Jeroen Bosch:
striving to make a draw with White, and
Draw? Or Draw!
Article 5.2.c of the FIDE Laws of Chess
states that a chess game can end in a draw
in the following manner:
The game is drawn upon agreement
between the two players during the game.
This immediately ends the game.
These days specific competitions often
involve certain restrictions upon article
5.2.c. Thus the rules for the 2016 Baku
Olympiad had a specific chapter called
Draw restrictions which stated that:
The players are not allowed to offer a draw
to their opponent before thirty (30) moves
have been completed by both players.
It certainly makes sense to add such an
article for specific competitions where
spectators and chess lovers all around the
world are looking forward to a fight, a
sports spectacle, and not to some dreary
rehearsal of well-trodden paths with the
players happy to exit the arena as soon as
possible. Not that the sentence Houston
we have a problem applies to modern day
chess. We are actually quite far from the
draw death of chess that some top
players feared well over a century ago.
Modern top chess players are accustomed
to fight and do so at almost every
opportunity. Yet, it is good to recognize
that the initial position looks quite even.
A draw is a legitimate result in chess as it
is in some other (team)sports. So, it is also
good to realize that players may have
sporting reasons to strive for a draw. A
draw may win them a championship,
tournament victory, qualification to the
next stage, or a title result. When this is the
case, the (opening) strategy for the game,
and your mental attitude is of vital
importance. We will examine a few case
histories to illustrate the main points.
Chess has one of the greatest literatures
(perhaps the greatest) of all sports, and we
can greatly profit from the well-recorded
knowledge of our game. In our first
FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch
example we see a strong grandmaster
owing to his candid words we can learn
from his mistakes.
The second Piatigorsky Cup was played in
1966 in Santa Monica. The tournament
was won by Boris Spassky (who in the
same year challenged Petrosian for the
World title but lost) half a point ahead of
Bobby Fischer. Among the participants
was Borislav Ivkov, a strong Yugoslav
grandmaster (according to the chessmetrics
website he was number 17 in the world at
the time of this tournament game). Lets
see what happened.
Ivkov : Spassky
Santa Monica 1966
Both players annotate the game in the
tournament book. Spassky starts out by
stating that all previous 4 games between
them had ended in a draw.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2
Be7 6.00 00 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Ne4
The start of a solid line in this classical
Queen's Indian. White trades to pairs of
minor pieces. Ivkov quite frankly states
why he chose this quiet line: I wanted to
draw this game. We should commend him
for being so honest.
8...Be4 9.Ne1 Bg2 10.Ng2
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wq-trk+0
9zp-zppvlpzpp0
9-zp-+p+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+PzP-+-+0
9+-+-+-zP-0
9PzP-+PzPNzP0
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
10d6
The main line is 10...d5 11.Qa4 Qd7
12.Qd7 Nd7 13.cd5 ed5 and with the
queens off as well White would be well on
1
his way to his goal (a draw). The drawing Bf6 16.Bb2 Bd4 17.Qd2 Bxb2 18.Qxb2
percentage in this line is exceptionally Rae8 19.Rad1 e5 20.f4 Qb8 21.f5 Qd8
high. 22.Rd2 Nf6 23.Qc2 g5!?
Spassky's choice of 10...d6 (not to strive XIIIIIIIIY
for immediate equality, but to keep things
flexible) must have been unpleasant for 9-+-wqrtrk+0
Ivkov who offered a draw on the next 9zp-+-+p+p0
move! Spassky states that he sensed the 9-zp-zp-sn-+0
peaceful mood of his opponent and
therefore did not want to define the pawn 9+-zpPzpPzp-0
structure. 9-+P+P+-+0
11.e4 Nd7 12.Be3
Ivkov harshly condemns this move stating 9+P+-sN-zP-0
that the knight belongs on this square (and 9P+QtR-+-zP0
the bishop on the long diagonal).
