Dvoretsky I Yusupov • Secrets of Creative Thinking

Pr29ress inCfiess

Volume 26 of the ongoing series

Editorial board
GM Victor Korchnoi
GM Helmut Pfleger
GM Nigel Short
GM Rudolf Teschner

2009
EDITION OLMS

m
Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov

Secrets of
Creative Thinking

School of Future Champions 5

Edited and translated

by Ken Neat

2009
EDITION OLMS

m
4

Books by the same authors:

Mark Dvoretsky, Artur Yusupov. School of Future Champions

Vol. 1: Secrets of Chess Training ISBN 978-3-283-00515-3 Available

Vol. 2: Secrets of Opening Preparation ISBN 978-3-283-00516-0 Available

Vol. 3: Secrets of Endgame Technique ISBN 978-3-283-00517-7 Available

Vol. 4: Secrets of Positional Play ISBN 978-3-283-00518-4 Available

Vol. 5: Secrets of Creative Thinking ISBN 978-3-283-00519-1 Available

Mark Dvorelsky. School of Chess Excellence

Vol. 1: Endgame Analysis ISBN 978-3-283-00416-3 Available

Vol. 2: Tactical Play ISBN 978-3-283-00417-0 Available

Vol. 3: Strategic Play ISBN 978-3-283-00418-7 Available

Vol. 4: Opening Developments ISBN 978-3-283-00419-4 Available

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche

Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in
the internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.

© 2009 Edition Olms AG

Willikonerstr. 1 0 · CH-86 1 8 Oetwil a. S./Zi.irich

E-mail: info@edition-olms.com
Internet: www.edition-olms.com

All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not. by way of trade
or otherwise, be lent. re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or
cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this
condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

Printed in Germany

Editor and translator: Ken Neat

Typeset: Arno Nickel · Edition Marco, D- 10551 Berlin

Printed by: Druckerei Friedr. Schmucker GmbH, D-49624 Lbningen

Cover: Eva Konig, D-22769 Hamburg

ISBN 978-3-283-00519-1
 5

Co nte nts

Preface (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

PART I THE CALCULATION OF VARIATIONS

The Technique of sea rch ing for and ta king Decisions (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wa ndering through the Labyrinth (Mikhail Krasenkow) ........... . . ............ ............. . . .... ... .... 3 0
Visual I magination and the Calculation of Va riations (Beniamin Blumenfeld) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

PART II INTUITIVE DECISIONS

The Development of Chess I ntuition (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

I n Jazz Style (Sergey Dolmatov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .

. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

PART I l l P RACTICAL EXP E D I E NCY IN THE TAKING O F DECISIONS

Practical Chances i n a Chess Game (Beniamin Blumenfeld) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Does it pay to sharpen the Play? (Vladimir Vulfson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Thoug hts about a Book (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

PART IV ATTACK
Missed Bril lia ncy P rizes (Artur Yusupov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Long-d ista nce Dispute (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 33
Attacks with opposite-sided Castl ing (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 38

PART V DEFENCE
Practical Exercises i n the Taking of d ifficult Decisions (Igor Belov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 53
Virtuoso Defence (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 65
What l ies beh i n d a M i stake (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77

PART VI
Ana lysis of a Game (Mark Dvoretsky) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 82
Creative Ach ievements of Pupils from the School (Artur Yusupov) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 91

I ndex of Players and Analysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

I ndex of Openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

6
M a rk Dvo rets ky
P reface
Y.ou now have i n you r hands the con­
cludin g, fifth book i n the series School of
Future Champions, based on material from
the Dvoretsky-Yusupov school for ta lented
you ng chess players .
O u r small school fu nctioned for o n l y three
years ( 1 990-1 992 ). Between ten and fifteen
youngsters attended the sessions. Nearly all
of them began studying with us at the age of
1 2- 1 5. I can mention with pride that five
years later eight of our pupils became
grandmasters - some of them very strong
and world-renowned . Here a re thei r names:
Alexey Alexandrov, Vasily Emel i n , l n na
Gaponenko, l lakha Kadymova , Sergey Mov­
sesia n , Ella Pitem, Peter Svidler and Vad i m
Zviagintsev. I am sure that i n t h e n e a r future
Vladimir Baklan and Peter Ki riakov will also
become grandmasters. (They have!- Trans­
lator. ) Hardly any other j u n ior chess school
can boast of such a high 'pass rate'.
I n listi ng the ach ievements of the schoo l , I
nevertheless clearly rea lise that the pupils'
successes have been forged mainly by the
players themselves and their permanent
trai ners. For example, did we have time to
teach much to the futu re three-times Rus­
sian champion Peter Svidler d u ri n g those
th ree ten-day sessions of the school (the
2nd, 4th and 6th ) i n which he partici pated?
Of course, the main components of Svidler's
successes are his enormous talent and the
aid of his splendid trainer Andrey Luki n .
Yusu pov a n d I saw o u r role as being to g ive
an impetus to the fu rther development of the
young players . To help them to understa nd
themselves, their virtues and deficiencies,
and to outl ine plans for the futu re . To
discuss the problems they encou nter i n
chess and t h e ways t o overcome the m . To
demonstrate the m a i n d i rections and meth­
ods of chess i m p rovement. And that is a l l .
Not s o much , b u t also n o t s o l ittle . The
pupils' results confi rm that this was the
correct approach and that on the whole we
solved our objective successfu lly. I nciden­
ta lly, it was at a session of the school that I
advised Peter Svidler to seek Lukin's help.
Our books reflect the same approach . We
have not tried to write textbooks , with a fu l l
and exact coverage o f a pa rticu lar topic.
The a i m was to provide readers with high­
q ua l ity material and a variety of ideas for
i ndependent th i n kin g an d independent work
in the g iven d i rection . Moreover, not only
our own ideas, but also the ideas of other
experts (in particu lar, train ers working to­
gether with us at the schoo l ) . Clea rly, such a
way of presenting the material demands of
the readers a creative (and at times critica l )
attitude t o t h e text b e i n g stud ied an d is not
su itable for those who l i ke ready-made
prescri ptions. To judge by the popula rity of
our books, such a n approach su its very
many players .
Not a l l t h e problems d iscussed i n t h i s book
a re purely chess problems - they lie some­
where between chess and psychology.
Thinking at the board an d the ways of taking
decisions i n a variety of situations - this, i n
brief, is its m a i n content. Many o f the
exa mples offered a re very complicated and
not stra ig htforward , and demand a deep
penetration i nto the positio n , ingenu ity, and
bol d , risky actions. Therefore , compared
with the preced i n g vol u mes, the present
book is less i n structional and more problem­
atic and creative .
 P reface
The a rrangement of the lectu res and arti­
cles i n the different pa rts of the book is to
some extent a rbitra ry, si nce their topics a re
closely interco n nected . For example, the
discussion of the accu rate and deep calcu­
lation of variations i n the fi rst part of the
book is merely a prelude, a n d it will be
conti nued rig ht to the end of the book.
The ca lculation of variations is not every­
th ing - d u ring the cou rse of a game a player
is obliged not only to ca lculate , but also to
guess. The problem of developing i ntuition
has hardly been discussed seriously in
chess l iteratu re . I a m not a professional
psycholog ist and do not claim to have
written anyth in g scientific, but I hope that
my p ractical ideas and recommendations
on this will prove usefu l to the readers .
Many players make t h e serious m i stake of
devoting all their free time excl usively to the
study of ope n i n g theory. After a l l , errors
made in the later stages of play have as
much i nfl uence on resu lts as poor i n itial
organisation of the game. Specific playing
deficiencies which , g iven desire and persist­
ence ca n and should be e l i m i nated , a re
typical of players of any standard . I n order to
emphasise this idea, the book critically
analyses the play not only of youn g masters
and ca ndidate masters , but also of such
top-class g randmasters as Artur Yusu pov
(he does this h i mself in the chapter ' M issed
brilliancy prizes' ) and G arry Kaspa rov.
Open ing theory develops very rapidly and
therefore opening books are sometimes out­
of-date even before they a re publ ished ,
ttJ 7
whereas successfu l observations and con­
clusions rel ating to chess playing i n general
retai n their value for many years . The reader
will be able to see this for h i mself by reading
two a rticles by the Soviet master Beniamin
Blu menfeld , a subtle analyst of chess psy­
chology, which were written several decades
ago. Don't be put off by his writing style,
which is somewhat a rchaic by present-day
standards - it is the a uthor's thoughts that
are most important, and they are still modern .
One of my earlier books School of Chess
Excellence 2 - Tactical Play was devoted to
problems of attack and defence. But these
topics a re inexhaustible and I hope that the
fresh material ana lysed here i n appropriate
chapters will be usefu l to you .
I n the traditional concl uding chapter Yusupov
a n a lyses some ga mes by pupils from the
schoo l . In previous books he mainly fo­
cused on i nstructive mista kes , but this time
the g randmaster decided to demonstrate
some creative ach ievements by the j u n iors .
T h e book concludes with a bri l l iant g a m e by
Vad i m Zviagi ntsev, which the experts judged
to be the best of all those published i n
lnformator No.62. It is extremely rare for
you ng players to have such a n honour
conferred on them, s in ce the opinions of the
j u ry members are strongly influenced by
na mes and titles. I wish our readers the
same com petitive an d creative successes
as those achieved by our best pupils. I hope
that you will be helped by the ideas derived
from the books in the series School of
Future Champions.
8
PART I
The Ca l c u l ati o n of Va ri ati o n s
M a rk Dvorets ky
The Techn ique of sea rchin g for a n d ta kin g
Decisions
W chess? We look for promising possi­
hat do we do th roug hout a game of
bil ities , com pa re the m , calculate variations,
endeavour to neutralise the opponent's
counterplay, and so on. All this is a creative
process - here there are no ready-made
prescri ptions. And yet there are rules and
ways of thinking which somehow help us to
organ ise this process and i ncrease its
rel iabil ity, avoid simple mistakes , save th i n k­
ing time - in short, improve the q ua l ity of the
decisions we ta ke .
Qu ite a lot has been written on this topic.
For example, i n his book Think Like a
Grandmaster Alexa nder Kotov shared his
ideas on the tech n ique of calculating varia­
tions. I would also draw your attention to an
interesting article by Mikhail Krasen kow
included in the present book, and also the
far-from-obsolete a rticles by the Soviet
master Ben iamin Blu menfeld , a subtle re­
searcher into the psychology of chess
thinking .
The problem of contemplating a move has
always i nterested me. Many of my articles
are devoted to it, and also many chapters in
earl ier books . I have made a detailed study
of certa in methods of ta king decisions (for
example, the question of 'prophylactic think­
i n g ' ) , and have covered others only i n very
general terms . I am unable to form ulate a n
accu rate scheme for opti mal th inking a t the
board (I a m sure that i n principle it does not
exist), but I will g ive you certa i n pieces of
advice which , I hope , will come in usefu l i n
futu re com petitions.
You should fi rst try to solve the exa mples
you rself - this will be q u ite good practical
tra i n i n g and at the same time you will gain a
better feeling for the benefit of using the
recommended tech nique for ta king deci­
sions.
The ideas which we will exa m i n e ca n be
a rbitrarily d ivided i nto two pa rts :
1 ) Methods of sea rch ing for a move and
the ca lculation of variations;
2 ) Ways of savi ng time and effort , and
rational th i n king .
The techn i q u e of sea rchi n g for a
m ove a nd the c a l c u l ation of variatio n s
1 . Candidate moves. G ra n d master Kotov
was probably the fi rst to single out this way
of ca lcu lating variations. He recom mended
that you should immediately decide on all
 The Technique of searching for and taking Decisions
the possible candidate moves, do this
not only on the first, but also the sub­
sequent moves, and not only for your­
self, but also for the opponent. If you read
the afore-mentioned article by Krasen kow,
you will see that this ru le (and, however, this
also applies to su bseq uent rules) is by no
means always applicable. N evertheless, for
many situations this is very good advice.
Why is it so importa nt to use the 'candidate
moves' ru le? Fi rstly, it helps you to
organise rationally the analysis of varia­
tions, to accurately pick out those con­
tinuations which should be calculated.
Alexander - Euwe
Notti ngham 1 936
B lack is two pawns up, but the enemy
pieces are very active . The g 7-pawn is
attacked . If he defends it by 33 . . . 'ik b 1 + 34
� g2 'ik g6, then after 35 l:t cd7 d3 36 'it' d5
{36 'ikxa6 ! ? ) Wh ite rega i n s the d-pawn and
soon succeeds i n tra nsposing i nto a d rawn
ending with th ree pawns against two o n one
wing . 33 .. .'i!i' d 5 34 'ii'x d5 .l:txd5 35 .l:t ed7 has
roughly similar conseq uences. The attem pt
to play for an attack with 33 . . . .l:td 5 {hoping
for 34 .l::t x g7? .l:txg7 35 .l:txg7 'ii' b 1 + 36 'it> g2
l:. h5) is refuted by 34 .l:t c8 ! . F i n a l ly, after
33 . . . l:. b8 it is u nfavourable for Wh ite to reply
ctJ g
34 � e4? l hb4 with the th reat of 35 . . . 'ik b 1 + ,
or 3 4 "i/ a7? .l:txb4 35 ll xg7 l:t b 1 + 36 'it> g2
'fi'd 5 + , but 34 "fi c6 ! is perfectly possible
{34 . . . .l::t x b4 35 .l:r.xg7 ! , 34 . . . 'ik b 1 + 35 � g2
'ii' x b4 36 'ii x f6 ! , or 34 . . . d3 35 � g 2 ! ? d2 36
.l:tcd7 ) .
I do n o t t h in k it is s o necessa ry t o calcu late
a l l these variations accu rately - it is suffi­
cient merely to rea l i se that the opponent
reta i n s possibil ities of a defence. The point
is that Black has one more resou rce
ava i l a ble: simply to advance his passed d­
pawn, al lowi ng .l:t xg7, and defend the h7-
point with the queen from b 1 . This is the
most forcing and therefore the most tempt­
i n g path - clearly it is the one that should be
considered fi rst of a l l . It is i m portant to verify
whether or not the opponent has a per­
petual check. If not, then this is what should
be p layed , since here Black gains an
overwhe l min g material advantage. And if it
does not prove possible to avoid perpetual
check, then he can retu rn to a more
thorough study of the other conti n uations.
33 . . . d3!
It is i m porta n t to choose the accu rate move
order. In the event of 33 . . . 'ik b 1 +? 34 'itl>g2 d3
Wh ite acq u i res an additional possibil ity: 35
l:!. cd7 ! d2 36 .l:t xd8 {or even 36 .Uxg7 !? Itxd7
37 l:. xg8+ W xg8 38 't!kc8+) 36 . . . ll xd8 37
'ii' d 7 ! , lead ing to a d raw. But now 34 .l:l. cd7 is
poi ntless, since after 34 . . . d2 the pawn
queens with check.
34l:.xg7 �xg7
35l:.xg7 "fib1+
The next move will be 36 . . . d2. It is here that
one m ust concentrate on determ i n i n g the
ca n d idate moves. Wh ite has two ways of
conti n u i n g his attack: 37 l:t g4 (th reate n i ng
mate on g 7 ) an d 37 'ikf7 {with the idea of 38
l:l.g8+ or 38 :lxh7+). In add itio n , his king can
move to either g2 or h2. Four branches are
obta i ned , and each of them must be
calculated before 33 . . . d3 is played .
We will beg i n with the queen move to f7 .
10 � The Technique of sea rching for and taking Decisions
a) 36 'Ot> h2 d2 37 'iVf7 'ii'f5 ! . Now 38 .Uxh7+ is
not possible, since the rook is captu red with
check, while 38 l::tg 4 is met by 38 . . . 'ii'xf2+ 39
'iti>h3 'iff1 + 40 'Ot> h2 'ii' h 1 +! (or 40 . . . 'ii' e 2+ 4 1
'iti>h3 'i!r'xg4+ ! ).
b) 36 'Ot> g2 d2 37 ii'f7 . Now 37 . . . wt'f5? is bad :
38 .l:txh7+! 'i!Vxh7 39 'ifxf6+ 'if g7 40 'ii'x d8+
and 4 1 'ii'x d2 with two extra pawn s for
White, wh ile 37 . . . d 1 'ii' ? 38 .l:lg8+! l:t xg8 39
'ilkxf6+ leads to perpetual check. Black wins
by interposing the check 37 . . . 'ii e4+ ! . In the
event of 38 'it> h2 'iiff5 we transpose i nto the
previous variation. If 38 f3 the simplest is
38 .. .'i¥ xf3+! 39 <it>xf3 d 1 'ii' + with a rapid
mate , although it is also possible to play
38 .. .'ii' e2+ 39 'it> h3 'ii' f 1 + 40 'Ot> h2 'ii' h 1 + ! 41
'it> xh 1 d 1 'ii' + 42 'it> h2 l:l d2+ (or 42 . . . "ifd2+ 43
'it> g 1 'iVe3+ 44 'it> g2 l:l d2+ 45 'it> h3 'ii' h 6+) 43
'Ot> h3 'ii' h 1 + 44 'it> g4 h5+! 45 'Ot> f4 .l:t d4+ 46
'Ot> e3 'iVg 1 + .
Now let us examine t h e rook move to g4 .
c) 36 'it> g2 d2 37 .l:Ig4 'ii' h 1 + ! 38 'iti> x h 1 d 1 'ii' +
and 39 . . . 'ifxg4 .
d) 36 'Ot> h2 d2 37 l:.g4
The h 1 -square is controlled by the wh ite
queen, and Black fails to win with 37 . . . 'ii'g 1 +?
38 'it> h3! 'ii'f 1 + 39 'it> h4. The only possibility
is 37 . . . 'ii' g 6! 38 l:.xg6 hxg6. Let us verify
whether White can g ive perpetual check
with his lone queen .
39 'if f? d 1 'iV 40 'ii'x f6+ 'it> h7 4 1 'ii' e 7+ (after
41 'iif7 + 'iti> h6 42 'iif4+ 'Ot> g7 43 'ii e 5+ Black
has both 43 . . . 'iti> h7 44 'i!i' e7+ 'iti> h6 - ct.
below, and 43 .. .<it> f7 44 "ii'f4+ 'Ot> g 8 45 ii' c4+
'ilk d 5 ) 41 . . . '0t> h6 42 'if h4+ (42 'ii' e 3+ <it>h 5 ! 43
'ii' e 5+ g 5 , and the checks come to an e n d , or
43 ik e? ik d4 ! ) 42 .. .'ik h 5 , an d the rook
ca nnot be taken beca use the q ueen is
pinned. N ow it is clear that after 36 'it> g2 d2
37 l:r.g4 the reply 37 .. .'i!k g6? is insufficient for
a win - only 37 . . .'ii' h 1 + ! is correct.
It rem a i ns to add that in the game after 36
Wh2 d2 Wh ite resigned .
Thus by determ i n i n g the ca ndidate moves
beforehand we ensure that our calculation
of variations is accu rate an d reliable. But
the 'search function' of this proced u re is
even more i mporta nt. It enables a typical
m i stake to be avoided , one which is repeat­
edly made by nearly al l players - delving
i m mediately i nto the calcu l ation of those
conti n u ations which fi rst come to m i n d . I n
this case some strong poss ibil ities may be
m i ssed , resulting in a mass of time and
effort being spent i n vai n . B y concentrat­
ing on a search for all the available
candidate moves, we sometimes find
resources, the existence of which we ·
initially did not even suspect.
Najdorf - Kotov
M ar del Plata 1 957
 The Technique of search ing for and taking Decisions
It is immediately appa rent that the h7-pawn
can be captu red with check: 21 .ixf6 .ixf6
2 2 �xh7+ 'lt> f8 . Here there is noth i n g to
calculate - it is a matter of assessing the
resulting position . It is not possible to g ive
mate (the bishop on f6 secu rely defends the
kingside), and Black reta i n s some positional
compensation for the lost pawn i n view of
his control of the c-file and the weakness of
the d4-p awn .
Another, more tempti ng conti n uatio n , is 2 1
tt:\ g4 . We easily fi nd the variation 2 1 . . . � xb3?
2 2 ltJxf6+ .ixf6 23 'ii'x h7+ 'it> f8 24 � h8 +!
'l; e? 25 'i!Vxg7 and wins. If 2 1 . . . h6?! there
follows 22 ltJ xh6+, and the captu re of the
knight leads to mate (22 .. .<iii'f8 ! is more
tenacious, although after 23 .i xd5 'it'xd5 24
ltJ g4 ltJg8 25 ltJ e5 Black's position is
difficult).
But we will not jump to con clusions -
candidate moves should be sought not only
for ourself, but also the opponent, and this
mea ns we must check whether we have
taken a l l the defensive resou rces i nto
account. We fi nd the only defence: 2 1 . . . 'it> f8! .
The h7-pawn ca n b e captu red i n various
ways, but noth ing is completely clear. For
example, i n the variation 22 ltJ xf6 � xf6 23
.txf6 'ikxf6 24 'iW xf6 gxf6 25 � xd5 exd5 26
l:txh? 'i.t>g8 the activity of the black rooks on
the open c- and e-files is a con cern .
Of course, no one has g iven us a g u a ra ntee
that we ca n ach ieve more than the win of a
pawn . The knight move to g4 looks very
strong, especially if we notice the possibil ity
after 21 . . . 'it> f8 of conti n u i n g the attack by 22
� h6!? (however, it is stil l an open q uestion
whether it is possible to checkmate the
opponent i n the variation 22 . . . ltJ xg4 23
�xg?+ � xg7 24 'ifxh7+ � f6 25 'if h4+ �f5) .
Nevertheless, after a s lig ht d e l a y (perfectly
excusable - the moves 21 ..i xf6 a n d
especially 2 1 ltJg4 a re really too tempti n g )
let us remember a bout t h e 'ca n d idate
moves' principle and look for new possibili­
ties for Wh ite .
11
It turns out that he has two more ways of
conducting the attack:
a) 21 ..i d 1 (with the idea of 22 � h 5 ) ;
b ) 2 1 .i c2 (with t h e threat o f 22 � xh7+ an d
the key variation 2 1 . . J i xc2 22 � xf6 ..i xf6 23
'ikxh7+ and 24 'i¥xc2 ) .
T h e second w a y is more forci n g , and is the
one which must be checked i n the fi rst
i n sta nce.
2 1 ..ic2 ! ! l:txc2
21 . . . g6 22 ..i xf6 and 21 . . . h6 22 ..i xh6 a re
both bad for Black, while if 2 1 . . . � f8 , then
either 22 � h6! or 22 .ixh7 lLl xh7 23 'ii' h 5 ! is
decisive .
22 �xf6 h6
23 �h5! .ixf6
23 . . . l:t f8 24 � xg7 .
2 4 �xf7+ 'ilti'h7
24 . . . 'it> h8 25 l:t xh6+! gxh6 26 lLl g6 mate .
25 l:txh6+ ! �xh6
26 'ii'g 6 mate
The w i n n i n g combination (poi nted out by
Igor Zaitsev) i m mediately resolves the q ues­
tion a bout the strongest conti n uation of the
attack, and none of the rem a i n i n g conti nua­
tions needs to be an alysed . You see that it
is important not only to determine the
complete list of candidate moves, but
also to establish the optimum order in
which they are considered.
It would have been much simpler to fi nd the
com bination if there had been a n obvious
lack of promising possibilities for Wh ite . But
i n the g iven i n sta nce there were such
poss i b i l ities, and they i m med iately d rew our
attention . In such cond ition s , even if you a re
a n excellent tacticia n , it is easy to m iss the
move 21 .i. c2 ! ! . A well-developed search
tech nique ('candidate moves' ) sign ificantly
improves our chances of success.
But no technique will save a player if he
does not possess sharp combinative
vision. This quality must be trained and
12 � The Technique of search ing for and taking Decisions
developed, by regularly solving appro­
priate exercises.
I n the game M iguel N ajdorf played the
weaker 21 i.d1 ?!. The opponent could
have parried Wh ite's threat by playing h i s
k i n g t o a safer sq uare : 2 1 . . . � f8 ! ( 2 2 i. h5
ltJ e4 ! ), or by defending the weak f7-poi nt
beforehand with 2 1 . . . .l:!. c7! (22 i. h 5 ? ! ltJxh5
23 'iii'x h5? ..t xg5 ) . But Kotov carelessly
repl ied 21 .. 'it'a5?, and after 22 i.h5! The
.
attack beca me i rresistible. There followed
22... .U.ed8 (22 . . . ttJ xh5 23 'ilf xh5; 22 . . . .l:!.f8 23
..t xf6 i. xf6 24 i. xf7+ .l:!. xf7 25 'ir' xh7+) 23
i.xf7+ 'it>f8 24 ..th6! ttJe8 25 "ii'f4 ..tf6 26
i.xg7+ �e727i.xe8i.xg728 .l:l.xh7 Black
resigned .
Dvoretsky - Butnoryus
Dubna 1 970
I had played the open ing stage badly and
now Black could have gai ned an excellent
position with the simple 16 . . . dxc4 ! 1 7 bxc4
ltJ c6 , forcing 1 8 ltJ 4b3 or 1 8 ltJ 4f3 ( 1 8
ttJ xc6? i s bad : 1 8 . . . bxc6 1 9 l:t e2 'i!i'd 3 with
the th reats of 20 . . . 'ili'xh3 and 20 . . . l:!. d 8 ) .
However, th is is not yet a wi n , b ut 'merely'
an excellent position. Black can try for more
by playing his knight to e4 , but then he is
beh ind i n development, and therefore the
consequences must be ca refu lly calculated .
Fortu nately for me, my opponent made h i s
move without checking t h e variations.
16 . . . ttJe4?
It is clear that the exchange has to be
sacrificed ( 1 7 ltJ 4f3? ltJ xd2 1 8 ltJ xd2 dxc4 is
completely bad ), but in what way? If a list of
all the ca ndidate possibilities is establ ished ,
it is not at all d ifficult to fi nd the strongest of
them:
a ) 17 .l:!. xe4 dxe4 18 ttJ xe4 ;
b) 1 7 ttJ xe4 i. xe 1 1 8 'it'xe 1 dxe4 1 9 'ii' x e4 ;
c) 1 7 ttJ xe4 ..t xe 1 1 9 cxd5 .
I n the fi rst two cases one ca n speak only
a bout some compen sation for the lost
exchange, but in the th i rd case a dou ble­
edged position a rises and it is not clear to
which side preference should be give n .
A s you see, sometimes w e look not for
candidate moves, but for candidate pos­
sibilities - short variations, the first
moves of which may coincide.
17 ttJxe4! ..txe1
18 cxd5!
The wh ite pieces dominate in the centre ,
a n d in add ition the d5-pawn prevents the
normal development of the knight at b8.
18 . . . i.b4
1 8 . . . i. a 5 ! ? .
19 ltJf3! l:te8
20 'iid4 i.f8
What does Black want now? Of cou rse, to
bring out his knight to d 7 . Can this be
prevented ?
21 ltJe5! 'ir'b6?!
2 1 . . . ltJ d7? 22 ltJ xd7 'ir' xd7 23 ltJf6+ ! would
have lost i m med iately. 21 .. .f5 came i nto
consideration , but after 22 ltJ g 3 'ir'f6 23 f4
Wh ite would have reta ined the advantage.
22 'ifd3
There is noth in g that Black can move . If
22 . . . ltJ a6, then 23 ltJ d7 an d 24 ltJ f6+ is
decisive.
 The Technique of search ing for and taking Decisions
It should be said that, despite the obvious
virtues of my position , my mood was fa r
from opti mistic. At the tournament of you ng
masters i n Dubna I was playing terri bly
badly, making consta nt oversig hts , which
were explai ned mainly by a lack of self­
control and a q u ite u nj u stified haste i n the
taking of decisions. In the previous game
with one hasty move I had thrown away a
practically w in n ing positi o n , and i n the
present game I had messed u p the ope n i n g .
I t was pure l uck that my opponent had so
cheaply conceded the i n itiative .
'Yes' , I thought, 'I stand wel l , of cou rse, but
I'll probably have a 'fit' and make some
blu nder. Alright, whatever he plays, o n my
reply I will spend at least five m i n utes ! I have
an enormous reserve of time, a n d I should
make use of it.'
After a long th i n k Algis Butnoryus played :
22... f6
I even felt upset. ' It's all clear: I take on g 6 ,
h e develops his k n i g h t on d 7 , a n d t h e n I ca n
have a think. But now, why do I need to
spend these five m i n utes?' But there was
noth ing to be done: I'd g iven my word .
In order not to be bored , I began a n a lysi n g
other possibil ities apart from 23 tt:lxg6
(there you are - candidate moves! ) . And as
a result, after thinking not for five but for
ltJ 13
twenty-five m i n utes , I worked out a w i n n i n g
com b i n ation .
I ncidentally, it was only one of two possible
com b i n ations. The other, perhaps even
more spectacul ar one: 23 tt:lc4 ! 'ii' d 8 24
tt:lxf6+ gxf6 25 'ii' x g6+ .t g7 26 .t xf6 'ii' xf6
27 'ikxe8+ iVf8 28 l:t e 1 with fou r pawns for
the piece, i n fact rem a i ned u n noticed . So
that the candidate moves were neverthe­
less not determ i n ed as well as possible.
2 3 d6! .l:!.xe5?
If 23 .. .fxe5 I was intending 24 tt:l f6+ ! (no win
is apparent after 24 tt:l gS tt:ld7 ) 24 . . . gxf6
(24 . . :lt> f7? 25 tt:lxe8 'it> xe8 26 'ikxg6+ 'it> d8
27 'ii' g S+ ! ) 25 'it xg6+ 'it> h8 26 'ikxe8 'ii' x d6
27 ll c 1 'it e7 28 'i!Vc8 . Black is tied hand and
foot, but it is not easy for Wh ite to make
progress . After 28 . . . 'it> g8 (defending against
g4-g 5 ) he does not have 29 l:t c7? because
of 29 . . . tt:l a6. Even so, objectively Black's
position remain s d ifficult, as is shown by the
fol lowi n g variation: 29 l:t d 1 aS (what else?)
30 .t c1 ! (of cou rse , not 30 .l:td8? tt:l c6 ! )
3 0 . . . ik c5 (the th reat was 3 1 .i. h6 a n d 32
.t xf8 ; if 30 . . . 'it> f7 Wh ite has both 31 .i. a 3 ! ?
tt:lc6 ! 32 'ii' x a8 'ii'x a3 33 'it xb7+ tt:le7 34
'ii' e 4 with advantage, an d also the u n h u rried
31 .t e3 ! ) 31 'ii' e 6+ 'it> g7 32 .i. h6+! 'it> xh6 33
11¥xf6+ 'it> h7 34 'ikf7+ .i. g7 (34 . . . 'it> h8 35
.l:!. d 8 ; 34 . . . 'iii' h 6 35 h4) 35 'ii'f S+ 'it> g8 36
l:!. d8+ .t f8 37 'ii' g 6+ 'it> h 8 38 'ikf7 .
24 .i.xe5 fxe5
25 'iVc4+ 'it>h7
26 'i!Vc8 1i'd4
26 . . . .t xd6 27 tt:lgS+ with mate .
27tt:lg5+
I n his joy Wh ite also conceives a rook
sacrifice . And although this leads to a forced
mate , in principle such a 'combi nation for
the sake of a combin ation' (an expression of
g ra n d master Vlad i m i r Pavlovich S i m ag i n )
hardly meets with approva l . After a l l , the
elementa ry 27 l;ie 1 (with the th reats of 'ikxf8
a n d 'ii' x b7) would have forced Black to
14 � The Technique of search ing for and taking Decisions
resig n . The best way to the goal is always
the simplest way!
27. . . 'iot>h6
28 l"Llf7+ 'iti>h7
29 'il'xf8 'ir'xa1 +
30 'iot>g2 l"Llc6
31 'it'xa8 g5
32 l"Llxg5+ 'iot>g6
33 'it'e8+ !
Black resig ned .
2. What might I not have seen? Some­
ti mes during the calculating process a
search again has to be made for ca ndidate
moves (sometimes we simply forget to
determine them at the right time, and also
there is not always confidence that the l ist of
possibil ities found is exhaustive ) . If the
variations are not working out i n your favou r,
it makes sense to go back and ask you rself:
'What else can there be in the position ; what
idea might I not have noticed?' A similar
additional check, but this time search ing for
resou rces for the opponent, is worth carry­
ing out if the prospects , by contrast, seem
too rosy. Try as often as possible to cast
off the burden of variations calculated
earlier and look at the position with new
eyes. Such a method often gives excel­
lent results.
There is another aspect to this ru le. Don't
be in a hurry to go too deeply into your
calculations. If problems arise, demand­
ing a deep verification, don't be in a
hurry to start this. First ask yourself how
essential it is, and whether it is possible
to improve your earlier play or that of the
opponent. New ideas at the start of a
variation are far more important than
subtleties at the end, which have far less
of an influence on the play.
I once invited Artur Yusupov to try and solve
the followi ng study.
A. Wotawa
1 938
Yusu pov thought for a long time, u nsuc­
cessfu lly trying to fi nd a saving l i n e for Wh ite
in the labyrinths of the d ifficult rook end­
game.
'Stop calcu lati n g ! ' I said to h i m fi nal ly. ' Look
at the position and think what you m ight not
have seen here . '
Artu r i mmed iately found t h e solution .
fxe4
1 e4!!
2 'iti>g7 .l::th5
3 'lti>g6 .l::te5
4 'iti>f6 l:te8
5 'iti>f7
The king makes a perpetual attack on the
rook.
3. Should you check your calcu lations?
Another of Kotov's principles - that you
should go through each of the branches of
the 'calculation tree' only once - is d u bious,
i n my view. This is possible only for the
purely tech n ical checki ng of variations, but
we are not only calculati ng them , but also at
the same time looki ng for the strongest
moves. They do not always come to m i n d
i m med iately, and sometimes this is i n
pri nciple not possible, without a prel i m i n a ry
 The Technique of search ing for and ta king Decisions
analysis of the position . Suppose that the
variations do not work because of some
detail, and here it dawns o n u s that an
apparently pointless i ntermediate move can
be included , adding this deta i l .
F. Bondarenko, A I . Kuznetsov
1 977
How to stop the enemy pawn? In the event
of 1 � d5 i. xd7 2 a5 Black has time to play
his bishop to f3 : 2 . . . i. b5 3 'it> b7 i. e2 4 a6
�f3 5 � xf3 gxf3 6 a7 h 1 l'i with the
advantage. I nterposin g the check 1 � d5+
(with the idea of 1 . . . Wg6? 2 � d6+ a n d 3
�d5) wi ll be met by 1 . . .f5! 2 � xf5+ <;t>g 6 . For
example: 3 .U h5 Wxh5 4 i. d 5 i. xa4 fol­
lowed by the bishop manoeuvre to f3 , or 3
�d5 �xf5 4 a5 'it> e5 5 i. b7 i. f7 6 a6 i. d 5 ,
and Black wins.
There only remains 1 � d 1 , but then 1 ... i. xa4!
2 .l::!. c 1 i. c6+ 3 'it> b8 h 1 'i!&' with a d rawn
bishop end i n g .
T h i s is apparently t h e best available to
Wh ite , but only appare ntly. Let's not be in a
hu rry to agree a d raw, but try to devise
someth i n g . Here , of cou rse, we have to use
our imag i n atio n , but our accu rately per­
formed prepa ratory calculating work will
also be used .
15
We will fin d the solution if we t h in k about 3
.l:!. xc6 (instead of 3 W b8) i n the last variatio n .
U nfo rtu nately, it do es n o t work, but the idea
can be i mproved .
1 �d5+ !! f5
We a l ready know that this is the only move .
2 .Ud1 ! i.xa4
Here too , as we establ ished in our prelimi­
n a ry calculation , Black has n o choice - if the
a4-pawn is left al ive, Wh ite easily wins the
bishop endgame.
3�c1 i.c6+
4 .Uxc6! h1�
5 i.f7 + �g5
6 f4+ ! gxf3
7�g6+ Wh5
8 .l:!.g8+ �h6
9 .Uh8+
Thus it is not often that one consistently has
to calculate one variation after a nother right
to the end. I recommend a nother order of
action . After deciding on the range of
candidate moves, first make a rapid
appraisal - check them superficially. The
preliminary conclusions will almost cer­
tainly come in useful in the subsequent
calculation. Possibly you will be able to
assess how promising this or that con­
tinuation is, and establish a rational
order of the subsequent analysis. Per­
haps (as, for example, in the N ajdorf-Kotov
game) one move will prove so strong,
that the others will simply not have to be
calculated.
4. Register the results of your calcula­
tions, and end the variations with a
definite conclusion. Sometimes an abso­
l utely clear concl usion is needed , such as
we made when an alysing the move 33 . . . d3!
i n t he Alexander-Euwe game. There the
exact result (wi n or d raw) had to be
establ ished - term inating the calculation
half way with the concl usion 'u nclear' would
16 � The Technique of search ing for and taking Decisions
have prevented the correct decision from
being reached .
But an exact evaluation is by no means
always req u ired . For example, you come to
the conclusion that a position is reached by
force , but it is d ifficult to evaluate -
additional calculation is req u i red . If it will be
necessa ry, you can ca rry it out later, d i rectly
from the critical position , without repeating
work that has been done earl ier. This is the
point of reg istering in you r mind the conclu­
sions on variations that have a l ready been
studied.
5. Prophylactic th inking. Often it is
useful to begin considering a position
with the question: 'What does the oppo­
nent want; what would he play if it were
him to move?'
Readers who are fam ili a r with my earl ier
books will probably need no convi ncing
about the exceptional value of the a b i l ity to
th ink prophylactically. Even so, I will g ive
one more example.
Lerner - Lukin
USSR 1 977
What does Black want? The advance of the
f-pawn will only weaken his position . It is fa r
better to include his bishop in the play via c8
or b7. For this he must first defend h i s knight
by . . . b6-b5 .
I n this way we fi nd the solution of the
position for Wh ite .
2 1 a4!
Th reate n i n g , a mong other things, 22 ..t f1 . If
2 1 ... b5 there follows 22 i.:f1 ! (22 axb5
i.:xb5 23 i.:f1 is also not bad ) 22 ... ii.c8
(22 . . . l:f.c8 loses after 23 tt::l d 4 tt::l x e5 24 f4
tt::l x g4 25 .l:lxe7) 23 iff4 a6 24 i.:xc4 bxc4
25 'ili'xc4, and Wh ite emerges a pawn u p .
T h e q uestion a rises , is it n o t possible to
reach the same position by playing 2 1 i.:f1
(and if 2 1 . . . b5, then 22 a4)? Which move
order is more accu rate? Here we have to
concentrate on a search for resou rces for
the opponent. We will probably g ive prefer­
ence to the pawn move after in reply to 2 1
..t f1 we discover the u nexpected sortie
21 . . . 'if a 3 ! .
I n t h e g a m e Konstantin Lerner did n o t t h i n k
about prophylaxis, an d simply played 2 1
l:t ad 1 ? ! . H i s opponent repl ied 2 1 . . . b5 ! , not
fearing 22 .l:f.d7 i.:c8 ! 23 l:t xe7 (23 e6 i.:xd7
24 exd7 'ili' xe 1 + 25 tt::l x e 1 .l:t xe 1 + 26 i.:f1
.l:. d8) 23 . . . ..t xg4 24 l:t xa7 i.:xf3 25 i.:xf3
tt::lx e5 with approximate eq ual ity.
6. What is the drawback to the oppo­
nent's move? If the opponent makes an
unexpected move which is uncomfort­
able for you, ask yourself this question.
A logical answer sometimes helps you to
understand where to look for a chink in
the opponent's idea, and how best to
combat it.
C iocaltea - Li berzon
Netanya 1 983
(see diagram)
 The Technique of searching for and taking Decisions ttJ 17

Th reate n i ng 1 9 'it' h 5 an d 20 tt::l g 6 mate.

18 . . . g6?!
1 8 . . . .l:r.f6 is better. N ow the a 1 -h8 diagonal is
weakened . How can Wh ite exploit this?
19 c4! d4
1 9 . . . dxc4? is not possible on account of 20
.i. xc6 . Having forced the opponent to seal
the queenside, Wh ite has freed his hands for
active play on the kingside. H i s advantage is
now und isputed .
20 'ike2 tt::lb6 21 b3 .l::!.be8 22 'iff2 tt::lc8 23
.i.f3 l:.xe1 24 .l:!.xe1 J:!.e8 25l:be8 'ii'xe8 26
g4! li::ld6 27gxf5 tt::lxf5 (27 . . . gxf5 came i nto
16 . . . .U.ab8 consideratio n , i ntendin g 28 'if g2 tt::l b4 ! 29
Let us apply 'p rophylactic th i n king' and ask 'ii' h 3 li::lx d3 30 tt::l xf5 tt::l xf5 31 �xf5 �g6 32
ourselves what Black wants . Obviously, to 'if g4 1Vf6 ) 28 .i.e4 tt::le3 ? (28 . . . tt::l c e7 was
play . . . b7-b5 and press on the b2-paw n . more tenacious) 29 .i.xc6! bxc6 30 tt::le4
How ca n th is be prevented? tt::lg4?! 31 'ii'g2 tt::lh6 32 'ii'g5 'ii'f8 33 'ikxc5
17.l:!.c1 ! 'ifxc5 34 tt::lxc5 Black resig ned .

Now if 1 7 . . . b5 there follows 1 8 axb5 .l:r.xb5 1 9

.l:r. c2 . Then the bishop will go to c1 , secu rely 7. What do I wa n t to achieve? Also a
u sefu l q uestion . Clarify your aims: do you
defending the pawn, and the rook will switch
want to exchange a couple of pieces,
to the open file, to e2. An excellent idea!
seize an important square, prevent some
Let us now consider for B lack what may be a
active possibility of the opponent, or
minus feature of the opponent's pla n . With
something else? A logical analysis of the
the rook on c2 there is . . . d 5-d4 with the
position may suggest the direction for
threat of . . . .i. b3. However, Wh ite replies c3-
further calculation.
c4; the sealing of the q ueenside is probably
to his advantage.
Kotkov - Dvoretsky
There is a nother d rawback: after .l:r. c2 the
a4-pawn is vul nerable. How can this factor Moscow Championship 1 972
be exploited? If we refrai n from . . . b7-b5, the
rook is doing noth ing on b8. 1 7 . . . .l:r. be8
suggests itself, and if 1 8 .l:r.c2 - 1 8 . . . li::ld 8 ! .
And if Wh ite tries 1 8 .i. e3 b6 1 9 .l:!. c2? , then
our fi rst idea goes i nto operation : 1 9 . . . d4!
(with gain of tempo) and then . . . .i. b3.
17. . . tt::l c8?!
Another way of attacki ng a4 ( 1 8 ll c2 tt::l b 6),
but a less successfu l one. What is the
drawback of Black's move? The knight
moves away from the kingside, where it was
needed for defence .
18 tt::lg 5!
18 w The Technique of search ing for and ta king Decisions
Black is a sound pawn to the good . It is
tempti ng to beg in active play i m mediately
with 54 . . . .l:t a3+. This move is probably good
enough to win , but even so it seemed
unmethod ical to me. The black king is stuck
on the edge of the board and for the moment
is not taking part in the play. Here is a sample
(althoug h , of cou rse, not forced) variation , in
which this factor tells: 55 'it> d2 ttJ xd4? 56
tLl xd4 l:.d3+ 57 'it> c2 .ll x d4 58 l:t e 1 !, and it is
Wh ite who wins.
Black would l ike fi rst to bring his king closer,
so that if necessary it ca n support the c­
pawn or stop the enemy e-pawn . Therefore I
began checki ng the exchange of rooks .
54... .l:tb5!
If 55 .l:. a 1 +, then 55 . . .'.it b7 - the king has
approached the centre , whereas Black will
always have the check along the 3rd ra n k .
T he onl y question is what happens if the
opponent exchanges on b5 and then cap­
tures the d5-pawn with his knight. Try to fi nd
the answer. Moreover, this answer should
be convincing and comparatively straight­
forward . The i n itial position is too good for
Black, for him to afford the slig htest risk.
55 .l:.xb5 �xb5
56 tbc3+ �b4
57tLlxd5+ �b3
58 e6
I n the event of 58 'it> d2 ttJ xd4 the outcome is
obvious. Now 58 . . . tbe7!? is possible, but
first it is better to examine a more forcing
conti nuation - the win of the knight.
58.. . c3
'it>xc3
59 tbxc3
60 d5
After qu ickly reach ing this position in my
calcu lations, I experienced a moment of
fright, since I cou ldn't see how to stop the
pawns. 'But where should my knight go to?'
Of cou rse, to d6, and if possible with g a i n of
tempo. The route for it i m mediately beca me
clear.
60... tba5!
61 e7 tbc4+
62 �e2 tLld6
This entire episode is also in structive as
rega rds the tech nique of converting a n
advantage. It is clearly more comfo rtable
playing with the king on b7. S i n ce the
opponent does not have the right to ex­
change rooks , by choosi n g 54 . . . .l:!. b5 Black
makes l ife easier for h i mself. For the sake of
this it is worth exerting you rself an d calculat­
i n g a forcing variatio n , especially if you a re
able to do this q u ickly and accu rately (the
calculation took me a bout th ree m i n utes). I
th i n k that now the fol lowi ng idea will become
clearer: good technique is largely based
on concise and accurate tactical play.
It only remain s to show how the game
concl uded .
54..
. .l:tb5! 55 l:Ia1 + �b7 56 'it>f2 l:tb2 57
�e3 l:.b3+ 58 �f2 .:f.b2 59 �e3 .l:tb3+ (the
sealed move) .
Another element i n t h e conversion tech­
nique - i n w in n in g positions you should not
force events before the adjournment of the
game. However, with the switc h i n g to time
controls without adjournments , natu rally
this rule has lost its sign ifica nce.
60 'lt>f2 h4 61 e6 �c7 (th is is where the
conseq uences of Black's 54th move a re
felt! ) 62 .l:ta8 h3 63 l:.g8 tbe764 l:th8 �d6
65 tLlg1 c3 66 �e3 c2 + (another way was
66 . . . .l:. b 1 67 tbe2 h2 68 l:t xh2 c2 69 �d2
cHW+ 70 tb xc1 l:. b2+) 67�d2 .l:lg3! (but not
67 . . . ll b 1 ? 68 tbe2 h2 69 tLl c1 !) Wh ite
resigned .
Let us now turn to another, no less wel l
stud ied aspect o f t h e tech nique o f ta king
decisions.
 The Technique of searching for and taking Decisions
Principles of rational, economic
thinking
First, the most general ru le. When you are
thinking about your move, your objec­
tive is not to calculate all the variations
to the end and obtain an exhaustive
impression of the position. You have
only one objective: to take the correct
decision, to make the best move. Try, as
far as possible, to minimise the expendi­
ture of time and energy. You should
calculate only the minimum number of
variations needed for the taking of the
correct decision.
How ca n this be ach ieved? Here a re a few
considerations.
1. With what to beg i n the calcu lation? In
Krasenkow's article you will fi nd some
interesting ideas about th i s , although some­
times they d iffer from my recom mendations.
You have the right to choose those which
seem to you to be more correct.
If there is a tem pti ng conti n uatio n , forcing
the play, the n , of cou rse , it makes sense to
beg in your calcu lation with it (as, for
example, in the analysis of the Alexa nder­
Euwe game). Generally speaking, it is
advisable to immediately begin consid­
ering forcing moves, such as exchanges,
win of material or, on the contrary,
sacrifices. It is often easier to calculate a
specific variation than to assess the
consequences of a quiet continuation.
I was once chatting with M i khail Kats , a
fa mous d raug hts trai ner, who had prepa red
a whole constellation of lady world champi­
ons. He told me that he tra i n s his pupils i n
the fi rst insta nce t o check a l l possible piece
sacrifices . As a result, it is extremely ra re for
them to miss unexpected combinations.
If you sense that a combinative idea you
have found is probably correct, it makes
sense first to examine the opponent's
CtJ 19
weakest replies (again remember the
Alexa nder-Euwe game: this was the order
i n which we operated , when studying the
position after Black's 35th move) . After
q u ickly checki ng the s i mplest variations and
thereby restricting the extent of the calcula­
tion , perhaps red ucing it to j u st one or two
d i rections, it is then psycholog ically easier
to concentrate al l you r efforts on the m . You
will a l ready know for s ure that the opponent
has noth ing else.
But if you suspect that the combination
does not work, immediately concentrate
on the best defence. If it refutes the
combinatio n , this is sufficient, and the
opponent's other resou rces do not h ave to
be stud ied .
Obviously, these recommendations a re not
set i n stone. Va rious situations arise, and
sometimes you have to act q u ite d ifferently
in them . But as a g u ideline, appl icable to the
majority of cases, these pieces of advice
m a ke sense .
2. ' Emergency exit'. Here I will not g ive any
exa mples, but will simply exp l a i n the idea .
S u ppose that a complicated position has
arise n , and it is u nclear whom it favou rs .
After beg i n n ing t h e ca lculation o f a compli­
cated combin atio n , you notice that at some
point you ca n , if you wish , force perpetual
check, or, say, an equal endgame. You h ave
the right to stop here an d decide - very wel l ,
I ' l l g o i n for the combin ation ! I have a
perpetual check, and there are also some
attacking possibilities. I will not bother to
calculate them - this ca n be done l ater, and
at the worst I will force a d raw.
The 'emergency exit' , enabling you to avoid
the prel i m i n a ry calculation of the most
critical conti n uatio n , does not necessa rily
have to be a forced d raw. It is sufficient to
notice for you rself the possibil ity at some
point of making a move , even a second-rate
one, but one which accord i n g to you r
20 � The Technique of searching for and taking Decisions
assessment is nevertheless q uite accept­
able. A few moves later it will be far easier
for you to decide whether to go i n for the
main va riation , or satisfy you rself with the
'minimum wage' .
3. The method of e l i m i nation. Often it is
not necessary to make an accurate
calculation of the intended continuation;
it is sufficient merely to satisfy yourself
that it makes sense, it cannot be immedi­
ately refuted, the remaining moves are
bad and all the same you have nothing
better. In this way you can sometimes
save a mass of time and energy. Players
someti mes forget about th is method of
choosing a move or do not use it properly.
I n 1 973-75 I worked with Va lery Chekhov,
preparing h i m for the world j u nior champion­
ship. We devoted a lot of attention to
improvi ng his method of taking decisions,
and in particu lar on saving thinking time (at
that time Chekhov i nvariably used to get i nto
ti me-trouble). An i nstructive episode oc­
cu rred in one of our tra i n i n g games.
Dv o retsky - Chekhov
Moscow 1 974
Reti Opening
1 lbf3 lbf6
2 g3 g6
3 b3 �g7
4 � b2
It was no accident that Valery asked me to
employ th is particular variation (the theory
of which I did not then know). This was how
Alexander Kochiev, his main riva l in the
forthcoming e l i m ination tou rnament, l i ked to
play with Wh ite . It should be said that,
although apparently u n p retentious, such
opening set-ups are q u ite venomous. If
Black does not have a clear plan, he can
qu ickly end up i n a strateg ically d ifficult
position - it is sufficient to com m it a couple
of i mperceptible i naccuracies.
This is what h appened , for example, i n the
very i mportant game Yusu pov-Za pata ,
played i n the 1 977 World J u n ior Champion­
s hi p i n l n n sbruck. The Col u m b i a n Alonso
Zapata played splendidly i n the second half
of the tou rnament (6 poi nts out of 7) and
won the silver med a l . The only defeat that
he suffered towards the fi nish was against
the future cha mpion . But see how easily
Yusu pov gai ned this wi n .
4 . . .d 6 5 d 4 0-0 6 �g2 lbbd7 (if Black is
intending . . . e7-e 5 , it is better to play this
i m mediately, and to answer 7 dxe5 with
7 . . lt.J
. fd 7) 7 0-0 e5?! (7 . . . 1::!.e 8 ! ? ; 7 . . . c6 ! ? ) 8
dxe 5lt.Jg4 9 lbc3 dxe5 (9 . . lt.J. gxe5 is better)
1 0 tt:Jd2 l:!.e8 (if 1 O .. .f5 there would have
followed 1 1 e4 , but this would possibly have
been the lesser evi l ) 1 1 lbc4 lb b6 1 2 lbxb6!
cxb6 ( 1 2 . . . axb6 1 3 'i:Vxd8 l:t xd8 1 4 l:t fd 1 ,
and 1 4 . . . l:t e8 is not possible because of 1 5
tt:J d 5 ) 1 3 �xd8 l:txd8 1 4 l:t ad1 � f5 (it is
a l ready hard to offer Black any good advice)
1 5 �xb7 l:tab8 1 6 e4 �d7 1 7 � d5, an d
subsequently Wh ite converted h i s extra
pawn .
4. . . 0-0
Sometimes even such a natu ral move as
castl ing can turn out to be a loss of time. The
most accu rate move order is 4 . . . d6! (i ntend­
ing 5 . . . e5) 5 d4 c5! . The point is that Wh ite
has to reckon seriously with 6 . . . cxd4 7 lb xd4
d5, and after 6 c4 it is possible to play either
6 . . . cxd4 7 lt.Jxd4 d5 8 � g2 dxc4 , or 6 . . . lb e4
with the u n pleasant threat of 7 . . . � a5+ (if the
moves 4 . . . 0-0 5 � g2 a re i ncluded , Wh ite
can simply castle here). Also, noth in g is
g iven by 6 dxc5 'i:Va5+ 7 tt:J bd2 'ii xc5
(th reatening 8 . . lt.J
. g4; bad is 8 a3 0-0 9 � g2
lt.Jg4! 1 0 lb e4 tt:J xf2 ! ! ) 8 � d4 'i:V h5 (8 . . . 'ii c7
is also good ) 9 � g 2 lb c6 1 0 .lt b2 � h 3 .
Another version o f t h e s a m e i d e a is 4 . . . c5!
(th reatening 5 . . . d5) 5 c4 d6! (i ntending
6 . . . e5) 6 d4 lt.Je4 ! .
5 ..ll. g 2 c5
 The Technique of search ing for and ta king Decisions
6 c4 l2Jc6
7 0-0 d6
In such positions . . . e7-e5 is a n u n pleasant
positional threat, since the bishop at b2 is
shut out of play. It can be activated only by
e3-e3 and d2--d4, but this is d ifficult to carry
out.
8 d4 l2Je4
9 l2Jbd2
The game Korch noi-G i igoric ( U S S R v. Yu­
goslavia Match 1 956) went 9 e3 i. g4 1 0
'i' c1 i.xf3 1 1 i. xf3 l2J g 5 1 2 i. xc6 bxc6 1 3
dxc5 dxc5 1 4 i. xg7 � xg7 1 5 f4 l2J e4 1 6
tt:J c3 ( 1 6 ifc2 was stronger) 1 6 . . .'i!f d 3 with
equal ity.
9 . . . i. f5
In the event of 9 . . . l2J xd2 ? ! 1 0 'ii' x d2 ( Keres­
Szabo, Hasti ngs 1 954/55 ) the p i n o n the
a1-h8 d iagonal is e l i m i n ated , and Wh ite
aims to gain a spatial adva ntage by d4-d 5 .
1 0 l2Jh4 ! ?
T h e knight on e 4 is attacked . How would
you conti nue as B lack? What position would
you go i n for?
Sharp attem pts such as 1 O . . . d5? 1 1 cxd5
'i' xd5 1 2 g4 or 1 O . . . l2J g5?! 1 1 l2J xf5 gxf5 1 2
e3 (with the idea of 'ii' h 5 ) a re obviously
inferior. 1 O . . . l2Jf6? is also bad - the seizu re
of space by d4-d5 ( i mmed iately or after the
ltJ 21
exchange on f5) secu res Wh ite a positional
advantage. This mea n s that there rema in s
only 1 0 . . . l2J xd2 .
When I played 1 0 l2J h4, I was i ntending to
consider whether it was possible to spoil the
black pawn s by i nterposing the exchange
o n f5 . S u ppose the compl ications after 1 1
l2J xf5 l2J xf1 1 2 l2J xg7 should prove to be i n
my favou r thanks t o t h e strong bishop on b2.
But, of cou rse, I did not bother to calculate
the variations beforehand an d I merely
satisfied myself that the simple 1 1 'ifxd2
was q u ite possible ('emergency exit' ! ) .
Generally speaki n g , t h e idea o f 1 1 l2J xf5
looks dubious, a n d , as we h ave a l ready
mentioned , this means that we should
i m med iately con centrate on looki ng for the
s i mplest refutation . Don't be i n a h u rry to
study the position where Black is the
exchange u p (even if it is i n his favou r after
1 2 . . . cxd4 ! ) - fi rst ask you rself the q uestion
a bout candidate moves. I saw the reply
1 1 . . . l2J xc4 ! , with which Black reta ins a sound
extra pawn , and I immediately termi nated
my calculation .
Thus 1 1 'ii' x d2 is forced . Most probably the
opponent should not allow d4--d5 (although
1 1 . . . i. d7 is i n fact possible). He has to
choose between 1 1 . . . cxd4 1 2 l2J xf5 gxf5 1 3
i. xc6 bxc6 1 4 Ji.xd4 an d 1 1 . . . l2J xd4 1 2 l2J xf5
l2J xf5 1 3 i. xb 7. Which of these positions is
preferable for Black? Here it is not calcula­
tion that is req u i red , but a correct positional
assessment.
I th i n k that the second conti n uation is
correct. Wh ite will have to lau nch a n attack
on the king side by h2-h4-h5 or possibly f2-
f4-f5 . But the chances of such a n attack
succeed in g a re d u bious - there a re not
many pieces left on the board . At the same
time Black is ready for a n i mmed iate
cou nterattack on the queenside by the
advan ce of his a-paw n . Objectively the
chances here a re roughly equ a l .
T h e captu re on d 4 with t h e pawn is less
22 � The Technique of searching for and taking Decisions

good , since pawn wea knesses a re created point you spend too much time and energy,
in Black's position . Wh ite's su perior pawn you do not h ave sufficient for the solvi n g of
structu re guarantees h i m a slight but endu­ subseq uent problems.
ing advantage. 16 'ii'f4 'it'd?
But what happened i n the ga me? After I 1 7 l1ad 1
played 1 0 tt::l h4, Chekhov sank i nto thought. Threate n i n g 1 8 .l:. d5 with t h e w i n o f a pawn .
For a couple of m i n utes I checked the
17 . . . 'ii' e 6
consequences of 1 O . . . tt::l x d2 1 1 tt::l xf5 . The n ,
1 8 l:tfe1
having convinced myself ( i n h i s time ! ) that
this could not be played , I simply began The opponent has to reckon not only with
strolling arou nd - after a l l , there was .l:td 5 , but also with the open in g of l i nes: e2-
noth ing more to th i n k about, and it was my e4 . If 1 8 . . . 'iif6 there follows 1 9 .l:!. d5 e5 20
opponent who faced a choice. 'ii' d 2 (from this variation it is u nderstandable
why 1 8 e3?! would have been less accu­
Ten m i n utes passed , then a fu rther ten
rate) .
m i n utes, and I beg an to g row slig htly
i rritated . What was he th i n ki n g a bout? By 18 . . . f6
the method of elimination it is not d ifficult to
establish that the exchange of knig hts is
obligatory - why then waste time?
10 . . . tt::l x d2
11 'ii'x d2
Obviously I made my move i nstantly, after
which Chekhov again sank i nto thought for
some twenty-five m i n utes . Apparently he
had still not come to a defi n ite concl usio n , or
else new doubts had a risen and he again
began trying to solve a problem over which
he had racked his brains earlier.
It stands to reason that to spend a l most a n
hour on a not very complicated problem was
pure wastefu l ness. And also he did not 1 9 .l:!.d5
solve it i n the best way. This previously plan ned move , w i n n i n g a
11 . . . cxd4? ! paw n , I made without t h in k in g, and this was
a m i sta ke . Stronger was 1 9 e4 ! fxe4 20
1 2 tt::l xf5 gxf5
l:t xe4 Wf7 (20 . . . 'ii' d 7 21 'ii' e 3 with two
1 3 i.xc6 bxc6
th reats : 22 .l:!. xe7 an d 22 'if xc5 ) 2 1 1i' g4+
14 i.xd4 i.xd4?! 'it> h8 22 'ii' d 7 .
14 . . . e5 1 5 i. b2 'ii' e 7 was preferable. 19 . . . a5?
15 'ikxd4 c5? 1 9 .. .'jj' e 4 20 l:l xf5 'ik xf4 21 .l:!. xf4 a5 was
Now Black's position becomes d ifficu lt. H e more tenacious. In the endgame the ad­
should have chosen between 1 5 . . . 'ii' d 7, vance of the a-pawn promises Black some
i ntending . . . e7-e5, and 1 5 . . . e6, preparing cou nterplay. But i n the middlegame it is of
. . . d6-d5. However, weak play on the pa rt of l ittle use - in reply Wh ite launches an attack
my opponent was not surprising - if at some on the king.
 The Technique of search ing for and ta king Decisions l2J 23

20 l:lxf5 a4 I n the 3rd pa rt of the book Schoo/ of Chess

21 e4 axb3 Excellence 1 - Endgame Analysis I de­
22 axb3 l:.fb8 scribed an i nteresti ng form of tra i n i n g - the
playing of studies. In this way you can
23 .l:te3
develop you r imagination and tech nique of
Wh ite has a strateg ically won position . H e calculating variations, a n d , in particular,
intends to op e n l i nes on the k i n g s i d e by g3- learn to make skilful use of the method of
g4-g 5. e l i m i nation .
After the game I, natural ly, asked C hekhov
what he was th i n king a bout for so long on
the 1 Oth move .
H . Kas parian
'What do you mea n ' , he repl ied , ' I was
1 950
choosi n g what to do next . '
' But wasn't 1 O . . . tt:Jxd2 forced?'
'Yes. '
'After making it, was there a n y risk that you
could lose qu ickly?'
'No. '
'Well the n , make a move a n d then t hi n k
later, whe n you a re i ndeed at the cross­
roads . It is far easier to choose if the
position is a l ready on the board - there is
less l i keli hood of an oversight. Besides, on
the way it is possible that you will also be
able to th i n k d u ring my time - if you had
captu red on d2 i m mediately, I would stil l
have h a d t o check 1 1 tt:Jxf5 . '
It is u n l i kely that the wh ite knight will escape
I t was strange, but a t t h e time these ideas a l ive from the tra p . The attem pt to save it
were n ew to C hekhov; he was completely with the help of the bishop is easily parried :
unfamiliar with ways of saving time, such as 1 .i. d5? tt::l f4 (not i m mediately 1 . . . e6? 2 e5+
the method of e l i m i n atio n . However, such a or 2 .i. xe6 'iti>xe6 3 tt::l g 6) 2 .i. c4 e6 3 � g3
mistake in th i n king is very com m o n , a n d it is .i. d6 and 4 . . . � g 7 . It looks tempti ng to play 1
repeated by many players. � xh3 � g7 ( 1 . . . .i. g7 2 e5+) 2 � g4 tt::l f6+ 3
A n a nalysis of the typical m i stakes made by � f5 , but Black can react far more strongly:
Chekhov in the taking of decisions helped 1 . . . tt:Jf4+ 2 � g4 e5! followed by . . . .i. g 7 .
us al most to e l i m i nate his previously typical Here Wh ite has no chances a t a l l .
wild time scra m bles and to g reatly i m p rove What then can he d o ? O n l y 1 e 5 + � g7 offers
his practical playing strength . In the follow­ some hope , and now either 2 .i. f3 tt::l f4 3
ing year, 1 975, he successfully came through 'iti>g3, or 2 � xh3 � xh8 3 � g4 tt:Jg7 4 � g 5 ,
the qual ifying events a n d then won the trying t o exploit t h e tempora ry l a c k of
esteemed title of world j u n ior champion . h a rmony i n the placing of the opponent's
pieces . Of course, we must q u ickly d iscover
little traps which make l ife easier for us i n
certa i n variations, for example: 2 � xh3
24 � The Technique of search ing for and taking Decisions

lt:Jf4+ 3 � g4 lt:J d3 4 lt:J g6! or 3 . . . lt:J e6 4 lt:J f7 !

� xf7 5 i. d5 with a d raw.
Thus our fi rst move is clear.
1 e5+ 1 � g7
What now? After 2 i. f3? lt:Jf4 3 � g3 the
black knight acq u i res the additional square
g2. After 3 . . . lt:J g2! 4 � xh3 lt:J e3 the defen­
sive resou rces are exhausted . Black also
wins by 3 . . . lt:Je6 4 lt:J f7 � xf7 5 i. d 5 h2 6
� xh2 ..t g7. This mean s that the pawn must
be captu red im mediately.
2 �xhl! 'it>xh8
2 . . . lt:J f4+ leads to a n i m mediate d raw after 3
'it>g4 lt:J e2 (we already know the replies to
S i n ce 6 <J;f7? lt:J d8+ is n ot possible, Wh ite
3 . . . lt:J d3 and 3 . . . lt:J e6) 4 � g 5 � xh8 5 � g6
m ust move h i s bishop, renewing the th reat
with the i rresistible th reat of 6 � f7 (5 . . . � g8
of 'it>f7 . The opponent replies 6 . . . lt:Jd8, and
6 i. d5+).
then we play 7 e6 ! . But where should the
l � g4 lt:J g7 bishop be moved to?
4 <it>g5 I f 6 ..t c6? Black repl ies either 6 . . . lt:J d8 with
Now Black must have a long th i n k , si nce it is g a i n of tempo, o r 6 . . . ..t xe5 7 <it>f5 lt:J d4+ . 6
not at all easy to convert his extra knight. .t aB? lt:Jc7 , 6 ..t e4? lt:J c5, 6 i. f3? lt:J d4 and 6
During this time we too will calculate i.. g 2? lt:J f4+ a re all un s uitable. There only
variations. In the event of 4 . . . 'it>g8 5 � g6 the rem a i n s 6 .t ea or 6 ..t h 1 . But after 6 .t ea?
only way to strengthen the position is by lt:Jd8! 7 e6 � g8 the black knight will come
5 . . . e6 6 �f6 i. b4 . Now 7 .t ea? � f8 is a i nto play via c6 or b7. The bishop must
mistake , since if 8 ..t xe6 i. e?+ the bishop i s defi n itely rem a i n on the long d iagonal .
lost, w h i l e after 8 i. d7 i. e?+ 9 <it> g6 i. d8 1 0
6 i. h 1 ! ! lt:Jd8
.t ea i. h4 (zugzwan g ) 1 1 ..t d7 Black places
7 e6! ..t b2
his king on e7 with g a in of tempo, consoli­
dating his forces. The e6-pawn must be 8 i.d5!
attacked along a nother d iago n a l . As l lya 8 .t aB? lt:J xe6 9 � f7 lt:J c7 .
Odessky poi nted out, Kasparian's sugges­ 8 . . . .t al
tion 7 ..t a6? loses to 7 . . . lt:Je8 +! 8 � xe6 9 �h6 ..tc1 +
lt:J c7+ , and therefore the correct way is 7
9 . . . � g8 1 0 <itg6 <itf8 1 1 � h7 does not help .
..t f3 ! � f8 8 ..t g4 i. e?+ 9 � g6 i. h4 1 0 ..t h 3 ,
An a m u s i ng picture : Black's kn ight an d king
when Black is unable t o strengthen h i s
a re a rrested i n their own cam p !
position .
1 0 <itg6 i.d2
Noth ing is changed by 4 . . . <it>h7 5 ..t e4+ � g8
11 i. h 1 ! 1
6 � g6. It only remains to try and bring out
the knight from g 7 . Aga i n the only safe square for the bishop.
4. . . lt:Je6+ 11 . . . .tel
5 �g6 ..t g 7 ! 1 2 i.d5!
5 ... lt:J d8 6 i. d5 (intend ing 7 e6) 6 . . . e6 7 The d raw has become obvious.
..t xe6! lt:J xe6 8 � f7 is hopeless for Black. This is roughly how a player ca n reason ,
 The Technique of search ing for and ta king Decisions
when playing the position from Genrikh
Kasparian's study. You will see that it is
not essential to analyse lengthy and
complicated variations 'to the end ' - it is
far more important to check accurately
the necessary short variations, endeav­
ouring in so doing to take account of all
the significant playing resources both
for yourself, and the opponent.
4. Compariso n . This is a rather subtle
method . Sometimes you quickly choose
a move, only because you see that the
situation arising after it is nowhere
worse, and is in some places better, than
after another possible continuation. For
example, in this way the accu rate move
order (33 . . . d 3 ! , rather than 33 . . . 'ii' b 1 +? ) was
determ i ned in the Alexa nder-Euwe game.
Let us consider the fol lowing study.
F. Bondarenko, M . Liburkin
1 950
Wh ite has two moves: 1 ltJ h4 a n d 1 lLl e 1 . I n
the event of 1 . . . � g 1 2 lLlf3+ �g2 3 lLlxh2
there is no d ifference between them . How­
ever, after 1 lLl e 1 ii.c3! Wh ite must play 2
lLlf3 , when 2 . . .<it>g2 leads to the same
positio n , but with the black bishop on c3.
Even without calculating whether this has
lLJ 25
any serious i mportance, it is clear what he
should play - why al low the opponent an
add itional defensive resource?
1 lLlh4!
When you a re consideri n g you r move i n a
p ractical game, there is no need to ascerta i n
h o w t h e game s h o u l d e n d . Based on a
comparison of your two possibilities , you
q ui ckly place you r knight o n h4, and let you r
opponent try t o fi nd a w a y t o save h i m self.
D u ring this time you will g a i n a better
understanding of the resulting variations.
1 . . . �g 1
2 lLlf3+ � g2
3 lLlxh2 � x h2
If n ow the wh ite king heads towa rds the a7-
pawn , Black will shut it i n by rus h i ng to c7
with his ki n g . How can this be prevented?
4 e5! �xe5
5 �e6! ! � g3
6 �d7 � f4
7� c8
The bishop turns out to be in the way of its
own king .
I should mention that i n the event of 4 . . . ii.c3
( i n stead of 4 . . . � xeS) 5 e6 .ltb4 6 �e5 'i.t>g3
7�d5 �f4 8 �c6 �e5 9 � b7'i.t>d6 it is n ow
the king that h i nders the bishop: 1 0 e7! and
wins.
From this last variation it is clear that the
tempo gai ned by Black after the i n co rrect 1
lLle1 ? .lt c3! is vitally i m po rta nt for h i m : 2 lLlf3
� g2 3 lLlxh2 'i.t>xh2 4 e5 �g3 5 e6 .lt b4 6
� e5 ii.f8 (or 6 . . . 'i.t>g4) 7 <ti'd5 � f4 8 � c6
� e5 9 'i.t>b7 'i.t>d6 1 0 'i.t>xa7 <ti'c7 with a d raw.
5. Don't calcu late ultra-complicated vari­
ations for too long - i n these cases rely
on i ntuition. Often we encou nter irrational
situations, i n which it is practically i m possi­
ble to establish the truth with i n a restricted
time. Even if, after spend i n g a mass of
energy, you fi nd the correct move , the price
26 � The Technique of search ing for and taking Decisions
may prove to be too high - for subsequent
decisions you will most probably not have
sufficient time and strength .
In which cases does it make sense to
spend a lot of time when considering a
move? When you realise that an exact
solution may be found to the problem
facing you and that it will decisively
influence the further course of the game.
In other words - at key moments (it is
very important to be able to determine
them). Or if you do not see any continua­
tion that is in the least acceptable, and
you must devise one.
The time of our lectu re has come to an e n d .
Exercises
1 . Whi te t o move
I recommend t h a t y o u s h o u l d n o t restrict
you rself to the advice that has been g iven -
develop it fu rther, by worki ng out new rules
for you rself. Analyse examples i l lustrati ng
the rational tech nique of seeking an d taking
decisions , try solving special tra i n i n g exer­
cises, and a nalyse you r own actions i n the
cou rse of tou rnament battles. I hope that
you will become i nterested i n this way of
working on chess. And i ndeed , only on
chess? After all, ration a l , clearly org a n i sed
thinking comes i n useful i n any wal k of life .
I n conclusion, here a re a few rather d ifficult
exercises for independent solvi n g .
2. assess 1 'ilfh5
 The Technique of searching for and taking Decisions
lZJ 27

3. Wh ite to move 4. Black to move

Sol utions

1 . Berg - Hort (Biel 1 985). 'iit c 6 a re a l ready known to us, and 2 'iii> d 2
Black has the advantage , si n ce h i s king is 'iit c6 is no better, while if 2 'iii> e 1 , then 2 . . . c3
more active . The m a i n threat is . . . 'iit d 6-c6- is decisive . The game went 2 g4 hxg4 3 f5
b5. A very i mportant cou nter-chance for g 3 ! 4 fxg6 g2 5 'ito>f2 'iii> e 6 6 g7 'iii> f7 , and
Wh ite is the pawn break g 3-g4 ! . But at the Wh ite resigned i n view of 7 b5 c3 8 b6 c2 9
present moment it is clea rly inappropriate. It b7 g 1 'i!i' + ! 1 0 'iit x g 1 c1 'ii' + .
can be carried out only with the king on the A n d yet a way t o save t h e g a m e does exist.
e-file, from where i n one move it can stop 1 'iii> e 1 ! ! 'iit c 6
either of the opponent's passed pawns - on 1 . . . 'iit d 5 2 <it> e2! leads to the fa m i l i a r
the c- or the g-file. zugzwa ng position , b u t with B l a c k t o move .
The most natural king move 1 'iit e 3? turns After 2 . . . 'iit c6 there follows 3 g4 ! , while if
out to be the weakest, si n ce after 1 . . . 'iit c6 ! 2 2 . . . 'iti'd4 , then not 3 g4? f5 4 gxf5 gxf5 5 'iit d 2
g4 hxg4 3 f5 gxf5 4 h5 f4+ ! , as it is easy to c3+ 6 'iii> c2 'iit c4 7 b5 'iit x b5 8 'iit x c3 'iit c 5, but
see , Black is the fi rst to queen a paw n . It s i m ply 3 'iit d 2 ! with a d raw.
also does not help to play 2 'iit d 2 'iit b 5 3 g4 2 g4! hxg4
(3 'it>c3 f5 ) 3 . . . hxg4 4 f5 g 3 or 2 'iii> e 2 'iit b 5 3 N oth ing is g iven by 2 . . .f5 3 gxf5 gxf5 4 'iit d 2 .
g4 f5 ! .
3 f5 gxf5
Thus the d rawback to the king's position on 4 h5 g3
e3 is that it comes under the tem po-g a i n i n g
4 . . . c3 5 h6 c2 6 'iit d 2 is similar.
check . . .f5-f4 + . H a v i n g establ ished this,
Wh ite chose 1 'iii> e 2? ( i nten d i ng the d rawing 5 h6 g2
variation 1 . . . 'it> c6? 2 g4! hxg4 3 f5) . But after 6 'iii> f2 c3
1 . . .'it>d5! he u nexpectedly fou n d h i mself in 7 h7 c2
zugzwa n g . The con seq uences of 2 'iit e 3 8 hS'i!i' g 1 'i!i' +
28 � The Technique of searching for and taking Decisions
9 'iit x g 1 cHi'+
1 0 'iii> f2
The position is a draw.
Pawn endings are an excellent testing
ground for training in the technique of
calculating variations!
2. Bobrov - Platonov (Chernovtsy 1 963).
1 �h5
This was played i n the game.
1 . . . �xg5
2 i.e4 �h 6 ! !
Black can not get by without this move : if
2 . . .'ii' c7(a7), 2 . . J:tc7 or 2 . . . !:r.d7 there follows
3 f7 . It is very i mportant to cla rify i m medi­
ately which conti n uation of the offensive
Wh ite will choose : 3 'i!i'xh6 or 3 'ii'f5 .
I n the event of 3 �f5 it is hopeless to play
3 .. J:tc7? 4 f7 l:t xf7 5 'it'xf7 . However, Black
fi nds the pretty defence 3 . . . l:t d 7 ! ! 4 'ii'x d7 (4
f7 .U xf7 5 'ii'xf7 'ii' c7 ! , but not 5 . . . l:t c7? ! 6
'ii'f6+ � g7 7 'ii'f5 and 8 � xc2 ) 4 . . . l:t c7 ! , and
Wh ite's attack peters out (whereas after
4 . . . 'ii'c 7? 5 l:t d 1 ! i. f8 6 'ii' x c7 l:t xc7 7 l:t c 1
t he gam e becomes eq u a l ) .
3 'ii' x h6 lic7 ! !
Of course, not 3 . . . .l:!. d7? 4 f7 .l:. xf7 5 llxf7 .
But now if 4 f7 Black wins by 4 . . . .l:!.xf7 5
l:txf7 l:!.d1 + 6 'iit g2 'ir'g8+. After 4 i. xc2
'ii' b 7+ Wh ite resigned .
Conclusion : the tempti ng com bination 1
'ii' h 5? is incorrect. Wh ite should have si mply
played 1 .U h5, reta i n i ng a strong attack.
3. Jansa - A.Sokolov ( I nterzonal Tou rna­
ment, Biel 1 985).
Wh ite wants to place his bishop on g 5 , and
the only question is whether to do this
immediately or after a prel i m i n a ry exchange
of pawns on the queenside. There are
arguments i n favour of both decisions, and
therefore the main thing here is not so much
the choice itself, so much as its justificatio n ,
t h e i d e a s b e h i n d t h e move y o u choose.
The game went 19 axb5 axb5 ( 1 9 . . . exf4?
20 bxc6 is bad for Black) 20 �g5 b4! 21
�xf6 bxc3 (otherwise 22 tt::l d 5 with advan­
tage) 22 i.xe7 'iiix b3 (22 . . . 'iit x e7? 23 'ii' x c3)
23 cxb3 'iit x e7 24 bxc3 l:.a3! 25 b4! (25
l:. b 1 l:l b8) 25 ... l:lxc3 26 l:tc1 .Uxc1 27 l:txc1
'iit d 7 with equal ity.
I n stead of 20 .ig 5 Wh ite should have
considered 20 � d 2 ! ? , for example, 20 . . . b4
(20 . . . 0-0 21 � g 5 ! ? ) 21 tt::l d 5 (the b4-pawn is
under attack) 2 1 . . . tt::l x d5 22 exd5 � a4 23
'it'xb4 'ii' x b4 24 � xb4 l:l b8!? 25 � a3 � xc2
26 .U c 1 i. f5 27 li e? (or 27 . . . f4 f6 ) 27 . . . � d 7 ! ?
with a favou rable e n d g a m e for Wh ite .
Now let us an alyse the i mmediate 1 9 .ig 5 .
1 9 .ig5!? b4? !
20 �xf6 bxc3
21 �xe7 'ii' x b3
No better is 2 1 . . . 'ii'x e7 22 'ir'xc3 � xa4 23
'ii' a 3.
22 cxb3 rtixe7
23 bxc3
In contrast to the variation which occu rred i n
t h e game, t h e a-fi le is closed an d Wh ite
reta i n s h i s extra pawn .
Let us check whether the avoidance of the
pawn exchange allows the opponent new
poss i b i l ities . He ca n try 1 9 . . . tt::l d 7 i n the
hope of 20 .i xe7? tt::l c5! 21 1!Va2 (2 1 'it' b4
a 5 ! ) 2 1 . . . 'iit x e7 with a good game. However,
i nterposing the exchange 20 axb5! places
Black i n a d ifficult position : 20 . . . � xg5 2 1
bxc6 or 20 . . . axb5 2 1 .t xe7 tt::l c5 2 2 'ii' b 4 .
He should probably choose 1 9 . . . bxa4 ! 20
li'xb7 i. xb7. It is hardly possible to clai m
any advantage after 2 1 tt::l x a4 l:t c8 22 tt::l c 3.
It looks more promising to play 21 � xf6 gxf6
22 tt::l x a4 , when Wh ite's chances in the
endgame are preferable (22 . . . l:r. c8 23 tt::l c 3
followed by l:l d2 and tt::l d 1 -e3). He is g iven
more problems by a bold pawn sacrifice :
2 1 . . . � xf6 ! ? 22 .l:. xd6 i. e? 23 .l:. b6 0-0-0 24
 The Technique of sea rch ing for and taking Decisions
ttJ 29

t2lxa4 l:l d4 (worse is 24 . . J�d2 2S ..t f1 ! ) 2 S :hs 28 l:txf2+. Black resig ned i n view of
Ita 1 ll d2 (the wh ite rook is no longer 28 .. .'ii xf2 29 liJ h7+ an d 30 'ii'xf2 .
defend ing the e4-pawn), or 2 S b3 <JI;c7 26 c3 Also bad was 20 . . . <Ji; h7? 2 1 l:t eS! with two
l:!. d2, and the position is not easy to threats: 22 l:t xdS an d 22 l:. h S .
evaluate . There were two roughly equ ivalent possibili­
ties available to Black:
4. Ti moshchenko - Vaganian ( U S S R
Championsh i p , F i rst League , B a k u 1 977).
20 . . . <JI;g7 ! ?
The h6-pawn is attacked . It can be de­
fended by the king , but the active conti nua­ 2 1 l:te5
tions 20 . . . ..t xh3 and 20 . . . 'ili' g3 should also 21 llad 1 ? ..t xh3.
be considered . 21 . . . ..tc6
Rafael Vaga n i a n decided on a com b i n atio n , II
without fu lly calcu lating all its conseq uences.
20 . . . 'ili'g3 ! ?
20 ..txh3? 2 1 'ii' x h6 (th reate n i n g both 22
. . .

'ifxh3, and 22 lU gS) 2 1 . . .'ili'g3 22 "ii' x h3 2 1 ltJd4!

