How to play the middlegame in chess [Updated ed.] 9780713486179, 0713486171

Citation preview

How to play

The Middle Game in Chess The 11m .tIio!'1 01 II'.- book was "fricIeIy IIat.d . . one a/ !he moll UMfuI ~ 10 tt. ~ ganw _ wriIIen. RI, ,lain III iroOOipclilte new mal"""!rom canIemponuy

IOurnamInIl. !Nt 2111 C*'IIutY.

$,* worIc now 81~ Into the

Along wiIh oYef 300 ~ and enIerIaring uampift, U!tIe.. cod orter.. -.IIh 01 gel'" advice n spKIfic 1WItt"!he" 01.." dlilijltef liking afresh and origWIaI approach. he r.pn. !he ruder - doJ:) and II:JUrnMWII pIaye!w - 10 i0oi< at d'IMIln l1l'i ~ and CfNIiYe way. John UtIle. ood WI. one of Brt\U'I" leading pIaye". during !he 1961» and 701. One oflhe most dangerous alt8CkinO ptaye,. the country 1\81 _ prod'cad, he r.nIM:l many IMding Orln'ld",..,*" and teaIp«I mora

1hIIn. few.

B.~'.F'

5

Nidtdl~

o 713( lilii5ii2

~11""'4' ~

""'MO 071:M N205 How 10 ~ .... 0 .... '.1 In C-. l'1li>11'0.." ~'o...Id \.M'y

0713411158

Forlldllri . . " ...... -.oIP

--..... pIMM ..... lIO:

t Blt.'WIn,Cour1 Bo;.;:, Ao.I

""""' W'"' _

.t.IfIotd,o;om

'.>!Ia-boob.

499

How to Play the Middle Game in Chess

John Littlewood

B.T. Batsford Ltd, London

First published in 2000

© John Littlewood 2000 ISBN 0713486171 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 permission of the publisher. Printed in Great Britain by Creative Print and Design (Wales), Ebbw Vale for the publishers, B.T. Batsford Ltd, 9 Blenheim Court, Brewery Road, London N7 9NT A member of the

Ch~lis Group pIc

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Foreword

T

he year 2000 brought with it a welcomed request for me to update my book on the middle game. I was delighted to do so, mainly because in our understandable enthusiasm for all chess matters tied in with the computer, along with the widespread use of international symbols

to annotate games on databases, we are in grave danger of neglecting our hard-won heritage of communicating by the printed word. It is vital for chess literature to exist alongside, and come to terms with, the wealth of information that software provides in quantity but not always in quality. May this modest volume be of help in the debate!

Contents page

Foreword

3

Contents

5

Introduction

7

Strategy and Tactics

9

The Pieces

18

Tactical Ideas

41

The King

57

Problem Themes

68

Combinations

88

The Pawns

101

Elements of Strategy

120

Planning

145

Solutions

165

Index of Players and Composers

173

Introduction

I

na praiseworthy attempt to please all their readers, writers on the middle game either avoid difficult concepts altogether or else become too abstract in dealing with them. The former ostensibly cater for beginners but in reality do them a disservice by preaching half-truths only, whereas the latter aim so far above the heads of average players that there is inevitably a partial failure in communication. If we accept that a perceptive learner seldom wants to buy a book which he can discard after one reading and which contains no challenge or further help for him as his play improves, we must equally ac-. knowledge that he can hardly be expected to grasp every idea in full when it is initially introduced. This is why I offer a series of chess hints at the end of each chapter to remind him of the essential points covered and why I emphasize the need to accept certain advice on trust until he gains more playing experience. The average-to-good club-player, on the other hand, can use the book as a kind of refresher course, taking from it what he wishes and assimilating material at whatever pace suits him. It is well known that participants in all games eventually reach a learning plateau from which it is difficult to move anywhere but downwards. Resting on his laurels can prove disastrous for the c1ub-

player, so it occasionally does him a world of good to reappraise his chess thinking and rekindle that spark of imagination or adventure he may have lost. For all readers, I have opted for a concrete approach to abstract ideas by underlining the vital importance of tactics within a framework of strategic planning and by offering scores of instructive examples to pinpoint basic elements of both strategy and tactics. At the same time, just in case my chess philosophy fails to emerge from the following pages, may I stress that I have deliberately avoided the methodical textbook approach, apart from the 'hints' concession to beginners. This is because, in a relatively small volume such as this, my primary object is to stimulate, not indoctrinate, the reader. He is offered sufficient food for thought, along with a wealth of exciting positions from chess praxis. If in some way this book can enrich his chess experience and encourage him to dip further into the world's great chess literature, it will have served its purpose. However, before we launch into our first chapter, a general warning will not be amiss: the reader must not expect too much from a single volume purporting to deal with such a vast subject as the middle game. Like other games, chess demands time and application from its devotees and there is no easy road to

8 Introduction

mastery nor facile solutions available which a player can learn off by heart and thereby dispense with having to think for himself. The reader can expect general advice, specific hints and over 300 instruc-

tive examples, but in the last resort he will obtain from this book, and indeed from playing chess, solely what he is willing to put into it in terms of thought and effort.

1 Strategy and Tactics

A

s we shall see later, it is difficult to divorce the middle game from other aspects of the struggle which serve to define it as 'that part of the game between th~ opening and the ending'. To aVOId such philosophical questions a~ where .the opening ends and the endmg begms, it seems best for our purposes to view the middle game as beginning the moment a player leaves established theory and starts to think for himself whether this be on move 3 or 30, 'and ending where acquired endgame technique takes over. A~­ mittedly, there are standard POSItions and techniques we need to learn in the middle game too, but matters are rarely as clear-cut as in the opening or ending. Herein, then, lies our problem. Since we are no longer dealing with easily classifiable material, although brave attempts have been made on these lines, we must seriously consider what we can hope to teach and how we can cany it out. Broadly speaking, our chapter heading provides us with the background against which we shall be working. By strategy we mean the general principles that guide us in our planning and by tactics we m.ean the specific moves and ope~atlOns required in order to achIev~ th.ese aims. Our first example pmpomts the dilemma we face:

Fischer v Benko USA Championship 1963 From a strategic viewpoint, White has weakened Black's kings ide and opened up attacking li~es bu~, from a more urgent tactical vIewpomt, both 1 e5 f5! and 1 ttJe2 ~e5! offer Black adequate defensive resourc~s. ~o, have Fischer's efforts been m vam? Not at all. Firstly, a good strategic plan does not necessaril.y guar~ntee a win and, secondly, White has m fact calculated a brilliant tactical winning sequence that cuts. out the above defences. Play contmued: 1 l:if6!! Wg8 Or l....txf6 2 e5 followed by mate on h7. 2 e5 h6 3 ttJe2! when Black resigned because White mates on h7 after both 3 ... ttJb5 4 ~f5 and 3 ... .txf6 4 ~xh6. Here is another illustration of the same theme, reached after the moves 1 e4 g6 2 d4 .tg7 3 ttJc3 d6 4 ttJf3 c6 5 .tg5 'iVb6 6 ~d2! ~xb2 7 ~bl

10 Strategy and Tactics

~a3 8 iLc4 ~a5 9 0-0 e6(?) 10 ~fel! a6 11 .tf4! e5 12 dxe5 dxe5

Tal v Tringov Amsterdam Interzonal 1964 White's strategy has been to develop his forces as rapidly as possible, even at the cost of a pawn, and place his pieces effectively. He is now fully mobilized, in stark contrast to Black who has only succeeded in bringing out two pieces, but must take tactical advantage of the situation as quickly as he can before Black castles into safety. Tal produced a startling solution in 13 iVd6!! leaving two pieces 'en prise' but calculating a splendid finish: 13 .. :~xc3 After 13 ... exf4 comes 14 l'Lld5! winning upon both 14 ... cxd5 15 exd5+ and 14 ... ctJd7 15 ctJg5 iLe5 12 ctJc7+ Wixc7 13 .txf7+ 'it>d8 14 l'Lle6 mate. 14 ~edl! ctJd7 After 14 .. :tWa5 the neatest of a number of wins is 15 .td2! 'iVd8 16 'ii'xd8+ 'it>xdS 17 .tg5+ followed by mate with rook or bishop on dS. 15 .txfi+! Wxfi 16l'Llg5+ We8 17 ~e6+ 1-0. Black has the unpleasant choice between 17 ... WdS IS ctJf7+ 'it>c7 19 ~d6 mate or 17 ... ctJe7 18 ~f7+ 'it>dS 19 l'Lle6 mate.

Once again, we cannot overstress the importance of Tal's renowned tactical skill in exploiting a strategic advantage that could rapidly prove ephemeral. Hundreds of similar examples have convinced the author that in a subtle way tactical ability is often underrated in books devoted to the middle game. Or else there is an assumption that, having reached an advantageous position by 'correct' opening play, a player can be left to his own devices to furnish the tactics needed to finish the game off. A valid comparison would be to try and teach somebody golf or snooker without practising his club or cue action! Not that there is a dearth of books dealing with tactics, but the whole subject tends to be divorced from the strategic elements of ideas and plans, as though it were merely the icing on the cake instead of constituting a basic ingredient without which the chess cookie crumbles! At all events, in this book we attempt to redress the balance substantially by including chapters on tactics, problem themes and combinations imd by insisting throughout on the importance of regarding strategy and tactics as complementary rather than exclusive. Let me hasten to add that I am well aware of the folly of going to the opposite extreme and allowing the beginner to indulge his habitUal fondness for tactical skirmishing irrelevant to the needs of the position. That is why the chapters on strategic ideas and planning place special emphasis on the need to integrate tactics into the theme of the game as a whole. Tactics must indeed be kept in their place, but this is no

Strategy and Tactics 11

excuse for marginalizing them. We must remember that it is very much through tactics that a beginner learns to understand and appreciate the value of strategy. For instance, he has only to try to use a rook effectively to realize the need for open or half-open files, and he would never grasp the important concepts of weak and strong squares or colour complexes without seeing specific examples of their exploitation. Furthermore, although strategy represents the distillation of decades of chess experience, there is always a danger of its guiding 'rules' becoming a substitute for thought and ossifying into dogma. It is at such times that a concrete tactical approach can have a salutary counter-balancing effect. A good example of this, that comes to mind in another of Alekhine's positions, is reached after the moves: 1 d4 d5 24:Jf3 c5 3 c4 cxd4 4 cxd5 4:Jf6 5 4:Jxd4 a6 6 e4! 4:Jxe4 7 ~a4+ .ltd7 8 ~b3 4:Jc5 9 'iWe3 g6? 10 4:Jf3! 'WIc7 11 ~c3

Alekhine v Wolf Pistyan 1922 Out of 11 moves, White has moved his queen four times and his

knight three times, yet he already has the better position. Why can he flout rules of development like this? Here is what he himself says: "The possibility of such manoeuvres in the opening phase is solely attributable to the fact that the opponent has adopted faulty tactics which must immediately be refuted by an energetic demonstration. It is clear, on the contrary, that against correctly developed positions similar anomalous treatment would be disastrous." As can be seen in the above diagram, White is threatening both 'WIxh8 and b4, so Black is compelled to move his king's rook, thus denying his king a safe haven. After 11. .. l:i.g8 12 .lte3 b6 13 4:Jbd2 .ltg7 14 .ltd4 .ltxd4 15 ~xd4 White won comfortably. Thus, the correct strategy was only found after a searching examination of the tactical elements in an unusual situation demanding unusual measures. Here is another case where the 'rules' (= 'guidelines') of positional play are correctly broken by a player who thinks for himself, and then wrongly neglected by a player in trouble. In the game Nunn v DIugy, London 1986, after the moves 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 .ltf5 4 tL\c3 h5, White exchanged Black's 'bad' bishop by 5 .ltd3 .ltxd3 6 ~xd3 in the sensible hope of being able to profit from Black's loss of time and kings ide weaknesses. After the further moves 6 ... e6 7 tL\f3 4:Jh6 8 0-0 4:Jf5 9 tL\e2 tL\d7 10 4:Jg3 4:Jh4 11 tL\xh4 'WIxh4 12 .lte3 ~d8 13 .l:Udl ~c8? 14 b3 c5 Black had wrongly tried to solve his problems by the dubious strategy of indulging in tactical play before completing his development:

12 Strategy and Tactics

Nunn v Dlugy London 1986

Capablanca v Steiner Budapest 1928

The punishment was drastic in the extreme: 15 c4! Logically opening lines against an enemy king stranded in the centre. 15 ... cxd4 16 cxd5! liJxe5 Or 16 ... dxe3 17 dxe6 exf2+ 18 ~fl fxe6 19 'iHg6+ rJ;;e7 20 l!d6! winning, as given by Nunn in the excellent book of his best games. 17 ~xd4 ~xd5 18 'it'a4+ 1-0. White wins at least a piece.

After 11ha8! liJxe5 21:.xd81:.xd8 3 i.e2! iVd2 4 'iHxd2 .l:1xd2 5 l::tc8+ 'ittg7 6 rJ;;f1! Black must allow his knight to be pinned and is lost after 6...liJd7 7 nd8! 'ittf6 8 i.b5 1:.d5 9 a4! when all the pieces come off, giving White a won pawn ending.

Broadly speaking, strategy is concerned with plans, and tactics with details of the execution of these, so it is clear that only a fusion of the two will produce a top-class player. Do not be misled when people refer to Bronstein, Tal and Shirov as tacticians and to Capablanca, Botvinnik and Petros ian as strategists. Their styles are of course different (even within each group!) but they reveal all-round chess ability in which strategy and tactics blend to a remarkable degree. Capablanca, for example, had a wealth of tactical ability concealed behind that clarity of style for which he was noted. Indeed, how else could he have controlled games in the way he did. Here is one of many examples of such skill :

Tal, on the other hand, has been branded as a risky tactician, when in reality this is purely a deliberate element in his style, disguising at times his fine conception of strategy. Take this example from the match that won him the World Championship in 1960:

Tal v Botvinnik . World Championship Match 1960 By 1 i.h3! he plans to answer a later advance of Black's e-pawn by exchanging bishops and weakening

Strategy and Tactics 13

the light squares, and, as will be seen, he is willing to sacrifice a pawn to maintain the bind on Black's position. Play continued: 1..:iVf6 2 i.d2 d5 The alternative 2 ... eS 3 i.xc8 l:laxc8 4 .ltc3 exd4 S i.xd4 ctJeS 6 tiJxeS dxeS 7 .lte3 gives the positional plus Tal initially had in mind. 3 ~e2 dxc4 4 ~f4 ctJd6 5 ctJg5! ne8 6 .ltg2 na6 7 ctJe4 tiJxe4 8 .ltxe4 b5 9 b3! cxb3 10 ~xb5 l:tf8 11 ~xb3 and White had a strategically won game. The above tactics were, then, dictated by the demands of the position; in other words, the strategic ideas guided Tal's play throughout. This is the correct balance, for we cannot assert too often that tactics should spring logically from the given elements of a position. If this were not so, a top chess-player would be the one who could exactly calculate the longest and most difficult variations, which is palpably not the case. Consider, for example, the 1972 World Champion, Bobby Fischer, whose style displayed such a splendid fusion of strategy and tactics that it is practically impossible, if indeed it were sensible, to separate the two. A good illustration of this is seen in the sixth game of the Fischer v Spassky match, Reykjavik 1972.

Although Black's pieces are passively placed, White must create points of attack to exploit this fact. With a few powerful strokes he lays bare the potential weakness of Black's central pawns, gains more space for his pieces, establishes his bishop as far stronger than the knight and, finally, opens the 'f-file as a basis for an attack on the enemy king. Play continued: 1 e4!! d4 2 f4 'Wie7 3 e5! l:tb8 4 i.c4 'it'h8 5 \\/Vh3! ctJf8 Even worse is S... :i:hb2 6 i.xe6 ctJf8 7 .ltc4 and White advances his 'f pawn to f6 with devastating effect. 6 b3 as 7 f5! exf5 8 l:txf5 tiJh7 9 l:lcfl and White had achieved his aims completely:

Fischer v Spassky (cont.) The tactical execution of Fischer's strategic plan was so completely successful because it was based on a sound assessment of the demands of the position. Black's central pawns are blockaded and the 'e' pawn will help to tie down his pieces to such an extent that he can offer no real defence to the coming attack on his king. The game went: 9.. :iVd8 10 'iVg3 lle7 11 h4 !:tbb7 12 e6! .l::[bc7 13 'ilVe5 ~e8 14 a4 \\/Vd8 15 l:!1f2 'iWe8 16 l:t2f3 ~d8 17 .ltd3! 'iVe8 18 'iVe4! Threatening 19 ~f8+ mating. 18 ...tiJf6 19 l:txf6! gxf6 20 l:Ixf6

14 Strategy and Tactics

'it>g8 21 .lic4 Threatening 22 l:tf7. 21...~h8 22 ~f4 1-0 If 22 ... ~g8 23 'iVxh6 lig7 24 e7+ followed by mate next move. Undoubtedly, one of the finest games of the match and reminiscent of Capablanca at his peak. Our main aim, then, is to develop the reader's skill in planning (= strategy) and in carrying out efficiently the plans conceived (= tactics), both essential requisites of a sound chess style. However, as we stated earlier, a beginner cannot appreciate the niceties of strategy to the full until he has a fair grasp of tactics. For this reason, we have left until later in the book specific consideration of positional ideas and planning, in the hope that by then he will be able to see the wood despite the trees. Nevertheless, by dealing with each piece separately in the early chapters, we have tried to present the common meeting ground of strategy and tactics to allow the reader to acquire a number of basic concepts before he arrives at the later chapters. This preliminary investigation of the pros and cons of the individual pieces forms such an important part of my approach to understanding the middle game that another comparison with snooker may be appropriate. Beginners in that game lose no time in setting up the starting position to begin play but learn very little in the process. The late Joe Davis recommended practising for hours, just trying to pot the black whilst controlling the cue ball. Boring? Perhaps, but essential if one wishes to become a good player. In the same way, it is futile for a chess beginner to grasp what is happening on a board full of pieces, when he

cannot even manipulate a few effectively. Let him, for example, try to mate a lone king with bishop and knight, before we can realistically discuss such an abstract concept as the coordination o/pieces! It is noteworthy that all great players have been particularly adept at handling their pieces in the most effective manner, but for the purposes of illustration we shall single out Capablanca, Lasker, Petrosian and Kasparov, all World Champions with an uncanny understanding of piece coordination. Consider, for example, the following position:

Capablanca v Alekhine World Championship Match 1927 Although a rook is weaker than a knight plus bishop, it is astonishing to see how rapidly White takes complete control of the game, with Black's queenside pawns remaining mere onlookers. Play proceeded: 1 ~c6! .i:tfS 2 liJd4 Centralization. 2.. .'~h8 3 .lieS! Threatening 4 .lixg7+ ~xg7 S liJfS+ 'it>g8 6 ~f6 mating or winning the queen. 3 ... f6 4 liJe6 ~g8 S .lid4! Transferring the bishop to a dominating central position and threatening 6 liJxg7 lixg7 7 'iVxf6 ~g8 8 h4! and the pawn advances to h6 because 8 ... hS fails to 9

Strategy and Tactics 15

'i'h6+ ~h7 10 ~xg7+ etc. 5... h6 In order to counter the above threat by 7...'iVd5+ and 8...~g5. 6 h4! ~bl 7 CLlxg7! ~g6 Or 7 .. .'gxg7 8 ~xf6 'i'h7 8 'i'f8+ 'i'g8 9 ~xg7+ or here 8...~e4+ 9 'ii>f1! ~7 10 'i'xh6+ 'ii>g8 11 'i'xg7+ exchanging into a won pawn ending. 8 h5! ~f7 9ctJf5 and Black resigned 8 moves later.

points, but White should decline the offer by 4 f3. 4 :iixg5 ~xg5 5 ~xg5 11g8 Note that Black is now happy to exchange rooks, as long as he has another key file to work on. 6 f4 i.d5! 7 g3 'ii>b7 8 h3 ~b5! giving us our next position:

In case the reader does not appreciate the skill required in such coordination of pieces, let him consider the following complicated example:

Steinitz v Lasker (cont.)

Steinitz v Lasker World Championship Match 1896 At first glance, one might say that there is little in it. In fact, it is almost magical to see the way in which Lasker exploits the facts that the kings have castled on opposite wings and that the bishops are of opposite colours. Although in the following play White is not blameless, Lasker's use of pawns and pieces gives this game lasting instructional value. Play continued: 1....l::!:g8!! Avoiding the oversimplifying exchange of rooks and threatening to advance his 'g' pawn to g4 followed by ... ~d5. 2 :reS b6 3 i.e! g5! By no means a simple pawn sacrifice, as it involves a long-range plan full of subtle

Black is now aiming to place his bishop on c6 and queen on d5 with tremendous pressure down the long diagonal. White cannot prevent this by 9 ~e5 in view of 9 ... f6! 10 ~xf6 'i'b2 winning. The game ended: 9 'it>h2 !!g6 Threatening 1O .. .l:te6 11 ~d2 Ihel 12 'iVxel ~2+ mating. 10 ~e2 f6 11 i.h4 ~e6 12 g4 More weakening, but he is desperate to prevent the threat of ... ~d5 followed by ... f5 and ... l:te6. 12 .. :tlVdS 13 'ilff2 h5! 14 gS Or 14 'ii'g3 hxg4 15 hxg4 :h6! 16 .l:!.gl ~e4! tying White up completely. 14 ... fxg5 15 i.xg5 Or 15 fxg5l::tg7! 16 ~e5 ~h1+ 17 'itig3 ~f7! 18 lif5 ~xf5 19 ~xf5 'iVe1+ 20 'iWf2 ~xc3+ 21 'itth2 ~d3 wins. IS .•. h4! 16 ~f1 :g8 17 ~d2 as! 18 a4 ~e8 19 fS Or 19 i.xh4 Ite3 20 i.g3 J:!.xc3 21 f5 lid3 22 ~e2 c3! wins. 19 .. J~tg8! 0-1. The final position is worth another diagram, as it represents the culmination of Lasker's fine strategy and tactics:

16 Strategy and Tactics

Steinitz V Lasker (final position) White has no good moves at his disposal. If his queen, bishop, pawn or king move, material is lost, which leaves him 20 ZIgl 20 ~el 'ii'f3! 21 ~gl Ite8! 22 .l:lg2 'iVxg2+ 23 'i'xg2 i.xg2 24 'it;lxg2 ng8 etc. 20 .. Jhg5! 21 iVxg5 'iVd6+ 22 l:rg3 hxg3+ 23 'ti'xg3 i.e8! 24 h4 'i)'xg3+ 25 'it>xg3 b5 26 axb5 a4 and Black queens first.

Black's queen knight is completely out of play on a5 but it seems as if White loses after 1 l:t£1 l:txf4! 2 ~xf4 ~g5+ etc. However, by splendid coordination of his centralized pieces, Petros ian demonstrates the weaknesses of Black's position. 1 lbe3! J..xfl If now 1...l:txf4 2 l::txf4 '\!!Vg5+ 3 llg4! J..xg4 4lbxg4lbxg4 5 J..xg4 ~xg4+ 6 'it;lhl and Black's king is fatally exposed. 2 Ilxfl lbg6 3 J..g4! lbxf4 Or 3 ... iVf6 4 J..e6+ 'it>h8 5 ~xf6+ l:txf6 6 f5 lbe5 7 lbe4 winning. 4 l:!xf4! A second sacrifice of the exchange. 4.. ,lhf4 5 i.e6+ z:If7 Or 5 ... 'i¥tf8 6 ~h8+ We7 7 ~xh7+ 'it>e8 8 'iYg6+ We7 9 ~g5+ Itf6 10 lbf5+ We8 11 'i)'h5+ 'i¥tf8 12 'iVh8 mate. 6 lbe4! 'i)'h4 7 lbxd6! So that if 7 .. .'~el+ 8 'Ot>g2 ~xe3 White forces the win of the queen by 9 i.xf7+ ~f8 10 iVh8+ 'it>e7 11 lbf5+ ~xf7 12 ~xh7+. 7 ...iVg5+ 8 'it>hl l:la7

Let us finish this important chapter with positions played by Petros ian and Kasparov in which all the vital preliminary work has been done and it is up to the reader simply to work out the final combination!

TEST 1.1 Petrosian v Spassky (cont.) How does White now force a win?

Petrosian v Spassky World Championship Match 1966

Our final example in this chapter comes from perhaps the best game in the 1986 World Championship Rematch won by Kasparov who went on to hold the world title into the new millennium!

Strategy and Tactics 17

How to use this book

* It would be wise for any beginner to read this book at various levels. He should initially concentrate on the general hints given in the chapter summaries, without getting bogged down in details. By applying this advice to his own games, he will be better prepared to deepen his understanding of the examples later. Kasparov v Karpov World Championship Rematch 1986 It seems as if White must protect his 'd' pawn, after which Black can drive away the knight by ... f6 with excellent drawing chances. However, Kasparov sees a winning line that illustrates to perfection the concept of piece coordination: 1 4:Jd7!! l:txd4 2 4:Jf8+ ~h6 Or 2 ... ~g8 3 l:[b8 winning. 3 llb4!! The whole point of his previous play, since now 3 ... ~xb4 fails to 4 axb4 d4 5 b5 d3 6 b6 d2 7 b7 dl='iV 8 b8=~ and even though it is Black to move with four queens on the board, he cannot prevent mate e.g. 8... ~d2 9 4:Jxg6 ~xg6 10 ~h8+ ~h7 11 ~gxg7 mate! 3 .. J~c4

TEST 1.2 Kasparov v Karpov (cont.)

Once again, show us how you would finish the game off.

* A good method of learning is to think about the positions before studying the subsequent play. He is not expected to understand fully what is going on, but it will help develop his chess instinct by guiding his thoughts away from illusory side issues and towards the real demands of the positions. * He should concentrate at first on the main play, given in heavy type, ignoring sub-variations, in order to grasp the point the author is trying to make. Notes and variations can be examined at a later stage, when we hope they may provide additional pleasure and instruction. * Despite all these precautions, there will obviously be a number of ideas and tactics that are beyond the beginner's chess experience. He should not worry too much about these, but let them lie fallow for a while, to be reviewed at a later date. * For the club player, this book must be treated as a jumping-off point for further play and more intensive reading. It will have succeeded only if its advice and examples encourage him to learn more about this wonderful game from other books and magazines (not forgetting computers!), and especially from his own chess thought and practice.

B

2 The Pieces

efore we can combat enemy pieces or coordinate our own pieces effectively, it seems sensible to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of each piece. By understanding their idiosyncrasies, we can surely hope to manage them wisely and exploit their potential to the full. I would go even further and suggest that our judgement of a position may depend entirely on the correct assessment of the value of a piece, whether we are making a strategic decision about exchanging material or visualizing the result of a sequence of moves or planning a transposition to an ending. Hence the importance of this chapter in which we examine in tum the major pieces (queen and rook) and minor pieces (knight and bishop). However, let us first consider the relative values of the pieces.

mmor pIeces (=9) are equal to a queen. There is no doubt that, in the early stages of learning, such a guide is important in steering the beginner through the complexities of the game. It is similar to the point count used in bridge to assess the value of a hand, but in both games we must throwaway this 'crutch' as soon as experience will allow us. We might in fact view it as a STATIC evaluation which becomes fairly accurate when we reach the endgame, rather than the DYNAMIC evaluation which is a vital and exciting aspect of middle game play. Just as in a battle two similar heavy guns may be very different in the effectiveness of their fire-power, depending on their location, their link with other weapons and the skill of their operators, so can chess pieces drastically change in value as a result of external circumstances. Consider the following startling example:

Relative Values

A beginner is helped by having an initial rough guide to the relative strength of the pieces. One accepted evaluation takes the pawn as .the basic unit, with the queen given as 9 points, the rook 5 points and the knight and bishop 3 points each. Using this scale, we can see that two rooks (=10) are worth slightly more than a queen (=9), bishop + knight (=6) worth more than a rook, whilst rook + bishop + pawn (=9) or three

Gusev v Averbach, USSR 1946

The Pieces 19

Despite being the exchange down, White has excellent prospects, but he has planned an amazing finish which exploits the peculiarities of the position by using a dynamic 11 point piece-count against a helplessly static 19 point count. Indeed, after 1 'i'xe5!! fxe5 2 lln (threatening .i.b5) we suddenly realize how ineffective Black's major pieces are, with one rook completely out of play and the other unable to take the e6 pawn because of 3 .i.c4. Play continued 2.. J::te8 3 .i.dl! lIe4 Or 3.. .'~We7 4 .i.b3 ~e8 5 l:tf7! and after Black has run out of pawn moves he must move his queen, when both e7! and .l:!.f8+! lead to mate. 4 .i.b3 b5 5 .i.xe4 bxe4 6 b3! a5 7 bxe4 ~e7 8 ~g2 'iVa3 9 lIn ~e7 10 lIn g5 Or 1O ... 'iVa3 11 l:tf7! 't!Yb2+ 12 'it>g3 ~xc3+ l3 'it>g4 'iVa3 14 c5! winning. 11 1:[f5 g4 12 e5 ~d8 13 e6 'iVe714 e7 1-0. The reader may rightly argue that the above position is exceptional, so let us now take a 'bread and butter' situation:

and knight for rook. Usually, this is a profitable transaction but Jansa has correctly calculated that he can retain a vital pawn and use his powerful rooks down the open files as follows: 1 'bd5! 'be4 2 'bxe7 ~b8 3 'bxa8 iVxa8 4 ~f4! 'bxe3 5 ~xe3 'iVb7 Not of course 5 ... .i.xb4 6 ~3 winning a piece. 6 a3 'bb6 7 ~ac1 h6 8 h3 lIe8 9 f4 .i.d8 10 ~hl 'bd7 11 'tWf3! 1-0. If 11...~xf3 12 gxf3 'bb6 13 l:tc6! wins material. Jansa had realized that Black's knight and bishop could not cooperate to withstand White's pressure. Easy to see, afterwards! I remember the same player, this time as Black against Adamski, Poland 1971, producing another unconventional idea after the opening moves 1 d4 'bf6 2 e4 g6 3 'be3 d5 4 'bf3 .i.g7 5 exd5 'bxd5 6 ~b3 'bb6 7 .i.f4 0-0 8 e4 .i.g4 9 'be5 when he surprisingly exchanged his beautiful dark-squared bishop for a weaklooking knight by playing 9 ... .i.xe5! with the idea 10 dxe5 'be6 11 ~c1 ~d4! already giving White problems and eventually winning nicely. How many of us would have considered this exchange?

Jansa v Sydor Bucharest 1971 After 1 'bxa4 'it'xa4 2 bxa5 the game would be even, so Jansa goes in for a sequence of moves which ends with Black obtaining bishop

Jiminez v Larsen Mallorca 1967

20 The Pieces

Here is Larsen with a similar idea in a different context: Once more out of the blue came: 1...i..xeS! 2 dxeS d4! 3 i..h6 ~fd8 4 i..xe6 fxe6 S .l:tfel .i:!.dS 6 i..f4 l;j,fS 7 g3 !IfS 8 ktadl 'iVb3 when he won a pawn and, later, the game. Seeing the follow-up was not difficult, but the ability to overcome the initial mental block and think dynamic rather than static is that of a true chess-player. At times, we all suffer from mental laziness and find it much easier to compartmentalize ideas rather than rethink them. Before we examine each piece in tum, here is a final example of excellent judgement in assessing the relative strength of pieces:

lid3! S 'iVe2 SLxd4+ 6 'i!i>g2 etJeS! In order to answer 7 SLd5 with 7 ... c6 8 i..e4 l:te3 winning the bishop. 7 ~dl ~e3 8 'iff! i.e4+ 9 'i!i>h3 .l::[f3! This lateral movement of the rook lends the combination its charm. 10 ~e2 i..fS+ 0-1. If 11 'i!i>h4 .l::!.e3! Again! 12 Vi'xe3 etJf3+! 13 'jVxf3 i..f6 mate, a finish which triumphantly underlines the theme of quality versus quantity, a theme that must be borne in mind as we now look at the individual pIeces. The Queen It must be admitted that, at its best, the queen is a most powerful piece which can sweep the board with its horizontal, vertical and diagonal action. It revels in long-range double attacks and can switch fronts with alarming rapidity. Composed endgames, which we term studies, are excellent at illustrating the pros and cons of each piece, so we will use them from time to time in this volume, beginning with an impressive creation (1970) by Dobrescu and Halberstadt:

Toran v Tal Oberhaus en 1961 Black opts for a position in which he has only two minor pieces and a pawn for a queen, but his pieces are so well coordinated in their attack on White's king that they seem to be imbued with magical powers! Such situations abounded in the games of Tal who, in his prime, astounded the chess world with his insight into the dynamic possibilities of piece play. The game continued: 1.. Jhe3 !! 2 i..dS+ ~h8 3 etJf7+ 'VJ{jxf7 4 SLxf7

If White can capture the bishop, he wins against the rook. Note the awesome power of the queen here: 1 'iVf7! Threatening both 2 'VJ{jh5+ and

The Pieces 21

2 'ti'f8+ J:tgS? 3 iVh6 mate. If now l..J:4gS then 2'it>f1! puts Black into zugzwang, a Gennan tenn by which we mean he cannot move without weakening his position; the rook cannot leave the back rank and moves by the bishop to g5, h4 or a5 are answered by 'iVh5+, whilst moving to b6 allows ~f6+. 1...~h4+ (TEST 2.1.' the reader can work out what White does against l..J::!.d4.) 2 'it>e2! J:tg2+ Or 2 .. J:tg7 3 ~eS+ followed by 4 'i'h5+. 3 'it>e3 l::tg3+ 4 'ito>e4! l:tg4+ 5 'it>f5 ~g5+ 6 'it>f4 Putting Black into zugzwang, since any move of the rook along the file loses material. 6... .i::!.a5 The only move along the rank which does not lose immediately. 7 ~f8+ ~h7 8 'it>g4 ~a4+ 9 'it>h5 J::td4 10 ~f7+ 'it'h8 11 ~c7 Ite4 (TEST 2.2: find out what happens after 1l...i.f6.) 12 ~b8+ rl;g7 13 'iNb7+ ~e7 14 iVg2+ and the bishop finally falls. Here is a game position in which White uses his queen in exemplary fashion:

Hecht v Ghitescu Amsterdam 1971 At first sight White's queen looks somewhat restricted, but upon closer examination we can see that Black's

pieces are tied down to the task of preventing it penetrating into the centre (Black's queen guards the rook, his king's bishop the e5 pawn, his queen's bishop the eS square and his king the f8, gS and hS squares). In fact, now is the ideal time to start a second front. It is most instructive in the following play to contrast the mobility of each side, noting in particular the giant strides taken by White's queen as it attacks various weaknesses. Play went: 1 g4! fxg3 Or l...~g6 2 g5 i.e7 3 lLlxe5 ItbS 4 l:Ia7 ~xe5 5 .uxe7+ 'VIixe7 6 ~xbS; or here 2 ... i.d8 3 lLlxe5 lIbS 4 'iNxc6! 'iVxe5 5 lIa7+ i.e7 6 ~f6+! ~xf6 7 gxf6+ 'it>xf6 S i.h4+ winning. This is just the sort of penetration Black fears. 2 ~gl ~b8 3 ~xg3+ rl;f7 4 ~a2! 'ito>e7 5 .i:th3 ~f7 6 'iVaI! ~g8 7 ~g3 'it>e6 Or 7 ... ~d7 S !Ih6! Ihg3 9 l:ixf6! wins. 8 ~f1! ~g6 9 i.h4 ~g7 10 ~g5 l:th8? Missing the final point, but his position was already difficult. 11 ~xf6! 'it'xf6 Or 1l...~xf6 12 lLld4+! etc. 12 lLlxe5+! 1-0. 12 ... ',he5 13 ~al+ wins the queen and anything else loses at least a piece. A queen, then, thrives on open lines and points of attack, especially welcoming a weakened king's position where its checking and mating powers can come into their own. For these reasons, the plan of the defending side is clear: the queen must not be offered weaknesses to attack and must be restricted in its movements or, if possible, tied down itself to defence, as in the Toran-Tal game already quoted, a task for which it is eminently unsuited. Our next example pinpoints the roles of the attacker and defender in such cases:

22 The Pieces

Euwe v Griinfeld Zandvoort 1936 White has won the enemy queen for rook and bishop but must not imagine that the game can win itself; his own light squares are weak and the queen desperately needs points of attack. Euwe's notes to the following play, given in inverted commas, reveal how much he appreciates these problems: 1 tZJg5! .txg5! "This is forced, for as soon as Black weakens his king's position White's material superiority will prove decisive." Indeed, after l...g6 2 'iYh3 h5 3 e6! the queen has a field day e.g. 3... tZJxe6 4 tZJxe6 fxe6 5 ~xe6+ 1;g7 6 ~d7+ ltf7 7 .i.h6+!. Or 3 ... .i.xg5 4 exf7+ .!:[xf7 5 .i.xg5 followed by .i.e3 and ~e6. Or, finally, 3 ... f5 4 .te3! .txg5 5 .txc5 I:i.fe8 6 ~g3! etc. 2 .txg5 .l:lfe8! Already there are cunning queen attacks in the air e.g. 2 ... h6? 3 .i.e7 .l:i.fc8 4 .i.xc5 ltxc5 5 ~d7! when 5 ... .te4 loses to 6 ~d4 and 5 .. ..!::tb8 allows 6 e6!, creating an entry on the sixth and seventh ranks for his rook and queen to operate, when play might go 6 ... fxe6 7 ~xe6+ 'iith7 8 J::td1 with full control. 3 nel :'e6 4 l:te3 l:tae8 "As soon becomes apparent, this is a decisive mistake, for Black can no longer keep his king's side intact." 5 h4!

h6 6 .tf6! "Winning quickly, the threat being 7 J::tg3 g6 8 !Ixg6+ folor if lowed by mate in three; 6 ... gxf6 7 exf6 threatening both mate and the knight." 6... g6 7 'iVf4! 'iith7 8 .i.g5! White has achieved his aim of opening up Black's king's position, for now 8... hxg5 9 'iWxf7+ 'it>h8 10 hxg5 leads to mate and 8... Wg8 9 .txh6 is hopeless. 8... f5 9 exf6 1-0, "For it is impossible to guard against the numerous threats, above all 10 'ilc7+." However, despite these examples, we must not have an exaggerated idea of the queen's strength. The Gusev-Averbach position showed us the abject role a queen can play when tied to defence and serves as a warning to those who idolize this piece. There is also the player who feels that the game loses its interest once queens are off the board, a silly attitude to say the least. I cannot resist quoting a queenless middle game that has all the excitement anyone could wish for:

Adorjan v Androvitsky Hungary 1971 Black has foolishly weakened his king's side in the mistaken belief that he has little to fear with the queens off. His illusions are soon shattered after 1 h4! tZJd6 2 hxg5

The Pieces 23

hxg5 Or 2 ... tLlf7 3 tLle7+ iLxe7 4 l:txe7 hxg5 5 iLc3! c6 6 lih8+! tLlxh8 7 .l::\.g7 mate. 3 iLc3! ~e8 Or 3 ... tLlb5 4 tLle7+ Wg7 5 l:te6+! tLlxc3 6 l:rg6+ ri;f7 7 :h7+ We8 8 tLlxc3 winning; or here 4 .. .iLxe7 5 ~xe7 tLlxc3 6 ~hh7! winning. 4 l:th8+! Wf7 5 I1h7+ ri;g8 6 I:i.g7+! Wf8 7 tLlxc7 iLxc7 8 ~xc7 tLlb5 9 J:\.h7 I1xe5 10 iLxe5 b6 10 ... a6 11 tLld7+! ~e8 12 tLlf6+ ~d8 13 a4 tLla7 14 JLc7 mate. 11 tLld7+! JLxd7 12 I1h8+ rt;e7 13 1:1xa8 'ite6 14 a4 iLc6 15 l::!.g8 Wxe5 16 axb5 JLxb5 17 .l:l:xb7 JLn 18l:tg7 1-0. Here is another example of a middle game without queens, played when Kasparov won the World Junior Championship at the tender age of 17. I quote the whole game: Danailov v Kasparov: 1 c4 g6 2 tLlf3 iLg7 3 tLlc3 d6 4 d4 tLlf6 5 e4 0-0 6 JLe2 e5 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 'iVxd8 l:txd8 9 iLg5 tLlbd7 10 tLld5 c6 11 tLle7+ Wf8 12 tLlxc8 l:tdxc8 13 0-0-0 tLlc5 14 JLxf6 iLxf6 15 iLd3

reality, his positIOn contains dark square weaknesses which Kasparov exploits in splendid fashion, despite (or because of?) the reduced material. 15 ... a5! 16 ':hel l::!.e8 17 JLn JLd8! 18 g3 a4! 19 'it>c2 iLa5 20 J:Ie3 l::tad8! In contrast to White's exchanges, this exchange of one rook to gain control of the 'd' file is positionally justified. 21 ~xd8 l:txd8 22 JLh3 22 tLlxe5? loses a pawn after 22 ... ~d2+ 25 ..tel .s:xf2 24 J;tf3 .a:xf3 25 tLlxf3 tLlxe4. 22 ... f6 23 .a:e2 ..te7 24 JLg2 tLld3! A cunning move that forces the weakening 25 a3 in view of the threatened 25 ... tLlb4+ 26 'it>bl?? .:tdl mate; if now 25 'it'bl Cbb4 26 l:id2 J:Ixd2 27 tLlxd2 then 27 ... Cbxa2 wins a pawn, whilst in this line 26 .a:e 1 also loses a pawn to 26 ... :d3! 27 JLg2 tLlxa2 28 Wxa2 l:txf3! 29 !:te2 l:!.d3. 25 a3 tLlc5 26 h4 h5 27 ~e3

Danailov v Kasparov (cont.)

Danailov v Kasparov World Junior Championship 1980 White has exchanged his queen and two minor pieces, without a great deal of thought, in the mistaken belief that this is the way to achieve a comfortable draw. In

White's position is being held together by his knight which guards the important d4 and d2 squares, so after 27 ... g5! 28 hxg5 fxg5 he dare not capture the e5 pawn because of 29 ... l:td2+ 30 'it>b 1 l:[xf2 31 JLf3 g4 32 JLe2 JLd2 and 29 tLlxg5 fails to 29 ... ~d2+ 30 'it>b 1 tLld3! 31 Cbh3 JLb6 32 .s:f3 JLd4 mating or winning material; of course, if 29 tLlxe5 ~d2+ 30 Wcl Black has 30 ... Cbb3+

24 The Pieces

31 Wbl l:txf2 32 .to We6 33 4.Jd3 J:[xO! 34 ~xO 4.Jd2+ winning a piece. 29 ~e2 4.Jb3! Threatening 30 ... g4 31 4.Jh4 4.Jd4+. 30 'it>bl Wf6 0-1 A calm move which places White in zugzwang because his bishop cannot move without being captured, his knight cannot give up control of d4, his king will be mated after 31 Wa2 Itdl and his rook cannot go to d2 in view of mate in 3 or to e3 because of 30 ... g4 31 4.Jh4 Itd1+ 32 Wc2 ktd2+ 33 'itbl .tb6 34 .l:[el J..d4 followed by 3S ... !Ixb2 mate. Incredibly, there is another beautiful finish to be had after (instead of Kasparov's 30 ... Wf6) 30 ... 11dl + 31 'it>c2 Ital! 32 ne3 (forced, in view of the threat of ... g4) 32 ... g4 33 4.JxeS 4.Jd4+ 34 Wd3 Itdl mate, which only confirms Black's total domination of the game. It is worth noting that the very power of the queen makes it vulnerable to attacks, especially early in the game when its range is limited. Indeed, there are a number of opening traps which exploit the queen's vulnerability. Here are a couple I particularly like:

7 .1Lxf7+! 4.Jxf7 8 4.Je6 ~6 Or 8 ... 'iVaS+ 9 .1Ld2 ~6 10 as 'ii'xb2 11 .1Lc3 ~bS 12 4.Jc7+ winning the queen. 9 a5 ~4+ 10 c3 ~c4 11 4.Jc7+ 'it>d8 12 b3 and the queen is lost. Fischer v Reshevsky, USA Ch. 19S8-9: 1 e4 c5 2 4.Jf3 4.Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 g6 5 4.Jc3 .1Lg7 6 .1Le3 .1Lg7 7 .1Lc4 0-0 8 .1Lb3 tt'la5?? Fischer knew the trap but Reshevsky didn't! 9 e5! 4.Je8 Both 9... tt'lhS 10 g4 and 9 ... tt'lxb3 10 exf6 4.Jxal 11 fxg7 lose material.