Indeed he later played 12.Ne3 when he
9+-+-+RmK-0
was probably once more in a peaceful xiiiiiiiiy
mood. An interesting move in a position that is
XIIIIIIIIY slightly better for White. Smejkal now
lunges forward but he should have
9r+-wq-trk+0 prepared his attack.
9zp-zpnvlpzpp0 24.h4? gh4 25.g4 (One problem is 25.gh4
9-zp-zpp+-+0 Kh8 and Black has the attack. His knight is
better placed and pawn h4 vulnerable. For
9+-+-+-+-0 example 26.Rg2 Rg8 27.Rff2? Nh5! and
9-+PzPP+-+0 Black has a winning attack.) 25...Kh8
26.Rf3 Rg8 27.Rg2 h5! (An excellent
9+-+-sN-zP-0 move by Larsen.) 28.g5 (White is a pawn
9PzP-+-zP-zP0 up after 28.gh5 Rg2 29.Ng2 Rg8 30.Rh3
9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 Rg4 31.Rh4 but after 31...Qg8 he is in dire
straits. Pawns h4 and e4 (and then f5) are
xiiiiiiiiy all weak as is White's king.)
12...c6 13.Bd2 Bf6 14.Bc3 c5 15.Qd2 Qc7 28...Ng4 29.f6 Rg5 30.Qd2 Reg8?
16.Rad1 cd4 17.Bd4 Rfd8 18.f3 Bd4 XIIIIIIIIY
19.Qd4 Qc5 20.Qc5 dc5 and here a draw
was agreed in Ivkov : Matanovic, Wijk aan 9-+-wq-+rmk0
Zee 1968. 9zp-+-+p+-0
Another fairly meaningless game was 9-zp-zp-zP-+0
12...Re8 13.Bd2 Bf6 14.Bc3 c5 15.Rc1 cd4
16.Bd4 Qc7 17.Bf6 Nf6 18.Qd4 which 9+-zpPzp-trp0
soon ended in a draw in Rashkovsky : 9-+P+P+nzp0
Karpov, Moscow 1976. This is probably a
good example of a player aiming to draw 9+P+-sNR+-0
the World Champion by using the white 9P+-wQ-+R+0
colour.
The position in the diagram can end in a
9+-+-+-mK-0
fight though, when both players are xiiiiiiiiy
willing. Indeed, of great interest is the Tragic! Larsen overlooks a pin. Black is
game Smejkal : Larsen, Milan 1975, which much better after 30...Rg6!.
went 12...Qc8 13.b3 Qb7 14.Qc2 c5 15.d5 31.Ng4 R8g6 (White wins after 31...hg4

FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch 2

32.Rf5!+) 32.Ne3 Rg2 33.Ng2 and White 23.Rf1. I dont think that Ivkov was in the
won. mood for such a line. Moreover, also not
12...Qc8 13.Nf4 c6! bad is 19...Nc5!? 20.Nc5 bc5 21.Bc5 Bg5
Spassky wants to keep things flexible. and Black is slightly better.
14.Rc1 b) 18.d5 ed5 19.cd5 b5 is another line by
14.d5 ed5 15.cd5 (15.ed5) 15...c5 is Spassky, it's a big fight and somewhat
probably about even, but Spassky likes favourable for the second player.
Black. c) The best choice was probably 18.dc5
14...Re8 bc5 (18...dc5 is comfortable for Black.)
Now White could make a few 19.b4! (Ivkov) 19...cb4 20.Nb4 and now
consolidating moves like b3 and f3. Instead 20...Qb7! would keep it going.
he moves the knight to a lesser square. 18...cd4! 19.Bd4 Bd4 20.Qd4 Nc5
15.Nd3?! c5 Or 20...Qa4 21.Qd6 Nc5.
Black is comfortable, but chances are still 21.Qd6 Qa4
even. XIIIIIIIIY
16.f3
Ivkov rightly disliked the alternatives 9r+-+r+k+0
16.dc5 bc5 and 16.d5 ed5 17.cd5 Bf6. 9zp-+-+pzpp0
16...Qa6!? 9-zp-wQp+-+0
Spassky realized that 16...cd4 was
objectively fully equal, but also very likely 9+-sn-+-+-0
to end in a draw, and he therefore 9q+P+P+-+0
preserves the tension.
