Analyse to win 9780713478044, 0713478047

Table of contents :
Analyse to win (Jacobs 1997)......Page 1
Copyright......Page 4
Contents......Page 5
Introduction......Page 9
Keeping a cool head......Page 15
Tartakower - Spielmann, 1913......Page 16
Making life difficult......Page 17
Marshall - Lasker, 1924......Page 18
Thomas - Unzicker, 1950......Page 19
Bronstein - Kotov, 1946......Page 20
Kasparov - Lautier, 1994......Page 23
Karpov - Hiibner, 1979......Page 24
E01: Vanheste - Nijboer, 1991......Page 26
Solution E01......Page 32
E03: Kasparov - Roizman, 1978......Page 27
Solution E02......Page 33
Solution E03......Page 34
E05: Canal - Johner, 1929......Page 28
Solution E05......Page 35
E07: Botvinnik - Euwe, 1948......Page 29
Solution E06......Page 37
Solution E08......Page 38
E09: Smirin - Alterman, 1995......Page 30
Solution E09......Page 39
E12: Kubanek - Kopriva, 1952......Page 31
Solution E11......Page 40
Solution E12......Page 41
Ch02: Decisive Defence......Page 43
Janowski - Burn, 1898......Page 44
Alapin - Chigorin, 1901......Page 46
Nimzowitsch - Fluss, 1906......Page 48
Tolush - Smyslov, 1947......Page 49
Sakhatova - Zaitseva, 1985......Page 50
Salov - Ivanchuk, 1990......Page 51
E01: Machate - Bogolyubov, 1936......Page 53
E12: Bartrina - Ghitescu, 1974......Page 58
E04: Velimirovic - Uhlmann, 1976......Page 54
Solution E02......Page 59
Solution E03......Page 60
Solution E04......Page 61
E06: Vaisser - Dautov, 1995......Page 55
Solution E05......Page 62
Solution E06......Page 63
E08: Shirov - Leko, 1995......Page 56
Solution E07......Page 64
Solution E08......Page 65
E11: Belavanets - Smyslov, 1939......Page 57
Solution E09......Page 67
Solution E11......Page 68
Solution E12......Page 69
Practice makes perfect......Page 71
Bologan-Kramnik......Page 72
Kamsky - Karpov, 1993......Page 73
Keres - Geller, 1952......Page 75
Nunn - Seirawan, 19S4......Page 76
Smyslov - Simagin, 1951......Page 77
Kasparov - Polugaevsky, 1979......Page 79
Oim - Zagarovsky, 1984......Page 80
E02: Polugaevsky - Averbakh, 1961......Page 82
Solution E01......Page 88
Solution E02......Page 89
E04: Tartakower - Jaffe, 1911......Page 83
Solution E04......Page 90
E06: Balashov - Shirov, 1988......Page 84
Solution E06......Page 92
E08: Kamsky - Nikolic, 1991......Page 85
Solution E07......Page 93
Solution E08......Page 94
E10: Adams - Kramnik, 1994......Page 86
Solution E10......Page 95
E12: Grunfeld - Tartakower, 1922......Page 87
Solution E11......Page 96
Solution E12......Page 97
Mass and Energy......Page 99
Karpov - Topalov, 1994......Page 100
Spassky - Karpov, 1974......Page 101
Fischer - Petrosian,......Page 103
Active Defence......Page 105
Fine-Capablanca, 1938......Page 106
Karpov - Yusupov, 1983......Page 107
E03: Browne - Keres, 1975......Page 108
Solution E02......Page 113
Solution E03......Page 114
E05: Shirov - Benjamin, 1994......Page 109
Solution E04......Page 115
Solution E05......Page 116
E07: van der Sterren - Kamsky, 1994......Page 110
Solution E07......Page 117
E10: Keres - Gligoric, 1959......Page 111
Solution E08......Page 118
Solution E09......Page 119
Solution E11......Page 120
E12: Levitt - Yeo, 1995......Page 112
Solution E12......Page 121
Karpov - Gelfand, 1995......Page 122
Smyslov - Lilienthal, 1938......Page 124
Alcock - Acton, 1993......Page 125
Hubner - Waitzkin, 1995......Page 128
Yudasin - Finkel, 1996......Page 129
E03: Capablanca - Marshall, 1913......Page 131
Solution E02......Page 136
Solution E03......Page 137
E05: Marshall - Alekhine, 1929......Page 132
Solution E04......Page 138
Solution E05......Page 139
E08: Miles - Pritchett, 1982......Page 133
Solution E06......Page 140
Solution E07......Page 141
Solution E08......Page 142
E10: Van der Sterren - Kamsky, 1994......Page 134
Solution E09......Page 143
Solution E10......Page 144
E12: Plaskett - Tkachiev, 1993......Page 135
Solution E11......Page 145
Solution E12......Page 146
Back Cover......Page 148