Trap in Sicilian Defence 10 J..xf7+! Wxf7 Or 1O .. J~xf7 11 4.Je6! winning Black's queen. 11 tt'le6! Wxe6 12 ~d5+ 'it>f5 when I leave the reader to work out the rest (TEST 2.3.) Respect for the power of the queen has always meant that the queen sacrifice has something special about it. Perhaps one of the most dynamic aspects of the queen is this ability to choose the time for self-immolation, an admission that her work is now done and the rest can be handed over to her subordinates. Let us conclude this section with a famous finish in which a reigning World Champion was the victim of such a sacrifice:

Trap in Philidor Defence

The Pieces 25

In the first by Moravec (1913) White is to play and win.

Larsen v Petrosian Santa Monica 1966 1 ~xg6! 4Jf4 Or 1... 4Jc7 2 'iVxg7+! followed by mate in 2. 2 ~xf4 fxg6 3 .lie6+ IIf7 Or 3 .. .'~t>h7 4 ~h4+ .lih6 5 ~xh6 !If5 6 nxf5 gxf5 7 .lifl! e5 8 ~h3 when there is no defence against 9 .lif8 mate. 4 .l:!.xt7 'it>h8 5 h1gS! bS 6 J:tg3 1-0 Mate follows quickly.

1 ~h7! Avoiding 'it>xg7 for reasons we shall soon see. 1...h4 2 'it'g6 h3 3 ~gS h2 4 ~g4 hl="iV 5 ~g3! when Black is mated or loses his queen, because his own pawn on g7 blocks the ~h8 defence guarding a1! It is worth a quick look at the alternative defence of 4 ... h1=4J 5 ~f3! g5 when White wins the knight after 6 ~d2! g4+ 7 'it'xg4 'it>fl (or 7 4Jf2+ 'it>f3 8 4Jh3 ~g3 wins) 8 'it'f3 when both 8... 'it>e1 and 8... ~gl lose to 9 na2. Note the power of the rook on the seventh (second) rank restricting the enemy king. Over now to two rooks against a rook and bishop:

The Rook

Here is a clear instance of a piece whose power grows dramatically as the game progresses, reaching its maximum in the endgame, when open lines are usually there to be exploited. One has only to play a few endings to realize how much stronger the rook is than the knight or the bishop, other things being equal of course. Let us illustrate this by means of two 'studies':

Rinck (1912) White to play and win 1 l:ta7+ ~d6 Other moves immediately lose the bishop or rook. 2 nf6+! ~e6 Or 2 ... IIe6 3 l:tf8! .l:!.g64 nd8+! '>t>e6 5 .l:!.a6+ winning the bishop. 31Ia6+ ~d7 4 'it>cS! ~g4 Or 4 ... ne8 5 nd6+ winning. 5 na7+ 'it>e8 Or 5 ... ~d8 6 .l:!.f8+ .l:i:e8 7 ~a8+ wins. 6 IIa8+ '>t>d7 7 lld6+ 'it>c7 8 .tIa7+ wins the rook. Note the baffling switches in the rooks' directions; such horizontal and vertical uses of the rook can be very tricky to

26 The Pieces

visualize when you are attacking or defending. However, beginners usually undervalue the rook, mainly because in the early stages of the game it is virtually an onlooker, with most excitement being created by the other pieces or the pawns. In fact, not only has the rook to wait patiently in the comer before it can reach the centre files but it must then often playa supporting role until lines are opened for it to exert its full power. A good example of this is seen in the Ruy Lopez after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 ~b5 a6 4 ~a4 ttJf6 5 0-0 ~e7 6 l:tel b5 7 ~b3 0-0 8 c3 d6 9 h3 ttJa5 10 ~c2 c5 11 d4 'Wic7

by the experts. However, let us look more closely at the rook on el. From this seemingly ineffective square it is in fact doing far more than guarding the e4 pawn. The keynote of this opening is restraint, giving Black an apparently easy game but in reality attempting to maintain a vice-like grip on his options. In this respect, the rook plays a vital part making it difficult for Black to free his game by ... d5, whilst White calmly manoeuvres behind his pawn front. Eventually, even the rook on a 1 can come into play on another file or else remain where it is in case the 'a' file is opened up by a4.

Ruy Lopez position

However, at some point the rook needs to take over an open file with a view to penetrating to the heart of the enemy position and changing its vertical pressure into a horizontal one. When a rook can combine pressures in this way, it is at its most powerful, so mere occupation of a file is rarely enough; a point of entry is required. Consider, for example, the following opening sequence: 1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 d6 3 ttJc3 e5 4 dxe5 dxe5 5 ~xd8+ 'it>xd8 6 ~g5 ~e6 7 0-0-0+ 'it>c8 giving us the following position:

White has moved his king's rook twice and all it seems to be doing is guarding the e4 pawn whilst the other rook seems inactive for some time to come. Often as many as 10 moves go by without either rook being moved, while the queen's knight is moving over to g3 or e3 via d2 and fl and the bishop is making up its mind where it finally wants to go! Such positions baffle the beginner, who is inclined to doubt the value placed on the rook

Opening set-up

The Pieces 27

Although White has rapidly seized the sole open file, he can do little with it, as he has no real point of entry. In practice, even if White succeeds in doubling his rooks on the file, Black usually manages to defend without great difficulty. The danger of seizing any open file without considering its usefulness is that a mindless exchange of major pieces can easily result in a quick draw. In contrast, of course, occupation of half-open files allows us not only to put pressure on our opponent's position but also to use our rook for horizontal switches along a rank. Our next position, taken from a game which won a brilliancy prize for Bobby Fischer, is an excellent illustration of how to use rooks in this way:

useful 'c' file. Play went: 1 ~a3! 'iHa7 2 1!c3! g6 3 ~g4 ~d7 4 'ii'f3 'iHe6 Black has driven away White's queen but still cannot challenge the 'c' file because of lDb6. The White rooks now post themselves on squares from which they exert maximum power. S 1:!c7 J:IdeS Not of course 5.. J:td7?? 6 lDf4 winning. 6 4:Jf4 ~eS 7 !IdS! ~hS

Fischer v Bolbochan (cont.)

Fischer v Bolbochan Stockholm Interzonal 1962 Look how useful White's rooks are compared to Black's. The rook on h3 is ready to invade almost anywhere, whilst his colleague on dl is applying pressure down the 'd' file, supporting the powerful knight and prepared to switch flexibly to another post when required. In stark contrast, Black's rooks are placed in purely defensive positions and never even succeed in occupying the

S a3! A quiet move, fixing Black's b5 pawn but, more importantly, stopping any back rank mate in the complications about to follow. It is as if White is telling Black that, if he does nothing, his queens ide pawns will be mopped up, whereas any desperate bid for freedom must inevitably fail! In fact, the finish comes as no surprise. S... h6 9 gxh6 ~xh6 10 hS i£.gS 11 hxg6! fxg6 Or 1l....txf4 12 gxf7+ ~xf7 13 .l:lxf7 'ittxf7 14 .l:!.h5! winning. Note that, without White's loophole on a2, Black could now have played 14 ... ~f6 15 .l:!.f5?? ~xf5! 16 exf5 !Ie 1 mate. 12 ~3! !!xf4 Or 12 ... h8 13 4:Jxg6+! ~xg6 14 J:rxg5 'iVxg5 15 'li'h3+ followed by mate. 13 l:teS+ Wf8 14 l:txeS+ 1-0 After 14 ... 'it>xe8 there comes 15 iVe6+ followed by 16 ~c8 mate.

28 The Pieces

The seventh rank is a particularly strong posting for a rook (or, better still, two rooks!) because its turning action from vertical to horizontal is at its most effective here, aiming not only at enemy pawns but also at the king. Here is a good example of how Capablanca was willing to sacrifice a pawn to launch such an attack, enhanced by the weakened light squares: Volinsky v Kalinichenko USSR 1970

Nimzovich v Capablanca New York 1927 1...e5! 2 i.xe5 ~dd2 3 'it'b7 Or 3 ~xe3! 4 i.f4 l:!.xf2! winning; the best defence is 3 'it'f1 ~d5 4 i.f4!. 3... ':xf2 4 g4 'it'e6 5 i.g3 ~xh2! 6 'tIVf3 Or 6 i.xh2 ~xg4+ 7 'it'h 1 'iVh3 followed by mate. 6.. J:thg2+ 7 'tIVxg2 .l:i.xg2+ 8 'it'xg2 ~xg4 and Black won easily.

with 1...'iYxa2! 2 l:tal l:txdl 3 !txa2 l:Ixel 4 g3 ~d8! 5 gxf4 ~ddl 6 f5 White tries in vain to prevent the decisive entry of Black's bishop; if 6 ~c2 exf4 and the bishop comes in on d4. 6 .. .l:txfl+ 7 'it>g2 i.f6! 8 'tlVa4 ~g1+ 9 Wf2 i.h4+ 10 'it'e2 .J:i.gel mate. TEST 2.4: An interesting exercise for the reader is to work out Black's win against 9 'it>h2. It is not as easy as it looks! The Knight

l:!.f1

Here is another example of the power of doubled rooks, this time on the enemy's back rank: Seeing that White is helpless against the doubled rooks combined with the king's bishop, Black sacrifices his queen for rook and knight

This is an intriguingly devious piece whose value is difficult to assess, particularly when compared to the straightforward bishop. Given a fairly empty board, the long-range bishop shows up better, the knight's short hop being a disadvantage, not only because it usually takes 3 or 4 moves to cross from one wing to the other but also because it can easily be trapped against the edge of the board. It is also the only piece to have any trouble against a passed rook's pawn and is completely helpless when attacked by an enemy

The Pieces 29

pawn on the seventh rank. A famous Alekhine combination illustrates this last point to perfection:

Bogoljubow v Alekhine Hastings 1922

* Not only is it well supported by pawn and pieces, but the d5 square is ideal for it because the Black d6 pawn prevents any frontal attack and there is no pawn on the 'c' or 'e' files to drive it away. * Add to this the fact that the Black bishop has no scope whatsoever, being restricted by the pawn on d6 as well as by White's g5 pawn, and it can be seen that White's knight is indeed a most powerful piece. What a strange piece this is, then, very much requiring the right setting to reveal its true worth! The onus is therefore on us to create this setting, as does Smyslov, a master of positional play, in the following position:

He achieves his aim after 1...b4!! 2 .l:[xa8 bxe3 3 llxe8 e2! 4 llxf8+ Wh7, when there is no way to stop Black promoting his pawn. The game ended: 5 liJf2 el=~+ 6 liJn QJel! with a winning advantage to Black. Having pointed out the knight's disadvantages, it is only fair to state that there are times when it is not only superior to a bishop but even worth a rook. Tum back, for example, to the Fischer-Bolbochan position given earlier and consider the power of the well-posted knight on d5: * It is well centralized, which means that it can rapidly influence events on both sides of the board, whether it be penetrating on the queens ide or attacking on the kingside. * Unlike its colleague, the bishop, it is not limited to squares of one colour only; at the moment it is watching eight dark squares but a single move can immediately bring eight light squares into its orbit.

Langeweg v Smyslov Amsterdam 1971 After 1.. ..ixf3! 2 .ixf3 liJd4 White is already in trouble, since he cannot move his king's bishop back to g2 without losing a vital pawn. Play proceeded: 3 'tWe4 e6! 4 .ig5? A mistake, but if 4 !:tbl '(Wa4! or if 4 lIVb7 llb8 5 ~e4 f5 6 'i'f4 e5 etc., or finally the knight cannot be driven away by 4 e3?? in view of 4 ... f5 5 lib7 ktb8 winning the bishop on 0. 4 ... f6! 5 .if4 g5 6 i.el f5 and White

30 The Pieces

had had enough because the e2 pawn falls after 7 ... g4. I have deliberately chosen this simple example because it is White's attitude of mind that is of interest here. Such is the belief in the strength of the two bishops that Black's first move would surprise many players until it dawned on them that White is clearly worse once the knight lands on d4. Another striking example of this kind of misjudgement occurred, strangely enough, in the same tournament, with Smyslov again playing the Black side:

The game continued: 4... c5 5 ltJo iLc6 6 iLd3 f5! And eventually White had to give up his more valuable king's bishop for the e4 knight, allowing the Black's f5 pawn to settle on e4, thus giving him a bind on the position which proved sufficient to win the game. If a grandmaster can be troubled by such decisions, this should convince the reader of the importance of learning more about the value of pieces in varying situations. It is always foolhardy to base our play on preconceived ideas without a careful examination of the concrete situation on the board. I repeat: nowhere does this book offer magic formulae which will save the reader from having to think for himself!

Gligoric v Smyslov Amsterdam 1971

We mentioned earlier the deviousness of the knight, due to its sudden baffling switches from squares of one colour to squares of the opposite Once again, two fine colour. 'studies' can be used to illustrate this feature which distinguishes the knight so clearly from the bishop. Let us begin with an extraordinary display of tactical wizardry:

The opening stage is hardly over than Gligoric, no mean positional player himself, makes a move which reveals once again an obsession with the two bishops. Illogically fearing ... ltJh5, he produces the weak and time-wasting 1 h3 and after 1..:~Ve7 2 0-0 iLxc3! 3 bxc3 ltJe4 4 iLh2, he has indeed succeeded in preserving his bishop only to discover that nothing is further from Smyslov's mind that exchanging his beautifully centralized knight for White's ineffective queen's bishop!

Pogosyants (1959) White to play and win

The Pieces 31

With both kings exposed, it is vital for White to use his pieces quickly to maximum effect and this is the startling result: 1 lbe5+ 'it>a5 Forced because 1...Wa3 allows 2 'iVb3 mate and L.c;t>b5 fails to 2 ~3+ followed by mate. 2 ~d8+! 'i!;>b5 Again forced, since the alternatives 2 ... ihd8 3 lbxc6+ and 2 .. J~b6 3 lbc4+ lose material immediately; so what is White's plan now? 3 j.c4+! l:rxc4 If 3 ... 'it>c5 4 'iVa5 mate, or if 3 ... 'it>a4 4 ~xd6 l:rxd6 5 1i.d3+ winning the f5 rook; however, 4 ~xd6 will now allow 4 .. J:i.xh4+, so how can White finish the game in brilliant fashion? 4 'i'a5+!! 'i!;>xa5 5 lbxc4+ picking up the three major pieces in one feU swoop, as if in a game of draughts ...

White's king must be used to stop the 'b' pawn, so it is up to the knight to deal with the 'h' pawn. But how? Since it can only operate from one side of the pawn, it seems to be in deep trouble after 1 'it>d3 Wfl 2 'iitc4 'it>g6 (if 2 ... 'iitg7 3 'it>xb4 c;t>xh7 4 'it>c4 the pawn can be stopped) because Black now intends to push the 'h' pawn at once if White captures on b4. However, it is in this situation that the knight displays startling agility beginning with 3 lbf8+ c;t>f5 4 lbd7 h5 5 lbc5! h4 giving us a position worth another diagram:

Now for a much quieter 'study' but perhaps all the more instructive for that:

Grigoriev (cont.)

Grigoriev (1934) White to play and draw When I first saw this,. I just did not believe it possible for White to save such a position, faced as he is with two passed pawns and a stranded knight notoriously bad against a rook's pawn. Note that a bishop instead of the knight would have no problem at alL Clearly,

We have now reached the critical point in this 'study'. White has to know that the key square for the knight to deal with the 'h' pawn is f1 and the only way to reach there is by 6 tLlb3!! with the main variation being 6 ... h3 7 tLld2 h2 8 tLln hI =~ 9 tLlg3+ and the queen is lost. But what if Black uses his king to shepherd his pawn home? It is then that White displays the 'bread and butter' essential knowledge of this ending: from fl the knight can hold up the pawn without any help from the king! Play might go: 6 .. .'ti'f4 7 tLld2 h3 8 lbn 'it>f3 9 'it>xb4 Wg2 10 lbe3+ 'it>f2 11 lbg4+ 'it>g3 12 lbe3! when it is clear that Black can make

32 The Pieces

no progress. A splendid composed ending! To complete this section, let us examine two contrasting situations where knights are opposing the famous two bishops. We have seen that knights need support if they are to be at their best, so the side with the bishops should strive to undermine this support. Our first example is a drastic illustration of this method:

in it but mainly because they were skilled at bringing about the kind of positions most suited to the peculiarities of this piece. Larsen is at work in our next example, facing the redoubtable Bobby Fischer and his favourite two bishops:

Fischer v Larsen Santa Monica 1966

Capablanca v Milner-Barry Margate 1936 The bishops here are far stronger than the knights, as Capablanca convincingly demonstrates by knocking out the two pawns supporting Black's cavalry: 1 h5! .l:tbf8 2 c5! d5 3 i.xd5+! cxd5 4 'iYxd5+ 'it>f6 5 f4 'iYc6 6 i.xe5+ r:l;e7 7 i.d6+ and Black resigned, because after 7 ... liJxd6 8 cxd6+ 'iVxd6 9 l:te 1+ 'it'd7 10 't\Vxb7+ he loses at least his queen. However, we must not end on a pessimistic note about the knight. Chi gorin had a penchant for this delightful piece, along with Nimzovich, Petros ian and the unorthodox Larsen. They could do wonders with it, partly because they believed

Larsen comments: "Black has quite an active position and I doubt if White has any advantage", although these brave words were written after the game! However, the differences between this and the previous example are clear enough. The position is semi-blocked, with White's advanced 'e' pawn making his kings ide pawn majority difficult to utilize, whereas Black's queenside pawns are ready to roll forward when required. The two knights are well placed and White's bishops will not find it easy to make their presence felt. At all events, Larsen halfproved his statement by winning as follows: 1... liJc5 2 g3 ~c4 Black is not afraid of the ending after 3 'i!Vxc4 dxc4 when he can utilize the 'hole' at d3. 3 ~g2 liJd3! Immediately eliminating one of the bishops, the 'good' one least hindered by the White pawns. 4 i.xd3 ~xd3 5 Si.g5 c66 g4 liJg7 7 ~e3 ~d2 8 b3 b4 9

The Pieces 33

~h3?

bxc3 10 ~h6 4Je6 0-1. Fischer has no time for 11 J.f6 followed by g5 and 'iYxh7+ in view of Il...c2 12 g5 'iYdl+! 13 ~g2 4Jf4+ 14 'iitg3 4Jh5+ winning. Perhaps he should not have lost this game but the knights did their work most efficiently.

and skewer enemy pieces using its long-range mobility. Here is a delightful example of pins and unpins in a duel between two bishops:

The Bishop

Although the bishop's forking power is not in the knight's league, it can occasionally produce a spectacular double attack, as in the following 'study': Kakovin (1960) White to play and win

Sobolevsky (1950) White to play and win After 1 J.b2+ Black's bishop is attacked so he must reply 1...J.e5 pinning himself, although there is no danger in 2 l:th5? lidl +. Instead, comes 2 l:td6! l:tb5 3 I:td8+ ~g7 4 lIb8! and in neither case can the rook be captured, because of J.xe5+ winning a piece. However, the final try 4.. .l:!d5 fails to 5 e4 when White gains the exchange, with an easy win. The bishop's main strength undoubtedly resides in its ability to pin

White cannot capture Black's rook without allowing his own rook to fall to ... J.f2+, so he first plays 1 J.c4+ f8 3 ~f7+ ~e8 4 1;:[f6 J.d8 pinning the rook, only to find that White can now interpose 5 J.b5+! forcing Black to unpin the rook by 5•..c;t;>e7 allowing 6 ~xa6. To 'echo' this beautiful variation, we have 1... c;t>h7 2 .l:!.e7+ c;t>g6 in order to answer 3 l:te2 with 3 ... J.d8+. 3 .txa6 .td8 Pinning the rook. 4 .td3+! when the unfortunate Black king must again unpin the White rook. A composition full of dramatic moments! The long-ranging bishop can be such a powerful piece when controlling a major diagonal, that whole

34 The Pieces

opening systems can be constructed around white-square or black-square strategies which harness this power. Here is a typical brevity from the Griinfeld Defence which shows how the whole of Black's play is geared towards maximizing the influence of his dark-squared bishop (my brief notes are solely aimed at emphasizing this theme): Ubilava v Kengis, USSR 1984: 1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 g6 3 liJc3 dS 4 liJf3 ~g7 S 'iVa4+ ~d7 6 'ii'b3 dxc4! 7 Wkxc4 0-0 8 e4 bS!? This wildlooking move is a prelude to smashing up the centre with ... c5, increasing the scope of the g7 bishop. 9 ~3 cS! 10 dxcS liJa6 11 eS liJg4 12 h3liJxeS 13 liJxeS ~xeS 14 ~e3 ~c8 IS J:.dl liJxcs 16 ~a3?! liJa4! Aiming at the vital dark squares b2 and c3. 17 liJxbS liJxb2 18 1:ldS nc2! Threatening 19 ... ~xb5 20 l:txd8 'uxd8 21 ~xb5 I:td 1 mate. 19 liJd4 ~xd4 20 lhd4 W1c7 21 ~e2? Hastening the end.

Bobby Fischer in his prime was famous for his creative exploitation of the bishop. Here is the sacrificial culmination of one of his finest achievements:

R. Byrne v Fischer USA Championship 1963-4 Fischer sees a sacrificial sequence which eliminates White's strong bishop on g2 and allows his own bishop on a6 to take over the long diagonal, highlighting the resulting weakness of the light squares around the White. king: 1...liJxf2! 2 'it'xf2 liJg4+ 3 'it'gl etJxe3 4 ~ d2 liJxg2!! The point. S 'it>xg2 d4! 6 liJxd4 ~b7+ 7 f3liJc4 2S ~cS e4+ 0-1

Any move loses the rook with a check.

R. Byrne v Fischer (cont.)

The Pieces 35

The extraordinary transformation reveals a situation in which the White king's position is fatally weakened and Black's bishops reign supreme. A thematic finish might have been 8 'iVf2 'tlVh3+ 9 'it>gl l:Iel+! 10 ~xel .ixd4 11 'flr'xd4 ~g2 mate. The most obvious weakness of the bishop is that it can only control squares of one colour, which is why it is often at its most effective in Euwe v Keres (cont.) conjunction with other pieces and pawns. That is why two bishops 11 ... l:l.xf4! Leading to an attractive working together in an open posi- forced win. 12 gxf4 ~g8+ 13 c;t>f3 tion, and thus compensating for .ig4+ and Euwe resigned in view of their individual weakness, can even 14 ~e4 l::!.e8+ when after 15 'it>d5 be as strong as a queen. Paul Keres .if3+ 16 'tlVe4 i..xe4 mate or 15 'it>d3 was in no doubt about this when he .if5 mate, the two bishops have the sacrificed first his queen, then a· last word. rook, from the following position: Our final example of two bishops at work is perhaps the most instructive because it shows a typical situation in which Black has to work hard to create open lines and points of attack before his pieces can achieve their full potential. It is in such positions that the average player often fails to realise his advantage:

Euwe v Keres Match, Holland 1939-40 After 1...d3! 2 l:.xd3 'flr'xd3!! 3 i..d4+ the Black bishops exert tremendous pressure on the king. Euwe tries to tempt Keres to part with one of them, but they remain on the board until White is mated. Play continued: 4 ~f2 Or 4 'it>hl ktxe6 followed by ... l:tae8 and ... ~e2. 4... ~xe6 5 'it>f1 !Iae8! 6 f5 lIeS 7 f6 gxf6 8 lId2 .ic8! 9 etJf4 l:!e3 10 'flr'b 1 :tf3+ 11 \t>g2

~xd3

Kirov v Vasyukov Varna 1971

36 The Pieces

White's pawns on f3 and c3 present a barrier to the Black bishops but this puts a heavy strain on the supporting pawns on g2 and b2 which dare not move without creating serious weaknesses. Let us see how Vasyukov cleverly exploits this factor: 1...a5! Threatening to advance to a3 and practically forcing White's next move, since 2 a4 would allow 2 ... h4! applying more pressure on c3. 2 a3 a43 .li.a2 b4! 4 axb4 cxb4 5 d4 Unwillingly having to set up another barrier to Black's king's bishop, but this inevitably weakens other squares and also accepts that little can be done to counter the vertical pressure down the 'c' file. 5 .. .l:tbc8! 6 cxb4 Giving up the struggle to maintain his pawn chain but 6 .li.c4 a3! or 6 !Ic 1 .li.xd4! or 6 .l:Id3 .li.a6 or finally 6 ~d3 a3! are no better. 6.. Jhd4 7 lhd4 .li.xd4 8 'ilVdl .li.f2! The culmination of Black's strategy, as 9 lie2 allows 9 ... .li.xf31. 9 .li.xe6 fxe6 10 l:I.xe6 .li.d5 11 !Id6 .l:!.c1 12 '1IVd3 .li.c4 13 l:I.d8+ Wg7 14 'iVd7+ .li.f7 and, in view of the fact that 15 ~d3 loses to 15 ...~xd8!, White resigned. So far in this section we have talked about the bishop in terms bordering on adulation, so we must now in all justice set the record straight by looking at the so-called 'bad' bishop, by which a bishop restricted by its own pawns. An example will make this clear (see following diagram): In contrast to the knight, the bishop is a terrible piece here because, although it guards its own pawns, it must rely on the king to oppose the entry of the enemy king via the weak light squares. However, it is still not an easy position to win for Black. First of all, with ...

Henneberger v Nirnzovich Winterthur 1931 1...ctJe4! Black ties the bishop to both his pawns, forcing 2 We2 Wd5 3 'it>e3 when, by the standard 'triangular' movement of the king 3 ...'it>d6! 4 'it>e2 'it>c6 5 'it'e3 Wd5, Black has achieved his aim of forcing White's king back. If White now moves his bishop instead, Black exchanges knight for bishop, then plays 6 ... We4 7 We2 a3! gaining entry via d3 or f3. Play continued: 6 We2 ctJd6 7 We3 ctJb5 8 .li.d2 ctJa3 9 ~c1 Forced because 9 .li.el ctJc2+ 10 'it>e2 ctJxe 1 11 'it'xe1 We4 wins, as we have seen. 9 ... ctJbl 10 .li.b2 a3! 11 .li.al reaching the following position:

Henneberger v Nirnzovich 'Bad' bishop ending (cont.)

The Pieces 37

Nimzovich has deliberately allowed his knight to be captured in order to promote his g4 pawn, having precisely calculated the resulting play after 11 ... ~d6! 12 ~e2 Wc6 13 'it'dl White would of course like to play 13 'it>e3 WdS 14 'it>f2 but then 14 ... tLld2 followed by lS ... tLlb3! wins at once; in case you think this is a tactical fluke, Black can also win thematically by 14 .. .'it>e4 IS ~e2 tLld2! 16 'it'xd2 Wf3 winning more quickly than in the game! 13 ... 'it'd5 14 'it'c2 We4 15 'it'xbl ~f3 16 i.b2! axb2! Not 16 ... xg3 17 i.xa3 Wf3 18 i.cS! g3 19 a4 g2 20 dS! and it is White who wins. 17 a4 'it>xg3 18 a5 ~h2! 19 a6 g3 20 a7 g2 21 a8=~ gl=~+ 22 Wxb2 ir'g2+! exchanging queens and easily winning the pawn ending. Yet another bizarre aspect of bishops is when opposing bishops control squares of the opposite colour. In fact, endings with bishop and pawns on each side and no other pieces on the board are notoriously difficult to win, as many players over the years have found to their cost. Witness the following composed example:

White to move. Draw!

White must guard against Black's threat of l...'it>f3 2 i.a6 e2+! 3

i.xe2+ ~e3 when the blockade is broken, so his first move is 1 'it>e2! when all winning attempts by Black fail e.g. 1...'it>e4 2 i.c4 i.g3 3 i.b5 'it'd5 4 ~d3! i.el After 4 ... e2 S i.c4+! saves the day. 5 i.a6 Wc6 6 'it'c2 ~b6 7 i.c4 'ot>a5 8 'it'b3 and the pawn chain can never advance, nor can the Black king penetrate down the queenside. However, move the whole position one square to the right and it is won for Black, whoever has the move, precisely because Black's king can then use the extra file on the queens ide to reach either c4 or d I! Try it for yourself. In view of the difficulty in winning such endings, inexperienced players have somehow acquired the erroneous belief that middle games with opposite-coloured bishops are also drawish. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, I am tempted to generalize by stating that, in middle game situations, oppositecoloured bishops tend to unbalance play and tilt it even more in favour of the player with the initiative. As an instructive example of this, I quote a correspondence game played recently by an old friend of mine, Donald Andrew: Andrew v Roach, 1999: 1 e4 e5 2 i.c4 tLlf6 3 d4 exd4 4 tLlf3 tLlc6 5 e5 d5 6 i.b5 ttJe4 7 tLlxd4 i.d7 8 i.xc6 bxc6 9 0-0 i.c5 10 f3 tLlg5 11 f4 tLle4 12 i.e3 'ilie7 13 tLld2 ctJxd2 14 'iVxd2 i.xd4 Black has transposed the game into a typical Two Knights Defence line, but this deliberate concession of dark-square control seems risky to me. 15 i.xd4! By taking with the queen he could prevent Black's next move, but sees no reason to prevent Black's attempt to set up his pawns on dark squares, since the resulting position can be

38 The Pieces

smashed open. 15 ... c5 16.Jtf2 d4 17 c3! .Jtb5 18 nfel 18 ~fc1 looks even stronger. 18... d3 19 c4! .Jtxc4 20 ~acl .Jta6 21 l1xc5! Far better than the obvious 21 .Jtxc5, as we shall see. 21...0-0 22 !ia5! ~e6 23 f5! A rapid attack is launched before Black can set up any defence. 23 .. :~c8 24 f6! h6 Desperately trying to contest the dark squares, because after 24 ... Wh8 25 fxg7+ Wxg7 26 'iVg5+ 'it>h8 27 ~f6+ Wg8 28 e6! it is all over.

~xc5 d2 29 lIxc8+ 'it>g8 30 nxg7+ Wh8 31 'tixd2! mating. 27 l:txg5+ hxg5 28 ~xg5+ and Andrew announced mate in 6 by 28 ... 'it>f8 29 ~g7+ 'it>e8 30 ~g8+ 'it>d7 31 'tixf7+ 'it>c6 32 l1c5+ 'it>b7 33 ~3+ followed by mate.

In my opinion, one of the greatest creators of unbalanced positions of this kind has been Bent Larsen. Here's just one example of many:

Andrew v Roach Correspondence 1999

Gligoric v Larsen Havana 1967

White has almost complete control of the dark squares and this, along with the initiative (despite the awkward pawn on d3), leads to an inevitable win. Just compare the influence of each side's bishop... 25 .J:.e3! nd8 Or 25 ... .Jtb7 261!g3 forcing mate; or 25 ... g5 26 lIg3 Wh7 27 l::txg5! lIg8 28 Ztxg8 'it>xg8 29 lIxa6 'iVxa6 30 ~xh6 mating; or 25 ... lIb8 26 l1g3 g5 27 lIxg5+ Wh8 28 l1g7 mating; or finally 25 ... 'it>h7 26 e6! fxe6 27 fxg7 ~g8 28 lIh3 .l:Xxg7 29 ~xh6+ 'it>g8 30 ~h8+ 'it>f7 31 nf3+ 'it>g6 42 l:tg5+ and mate in 2. 26 lIg3 g5 He cannot even escape with 26 ... 'it>f8 in view of 27 'iVb4+! c5 28

To be fair to Gligoric, he has tried hard to set up a barrier of pawns on light squares to combat Black's bishop, but all in vain, as Larsen beautifully demonstrates: l...l:hg2!! 2 lIxg2 Or 2 'it>xg2 ~xh3+ followed by mate. 2.• :iVxh3 3 e4 Or 3 'it>gl .Jtxf3! winning, now that 'iVxd7+ is prevented. 3 ...lIg6 0-1 If 4 'i!fe2 ~hl + and mate next move. Once again, the helplessness of the defender is typical of such positions. I give a final example of this important positional aspect by quoting one of my own typically wild games played over thirty years ago:

The Pieces 39

11 'it>dl Not 11 ~bl?? i¥b2 mate. 11 ... .l:!:d8! reaching the position I thought was winning comfortably, until I realized that White had various defensive possibilities I would have to circumvent.

Corden v J.Littlewood Hastings 1969 Having unnecessarily allowed White excellent counter-chances after an opening that was better for me, I was in no mood for a draw, so could hardly resist the opportunity to 'do a Larsen' in a situation where my bishop gave me uncontested control of the dark squares: 1...:'h3!? 2 a:bel Not of course 2 gxh3 'iYe4+ 3 'it>gl ~d4+ 4 .l:!f2 'ii'xbl+ 5 ~g2 'iWe4+! 6.l:!f3 'iWe2+ 7 'it>g3 i.e5+ 8 'it>g4 ~e4+ followed by mate in 2; or here 6 ~f1 ~xf2 7 'it>xf2 'iiVxe6 etc. 2... l:f.xh2+! The whole point of the exercise which I had calculated as far as my rook reaching d8, but no further... 3 'it>xh2 i.e5+ 4 'it>gl After the better try 4 'it>h 1 'iVh5+ 5 cJ;g 1 neither 5... i.d4+? 6 ~f2! nor 5 ... i.g3?? 6 'iVaI +! followed by mate could be played, but I can reach the game position by 5 ... '1Wh2+ 6 ~f2 ii'f4+! 7 ~e2 ii'e4+ 8 ~f2 ~d4+ 9 'it>g3 'ii'h4+ 10 ~f3 ~f4+ etc., or here 8 ~d2 a:d8+! 9 ~d7 ~d4+ 10 'it'e2 laxd7 winning more quickly than in the game. 4... ~d4+ 5 Wh2 'iWh5+ ,6 'ittg3 'iVh4+ 7 'it>f3 ~f4+ 8 'it'e2 'i'e3+ 9 'it>dl 'iWd3+ 10 Wel 'iWc3+

Corden v J. Littlewood (cont.) 12 ~d7! ~b3+ 13 'it>e2 'iWe3+ 14 'it'dl 'iWd3+ 15 'it>cl ~e3+! 16 'ittb2 After 16 ~xe3 'iVxe3+ 17 'it>dl ~d4+ 18 ~e2 .!::f.xd7 19 ii'al Black has 19 ... ~e7+ 20 ~f3 .l:'.e3+ 21 ~f2 .l:tc3+ etc. 16...'iVd4+ The point is that the immediate 16 .. Jhd7 allows 17 'iWa8+ and 18 ~e5+ so I must explore further checks. 17 'it>b3 'iWd5+! An important check giving White few options, since 18 ~b2 or 18 ~a3 block the queen check from al and 18 'it>b4 allows 18 ... i.d2+, 18 ~c2 'iVc4+ 19 Wb2 And now 19 'it>dl and 19 ~bl allow mate in one and two moves respectively. 19 .. .'YiVd4+ One last try before I go into the capture of the rook, as given above, after 20 Wb3 'iVd5+ 21 cJ;c2 ~c4+ 22 'it'b2 ~d4+! 23 Wbl 'iVb3+ 24 Wcl i.e3+! etc., but Martin allows a quicker win. 20 'itta3(?) ~c3+ 21 'itta4 21 Wa2 'iWc2+ and mate next move. 21...b5+ 0-1

40 The Pieces

Hints/or Beginners

* Learn the standard, static, value of the pieces, using the suggested point count, but always be prepared for the exception to the rule in any given dynamic situation. * A queen needs open lines and points of attack to be at its most effective. * In the early stages of the game, be wary of venturing too far with the queen, which can easily be trapped. * Do not overestimate the queen's strength, as it can be a poor defender. * A rook not only needs open files but requires a 'turning point' on the file so that it can exert horizontal as well as vertical pressure. * Two rooks on the seventh rank can be very strong indeed.

* A knight needs a central outpost for maximum power and thrives on closed positions and tactical surpnses. * A bishop needs open diagonals and is weakest in closed positions, especially if blocked in by its own pawns. * In open positions, two bishops working together can be very effective, as this compensates for the fact that, singly, they can only control squares of one colour. * Although opposite-coloured bishops in an ending without other pieces offer the weaker side good drawing chances, the contrary is true in the middle game, when they are used in conjunction with other pieces. In such cases, the initiative is the main factor.

3 Tactical Ideas

B

efore we embark on an examination of fullscale combinations, it will be worth our while to study various tactical motifs which provide the basic mechanism of a combination and often even win the game on their own.

must always be considered when unguarded pieces are lying around. Our first 'study' is a brilliant example of the knight fork in action:

The Double Attack

We can all recall the joyous experience of the first time we forked a king and a queen with a knight! The possibility of such a double attack occurred in the first game I ever played for Yorkshire, as a youngster, and gives it sentimental value far beyond any intrinsic merit. After I e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 ttJf3 ttJc6 4 d4 d5 5 exd5 ~xd5 6 ttJc3 'tIYd6? 7 d5! ttJce7 8 ttJb5! we see that 8... ~xd5?? immediately loses to the 9 ttJxc7+ fork, so my opponent played 8.. :~c5 9 ..Itxf4 'llxd5?? only to find that 10 'iYxd5! again involves the same idea. Rather than resign at once to such an upstart, he continued 10 .. :~b4+ and after 11 ~d2 ~xb2 12 ttJxc7+ rt;e7, rather than take the lovely rook in the corner, I opted for 13 ~d6 mate. The fork, threatening two pieces simultaneously, is the basic form of the double attack, a stratagem which

Rinck (1935) White to play and win After I ttJf7! ..\tal The only safe square, as we shall see. 2 'it>bl! Two of the bishop's retreat squares, e5 and h8, are directly controlled by the knight and the other four are indirectly controlled. If the bishop goes to f6 or g7 on the one hand or c3 or d4 on the other, then 3 ttJd6+ rt;xc7 will allow the forks by 4 ttJe8+ or 4 ttJb5+ respectively. In other words, the clever mechanism gives the knight control of six squares at the same time! Our second 'study' shows a logical but beautiful use of the rook's

42 Tactical Ideas

horizontal and vertical powers in a double attack which wins one of Black's minor pieces and, with it, the game:

The Marshall trap

10 ... i.xh2+! 11 'it>xh2 ttJxf2 12 'ii'c2 ttJxd3 13 'iVxd3 i.xf3 14 'tWxf3 'ii'h4+ followed by 15 .. :iVxel. Kubbel (1923) White to play and win 1 lib3! ttJc6 Both 1...ttJa6 2 ~a3 and 1...ttJd7 2 l:ib7 lose a piece at once, whilst 1... j"c7 2 llb7 ttJa6 allows 3 ~a7, a recurring pattern. 2 .l:tb5 Threatening 3 J::tc5. 2... i.d8 2 ... i.c7 and 2... i.c3 lose to 3 l:tc5. 3 lIdS Again threatening 4 ~d6 which is also the answer to 3 ... j"b6 and 3 ... i.f6, whilst 3 ... i.h4 fails to 4 llh5+, another double attack! 3 ... i.e7 4 I:td7! The clinching move, since the bishop, being pinned, cannot move on this occasion. 4 ... 'it>g6 5 l:tc7 wins. Now to some game examples. The first one occurs in the famous and highly plausible Marshall trap in the Petroff Defence which, to my shame, once floored me. After the moves 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 3 ttJxe5 d6 4 ttJf3 ttJxe4 5 d4 d5 6 i.d3 j"d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 j"g4 9 cxd5 f5 10 ~el? we reach the following position:

The next example is from a fairly recent game but the tactic is as old as the hills:

Anand v J. Polgar Dos Hermanas 1997 At first sight it seems that Black can blockade the passed pawn, but after 1 ~dl! ttJc5 2 d7! ttJxd7 3 l1xd7 !:txd7 4 ttJf6+ White has the last laugh. Our final example is only one of many demonstrating that the term 'double attack' can refer to a range

Tactical Ideas 43

of situations involving more than a simple fork of two pieces. If a piece threatens mate in two and the defence can cope with either separately but not both together, we have a double attack in the shape of a double threat:

TEST 3.2 Loweki v Tartakower Jurata 1937 Black to play and win The Discovered Check + Unmasking

Levenfish v Riumin Moscow 1936 With his knight under attack, White meekly retreated it, missing the brilliant win to be had by 1 tiJf6+! gxf6 l...~h8 2 'iiVxfS mate. 2 exf6 and there is no way that Black can deal with the threats of 3 'iiVg3+ followed by mate on g7 and 3 ~xfS+! 'it'xfS 4 lld8 mate.

We have already seen that a double attack is at its most dangerous when one of the attacked pieces is the king. It is therefore easy to imagine the damage that can be wrought by a piece which moves away at random, uncovering a check from another piece! Problemists term two such pieces a 'battery' and here is a 'study' composer's startling exploitation of such a battery:

Here are two test positions for the reader to solve:

Hoeh (1973) White to play and win TEST 3.1 Pire v R. Byrne Helsinki Olympiad 1952 Black to play and win

It seems that the best White can do is settle for a draw here, but the

44 Tactical Ideas

magic of the rook + bishop 'battery' wins the day after the surprisingly cool move 1 iLd7!! (1 l:td5+ 'it>b4 2 l:i.d4+ Wc5 only draws) after which the queen' s only move to avoid immediate loss is 1..:~h3. However, in contrast to the previous note, White can now play 2 ~f5+! b4 3 ~f4+ capturing the queen for nothmg. I cannot resist quoting our next 'fun' composition which, though of course completely impractical and unreal, nevertheless reveals a battery set-up hilariously reversing itself:

Petrushin v Vlasov USSR 1970 lliJd5! liJxd5 Or l...'it>h8 2l:txg7! 'iii>xg7 3 ~g5+ winning. 2 Z!xg7+ 'iii>h8 3 l:txd5! 'iVxd5 4 iLf6!! and Black is helpless against the threats of'iVg5 and 'ilVh6. Note how important White's fourth move is in this sequence. If instead he releases the tension by 4 i:txf7+ Black has 4 ... liJe5 or if 4 !:.g8+ 'iii>xg8 5 'ii'g5+ iLg6 6 'i'xd5 Black has two rooks and a knight for the queen.

Mees (1973) White to play and win I just give the solution without superfluous comment: 1 iLxe2+ 'iii>el 2 1Lb5+ liJe5 3 ktxe5+ i.e2 4 Itxe2+ 'itn 5 l:te4+ liJd3 6 iLxd3+ l:te2 7 i.xe2+ el 8 i.g4+ 9 'iitd2! Itxg4 10 l:rxg4 hl=~ llli:tc4 forcing mate!

wn

Such batteries are, however, a common and important feature of the game. Here are two examples:

Antunac v Hubner Dresden 1969 This is a little more unusual but all the more charming for that. By use of the battery, White recaptures his

Tactical Ideas 45

piece along with a couple of pawns, but it is enough to give him a won game after 1 ~c7! 'iYxh5 2 Ite7+ 'it>f8 3 .!::txb7+ 'it>eS 4 ~e7+ 'it>f8 5 l::txh7+ Not however 5 l:txa7+ first, because a later .. .lha3 will ruin the combination. 5 ... 'it>eS 6 ~xh5 winning. Of course, a piece can be unmasked without a check on the king being involved, as in the following opening trap: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ct:Jc3 ct:Jf6 4 iJ..g5 ct:Jbd7 5 e3 c6 6 ct:Jf3 'i'a5 7 i.d3 7 ct:Jd2 is probably best. 7... ct:Je4! S 'i'c2? Completely missing the fact that the black queen is pressurising the rank as well as the diagonal. S... ct:Jxg5 9 ct:Jxg5 dxc4! winning a piece.

After the childishly simple L.g3! the unmasking is linked to the double threats of 2 ... 'iYxc4 and 2 ... gxf2+, so Korchnoi resigned. An equally dramatic unmasking, this time with check, was beautifully set up by White in the game Bronstein v Zaitsev, USSR 1970, after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 exf4 4 ct:Jf3 ct:Jf6 5 i.c4 ct:Jxd5 60-0 i.e6? 7 iJ..b3! iJ..d6 S c4 ct:Je7 9 d4 ct:Jg6 10 c5! iLe7 11 iLxe6 fxe6 12 ~el 0-0 13 lhe6 iLxc5?

In similar fashion, Korchnoi failed to take into account the potential horizontal power of his opponent's queen in the following position: Bronstein v Zaitsev USSR 1970 Black probably thought that he could allow White's next move because the d4 pawn will be captured with check but, like many others before him, he failed to see the ingenious idea behind Bronstein's play: 14 "it'b3! iJ..xd4+ 15 ct:Jxd4 'ifxd4+ 16 iLe3! and Black was helpless against the coming discovered check. Korchnoi v Portisch Wijk aan Zee 1968

Here are two test positions for the reader:

46 Tactical Ideas

Black but further shocks are imminent. 8... lbxe4 Even the wily Tartakower fails to see White's splendid idea but he was already dangerously behind in development.

