True Lies in Chess - PDF Free Download

I. TtV'l.lt. Por your JelP written by ��e� '?� Translated by Manuel Perez Carballo Quality Chess www.qualitychessbo...

Author: Lluis Comas Fabrego

80 downloads 1220 Views 8MB Size Report

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

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

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.<13 d6 7..tgS hc3 8.bxc3 V!! e7 9J:lel li:ld8 10.d4 Curiously enough this is the position Nimzowitsch shows to demonstrate his precepts in his famous book.

10 ....tg4 1 1 .h3 .thS 12.g4! .tgG With the idea of ... tLle6.

13.dS!

These Russians have no respect for the classics!

13...c6

Following Nimzowitsch's famous rule Black opens the c-file to expose White's static weaknesses, especially the doubled pawns.

14..td3 adS?

1 4. . . 1"lcS l S.c4 was a better option although White's position is still slightly better.

lS.exdS

Let's analyse the posltlon. Despite White having carried out the stigmatized advance d4dS, he has a strategically winning position. Why?

We already know the drawbacks of White's situation. Let's have a look now at its merits: 1) The dS-pawn greatly limits the black forces' mobiliry between flanks, in particular that of the dS-knight. 2) The pin against the knight on f6 is extremely unpleasant. 3) White threatens a pawn expansion on the kings ide with tLl f3-d4 and f2-f4-fS . 4) If Black tries to create a square on b7 for his badly placed knight on dS by b7-b6, in many lines White has the unpleasant manoeuvre tLl f3d4-c6. S) If Black, by means of an evasive manoeuvre with his queen, allows his kingside pawns to be doubled with ixf6 gxf6, he exposes himself to a tremendous kingside attack because of the ease with which White can bring his pieces there, thanks to the space advantage that the move d4dS has provided him with.

lS... e4?!

Realizing how delicate his situation is, Gligoric tried to solve his problems by tactical means, but in general when a position is strategically bad these resources fail. Other possible options were: a) l S ... b6 16.tLld4 (the idea is to play f4-fS) 1 6 . . . tLlb7 ( l 6... 'lWc7 1 7.ixf6 gxf6 l S.tLlfS ixfS 1 9.ixfS and White is clearly better: he will follow with an offensive against the enemy kingside) 1 7.tLl c6 and White is clearly better. b) l S ... 1"lcS 1 6.c4 e4 1 7.ixe4! ( l 7.ifl ?! tLle6 favours Black) 17 ... ixe4 l S .tLld2 and White is on top.

16.he4 he4 17.�d4! tt:le6 1 7... 1"leS l S.CiJd2

18.�xe4! tt:lxgS 1 8.. .l/Jxe4 19.ixe7 l/J6cS 20 .ixfS �xfS 2 1 .1"le3 would also lose.

19.�xe7 tt:lxf3t 20.�f1 tt:lxel 21.1"lxel tt:lxdS 22.�xb7 tt:lf4 23J!e7 )"lab8 24.�xa7 gS 2S.V!!d4 White ended up winning easily. This was enough for me to lose faith in the classics! Jot1'\.e

t1'\.ore riaour would rtot be alTli"-

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph "Waldo Emerson (l S03-1 SS2) American philosopher Another rypical problem we find in chess books is that the games are analysed very superficially, using grandiloquent aphorisms and few variations to prove what has been said, just in case what is stated doesn't fit what is happening on the board! Let's see a game from Pachman's excellent Modern Chess Strategy. There are some points in the game that need to be qualified, at the very least.

'it' Tarrasch * Schlechter Leipzig l S94, Ruy Lopez [C66]

l.e4 eS 2.li:la tt:lc6 3.ibS d6 4.d4 .td7 S.tt:lc3 tt:lfG 6.0-0 ie7 7J3e1 tt:lxd4 8.tt:lxd4 exd4 9.hd7t �xd7 10JWxd4 0-0

17

"The diagram shows a position in which White has the little centre. In this position White must endeavour to use the open d-file by occupying the square dS, while Black will seek in a similar way to draw advantage from the e-file by occupation of eS. As, however, a White piece on dS is in the opponent's half of the board, it will exert greater pressure on the opponent's position than a Black piece on eS; therefore the possession of the little centre gives a certain space advantage and so allows greater freedom in the movement of one's pieces. The following game shows how this space advantage can be used to mount an attack on the enemy position." (Pachman) "His idea was first to stop the e4-pawn with ... 1"leS and ...ifS (restraint) in order to then bring his forces against this target, and finally either to force some concession by the opponent or to get rid of it with ... d6-dS. Nevertheless, Nimzowitsch's argument overlooks White's space advantage and the superior manoeuvrabiliry of his forces." (Watson) I think that the arguments advanced by Pachman are too abstract and idealistic, and therefore na'ive because, as we will see in the continuation of the game, it is not so easy to occupy the dS-square with the knight in an effective way, and on the other hand Black never tries to occupy, in the long term, the eS-square. It is true that under certain circumstances the ideas set out by Pachman are applicable, but to try and minimize all the richness of this position with such narrow arguments doesn't do any favours to chess or to his readers. Regarding Watson's comments, based on Nimzowitsch's ideas, they seem to indicate that in this sort ofpositionWhite is better, whereas I don't think it's so clear. I think it is Nimzowitsch, rather, who has a more instructive view of the situation: he doesn't try to give a definitive evaluation of the position; instead he tries to show us a plan. How good or bad it is depends very often on the specific distribution of the forces on the board.

1 1.b3 "The bishop will work most effectively on the diagonal a1-hS. Besides, White impedes the

18

True Lies in Chess

possible counter-manoeuvre by Black of ... Ele8, ... �f8, ... Ele6, . . .g6 and ... �g7, which would improve the coordination of Black's pieces and turn the bad bishop on e7 into an active piece." (Pachman) This quote mentions an interesting manoeuvre to improve the effectiveness of Black's forces. In any case it is not clear whether the white bishop is best placed on this diagonal since it remains obstructed by its own pieces. An interesting alternative is 1 1 .�g5 although in this case one has to take into consideration the possible simplifications that such a continuation could lead to.

move ctla4 which laid the basis for the knight's impending kingside excursion." (Pachman)

14J'l:d3 l3:e6 1 5.l3:de3 If l 5 .l3:g3 Elae8 ( l 5 . . . �b6!? 1 6.�xb6 [ l 6.�d3 Elae8] 16 . . .axb6 1 7.a4 d5 is equal) 1 6.ctld5 �xd5! winning.

1 5 ...l3:aeS 1 6.h3 '!Wb6 "It is doubtful whether Black could have improved the coordination of his pieces by . . . g6, for White would then have been able to occupy the outpost d5 with great effect; e.g. 16 ... g6 1 7.ctld5 ! �g7 1 8.c4 ctlh5 1 9.�d2, and White, in view of the weakness of f6, has a clear advantage." (Pachman) 1 7.'!Wd3 e6 (! Comas) Now 17 . . . g6!? was a possibility. For instance 1 8 .ctlb5 �g7 ( l 8 . . .�h6 1 9.El3e2 �g7 and the position is unclear) 1 9 .�d4 c5 20.�xf6 �xf6 2 1 .ctlc3 �xc3 22.�xc3 �b4 with a level position.

lS.ltJa4 '!We7 19.e4 "A very important manoeuvre, which prevents ... d5 by Black and allows the white knight to go over to the kingside; rather strangely, it was the

I t is strange that Pachman does not even mention this mistake. Maybe he did not see it or he didn't want to see it. .. The offensive against the kingside begins now. The text is a double edged move, for although it threatens to smother Black's position, it also weakens the white king, and if Black manages to open up the game the outcome would be quite unclear. 23.lLle2 would not be advisable either because of 23 ... f5!.

23 ...'!Wa5? The situation would have completely changed after 23 ...d5! 24.exd5 Elxe3 25.Elxe3 Elxe3 26.fXe3 �g3 when suddenly it is White who has problems.

l 1..J'l:feS 12.i.b2 i.f8 13J'l:ad1 '!We6! From here the black queen can always move to the b6-square, offering a queen exchange that would nip in the bud White's possible attack on the long diagonal. At the same time it puts pressure on the white centre and hinders the manoeuvre ctlc3-d5 since the c2-pawn is under surveillance. Worse was 13 ... �e6 14.ctlb5 followed by c2-c4, squeezing Black's position even further.

Do not Trust the Classics

24.l3:d1 �b6 19 ... lLld7? "Here Black had his first and last opportunity to play ... g6; the position of the bishop on g7 would then, it is true, leave the pawn on d6 weak, but this weakness would be offset by the activity of the bishop. Instead, Black opts for passive defence, allowing White to use his space advantage to storm the kingside." (Pachman) It is not possible to exploit the weakness of the d6-pawn due to the pressure the black pieces exert on the opponent's centre. The position would be extremely interesting. It would be very similar to many systems of the King's Indian, when Black exchanges in the centre with ... exd4. Therefore, the right continuation in the game would have been 1 9 ...g6! 20.ttlc3 �g7 with a dynamic balance, although if I had to choose I would rather be Black here. Extremely passive defence is, in certain positions, a very common trait in the games from the masters of the past, and this is one of the reasons for the complexity of present-day play: modern players don't sit and wait, and if one is not careful nasty things can happen.

20.@h1 f6 2 1 .'!We2 lLle5 22.lLlc3 lLlf'7 23.g4?! The strategic idea is not bad but the move is tactically inaccurate. White had to prevent the . . . d7-d5 break with, for instance, the prophylactic manoeuvre �d 1 , keeping the advantage.

Also interesting are the alternatives 24 ... �g5 !? 25.ctle2 or 24 ... h5 25 .Elg1 hxg4 26.Elxg4 f5 and the position is unclear; or maybe 24 ... a6 trying to create counterplay on the queenside with ... b7-b5. Yet again Black's play is too passive.

19

f.tpplyi"8 wtt,at tt,ar bC!C!'lIC!ar'l,t "The best advice always comes from experience, but always comes too late." Ame/ot De La Houssaye ( 1 634- 1 706) French writer It is well known that those who forget the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them. The classics, if studied seriously, are a very important point of reference for any player wishing to make progress in the chess world. One has to make the most of other players' previous experience so that, as the quotation above says, the advice doesn't come too late.

c:,t? Istratescu ,., Klinova Wijk aan Zee 2002

25.h4! But not 25.ctle2 because of ... ctlg5 (Pachman) .

25 ...ltJe5? Black has adopted a completely passive attitude and this move allows a restructuring that leaves him without the remotest chance of counterplay.

26.l3:g3 ttlf'7 27.8!

The position is already strategically decided. Black has no chance of activating his game while White methodically concentrates his forces on the opponent's kings ide, against the g7-square to be more precise, since this is the point where his artillery can converge with most intensity.

27 ... ltJhS 2S.lLle2 '!Wc7 29.l3:dg1 Preparing the final breakthrough on the g-file. It's important to notice that the eventual invasion comes from the flank and not through the centre, as was to be expected.

29 ... �f'7 30.lLld4 l3:6e7 31.g5 fxg5 32.l3:xg5 g6 33.lLlf5 l3:e5 34.f4 l3:xf5 35.exf5 i.g7 36.fxg6 1-0 Let's see now how the analysis ofa classic game can be very useful in providing an accurate evaluation of the vicissitudes of a modern contest.

Up to now all the moves have been identical to the previous game.

13.l3:e3!? Here the importance of time in chess is brought to the fore. With this move, instead of 1 3 . Elad l which we saw in the game Tarrasch - Schlechter, Black has no time (precisely!) to carry out the effective plan of reorganization that was accomplished in that game.

13 ... l3:e6?! Black didn't find the right move 1 3 . . . c6!. It is vital to control the ci5-square to prevent

True Lies in Chess

20

White's ctJc3 and ib2 from becoming active. It is basically a blockading move. Moreover there is always in the air a possible central counter strike in response to any action by White on the kingside. For instance if 1 4.�ae l V!1c7 ( I 4 ... V!1e6 I S .h3 a6!? [ I S ... V!1eS 1 6.V!1d3l 16.�g3 dS 1 7.ctJe2 id6 I S.f4
<3J Botvinnik ,., Geller Budapest 1 952

14Jl:ael a6

14 ... �aeS doesn't work: l S .V!1xa7 cS ( I S ... dS 1 6.exdS ctJxdS 1 7.V!1d4 and White is clearly better) 16.V!1a4 V!1xa4 1 7 .ctJxa4 ctJxe4 l S .ctJb6 with a clear advantage.

IS.lLle2!

This white manoeuvre nips Black's aspirations in the bud. Mter this the moves ... g7-g6 and ... ifS-g7 will no longer be possible.

IS ...d5

I S ... �aeS 1 6.ctJf4 �6e7 17.c4 and Black's forces lack coordination.

16.eS cS 17.'1Wd3?

Much better was 1 7.V!1d 1 ! e.g. 1 7 ... ctJg4 I S.�g3 ctJ xeS 1 9. ttJ f4 and White is clearly better.

17 ... lLlg4 18Jl:h3 �h6 19.�xh6 lLlxh6 White eventually won after several mistakes by both sides. The systematic and rigorous study of the classics provides us, as we have seen, with valuable knowledge that is very useful when trying to understand the processes involved in contemporary games. Precisely because of this all grandmasters without exception have suggested a serious study of the chess classics.

"All progress is but an error constantly rectified." Hans Vaihinger ( 1 SS2 - 1 933) German philosopher

Game taken from Efim Geller's book The Application of Chess Theory. Position after the move IS.a3? (The question mark belongs to Geller) . This game is, without any doubt, one of Geller's most famous because of who his adversary was. Let's see Geller's notes about this game: " . . . the only obvious slip was on White's 1 5'h move." Later on he adds: "A self-blockading move, after which the black knight on cS feels very much at home" and he ends: " ... White already has some weaknesses (at b3, in particular)." I would like to make some remarks about this. It might seem audacious to challenge Geller's authority on a position from the King's Indian, which he mastered so wonderfully. I also run the risk of the reader thinking that my intention is always to go against the assessments made by other authors. It is not so: I feel deep respect and admiration for the way Russian players handle this defence (on the other hand, I have said many times that I have never liked the handling of the King's Indian by the Yugoslavian players). A while ago I began studying this variation in order to play it as Black. With the pawn on a2 White has two main systems to consider:

Do not Trust the Classics

1. To place the queen's rook o n the b l -square and then try the expansion b2-b4, kicking Black's cS-knight. 2. To place this rook on d1 in order to put pressure on the opponent's centre and kingside. I decided to start by examining the second method of play to test the viability of the whole system beginning with the move �adl followed eventually by a2-a3. Here White gives up any active play on the queenside in exchange, as already mentioned, for more ambitious goals in the two other sectors of the board. Many of these plans entail the withdrawal of the d4-knight from its apparently privileged position in order, firstly, to increase the pressure against the opponent's d6-pawn, and, secondly, to transfer the knight to more active parts of the board. But in order to do this it is necessary to always take into consideration the typical counter . . . a4-a3 by Black, exploiting the weakness of White's c3-knight. That is why the move a2-a3 does not seem bad to me and, to put it more positively, in some circumstances a2a3 is necessary to stabilize this part of the board and only then concentrate efforts on other areas. This is also in agreement with my assessment that in positions with a space advantage, such as the present one, at first White goes through a stage of consolidation and stabilization of the position before the expansion that has to take place in the future. This is due to the fact that for some time Black's forces have a certain degree of superior dynamism, but this dwindles away as White finishes his mobilization. Imagine then my surprise when the deeper I analysed the system the less I liked Black's position, and this despite Geller's evaluation regarding the move a2-a3 and, therefore, the whole system beginning with �ad 1 . What was actually happening? Who was wrong in their assessments? I think that the question mark Geller bestows on this move is excessive; I agree with him that this is not the most precise move in this position. (In fact it has been proved that, instead of I S .a3, if White plays l s.if4 he has a good advantage. That is why 14 ... tt:l fd7, instead of 14 ... V!1dS-aS as played in the game, is

21

considered more accurate; later we will return to this position.) But I don't share his opinion that l S .a3 was the main reason for White's subsequent defeat. Let's analyse Geller's arguments for condemning this move. According to him it weakens the b3-square. Well, this alleged weakness could only be exploited by Black's cS knight, but once it gets to b3 it would look nice but hardly do anything else. That is, it would not have any bearing on the subsequent struggle (we would have a case of an over-valued knight) . Regarding the assertion that after a2-a3 the cS-knight feels at home, it reminds me of the classic and somewhat naive saying "When a piece is badly placed the whole position is bad" only I would feel like phrasing it, "When a piece is well placed the whole position is good." Obviously this is a somewhat limited statement. But any extensive explanation runs the risk of falling on deaf ears and being worthless if it isn't backed up by concrete analysis supporting the validity of this or that assessment. Precisely because of this I am going to show my conclusions about the following critical position.

King's Indian Fianchetto Variation [E69]

IS.£4 I S .tt:lde2 V!1aS! (Black's counterplay is based on the activity his minor pieces generate, and in certain tactical nuances present in the position)

22

True Lies in Chess

1 6.l':1xd6 ctJe5 1 7.l':1ddl (17 .b3 axb3 1 8.axb3 �xh3! is a winning combination. 1 9.�xh3 [ 1 9.b4 hg2! 20.l':1b l Wic7 2 1 . bxc5 �f3 and Black is clearly better] 19 ... 4J f3t 20.�fl 4Jxe 1 2 1 .�xel 4Jxe4 22.gd3 Wial t 23.4Jdl ga2 24.Wicl 4Jxf2 Black has a decisive advantage.) 1 7 ... ctJxc4 1 8 .�d4 Wib4 1 9.�xg7 �xg7 20.g b l a3 2 1 .b3 4Jb2 22.4J f4 �e6 23.ge3 !'lad8 Black's position is clearly better.

b) 1 6 ... Wib4

Do not Trust the Classics c) 1 6 . . . ctJb6

15 .. :�a5 16 ..if2 tLlf6!? Other options are: a) 1 6 ... h5!?

Black curbs the expansion ofWhite's qualitative pawn majority on the kingside, but this entails a serious weakening of his defensive capability in this sector. From now on the eventual advance f4-f5 will be much more bothersome. 1 7.a3! (A prophylactic move preparing the withdrawal of White's d4-knight in order to attack the d6-pawn. Premature would have been 1 7.4Jde2 4J b6 1 8.b3 Wib4 when Black is clearly better, and also 1 7.4Jf3 ctJb6 1 8.�fl a3.) 1 7... 4J b6 (If 1 7 ... 4J f6 1 8.lI'\f3 �e6 1 9 Jlxd6 �xc4 20.4Jd2 �e6 [20 . . .�a6 2 1 .e5 4Jfd7 22.e6 with an attack] 2 1 .e5 �f5 22.Wicl 4J fd7 23.4Jce4 4Jxe4 24.4Jxe4 and White's central supremacy, together with the weakness of Black's kingside, proves decisive.) 1 8.�fl �d7 ( 1 8 ...�e6 1 9.4Jxe6 l':1xe6 20.f5 with an arrack) 1 9 .4J f3 �e6 20.l':1xd6 �xc4 2 1 .e5! (White is now clearly berrer) 2 1 .. .�b3 (2 1 . ..hfl 22.l':1xfl and Black has big problems with the chain f7-g6-h5) 22.Wicl �f8 23.gd4 4Jd5 (23 ... 4Je6 24.l':1d2 ctJd5 25.4Je4) 24.f5!? White has a promising arrack.

The beginning of a manoeuvre aimed at provokingtheweakeningmovea2-a3. 17.�fl ! (the goal of this move is to force Black to transfer his knight to the unfavourable b6-square) 17 ... 4J b6 1 8 .a3 Wia5 1 9.94!! (preventing the ... f7-f5 break, making the g3- and h4-squares available for the dark-squared bishop, and preparing manoeuvres like ctJd4-f3, f4-f5 squeezing Black's position) 19 . . .�d7 (If 19 ...�e6!? 20.ctJ b l ! [Accepting the pawn would lead to unclear positions: 20.4Jxe6 gxe6 2 l .f5 gee8 22.l':1xd6 �e5 !? 23.!'lddl gad8, exchanging a pair of rooks seems a good idea, 24.gxd8 gxd8 25 .gdl gxdl {25 ... l':1e8!? with compensation} 26.4Jxdl ctJ bd7 again with compensation] 20 ... gac8 [20 . . . d5 2 1 .4Jxc6! bxc6 22.cxd5 4Jxe4 23.dxe6 ctJxf2 24.exf7t �xf7 25.Wixf2 !'lxel 26.l':1xel l':1d8 and White is clearly better] 2 1 .ctJd2! [2 l .f5 �d7 22.ctJf3 d5 with compensation yet again] 2 1 .. .�d7 [2 1 .. .�h6 22 .�g3 �d7 {22. . .gcd8 23.4J4f3 �c8 24.f5 with the initiative 24 . . . �g7 25.�h l} 23.ctJ4f3!] 22.ctJ4f3 d5 23.e5 with a strong initiative) 20.4Jf3 �f8 (20 . . .�e6 2 1 .4J b l ! A key move in this kind of position. It is important with a space advantage not to exchange material, and in this specific case also to leave the opponent with his two worst minor pieces, the �e6 and the 4J b6. Now Black doesn't have at his disposal the freeing move ... f7-f5 and the pressure on c4 is not enough, whereas White threatens to increase his advantage after the advance f4-f5. For instance, if 2 1 . . .gad8 22.f5 �c8 23.�h4 and White is clearly better.) 2 1 .f5 White's pressure is very strong.

1 7.�fl �d7 (l7 ...�e6 1 8.4Jb l !) 1 8.g4! (Kharitonov is on the right track: this is where a top player's strength is shown) 1 8 ... gad8 (this is a very interesting question: Black wants to draw the white bishop to the h4-d8 diagonal, which could lead to interesting counterplay for the second player along the long diagonal) and now: c l ) 1 9.b3?! (I think this move is inconsistent with the spirit of the manoeuvre begun with gad 1 : after the opening of the a-file Black's space problems decrease) 1 9 ... Wib4 20.gbl ga8 (20 ... axb3 2 1 .axb3 l':1a8) 2 1 .�g2 ga6 22.gec l axb3 23.axb3 l':1ea8 Black had counterplay in Kharitonov - Grischuk, Moscow 1 995. c2) 1 9.�h4 l':1c8 with counterplay. c3) 1 9.a3! (stabilizing White's queens ide and the c3-knight) 1 9 ... ctJe6 ( l 9 . . .�c8 20.�h4 gd7 2 1 .ctJf3 and White is slightly bener) 20.4Jxe6 (20.Wid2 4Jxd4 2 1 .�xd4 hd4t 22.Wixd4 and White is slightly better again; 20.4Jce2 Wia6!) 20 ...he6 2 1 .ctJ b l ! (As we have seen, this is a standard manoeuvre here: Black has problems reorganizing his minor pieces on the queenside.) 2 1 ...�c8 (2 1 .. .f5 22.exf5 gxf5 23.gxe6! ; 2l ...d5 22.cxd5 cxd5 23.e5 with the initiative) 22.Wid2 (22.ctJd2 ctJd7!) 22 ... Wixd2 23.gxd2 (White is on top) 23 ... c5 (23 ... 4Jd7 24.i.h4! �f6 [24 ... �h6 25 .�xd8 �xf4 26.�a5 and White is winning] 25.�xf6 4Jxf6 26.4Jc3, and in the endgame Black's queenside weakness begins to tell: 26 ... h6 27.gddl g5 [27. . . �g7 28 .�d3 and White is slightly better1 28 .fXg5 hxg5 29.e5 with an attack) 24.�h4 l':1d7 25.4Jc3 White is clearly better.

23

17.a3 Premature was 1 7.4Jf3 a3 1 8.b3 4Jh5! 1 9.4Jd4 ( 1 9 .4J b l f5 20.e5 dxe5 2 1 .4Jxe5 4Je4 22.�xe4 fXe4 23.Wixe4 �xh3 24.c5 Wia6 with counterplay) 19 ... �d7 20.ctJde2 f5 2 1 .gxd6 fXe4 and the position is unclear. But here it is also possible to play 17.g4! a3 ( l 7 . . .�d7 1 8 .e5 is decisive) 1 8.b3 �xg4 (a thematic sacrifice but one which, in my opinion, doesn't give Black enough compensation: the problem is that if Black tries to do without it his position quickly deteriorates) 1 9.hxg4 4Jxg4 20.l':1e2 4Je6 2 1 .4Jxe6 l':1xe6 22.gd3 and White is cleady better.

17 .ie6 ..

1 7 ...�d7 1 8 .g4 and White has an edge.

18.e5!? dxe5 19 . .!!xe5 White has begun a very quick action in the centre of the board. Black is not well developed enough to counter it.

19 .if8 ..

If 1 9 ... 4J fd7 then 20.4Jxe6 (20.b4!? axb3 2 1 .4Jxb3 4Jxb3 22.gxa5 4Jxa5 23. ctJe4) 20 ... fXe6 2 1 .gee 1 and White is clearly better. While 1 9 ...�xc4 20.4Jxc6 bxc6 2 1 .l':1xc5 wins.

20.,ifl

White has the initiative and Black has no easy move. If instead 20.4Jxe6 l':1xe6 2 1 .gxe6 ctJxe6, White would only be slightly berrer. Or 20.b4 axb3 2 1 .4Jxb3 ctJxb3 22.l':1xa5 4Jxa5 with counterplay.

True Lies in Chess

24

Well, it seems that the system beginning with gad l , followed very oEren by a2-a3, not only is not bad bur is a very dangerous weapon against Black's defensive structure.

l 1.ttJxe4?!

I l .fXe4! e5 1 2.liJf3! "and White has a clear lead in development" (worse is 1 2.dxeS \Wxd2t 1 3 . .L:d2 liJg4).

Do not Trust the Classics a) 1 6. . . . liJd7

1 1 ...0-0 12.ttJe2 as!?