Citation preview

Analyse to Win Byron Jacobs

B. T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1997 © Byron Jacobs 1997 ISBN 0713478047 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior pennission of the publisher. Typeset by First Rank Publishing, Brighton and printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts for the publishers, B. T. Batsford Ltd, 583 Fulham Road, London SW6 5BY

To Emily.

ABA TSFORD CHESS BOOK Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, Jon Speelman Commissioning Editor: Paul Lamford General Manager: David Cummings

Contents

Bibliography

4

Preface

5

Introduction

7

1

Accurate Attack

13

2

Decisive Defence

41

3

Energy in the Endgame

69

4

Material versus the Initiative

97

5

Tough Decisions

120

•

•

Bibliography 100 Master Games ofModern Chess Dr. S. Tartakower & 1. Du Mont (Dover 1975) 500 Master Games ofChess Dr. S. Tartakower & 1. Ou Mont (Dover 1975) Aron Nimzowitsch: Master of Planning Raymond Keene (Batsford 1974) The Art of Defence in Chess Lev Polugaevsky & lakov Damsky (Pergamon 1988) Capablanca's Best Games Harry Golombek (Batsford 1996) The Caro-Kann Advance Byron Jacobs (The Chess Press 1997) Chess at the Top Anatoly Karpov (Pergamon 1984) Chess: The Adventurous Way Jan Timman (Interchess BV 1994) Dynamic Chess Strategy Mihai Suba (Pergamon 1991) Elista Diaries Anatoly Karpov & Ron Henley (R&D Publishing 1996) Fighting Chess Garry Kasparov, Jon Speelman & Bob Wade (Batsford 1995) Fire On Board Alexei Shirov (Cadogan 1997) The Games ofRobert J. Fischer Robert Wade & If3

39... J.xh3! and Black wins as 40 'ii'xh3 'ii'f2 is mate. c2) 35 .ltd3 (excepting 35 b7, this is White's best) 35 ... l:d5! (35 .. J::td2 36 i..e2 is unclear) 36 'iieS (36 .a6 e4 is terrible for White) 36 .. .l1xd3 37 'Wf8+ i.f7 and it is clear that White can only hope to draw the game, although he will probably do so. Position 12

Bartrina-Ghitescu Olot 1974

Black to move

Black starts with 1... i..f2+ when White must play 2 ~fU

68 Decisive Defence

as 2 ~xf2? l:.xb2+ wins, as does 2 q;h I? .i.xg2+! 3 ~xg2 'i'g3+ 4 ~fl 'Wgl+ 5 ~e2 :xb2+. After 2 ~fl Black has a couple of false trails: 2... .i.xg2+? 3 ~xf2! :xb2+ 4 gl leaves Black without a decent follow up, while 2... JTLb5+? (as played in the game) fails to 3 q;xf2 'We2+ 4 \t>g3 ifxdl

5 .i.h8! -.d6+ 6 q;f2 and White Wins.

The dra wing line is 2 .. .f6! when White's trick with 3 .i.h8 can be met by 3... .i.b5+ 4 ~xf2 'ii'e2+ 5 ~g3 'ii'eS+ with a draw. White could also try 3 .i.xg6, but this is a position where all roads lead to Rome: 3 .i.xg6 .ixg2+ (3 ... hxg6 4 'iib8+ ~f7 5 'ii'f8+ ~e6 61i'c8+ ~f7 is another way to draw) 4 ~xf2 :xb2+ 5 ~gl hxg6 6 'iib8+ ~f7 7 "f8+ q;e6 with a draw. Either Black or White will deliver perpetual check. Note that Black could also start with 1. .. f6 when White's best 2 .ih8 is met by 2 ....if2+ with a transposition to the main line.