17.a4 Bf6 9+-+-+PzP-0
Spassky has cleverly kept the tension, and 9-zP-+-sN-zP0
White now faces a difficult choice. Ivkov
goes wrong.
9+-tR-+RmK-0
XIIIIIIIIY xiiiiiiiiy
Things have gone wrong for White. Black
9r+-+r+k+0 has a superior knight, he will soon gain the
9zp-+n+pzpp0 d-file for his rooks, and White's pawns (b2,
9qzp-zppvl-+0 c4 and f3) are weak.
22.Qd1
9+-zp-+-+-0 22.Rfd1 Qb3 is a double attack.
9P+PzPP+-+0 22...Qb4! 23.Qc2 Red8 24.Rfd1 h6!
A luftloch before taking action with moves
9+-+NvLPzP-0 like Nb3 and a5a4. On top of his chess
9-zP-+-+-zP0 technical problems Ivkov was in
9+-tRQ+RmK-0 timetrouble.
25.Rd8?!
xiiiiiiiiy 25.Kg2!
18.Nf2? 25...Rd8 26.Rd1
This move leads to more exchanges, but Ivkov also didn't like 26.Qc3 Qc3 27.Rc3
not to a draw! The alternatives are more a5 28.Rc2 Nb3.
complicated: 26...Rd1 27.Nd1 Qe1 28.Kg2 a5 29.h4?!
a) 18.e5 de5 19.dc5 e4 unclear was 29.Nf2 Qe3 30.Qd1 was more persistent
indicated by Spassky. After 20.fe4 bc5 according to Ivkov. 29.Nc3 Kf8 30.Qd1
21.Nc5 Nc5 White has to find 22.Rf6! (as Qd1 31.Nd1 Nd3 32.Kf1 a4 33.Ke2 Nb2
22.Bc5 Bb2 favours Black.) 22...Ne4! 34.Nb2 a3 and wins is a nice line by
(22...gf6 23.Bc5 can only favour White.) Spassky.

FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch 3

29...Kf8 30.h5 Ke7 the game (in itself an understandable wish
Black has improved his king, while White against the challenger for the World
can hardly move. Championship), but he appeared unable to
31.Nf2 fight, and was unwilling to enter
31.Nc3 Qe3 32.Nd1 loses to 32...Qd3! complications. As a result he handed
33.Qd3 Nd3 34.Kf1 (34.b3 Nc1) 34...a4 Spassky (who cleverly kept the tension and
35.Ke2 sensed the mood of his opponent) a
XIIIIIIIIY number of strategical plusses, and after
twenty moves the game was essentially
9-+-+-+-+0 over.
9+-+-mkpzp-0
9-zp-+p+-zp0 It was at the 1990 Manila interzonal that
qualifying places for the Candidates'
9+-+-+-+P0 matches had to be earned. Two rounds
9p+P+P+-+0 before the end Gurevich was sharing first
place. As the number 9 in the world he was
9+-+n+PzP-0 clearly one of the favourites to go through
9-zP-+K+-+0 to the Candidates. In the penultimate round
Gurevich lost to Anand (who used only 35
9+-+N+-+-0 minutes on his clock) and suddenly he still
xiiiiiiiiy had to make a draw with white in the final
and now once again 35...Nb2! 36.Nb2 a3 a round to qualify. In his report for New In
useful endgame tactic to know! Chess Magazine Evgeny Vladimirov
31...Qe3! 32.Qd1 f6! 33.Kf1 Nb3 34.Kg2 writes that Gurevich did not feel too well
Nd2 before the game, decided to play the
XIIIIIIIIY Exchange Variation of the French - quite
untypical for a great fighter like Gurevich -
9-+-+-+-+0 and that playing against himself caused his
9+-+-mk-zp-0 downfall.