Qobody il witltout IiI'\. "No legacy is so rich as honesty" (All's Well 7hat Ends Well III.v) William Shakespeare ( 1 564-

W Botvinnik .. Smyslov Moscow (6) 1958, King's Indian [E80)

1.c4 g6 2.e4 .ig7 3.d4 d6 4.ttJc3 a6 S..ie3 ttJf6 6.£3 c6 7 ..idJ bS 8.�d2 bxc4 9.hc4 dS 10..ib3 dxe4

and the c5-square, but what compensation does White have for the weakness of the b2-pawn and the e3-square?" The vulnerability of the a4-pawn, the better development and the space advantage come to mind. Well, I think that Botvinnik yet again tackles the analysis of this complex situation from too simplistic a point of view.

16.ttJxf6t .Lf6!

1 6 1 6) English playwright Mter analysing the previous system, the reader might think that the aurhor of this book is an unconditional fan of Botvinnik and of his work and that therefore I might even try to justifY his "mistakes". I am not going to question the chess strength of the Patriarch of Soviet Chess-in this regard he was a genius. But I am very critical of his work and in parricular of his Selected Games. In that book the aurhor is rather deficient when it comes to giving concrete analysis, often not telling the whole truth. But I also believe that his "exemplary conceptual comments" are often lacking in depth. The next game is very interesting.

25

This move only earns the following brief comment by Botvinnik: "Well played." A stunning assessment for such an interesting move! Black begins play on the queenside before having finished development. During the game Smyslov's idea was to start putting pressure on White's a2- and b2-pawns thus compensating for the weakness Black has on the c-file. I think that, although the move itself is right, the idea behind it is not: this pawn advance could have been the beginning of unpleasant pressure on White's centre by the black pieces from the flanks. Hence the exclamation and question marks.

With the nasty manoeuvre . . . liJd7-b6-c4 in mind. The vulnerability of the c4-square is a recurring motif in this sort of central pawn formation. b) 16 . . . cS!? 1 7.dxc5 ( l 7.d5 liJd7! and White is worse, since the only thing he can do with his proud centre is to limit the strength and mobility of his own forces, whereas Black has excellent diagonals, files and outposts for his army) 17 ... \Wxd2 1 8.gxd2 ixb2 1 9 .ixa4 ixe2 20.gxe2 gxa4 2 1 .gxb2 gxe4 and Black is slightly better.

"The remaining knight is needed on the queenside." Taking into account the opponent's plans as well as which squares are really imporranr to keep under control, this move is without doubt a stroke of genius. Worse was 16 . . .liJ xf6 1 7.liJc3 (exploiting the weakness of the a4-pawn; 1 7.if4 gb6 1 8 .ie5 gives White a small advantage) 17 ... a3 ( l 7 ... Wa5! ?) 1 8.b3 lLld5 1 9 .ixd5! cxdS 20.lLla4 and White is clearly better.

17.ttJc3 If 1 7.�f4 e5! 1 8 . dxe5 lLlxeS and Black is slightly better. Or 17.ih6 ge8! and White has no time to increase the pressure on f7 because of the imminent manoeuvre ... lLld7-b6.

17... ttJb6 This knight protects the a4-pawn in an active way since it has clear attacking prospects on the opponent's centre and queenside.

18.i.e2 .le6

13.0-0 a4 Much better was 1 3. . . liJxe4! (the beginning of a new plan aiming at putting pressure on White's central pawns) 1 4.fXe4 ia6! (It is interesting to note that, despite his lack of development, Black's superior piece and pawn coordination manages to subdue White's army, which is completely paralysed by the pressure on d4. Chess is not a straightforward game, but an art full of nuances, hence its beauty.) I S .gadl ( l S.gfdl a4 16.ic2 a3 17.b3 cS! followed by ... liJc6, with a clear advantage) 1 5 ... a4 1 6.ic2 and now:

In the end Black's position is to be preferred due to the greater potential of his knight, rooks and king, and given White's weak pawn structure at this stage of the game. Botvinnik, of course, does nOt mention all these possibilities.

14 ..ic4 ttJbd7 IS.gael B:b8

19.9fdl?!

"Black's position is the more active. The weakness of the d4-pawn and the d5-square are balanced by the similar defects of the c6-pawn

I find this situation extremely interesting because both players' positions have weaknesses. In such cases it is very important not to yield the

26

Do not Trust the Classics

True Lies in Chess

initiative to the opponent since that very often entails giving up any possibility of exploiting the other's weak points. "Black has played very subtly, and now his position is clearly preferable. The white knight is tied to the defence of the a2-pawn, and a2a3 cannot be played, since this would weaken the light squares. There would follow ... .ie6-b3, when the d4-pawn would be in danger, to say nothing about the possibility of continuing the manoeuvre with . . . ib3-c4, fixing the weakness of the light squares. Therefore 1 9. . . Wd7! and 20. . . �fd8, intensifying the pressure, suggests itself, after which White's position would have remained difficult." I think Botvinnik exaggerates a little bit since White has an alternative to avoid the aforementioned manoeuvre: 1 9.Gtle4 (a very important move, fighting for the initiative at the same time as preventing the opponent's plans) 1 9 . . .�g7 ( l 9 . . .L.a2 20.Gtlxf6t exf6 2 1 .�xc6) 20.a3 and now it is not so easy for the black forces to regroup in order to effectively put d4 under pressure.

allows this dream to be realised! Incidentally, now the weakness of the c5-square will be more sensitive. It is curious that Smyslov made the same mistake in a similar position in the 2nd game of the return match." It is very instructive to see how the initiative now passes to White and how he, gradually and inexorably, increases it.

20.ih6 .ixh6 21.Y;Vxh6

White is able to neutralize the opponent's threats and exploit the black position's weaknesses.

21. .. f6 22.�d2 .if7

If 22 . . . <8c4 then 23.�xc4! �xc4 24.a3 and White is slightly better: he has brought about a struggle of good knight versus bad bishop. 22 . . . �c4 is met with 23.�d l ! ? or if 22. . . a3 then 23.b3, when White would have solved all his problems on the queenside and could calmly manoeuvre against the opponent's weak points.

23.h4

19 ...ig7?

facing several unpleasant alternatives: on the one hand, opening the h-file with catastrophic consequences; but if the g-pawn advances Black will find it extremely difficult to defend his h7pawn due to his very restricted position. This latent threat forces Smyslov to carry out the following passive queen manoeuvre.

"It really would have been better to give the opponent the move with any non-committal manoeuvre, than to retreat the bishop to g7 . White, of course, could only dream of exchanging his passive bishop for the opponent's active dark square bishop, and only this mistake by Black

able to cover his weaknesses on the e-file, but White too, true to his match tactics, does not avoid a favourable ending! It was not so easy to decide on such tactics for the match, since Smyslov is a supreme expert in the field of the endgame . . . "

23 ...Y;Vd7 Bad would be, for instance, 23 . . .'�c7 24.h5 �fd8 25 .�d3 with a strong attack.

24.a3! "This move proves possible, since 24 . . . �c4 25.Gtlxa4 he2 26.Gtlc5 '.Wd5 27.�xe2 '.Wxd4t 28.rJ1h l is clearly in White's favour. After all, the black pawns are fixed on light squares, the same colour as the bishop, which is a highly unpleasant indication for the endgame. As a result of 24.a3! the white knight is freed from having to defend the a2-pawn, and the complex of weak squares (b4,c5) and pawns (a4,c6,e7) is in jeopardy. All this is the direct consequence of the unfortunate move 1 9 . . . �g7." I would like to emphasize the weakness of e7, which from a static point of view might not seem that obvious; but a more detailed analysis indicates that White can reorganize his army to attack this point, whereas Black finds it very difficult to arrange an effective defence, again due to his space problems. Instead, the direct attempt 24.h5 gxh5! 25 .�d3 iWxd4t 26.'�fl f5 27.�xf5 iWg7, when Black is okay, was not good.

24... �fd8 25.lLle4 Y;Ve8 26.Afl id5

"Preventing . . . g6-g5, just in case." IfBotvinnik made this move thinking only of this black manoeuvre, his perception of the position was really poor. To me the move seems very strong indeed since it makes apparent Black's Achilles Heel: his lack of space and the problems deriving from it, like for instance, the difficulty he will have in regrouping and transferring his forces to the several points his opponent will attack. Indeed, the text eventually threatens h4-h5 leaving Black

27

If 26 .. J:l:d5 then 27.iWf4! (I think this is the best move, positionally speaking, as it prevents Black from regrouping his forces in an offensive stance: it is instructive to emphasize that in this case Black's most important weaknesses are to be found in the b8-rook, the b6-knight and the penetration point on c7, thus showing that the vulnerable points are not only a direct consequence of the pawn structure but also of the concrete situation of the pieces) 27 ... gbd8 (27 ... �h5) 28.'.Wc7 and White is clearly better.

27.Gtlc5 Y;Vf8 "In the endgame, at least, Black will easily be

28.Y;Vxf8t?! Why not 28.'.We3, probing Black's weaknesses? Fine, perhaps the queen exchange was in accordance with Botvinnik's match tactics but I think that one should be honest and acknowledge that it might not be, objectively speaking, the best possibility. Avoiding the exchange was a better move since the white queen is obviously much more active than Black's.

28 ... �xf8 29.lLla6!? �bc8 3o.lLlb4 iLb3? "In this way Black prevents the doubling of the white rooks on the c-file and exploits the undefended rook at d2 to create tactical threats. Even so, this counterplay is insufficient compensation for the pawn that he sacrifices." Curiously enough in the same book Botvinnik points our 30 ... !i:d6!: "Analysis showed the possibility of a defence." 3 1 .�dc2 �e8 (3 l . ..�b8 32.'it>(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,," <;3? Korehnoi * M. Gurevich Antwerp 1 995

3. Conversely, there are effective methods to

Middlegame Motifs 2 1 ...tLlb7 (Korchnoi) seems better, preventing the break a4-a5, although this would mean removing the knight from the ideal d6-square and leaving Black's a6-bishop out of play. White could then play something like :g n , tLlc3-d l -e3 , 'lWb3-c3 and prepare the attack on the kingside starring with f2-f4 or alternatively continue on the queenside with tLld2-b3 and a4-a5, whereas Black has no useful counterplay. For instance, against an eventual . . .g7-g6 and ... 0-f5 White has the manoeuvre exf5 and f4 fixing Black's f5 pawn as a weakness.

22.a5 gb8 If 22 ...�b7 there follows 23.axb6 axb6 24.tLl b5! exchanging the blockading knight: 24 ... tLlxb5 25.'lWxb5 and White is clearly better: the weakness of the b6-pawn is very unpleasant.

counter the blockade: a direct attack against the blockader, which very often comes in the form of the f2-f4 break in order to give mobility to White's e-pawn; an attack directed against anorher part of the board, forcing the blockader to leave its privileged position; and, finally, simply trying to exchange the blockader.

White is clearly better: Black's pawn structure has been compromised and the situation of the bishop on a6 is also unfortunate.

4. It is important not to forget the pros and cons

27 ri:b4 28.'%li'a3! he4?

of the passed pawn: it is very dangerous when it can advance because it paralyses the enemy forces. Furrhermore, as has already been mentioned, its advanced position secures valuable space, which has great relevance when it comes to quickly coordinating actions on both flanks. One also has to bear in mind the possibility of sacrificing it with the aim of exploiting the latent strength of the pieces placed behind it. As has already been noted in other parts of this book, most treatises give superficial, and therefore insufficient, analyses of the games shown, which might lead to mistaken conclusions and perceptions. Then when we try to apply the knowledge thus acquired to our own games we are confronted with huge doubts and difficulties, blaming it on some kind of shortcoming or lack of ability of our own. Nothing could be further from the truth: chess is not as easy a game as some authors insist on saying, and each position

23.axb6 �hb6 24.'%li'a2

31

It is important to be aware of the fact that very often one will have to play this kind of ending and therefore one has to master the technique needed to conduct it properly.

29.c!tJxeS Y3b5 30.c!tJxd7 '%li'xd7 Later White made some inaccuracies that nevertheless didn't change the evaluation of the position .

31 .:!:kU!

Better was 3 1 .1!9c3 or 3 1 .�h3 (Korchnoi), when White is clearly winning.

31. ,ie2 32.E:el ? .•

32 . . . 'lWxh3 (Korchnoi) : 32.�h3 Again 33. 'lWxd6 :gb2 34. � fl and the e5-pawn is beyond salvation, with Black having no compensation for it.

32 ... ,ihS 33.h3 g5 34.gc1 i.g6 If 34 . . . E:b6 then 3 5.'lWal f6 36.Lt:lc4 �xc4 37.:gxc4.

24. g6 25.gabl E:eb7 26.E:xb6 E:xb6 27.tLla4 ..

The beginning of the offensive against the weak pawns on the queenside. •..

19.'%li'a4! c!tJb8 If 19 ... �b7 then 20.�h3 :gc7 21 .�xd7 with the idea of playing 'lWxa7, when White would be clearly better (Korchnoi).

20.'%li'b3 ge7 If20 ... f5 there could follow 2 1 .a4 f4 22.a5 and the pressure on the queenside is more effective, in this case, than Black's counterplay on the kings ide.

2 1.a4 White starts one of the typical plans in this sort of structure. I am, of course, referring to a minority attack aimed at opening lines on the queenside for his forces, at the same time provoking the weakening of Black's pawn structure on this flank.

2 1 . .. tLld7?!

Other alternatives were: a) 28 . . . tLlxc4? 29.tLlxc4 �xc4 (29 ... :gxc4 30 .�fl wins) 30.d6 'lWd8 3 1 .Lt:lxc5 :gb5 32.tLlxd7 'lWxd7 33.�h3 winning (Korchnoi). The triumph of the passed pawn! b) 28 . . . :gb8 29.�fl (29.tLlxc5 tLlxc5 30.'lWxc5 :gc8 with the idea of playing ... i.xc4) 29 ....ic8 30.l: h l a6 3 1 .tLlxc5 tLl xc4 32.tLlxc4 'lWxc5 33.'lWxc5 tLlxc5 34.f3 and White is clearly better (Korchnoi).

Why is White better? For several reasons: firstly, his king is safer and, secondly and more importantly, there is a huge difference between the two passed pawns. Whereas the d5-pawn is strong, Black's a7-pawn will always need the protection of its heavy pieces, which will tie them down and force them to be passively placed. The importance of the difference between active and passive heavy pieces is well-known.

35.E:e6 E:b6 36.'%li'c3 White's dominance prevents Black from concocting a plan to push his a-pawn. Also good was 36.l'�xb6 axb6 37.'lWb2. White is clearly better.

True Lies in Chess

32

36 ...�e7 The idea is to play . . . f6.

37.�cS �d8 38.lLlc4 ElM t If 38 . . . l"lxc6 then 39.dxc6 CLlxc4 40.Wlxc4 Wlc7 4 1 .Wlb5 intending to play 'lMfb7, winning.

39.�h2 lLlxe4 40J'hg6t hxg6 4 1.he4 Ele1 42.i.g2 l'!el 43.d6 Elxc4 44.�xc4 �xd6 4S.i.dS �e7 46.�g2 �g7 47.g4 as 48.�c6 �a7 49.�e8 YNc7 SO.�h2 �f6 S1 .�g3 �g7 S2.<j;>g2 <j;>f6 S3.YNh8t 1-0

20... lLld6 2 1 .a4 White is already slightly better. Another possibility was 2 1 .ctJb5!?

21...a6 Preventing a possible attempt to exchange the blockading knight with CLlc3-b5. Dubious was 2 l . ..c4 22.bxc4 ctJxc4 23.CLlb5.

22.i.d3! g6 22 ... c4 23.bxc4 ctJxc4 24.Wle2 with strong pressure on the queenside.

Middlegame Motifs 28 . . .CLlxc4 29.bxc4 .ic8 30.f5 with an obvious space advantage.

29.Wlxf4

29.gxf4! CLlc8!? with the idea of playing ... f7-f5 . Even though Hort thought this was a dubious idea, I think that it deserves deeper analysis.

29 lLlxc4 30.bxc4 f6 3 1.l'!fl •••

According to my analysis, 3 1 .l"le2! was much better.

Montreal 1 979

If27 ... exf4 then 28.Wlxf4 Wle5 (28 .. .f6 29.CLlc4 ctJ xc4 30.bxc4 l"lad8 transposing to the game) 29.Wlxe5 l"lxe5 30.CLlc4! 4Jxc4 3 1 .bxc4.

19.e4 lLle8 20.i.fl The beginning of an excellent strategic manoeuvre aimed at first restricting the mobility of Black's queenside pawn majority and then, after the transfer to the d3-square, also the break ... f7-f5 . Note how important this bishop will be from now on, neutralizing Black's possible active plans and, as a consequence of this, allowing White to implement effective attacking methods.

It is clear that the weakness of the b6-pawn is much more substantial than that of its white counterparts on e4 and a4, e.g. 3 1 .. ..ic8 32.l"lb l l"lb8 33.Ele2 f5 34.l"leb2 fxe4 35.i.e2! and White's bad bishop works very well as a blockading and defensive piece: 35 . . ..id7 36.l"lxb6 l"lxb6 37.l"lxb6 and White is clearly better.

28.lLlc4 exf4

32.!U2

32 ... g5 33 . . . g5 34.hxg5 fXg5 35 .Wlf3 and White is clearly better.

2S ...aS 26.lLld2 l'!e8 27.f4!?

27 ... l'!ad8!

One of the problems Black has to face is that in order to defend his weaknesses and at the same time blockade the passed pawn he has to condemn his heavy pieces to passive positions.

33.h4 Wld7

Again a5 is threatened.

r3J Hort * Larsen

31. .. Eld6

32...i.c8

With the idea of playing a5.

Better was 27.ctJc4 CLlxc4 28.bxc4! and White is practically a pawn up. Also interesting was 27.l"le2!? with the idea of playing f2-f3, l"lf2, l"lcfl , .ic2, Wlc3 and eventually f3-f4, building-up in a more slow rhythm, Karpov-style, since Black has no counterplay at all.

c) 33 . .. l"ld6 34.e5 fxe5 35 Jhe5 Wlxe5 36.Elxe5 l"lxe5 37 ..ixhlt �g7 38.Wlb2 and White wins.

32.h4!?

23.Wle2 l'!a8 24.�e3! 24 ...Eldc8 2S.lLlb1!

The next game we are going to analyse is an excellent example of the subject we are studying, because of the simplicity of its form and, despite that, its rich content of strategic ideas.

33

34.Elcf1 <j;>g7 34 .. J�e5! was without any doubt the best defence. Now White can create more weaknesses in the enemy position.

3 l . ...ic8 (if 3 l . ..l"ld6 then 32.e5 fxe5 33.l"lce 1 and White is clearly better) 32.l"lce 1 g5 33.Wlf2 and now: a) 33 . . . Wle5 34.l"lb l l"ld6 (34 . . . 'lMfc3 3 5.Wle3) 35 .l"leb2 and White is clearly better. b) 33 ... .ig4! 34.l"lb2 l"ld6 35J�eb l Wld8 36.l"lb3 �g7 37.Wlb2 .if3 38.l"lxb6 l"lxb6 39 .Wlxb6 Wlxb6 40.l'!xb6 he4 4 1 ..ifl ! and White's advantage is clear. In relation to this variation I would like to clarifY one topic that is usually surrounded by confusion: the good bishop against the bad bishop. One of the most forgotten aspects in the analysis of a situation is how each isolated element bears on the rest of the position. The possession of the bad bishop in many occasions entails the presence of active rooks, and vice versa. It turns out that this "bad" bishop defends important pawns depriving the enemy rooks of targets to attack, whereas the "good" bishop does not have the same defensive quality, therefore increasing the attacking potential of the heavy pieces. If you had to choose berween having a bad bishop but active rooks or a good bishop but passive rooks, which would you choose?

3S.hS! gxhS If 35 . . . g5? then 36.h6t �xh6 37.Wlxd6 'lMfxd6 38.l"lxf6t and White has a decisive advantage.

36.�h4 �f'7! 37.Wlf4 Wle7? 37 ... 'lMfd7 38.ie2 l"le5 was better.

38.i.e2! i.h3?! 38 .. .'�e5 39 .ixh5 Wlxf4 40.l'hf4 Ele5 4 1 .ig4 and White is clearly better.

39.Elel! Wld7 40.i.xhS l'!eS 41.g4! Wlxa4 42.�h2 h6 If 42 . . . 'lMfxc4 then 43.g5! winning.

43.�el ! bS 44.�xh3 Wlxc4

34

True Lies in Chess

Better was 44 ... bxc4!? although White still wins after 45.l''1 f5 l"Ib6 46.g5!.

45.WI'xc4 bxc4 46J�a2 �dxd5 47J��xa5 gd7 48.c;t>g3 c3 49.c;t>f4 c2 50. gel gd4 51.ga7t c;t>g8 52.,tf7t c;t>h8 53 ..tgG 1-0 Undeniably, a very instructive game.

"Life is so short and the craft so difficult that by the time we start to learn it, we already have to die." Ernesto Sabato ( 1 9 1 1 - ) Argentinean novelist and essayist There is a well known scientific principle stating that any established theory is no longer valid if someone finds just a single case contradicting it. Similarly, whenever someone introduces a new kind of evaluation or guideline in chess, someone else will immediately find examples that don't fit and even challenge whatever it was that the "rule" wanted to prove. The only categorical statement I would dare to make about chess is that it is anything but easy. If you don't believe me, look at the following examples.

17.e4 Salov thinks White is clearly better, but this is a difficulr situation to evaluate. It seems as if Black is doing fine, considering his nice blockade on the dark squares. This is far from reality: Black's situation is worse due to the fact that, on thewhole, if the position opens up the white pieces will be more effective than their black counterparts, as we will see in the following analysis. Faced with this prospect the second player can only wait and see how White gradually increases his pressure.

17... a6 18 ..tg5 This bishop reminds me of the one in the Petrosian Variation of the King's Indian, being a persistent nuisance to Black. At any rate I think Karpov didn't adopt the best plan here, which was, in my opinion, to place the bishop on the long diagonal, e.g. 1 8 .tb2 l"Ife8 1 9 .4:lf3 l"lc8 20.4:lh2!'

Middlegame Motifs b) 2o ...Wfd8 2 1 .4:lg4 b5 (2 l . . .h5 22.tLle3 b5 23.axb5 axb5 24.El:a6! 4:lb8 25.l"Ixd6 Wfxd6 26.txb5 and White is clearly better) 22.axb5 axb5 23.l"Ia6!? 4:lb8 24.l"Ixd6 Wfxd6 25 .txb5 l"le7 26.f4! with a strong initiative. The poor role played by the b4-bishop in this position is noteworthy. c) 2o ...Wfc7 2 1 .te2 4:lf6 22.tLlg4 tLl xg4 (22 . . .4J fxe4 23.td3 f5 24.4Jxe5 or 22 . . . 4Jdxe4 23.d6! 4Jxd6 24.txe5 are both better for White) 23.txg4 l"lcd8 24.f4! and thanks to the b2-bishop this break is very strong.

18... gde8 The only move. I would like to point out the excellent placement of the white knight on the h4-square: Black always has to be on the lookout for a possible invasion of the f5-square, and also this steed makes the break . . . £7-f5 very difficult. A possible variation demonstrating this could be 18 ... l"lc8 1 9 .te7! l"Ife8 20 ..ixd6 Wfxd6 2 1 .4Jf5 Wff8 22.d6 and White has a decisive advantage. Also bad would be 1 8 ... f6? because of the weakness that would be created on the e6-square, which could be exploited by the c4-bishop via e2-g4.

35

?! Salov. Salov's evaluation of this move is due, I think, not to it being weak but to the fact that it might not be the best. Nonetheless it is a typical manoeuvre in the style of Karpov. It is not yet clear what the best plan for White is, and therefore he gradually improves his position. From a2 the rook could effectively control the second rank if Black's tries a break with ... £7 -f5 and it works along the a-file too if Black tries to expand on the queenside with ... b7-b5. Meanwhile it is not at all easy for the second player to find an effective plan. I think that an alternative more in line with the needs of the position was 20.4Jf3!? -

19..te2 Threatening to probe the enemy camp via g4, and anticipating an eventual expansion by Black on the queenside.

W Karpov * Salov

19 ...WI'c7

Linares 1991 The knight is transferred to the g4-square from where it puts e5 under pressure, facilitates the break f2-f4 and eventually threatens to follow the route 4J g4-e3 to c4 or f5, to be exchanged for Black's important d6-knight. Tactically impossible was the idea 20.te2 Wfd8 2 1 .4Jh2 (threatening i.e2-g4 or then again 4Jh2g4) because after 2 1 ...4:lf6 22.f4 (22 .4:lg4 4Jxg4 23.i.xg4 l"lc7 24.f4 l"lce7 25.fxe5 l"Ixe5 26.txe5 l"Ixe5 with compensation: Black's position is extremely solid) 22 ... c4! Black is clearly better and the white king is in trouble. After 20.4:lh2! there are several options: a) 20 ... 4J f6 2 l .f4 4:lxc4 22.bxc4 exf4 23.e5 4J h5 24.4Jf3 and White is clearly on top.

