Practical endgame play - beyond the basics : the definitive guide to the endgames that really matter 9781857445558, 1857445554

Citation preview

Glenn Flear

Practical Endgame Play­ beyond the basics the definitive guide to the endgames that really matter

EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2007 by Gloucester Publishers p ic (formerly Everyman Publishers p ic) , Northburgh House , 10 Northbur gh Street , London EC1V OAT Copyright © 2007 Gle nn Plear First published 2007 by Gloucester Publishers p ic The right of Gle nn Plear to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in ac ­ cordance with the Copyri ghts , Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced , stored in a retriev al system or transmitted in any form or by any means , electronic , electrostati c, magnetic tape , photocopying , recording or otherwise , without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 978 185744 555 8 Distribute d in No rth America by The Globe Pequot Press , P. O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guil for d, C T 06437-0480.

All other sales enquiries should be direc ted to Everyman Chess , Northburgh House , 10 Northburgh Street , Lon don EC1 V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email: inf [email protected] website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc.

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser Typesetting and editing by First Rank Publishing , Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed and bound in · America by Versa Press.

I· Contents I Bibliography

5

Introduction

7

Statistics

11

Sedion 1: Clear Material Advantage 1

Two Extra Pieces

15

2

One Extra Piece

20

3

Two Rooks versus Rook and Minor Piece

40

4

Queen and Rook versus Queen and Minor Piece

63

5

Rook and Minor Piece versus Two Minor Pieces

93

Sedion 2: Only Minor Pieces 6

Two Bishops versus Two Minor Pieces

135

7

other Double Minor Piece Combinations

162

Sedion 3: Asymmetric Struggles 8

Rook versus Two Minor Pieces

194

9

Queen versus Rook and Knight

223

10

Queen versus Rook and Bishop

240

11

Queen versus Two Rooks

262

Sedion 4: Rook and Minor Pieces 12

Rook and Bishop versus Rook and Knight

285

13

Rook and Bishop versus Rook and opposite-coloured Bishop

326

14

Rook and Bishop versus Rook and same-coloured Bishop

345

15

Rook and Knight versus Rook and Knight

3 70

Sedion 5: Heavyweight Struggles 16

Two Rooks versus Two Rooks

396

17

Queen and Bishop versus Queen and Knight

422

18

Queen and Knight versus Queen and Knight

455

19

Queen and Bishop versus Queen and Bishop

4 71

20

Queen and Rook versus Queen and Rook

500

Index of Players

535

Glossary of Special Terms

544

Bibliography

I

Books

A Pocket Guide to Chess Endgames, Hooper (Bell 1970 & Batsford 1986)

Basic Chess Endgames, Fine (Tarta n/Bell, 1974 edition) Batsford Chess Endings, Speelma n, Tisdall & Wade (Batsford 1993) Botvinnik's Best Games, Bo tvinnik (Batsford 1972) Dvoretsky's Chess Endings, Dvoretsky (Russell Enterprises 2003) Encyclopaedia of Chess Endings (Sahovski Informator 1982-93) Fundamental Chess Endings, M uller & Lamprecht (Gambit 2001) Informators 1-97 (Sahovski Informator 1966-2007) Practical Rook Endings, Mednis ( Chess Enterprises 1982) Secrets of Chess Endgame Strategy, Lars Bo Hansen (Gambit 2006) Secrets of Pawnless Endings, Nunn (Batsford 1994) Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings, Nunn (Batsford 1995) The Unknown Capablanca, Hooper & Brandreth (Batsford 1975) The Games of Robert James Fischer, Wade & O' Co nnell (Batsford 1972) Think Like a Grandmaster, Kotov (Batsford 1971) Winning Chess Endgames, Kosten ( Crowood 1987) Software and Databases

OlessBase 9 Fritz 8 Mega Database 2005 The Week in Chess

Introduction

I

In this book I aim to highlight the lessons to be learnt from master play in positions with lim­ ited material.

Why did I write this book? For over thirty years I have been actively involved in playing tournaments and league games, my own pleasure from chess coming mainly from the practical - or, if you prefer, competitive - angle. So, although I have the greatest respect for those authors who empha­ size the beautiful or artistic side of the game, I tend to write with other tournament competi­ tors in mind. I've always enjoyed positions with simplified material. We tend to label these 'end­ games', although this commonly used term doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, as you'll see below! I'm not alone in advising students that studying your own games is impor­ tant for all phases of the game. But for simplified positions, just as with openings, it's instruc­ tive to compare how we have performed with analogous positions from master games. Now if we've had a rook ending or perhaps bishop vs knight, it's not such a difficult task to find similar positions in a decent endgame book. Positions with one piece each or less are very well covered in chess literature. But those with a little more material are not. In fact it can be very frustrating trying to find any sort of book that covers rook and minor piece vs rook

and minor piece. Do you have any in your collection? According to some statistics that I've outlined below, more than 1 5% of all games (almost

20% in mine!) reach this type of position, and yet there is minimal information available for the enthusiastic student. So I'm aiming to fill a gap by writing about those pseudo-endgames which other books neglect.

What is an 'endgame' anyway? And what on earth is a 'nuckie'? The word 'endgame' is widely used and generally implies the final phase of the game (how­ ever long!), assuming that there already has been significant simplification. If we had to de­ fine the word more rigorously in terms of material then opinions vary. Some specialists con­ sider all queenless positions to be endgames, others those where both sides have limited ma­ terial, for instance less than queen and rook.

7

Practical Endgame Play I have found it convenient to consider positions with only one piece or less per player as endgames and those with a couple of pieces each by an alternative name. As I don't know of a term for these pseudo-endgames I've decided to invent one myself! So here are my defini­ tions:

In this book the term an 'endgame' is a position with a maximum of one piece each. A 'NQE' (for 'Not Quite an Endgame', pronounced 'nuckie') is a posi­ tion with more material than in an endgame but with a maximum of two pieces each. So rook vs queen would be considered as an endgame, whereas rook and bishop vs rook and knight would be a 'nuckie'; rook and bishop vs rook also comes into the latter category. I've decided to concentrate my efforts on these so-called NQEs. So I'll be covering a var­ ied selection such as double rook endings, and two bishops vs knight and bishop, and even queen and rook each, and many other combinations of material in the following twenty chapters. Although endgame principles (such as pushing passed pawns) and positional ones (such as weak squares or a space advantage) obviously come into consideration, they are often complicated by the presence of supplementary pieces. So play is often sharper and more messy than in pure endgames. Dynamic factors are frequently the important ones. If there are heavy pieces on the board, they can be used to target vulnerable kings, as in the middlegame. So any problems with either king are often fundamental to the outcome of the struggle. The side that is objectively weaker has more opportunity to exploit king insecurity to threaten counterplay and thus frustrate the stronger side's plans. The piece power on the board can give rise to some rich possibilities. NQEs are more than just basic endgames in the making, they can also be thought of as late-middlegames.

Theory or Practice? Many endgame books consist mainly of studies or established theory and only a modest number of so-called practical examples. Studies are aimed at being aesthetic and surprising, and can help develop

theory,

which is an attempt to prove best play and the ultimate result.

Virtually all of this book consists of examples taken from actual games. There is much less theory anyway in the NQE phase of the game than in actual endgames, and on many occa­ sions we can't be sure of best play or even the logical result. We can, however, see what techniques have been employed in practice by players who are striving to maximize the po­ tential of their position.

What are the key factors in such simplified positions? I've made a list from my own experience of those factors that really have to be taken into account

8

in general in NQEs. Naturally each chapter will highlight the specifics.

Introduction

1.

Are there chances for a mating attack? O r failing that, a perpetual?

2.

Is any material advantage compensated for by positional or tactical factors? Or if not, is it just a trivial win?

3.

Are the kings liabilities or assets?

4.

Is simplification into an endgame desirable or likely?

5.

What are the main characteristics of the pawn structure? Is it in the interests of either player to change this structure? How significant are any passed pawns?

6.

Are any of the pieces of either side particularly well placed or badly placed?

7.

Whatever the plan decided upon, is there any rush? Is stopping the oppo­ nent's potential counter-chances the main priority?

8.

Should the defender stay passive or aim to activate?

9.

How does the clock situation affect matters?

10. How will the players want to make their game more harmonious? The ninth and penultimate point is becoming more and more relevant in the modem, practical world of chess. Time limits have accelerated and games are much shorter these days. Many players are now finding themselves in permanent time trouble from about move

30 until the end of the game. There is often no respite at move 40 , so practical decisions need to be made quickly and without panicking. So there is certainly truth in the assertion that the need to study NQEs is more important than ever. The tenth general principle also requires some thought.

What is harmony? It is possible that your immediate thought, when seeing the word 'harmony', is of a piece of classical music played by an orchestra, where each musician plays his part in creating the overall effect - which is hopefully an aesthetically pleasing sound! If just one musician gets it wrong then the resulting sound quality is degraded. The word harmony is used in chess as well. If all your pieces, including the king (of course!), and pawns are occupying ideal squares then your position is said to be harmonious.

If there is one badly-placed fighting unit or something awry with the pawn structure then problems arise. In the middlegame we can sometimes get away with one underperformer, but after simplification a misplaced piece sticks out like a sore thumb. Aiming for harmony - or to put it another way, avoiding disharmony - is the tenth and perhaps most underestimated of the factors.

9

Practical Endgame Play I'm certainly not the first author to emphasize this point. Here's some advice offered by

in his ground-breaking classic Think Like A Grandmaster (Batsford 1971): 'Remember that in seeking the solution of concrete tasks by analysing variations you should never allow yourself to be carried away and lose sight of the need for a harmonious link between all your pieces. Take it as a rule once or twice to look at the position from a different point of view during the game. Ask yourself, are my pieces cooperating, or is there some disharmony in their ranks?' Alexander Kotov

Understanding chess harmony is an important skill that really needs emphasizing in NQEs.

A question of technique? The old cliche! But what does it mean? Endgame technique can be thought of as

logical play using endgame experience and theory. In

this book, with more material on the board, technique also takes into account middlegame thinking and therefore has a wider scope, e.g. 'attacking technique' etc.

How can the reader benefit from this book? As it's rather a long book you may prefer to read it over time; for instance one chapter per week or perhaps revising an appropriate section when a particular NQE has cropped up in one of your own games. It can in addition be considered as a reference book. Whichever method applies best to you, I hope that by studying this book you. will gain insight into the latter stages of a game of chess. You will then, hopefully, be able to apply your newly acquired erudition to practical NQEs and endgames of all sorts. From a personal point of view I'm convinced that I've learnt a great deal about the latter phases of the game. I also discovered that many analyses of even very strong players are of­ ten flawed. I found many improvements myself and others with the help of a computer. I'm also sure that a close study of my variations by the reader will reveal further mistakes. I make no apology for being human, just think of these lapses as opportunities! Hunting for mistakes is another way in which we can develop our chess ability!

Acknowledgements John Emms for his patience and inspiration. Jonathan Tait for his constructive criticism and diligent editorial work. Christine Flear for her moral support. Olivier Letreguilly for his enthusiasm. Glenn Flear Baillargues, France May 2007

10

Statistics

A good place to start is to ask the following question: .