TEST 3.3 Isakov v Nikitin Correspondence 1947 How did Black to play save himsetp

Reti v Tartakower Vienna 1910 9 ~d8+!! Wxd8 10 .iLg5+ gl 0,e2+! 4 0,xe2 0,h3+ 5 'ithl 'ilVgl +! The point. 6 0,xgl 0,12 mate. Note that White's king is completely hemmed in by his own pieces. The 'battery' of rook and bishop in conjunction with double check is particularly effective and nothing can stop the incredible power of the double check when two bishops are involved, as in this highly amusing artificial example:

Ujtelky v Pachman Trencianske Teplice 1953 By l..Jhg3!! 2 'iVxb6 Or 2 Wxg3 i.f4+ 3 'it>g4 'iVd8! 4 h4 ~d7 mate. 2... i.f4! Black sets up a position in which White's major pieces are mere spectators. Play continued: 3 l:f.f2 Or 3 h4 ~g5+ 4 'it>h3 i.e6 mate. 3.. J~g2+ 4 'itthl ::th2+ 5 'ittgl l:thl mate. This might also serve as a tribute to the bishop pair. Now solve a position yourself:

48 Tactical Ideas

knight to be pinned on his king. 6 .ltgS The second pin, this time on the queen, thus putting pressure on Black's centre. 6... dxe4 7 ctJxe4! Setting a devilish trap into which Black falls in similar fashion to Tartakower against Reti, 7.. :~e7 He is hoping to exchange queens after 8 f3 ~4+ but ... 8 O-O-O! 'iVxe4? brings about the final disaster. TEST 3,5 Barcza v Bronstein Moscow-Budapest 1949 Black to play and win The Pin

If the double check can be tenned the strongest tactical idea, then the pin must be considered one of the most useful, since its obvious tactical deployment is also linked to strategic concepts which fonn part of a number of opening systems such as the Nimzo-Indian Defence, the Ruy Lopez and the Winawer variation of the French Defence. In this section, we examine the pin as a powerful tactical weapon which, in its most brutal fonn, immobilizes an enemy piece with a view to winning it or else eliminating its effectiveness. Let us begin with a short but delightful game played by Bronstein in a simultaneous exhibition (Moscow 1950) which highlights these points: 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 ~xd4 ctJc6 4 'iVa4 ctJf6 5 ctJc3 d5? Black stands well but is ill-advised to force the pace at such an early stage before he has developed his pieces; note that he has now allowed his queen's

Exploitation of two pins

Black's queen is guarded by the knight but what if this knight could be immobilized by 9 l:td8+!! Wxd8 Forced, since the c6 knight is pinned., when 10 'ilVxe4 is possible, because Black's king's knight is now the one pinned! How did Bronstein come up with this brilliant idea and in a simul at that? Perhaps at the back of his mind there was the famous Morphy 'Opera' finish where White mated on d8 and it may even have occurred to him that, if the Black queen's knight and c7 pawn could swap places, there was an alternative win with 9 'it'xe4 ctJxe4 10 :id8 mate, or even 10 .ltxf6! 'ii'xa4 11 I:!.d8 mate... At all events, d8 is clearly a' key square which a tactical genius such as Bronstein would immediately latch onto.

Tactical Ideas 49

N ow for a 'study', the final point of which involves a pin:

Capab1anca v Blanco Havana 1919 Birnov Shakhmaty v SSSR 1932 White to play and win After 1 CDd6+ 'itc5 2 .tf8! the .t+CD battery restricts the escape squares of Black's knight, giving us a forced sequence of 2...CDh2 ... CDf6? and ... QJf2? lose to discovered checks. 3 'itg3 CDn + 4 'it>n CDh2 4 ... CDd2? 5 CDe4+. 5 'itg2 CDg4 6 'itg3 CDe5 6 ... CDe3? 7 CDf5+ . .1 CDf7+ 'it>d4 and now finally the pm by 8 .Jtg7 clinches matters. 'Domination' is how composers refer to such a tactical set-up. Most pins, however, do not lead to immediate gain of material. Often their main purpose is to tie up the' enemy forces whilst a winning plan is prepared. It is in such situations that the beginner releases the pressure too early or fail~ to av?id exchanges. Here is an mstructJve example of a World Champion showin'g us how to maximize the effects of a pin:

Black's pieces are completely tied to the defence of his bishop which is pinned on both his king and the rook on e8. However, White cannot just sit back and admire his lovely position; he must find a way of exploiting Black's passivity with?ut relinquishing control. PenetratIOn down the kings ide seems to be the answer, so play goes: 1 ~e3! 'f1e7 2 Wih6 'it>g8 Pressure has been taken from e6 for a moment but the pin still cannot be shaken off. 3 h4! The point: Black's 'g' pawn is to be exposed as a weakness and there is no defence to this plan. 3 ... a6 4 h5 f4 5 hxg6! hxg6 5 ... b!.xg6 allows 6 .!:[xe6! l:txh6 7 l::i.g6+ followed by l::lg8 mate. 6 :'xe6! 1-0. After 6 ... I!.7xe6 7 ~xe6 Itxe6 8 'tIVxg6+ White wins a piece because the pinned rook cannot capture the queen. Just as I was writing the above, I came across a test position in the British Chess Magazine that illustrates to perfection the error of releasing a pin too soon:

50 Tactical Ideas

Ahrend v Dr Dyckhoff Germany 1937: 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 Jt.c4 ttJf6 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0 ttJxe4 6 l:rel d5 7 ttJc3?! An interesting change from the normal 7 .JtxdS 'it'xdS 8 ttJc3 when the 'd' pawn is pinned because the e6 bishop is pinned and therefore not guarding the queen! 7... dxc3! 8 i.xd5 .Jte6! An excellent move which also sets a subtle trap; best for White is now 9 .Jtxe4. 9 ~xe4?

Simons v Parkin Exmouth 2000 Having obtained a beautiful position, White momentarily panicked and allowed Black to escape after 1 .Jtd7? when the dreaded h6 pawn can be captured. A moment's thought would have convinced him that it is absolutely vital to keep Black's king incarcerated and this would have almost certainly led him to the winning plan of 1 c5!! g2 2 c6 gl =~ 3 c7 and after the new queens are exchanged on c8 Black will rapidly be in zugzwang, since ...~xh6 at any point allows mate or loss of the queen. A great pity! There is also another danger for the attacker if he pins automatically without thinking through the consequences. For example, he may pin a piece on the king only to find that the defence can sacrifice to remove the pinning piece or, much more commonly, the pin of a minor piece on a major piece can simply be ignored or else the tables can be turned and the pinner becomes a victim of unmasking! Here is a short game illustrating this Impor::. tant point:

A pinner pinned!

White has worked out an excellent answer to 9 ... ttJb4 in 10 .JtgS! ~xdS 11 ~d4! winning the queen or mating on d8 (that square again!) but forgets that, although Black's queen's bishop is pinned at the moment, White's own queen is unprotected on dl, allowing the following counter-combination: 9 ... ttJe7! As can readily be seen, there is no answer to this move, whereas the alternative 9 ... .Jte7 would allow White to escape with 10 i.xc6+. Or consider this most instructive example of a pinner cruelly but neatly confounded:

Tactical Ideas 51

Hamann v Brinck-Claussen Hastings 1962-3

Coggan v Foster Boston 1937

Black's knight is inconveniently pinned but he cleverly reverses the process and makes White's queen a victim of unmasking as follows: 1...~xg2! The guard of White's bishop is removed and the king· dragged to a fatal square. 2 ~xg2 .i.xc3! Removing the queen's protection. 3 bxc3 tDd5! when White loses a piece after 4 ~xc4 tDxe3+. Easy enough once it is seen but much easier to miss, especially by the player at the losing end. Only by careful vigilance will the reader avoid (or carry out) such an idea.

In four moves 1 ~xf6 ~xf6 (he had to play 1...gxf6 when one way to win is 2 tLJd7! ne8 3 'iYh5 ~xd7 4 'iYxf7+ ~h8 5 nh5) 2 iVxh7+! 'it>xh7 3 nh5+ 'ito>g8 4 tDg6! Black is presented with an unstoppable mate on h8!

Another common blind spot is failing to see that a pawn is pinned and can therefore no longer guard a specific square. Let's begin with a highly amusing game which I guarantee the reader will never forget: Vasyukov v Giterman 23'd USSR Championship: 1 e4 e5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 ~b5 ~c5 4 c3 f5 5 d4 fxe4 6 CDg5 ~e7 7 dxe5 CDxe5?? He had to play 7... ~xg5. 8 CDe6! and Black, in shock and disgust, resigned. Nor will our next example be easily forgotten:

The cross pin is a delightful aspect of pinning, relatively rare but all the more fascinating when it is possible. There is no better way to explain its mechanism than by considering the following 'study':

Bron (1963) White to play and win In this Sicilian-gone-wrong position, White wins as follows: 1 .tc3+ ~e7 Or l...~e6 2 ~e5 mate. 2

52 Tactical Ideas

~e5+ 'it>dS Or 2 ... 'it>f8 3 .tb4+ fol-

lowed by mate in 4.3 i..a5+ b6 The only move but White now takes advantage of the fact that the pawn is pinned. 4 "iVc5! ~bS Or 4 .. .'iite8 5 ~e3+ ~f8 6 i..b4+ 'it>g7 7 ~g5+ and mate in 3. 5 i..xb6+ ~eS 6 ~e3+ ~f8 7 i..c5+ d6 S iVe5! ~dS 9 i..xd6+ WgS 10 iVg3+ 'itthS 11 i..e5+ f6 12 '@'g5! and the third cross pin finally forces the win. Artificial but instructive. Now for an example from a game:

Gendel v Sushkevitch Moscow 1956 As White's f2 pawn is pinned, his queen's bishop is highly vulnerable, so 1...~hgS 2 l:[d3 produces an interesting situation in which Black would love to playa cross pin with 2 ... J:.xg3+ 3 lhg3 J:.g8 but this fails to 4 .l:!.xg8 because White's queen is protected. Therefore, Black first plays 2 .. J:tabS! 3 ~c3 and only then the killing 3 .. Jbg3+ 4 l:Ixg3 J:.gS! winning. Before I set you a few test positions, let us look at a position with a bewildering number of pins and unpins, just to get your brains into work mode:

Maslov v Babahanov USSR 1970 White's queen's bishop is pinned by Black's rook on e8, so he blocks the file by 1 ~xf6! .txf6 2 liJe4! in order to answer .. Jhe5 or ... .txe5 by a knight check on f6, so Black replies 2 ...~f8! exploiting the fact that after 3 liJxf6+ 'iWxf6! the bishop is pinned on the queen and that, after 3 i..xf6 i..f5!, he can threaten to utilize the pin down the 'e' file, along with the immediate threat of ... i..xe4. Now White in tum sets up a further pin by 4 lin! with an X -ray guard of his queen's bishop, so Black, not to be outdone, gives up the exchange to bring his queen's rook into play with a further pin after 4.. .1he4! 5 .txe4 neS The alternative 5 ... ~xf6 allows 6 i..xf5 gxf5 7 ~d3 nf8 8 d6! etc. giving us our second diagram:

Maslov v Babahanov (cont.)

Tactical Ideas 53

The smoke has cleared, leaving White in command, with a chance to produce a sacrificial finish by 6 ~xf5! gxf5 7 ~h5! fxe4 8~g5+ 'it'f7 9 ~c3!

TEST 3.7 Volchok v Kreslavsky USSR 1971 How can White save his piece?

Maslov v Babahanov (cont.) 9 .. J~d8 Both ... ~g8 and ... 'Wie7 allow mate in one, whilst ... e3 allows mate in four, so Black creates a flight square but relinquishes control of e6. 10 ~h5+ 'it'g8 11 ~g4+ 'it'f7 12 ~e6 mate. A veritable battle ofpins! Now, here are four test positions for you to solve:

TEST 3.8 Bloch v Milbers Siegen Olympiad 1970 White to play and win

TEST 3.6 Andersson v Browne Siegen Olympiad 1970 Black to play and win

TEST 3.9 Sapelkin v Afanasiev USSR 1971 White to play and win

54 Tactical Ideas

The Skewer

This is a form of double attack which attacks one piece through another, as can be seen in the following composed ending:

Kling Chess Weekly 1849 White to play and win

1 J:ta4! threatens l:th3 mate and is attacking the queen. To avoid 1...'ilVxa4 2 llh3+ followed by 3 'uh4+ 'skewering' his queen, Black plays 1...'Yi'c8 only to find that 2 .:th3+! is still playable, because 2.. :i!ixh3 allows 3 ~a3+ 'skewering' the queen from the other side!

Black must be very careful here. If for example he plays the obvious l...';i;>e7?, then 2 a7! immediately brings him into 'no man's land'. He can neither move away from the second rank, because of a rook check followed by queening the pawn, nor leave the king where it is or play it to f7 or d7 because of 3 ~h8! when 3.. .l:ha7 fails to 4 l:!h7+ 'skewering' the rook. For this reason, he must play the unnatural-looking 1...Wg7!! now, or after 2 a7, in order to prevent a possible skewer and thus draw the ending. You will find the full details in any book on the endgame but, basically, if White plays a7 he can never support the pawn without being checked away, and if he instead leaves the pawn where it is and brings up his king via bl, Black can later sacrifice his rook for the pawn and use his own pawn to secure the draw. We will now examine some game positions which illustrate the skewer theme:

The skewer forms an important part in rook and pawn endings, with the following typical situation needing to be learnt by heart:

Steinitz v Von Bardeleben Hastings 1985

Danger, skewer!

We have here one of the most famous combinations in chess history and it is very much based on the fact

Tactical Ideas 55

that Black's rook on c8 is vulnerable to the action of White's queen along the h3 to c8 diagonal. This means that after 1 lhe7+! Black's queen dare not capture the knight because of .l::l:xc8+, with White emerging a knight to the good. So Black replies 1...c.t>f8 (to keep open the possibility of a back rank mate on c1, since 1...'it'xe7 loses to 2 l!el+ c.t>d6 3 ~4+ Wc7 4 'tJe6+ etc.), only to find the skewer possibility haunting him for five moves after 2 .uf7+! ~g8 3 J:[g7+ ~h8 Or 3 ... Wf8 4 'tJxh7+. 4 l1xh7+ Wg8 S .ug7+ Wh8 6 ~h4+ ~xg7 7 ~h7+ Wf8

this: a rook is offered to be captured by check 'skewering' another rook but the perpetrator then finds himself with a lost game. Here's an illustrative position that's not so well known:

Pachman v Eckert Cista 1940

Steinitz v Von Bardeleben (cont.) 8 '1ih8+! White has 'skewered' Black's queen but dare not take it in view of the back rank mate! 8.. .'it>e7 9 'it'g7+ 'iite8 10 'iVg8+ ~e7 11 jVf7+ c.t>d8 12 ~f8+ ~e8 13 'tJf7+ ~d7 14 ~d6 mate. An unusual but most effective threat of a skewer. Of course, as with a pin when the pinned piece can sometimes move away with devastating effect, the possibility of a skewer can be used to trap the unwary. The double rook sacrifice used in many famous games is an excellent example of

After 1 'tJgS!! ~xh1+ Or 1...~g7 2 'iVxe6!. 2 f2 ~xal He should refuse the second rook but is still lost after 2 ... jVh5 3 ~xh5 gxh5 4 'tJxf7+ and 5 'tJxh8 and the knight is not trapped because 'tJc7 is threatened. 3 'tJxf7+ e7 4 'iVgS+! xf7 S 'tJd6+ Wg7 6 'ilYe7+ Wh6 7 'tJf7+ Wg7 8 'tJgS+ Wh6 9 'tJxe6 'tJf6 10 'iVg7+ WhS 11 'iVxf6 h6 12 .te2 mate.

TEST 3.10 Florian v Pachman Zlin 1945

56 Tactical Ideas

As a position for you to solve, here's another of Pachman's combinations. Pachman has allowed Black the immediate threat of mate on g7 because he has calculated a forced win involving a skewer. Can you find it? And finally, here's another 'study' to solve, with tactics involving skewers and forks:

TEST 3.11 K.Geller (1873) White to play and win

Hints for Beginners

* Unguarded pieces are often vulnerable to a double attack, so beware of leaving your pieces lying around unprotected and watch out for opportunities of exploiting such enemy pieces. * A discovered check, and particularly a double check, can be so strong that sacrifices may be possible to set up a 'battery' in a given situation. The famous 'smothered' mate, using a queen and knight battery is just one example of such power. * The strength of a pin often resides in its long term effects as a strategic as well as a tactical weapon. It is rarely bad to pin enemy pieces, but look out for possible 'unmasking' by such pieces, a blind spot with many players. * Tactical skills must be developed by practice, so use all available means to stimulate your imagination and test your powers of calculation, particularly in analysing your own games, won or lost.

4 The King

A

lthough it is only a short-stepping piece, the king is unique, for it is the element of check and mate which lends the game that special mystery and magic that has encouraged millions to become its devotees. It is this very uniqueness that gives the king an unusually delicate role to play and makes it a very difficult piece to handle, precisely because any slight misjudgement in this sphere can have disastrous consequences. Which square to choose, whether to castle and, if so, on which wing, whether to attack or defend, which pieces to exchange; these are just a few of the problems involving the king which can often decide the fate of the game. It seems only sensible to devote a whole chapter to the subject, but of course, in a wider context, it could be argued that everything we cover in this book relates in some way to the main object of the game, which is to mate the king! There are indeed times when players need to be gently reminded that mating the enemy monarch is the prime goal to which every tactical and strategic element is related. Of course, beginners are taught that it is foolhardy to try to mate a welldefended king and that a more roundabout approach is required.

Firstly, material is won, perhaps only a pawn, and, all things being equal, this eventually leads to superior force being used to checkmate the king! However, many players fail to understand that in numerous situations the mating attack is the only logical way to win a game from a particular situation arising out of an opening. This is often the case when our threats to win material have been countered, but this has diverted some of the enemy force or given us more space in which to operate. The following example should make this clear:

Taimanov v Ignatiev USSR 1971 As a result of pressure from a sound opening system, White has achieved definite positional advantages, with two powerful bishops, light-square control and more space. However, White cannot just sit back and admire these factors but must

58 The King

find a way of exploiting them before Black can simplify through exchanges. This is a situation where even top players go wrong, so it is most instructive to see how Taimanov switches his forces over to a kingside attack, a logical decision carried out with consummate skill: 1 l.':ra4! iLd6 2 'iYb3 tbg6 3 .lte3 'iVb8 4 iLe4! tbfS 5 iLbl l:!e5 Black tries to defend against the coming attack but lacks space and manoeuvrability. 6 'uh4 l1de8 7 i:tdl! Only now does White occupy the d file, threatening 8 iLxh7! tbxh7 9 'iVd3. If now 7... iLc7 White could try 8 lId7! .l:I8e7 9 Itxe7 l:txe7 10 iLc5! iLd6 11 iLxh7! tbxh7 12 'iVd3 g5 13 iLxd6 winning material, so, in desperation, Black lashes out but to no avail. 7.. .l:he3 8 fxe3 i.c5 9 'itn ~e5 Or 9 ... iLxe3 10 nd7! iLh6 11 .uxh6 gxh6 12 'iYf7 mating.

Taimanov v Ignatiev (cont.) 10 J::td7! f5 11 l:tf7 tbg6 Or 1l...g6 12 l:tfxh7+! tbxh7 13 "WIf7 winning. 12 !!xf5 1-0 After 12 ... 'iYd6 then 13 .lhh7+! 'itxh7 14 'uh5 mate would complete a fine series of moves. Don't worry about the tactical detail of all this but rather admire the positive manner in which, within the space of seven moves, Taimanov directs his forces

at the enemy king's position. Here is another fine example of such strategy:

Alekhine v Lasker Zurich 1934 White undoubtedly has the better of it, with more space and two excellently posted minor pieces, but he must act quickly before Black takes over the 'd' file and alleviates the pressure. I never tire of witnessing Alekhine's economical and elegant use of his pieces in the nine moves that force Black to capitulate: 1 'iVd6! Using the centre as a jumping off point for directing all his forces at the enemy king's position, he compels Black to give up immediate use of the 'd' file, because 1...tbfd7 2 f4 loses a piece and l...tbg6 2 tbh6+ weakens Black's kings ide Eawns; best is 1...1:!.ae8 when 2 CiJe7+ 'it>h8 3 ~xe5 can be answered by 3 ...tbg8!. 1...tbed7 2 l:tfdll:i.ad8 3 'iVg3 Threatening not only mate but also CiJh6+; if now 3 ... tbh5 then 4 iV g5 g6 5 g4 tbhf6 6 ~d6 tbe4 7 ~xg6+! ..t>h8 8 'iVh6 J:!.g8 9 'iVxh7+ 'it>xh7 10 l:i.h6 mate gives a foretaste of the game ending, or if here 6 ...tbe8 7 .l::txg6+ hxg6 8 ~xg6+ 'it>h8 9 'iYh6+ 'it>g8 10 tbe7 mate reveals the power of White's minor pieces and, in this last line, 7 ... ..t>h8

The King 59

fails to 8 i.xf7! when both 8.. .lhfl 9 ~g8 and 8 ... hxg6 9 'iYh6 are checkmate! 3... g6 4 iVg5 'it>h8 4 ... 'tJe4 should be tried. 5 'tJd6! 'it>g7 6 e4! Preparing to transfer a rook along the third rank whilst retaining the option of advancing the pawn. 6 ... 'tJg8

Pesitz v Reti Hungary 1912

Alekhine v Lasker (cont.) 7 1:td3! Anticipating the advance of both the fl and h7 pawns e.g. if 7... h6 8 'tJf5+ 'it'h7 9 'tJxh6 f6 10 'tJf5! fxg5 11 ~h3+ followed by mate, an 'echo' variation of the actual finish. 7... f6 8 'tJf5+ c,t>h8 9 iVxg6! 1-0 It is mate in 2 moves. Note that Black's queen was reduced throughout to the role of spectator. It is often when a player is in no immediate danger that he fatally relaxes his guard, as in the following position:

Although Black has control of the 'e' file and well posted queen and knight, the only danger to White is relaxing his vigilance, which he does in the first two moves:

1 ~xa7 c5! 2 I:td7?? Suicidal play; he could still defend after 2 'iYa5! but now succumbs to a stunning but calculable attack. 2.. :~e4! 3 f3 ~ c2!! 0-1 White now sees what he originally missed: the finish would be 4lIf2 .l:Ie1+ 5 i.fllhfl+! mating. Clearly, White had not acquired the instinct of a good master player who would never have gone into such a weakening of his first and second ranks, even without deep calculation! To prove my point, we shall assume that the elegant game finish is not available and have a look at an alternative variation, much more obvious and giving Black at least a draw, based on the looseness of White's rook on d7: 2.. :iVg5 3 g3 Both 3 i.d5 'iYxd5! and 3 Wib7 ktxd7 lose material. 3 ... 'tJh3+ when White must force the draw with 4 'it'g2! 'tJf4+ 5 c,t>g I! because 4 c,t>hl? loses to 4.. :~rf5! threatening both the rook and .. :~Wf3 mate, whilst 4 'ittg2! 'tJf4+ 5 'it>hl? loses to 5 .. :~'g4! with the same threats. In other words, there was more than one reason for White to reject his greedy plan.

60 The King

The reader may well think that such self-destructive play is hardly the norm, but he would be wrong! I have seen similar continuations in hundreds of club games where players have not yet developed an inbuilt sense of danger concerning their king. In such cases, it is a good idea to examine periodically any factors involving the kings on both sides. Here is an instructive example of this from a training match I played with a promising youngster, David Howell:

2 ~xfS+ 'it>xfS 3 'iYb4+ ~e7 4 'it'b8+ ~e8 S ~d6+ 'it'g8 6 'iYxd2 .txfl and the finish was 7 'it'gl .tc4 8 f4? .txa2 9 'it>f2 ~a8 10 r.t>g3 .tdS 11 'itrh3 'iVa2 41 ~xa2 .txa2 0-1 This leads us naturally to the danger of the back-rank mate, so here are two test positions to illustrate this:

TEST 4.1 Unknown players Yugoslavia 1949

Howell v J. Littlewood Skelmersdale 2000 At the end of a complicated variation designed to test David's tactical skills, he was well aware that 1 l:txd2? 'iWel would lose for him but had prepared a dangerous-looking attack on my king by 1 .l:td8, not only to counter my threatened 1...'tIVel, which would now be answered by mate in two moves, but also planning to capture the troublesome pawn on d2 after, say, 1...g6 2 ~xf8+ ~xf8 3 'iVd8+ etc. This showed a praiseworthy awareness of my back-rank susceptibility but, at the same time, revealed an insufficient appreciation of his own serious back-rank weakness, which I now exploited by the startling 1....tc4!!

White could win easily by exchanging queens but sees no reason why he should not play 1 ']lc7?? aiming for mate. What did he miss?

TEST 4.2 Sliwa v Stoltz Bucharest 1953 White to play and win

The King 61

Calculate accurately and don't forget about White's own back-rank! The corollary of this is that, once a king has been driven away from the protection of his castled position and exposed to the fury of the enemy pieces, he really is at his most vulnerable, as can be seen from our next amusing finish:

Zaitsev v Storosenko USSR 1970

Here is an opening position showing how such situations can arise: In an Alekhine's Defence, Black has unwisely pinned White's king's knight without working out the consequences (as I once saw a British expert in this defence do over the board without being punished!). After the well-known idea 1 ttJxe5!! ~xdl 2 ~xf7+ 'i;e7 3 .ltg5+ 'i;d6, White had to play very cleverly to set up a 'king hunt' without having a queen to help him. The finish was: 4 CDe4+! ~xe5 5 f4+ 'it>d4 Or 5 ... Wf5 6 g4 mate. 6 llxdl! 'it>e3 7 O-O! ttJd4 8 J::tde1+ ttJe2+ 9 lhe2+ 'it>xe2 10 .lth5+ 'it>e3 11 ~f3+ 'i;d4 12 .ltf7! 1-0. There is no way of stopping 13 c3 mate. Now, try out a king 'hunt' yourself, arising from the opening moves: 1 e4 c5 2 CDf3 b6?! 3 d4 cxd4 4 CDxd4 .ltb7 5 ttJc3 a6 6 .ltc4 b5?! 7 .ltb3 b4? This is rather overdoing the greed. 8 CDa4 .ltxe4 9 ttJc5 .ltxg2?? 10 l:tgl .ltc6

Black is a piece up but his development is terrible and what is his king doing in front of his pawns?! Needless to say, White had no trouble finishing him off with 1 iVa4+ ttJa5 2 'iVb5+! ttJxb5 3 ttJb4+ 'it>b6 4 ttJa4 mate.

TEST 4. 3 How a king 'hunt' arises

Imbaud v Strumilo Correspondence 1922

After 11 .ltxf7+! Wxf7 12 l:Ixg7+!! 'i;xg7! (not 12 ... .ltxg7 13 'iVh5+ 'it>f8 14 ttJde6+ dxe6 15 ttJxe6 mate or here 13 ... 'it>f6 14 'iYf5 mate), how would you continue for White? Please look for a king 'hunt' rather

62 The King

than settling for 13 ttJde6+ 'merely' winning the queen! Of course, the king is fatally exposed in such situations but the attacker still needs imaginative play to take advantage of this. Here is an amusing game in which Black sets up a 'hunt' which drives his opponent's king as far as c6 but he cannot find a way of mating White after 1 e4 e5 2 ttJc3 Si.c5 3 tLla4?! Si.xf2+!? 4 ~xf2 'tIVh4+ 5 'it>e3 5 g3 seems better. 5...'iVf4+ 6 'it>d3 d5 7 ~c3 'tIVxe4 8 b3 tLla6 9 a3 ~xa4+! 10 xa4 ttJc5+ 11 'It>b4 a5+! 12 ~xc5 ttJe7! The 'quiet' move. 13 Si.b5+ ~d8 14 Si.c6! He must prevent ... b6 mate. 14 ... b6+ 15 Wb5 tLlxc6 16 xc6 Si.b7+! 17 'It>b5! But not 17 'it>xb7? 'it>d7! 18 'iVg4+ ~d6 mating. 17... Si.a6+ 18 'it>c6! And not 18 a4? Si.c4!. 18... Si.b7+

This example reveals another important characteristic of the king: despite its obvious vulnerability, the king can also be a strong fighting piece in its own right and not just in standard end-games. Experienced players are always conscious of this aspect, as can be seen from Capablanca's subtle play from the following diagram:

Merenyi v Capablanca Budapest 1928 Queens have just come off, but Black, realizing that the routine 1...tLla6 2 Si.e3! would give White excellent play, continues 1...Wd7! 2 c5! 2 'ii'f8 'iYae7 3 'ii'a8 Wb4! 4 'ii'h2 'it>b3! 5 ~al 'ii'a3 6 'iWxa3+ ~xa3 and Black had got over his main difficulties. A draw was agreed a little later, when Fischer stood worse after pushing too hard. Diickstein v Petrosian Varna Olympiad 1962

Our second example shows Petrosian's king walking into the enemy camp as a defensive measure, and this with four queens on the board!

So, how do we decide when it is safe to advance our king into the fray and when it is more prudent to stay at home? We must in all fairness declare that the above two examples hardly represent the norm, because there are clear positional factors at work here alongside the overall tactical considerations. The advance of the king was carefully planned in both these cases, w~ereas the situation in most games IS that the king is dragged out kicking and screaming into the middle of the board as a result of a sacrifice by our opponent, when it must fend for itself in a hostile environment. The most exciting yet amusing example of this in my chess career was the following ...

Fischer v Petrosian Candidates Tournament 1959

J. Littlewood v Barden Hastings 1961/62

Earlier in the game, Black had deliberately opened up his own king's position and now reaps the reward as his king begins a profitable journey: 1...'it>xa6! 2 ~a3 i.f6 3 h3 f4 4 'iVg4 4 ttJf3 ttJxf3+ 5 ~xf3 ~xf3 6 l:!.xf3 c3 7 l:.xf4 b5! wins. 4.. .'it'a5! 5 ttJf3 c;t>b4! Who can doubt that the king is a strong piece here? 6 ttJxd4 Wxa3 7 ttJc2+ Wxa4 0-1.

64 The King

... which arose after an opening in which I unwittingly repeated a famous brilliancy Larsen v Panno, Mar del Plata 1958 and reached a 'losing' position. As I found out after the game, Panno's brilliant performance ended: 1 ~h5+ 'it>d8 2 'iYh4+ 'it>e8 3 ~h5+ l:If7 4 ~c5 ~f5 51Wc4 ttJe5 6 ttJxe5 .lth6+ when White resigned, because 7 'it>e1 'iYxe5+ 8 'iYe2 'iVc3+ 9 Itd2 .ltxd2+ 10 "iVxd2 .l:!.e5+ 11 'i!;>dl ~d5 is a complete disaster. Unaware of any of this but well alive to the fact that I was in deep trouble, I offered my opponent some material by 1 l:thel!? in the hope of making a virtue out of a necessity. This change of situation may have had a psychological effect on Leonard, because he began to play less confidently and more slowly from now on, presumably missing at least one good chance on the way: 1.. ..ltc3+ The king 'hunt' begins. 2 'ittd3!? Other moves are safer but illogical, since I must provoke my opponent in some way. 2 ... ttJb4+ 3 'i!;>e4 The king 'hunt' is on the verge of becoming a king march ... 3 ... .ltg7!?

J. Littlewood v Barden (cont.) Looks good, because of 4 'itxb4?? 'iYc3+ 5 'it>a3 'iVa5 mate, but not

3 ... .ltxel?? 4 'V/Iie7 mate. 4 ttJd4! The comer stone of the play beginning !the 1!? and my last chance to confuse the issue. 4 ... ttJd5!? Leonard's key attacking idea, planning ... ~c3 mate whilst guarding e7 and hoping for 5 ttJxe6?? ~c3+ 6 'it'xd5 ~c6 mate.

J. Littlewood v Barden (cont.) 5 ~xe6+! In any decent game, with the e6 pawn pinned I should be allowed to go 'it'xd5. 5 ... .Jtxe6 6 ttJxe6 ttJe3+ 6 ... .ltf6?? 7 d7 mate. 7 \tileS! ~e3+ 8 Wb6 ttJxdl Perhaps my opponent had originally intended 8... ~4+ 9 rJi;a7 lif7+ but had missed 10 d7+ leading to a won queen ending. 9 ttJxg7+ ~d7 9 ... rJi;f7 leads to the same finish. 10 ttJe8+! We6 11 ~e7+ Wd5 12 ttJe7+ ~d4 13 'iYg7+ 'it>e4 14 'i'xf8 ~4+ 15 ~a7 ~e5+ 16 ~b8 1-0. It is instructive to see how my king gets progressively stronger as it advances past the fifth rank. But surely there's a win for Black somewhere? One thing is certain: looking for this win will teach you a great deal both about pursuing a king in the middle of the board and also about using your king as a strong piece! From the first diagram, the move I was worried about at the time (after 1 ~hel) was l...ttJd4! when 2 'iVg6+ ~f7 3 ttJg5 fails to 3 ... ttJxb3+ 4 We3

The King 65

(or 4 Wd3 'ii'd4+ 5 'it>e2 ~f2+ 6 Wd3 ~b5+ 7 c4 ttJc5 mate) 4 ...'iVe5+ 5 ttJe4 ttJc5 61:lfl ~h6+ 7 'iVxh6 'iVxe4+ 8 'it>d2 ~xg2+ winning. If the reader can find an improvement for me in this line, it would go a long way towards promoting the king march theory!

many beautiful games which serve as a warning to players who think they can leave their king in the centre with impunity. Here is one which I quote in full because it is typical of a risky style prevalent in modem chess:

Of course, your king is reasonably safe in the endgame but you must never relax your vigilance, as can be seen from the following test position:

Pedersen v Gallmeyer Denmark 1971: 1 e4 eS 2 ttJf3 d63 d4 exd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJe3 a6 6 ~gS e6 7 f4 bS!? 8 e5 dxeS 9 fxeS "fie7 10 exf6 'C!VeS+ 11 .te2 'iVxgS 12 0-0 'iVeS? Better 12 .. .l::ta7. 13 .tf3 !:ta7 14 ttJe6! 'iVe5+ 15 'itthl l:td7

TEST 4.4 Olssen v Andersson

Sweden 1970 Black to play and win

With the better ending, White has become over-confident in advancing his king without weighing the consequences. What did he miss? Let us finish this chapter by looking at the problem of which side to castle. To begin with, although there are some positions where the king is best left uncastled because of a blocked centre, which calls for action on the wings, or because of an approaching endgame where the king needs to be near the action, in most openings it is unwise to leave the king exposed to attacks along open files or diagonals. There are

Pedersen v Gallmeyer Denmark 1971 Although Black's king looks extremely vulnerable in the centre, it is surprising to see the game over in nine more moves. The finish was: 16 ttJxb8! ~xdl 17 ~axdl gxf6 18 ttJe4 ~e7 19 ttJxf6+ rtie7 20 .thS! .tg7 20 ... ~xb8 would lead to the attractive finish 21 ttJg8+! l:!.xg8 22 l::txf7+ 'it>e8 23 J::tg7 mate. 21 ttJe6+! ~xe6 Or 21...'it;>f8 22 ttJd7+! .i.xd7 23 lIxf7+ Wg8 24 ttJe7 mate; or here 23 ... 'it>e8 24 l:If6 mate. 22 ttJg8+! rt;e8 23 .i.xf7+ 'ittf8 24 lId8+ 1-0. There are usually two reasons for castling: to bring the rooks into action via the central files and to give

66 The King

the king more security behind a pawn front. It is therefore important not to castle mechanically but to consider whether the above two aims are immediately desirable. For example, there may be times when your rook is needed on the wing, ready to help in an attack on the enemy king, or you may find, especially when your opponent has not yet castled himself, that you are 'castling into it'. In other words, your opponent is waiting to see which side you select, so that he can launch an attack on your king with superior force. Here is an instructive example of such strategy:

Smyslov v Zagoriansky Moscow 1944 If White castles either side, then Black opts for the same side in order to make his defence easier, so Smyslov plays the cunning 1 i.e4! waiting for Black to commit himself and preventing ... .tc6. He is also encouraging Black to defend his b7 pawn by castling long, which is well known to give the defending side a more difficult task than castling king. This is because Black has to waste vital time playing his king to b8 to defend his broader pawn front. Black should in fact continue the waiting policy but instead 'castles into it' with 1...0-0-0? after which

he is slaughtered with clinical precision as follows: 2 0-0 ~b8 3 c4 c5 4 dxc5 .txc5 5 b4! i.e7 He dare not open the 'b' file onto his king. 6 c5 ~c8 Note that Black has already lost two tempi compared with a kings ide set-up. 7 lIac1 .l:t.hd8 8 c6!! bxc6 Or 8 ... i.xc6 9 i.xc6 Iixc6 10 ':xc6 bxc6 11 tLJeS ~d6 12 !:tel ~b7 13 bS winning. 9 'iVa6 't!Vf4 10 b5! l:[c7 Or 10 .. .'iWxe4 11 b6! axb6 12 't!Vxb6+ followed by 'iVaS+ and ~bl+ winning. 11 l:tbl! 'itta8 12 bxc6! f5 The bishop still cannot be taken in view of 13 l:[b7 attacking the rook as well as threatening mate. 13 g3! 'iVd6 14 l:tb7 1-0. Black can no longer defend by ... .tcS. The reader may well ask why it would be safe for White to castle long in the above position, when it proved fatal for Black. The answer is that White, having the initiative, can afford the luxury of doing so, because Black has too many defensive problems of his own for him to be able to organize an effective counter-attack. In fact, when players castle on opposite wings, it is usually the possessor of the initiative who dictates· events. In many games, however, the situation is not so clear-cut and we often witness players attacking viciously on opposite wings, with the outcome far from certain and, in fact, sometimes depending on a tactical error. Once again, it is the ultra-sharp, uncompromising nature of many opening systems which gives rise to such situations more frequently than ever before. If the reader wishes to indulge in such lines (his choice of opening is crucial here), then tactical skill is at a premium and there is little I can give in the way of advice. Consider the following complicated position from a game between two

The King 67

grandmasters, tacticians:

both

no

mean

Hints for Beginners

* Never forget the king! Always be alert to possible surprise attacks on either king, even (or especially!) when the main action is on another part of the board. * Sometimes the only logical way to exploit a given advantage is to attack the enemy king. * The king is extremely vulnerable, requiring the protection of pawns and pieces, so heavy sacrifices can often be made to lure him out into the open and mate him. Fischer v Geller * Be wary, however, of exceptions Skopje 1967 when the king can be used as a fightWhite has brilliantly sacrificed a ing piece, even in the middle game. piece to obtain this position, whilst * Do not be over-hasty in opening Geller, realizing that passive de-. up your own king's position when fence will get him nowhere, has attacking, since this often invites a launched a counter-attack in the best successful counter-attack by your traditions of his favourite Sicilian opponent. Defence. In such complex attacking * Do not castle automatically. positions, one tempo can mean the Whilst it is usually dangerous to difference between victory and de- leave your king too long in the cenfeat, and so it proved here. White's tre, it can be equally foolhardy to king's position looks safer than 'castle into it' when your opponent Black's and, indeed, Fischer has has not yet committed himself to since shown that there is a win for castling on the same wing. him with the problem-like 1 ~f4!!, * Think very carefully before casthe main line being l...tiJd2+ (l...d4 tling long. Unless you have a good 2 ~e5 tiJf6 3 Ii:xf6! wins; or initiative, your king is more difficult l...cxb2 2 i!h5! tiJc3+ 3 'it>xb2 to defend behind a broader pawn tiJxdl+ 4 ..tc1 Ii:xf7 5 i.xf7 wins) 2 front. l!xd2 cxd2 3 c3! ~xb3 4 i.xg7+! * When players castle on opposite Wxg7 5 ~g4+ 'it>h8 6 ~d4+ wings, speed and tactical skill are at followed by mate. In view of this a premium in an attack on the enemy hair-raising piece of analysis, it is king, and the defence of your own understandable that Fischer thought king must always be taken into he could interpose the 'safe' 1 a3? account. creating a loop-hole for his king. * Beware of the back-rank mate! Just see what happens: 1. ..~b7 2 At some time in the game, you will ~f4 .ta4!! In order to answer 3 need a loop-hole for your king, especially if you wish to advance ~h6 iH6 4 !!xf6 with 4 ... i.xb3! winning. 3 ~g4 i.f6! 4 lhf6 your rooks for action along the .txb3! 0-1. If 5 ~f4 i.a2+ forces ranks. mate.

5 Problem Themes

O

ver the years, composers of problems and studies have explored and exploited tactical ideas in great depth, so it will be worthwhile to examine a few major themes and their tenninology before we move on, in a later chapter, to full combinations. Of course, having a name for an idea is principally a useful means of discussing tactics, but the important thing is for the reader to fully understand the concepts and apply them to his own games. Occasionally, I will give a study to present a theme succinctly but, for the most part, I will try to use material from game!! in which players, under the pressures of position and time, have come up with some superb and often extraordinary ideas.

Let us begin with a fairly simple example. But for Black's knight, White would have 1 i.e2+ d3 2 i.xd3+ 'it>a5 3 :'a7+ .:ta6 4 lha6 mate. So, how about deflecting this knight by 1 J:.d5+! when the game is over because 1... ~a6 2 .ic8+ wins easily ... Deflections are very often linked with back-rank mates, as in the of following dramatic finish Alekhine's:

Deflection

Alekhine v Nestor Trinidad 1939

Bogoljubow v Sultan Khan Prague Olympiad 1931

Black had hoped to refutel:'c8! by playing 1...:'xc8, only to find that the deflection by 2 ..we7!! cannot be countered. White is threatening both 3 'ii'xe6 and 3 d8='ii'+, so Black's only move is 2...l%g8! when 3 d8='ii' 'ii'xe7 4 'ii'xe7 followed by 'ii'xf7 wins easily.

Problem Themes 69

Here is a delightful double deflection from a game won by Duras:

With Black's rook on f6 and bishop on e6 preventing a mate by 'ii'f8 and White's bishop on e8 threatening to be captured, it looks as if the attack is at an end, but first the bishop is deflected by 1 l:td7!! .txd7, then the rook is deflected by 2 .th6!! :txh6 Or 2 ... gxh6 3 'ii'xf6+ mating, allowing the beautifully engineered 3 'ii'fS mate. Now, over to you:

White to play and mate

After the preliminary moves 1 :tel + ~b8 2 ""4+! a8, we can see that the rook on d7 is preventing ""7 mate, the queen on e8 is preventing l:tc8 mate, whilst the rook on e3 is guarding e4 and f3. First of all, by 3 .tf3+ l:txf3 the rook is deflected from e4, then this allows the further deflection 4 'ii'e4+! 'ii'xe4, when S l:tc8 mate concludes the fine sequence.

TEST 5.1 Alekhine v Freeman New York 1924 White to play and win

Finally, before I give you some test positions to solve, here is my favourite illustration of the deflection theme:

Katalimov v Mnatsakanian USSR 1959

TEST 5.2 Gragger v Dorn Vienna 1958 White to play and win

70 Problem Themes

TEST 5.3 Vishnyatsky v Perevoznikov USSR 1950 White to play and win

TEST 5.4 Furman v Batygin Kalinin 1950 Black to play and win Overloading A common factor in most combinations is that we can take advantage of an enemy piece that has more than one task to cope with, a piece in fact which is overloaded. All of the deflection positions we considered are necessarily dependent on the overloading theme. Take, for example, Katalimov's combination: Black's bishop on e6

cannot cope with guarding d7 and at the same time being ready to interpose on g8, nor can his rook on f6 guard f8 and h6, whilst his g7 pawn must protect the rook, so cannot capture on h6. It may be worth your while to consider each of the deflection examples from this point of view, because these two sections can almost be interchanged, with the deflection weapon being used in conjunction with our assessment of the work-load of each piece. In other words, we see the weakness and pounce on it, as in our first position:

Erbis v Kempf Germany 1954 Black's bishop is blocking the 'd' file, thus preventing .i:td8+ followed by mate, whilst Black's queen is stopping 'iJie7 mate. Neither can take on another task, so our 'spanner in the works' is 1 i..c6! to which there is no defence. In other words, the c6 square is in reality completely undefended! The reader must get used to thinking about the function of each piece (including his own!) until it becomes second nature. Look at the next example:

Problem Themes 71

Belenki v Pirogov Moscow 1958 White's queen is preventing ... ~h5 mate and his king's rook is needed to stop ... 'i:Vg2/ ...'iVhl mate, so 1.. J:i:e 1! cannot be answered, as ... ~g4 allows both .. Jhgl and ... 'iVhl+ followed by mate (a problemist would have put a White pawn on f6 to stop this 'dual'!). This is of course another deflection but, in human terms, I like to think of White smugly assuming he has all points covered, when out of the blue comes this uninvited intruder who ruins everything! Believe me, it has happened to us all ... Before I set you some test positions, I cannot resist showing you this incredible piece of composed magic that illustrates to perfection the concept of overloading:

Sackman (1910), Cheron (1965) White to play and draw

After 1 c7 ~bc6 2 e7 ~he6 the pawns cannot queen and are about to be captured until the amazing 3 ctJd6!! is played, allowing the knight to be captured with check by either rook, because the capture of any pawn would allow the other pawn to queen with check forcing a drawn knight v rook ending. The point of all this is seen after 3 ... I:tcxd6+ Or 3 ... .i':texd6+ 4 'it>e4 l:Ie6+ leading to the same position. 4 'it>c4 l:rc6+ 5 Wd5!! when the second overloading occurs, with neither rook being able to stop the promotion whilst guarding his colleague e.g. 5 ... 'it>xh7 6 e8=~ :rxe8 7 Wxc6 drawing. Black's most cunning try is to play 3 ... c;t>xh7! at once, refusing the offer of the knight, when White's king is too far away for him to promote a pawn without check, because the knight can then be captured with check before the queen is captured. The final subtle point is then seen after 4 'it'd4!! l1cxd6+ 5 'it'c5 l:Ic6+ 6 'it'd5 'it>g7! 7 e8='iV! .l:i:cxd6+ 8 'it'c5 J:i.xe8 9 'it'xd6 drawing, but not here 7 c8='ih? nxc8 8 'it>xe6 lte8! 9 'it>d7 Wf7 which is winning for Black.

