to other pans of the board where our opponent is not in a position to fight effectively. At the same time the flexibility of the position is increased in the sense that White is laying the foundations to carry out new plans, depending on the set-up the opponent adopts. 15 ... E:ac8 (if 15 ... e6 1 6.CDc4 i.f8 17 . .ih4, White continues the offensive against the opponent's new weaknesses) 1 6.f3! The start of action in the centre and kingside exploiting the unfortunate situation of the opponent's forces on the other wing. 1 6 ... exf3 1 7.l"lxf3 i.xe5 ( 1 7 ...f5 1 8.d5! ttJc7 1 9 .e4 fxe4 20.�xe4 E1xd5 2 1 .E1dfl �a8 22 .E1£7 with a
strong attack) 1 8.i.xe5 f6 1 9.i.g3 and again the black king will be in danger for the rest of the game.
13.a4!
The Others centre with the aim of activating the passive g7bishop. 2 l . ..�d7 22.�xd7 E:xd7 23.l"lbal and White is clearly better.
Without the participation of the heavy pieces (the rooks and the queen) it is impossible to carry out any destructive action on the opponent's position. The text move is the beginning of a manoeuvre to open lines for the rooks on the queenside. At the same time, and depending on the opponent's reaction, this advance could mean the beginning of a new pawn offensive to restrict the action of the enemy forces. This latter plan is reminiscent of the playing style advocated by Steinitz.
13 .. JUd8 14JUbl!!
A mysterious rook manoeuvre, as Nimzowitsch would phrase it. It finalizes the preparations for the plans outlined in the above note. The accumulation of small advantages continues while keeping the flexibility of the position.
1 4...ltJb8 There were several interesting alternatives: a) 14 ... CD d7 with the intention of exchanging the powerful e5 -knight; there might follow 1 5 .CDxd7 E:xd7 1 6.�b5! ( l 6.a5? b5 and Black would keep the queenside closed) 1 6... E1dd8 1 7.a5 (breaking up the enemy front) 17 ... ttJc7 ( l 7 ... E1a8 1 8 .axb6 axb6 1 9.E:a3 CDc7 20.E:xa8 E1xa8 2 1 .�d7 Invasion!) 1 8.i.xc7 �xc7 1 9 .axb6 axb6 20.l"la6 E1b8 2 1 . CD f3 Preventing any counterplay in the
White controls the only open file. Let's not forget that in rook endgames greater activity is usually a decisive factor. b) 14 ...c4 1 5 .b3! cxb3 16.E1xb3
And with the minority attack a4-a5 and axb6 one can only wonder, which "weakness" will be more important, b6 or c3? The concept of weakness cannot be covered only from a static point of view, as for instance in the misguided statement, "a backward pawn on an open file is always weak". One also has to ask how strong the opponent's attack against that weakness is, and what one's defensive capabilities are. From this point of view it is easy to establish that the b6-pawn is much more vulnerable than its counterpart on c3 thanks in part to the powerful action of the f4-bishop. On the other
1 37
hand White always has at his disposal the advance c3-c4 getting rid of the so-called "weakness". c) 1 4 ... CDe8! I think this is the best plan for Black, demanding very accurate play from White to keep his positional plus. Black's idea is . . . ltJd6 strengthening the vulnerable light squares on the queenside, following Steinitz well known law stating that one has to reinforce the most sensitive points of one's position when defending. Furthermore the move prepares an eventual ... i.g7xe5 or . . . £7-f6 getting rid of the annoying e5-knight and preparing a subsequent central expansion. 1 5.b4! ( I 5.a5? b5 and White wouldn't achieve his objective of opening lines on the queens ide) 1 5 ... cxb4 16.cxb4 ltJd6 ( l 6. . . E1c2 1 7.b5 CD b8 1 8.�d l E1dcS 1 9.E1cl [ 1 9.CDc6 CDxc6 20.�xc2 CDxd4 2 1 .�d3 CDe6 22.E1a2 CDc5 with compensation) 19 ... E1xcl 20.E:xcl with an unpleasant space advantage) 1 7.b5 CDbS I S.CDd3!!