20.ga2

The main idea behind this move is the transfer of the knight to the c4-square with the aim of exchanging Black's solid d6-knight. If the knight is captured by the b4-bishop along the way, then Black's chances of counterplay will be seriously limited as any opening of the position would give White's bishop pair dangerous activity. However, after the best continuation by Black: 20 ... h6 (20 . . .f5 2 1 .exf5 4Jxf5 22.td3 clearly favours White) 2 1 .i.e3 4Jf6 (2 1 . . .f5 22. exf5 4Jxf5 23.i.d3 4Jxe3 24.fxe3 with a clear advantage due to the weakness of the light squares on the kingside and also to the fact that the passed pawn no longer has any major obstacles in its path to promotion) 22.td3 l"le7 (22... 4Jxd5 23.exd5 e4 24.4Jel txe l 25 .l"lxel exd3 26.Wfxd3 and White is slightly better) 23.4Jd2 l"Ic8 24.4Jc4 4:lxc4 25.bxc4 tLle8 Intending ...4:ld6, when Black's position is very solid but somewhat passive. 20 ... 1L1b6?! (! Salov)

36

True Lies in Chess

I don't like this move. This position is very interesting and we should ask ourselves why the second player didn't implement more ambitious ideas such as mobilizing his pawn majority in the queenside, since the break ... f?-fS is under control. I think that the following analysis perfectly illustrates that this plan was not so easy to carry out but I also think that it was necessary to shake off the pressure. a) 20 ... bS? 2 1 .axbS axbS 22.ga6! (exploiting the weakness of the c6-square thanks to the presence of the dS-pawn) 22 ... CLlb8 23.Eixd6! '!Wxd6 24 . .lixbS and White is winning. b) 20 ... h6!? 2 1 .ie3 CLl f6 22.id3

White's e4-pawn is telling. b32) 23.gc1 gfe8 24.Wb l Wd8 2S.CLlf3 CLlxdS 26.exdS e4 27. ltJ e l ixe l 28.gxel exd3 29.Wxd3 c4 30.bxc4 Eixc4 and the position is level. b33) 23.f4!?

Middlegame Motifs A tactical mistake by White. Salov suggested 26.CLlh2, when there might follow: a) 26 ... CLle7 27.CLlg4 and White is slightly better (Salov) . If instead 27.ig4 fS 28.exfS ctJdxf5 (the d5-pawn becomes the target of Black's attack) 29.ixc5 (29.We4 Wxd5 30.Wxd5 ctJxd5 3 1 .ixcS ixcS 32.EixcS CLl b4 33.Eld2 CLl d4 and the position is unclear) 29 . . . ixc5 30.Wxc5 Eic8 3 1 .Wa3 gxc1 t 32.Wxc1 WxdS, the position is unclear. b) 26 .. .fS!? is in my opinion a very interesting alternative. A sample variation could be: 27.exf5 CLlxf5 28.ig4 (28.ixcS Elc8 29.ixb4 Elxc2 30.Eiaxc2 CLl d4 3 1 .ixf8 CLlxc2 and the position is roughly equal) 28 . . . e4!

2 1...lLlbc8 22.ie3 The beginning of a regrouping that improves the effectiveness of the white pieces.

22 ... CLle7 23.lLl8! Now the break . . .£7-fS is inappropriate because of the weakness of the e6-square. Note the strength of the passed dS-pawn.

23 ... lLlg6 24.h4?! This is a dubious move as it weakens the kingside. Again it seems better to play 24.CLld2! when White is slightly better. If Black exchanges his bishop for this knight his queenside can run into trouble; otherwise the knight gets to the c4square and exchanges itself for Black's important d6-knight.

24. f6 ..

The only move.

25.g3 �d7 26.h5?

Moscow 1 947

"The correct plan. Black is aiming for an ideal piece set-up: central pawn at eS and knight at d6. Then he will prepare to attack White's centre with . . . f6-fS ." (Botvinnik)

13 ..icl

Also interesting would be 13 .'lWe2!? applying a different strategy: to give up the bishop pair for a better central position.

21.gcl A prophylactic measure against a possible break ... cS-c4.

� Botvinnik * Novotelnov

1 2... lLl c4!

Without doubt the critical variation: 23 . . . exf4 24.ixf4 gfe8! 25 .eS c4 with dangerous counterplay. Worse would be 23 ... c4 because of 24.fxe5 (24.bxc4 i.c5 25 .i.xcS WxcSt 26.'itJh2 ltJd7 and the position is unclear) 24 . . .�cS 2S .i.xcS WxcSt 26.<j;>h2 cxd3 27.WxcS gxcS 28.exf6 and White is slightly better. Now the following alternatives are possible: b l ) 22 ... Wd8 23.g3 (23.CLlf3 CLlxdS with an unclear position) 23 . . . bS 24.axbS axbS 2S .Eia6! (the idea is to sacrifice the exchange eventually; if instead 2S .ixcs ixcs 26.WxcS CLldxe4 27.ixe4 CLlxe4 and the position is unclear) 2S ... c4 26.bxc4 bxc4 27.ixc4 CLlfxe4 28.gb l ! (28 .ifl also gives White a clear edge; 28 .Eic6!?) White's advantage is beyond dispute, given the weakness of Black's minor pieces and the fact that they don't have any stable point of support. b2) 22 . . . bS!? 23.axbS axbS 24.Elc1 Elc8 2S.CLlf3 We7 26.Wbl and Black's position is still unpleasant. b3) 22 ... gcS! and now: b3 l) 23.CLlf3 EifeS 24.CLld2 bS!with counterplay for Black. For instance, 2S .axbS axbS 26.Ela6 ixd2! (26 ... c4 27.bxc4 ixd2 28.Eic6 Wd8 29.Elxd2 bxc4 3o.ixc4 CLl fxe4 3 1 .gdl and White is clearly better) 27.gxd2 c4 and the weakness of

37

Suddenly the white pieces are rather awkwardly placed.

26 ... lLl f4! An excellent sacrifice that Karpov almost certainly overlooked. Now Black equalizes.

27.gxf4 �g4t 28.@fl �h3t 29.@gl �g4t 30.@fl If 30.<j;>h l ?! exf4 31 .i.xcS (3 1 .ttJh2? 'lWh4 and Black is clearly better) 3 1 ...i.xcS 32.WixcS Elc8! 33.Wa3 ctJxe4 34.Elfl Elc3! and there is compensation, according to Salov.

30 ...�h3t 1/2-1f2

If 30 . . .exf4? then Black needs to reckon with 3 1 . li:l g l ! Wh4 32.i.xcS li:lxe4 33.i.b6! CLld2t 34.'lWxd2 i.xd2 3 S.gxd2 Elxe2 36.gxe2 f3 37.ge3 and White wins (Salov). Let's see one last example on the subject.

13 ... e5! 14.lLlb5!

Preventing the knight from getting to d6 by threatening to exchange it. This continuation is very vigorous since it implies the sacrifice of a pawn in some variations.

14 ...id7

Let's see some alternatives to familiarize ourselves with the typical fighting methods in this kind of structure. a) 14 .. . fS l S .d6!? Sometimes this push is extremely dangerous. Now: a l ) l S ... li:l b6 16.i.gS Wie8 ( 1 6 ...i.f6 1 7.ih6 Ele8 [ 1 7 ... Elf? I 8.Ele 1 ] 18. li:ld2 <j;>h8 1 9. a4) 17.CLlc3 a2) l S . . . <j;>h8 1 6.exfS ! Anticipating that the hanging pawns will be weak. 1 6 ... gxfS 1 7.We2 White is clearly better. b) 1 4 . . . CLld6 It is important to know how to proceed if the game goes down this path:

38

True Lies in Chess

1 5 .ctJxd6 'IWxd6 1 6.ctJd2! The knight is transferred to the best square on the board, c4, from where with the help of the a-pawn it holds back Black's queenside (a common idea in many Benonis) while supporting the central break fl-f4 that is so typical of this configuration. 16 ...id7 1 7.ctJc4 'lWc7 1 8.a4 ctJb4 (if 18 . . . f5 then either 1 9.d6 or 1 9 .f4! leave White clearly better) 1 9 .b3 ( l 9.'lWb3 r4ih8 20 ..id2 and White is slightly better; or 19.f4!? and White's position is to be preferred) 19 .. .f5 (l9 ... b6 20.ib2 a6 2 1 .a5 b5 22.ctJb6 )"Iad8 23 .'lWd2 and White is clearly better) 20.d6 (20.ib2 )"Iae8) 20. . .'lWc8 2 1 .ib2 and again White is clearly on top. c) 14 . . . ctJc7! is without any doubt the move the position demands, although after 1 5 .ctJxc7 'lWxc7 1 6.ctJd2 ctJd6 1 7.b3 White still has an advantage.

(2 1 .b4 ttJ xb4 22.'lWa4 'lWd6 23 .'lWxa5 Cbc2 and the position is unclear) 2 1 . . . bxa6 (2 1 .. .'lWxa6 22.id2 b6 23 ..ixa5 bxa5 24.ctJd2 and White is clearly better) 22.ctJd2 :gab8 (22 ... 'lWb5 23.g4!? is along the lines of the previous note) 23.ttJc4 ctJ xc4 24.bxc4 and White has a clear edge. If instead 1 7 ... ctJc7 then 1 8.b4!.

18.c!Lla3 a6 19.Ae3? This is an instructive mistake. "This move does not threaten anything, since the c5-pawn is easily defended. At e3 the bishop merely comes under attack after . . . f6-f5-f4!. Correct was 1 9.ctJd2!." (Botvinnik)

15.a4 �b6 "After 1 5 ... ixb5 1 6.axb5 ctJc7, White had only one move but an adequate one, 1 7.b4!! (eliminating Black's main threat of . . . ctJxb5 and . . . ttJd4) 1 7. . .cxb4 1 8 .'lWb3 ctJd6 1 9.b6! axb6 ( l 9. . .ctJa6!? 20.bxa7 ctJxe4 2 1 .d6t r4ih8 22.ctJxe5 tiJxd6 23.ctJc6 bxc6 24.)"Ixa6 and White is slightly better - Comas) 20 .)"Ixa8 Cbxa8 (20 ... 'lWxa8 21 .'lWxb4 ctJcb5 22.ib2 'lWa2! [22 ... 'lWa5 23.'lWb3 and White is clearly better; 22 ... !i:c8 23.)"Ia1 'lWb8 24.ifl )"Ic5 25. Cbd2 leaves White on top) 23.)"Ic1 [the idea is to continue 23.ctJd2 'lWa5! when Black is clearly better; or 23.:gal 'lWc4) 23 . . .ih6 - Comas) 2 1 .'lWxb4 White would have gained a clear advantage." (Botvinnik)

16.b3 c!LlaS 17J�el! Indirectly protecting the knight on b5 and also preventing ... f6-f5 .

17... c!Llb4

If 17 . . ..ixb5 1 8 .axb5 'IWxb5 19 .ifl 'IWb6 20.h4! "would have left the black pieces unable to come to the aid of their king." (Botvinnik) Exploiting one of the virtues of the passed pawn: the difficulty of the side lacking space to transfer pieces quickly from one Rank to the other. The threat is h5 and ctJh4 with a decisive advantage. 20 . . . h5 is the only move (20 . . . ctJb4 2 1 .h5 g5 22.ttJh2 and White is clearly better) 2 1 .ixa6

Middlegame Motifs 22.ctJc2 'lWb6!? (this is the move Botvinnik overlooked; 22 ... ctJxc2? 23.'lWxc2 and White's pressure on the queenside is evident: 23 ... b5 24.axb5 axb5 25.gxf4!) 23.ctJxb4 cxb4 In my opinion the position is unclear. After 22 . . .c!Llxc4 23.ctJxc4 !i:ae8 24.a5!? (24.ic3 and the knight on b4 is a big problem for Black and furthermore the passed d5 -pawn threatens to advance) 24 ...ib5 25 .ic3 White is clearly better. c) 20 . . ..ih6!? This possibility was not pointed out by Botvinnik. It is a useful resource for Black. Now White will experience serious difficulties in implementing his positional plans. Nonetheless after 2 1 . tiJ dc4 (2 U ' lb 1 )"Ifc8 22.ttJc2 ctJa2! it is funny how in this kind of position with a central preponderance the problems come from wing actions like this one) 2 l .. .ixcl 22.)"Ixc1 ctJxc4 23.tiJxc4 b5 24.Cbe3 White's position is still slightly better.

19...�d6?! 19 . . . f5! and Black will seize the initiative. For instance, if20.!i:c1 !i:ac8 2 1 .exf5 gxf5 22.ctJg5 e4, Black has an attack.

20.c!Lldl bS This is an excellent positional move. It prepares the exchange of the knight on b4, a very valuable piece because of the pressure it exerts on d5 (thus strengthening the break . . . f6-f5) as well as on the enemy position, making any possible regrouping manoeuvres by White very difficult. After 19 ... 'lWc7 20.ifl ! there follows: a) "20 . . .!i:ab8 2 1 .ib2 (2 1 .ctJc2! ctJxc2 22.'lWxc2 and White is clearly better - Comas) 21 ...b5 (2 l . . .ih6 22.ctJac4 tiJxc4 23.ctJxc4 b5 24.axb5 axb5 - Comas) 22.axb5 axb5 23.ctJc2 tiJxc2 24.'lWxc2 with an appreciable advantage to White due to the weakness of the enemy queenside." (Botvinnik) b) 20 . . . f5 This move is not dangerous here since Black has no effective pressure on d5 and furthermore his queenside is exposed: 2 1 .ib2 (2 1 .ctJc2 f4 22.ttJxb4 cxb4 23.ctJc4 tiJxc4 24.ixc4 'lWc5 25.gxf4 exf4 26.e5 )"If5 with an attack) 2 1 . . .f4 22. ttJ ac4 I think this a better alternative than the one recommended by Botvinnik:

"With his last move Black has established control over c4 and he has in reserve the threat of . . . f6-f5-f4. However, even now his position is less promising, since his queenside pawns are weakened." (Botvinnik) I don't quite agree with this assessment, in particular because of the variation pointed out next move.

39

21.i.f1 Botvinnik recommended 2 1 .axb5 axb5 22.'lWe2 f5 (if 22 . . . )"Iab8 23.:gecl )"Ifc8 then 24.ctJc2! and White is clearly better) 23.tiJxb5 'lWb6 24.ctJa3 f4 25.ctJdc4, but after 25 ... 'lWa7 I think Black stands better.

21 ...f5! "Now the (Botvinnik)

initiative

passes

to

Black."

22.8 f4 23.An fxg3 24.hxg3 ih6 "With the extremely unpleasant threat of 25 . . . ixd2. White has to go in for the exchange of dark-square bishops, which weakens his king's position and strengthens the opponent's queenside." (Botvinnik)

2S.ie3 he3t 26.!i:xe3 �b6 Black is slightly better.

Jupiter al'\,d its satellites: ttte P·Pile versus ttte strollS poil'\,t 01'\, e4 One of the most important qualities of any good chess player is positional vision. We say a player plays well because he sees a lot whereas another one does badly because he sees little. In fact, compared to other mortals, there are players who seem able to observe with more precision and clarity the infinite universe of chess nuances. Let's say that their positional telescope, if you will allow me the metaphor, not only lets them see Jupiter but also all the satellites orbiting it, which are vital in explaining what's happening in this planetary system. As one progresses through the chess ranks the perception and accurate evaluation of "minor" details in the position becomes increasingly important. Unfortunately, very often in chess literature we find books on the middlegame that don't pay enough attention to these details that are so important in playing chess strongly. In the previous section we have already seen the importance of the perception of such elements. To close this chapter I would like to give another example of a subject studied in Roberto Grau's work Tratado General de Ajedrez.

40

True Lies in Chess

Make no mistake: I would like to reiterate my admiration for this author's great educational and literary skills. It is a pity that he did not have enough strength as a player to allow him to create a true work of art. As I was saying, this is just an example of the obvious shortcomings that many works in this style have. I should add that it is tremendously complicated to strike the necessary balance in writing a treatise on the middlegame that is at the same time educational and entertaining, as well as rigorous and thorough. As pointed out in the title of this section, we are going to consider the interesting struggle that occurs in positions where one side controls the f-file while the other side has an outpost on the e4-square. Let's see some comments Grau makes in this respect: "We note the combat berween the open bishop's file, the objective of countless games, and the surrender of the e4-square to the opponent, allowing him to put a knight there which will control our own f2-square, where usually there is a pawn attacked by the rooks."

"Bur this is not, in fact, the only compensation for the open file, for this would not be very much. The true compensation lies in the extraordinary action of a centralized knight, acting like an umbrella over eight vital squares on the board and, by extension, indirectly over each of the squares it could control from its furure location." Well, so far the main points have been stated; continuing our astronomical metaphor we could say that Jupiter has been spotted and perfectly

idemified. Bur in the following examples it is my intention to show that this central topic is surrounded by a series of positional elements that are as important as the major themes. The following game was played by one of the most inexhaustible and versatile players of all time: there are few people who can boast of the professional record Korchnoi enjoys.

� Korchnoi • Geller Moscow ( 1 ) 1 97 1 The situation i n the diagram is very imeresting: White has an excellent outpost on the e4-square whereas Black, as compensation, controls the half-open f-file.

But, unlike the examples shown in Grau's work, this knight is not exerting, at first sight, any strong pressure on the opponent's position and plans, for the points d6, f6, g5 and e6 are effectively protected. Neither can the typical break c4-c5 be carried out. We will now see how White manages to seek new positional elements and, consequently, original plans to revitalize his position.

1 8.a4 Threatening a4-a5 with the object of blowing up the solidity of the opponent's pawn formation; in particular, White tries either to weaken Black's comrol over the c5-square or destabilize the d6-pawn.

Middlegame Motifs

1 8 ... lLl c5! 19.1Llbxc5 bxc5 20 ..id3 .ih6 2 l .a5 V!ie7 22J:ga3 .ia6 I would like to carry our a deep analysis of this situation. As has been said before, White's centralized knight is not, for the time being, exerting any unpleasant pressure on the enemy position because Black's central squares are perfectly defended. The passed pawn on a5 is effectively blockaded by the a6-bishop which also attacks White's c4-square. It is clear that the absence of this bishop from defensive tasks on the kingside could have been made more significant had Black played ... h7-h6 instead of ...ig7-h6 to defend a possible invasion on e6 by the white knight via g5. But for the time being the formation h7-g6 effectively neutralizes the action of the d3-bishop on this flank. Regarding the open files, White has no invasion point on the b-file whereas Black, by exchanging the b2-bishop, could use b4 to control this important line and put pressure on the opponent's centre. Therefore White must pay attention to this possibility. On the other hand, the half-open e-file doesn't offer White any prospects, considering the strong blockade Black exerts with his e5-pawn; the attempt to simultaneously revitalize this file and the a l -h8 diagonal with f2-f4 is, from a tactical poim of view, totally unfeasible. I should add that Black cannot carry out any useful operations on the f-file in the short term. An important manoeuvre White always has to watch our for is the possibility ... lLl f5-d4; in this case the exchange ib2xctJ d4 is practically forced, leading to a very interesting position where the h6-bishop could become a rather useless piece, since Black's pawns are on squares of the same colour. Lastly, we have to take into consideration that exchanges, in general, favour White because of the presence of his distant passed pawn. The problem is how to continue putting Black's position under pressure, thus forcing him to take measures that are positionally damaging. Korchnoi's conduct of the rest of this game is exceptionally instructive.

41

23J:gel! Now the black queen stands on an uncomfortable position opposite the enemy rook. Moreover this move prepares White's following manoeuvre.

23 ...V!if7 24 .ifl ! •

Fantastic. The idea is �a3-h3 with an unpleasant threat against Black's position: g2g4, winning a piece. How to defend against this? The manoeuvre ... Wf7-g7 doesn't work in view of g2-g4-g5, whereas if ... ih6-g7 White plays lLle4-g5-e6 followed by f2-f4, with a decisive advantage. The white rook's manoeuvre connected with the advance of the kingside pawns shows the admirable depth and originality of Korchnoi's play.

24 :Sab8 ..•

Black seeks counterplay against c4 on White's queenside; if ib2-c3 the path of the a3-rook towards the kingside would be obstructed. But this move also has certain drawbacks: it leads to the rook exchange White desires and also, as a consequence of this, makes possible the white queen's unpleasant invasion via a4-c6.

25.:Sb3 :Sxb3 26.V!ixb3 lLl d4!? White was already threatening the aforementioned Wa4-c6, although Wb3-h3, with already familiar ideas, was possible too.

27..ixd4 exd4 After this exchange the essential structure of the game has been modified. Black thus gets a dangerous passed pawn and has revitalized the b- and f-files in his favour. White must proceed very carefully.

28.V!ib2! Preventing the manoeuvre . . .ih6-d2. If instead 28.Wa4?! id2! (an excellent move whose aim is to destabilize the position of White's knight on e4 and therefore of the white kings ide as a whole) 29.Eldl ib4 30.Wc6 Wf4 (Black's counterplay is very dangerous) 3 1 .f3 (3 1 .id3 ixc4) 3 l . ..We3t 32. �hl Wb3 with counterplay; and if 28.g3 Wf3! Black would be slightly better, efficiently using the half-open file.

28 V!if4!? •••

42

True Lies in Chess rook would exert through f3 and, eventually, along the b-file. Furthermore White would have to take into consideration the possible exchange sacrifice :1'1f3xd3 with the subsequent creation of two united central passed pawns.

Middlegame Motifs In the next game White's centralized knight was accompanied by a group of additional posirional pluses that made the first player's task much easier.

'it' Hort • Reshevsky Petropolis (izt) 1973

43

contribution to his posmon. White's victory is made possible thanks to all these additional advantages accompanying the main motif of the position.

25 ... ifS The only move. Other options were not any better, e.g. 25 . . . i.f8 26.:1'1xd7 and White is winning; or 25 . . . :1'1c7 26.4:lxd6 i.f5 27.'&a2 '&xd6 28 J:l:xc7 �xc7 29.i.xf4! and White is clearly better.

26.Wc4!

Nipping in the bud Black's possible counterplay . . . c5-c4 or ... '&d8-h4. Black cannot adopt a passive attitude for in that case White, after first consolidating, would develop an unpleasant initiative on the queenside. The text is very interesring: Black wants to provoke the move g2-g3 at a time when his heavy pieces can invade the enemy position through f3 . From there Geller could end up exerting annoying pressure on the blockading d3-square, thus revitalizing his passed pawn on d4. Therefore the speculative 28 .. .'�g7 seems inferior: 29.i.d3 !"le8 30.'&e2, followed by '&d1 with the idea of either h2-h4-h5 or g2-g3 and f2-f4 or '&d 1-a4 with a dangerous initiative in every case. Black can do little against this: for instance the manoeuvre . . . i.a6-c8-f5xe4 would only increase the strength of White's a-pawn.

29.id3 Korchnoi quietly consolidates his posirion, in the knowledge that he has certain long-lasting advantages, such as the distant passed pawn and a better pawn structure on the kingside, allowing his king to feel safer than Black's.

29 ...itg7 30.�e2 i.e5! Bad was 30 ...!"lb8? 3 1 .g3 '&f8 32.4:lg5 when White is clearly better.

31.g3 We Arriving at a critical poSItIOn. Is it good to exchange queens? After that White would have great difficulties in blocking Black's d4-pawn adequately because of the pressure that the black

26 .. J�cbS If 26 . . . i.xe4 then 27.'&xe4. Simplification again favours the side with the distant passed pawn, which becomes extremely dangerous. For instance 27 ... '8c7 28.'8xc7 '&xc7 29.a5 (29.i.d2 '&f7 30.a5 '8f8 3 1. .ie 1 and White is clearly better) 29 .. J:ha5 30.:1'1xa5 '&xa5 3 1 .i.xf4 exf4 32.'&e6t mf8 33.'&xd6 and White wins.

32.Wd2!! This is a very strong move. White is now clearly better, having made available again the manoeuvre 4:le4-g5 as well as . . .

32...Wg4 102 . . . :1'1f5 then 33.h4 and White calmly builds up an attacking position.

33.4:lxc5! if4 Tactics didn't work either, e.g. 33 ... i.xg3 34.hxg3 dxc5 35 .:1'1e7 :1'10 36.:1'1e6 i.c8 37.:1'1e8t !"lf8 38.�e1 and White is clearly better: the distant pawn together with Black's kingside weakness are just too much.

34.We2 Wxe2 35.:1'1xe2 dxc5 36.gxf4 1-0 The big difference between the passed pawns of both sides is that whereas Black's d-pawn can easily be controlled by the white monarch, White's counterpart needs constant supervision by the black heavy pieces, and so their action will be missed in other vital parts of the board. It is very important to add that White will be first to activate his rook: in situations like this where there are mutual weaknesses the iniriative usually has a decisive importance.

27.�ab l ! 25.ttJxe4 In this situation White's e4-knight does exert unpleasant pressure on the enemy position, in particular on d6, on top of the latent threat that the eventual manoeuvre 4:le4-g5-e6 represents. But unlike in the game Korchnoi - Geller previously seen, White has a whole set of additional advantages tipping the balance in his favour: the possession of the open file along which his b7-rook has infiltrated creating dangerous threats, the distant passed a-pawn which in this case cannot be efficiently blockaded by a minor piece and needs to be under constant supervision by a great part of Black's resources and, lastly, a better king-it is clear that the situation of the black monarch is not all that safe. Black's compensation is insufficient: he cannot organize any counterplay on the half-open f-file; his f4-knight is not supported by the rest of his army, tied up as they are in defence; the passed c-pawn can be easily blockaded. Note too the poor role his g7-bishop is playing, locked in his own camp and with few prospects of making any positive

One always has t o watch out for any possible enemy co unte rplay. Much worse would be 27.l''lxb 8 '8xb8 (27 ... '&xb8!?) 28.i.d2 i.xe4 29.'&xe4 '&h4 with a complex position.

27..J�xb7 2sJhb7 ics If28 . . . i.xe4 then 29 .'&xe4 '8b8 30.!"lxb8 '&xb8 and White is clearly on top.

In this case Black's minor forces would end up completely cut off from the main focus of the fight: the passed pawns. Meanwhile, the white bishops would actively cooperate in the task of lending support to the distant a-pawn and

44

True Lies in Chess

simultaneously controlling the opponent's passed c-pawn. It is clear that White's victory would not be very far away and its technical realization would be fairly simple.