What is the likelihood of getting various endings and NQEs in practical play? Apart from just innocent curiosity, discovering the relative probabilities of various NQEs occurring enabled me to know where to concentrate my efforts. If the book has relevance to practical players then it makes sense for the author to go into greater detail in the most common NQEs. I've used a database of my games from the last twenty years to compile the following ta­ bles. I believe that, if the reader were to do the same with his own games or with a standard database, the percentages wouldn't be that much different. First of all I compared my results (GCF) with those of Muller and Lamprecht (M&L from Fundamental Chess Endings, Gambit 2001) who measured a large database.

NQE or ending

GCF

M&L

Rook and minor piece each Rook endings Bishop vs knight endings King and pawn endings

19.56% 11.88% 4.59% 2.49%

15.13% 8.45% 3.29% 2.87%

The percentages measure the probability of a material combination occurring in the course of a game. As you can see there are slight differences in the frequency, but the order of magnitude of our separate results are the same. These results can be interpreted as fol­ lows: When I sit down to play a game of chess the chance of me obtaining a pure pawn ending is 2.49% or about 1 in 40. The 11.88% that I've measured for rook endings means roughly 1 in 80r 9. My personal database (2331 games from 1986-2006) threw up the following figures for standard endgames:

11

Practical Endgame Play

Rook endings Bishop vs knight endings Pawn endings Queen endings Knight endings Bishop (same) endings Bishop (opposite) endings

277 / 2331 games 107 58 52 50 48 22

about 1 in 9 about 1 in 22 about 1 in 40 about 1 in 45 about 1 in 47 about 1 in 49 about 1 in 106

1 1.88% 4.59% 2.49% 2.23% 2.15% 2.06% 0.94%

As I'm not covering any of these in this book (except where there is simplification from an NQE) you may wonder why I'm bothering to put these statistics in at all. If, however, we compare these figures with those of the principle NQEs you will no doubt quickly grasp my point. Here is my personal Top 25 for NQEs 1 l:+.i.vl:-ttLl 2 W+l:vW+l: 3 l:+.i.vl:+.i. (same colour) l:-ttLl vl:-ttLl 4 l:+l:vl:+l: 5 W+.i.vW-ttLl 6 l:+.i.vl: 7 :-ttLl vl: 8 9 lLl+ii. v lLl+.t (same colour) 10= l:+.t vl:+.i. (opposite colour) 10= W-ttLl vW-ttLl 12 W+ii. vW+.i. (same colour) 13 ii. +ii. v lLl+ii. 14 :+l:vl:+.i. 15 l:+l:vl:-ttLl 16= 'it'+l:vW+.i. 16= .i.-ttLl v lLl-ttLl 18 'it'+l: vW-ttLl 19 .i.-ttLl vl: 20= W+.i.vW+ii. (opposite colour) 20= lLl+.i.v lLl+.i.(opposite colour) 22= W+.i.vW 22= 'it'vl:-ttLl 24= W-ttLl vW 24= :-ttLl v.i.-ttLl

221 120 104 103 95 59 37 36 31 28 28 27 24 23 21 18 18 16 13 12 12 10 10 9 9

9.48% 5. 15% 4.46% 4.42% 4.08% 2.53% 1.59%

or or or or or or or or or or or or or or

1 in 11 1 in 19 1 in 22 1 in 23 1 in 25 1 in 40 1 in 63 1 in 65 1 in 75 1 in 83 1 in 83 1 in 86 1 in 97 lin 100

1.54% 1.33% 1.20% 1.20% 1.16% 1.03% 0.99% 0.90% 0.77% 0.77% 0.69% 0.55% 0.51% 0.51% Less than 1 in 200

Such statistics can be affected by style; for instance, a tendency to play for an all-out at­ tack or to agree quick draws. So I'm not claiming anything dramatic in the precise numbers, only that they represent a convenient measure of frequency. There are certain conclusions that can be drawn from these figures. The most striking one 12

Statistics is that the most common NQEs occur more often than standard endings,

except for rook end­ ings. So why aren't they given as much coverage in chess publications? Or shall I put it another way... How much time and effort have you put into studying king and pawn endings (which occur once in 40 games) compared to that put into rook and bishop vs rook and knight (which occurs once every 11 games)? Here are some other results:

�

1.

All forms of rook and minor piece for each player are common.

2.

Queen and rook vs queen and rook occurs frequently.

3.

So-called double rook endings are common, whereas double bishop endings and double knight endings are very rare.

4.

Certain combinations were much rarer than I expected: rook vs bishop and knight and both versions of queen vs rook and minor piece, for instance.

5.

If a player has two minor pieces he is most likely to have one of each.

I believe that the relative frequencies I've observed by examining my own games will hold more or less true for other players of any strength, with the possible exception of out­ right beginners. Why don't you compare the frequencies in your own games or in a standard database? You'll see that in the introductions to certain chapters I've done precisely this to illustrate the point.

Practical Endgame Play

14

Chapter One

I

Two Extra Pieces

We have to start somewhere! Once we learn as a beginner that mate ends the game it soon becomes clear that it's important to grasp the technique to deliver some basic mates. The first couple of these are mating with queen and king vs king and, of course, achieving mate with two

rooks and king vs king.

11.� 1

pair of rooks

naturally forms a 'barrier' which the oppos­ ing king cannot cross. For instance, a rook on h4 stops a king on c5 going to any of the following squares: b4, c4 and d4. The fourth rank is a barrier to Black's king. White doesn't need to use his own king, nor worry too much about stalemate, and visualizing the virtual barriers formed by rooks along ranks or files is not particularly strenuous. The next example is already more in­ volved.

11•2

A pair of bishops

Few of us would have any difficulty with the following moves: 1 :g3 'it>d 5 2 l:tg 5+ 'it>e6 3 l:th6+ 'it>f7 4 l:ta6 rj;e7 5 l:tg7+ 'it>f8 6 l:tb7 �e8 7 :a8 mate

The rooks are used on adjacent ranks to restrict the opposing king's movements and then to push him back until he's mated on the back rank. A rook on an open board

(see following diagram) With a pair of bishops more thought is required. The two bishops need to be on adjacent diagonals to form a 'barrier'. 1 ii.d6 'it>e6 2 ii.g 3

If we look along the two diagonals a8-hl

15

Practical Endgame Play

and b8-h2, we see that Black's king is re­ stricted and that he therefore has no hope of going to the other wing.

has a legal reply until the moment that you are poised for the kill. When mate is close, remember to be wary of stalemate! 14 ... WhS is i.h6 'it'h7 16 i.d2 W hS 17 i.bs W h7 18 i.d 3 + Wh8 19 i.e3 mate

In the final position the g8-square is only covered by White's king. A further illustra­ tion of the point that the help of White's king is indispensable. Although this standard mate holds few secrets for the majority of readers I've em­ phasized it for a good reason: two bishops and king vs king is the most straightforward mate in chess where all three pieces are required. A good example of real teamwork! 2 ... WfS 3 We 3 W e6

If White now attempts to play 4 i.g4+ Black could seek some temporary freedom with 4 ... Wd5. So, unlike in the case with rooks, White needs to use his king to cover some potential escape squares before push­ ing the defending king further back. 4 Wd4 WfS S Wd S Wf6 6 i.g4

The notorious Bishop, Knight a nd Kin g versus Ki ng

11.3

The right corner

The moment has corne to switch diago­ nals. 6 ...WgS 7 i.d7 Wf6 S i.h4+

Further limiting Black's king. This move only makes sense as White's king covers the e5-square. 8 ... Wf7

White's bishops now form a barrier along the c8-h3 and d8-h4 diagonals. 9 Wes W g6 1 0 i.e8+ W g7 11 i.e7

Black now only has five squares in which to manoeuvre. 11 ... Wh7 12 Wf6

The king is brought closer in order to help with the mate. 12 ... Wh6 13 i.fS+ Wh7 14 Wf7

Black is restricted to two squares and White's king comes as close as possible. Now the mate just requires the bishops to reposition themselves for the kill. You should always verify that your opponent 16

The NQE of bishop, knight and king against bare king has a reputation of being tough, as even some strong players have failed to mate. However, learning the required tech­ nique doesn't take long and serves as an excellent example of teamwork. I always show this technique to my pupils. The sense of achievement that they feel when they have assimilated it is a great confidence builder, as well as an ideal foundation for

Two Ext ra Pieces

them to be aware of coordinating their pieces in more complicated NQEs. I first came across the above position when I was about 14-years-old in A Pocket Guide to Chess Endings by David Hooper. The first thing to know is that the mate can only occur in two of the comers, those with the same coloured square as the bishop (so the 'right' comers in order to be able to de­ liver mate with a light-squared bishop are a8 and hI). In this example White has already cre­ ated a 'barrier'; i.e. the squares dl, d2, d3, e3,

19 ... �h2 2 0 �f2 �h1 21 ..tg2+ �h2 22 tLJg4 mate

So once the defending king is limited to a zone around a 'right' comer, the attacking side needs to gradually tighten the noose whilst being careful not to allow his prey to escape.

e4, e5 and f5 are covered by the minor pieces

and his king stops Black from heading for the 'wrong' comer on h8. 1.tg6

Black's king must now retreat and then White can tighten the noose. 1...�4 2 �h6 �g4 3 ..te2 'itf4

Or 3 . .'it>h4 4 ..tdl �g3 5 �g5 etc. .

4 h5 c,t(g3 5 c,t(g5 e7 c,t>d5 Black will calmly walk over and

no problems to mate.

pick off the h-pawn. Then I would have had the chance to test my own technique with

bishop, knight and king vs bare king. 7 2 h7 �xf6+ 7 3 c,t>g8

and Black loses a piece.

19

C h a pt e r Two

I

O n e Extra Piece

The advantage of an extra piece is significant in most positions. In the middlegame even with many pieces on the board, if one player has a piece more the odds are that he will expect to win, unless his opponent has some important compensation such as a strong attack or sev­ eral pawns. In the majority of endgames and NQEs this is also the case, but there are special circum­ stances which may complicate the stronger side's task of converting his material advantage. These can be summarized as: The stronger side has no pawns left. The weaker side has some good pawns as at least partial compensation. 3. The weaker side can construct a defensive shell, which in chess we describe as a fortress. 4. The extra piece is handicapped in some way, an example being the presence of a wrong rook's pawn.

1. 2.

It's important to know that the ending of king, bishap and rook's pawn vs bare king isn't al­ ways winning. If the bishop doesn't control the queening square and the defending king can make it to that comer then it's only a draw. Throughout this book cases where the bishop doesn't control the queening square of a rook's pawn will be known as an example of the 'wrong rook's pawn' (WRP), as opposed to the 'right rook's pawn' (RRP) when the bishop controls the relevant comer square. In cases where the stronger side has no remaining pawns and any of the defender's pawns are weak and virtually irrelevant, then we can make some conclusions about various NQEs: rook + bishop vs rook rook + knight vs rook queen + bishap vs queen queen + knight vs queen two minor pieces vs one

20

commonplace and tricky to defend fairly common but much easier to defend rare and generally drawn rare and generally drawn drawish (except for .i.+.i. v tt:) see Chapter Six). -

On e Ext ra P i e c e I've decided t o limit m y efforts t o those piece configurations that have some practical relevance, i.e. where both players have a rook and one player has an additional minor piece. The NQE of rook and bishop vs rook is notoriously difficult to defend, but in most cases should be a book draw. This is one of those fundamental technical positions that should be mastered by anyone who consider themselves to be a serious chess player. As it occurs so frequently, some book work now may earn a player many a half-point throughout their fu­ ture career. In comparison, rook and knight vs rook is rarer and not that dangerous if the defender has plenty of time. The theory is less important in this case, common sense often being enough to save the day. The following example from recent practice is fairly typical.