An excellent manoeuvre with the idea of exchanging the opponent's most active minor piece, the d6-knight. ( l S.E1cl a6 with pressure against b5) I S ... e6 1 9.i.xd6 E:xd6 20J=lcl E:ddS 2 1 .CD f3 a6 (2 l .. .CDd7 22.ttJb4) 22.CDfe5 with strong pressure. White wants to play h3-h4-h5; if Black pushes back the knight with ... £7-f6 he will seriously weaken his kingside and lose some coordination among his forces. After the text move the game continued:
15.a5!
138
True Lies in Chess
The Others
19.1Lld4 lLlc5 19 ... l"!c5 20.b4! l"!xc3 22.'Llxb5 is again winning.
2 1 . 1JMxb 5
Wxb5
20.�xb5 �xb5 2 1.lLlxb5 a6 22.lLla7! At last cG falls!
22 .. J'ga8 23.lLlac6 ge8 24J�a5 Concentrating all his forces against the weakest point of the enemy position: aG.
24 ... lDb7 25.E:aJ lDe4 26J�bal Le5 If instead 26 ...f6 27.lDd3 e5 28 ..ih2 'Ll bc5 29.'Llxc5 �xc5 30.'Llb4 l"!eb8 3 l .l"! 1 a2! and White is clearly better.
We enter a new phase of concrete calculation of variations and transformation of some positional advantages into different ones. White's energetic play is impressive.
15 ...b5 16.dxc5!
The key. White exchanges his strong centre for the centralization of his minor pieces.
16 .. Jhc5 17.lLlb3 lkc8 18.a6!!
Either d5 or a6 would fall.
27.Le5 f6 28.i.h2 lDbc5 29.lDb4 ged8 30.lDxa6 lDd3 3 1 .f3 lDd6 32.lDb4!! Another tremendous blow!
32.. J!xaJ 33.bxaJ lDc5 33 ... �xb4 34.cxb4 wins.
34.lDc6 �d7 35.lDxe7t �f7 36.lDxd5 White is winning. Undoubtedly this has been an excellent game.
The whole idea of the continuation beginning with 1 5.a5 culminates in this beautiful move. Now Black's queenside pawns end up isolated and thus become a target for White's attack. But not 1 8. 'Ll d4?? a6 when Black is even slightly better.
18 ... lLlxa6
If 1 8 ...1JMb6 then 1 9 .1"!a5 b4 20.l"!b5 1JMxa6 2 1 .l"!a1 1JMe6 22.'Lld4 wins.
36 ... lDc4 37.e4 gb7 38.lDb4 gd7 39 ..ig3 gd2 40..if2 lDb3 41.gbl lDba5 42.a4 f5 43..iel gb2 44.gxb2 lDxb2 45.h3 �d7t 30.'it>h4 or 28 ... a5 29.cxd4 exd4 30.�h6 and White wins in both cases.) 29.cxd3 cxd3 30.'k!ih3! White's main problem is finding a good shelter for his king and that's precisely where he is heading. 30 ... �d7t
In the next game a titanic battle took place between two very different philosophies of understanding chess: classicism versus hyper modernism. In the present case the discussion was on the effectiveness of the occupation of the centre with pawns against strong piece pressure. We are, in essence, considering one of the schisms which has caused most controversy in the chess world. The topic is extremely interesting since it shouldn't be forgotten that most opening systems are, basically, a struggle between these two philosophies. It is very likely that the reader is already familiar with the advantages a pawn centre offers: space, greater mobility to transfer forces from one side of the board to the other, excluding the enemy forces from important squares and at the same time rhe availability of outposts for one's own pieces, the trouble an eventual pawn advance causes ... Bur what are the main advantages of renouncing the occupation of the centre with pawns in exchange for exerting pressure with the pieces? Let's see what Reti says in his excellent manual Masters of the Chess Board: "A centre pawn advanced to the fourth [and the fifth, I would add - Comas] square and blocked there can have still another disadvantage than the fact that it is an object for hostile attack. It can also be an obstruction to its own pieces."