3

Energy in the Endgame

At some point you may have games is that - as one would said to yourself something expect - they come at the end of along the lines of: 'I must go on the game. Very often you will a diet', or 'I must take more ha ve spent a lot of your alloexercise', or some other quickly cated time thinking in the midmade and quickly forgotten dlegame, and when a difficult resolution. Or perhaps it was: 'I endgame does arise you find must study some endgames'. you don't have long enough left With a big sigh you dig out to work it all out. Also your your one and only endgame energy resources may be drainbook and commit some tedious ed as fighting a long complex theory to memory. battle is tiring. Nevertheless, it Having worked away at this is foolish to jeopardise the rechore for what seems like ages, sults of many hours hard thinkyou naturally feel quite pleased ing by laziness at a critical mowith yourself and are ready to ment in an endgame. employ the hard-earned knowledge in a real game. One match Practice makes perfect goes by, and another ... One There is no easy solution to event goes by, and another ... these problems. The only thing And still you have not been to do is to keep in practice, given the opportunity to dem- maybe try to look each week at onstrate your powerful tech- two or three endgames taken from practical play. And make nique. One season goes by ... Three years later the required sure when you do reach an endendgame appears on the board game that you have played and of course you have forgot- quickly enough before then to ten all the theory. How much have sufficient time to find the more profitable it is, you think, best moves. There is nothing more depressing than spoiling a to study openings! The other problem with end- won position, or failing to ob-

70 Energy in the Endgame

tain your rightful draw, merely because you have been unable to apply - or even to learn something that 'every Russian schoolboy knows'. You can tell everyone afterwards that you were winning or that you had an easy draw ~ but of course you will know that only the result is ever remembered. In each of the positions below, taken from master games, there is a critical decision to be made. Sometimes the players found them at the board, sometimes they didn't. Sometimes they tried to find them at home or in the post mortem and still didn't.

decide between two plans: To queen his b-pawn as soon as possible with 54 b6 (or 54 ~a6) followed by b5, ~a7, b6 etc. Or to seek to restrain the epawn with 54 ':e3 or 54 :h4, noting that the exchange of hpawn for e-pawn would guarantee a winning rook and pawn v rook endgame due to the extreme distance of the black king from the white b-pawn. Bologan chose the former plan, 54 ~b6? and Black managed to draw by advancing his e-pawn: 54 ... e4 55 b5 lieS 56 Wa7 e3 57 l:hl e2 5S lIe 1 ~xh6 59 b6 ~g5 60 b7

Bologan-Kramnik Germany 1994

White to play

The Moldovan Grandmaster Bologan has Super-Grandmaster Krarnnik on the ropes and the win is 'just a matter of technique'. He now has only to

60 ... c;t;>g4! (but not 60 ... c;t;>f4?? 61 ':xe2 l:xe2 when White queens with check) 61 :xe2, and the players agreed a draw because of 61. ..lIxe2 62 bS'if :a2+ 63 ~b7 :b2+ and :'xbS. After the game Bologan decided that the second plan would have won: 54 :e3 lIeS 55 ~c5 ~g6 (if 55 ... ~xh6 56 c;t;>d5 %tbS 57 %te4 1.1b5+ 5 S ~c6 :bS 59 b5 etc.) 56 ~d5 ~f5 57 h7 l1dS+ 5S ~c6 :hS 59 :It3

Energy in the Endgame 71

g4 60 :hI e4 61 b5 e3 62 b6 e2 63 b7 ~f3 64 ltb 1 ~f2 65 b8'ji' 1:xbS 66 l:1xbS el'ii' 67 hS'ji' , and wins' . But is this won? Although White has an extra rook it is not clear where his king is going to hide. Instead of 56 ~d5, 56 h7! wins:

ma

54 ... l:leS 55 ~c4 e4 56 e3 57 ~d3 :bS 58 :b2 :le8 59 b5 ~xh6 60 b6 ~g5 61 b7 :b8 61 ~xe3 and the king marches to a7. And after 54 :b4 Black has no other useful moves. The only candidate is 54... ':c7 but then 55 :e4 is a much more simple win than 53 :e3 since the black rook is badly placed on the second rank; i.e. 55 ...:e7 56 ~c5 ~g6 57 ~d5 ~f5 58 :h4 ':d7+ 59 c I! was correct, analysing 38 ... Itd4 39 .i.xd7 :xd7? 40 l:.d1 or 39 ... ~xd7? 40 :hI and the h-pawn wins, while after 39 ....:xc4+ 40 \tb 1 lih4 (not

40 ... ~xd7? 41 %:thl again) 41 l::Id1

White has a clear advantage as the bishop is stronger than the three pawns. But better still is 38 ~c 1 %td4 39 .i.e4! obstructing the rook's path to the h-file.