Rook a n d Kn ight versus Rook 2.1 S.Volkov-M.Bartel Port Erin 2006

Switching to side checks to upset White's mating

intentions.

Instead,

the

passive

92 . . . J::th l? allows White a free hand in con­ structing a mating net: 93 lbe6 Ith5 94 lbf8+ Black's king is already restricted to the

'it>h8 95 'it>g6 Ith2 96 ttJe6 1:.g2+ 97 'it>f7 (but

edge, but despite White's valiant efforts he

not 97lbg5? 'it>g8 98 Ita6 'it>f8 99 l:te6 Itg3 and Black escapes... for now!) 97 ... Ith2 98 ttJg5 Ithl 99 'it>f8 Ith2 100 l1g6 Itf2+ 101 ttJf7+ 'it>h7 102 J:th6 mate.

can't win.

79 ...Ite3+ 80 'it>fs Itf3+ 81 ttJf4 litf1 82 'it'gs l:!.g1+ 83 'it>f6 Itf1 84 .l::!. a 7+ 'it>h6 8 5 'it>fs l:tg1 86 l:ta2 1U1 87 J:tg2 'it>h7 The

defensive

technique

consists

of

checking or pinning the minor piece and keeping one's king as far away from the op­ posing king as possible.

88 l:tg4 l::tf2 89 'it>f6 lUi 90 'it>f7 'it>h6 91 Itg6+ 'it>h7 9 2 Itf6 (see following diagram)

92 ...Ita1!

93 IUS l:.a7+ 94 'it>f6 J::t a 6+ 95 ttJe6 'it>h6 96 11bS After 96 �f1 Black plays 96 . . . 'it>h5.

96 ... �a1 97 Itb4 .l:tf1+ 98 lbf4 'it>h7 99 'it>fs 'it>g7 100 Itb7+ 'it>h6 101 Ita7 l:tf2 102 Ita1 'it>g7 103 'it>es Itb2 104 ttJe6+ 'it>f7 105 Ita7+ 'it>g6 106 Itg7+ 'it>h6 107 Itg1 l:te2+ 108 'it>fS Itf2+ 109 ttJf4 'it>h7 110 'it>es 'it>h6 111 'it>e4 l::ta 2 112 ttJd S ,Uf2 113 'it>es Ite2+ 114 'it>fs Itf2+ 115 'it>e6 'it>hS 116 'it>es Ite2+ 117 'it>f6 21

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

:tf2+ 118 �e6 lle2+ 119 �f5 :tf2+ 120 �e4 �h6 121 �e5 :te2+ 122 �f6 :tf2+ 123 �e7 �h5 124 �e6 .l:le2+ 125 �f5 :tf2+ 126 ltJf4+ �h6 127 :tg4 .l:tfl 128 �f6 �h7 129 l:th4+ Or if 129 �f7 then 129 ... �h6! ' 129 ...�g8 130 �e7 �g7 Yz-Yz

12•2

Centurini

7 :thS+ �a7 SltJb5+ �a6 9 :taS mate. The black rook is now stuck to the b-file in order to meet a check on the h-file with . . ..l:tbS.

7 .l:th3 Again White temporizes i n order to oblige Black's rook to go to an inferior square.

7 ... �bl 8 .l:lh2 :tb4 9 ltJb5 l:!.C4+ 10 �b6 �b8 Or here if 10 ... .l:IcS, then 11 ltJc7+ �bS 12 ltJa6+ �aS 13 �a2! and mate follows:

13 . . . l:!.hS 14ltJc7+ 'it>bS 15 ':as mate.

l1 ltJd6 ':b4+ 12 'It>c6

Here the correct defence is to move the king away from the mating set-up with 1 . . .�cS!, whereas defending by coming to the c-file with. . .

1 ...:tcl? .. .loses! Let's see why. We follow a study by Centurini . . .

2 ':d3 ! Black is now restricted to playing his rook on the c-file as his king dare not move.

2 ... :tc2 3 l:tdl .u.c4 4 lIhl Now we see why the rook was invited to c4 - the attempt to escape with 4 . . .'it>cS? is thwarted by 5ltJd6+.

4... .:C2 Black therefore has to move his rook. White has thus managed to gain time to get his rook to a more flexible square.

5 ltJd4! l:!.b2+ Here 5 ... :tc4 fails to 6 :thS+ :tcS 7ltJc6+.

6 �c6 �a8 The only move to resist as 6 ... l:!.b4 loses to 22

Now it becomes clear why White's rook is better on the h-file than on the d-file - it isn't blocked by the knight. The black rook is worse placed on b4 (than on b2, for instance) as it is unable to give any annoying checks.

12 ...�a8 13 :th8+ l:tb8 14 ltJc8! 1-0 Black is mated.

2.3

J.Piket-G.Flear French League 2002 (see following diagram) Although Black's king is confined to the

back rank, he isn't in any serious danger as White has to spend time and energy to re­ lease his own.

On e Ext ra P i e c e

49 ... �e8 50 ttJf4 lld2 51 �f1 �d8 52 :a7 �c8 53 �e1 l::t b 2 54 ttJe2 'it>b8 55 l:te7 �c8 56 �f2 .l:tb3 57 ttJd4 :d3 58 ttJf5 :b3 59 l:tf7 .l:!.d3 60 ttJe3 l:!a3 61 g7 �h5 57liJg6 �g5 58 liJf4 h5 59liJg6 f5

l::t a5 47 g4 ':a3 48 %:tb7 llh3+ 49 liJh4 l:h1 as

60 �h6; while 48. .. �h8 loses to the more

White cannot then make any progress)

dramatic 49liJxh6! etc.

45 ... :a4+ 46 h5 (another idea is 46 h3

49 :e5 �h8

l::t a5 47 liJe8 :g5 48 g2 g8 49 f3 f8 50 liJd6 l::t g6 51 l::tb8+ e7 52 liJf5+ f6 53 f4 which also looks promising) 46 . . . l::t a5+ 47 h4 l::t a4+ 48 g4, as after 48 . . . .l::t a6 49 liJf5 l:tg6 50 ltd7 l:tg5 (or 50 . . .h8 51 l:.d6 llg5 when

The rook is well and truly trapped after 49 . . . g6 50 liJh4 g5+ 51 'it>g4, and Yusupov shows why Black cannot defend with other moves: 49 . . . g5+ 50 �e4 llh1 51 l:te7+ c;t>g6 52 l::t e6+ c;t>h7 53 �e5, or 49 .. J�h1 50 :e7 :£1+ 51 �g4 �g6 52 l:txg7+ �f6 53 :h7! l:txf5 54

White has 52 liJxh6!) 51 liJd4 l::t g6 52 ':e7 g8 53liJe6 h8 54 l:te8+ wins.

42 l::t b 6+ e7 43 g4 ':'d5 44 liJe3 :g5+ 45 f4 f7 46 liJf5 With the knight on f5 bearing down on 24

.l:lxh6+ �e5 55 l:th5 and wins.

50 liJh41 1-0 In the following two examples, the de-

On e Ext ra P i e c e

fender doesn't quite have enough 'material' compensation. but is still able to draw.

2.6 I.Sokolov-M.Krasenkow Wijk aan Zee 2002

Here's a n example where the rook and pawns beat the rook and knight.

2.8 V.Kramnik-V.lvanchuk Dortmund 1995 In this first example White finds it hard to maintain his qu,eenside pawns and restrain Black's passed pawns at the same time. This type of position would probably be won with a bishop (instead of a knight) which is better able to 'multi-task' at a distance.

40 Jle2 41 :bl b6 42 a4 h 5 43 b3 �g7 44 �e4 'iith 6 45 'iite 5 l:.e3 46 �f4 %ld3 47 lbg5 h4 48 lbe4 �g7 49 lbf2 %lg3 50 lbg4 ':'c3 51 �e3 h3 52 lbd5 .l:.d3 5 3 'ifo>e4 %lg3 54 'ifo>f4 .l:t.d3 5 5 'ifo>e4 :g3 56 lbe3 h2 5 7 .l:.hl l:th3 58 �d3 g5 59 'ifo>e2 �f7 60 b4 Va-Va .•

2.7 B.Gelfand-P .Leko Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 2003 '

41 ':'xc6! bxc6 42 l:Ixc6 J:r.b8 43 l::txg6 :xb2 44 f5 l:tb3+ 45 'iitf4 :xa 3 46 :g7+ 'ifo>e8 47 e6 lbf6 48 g4 :U49 e5 lbd5+ 50 �e4 1-0

Rook a n d Bishop versus Rook

(see following diagram)

35 ... lLlb5 36 l:!b7 lLlC3 3 7 1:1C7 lbd 5 3 8 �C5 �e7 39 g5 �f7 40 f4 1:tdl 41 e4 1:td3 42 �f2 86 Ya-Ya

White's solid pawn phalanx doesn't al­

The theory of the pawnless endgame rook, bishop and king vs rook and king has been well documented by other commentators over many years. There have been two notable trends over the last generation:

low Black any winning chances. 25

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay 1. The popularization of the 'second rank defence' (or SRD) that can ease the de­

and 7 . . J:t£6 is mated by 8 :e8+ �h7 9 .i.g8+ �h8 10 �d5+ �h7 1 1 �e4+ etc.

fender's lot. 2. Accelerated time limits that complicate the defence, as we'll see in the practical ex­ amples below.

2.9 The wrong rook's pawn

8 �g6 and the mate threat with 1:[h7 wins. More common in practice is this NQE without pawns.

We have already mentioned that bishop,

WRP and king vs king is drawn when the de­

2 . 10 S.Movsesian-A.Areshchenko Russian Team Championship 2006

fending king can make the corner. With a pair of rooks White wins, but he must be on the lookout for stalemate traps.

1 .l:.e7 Rather than 1 �e7? .l:.f7+! and stalemate, as in M.Basman-W.Hartston, Southend 1968.

1 ... �g8 2 ii.f5 Played with the intention of shielding the king so that it can be brought over to g6.

2 ... �h8 3 �e5 �g8 4 �f4 �h8 5 �g5 �g8 Or if 5 . . . l:.g8+, then 6 �h5 1:[f8 7 �e6.

6 �e6+ �h8 7 �h5! Better than 7 �g6?!, which i s met by 7 . . . .l:.f6+!'

(see following diagram) This

waiting

move

puts

Black

in

zugzwang.

7 ...1:.b8 Of course 7 ... .l:.f5+ 8 �xf5 is not stalemate; 26

If Black is pushed back to the back rank the easiest way to defend is the so-called second rank defence (or SRD).

92 1:.c8+ �d4 93 �c6 1:.e5 94 .l:td8+ �C4 95 ':d6 �d4 96 1:.g6 1:.a 5 97 1:.e6 �e5 98 �b6 I:.b5+ 99 ..t>c6 1:.C5+ 100 �d7 �d5 101 1:.e7 Switching to the SRD.