1 55
It is especially significant, in my view, to highlight this last point as it shows a deep understanding of a very important aspect of our game: the importance of harmony and coordination among one's own forces in any given posicion. But I would also like to add that this central strategy generally has other pluses: the strength of the pawn chain (which in many cases allows interesting positional sacrifices), central flexibility (a very important aspect of modern play characterized by its dynamism) and, finally, safety on the central files. Let's see how understanding the essence of the ideas implicit in these two philosophies can have a very positive influence when it comes to correctly analysing a game.
1.lL"lf3 lL"lf6 2.g3 d5 3.i.g2 if5 4.0-0 e6 5.d3 i.e7 6.lL"lbd2 h6 7.c4
The Reri Opening. Let's see what the man himself says about it: "In the beginning of 1 923, two Indian attacking systems of this kind were introduced into master play. One of them, deriving from Nimzowitsch, is intended to continue the pressure against the weakened point e5 after 1 . 4:l f3, by 2.b3, combined with ib2. Nimzowitsch, who is to be credited with working out the best method of the Indian Defence, has, as we see, applied the methods of this defence to the attack. But
1 56
True Lies in Chess
what is good for the defence, what is good for obtaining equalization, is not suited to winning an advantage. The tendency, expressed in this system, to attack the opponent's weak points in order to establish strong posts there oneself as advance guards, and on the other hand to leave the opponent's strong points untouched, leads to mutual blocking and a completely closed position, in which the advantage of the opening move hardly counts any longer. That is the real reason why this system is especially desirable for the second player, as we have explained elsewhere, but as an attacking system it would hardly become standard. In order to derive an advantage from the opening move, one must play with a system which does not allow the second player to bring about a closed position without disadvantage in space, nor to place irremovable bulwarks in the centre. Not the weak points, therefore, as in the defence, but the strong points, that are to become bulwarks, must be brought under fire. It is upon this idea that the opening system introduced by the author of this book is based. After White directs the attack not against the weak point e5, but against d5, continuing with 2.c4, g3 and i.g2." That is why systems of play for White based on reversed openings very often show their ineffectiveness! It turns out that the structure is stronger than the extra tempo obtained with them. Black's main opening catastrophes arise when he is hasty in his actions, trying to punish White's boldness immediately or allowing the premature opening of lines into his position. Surely at some point playing White you have come across a Black set-up and haven't been able to work out what to do with your "precious" extra tempo. Besides, in this kind of situation there is an implicit psychological aspect that is very important and difficult to handle: the enduring feeling that you have wasted your turn as White! It's because of this that anyone who wants to play such set-ups must clearly understand the obstacles he will face and the attitude with which he must confront the coming fight.
7... c6 8.b3 liJbd7 9.ib2 0-0 10.�cl ih7 1 1.�c2 id6 12:�al Another manoeuvre stamped "made by Reti" , increasing the pressure on the long diagonal.
12... �e8 13.�fcm
This is the main difference between Reti's and Nimzowitsch's play. Undoubtedly the latter would have preferred 1 3.lLle5 here (an option also chosen later by Capablanca in his game against Lilienthal in Moscow 1 936) restricting the mobility of Black's pawn centre. It's worth mentioning, nevertheless, that after 13 . . .i.fS! Black has a very sound position (Lobron - Karpov, Lucerne 19S5). Regarding the text move, the reader may find a very similar precedent in the game Reti - Yates, New York 1924, and Reti - Lasker from the same tournament. All these games are analysed in Kasparov's excellent series On my Great Predecessors.