9-zp-+pzp-zp0 M. Gurevich : Nigel Short
9zp-+-+-+P0 Manila 1990
9-+P+P+-+0
1.d4 e6 2.e4
9+-+-wqPzP-0 2.c4 or 2.Nf3 would be the normal choice
9-zP-sn-sNK+0 for Gurevich, who plays the French
himself as Black.
9+-+Q+-+-0 2...d5 3.ed5
xiiiiiiiiy That's the idea, White does not fight for an
White is in Zugzwang and must lose edge but wants to trade down to a draw in
material. The remaining moves were a symmetrical position.
35.Nh3 Nc4 36.Nf4? Qf4! 3...ed5 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.Be2?!
And White resigned because of 37.gf4 Ne3 I feel that things go down from here on.
0:1. Even a great fighter like Kasparov has
opted for the Exchange Variation versus
Technically there is a lot to learn from this the French, but with the intention to play.
game, but I imagine that the psychological This is how he gained a slight edge against
lessons are even more important. Ivkov, by Short: 6.Qe2 Qe7 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Nc3 000
his own admittance, started the game in the 9.g4 Bg6 10.000 f6 11.a3+=, Kasparov :
wrong frame of mind. He wanted to draw Short, Tilburg 1991. Short held the draw,

FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch 4

but it is always better to play from a
position of strength.
6...Bd6 7.Ne5?!
This clearly is inferior. Why play the same
piece in the opening twice only to trade
your good bishop?
7...Be2 8.Qe2 Ne7 9.00
9.Qb5 Nbc6! 10.Nc6 (10.Qb7? Nd4+)
10...bc6 11.Qd3 00 12.00 Ng6. Black's
queenside structure may be fractured but
his minor pieces are superior to white's and
he has an edge in development. 13.Nc3 f5!
14.Bd2 f4 15.f3 Nh4 16.Rfe1 Qg5 and
with energetic play Black has obtained a
nice attacking position, Reis : Matamoros
Franco, Loures 1998.
9...00 10.Bf4 Re8
The threat is 11...Ng6, which forces White
to move his queen now.
11.Qg4 Be5!
Short plays for a position with a good
knight versus a bad bishop (the pawn on
d4 is on a black square).
12.Be5 Ng6
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsn-wqr+k+0
9zppzp-+pzpp0
9-+-+-+n+0
9+-+pvL-+-0
9-+-zP-+Q+0
9+-+-+-+P0
9PzPP+-zPP+0
9tRN+-+RmK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Black has a pleasant game, but of course
nothing more.
13.Bg3 Nd7 14.Nd2 Nf6 15.Qf3 c6
16.Qb3 Qb6!
This trades queens, but it is nevertheless
the best move. Black gets the open a-file
and a compact structure after the exchange.
17.Qb6 ab6 18.a3?!
18.a4 looks better as it fixes the b6pawn
on a dark square. If Black plays as in the
game with 18...Ne4 then (18...Re2 19.Rfd1
is also equal.) 19.Ne4 Re4 20.c3 Re2
FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch
21.b3! and in case of 21...Rae8 White gets
counterplay with 22.Bc7.
18...Ne4 19.Ne4 Re4 20.Rfd1 b5!
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+-+k+0
9+p+-+pzpp0
9-+p+-+n+0
9+p+p+-+-0
9-+-zPr+-+0
9zP-+-+-vLP0
9-zPP+-zPP+0
9tR-+R+-mK-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now pawns d4 and a3 are fixed and Black
can boast of his good knight versus white's
bad bishop. It's still a draw though.
21.Kf1 f6 22.f3! Re6 23.Re1 Kf7 24.Re6
Ke6 25.Re1
25.Be1!? was rightly indicated by Short as
a good move. The bishop can move to b4.
25...Kd7 26.Ke2
Here 26.Bh2! (Short) was stronger. The
idea is not to have white's structure fixed.
So 26...h5 27.g4 and if 27...Rh8 then
simply 28.Bg3.