'ifxf2 + (22 . . . ..t xf2+ 23 <Ji;f1 ..t xe 1 24 l:t xe 1 is 2 1 'ii' x h6? does n o t work becau se of
unsatisfactory for Black) 23 <Ji; h 1 <JI;g7 2 1 . . . ..t xf2+ 22 <Ji; h 1 i.. x e1 23 lU g S 'ili' h4 or
(23 . . . 'iixc2 24 lU g S ! ) . The th reats 24 . . . l:. h8 23 l:. xe 1 .l:!. fe8 .
and 24 . . . 'ili' xc2 look dangerous, but Wh ite 21 . . . 'ifh4
launches a cou nterattack. In both cases Black stands worse , but it is
24 l:tf1 ! 'ifxc2 25 l"Llg5 i.. f2 (2S . . . llh8 26 perfectly possible for h i m to put up a
.l:txf7+ 'Ot>g8 27 l: h 7 ! ) 26 'ili'h7+ <Ji;f6 27 'ili'h4! successfu l defence .
30 �
M i kh a i l Krasen kow
Wa nderi n g th ro u g h the Labyri nth
W chess , one of the main elements of a
hen choosing a move i n a g a m e of
player's reasoning is the calculation of
variations. The abil ity to ca rry this out deeply
and accu rately i n conditions of restricted
time on the clock is an importa nt component
of playing strength . Here a major role is
played by the o rganisatio n and d iscipline of
the calculati o n . A major expert i n this field,
the author of the theory of calculating
variations, with which any strong player
should be familiar, was g randmaster Alexan­
der Kotov (all the su bseq uent citatio n s will
be from his book Think Like a Grandmaster) .
The basic concept of Kotov's theory is the
analysis tree . 'In any position we depict all
the possible variations in the form of an
"analysis tree ", in which the variations and
sub-variations are presented in the form of
branches and twigs '. Kotov distingu ishes
d ifferent types of ca lculation trees : bare
trunk (one variatio n or branch), bush (many
short variations) and thickets (mass of long,
complicated variations). Accord ing to Kotov,
the main rule of calcu lati o n is that 'a player
should . . . work through each branch only
once. No turnings, no returnings! Only in
certain isolated cases, in especially compli­
cated positions, should a grandmaster check
once again a selected variation. But, as a
rule, he does not rush up and down the
calculation tree '.
I should mentio n that the analysis tree is
essentially created du ring the analysis
process itself; i . e . we are talking about a
defi n ite order i n which it is prod uced .
I n reply to the second importa nt q uesti o n :
how t o construct t h e very n odes of t h e tree,
i.e. decide o n the m oves which need to be
considered in every specific position , Kotov
formulates the fol l owing ru le:
'When we beg i n the ca lculation of varia­
tions, fi rst we must mentally l ist and pre­
cisely establish all the possible candidate
moves in the g iven position . . . After deter­
m i n i n g and listing the m , we then beg i n
calculati ng i n t u r n on e variatio n after an­
other. ' Of cou rse, this applies not only to the
i n itial positi o n , but also to any position
arising d u ring the calculati o n , where on e of
the sides has a choice . Thus all the possible
ca ndidate m oves a re determi ned befo re­
h a n d , o n ce and for a l l , before the ca lcula­
tion of the g iven positi o n . Here the i n itial
data is provided by general consideratio n s ,
intuiti o n , and so o n .
On the whole, these two rules o f Kotov a re
appl icable to the majority of practical ca lcu­
lations, and the ability to fol l ow the m , u ntil
they become automatic, sign ifies a colossal
advance i n a chess player's th i n k i n g .
H owever, these rules also have sign ificant
d rawbacks , which appear m a i n ly i n compli­
cated , u n clear positions. I nternation al mas­
ter Boris Zlotn ik, who has made a study of
this q uesti o n , has this to say:
' 1 . In complicated positions it is extremely
difficult to determine immediately all the
candidate moves at the very start of the
thinking process, and in reality they appear
when a player delves into the position.
'2. The correct move - a nuance in the
calculation of one variation - often "sur­
faces " in the calculation of another, and
therefore in difficult situations a repeated
calculation is inevitable. '
 Wandering through the Labyrinth
Here is a very simple example, i l l ustrati ng
Zlotn ik's fi rst rem a rk:
Alexa nder - Marshall
Cambridge 1 928
After calcu lati ng the variation 1 l:l. f4 exf4 2
gxf4, to which B lack repl ies 2 . . . dxc3 , con­
trolling the g 1 -sq uare , we a rrive at the idea
of first moving the knight: 1 lLld5 or 1 lLla4!
(and then 2 .ll f4 ) . The move 1 lLla4! is i n fact
the qu ickest way to wi n . But without the
calcu latio n of the (albeit elementary) varia­
tion with 1 l:l.f4 , it is not clear for what reason
it should be i ncluded i n the l ist of ca ndidate
moves .
The second rem ark characterises such
featu res of h u ma n th i n king as the work of
the subconscious and association . Another
sign ifica nt defect of Kotov's theory becomes
appa rent: he ignores the problem of the
order i n which ca ndidate moves should be
considered , assu m ing that this 'depends on
the character and habits of each player and
the peculiarities of the position. ' Of cou rse,
if, as Kotov im plies, all ca n d idate moves
must be examined, the order in which this is
done is not of g reat sign ifica nce. But i n fact
in many cases, in the i nterests of economy,
the calculation of a n u m ber of ca ndidate
moves may be om itted , if this of no
l2J 31
i mporta nce for the ta king of a decision . And
this can often be decided on the basis of the
calculation of other ca ndidate moves. In this
case the order of consideration plays a
major role.
In the present article a n attem pt has been
made to suggest (and i l l u strate with an
example) a more compl icated calculation
algorithm (true, a not very formal ised one),
which is effectively used (su b-consciously)
by many players i n complicated positions
(of the 'th icket' type ).
1 . Decide on the ai m of the calcu lation,
i.e. the criteria by which we will assess the
variations we calculate, whether they satisfy
us or not. This may be, for exa mple,
achieving a decisive material advantage;
e n h a ncing a positional advantage; g a i n i n g
e q u a l p l a y ; putting up resista nce i n a bad
position , and so on. The aim should be
rea l i stic, i . e . based on an assessment of the
position and i ntu itive consideration s . If there
is sufficient time for calculatio n , the a i m may
be ra ised somewhat; if there is l ittle time, it
may be lowered .
2. Search for ideas to achieve the aim,
choose appropriate ca ndidate moves
and (very impo rta nt) determ ine their order
of priority, i . e . select those which a re most
l i kely to prove successfu l .
3 . Calcu late va riations ( a s deeply as
possible) i n thei r order of priority (beg in­
n i ng with those which seem most appropri­
ate for achieving the a i m ) . Here each time
there is a choice, the calculation order is
also determ i n ed by the priority of the
possible moves (in con nection with the
aim).
4 . If a conti n uation lead ing t o t h e set a i m
is fou n d , what happens next depends o n
how m uch t i m e there is on t h e clock: if there
is insufficient, the m a i n part of the calcu la­
tion may be concluded here (sti ll necessa ry
is the ' B l u menfeld check' - cf. point 8
below); but if there is stil l time in hand, the
32 � Wandering through the Labyrinth
aim can be refi ned (raised ) , and the set of
candidate moves which have not yet been
exami ned also refi ned , and the calculation
continued; if the new aim is not ach ieved ,
then stick with the conti n uation fou n d .
5 . If, as a result o f t h e calculation a path
leading to the aim is not found, the fu rther
actions also depend on the clock situation .
If time is short, the a im should be lowered ,
the set of ca ndidate moves corrected , and
the calculation conti nu ed . I n this case the
new aim will often be satisfied by one of the
variations already exa m i ned or it will be
comparatively simple to find a n appropriate
conti nuatio n . The only thing you m ust avoid
is making a move 'in the d a rk ' , without
calculatio n .
6 . If, however, there is sti l l plenty o f time,
and you r i ntuition suggests that the aim
should be ach ievable (a strong player
should trust his i ntuition more , since it is an
accu mulation of his chess understa n d i n g ) ,
then you ca n ( a n d shou ld ) deliberately go i n
for a ' repeat' calculation o f certa i n varia­
tions. For this you have to fi nd new ideas for
achieving your a i m . I n accorda nce with this,
new ca ndidate moves and 'candidate varia­
tions' are fou n d . I should expl a i n what is
meant by th is. During the fi rst stage of the
calculation , against many conti n u ations you
will already have found the only or the
strongest replies for the opponent, and
forced series of moves. Often a new idea, a
candidate move, is fou n d not i n the i n itial
position , but after a series of moves, which
together with it comprises a 'candidate
variation ' . After this there beg i n s the calcu­
lation of new possibil ities (point 3) - the
second stage of calculation (it can happen ,
although rarely, that this cycle will also
proceed a third time).
Generally speaking , a repeat calculation is
a shortcoming, therefore it is desirable to
encompass al l the ideas for achieving the
aim i n the first stage of the calcu lation .
However, as we have seen a bove, this is n ot
always possible.
7 . I t may happen that, while calcu lati ng one
of the variations, a n ew idea a ppears, a
ca ndidate move u n related to this variation .
I n this case its priority should be esta b­
l ished , but you should not start exa m i n i n g it
u ntil you h ave completed the calculation of
the variation you were working o n . An
exception may be made when it is i m medi­
ately obvious that the new idea is better
than the conti n u ation being exam i ned (but
not simply of higher priority).
8 . One of the major thinking deficiencies of
many players is 'chess blind ness ' , the
overlooking of elementa ry repl ies by the
opponent of 1 -2 moves. To tackle this evil in
the calculation of variations there exists the
' B l u menfeld ru le' ( Kotov also talks a bout
it): after concl uding you r calcu lation an d
ta king a decisio n , paus e an d l o o k at t h e
position with t h e fresh 'eyes of a novice ' : is
the plan ned move a blunder, lead i n g to
i m mediate d isaster? Only after ascerta i n i n g
that it is n o t a blu nder c a n it be m a d e on the
board . But if a mistake is d iscovered , the
calculation of variations will have to be
renewed . In this case you should normally
lower the aim of the calculatio n , and a i m for
simpl ification , since the bad oversight is
evidence the player is u n p repared for a
complicated battle .
Most strong players a re w e l l aware o f the
B l u menfeld ru le, but. . . i n the heat of the
battle they often forget a bout it.
I should l i ke to il l ustrate what I have said
with a n extract from one of my own games. I
rega rd the wi n n i ng manoeuvre foun d in it as
one of my best creative achievements .
 Wandering thro u g h the Labyrinth
Lag unov - Krasen kow
Dnepropetrovsk 1 98 5
The poor placing of the wh ite pieces and t he
weakness of th e b ack ra n k suggested to
Black that he should look for a forced w i n ,
i .e. a major win o f materia l (the a i m o f the
calculatio n ) . The idea is to com b i n e attacks
on the bishops with a threat of i nvad i n g on
the back rank. In order of priority the
candidate moves were determ i n e d : I. 23 . . .
'i' d1 ; I I . 2 3 . . . �b4 ; I l l . 2 3 . . . 1V a4; IV. 2 3 . . .�g4;
V. 23 . . . �e5 , and the fi rst stage of the
calculation was beg u n .
I . 2 3 . . .'ik d 1 2 4 � f1
1 ) 24 .. .'ifg4 2 5 .id2 �c4+ 26 'if e2, and
there is noth i n g ;
2 ) 24 . . .'i!i' h5 25 .id 2 ;
a ) 25 . . . 'ikxh2 26 f3! 'ilh 1 + 27 'Oti>f2
'ii' h 4+ 28 � f1 'ii' c4+ 29 'ilfe2 ;
b) 25 . . .'ii' b5+ 26 � g 1 'i!kxb2 27
ii.e3 'ikc3 28 'ikf1 or 27 . . . 'i!kb4 28
'ii' c 1 l:t c7 29 'ii' d 1 ;
3) 24 . . . 'ii' a 4 25 ii.d2 'i!kb5+ 26 � g 1 - cf. 2 b ) .
In these variations B lack merely wins a
second pawn - the goal is not achieved .
I I . 23 . . . 'ii' b4 24 'ii' c 1 �c5 (24 . . . .:.c7 25 'ii' d 1 )
25 ii.c2 lie? 26 1l'd2 ! f6 27 ii.b 3 ! or 27 ii.f4 ! ,
and Black does not ach ieve anyth i n g .
ltJ 33
I l l . 2 3 . . . Wa4 2 4 .i d2 ( b u t n o t 24 b 3 ? Wa5),
and noth ing is appa rent.
IV. 23 . . . �g4 24 ii. d2.
V. 23 . . .'i!V e5 24 .i e3.
In the last two variations Black's possibil ities
a re obviously exhausted.
Thus t he fi rst stage o f the calculation did not
g ive the desired soluti o n . If Black had been
short of time here , he would have had to
m a ke a correction to h i s goal (for example,
look for the best version of winning a second
pawn ) . I ncidentally, then the can d idate
move VI . 23 . . . 'iW xb2 (which clearly does not
satisfy the i n itial maxi m u m goa l ) would have
been i ncl uded in the exa m i n atio n , and Black
would h ave had to choose from 1 . 2a, 1 . 2b
a n d VI . But, fortunately, there was sufficient
time (in the tou rnament the 'good old' time
l i m it of 2% hours for 40 moves was being
used ) , an d Black decided to look for new
ideas. H e conceived the idea of rearra n g i ng
the q ueen behind the rook; i n this case the
move ii. b 1 -c2 , defending the d 1 -point, must
not be al lowed. The following candidate
variations emerged :
1 ' . 23 . . . �d 1 24 �f1 �a4 25 ii.d2 I!d6; I I ' .
25 . . . I!d 5 ; I l l ' 25 . . . l:!.d4; IV' . 23 . . . �a4 2 4 .id2
I!d 6 ; V' . 24 . . . l:. d 5 ; V I ' . 24 . . . .U d4 ; VI I ' .
23 . . . 'ii' d 1 2 4 �f1 'i!Vh5 25 ..t d2 'ii' b 5+ 26
� g 1 lld6; VI I I ' . 26 . . . .l:. d 5 ; IX' . 26 . . . l:t d4 ( i n
e a c h case with t h e threat o f . . . 'ii' d 7). The
fi rst th ree were q u ickly rejected i n view of 26
'if e2, the last three - if only because of 27
ii.c3, and i n the remaining cases this was
fou n d :
IV' . 23 . . . 'ii' a 4 2 4 ii.d2 l:t d6 25 'if'e2 ! (25
'Oti>f1 ? 'ikb5+ 26 'it'e2 ifxb2 27 ii.d3 'i!i'd4)
25 .. .'ili'd7 26 ..t e 1 or 25 . . . 'ii' a 6 26 'if e 1
(weaker is 2 6 'it' e3 'it' b6 ! ) , i ntending ii.c3
and ii.c2 , when everything is defended .
V' . 24 . . . l1 d5 25 ii.e4! and then 26 ii. f3 , since
25 . . . .l:!.e5? 26 ii.xh7+ is not possible.
VI ' . 24 . . . .l:!.d4 25 'ilfe2 (25 � f1 is weaker in
view of 25 . . . 'i¥b5+ 26 'i¥e2 'i¥xb2 27 ii.d3
34 � Wandering through the Labyrinth
1i'xa2 , or, more accurate, 25 .. .'ii' a 6+! 26
�g 1 'ii'd 6) 25 . . . 'ti'd7 26 .ie 1 or 25 .. .'ii' a6 26
'ite3! .
I n none of these variations i s i t appa rent
how Black can win . Thus the second stage
of the calculation also failed to produce a
result.
So, should the calculation be curtai led and
the maxim u m goal abandoned? I neverthe­
less decided to keep looki ng . And l i ke a
flash of lightening an idea occu rred to me.
23 . . . 'ti'a4 24 .id2 l:!. d6 25 'ii' e 2 'if d4! ! .
Yes, the idea of retu rn ing with the queen is
not at all obvious . I th i n k it would have been
i m possible to fi n d , without fi rst calculati ng
n um e rous variations an d delving i nto the
labyrinth of d ifferent attacks an d defences.
O n the othe r hand , the fu rthe r calculation
(already the th i rd stag e ! ) is not complicated .
With the wh ite q ueen on e2 , the i nvasion of
B lack's on d 1 is decisive: 26 .ie 1 'ii' d 1 27
We4 f 5 or 26 'it' b5 l:t d8 27 .ie 1 'ii' d 1 28 'i!Va5
b6 .
The entire th ree-stage calcu l ation (togethe r
with t h e verification ) took exactly a n hour.
U nfortunately, i n the game after 23 . . .'ii' a41
24 .id2 l1d6! the player from N ovosi b i rsk
played 25 � f1 (?) a n d after 25 . . .'ii' b5+ he
resig ned . Alas, Black's m a i n idea remai ned
off-stage . . .
I a m proud to say that, of the many strong
players (grandmasters an d masters) to
whom I have shown this position , only one
has been able to fi nd the solution i ndepend­
ently.
I am not suggesting at al l that my proposed
algorith m is appl icable to all complicated
position s . At the same time, l i ke any other
method of o rg a n i sed th i n k i n g , it ca n give
good resu lts when it has e ntered a player's
subconscious and he follows it a utomati­
cally. But this can be achieved only by
special tra i n i n g , to which , alas, few players
give sufficient attention .
 ctJ 35

Ben i a m i n B l u me nfe ld

Vis u a l I m ag i n ati o n a n d
t h e Calcu lati on of Va ri ations

M time studying the ope n i n g . A knowl­

ost chess theoreticia ns spend their Bl umenfeld - Zh ivtsov
Moscow Championship Semi-Final
edge of the ope n i ng certa i n ly plays an
important role i n over-the-board play, but
nevertheless not a decisive one. Even i n the
last Alekhine-Euwe match ( 1 935), despite
Euwe's enormous amount of ope n i ng prepa­
ration and Alekh ine's d u bious ope n i n g ex­
periments, there were only a few ga mes
where a loss was exclu sively the result of a
bad ly-played ope n i n g . At any event, i n most
games the outcome depended , or could
have depended , on i n sufficiently deep play
in the later stages of the game by one
player, and often by both .
Hence the conclusion: the elimination of
shortcomings in the thinking process is
at least as important as a complete In this position Black placed his bishop en
knowledge of the opening. prise, by playing 1 . . . i. e4? .
In expressing the hope that the chess press This blunder pa rticu larly staggered me,
and chess organisations will ra ise the because my young opponent's play i n this
question of i nvestigative work i n this field, game, and i n the tournament i n genera l ,
we assu me that the thoug hts of over-the­ created a good i mpressio n , he was not i n
boa rd players about methods of e l i m i nati ng ti me-trouble, and he thought about his fau lty
mistakes and i m p rovi ng the q ua l ity of chess move for q u ite a long ti m e. As I d iscovered
thinking may be im portant, if only as from a conversation with h i m after the
material for futu re resea rch . game, he rejected 1 . . . i. h 3 (1 . . . i. b7 2 tt:'l g4)
For a first test we have chosen the followi ng 2 'ii' x h3 'it'xe5 3 'i¥xh6 'ii' e 1 + 4 l:t xe 1 gxh6,
topic. when the adva ntage is rather with White ,
w h o h a s bishop for knight with a pawn
majority on the queenside. In making the
move i n the game, he thought that the
bishop could not be ta ken i n view of the
variation 1 . . . i.e4 2 i.xe4 "ii'x e5 3 i. h7+
'it> xh7 4 'ir'xe5 tt:'l d3+ reg a i n i n g the quee n ,
36 � Visual I mag ination and the Calculation of Va riations
but he overlooked that after 2 i.x e4 the rook
on a8 was attacked .
At fi rst sight it seems i nexplicable how the
player with Black saw q u ite a long way i n the
two g iven variations and at the same time
he overlooked a n obvious attack after
White's very fi rst move.
As fa r as I can judge from my own
experience i n similar cases, the cause of
this mistake was as follows: when the player
with Black calculated the variation 1 . . . .i. e4 2
i.xe4 etc. , in his mind he did not place the
bishop from c2 onto the e4-sq uare , but as
though held it i n mid-a ir, aiming for the h7-
point, in order to g ive check and win the
queen by a discovery.
The mental movement of the bishop ca n be
expressed as follows: from c2 the bishop is
aiming for h 7 , where it will be released , a n d
it is realised that on th e way t o h7 there is a
halt at e4 , but this halt at e4 is not made i n
the visual imagi natio n . Such mista kes a re
not uncommon in practical play.
This occu rs especially often when , i n con­
sidering a variation , i n your visual imagina­
tion you forget to move a piece or remove a
captu red piece , and in you r mind the piece
incorrectly remai n s on its i n itial square .
It should b e mentioned that i n most cases
such mistakes are the result not of wea k­
ness of visual imag i n atio n , but either of
nervous haste, or of insufficient i ntensity of
wi l l . After mentally making a move , you
ought promptly to fix the change in you r
visual imaginatio n , b u t i n stead you often
make the move as the result of a conversa­
tion with you rself, or by reprod ucing the
move notation i n you r m i n d , or else,
although you make the spatial movement i n
your mind, i t is without fi rmly fixing the
position after the move i n you r visual
imaginatio n .
Here is a nother example.
Sergeev - B l u menfeld
Moscow Championship Semi-Final
This position was reached i n a game played
in the last roun d of the same tou rnament. A
d raw was sufficient for me, i n view of my
tournament position . It is well know that
playing for a draw is not so easy: aiming
for simplification and a fear of complica­
tions can have an adverse effect.
Here I played 1 . . . tt:'l d4. I spent more than
half a n hour o n this move , since I was
u n certa i n how to conti n u e : Wh ite is th reat­
e n i ng to exchange the fia nchettoed bishop
by i. h6. I did not want to waste time movi ng
my rook from f8 , especially si nce it may
come i n useful on the f-fi le to support the
. . . f7-f5 advance. In general I rea l i sed that
Wh ite has a clear plan of attack on Black's
castled position i nvolving the advance of his
f-pawn , and possibly also his g-paw n , and I
d i d not see any sufficiently convincing way
of opposing this. Not knowi ng what to do, I
deferred the decision by playing 1 . . . tt:'l d4.
When I made my move , I was sure that, i n
view o f t h e th reat o f . . . tt:'l xf3+ followed by
. . . tt:'l e5 etc . , my opponent would reply 2
� h 2 , and to myself I gloomily thought: what
a m I going to do then , si nce 2 . . . 'i!f a5 3 .i. h6
i.xh6 4 'if xh6 tt:'l xc2? 5 tt:'l g5 tt:'l f6 6 tt:'l d5 is
bad for me. Here I several times kept
 Visual I m ag ination and the C a l c u l ation of Va riations
retu rn ing to the thoug ht: ' I t's a pity that after
1 . l2Jd4 2 'it> h2 tt:J xf3+ 3 .ixf3 tt:J e5 4 .ig2
. .
�xh3 he captu res on h3 with the king (and
not the bishop ) , a n d I ca n't derive anyth i n g
from the exposed position o f h i s k i n g ' .
I n the g a m e (after 1 . . . tt:J d4) Wh ite repl ied 2
tt'ld1 ? and here I thought for five whole
min utes before I saw that with 2 . . . tt:J xf3+ etc.
I could win a pawn . I spent these five
minutes hesitating over what plan to choose ,
without reach ing any conclusion, a n d to
take a rest from these gloomy thoug hts I
retu rned to the previous one: ' It's a pity that
after 2 . . . tt:J xf3+ 3 j!_xf3 tt:J e5 4 Si.g2 Si.xh3 he
captu res with the king ' , when suddenly I
saw that he couldn't captu re with the king ,
since it was at g 1 , not at h 2 .
Thus during these five m i n utes , i n my m i n d
his king was not at g 1 , where I could see i t
with m y own eyes, b u t at h2 , i . e . t h e square
to where I had earl ier moved it i n my visual
imagi natio n , i n a nticipation of my oppo­
nent's reply. It is q u ite possible that if after 2
tt'ld 1 I could have easily decided on some­
th ing else, and had not retu rned to thoug hts
of ' it's a pity' etc. , I wou ld not in fact have
played 2 tt:Jxf3+ with the win of a pawn .
. . .
The especially i nteresti ng point about this
case is that I played 1 . . . tt:J d4 based on the
th reat of w i n n i ng a pawn , but after moving
the wh ite king i n my mind when considering
the variatio n , I forgot to put it back, and then
the impression created by my visual i magi­
nation hindered the objective perception of
the sq uare occupied by the king .
This expla nation of the above occu rrence is
not the only one. The fol lowing expla n ation
is also possible: when I was considering
1 . . . tt'ld4 , I decided that si nce Wh ite replies 2
Wh2, it means that 2 . . . tt:J xf3+ does not g ive
anything, and this prepa red conclusion
remai ned i n my m i n d , although the prereq­
uisite move (2 'it> h2) was not made.
Of course, it is hard to decide which
explanation is correct i n a specific i n stance.
37
At any event, as far as I ca n judge from my
own experience, moments occu r when the
i m pression created by visual imagination
d isplaces real ity.
Although such occu rrences are ra re , it ca n
be considered a reg u l a r phenomenon that
moves made mentally when considering
one variation h i nder the correct visualisa­
tion of a position reached in a nother
variation . It is clear that the greater the
number of variations and the longer they
are, the greater the possibility of a
mistake.
The fol lowi n g should also be borne in m i n d .
I n a l o n g variation , each move m a d e i n the
m i n d leads to a position which is i ncreas­
ingly removed from real ity, and therefore the
i m p ression becomes fai nter and fainter.
Even though a player with an especially
strong visual i magination is sure that he can
pictu re correctly i n his m i n d a position
reached as a result of a long variation , he
ca n not be s ure that the defi n ite wea kness of
the i m p ression will not i nfl uence the correct
eval u ation of the positio n , reached at the
end of the variati o n . With every player it
happens that, after calculating a variation
correctly, he can n ot decide whether or not it
is adva ntageous for h i m , which , as far as I
ca n judge from myself, is m a i n ly expl a ined
by the fact that the picture i n his mind is
insufficiently clear. A chess player's think­
ing involves his visual imagination.
Therefore, the clearer and more vivid the
visual picture, the easier and more
accurately his thinking works and the
more fruitful it is.
There is another danger involved with
long variations: the mental strain of
working out a long variation is so great,
because of the need, move after move, to
record the changes with the visual
imagination, that tiredness resulting from
the strain may tel/ later in the game.
Every over-the-boa rd player should be
38 � Visual I m ag ination and the Calculation of Va riati ons
clearly awa re of the role of visual imagi na­
tion and the dangers inevitably involved in
the calculation of variation s , and he should
draw appropriate conclusions, ta king ac­
cou nt, of cou rse , of his degree of visual
imaginatio n .
F o r our part, w e c a n d raw t h e followi ng
conclusions:
After a move by the opponent you should
begin thinking not with prepared conclu­
sions, made beforehand, but as though
anew, beginning by visually impressing
the resulting position on your mind.
However strongly developed you r visual
imagination , it is q u ite obvious that the
impression i n you r mind will be weaker than
the visual perceptio n . Therefore , when
your opponent makes a move, even one
that is expected, you should never
(except, of course, in extreme time­
trouble) without thinking immediately
make the prepared reply to the expected
move: after all, this reply was prepared
when the given position was in your
imagination; it is q u ite possible that now,
when after the opponent's move this posi­
tion is d i rectly perceived with all its featu res,
i.e. including the opponent's move , as a
result of the g reater cla rity of the picture
there will also be new ideas.
A strict internal discipline should be
observed when considering variations;
in particular, you should not rush men­
tally from one variation to another,
returning several times to the same one,
but first establish an order for consider­
ing the variations applicable to the
specific situation, and then gradually
move in your mind from one variation to
another; moreover, when considering
each variation, after each move make the
appropriate move in your mind, fix it with
you visual imagination, and at the end of
the variation make a summary, and only
after this turn to the next variation.
The establishment of the order of con­
sideration should be based on aiming for
a possible reduction in the number and
length of variations. First you should
examine what seems on first impression
to be the most dangerous reply to the
proposed move and only if a defence is
found against this dangerous reply
should you examine whether or not there
is a more veiled reply. In exactly the
same way, if within a few moves a
variation should give a clear, decisive
advantage, it is pointless to lengthen in
your mind the details of converting the
advantage.
If your next move is absolutely forced,
and the branches (variations) begin after
your move and the opponent 's reply, for
the moment it is too early to delve into
the variations: after your forced move
and the opponent's reply the visual
picture will be clearer, and it will be
easier to calculate variations. This also
applies to a case where in a variation that
is, say, eight moves long, after the first
few moves a forced return to the initial
position is possible (repetition of moves).
In this case you are recommended,
without thinking for long, to make the
first few moves, in order then to work out
the variations to the end, and if they
prove unfavourable, then return to the
initial position by repeating moves.
In positions which are not sharp, where
there cannot be forced variations, calcu­
lation should be restricted to a few short
variations for better revealing the fea­
tures of the position.
If there is a possible choice between two
continuations, producing roughly the
same effect (equality, advantage, deci­
sive advantage), you should prefer the
continuation which involves less vari­
ational calculation, and hence, the smaller
danger of a mistake. This principle should
 Visual I mag ination and the Calculation of Va riations
be fi rmly adhered to, rejecti n g a n y kind of
' romanticis m ' . If, for example, there is
choice between l i q u idati ng i nto a pawn
endgame with an extra pawn and a certa i n
win , a n d a mu lti-move mating com b i n ation
with branches, it is more sensible to choose
the fi rst conti n uati o n : there have been
instances i n tournaments where a player
an nou nced mate i n a few moves then lost
the game, si nce the mate proved to be
fictitious.
Our arguments, especially the last one, will
certainly be opposed by supporters of chess
'beauty'. In our opinion, the calculation of
variations is only a necessary technique,
and if this technique can be simplified or
made easier, so much the better. The
beauty of chess l ies i n its i n ner logic and
rich ness of ideas, for the reveal i n g of which
in most cases a deep penetration i nto the
position is sufficient, ca lculation bei n g
needed o n l y t o check t h e correctness o f the
ideas. Chess is a pu rposefu l game: you
ctJ 39
should aim to achieve the desired result with
the maxi m u m certa inty. This is why we
consider our a rg u ment to be correct.
The importa n ce of visual im pressions for
chess t h i n kin g is so g reat, that a defi n ite role
is bou n d to be played by factors aiding
visual perceptio n , such as: appropriate
lig hti ng d u rin g play, the correct correlation
between the board an d the pieces , and a
colouring of the pieces that is easy on the
eye. F rom my own experience I know that if
d u ri n g a s i m u lta neous display the lig hti ng is
poor, the pieces a re pa i nted an i rritating
colour, or the board is not correctly propor­
tioned , the result of the d isplay even against
weaker players will be worse than in a
d isplay against stronger players but with
more favourable con d itions for visual per­
ception . I t h in k that chess organ isations
should consult with experts on physiology
and psychological testi n g , and, i n accord­
ance with their d i rectives, develop a sta nd­
a rd type of chess eq u i pment.
40 �
PART I I
I ntu itive Decis i o n s
M a rk Dvorets ky
The Deve l o pment of C h ess I ntu iti on
I players with a u n iversal style , who perform
t i s extremely ra re to come across chess
with identical success in any type of
position. One such player was Bobby
Fischer, and - i n his best yea rs - Boris
Spassky. Normally all players, including
outstanding grandmasters , have various
playing defects . It is very i mporta nt to try
and elimi nate them in good time, to 'tig hten
up' the backward aspects of you r play,
without, of cou rse, abandoning you r natu ral
style.
Players are trad itionally d ivided i nto combi­
native and positional . At one time it was
comparatively simple to d i sti nguish players
by this criterion , but now things a re d ifferent
- hardly any purely positional or p u rely
combinative players remai n . Besides, such
a division tal ks only about the manner of
play, and not about th i n ki n g pecu l i a rities. It
is insufficiently informative as regards choos­
ing the d i rection and content of tra i n i n g
req u i red b y a player.
To me it seems more productive to
distinguish a player by the type of
thinking which dominates in his ap­
proach to the taking of decisions -
intuitive or logical.
Grandmasters with an i ntu itive approach ,
such as Jose Rau l Capablanca , M i khail Tal ,
Tig ra n Petrosian a n d Anatoly Ka rpov, have
a keen fee l i n g for the slig htest n u a nces of a
position and possess sharp com b i native
visio n . They a re weaker i n the p l a n n i n g of a
game, i n strategy, they do not especially l i ke
calcu lati ng variations, and they make mis­
takes i n ca lculation .
At the opposite extreme we fi n d , for exam­
ple, Akiba Rubi nste i n , Mikhail Botvi n n i k ,
Lajos Portisch an d Ga rry Kaspa rov. They
fi nd deep plans i n the ope n i n g and the
su bseq uent stages, their thin king is disci­
plined, and they calculate variations accu­
rately. But occasionally they miss u n ex­
pected tactical ideas, someti mes they a re
excessively d i rect, and they sense insuffi­
ciently keenly the tu rning-poi nts of a game.
Of cou rse, al l this is merely a n approximate
scheme. Usually the 'diag nosis' I g ive to a
player with whom I a m working ( i rrespective
of whether it is a candidate master or a
g randmaster) i n cl udes many more d ifferent
pa rameters . Even so , from the methodologi­
cal point of view this classification seems to
me to be very u sefu l .
For a chess player i t is a g reat stroke of
fortune to possess a naturally well-devel­
oped i ntuition . But, as Alexa nder Alekh in e
poi nted ou t , this can also h a rbour a serious
psychological danger.
 The Development of Chess Intuition
Along with the obvious advantages given by
a quick grasp of situation, the ability to see
almost simultaneously the whole array of
tactical features contained in any compli­
cated position (economy of thinking and, as
a consequence, self-belief), almost insepa­
rably linked are temptations: a player may
easily arrive at the faulty opinion that those
good moves, which on acquaintance with
the position he sees immediately - or
almost immediately- are definitely the best,
and as a result of this his play loses just as
much in depth as it gains in ease. This
gradual rejection of seeking the absolute
best, and being satisfied only with good
moves, is unfortunately (for the art of chess)
characteristic of the present phase of
Capablanca 's career. (From a famous a rti­
cle by Alekh ine 'The 1 927 New York
tournament as a prologue to the battle i n
Buenos Ai res for t h e world championsh i p' . )
For players with a n i ntu itive type of thinking
it is advisable to do tra i n i n g i n the solving of
strateg ic problems (for exa mple, i nvolvi ng
choice of plan at the tra nsition from open i n g
to midd legame). It is usefu l for t he m t o test
their strength in exercises with the compli­
cated calcu lation of variations, demanding
perseverance and concentrati o n . At one
time I suggested that Alexa nder Chern i n
should work i n t h i s d i rectio n . Soon he made
significa nt prog ress, q u ickly prog ressi n g
from an ord i n a ry master t o a strong g rand­
master, and a participant i n a Cand idates
tournament for the world champio n s hi p .
Things are more complicated with the
development of i ntu ition . Sometimes play­
ers and even their tra i ners do not know how
to approach this problem . In this lectu re I will
share certa i n thoughts, based on my tra i n ­
ing experience.
Chess i ntuition is the abil ity easily and
q u ickly - and someti mes immediately - to
grasp the essence of a positi o n , the most
importa nt ideas conta i ned in it, and to
lD 41
assess the promise of particular conti nua­
tions. I ntuitive i nsight en ables the lengthy
and complicated calcu lation of variations to
be avoided , makes our searches easier,
and suggests where the solution may be
hidde n .
A serious study of chess, of its playing
methods, and a thoughtful analysis of
various specific situations significantly
develops and enriches our intuition. I will
not attem pt to demonstrate this a rg u ment -
it is i l l ustrated in the fi rst part of my book
School of Chess Excellence 1 - Endgame
Analysis, in the cha pter "The benefit of
'abstract' knowledge". I also recommend
that you read the a rticle by Eduard Gufeld
' H ow to develop i ntuition ' from h i s book My
Life in Chess.
Throughout a game we rely (to a g reater or
lesser extent, and with varying deg rees of
success) on our i ntuiti o n . It displays itself i n
t h e most varied forms. Think o f certa i n
concepts wh ich w e constantly use: 'positional
fee l i n g ' , 'spirit of the position ' , 'comb i n ative
visio n ' , 'sense of danger' , 'feel in g for the
i n itiative' - even from their verbal expres­
sion it is obvious that these a re d ifferent
man ifestations of the i ntu itive perception of
the game. In principle, it would be usefu l to
d iscuss each of these sepa rately, but this is
a topic for a special in vestigation.
Stra ngely enoug h , i n chess literatu re i ntui­
tion is often simply taken to mean the abil ity
to decide on a sacrifice of material that does
not lend itself to exact ca lculation . Essen­
tially this confuses the concepts of risk,
beca use of the i m possibil ity of calcu lati ng
the variations to the e n d , an d i ntu ition .
(see diagram)
42 <;t> The Development of Chess I ntu ition
Suetin - Bagirov
3 1 st USSR Champion s h i p , Len i n g rad 1 963
Vladimir Bag i rov has just played 17 ... �e7-
d6! . 'N ormal' conti nuations lead to piece
exchanges and Black obtains an excellent
position . Neither 1 8 � xd6 l:t xd6 ( 1 9 'iVxd6??
� xg2+) nor 1 8 ll xf6 � xe5 1 9 ll xc6 'iV xb2!
is dangerous for h i m . Alexey Sueti n writes:
'What was I to do ? I did not wish to go in for
simplification. It was here that I was at­
tracted and as though entranced by a queen
sacrifice. I feverishly calculated the varia­
tions. The hands on my clock inexorably
advanced, but the calculations became
more and more complicated. I had to
reconcile myself to a draw, or, relying on my
intuition, take a risk. '
From the commentary it is clear that Suetin
spent a long time trying to calcu l ate the
sacrifice exactly, but he was unable to do
so. Of course, his bold decision conta i n s an
element of i ntu itive assessment, but only an
element. In pri nciple, he acted not i ntui­
tively, but by calculation. And this was
probably correct - Black obta i n s too g reat a
material advantage (queen for j ust one
minor piece). Any u nforeseen defensive
resou rce , enabling the immediate th reats to
be parried , may immediately decide the
outcome i n Black's favour.
But some players wou ld probably have
approached the problem d ifferently, i ndeed
i ntu itively. For exa mple, M i khail Tal , after
assessing a few variations, would al most
certa i n l y have q u ickly decided : the sacrifice
was p romising (not correct, but promising)
and decided to go i n for it. Or, on the
contra ry, he wou ld have j udged its conse­
q uen ces to be in Black's favou r and played
d ifferently.
1 8 'i!Vxg7+ ! ? �xg7
1 9 �xf6+
'Now came the turn for my opponent to
think. As was later discovered, this was
perhaps the decisive point of the game.
Where should the king move to: h6 or g6?
Bagirov thought for a whole hour, and also
played most probably by intuition. '
A stra nge con clusion, wou l d n 't you agree:
'thought for a whole hour, and played by
i ntu itio n ' ? ! In fact Black tried to calculate
everyth in g exactly, but he was unable to do
so and he made a mistake. Where does
i ntuition come i n here? We see that Suetin
tal ks about it, clearly having no idea what it
mea n s .
I n cidenta l l y, as w a s shown by A n dre
Lilienth a l , the sacrifice was i ncorrect and
wou ld have been refuted by 1 9 .. .<itt g 6 ! .
If 20 � d3 there is the strong reply 20 . . . � e7! ,
attacki ng the bishop on d3. For example, 2 1
� xe7 l:. xd3 22 li g5+ <itt h6 23 cxd3 l:. e8! 24
� f6 l:. e6 (or 24 . . . 'ii'f2 ) .
T h e m a in variation is 20 ll af1 'it' e3! 2 1 � d3
<itt h 6 ! . If Wh ite now follows Tal's recommen­
dation 22 tt:J d 1 "ii' d 2 23 l:r. 5f2 (23 liJf2 .l:r. g8),
then 23 . . . 'iV xf2 ! 24 l:. xf2 l:. de8 25 � c3 f5!
with advantage to Black.
22 � xd8 ll xd8 23 .l:l. xf7 (23 .:!. f6+ <itt g 7 24
.U xf7+ � g8 25 � xh7+ <itt h 8 , and the attack
is parried ) 23 . . . l:. d7 24 liJ d 5 ! ? (24 l:t 1 f6+
<itt g 5 25 l:tf5+ <itt h 4 ! ) 24 . . . � xd 5 ! 25 .l:l. xd7
� xg2 + ! 26 <itt x g2 'it'g5+ 27 <itt f3 'i!f f4+ 28
<itt e 2 'i!f g4+ , or 25 .: 1 f6+ <itt g 5 26 l:t f5+ <itt h 4
 The Development of Chess Intuition ttJ 43

27 l:l. xd7 'ilfc1 + 28 � f1 (28 l:tf1 � xg2+ 29 25 �d3+ l:!.xd3?!

li? xg2 'ii'g 5 + ) 28 . . . i.. x g2+! 29 'it> xg2 'it'xc2 + , In ti me-trouble Vlad i m i r Bagirov h u rries to
and Black wins. simpl ify the position . A q u ite understa ndable
19 . . . 'it>h6? decisio n , although by no means forced .
20 l:l.af1 ! S ueti n g ives the variation 25 . . . 'it> g7 26
l:! xf7+ 'it> g8 27 � c4 'it> h 8 28 l:l 7f5 � e8 29
Wh ite i ntends 2 1 l:l. h5+ 'it> g6 22 l:t h4 with the
lt:J d 5 with dangerous threats , but i n stead of
threats of 23 � d3+ and 23 � h 5 + .
28 . . . � e8? Black has the stronger 28 . . . h4 or
28 . . . l:. d 2 .
26 cxd3?
I nterposing the check 26 .U f6+ ! would have
placed Black in a d ifficult position . He would
have had to al low the captu re on f7 with
check, since after 26 . . . 'it> g5?! 27 l:l. 1 f5+ 'it> g4
28 cxd3 he can n ot play 28 . . . 'ikxd3? 29 l:. f4+
'it> g 5 30 h4 mate.
26 . . . 'il'xd3
27 l1f6+ 'it>g5
28 .l::!. x f7 h4
29 'it> g1 'il'e3+
30 .l:r.7f2
20 . . . 'ii' e 3?
A fu rther m ista ke , after wh ich B lack's posi­
tion becomes anxious. In the event of
20 . . . � e7 Wh ite could either force a d raw by
24 l:l. h5+ 'it> g6 25 l:r. g 5 + , or play o n with 2 1
i.xe7 f6 (2 1 . . J i g 8 ! ? ) 2 2 i.. xf6 l:. xf6 23
.l:!. xf6+ � g 7 24 l:l. f7+ 'it> h8 2 5 � d 3 'ii' x b2 with
chances for both sides.
The sharp battle would q u ickly have ended
peacefu lly after 20 . . . � xg2 + ! ? 21 'it> xg2
.l:!. g8+ 22 'it> h 1 l:l. de8 23 l:l. h5+ (23 � f3 'ii' a 6)
23 ... 'it>g6 24 .l:. g5+ 'it> h 6. The i m mediate
20 . . J:!. de8 ! ? was also possible.
21 l:.h5+ 'it>g6
22 l:lh4! �f4!
30 . . . 'it>h5?
The only defence.
N ow Wh ite gains a decisive advantage. It
23 .l:thxf4
was essential to open u p the position of the
23 l::!.fxf4 'il' c1 + 24 � f1 did not work because enemy king by 30 . . . h 3 ! 3 1 gxh3 i. f3 or
of 24 . . . h5! 25 lt:J e2 'it'xc2. 31 . . . 'it> h4 with a probable d raw.
23 . . . h5 31 tt:Je2 ! 'it> h 6 32 lt:Jf4 a5 33 .l::t d 1 a4 34 h3
23 . . . 'if h3 24 lt:J e4! 'it>h7 35 lt:Jd5? (35 lt:J h 5 ) 35 . . .'ii' c 5? (35 . . .
24 i.. x dB .l:.xdB � xd5 3 6 l:l. xd5 'if c 1 + 3 7 .l:t f1 'it'xb2) 36
 The Development of Chess I ntu ition

lL'lf6+ 'i.ti>g7 37 a3 'i.ti>g6 38 tt:Jg4 'i.ti>h7 39 .Ue1 player, but i n complicated tactical situations
'ifd6 40 tt:Je3 'i.ti>g6 41 lL'lf5 1Vd8 42 l:e6+ (in he was usually much weaker.
Suetin's opi n ion , 42 lL'l e7+ 'i.ti> g7 43 l:r. e6 was I was once able to exploit this factor.
even stronger) 42 . . . 'iot>f7 43 lL'ld4+ 'i.ti>g7 44
l:te4 i.d7 45 lL'lf3 i.f5 46 lld4 'it'e8 47
Dvoretsky - Bag i rov
11xh4, and Wh ite g rad ually converted his
material advantage. U S S R Championship, F i rst Leag u e,
T bil is i 1 973
Let us return to the problem that Wh ite
Alekhine Defence
faced . Deliberating over this type of
1 e4 lL'lf6
irrational problem is one way of develop­
2 e5 tt:Jd5
ing intuition. Think a little a bout the
position and try to 'guess' whether or not the 3 d4 d6
sacrifice is correct, and whether it should be 4 c4 lL'l b6
made. Clea rly, here you ca n't get by without 5 exd6 cxd6
calculating some variations. When training 6 lL'lc3 g6
your intuition, you should aim not to 7 h3 i.g7
calculate everything 'to the end', but,
8 lL'lf3 0-0
after checking some minimum number of
9 i.e2 tt:Jc6
variations, come to a definite conclusion
as soon as possible. After then checking 1 0 0-0 i.f5
you opinion with the 'answer', you will 1 1 i.e3 d5
see whether you were searching in the 12 c5 tt:Jc4
right direction, and whether or not at the 1 3 i.xc4 dxc4
very start you missed some ideas impor­
1 4 ii'a4 i.d3
tant for the taking of the decision -
This is one of the wel l-known variations of
evaluative or specifically tactical.
the Alekh in e Defence, on which Bag i rov
I n just this way you ca n try to choose the was an expert. Later games convinced me
correct square for the black king on the 1 9th that Black ach ieves equality by 1 4 . . . e5! .
move .
1 5 .Ufd 1 "ifa5!
You will fi nd several exa mples of this type
Now if 1 5 . . . e5? there follows 1 6 d5 lL'l d4?! 1 7
(with the help of the i ndex of themes) in the tt:'! e 1 ! . Bad is 1 5 . . .f5? 1 6 d5 lLl e5 1 7 lL'l g5! (or
afore-mentioned series School of Chess
1 7 lL'l e 1 ! ) 1 7 .. .f4 1 8 i. d4! (but not 1 8 i. xf4
Excellence. l: xf4 1 9 tt:J e6 'ii' b 8 20 tt:J xf4 lL'l f3+ 2 1 gxf3
The success of Wh ite's attack in this 'ii xf4 ) . 1 6 . . .f4 ( i n stead of 1 6 . . . tt:J e5) also
example was mainly based not on p u rely does not help: 1 7 l:!. xd 3 ! ! cxd3 1 8 dxc6 fxe3
chess factors (objectively the q ueen sacri­ 1 9 cxb7 exf2+ 20 'i.ti> f1 (now it is clear why
fice was incorrect), but psycholog ical fac­ the exchange was g iven up) 20 .. J l b8 2 1
tors , which must be taken i nto account when 'ii' c4+ 'i.ti> h8 2 2 c6.
you i ntu itively assess how promising a 1 6 'ii x a5 tt:'Jxa5
problematic decision is. What tol d was the
1 7 tt:'!e1 i.f5
surprise effect (Bag i rov had stud ied the
position after 1 7 . . . i. d6 i n his home prepara­ 1 8 l:tac1
tions, but had not noticed the q ueen 1 8 d 5 ! is stronger, as I l ater played against
sacrifice). But the main th i n g was Bagirov's W. Martz (Wij k aan Zee 1 975).
style of play. He was a strong positional 18 . . . tt:'!c6!
 The Development of Chess I ntuition t2J 45

1 9 g4 ..td7 26 . . . b5 27 l:! xb3 a5? 28 lU d 3 , an d after the

20 d5 lU b4 rook moves - 29 lU xb5.
27 llxb3 b5
28 lUd3 .l:t5c7
29 l:ta3 h5
29 . . . a5 30 lU a2 : xc1 + 3 1 lU dxc1 a4 came
i nto consideration. The pawns a re block­
aded , but at least they would have advanced
a l ittle further.
30 gxh5
30 f3 was safe r, or even 30 lU e2 ! ? hxg4 3 1
hxg4 ..t xg4 3 2 l: xc7 l:t xc7 3 3 lU d4 .i. d7 34
l:l a 5 .
30 . . . gxh5
31 h4
Here too 31 lU e2 or 3 1 lU a2 ca me i nto
lf 21 a3, then 2 1 . . . lU a6 followed by 22 . . . .:t ac8 , consideration .
a n d t h e c5-pawn is very wea k. Generally
31 . . . .i.f5?!
speaki n g , now Black is excellently placed .
Taking accou nt of this factor, a n d also my It is not clear why Black avoids 3 1 . . . a5! 32
lU a2 l:tx c1 + 33 lU dxc1 a4 (with the threat of
opponent's style of play, I decided to go in
for great complications, by provoking Bagirov 34 . . . l:t c4 ) 34 lU d3 .i. f5 (34 . . . .l:r. c4? 35 lU e5).
into maki ng a piece sacrifi ce . By playing 35 lU e5! Wh ite retain s some
21 b3 ! ? lUxa2 ! ? winning chances, but no more than that. We
see that i n a complicated position Bagirov
2 1 . . . cxb3 2 2 axb3 e 6 ! was simpler, with a
acts unsurely. Usually he avoids situations of
roughly equal game, but the tem ptation
this type, he has i nsufficient experience i n
proved too stro n g .
them, and s o here his i ntuition lets h i m
22 lUxa2 cxb3 dow n .
23 lUc3 lUeS? ! 32 lUe2 l:!xc 1 +?
My reckon i n g proves j ustified - Black Now Black's position becomes hopeless.
immed iately commits a serious i naccu racy. 32 . . . i.. x d3 33 .l: xc7 : xc7 34 l:. xd3 a5
Bagirov was hoping to prevent 24 ..t d4, but suggests itself. In the endgame, passed
he fails to achieve this a i m . Stronger was pawns should be advanced !
23 . . . a5 24 ..t d4 a4 (24 . . . e5 25 dxe6 ..t xe6 is
33 lUdxc1 l:tc7
also possible) 25 ..t xg7 'ito> xg7 26 l:t b 1 l:tfc8
27 tt::l d 3 l: a5! (intending . . . l:t xc5 or . . . ..t b5) 34 lU b3 i.. e4
with chances for both sides. 35 lUbd4 ..txd5
24 ..td4! ..t xd4 36 lUxb5 l:tc4
25 lixd4 .:!.xc5 37 lUbd41 l:tc7
26 lib4 37 . . . e5 38 .:t a 5 ! .
26 tt::l d 3 seemed less accu rate to me on 38 <iit h2 e5?!
account of 26 . . . b2! 27 lU xb2 li ac8 . 39 l:ta5! exd4
26 . . . llac8 40 llxd5 l:.c2
46 � The Development of Chess Intuition

41 tt'lxd4 l:.xf2+ � g4.

42 �g3 .l:td2 47 . . . �g8
43 l:tg5+ �f8 48 .l:.h6 a4
44 tt'lf5 a5 49 l':t a6 lta2
45 l:txh5 �g8 50 �g4 a3
46 l:tg5+ 51 �h5 f6
The sealed move . This was a n appropriate 5 1 . . . .l:. a 1 52 � h6 would have come to the
moment to adjourn the game: Wh ite's same th i n g . 51 . . . � h7 52 .l:. a7 l:t f2 ! was the
position is certainly won , but now he needs most tenacious, but even then Wh ite would
to decide on a plan for converting his have won by 53 l:t xf7+ � h 8 54 � g6 (54
advantage, and this is best done i n home � h 6 ! ? � g8 55 � g6 l:. g2+ 56 � f6 with the
analysis. threat of 57 tt'l e7+) 54 . . . l:. g2+ 55 � h6 � g8
46 . . . �f8 56 l:t a7 a2 57 h 5 l1 b2 58 tt'l h4 � f8 59 tt'l g6+
� e8 60 tt'l e5! (preparing 6 1 � g 5 ) 60 . . . .l:t g2
61 tt'l d 3 an d 62 tt'l b4 .
52 l:ta7 ! .l:f.a1
53 �g6 .l:.g1 +
54 �xf6 .l:l.a1
55 tt'lh6+ �h8
56 tt'lf7+
Black resig ned .

I rrational problems, with which you can

check an d sharpen you r i ntu itio n , do not
necessa rily involve material sacrifices.

Kaspa rov - Karpov

47 :h5 World Championship M atch , Moscow
I n itially it seemed to me that 47 h5 would 1 984/5 , 6th Game
decide matters more s i mply, for exa mple:
4 7 . . . l::t d 1 48 � g2 .l:l. d2+ 49 � h3 I! d 1 50
tt'l g3 (the a5-pawn is attacked ) 50 . . . a4 5 1 h6
l:l.d6 52 h7. But then I d iscovered that after
47 . . . l:i d 1 48 � g2 Black has 48 .. .f6 ! 49 l:t g6
(49 h6 l:t d 7 ! ) 49 . . . .l:. d7 ! (but not 49 . . . � f7? 50
l:tg7+ � e6 51 h 6 ! ) . The exchange of rooks
after 50 l':t xf6+ l:.f7 leads to a d raw, but
otherwise, by playing 50 . . . .l:I a7, Black gains
counter-chances. I ncidentally, Black needs
to i nterpose 47 .. J:t d 1 !, since after the
immediate 47 .. .f6 48 .l::!. g 6 .l:. d7 Wh ite wins
easily by 49 .l:I xf6+ l:tf7 50 l:l. xf7+ � xf7 5 1
tt'l d4 (or 5 1 tt'l d6+) 5 1 . . . a 4 5 2 tt'l b5 � f6 53
 The Development of Chess Intuition 47

Black is a pawn u p , but the activity of the a n d suggests when he needs to concen­
wh ite pieces more than compensates for trate a n d ca reful l y check variations, or
this small material deficit. It is clear that now where, on the contra ry, for one reason or
the knight must be advanced . But where to : a nother there is no point i n delving i nto a
f5 or c6? deta iled calculation .
On c6 the knight attacks the a7-pawn ,
restricti ng the black rook's mobil ity. F rom f5 , Ta l - Dvoretsky
on the other h a n d , it controls the d6-sq ua re 42nd U S S R Championship,
and prepares the adva n ce of the passed Len i n g rad 1 97 4
pawn . Which is more i m po rtant? To ca lcu­
late the variations at the boa rd is completely
impossible - after some approximate esti­
mations you have to trust your i ntuition .
I n his book The Test o f Time G a rry
Kaspa rov several times d raws the attention
of the readers to the fact that i n com p l icated
situations his i ntu itive perception of the
position proved correct. H e is obviously
proud of his own intu ition , a n d considers it
one of his strong poi nts . But it is clea r that
any top player can boast of n u merous
examples of the correct solvi n g of d ifficult
problems. In order to make a n objective
judgement about the degree to which
intu ition is developed , it is more i mporta nt to 21 . . . i£.f8 ! ?
follow how often it lets a player down . For
example, i n sharp position s the youn g 'The move in the game involves a clever
Mikhail Tal nearly a lways acted i n the trap ' (Ta l ) . I was very much hoping that the
strongest way, fi nd ing the attacking re­ ex-world champion would be tempted by the
sources that were most dangerous for his possibil ity of beg i n n ing a n offensive against
my king by 22 i£. xe5 .i. xa2 23 il. a 1 !
opponent. Whereas, as a carefu l study of
(th reatening not only the captu re of the
Kasparov's play revealed to me, h i s i ntuition
bishop, but also the deadly 24 � c3) 23 . . . 'it' b3
is far from fau ltless. Even i n his best games,
(the only defence) 24 'if d2. The variations
at some point he often ' m i scued' a n d gave
would appear to be i n his favour. Such an
his opponents additional chances (wh i c h ,
attack would have been fu lly i n keeping with
however, they did n o t always exploit).
Tal's style .
That was also what happened i n this
example. Kasparov 'guessed wrong' and 'A fter some hesitation, I decided not to open
the sluices for the black pieces ', writes Tal .
missed a wi n . Later he d i d not sense the
moment when it was now time to force a 'A nd I acted correctly: after 2 2 Ji. xe5 Black
draw, and i n the end he lost. You will find the had prepared 22 . Ji. b3!!, not only securing
. .

opposite-colour bishops, but also regaining

game i n a n addendum to the lectu re .
the pawn!'

A correct i ntu itive perception of the situation 22 .l::i. b 1 ! 'it'd7

helps a player to spend his time rational ly, 23 .l::i. e d1 i£.xd6
48 � The Deve lopment of Chess Intuition

24 cxd6! essence of the position: to determine the

Su bseq uently Wh ite methodically converted most important problem (positional or
his positional advantage. tactical) which has to be solved, to sense
the correct direction of our searches,
Many years later I retu rned to the analysis of
and to perceive the desirability or unde­
the position and came to the concl usion that
sirability of a particular operation. It is
22 . . . i. b3 (in reply to 22 i. xe5) was not as
clear that a well-developed intu ition assists
strong as I thought. The pawn is i ndeed
in perceiving th ings rapidly an d correctly.
regained, but Wh ite stil l reta i n s the advan­
tage in the middlegame with opposite­ You may have heard the classic story of how
colour bishops, by conti n u i n g 23 axb3 .l:. xe5 some g randmasters , absorbed in a d ifficult
24 f4 .l:!. xc5 (or 24 . . . l:!. ee8 25 e5) 25 i. c4 . a nalysis, asked the advice of S myslov. After
a little thought, Vasily Vasil ievich remarked :
On the other hand, in the variation 22 . . .
'The rook should be placed on the fifth ra n k' .
i. xa2 !? 2 3 i. a 1 'iii' b 3 24 ifd2 i t i s not
The recommendation seemed too abstract,
possible to demonstrate a n advantage for
but with i n a short time S myslov repeated :
Wh ite . I thought that 24 . . J:1x e4 was refuted
'Ah , if only the rook was on the fifth ! ' They
by 25 i. f3 l:l xe 1 + 26 l1 xe 1 (26 'ii'x e 1 ! 'ii'e 6
began looki ng i n this d i rection and soon
27 'ii' b4 is stronger) 26 . . . � g 7 27 � xg7
real i sed that Smyslov was a bsol utely right.
'it xg7 28 l:t a 1 , and Black loses a piece , but
instead of 26 . . . i. g7? he has 26 . . . � xc5 ! . Examples of this sort of assessment can be
fou n d by studying the com menta ries to
Even more importa nt i s the fact that after
games, especially those written by players
24 . . . .t xc5! 25 'i!f g5 Black pa rries both
th reats 26 'ifxc5 and 26 1i'f6 with the simple with an i ntu itive style .
move 25 . . . i. e7 ! .
N i mzowitsch - Capablanca
Tal did not delve i nto these variations,
beca use for this there was no need . The N ew York 1 927
basis of his decision was a correct evalua­
tion of the situation on the board . I ndeed ,
why go in for compl ications, i n the calcu la­
tion of which it is easy to go wrong, if a l l the
opponent's pieces are condemned to pas­
sivity and Wh ite's obvious advantage can
be retai ned by simple means?

It is now time to move away from wild

combinative compl ications and talk about
qu iet positional problems or the com pa ra­
tively simple tactical tasks which we a re
obl iged to solve at al most every step.
I n some books you ca n read that the
process of assessing a position consists i n
determining a n d weighing u p all t h e positional J ose Raul Capablanca writes:
factors which affect it. This is ru bbish! - in 'White is at last ready to liberate his position
fact the g reater part of such work is by means of b2-b4 followed by i.b2. Black
performed su bconsciously. The art of as­ on the other hand, as a result of simple and
sessment is the ability to grasp the logical development, has the control of both
 The Development of Chess Intuition
the open files with his rooks and is also
ahead in time. It is now time to tum his
advantage to account before White is able
fully to develop his game. '
20 . . . 'it'e5!
'A finesse to gain time in bringing the queen
into the battle. Black wants to take posses­
sion of the second row with one of his rooks
and to do that he needs the co-operation of
the queen. The text move aims at prevent­
ing b2-b4 at once, which would be an­
swered by 21 . . . i.. d6 22 g3 We4, and Black
will obtain possession of the second rank. '
As you see , Black's m a i n a i m is formu l ated
- the occu pation of the 2 n d ra n k (it is also
clear what Wh ite wants - to complete hi s
development and beg i n exch a n g i n g rooks) .
Without specific a n alysis it i s d ifficult to
foresee which of the two sides will be more
successfu l in carrying out their plans. But at
least it is clear what they need to a i m for.
21 g3 'it'd5!
22 b4 i.. f8
23 i.. b2 'ifa2 !
24 .Ua 1 ? !
Alexander Alekh i n e suggested 24 .l:t bd 1 !
J:!. xd 1 (if i m med iately 24 . . . aS, then 2 S .l:t xd8
l:!. xd8 26 i.. d 4 ! ) 2 S .l:t xd 1 . After 2S . . . a S 26
bxaS bxaS (26 . . . i.. x a3 27 1f a 6 ! ) Alekh i n e
conti nues 27 'ii' a 6? l:. c2 28 l:. d8 l:. xb2 29
.l:!. xf8+ with perpetual check, or 28 . . . 'it'xb2
29 1i'd6 with a draw. As H arry Golombek
pointed out, i n this variation Black wins by
28 . . . 'ii' b 1 + ! 29 � g2 'ii' x b2 . 27 l:r. d 2 ! is
correct, and if 27 . . . i.. x a3, then either 28
1i'd 1 !, or 28 'it'a6! l:r. f8 (28 .. J:t b8 29 'iV xaS ! ,
and the bishop a t b 2 is i m m u n e ) 2 9 'iVxaS
'i' b 1 + 30 � g2 i.. x b2 (30 . . . 'ii' e 4+ 3 1 f3) 3 1
'i' b4 .
24 . . . 'ifb3
25 i.. d 4? !
It is su rprising, but Aaron N i mzowitsch does
not realise that he should seek salvation by
exchanging rooks. However, after 2 S .l:!. ac1
ttJ 49
(Aiekh ine) 2S . . . aS! he would have had to
seek salvation in a heavy piece endgame a
pawn down . A sample variation is 26 bxaS
bxaS 2 7 l:. xc8 .l:. xc8 28 l:. d 1 i.. x a3 29 i.. x a3
'it'xa3 30 'it' a6 'it' c3.
2S l:l ad 1 ! aS 26 i.. d 4! is stronger: 26 . . . axb4
27 axb4 i.. x b4 28 i.. x b6, or 26 . . . 'i!fxa3 26
bxaS 'i!fxaS (the reply is the same after
26 . . . bxaS) 27 l:l a 1 , reg a i n i n g the pawn .
25 . . . .l:Ic2
26 'ii' a 6?!
Another error by N i mzowitsch i n his percep­
tion of the positi o n : he does not sense that
his q ueen should be participati ng in the
defen ce of the kingside. 26 'ii' f 1 or 26 'ii' d 1
(with the idea of 2 7 .l:. e2) suggests itself. The
move i n the game allows Capablanca to
i nclude his second rook in the attack along
the 2 n d ra n k .
26 . . . e5!
27 i.. xe5 l:ldd2
28 'ii' b7?
By this point al l the commentators had
a l ready written Wh ite off, but to me his
position seems defensible, despite the
i naccuracies com m itted earlier. The queen
should have been retu rned to the defence:
28 'ilff1 (in the event of 28 l:t f1 ? Black
spectacularly decides matters with 28 . . .
'ii'x e3! 2 9 i.. f4 .l:. xf2 ! ) . Alekh i n e g ives the
50 � The Development of C hess Intuition

variation 28 . . . 'i!fd 5 29 i. d4 'if h 5 ! 30 h4 At one time Sergey Dolmatov and I played

(otherwise 30 . . . l:t xf2 ) 30 . . . 'ii'f3 , and after 3 1 a n i nteresti ng type of game, a imed at
l:t ac1 l:txf2 the g3-pawn i s under attack. developing endgame i ntuiti o n . An issue of
This is why instead of 29 i. d4? Wh ite lnformator was opened (the 'endgame'
should play 29 i. f4 ! 'ii' h 5 (29 . . .'ii' f3 30 sectio n ) an d some ra ndom n u m be r was
.l:!. ec1 ! ) 30 h4 'iff3 31 .l:t ec1 ! or 30 . . . h6 3 1 named . The ending with this n u m ber was
e4! , retaining good chances o f a d raw. set u p o n the board . Dolmatov played for the
28 . . . l:r.xf2 side which with correct play could (accord­
i n g to the assessment g iven in the book)
29 g4 'ii' e 6
gain a d raw i n a n i nferior positi o n , or a win in
30 i.g3 I:.xh2!
a superior one. He would fi rst ponder over
30 . . . 'il'xg4 was less good because of 31 the position for five m i n utes, then the clocks
.l:!.f1 . would be started and we would play a bl itz
31 'iff3 game, with the train er using the a nalysis
3 1 i. xh2 'ifxg4+ 32 'iit h 1 'ii' h 3 with u n avoid­ publ ished i n the book. Sometimes an
able mate. additional rule was i ntroduced : at one point
of the game, which Dolmatov considered to
31 . . . .l:t hg2+
be the most i m portant, he had the right to
32 'ifxg2 l:.xg2+ stop the clock an d th i n k for a fu rther five
33 'iit x g2 'ii' x g4 m i n utes. If desired , you can try this with a
34 .l:.ad 1 h5 friend (using two d ifferent issues of lnfor­
35 .l:.d4 1i'g5 mator) - i n this case each of you i n tu rn
36 'iit h 2 a5 performs the role of the train er.

37 I:.e2 axb4 H owever, the best way of tra i n i n g the rapid

38 axb4 i.e7
39 l:te4 i.f6
40 .l:.f2 'ii' d 5
41 .:te8+ 'iit h7
Wh ite resigned.
For the development of i ntuition , various
types of tra i n i ng games a re usefu l , forci ng
you to ta ke a decision q u i ckly, without
carefu l thought.
At the fi rst session of our schoo l , g randmas­
ter Yusu pov recommended that you should
play 'guess the move'. Take a good game by
a grand master, with deta i led comments by
h i m , and after the open ing sta rt trying to
guess his moves, al lowing you rself very
l ittle time for the whole game (for example,
half an hour). Then compare your sugges­
tions with the g randmaster's moves and hi s
comments.
perception of position proved to be the
game which I will now describe. U nfortu­
n ately, it ca n not be played without a tra i ner
or pa rtner an d without a previously pre­
pa red selection of special exercises. ( How­
ever, now this problem is nevertheless
resolvable with the help of a com puter
tra i n i n g program I have prepa red ) .
The clock is set, an d y ou have , say, 1 5
m i n utes to the time contro l . During this time
you have to fi nd the correct solutions to five
d ifferent positions. The fi rst position is set
up on a board , an d the clock is sta rted . After
taking a decision , you make a move on the
board and stop the clock. The second
position is set u p , an d so on. All five
positions have to be solved before you r flag
falls. The exercises (positional or tactical )
a re not too d ifficult, an d do not demand
deep calculati o n . Some of them a re on the
easy side, some a re rather more d ifficult.
 The Development of Chess Intuition
You must u s e y o u r t i m e i n t h e most
economical way, to avoid reach ing the last
exercises a l ready i n severe time-trouble.
But it is dangerous to play too q u ickly - it i s
easy to make a stupid m i stake. You w i n , i f
you correctly solve a ll five exercises -
otherwise you fai l to a g reater or lesser
extent.
Another form of the same game, which I i n
fact used with Dolmatov, Yusupov a n d othe r
grandmasters w h o m I w a s tra i n i n g , i s even
more effective . Slig htly more time i s al­
lowed : 20-25 m i nutes ( 1 5 m i nutes o n ly for
grandmasters and strong m asters) . We play
in exactly the same way, but if a n exercise is
solved incorrectly the clock hand is ad­
vanced by one third of the i n itial time
reserve (with a 1 5- m inute control - by 5
minutes, with a 20-m i n ute control - by 61h
minutes, and so on). Success in the 'series'
means getting through all five position s
without losing on time. You will se e that
Exercises
1 . White t o move
CLJ 51
under such rules you ca n win even if you
m a ke one m i stake . With two m i stakes, this
is u n l i kely (too l ittle time for thought re­
mains) an d with three mistakes it is simply
i m possible.
Play stops as soon as the time l i m it is
exceeded . It is also possible to win 'ahead
of sched ule' - if for the last one or two
positions you h ave a time reserve wh ich is
g reater than the possible penalty for a n
i n co rrect b u t i n stant a n swer. I n t h i s case it i s
no longer necessary t o solve the m .
B u t p l a y ca n also b e conti n ued after losing
on time - u ntil you h ave gone through all
five position s . I t makes sense to do this if
the ru les of the game envisage (with the a i m
o f raising t h e seriousness and responsibil ity
of the decisions take n ) some kind of
'penalty' for a loss, depen d i ng on the
n u m be r of additional m i nutes used .
Now try solving one such 'series'.
2. Black to move
52 � The Development of Chess I ntuition

3 . Wh ite to move 4. Wh ite to move

5. Wh ite to move
 The Development of Chess I ntu ition
Sol uti o n s
1 . Smys lov - G u rgenidze (34th U S S R
Champions h ip , Tbilisi 1 966/67).
45 h4!
The black pawn must be fixed on the
vulnerable h5-sq u are , i n order then to
attack it with the bishop, a n d possibly create
a dangerous passed pawn on the h-file. It is
hardly possible simu ltan eously to hold two
weaknesses - on a? and h 5 . Wh ite is bound
to win .
I n the game there followed 45 'it>d5? h4! 46
.ie2 ltJf8 47 'it>e4 (if the a7-pawn is
captu red , Black sh uts the king i n the corner
by . . . 'it> c7) 47 . . . 'it>g5 48 'it>d5 'it>f6 49 ..tg4
lt:lg6 with a n obvious d raw. After a passed g­
pawn is created , Black can give u p his
knight for it, if his king is then able to retu rn
to b8.
2. 1oh lesen - Belavenets (correspondence
1 974-79).
25 . . . l:!.8xe6!
26 dxe6 'iff3 ! !
Wh ite resigned .
Usually the answer consists of j ust one
move, but sometimes the solution conta i n s
two or more moves. I n s u c h cases I m a k e
m y reply, agai n press t h e clock butto n , a n d
so on , u ntil the entire solution is reproduced
on the boa rd .
3. Bel iavsky - Chern i n ( I nterzon a l Tou rna­
ment, Tu nis 1 985).
I n the event of 21 ik xc4 dxc4 Black would
not stand badly.
21 'ii' b 4!
White has in m i n d 21 . . . ltJ xc3 22 l:!. xc3 (22
'i' xc3!?) 22 . . . 'if xb4 23 axb4 .l:t xe2 24 l:t c7
l:t b8 25 l:. xb7 and wi ns, or 22 . . . 'ii' x e2 23
l:t c7 l:t ab8 24 'ii' x d6 with strong p ressu re .
ttJ 53
H e a lso has t h e adva ntage after 2 1 . . . 'ifxb4
22 axb4 tt:J f6 23 e3 l:!. e7 24 tt:J e2 g5 25 ..t c8 ! .
I n the game there followed 2 1 . . . a5!? 22
'i!i'xb5 tt:Jxc3 23 ikxc4 dxc4 24 bxc3 .l:tab8
25 ..td 7! .l:te7 26 ..ta4 ..td5 27 g4! g6 28 f3
f5 29 gxf5 gxf5 30 'it>f2 'it>f7 31 'lt>g3 'it>f6 32
'it>f4 ..tf7 33 l:.g1 ..tg6 34 h4, and Wh ite
converted his extra paw n .
4. M i les - Makarychev (Oslo 1 984 ).
Wh ite would l i ke to attack the opposing
q ueenside pawns with h is queen , but fi rst he
must suppress the opponent's counterplay
on the kingside. 37 'ii' c 6? ..t xg3 38 'it> xg3
'ii' g 1 + would be premature. 37 ltJ f1 ? 'ii' b 2 is
poi ntless, while if 37 ltJ e2? there follows
37 . . . 'ii' e 1 ! , a n d 38 'ii' x e5+?? loses to
38 . . . ..t f6 .
37 ltJ h 1 ! !
Th reate n i n g to g a i n an adva ntage b y 38
'ii' c 6. For example, 37 . . . ..t e7 38 'if c6 ..t d6
39 ltJ g 3 , i ntend ing h4-h 5 . In the game there
followed 37 . . . 'ifb2 38 ikc6 'ifb1 ? (38 . . . ..t g5!
39 'it> f3 'if b 1 40 tt:J g3 'if d 1 + 4 1 'lt> g2 'i!f d8
was necessary) 39 'ii'x c7 'ife4+ 40 'it>h2 h5
41 'ii'c 6 'i!Vc2 42 gxh5 'ir'f5 43 'ii'g 2 ! ? 'ifxh5
44 c5! , an d Wh ite won .
5 . Pi nter - Larsen ( I nterzon a l Tournament,
Las Palmas 1 982).
Wh ite is pla n n i ng action on the kingside.
However, the hasty 25 'it> f2? ru ns i nto the
excha nge sacrifice 25 . . . l:r. xg5! 26 fxg 5 ltJ g6,
when the position becomes u nclear.
25 ..t h41
The threat of the exchange sacrifice is
neutra l ised . If 25 . . . tt:J g6 Wh ite has 26 ..t f6 ,
a n d otherwise he plays 'it> f2 and ..t f3,
concentratin g h is forces on the king side and
preparing g3-g4.
54 � The Development of Chess Intuition
25 . . . �e8 26 �f3 lt:ld7 27 'ifi>f2 �g6 28 .l::[ h 1
� f7 2 9 �g5 'ii' a s 3 0 g 4 ! 'iti>gB? ( 3 0 . . .fxg4
was more tenacious) 3 1 �f6 .Uf7 32 gxf5
exf5 33 �h5! lt:lxf6 34 exf6, and Black had
no defence.
Experience has shown that, if it is ta ken
seriously, such tra i n ing is exceptionally
usefu l , simu lta neously developing several
skills that a re i mporta nt for a chess player:
It improves i ntuition , the ability to q u ickly
and correctly g rasp both the tactical and the
strategic details of the position .
It cultivates the procedu re for consider­
ing a move the habit of i m med iately
- as soon as possible.
determining the candidate possibilities avail­
able, and also the opponent's m a i n th reats .
Without this, success when playing is not
possible - with time restricted , errors will be
inevitable.
It develops resol uteness. There is simply
no time for the ca refu l checking of variations
- you have to trust you rself and boldly take
decisions.
It helps i n the battle with time-trouble,
since you constantly have to mon itor the
expenditure of time.
It assists the acq u i ring of good form
before an event. You r reactions and q u ick
th inking are improved , without emotional
fatigue setting in, since this type of game is
l ively and spontaneous.
I n conclusion I should l i ke to u n ite the m a i n
ideas expressed i n t h i s lectu re i nto a kind of
instruction g u ide for i ndependent work i n
this field .
INS TRUC TIONS
Recommendations for exercises aimed
at the development of intuition
1 . Carefu l ly fol l ow you r fee l i ngs and try
as often as possible to predict the reply
beforehand. To learn to guess, you must
consta ntly try guessing .
2. Don't be restricted by you r fi rst
impress ion - fol low the changes i n your
feel i ngs as your delve i nto the position.
The truth ca n be sensed at various stages of
the thinking process. Even so, try to do this
3. After asce rta i n i n g the objective truth,
don't forget to compa re it with your
guesses. It is usefu l to record which ideas
and rules were the most i mporta nt and
decisive for the g iven positi o n , and to what
extent you took account of them in you r
preliminary assu m ptions.
4. A very wide ra nge of intu itive feel i ngs
is possible. Not necessa rily the best move ;
perhaps some eval uative considerations,
the desirabil ity of this or that operation ,
sense of danger, an d so o n .
5. Com parative assessments are usually
more val uable than absol ute ones. Con­
clusions such as 'the position is d rawn ' or
'the opponent is hopelessly placed' a re
rather crude and a re often no help when
seeking a solution . More subtle conclu­
sions, relati ng to a comparison of d ifferent
moves , plans an d ideas, possible pros­
pects, eval uation of d ifficulties and dangers
on the path to the goa l , a re fa r more
i m po rtant.
6. I n your calculation take i nto accou nt
not o n ly purely chess factors , but also
com petitive ones. Tou rnament position ,
reserve o f time a n d strength , opponent's
personal ity, the probabil ity of him making
m istakes, an d so on.
 The Development of C h ess Intuition
ttJ 55

7. 'Meta-intu itive' decisions a re very position s which do not lend themselves to

important. For example, ca n you trust you r
intu ition i n the g iven i n sta nce; does the
position lend itself to precise calcu lation and
how advisable is such a calculation ; how
much time should you supposedly spend on
considering a move .
8. Analyse you r actions. If necessa ry,
correct the recommendations g iven and
work out new ru les.
9. Look for topics and ways of working
on chess that have the maxi m u m effect
on the development of i ntuitio n . Try
qu ickly guessing the reply in com pa ratively
simple situations, a n d , by contrast, in
accu rate calculati o n . Devise tra i n i n g exer­
cises a n d games which demand that you
take i ntu itive decisions. It possibly makes
sense to play games with a shortened time
contro l , study the g ames of i ntu itive players ,
a n d so o n .
1 0. D o n' t expect a n i mmediate resu lt, but
remai n confident about you r u lti mate
success. Pu rposefu l actions in this d i rec­
tion will defi n itely held to develop you r
i ntu ition . A s a result you r play w i l l become
more sponta neous, confident, rapid and
assured .