13 ...eS 14.cxdS cxdS
We are now at the critical posltlon of the middlegame. I must confess that when I started analysing it I was under the impression that Black, with adequate caution, could play the position with pleasure. It is true there are no active pawn breaks to be seen for the first player and his pieces run into the wall of Black's central pawns. But when trying to find ways for Black to make progress, I found serious difficulties! Indeed the analysis showed that if Black didn't do anything special and just
The Others
1 57
kept the status quo in the centre, White could do little. That is precisely the psychological difficulty mentioned before: it turns out that the first player is at the mercy of his opponent. If one doesn't clearly understand this situation it is very likely that one will misplay the present position, and in this game White didn't rise to the occasion despite Furman also making some inaccuracies. I hope the variations analysed next will clarifY all the assertions outlined so far.
lS.liJel
The alternative 1 5 .lLlfl seems more ambitious: a) 1 5 . . . e4?! This was one of the hasty breaks I referred to in the introduction to this game. There might follow 1 6.dxe4 dxe4 17.lLld4 e3 IS. lLlxe3! An excellent exchange sacrifice. IS ... i.xc2 ( l S ... Elxe3 19.hce3 V!1e7 20.ElcSt is decisive for White) 1 9.Elxc2 and White's central domination, together with the pressure on the b 7- and f5squares, is very strong. b) 1 5 ... d4!? This advance, opening up the h I -aS diagonal, is very interesting. 1 6.Eldl! White must attempt to open the position since he has a better attacking formation of the heavy pieces. Worse is 1 6.lLl 3d2 ElbS 1 7.lLlc4 i.fS ( l 7... i.c7? I S.i.a3 putting pressure on the weakness on d6). b I ) IS.lLlxe5!? This piece sacrifice is based on White's pawn structure fortress embarrassing Black's h7-bishop. IS . . . lLlxe5 ( l S . . . Elxe5 1 9.i.xd4 Ela5 20.lLle3 with counterplay) 1 9.i.xd4 lLlc6 20.i.xc6 bxc6 2 l .hf6 V!1xf6 22.V!1xf6 gxf6 23.lLle3 and it is not clear how Black's light squared bishop can join the fight. b2) I S.f4!? Attacking Black's central pawns at their base. I S . . . exf4 1 9.i.xd4 hcg3 20.hxg3 i.c5 and the position is unclear After 1 6.Eld l ! one possible line is 16 . . . ElcS 17.ElxcS �xcS I S .e3 dxe3 1 9.1Llxe3 with the initiative. c) 1 5 . . . �e7 This seems the most natural option. Black keeps his pawn centre intact and at the same time avoids any simplifications in a situation where White lacks space. 1 6.lLle3 (with the positional threat i.g2-h3 followed by lLle3-f5) 16 . . . �e6
This is another critical posltlon for the evaluation of the whole system. Now it seems that Black has the situation under control and will be able to prepare an effective regrouping along the lines of ... EladS, ...i.d6-bS and ... lLld7b6 preparing to push ... d5-d4 or eventually the manoeuvre ... lLld7 -bS-c6 to improve the situation of this knight and block once and for all the open c-file. But as we will now see this is not easy. c1) 1 7.h3!? EladS and the position is unclear ( l 7. . . lLlbS? I S.i.xe5 he5 19.1Llxe5 �xe5 20 .�xe5 Elxe5 2 1 . Elcst wins for White) . c2) 1 7.�fl !? Another speculative manoeuvre: White intends to provoke more weaknesses in the enemy position that would make it difficult to realize his space advantage. 17 ... EladS I s.lLlgl g5 (lS . . . a5 1 9 .i.h3 �e7 2o.lLlf3) 1 9.1Llf3 with a complex position. c3) 17.lLld2 a5 (this move is necessary sooner or later to prevent White's plan of expansion on the queenside by means of the manoeuvres a2-a3, b3-b4 and lLl d2-b3(c4)-c5(a5) with some initiative) I S. a3 lLlbS ( l S . . . EladS 19.�a2 lLlbS 2o.b4 with unpleasant pressure on d5) 19.1Llf3!? This move shows the attitude White must adopt in this kind of situation: to await the opponent's aggressive plans. Obviously taking this approach is not easy when playing as White and most of the problems in reversed set-ups arise from having the wrong psychological attitude. (Worse was 1 9.Elc5?! d4 2o.lLld5 hc5 2 l .Elxc5 lLlxd5 22.hd5 V!1b6 23.�c l CLla6 and Black is clearly better. However, 19.h3!? is interesting.)