26...h5! 27.Kd3 h4 28.Bh2 Ne7 29.Bf4
Nf5 30.Bd2 b6 31.Re2 c5 32.Be3 b4
Or 32...c4! 33.Kc3 Ra4 when 34.Bf4 g5
35.Bh2 b4 36.ab4 Ra1 is a clear edge.
However, White has the more stubborn
34.Bf2 when a sample line runs 34...g5
35.Re1 Nd6 36.Rb1 b4 37.ab4 Nb5 38.Kd2
Rb4 39.c3! Ra4 40.g3! Ra2 41.Ke3 and
now Black must play 41...Nd6! 42.gh4 Nf5
to keep an edge.
33.ab4 c4 34.Kc3 Nd6 35.Re1 Ra4
36.Kd2?!
White immediately loses after 36.b3? Ra2!.
It was possible though to prepare b3 with
36.Bf2 g5 and now 37.b3 might still keep
the draw. For example 37...Ra2! 38.bc4
Nc4 39.Kd3 Ra3 40.c3 Ra2 41.Re2 Nb2
42.Kc2 Na4 43.Kd3 Re2 (43...Nc3 44.Ra2
Na2 45.b5 Nc1 46.Kd2 Nb3 47.Kd3 Ke6
48.g3) 44.Ke2 Nc3 45.Kd3 Nd1 46.Be1
Nb2 47.Ke2 Nc4 48.f4!
5
36...Rb4 37.Ra1?
37.Kc1.
37...Rb2
Only now White is truly lost.
38.Ra7 Ke6 39.Rg7 b5! 40.Bf2? b4
41.Kc1 c3 42.Bh4 Nf5 0:1.
Here a fighter lost because he played for
only one result (a draw). Please note that
despite Whites poor opening he was only
lost after several mistakes.
In a recently published interview on
Chessbase with Sagar Shah the Indian
grandmaster Baskaran Adhiban, who had a
fantastic tournament result in the Tata
Steel Masters 2017, commented on his loss
against his countryman Pentalya
Harakrishina: Round two was a blow, but
I lost because I ruthlessly played for a
draw in a position where I was superior. I
realized that with such an attitude, I
deserved to lose the game and mentally
changed myself after the fourth round.
[my italics].
After a poor 1 out of 4 start, and his own
mental kick-start, Adhiban (the lowest-
rated player in the round-robin) scored 6,5
out of 9 to become third behind Wesley So
and Magnus Carlsen in Wijk aan Zee.
Adhiban after a rest day had the time to
reflect and adjust. His change of mental
attitude brought him success. This is also
an indication of how you can fight to
obtain a draw from a superior position.
In Bonn 2008 the World Championships
match Anand : Kramnik was 6:4 after 10
games. With only two more games to play
Anand needed a draw in game 11 for the
title. In his previous 5 white games the
Indian grandmaster had played 1.d4. In
game 11 he went for 1.e4 and a sharp
game. On the one hand this suited
Kramnik, on the other hand it clearly
suited Anand: the Berlin is no option to
play for a win, and in the Sicilian that
Kramnik went for Anand had much more
experience and Black has to avoid all sorts
of forcing lines that may lead to a draw.
FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch
Anand : Kramnik
Bonn (11), 2008
1.e4! c5! 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qc7!?
This looks like one of the best variations
available to Kramnik in this situation. The
Poisoned Pawn Variation (7...Qb6) may be
strong but White can pick a number of
lines that lead to a draw by force. The
same holds for 7....Nbd7. Too risky is
Polugaevsky's 7....b5, and 7...Be7 is
solid.
8.Bf6
The most popular move is 8.Qf3.
8...gf6
XIIIIIIIIY
9rsnl+kvl-tr0
9+pwq-+p+p0
9p+-zppzp-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-sNPzP-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPP+-+PzP0
9tR-+QmKL+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
9.f5
Very sharp and therefore perhaps a
surprise for Kramnik. It is interesting that
Anand avoided the solid 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.0
00 Bd7 11.Kb1 as in Topalov : Anand,
Dortmund 1997. White is a little better.