Adde n d u m

Kaspa rov - Karpov

World Championship Match ,
Moscow 1 984/5 , 6th Game
Queen 's Indian Defence
1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::l f3 b6 4 g3 �a6 5 b3
A b4+ 6 �d2 �e7 7 i.. g 2 0-0 8 0-0 d5
9 l2Je5 c6 10 �c3 tt::lfd7 1 1 tt::l x d7 lbxd7
1 2 lbd2 :lea 13 e4 b5
The conseq uences of 1 3 . . . c5 were exam­
ined by Artu r Yusupov at the second session
of our school - cf. the game Yusu pov-Sax,
Rotterda m 1 989, which is a n alysed in
Secrets of Opening Preparation p.45.
1 6 cxb5?
Incidentally, our a n alysis of the clash be­
tween Kasparov and Karpov will be based The fi rst (but by no means last) occasion
on a deep ana lysis by Yusu pov, publ ished when Kaspa rov's positional feel i n g let h i m
the day after the concl usion of the game in down . 1 6 c5 ! would h ave l e d t o a n adva n-
the newspaper Sovietsky Sport. tage for Wh ite : 1 6 . . . tt::l a 4 1 7 'ii'c2 (with the
threat of 1 8 e5 ! ) 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 tt::l b 3 ( Karpov-
1 4 l:.e1 dxc4
Van der Wie l , Amsterdam 1 986), or 1 6 . . . b4
1 5 bxc4 lD b6?! 1 7 � b2 tt::l c4 1 8 tt::l xc4 � xc4 1 9 'ii' c 2 � b5
1 5 . bxc4 is better.
. . 20 a 3 .
56 � The Development of Chess Intuition

16 o o o cxb5 then either 26 'ii' e 5 'ii'f8 27 � e4 , or 26

1 7 .l:tc1 �a3 l:t e 3 ! ? l2J c3 (26 . . . 'ii' d 6 27 � h 3 .l:t f8 28 � f5 )
1 7 . . . b4 !? was also not bad . 27 � xc3 'ili'xb3 (the bishop is invul n erable
because of the weakness of the 8th ran k ) 28
1 8 l:c2 l2Ja4 � e4 ! : xc3 (28 . . . g6 29 'ii' e 5) 29 � xh7+ � f8
1 9 �a1 l:txc2 30 � d 3 ! an d wins.
20 'ii'x c2 'ii' a 5?1 25 0 0 0 'ii' x d4
20 . . . 'it'e7! was stronger, not only preparing 26 l2Jxd4 l2Jxa2
2 1 . . . .l:t c8 , but also preventing d4-d5 .
26 . . . � f8 and 27 . . . b4 was more cautious.
21 'ii' d 1 !
I n the event of the i m mediate 2 1 d5 Wh ite
would have had to reckon with 21 . . . .l:t c8 22
'ii'd 3 (22 'ii' d 1 l:. c1 ) 22 . . . � f8 or 22 . . . l2J b2.
He wants to play l2J b3, and only then d4-d5 .
21 0 0 0
l:lc8?
Black should have chosen between 21 . . . i. b2
22 l2J b3 'il' b4 and 21 . . . l2J c3 22 � xc3 ! ? (22
l2J b3 'ii' b4 23 'ii' c2 l:l c8 , but, of cou rse, not
23 . . . l2J xa2? 24 l:l e3) 22 . . . 'ifxc3 23 l2J b 1 'if a5
24 l2Jxa3 'ii'x a3 25 'ili' b3 (25 d5!?) -
however, in both these cases Wh ite would
also reta i n somewhat the better chances.
22 l2Jb3 'ii' b4
23 d5 exd5 Yusupov showed that 27 l2J f5 ! would h ave
24 exd5 l2Jc3 led to a decisive advantage for Wh ite . I n
reply 27 . . . g 6 ? 28 d6 gxf5 29 d7 is bad for
Black. If 27 . . . � f8 , then 28 d6 is again very
stro n g , for example, 28 . . . J:t d 8 29 l2J e7+ � h8
30 � e5 (30 l2J c6 l:. xd6 3 1 l:t e8 is also good )
30 . . . l2J b4 3 1 l:l e4 .
If 27 . . . l:l c 1 , then 28 J:. xc1 � xc1 29 d6 � g5
30 h4 � c8 (30 . . . � d8 3 1 l2J e7+ � f8 32 l2J c6
� e8 33 � h 3 ! ) 31 hxg5 � xf5 32 � c6 � f8 33
� d4 l2J b4 34 .i. xb5.
I nterposing 27 . . . � b4 ! ? is more tenacious.
Wh ite s i mply replies 28 .l:t e2. The exchange
sacrifice 28 . . . l2J c3 29 � xc3 � xc3 30 l2J e7+
� f8 31 l2J xc8 � xc8 does not save Black -
he also loses a pawn after 32 d6 � b4
(32 . . . b4 33 .l:. e7; 32 . . . .i. e6 33 � d5 ) 33 � c6
25 'it'd4?! � e6 34 d7 � e7 35 � xb5.
I think that it was not essential to exchange It rem a i n s to check 28 . . . l2J c1 29 l:. e4 .
the queens - playing d i rectly for a n attack a ) 29 . . . l2J b3 30 � b2! (the tempti ng 30
with 25 'ii' h 5! was stronger. If 25 . . . l2Jxa2 , � xg7? ! , hoping for 30 . . . l:t c1 +? 3 1 � f1
 The Development of Chess I ntuition
l:!. xf1 + 32 'iit> g 2 ! , allows Black to hold o n by
31 . . . tL'l d2! 32 l:t xb4 l:t c 1 + 33 i. f1 i. c8 ! )
3 0 . . . i. f8 3 1 d 6 tL'l cS 3 2 tL'l e7+ i. xe7 33
l:txe7 with a won position ;
b) 29 . . . tL'l d3 3 0 i. f1 i. f8 3 1 tL'l e7+ (there is
another way to the goa l : 3 1 d6!? tL! cS 32
tt:\ e7+ i. xe7 33 l:. xe7 .l:1 d8 34 i. c3 ! )
3 1 . . . i.. x e7 3 2 ll xe7 b4 3 3 d 6 with the th reats
of 34 i. xd3 i. xd3 35 d 7 , 34 .l:t xa7 a n d 34
l:r. e3 ;
c) 29 . . . ii. f8 30 d6 b4 ( i n the event of
30 . . . tL'l b3 3 1 d7 .l:t c1 + 32 i. f1 .l:. d 1 both 33
.i d4 and 33 tL'l h6+ w i n ) 31 tL'l h6+! gxh6 32
l: g4+ i. g7 33 l:. xg7+ 'iit> f8 34 i. d 5 tL'l e2+ 35
'it> g2 tL'l c3 36 .l:. xf7+ 'iit> g 8 37 i. xc3 bxc3 38
l:!. xa 7 + 'iit> f8 39 l:. xa6 c2 40 d 7 c 1 'if 4 1
dxc8'ili' + 'ili' xc8 4 2 .:t aB.
Now let us see what h appened i n the game.
27 tL'lc6? i.c5!
If 27 . . . 'iit> f8? the simplest solution is 28 i. d 4 !
(with the threat of 29 .:t a 1 ) 28 . . . tL'l c 1 29 d 6 .
2 7 . . . i.d6? is also a mistake i n view o f 28
.i e5! .l:. e8 29 lt a 1 i. xe5 30 .l:t xa2 i. b7
(30 . . . i. c8 31 .l:l e2 f6 32 f4 i. g4 33 .l:t e4) 3 1
.: xa7 i. xc6 3 2 dxc6 'iit> f8 3 3 i. h 3 ! .l:t e7 34
.i d7, and Black has to g ive up hi s bishop for
the mig hty pawn .
28 i.h3?!
A natu ra l , but i n fact d ubious move . It soon
transpires that the bishop has moved o nto
an inferior diagon a l , whereas the black rook,
on the contra ry, moves to a better position .
However, Wh ite n o longer had a wi n :
28 i.d4 i. xd4 29 tL'l xd4 (29 lD e7+? 'iit> f8 30
tt:\ xc8 i. xc8 31 d6 i. f6 o r 31 . . . i. c5 32 .i c6
.i e6) 29 . . . .l:t c1 !? 30 .:t xc1 !D xc1 3 1 d6 'iit> f8
32 d7 (32 lD c6 i. c8 ! ; 32 i. h3 i. b7 ! ; 32 i. c6
g6!) 32 . . . 'iit> e 7 33 !D c6+ 'iit> x d7 34 lD b8+ 'iit> c 7
35 ttJ xa6 'iit> b 6, a n d the two con nected
passed pawns fully compensate Black for
the lost piece;
28 i. e5 .l:t e8! (after both 28 . . . !D b4? ! 29 d6
tt:\ d3!? 30 .l:t e2 !D xe5 3 1 lD e7+ 'iit> f8 32 !D xc8
.t xc8 33 .l:t xe5 i. xd6 34 l:t xb5 a n d 28 . . .
ltJ 57
i. b7?! 2 9 d6 i. xc6 3 0 i. xc6 .l:. xc6 3 1 d7
i. e? 32 i. f6 ! gxf6 33 l:t xe7 l:t d6 34 J:t e8+
'iit> g 7 35 d8'ii' l:t xd8 36 .l:t xd8 aS 37 'iit> f1
Black is in danger of losing the resulting
endings) 29 .l:t a 1 lD b4 30 !D xb4 i. xb4 with
equal ity ;
28 lD e7+ (probably t h e most dangerous try)
28 . . . i. xe7 29 .l::txe 7 b4! (29 .. J l c1 +? 30 i. f1
'iit> f8 31 l:1 xa7 is bad for Black) 30 h4! tL'l c3 3 1
d 6 ( 3 1 ll xa7 i. c4 3 2 d6 tL'l bS) 3 1 . . . i. b5 32
.l:!. xa7 .l:t d 8 ! (32 . . . 'iit> f8? 33 l:. b7! with the
th reat of 34 d7 and 35 i. xc3 ; 32 . . . l:. b8? 33
d7 .l:. d8 34 i. h 3 with advantage to Wh ite ) 33
.l:!. b7 .t ea 34 .l:. xb4 lD bS 35 i. e5 f6 !
(35 . . . 'iit> f8 36 i. d4 ! , an d Black has a d ifficult
position ) 36 i. dS+ 'iit> f8 (weaker is 36 . . . i. f7
37 l:t xb5 fxe5 38 i. e4) 37 i. b2 l:. xd6! with a
d raw.
28 . . . l:ta8
29 i. d4 i. xd4
30 !Dxd4 'iit>f8
31 d6
3 1 a 1 lD b4 32 lD c6 lD xc6 33 dxc6 i. c8 is
l:.
advantageous to Black .
31 . . . !Dc3!
It was a l ready possible to secu re a draw by
31 . . . .l:t d8 32 d7 i. b7 33 !D xb5 i. c6 . But
Karpov keenly sensed that as a result of the
opponent's uncerta i n actions the situation
58 � The Development of C hess Intuition

had changed in his favour, and he decided to 34 .l:!. a 1 ..t xc6 35 ..t xc6 : e6 36 : xa 7 was
play for a win. more tenacious, although the endgame after
Kasparov, on the other h a n d , did not sense 36 . . . l:t xd6 37 ..t d 7 l::t b 6 can h a rdly be held .
the impending danger. H e should h ave 34 . . . f61
forced a d raw by choosing 32 ..t g2! l:!. d8 33 35 d7
..t c6 (with the threat of 34 d7) 33 . . . ..t c8 34 There is no longer any way of savi ng the
ltJxb5.
game: 35 ..t xb7 l:t xe5! 36 J:l a 1 b4 37 l:t xa7
It was also possible to play 32 d7 ..t b 7 ! b3 and 35 ltJ d7+ 'iii f7 36 J:l a 1 i. xg2 37
(defending agai nst 33 ttJ c6 or 33 ..t g 2 ) a n d 'iii xg2 'iii e6 were equally bad .
now, for example, 33 ltJ f5 l:t d8 3 4 .l:t e8+ ( i f 35 . . . l:td8
34 ltJxg7? or 3 4 ltJ d6? there is t h e si m p l e 36 ..txb7 fxe5
34 ... ..t c6) 3 4 ... .l:. xe8+ 35 dxe8'ii' + 'iii x e8 3 6
ltJ d6+ 'iii d 8 37 ttJ xb7 'iii c7 - t h e two black 37 ..tc6 'iii e 7?
pawns are at least as strong as the piece . A time-trouble mistake. There was a n easy
The u nexpected move 33 .l::t a 1 ! , found by win by 37 . . . e4 ! 38 l:t a 1 'iii e 7 (38 . . . ttJ e2+ 39
'iii f 1 ltJ d4 is also possible) 39 l:t xa7 'iii d6 40
Vadim Zviagintsev, is safer. The point is that
l:l a6 'iii c7 41 'iii f1 b4 .
if 33 . . . a6 there follows the pretty stroke 34
ltJ c6! ..t xc6 35 .l:. xa6. The i nteresting try 38 ..txb51 ttJxb5?!
33 . . . a5 encounters the i ntermed iate move Ka rpov did not h ave sufficient time to check
34 .l:. a3! (weaker is 34 l::t x a5 'iii e 7) 34 . . . b4 35 the variation 38 . . . 'iii d 6! 39 ..t d3 .l:t xd7 ! 40
.l:txa5. Black does best to ag ree a d raw after ..t xh7 a5.
33 . . . 'iii e 7 34 .l:. e 1 + 'iii f8 (but not 34 . . . 'iii d 6? 39 l:txe5+ 'iii x d7
35 l:le8 'iii c7 36 ttJ c6! ) 35 .l:. a 1 . Of cou rse, 40 l:!.xb5 'iii c 6
the order of the moves can also be changed :
41 l:th5?
32 l:t a 1 ..t b7 33 d7.
41 l:t e5! was stronger, and if 41 . . . .l:l a8, then
32 ltJc6? i.b7!
42 l:t e6+ 'iii c 5 43 l:r. e7 a5 44 l::t x g7, also
A d raw resu lts from 32 . . . b4 33 d 7 (or 33 attacking the h-pawn .
ttJ xb4 ..t b5) 33 . . . b3 34 d8 'ii' + .U xd8 35 ltJ xd8
41 . . . h6
..t d3.
42 l:l e5 I:!. aS
33 i.g2 l:!e8 !
The sealed move . 42 . . . l:l d 5 was also good .
Possibly Kaspa rov was hoping for 33 . . . b4? The ending is rather inte resti n g , but here we
34 d7 b3 35 ltJ b8! .l::t x b8 36 ..t xb7 b2 will cut things short, since from this point it
(36 . . . l:r.d8 37 ..t c6) 37 .tea, and Wh ite wins. was a contest not in the abil ity to fi nd the
But Karpov's sense of danger is equal to the strongest conti n uations at the board , but in
occasion. q ua l ity of adjournment a nalysis. Black won
34 ttJe5 on the 70th move .
 tZJ 59

Serg ey D o l m atov

I n J azz Style

I games, in which a tense battle developed

shou ld l i ke to show you a few of my own Dolmatov - Lerner
All-U nion Qual ifying Tou rnament,
from l iterally the fi rst few moves - a l ready in Daugavpils 1 978
the opening or at a n early stage of the
Philidor Defence
middlegame. In them there was a sharp a n d 1 e4 e5
usually a very u n conventional battle for t h e
2 lt:\f3 d6
initiative .
3 d4 exd4
All the games were played many yea rs ago,
when I was making my fi rst steps i n the 4 lt:\xd4 lt"Jf6
world of top-class chess - this is no 5 lt:\c3 il.. e 7
accident. Youth is typified by a n absence of I suspect that this was a l ready the extent of
stereotypes, by opti m i s m , a n d by a belief i n my theoretical knowledge. But this factor did
one's own powers (someti mes excessive, not bother me: after all, i n the resulting
involving a n u nderesti mation of the oppo­ position it is not hard to make common
nent). I nteresti n g , vivid games often result sense moves . For the moment a sound
from fl ig hts of im ag i n ation , not b urdened by cou rse can be followed: develop the pieces
experience and knowledge, from i n ner a n d fight for the centre - there a re no
freedom, not stifled by rules. With the yea rs, dangers to be fea red .
alas, this 'fl i p pancy' is u s ua l l y lost. 6 i.. e 2 0-0
The a b i l ity to th i n k u nconventionally is an 7 0-0 .:1e8
importa nt q u a l ity for achieving victory over a 7 . . lt:\ c6 ! ? .
.

strong opponent. This is d ifficult to learn and

8 f4 i.. f8
probably i m possible to teach . Try to develop
9 i.. f3
this abil ity i n you rself, by a nalysing the early
games of those outsta n d i ng players who Wh ite has obta i ned a strong centre . Even
made a name for themselves at a you ng now I have no complai nts a bout his opening
age . Players such as Boris Spassky, M i kh a i l strategy.
Tal and Alexey S h i rov . . . Their ideas evoke 9 . . . lt:\a6
naivety and spontaneity; they were gener­ 1 0 1:le1 c6
ated not i n the q u iet of their study, but If 1 O . . . lt:\ c5,then 1 1 lt"J b3 lt:\ xb3 1 2 axb3 is
directly at the board . At times they do not good .
stand up to strict mathematical verificatio n ,
1 1 i.. e 3
but i t proved s o d ifficult t o refute these ideas
that the opponents went wro n g .
I have taken the l i berty o f comparing t h i s (see diagram)
easy, improvised playing manner with jazz,
a type of music which is stil l popular today.
60 � In J azz Style
I placed my rook on e1 so that if 1 1 . . ..�:J c5 I
could defend the e-pawn with the si m ple
bishop retreat 12 ..lt f2 . After 1 2 .. .<�:J e6 1 3
'ii'd 2 Wh ite brings his queen's rook to d 1
and only then beg i n s thinking a bout h i s
fu rther p l a n s : whether t o break through i n
the centre with e4-e5, or prepare a pawn
offensive on the kingside with h2-h3 a n d
g2-g4 .
My opponent did not want to defend
patiently and he decided to beg i n a n
immediate battle i n t h e centre .
11 . . . d5?!
12 e5 c5?
It would have been better for Black to
restrict himself to the modest knight retreat
1 2 . . .'�J d7 .
C an you bel ieve i n th e success o f Black's
mil itary operation, begu n with his bishop on
c8 and his knight on a6? You can't? Then
you have to find a refutatio n .
1 3 exf6 l:!.xe3
The ' poi nt' of my opponent's idea!
14 Uxe3 cxd4
(see diagram)
For the moment I am the exchange u p , but I
have two pieces en prise. If either of them
should be captu red , the material advantage
will pass to Black. He was only expecting
1 5 'it'xd4 ..lt c5 an d was hoping to exploit the
pin o n the g 1 -a7 d iagonal (it is not clear,
however, whether this is possible after 1 6
'if d2). Kon stantin Lerner clea rly underesti­
mated my reply.
1 5 ..ltxd5!
Now both pieces a re i nvul nerable i n view of
1 6 � xf7 + , an d 1 5 . . . 'ik xf6 1 6 ttJ e4 is bad for
Black. I n order to defend h i s quee n , he must
develop h i s bishop from c8 , but where? It is
i m mediately clear that any bishop move has
its d rawbacks : 1 5 . . . .lt d? 1 6 'it' h 5 g6 1 7
� xf7 + , 1 5 . . . � e6 1 6 .l:!. xe6, o r 1 5 . . . ..lt g4 1 6
'it'xg4 dxe3 1 7 ..lt xb7.
15 . . . ..ltf5
1 6 .l:!.e5 �g6
have removed one of my pieces from
attack, but it is more d ifficult to deal with the
second - any knight move is a n swered by
1 6 . . . gxf6 . However, as was shown by
Dvoretsky, it was nevertheless possible to
play 1 7 tLl e4 ! , si nce if 1 7 . . . gxf6 there is the
pretty stroke 1 8 U e8 ! .
1 7 fxg7 'Ot>xg7
In the event of 1 7 . . . ..t xg7 1 8 'ilf xd4 it all
i m mediately becomes clear.
1 8 ttJe4! f6
1 9 'it'xd4!
(see diagram)
 In Jazz Style ttJ 61

23 . . . lt'ld7
24 'ifi> h 1 !
In such cases variations should a l ready be
calculated to the e n d . To make thi ngs
easier, I recommend that you beg i n your
calculation with moves to which the oppo­
nent has only one reply. Thus the queen
check on e6 looks tempti n g , but you will
have to a n alyse not only 24 . . . '0t> g 7 , but a lso
24 . . . lt'l f6 an d 24 . . . 'ii'f6 , an d it is possible to
overlook . . . 'ii' b 6+ . The king move , renewi ng
the threat of ll e3, does not leave the
opponent any choice.

A pictu resq ue positi o n ! T h e centre is com­ 24 . . . ..ic5

pletely occu pied by wh ite pieces . After the 24 . . . exf4 25 'ii' xf4+ is completely bad for
captu re of the rook, even if a m ate can n ot Black.
be fou nd, Wh ite will later reg a i n the materia l 25 l:td1 !
b y captu ring t h e b7-pawn with h i s bishop. The rook ma noeuvre to h 3 is aga i n th reat­
19 . . . ..ixe4 ened , but there is the additional possibil ity
'Ot>
If 1 9 . . . fxe5 20 'ili' xe5+ h 6, then either 21 g4 of captu ri ng the b7-pawn with g ain of tempo.
or 21 lt'lf6 . An i nterestin g variation was 25 . . . lt'lf8
found by Dvoretsky: 1 9 . . . lt'l b4 ! ? 20 l:t d 1
26 ..ixb7
tt:l xc2 2 1 'ii'f2 fxe5 2 2 'ii'x c2 exf4 2 3 'ii' c 3+
Black resig ned .
�h6 24 .I;! d3 (24 lt'l f6 ! ? ) 24 . . . l:t c8 2 5 l:t h 3 +
.i h5 26 'ii' d 2 'ii' x d5 ! ( t h e only defen ce
aga inst the mating th reats) 27 'i!i' xd5 l:t c 1 + The fol lowi ng example, l i ke the previous
28 � f2 U c2+ 29 'ii' d 2 ! (otherwise it is not one, is a fai rly light-hearted game, with the
possible to h ide from the checks) 29 . . . J:t xd2+ rapid crushing of the opponent's positio n .
30 lt'l xd2 , and Wh ite should be able to I ncidenta lly, don't be su rprised t h at I a m not
convert his exchange advantage. showing you any of my lost g ames. Of
lt'lc5 course, they should be ca refu lly stud ied , to
20 'ifxe4
disclose the causes of the mistakes made,
My opponent was counting on this i ntermedi­
but at the moment why should I spoil my
ate move. 20 . . . fxe5 was hopeless: 21 'i!i'xe5+
mood by remembering fai l u res?
'i'f6 (2 1 . . . '0t> g6 22 'ili' e6+) 22 1i'xf6+ 'Ot> xf6 23
.i xb7.
21 'ii'f3 fxe5 Dolmatov - F ranzoni
22 'ii' g 4+ World J u n ior C h a m pionsh i p , G raz 1 978
Sicilian Defence
Black has nevertheless won a piece , but h i s
1 e4 c5
king ca nnot escape from t h e mating attack.
2 lt'lf3 e6
22 . . . 'Ot>h6
23 lle1 ! 3 d4 cxd4
All White's forces must take part i n the 4 lt'lxd4 lt'lf6
assault! He is th reate n i ng both 24 .:!. xeS and 5 lt'lc3 lt'lc6
24 l:L e3. 6 ..ie2
62 � In Jazz Style

This is rarely played (the usual continua­ of the game.

tions are 6 lt:J db5 and 6 lt:J xc6 bxc6 7 e5). In 10 cxd4
offering to go i nto the Scheve n i ngen (6 ... d6), 10 .i. xe4 ! ? came i nto considerati o n , but 1
White allows the bishop move to b4 , after was hoping to transpose i nto my an alysis
which he has to sacrifice a paw n . I a n alysed after 1 0 . . . d5 1 1 .i. a3.
this sharp variation with my tra i ner M a rk
10 . . lt:J f6
Dvoretsky and then I successfu lly employed
.

it a couple of times. I don't know why no one Wh ite is a pawn down , an d for the moment
plays th is now - i n my opinion, here Wh ite he also has no attack, but he has the two
obtains a very promising position . bishops an d a defi n ite advantage i n space
and development. I n add ition , as I reca l l ,
6... .i. b4
there w a s a healthy opti m ism , a confidence
7 0-0 .i.xc3 i n my powers, which is of no small i mpor­
8 bxc3 lt:Jxe4 ta n ce i n such situations. However, such a
9 .i.d3 position is one that I would also happily play
n ow. Wh ite's i n itiative is en duri n g , and it is
not easily neutral ised .
1 1 .i. g5 'ii' a 5 ! ?

9. . . lt:Jxd4
This was the extent of my knowledge. 1
knew that 9 . . . lt:J xc3?! was dangerous i n view
of 1 0 'iV g4 or 1 0 'iVe 1 and I had only 1 2 f4!
analysed 9 . . . d5. I was aware of only one
A non-routine decision (with the bishop on
game on th is theme, Geller-Khasin (25th
g5 it is not usual to place the pawn on f4 ) ,
USSR Championsh i p , Riga 1 958), which
b ut appa rently the correct one. Wh ite
continued 1 0 .i. a3 'ii a 5 11 'ii' c 1 lt:J xd4 1 2
should not h u rry with the exchange on f6 . By
cxd4 .i. d7 1 3 .U. b 1 .i. c6 1 4 .i. b4 'fie? 1 5 'ii' a 3
adva ncing h i s f-pawn , he i ncludes h i s king's
a5 16 .i. xe4 dxe4 1 7 c4 f6 1 8 .i. d6 'ii' d 7 with
rook i n the attack. I n the event of 1 2 . . . 'ii' b 4 1
roug hly eq ual chances. I don't remember
would have g iven up a second pawn by 1 3
exactly how I was intending to improve
f5 .
Wh ite's play, but there was a way - you ca n
look for it you rself. Later I successfu lly 12 . . . b6
employed it against Sergey Gorelov, but, 1 3 .i. xf6
u nfortunately, I have not reta i ned the score But now is an appropriate moment for the
 In Jazz Style
ttJ 63

exchange - thanks to it Wh ite will be able to the enemy queen from the long d iagonal .
gain a tempo by 1 4 'iif3 . 20 c4! 'iix c4
13 . . . gxf6 21 fxe6 dxe6
1 4 'ii'f3 l:t b8 21 .. .'ii' xe6 was more tenacious.
'ii' 'if l:t
1 4 . . . d 5 1 5 xd5 exd5 1 6 ae 1 + 'itf8 1 7 22 'ii'f4!
.l:l.f3 would h ave led to a n i nferior endgame A double attack on f6 an d b8. But couldn't it
for Black. For the moment he is not ready so have also been made without the d iverti ng
openly to sou nd the retreat. pawn sacrifice?
15 f5 .li. b7 22 . . . .l:t b7
1 6 .li.e4! 23 l:c1 !
It is important to kill the opponent's hopes This is the point! N ow al l my pieces are
associated with cou nter-pressu re o n the g2- pa rticipati ng i n the attack. Wh ite's th reats
point. With j ust the heavy pieces on the a re i rresistible.
board , Black's position is d ifficult, since h i s 23 . . . 'ii d 5
king is u n d e r attack a n d hi s rooks a re
24 'ii xf6 l:ie7
separated .
25 'iWh8+
16 . . . .li.xe4
Black resig ned .
1 7 'ii x e4 'ii d 5
1 8 it'h4 .l:tg 8
Dol matov Flesch
For me there is someth i n g mysterious about
-

this game: all the time Black seemingly Bucharest 1 98 1

makes good , logical moves, but h i s position Caro-Kann Defence
imperceptibly becomes hopeless . Why this 1 e4 c6
happens, where the defen ce can be i m ­ 2 d4 d5
proved , I myself do not know! 3 exd5 cxd5
1 9 l:tf2 .l:r.g5 4 c4
How should Wh ite conti n ue his offensive? Aga i n st the Caro-Ka n n I employ only the
Panov Attack, and q u ite successful l y - I
have a l ready scored n u merous wins with it.
4 . . . lL'lf6
5 lL'lc3 e6
6 lL'lf3 .li. b4
7 .li.d3
I n my game with Andrey Kharitonov (qual ify­
ing tou rn ament for the World J u n ior Champi­
onsh i p , Soch i 1 978) 7 cxd5 exd5! was
played . At that time the theory of the 6 . . . i. b4
va riation was only j ust being developed ,
and the recaptu re on d5 with the pawn came
as a su rprise to me. I won a good game, but
from the ope n i ng I had noth i n g . F ro m then
The pressu re on g2 is restricting my forces. on I beg a n playing 7 .li. d 3 , tra nsposing i nto
It is importa nt, even for a moment, to divert one of the variations of the N i mzo- l ndian
64 \t>
Defence. The resulti ng position s suit me
perfectly well , so that I myself can n ot
understand why I altogether avoid the q u ite
reasonable move 1 d4.
7. . . dxc4
8 i.xc4 0-0
9 0-0 i.xc3 ? !
1 0 bxc3 'fic7
In the late 1 970s the world champion
Anatoly Ka rpov successfully practised the
plan i nvolving the exchange of the b4-
bishop for the knight, and the development
of the knight at d7 and bishop at b7. J anos
Flesch is a i m i ng for a similar set-up, but he
carries it out inaccu rately - the prematu re
exchange on c3 i ncreases Wh ite's possibili­
ties. He should have beg u n with either
9 . . . b6 or 9 . . . tt::l b d7. I n cidental ly, the knight
move was made agai nst me by Jonathan
Speelman i n a game which I demonstrated
at the 2nd session of the school (cf. Secrets
of Opening Preparation p. 78).
11 i.d3!
A natural and logical move - the bishop was
u nder attack. I have to admit that at the time
I did not even consider the reply 11 .. .'ii' x c3
(now my opti mism has d i m i n ished some­
what, and probably I would nevertheless try
to calculate it). After 1 2 i. f4 ! (but not 1 2 i. g5
tt::l b d7, tra nsposing i nto the afore-men-
In Jazz Style
tioned game against Speelm a n ) Wh ite has
a n enormous lead i n development, giving
him more than sufficient compensation for
the sacrificed pawn .
11 . . . tt::l bd7
The opponent is hoping after 1 2 c4 b6 1 3
i. g 5 i. b7 to a rra nge h is pieces i n accord­
ance with Ka rpov's scheme, but I do not
a l low h i m this opportu n ity.
1 2 i.a3!
An u n usual development of the bishop for
the g iven ope n i n g variation . I n h is youth a
chess player has less dogma an d more
energy - it ca n be easier for h i m to devise a
fresh idea. When he becomes older, he
a l ready knows exactly what was played
earlier in similar cases , and this knowledge
sometimes prevents an u n p rejud iced ap­
proach to the positio n .
I have managed t o d iscover t h e main
weakness i n t h e opponent's position - the
vulnerable d6-square . I n cidentally, also after
the normal development of his bishop at g5,
later Wh ite often tries to exploit the same
weakness with the manoeuvre i. g5-h4-g 3 ! .
12 . . . .l:te8
The usual square for the rook in this
variation ( Ka rpov also used to place it here).
It would have been better to play it to d8, but
the opponent did not a ntici pate my idea .
1 3 tt::l d 2!
What to do now? The knight is a i m i n g for d6,
and after 1 3 .. .'ii' x c3 14 tt::l c4 Black is in
danger of losing h is queen . He should
probably have chosen the cool-headed
1 3 . . . b6, although after 1 4 tt::l c4 i. b 7 1 5 tt::l d 6
Wh ite has an obvious advantage .
13 . . . l:Id8
14 'iff3
I n the event of 1 4 tLl c4 tLl f8 Black would
have covered the d6-sq uare , and so I
activate my quee n , fi nally defending the c3-
pawn and preventing the development of
the bishop at b7.
 In Jazz Style
ltJ 65

14 . . . lt:'lf8 1 8 ..t h4 f5? !

What would you now play as Wh ite? It is probable that m a n y would h ave played
this - it is h a rd to e n d u re such i ntense
pressu re for long . Even so, it would have
been better to be patient, an d refrai n from
wea ke n i n g the position .
1 9 ..t c2 lt:'lb6
20 i. b3 i.d7
2 1 ..tg3
Before taking the f5-pawn it is usefu l to
i m p rove the placing of the bishop. It is
amusing that i n the end it has nevertheless
moved to g3, its lawful sq uare i n this
variati o n .
21 . . . 'ii' c6
22 Wxf5 'ilfxc3
1 5 lt'le4!
23 i.e5!
A typical idea! In such cases it is usefu l to
Wh ite defends the d4-pawn and parries the
exchange the opponent's few developed
threat of 23 . . . 'ilfxb3, after which 24 ii' g5 is
pieces - then you r lead in development is
now decisive.
easier to exploit. An a n alogy with ice­
hockey ca n be d rawn : if a player has to 23 . . .
leave the rink, an advantage of five players The q ueen retu rns to the defence.
against fou r is appreciable, but neverthe­ 24 'ir'h5 :ac8
less not decisive. If a fu rther pa i r is How should the offensive be conti nued?
removed, it becomes much harder to de­
fend with three against fou r, a n d with two
against three it is probably a l most i m possi­
ble.
Of cou rse , Wh ite's move was also based on
more concrete considerations; in pa rticul a r,
he was aim ing to h i nder the development of
the bishop on c8 . But a knowledge of
general ru les, such as the one just men­
tioned , usually makes it easier for us to ta ke
a decision and suggests where it should be
soug ht.
15 . . . lt:'Jxe4
1 6 ..txe4 lt:'ld7
A dismal spectacle - the opponent's pieces
rush from place to place. H e obviously 25 f4!
wants to play 1 7 . . . li:'Jf6 , but of cou rse, I do Usually I fi nd it hard to decide on changes i n
not al low this. t h e pawn structu re - I p refer t o p l a y with the
17 ..te7! l:te8 pieces. But here I made a pawn move - it
66 � In J azz Style

really is very strong . Wh ite is threatening tious opponents . We crossed swords i n the
not only to include his rook via f3 , but also to very fi rst rou n d and I was able to q u ickly
play f4-f5. crush h i m with Black. It was a double-round
25 . . . g6 event, a n d soon o u r second meeting took
place - with the same result.
25 . . . i.. c6 is bad i n view of 26 'if g4! 'i!ie7 27
i.. x e6+, while if 25 . . . tt::l c4 , then 26 i.. c2 is
decisive. After the move i n the game Wh ite Dolmatov - Larsen
forcibly destroys the opposi ng defences. Amsterdam 1 980
26 'ii' h 4 'i!ie7 Caro-Kann Defence
27 i..f6 'ikf7 1 e4 c6
28 f5 ! tt::l d 5 Of cou rse , Larsen had no suspicion of how
29 fxg6 'ii' x g6 dangerous it was to play this ope n i n g
30 l:tf3 tt::l xf6 agai nst me.

Black is forced to g ive up his quee n , which is 2 d4 d5

equivalent to resignation . 3 exd5 cxd5
31 l:!.g3 'iti>g7 4 c4 tt::l f6
32 llf1 .:as 5 tt::l c 3 e6
33 l:r.xg6+ hxg6 6 tt::l f3 i.. b4
34 iVg5 l:tc6 7 i.. d 3 dxc4
35 iVe5! .l:l. b6 8 i.. x c4 0-0
36 g4 l:I b5 9 0-0 a6
37 d5!
Black resig ned .
Note that, after gaining a material advan­
tage, White did not relax the pressure, but
looked for the most d i rect and energetic way
to wi n . Sometimes i n such situations,
feeling that the work has a l ready largely
been done, a player relaxes and beg ins
playing carelessly. As a result the opponent
is able to set up a defence and even g a i n
cou nter-chances.

The following game (played the previous

year) developed i n similar fashion . The
same open i n g , and the same energetic
exploitation of the opponent's ope n i ng inac­
cu racies. At the time I was an i nternational
master, and I was participati ng for the fi rst
time in a strong g randmaster event, whereas
Bent Larsen was one of the favou rites.
Sometimes the experienced g randmaster
tended to underestimate young and ambi-
d i d n 't know a n ything about this move.
Later I establ ished that it makes sense to
prevent . . . b7-b5 by playing 1 0 a4! ? , as in
the Queen's Gambit Accepted . But at the
time I did not want to weaken the b4-sq uare
and I devised a nother idea .
1 0 a3 ! ?
 In J azz Style
ttJ 67

Also prophylaxis against . . . b7-b5, only
more refi ned . I n the event of 1 O . . . � e7 I was
intend i ng to retreat my bishop to a2 in
advance and to meet the fla n k advan ce
1 1 . . . b5 with the central cou nter 1 2 d 5 ! . If
instead 1 O . . . � xc3 1 1 bxc3 b5, then after 1 2
� d3 the threat of 1 3 a4 i s u n pleasant.
Even so, this last variation looks the most
log ical reaction to White's pla n . After the
exchange on c3 the move a2-a3 is a waste
of time: the pawn should either be left on a2,
or moved to a4. At the 1 982 Zonal Tou rna­
ment i n Yerevan , Lev Psakhis prepared well
for his game with me and went i n for this
position. There followed 1 2 . . . 'ii' d 5 1 3 a4
� b7 14 'ii'e 2 .l:r. c8 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 l:t xa8
. baa 1 7 � d2 l2J e4 1 8 � xe4 'ii' x e4 1 9 'ii'x b5
.i d5 20 l::te 1 'ii' g 6 21 'ii' e 2 l2J c6 , a n d Black
had sufficient com pensation for the sacri­
ficed pawn . The game soon ended in a
draw.
Of cou rse , at the boa rd , with the clock
ticking away, it is fa r harder than in home
preparation to make a sober assessment of
a position . Therefore if you a re able to t h i n k
up a sensible i d e a s u c h as 1 0 a 3 , the
practical chances of it succeed ing a re very
considerable, even if a solution to the
problem facing the opponent does i n fact
exist.
10 . . . �e7
1 1 �a2 b5? !
11 . . l2J c6 was better.
.
q ueens have to be exch anged : it is too risky
to play 1 4 . . . l:t a7 1 5 � f4 ( 1 5 'ii' h 5 ! ? )
1 5 . . . : d??! 1 6 'ii' h 5 with strong pressure on
Black's kingside. After 14 . . . 'ii'x d5 1 5 � xd5
l:t a7 1 6 � f4 Black ca n n ot play 1 6 . . . � b7? 1 7
� e3, and 1 6 . . .l:t d7 1 7 � xf7+ .U xf7 1 8 � xb8
is also u nfavourable. He has to agree to a
permanently i nferior endgame by 1 6 . . . � e6
1 7 � xe6 fxe6 . Even so, this would have
been the lesser evi l : objectively Black ca n
hope for a d raw. ' But why play cautiously
agai nst a boy? ' , the g randmaster probably
thought.
1 4 l2Jxe7+ "ii' x e7
1 5 �g5
The two bishops i n a n open position ensure
Wh ite a n overwhe l m i ng advantage. I only
have to make natu ral attacking moves and
make sure that the opponent does not
escape from the trap i nto which he has
fal l e n .
15 . . . l2Jbd7
1 6 l::t e 1 'ii' c 5
1 6 . . . 'ilfd8 was more tenacious.
17 �e3
Of cou rse , not 1 7 l:t c1 ? � xf3 .
17 . . . 'ii'f5
'ii'
1 7 . . . h5 was comparatively better, al­
though after 1 8 l2J g5 'it' xd 1 1 9 l:t axd 1 Black
has a d ifficult endgame.

1 2 d5!
What should Black do now? He does not
want to allow the captu re on e6 - for the
enti re game he will have to defend a clearly
inferior position .
12 . . . exd5
1 3 l2Jxd5 � b7?
Black should h ave exchanged knig hts :
1 3 l2Jxd5 . Larsen w a s afra id of the reply 1 4
. . .

'i'xd5 ( 1 4 � xd5 i s weaker i n view of

1 4 .l:!. a7 with the threat of 1 5 . . . .l:t d7). The
. . .
68 � In J azz Style

18 lLJh4! 24 'ii' d 41
The q ueen is al most trapped . Of cou rse, the Complete dominatio n ! There is no need to
routi ne 1 8 lLJ d4? was weaker because of pick the fru it - it will fall of its own accord .
1 8 . . . 'iig 6. Black's next move is effectively F i rst deprive the opponent of any sensible
the decisive mistake - only the return of the moves , an d then fi n ish him off. It was even a
queen to eS prom ised chances of saving the pity for me to make the next few moves , as I
game. wanted simply to enjoy the ideal a rrange­
18 . . . 'ife4? ment of the wh ite pieces - I a m no longer
able to i m p rove it.
1 9 .tg5 'ii' c6
24 . . . 'ilfb8
20 .l:.c1 'ii' b 6
It was not in vain that I had developed my
21 .tel
' p rophylactic th i n king' - I i m mediately real­
The game has turned out to be very ised that Black was i nten d i n g 25 . . . lt d 8 . I
amusing . My dark-sq uare bishop moves had to calculate a wi n n i ng variation to the
backwards and forwards, each time with end (when the opponent's possibilities a re
gain of tempo. so restricted , this is very easy). I n fact it was
21 . . . 'ii d 8 time to win the point an d leave for home.
22 lLJf5 25 f41 l:td8
As you can see, since the 1 6th move only 26 f5 .ih5
White has been playing . The opponent's 27 h3 tt:J b6
queen has wandered rou n d the enti re board 28 'ii' x b6 'ill' x b6
and finally returned to its i n itial square d B ,
29 .ixb6 .U.xd6
bu t du ring that tim e I have i ncluded a l l my
pieces i n the attack. 30 .ie3
It is after accu rate moves such as these that
22 . . . .te4
the opponent usually capitulates (after other
23 tt:Jd6 .tg6 moves by the bishop Larsen would stil l have
The bishop has moved to the defence of the been able to consider 30 . . . I!d2). Black
f7-point. Wh ite's position is won , of cou rse , resigned .
but I suggest you try to fi nd the way that I
found i n the game. By now you will probably have g a i ned the
i m p ression that I can win only with Wh ite.
Therefore I will show you a game in which I
had the black pieces.

Van der Sterren - Dolmatov

Amsterd a m 1 979
Reti Opening
1 lLJf3 d5
2 b3 .tg4
3 .t b2 lLJd7
3 . . . .t xf3 would have led to a completely
u n explored position - these I try to avoid.
Black's p l a n , which had a l ready many times
 In J azz Style
ltJ 69

brought me success, is simple: . . . e7-e6 , playing without prejud ices is typical of

. . . c7-c6, . . . lt:J gf6 , . . . .i. d 6 , . . . 0-0 , . . . .l:r. e8 a n d youth . I t would seem to be a pity to leave the
at some point . . . e6-e5. opponent with a stro n g bishop o n the long
4 c4 e6 diagonal. A matu re player wou l d possibly
5 e3 lt:Jgf6 not h ave risked such a n exchange (which
mea n s he would h ave rejected 9 . .i. e5). I n
6 .i.e2 .i.d6
. .

fact, B lack's solid position i n the centre and

6 . c6 is perhaps slig htly more accu rate ,
. .
the slight vulnerability of the opponent's set­
when after the excha n g e on d 5 Black can u p , which has been weakened by f2-f4 ,
captu re with the c-paw n . secure me good cou nterplay.
7 cxd 5 ! ? exd5 1 1 .i.xd4
8 lt:Jxd4 In the event of the a nti-positional 1 0 exd4+?
A typical idea in the Reti O pe n i n g - the Black g a i n s the advantage with 1 0 . . . 'ii e 7 1 1
knight is a i m i n g for f5 . 'ii' x e 7 + � xe 7 1 2 .i. a3+ � dB 1 3 0-0 .U e8 1 4
8 . . . .i.xe2 lt:J c3 lt:J b8! followed by 1 5 . . . lt:J c6 .
9 'iix e2 11 . . . c5
What would you now play? 1 2 .i. b2 0-0
1 3 0-0 :es
1 4 'ii' d 3?!
It would h ave been better to place the queen
at f3 .
14 . . . 'ii' b 6
Wh ite will soon have to reckon with both
. . . d 5-d4 , an d . . . c5-c4 .
1 5 lt:J c3
But what to play now?

Of course, one can simply castle, but after

1 0 lt:Jf5 Wh ite will sta nd a little better. I d i d
not want to concede the i n itiative t o my
opponent, and I chose the conti n uation that
was the most critical , but also slig htly risky.
9 . . . .i.eS!
10 f4
I also had to reckon with 1 0 .i. a 3 , and if
1 O . . . c5, then 1 1 f4! .i. e? 1 2 lt:J f5 . I was
planning 1 0 . . . lt:J e4! . You don't h ave to look i m mediately for any
10 . . . .ltxd4 b ri l l i a nt idea . F i rst see whether or not the
I must once a g a i n rem ark nostalgically, that p roblem (the d 5-pawn is attacked) ca n be
70 � In Jazz Style

solved by any normal move that is usefu l to

you .
15 . . . l:t ad8!
All my pieces are now i n play. After 16 tt:'l xd5
tt:'J xd5 1 7 'ii'x d5 tt:'l f6 (or 1 7 . . . tt:J e5 1 8 'ii' e4
tt:'ld3) Black regains the pawn a n d stands
better.
1 6 J:.ab1
Just i n case, my opponent decided to
defend agai nst . . . c5-c4 . But I a m ready to
advance not only my c-pawn , but also my d­
pawn. See how usefu l it is to have several
strategic th reats in reserve , without hu rrying
to carry out any one of them!
By placing my q ueen on the same d i agonal
16 . . . 'i!i' c6
as the wh ite king , I have i n d i rectly defe nded
1 7 .l:tf3 d4! the d4-pawn - if 21 ..t xd4 there is the strong
Now is the ti me! With his last move Paul Van reply 21 . . . l:t xd4! 22 tt:'J xd4 tt:'l e6 23 l:[ d3 l:l d8.
der Sterren demonstrated his desire to At the same time Black avoids the exchange
beg i n a flank attack, and I meet it with a of q ueens, wh ich could have occu rred after
th rust in the centre , which , however, de­ 2 1 .l:. c 1 .
manded accu rate calculati o n . [20 . . . ttJ fe4! (with the threat of 2 1 . . . ttJxd2) is
There was als o another tempti ng possibil ity: probably even stronger, and if 2 1 ltJxd4
1 7 . . . tt:J e4! ? . Then bad is 1 8 tt:'l xd5? 'ii' d 6 with 'it'b6 - Dvoretsky.]
a decisive pin on the d-file, but after 1 8 2 1 I!c1 tt:'l e6
tt:J xe4! dxe4 1 9 'it'c3 f6 20 l:r. g 3 Wh ite would
22 d3
have retai ned a n acceptable position . I
already wa nted more . Even so, Wh ite should h ave tried 22 f5 , after
wh ich I was i nte n d i ng 22 . . . lt:J g 5 23 l:t d 3 (23
1 8 exd4 cxd4
l:tf4! ? ) 23 . . . a6! 24 tt:'J xd4 lt:J g4! or 24 tt:'l c7
1 9 tt:'lb5 .U. e4 . The move i n the game weakens the e3-
1 9 tt:'l e2 tt:J c5 20 'if c4 'i!i'e4 21 l:t e 1 d3 22 square, for where the black knight i m medi­
'ii'xc5 'ii'x e2 ! is bad for White. [In fact, after ately aims.
23 i.xf6 'ii' xe 1 + 24 1:tf1 or 23 . . . gxf6 24 %:.g3+ lt:J g4
22 . . .
�hB 25 I:.e3 the outcome remains unclear;
23 f5 !
however, 20. . . b5! 2 1 ttJxd4 1kxf3! wins -
Dvoretsky.] What would you play now?
19 . . . tt:J cs
(see diagram)
20 'it'c4
23 . . tt:'lf8 !
(see diagram)
.

A sober reply. After 23 . . . lt:J e5? Wh ite had

My pieces are excellently placed , but the
d4-pawn is under attack. In this sharp
position Black had foreseen a p u rely
positional solution .
20 . . .
prepared a q ueen sacrifice: 24 fxe6 ! lt:J xc4
25 exf7+ � h8 26 fxe8'ii' + an d wins.
23 ... lt:J g5?! was u nconvinci n g : 24 .:X g 3 tt:'l e3
25 'ii' c 5 (25 'ii' b 4 ! ? ) 25 . . . 'ii' x c5 26 : xeS tt:'l d 1
'ii' b 6! 2 7 h4! . A s Dvoretsky poi nted out, the
 In J azz Style
l2J 71

combination 25 . . . l£l f4 26 .l:i. xf4 'ii' h 6 2 7 .l:i. xg4 The opponent has j ust two pawns for the
'i'e3+ 28 �f1 'ii' e 2+ 29 'it> g 1 is sufficient lost piece . However, for the moment there
only for a d raw. a re stil l d ifficulties i n converti ng the advan­
But why lau nch i nto u n necessary complica­ tag e . All my pawn s a re broken and the
tions, when the opponent's position is knight is out of play.
already fai rly com prom ised ? The th reats of 30 . . . .l:.d6!
24 . lt:J e5 and 24 . . . l£l e3 are very dangerous,
. .
3 1 l:txb5 b6
and Black only needs to ascerta i n that the Black has g iven u p a th i rd paw n , but now he
captu re of the d4-pawn does not relieve will be able to defend h is b-pawn with the
White of his serious d ifficulties. knight from d7.
24 i.xd4 'ii' h 6! 32 l:te4 l:ted8
The h2-pawn is attacked ; i n add itio n , Wh ite's 33 .l:tee5 �g7
back ran k is weak, and his rook at c 1 is
If 33 . . . l£J d7 there is the reply 34 .l:t ed5. There
hanging. 25 .l:t h3 is met not by 25 . . . 'ilkd 2 ? !
is no need to h u rry with this move - for the
26 'ii' c 3 , b u t by 25 . . . .l:. xd4 ! ! 26 l£J xd4 'ii' d 2 27
moment it is better to bring the king towards
l:tf1 l:te 1 28 'ili' c2 (28 .l:t f3? .l:t xf1 + 29 .l:t xf1
the centre . In the endgame any respite
'i' e3+) 28 . . . l:. xf1 + 29 � xf1 'ii'f4+ .
should be used to strengthen the position to
2 5 h3 a6! the maxi m u m .
The wh ite p ieces a re overloaded . If 2 5 3 4 �f2?! �f6 ?!
hxg4, then 25 . . . ax b 5 26 'ii' c 3 l:r. xd4 , a n d 25
[A move earlier the capture of the d3-pawn
i. b2 l£l e5 (25 . . . l£l e 3 ! ? ) 26 i. xe5 axb5 27
did not have any point, since the opponent
'i' f4 .l:r.xe5! also does not help.
would have replied 34 .l:.e 7, with a simulta­
26 i.xg7 ! 'ii' x g7 neous attack on f7 and b6. But now, when
27 l:r.g3 axb5 the f7-pawn is defended by the king,
[27 . h5! 28 lDc7 l:te3 29 .l:.xe3 tDxe3 or 28
. . 34 . . . l:txd3! could have been played with
hxg4 axb5 29 'ii' f4 h4 was even stronger ­ impunity (35 .l:.xb 6 ? lDd7) - Dvoretsky.]
Dvoretsky.] 35 l:!.e3 l£Jd7
28 'ii' x g4 'ifxg4 36 g4 l:!.c8
29 l:!.xg4+ �h8 37 a4 ltcS
30 .:tcs 38 l:t b4 .l:.d5
72 � In Jazz Style

39 �e2 lbe5?1 vented the invasion of the enemy rook,

Up till now I had acted logically, but here, activated al l h is pieces, an d d riven the
unfortu nately, I relaxed and bega n to play oppone nt's king to h3. He is now threaten­
carelessly. 39 . . . lbc5 40 d4 .l:. xd4 would have i n g 60 . . . l:t a 1 .
led to an easy w i n . 60 a5 bxa5
40 d4 lbc6?! 6 1 bxa5 l:t a1
40 . . . .l:!. xd4 was stronger. 62 �g3 .l:.xa5
41 l:tc4 lbxd4+ 63 g5
42 �f2 lbc6
43 �g3 lbe5
44 .l::t ce4 .l:.c6
45 �h4 ltJd7
46 �h5 �g7
One senses that Black has 'u nwound' a l ittle
and made the win more d ifficult. In such
cases it is im porta nt to cal m down, not h u rry
to force events , and try again to d iscover the
correct cou rse.
47 �h4 l:.c1
48 lib4 h6
49 �g3 l':.cd1
I real ised that I should excha nge a pai r of
63 . . . h5!
rooks.
When trying to convert a material advan­
50 �f3 l!5d4?1
tage, pawn exchanges should be avoided .
Again an i naccu racy! The correct 50 . . . .l:. 1 d4!
The fewer the n u m ber of pawns on the
would have forced a n exchange i n a more
board , the g reater the chances of a d raw!
favourable version for me - on the 4th ra n k .
64 �f4 �f8
51 l:tb5 lld5
Agai n Black prolongs the play. I n view of the
52 l:txd5 !ixd5
rule just formulated , I did not want to play
53 b4 l:.d4! 64 .. .f6 , but i n fact this would h ave led to a
54 lie4 .l:r.d1 q u ick win : 65 gxf6+ � xf6 66 l:l d6+ � g7 67
Of cou rse , one pai r of rooks must be .U e6 lbf7 68 .:t g6+ � f8 69 f6 lD d 8 ! .
retained. In the event of the exchange on e4 65 .l:td6 �g7
the two pawns wou ld have been no weaker 66 .l:tb6
than the knight.
I n the event of 66 l:1 h6 I was intending to
55 h4 �f6 shut i n the rook by 66 . . . lbg6+! 67 fxg6 fxg6 ,
56 �f4 l:r.f1 + after wh ich things end i n zugzwan g : 68 � f3
57 �g3 lbe5 .l:r. a4 69 � g 3 .l:l b4 70 � h 3 l:. g4.
58 .l:.d4 .l:tg 1 + 66 . . . lbg4
59 �h3 �e7 67 llb4 l:.a3
Black has ach ieved much : he has pre- 68 l:tc4? ! .l:t b3?!
 In Jazz Style lLJ 73

We both m i ssed the possibil ity of 68 . . . l:tf3+ ! 11 . . . b5

6 9 'ifil xf3 (69 'itt e4 .l:r. xfS ! ) 6 9 . . . ttJ e5+. 1 2 i.. d3 i.. b7
69 ll.a4 ltJ f2 ! 1 3 'itt b1 i.. c 6? !
Threate n i ng 70 . . . .l:1 b4+ ! . Black prepares . . . b5-b4 , preventing in ad­
7 0 lla7 l:tb4+ vance the knight from going to a4. The
71 'ifilf3 ltJg4 i mmed iate 1 3 . . . b4 would have been met by
72 l:e7 1 4 ttJ a4 (after 14 . . . ttJ xe4? 1 5 'ii'x b4 not only
the bishop is en prise, but also the g7-
72 g6 ltJ eS+.
paw n ) . And yet the move i n the game has a
72 . . . :tb 1 ! serious d rawback, which is emphasised by
Threate n i ng 73 . . . l:t f1 + . my reply. It would have been better simply to
73 .l:Ia7 l:t b3+ castle .
74 'ifilf4 ll b4+ [Castling is indeed the main theoretical
75 'itt g 3 ttJe5 continuation in this variation. But 1 3 . . . b4 is
76 l:r.a5 l:tg4+ also possible - after 14 ttJa4 i.. c6! the
capture of the pawn leads only to a draw: 1 5
77 'ifilf2 l:tf4+
'ii' xb4 IZ. b B 1 6 'ii' c4 i.. b5 1 7 "fib3 i.. c6, and
78 'itt e 3 ttJ c4+ White does best to repeat moves (Shmuter­
White resigned . Vydeslaver, Beer Sheva 1 996 - Dvoretsky.]
1 4 'ife1 ! ?
Dol matov Lerner
Now i f 1 4 . . . b 4 Wh ite h a s 1 5 i.. xf6 i.. xf6 1 6
-

Tashkent 1 983 ltJ d S . I n add ition there is the impending

Sicilian Defence threat of e4-e5, exploiting the opposition of
1 e4 c5 the wh ite rook and the black q ueen on the d­
2 ltJf3 d6 file.
3 d4 cxd4 [As was pointed out by grandmaster Stefan
4 ttJxd4 ltJf6 Kindermann, after 1 4 . . . b4 1 5 i.. xf6 i.. xf6 1 6
5 ttJc3 ttJc6 ltJd5 a5 Black would have retained a
6 i.. g 5 e6 defensible position. Therefore instead of 1 4
'ii' e 1 !? he recommends 1 4 "ike3! - then this
7 'ii' d 2 a6
defence does not work in view of 1 7 ttJxf6+
8 0-0-0 h6 'ifxf6 1 8 "iVb6 - Dvoretsky] .
9 i.. e 3 14 . . . 0-0
Now I usually choose the more cautious 1 5 i.. xf6 i.. xf6
9 .1 f4 .
1 6 e5 i.. e 7
9. . . i.. e 7
I n the event of 1 6 . . . dxe5?! Black does not
1 0 f4 ttJxd4 gain sufficient compensation for the quee n .
1 1 i.. x d4 1 6 . . . ..t h4!? deserved serious consideration.
Nowadays this variation is very popul a r, but There could have followed 17 'ii' e 3 b4 1 8
at the time it was only just com i n g i nto use. ttJ e4 dxeS 1 9 fxeS V as 20 ttJ d6 i. e? 2 1
Therefore the fol lowin g part of the game i s i.. e4 , and Wh ite's position is still preferable.
improvisation at the board , by both si d e s. I
should mention that today Wh ite more often
places his pawn not at f4 , but at f3 . (see diagram)
74 � In J azz Style

1 8 t"Lle2 !
An u n pleasant su rprise. Black faces the
terri ble th reat of f5-f6 ! , fo r example:
18 .. . '� a5? 19 f6 ! gxf6 20 'it'g3+ 'it> h 8 2 1 'ii'f4
(2 1 exd6), or 1 8 . . . � d5? 1 9 f6 ! gxf6 20 'ii' g3+
'it> h8 21 .., f4 'it> g7 22 t"Ll g3 . If 1 8 . . . dxe5, then
1 9 fxe6 is still strong.
18 . . . exf5
1 9 l"Lld4
Exploiting the position of the bishop at c6!
With gain of tem po the knight approaches
the i m portant f5-point. After 1 9 . . . � e4 20
� xe4 fxe4 2 1 t"Ll f5 the p i n on the d-fi le is
decisive - 2 1 . . . d5? is not possible because
17 f5 !
of 22 l:l xd5 . If 1 9 . . . � d 7 , then 20 i. xf5 is
A standard way of conducti ng the attack i n a stro n g .
situation where Black has not managed to 19 . . . 'it' c7
exchange pawns on e5. Of cou rse, the
20 t"Llxf5 dxe5
move made by me demanded accu rate
21 'ifg3 g6
calcu lation .
i. � t"Ll
21 . . . g 5 22 h4 f6 23 xh6+ 'it> h8 was a
How would the offensive have been conti n­
tougher defence.
ued i n the event of the captu re of the e5-
22 t"Llxh6+ \t>h8
pawn? I did not even consider the variation
1 7 . . . dxe5 1 8 f6 � xf6 1 9 � h7+ - Black's
rook, bishop and two pawns are stronger
than the quee n . After the correct 1 8 fxe6 ! it
is now u nfavourable to g ive up the queen
( 1 8 . . . fxe6 1 9 � h7+), but otherwise Black
encou nters serious difficulties.
17 . . . b4
This is what Lerner was counting o n . What
should Wh ite do now? 1 8 t"Ll e4 dxe5 (or
1 8 . . . exf5) is u nfavourable for h i m . I have to
admit that I am proud of my next move .
When you are engaged in a sharp struggle it
is important to be very attentive and
resourcefu l , and to exploit all your re­
sou rces. You only need to play insufficiently The black king is vulnerable and I h ave
energetically at some point, for the attack to excellent attacki ng prospects . How should
come to a standstill and the i n itiative to pass the offensive be conti n ued ? Don't think that
to the opponent. I ndeed , Black has the two you defi n itely have to fi nd someth i n g bril­
bishops, and he only needs to parry the l i a nt. Sometimes d ifficult and by no means
immediate th reats without particu lar dam­ obvious solutions h ave to be fou n d , but
age . . . more ofte n , without being d iverted , one after
 In Jazz Style
another you have to make log i ca l , accu rate
moves.
23 l::t h f1
The inactive rook joins the offensive. The
position is not yet ripe for com b i n ations
such as 23 lt:\ xf7 + .
23 . . . �d5
The f7-pawn has to be defended . But how
should White conti n u e now?
A good idea has been suggested - tt:lf5 ! .
But i f i t is carried out, i t should b e with g a i n
of tempo!
24 'iii' h 3 'it> g7
25 tt:lf5+ ! gxf5
. 'lt>
If 25 . . g8 Wh ite decides matters with 26
'fh6 � f6 27 lt:\ e3 (sim ulta neously attacki ng
d5 and f6) 27 . . . � g7 28 lt:\ xd5 .
2 6 'ili'g3+ 'it>h6
'it> l:t
After 26 . . . h8 27 xf5 , mate is u n avoid­
able.
Here White has th ree conti n u ations, two of
which are w i n n i n g . U nfortunately, I chose
the th i rd and sq uandered all my advantage.
I can explain why this h appened . O n the one
hand I was rather excited and was eager to
finish off n i cely a game which had gone so
wel l for me. But on the other h a n d , I stil l d i d
not feel sufficiently confident, a n d I was
looking for a conven ient opportu n ity to
ttJ 75
tra nspose i nto some safe position with an
extra pawn . It is d a ngerous to sit between
two stools - the dual feeling played a n
adverse role, l e d t o excessive expend iture
of time, and prevented me at the decisive
moment (now in time-trouble) of accu rately
choosing and calculating a way to the goa l .
T h e fi rst possibil ity was 27 l:l xf5 . After
27 . . . l:t g8 the king wants to ru n away to f8 ,
and to conti n ue h is attack Wh ite must
sacrifice a rook : 28 l:i h5+.
The second way was 27 � xf5 . The only
reply - 27 .. .'ii' c4 - leads after 28 'ii' h 3+ 'ii' h 4
29 'ii' x h4+ i.. x h4 30 l:t xd5 to a n endgame
with a n extra pawn for Wh ite.
And , fi n a lly, it is possible to i nterpose the
check 27 'ilf h3+ c;.t>g7, and only then play 28
� xf5 . The reply 28 . . . 'if c4 is now poi ntless ;
apart from 29 'ii' h 7+ the simple 29 .l:!. xd5 is
also threatened . There is only one defence:
28 . . . � xa2+! 29 'it> xa2 'iii' c4+ and 30 . . . 'if h4.
I clea rly saw al l these ideas, but I did not
manage to make the correct choice. Prob­
ably the s im plest solution (and the one most
i n keeping with my style at that time) was to
transpose i nto a n endgame by 27 � xf5 , i n
which I would o n l y h ave h a d some tech n ical
d ifficulties to overcome.
But I begrudged g iving u p the attack
i m med iately. At the same time I was u nable
to calculate fu lly the conseq uences of the
rook sacrifice . This was a pity - it was a
d i rect and pretty way to wi n .
2 7 l:t xf5! .U. g8 2 8 l:t h5+ ! ! 'it'xh5 2 9 'iii' h 3+
'it> g 5 (29 . . . � h4 30 'iii'f5+ is no better) 30
'ii'f 5+ 'iti> h 6 3 1 'ii' h 7+ 'iti>g5 32 l:l f1 ! � e6
(32 . . . 'ii' c8 33 g 3 ! e4 34 � xe4 � xe4 35 h4+
'iti>g4 36 'ii' x e4+ 'iti>h5 37 l:. xf7 ) 33 h4+ 'iti>g4
34 'ii' e 4+ 'iti>h5 (34 . . . 'iti>g3 35 'ii'f3+ 'iti>h2 36
g4) 35 g4+! 'iti>xh4 36 'iii' h 1 + with a qu ick
mate .
Thus I could not bring myself to sacrifice the
rook, but I did not want to exchange the
queens. This is why I settled for the third
possibil ity.
76 � In J azz Style

27 'i!i'h3+ �g7
28 i.xf5? ..txa2+!
29 �xa2
29 � a 1 ? .:lh8.
29 . . . 'i!Vc4+
30 �b1 'ii' h 4
31 ii'e3
I thought that it would be hard for Black to
defend , seeing as his king is exposed , a n d
i n the middlegame th e presence o f oppo­
site-colou r bishops should strengthen the
attack. But this assessment is incorrect - I
missed the fact that Black, by placing a rook
on the d-file, would prevent me from using 38 . . . .l:tc8?
my rooks i n the offensive. Also, the position After 38 . . . .l:t e8! Black would h ave maintained
of the wh ite king is by no means secu re , the balance - the threat of exchanging
especially after the captu re o f t h e e5-paw n . queens (39 . . . 'ii' e 1 + 40 � b2 'ii' e 5+) would
31 . . . .l:tad8 ! have restricted Wh ite an d not allowed him
When there are opposite-colour bishops time to develop a n attack.
you should not cl ing on to materi a l : the My opponent's last few moves i n time­
i n itiative is more i mportant. Black happily trouble were poor an d they again led to a
sacrifices his e5-pawn - it is merely h i nder­ lost position for h i m .
ing h i m .
3 9 'iif4 f6? !
3 2 'ii' x e5+
4 0 .l:te3
What else?
The correct tactics! In the opponent's ti me­
32 . . . i.f6 trouble you should avoid forci ng variations,
33 'ii'c 7 :xd 1 + and go i n for them only if they a re w in n in g .
34 :xd 1 'ii'f2 ! O f cou rse , Lerner w as expecting t h e check
Active defence! Black not only attacks the on g 3 and he would have made his
bishop, but also threatens to play 35 . . . b3 ! . a n sweri ng king move i n sta ntly. But how
This explains m y next move . should h e respond now? Here it is very easy
to become fl ustered an d make some blun­
35 i.e6 i.xb2!
der, for example: 40 . . . 'i!i' d5? 4 1 'iV g4+ and
I foresaw this cou nter-stroke by the oppo­
42 'ii' x c8 . The only acceptable move was
nent, and I thought (rig htly, in a l l probabil ity)
40 . . . 'ii' d 7 .
that I should allow it. bpk
40 . . . .l:ic4?
36 �xb2 'il'f6+
41 'ii' g 3+ 'ii' g 4
37 �b1 'ii x e6
42 'iWd6
38 lld3
It's a l l over! When you r flag is about to fal l ,
a l l that y o u look for a re checks a n d
captures, a n d , o f cou rse , Lerner s i m ply d i d
n o t have t i m e t o assess t h e consequences
(see diagram) of my q u iet move .
 In Jazz Style ttJ 77

Here the game was adjourned . I t did n ot last 47 l:.xc3 bxc3

long on the resumption . 48 �a2 �f4
42 . . . .l:tc3 49 � b3 �e3
43 'iie 7+ �g6 50 �xc3 f5
44 'ii'e 8+ �f5 51 h41
45 'ii'e 6+ �g5 Black resigned .
46 'ii'x g4+ �xg4
78 w

PART I l l

P ractica l Exped i e n cy i n the ta ki n g

of Decis i o ns

B e n i a m i n B l u me nfe l d

P ractical C h a n ces in a C h ess Game

P the game, abil ity to calcu late deeply,

u re chess q u a l ities ( u nderstanding of Kmoch - N i mzowitsch
Bad N iendorf 1 927
etc. ) are not sufficient for success. One also
needs to possess those q u a l ities which a re
the g u a rantee of success in l ife and i n other
competitions: practical sharpness, the
habit of quickly finding your bearings in
a new situation, the ability to take a firm,
quickly realisable decision in a compli­
cated position which does not lend itself
to calculation, complete purposefulness
towards your goal - to win or save
yourself from defeat, composure and
self-possession in a difficult position,
and the avoidance of dizziness from
success in a favourable position.
In chess l iterature, it is u s u a l for games to
be explai ned mainly in terms of the theoreti­ There fol l owed 44 . . . b4 45 jt,a4 (bad is 45
cal correctness of the contesta nts' pl ay. cxb4 ttJ xd4 46 bxa5+ tLl b5, when Black
However, such an expla n ation does not remains with two strong passed pawns).
always give a true reflection of the cou rse of Now 45 . . . ttJ xe5 46 jt,xd 7 suggests itself.
the battle . An experienced player often Wea ker is 46 dxe5 jt,xa4 47 cxb4 ..1 b3 48
chooses a particular continuation, not bxa5 � xa5, when B lack reta i n s an extra
because he is sure that it is the best of all pawn and w i n n i n g chances, despite the
the possibilities, but exclusively on the opposite-colour bishops.
basis that it gives the best practical
[A ffer 45 . . . tLlxe5 46 .it.. xd7 ttJxd7 4 7 cxb4 a4
chances.
Black wins without difficulty. But 46 cxb4!
jt,xa4 4 7 bxa5+ .it.. b 3 48 ..1xe5 .t!.xa5 49 'ft; f4
 P ractical C h a n ces in a Chess Game
is possible,
retaining real chances of sa ving
the game - Dvoretsky.)
I nstead of this, N i mzowitsch (after 45 ..t a4)
played 45 ... b3, when there followed 46
i.xc6+ 'itxc6, and the position appears to
be a dead d raw: Black's passed a- and b­
pawn s are easily stopped , and on the
kingside it is i m possible to break throug h .
The game conti nued: 4 7 g5 l:Ia7 48 l:!. b2 . I n
blocking the black pawns, i t wou l d be
dangerous to stick to pu rely waiti ng tactics.
For example: 48 <iit f3 .l::t b 7 49 'itg3 a4 50
i. a3 b2! 51 .l:. xb2 .l:!. b3! 52 l:t xb3 cxb3 53
<t>f3 'it b5 54 'ite3 b2 55 ..t xb2 cbc4 56 'itd2
<t>b3, and B lack wins the bishop.
48 .l:. b7 49 'itf4 [Nimzowitsch points out
. . .
that after 49 Ji. a3! he would hardly have
been able to break through - Dvoretsky)
49 .-tcs. Apparently with the a i m of trying
. . .
to penetrate with the rook on the h-file;
therefore it was natu ra l for Wh ite to make
the followi n g reply, which B lack p rovoked
with the aim of d iverting the wh ite king from
the queenside and carrying out h i s plan ned
combinatio n .
50 'it>g3
50 ... .l:.b4! With the aim of obta i n i n g three
passed pawns, which will advance with g a i n
of tempo i n view o f t h e position o f t h e wh ite
rook on b2. Now it becomes clear why on
lZJ 79
the preceding moves Black did not advance
h i s a5-paw n , which so suggested itself.
51 cxb4 a4 52 b5+ Wh ite g ives up a pawn to
open a path for h i s bishop; however, the
rook and bishop prove to be helpless .
52 . . . <iit x b5 53 ..ta3 c3 54 l:t b 1 'it c4 55 f4
'itxd4 56 'itf2 cbc4 57 cbe1 d4 58 'ot>e2 'itd5
59 <iit f3 ..t b7 60 .l:.e1 'itc4+ 61 'itf2 b2 62 f5
exf5 63 e6 ..tc6 Wh ite resig ned .
The comb i n ation carried out in the game
shows j ust how many dangers were lying i n
wait for Wh ite i n t h i s see m i n g l y h a rmless
position . Therefore N i mzowitsch correctly
decided that the conti n uation chosen by h i m
wou l d g ive t h e best practical chances.
Kmoch - Yates
San Remo 1 930
By exce l lent play Wh ite has gai ned a
decisive advantag e. Now he should have
conti n ued simply 32 .r:.6xe5 dxe5 33 ll xe5
[33 liJ e 7! ? is simpler - Dvoretsky] , and if
33 . . . l:t g 5 , then 34 liJ e7! . In this case Wh ite's
pawns on the q ueenside, although isolated
and doubled , carry out thei r fu n ction per­
fectly wel l - they restra i n the black pawns
on the same wing , whereas on the kingside
Wh ite ca n create two con nected passed
pawns. The win is achieved automatically.
I n stead of this simple conti n uatio n , which
80 � Practical C h ances in a Chess Game
does not allow Black any chances, Wh ite
embarked on a combination . There followed :
32 t"iJe7 ..txe6 33 t"iJxgB ..t xc4! (Wh ite was
obviously hoping for 33 . . . ..t xg8 34 f4 ).
As a result of the combination Wh ite
remai ned the exchange up , but Black
obtai ned defi n ite counter-chances , si nce on
the queenside he had acq u i red mobile
pawns, su pported by his two bishops. In the
end Black even won .
From this it can be concluded that, if you
have a sufficient advantage, you should
choose continuations where the win is
achieved without counterplay for the
opponent.
The followi ng conclusion , which is not so
absurd , ca n also be d rawn : if there is a
choice between two continuations - one,
giving a decisive positional advantage,
with an equal balance of forces, and
another, giving roughly the same advan­
tage but with unequal material (as in the
given example: rook and knight against
two bishops), it is better to choose the
first continuation. With an equal balance
of forces the methods of attack and
defence have been better studied, and so
here there may be fewer surprises.
Yates - Ahues
Scarborough 1 930
Wh ite could h ave i m mediately decided the
game with a simple com b i nation : 41 t"iJg6+
hxg6 ( 41 . . . 'ili' xg6 loses a piece) 42 'ili' h4+
etc. I n stead of this, probably without any
thought, Wh ite played 41 lDh5, which is
see m i ngly also very strong.
The game conti n ued 41 . . . 'ii' e 5! (4 1 . . . ir'xg3
42 ..t xd4+ 'ii' e 5 43 l:t xe5 etc. was bad for
Black) 42 'Oti> h 1 [the position would still have
been won after 42 l:.e 1 ! - Dvoretsky]
42 . . . ..txc3 ! 43 l:t xe5 ..t xe5. N ow Wh ite has
a q ueen for rook and m i nor piece, but his
attack on the kingside has evaporated ,
whereas Black can develop active play. I n
t he end Wh ite even lost.
In con nection with this exa mple the follow­
ing general comment ca n be made. When
an attack concludes with a gain of
material, it is as yet too early to celebrate
victory. Often in such cases the entire
situation changes, and pieces, which
earlier were systematically placed for the
conducting of the attack, after the attain­
ing of the goal may now be misplaced, as
play has switched to another part of the
board, where the opponent has more
forces or they are better placed. There­
fore you should be especially careful at
critical moments, when win of material is
possible, and carefully weigh up whether
it is worth gaining a material advantage if
this worsens your position.
I n the g iven example Wh ite did not notice an
i m mediately wi n n i ng conti n uati o n . But often
a player deli berately avoids a simple and
decisive conti n uati o n , si nce he wants to win
'bri l l i a ntly' .
There was a highly vexing occu rrence i n the
following game.
 Practical C h a n ces in a Chess G a m e
Sergeev - Grigoriev
Master Tou rnament, Moscow 1 932
I n this position Black carried out a n i nterest­
i n g combi nation:
31 . . . l1Jg5 32 ttJxb7 f3 33 ttJxf3
The only way to avoid the loss of a piece or
mate . [ This is not so: by continuing 33 tLlxdB
fxg2 34 cJ;xg2 J:ixdB 35 'ilia3 White would
have retained a perfectly good game
Dvoretsky.]
33 ttJxf3+ 34 .iLxf3 .iLc6! 35 .iLxc6 l:td3 36
. . .
'i'b2
Now it only rem a i ned for Black to obta i n a
clearly winning position with the natu ra l
move 36 . . . ttJ xc6 , as G rigoriev would un­
doubtedly have played even i n a lightn i ng
game. But here , to the general astonish ment
of the spectators , he stopped to th i n k , and
after some thought he u nexpectedly played
36 .'*'xg4+ . There followed 37 .iLg2 l:tff3
..
(Black was planning a ' p retty' mate by
playi ng his knight to f4 or h4) 38 ttJcS ttJfS
39 l:te4 (Black had overlooked this refuta­
t i o n ) 39 . .''i'g5 40 ttJxd 3 , and Wh ite won .
.
As a result of playing for bri l l i a nce , Black
threw away a deserved win. This example
should serve as a lesson to us all. The best
continuation is the one which leads most
CtJ 81
surely to the goal - to a win. It is
expediency and the choice of the most
economic methods for achieving the
goal that constitute the inner beauty of
chess. Doing things for effect - the result
of a false understanding of beauty in
chess - often produces poor results.
In a winning position you should aim for
simple, clear decisions, whereas in a lost
or significantly inferior position, by con­
trast, you should aim to complicate the
play. In a position where you are bound
to lose after natural continuations, you
should not be afraid to make sacrifices
of material, it being important to obtain
active counter-chances.
I n pa rticu lar, it should be mentioned that
one of the cha racteristic featu res of Alexa n­
der Alekhine's play is that i n i nferior posi­
tions he does not al low his opponent to
i ncrease his advantage, but strives to
d isrupt the n atural development of events
a n d take the play along d ifferent l i nes, by
going i n for compl ications or sacrifices. This
-
characteristic featu re of Alekhine's play is
especially memorable to me from the
n um e rous (mainly friendly) games played
with h i m , when he had not yet achieved the
peak of his chess fame.
I n N i mzowitsch's pl ay it ca n al s o be noticed
that he does not lose heart in lost positions
and he often saves hopeless games, by
fi nding some practical cou nter-cha nces.
The fol lowing example is typica l .
(see diagram)
82 � Practical C h ances in a Chess Game
N imzowitsch - Euwe
Carlsbad 1 929
Wh ite is doomed . H i s game is undeveloped .
Black has a strong pawn on e3, which is
threatening to quee n . Wh ite cannot take the
pawn, since if 23 l:. xe3 there follows
23 . . . 'iix d4, wi n n i ng a rook. 23 l:t xf7+ l bf7
24 'ii' xc8 e2 is also bad . However, i n this
horrible position N imzowitsch did not lose
his composure, but played 23 tt:J c3 , placing
his knight en prise.
If Euwe had reacted with ca re to the
opponent's desperate try, he wou l d , of
course, have found the wi n n i ng conti n ua­
tion : 23 .. .'ii'x d 4 24 l:t af1 'ii e 5+ 25 � h 1 l:. c7
etc. But, not suspecting any danger, he
made the obvious move 23 . l:. xc3? a n d
. .
after 24 .l:!af1 e2 25 llxf7+ l b f7 26 'ii' x f7+
'it>h6 27 'iif8+ he was forced to resig n .
Some would say that N i mzowitsch d i d not
deserve to win. I can not agree with this.
Even the strongest master ca nnot ta ke
everything i nto account and so sometimes
he ends up i n an i nferior or even lost
position , not only against a n eq ual opponent
but also agai nst a weaker one. It is
obviously good not to lose heart in a
difficult position and to find counter­
chances. In this case a mistake by the
opponent is extremely probable: the
opponent, having gained a decisive ad­
vantage after a long and tiring struggle,
will to a significant degree have already
exhausted his strength and will be in a
demobilised state, assuming that all the
difficulties have been overcome. There­
fore it is wrong to talk about fortune and
chance, when a lost game is saved.
Fortune favours the strong!
By no means al l top-class players invariably
possess presence of m i n d , as it apparent
from this example:
E m . Lasker - Janowski
7th match game 1 909
J a nowski resigned i n this positio n , a bout
wh ich Tarrasch justifiably commented : 'Ja­
nowski , emotionally depressed , laid down
h i s a rms too ea rly, i n stead of making use of
his last and by no means bad chance. By
conti n u i n g 63 . . . c5 64 lt:J d5? (an obvious
move with a seemingly u n stoppable mate
threat) 64 . . . l:l. xf3+ 65 'it>xf3 ..i xe4+ 66 'it>xe4
he could have achieved a pretty stalemate .
Of cou rse , the opponent could have avoided
this, by playing 64 l:. b7, but it is possible that
in the heat of the battle he m ight not have
noticed this stalemate . '
 P ractical C h a n ces in a Chess G a m e
On the basis of my own experience, I
have seen many times that, even in the
seemingly most hopeless position, prac­
tical chances have been found. The
following example is not without i nterest.
Orlov - Blumenfeld
Moscow Championship Semi-Final 1 932
Black's position is hopeless, since the
strong c6-pawn is bound to decide the
game. Wh ite made the spectacular move 36
tt'lc4.
If Black takes the knig ht, he blocks the c-file
for his rook and the c6-pawn promotes
unhindered . Of cou rse, Black could reply
36 . J:!. c3, but then Wh ite contin ues 37 ttJxa5
.
and the win becomes a matter of simple
technique. [In fact after 3 7. . . i.b4 38 ltJb7 it
is not easy to win, as the white knight is
badly placed - Dvoretsky.) 36 . . . .l:. a4 37 ltJe5
or 37 ltJ b6 is also hopeless.
In both of these variations it is h a rd for Wh ite
to go wrong; everything is simple and clear.
Therefore I decided to a l low Wh ite to obta i n
a queen, merely t o obta i n some p ractical
counter-chances. There followed : 36 . . . l:ta2+
37 �d1 i. b4 38 c7 dxc4 39 l:. b8 .
I t would now seem to b e time for Black to
resign, since on his next move Wh ite will
obtain a queen . However, Black has a latent
lD 83
opportu n ity to make it h a rder for Wh ite to
wi n .
3 9 . . . .l:ld2+. N o hope i s offered b y 3 9 . . . c 3 40
c81l' c2+ 41 1l'xc2 l::tx c2 42 �xc2 , when
Wh ite has a tech n ically easy w i n .
4 0 �c1 ? . After this natu ral reply it is
dou btful whether Wh ite can win. He should
not h ave fea red the d iscovered check and
played his king to e 1 , for example: 40 � e 1
l:r. xh2+ 4 1 � f1 c 3 4 2 c81l' c 2 43 'ii' h 8+ � h6
44 .U c8 c1 'ii' + 45 .l:. xc1 .l:l h 1 + 46 � g2 l:t xc1
47 'ii'f6 , and the win is assured . However, in
order to decide o n this contin u ati o n , it was
necessary to see the complications arising
after the natural reply.
40 . . . .:r.e2!
Perpetual check on the sq uares e1 and e2
is th reatened . Wh ite is now forced to
sacrifice the exchange.
41 l:.xb4 axb4 42 c8'ir' . Wh ite has to give up
the pawn, since if 42 e4 there follows
42 . . J i e 1 + , and Black gains a d raw either by
perpetual check, or by the pawn adva nce
. . . b4-b3 .
42 . . . .l:r.xe3 43 f4. Now Black forces a d raw.
Wh ite should h ave decided on 43 'ii' c5 .l:r. xf3
44 'ii' x b4 h5 followed by . . J 1f5 ; in this case
he would have had w i n n i n g chances, al­
though difficult to convert.
84 w P ractical C h a n ces in a Chess Game

43 ... .l:.c3+ 44 �b2 .l:.b3+ 45 �c2 l:.c3+ 46 I t i s well known that the endgame with rook
�d2 l:td3+ 47 �e2 :c3 ! (47 . . . .:.xd4 48 tli'c5 a n d knight against roo k is d rawn . The
was bad ) 48 �d2 .l:.d3+ 49 �c2 .l:!c3+ 50 presence of the black pawn should not
�d2 .l:!.d3+ Draw. make any d ifference. Fahrn i i s a n experi­
I ndeed , Wh ite cannot ach ieve a n yth i n g , for enced enough master to avoid doing a ny­
example: 51 � e2 .U c3 52 'ii' c5 .l:. c2+ 53 � d 1 thing really stu pid . It would appear that it is
b 3 54 d 5 exd5 5 5 'iVxd5 l:lxh2, a n d i f 56 not worth wasting time by playing o n .
'i¥xc4, then 56 . . . b2 , while if 56 � c 1 there But Rotlewi decided t o p l a y o n , s in ce h e
follows 56 . . . .l:i. c2+ 57 � b 1 c3 ! , and it is now saw a p ractical chance , p rovided p recisely
White who has to seek a d raw by perpetual by the fact that Black had a paw n .
check. Later t h e position i n t h e next d iagram was
reached .
Whereas cool-headed conversion of an
advantage in a winning position and
presence of mind in a lost position are
typical of most experienced players,
comparatively more often one observes
a weakening of attention and will to win
in obviously drawn positions. I n h i s book
on the 1 927 New York tou rnament, Alekh i n e
criticised Rudolf Spiel m a n n for t h e fact that
i n certai n games he ag reed a d raw, al­
though he had practical chances, a l beit
minimal, of wi n n i n g .
A s confi rmation that a ten acious striving for
victory can have a favou rable outcome even
i n a d rawn position , I will g ive the following
example. Black made the natu ral move 79 . . . a3, after
which there followed a study-l i ke fi n i s h : 80
Rotlewi - Fahrni �f7 � h6 (if 80 . . . l:r. h 1 , then 8 1 tt:ld5! is
Carlsbad 1 9 1 1 decisive) 81 'iti>g8! Black resigned . It is
curious that, had it not been for Black's
pawn , he could h ave saved h imself by
playing for stalemate with . . . .l:!. g 1 .

F rom al l that has been said it would be

i n co rrect to conclude that when playing you
should hope for blunders by you r opponent.
The reader who has carefully thought a bout
the g iven examples will see that practical
chances can be created only as a result of a
correct evaluation of the position an d an
estimation of its characteristic featu res.
 l2J 85

Vlad i m i r Vu lfson

Does it pay to s h a rpe n the P l ay?

W Of
e a re often faced by s uc h a q uestion . on e6, Tal effectively condemned it to being
cou rse , a ready-made solution exchanged for a wh ite knight.
does not exist - everything depends on the 1 0 c3 a5
specific circumsta nces. We can learn to In such positions one ca n not al low b2-b4 ,
understa nd this problem better if we see which secures Wh ite the i n itiative on the
how it was solved by other players, and queenside.
each time make a critical assessment of
11 tLlc4 lLld7
their actions. It is i nteresti ng to follow how a
player's choice is influenced by h i s charac­ 1 2 tLlg5
ter and style of play, when as a conse­
quence of i ndividual preferences he is
unable to decide on the objectively best
cou rse .
We will beg i n with an ana lysis of two games
by Mikhail Tal . He played the fi rst when he
was at the height of h i s powers , a n d the
second many yea rs later ( I hope you will
sense the d ifference ) . In the a n a lysis of the
games we will do some tra i n i n g by seeking
repl ies to the d ifficult q uestions which
invariably a rise on the way.