On e Ext ra P i e c e

, 101 .td6 102 .l::f.f7 l:tbS 103 ItfS+ .tes 104 :f7 •••

104 ...l:tb6 After 104 ...I:.b7+ 105 'it>e8 the attacking rook must move off the seventh.

105 ne7 .tf6 106 :f7 lid6+ 107 'it>C7 .td8+ 108 c,t>c8 'it>e6 Switching the position 90 degrees some­ times throws the defender, but not here.

109 �b7 .te7 110 J:IbS �c6+ 111 �b7 �d7 112 �dS+ .id6 113 .l::!. b S .l:tcl 114 .l::f. b 6 .icS 115 �b3 .id4 116 'it>a6 'it>c6 117 l:tb6+! A key point of this defence - the stale­ mate trick stops the attacker's king prepar­ ing a mating net.

117 ... c,t>dS 118 :b7 �c6 119 �b6+ �cS 120 c,t>b7 .l:!.al 121 .l:.c6+ �dS 122 .l:!.C7 l:tbl+ 123 c,t>c8 .teS 124 l::t b 7 l::t a l 125 �d7 :!.as 126 c,t>c8 c,t>c6 And now of course there is . . .

127 nC7+! Again and again!

127 ... c,t>d6 128 �b7 .td4 Yz-Yz Here's another successful defence.

2 . 11 A.Karpov-T .Radjabov Wijk aan Zee 2003 (see following diagram)

64 .l:i.e4 1Ia s+ 65 �e6 J:Ia6+ 66 �es .tf6+ 67 �f4 l:[al 68 ne6 l:tfl+ 69 'it>g4 l:thl 70 .l:!.e4 �hS 71 'it>f4 .l:tfS+ 72 �e3 .ies 73 nc4 I;Ifl 74 .l::t c 2 �fS 7 5 'it>d 3 .l:!.dl+ 76 .l:!.d2 l:tal 7 7 'it>C4 l:!. a 8 78 ltf2+ �e6 79 l:!. d 2 lIa4+ 8 0 �cS 1:te4 81 ':c2 .id6+ 82 �c6 i..f4 83 ItcS .te3 84 l:tc3 .td4 85 :g 3 .l:i.e2 86 .l:.g 6+ .tf6 87 .l:i.h6 .l:i.c2+ 88 �bS 'it>es 89 .l:!.hS+ �d4 90 Ith6 .ies After considerable effort Radjabov has finally coordinated his pieces and pushed Karpov's king to the near-edge. So Karpov switches to the SRD.

91 J:[b6 �d S 92 �a6 .iC7 93 ltb3 .id6 94 �bS .ics 95 :d3+ .td4 96 :b3 l:tc8 97 �b4 97 lIb4 is also possible.

97 ... �C7 98 �bS .tc3 99 �a6 Or 99 �a4, when 99 .. .'it>c4 (or if 99 ... 1k5 then 100 .l:tb5) would be greeted by the now familiar 100 1Ib4+.

99 ...�C4 100 I:tb7 ':c8 101 lIbl l:ta8+ · 'it>b7 .l:[h8 103 Itcl �d4 104 �c6 l:tc8+ 'it>d7 .l:i.C4 106 �e6 �e4 107 Itdl .tb4 �d7 ]:tc2 109 lthl .td2 110 .l:.h2 l:!.a2 �c6 �es 112 Ite2+ �d4 113 l:t g2 Yz-Yz

102 105 108 111

2 . 12 The defence from behind: Cochrane's defence Here Black defends with his rook behind

27

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

the bishop and king duo. This type of position is known as Cochrane's defence.

pieces doesn't enable the defender to set up an ideal defensive position. In fact, just a slight difference and the position is lost.

l 'iii'e 5 Threatening mate with 1 'iii'd 6 is naturally met by . . . lIxd4+ (with check!). But if in the initial position Black's king were on e8 then 1 'iii'e 6! would be very strong, as you'll see in the next example.

1 ...'iii'c 8! The defending king heads off in the op­ posite direction. So, using the same princi­ ple, if White had played 1 'iii'cs on his first move, then 1 . . .'iii'e8 would be best, heading off in the opposite direction.

1 'iii' e 6! 'iii'd 8 2 .i.e5 'iii'c 8 3 lIC7+ �d8 4 ':c6 Threatening .i.f6+ followed by lIc8 mate.

4 ...�e8 Or after 4 ... .l:tel White wins with a dinky little manoeuvre: 5 ':c4 lIe2 6 llg4 'iii'c8 7 J:tb4. We'll see this decisive switch from side to side again in some later examples.

5 l1c8+ The winning technique that follows goes the whole way back to Philidor in the 18th century!

2 .i.C5 lId7

5 ... l:.d8 6 ':c7 :d2 7 .l:tb7

This position was reached in S.Flohr­ S.Reshevsky, Semmering 1937. Reshevsky held easily enough . . .

As king moves are hopeless Black must temporize with his rook.

7 ...lId1 8 l1g7

3 iLe7 'iii' b 7 4 'iii'e 6 'iii'c 6 5 lIhl lId2 6 lIC1+ 'iii' b 5 7 .i.d6 l:le2+ 8 'iii'd 7 lIe4 9 lIC5+ 'iii'a 4 10 'iii'c 6 'iii' b 3 11 'iii'd 5 lIe8 12 lIb5+ 'iii'c 2 13 .i.C5 'iii'd 3 14 lIb3+ 'iii'e 2 15 .i.d4 lId8+ 16 'iii'e 4 l:le8+ 17 .i.e5 'iii'e l 18 lIb2 ':'e7 The position has come round 1 80 degrees and Black is still holding using Cochrane's defence.

2 . 13 Philidor's winning technique Sometimes the initial placing of the 28

8 ....l:tfl

On e Ext ra P i e c e

12 .th4 (covering dB and e1) 12 .. 5iitfB 13 l:tg4

( 2 ... cB 3 �e7 was given b y Hooper i n 1970 as winning, but this can be defended by the cheeky 3 . . . l:tb4!, as Hooper had noted in the 19B6 edition) 3 :f2 .l:i.c1 4 i.b2 l:.dl+ S e6 l:td7! (another 19B6 improvement - does this acknowledge the SRD that was underesti­ mated a generation earlier? - instead, S . . . dB? 6 i.eS cB 7 l:tb2 and S . . . l:te1+? 6 i.eS l:tbl 7 l:tc2 both lead to a win for White) 6 i.a3 l:te7+! and Black resists.

with the decisive threat of i.e7+.

2 i.d6 l:tel 3 l:tbS+ l:teS 4 l:tb7

Alternatively B . . . fB loses to 9 l:th7 l:tg1

10 l:tc7 �gB (10 ... l:tg6+ is well met by 11 i.f6) 11 l:tcB+ �h7 12 l'.thB+ g6 13 l:tgB+ with a skewer.

9 .tg31 The bishop is used to restrict the black rook.

9 :f3 •••

Or here 9 ... fB 10 l:tg4 eB 1 1 l:tc4 l:.dl

10 .td6 l:te3+ 11 i.e5 :f3 12 l:te7+ �fS 1 3 :'e7 WgS 1 4 l:tg7+ fS 1 5 l:tg4 l:t e 3 1 6 l:th4 and wins. Finally after all those manoeuvres, the black rook cannot come to g3 to defend.

2.14 Szen's drawing position

White shouldn't be able to win. l .1:.b2

1 l:th7 can be met by 1 . . . cB. 1 ..I:.e6+ ••

In my youth my first endgame book was A Pocket Guide to Chess Endgames by David

Hooper. In it he mentioned a game Marovic­ Van der Weide, Holland 1967, which con­ tinued as follows: 1 . . .l:tc4 (this was criticized in my 1970 edition; however, Batsford's re­ vised 19B6 edition had correctly seen that this move doesn't yet lose) 2 d6 �eB

Black can meet 4 i.e7+ by 4 ... �c7.

4 ... l:tel 5 l:tb2 l:tel+ 6 i.e5 l:lel 7 d6 l:tdl+ S e6 l:tel and White shouldn't be able to make pro­ gress.

12•15

Hooper

Black can in fact draw here Gust!), but must naturally be on his guard. There are similarities to Philidor's position, but with Black's king near the comer White's rook isn't quite as effective switching from side to side. Nevertheless, with the bishop on the long diagonal the threats can become very strong.

1 l:te7 :f3 2 i.h4 2 i.f6 can be met by 2 . . .l:tg3+ 3 �fS l:ta3 4 i.eS :a6.

2 :fll •••

29

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

The plausible 2 .. J:tf4? loses, as after 3 i.f6 1:.g4+ 4 i.gS the rook is unable to come back to the f-file. As a general rule the defender should be aware of the rook being domi­ nated by the bishop and so take care as to his choice of temporizing squares. 3 i.f6 1:.g1+ 4 a6 6 i.ds 'iti>a s 7 �cS and we have a version of Philidor's posi­ tion which wins. So being in the comer can have its downside! In the modem world, by the time this ending occurs in practical games, normally ••

On e Ext ra P i e c e

there is little time left on the clock, which renders the defender's task even more diffi­ cult. Some strong players have been unable to cope.

2 . 17 N.Short-S.Agdestein Reykjavik 1990

78 a1 .l:te5 145 .l:.g2 .l:le1+ 146 ..t>a2 �c4+ 147 Wa3 l:.a1+ 148 l:.a2 ,Uxa2 mate. 129 �a2 �C3 130 Wal? White can still hold after 130 l:tb3+! �c2 131 lIb2+ �c1 132 lIg2 �c2 133 l:.gl + �d1 134 l:tg3. ,

On e Ext ra P i e c e , 130 i.e2 0-1 ...

There is no stalemate. My opponent's mistakes at the end can be put down to fatigue. There were two league games to be played during the week­ end. On Saturday we played this game from 2pm until 11 pm and then adjourned. On Sunday morning we played another game. My opponent had a fairly long game (against Daniel Roos) lasting for 5 or 6 hours, and then conducted a post-mortem with his opponent. Without a break he then came over and resumed his adjournment with me, and unfortunately for him he wasn't able to resist for too long. Possibly 190 moves over the weekend were a few too many!

�h2+ 'itel 104 l:th1 i.c4 105 l:tgl, and be­ cause there is no zugzwang here (as White's rook can temporize between gl and hI ), Black is held at bay. 99 i. C4 100 'itel 100 'itel l:tf5 should be familiar by now! .••

100 .. J:!.a 5 101 l:tb6 i.b5 0-1 Although I sometimes moan about mod­ em time limits being a little too fast, we should compare this with the old days. The following second round game was finished several days and rounds later!

2.21 G.Flear-J.Branford London 1978

2 . 20 R.O'Brien-G.Flear Ramsgate 1981

7 3 ... 'itd4 74 'itfl i.f4 7 5 l:te2 .l:!.b7 76 l:te8 'itd3 77 'itg2 l:tf7 78 l:te6 l:tf8 79 'ith3 l:tg8 80 'ith4 'itd4 81 l:ta6 'ite4 82 l:ta4+ Sometimes things can go awry very quickly.

98 Wel?1 Preferable is 98 'itc2 'ite3 99 'itc3.

98 ...We3 Now White has to be precise.