TEST 5.5 Smyslov v Euwe Zurich Candidates 1953 White to play and win

72 Problem Themes

Decoy

Rather than spend too much time explaining how a decoy differs from a deflection, I prefer to launch you into the complications of what I consider to be the finest decoy ever produced in a game of chess:

TEST 5. 6 Rinck White to play and win

Euwe v Keres World Championship, Hague 1948

TEST 5. 7 Larsen v Ljubojevic Milan 1979 Black to play and win

TEST 5.8 Frydman v Vidmar Budapest 1934 White to play and win

White's queen is stopping .. .'ihg2 mate and neither 1....l::td1 2 ~e3 'iVe2 3 lIxd1 ~xd1+ 4 Wf2 nor 1...1:H3 2 l:rf2! seems to get anywhere. In fact, at first sight there appears to be nothing further to exploit, except a remote possibility of harassing White's queen by 1...c6! 2 ~xc6 lic3! at least gaining time for Black's rook to reach c2, but then surely White can set up a defence with bishop on d2 and queen on dS, or can he? Keres demonstrates brilliantly that there is a win to be had by decoying White's queen to a fatal square after 3 ~d5 .l:tc5! when 4 'ilVd2 is the only way to stop Black's rook landing on c2, as we see in our next diagram:

Problem Themes 73

The above 'fun' study by Horwitz emphasizes this point, but much more crudely than the Keres example. 1 axb8='iY+ ~xb8 2 .i.d6+ 'ilNxd6 3 ~xd2+ 'iVxd2 4 lLlxf3+ winning, provided he can mate with bishop and knight!

Let's examine the decoy idea in a much more attractive study: Euwe v Keres (cont.) By sacrificing a pawn and threatening White's second rank, Black has 'lured' or decoyed White's queen to the fatal d2 square, allowing the attractive finish 4 .. Jhc1! 5 l:txc1 lLlf3+ winning the queen. As it turns out, both the rook and queen are overloaded in the diagram, but it took a genius of tactical play to visualize and then create the situation. The decoy, then, is when we 'lure' a piece to an unfavourable square, a theme that always reminds me of a puppeteer manipulating strings to bring about the desired effect. Euwe's queen surely looks as if it is being tugged along by an invisible cord.

Horwitz (1881) White to play and win

Salkind (1915) White to play and win

. Only a minor miracle can produce a win for White who has two bishops under attack, one with check, but by means of two fine decoy ideas the study composer produces 1 h7+! With the obvious point of dragging the king away from the e7 pawn, but there's a second hidden point. 1...'it>xh7 2 .i.a4 .l:!:xb2+ 3 .i.c2+!!, a neat 'zwischenzug' (a term we will deal with later, meaning an intermediary move) to leave Black's rook stranded behind the c5 pawn after 3 ... l!xc2+ 4 c;t>f3 J:!c3+ 5 c;t>f4 lIc4+ 6 ¢'f5 and Black must submit to the inevitable. Overleaf are some test positions for you to solve.

74 Problem Themes

TEST 5. 9 Ed. Lasker v AHa New York 1947 White to play and win

TEST 5.12 Bellon v Garcia Cienfuegos 1976 Black to play and win

Line clearance/closure

TEST 5.1 0 IIchenko v Sosina USSR 1971 Black to play and win

TEST 5.11 Bogda v Ferreira Paraguay 1976 White to play and win

From the very opening moves a player tries to open files, ranks and diagonals along which his pieces can become active, whereas a defender is constantly trying to block lines to prevent this. Composers have developed subtle themes based on line clearance and line closure, but in this section we shall deal mainly with certain practical applications that may guide a chess-player's thinking processes towards the best move in a given situation. Let us begin with an example from Alekhine's Best Games.

Alekhine v Borochow Hollywood 1932

Problem Themes 75

In this game from a blindfold simultaneous exhibition Alekhine plays a move which opens an attacking line for himself whilst at the same time shutting off a defensive line from his opponent's bishop: Killing two birds with one stone, he plays the simple but delightful clearance move 1 liJe6! that prevents 1.. .iLxg4 and prepares to answer 1... iLxe6 with 2 'tlVxh7+! Wxh7 3 ~h3mate. Note how, as a preliminary to all this, White's rooks have used files and ranks to establish themselves on e3 and g4 and the queen sacrifice breaks down the last barrier on the 'h' file to allow the mating finish. Stein had a similar clearance idea in the following position but this time linking it with an attack on the queen:

Here is an amusing case of an attacker opening a line for his opponent then immediately closing it again:

Rauzer v Rabinovich Leningrad 1936 After 1 hxg6! k'txh2 2 liJh7! the attack on both rooks forces 2 ...1:i.2xh7 3 gxh7 ~xh7 4 iLd3 winning the exchange. Our next example shows a typical attack opening up vital lines for the final mating set-up:

Sigurjonsson v Stein Reykjavik 1972 After l...ltJxh2! White lost a pawn and, eventually, the game. If he had replied 2 ~xh2? (or 2 iLxh2 "iVxd4) then 2 .. Jhc3! 3 ~xc3 iLxb4! would have cleared the d8-h4 diagonal with gain of time, winning the queen in view of the threatened 4 'iVxb4? 'iVh4 mate.

Thesing v King Wilhelmsfeld 1985

76 Problem Themes

Despite Black's bishop being pinned, its influence very much affects the play that follows. 1...1hc2+! smashes open the 'c' file, weakens White' second rank, pins and weakens the rook on d3 and allows Black's other rook to join in the assault. Not bad for one move! Play continued: 2 ~xc2 l:.c8+ 3 'itd2 The amusing 3 lLlc3 l:.xc3+ shows two pins working. 3 .. :ihb2+ 4 ~el l:te8+ 0-1. The finish might have been 5 ~d1 'ii'xbl+ 6 cj;>d2 ~xd3+ 7 ~c1 'Wc2 mate, or 5 'itfl 'Wxb 1+ 6 'ii?g2 'Wxd3 and it is all over.

queens eye each other along the third rank. 3 ...'Wb2! 1-0. White suddenly realizes that his whole defensive edifice now collapses after 4 ':c1 1:txd4+! 5 cxd4 ~xd4+ 6 ~e2 i.xc2! 7 l:.xc2 'Wd3+ 8 ~f2 'Wxc2+ etc. I also enjoyed the following defeat of Nimzovich by Mieses who was not a great strategist but could certainly produce ferocious attacks:

Now for a less obvious example of line-opening from a fine player:

Nimzovich v Mieses Goteborg 1920

Shaposhnikov v Boleslavsky Sverdlovsk 1951 Black has pressure down the 'r file and along the second and third ranks but, with the paradoxical move 1. •• d4!, he opens up the 'd' file for his queen's rook but at the same time allows White to block the file with 2 i.xd4 (not of course 2 cxd4 when 2 ... i.xc2! 3 'ii?xc2 'Wxe3 smashes the whole position open) which on the surface appears to hold up the attack. However, upon concrete analysis, it fails to 2...l:.ad8! 3 l:.hfl 3 f4? l:.xd4+ wins, as the rival

White has made the mistake of delaying castling too long and Mieses is not going to let him get away with it! By exploiting the exposed positions of both the king and queen, Black succeeds in using his open lines to maximum effect: 1.•. lLlb4! 2 cxb4 White would like to play 2 ~e2 but then 2 ... fxe4! 3 ~xe4 i.c6 4 'Wc4+ i.d5 5 'We2 e4! leaves him in trouble. 2... i.xb4+ 3 lLld2 i.b5! Now everything is clear: Black is gaining time to fix the king in the centre by attacking the queen which is having great difficulty even surviving. Note that Black is now in command of two excellent diagonals and has cleared the 'd' file for action. 4 ~xa7 i.xd2+! 5 ~xd2 ~d6+! Mieses does not even allow

Problem Themes 77

White to 'castle into it' because he has seen some excellent tactics such as: 6 1tcl l:r.b6! 7 exf5 'iVc5+! 8 '1fi>d2 :td6+ winning the queen, or 6 '1fi>e I Wb4+ 7 ~d I l:r.fd8+ mating. 6 'ittc2 id3+ 7 ~c3 Or 7 ~cl 'iVc6+ mating. 7...l:r.b6! 0-1. The great man has had enough; if he tries to save his queen, he must allow 8...1Wd4+ 9 ~d2 'iVxf2+ 10 g1 ~b6+ wins, whilst the obvious 1 ~g8+ lixg8 2 'if'h5+ Wd7 3 e8==~+ l:txe8 4 'Mt'xe8+ c;t>c7 allows Black to escape. However, there is one remarkable move that wins by setting up a battery: 1 ~h5!! when the game ended l...lbg2+ 2 l:txg2+ l:lxh5 3 !i.xb2 ~xh3+ 4 Wgl! ];[h7 5 11h2! ~g7+ 6 Wf2 I:!.g8 7 ~h6 Wf7 Desperation, as White was threatening 8 kid6 i.d7 9 f5! winning. 8 e8=='ii'+ ~xe8 9 ~h7+ 1-0. Well done, Maroczy!

TEST 5.14

Rufenacht v Neuenschwander Basle 1974 White to play and win

TEST 5.15 Bianchetti (1925) White to play and win

Problem Themes 79

TEST 5.16 Reefleger v Wirthensohn Hanover 1976 Black to play and win

Zugzwang (Get a linguist friend to pronounce this Gennan word for you, or try 'tsooktsvang'; it means 'compulsion to move' which will be clear from our examples.) Most of us are usually so eager to make a move that it almost comes as an embarrassment to find that there are times when anything we do can only worsen our position! However, if we were logical, we would realize that even an ending of king and rook versus king could not be won without the use of zugzwang which forces the enemy king to give way. In the middle game we soon become accustomed to anticipating what our opponent will do next. However, very few of us have the grandmaster's skill of using the zugzwang resource to its full extent, mainly because it is more natural to think in tenns of threats and sacrifices rather than in tenns of waiting moves and quiet preparation. The following position will make this clear:

Tylor v Em. Lasker Nottingham 1936 After 1...~e3! White is immediately in trouble because Black is threatening to take the knight with mate, the knight cannot move because of 2 ... 'Ii'gl mate and, finally, 2 ~e4 allows 2 ... WHf1+ followed by mate. This means that 2 ~dl is forced, but after 2... aS! we have reached a position well worth consideration. White has very few options: his queen cannot move, 3 lbgl would allow either 3 ... ~xd4 or an immediate exchange of the four pieces leading to a won pawn ending (try it!), 3 lbh4 would allow 3 ... Sl.xd4 followed by 4 ... ~xc5, with 4 'iVb 1 f5 changing little for White, and any pawn moves will lose material. In other words, whatever White does will worsen his position. He is zugzwanged! It is not even worth thinking about what Black can do if White does nothing, because by the laws of chess White has to move, whether he likes it or not! In the game, after 3 b4 axb4 4 b3 'it>h6 Waiting ... White resigned. Here is another typical zugzwang situation which occurred in Alekhine's notes to one of his interesting encounters with Rubinstein:

80 Problem Themes

Variation from Rubinstein v Alekhine Dresden 1926

Reti (1922) White to play and win

Alekhine writes: "The rook on f4 cannot move because of .. :~xe5; the rook on e2 is tied to the defence of e3 and g2; the king cannot move because of ... l;!xh3; the queen can move neither up the 'd' file because of .. ..lhh3+, nor along the first rank because of ... "WIg7 (I would add here that it is possible to play 1 iVaI ~g7 2 c4, but then Black can continue 2 ... dxc4 3 bxc4 I1c8 4 iVd4 ~c7 5 l:tc2 ~d8 6 ~al ~c5 and it is all over); and, finally, in the event of 1 c4 Black has 1.. .d4! and in the event of 1 b4 he has l...~g7 2 iVd4 l:tc8! followed by 3 .. .l~tc4." A simple piece of analysis, you might think, but it reveals a cool appraisal of the position and shows how a great attacking player can utilize various threats to induce a state of paralysis in his opponent's game. The zugzwang weapon then becomes the straw that broke the camel's back!

After 1 tiJd4+! Black must reply 1...c5 because a retreat would allow White to capture the h2 pawn then advance his king, since the knight will be secure on b3 protecting the a5 pawn when necessary. Now, White has no time for 2 r.t>xh2 in view of 2 ... .ltf4+ 3 'it>h3 r.t>xd4 4 a6 .ltb8 5 f4 Wc5 6 f5 'it>b6 7 f6 'it>xa6 8 f7 .ltd6 and the pawn is held. However, it is at this point that Reti produces his key move 2 'it>hl!! placing Black in zugzwang! The bishop cannot go to e3 because of White's pawn, and all its other six possible moves are answered by a knight fork. As for Black's king, 2 ... r.t>d6 allows a knight fork, 2 ... 'it>b4 allows 3 a6 and, finally, 2... 'it>xd43 a6 leaves him stranded.

Here is a study composer using the zugzwang in striking fashion:

Can I match this with a game example? Consider the following outstanding piece of play:

Problem Themes 81

Zhilin v Shernov USSR 1960 1 f6! ,ltxh3 2 ~e5! Threatening mate in 4, beginning fxg7+, so Black is forced to guard e8. 2... ,ltd7 3 'it>h4!! Revealing White's magnificent idea: Black's queen and bishop are unable to move without allowing mate, whilst both 3 .. .';f;>g8 4 ~8+ and 3 ... gxf6 4 'iVxf6+ 'it>e8 5 g7 win for White. This leaves us with the queens ide pawns and after

TEST 5.18 Gligoric v Szabo Moscow 1963 White to play and win

3 ... b6 4 ~h5! b5 5 c;i;>h4! h5 6 'it>xh5! Black is in zugzwang and

can do nothing but resign, since any move allows mate. TEST 5.19 Jung v Szabados Dessau 1952 White to play and win

TEST 5.17 Kubbel (1928) White to play and win TEST 5.20 Szily v Balogh Correspondence 1943 Black to play and win

82 Problem Themes

Zwischenzug

This Gennan word, roughly pronounced 'tsvishentsook', means an 'intennediary move' When a player does not make an obvious move, such as a recapture, but interpolates another move, problemists refer to a zwischenzug. An excellent example of this is seen is the Zhilin position we have just examined, where White does not make the routine recapture 2 'it>xh3 but plays instead 2 'iVe5. Here is another example of this:

Najdorf v Stahlberg Buenos Aires 1941

Schranz v Honfi Hungary 1971 Capturing the knight would allow .. .iLc8, so White has calculated a deep combination beginning with a zwischenzug. 1 l:i:h5!! .lic8 If 1...h6 White can either capture the knight or continue the attack with 2 ~xh6! gxh6 3 'iVxh6 threatening ... e6 followed by .l:i.e3. 2 e6! .lixe6 3 .l:!.xh7! The point, another zwischenzug, leading to the well-known rook and bishop battery. 3 ....txh3 4 .l:!.xg7+ '1t>h8 5 .l:!.xf7+ .tf6 6 .txf6+ 'it>g8 7 .l:!.xc7 .u.xf6 8 gxh3 and White won the ending. Imaginative play by Schranz.

Black plays 1...lbxa4 hoping to save the game after 2 bxa4 f5! etc., but Najdorf rejects the immediate recapture and wins by 2 d7! iLxe7 3 .l:!.c8+ 'i!tg7 4 bxa4 1-0. This 'looking beyond the obvious' is an important aspect Qf tactics, as can be seen in the next example that contains two zwischenzugs, for good measure:

Dobirtsin v Bonsch Gennany 1977

Problem Themes 83

Clearly, White would like to combine threats of promoting the d6 pawn with a mating attack but it is trickier than it looks. After 1 d7! .l:!.d8 2 ~f6! Black must capture the 'd' pawn with queen or rook. At first sight it seems that 2 ... ~xd7 is correct, in order to answer 3 iLh6 with 3 ...~d4, but White has a neat zwischenzug here, with 3 iLg5! 1:Ic8 4 iLh6 winning. However, after the alternative 2...~xd7 3 iLh6! ~d4 he has prepared another zwischenzug with 4 lIe 1! iLe4 Or 4 .. .iLe6 5 ~xe6! 'iWxf6 6 J:!.e8 mate. 5 ~xe4! 1-0.

1...bxa2 Or 1... fxg6 2 ~xg7+! ~xg7 3 ~e7+ ~g8 4 iLxf6 mating. 2 iLxf6! The far from obvious zwischenzug, coolly allowing Black to queen with check! 2... al=1i'+ 3 ~h2 'iVaxc3 Or 3 ... iLxf6 4 1i'h6! iLg7 5 ~h7+ ~f8 6 l:txfl+ ~e8 7 'iVg8+ followed by mate. 4 iLxf7+ 'it>h7 Or 4 ... 'it>f8 5 l!e8+! rbxfl 6 'ike7+ followed by mate in 2. 5 iLg6+! 1-0. It is mate in 2.

Finally, here is a typically complex Tal combination, during which he allows a second Black queen to appear on the board while he weaves his magic around the enemy king: TEST 5.21 Gil v Dobosz Correspondence 1973 Black to play and win

Tal v Solmanis USSR 1970 I advise you to play through this very carefully, because it contains a variety of mating patterns. 1 ..txg6!! Going straight for the complications, knowing that, once he is committed, there's no turning back.

TEST 5.22 Miles v Martin Birmingham 1977 White to play and win

84 Problem Themes

forced stalemate he would like, but rather that players have to avoid falling into a stalemate trap or simply fail to take into account the latent possibility of this means of drawing a game. Here is an example of two traps avoided, although admittedly, after avoiding the first, Anand was most unlikely to miss the second:

TEST 5.23 Hubner v Timman Bugojno 1978 Black to play and win

Anand v Rongguang Manila Interzonal 1990

TEST 5.24 J. Littlewood v Dodson Correspondence 1960 White to play and win (the nearest I ever got to creating a study in a game!)

White would like to play 1 l:tc2+ 'ittf3 2 b6?? but suddenly sees that 2 ... ~h3+! 3 xh3 results in stalemate! The game continues 1 c;t>g2! ~f5 2 l:Lc2+ ~dl! when once again a trap has been laid for 3 ~d2+ ~e 1 4 b6?? ~f3+ 5 ~gl 'lig2+! 6 c;t>xg2 and a second 'echo' stalemate has arisen. Anand went on to win after 3 .l:tc1+ ~e2 4 b6 ~b5 5 ~c7 'lie5 6 l:tc2+ c;t>dl 7 l:tc1 + ~e2 8 J::rbll-O.

Stalemate

Although this theme is often present in the endgame, it can arise in the late middle game more often than the average player supposes. It is not that a player achieves the

Composers delight in the stalemate resource, so I am spoilt for choice in quoting one, but here is a study which produces a draw by repetition of moves resulting from stalemate avoidance:

Problem Themes 85

Motor (1972) White to play and draw

Zagoriansky v Tolush Moscow 1945

If White tries to stop the pawn by 1 J:rgl then 1...f4 wins easily, so he has to produce something out of the ordinary with the startling move 1 :tg2!! allowing Black to promote with check! The first point is revealed after l...el =~+ 2 h6 5 l:tg6+ with perpetual check. This means that Black has to play 2... i..g7 which indeed seems sufficient, until White produces 3 J:te2!! when the rook cannot be taken because of the same stalemate we have just seen. Nor can Black play the queen away, allowing J:(e8+ followed by mate, so his only move is 3... i..c3! when 4 !!g2 gives White a draw by repetition.

He was hoping for 2 'iYxf4 g2+ 3 gl!! ttJf3+ 5 ~xf3+ nxf3 stalemate.

Let us now examine some game positions, beginning with a most cunning trap that worked ... for the opponent! In the next example, instead of patiently working out a winning plan, Tolush, by playing 1...'it>h3?, went in for a most plausible trap whose consequences he had not fully calculated.

Lazdin v Zemitis Riga 1936 I like this one because White, at the end of a clearly fluctuating game, has to do a great deal to produce a draw from a position which at some stage he was presumably trying to win: 1 ~f8+ 'it>f6 2 'iVh8+ 'it>f53 g4!+ A key move in his plan. 3 .•. hxg4 4 ~d5+! exd5 Any other move allows mate in one. 5 ~c8+!! ~xc8 stalemate.

86 Problem Themes

TEST 5.25 Krahnstover v Seyferth Bitterfeld 1957 White to play and draw

TEST 5.28 Sliwa v Doda Poland 1967 White to play and draw Hints for Beginners

TEST 5.26 Kestler v Pesch Gennany 1956 White to play and draw

TEST 5.27 Pietzsch v Fuchs Gennany 1963 Black to play and draw

* It is worthwhile examining from time to time the workload of individual enemy pieces. If they have too much to do, you may find a way of exploiting this, with 'deflection' your mam weapon. * At the same time, be careful not to give your own pieces too much to do, particularly when your back rank is under threat or your king is being attacked. * Combinations seldom fall out of the blue; they often have to be brought about by 'decoying' enemy pieces to vulnerable squares where they are open to exploitation. * Threats and forcing moves are excellent when available but you must also be ready to consider quiet, waiting moves which plan for what your opponent can do and anticipate events. * Do not recapture pieces automatically, as there may be a useful intermediary move at your disposal, especially in a forcing situation. The obvious is sometimes our enemy. * Whilst composed positions are usually far removed from practical play, their basic themes fonn a vital part of a player's tactical awareness.

Problem Themes 87

* Tactical skills need to be developed by constant practice, so use all available means to stimulate your imagination and test your powers of calculation.

* The 'stalemate' must always be borne in mind, both in attack and defence, as pieces are exchanged in the late middle game and the pawn structure becomes more rigid.

6 Combinations

W

e had a thorough look at tactics in Chapters 3 and 5. A game of chess, however, is seldom decided by a single tactical stroke. Usually, we see various tactical motifs at work, occasionally even in conflict with one another, and a player's skill lies in controlling these elements and fusing them into a unified whole which we term a combination. Seeing a tactical idea is one thing; blending it into a winning combination quite another. Consider our first position:

Penrose v Barden Hastings 1957-58

with a strong pin on the 'e' file and the enemy king still in the centre. However, a tactical idea is working against him, as 1 'iWa4+ can be answered by 1...SLc6! utilising the fact that White's king's rook is unguarded. White desperately needs to develop his bishop but time is of the essence. This probably gave him the idea of playing the sharp 1 SLf4!!, a move which at first sight seems strange because after 1..:~Wxf4 2 ~a4+ Black has 2...SLc6 (not 2 ... 'it'f8 3 tLJe6+! fxe6 4 ~f1 pinning the queen, or 2 ... 'it>d8 3 tLJb3 f5 4 ctJc5! 'it'c8 5 'iWd7+ 'it'b8 6 lIxe4! winning) and it is he now who is pinning the knight along the rank! Many players would now have given up the idea, but an experienced tactician such as Penrose, knowing that a pinned piece can sometimes tum the tables on the pinner, would look a little further and find the brilliant 3 lIxe7+! ~f8 Or 3 ... 'it'xe7 4 tLJxc6+ winning the queen. 4 tLJe6+ fxe6 5 ~xf4+ r3;xe7 6 ..wc7+ and White soon won. Note how various pins and unpins are linked up here with the opening of files, ranks and diagonals to produce an attractive finish.

White, who has sacrificed a pawn to reach this position, is well aware that he is ahead in development,

Let us now take a more complex situation conjured up by a World Champion:

Combinations 89

~d3 ttJe6 7 ttJb3 WillS the queen, because ...~a6 is no longer available. 5 ~el 0-0 6 ttJb3 ~a6 7 'iWxa6 bxa6 8 lhe7 and Alekhine won the ending.

Alekhine v Podgorny Prague 1942 Top players instinctively sense that a combination is in the air here, but we lesser mortals will try to relive in slow motion some of the ideas flashing through Alekhine's brain. Although Black is assuming that his bishop cannot be captured in view of ... ~xal, his queen will undoubtedly be out of play for some time and in grave danger of being trapped. Can this factor be exploited in some way? Once again, we have a Black king in the centre, so it is tempting to try to open the 'e' file and attack down it. Is there a way of combining these two ideas? Suddenly, Alekhine must have seen yet another point: his king's knight can reach b3 with gain of time! The pieces of the jigsaw are rapidly slotting into place and the final picture is beginning to emerge: 1 dS!! exdS We will examine ... ttJxd5 later. 2 axb4! 'iVxal 3 ttJd2! A retreating move that many players would not have visualized. By attacking the bishop, Alekhine not only gains time by occupying the 'e' file with check but also prepares to trap Black's queen by ttJb3 if the Black bishop retreats. 3... i.xe2 4 ~xe2+ tlJe7 Again forced, since 4 .. .'it'f8 5 b5! ttJd4 6

Now, go back to the diagram and try to find what White had in mind against l ... ttJxdS. It is clear that the same combination no longer applies, because White's queen's knight disappears. However, other factors are at work: the Black bishop on g4 is unguarded and Black's king has no king's knight to help protect his position. By combining these elements with the danger to Black's queen that will eventually arise from an unmasking of White's rook along the first rank, we arrive at 2 ttJxdS exdS 3 ttJd4! ttJxd4 Or 3 ... .i.xe2 4 'iYxe2+ ttJe7 5 axb4! 'ii'xa 1 6 .i.g5! with a double attack on the queen and knight, a recurring theme, as we shall see, whereas if 3 ... .i.d7 4 ttJb3 guards the rook and wins Black's king's bishop! 4 .i.xg4 calling for another diagram:

Alekhine v Podgorny A possible variation Notice how all this has been done with gain of time and Black still hasn't succeeded in castling! Almost certainly, Alekhine's

90 Combinations

calculations would not have gone much further, a fact that always surprises lesser players. It must be remembered that there were many other lines to work out, in a limited time, so Alekhine would now trust his positional judgement, closely linked to intuition, to assess the position as won for him, relying on his tactical ability to work out details later, if the variation should arise. For a possible finish, I am using a fine piece of analysis by the late C.H.O'D. Alexander which underlines the beauty of Alekhine's conception: 4 ... lLlc6 Or 4 ... lLle6 5 ~xe6 fxe6 6 ~h5+ g6 7 'iVe5 0-0 8 axb4 'iVxal 9 ~h6 winning. 5 axb4! 'iVxal 6 'iVe2+ 'ittf8 Or 6 ... lLle7 7 ~g5. 7 b5 lLla5 If 7 ... lIe8 8 ~e3! and 7 ... lLld4 8 'ilfe5 lLlxb5 9 ~h6!' 8 ~el! h5 9 ~f5 f6 10 ~g6 when mate in 2 is forced. A word of solace to the depressed reader who feels that he will never learn to play combinations like this. What seems at first sight like magic is in reality a mixture of logic, imagination, calculation and experience. The first and last of these come in time but the other two can be stimulated and developed by playing through master games and testing your ability on combinational positions. The most important fact to learn, and indeed have faith in, is that combinations do not just spring out of thin air, despite appearances to the contrary. If it were so, chess would be a mere game of chance and would have lost my services years ago. Of course, there are curious chance factors (fortunately!) which differentiate similar combinations, but there

remains an inner logic to chess tactics, which is why all great players in their best efforts have blended strategy and tactics so well that it is difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins. Let us examine this 'inner logic' at work in our next position:

Soker v Volk Leningrad 1937

Weare hardly out of the opening and Black has given up a pawn to reach this position. Was he justified in doing so? White's queen is almost trapped and would be won by ... ~b8, were it not for the bishop on f4 attacking the c7 pawn. Even more important is the vulnerability of White's king, but Black must make use of these factors before White castles long or plays lIc1 and e3. It is in such positions that a beginner has self-doubt, loses his sense of proportion and even panics. A more experienced player has faith in his position and views the situation more dispassionately. He realizes that, if White's queen's bishop could be deflected, his queen would be lost, so L.g5 comes to mind, but then 2 ~e5 lLlxe5 3 'iVxb4 saves White; or here 2... lLlc2+ 3 'ittd2 lLlxa 1 4 'iVxc6+ leaves the knight trapped on a 1. More drastic measures are called for, such as 1...~h6!!

Combinations 91

which usefully develops a piece in the process. Black may well have seen this move initially as a deflection and only recognized its true strength upon closer examination of the reply 2 i..xc7 attacking the queen. Although the obvious 2... 'iVc8 seems fine, even though White has two pawns for the exchange if he can trap the knight on ai, Black has conjured up a lovely combination which shows up the power of Black's king's bishop and exploits the position of White's king: 2... ctJxd4! 3 i..xd8 Or 3 ctJxd4 ctJc2+! 4 ctJxc2 'iVd2 mate; or here 4 Wdl 'iVxd4+ 5 'it'xc2 ~d2+ 6 Wbl 'iVcl mate. 3 ... ctJdc2+ 4 'it'dl lIxd8+ when White's position is hopeless. The game ended: 5 ctJd5 i..xd5 6 'iJic7 i..xf3+ 7 'iVxd8+ 'it>xd88 exf3 'iitc7! 0-1. White must lose a rook or accept his fate after 9 .. J:td8+ 10 'it>e2 ~d2 mate. I repeat, not magic (well, a touch of...) but logic! The characteristics of White's set-up are all there, waiting to be unearthed, if only Black can make the effort to dig a little. Our next example is an excellent illustration of the same logic at work, admittedly backed by some precise calculation:

Gheorghiu v Kinnmark World Junior Champ, Hague 1961

There is no doubt that White stands better, since he is fully developed, with beautifully placed active pieces all aimed at the centre and the king. However, the position is full of tactical ideas and once again he must strike while the iron's hot, before Black can exchange pieces. How does a player thread his way through the complexities he faces here? Let us try to follow the thought processes of a tactician (the author!).

* Black's king looks vulnerable visa-vis the bishop on b2; in fact, if White's queen were on cl, he would have the immediate 1 'it'xh6+! gxh6 2 ctJxf7+ 'it>g8 3 tiJxh6 mate. * The weakness of the h6 pawn, combined with the potential pin of the g7 pawn, can also be exploited by 1 Sl.xc8 ':'axc8 2 'it'd2 Sl.xe5? 3 Sl.xe5 followed by 4 'ir'xh6+ and 5 'it'xg7 mate. But can't Black play instead 2 .. J:tfd8! in this line when the queen sacrifice is no longer available because h7 is not protected, nor does 3 ctJg6+ fxg6 4 'Yi'xh6+ work, because Black's queen guards g7, and the attractive-looking 3 ctJd7 i.f4? 4 'ir'd4! fails to 3 ... 'it>g8! when the knight cannot move in view of ... Sl.h2+ winning the queen. * Why exchange the bishops in the first place, especially when this helps Black prevent a back-rank mate? Can we instead exchange our rook for his bishop on d6, when tiJxf7+ exposes the back rank, allowing us to deflect Black's queen by a double attack from d2? The ideas flow on, but we have at least some concrete variations, the details of which can now be checked. Gheorghiu must have thought along similar lines,

92 Combinations

instinctively applying his knowledge of forks, pins, deflections and overloading, and this is the result: 1 l::txd6!! 'iVxd6 Or 1...~xf5 2 l:txh6+! gxh6 3 ttJxf7+ 'it>g8 4 ttJxh6+ 'ith7 5 ttJxf5 leaving Black helpless; or here 2 ... ~g8 3 'iVxf5 gxh6 4 ttJd7! winning. 2 ttJxf7+! l:txf7 3 I;!e8+ 'iffS We have already planned the deflection after 3 ... ~f8 4 'ifd2! I:rxe8 5 'iixd6 ~xf5 6 'ii'xh6+ and 7 ~xg7 mate; or here, after 4 ... ttJd3, a second deflection by 5 'iixh6+! 'i'xh6 6 .l::txf8 mate. 4 lIxfS+ ~xfS 5 'i'd2! Again the key move. S... Wg8 6 "+Wd4 1-0. Once again, the problem lay not so much in seeing the various possibilities as in coordinating these into a winning sequence and not being distracted by spurious side-lines. In particular, all of us tend to think too much of our own moves, without taking into account our opponent's defensive options, some of which can completely destroy the intended combination. Here is an instructive and striking illustration of how this can come about:

Shabalov v Stefansson Reykjavik 1994 Wanting to answer ... We6 with White prepared for this by 1

~f5+,

'it'hl? (instead of attacking at once with 1 ~fl + We6 2 ~h6+ 'it'd7 3 .:&if?! as given by Larry Christiansen) only to find that, after 1...~h8!, his intended combination 2 l:tfl + 'it>e6 3 ~f5+ ttJxf5 4 gxf5+ Wd7 5 e6+ Wc6 6 'ifxe7 would be met by 6 ... 'ifxh2+!! followed by mate in two. To give Shabalov his due, he saw this, but only when it was too late! I had a similar heart-stopping experience when facing Botvinnik, for the one and only time, in the following position:

J. Littlewood v Botvinnik Hastings 1961-2 Thinking that I could employ a fine zwischenzug that would give me time to drive back Black's knight, advance my pawn to h5, play hxg6 then answer ... ttJf6 with ttJf5, I plausibly, but wrongly, sacrificed material by 1 e5!? ttJd7 If 1...bxc3 2 exf6 exf6 3 bxc3 White stands better. 2 h4? Or 2 exd6 e5!. 2... bxc3!! Botvinnik must have already calculated the finish when playing this move. 3 h5 My bridges are burnt. 3 ... dxe5! 4 hxg6 The spectators were wondering why I was taking so long over this move, but by now I had seen the coming disaster and could do nothing about it. 4... ttJf6! and all is clear: if now 5

Combinations 93

ltJf5?? then 5 ... c2+! 6 Wxc2 ~c8+ and 7 ... ~xf5 ends it all. More out of shocked defiance than anything else, I played instead 5 bxc3 and resigned eight moves later, instead of resigning immediately, which Botvinnik's cool defence merited. We might term the above a 'final point' combination, for which Alekhine was justly famous. He had the ability and mental tenacity to visualize, at the end of a forcing sequence, a key move that his opponents had failed to take into consideration. Perhaps it was because he used to analyse his correspondence games in his head! Here's one of his most celebrated finishes:

to answer 2 fxe3 with 2 ... ltJxd2 winning the exchange. White replies in kind by 2 1:tc4! so that both 2 ... 1i.xD 3 1:txe4! and 2 ... ltJxd2 3 ltJxd2! maintain the balance. Alekhine now plays the forcing sequence 2... ltJxf2 3 1i.g2 1i.e6! 4 1:tcc2 ltJg4+ S Wh3 5 rbhl?? 1:tal+ wins. S... tt:le5+ 6 Wh2 ~xf3! 7 1:txe2 ltJg4+ 8 Wh3 ltJe3+ 9 Wh2 ltJxc2 10 1i.xf3 ltJd4! 0-1. After 11 nf2. ltJxf3 12 nxD 1i.d5! we arrive at the 'final point': White's knight is lost. Here is another sample before I set you some test positions:

Schmidt v Richter Heidelberg 1946 Reti v Alekhine Baden-Baden 1925 After a most fascinating and complex game, we are still in a bewildering situation that fatigues the If 1...ltJxc1 2 fxe3 or brain. l...1i.xD 2 1i.xD or l...x:Ie7 2 ~bl llb8 3 lId8+, White equalizes, so Alekhine throws another element into the fray with 1...ltJe4! in order

I myself try to follow Alekhine's example by solving positions in my head and I remember finding all this solution until near the end: 1 ~h6+! ~xh6 2 hxg6+ ~gS 3 l:1hS+! WxhS 4 f4+ ltJxe2 S ltJf6+! h6 6 l:thl + g7 and it was at this point that for some time I completely missed 7 ltJe8+! ~xe8 8 nxh7+ 'it>f6 (or ... 'it>f8) 9 l:i.xf7 mate. Now, over to you!

94 Combinations

TEST 6.1 Rossolimo v A N Other

Paris 1944 White to play and win

TEST 6.2 Alekhine v Bogoljubow

World Championship Match 1929 Black to play and win

TEST 6.3 Bauer v Golner

Berlin 1956 White to play and win

TEST 6.4

J. Littlewood v Tomasevic Correspondence Olympiad 1972 White to play and win

On the one hand, then, we have seen that, as in Alekhine's game against Podgomy, there was at least one situation in which he would not have calculated beyond a certain point, whilst on the other hand we are witnessing combinations that would fail if it were not for the advance calculation of a 'final point'! For the reader, the dilemma is obvious. Does he need to work out everything or can he rely on general principles to see him through? How far does he have to visualize before embarking on a combination? As usual in chess, there is no simple answer to these questions. Much depends on the strength and style of a player and on the nature of the position reached. For example, players such as Keres, Tal, Kasparov and Shirov can sense (and often gamble on!) a position as being won, without going into the finer detail, whereas lesser players are compelled to check out variations more carefully until they have acquired by practical experience a kind of chess 'instinct' that can relieve them of some of the burden of calculation.

Combinations 95

If all the above appears unhelpful, the reader would do well to remember that chess players are not supposed to be computers! Alekhine himself says in one of his annotations that in certain unforcing situations he found it difficult to analyze more than a few moves ahead! There is, in fact, not always time to attempt a full-scale calculation, even if a player has the ability to do so, and he must then either rely on intuition or else fall back on a general assessment of the position. There are, however, certain combinations which even an expert has to work out in every detail and where any error in calculation would lead to a loss. Unless the reader is willing to take a leap in the dark (and many of us still do this, even if we are unwilling to admit it), he should reject unclear combinations with which his own calculating ability cannot cope. Such combinations invariably involve sacrifice of material, after which there is no going back once an error in calculation has been made. Here are two examples:

Tartakower v Andor Paris 1952 White has sacrificed a pawn for excellent compensation and has various good moves at his disposal,

such as tiJb5 or nab 1. Instead, however, he embarks on a sacrificial combination beginning 1 ~a3!!, offering Black the choice of two variations which clearly demand precise calculation. The game continued: 1..:iVxa3 2 'iVb5+ ~e7 3 l:td7+ tiJxd7 4 'iVxd7+ ~f6 5 ~f7+ There is no time for 5 l:tel ~e7. 5... ~xe5 Or 5... ~g5 6 tiJe4+ and mate in 2. 6 l:tel+ ~d4 7 'iVf3! A quiet but powerful move, forcing mate. 7.. :iVxc3 Or 7 ... c4 8 'iVe3 mate; or 7... 'it>c4 8 l:te4 mate. 8 'iVe4 mate. All reasonably straightforward, you might say, but the second variation needed more mental work. After 1...'iVxc3, which seems a much more plausible move because of the central control exerted by White's knight, Tartakower planned: 2 'iVb5+ ~e7 3 l:Id7+ Not the tempting 3 ~b2 'ifb4! 4 l:Id7+ ~e8!. 3 ...tiJxd7 4 'iVxd7+ ~f6 5 tiJg4+ It is just about here that the brain starts to work overtime ... 5... ..t>g5 Or 5.Ai'g6 6 'Mt'xe6+ c;t>h5 7 'iWf5+ g5 8 'iVf7+ ~h4 9 g3+ 'it>xg4 10 h3+ ~xh3 11 ~h5 mate; or 5 ... f5 6 'iVf7+ 'it>xg4 7 f3+ 'it>h4 8 g3+ 'it>g5 9 i.c 1+ followed by mate. 6 ~cl + 'it>h4 Or 6 ... ~h5 7 'iVf7+ g6 8 'iVf4 ~e7 9 h3! mating. 7 g3+ 'it>h3 8 'ii'xe6 Stopping ...~el mate! 8...'iVc4 9 f3!! The splendid point which had to be foreseen or Tartakower would have lost, as we saw in our example of a king hunt that went wrong. 9...'iVxe6 10 tiJf2 mate. The reader may well ask why players go in for such lines when a less risky or complicated win is available. I can only answer for myself by stating that, although I like to win as much as anyone else, the way I achieve this matters to me! In fact, I gain greater pleasure from

96 Combinations

playing an attractive finish a la Anderssen than I do from other routine wins dutifully ground out. This may well be a flaw in my temperament that should have been corrected when I was younger, but tactical complications were what initially brought me into the game and kept me there ... Anyway, as the French say, "Ce n 'est pas a mon age que je vais changer" which, roughly translated means: "Which idiot thought up this grading lark?". Here is the kind of winning combination that I delight in but which has its hidden dangers:

ous diagonal and giving me a much more difficult problem to solve. Fortunately, I had enough time to find a win which I had not initially envisaged which ran: 2 'iVa7! WdS 3 lbxe6+! 'i!Vxe6 Or 3 ... lbxe6 4 l:tb8+ winning material. 4 l:tbS+ ~d7 Or 4 ... We7 5 ~c5+ when the bishop that was pinned in the original combination takes its revenge. 5 'iV a4+!! The most difficult move to find in the whole game. 5.. :~Vc6 6 ~h3+ l:tSf5 7 ~xf5+ ~xf5 S kIdS+! WxdS 9 'iVxc6 and I won the ending 20 moves later. To echo the churlish words of the grandfather in Peter and the Wolf "But what if Peter hadn't caught the wolf, what then, heh?", I could only answer that I did have excellent compensation for the exchange in this position. However, I was most relieved to have sufficient time to do further calculation, so there's a moral somewhere for the reader. Over to you now for some exact calculation upon which the fate of the games hinges:

J. Littlewood v Agnos 4 Nations League, Liverpool 1994 Having sacrificed the exchange to reach this fascinating position, I now played my key move 1 ir'a5!! intending to answer 1.. .Itfl !? with the forcing, and therefore easily calculable, winning line 2 lhc7+! (not of course 2 ~xfl?? lbe3+ mating) 2 ... "fixc7 3 "fia8+ iVb8 4 ~c6+ ~c7 5 ~xe6+ 'it;>d8 6 'iVxd5+ 'ite8 (or 6 ... ~e7 7 ~e6+ 'itd8 8 lbb7+ winning the queen) 8 'iVe6+ 'iJle7 36 'ilVc6+ Wfl 37 ~d5+ and mate next move. Imagine my chagrin, however, when Agnos replied instead with l..J::tf3!? blocking the danger-

TEST 6.5 Reshevsky v Matsumoto Siegen Olympiad 1970

In the game, White played 1 lbf6+. Was his combination correct?

Combinations 97

TEST 6.8 Zelevinsky v Berezin Moscow 1957 The sacrifice on h7 looks strong for White, but does it work?

TEST 6.6 Kunnemann v A N Other Berlin 1934 1 "fiIf6 looks extremely strong. Has White calculated correctly?

There are some positions that scream out for a combination, but there is no guarantee that it is completely sound. For a variety of reasons, one can be driven into a sacrificial line by necessity and it becomes an academic point when the analyst (and/or computer!) discovers later that the combination is unsound. Our next diagram is a good example of this:

TEST 6.7 I. Sokolov v Ivanchuk Wijk aan Zee 1996.

Limbos v Kavalek Belgium 1970

White is hoping for perpetual check after 1 Ir.g7+ '1t>xe6 2 llg6+, since he assumes that 2 .. .'i;d5 will be too risky. Is he right?