Vasyu kov - Tal

29th U S S R Championship, Baku 1 96 1
Black is forced to pa rt with h i s bishop. After
King's Indian Attack
the exchange he ca n reca ptu re on e6 with a
1 e4 e6
piece or the f-pawn . A third possibil ity is to
2 d3 d5 g ive up the bishop for the kn ight on c4 .
3 tLld2 lLlf6 Which would you prefer?
4 tLlgf3 tLlc6 Of the two kn ig hts , the one on c4 is the more
5 g3 dxe4 dangerous - it can subsequently be switched
6 dxe4 i.. c 5 via e3 to d5 or f5 . True, after the doubling of
the pawn s on e6 these poi nts will be
7 i.. g 2 e5
defended , an d the f-file opened . Even so,
8 0-0 0-0 after 1 2 .. ."ii' e 7 1 3 ttJ xe6 fxe6 Black's posi­
9 'ii' e 2 i.. e 6 tion looks dubious. Apart from playing for
In th is set-up Black usually plays . . . a7-a5, simpl ification with 1 4 i.. e 3, with the futu re
... b7-b6 and . . . i.. a 6. By placing his bishop hope of exploiting the weak pawns, 1 4 'it' h 1
86 � Does it pay to sha rpen the Play?
followed by f2-f4 also deserves serious
consideration . After the ope n i n g of the
position the power of the two wh ite bishops
will tell .
12 . . . i.xc4!
1 3 'iix c4 'ike7
Now Evgeny Vasyu kov could have retu rned
his knight to f3 and then played it to h4,
provoking the reply . . . g7-g6 , after which hi s
bishop would have gained a n excellent post
at h6. However, he begrudged movi ng hi s
knight back without a specia l i nvitation .
1 4 i.d2
The plan is understandable: l:!. ad 1 and then
i. c1 .
14 . . . l:lad8
1 5 llad 1 tt:'l b6
1 6 'ike2
Of cou rse, not 1 6 'ikb5? I:f.xd2 ! .
16 . . . :d6
Now 1 7 i. c1 ( 1 7 tt:'lf3 ! ? ) 1 7 . . . : fd8 1 8 : xd6
'ii'x d6 1 9 .Ue1 followed by 20 i. f1 is not bad ,
gradually taking control of the squa res o n
t he queenside. With this pawn structure the
two bishops would have ensured Wh ite a
small but lasti ng positional adva ntage . A
good textbook example of how to handle
such positions is the game Petrosian-Sax,
played i n 1 979 at the i nternational tou rna­
ment in Tal l i n n (cf. the addend u m to the
lectu re).
17 i.h3
Think about what Tal might have played
here .
(see diagram)
17 . . . llxd2 ! ?
A n u nexpected combination . B u t not for Tal ,
who a nticipated i t before h i s previous move .
Here is his com menta ry :
A glance at the position suggests that play
will continue on quiet positional lines, and
that here there is no place for combinations.
This is not so. When I began considering my
1 6th move, I a utomatically looked at
16 . . .11xd2, but it very soon became clear to
me that with this move Black does not
achieve anything, since after 1 7 'ikxd2 1ld8
1 8 'ikc1 rJ.xd 1 1 9 1lxd 1 he remains the
exchange down.
But now let's use our imagination a little. It
turns out that, if the white bishop were not at
g2, but at h3, a combination would be
possible. I thought o ver my 1 6th move for 40
minutes. Initially I wanted to play 1 6 . . . nd7,
provokirrg the reply 1 7 i.h3 (with gain of
tempo!). But I decided that this would be too
obvious. White can simply continue 1 7 i. c 1 ,
retaining a minimal positional advantage.
In the game there followed 1 6. . . 1ld6, and
now Vasyukov, to my surprise, quickly
played 1 7 i.h3. There immediately followed
1 7 . . . :xd2!.
1 8 'ikxd2 l:1d8
1 9 'ikc1 .l:txd1
20 .:lxd 1 'ikf6 !
Now Black's idea becomes clear. He is
threate n i n g both 21 . . . h6 (the knight has no
retreat sq uare) , and a lso 21 . . . 'ikxf2+ 22
� h 1 i. e3.
Tal's clever com b i n ation is certai n ly tempt­
i n g . But is it correct? After a l l , even after the
captu re o n f2 h e will only have a pawn for
the exchange.
 Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
The g ra n d master g ives the variation 2 1
i.g2 'ifxf2+ 2 2 'iii> h 1 i. e3 2 3 lD h3 i. xc1 24
tt'lxf2 i.. x b2 with the better endgame for
Black. Another try, 2 1 i. d 7 'ii' xf2+ 22 'iii> h 1
i.e3 2 3 i. xc6 , i s refuted b y 2 3 . . . i. xg5! with
the terri ble threat of 24 . . . 'iff3+ .
However, i t i s possible to defend more
strongly. Both the players and the commen­
tators overlooked the simple move 2 1 l:!.d 3 ! ,
taking control of the i mporta nt f3- and e3-
squares. After 27 . . . 'ifxf2+ 28 'iii> h 1 ltJc4?!
(28 . . . h6? 29 l:tf3 'ife2 30 .if1 , a n d the
queen is tra pped ) Wh ite has a pleasant
choice between 29 l:tf3 'iV xb2 30 'ii' x b2
tt'lxb2 31 l:t xf7 (31 ltJxf7 ! is simpler) 31 . . . h6
32 i. e6 'iii> h8 (32 . . . hxg5 33 l:.f2+ ) 33 .l:.xc7
hxg5 34 l:t xb7 and 29 'ii'f 1 'ii' x f1 + 30 i. xf1
tt'lxb2 (30 . . . ltJd6!?) 31 l:. d 7 . I n both cases it
is doubtfu l whether Tal would have been
able to save the game. As Dvoretsky
pointed out, B lack's play can be i m p roved
by 28 . . . i. e7! 29 ltJc3 ltJ c4 , but in the e n d i ng
arising in the variation 30 lD d 2 ! ? i. g 5 3 1
'i'f1 'ii'x f1 + 3 2 ltJxf1 ltJxb2 3 3 l:t d7 Wh ite's
r
chances a re better.
Vasyukov also devised a reasonable idea ,
but even so it was m uch i nferior to 2 1 l::!. d 3 ! .
21 i. f5? ! g6
22 b4!
The play has become much sharper. Tal
now has a choice of th ree or fou r possibili­
ties. Which of them is the strongest?
ltJ 87
In the game 22 . . . axb4 23 cxb4 !JL.e7 was
played . But why not place the bishop o n d4?
It turns out that in the variation 23 . . . i.. d 4 24
b5 ltJa5 25 i. g4! 'iii' xf2+ 26 'iii> h 1 i. e3 there
is the defence 27 lD h 3 ! . Wh ite's position
rel ies o n this tactical n u a nce .
I n which version is it better to retreat the
bishop to e7, i mmed iately or after the pawn
exchange on b4? What is the d ifference? I n
each case, i f h e wishes, Black obta i n s two
pieces for a rook, but it is i mporta nt that the
opponent should n ot be able to activate his
forces . After 22 . . . i. e7!? 23 i. d7 for the
moment the c-file is closed and there is the
exce l lent resou rce 23 . . . ltJb8 ! . However, the
conseq uences a re fa r from clear: 24 i. g4
ifxg5 25 'i!i' xg5 i.. x g5 26 bxa5 ltJ c4 27 i.. c8 !
ltJxa5 28 .i xb7! (28 . . . ltJxb7 29 l:t b 1 ) .
[By playing 28 . . . c6! 29 .1L c8 (with the threat
of 30 :U.b 1) 29 . . . i.. e 7!, Black retains the
better chances, since he prevents the
invasion of the rook and securely blockades
the passed a-pawn. On the other, instead of
24 .ig4 White can try 24 .ib5!? (24 . . . c6 25
bxa5 lD 6d7 26 a6!? bxa6 27 .i xa 6)
24 . . . 'ilxg5 25 'ii'xg5 .ixg5 26 bxa5 lDcB 2 7
f4! with a complicated and double-edged
ending - Dvoretsky.]
22 . . . axb4
23 cxb4 i.. e 7
[I think that the simple 23 . . . .1Lxb4 deserves
serious consideration, with good compen­
sation for the sacrificed exchange - Dvo­
retsky]
24 .i d7 ltJd4
Tal writes: 'Black does not want to simplify
the position and he a voids 24 . . . 'ii' xg5 25
.ixc6 'ii'xc 1 26 :Z.xc 1 bxc6 27 :Z.xc6 .i d6,
continuing to devote his main attention to
the kingside. '
There is no point i n going i n for the variation
24 . . . ltJxd7 25 :Z.xd7 'ilxg5 26 'ii'x g5 .i xg5
2 7 l:t xc7 (stronger than 27 b5 ltJa5 or 27 a3
.1Lc1 ) 27 . . . ltJxb4 28 a4 b6 29 :Z.b7, when
Wh ite obta i n s a da ngerous passed a-pawn .
88 � Does it pay to s h a rpen the Play?

25 'ifxc7 �d8 1Wxe5) . Stronger, apparently, was the simple

26 'iix b7 'ii' x g5 30 � g2 'ii' x b4? (as pointed out by Dvoretsky,
30 . . . � g 7 ! 3 1 a5 'ii' x b4 32 � e8 1i' b3 1eads to
Objectively, Tal's decision was risky - he
a d raw) 3 1 'ili' b8 'ii' e 7 32 a 5 .
has allowed his opponent not one, but two
passed pawns on the queenside. However, 30 . . . lbxa4!
he has kept the queens o n . I n an endgame 3 1 �g2
with rook and pawn against two minor 31 � xa4 lD e2+.
pieces, a very im portant factor is the
31 . . . lb b6
presence of a n outside passed pawn , but in
32 .l:.c5 'iff6?
the middlegame there a re chances of
creating an attack on the king - after a l l , A mistake i n reply. Here is Tal 's explanation :
Black h a s o n e piece more . (However, it is 'Here White unexpectedly offered a draw.
not at all easy to include the knight at b6 and Somewhat confused, I forgot about the
bishop at dB i n the attack. ) I n addition, Tal intended 32. . . �gl, which would have given
always hand led his strongest piece with an easy win, and instantly replied 32. . . "ikf6?. '
great skill - it is sufficient to remember hi s A concl usion about the i mportan ce of
famous ga m e agai nst Oscar Pan no from the ' resistance to interference' suggests itself.
1 958 I nterzonal Tournament i n Portoroz. I ncidentally, look at the position after
27 �e8 'iff6 32 . . . � g 7 ! . How wel l the black knig hts are
28 a4 �f8 ! placed - together with the rema i n i n g pieces
they control al l the i nvasion sq uares!
It is important to d rive away the bishop, i n
order to free the black queen for active play. 33 'ii' b 81
29 � b5 'ti'd6 Wh ite gains savi n g counterplay.
Attacking b4 and th reate n i ng 29 . . . lD f3+ . 33 . . . 'i!ff3+?
[ 'Mistakes never come singly! It was not yet
too late to play 33. . . �g 7!, for example: 34
'ifxe5 (34 llxe5 !il.. e 7 with the threats of
35 . . . �d6 and 35 . . . �xb4) 34 . . . 'ii x e5 35
.l:xe5 � c l 36 .l:c5 �d6, retaining winning
chances - Dvoretsky.]
34 �g1 'ii' d 1 +
35 �g2 'iff3+
36 �g1 lbe6
37 .l:.c6 'ii d 1 +
38 �g2 'ifd4
39 l:.d6 Wxe4+
40 �g1 'ii' b 1 +
41 �g2
3 0 l:tc1 ? D raw.
I n the time scramble White blunders his Throughout the game Tal constantly took
main pawn on a4. After 30 l:. b 1 lbxb5 31 risks. F i rst he d i srupted the balance, by
axb5 'ifd3 32 .l:. c1 Black would not have con ced i n g the adva ntage of the two bishops
stood worse (32 . . . 1Wxb5? ! 33 Wb8 'ii' d 3 34 for the sake of rapid development. Then he
 Does it pay to sha rpen the P l a y? l2J 89

decided on a d u bious combination , a n d knight, conced i n g to his opponent the

finally, in sea rch o f attacki ng chances he advantage of the two bishops. However,
allowed the opponent to obtai n two con­ here this does not play a particu lar role.
nected passed pawns. Such was his style of 11 h3
play at that time!
1 1 'ii' e 2 followed by ltJd2-c4-e3 w as prefer­
able.
Ribli - Tal 11 . . . ii.xf3
Candidates Tou rnament, Montpellier 1 985 1 2 ii'xf3 "j/e7
Reti Opening
1 3 l:.ad 1 ? !
1 ltJf3 d5
Another routine move , after which Wh ite is
2 g3 ..ltg4 a l ready in some d ifficulties. He should have
3 ..ltg2 c6 placed his pawn on a4, preventing not only
4 b3 ltJd7 the exchange of the dark-sq uare bishops by
5 ii.b2 ltJgf6 1 3 . . . ii.a3, but also 1 3 . . . b5, which deprives
6 0-0 e6 his knight of its lawful c4-square .
7 d3 ii.c5 13 . . . b5!
8 ltJ bd2 0-0 14 h4?!
9 e4 dxe4 One m i sta ke often leads to another. Appar­
10 dxe4 e5 ently Zolta n Ribli remembered about his
lig ht-sq uare bishop and decided to bring it
out to h 3 . But i n so doing he weakens the
g4-sq uare .
Wh ite's pri m a ry objective is t o rea rra nge his
badly placed knight on d 2 . There is only one
route available to it: via f1 to e3. This means
that the correct move was 14 l:t fe 1 ! .
14 . . . a5
The g4-sq uare ca n n ot be occu pied i m medi­
ately: if 14 .. .'i!i' e6 there is the reply 1 5 ii'f5! .
Therefore for the moment Tal harasses his
opponent on the queenside, by prepari ng
1 5 . . . a4.
1 5 c3
In order to answer 1 5 . . . a4 with 1 6 b4 . But
The structure of the position is roug hly the
allowing the opening of the a-file would have
same as in the previous game. The only
been the lesser evil , since now a nother
difference is i n the placing of Black's
important sq uare is weakened - d3.
queen's knight (there it stood at c6 ,whereas
here this sq uare is occu pied by a pawn) and 15 . . . ltJb6
Wh ite's dark-square bishop. These changes 1 6 .l:tfe 1 ?
are rather to Black's advantage. 1 6 ii' e2 or 1 6 ..lt h3 was better.
It is probable that on this occasion too Tal
will have to exchange his g4-bishop for the (see diagram)
90 � Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
Black's last few moves have entirely fo­
cused the opponent's attention on the
queenside - he has forgotten about possi­
ble d iversions on the opposite side of the
board and inca utiously weakened his f2-
point. Th is is immediately exploited by Tal ,
who, i t would appear, always remembers
about the enemy king .
16 . . . 'ife6 !
1 7 'ii'f5 lt:lg4
1 8 l:.e2 l:.ad8
White's position is already d ifficult. If 1 9
..t h3 Tal was intending 1 9 . . . l:t d 3 ! (with the
threat of . . Jbg3+) 20 'iti>g2 ifxf5 21 exf5
lt:lxf2 22 l bf2 ..t xf2 23 'iti>xf2 l:!. fd8 24 'iti>e2
e4 . [In the event of 19 ..th3? there is a
simpler win by 1 9 . . . lLlxf2! 20 l:.xf2 g6! -
Dvoretsky.]
1 9 ..tf3 l:td3!
20 'iti>g2 lt:lxf2 !
It should be said that Tal l i ked sacrificing two
pieces for a rook. So that the previous
game, i n which com pletely the opposite
balance of force arose, is rather an excep­
tion.
21 lbf2 ..txf2
Can Wh ite somehow set up a defence?
21 'ii' x e6? fxe6 22 'iti>xf2 l:.fxf3+ 23 lt:lxf3
l:. xd 1 is completely bad for White. After 21
'iti>xf2? 'ii' d 6 he ends u p i n a mortal pin on
the d-file. The best chance of a defence was
offered by 2 1 ..t e2 ! : xd2 22 l:t xd2 ..t e3
(22 . . . ..t c5 23 ifxe6 fxe6 24 ..t g4) 23 l:[ d3
..t c5 (23 . . . 'ifxf5 ! ? 24 exf5 ..t c5 25 ..t f3 1:lc8)
24 ifxe6 fxe6 25 ..t f3 (or 25 .l:.f3 ) . Black is a
pawn up, but the win is stil l a long way off. It
is amazing how g reat the safety marg i n is in
chess - despite Wh ite's n u merous errors,
h i s position ca n stil l be held !
[ The position can no longer be held! In the
event of 2 1 ..te2 the pretty stroke 2 1 . . . lLld5!!
is decisive: 22 cot xf2 (22 iVxf2 lLle3+ 23 'it>g 1
ltJxd 1 ; 22 'ii'xe6 lt:le3+) 22 . . . lLle3 23 ..txd3
ltJxd 1 +24 'it>e2 lLlxb2 - Dvoretsky.]
22 'iti>xf2 'ii' d 6
23 ..tc1 g6
23 . . . ifc5+ followed by 24 . . . 'ii' x c3 was also
strong.
24 'i!i'g5 f6!
Before the f-file is opened , the wh ite queen
m ust be d riven away. 24 .. .f5 is u n convinc­
i n g : 25 'iti>g2 l:. xf3 26 'iti>xf3 'ii' d 3+ 27 'iti>f2
fxe4+ 28 'iti>g 1 (Ta l ) 28 . . . e3 29 it'g4 ! (weaker
is 29 'ii' x e5 lt:ld7! 30 'ii' e 6+ 'iti>g7) 29 . . . lt:ld7!?
(29 . . . e3 30 'ii'e 6+ with a d raw) 30 lt:le4 ! e2!
31 l:t e 1 l:. f1 + 32 'iti>g2 .l:. xe 1 33 ife6+ , and
the battle ends i n perpetual check ( Dvo­
retsky).
 Does it pay to s h a rpen the Play? ltJ 91

25 'ii' h 6 f5 prophylactic move 1 O . . . h 6 ! , so that if the

26 'it>g2
If 26 � e 1 (e2 ) , then 26 . . .f4 27 gxf4 .tixf4 is
strong , while if 26 l:e1 - 26 . . . fxe4 27 .tixe4
J::!. xc3 .
26 . . . .tixf3 !
27 lLlxf3
Now after 27 'it> xf3 'it'd3+ 28 'itf2 fxe4+ 29
�g 1 Black has 29 . . . 'i!Vxg3+ 30 'it> h 1 .tif2 .
27 . . . 'tixd 1
28 l2Jg5
And White resigned , since he is the ex­
change and a pawn down , and the mate
threat is easily parried by 28 . . . l\fh5 or
28 . . . �d7 .
A s you see , althoug h t h e mature Tal h a d not
lost his former resou rcefu l ness, and he stil l
liked t o attack and make com b i n ations, he
did th is on a strict positional basis, endeav­
ouring not to take the ' l i berties' typical of hi s
youth .
knight moves he has the reply 11 . . . g5 ,
p reventing the open ing o f the position by
f2-f4 . The 5 t h game o f Spassky-Fischer
world championship m atch ( Reykjavik 1 972)
went 1 0 l2J h4 h6 1 1 f4 (hoping for 1 1 . . . exf4
1 2 � xf4 g5 1 3 e5! with compl ications
favou rable to Wh ite) 1 1 . . . l2J g 6 ! 1 2 l2J xg6
fxg6 . Here Boris Spassky made a serious
strategic mistake by exchanging pawns on
e5, after which the position became static
and the wh ite bishops had no scope. Robert
Fischer outplayed his opponent and went on
to wi n .
10 . . . 0-0
Black also has a nother possibilities . The
move made clearly shows his i ntention - to
prepare . . . f7-f5 .
1 1 lLlf1

The fol lowi ng game is q u ite different i n

cha racter to those exam i ned earl ier - it
bears d i rectly on the q uestion of prophy­
laxis. This is not surprising - playing Wh ite
was Tigran Petrosi a n .

Petrosian - lvkov
Olympiad, N ice 1 97 4
Nimzo-lndian Defence
1 d4 lLlf6
2 c4 e6
Petrosi an ta kes the opponent's plan i nto
3 lLlc3 i. b4 consideration an d takes measures before­
4 e3 c5 h a n d , by tran sferri ng his knight to g 3 . Black
5 �d3 l2Jc6 should possibly h ave changed plan by
6 lLlf3 ..ixc3+ playing 1 1 . . . l2J g 6, in order to h ave the option
of j u m p i n g with his knight to f4 . Wh ite i n turn
7 bxc3 d6
can react flexibly to this move , by placing h is
8 e4 e5
knight on e3 an d h is pawns o n g3 and f3 ,
9 d5 lbe7 a n d then advancing h is h-paw n , taking
1 0 l2Jd2 advantage of h is delay i n castl i n g . The
In the event of 1 0 0-0 B lack m a kes the move order chosen by Petrosian is q u ite
92 <t> Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
venomous, but i n recent times for some
reason it has not been em ployed .
11 . . . ifa5
Black has decided to play on the kingside,
and it is not clear why he moves h i s queen
to the queenside. If he was going to develop
his queen at a5, he should have done this a
move earlier, whe n , fi rstly, there was not the
reply i. d2, and second ly, he would have
retai ned the option of castl ing on the
queenside.
12 i.d2 lDe8
1 3 lDg3 f5
14 exf5 lDxf5
Black has a d ifficult position after 1 4 . . . i. xf5
1 5 lDxf5 lD xf5 1 6 'ii' c2 .
1 5 'ii'c 21 g6
16 0-0 i.d7
It is important to note that, i n contrast to the
King's I ndian Defence, Black's knight ca n­
not go to d4 - the sq uare is defended by the
wh ite pawn .
1 7 ltJe4
1 7 f4!? suggested itself, in order to open u p
t h e position and exploit t h e power o f t h e two
bishops. Possibly Wh ite was concerned
about 1 7 . . . ltJ xg3 1 8 hxg3 e4 !? ( 1 8 . . . exf4 1 9
i. xf4 , intending .l:I ae1 and at some point
i. xg6) 1 9 i. xe4 ltJ g 7 ! ( 1 9 . . . i. f5 20 g4 ! ? ;
1 9 . . . lD f6 20 i. xg6 ! ? hxg6 2 1 'ii'x g6+ � h8 22
f5 with a powerfu l attack). But the compen­
sation for the pawn is hardly sufficient. Black
probably does better to reject the pawn
sacrifi ce in favour of 1 8 . . . ltJ g 7 ! ? 1 9 fxe5
dxe5.
Petrosi an wa nts to preserve h i s knight from
exchange and so he does not h u rry to take
decisive action . However, the opponent
g a i n s time to strengthen his position .
17 . . . lDf6
1 8 ltJg5
The knight is very strongly placed here,
si nce the attem pt to d rive it away by . . . h7-
h6 leads to a wea ke n i ng of the kingside.
18 . . . l:tae8
19 f3 1
A typical Petrosian move. Having taken
control of the e4- an d g4-squares, he is
ready at a conve n ient moment to play g2-
g4, depriving the enemy pieces of the f5-
point.
19 . . . ltJg7
20 g4!
Of cou rse , the ex-world champion prevents
the exchange of bishops by 20 . . . i. f5 plan ned
by the opponent. All the black minor pieces
a re now shut out of play, an d yet for the
moment the situation remain s u nclear. For
 Does it pay to s h a rpen the Play?
tD 93

complete happi ness Wh ite sti ll needs a l so The a n swer is clear: i n Black's favour, of
to cramp B lack on the q ueenside with a2- cou rse . In cram ped positions you should
a4. exchange pieces! I think that after 26 . . . 'ii' x b6!
20 . . . 'ii' a 4 (27 'ili' a2 'ili' b2) he would have reta i n ed
Borislav lvkov m isses an excellent chance to excellent d rawing chances.
complicate the play, pointed out by Petrosia n : But now remember the situation before
20 . . . b 5 ! 2 1 cxb5 c 4 22 ..t xc4 ..t xb5 . Wh ite's 1 7th move . I should l i ke to ask: have
21 llkb31 l:. b8 Petrosian's su btle manoeuvres been justi­
22 ..tc2! 'ii'a 5 fied? Wou l d n 't it have been simpler, by
playing 1 7 f4 ! ? , to i m med iately 'cut the
23 a4
Gord i a n knot'?
Thus, White has also succeeded i n restrict­
ing the opponent's possibilities on the [At any event he should have struck in the
queenside. But even now the battle is not centre, without waiting for the opening of
yet over. lines on the queen side: 25 f4! (instead of 25
a5 ?!) 25 . . . exf4 26 rJ.xf4 or 25. . . b5 26 axb5
23 . . . "fkc7
axb5 27 fxe5 dxe5 28 ..te3 with advantage
24 h3 to White - Dvoretsky.]
Wh ite has to support the g4-pawn , to 26 . . . l:!.xb6?
prepa re f3-f4 .
27 'ii' a 3
24 . . . a6
Wh ite switches h is queen to the kingside for
a n attack, whereas the black queen lacks
any prospects .
27 . . . 'ii' d 8
28 'ii c 1 'ii' e 7
The rook o n its own ca n not do anyth i n g , and
it is q u ickl y d riven off the second ra n k .
30 ..td3 .tea
3 1 ..t c 1 l::t b3
32 ..t c2 l:t b6
The prophylactic work has been success­
fully accompl ished . There now follows what
is effectively the fi rst active move in the
game, and Black's position i m mediately
collapses.
25 a5
33 f4! h6
Otherwise Wh ite would have had to reckon
34 fxe5 'ii' x e5
with 25 . . . b5, and after the captu re on b5 with
the c-pawn - . . . c5-c4 . 35 'ii' x e5 dxe5

25 . . . b5 36 ltJe4 h5

26 axb6 37 ..ta3

What do you th i n k , with which piece should It is time to gather the harvest.
Black captu re on b6? In whose favou r is the 37 . . . ltJxe4
exchange of queens? 38 .l:f.xf8+ �xf8
 Does it pay to sharpen the Play?

39 i.xe4 l::t b3
40 i.xc5+ 'iti>eB
41 lU1
Black resigned .

In concl usion I will take the l i berty of offeri n g

o n e o f my own games.

Tsariov - Vu lfson
Moscow 1 989
Sicilian Defence
1 e4 c5
2 tDc3 lbc6
In view of my reta rded development, it
3 f4 e6
would be good to strike a blow in the centre,
4 lDf3 d5 by adva ncing the c-pawn . The pawn on b4
5 d3 slig htly h i nders the rea l i sation of this idea.
Apparently my opponent was satisfied with Even so, 11 c4 bxc3 1 2 bxc3 , i nten din g 1 3
the endgame after 5 . . . dxe4 6 dxe4 . I was c4 , was q u ite possible. My opponent found
aiming for more complicated play. a more cu n n i ng way of carrying out this
5... lDf6 plan.
11 a3!? bxa3
6 e5 lbd7
1 1 . . . a5 1 2 axb4 cxb4 came i nto considera­
7 g3 b5!?
tio n . However, after 1 3 i. e3 (weaker is 1 3 c4
Usually this advance has to be prepared ,
bxc3 1 4 bxc3 i. a6) Wh ite would have stood
but here there is an opportun ity to carry it
better.
out immediately.
1 2 bxa3!
8 i.g2 b4
I had only reckoned on 12 l:t xa3 'ikb6 1 3 c4
9 tDe2 g6? !
d4 with u nclear consequences.
It would have been better to conti nue i n the
12 . . . i.a6
same spirit: 9 . . . a5 and then . . . tDb6. But it
1 3 lbg5!
seemed important to me to halt the wh ite
pawns on the kingside. Another strong move . It transpires that if
1 3 . . . i. e7 there follows 1 4 c4! i. xg5 1 5
10 0-0 h5
cxd 5 ! . Therefore Black defends his knight on
The standard plan for Wh ite i n such posi­
c6 .
tions involves the preparation of an offen­
13 . . . 'ikc7
sive on the kingside: h2-h3 , g3-g4 and at
some point f4-f5 . However, i n the g iven 1 4 c4!
instance he also has another very promising Think what happens in the event of the
pla n . Try to fi nd it. pawn sacrifice being accepted .
If 1 4 . . . dxc4 , then 1 5 'ii' a 4 cxd3 1 6 tDc3. For
example: 1 6 . . . d2 1 7 'ii' x a6, or 1 6 . . . i. b7 1 7
lb b5 followed by 1 8 lbe4.
All this looks extremely da ngerous, but the
 Does it pay to sharpen the Play?
defence can be i m p roved . Black should not
take the second pawn - it is better to play
immed iately 1 5 . . . i. b7! 1 6 dxc4 ltJb6 1 7 'ii c 2
ltJ d4, reta i n i n g a defensible position .
I preferred to keep the position closed ,
wh ich , alas, did not get Black out of serious
difficulties.
14 . . . d4?
My hopes were based on the lack of active
possibil ities for two of the wh ite pieces - the
knight on e2 and the bishop on c 1 . But such
possibil ities appear after the positional
pawn sacrifice 1 5 f5 . Another way of
developing Wh ite's i n itiative is 1 5 'ii' a 4 i. b7
16 � b 1 .
Thus, there is choice of two conti n u ations.
Which of them would you prefer? It is rather
difficu lt to calcu late the variations fu lly
(especially i n the f4-f5 variation). At some
point you have to trust you r i ntuition .
1 5 f5 !? gxf5 1 6 ltJf4 . The threat i s 1 7 ltJxe6,
after which the king ca n no longer be saved .
The best defence is 1 6 . . J::t h6. Then 1 7
ltJxf7 ! ! <i;xf7 1 8 ltJxe6! l:t xe6 1 9 'ili' xh5+ <i;g7
( 1 9 . . 'i;g8 20 i. d 5 with the threat of 2 1
.
'i'g6+ ; 1 9 . . . l:t g6 2 0 i. d5+ 'i;g7 2 1 i. h6+!
l:!.xh6 22 'iff7+ ) 20 i. d 5 ! 'ii x e5 2 1 i. h6+!
with a mating attack. And if 1 8 . . . 'i;xe6
(instead of 1 8 . . . l:. xe6) , then 1 9 i. d5+ 'i;e7
20 .ig5+ <i;e8 21 i. xh6 is strong, as is 1 9
ltJ 95
'iff3 ! with i rresistible th reats .
To be honest, I did not see the pawn
sacrifice, whereas my opponent saw it an d
conscientiously tried t o calculate it . But he
got bogged down i n the mass of variations
a n d i n the end he decided n ot to risk it. ' I felt
that I should play this, but I cou ldn't
ca lculate it fu lly' , h e explai ned after the
game. ' But why calculate it fu lly? ' , I asked in
surprise. ' I f such a n idea had occu rred to
m e , I would defi n itely h ave sacrificed . '
Having decided not to risk t h e sacrifice , m y
opponent easily persuaded h i mself that h e
would w i n after 1 5 'iV a4 .
[And he was right - in this way White does
indeed achieve a significant advantage, by
simple means, without resorting to risk.
From the practical point of view the decision
taken by White is the most advisable -
Dolmatov.]
1 5 'ifa4 i.b7
1 6 .l:tb1 ltJb6
1 7 'ifb5 .l:tb8
Black has to cover h is gaping woun d - the
b-fi l e .
1 8 ltJe4 ltJd7
Otherwise the c5-pawn can not be de­
fended .
1 9 ltJf6+!
Wh ite's calculations were based o n this. I n
the event of 1 9 . . . ltJxf6 h e has the decisive
20 i. xc6+. But he clearly underestimated
my reply.
19 . .
. 'i;d8!
20 . . . i. a8 is threatened , and t h e k n igh t at e2
is stil l out of play. And no forced win is
apparent: 20 ltJxd7 <i;xd7 ( i ntend ing 21 . . .
i. e?) 2 1 i. xc6+? 'ii'x c6 2 2 'ii'x c6+ 'i;xc6.
20 i. d2 i.a8
20 . . . ltJxf6? is bad because of 21 i. xc6 ! .
2 1 'iVa4 .l:txb1
22 l:.xb1 ltJxf6
23 exf6 i. d6
96 � Does it pay to s h a rpen the Play?
24 h4!
It is not easy to i ncrease the pressure , and
my opponent sets a cu n n ing psychological
trap. He defends against a possible . . . h 5-
h4, as though demonstrati ng that h i s i n itia­
tive on the queenside has evaporated . And I
swallowed this bait, by i ncautiously making
a natural move .
24 . . . 'it>d7?!
25 Ji.. a 5!
[Of course, it was unpleasant to allow such
a stroke. But how otherwise could Black
have brought his rook into play? And after
all, the opponent was threatening to streng­
then his position by �h2 and lbe2-g 1-f3 or
i::! b 5 and lbe2-c 1-b3. The pawn on f6
seriously cramps Black, and his king feels
very uncomfortable in the centre. It has to be
admitted that White has a serious advantage
- Dolmatov.]
Aga i n we face a d i l e m m a . After 25 . . . 'ii'c8
Wh ite will strengthen h i s position by .l:i. b5
and lbe2-c 1 -b3. The alternative is the
q ueen sacrifice 25 . . . .l::!. b8. F rom the practical
point of view it is usually better to choose
the more active conti n u atio n . Let us see:
25 . . . .l::!. b 8!? 26 Ji.. x c7 l:!.x b 1 + 27 W h 2 ! (pre­
pa ring lbg 1 -f3) 27 . . . <j;; x c7 . Now it would be
absurd , of cou rse, to win the a7-pawn by 28
Ji.. x c6?. After 28 lbg 1 [first 28 'i¥c2 is more
methodical - Dolmatov] 28 . . . .l:i. b2 the ad­
vantage is probably with Wh ite , but in a time
scra m ble that is what Black should have
played .
25 . . . 'ii' c 8?!
26 'ir'bS?
A picturesque position wou l d have a risen
after 26 l:!. b5! 'if a6 ( i n playing 25 . . . 'i!Vc8, I
was relying on this p i n ) 27 lbc1 l:!. b8 28 lb b3
WeB . Now 29 lbxc5? does not work because
of 29 . . . l:!.xb5 30 lbxa6 l:!.xa5. The opponent
plays 29 <j;; h 2 ! , an d what move can Black
m a ke now? It transpires that i n the midd le­
game he has ended up in zugzwan g ! For
example, 29 . . . .ll b 6 30 l:. xb6 axb6 3 1 .i. xc6,
or 29 . . . Ji.. f8 30 l:. xb8+ � xb8 3 1 Ji.. c7+ .
26 . . . 'tib8 !
27 Ji.. e 1 a6
28 "ifxb8 l:!.xb8
29 .l::!. x b8 .i.xb8
By forcing the exchange of queens, Black
has equal ised . M y opponent's winn ing
chances had a l ready evaporated , but sub­
seq uently he tried too hard to recover them
and he even went on to lose .
 Does it pay to s h a rpen the Play?
Adde n d u m
Petros ian - Sax
Tal l i n n 1 979
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence
1 tLlf3 g6 2 e4 i.g7 3 d4 d6 4 tt:Jc3 tLlf6
5 �e2 0-0 6 0-0 i.g4 7 i.e3 tt:Jc6 8 'i!Vd2 e5
9 dxe5 dxe5 1 0 l:tad 1 'it'c8 1 1 'iVc1 l:td8
1 2 l:txd8+ 'iVxd8 13 l:td1 'ir'f8 14 h3 i.xf3
1 5 �xf3
1 5 a6?!
. . .
The move wh ich was reco mmended by
theory at that time, on the basis of the game
Timman-Matu lovic (Wij k a a n Zee 1 97 4 ) ,
wh ich went 1 6 tt:J d5? l2J xd5 1 7 .U. xd5 l2J d4
18 � xd4 exd4 1 9 'i�Vf4 'fie7 20 e5 .l::i. e 8 2 1
l'xd4 � xe5 with a q u ick d raw.
The d i rect 1 5 . . . l:!. d8 leads after 1 6 .U. xd8+
'i'xd8 1 7 l'Hd 1 'iVxd 1 + ( 1 7 . . . 'iV e7 ! ? ) 1 8 i. xd 1
ttJ 97
to an e n din g which is better for White . The
game Andersson-Hazai ( P u l a 1 975) contin­
ued 1 8 . . . l2J d4 1 9 f3 l2J e8? ( 1 9 . . . a6 20 l2J a4
l2J d 7 ) 20 l2J d5 c6 21 tt:J e7+ 'it> f8 22 tt:J c8 a6
23 c3 lLlb5 24 a4 tt:J bc7 25 i. b3 i. f6 26 l2J b6
l2J e6 (26 . . . � e7 27 i. c5+) 27 i. xe6 fxe6 28
i. c5+ � f7 29 l2J d7 'itg7 30 � f2 ii. h4+ 31 g3
ii.f6 32 � e2 ii.d8 33 i. f2 i. f6 34 l2J c5 lLld6
35 l2J xe6+ 'i.t>f7 36 l2J c5 ii.d8 37 b3 i. a5 38
b4 i. c7 39 a5 i. b8 40 i. e3 Black resigned .
I n the opinion of Petrosi a n , Black should
aim for the exchange of the da rk-sq uare
bishops with 1 5 . . . h 5 ! ? followed by . . . 'i.t>h7
a n d . . . i. h 6 .
1 6 l2J b 1 ! l:td8 1 7 l:txd8 �xd8 1 8 c3 �d3 1 9
tt:Jd2 i.f8 2 0 'ii' b 1 'ilt'b5
The exchange of q ueens would lead to an
u npleasant endgame for Black, roughly
similar to the Andersson-Hazai game.
2 1 'iVc2 lLld8
If 21 . . . i. c5, then 22 i. g5 followed by the
advance of the q ueenside pawns with a2-a4
and b2-b4 .
22 it'b3 'iVd3?! 23 'ifc4 it'd6 24 'ii' e 2 'tieS
25 'tid3 l2Jc6 (25 . . . l'He7 and 26 . . . tt:J e6 was
better) 26 a3 'ii' e 7 27 b4 tt:Jd8 28 l2Jc4 l2Jd7
29 ii.g4! l2Je6 30 l2Ja5! b5 31 l2Jc6 �e8 32
c4! tt:Jf6 33 cxb5 axb5 34 it'xb5 l2Jxe4 35
'fic4 lLld6 36 'ii d 5 h5 37 i.xe6 fxe6 38 'ifc5
lLlf5 39 'ii' c 2 ii.g7 40 b5 l2Jd4 41 'ifc4 'iVd7
42 a4 lLlf5 43 'ife2 Black resig ned .
98 �
M a rk Dvorets ky

Thoug hts about a Book

There are n o hopeless positions, there are only inferior

ones, which may be saved. There are no drawn positions,
there are only equal ones, in which one may play for a
win. But at the same time don 't forget that there is no such
thing as a winning position, where it is impossible to lose.
Grigory Sanakoev

I correspondence and it is u n l ikely that I will

n my l ife I have played j ust two games by
play any more . Nevertheless, on learn i n g
that a games col lection o f Grigory Sanakoev,
the 1 2th world correspondence cha m p i o n ,
had been published , I prom ptly acq u i red the
book. There were several reasons for th i s .
Firstly, I remember h o w g randmaster S i ma­
g i n , who i n the mid 1 960s won the U S S R
Correspondence Championship, spoke with
g reat respect about the creative style of one
of his opponents - Grigory Sanakoev. After
read ing the book, I ca n confirm with pleas­
ure that Vlad i m i r Pavlovich was right.
Secondly, as a trainer I am always i n need of
fresh and high-q ual ity material . Many i nter­
esti ng games are played in the worl d , but,
since they are publ ished i n chess maga­
zines or lnformator, they become known not
only to a trainer, but also his pupils. And yet
over-the-board players hardly deign to pay
any attention to the world of correspond­
ence play. This is a pity - from here one ca n
derive nu merous ideas, deep and vivid ,
which have been ca reful l y developed i n
home analysis.
Books of games which a re l i mited to the
moves and i l l u strative variations may be
i n structive , but they are not terribly i nterest­
i n g . I n the g iven i n stance, fortu n ately, we
meet not only some fasci nating duels, but
a l so the l ive person who played them - his
experiences, thoug hts , assessments and
advice. I a m especially i m p ressed by the
e n l isti ng ( i nvariably at an appropriate mo­
ment) of o p i n ions by famous th i n kers from
the past. Chess is one of the fields of h u man
culture, an d we should not i mpoverish
o urselves by sticking only to its na rrow
profession a l aspects .
Contra ry to the author's convictions, I a m
sceptical about t h e prospects for corre­
spondence play. The emergence of comput­
ers a n alysing at g ran d master level i nevita­
bly creates the temptation to use their
services to ach ieve good competitive re­
sults . N owadays practical l y a l l players em­
ploy powerfu l com puters for ope n i n g an aly­
sis (the detri menta l effect of this process on
the popu l a rity of chess is obvious - chess
fans a re i nterested in a competition be­
tween i n d ivid uals, not mach ines). But in
correspondence play a computer can be
used throughout the game.
However, there is no doubt t h at Sanakoev
a lways has played and will play i ndepend-
 Thoug hts about a Book l2J 99

ently. What m ain ly attracts h i m in chess is A propensity for pretty moves

the creative search , the i ntel lectual strug­
If a player fi nds a spectacu l a r an d seem­
gle, and only then the result. A read i n g of the
ingly tempti ng possibil ity, he is often hypno­
book pa i nts the a uthor i n a very attractive
tised by it an d can no longer resist the
light ( I a m sure that it is a uthentic, even
though I do not know G rigory Konstantinovich temptatio n . Probably all of us h ave lost
- an experienced reader can not be de­ poi nts for this reason . I can not refra i n from
ceived ! ) - a vivi d , u ncom p romising, self­ showing you a memorable exa mple from
confident chess player, and an erud ite a n d one of my own games.
at the sam e time non-trad itional thin ker.
I cou ldn't help beg i n n i n g with my overa l l Dvoretsky - Peev
very favourable impression o f S a n a koev's E u ropean Champions Cup, Plovd iv 1 975
book, but it wasn't for this that I ' pi cked up
my pen' (an obsolete p h rase in the compu­
ter age ! ) . The topic of my a rticle is certai n
critical aspects o f chess mastery, thoug hts
about which were i n itiated by my read ing of
the book.
After choosing the ga mes which to me
seemed the most noteworthy, I i nvited
grand master Zviagi ntsev to study the m .
Vad im's task w a s a n i ndependent search for
difficult decisions at critical moments (of
course , without moving the pieces o n the
board ), and someti mes a lso the playing of
that most tense episode of a game, when its
outcome was being decided . I n many
instances the concl usions of the experi­ Wh ite's position looks to be won . True , 29
enced correspondence player and the young l:t b6? 'iif c 5+ is poi ntless, and 29 c4 'iif a 6! or
over-the-boa rd g randmaster did not coi n ­ 29 'ii' a 8+ � c7 30 'ii' a 5+ b6 is u n convinci n g .
cide - su ch situations were add itionally However, 29 .l:. f4 ! is very stro n g , with the
analysed , discussed and i nterpreted . terri ble th reat of 30 l:t c4 . If 29 . . . ltJd6, then
I should mention that a deep exam i n ation of 30 .l:. b6 'ii' c 5+ 31 .l:. d4 and there is noth ing
even the most conscientious a n alysis is that Black ca n move . And i n the event of
bou nd to reveal questionable aspects or 29 . . . l:. d2 the fol lowi ng p retty variation is
even mistakes - chess is j u st too compli­ possible: 30 'ii' a 8+ � c7 3 1 l:t xb7+! � d6! 32
cated . Therefore the fol lowing critical a n aly­ ltd? + ! ? (32 ltJe4+ ! is sim pler) 32 . . . 'if xd7 33
sis of episodes from Sanakoev's book of 'ii' a 3+ 'it> e5 34 ttJ xd7+ � xf4 35 'ii' c 1 � e3 36
games is not at all a n attem pt to cast doubts ttJ e5 and wins.
on it. I n my time I have written in similar U nfortunately, I was tempted by a showy
fashion about excel lent books by Jan move plan ned in advance, wh ich proved on
Timman and John Nunn, wh ich beforehand verification to be not very effective .
I had used for tra i n i n g pu rposes with Sergey
29 lDd7?!
Dolmatov. Books with less i nteresting con­
tent simply wou l d n 't have come with i n our I nto a th ree-fold attack!
field of view. 29 . . . .l:[xd7!
1 00 � Thoughts about a Book
The only defence. 29 . . . Vxd7 30 Va8+ is
bad , if 29 . . . 'iit x d7 there is the decisive 30
.l:txb7+ 'iit e 8 3 1 l:txf5 ! , while if 29 . . . lLld6,
then (if there is noth ing better) 30 lLle5 Wd5
3 1 lLlxf7 .
After the move in the game I real ised that
the plan ned 30 Va8+ 'iit c 7 31 Vxh8 1eads to
an immed iate d raw: 31 . . . Vc5 + ! (but not
3 1 . . . .Ud2? 32 'ife5+ and 33 l:tf2 ) 32 'iit h 2
'ifd6+ 33 'iit g 1 Vc5+ 34 .l:.f2 .l:.d2 35 llf1
lLlg3 36 'iif6 lL\xf1 37 Vxf7+ 'iit b 8 38 'iit x f1
.Uxf2+ 39 'ii'xf2 'ii'x c3 . But the attempt to
play on with 30 .Uxf5?! gxf5 31 'it'a8+ 'iit c 7
32 'ii'x h8 proved even worse in view of 32 ...
'ili'e4 ! . After 33 .l:.f1 l:td2 34 Wg7 peace was
nevertheless concl uded , although Black's
position is now somewhat better.
An exam i n ation of Sanakoev's games
showed that he is characterised by this
tendency to choose pretty moves, even if
this is sometimes at the expense of their
qual ity.
Engel - Sana koev
Anniversary Tou rna ment of the
Romanian Chess Federatio n , 1 976-79
'Only an immediate counterattack can save
Black', writes Sanakoev. Wh ite is intending
25 'ii' h 3 followed by 26 hxg6. H i s threats
undoubtedly have to be taken seriously, but
even so I think that the commentator
sign ificantly exaggerates the danger th reat­
ening h i m .
F o r exa mple, after t h e natural 2 4 . . . .l:l.c8!?
Sanakoev g ives 25 hxg6 fxg6 26 'ifh3 i.d5
27 'iit b 1 !, preparing 28 lLlxd 5 . However,
Black gain s the advantage if i n stead of
26 . . . �d5?! he chooses the sharp 26 . . . b4!
27 Vxe6+ 'iit f8 28 l:.c4 bxc3 ! 29 .l:txc7 cxd2 +
30 'iit x d2 .l:.cxc7 3 1 'iit c 1 i.. c 5 32 'ifxe5 'iit g 8.
Generally speaking, the knight is well
placed at c3 - from here it prevents Black
from conven iently supporting h i s e6-point
by . . . i..d 5 , and in some cases it ca n go to
e4 . Therefore 24 . . . b4 ! ? suggests itself.
Sanakoev t h i n ks that after 25 lLld 1 llc8 26
lLle3 Wh ite has a clear advantage ( i ndeed ,
any m i n ute now the knight will j u m p to g4).
But why let the knight out from d 1 ? I n stead
of 25 . . J�c8 Black has the sign ificantly
stronger 25 . . . ..t c5 ! ? 26 Wh3 i..d 5 . Now the
rook is intending to go to c8 , in the event of
27 hxg6 fxg6 Black has everything safely
defended , in reply to lLle3 there always
follows . . . ..txe3, while the conseq uences of
27 i..x b4 i..x b3 (27 . . . ..txb4 28 .Uxb4 .Uc8
also comes i nto consideration) are uncer­
tai n . It is clear that Black has the rig ht to go
i n for this.
25 . . . ..te7! wou ld appear to be even stronger.
Wh ite can not play 26 lLle3? ..txg 5 , and 26
hxg6 .l:%.xd2! is also unfavourable for h i m . But
after 26 ..te3 the knight ca n no longer go to
e3, and Black calmly plays 26 . . . l:fd 8 ,
i ntend i n g 27 . . . l:.xd 1 + or 27 . . .'ii' a 5 .
T h e a bove considerations a re p rosaic. By
contrast, the solution fou n d by Sanakoev
was h i g h ly spectacular.
24 . . . ..ta3 ! ?
N ow Wh ite loses i mmed iately after 2 5
.U 1 h 2 ? .Uxd2 ! 2 6 .Uxd2 'ii' x c3 . If 25 bxa3
Black was i nten d i ng 25 . . . .Uxd2! 26 'iit x d2
l:td8+ 27 � c 1 'ii' x c3 28 'iit b 1 .Ud2 29 'ii' c 1
..txf3 30 l:. 1 h 3 l:te2 with advantage. How-
 Thoughts about a Book ltJ 1 01

ever, Wh ite's play can be i m p roved by 30 would have h a rdl y allowed h i s opponent 'off
hxg6! (instead of 30 .U. 1 h3?) 30 ... �xh 1 (in the ropes' so soo n . But what told here,
the event of 30 .. .fxg6 31 1:!.1 h 3 Black no a p pa rently, was the magic of a pretty move ,
longer has 3 1 ....l:!.e2?? beca use of 32 .U.xh7) forcing h i m to convi nce h i mself that after
3 1 gxf7+ 'it'xf7 32 .Uxh 7 + , for example: other conti n u ations Wh ite would g a i n the
32 ... 'it'g6 33 l:.xh 1 e4 34 .l:!.h6+ 'it'xg5 35 advantage.
J:txe6 e3 36 'iVg 1 + 'it>f4 37 .U.e4 + ! Wxe4 38
"i'g4+ 'iii'd 5 39 'it'd?+ with perpetua l check. A. Zaitsev - Sana koev
In the game there followed 25 lbb1 ?! . Here 6th U S S R C h ampionsh i p , 1 963-65
Sanakoev resisted the temptation to again
play 'for brilliancy ' : 25 . . . .U.xd2?! 26 lbxd2
"i'c3 . In the event of 27 bxa3?! .U. c8 28 �d 1
l:td8 ! the game ends i n a d raw after both 29
'>i'b 1 .U.xd2 30 'ifc1 �xf3 31 hxg6! (we have
alread y seen this position in o ur a n a lysis of
the 25 bxa3 variation), and 29 hxg6 ! ? l:!.xd2
30 gxf7 + 'it>f8 31 .U.xh 7 .U.xd 1 + 32 l:.xd 1 .
Stronger is 27 iYd 3 ! �xb2+ 28 '.t.>b1 � a 1 29
"i'xc3 �xc3 30 lbe4 �xe4 3 1 fxe4 - here it
is Black who would have to fight for a d raw.
25 . i.c5! 26 iYh3 �c6! 27 hxg6 'it'xf3 ! 28
. .

gxh7+ Wh8 29 li'xf3 �xf3 , and i n the

endgame Black had a n obvious advantage,
which he successfully converted .
Zviag intsev also h it on the move 24 . . . � a 3 . 25 . . . �xh4
B u t h e w a s n o t sure a bout h i s choice, since 26.U. h 1 �xg 3 !
he calculated that Wh ite could force a d raw, The excla mation mark is m i ne. Sanakoev
and he wondered whether i n stead he h i mself considers the move made by h i m to
should play the complicated position after be dubious. This is what he writes:
24 . . . b4 ! ?. 'The temptation prove too great. . I recalled
.

25 hxg6! .i:!.xd2! that "the wise man understands that it is

26 .Uxh7 'ifxc3 ! simpler to deny himself a passion than to
27.U.h8+ '.t.>g7 struggle against it afte rwards " (Fra m;ois La
28.U.1 h7+ Rochefoucauld), but with the chance of a
sacrificial attack against Zaitse v, I thought
28 .U8h7+ is just the same.
"No, I can 't chicken out! "
28 . . . 'it'xg6
'As for the purely objective assessment of
29.U.h6+ 'it'g7
the manoeuvre . . . �f6xh4xg3, 26. . . �g5
The king ca n not move forward (29.. :lt>f5? was undoubtedly stronger. A fter the modest
30 'ifh3+ '.t.>f4 3 1 l:t h4+ '.t.>e3 32 lle4+! �xe4 reply 27 .U.xh5, by 27 . . . �xd2 28 �xd2 bxc4
33 fxe4+ and 34 "i!Vxc3), and so things end i n Black would have gained the initiative on the
perpetual check. queenside in the absence of any serious
Of course, Sanakoev saw this variation and counterplay for the opponent, which would
gave it i n his book. H e is a very combative have promised long months of very pleas­
player and under other circu mstances he ant analysis in the range from 'better' to
1 02 � Thoughts about a Book
'much better'. The more critical 27 cxb5
would have allowed the pawn sacrifice
27 . . . h4! 28 bxa6 'ii' e 7 fo llowed by . . . hxg3,
obtaining an attack on the dark squares,
which would be not at all easy to parry. '
A player's impression of a game he has
played usually depends strongly on its
result. If Sanakoev had won (as we see, he
had every basis for doing so), the piece
sacrifice would probably have been awarded
two exclamation marks. But he lost, and
hence the doubts a bout the qual ity of the
decision take n .
I n fact, after Sanakoev's recommendation
26 . . . i.g5 27 .l:txh5 i.xd2 28 i.xd2 bxc4 29
bxc4 Black has a good game, but noth ing
more. And yet the piece sacrifice was not
only tempti ng, but also very strong. You only
have to look at the position arising with i n 2-
3 moves, and the sure feeling is that Black's
attack is fully correct.
I n such situations, 'correspondents' a i m to
analyse variations as deeply and accurately
as possible. But over-the-board players,
who have neither a sufficient reserve of
time, nor the right to move the pieces on the
board , are forced , by contrast, to cut short
their calculation at the fi rst conven ient
moment and evaluate the position reached .
This is why correspondence players a re
bound to be less good at making correct
assessments than over-the-board experts ­
simply, here they have less experience,
since they solve most of their problems
analytical ly.
Of cou rse, any observation of this sort, even
if in general it is correct, ca nnot be extended
to every eventual ity i n l ife . For example, I
am familiar with the games of Mikhail
Umansky, anothe r world correspondence
champion, and they a re impressive pre­
cisely for their depth of strategy.
28 'ii'e 3 'iVe7
29 'itf2 'iVg 5
30 i.f1
30 .l:th2 h4 31 tt::lf 1 bxc4 32 bxc4 i.xc4 33
i.xc4 .l:lxc4 34 'iVb3 llec8 35 i.xf4 exf4 is
bad for Wh ite .
30 . . . h4
Sanakoev makes no comment on this
move , although it is not self-evident. After
3 1 .l:tg 1 the queen will tem porarily have to
retreat - there is no longer a check at h4.
However, then there follows . . . h4-h3 and
the h4-sq uare again becomes accessible to
the q ueen .
Black had another tempting attacking possi­
bil ity, suggested by Zviagintsev: 30 . . . bxc4 !
3 1 bxc4 i.xc4 32 tt::l xc4 l bc4 33 'ii' b 3 .l:l.ec8,
after which , in my view, neither 34 i.xf4
.l:ic2+ 35 i.e2 exf4 , nor 34 i.xc4 'iVg2+ 35
'ite3 il'xh 1 36 i. b2 'il'h2 (and if 37 .l:l.c1
l:.xc4 ! ) leaves Wh ite any real hopes of
saving the game.
3 1 .l:tg1 'ilfh6
32 'ii' b 6!
Wh ite has to prepare the king move to e 1 ,
which d i d not work i m mediately because of
32 . . . tt::l g 2+.
32 . . . h3
33 'ite1 l:tc5!
An excellent move, cutting off the queen
from the important e3- and f2-squ a res. If 34
'ii' x d6 there follows 34 . . . Wh4+ 35 'itd 1 'il'f2,
and then . . . llc5-c8-d8 .
 Thoughts about a Book
34 .tal
In such a tense situation it is rarely possible
to conduct a n attack, s i m ply by making
common sense moves. At some point you
have to exert you rself, in order to fi nd and
accu rately calculate a concrete way to the
goal . I n correspondence play this is much
simpler, of cou rse , than i n a normal game.
Sanakoev saw a convincing solution , which ,
however, was also found by Zviag i ntsev.
34 . . . qjg2+! 35 �d1 (Wh ite loses q u ickly
after 35 ..txg2? 'ii' e 3+ 36 'lt>f1 hxg2+ 37
l::txg2 �h3, while 35 .l:txg2 hxg2 36 �xg2
'i'e3+ 37 'iti> d 1 bxc4 leads to a tra nsposition
of moves) 35 ... 'ii' e 3 36 l:ixg2 hxg2 37
.bg2 bxc4 38 �xc5 dxc5 39 bxc4 ..txc4!
(39.. . 11i'd4? 40 .l:tc1 l:td8 41 'ifa5) 40 qjxc4
'i'd4+ ! 41 qjd2 (4 1 �e2 o r 41 �c2 is
completely bad because of 41 ...'ii' x c4+)
4 1 . .'1i'xa
. and Black is
1 + 4 2 � e 2 'it'xa2,
clearly close to a wi n .
I should mention that there a re also alterna­
tive ways of conducting the attack, which
are no worse than the a bove variation. For
example, the captu re on c4 can be made
not only with the pawn , but also the bishop:
37 . . . ..txc4 ! ? 38 bxc4 (38 ..txc5 ..te2 + ; 38
tZ:\xc4 'ii' g 1 + ) 38 . . . 'ii' x a3 with a winning
position . I n stead of 35 ...'ife3 , very strong is
35 ... qje3+ ! ? 36 'iti>e2 qjc2 o r 36 � c 1 h2 37
J:!.h 1 qjxf1 3.8 .l:!.xf1 h 1 'if. Final ly, Sanakoev
t2J 1 03
thinks that after 34 . . . 'i!kh4+ 35 �d 1 'iif2 36
l:. h 1 'White has no particular problems ', but
i n fact there a re problems, and very serious
ones: 36 . . .qjg2 ! 37 ..txc5 dxc5 (or even
37 . . . 'it'e 1 + 38 �c2 'ii' x a 1 39 ..tf2 'it'xa2+) 38
�c2 qje3+ 39 �c3 b4+ 40 'iti>d3 qjf5 !.
Why did Sanakoev underestimate these
poss i b i l ities, and why did he reject a
favo urable variation that he had calculated?
Wel l , fi rstly, h e was not altogether s ure
about the assessment of its concl uding
position. But it was mainly beca use he was
tem pted by a possibil ity of 'playing for
bri l l i a ncy' .
34 . . . qjd5?
35 exd5!
'White has no reason to plunge into the
maze of variations such as 35 'ii xd6 'iVe3+
36 �d1 b4 37 cxd5 'iVxg 1 38 ..txb4 :t:!cc8, or
make a dubious attempt to clarify the
position with 35 ..txc5 qjxb6 36 ..txb 6 bxc4
37 bxc4 1ib8 38 Ji.f2 1ib2, when in either
case it is again not altogether clear how to
combat the h3-pawn. ' (Sanakoev)
35 . . . 'ii' e 3+
36 'iti> d 1 'ikxg 1
37 dxe6
Black has no time for the captu re on e6: a
characteristic variation goes 37 ... fxe6 38
..txc5 dxc5 39 �c2 (39 'ii' c6 ! ? followed by
40 �c2 is even more accu rate) 39 . . . h 2 40
.l:r. b 1 ! h1 'it' 4 1 ..td3. But otherwise Wh ite
captu res on f7, severely weakening the
position of the opposing king. On reach ing
this point i n h i s calcu lations, it is probable
that a n over-the-board grandmaster would
have i ntuitively rejected 34 .. _qjd5 and looked
for someth in g else.
37 . . . h2
38 exf7 + �xf7
39 11i'xd6 'ifd4? !
A detailed analysis convinced Black that
after 39 . . . ltcc8 40 'ii' d 5+ his king would
come under a decisive attack. In my view,
1 04 � Thoughts about a Book

there things are not altogether clear. For R azuvaev - Beliavs ky

example, after 40 ...'iti'f6! Sanakoev g ives 4 1 47th U S S R Championsh i p , M in s k 1 979
lt:Je4+ 'itilg6 4 2 'iti'c2 bxc4 4 3 bxc4 h 1 'if 44
i.d3! , and now for some reason 44 . . Jixc4+?
45 'ifxc4 'ifxa 1 46 li:Jg3+ etc. But I don't see
how Wh ite can checkmate his opponent
after the immediate 44 . ..'ifxa 1 .
The move in the game led to a hopeless
ending.
40 i.xc5 'ifxd6
41 i.xd6 h 1 'if
42 'iti'c2 'ii' h 6
43 c5 'ii' e 3
44 a4!
Wh ite has both a material advantage (th ree
minor pieces for a queen) and a positional
advantage , which he successfully con­ Yu ri Razuvaev restricted h i mself to the
verted. immediate regain in g of the pawn 1 8 lt:Jxe4,
which allowed Black to equal ise by 1 8 . . .
Calculation horizons i.xe4 1 9 'ili'xe4 'ili'd5!. There followed : 20
'ifxd5 exd5 21 l:.fd 1 'iti'e6 22 'iti'f1 i.d6 23
i.xd6 D raw.
As has already been mentioned , it is natural The i nterposition of a rook move to d 1
for over-the-board players to aim to cut suggested itself. However, i n t h e event o f 1 8
short their calculation of variations as early .l:.fd 1 ? ! Black h a s a n excellent reply:
as possible. I n this way they save time and 1 8 . . . 1t'e8! 1 9 lid?+?! 'iti'g6, when 20 lt:Jxe4?
energy, but sometimes they delve insuffi­ is bad because of 20 ...i.xf2+. The q ueen
ciently deeply into the position , overlook should be attacked with the other rook.
latent tactical or strategic resou rces , and as 1 8 l:t c d 1 ! 'ii'e8
a result miss the strongest conti nuations.
After 1 8 .. . 'ii' b 6 1 9 l:!.d7+ and 20 lt:Jxe4 the
What can be done: 'real life is, to most men,
i n itiative remains with Wh ite .
a long second-best, a perpetual compro­
mise between the ideal and the possible.' 1 9 l:!.d7+ <t>g6?
(Bertrand Russell). The natu ra l , but i ncorrect move. 1 9 ... 'iti'f8 ! is
stronger.
[After 1 9.. .'iti'f8! it is not clear that White has
much compensation for the pawn, e.g. 20
'1:..fd 1 e5. It seems dubious to assert that 18
I!cd 1 is better than 18 lt:J xe4 Translator.]
-

20 lt:Jxe4 e5
After calcul ating this far, Razuvaev rejected
1 8 l:tcd 1 . But he was wrong!
2 1 lt:Jxc5 .l:lxc5
22 .l:lxg7+! 'iti'xg7
 Thoughts about a Book
23 'it'xa7+
Wh ite regains the pawn and emerges two
pawns u p .
Many correspondence g ames p rovide us
with excellent tra i n ing material for overcom­
ing this psychological ba rrier, for expa n d i ng
our calculation horizons. After a l l , a corre­
spondence player usually contin ues h i s
analysis a t a p o i n t where t h e over-the-board
player would probably sto p . It is i m po rta nt
only to select exa mples i n which the
problems facing a player a re not analytica l ,
but are o f a thematic or psychological
natu re .
'The longest and most complicated trap in
my career was probably the one I carried
out in the following game. ' (Sanakoev)
Sana koev - S hevechek
VI World Championship 1 968-70
How should this position be assessed? The
author of the book writes:
'Black appears to have achieved his aim.
The knight at a5 is still out of play, on his
next move he will make the long-awaited
.. . d6-d5 advance, and although in the
forthcoming play White, with his sound extra
pawn, certainly has the better chances, the
outcome seems completely unclear. '
lZJ 1 05
I have t o admit that i n itially I did n o t agree
with Sanakoev's assessment, thinking that
after the prophylactic move 29 lle3 ! ? Wh ite
would retai n a g reat advantage by simple
mea ns. A more detailed verification did not
confirm this conclusion . The opponent re­
pl ies 29 . . . e4! 30 l2Jd4 d 5 . After this I
considered 3 1 h4 .U.ad8? 32 g3 l2Jd3 33
l2Jac6 .l:td7 34 .U.dxd3 and 31 g3 l2Jxh3+ 32
'it>g2 l2Jg5 33 'i!i'xd 5 . However, in the fi rst
variation Black has the excellent move
31 . . .'ii' f7 ! , not al lowing g2-g3 ; and in the
second - i n stead of 32 . . . l2Jg5? he ca n play
32 .. .'ii' d 7 ! followed by . . .'ii' f5 or . . .'iVg4.
But why not d rive the knight away i m medi­
ately? The point is that the opponent has a
clever tactical resource , enabling h i m to
rem a i n a pawn ahead .
29 g 3 ! ! l2Jxh3+
Wh ite gains an overwhelming advantage
after 29 . . . d5?! 30 .U.e3 l2Jxh3+ 31 'lt>g2 e4
(31 . . . l2Jg5? 32 l2Jxg 5 hxg5 33 .l:th 1 + ) 32
'it>xh3 exf3 33 l:txf3 .
30 'lt>g2 l2Jxf2 !
On d i scovering this stroke, the over-the­
board player would al most certainly cut
short his calculation and look for a safer way
- there you h ave the fi rst psychological
barrier. But Sanakoev conti nued studying
the position and ca me to the conclusion that
here Wh ite wins by force . This means that
what resu lts is an excellent tra p : the
complete illusion of a b l u nder is created ,
and the opponent will probably decide that
Wh ite simply overlooked the captu re on f2 .
3 1 'it>xf2 'ii' b 6+
32 'lt>g2 l:l.xa5
33 "ilkf7 J:iaa8
The only defence .
34l2Jh4
(see diagram)
1 06 � Tho ughts about a Book
'The end of the trap ', writes Sanakoev. This
is inaccu rately stated - i n fact the calcula­
tion conti nues. What does Wh ite want? 35
lbg6+ 'it>h7 36 'ikf5 is not dangerous i n view
of 36 . . . 'it>g8, while the real threat of 35 .:!.g4
followed by 36 ltJg6+ 'it>h7 37 ltJxf8+ can be
parried by p in n ing the rook.
34 . . . ii'c6
Here we face a second psycholog ical
barrier - incidenta lly, Zviagi ntsev stu mbled
at it, after successfu lly overcoming the fi rst.
35 ltJg6+ '11i h 7
36 'ii'f5
It turns out that with his queen on c6 Black is
no longer able to defend, since now 36... 'it>g8
encou nters the dagger-blow 37 'ii' x f8 + !
.:!.xf8 38 ltJe7+. An excellent idea!
36 . . . 'ii' x c3
37 .:tc4!
Black resigned in view of 37 ...'it'xc4 38
ltJxe5+ or 37 .. .'ii' b2+ 38 l:tc2 ..Wxb4 39
ltJxf8+ 'it>g8 40 'ii' h 7 + 'it>f8 41 .l:l.f1 + 'it>e 7 42
'ii'x g7+ .
On purely aesthetic g rounds one wou ld l i ke
the deep and pretty study, created by Wh ite ,
to have no refutation . Alas, in practical
games this does not often happen - the
defensive resou rces i n chess a re just too
great. Sanakoev's opponent was by no
means doomed. Let's take back the natural
but objectively weak move 34 ...'ii' c 6? and
look for other defensive poss ibil ities .
Sanakoev examines the variation 34 . . 'i¥a7!? .
35 ltJg6+ '11i h7 36 ltJxf8+ .:!.xf8 37 'ii'xa7
.:!.xa7 38 .:!.xd6 .:!.a2+ 39 'it>h3 and th inks
that Wh ite wins easily, since the counterat­
tack along the 2nd ra n k 39 . . . .l:r.ff2 is point­
less - after 40 l:txe5 the king escapes from
the checks via g4. I n fact it is also possible
to cou nterattack along the 3 rd ra nk: 39.. .
l:tf3 ! ? .
F o r example, 4 0 l:tc6 (Wh ite also h a s other
tries: 40 c4! ? .l:taa3 41 .U.g4 g5 42 b5 .l:ta1
with the threat of 43 ....:!.f2 , or 40 .:!.d7 ! ? l:txc3
4 1 .l:.g4 'it> h 8 , but here too the outcome
remains u nclear) 40 .. . .:!.c2 (40...l:ta3!? 4 1
l:.ec4 l:t b 3 42 'it> g 4 e4 ) 4 1 c 4 .l:tcc3 4 2 l:tg4
g5.
I s there a win here? If there is , t h e fact can
probably be established only in a corre­
spondence game. The problem has become
p urely analytical and everyth in g hangs by a
thread .
After 43 b5 l:f2 44 .l:e4 ! .:!.ff3 (44 . . . h5 45
.l:.xe5) 45 .l:.xe5 or 45 'it>g4 ! ? it would appear
that Wh ite wins. H owever, there is also
43 ....:!.f5 ! ? 44 c5 h5 45 .:!.a4 .:!.f7 ! , and if 46
b6? ! , then 46 ...l:t c2 ! (th reate n i n g 47 . . . g4+
48 'it>h4 .:!.g7) 47 .:!.a? .:!.xa7 48 bxa7 .:!.a2.
Another i nteresti ng possibil ity is 43 ....:!.fe3!?
44 c5 e4 (44....:!.e2? 45 l:ta4 ! ) 45 b6 .:!.c1 !
 Thoughts about a Book
(but not 45 . . . l':.e2? 46 b7 l':.cc2 47 l':.xg 5 ) 46
b7 (a pretty d raw resu lts from 46 l':.xg5 hxg5
47 b7 l':.b3 48 l':.b6 l':.xb6 49 cxb6 e3 50 b8'ii'
e2) 46 . . . .i:th 1 + ! 47 Wg2 l:i. b 1 48 .U.xg5 (of
cou rse, not 48 l':.b6?? lie2+ 49 W h3 l':. h 1
mate) 4 8 . . . l:txb7 4 9 l:t h 5 llg7 a n d the
position is most probably d rawn .
The actions of the two players ca n probably
be improved , but this is a l l rather compli­
cated and unclear, and i n practice Black
retains real chances of saving the game.
Later I found another way of defe n d i n g , one
which is perhaps more reliable.
34 �h7! 35 tLl g6 . Now 35 . . . 'ii c 6? and
...
35 . .'ii' a7!? lead to variations which have
.
already been considered . There is also the
clever attempt 35 . . . �e7? ! , hoping for 36
Ci:Jxe7? l':.xe7 37 'ii' x e7 l:ta2+ 38 'it> h 3 'ii'f2
with an attack. Wh ite reta i ns the advantage,
by continuing 36 'i*'f5! l:ta2+ (bad is 36 . . . 'it>g8
37 'ii'e 6+ Wh7 38 tLlxe5! 'i¥b7 39 'it'g6+ Wg8
40 lLlf7) 37 Wh3 lif2 38 lLlf4+ Wh8 39 'i¥d 7 .
But Black ca n play 35 . . . d 5 ! 3 6 l:tg4 �f6 3 7
'i'xf6 gxf6 3 8 l:txd5 h5 3 9 tLlxf8+ .Uxf8.
With material eq u a l , Wh ite's position is
preferable, tha n ks to h i s two con nected
passed pawns, but even so a d raw is the
most probable outcome.
It is hardly right to call the idea carried out by
Sanakoev a trap . After all, as we have
establ ished , 'falling i nto the trap' has not
been refuted and it was objectively Black's
best chance. No, essentially this is a
complicated combination with the sacrifice
of two pawns on h3 and f2 .
By embarking on the combination , Sanakoev
played in fu ll accordance with h i s style - he
usually prefers a tactical way of solving the
problems facing h i m . The question of chess
styles is very i m porta nt and deserves to be
dwelt on for at least a short time.
It is log ically clear that conti nuations wh ich
are obviously the strongest, whether posi­
tional or tactical , should be chosen by a
player i rrespective of h i s style of play. Style
ltJ 1 07
d i splays itself mainly in a situation where
there is a choice between roug hly equ iva­
lent possibil ities (in particul ar, i n the choice
of a particu lar open ing strategy). Of cou rse,
this is merely a scheme - i n fact things a re
fa r more complicated . There a re many
borderl i n e , problematic situations, and also
decisions a re someti mes taken (and q u ite
rightly) on psycholog ical g rounds. 'An expe­
rienced player often chooses a certain
continuation, not because he is sure that it is
the best of all those possible, but exclu­
sively on the basis that it gives the best
practical chances ' (Ben i a m i n B l u menfeld).
You ca n deliberately embark on a path ,
known to be not the strongest, merely to
give the play a character which is desirable
for you and u ndesirable for you r opponent.
The only question here is the accepta ble
measure of such psycholog ical play, and the
l i m its which should not be overstepped .
It would be very i nteresti ng and usefu l ,
u s i n g an analysis o f concrete examples, to
follow how a player's style i nfl uences the
decisions he takes . U nfortu nately, as far as I
know, as yet no one has carried out such a
study - everyth in g has merely been re­
stricted to speculative attem pts to construct
various style classifications.
Sana koev - Lungdal
6th World Cha mpionsh i p , 1 968-7 1
1 08 � Thoughts about a Book

Wh ite sta nds better, of cou rse, and the only main d ifficulty here is n ot i n fi nding Wh ite's
question is how to extract the maxi m u m move , but in assessin g its conseq uences.
possible from t h e position . 18 . . . 'ifxd4+
After 1 8 cxb4 ?! 1kxd4+ 1 9 11xd4 l:!. c2 20 1 8 . . . bxc3 1 9 bxc3 'i!Vxd4+ is less accurate,
il.d3 l:!.xb2 21 l:!.c1 �d7 22 .l:lc2 :xc2 23 since Wh ite ca n choose between 20 l:txd4
il.xc2 White would have lost the greater part (as in the game) and 20 cxd4. Black can not
of his advantage. ' (Sanakoev). avoid the open in g of the b-file: 1 8 . . . aS? 1 9
Let us try refi ning this variation with 1 8 'i!VxcS l:txcS 2 0 cxb4 axb4 2 1 l:!.d4 or 21
'ii'xcS l:txcS 1 9 cxb4 l:tc2 20 'iti>f2 (20 il.d3 l:tbc1 is bad for h i m .
.l:!.xb2 2 1 l:.db1 .U.d2 22 bS a S ! ) 20 . . . .U.xb2 2 1
1 9 l:xd4 bxc3
l:td b 1 l:txb 1 2 2 l:txb 1 �d7 2 3 l:tc1 - here
20 bxc3 l:!.c7
Wh ite , who has seized the c-file and brought
his king towards the centre , has a very 2 1 l:tdb4 il.c8
sign ificant advantage. But Black can im­
prove his defence by sacrificing a pawn with
20 . . . 'it>e7! ( i nstead of 20 . . . .l:.xb2) for the
sake of retaining control of the open file and
the 2nd rank. For example, 21 .l:.dc1 ? ! l:hc8
22 l:Ixc2 l:txc2 23 b3 d4 ! 24 l::td 1 .l:!.xa2 (now
it is clear why Black did not place h i s king on
d7) 2S l:txd4 il.xg2.
A dangerous plan was suggested by g rand­
master Stefan Ki nderma n n : 18 ii'xcS l:!.xcS
1 9 llac1 ! ? bxc3 20 b4! l:!.c7 21 l:td 3 . In the
bishop endgame arising after 21 . . . 'it>d7 22
l:tdxc3 l:thc8 23 l:txc7+ l:txc7 24 l:xc7+
rJ;xc7 Black faces a d ifficult defence. H i s
o n l y hope: 2S . . . � b 6 (followed b y 26 . . . il.c6
or 26 . . . aS) is not hard to d ispel , by playing O n reach ing this position , the over-the­
25 a4! followed by a4-aS and �f2-e3-d4- board player wou ld most probably term i nate
cS . The pawn ending arising after 2S . . . il.c6 h i s calculations and reject the plan beg in­
26 aS il.bS 27 il.xbS axbS 28 �f2 is lost (the ning with 1 8 Il a b 1 (as Zviagi ntsev did). In
reader can check this for h imself). fact, what has Wh ite ach ieved? Wel l , he has
seized control of the b-file, but on it there are
Black does better to avoid the exchange of
no targets to attack. On the other h a n d , his
rooks, by choosing 21 . . . d4! 22 l:txd4 'it>e7
queenside pawns have become weak ,
with an acceptable positio n .
w hi c h ensures t h at the opponent has real
1 8 ::t a b 1 ! ! cou nter-chances, even if (as is very prob­
'A mysterious rook move' - a s Aaron able) Wh ite succeeds in w in n in g the a6-
N imzowitsch expressed it. By defending his pawn . N o, Sanakoev's decision does not
b2-pawn, Wh ite strengthens the threat of 1 9 look convinci n g , it is somehow u nstrateg ic!
cxb4 . This assessment ca n be corrected only by
'Such a continuation can be more difficult to conti n u i ng to study the position and finding
find than a forcing combination involving the a fu rther plan for Wh ite . I n fact there is
sacrifice of several pieces ', writes Sanakoev. noth i ng unexpected here , si nce , as N i mzo­
He is right, although it seems to me that the witsch emphasised long ago, 'the entry into
 Thoughts about a Book
enemy territory, in other words into the 7th
and 8th ranks, forms the logical conse­
quence of play in a file.' But it is q u ite
impossible to establish in advance how
dangerous for the opponent is the doubling
of rooks on the 8th ran k . Here a detailed
analysis is needed , which is not easy to
carry out, even playing by correspondence .
But a t t h e board , with l i m ited t i m e for
thought, it is not worth even trying to
calculate the variations accu rately - one
has to rely on i ntu ition . It would be interest­
ing to know - what does it suggest to you
here?
22 l:b8!
Why doesn't Wh ite defend h i s c3-pawn?
Probably, so as not to allow the opponent
time for the fol lowin g a rrangement of h i s
forces: 22 .l:t 1 b3 �e 7 23 .l:.b8 ( 2 3 �f2 is
better) 23 . . . .l:td8 24 l:ta8 d4 ! .
The tempti ng move 2 2 c4 would b e justified
after 22 . . . dxc4 23 .l:!.xc4 l:txc4 24 �xc4 �d7
25 l:.b8 l:td8 26 .l:ta8 �b7 27 .l:ta7 and 28
.ba6. But Black is not obl iged to exchange
on c4 - 22 . . . �e7! 23 cxd5 exd5 is stronger.
22 . . . �e7
23l::!. a8!
Sanakoev consistently p ursues h i s cou rse.
I n the event of 23 i.xa6?! l:td8(e8) he would
have either had to agree to the exchange of
bishops, which favou rs the opponent, or
give up his c3-paw n .
23 . . . .l:.e8
Let's consider 23 . . . .l:l.xc3 . An i nteresti ng
variation goes 24 �xa6 .:tea 25 l:.a7+ (25
l:.bb8 �d7) 25 . . . �f8 26 � xc8 (26 �b5 l:te7
27 lla8 l::f. c 7) 26 . . . nexc8 27 l:tbb7 .l:.c1 +
(27 . . . 'it>g8 28 h4 l:.f8 is also possible) 28 �f2
l:t 1 c2+ 29 �g3 l:t8c3+ 30 �h4 �g8! 3 1 f5!
(31 .l:!.xf7? .l:txg2) 3 1 . . . exf5 32 e6 (32 lib8+
lk8 33 liaa8 g5+ 34 �xg5 l:ixb8 35 l:ixb8+
'it>g7 with equal ity) 32 .. .fxe6 33 llxg 7 + �h8
(33 . . �f8 is worse because of 34 � g 5 ! ) 34
. 27 . . . lieS 28 �e3 .:td8 29 �d4 l:ta5 (29 . . . .l:tc7
.U.xh7+ �g8 - despite the enemy rooks'
ltJ 1 09
domination of the 7th ran k , it would a ppear
that Black can hope for a d raw.
Wh ite should not h u rry with the capture of
the a6-paw n . It is fa r more dangerous to
i nterpose the check 24 l:.a7+ ! . For example,
24 . . . �d8 25 l:Ib8! (weaker is 25 :xf7? l:tc7;
a not a ltogether clear rook endgame a rises
after 25 i.. x a6 i.. x a6 26 .l:txa6 �d7 27 .l:!.b7+
.l:tc7 28 .l:txc7+ �xc7 29 l:ta7+ �c6 - the
passed d-pawn and the activity of Black's
king ensure h i m cou nterplay) 25 . . . l:!.c7 26
.l:taa8 (threate n i n g a n eternal pin on the 8th
ran k after 27 �xa6) 26 . . . a5 27 .l:!.xa5 .l:tb7 28
l:.ba8, or 27 .. J1c 1 + 28 �f2 .:tc2 29 �e1 (but
not 29 naa8? �c7 30 'it>e1 .l:!.xe2+ 3 1 �xe2
�a6+) 29 . . . �c7 (the th reat was 30 l1a7 or
30 l:taa8 followed by 31 �a6) 30 lib3 and
3 1 l:ia7+ . In this variation Black is appa r­
ently unable to d isentangle h i m self.
In the event of 24 . . . i.d7 (instead of 24 . . . �d8)
25 .l:tbb7 .l:td8 Wh ite does best to play 26 a4!
with a n overwhelming advantage. 26 i.xa6? !
is weaker: 26 . . . .l:ta3! (26 . . . �e8? 27 .l:txd7
.l:l.xd7 28 �b5; 26 . . . .l:tc1 +?! 27 �f2 l:tc2+ 28
�e2) 27 �e2 .l:txa7 28 l:!.xa7 �e8 29 a4
.l:l.b8 30 a5 l1 b 1 + 31 �f2 l:tb2 with a
probable d raw.
24 l:ib3 f6
If 24 . . . i. d 7 , then 25 llxa6 l:tec8 26 l:taa3 .
Wea ker is 25 l:txe8+ i.xe8 ( 2 5 . . . �xe8) 2 6
i.. x a6 l:l a 7 27 ll b 6 l:tc7 , when 28 ll b 7 i s
unfavo urable i n view o f 28 . . . :xb7 29 i.xb7
i.b5! with the threat of . . . �d7-c7 .
25 � d 3 !
Not i m med iately 25 �f2? fxe5 26 fxe5 l:!.f8+
27 �e3 l:tf5 .
25 . . . fxe5
26 fxe5 h6
27 �f2
Wh ite's adva ntage has become obvious
and subsequently he convi ncingly con­
verted it i nto a win .
30 llbb8) 30 libb8 �d7 31 11a7+ � c6 32
1 10 � Thoughts about a Book
�xa6 .l:.a4+ 33 'it>e3 (33 'it>d3? � xa6+ 34
l:txa6+ l:txa6 35 l:txd8 .:txa2) 33 . . . d4+ 34
cxd4 l:ta3+ 35 'it>e4 �xa6 36 l:txa6! l:.xa6
37 .U.xd8 l:.xa2 38 l:.d6+ 'it>b5 39 llxe6
.:r.xg2 40 'it>d5 B lack resig ned .
Black lost without a fight. So what about our
considerations reg a rd i n g h i s hopes of
cou nterplay, and the 'u nstrateg ic' nature of
White's decision - were these merely empty
words?
No, we based these on objective factors in
the position and therefore we have the right
to assume that Black could have defended
much more tenaciously. Here a re some
considerations which will ease the search
for a plan of defence . Fi rstly, the loss of the
a6-pawn should not be fea red , especially if
at the same time the bishops a re ex­
changed . Secondly, it is i m porta nt to pre­
vent the wh ite king from making its way to
the centre .
I n stead of the insipid 26 . . . h6? Black should
have tried 26 . . . :f8 ! , intending 27 �xh7 d4!
28 c4! (28 cxd4?? l:tc1 mate) 28 . . . l:txc4 29
l:ta7+ 'it>d8 30 h 3 l:tc1 + ! ? 3 1 'it> h 2 l:tc7 , and
of Wh ite's adva ntage only memories re­
mai n . If 27 h3 there is the satisfactory reply
27 . . . l:tf4 ! ? , and also the rook endgame
arising after 27 . . . h6 28 a4!? (28 �xa6?
�xa6 29 J:.xa6 .l:If5 ; 28 .l:r. bb8 .l:r.e8) 28 . . . �d7
29 l:txa6 .l:.fc8 30 l:.bb6 llxc3 31 �b5 �xb5
32 l:txe6+ 'it>f7 33 axb5 is q u ite probably not
lost.
Zviagintsev suggested playing 23 .. .f6!? (in­
stead of 23 . . . l:!.e8). I will show some of the
variations that we found together.
A) 24 :bb8 l:te8 25 �xa6 �d7 26 l:txe8+
�xe8 , and if 27 l:tc8 , then 27 . . .''B.a7 .
B ) 2 4 .:r.b3 fxe5 25 fxe5 .l:!f8 ! , a n d the rook
restricts the mobility of the king, while also
creating the th reat of 26 . . Jif5 .
C) 24 ..txa6 l:te8 25 ..txc8 :exc8 26 l:txc8
.l:r.xc8 27 .l:lb7+ 'it>f8 28 exf6 gxf6 29 l:!.xh7
.l:t.xc3 - in the rook endgame Black retains
real hopes of saving the game. The same
assessment applies to the position a rising
after 25 l:tb3 fxe5 26 fxe5 �xa6 27 lixa6
l:tec8 (27 . . . 'it>f7 ! ? ) 28 l:l.bb6 .:.xc3 29 l:txe6+
'it>f7 .
D) 24 �xa6 I:ie8 25 � d 3 ! ? fxe5 26 fxe5
�d7 (26 . . . lixc3 27 .l:!.a7+ is dangerous for
Black) 27 lixe8+ (27 lla3 l:tec8 28 l:1bb3
also comes i nto consideration) 27 . . . ..txe8
28 lib3. Here Wh ite's advantage is sign ifi­
cant, although the outcome sti l l remains
u nclear.
Another possible approach to the defence
(with which , to tel l the truth , the a n alysis
should h ave beg u n ) involves the captu re of
 Thoughts about a Book
the c3-pawn i n one version or another. Let
us return to the position after Wh ite's 22nd
move .
In reply to 22 . . . 0-0 ! ? Sanakoev gives the
variation 23 l:ta8 �d7 24 .l:tbb8 l:txb8
(24 . . ..l:tcc8 25 l:Ixc8 �xc8 26 'it>f2 ! ) 25
J::i.x b8+ l:f.c8 , and now not 26 l:tb7? �b5! 27
.txb5 axb5 28 %:txb5 h5 (28 . . . g5!?) 29 l:lb3
l::i. c4 30 g3 .l:ta4 with cou nterplay, but simply
26 l:!.xc8+ ! .ixc8 27 �f2 , and the invasion of
the wh ite king decides the outcome. How­
ever, Black can play 23 . . . l:lxc3 ! ? 24 libb8
J:tc6 .
How should this position be assessed?
Black has retai ned his extra pawn and no
immediate danger is appa rent. But h i s
forces a re tied down : it is n o t possible to
disentangle h imself by . . . l:te8 (with the idea
of . . . ..ti>f8 and . . . i.d7) because of the reply
.ba6. He is forced to play . . . g7-g6 and
. . . 'it?g7, subsequently restricting h i mself to
waiting tactics . The question (the reply to
which seems u n clear to me) is whether or
not Wh ite has sufficient resou rces to breach
the opponent's defences.
In princi ple, after castl ing Wh ite is not
obliged to sacrifice the c3-pawn - with 23
l:b3 !? he reta i n s the advantage. Therefore
it makes sense for Black to captu re the
pawn slig htly earlier.
ttJ 111
Let us check 22 .. J:!.xc3 ! ? . Now 23 �xa6
suggests itself, considering that after 23 . . .
�d7 24 I1a8 .l:td8 2 5 l:.bb8 the eternal pin
along the 8th ra n k ensures Wh ite a decisive
advantage (he brings h i s king up to the
centre and advan ces his passed a-pawn ).
And the attempt by Black to d isentangle
h imself by 23 . . . �e7 (with the idea of
24 . . . l:te8 and 25 . . . �d7) runs into the tactical
stroke poi nted out by Artur Yusupov: 24
.l:!. 1 b7+ ! ! , lead in g after 24 . . . .ixb7 25 l:txb7+
and 26 l:t b8+ to the win of a piece . However,
Black is rescued by 23 . . . 0-0 ! , and if 24
�b5, then 24 . . . I:.a3 , attacking the a2-pawn
and prepa ring to bring out the bishop to a6.
23 li a S ! is stronger. The situations arising
after 23 . . . �d7 24 .ixa6 lld8 25 l:.bb8 and
23 . . . �e7 24 I:.a7+! have a l ready been
d i scussed above - they a re defi n itely in
Wh ite's favou r. The best defence is 23 . . . 0-0 !
24 l:tbb8 l:tc6 . We have again reached the
position i n the last d iagra m . Evidently its
assessment also determ i nes the objective
assessment of Wh ite's entire plan beg in­
n i n g with 1 8 li a b 1 .
Let us sum u p . The complicated (and ,
probably, not fa ultless) analysis that we
have carried out once again il l ustrates the
viabil ity of even the seemingly most d ifficult
positions, but even so it does not cast
doubts on the bril l iant decision taken by
Sanakoev on the 1 8th move . After a l l , the
defence is very d ifficult, Wh ite everywhere
reta i n s chances of success , and al l the
same we have not fou n d anything more
convincing for h i m .
Conversion of an advantage
When exa m i n i n g the last two examples, we
have a l ready beg u n discussing this topic,
one that is very i m po rta nt for every player.
J u st l i ke a nother one, which is closely l i n ked
to it - the search for defensive resou rces i n
d ifficult positions.
1 12 � Thoughts about a Book