This natural check should lose. Instead 82 l:ta5 'itf3 83 l:ta3+ i.e3 84 l:ta5 is drawn (see Szen's position), while 82 l:ta7 'itf3 83 :ta3+ is also possible.

82 ... 'itf5 83 'ith3 :tg3+ 84 'ith4 l:tc3 85 l:ta5+ i.e5 86 l:tb5 l:Id3 87 l:ta 5 Can you see how Black should win?

99 Wdl? In fact it seems that White can just hold out with the passive 99 l:th6, e.g. 99 ... i.e4 100 Wdl i.d3 101 'itel l:tf5 102 l:th1 'itc2 103

(see following diagram) 87 ...l:td2? 33

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

The win is straightforward, but my op­ ponent only had a couple of minutes to make the time control on move 88! Did you manage to find 87 .. J�d7 88 �h3 l:td2 which, if played, would have obliged my resigna­ tion.

88 :a 3 Back to Szen. 88 it.d6 89 :a5+ .ie5 90 :a3 ':e2 91 ltb3 :e4+ 92 �h3 Wg5 93 :a3 ]::te 2 94 :a2 it.b2 95 �g3 �f5 96 �3 l:te3+ 97 �e2 :b3 98 :a8 �e4 99 :d8 it.e5 100 J:.e8 l:tb2+ 101 Wel Back to Cochrane's defence! 101 ... 'it>d4 102 �1 Yz-Yz For those accustomed to modem time controls, the clock readings may be of inter­ est: 4.49-S.00! ..•

2.22 G.Flear-M.Chandler British Championship, 1988

Blackpool

Here White can pull up the drawbridge and Black has no realistic winning chances with the WRP. In Kamsky-Ljubojevic below you'll see that with a g-pawn instead, not only does this give more winning chances, it may even be a forced win!

34

4 7 :f4 :a2 4 8 :g4 .ie5 4 9 l:te4 it.d6 5 0 �f3 it.e5 5 1 J:te2 :a6 52 %1e2 l:tf6+ 5 3 �g2 it.b6 54 ne2 Wg6 5 5 �fl �5 56 �g2 it.d4 57 �f3 :b6 58 �g2 :b3 59 �h3 h5 60 �g2 1:I.b6 61 �f3 1:I.a6 62 �g2 ':a4 63 �f3 i.. e 5 64 Wg2 lIa8 6 5 �3 �e6 66 l:.e4 �f5 67 l:1e2 !la4 68 �g2 i.d4 69 �f3 it.a7 70 �g2 �g4 71 :e4+1 With the WRP the exchange of rooks leads to a draw. 71 Jlxe4 72 f3+ �5 73 fxe4+ �g4 74 e5 it.b8 75 e6 it.d6 76 e7 it.xe7 77 �hl it.d6 78 Wg2 it.e7 79 'it>hl �f3 80 'it>gl i.d6 81 �hl �f2 82 g4 hxg4 Yz-Yz .•

2.23 G.Kamsky-L.Ljubojevic Monte Carlo (rapid) 1996

On e Ext ra P i e c e

, When I first saw this position I assumed that it would be a book draw, and White's best chance would be in getting rook and bishop vs rook. However, it seems that Black's defensive task isn't so straightforward ... 46 l:l.d7 l:l.f5 47 g1 nf6 48 f2 l:tf5 49 e3 :g5 50 f2 ,Ue5 51 iLd5 :f5+ 52 e3 f8 53 .ie4 1U6 54 iLf3 'ii;>g 7 5 5 !Id S IIa6 56 f4 :f6+ 57 �g5 Jle6 58 g4 Exchanging one of the g-pawns makes sense.

58 hxg4 59 xg4 l:te7 60 :b5 IIe6 61 llb7 :e5 62 �f4 IU5+ 63 'ii;> e 3 f8 64 iLe4 :tf6 65 �d4 �g7 66 iLd5 IUS 67 e4 f8 We have already seen that if White had an h-pawn then a draw would be inevitable. Instead the g-pawn not only yields White practical chances, I even believe that this position is winning. First of all the rook can be harassed ... 68 g4 l:l.f1 69 g5 .l:f.e1+ After the passive 69 .. J::E.f5 we can see an­ other advantage in White having a g-pawn: 70 : xf7+! nxf7 71 iLxf7 'itxf7 72 d5! and White wins! 70 �4 l:tf1+ 71 �e5 .l:tf5+ 72 d6 Itxg5 7 3 :xf7+ �e8 Should White bother taking the pawn or not? Can it be used to limit Black's defensive possibilities? Kamsky didn't bother with any subtleties, but perhaps he should have ... 74 :f6 l:l.f5 7 5 iLc6+ d8 .•.

76 11xg6? After 76 i:le6! 1:tf8 77 .td7 g5 78 l:te7! Black is in trouble, e.g. 78 ... g4 79 .te6 lIf1 80 :ta7 l:1d1 + 81 iLd5 l:!.c1 82 l:tg7 J::te 1 83 l:txg4 with a winning version of Philidor's posi­ tion. 76 .. J:tf8 77 iLd 5 c8 78 Wc6 'it>d8 79 d6 c8 80 :h6 b8 81 l:th7 .l:If6+ 82 'itd7 a 7 83 'ii;> C 7 �b6 84 l:th8 l:!.b7+ 8 5 'it>d6 i:lb6+ 86 C5 llb5+ 87 d6 J::t b 8 88 l1h1 11b6+ 89 iLc6 llb2 90 C7 llb7+ 91 d6 .l:!.b2 92 l:!.h8 l:tb8 93 l1h7+ b6 94 :h4 l:!.d8+ 95 iLd7 ,Ub8 96 Jla4 l:th8 97 i:lb4+ a 5 98 l:!.b5+ a6 99 C7 l:th7? Correct is 99 ... !!h6! in order to meet 100 i:1b4 with 100 ... a7, or 100 l::te5 by 100 ... a7. Until here Ljubojevic had defended well, but the old story of time being short and ... 100 Jlg5 l:If7 101 :g4 1-0 With more pawns on the flank it can still be tough to break down a resilient defender.

2 .24 P .Leko-V.Topalov Dortmund Candidates 2002

One would expect this sort of position to be winning, but Black's solid pawns enable him to resist for a while. White needs first to get Black's rook onto the defensive. 5 3 .. .1:1c4 54 iLd2 g6 55 l:ta7 lId4 56 iLe3 35

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

nc4 57 l:tb7 .l:!.c3 5S .i.d2 l:tc2 59 .i.a5 11a2 60 .i.dS .l:taS 61 .i.b6 l:IcS 62 l:tC7 l:tbS 63 .i.C5 The threat of .i.f8 ties Black's rook down to the back rank. In view of this, it is the ap­ propriate time for the king to be brought into play. 63 ... neS 64 �f2 l:thS 65 'it>e3 .l:!.aS 66 'it>d3 na4 67 g3 i:taS 6S �e4 1:1.hS 69 'it>d 5 i:tdS+ 70 'it>e6 naS 71 .i.d6 lIeS+ 72 .i.e7 !taS 7 3 lIb7 J::ta 6+ 74 .i.d6 l:taS The white pieces have found ideal squares, so now Leko adds another element to the position. 75 f4! The idea is to play f4-f5+, pushing away Black's king, and thus obtaining access to the f7-square. 75 ... exf4 76 gxf4 l:!.a6 77 .ttd 7 fLaS 7S f5+ 'it>h7 79 'it>f7 I!.a4 SO i.fS .l:!.g4

S1 .i.xg7! 1-0 A neat combination. White wins easily after 81.. ..l:txg7+ 82 'it>e6 l:txd7 83 'it>xd7 'it>g8 84 'it>e6 'it>g7 85 'it>e7 . In the following example we have the same material disposition, but Black is more active.

2.2 5 A.Morozevich-A.Naiditsch Russian Team Championship 2006 36

40 l:!.b4 g5 41 %:tb6 .l:i.C7 42 i.b4 l::ta 7 43 fLd6 %:ta2 44 .i.C5 'it'g6 45 .i.e3 .l:1b2 46 l:!.c6 l:!.a2 47 'it>g1 .l:i.a1+ 4S .i.c1 'it>f5 49 'it>f1 l:Ia2 50 'it'e1 �a1 51 'it>e2 l:!.a2+ 52 'it>f3 'it>g6 53 l:Id6 �f5 54 .i.d2 fLa 3+ 55 'it>e2 :a1 56 i.e1 l:ta2+ 57 l:td2 White would be keen to exchange rooks as his king would then be able to become more active. 5 7 ... l:taS 5S nb2 :a7 59 �b3 l:!.aS As piece manoeuvring hasn't achieved very much so far Morozevich decides to change the pawn structure. He was obvi­ ously convinced that the plan of making a beeline with all three pieces to hit f6 was either not feasible or couldn't be done with­ out allowing Black to get at his pawns. 60 g4+!? hxg3 61 fxg3 l:thS 62 g4+ �g6 One of the points behind Morozevich's strategy is that Black's king has been pushed back from f5, enabling White's king to even­ tually use the e4-square. Meanwhile it's nec­ essary to defend the h3-pawn. 63 'it>f2 �aS 64 'it>g2 .l:.!.a2+ 65 .i.f2 .i:!.c2 66 ttb7 l:ta2 67 'it>f3 Ita3+ 6S .i.e3 .uc3 69 'it>e4 White gets to the desired e4-square, but his stay will be short this time. 70 .. J:tC4+ 70 'it>f3 If at first you don't succeed ... 70...l::t C 3 71 nb4 .ucS 72 .ub1 .uc2 7 3 nc1 lih2 74 �g3 nb2 7 5 1:1.c3 .l:.!.e2 76 .i.c1 I:te4 77 i.a 3 .l:!.a4 7S 'it>f3 nf4+ 79 'it>e3 l:ta4 SO 'it>d3 .

On e Ext ra P i e c e

, .:I.d4+ 81 �c2 lita4 82 �b3 ltf4 83 �c1 litd4 84 i.e3 :e4 85 �c2 l:ta4 86 �d3 l:tb4 87 ':'a3 �7 88 1:a6 After some extensive 'toing-and-froing' Morozevich is finally making progress.