Black has the better development, with all his pieces except the queen's rook in active positions. On the other hand, he is a pawn down, his king's rook is under attack and time is running against him if he plays passively. For example, 1..J::te7 2 iVg5 or 1...lled8 2 "fiIf4 are adequate defences for White and it is no good telling Kavalek now that he should not have sacrificed a pawn! The position demands a combination, so he plunges in 'sans peur ni reproche' as follows: 1.. ..txd5!? 2 .txe8! Not of course 2 'iYxd5? ~ed8. 2... lZJg4! 3 i.xf7+! White defends cleverly,

98 Combinations

since the replies 3 ... i.xfl 4 fx.g4 and 3 ... ~xfl 4 iVxd5+ are no good for Black. 3... 'it>h8 4 fxg4 i.d6! 5 ~h6! A magnificent defensive move, to answer 5... gxh6 with i.b2+ and mate in 2; but Kavalek's combination is not over yet. 5... i.xg2+! 6 xg2 ~xg4+ 7 f2 ~f5+ 8 g2 'iVg4+ He cannot play 8 ... gxh6 9 l:txd6 when both 9... ~xfl 10 i.b2+ g8 11 ~gl! and 9...'ii'xc2+ 10 l1d2 ~c6+ 11 i.d5 ~g6+ 12 'it>hl lose for him. 9 f2 i.c5+!? And now 9 ... iVxdl fails to 10 'iVxg7+! ~xg7 11 i.b2+ ~xfl 12 l:txdl winning for White. Objectively, Black should now settle for the draw by 9 ... ~f5+ but sometimes emotions are stronger than reason. 10 liJe3!

1:IfS

good enough for a draw, but this is sufficient reason for playing it. However, did Black foresee White's fifth move, was he a little lucky and should he not have lost at the end? Some of these are philosophical questions beyond the province of this book, but I would like to conclude this chapter by attempting an answer to the last point. A number of top grandmasters, such as Larsen, Tal and Shirov, have developed to a remarkable degree, as part of their chess armoury,the art of playing speculative combinations i.e. combinations whose final results can hardly be assessed over the board and which may well prove to be 'unsound' in the light of subsequent analysis. Why do they do it? I offer the following explanations:

Limbos v Kavalek (cont.) 11 ~c6? A great pity for White after his imaginative defence up to this point. 11 e I! would have won after 11...'tWgl+ 12 e2 but he could not stand the strain of leaving his queen en prise one move longer. 11 ... .!:txfi+ 12 ~el ~h4+ 13 'it>e2 l:tf2+ 14 'it>el Or 14 'it>d3 ~d4 mate. 14... l:txh2+ 0-1. It is mate next move. Thus, in the final assessment, the above combination proved only

* The more unbalanced a position is, the more chance there is of a To unbalance a decisive result. game, however, inevitably involves an element of risk. * It is extremely difficult to win a major tournament nowadays with an occasional win and a string of draws, unless we are dealing with an Allplay-all with a limited number of top players. Many grandmasters are therefore willing to 'play the odds', especially against slightly weaker opponents, hoping to offset a possible loss against a sequence of WIllS.

* Creating problems for your opponent has always been an important element of chess strategy. Such a problem can well be a complex tactical situation in which the defender has insufficient time, patience or skill to find the best moves. * During the last thirty years, deep opening analysis has helped to

Combinations 99

develop (or rehabilitate, if only for a brief time) certain ultra-sharp systems, such as the Sicilian Sveshnikov or the Exchange Griinfeld, which can only be adopted by players who are prepared to teeter on the brink of disaster in the hope of obtaining a compensatory win. Even those positional players who do not welcome such an approach find it difficult to avoid sharp tactical confrontations if their opponents are hell-bent on them. Please note that I am in no way advocating this style of play, even though it can be very exciting for the spectators, but the above points may help us understand that there is often more to chess than soundness, control and god-like omniscience. It is after all a game, with all the human doubts and inconsistencies that this entails! Here is Shirov at work (I give you the opening moves to show how he arrived at the critical position). Shirov v Van Wely Melody Amber Rapidplay 2000 1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 Ji.e3 e6 7 g4!? Sacrificing a piece with no forced win in sight. 7 ... e5 8 ltJf5 g6 9 g5 gxf5 10 exf5 d5 11 gxf6 d4 12 Ji.c4 'WIc7 13 'i'd3 dxe3 14 0-0-0 exf2 15 Ji.xf7+ And now a second piece is offered. 15 .. .c.ti'xf7 16 'WId5+ ~xf6 17 ltJe4+ We7 18 ltJd6 Ji.h6+ 19 ~bl g5 25 ~g1+ 'itth4 26 ~f3 1-0.

Mate is forced. Footnote: as if to hammer home the points I have been making, a game Svidler v Gelfand -Biel 2000, continued from move 17 above 18 f6+! 'it>e8 19 f7+ 'it>e7 20 ~d2! 'iWc6 21 ~g5+ f8 16 'it'd4 c,t;>g7 17 1IVg4+ 'it>f8 and a draw was agreed. In this excellent effort, Black just managed to combine attack and de-

Play went 1 tLJe5 a6 Already too passive; he had to try 1...tLJxe5 2 dxe5 tLJd7 3 f4 tLJc5 with some counterplay. 2 l:tadl 'i'e7 3 f4! l:rfe8 A good restraining move but White has no intention of advancing his centre pawns yet. 4 tLJbl g6 5 tLJd2 tLJh5 6 lIdel iLf8 7 g4! White is so confident that he allows his own king's position to be weakened, knowing that Black cannot organise a successful counter-attack. 7 ...tLJhf6 8 h3 lIedS 9 tLJdf3 SLb4 10 lIdl ];tf8 11 tLJg5 lIdeS 12 h4 ~aS Finally attempting counterplay along the a8-hl diagonal, but it is too late. 13 h5 ~b7 14 'ith2! iLd6 15 'it>h3! lte7 16 a3 gxh5 Desperation which only hastens the end. 17 gxh5 h6 IS tLJgf3 tLJxh5 19 tLJh2 tLJdf6 Or 19 ... tLJhf6 20 l:tg1+ c,t;>h8 21 d5! exd5 22 tLJxd7! 'ir'xd7+ 23 'ti'g4! winning.

The Pawns 107

the pawns and White who ties himself up in his attempts to control their possible advance:

Reshevsky v Feigin (cont.) After leaving his centre pawns intact for so long as a means of restraining counterplay, White now opens up lines for his final assault: 20 d5! ttJg7 There is a lovely finish after 20 ... exd5 21 'iVxh5! liJxh5 22 Itg1+ liJg7 23 ~xg7+! Wxg7 24 J:!gl + 'i!tf6 25 liJd7+ ~e6 26 liJxf8 mate. 21 l!gl liJe8 22 liJc6 and White won quickly, although even stronger in sacrificial vein is 22 liJg4! exd5 22 liJxh6+ 'i!th8 23 liJhxf7+ llfxf7 24 'tWh5+! liJxh5 25 liJxf7 mate, revealing in full the glory of open lines. Such is the price of passivity in the face of hanging pawns!

As Black is threatening ... d4 followed by ... ~xf3, White could well try the restraining move lIe 1 and be happy to exchange two minor pieces after ... liJe4. He could then use his queen's knight on a4 and queen on a 1 to apply pressure along the a I-h8 diagonal, as we saw in Grigorenko's excellent defensive play earlier. This would offer better chances than the passive game continuation: 1 liJe2 ~h6! Not only avoiding exchanges but putting pressure down the h6-Cl diagonal and discouraging liJf4. 2 ~a3 liJg4! Threatening 3 ... ~xe3 4 fxe3 'ii'xe3+ followed by the famous smothered mate in 4. 3 ~d3 liJde5 4 liJxe5 'ii'xe5 5 liJg3 Or 5 g3 d4 etc. 5...'ikf6! 6 liJhl Forced, because 6 ~c2 'ifh4 7 h3 liJxe3 loses at once. 6... d4! 7 'iVe2 liJe5! So that if 8 l:rxc5 ~xc5 8 ~xc5 liJf3+! 9 gxf3 ~xf3 10 'iVc2 ~xdl 11 'iVxdl 'tWg5+ wins; or 8 ~xc5 ~f3! 9 gxf3 d3! 10 ~xd3 liJxd3 11 ~d4 liJxc 1 wins. 8 exd4 cxd4 9 l!xc8 ~xc8

Sokolsky v Botvinnik Leningrad 1938

Sokolsky v Botvinnik (cont.)

Here is another instructive example, but this time it is Black who has

The hanging pawns have been converted into a mighty passed 'd'

108 The Pawns

pawn which White's pieces are in no position to stop. After 10 l:!el d3! 11 ~dl Or 11 ~xe5 ~xe5 12 l:txe5 d2 l3 ..lte2 d 1='iW 14 ..ltxd 1 nxdl+ followed by mate. 11 ... .ltg4 12 ~al Or 12 D ttJxD+ 13 gxD ..ltxD 14 ~1 d2 15 ':dl .lte3+ followed by mate in 2. 12 ... d2 13 ~xe5 dl=~ 14 ':'e8+ l:txe8 15 'iVxf6 .lte2 with an easy win. As if there are not enough problems for the defence, there are some situations in which the advance of the 'c' pawn is the correct plan. Here is a good example of this:

gives Black an excellent game. 3 ....ltf5! 4 J:[bdl ttJf6 5 .!:td2 Once again, 5 ..ltD ~xb2 6 ~xb2 ~xb2 7 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 8 .ltxd5 l:!.c8 gives Black a winning position. 5 ... g5 6 ttJxd5 6 ttJh5 ttJe4 7 nc2 ~4! is equally bad. 6 ... ttJxd5 7 ..ltxc4 ..lte6 and Black won. Summing up then, we find that in the middle game the dynamic qualities of hanging pawns more than outweigh their weakness. My personal choice, therefore, would be to avoid giving such pawns to my opponent, unless I could see a positive plan to exploit them before they crushed me. It is one thing to talk about their theoretical weakness, but quite another to face them in a practical situation, with limited time at your disposal. Based on the evidence provided, the reader can now decide for himself in this matter. Backward Pawns

Bertok v Fischer Stockholm Interzonal 1962 Despite the reduction in material, Black's initiative guarantees him the better chances, but he can ill afford to allow White to build up pressure against his pawns. Fischer's solution is simple: by 1...c4! 2 ttJf4 ~tb8! he fixes White's b2 pawn as a weakness, a manoeuvre favoured by Capablanca. Play continued: 3 !:tabl Or 3 .ltD ttJf6 4l:tfdl 'iVxb2 5 l!Vxb2 .!:!.xb2 6 ttJxd5 ttJxd5 7 .ltxd5 .ltxd5 8 l:txd5 c3! 9 1:tdd 1 c2 10 l:tdc1 llab8 11 c;t>fl J::tb 1 12 c;t>e2 l:f.xa 1 13 !!xa 1 ':b 1 winning, as given by Fischer. He also suggests a better defence by 3 ttJxe6 fxe6 4 .ltg4 l:ta6 5 b3, although 5 ... '{Ifb4!

A backward pawn is usually a grave weakness, especially because a hole is created in front of it, yet even here there are times when compensatory factors operate. Let us examine the play surrounding such a pawn:

Rosenthal v Ragosin USSR 1928

The Pawns 109

In an innocuous looking position, White has just played the risky move f4, voluntarily giving himself a backward pawn on e3 which it is difficult to eliminate by e4, in view of the resulting weakness on d4, or by liJd2-i3-eS, against which Black has a potential counter with ... f6 guarding eS. Perhaps, White intends to combine a later liJeS with advancing a pawn to gS, so as to answer ... f6 with gxf6 opening up the 'g' file, but this will take a great deal of preparation, whereas the creation of a weak pawn on e3 and a hole on e4 brings immediate problems for him. Black's plan will be to exert pressure on the pawn down the 'e' file, not necessarily to win the pawn but to create other threats while White's pieces are tied to the defence of the pawn. Let us see how play goes: 1.. :iVb6 2 f5 This seems premature, if not foolhardy, because at one stroke White cuts out the option of the plan mentioned above. 2... liJiS A voiding the obvious 2... liJgS when Black may be forced to occupy e4 before he wants to and thus block the attack on the pawn. 3 ~e2 lle7 4 'it>h1 .l:tae8 5 lIdl Presumably aiming to play e4, a dubious plan, as we have pointed out. 5.. :~a5! 6 a3 6 e4 loses a pawn. 6... liJd7 7 b4 'ilc7 But not 7 ... 'ilVxa3 8 liJxdS!. 8 ~e1 'it>iS9 ltJd2 Missing his last chance of playing e4. 9...'ild6! 10 liJb3 i..h4! 11 .l:tn liJf6 12 ~f3 If 12 h3 liJhS wins, or if 12 g3 then 12 ... .txg3! would surely lead to a winning attack against the denuded White king. 12 ... liJg4! 13 g3 .l:txe3! 14 .l:!.exe3 ILxe3 and Black won.

White's knight dominates the centre, and Black dare not exchange it for his king's bishop because of the resulting weakness of his dark squares. Nevertheless, it is surprising to see how quickly White manages to force a decision. Play went: 1 h4! 'it>h8 Or 1... .l:tfS 2 't\Yh3 followed by g4. 2 h5 gxh5 3 'ilxh5 'it'g8 4 ~g4! Threatening i..f2. 4... 'it>h8 5 'ilVh3 ~g8 6 i..f2! i..c6 Or 6 .. Jlxf4 7 i..g3 winning at least the exchange. 7 i..h4 .l:!.ee8 8 i..g5 i..b5 9 ~e3 as 10 ~g3 ~f5 11 ~h4! Threatening 12 .tf6 against which Black is curiously helpless, because 12 ... 'it>h8 allows 13 ~h3. 11 ... .l:txg5 12 'ilr'xg5 ];tiS 13 ];tel i..e8 14 liJg4 i..g6 15 .l:txe6 'i'xf4 16 ~xg6 hxg6 17 ~xg6 1-0. The finish might be: 17 .. .'iVc7 18 liJh6+ 'it>h8 19 l::th3 forcing mate.

This is typical play against a backward pawn. Force your opponent onto the defensive, then hit him

And yet, despite the obvious weakness of backward pawns, players of certain openings, such as the

in another part of the board. The weak pawn itself often hinders communication between enemy pieces, and if the hole in front can be occupied by an attacking piece, this may well prove an even greater danger:

Ljubojevic v Donner Mallorca 1971

I I 0 The Pawns

French Defence and the Boleslavsky and Sveshnikov systems of the Sicilian Defence, deliberately accept this weakness, provided that it is linked with compensatory open lines, weak pawns/squares in the enemy camp, or mobile pawn masses. In other words, against a background of ultra-sharp openings, where a dynamic initiative is worth a great deal, almost anything goes, as ,we can see in this example from the Sveshnikov Sicilian which went as follows: Geller v Sveshnikov USSR 1978: 1 e4 c5 2 tDf3 tDc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tDxd4 tDf6 5 tDc3 e5!? 6 tDb5 d6 7 .ltg5 a6 8 tDa3 b5 9 tDd5 .lte7 10 .ltxf6 .ltxf6 11 c3 0-0 12 tDc2 .ltg5 13 a4 bxa4 14 lha4 a5 15 .ltc4 l:lb8 16 b3 ~h8 17 0-0 f5 18 exf5 .ltxf5 19 'iiVe2 'iVd7 20 tDce3 .lte6 21 Itdl .ltd8

linked to his concession of an extremely weak pawn on d6. Let us see how the game develops: 22 1:I:a2 'tWf7 23 ~d3! Planning tDfl-g3-e4; the immediate 23 tDfl is answered by 23 ... tDe7!. 23 .. :ilVh5 24 tDfl e4!? Black must act before White's knight reaches e4. 25 ~c2 .lth4 26 tDg3 .ltxg3 27 hxg3 tDe5! 28 tDf4 Or 28 tDe3? .ltxc4 29 bxc4 tDd3 30 i:!d2 ~c5! threatening 31...tDxf2. 28 ... l::!.xf4 29 gxf4

Geller v Sveshnikov (cont.)

Geller v Sveshnikov USSR 1978 White has built up excellent control of the hole at d5 and has forced Black onto the defensive. You could say that White has the perfect set-up against a backward pawn and yet, somehow, he manages to lose in another 13 moves! Despite Black's obvious weaknesses, he has, of course, the two bishops, useful pressure down the 'f' file and a potential kings ide attack, all of which are

What a dramatic change from 8 moves ago! Black is down on material but has a mating attack as compensation. The game finished as follows: 29 ... tDf3+! 30 gxf3 But not 30 fl .ltg4! 31 gxf3 'tihl+ 32 ~e2 'iYxf3+ etc. 30 ... .ltxc4 31 'iVxe4! If 31 bxc4 exf3 32 l:ld5 'iVg4+ 33 ~fl ne8! 34 ~g5 'tih3+ 35 ~gl l:!.el mate; or 31 fxe4 'iVg4+ 32 'it>hl .ltxb3 33 ~bl J1b5 34 f5 .ltxc2 35 ~xb5 .ltxe4+ wins. 31.. ..ltxb3 32 l:l.bl If 32 l:tb2? ~e8!. 32 .. J~e8 33 .!:ha5 d5 34 lIel? Time-trouble; after 34 ~xe8+ 'iVxe8 35 l:txb3 ~g6+ 36 ~fl 'ikd3+ 37 g2 'iVg6+ and 34 lhb3 ~xe4 35 ~b8+ ~e8 36 llaa8 ~g6+ 37 h2 ~h5+ the game is drawn. 34.. :iVg6+! 0-1. After 35 'it'xg6 ~hel+ 36 ~g2 hxg6 Black has a loop-hole for his king.

The Pawns 1 I I

Doubled Pawns

When not part of a compact pawn mass, doubled pawns tend to make most masters shudder. At least one of the pawns is usually vulnerable, as shown in our first example:

Bisguier v Peretz Netanya 1971

Uhlmann v Botvinnik Munich Olympiad 1958 White has tried to cover up the weakness of his c4 pawn by attacking on the queens ide, but Botvinnik now seizes the chance to put more pressure on the pawn by 1. .. bxa5! 2 '!:!'a1 lLlb6! 3 ~xa5 ~e4!! But not 3... ttJxc4? 4 i.xc4 'iVxa5 5 ~xe6+ and 6l:txb7. 4 ~xe4 fxe4 5 'iVb3 Or 5 'iVxe4 lLlxc4 6 ~xe6+ 'iVf7 winning. 5... lLlxe4 6 'ifxe4 'ir'xa5 7 ~xe6+ 'it>h8 8 Ita2 'iIIe7 9 'i;Vxe4 'Wifi 1-0. The mechanics of attacking the weak pawn are shown clearly in our next position. Firstly, the weak pawn is fixed so that it cannot escape the attack, then further pres. sure is applied:

1 lLla4! 'ifie7 l...c4 2 i.a3 wins the exchange. 2 e4! Fixing the c5 pawn. 2... lLle7 3 i.e3! d4 Forced, but now Black's pawns are even weaker. 4 i.e1 i.b7 5 i.a3 lLla6 6 'i;Va5 winning a pawn and, later, the game. It is important to realize that the weak squares and lack of mobility created by doubled pawns are often even more fatal than the weakness of the pawns themselves. An example will make this clear:

Larsen v Cafferty Teesside 1972

112 The Pawns

To quote Larsen himself: "Black's doubled and isolated pawns are not weak in themselves as they restrain White's centre pawns but it is an old story their weakness is in the square in front of them. The knight on e4 is a tremendous piece." We can add that the doubled pawns also hinder Black's mobility, with the e5 pawn blocking his bishop and tying down a minor piece to a purely defensive role. White's knight is indeed worth a rook and, combined with the action of his bishop on the long diagonal, won the game for him as follows: 1 h5 'ilVd7 2 h6 g6 3 d4! Strangely enough, having used the doubled pawns to acquire the better position, Larsen now eliminates them to open up lines onto the enemy king whose position he has further weakened by h6. 3 ... exd4 4 .ixd4 e5 5 .ib2 b5 6 'it>al ~b8 7 J:!d5 tDe7 8 l:td3 ~e6 9 ~hdl Itb6 10 tDg5 'iVc8 11 f4! tDc6 12 ~g2! tDe7 13 fxe5 .ic5 14 lId7 .ixe3 15 l:i:xe7 .ixg5 16 llg7+ Wh8 17 e6! 1-0. A beginner can readily see that a pawn is weak but finds it difficult to understand the concept of weak squares. Pawns are inevitably linked to squares more than pieces are, because one of their main tasks is to guard important squares against occupation by enemy pieces. The very nature of isolated/doubled pawns means that the square in front of them (the 'blockading square') is an ideal post for enemy pieces which are thus in some respects shielded from danger. In fact, it is often worthwhile to sacrifice a pawn to bring about doubled pawns with their attendant weak squares and self-blocking tendencies, as Capablanca shows us in the next position:

Ed. Lasker v Capablanca Lake Hopatcong 1926 By playing 1...e3! Black uses his own weak pawn as a fighting weapon to cause disruption in the enemy ranks. As the subsequent play shows, Black has no immediate tactics arising from this move but is aiming for long-term positional advantages. His judgement was vindicated after 2 fxe3 The tempting 2 .ixb7 exd2+ 3 tDxd2 fails to 3... .ie6! 4 ~a4+ lZ'lbd7 5 .ixa8 'iYxa8 with two minor pieces for the rook. 2... .ic6! 3 0-0 .ixg2 4 'it>xg2 .ie7 5 tDc3 0-0 6 tDf3 lZ'lbd7 7 e4 I:tc8 8 ~5 a6! with an excellent position. If now 9 'il¥xb7 then 9... tDc5 10 ~4 tDcxe4 11 ~3 tDxc3 12 bxc3 tDe4 l3 .ib2 .if6 14 ~ac 1 ~a5 is the sort of pressure that Black can build up. In the game, Lasker played 9 ~f5 and stood worse after 9 .. Jlc5 10 'iWf4 ':c4 11 .ie3 .ic5! with Black controlling the central squares. It was the memory of this game that prompted me to try out the same positional sacrifice after 1 e4 d6 2 d4 tDf6 3 tDc3 g6 4 .ie3 .ig7 5 ~d2 c6 6 tDf3 tDbd7 7 e5!? Apparently a new move but it has been seen in certain similar lines of the King's Indian Defence. 7... dxe5 8 dxe5 tDg4 9 e6!? fxe6

The Pawns 113

guarantee that it is Black who has the problems, all of which stemmed from the disruption engendered by 9 e6!?

J. Littlewood v Shabanov Gladenbach 1999 The positional aspect is even more in evidence here, because after 10 ttJg5 ttJde5 11 ~xd8+ 'it>xd8 12 .lid4! We8 13 ~dl iLf6 14 h3! ttJh6 15 ttJce4 ttJf5 16 iLc3 ttJg7 17 tbxf6+ exf6 18 ttJe4 ttJd7 19 ttJxf6+ tbxf6 20 iLxf6 f7 21 iLe5 I:te8 22 g4!, although I had recovered my pawn, it was the resulting positional pressure that eventually gained me a hard-earned point from this position:

J. Littlewood v Shabanov (cont.) Clearly, there is no forced win from here. However, Black's weak dark squares, awkwardly placed king and difficulty in developing his queens ide, in conjunction with my two bishops and the useful 'd' file

Yet, despite the gloomy picture we have painted so far, there are times when doubled pawns can be strong or at least have compensatory factors. For example, it is well known that in the Giuoco Piano opening, after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 tbc6 3 iLc4 iLc5 4 tbc3 tbf6 5 d3 d6 6 iLe3 it.,xe3 (better 6 ... it.,b6 or 6 ... 0-0) 7 fxe3, White's doubled pawns are a source of strength. There are two main reasons for this: the 'f file is extremely useful for attacking purposes and the d4 and f4 squares are no longer available as posts for enemy pieces. However, it is interesting to note that, if ever White wishes to mobilize his central pawn mass by playing d4, his pawn set-up immediately becomes weaker. Consider also the following position:

Capablanca v Em. Lasker New York 1924 After 1 it.,xf6 Lasker played 1...gxf6!? producing an interesting unbalanced game with chances for both sides. On the one hand, this pawn controls the vital e5 square and

114 The Pawns

Black has the 'g' file at his disposal whilst, on the other hand, he can now hardly consider playing ... e5 without creating serious weaknesses in the pawn mass. Play continued: 2 ltJh4 h8! 3 f4! l:[g8 4 1If3 .ltd7 5 l:lh3 .te8! with fighting chances for both sides. The fact that Lasker eventually lost the game was not due to his bold and dynamic decision to recapture on f6 with the pawn. The compact central pawn mass was a strength rather than a weakness, and White won only when Lasker allowed these pawns to be eliminated. . Throughout his career, Botvinnik had a penchant for the doubled pawn complex, showing uncanny awareness of the dynamic possibilities that off-set the potential weaknesses, yet even he in 1948, at the peak of his powers, suffered a humiliating loss to Reshevsky, because he could not escape from the straitjacket that doubled pawns had landed him in. Here, in contrast, is his characteristic treatment of a position where he has the d5 square at his disposal:

about a situation in which the potential weakness of his pawns becomes a secondary factor, whereas the opening of the 'd' file in conjunction with the occupation of d5 are shown to be the winning ideas. Play went: 1 .txf6! 'iYxf6 2 'iYe4! .txf3 2 ... .tc8 3 ltJd2 ltJc6 4 f4! is good for White. 3 .txf3 ltJc6 4 dxc5! dxc5 5 ~dl nad8 6 ~d5! b6 Or 6 ... nxd5 7 cxd5 ltJe7 8 d6! 'iYxd6 9 ~xb7 and White stays in command. 7 l:tfdl ltJa5 8 h3 lIxd5 9 ~xd5! But not 9 cxd5 ~d6! blockading the d5 pawn, with a good game for Black. 9 ..."iVe7 10 .tg4! ~b7 11 .tf5! and White's beautifully centralized pieces won the game for him. Even more original is Botvinnik's play in our next position, again using the idea of occupation of d5:

Botvinnik v Kan Leningrad 1939

Botvinnik v Chekhover Leningrad 1938 Taking advantage of his slight lead in development, he brings

Annotating this game, Botvinnik comments: "At first glance, White's pawn structure is bad, so Black has nothing to fear. This would be true if all the pieces were removed from the board, but in the present position the 'hole' at d5 is more important because, in order to control d5 fully, White will have to play e4, when the

The Pawns 115

pawn on c3 will protect the vital d4 square." Let us see how he justifies this assertion: 1 dxe5! dxe5 2 .td3 h6 Or 2 ... g6 3 ctJe4. 3 0-0 0-0 4 f4! Just in time to prevent ... f5 followed by ... e4. 4... ctJd7 5 f5! Logically pursuing his plan. 5... ttJf6 6 ttJe4! ~d8 7 ctJxf6+ 'it'xf6 8 .te4 and this bishop reached d5 where it dominated the position and played a large part in winning the game for White. To conclude our discussion of doubled pawns, we must see what happens on the rare occasions they are mobile and used as an attacking weapon. In the play from our next position, Black has to prevent White blockading the pawns, when they would lose most of their effectiveness. The apparently simple se-· quence of moves contains a deal of art:

Robatsch v Larsen Halle 1963 1... f5! 2 0-0 .tg7 3 'i'h5 e4! 4 .te2 0-0 5 c3 White has no time for f4. 5... f4! 6 ~g5 b5 7 ctJd2 f5! In a few powerful moves, Larsen has turned a defensive position into an

attacking one by taking command of the centre, opening the long diagonal for his king's bishop and preparing to use the open 'g' file. His doubled pawns guard important squares and ... S is in the offing. A remarkable transformation! 8 a4 'it>h8! 9 ttJb3 Or 9 S i.f6 10 Vi'xf4ctJxd5 11 't\Vg3 .th4 12 'iVh3ctJf4 and Black's queen is lost. 9... f3! 10 gxf3 .txc3! and Black won comfortably, his pieces having reached maximum efficiency. Passed Pawns

So far we have been examining the pawn principally as an adjunct, albeit important, to the pieces, but we must not forget that it can be a power in its own right when it becomes passed and heads for promotion. Of course, pawn promotion is one of the main themes of endgames, when there are fewer pieces on the board and the king can play its full part in supporting passed pawns. However, just imagine the difficulties there are in promoting a pawn in a middle game situation! To the author, this is one of the most fascinating aspects of chess, as it often reads to that complete reversal of values we discussed in Chapter 2. Let us begin with an unforgettable example which has always been my favourite, despite the fact that its provenance may be dubious. It is the didactic importance I am concerned about here, because even a study composer would have been proud to produce such a glorious 'composition' :

116 The Pawns

Ortueta v Sanz Madrid 1933

Csom v Ribli Hungary 1970

At first sight, White seems to have a safe enough position, despite the fact that Black can answer lLIxb6 with .. .lhb2. It is Black's move and most players would perhaps settle for l...c3 2 bxc3 .!:txa2 3 lLIxb6 axb6 (not 3 ... .l:tb2 4 l:txa7 Itxb6 5 1:1:c7 when White stands better) 4 Itxb6 Ii.a3 with a probable draw. However, the magic of promotion drastically changes any casual positional assessment one might make. The startling 'solution' is as follows: l..Jhb2!! 2 lLIxb2 c3 3 l:i:xb6! The placing of White's king means that Black wins after 3 lLId3 c4+ 4 Wf1 cxd3 5 ~e 1 c2 6 'it>d2 ~e3+. 3 ... c4!! Threatening 4 ... c2. 4 l:i:b4! as! S a:xc4 cxb2 0-1. White cannot stop the pawn!

1 ~e7! ~fS Or l...:txe7 2 dxe7! ir'e8 3 'iVxa8! 'iVxa8 4 I'td8+ winning. 2 d7! 1-0. There is nothing Black can do, as 2 ... .l::!.ed8 fails to 3 ~xa8! :rxa8 4 d8=~+ l:.xd8 5 Itxd8+ ~f8 6 1:tee8 winning easily. To a master, this is almost standard procedure which we have already seen linked with deflection, overloading and back-rank mate themes, although clever play is often needed to exploit a promotion possibility. Consider, for example, Spassky's delightful play in the next position against a redoubtable defensive player:

Such situations are not as rare as the reader may imagine, even though they are hardly everyday occurrences. Whenever a pawn manages to reach the sixth or seventh rank, the possibility of promotion is in the air, with sacrifices often required to achieve this. Look at our next position: In view of the White queen's attack on Black's queen's rook, he can play ...

Spassky v Petrosian World Championship Match 1969 The first move 1 .!:tc8! is obvious enough (l...~xd4 2 :'xd8 l:txd8 3

ThePawns 117

~e8+) but the threats it creates are much more subtle. For instance, if Black plays l...b4 then 2 l:le8! 'ifxd4 (relying on the back-rank mate on dl after 3 ~cxd8??) 3 ~xf8+ ~xf8 4 .l:ixf8+ 'it>xf8 when the deflection S 'iVcS+! 'iYxcs 6 d8=iV mate gets there first. Petrosian defended with l...lZlb7 giving his d8 rook three defenders. After 2 ttJc6! ttJd6 he was hoping for 3 lhd8 ~xd8 4 ttJxd8 tDxfS S ~e8+ Wh7 6 ttJxfl ~d4! 7 d8=~ ~al+ mating, a nasty trap which Spassky avoided by playing 3 ttJxd8! ttJxf5 Or 3 ... lhd8 4 ~e8+ mating. 4 ttJc6! 1-0. There is no defence to the threats of S lIxf8+ Wxf8 6 Ite8 mate or the simple win of the queen after 4 ... tDd6 S l:!xf8+ Wxf8 6 d8='fW+.

This is a classic example of what Nimzovich called the removal of the 'blockader' i.e. in this case, the rook on d8 which had to capitulate in the end, despite its three-fold guard. In fact, Nimzovich constantly referred (in a quaint English translation!) to the pawn's 'lust to expand' and the need for the defence to 'restrain' or 'blockade' it. Here is a final complex illustration of a pawn's irresistible urge to advance against all odds:

The pOSItion screams out for 1 ttJxd5! exd5 2 e6 releasing the power of most of White's pieces and creating a passed pawn on the seventh rank after 2 .. :iVd8 3 exf7+! Wh8 3 ... Wxfl fails to 4 ~e6+ 'it>f8 S ttJgS! ~xgS 6 ~d6+ ttJe7 7 ~xdS followed by mate. 4 ttJe5 ttJcxe5 5 ~xe5+! ~f6 Or S... ttJxeS 6 ~xeS+ ~f6 7 ~xf6+ 'iVxf6 8 I:te8+ mating. 6 'ife8+ ttJf8

Vasyukov v Uhlmann (cont.) White's strong pawns on fl and h6 tie down Black's pieces, a fact which is now exploited by 7 i.e5! ~b6 The threat was 8 'iVxf8+ ~xf8 9 ~xf6 mate. 8 ~xd5! ~c8 9 ~e6! ~xe5 10 ~xc8 ~d6 11 ~xa6l:!.xa6 12 bxa4 lIa7 13 ~e6! ~c7 14 ~ael c4 15 l:txd6! 'iVxd6 16 kre6! 1-0. After 16 .. .'iVcs 17 d4 the last guard is removed from Black's knight. Although the pawn never queened here, it made White's queen invulnerable on e8 and played a vital part in a most unusual mating attack during which the Black pieces were curiously helpless. Wonderful play by a splendid tactician! Now, over to you:

Vasyukov v Uhlmann Berlin 1962

118 The Pawns

TEST 7.1 Madsen v Napolitano

TEST 7.4 Hennings v Barczay

Stockholm 1953

Sarajevo 1969

Black to play and win

Black to play and win

TEST 7.2 Dommes v Federov

TEST 7.5 Roth v Baumgartner

Moscow 1984

Berne 1959

White to play and win

Black to play and win

TEST 7.3 A N Other v Richter

TEST 7.6 Tarjan v Ljubojevic

Berlin 1931

Dresden 1969

Black to play and win

Black to play and win

The Pawns 119

Hints for Beginners

* The pawn's importance far outweighs its nominal value, as it plays a vital part in guarding pieces and squares and in opening up lines. * Isolated, hanging, backward and doubled pawns must all be viewed as static weaknesses but often have compensatory dynamic features that cannot be ignored. TEST 7. 7 Stein v Bilek Moscow 1967 White to play and win

* Generalisations about such weaknesses are in fact dangerous. Each individual set-up requires a concrete assessment which only experience will bring. Careful study of the examples in the text will give the reader some idea of the issues involved.

* There is a subtle relationship between pawns and pieces. The pawn structure strongly influences plans of action, a point that cannot be overstressed.

TEST 7. 8 Hort v Keres Oberhausen 1961 Black to play and win

* The possibility of pawn promotion often brings about a drastic reversal in values. Sacrifices abound in such situations.

8 Elements of Strategy

W

e hope that much of the material of the preceding chapters has already provided the reader with a number of useful strategic ideas which he can apply to his own games. How to exploit a centralized knight, avoid a 'bad' bishop, attack pawn weaknesses, choose the wing on which to castle, plan his game around the pawn structure, and so on. These are all intrinsic aspects of the strengths and weaknesses of pieces and pawns, which form the basis of what we can do tactically and strategically. However, so far we have (deliberately!) stressed the tactical elements in positions, rather than discuss the underlying strategy, so it is now time to redress the balance by examining some of the most important elements of positional play.

Time As beginners, we are taught that recognition of the value of time is an essential part of successful opening play. Great emphasis is placed on rapid development of our pieces, not moving a piece twice, making as few pawn moves as possible and castling speedily in order to make the king safe and bring our rooks to

the central files. Ever since the days of Morphy and Anderssen, the time factor has been readily understood by most players, who are presented with some wonderful examples of the drastic punishment meted out to those players who neglect it. Just for one moment, let us return to the Romantic Era of the 19'h century and see what happens to a greedy player who neglects his development: Sch1etser v Chigorin St. Petersburg 1878 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 f5?! The King's Gambit Reversed! 3 exf5 Better 3 ttJxe5 'iVf6 4 d4 d6 5 ttJc4 with excellent play for White. 3 ... ttJc6 4 ~b5 ~c5?! 4 ... e4 is better. 5 ~xc6 dxc6 6 ttJxe5 ~xf5 7 'iWh5+? Here comes the greed; 7 0-0 is fine for White. 7... g6 8 ttJxg6 hxg6 9 'ii'xh8 ~e7+

Elements of Strategy 121

With the exception of his queen, all White's pieces are on their original square, his d2 pawn has not yet moved and his king 'must move out of check. What a shocking position! If now 10 n iLxc2! 11 ~c3 (or 11 ~xg8+ 'it'd7 12 ~c4 Ite8! wins) 1L~e4 12 d4 iLxd4 13 'ti'd2 i.xbl wins, so White opts for 10 dl (threatening l:tel), only to find that 10 ... SLxf2! 11 ~xg8+ Or 11 h3 0-0-0 threatening both .. J:te8 and ... i.d4. 11 ... d7 12 ~c4 ~e8 leaves him with nothing but 13 d4 i.g4+ 14 Wd2 ~e3 mate or 0-1. Before the readers fling up their arms in horror at the dreadful way that White played here, I readily admit that present-day errors are in no way as glaring as these. However, despite all the teachings of Steinitz and Tarrasch, players persist in providing us with short brilliancies resulting from neglect of the time factor! Here are some examples: Boros v Lilienthal Budapest 1933. After the moves 1 e4 e5 2 liJc3 liJf6 3 f4 d5 4 fxe5 liJxe4 5 VWf3 liJc6, White casually played 6 liJxe4 hoping to win a pawn but ignoring the time factor. Lilienthal continued: 6 ... ttJd4! 7 'it'f4 dxe4 Not 7 ... ttJxc2+ 8 Wdl ttJxal, falling into the same error by losing time and allowing 9 ttJgS with the better game. 8 i.c4 .1i.f5! Defending and attacking at the same time.

Boros v Lilienthal If now 9 'it>dl, Black could produce a striking series of threats with gain of time by 9 ... gS! 10 ~g3 e3! 11 d3 bS 12 i.b3 cS! 13 SLxe3 c4 winning, so White continued: 9 c3, expecting to gain time himself, but Black now finished the game with 9... g5! 10 SLxf7+ Or 10 ~n ttJc2+ 11 e2 SLg4+ winning; or 10 ~f2 e3! 11 dxe3 ttJc2+ 12 'it'e2 ~d7 13 l:tbl 0-0-0 winning. lO ... Wxf7 11 'iWf2 e3 12 'iWfl exd2+ 13 'it'dl If 13 SLxd2 liJc2+ 14 'it>dl ttJe3+ winning the queen. 13 ... dxc1=~+ 14 Wxc1 g4! 0-1. After 14 ~f4 hS the queen is lost. A speedy refutation of a seemingly slight error. The key to such attacks is to continue to gain time with each threat or developing move, so that your opponent has no opportunity to catch up in development himself. Such play is by no means as easy as it looks. Consider, for example, our next game: Ravinsky v Kotov Moscow 1944, after the moves 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 g3 dxc4 4 ~a4+ SLd7 5 ~xc4 c5 6 i.g2 i.c6 7 liJf3 ttJd7 8 0-0 ttJgf6 9 ttJc3

122 Elements of Strategy

Bronstein v Geller Goteborg 1955. 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3lLlc6 3 iLb5 g6 4 c3 iLg7 5 d4 ~b6 6 a4 cxd4 7 O-O! a6 8 iLxc6 'it'xc6 Black should have settled for 8... dxc6 9 lLlxd4 lLlf6. 9 cxd4 'it'xe4? Too risky, in view of White's superior development; perhaps Geller did not foresee the difficulties he would experience in trying to develop his kingside pieces in the face of Bronstein's subtle play. 10 lLlc3 'iVf5 11 ~el d5 Or ll...d6 12 iLg5!. 12 a5! and we arrive at the critical position: From a purely quantitive point of view, White is ahead in development, but his queen is awkwardly placed, a factor which Black cleverly exploits in the subsequent play. Admittedly, White makes an error in a difficult position, but the finish is a most instructive example of how to develop with gain of time: 9... b5! 10 ~d3 He loses a piece after 10 lLlxb5 lLlb6! 11 'iWb3 c4. 10.. :i'Vb6 11 e4? Best was 11 lLle5. 11 ... cxd4! 12 'iYxd4 If 12 lLlxd4 lLle5 13 'it'd 1 l:td8 14 iLe3 iLc5, all with gain of time, gives Black a winning position. 12 ... iLc5 13 'it'd3 b4 14 e5 lLlg4 15 lLla4 iLxf2+ 16 hl 'iVb5! 17 'iWd2 iLxf3 and Black won quickly. It is rare for a grandmaster to ignore the time factor, although our next example shows Geller, no materialist, suffering because he thought he had time to capture a centre pawn. Perhaps one explanation is that because defensive technique has improved so much, there is always a player who thinks he has found an exception to the rule. "If Korchnoi can do it, so can I", is facile rationalization that can prove fatal, as Bronstein now shows:

Bronstein v Geller Goteborg 1955 The subtle point of White's last move, which seems to lose time, is that Black's natural developing move 12 ... lLlf6 can now be met by 13 lle5! 'Vi'd7 14 lLla4! ~d8 15 lLlb6 ~b8 16 i.f4 winning; or here 15 ... ~a7 16 iLf4 0-0 17 ~cl! iLg4 18 h3 iLxf3 19 'iVxf3 e6 20 'iVa3! and Black is helpless. In view of this, Geller continued 12...i.d7 13 'it'b3 lLlf6 Hoping for 14 'iYxb7 O-O!. 14 lIe5 ~d3 and now lost his queen to 15 lixe7+! xe7 16 lLlxd5+ followed by 17 'iVxd3. It is important to note how accurately White had to play to stop Geller escaping. Positions involving time are often like this; the advantage can so easily slip

Elements of Strategy 123

away and one tempo can mean the difference between a win and a loss. Unfortunately, there is no rule of thumb we can offer the beginner in such situations, as so much depends on intuition, based on experience, which helps us sense the fine balance that exists between time and material. In other words, if Geller can take a wrong view, so can we all.

exert their full power. In fact, recently I came across a most bizarre Basman game which almost appears to confound the whole concept of time in chess, although in this instance the psychological aspect seems paramount! Look at this position, arising after the moves 1 ttJf3 b6 2 g3 .lib7 3 .lig2 e6 4 0-0 d5 5 c4 ttJf6 6 d4 .lie7 7 ttJc3 0-0 8 ttJe5 h6 9 .lif4 a6 10 l:i.c1 ~a7 11 cxd5 exd512~3:

Some theoreticians have advised beginners to count tempi for pieces developed, but I feel that this is more of a hindrance than a help. As we saw in the Ravinsky v Kotov position, it is often the quality of development, rather than the quantity, that matters, and a concrete assessment of specific tactical possibilities· is more relevant than a formalistic count of tempi. For instance, I have seen many positions where a queen's rook, queen's bishop or queen, still on their original squares, are ready for action and can even win the game by the very first move they make! What is the relevance of tempi and development in such contexts? Matters are complicated by the fact that a time advantage can easily be overrated, especially by players who are accustomed to open games. The latter often result from gambit openings, where piece play is exclusively the order of the day, with files ready to be occupied by rooks, and an exposed king open to an immediate frontal attack. I myself remember being completely baffled, as a youngster, by closed or semiclosed positions where the time factor looms less large, because there are fewer points of attack or open lines for our developed pieces to

Andersson v Basman Hastings 1973/1974 After 12 moves, Basman has a difficult position, whereas White's purposeful development, posting a knight on e5, attacking the d5 pawn and creating an open file allowing him to exert pressure on the c7 pawn, seems to be leading towards a typical positional win a la Andersson. Annotating this game, Nigel Short wrote in the Sunday Telegraph: "Realizing something is amiss, Mike resorts to unusual psychological provocation." In fact, Basman now plays the next 12 moves as follows: ... .lia8 ...h7 2 c;t>g8 ... c;t>h7 ... 'it>g8 ... .lib7 ... .lia8 ... .lib7 ... .lia8 ...'iVd6 (hurrah!) ...iVd8 (boo!) ... .lib7 bringing about the same Black position as 12 moves

124 Elements of Strategy

before! As for Andersson, he has meanwhile brought his king's rook to d2, his pawns to a3, e3, f5, g4 and h3, his king to h2 and his queen's bishop back to f4 after retreating to g3. White now plays 24 ~gl allowing the brilliant resource (all right, I'm being sarcastic ... ) 24 ... c6!!? and Basman managed to As Short win 30 moves later. stated: "It becomes an embarrassment to make a draw against someone who has deliberately played in so ridiculous a fashion." Has this extraordinary game any relevance to our discussion of the time factor? Yes indeed. Setting aside the psychological aspects, on move 12 Basman suddenly decided that time (i.e. speed of development) was no longer the important issue. What he now wanted to know was White's intended plan. Was Andersson going to double rooks on the 'c' file and aim for an attack on the queenside? Was he going to play for a prophylactic game by l:[fdl, with the intention of stifling any Black counter-play? Or was he going to launch an attack on the kings ide, which would inevitably entail moving his major pieces away from the queenside? One thing is certain: it is extremely difficult for him to combine all of these plans, and yet he must surely do something, as long as Basman sits there doing nothing! He could of course offer a draw (which Mike might refuse!) or play for a humiliating draw by repetition ... Even when the position calls for piece play and rapid development, it can be very difficult to balance time against material. Here is an interesting and unusual game, involving a

piece sacrifice, which may give the reader some idea of this delicate balance. White's time advantage persists until the very last move, but my intuition tells me that Black could have improved somewhere along the line: Karlsson v Jansson Sweden 1971: 1 e4 e5 2 ctJf3 ctJc6 3 i.b5 f5 4 d4!? fxe4 5 ctJxe5 ctJxe5 6 dxe5 c6 A trap into which I once fell, meekly losing an important pawn after 7 i.a4? ~a5+ and 8 .. :~xe5, whereas Karlsson has deliberately opted for this line and a sacrifice of his own. 7 tDc3! cxb5 8 tDxe4 d5 9 exd6 tDf6 10 O-O! The logic of the position demands further sacrifice. 10 ... tDxe4 11 'iVh5+ g6 12 ~e5+ ~f7 13 ~xh8 'iVxd6 Compare this position with the earlier Chi gorin massacre!. 14 'iVxh7+ i.g7 15 i.h6 ~f8! The alternative 15 ... ~f6 16 .a:fel tDg5 17 IIe7+! Wxe7 18 i.xg5 'i¥xg5 19 'iYxg7+ should win for White. 16 l:tadl giving us our next diagram:

Karlsson v Jansson Sweden 1971 In recapturing material, White has lost some of his time advantage, and at this stage in a game a reaction often takes place, as the defence catches up in development. White has rook and two pawns for bishop

Elements of Strategy 125

and knight, but 16 ... Ae6 would set more problems than the game continuation, although White has good chances and may even decide to keep queens on the board. 16 ... ttJf6 17 ~xg7+ ~xg7 18 i.xg7 'it'xg7 19 l:td8! b6 20 .i::tfdl! The point. 20 ... 'it'f7 If 20 ... Ab7 then 21 ~8d7+ wins both pieces back, with a winning endgame. 21 f3! rj;;e7 22 g4 g5 23 h4! gxh4 24 g5 Just in time to prevent ... i.b7. 24 ... ttJe8 25 f4 ttJc7 26 g6 Ae6 At last, but too late. 27 ~xa8 ttJxa8 28 !Iel! 'it>d7 Or 28 ... 'it>f6 29 g7 Afl 30 ne8! winning. 29 f5 Axf5 30 g7 Ah7 31 .l:i.n ttJc7 32l:i:f8 1-0. Let us finish this section with two test positions:

TEST 8.1 Smyslov v Kottnauer Groningen 1946

If White were to play routine developing moves such as Ag5, followed by doubling rooks on the 'd' file, his time advantage would soon disappear, as Black's central squares are well guarded. Instead, Smyslov plans to exploit the weakness of Black's queenside by means of direct threats, thus giving Black no time to consolidate by ... Ae7 and ... 0-0. Only after tying Black down to defence does he complete the

development of his pieces, when everything works to perfection. Play proceeded: 1 a4! bxa4 1... b4 only apparently gains time, as 2 ttJa2 a5 3 ttJb5 wins easily. 2 ttJxa4 i.b7 After 2 ... i.e7 3 i.d2! gives White a winning queens ide attack. and now over to you to work out the finish. Our final position comes from a game Shirov v J. Polgar Tilburg 1996, which went: 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 5 ttJc3 a6 6 Ae2 e6 7 0-0 Ae7 8 f4 0-0 9 Ae3 ~c7 10 g4! lie8 11 f5!? Af8? l1...h6!. 12 g5 ttJfd7 13 ttJxe6! fxe6 14 Ah5! g6 15 fxg6 !:te7 16 ttJd5! exd5 17 'iVxd5+ 'it>h8 18 gxh7 llxh7 19 Ag6!? 19 g6! is even better. 19 ... Ag7 20 Axh7 ~d8

TEST 8.2 Shirov v J. Polgar Tilburg 1996 White to play and win

Alexei Shirov, surely the greatest attacking player since Mikhail Tal, has launched an aggressive attack on Black's king, based on the rapid advance of his kings ide pawns and relying on the fact that time is on his side. He now played 21 Af5 and won an attractive game, but in his annotations he points out an alternative move which leads to a forced win. Find this win!