Sana koev - Engel 44 �xd5 l:tg4

1 Oth World Championship 1 978-84 45 ..tf3 ! l:.xh4
4 6 'it g 1 !
The point of Wh ite's plan becomes clear -
the rook has been tra pped .
46 . . . ..tf5
After 46 . . . llg4 47 �xg4 hxg4 48 b4 (48
lld4 ! ? ) 48 . . . f3 49 b5 � e4 50 b6 Wh ite must
wi n .
4 7 �d4
It is i mporta nt to prevent 47 . . . �g4.
47 . . . 'it>e6?!
In Sanakoev's opinion, the more accu rate
4 7 . . . �d7! 48 b4 'ite6 also does not provide
any saving hopes in view of 49 l:.d 1 ! (of
cou rse, not 49 �e2? ..tc6 50 b5? �xg2!)
The author of the book writes: 49 . . . �b5 50 .l:!.d8 and 51 .l:!.b8 . However,
'The critical position, the play in which, after the waiting move 49 . . . 'ite7! ( i n stead of
strictly speaking, makes this game notewor­ 49 . . . �b5) it would be fa r more d ifficult for
thy By a clever regrouping Black has set his Wh ite to demonstrate the strength of his
opponent a specific problem - what to do position .
with his g- and h-pawns ? For the moment 48 b4 'it>e5
the black bishop may be deeply shut in, but 49 .:d5+ 'it>e6
does White's passed pawn on the queenside
50 b5 �g4
outweigh his materia/losses on the kingside ?
51 b6! �xf3
After all, in the end Black's pieces may again
become active after the . . . f5-f4 advance. ' 52 gxf3

First let us see how the game concluded B lack resigned in view of 52 . . . 'it>xd5 53 b7
(relying on the assessments and certai n .Uh3 54 b8'ii' .l:!.xf3 55 'it'b7+ , or 52 . . . l:th3 53
variations o f Sanakoev). lld8! (but not 53 b7? .Ug3+ 54 �h2(f2 ) .l:!.g8
fol l owed by . . . .Ub8 and . . . Wd6-c6) .
42 d5! f4+ !
Zviagi ntsev rejected 42 d5 because o f the
The exclamation marks a re Sanakoev's .
reply 42 . . . c5 ! . He had dou bts a bout the
think that both should be replaced with
assessment of the bishop ending a rising
question marks, or, at least, the '? ! ' symbol
after 43 d6+!? (we will trust the a uthor of the
(dubious move).
book, who claims that 'after other contin ua­
4 3 'it>f2 tions Black is out of d anger' , although 43
After 43 'it>d4 l:.g4 ! 44 'it>c5 cxd 5 45 �xd5 .l:!.a2 nevertheless deserves exam i n ation)
l:.xh4 46 b4 l:th 1 Black would have retained 43 . . . .Uxd6 44 l::!. x d6 'itxd6 45 �xf7 .
saving chances.
43 . . . cxd5
(see diagram)
Hardly any better was 43 . . . c5 44 �d3 l:.h6
45 d6+! 'it>d8 46 �xh7 with a big advantage
i n the rook endgame.
 Thoughts about a Book
Sanakoev analysed the variations arising
after 45 . . . 'it>e5 46 g 3 'ii;>f6 47 �xh5 .ltg8 48
.id 1 'it>e5 49 h 5 and showed that Wh ite
wins.
And yet Vadim 's i ntuition d i d not deceive
him: Black ca n save h i mself by playing
45 . . �e5 46 g3 f4+ ! ! 47 gxf4+ 'it>f6 48 i.. d 5
. 45 . . . c5! ) 45 . . . f4 (45 . . . l:th1 46 l:tc2 l:tb1 47
(48 .txh5 .lt c2 ) 48 . . . i.c2. Wh ite is no t a b l e
to convert his material advantage. He is tied
down by the fact that his b-pawn is on a
square of the colour of his bishop. And if his
king goes to c3, the opponent gains the
opportu n ity for a counterattack o n the
opposite wi n g .
In a new edition of h i s b o o k Sanakoev
disag reed with my opinion, and suggested
the va riation 49 'it>d2 .ltg6 50 'it>c3 'it>f5 5 1
'lt>c4 ! . The resulting position is i ndeed won :
5 1 . . . 'lt>xf4 5 2 'ii;> x c5 W g 3 53 b 4 .lt d 3
(53 . . .te8 5 4 .ltc6) 5 4 .lt c4 .lte4 55 b 5
.
'lt>xh4 5 6 b 6 .lt b ? (otherwise 57 ..id5 ) 5 7
.id5 i.a6 5 8 'it>c6 h 4 5 9 i. c4 .
Black's play can b e im proved b y 49 . . . .ltf5 ! ?
5 0 �c3 .lt g 4 5 1 .lt e 4 ( 5 1 'it>c4 .ltd 1 52 'it>xc5
.ixb3! 53 .ltxb3 Wf5) 51 . . . .lte2 (51 . . . .lte6)
52 i..d 3 .ltd 1 (52 . . . ..ig4) 53 W c4 'it>e6 . It is
even simpler to play 49 . . . i.. b 1 ! 50 Wc3 'it>f5
51 �c4 .lta2(c2) 52 'it>xc5 ..ixb3 with a
draw.
In the position from the last diagra m there is
another i nteresting way of defending , also
tZJ 113
i nvolving a pawn sacrifice: 45 .. .f4 + ! ? (in-
stead of 45 . . . 'it>e5) 46 'it> xf4 i.c2 ! (much
worse is 46 . . . 'ii;>e 7? 47 .ltxh5 ..ic2 48 'ii;> e 5!
..ixb3 49 ..ig6) 47 ..ixh5 (47 'it>g5 'it>e?)
47 . . . i.. x b3 48 .ltg6 i.. d 1 . Wh ite is not able to
adva nce h i s knig ht's pawn : 49 g4 i.xg4 50
'it>xg4 'it>e? leads to an i m med iate d raw. He
should probably play 49 h 5 <J;.;e? 50 'it>e5,
but I do not see how h e can win after 50 . . . c4
5 1 h6 'it>f8 52 'it>d4 ..ie2 53 .lt e4 <J;.;f7 ! .
After rejecti ng 4 2 d5?! (as w e see, with
some justification), Zviagi ntsev chose an­
other plan for converting the advantage,
based , however, on the same idea of
trapping the black rook as was carried out in
the game by Sanakoev.
42 Wf2 ! l:tg4 43 ..ie2 l:txh4 44 .ltf3 'it>d6 (it
is a p ity to g ive u p the c6-pawn ) 45 b4!
( i ntend ing 46 l:td 1 and 47 'ii;>g 3 ; the immedi­
ate 45 l:td 1 is inaccu rate because of
l:txc6+ 'it'd? 48 l:tb6).
I n itially the central breakth rough seemed
to be correct: 46 d5?! cxd5 47 lixd5+ rt;;c?
48 .Ub5 (a d rawn bishop ending arises after
48 l:!.xh5 .Uxh5 49 ..ixh 5 i.e4! 50 ..ixf7
rt;; b 6) 48 . . . i.. g6 49 'it>g 1 ! with good chances
of success . Alas, a more careful verification
reveals that by playing 48 . . . i.. d 3 ! (instead
of 48 . . . .1i.g6) 49 l:tb?+ 'it>d6 50 .t!.xf7 'it>e6!
1 14 � Thoughts about a Book
51 .l:tf8 �e7 52 l:tc8 l:t h 1 (th reatening mate
on f1 ), Black forces the exchange of bishops
and gains a d raw.
Therefore Wh ite should shut in the rook
immediately: 46 �g1 !, and only after
46 ..tf5 (with the idea of . . . i.. g 4 or . . . i.. d 7 )
...
reply 4 7 d S ! c S ( 4 7 . . . cxd5 48 l:txd5+ � e 6 4 9
b 5 is hopeless) 4 8 bS! ( b u t n o t 48 bxc5+
�xc5 49 d6 i.. d 7 50 l:.d5+ �b6 with a
probable d raw). It is here that the tragi­
comic position of the black rook is felt -
without it, Black can not combat the passed
pawns .
I h o p e y o u have seen that Sanakoev's
i nteresting book offers us a mass of food for
thought. I have dwelled only on a few
episodes (another example of the a uthor's
play is exa m i ned i n the chapter 'Vi rtuoso
defence' ) , but, of cou rse, there a re many
more g ames i n the book, and i n each of
them the reader will defi n itely fi nd some­
thing i nteresti ng and u sefu l .
 lD 1 1s

PART IV

Attack

Artur Yusupov

Missed Brilliancy Prizes

M write
ark Dvoretsky's suggestion that I should sol idly and boringly (here , u nfortunately,
a bout some spoiled 'master­ they a re more correct about the latter). I
pieces' came at j u st the right time. should l i ke to try and change this image for
Firstly, I have long been wanting to make a the better: 'he plays bad ly, but interesti ngly' .
more carefu l a nalysis of certai n old games. And , fi nal ly, perhaps my dismal experience
With the passage of time, the vexatio n will prove usefu l to others , a lthou g h , I h ave
caused by m issed wins has now subsided , to a d m it, I have learned l ittle even from my
and perhaps I will be able to look at them own m i sta kes.
more objectively and critically.
Yus upov - R ebel 8
Secondly, I am i ndeed a lead i ng expert i n
this field ( I h ave i n mind n o t t h e critical 1 3th match game, I schia 1 997
examination of my own games, but the 'active chess' (30 mins. for the game)
spoiling of masterpieces). Although d u ri ng Queen 's Pawn Opening
m y career I h ave managed t o create several 1 ltJf3 ltJf6 2 d4 e6 3 e3 c5 4 ..id3 b6 5 b3
games of wh ich even now, after the strict ..ie7 6 ..i b2 0-0 7 0-0 d5 8 ttJe5 ltJfd7 9 f4
test of time and chess analysi s , I can be ttJxe5 1 0 dxe5 ..ia6 1 1 c4 ttJc6 1 2 a3 dxc4
proud, nevertheless for each such game 1 3 bxc4 f5 1 4 exf6 ..ltxf6 1 5 ttJc3 ttJa5 1 6
there a re a dozen others , which u p to a point 'ii c 2
were excellently played , but then hopelessly
spoiled .
Th i rdly, I can imagine what a 'pleasure' I
have afforded my trainer and co-author (of
cou rse, book co-author, not co-author in the
spoiling of masterpieces) i n observing my
numerous lapses. Now I can at least expla i n
that I was col lecti ng material for a book.
In addition , there is a mercenary a i m . I fea r
that some tou rnament org a ni se rs have
developed (alas, not without certa i n g rounds)
an u nfavourable impression of my chess
style. They possibly think that I play too
116 � Missed Bri l l i a ncy Prizes

My last (for the moment) example of a 2 1 i. g 6 + 'lt>g8

spoiled attack occu rred in a n exh i b ition
match aga inst a computer prog ra m . There
follows a typical computer decision :
16 . . . ttJxc4
In the event of the ' h u m a n ' 1 6 . . . h6 1 7 l:.ad 1
'ii'e 7 1 8 ltJb5 ..txb2 1 9 'ii' x b2 Wh ite would
have gai ned an obvious advantage , si nce
Black's castled position is weakened and his
knight at a5 is out of play. Now, however,
variations have to be calculated , which even
with a normal time control would have been
a d ifficult task for me.
17 ..txh7+ 'it>h8
1 8 .l:!.ad 1
T h i s natural move cost me more t h a n ten
I was i ntend i n g to i nclude my queen in the
precious m i nutes and proved to be a
attack with 22 'iix d 1 ! and I was somewhat
sign ificant mistake . The immediate 1 8 l:tf3 !
d iscouraged on fi n d i ng the defence 22
was better. I w as wrong t o be afra id of
. . .

i.g5! . I saw that Wh ite's attacking re­

1 8 . . . 'ii'd 2, since then the simple 1 9 'i!fxd2
sou rces were not exhausted and that he
ltJxd2 20 llh3 is sufficient. In the event of
had the move 23 ltJd5 ! , but after 23 . .'it'd8
1 8 . . . ttJxb2 1 9 l:!. h 3 i. h4 (or 1 9 . . . ltJc4 20
.

I overlooked the intermed iate check 24

'ii'e 2) 20 i.e4 i.d3 21 'ii'x b2 ..txe4 22 ttJxe4
'it>g8 23 'i!fe5 Wh ite has a powerful attack.
18 . . . 'ii e1?
1 8 . . . ttJxe3 ! was correct. After 1 9 l:.xd8 Black
has the satisfactory reply 1 9 . . . I:.axd8 20
'ifg6 i.d3 21 'iix d3 .l:.xd3 22 ..txd3 i.d4 ! ? ,
but 1 9 . . . ttJxc2 ! 2 0 :Xa8 l:txa8 2 1 i.xc2 i.d4+
22 .l:.f2 l::td 8! is even stronger. I overlooked
the last move of this variation , of cou rse.
19 l:.f3 ttJxb2
20:Lh3 ttJxd 1
If the com puter sees someth ing it ca n
capture , it i nvariably does this. A human
player knows that it isn't good to be g reedy,
but the concrete confi rmation of this truth
l ies beyond the computer's calcu l ating
horizon. However, being i n time-trouble,
Wh ite was unable to fi nd a win and he
satisfied h imself with a repetition of moves.
The correct way was found the fol lowi ng day
by some interested chess fa ns, who ana­
lysed Wh ite's attack.
i. h 7+ ! , and if 24 . . . 'it>h8 (24 . . . 'it>f7 25 'tif'h5+)
- 25 fxg5:
1 ) 25 . . .'it'xg5 26 i.g6+ 'lt>g8 (26 . . .'ii' h6 27
llxh6+ gxh6 28 'ifa 1 + ! ) 27 ltJe7+! 'ii'x e7 28
l:.h8+ 'it>xh8 29 'ii' h 5+ 'it>g8 30 'ii h 7 mate;
2 ) 25 . . . l:.f1 + 26 'iix f1 ..txf1 27 i.f5+ 'it>g8 28
i.xe6+ 'it>f8 29 .:!.h8 mate .
I don't know which o f these mates is the
more pretty, but in any case it was a pity that
I was u n a bl e to fi nd this worthy conclusion
to the game. I n stead of this there fol lowed :
22 i. h 7 + 'lt> h 8
22 i. g 6 + 'it>g8
D raw.
Yus upov - Xie Jun
Linares 1 997
RuyLopez
1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 i. b 5 a6 4 i.xc6 dxc6
5 0-0 'if d 6 6 ltJa3 b5 7 c3 c5 8 ltJc2 f6?!
(8 . . . ltJe7 ; 8 . . . i.b7) 9 a4 i. b7 1 0 axb5 i.xe4
 Missed Brillia ncy Prizes tZJ 117

1 1 d4 cxd4 the other h a n d , the black pawn centre

should also not be underestimated ! If Black
is allowed to complete her development, it is
Wh ite who will be i n trouble. I sensed that a
critical moment had been reached and I
sa n k i nto thought, looki ng for the best
solution .

The opponent is beh ind in development and

Wh ite has g a ined a n opportu n ity to attack. A
trifle such as the lack of a pawn should not
concern h i m , of cou rse .
1 2 l:te1 ! ..t b7
1 3 cxd4 axb5 Here I made a n amusing mistake in my
14 .l:txa8+ ..txa8 calcu lations. I very much wanted to estab­
1 5 'ife2 e4 lish my knight at e5, and so I comparatively
1 6 'ii' x b5+ ..tc6
q u ickly hit on the correct solution 22 ti:Jxf5 ! !
'i!i'xf5 23 ti:Je5 , which with g reat reg ret and
1 7 'ii' a s
roug hly the same speed I rejected i n view of
Wh ite has already rega i n ed h i s pawn and is the s i m ple 23 . . . ti:Jxe5 24 'ili'xb5+ ti:Jf3 + . The
conti n u i ng to develop h i s i n itiative . 1 7 fact that i n this remarkable variation the
l:!.xe4+?! is weaker i n view of 1 7 . . .<it> f7. black king is a l ready i n check and hence
17 . . . ti:Je7 Black's last move is forbidden by the strict
1 8 ti:Jd2 f5 ru les of the game was someth ing that, of
1 9 b3! cou rse, I overlooked . The reason for such a
curious mistake was probably a n inaccu rate
A good move, creati ng the threat of ..ta3
picture of the chess board d u ring the
and preparing to transfer the knight via c4 to
calculation of variations, when a sign ificant
the central square e5.
deta i l of the position simply did not reg ister
19 . . . 'it'd?
in my mental visio n .
20 ti:Jc4 ! ti:Jg6
I th i n k that t h e k n i g h t sacrifice would h ave
2 1 ti:J2e3 ..t bS led to a win . Thus if 23 . . . c6 there is a pretty
Against the optim i stic 2 1 . . .f4 Wh ite had mate by 24 'iWaB+ �e7 25 ..tg5+ ! 'iix g5 26
prepared the strong reply 22 ti:Je5. The 'ili'b7+ �e6 27 'ilfd7+ . 23 . . . ..td7 is more
natural and forced move i n the game has tenacious, although i n this case too after 24
led to a situation i n which Black's lack of 'iWaB+ .tea 25 .l:.xe4 !De? 26 ..ta3 Wh ite has
development has become dangerous. O n a decisive attack.
1 18 � Missed Bri l l i a n cy P rizes
22 h4 !? was promising, in order to provoke
the reply 22 . . . h5 (22 . . . ..txc4 23 lLlxc4 ..td6
is more tenacious), and now the same
sacrifice is very strong: 23 lLlxf5 ! 'iixf5 24
lLle5 ..td7 25 'ii' a 8+, although here Black
may have a n opportu n ity to bring the rook
into play via h6.
An alternative knight sacrifice was sug­
gested by Thomas Wedberg : 22 lLle5 ! . After
22 . . . lLlxe5 23 dxe5 c6 (23 . . . ..td3? 24 lLl d 5 ! ;
23 . . . ..tc5 2 4 'ii' a 8+ 'ii'd 8 2 5 'ii' b 7 with a
decisive advantage) 24 l:.d 1 ..td3 25 ..ta3
..txa3 (25 .. .f4 26 lLlc4 'ii' g 4 27 l:.a 1 ..txc4 28
..txf8 .l:l.xf8 29 'ii' c7 ..ta6 30 e6! is bad for
Black, but 25 . . . 'it>f7 ! ? deserves considera­
tion) 26 'ii'a 8+ 'iid 8 27 'ili'xa3 llf8 28 Wc5
White , according to his analysi s , reta i n s the
advantage.
I deviated from the correction conti n u ation
of the attack, for the reason that I was
tempted by the strateg ically tem pting u nder­
m i n i ng of the centre .
22 g4?
This move looks stronger than it really i s .
22 . . . fxg4
23 'iii' aS+ 'it>f7
24 'ii'xe4 ..t b4 !
Black uses the respite g ra nted to complete
her development as q u ickly as possible.
White wins a pawn , it is true , but his i n itiative
completely evaporates.
25 l:.d1 .l:!.e8
26 'ii'x g4 'ii' x g4+
The correct assessment of the position . I n
the endgame Black's king will b e safe and
the two strong bishops fully compensate for
the small material deficit.
27lLlxg4 l:.e4
28 h3 h5
29lLlge5+ lLlxe5
30lLlxe5+ 'it>e6
Here we can take stock. Black has gained
sufficient compensation for the pawn , and
Wh ite's broken pawn structu re does not
leave h i m any rea l hopes of more than a
sharing of the point, which with i n a short
time d i d i n fact occu r.
Yus upov - lva n c h u k
Tal Memorial Tou rn ament, Riga 1 995
Queen 's Gambit A ccepted
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e3 lLlf6 4 ..txc4 e6 5
lLlf3 c5 6 0-0 a6 7 ..t b3lLlc6 8 'ii' e 2 cxd 4 9
l::. d 1 d3 (9 . . . ..te7) 1 0 llxd3 'ii' c 7 1 1 lLlc3
..td6?! ( 1 1 . . . ..tc5) 1 2 e4 lLle5 1 3 lLlxe5
..txe5
In trying to g a i n control of the b8-h2
d iagonal , the opponent has rather fallen
behind i n development. Of cou rse, White
must i m mediately try to seize the i n itiative.
1 4 f4!
The right way! By sacrificing a pawn , I
fu rther i ncrease my lead i n development.
The slow 1 4 g 3 would h ave allowed Black to
obta i n an acceptable position after 1 4 . . . ..td7
1 5 f4 ..txc3 1 6 l:txc3 ..tc6. For example, 1 7
e5 lLl d 5 1 8 ..txd5 exd5 1 9 ..te3 d4 20 ..txd4
'iid 7 with cou nterplay.
14 . . . ..txf4
1 5 ..txf4 'ii' xf4
1 6 e5! lLld7
The point of the pawn sacrifice is that the
 Missed Bri l l i a n cy Prizes l2J 1 19

active 1 6 . . . tt:lg4? is met by the simple 1 7 g 3 , strongest players i n the worl d , q u ickly
and if 1 7 . . . 'ii'f5 , t h e n either 1 8 .i.c2 or 1 8 making his repl ies with a n i mpertu rbable
:tf1 , and Wh ite's attack develops u n h i n­ appearance!
dered . 21 . . . tt:le5
1 7 :t1 ! After 21 . . . :td8 the suggestion by Lj ubomir
Again Wh ite fi nds the most energetic solu­ Ftacn i k i s possible: 22 tt:lf6+! gxf6 (if
tion. Of cou rse , he could have reta i n ed an 22 . . . 'it> h 8 , then 23 l:lh3 h6 24 'ifd2 most
attack without any add itional sacrifices: 1 7 simply decides matters) 23 ii'g4+ 'iitf8
l:te3 ! ? 0-0 1 8 l:.f1 'it'd4 1 9 'it> h 1 , but i n this (23 . . . 'it> h 8 24 :tg3) 24 'ii' b 4+ , and if 24 . . . 'ii' c 5
case the active qu een i n the centre of the (24 . . . 'it>e8 25 l:lg3 is bad for Black), then
board would h ave seriously h i ndered his s i m ply 25 'ifxc5+ tt:lxc5 26 .l:txd8+ 'it>e7 27
offensive. After the move i n the game Wh ite .l:. h8 , with a big advantage for Wh ite i n the
evicts the queen from the centre , and the endgame.
loss of the e5-pawn is compensated by h i m 22 .l:t h 3 tt:lg6
opening l i nes and g a i n i n g t i m e for the
22 . . . h6 was worse i n view of 23 :txh6 gxh6
attack.
24 tt:lf6 + , destroyin g the castled position.
17 .l:tad 1 would have been a fu ndamenta l
Black brings h i s knight closer to h i s king, but
m istake , a llowing Black to parry the attack
Wh ite has a l ready concentrated nearly al l
at the cost of a small sacrifice : 1 7 . . . 0-0 ! 1 8
hi s forces for the attack.
l:txd7 .i.xd7 1 9 .l:.xd7 :ad8.
17 . . . Wxe5
1 8 :e3 "ifd4
Of cou rse, 1 8 . . . Wc5 was weaker because of
1 9 tt:le4 . P i n n i n g the rook is B lack's best
chance. He would h ave lost q u ickly after
1 8 . . . 'iid 6? (the reply to 1 8 . . . 'ili'c7 would
have been the same) 1 9 l:txf7 'it>xf7 20 l:txe6
'i'd4+ 2 1 'it>h 1 tt:lc5 22 'ii'f3+ .
1 9 :d1 'it'a7
1 9 .. .'ikb6 was bad because of 20 ..txe6 ! !
fxe6 2 1 tt:ld5 'ifc5 2 2 b4 .
20 tt:le4 0-0
21 'it> h 1
White does everything correctly, b u t he
23 'ili'h5
spends too much effort and time. The only
reason I d id not manage to bring the game Short of time for the calculation of varia­
to a logical conclusion was that I did not tions, Wh ite tries to play rationally. It was
trust my assessment and I tried to calculate a l ready possible to lau nch a decisive attack
the variations al most to the e n d . The result with 23 l:txh 7 ! ? . The i m mediate accepta nce
was that at the critical moment I s i m ply did of the sacrifice loses, accord i n g to analysis
not have enough time for thought. I should by Sergey Dolmatov:
have had more faith i n my powers , but try 23 . . . 'it>xh7 24 'ifh5+ 'it>g8 25 tt:lg5 l:le8 26
reta i n i ng you r confidence and com posure, l:tf1
when opposite you is sitti ng one of the A) 26 . . . tt:le5 27 l::t xf7 tt:lxf7 28 'ifxf7+ 'it>h8 29
1 20 � Missed Bri l l i a ncy P rizes
'ii'e 8 mate;
B) 26 . . . .U.e7 27 'ii' h 7+ �f8 28 'ii' x g6 b5 29
'il'h7 and wins (if 29 . . . �e8 there is the reply
30 l:td 1 );
C) 26 . . . b5 27 l:txf7 (27 'ii' h 7+ �f8 28 'ifxg6
is also strong) 27 . . .'ikxf7 28 t'Dxf7 �xf7 29
'ii'f3+ t'Df4 30 'i\Vxa8.
During the game I was concerned that Black
had another defensive possibil ity. But here
too a way to win can be fou n d :
23 . . . t'Df4 2 4 'ii'g 4 � x h 7 25 t'Dg5+
A) 25 . . . �h6 26 'ii'xf4 f6 (26 . . . �g6 27 'ii' g 3 )
27 'ii' h 4+ � g 6 28 'ii' h 7+ � x g 5 29 'ii' x g7+
�h5 30 l::td 5+! with mate ;
B) 25 . . . �g8 26 'ifh4 :tea 21 'ii' h 7+ �fa 28
'ifh8+ �e7 29 'ifxg7 .l::!. f8 30 t'Dh7 i. d 7 3 1
'ii'f6+ �e8 3 2 'ifxf4 with a winning positi o n.
However, th e natural attacking move i n t he
game is an equ ally good a lternative .
23 . . . h6
At this point I had only five m i n utes left on
my clock. I saw that my plan ned combina­
tion would guara ntee Wh ite perpetual check,
and I was hoping for someth ing else to turn
up .
2 4 t'Df6+?
To Wh ite's g reat an noyance, i mmed iately
after the game he easily d iscovered a
decisive strengthening of the attack. He
should have in cluded the bishop i n the
offensive by 24 i.c2 ! , when the opponent
would have had no defence against the
threat of 25 t'Df6+ . He would have faced a
dismal choice from:
A) 24 . . . b6 25 t'Df6+ gxf6 (25 . . . �h8 26 'ii'g 5 )
2 6 'it'xh6 l:.e8 27 i.xg6;
B) 24 . . . t'Df4 25 t'Df6+ �h8 26 'ii' xf7! i.d7 27
.l:!.xh6+ ;
C) 24 . . . e5 25 t'Df6+ �h8 (25 . . . gxf6 26 l1g3
f5 27 l:.xg6+ fxg6 28 'ii'x g6+ �h8 29 'ii' x h6+
�g8 30 i.b3+) 26 l:.g3, and now:
C 1 ) 26 . . . i.e6 27 l:txg6 fxg6?! (27 . . . 'ii' e 3 28
t'Dg4) 28 'ii'x g6 i.g8 29 t'Dxg8 (29 l:td7 ! )
29 . . . �xg8 3 0 'ifh7+ �f7 3 1 i. b3+ �f6 32
l:.f1 + ;
C 2 ) 2 6 . . . e 4 27 i.xe4 (27 .:txg6? fxg6 28
'ifxg6 i.f5 ! ) 27 . . . t'Df4 28 'i!Vxf7 ! i.g4 29
'ii' e 7;
C3) 26 . . . t'Df4 27 'i!i'xe5 (27 .U.xg 7 ! 'iftxg7 28
'ii' x e5 is more q u ickly decisive) 27 . . . t'Dg6 28
i.xg6 fxg6 29 .i:txg6 b5 30 l:txh6+ gxh6 3 1
.l:td7 ;
C 4 ) 2 6 . . . 'ili'f2 27 l:lxg6 'ikf4 ( 2 7 . . .fxg6 28
'ir'xg6 'ii' x c2 29 'ir'xc2 gxf6 30 'ii' g 6) 28 t'Dd5
fxg6 29 t'Dxf4 gxh5 30 t'Dg6+ �g8 3 1 i. b3+ .
I n a l l the variations Black is unable to avoid
a q u ick mate or heavy loss of material,
whereas Wh ite's prematu re combination
allowed Vasily lvanchuk to retai n the bal­
a nce .
24 . . . gxf6
24 . . . �h8? would h ave lost to 25 'ikg 5! e5 26
l::!. x h6+ gxh6 27 'ilfxh6 mate .
25 'ifxh6 lieS
26 llg3
Now if 26 i.c2 Black has the reply 26 .. .f5 ,
lead i ng to perpetual check after 27 'ii' h 7+
�f8 28 'ii' h 6+.
26 . . . 'ii'f2 !
By the i rony of fate , it is the inclusion of the
q uee n that saves the game. ( Remember
how much effort Wh ite made to s h ut this
i mportant piece out of the g ame . ) Attempts
by Black to play for a wi n , taking account of
the opponent's ti me-trouble, would most
probably have boomeranged . 26 . . . b6 27
l:.d4! 'i/ic7 28 .l:lg4 is completely bad for h i m .
If 26 . . . b5, t h e n after 27 .l:!.f1 ! 'ii' d 4 28 l:.xg6+
fxg6 29 'ii' x g6+ �f8 30 'ilih6+ if he wishes
Wh ite can force perpetual check, since
30 . . . �e7 is unfavo u rable because of 31
'ii' g 7+ �d6 32 :td 1 .
N ow, however, Black has parried the th reat
of h2-h4, and Wh ite has noth ing better than
to reconcile h imself to a d raw.
27 .l:!.xg6+ fxg6
 Missed Bri l l i a ncy Prizes 'LJ 121

28 'ii' x g6+ 'it f8 The accepta nce of the sacrifice would have
29 'it'h6+ 'it f7 lost: 20 . . .fxg6 2 1 'it'xe6+ 'itf8 22 f5 . How­
30 'it'h7+ 'it f8 ever, 20 . . . 0-0 ! ? 2 1 ii.d3 a6 was more
circumspect, since the obvious 22 f5? exf5
31 'it'h8+
(but not 22 . . . axb5? 23 f6 or 23 fxe6) 23 l:lxf5
Draw. (hoping for 23 . . . l:id5? 24 l:.xf7 ! ! ) is refuted
Yusupov - H u bner
by 23 . . . ttJxb2 ! .

Ti l b u rg 1 987 2 1 Jt. xf7

Slav Defence
1 d4 d5 2 tiJf3 tiJf6 3 c4 dxc4 4 ttJc3 c6 5 a4
.tf5 6 e3 e6 7 Jt.xc4 ii. b4 8 0-0 tiJ bd 7 9
ltJh4 it.g6 1 0 ttJxg6 hxg6 1 1 f4 ( 1 1 h3 )
1 1 ttJ d 5 ( 1 1 . . .'�a5; 1 1 . . . 0-0) 1 2 ii.d2 ( 1 2
. . .
ttJe4!? 'it'e7 1 3 ltJg5) 1 2 . . .'i!ta5 1 3 'ife1
ltJ5b6 14 it. b3 c5 1 5 l:td1 cxd4 1 6 tiJ b5
..txd2 1 7 I1xd2 ttJc5 1 8 it. c2 .l:.d8 1 9
exd4? ! ( 1 9 lixd4 �xe 1 2 0 l:.xe 1 i s sounder,
and if 20 . . . l:txd4 2 1 exd4 ttJcxa4 , then 22
d5).
Wh ite ca n no longer stop halfway (2 1 it.d3
a6 22 f5 axb5 23 fxe6 f6 24 'ii' g 3?! �xd2 will
not do). Both players become carried away
by the wild complications, with not the
s l ig htest i m p ression of where they will be
able to escape from the m .
21 0 0 0 'iti>xf7
The consequences of 2 1 . . . 'ii' x b5 22 'it'xe6+
'itf8 23 it.g6 'ii' d 7 24 .l:!.e2 'i!i'xe6 25 l:txe6
tiJd5 26 l:!.fe 1 tiJf6 were un clear. I th i n k that
after 27 g3 or 27 l:le7 Wh ite has sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed piece.
22 f5 e5
Black would h ave lost after both 22 .. J:the8
23 fxe6+ 'itg8 24 e7, and 22 . . . 'ii' x b5 23
'ii' x e6+ 'itf8 24 f6 ii'd7 (or 24 . . . 'ii'x f1 + 25
'itxf1 .U.e8 26 'ilfd6+ 'itf7 27 .U.f2 ) i n view of
2 5 fxg7+ 'itxg7 26 'ilr'f6+ 'itg8 27 'ii' g 6+.

Wh ite has somewhat overestimated h i s

chances, and n o w t h e cool-headed 1 9 . . .
0-0 ! could h ave set h i m serious problems.
Instead of this Robert Hubner fal l s i n with
his opponent's idea.
19 . . . ttJcxa4
20 Jt.xg6
A practically forced move , leading to a n 23 f6
abru pt sharpening o f t h e play. The immediate 23 'ii' x e5 was a serious
20 . o o 'ite7 a lternative . The fol lowin g variations do not
1 22 � Missed Bri l l i a ncy Prizes

exhaust all the possibil ities in the position , less finds new ways to strengthen the
of cou rse, but they show how strong Wh ite's attack. The th reat is 27 .l:te7 + , for example:
attack is: 26 . . . 'ii'x b5 27 l::t e 7+ 'it>f8 28 'ii' x g6 'ii' x f1 + 29
A) 23 . . . .:!.he8 24 ltJd6 + ; 'it>xf1 ltJxe7 30 'ili'g7+ with mate .
B) 23 ... 'ii'x d2 2 4 f6! ( 2 4 'ii' e 6+ 'it>f8 2 5 f6 26 . . . l:l.d7
l:td7! ) 27 I:.e7+ ltJxe7
B 1 ) 24 . . . g5 25 ltJd6+! .l:!.xd6 (25 . . . 'it>g6 26 27 . . . ':xe7 28 fxe7+ (28 ii'xd5+ ! ) 28 . . . lDf6 is
ii'e4+ 'it>h6 27 ltJf5+ 'it>g6 28 f7 ) 26 'ii' e 7+ hopeless i n view of 29 'ii' e 5 with the decisive
'it>g6 27 'ii'g 7+ 'it>h5 28 'ii'x h8+ ; threat 30 ltJd6 + .
82) 24 . . . 'it>g8 25 fxg7 l:.h6 (25 . . . l:txh2 26 28 fxe7+ 'it>e8
ii'e6+ 'it>h7 27 g8'il'+ .l:txg8 28 .l:tf7+ l:l.g7 29 29 'ifes
ii'f5+ 'it>h8 30 .l:.f8+ l:tg8 3 1 'il'f6+ 'it>h7 32 29 l:l.f6 was probably even stronger.
1If7+) 26 ii'e7 , and Wh ite wins;
29 . . . l:!.xe7
C) 23 . . . ltJd5 24 ii'e6+ 'it>f8 25 f6 g6 26 l:te2
30 'ili'xh8+
C 1 ) 26 . . . 'ii' b 6 27 'ii'g 4 'it>f7 28 'ii' g 5 ! ?
(intending 2 9 .l:le7+), or i mmed iately 28
l:te7+! ltJxe7 29 fxe7+ 'it>xe7 30 'ill'g 5+ 'it>d7
3 1 .l:tf7+ 'it>c8 ( 3 1 . . . '1t>c6 32 l:l.f6+ ) 32 'ii' e 5!
with the decisive th reats 33 ltJxa7+ and 33
l:tc7+;
C2) 26 . . . 'ii' b4 27 f7 'ii'e 7 28 'ikg4 'ii' h 4
(28 . . . lDe3 29 'ii'x g6 or 29 'ii'f4 ) 29 .l:l.e8+!
l:txe8 30 fxe8'ii' + 'it>xe8 31 ltJd6+ 'it>d8 32
'ili'c8+ �e7 33 .Uf7+ 'it>xd6 34 'ii' d 7 mate ;
C 3 ) 26 . . . ii'xb5 27 f7 'il'xe2 ( 2 7 . . . 'ii' d 7 28
'ili'e5! .l:r.h7 29 'ii'e 8+) 28 'il'xe2 ltJab6 29
'ii'e 5 with adva ntage to Wh ite .
The contin uation i n the game is probably
just as good and i n many cases it leads to a
simple tra nsposition of moves . After making this move , White , who was in
23 . . . g6 moderate time-trouble, timidly offered a
If 23 . . . g5 there follows 24 'ili'xe5 with a d raw, wh ich my opponent sensibly ac­
strong attack. cepted . G reat was my aston is h ment, when
24 'ii'x e5 in su bseq uent a n a lysis I d iscovered that in
the concl uding position I was a pawn up! I
24 dxe5! ? ii'xd2 25 e6+ 'it>f8 ! 26 e7+ 'it>f7 27
had been material down for so many moves
exd8ltJ+ 'ii' x d8 28 'ii' b4 ! was also i nterest­
and was so happy to reg a i n it, that I did not
ing, with the th reats of 29 ltJd6+ or 29 b3.
even notice that I was n ow ahead ! Of
24 . . . ltJd5
cou rse , the sound extra pawn determ ines
25 lle2 'ii' b 6 the eval uation of the position , and after the
If 25 . . . 'ili'xb5 26 'ili'e6+ 'it>f8 27 f7 'il'xe2 28 natural 30 . . . '1t>d7 31 'ii' h 3+ 'ii' e 6 32 'ii' x e6+
'ii'x e2 with advantage to Wh ite . .:.xe6 33 b3 even my tech nique should have
26 'ili'g5 1 sufficed for a win .
Although i n time-trouble, Wh ite neverthe-
 Missed Bri l l i a n cy Prizes
Yusupov - Anand
Linares 1 99 1
Queen 's Pawn Opening
1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlf3 e6 3 e3 b6 4 .id3 .i b7
5 0-0 d5 6 lLle5 liJbd7 7 f4 g6 8 b3 ..ltg7 9
liJd2 c5 1 0 .i b2 0-0 1 1 'it'f3 ! lLle8 1 2 'i¥h3
lLld6 1 3 liJ df3 l:te8
Both players have practica lly completed the
mobilisation of their forces and Wh ite
switches to determ i ned actio n . However,
Black too has prepa red well for the oppo­
nent's attack, by erecting powerfu l defen­
sive lines. Possibly I should have preferred
the restra ined 1 4 l:tad 1 ! ? , but I was a l ready
seized by a creative mood .
1 4 lLlg5 lLlf8
1 5 dxc5
A sta ndard exchange, open i ng the long
diagonal for the bishop.
15 . . . bxc5
1 6 l:tad 1 !
By including the rook i n the game and
offering a piece sacrifice , Wh ite g reatly
sharpens the position . I t was not possible to
calculate all the variations, but it seemed to
me that a cou ple of pawn s and the i n itiative
would provide sufficient com pe nsation .
16 . . . f6
Anand accepts the challenge. The re-
ltJ 1 23
stra i ned 1 6 . . . .l:.c8 ! ? was less in keeping with
the temperament of my opponent, who very
rarely avoids complications.
17 lLlxh 7 ! lLlxh7
1 8 lLlxg6
1 8 .i xg6 was weaker beca use of the simple
1 8 . . . lLlf8 .
18 . . . 'it'c7
1 8 . . Jic8 1 9 .l:.f3 c4 was risky in view of 20
lLle7+ 1i'xe7 21 1i'xh7+ c;i(f8 22 .ig6 lled8
23 l:tg3 or 23 .ia3 with a strong attack.
H owever, possibly Black should have de­
cided o n 1 8 .. .f5 ! ? 1 9 .ixg7 c;i;>xg 7 . Then 20
llf3 lLlf6 21 l:tg3 leads to a repetition of
moves: 21 . . . ltJfe4 (2 1 . . . lLlg4? 22 lLle5! and
wins) 22 .ixe4 lLlxe4 23 lLle5+ lLlxg3 24
'ii' x g3+ 'it>f8 25 lLlg6+ , while 20 li'g3 'ii'f6 2 1
lLle5+ 'lt>h8 22 lLld7 'ii' c3 23 lLle5 leads to a n
unclear position .
1 9 I:tf3 lLle4
1 9 . . . c4 was dangerous in view of 20 lLle7+
l:txe7 21 .ixh7+ (2 1 'it'xh7+ c;i;>f8 22 .ig6 is
weaker) 21 . . . c;i;>f8 22 .l:tg3 c3 23 .ia3 f5 24
.l:!.g6 with a n attack.
20 .i xe4 dxe4
21 .U.g3
The rook joins the offensive against the
weakened position of the black king. N atu­
rally, the opponent tries to create cou nterplay
along the now open d-fil e.
21 . . . l:tad8
22 .l:!.xd8 'iix d8
23 'ii' g 4
2 3 'iVh5? is wrong, si nce after 23 . . . 'iid 5
(23 . . . 1i'd2 ! ? 24 h3 'iVxc2 ) Wh ite has to reply
24 lLle5, and 24 . . . .l:.e7 1eaves Black with too
many defensive resou rces.
23 . . . 'ii' d 5
Here Black also had other possibil ities. In
the event of 23 . . . 'iVd2 Wh ite wou l d have
played 24 h4 and if 24 . . . 1Vxc2 , then 25 lLlf8
l:!.e7 26 liJxh7 'ii' x b2 27 'iVg6 .l:[f7 28 h5 i.. d 5
29 h6 with a decisive advantage, while after
1 24 � Missed Bri l l i a ncy Prizes
24 .. .f5 there would have followed 25 'it'h5
'iike 1 + 26 'it>h2 'it'xg3+ 27 'it>xg3 i.xb2 28
l2Je5 l:te7 29 'it'd 1 with the better game.
23 .. .f5 came into consideration . After 24
'it'h5 l2Jf6 25 l2Je7+ .l:.xe7 (25 . . . 'ii' x e7 is
weaker in view of 26 i.xf6) 26 ..txf6 'it'd2 27
h3 (27 l:!.xg7+ l:txg7 28 'it'e8+ leads to
perpetual check) 27 . . . 'ii' e 1 + 28 'it>h2 'it'xg3+
29 'it>xg3 i.xf6 30 'it>f2 Wh ite , i n my view,
has somewhat the better chances.
24 h4
The most natural development of the game.
Wh ite makes an escape square for h i s king
and i ncl udes his rook's pawn i n the offen­
sive. But at the same time he had a more
camouflaged way of cond ucting the attack. I
rejected 24 l2Jf8 ! ? i n view of 24 . . . l2Jg5
(24 . . ..l:!.e7 is weaker because of 25 l2Jxh7
'it>xh7 26 ..txf6). I ndeed , now noth ing is
promised by 25 fxg5 f5 26 'i!i'h5, since Black
repl ies not 26 . . . I:.xf8 ( in view of 27 g6 i.h6
28 i.d4! cxd4 29 'ii' x h6 'ifd7 30 g7 and
wins), but either 26 . . . 'it>xf8 , or 26 . . . i.xb2 . I n
the fi rst case 2 6 . . . 'it>xf8 2 7 i.xg7+ �xg7 28
'ii' h 6+ 'it>f7 29 'i!i'f6+ leads to perpetual
check, but it is possible to play for a win by
29 g6+ 'it>e7 30 h 3 . More i nteresting is
26 . . . ..txb2! 27 l2Jh7 'it>g7 28 'it'h6+ (or 28 c3
..txc3 29 l2Jf6 l:th8 30 l2Jxd5 .l:txh5 31 l2Jxc3
..tc6) 28 . . . 'it>f7 , when it is not easy for Wh ite
to demonstrate the correctness of his
attack.
However, he has ava i lable another, stronger
conti n u atio n , which occu rred to me only
after the game. Wh ite should pursue the
knig ht: 25 l2Jh7 ! . As shown by the variations
g iven below, Black now has to solve some
d ifficult problems:
A) 25 . . . l:td8 26 l2Jxf6+ ..t xf6 27 i.xf6 'ii' d 1 +
2 8 'i!kxd 1 l:.xd 1 + 2 9 'it>f2 - the piece is
rega ined and Wh ite should wi n ;
B ) 2 5 . . . 'it'd2 2 6 h 4 'ii' e 1 + 2 7 'it> h 2 'ir'xg3+ 28
'ii' x g3 l2Jxh7 29 h5 with a w i n n i ng position;
C) 25 .. .f5 26 l2Jf6+! (26 'ii' e 2 ..txb2 27
l:txg5+ 'it>f7 28 c4 'ii' d 3 29 c4 'it'd3 30 'it'xb2
'ii' x e3+ is unfavourable for Wh ite , but he
ca n consider 26 'ifh5 l2Jf3+ 27 'ii' xf3 ! exf3
28 l:.xg7+ 'it> h 8 29 lld7+ e5 30 .l:.xd5 i.xd5
31 l2Jf6 l:td8 32 ..t xe5 with a favou rable
endgame) 26 . . . ..txf6 27 'ii' h 5
C 1 ) 27 . . . ..txb2 28 'it'xe8+ 'it>h7 29 h4!
with a big advantage (less is promised by 29
'i!i'h5+ 'it>g8 30 .l:.xg5+ �f8 31 h3);
C2) 27 ... .:.d8 28 i.xf6 (weaker is 28
'ii' g 6+ 'it>f8 29 'ifxf6+ 'it>e8 30 .:ixg5 'ii' d 1 +
3 1 'it>f2 .l:ld2 + ! 32 �g3 .:txg2+! 33 �xg2
'ii'f3+ with perpetual check) 28 . . . 'ii'd 1 + 29
'ii'x d 1 llxd 1 + 30 'it>f2 l:.d2+ 31 'it> e 1 l:lxc2 32
fxg5 , and the endgame is most probably
won .
24 . . . 'ii'f5
If 24 . . .f5 , then 25 'ili'h5.
25 'ii' d 1 'ii' d 5
26 'ii' g 4 'iif5
It appears that things will end in a repetition
of moves, especially si nce I was al ready in
my customary time-trouble.
27 'ifd 1 'it'd5
28 'ii' e 2!
After plucking u p cou rage, Wh ite decides to
play o n . Now it is not easy for the opponent
to fi nd a usefu l move . Thus if 28 . . . 'ifd6 there
follows 29 'ili'g4 lld8 30 'it>h 2 .l:.d7 3 1 l2Je5
 Missed Bri l l i a n cy Prizes ttJ 1 25

(31 h5 f5) 3 1 . . . .l:te7 (bad is 3 1 . . .fxe5 32 32 We2 .i.xb2

�xe5 We? 33 .i.xg7) 32 h 5 Wa6 33 h6 with 32 . . . 'ikd6 33 .i.xg7 Wxg3 34 .i.f6 was no
a powerful attack, while if 28 . . . .i.c6, then 29 better.
h5 �f7 30 'iig 4 .l:tg8 31 h6. The contin u ation
33 c4 'ii d 6
in the game h a rdly makes a sign ificant
change to the positi o n . 34 'ii x b2 eS!

28 . . . .tea u nderesti mated this move . Of course,

34 . . . Wxg3? would h ave lost i mmed iately to
29 hS
35 'iif6+ �g8 36 'ii' h 8+ �f7 37 'ii' h 7 mate .
This pawn acts as a batteri ng-ra m , breaking
But now my pieces lose coord i nati o n , which
up the nearly coord i n ated black pieces.
not only makes it more d ifficult to convert
29 . . . �f7 the material advantage, but also hands the
30 'ii' g4 i n itiative to my opponent. Discou raged by
Another way of concl u d i ng the attack was this tu rn of events , Wh ite loses the thread of
suggested by Dvoretsky: 30 h6! .i.xh6, and the game.
now either 31 lt:Je5+ fxe5 32 'ii h 5 + , or 31 c4 35 l:th3?1
'i'd3 32 'ifh5.
An unsuccessfu l manoeuvre . 35 �h2 was
30 . . . lUgS! better, in order to a n swer 35 .. .f4 with 36
exf4 exf4 37 'ikf2 e3 38 'iixf4+ 'i!Vxf4 39
tt:Jxf4 e2 40 tt:Jxe2 .Uxe2 41 g6+ �g7 42
.l:.g5, reta i n i n g good winning chances. It is
possible that 35 'i!Vc1 !? , preventing the
. . . f5-f4 breakth roug h , is even stronger.
35 . . . f4
36 .U h4
The conseq uences of the exchange sacri­
fice were u n clear: 36 exf4 .i.xh3 37 tt:Jxe5+
�g8 38 gxh3 'i!Vd 1 + 39 'iti>f2 .Ud8 40 'iti>g3
l:!.d2 4 1 Wa3.
36 . . . fxe3

Vishwanathan Anand defends very resou rce­

fu lly. The cou nter-sacrifice of a piece is his
best practical chance . U nfo rtu nately, fatigue
and shortage of time were a l ready beg i n­
n i n g to affect Wh ite's p l a y : i n stead of
looking for the strongest conti nuation he
satisfied h imself with 'the b i rd in the h a n d ' .
3 1 tt:Je5 + ! fxe5 32 fxg 5 w a s correct. The
strong con nected passed pawns q u ickly
decide the outcome, for example: 32 .. J:td8
33 h6 "ii'd 1 + 34 'ikxd 1 .l:!.xd 1 + 35 � h 2 .
31 fxg5?! fS
1 26 � Missed Bri l l i a n cy Prizes
37 'it>h2?
I n ti me-trouble Wh ite conclusively loses h i s
bearings and makes a blunder. 37 'ii' e 2!
was correct. I n this case he wou ld at least
not have been i n danger of losi n g , as the
fol lowing variations show:
37 . . . 'ii' d 2 38 'ii'f 1 + ;
3 7 . . . 'ifd4 3 8 h 6 ! i.f5 3 9 h7 i.xg6 4 0 h8'ii'
l:.xh8 4 1 l:.xh8;
37 . . . 'ii'd 3! 38 'ii'f 1 + ! 'it>g8 39 'iff6 (39 h6
'ii'x f1 + 40 'it>xf1 'it>h7 4 1 lt:Jxe5! l:txe5 42 g6+
'it>h8! leads to an unclear endgame) 39 . . . e2
40 'ii' h 8+.
37 . . . i.f5!
38 'ii'e 2
In ti me-trouble it was com pletely i m possible
to fi nd the last chance, later pointed out by
Dvoretsky: 38 b4! ! cxb4 (38 . . . 'iid 2?! 39 'it'a3
with the dangerous th reat of 40 'ii' x a7+) 39
c5! 'it'xc5 (39 . . . 'ifd4 40 'ii' b 3+) 40 l:tf4 ! ! exf4
41 'ii'f6+ with perpetual check.
38 . . . 'ii' d 2
39 'ii'f1 'it>e6
40 l:txe4 i.xe4
Wh ite resigned .
Although i n this game Wh ite d id not g a i n
a n y reward for h i s boldness, I w a s not
seriously u pset to h ave lost half a point by
avoiding a d raw. My a n noyance would have
been fa r g reater if, after agreeing to a
repetition of moves, I had then d iscovered a
win . From my experience I ca n assure the
reader that playing for a win i n such
situations more often bri ngs success than
disappoi ntment, and, i n any case, more
creative satisfaction that the prematu re
termi nation of the fight.
Yus upov - G u l ko
Novgorod 1 995
Nimzo-lndian Defence
1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jc3 i. b4 4 e3 0-0
5 i.d3 d5 6 li:Jf3 c5 7 0-0 b6 8 cxd5 exd5
9 lt:Je5 .l::t e 8
This game was played i n the last round of a
tou rnament i n which I performed very badly
and was a complete outsider. Therefore
even if only at the fi nish I wanted to score a
fi rst wi n . I ca n not say that I was p repared for
the variation chosen by my opponent, but
the character of the play was more or less
fam i l i a r to me: after a l l , the N imzo-l ndian
Defence is fi rmly establ ished in my opening
reperto ire . Black's somewhat mysterious
9th move is q u ite simply expla i ned : he
wants to retai n the option of playing . . . .tc8-
a6 without loss of time. (After the i m med iate
9 . . . i.a6 Wh ite has the u n pleasant 1 0 lt:Jc6 ! ) .
But now, without pa rticu l a r effort, I w a s able
to fi nd an idea which , although not original,
was q u ite sensible, a n d , as it l ater tran­
spired , was also a novelty.
1 0 lt:Je2!
After 1 0 i.d2 Black is able to carry out his
idea: 1 0 . . . i.a6, when 1 1 lt:J c6? lt:Jxc6 1 2
i.xa6 i s now bad i n view of 1 2 . . . cxd4 1 3
i.b7 dxc3 1 4 bxc3 lt:Ja5! 1 5 i.xa8 i.c5. This
variation , l i ke a n u mber of othe rs , is taken
from Boris G u l ko's comments in lnformator
N o . 6 3 . But 1 1 i.xa6 lt:Jxa6 1 2 'ifa4 'ifc8 1 3
l:tac1 'ii' b 7 1 4 'ii' c 6 .I:.ab8 leads to equality
(Portisch-Spassky, Candidates match , Ge­
neva 1 977).
 Missed Bri l l i a n cy Prizes 'tJ 1 27

The point of the move i n the g a me is clear:

the knight i s switched to g3, where it not
only controls e4 , an especially i m portant
square i n this variati o n , but is also ready to
join the attack on the opponent's king via f5 .
The slight loss of time is fu lly compensated
by the fact that Black, in view of the
dangerous position of h i s d a rk-sq u a re
bishop, ca n not mainta i n the tension i n the
centre and is forced either to exchange on
d4 , thereby releasing the opponent's dark­
square bishop, or rel ieve the pressure in the
centre by advancing his c-pawn .
10 . . . c4
In the event of 1 0 . . . cxd4 1 1 exd4 �a6 1 2 1 6 a4! ?
.ba6 ttJxa6 Black did not l i ke 1 3 i. g 5 . An i nteresti ng and somewhat u nexpected
1 1 i.c2 decision . Wh ite is looking for more than the
i.d6?!
standard development of the attack by 1 6
A loss of time, which agg ravates Black's
lDf5 g6 1 7 'ii' h 3 gxf5 1 8 ..txf5 . By weakening
difficulties. After the natu ral 1 1 . . . i.b7 G u l ko
the opponent's q ueenside he i ntrod uces
was afraid of 1 2 b 3 ! ? . Even so, this was the
new motifs i nto the play.
lesser evil and Black could have defended
16 . . . b4! ?
with 12 . . . cxb3 1 3 i.xb3 i.d6.
T h e critical continuation . After 1 6 . . . a6 1 7
1 2 f4!
lDf5 g6 1 8 'ii' h 3 gxf5 1 9 ..txf5 lDb6 20 l:tf3
A standard idea. Such a set-up is good if, as Wh ite has a strong attack.
in the game, Wh ite is able to control the e4-
1 7 a5
square. It was il logical to beg i n play on the
queenside: 1 2 b3 b5 1 3 a4 cxb3 14 i.. x b3 b4 Of cou rse, not 1 7 lDxc4? l::tca 1 8 b3 .t a B ,
with chan ces for both sides. and Wh ite loses a piece.

12 . . . b5
1 3 lDg3 lD bd7?!
Black allows the opponent additional possi­
bilities. 1 3 . . . i.b7 was more accu rate .
1 4 'iif3
1 decided not to deviate from the basic plan .
The alternative 1 4 e4 ! ? would have led to
unclear play after 1 4 . . . lD b6 1 5 lDc6 ! ? ( 1 5
l2Jxf7 �xf7 1 6 e5 i.g4 1 7 'ii' d 2 �g8 is
unconvi ncing) 1 5 . . . 'ii' c7 16 e5 i.. g 4 (Gulko
gives 1 6 . . . ltJfd7 1 7 exd6 'ii' x c6 1 8 lDf5 �h8
19 'ii'g 4 g6 20 lDh6) 1 7 'ild2 'i!lxc6 18 exf6 .
14 . . . � b7
1 5 i.. d 2 ..tf8 ? !
1 5 ... ttJf8 ! ? w as more log ica l .
17 . . . .l:lc8
Possibly 1 7 . . . c3 should have been tried .
Apparently Black did not l i ke 1 8 a6 i.. x a6 1 9
l:xa6 cxd2 20 'ii' e 2 'ii' c 8 2 1 i.. f5 'ii' b 7 22
.l:.fa 1 , but 1 8 . . . cxb2 1 9 .U.a2 .tea came i nto
considerati o n .
1 8 a6 .taB
19 lDf5 c3 1 ?
1 9 . . . lDe4? is i n correct: 20 ..txe4 dxe4 2 1
'ii' g 4, a n d 2 1 . . . g6? is not possible because
of 22 ttJxd 7 . And in the event of 1 9 . . . g6,
tha n ks to h i s p rovocation on the queenside,
Wh ite has acq u i red a new motif: 20 i.xb4 ! ?
gxf5 ( 2 0 . . . ..txb4 2 1 lDh6+ �g7 22 lDhxf7
'ii' e 7 23 'ii h 3 ) 2 1 'iig 3+ ..t g 7 22 i.. xf5.
20 bxc3 g6
1 28 � Missed Bri l l i a n cy Prizes
21 'ilkh3 ! b3 !
Accepting the knight sacrifice looks terri bly
da ngerous. I n the event of 21 . . . gxf5 22 �xf5
tt'lb6 23 I1f3 .i.g7 24 .l:!.g3 'it>f8 25 cxb4 (or 25
c4 !?) Wh ite already has th ree pawns for the
piece with a dangerous i n itiative . G u l ko tries
to gain at least some cou nterplay.
22 .i.xb3 tbe4
At the cost of two pawns Black has
managed to establ ish h i s knight i n the
centre. Although objectively his counterplay
is insufficient, he has set his opponent some
serious practical problems, by sharply chang­
ing the situation on the board . After 22 . . . gxf5
23 '1i'xf5 it would have been much easier for
Wh ite to conduct the attack.
23 tbxf7 !
O f cou rse, t h i s is t h e correct conti n u atio n ,
si nce now the black k i n g is forced t o go for a
walk. Not 23 .i. e 1 tbxe5 24 fxe5 gxf5 25
'ifxf5 .l:!.c7 , and Black can defend.
23 . . . �xf7
24 'ifxh7+ �e6
The critical moment of the game. Wh ite saw
the correct conti nuation , but he was u nable
to evaluate correctly the endgame arising in
the main variation . In addition , he was
gripped by creative feelings: the temptation
to drag the king out even fu rther was too
g reat. Another wea kness of the author
made itself felt: as soon as I make a couple
of attractive moves, I feel the desire to
create a 'masterpiece ' . Alas, excessive
emotions d u ring play have damaged me on
many occasions.
25 'ifg8+? !
I n a joint analysis after the game we
establ ished that Wh ite should h ave played
25 'tli'xg6+ 'i!Vf6 26 tbg7+! (26 'it'g8+ 'iVf7 27
'it'xf7+ 'it>xf7 28 � e 1 tbxc3 is u nclear). If
now 26 . . . �xg 7 , then 27 l\r'xe4+ �d6
(27 . . . <:J;; f7 28 �xd5+) 28 'it'e5+ ! and wins.
26 . . . �e7 27 'i!Yxf6+ tt:Jdxf6 28 tt:Jxe8 tbxd2
29 tbxf6 �xf6 30 .i.a4 tbxf1 31 �xf1 .l:!.xc3
is more critica l , but after 32 �e2 (32 I!. b 1 ! ?
.i.c6 33 �xc6 .l::t x c6 3 4 Wf2 is also strong)
32 .. J1c4 (or 32 . . . .i.a3 33 .l:!.b 1 .i. c1 34 .l:!.b3)
33 g4 Wh ite has a clear advantage.
Now, however, he simply has i n sufficient
reserves to g a i n more than perpetual check.
25 . . . <:J;; xf5
26 g4+
N oth ing was g iven by 26 'ii'f7+ in view of
26 . . . 'ii'f6 27 "iYxd7+ 'it'e6 .
26 . . . 'it>f6
27 f5
I was p i n n i n g g reat hopes on this move . 27
.i.e1 was bad because of 27 . . . ct1e7 28
.i. h4+ tt'ldf6 29 'ii' x g6 .l:!.xc3 .
27 . . . .i.g7!
A sober assessment of the position : Black
forces a d raw. 27 . . . gxf5?! 28 .I!.xf5+ �e7
was too risky i n view of 29 ..txd5! (not 29
'it'f7+ <:J;; d 6 30 .l:!.xd5+ �c7) 29 . . . ..51.xd5 30
'it'xd 5 . N ow both 30 . . . tt'lef6 31 'it'f3 �d6 32
e4 ! tbxe4 33 ..tf4+ Wc6 34 .Ue 1 ! or 34 'it'e2 !
(but not 34 ..te5 tt:Jxe5 35 dxe5 because of
35 . . . �c5+ 36 ct1f1 'it'd 5), and 30 . . . tt'ld6 3 1
.Uaf1 ! 'i:Yb6 ( 3 1 . . . tt'lxf5 3 2 .l:!.xf5 'ii c7 3 3 e4
Wd8 34 .l:!.xf8 .l:!.xf8 35 ..tg5+ leads to mate)
32 .l:!.f7+ Wd8 33 c4 iVxa6 34 ..ta5+ .tf.c7 35
.l:. 1 f6 ! give Wh ite a promising position .
There was a l so t h e i nteresti ng move
 Missed Bri l l i a ncy Prizes CZJ 1 29

27 . . 1i'b6! ? - it is i m possible to pred ict how,

. opponent, who i n the event of a win would
with both players short of time, it would a l l obta i n chances of fi rst place.
have then ended . 1 d4 d6 2 e4 ltJf6 3 ltJc3 g6 4 f4 .ig7 5 ltJf3
28 fxg6+ c5 6 .i b5+ .id7 7 e5 ltJg4 8 .ixd7+ 'ii'x d7
28 1i'h7 l:tg8 29 1i'xg6+ �e7 30 'ife6+ �f8 9 d 5 dxe5 1 0 h3 e4 1 1 ltJxe4 ltJf6 1 2 ltJxf6+
31 .ic1 does not work beca use of 3 1 . . . ltJg5 .ixf6 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 .ie3!? ltJa6 1 5 ltJe5
(or 3 1 . . . .if6 32 .ia3+ 'itg7) 32 .ia3+ ltJc5 'ii' d 6
33 'ifg6 .ixd4 .
28 . . . �xg6
Now Wh ite repeats moves several times in
order, after reach ing the time contro l , to
check the variations accu rately and once
again convince h imself that the wi n , alas,
has already been m issed .
29 'ilkf7+ �h7
30 'ii'f5+ �g8
31 'ii'f7 + �h8
32 1i'h5+ �g8
33 'il'f7+ �h8
34 'il'h5+ �g8
35 .ixd5+ .ixd5 Wh ite played the open ing confidently, which
36 'i!i'xd5+ �h8 was mainly explai ned by the fact that the
37 'ili'h5+ �g8 entire variation and this particu lar position
had already occu rred i n my game with
38 'ii'f7 + �h8
Vlastim i l H o rt from the German Team
There is no point i n giving Wh ite chances by
Championship. I t i s probable t h at M ichael
38 .. .<iit h7?! 39 .l:If5 liJdf6 40 l:taa5 'il'xa5 41
Adams simply did not know about this
l:.Xa5 ltJxd2 42 g5.
game, which was played a few months
39 'il'h5+ �g8 before Dortmu n d .
40 'iff7+ �h8 1 6 ltJg4
Draw. A sta ndard idea in this variation . From g4
the knight supports the attack wel l and at a
In conclusion I will give yet another example conven ient moment it is threatening to go to
of a spoiled attack, i n which , however, it a l l h6.
ended hap pily for the a uthor. 16 . . . .ixb2
1 7 l:t b 1 .ig7
Yus u pov - Adams 1 8 f5
Dortmund 1 994 An i mportant move i n Wh ite's pla n . The
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence reg a i n i n g of the pawn ca n wait (if 1 8 l:txb7
This game was also played in the last rou n d , there would h ave fol l owed 1 8 .. .f5 ) , it being
a n d I wa nted t o win it without fai l , i n o rder to far more i m portant to develop h i s i n itiative
improve my tou rn ament result somewhat. on the kingside and secure the h6-sq uare
The game was even more i mporta nt for my for the knight.
1 30 � Missed Bri l l i a n cy Prizes
18 . . . 4Jc7?!
I n the afore-mentioned game Hort played
more strongly: 1 8 . . . 4Jb4 ! ? 1 9 c4 tt::J x a2 20
l:i.xb7 tt::J c 3, trying to create cou nterplay. The
move in the game is rather passive, and
White gains the opportunity to dictate the
fu rther cou rse of events . He now has
perhaps too wide a choice:
A) 19 c4 b5;
B) 1 9 f6 exf6 20 ii.f4 't!Vd8 ;
C) 1 9 l2lh6+ ! ? ii.xh6 20 ii.xh6 .l::!.fd8 2 1 c4 ;
D) 1 9 ii.f4!? ii.d4+ ! (as shown by Adams,
dangerous is 19 . . . 'it'd8 20 Ji.. x c7 'it'xc7 2 1 d6
'ti'd7 22 dxe7 Ji.. d 4+ 23 'it>h1 'it'xe7 24 f6 with
an attack) 20 'it'xd4 cxd4 21 Ji.. x d6 exd6 22
.l:!.xb7 l:i.ac8 (22 . . . 4Jxd5 23 f6 followed by
l2lh6+ - Black's f7-point is weak), and if 23
f6? h5 - however, after 23 l2lf6+ �g7 24
fxg6 fxg6 (24 . . . hxg6 25 a4 ! ? , and if 25 . . . a6,
then 26 l2ld7) 25 tt::J e 4 �xf1 + 26 'it>xf1 the
advantage remains with Wh ite .
During the game my choice was mainly
between this last continuation , which seemed
to me to be not too clear, and the text move .
1 9 .l:!.xb7!
The start of a forcing operatio n . Black's
reply is compulsory, since 20 ii.f4 is
threatened .
19 . . . tt::J x d5
20 f6 !
The point of Wh ite's idea is to exploit the
opposition of the queens.
20 . . . exf6
20 . . . ii.xf6 was weaker in view of 2 1 l:txf6
tt::J xf6 22 "i!Vxd6 exd6 23 tt::J xf6+ 'i;; g 7 24 lt'lg4!
with a w in n in g positio n .
2 1 c4 h5
22 l2lh6+
But not 22 l2lf2? i n view of 22 . . .'ifg3 23
ii.xc5 l2lf4.
22 . . . 'i;; h7
23 l2lf5
Wh ite has not managed to win a piece , but
he completely destroys the opponent's
pawn cha i n . 23 'ii' x d5 't!Vxd5 24 cxd5 Ji.. x h6
25 JJ... x c5 would also have led to a better
endgame for h i m .
23 . . . gxf5
Although i n the variation 23 . . . 'ii' c6 24 'ii' x d5
1!Vxd5 25 cxd5 gxf5 26 ii.xc5 Black is
nominally a pawn u p , the endgame with
tripled pawns will h ardly afford him any
pleasure .
2 4 cxd5 'it>g8
25 .l:!.xf5
25 ii.f4 ! ? 'i¥a6 26 'ii' b 1 was i nteresti ng, not
paying any attention to the f-pawns and
concentrating al l efforts on the advance of
the passed pawn .
25 . . . 'ii' a 6
26 'i!Vb1 .l::!. fe8
1 was expecting 26 . . .'ife2 , after wh ich 27
ii.f2 is the s implest way to retai n the
advantage . 27 ii.xc5 l:i.fc8 28 Ub2 is a l so
possible, only not 28 d6? .l::!. x c5 29 .l::!. x c5
'Yi'e3+ 30 'it> h 1 'ii' x c5 31 .l:!.b8+ .l:!.xb8 32
'it'xb8+ 'it> h 7 33 d7 in view of 33 . . . 'ii'c 1 +
(transposing moves does not work: if
33 . . . Ji.. h6? Wh ite has 34 'ii' b 1 + , winning) 34
'it>h2 Ji.. h6 35 d8'ii' Ji.. f4+ .
The contin uation i n the game also parries
the obvious threat of 27 .l::!. x h5.
 Missed Bri l l i ancy Prizes ctJ 1 31

32 'ii' b1 �g8
33 .l:.xe5 fxe5
34 'ii' b 8+ �h7
35 'ii' c 7
It was on this move that I was p i n n i ng my
hopes. 35 d6 'ii' d 3 (35 . . . �f6) 36 'i!kc7 �g6
(36 . . . c4 37 'ifxf7 'ii' x d6 38 'ii'x h5+ 'ii' h 6 is
also possible) 37 d7 �f6 is not d angerous
for Black. S ince now, apart from the ad­
va nce of his passed paw n , Wh ite is also
threate n i n g the f7-pawn , I was feeling
opti m i stic, u ntil I noticed a defence. Of
cou rse, my opponent also found it - Adams
does not miss such chances!
I had no dou bts about the assessment of the
position , but i n the calculation of variations I 35 . . . 'ii' x a2 !
began to get confused . Everywhere I imag­ 36 'ii' x f7 'i!kb1 +
ined some kind of cou nterplay for the This is the point! The queen switches to the
opponent. As a result I decided to play as kingside with gain of tempo.
simply as possible, by a n alogy with the 37 � h2 'ii' g 6!
26 . . . 'ii' e 2 27 �f2 variati o n . Of cou rse, Wh ite 38 'ifxa7
should have exerted h imself a l ittle and
Under the i mpression of his poor play i n the
ascertained that after the simple 27 �xc5!
tech n ical stage, Wh ite takes a sensible
Black's m i n imal activity does not cause a ny
practical decision - he wa nts to reduce to
great problems: after 27 . . .'ii' a 5 there follows
the m i n i m u m the probabil ity of losing the
28 � b4 'i!ka6 29 l:.xh5, while if 27 . . . .l:tac8 -
game. The bolder 38 'ii' c 7 'i!ff5 would have
28 d6. The sharpest contin u ation 27 . . . .l:te2
left the opponent's passed pawn al ive.
leads after 28 l:tb8+ (28 l:!.xh5? l:!.xg2+)
28 . . J:txb8 29 'i!kxb8+ �h7 30 .l:.xh5+ �g6 38 . . . c4
31 l:. h4! to a n easy w i n . 39 'ii c 7
27 �f2?
Wh ite reckoned that after the practically
forced exchange of rooks h i s passed pawn
would decide the outcome, but he over­
looked a strong defensive ma noeuvre by
the opponent.
27 . . . l:!.e5
28 l:.b8+ .:txb8
29 'ii' x b8+ �h7
30 'ii' b 1
A usefu l device. To avoid time-trouble,
Wh ite repeats moves.
30 . . . �g8
3 1 'ii' b 8+ �h7 39 . . . 'ii' d 3?
1 32 � Missed Bri l l i a n cy Prizes

Upset by the cou rse of the game, which did overlooked Wh ite's 42nd move.
not leave him any chances of fi rst place i n 41 d7 c2
t h e tou rnament, Adams w a s unable to
42 ii.e3!
concentrate fu lly on the fig ht for a d raw and
he made this natural but losing move almost Black's downfal l is caused by the fact that
without thinking. Meanwh ile Black had a h i s king is on the same ran k as the white
way to save the game. After 39 . . . 'ili'f5 ! ! 40 q uee n , and if he moves h i s bishop there is a
�g3 'ilt'e4 4 1 d6 (4 1 iff7 also leads to a decisive d iscovered check.
draw) 4 1 . . . h4 or 40 ii.e3 'ilt'e4 4 1 ii.g5 'ili'xd 5 42 . . . �xe3
(4 1 ... 'it>g6 42 d6 ii.f6 43 � xf6 'it'f4+ 4 4 'it>g 1
43 'i!Vxc2+ e4
'it'e3+ 45 �f1 'iVd3+ is also possible) 42 ii.f6
'it'g8 43 �xe5 �h8 44 �xg7+ 'it'xg7 45 44 'i!Vc7 !
'it'xc4 �e5+ Black should gain a d raw. The s i mplest. There is no point in calculat­
40 d6 c3 ing the more complicated 44 d8'it' �e5+ 45
40 . . . �g6 41 d7 ii.f6 was rather more g3 (wh ich , however, was also sufficient for a
tenacious, although after 42 ii.b6 B lack's w i n) when there is a simple solution .
position is difficult. My opponent obviously Black resig ned .
 ttJ 1 33