29J3bl �a6 30.'lWc2 hf1 31.lfixfl

misguided example from a famous game between Tarrasch and Lasker. Misguided inasmuch in that game the centralized rook on e5 was fighting against an isolated white pawn on e4, a topic that would belong, at any rate, in other positional sections but not the one under consideration.

"The vulgar man, when beginning something, ruins it for rushing to finish it." Lao Tzu (sixth century B.c.) Chinese philosopher

White's posItIon is, strategically speaking, already winning. Black has managed to drive away the white rook from the strong b7-square but at too high a price: the definitive consolidation of the e4-knight on its post. I would like to add that the d5-pawn, the target of Black's attack in similar situations, is in this case unassailable due to the weakness of the black king.

3 1 . .. �aS 32.lfigl �f8 32, ..Wa6 33.l3b5 and White is clearly better.

33.l3b7 l3a7 34.l3xa7 �xa7 3S.g3! In the endgame Black's position is desperate.

3S ... ltJhS 36.�c4 ltJg7 37.g4! The situation of Black's minor pieces is pitiful and his king is still a target of White's attack. Besides, who's going to stop the a-pawn?

37 ... ltJe8 38.�bS �a8 39.�d7 �xdS 40.�xe8 �xe4 41.�h6 �e1 t 1-0 In his book Grau defends tooth and nail the concept that the ideal piece to occupy e4 is the knight. Later on the author holds that, in those cases where it is not possible to place the knight in that privileged situation, the most suitable piece to substitute it is the rook showing then a

The notion of prophylactic play has always been associated with Nimzowitsch's name. However, this doesn't mean that previous grandmasters didn't apply prophylactic measures with the aim of preventing the opponent's counterplay. In fact I think that one of the more representative characteristics of top players throughout chess history is the balance they have shown when it comes to decisions between defence and attack. A chess game is like a dance with a partner: a little step forward and a little step back. If one is not ready to take into account the rhythm of the other then there is a risk of suffering a painful slip. Accordingly one should always be on the lookout for the opponent's most dangerous plans, and act with them in mind.

� Lasker * Steinitz St Petersburg ( 1 ) l S95

Middlegame Motifs

45

22.he4!? According to Grau the object of this move is the preservation of the g3-knight in order to be able to ideally control the e4-square with this piece in a near future, thus setting up one of the most interesting strategic problems that chess presents: knowing which piece to exchange and which one to keep. Although this is partly true, it is equally true that White, with this and his next move, will fight to neutralize the annoying plan of transferring a knight to the f4-square via h5 (hence his willingness to keep the g3-knight on its current position), from where, together with the half-open f-file, it would exert immediate and unpleasant pressure on White's kingside. For instance if 22.tt'lxe4 ttJf6 23.c5 tt'lxe4 24.ixe4 tt'lh5! 25.cxd6 (25.tt'lxe5!?) cxd6 26.l3cl tt'l f4 27.Wc7 Wf6, Black would have dangerous counterplay. There might follow 2S.Wb6 if5 29.ixf5 gxf5 30 .Wxb7 l3abS 3 1 .Wxa6 e4 32.tt'lh2 l3gS and it is apparent that Black's attack is much quicker than the initiative the first player could generate after advancing his queenside pawn majority.

22... ltJf6 There were a number of alternatives: 22,..tt'lf5 would be hasty in view of 23.ixf5 gxf5 24.ttJxe5! dxe5 25.Wxe5t tt'lf6 26.d6 and White has a strong attack. 22,..We7!? This is a very interesting prophylactic move, only understandable by analysing the possible development of the present game. As we have previously seen, in many variations White has a very important resource connected with a piece sacrifice on e5 in order to highlight the black king's weakness and also to exploit his centralized pieces and better development. Black's intention with this move would be to prevent such a scenario. On the other hand 22,..tt'lh5!? (now or after 22,. .We7!?) would be very interesting after all. This would be a very modern concept: Black would worsen his pawn structure in exchange for opening important files on the kingside. For instance 23.ttJxh5 gxh5 eventually followed by the plan 24,..We7, 25,..tt'lf6, 26,. .id7, 27, . .l''l gS with counterplay.

Wtt,at are you telli"8 R\.e? I would like to repeat Grau's comments on this move: "This too is a chance to admire the simple logic of Lasker's style. The queen must replace the bishop that has been exchanged, as an old chess technical postulate says. Then again, another principle says that the bishop must be placed on that point of the board where it may be supported and moreover where it controls the most possible squares. This point is the e3-square, which Lasker has now occupied with his queen. It controls I S squares of the board, n o less." Impressive! It is evident that this kind of principle, so superficial and naIve (without taking into account the real struggle in the position) does nothing for the understanding of complex chess processes. I would advise the readers not to try to apply such a principle to their games, unless they want to be greatly surprised. Many of the explanations we find in books about the moves made by grandmasters are false, despite their logic. This is due to the fact there is only one reality, whereas there will always be several varied interpretations of it. Therefore I would like to add my opinion of the text move: I think it is, basically, an interesting prophylactic move. White prevents his opponent's attacking plans and at the same time gets ready to exploit the force of his centralized pieces to launch

Middlegame Motifs

True Lies in Chess

46

a quick attack against the enemy kingside through the dark-square complex that was somewhat weakened after the exchange of the "bad" g7-bishop. As we shall see in the next game, Lasker attached great importance to the defensive aspects of his positions.

23 lLlxe4?

24.lLlxe4 !'!f4?

Better was 24 . . . lLl f5 although after 25.Wc3 �d7 26.c5 White would take the initiative.

2S.cS.ifS 26.lLlfgS! 'i;Yd7 27.'i;Yxf4! exf4 28.lLlf6 lLle6 29.lLlxd7 lLlxgS 30J;e7 �g8 31 .lLlf6t c,t>m 32.!'!xc7 1-0

..•

The start of a series of weak moves. It is odd that Grau doesn't mention the natural 23 ... lLl f5!?

Ttt,cr t�rt COl\.d lubtlcr) rlf\cr bcrtwcrcrrt proptt,yloKil Ortd pOllivity Finding the balance between defence and attack is the most important element in positional play. But, by definition, this is a very unstable situation that may lead to two equally undesirable scenarios: passiviry or haste. In a chess game it is essential to know which rhythm of play is required for every position. Not taking the adequate measures (both offensive and defensive) at the right time can lead, in the short or long term, to undesirable consequences.

This is the other big mistake many authors make: when something doesn't fit with the topic they are presenting they don't even mention it. This move could call into question White's supposed (according to Grau) advantage. However, I think that Lasker had prepared against such a contingency the spectacular 24.�xf5 gxf5 25.lLlxe5! dxe5 26.Wxe5. Mter this the material compensation, together with the black king's bad situation and the difficulties Black would experience in order to complete his development, would give the first player an extremely dangerous attack. For instance if 26 ... Wd6, then 27.Wc3 b6 28.:Be5 �d7 29.:Bde 1 �gS 30.etJxf5 �xf5 3 1 .:Bxf5 and White is clearly better. And what would happen if Black tried to carry out his plan of transferring a knight to f4 with the manoeuvre 23 . . . lLlgh5? In this case also there would be an adequate reply: 24.lLlxh5 lLlxh5 25.Wh6! (exploiting the weakness of the dark squares) 25 ...�f5 (if 25 ... Wf6 then 26.i.xg6!; if 25 . . . etJf4 then 26.etJg5 We7 27.etJxh7) 26.lLlg5 We7 27.g3 with the initiative. Nevertheless, I think that the alternative 23. . .�f5 equalized.

!2J Lasker " Janowski Paris 1 909

over the e4-square, based on simple arithmetic: the latter has two minor pieces to fight for this point whereas the former only has one minor piece able to challenge this supremacy. Thus after the simplistic continuation 22.etJfd2 etJ f6?? 23.lLlxf6 :Bxf6 24.�e4 Black's position would probably be desperate. Why? What difference is there between this hypothetical scenario and the position in the diagram? Isn't White's absolute control over the e4-square the same, regardless of whether this pair of knights has been exchanged? Yes, but without the presence of the d7-knight Black's team would be much more unbalanced. I will try to explain myself: it turns out that the e7-bishop is not as bad as it seems. In fact it effectively neutralizes the opponent's powerful e4-knight, but its action is limited to a mere defensive role. Therefore this piece must be accompanied by attacking units in order for Black to avoid falling into absolute passiviry. White's structure on the kingside is too solid for the black rooks and queen to be able to accomplish this role successfully without help. The black knight on d7 is the key piece providing the balance needed for the whole of Black's army to act harmoniously. With the presence of this knight the struggle will be very hard, while its absence would mean the game would be one-sided.

Lasker was a player who took great care of the defensive aspects of his position. Premature would have been 26.etJa5 Elaf8 27.etJxb7 :Bf3 with dangerous counterplay.

22.lLlfd2 lLlf8!

As we will see later, the rook was needed on the first rank in order to defend the all-important knight on e4.

Of course!

23.g3

Compared to the previous game we could hastily conclude that the present situation is much better for the first player. The main argument put forward in support of this evaluation would be the presence of Black's "bad" bishop, giving White absolute control

47

If White tries to start his attack quickly by 23.etJb3 tLl g6 24.etJa5 there could follow the strong 24 ... lLl h4! (too passive would be 24. . . ElbS 25.g3 ElO 26.We2 Wd7 [26 ... WfS 27.�g2 �dS 2S.Elad l and White is clearly better] 27.Wg4 Wa4 [27 ... Wxg4 28.hxg4 and again White is clearly better] 2S.a3 and White is slightly better; imprecise would be 24. . .Wd7 25.�xb7 ElafS [25 ... etJ h4 26.etJa5 ElafS 27.etJc6 and White is much better] 26.lLla5 :Bh4 27.�c6 lLl f4 2S.Ele3 and White is much better) 25.lLlxb7 We8 26.Wb3 Wg6 27.lLlg3 :BafS when Black's initiative provides good compensation.

23 !'!f7 24.c,t>g2 lLlgG 2s.lLlb3 'i;Yd7 26J!e3! •••

26 �afB 27.Wie2 •••

In order to eventually exchange queens and thus prevent the possible weakening manoeuvre . . . h7-h5-h4. If instead 27.etJa5 then 27. . . c6! (27 ... WcS 2S.c5 Elf5 29.Elc3 with the initiative) 2S.Eld l (2S .Wa4 �g5!) 28 . . . cxd5 29.Elxd5 Elf5 30.Wdl b6 3 1 .lLlb3 Wc6 with counterplay.

27 .id8 28.�d1 •••

2S.Wg4 Elf5; 2S.etJa5 c5 29.a3 i.b6 and Black is clearly better.

28 lLle7 29.cS lLlfS 30.Elc3 'i;Ya4 3 1.Elc4 'i;Ye8 32.c6?! ••.

A positional inaccuracy: this move releases the central p ressure and allows the second player to manoeuvre more freely with his attacking pieces.

32 bS 33.!'!c3 b6 34.!'!cd3 lLle7 ••.

Also very interesting was 34 . . . g5!? 35.Elal (35 .Wh5 etJe3t 36.Elxe3 Elxf2t 37.etJxf2 Wxh5) 35 . . . Elg7 36.a4 h5 37.axb5 axb5 3S.Ela5 Wg6 39.Elxb5 g4 40.hxg4 (40.h4 �xh4 4 1 .gxh4 etJxh4t with an attack) 40 ...hxg4 4 1 .Eld l Elh7 42.Elhl :Bxh l 43.�xh l lLl d4 44.lLl xd4 exd4 with counterplay.

3SJHd2?!

3S ElfS 36.lLla1!? •.•

An interesting manoeuvre combining defence and attack: the knight is heading for the c2square fro m where it controls d4 but can also go to the e3, causing some inconvenience to the opponent. Moreover, the third rank is cleared for the rook to attack the a6-pawn eventually.

36 JWgG 37.lLlc2? •.

The strategic idea is good but the tactical execution is not. Better was 37.Eld l ! (the idea being 37 . . . Elf4 3S.:Be l lLl f5 39.�h 1 when White is clearly better) although after 37 . . . �h8! 3S.lLlc2 etJg8 39.:Ba3 lLl f6 40.lLlxf6 ixf6 4 1 .lLle3 :Bf4 Black's initiative persists.

48

True Lies in Chess

Middlegame Motifs

To close the chapter I would like to show a brilliant example where a bishop placed on the famous e4-square doesn't look such a bad piece, despite what Grau might say.

squares along this line, thus making the action of the black rooks futile. If instead 23 . . . �a2, then 24.�b2.

W Ivanchuk * Timman

With the knight on e4 White had the typical break c4-c5 putting pressure on d6, but in the present position this manoeuvre would not be dangerous. What is going to be very unpleasant, from a positional point of view, is the planned advance h4-h5 seriously weakening the enemy kingside.

Linares 1 989

24.h4!

49

28 . . . !1f3!?) 28 . . . !1a2 29."lMfb l ! !12a3 (29 . . . !1xb2 30."lMfxb2 and the simplification clearly favours White) 30.h5 gxh5 3 1 ."lMfd l ! !1a2 32.!1d2!!

24... <j;>h8 If 24 . . . �fa8 then 25.h5 gxh5 26.i.xh7t @h8 27.i,g6 and White is clearly better.

37 .. JU4!

25.�b2!!

This is the move White overlooked. Now he is forced to create a very serious weakness on the kingside which will give better prospects to the second player from this moment on.

The key defensive move: Black's attack dies of starvation. For instance, 32 ... !1xd2 33.i,xd2 !1a2 34.!1xh5 h6 35.i.e3 and White is clearly better.

26.i,g5 'lWf7 27J'!hl h6 28.h5!

38.6

Without doubt the most precise blow.

White is now clearly better. If 38.�e3 then 38 . . . lLlf5 .

28 ... gxh5 29.\'9dl �a3

38...�4f7 39.@hl lLlf5 40.Wfg2 h5 41.h4 'lWh6 42.�dl g5

30.\'9xh5 @g8

42 ...i.xh4!? is met with 43.gxh4 lLlxh4 44.�g5! and White is slightly better. But the sequence 42 ... g6 43 ... �g7 44 ... g5 , when Black is clearly better, was very appealing.

43.hxg5 .Lgs 44.f4! AfG 45.'lWh3 'lWgG 46.tLJe3 tLJd4 47.f5 'lWh6!? 48.tLJg4 Or 48.g4 "lMff4.

48...'lWh7 49.tLJgxf6t ihfG 50.tLJxf6t gxf6 Black has full compensation. The queen and knight tandem against a weak king is very strong. Furthermore, the position has a closed character, and therefore the white rooks lack any good prospects.

51 .gfl 'lWf7 52.'lWg2 gxf5 53.gxf5 'lWxf5 54J��e3 'lWbl t 55.@h2 'lWxb4 56.g4 h4! 57.@h3 'lWc4 58.'lWe4 @g7 59.@xh4 'lWfl 60.a3 as 6I.<j;lg3 'lWgl t 62.@h3 'lWf2 63.g5 b4 64.axb4 axb4 65.@g4 'lWgl t 66. <j;>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

<;t> 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.<;!?h2 �ha4 34.�xb6 g6xaS 3S.gxa4 gxa4 Despite the extra pawn, a draw is the correct result.

increasing the pressure on the enemy centre and the kingside. For instance: 21 .g3 'Wh6 22.)i:;h2 (22.h4 !'lel and Black is clearly better; 22.)i:;g2 �g6 with an attack) 22 . . .l::k l and Black's initiative is very unpleasant.

21.�bl i.cG!?

In the ending White's central pawns are permanent targets of attack. Also interesting was 2 l . .."@f4!? 22 ..id3 4:ld7.

22.hc6 �xc6 23.�bS

36.E:b8t <;!?h7 37.�b7 <;!?g6 38.<;!?g3 <;!?f6 39.h4 eS 40.�b6t <;!?f5 41.E:b7 <;!?g6 42.E:bS f6 43.�b7 hS 44.�c7 gd4 4SJ�b7 <;!?hG 46.E:c7 �b4 47.�e7 <;!?g6 48.�c7 �b8 49J�a7 E:e8 SO.E:b7 <;!?h6 S 1 .E:f7 <;!?g6 S2.E:a7 E:f8 S3.E:e7 E:f7 S4.E:e8 <;!?f5 S5.E:h8 g6 S6J�a8 E:b7 S7.E:aG ge7 S8.<;!?h3 e4 S9.fxe4t gxe4 Go.E:a3 1/2-1/2

It is very significant that a player as experienced in this opening as Beliavsky had so many problems from the very start of the contest, which shows the strength of the new idea. Undoubtedly future games will show whether this plan is viable or not. Although my hunch is ... it is!

23.!'lxb6 "@xa4 is about equal.

23...�c2 The weakness of the a4-pawn gives Black more than enough counterplay.

24.�xc2 gxc2 2S.gxb6 gc4 26.lLleS?! A basic calculation error, although after 26.e5 4:ld5 27.!'ld6 !'ldc8 28.!'lal !'lel t 29.!'lxel l"lxcl t 30.)i:;h2 l"lc4 Black is slightly better; White would still have to suffer.

lo�ternt rtructural a'ld advCV\.tase r verrur tinte

poritio'lal

As I have noted before, our "horizon" is very often limited by patterns, principles and methods we have acquired during our learning process. But at the same time, and although it might seem a contradiction, these are essential to make any

progress, for they provide a more manageable view of the complex reality. The million-dollar question is: where is the point when that which is useful in principle for Out development as chess players can suddenly turn into a liability for our progress? The answer: The moment we stop searching, investigating, doubting, enquiring; in short, the moment we stop thinking for ourselves. When we mechanically apply positional principles we are not so different from chess programs playing according to the algorithms built into them by their creators. The big difference between human beings and electronic devices is creativity. When what we have learned becomes a stimulus to search for new appraisals and points of view in established analysis and evaluations, we are on the right course. When we believe that thanks to them we already know everything and can stop thinking, we are dead. In his excellent book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy Watson introduces new and very interesting concepts that open unexpected paths in the field of opening theory investigation: structural advantages and repeatedly moving a single piece with the aim of winning positional advantages in the long-term. Traditionally one of the positional principles most respected by classical literature and players is the one stating that in the opening quick development of the forces, and therefore the optimization of the time element, is the main priority. From this principle stems others such as: develop another piece on each move, don't make pawn-moves on the flank in the opening, don't bring the queen out too early, don't move the same piece more than once, etc. In his book Watson comments: "The modern view of these matters is quite different, of course. Whether in closed, semi-open, or open positions, flank pawn moves are regularly employed for a variety of reasons, e.g., the establishment of space, the discouragement of castling by the opponent, or the launching of a minority attack [all of these would be structural advantages - Comas] . Pieces are moved any number of times, if necessary,

83

to achieve strategic goals [in the long-term, for example, the two bishops, better pawn structure, material advantage, better minor pieces ... ]". Then Watson shows us a fantastic example which I can't help reproducing.

Scotch Opening [C4S] l.e4 eS 2.lLla lLlc6 3.d4 exd4 4.tLlxd4 I would like to remind you that this opening was almost forgotten in grandmaster practice until Kasparov rescued it in the 90's. I guess that this is partly due to the fact that, as we will now see, many of the variations in this system hardly fit classical positional principles, and for uncreative players this was an insurmountable obstacle.

4... lLlfG S.lLlxc6 bxc6 G.eS Seizing important central space.

6 ...�e7 7.�e2 tLldS 8.c4 Attacking yet another important square in the centre of the board.

8...ia6 Black defends the position of his knight by developing pieces, as the norms require.

9.b3 Another pawn move.

9 ... g6 1 0.f4 And another one. Who is this tyro playing White?

10...ig7 Black is playing very well: he finishes his mobilization and prepares to castle.

1 1 .�f2 And now White moves the queen to boot. All of this in order ro win a knight, how naive ...

1 1...lLlfG After 1 1 . . .4:lb6 this knight and the a6-bishop would be badly restricted by the pawn chain a2b3-c4.

12.ie2 dG B.i6 0-0 14.0-0

But not 14 ..ixc6? ltJg4 1 5 ."@e2 4:lxe5! when Black is clearly better.

14...ib7 Something is wrong: 1 5 ..ia3.

if

14 ... dxe5

then

84

True Lies in Chess

IS.i.a3 �d7 16.�d2

And it turns out that after his dreadful opening play White has a virtually winning position! After �ae l and 'tJ e4 the pressure will be extremely unpleasant. Suddenly the ground disappears from under our feet. The beginner feels unsure and wonders "What should I do? Whom should I believe?" No one, think for yourself! Welcome to the Creative Club. What is going on? Many attributed Kasparov's success in the opening field to having an excellent team of seconds and to a working directive based on an unrelenting search for new and unexpected paths. This is obviously true in part but this team, under the guide of Kasparov himself, always seemed to work in the right direction. I remember that Kasparov once commented that, most of the time, novelties were born not after a brute-force search of all the possible continuations from a given position, as the best computers would do, but rather most of them had a strong conceptual background, even a philosophical one. Therefore I think that in this situation the right question would be: what principles or concepts or ideas or whatever we want to call them, have motivated a deeper search in the Scotch Opening, which looked suspect until the time Kasparov stepped in with his investigation?

I think that in the first place, Kasparov was after the effect of the novelty, for he was in a transitional opening phase, from queen's pawn to king's pawn openings, and it is very difficult all of a sudden to master the complex Ruy Lopez, but later on he understood that the principles regulating the sort of positions deriving from the Scotch had little to do with the classical rules of development. So I repeat, on which principles, ideas or concepts did Kasparov base his search?

1 . The importance ofmaterial and the willingness to adopt a defensive attitude in the opening phase, despite being White, for the purpose of gaining advantages in the long-term. In variations such as the Scotch White lags behind in development for a while and his king occupies a not very pleasant position. We already know that exploiting a superior mobilization of forces requires opening up the position and one of the most effective means at one's disposal for this is sacrificing material. In fact in the previous game White always had to look out for a possible piece sacrifice in order to topple the wall of the e5-pawn. We all remember hundreds of examples of brilliant games where the more "daring" side, that is, the one sacrificing pawns and pieces, was rewarded with spectacular victories. It is enough to recall Anderssen's Immortal and Evergreen games. But try to remember a single game where one side captured everything that was thrown at him and after a good defence ended up winning convincingly. Defensive ability, for reasons I don't entirely understand, has always been considered as less honourable and worthy than good attacking play. Nowadays, in many modern systems White willingly gives up the initiative to the opponent in return for long-term advantages. It is enough to recall the 4.�c2 System in the Nimzo Indian, where White relinquishes the race for development and the initiative in return for the advantage of the bishop pair and a sound pawn structure, with the aim of exploiting them in the endgame!

How are Opening Novelties Born?

2. The strength of certain pawn structures. Pawns have a privilege that people very often forget about: the ability to establish, at once, a mined zone where the enemy pieces cannot be placed, and also the possibility of building up walls that are difficult to bring down, except perhaps by other pawns, and all this is possible thanks to their low value! What happens if the better developed side has no adequate pawn breaks to blow up those formations? That very often the barricade thus built is too solid for the enemy army, which is superior in terms of developed pieces but badly organized.

3. A lead in development is an ephemeral advantage; it cannot grow indefinitely. The proper technique to exploit a superior mobilization of forces is to transform it into a more lasting sort of advantage. But what happens if this is not possible? Then the opponent carries out important moves for his own developing plan while the "better-developed" player has no equivalent moves, and therefore the m uch trumpeted superior mobilization of forces vanishes like a puff of smoke.

85

play. I think I can show you some lines that fit quite well with what I have just explained.

Scotch Game [C4S] 1.e4 eS 2.�f3 � c6 3.d4 exd4 4.�xd4 �f6 S.�xc6 bxc6 6.eS �e7 7.�e2 �dS 8.c4 .ia6 9.b3 0-0-0 10.g3 f6 1 1 ..ig2 fxeS 1 2.0-0 e4 This is an interesting idea of Colombian GM Gildardo Garcia. The aim is basically twofold: to hinder White's development on the queenside and, more importantly, to achieve a queen exchange. After opening up lines; this would alleviate Black's problems. Why? Black's position has serious drawbacks: the pawn cover of his king is broken up and furthermore the a6-bishop could end up out of play due to the chain a2-b3-c4. After the queen exchange the potential danger of an attack on the king is reduced to nought and the possible break ... d7d5, trying to free the aforementioned bishop, becomes feasible. We will look at some variations showing this.

13.�d2!

You will be wondering whether it is possible to define when a lead in development will lead to a more lasting advantage. I'm sorry, it is impossible to say: only concrete analysis ultimately decides whether a system is viable or not. But the concept, the idea, the principle, is the compass guiding us in the infinite ocean of possibilities that is chess.

f.lpp1yitl8 ttt,e 'lew cO'lceptl to opel\!tl8 ttt.eory It is evident that all this would be pointless if we could not identifY those positions where these ideas may apply. After reading Watson's book I became interested in looking for positions where repeated moves by pawns and major pieces (queen and rooks) , with the object of gaining advantages in the long-term as well as structural ones, were the focal point of the right course of

Back in the year 2000, when I started studying this position, I came up with this novelty. White momentarily delays finishing his development in favour of keeping his queen and transferring her to the attacking a5-square, thus making the black king's situation very precarious. I would like to emphasize that in this case the aim of the

True Lies in Chess

S6

repeated moves of the white queen is not to get a long-lasting advantage but to keep the chance of exploiting the aforementioned black weaknesses. This is not a new manoeuvre since it had already been employed by Kasparov in a game from his World Championship contest against Karpov. A few months later I found out that the Russian Champion Motylev had already reached the same conclusion I had. Other alternatives are worse. For instance: a) 1 3.'lWxe4 'lWxe4! This is the real problem of this variation. If instead l3 ... 'lWf6!? then 1 4.cxd5! .ixfl 1 5 ..ixfl 'lWxal ( 1 5 ... .ic5 l 6.'lWc2! �d4 the only move 1 7.lLlc3 .ixc3 l S . .ig5! 'lWxg5 19.i.a6t i>bS 20.'lWxc3 with an attack) 1 6.dxc6 dxc6 17 . .ia6t i>d7 I S . .ie2 h5 1 9.'lWf5t i>eS 20.'lWg6t and the position is level. After 13 ... 'lWxe4! 14 . .ixe4 li:l f6 l 5 .�g2 d5! Black is slightly better.