9...Qc5
9...Nc6.
10.Qd3
No good is 10.fe6?! fe6 11.Be2 Nc6!
(11...h5 12.Qd3 Bh6? 13.Rd1 Hetenyi :
Kiss, Budapest 1995) when 12.Nc6 bc6
13.Bh5 is an empty check - after 13...Ke7
White's king won't find a safe place either
14...Bh6 is coming, and Black has two
bishops, useful b- and g-files for his rooks,
and he controls lots of central squares.
Or 12.Nb3 Qe3 and such a dominating
6
queen has to be exchanged, viz. 13.Qd3
but then Black can play with his pair of
bishops.
10...Nc6 11.Nb3! Qe5 12.000
White can also play against pawn e6 with
12.fe6 fe6 13.000 b5 14.Kb1 Bb7
15.Qe3 (15.Qh3!) 15...Be7 16.Be2 +=,
Kavalek : Chandler, Germany 1982.
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+kvl-tr0
9+p+-+p+p0
9p+nzppzp-+0
9+-+-wqP+-0
9-+-+P+-+0
9+NsNQ+-+-0
9PzPP+-+PzP0
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
12...ef5
Very suspicious to open the position like
this, but Kramnik probably felt he had to
take risks. It may well be objectively best
too.
More solid was 12...Bd7 13.Kb1 Be7
(13...b5!? 14.g3! Rc8 15.Bh3 h5 16.Qf3
favours White.) when 14.Na4 Nb4 15.Qd2
Ba4 16.Qb4 Bc6 17.fe6 (17.Nd4 d5)
17...fe6 18.Nd4 was Zelinsky : Kopylov,
corr 1993. Stronger is 14.Qf3 and when
Black innocently plays 14...Rc8? there is
15.Nd5! ed5? 16.Rd5, trapping the queen.
13.Qe3!
Vacating the d-file for the rook and eyeing
the b6square.
13...Bg7
White is better after 13...h5 14.Kb1 Bh6
15.Qf2 fe4 16.Ne4.
13...fe4!? 14.Rd5 Qe6 is met by 15.Nd4!
Nd4 16.Qd4 when Black is maybe not
much worse after 16...Bg7! but he can
hardly win: 17.Rd6 Qe7 18.Qe4.
13...Be6 14.Qb6! Bh6 (14...fe4 15.Qb7
Rc8 16.Ba6) 15.Kb1 00 16.ef5 Bf5
17.Bd3 favours White.
14.Rd5
14.Nd2!?
FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch
14...Qe7 15.Qg3 Rg8
15...00 16.ef5.
16.Qf4!
Black could only dream of 16.Qd6? fe4
17.Qe7 Ne7 followed by ...f5.
16...fe4
Black could obtain decent fighting chances
with 16...Be6 17.Rd1 (and not 17.Bd3 fe4
18.Be4 f5!) 17...fe4 18.Ne4 Kf8!.
17.Ne4 f5?!
Again Black had to play 17...Be6! to
transpose to the line given in the previous
note.
18.Nd6 Kf8 19.Nc8!
That's the difference. Now the bishop
disappears from the board and with it
Kramnik's counterplay.
19...Rc8 20.Kb1! Qe1
It may look tempting to play 20...Nb4? but
it's an empty shot after 21.Rf5 Qe1
(21...Nc2 22.Bc4+) 22.Nc1+.
21.Nc1 Ne7 22.Qd2
Because of the mate on d8 this forces the
trade of queens.
22...Qd2 23.Rd2 Bh6 24.Rf2 Be3
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+r+-mkr+0
9+p+-snp+p0
9p+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+p+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-vl-+-0
9PzPP+-tRPzP0
9+KsN-+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
Kramnik offered a draw. He has no
winning chances after 25.Rf3 f4 26.g3 +=.
.