M ark Dvoretsky

Long -distance Dispute

S
hould 1 take a risk? Should I make a
sacrifice? Q uestions such as these
qu ite often have to be solved . It is clear that
here there is not and can not be a genera l
prescriptio n . The best th a t readers ca n b e
advised to do is refer to books and articles i n
which this type o f situation is a n alysed . Test
them on you rself - try, by deeply analysing
the positio n , to decide how you would act in
this or that case, and then check you r
reason i ng with t h e commentator's conclu­
sions. By acti ng in this way, you will not only
develop you r tech nique of calculating varia­
tions, but also learn to determ i n e i ntu itively
the degree of acceptable risk.
1 should l i ke to show you the a nalysis of a
sharp positio n , which occu rred i n a game of
the Soviet master Vlad i m i r S i m a g i n (he
became a grandmaster much later). Eleven
years later (without having any knowledge
of that previous game) the same position
was obta i n ed by Bobby Fischer. The opin­
ions of Simagin and Fischer d iverged . You
have the opportun ity to make a choice, to
decide wh ich player's ha nd l i ng of the
position was more correct.
Shamkovich - Simag i n
Len i ng rad 1 95 1
GrOnfeld Defence
1 d4 tbf6
2 c4 g6
3 tbc3 d5
4 tbf3 i.g7
5 'iVb3 dxc4
6 'i¥xc4 0-0
7 e4 i.g4
8 i.e3 tiJfd7
9 'ii b 3 i.xf3
Black wants to develop his knight at c6 , but
the i m med iate 9 . . . tbc6 ru ns i nto 1 0 'iix b7
ttJa5 1 1 'ifa6 , as i n the game Polugayevsky­
S i m a g i n , played in Len ingrad in the 1 960
U S S R Championship (however, after 1 1 . . . c5
1 2 dxc5 l:!.b8, accord i n g to the Encyclopae­
dia of Chess Openings, the position is
u n clear).
The prel i m i n a ry exchange on f3 , eliminating
one of the defenders of the d4-point, does
not leave Wh ite time to captu re the pawn on
b7. However, it also has its d rawbacks , and
therefore the main theoretical conti nuation
beca me 9 . . . lbb6.
10 gxf3 tbc6
1 1 l':!. d1 ?
N ow Simagin's idea proves justified . As
l ater practice showed , by playing 1 1 0-0-0 !
Wh ite g ain s a n advantage.
11 . . . e5
1 2 dxe5
1 2 d5?! tbd4 is unfavourable for Wh ite .
12 . . . lbcxe5
1 3 i. h 3
Leonid Shamkovich plays aggressively, hop­
i ng to exploit the pin on the knight at d 7 . I n
t h e event o f 1 3 i.e2 Black h a s t h e excellent
reply 1 3 . . . 'ifh4 ! , and if 14 f4 , then 14 . . . tbg4.
13 . . . lbxf3+!
1 3 . . . 'ifh4 ! ? 14 i.xd7 .l:tad8 would also have
g iven Black a good game.
14 'it> e2
1 34 cJ;; Long-d i sta nce Di spute
If 1 4 'ittf 1 Simag i n g ives the variation
14 . . . tt::l fe5 ! 1 5 .ixd7 tt::l x d7 1 6 'ii' b 5 c6 1 7
'ii'x b7 .ixc3 (the immediate 1 7 . . . 'ii' h 4! is no
worse) 1 8 bxc3 'ilfh4 ! . Now 1 9 'ii'x d7 l:.ad8
is not possible, while after 1 9 llxd7 both
1 9 . . . .l:.ab8 and 1 9 .. .'ii' x e4 are strong.
14 . . . tt::l fe5
1 5 .ixd7
If 1 5 .l:.xd7, then 1 5 . . . 'ii' h 4! ( 1 5 . . . tt::l x d7 1 6
l:!.d 1 is less good ). 1 5 f4 'ii' h 4 1 6 .ixd7
tt::lx d7 1 7 l:!.xd7 'ii'g 4+ will also not do.
15 . . . tt::l x d7
16 'ii b 5 c6
1 7 1i'xb7 .l:t b8
1 8 'ii'x d7
Of cou rse, not 1 8 'ii' x c6? .l:txb2+ 1 9 'itt f 1
'ii' h4 ! .
18 . . . .l:txb2+
19 'ittf1
Here is the position in which I i nvite you to
take a decision for Black. He has a choice
between regaining the knight, tra n sposing
into a roug hly equal ending, and the attempt
to attack a piece down by either 1 9 . . . 'ii' h 4
(from here the queen controls the h3-squa re
and attacks the pawn on e4), or 1 9 . . . 'iff6
(aiming at the weak f3-sq uare). Which
would you prefer?
I n the game Eva ns-F ischer ( U SA Ch ampi­
onship 1 962/63) Black did not risk going in
for the complications and he restricted
h imself to the simple 1 9 . . . 'ii' x d7 20 llxd7
.ixc3. A d raw became practica lly i n evitable.
2 1 lixa7 l:e8 22 l:.a4 .i b4 23 .id4 l:tc2 24
l:txb4 c5 25 .ixc5 llxc5 26 �g2 .U.c2 27 a4
l:td8 28 'itt g3 l:ta2 29 .l:lc1 .U.dd2 30 .l:f.f1
J:.d3+ 31 f3 l:tda3 32 l: d 1 .l:.xa4 33 .l:f.d8+
'itt g 7 D raw.
Simagin acted d ifferently. He decl ined the
d raw offered at that moment and sacrificed
a piece .
19 . . . 'ii'f6 ! !
I n fact, it i s also not easy to refute the move
1 9 . . . 'ii' h 4? ! . 20 1!fxc6? (or 20 'ifd3?) is bad
i n view of 20 .. .'ii' h3+ 21 'itt e 1 'il'f3 , attacking
the rook and threate n i ng mate after 22 . . .
.ixc3 + . I f 2 0 tt::l a 4? ! Black can reply
20 . . . l:.xa2 21 tt::l c 5 .ih6 22 'ii' d 3 'ii' h 3+ 23
'itt e 1 .ixe3 24 'ii' x e3 'iWxe3+ 25 fxe3 .l:lfb8
with sufficient cou nterplay. The strongest
conti n uation is 20 tt::l e 2! 'iWxe4 21 l:.g1
(weaker is 21 tt::l g 3 'ii'f3 22 Iic1 f5! )
2 1 . . . .l:f.xa2 2 2 .l:f. c 1 ! ? , intending 23 'ii' xc6 o r
23 'ii' g 4 followed b y 'it'c4 . Wh ite success­
fu lly consolidates and reta i n s an adva ntage.
Fischer considered the sacrifice made i n the
game to be completely incorrect. But Simagin
tried to show that Black's combi nation leads
to a win. I think that the truth l ies somewhere
i n between . Let us exa m i n e some varia­
tions.
I . 20 tt::l a 4? This is what S h a m kovich played
in the game. After 20 .. Jba2 21 tt::l c 5 'ii'f3 22
'itt g 1 (22 .l:f.g 1 'ife2+ 23 'itt g 2 'ii'x e3)
22 ... .i h 6 ! Black's attack became i rresist­
ible. There followed 23 .id4 'ii' x d1 + 24 'itt g2
'ii' d 2 25 'ii' d 6 .ie3! 26 tt::l d7 'ii' xf2+ 27 'itt h3
'ii' g 2+, and Wh ite resig ned .
I I . 20 tt::l e 2? 'iff3 21 tt::l g 3 .i h 6 ! It is
appa rently not possible to defend the wh ite
king , for example: 22 .ixa7 ( noth i ng is
changed by 22 ii.c5 l:.c2 23 .ixa7 :taB! 24
 Long-d ista n ce D ispute
l::t e 1 .Uxa2 ) 22 . . . �a8! (threate ni ng 23 . . J:txa7)
23 �e1 (23 .i.c5 .i.f8 24 .i.e3 .l::t a xa2 ; 2 3
.Ma 1 .Uxf2 + ! 24 �xf2 �e3) 23 . . . .l:txa2 2 4
ii.c 5 .i.d2! 25 l:t b 1 .l:l.a 1 26 it'b 7 .i.c 3 ! with
the decisive threat of 27 . . . .l::t x b 1 + 28 'it'xb 1
.Ma 1 (analysis by Simagin).
I l l . 2 0 .i.d4 ! ? 'iff3
20 . . . 'i!Vh4 is weaker in view of the excellent
reply 2 1 lt:Jd5! , poi nted out by Fischer. Then
2 1 . . . .i.xd4? 22 lt:Je7+ is completely bad .
After 2 1 . . . 'ihe4 22 lt:Je7+ 'it> h8 23 .i.xg7+
�xg7 24 'iVd4+ (24 l'lg 1 ) 24 . . . 'i!Vxd4 25
.Mxd4 Wh ite should be able to convert hi s
piece advantage. But even here B l a c k is b y
n o mea ns doomed - he plays 2 1 . . . cxd5 2 2
�xb2 � x b 2 23 fixd5 't!Vh3+ 24 � e 2 'ii' g 4+
with a probable d raw.
21 .l:!. g 1
2 1 Wg 1 ? will not do beca use of 21 . . . .l::t c2 or
21 . . . c5.
It was because of this variation that Fischer
rejected the piece sacrifice. But this was
wrong - after a l l , if Black wishes, he ca n
force a d raw by 2 1 . . . l:tc2 ! ? 22 .l:l.g3 (forced )
22 . . . 'ii' h 1 + 2 3 li g 1 'iff3 . It is also p robably a
d raw in the endgame arising after 23 . . .'it'xh2
24 lt:Je2 'ikh5 25 'ii' g 4 'ifxg4 26 .l:!.xg4 .l::t d 8 27
'it>e 1 .l:l.xe2+ 28 'it> xe2 �xd4 29 .l::t g 5 'it>f8 30
llc5 �xc5 3 1 l:txd8+ 'it>e7.
ltJ 1 35
The o n ly q u estion is whether Black should
be satisfied with a d raw, or whether he has
the right to continue the attack with 21 . . . c5! ? .
Simagin th i n ks t h at h e does . H e g ives the
variation 22 .l:.g3 'ifh 1 + 23 .l:l.g 1 �xh2 24
.l:tg2 "ii' h 1 + 25 .Ug 1 'i!kh4! with an attack .
Wh ite can play more strongly: 22 .i.xc5!
.i.xc3 23 'i!Vd3! 'ii'f6 24 .l:tg3 . By allowing the
opponent to restore material equal ity, he
activates h i s forces . 24 . . . .i. b4?? loses im­
med iately to 25 3l.. d 4, and Black resigned
(Mclella n-Kokori n , correspondence 1 968).
24 ... .i.e5 25 .l:l.f3
25 . . ."it'h4 suggests itself, when 26 �xf8?
'ikxh2 27 .l::. d 2 l:t b 1 + 28 �e2 'it'g 1 29 l:t d 1
.t!.b2+ 30 l:t d 2 .l::t b 1 leads o n l y t o a d raw.
However, the simple move 26 h 3 ! , pointed
out by Larry Eva ns, sets Black insuperable
d ifficulties. For example: 26 . . . l:tfb8 (26 . . .
l:!.c8? 2 7 'ii' d 7 .l::t x c5 2 8 'ii' x f7 + ) 2 7 'ii' d 5 !
( Evans suggested 27 .l:!.xf7 ! ? 'it>xf7? 2 8
it' d ? + 'it>g8 29 'i!Ve6+, but Black has a
tougher defence : 27 . . . l:tc2 ! 28 fixc2? 'ili'xh3+
29 'it>e2 'it> xf7 with equal ity; however, after
28 �e7! ii'h5 29 l'lf3 Wh ite retains the
advantage) 27 . . . �f4 ! 28 e5! with a winning
position (only not 28 �d6? .l::t x f2+! 29 .l::t xf2
fkxh3 + with a d raw).
I have been able to fi nd a way of strengthen­
ing the attack: 25 ... 'ii' g 5 ! ! 26 �xf8 .i.xh2 27
1 36 \t> Long-d i stance Dispute
'iit e 1 , and now not 27 . . .'ifg 1 +? 28 �f1 'ii' g 4
(28 . . . 'ii'g 5 29 i.h6! 'ifxh6 30 'ii' c4) 29 ..t h6 !
'iVxe4+ 30 ..t e 3 'ii'xf3 3 1 l:t d 8 + 'iit g 7 3 2
..td4+ 'iit h 6 33 ..txb2 , b ut 27 . . . ..tc7 ! ! with
the th reats 28 . . . 'iit xf8 and 28 . . . �g 1 + 29 'ii'f 1
..ta5+. 28 ..tb4 'ii' g 1 + 29 'ii'f 1 ii'g4 1eads to
a repetition of moves. The clever move 28
Ji.g7 ! ? would be justified after 28 . . . 'iit x g7+?
29 'ii'c 3+ ..te5 30 l:.xf7 + ! ! , but Black plays
28 .. .'ii' g 1 + 29 'iif1 ..ta5+ 30 ..tel 'ii' g 4 31
..txa5 'ii'xf3 32 ..td2 'ii'e 4+ 33 ii'e2 (33 ..te3
'ilkb4+) 33 ... 'ii' h 1 + with perpetual check.
IV. 20 l:td3 ! ? 'ii'f3 . The less accu rate move
20 . . . .U.c2?! is justified after 2 1 lDe2 ? ! 'ii'f3 22
tt:lg3 .l:tb8! (22 . . . �xa2 or 22 . . . h 5 is weaker
because of 23 ..td2; if 22 . . . ..th6 there
follows 23 'ii'd 4 with the th reat 24 ..txh6) 23
l:tb3 .l:.xb3 24 'iVd8+ (24 axb3 h5 ) 24 . . . ..tf8
25 axb3 l:tb2 26 'it>e 1 h 5 , and the i n itiative is
seized by Black.
I n the variation 21 ..td2 l:txd2 22 .l:!.xd2 'ii' x c3
23 .l:!.g 1 ! followed by .l:.g3 a position slig htly
better for Wh ite is reached . (23 'iit g 2?!
suggests itself, but this encou nters the
un pleasant reply 23 .. .'ite5! , when defend­
ing the e4-pawn is awkward : 24 'ifxc6?
'itg5+, or 24 .:te 1 ? 'ii'g 5+ and 25 . . . ..tc3).
2 1 tt:Jd 1 ! 'iii'f3 22 l:.g 1 'ii'x e4 23 l:td2 l:.xd2 24
'iix d2 is more promising for Wh ite - the
compensation for the piece is probably
i nsufficient.
21 'iit g 1 !
(see diagram)
The natu ral 2 1 l:.g 1 ? is i ncorrect i n view of
21 . . . i.xc3 22 l:lxc3 l:.fb8 (threate n i n g
23 . . . l:txf2 + ! ) 23 'iix c6?! (more tenacious is
23 ..td2 ii'd 1 + 24 'iit g 2 'itxd2 25 'itxd2 .l:.xd2
with an extra pawn for Black i n a double
rook endgame) 23 . . . l:.d8 24 .l:tc1 'ife2+ 25
'iit g 2 'ii'x e3 , and Black wins (Simag i n ) .
After t h i s S i m a g i n exa m i ned 2 1 . . . ..txc3?! 22
.l:lxc3 .l:tbb8 (an u nexpected retreat: Black
creates the threat of 23 . . . llfd8) 23 .l:tc1 �fd8
24 'ii' x c6? .U.d 1 + 25 l:r.xd 1 'ii'x d 1 + 26 'it>g2
'ii' g 4+ 27 'ifi>f1 .l:td8! and wins. However,
instead of the captu re of the c6-pawn , 24
'ii' c 7! is far stronger. By retu rn ing with his
q ueen to g3, Wh ite parries the attack. Black
stil l retai n s some i n itiative , but it should
g rad ually evaporate .
Black's prospects a re h a rdly improved by
other attem pts on the 22nd move :
22 . . J::t e 2 23 �d 1 ! 'ii' g 4+ 24 'iit f 1 'ilkf3 25
.l:td3! .U.xf2+ 26 ..txf2 'ii' x h 1 + 27 ..tg 1 ;
22 . . . llfb8 23 .l:lxc6 .l:t b 1 + 24 l:!c1 l:txc1 + 25
..txc1 .
The exchange on c3 is bad - i nstead
21 . . . :c21 can be recom mended . In reply 22
..td2? is a mistake in view of 22 . . . l:txd2 ! .
After 2 2 ..tc5?! 'ii'f4 2 3 'ii' d 6 Black achieves
a favou rable ending by 23 . . . 'ii' x d6! 24 i.xd6
.Ud8 2 5 ltJ d 1 ..te5. In the event of 23 'ii'e7
B lack's resou rces a re i l l u strated by the
fol lowing curious variation : 23 . . . it'g4+ 24
.Ug3 'ii' c 8 ! 25 'ii' x a7 (25 . . . .l:.e8 was th reat­
ened) 25 . . . l:.d8 26 tt:Ja4 l:txa2 27 'iit g 2 'ii' e6
28 l:t e 1 'ii' e 8! followed by 29 . . . .l:.a8, and the
knight at a4 is lost.
22 i.xa 7 ! ? i s possible, although after
22 . . . l:.c1 + 23 tt:Jd 1 'iix e4 24 ..te3 .l:ta 1 Black
reta i n s q u ite good cou nter-cha nces.
 Long-d istance Dispute
The same assessment appl ies to the posi­
tion a rising after 22 tLld 1 ! ? 'ii' x e4 (or
22 . . . lle2 23 .i.d2 'ii' x e4 24 h3 c5 ). Here the
outcome remains u n clear.
V. 20 .:tc1 ! This move, suggested by the
Brazi lian g randmaster Gi lberta Milos, may
cast doubts on Simagin's bold idea . Having
defended h is knig ht, at the same time Wh ite
does not al low the reply 20 . . . .l:tc2 , which
gave the opponent cou nterplay after 20
.l:td3 . He is not afra id of 20 . . . .l:td8 i n view of
2 1 'ii' h 3, while i n the event of 20 . . . .i.h6 he
can choose between 21 'ii' h 3 and 21 'ili'xa7
l:txf2+ 22 ..txf2 .i.xc1 23 'ti'd4. There only
rema ins 20 .'�f3 2 1 'it> g 1 ! (but, of cou rse,
. .
not 21 l:!.g 1 ? ..txc3 22 I!.xc3 lifb8), when
21 . . . ..th6 22 'ii' d 1 is hopeless, while 21 . . .
.ixc3 2 2 .l:.xc3 leads to a situation favour­
able for Wh ite , fa m i l i a r to us from the 20
l:d3 variation.
It is time to sum u p . I n the long-d i sta nce
d i spute between Simagin and Fischer, it is
Simag i n who was the more correct, al-
l2J 1 37
though he overestimated h i s position. One
can a rgue a bout the a n alytical correctness
of the piece sacrifice , but from the practical
point of view it is certai n l y justified . The
probabil ity of the opponent fig u ring out the
compl ications and fi nding all the strongest
moves at the board is pretty smal l . Wh ite is
in far more danger - after the slig htest
inaccu racy the attack will become i rresist­
ible.
It is curious that Bobby Fischer, a fighting
player who always ai med only for a wi n , did
not risk sacrificing the piece and satisfied
h i mself with a d raw. The American g rand­
master valued cla rity, did not l i ke to lose
control of what was happening on the
board , and therefore m istrusted i rration a l ,
i ntu itive sacrifices o f material . I n t h i s respect
his style d iffered sign ificantly from that of
brill iant chess a rtists such as Vlad i mi r
Simag i n , Mikhail Tal and Alexey Sh i rov, for
whom risk, i nvolving problematic sacrifices,
is natural and usua l .
1 38 �

M ark Dvoretsky

Attacks with opposite-sided Castling

M this topic - after a l l , it is discussed in

ost of you will probably be fa miliar with exchange on d3 and recaptu re with the c­
paw n . Should two tempi be wasted in the
many books about the middlegame. It is open i n g , even for the sake of exchanging
unl ikely that I will be able to say anyth ing the opponent's strong bishop?
new, and in fact I am not aiming for this. We 9 exf6 tt'lxf6
will simply analyse a few games, i n the 1 0 iVe2 a6
cou rse of which we will recall some i mpor­
could s imply h ave castled , but I was
tant featu res, typical of positions with castl ing
attracted by a positional tra p . The tempting
on opposite sides, and do some tra i n ing on
1 1 f5? ! would have al lowed Black to
their practical appl icatio n .
advantageously sacrifice a pawn: 1 1 . . . e5!
( 1 1 . . . 0-0 is also not bad ) 1 2 tt'lxe5 tt'lxe5
Geo rgad ze - Dvoretsky ( 1 2 . . . tt'ld4 ! ? ) 1 3 "ii'x e5+ Wf7 , and the white
USSR Spa rtakiad , Moscow 1 967 king, which is caught in the centre , comes
French Defence under a dangerous attack.
1 e4 e6 11 ..td2 0-0
2 d4 d5 1 2 0-0-0 'iVc7
3 tt'lc3 tt'lf6 With opposite-sided castling the two
4 e5 tt'lfd7 players usually conduct pa wn storms on
5 f4 c5 opposite wings, trying as soon as possi­
6 tt'lf3 tt'lc6 ble to weak the enemy king 's defences.
From this point of view the move 1 2 . . . b5!
7 dxc5
seems log ica l . I thought that Wh ite would
This move does not prom ise Wh ite any reply 1 3 g4 b4 14 tt'la4 ..td6 1 5 g5 , and if
advantage. The critical conti nuation is 7 1 5 . . . tt'l h 5 - 1 6 tt'le5. Alas, this conclusion is
..te3 ! . i ncorrect i n view of a l ittle combination :
7 . . . ..txc5 1 6 . . . tt'lxf4 ! 1 7 ..txf4 tt'lxe5 1 8 .1l.. x e5 iVxg5+ .
7 . . . tt'lxc5 is also not bad . Having failed to calculate the variation to the
8 Ji.d3 f6 e n d , I decided to make a preparatory move,
8 . . . 0-0? is a mistake because of the strengthening Black's position in the centre.
standard bishop sacrifice 9 ..txh7+! Wxh7 In principle, also a sou nd idea : don 't forget
1 0 tt'lg5+. The move in the game is perfectly about control of the centre even when
logical - I prepa re castl ing and at the same sharp wing a ttacks are in progress.
time exchange the strong central pawn on 1 3 g4 b5
e5. Black has also played d ifferently here: Of cou rse, the captu re of the g4-pawn was
8 . . . tt'lb4 or 8 . . . a6 followed by 9 .. .'ii' c7 . I don't not even considered .
like the knight move - Wh ite simply retreats
his bishop to e2, but he can also allow the
 Attacks with opposite-sided Ca stl ing
Question : what would you now play as
Wh ite?
With opposite-sided castling one must
act as energetically as possible, trying at
any cost to seize the initiative. Here the
slightest delay is usually fa tal.
The principle itself is perfectly clear, but
sometimes it is not easy to follow it. For
example, the attempt to u nderm i n e the
enemy centre by 14 f5? ! exf5 1 5 g5 is bad in
view of 1 5 . . . l2Je4 1 6 l2Jxd 5 'i!i'f7.
I th i n k that the correct contin u ation was the
sharp 14 g 5 ! l2Jh5 1 5 l2Je5! . N ow it is
extremely dangerous to accept the pawn
sacrifice: 1 5 . . .l2Jxf4 1 6 ..txf4 l:!xf4 1 7 l2Jxc6
'ii'x c6 1 8 'i¥h5 ( 1 8 .l:thf1 !? or even 1 8
i.xh7+ ! ? also comes i nto consideration)
18 . . . g6 19 ..txg6 hxg6? 20 'iVxg6+ 'it h 8 21
l2Jxd5 .
Tamaz Georgadze w a s proba bly concerned
about the reply 1 5 . . . g6! , after which the
weakness of the f4-pawn is very percepti­
ble. In sharp situations with opposite­
sided castling, for the sake of the
initiative you sometimes have to go in for
positional or material concessions, and
you should not be afraid to do this. Let us
continue 1 6 l2Jxc6 'ii' x c6 1 7 l2Je4 ! ..td4 1 8
l2Jf6 + ! .
T h e attem pt t o p repare t h i s check, b y
playing 1 8 h 4 ? (wh ich is j ustified i n the
lZJ 1 39
variation 1 8 . . . l2Jxf4? 1 9 ..txf4 l:lxf4 20 l2Jf6+
..txf6 21 gxf6 .l:txf6 22 h5) is refuted
tactica lly: 1 8 . . . dxe4 ! 1 9 ..t xe4 l2Jg3 ! . And if
1 8 .l:tdf1 ? ! (with the idea of 1 9 l2Jg3) there is
the u n pleasant reply 1 8 .. .'�c7 ! .
1 8 . . . l2Jxf6 1 9 gxf6 l:!.xf6 20 h 4 e 5 ! (otherwise
Wh ite's attack becomes dangerous) 21 fxe5
.l:tf2 22 'iWe 1 ..tg4, and now Wh ite must
either sacrifice the exchange by 23 h 5 , or
choose 23 ..te3 'ii' c 5 24 ..txd4 'ili'xd4 25 .l:!.d2
l:txd2 26 'i¥xd2 , parting with the e5-pawn ,
but in return reta i n i ng attacking possibil ities.
14 .l:!.df1 ? !
A seem ingly sensible move - Wh ite sup­
ports his f4-pawn i n advance and vacates
the d 1 -sq uare for the retreat of his knight.
But even such a m i n imal delay is a l ready
sufficient for Black to be the fi rst to lau nch
his assault.
Here I should l i ke to ta ke the opportun ity to
q uote an idea of Alexander Kotov rega rd i ng
mutual attacks with opposite-sided castl i n g ,
w h i c h he thought w a s i m po rtant. 'When
beginning a pawn storm, you should bear in
mind that it is of a forcing nature and you
should calculate it as accurately as you
would calculate a combination '.
I don't agree with Kotov's idea. I ndeed , the
outcome i n such cases sometimes hangs by
a thread , and depends on a single tempo.
The ca lculation of variations plays an
i mportant role, but nevertheless n ot the
lead i ng one - it helps specific problems to
be solved , but usually (as i n the g iven
game) it does not enable the fate of an
attack to be accu rately determi ned before­
hand . Therefore you should not be too
carried away by calculation , a n d , of cou rse,
you must not be restricted to it. It is
i mportant to sense the spi rit of the position,
and to be able to assess i ntu itively the
prospects of the two sides, whatever d i rec­
tion events may ta ke.
14 . . . b4
1 40 Attacks with opposite-sided Castling
1 5 ltJ d 1 .id6
1 6 ltJ e 5 b3!
This is far stronger than the prim itive
captu re on e5, which would have led to
unclear play. Black solves his main strateg ic
problem - he weakens the pawn defences
of the enemy king .
1 7 axb3 ltJd4
1 8 'ife1
Here I made perhaps my only serious
mistake in the game - after a long th i n k 1
accepted the draw offered by my opponent.
Such mistakes should be analysed , to
understand why they were made. There
may be purely chess reasons, as wel l as
psychological ones, or sometimes these
and others are interwove n .
Fi rst t h e purely chess reaso n . I n calculating
the variations, I decided that the following
position would most probably a rise:
18 . . .ltJxb3+ 1 9 'it> b 1 ltJxd2+ 20 'it'xd2 .ixe5
2 1 fxe5 'ii'x e5 22 �e 1 ?! (22 g5 is stronger,
forcing the retreat of the knight to d7)
22 ... ltJe4 23 .ixe4 dxe4 24 l:thf1 .ib7.
Black is a pawn u p , but it is doubled , and the
wh ite knight is ready to occupy the excellent
blockad ing square e3. I was not sure that
the advantage was on my side here, and I
did not find anyth ing better. Therefore I
ag reed a draw.
Where did the mistake l ie? I n the assess­
ment of the final position . I did not take into
acco u nt the wea kness of the f3-sq uare (if
the wh ite pawn had been on g2, the position
would i ndeed h ave been u nclear). As soon
as the knight goes to e3, the rook will
i m med iately occupy the f3-point. There it will
exert u n pleasant pressure on the oppo­
nent's position , and the exchange on f3 is
completely hopeless for Wh ite.
Of cou rse, when you look at the diagram it
all seems obvious, but d u rin g a game you
may miss someth ing at the end of a long
variation . However, is this any justification?
It is i m porta nt to t h in k about h ow to avoid
such m ista kes in the future.
If in the process of calculating you
sometimes do not have a very clear
impression of the position (a part of the
board falls out of your field of view, you
forget the exact placing of certain pieces,
and so on), special training is needed. As
often as possible you should analyse
positions which interest you without
moving the pieces, look through games
printed in books or magazines without
using a board, and play blindfold with
other players.
And now about the psycholog ical reason for
my mistake . At that time I was a young and
i nexperienced player, but I played (on the
j u n ior board ) i n the same tea m as such
g reats as M i khail Botv i n n i k and Vasily
Smyslov, a n d , understandably, I was very
anxious and afraid of letting the team down .
As a result I spent an u n usually long time
checki ng and re-checking variations, and by
the point when peace was ag reed I had less
than half an hour for the rema i n ing 23
moves . I ncidentally, after the game I showed
Botvi n n i k the fi nal position and the possibili­
ties i n it wh ich I had considered . After asking
how much time I had rem a i n i n g , the ex­
champion said that I had done right to agree
a d raw.
 Attacks with opposite-sided Castling lb 141

Even s o , i t is clear that a cool-headed , self­ Bronste i n - Dvoretsky

confident player would never have accepted U S SR Championship, F i rst Leag ue,
a d raw offer in such a positi o n. If he was not Odessa 1 974
satisfied with the conclu d i ng position of the French Defence
variation calculated , he would have ca re­
1 e4 e6
fu lly looked for an improvement earlier. And
2 d4 d5
he would surely have found that the simple
20 . . . i.b7! (instead of 20 . . . i.xe5? ! ) g ua ran­ 3 lt::l c 3 lt::l f6
tees Black a g reat advantage i n view of the 4 e5 lt::l fd7
th reats of 2 1 . . . d4, 2 1 . . . lt::l e 4 and 2 1 . . . i.xe5. 5 f4 c5
You must tirelessly develop your fight­ 6 lt::l f3 lt::l c6
ing spirit, resis tance to dis turbance, and 7 dxc5 i.xc5
ability not to lose your composure in any
8 a3?!
situation, even the most complicated,
In my view, this is anti-positional. I will
and not to give in to s trong opponents.
expl a i n why:
Without this you won 't achieve any great
success in chess. 1 ) In the opening you should q u ickly
develop the p ieces, not wasting time on
A striving at important moments to act
insign ifica nt pawn moves.
with particular care and safety often has
an adverse affect on a chess player's 2) It is d ifficult for Wh ite to castle kingside,
actions. A fter all, he betrays his cus tom­ and i n the event of queenside castl ing the
ary mode of beha viour and thinking, and adva nce of the a-pawn will make it easier for
this is rather dangerous. B lack to open l i nes for the attack. It is
extremely dangerous to go in for a
Why? ! I will give a simple analogy. Anyone
position with opposite-sided castling, if
fi nds it easy to wal k along a log which is
there are defects in the pa wns covering
lying on the g rou n d . But if that same log is
your king.
placed across a sheer d ro p , then a n
unprepa red person w i l l most probably fal l . Wh ite wants h i s bishop to feel comfortable
O n t h e g rou n d , when there is no danger, o u r at d3, without having to fea r an attack by the
movements a re largely a utomatic, and they knight from b4 . But he pays too high a price
are d i rected by our su b-conscious, which for th i s .
does this q u ite wel l . But over the sheer d rop 8 . . . 0-0
our fear of fal l i ng forces us to control every 9 i.d3 f6
step, to try and avoid the slig htest m i stake. 1 0 exf6 lt::l xf6
As a result, the natural combi nation of
1 1 'ii' e 2 a6
conscious and sub-conscious is d isru pted ,
1 2 i.d2 i.d7
and an u n usual mode is a lways more
difficult to fol low. I delay the advance of my b-pawn, to avoid
'frighte n i n g ' my opponent. If 1 2 . . . b5 he
would probably h ave a n swered 1 3 lt::l d 1 .
1 3 0-0-0 b5
1 4 g4? !
This cou nterattack on the kingside is clearly
too late. It was better to play 14 lt::l e 5.
14 . . . b4
1 42 � Attacks with opposite-sided Castling

1 5 axb4 lt:Jxb4 did not satisfy Black. In the midd legame his
advantage is far more sign ificant.
24 lt:Jxd5 .l:txd4
25 lt:Jc3 .i.f4+
26 � b 1 i. d 2
26 . . . l:td2 27 'ii' e 4 .l:lb8 w as tempti n g , but
after 28 'ii'xf4 I did not fi nd a way of mating
the opponent.
27 .l:td1 i.xc3
28 bxc3 lt b8+
29 �c1

The defects of the move a2-a3 a re now

obvious. Black has opened l i nes on the
queenside and gai ned the adva ntage .
1 6 g5?1
Pawn advances often lead to the creation
of weaknesses in your own position. If in
return you obtain a s trong a ttack, it is
worth going in for this. But if the a ttack
does not succeed, the weaknesses will
tell. I n the g iven instance it is clear that only
Black will be attacki n g , so why weaken the
f4-pawn? A very simple l ittle exercise: suggest the
most accu rate contin uation of the attack.
16 . . . lt:Jxd3+
I did not want to exchange a pa i r of rooks.
1 6 . . . lt:Jg4 is also possible, as wel l as the This ca n be avoided with the help of a
immediate 1 6 . . . lt:J h 5 , since the bishop sacri­ simple tactical idea .
fice on h7 is not da ngerous. 29 . . . 'ii c 6!
17 cxd3
30 'ii c 2 .U.a4
If 1 8 'it'xd3 the simplest reply is 1 8 . . . lt:Jg4 . l:1a3
31 .l:lhg1
17 . . . lt:J h 5
3 1 . . . 'ii' b 6 was also stro n g .
1 8 d4 .i.d6
32 �d2 'ii' c4
19 lt:Je5 tt:Jxf4
33 'ii' d 3 l:t b2+
20 ..ixf4 .l:.xf4 34 �e1
21 h4 'ii' c 7 Or 34 �e3 .l:txc3 . Now the exchange on d3
22 lt:Jxd7 'ii' x d7 followed by a check on the 1 st ran k would
23 l:r.de1 :e8! have won a rook, but the move made by me
Of cou rse, going into a n endgame a pawn leads to a forced mate .
up by 23 . . . .l:.xd4 24 'ifxe6+ 'ii' x e6 25 l:txe6 34 . . . 'ir'xh4+
 Attacks with op posite-sided Castl ing ctJ 1 43

35 'it'g3 To be honest, I did not sacrifice the pawn ,

35 �g3 'it'h 1 + 36 'it'f1 'it' e4+ . but s i mply blundered it, and so a q uestion
35 . . . 'ii'e 4+ mark is attached to my move . But the
excla mation mark added to it reflects the
Wh ite resigned .
fact that Black nevertheless gains some
Even g reat players have bad days, when (although probably insufficient) positional
they play below their usual strength . Appar­ compensation for the lost pawn . With
ently David B ronstei n had such a day - and opposite-sided castling it is very impor­
so victory came to me easily. tan t to be the first to begin an a ttack. For
the sake of rapidly opening lines in the
Here is another 'lig ht' game. vicinity of the enemy king it sometimes
makes sense to sacrifice a pawn.
Maryas i n - Dvoretsky In the su bseq uent stage of the game my
Kiev 1 970 opponent played un ce rta i n ly, and the ad­
Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence vantage g radually passed to me.
9 ..lii. a4 'it'c7
1 e4 g6
1 0 h4
2 d4 Si.g7
1 0 g4 came into consideration, intending 1 1
3 lt:Jc3 c6
g 5 lt:J h 5 1 2 tt:Jge2 fol lowed by 1 3 lt:Jg3.
4 i.. c4 d6
10 . . . h5!
5 'iVf3 e6
11 Si.g5?! tZ'lh7
6 i.. e 3
12 Si.e3 lt:Jd7
Here 6 Si.f4 and 6 lt:Jge2 have also been
1 3 g4 hxg4
played .
14 'it'xg4 lt:Jdf6
6 . . . lt:Jf6
Of cou rse, h4-h5 can not be allowed - the h­
7 0-0-0
pawn m u st be securely blocked . When
prepa ring a n attack on one wing , don't
forget a bout necessary prophylaxis on the
opposite wing.
1 5 �g2 tZ'lh5
1 6 lt:J g e 2 .l':!. b8
1 7 tt:Jg3 tt:J7f6
1 8 lt:Jxh5?
Wh ite is hoping to l ift the blockade, by
tra nsferri ng h i s other knight to g3 , but he
does not have time for this. 1 9 Si.g5 was
stronger, with the idea of 20 Si.xf6 lt:Jxf6 2 1
h 5 . And 1 9 e 5 dxe5 20 'it'xc6 also came i nto
consideration .
18 . . . lt:Jxh5
7 . . . b5?! 1 9 lt:Je2 c5
8 Si.xb5! 0-0 20 c3 "it'a5
8 . . . cxb5? 9 e5 is hopeless for Black. 2 1 Si. b3 .ta6
1 44 � Attacks with opposite-sided Castling

22 l:i.d2 31 'it>e2
Wh ite wants to con solidate , by playing �f3 ,
'ilff1 and 'it>g2. But d u ring this time I a m able
to blow up the enemy centre .
31 . . . 'i!Vc4+ !
32 'it>f3
If 32 �d3, then 32 . . . �xd4 ! , while if 32 '>t>e1
there follows 32 . . . 'i!fb5! (intending si mply to
advance the a-pawn), and 33 'if'f1 ? 'i!fb 1 +
followed by 34 . . . 'i!Vxe4 i s bad for Wh ite.
32 . . . d5
33 e5 .1£.xe5!
34 'iff1 .1i.f6
35 'ifxc4 1hc4

How should Black conti nue the attack? 36 'it>e2?

To me it seemed d u bious to go chasing the 36 .l:t a 1 was essenti a l , with the idea of
a2-pawn : 22 . . . c4 23 .1£.c2 'iVxa2 24 .1i. b 1 doubling rooks on the 7th ra n k as soon as
(th is is why t h e opponent played 22 .i':t d 2 - possible. After the move i n the game Black
the b2-pawn is now defended} 24 . . .'i!Va 1 25 wins without any d ifficulty.
lbg3. Wh ite h imself is th reatening to lau nch 36 . . . lbg7 37 .i':t a 1 lbf5 38 .:!.xa7 .1£.xd4!
39
an attack, for example, after 25 . . . lbxg3 26 .:!.aS+ �g7 40 .i.f4 .1£.c3 (40 . . . �xf2!? 41
fxg3! followed by h4-h5 . However, if I hadn't .1£.e5+ f6 ) 41 .l:ld3 .l:lxf4 42 .:!.xc3 lb xh 4 43
been too lazy to calculate fu lly the variation .:!.c7 g5 (the fu rther play proceeds in
25 . . . .i':tb3! 26 lbxh5 .i':txc3+ 27 bxc3 .i':tb8 28 accordan ce with a well-known endgame
�d 1 l:i.xb 1 + 29 'it>e2 �xh 1 30 lbxg7 'it>xg7, principle formulated by N i mzowitsch : 'the
lead ing to a g reat adva ntage for Black, I collective advance ' ) 44 .Uaa7 � g6 45 .i':td7
could have gone in for it. lbf5 46 �ab7 f6 47 .l:.f.b8 lb d4+ 48 'it> e 3 'it>f5
22 . . . .1£.xe2 ! ? 49 .l:tf8 e5 50 .Uxd5 l:.f3+ 51 'it>d2 lhf2+ 52
I preferred not to block l i nes on the � e 3 I1f3+ 53 �d2 'it>e4 54 .i::t d 7 g4 55 .t!.g8
queenside, but on the contrary, to open f5 56 l:l.e8 .l::!. a 3 57 .Ude7 lbt3+ Wh ite
them immediately. resig ned .
23 �xe2 cxd4
24 cxd4 li.xb3 ! Pawns attacking the enemy king position
Such sacrifices do not req u i re any calcu la­ ca n not themselves give mate . The aim of a
tion. It is clear that now only Black has pawn s torm is to open lines for the
winning chances. pieces. Mainly for the queen and rooks,
although it is not uncommon for an
25 axb3 'ifa 1 +
important role in the a ttack to be played
26 'it>d2 'if'xb2+ by the minor pieces.
27 'it>e1 'i¥a 1 +
I n the fol lowing game the main hero was my
28 'it>d2 'iYb2+ da rk-squ a re bishop. After occu pying the
29 'it>e1 'i!Vxb3 long d iagonal as early as the second move,
30 .Ud2 l:tc8 it su bsequently did not in fact move from its
 Attacks with opposite-sided Castling
post. But its infl uence on the development of
events was enormous .
Dvorets ky - K h ra mtsov
Moscow 1 970
Simagin-Larsen Opening
1 b3 e5
2 -lil. b2 lt:J c6
3 e3 d5
4 _t b5 -lil. d6
5 f4
Of cou rse , the opponent can not be allowed
to set up a powerfu l pawn centre u n h i n ­
dered . T h e attack on t h e other s i d e by c2-
c4 looks steadier, but I several times
successfully employed the more risky move
in the game.
5 . . . 'if e7
If 5 .. .f6 Wh ite was i ntending 6 'ilfh5+!?
(provoking a wea kening of the a 1 -h8
diagona l ) 6 . . . g6 7 'if h 4 .
6 lt:Jf3 -lil. g4
In the event of 6 .. .f6 ! ? it is dangerous to win
a pawn: 7 fxe5?! fxe5 8 -lil.xc6+ (8 tt:Jxe5?
-lil.xe5 9 -lil.xc6+ 'it>d8! is completely bad )
8 . . . bxc6 9 lt:Jxe5 'ifh4+ (9 . . . _txe5? 1 0
'ilfh5+) 1 0 g3 'ilfh3 ( 1 0 . . .'ii' e4 is worse i n
view o f 1 1 0-0 ! ) 1 1 'ilfe2 lt:Jf6 with a
dangerous attack for Black. But after the
correct 7 0-0 the enemy centre remains
vulnerable.
7 h3
I also had occasion to play this position with
Black. My opponents i nvariably chose 7
fxe5 .ixe5 8 -lil.xe5 -lil. xf3 9 'i¥xf3 'ii' x e5 1 0
lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 1 1 0-0 0-0 . O bjectively the
chances here a re roughly eq u a l , but this
does not mean that a d raw is i nevitable. The
player who acts more pu rposefully is the
one who will be successfu l .
Semeni u k-Dvoretsky (Sverdlovsk 1 987):
12 'ilfh3 lt:Je7!? 1 3 -lil.d3?! ( 1 3 l:tf4 ! i s better)
l2J 1 45
1 3 . . . lt:Je4! 1 4 lt:Je2 f5 , and Black seized the
in itiative .
Alanakian-Dvoretsky ( Moscow 1 97 1 ): 1 2
-lil.xc6 ! ? bxc6 1 3 a4? ! ( 1 3 'ilff4 ) 1 3 . . . a 5 1 4
'iff5 llfe8 ( 1 4 . . . 'ilfd6) 1 5 l1ae1 l:tad8 1 6 l:Ie2
c5 1 7 'ifxeS Ir.xe5 1 8 l:r.ef2 c6 1 9 l:US l:tde8
20 h 3 .l:.8e7 21 l:r.xe5 l:r.xe5 22 l:tf4 'it>f8 23
g4 'it>e7 with a good endgame for Black.
7 . . . -lil.xf3
8 'ii' xf3 lt:J f6
I ncorrect is 8 . . . e4? 9 'ifg3 f6 1 0 lt:Jc3 'ilff7 1 1
lt:Jxd 5 ! , a s i n the game Dvoretsky-Makarov
( Moscow 1 970). There fol lowed : 1 1 . . . 0-0-0
( 1 1 . . . 'ilfxd5 1 2 -lil.c4 'i!VhS 1 3 'ifxg7 or
1 2 . . . 'ilfg5 1 3 'ifxg5 fxg 5 14 -lil.xg7) 1 2 -lil.c4
'ii' d 7 1 3 0-0-0 a6 1 4 'ii' g 4 lt:JaS? 1 5 lt:Jb6+!
B l ack resig ned .
What do you th i n k , how orig inal is this
position? I was staggered to d iscover that
many decades earlier it was analysed by the
wel l-known theoretician Vsevolod Rauzer in
hi s notes to h i s game (with Black) agai nst
Vyacheslav Ragozin , played in the 1 936
young masters tou rnament in Len i ng rad . He
poi nted out that after 9 0-0 exf4 1 0 exf4 0-0
1 1 -lil.xc6 bxc6 1 2 lt:Jc3 .:tfe8 Black has the
better chances. However, by playing 1 0
-lil.xf6 ! (instead of 1 0 exf4? ! ) 1 0 . . .'ii' xf6 1 1
lt:Jc3, Wh ite gains the advantage, so Black
does better to choose 9 . . . 0-0 .
1 46 \it Attacks with opposite-sided Castling
Rauzer recommended 9 g3 with approxi­
mate equal ity. I think that 9 tt::l c 3! ? also
deserves consideration .
9 f5? !
An over-committing conti nuatio n . I sensed
how risky it was, but I wanted to engage my
opponent in a complicated and unusual
fight. I n the end my idea was justified .
9 . . . e4
1 0 'ii'f2 h5
Wh ite wants to castle on the queenside, and
therefore the most u n pleasant move for h i m
was 1 0 . . . tt::l h 5 ! , forci ng kingside castl i n g . It
is true that after 11 0-0 it is not possible to
clamp the kingside by 1 1 . . . tt::l g 3 because of
the reply 1 2 f6 ! , but 1 1 . . . 'ii'g 5 or 1 1 . . . 0-0 , for
exa mple, is not bad .
1 1 tt::l c 3
I also thought about 1 1 g3 h4 1 2 gxh4, but I
decided that it was too provocative .
11 . . . h4
1 2 0-0-0 i.g3?!
1 3 'iif1 0-0
1 4 'iii' b1
What would you now have played as Black?
To answer this question, it is usefu l to
consider the point of my last move .
I was not averse to the exchange of several
pieces: 1 4 i.xc6 bxc6 1 5 tt::l e 2 i.e5 1 6
i.xe5 'ii'x e5 1 7 'ii'f4 . After 1 7 . . . 'ii'xf4 1 8
tt::l xf4 Wh ite has the better endgame. Unfor­
tu nately, this idea did not work because of
the mate on a 1 , but now Black has to reckon
with it.
I recommend the attacking but also prophy­
lactic reply 14 . . . a 5 ! , which disru pts White's
plan. If 1 5 i.xc6?! bxc6 1 6 tt::l e 2 i.e5 1 7
i.xe5 'ii'x e5 1 8 'ii'f4 there follows 1 8 . . .'ii' e 7!
19 a4 ( 1 9 'ii'x h4 a4) 1 9 . . . l:l.fb8, and things
become un pleasant for the wh ite king .
14 . . . 'i!lc5?
A serious positional mistake . Black should
always have been able to meet tt::l e 2 with
the exchange of bishops on e5, but now he
is den ied this possibil ity. As a result the
bishop on b2 becomes fearfully strong.
1 5 i.xc6 'ii' x c6
1 6 tt::l e 2 tt::l h5
17 f6 !
Wea ke r was 1 7 tt::l x g3 tt::l x g3 1 8 'ii'f4 f6 ! (but
not 1 8 . . . tt::l x h 1 ? 1 9 i.xg7 or 1 9 f6 with
deadly mating threats).
17 . . . g6
I did not even consider the accepta nce of
the pawn sacrifice. After 1 7 . . . tt::l xf6 White
would have had a pleasant choice between
1 8 tt::l x g3 hxg3 1 9 iff4 (or 1 9 'ir'f5), 1 8 tt::l d4
(with the idea of 1 9 tt::l f5) a n d , fi nal ly, the
primitive 1 8 i.xf6 'ifxf6 1 9 'ii' xf6 gxf6 20
tt::l x g3 hxg3 2 1 .l:1hf1 . If this move had been
made, then I would have had to choose , but
there was no point in spending time before­
ha nd .
1 8 tt::l x g3 hxg3
Of cou rse , not 1 8 . . . tt::l x g3 1 9 'ii'f4 tt::l f5 20
'Wg5 followed by 21 l:.df1 or 21 g4 hxg3 22
h4.
1 9 'ii' e 2!
The advantage is with White , but it is not so
easy to b reach the opponent's defences.
O n the kingside he has erected someth ing
resembling a fortress. If .:thf1 with the idea
of .:tf5 ! , Black replies . . . 'ile6 , and the rook
 Attacks with opposite-sided Castling ltJ 1 47

has no invasion square on the f-file. The 23 . . . gxh5

queen ca n be played via g4 to g5, threaten­ 24 'ii x h5+ 'it'e7
ing to i nvade at h6, but the threat will be
24 . . . 'it'g7 25 l:tf1 was completely bad .
pa rried by . . . 'it' h 7 . Wh ite would have had to
24 . . . 'it'e6 was more tenacious, after which I
open a 'second front' , by u nderm i n ing the
was i ntend ing 25 'ifg4+ (25 l:!.f1 ! ? ) 25 . . .f5 25
opponent's centre at a n appropriate mo­
'iig 6+ 'it'd? 26 'iig 7 + 'it'e6 27 h4 ! , and Black
ment with d2-d 3 .
has no way of opposing the advance of the
19 . . . tt'lxf6? rook's pawn - the enti re board is raked by
Alexander Khramtsov made things much the bishop.
easier for me. G reed i n such situations i s 25 i.. a3+ 'it'd7
completely inappropriate .
H e re too 25 . . . 'it'e6 was more tenacious .
20 l:tdf1 tt'l h 5
26 'ilf h 7 + 'it'e6
2 1 .l:tf5 !
27 'ilfe7+ 'it'f5
Not 2 1 'iikg 4 f5 22 'ilfg5 .l:tf7. N ow the threat
28 Wg7 !
is 22 l::. x h5 gxh5 23 'iix h5 f6 24 'iig 6+ 'it'h8
25 l1f1 . If 21 . . . tt'lg7, then both 22 l:!.g5 and More accu rate than 28 l:tf1 + 'it'g6 2 9 l:tf4 f5 .
22 lif6 'iid 7 2 3 l:thf1 a re strong. 28 . . . l:!.fe8
21 . . . f6 29 l:tf1 +
22 'ii g4 'it'f7 Black resig ned .
23 l:r.xh5
An obvious exchange sacrifice, from which I n conclusion I i nvite you to practise finding
it is hard to refrai n . But 23 : hf1 would the best conti n u ations i n some positions
possibly have decided matters more s i mply. with opposite-sided castl i n g .

Exercises

1 . Wh ite to move 2. Black to move

1 48 � Attacks with opposite-sided C astl ing

3. Wh ite to move 4. Black to move

5. Wh ite to move 6. Black to move

7. Wh ite to move 8. Black to m ove

 Attacks with oppos ite-sided Castling
Solutions
1 . Forintos-Zedek ( I mperia 1 99 1 ).
It is i mporta nt for Wh ite to open the h-file for
his attack, but if 1 7 h4? there follows
1 7 . . . g4 ! . The target should first be fixed.
1 7 g4! ..ixg4
1 8 h4!
Black has no defence. If 1 8 . . . ..ixf3 , then 1 9
hxg5+ ..ixh 1 20 'ii h 2+ (of cou rse, 20 l:.xh 1 +
also mates).
No better is 18 . . . g6 1 9 ..ixg6 ( 1 9 hxg5+
<it>g7 20 lL'lf6 is also good ) 1 9 . . . ..ixf3
( 1 9 . . .fxg6 20 'ifxg6; 1 9 . . . <it>g7 20 ..ixf7 ! l:txf7
2 1 tt:'Jxg5) 20 hxg5+ <it>g8 2 1 l:!. h8 + (2 1 1i'h2)
2 1 . . . <it>g7 22 l:. h 7 + <it>g8 2 3 ..i xf7+ l1xf7 24
'ili'g6 + .
I n t h e g a m e Black resigned after fi rst
playing 1 8 . . . f5 1 9 hxg5+ <it>g8 20 g6 ..ixe3+
2 1 tt:'Jxe3 .l:!.f6 .
2. Kholmov-Na u m k i n (Moscow Champi­
onship 1 983).
12 . . . h6!
Black i ntends . . . g7-g 5 , not only beg i n n ing
an attack on the king , but also preparing to
hit the central e5-pawn by . . . tt:'Jg6, . . . ..i g 7 ,
and the n , i f necessary, . . . g 5-g4 or . . . h6-
h 5. It is im possible to prevent this pla n .
1 3 h4 g5!
14 hxg5 tt:'Jg6
Black has g ained a g reat advantage.
15 ..ig3 ..ie7 ! 16 ..id3 l:.dg8 1 7 c4 dxc4 1 8
..ixc4 hxg5 1 9 'it'b3 tt:'Jf4 20 l:.fd 1 l:.g6! 2 1
..ixf4 gxf4 22 a 4 l:.hg8 23 <it> f 1 <it> b 8 ! 2 4 a 5
..i c 6 25 a6 l:.xg2 26 ..ixe6 ..i h4 27 l:td2
.txf3 28 ..ixg8 l:.g1 + ! Wh ite resig ned .
3. A. Petrosian-Be l i avs ky (Riga 1 973).
I n the Samisch Va riation of the King's I ndian
Defence, as well as certa i n other opening
lD 1 49
set-ups, a strange picture is sometimes
observed . After castl ing long , Wh ite then
mou nts on offensive on the queenside, by
advancing the pawns in front of his king,
while Black attacks on the kingside. (A
classic exa mple of such strategy is the
game Kotov-Szabo, played in the 1 953
Candidates Tou rna ment in Switzerland).
The actions of the two sides, which at
first sight seem paradoxical, are easy to
explain. Each conducts an offensive on
the wing where he is s tronger: where he
controls more space (which is deter­
mined by the central pa wn structure) and
has more pieces.
In the position offered to you Wh ite has a
clear plan : to advance h i s pawns to a4 and
b5 and then ca ptu re the d3-pawn . But fi rst
he must take away the c4-sq uare from the
enemy bishop. This problem can be solved
only by the king , which boldly advances.
23 <it> b 3 !
The advance of the wh ite pawns ca nnot be
prevented . Alexander Beliavsky's desperate
attempts to complicate the play proved
unsuccessfu l .
23 . . .ll c 8 2 4 a 4 c 6 25 dxc6 l:.xc6 2 6 b 5 d 5
2 7 tt:'Jxd5 .itS 28 'ili'xd3 'ifd6 2 9 <it>b21 l:.b8
30 .U.hc1 , and Wh ite won .
4 . Lyu b l i nsky-S i m a g i n (Moscow 1 939).
12 . . . ..i h 8 !
An exchange sacrifice typical o f such struc­
tures, which was employed many times by
Vlad i m i r Si mag i n . Black needs the bishop
far more than h i s passive rook. It is usefu l
both for the defence of h i s own king , and for
the attack on the opponent's ki ng .
1 3 ..ixf8 'ii xf8 1 4 a3?
Without extreme necessity you should
1 50 � Attacks with opposite-sided Castling
not advance pawns where you are weaker.
1 4 lt'la4 or 1 4 h5 was better.
1 4 . . . l:ib8
The rook coord inates excellently with the
bishop - the two pieces exert terri ble
pressure on the b2-point. Wh ite's position is
already difficult.
15 .id3 c5! 16 exd5?! lt'lxd5 1 7 lt'la4 .id7!
18 'ii'a 5 .ixa4 19 1\i'xa4 'ii' h 6+ 20 f4 lt'lxf4
21 l:td2 .ixb2+ 22 'it>d1 .ic3 23 lU2 l:tb1
mate
5. Ochoa-Vera (Havana 1 98 1 ).
17 b51
By sacrificing a pawn , and then also a piece,
Wh ite destroys the opponent's defences on
the queenside and obta in s a decisive attack
on the king .
17 . . . hxg3
18 hxg3 cxb5
1 9 lt'lxb5! axb5
20 a6
20 . . . bxa6 2 1 l:txa6 .ixg3!? 22 lla8+ lt'lb8 23
'ii'g 4+ f5 24 'ii' x g3 1\i'xg3 25 fxg3 , a n d ,
despite t h e exchange o f queens, Wh ite's
attack continues.
20 . . . lt'le5 2 1 axb7+ (2 1 'i!kd5 ! ? is also not
bad) 2 1 . . .'it>d7 22 l:!.a6! (weaker is 22 f4?
lt'ld3) 22 . . . lt'ld3 23 'i!kg4+ f5 24 'ii' d 4 lt'lxe 1
25 .if4 and wins.
20 . . .lt'lc5 2 1 axb7+ (2 1 a7!? 'it'd? 22 .ixc5
'ii'xc5 23 .ixb7) 2 1 . . . 'it>d7 22 1i'g4+ ! f5?
22 . . . lt'le6 was far more tenacious .
23 'ii' b4 lt'le4 2 4 Wxb5+ 'it> e 6 25 l:!. a 6 (25
.id4!?) 25 ... Wxc3 26 l:tc1 ! We5 27 'iii' x e5+
'it>xe5 28 .if4+ 'it>d5 29 lld 1 + (another way
to the goal was 29 .Uxd6+ .l:l.xd6 30 .ixd6
followed by l:tc8) 29 . . . 'it>c5 30 .ie3+ � b4
31 .l:.b6+ Black resig ned .
6. Pchiolkin-Tolonen (Russian Co rre­
spondence Championship 1 980/83).
One of the m o s t difficult problems in
chess is how to correctly combine a ttack
and defence, avoiding both excessive
caution, leading to passivity, and ultra­
aggression, bordering on recklessness.
23 . . . g6!
By defending against g 5-g6, Black retains
a n excellent position . The opponent has to
reckon very seriously with the th reats of
24 . . . d5 and 24 . . . lt'lb5.
The i m patient attempt to ca rry out one of
these th reats i mmed iately allows Wh ite to
mount a da ngerous attack on the king,
wh ich outweighs Black's activity on the
queenside.
23 . . . lt'l b5? 24 g6! lt'lc3+ (24 . . . lt'la3+ 25 'it>a1
lt'lxc4 26 'i!i'h4 , th reatening to g ive mate or
captu re with the queen on c4 ) 25 'it>c1 d5 26
'ii' h 4 fxg6 27 h xg6 h6 (Black has a d ifficult
position after 27 . . . hxg6 28 l:txd5 lt'lxd 5 29
l:td 1 or 27 . . . 'ii' a 3+ 28 'it>d2 hxg6 29 'it>e1 ) 28
.ixh6 gxh6 (28 . . . 'ii' a 3+ 29 'it>d2 gxh6 30 g7
.ic5 31 'ii' x h6) 29 l:!.xd 5 ! (less good is 29 g7
.ic5, threate n i n g a check on e3) 29 . . . lt'lxd5
30 g7 l:tb6 (31 'ii' x h6 was th reatened) 31
gxf8'ii' + 'it>xf8 32 'ili'g3 with decisive th reats.
23 . . . d5? 24 g6! !
I n the game Wh ite did not risk the piece
sacrifice and he chose 24 .id3?. There
followed 24 . . . g6 25 l:.g3 lt'lb5 26 .:l.h3 'ii' a 3?!
(26 . . . lt'lc3+ 27 'it>d2 d4 would have won ) 27
.ixb5 axb5 28 c3 bxc3 29 l:txd5 l:td8 30
l:txd8 l:!.xd8 31 .ic1 'ii' a 6? (31 . . . 'ii' a 5! ,
intending 32 . . . .i a 3 , was correct - it is
i m portant that the c3-pawn is defended) 32
f4! l:tc8 33 'ii' c 2 exf4 34 .l:.xc3 with roughly
equal play.
24 . . . dxc4
If 24 . . . fxg6 25 hxg6 hxg6, then Wh ite should
not play 26 :txd5?! lt'lxd5 27 .:d 1 i n view of
27 . . J::t b 5! 28 .ib6 (28 J:txd5 l:txd5 29 .i b6
 Attacks with opposite-sided Castling
'i'b5 ! ) 28 . . . 'ii'x b6 29 'it'xb6 .i:!.xb6 30 Ji.xd5+
'itoh7 31 �xa8 with a probable d raw. 26
'i'h4 ! l:i.d8 (there is noth ing better) 27 �d3
is much stronger, with an i rresistible attack.
25 'i!Vh4 fxg6 26 fxg6 h6
26 . . . hxg6 27 'it'xc4+ 'i.t>h8 28 .U.g3 i s no
better.
27 Ji.xh6! gxh6 28 g7, and Black has no
defence.
7. Simagin-Petrosian (Moscow 1 956).
17 h4!
An example of skilful prophylaxis with
opposite-sided castl i n g ! 'This move seems
risky, but in this way White parries Black's
attack on the kingside ' (Simag i n ) . It is
important to deny the opponent the possibil­
ity of . . . h5-h4 or . . . g7-g 5 . For the sake of
this, one can even violate the principle,
mentioned i n the notes to a nothe r game by
Simagin ( Exercise 4 ) . White , who has two
strong bishops, has the better chances. The
threat is c3-c4-c5 . I n cidental ly, the i m medi­
ate 1 7 c4 g 5 ! 1 8 c5 .ii. e 7 1 9 .ii. xf4 gxf4
( 1 9 . . .'i!Vxf4 ! ? ) 20 lt'ie2 is sufficient only for
equal ity.
1 7 . . . lt'i4d5 1 8 lt'ie4 lt'ixe4 1 9 �xe4 lt'if6 20
..ll. c 2 lt'ig4 21 g3 .U.he8 22 a5! e5 23 Ji.g5! f6
24 Ji.d2 (threatening 25 Ji.g6) 24 . . . exd4 25
cxd4 l:i.xe1 + 26 .U.xe1 c5! 27 a6! cxd4 28
�a5?!
A tempting move, but not the best. 28 Ji.e4!
bxa6 29 'ii' d 3 lt'ie5 (29 .. .'it'b6 30 Ji.g2! with a
decisive attack) 30 'ifxa6 ii'b6 3 1 'i!Va4 was
stronger.
28 . . . b6 29 Ji.d2 lt'ie5 30 ii'g2 d3 3 1 .ii. a4
The position of the next exercise has been
reached .
8. Simagin-Petrosian (Moscow 1 956).
It only remains for Wh ite to play 32 li.c1 , and
things will be bad for the opponent, despite
ctJ 1 51
his extra pawn . Let us see how the game
concl uded .
3 1 . . . �c5? 32 .U.c1 'iff7 33 b4 Ji.d4 34 1i.b3
'ii' e 7 35 Ji.f4 b5
B lack's lot is not eased by 35 . . . d2 36 Ji.xd2
�xf2+ (36 . . . lt'id3 37 .l:tc6) 37 � h 1 ! Ji.d4
(37 . . J�xd2 38 �a8+ ! ) 38 .ii. f4 .
36 'Yic6 (36 .ii. e 6! was even stronger,
prepa ring the i nvasion of the queen at c6)
36 .. .'iVd7 37 'it'e4 .ii. b6 38 .U d1 .U.e8 39
Itxd3 ii'c8 40 .ii. f7 .U.e7 41 Ji.xh5 'it'c4 42
'i*'h7! �c7 43 .l:td2 ii'xb4 44 'it'g8 .U.d7 45
Itc2+
It was possible to win the queen by 45
.ii. x e5+ fxe5 46 .l:i.xd7+ 'lt>xd7 47 .ii. e 8+ 'i.t>d8
48 .ii. x b5+ 'lt>e7 49 'ifxg7+ 'lt>e6 50 .ii. c4+ !
'iixc4 5 1 'i'g8 + .
4 5 . . . .ii. c 5 4 6 'ii' a 8 'i.t>d6 4 7 .l:i.d2+ .ii. d 4 48
.ii. e 3 'i.t>e6 49 'i'e8+ 'it>f5 50 g4+ �e4 51
'ifa8+ lld5 52 llxd4+ Black resig ned .
By playing 3 1 . . .l'tc8 , Black would have
prevented the enemy rook from occu pying
the c-file (32 .l:!.c1 ? 'i'xc 1 + 33 .ii. x c1 .U.xc1 +
34 �h2 lt'ig4+ 35 �h3 l:i. h 1 + ! 36 'it'xh 1
lt'ixf2+ ), but after 32 Ji. b5!? h i s position
would have remai ned d ifficu lt i n view of the
i nsecure position of his king and the lack of
cou nterplay.
Only if you sense just how strategically
dangerous Black's position i s ca n you
decide on the compl ications beg i n n ing with
31 . . . b5, which was suggested after the
game by Tig ra n Petrosi a n . After a l l , in this
case you have to reckon with the seemingly
powerfu l .ii. a 5 . However, i n wi n n i n g the
exchange, Wh ite l ifts the blockade on the
d 3-paw n .
31 . . . b5! !
32 �a5
The following variation is i nteresti n g : 32
Ji.xb5 it'b6 33 Ji.a5 'ifxb5 34 Ji.xd8 d2! (not
34 . . . lt'i c6? 35 .i:!.e8; 34 .. Ji'xa6 35 'ii' e4 1eads
to a n un clear position) 35 .i:!.d 1 �b3 36
1 52 � Attacks with opposite-sided Castling

l::txd2 ! (th is sacrifice is forced : 36 'ii f 1 'iid 5 bxa4! 35 �e8 lbxd8 36 .l:!.xd8+ �c7 or 35
is bad for Wh ite , and he has a hopeless .l:!.e6 .lte5.
endgame after 36 'ii b 7+ 'iix b7 37 axb7 .lt b4 33 . . . tLlf3+
with the th reats of 38 . . . lbc6 and 38 . . . lbc4 ) Weaker is 33 . . . bxa4 34 .lta5, when 34 . lbf3+?
. .

38 ... lbf3+ 39 'iixf3 'i!Vxf3 40 l::t x d6 'iif5 ! (the no longer works beca use of 35 'iixf3 ! .
only defence, but a sufficient one, against
34 � h 1 bxa4
the threat of 4 1 .lta5), and Wh ite faces a
fight for a d raw. 35 .tas 3Le5
The active placing of Black's pieces and his
32 . . . 'it'c6 !
strong passed pawn compensate for the
33 .ltxdB sacrificed exchange. A good example of a
Wh ite loses after 33 'ifxc6? lbxc6 34 .ltxd8 timely cou nterattack.
 ttJ 1 53

PART V

Defe n ce

I gor Belov

Practical Exercises in the Taking of difficult

Decisions

M demand a deep penetration i nto the

any moves that we make do not Belov - Va u l i n
Katowice 1 99 1
positio n . It is sufficient to make use of
standard eva lu ation considerations and to
check a few variations. Any yet in nearly
every game there invariably comes a
turning-point (sometimes several), when
the solution is by no means obvious, and
on it depends the entire course and
perhaps the result of the subsequent
play. It is a few such situations, wh ich
occu rred i n my games, that I wish to offer for
you r attentio n . Try i n a restricted time to
solve those problems which I encountered ,
and then we will compare our concl usions.
We will beg i n with a few rel atively (only
rel atively ! ) simple examples, and conclude
with some that a re very complicated , a l most Exercise 1 . W e have a position with an
i rration a l . u n usual material balance . Wh o is playing
for a win? How should Wh ite conti nue?

Rook, knight and pawn a re roughly equ iva­

lent to a queen , but in the positional sense
Black is stronger. Wh ite has noth ing to a i m
a t , whereas t h e opponent is threatening to
create pressu re on the wea k d4-pawn. Here
Wh ite should not try to be too ambitious .
1 54 � Practical Exercises in the Taking of difficult Decisions
The clea rest way was pointed out by l lya
Makariev.
1 i.xd5! cxd5
If 1 . . . exd5, then 2 'i!Vc3 a6 3 l:t e 1 .
2 l:td1 l:tfc8
3 .l:.d3 !
The rook is head ing for c3 . It may even be
possible to seize the in itiative . The side
with the queen should aim for ex­
changes! The power of the queen is
easier to exploit, when it is opposed by
fewer pieces - the chances of breaking
into the opponent's position are im­
proved.
[Instead of 2. . . 1:l.fc8 Black does better to play
2. . . b6, hoping for 3 a6?! b5 followed by
4 . . . r1b6 or 4 . . . b4. But after 3 axb6 :xb 6 4
'iii' c3 followed by 5 l:ta 1 White would seem to
be out of danger - Dvoretsky.]
Peter Svid ler was i ntend ing to bring up his
rook along another route : 2 'ilfb4?! .l:.fc8
(2 . . . I:.fe8 3 h4 i.e? 4 'ii' d 2 and 5 r1c1 ) 3 .l:!.a3.
This is too intricate. Try to put you r plans i nto
effect in the simplest and most rel iable way,
otherwise you risk making some blunder, as
in fact occu rred with Peter: 3 .. Jic4 ! 4 'ii' d 6?
l:td8 .
[If it is clearly realised that the rook must
definitely aim for the c-file, it is even
possible to consider a pawn sacrifice: 2 h4
i.f6 3 .l:!. c 1 ! i.xd4 4 l:tcl. But after 4 . . . b6 or
4 . . . b5 White still has problems, so that the
manoeuvre 11.a 1-d1-d3-c3 is more con­
vincing, in my opinion - Dvoretsky.]
All the rema ining plans a re weaker. For
example, Maxim Boguslavsky suggested 1
'ii'c4 with the threat of 2 a6. Black repl ies
1 . . . a6, and what now? Exchange on d5?
This is il logical - after a l l , Black recaptu res
with gain of tempo. Vasya Emelin conti n ued
the analysis: 2 i.xd5 cxd5 (2 . . . exd5 3 'ilib4
and 4 l:!.e 1 ) 3 'iic7 .Ufc8 4 'ii' d 6 i.f6 5 l:r.d 1 .
Of course, the wh ite q ueen is active , but the
exchange of rooks has had to be deferred .
Black makes a n escape sq uare for h i s king,
and then plays . . . b7-b6 and . . J l b7 .
The i d e a of l n n a Gaponen ko seems ques­
tionable: 1 a6 bxa6 2 'ifc4 . Black's rook
i m med iately comes i nto play on the b-file,
and his bishop endeavours to get to the d4-
pawn and attack f2 .
Unfortunately, at the board I too fa iled to
fig u re out the position . I real ised that I
should a i m for exchanges and I stud ied the
move 1 i.xd 5 . But I did not see the rook
manoeuvre to c3, and considered only
1 . . . cxd5 2 h4 i.f6 3 'ife3 . Then 3 . . . .l:!.bc8!
(with the threat of 4 . . . :tc4) is strong, and if 4
l1c1 Black has 4 . . . i.xd4 ! .
1 l:ta4? i. e 7 1
O f cou rse, Black prevents 2 i. x d 5 a n d 3
l:.b4 . Even now it was not yet too l ate to
captu re on d 5 , but I decided fi rst to occupy
the c-file with my rook.
2 I:.c4? ! lbc7!
Alas, I completely overlooked this simple
move . With the retreat of the knight, Wh ite's
position i mmed iately becomes d ifficult. The
opponent wants to make a concerted attack
on d4. He has more pieces than me, and
therefore the pawn essentially ca n n ot be
defended . All I can hope for a re cha nce
tactica l opportu n ities.
3 'ilid3 Iifd8 4 i.e4 h6 5 'ike3 a6!
Before the knight is moved to b5, the a5-a6
th rust must be prevented .
6 i.c2 i. f6 7 i.a4 lbb5 8 i.xb5 axb5 9 l:r.b4
.U.a8 1 0 'ii'f4 .l:!.d7 1 1 <iii> g 2 .l:.ad8 , and Black
won .
 Practical Exercises in the Taking of d iffi cult Decisions
Kamshon kov - Belov
Podolsk 1 99 1
This was the position a t the adjournment,
with Black having sealed . . . .ia5-c7 ! , wh ich
came as a su rprise to my opponent.
Exercise 2 . Remember the positional prin­
ciples wh ich apply in such situations, and
with their help choose a plan of defence for
Wh ite .
We have a position with opposite-colour
bishops. I t would n o t b e b a d t o exchange
rooks and transpose into a pure bishop
ending, but for the moment, alas, this is not
possible.
When defending an endgame where the
opponent has a material advantage, you
should exchange pa wns. A usefu l ru le.
Are there any other genera l considerations?
Many yea rs ago I attended a lectu re by
Dvoretsky on opposite-colour bishops, and
this gave me a firm g rasp of the m a i n
principles for playing s u c h endings. One of
the ru les formulated by h i m states: 'The
stronger side should keep his pawns on
squares of the colour of the opponent's
bishop; the weaker side should keep his
on squares of the colour of his o wn
bishop '. G u ided by this rule, i n time-trouble
I u n hesitati ngly placed my pawns on l ig ht
t:tJ 1 55
squares (there was a choice: a7/b6 or a6/
b5). But the opponent's pawns on f4 and h2
a re 'wrongly' placed and are therefore
vul nerable. Nevertheless, the drawing ten­
dencies of opposite-colour bishops are
very great, and in analysis I found a forced
d raw for my opponent. But I was hoping that
he would not fi nd it, since he did not know
my sealed move , and the saving path was
not a ltogether obvious.
Diana Darchiya suggests playing 1 .ih3, in
order t o prepa re f4-f5 . Correct! We w il l
either exchange pawns , or force . . . e6-e5,
but then the wh ite f-pawn will be on a
'correct' square , and the black e-pawn on an
' i n correct' square of t h e s ame colour as its
bishop. The chances of a successfu l block­
ade will be improved . I am pleased to note
that one half of the participants in the
com petition assessed the position correctly
and made the same choice .
I w i l l show t h e variation that I fou n d .
1 .i h 3 ! �d8
1 . . . .l:!.d5 2 .ixe6+.
2 f5 e5
3 l:.d2 ! ?
The exchange o f rooks leads b y force to a
d raw. 3 .ig2 is also not bad .
3 . . . �e7
4 llxd6 .ixd6
5 .ig2 �f6
6 .ib7!
It is i mportant for Wh ite that on the
q ueenside too Black's pawns should be on
squares of the colour of h i s bishop. See how
easy it is to make good moves, if you know
this ru le.
6. . . a5
7 .ic6! b4
8 �f3 !
The s i mplest. I a l so a n alysed the sharper
conti n u ation 8 .i e4 �g5 9 �f3 � h4 1 0 f6
h6 1 1 f7 �h 3 1 2 .if5+ �xh2 1 3 .ig4 -
1 56 � Practica l Exercises in the Taking of d iffi cult Decisions

however much I tried , I also fai led to find a vated his forces.
win here. 1 .ll e4? .l:td4 2 <ite3 (2 .ll b 7 ! ? ) 2 . . Jib4 3
8. . . <itg5 :tel h5
8 . . . <itxf5 9 .ll e 4+ and 1 0 .ll x h7. 3 . . . h6 is weaker - the stronger side should
9 <ite4 .ll c 7 not place h i s pawns on squares of the
1 0 .ll d 7 colour of his own bishop. Wh ite's position
The d raw has become obvious. has become d ifficult, becau se his pieces
a re tied to the defence of h i s weak pawns.
The defensive plan which we have analysed Here is it a ppropriate to remember another
consistently carries out one of the ideas i m portant principle. If, apart from the
typical of endings with opposite-colour opposite-colour bishops, there are also
bishops, involving the correct deployment of other pieces on the board, on no account
the pawns. Of cou rse, a practical game is should you remain passive - you must
not a study, and a position ca n sometimes seek counterplay, and fight for the initia­
be approached i n d ifferent ways . But i n any tive at any price.
case accu racy is req u i red , and by no means 4 h3 .ll b6+ 5 <itf3 .ll d4 6 .l:td3 <ite7 7 f5 e5 8
all methods of defending are equally good . .ll d 5 <itf6 9 .ll e 6 a5 1 0 .l:r.d2 e4+ ! 1 1 <ite2 a4
For exa mple, 1 <ite3 is tempting, depriving 1 2 bxa4 bxa4 1 3 .l:tc2 a3 1 4 <itd1 <ite5 1 5
the rook of the d4-square and i ntending after l1e2 e 3 1 6 nc2 <ite4 1 7 <ite2 .l:tb1 Wh ite
1 . . . .1l b6+ 2 <ite2 .l:r.d4? ! to conti nue 3 .l:td2 or resigned .
3 1tc6. But Black has the u npleasant reply
1 . . . .l:td 1 (and if 2 .ll e4 , then 2 . . . .l:te1 + ,
winning a second pawn ). Lempert - Belov
Sasha Chernosvitov and l n na Gaponenko Katowice 1 990
recommend 1 .l:tc5. What for? You want to
attack the h7-pawn? I will happily give it up ,
provided I can get to th e b3-pawn . I reply
1 . . . l:r.d4 2 l:th5 l:txf4 3 l:txh7+ <itd6. Or if 2 f5 ,
then 2 . . . exf5 3 l:txf5 .l:tb4 4 .l:f.f7+ <itd8. After 5
lixh7 l:.xb3 it is not easy to save the game,
but otherwise how does Wh ite avoid being
two pawns down (5 .l:tf3 .ll x h2 ; 5 .ll d 5 .:l.h4 ).
[A good defensive idea was found by
grandmaster Evgeny Bareev: 1 1J.. c3! (with
the threat of 2 :t:!h3) 1 . . . :t:!d4 2 ii.b 7!, for
example, 2 . . it.. xf4 3 ii.xa6 b4 4 :l.d3 with a
.