This is in effect a key position. Black must sooner or later allow the white king to advance up the board. 88....:.b1 Waiting with 88 ...�g7!? comes into con­ sideration. After 89 ..tc5 .l:lf4 90 �e3 �f7 I can't then see a way to seriously test Black's defensive shield, one of the points being that if White's king is only on e3 then 91 :a7+ can be met by 91...�e6. So White should try 89 ':'b6! (instead of 89 �c5) 89 ... lta4 90 �c5 ':'f4 91 l:tb4! when he is in business: 91 ... :f3+ 92 'ite4 :xh3 93 litb7+ �g6 94 ..tf8. 89 .:I.a7+ �e6 90 �C4 :e1 91 l:ta6+ �f7 92 .1C5 :h1 After 92 ... .l:r.d1 White still proceeds with 93 ':'a7+ �g6 94 �f8. 93 ':'a7+ �g6 94 �f817 Going for it! White sacrifices his pawns in order to create awkward threats against Black's king. Instead, after the cautious 94 l:ta3 it's still not clear how White would hope to win. 94 ... l:txh3 95 11g7+ �h6 96 �dS ':'g3 9 7 �e6 lhg4 My computer gives this position as 'equal', the logic presumably being that it

can't see any way to mate so it must be drawn. However, we basically have the end­ ing of rook and bishop vs rook with a few ragged pawns. The presence of these pawns can help the attacking side as they give him cover. So there are bound to be serious win­ ning chances. 98 .l:lg8+ �h7 99 �f7 lIc4 100 �e7 g4? This seems to be a case of the wrong pawn. Black should be able to draw with 100 ... e4 101 l:te8 (or 101 l:ta8 e3 102 :a3 1:.e4 103 �xf6 �h6 104 lta1 �h5 and winning chances look decidedly slim) 101 . . .e3 102 �xf6 ':c7+ 103 �e6 ':c5 104 ..te5 �g6 105 ltg8+ �h7 106 J:hg5 e2 107 l:tg7+ �h6 108 llgl :a5 109 �f5 �h7 and the very best that White will get is rook and bishop vs rook (and another fifty moves to try!). 101 1:.a8 f5 102 �f6 :C7+ 103 �e6 �g6 104 ltg8+ �h7 105 :gs e4 106 ..tes �h6 107 ltg8 ':'C2 108 �6 �h7 109 �f7 �h6 110 �f4+ �h7 111 ltg7+ �h8 112 �es 1-0 Another type of position which may give technical difficulties is when the extra piece is pinned.

2.26 M.Dlugy-G.Flear London 1986

40 ... gS I 37

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

This move gains space and reduces White's options on the kingside. 41 g4 '>t>g6 42 'it>f3 h5 43 h3 h4 Naturally I didn't exchange pawns un­ necessarily. But even so, how should Black try and unpin under favourable circum­ stances? 44 1Ib7 '>t>h6 4 5 '>t>g2 '>t>g7 46 l:tb8 Or after 46 Wf3 Wf8 the black king heads for the centre and queenside. 46 ...f6 47 exf6+ '>t>xf6 48 Wf3 e5 49 l:tb6+ 'it>e7 50 'it>e2 '>t>d7 If there is nothing else Black always has 50 ... lIh1 51 lhb2 l:txh3, but I'm not sure that it's winning after 52 l::tb6, so it's better to be patient and try for more. 51 '>t>d3 We7 52 l:tb3 We6 53 nb8 White would also have a difficult time af­ ter the continuation 53 'it>c2 l::t fl 54 �xb2 .l:lxf2+ 55 '>t>c1 'it>d5. 53 ... '>t>e5 54 Itb7

.i.f4 59 Wg2 We4 60 !:tf7 lIa1 61 l:ie7+ .i.e5 62 l:te8 .l::t a 2 63 �g1 .l:.a5 Black manoeuvres in order to get his bishop to d4. 64 �g2 �d3 65 '>t>f3 .i.d4 66 IU8 �a6 67 'it>g2 IIf6 0-1

2.27 N.Short-G.KasparoY PCA World Championship (12th matchgame),London 1993

Black has three pawns for the piece. The presence of four connected passed pawns is obviously influential and seems to give Black adequate compensation. 2 5 ... �f8 26 '>t>e3 'it>e7 27 e4 Short plans to create a passed pawn of his own. 27 h5 28 a4 bxa4 29 .Jtxa4 h4 30 e5 nh8 31 :1e2 h 3 32 .Jte6 e5 3 3 M2 h2 34 lIe1 a s 3 5 .i. d 5 l:t d 8 36 .i.g2 nd2+ 3 7 wg3 '>t> d 7 3 8 l:ta1 f5 39 '>t>xh2 l:Ixb2 40 l:txa 5 e4 Yz-Yz The bishop is cut off from the c-pawn which is soon lost and analysis shows that the position is drawish, for instance 41 'it'g3 'it>c6 42 .l:i.a6+ '.t>xc5 43 Ihg6 Wd4 or 41 .l:f.a6 l::t c2 42 l::t xg6 f4 43 Itg4 f3 44 l::t xe4. ••.

If White gives a series of checks instead, Black hides on a2: 54 lIc8+ \t?b4 55 1:Ib8+ \t?a3 56 .l'::!. a8+ Wb3 57 �b8+ 'it>a2 58 .l:.a8+ .i.a3. 54 ... e4+! 55 Wxe4 Black also frees the pin successfully after 55 '>t>e2 'it>c4 56 .l:i.b8 \t?c3. Otherwise the rook ending is equally hopeless for White after 55 �c2 .l'::!. fl !, e.g. 56 Wxb2 l::t xf2+ 57 �c1 l:th2 58 IIg7 '>t>d4 59 �xg5 �xh3 60 Itg8 1:Ig3 61 g5 h3 62 \t?c2 l:tg2+ 63 'it'b3 h2 64 �h8 e3 etc. 55 .. J;Ie1+ 56 �f3 .i.e5 57 �g2 \t?d4 58 \t?f3 38

In the final example White faces a diffi­ cult decision just before the time control.

O n e Ext ra P i e c e

2. 2 8 A.Khalifman-V.Saloy Reggio Emilia 1991/92

How should White continue? 39 l:te6+?? First of all he could have played 39 i.e6 a2 40 i.xb3 a1'if 41 i.c2 'ii'h 1 42 h4 with a drawing blockade, but it turns out that he had better: 39 b5! cxb5 40 I1e6+ 'iitf7 41 I1b6 a2 42 1:txb7+ 'iti>f6 43 l:ta7 and White wins as Salov demonstrated in his notes! Chess can be so frustrating at times - you sense that there's a win at hand, spend all your time trying to find it, and then get so confused you even fail to find a draw. 39...'iW7 40 I1d6? After 40 :e5 Black is also better: 40 ... a2 41 i.e6+ 'iitf6 42 i.xb3 a1'if 43 .l:te6+ 'iti>g7 (43...�f5? fails to 44 e4+ 'iit g4 45 h3+ 'iti>xh3 46 lhh6+ 'iitg4 47 i.e6 mate) 44 l:.e7+ 'iit f8! (bet­ ter than 44 ... 'iti>g6?! as after 45 l:te6+ 'iithS 46 l:xc6! 'i'd4+ 47 'iti>f1 bxc6 48 i.f7+ 'iit g4 49

i.e6+ White has a study-like draw) 45 l::tf7+ 'iti>e8 46 l:txb7 'iWh1 . 4 0... a2 41 i.e6+ 'iit e 7 4 2 i.xb3 42 l:td1 is naturally refuted by 42 ... l:tb1 43 i.xa2 l:!xd1 etc. 42 ... a1'iV 43 b5 cxb5 44 h3ll 'ii'c 3 45 l:td3 'ii'x C5+ 46 'iitf1 h5! It's very important to prevent g3-g4. 47 i.d 5 b6 48 'iit g 2 b4 49 'iitf1 'iitf6 50 'iit g 2 'iti>e5 51 i.b3 'ii'c 6+ 5 2 'iit g 1 'ii'e 4 5 3 'iti>f2 'ii' h 1 54 l:.e3+ 'iti>d4 55 :td3+ 'iti>C5 56 i.e6 'ifh2+ 57 'iitf1 'ii' h 1+ 58 'iitf2 b5 59 g4 'ifh2+ 60 'iitf1 'iVe5! 61 i.b3 hxg4 0-1 After 62 hxg4 'ii'f4+ White just loses an­ other pawn without any hope of creating a fortress. An Afterthought In many of these examples the stronger

player is set on coordinating his three pieces (king, rook and minor piece) in order to cre­ ate the right conditions for zugzwang or a breakthrough. The defender may decide to play passively, relying on a fortress, or opt for a more active approach, which tends to involve spoiling tactics in order to stop the stronger side achieving a harmonious dispo­ sition of his forces. In the defence of rook, bishop and king vs rook and king it may be necessary to switch between these two philosophies: a solid de­ fensive partnership (between the rook and the king) most of the time, but interspersed with periods of disruptive checks. This may be why that particular NQE is so difficult and yet so passionate!

39

C h a pt e r T h r e e

I

Two Roo ks ve rs u s Roo k a n d M i n o r Piece

In this chapter we'll be looking at cases where one player has a pair of rooks and his oppo­ nent either rook and bishop, or rook and knight. In the majority of games winning the exchange is a significant step on the road to an eventual victory, but there are a fair number of occasions where this is far from evident. In fact I've concentrated especially on examples where there are technical difficulties and in some cases where the minor piece can at least hold its own. As a general rule, with limited material on the board, a rook is stronger than a minor piece. This factor becomes more noticeable as the game evolves, with pieces and pawns be­ ing gradually exchanged and, as such, lines open up for any remaining rooks. In those ex­ amples where it's appropriate to retain all the remaining pieces, the stronger side will fre­ quently try and open lines for his rook pair and even threaten a daring king invasion in or­ der to stretch the defender's defences. A good example of this is Adams-Azmaiparashvili (example 3.22). A pair of rooks can at times be a powerful attacking force and, therefore, keeping pieces on the board may be the best chance of winning. In others the exchange of rooks, leading to an exchange-up ending, can be the best way forward. So it's important to have a reasonable idea of whether or not simplification is a good plan. Keeping an open mind about the nature of one's advantage must be sensible advice, es­ pecially when we understand that one typical way to make progress is to sacrifice the ex­ change back. This may be to eliminate a crucial defender and/or angle for a pawn-up ending. Capablanca is frequently attributed with the concept that the most straighifonvard way to win with an extra exchange is to give it back for a clear pawn advantage. Here again, the star example is Adams's win against Azmaiparashvili. Extrapolating from my own practice, it seems that two rooks vs rook and bishop and two rooks vs rook and knight each occur in about 1 game in 100. So this chapter will be relevant in about 2% of your games! One useful rule of thumb is that if the remaining pawns are all on the same wing, there are good chances of a draw if the defender has a pawn as partial compensation, but with equal pawns the attacking side is favourite. This seems to be true with either minor piece.

40

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e

,Two Rooks versus Rook and Knight We start with positions where all the pawns are on the same side. If the defender has one decent pawn for the exchange then he has good chances to save the game.

l:taa8 lIb7 3 lIg8+ f6 etc. 1 .. .lba7 2 .l:.xa7 lbf6 3 f3 lbds 4 e4 lbf6+ 5 d4 lbd s 6 es lbf6 7 f3 lbdS 8 .l:!d7 lbf6 9 lId8 lbdS 10 lIxdS!?

3 .1 G.Lee-G.Flear British Championship, Torquay 2002

The first example is basically a book draw. I exchanged a pair of rooks but never looked like making progress and my oppo­ nent drew easily. Even with an extra pawn each the de­ fence is a strong favourite to hold when conditions are ideal.

3 .2 Ideal defensive set-up

Not sufficient to win, but alternatives are no better. For example, White can't pile up on f7 as his king is harassed by the sequence 10 d6 lbf6 1 1 e7 lbd5+ 12 e8 lbf6+, while if he tries 10 g4 hxg4 1 1 fxg4 lbe3 12 f4 lbd5+ 13 f3 lbf6 14 g5 lbd5 15 lId7 lbc3 16 Wf4 ttJd5+ 17 e5 ttJe3 18 lId4 (18 d6 is ineffective after 18 ... lbf5+ 19 c7 lbxh4 20 d8 lbf3) 18 ... lbd5 19 l:!xd5 exd5 20 xd5 f5 then Black draws. 10 ... exd s 11 xd s f6 12 d6 fS 13 e7 f6 14 eM7 gs 15 g7 gxh4 16 gxh4 f4 17 xf6 xf3 18 gs e4 19 xh s fS and draws.