126 Elements of Strategy

Space

One of the main advantages of our next major element, space, is that, the more you have, the less there is available to your opponent! His position becomes cramped, the mobility of his pieces is restricted and they begin to interfere with each other's action. The psychological effect can be akin to claustrophobia, as he feels the need to break out of this situation, with weak moves if need be. Your pieces, on the other hand, rejoice in open lines and flexibility, being able to switch wings effortlessly and to cooperate more successfully. Your only real problem is that of an army which advances too quickly with insufficient support from the rear, leaving vulnerable gaps in its wake or else being smashed where it stands, an important issue we shall deal with shortly, in our discussion of the centre. Let us examine some games which illustrate the ways a space advantage can be exploited, beginning with a position from one of Lilienthal's best games in which he outplayed an opponent who was to become World Champion eight years later:

Lilienthal v Botvinnik Moscow 1940

It only takes a glance to realize that Black is completely tied up. His knight has been driven to the edge of the board where it is pinned down to the defence of his c7 pawn. In stark contrast, White's knight reigns supreme on f4, a post made secure by the restraining advance of his pawn to h5 and by the fact that it blockades the f5 pawn which shields it from a frontal attack. The pawn on d5 is the basis of White's space advantage, cramping the whole of Black's game and eyeing the 'holes' on c6 and e6, whilst the useful b4 pawn supports the pressure of his doubled rooks down the 'c' file.

All this is very fine, but how does White utilize this undoubted advantage? 1 e4 is by no means a bad move, but would give Black's pieces more air, and 1 e3 followed by 2 sHI could be answered by ... b5. Lilienthal's solution is to use his greater mobility to produce more threats which cannot be countered by Black's cramped pieces. Play continued: 1 .a:e3! t>h7 Black dare not play I...~e8 2 ~xe8+ 'iVxe8 3 'tWd3 b5 4 "iVd4 'iYb8 5 .lth3! .ltc8 6 e4 fxe4 7 .ltxc8 "iVxc8 8 Wkxe4, threatening 9 tbg6 'iVa8 10 ~c6! winning. Note how White can take his time when he has so strong a positional bind. 2 lIec3 ~b8 3 ~d3 !:ta8 4 tbg6! !txg6 Black has no choice, because 4 ... .ltc8 5 l:te7 'iVg8 6 'ifb5 .ltb7 7 l:tce3! would triumphantly conclude White's plan. S hxg6+ Wxg6 6 lIe6+! c;t>h7 7 g4 eS 8 bS tbe7 9 gxfS tbxbS 10 f6+ 'it'g8 11 ne4! l:te8 12 l1g4 gS 13 !:txe8+ i.xe8 14 .a:e4 t>f8 IS l:te7 iVg6 16 i.e4 ~hS Or 16 ... ~xf6 17 Itxe8+ Wxe8 18 iVxb5+. 17 .ltf3 "iVg6 18 l:txe8+! 1-0. After 18 ... iVxe8 19 'tWh7 'it'D 20 'iVxh6+ t>g8 21 .lth5, Black loses at least his queen.

Elements of Strategy 127

It is of course unusual for a player to have so many positional advantages that he can dominate the board in this way without fearing counterplay, but it is the classic method of establishing a 'zugzwang' position. The opponent's pieces are tied down by threats, then space is gradually taken from them until there is no decent move left. So-called 'positional' games are characterized by this emphasis on 'restriction and control of enemy pieces, although it forms a part of most games. Space advantage does not come of its own accord. It has to be worked at from the opening stages, as in the following game in which both sides gain space on opposite wings, whilst trying to neutralize the opponent's pressure. The result is a fascinating, fluctuating struggle which is eventually lost by the player whose king becomes fatally exposed:

Miles v P. Littlewood England 1984: 1 c4 e5 2 CDc3 CDf6 3 CDf3 CDc6 4 d3 d6 5 g3 g6 6 i.g2 i.g7 7 0-0 0-0 8 ~bl as 9 a3 l:le8 10 i.g5 h6 11 i.xf6 ~xf6 12 b4 axb4 13 axb4 ~d8 14 b5 CDe7 15 'ifb3 i.e6 16 ttJd2 ~b8 17 l:tal c6 18l::ta7

Over the years, results from this type of position have strongly favoured White, because he has

already gained space on the queenside, thus enhancing the power of his bishop on g2. He is prepared to defend against a rash advance of Black's 'f and 'g' pawns, whilst prosecuting his own 'positional' attack. The exchange of his darksquared bishop for Black's king's knight formed part of this lightsquare strategy, but it has also meant that, if ever Black develops a kingside attack, the dark squares around White's king will be vulnerable. In addition, because Black has maintained a flexibility of action on the kings ide, he can utilize his bishop on g7 to support a central advance which is more akin to White's play in the Closed Sicilian a la Smyslov or Spassky. We are in for an exciting space conflict! Play continued: 18 ... d5! 19 lic1 h5! The correct way to attack whilst retaining the options for piece play on f5, f6, g4 and h6. 20 't\Va2 Guarding his knight on d2 and removing his queen from the influence of Black's queen's rook, so that bxc6 can be played. 20 ... h4 21 bxc6 bxc6 22 CDf3 h3! A bold decision that many players would shy away from, because Black immediately loses the option of weakening White's kings ide pawns and is clearly banking on a sacrificial attack by pieces. 23 i.hl CDf5 24 ttJd2 i.h6 25 .l:1dl

128 Elements of Strategy

The contrast with the previous diagram is significant: by seizing the centre, advancing his pawn to h3 and posting his knight on f5 and king's bishop on h6, Black has not only nullified White's space advantage but has taken over control of key points in the enemy camp. The awaited sacrifice 25 ... liJe3!! now completes the plan begun 7 moves ago, and the game finished: 26 fxe3 i.xe3+ 27 'it>n 'iVf6+ 28 i.f3 Planning to give back his piece on e4 after 28 ... e4, but Paul has catered for this possibility. 28 ... i.d4! 29 1:[a3 i.xc3 30 l:txc3 e4 31 'iVc2 exf3 32 liJxf3 d4! 33 l:!.a3 i.g4 34 ~a2 ~e3 35 'it>gl .l::i.be8 36 Itn i.xf3 37 exf3 Itxf3 38 'iVdl ktee3! 39 IIaf2 Itxf2 40 lhf2 'iike6 41 'it>n c5 42 'iVd2 ~b6 43 'ilVdl ~b4! 44 :td2 iVb7! 45 ~gl ~xd3! 0-1. A game-plan well worth careful study and executed beautifully. As we have seen, space is usually gained by a pawn advance of some sort, because pawns are best suited for tying down enemy pawns and pieces and controlling vital squares. Take the following unpretentious looking position that is rapidly transformed into an excellent illustration of how pawns can be used in this way: .

~

~~

~1~~ ~ ~~

Within ten moves, White takes command of the whole board, while Black looks on helplessly, seemingly unaware of what is happening to him and why. White's two bishops play no small part in allowing his pawns to advance so dramatically, as follows: 1 c4 c6 2 c5 i.c7 3 i.g2 liJg4 4 liJc3! As the intention is to cramp Black's pieces, it is sound strategy not to exchange any. 4... liJg6 5 .l::i.ael liJf6 6 lle2 'it>h8 7 f3! h5? It is unwise to help your opponent to open lines which will be more useful to him than you. 811ef2! h4 9 f4! hxg3 10 hxg3 exf4 11 gxf4 ~d7 12 f5! liJh4 13 e5 liJh7 14 i.e4! ~g8 15 IIh2 1-0. Black's game is hopeless, and after 15 ... g5 White can choose his winning method at leisure. When the defence plays correctly by refusing to open lines for our attack, we can still use our space advantage in an instructive way. Because it is then easier to build up superior force in a given sector, sacrifices are normally possible, followed up by the infiltration of our remaining pieces. The defence, on the contrary, being necessarily cramped, cannot bring up sufficient reserves. Here is a typical example:

fse~

~~1~~1 ~~r ~~

1%~·~r.iCiJf;~···~. ~% ~~j'~'% ~

~~~Jr~~

0$, .... ·'~~~~M~~~~ ~

~~

~:c:W:J~~

~

~

~§W

'. . ·'~¥Iff.ltr· . 'f.~ Planinc v Mestrovic Cacak 1970

Lorenz v Espig East Germany 1970

Elements of Strategy 129

Having committed the bulk of his forces to the queens ide, Black is simply in no position to resist the sacrificial attack which White now launches: 1 .ktxh6! gxh6 2 'iWd2 '1J.c7 3 1\Vxh6 J:tg7 The threat was 4 liJh5 followed by 5 g7.4liJh5! 'Wie7 5 liJg5! The point; now 6 liJf7 is threatened, so the knight must be captured, releasing the power of the advanced pawns. 5 ... fxg5 6 hxg5 Jlh7 Despair, but White was threatening, among other things, 7 ~h2 followed by 8 liJf6+ and 9 1\Vh8 mate. 7 gxh7+ 1-0. After 7 .. .'~xh7 8 liJf6+ I!xf6 9 gxf6+ 'it>h8 10 1\Vg7+ iVxg7 11 fxg7+ 'it>g8 12 f6! Black's pieces cannot prevent the fatal 13 f7+. It is of course rare to obtain an advanced pawn wedge in the centre, unless our opponent has played very badly, but there are occasions when a player can bring about what can be called a temporary wedge. This sometimes occurs in certain openings when, for example, a pawn is advanced into the heart of enemy territory, temporarily gaining space and dislocating communications. We have here an unusual combination of the time and space elements that must be exploited before our wedge is removed. Consider the position arising from the opening sequence 1 e4 e5 2 liJf3 liJc6 3 .ktb5 liJd4 4 liJxd4 exd4 5 0-0 c6 6 .ktc4 liJf6 7 1::i.el d6 8 c3 8 d3 is safer. 8... liJg49 h3liJe5 10 .ktn d3!?

Black's last move is clearly risky, as the advanced pawn is too weak to resist capture for long. However, if Black puts every effort into exploiting his sudden gain in both time and space, a fascinating and unusual struggle ensues:

Meloch v Olszewski Correspondence 1970 11 hle3! But not 11 f4 ~6+ 12 ~hl h5! 13 fxe5 i.g4! 14 iVb3 iVf2 with advantage to Black. 11 ... g5! 12 ~h5 g4! 13 .ktxd3 ~g8 14 .kte2 I:tg6! 15 h4 'iVa5! Threatening ... liJf3+. 16 'it>n l:th6 17 iVg5 f6 and Black has justified his opening decision:

Meloch v Olszewski (cont.) If you are interested, here is how the game ended: 18 b4 ~d8 19 'iVg8 ~xh4 20 'litgl 'i'e7! 21 .ktc4 liJxc4 22 'Wixc4 .kte6 23 iVfl iVf7 24 g3 lth3 25 liJa3 0-0-0 26 liJc2 ~h5 27 'iVg2 d5 28 liJd4 .ktf7 29 d3 dxe4 30 dxe4 f5! 31 i.b2 fxe4 32 a4 :td6 33 'litfl i.d5 34 kXxe4 :f6 35 c4 .ktxc4+ 36 'litel ~h2 37 iVxh2 'it'xh2 0-1.

130 Elements of Strategy

Our next example is similar, but this time it is a Black bishop on d3: after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 ttJt3 ttJc6 3 .ltb5 a6 4 .lta4 d6 5 c3 f5 6 exf5 .ltxf5 7 0-0 .ltd3!? 8 .!:i.e1 .lte7 9 .!:!e3 e4 10 tiJe1 .ltg5 11 J:!.h3 ttJf6 we have the following position:

The Centre

In my opinion, this is perhaps the most important element in strategy . Theoreticians have argued long and hard about various aspects of the centre, mainly with regard to opening systems, but they all agree that a proper understanding of the centre is essential at every stage of the game. However, rather than enter into an abstract discussion of their ideas, I prefer to offer concrete examples which illustrate concepts that can be applied to the reader's own games and, hopefully, remembered when trying to understand other people's games. Let us begin with an example from Botvinnik:

Krustkaln v Krumins Correspondence 1970 Black gives up a pawn but again has compensation in time and space which proved sufficient after 12 tiJxd3 exd3 13 l:txd3 0-0 14 ~h3 tiJe4! 15 t3 ~f6! 16 .ltb3+ 'it>h8 17 d3.ltxc1 18 ~xc1 ttJd4! 19 ~e3 19 cxd4 loses both the rook and the queen after 19 .. :ihd4+. 19 ... tiJf5 20 iVxe4 Or 20 'iVel ttJgS. 20 ...11ae8 21 tiJd2 lIxe4 22 tiJxe4 ~g6 23 'it>f2 d5 24 .ltxd5 'iVb6+ 0-1.

Neikirch v Botvinnik Leipzig Olympiad 1960

These are, of course, risky openings that demand a high level of tactical skill and may not suit everyone's style of play. However, examination of these and similar sharp openings will increase the reader's awareness of the fine balance that exists between space and time on the one hand and material on the other.

Black could play an immediate ... .ltb7 gaining time and controlling the light squares in the centre, but he realizes that this alone will not solve his problems, because the eS pawn exerts definite pressure on his position. Nor does he wish to exchange pawns, as this would give White's bishop more scope, and 'chickening out' with ... dS would block in his own bishop and allow .lte3-d4

Elements of Strategy 131

followed by a ready-made kings ide attack. His solution is to attack the centre at once with 1...f6! 2 exd6 etJxd6 3 .l:f.d3! etJf5! giving the knight an excellent post from which it can eye the centre and the kingside. Seeing his central control slipping away, White replies with the powerful looking 4 l:ra4!? when Black produces the cunning 4.. :~e8! (not 4 ... .Jtb7 S J::td7 l:tfd8? 6 ~ad4!! etJxd4 7 !Ixe7 which White had planned for) tempting his opponent to play 5 etJe4? S l:te4! .Jtb7 6 JIel gives him chances of holding the game.

A moment's reflection should convince the reader that the whole strategy of the above play revolved around the squares and files in the centre. Any play on the wings by either side was relevant solely in the effect it had on the centre. Decentralized pieces have a habit of being excluded from the main theatre of war, as we saw with White's rook on as and now see again in our next example, where a pllwn-hunting Alekhine succumbs in a surprisingly short time:

Alekhine v Capablanca St. Petersburg 1914 Neikirch v Botvinnik (cont.) Botvinnik now shows his class by decentralizing White's queen's rook and pursuing the theme of controlling the centre by a series of magnificent moves, as follows: 5 ... b5! 6 l::ta5 6 .!:tal was essential. 6... .Jtb7 7 etJd6 7 etJcS? .Jtxg2+! 8 'it>xg2 'iVc6+ and 9 ... 'iVxcS. 7... etJxd6 8 ~xd6 lld8! Threatening 9 .. .'~c6! winning immediately, or if now 9 l:txd8 .....xd8 10 ~el 'iVdS 11 ~e2 kId8 12 .Jte3 ~d1+ 13 ~xdl kIxd1+ 14 .Jtgl lId2 when White's rook looks very foolish on as. 9 'iVd2 ktxd6 10 'iVxd6 'iVd8! 11 ~xe6+ kIf7 12 'iVel Forced. 12 ... ~e7! 0-1. After 13 ~d2 ~d7 it is all over.

1...~e6! Not l...etJdS 2 ~c6 etJxe3+? 3 .llxe3 1::txe3?? 4 'iVxe8+ followed by mate. 2 'ii'xa7 etJd5 3 'it>f1 etJf4! 4 kId2 etJxg2! 5 'it>xg2 'iVg4+ 6 c;t>f1 6 'itthl ~gS! wins at once. 6 .. :ifh3+ 7 'it>e2 lhe3+! 8 fxe3 'ii'xe3+ 9 'it>dl 'iVxel + with the better ending for Black. Note how the kingside attack flowed so easily from Black's centrally posted pieces. As a general rule, a strong centre is a prerequisite for an attack on the king, not only because one's pieces can be transferred from or via the centre, but also to prevent enemy pieces using the centre for defence or counter-attack. Consider the

132 Elements of Strategy

splendid attack sprung from our next position:

winning. 7 ~xfS! gxfS 8 ttJxf6+ ~xf6 9 exf6 ttJe6 10 ttJf4 ~b7 11 .lta3! .ltb6 Or 11 ... b4 12 .ltxb4 ~xb4 13 ttJxe6 winning. 12 .lte7! 1-0. Black is mated after 12 ... 'it>h8 13 ttJxe6 l::tg8 14 ttJf8! etc. As mentioned above, the corollary to this is that a strong centre for our opponent can often provide the basis of a successful defence against a wing attack, as in this famous example:

Tartakower v Broadbent London 1946 White's fianchettoed bishops, along with his centralized queen and knights, ensure him good central control, since his 'd' and 'e' pawns are well supported. Black, having posted his pieces to prevent a central advance, is somewhat cramped, because space and strong centre usually go hand in hand. However, given time, he will apply more pressure on d4 and c3 with ... b4 and ... ttJb5, or even the bold ... e5!?, so Tartakower chooses this moment to launch a remarkably fierce attack, transferring his pieces speedily from the centre to the kingside, while Black desperately tries to manoeuvre in the limited room available (see our earlier discussion on space). After 1 f6! .ltxf6 2 l:[xf6! exf6 3 ttJg4 dS! He must block the a 1-h8 diagonal and defend along the third rank. 4 ~h6 ttJe7 S kl:f1 ~d6, Black has just managed to set up a defence, but White has planned a long combination which ends in mate: 6 eS! ttJfS Or 6 ... fxe5 7 dxe5 Ite6 8 ttJf6+ lIxf6 9 exf6 ttJe6 10 ttJd4!

Keres v Smyslov Zurich Candidates 1953 Desperately wanting to win this game to have a chance of first place, Keres has thrown everything into an attack on the king. Given time, this fine tactician might well have succeeded against a lesser player, but Smyslov coolly defends by a counter-attack in the centre, beginning: 1. .. dxc4! Not the obvious 1...gxh5 2 ~xh5 kl:e8 3 a4!! which Bronstein analyses as good for White, the main variation being 3 ... ~d6 4 c5! ~d8 5 c6 .l:txc6 6 i.a3 ~d6 7 ~h6! .ltxd4 8 .ltd3 winning. 2 ~xh7 If instead 2 bxc4 gxh5 3 ~xh5 .lte4! wins; or here 3 .ltd3 kl.c5!! 4 dxc5 .ltxb2 5 i.xh7+ 'i;g7 6 'iWxh5 .ltc I!· 7 ng3+ Wf6 8 ~h4+ We5 and Black escapes. 2... c3! 3

Elements of Strategy 133

~c1 3 i.xc3? ~xc3! 4 ~xc3 'it>xh7; Keres now hopes for 3 ... cxb2 4 'if'h6 'ilVxd4 5' ~h8+ ~xh8 6 'iVh7 mate. 3.. :tlVxd4! 4 ~h6 lifd8! and Black won six moves later. A triumph of centralization!

this is the time that a player must be on his guard against a break in the centre by his opponent. This principle is so important that we must quote a further example of it, arising straight out of the opening:

Strangely enough, six years later, Smyslov was to suffer the same fate as Keres in the following position:

Bhend v Petrosian Zurich 1961 Smyslov v Fischer Candidates Tournament 1959 Outplayed in the centre, Smyslov sacrifices a pawn and attempts a wing attack which fails against Fischer's resourceful defence: 1 fS dxe4! 2 'ilVg4 exfS 3 lbdxfS g6! But not 3 ... 0-0 4 lbh5! g6 5 ~g3! i.d8 6 .uxd8 'IlWxd8 7 lbf6+ winning. 4 lbxe7 ~xe7 S ~f4 0-0 6 r.td6 l:!ad8! 7 l::tf6 JldS 8 Sl.g4 lbd7 9 ~f1 e3! 10 b3 l:td2! An excellent defence, threatening 11...lbxf6 12 gxf6 'ilVc5! 13 l:tcl 'ilVd4! defending via the centre. 11 ~xd7 ~xd7 12 J:tel .a:e8 13 h4 ~cS! and, to meet the threat of .. :~c3, White had to exchange queens by 14 ~c4 when Black easily won the ending. As an attack on the wing invariably entails some decentralization,

Black's quiet-looking set-up has led White to imagine that his own position is better than it is, and this has prompted him to begin a premature attack by advancing his pawn to g4. Of course, if he were given time to drive Black's king's knight away by g5 and then play 'iWg2, his attack could prove dangerous. However, it is Petrosian's move and he provides us with a model example of how to conduct a central counter-attack: 1...dS!! 2 exdS The natural reply 2 e5 allows 2 ... lbe4! 3 lbxe4 dxe4 4 Sl.xe4 lbxe5! when 5 Sl.xb7 'IlWxb7 is check, an important point. 2... lbb4! 3 dxe6 Sl.xf3+ 4 lIxf3 'iWb7! Exploiting the Black king's vulnerable placing on hi. S 'it>g2 If 5 'iIVg2 then 5... lbxc2 wins. S... lbxg4 6 'ilVe2 The threat is ... lbxh2!' 6 ... fS! 7 lbdl ~f6 8 c3 giving us a test position which reveals a complete change from our original position:

134 Elements of Strategy

precisely because Black finds it difficult to counter-attack against such a solid central position: 1 J;:i.gl! 'it>h8 2 g4 g6 3 ~g2 l:!.f7 4 lidl i.d7 5 ~h3 ~f8 6 gxf5! gxf5 7 ~d2 J::tg7 8 ~xg7 'iYxg7 9 J:.g2 'i'f7 10 ttJb5! l:tg8 11 ttJg5! .ll.xg5 12 ttJd6! "fiIe7 13 fxg5 i.e8 14 ~f3 ttJa7 15 h4 h5 16 ttJxe8 'ii'xe8 17 g6! lIxg6 18 'i'xh5+ Wg7 19 'iVh6+ 1-0.

TEST 8.3 BheDd v PetrosiaD (cont.) Black to play and win

A strong centrally posted piece can often have the same effect of blocking out counter-play, as Geller found out in the following position:

A defender should therefore be wary of blocking the centre when a wing attack against him is possible, as this inevitably reduces the attacker's problems. An attacker, on the other hand, should strive to block the centre in such situations. It is then even possible to leave his king in the centre where it is often safer than on the wing. Here is a good example: Ragosin v Geller Kiev 1950

ADtoshin v Kostro Luhacovice 1971 Leaving his king in the White proceeds to open the and brings his queen's rook g2 via d2. It all seems so

centre, 'g' file over to simple,

Despite being at the time one of the strongest attacking players in the world, Geller could not produce an effective counter-attack on the queens ide, mainly because of White's beautifully centralized knight on d4. The main feature of the subsequent play is the casual way in which the c3 knight can stroll over to the opposite wing via e2, c 1, d3 and f2, whilst Black can do little or nothing to prevent the final attack. After 1 ttJce2! 'iVc7 2 ttJc1 as 3 ttJd3 i.a6 4 g5 .ih8 5 ttJf2 h5, Black had managed to stop the immediate win by ttJg4-h6+, but Ragosin still won easily enough with 6 gxh6 ttJh7 7

Elements afStrategy 135

!tg3 b4 8 axb4 axb4 9 ~g4 ctJf8 10 h4 ~eb8 11 hS .ltc8 12 ctJh3 l:i:a6 13 ctJgS! Threatening 14 h7+ ctJxh7 15 ctJxh7 'It>xh7 16 hxg6+. 13 ... gxhS 14 h7+ 1-0. If 14 ... ctJxh7 15 ~xh5, or 14 ... ~g7 15 ctJxe6+ 'it>xh7 16 ~xh5 mate. Obviously, the kind of position to remember when attacking and to avoid at all costs when defending! By now the reader should have been nudged into accepting that the centre is extremely important and that little happens on the board which is not directly or indirectly affected by the central situation. We can now tum to the famous Nimzovich v Tarrasch controversy over central control and perhaps view it with the calm detachment of hindsight. Broadly speaking, it was whether the centre should be controlled by pawns or by pieces, and whether 'giving away the centre' was an expression of any significance. Nowadays, it seems incredible that the 'truth' was ever in dispute, and I remain convinced that players such as Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine knew instinctively all about control of the centre long before the hypermodems started preaching about it. This is not to deny in any way the emichment of opening theory brought about by the latter, but merely to question the originality of their concept of the centre. In our chapters on pieces and pawns, we clearly saw how dependent they all were on each other, helping and complementing each other's powers. Quite simply, this is also the way they control the centre. To my mind, the confusion arises when we take 'occupation' to mean 'control'. In one of his

annotations, Alekhine states: "Although Black has sufficient forces to control e4, he is not yet developed enough to occupy it." These words could well be applied to the centre in general, for it is clear that the fact that pawns and pieces occupy the centre does not necessarily mean that they control it. In such cases, they themselves have to be supported by other pawns or pieces and it is here that the real control lies. If you tum back to the Tartakower example we gave earlier, you can now understand why we stated that White had a strong centre. Not only do his two central pawns guard key squares but the pieces in the rear are fully supporting and maintaining them in their task. In the examples which follow, we would like the reader to bear this in mind, since this is essentially the criterion we apply when referring to the centre as weak or strong. All the varied opening systems are in fact ultimately concerned with the struggle for control of the centre, and subtle positional judgement is often required in deciding which side stands better in this respect. Take, for example, our next interesting position:

Keres v Smyslov Leningrad 1947

136 Elements a/Strategy

Black's centre looks fairly strong, if not unshakeable. Although his light squares could become weak, he has good control of d4 and is attempting to block White's queen's bishop out of the game. Given time, he will consolidate his position in the centre and build up pressure on the 'd' file. Time, however, is just what he lacks, for he has already wasted a tempo in the opening and has been rather ambitious in the number of pawn moves made. By utilizing White's lead in development, Keres reveals in four moves just how fragile the 'stonewall' edifice really is: 1 ttJa4! b6? Black cannot afford another pawn move, especially when it weakens the hl-a8 diagonal and in particular his queen's knight. He had to try ... ttJe6, when White would aim to challenge the centre with f4. 2 ttJh4! .lid7 3 e3! Threatening 'tWh5+. 3 ... 0-0 4 d4! and what was originally Black's strongest central point is the very square on which his pawn balTier will be destroyed. As White is threatening to win a piece by advancing his pawn to d6, Black is already in trouble, and after 4... exd4 5 exd4 l:tc8 6 dxc5 b5 7 ttJc3 f5 8 l:l:c2! .lixh4 9 l:Id2! Keres won quickly. This does not mean that similar pawn centres are intrinsically unsound, despite the potential weakness of the light squares. The fact is that, in the above position, Black had over-extended himself in setting up such a central structure before developing enough pieces to support it. For example, let us examine a similar structure, but this time with Black fully developed:

Lisitsin v Botvinnik Leningrad 1932

Black is in full control, and White is desperate for a suitable plan. After 1...ttJd4! 2 'it'dl .lig4! 3 .lixd4 exd4 4 'it'd2 .lif8 5 ~el ~e8, Black's pressure down the 'e' file formed the basis for a winning kingside attack. Because there is a great danger of an over-extended pawn centre to become weak, many modem openings, such as Alekhine's Defence and the Griinfeld Defence, deliberately entice the enemy pawns to advance too far, so that they can then be attacked. The aim is to win them, or gain time by exchanging them, or finally, and most thematically, to take over the weak central squares created by too rash an advance. Here is a striking illustration from one of Fischer's games after the moves 1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 g6 3 ttJc3 .lig7 4 e4 0-0 5 e5(?) ttJe8 6 f4 d6 7 .lie3: In the next diagram, take a good look at White's 'imposing' pawn centre because it is not going to last very long! Fischer now sacrificed a pawn, knowing that the resulting weaknesses in White's position would prove more than enough compensation.

Elements of Strategy 137

I!fe8 19 Wf2 laxe6 20 ~el ~ae8 21 J.t3 .l:txe3! 22 l:rxe3 l:txe3 23 ~xe3 'ir'xf4+! 0-1. Both 24 'it'xf4 J.h6 mate and 24 ~f2 ctJe5 25 iVdl ctJfg4+ are sufficient reasons for putting up the shutters.

Letelier v Fischer Leipzig Olympiad 1960 After 7... c5! 8 dxc5 ctJc6! 9 cxd6 exd6 10 ctJe4? Far too slow. 10 ... J.f5! 11 ctJg3 Or. 11 ctJxd6 ctJxd6 12 'iVxd6 'iVxd6 13 exd6 ctJb4! etc .. 1l...J.e6 12 ctJt3 ~c7! 13 1Vbl dxe5 14 f5 e4! 15 fxe6 ext3 16 gxt3 f5! 17 f4 ctJf6! giving us a position which is in stark contrast to our first one:

Similar situations arise in many provocative opening systems and the reader will automatically learn various methods of attacking an over-extended pawn centre as he studies opening theory beyond the scope of this book. However, he must keep such possibilities in mind throughout the middle game, when play against a pawn front can be a drawing or winning resource. In such cases, a single pawn can wreak as much havoc as a piece, as we see in our next two striking examples:

Kmoch v Rubinstein Semmering 1926 Letelier v Fischer (cont.) Once Black has picked up the loose e6 pawn, he will not only have recovered his material but will be ahead in development and have open central files, the beautiful al-h8 diagonal and White's weakened d4, e4 and g4 squares to work on. For the sake of completeness, I give the entertaining finish: 18 J.e2

Black has applied great pressure on the d4 pawn, but White is threatening to double rooks on the 'd' file and answer ... c5 or ... e5 with d5, so Rubinstein settles matters with the fine positional move l...b5!! that strikes directly at the centre by threatening both ... b4 (to capture on d4) and ... bxc4 (to prevent a possible d5 after ... c5). There is little White can do and, after 2 ~d2 Or 2 cxb5

138 Elements of Strategy

cxb5 3 a3 'ifb6! winning the d4 pawn. 2... b4 3 .ltxb4 .ltxd4 4 'ilVf3 cS! S .ltc3 l:Id6! 6 l::tadl eS 7 .ltc2 .ltc6 8 'iYg3 Or 8 .lte4?? .ltxe4 9 'iVxe4 .ltxc3! winning a piece because of the back-rank mate. 8... ~b7, Black had an overwhelming position with excellent central control. Our second example is equally instructive:

Kevitz v Capablanca New York 1931 Black has tied White down to defence of his a2 pawn but must now introduce a new factor into the situation if he is to win. The answer lies in the aesthetically delightful move L.gS!! which combines threats against White's king with the attack on the a2 pawn. If now 2 f5 'tIVe5+ 3 'It>h 1 (or 3 It>g 1 ':'c 1+ 4 ~d 1 ~d4+! winning) 3 ... l:I.c1+ 4 lId 1 ~al! 5 ~xcl ~xc1+ 6 'It>h2 .ltc4! 7 'iVf2 ~f4+! 8 'iVxf4 gxf4 and the a3 pawn will queen. The line played in the game also resembles a study: 2 'iVf2 Wkxf2! 3 iaxf2 gxf4 4 J:t3 lia8! S :tf2 f3!! 6 .ltn Or 6 .ltxf3 ~b8 followed by 7 ... !:.b2, because f3 is now blocked to the rook. 6 .. J:tb8 7 l:1xf3 !1b2+ The first relevant point is that this is now check! 8 'it>g3 ~xa2 9 l::tc3 Ital 0-1. The second point is that, with White's king on

g3, the line 10 .ltc4 .ltxc4 11 l:txc4 a2 12 Ita4 1:l:g1 + wins. Note that if White had played 8 'it>gl to avoid this, then 8 ...1ha2 9 !:tc3 .llal 10 'it>f2 a2 11 I:!.a3 J::tb 1 wins. [Study enthusiasts may also like to consider the 'cook' 7 ... .!Ib3! in the game continuation. After 8 axb3 a2, White's rook is unable to use fl (that's the reason why White could not play the 'cook' on move 4 of the game, even if he had seen it!), and 8 !Ixb3 .ltxb3 or 8 l:tf2 l:tb2 win the a2 pawn.] Let us finish this section by examining a very common type of pawn centre arising from openings such as 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ttJc3 dxe4 4 ttJxe4 or 1 e4 e5 2 ttJf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 ttJxd4 which some writers term the 'little centre'. When Tarrasch referred to Black's pawn exchange on move 3 in these openings as 'giving away the centre', he infuriated Nimzovich who quite rightly argued that the struggle for the centre had only just begun! However, in my view he was a little harsh in his condemnation of the good doctor's 'dogmatism'. Despite his unfortunate choice of words, Tarrasch, in didactic vein, was surely only attempting to make an important observation about this type of 'little centre'. Practice tells us that, other things being equal, the pawn on White's fourth rank gives him command of a little more terrain than Black whose position can easily become cramped, as Tarrasch himself demonstrated himself in many of his games. Here is the opening of a well-played game against Blackburne: 1 e4 eS 2 lLlf3 lLlc6 3 .ltbS d64 d4 exd4 'Giving away the centre'. S lLlxd4 .ltd7 6 lLlc3 lLlf6 7 0-0 .lte7 8 b3 0-0 9 .ltb2 lLle8 Better

Elements of Strategy 139

9 .. .l1e8. 10 ctJd5! ctJxd4 11 ~xd7 'iVxd7 12 ~xd4 ~d8 13 ~adl ~e6 14 ~d3 c6 15 ctJe3 f6 16 ctJf5 ~c7 17 ~fel ~ad8 18 c4 ~f7 19 'iYh3!

Tarrasch v Blackburne Manchester 1890 Black has played unusually passively and given Tarrasch the kind of 'little centre' game he loves. Admittedly, to escape the threat of winning his queen, Blackburne, again out of character, blundered the exchange with 19 ... 'it>h8? 20 ctJh6! but his game was already very difficult to defend against White's advantage in space. Contrast this with Tarrasch's grossly careless play from the following position:

Tarrasch v Chigorin Match 1893

Once Black's king's bishop is on g7 and a rook reaches e8, the pressure on White's centre will be frightening. And yet, before he has developed and with a poorly posted knight on g3 which can be attacked by the advance of Black's 'h' pawn, thus taking away a vital defender of the e4 pawn, Tarrasch plays the unbelievably bad move I f4?? which stops him ever playing f3 and does nothing to help his crusade for the Play continued: 'little centre'. 1...ctJd7 2 b4 Now planning to decentralize his queen's knight by playing it to a5. 2... i.g7 3 ctJb3 0-0 4 0-0 Not of course 4 ctJa5 i.xe4! 5 ctJxe4 hIe8, illustrating all too clearly the points we have just made. 4.. Jle8 5 !tel ctJf6 6 ctJd2 A dreadful move to have to play, but Tarrasch gives the line 6 e5 ctJd5! 7 ltJa5 'iYb8 8 exd6? 'iVa7+ 9 ~hl ~f2! 10 .ti.fl? 'iWxg2+! followed by mate in two, to show the dangers of his position. 6 ...'iiVd7 7 h3 kle7 8 lIe2 liae8 9 'iVf1 h5! and Chigorin had obtained the perfect set-up against the weakest form of the 'little centre'. Tarrasch could have almost resigned now, but he played on until move 42. However, although opening knowledge and defensive skills have greatly improved since the 19'h century, the concept of the 'little centre' still remains valid today, provided that its possessor nurtures it carefully and does not expect too much from it. Here is Kavalek illustrating the necessary technique in the following position which arose from the Caro Kann opening: Note first of all that White's d4 pawn is well supported by the c3 pawn and the rook on dl, while the power of all White's other pieces is directed towards the centre.

140 Elements of Strategy

examples of play against the 'little centre'. Here is a test position at a critical point of a game played by Capablanca when he was 18 years of age:

Kavalek v Bleiman Netanya 1971 It is in fact only now that White takes action to prevent ... cS and increase his command of space: 1 c4 i.b7 If 1...cS 2 dS. 2 b4! .l:tfdS And now 2 ... cS would allow 3 dxc5 bxcS 4 bS!. 3 a3l::[eS 4 ~b2! Maintaining control of eS whilst removing his queen from the 'e' file. 4.. .l::tedS 5 ~c3 h6 6 tZJf4 tZJf6 7 tZJd3 tZJd7 S c5! Finally, he makes the crucial decision which eventually ensures him complete control of the 'd' file. S... i.a6 9 tZJe5 i.b5 10 i.h5! tZJxe5 11 dxe5 bxc5 12 bxc5 i.a4 13 .l:!d6! l:tbS 14 i.dl! i.xdl 15 l:Iexdl ~xd6 16 cxd6 and White won comfortably. What impresses me here is the unhurried nature of White's approach to the problem of the 'little centre' .

Nimzovich made the point that the slight advantage in space afforded by the 'little centre' is offset by the potential weakness of the pawn that has dared to advance to the fourth rank and by the possibility of a counter-attack against it. Both Capablanca and Lasker were adept at defending such positions in which skilful manoeuvring within a limited space is at a premium, and their games contain many fine

TEST 8.4 Fox v Capablanca New York 1906 How would you proceed as Black?

We thus see that what we said about pawn centres in general is applicable to the 'little centre'. If the pawn front is over-extended, there is a great danger of certain squares being weak. If, however, we are modest in our aims, our slight advantage in space can be used to cramp Black's pieces and give us a bind on his position. With this, we regretfully have to close our discussion on the centre, having merely scratched the surface of a fascinating subject about which the reader can perhaps develop hi~ own views based on his own expenences. Colour Complex

Throughout this book, the reader will not only have seen many references to 'weak' squares but will have also met the tenn 'weak light/dark' squares. Assessing the strength or weakness of a certain colour complex can be a useful

Elements of Strategy 141

exercise, both tactically and strategically. Simple examples of this are:

* the 'bad' bishop, blocked in by its own pawns of the same colour and thus creating weaknesses in squares of the opposite colour; * opposite-coloured bishops in the ending, which lead to so many draws, precisely because the control of half the squares in the enemy camp is not open to them; * two bishops working together, thus complementing each other in their square control; * the central influence of knights placed on c3(c6) and £3 (f6) is greater because they control different-coloured squares. To take two examples from positions we have had earlier: Capablanca's 1...gS!! against Kevitz was surely prompted by the instinctive desire to weaken further White's dark squares, thus simultaneously restricting his bishop even more, whilst weakening his king's position; or consider the way that Keres exploited the weakness of the hl-a8 and h5-e8 light-squared diagonals to gain time for his crucial d4 break in the centre against Smyslov. Thinking in such terms can undoubtedly help us in our plans and combinations, so it is time for us to examine a few positions exclusively in terms of colour complexes. First of all, here is a typical attack on a king's position 'weakened' by ... g6, a standard defensive move in situations where the defender does not want to be forced into playing both ... h6 and ... g6, so relies on his king's bishop to guard the dark squares. However, the following instructive

position should bring home to the reader the potential danger of such a policy:

Ragosin v Stahlberg Moscow 1935 As Black's queen's bishop and queen are temporarily away from the main theatre of action and the d7 square is later available to White's rook on dl, the weakness of Black's dark-square colour complex around his king can in this case be cleverly exploited by White. In the actual game, Ragosin won by the less exact I ~e2, but he gives interesting analysis to show that 1 'ii'f4! was the best continuation, with the following possibilities: 1...ttJd8 2 ttJeS .tc6 3 .txg6! fxg6 4 btxd8! btaxd8 S 'ilkf7+ 'it>h8 6 'tWg7 mate. 1...eS 2 ttJxeS ttJxeS 3 'ii'xeS .tfS 4 l'Vf4 ~xh6 S 'iVxh6 ~xb2 6 ~c4 threatening ~xf7+ or .l:!.d7 or .l:!.d3. 1...f62 h4! c;t>h8 3 hS eS 4 hxg6! exf4 S g7+ Wg8 6 ~c4 mate. Kotov must have had this darksquare colour complex uppermost in his mind when he produced the following splendid combination that won a special prize for beauty:

142 Elements of Strategy

predilection for centralization, along with "play against enemy squares of a particular colour", forming the leitmotiv of all his games. After my initial astonishment, if not annoyance, at seeing the style of one of my chess heroes summed up with such brevity, I learned to recognize the validity of the assessment. Here are two of Alekhine's famous wins that spring to mind, both launched by the same first move: Kotov v Barcza Stockholm Interzonal 1952 Play went: 1 4Jdf5!! gxf5 2 4Jxf5 'ilc7 Or 2 ...'ile6 3 ~xg7 4Jxg7 4 ~g5 'iWe5 5 4Jh6+! 'it>h8 6 'iWxe5 dxe5 7 lIxd8 ~xd8 8 4Jxf7+ winning material. 3 4Jxg7 4Jxg7 4 ~f6!! The point of White's play: he cuts off Black's possible defence along the second rank. If now 4 ... 4Je6 then 5 f4! l:tfe8 6 f5 ':d7 7 .l:tf4! h6 8 ~g4+ 'it>h7 9 ~xh6+! 'it>xh6 10 ~h4 mate. 4... ~h8 5 'iVg5 l1g8 and I leave it to the reader to finish the game off:

TEST 8.5 Kotov v Barcza White to play and win

With regard to play against a weak colour complex, I was intrigued when I read Nimzovich's comment, in My System, on Alekhine's

Alekhine v Marshall Baden-Baden 1925 If White were to castle kings ide automatically, he would certainly have to face a typically aggressive attack by Marshall beginning ... g5!?, to be followed up by ... ~d7 and ... 0-0-0. Alekhine solves the problem in two moves by taking over important dark squares with 1 ~d2! ~d7 2 ~e3! which stops Black castling long and prepares a powerful advance of his kings ide pawn majority. The game continued: 2... ~c6 3 0-0-0 0-0 4 f4! 'iYe6 5 e5 nfe8 6 l:rfe1 %lad8 7 f5 ~e7 8 'ii'g5 4Jd5 9 f6! ~f8 10 ~c4! 4Jxc3 11 l:txd8 J::txd8 12 fxg7! 4Jxa2+ Or 12 .. .'it'e8 13 ~xf7+! rJitxf7 14 I;Ifl + ~e6 15 IIf6+ rJitd5 16 1If8 winning. 13 'it>b1 ~e8 14 e6! and White won easily. How many players would

Elements of Strategy 143

have moved the queen twice in the And yet, the original position? logic of the manoeuvre is undeniable, once we are aware of the need for dark-square control.

1. .. i.e6 and lost a pawn after 2 i.xe6 ~xe6 3 'iVa5 tOc4 4 ~xa7 tOxb2 5 ~xc8 :i:txc8 6 'iVxb7 tOc4 7 ~4 J::ta8 8 ~al 'i!Vc6 9 a4! tOxe4 10 tOxe5! (1-0, after 82 moves!)

Our second colour-oriented move comes from a key win by Alekhine in his final World Championship match game against Capablanca:

We finish this chapter with four wins based on colour weaknesses:

Alekhine v Capablanca World Championship Match, Buenos Aires 1927 In one move 1 ~d2!, Alekhine potentially brings all Black's weaknesses under attack, as seen in the following variations given by Euwe:

TEST 8.6 Mikenas v Polugaevsky USSR 1966 Black to play and win White's dark squares are weak but how can Black get at them?

* 1...lhcl 2 :i1xcl ~c8 2 l:hc8 tOxc8 3 'iVc3 and the e5 pawn falls. * l..Jhcl 2 l:i.xc1 l:tc8 3 l:txc8 i.xc8 4 ~a5 forking a7 and e5. * 1...i.c6 2 tOh4! i.xe4 3 ~e3 winning a piece, because 3 ... i.c2 4 l1xc2! :'xc2? 5 tOhf5+ wins the queen. * 1...i.c6 2 tOh4! tOxe4 3 tOhf5+ gxf5 4 tOxf5+ 'it>g6 5 ~xh6+ 'ifi>xf5 6 g4 mate, a variation typical of Alekhine's style.

TEST 8.7 Popov v Shmuter USSR 1988 White to play and win

Lasker's move 1...tOa4! offers the best defence, but Capablanca played

Black's dark squares are weak but how does White exploit this fact?

144 Elements of Strategy

TEST 8.8 Boudre v Shirov Moscow 1989 Black to play and win It looks like Black has blocked his attack on his opponent's weak dark squares, but Shirov has it all worked out. See if you can find the win.

TEST 8.9 Keene v Robatsch Madrid 1971 White to play and win

A few clues: Black's light squares are very weak and, to exploit this, Keene immediately sacrifices a rook by 1 l:l:xf7!! and begins an exciting king hunt across the board. Work out the main lines of his attack. Hints for Beginners

* Time is an important element, especially during the opening stage, but remember that quality of development often counts for more than mere quantity.

* In closed positions, time is not so essential, as developed pieces have fewer open lines to penetrate into the enemy position. * An advantage in space means better mobility for your pieces, therefore more flexibility in switching wings. * On the other hand, a cramped position leads to interference between pieces and a lack of manoeuvrability which can become fatal where defence of the king is concerned. * A temporary wedge is an unusual combination of the space and time elements, so requires speedy exploitation before the wedge is removed. * The centre is vitally important, as its influence spreads over the whole board. Centralized pieces enjoy greater flexibility than decentralized ones, which can often find themselves completely excluded from the main theatre of war. * It is dangerous to attack on the wing without either central control or a blocked centre, because opening up the centre is one of the best ways of countering a flank attack. * Occupation of the centre is not the same as control, nor is control the sole prerogative of pawns. * The struggle for control of the centre begins in the opening and is continued throughout the game. * Do not advance your pawns too rashly, as they may not only become weak but may also leave behind them weak squares which are ripe for enemy occupation. * The 'little centre' can lead to a small but enduring bind, provided that we proceed slowly and are modest in our aims. * It is useful to think in terms of weak or strong colour complexes, as this can often guide us in our choice of plan.

9 Planning

s

o far in this book we have been dealing mainly with specific tactical and strategic ideas. However, as we saw in our chapter on combinations, it is one thing to have ideas, but quite another to coordinate these and convert them into a winning plan. It is time for us to tackle the difficult subject of planning and attempt to slot into place the many pieces of the jigsaw already provided. Someone once said that a bad plan is better than no plan at all. In both cases you will probably lose the game, but only by making plans can you ever hope to improve your play, since the learning process very much depends on profiting from your mistakes. All this may seem obvious, and yet it is one of the major factors differentiating a good player and a bad one. At its worst, the latter's game is a string of unconnected episodes which bear little relevance to the real demands of the position and often end fortuitously one way or the other. Such mindless 'wood-pushing' must be avoided at all costs, however limited our initial attempts at planning may be. Planning can be divided roughly into three parts: assessment, plan. execution. We first have to consider the basic elements of the position, such as material balance, pawn

structure; posting of pieces, open lines, central control, king positions etc. Next, we have to construct a feasible plan based on the logical exploitation of these characteristics. And finally, we have to carry out this plan as efficiently as possible with the tactical means at our disposal. A simple example should make this clear:

Capablanca v Jaffe New York 1910 and Capablanca v Scott Hastings 1919

Assessment: White stands better, having more space and open lines for his pieces as well as excellent control of the central squares. Plan: Maintain control of Black's freeing moves in the centre, whilst preparing an attack on the enemy king. Execution: An eventual ~d3 will force a weakening of Black's

146 Planning

kings ide pawns by ... h6, to prevent i.gS, or ... g6. If White's bishop cannot go to gS, it can be developed

at b2, when dS will always be in the air, opening up the al-h8 diagonal. If need be, a rook can be brought into the attack via the 'e' file. lt is Black to move in this position, and we are fortunate enough to have two games played· by Capablanca, each with a different defensive set-up, but both illustrating the soundness of White's basic plan. The first game, against Jaffe, went: 1. .. h6 2 b3 b6 3 i.b2 i.b7 4 'li'd3 Already threatening dS followed by i.xf6, but now Black should avoid another weakening pawn move and play 4 ... J::f.e8 giving his king an escape square. 4 ... g6? S htael ctJhS 6 i.el! Having induced a weakness, the bishop can now return, with an immediate threat of i.xh6. 6.. .'it>g7 7 Ii.xe6! ctJf6 After 7... fxe6 it is mate in two. 8 ctJeS! cS And now 8... fxe6 fails to 9 i.xh6+! c;t>h8 10 ctJxg6+ 'ittg8 11 ctJxfS i.xfS 12 'iVg6+ 'itth8 13 i.gS! forcing mate. 9 i.xh6+! xh6 10 ctJxf7+ 1-0. It is mate in two. The second game, against Scott, proceeded: 1. .. b6 2 'iVd3 h6 3 b3 Wile7 4 i.b2 l:td8 To free fS for his king and threaten to break in the centre, but the unfortunate placing of his queen allows White to build up pressure down the central files with his rooks. S !:tadl i.b7 6 llfel lIac8 7 ctJh4! Only now does White decentralize his knight fora moment, as he introduces the serious threat of 8 dS! cxdS 9 ctJfS ~e8 10 ctJxg7! 'i;xg7 11 'iVh7+ fS 12 .i.xf6 followed by mate; or here 9 .. :~fS 10 ctJxh6+ gxh6 11 i.xf6 forcing mate or win of the queen. Black prevents this by introducing a counter-threat of .. .'VJlic7, but to no

avail. 7... i.b8 8 g3! 'it>f8 9 'iYf3! 'it>g8 10 ctJfS 'Wic7 11 ctJxh6+ c;t>f8 12 dS cxdS 13 i.xf6 and White won easily. However, this was a better attempt at defence which compelled Capablanca to stifle any central counter-play before proceeding with his attack. This example illustrates various important aspects of planning. Firstly, we must keep our plan flexible, in the knowledge that, however farsighted we may be, we are facing an opponent who has his plans too. Stubbornness at chess is rarely a virtue, so it is unwise to formulate plans that are too rigid, because we may well have to change horses mid-stream. An obvious example of this is when our opponent desperately sacrifices material to stave off a mating attack. We must immediately readjust our plan, sometimes drastically, to cope with the new situation. For instance, we may well decide to head for the endgame. Another common occurrence is when we suddenly realize that our plan is faulty. Perhaps we have missed a defensive idea or ·wrongly assessed the result of a tactical sequence. At all events, we must ruthlessly reappraise the situation and, if need be, reject our original plan. No matter if our chess pride is hurt in the process! Secondly, for the purposes of this chapter, we are assuming that Capablanca arrives at a certain position and then begins to plan in some sort of vacuum. In reality, he has carefully managed his opening to bring about the above advantages which, in tum, result in the stated plan. In other words, each part of the game is so inextricably linked up that it is almost impossible to say where a plan begins and ends. In practice, we

Planning 147

make various plans during a game and, if these merge harmoniously, a sense of unity is achieved. That is why some games flow so thematically from beginning to end, often giving a spurious impression that everything was planned from the very first move! Take the following short game: Lilienthal v Hamming Zandvoort 1934: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 ctJe3 dxe4 4 e4 e5 5 d5 a6 6 a4 ctJf6 7 SLxe4 e5 8 f4! SLd6 9 ctJf3 ctJbd7 10 0-0 0-0 11 f5! "fIe7 12 SLg5 ctJb6 13 SLxf6 ctJxe4

Lilienthal v Hamming Zandvoort 1934 14ctJg5! h6 If 14 ... gxf6 15 ctJxh7! 'it>xh7 16 "fIh5+ 'it>g7 17 .uO ~d8 18 ~h6 mating; or if 14 ... g6 15 ~d3! threatening 16 ~h3 h5 17 "fIg3. 15 ~h5 .ue8 If 15 ... gxf6 16 ~xh6 fxg5 17 f6 mating; or if 15 ... SLe7 16 d6! ~xd6 17 i.xe7 ~xe7 18 f6 and 19 ctJd5 wins. 16 i.xg7 'iitxg7 17 f6+ 1-0. All so direct and clear-cut, the reader may say, but appearances can be deceptive. From a planning point of view, the game can be divided into three stages, as follows:

* Black gives himself a difficult opening and White elects to

push in the centre with 5 d5, his first critical decision, against which Black should have played 5 ... exd5 6 ctJxd5 ctJf6 7 SLxc4 iLe7 with equal chances. In the same position against Bogoljubow, Moscow 1925, Capablanca chose a completely different plan with 5 ctJO cxd4 6 tLlxd4 ctJf6 7 SLxc4 SLc5 8 i.e3 ctJbd7 9 SLxe6! fxe6 10 ctJxe6 with a winning attack. * When Black tried to block the position with 7 ... e5, White had his next major decision to make, and a difficult one at that. His subtle plan of advancing his pawn to f5, to obtain space on the kings ide and restrict the scope of Black's pieces, would have been fully tested if his opponent had played the best defence of 12 ... ctJe8 followed by 13 ... f6. Lilienthal had then intended 'it>hl followed by ~gl, with the intention of opening the 'g' file by advancing his pawn to g5. A totally different game would have been the result! * When Black played instead 12 ... ctJb6, Lilienthal saw the possibility of a direct mating attack. Exact calculation was now the order of the day, because this was an irrevocable step, involving sacrifices. For instance, he must have envisaged the fact that Black could ignore capturing the knight after 13 SLxf6ctJxe4 14ctJg5 gxf6 IS ctJxh7 giving us 15 ... ctJe3 16 ~h5! 'it>g7! 17 SLxf5! 18 exf5 e4 19 ~h3 SLf4 20 ctJg5! J:Ih8 21 ctJe6+! forcing mate in four. However, just suppose that he had missed this defence and that the excellent refutation had not been available. We would then no longer be talking about a beautifully engineered plan but weeping crocodile tears over a typically risky and unsound attack by your truly!

:0

148 Planning

With these points in mind, let us devote the rest of this chapter to a selection of positions illustrating some of the planning problems that frequently arise on the chessboard. We cannot hope to be exhaustive, nor do we feel that this is essential, for in the last resort the reader will have to learn to think for himself and even opt for openings which give rise to plans suiting his style. New situations constantly appear in a game of chess, which means that attitude of mind and freshness of approach count for much more than reliance on ill-digested spoonfeeding. For this reason, the reader would do well to spend a little time thinking about each of the following positions before reading further in the text. He will then gradually learn to see the wood despite the trees. Our first two examples were primarily concerned with attacks on the king, but as this forms such an important part of the game we will examine a few more positions illustrating the same theme. . Here is a typical attack against a Sicilian Defence set-up, where time is of the essence:

Assessment: Black's kingside pawn posItIon is unweakened, yet White is justified in planning an attack, mainly because he possesses, or can create, open lines for his pieces. He can for instance play either of his rooks over to h3; or else post his bishop on d4, when ... e5 will open up a splendid diagonal for his other bishop; or else try for the same aim by f4-f5 pressurizing the e6 pawn. In addition, he can sacrifice to open up lines, with moves such as g6, tDf5 and tDxe6. The possibilities are numerous, perhaps too much so, but White must not forget that Black also has his plan of eliminating pieces by ... tDxd4 and ... tDc5 followed by ... tDxb3; or ... tDe5 and ... tDc4; nor can ... b4 be ignored, with pressure on the e4 pawn. Plan: We clearly need a plan that will immediately produce threats and tie Black down to defence, so a combination of g6 and tDxe6 looks ideal, whereas advancing the 'f pawn or transferring a rook to h3 seem too slow. Execution: After calculating a few options, Gonsharov finally settles on 1 g6! hxg6 2 tDxe6! fxe6 3 .Jtxe6+ 'it>h8 4 l:rxg6 which has immediately opened up three lines of attack, exposing Black's king to the fire-power of all White's pieces. After 4.•..l:!.f7 5 'iVh5+ 'ittg8 6 Ihg7+! 1-0. Black is mated in all lines .

Here is a similar smash-up of Black's kings ide pawns but the tactics are rather more complex:

Gonsharov v Strasdins USSR 1969

Planning 149

Vladimirov v Sazontiev USSR 1970

Smejkal v Medina Amsterdam 1971

This time, 1 g6 hxg6 2 h5 g5! is not so effective, but it· is still important to move quickly, since ... b4 followed by ... it..xd3 is threatened. The answer lies in playing 1 it..xh7+! ttJxh7 and only now 2 g6! ensuring that all lines are open. The game ended: 2...fxg6 3 ttJe6! 'iVd7 4 ttJxg7! ~f6 4 ... ~xg7 allows mate in two. 5 ttJxe8l:txe8 6 ~xg6+ ~h8 7 l:.g3! a3 8 l:.hgl axb2+ 9 ~xb2 'ii'e6 10 ttJe2! ttJg5 Desperation. 11 nxg5 ~xg5 12 'ifh5+ ~h6 13 Ilg6 1-0.

White's plan is direct and logical. At the moment, all four of Black's queens ide pieces are mere onlookers, so if after 1 e5! he can bring his king's bishop into the fray and calmly eliminate Black's best defensive pieces, when simple arithmetic leaves him with two extra pieces which must win for him! Play proceeded: 1...dxeS 2 ttJxhS! gxhS 3 ~xh7+ ~xh7 4 i.xg7 'it>xg7 S ~g5+ ~h7 6 'iVxhS+ 'it>g7 7 ttJgS 1-0. If now 7 ... f5 then 8 'ifh7+ ~f6 9 ttJe4 is mate. If only chess were always this easy!

As we have seen, open lines are often the means by which we can bring extra pieces into the attack. If we already out-number the enemy's defensive pieces, there is every chance of a successful attack, so long as we remember that we may well have to sacrifice one or more of our extra pieces to break down the barrier of pawns. Here is an instructive example of such an attack:

Although in general the tactical execution of an attack on the king can prove difficult, it is often the much simpler strategic plans that the beginner finds less comprehensible, when the aim is less direct or his advantage is smaller, even though there are hardly any tactics to speak of. This is because sound strategic ideas are even more essential in such positions, where the conquest of a vital square or file could be the goal towards which all his energy is directed. Consider the following 'simple' position:

150 Planning

majority if White has played a3. As it is White to move, we must consider the immediate exchange of rooks, followed by manoeuvring the other rook to c3 or c2. Against this, Black can always play ... l::[c4 and play his queen to c6, with ... b4 and ... a5-a4 in prospect. In fact, the more we examine the position, the worse White's situation appears! Tarnowski v Botvinnik Leipzig Olympiad 1960 Assessment: Although at first sight the position looks fairly even, in reality Black stands better for two main reasons. Firstly, he can double rooks on the important 'c' file by using the c4 square, whereas the c5 square is not available to White's rook and 1 l:tc2 would immediately lose a pawn. Secondly, White's bishop is not only unable to participate in the defence but is also a poor defender of the d4 pawn in view of a possible ... f6. However, defending the d4 pawn by the natural e3 would only weaken the light squares further and reduce the bishop's scope of action. Plan: To take control of the 'c' file and maintain pressure on the d4 pawn, thus tying White down to defence and hoping to exploit any weakening of the light squares. Note that of necessity such a plan is vague because, with no clear win in view as yet, Black must assume that the increase in positional pressure wiII lead to an opportunity to obtain some material advantage. Execution: .. J~c4 will be the key move, threatening both ... f6 and .. .lUc8. If White exchanges rooks on c4, then ... dxc4 will win a pawn or give Black a queenside pawn

The actual game continued: 1 l:!xe8 llxe8 2 a3 Weakening the light squares even more, but it had to be played sooner or later. 2... .!::i.e4 3 l:i:dl ~b6 4 Itd2 This can be played because 4 ... f6 5 Si.g3 lIxd4 6 l1xd4 'iVxd4 aIIows 7 ~xb5; worse for White is 4 l1d3 WV c6 5 I:tc3 z:txc3! 6 bxc3 ~c4! 7 'iVb2 'ilVa4, an instructive example of the weakness of the light squares and the impotence of White's bishop. 4...'ilVe6 S e3 as 6 Si.g3 lIel 7 f3 f6 8 .in 'ilVe4! 9 'ilVd3 a4! and Black had achieved his aims of completely dominating the 'c' file and the light squares, and highlighting the power of his own 'good' bishop. The game finished: 10 e4 'it'xd3 11 lIxd3 b4! 12 axb4 SLxb4 13 exdS exdS 14 l:Ie3l:!:e2 O-l. Such play has been termed 'open file strategy', as there is definite skill required in exploiting the possession of an open file. In an endgame a rook can often penetrate to the seventh rank, winning pawns or tying down the enemy king, but in the middle game other factors are usually required for an open file to be turned into a win. One of the finest exponents of open file strategy was Capablanca, who won scores of games as White by utilizing the open 'c' file arising from the Queen's Gambit, but here is a position in which he was Black taking over the

Planning 151

'd' file fashion:

in

deceptively

simple

~xd1+

10 i.xdl ttJd3 wmmng a

pawn. Play down a half-open file must be a little more subtle, as the pressure is less direct. Consider our next typical position:

Ribera v Capablanca Barcelona 1929 White not only has weak squares on the 'd' file but is plagued by weak pawns on e5 and c4. This is enough for Capablanca, whose plan is to take over the file by using threats against the weak pawns and combining these with threats of simplification by exchanging pieces. Play continued: 1...ttJc5 2 i.c2 Or 2 tradl i.xf3 3 ~xf3 ttJxd3 4 ~xd3 't!.Vb4! when at least a pawn is lost. 2... i.xf3! 3 'ilVxt3 lld2 4 'iYc3 l!fd8 and Black has reached the position he wanted, with domination of the 'd' file and the seventh rank. The main tactical point is that White cannot challenge the open file by the game continuation 5 :i.adl because of 5... ct:le4! 6 ~e3 In his attempt to avoid handing over complete control of the 'd' file after 6 .l:i.xe4 ~xd 1+ 7 i.xd 1 IIxd 1+ 8 ~d7, White loses a pawn. 6 .. Jlxc2 7 'iVxe4 l:[xb2 and Black won easily. However, if White does not challenge the file, he still has problems after 5 f4 lIYh4 6 i:!f1 ~g4! or 5 b4 ~h4 6 g3 'iVd4! 7 'YiVxd4 .l:i:8xd4 8 l:Iad 1 k!xd 1 9 l:txd 1

nel

Petrosian v Rossetto Portoroz Interzonal 1958 Assessment: In practice, White's chances of exploiting the half-open 'c' file are far better than Black's attempts down the 'e' file. He has time on his side, having already advanced his queens ide pawns. Plan: This is an example of the famous 'minority attack'. The idea is to play b5 to prise open the file or else fix a weak pawn on c6, which will rapidly tie Black down to defence. If Black captures the b5 pawn, his d5 and b7 pawns become exposed. Execution: White must be careful not to allow Black tactical counterchances. For instance, with Black's knight on d6, he would be threatening ... b5 followed by ... lbc4 in order to block any pressure down the 'c' file. However, the immediate L.b5 would allow 2 ttJe2! lIVe8 3 .l::i:fcl ~c8 4 axb5 axb5 5 J::i.a6! forcing 5 ... lbe7, when the Black knight cannot reach c4. This gives White a

152 Planning