draw. The same idea can be put into effect

slightly differently: 1 1J.. c5 :Z.d4 2 ii. b 7!. In
connection with this I should like to remind
you of another principle in endings with
opposite-colour bishops: a ttack the enemy
pawns with your bishop - Dvoretsky.]
l lakha Kadymova suggested 1 .ll e4 . This is
what my opponent played , but it did not turn
out well - immediately Black g reatly acti-
Exercise 3 . In whose favou r is this posi­
tion? What would you play as Black?
U nfortunately, two of you did not h ave time to
reach any conclusion. Vova Baklan sug­
gested a move which had not even occu rred
 Practical Exercises in the Taking of d iffi cult Decisions
to me: 1 . . . e3. H is idea looks very d u bious.
Wh ite gains a n obvious advantage, for
example, by 2 fxe3 tt:l e4 3 .l:!.xc8 .l:txc8 4 ..ltg2
or 3 . . . 'ifxc8 4 d6 'it'd? 5 ..ltg2.
All the rest of you found the strongest
possibility.
1 . . . .Jt h 6 !
If t h e strong b i s h o p on f4 c a n be exchanged
without detri ment to Black's position , he will
sta nd better.
But if you analysed only 2 l:!xc8 tt:lxc8 3
'fie? , this reply is only worth three poi nts out
of five . The critical continuation is 2 1ixd6!
'ii' x d6 3 l:txc8 .
I n the event of 3 . . . 'iff8 ? ! 4 .Uc7+ �h8
(4 . . . Ile7 5 d6 J:txc7 6 dxc7 i.xf4 7 l:.d8) 5
i.xh6 'ifxh6 6 d6 Wh ite has the advantage .
3 . . . .Jtxf4! must b e played .
[ There is also a third possibility: 3 . . :ilixf4!!.
In the endgame arising after 4 gxf4 .l:!.xcB, on
his next move Black captures on f4 and
emerges a pawn up. Or if 4 J:txeB there
follows 4 . . .'i!if3! 5 .U e 7+ WhB 6 'IJ. e 1 (the only
move) 6 . . . e3 7 l:::t 1 xe3 .Jtxe3 8 l:!.xe3 'iilxd5,
and it is now White who has to fight for a
draw - Dvoretsky.]
4 .l:::i. x e8
Svid ler reached this position in hi s calcula­
tions and he assessed it i n favou r of Wh ite.
ctJ 1 57
After a move by the bishop this assessment
will be completely correct: the two rooks
combi ned with the dangerous passed d­
pawn a re stronger than the queen . Bad is
4 . . . 'iVd7? 5 gxf4! 'ifxe8 6 d6 'it'd? 7 .Jtc4
followed by 8 i.e6, and Wh ite wins.
Emelin calculated fu rther than a nyone - he
suggested 4 ... .Jtxg 3 ! . If 5 l:::t e 6, then 5 . . . 'ifc5
or 5 . . .1if4 is possible. We must look at 6
fxg3 'i!Vxg3+ 7 ..ltg2 - what h appens here?
7 . . . e3? is anti-positiona l : after 8 .l:::i. f 1 the
black pawns a re blocked . But the recom­
mendation 7 . . . 'ifxb3! is very interesti n g .
Where should the rook move to? Here
B lack's chances a re certa i n ly not worse.
I have to a d m it that I only considered
7 .. .f4 ! ? 8 l:.xe4 f3 9 .Ud2 fxg2 . If 1 0 d6 there
follows 1 0 . . .'ikh3 1 1 .Uxg2 'i!Vd3 1 2 l:te7+
�h6 1 3 l:::t e 6 'iid 4+ with a d raw. White can
try 1 0 l:tee2 ! ? , a i m i ng to keep his rook on the
d-file, but this too is unclear.
We a re now able to make an objective
assessment of the i n itial position . Black
stands worse, but after 1 . . . i.h6! he ca n
hope to save the game.
Let us now see how the game proceeded .
My opponent, almost without thinking, ex­
changed the rooks .
2 l:::t x c8? ! tt:lxc8
3 "ikc7 .l::I d 8
3 . . . l:te7 was also not bad .
4 'IJ.c1 �xf4
5 'ifxf4?!
5 'tlfxd7+ 'IJ.xd7 6 .Uxc8 was safer, and in the
ending with opposite-colour bishops Wh ite
would probably not have lost.
5 . . . tt:ld6
6 'iie 5
Here my opponent offered a d raw, but I de­
cl ined . Black has excellently-placed pawns,
restricting the enemy bishop, and the
' N i mzowitsch knig ht' , blockad ing the passed
d-pawn , is very stro n g .
1 58 � Practical Exercises in the Taking of d ifficult Decisions
6. . . l:te8
7 'ir'd4 l:te7
8 'ir'b6 l:i.f7
9 .ih 3 'it'e7
10 'ir'c5 'ii' e 5
Black has a clear advantage . Unfortunately,
in the su bseq uent play I twice blundered
and th rew away the win.
Yachme n n i k - Belov
Smolensk 1 989
Exercise 4. The opponent's last move
�d3-b5 set me a d ifficult problem: how to
save the pin ned knight on a4 . You Uust as I
had to du ring the game) have to:
a) assess the position ;
b ) fi nd various possibilities for Black and
weigh up the necessary variations;
c) choose the most promising cou rse.
Opinions regarding the assessment varied :
'Wh ite is better' , 'Wh ite is worse', 'equal ity' .
Nearly all of you poi nted out that 1 . . . l:l.xf3 is
bad because of 2 l:l.xa4 ! . [After 2. . . 'f1c3 3
CZJxc3 dxc3 Black retains some positional
compensation for the lost exchange (strong
passed pawn on c3, and two bishops). He
can go in for this position, if nothing better is
found - Dvoretsky.]
M a i n ly it was suggested that 1 . . . d 3 ! ? should
be played , by some - without any analysis.
Many gave the variation 2 l:i.xa4 l:i.xa4 3
il.xa4 dxe2 4 'i:t'xe2 'it'a8. Black wins back
his pawn and gains the advantage .
Svidler analysed 2 lt:Jf4 .ic3 3 l:i.xc3 l!Vxa5.
After 4 .l:Ixa3 'i¥xb5 the e4-pawn is attacked .
[However, by continuing 5 tl.b3, White gains
a great advantage: 5. . . '�c6 6 l£Jd5 or
5. . ."ila6 6 'iVb4. This means that 2. . . Ji.c3 is a
bad move. The sacrifice of two minor pieces
for a rook, suggested by Volodya Baklan, is
better: 2. . . Ji.b2!? 3 l:i.xa4 Ji.xc 1 4 "ikxc 1
r!xa4 5 i.. x a4 'iVa5 followed by 6 . . . il.xe4.
But the strongest continuation was pointed
out by grandmaster Dolmatov: 2 . . . i.. x e4! 3
1J.xa4 l:i.xa4 4 il.xa4 e5, and Black, at any
event, is not worse - Dvoretsky.]
Only Makariev considered 2 lt:'l g 3 ! , but even
he stopped after 2 . . . il.c3! 3 l:txc3 "ikxa5.
[ The pretty counter-stroke 3 . . . 1:Lxa2 would
have led to equality in the event of 4 'ir'xa2?
CZJxc3 5 'i¥ a 1 d2. Unfortunately, it is refuted
by the prosaic 4 .l:l.xa4! .l:l.xd2 5 l£Jxd2 -
Dolmatov.]
I n fact the variation should be contin ued : 4
l:txa3 'i:Vxb5 5 'i¥xd3 'it'xd3 6 l:l.xd3 lt:Jc5 7
:d4 (7 .l::i. e 3 tl.a8 8 a3 ILa4 9 lt:Jd2 is also
possible) 7 . . . l:ta8 8 l:i.c4 !ta5 9 lt:Jd4. After
calculating this fa r, I real ised that I would be
a pawn down in a d ifficult position .
[By playing 9 . . . l£Jxe4, Black regains the
pawn. Then 1 0 CZJxe4 ( 1 0 CLJb3 tl.e5)
1 0. . . i.. xe4 1 1 0.b3 .l:Ie5 1 2 f4 .l:te6 1 3 .l:.cB+
'fi;h 7 1 4 l£Jc5 :c6 15 .l:l.xc6 i.. xc6 1eads to a
drawn endgame. And in the event of 7 l:te3
(instead of 7 .l:Id4) 7. . . 1:I d8! it is very difficult
for White to con vert his material advantage
- the opponent's pieces are really too
active. It can be concluded that 1 . . . d3!?
would have given excellent saving chances
- Yu su pov.]
[On the other hand, by continuing 5 .l:Ixd3
(instead of 5 'if'xd3 ?!) 5. . . l£J c5 6 'f! d4 (or 6
IJ.e3!?) 6. . iV b 1 + 7 lt:Je 1 !, White would retain
.
 Practi cal Exercises in the Tak i ng of difficult Decisions ctJ 1 59

his extra pawn, for which Black has no real convert his advantage. If 6 ti:Jf3 or 6 ti:Jb3
compensation (he loses after 7.. . tbxe4 ? 8 there would h ave followed 6 . . . .l:l.aB, aiming
tbxe4 i.. xe4 9 :r:!.b4). In addition, as grand­ to break through onto the 2nd ran k with the
master Bareev pointed out, instead of the rook.
capture on d3 White also has the interposi­ [After 6 ti:Jb3 fJ.aB?! there is the simple reply
tion 5 1:1b3!, and after 5... "ika6 - not 6 "ikh 6 ?! 7 tt:Jc5. Black does better to try 6 . . . 1Lb2!?,
f6, but simply 6 :r:!xd3 tt:Jc5 7 11d8, retaining a having in mind the variation 7 l:te 1 :taB 8
serious advantage. For example: 7... f6 (cap­ tt:Jc5?! i.. xg2! 9 �xg2 i.. a 3 1 0 i.. c6 .l:tcB. In
turing on e4 loses a piece) B :IxfB+ �xfB 9 the event of 6 ti:Jf3 1:!a8?! White has 7 i.. c6 -
"ilk dB+ �fl 1 0 "ikhB - Dvoretsky.] therefore it makes sense to play 6 . . . 1Lxf3,
Have we taken all the candidate moves i nto spoiling the opponent's pawn structure -
accou nt? Vad i m Zviagi ntsev mentioned Dvoretsky.)
(however, without any a na lysis) 1 . .. ti:Jc3 . 6 tt:Jc6 I:.d2
After 2 l:!.xa3 tt:Jxb5 3 l:tb3 there is no 7 ti:Jc3 i.. xc6
compensation for the lost exchange.
8 i.. x c6 i.. d4
[For my part I should like to suggest one
9 tt:Je4 l:1 b2
more idea: 1 . . . 1Lxe4!? 2 I::. x a4 I!xa4 3 i.. xa4
1 0 I!d1 i.. b6
"i!kaB 4 i.. b 3(d 1) i.. xf3 5 gxf3 "ikxf3. Objec­
tively, the resulting position probably fa­ Threate n i ng 1 1 . . .f5 .
vours White - his passed a-pawn may 1 1 I!d2 lbd2
become extremely dangerous. But for the 1 2 tt:Jxd2
moment he has to worry about his broken
kingside and reckon with the threat of a
black pawn advance in the centre. To be
honest, this continuation seems to me to be
more promising than that which occurred in
the game - Dolmatov.]
After weighing u p the variations, I ca me to
the conclusion that after a normal develop­
ment of events I would most probably lose.
Not wishing to reconcile myself to such a
dismal fate , I conti n ued my search i n g . I n the
end I ma naged to find a surprising chance.
I n principle, Black's position does have
some pluses. For example, the two bishops
and a compact pawn cha i n . The idea of
creating a fortress occu rred to me . . . I a nticipated this position wel l i n advance
1 . . . I:.xa2 ! ? and judged it to be d rawn . The only target
2 'ii' x a2 'ii' x a5 that Wh ite can attack is the f7-pawn . But I
cou l d n 't imagine how two pieces would
3 1i'xa4 'ili'xa4
s i m ulta neously be able to attack it - since
4 i.. x a4 i.. x e4
the approaches to it on the dark sq uares a re
5 ti:Jfxd4 l:td8 g ua rded by my king and bishop. Of cou rse , I
For the sacrificed piece Black has only one was not fu lly confident of a successfu l
pawn . However, it is not so easy for Wh ite to outcome, but I th i n k that from the practical
1 60 � Practical Exercises in the Taking of d ifficult Decisions
point of view the decision was justified . I had
a clear impression of how I would be
outplayed with an extra pawn, whereas I
could not imagine how Wh ite would win
here.
12 . . . i.d4
1 3 <itif1 h5
1 4 <itie2 �g7
1 5 f3 e6
We soon adjou rned the game. Analysis
confi rmed that my assessment of the posi­
tion was correct. I will show you a curious
episode which occu rred d u ring the resump­
tio n .
Wh ite tried 1 f5! ? . After t h e game m y
opponent pointed o u t that even 1 . . exf5 ! ? 2
.
lLlxf7 <itif6 would not h ave left h i m any
chances of success. It has to be said that
the drawi ng tendencies i n herent i n oppo­
site-colour bishops a re exceptionally g reat!
The game conti n uation also led to a d raw:
1 gxf5 2 .lli. b5 .lli. x g5! 3 hxg5 'it>g6 4 'it>f4
...
e5+ ! 5 <itixe5 'iit x g5 6 i.d3 f6+ 7 'it>e6 f4 8
i.e2 'it>h4.
What is the main conclusion that should be
drawn from the exa mple we have just
analysed?
When defending a difficult position, you
should consider the most improbable
resources, trust yourself and boldly
change the character of the play, even
sacrificing material if necessary. The
opponent will most probably cope suc­
cessfully in a s tandard, technical posi­
tion (say, with an extra pa wn). It will be
far harder for him in a situation with an
unusual ma terial balance - here the
probability of a mistake sharply in­
creases.
I ncidentally, by fi nding this d ifficult and
unexpected defensive idea , I not only saved
half a point, but a l so experienced an
enormous emotional l ift, thanks to which I
began win n in g game after game.
Mityaev - Belov
Moscow 1 989
I was close to a win, but when play went i nto
an endgame, I relaxed and completely
forgot that I could be mated . I only woke up
in the position which I am offering for your
attention .
Exercise 5. How to combat f2-f4 ? At fi rst I
thought that things were completely bad ,
but then . . . See if you can fi nd a way of
defending .
Emelin did not fi nd anyth in g better than
1 . .f6 2 f4 lLl d 7 , but he rightly judged Black's
.
position to be d ifficu lt.
 Practical Exercises in the Taking of d iffi cult Deci sions
A clever idea ( i n the spirit o f the p revious
game) was devised by Zviagi ntsev: 1 .. .f5 2
f4 �f7 ! ? 3 fxe5 ..i xe5. But after 4 ..i e 1 I
doubt whether Black has rea l compensation
for the sacrificed piece. Besides, captu ring
the knight is not obligatory - 3 tLl b 5 ! ? is a l so
stro n g .
Serezha Movsesian settled o n 1 . . . �f8 . B u t
this is bad ! Nearly all o f y o u g a v e the
variation 2 tLle4 tLlc4 3 llb3 with adva ntage
to White, and Svidler conti n u ed it: 3 .. Jlb2 4
l:.xb2 ..i xb2 5 ..if6 ! . I don't know whether he
saw the cou nter-stroke 5 . . . tLld2 + , which ,
however, does not change the assessment
of the position .
To me it seemed more natural to play not 2
tLle4 , but 2 tLlb5 (why block the e-file?).
H owever, after 2 . . . tLl c4 3 ..ie7+ �e8
(3 . . . �g8? 4 l::t e 1 ..ie5 5 ..if6 ! with the threat
of 6 tLlxd 6 ! ) 4 tLlxd6+ tLlxd6 5 ..ixd6+ �d7 6
.ita ..id4 7 l:te7+ �dB 8 .l:txf7 �e8 9 llf3
l:txa2 the outcome stil l rem a i ns u nclear.
Apparently the knight move to e4 is never­
theless stronger.
[ To both knight moves Black replies 2. . . :t:!xa2!
3 tLlxd6 l:.a6 4 l:.b3 tLld7. The knight retreat
5 tLl c4 would give an advantage, were it not
for the double attack 5. . . 1:!a4!, while after 5
tLle4 or 5 ..ig3 White has almost nothing.
Instead of 4 ::Z.b3 White can try 4 f4! ? l:.xd6 5
1:1a3! f5 6 .Ua8+ �f7 7 '1hh8. Black plays
7. . . tLlg4, and after 8 :U.xh 7+ �g8 9 .l: g 7+
�h8 he is threatening 1 0. . . tLlxh6 or 1 0. . .
tLle3+ and 1 1 . . . ttJxd5 with equality. In the
event of 8 �e2!? 'J:.xd5?! 9 1J.xh 7+ �g8 1 0
1:!g 7+ �h8 1 1 ..ig5 White still has some
hopes, although the opponent can go into a
rook endgame a pawn down by 8 . . . tLl f6! 9
..ixf6+ �xf6 1 0 1J.xh 7 '1:.xd5 1 1 :r:1 c 7 11d8 1 2
l:.xc5 .l:.h8 1 3 l:.c6+ � f7 1 4 ':c7+ �f6 1 5 h 7
g5. Then neither 1 6 .:. c6+ �g7 1 7 fxg5
:e8+! 18 �f3 �xh 7 nor 1 6 fxg5+ �xg5 1 7
�f3 �g6 1 8 �f4 .l:.a8 lea ves White any real
chances of success.
If this analysis is correct, it can be con-
lZJ 161
eluded that 1 . . .�f8!? 2 tLle4 :t:!xa2! would
allow Black to defend successfully -
Dvoretsky.]
One more possibil ity must be considered .
1 . . . g5!
2 ..ixg5
But what next? Chernosvitov rightly poi nted
out that the exchanging combi nation 2 . . .
l:txf2+ 3 �xf2 tLlg4+ 4 �f3 tLlxe3 5 ..ixe3
..ixc3 leads after 6 ..if4 to a hopeless
endgame for Black.
Most of you restricted you rselves to the
modest 2 .. .f6 3 i. h4 �f7 (3 . . . tLlg6 is
completely bad : 4 tLlb5! tLlxh4 5 .l:!.e8+ �f7 6
tLlxd6+ �g6 7 .:tg8+ ! i.g7 8 hxg7). How
should the resulting position be assessed?
In the opinion of Svidler and Makariev, it is
u nclea r, perh a ps slig htly more pleasant for
Wh ite . Wel l , compared with me you are
g reat optim i sts. I assessed it as hopeless.
Wh ite is a pawn up, and the bishop on h8
has no moves. Let us analyse it i n concrete
terms: 4 tLle4 tLlc4 (5 . . . l:.xa2 6 tLlxd6+ �g6
7 f4 tLlg4 8 l:te8 leads to the loss of a piece)
5 l:.b3? f5 6 :t:!b7+ �g6 - here Black does
indeed acq u i re excellent counter-chances.
7 tLlxd6 tLlxd6 8 :t:! b6 'it> h 5 will not do for
White . But why should he go i n for these
complications? I think that the reply 5 l:.c3 ! ,
suggested b y Dvoretsky, w i l l become a cold
shower for you . After 5 . . . .l:.xc3 (5 . . . tLld2+ 6
�e2) 6 tLlxc3 you will probably regain the
pawn on h6. But how to hold the outside
passed a-pawn and at the same time not
lose the d6-pawn?
Let's look more closely at Wh ite's main
threat f2-f4 . This move may win the game,
but i n itself it is a nti-positional. It seriously
weakens the second ran k , and red uces the
mobility of the wh ite bishop. I s it not possible
somehow to exploit this, and set u p a
counter-attack against the opponent's king?
2 . . . f5 ! ?
3 f4
1 62 \ii Practical Exercises in the Taking of difficult Decisions
[As Bareev pointed out, 3 li:Jb5!? was also
strong. But the attempt to exclude this
possibility by transposing moves: 1 . . . f5 2 f4
g5 did not work in view of 3 fxe5! gxh4 4
exd6 or 3. . . f4 4 1:!e2! - Dvoretsky.]
3 . . . li:Jg 4
r:Jilf7
4 l:te8+
5 l:txh8 li:Je3+
6 r:Jilg1
If Black takes the knight, the outcome is
settled by the far-advanced h-pawn : 6 . . .
I:txc3? 7 l:!.xh7+ r:Jilg6 8 .l:tg7+ r:Jil h 5 9 h 7 . No
better is 6 . . . li:Jg4? 7 llxh7+ r:Jilg6 8 l:tg7+
r:Jilh5 9 li:Jd 1 ! .l:.c1 1 0 r:Jilf1 . Final ly, 5 . . . l:ixc3
(instead of 5 . . . li:Je3+) is also hopeless: 6
.l:.xh7+ r:Jilg8 7 l:lg7+ r:Jilh8 8 Ild7 llc2 9
'it>e1 !? followed by l:!.xd6.
6 . . . r:Jil g6!
Now the main strategic basis of the pawn
sacrifice . . . g6-g5! becomes clear - it is
important to g ive the black king a i r and
enable it to break free.
7 l:tg8+
In the event of 7 li:Jb5!? I was intending to
play 7 . . . .l:!.xg2+ 8 r:Jil h 1 l:txa2 9 li:Jxd6 li:Jxd5
1 0 l:tg8+ 'it> h 5 , and if 1 1 li:Jxf5?, then
11 . . . r:Jilg4! with cou nterplay, since the king
breaks through to h 3 . U nfortu nately, after 1 1
�dB! (Dol matov) or 1 1 ..if6! (Dvoretsky)
Wh ite nevertheless wins.
[It made sense to try 7. . . li:Jg4!. The obvious
reply 8 g3 ? would allow Black to put into
effect a well-known drawing mechanism
with rook + knight by B . . . .l:.d2!! (it is
inaccurate to begin with B . . . li:Jh2? in view of
9 'll e B! followed by 'll e 3). After 9 :ea there
follows 9 . . . 1�d 1 +! 1 0 r:Jilg2 : d2+ 1 1 'it;f1
li:Jh2+! 1 2 r:Jilg 1 li:Jf3+ with perpetual check.
Only 8 r:Jilf1 !! li:Je3+ 9 r:Jile 1 li:Jxg2+ 1 0 'it;f1
li:Je3+ 1 1 r:Jilg 1 would have won. As a result
of this White gets rid of the g2-pawn, the
return of the knight to g4 no longer
threatens mate, and he gains an important
tempo to destroy the drawing mechanism -
Dvoretsky.]
7 . . . r:JilhS
8 li:J b5?
Here the opponent spent some fifteen
m i n utes , but he was u n a ble to come to the
correct decision . Apparently he very much
wanted to keep al l h i s extra material . But if
he wanted to go after the d6-paw n , it wou ld
have been more logical to do this a move
earlier, without d riving the black king for­
wa rd .
I was most afraid of 8 l:tg7, since I did not
see how I could cou nter the power of the h­
pawn. For example: 8 . . . l:txg2+ 9 r:Jil h 1 l:tc2
1 0 l:!.xh7 .:txc3 1 1 lie? r:Jilg4 1 2 h7 'it>g3
( 1 2 . . . r:Jilf3 1 3 .l:l.xe3+ ! ) 1 3 ..i h4+ ! .
[Instead o f 1 1 . . . <J;g4 Black has the more
tenacious 1 1 . . . 1:! c 1 + 1 2 r:Jilh2 li:Jg4+ 1 3 r:Jilg3
l:!.c3+ 14 r:Jilg2 : c2+ 1 5 r:Jilf1 l:.xa2 1 6 h7
l:ta8, when the win still has to be demon­
strated.
Black is not obliged to capture on g2.
B . . . li:Jg4!? suggests itself, for example: 9 g3
(9 <J; f1 li:Je3+) 9 . . . .l:!.xc3 1 0 '!J.xh 7 .l:!. c 1 + 1 1
'it>g2 l:tc2+ 1 2 r:Jilf1 li:Je3+ 1 3 r:Jil g 1 (if 1 3 r:Jil e 1
the same reply follows with even greater
strength) 1 3 . . . <J;g4! 1 4 l:t e 7 r:Jil f3 (threaten­
ing 1 5. . . 1:1 c 1 + 1 6 r:Jilh2 li:J g4 +) 1 5 1:1xe3+
'itt xe3 1 6 h 7 l:tc 1 + 1 7 r:Jilg2 l:t c2+ 1 8 <J;h3
r1c1 with a draw. White nevertheless retains
chances of success, by playing 9 li:Jd 1 ! l:tc1
 Practical Exercises in the Tak i ng of d ifficult Decisions
1 0 cJi;f1 :1xd 1 + 1 1 <J;e2, and if 1 1 . . . :1g 1 ?,
then 1 2 Ji.e 7!, winning - Dvoretsky.)
The king feels a l ittle more comfortable on
the h-file than on the 8th ra nk. The attem pt
to play for mate looks tempti n g : 8 Ji.e7 ! ? . If
8 . . . f1xc3 , then Wh ite d ecides matters with
the q u iet move 9 g 3 ! ! found by Dolmatov,
after which the king ca n no longer escape
from the mating net. This means that Black
has to defend with 8 . . . .l:tc1 + 9 cJi;h2 ltJg4+ 1 0
<J;h3? .l:.xc3+ 1 1 g3 lDf2+ 1 2 �g2 lt:\e4 , or 9
cJi;f2 lt:\g4+ 1 0 cJi;e2 .l:!.xc3 . There is little joy
here , of cou rse , but even so it is possible to
fight o n .
Probably t h e simplest way, and t h e most
u n pleasant one for me, was the win of two
pieces for a rook either in the previous
variation (1 0 f1xg4 with the king o n h2 or f2 ),
or by 8 Ji.f6 ! ? f1c1 + (8 . . . lt:\g4 9 .l:.g5+ cJi;h6
1 0 Ji.g7 mate , or 9 . . . �h4 1 0 l1xf5+ cJi;g3? 1 1
lt:\e4 mate) 9 �f2 lt:\g4+ 1 0 .:!.xg4 'it'xg4 1 1
a4 . White should be able to convert his
advantage , although he still needs to over­
come some tech n ical d ifficulties.
8 . . . lt:\g4
9 g3?! ltJh2?
Black wa nts to set u p the afore-mentioned
drawing mechanism with . . . l:!.d2 and . . . lt:\f3+.
[Here exactly the same motifs operate as
were mentioned earlier. 9 . . . :1d2!! would
have given a draw, while White could have
retained winning chances by choosing 9
cJi;f1 ! lDe3+ 1 0 cJi;e 1 lDxg2+ 1 1 cJi; f1 lDe3+ 1 2
cJi;g 1 <J;g4! 1 3 I1eB! cJi; f3 1 4 .l:!.xe3+ cJi;xe3 1 5
lt:\xd6 Dvoretsky.)
-
Here my opponent used up his last few
m i n utes, since he simply cou ld not fi nd a
forced wi n . I n fact there no longer is one. H e
should probably h ave g o n e i n for the
variation 1 0 iL f6 lDf3+ 1 1 cJi;f1 .l:.d2 1 2 llg5+
lt:\xg5 1 3 fxg5 l:txd5 , i n which accu rate
defence would have been req u i red of Black.
10 .l:.e8? ! <J;g4
1 1 .:!.e3 lDf3+
1 2 <J;f1 ? !
lZJ 1 63
A d raw would h ave resu lted from 1 2 .l:.xf3
<J;xf3 .
The mistakes made by my opponent to­
wards the end of the game a re easily
explained . He thought that his position was
won , and he took the pawn sacrifice . . . g6-
g5 to be sign of desperation . The move
6 . . . <J;g6 ! , compl icati ng the positio n , came
as a su rprise to h i m . In severe ti me-trouble
(wh ich was mutu a l , in cidentally) and under
the psychological effect of the sharp change
of situation , Wh ite loses h i s bearings and
even loses the game.
12 . . . <J;xg3
1 3 l1xf3+ <J;xf3
1 4 �e1 �e3
15 'it'f1 c4! ?
1 6 ltJxd6 <J;f3 ? !
1 7 cJi;e1 c3
1 8 lt:\xf5??
1 8 cJi; d 1 w a s essenti a l , with a probable
d raw.
[Black would still have had to work for the
draw, by playing 1 8. . . :1xa2 (weaker is
1 8. . Jld2+ 1 9 cJi; c 1 .l:.xd5 20 lt:\ c4 �e4 2 1
cJi;c2 �d4 2 2 lDb6! o r 2 0. . . 1J.d4 2 1 lt:\e5+
�e4 22 �c2 l:.d2+ 23 'it'xc3 .:!.xa2 24 lDd7)
1 9 lt:\c4 l:!.a4 20 lt:\ e5+ 'it' e4 2 1 d6 i:! d4+ 22
cJi;c2 1:1xd6. Therefore it made sense to
advance the c-pawn a move earlier: 1 6 . . . c3!
1 7 lDxf5+ cJi;e4 with equality Dvoretsky.)
-
18 . . . .U.c1 mate
The decision taken by Black (1 . . . g5 and
2 . . . f5 ) was , I th in k , the correct one from the
practical point of view, despite the fact that
i n analysis it proved possible to fi nd a
refutation , and not only one. As in the
previous exa mple, I wa nted to d ivert the
opponent from a purely tech n ical cou rse,
a i m i n g at any cost to complicate the position
and create active cou nterplay. The new
situati on , with its mutual attacks and unu­
sual bala nce of materi a l , proved not at all
easy to fig u re out.
1 64 � Practical Exercises in the Taking of d ifficult Decisions
In seeking decisions, don 't restrict your­
self only to an analysis of varia tions.
Often general positional considerations
also come to your aid. I n the g iven
instance I looked to see how I could exploit
the defects of the move f2-f4 , and I also
aimed to release my king from i mprison­
ment.
And now the results of the com petitio n . The
strongest today was Svidler, with Zviagi ntsev
in second place , a n d Emelin th i rd . However,
all of you did q u ite wel l . I hope that the
experience accu mulated in the solving and
d iscussing of the exercises will come in
useful at the board , where it is certai n that
you will consta ntly encou nter equally d iffi­
cult problems.
 ltJ 1 65

M ark Dvoretsky

Virtuoso Defence

W tion of G rigory Sanakoev (the topic of

hen I was studying the g ames col lec­ 4 ttJxd4 tDf6
5 ttJc3 a6
the chapter Thoug hts a bout a book' my 6 Jl.g5 e6
attention was d rawn to the followi ng excep­
7 f4 Jt.e7
tionally tense and fascinating encou nter.
Wh ite b u i lt up a very dangerous attack on 8 'ii'f3 file?
the king , which , it appeared , wou ld i nevita­ 9 0-0-0 ttJbd7
bly ach ieve its goa l . H owever, the oppo­ 10 Jl. d3 b5
nent's cool-headed actions enabled him not 11 .U.he1 Jl. b7
only to parry the i m mediate threats , but 1 2 'ii' g 3 b4
even to seize the i n itiative and i n the end
1 3 ttJd5 exd5
win .
The piece sacrifice has to be accepted -
The colossal complexity of the problems
i ncorrect a re both 1 3 . . . ttJxd5? 1 4 exd5
facing the players is ind icated by the fact
Jt.xd5 1 5 .i.xe 7 (or 1 5 ttJxe6 .i.xe6 1 6 .l:.xe6
that even in play by correspondence they
- G i pslis) 1 5 .. .'�xe7 1 6 lDf5+, and 1 3 . . .
were unable to avoid some errors (true , only
Jt.xd5? 1 4 exd 5 ttJxd5 1 5 i.. x e7 ( 1 5 Jt.e4!?)
a few). As someti mes happens, the sta nd­
1 5 . . . ttJxe7 16 'ifxg7 .l:tf8 1 7 .l:txe6 ! fxe6
ard of play proved sign ificantly higher than
1 8 ttJxe6 (Chudinovskikh-Semenov, USSR
the standard of its analytical i nterpretatio n .
1 974 ).
T h i s is n o t s u rprising: t h e maxi m u m concen­
tration of thought is atta i n ed d u ring play (all 14 e 5 ! ?
the same, whether it be by correspondence The main theoretical conti n u ation is 1 4 exd5
or over the board ) . I was able to correct 'it>d8 with u nclear con seq uences.
some of Sanakoev's comments in a joint 14 . . . dxe5
analysis with g randmaster Vad i m Zviag i n­ lDh5
1 5 fxe5
tsev, and i n th e preparation o f the present
The game Petrushin-Chudi novskikh , USSR
book practically all the key moments in the
1 97 3 , went 1 5 . . . ttJe4? 16 i.. x e4 i.. x g5+ 1 7
game were revised .
'iVxg5 dxe4 1 8 ttJf5 'iVxe5 1 9 tDd6+ �f8 20
'ifxe5 ttJxe5 21 ttJxb7 tlJg4 22 t2Jd6 g6 23 h3
Sanakoev - Maeder tDf6 24 ttJxe4 ttJxe4 25 l:xe4 with a d ifficult
1 Oth World Correspondence endgame for Black.
Championship 1 979-1 984 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 has also been played . Here a re
Sicilian Defence two examples:
1 e4 c5 16 lDf5 Jt.c5 1 7 exf6 1Vxg3 1 8 hxg3 gxf6 1 9
2 lDf3 d6 Jl.f4 ttJe5 2 0 Jt. xe5 fxe5 2 1 l:txe5 .l:tde8 22
3 d4 cxd4 .l:txe8+ .l:txe8 23 .l:t h 1 l:r.h8 24 .l:th6 a5 25
1 66 <;t> Virtuoso Defence
�d2 �b8 26 .l:tf6 J:l.f8 27 .l:.h6 l:lh8 28 .:.f6 Y2-
Y2 (Adams-Levitt, London 1 984 );
16 ltJfS .icS 1 7 lt:'Jxg7 lt:'Je4 18 .ixe4 dxe4
1 9 .ixd8 J:l.xd8 20 e6 'ii'x g3 (20 . . . lt:'Jf8 ! ? was
probably stronger) 21 exd7+ .:.xd7 22 hxg3
11xd 1 + 23 �xd 1 .if2 24 l:r.h 1 e3 25 .l:txh7
.ixg2 26 �e2 .ic6 27 l:th5 .ib5+ 28 l:.xb5
axb5 29 lt:'Jf5 with a won endgame for Wh ite
(Nunn-Kuczynski , Germany 1 995).
16 'ii' h 4
The sharp attempt 1 6 e6?! is i nteresti ng . I n
the opinion o f Vlad i m i r Lepyoshkin , Wh ite
gains the adva ntage after the cautious
16 . . . .ixg5+ 1 7 'ii'x g5 'ilff4+ 1 8 'ii'xf4 lt:'Jxf4
1 9 exd7+ �xd7 20 .if5+ �d6 2 1 g 3 lt:'lg6 22
.ih3 lt:'Je7 23 .:.e3 or 1 7 . . . lt:'ldf6 1 8 exf7+
�xf7 1 9 lt:'Je6 'ilfd6 20 .ie2 g6 2 1 .ixh5
l:r.ae8 22 .ig4 .ic8 23 l:.f1 l:.xe6 24 .ixe6+
'ilfxe6 25 l:.xd5.
The queen sacrifice should be accepted :
1 6 . . . lt:'Jxg3 1 7 exf7+ �xf7 1 8 J:l.xe7+ 'it>g8 1 9
hxg3 'ikxg3 ( 1 9. . .'ike5 20 .if5 ) 20 lt:'Je6 'ii' e S
2 1 l:tf1 . The correspondence game Baluev­
Vadikan ( 1 976), where 1 6 e6 was fi rst
employed , did not last long : 21 . . . lt:'Jc5? 22
.ifS lt:'Je4? (22 . . . lt:'Jxe6 23 .ixe6+ 'ii' x e6 24
l:.xe6 h6 with advantage to Wh ite) 23 .ixe4
dxe4 24 l1f6 ! 'ii'x g5+ 25 lt:'Jxg5 .idS 26 l:txa6
Black resigned . In lnformator it was a nno­
tated by Lepyoshki n , who gave the variation
21 . . . lt:'Jf8 ! ? 22 .if5 .ic8 23 l:le8 �f7 24 J:l.f7+
�g8 25 .:.e8 with a d raw. Later that has how
several 'duels' concluded , in pa rticular
Hellers-De F i rmia n , Biel 1 989. It is a pity
that no one has risked trying 22 . . . g6!? 23
lt:'Jxf8 'ilfxe7 24 .ixe7 gxf5 25 J:l.xf5 with a
position that is d ifficult to assess .
16 . . . .ixgS+
1 7 'ifxg5 g6
1 8 e6
1 8 g4 is weaker, after which Black can play
either 1 8 . . . lt:'Jg7 1 9 e6 lt:'Jcs 20 exf7+ �xf7
(Weigei-Hauernheri n , correspondence 1 977),
or 1 8 . . . h 6 ! ? .
I n t h i s sharp position B l a c k has tried various
conti n u ations:
A) 1 8 . . . lt:'ldf6 1 9 exf7+ �xf7 20 l:tf1 l:te8 2 1
g4 'ii' e S (weaker is 2 1 . . . �g8 22 gxh5 lt:'lxh5
23 .ixg6 with a dangerous attack) 22 'ii' h 6
(22 'ii' h 4!?) 22 . . . lt:'Jg7 23 g5 'ii' e 3+ 24 �b1
'it>g8 25 .ixg6? ! (25 .:.f3 would have
mai nta i n ed equal ity) 25 . . . hxg6 26 'ii' x g6
( Rodriguez Talavera-Nedobora , Seville 1 992)
a n d , by playing 26 . . . lt:'Jg4 ! ? , it would a ppear
that Black could have cla i med an advan­
tage .
B ) 1 8 . . . 'ii'f4+ 1 9 'ii' xf4 lt:'lxf4 20 exd7+ �xd7
21 .:.f1 lt:'Jxd3+ 22 .:.xd3 f5 23 g4 - this was
fi rst played in the correspondence game
Shaka rov-Z h uravlev, 1 976. Later practice
 Virtuoso Defence
showed that the endgame is equal . For
example: 23 . . . l:taf8 24 gxf5 gxf5 25 l:tg3
l:thg8 26 tt'lxf5 l:txg3 27 hxg3 h5 28 'it>d2 a S
(Lechtynsky-Sch m i d , Germany 1 994) .
C ) 1 8 . . . tt'lc5 1 9 exf7 + 'it>xf7 20 .l:i. f 1 + 'it>g8 2 1
tt'lf5 l::!. f8 ( o r 2 1 . . . tt'l e 6 22 tt'l h6+ <i; g ? 23
tt'lf5+ 'it>g8 with a d raw, as i n Luther-P. N iel­
sen , Malmo 2002) 22 tt'le7+ <i;g? 23 ..txg6
tt'le6 24 tt'lf5+ l:txf5 25 'iVxf5 tt'lhf4 26 ..th5
lif8 27 'i¥g4+ 'it> h 8 28 g3 .l:!.c8! 29 .l:!.f2 'il'c5
30 l:lfd2 .l:tg8 (30 . . . tt'lxh5 3 1 1i'xe6 tt'lg7 is of
equal merit - Berelovich-Dvoiris, Hoogeveen
200 1 ) 31 �f5 tt'lxh5 32 �xe6 tt'lg7 with
roughly equal chances ( H akki-DeF i rmian ,
Hamar 1 983).
I n two games from the 1 0th World Corre­
spondence Championship, Karl-Heinz Mae­
der chose another, more risky method of
defence.
18 . . .
0-0 ? !
1 9 exd7 l::!. a d8
20 g4 tt'lg7
Black has noth ing better: after 20 . . . 'ii'f4+ 2 1
�xf4 tt'lxf4 2 2 l:r.e7, 2 0 . . . tt'lf4 2 1 ..tf5
(followed by .l:te7) or 20 . . .f6 2 1 �h4 tt'lg7 22
lie? �f4+ (22 . . . l:r.xd7 23 tt'le6) 23 l:r.d2
'ii'x d4 24 ii. xg6 'ii' x d2+ 25 'it>xd2 hxg6 26 g 5
he is i n trouble.
2 1 ..tf5 ! ?
ttJ 1 67
A tem pti ng move . After defending his d7-
pawn , Wh ite then wants to double heavy
pieces on the h-file. The immediate attempt
to i m plement this attacking set-up is i neffec­
tive: 2 1 'ilfh6 l:txd7 (but not 2 1 . . . 'ikxd7? 22
l:te3 'ii' x g4 23 ..te2! and 24 l:[h3) 22 l:te3
tt'le6, and if 23 .U.h3?! there is 23 .. .'it'f4+,
while 23 ..tf5? is refuted by 23 . . . tt'lxd4 24
l:ixd4 l:ie7 25 I:. h 3 f6 (Sanakoev). A d raw
results from 23 ..txg6 hxg6 24 .:txe6 fxe6 25
'it'xg6+ 'it> h 8 , while the position arising after
23 l1xe6 fxe6 24 tt'lxe6 'ii' d 6 25 tt'lxf8 �xf8
26 'ife3 is merely slig htly more pleasant for
Wh ite .
However, there was another, stronger offen­
sive plan, i nvolvi ng the advance of the h­
pawn. It was employed i n the game Estrin­
Maeder, played i n the same World Corre­
spondence Championsh i p .
21 h 4 ! l:txd7
Wh ite's attacking possibil ities a re il l ustrated
by the following variati o n : 21 . . . 'it'b6 22 h5!
'i¥xd4? ! 23 ..txg6 'it'b6 24 ..txf7 + ! .l:!.xf7 25
.l:te8+ .l:.f8 26 .l:.xf8+ 'it>xf8 27 l:lf1 + 'it>g8 28
"ile7 (th reate n i ng 29 h6) 28 . . . h6 29 g 5 tt'lf5
(29 . . . hxg5 30 h6) 30 �e8+ 'it>g7 3 1 'i!Ve5+
�g8 32 'ii' xf5 'iie 3+ 33 'it> b 1 'ifxg5 34 'i!Ve6+
'it>h8 35 'ii' e 8+ 'ii' g 8 36 'ile7 , and there is no
satisfactory way of parrying the threat of 37
l:te 1 followed by 38 'iif6+ or 38 �xd8.
22 h 5 'ii' d 6 ( 22 . . . 'ii' b 6 ! ? ) 23 �h6 .t e a 24
.l:t h 1 tt'le 8 25 .l:tdf1 .l:.c7 (25 . . . tt'lf6 26 tt'lf5 !
gxf5 27 ..txf5 ) 26 g5 "i/e7 27 tt'lc6! l:txc6 (if
27 . . . 1i'd6 Ya kov Estri n gives 28 hxg6 fxg6
29 :xf8+ 'ilxf8 30 'ifxf8+ 'it>xf8 3 1 tt'lxb4
..tb7 32 ..txa6, when the endgame is
hopeless for Black) 28 hxg6 f6 29 gxf6
l:r.fxf6 (29 . . . tt'lxf6 30 .:!.hg 1 ! .:tea 31 g7 ) 30
llfg 1 ! ..te6 31 gxh7+ 'it> h 8 32 'ilg5! tt'lg7 33
�xg7+ Vxg7 34 .l:txg7, and Wh ite won .
T h e followi ng analysis ( if, o f cou rse, i t i s
correct) shows that after the move i n the
game Wh ite no longer has a n advantage .
B u t t o foresee t h i s is q u ite i m possible even
in a game by correspondence, to say
1 68 � Virtuoso Defence
noth ing of over-the-board play.
21 . . . �c6
Maeder aims to eliminate the da ngerous d7-
pawn as soon as possible. The wh ite bishop
is immune: Black loses q u ickly after both
21 . . . gxf5? 22 lt:Jxf5 , and 21 . . .f6? 22 'i!i'h6
gxf5 23 .l:!.e7 l:.f7 24 l:tde1 .l:!.df8 (24 . . . l:l.xd7
25 .l:!.e8+) 25 .:txf7 'itxf7 (25 . . . .l:!.xf7 26 l:te8+
l:.f8 27 .l:!.xf8+ 'itxf8 28 lt:le6+) 26 lt:lxf5 lt:Jxf5
27 gxf5.
22 .l:!.d3 ! ?
Which rook should b e brought t o h3?
Wh ite's choice looks illogica l , si nce after
22 . . . �xd7 23 'ii' h 6 (or 23 l:th3) the move
23 . . . .l:!.fe8 will be made with gain of tempo:
Wh ite will have to lose time moving his rook
from e 1 . Of cou rse , Sanakoev took this i nto
account, but nevertheless, after delving
deeply into the concrete variations, he
preferred the move in the game. Later he
concluded that his decision was incorrect
and that 22 l:Le3 should have been played . 1
carried out a joint analysis with Vad i m
Zviagi ntsev, after which w e d i sagreed with
the conclusion of the author - i n fact the two
moves are roughly equ ivalent.
Let us examine the position arising after
22 lle3 �xd7.
23 'iVh6 suggests itself. Sanakoev g ives the
following variations:
23 . . . gxf5 24 gxf5 f6 25 llg 1 (but not 25 l:te7
l::tf7 26 lt:le6, as recom mended in the fi rst
edition of Sanakoev's book, because of the
cou nter-stroke 26 . . . lt:lxf5 ! poi nted out by
John N u n n ) 25 . . . llf7 (25 . . . �c8? 26 .l:1h3) 26
lt:le6! �xe6 27 fxe6 lle7 28 l:th3 with a
powerfu l attack;
23 . . . �xf5 24 l:th3 lt:lh5 25 llxh5 gxh5 26
gxf5 'iVxh2 27 lt:lf3 , and Black has to give up
q uee n for rook;
23 . . . .l:.fe8 24 l:t h 3 gxf5 25 'iVxh7+ 'itf8 26
'ii' h 8+ 'ite7 27 'ili'xg7 'iff4+ (after 27 . . . fxg4,
as considered by Sanakoev, the s implest is
28 'ifg 5+) 28 'itb1 fxg4 29 .l:.h6, and the
black king is i n trouble.
The best defence is 23 . . . lt:Je6! (with the idea
of 24 .l:h3? 'iVf4+ ). The wh ite player thought
that 24 lt:Jxe6 (24 �xe6?! fxe6 25 lixe6!
.l:!.de8 26 l:.xg6+ is sufficient only for a d raw)
24 . . . �xe6 25 i.. x g6 fxg6 26 I!xe6 'ii'f4+ 27
'ifxf4 .l:!.xf4 would lead to an equal endgame
( i ncidentally, after 26 .. J:H2 ! 27 :Id2 .:tf1 + 28
�d 1 l:ixd 1 + 29 'it>xd 1 Black's position is
even to be preferred , since the enemy king
ca n no longer feel secure).
Later Sanakoev real ised that the simple 25
l:.h3 wou ld g u a rantee h i m a very strong
attack, for example: 25 . . . .l:!.fe8 26 'i!i'xh7+
'it>f8 27 'ikh6+ 'ite7 28 'iig 5+ etc.
However, this entire variation is of no
i mporta n ce , since it is based on the errone­
ous assu mption that after 24 . . .fxe6 ( i n stead
of 24 . . . �xe6?) 25 �xg6 Wh ite wins. Noth­
ing of the sort! - the obvious 25 . . . � c8 26
l:r.h3 l:td7 parries the opponent's attack.
Thus the exchange on e6 does not g ive
Wh ite any advantage. Sanakoev wa nted to
play 24 .l:lf1 , having i n mind the w in n ing
variations 24 . . . lt:Jxd4 25 l:. h 3 .l:tfe8 26 i.. x g6
or 24 . . . llfe8 25 lt:Jxe6 (25 .l:I h 3 ! ? ) 25 . . . i.. xe6
26 .l:th3. Alas, there is a refutation : 24 . . .'i!fc4 ! ,
and t h e rook on f 1 is h a n g i n g . B u t with the
wh ite rook on d3 the q ueen move could be
met by b2-b3 - this is why Sanakoev played
22 .l:!.d3.
 Virtuoso Defence
The attempt to transpose moves by playing
23 .l:r.h3 (instead of 23 'it'h6) is interesting . If
now 23 . . . lbe6? , then 24 lbxe6, and if
24 . . .fxe6 not even 2 5 �xg6 'ii'f4+ 26 'ifxf4
�xf4 , but 25 !Ixh 7 ! . The sad conseq uences
for Black of the variation 24 . . . i.xe6 2 5 'ii' h 6
are a l ready known to u s .
Wh ite reta i n s the advantage i n the event of
23 . . . h5?! 24 i.xd7 'ifxd7 25 �h4.
However, with the rook on h3 Black can
accept the piece sacrifice : 23 .. .f6! 24 �h6
gxf5 (or 23 . . . gxf5 24 'ii' h 6 f6 ! ) . The point is
that if 25 gxf5 there is the simple reply
25 . . . .1i.. xf5 , while after 25 'ii'x h7+ �f7 the
black queen acq u i res the i mportant f4-
sq uare : 26 gxf5 (26 . . . .l:!.h8 was threatened)
26 . . . 'ii'f4+ 27 � b 1 ii.. xf5 . Even after the
comparatively best 2 5 .l:.f1 ir'e5 ! ? o r
25 .. .'i!Vc4 ! ? th e compensation for the sacri­
ficed piece is clearly i nsufficient.
22 . . . �xd7
23 'it'h6 l:!.fe8
Black develops h i s rook with g a i n of tempo,
although here too 23 . . . lbe6 ! ? came i nto
consideration . 24 .Uh3? 'iff4+ is hopeless
for Wh ite , as is 24 l:i.f1 ? ! 'ife5! (24 .. .'i!Vc4 ! ? is
also possible, si nce 25 b3 �c5 26 ll h 3 will
be met by 26 . . . lbg5!). The reg a i ni ng of the
pawn by repeated captu res on e6 gives
Black the in itiative .
The critical variation is 24 lbxe6 fxe6
(24 . . . i.xe6? 25 .l:. h 3 ) 25 .l:. h 3 ! i.c8 26
i.xg6. A similar position a rose after 22 .l:.e3,
but there the wh ite rook stood at d 1 . It is
better placed at e 1 , as is mainly seen i n the
variation 26 .. .J::I d 7? 27 l:!.xe6 l:Ig7 28 .1i.. x h7+
l:Ixh7 29 .l:.g6 + . Black is forced to reply
26 . . . �f4+ 27 ir'xf4 l:!.xf4 28 �xh7+ 'it>g7 -
here there is some adva ntage (although it is
probably only slig ht) on the side of Wh ite .
24 .l:!.f1 !
ttJ 1 69
What should Black do now? 25 .l:r. h 3 is
threatened , and the captu re on f5 allows the
opponent to develop a mating attack
(24 . . . gxf5? 25 gxf5 f6 25 l:Ig 1 ).
If 24 . . .'iWe5 Sanakoev had prepared a
complicated combi nation : 25 .U h 3 ! 'iVxd4 26
ii.. x g6 ii.. e 6! 27 ii.. x h7+ Wf8 28 .l:.d3 'ti'e5
(28 .. .'ikc4 ! ? comes into consideration; how­
ever, this resou rce ca n be excl uded by
tra n sposing moves: 27 .l:.d3 ! , when 27 . . .
'W!Vc4? 2 8 'it'xh7+ Wf8 2 9 i.xf7 i.xf7 30
'ifh8+ rt!;e7 31 '*ixg7 is bad for Black) 29
.l:te3 'it'd4 30 ii.. f5 .l:.d6 31 .l:td 1 'it'c5 32 .Mee 1
followed by 33 �h8+, and Wh ite regains the
piece , achieving a decisive advantage (32
llde 1 is even more energetic).
The defence can be improved by 30 . . . 'it>e7!
( i n stead of 30 . . . .l:.d6?) with chances for both
sides.
Wh ite ca n try 30 i.g6 (instead of 30 �f5). If
30 . . . .l:.d7 it is s i mplest to defend the g-pawn
by 31 h 3 ! , when it is un clear what Black
should do. H owever, it is not apparent how
30 .. .'iVxg4! ca n be refuted . For example, 3 1
�xf7 'it'g2 ! 3 2 .l:!.ef3 i.xf7 33 '*ih8+ 'it>e7 34
.l:!.xf7+ �d6 35 'it'xg7 'ii' x g7 36 l:txg7 .l:te2
leads to a double rook endgame, wh ich is
most probably d rawn . 3 1 .l:!.g3 'W!Vd4 or 31
.l:tef3 .l:td7 is also u n convincing (but not
3 1 . . . <j;; e 7? 32 l:!.xf7+ i.xf7 33 �xf7+ rt!;d6 34
i.f5+ .Me6 35 'ifxe6+ lbxe6 36 �xg4 with a
big adva ntage).
1 70 � Virtuoso Defence
Even so, in these variations Black's position
looks shaky, and it is dangerous to go i n for
such play - one would l i ke to fi nd someth ing
rather more safe .
I suggest playing 2 4 . . .'ii' c4 ! . Sanakoev
writes that after this 'I could simply reply 25
b3 and continue the attack in comfort. ' Alas,
after 25 .. .'�c5 to attack ' i n comfort' does not
prove possible, since 26 .Uh3?? no longer
works in view of 26 . . .'ti'xd4 27 'ii'x h7+ 'it>f8
(threatening an extremely un pleasant check
at a1 ). I n the variation 26 .ixd7 .l:txd7 27
.l:f.h3 'ii'x d4 28 'i!Vxh7+ 'it>f8 29 'ii' h 8+ 'it>e7 30
.l:te1 + 'ioti>d6 3 1 .l:txe8 'i!Vg 1 + ! 32 'ioti>b2 lLlxe8
33 'ii'x e8 'ii' d 4+ Black is g ua ra nteed a d raw.
And after 26 .ixg6 he can reply either
26 . . . hxg6 27 .l:th3 f6 28 'ii' h 7+ 'it>f7 29 .l:th6
'ii'x d4 30 'ii'x g6+ 'it>g8 with a d raw, or
26 .. .fxg6 27 l:.h3 lLlh5 28 l:lxh5 .:!.e7! with a n
unclear position .
Maeder preferred a completely d ifferent
method of defence.
24 . . . b3?!
An unexpected reply! Any captu re on b3
would seem to have its d rawbacks . If 25
lLlxb3?, then 25 . . . .ib5 26 .l:tc3 'ifxc3 27
bxc3 .ixf1 (Sanakoev considers this posi­
tion to be 'completely unclear', but i n fact
here Black has a big advantage). If 25 axb3
there follows 25 . . . ii'a5 (th reatening not only
26 . . . 'ii' a 1 + , but also 26 .. Jie 1 + ) 26 'it> b 1
.i b 5 , a n d i t is now Wh ite w h o h a s t o g a i n a
draw by 27 .ixg6 ! fxg6 28 l:t h 3 ! .
However, i t is not altogether clear what
Black had in mind in reply to 25 .:!.xb3! 'ii' a 5
26 l:td 1 ! (26 c3 is much weaker, since the
rook is cut off from the king side). I do not
see any satisfactory defence against the
threatened llh3, for example: 26 . . . gxf5 27
gxf5 f6 28 .l:!.h3, 26 .. .'ii x a2 27 .U.h3, or
26 . . .lLle6 27 lLlxe6 .ixe6 28 .l:!.h3 'i!Vxa2 29
.ixg6!.
I n Sanakoev's ga mes col lection and i n
previous editions o f m y book, Black's last
move was awarded two exclamation marks.
It was only when the present edition was
being prepared for publ ication that I d iscov­
ered both the refutation of Maeder's idea,
and the defensive improvement 24 . . . 'i!Vc4 ! .
25 l:th3?
A bol d , but objectively in correct decision !
Sanakoev tries to break through i m medi­
ately on the h-fil e, but at a high price: the
black pawn i s now on the threshold of
q uee n i n g . However, subsequently it may
stil l be possible to stop it, by playing .l:f.a3 or
lLlb3 .
25 . . . bxa2
26 'ii' x h7+ 'it>f8
27 'ii' h 8+
I n the event of 27 l:.a3 Black would have
gai ned a n advantage with the spectacular
27 . . . I!.e1 + ! 28 l::! x e 1 'iff4+ 29 'it>d 1 'ii' x d4+
30 'it> c 1 l:l.c8! (th reate n i ng 31 . . . l:xc2 + ! ) 3 1
'i¥h6 + 'it>g8 32 'ii' e 3 'ii' c4 or 3 1 l:. xa2 .ixf5
32 'it> b 1 Itxc2 33 'it>a 1 l:te2 .
27 . . . 'ioti>e7
28 'ii' h 4+
Sanakoev had a i med for this position . If
28 . . . 'ioti>d6 he was i ntending to reply simply
29 .l:t a 3, stopping the pawn and reta i n i n g a
strong attack.
The king move to f8 did not concern h i m , if
only because if Wh ite wishes h e can satisfy
 Virtuoso Defence ttJ 1 71

h imself with a repetition of moves (28 . . . 'it>f8 or 34 . . . tt:ih5? 35 gxh5 .l:tc8 36 .l:tf3) 35 i.d3
29 ifh8+ 'it>e7 30 ifh4 + ). He can a l so .l:i.xd 3+ 36 'it>xd3 �g8 with approximate
consider 29 li'f6 ! ? a 1 �+ 30 'iit d 2 . However, equal ity.
here with correct play the game should Alas, Black has available a much sounder
conclude with the same result: defence , secu ring him the advantage.
A) 30 . . . li'f4+? is i ncorrect: 31 Itxf4 'i!Ve 1 + 32 28 . . . f6!
'it>d3 'ii' d 1 + 33 'it>c3 l:tc8+ 34 'it>b3, and after 29 .U.e3+
movi ng along the 3rd ra nk the king h ides
N ow, i n Sanakoev's opinion, Black loses
from the checks at a2 (Sanakoev). Noth ing
after both 29 . . . 'iit f7? 30 i.xg6+ and 29 . . . �f8
is changed by 32 . . . i.f5+ ( i n the hope of 33
30 i.xg6! . However, the second variation
gxf5? tt:ihS or 33 Itxf5?! 'ii' d 1 + 34 'it>c3
must be continued : 30 . . . a 1 'iV+ 31 �d2
'ife 1 + 35 'it>b3 �b8+ 36 'it>a2 'i&'a5+ 37 Ita3
'it'ca5+ 32 c3 iixb2+ 33 tt:ic2 'i!Vxc2 + ! 34
'iVc7 ) 33 tt:ixf5 ! 'i:Vd 1 + 34 'it>c3 etc.
i.xc2 f5 ! 35 i.xf5 i.xf5 36 'i!Vh8+ �f7 37
B) In Sanakoev's opinion , 30 . . . iVaa5+ loses Itxf5+ tt:ixf5 38 �h5+ �g7 39 'it'g5+ 'it>f7 40
to 31 c3 tt:ih5 32 l:txh5 gxh5 33 iih6+ 'it>e7 'iWxfS+ 'it>g7 41 "i!VgS+ 'it>f7 42 'iVhS+ (there is
34 � e 1 + i.e6 35 i.xe6 �xh2+ 36 l:te2 no mate after 42 Itf3+ 'it>e6) 42 . . . 'it>g7 43
�xe2+ 37 �xe2 .l:i.d6 38 tt:if5+ 'it>d8 39 Itxe8 'i'a2+ 44 'it>e3 .U.xe8 45 �xe8 �xh2,
tt:ixd6 l:txe6+ 40 "t!Vxe6 fxe6 41 tt:i b7+ with a and the result is a d rawn queen endgame.
won ending for Wh ite . I n fact, the eval u ation H owever, B lack is no longer satisfied with a
of the endgame after 41 . . . 'it>c7 42 tt:ixa5 d raw.
hxg4 43 'iit f2 is sti ll not altogether obvious, 29 . . . tt:ie6 ! !
but this is immateri a l , si nce i n stead of 39
29 . . . i.e6 was weaker - i n the variation
tt:ixd6 Wh ite wins far more simply by 39
which occu rred i n the game 30 tt:ib3 'iVc4 3 1
'ti'f6+! 'it>c7 40 'ti'xf7+ �b8 41 tt:ixd 6 . O n the
i. d 3 'i!Vxb3+ 3 2 'it'xf6+ the knight on g7
other h a n d , Black is by no means bou nd to
would be vul nerable.
place his rook on d6, where it is i m mediately
lost - 37 . . . Itb8! is stronger, when Wh ite , 30 tt:i b3
apparently, has no advantage. Besides, No combin ations a re appa rent, and there­
Black can play d ifferently on the 35th move . fore Wh ite has to retreat.
True, 35 . . . .l::i. d 6? does not work i n view of 36 30 . . . 'ii' c4! ?
.tc8 + ! (with the idea of g iving mate in the A good move , but b y n o means Black's only
variation 36 . . . �d8 37 l:txe8+ 'it>xe8 38 option . 30 . . . .U.h8 31 'iVe 1 gxf5 32 gxf5 Itxh2
'iVh8+ ctJe7 39 tt:if5 mate) 36 . . . .U.e6 37 .txe6 was very stro n g , for example, 33 l':.xe6+
'iit d 8 38 1i'g5+ .l:te7 39 l:te5. H owever, the �f7 ! 34 Ite 7 + ctJf8 35 l:te2 l:t b8 ! ? , or 33 .U.c3
simple 35 .. .fxe6! ? forces Wh ite to be satis­ 'it'as 34 'it'a 1 d4.
fied with perpetual check: 36 'iVxe6+ (36 3 1 i.d3 li'xb3
.U.xe6+? 'iit d 7) 36 . . . 'iit f8 37 .l:i.f1 + '.tg7 38
32 'it'xf6+ �d6
tt:if5+ 'lit h 7 39 'il'h6+ 'it>g8 40 'ifg6+ 'iit h 8 .
33 'ii' e S+ 'liteS
C ) 30 . . .'it'ca5+ 3 1 c 3 'i!Vxb2+ (perpetual
34 cxb3 a1 'it'+
check results from 3 1 . . . 'it>g8 ! ? 32 i.xg6!
'ii'x b2+ 33 i.c2 i.e6 34 tt:ixe6 'iVxc2 + ! ) 32 35 'iit c 2 li'as
i.c2 'ir'bxc3+ 33 l:txc3 .Ue7 (here Sanakoev 36 i.xg6 .l:I.f8
termi nated his analysis, thinking that i n this 37 l:tf7
way Wh ite's attack was refuted ) 34 li'h4!
.l:te3 ! ! (Black loses after 34 . . . 'it>g8? 35 'iVxe7 (see diagram)
1 72 � Virtuoso Defence
At this point Wh ite was stil l feeling opti mis­
tic. His pieces are active , and the oppo­
nent's material advantage is not too g reat.
However, analysis shows that, i n a l most all
of the conti n uations ava ilable to Black, a
d raw is the l i m it of Wh ite's d reams, and i n
some cases i t is difficult t o ach ieve .
An interesting d rawi ng variation was sug­
gested by Zviagi ntsev: 37 .. .<itt b6 38 'ii' d 6+
�c6 39 'ii' x e6 .l:tde8! 40 'ii' d 6! (40 l:txf8?
l::tx e6 4 1 l:.xe6 'ilfc5 + ; 40 l:te7? l:lf2+ 4 1
'itt b 1 l:.f1 + 4 2 <itt c2 'ifc5+) 4 0 . . . l:txf7 4 1 l:.xe8
l:.f2+ 42 <itt b 1 .l:.f1 + 43 <itt c2 l:tf2 + .
After 37 . . . l:lxf7 3 8 �xf7 tt::l c 5 ( 3 8 . . . tt::l c 7? is
bad : 39 'ii'f6+ 'itt b 7 40 'ii'x d8 'ilfc5+ 4 1 l:.c3)
39 i.xd5+ 'itt b 6 Sanakoev was plan n i ng 40
'ii'd 6+ 'itt a 7 4 1 b4 (4 1 l:te7 is better)
41 . . . 'i!Va4+ 42 i.b3 tt::l x b3 43 'ii' c 7+ r;i;>a8 44
'i!Vxd8+ . However, instead of the losing
42 . . . tt::l x b3?? Black ach ieves the opposite
result with the simple 42 . . . 'ii'x b4 (threaten­
ing 43 . . . �f5+) 43 'ii' c 7+ tt::l b7. Wh ite has to
play d ifferently: 40 'iff6+ 'itt a 7 41 b4 'ii' a 4+
(4 1 . . . �a4+? 42 b3) 42 <itt c3 'ii' d 1 ! 43 bxc5
'ilfc 1 + 44 'itt d 4 'ili'xb2+ 45 l:.c3 'ii'd 2+ 46 .l::!. d 3
'ii' b 2+ with perpetua l check.
In the event of 37 . . . l:.de8 Wh ite must aim for
a draw by 38 .l:Ic3+ tt::l c 5 39 'iid 4 .l:le2+ 40
'itt b 1 . Sanakoev's recommendation is sig­
n ificantly weaker: 38 Wf6 'ii'd 8!? (38 . . . 'ii' b4! ? )
39 .l:txe6+? (Wh ite is a l s o worse after 3 9
'ifc3+ r;i;>b7) 39 . . .ll xe6 40 'ii' c 3+ i n view of
40 . . . r;i;>b7 4 1 'ii' b 4+ l:.b6 42 'ii' xf8 (42 l:.xf8
'ii' c 7+ 43 'ii' c 3 l:tc6) 42 . . . 'i!i'xf8 43 l:.xf8
%:.xg6 .
I think that Black would have retai ned a
sign ifica nt advantage by conti n u i n g 37 . . .
'ifb4 ! ? . Maeder found another, also very
strong conti n u ation .
37 . . . tt::l c 7 1 1
The rook o n f8 i s i n d i rectly defended : 38
'ii'f6+ 'itt b 7 39 l:!.xf8 'i!Vc5 + . Wh ite m ust fi nally
forget a bout any ambitious plans and begin
fighting for a d raw, although it is now unclear
how to attai n it.
38 'ii' e 7 l:.g8!
Perpetual check resu lts from 38 . . . l:.fe8 39
.l:lf6+ 'itt b7 40 i.xe8 %:txe8 4 1 Wxd7 l:!.xe3 42
'ilfc6+ 'itt b 8 (42 . . . <itt a7?? 43 b4 ! ) 43 l:.f8+
'itt a 7 44 .l:tf7 (44 b4? 'ii' b 6) 44 . . . .l:Le2+ 45
'itt b 1 'i!Ve 1 + (45 . . . .l:te 1 + ) 46 <itt a 2 'ii' a 5+. The
outcome is the same after 38 . . . d4 39 l!e5
.l:txf7 (of cou rse, not 39 . . . tt::l d 5? 40 l:txd5 ! ) 40
�e4 + ! ? (40 �xf7 d3+ 4 1 'itt b 1 tt::l b5)
40 . . . tt::l d 5 4 1 'iixf7 d3+!? 42 'itt b 1 (42 'it>xd3
�xg4) 42 . . . 'ii' e 1 + 43 'iii> a2 'ii' a 5+. A roughly
equal position is reached after 38 .. Jhf7 39
i.xf7 (39 .l:lc3+?? 'ili'xc3 + ) 39 . . . tt::l b5 40
'ii'f6+ , when Black has to g ive up his d5-
pawn .
However, it would appear that 38 . . . l:th8!?
was not i nferior to the move i n the game: if
39 b4 there follows not 39 . . . .ll x h2+? 40 'it>b3
'i!Va 1 ! 41 l:tc3+ r;i;>b7 42 l:.xc7+ r;i;>xc7 43
'iik c 5+ with a d raw, but 39 .. .'�a4+! 40 'itt b 1
'ii' d 1 + 41 r;i;>a2 r;i;>b7.
39 b4 'i!i'a4+
In the event of 39 . . . 'ii' b 5? 40 �f5 the sharp
skirmish would have ended i n a draw:
40 . . . �xf5+ 41 gxf5 'ii' c4+ (or 41 . . . 'i!i'a4+ 42
.l:r.b3! lig2+ 43 'iii> b 1 l:!.g 1 + 44 r;i;>c2 ) 42 .:Ic3
l:tg2+ 43 'it'd 1 l:tg 1 + 44 r;i;>d2 .l:tg2+ with
perpetual check ( not 45 r;i;> e 1 ? l:.e8).
40 r;i;>d2 r;i;>b7
41 �f5
 Virtuoso Defence
A bad sign for Wh ite : he is forced to
exchange pieces . But after 4 1 .l:.f6? (with
the threat of 42 lta3) 41 . . . �xg4! it is now h i s
k i n g that comes under attack.
It is more d ifficult to evaluate 41 .l:!.c3 l::t g e8 ! ?
42 'i¥c5 ( b u t n o t 42 'iid 6? .l:!.e2 + ! 43 �xe2
..txg4+ 44 �f2 .l:.xd6 45 .l:!.cxc7+ �b8! 46
l::t b 7+ � c8 47 .l:!.a7 'ii c6 ) 42 . . . 'ii c6 . In the
event of 43 'iif2 a d raw resu lts from
43 . . . 'iix g6? 44 :xc7+ �xc7 45 'ii a 7+ , but
Black ca n choose between 43 . . . 'ii' d 6 ! ? and
43 .. .'ir'b6! ? 44 'i1Vxb6+ 'it>xb6 45 l:txd7 ltxd7
46 .l:lxc7 � xc7 47 �xe8 .U.h7 48 �h5 'it>d6 -
with a big advantage i n both cases.
43 h4!? is more p romising for Wh ite . In turn ,
Black's play ca n b e imp roved : 4 1 . . .'ii' b5!
(instead of 4 1 . . . l:r.ge8) 42 'ii' e 5 (42 'ii' d 6
'ii b 6) 42 . . . 'ii' b6 43 .l:.f6 lL!e6 , and the
advantage remains on his side.
41 . . . l:.ge8
42 'ii' d 6
42 . . . 'ii' c 6!
Not 42 . . ..l:.xe3? 43 l:.xd 7 ! or 42 . . . 'ii' d 1 +? 43
�xd 1 �a4+ 44 b3 l:txd6 45 l:.h3! �b5 46
l:.hh7 ltc6 47 � d 7 .
43 'i¥xc6+
43 'ii' x d7? .l:!.xd7 44 �xd7 did not work i n
view o f 4 4 . . . 'ii' h6! 45 �xe8 d4 .
43 . . . �xc6!
tD 1 73
With the rooks on (43 . . . ..txc6?! 44 h4) the
position would become un clear - Wh ite's
passed pawns a re rather dangerous. I n
order t o neutral ise the m , i t is important
a bove all to exchange the strong wh ite
bishop, which expla i n s the captu re on c6
with the king . It is true that the opponent
gains the opportun ity to reg a i n part of the
material deficit, but the position is sign ifi­
cantly simplified , and all the same Black's
position remain s sufficient for a win .
44 :c3+ �d6
45 l:.f6+ �e5!
46 l:.xc7 �xf6
47 l:xd7
In the event of 47 �xd7 l:th8 Black soon
creates a decisive attack by the u n ited
efforts of h i s two rooks and king .
47 . . . .l:.xd7
48 �xd7 lth8
49 h3 �e51
The king must stay i n the centre , while the
rook itself deals with the kingside pawns . If
49 . . . �g5? there cou ld h ave followed 50 b5
axb5 51 �d3 l::t x h3+ 52 �d4 J:lb3 (52 . . . b4
53 �a4 .l:!.h 1 54 �xd5 .l:!.c1 55 �b5 with the
idea of 56 .i. c4 ) 53 �xd5 l:txb2 (53 . . . l:Id3+
54 'it>c6 b4 55 .i.e6) 54 �c5 b4 55 �a4 and
56 � c4 with a d raw.
50 g5 l:tg8
5 1 h4 l:th8
1 74 � Virtuoso Defence
52 g6
I n one way or another Wh ite m ust exchange
the queenside pawns . The i m med iate 52 b5
is refuted by 52 .. .'lti>d6! 53 bxa6 (what else?)
53 . . . 'it>xd7 54 a? l:ta8! - the rook e l i m i n ates
the a-pawn , while the king stops the passed
pawns on the kingside.
I ncidentally, another, less successfu l a lloca­
tion of the roles of the black pieces
54 . . . 'it>c7?! 55 h5 'it>b7 56 h6 cJ!;xa7 57 'it>e3
cJi;b6 is also good enough to win :
58 'lt>f4 d4;
58 b4 'it>c6 59 cJi;f4 'it>d6 60 'it>f5 'it>e 7 (but not
60 . . . d4? 6 1 g6);
58 'it>d4 cJi;c6 59 b4 (in the event of 59 cJi;e5
Black wins by both 59 . . . 'it>d7 60 b4 'lt>e7 6 1
'it>xd5 llg8, a n d 5 9 . . . .U.e8+ 6 0 'it>f6 d4)
59 . . . 'it>d6 60 b5 cJi;e6 6 1 b6 l:td8 ! ! 62 h 7 'it>f7
63 h8'ii' l:.xh8 64 'it>xd5 'lt>e7 65 'it>c6 llc8 + ! .
52 . . . l:txh4
53 b5 axb5
54 i.. x b5 'it>d4!
The most accu rate - the king supports the
advance of the d-pawn . The conseq uences
of 54 . . . l:tb4 55 i.. d3 (55 i.. e 8) 55 . . . llxb2+ 56
'it>e3 l:tg2 57 'lti>f3 a re less clear.
55 cJi;c2
In the variation 55 i.. e 8 l:th2+ 56 'it>c1 (56
'it>e1 'it>e3 57 'it>f1 'it>f3 ! ) 56 . . . .l:tg2 (56 . . . 'it>e3?
57 g7! lig2 58 i.. f7 ; 56 . . . 'it>d3!?) 57 i.. f7
cJi;e4 58 b4 d4 59 b5 d3 60 b6 cJi;d4 (or
60 . . . 'it>e3) Black wins, as is usually the case
in the endgame, by one tempo.
55 . . . l:lg4
56 i.. e 8 'it>e3
57 b4 d4
Of cou rse, not 57 .. J:txb4?? 58 i.. f7 .
58 g7 l:lxg7
59 '1t>b3 l:tg5
A good move , although not essenti a l . The
i mmed iate 59 . . . d3 was possible, for exa m­
ple, 60 i.. h5 l:!.g5 6 1 ..ltd 1 �g1 62 i.. h5 l:t h 1
(62 . . . d 2 also wins) 6 3 i.. g 4 'it>f4 .
6 0 'it>c4 d3
61 i.. a 4 d2
62 i.. b3 l:tg1
63 b5 l:.c1 +!
Of cou rse, not 63 . . . d1 'ii' ? ? 64 i.. xd 1 ll.xd 1
65 b6 with a d raw.
64 'it>d5 llb1
Wh ite resigned .
Let us sum u p . I n playing for a win both
players wi l l i ngly took great risks. From the
ope n i ng Wh ite did not g a i n any adva ntage,
but Black's d u bious castl in g on the 1 8th
move put h i m in an extremely da ngerous
positio n . He com m itted a nother error by
being tempted by the spectacular 24 . . . b3?!
i n stead of reta i n i n g the bal an ce with
24 . . .'i!i'c4 ! . Sanakoev also went wrong twice:
on the 2 1 st move he did not choose the
strongest plan of attack, and on the 25th he
played too stra ig ht-forwardly for mate , miss­
ing a q u iet way of refuting h i s opponent's
idea. Later Black defended accu rately and
at no point did he let his adva ntage slip. On
the whole, the qual ity of the play (taking into
acco u nt the i rrational natu re of the very
sharp situation which a rose in the game)
ca n be assessed as very h i g h .
' I have played about 300 games b y corre­
spondence, the majority of which I have
won, but few of these victories brought me
such creative satisfaction as this unsuc­
cessful attack. The excitement of the crea­
tive process took such a hold on me, that at
some point the actual result became not so
important - creativity came to the fore . . .
'Hea ven knows, in this game I did every­
thing in my powers. My opponent played
better - all praise to the winner! But I
conducted the attack without heed for the
circumstances, and in the end a person is
responsible for his actions, but not for their
result . . . Of course, it was crazy to allow the
black pawn to reach a2, but "he who has
never done anything reckless is less wise
 Virtuoso Defence
than he thinks " (La Rochefoucauld). Is
creative pleasure really worth less than
pitiful half points or even a whole point? And
has not Caissa repaid me one hundredfold
for that glorious recklessness, which I
permitted myself not only in this game, but
also others, which did not end so sadly?'
(Sanakoev)
When I was analysing this g a me I cou l d n 't
help rememberin g a colourful a rticle by Bent
Larse n , devoted to the same theme (it was
publ ished i n the 1 982 N o . 5 issue of the
Danish magazine Skakbladet and tra n s­
lated i nto Russian by Valery M u ra khveri ).
H ere for the readers is a n extract from the
article.
Rivas Pastor - Mestel
M a rbella 1 982
When I annotated this game for the newspa­
per 'Ekstrabladet', I was under the influence
of analyses by Rivas and under pressure
from the editor Dinesen . . . And I believed
that Black was doomed: 24 . . . gxh 5 ? 25 -.g5;
24 . . . 1Le6? 25 ilg5 i.xd5 26 1Lxg6+ fxg5 2 7
h5, and White wins (according to Rivas,
there can follow 27 . . . 'ikxf6 28 hxg6+ �g8 29
"fikxd5+ <bg7 30 'D. h 7+ �xg6 3 1 'ii h 5 mate ­
this in indeed pretty). I should mention one
instructive feature: the queen on g5 blocks
ltJ 1 75
the g6-pawn (usually this is done by a
pawn).
Possibly Mestel overlooked something here,
since he lost this position in four moves. And
since he thought for a whole hour over his
26th move in an unsuccessful search for a
defence, it is at the given moment, on the
24th move, that the persistent reader should
seek the last hope for Black. We will return
again to the diagram position, but first let us
see what happened in the game.
24 . . . l:eB??
25 'ikg 5 !! .i'ie5
What else ? The threat was i.xg6+ and h4-­
h5.
26 ti:Je7!
26 . . . 'ii gB
The main variation is 26 . . .1:!xg5 27 hxg5
-.xe 7 28 fxe 7 i.e6 29 i. d 1 <bg7 30 i.a4. Or
29 i.e2 and 30 i.b5. Why I also mention
this second possibility, we will see later. The
d 1-a4 diagonal could have been blocked!
Apart from this variation we will also analyse
26 . . . -.f8 2 7 1Lxg6+ <bh8 (27. . . fxg6 28 h5)
28 i. f5 1Lxf5 29 exf5 � h 7 30 ti:Jg8!!.
Perhaps it was this that Mestel overlooked.
However, it is not difficult to see 30 ti:Jg8, if
you think about how White can prevent the
defence 30 . . . 'ikh6.
1 76 � Virtuoso Defence
27 ii.d1 �hB
Or 27 . . . 'fi.xe 7 28 h5.
28 'ikh6+
Black resigned.
Very pretty. But let's return to the 24th move,
when Mestel still clearly had sufficient time
for thought, and see what moves and what
ideas are contained in this position, apart
from 24 . . . gxh5, 24 . . . ii.e6 and 24 . . . 1:!e8.
For example, 24 .. ."ike8 is possible: the
queen defends the g6-pawn, and also eyes
the squares e5 (like the rook after 24 . . . 1J.e8)
and e4. Say, 25 �:Del c4 26 'ikg5 r!b5. But
here we already know the solution: 2 7
ii.xg6+! fxg6 2 8 h5.
Thus the defence 24 . . . 'ike8 does not save
Black, but it was right to examine it: unusual
moves sometimes lead to correct ideas. 1
remember it being said about Reshevsky
that he deliberately got into time-trouble,
after first studying all (!) the tactical subtle­
ties of the position, and then played very
confidently with his flag about to fall. This is
clearly an invention, since you cannot cover
all the tactical subtleties, as new ones also
arise. It is better to think about something
else: from the 1 7th move onwards, on every
move there was the possibility of . . . b4-b3.
There you have it! Here Black is not
threatened with mate in two, and after
24 . . . b3 the capture . . . b3xa2 is a serious
threat. And if 25 a3, then let's return to the
idea of . . . 'ike8: 25 . . . 'ike8 26 �:De l iVa4!.
Unexpectedly Black obtains play. His queen
can go to c4, d4 or e4, for example: 2 7
l:Dxg6? �c4+! o r 27 ii. f3 'ii c 4+ 2 8 � b 1
'ii' c 2+. White has a pawn for the exchange
and some positional pluses, so that the
chances are roughly equal.
The idea of . . . b4-b3, which was constantly
on the cards, in combination with the
manoeuvre . . . 'ili'e8, which has now become
possible, is discovered in a desperate
search of the position, when you see that all
the natural replies are unsatisfactory. In a
difficult moment you play 24 . . . b3!!, without
even examining 25 �b 1 or 25 axb3.
After 25 �b 1 (the king is on a light square!)
there is, of course, no point in taking the a2-
pawn. 25. . . Ve8 is good, but 25. . . ii. b 7 is
also acceptable, in order to capture on e4
with check (25 �b 1 ? ii. b 7! ? 26 'ikg5 ii.xd5
27 ii.xg6+ ? fxg6 28 h5 ii.xe4+ 29 �a 1
"ikxf6).
After 25 axb3 Black does after all have the
open a-file. There is also the defensive idea
. . . I:l.b8xb3-h3, but unfortunately it does not
work. The simple 25. . . 1:.a8 forces the reply
26 �c2, and the king is again on a light
square. 26 . . . ii. b 7 is possible, or even
26 . . . c4, but why give White another pawn
for the exchange ?
One could spend a long time in analysis. But
in a practical game the most likely course of
events was 24. . . b3!! 25 a3 'ike8!, and the
optimist playing White, if he has time, will
have a long think. Gradually his ears will
turn red, his breathing will come difficult,
and he will begin slightly shaking his knees
- and the entire board.
Cool-headed defence saves many points. I
have seen Mestel escape from worse
scrapes. I am sure that after 24 . . . b3 he
would e ven have won the game. A ttacking
optimists are very bad at readjusting.
The problem for commentators is that when
a game ends in a pretty rout for one of the
sides, it can be difficult to give an objective
commentary.
 ltJ 1 77

M ark Dvoretsky

What lies behind a Mistake

' To err is h u m a n ' . It is obvious that no Bareev - Kasparov

I player is able to play faultlessly. E rrors Linares 1 992
are someti mes caused by the d ifficulty of
the problem being solved , or by chance
circumstances. But very often , m i stakes
conform to a pattern - they a re the result of
certa i n playing or personal ity defects . This
applies not only to ord i n a ry players, but also
to lead ing grandmasters , and even world
champions.
For all of us, the most d ifficult thing is
performing successfully i n u nfa m i l i a r situa­
tions, i n which we have insufficient experi­
ence . To some extent this deficiency can be
cou nterbalanced by pu rposefu l tra i n i n g ,
but, u nfortu nately, there a re very few who
resort to this.
It is well known that Ga rry Kasparov's main Black has a choice between the exchange
strength is the breadth and depth of h i s of queens and the sharp knight sacrifice on
opening preparatio n : for many years he e4 ( 1 7 .. .'iVc7? is a nti-positional i n view of 1 8
h i mself, the members of h i s reg ularly u p­ lt'!a3 followed by .l:!.c1 and li:'!f2 ) . I n Bareev's
dated team , and i n recent times also o p i n i o n , 1 7 .. .'ii' x d2+ was correct. Too risky
powerfu l computers , have been tirelessly now is 1 8 'iit x d2? li:'!fxe4+ or 1 8 i.xd2 (with
perfecting his ope n i ng a rsena l . As a result the idea of developing the knight on a3)
he comparatively rarely fi nds h i mself in 1 8 . . . i.xg4! ( 1 8 . . . lt'!fxe4 is less good : 1 9 fxe4
d ifficult positions and i n this field he has very lt'!xe4 20 lt'!c3) 1 9 fxg4 lt'!cxe4 (i ntending
l i mited experience . It is no surprise, there­ 20 . . . li:'!xd5), and if 20 i.f3 (20 lt'!c3 ! ? comes
fore , that defence is one of h i s vul nerable into consideration), then 20 . . . lt'!xd2 and
poi nts. When he is forced to defe n d , 21 . . . . e4 . There would most probably have
Kasparov always does t h i s as actively as followed 1 8 lt'!xd2 b5 1 9 lt'!f2 :tfc8 with a
possible, i m mediately a i m i n g to undertake roughly equal e n d i n g .
someth i n g , to change sharply the character 'Each of u s h a s his own style, his own way
of the play. This trait of his was pointed out, of playing ' Bareev rema rked i n h i s lectu re .
in particular, by grandmaster Evgeny Bareev 'In Black's place I would have agreed to the
in a lectu re which he read in 1 992 at a exchange of queens. But Kasparov does
session of the Dvoretsky-Yusu pov school not like positions in which he has no
for talented young players . counterplay. He did not want to go into a
1 78 � What lies be h i n d a Mistake

quiet and (as it seemed to him) slightly Anand - Kasparov

inferior endgame, and so he decided on a 9th game of the match
rather dubious piece sacrifice. '
17 . . . ttJfxe4? !
1 8 fxe4 tt:Jxe4
1 9 'ii'x a5 l:ba5
20 tt:Jc31
'A simple and very strong move. If 20. . . ttJxc3
21 bxc3 11xd5, then 22 ttJ f2 with a subse­
quent blockade on the light squares. Black
has three pawns for the knight, but without
counterplay this is insufficient - he needs
some dynamic factor, such as two con­
nected passed pawns. ' (Bareev)
There followed : 20 . . . tt:Jg3 21 .l:tg 1 tt:Jxe2 22
�xe2 e4 23 .l:tac1 ! f5 24 gxf5 l:ixf5?!
(24 . . . .te8) 25 ttJf2 .tea 26 :th1 i. b5+ 27 27 l:td5!
tt:Jxb5 .l:txb5 28 .l:tc8+ � h 7 . And now, It is obviously extremely dangerous to
instead of the game conti nuation 29 : d 1 ? accept the positional exchange sacrifice
.l:txb2+ 30 l:.d2 all with an unclear positi o n, offered by the I n d i a n g randmaster - the
Wh ite could have gai ned a decisive advan­ g rouping which Wh ite creates in the centre
tage with the simple 29 .l:t b 1 ! J:tfxd5 30 b4! and on the queenside is just too powerfu l .
axb3 3 1 axb3. Black should have played 28 . . . h 5 ! ? , i ntend­
I n many cases it is active defence which ing to meet 28 i.c7 , attacking the e5-pawn,
promises the best chances of success , but with 28 . . . 'ii' e 7 ! . Black's position would have
this is by no means always the case . Any rema i n ed u n pleasant, but by no means lost.
one-sided approach is bad . Sometimes you 27 . . . tt:Jxd5?
should calmly parry the opponent's th reats,
28 exd5 'ii' g 6
patiently and accu rately solving the prob­
lems which a rise. A lack of flexibil ity i n h i s Kaspa rov nevertheless took the rook. Why?
1 see the explanation as being that he
choice o f playing methods makes a player
vul nerable. h i mself was hoping to obta i n some activity.
The queen aims at the rook, and also at the
It is interesti ng that in h i s match against
c2- and d3-squares; he has the active move
Vishwanathan Anand (New York 1 995)
. . . e5-e4, attacking the bishop . . . Alas, this is
Kasparov several times chose the tactics of
all a n il l usion - the strateg ic pluses of
active defence in situations where they
Wh ite's position a re far more i m portant.
were completely inappropriate (true, i n the
29 c5 e4
second half of the event Anand was demor­
alised and he was unable to punish his 30 .te2 l:ie5
opponent for this). 31 'iid 7! .l::. g 5?
In the opinion of Alexander Chern i n , 31 . . . e3
was more tenacious, for example: 32 .l:tf1
l:lg5 33 i.d3 e2! 34 .txe2 .l:txg2 35 i.d3
l:tg 1 + ! 36 .l:f.xg 1 Wxd3 , and the position
 What lies behind a Mistake
remai n s sharp. 32 .l:t g 1 is stronger, but then
instead of 32 . . . .l:.g5 (whi ch leads to a
position from the game) Black ca n make
another, more usefu l move - 32 . . . 'ili'c2 .
32 .Ug1 e3
33 d6 l:1g3
34 'i!ixb7 'ili'e6
35 'iti>h2!
Black resig ned , since after 35 . . . 'ili'e5 36
'ii'x a8 he is unable to make favou rable use
of the d iscovered check.
Anand - Kasparov
1 1 th game of the m atch
The e7-pawn is u nder attack. After the
normal 27 .. .'�f8 Black would have retained
an acceptable, although slig htly i nferior
positio n . I n stead of this Kasparov played
'actively' .
27 . . . .i.e6?
In the game his idea proved justified , since
h i s opponent was tempted by a fau lty
combination on the theme of double attack:
28 b4? axb4 29 axb4 .l:tc4 30 li:J b6?? .
I should mention that Anand thought about
this combination for only a few m i n utes, and
the fatal knight move was a ltogethe r made
al most i nsta ntly. Why? O n the one hand ,
what obviously told was the enormous
lLJ 1 79
nervous tension , agg ravated by the emo­
tions provoked by the loss of the previous,
1 0th game. And on the other hand - a lack
of the habit of deeply and carefu lly checking
variations. Anand possesses a wonderfu l
i ntuition , a n d many of h i s decisions (some­
times very d ifficult ones) a re taken quickly,
but rapid ity of thinking often goes badly with
accu racy and precision i n calculation .
3 0 . . . .Uxb4+ 3 1 'iti>a3. Wh ite was expecti ng to
emerge with the exchange for a pawn after,
say, 3 1 . . . .l:.bc4 , but he overlooked a fearfu lly
strong cou nter-stroke: 3 1 ... J:txc2 ! . He had to
resign i m mediately in view of 32 .l:.xc2 .l:.b3+
33 'iti>a2 l:te3+ , when Black is two pawns up.
Here Kasparov was simply l ucky - after a l l ,
t h e move he m a d e w a s i n fact bad ! The
captu re on e7 leads by force to a double
rook ending with an extra pawn and excel­
lent winning chances for Wh ite .
28 lt:Jxe7 ! .l:te8
29 li:Jd5 .i.xd5
30 b4!
The moves ca n also be i nterposed : 29 b4
axb4 30 axb4 .l:tc4 31 li:Jd 5 .
30 . . . axb4
3 1 axb4 .:c4
32 .l:txd5
This position has been reached by force . Of
cou rse, it is too early to call a halt - a certa in
calculating tech nique (although n ot too
compl icated ) is req u i red , in order to take the
variation to its logical end . It is s urprising
that neither Anand ( during the game) nor
Kasparov (in h i s analysis i n lnformator)
coped with this p roble m .
32 . . . .:.xb4+
If 32 . . . .l:tec8? (suggested by Kasparov), then
33 c3 ! (weaker is 33 .l:.e2 .l:.xb4+ 34 'iti>c1
.l:tc6 35 .l:.ed2 .l:1a6) 33 . . . J::r. x c3 34 .l:r.e2
followed by 35 .l:txb5 .
33 'iti>c3
Of cou rse, not 33 'iti>c1 ? f5 with equality.
1 80 � What lies beh i n d a Mistake

33 . . . .l:.c4+ .:txg5 the g2-pawn is lost, and after 34 g3

34 'itr>b3 .:teeS gxh4 35 gxh4 l:.f5 - the f3-pawn . But Anand
34 . . .f5!? is more tenacious, but after 35 finds a n excellent rook manoeuvre, which
.:Xxb5 l:td4 36 'itr>c3 Black's position remains refutes the opponent's idea .
d ifficult. 34 l:.a8 ! gxh4
35 .U.e2 34 . . . <;itd7! 35 g3 (of cou rse, not 35 g4??
Black loses one of his pawns, and his gxh4 36 l:.h8 h3) 35 . . . l:!.f5 36 .Uh8 l:txf3 37
chances of savi ng the game a re problem­ hxg5 .:t.xg3 38 .l:l.xh5 <;itc6 was stronger -
atic. however, here too Black would sti ll have
been a pawn down .
I should mention that if Anand had accu­
rately calculated this variati o n, he wou ld 35 l::t e 8+ ! <;itd7
al most certainly have gone i n for it. Here 35 . . . 'itr>f5 36 l:t e4 <;itg5 37 a4 ! ? was even
White's advantage is g reater than i n the worse for Black.
position with an exchange advantage , which 36 l::t e4 c3
he was hoping to obta i n by playing 28 b4? (it
is most probably d rawn ).

Anand - Kasparov
1 7th game of the match

Here Wh ite had to make a d ifficult choice.