3.3 L.Ftacnik-A.Remon Cienfuegos 1980 (see following diagram)

(see following diagram)

White shouldn't be able to undermine the blockade, as the following sample lines suggest: 1 :Sa7 White gets nowhere with 1 lId8 nc7 2

In this position Black's set-up appears more active, but it is also rather clumsy as the g6-pawn comes under pressure. Black defends everything for the moment, but af­ ter White's next move he is already faced with a difficult decision. 41

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

capturing on g6 costs White the exchange in unfavourable circumstances: 60 llxg6? tDe7. 58 f3 .l:!.d4 59 'it'h3 tDd 5 60 .ll a 2 l:ld3 61 l:tf2 l%.a3 62 'it'h2 White aims for g3-g4+ to open up the game. 62 e5!? A committal move, but as White has al­ ready played f2-f3 it should be OK. Instead, after 62 .. Jld3, the sharp 63 g4+ is tricky, though it's still probably drawn: 63 ... hxg4 64 fxg4+ 'it'xg4 65 .l:i.xg6+ 'it'h5 66 ':'g8 tDe3 67 :f3 e5! 68 'it>h3 e4 69 l:1fg3 tDf5 70 l1h8+ tDh6 71 l'hd3 exd3 72 J:Ld8 tDg4! 73 'it'g3 tDe5. 63 g4+?! Otherwise there is 63 .l:.d7 tDe3 64 ltb2 l':i.c3 and Black has enough counterplay. 63 hxg4 64 fxg4+ 'it>xg4 65 1:lxg6+ 'it'h5 66 l::t g 8 tDf4 and White won't win. .••

57 'it'h2! In his annotations Ftacnik claims that it's already zugzwang, but he seems to have overlooked Black's best and, it seems, only playable move. In the continuation of the actual game Black lost following 57 ... tDb6? 58 .l:i.f3+ (driv­ ing the king away from the defence of g6) 58 ... 'it'e5 59 l:tb3 (gaining a tempo against the knight) 59 ... tDd5 60 f3 (winning the g6pawn) 60 .. J:tc4 61 .l:i.xg6 (now the h-pawn is too weak and it's only a question of time before White wins) 61 .. ..l:tc2+ 62 'it>h3 'it'd4 63 l:tg8 f5 64 l:ta8 f4 65 l:ta4+ 'it'e5 66 J:1e4+ 'it>f5 67 .nb8 fxg3 68 'it'xg3 'it'f6 69 l:th8 'it'f7 70 l:txh5 tDf6 71 l:tf4 'it>e7 72 J:1g5 tDd5 73 l:1g7+ 'it'd6 74 J:1d4 l:tc1 75 l:1a7 :gl + 76 'it'f2 .l:tg6 77 l:ta6+ 'it'e5 78 l:tg4 llf6 79 l:1g5+ 'it'd4 80 J:1d6 1-0. Instead, it seems that 57 ... g5 leads to the loss of the h-pawn after 58 l:th7 'it>g6 59 l::t aa7, and 57 ... e5 loses the g-pawn, e.g. 58 J::[ d3 tDb6 59 l:tf3+ 'it'e6 60 J:1b3 tDd5 61 f3. So what, if anything, can Black do? In fact there are serious chances to hold after ... 57 ... tDb4! Note that here, after 58 l::t f3+ 'it'e5 59 llb3, unlike in the game (where the knight was on b6) the knight isn 't attacked, so Black can calmly play 59 ... 'it'f5. Another winning try, 58 .na8 tDd5 59 .l:f.ag8, is met by 59 ... l:ta4! as 42

•••

3 .4 A.Alekhine-Em.Lasker St. Petersburg 1914

There aren't many pawns left at all, but Black was able to win. The ending has been analysed by various commentators and the general feeling has been that 'Black wins'. Here again I'm not so sure. First of all Lasker probes and manoeu­ vres to test his opponent's resolve.

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e 48 b6 5 3 J:td7 Ith3 54 Itd4 J:tbh8 55 �b4+ 'ot>e7 56 'ot>e2 :8h4 57 .l:tb3 J:th2+ 58 'ot>e3 l:r4h3 59 ::'b4 l:th5 60 ::'g4 J:t2h3 61 'ot>e2 :d5 62 tDf4 i:te5+ 63 'ot>b1 l:!.h1+ 64 'ot>a2 �a5+ 65 'ot>b3 l:rb5+ 66 'ot>e3 �b6 67 tDd3 1::!. h 3 68 'ot>e2 Itd 5 69 .l:.b4+ 'ot>e7 70 J:tb3 �h2+ 71 'ot>e3 'it>d6 72 i:ta3 l'Ig2 7 3 :a1 J:tg3 7 4 n d 1 c2 ':'hg1 92 tDf4 l:.fl, but after 93 tDd3 White is still holding! Instead, Tarrasch continues with 88 .. Jlhh2,

An alternative defence starting with 77 lId2 has been examined. Then 77 ... l:'!c5+ 78 �b3 (78 c2 l:tg3 89 b1 b2 J:te3 93 'ot>c2 Ite4 94 tbh3 J:tg4 95 'ot>b2 �e3 96 'ot>c3 'ot>e2 97 'ot>c2 c5 94 nb2 llh3+ 95 'ot>c2 c3 96 l:tb1 (or 96 I1a2 �xa2+ 97 tDxa2 .l:!.h2+ etc) 96 .. .lla8 97 tDd3+ 'ot>d4 98 �d1 :a2+ 99 tDb2+ 'it>c5. 43

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

So far so good, but after ... d) 89 .!Db4 (! Flear) Tarrasch stops with 89 ... cS. But White could then pin with 90 .::tfS!, after which I can't find a win: 90 ... .l:.g3+ (otherwise 90 .. .r.t'b6 91 1:.f6+ �b7 92 1:[£7+, or 90 ... :1d2 91 :1gS and then what?) 91 .!Dd3 1:.xd3+?! (91 ...�b6 is objectively better, but how can Black make progress?) 92 Wxd3 �b4 93 1:.f8! and draws. Can you find anything convincing for Black? 87 ...1:.hg3 1 Threatening ... 1:.b2. 88 .!De1 Following 88 �c3 l:.g2 89 lId1 l:tg1 90 1:.d2 1:.Sg2, Black succeeds in exchanging rooks. 88 1:.g2 89 .!De2 �b6! 0-1 Moving away from possible checks. Black now prepares to pin and force the ex­ change of rooks which, as demonstrated above, seems ultimately to win. However, the hole in Tarrasch's analysis (see 'd' in the note to move 87) may mean that this ending is actually a draw with best play! What do you think? Even if such positions are not watertight wins, as in the previous two examples the defender is naturally under pressure for a long period of time, during which the stronger side tries and tries again. One small slip and the fortress is breached. •..

If one side has two or more pawns for the exchange then it may not be at all obvious at first who is better. The specifics of the posi­ tion need to be closely examined.

3.5 v. Topalov-M.Adams Sarajevo 2000 If it was White to play here he would have a promising position after .!De3, hitting 44

dS and forcing Black onto the defensive. However, it's Black's turn to move, and in the game Adams exploited his opportunity to the full .

28 ...1:.e11 Pinning the knight enables Black to seize the initiative decisively. 29 l:th1 After 29 �g2 :tb1 ! the queenside would be badly weakened. 29 ....lir.e4 30 .!Dd2 If 30 .!De3, then Black seems to win with 30 ... 1:.exf4+ 31 �g3 1:.xf2 32 .!DxdS l:hb2 33 a4 J:td8 34 .!De3 l:tb3. 30 .. Jlexf4+ 3 1 �e3 1:.xf2 3 2 a4 .::tg 2 Keeping up the pressure. 33 axb5 axb5 34 b3 fiff2 The rooks dominate. 35 .!Df3 1:.b2 36 b4 1:. ge2 37 �d3 1:.f2 38 'iii>e3 l:tbe2+ 39 �d3 ::ta2 40 �e3 1:.ae2+ 41 'iii>d 3 l1e4 42 .!Des 1:.fe2! 0-1 Sometimes the simplest way forward is to apply Capablanca's rule: if you are an exchange up in an ending, think seriously about returning it for a pawn.

3.6 E.Bareev-Z.Azmaiparashvili Shenyang 2000

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e

Yusupov points out that White dare not try 41 g4? as then 41 ..Jhf2+ 42 �gl e3 43 gxf5 .l:lxf5 favours Black, e.g. 44 J:txh4? e2 45 .l:!.e4 l:tf1+ 46 �g2 e1iV. 41 .. Jlxf2 42 �gl e3 43 d5 .l::!. d 2 44 �fl I:.f2+ 45 �el .l:lxg2 46 :f4 �f6 47 l:tf3 !:td2 48 .l:!.xe3 :xd 5 Yz-Yz Sometimes the defender can construct a defensive fortress over the whole board, though this tends to require a well-placed knight. 55 .. JIxe4+!

With White's king cut off from the g­ pawn this will ultimately lead to a win. 56 .l:!.xe4 �xf6 57 a4 a s 58 �C5 :te7 59 :d4 l:te5+ 60 �d6 .l:.f5 61 .l:le4 �g6 0-1 After 62 '.t>e6 comes 62 ... :tf4.

3 .8 B.Spassky-R.Fischer World Championship (17th matchgame), Reykjavik 1972

3.7 P.Nikolic-A. Yusupov Horgen 1994

Note how ineffective Black's rooks are, whereas White is attacking the weak pawns on f5 and h4. White has such good compen­ sation for the exchange that Yusupov had nothing better than to bail out for a draw in a rook ending. 36 ....l:!.xd4! 37 exd4 .l::!. a l+ 38 �h2 .l:!.a2 39 'ittg l �al+ 40 �h2 �fl 41 .l:lxh4

Black only has one pawn for the ex­ change, but he does have positional com­ pensation. A combination of a solid position, the possibility of activating his rook, and naturally the strong point on e5 should earn him a draw. 27 l:!.f2 e5 28 �h2 .l:!.cl 29 l;!ee2 tLlc6 Blocking the c-file from White's rooks. 30 J::! c 2 I:.el 31 I:.fe2 �al 3 2 �g3 �g7 3 3 .l:lcd2 .l:lfl 34 I:.f2 :tel Fischer avoids the exchange of rooks, since Black's is so active that White cannot get the control necessary to envisage break­ ing into Black's camp. 45

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

3 5 ,Ufe2 l:tf1 36 J:re3 a6 3 7 nc3 .!:te1 38 .l:tC4 lU1 39 l:tdc2 l:i.a1 Keeping an eye on the a2-pawn just in case White thinks about sacrificing back on c6. 40 llf2 i:te1 41 l:lfc2 g5 42 nc1 Not very ambitious, and an admission that he hasn't any advantage. The rook end­ ing after 42 l:txc6!? bxc6 43 l:txc6 lhe4 44 l:txa6 !:te2 45 b4 I!b2 46 a3 1:.b3+ 47 'Jtlf2 f5 is at best unclear, and could even be risky for White. Gligoric points out the possibility of trying to push the b-pawn, but after 42 .l::!.b2 na1 43 b4 'it'f6 44 b5 axb5 45 .uxb5 l:lxa2 46 l!xb7 tZJe5 47 ttcc7 tZJg6, Black holds firm. 42 .. JIe2 43 l:t1c2 tte1 44 1:1c1 ne2 45 :1c2

Or 31..Jhe4 32 l:.g5+ 'Jtlf4 33 tZJe6+. 3 2 .l:tf1+ 'Jtle7 3 3 l1xf8 'it>xf8 34 tZJe6+ �7 35 tZJxd4 exd4 36 'Jtld3 h 5 37 'it>xd4 g5 38 hxg5 'it>g6 39 b5 'Jtlxg5 40 a4 1-0 If 40 ... h4 then 41 �e3 etc.