Bad was 13 ... li:lb4 14.a3 CU d3 1 5 .'lWa5 .ib7 ( l 5 ... lbc5 1 6.b4) 1 6 .�g5. 1 3 . . . e3? wouldn't work either: 14.'lWa5 i>b7 1 5 . cxd5 .ixfl 16 .�xe3! .ia6 I 7 ..ifl and White was winning in Motylev - Naes, Ubeda 2000.

14.�aS i>b7 If 14 ... .ib7 then 1 5.�a3 'IWe6 1 6.'lWxa7 with an attack.

I S ..ia3 �e6

This seems the best alternative since from e6 not only does the black queen defend the e4-pawn but it also covers the h3-cS diagonal and makes it possible to play . . . d7-d5. If instead 1 5 .. .'11fif7, then 1 6.�xfS E:hxfS 1 7.lLlc3 B:feS ( l 7 . . . d5 I S.lLla4 lLld7 19.ih3 and White is clearly better) I S.B:ae1 (the other rook remains on fl to protect f2 from a possible attack) I S ... 'lWg6 19.B:e3! B:e6 ( 1 9 ... 'lWh6 20.h3 d5 2 1 .li:la4 lbd7 22.E:d l and White is clearly better) 20.E:el !

How are Opening Novelties Born? If 17 ... B:deS then I S .E:ae l ! ; it is always this rook, so that the other may defend f2. If I S.E:fe l 'lWe5 19.'lWb4t i>aS 20.lLlxe4 lbxe4 2 1 .�xe4 'lWd4, then Black is clearly better. After I S .E:ae l ! �e5 (if 1 8 . . .d 5 then 1 9.1Lla4!; i n many cases this move signals the beginning of the end: the invasion of the knight is decisive; 1 9 ... lLld7 20.B:dl and now everything falls apart 20 . . . 'lWf5 [20 ... e3 2 1 .cxd5 exf2t 22.i>h l is decisive tool 2 1 .cxd5 c5 [2 l .. .�xfl 22.dxc6t i>xc6 23.E:el t i>d6 24.'lWxclt i>e7 25.B:xfl and White is clearly betterl 22.d6 .ixfl 23 .'lWxclt i>aS 24.'lWc6t i>bS 25.B:xfl and White is on top) 1 9.'lWb4t i>a8 20.lLlxe4 and White's advantage is clear. Or 1 7 ... h5 I S .B:fe l d5 ( l S ... h4 19.1Llxe4 lLlxe4 20.B:xe4 'lWf6 2 1 .B:fl and White has the advantage) 19.1Lla4 lLld7 20.B:adl 'lWf5 2 1 .cxd5 'lWxf2t 22.i>h l and White is better.

S7

Now the dance of the white heavy pieces begins.

S ...O-O 9 ..ie2 CLlc6 10.dS tlJeS 1 1 .�xe5 heS 12.�d2! Both 1 2.c4 and 12.�d2 represent important central concessions. In the first case the d4square; in the second one the instability of the d5-pawn and insufficient control of the bS-h2 diagonal.

12 ...b6 1 3.0-0 e6 14.f4 .ig7 IS.dxe6 fxe6 1 5 ... �xe6 16.f5! with an attack.

16 ..ic4 �e7 After 1 6 ... 'lWxd2 1 7 ..ixd2 Black would have trouble defending his e6-pawn.

IS.�a4 As already said, after this move Black's position is untenable.

IS ... � d7 19J3adl �fS Other possibilities are no better. For instance 19 ... E:f5 20.i.h3 or 19 . . . 'lWf7 20..ixe4 and White wins in both cases.

20.cxdS! cS 20 ...�xf1 2 1 . dxc6t i>bS 23.Lfl also wins for White.

Black manages to break free and, given his lead in development, he gets an excellent position. b) 1 3.ia3 would be met by 1 3 ... 'lWg5! ( 1 3 ...'lWf6 14 . .ib2) 1 4.h4 ( 1 4.'lWxe4 'lWf6! exploiting the weakness of the white rooks, 1 5 .cxd5 i.xfl 1 6 . .ixfl .ixa3 and Black is clearly better) 14 . . . 'lWh6 15 . .iel e3! l6.'lWb2 ic5! 1 7.cxd5 .ixfl l S .�xfl cxd5 Black's iniriarive became very dangerous in Zapata G. Garcia, Bogota 1 992. c) Against the quiet continuation 1 3.i.b2 there would follow 1 3 ... e3 1 4.lbc3 exf2t 1 5 .�xf2 lLle3!. An excellent manoeuvre to swap queens. 1 6 .E:ae 1 lLl g4 17 .'lWd4 �c5 with the initiative, e.g. I S .lLle4 �xd4t 1 9.�xd4 .ib4 20.E:dl d5 with a very good position. -

13... �f6

Preparing the brutally simple manoeuvre lb a4, b4-b5 destroying the queenside. That's why it is essential to defend the c4-pawn. White is also using the weakness of the c7-pawn, e.g. 20. . . 'lWh6 (20 ... CUg4 2 1 .CUxe4! d6 22.B:ee l E:deS 23.h3 wins for White) 2 1 .h3 B:deS (2 1 . . .d6 22.CUb5! .ixb5 [22 ... E:cS 23.lbd4 E:e5 24.'lWb4t l 23.cxb5 c5 24.b4 CU dS 25.bxc5 and White is winning) 22.CUa4 d6 23.b4! �xc4 (23 ... B:e5 24.b5 �xb5 25 .cxb5 is also decisive) 24. l'!xc4 B:e5 25.CUc5t dxc5 26. bxc5 and White wins.

16 ..ixfs E:bxf8

1 6 ... B:dxfS leads to very similar variations.

17.�c3 dS

22.'lWxf5

B:xf5

2 1.d6 cxd6 22.E:xd6 .L:fl 23.ixe4t �xe4 24.E:xd7t E:xd7 2S.�xcSt �aS 26.CLlxe4 E:dl 27.CLlc3 White's advantage is decisive. One can also find more examples in systems completely different from the Scotch. This is the great advantage of the positional concept or idea: it can be applied to countless varied contexts.

Griinfeld Defence [DSS] l .d4 CLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.CLlc3 dS 4.cxdS CLlxdS 5.e4 CLlxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.�f3 cS S.E:bl In this system White subordinates all his acrions to keeping his structural advantage in the centre, with the confident expectation that this will turn out well in the coming middlegame.

17.�d3!?N This is a new idea. It is odd that no one has played this and I suspect that the reason for this temporary blindness is the simplistic argument that on this square the queen is exposed to an attack along the d-file. But it turns out that keeping White's central supremacy, which is the aim of this move, is a more important factor than the potential loss of a tempo. Let's see some of the alternatives that have been tried: a) 1 7.f5?! (this is a hasty break: Black's army is better developed for the time being) 17 . . . i>hS 1 8.fXg6 l'!xflt 19 ..ixfl .ib7! 20 ..id3 hxg6 2 1 .'lWe3 E:dS 22.'lWh3t i>gS 23.if4 g5! Black had the initiative in Wells - Ftacnik, Wijk aan Zee 1 995.

88

True Lies in Chess

b) 1 7.'lWe3 (this is the usual continuation) 1 7 .. .' it>h8 1 8.es ( l 8.!1b2?! es! this break calls into question White's central superiority) 1 8 . . .il.b7 1 9.'lWh3 il.ds 20.�d3 (if 20.�xds exds 2 1 .�e3 gs ! Black has counterplay Najer - Stohl, Pardubice 1 996) 20 ... 'lWfl 2 1 .c4 �b7 22.�e3 !lad8

With obvious counterplay along the d- and f files. It's not easy for White to make any progress from the situation in the diagram (Iskusnyh - P.H. Nielsen, Kemerovo 1 995) .

17...i.b7 An anempt to avoid White's following regrouping. The other important alternative is: 17 ... i>h8 1 8.!1b2! (the dance of the heavy pieces continues!) 18 ... �b7 ( l 8 ... es 1 9.�ds !lb8 [now Black didn't have the annoying 19 . . .�a6] 20. !lbf2 with the initiative) 1 9.!le2 and now: a) 19 ... !lad8 20.'lWh3 il.c8 (20 ... es 2 l .fs gxfs [2 1 . ..�c8 22.g4 with an attack] 22.exfs with an unpleasant initiative) 2 1 .e5 with an initiative.

The position of the pawns is very similar to the previous diagram but the big difference lies in the more favourable placement of the white forces, making his possibilities of a kingside attack more realistic (White threatens for instance the manoeuvre �c l -d2-e l -h4). There might follow 2 l . . .�d7 (2 l .. .a6 22.il.d2 bs 23.�d3 i>g8 24.�e l c4 25 .il.c2 'lWa3 26.�h4 with the initiative) 22.�e3 b5 23.�d3 \tlg8 24.�e4 and after the advances ... b6-b5 and . . . c5-c4 Black's centre is very weak. b) 19 ... es (now this break has lost most its strength) 20.fs (this annoying pawn push is possible due to the absence of the black bishop from the c8-h3 diagonal) 20 ... gxf5 (20 ... 'lWh4 2 1 .!le3 with an attack) 2 1 .exfs 'lWh4 (2 1 ...e4 22.'lWh3 'lWes 23.!1e3 !lf6 24.!lg3 with an attack; if now 24 .. .1'hf8 then 2s .'?tfg4 is winning) 22.!1e3! with an attack; if now 22 ... e4 (22 ... !lad8 23.'lWe2), then 23.'lWd7 and White is clearly better. In all these variations one can see how the repeated moves of the white major pieces are not only an important bur an also an essential part in developing White's plan.

IS.5! But now this attack does work! Worse was 1 8.!1b2 l'!ad8 1 9.'?tfh3 il.xe4 20.!1e2 �d5 2 1 .�xds !1xd5 22.!lxe6 'lWd7 and Black is slightly better.

IS .. J;adS

How are Opening Novelties Born? White is in a position to complete the development of his pieces to squares from where they are going to display tremendous pressure, while Black's mobilized army attacks unimportant points. Instead wrong would be 1 9.'lWe3? gxf5 20.exfs �ds! (after this move Black gets a better position) 2 1 .�xds !lxd5 22.'lWxe6t 'lWxe6 23.fxe6 !1xfl t 24.i>xfl l"Idl t 2s .\tle2 l"Id6 and Black's plus in the endgame is clear.

89

Semi-Slav Defence [047] l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 tLlf6 4.tLlc3 e6 5.tLlf3 tLlbd7 6.id3 dxc4 7 ..ixc4 b5 S.i.d3 ib7 9.e4 b4 10.ltJa4 c5 I l .e5 ltJd5 12.0-0 cxd4 13J:1el g6 14 ..ig5 Wfa5 1 5.tLld2 �a6 16.tLlc4 .ixc4 17.ixc4 ig7 Is.Wfxd4!

19....ixe4 If 1 9 . . .\tlh8 then 20.il.g5 if6 2 1 .�f6t 'lWxf6 22.fxe6 is winning.

20.�g5 .if6 21 .�bel! id5

Alternatives were: 21 ...�xgs 22.l"Ixe4 !1d6 23.l"Ifel \tlg7 24.fxg6 hxg6 2s.l"Ig4 l"Ifs 26.h4 and White is clearly better; or 21 ...�d3 22. l"Ixe6 winning.

22 ..ixd5 B:xd5 22 ... il.xgs 23.l"Ixe6

23.�h6! Again the strongest continuation. If 23.l"Ixe6 then 23 ... l"Ixfs! 24.l"Ixf6 !1sxf6 2s .l"Ixf6 l'!xf6 26.'lWh4 \tlg7 27.'lWh6t \tlfl 28.'lWxh7t with a balanced position.

23 ...�g7 23 ... l"Ifd8 24.fxg6 and White is clearly better.

24..ixg7 '?tfxg7 24 ... \tlxg7 2s.l"Ixe6 'lWd8 26.f6t i>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!

<;2] Tal • Andersson

The counterplay against the d4-bishop makes possible this central reaction by the second player.

Stockholm 1 976

This is the key to Black's reaction.

18.VNh3 dxe5

19.�e3

19.Wxh5 exd4 20.tt:!d5 i.xd5 2 1 .exd5 g6 and the position is level.

19 ... tLl f4 20.hf4 exf4 Black is OK.

C. Black's reaction ... e6-e5 has intrinsic value. This advance is very typical in the Sicilian and carrying it out means, in this case, that the offensive actions of the first player on the kings ide come to a standstill. Mter his aggression with . . . b5-b4 Black has only managed to bring the white knight closer to the kingside. I was also unconvinced by the pawn structure the second player ended up with. All right, the position is far from being clear and probably it is j ust a question of playing style, but what I knew for sure was that I was not going to get myself into this mess. Then I decided to look in a different direction. I must explain that such a search didn't consist of an indiscriminate investigation of all the possible options from the situation of the main diagram. Such a course of action would only lead to a dead end: we would still be far from understanding all the nuances of the system under study. If one wants to achieve the aim of creating something new and better, it is very important to take advantage of the experience of other players in the position, that is, to know the typical plans and evaluations. These are the conclusions I reached:

A. White has a position with many attacking prospects if he is able to carry out the advance e4-e5 and subsequently place the knight on e4 without Black being able to exchange it for his b7-bishop. This is achieved very often through

D. Mter the advance e4-e5 there are two very

13.�f3 VNc7 14.e5 dxe5 1 5.fxe5 tLl d7 16.hb7 VNxb7 17.tLle4 �ad8 1 8.�d3 VNc6 19.�g3 VNxc2 20.VNe3! White has a very strong attack.

important defensive mechanisms at Black's disposal: simplification and the ... £7 -f5 break to win important space on the kingside.

� Spasov * Abramovic FYROM 1 997

B. Against the manoeuvre i.e2-d3 there is a typical counterattack beginning with . . .e6-e5 leaving Black with an excellent position.

W Kotsur * Kobalija Novgorod 1 999

19 ...he4

Of course it is necessary to exchange the dangerous knight.

20.he4 f5!? 21 .exfG VNxg3 22.hxg3 hf6 23.c3

1 00

True Lies in Chess

23.i.xf6? ttlxf6 24.i.b7 ElbS 2S.�c6 Elb6 26.Elxe6 ElcS and Black is winning; or 23.i.g1 ? �xb2 24.�c6 Elxfl 2S.Elxfl ElfS 26.Elb 1 ttleS and Black is clearly better.

23 ...hd4 24.ElxfSt 24.cxd4 Elxfl t 2S.Elxfl ttl f6 26.i.b7 ElbS (26 . . . aS!?) 27.i.xa6 :Sb6 2S .i.c8 :Sc6 29.i.b7 Elc2 with counterplay.

24 ttlxfS 25.cxd4 l3d8 ..•

With equality.

E. There is another attacking possibility for White: to carry out the advance e4-eS and after the capture of the pawn to retake with the bishop, that is, i.xeS. In this case White increases his pressure with the advance f4-fS or the eventual manoeuvre �e2-d3 followed by �g3-h4. In both cases it is very important for Black to have his e7-bishop sufficiently defended. From the early conclusions I started working to find an effective plan. I think I can show you an interesting defensive system based on the aforementioned evaluations and methods.

14 ...l3ae8! This move has several objectives: it adequately defends the e7-bishop and supports the advances . . . e6-eS and the eventual . . . £7-fS .

queen can look for counterplay along it. White's position cannot keep growing as I will try to show in the following variations. Premature was instead l S . . . �d8 1 6.eS! with a strong initiative. And also worse is the usual I S ... i.c6 1 6.i.f3 when White continues his attack.

16.i.f3 Now there were other possibilities: a) 1 6.�d3 eS! (beginning the typical counterplay against the manoeuvre �e2-d3) 1 7.fxeS ttlhS 1 8.�f3 (had the black queen's rook been on dS White would have the perfect answer: 1 8 .�e3!) 1 8 . . .dxe5 19.ttldS LdS 20.exdS exd4 2 1 .�xhS g6 Black's position is completely satisfactory. b) 16 .eS dxe5 17.LeS ( l 7.fxeS ttl e4 simplifications almost always favour the second player - l S .ttl xe4 i.xe4 1 9.�xbS i.xg2t 20.�xg2 axbS 2 1 .:Sg1 g6 is about equal) 1 7 ...�c8! (preventing f4-fS) 1 8 .�f3 ( l 8 .i.d3 ttlhS 1 9 .�h3 g6 After this manoeuvre Black's kingside is very strong: 20.fS exfS 2 1 .i.xfS �c5) 1 S ... g6 1 9.La8 �xa8 20.f5 exfS 2 1 .:SxfS �c6! equalizing. c) 1 6.:Sd1 :Sd8 1 7.�e3 ttld7! Preparing the advance . . . e6-eS.

16 . .'!We4! .

15.'it>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 .
14 ...i.eS l s.Af4 hf4 Worth considering is 1 5 ... l:!eS! ?

B. Black gives up the central tension in order to achieve active play with his minor pieces.

9 ... exd4 10.tLlxd4 tLlg4 1 1 .h3 'lWb6 12.hxg4 'lWxd4 13.'lWf3 'lWb6!?

The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like . . . l2la6 in the King's Indian Mter I s.iWxd6 l2lxal 1 9.12lxa2 iWxa2 the position is unclear.

18 ...dS! It is essential to control the e4-square to prevent the white knight from transferring to the kingside. Worse was I S ... dxe5 1 9.iWh6! (now Black has many problems defending his king) 19 ...f6 20.l2le4 �xg4 (20 ... l2lxa2 2 1 .Elbi iWa3 22.c5 and White is clearly better) 2 1 .Elb i iWa3 22.l:!e3 iWa5 23.a3 ctJa6 24.l:!xb7 with an attack.

19.cxdS tLlxdS 20.tLlxdS cxdS Black has no problems at all. To end this section, I would like to share with the reader a game I played against one of the greatest specialists in this system, with both colours.

This is an interesting idea. Black tries to hamper the development of the enemy queenside and, at the same time, consolidate control of the cS- and eS-squares with his minor pieces. Worse is 13 ...iWeS 1 4.gS iWe7 I S .iWg3 l2lcS 16.�f4 �eS 1 7.Eladl and White has a persistent initiative, Gelfand - Markowski, Polanica Zdroj 1 995.

This i s another attractive continuation. For instance: 1 6.l:!ab l ( I 6 .b3 iWa5 1 7.1�hcl l2lc5) 16 ...iWc5 1 7.a3 ( I 7.Eled l �xf4 [17 ...�e6 I S.a3 �xf4 19 .'lWxf4 iWe5 20.iWxe5 dxe5 is equal] I s .iWxf4 iWe5 1 9.iWxe5 dxe5 20.�e2 �e6 and the position is balanced) 1 7 ... g5 I S.�xe5 iWxe5 1 9 .iWxeS dxe5 20.f3 �e6 2 1 .b4 EladS with equality.

'it' Huzman * Comas Fabrego Istanbul 2003

9 .... exd4 10.tLlxd4 tLlg4 1 l .h3 'lWb6 12.hxg4 'lWxd4 13.gS 'lWxdl 14.�xdl ieS lS.tLla4!?

16.'lWxf4 'lWxb2 17.:Sac1 tLlb4!

14.'lWg3!?

White gives up his b2-pawn in order to exchange the g7-bishop, thus obtaining attacking prospects against the enemy kingside. Other options didn't yield any advantage. For instance: a) 1 4.�b l �xg4! I S .iWxg4 hc3 and Black is slightly better. b) 14.gS ctJcS I S .Elb l as 1 6.�e3 ( 1 6 .�f4 �eS 1 7.iWg3 iWc7 followed by ... l2le6 and Black's position is excellent) 16 ... a4 ( l 6 . . . iWdS!? 1 7.Elbd l iWe7 I s .iJ4 �eS 1 9.iWg3 f6 20.gxf6 Elxf6 2 1 .i.xe5 dxe5 and Black is slightly better)

1 13

such a case? Do you decide to change your line or do you defend your cause come what may? I think that your answer lies in the attitude you normally show at the board: there are pragmatic chess players and there are those who search for the truth of the position. I belong to the second group. I have never considered myself a player: rather I am an analyst of the game. But I wouldn't like the reader to interpret my words as boasting. No. In fact, I think that it is necessary to be able to adopt both philosophies of play depending on the circumstances of the tournament and on the opponent you are facing. But when it comes to my favourite system ... I should add that I was quite curious to see whether Huzman would repeat the set-up chosen by Eljanov against me some years earlier (a game which the reader will find analysed elsewhere in this book). I was curious because despite having lost that game and although other grandmasters, among them Alexei Shirov, preferred White's position, I firmly believed in Black's cause and I wished to know whether Huzman was of the same opinion. Well, it turned out that the Israeli player agreed with me since he deviated here from the main theoretical continuation 1 5 .�e3. It should be noted that although the idea 1 5 .l2la4 had been played before, I didn't know it at all and therefore I was in uncharted territory. Undoubtedly the thorough analysis I carried out in the aforementioned game against Eljanov and the knowledge, even unconscious at that time, of the ideas developed in the game Garcia Luque - Magem Badals, analysed above in this same section, were very useful in reaching the correct conclusion.

15 ... tLlb4!N

Black wants to exchange the potentially most dangerous enemy piece: the c3-knight. Bad is 17 ... f6?! 1 8 .c5! dxc5 1 9 .�c4t
18.e5

In this contest an interesting psychological situation occurred, one which every player has to face at some point in his career: you must play a creative opponent, who is an opening expert and great analyst, and you know that if you choose your usual variations sooner or later you will have to face an unpleasant surprise in the form of a new idea. What should you do in

Black's correct strategy is to initiate a very active piece struggle for control of the crucial d4-square. Worse were both 1 5 ... l2lc5?! 1 6.l2lxc5 dxc5 1 7.�e3 �xb2 I S.Elab l �e5 1 9.�xc5, when White is slightly better, and 1 5 ... EleS 1 6.�e3 b6 17. Eld2 �b7 I S.l:!adl c5 1 9.f3 l2lc7 20.ctJc3 (Khenkin - Glek, Porro San Giorgio 1 995) with an unpleasant plus for White.

1 14

True Lies in Chess

16.a3 If 16.f4 then 1 6 ...i.g4!; and if 1 6.i.d2 c5 17.i.c3 ( l 7.i.xb4 cxb4 and Black is slightly better) 17 . . .b6 I S .i.xe5 dxe5, Black has the better minor pieces.

16 ... �c2 17.�a2 �d4 IS.b4 b6 19 ..te3 llz-lj2

There might follow 1 9... c5 20.lLlc3 i.b7 2 1 .lLld5 i.xd5 22.cxd5 a5! with excellent play.

Classical Variation with S..te3 I am very proud to proclaim that the system we are going to analyse next is of my own invention. Proud because it's given me very good results against tough opponents, but even prouder because it has been adopted by several world class grandmasters. Call it vanity, but that is what I feel. The variation in question is the following: (Starting from the Basic Position)

7.0-0 e5 S..te3 �g4 9.ig5 '!WeS 10.dxe5 dxe5 1 l.h3 f6!?

provide an adequate defence of the important central squares d6 and d5, which is an essential condition for beginning an effective pawn storm against the enemy king. It is well known that an attack on the flank can only be successful if the centre is blocked or if one has good control over it. The first game where I put this new system to the test was in the penultimate round of the prestigious New York Open against the Turkish GM Atalik. We both were fighting for the top places.

I f 1 7.exf5 gxf5 l s .1c4 1e6 with very good play.

17 ...f4!

15 ... lLlc7 16.gel To defend the e4-pawn and put pressure on the e-file.

16. f5 17 ..tc4 ..

19.�b2 h5!

If 20.i.xe6 'fixe6 2 1 .ltJc4 (2 1 .1Wc4 Vf1e7 22.lLld3 g5 23.1c3 'iflh7 followed by the eventual advance ... g5-g4 with an attack) 2 1 ...iJ6 22.1'ldl g5, Black has the initiative. And if 20.lLld3 then 20 ... 1'ld8!.

20 .. J'!:d8 2 1.�c4 21 . a4 g5

2 1 ... �b5 22.a4

12 ..td2 � h6 13.'!Wc1 �f7 14.c5!? c6

I remember that at first I didn't understand this move at all. A more detailed analysis showed, however, that the bad placement of this knight would only be temporary, as it formed part of a plan to exert unpleasant pressure against the important squares d6 and e5 after the regrouping b2-b4 followed by CLla4-b2-c4 or d3. But White's idea didn't turn out well because Atalik didn't take into consideration Black's counterplay: indeed, after the imminent .. .f6f5 White has to take prophylactic measures to save his unstable centre, which allowed me to seize the initiative for the rest of the game. On the other hand, 1 5 .i.xa6 bxa6 was worse: Black would prepare his pawn storm on the kingside without any hindrance.

accurate was lS ... tLl e6 19.CLlb2 'iflhS 20. tLl d3 tLleg5 2 1 .tLlxg5 CLlxg5 22.i.c3 when the position is unclear.

20.ie2

New York 1 995

Even back then I discovered the line 14 ... tLl xc5 1 5. tLld5 tLle6 16. tLlxc7 (1 6.i.b4 c6 with compensation) 16 ... tLlxc7 1 7Y.f1xc7 tLldS! I S.i.c4t i.e6 1 9.Elfc l but I thought that White's position was slightly better. In any case, recent experience shows that Black has a solid defensive formation.

115

The kingside pawn storm should almost always be starred with this advance. In many variations the g5-square can be used as an excellent outpost for the black army.

W Atalik * Comas Fabrego

15.�a4!?