Anand preferred s imply to remain a pawn
up.
37 l:.xh4? ! cxb2+
38 <;itxb2 .U.g5
Of cou rse, Black should have safeg ua rded 39 a4
his pawn : 32 . . . a6. It is i m po rtant that if 33 But i n the resulting position Wh ite's pawns
'itr>d2 (with the positional th reat of 'itr>c3-d4) a re broken and the opponent retai n s real
he has 33 . . . c3+! 34 bxc3 l::t c 5, after wh ich chances of saving the game ( remember the
the game should end i n a d raw. But aga i n , d rawi ng tendencies of rook endings). In the
instead o f a normal cou rse Kaspa rov end Kasparov ma naged to g a i n a d raw.
chooses an 'active' one. Had Anand been a l ittle more self-confident
32 . . . .U.c5? (he was a ppreciably oppressed by the
33 .l:ixa7 g5 b urden of fai l u re i n the preced in g g ames),
It appears that Black is a l right: after 34 hxg5 he would most probably have chosen 37 b4!
 What lies be h i n d a Mi stake
J:tg5 38 lbh4 l:.xg2 39 'itt b1 . H ere, for the
moment, Wh ite is not a pawn up, but he has
a serious positional plus - two con nected
passed pawns on the q ueenside. If the
wh ite king manages to get to b3 (as i n the
variation 39 . . . l:f2 40 l:xh5 ! ? l:txf3 41 'itt a 2),
the position will certainly become won .
Black's only cou nter-chance (although I
doubt whether it is sufficient) is to push his d-
lZJ 1 81
pawn to d4 when the king is on b 1 .
The moral to be d rawn from these examples
(the l ist of them could h ave been extended)
is obvious. For a player of any standard it is
i m portant to make a thorough analysis of his
own games, and disclose the l atent, deep
causes of the mistakes h e has made, as this
a lways serves as the fi rst step towa rds thei r
e l i m i nation .
1 82 �

PART VI

M ark Dvoretsky

Analysis of a Game

Wgame, played by Sasha Chernosvitov.

e are going to look at an i nteresting
He annotated it in g reat deta i l : he gave
nu merous variations, and described what
he was thinking about d u ring the game,
what he was afra id of and what he over­
looked . His analysis is not error-free. Of
course, in such cases mista kes a re inevita­
ble - after a l l , when you a re exa m i n i n g
complicated variations, it is easy a t some
point to become entangled . But behind the
mistakes made, defi n ite deficiencies in
thinking, in the approach to the game, ca n
1 0 b3, 1 0 d5 and 1 0 l1d 1 have also been
played . In h i s commenta ry on the game
Sasha described i n deta i l h i s views on the
theory of the g iven variation . But si nce his
ope n i ng conceptions a re to a certa i n extent
a personal matter, there is no need to
d iscuss them here . We a re more i nterested
in the problems which a rose l ater.
10 . . . i.xc5
11 h3?!
11 e4 is more critica l , although then 11 ... tt::l g4
(threatening 1 2 . tt::l d 4) or the i m mediate
. .

sometimes be see n . The reason I have 1 1 . . tt::l d 4 has to be reckoned with . Wh ite
.

chosen this particular game for a nalysis wants to advance h i s e-pawn in comfort, but
was because some of the omissions, both in i n the ope n i n g every tempo cou nts , and with
the moves and in the comments, seemed to such slow play he can no longer expect an
me to be instructive . advantage.
11 . . . 0-0
Denisov - Chernosvitov 1 2 e4 tt::l d 4!
Moscow J u n ior Championship 1 99 1 1 3 tt::l x d4 i.xd4
Queen 's Gambit Accepted The opening stage has concluded in Black's
1 d4 d5 favou r. He controls the central squares, the
2 c4 dxc4 bishop on c4 is ru n n i ng up agai nst the e6-
pawn , the wh ite e-pawn has been halted and
3 e3 tt::l f6
i n some variations it can even come under
4 i.xc4 e6 attack. It only rema i n s for Black to develop
5 tt::lf3 c5 his lig ht-sq uare bishop, and his position will
6 0-0 a6 be preferable.
7 a4 tt::l c 6 14 i.d2?!
8 'ilt'e2 'ii' c 7 Chernosvitov recommends 14 i.d3, in order
9 tt::l c 3 i.d6 to prepare the development of the bishop at
10 dxc5 e3.
 Analysis of a Game
14 . . . b6
1 5 l:!.ac1 .i. b7
1 6 .i.d3
The threat of 1 7 tt:Jd5 (or 1 7 tt:Jb5) is very
obvious. But what will Wh ite do after the
queen moves off the c-file? Perhaps ex­
change the dark-sq uare bishops by 1 7 .i.e3,
but most probably prepare f2-f4 by moving
the king to h 1 . I s it not possible to make it
d ifficult for the opponent to carry out his
plans?
16 . . . 'ii' g 3 1
An excellent manoeuvre! 1 6 . . .'ii' e 5 1 7 'it? h 1
lDh5 1 8 ilg4 w a s m u c h weaker.
1 7 'it? h 1 'ii' h 4
The queen is excellently placed at h4. From
here it presses on the e4-pawn and s i m ulta­
neously eyes the king. In some cases the
knight will j u m p to g4, while if 1 8 f4 , then
18 . . . tt:J h5 1 9 .i. e 1 tt:Jg3+ 20 .i.xg3 'ii' x g3 with
the better chances for Black.
18 .U.ce 1 ? !
N ow Wh ite's position becomes d ifficult. H e
should have decided on a second succes­
sive king move: 1 8 'it? h2 ! . The tactical basis
of it is the elegant variation 1 8 . . . .i.xc3 1 9
.ixc3 (weaker is 1 9 g 3 .i.e5 20 f4 tt:Jg4 + ! 2 1
'it?g2 'ife7 ) 1 9 . . . tt:Jxe4 (after 1 9 . . . .i.xe4 20
.txa6 Wh ite is only slig htly worse) 20 .i.xg 7 !
ltJ 1 83
'it? x g 7 21 g 3 with equal ity.
18 . . . l:tfd8
The wh ite pieces on the d-file a re beg i n n ing
to hang. If 1 9 .i. c2 (with the idea of 'it?h2 and
g2-g 3 , or 'ilff3-g3 ) Chernosvitov suggests
replying 1 9 . . . g 5 ! 20 iff3 .i.e5 2 1 l:.e2 l:td4 . If
1 9 tt:Jd 1 (prepa ri ng 20 .i. c3), then 1 9 . . . b5 20
axb5 axb5 21 .i.c3 e5 22 'iff3 .ixc3 23 bxc3
(23 tt:Jxc3 b4 ) 23 . . . .l::t a 2, and Black has an
appreciable advantage.
Sasha considers the comparatively best
defence to be 1 9 'ii'f3 ! ? .i.xf2 20 l:.xf2 l:.xd3
21 'ifxd3 'ii' xf2 22 'ii' e 3!? 'ii' x e3 23 .i.xe3
tt:Jxe4 (23 . . . tt:Jd7 24 l:.d 1 ) 24 tt:Jxe4 .i. xe4 25
.i.xb6 with chances of equalising (for exam­
ple, 2 5 .. .f5 26 htc1 'it?f7 27 .i. d4 ). However, if
the concl uding position of this variation
does not satisfy Black, he can retai n the
adva ntage with the q u iet move 1 9 . . . .i.e5 ! ? ,
seeing as 20 tt:Jd 1 w i l l be met b y a little
combi nation : 20 . . . .l:!.xd 3 ! 21 'ii'x d3 tt:Jxe4
with the th reats 22 . . . .l:td8 and 22 . . . tt:Jg3+.
19 'it? h2?
It is a well-known tru ism that everyth ing
should be done at the right time. 'A move
made one move l ater is often a mistake . '
N ow t h e captu re with t h e bishop on f2 ,
wh ich we saw i n the last variation , gains
g reatly in strength .
19 . . . .i.xf2 1
1 84 � Analysis of a Game
20 .l:!.xf2 11xd3
21 'ii'x d3 tt:Jg4+ !
22 'it'g1 'ii' xf2+
23 'it'h1
Chernosvitov played the fi rst half of the
game very strongly, completely outplayed
his opponent, and gai ned a n advantage
qu ite sufficient for a win . But from this
moment it was as though a su bstitute had
taken his place.
What should Black play now? 23 . . . 'ii' h 4
suggests itself, but then the cou nterattack
24 'ii'd 7 is unpleasant. Therefore in the fi rst
insta nce the safer contin uation 23 . . . tt:Je5!
should be considered . The reply 24 'ii' e 3 is
forced . Let us conti nue the variation :
24 . . .'iWxe3 25 .i.xe3 tt:Jc4 26 .i.c1 (26 .i.f2
tt:Jxb2 27 .i.xb6 .l:!.c8 is also cheerless, for
example: 28 .i.d4 .:!.c4 29 l:. b 1 l:txd4 30
J:.xb2 .l:r.d7) 26 . . . .l:!.d8 27 b3 tt:Je5 28 .i.e3 (28
.i.f4 tt:Jd3) 28 . . . l:.d3 29 .i.xb6 .l:.xc3 30 .i.d4
.l:txb3 3 1 .i.xe5 f6 followed by . . . e6-e5, and
Black converts his extra pawn without
particular difficulty.
Why d id n 't Sasha play this? Through inertia
he wanted to conti nue the attack, fearing
that i n the endgame Wh ite would save
h imself than ks to the opposite-colour bish­
ops. But more importa ntly, he underesti­
mated the opponent's threat, assum i ng that
the queen move to d7 was not possible due
to the loss of the e4-pawn . But i n fact after
23 . . . 'ii' h 4 24 'ii' d 7 tt:Jf2+ 25 'it'h2 .i.xe4 after
exchanging on e4 White can then simultane­
ously attack two pieces with 'ifc6 or 'ii' b 7.
One can launch i nto such adventu res only
on the basis of very accu rate calculation .
Here I would al most certainly have called a
halt and rejected the entire variation (if I had
not done this a move earlier, on seeing the
move 24 'ii' d 7).
I n the conversion of a n advantage you
should try to strictly control all the oppo­
nent's active possibil ities, not allowing any
u n n ecessary sharpen ing of the play. It can
happen that your advantage hangs by a
threa d , and to mai nta i n it you have to exert
you rself and deeply calculate complicated
variations. But here the situation is clearly
d ifferent: Black is a sound pawn to the good
and he has a safe way of reta i n i n g all the
advantages of his positi o n .
23 . . . 'il'h4?
24 'ii' d 7!
W ha t s h oul d Bl ack do now?
24 . . . l:lb8? 25 l:tf1 i s completely bad for
Black, a n d therefore he must choose be­
tween 24 . . . l:td8 and 24 . . . tt:Jf2 + .
O n t h e previous move Sasha com m itted a
typical psycholog ica l mistake : realising that
he had g a i ned a decisive advantage, he
rel axed and played carelessly. N ow he
sensed that things were by no means as
simple as they appeared earlier. And here
came a second psycholog ical mistake (re­
member, incidental ly, Tarrasch's famous
maxi m : ' M i stakes never occu r singly' . ) As
often happens, the sudden d ifficulties spoiled
h i s mood and prevented h i m from cal mly
a n alysing the variations, which , h owever,
a re now very complicated . Black also fa iled
to solve this problem l ater, i n a nalysis at
home.
Chernosvitov rejected 24 ... .l:td8 25 'ii' x b7
 Analysis of a Game
l:txd2 because of 26 l:Ie2 . But here it is too
early to stop the calcu lation: Black can play
26 ... h5! (or 26 . . . h 6 ! ) , open ing a n escape
square for the king . Black's rook is i m m u n e
and his th reats l o o k rather da ngerous.
I ncidentally, i n similar situations the pawn is
usually advanced not one square , but two ,
since i t m a y come i n useful i n t h e attack. I n
the g iven in stance the two moves a re
roughly equ ivalent.
The opponent's reply is obvious: 27 'ikxb6
(27 'i¥xa6? l:tc2! is bad). The next problem is
this: how can Black exploit the advantages
of his position?
The simplest sol ution - 27 . . . l:txe2 28 ltJxe2
'iie 1 + 29 ltJ g 1 liJf2+ 30 'iii h 2 ltJxe4 - does
not seem convincing to me. After 31 liJf3 ( 3 1
'ii' b 8+! 'iit h 7 32 liJf3 is even more accu rate)
the coord i n ation of the black p ieces is
disru pted somewhat, and Wh ite is th reaten­
ing the rapid advance of hi s pawn o n the
queenside. For exa mple, 3 1 liJf3 'ikg3+ 32
'iii g 1 'ikd6 33 'ikxd6 liJxd6 34 b4 followed by
liJd4 .
Let us try 27 . . . ltJf2+ ! . If 28 �g 1 ? , then
28 . . . ltJxh3+! 29 gxh3 l:txe2 30 ltJxe2 'ii' e 1 +
3 1 'iii g 2 'ili'xe2+ , and the q ueen endgame is
easily won . In this variation the pawn is
better placed at h5 than at h6. However,
even with the pawn on h6 the evaluation of
l2J 1 85
the position would not be changed (if 32
'iit g 3 , then 32 . . . 'ii e 1 + followed by 33 . . . a5 is
possible, if there is noth ing better).
And i n the event of 28 'iii h2 there is an
excellent knight sacrifice : 28 ... ltJxh3 ! 29
gxh3 .:td3! with an i rresistible attack. For
example, 30 Wb8+ 'iit h 7 31 'iit g 1 llxh3 32
l:th2 'ii' g 5+ ! , or 30 'iii g 2 l:txh3 31 Wd6 'iit h 7 ! ,
intending 32 . . .f6 and 33 . . . e5 ( 3 1 . . . Wg4+ 32
'iii f2 'ii' g 5 ! with the same th reat of . . . e6-e5
is equally good ).
Attem pts to avoid mate lead to a lost
endgame for Wh ite : 29 l:txd2 liJf4+ 30 'iii g 1
'ike 1 + 3 1 'ifilh2 'ikxd2 , o r 2 9 'ikb8+ 'it> h 7 30
'i¥g3 'i¥xg 3+ 3 1 'iit x g3 .l:td3+! 32 'iii h 2 ltJg5.
I n stead of 26 l:te2 we must consider 26
l:.f1 ! .
After 26 . . .f6 there i s the strong reply 27
'ike? ! . And if 26 ... h5!?, then Wh ite conti n­
ues 27 'ilfxf7+ 'iii h7 28 'ii' x e6 ltJe3 29 liJd5!
ltJxf1 30 'ili'f5+ 'iii h 6 3 1 'ike6+ g6 32 'ii' g 8! ,
and the game i n evitably ends i n perpetual
check.
How can Black's play be improved? Grand­
master Dolmatov fou n d a rather u nexpected
idea : after 24 . . . l:td8 25 'ii' x b7 he suggested
avoiding the captu re of the bishop in favour
o f 25 . . . h6! .
(see diagram)
1 86 � Analysis of a Game
26 .U.e2 .U.xd2 transposes i nto the variation
25 . . . l:txd2 26 .l:te2 h6, in which, accord ing to
our analysis, Black's attack ach ieves its a i m
(true, w e p u t t h e pawn on h S , b u t t h i s is o f no
sign ifica nce). And in the event of 26 .l:.f1
Black is no longer obl iged to captu re on d2 -
26 . . . lt:lf2 + ! 27 .l:.xf2 'ilkxf2 is much stronger,
when the wh ite bishop ca nnot escape.
The best defence is 26 lt:ld5! exd5 27 .l:l.f1 (if
27 exd5, then 27 . . . lt:lf2+ and 28 . . . lt:lxh 3 ! ) ,
b u t here too Black reta ins a big advantage,
by continuing 27 . . . lt:lf2+ 28 �h2 (28 �g 1
lt:lxh3+ 29 gxh3 'iig 3+ 30 � h 1 'ii' x h3+ 3 1
�g 1 'ii'g 4+ ! 3 2 � h 1 'ii h S+ and 3 3 . . . dxe4 is
hopeless for Wh ite) 28 . . . dxe4 (weaker is
28 . . . lt:lxe4 29 'ii' xf7+ �h7 30 1i.f4 ) 29 1i.e1
'ii'f4+ 30 �g1 e3 3 1 'ii' x a6 .l:t d 1 32 'iie 2
'ii'xa4 (32 . . . 'it'd4 33 1i. xf2 exf2+ 34 'iixf2
J:Ixf1 + 35 �xf1 'ii'd 1 + 36 'ii' e 1 'ii' x a4 is also
good , with an extra pawn i n a queen
endgame) 33 'ii'x e3 lt:ld3 .
There are good g rounds for once again
remembering Tarrasch , who mai nta i ned
that you should resort to a combi nation in
order to repa ir a mistake committed earlier. I
would remark, however, that at the board it
is not so d ifficult to decide to go i n for tactical
complications, if the method of elimination is
employed - after fi rst satisfying you rself that
all other tries are u n promising . Strangely
enoug h , although Sasha saw that he would
ach ieve noth ing after 24 . . . lt:lf2+ 25 'it>h2
1i.xe4 , nevertheless he q u ickly rejected
24 . . . .l:.d8. Apparently what showed itself
here was the psycholog ical effect of the
mistake made earlier, a bout which I h ave
a l ready spoke n .
24 . . . lt:lf2+
25 �h2 1i.xe4?
As g randmaster Evgeny Bareev poi nted
out, it was not yet too l ate to switch to attack
by 25 . . . l:.d8! 26 'ii' x b7 l:.xd 2 . Wh ite loses
after 27 Ilf1 ? 'ii'f4+ 28 �g 1 lt:lxh3+ or 27
'ii' b 8+? .l:.d8 28 'ir'g3 lt:lg4+ ! . And in the
event of 27 l:Ie2 Black gains an advantage
by 27 . . . h6 (or 27 . . . h5) 28 'iix a6 lt:lg4+ 29
�g 1 (29 �h 1 ? .l:.c2 ! ) 29 . . . lt:le3 ! , for exam­
ple: 30 llxd2 'ii' e 1 + 31 �h2 lt:lf1 + etc. The
outcome of the compl ications arising after
27 . . . g 5 ! ? is less clear: 28 'iix b6! (28 'ii' x a6?!
.U.xe2 29 'i!Vxe2 g4 ! ) 28 . . . lt:lxh3!? 29 gxh3
.U.d3 30 �g 1 ! .U.xh3 31 1t'b8+ �g7 32 �g2.
I ncidentally, with this move order, as i n the
variation by Dolmatov a n alysed earlier,
Black would h ave deprived h i s opponent of
the best defence l:tf1 ! .
26 lt:lxe4?
Wh ite misses his chance . He should have
played 26 .l::!. x e4 ! lt:lxe4 27 'ii' c6 'ii' g 3+ (after
27 . . .l::t d8 28 lt:lxe4 the bishop on d2 is
defended - this is why he should take with
the rook, not the knight) 28 'it> g 1 .U.d8 29
lt:lxe4 . After 29 . . . 'i!i'eS there follows 30 'i!i'xb6
'ii' d 4+?! 31 �e3, while if 29 .. .'ii' b8 (as
Chernosvitov wa nted to play), then 30 1i.e3!
b5 31 aS h6 32 'ii' b 6 (32 'ili'xa6? 'ii' e S)
32 . . . .l:r.d 1 + 33 �f2 'ii' e s 34 lt:ld2 with
excellent d rawi ng chances.
I n endings a rook is often stronger than a
bishop and knight, if it is able to break
through at the right time i nto the opponent's
position to attack the enemy q ueenside
pawns and create there a n outside passed
pawn. But here the endgame is stil l a long
way off, and besides, it is not only Wh ite's
 Ana lysis of a Game lZJ 1 87

queenside pawns that a re under fi re, but 40 . . . .l:td2+? ! ) 4 1 .l:tg2 .U.d 1 or 4 1 'ii' x d6
also Black's. Wxc2+ 42 'itt g 1 W b 1 + and 43 . . . Wxb5 .
26 . . . tt:'!xe4 I n the game Black decided to go i nto an
27 'ii' c 6 Wg3+ e nd g a me. An i ncorrect assessment of the
28 'itt g 1 Wf2+ positi o n ! Even if the endgame is won , it is
clear that with the queens on it would be
29 'itt h2 Wg3+
much simpler to convert the advantage .
It is usefu l , by repeati ng moves, to save time
on the clock. 33 . . . 'iii' d 3?

30 'itt g 1 Wf2+ 34 .l:te3 'ii' d 6+

3 1 'itt h 2 l:.d8 35 'ifxd6 .U.xd6
32 l:txe4 'ii' x d2 An i nteresting rook ending has a rise n . In the
33 Wxb6 analysis of it, n u merous q uestions occu rred
to me; the answers to them were either
lacking in the commenta ry, or did not seem
convi nci n g .

Black is a sound pawn to the good . Which is

more correct: to exchange or reta i n the
queens?
Of cou rse , it is better to keep the q ueens o n .
After a l l , t h e wh ite k i n g is exposed and i t can
easily come u nder attack. Chernosvitov
i llu strates this assessment with the fol low­
ing sample variations: 33 . . . h6 34 b4 (34
Wxa6 'ii'x b2) 34 . . . .l:.d6 35 'ii' b8+ 'itt h7 36 b5
axb5 37 axb5 f5! 38 l:tc4 e5 (if 38 . . . 'ii' d 5 the
only defence is 39 l:tc3! Ve5+ 40 .Ug3) 39
.:!.c2 Wf4+ 40 g3 .Ud2+ 41 .l:r.xd2 'ii'x d2+ 42
'itt g 1 'ii' e 3+ 43 'itt g 2 e4 44 'iVf4? 'ii' e 2+ 45
'itt g 1 Wxb5.
It is u nclear whether Black can win after 44
b6, but this is not so i m portant: he ca n
achieve his goal with 40 . . . 'ii' e 4 ! ( i n stead of
36 l:t b3
Wh ite prepares a4-a5 and l:tb6. A tempti ng
idea, but the more standard plan beg i n n ing
with 36 b4 should also h ave been consid­
ered (the rook will stand behind the passed
pawn ) . After 36 . . . 'itt f8 37 b5 axb5 38 axb5
'itt e 7 39 l:tb3 it is bad to play 39 . . . 'itt d 7? 40
b6 'itt c 8 i n view of 41 llc3+ 'itt b 8 42 l:!.c7 .
39 . . . .U.b6 is correct, when Black most prob­
ably wins, although it is not so simple. If his
king goes to c5 , there follows l:tc3+; this
means that he will have to waste a tempo on
. . . .l:. b6-b7. D uring this time Wh ite will create
cou nterplay on the kingside. How? Well , for
1 88 w Analysis of a Game
example, by 40 �g3 l:.b7 41 �f4 �d6 42 g4
f6 43 g5 �c5 44 �e3, or 42 . . . �c5 43 .l:.c3+
�xb5 44 �e5, intending �c8-g 8 .
36 . . . g6?
A very strange move , on which Sasha
makes no comment. It is clear that Black will
have to advance his kingside pawns , so why
not advance the pawn two squares, why
waste a tempo? It is q u ite possible that a
race will develop, i n which every tempo will
count. Even if the delay does not affect the
assessment here , the next time it wi l l .
O f course, 3 6 . . . g 5 ! ? was stronger than the
move in the game. 36 .. .f5 ! ? also looks
tempti ng, intending to bring the king out to f6
followed by . . . h7-h5-h4, and . . . e6-e5-e4 .
For example: 37 a5 (37 .l:!b7 a5!?) 37 . . . �f7
38 l:tb6 �e7! (ga i n ing another tempo) 39
l:tb7+ �f6 40 .l::!. b 6 .l::!. d 2 41 b4 l:td4 .
37 l:tb8+
Here Chernosvitov makes the fol lowing
comment: 'It would appear that White could
have immediately gained a d raw by 37 a5
.l:!d5 38 lib8+ �g7 39 b4 �f6 40 l:tb6 l:.d4
4 1 .l:txa6 .l:!xb4 42 �a 7'.
Roug hly such a position can a rise i n many
variations and its assessment is i mportant
for the correct understanding of the enti re
endgame. But is it really d rawn? The black
rook is excellently placed to the rea r of the
passed a-pawn . I don't see what can be
done to oppose the advance of the pawn
a rmada on the kingside. For example:
42 . . . h 5 43 a6 �a4 44 �g3 h4+ 45 �f3 e5 46
.l:ta8 (46 �e3 J:!a2) 46 . . . �f5 47 a7 .l:.a3+ 48
�f2 g5 and 49 . . . �f4 . N ote the good position
of the f7-pawn on its i n itial square - after 49
l:tf8 l:!.xa7 it will be defended by the rook.
48 .. .f6? would be a typical mistake - now
after . . .�f5-f4 the reply l:ta8-f8 gains in
strength .
37 . . . �g7
38 aS l:td2
Black's other plan is to bring h i s king to the
centre of the board . But i n this case he will
have to give u p one or two pawns on the
kingside. Here is Chernosvitov's analysis:
38 . . . �f6 39 .:.b6 �e5 40 �b7 f5 41 �xh7
l:td5 (4 1 . . . �d4 42 .l:.b7 e5 43 .l:.b6 �c5 44
l:txd6 �xd6 45 g4! fxg4 46 hxg4 �c5 47
�g2 , and the pawn endgame is d rawn ) 42
b4 .Ub5 43 l:.a7 l:txb4 44 .:.xa6 I:ta4 45 l:!.a8
�f4 46 a6 e5 47 a7 e4 (47 . . . g5 48 g3+ �e4
49 .l:tg8 or 48 . . . �f3 49 l:!.f8 ) 48 .U.g8 l:txa7 49
l:.xg6 e3 50 l:.e6 with a d raw.
This variation is i nteresting, but by no means
forced . At the very end instead of 49 . . . e3?
there is the far stronger 49 . . . �e3 ! . I am not
sure that Wh ite can save h imself here - the
e-pawn really is too strong . On the other
ha nd , it is not altogether clear why he
i n itially wasted time advancing h i s a-pawn ,
and only then went for the g6-pawn . I n reply
to 45 . . . �f4 either 46 l:ta6 e5 47 l:txg6 or 46
lle8 e5 4 7 g3+ suggests itself.
39 �g3 �f6
40 b4 ll b2
41 llb6 �e5?
I t is more natural to advance the kingside
pawns: 41 . . . h5 or fi rst 41 . . . g 5 . I ncidentally,
after . . . h7-h5 the king move to e5 gains
i n strength - since when the wh ite rook
steps onto the 7th rank, Black simply repl ies
 Analysis of a Game 1 89

. . . f7-f5 and the h-pawn will no longer be

under attack.
42 l:l.b7
Chernosvitov com ments : ' Neither Wh ite nor
Black saw the "two-mover" 42 �xa6 .l:txb4
43 .l:ta? with a d raw' . Well , we have a l ready
talked about such a position - in fact after
43 .. .<it>f6 Black should most probably wi n .
4 3 . . . f5 4 4 Uxh? .l:ta4 4 5 Ua? g 5 followed by
. . . .l:ta3+ is also tem pti n g .
When a nalysing endings it is v e ry i mportant
to make a correct assessment of key
positions, which a re reached from d ifferent
variations. Sasha made a m i stake in h i s
44 .U h4+?
assessment o f one s u c h positio n , and as a
result h i s perception of the entire endgame A decisive loss of time. And meanwh ile it is
was distorted . possible that there was no longer a win after
any of the ' normal' conti n u ations: 44 l:ta?
I should mention that Wh ite does not have
f4+ 45 'it>h4 .l'::!. x g2 46 llxa6, 44 l:tg? f4+ (or
time to take his king across to the queenside.
44 . . . l:txb4 45 l:txg6 We5 46 h4) 45 Wh2 f3
Here a re some sample variations: 42 'it>f3 f5
46 l:txg6 e5 47 l:tf3 (47 Wg 1 ), or 44 h4 f4+
43 We3 g5 44 Wd3 f4 45 'it> c3 l:!.xg2 46 Uxa6
45 � h 3 e5 46 �a? We3 47 �xa6 e4 48
f3 47 .l:ta8 (47 Wd3 .l'::!. b2 or 47 . . . h5) 47 . . . h5
l:!.xg6.
48 a6 �a2 49 Wb3 .l:r.xa6! 50 Uxa6 f2 51 Ua 1
g4 52 hxg4 hxg4 53 b5 Wd5! 54 .l:r.c1 g3 55 44 . . . We3
b6 g2 56 b 7 f1 'ii' 57 b8'ii' 'iVxc 1 , or 48 b5 l:tg 1 45 l:tc4 e5
49 Uf8 'it>e4 50 b6 (noth ing is changed by 50 46 l::. c 3+
'.tc2 l:ta1 or 50 Wb2 �d 1 51 b6 �d5)
Wh ite a l so loses after 46 l:!.c6 f4+ 4 7 �h2 e4
50 . . . l:t b 1 5 1 'it>c2 l:tb5 52 Wd2 (52 a6 .l'::!. x b6
(th reatening 48 . . . f3) 48 Wg 1 l:tb1 + 49 'it>h2
53 a? l:ta6 54 a8'ii' + �xa8 55 l:txa8 f2 56
.Uxb4 followed by . . . 'it>f2 and . . . e4-e3.
l:!.f8 '.te3) 52 . . . g4 53 hxg4 hxg4 54 a6 l:!.b2 + !
55 W d 1 ( 5 5 We 1 '.te3) 55 . . . g 3 56 a ? .U a 2 . 46 . . . 'ot>e2

42 . . . f5 47 .Uc6 l:txb4

43 l:!.xh7 48 .Uxg6

The delay i n playing . . . h7-h5 has tol d . The 48 l::. e 6 f4+ 49 'it>g4 f3+ 50 �g3 f2 51 l::. x e5+
outcome of the game is now in q uestion . Wf1 , and the f2-pawn i n evitably promotes to
a q uee n .
43 . . . 'it>e4
48 . . . f4+
49 'it> h 2 e4
50 .Uxa6 e3
51 l:!.b6 .l:ta4
52 a6 'ot>f2
Wh ite resig ned .
1 90 \t> Analysis of a Game
When analysing complicated endings, we
sometimes stu mble upon positions which ,
possibly, do not arise by force , but which a re
interesting in thei r own right. One such
position is exam i ned by Chernosvitov.
In his opin ion th is is a position of mutual
zugzwang. Wel l , it is not hard to see that if it
is Wh ite to move he loses (1 g3 f3 , 1 h4 g4,
or 1 .U.g8 .l:txa7 2 �xg5 \ii> f2 3 l:lf5 f3 4 gxf3
e3). But I cannot ag ree with the conclusion
that with Black to move it is a d raw. The
wh ite king is really very awkward ly placed .
Black plays 1 . . . .U.a2 2 \ii> g 1 .U.a6! 3 \ii> h 1 (3
\ii> h 2 l:ta1 ) 3 . . . g4! 4 hxg4 \ii> f2 5 g5 \ii> g 3 with
unavoidable mate.
There is also other, more spectacu lar
solution: 1 . . . \ii> f2 2 :tea g4! 3 h4 (3 hxg4
l:txa7) 3 .. Jla3! (another way is 3 .. .f3 ! 4 a8'ii'
.U.h 1 + ! ! ) 4 \ii> h 1 (if 4 a8'i!f or 4 l:lxe4 there
follows 4 . . Jth3+! 5 gxh3 g3+) 4 . . Jtxa7
(4 . . . g3! 5 a8'if f3 ! mates more q u ickly) 5
.U.xe4 lt a 1 + 6 \ii> h2 g3+ 7 \ii> h 3 f3 8 .l:tf4 .:l h 1 +
9 \ii> g 4 \ii> x g2 1 0 .l:.xf3 ltxh4 + .
It is t i m e t o sum u p . Chernosvitov played the
second half of the game un certai n ly, and
also his commenta ry, although detailed,
was not too successfu l . Here two serious
deficiencies of his a re clearly see n :
1 ) Wea k conversion o f an advantage.
Remember: in a winning position Black
i ncorrectly allowed his opponent to sharpen
the play. Then he did not even try to fig u re
out the resulting complications. F i n a lly, after
i ncorrectly resolving a n exchanging prob­
lem, he went i nto an endgame i n stead of
playing for mate . Later any method ical
player would s urely have advanced his g­
pawn two squares, i n stead of one, and he
would also have chosen a n appropriate
moment to advance h i s h-pawn, whereas
Sasha left it at h7, where it was lost. As a
result, the opponent g a ined real chances of
saving the game.
2 ) U n ce rta i n orientation i n rook endings.
Chernosvitov overlooked some typical ideas
and plans, and his general assessments
and specific recommendations often proved
i ncorrect.
Sasha ca n be advised to make a serious
study of rook endings, and even better - of
the theory and tech nique of the endgame as
a whole.
 CZJ 1 91

Artur Yusupov

C reative Achievements of P u pils

from the School

1\ t the end of the book it has become a n But this is a l ready a serious mistake .
/""'\e stabl ished tradition to give exa mples Accord ing to theory, better is 1 0 . . . fxe6 1 1
of play by pupils from the school (their ages dxe6 'fie? 1 2 tt:Jd5 '1\i'xe6+ 1 3 'ilfe2 'fixe2+
a re g iven i n brackets). The j u n iors played 1 4 �xe2 0-0 1 5 tt:Jc7 tt:Jc6 1 6 tt:Jxa8 tt:Jb4 1 7
and annotated a whole series of i nteresti ng tt:Jf3 tt:Jc2+ 1 8 '>t>d 1 tt:Jxa 1 1 9 �c4+ � h 8 , as
games, some of which , with slight correc­ i n the g a mes Shereshevsky-Semenyuk,
tions in the analysis, will now be offered to Vil n i u s 1 97 4, and Lputian-Magerramov,
the judgement of the readers. The author Beltsy 1 979.
faced a d ifficult problem , since nea rly every 11 � b5+ �f8
young player has good examples of attack­ 1 1 . . . �e7 is also da ngerous in view of 1 2
ing play. This is not s u rprising: attack, risk .lii.. f4 fxe6 1 3 d6+ 'it>f7 1 4 tt'lf3 .
and imagination a re naturally associated
1 2 tt:Jf3 fxe6
with youth . However, the games chosen
1 2 . . . a6 looks somewhat more accu rate ,
speak for themselves.
although after 1 3 .lii.. e 2 fxe6 1 4 0-0 exd5 1 5
tt:Jg5 ;t>g8 ( 1 5. . . .lii.. f5?? 1 6 �xf5 is completely
Bog uslavsky ( 1 4) - Lepin
bad ; Black also loses after 1 5 . . . d4 1 6 'ilVb3
Moscow 1 989 'ii' d 7 1 7 .lii.. g4) 1 6 .lii.. c4 b5 1 7 .lii.. x d5+ tt:Jxd5
Modern Benoni 1 8 tt:Jf7 Wh ite has a very promising position .
1 d4 tt:Jf6 1 3 0-0 exd5
2 c4 e6 14 tt:Jg5 ..t> g8
3 tt:Jc3 c5 1 4 . . . h6 came into consideration , but in this
4 d5 exd5 case after 1 5 'ii' x d5 "iVxd5 16 tt:Jxd5 hxg5 1 7
5 cxd5 d6 .lii.. x g5 Wh ite reg ain s the piece and reta ins
the i n itiative i n the endgame. Now, however,
6 e4 g6
the king's rook is shut in the corner, and
7 f4 .lii.. g 7
Wh ite is able to ca rry out h i s attack al most
8 e5 u n h i ndered .
This is typical of Maxim's style: a l ready in 1 5 tt:Jxd5
the opening Wh ite chooses the sha rpest Also not bad was 1 5 �c4 ! ? b5 16 .lii.. x d5+
conti nuation . tt:Jxd5 1 7 tt:Jf7 with the idea of a n swering
8. . . dxe5 1 7 .. .'ti'd7 with 1 8 tt:Jh6+ �xh6 1 9 �xh6,
The alternative is the i m mediate 8 . . . tt:Jfd 7 . with decisive th reats.
9 fxe5 tt:Jfd7 15 . . . tt:Jxd5
1 0 e6 tt:Jf6? Usually when defending the king you should
1 92 � C reative Achievements of P u p i l s from the School
aim for the exchange of queens. In the g iven
instance this would not have brought any
particu lar relief: 1 5 .. .'it'xd5 16 'it'xd5+ tLlxd5
1 7 ..ic4 ..id4+ 1 8 'it>h 1 'it>g7 1 9 ..ixd5 l:tf8 20
l:txf8 (20 tLlf7 ! ? is also not bad) 20 . . . 'it>xf8 21
tLle6+ ..ixe6 22 ..ixb7 , wi n n i n g materi a l .
1 6 tLlf7
16 . . . ..id4+?
I n a difficult position Black goes wrong and
is elegantly mated . A subtle queen sacrifice ,
which Boguslavsky had prepared , remained
off-screen . After the best move 1 6 . . . 'i!Ve7 1 7
tLlh6+ ..ixh6 Maxim was intending to play 1 8
iVxd5+ ..ie6 ( 1 8 . . . 'iii g 7 1 9 l:!.f7 + lfixf7 20
..ixh6+ and 1 8 .. .'11V e 6 1 9 ..ixh6 are both bad
for Bl ack) 1 9 'i¥xe6+ ! ! 'i!Vxe6 20 ..ixh6.
A fantastic positi o n , where Wh ite has only
one p iece for the quee n , but one of the
opponent's rooks is out of play and his king
is i n a mating net. The fol l owing variations
a re based on Boguslavsky's a n a lysis .
A) 20 . . . 'it'f7 loses i m mediately t o 21 ..t c4 ;
B ) 20 . . . tLld7 2 1 l:tae 1 'iid 5 ( o r 2 1 . . . 'it'xe 1 2 2
..tc4 + ) 22 .Ue 7 "iid 4+ 23 'iii h 1 tt:Jf6 ( 2 3 . . . tt:J b6
24 ..ie8) 24 l:txf6 with u navoidable mate;
C ) 20 . . . tLlc6 2 1 l:tae 1
C 1 ) 2 1 . . .'�xa2? 22 l:!.f6 ! ( not 22 ..ixc6? bxc6
23 l:!.e7 'i!Vxb2 24 l::r ef7 because of 24 . . . 'ii a 1 ! )
22 . . . 'i!Vf7 23 l:tef1 tLl e 5 2 4 .U.xf7 tLlxf7 2 5
..tc4 and wins;
C2) 2 1 .. .'�'d5 22 b3 tt:Ja5 (if 22 . . . tLle5, then
23 .U.xe5) 23 l:te7 'i!Vd4+ 24 'it> h 1 , and Black
can not pa rry the threat of 25 ..ie8;
C3) Unfo rtunately, Maxim does not consider
the best defence : 21 . . . 'i!Vf7 ! . Here noth ing
decisive is apparent. For example, 22 .U.xf7
'it>xf7 23 ..tc4+ 'it>f6 24 ti.f1 + 'it>e5 25 ..ig7+
'it>d6 with equal ity, o r 22 b3 tLla5 (but not
22 .. .'�xf1 +? 23 l:txf1 tLle5 24 l:te 1 a6 25
..if1 tLlf7 26 ..i c4 , and all the black pieces
a re tied up) 23 ..ie2 1:te8 .
O bjectively, Wh ite would h ave done better
to reject playing for bri l l i a ncy in favou r of 1 8
..txh6! ( i n stead of 1 8 it'xd5+? ! ) 1 8 . . . ..ie6 1 9
..t c4 tt:Jc7 20 it'f3 (20 .l:i.f8+ 'ifxf8 2 1 ..ixe6+
tLlxe6 22 ..txf8 is also possible) 20 . . . tLld7 2 1
l:tae1 , a n d Black has n o defence.
17 'ii'x d4! cxd4
1 8 tt:Jh6+
Black resig ned .
Tepl itsky ( 1 4) - Paruti n
Tashkent 1 989
GnJnfeld Defence
1 tt:Jf3 d5
2 c4 c6
3 e3 tLlf6
4 tt:Jc3 g6
5 d4 .ig7
 C reative Achievements of P u p i l s from the School ltJ 1 93

6 .ie2 0-0
7 0-0 iDbd7
A transposition of moves has led to the
Schlechter Va riation of the G rO nfeld De­
fence. B lack's last move is considered
i naccu rate, si nce now Wh ite ca n exchange
on d 5 , not fearing the development of the
black knight at c6 - the opti mal sq ua re in
this variation . I n this way Wh ite g a i ned a
clear advantage i n the game Botvi n n i k-Biau
(Olympiad , Tel Aviv 1 964) after 8 cxd5 cxd5
9 'ii b 3 e6 1 0 a4 b6 1 1 .i d 2 .
However, Wh ite's move i n the game is also
not bad .
1 6 e5!
8 b3 e6
An imaginative decision. Such moves are
I n a game with Boris Kantsler, Van Tepl itsky very easy to overlook. Now the win of a
found the a ntidote to a nother scheme of piece by 1 7 g4 is threatened . The 'auto­
development for Black: after 8 . . . b6 there matic' 1 6 bxc4 would have left Black more
followed 9 a4 a5 1 0 cxd5 lDxd5 1 1 lDxd5 opportu n ities for cou nterplay after 1 6 . . . e5
cxd5 1 2 .ia3 l:.e8 1 3 l:.c1 .ia6 1 4 .ib5! with 1 7 d 5 .if8 ! ? (but not 1 7 . . . lDc5? 1 8 .ixc5
the better game. bxc5 1 9 d6 l:tb8 20 lDa4 with a decisive
9 'ifc2 .l:.e8 advantage for Wh ite).
1 0 .i b2 aS 16 . . . f5
1 1 l:.ad 1 lD h 5 If 1 6 . . . cxb3 there is the u npleasant reply 1 7
1 2 .ia3! lDe4! ( 1 7 g4 is weaker because of 1 7 . . . c5!
1 8 gxh5 .ixf3 1 9 .ixf3 cxd4 with fine
U p t o here Wh ite has simply deployed hi s
cou nterplay, fully compensating for the
pieces sensi bly. But n o w he reacts t o t he
sacrificed piece ) . Wh ite responds in the
opponent's plans and takes prophylactic
same way to 1 6 . . . b5 !? ( 1 7 lDe4! b4 1 8
measu res against . . . f7-f5 , o n which there
lDd6) .
follows 1 3 .id6, controlling the dark sq uares.
1 7 exf6 ! ?
12 . . . b6
I nteresting play, although t h e q u iet 1 7 bxc4
Black changes plan , but h i s knight proves
would also h ave ensured Wh ite the better
badly placed on the edge of the board
chances.
(remember the famous axiom of Dr. Tar­
17 . . . iDhxf6
rasch ! ) . Wh ite obtains good play by simple
means: he prepares a n offensive i n the 1 8 .i xc4
centre . This move leads to g reat complications.
1 3 .l:lfe 1 .i b7 Wh ite exchanges two bishops for a rook and
pawn . The conseq uences of such a n ex­
1 4 e4 l:.c8
change a re usually d ifficult to assess cor­
1 5 'iid 2 dxc4 rectly. In many cases, especially in the
middlegame, the two pieces prove stronger,
si nce they ca n create more th reats to the
1 94 � C reative Achievements of Pupils from the School

opponent. In the given position Tepl itsky
correctly reckoned that the activity of h i s
heavy pieces, after seizing control o f the
only open file, together with B lack's weak­
ened castled position , would prove more
sign ificant factors than the potential power
of the hitherto dormant black bishops.
18 . . . b5
1 9 i.xe6+ ltxe6
20 ltxe6 b4
21 �e2 ! ? bxa3
If 21 . . . bxc3 , then 22 l:te7 c2 23 .l:.c1 with an
attack (but not 23 �xc2 i.f8).
22 l:.e1 i.f8
22 . . .ltJf8 23 .l:r.e7 .l:.c7 was bad in view of 24
'Wc4+ 'it>h8 25 'Wf7 .
23 ltJg5 i. b4
Black overlooks a spectacular stroke by h i s
opponent. However, 23 . . . .l:tc7 could also
have been answered by 24 l:td6 ! ! i.xd6
(24 . . . 'ii' b 8 25 'We6+ 'it>h8 26 ltJce4 ! ) 25
�e6+ 'it>g7 26 �xd6 'it>g8 27 'ii' e 6+ 'it>g7 28
�f7+ 'it> h6 29 ltJe6 'ii'e 8 30 'ifg7+ with a
�xd6 (but not 26 �f7+? 'it>h6 27 ltJe6
because of 27 . . . 'ii'g 8) Black proves helpless
against the u n ited onslaught of the wh ite
pieces: there is no satisfactory defence
against the th reats of 27 ltJe6+ or 27 l:te7+ .
If 2 4 . . . 'Wc7 Wh ite h a s t h e decisive 25 �e6+
'it>h8 26 ltJce4! i.xe 1 27 ltJxf6 . Final ly, i n the
variation 24 . . . i.xc3 25 �e6+ 'it>g7 26 �f7+
'it>h6 27 .l:txd 7 ! 'Wxd7 (27 . . . ltJxd7 28 ltJe6)
28 'iWxf6 i.xe 1 29 ltJf7+ 'iWxf7 30 'Wxf7 Black
has two bishops a n d a rook for the queen ,
but one of the bishops is inevitably lost.
The attempt by Black to g a i n cou nterplay on
the e-file proves unsuccessfu l .
25 �e6+ 'it>h8
26 .l:t.xd7 l:.e8
27 l:txh7+
This d i spels the opponent's last illusions.
Now Wh ite g ain s a decisive material advan­
tage, which Tepl itsky confidently converts
i nto a win .
[27 'Wxf6+! �xf6 28 .l:.xeB+ i. fB 29 ltJxh 7
would have been more quickly decisive -

decisive attack. Dvoretsky.)

27 . . . ltJxh7
28 'ii' x e8 ltJxg5
29 'iWxg6 ltJf7
30 l:te3 'iWg7
31 �e6 i.d6
32 l:th3+ 'it>g8
33 ltJe4 'Wxd4
34 ltJf6+ 'it>f8
35 'ii' e 8+ 'it>g7
36 l:th7+ 'it>xf6
37 �xf7+
Black resig ned

24 i:td6 ! 1 Bog uslavsky (1 5) - Morozevich

Vacating the e6-square for the decisive Moscow J u n ior Championship 1 990
invasion of the wh ite queen. King 's Indian Defence
24 . . . 'Wf8 1 d4 ltJf6
In the event of 24 . . . i.xd6 25 'We6+ 'it>g7 26 2 c4 g6
 C reative Achievements of P u p i l s from the School ttJ 1 95

3 tt:Jc3 .ig7 Prematu re activity. I t is extremely danger­

4 e4 0-0
5 tt:Jf3 d6
6 .ie2 e5
7 0-0 'ifeB
A rare conti n uation , the m a i n virtue of which
is that the play now departs from fam i l i a r
paths .
8 dxe5 dxe5
9 i.e3
After 9 tt:Jd5 Bog uslavsky g ives the variation
9 . . . tt:Ja6 1 0 tt:Jxf6+ .ixf6 1 1 .ie3 'ii' e 7 1 2
tt:Jd2 tt:Jc5 1 3 b4 tt:Je6 1 4 c5 l:td8 1 5 'ii' c2
.ig5 with an equal game. The latest
bra i nwave in this opening l i n e is 9 b4! ? ,
employed b y lvanch u k against J u d it Polar i n
Novgorod in 1 996. After 9 . . . c 6 1 0 b5 'it' e 7 1 1
a4 l:td8 1 2 .ia3 'it'e8 1 3 'it'b3 .ig4 1 4 a 5 a6
1 6 bxa6 tt:Jxa6 1 6 'it'xb7 Wh ite clearly stood
better.
9 . . . tt:Jfd7?!
Theory, not without reaso n , g ives prefer­
ence to 9 . . . b6. After 1 0 tt:Jd5 tt:Ja6 Wh ite has
tried various conti n u ations, but nowhere
has he gained an advantage:
11 'ifc2 tt:Jg4 12 .id2 c6 1 3 tt:Je3 tt:Jxe3 1 4
.ixe3 tt:J b4 with u n clear play (Gostisa­
Kupreich ik , Belgrade 1 988);
11 .i g 5 tt:Jxe4! ? 1 2 .ie7 c6 1 3 .ixf8 'it'xf8
with good compensation for the sacrificed
exchange (Vu cicevic-Kupreich i k , Belgrade
1 988);
11 tt:Jd2 ! ? tt:Jd7 1 2 'ii' a 4 .ib7, a n d the
position is u n clear ( D reev-Gelfa n d , Arnhem
1 989).
I n stead of 1 0 tt:Jd5 the restrai n ed 1 0 h 3 i s
more prom ising.
1 0 'ii' d 2
The immediate 1 0 b4 ! ? followed by c4-c5
and tt:Jd2-c4 was also not bad .
10 . . . c6
11 b4 f5? !
ous to open up the game with you r
development i n complete .
1 2 exf5 gxf5
1 3 .i h6 .ixh6
1 4 'ifxh6 'ii' g 6
14 . . . l:.f6 came i nto consideration .
1 5 'ii' e 3 aS
1 6 a3 l:teB
17 c5 'ii' g 7?
And this is a l ready a serious mistake . Black,
who is behind i n development, makes
another move with an a l ready developed
piece - of cou rse , this is a im permissible
luxury !
I nteresti ng variations w oul d h ave arisen
after 1 7 .. .f4 . If 1 8 'ii' e4 , then 1 8 . . . tt:Jf6 1 9
'ifxg6+ hxg6 20 .ic4+ '>ti>g7 2 1 tt:Jg5 .if5
(preparing . . . tt:Ja6) 22 tt:Jf7 .id3! 23 .ixd3
'>ti>xf7 with a tenable positio n . However, as
Dvoretsky pointed out, Wh ite can play more
energ etically: 1 8 'ii' d 2 ! ? e4 1 9 .ic4+ '>ti>g7
20 tt:Jxe4 ! , for example: 20 . . .'it'xe4 21 l:tae1
'ii' g 6 22 'ii' xf4 tt:Jf6 23 l:.xe8 'ii'x e8 24 l:t e 1 ,
or 20 . . . l:txe4 2 1 .id3 axb4 22 i.xe4 'ii' xe4
23 .l:.ae1 - in both cases with a powerfu l
attack .
P robably Bl ack should fi rst h ave weakened
the opponent's onslaught by exchanging
one pai r of rooks: 1 7 . . . axb4 ! ? 1 8 axb4
l:txa 1 .
1 8 .i c4+ '>ti>hB
1 9 tt:Jg5 l:te7
N ow 1 9 .. .f4? is too late i n view of 20 tt:Jf7 + .
20 tt:Je6 'it'f6
I n the event of 20 . . . 'it'f7 Boguslavsky was
intending to play 21 tt:Jc7 'it'xc4 22 tt:Jxa8
axb4 23 axb4 'it'xb4 24 tt:Jb6 (24 tt:Ja4 is also
possible) with the possible contin u ation
24 . . . tt:Jxb6 25 cxb6 f4 26 'jj'd 2 'ii' x b6 27 l:ta8
l:td7 (27 . . . "ii c 7 28 l:txb8) 28 'ii' c 2 'iic 7 29
l:tc1 b5 (29 . . . tt:Ja6 30 tt:Jb5 'ii' d 8 31 tt:Ja7 l:c7
32 l:td 1 'jj'e 8 33 'ii' d 2 also fails to save
1 96 � Creative Achievements of P u p i l s from the School

Black) 30 lt:'Jxb5 'ii' b 7 31 llxb8 'ii'x b8 32 Black is unable to disentangle his cl u m p of

'ikxc6 , and Black's position col lapses. pieces on the queenside. H i s pawn-grab­
21 lt:'Jc7 l:a7 bing operation i s explained by the well­
known arg u ment: 'if I'm going to suffer, then
22 b5!
at least I ' l l h ave someth ing to show for it' . By
Switch ing to decisive action . energetic play Boguslavsky q u ickly con­
22 . . . a4 cludes the game.
27 . . . 'ii' x c5
28 l:!ac1 1\i'xa3
If 28 . . . 'ii'f8 , then simply 29 i.e6 li'lb6 30
.txc8 lt:Jxc8 31 l:txe5 and wins.
29 il.e6 'ikfB
30 'ii' c 3
30 l:txe5 was also possible.
30 . . . b6
30 . . . 'ii' c 5 would not have saved Black in
view o f 3 1 'ii' a 1 'ii'f8 32 l:!xe5.
3 1 l:!.xe5 'i1Vf6
32 :g5t
A simple, but attractive stroke. S i nce the
captu re of the queen leads i mmed iately to
23 lt:'Jcd 5 ! ?
mate , Black can only try to postpone this
O f cou rse, White has an undisputed advan­ inevitable finish by a couple of moves.
tage. Very often it is not easy to decide
32 . . . h6
whether the moment for concrete measu res
has arrived . In the given instance Wh ite had 33 l:tgB+ 'ifi>h7
a good opportun ity to fu rther strengthen hi s 34 11i'd3+
position b y 23 : a d 1 . However, t he ex­ B lack resig ned .
changing combination u ndertaken by Bo­
guslavsky, which thematically resembles Zviagi ntsev (1 3) - Nachev
the previous game, is also good : Wh ite Voskresensk 1 990
sharpens the situation at a moment when Slav Defence
the opponent's pieces a re least wel l pre­ 1 d4 d5
pared for coord inated action .
2 c4 c6
23 . . . cxd5
3 li'lf3 lt:'Jf6
24 lt:'Jxd5 f4
4 li'lc3 dxc4
This intermed iate move does noth ing to 5 a4 il.g4
change the evaluation of the position: the
A rather risky variation, which has been
black pawns in the centre remain under fi re
upheld i n a n u m ber of games by P redrag
by the heavy pieces .
N i kolic. True, to cast dou bts on it Wh ite has
25 'ii' d2 1\i' g5 to play very energetically.
26 lt:'Jxe7 'ii' x e7 6 li'le5 il.h5
27 l:!.fe1 7 h3!
 C reative Ach ievements of P u p i l s from the School
The most u n pleasant continuation for Black.
At a favou rable opportun ity Wh ite wants to
occupy the centre with hi s pawns, a n d for
this he u n pin s his e-pawn .
7 . . . ltJa6
What can happen if B lack does not fight for
the i n itiative is illu strated by a game of
Vad i m Zviagi ntsev against l lya Frog (Mos­
cow 1 989), in which after 7 . . . ltJbd7 8 g4
�g6 9 ltJxc4 e6 1 0 �g2 � b4 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2
aS! ltJdS 1 3 'ili'b3 bS 1 4 axb6 ttJ 7xb6 1 S e4
ltJxc3 1 6 bxc3 �e7 1 7 f4! Wh ite success­
fully carried out his plan of seizing the
centre .
8 g4 �g6
9 �g2 ltJ b4
10 0-0
If 1 0 e 4 there would have followed 1 O . . . 'ii' x d4.
10 . . . �c2 ! ?
Wea ker is 1 0 . . . ltJd7?! 1 1 ltJxc4 with advan­
tage to Wh ite (Gelfand-Khuzm a n , U S S R
1 987).
1 1 'ii' d 2 � b3
1 2 ltJe4 1
1 2 'ii'f4 ! ? h6 1 3 �e3 leads to u nclea r
compl ications ( Levitt-Fiear, British Champi­
onship 1 989). If 12 a S , with the u nequ ivocal
idea of advancing the pawn fu rther, modern
theory recommends 1 2 . . . e6, not paying any
attention to the oppo ne nt's threat. After 1 3
a6 'flc7 1 4 axb7 'ii' x b7 (Campos Moreno­
Rogers , Olympiad, M a n i l a 1 992) Wh ite stil l
h a s t o demonstrate that he h a s sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed pawn .
12 . . . ltJc2
1 2 . . . ttJxe4? 1 3 'iifx b4 liJd6 is bad in view of
the spectacular rejoinder pointed out by
Gelfand and Kapengut: 1 4 'iifx b7 ! ! , a n d
Wh ite wins.
13 ltJc5
If 1 3 ltJxc6 , then 1 3 . . . 'ii' b 6!
Kapengut).
13 . . . 'ii' x d4
lLJ 1 97
The game Yusu pov-G reta rsson , Groningen
1 997, went 1 3 . . . ltJdS 14 .l:tb1 e6 1 S ltJxc4 !
�xc4?! 1 6 'iifx c2 �xeS 1 7 dxcS �a6 1 8 b4
with advantage to Wh ite - however, 1 S . . .
�xeS 1 6 dxcS 0-0 demands fu rther testin g .
1 4 ltJxb7 ltJd5
Not 1 4 . . . 'ii' x d2? because of 1 S �xc6+! 'ii'd 7
1 6 ltJxd7 ltJxd7 1 7 l:td 1 fS 1 8 .l:.xd7 ltJxa 1 1 9
l:td8+ <i;f7 20 .l:.xa8 (Khenkin-Sapis, Lenin­
g rad 1 989).
15 'ii' g 5!
This home preparation by Zviagi ntsev sets
Black u n pleasant problems. 1 S ltJxc6 'iifx d2
1 6 �xd2 is less dangerous in view of
1 6 . . . ttJxa 1 1 7 �xdS e6 ( Ftacnik) or 1 6 . . . e6
(Gelfa n d , Kapengut) with roughly eq ual
play. Now both 16 ltJxc6 and 16 'ii'fS are
th reatened .
15 . . . e6 ! ?
After t h e critical 1 S . . . f6 ! ? Zviagintsev was
i ntend i n g to contin u e 1 6 'ii' h S+ g6 1 7 ltJxg6
hxg6 1 8 'iifx h8, and if 1 8 . . . g S , then Wh ite
reta i n s the i n itiative by playing 1 9 e4! . And in
the event of 1 S . . . 'it' b6, accord ing t o his
a nalysis, strong is 1 6 'ii'fS 'ii' x b7 17 'i!Vxf7+
<i;d8 1 8 l:td 1 c3 ( 1 8 . . . ltJxa 1 ? 1 9 �xdS �xd 1
20 �xc6 'ii' x c6 2 1 ltJxc6+ <i;c7 22 �f4+
<i;xc6 23 'ii' e 6+ with mate i n th ree moves;
1 8 . . . ltJ b4 1 9 �f4) 1 9 ltJxc6+ 'ii' x c6 20 �xdS
�xdS 21 l::t x dS+ <i;c8 22 l:.d3 ! .
(Gelfa n d ,
1 98 <t> Creative Achievements of P u p i l s from the School
1 6 �e3 ! !
A very un pleasant move for Black. I t
transpires that i t is u nfavourable t o captu re
the bishop. 1 6 . . . �dxe3?? loses i m medi­
ately to 1 7 �xc6 + , while after 1 6 . . . �cxe3
the f-file is opened and Wh ite obtains a very
dangerous attack: 1 7 fxe3 f6 1 8 :xt6 gxf6
1 9 'Wh5+ (C. Horvath ), or 1 7 . . . Wxb2 1 8
l:tab 1 'Wc3 1 9 .l:!.xf7 , and if 1 9 . . . �c2 there
follows 20 'Wxg7! �xg7 2 1 �d6+ 'iti>d8 22
�xc6 mate .
16 . . . 'ii'x b2
17 �c5!
Wh ite intensifies the pressure. Now 1 7 . . .
�xa 1 ? loses to 1 8 �xd5 cxd5 1 9 �d6+ . If
17 . . . h6!? Wh ite had prepa red 1 8 'iff4 ! ! f6 1 9
'if'e4 'ifxe5 20 'ifg6+ 'iti>d7 2 1 'Wf7+ 'iti>c8 22
�a5 l:tb8 23 �xf8 with a very strong attack.
However, as Dvoretsky pointed out, i nstead
of 21 . . . 'iti>c8?! Black ca n play 21 . . . �e7 ! , not
fea ring 22 �xe7 �xe7 23 :ad 1 + �d4.
Possibly then Wh ite would have had to force
a draw by 22 �xd5 exd5 23 ..txe7 'ifxe7 24
�c5+ 'iti>d6 25 �b7+.
17 . . . �xc5
18 'ifxg7!
This intermed iate move , threatening mate ,
is the point of Wh ite's idea .
18 . . . l:!f8
Comparatively best. The queen sacrifice
1 8 . . . 'Wxe5 1 9 'Wxe5 �d4 would not have
brought any rel ief, since the th reats created
by the wh ite queen together with the knight
would have been too dangerous. For exam­
ple, after 20 'ifd6 � xa 1 21 'ifxc6+ 'iti>f8 22
�d6 'iti>g7 23 ..txd5 exd5 24 �f5+ things
end i n mate .
I nterposing 1 8 . . . �xf2+? would merely open
an additional line for the attack: 1 9 l:txf2
'it'xa 1 + 20 i.f1 ! (weaker is 20 'iti>h2 llf8 2 1
l:txf7 'ifxe5+) 2 0 . . . l:tf8 2 1 .l:txf7 .
1 9 �xc5 0-0-0 !
I n such a position it is easy to overlook
someth ing. Thus in the event of 1 9 . . . �xa 1 ?
2 0 �xe6 ! 'Wa3! 2 1 �xd5 cxd5 22 �c7+
'iti>e7 (or 22 . . . 'iti>d8 23 'Wf6+ 'iti> c8 24 'ii' c 6) 23
'ii' g 5+ f6 24 'it'g7+ Black would h ave lost
immediately.
20 .l:tab1 ! 11Vd4
20 . . . 'Wa3 was bad in view of 2 1 �xb3 cxb3
22 �xc6 , but 20 . . . 11Vc3 ! ? came i nto consid­
e ration . Zviagi ntsev was p l a n n i ng to reply
21 �e4 , but then Black is able to simpl ify
the game by 2 1 . . .l:tg8! 22 'ifxg8 (forced )
22 . . . :xg8 23 �xc3 �xc3 with an un clear
endgame. The prophylactic 21 'iti> h 1 ! ? is
stronger, or the more d i rect 21 e4 ! ? �c7
(afte r 21 . . . �f4 the reply 22 Wg5! is ex­
tremely u npleasant) 22 �cd 7 ! :tea 23
'ii' xf7 (poi nted out by Dvoretsky).
2 1 �cd7?!
When the opponent is defending tena­
ciously, it can be very d ifficult to conduct an
attack fau ltlessly. I nstead of the move i n the
game, 21 �xb3! cxb3 22 l:txb3 was simpler,
when the d ifference i n the placing of the
kings should be bound to tel l . The operation
plan ned by Wh ite allows the opponent
unexpected saving chances.
21 . . . �c3?
Black thi n ks that he is forced to go i n for an
exchange of blows. With h is king exposed ,
this leads to a ra pid fi n i s h . Of cou rse ,
2 1 . . . :xd7? was bad : 22 Wxf8+ :da 23
 Creative Ach ievements of P u p i l s from the School
�xd8+! �xd8 24 lt:Jxc6+ 'it>d7 25 lt:Jxd4
lt:Jxd4 26 e3. The o n ly possibil ity of a
defence was 2 1 . . . l:i.fe8 ! ! 22 e3!? (22 �xd5
exd 5 ! ) 22 .. ."ir'c3 (22 . . . lt:Jcxe3!? 23 fxe3
lt:Jxe3 24 �xf7 l:te7 ! is possibly stronger) 23
lt:Jc5 ! ? l:te7 ! , and if 24 lt:Je4, then 24 .. .f5 ! .
True, even i n this case Wh ite h a s good
chances of success. H e conti nues 25 'il¥xe7
'il*'xe5 26 'ii' c 5!? (26 'il*'g5 also comes into
consideration) 26 . . .fxe4 27 'ii' x c6+ lt:Jc7 28
.txe4 with the better game. For exa mple,
28 . . . .l:i.d5 29 i.xd5 'il*'xd5 30 �xd5 lt:Jxd5 31
.l:i.xb3 cxb3 32 .l:i.b1 lt:Jc3 33 .l::t x b3 lt:Jxa4 34
.l::t b 5.
22 lt:lxf8 ! lt:Jxb1
23 i.xc6 'il*'b6
23 . . . 'ili'f4? is bad in view of 24 lt:Jxe6 .
24 'i!i'xf7 c3
After the comparatively best 24 . . . lt:Jd4 there
is the adequate reply 25 �d7+ 'itb8 26
l1xb 1 . The move i n the game loses even
more material .
2 5 i.d7+
Black resig ned .
Of cou rse, when we tal k about an attack, we
have a mental picture of bri l l i a nt combi na­
tions and su btle sacrifices . However, in
many cases one ca n manage without
brill iance . Thus i n the fol lowing game,
victory was g a ined without any outward
effects , but by apparently very simple
means. But such simpl icity is deceptive :
very often it can be more d ifficult to fi nd a
q u iet move , strengthening the position, than
to land a tactical blow.
N i kitin - Makariev ( 1 5)
CIS J u nior Champions h i p , J u rmala 1 992
King's Indian Defence
1 d4 lt:Jf6
2 c4 g6
3 lt:Jc3 �g7
4 e4 d6
lZJ 1 99
5 f3 0-0
6 i.e3 lt:Jc6
7 lt:Jge2 a6
8 a3
The main conti n u ation is the natural 8 'ii' d 2 ,
b u t t h e move i n t h e game, preparing play o n
t h e queenside, is also n o t without venom.
However, l lya Makariev is well prepared for
such a turn of events and he acts in
accordance with the recommendations of
theory.
8 . . . i.d7
9 b4 'ir'b8 ! ?
Black u n h u rriedly prepares . . . b7-b5, since
in the g iven variation it is simpler for Wh ite
to respond to the opponent's actions than to
ca rry out h i s own pla n . Thus after the
immediate 9 . . . b5 there would have followed
1 0 cxb5 axb5 1 1 d5 lt:Je5 1 2 lt:Jd4, while if
9 . . . e5, then 1 0 d 5 lt:Je7 1 1 g4 lt:Je8 1 2 lt:lc1 f5
1 3 lt:lb3 ( Korch noi-Ste i n , 3 1 st U SSR Cham­
pionsh i p , Len ingrad 1 963).
10 'ilt'd2
If now 1 0 lt:Jc1 , then 1 O . . . b5 would be very
timely, since in the event of 1 1 cxb5 axb5 the
b5-pawn is indirectly defended ( 1 2 i.xb5
lt:Jxb4 ). If 1 0 d5 lt:Je5 1 1 lt:Jd4, then 1 1 . . . c6
1 2 dxc6 ( 1 2 f4 lt:Jg4 ; 1 2 i.e2 cxd5 1 3 cxd5
.l::t c 8) 1 2 . . . bxc6 1 3 i.e2 a5 with cou nterplay.
10 . . . b5
N ow i n the event of the pawn exchange on
b5 Black will be th reatening to captu re on
b4 . Also possible was Boleslavsky's recom­
mendation 1 O . . . l:i.e8 ! ? (th is move is useful if
Wh ite should move his knight from e2, si nce
then . . . e7-e5 gains i n strength ) 1 1 g3 b5 1 2
c5 a 5 1 3 .l::t b 1 e6 1 4 'itf2 'ii' b 7 with equal
cha nces .
1 1 g4
A bold decision - Wh ite mou nts an offensive
over a n excessively wide front. On the other
h a n d , continuations such as 1 1 d5? lt:Je5 1 2
cxb5 lt:Jc4 , 1 1 cxb5 axb5 1 2 d 5 lt:Jxb4 o r 1 1
lt:Jc1 e5 a re not too impressive . A possible
200 � Creative Achievements of P u p i l s from the School

alternative is 1 1 c5! ? a5 1 2 l:t b 1 axb4 1 3

axb4 , maintaining his position i n the centre .
It would have been much harder for Black to
create cou nterplay ( 1 3 . . . dxc5 1 4 bxc5) , and
for the moment the a-file, which has been
conceded to h i m , does not play any role.
11 . . . bxc4
1 2 h4
If 1 2 l:lb1 Black was planning 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 d 5
t:D a7 ( 1 3 .. . t:D e 7 with th e i d e a o f . . . t:De8 and
. . . f7-f5 is also possible) 14 a4 c6 with
cou nterplay.
1 2 g5!? deserved serious consideration . If
12 . . . t:De8 there would have followed 1 3 h4! 14 . . . ii'd8 !
e5 14 d5 ( 1 4 h 5 ! ? ) 14 . . . t:De7 1 5 h5 with
T h i s modest return o f t h e queen prepares
un pleasant th reats . Black would probably
cou nterplay in the centre .
have had to decide on 1 2 . . . t:Dh5! 1 3 t:Dg3!
1 5 f4
e5 14 t:Dxh5 gxh5 (14 . . . exd4 ?! 1 5 t:Dxg7
dxe3 1 6 'ii' b 2) 1 5 t:Dd5 ( 1 5 dxe5 ! ? ) 1 5 . . . exd4 If 1 5 d5 Black would have conti n ued
( 1 5 . . . t:Dxd4? 1 6 �xd4 exd4 1 7 t:Df6+), and if 1 5 . . . t:De5 1 6 t:Dd4 e6! 1 7 f4 ( 1 7 dxe6 c5 ! )
16 t:Df6+, then either 1 6 . . . ..ll xf6 1 7 gxf6 dxe3 1 7 . . . exd5 1 8 t:Dxd5 ( 1 8 fxe5 dxe5) 1 8 . . . t:Dg4
1 8 'ii'g 2+ ..ll g 4, or 1 6 . . . �h8 1 7 �xd4 ( 1 7 with nu merous th reats .
t:Dxd7? dxe3) 1 7 . . . t:Dxd4 1 8 'ii' x d4 �e6 with 15 . . . e5
possibilities of cou nterplay on the queenside Beginning a counterattack in the centre .
by . . . c7-c5 or . . . a6-a5.
1 6 fxe5?
12 . . . h5
1 6 d5? was also i n correct i n view of
White's offensive on the kingside must be 1 6 . . . exf4 . But now Black's position i n the
halted . The u nexpected 1 2 . . . a5 1 3 b5 centre is reinfo rced even more . It was time
t:Db4?! is too pretty to be true. Wh ite ca n to think a bout development and to prepare
choose between the restrained 1 4 axb4 castl ing by 1 6 �g2.
axb4 1 5 J:txa8 bxc3 ( 1 5 . . . it'xa8?! 1 6 t:Da2)
16 . . . dxe5
16 t:Dxc3 ii'xa8 1 7 ..ll xc4 with the better
1 7 d5 tiJa7
game, and the more refi ned 14 t:Dc1 !? with
the threat of It b 1 . 18 a4
1 3 g5 t:Dh7 In parrying the obvious threat of . . . tiJ a7-b5 ,
14 .l:!.b1 ? ! Wh ite allows a more u n pleasant p l a n for the
opponent. However, it is not easy to suggest
T h i s move would appear t o h a n d the
anythi ng sensible. Thus 1 8 ..ll x a7 .l:!.xa7
in itiative to the opponent. 14 f4 ! with the
(with the th reat of . . . f7-f6) i s hopeless, as is
th reat of 1 5 d5 was more consistent. If
1 8 ..ll c 5 .l:!.e8 , or 1 8 d6 cxd6 1 9 ii'xd6 tiJ b5.
14 . . . a5, then according to Makariev's analy­
Meanwh ile, the pawn captu red on c4 is
sis White should continue 1 5 b5 t:Da7 1 6 l:tb 1
increasingly beg i n n i n g to resemble a sound
( 1 6 a4 c6! ) 1 6 . . . 'it'e8 1 7 a4 t:Dc8 1 8 t:Dg3 t:Db6
extra pawn . . .
1 9 f5. It probably makes sense for Black to
sacrifice a pawn by 1 4 . . . e5!? 1 5 dxe5 ..ll g 4 18 . . . tiJc8 !
16 exd6 ..llf3 with double-edged play. The knight goes to d6, where it not only
 Creative Ach ievements of P u p i l s from the School ttJ 201

defends the c4-pawn , but also presses on I should l i ke to conclude this acco u nt of
the wh ite centre . B lack's adva ntage i n­ exa m ples of the pupils' play with one more,
creases. later game by Vad i m Zviagi ntsev, which was
19 lLJg3 lLJd6 judged to be the best game in lnformator
20 i.e2 N o .62 and was in cluded in a collection ,
publ ished i n England, of the 1 00 best
games ever played .

C ifuentes - Zviagi ntsev (1 8)

Wijk aan Zee 1 995
Slav Defence
1 d4 d5
2 c4 e6
3 lLJf3 lLJf6
4 tt:Jc3 c6
5 e3 lLJbd7
6 'ii' c 2 b6! ?
7 i.e2
Black would l i ke to play . . . f7-f6 , after which 7 i.d3! i.b7 8 0-0 is more energetic, and if
Wh ite's position on the kingside must 8 . . . dxc4 ? ! , then 9 i.xc4 c5 1 0 'ii'e 2.
crumble. However, the immediate 20 . . . f6? 7 . . . i. b7
allows 2 1 i.xh5! or 2 1 tt:Jxh5! with com­ 8 0-0 i.e?
pletely u n n ecessa ry compl ications. A su btle 9 lld1
prophylactic move prepares a decisive
In Zviagi ntsev's opinion, 9 b3 was more
offensive with g a i n of tempo.
accu rate .
20 . . . 'ii' e 8!
9 . . . 0-0
21 'ii'a 2
1 0 e4 dxe4
Parrying the opponent's most obvious
1 1 tt:Jxe4 'ii' c 7!
(2 1 . . . i.xa4) and least dangerous threat.
It is usefu l to prevent i.f4 .
21 . . . f6
1 2 tt:Jc3?!
22 llg1 ? ! fxg5
23 hxg5 'We7 I n this way Wh ite can not hope for an
advantage. If he wanted t o obta i n a comfort­
24 'ifd2 l:tf4!
able game, he should not have avoided
The decisive stroke! After Black's 'qu iet' exchanges. Both 1 2 tt:Jxf6+ tt:Jxf6 and 1 2
20th move his attack has run l i ke clockwork. i.g5 c5 would h ave led to approximate
25 1Lxh5 gxh5 equal ity.
26 lLJxh5 l:!.g4 12 . . . c5
27 .Uxg4 i.xg4 1 3 d5?!
28 lLJg3 .l:.f8 A risky conception. 1 3 lLJb5 'iib 8 14 g3 cxd4
29 g6 lLJf6 1 5 lLJbxd4 .l:te8 would also not have promised
30 ..tc5 lLJ h 5 White anything. Possibly he should have
Wh ite resig ned . completed his development with 1 3 i.g5.
202 <;t> C reative Achievements of P u p i l s from the School

13 . . . exd5 In the event of 23 .if4 Black was i ntend i ng

1 4 cxd5 a6 to avoid the exchange of bishops by
1 5 l:Dh4 23 . . . .if8 ! , with somewhat the better chances.
All the same Wh ite does not ach ieve his a i m 23 . . . l:tad8
- the exchange o f t h e blockad ing piece. The Zviagi ntsev includes his last reserves i n the
immediate 1 5 a4 was better. The simple 1 5 battle. 23 . . . t:Dxf2? 24 <it'xf2 'ili'h3 25 .if4
.ig5 or even the ultra-active 1 5 'ii"f5 ! ? also i.xf4 was prematu re in view of 26 t:Dxf4 (but
came into consideration . not 26 gxf4 beca use of 26 . . . l:txe3! 27 <it'xe3
15 . . . g6 l:Dg4+). Also noth ing was g iven by 23 . . . 'ii' h 3
The immediate 1 5 . . . i.d6 would have led to 24 ..tf4 l:.ad8 25 l:D c4 .
roughly the same situation , but Black did not 2 4 .ig2?
want to allow his opponent any active Wh ite takes control of the h 3-square and
possibilities after 1 6 t:Df5 .ixh2+ 1 7 <it' h 1 creates the possible threat of f2-f3 . This
i.d6 1 8 t:De4 , although the pawn sacrifice very natu ral operation nevertheless has a
looks questionable. tactical flaw. Little was also prom ised by 24
16 .ih6 .l::tfe 8 .if4 .if8 , since if 25 l:Dc4 there is the simple
17 'ii"d 2?! reply 25 . . . .ixd5. Following the example of
Now Wh ite should defin itely have restricted his opponent, Wh ite should h ave brought
Black's play on the q ueenside by 1 7 a4! . his rook i nto play, si nce for the moment the
sacrifice on f2 does not work: 24 l:tac1
17 . . . .id6
t:Dxf2? 25 <it' xf2 1i'h3 26 .if4 'ii' x h2+ 27 l:Dg2
With this thematic move Black parries the .ixf4 28 t:Dxf4 .
opponent's simple th reats of 1 8 d6 and 1 8
t:Df5 .
1 8 g3 b5
19 .if3
If 1 9 t:Df5 , then 1 9 . . . b4 is u n pleasant.
19 . . . b4
1 9 . . . l:De5 also came i nto considerati o n.
20 t:De2
Hoping to create cou nterplay after a2-a3 or
t:Df5 .
20 . . . t:De4
Here also it was not too late for 20 . . . t:De5.
The move in the game allows Wh ite to bring
his king's knight i nto play and consolidate
his position. 24 . . . t:Dxf2 !
21 'ii'c2 l:D df6 This sacrifice is merely the prelude to a
22 l:Dg2! genuine combin ative fi rework d isplay. The
The knight heads for e3 and, g iven the wh ite king is l u red i nto the centre , under the
opportu n ity, to c4 . fi re of the opponent's pieces.
22 . . . 'ifd7 25 <it'xf2 .l:txe 3 1
23 l:De3 26 .ixe3? !
 Creative Achievements of P u p i l s from the School ltJ 203

If Cifuentes had a nticipated the fate awa it­

ing h i m , he would undoubtedly have pre­
ferred 26 �xe3 ltJg4+ 27 �d2 ltJxh6 2a
�c1 'ti'e7 , although i n this case too the
chances a re with Black, who has a pawn for
the exchange with good attacking cha nces.
26 . . . ltJg4+
27 �f3 ltJxh2+
28 �f2 ltJg4+
29 �f3
Wh ite was probably hoping that h i s oppo­
nent would repeat moves: after a l l , Black is
a rook down! But Zviagi ntsev conti nues to
find new attacking resou rces. 31 . . . 'ii'e 3+ ! !
29 . . . 'ii' e 6! The most elegant solution , leading b y force
30 ..tf4 to mate . However, the prosaic 31 . . . ..txf4
would also have won :
Although this move loses, it should not
really be criticised . Other contin u ations 3 2 gxf4 'ii' e 3+ 3 3 �xg4 .tea+ 3 4 f5 (34 �h4
would most probably have led to the same 'ii'f2+ 35 ltJg3 l:te3) 34 . . . ..txf5+ 35 �h4
result: 'ili'f2+ 36 ltJg3 .l:!e3;
30 'ife4 'ii'x e4+ 31 <ti>xe4 l:tea + ; 32 liJxf4 liJh2+ 33 �f2 'ili'e3 mate .
30 ..tc1 c4 ! 3 1 'ife4 ( o r 3 1 liJf4 liJh2+ 3 2 I n my view, this dual solution does l ittle to
�f2 ..tc5+ with mate) 3 1 . . . 'ii' x e4+ 32 �xe4 spoil the aesthetic impression made by
liJf2+ 33 �d4 ltJxd 1 with a material and Zviagi ntsev's wonderful attack.
positional advantage; 32 ..t xe3
30 ..tg5 ..te7 31 liJf4 'ii' e 3+ 32 �xg4 .tea+ Black g ives mate even more q u ickly after 32
33 ltJe6 ..-xg5+ 34 �f3 fxe6 with a decisive �xg4 .tea+ 33 'iti>g5 (33 'iti>h4 ..te7+)
attack. 33 . . . .Ue5+ .
30 . . . .:te8! 32 . . . l:!.xe3+
Evidently the most energetic contin u ation of 33 'iti>xg4 ..tc8+
the attack. Clearly weaker was 30 . . . ..txd5+ 34 'iti>g5
3 1 l:.xd5 'ii' x d5+ 32 'ii' e4 , but both 30 . . . ..txf4
O r 34 'iti>h4 ..te7 mate .
31 'i!Ve4 ! ? 'ii' x e4+ 32 �xe4 ..tg5 and
30 . . .f5 ! ? were perfectly possible. 34 . . . h6+!

3 1 'i!Vc4 The fi nal touch . 34 . . . 'iti>g7 would have

prolonged the game in view of 35 l:t h 1 (or 35
There is no other defence against 31 . . .
'ili'xc5) .
..txd 5 + .
35 �xh6 .:te5
Aga i n st mate on the next move (36 . . . ..tfa or
36 . . J:th5) there is no defence.
Wh ite resig ned .
204 �

Index of Players and Analysts

Adams 1 29 Fori ntos 1 49

Ahues 80 Franzo n i 6 1
Alexander 9 , 3 1
Anand 1 23 , 1 78 , 1 79 , 1 80 Georgadze 1 38
G rigoriev 8 1
Bagirov 42, 44 G u l ko 1 26
Bareev 1 77 G u rgen idze 53
Belavenets 53
Bel iavsky 53, 1 04 , 1 49 Hort 27
Belov 1 53 , 1 55 , 1 56 , 1 58 , 1 60 Hubner 1 2 1
Berg 27
Blumenfeld 35, 36, 83 loh lesen 53
Bobrov 28 lvanch u k 1 1 8
Boguslavsky 1 9 1 , 1 94 l vkov 9 1
Bondarenko 1 5 , 25
Janowski 82
Bronstein 1 4 1
Jansa 28
Butnoryus 1 2

Kamshonkov 1 55
Capablanca 48
Ka rpov 46, 55
Chekhov 20
Kasparian 23
Chernin 53
Kaspa rov 46, 55, 1 77 , 1 78 , 1 79 , 1 80
Chernosvitov 1 82
Kholmov 1 49
Cifuentes 2 0 1
K hramtsov 1 45
Ciocaltea 1 6
Kmoch 78, 79
Den isov 1 82 Kotkov 1 7
Dolmatov 59, 6 1 , 63, 66, 68, 73 Kotov 1 0
Dvoretsky 1 2 , 1 7 , 20, 44 , 47, 99, 1 38 , Krasen kow 33
1 4 1 , 1 43 , 1 45 Kuznetsov 1 5

Engel 1 00 , 1 1 2 Lag u nov 33

Euwe 9 , 82 Larsen 53, 66
Evans 1 34 Lasker, E m . 82
Lempert 1 56
Fahrni 84 Lep i n 1 9 1
Fischer 1 34 Lerner 1 6 , 59, 73
Flesch 63 Liberzon 1 6
 I ndex of Players and Ana lysts CZJ 205

Liburkin 25 Sanakoev 1 00 , 1 0 1 , 1 05 , 1 07 , 1 1 2 , 1 65
Lukin 1 6 Sax 97
Lungdal 1 07 Sergeev 36, 8 1
Lyubli nsky 1 49 Shamkovich 1 33
Sheveche k 1 05
Maeder 1 65 Simagin 1 33 , 1 49, 1 5 1
Makariev 1 99 S myslov 53
Makarychev 53 Sokolov, A. 28
Marshall 3 1 Suetin 42
Maryasin 1 43
Mestel 1 75 Tal 47, 85, 89
M i les 53 Tepl itsky 1 92
M ityaev 1 60 Timoshchenko 29
Morozevich 1 94 Tolonen 1 50
Tsariov 94
N achev 1 96
N ajdorf 1 0
Vaga n i a n 29
Naumkin 1 49
Van der Sterren 68
N i kitin 1 99
Vasyu kov 85
N imzowitsch 48, 78, 82
Vau l i n 1 53
Ochoa 1 50 Vera 1 50
Orlov 83 Vulfson 94

Parutin 1 92 Wotawa 1 4
Pch iolkin 1 50
Peev 99 Xie J u n 1 1 6
Petrosi a n , A. 1 49
Petrosi a n , T. 9 1 , 97, 1 5 1 Yach men n i k 1 58
P i nter 53 Yates 79, 80
Platonov 28 Yusu pov 1 1 5 , 1 1 6 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 1 , 1 23 , 1 26,
1 29
Razuvaev 1 04
Rebel 8 1 1 5 Zaitsev, A. 1 0 1
Ribli 89 Zedek 1 49
Rivas Pastor 1 75 Zhivtsov 35
Rotlewi 84 Zviagi ntsev 1 96 , 2 0 1
206 �

Index of Openings

Alekh ine Defence 44

Caro-Ka nn Defence 63, 66

French Defence 1 38 , 1 4 1

GrOnfeld Defence 1 33 , 1 92

King's Indian Attack 85

King's Indian Defence 1 94 , 1 99

Modern Benoni 1 9 1

N i mzo-lndian Defence 9 1 , 1 26

Philidor Defence 59

Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence 97, 1 29 , 1 43

Queen's Gambit Accepted 1 1 8 , 1 82

Queen's I ndian Defence 55

Queen's Pawn Opening 1 1 5 , 1 23

Reti Open ing 20, 68, 89

Ruy Lopez 1 1 6

Sicilian Defence 6 1 , 73, 94 , 1 65

Simagin-Larsen Opening 1 45

Slav Defence 1 2 1 , 1 96 , 2 0 1