tempo to prepare b5, because the danger of an immediate 1 b5 is that Black can open lines for his pieces by 1. .. c5! 2 dxc5 ~cS!. He can then later exchange his weak d5 pawn, unless White goes in for the tricky sacrifice 3 ttJe2!? i..xal 4 IIxal followed by 5 ttJed4 with an evenly balanced position.

He has pressure on both wings and if IS ... ::'b6 then 19 'YiVf3! f6 20 ttJd7 ttJgS 21 g5!! ~xc 1 22 gxf6+ 'itf7 23 tLJe5+ 'it>f8 24 tLJxg6+ 'itf7 25 ttJe5+ f8 26 f7 wins convincingly. The game concluded: 18.. JWbS 19 'iff3 f6 20 gS!! ttJfS Or 20 ... fxe5 21 'YiVf6+ 'itgS 22 ~hl mating. 21 gxf6+ '>fi>xf6 22 ::'xe6+ We7 23lWf4 1-0.

In the game, Petrosian decided he could not wait any longer, so plunged in with 1 bS axbS Better l...c5!? 2 axbS 'ifd6 3 bxe6 bxe6 obtaining the pressure he wanted down the 'c' file. Although Black can defend his c6 pawn easily enough, this will restrict his possibilities, thus giving White the opportunity to manoeuvre at leisure, a skill for which Petros ian was renowned. First of all, he plants a knight on e5 by 4 ttJa4 I:tfb8 S ttJeS 'Wie7 6 ttJd3 ~b7 7 ttJfeS .lixeS 8 ttJxeS and then begins operations on the kings ide, relying on this strongly posted knight which can be driven away only by weakening Black's pawns further. After 8.. Jbal 9 lhal ttJe7 10 g3 'iVb2 11 ~dl! hS 12 l:tc1 .l:tb6 13 h3! 'itg7 14 '>fi>g2 iVa3 IS 11al 'i'b2 16 g4! hxg4 17 hxg4 lIb7 18 !leI! we arrive at an ideal set-up for White:

This was a splendid example of the 'minority attack', but what about the defender's resources? We have already looked at the possibilities of planting a knight on c4, backed up by ... b5 if necessary, and of countering b5 with ... c5 if feasible. Another plan is to use the slight advantage on the kings ide to begin a piece attack there, a difficult task when White has no weaknesses to exploit. The reader may well wonder why the defence cannot begin a 'minority attack' of his own, exerting pressure down the 'e' file and trying to expose White's e3 pawn as a weakness by advancing his kingside pawns. A logical but rare plan, the problems being: firstly, there are great risks in opening up Black's own king's position; secondly, White is usually first with his queenside attack, thus pinning Black's forces down to defence; and thirdly, Black finds it difficult to maintain sufficient pieces on the board to support his attack, whereas White is quite happy to exchange one or two minor pieces because, with Black's king away from the theatre of action, White's attack persists into the endgame.

Petrosian v Rossetto (cont.)

Nevertheless, given the right conditions, such an attack can produce dramatic results, as shown in the following game which I quote in full to give the reader an idea of the way in which both sides pursue their

Planning 153

respective plans: Rosenberg v Razuvaev Moscow 1972: 1 d4 ctJf6 2 e4 g6 3 ctJe3 d5 4 ctJf3 .tg7 5 .tg5 ctJe4 6 exd5 ctJxg5 7 ctJxg5 e6 8 tlJf3 exd5 9 b4 With the 'minority attack' already in mind. 9 ... 0-0 10 e3 .te6 11 .te2 ctJd7 12 0-0 and now Black must formulate a plan to counter White's obvious intentions. There is little point in waiting, since time is a vital factor here. Only one minor piece has been exchanged, Black has good control of the centre, and the two bishops ensure him adequate protection for his king. Razuvaev therefore went straight into action with 12 ... g5! 13 ctJel f5! 14 ctJd3 'ike7 15 llel a6 16 ~b3 'it>h8 17 ctJbl e6 18 ctJd2 f4! 19 exf4 gxf4 20 ctJf3 .tf5! 21 l:tfel .te4! 22 a4 Itg8! 23 b5? axb5 24 axb5 giving us this position:

When you possess a pawn majority, it is not so easy to exploit it in the middle game, because of the danger of the pawns becoming weak as a result of pressure on them from a half-open file, as we have just seen. If, however, the pawns can advance without causing weaknesses, they not only cramp the enemy position but can also lead to the creation of passed pawn. Such a pawn, even if prevented from promoting, can tie down enemy pieces that are needed for other tasks. Here is a typical example of this:

Chandler v P. Littlewood Morecambe 1981

Rosenberg v Razuvaev Moscow 1972 White has brought his own attack to its logical conclusion, but it is all too slow, as Black's objective is the king! The game ended: 24 ....txd4! 25 ctJxf4 .txf3 26 'ikxf3 ctJe5 27 'iWh3 ktafS 28 'iVh6 fNf7 29 ctJh3 .txf2+ and Black won easily. Note the tremendous pressure exerted down the resulting open files on the kingside.

Although Black is a pawn down, his c4 pawn is a force to be reckoned with. In fact, White is already in a difficult situation, because his bishop is pinned and his knight not only precariously placed but also needed for the defence of b3. Understandably in the circumstances, he exchanges rooks but, after 1 l:Ixd3 exd3 2 'ika4 Or 2 'ii'xd3 ctJc4 winning. 2...J::i.b8, the 'd' pawn is a real thorn in his side, preventing 3 llcl in view of 3".d2! 4 .l:!dl ctJc4 5 ctJb3 'ilVd3+ 6 'it>a2 ~c2 mating. This pawn also plays a key part in the final combination after 3 'it>al

154 Planning

ClJc74 J:tbl! d2! Threatening to gain the key b3 square by 5 ... ctJe6!. 5 i.c3 Or 5 'iVc2 ClJe6! 6 ~xd2 ClJxd4 7 i.xd4 lIb3! mating or winning the queen. 5 .. J::txb1+ 6 'it>xbl ~c4! 7 1W c2 'tWf1 + 0-1. The pawn has the last word.

Execution: Firstly, Black must force White's e4 pawn to e5 where it will interfere with its own pieces and eventually become 'surrounded' as Black builds up space on the wings and takes control of key lines and squares'.

The need to restrain (,blockade') pawn majorities was rightly emphasized by Nimzovich in My System, as we pointed out in our chapter on pawns, and such 'blockading' strategies are often incorporated into whole opening systems. We only have space for one illustration, but the following play by a World Champion in a queenless middle game is well worth careful study:

Play went: l...f5! 2 e5 ClJe6!! A wonderful square for the knight, relatively safe from attack and controlling four dark squares in the centre. 3 i.d2 g5! In order to gain space and prevent· the exchange of the 'blockader' by ClJe2-f4. 4 ClJe2 c5! Stopping ClJd4. 5 i.c3 b5! Threatening to win a piece by 6 ... g4 7 ClJd2 b4, whilst giving his queen's bishop unchallenged control of the splendid a8-hl diagonal. 6 b3 i.b7 7 ctJg3 g4 8 ClJd2 i.e7 9 ClJh5 giving us our next position:

Bondarevsky v Smyslov Moscow 1946 Assessment: Given time, White will prepare the advance of his kingside pawn majority. On the principle that attack is the best form of defence, Black should try to stifle this potential expansion at birth. Plan: By using the knight as a 'blockader' on the e6 square and increasing the scope of his powerful two bishops, Black can anticipate White's pawn advance by prophylactic measures, with central control, as always, being essential.

Bondarevsky v Smyslov (cont.) The contrast with our previous diagram is striking. White's knights have been driven from pillar to post, whereas all Black's pieces are ready for action. All that now remains is for Smyslov to eliminate all the rooks and gain more space, until White's position collapses. After 9... Wf7! 10 ClJf1 ~g6 11 ClJf6 Itad8 12 .l:4adl ':xdl 13 Ibdl :d8 14 ~xd8 i.xd8 Threatening 15 ... ClJd4

Planning J55

winning at least a pawn. 15 ttJe3 f4! 16 ttJdl If the attacked knight goes to d5 or captures on g4, it is lost to 16 ... c6 and 16 ... h5 respectively. 16 ... ~xf6 17 exf6 ~e4 18 SLb2 b4! Threatening to win the knight by ... ~xc2. 19 f3 SLxc2 20 ttJf2 gxf3 21 gxf3 ~bl and, with two pawns extra, Black won comfortably. In most of the positions discussed so far, the decision naturally came about in the middle game. However, a player must be fully aware of possible transitions by either player into an endgame. Not only must we be prepared for such endings but we must also learn to aim deliberately for certain types of ending which are favourable to us and to avoid those which reduce our advantage or give the opponent too many counter-chances. This essential part of middle game planning demands of course a good working knowledge of the endgame. A common situation, for example, is when a number of exchanges are possible, and we have a choice between a pawn ending or one with rook and pawns each. Normally, of course, with a pawn up and other things being equal, we would unhesitatingly plump for the pawn ending. Or we may have to decide which minor piece(s) to exchange and which to keep, or whether or not to exchange queens. Or, to depress the reader even further, we could be compelled to plan all this well in advance, with the success of a long combination depending on the accuracy of a judgement we to make under have had time-pressure!

Once again, we see how all parts of a game are bound up with each other and impossible to view in complete isolation. However, as this is only a relatively small volume devoted to middle game issues, we shall have to assume that the reader will acquire some knowledge of endgame technique, so must restrict ourselves to a few examples of the transition stage between the middle game and the endgame. Consider our first example:

Hoen v Timman Stockholm 1972 Assessment: White has a 'bad' bishop, which has inevitably resulted in serious weaknesses on the dark squares, thus making Black's knights clearly superior. Plan: Timman intends to exchange as many major pieces as possible and head for a minor piece ending, where his king can use the dark squares to infiltrate into the enemycamp. Execution: Exchanges can begin at once and it is not important that Black loses his 'good' bishop, as long as it is in exchange for an enemy knight. Play proceeds: l....l::i:xf6 2 lixf6 SLxfl 3 l:!.xfl ~fS! 4 l:txfS+ 'iVxfS 5 ttJe3 ~f4! White should have tried

156 Planning

g5 earlier in order to give his bishop more scope, but it is now too late. 6 'ii'f2 Like a lamb going to slaughter, White seems happy to exchange queens, thus falling immediately into a very bad minor piece ending. 6... g5! Even stronger than exchanging queens at once. 7 ttJc4 ttJe5! 8 ttJxd6 ~xf2+ 9 'itxf2 ttJxc2 Threatening 10 ... c4. 10 .i.f1 'it>g7! 11 ttJb7 c4 12 ttJa5 c3 13 .i.a6 and White lost on time. The finish might have been 13 ... ttJd4 14 'it>e3 c2 15 'it>d2 ~f6! 16 'it>c1 ttJef3 17 .i.d3 ttJe 1 18 i.fl 'it>e5 when the dark squares win the day. Opening theory has developed to such an extent in the past fifty years that many opening systems have been analysed as far as the endgame, practically by-passing the middle game. In other words, opening preparation can well consist in evaluating an ending! Here is one of many such examples: Zuckerman v Bleiman Netanya 1971: 1 e4 c5 2 ttJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 e5 5 ttJb5 a6 6 ttJd6+ .i.xd6 7 'iVxd6 ~f6 8 fgdl 'iVg6 9 ttJc3 ttJge7 10 h4 h5 11 .i.g5 d5 12 exd5 ttJb4 13 .i.xe7 'it>xe7 14 Sl.d3 ttJxd3+ 15 'ilVxd3 ~xd3 16 cxd3 b5

Zuckerman v Bleiman Netanya 1971

Having correctly judged this ending to be in his favour, White now produced the innovation 17 O-O-O! and after 17 ... b4 18 ttJe4 f5 Winning a pawn but ruining his pawn structure by placing yet another pawn on the same colour as his bishop. 19 ttJg5 l:td8 20 d4! ~xd5 21 dxe5 l:txe5 22 l:thel l:txel 23 l:txel + 'itf8 24 l:te5 White won because of Black's pawn weaknesses. The 1963 World Championship produced an even more instructive example of such planning. In Petrosian v Botvinnik after 1 c4 g6 2 d4 ttJf6 3 ttJc3 d5 4 ttJf3 .i.g7 5 e3 0-0 6 .i.e2 dxc4 7 i.xc4 c5 8 d5 e6 the following position was reached:

Petrosian v Botvinnik World Championship Match 1963 Both players had deliberately prepared for this position, with Botvinnik ready to defend it and Petrosian quoted as saying that, if his opponent went into this line, he would lose the ending after 9 dxe6! ~xd1+ 10 'it>xdl .i.xe6 11 .i.xe6 fxe6. Petrosian's judgement in this case was not only positionally but also psychologically correct. The weakness of the e6 pawn in itself is not so serious, but Black's second rank now becomes more vulnerable and, even

Planning 157

more importantly, a White knight can be splendidly posted on e4, where it is centralized and unassailable. From the psychological aspect, although in theory Black should be able to defend such a position, in practice the task proved too arduous, even for Botvinnik. Play continued: 12 'Ot>e2 ttJc6 13 l:f.dl .l:!.ad8 13. .. followed by 14 ... ~e7 seems best. 14 .!:!.xd8 ~xd8 15 ttJg5! ~e8 16 ttJge4 ttJxe4 17 ttJxe4 b6 18 ~bl ttJb4 19 .id2! ttJd5 The variation 19 ... ttJxa2 20 .l:!.al ttJb4 21 .ixb4 cxb4 22 ~xa7 .ixb2 23 ~b7! pin-points in drastic fashion the weakness of Black's second rank. 20 a4 ~c8 21 b3 i.ts 22 ~c1 i.e7 23 b4! c4 24 b5! and, having now isolated the 'c' pawn, Petros ian went on to win his best game of the match after a beautifully played ending.

wn

Such a carefully calculated transition to a favourable endgame is often the best or sole plan available in a middle game situation and should serve as a warning to those who imagine they can always find a solution without recourse to an ending. A player who is afraid of the endgame will necessarily find himself at a disadvantage throughout the game, since he will find himself avoiding variations which the logic of a position demands. Consider the following position: White has planned a fine combination which, with best defence, leads 'only' to the win of a pawn in a tricky ending of rook, bishop and pawns on each side.

Keres v Geller Budapest 1952 However, after 1 ttJxf7! ~xf7 2 .ib3 ttJc4 3 ttJxc4 bxc4 4 .ixc4 ttJd5 5 i.xe7 Wlxe7 6 exd5 ~xe2 7 ~xe2 ~xe2 8 i.xe2 .ixd5, Keres has correctly judged that he has sufficient advantage to win by 9 a4! l:i.d6 10 Il.dl! ~n 11 as! fixing the a6 pawn. He had further important decisions to make before he finally won this ending but, if he had been a less skilful endgame player, the whole combination would not have seen the light of day or would have been spoilt at the finish. The whole emphasis should be on intelligent anticipation of a possible endgame, rather than drifting into one without a clear idea of the consequences. There is, of course, always the player who feels that exchanging as many pieces as possible is the easiest way to draw a game! Our final example shows Alekhine cunningly bringing about practical winning chances in an endgame forced upon him in the following position:

158 Planning

Znosko-Borovsky v Alekhine Paris 1933 The game has hardly started when White, happy to draw against his illustrious opponent, begins a series of moves leading to the exchange of a queen and three minor pieces on both sides. However, after 1 .ixc6 .ixc6 2 dxe5 dxe5 3 ctJxe5 .ixe4 4 ctJxe4 ~xdl Not 4 ... ctJxe4 5 ctJd7!. 5 ctJxf6+, Alekhine refuses to play the obvious 5 ... .1l.xf6 6 ~xdl i.xe5 7 .1l.e3 with a dead drawn position. Instead, he chooses to unbalance the situation slightly by 5 ... gxf6! 6 l::txdl fxe5

plan is to bring his king to e6, use the 'g' file and attack on both wings after exchanging one rook. White, on the other hand, pays the penalty for playing without a plan, as we shall see: 7 .1l.h6 lifd8 8 'it>n f5 9 .l:[xd8+ l:txd8 10 g3 e6 13 I:i.dl ~g8! 14 f3 h4 and Black opened the 'h' file and later the 'a' file, tying White's rook down to passivity and eventually winning a well-played ending. It is not the result that concerns us here but rather the contrasting mental attitudes of both players. Black's positive approach to the endgame reinforces all we have said about the need to formulate a plan at all times. All of this chapter so far has been devoted to positions in which a player has been trying to exploit certain advantages, usually in an attacking situation. However, we must not forget that defenders, too, have their planning problems which are sometimes of a different nature. Let us then close this volume with a few examples seen from a defender's viewpoint. We cannot do better than examine in some detail one of the finest defensive games I have seen, in which the attacker was none other than Tal at the height of his powers:

Znosko-Borovsky v Alekhine (cont.) Of course, this position, too, should be drawn, but at least it gives White more chances to go wrong, particularly if his heart is not in it! As Alekhine points out, his basic

Tal v Spassky Candidates Final 1965

Planning 159

Assessment: White is planning a one attractive win is 4 'iVg4 CLJ7f6 5 fierce kings ide attack, with all his CLJxh6+ 'it>h7 6 iLxf7!! CLJxg4 7 pieces ready to contribute the odd .iLg8+ 'it>h8 8 CLJg6 mate; or here sacrifice or two. In particular, his 4 ... CLJg5 5 CLJg6! 'it>h7 6 iLxf7! CLJxf7 bishop on b3, knight on f5 and rook 7 ctJxf8+ and 8 'iVxg7 mate. 3 l:te3 on el (ready to head for g3) are key c4 4 .l:Ig3! 'it>h7! Spassky rightly replayers in the drama. However, the jects 4 ... cxb3 5 ctJxh6+! Wh7 6 ClJxf7 defender must not die of fright "Wie7 7 CLJg5+ 'it>g8 8 ctJf5 with excelthinking of all the things Tal might lent play for White. 5 iLc2, and once do to him! On the positive side, he again Spassky has to make a vital has a ready-made break in the cen- decision about liquidating the centre: tre, can utilize his queen's rook defensively on the third rank and eventually play ... 'it>h7 and ... g6 driving back the knight. In other words, once he has blocked out White's light-squared bishop, he should be able to muster sufficient pieces to defend his king. Furthermore, there is no reason why his powerful central counter-attack should not even win the game for him! Plan: The first priority is deTal v Spassky (cont.) fence. Only later can Black take over the initiative. THE POSITION He must now have been sorely MUST NOT BE OPENED UP TOO tempted to play 5 ... cxd3 6 iLxd3 EARLY!! CLJxe4 (not 6 ... dxe4 7 iLxb5!) winExecution: Having ascertained ning a pawn and taking over the centhat there is no immediate win from tre, but logic wins the day. This White's attack, Black must of continuation would bring back course play 1. .. d5! for all the rea- White's king's bishop into play and, sons given above. Whereas White by removing the knight's control of will try to maintain the status quo in g4 and h5, only allow Tal tactical the centre, Black's advance of his chances to which there mayor may 'c' pawn will prove a useful means not be a defence. For example, two of putting further pressure on the mad lines I looked at were 7 'YWh5!? centre and completely suffocating CLJxg3 8 CLJxh6+ e4 9 'tWxf7 exd3?? White's king's bishop. 10 ~g8 mate, and 7 iLxe4 dxe4 8 CLJxg7!? iLxg7 9 CLJf5 iLf8 10 iLg5!? Spassky carries out his plan with 'Wic7 11 'iVh5 winning. Whether or admirable coolness and precision, not these are sound is irrelevant, logically exploiting all his re- when Spassky has at his disposal the sources, despite Tal's justly famed powerful and thematic 5 ... d4!! skill at conjuring up complications. (which of us would have had the Play continued: 2 CLJ3h4 c5! Going nerve to play this?), as though sayfor the win of a pawn by 2 ... dxe4 3 ing to his opponent: "I am depriving you of your king's bishop. Do what dxe4 CLJxe4 is clearly premature;

160 Planning

you like with your other pieces, for I have sufficient defence, once I bring my queen's rook to a6. Sooner or later, my pressure on your e4 pawn will win the game for me." In desperation, Tal now tried a piece sacrifice, but Black's defence held after 6 'ii'f3 .l:!:a6! 7 tiJxh6 gxh6 8 tiJf5 'iVa8! 9 tiJxh6 i.xh6 10 'it'f5+ Wh8 11 i.xh6 J:tg8 and, 11 moves later, Tal resigned the game and the match. Good defensive play demands allround chess ability, but the player's attitude of mind and temperament are equally important. Patience, imagination, fighting spirit, coolness and, above all, logic are all useful qualities in this context. Imagination, so that we can visualize not only our opponent's attacking lines but also our own counter-chances. Fighting spirit, because despair has caused the loss of many a drawn game, whereas determination and tenacity have often gained a halfpoint from a lost position. Coolness and logic, because in the midst of complications we have to retain an element of calm objectivity that does not neglect first principles. Here is Keres showing a young Fischer how it is done:

Keres v Fischer Curayao Candidates 1962

Black thought he had a win here, because the expected 1 i.f5+ 'iVxf5 2 ~xg2 fails to 2 ... 'iVf4+ 3 ~g4 (3 Wh3 ~h6+) 3 .. :~xg4+ 4 Wxg4 'it>g6 winning the pawn ending. Instead Keres produced 1 ~ e5!! when there is no win for Black. If now 1...'iVf2+ 2 'iii>h3 gl='iIV 3 i.f5+ 'iii>h6 4 ~f6+ 'iii>h5 5 i.g6+! ~xg6 6 'iVg5+!! forces stalemate. So Fischer tried l..:iVh1+ 2 i.h3 'iWxh3+ Or 2 ... g1="iV 3 'iVh5+! 'iii>g7 4 "iVg6+!! forces stalemate or perpetual check. 3 xh3 gl ="iV 4 ~e7+ 'it>h8 5 'iVf8+ h7 6 ~f7+ and a draw was agreed, for White can even exchange queens after 6... iJg7 7 ~xg7+ 'it>xg7 8 g3! holding the distant opposition and thus drawing the pawn ending. As we pointed out in chapter 5, the stalemate resource is not so rare as people imagine. However, many players often derogatively dismiss such a resource as a 'swindle', particularly when they are the ones who have fallen for it! Call it what you will, it clearly illustrates a defender's determination not to give in until every possibility has been exhausted. As chess is a competitive struggle, such play is very much part of it. The late Frank Marshall, and since then even players like Larsen, Tal and Korchnoi, have been accused of 'swindling' wins or draws out of lost positions, whereas all credit must be accorded to their resourcefulness and fighting spirit. In fact, from a planning point of view, such play may well be the most logical in a given situation, because a good player is clearly at his most dangerous in a lost position and will utilize every available resource to make life as difficult as he can for his opponent. Consider the following example:

Planning 161

Haygarth v N. Littlewood British Championship, Bath 1963 After a hard-fought game in which a draw is imminent, Norman produces the cunning idth2 ~cc1 0-1. After 6 J:'!g6 h4! mate is forced. Into which category do the readers slot that one? Or take the following magnificent example of resourceful play by Larsen:

Larsen v Van Scheltinga Beverwijk 1964

Assessment: White is in an extremely difficult position. At the moment, his queen's rook, bishop and knight are completely out of the game, whilst his king's rook is in a precarious situation and facing the threat of l...i.g4 2 'iYh6 'tlVf7 3 e6 i.xh6 with the better ending. However; for an optimistic player such as Larsen, his position is not entirely hopeless. As he himself points out, he is a pawn up, with a central pawn majority, and Black's king could become vulnerable. Plan: Desperate measures are called for. White must first of all find a way of neutralizing the above threat. If he can somehow advance his centre pawns to give his bishop scope, he will be happy to sacrifice his rook for Black's bishop on g7. There is also another tempting idea of diverting Black's other bishop from the kings ide and then sacrificing with tZJf4! which will give him an open 'g' file. One thing is certain: he is not going to resign just yet!? Execution: There is no time to lose, so 1 c4!! i.xc4 If l...dxc4 2 i.c3! follows, allowing d5 and l::txg7+. Best is probably l...l:Ic8 2 cxd5 nc2 3 i.c3 ~xc3! 4 bxc3 i.d3! but Black has completely missed Larsen's next move. 2 tZJf4!! gxf4 The threat was 3 tZJh5. 3 Wf2! fxe3+ 4 i.xe3 f4 5 i.d2 and there is no defence to J:Igl except giving up the queen by 5 ... ~g5 which would also lose. The game ended: 5 ... Wf7 6 'iVh5+ We6 7 'tIVg4+ 1-0. Surely, this is more than a mere 'swindle' ...

Finally, I must quote one of my most enjoyable counter-attacking defences which was more of a 'happening' than a carefully-planned experience. I give the opening

162 Planning

moves in order to set the scene: Levy v Littlewood Manchester 1970: After the ultra-sharp opening moves 1 e4 e5 2 tZJf3 ttJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3 dxc3 5 .tc4 cxb2?! 6 .txb2 .tb4+ 7 tZJc3 tZJf6 8 'ilkc2 d6 9 0-0-0 .txc3!? 10 .txc3 0-0 11 e5 tZJg4 12 .td3 tZJgxe5! 13 .txh7+ Wh8 14 h4 ~f6! 15 tZJg5 as! 16 a3, we arrive at the following position:

mates; and the best move 18..ltb2 bta5! hands me the initiative. 18 ... dxe5 19 ..lte4 ..ltf5! 20 'i'e2 After 20 .txf5 e4! 21 ..ltxe4 l:ta 1+ 22 'it>d2l:ta2! or here 21 'tWxe4 'iVc3+ 22 'iVc2 l1a1 mate, I'm laughing, but 20 f3 is more resilient. 20 ... b3! 21 'ittbl l:ta2 22 'tWh5+ Wg8 23 f3 .l:i.fa8 24 llhel ~xg2 25 lId7

Levy v J. Littlewood (cont.) Levy v J. Littlewood Manchester 1970 "What counter-attack?" you may well ask. Ainong other things, White is threatening g3 followed by f4, so of necessity I must divert him from his attacking preparations. This is just as much a psychological as a strategic 'plan', so the tactics can look after themselves. David has just prevented my intrusion on b4, so: 16... tZJb4!! puts the cat among the pigeons with such panache that it is almost irrelevant whether the sacrifice is sound or not. The rest of the game ran as follows: 17 axb4 axb4 18 ..ltxe5 A surprise, but 18 ..ltxb4? ~a 1+ is clearly too dangerous e.g. 19 Wb2 tZJd3+ 20 'it>b3 ..lte6+ 21 tZJxe6 'iYxe6+ 22 'it'c3 tZJxb4 23 'it>xb4 c5+ 24 'ittb5 1!a2 wins the queen or

25 .. J:ta1+! 0-1. It is mate in four moves.

TEST 9.1 Alekhine v Pachman Prague 1942

White to move. Find a plan based on the characteristics of this position.

Planning 163

TEST 9.2 Neuman v Kaldor Netanya 1971

TEST 9.4 Petrosian v Korchnoi Candidates Match 1971

White has just captured a pawn on e6. No time for strategic planning here! What does Black play?

White to play. Assess the position and work out a rough plan of campaign for him.

TEST 9.3 Botvinnik v Diickstein Munich Olympiad 1958

TEST 9.5 A position stemming from Konstantinopolsky

Black is about to recover his piece and White would like to find a way to get his central pawns moving. How does he proceed?

White is threatening mate in 2 and you may well feel like resigning for Black. even though it's your move. Just have one last. long look in case you 've missed a mate somewhere!

164 Planning

TEST 9.6

Kotkov v Nezhmetdinov Kazan 1964 White to move. Black is threatening a dangerous kingside attack. Plan a defence for White. Hints for Beginners

* A bad plan is better than no plan at all, provided that you learn from your mistakes. * A plan should spring logically from the strategic and/or tactical elements of the position. * Try to keep your plan flexible and be prepared to change it completely if need be. * The magic of sacrifice may be the only way to exploit a given advantage, and then tactics are the order of the day.

* Possession of an open file may be enough to win if there are additional points of attack. * A half-open file can often be exploited by means of the 'minority attack'. The defence must take specific measures to combat this powerful stratagem. * If a pawn majority can be set into motion, the aims are to cramp your opponent's space, create a passed pawn, tie down the enemy pieces, then switch fronts. * Pawns must be restrained and, if possible, blockaded. A piece, especially a knight, can often draw strength and protection from a blockading position. * Always be prepared for the transition to an endgame and try to aim for the ending most favourable to you. * Good defence requires fighting spirit and determination as well as all-round chess ability. Avoid imaginary fears, keep cool and remember that nobody ever won a game by resigning! * When you have a bad position, do not meekly accept the situation. You should then be at your most dangerous, since you have nothing to lose and can complicate with impunity.

Solutions 1.1 Petrosian won by 9 ~xf7+ l!xf7 10 ~h8+ Wxh8 11 tiJxf7+ and 12 tiJxg5. 1.2 Kasparov won by 4 I:lxc4 dxc4 5 'iVd6! c3 6 ~d4 1-0. After the forced 6 ... ~h7 White has 7 ~xc3 ~g8 (or 7 ... g5 8 'it'e3 f6 9 hxg5+ fxg5 10 tiJxh7 'iVxh7 11 ~e6+ exchanging queens and promoting the 'a' pawn) 8 'it'e3+ g5 9 'iWxg5+ ~xg5 10 hxg5 'itxg5 11 a4, and the ending is hopeless for Black. 2.1 Against l..Jld4 White has 2 'it>e2! waiting because Black's only move 2...i.h4 is answered by 3 'it>e3 when the rook is lost if it moves anywhere but 3 ... ,Ud8 after which 4 'iVh5+ wins the bishop. 2.2 11 ... ~f6 12 Wg6 and mate and the bishop are threatened. 2.3 The simplest win seems to be 13 g4+ 'it'xg4 14 .a:gl + 'ith4 15 i.g5+ 'ith5 16 'iWd1+ followed by mate. 2.4 Against 9 'it>h2 the answer is not so simple as in the game continuation. There may be more than one solution, but the main problem is the entry of White's queen into the battle. For example, after the threatening obvious 9 ... ~h4 1O ... ~g3 mate, White has 10 ~e8+ 'it>g7 11 f6+! (better than 11 ~xe5+

~f6 12 'WIc7 ~dg1+ 13 'it>f2 ~d4+

14 We2 ':g2+ 15 'it'd3 I:rdl mate) 14 i.xf6 12 nxa7 forcing Black to take perpetual check. My solution is: 9... 'it>f8! Threatening ... i.h4. 10 h4 Or 10 b3 i.h4 11 ,Ug2 .!:thl mate; or 10 'WIxa7 i.h4 11 ~8+ Wg7 12 f6+? 'it>h7! etc. 10... ~xh4 11 f4 Or 11 b3 l:th1+ 12 'it'g2 l:tdgl mate. 11 ... ~g3+ 12 'ith3 ~xf4 13 lla3 'ud2 14 'it>h4 Ith2+ 15 l:[h3 ~g5 mate. 3.1 1... tiJf5+ 2 Wd3 ltxc3+ 3 'it>xc3 tiJe3! 4 lIxf2 tiJd1+ and 5 ... tiJxf2. 3.2 1..:iWc4 2 'itgl 'iWd4+ 3 'ithl iVe4! So that if 4 'it'dl 'ii'f4! wins; or 4 'iWgl ~e2 wins. 4 Wkcl 'ii'd3 Or 4 ... Wkc2! 5 ~el 'it'd2! wins; or here 5 'ii'al Wke2! wins. 5 'itgl 'ii'd4+ 6 'it'hl Wkd2! 0-1 3.3 1. ..'ii'd3+! 2 xd3 ~xc6+ and 3 ... .Jtxa4. 3.4 1 l:i.f5+ 'it'e6 2 l:te5+ c;!;>d6 3 'ud5+! Wc6 Or 3 ... 'itxd5 4 c4+ and 5 i.xal. 4 l:tc5+! 'it>b6 Or 4 ... xc5 5 cxb4+. 5 .l:!:b5+! 'it'a6 6 ~a5+! with a draw by repetition of moves. 3.5 After 1. .. tiJxd3! 2 Wkxf5 tiJxel! Black regains his queen in view of the threatened 3 ... tiJf3 mate. 3 Wfl tiJc2+! 4 ~c1! ltxc1 + 5 We2 tiJd4+! 6 'it>d2 tiJb3+ 0-1.

166 Solutions

3.6 l.. ..!:ta2! A cross-pin. 2 iVa1+! lhal 3 lIxd6 1:!:bl with a winning endgame. 3.7 I iVg4+ ~d7? 2 i.e7! wins, so White can save his piece. 3.S I I;!fdl! 'iVxf4 2 l:IxdS+ ~c7 3 lLle6+! 'it>b6 4 lLlxf4. 3.9 I lLlc5+! ~eS Or l...'i'xc5 2 .i:!.xd5+! ~xd5 3 'i'xe7 mate; or l...'it>d8 2 i.xc6! ~xc6 3 lLlb7+. 2 ttxd5! i.xb5 3 VWxb5+ ~c6 4 .!:td7! ~xb5 5 l:Iexe7+ 'ittfS 6 ~xf7+ 1-0. It is mate in three.

lLle3! (threatening 18 i.f4+! followed by mate) and now: if 17 ... 'it'd6 18 i.f4+ e5 19 'iYxe5 mate; or if 17 ... d6 18 i.h4+ 'it'd4 (l8 ... 'it;f4 19 'i'g4 mate) 19 0-0-0 mate; or if 17 ... i.h6 18 i.xh6+ Wf6 19 lLlg4 mate; or if 17 ... ~d4 18 i.f6+ lLlxf6 19 0-0-0 mate. 4.4 Too easy, I'm afraid! l...b5 followed by 2...i.b7 mate . 5.1 I ':eS+ lLlfS 2 lLlh6+ 'i'xh6 3 l:txfS+ WxfS 4 ~dS mate. 5.2 I lLle7+!

ki:xe7 2 'i'xf6!

~xf6 Or 2... lLlg6 3 ~xe7!. 3 ItdS+

3.10 l..J:J:.c3+! 2 'it>f4 2 ... \t>h4 3 l:txh3+. 2... ltfl+ 3 ~g5 ~g3+ 4 'it>h4 llg4+! 5 hxg4 l:lhl + 6 'it>g5 l1xh6 7 'ittxh6 ~hl + S 'it>g5 ~h2 0-1 3.111 lLlg6+! ~e4 Or l...'ittf5 2 lLle7+; or l...We6 2 ~f6+ followed by a knight fork winning the queen. 2 ~h4+ 'it>e3 Any other move allows a knight fork or a skewer. 3 'i'e1+ Wd4 4 iVg1+ and, once again, any move loses the king to a fork or a skewer!

nes 4 l:IxeS mate. 5.3 I .l:!.dS+! lLleS Or l...~xd8 2 'iVxg7+ We8 3 ~f7 mate. 2 f6! 'i!Vxf6 Or 2 ... gxf6 3 'tlVg8+ followed by mate. 3 ~a3+! "WIe7 4ltfl mate. 5.4 l...i.d3! 2 "WIxd3 ~f2+ 3 'it>hl 'i'xel +! 4 ~xel lLlf2+ 5 'it'gl lLlxd3. 5.5 I i.xe5! lhe5 2 'iVxe5! ~xe5 3 i.xc6+ 'iitbS 4 lib7+ ~aS 5 ~b6 mate.

4.1 l...l1c5!! leads to back-rank mates after 2 .!:txd7 or 2 dxc5, or to loss of the queen after 2 ~xc5.

5.6 I h7! 1 a7?? 211g8!. l..J:thl 2 a7 ItaI3l:tdl!!

4.2 I 'iVxc6! bxc6 2 b7 'i\VdS 3 bS=~ l;Idl + 4 Itxdl 'iYxbS 5 lLlb7! and Black's queen is lost.

~xh3+

4.3 The thematic finish here would be a king 'hunt' which might run as follows: 13 ~g4+ ~f7 Or 13 ... 'it;f6 14 ~f5+ and mate in 2. 14 ~h5+ 'it;g7 IS lLlf5+ ~f6 16 i.g5+! 'it>e5 Or 16 ... xf5 17 i.xe7+ ~f4 18 'i'g5+ Wf3 19 ~g3 mate. 17

5.S I lLlxd5! exd5 2 lLlxd7 'iVxd7 3 i.xh7+ WhS 4 i.f5+.

5.7 l..JWh4! 2 ~xe5 Or 2 h3 3 'it;g 1 i.d4+ 4 ~f2 ~xg2 mate. 2...'i'f2!! 3 Ir.gl "WIxg2+ 4 ~xg2IIc1+ 5 'iVel ~xel mate.

5.9 I ~a4+ ~c6 Or l...lLlc6 2 ~xc6+! 'iYxc6 3 l:i:d8 mate. 2 ~dS+! 'it>xdS 3 'iYxc6 and the knight is pinned.

Solutions 167

5.10 l..:iVg1+!! 2 ~xg1 Or 2 ~xgl lLlf2 mate. 2.. J:tbxg2+ 3 ~h1 !i.g1 +! 4 J::txg1 lLlf2 mate, or the more usual 2 ... I!.gxg2+ and mate in 2. 5.11 1 lLlf6+! gxf6 Or l...lLlxf6 2 ~d8 mate. 2 ~xe6+ fxe6 3 .lth5 mate. 5.12 1.. ..!:rg2!! 2 .....xd5 Or 2 'it>xg2 tLle3+. 2.. J:bh2! 3 'it>xh2 exd5. 5.13 1 .ltb7+! ~xb7 2 llab3+ Wa6 Or 2 ... Wa8 3 ~xc8 mate. 3 lIe6 mate. 5.14 1 h6! .lthS 2 lLle6 bxe6 3 .ltb6! and the threat of ~xg5+ followed by mate wins the queen. 5.15 1 .ltb2! sets up a bishop and rook battery. If now 1..J::th6 then 2 l!g3+ Wh7 3 l:1g7+ WhS 4 Wb1! allows only the check that can be answered by a discovered check winning the rook. The 'echo' variation of this is l....l:i:f8 2 l!c7+ Wg8 3 ~g7+ 'it>h8 4 Wa2! etc. The attempts to save the rook by 1...l:rf7 or 1...lig6 fail to 2 ~h3+ and 2 lIeS+ respectively, followed by 3 ~hS mate. Any other rook moves lose the rook. Finally, if 1...Wh7 or 1. ..r.ii'gS, the replies are 2 Ite7+ and 2 lIg3+ respectively, followed by the exchange of the rook for his bishop. Delightfully elegant! 5.16 1. .. tLlh4 2 'ilVe2 Or 2 ~e4 'i'dl+! 3 'ilVel 'YWf3+ and 4...'iWg2 mate. 2 ...'ilVb7+ 3 Wg1 l:td2! 4 'i'xd2 tLlf3+ and 5... tLlxd2. 5.17 1 .lta5! forces 1.. ..lth4 because of discovered attacks if the king moves and a skewer if the

bishop moves. Then 2 Wg4 .lte1 Or 2 ... .ltf6 3 i.c3+. 3 Wh3 puts Black into zugzwang and he loses his bishop. 5.1S Black's pieces are very restricted but White has no immediate forced win. However, by anticipating ... i.h6 with 1 h4!! he places Black in semi-zugzwang. Checks by Black's rook only help White, since the rook has to return to d6 to prevent i.d5! blocking the 'd' file, and . .. h6 will allow White to advance his king to h5. This only leaves 1...i.h6 2 ~d5! l:txd5 3 i.xd5 when ... i.g5 is no longer possible. 5.19 1 'iWxh4+! 'it>xh4 2 i.f6+ g5 3 i.e3! and suddenly Black finds himself in zugzwang! His queen must keep a guard on e 1 whilst maintaining the pin of White's g2 pawn, and 3 ... g4 allows 4 i.f6 mate. After 3 .. :YWf2 4 i.e5! it is all over, because 4 ... 'i'el allows 5 g3+ 'iWxg3+ 6 i.xg3 mate. 5.20 1...'ilVd2! pins the knight and prepares to answer 2 g4 with 2 ... 'iVh2 mate. White would like to play 2 'ifb8+ 'it'h7 3 ~6 guarding the d4 pawn, but then 3 ... g5+ would win the knight, so he first plays 2 h5 only to be met with 2 ... Wh7!! with a complete zugzwang! White could have tried 2 WVb8+ 'it>h7 3 ~e5 but then 3 ... g6! 4 'iWf6 g5+! would still win the knight. 5.21 1..:~c6! 2 'iWxe5 i.b7 3 l:te1 'it>hS!! and we again have zugzwang because the knight cannot move in view of 4 ...1Ihg2 mate, nor can the queen guard g2 by 4 'iVg3 neS! 5 llld2 ~xe1 + 6 'iVxe1 'iWxg2 mate or, if you prefer, 5...'iVxg2+ 6 'ilVxg2 .l::txe 1+ 7 lLlfl l1xfl mate.

168 Solutions

5.22 1 a4!! i.xa4 2 fHa3! i.b5 3 1!xb5! 'iVxa3 4l:tb7+ and 5 bxa3. 5.23 1...i.xg2! 2 tiJxdS Or 2 'it>xg2 ~h3+ 3 'it'hl tiJf3 wins. 2.. :~Ve4! 3 h3 Or 3 'tWxgS i.h3 4 f3 'iVe2! wins. 3 ... tiJf3+! 4 'it>xg2 tiJxd4+ 5 f3 ~xf3+.

'it>xh7 S 'ii'xf7+ 'it>h6 6 'ii'f8+ 'it>h7 7 nel; the game finish was 2 .. J:te8? 3 l:th7+ Wg8 4 ~h8+! 1-0. 3 l::th7+ 'it>gS 4 ~h4! Now 4 :h8+ 'it>g7! forces a return to the text with S ~h7+. 4 ... fxg5 5 'iYh6! 'iVf6 6 l:tel! winning.

5.27 1...'iVc6+! 2 'it>f5 tiJg7+! 3 i.xg7 'iVg6+! 4 'iVxg6 Draw.

6.5 His combination was indeed correct, but only after some clever play: 1 tiJf6+! gxf6 Or l...i..xf6 2 exf6 't!Vxf6 3 i.gS winning a piece. 2 exf6 i..xf6 3 i.e4 J::teS 4 ~xh7+ ~f8 and it is at the end of this initial forced sequence that many players would not have seen much further. Play continued: 5 i.g6!! i.g7 S... fxg6 allows mate in 2 and S... 'it>e7 6 ~xf7+ 'it'd6 7 i.f4 is mate. 6 i.h6! ~f6 7 lhd7! tiJe7 If the bishop on g6 is captured by queen or pawn, then 8 1lVh8 mate follows. S ~hS+ tiJgS 9 ..wxg7+! 1lVxg7 10 lIxf7 mate. Splendid!

5.28 1 'iVe7+ 'it'g6 Or l...~g8 2 'iVe8+! tiJf8 3 i.dS+ 't\VxdS 4 'iYxf8+! 'it>xf8 Draw. 2 i.e4+ 'iVxe4 3 ~g7+ ~xg7 Draw.

6.6 1 'ilYf6?, threatening ~g7+! followed by mate in 2, allows the surprising defence l..:iVc1!! 2 ~xe5 'iVxh6 with a probable draw.

6.1 1 .i:txf5! exf5 2 ~xh6+!! 'Ottxh6 Or 2 ... gxh6 3 tiJf6+ 'it>h8 4 J:tg8 mate. 3 !:thl + 'i!/g6 4 ~f4! Threatening S i.hS+ 'it>h7 6 i..xf7 mate. 4... Ile6 In order to interpose on h6. 5 llhS!! followed by 6 i.h5 mate.

6.7 Once again, the assessment was a casual one. After 1 .l:tg7+ 'it>xe6 2 ~g6+ Ivanchuk boldly replied 2...'it'd5!! He needed a win which he obtained after 3 'iVd2+ Or 3 lIgS+ ttJeS. 3 .. :ti'd4! 4 SLxc6+ 'it'xc6! The point. 5 ~xd4 i.a6+ 0-1. After ... gxf2+ the pawn queens.

5.24 1 SLe7+! ~e6 Not l...~g6 2 .l::tg8+ 'it'xh6 3 SLf8 mate. 2 SLxg5+! ~d7 3 l::!.e7+! 'it'd6 4 ~e2! Itxe2 5 i.xf4+ .l::te5 6 'it'd4 f6 7 g5 1-0. 5.25 1 'iVf6!! and there is no way that Black can avoid stalemate e.g. l...'it'h7 2 'iVxg7+ ~xg7 (or ... 'Ottxg7) Draw. 5.26 1 .l::taS+ ~h7 2 .l:!hS+! 'it>xhS 3 'tWh6+! 'iVxh6 Draw.

6.2 1...tiJf6 2 d7 ttJxd5! 3 dS='iV i:td1+ 4 'it'g2 ttJf4 mate. 6.3 1 Ilxh6+! gxh6 Or l...'it>xh6 2 'iVh4+ ~g6 3 fS mate. 2 'iVgS+!! tiJxgS 3 i.f5 mate. 6.4 1 i..xg7 'itxg7 2 1i'el! ~d6! Or 2 ... fxgS 3 'iVe7+ ki.f7 4 l:Lh7+

6.S 1 i.h7+! ttJxh7 2 ~xf7! ~xf7 Or 2 ... ttJf8 3 'ug7+ 'it>h8 4 ltd7+. 3 1lVxh7+ 'it>e6 and now the 'final point' which had to be foreseen: 4 i.c7! 'iVd7 Or 4 .. .'ti'e7 S 'ii'fS mate; or 4 ... ttJf6 S ~el+. 5 l::te1+ 1-0. It is mate after S... 'it'f6 6 ttJhS.

Solutions 169

7.1 l..J~e1+! 2 l:be1 'ilVd4+! Deflection. 3 ~xd4 dxel=~ mate. 7.2 1 iLf7+! 'it>g7 2 'ir'xh6+ ~xh6 3 iLxe8 ltJxe8 4 d7 1-0.

~xbIl::ta5 6 'it>f2 'itg8! 7 ~c2 naI 8 'ir'c8+ 'it>f7 winning. 2... cxb2 3 ~b3

.l:f.d8! and there is no way to prevent the rook reaching a 1. 8.1

7.3 1...iLh2+! Deflecting the king, because now 2 ~fl allows 2 ... ~f6+ 3 cJte2 'iVf2 mate. 2 'itxh2 ~xd7 3 ~xd7 e2 0-1. 7.4 The obvious 1...gxf5+ allows 2 ltJxf5+ followed by 3 f8=~, so Black plays the original and highly ingenious 1...'i'hS+!! 0-1. After 2 ltJxh5 gxf5+ 3 'it'xf5 (the knight can no longer capture with check) 3 ... d5! 4 ltJf6! d2 5 ltJg4+ rj;g7 6 ltJf2 dxe4 7 ~xe4 iLc5! 8 ltJd 1 iLd4! 9 'it'd3 ~xf7 10 'it'xd2 ~e6, Black wins.

3 eS! ltJxeS Or 3... dxe5 4 exd4 5 iLxa6 wins. 4 ~xb7 S 'i'xa6 ~b8 6 ltJc6 ltJxc6 7 'iYxc6+ ltJd7 8 ltJcS! dxcS Or 8... .l:f.c7 9 ltJxd7 ~xd7 10 :a8 wins. 9 iLf4! iLd6 Or 9 ... ~xf4 10 'i'c8+! and 11 ~xb7 wins. 10 ~xd6 llb6 11 ~xd7+! 1-0. ~xb7 ~xb7

8.2 1 ~f7! ~xh7 Or I...ltJe5 2 'i'h5 iLg4 3 ~h4 wins. 2 'i'hS+ cJtg8 3 g6 ltJfS Or 3 ... ltJf6 4 l:txf6 'i'xf6 5 IIfl wins. 4 lixfS+ rj;xfS S ,Un + 'ite8 6 ~dS ~e7 7 ~g8+ rj;d7 8 ~f7 wins. 8 ...1:tg6! 9 cxb4 ltJeS+ 10 11 l:Ig3 ltJg4+ 12 'ltgl iLxg3 13 hxg3 ~dS! 14 lla3 l!h6! IS lZJfl ltJxfl 0-1. 8.3

7.S l. .. iLfl+ 2 ~n l:i.d1+! 3 rj;e2 Or 3 ItxdI e2+ 4 'it>xf2 exdI=ltJ+! wins. 3 ... ~d2+ 4 ~xd2 Or 4 ~fl e2+ 5 ~xf2 eI='i'+ wins. 4... exd2+ S ~xfl iLf3! 6 ltJd6 Or 6 'it>xf3 !leI wins. 6 .. JifS 0-1. 7.6 1... e2! 2 ltJxe7+ 'ir'xe7! 3 .l:f.xd8+ 'iVxd8 4 e7 Or 4 l:teI .l:f.xg2! wins. 4 ... iLxg2+ S ~h2 eXf1=ltJ+! 6 'ltgl 'iVd4+ 7 ~fl iLdS+ 8 'it>xn ~d1+ 0-1. Instead of allowing 9 ~eI I:.gl+ followed by mate in 2. 7.7 A subtle and difficult win is achieved by 1 ~d8!! as Or l...1:!:xd8 2 ~xd8 ltJxd8 3 c7 wins; or l...ltJxd8 2 c7 l:!.eI+ 3 ~h2 wins. 2 kLb8! Not however 2 c7 ltJxc7!. 2... a4 3 c7 1-0. After 3 ... ltJxc7 4 iLxc7 llxb8 5 ~xb8 'lte6! 6 iLa7 'it'd5! 7 iLe3! the pawn can be stopped. 7.8 l..Jld2! 2 ':xb2 Or 2 '@b5 c2 3 'tWfl l:td5! 4 ~e3 cxbI=~ 5

~fl iLh4+

8.4 1...dS! A typical central counter-attack, linked here with freeing the king's bishop for activity on the weakened a7-gI diagonal. 2 eS iLcs+ 3 ~hl ltJg4 4 ltJdl f6! S h3 ltJfl+ 6 ltJxfl iLxfl 7 ~e2 fxeS! 8 Ihfl e4 recovering the piece with the better game. 8.S 6 h4! .l:i.de8 7 hS l:teS 8 iLxeS dxeS 9 'iVf6! Elegantly replacing the bishop with his queen. 9 ... ltJc8 10 h6 ltJe7 11 Itd2! 1-0. Black cannot prevent the doubling of rooks on the 'd' file followed by .l:f.d8! and mate on g7. l..Jhd3! 2 iLxd3 c4! 3 Or 3 iLxc4 'i'c5+ and 4 .. .'iha3. 3... ltJe8! Not however 3 ... cxd3 4 ~xc6! Ii.xc6 5 l:i.b8+ mating. 4 ~b4 ~xb4 S cxb4 cxd3 0-1. 8.6

~d6!

170 Solutions

S.7 1 'iWh6+!! Wxh6 Or 1...'ith8 2 tiJxg6+ fxg6 3 .Jtxg6; or 1...Wg8 2 tiJfS gxfS 3 .JtxfS. 2 tiJf5+ h5 Or 2 ... g5 3 h4+ \t>g4 4 £3+ Wf4 S 'it>f2 wins; or here 3 ... 'it>f4 4 g3+ g4 5 £3+! wins. 3 f4! gxf5 4 i.eH 'it>h4 5 ~h2! 1-0. S.S 1...tiJxb3!! 2 gxf6 Or 2 axb3 'iVa5 and 3 ... kta8. 2... tiJxCl 3 ~ e3 Or 3 c;t>xc1 ~ as and there is no way of vacating the dl square without loss of material. 3 ...'ii'a5 4 ~xc1 i!aS 0-1. After 5 a3 'iVxa3 6 ~xa3 ~xa3 7 l:te3 b4! and 8 .. .1:[fa8, White is mated. . S.9 After 1 ktxf7!! xf7 2 l!f1 + 'it>e7 Or.2 ... g8 3 tiJf6+! gxf6 4 WUxg6+ \t>h8 S ~xh6+ 'ito>g8 6 l!xf6 wins. 3 d6+! c;t>d7 4 l!f7+ tiJe7 If 4 ... ~c8, then 5 tiJxc5! is one of many ways to win. 5 ~a4+! 'itcs Amusing is S... .Jtc6 6 .Jth3 mate, but trickier would be 5 ... \t>e6 6 ~c4+! i.dS 7 ltxe7+ ltxe7 8 tiJgS+! 'it>f6 9 ~f4+ c;t>g6 10 i.xd5! with a quick mate. 6 d7+! 'i\Vxd7 Or 6 ... b5 11 .Jtfl+ WaS 12 'iVc4 and mate in 2.6 i.h3! 1-0. After 6 ... 'iVxh3 7 ~xe8+ it is mate in 3. 9.1 Assessment: This position reveals basically a struggle between two bishops and two knights. Once a knight reaches eS, Black will have good chances of keeping White's bishops under control. However, if White succeeds in activating his bishops, he can attack Black's exposed kingside. Plan: Open up the position as quickly as possible, then begin an attack on both sides of the boards, if need be.

Execution: Speed is vital, so we must not worry about the sacrifice of a mere pawn. The game finished: 1 f3! exf3 2 .Jtxf3 ttJf6 2 ... ~xe3+ 3 ~g2 tiJg7 4 '!:'del ~g5 S b4! ~d8 6 c5! ~d7 7 c6! bxc6 8 dxc6 ~f7 9 ~d2! and 10 i.d5 is one possible continuation. 3 .Jtd4 tiJSd7 4 b4 tiJe4 5 g4! fxg4 6 i.xg4 ~g5 Or 6 ... tiJf8 7 l:txf8+! winning. 7 ~g2 tiJf8 S .l:i.f4 h5 9 h4 ~h6 10 i.h3 1-0.

9.2 Tactics are the order of the day! Both 1...fxe6 2 ~g6+ 'it>f8 3 l:Ihfl + tiJf6 4 i.hS! i.d8 S ~ e8 mate, and 1...tiJxg3 2 tiJxc7+ 'it>f8 3 hxg3 winning a piece, tell us that Black's queen is a desperado piece which must compel Black to begin with 1...~xc3!! when 2 bxc3 tiJxg3 3 tiJc7+ Wf8 4 hxg3 ~c8 gives him at least equality. However, 2 ~xg7 needs to be considered, against which Black has the beautiful line: 2 ... i.a3!! 3 lId8+! c;t>e7! 4 lId7+ 'it>xd7 5 ~xf7+ 'it>c8 winning. White decided to end the game with a perpetual check after 2 tiJxg7+! c;t>f8 3 ttJe6+! c;t>eS Not 3 ... fxe6 4 ~f4+ saving his queen. 4 tiJg7+ etc . Should White have played on instead with 4~xc3 tiJxc3 S ttJc7+ 'itf8 6 bxc3 l!c8 7 tiJdS? His position does not inspire confidence and perhaps the tension had been too much! 9.3 Botvinnik had only one chance to get his pawns moving and he took it as follows: 1 .!:[e3!! ~xc3 2 d4 ~c4 3 i:!.b4 ~a2 4 J:.e2 ~al 5 d5! when Black cannot capture twice on dS because of check to his king. After 5 .. J:tadS 6 ~d2! i.f5 7 i.b2! ~xdl + S ~xdl White had a winning position. A splendid mixture of strategy and tactics!

Solutions 171

9.4 Assessment: At the moment White is successfully restraining Black's centre pawns, but these could rapidly become dangerous after ...'fiIg7 and ... llde8 threatening ... e4 or ... f4 or a mixture of the two. However, once White can move his queen's knight and bring his queen's rook to e2, linking this with gaining space by b4, he can apply strong pressure on Black's position. Plan: Begin the queens ide counter-attack immediately! Execution: It would be wrong to attack the centre at once without due preparation with moves such as 1 f4? ~xd2! 2 ~xd2 e4! or by 1 ~xc6 bxc6 2 tZJhf3 e4! with good play for Black in both cases. Clearly, the first move must be 1 b4! solving most of White's problems at one stroke, because the knight can go to b3 with gain of time and he does not even have to give up a pawn in the process! However, since his plan will involve giving up his king's bishop for Black's queen's knight, he must watch his own weakened Once Black's centre kingside. pawns begin to fall, White should be fine. The gaIPe continued: 1...exb4 2 tZJb3! ~bu Not of course 2 ... bxa3 3 tZJxa5 tZJxa5 4 ~xa3 winning the exchange. 3 ~xe6! bxe6 4 axb4 a6 5 liJf3 e4 There is little choice, as both ... tZJd7 and ... i.c7 lose the d4 pawn anyway. 6 e5 i.e7 7 liJfxd4 'fiIf7 Threatening 8 .. .lhd4!. 8 l1d2! i.d7 9 i.b2! and Petros ian obtained just the kind of position he had envisaged with b4!! Of course, Black had some attack but White's central control and dark square pressure won the game for him in eleven more moves.

9.5 A fine sequence of moves does indeed mate for Black and his pinned king's bishop plays an important part in the combination After which runs: 1.. .I!e1+!! l...tZJc3+ White has 2 'it>al. 2 ~xel 'iVxe2+! 3 'it'xe2 liJd4+ 4 'it>bl Or 4 'it'dl tZJxb2 mate. 4... liJe3+! 5 bxe3 Or 5 'it'al liJc2 mate. 5... .:.b8+ 6 'it>al tZJe2 mate. The moral of the story is never to resign without exploring all possibilities! 9.6 1...g4 is a real threat against which specific measures must be On general principles, 1 taken. i.xg5 opening the 'g' file for Black seems suicidal but we must give it a quick glance: after 1.. J:i:g8 2 ~xf6 i.xf6 3 ~xc6! bxc6 4 Wh2 ~g5! threatening ... We7, followed by ... ~af8 and ... f5, White is in trouble. We have learnt that a wing attack is best countered by play in the centre, so we must next examine 1 d4 when unfortunately 1.. .g4 seems too strong, as 2 dxe5 fails to 2 ... gxf3 3 exf6 J:ig8! forcing mate. Or if in this line 2 hxg4 then 2 ... 'iYxg4 3 d5 ~g8 4 g3 'iYh3! gives Black a powerful attack. Instead, White finds a third method, which is to hold the position on the kingside while building up counter-pressure on the queenside and in the centre. It is a method requiring strong nerves and accurate calculation, but White succeeded as follows: 1 liJd5!! g4 2 liJh2! JIg8 (the first point is that 2 ... gxh3 would now lose apiece) 3 l:tc1! llg6 4 b4 'it>f8 5 g3! ~e8 5 ... gxh3 still fails to 6 tZJxf6 i.xdl 7liJxd7+ emphasizing the amazing influence of White's centralized queen's knight. 6 liJxf6 ~xf6 7 e5! We7 8 exd6+ exd6 9 hxg4 ~xg4 10 liJxg4l:!.xg4 11 ~xe6

172 Solutions

bxc6 12 lhc6! and, because 12 .. .1hg3+ 13 fxg3 iVxc6 loses to 14 iVf3, White won comfortably. You have to remember that in this

game White was pitted against one of the most dangerous attacking players in the world!

Index of Players and Composers Adorjan v Androvitsky 22 Alekhine v Bogoljubow 94 Alekhine v Borochow 74 Alekhine v Capablanca 131,143 Alekhine v Freeman 69 Alekhine v Lasker 58 Alekhine v Marshall 142 Alekhine v Nestor 68 Alekhine v Pachman 162 Alekhine v Podgomy 89 Alekhine v Wolf 11 Anand v 1. Polgar 42 Anand v Rongguang 84 Andersson v Basman 123 Andersson v Browne 53 Andrew v Roach 37 A N Other v Richter 118 Antoshin v Kostro 134 Antunac v Hubner 44 Barcza v Bronstein 48 Bauer v Golner 94 Belenki v Pirogov 71 Bellon v Gar ~;a 74 Bertok v Fischer 108 Bhend v Petros ian 133 Bianchetti 78 Bimov 49 Bisguier v Peretz III Bloch v Milbers 53 74 Bogda v Ferreira Bogoljubow v Alekhine 29 Bogoljubow v Sultan Khan 68 Bondarevsky v Smyslov 154 Boros v Lilienthal 121 104 Botvinnik v Budo Botvinnik v Chekhover 114 Botvinnik v Duckstein 163 Botvinnik v Grigorenko 105 114 Botvinnik v Kan

Botvinnik v Petros ian Boudre v Shirov Bron Bronstein v Geller Bronstein v A N Other Bronstein v Zaitzev R.Byme v Fischer Candolin v Ojanen Capablanca v Alekhine Capablanca v Blanco Capablanca v Jaffe Capablanca v Em. Lasker Capablanca v Milner Barry Capablanca v Scott Capablanca v Steiner Chandler v P. Littlewood Cheron Coggan v Foster Corden v 1. Littlewood Csom v Ribli Danailov v Kasparov Dobirtsin v Bonsch Dobrescu and Halberstadt Dommes v Federov Duras Duckstein v Petros ian Erbis v Kempf Euwe v Griinfeld Euwe v Keres Fischer v Benko Fischer v Bolbochan Fischer v Geller Fischer v Larsen Fischer v Petrosian Fischer v Reshevsky Fischer v Spas sky Florian v Pachman Fox v Capablanca Frydman v Vidmar

103 144 51 122 48 45 34 47 14 49 145 113 32 145 12 153 71 51 39 116 23 82 20 118 69 63 70 22 35, 72 10 27 67 32 63 24 13

55 140 72

174 Index of Players and Composers

Funnan v Batygin Geller v Sveshnikov K. Geller Gendel v Sushkevitch Gheorghiu v Kinnmark Gil v Dobosz Gligori6 v Larsen Gligori6 v Smyslov Gligori6 v Szabo Gonsharov v Strasdins Gragger v Dom Grigoriev Gusev v A verbach Hamann v Brinck-Claussen Hamppe v Meitner Haygarth v N. Littlewood Hecht v Ghitescu Henneberger v Nimzovich Hennings v Barczay Herbstman Hoch Hoen v Timman Hort v Keres Horwitz Howell v J. Littlewood Hubner v Timman Ilchenko v Sosina Imbaud v Strumilo Isakov v Nikitin Jansa v Sydor Jiminez v Larsen Jung v Szabados Kakovin Karlsson v Jansson Kasparov v Karpov Katalimov v Mnatsakanian Kavalek v Bleiman Keene v Robatsch Keres v Fischer Keres v Geller Keres v Smyslov 132, Kestler v Pesch Kevitz v Capablanca Kirov v Vasyukov Kling Kmoch v Rubinstein Konstantinopolsky Korchnoi v Portisch

70 110 56 52 91 83 38 30 81 148 69 31 18 51 62 161 21 36 118 46 43 155 119 73 60 84 74 61 46 19 19 81 33 124 17

69 140 144 160 157 135 86 138 35 54 137 163 45

Kotkov v Nezhmetdinov Kotov v Barcza Krahnstover v Seyferth Krustkaln v Krumins Kubbel Kunnennann v A N Other Langeweg v Smyslov Larsen v Cafferty Larsen v Ljubojevi6 Larsen v Petrosian Larsen v Van Scheltinga Ed. Lasker v Aila Ed. Lasker v Capablanca Lazdin v Zemitis Letelier v Fischer Levenfish v Riumin Levitina v Sizennan Levy v 1.Littlewood Lilienthal v Botvinnik Lilienthal v Hamming Limbos v Kavalek Lisitsin v Botvinnik J. Littlewood v Agnos J. Littlewood v Barden J. Littlewood v Botvinnik J. Littlewood v Dodson J. Littlewood v Shabanov J. Littlewood v Tomasevi6 Ljubojevi6 v Donner Lorenz v Espig Lowcki v Tartakower Madsen v Napolitano Mar6czy v Romi Maslov v Babahanov Mees Meloch v Olszewski Merenyi v Capablanca Mikenas v Polugaevsky Miles v P. Littlewood Miles v Martin Moravec Motor Najdorfv Stahlberg N eikirch v Botvinnik Neumann v Kaldor Nimzovich v Capablanca Nimzovich v Mieses Nunn v Dlugy

164 142 86 130 42,81 97 29 111 72

25 161 74 112 85 137 43 78

162 126 147 97 136 96 63 92 84 113 94 109 128 43 118 78

52 44 129 62 143 127 83 25 85 82 130 163 28 76 12

Index of Players and Composers 175

Olssen v Andersson 65 Ortueta v Sanz 116 Pachman v Eckert 55 Pedersen v Gallmeyer 65 Penrose v Barden 88 Pesitz v Reti 59 Petros ian v Botvinnik 156 163 Petrosian v Korchnoi Petrosian v Rossetto 151 16 Petrosian v Spassky Petrushin v Vlasov 44 Pietzsch v Fuchs 86 Pirc v R.Byrne 43 Planinc v Mestrovic 128 Podzerov v Kuncevic 46 Pogosyants 30 Popov v Shmuter 143 Ragosin v Geller l34 Ragosin v Stahlberg 141 Rauzer v Rabinovich 75 Ravinsky v Kotov 121 Reefleger v Wirthensohn 79 Reshevsky v Capablanca 102 Reshevsky v F eigin 106 Reshevsky v Gauffin 105 Reshevsky v Matsumoto 96 Reshevsky v A. Thomas 104 Reti 80 Reti v Alekhine 93 Reti v Tartakower 46 Ribera v Capablanca 151 25,42,72,77 Rinck" Robatsch v Larsen 115 108 Rosenthal v Ragozin 94 Rossolimo v A N Other Roth v Baumgartner 118 Rozenberg v Razuvaev 153 Rubinstein v Alekhine 80 Rufenacht v Neuenschwander 78 71 Sackman 73 Salkind Sapelkin v Afanasiev 53 120 Schletser v Chigorin Schmidt v Richter 93 82 Schranz v Honfi 92 Shabalov v Stefansson Shaposhnikov v Boleslavsky 76

Shirov v J. Polgar Shirov v Van Wely Sigurjonsson v Stein Simons v Parkin Sliwa v Doda Sliwa v Stoltz Smejkal v Medina Smyslov v Euwe Smyslov v Fischer Smyslov v Karpov Smyslov v Kottnauer Smyslov v Zagoriansky Sobolevsky Soker v Yolk I. Sokolov v Ivanchuk Sokolsky v Botvinnik Spassky v Petros ian Stein v Bilek Steinitz v Lasker Steinitz v Von Bardeleben Svidler v Gelfand Szily v Balogh Taimanov v Ignatiev Tal v Botvinnik Tal v Solmanis Tal v Spassky Tal v Tringov Tarjan v Ljubojevic Tarnowski v Botvinnik Tarrasch v Blackburne Tarrasch v Chigorin Tartakower v Andor Tartakower v Broadbent Thesing v King Toran v Tal Tylor v Em. Lasker Ubilava v Kengis Uhlmann v Botvinnik Ujtelky v Pachman Unknown Players Vasyukov v Uhlmann Vishnyatsky v Perevoznikov Vladimirov v Sazontiev Volchok v Kreslavsky Volinsky v Kalinichenko White Zagoriansky v Tolush

125 99 75

50 86

60 149 71 l33 103 125 66 33 90 97 107

116 119 15 54 100 81 58 12 83 158 10

118 150 l39 l39

95 l32 75

20 79 34 111 47 60 117 70 149 53 28 47 85

176 Index of Players and Composers

Zaitzev v Storosenko Zelevinsky v Berezin Zhilin v Shemov

61 97 81

Znosko Borovsky v Alekhine Zuckerman v Bleiman

158 156