Previously the usual move had been 1 1 ...h6 and after 12.i.cl tLl f6 13 .ie3 there followed an eventual ... tLl h5-f4 thus starting a piece offensive against the enemy king. After the text move the essence of Black's plan lies in the manoeuvre ... tLlg4-h6-f7 combined with ... c7-c6. This will

The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like . . . ltJa6 in the King's Indian

22.i.c3 tLl xc3 23.1Wxc3 g5 was better.

After this move Black's kingside plans are clearly defined: either a pawn attack with moves such as . . . h7-h5 and . . . g6-g5-g4 or a piece anack after ... 'iflhS, .. Y.f1e7 and ... CLlc7-e6-g5 (eventually this knight can also move to d4) with piece sacrifices hanging in the air. Black's only weak square is perfectly covered by the f7-knight. Black's position is now very flexible, a characteristic proving its potential. Instead I had to be careful to avoid the natural 1 7 ... CLle6? I S.exf5! It turns out that the "fearsome pawn centre" that is formed after this move is not as fearsome as it's made out to be; an idea that has been exploited in subsequent games and which has become White's main strategy to fight against Black's system. l S ... gxf5 19.1c3 e4 20.i.xg7 lLlxg7 (20 ... 'iflxg7 2 1 .1Wc3t 'iflgS 22. tLle5 and White is clearly better) 2 1 . tLlg5 and White's position is much better.

IS.b4

I f l S.ltJg5 tLl e6 ( l S . . .i.e6!? - Huzman) 19.CLlxf7 0 9 .tLlxe6 1xe6 20.f3 g5 2 1 .b4 h5 22. tLl b2 g4 and Black's attacking) 1 9 . . . 1Wx£7 20.f3 'iflhS 2 1 .b4 'fie7 22.1c3 (22. tLl b2 lLld4) 22 ... lLlg5, and Black has a dangerous attack on the kingside.

IS...1e6 A move made with the aim, yet again, of stabilizing Black's central zone as a prelude to a strong attack on the enemy kingside. Less

22 ... � d4 23.�xd4 l'!xd4 24.'!Wc2 '!We7 Black's position is overwhelming. The threats include 25 . . .f3, 25 .. J'!fd8, 25 . . . tLl g5 or 25 ... 1Wh4 (g5). Also very interesting was 24 ... f3!? 25 .gxf3 1WdS 26.i.e3 tLl g5 with an attack.

25.�d6 25 .l"1ad 1 f3!

25... �xd6 26.cxd6 '!Wg5 26. . . 1'lxd6 27.b5 1Wg5 28 .E!a3 and Black is clearly better; but not 26 ... 1Wxd6? 27.i.c3.

27.l'!a3 l'!dS 2S.b5 gSxd6 White has no compensation for the sacrificed pawn and Black's offensive continues. Later on, after acute time (fouble, I wasn't able to realize my advantage but it was obvious that the system had survived its first baptism of fire.

In the next game in which the system was tested I had to face an unpleasant novelty.

W Van Wely * Comas Fabrego

Escaldes (z) 1 995

(Starting from the Basic Position)

7.0-0 e5 8 ..ie3 �g4 9 ..tg5 '!WeS 10.dxe5 dxe5

1 16

True Lies in Chess

1 1.h3 f6 12.id2 lLlh6 13.c5!

Undoubtedly a clear improvement on Atalik's move 1 3 .�c l . It is now considered the main line. Van Wely prepared to steer the game towards positions characterized by a better pawn structure and the knights' struggle against the two bishops.

13 ...c6 Other options were worse. For instance 13 ... ctJf7 1 4.�xa6 bxa6 1 5 .ctJd5 and White's activity is very dangerous; or 1 3 ...ctJxc5 1 4.�cl ctJ f7 1 5.ctJd5 ctJe6 transposing into a line already seen in my game against Atalik.

18.'I1Na5 During the post-mortem we considered that 1 8.b4!? was White's best alternative. After thorough analysis I reached the conclusion that Black had enough defensive resources in connection with an eventual break ... a6-a5 - this is the main drawback of the advance b2-b4. Let's have a look at some illustrative variations. (I would like to point out that as I write these lines this very move has been successfully employed in some games. But I think that in none of them did Black find the right plan.) 18 ... �e6!

The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like ... ctJa6 in the King's Indian a l ) 20.�e2 a5 2 1 .a3 �a6!? (yet again going for simplifications; also possible was 2 1 . . .axb4 22.axb4 �xal 23.�xal �b8 24. �bl �b7 with counterplay) 22.�xa6 (22.�b2 �b7 with the initiative) 22 . . . �xa6 23.�dc l (23.�ab l axb4 24.axb4 �a3) 23 ... �d7 with obvious counterplay. a2) 20.�a5 �c7 2 1 .�xc7 The queen exchange almost always favours Black in this situation. 2 1 . ..�xc7 22.a3 a5 and the position is unclear. a3) 20.�fl !? The queen is transferred to a square where she is protected) 20 . . . a5 2 1 .ctJa4 �a6 22.ctJb6 �xfl t 23.@xfl �a6! 24.a3 �fa7 25 .�abl axb4 26.axb4 �a2 with compensation for the sacrificed material. b) 1 9.ctJd2 �b8! (the start of a prophylactic manoeuvre aimed at preventing the move ctJb3) 20.�ab l (if 20.ctJb3 �xb3 2 1 .axb3 �e6 22.�d3 [22.ctJa2 f5J 22 ... a5!) 20 ... �c8! 2 1 .a3 (if 2 1 . ctJb3 then 2 1 . .. �xh3! - perhaps one of the only moments when this sacrifice is valid - 22.gxh3 �xh3 23.ctJe2 f5 or 23 ...�g4t 24.ctJg3 h5, with an attack in both cases) 2 1 .. .�b7!!

1 17

In the endgame White's initiative gradually fades away, whereas the power of the bishops increases proportionally.

20 ... �xc7 2 1.�adl @f7 22.ctJa4 ie7

23.�8d3?! Better was 23.�h8 @g7 24.�e8 @f7 and White has to be content with a draw.

23 ...ie6 24.b3 �cc8! 25. f1 �d8 Limiting the opponent's counterplay.

26.@e2 �xd3 27.�xd3 �d8 28.�c3? 28.�xd8 and Black is only slightly better.

28 ... ic8 29.lLlb2 a5! 3o.lLld2 ia6t 31 .dl �d4 32.@c2 @e6 33.lLlbc4 a4

14.ha6 bxa6 15 ..ixh6!?

Or 3 3 ... �d8.

At the time I considered that if Black could carry out the manoeuvre . . . ctJh6-f7 he was even slightly better. In the next game we will see that things are not that clear at all.

34.bxa4 hc4

1 5 ....ixh6 1 6.'I1Na4

35.�xc4 �xc4t 36.lLlxc4 hc5 37.£3 @d7 38.'it>d3 in 39.lLla5 ib6 4o.lLlb3 @d6 41 .@c4 in 42.lLlc1 ie3 43.lLld3

The white queen is a very valuable piece, as she is destined to put pressure on Black's weak pawns. I would like to repeat the idea that it is not a weakness if the opponent lacks effective mechanisms to exploit it. What defensive resources does Black have in this position? Basically, two: the power of his two bishops to dominate the enemy rooks and knights and, on the other hand, simplification. The closer Black gets to an endgame the more dangerous his bishops will become.

16 ... l:H'7 17.�fdl if8

34 .. .f5 ! It's a shame I didn't play this move. Once again time trouble prevented me from realizing my clear positional plus.

This is the right idea. Black sacrifices a pawn to simplify the position and at the same time hinders the annoying manoeuvre of the white knight ctJf3-b3 (c4)-a5 with pressure. Now there are two main alternatives: a) 1 9.�xa6 �c8:

This kind of move can only be discovered when one has a clear grasp of the difference between the ephemeral and what really matters. I repeat: it is essential to prevent ctJd2-b3. 22.ctJb3 (22.�a5 �d7) 22 ... �xb3 23.�xb3 �xc5 and the pin saves Black.

1 8...'I1Ne7! This queen manoeuvre, solving the problems of coordination among the black forces, guarantees equality.

19.�d8 'I1Nc7 20.'I1Nxc7

1f2_1/2

Some of the ideas seen in this game are, even today, very important for the correct handling of the system under study. Now we will see the next stage in the logical evolution of the variation, in which Black faces increasing difficulties.

l IS

True Lies in Chess

The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like ... lLl a6 in the King's Indian

119

19 ...�b7! If 1 9 . . . 'We7 (if 19 ... e4 20.lLld4 lLl e5 2 1 .l"1e3!?, the white rook occupies a very good position on this square, ready to eventually move to g3 with unpleasant pressure against the black monarch; at the same time the first player prepares the manoeuvre lLl c3-e2-f4) 20.'Wxc6 �b7 2 1 .Wffd7 l"1b7 22.lLlce2 l"1d7 (22 . . . Wfff7 23.lLlf4 'Wc4 24.'Wxc4t lLlxc4 25 .l"1g3 with an attack) 23.lLlf4 and White is clearly better.

The next alternative we will study sees White capturing only the a6-knight and placing his pieces so as to make it as difficult as possible for Black to carry out the break . . . f6-f5 , while White also prepares the manoeuvre lLl f3-d2-c4-d6 (a5). (Starting from the Basic Position)

7.0-0 e5 8.ie3 lLlg4 9.ig5 '?Ne8 10.dxe5 dxe5 1 1 .h3 f6 12.id2 lLlh6 13.c5! c6 14.ha6 bxa6 15.'?Na4 lLlf7

16.�adl �b8 There are other possibilities: a) 16 ...�b7?! (preparing the manoeuvre ... 'We7 and ... f6-f5; the drawback of this move is that it is rather slow and the b7-bishop is not well placed) 1 7.�cl ( 1 7.�e3 'We7 1 8 .lLld2 f5 with counterplay) 17 ... 'We7 l s .lLld2! A typical pawn sacrifice to seize a lasting initiative. 1 8 ... 'Wxc5 1 9.1Llb3 Wffe7 20.�e3 with the initiative. b) 16 . . . �h8 17.l"1fe1 l"1gS 1 8 .�e3 l"1b8 1 9.b3 l"1b7 20.lLld2 f5 2 1 .£4 (2 1 .exf5 gxf5 22.lLlc4 l"1e7 23.lLld6 lLlxd6 24.cxd6 l"1e6!? with immediate counterplay against the enemy kingside) 2 1 ...exf4!? (undoubtedly the best option in this situation; clearly worse is 2 1 .. .g5 22.exf5 gxf4 23.�xf4 �xf5 24.�e3 and White was clearly better in Shabalov - Volokitin, Bermuda 2003) 22.�d4 WfffS!? 23.lLlf3 (23.lLle2 l"1d7 24.exf5 gxf5) 23 ... lLldS!

20.'?Nxa6 The key manoeuvre in this posmon. The black knight is heading for the very strong e6square: 24.exf5 gxf5! It is important to open the g-file along which Black will develop a strong attack. 25.ttJe2! lLl e6 26.Wffxc6 lLlxd4 27.lLlfxd4 (27.lLl exd4 �xd4t 2S.l"1xd4 l"1bg7 with some initiative, whereas 28 ... Wffg7 29.lLle5 l"1e7 30.'Wd5 �b7 3 1 .c6 �xc6 32.'Wxc6 l"1xe5 33.l"1xe5 'Wxe5 is about equal) 27 ...l"1e7 2S.'Wd6 (2S.ct:lf3 �b7; 2S.'Wf3 l"1e4 with compensation) 2S ... �e5 29.'Wd5 Wffg7 with a clear initiative. c) 1 6 ... f5 ? 1 7.exf5 gxf5 l S .ttJg5! and after the exchange of the important f7-knight White's attack quickly penetrates through the invasion square d6.

17.ic1 f5 1 8.exfS gxf5 19.�fel

If 20.lLlg5 then 20 ... lLlxg5 2 1 .�xg5 l"1xb2. Or if 20.'Wh4!? then 20 ... 'We7! Again going for the desired endgame; instead 20 ... a5!? is a typical and very interesting move: Black intends to bring his b7-rook into the attack or, failing that, to provoke an important positional concession on the queenside that would ensue after White's a2-a3. 2 1 .Wffxe7 l"1xe7 22.lLlg5 l"1dS! with equality.

20... �xb2 The capture of this pawn is very important as now the entire queenside is very unstable.

2 1.'?Nxa7 �b7 22.'?Na4 e4 23.lLld4 lLle5 24.�e3 id7 The initiative and dynamism of Black's position are very dangerous.

When a player has expertise in a particular variation those chess players who want to learn that system usually study the expert's games. Nevertheless, I would like to warn the unsuspecting reader that in those games we can also find inaccuracies and evaluation errors. Accordingly I would like to point out a variation I have successfully used on two occasions but which I honestly think is not the best. I am referring to the following line: Undoubtedly one of the critical positions of this system. In the following analysis I intend to prove that Black's options are fairly promising.

(Starting from the Basic Position)

7.0-0 e5 8.ie3 liJg4 9.ig5 '?Ne8 1 0.dxe5 dxe5 l 1 .liJd2 f6 12.ih4 h5?!

As I have already said, I employed this move against Mikhalevsky in Linares 1 997 and against Van Wely in Mondariz 2000. In the first game I obtained a superior position and therefore I had no qualms about repeating my choice against the Dutch GM. He came well prepared with an interesting novelty, although after a series of accurate moves I managed to level the position. However, the analysis of later games has convinced me that the move 12 ... lLlh6, with the idea ... ttJa6-c5-e6, instead of 12 ... h5 is preferable. White's bishop is not well placed on h4 and Black has recently achieved good results with this line. I would like once again to state the importance of not blindly believing in the information we are provided with, even when it is from a reliable source. One should be aware that many times the handling of a specific system is just a matter of taste and that therefore the choice by one player of a particular variation may not mean that it is the best continuation, objectively speaking.

Other times we see a particular line succeed against a difficult opponent, only for the line to lapse into suspicious silence without ever being played again. What really happens in such cases? In general these are artificial lines, with some strategic defect that is difficult to detect over the board, but which cannot stand up to more rigorous analysis. They are single-bullet weapons ...

1 20

True Lies in Chess

W Lautier ,., Comas Fabrego Spain (Team Ch) 1 999, King's Indian [E94]

details and because of these the evaluation of the position changes completely.

13 ...c6 14.b4 �h8!

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lZlc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5.lZlf3 0-0 6 ..ie2 e5 7.i.e3 lZla6 S.O-O lZlg4 9./Lg5 f6 10 ..id WleS 1 l .h3 The text move is necessary as Black was threatening ... f6-f5.

1 1...lZlh6 12.dxe5 1 2 .gb l ! was the right move.

The start of a regrouping manoeuvre that creates an impenetrable fortress.

15.b5 c!Llc7 16.bxc6 bxc6 17.Wa4 c!Llfl IS.i.a3 �gS White keeps the central tension and therefore his positional plus. In any case Lautier's decision in this game was very understandable, psychologically speaking: he was facing an unknown situation and wanted to clarify the position as soon as possible. But that was precisely the wrong solution. Now there are several possibilities but Black doesn't get a totally satisfactory position after any of them: a) 12 ... Wh8 1 3 .b4! exd4 1 4.liJxd4 and White is slightly better. b) 1 2 . . . exd4 1 3.liJxd4 liJc5 14.ge l ! and White has an edge. c) 12 ... c6 1 3.b4 (jj c7 14.b5 (l4.c5!?) d) 12 ... liJ f7 1 3 .dxe5! Only now! 13 ... dxe5 1 4.b4 and Black is not in time to reorganize himself on the a3-f8 diagonal.

12 ...dxe5 13J!bl Carrying our a famous plan that had been played in an equally well known game by Benjamin. Unfortunately for White, in the current situation there are a couple of different

And now what? White can find no targets worth mentioning, whereas Black is already preparing the traditional break ... f6-f5.

Instead 2 5.i.e3 f5 would give Black the initiative. After 25.tiJc3 the excellent manoeuvre 25 . . . tLl d8! guarantees more comfortable play fo r Black. In the near future he has two significant plans: the transfer of his d8-knight to d4 through e6 and also the break . . . f6-f5. On the other hand, there seems to be no way for White to improve his position. For instance: 26.Wd 1 liJe6 27.Wxd7 !xd7 28.l"1xg8t Wxg8 and Black enj oys a slight plus in the endgame.

19J�b2!? White's plan of doubling rooks on the b-file in order to infiltrate later seemed at first sight to be very strong. It turns out, however, that this invasion is totally harmless as it lacks adequate support from the rest of the white army.

19 .!Lle6! ..•

If 1 9 ...f5 then 20.id3!, a prophylactic move against the manoeuvre tLl c7-e6. If 20.gfb 1 tLl e6 2 1 .gb8 l"lxb8 22.gxb8 Wd7 and Black is slightly bener.

20.�fbl .!Lld4 Also interesting was 20 ... f5!? 2 1 .i.d3 Wd7 when the position is unclear.

21.gbS gxbS 22.gxb8 .!Llxe2t 22 ... Wd7!? deserves serious consideration.

23 . .!Llxe2 Wd7 24./LcS a6! 2S . .!Llc3 11z-l/2

121

The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like ...liJ a6 in the King's Indian

I am now going to show one ofmy favourite games against one of the most talented and charismatic players Spanish chess has ever produced: I am referring to my friend David Garcia Ilundain. I know many will disagree with this appreciation because he never had a huge rating (he always fluctuated around 2500) ; but I can say, from my own experience, that there are many players whose strength is not reflected in that little number which always accompanies your name. I have spoken with several 2600 players who have nothing interesting to say about chess. In contrast what a pleasure it was to analyse and talk about our game with David! From his words one could sense his deep love and understanding of what was happening on the 64 squares. His unbelievable originality was clear proof of his playing potential. I said before that in chess there are players and there are analysts; he was

never a player. He could spend hours analysing the simplest of endings or the most complicated middlegame, no matter what: it was chess. His passion for the classics, whose wisdom he avidly acquired, was also well known. Why then didn't he reach higher in the chess rankings? I think that two completely different aspects had an influence on this: the first one is the laziness with which the leaders of Spanish chess have always treated its most outstanding players; secondly, his great handicap was the same as many analysts: when he sat at the board at a chess tournament he always had to face two rivals: one, his opponent, and the other one, and by the way, a much tougher one, himself. Playing in those circumstances it is easy to understand how difficult it is to raise your rating. As the reader will have noticed, I have labelled this game a chess symphony. This is due to my belief that the dance that takes place among the pieces in the first stage of this game is extremely beautiful and original: Black moves his knights repeatedly, even to the point of provocation, I would say; whereas White is not far behind: up to four times in the first 2 1 moves three different pieces return to their original squares, and such harmony turns out to be the overture to a fierce fight between the two armies that lasts beyond the middlegame.

Garda Ilundain W Comas Fabrego * Spain (Team Ch), King's Indian [E94] l.d4 .!Llf6 2 . .!Llf3 g6 3.c4 i.g7 4 . .!Llc3 0-0 S.e4 d6 6 ..ie2 eS 7.0-0 .!Lla6 S.i.e3 .!Llg4 The dance begins.

9..igS �eS 10.dxeS dxeS I l.h3 h6 12 .id •

One . . .

12....!Ll f6 13.i.e3 .!Llh5 These restless moving!

little

knights won't

stop

14.�el Nowadays it is known that 1 4.c5 is more incisive. But back then the system was still in its infancy.

1 22

True Lies in Chess

14... tLl f4 15.ifl Two ...

15... tLle6 16.a3 tLlb8 The other knight also wants to join the fun!

17.b4 tLlc6

pawn structures. White eyes his opponent's vulnerable (rather than weak) f5-square. If instead 20.§ad l ctJcd4 2 1 .ixd4 exd4 22.e5 c6 23.ctJf6t ,ixf6 24.exf6 Wxf6 Black has a very sound position because his minor pieces have excellent outposts on f4 and e6, protected by pawns, while White's forces don't. For example, 25.ctJxd4 (25 .c5 a5 26.ic4 axb4 27.axb4 rj;Jg7 2S.ctJ xd4 �xd4 29.Wxd4t ctJxd4 30.Elxd4 Ela4 3 1 .ib3 Ela3 is equal) 25 . . .ctJ xd4 (or 25 ... Eld8) 26.Wxd4 Wxd4 27.Elxd4 ie6 with equality.

20 ... tLlcd4 2 1 ..ic1!!

All these manoeuvres are motivated by the desire to control the important central square d4. Black has rejected the move ... c7-c6 in order to avoid giving White a clear target on d6.

18.tLld5

If 1 8 .Ela2 f5 ! Black's position is very flexible. The break ... f7 -f5 is always a possibility to bear in mind, depending on the disposition of forces that White chooses. Now both ... f5-f4, eventually followed by ... ctJcd4, and ... ctJc6-dS f7 are threatened.

18 .. .'tYdS The black queen doesn't have any objection to returning to her initial square. There is no place like home, is there? I S ...f5 could be met by 1 9 .c5 with a complex game.

19.Wid2 g5! Another bold move. It entails a certain weakening of the kingside in return for activating the rest of the black army. Now the f4-square is once again under control, so the d5 -knight doesn't have an easy time.

2o.Widl!! Three ... A manoeuvre very much in David's style; he was a tremendous positional player and he believed above all in the strength of sounder

The Opening According to Me - or Why I Like ... ctJa6 in the King's Indian and Black has an edge) 2S . . .Wf6 when Black is slightly better: in all the endings Black's passed pawn gives him the edge.

24 §ffi 25.ig4 Wid6 26J�a2! ...

The white rook escapes the influence of the g7bishop and gets ready to transfer to the centre. 26.Wd3 was another interesting option. In this case the best continuation seems to be 26 ... ,td7!? (26 . . . c6 27.Wg6 cxd5 28 .ixe6t ixe6 29. Elxe6 Wd7 30.cxd5 Wf7 [30 . . . Wxd5 3 1 .ib2 with an attack] 3 1 .Wxf7t Elxf7 32.h4! and White's pressure is unpleasant: he will soon provide the cl -bishop with a good square) 27.Wg6 ElaeS 28.,ib2! (2s.if5 Elxf5 29.Wxf5 ElfS 30.Wd3 b5 3 1 .,ib2 bxc4 32.Wxc4 Elf5 and Black is slightly better) 2S . . . b5 29.ctJxc7 Wxc7 30.ixe6t ,ixe6 3 1 .Elxe6 Wf7 32. Wxf7t rj;Jxf7 33.Eld6 (33.Elxe8 §xeS 34.cxb5 Ele2 3 5.§b l \tle6 36. rj;Jfl Elc2 37.a4 rj;Jd5 and the activity of the black pieces is enough ro balance the position) 33 . . . bxc4 34.,ixd4 'if;;e7 35 .,ixg7 (35.Eld5 'if;;e6) 35 ... 'if;;xd6 36.Eld l t 'if;;c6 37.,ixfS Elxf8 with compensation: Black's passed pawn and his active king offer him good prospects.

1 23

posltlon is unclear) 29 ... Wc6 30.,if3! (30.,ih5 rj;JhS 3 1 .,ixe8 Elxe8 32.�f3 �aS!) 30 ... 'if;; h S 3 1 .Wbl Wa6 32.Elae2 c6 33.Wg6 with an attack. Undoubtedly an extremely difficult series of moves to find. c) 27. . . 'if;;h8 2S.,ixe6 EleS 29.c5 (29 .Wf3 i.xe6 30.Elae2 ,id7 3 1 .c5 Elxe2 32.Elxe2 Wc6 and the white knight still has problems) 29 ... Wc6 30.,txcS! (a brilliant queen sacrifice giving White a dangerous attack against the enemy king; worse was the tempting 30.4Jxc7 Wxc7 3 1 .Wf3 ,ixe6 32.Elxe6 Elxe6 33 .WxaSt rj;Jh7 when the black forces display great activity) 30 ... Elxe2 3 1 .Elaxe2 Wxd5 32.EleSt 'if;; h7 33.El l e7 with an attack. Obviously White cannot be reproached for failing to see all these continuations. Furthermore, in this game the Spanish Championship was at stake, which added more pressure to the contest.

27 ... c6 2S.c5 Wixd5 29.VlYxd5 cxd5 30.Le6t he6 3 IJ;xe6 d3!

26...b5 27.VlYb3?! 27.We2! Four! Highly original! White evacuates the e3square for his knight.

21. ..f5?! This move, which objectively speaking may be okay, marks the beginning of a remarkable tactical hell where positional considerations are secondary. All of Black's play is based on an attack against White's "strong" d5-knight, whereas White tries ro exploit the somewhat weakened position of Black's kingside. I had a simpler option that would have given excellent play: 2 l ...ctJ xf3t 22.Wxf3 ctJd4 23.Wd l c6 (23 ... f5!?) 24.ctJe3 Wf6 25.,ib2 ,te6 26.Wh5 ElfdS 27.Eladl Wg6 2S.Wxg6 fxg6 and Black has a fine position.

22.exfS �xfS 23.tLlxd4 exd4 24..ie2

Very interesting was 24.Wg4 §f7 25.§xe6 c6 26.i.d3 ,ixe6! (26 ... cxd5 27.cxd5 with the initiative) 27.Wxe6 cxd5 2S .,ig6 (2S.cxd5 Wf6

This was the move David overlooked. White's pieces are disorganized and he is not in time to control the important e-file. This was the best continuation and probably gives White the advantage. For instance: a) 27 ... c6 28.,ixe6t ixe6 29.Wxe6t Wxe6 30.l'he6 cxd5 3 1 .cxb5! (3 1 .c5 would transpose ro the game) 3 1 . ..ElacS 32.Elc6 b) 27... EleS 28 .We4 (2S.Wf3 ,id7 29.ctJf6t ,ixf6 30.Wxf6 ctJc5!) 2S . . .,id7 (2S ... bxc4 29.ctJf6t ,ixf6 30.Wg6t wins) 29.c5 (29.cxb5 'if;;h S and the

32.�e3 If 32.gd2 (32.Eld6!? is equal) 32 ... Elae8 33.Ele3 ,id4 34.Elxe8 Elxe8 35.Elxd3 Elel t 36. 'if;; h2 ,ie5t 37.f4 ic7 3S.,id2 Eld l Black has counterplay.