1 5S
True Lies in Chess
19 ... liJc6 20.�xc6! Yet another positional exchange sacrifice! All of them are possible, as has already been said, thanks to the security and strength of White's pawn structure giving the position a rather closed character. 20 ... bxc6 2 1 .�xc6 'lWd7 22.�xd6! And another! 22 ...'lWxd6 23.ixe5 with compensation.
to be preferred. Better is 1 6 ... �adS 1 7.CiJe3 'lWe6 transposing to variations we have seen before with the inclusion of the move liJf3-el which doesn't seem to bring anything special to White's position.
17.�e3 d4 White was threatening ig2-h3. If 17 . . .'lWe6 there would follow l S .a4! (a stereotypical Rank reaction against the presence of an enemy knight on b6) l S ... a5 ( l S . . .d4 1 9.1iJc4 liJxc4 [ 1 9 ... ttJbd5 20.liJxd6 'lWxd6 2 1 .'lWa3!] 20.bxc4 with an initiative: the temporary weakness of b 7 prevents the blockading move ... id6-c5) 1 9 .1iJf3 d4 ( 1 9 .. .ihdS 2o .ic3) 20.CiJxd4! exd4 2 1 .ixd4
The Others The beginning of an excellent regrouping manoeuvre: Black improves the position of his h7-bishop and obtains control of the important outpost on d5 for his knight, from where it targets the invasion squares b4 and c3.
20.�f3 .ie6 21 .�4c2 �d5 22.a3 �ad8 23.�d2 .ib8 24.�e4 b6?! The weakening of c6 makes Black's subsequent regrouping manoeuvres difficult. That is why it was better to play 24 .. .f5 (24 . . . liJb6 should not be met with 25 .liJc5 , when 25 ... id5 with the obvious objective of exchanging White's better piece, both in the attacking and the defensive aspects is good. Instead 25.a4! and an eventual ib2-a3 would be very unpleasant) 25.CiJc5 if7
Note yet again the poor role played by the h7-bishop, effectively blocked by White's compact structure.
15 Wie7 ..•
1 5 ... e4? As has been seen previously this break has more cons than pros. 1 6.dxe4 dxe4 1 7.e3! (The e4-pawn strongly limits the mobility of Black's h7-bishop and f6-knight. Furthermore the d4- and c4-squares have been weakened and the a 1 -hS diagonal has been opened. The momentarily badly placed e 1 -knight defends the potential invasion squares d3 and f3 and has an obvious long-term prospect via c2-d4.) 17 ... liJe5 ( 1 7 ... ie5 to neutralize the pressure on the a 1 h S diagonal: l S.liJc4 Lb2 1 9 .'lWxb2 and Black now has problems in defending his weaknesses due to his overextended centre) l S.liJc4 ttJd3 ( l S ... liJxc4 1 9.�xc4 and White is clearly better) 1 9 .ixf6 gxf6 20.liJxd6 'lWxd6 2 1 .liJxd3 exd3 22.�d2 Black's pawn structure is deplorable.
1 6.�fl �b6 16 ... CiJbS 1 7.f4!? liJc6 ( 1 7 ... exf4 l s.ixf6 gxf6 [ l S ... 'lWxf6? obviously any endgame is horrible] 1 9 .ixd5 liJa6 [ 1 9 ...ie5 20.'lWbl id4t 2 1 .'i!7g2 and White is clearly better] and the position is unclear) l S.fxe5 liJxe5 ( l S ...ixe5 1 9.txe5 liJxe5 20.�c7) 1 9.1iJf3! and White's position is
Again the fortress of White's pawn structure allows this interesting sacrifice. As we have seen, this kind of sacrifice is a recurring theme and the reader must bear it in mind when evaluating this interesting opening system.
18.�c4 �xc4 19J�xc4 .if5!