Then 39 ... :xc4+ 40 Ij;;d2 ':d4+ 41 ~c3 llxe4 (what else?) 42 l:txe4 J.f5 43 l::Ig4! and White wins with 44 l::Ig7. In the two examples above, strong Grandmasters failed to take their chances against superior opponents. In the following three games the Grandmasters with the advantage demonstrate their technique.

Energy in the Endgame 73

Keres-Geller Budapest 1952

in 'c' but playing 26 a3, so as not to have this pawn fixed on a light square after ... a5. a) Keres rejected 26 i.xa6 because of 26 ...:a8 27 c4 ~xg2 28 'ltxg2 ':xa6 or 27 ... ':xa6 28 cxd5 lIa5 29 a4 ~f8 and Black should hold the rook endgame. While the bishop endgame offers better chances after the alternative 27 i.e2

White to play

Keres has reached the endgame with an extra pawn on the kingside and the possibility of winning a second pawn on a6. He also has the chance to explait some unpleasant pins: with %:td 1 pinning the black bishop to the rook; and subsequently :xd5 l:xd5, J.c4 pinning the black rook to the king. With so much going for White one might think that almost anything would win but, in fact, this is a moment when accuracy will be well rewarded. With the above ideas in mind White can consider: a) Capturing immediately with 26 i.xa6. b) Pinning immediately with 26 ':d1. c) Removing the a-pawn from the gaze of the black bishop with 26 a4. d) Adopting the same plan as

27 ....:xa2 (not 27 ... J.xa2? 28 ':xa2 :xa2 29 i.c4+) 28 :'xa2 i.xa2, winning it will not be easy. b) If 26 :'d 1 Black sidesteps the pin by 26 ... lle8! and White is not making progress. c) Moving the a-pawn is the correct idea. The game continued 26 a4! ':d6 (against 26 ... a5 Keres planned 27 ltd 1 ':e8 28 ':xd5 :xe2 29 g3 :c2 30 :'c5) 27 lId 1 threatening 28 ':xd5 ':xd5 29 i.c4, so Geller tried 27 .. .r:t.f7 with the idea 28 ltxd5? rlxd5 29 J.c4 'it>e6 30 c:t.f1 ~d6 31 i.xd5 'ltxd5 32 ~e2 'it>c4 33 'ltd2 'it>b3 and Black takes control. But Keres instead played 28 a5!

74 Energy in the Endgame

fixing the weak pawn at a6, which is the reason for 26 a4 rather than 26 a3. After 28 ... :e6 29 .i.f1! .i.b3 30 :d7+ Keres won a second pawn and went on to win the game as well. d) See note 'c'. Nunn-Seirawan London 19S4

White to play

The advanced d-pawn gives White a decisive advantage. In fact the pawn can be immediately traded in for the black bishop: 31 ':xdS+ .i.xdS 32 4Jb7 i.c7 33 dSii+ i.xdS 34

lDxdS, which seems simple enough. However, Black will have two pawns for the piece and the chance to create a passed a-pawn. Maybe White should not allow this? The black rook is pinned to the king so there is not necessarily any need to win the piece immediately. Or is there? White can consider four possibilities: a) 31 :'xd8+ i.xd8 32 lDb7 forcing through the d-pawn. b) 31 4Jxa6 to capture the potential passed pawn. c) 31 4Jb7 to drive the rook from dS. d) 31 b4 to fix the black pawns. a) Nunn rejected 31 :xdS+ .i.xdS 32 4Jb7 .i.c7 33 dS1W+ .i.xdS 34 4JxdS because 34 ... a5

grants Black serious counterplay. The forthcoming ... a5-a4 will force either the white king or knight to the queenside and Black can then try to draw by eliminating the kingside pawns. b) 31 4Jxa6 relinquishes the chance to win the piece. White

Energy in the Endgame 75

may still win after 31. .. ~fS 32 lbbS r (not 32 lbc5 ~e7 intending ... .i.e5-d6, or 32 lbb4 ~e7 33 lbxd5+ ~xd7 34 ':c7+ 'lttd6 35 l:.xf7 ~xd5 36 :'xf6 ~e4) 32 ... 'ltte7 since Black is totally tied down - the white king will come forward, and if the bishop leaves the h4-dS diagonal White plays lbc6+ and ltxdS, while ... ~d6 is answered by ':c6+ and .:Ib6 - but this is unnecessarily complicated. c) Nunn found the accurate route to victory: 31 tiJb7! nfS 32 b4! ~g7 (if 32 ... a5 White can capture 33 lbxa5! since the d7 -pawn is no longer attacked) 33 'lttf2 iLe7 34 lIeS iLh4+ 35 ~f3 h6

lbxd8 a5! the pawn will again prove a distraction: 36 lbc6 (36 bxa5 b4 37 a6 b3 3S a7 b2 39 aSW bl 'ii'+ again leaves a lot of hard work to land the full point) 36 ... a4 37 lbd4 a3 38 lbb3 'lttf6 and Black is still fighting. Smyslov-Simagin USSR Ch., Moscow 1951