32 .. ':!!ae8 33J!d2 .id4 34.�dxd3!? White gets rid of Black's annoying passed pawn and sacrifices the exchange in return for a better structure in the endgame. I should mention

1 24

True Lies in Chess

that we were both in severe time trouble, and therefore this was a very logical decision. 34J�ixe8 Eixe8 35. �f1 i.c3 36.Eidl Eie2 37.c6 Eic2 38.i.e3 d4 39.c7 i.b2 40.i.xd4 i.xd4 4 1 .Eixd3 Eixf2t 42.�gl Eic2t 43.Eixd4 Eixc7 also equalized.

Cttapter 6

34 ...he3 35.he3 EifS We will stop at this position, which is slightly better for Black, but trust nobody... David ended up winning! Well, the continuation was rather long and has no relevance to the opening. I hope you enjoyed the game. As I said before, I loved it and this was one of the main reasons why more than ten years later I am still investigating the nuances of this interesting system. Thank you, David, for having shared with me such unforgettable moments at the chessboard.

Ttt,e Ottt,erI

I would like to dedicate this last chapter to the memory of a series of exceptional classical chess players from the old Soviet Union who have been unfairly underrated by Western literature. I am referring to players such as Chigorin, Rauzer, Bogoljubow, Boleslavsky, Bondarevsky, Levenfish, Ragozin, Kholmov, Furman, Averbakh, Simagin, Tolush, Lilienthal... We can still learn many things from them today, rescue old and interesting opening systems, revitalize ideas and strategies now forgotten, and understand modern chess through their efforts. These great players' passion for chess can be felt in their titanic duels. To some it might seem pointless to investigate the distant past. But as Oscar Wilde wrote "The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely" and my admiration for them is enormous.

'it' Tarrasch * Chigorin St Petersburg 1 893 ( 1 1 ) , Ruy Lopez [C77] I found the following game in the excellent book Mikhail Chigorin: The Creative Chess Genius by Jimmy Adams. It contains an interesting biography of Chigorin and his times. In addition, the games are very well analysed by esteemed players such as Vasyukov, Nikitin, Levenfish, Averbakh ... The present game, for instance, was annotated by Vasyukov and Nikitin (the reader will see that many times I use the initials Y.N. to refer to them) . Despite their good work I think that there is still a lot to be said about the game. I hope the reader enjoys this investigation.

1.e4 e5 vliJf3 lLlc6 3.ib5 a6 4.ia4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3 d6 6.hc6t bxc6 7.d4 lLld7 This was one of Chigorin's favourite manoeuvres in Ruy Lopez set-ups: he believed in the structural strength of the central pawn on e5, and accordingly he tried to support it at all costs.

8.dxe5 dxe5 I would like to reproduce what Tarrasch thought about this position: "Now Black has a completely shattered pawn formation on the queen's flank, and in this respect is doubtless at a disadvantage. Thus far I can agree with all the commentators of this game. But these gentlemen have forgotten only to take into account the benefits which Black obtains through the exchange on c6: 1 . The open b-file 2. The possession of the two bishops 3. The immunity of Black's position from attack

1 26

True Lies in Chess

For these reasons I prefer Black's game." I also think that Black's posicion is absolutely reasonable. However, I would ask the reader to pay anention to the following theoretical position reached after:

l.e4 e5 2.
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.
but because of the original and energetic play displayed by both sides.

139

precisely this advance, which forms White's chief aim in the course of the next twenty moves."

9.�d3 .ib4 I have to confess that Keres is one of my favourite authors. In fact this game and part of its notes are extracted from the book Paul Keres: The Road to the Top. Keres is above all an analyst and in his books one can feel an uncompromising search for truth, even when that means acknowledging weaknesses and mistakes he himself committed in his games. In this respect Keres set an example to follow. We all know the works of his contemporaries: take Botvinnik for instance, who never seems to have gone wrong in his games. It looks as if the notes have been written by Mr Perfect. I can't stand this style and I think it is harmful for a player's progress, as they are full of half-truths. Don't get me wrong. I am not criticising Botvinnik as a player and an anist (in fact I believe that Botvinnik understood chess at a higher strategic level than Keres) but only as an author. And what can I say about Smyslov, whose games are full of harmony and purity. He is another player everyone should study. Let's see a Smyslov game. Remember that the notes in inverted commas are Keres'.

"Continuing the struggle for the central light squares."

10.0-0 0-0 1 1.E:dl If 1 1 ..ig5 hG 1 2 ..ixfG Wxf6 1 3.e4 "White could enforce the e-pawn's advance, but it would be at too high a price. After 13 ... l"!fd8 Black's two bishops would provide sufficient compensation for White's space advantage." Black's plan is . . ..ie8, ....if8 preparing . . . c7-c5.

1 1...h6 12 ..id2 According to Keres, 1 2.a3 .ixc3 1 3.Wxc3 was better.

12 ... �e7 l3.aJ hc3

'it' Smyslov * Keres World Championship Tournament (7) The Hague/Moscow 1 948 Catalan Opening [E02]

l.d4 lDf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.ig2 dxc4 5.�a4t id7 6.�xc4 ic6 7.lDf3 lDbd7 7 ....id5!? 8.Wc2 (8.1JMa4t .icG 9.Wd1 e5!) 8 ... 'LlcG (8 ... .ie4!?) was interesting according to Keres.

8.lDc3! White had to stop the freeing sequence . . ..ic6d5, . . . c7-c5 with excellent play for Black.

8... lDb6 "Black must take good care in this variation to see that White is unable to play e2-e4. The main struggle in the present game is concerned with

14.�xc3! The beginning of an excellent strategic plan, whose first aim is to carry out the advance e2e4 while keeping, if possible, the two bishops. At the same time White tries to prevent the opponent's freeing move ... c7-c5. For these operations to be feasible it is essential that the white queen occupies the 3,d rank and also that the c-file remains open. If instead 14. bxc3 .ie4, Black would quickly carry out the break . . . c7-c5 and so gain good piece play.

14... E:fd8 If14 ... lDe4 1 5 .Wc2 'Llxd2 1 6.l"!xd2 (threatening e2-e4) 1 G... f5, White is slightly better.

15.iel! gac8

140

True Lies in Chess

"Black has emerged from the opening with a good game and can be reckoned as victor in the Struggle for the light squares in the centre. In the resulting middlegame, however, he does not at first find the right plan and soon gets into pronounced difficulties. The advance . . . c5 planned by the text-move is easily parried and so 1 5 . . . a5 was to be recommended. With this Black would thwart all White's active play on the queenside and would himself threaten to fix the weaknesses on the light squares by an eventual . . . a4." The strategic idea is good, but is it feasible? I think that after i 5 . . . a5 1 6.ifl ! a4 1 7.tLle5 i.b5 ( l 7 ...i.d5 l S .:1'ldcl :1'ldcS 1 9.f3 and White is clearly better) White's position would still be clearly preferable.

Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez Black often modestly develops his bishop to d7 to protect it from a possible exchange. These "passive" pieces are often devastating after the position simplifies. " Naturally, White is not going to allow the advance . . . c5. Already he is threatening l S.tLle5." The opening of lines would favour Black in this case thanks to his better development.

16.i.fl!

" An excellent idea. White now plans to force e4 after f3, thereby retaining his two bishops. Since Black in the meantime enjoys no opportunity of active play he is forced to occupy himself with meeting this threat. This means that White, as a result of Black's inaccurate 1 5th move, has obtained the initiative." Moreover it was necessary to take measures against Black's idea ... i.c6-b5 and ... c7-c5 with counterplay. This kind of manoeuvre, with the object of keeping the bishops by moving them for the time being to rather passive squares, is standard in many openings: for instance in the

would quickly reach the strong d3-square with his knight. Through the text-move Black does indeed prevent this, but he has, however, to weaken his kingside, a circumstance that later on becomes unpleasantly apparent." I don't quite see that the pawn structure Black adopts in the kingside is a weakening and not an aggressive set-up occupying important space. I guess it all depends on your point of view.

16 ...i.d5 17.h4

17 ... �hd7 18.�h4!

Both White's strategy and his tactical realization are to be admired. His last moves have been to place his bishops on rather modest squares and his knight on the edge of the board! From an aesthetic point of view White's position looks terrible: his army seems to be scattered all over the place without any connection between its parts. Is the e2-e4 advance valuable enough to be worth this price? And when is it possible to take the liberty of carrying out such "suspicious" moves without anything unpleasant happening, and when is it not? It is difficult to answer these questions. As almost always, the variations and logical reasoning decide the right of an idea to exist.

18 ... �e4

Other possibilities were: a) I S . . .b6 1 9 .f3 c5 20.dxc5 bxc5 2 1 .if2! (2 1 .e4 ib7 22.i.f2 g5!! 23.tLlg2 g4!) and, given the weakness of the a-pawn, White is better.

141

The Others

2 1 .� g2 f5 b) l S . . . e5 19 .dxe5! Keres also suggested 1 9.tLlf5 when after 1 9 ...1Mfe6 20.tLle3 (20.ih3 tLle4! is better than 20 ... @hS 2 1 .dxe5 tLlxe5 when the position is unclear) 20 ... e4 there is counterplay. After 1 9.dxe5! there follows 1 9 ... 1Mfxe5 ( 1 9 ... tLlxe5 20.i.h3! and White is clearly better. This position is worth analysing. Black's centralized pieces don't threaten anything since they are effectively neutralized by White's pawn structure; moreover, they are targets for the enemy army. Meanwhile White's scattered forces will develop lethal activity. As Petrosian pointed out, pieces should be valued not according to their beautiful appearance but according to their effectiveness.) 20.1Mfxe5 tLlxe5 2 1 ..ic3!

White's bishop pair and central superiority give him a clear positional edge in the endgame. But not 2 1 .iLh3?! ie6! 22.i.xe6 fXe6 when Black would have good outposts for his knights.

19.�c2 �d6 20.£3 g5 "An immediate 20 . . . f5 would be met by 2 1 .lLlg6 followed by 22.tLlf4, when White

"Black has been able to prevent the advance e2-e4 only by the greatest efforts, which have created some marked weaknesses in his position. Moreover, White is in a position to concentrate the fire of his knight, bishop and rook on the e4-square and thus can eventually force e2-e4. For these reasons, Black must seek coumerplay as quickly as possible and the best prospects of this are afforded by the queenside, since fewer white pieces are present there. So, in the next phase of the game, White must devote his attention to the possibility of Black playing . . . b6 and . . . c 5 and it is with this i n mind that he plays his next move. At the same time, he opens up the way for his knight to reach the strong post on d3, and will then proceed with ig2 and l'l:el to prepare the e4 advance. It is naturally hard to say whether the plan devised by White is the best, but in any case it is in keeping with the demands of the position and is characterized by a strictly logical approach. Alternatives such as 22.ic3 b6, with the eventual threat of...c5, or 22.tLl e3 1Mfg7, permitting Black in some variations to play . . . f4, are anyway not stronger than the text-move." I think that Black has an alternative plan in connection with his kingside space advantage. It would involve placing the queenside pawns on b6 and c6 (preventing the knight from coming to c5), the queen on h7 and the knight on f6 (controlling once and for all the break e2-e4), bringing the rook from dS to g7 and carrying out a pawn offensive on the kingside with . . . h6-h5-h4, the idea being to open lines in this sector.

22 .ifl � f6 23.�el .

1 42

True Lies in Chess 27.lLle5! It is interesting to keep the dark squared bishop flexibly placed: it has the option of going either to b4 to eventually exchange it for an enemy knight, or to f2 to defend important squares in the centre and the kingside. (Instead 27.!ldcl ltJb5 28 ..tb4 �g7 29.�b2; 27 ..tb4 �g7 28.lLle5 f4!? 29.gxf4 gxf4t 30.�g6 lLl f5 and Black has counterplay) The game might continue 27. . . �g7 28.!ldcl c6 29 ..tb4!

The Others this positional threat: 29 .. J'la2! (29 ... b6 30.e4! fxe4 3 1 .fxe4 �h7 32.�b l ! .ta2 33.�b2! bxc5 34.bxc5 lLlc8 35.l"lal and White is clearly better) 30.�b l �f8! with counterplay.

143

36Jhc2 exd5 37.l"lxc5 l"lc8 38.l"le6 lLl fe4 39.i.xe4 lLlxe4 40.l"lcxc6 :B:xc6 4 1 .:B:xc6 l"lb7 "and Black stands a little better in the endgame owing to his strong knight." b) 33.ltJxe4! Keres doesn't mention this move in his analysis, bur I think it is a clearly better option. It turns our that the knight on e4 is very strong and at the same time untouchable.

31. .. tLlf6! "Thus Black gains sufficient control of the e4square. White must now, if he wants to force through e4, retreat with his e5 -knight and with this the purposeless nature of his 3 1 st move is demonstrated."

32J::gac1 !laa8 33.tLld3 gab8

23...a5 "Here Black could permanently dispose of the danger posed by the advance e4 if he were to continue 23 . . . g4, but with this he would disastrously weaken his dark squares and would give his opponent a much superior game after 24. .tg2 followed by 25.lLld3. The queens ide diversion begun by the text-move is unpleasant enough for White and at least forces him to abandon his main plan, the e4 advance, for the time being." The alternatives were: a) 23 ...c6!? 24.lLld3 b6 Trying to implement the aforementioned plan. But it seems that now White can prevent it with 25 ..tg2 �h7 26.lLle5! hindering the rransfer of the black rook to the kingside. If instead 26.l"lacl l"ld7 27.lLle5 l"lg7 28 .�d2 h5 29 ..te3 f4 30.gxf4 g4 Black has counterplay. b) 23 ...�h7! This is the best tactical sequence to implement the plan we are discussing. For instance 24.ltJd3 l"ld7! and Black is ready to transfer the rook to the critical sector. It is important to highlight that although the knight on e5 is prettily placed, its action is fairly pointless. It is slightly reminiscent of the overvalued knight which can be found on d5 in some variations of the English and the Sveshnikov.

24.tLld3 I think that 24.bxa5!?, trying to activate the f2-bishop immediately, was more accurate. For example: 24 . . . l"la8 25.ltJd3 l"lxa5 26 ..te 1 !laa8

33 . . . b6! (Keres), preventing lLlc5. The key to Black's defence lies in this prophylactic move, targeting White's weakness on f2 (although 30 ... �f7!? is also an option) .

27.b5? I think that this swap favours White as he gets rid of one of his opponent's very active pieces in exchange for a bishop that is potentially passive because of the pawn formation. If now 29 . . . f4 30.J.xd6! l"lxd6 3 1 .gxf4 gxf4t 32.cJ:lhl lLl h7 33 . .tg2 lLl g5 34.l"lgl �f6 35.h4 lLl f7 3 6. .th3t White has a huge advantage.

24 Jl:a8 .•

Better was 24 ... axb4! . 1t was important to carry out this exchange now to limit the prospects of the enemy bishop on f2; for example, 25 .axb4 :B:a8. "Black should immediately open the a-file so as to worry his adversary on the queenside. But for some time now both players have been in time trouble and this strongly affects the next part of the game."

25.i.g2 !la7 26.:B:e1 26.bxa5!

"By means of this pawn sacrifice White at last carries out his idea and forces e4, but he has, however, to pay too highly for it all. In the first place Black will now have a pawn more and in the second White's advance no longer possesses the force it would once have had. Hence it seems to me that it would be best for White to renounce the direct implementation of his plan and instead try to seize the initiative on the queenside by continuing 27.bxa5 l"lxa5 28 .l"lecl followed by .te I -b4. I believe that White could have obtained real prospects of a positional advantage with this plan, whereas now Black easily frees himself from all difficulties." The struggle that follows is still extremely interesting.

34.c!tk5 b6 35.e4! "Smyslov makes excellent use ofthe opportunity afforded him and obtains attacking chances with the text-move. After 3 5.lLlb3, with the intention of 36.�d2 followed by e4, Black's 35 . . . f4 can be troublesome and with 35.lLld3 White would finally abandon his plan of forcing through e4. In the sharp position that has now arisen it is not easy, even in later analysis, to find the best moves for both sides; and certainly nor during the game itself while under time pressure."

35 ...fxe4 36.tLlxe4!

27 ... ltJxb5 28.W1c5 c6 29.a4 ltJd7 "Perhaps Smyslov, in his time-trouble, had overlooked this simple defence, by which Black makes certain of a solid pawn more."

26 ...W1h7!?

3o.W1c2 tLld6 31.tLle5?

Again stronger was 26 ... axb4! 27.axb4 !lda8 28.lha7 :B:xa7 29.lLlc5. At first sight it looks as if the position is difficult for Black since apparently there isn't an easy way to prevent the advance e2e4. But he has enough resources to fight against

"This moves proves to be merely a loss of time." After 3 1 .lLlc5 White could forced the advance e2-e4 he had prepared for so long. For example, 3 1 ...lLl f6 32.e4 fxe4 and now: a) 33.fxe4 b6 34.l"lacl bxc5 35.exd5 �xc2

36.fxe4 bxc5 37.exd5 �xc2 38.!lxc2 exd5 39.!lxc5 tLl de4 40.!lxc6 l"lbc8 and Black is slightly better according to Keres.

1 44

True Lies in Chess

36 .. .'I1lltg6 37.1.1llfe2 �b7 38.�c3 .ic4 39.1.1llf b2 b5 "It is not easy for Black to make use of his extra pawn. His pieces possess no firm outposts in the centre and the open position enables White to set up dangerous tactical threats. With the text-move Black seeks to exploit his queenside pawn preponderance, but in so doing he has ro allow his opponent dangerous counter-chances. Perhaps, therefore, it would have been better ro prepare this advance by playing 39 ... l"1f8 so as to meet 40.�e4 with 40 ... ttJ fxe4 41 .fxe4 l"1bfl."

In fact, White threatened not only 43.l"1xc4, but also very strongly 43.dS!, opening all the lines for his bishops and rooks at the cost of a pawn. This would have entailed serious dangers for Black, in view of the exposed situation of his king. If instead of the text Black had played 42 ... l"1fl 43.dS! (Keres) 43 ... exdS (43 ... ttJ g4 44. .ib6 l"1df8 4S .d6! with counterplay) 44.exdS ttJxdS 4S.l"1cd 1 , we would reach a position where Black's extra pawns would be basically worthless. Now after 4S ... l"1fd7 there might follow:

14S

The Others

43.�xc4 1.1llfh 5!

47...1.1llfxc3 48.�xc3 �df8 49.�cc2 �xf2 50.�xf2 �xf2t 51 .�xf2 �xf2t 52.@xf2 a4! 53 . .ih3 @f7 54.d5 exd5 S4 ... a3 SS . .ixe6t �f6 is also decisive.

55 ..id7 @f6 56..ic6 dxe4 57.hb5 a3 0-1

� Boleslavsky • Lisitsin

Leningrad 1 9S6, Sicilian Dragon [B76]

40.axb5 cxb5

"It would appear that White was far from expecting the text-move, since he now used the greater part of his time on the clock without finding the right continuation." If instead 43 . . .ttJxf2 then 44.l"1c3! ttJg4 4S .h3.

l.e4 c5 2.�8 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 g6 6..ie3 .ig7 7.8 0-0 8.'11ld lt 2 �c6 9.0-0-0 �xd4 1O.hd4 1.1llfa5 1 1 .@bl e5 12 ..ie3 .ie6 13.a3 �fd8 14.�b5 1.1llfa4 15.c4 hc4 16.�c3 1.1llfb3 17.hc4 1.1llfxc4 18 ..ig5 1.1llfe6 19 ..ixf6 1.1llfxf6 20.�d5

44Jl:c2?

41.�e4! "White sealed this strong move. Now he threatens to win a piece by 42.ttJxd6 followed by 43.l"1xc4, which would also follow, for example, after 42 ... l"1fl. In addition White has various possible threats, for example 42.ttJcS, 42.'lMla3, and even 42.dS, so the following exchange is practically forced. It should be observed that 4 1 .f4 was much weaker as then Black would reply 4 1 .. .l"1fl and obtain control over the important squares e4 and g4."

41. .. �dxe4 42.fxe4 � g4! "After a detailed analysis during the adjournment, I came to the conclusion that the surprising sacrificial combination begun by the text-mo:e offers Black the best practical winning chances.

a) 46.'lMleS And now: al) 46. . . a4!? 47. .icS! An excellent move avoiding the queen exchange. (If 47 ..id4 ttJf6 Black wins. Or 47. .ie4 'IMId6 48 ..ifS 'IMIxeS 49 .l"1xeS l"1d6 SO ..ics l"1c6 S l ..ie6t �h7 S2 ..ia3 and even without the queens White has some compensation, but obviously this cannot be the best solution to the current situation.) 47... ttJc7 48.l"1xd7 l"1xd7 49 ..id4 l"1xd4 SO.'lMlxd4 with a strong attack. a2) 46 .. .1.Wd6 47 ..ih3 'IMIxeS 48.l"1xeS l"1d6 49 . .icS l"1c6 SO ..ie6t @h7 S l ..if2 l"1xe6 (S 1 . ..l"1cd6 S2 ..icS) S2.l"1xe6 and the position is unclear. b) 46. .ie4!? (Deep Junior) 46. . .'lMlfl 47.'lMleS ttJ f6 48.l"1xd7 ttJ xd7 49.'lMld6 l"1f8 SO ..id4 ttJ f6 S 1 ..ig2 with counterplay. Another variation was of course 42 ... l"1bd7 43.dS exdS 44 ..ib6 when "the white pieces suddenly become extremely active and I am not at all convinced that Black's extra pawns would ensure him an advantage."

A move that, curiously enough, Deep Junior endorses. Keres knew better: " Retaining the piece allows his opponent a decisive attack and speedily results in a lost position." The alternatives were: a) 44.h3 ttJxf2 wins for Black. b) 44.h4! (Keres) 44 ... ttJxf2 4S .l"1fl ! (4S.l"1c6 ttJd3; 4S.l"1c3 ttJ d 1 ; 4S.'lMlb3 bxc4! [Keres] 46.'lMlxb7 gxh4 47.�xf2 [47.'lMlb6! and the position is unclear according to Deep Junior] 47 ... l"1f8t) 4S ... ttJd1 (4S ... ttJd3 46.'lMlb3 l"1fl 47.l"1c6 or 47.l"1c3 and White is clearly better in both cases) 46.'lMlb3 bxc4 (46 ... ttJe3 47.l"1c8!) 47.'lMlxb7 ttJe3 "and, though Black has retained his extra pawn, the open nature of Black's king affords White good prospects of equalising the position. With Smyslov having left these variations unnoticed in his adjournment analysis, one can hardly blame him for not discovering the only way of saving the game on coming so unexpectedly to these complications over the board."

44...1.1llfxh2t 47.1.1llfc3

45.@f1

�f7

46.�ee2

1.1llfxg3

If 47.l"1c3 'IMId6 48.dS l"1df8, Black wins; 47.eS a4 also wins.

In exchange for a pawn White has a strong centralized knight, which cannot be driven away, placed in front of the opponent's backward pawn. From now on we will see that thanks to this knight, and the gradual incorporation of the rest of the white army into the fight, Black's position becomes untenable.

20 ...1.1llfh4 2 1.1.1llfe2 .if8 What's the purpose of this move? On the one hand Black wants to look for counterplay on the c-file beginning with ... l"1dc8 and on the other he wants to prevent White from opening lines on the kingside with the advance h4-hS which would leave the black king in a very delicate situation.

146

True Lies in Chess

If White wants to implement this plan he must drive the black queen away from the h-file. With these considerations in mind it would be worse to play 2 l ...�dcS 22.g3! WdS 23.h4! followed by 24.h5. Now instead if White answers the game move directly with 22.g3 there would follow 22 ... Wh3! hindering his plans. 50 how should White proceed? One of the most common yet difficult problems a chess player faces is increasing an advantage he has acquired and convening it into a win. How many times have we heard complaints like " How could it have slipped away!" This is one of those positions in which a bad plan could spoil all the advantage. Let's analyse in more detail the current situation: there are three plans that seem completely logical: I) Try to occupy the open c-file to infiltrate the enemy rearguard. 2) Regroup to attack the backward d6-pawn. 3) Open lines on the kingside to begin a strong offensive there. If we were White, which of the three plans would we follow? In order to solve this question we must try and visualize the likely future stemming from each possible scenario and decide whether we have the advantage in any of them. If we chose the first option rhe most likely scenario would be che following one:

the diagram position it is unlikely that Black will lose despite his bad bishop, among other things because he srill retains his extra pawn and the position is very simplified. In choosing the second option a possible and logical scenario is the following:

A different tactical execution of the same plan would take place after, for example, 2S .Wh3 f6 29.�hl h6! and now both 30.ctJe3 with the idea of 3 1 .ctJf5 and the more forceful and possibly better 30.g5! fxg5 3 1 .ctJe7! (diversion) 3 l . ..he7 32.�xh6 lead to a decisive attack.

28 ... h6 29J'�xh6 �xg5 30J'!h5 �g6 31.�hl 1-0

W Bogol;ubow • Nenarokov Leningrad 1 925, Alekhine's Defence [B02l

Here ir is obvious that White will get back the d6-pawn but at the cost of exchanging his good knight after, for instance, 1 .c!Ll xd6 hd6 2.:1'lxd6 �xd6 3 .�xd6 reaching a completely balanced position. Again the advantage has slipped away. Well, you will say, the third option is the right one, and you will be right, but even here our troubles aren't over. Every good plan needs an accurate execution, chat is, good tactics, and one has to be ready to make moves as peculiar as the following one: not all of us would be up to the job.

22.�fl !