1 59
The white army remains isolated on the queenside without creating much trouble for the second player. Black could now prepare decisive action on the kingside with, for example, ... h6-h5-h4 .
2S.b4 f5 26.liJd2 .if7 27.�c6?? White loses patience, attacks at the wrong time, and also shows that he hasn't understood at all the basic ideas behind positions of this kind. As Reti said in the introduction to this variation, it's not the weak points that have to be put under attack but the opponent's strong ones (the enemy pawn chain). Indeed, the structure e5-d4 virtually freezes the whole of the enemy queenside and it is essential to undermine it in order to avoid ending up in an inferior position. That is why 27.CiJf3! was a much better move:
Putting pressure on d4 and e5 and preparing the eventual manoeuvre CiJ f3-h4 and ig2-h3 with unpleasant pressure on the f5 -pawn. a) 27 .. .'i!7h7 2S.�e 1 ! �cS 29.�xcS �xcS 30.e3 dxe3 3 1 .fxe3 and a subsequent e3-e4 with a clear initiative. b) 27 . . . CiJf6 2S.liJh4! (if 2S.�e1 then 2s ...ib3 2 9 .�ccl id5! 30. e3 'lWb7) and due to the weakness of the c6-square Black has trouble defending the f5-pawn. Moreover the move ...g7-g6 would be a very important concession on the a1 -h8 diagonal which would multiply the strength of the break e2-e3. c) 27 . . .'lWd7 2S.e3! A break carried out at the right time. 2S ... dxe3 29.liJxe5 ixe5 30.ixe5 exf2t 3 1 . �xf2 and White is clearly better.
27...Wid7 28.bS 28.�6c2: it was much better to admit the error and go back with the rook, but pride makes us do many foolish things.
28 ... �e7 29.a4 �xc6 30.,ixc6 Wie6 31..txe8 Wixe8 32.�c2 .idS
1 60
True Lies in Chess
White has a completely lost position: he has no counterplay at all and can only wait for his opponent's decisive offensive on the kingside.
33.'\Mfcl @h7 34.0 .ib7 3S ..ia3 YNe6 36 ..ib4 E:g8 37.YNa3 E:e8 37 ... g5 38.�f8!
38.YNcl YNg6 39.aS e4 A break with devastating effects.
40.YNfl exd3 41.exd3 E:e3 42.a6 .idS 43.E:c8 YNe6 44.E:cl YNe8 0-1 This game is significant because it shows the potential of using ideas (rather than j ust calculating moves) to analyse a position.
Index of games and fragments Janowski - Nimzowitsch, St Petersburg 1914 Spassky - Gligoric, Sarajevo 1986 Tarrasch - Schlechter, Leipzig 1894 Istratescu - Klinova, Wijk aan Zee 2002 Botvinnik - Geller, Budapest 1952 Botvinnik - Smyslov, Moscow (6) 1958 Korchnoi - M. Gurevich, Antwerp 1995 Hort - Larsen, Montreal 1979 Karpov - Salov, Linares 1991 Botvinnik - Novotelnov, Moscow 1947 Korchnoi - Geller, Moscow ( I ) 1971 Hort - Reshevsky, Petropolis (izt) 1973 Lasker - Steinitz, St Petersburg (1) 1895 Lasker - Janowski, Paris 1909 Ivanchuk - Timman, Linares 