A good fighting game by both players and
if Kramnik had played differently on move
16 or 17 he could have continued the fight,
as it went Anand had 19.Nc8 and 20.Kb1
to obtain a slightly better game, but more
importantly, considering the match
7
situation, a position that held no winning
chances whatsoever for Kramnik.
When Kasparov had to win the final game
of his Sevilla match against Karpov to
keep his World Championship title, he
opted not for 1.e4 or 1.d4 but for 1.c4 e6
2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.b3. The idea was to
play a long closed game and to avoid
simplification. Exactly the opposite of that
which Anand was hoping to achieve by
playing 1.e4.
In the 2016 Candidates Sergey Karjakin
could in all probability draw the final game
against Fabiano Caruana to become the
challenger of Magnus Carlsen. His choice:
1.e4!, and after Caruana's 1...c5 we got a
fight in which the Russian seemed always
in control.
Karjakin : Caruana
Moscow 2016
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6
5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.000 Bd7
9.f4 h6
A complicated Rauzer has arisen.
10.Bh4 b5
It looks attractive to play 10...Ne4 but it
isn't as White has 11.Qe1! Nf6 12.Nf5!
which has been played in well over 200
games.
11.Bf6 gf6
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-wqkvl-tr0
9+-+l+p+-0
9p+nzppzp-zp0
9+p+-+-+-0
9-+-sNPzP-+0
9+-sN-+-+-0
9PzPPwQ-+PzP0
9+-mKR+L+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
12.f5
A sharp move to weaken the light squares.
FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch
More common is 12.Kb1 when 12...b4
12...Qb6 13.fe6
According to Karjakin more accurate was
13.Nc6 Qc6 14.Bd3.
13...fe6 14.Nc6 Qc6!
Keeping e6 covered. A much older game
saw 14...Bc6 15.Bd3 h5 16.Kb1 000
17.Rhf1 Be7 18.Ne2! and pawn e6 is
weak: 18...Rde8 19.Nf4 Bd8 20.Be2! Be4
21.Bh5 Re7 22.Bf3!, Ivanchuk : Piket,
Monte Carlo 1996.
15.Bd3 h5 16.Kb1 b4 17.Ne2 Qc5
18.Rhf1
The normal (human) move. The engines
like 18.e5! followed by long variations that
are hard to calculate for humans. It does
not seem to sensible when a loss is what
you need to avoid at all cost.
18...Bh6 19.Qe1 a5 20.b3!
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+-+k+-tr0
9+-+l+-+-0
9-+-zppzp-vl0
9zp-wq-+-+p0
9-zp-+P+-+0
9+P+L+-+-0
9P+P+N+PzP0
9+K+RwQR+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
A nice positional move. The bishop can go
to c4 now eyeing pawn e6. Karjakin has
made the astute assessment that 20.b3 does
not weaken his king.
20...Rg8
20...a4 21.Bc4 ab3 22.Bb3! is the point.
21.g3 Ke7 22.Bc4
Black has two bishop and is controlling
lots of central squares, and yet White is
better. The Black king is stuck in the
middle, White's own king is safe, and the
bishop (c4) and the knight (f4) have nice
strongholds.
22...Be3?!
22...Rg4.
23.Rf3
Objectively stronger was 23.Nf4 when the
8
bishop on e3 is hanging - the immediate
threat is Nh5 - while 23...a4 can be met by
24.Nd3 (24.e5!? fxe5 25.Nd3)
23...Rg4
23...a4.
24.Qf1 Rf8 25.Nf4 Bf4
White can actually take the pawn after
25...Bd4 26.Rfd3 Be5 27.Nh5 and Black
has no real attack on the dark squares.
26.Rf4
26.gf4.
26...a4
Chances are about even after 26...Bc6
(Caruana).
27.ba4! Ba4 28.Qd3
Worse is 28.Bb3 because of 28...Bb3
29.ab3 Rgg8! and a black rook comes to
the a-file.
28...Bc6 29.Bb3 Rg5 30.e5!