This move is necessary if White wants to prevent Black from playing ... Wh4-h3 after g2g3. Mter the text move events unfold at great speed and without any major setbacks.

22 ... :1'la<:8 23.g3 �g5 24.h4! �h6 If instead 24 ... Wxg3 25.�d2 and 26.�g2 capturing the black queen.

In his book Masters of the Chess Board, Reti defined Bogoljubow's style as highly dynamic. By dynamism it is understood, on the one hand, a profound redefinition of the positional concepts advocated by 5teinitz and, on the other hand, the inclusion of the tactical elements, such as posirional sacrifices, and the evaluation of the most diverse situations, even chose where these resources seem to be absent because of their apparent simplicity. The game I'm going to show now is not without errors - don't forget that this way of tackling the game was in its infancy - but I think its analysis is very interesting because it will help us understand many of the processes involved in modern chess, characterized basically by its complexity and dynamism.

l.e4 c!Llf6 2.e5 c!Lld5 3.c!Llc3 One of the advantages of studying the classics is the possibility of discovering interesting opening systems, of finding a fresh perspective on familiar settings. The text move is seldom used nowadays but even so it is extremely ingenious.

3...c!Llxc3 4.bxc3 d6 5.c!Llf3

25 ... g5 26.hxg5 �xg5 27J�h5 �g6 28.g5!

This opening breaks many of the classic rules of this phase of the game: "don't move the same piece twice", "don't bring out your queen early in the game", "keep a sound pawn structure", and even so, it looks as White is crushing his opponent.

White plans to carry out a decisive offensive against the isolated pawn on h7 and so he fixes this pawn on its original square and sets up a new outpost closer to the black king on the f6-square.

If 5 ...i.g4 then 6.h3! i.h5 7.�b 1 ! ? Dynamism! Exploiting the tactical weakness of the a4-eS diagonal.

25.g4

Threatening 26.g5 27.ctJf6 and 28.h5 with a decisive attack on the h7-square.

Is this supposition sensible? It seems logical to suppose that Black will occupy the c-file with his rooks and then exchanges will be unavoidable. In

The Others

5 ... c!Ll<:6?!

1 47

If 5 ... dxe5 then 6.ctJxe5 ctJd7 7.ctJf3!. More dynamism! Moving the same piece to obtain a central advantage. If 7 ...ctJf6 S.d4 and White is slightly better. If 5 ... CLl d7 then 6.e6!? fxe6 7.d4!. It's that d word again. Giving up a pawn in exchange for a strong initiative. Black will have great difficulty finishing his development while defending both the e6-pawn and his weakened kingside at the same time. More accurate is 5 ... g6!. This seems the right way to solve Black's opening problems.

6.d4 dxe5 7.d5! e4 8.CLlg5 c!Lle5 9.'%!fd4!

White has spoiled his pawn structure, has moved the d-pawn and his king's knight twice, and has already developed his queen ... and despite these repeated violations of classical opening principles, he has a significant advantage. How is that possible? I will try to explain: one of the most effective methods in chess is considering the effect our acrions have on the enemy position. This sounds obvious and yet many players play a unilateral sort of chess: they only see rhe chessboard from a single perspective, either their own one or rheir opponent's, and many rimes from a positive or negative point of view. This kind of reasoning could be for example: "If I follow this continuation I am going to end up with a bad bishop, therefore this line is not good for me." And that's the end of their inadequate search for the truth. A better approach would be

1 48

True Lies in Chess

to ask oneself: "Okay, I have a bad bishop but how does this fact affect the opponeOl's position?" Many times it is necessary to "saddle" oneself with a weakness or violate this or that principle (that's what they're for) in exchange for leaving the opponent with a positional liability of greater importance. To look at only one side's options guarantees failure in the attempt to understand what is happening on the board. Let's go back to the position we are discussing: all right, White has violated several principles but what has he got in return? How has his "bad play" affected the opponent's position and plans? White has achieved a valuable space advantage thanks to his d5-pawn and the very active queen on d4 and knight on g5, Strongly limiting Black's development plans. On the other hand while White was flouting those other positional principles he was also forcing his opponent to make concessions: Black has been forced to waste several tempi with the pieces he had already developed, that is, he hasn't had a chance to improve the activity of his other pieces.

9....!ild7 If 9 ... CLlg6 10.Wxe4 and Black's development comes to a standstill.

10. .!ilxe4 The continuation 1 0.�f4!? was very interesting. It is founded on the concept ofquick development and on another no-less-important but perhaps more obscure idea which I will call the "potential elasticity" of the position. White leaves the g5knight on its aggressive location, clears the dl -square for the rook and at the same time keeps his options open regarding the possible development of his fl -bishop since it, according to the circumstances, could be better placed on d3, c4 or b5. The fact that this bishop has several formidable options greatly limits the opponent's range of alternatives, thus making his play more difficult. In situations where there is a choice between several developing moves, it is often best to start by moving the piece which has the fewest options, leaving for later the development ofthe potentially

more flexible piece, since this creates more uncertainty for the opponent. There might follow 1 0. . . CLlf6 (if 1O . . . c6 then I l .dxc6 bxc6 1 2.�c4 and White has a huge advantage) l I .ic4 �f5!?

1 49

The Others ( 1 2. . . f6 1 3.c4 fxg5 1 4.cxd5 with an attack) 13.Wc5 with a useful attack. If instead I l .CLlxf6t exf6 and Black would be in a very good position to blockade White's queenside pawn majority.

still contains some very interesting moments with great strategic content.

16 eS 1 7.'%Ve3 .!ild7 18.f4 e4 •..

1 1 .c4 e6 12 .igS '%Vd7 13Jl:dl .

Curiously enough, despite his great dynamic perception of the position, Bogoljubow lacked deep combinational vision. Otherwise it is difficult to understand how he missed a continuation that was immediately decisive: 1 3.�f6!! In dynamic chess "forbidden" squares are also among the elements to bear in mind when evaluating a position. 1 3 .. .:!:l:g8 1 4.l"!dl and Black can hardly move, e.g. 14 ... c5 1 5 .We5 . The big problem for White in this posmon is the number of tempting alternatives at his disposal. For instance: a) 1 2.f3 follows the classical principle according to which the side who has the advantage must open up the position even at the cost of material: 1 2 ...exf3 1 3.0-0-0 fxg2 1 4.l"!hel h6! and it's not clear whether White's lead in development compensates for the material deficit. b) 1 2.We5 g6 (if I2 ... Wd7 then 1 3.CLle6 fxe6 14.dxe6 �xe6 I 5 .�xe6) 1 3 .l"!b l ( l 3.d6 cxd6 I4.Wb5t Wd7 I 5.Lf7t �d8 and the position is unclear) 13 ...�g7 1 4.l"!xb7 tLlh5! with counterplay. c) 1 2.d6?! e6 1 3.dxc7 Wxd4 14.cxd4 �b4t 1 5. @e2 h6! and in the coming ending White's c7-pawn and knight are weak. d) I2 .l"lb 1! looks like the most unpleasant move, quickly attacking the opponent's vulnerable points: 12 ... h6 13.�b5t �d7 I 4.ttJxe4 �xb5 1 5 .l"!xb5 c6 (the annoying pawn has to be eliminated) 1 6 .CLlxf6t gxf6 ( 1 6 . . .exf6 1 7.l"!xb7 Wxd5 18 .0-0 with an attack) 1 7.l"!xb7 Wxd5 1 8.0-0 e5 1 9.Wa4! and the superior activity of White's pieces gives him a positional plus. For example, I 9 ...�c5 20.�e3 �xe3 21 .fxe3 and White is clearly better.

10... .!ilb6

After 10 . . . ttJf6 I l .�g5! White's initiative is persistent. For example, 1 1 . . .ttJxd5 1 2.0-0-0 �e6

13 ... 5 14 ..!ilcS Why not 14.�e2! fxe4 ( 1 4 ...�b4t 1 5 .c3) 1 5 .�h5t g6 1 6.Wxh8 gxh5 1 7.dxe6, winning?

14...hcS lS.'%VxcS '%Vd6

19.94!?

This is a typical move of a sound positional player who has serious deficiencies in the tactical combinational aspect of the game. Black offers to exchange queens to relieve the enemy pressure and expose the weakness of the pawn structure in an endgame. All this would be correct were it not for...

A dynamically correct plan carried out weakly from a tactical point of view, as I will try to show with some variations explaining the ideas behind the text move. White understands, on the one hand, that he needs to open up the position especially to activate his two bishops, and on the other hand, that a stable and static pawn formation doesn't suit him in the long-term because of the weakness of his queenside pawns and squares. So far so good. The question is, what is the most accurate move to execute the break? Perhaps this was not the best situation to carry out the text move and in order to better understand this it will be helpful for the reader to follow the way events unfold.

16.'%Vd4? No, not that one. Again Bogoljubow's combinational problems are evident. Much better was 1 6.dxe6! ( 1 6.Wxd6? cxd6 1 7.dxe6 h6 1 8 .�f4 he6 with equality) 16 . . . Wxe6t 1 7.�e2 and Black's position is terrible. One may ask, seeing this succession of mistakes, what is the point of including an "incorrect" game in a manual attempting to be perfectionist in its approach? I think, firstly, that it would be very difficult to find a perfect game between very strong players of similar playing strength. Even the games of Kasparov, Karpov or Kramnik are full of decisions that are at the very least questionable, if not just wrong. Secondly, errors sometimes brings us pleasant surprises. Who hasn't played a fine strategic idea or incredible combination in a position arising from a mistaken decision taken in a previous phase of the game? We shall see that this position

19...h6 Very interesting was I9 ... Wc5 with the idea of reaching some sort of ending where Black can exploit his structural superiority: 20.@d2! (20.Wc3 0-0 2 1 .gxf5 ttJf6 22 .�h3 b5! and the position is unclear; 20.@f2 fxg4) and now after the queen exchange the ending is not so good for Black due to the excellent position the white king would occupy in the centre of the board: 20. . .Wa5t 2 1 .@cl Wxa2 22.gxf5 0-0 23.Wc3 with compensation.

1 50

True Lies in Chess

But I think that the critical continuation was 1 9... 4Jc5 20.gxf5 �xf5 2 1 .�e2.

This position is very interesting to discuss. Here some of the dynamic features I have mentioned before are clearly shown and clarified. One of the characteristics of dynamic chess is the accurate evaluation of the real worth of the "strong" and "weak" points, both of one's own position and of the opponent's. Let's look at the c5-knight. From the classical/static point of view it occupies a fantastic position: it's placed on a central square and cannot be attacked by any of the opponent's pawns. All this is true, but let's talk about its attacking potential: it is not exerting any important pressure on the enemy position and is effectively neutralized by the "weak" c2-pawn. Furthermore its contribution to the defence of the kingside against a possible enemy attack is nonexistent. Now let's talk about the queen on e3. According to classical canons this is the worst piece to blockade a passed pawn since, as following a literal interpretation (and therefore an absurd one) a pawn neutralizes the opponent's entire queen. But, as it turns Out, if this pawn could advance it would unleash all the potential of the black position, because it would activate Black's knight, bishop, and rooks, followed by the queen. The white queen being on e3 provides White with something precious: time to organize his position. Once it is organized the queen will be able to leave the wonderful defensive square she is now occupying without

any fear, in order to undertake more ambitious tasks. How should Black proceed? We will find the solution if we analyse the position again from a dynamic point of view. Let's ask ourselves: what does Black intend? For instance, if 2 1 . . .0-0 22.0-0 there will follow @ h 1 , !!g1 , �g5-h4-e l -c3 planning to use the weakness of the e5-square and building strong pressure on the black king's position. And here is the key: White's pressure on the kingside is really annoying because the black king is there. We have thus reached the correct conclusion: the right move is 2 1 . . .@d7! when Black is slightly better. The black king heads for the queenside where he finds a safe refuge, and minimizes the consequences of the aforementioned white attack. Bur this is not all. The reader will remember that in the position of the main diagram after Black's 1 8th move we pointed out that 1 9.94 was probably the right strategic idea carried out at the wrong time. Why? Because, as we now know, this plan loses a great deal of its effectiveness when the black king is not on the kingside. Therefore, White should first force the monarch to occupy this inauspicious flank and I think this could be achieved with 1 9.�e2! since the threat �e2-h 5t would provoke unpleasant weaknesses in the opponent's dark squares. And after the logical 20 ... 0-0 20. 0-0 with the idea �g5-h4-e 1 -c3 and g2-g4 White would have a strong attack.

20 ..th4 lLJcS 20 ... fXg4 was the other critical continuation, and is difficult to evaluate: 2 1 .�xe4t @f7 22.�e6t �xe6t 23.dxe6t @xe6 24.c5!? reaching a position where White's piece activity together with the weakness of the enemy king are balanced against the material deficit and Black's solid structure. Who has the advantage in such a situation? Only deep analysis could tell. But I think that what is most important in this game is to highlight its psychological background: whereas White was ready to go for complications, Black always tried to avoid them.

151

The Others But what happens when the best alternative lies precisely in one of these complex variations? A chess player must strive for a universal style: confining oneself to a specific playing style limits the potential development of any player.

2 1 .gS! With this move White wins important space to deprive the black bishop of the f5-square, which would be at its disposal after the possible pawn exchange ... f5xg4. Now the black king will not find a safe haven on either flank.

2 1...hS? 2 l . ..hxg5 22.hg5 �d7 23.�e2 and White is slightly bener.

22.g6! Now Black's position falls apart.

22 ... b6 23.gg1 gh6 24..ig5 gh8 24. . . !!xg6 2 5.�e2

2S.�d4 f8 26.i.f6! gg8 27.i.eS �d7 28.gg5 e3 29 .ih3 e2 30.gd2 lLl e4 3 1.'§'xe4 fxe4 32 ..bd7 hd7 33.hc7 gc8 34.d6 ge8 3S.gddS ge6 36.£5 ge8 37.gxh5 i.c6 38.d7 1 -0 • The next game is very interesting from several points of view, as we will see. We will also find some inaccuracies by both players, although these are of a different kind. As I have said before, in general every game contains mistakes. However, we must be clever enough not only to identify these mistakes, but also to extract all that is good and useful from a contest between two exceptional players, such as the ones we are now going to watch. � Lilienthal ,., Ragozin Moscow 1 944, French Defence [C 1 9) l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3.lLlc3 .tb4 4.eS cS S.a3 hc3t 6.hxc3 lLJe7 7.lLJO �a5 8.i.d2 c4 This manoeuvre was fashionable for a time due to the efforts of, among others, Borvinnik, Boleslavsky and Ragozin himself, who was also the coach of the Patriarch of Russian chess. 9.a4! An excellent move which has several strategic aspects worth mentioning. White prevents the manoeuvre . . .�a5-a4 leading to a complete blockade on the queenside which, most importantly, would rule out a later switch of the bishop with �d2-c l -a3 creating strong pressure on the dark squares. The constant threat of this manoeuvre greatly limits the possible defensive set-ups that are available to Black in this position. I should add that from a4 the black queen would exert unpleasant pressure on the c2-pawn which would make it very difficult for White to reorganize his army for attacking purposes. But on the other hand, and here lies the difficulty of the idea, the a4-pawn is doomed to perish. Furthermore Black can choose between 1 52 True Lies in Chess several manoeuvres to accomplish its capture. For example, .. .ttJ bS-d7 -b6-a4 or ... �cS-d7-a4 and he can even allow himself to either go for it immediately or defer its capture until later in the game. So what is the crux of the matter? It turns out that any black manoeuvres to collect the pawn would remove an important piece from the defence of the kingside, White's logical target given the space advantage he enjoys there. This attack can come in rwo different ways, depending on the defensive formation Black sets up: a piece attack, starting with the move tLlf3-g5, aiming at provoking a weakness in Black's pawn structure; or the typical pawn storm against the base of Black's pawn chain, e6, with the advance f2-f4-f5. In addition, the piece that ends up on the a4square after the capture of this pawn is an unpleasant source ofinstability in Black's position due to the pin exerted by the aI -rook. But let's see some variations illustrating the previous considerations. 9 ...i.d7 If 9 ... tLld7 1 O.tLlg5! ( l 0.g3 tLlb6 1 1. .�h3 i.d7 12.0-0 tLl xa4 and Black would win an important tempo compared with the game. Also the d7bishop occupies an excellent position keeping the f5-square under control.) 10 . . . h6 1 1 .tLlh3 tLlb6 ( l l ...tLlg6 1 2.i.e2 with the idea i.e2-h5 challenging the stability of the g6-knight. Since Black hasn't developed the other knight on c6 he doesn't have the usual defensive move ... tLlc6-e7.) 1 2.tLlf4 g6 (preventing the unpleasant tLlf4-h5) 1 3 .h4 �d7 1 4.h5 g5 1 5 . tLle2 0-0-0 1 6.g4! l"1dgS 1 7.i.h3 tLlxa4 I S.f4 gxf4 1 9 .0-0! White's pressure became very unpleasant in the game Bronstein - Saigin, Moscow 1 945. If 9 ... tLlbc6 then: a) 1 0.tLlg5 h6 I l .tLlh3 tLlg6 1 2.'Wf3?! ( l 2.ie2 i.d7 13.i.h5 tLl ce7 and the position is unclear) 1 2 ...�d7 1 3.'t:lf4 4Jxf4 1 4.'Wxf4 4Je7! The Others If 10 ... �xa4 then 1 1 .h4! tLlbc6 1 2.h5 h6 (Black cannot allow h5-h6, fatally weakening the dark squares) 1 3.tLlh4 followed by �h3, 0-0 and f4-f5 with a tremendous attack for White. 1 l .i.h3 1 1 .h4!? was, of course, a possible option. 1l ... lLld7 12.0-0 lLlb6 If Black tried to take prophylactic measures against White's attacking plans on the kingside by means of 1 2 ... h6 there could follow 1 3.tLlh4 g6 1 4.f4 h5 To prevent the eventual pawn sacrifice f4-f5 , opening up lines. 1 5.lLlf3 with unpleasant pressure on the dark squares. 13.lLlh4 It would also have been interesting to initiate a piece attack on the kingside. For example, 1 3.'t:lg5!? h6 1 4.'Wh5 g6 1 5.'Wh4 with the unpleasant threat 1 6.tLlxf7. "The outcome of the opening can be summarized as not favourable to White. He must lose his a-pawn. True, he can launch a pawn attack on the kingside, but Black has sufficient defensive resources." (Botvinnik). "The potential success of Black's defence is based on the disappearance of the dangerous white knight from the board." From a game Smyslov - Botvinnik, Moscow 1 944. b) 1 0.h4! i.d7 1 1 .h5 h6 1 2.g3 In those cases where Black declines the capture of White's a4-pawn, the first player can calmly prepare aggressive actions on both flanks: he clearly has the initiative. 13 ... lLlxa4 14.f4 g6 1 5.£5! 1 53 on the queenside, and all due to the difficulty the second player experiences in transferring pieces from one flank to the other because of his lack of space. 1 5... exf5 Other options were not any better, for example: a) 1 5 ... tLlxf5 1 6. lD xf5 gxf5 1 7.g4! fxg4 l S.i.xg4! (The more pieces White keeps on the board the more difficult Black's task is. If l S.'lWxg4 0-0-0 1 9.1"1xf7 l"1hgS 20.l"1g7 l"1xg7 2 1 .'Wxg7 i.d7 22.'lWxh7 'Wb6 23.l"1fl 'Wb2 Black has counterplay) 1 8 . . . 0-0-0 1 9.1"1xf7 i.d7 20.'Wf3 White's pressure is very unpleasant. b) 1 5 ...gxf5 1 6.g4!? tLlg6 ( l 6... l"1gS 1 7.�h1 tLlg6 l S.gxf5 tLlxh4 1 9. fxe6 is winning) 1 7.gxf5 tLl xh4 l S.fxe6 fxe6 1 9.ixe6 tLlg6 ( 1 9 ... 'Wc7 20.�f7t!) 20.�g5! (also interesting was 20.'Wf3!? �dS 2 1 .'Wf7 l"1eS 22.�g5t tLle7 23.'Wxh7 with an attack) Now White's attack becomes very dangerous. For example, 20 ...'Wxc3 2 1 .'Wg4 E1fS 22.l"1xfSt lDxfS 23. E1fl and wins. 1 6.g4! 0-0-0 16 .. .f4 1 7.g5 h6 l S.'Wg4 and White is clearly better. 17.gxf5 gxf5 18.lLlxf5 lLlxf5 19.i.xf5t 'i!?b8 1O.g3! Another possibility was 1 O.h4!. This is a more modern and perhaps better treatment of the position. The advance of White's flank pawn makes it easier to prepare his subsequent expansion with f2-f4-f5 , as the reader will be able to see in later variations. If instead 1 0.tLlg5 h6 I l .tLlh3 lLlg6 1 2.�e2 tLlc6 1 3 .i.h5 tLlce7 and Black achieves a solid defensive formation without renouncing the possibility of capturing the a4-pawn . The h3-knight now occupies an inferior position and its exchange by 4Jh3-f4 would make Black's defence even easier. 1 O...i.c6 This is a very vigorous attacking continuation: White sacrifices yet another pawn with the aim of opening lines thus exploiting his greater capacity to concentrate pieces on the kingside. Also possible was the slower offensive starting with 1 5 .g4!? h5 1 6.f5! hxg4 1 7. fxe6! The key to the variation: thanks to the piece sacrifice White gets a dangerous attack. 1 7... l"1xh4 ( 1 7... fxe6 I S.'Wxg4 with a decisive advantage) I S.exf7t �f8 1 9.Lg4 with an attack. Note in this line the poor role played in the defence of their king by the black forces stationed 20.i.h3 Black's big problem in this position is that were his f7-pawn to fall, the subsequent invasion of the white army together with the passed e-pawn would make Black's position a lost cause. And he 1 54 True Lies in Chess does not have enough space to set up an effective defence against White's aggression. 20 ...E:dfS 2o ...id7!? 2 l .,Ld7 1'!xd7 22.�h5 with the initiative. 23.1'!f3! lLJb6 (23 ... id7 24.if4! winning) 24.1'!afl with an easily won position. But now the game has an unpleasant surprise in store for White. 21.�hl E:hg8 22.�h5 Yflc7 23J;f6? I want to study the origins of this mistake, which I would categorize as psychological: from the very start of the game White has been thinking about attacking and at no point has he had to consider any serious counterattack by Black. As a consequence of this he may have been in an over-confident frame of mind which caused him to overlook a tactical blow by his opponent, which he could have prevented with more care. In general, such a blow can lead to two similar situations, psychologically speaking: the overall evaluation of the position may change or it may lead to greater resistance in the realization of the advantage for the side who has it. What should we do when in such a situation? Above all it is very important not to lose our nerve and not to become disheartened because this can spoil the fruit of our previous work and, more importantly, even reduce our performance in later games (it is well known that there is nothing worse for a player's confidence than to lose a won game.) One must be able to analyse with a cool mind the extent of the changes in the situation and consequently adopt adequate measures. This requires a very strong mind, which not all players can boast of. The psychological situation of the other player is totally the reverse: in difficult positions he looks for all kinds of defensive resources no matter how strange these might seem and if given the chance of using one, his confidence grows as much as his opponent's decreases. This was precisely what happened in the present game. This careless move allowed Black to slip away with a surprising move which, although it didn 't change the overall evaluation of the position, added tremendous obstacles to the realization of White' s advantage. We will see how White was unable to adapt to this turn of events. Of course it was much better to play The Others 3 l . 'it>h4 The attack is over. 3 1 ...ixf3 32.1'!xf3 �e7t 33.1g5 �xc5 3Hlxf8t �xf8 35.�xh7 and White wins. The text move seems logical to prevent the opening of the f-file but. .. 26... �e5! After this incredible move White has no effective defence. 27.i.g4 f5 28.i.h3 Yfle2 29.i.f4t �a8 30J;af1 E:g4!! 0- 1 A beautiful finish. W Dzindzichashvili * Furman Baku 1 972, Reti Opening [A 1 2] 23 ... lL"lc5!! This was the resource White overlooked. Black seizes the initiative and, in a situation where time trouble was more than likely, this is a very important factor. 24.dxc5 d4t 25J;f3 f6! 26.e6? White defended the position intuitively, but only calculating variations could have led him to the right solution. a) 26.1'!g l ? �xe5! 27.�xe5t fXe5 28.1'!xg8 ixf3t 29.ig2 1'!xg8 3o.ixf3 d3 3 l .cxd3 cxd3 32.ie4 h5 In the endgame Black has too many pawns. b} 26.ig2! This seems to be the best move, after which the only question is whether White wins or Black manages to draw the game in extremis: 26. . .Elxg2 (26 ... fXe5 27.cxd4! 1xf3 28 .ixf3 exd4 29.Elb 1 wins for White) 27. 'k!ixg2 fXe5 28.Elafl d3 (Black tries to create a passed pawn that would become another point of instability in White's position but it is not enough due to the good blockade that the white bishop exerts. If instead 28 ... �g7t 29.'it>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

True Lies in Chess Read more True Lies Read more True Lies Read more True Love (and Other Lies) Read more Lies Read more Lies Read more Lies Read more Lies Read more Schooled In Lies Read more Lies Read more Schooled In Lies Read more Transpo Tricks in Chess (Batsford Chess Books) Read more Lies Read more Critical Moments in Chess (Batsford Chess Books) Read more New Ideas in Chess Read more Modern Ideas in Chess Read more New Ideas in Chess Read more Planning in chess Read more Technique in Chess Read more Chess Strategy in Action Read more Psychology in Chess Read more Planning in Chess Read more Planning in Chess Read more Chess Read more Chess Read more Pawn Power in Chess Read more Endgame in Chess Read more Psychology in Chess Read more Planning in Chess Read more Pawn Power in Chess Read more

Recommend Documents True Lies in Chess ... True Lies True Lies True Love (and Other Lies) Lies Lies Lies Lies Schooled In Lies Lies