1989 Harmonist - Tarrasch, Breslau 1889 Taubenhaus - Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1903 Lasker - Chigorin, Hastings 1895 Alterman - Psakhis, Tel Aviv 1994 Smyslov - Tal, Candidates Tournament, Yugoslavia 1959 Beliavsky - Kamsky, Linares 1991 Keres - Fine, Ostend 1937 Reshevsky - Fine, Hastings 1937 Comas Fabrego - Dorfman, Mondariz (z) 2000 Portisch - Petrosian, Lone Pine 1978 Yusupov - Eslon, Can Picafort 1981 Van Wely - Cu. Hansen, Ter Apel 1 993 Beliavsky - Magem Badals, Linares open 2002 Zapata - G. Garcia, Bogota 1992 Motylev - Naes, Ubeda 2000 Wells - Ftacnik, Wijk aan Zee 1995 Najer - Stohl, Pardubice 1996 L.B. Hansen - Ribli, Polanica Zdroj 1993 Van der Wiel - Van Wely, Brussels 1993 Motylev - Alekseev, Tomsk 2001 Leko - Lutz, Essen 2002
Page 9 16 17 19 20 24 30 32 34 37 40 43 44 46 48 52 53 54 57 60 67 69 70 73 74 76 79 81 86 86 87 88 90 92 96 97
Games and fragments Vallejo - Comas Fabrego, Ayamonte 2002 Kasparov - Ye Jiangchuan, Bled (01) 2002 Shirov - Movsesian, Sarajevo 2001 Ta1 - Andersson, Stockholm 1976 Kotsur - Kobalija, Novgorod 1999 Spasov - Abramovic, FYROM 1997 Lacasa - Comas Fabrego, Spanish Team Championship 1993 Gomez Jurado - Comas Fabrego, Foment 1995 Piket - Comas Fabrego, Istanbul (01) 2000 Paszek - Petkevich, Germany 1999 Garcia Luque - Magem Badals, Spain 1990 Candela Perez - Comas Fabrego, Burgos 2003 Gelfand - Markowski, Polanica Zdroj 1998 Savchenko - Amonatov, Elista (01) 1998 Huzman - Comas Fabrego, Istanbul 2003 Khenkin - Glek, Porto San Giorgio 1998 Atalik - Comas Fabrego, New York 1998 Van Wely - Comas Fabrego, Escaldes (z) 1998 Lautier - Comas Fabrego, Spain (Team Ch) Garcia I1undain - Comas Fabrego, Spain (Team Ch) Tarrasch - Chigorin, St Petersburg 1893 Rauzer - Yudovich, Moscow 1931 Botvinnik and Alekhine, Holland 1938 Petrosian - Unzicker, Hamburg 1960 Psakhis - Hebden, Chicago 1983 Bondarevsky - Aronin, Moscow 1951 Smyslov - Keres, World Ch., The Hague/Moscow 1948 Boleslavsky - Lisitsin, Leningrad 1956 Bogoljubow - Nenarokov, Leningrad 1925 Lilienthal - Ragozin, Moscow 1944 Bronstein - Saigin, Moscow 1945 Dzindzichashvili - Furman, Baku 1972 Capablanca - Lilienthal, Moscow 1936 Lobron - Karpov, Lucerne 1985 Red - Yates, New York 1924 Reti - Lasker, New York 1924
Page 97 97 98 99 99 99 100 105 108 108 111 111 112 112 113 113 115 115 120 121 125 130 131 133 133 135 139 145 147 151 152 155 156 156 156 156
Index of Names A
F
Abramovic 99 A1ekhine 1 3 1 A1ekseev 96 Alterman 57 Amonatov 1 1 2 Andersson 99 Aronin 1 35 Atalik 1 1 4, 1 1 6 Averbakh 1 25
Fine 69, 70, 79 Ftacnik 87 Furman 1 25, 1 55, 1 5 7
B