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-tr-+0
9+-+-mk-+-0
9-+lzppzp-+0
9+-wq-zP-trp0
9-zp-+-tR-+0
9+L+Q+-zP-0
9P+P+-+-zP0
9+K+R+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
An impressive decision by Karjakin. He
sacrifices a pawn for long-term
compensation. He saw that for the
remainder of the game Black's king will
hardly ever find a safe haven.
30...Re5 31.Rc4!?
Possible was 31.Qh7 Rf7 32.Qh8 and
objectively Black should probably repeat
moves with 32...Rf8 33.Qh7 Rf7.
31...Rd5 32.Qe2 Qb6 33.Rh4 Re5
Stronger was probably 33...Rd1 34.Qd1
Qe3 35.Rb4 Be4 36.a3 (Nepomniachtchi),
with unclear play.
34.Qd3 Bg2
The engine indicates 34...d5 35.Qh7 Rf7
but after 36.Qh8 Black's weak king
remains a problem. Karjakin made a clever
FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch
choice with 30.e5!.
35.Rd4! d5 36.Qd2 Re4?
A tactical mistake in a tense situation.
Black keeps an even game with 36...Be4
37.Rb4 Qc6.
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-tr-+0
9+-+-mk-+-0
9-wq-+pzp-+0
9+-+p+-+p0
9-zp-tRr+-+0
9+L+-+-zP-0
9P+PwQ-+lzP0
9+K+R+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
37.Rd5!
Good intuition and excellent calculation by
Karjakin. At the same time it proves that
he has very strong nerves. After the rook
sacrifice White has a winning attack.
37...ed5 38.Qd5
The threat is mate!
38...Qc7
The engines indicate 38...Rd4 as best,
which says it all. After 39.Qd4 Qd4
40.Rd4 White should win the ending.
39.Qf5! Rf7
This was accompanied by a draw offer,
which Karjakin turned down with
40.Bf7 Qe5
40...Kf7 41.Qh7+.
41.Rd7 Kf8 42.Rd8
and Caruana was the first to congratulate
Karjakin on becoming the challenger. 1:0.
I think the lessons learned by the above
games are quite obvious. Playing as if your
life depends upon it (but keeping in mind
that you only need a draw) is a much more
successful strategy than simply trying to
trade down to two bare kings. In that case
you may run the danger of slowly handing
your opponent positional plusses or the
initiative. Above all your frame of mind is
what counts. Chess is a battle.
9
That is not to say, that the opposite strategy
may now work in certain cases. Lets cast
our mind back to the Carlsen : Karjakin
match in New York. With the score at 5,5 :
5,5 everybody expected Carlsen to fight
with White for his title. Karjakin prepared
frantically and had undoubtedly prepared
himself psychologically for a long and
hard fight. And Carlsen? Carlsen produced
this game:

Carlsen : Karjakin
New York (12), 2016

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.00 Ne4

5.Re1 Nd6 6.Ne5 Be7 7.Bf1 Ne5 8.Re5
00 9.d4 Bf6 10.Re1 Re8 11.Bf4 Re1
12.Qe1 Ne8 13.c3 d5 14.Bd3 g6 15.Na3
c6 16.Nc2 Ng7 17.Qd2 Bf5 18.Bf5 Nf5
19.Ne3 Ne3 20.Qe3 Qe7 21.Qe7 Be7
22.Re1 Bf8 23.Kf1 f6 24.g4 Kf7 25.h3
Re8 26.Re8 Ke8 27.Ke2 Kd7 28.Kd3 Ke6
29.a4 a6 30.f3 Be7
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+p+-vl-+p0
9p+p+kzpp+0
9+-+p+-+-0
9P+-zP-vLP+0
9+-zPK+P+P0
9-zP-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
.

It wasnt the greatest day for the image of

chess, but with hindsight it was a very
clever match strategy. In the rapid games,
for which Carlsen had already adjusted
himself two days earlier than Karjakin, the
World Champion was superior and
confidently kept his title. Chess is a sport,
and in the end the winner is always right.

FIDE Surveys Jeroen Bosch 10