White to play

and with his opponent's potential counterplay nullified Nunn finally decided to win the piece: 36 ':xfS xfS 37 dS'ii'+ iLxdS 3S tiJxdS ~e7 39 tiJb7 and Seirawan resigned. d) 31 b4 is along the right lines, but it fails in its objective of restraining the black pawns. After 31. .. ~g7 32 :'xdS .i.xdS 33 lbb7 .i.c7 34 d8" .i.xd8 35

Material is equal, but White's pieces are so active they should give him good chances for the full point. Nevertheless, Black is not without counterplay as the white pawns are scattered and vulnerable. Black threatens 42 ... :f5+ picking up the g5pawn, or he might play 42 ... to win the a-pawn and create connected passed pawns on the queenside, and the e3-pawn may also come under attack if White opens the e-file by capturing on e6. A further difficulty for White is that the very activity of his

.:f2

76 Energy in the Endgame

pieces provides him with a con- come to c6. Then he analysed fusing number of plausible pos- 42 .. .lIf5+ 43 ~d6 ltJe8+ 44 sibilities. He can move up with ~c6 ~e7 45 :b7+ f8 46 his king (42 xf8 37 a5 Jif5 38 a6 ~c8 39 a7 .ib7 40 .i.c5+ 'iti>e8 41 .ixb4 'it>d7 and Black is okay; hence 34 a5!

34... Jif5 (if 34 ... b3 35 lDxe6 'fie7 36 'ikxf8+ 'ikxf8 37 lDxf8 'iti>xf8 38 a6 wins; or 34... 'fie7 35 'fixe7 .ixe7 36 a6) 35 a6!

and Black has run out of moves: 35 ... b3 36 lDxe6 fxe6 (36 ...'ike7 37 flxe7 Jixe7 38 a7) 37 .ixa7 b2 38 "Wb8 bI" 39 'i'xbI .i.xbI 40 ii.b6 and wins. b) And after 32 ttJxe6? Tartakower analysed 32... 'ike7 33 'fixf8+ 'ikxf8 34 lLJxf8 ~xf8 35 a4 .ia2 and Black regains the pawn. c) Against the capture 32 lLJxa6, 32 ... 'ike7? is bad because of 33 "xe7 .ixe7 34 a4 .ia2 35 .ic5, but after 32...'Wxa6 33 a4 lib7! 34 .ic5 'ikxb3

Black has strong counterplay:

90 Energy in the Endgame

35 .xf8+ ~h7 36 li'xfi 1ib2+ and 37 ... li' xe5. d) If 32 lDe4 'ii'e7f and White has achieved nothing. Position 5 Karpov-Miles London 1982

White to play

a) Karpov rejected 30 .tg2 because of 30 ... :d4 'and Black is all right'. If 31 .i.b7 :d8 32 :e4 :xe4 33 .txe4 d5 34 .ltd3 :b8 35 ~b4 ~e8 36 .ltxb5+ ~d8 37 ~c5 ~c7 and if 38 .ltc6 :b6. b) 30 a7 is similarly answered by 30... ltd4 31 .ixb5 :a8 or 31 .ltg2 d5. c) Karpov played 30 :c3! analysing 30...:xc3+ 31 ci;xc3 :c5+ 32 ~b4 :c7 33 .ltg2 and .tb7, a7 etc., or 30 ... :dc5 31 :xc5 dxc5 32 .ltg2 and wins. The game concluded 30 ... :d8 31 :c7! (more straightforward than 31 a7 b4 32 axb4 :dl 33 .ltg2 d5 34 :c7)

31 ...:dl 32 .ltxb5 e5 33 a7 exf4 34 l:.b7 :b 1+ 35 ~a4 :xb5 36 :xb5 f3 37 :b8 f2 38 :xd8+ and Black resigned. d) 30 ~b4 Black can defend the b-pawn by 30 ...:b8 intending 31. ..:d4+ and 32 ... d5, and if 31 c3 :c5 32 .ltg2 ::'c4+ 33