Beliavsky 67, 70, 8 1 , 82 Bogolj ubow 1 2 5 , 147, 149 Boleslavsky 1 25, 145, 1 5 1 Bondarevsky 1 25, 1 3 5 Botvinnik 1 2 , 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 37, 38, 39, 7 1 , 1 27, 1 3 1 , 1 39, 1 5 1 , 1 52 Bronstein 1 52 Buddha 9
c Candela Perez 1 1 1 Capablanca 1 30, 1 56 Chigorin 54, 56, 1 25, 1 26, 1 27, 1 29 , 1 30 Comas Fabrego 8, 64, 65, 73, 93, 97, 1 00, 1 1 1 , 1 1 3, 1 1 4, 1 1 5, 1 20, 1 2 1 Cortazar 79 D
De La Houssaye 1 9 Dorfman 73, 74 Dumas I S Dvoretsky 28, 95, 96 Dzindzichashvili 1 5 5 E
Emerson 1 7 Eslon 76, 77 Euwe 53
G G. Garcia 86 Garcia I1undain 1 2 1 Garcia Luque 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 Gelfand 1 1 2 Geller 20, 2 1 , 40, 42, 43, 60 Glek 64, 1 04, 1 1 3 Gligoric 1 6 Gomez Jurado 1 0 5 Grau 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 48, 54, 75 Gurevich 30 H
Hansen, Cu. 79 Hansen, L.B. 90 Harmonist 52 Hebden 1 3 3 Hooper 5 3 Hort 3 2 , 3 3 , 43 Huxley 9 Huzman 63, 1 1 3, 1 1 5 I
Isrratescu 1 9 Ivanchuk 48, 50
J Janowski 9, 46 K
Kamsky 67 Karpov 32, 34, 35, 37, 86, 129, 1 32, 1 49, 1 56 Kasparov 28, 83, 84, 86, 9 1 , 97, 1 3 2, 1 49, 1 5 6 Keres 69, 70, 7 1 , 72, 73, 79, 1 27, 1 39, 1 4 1 , 1 43 , 1 44, 1 45
Index of Names Khenkin 1 1 3 Kholmov 1 25 Klinova 1 9 Kobalija 99 Korchnoi 30, 3 1 , 40, 4 1 , 42, 43 Kotsur 99 L
Lacasa 100 Larsen 32 Lasker 8, 44, 45, 46, 47, 54, 55, 57, 1 30, 1 56 Lautier 1 20 Leko 96, 97, 1 26 Levenfish 125 Lilienthal 1 25, 1 5 1 , 1 56 Lisitsin 145 Lobron 1 5 6 Lutz 96, 97 M
Magem Badals 8 1 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 Markowski 93, 1 1 2 Motylev 96 Movsesian 98 N
Najer 88 Nenarokov 1 47 Nimwwitsch 9, 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 2, 1 3, 1 4, 1 5 , 1 6, 1 7, 28, 29, 44, 52, 58, 95, 1 36, 1 5 5, 1 5 6 Novotelnov 3 7 p
Pachman 1 7, 1 8, 1 9 Paszek 1 08 Petkevich 1 08 Petrosian 34, 70, 74, 75, 76, 1 03, 1 04, 1 05 , 1 06, 132, 1 33, 141 Piket 1 08 Polugaevsky 1 04 Portisch 74
Index of Names
Psakhis 57, 1 33
Van Wely 79, 92, 1 1 5, 1 1 6, 1 1 9
R
w
Ragozin 1 25, 1 5 1 Rauzer 1 25, 1 30, 1 3 1 , 1 32 Reshevsky 43, 70, 79 Reti 1 47, 1 55 , 1 56, 1 59 Ribli 90
Watson 9, 10, 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 3, 1 7, 28, 29, 52, 58, 75, 83, 85, 1 33 Wells 87
s Sabato 34 Saigin 1 52 Salov 34, 35, 37 Savchenko 1 1 2 Schlechter 17, 1 9, 20 Shakespeare 24 Shereshevsky 54, 56, 57 Shirov 98, 1 1 3 Simagin 1 2 5 Smyslov 24, 26, 27, 5 1 , 60, 63, 1 39, 1 43, 145, 1 52 Spasov 99 Spassky 1 6 Spielmann 9 2 , 94 Stohl 88 T
Tal 60, 63, 76, 99, 1 32 Tarrasch 17, 19, 44, 52, 53, 76, 1 2 5 , 1 26, 1 27, 1 28, 1 30 Taubenhaus 53 Timman 48 Tolush 1 25 u
Unzicker 133 v
Vaihinger 20, 69 Van der Wiel 92
y Yates 1 56 Ye Jiangchuan 97 Yudovich 1 30 Yusupov 70, 76, 77, 90 z
Zapata 86