3 . 10 V.Topalov-V.Kramnik Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 2002

Yz-Yz

At times the rook and knight can even get the better of the rook pair.

3 .9 R.Kasimdzhanov-L.Van Wely Wijk aan Zee 2002

This is part way through a combination, but it illustrates the point that a well-placed knight can be devilish. 31 e4+! There's no way to escape from the deadly fork on e6. 31 ... 'it>f6 46

In this fairly closed position, the rook pair is basically impotent as they have no targets. The knight plus two pawns are more than sufficient compensation, and in fact White keeps control and wins the game fairly easily. 28 .. .'.t'd7 29 l!C3 a4 30 f4 axb3 31 axb3 l!b6 32 :e3 lIe8 33 'Jtlf2 e5 34 fxe5 dxe5 35 l!f3 .l::!.f8 36 lbe4 l:tc6 3 7 g4 Fixing Black's pawns and creating an outpost on e4. 37 ...f4 38 h 5 'it'e6 39 l:td3 !:!. g8 40 'it>f3 nbS 41 e3! The exchange on e3 will make the e5pawn vulnerable and ease White's task in advancing his kingside pawns supported by his king. 41 ... .l:.f8 42 :d5 l:tb8 43 l:txC5 l:tcb6 44 tZJg5+ 'it>f6 4 5 exf4 J:.xb3+ 46 'it'e4 exf4 47 'Jtlxf4 .l:I3b6 48 �C7 .l::t. 8 b7 49 tZJe4+ 1-0 Black resigned since 49 ... 'it>e6 50 tZJc5+ costs a rook.

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e

3 . 11 D.Bronstein-G.Flear Hastings 1994/95

an extra exchange is favourite, whereas if the defender has an extra pawn then the odds are on a draw.

3 . 12 J.La utier-P .Nikolic FIDE World Championship, Moscow 2001

A memorable game. Apart from the hon­ our of playing a living legend I was quite proud of the combination which follows: 46...J:tc3+ 47 �d2 Naturally 47 �xc3 is met by 47 ... el"iY+ with check. 47 ... J:td3+ 48 �C2 eMs The underpromotion 48 ... elliJ+ doesn't look that clear to me. 49 J:tae8 J:td8! Skewering the rook on h8! 50 J:thf8+ Black wins after 50 ':'xe2 J::txh8 etc. 50 ..�g6 51 Itxd8 e1'if 52 ':'xf4 h2 53 .l:td1 i'xd1+ 54 �xd1 h1'if+ 5 5 �d2 "iYh2+ 56 '1t>e3 'iVxa2 5 7 �d4 "iYa7+ 58 �d3 'iia 3+ 59 '1t>d4 'iVd6+ 60 �e3 "iYe5+ 61 �e4 "iYc3+ 62 '1t>f4 �f6 63 �g4 g5 0-1 .

A typical position in which there are no realistic winning chances. In fact White didn't even bother trying and a draw was agreed after ... 42 ...i.e6 Yz-Yz

3 .13 Ki.Georgiev-A.Shirov Dubai 2002

Two Rooks versus Rook and Bishop With all the pawns on the same side, the defender seems to have as many drawing chances with a bishop as he does with a knight. A useful rule of thumb in such posi­ tions is that if pawns are equal the side with 47

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

This type of position with good pawns shouldn't be too difficult for the defender to hold. 37 nae6 ii.e5 38 We4 Wf6 39 l::t 6 e5 ii.d6 40 l!5e4 Ita7 41 l::t d 2 ii.e7 42 Wf3 Wg7 43 Wg2 ii.f6 44 Ite8 l:tb7 45 Ita2 ii.d4 46 Ite4 ii.e5 47 �ea4 ii.f6 48 �a7 �xa 7 49 lba7 ii.d4 50 Itd7 ii.e5 51 wf3 wf6 52 We2 .i.b6 5 3 f3 ii.e5 54 Itb7 ii.d6 5 5 g4 hxg4 56 hxg4 Wg7 57 Wd3 Wf8 58 We4 We8 59 Wb5 ii.f4 60 �e6 g5!? An interesting choice that isn't altogether necessary. 61 Ita7 ii.e5 62 nd7 .i.f4 63 l::t d 3 ii.e5 64 Wb7 ii.f4 65 We8 We7 66 lId7+ �e8 67 lIb7 .i.e5 68 nbS ii.f4 69 .l::t a 5 We7 70 .l:f.a7+ We8 71 Wb7 We7 72 We6+ We8 7 3 l::t a 8+ We7 74 l::tg 8 ii.e3 75 Wb5 ii.f4 76 �e6 ii.e3 77 lIh8 ii.f4 Vz-Vz White's king can't get to e8 so there's no way to pressurize the Achilles' heel on £7. In the next example Shirov is again de­ fending an exchange down. Even with dam­ aged pawns he held the position.

50 .l::t d a2 Wh6 5 1 lt5a4 Now Black is obliged to exchange rooks. 51 ... .l::!.x a4 52 1ba4 wg5 53 f4+ Breaking up Black's pawns. 5 3 exf4 54 lIas wg6 5 5 wf3 ii.e8 56 Wxf4 .i.b7 57 l:ta2 f5 58 .l::t d 2 f6 59 Itd8 ii.e4 Of course not 59 ... ii.xg2? 60 .l:.g8+. 60 l:.th8 ii.d5 61 .l:1d8 If 61 �xh4 Black can now safely play 61...ii.xg2. 61 ... ii.e4 62 Itd2 .i.e6 63 .l:1dl ii.e4 64 Itgl Wh5 65 g4+ A last try! 65 hxg3 66 �xg3 Wg5 67 l:tfl .i.d3 68 Itf2 ii.e4 69 h4+ Wh5 70 wf4 Wg6 70 ... Wxh4?? would be embarrassing after 71 Ith2 mate. In fact there's no need to panic as the h-pawn doesn't constitute a major threat. 71 Itd2 Wh5 72 l:td8 Wg6 73 �g8+ Wh7 74 .l:r.d8 Wg6 75 .l:!.d6 ii.e2 Vz-Vz .••

.••

3 .1 5 V.Kramnik-V.Topalov Linares 1998

3 . 14 B.Gelfand-A.Shirov Monte Carlo (rapid) 2002

Black's a-pawn must be eliminated, but it costs White his f-pawn. 41 ii.e5 Not the imprudent 41 ...ii.g7?, as after 42 .l:!.a8+ ii.f8 43 Ita1 Black would lose the a­ pawn for nothing. .••

43 Itae7 Wg7 44 n7e5 .l:f.b4 45 Wf2 h5 46 lIle2 Wg6 47 I!d2 h4 48 l:ta 5 wg7 49 h3 ii.f5 48

Two R o o k s v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e 42 :a8+ g7 43 l:ta1

There's nothing better. 43 Jbf2+ 44 g4 :!d2 45 :!a4 .ib6 46 :lxa2 :!d 5 White is handicapped since the g5-pawn is very weak. 47 �h4 .id8 48 ttg4 :!d1 49 :!h2 g8 Everything is defended, but in order to make progress White will have to ditch the g5-pawn, when there are no real winning chances. 50 :e4 :!d 5 5 1 .l::!. e 8+ g7 52 :!b2 .ixg5+ 5 3 �g4 l:td4+ A little humour doesn't go astray! ..

54 �h 3

54 xg5? would be suicidal due to 54 ... f6 mate. 54 ... l:td7 55 �bb8 .if6 Yz-Yz After 56 :!h8 .ie5 there's no way to in­ crease the pressure.

3 .16 P.Chomet-G.Flear Cap d'Agde 1986

White has maximized his position and

5 3 ...:!C2 ! Pinning can b e annoying! The routine move 53 ...:!a7, with the idea of keeping con­ trol of the seventh rank, isn't as convincing. This plan seems to work in the line 54 :!c8 .l:te7+ 55 d3 �f3+ 56 d2 h5 57 :!c6 h4 58 l:td6 (White loses his bishop following 58 .id3 :!d7) 58 ... :!f2+ 59 dl :!a7. But after 54 .l:te5! there are serious technical problems; for instance, 54 ... h5?! 55 gxh6+ xh6 and I suspect that Black cannot win. So the second player would have to meet 54 :!e5 with 54 ... :!a4 55 :!e7+ f8 56 lk7 nc2 57 d5 nc1 58 d4 e8, when further progress is possi­ ble with ... d8 etc. 54 :!c7+ f8 Black's king can wriggle out in the case of further checks. 5 5 d4 :!d2+ 56 C5 56 e4 :!c3 57 e5? fails to 57 ... :!e3+ 58 f6 l::t d6+. 56 ...:!c3?1 Fritz suggests 56 ... :!a5+!, as after 57 b4 l:tf5 58 :!xh7 :!xf4 the g5-pawn is weak. 57 :!a7 .l:.dc2 58 :!a4 l:td2 59 l:ta7 :!c1 Aiming to give the rooks more space. 60 b5 :!d4 61 :!f7+ e8 62 .ie6 :!d8! Now White's king is in trouble. 63 :!b7 Otherwise he may well get mated with ... l:tb8+ and ...%tal +. 63 ...:!b1+ 64 c6 :!xb7 65 xb7 :!d4 66 f5 gxf5 67 .ixf5 nd5 68 .ie4 Or if 68 .ixh7, there is 68 ... .l::!. d7+. 68 ... :!xg5 69 c6 h5 70 d6 h4 0-1 Sometimes in order to win the stronger side has to provoke an error on the part of the defender.

pins his hopes on Black's poorly-placed king

giving him too many technical problems. However, it seems that White cannot defend indefinitely. The problem is that once Black's rooks are well coordinated they gen­ erate many threats.

3 . 17 E.Solana Suarez-G.Flear Fuerteventura 1992

49

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

54 f4+ gxf4+ 5 5 lIxf4 l:thg2+ 5 6 'iti3 l::tgf2+ 5 7 'i1i>g3 l:txf4 58 e7 .l:te3+ 0-1 In this case the king was safe enough in the open, but not when surrounded by pawns! The following position is another one from the famous 'match of the century'. The story so far is that Spassky has a pawn for the exchange and connected passed pawns.

White has two pawns for the exchange, his bishop is safe, and one would assume that the passed e-pawn will keep Black oc­ cupied. However, my plan was to activate my rooks whilst keeping the passed pawn under wraps. 34 .l:f.e7 3 5 .l:f.el .l:f.e5 36 .l:f.dl .l:f.e7 37 .l:f.el g6 38 .l:f.dl 11e2 39 .:tfl .l:f.e3 40 l:tdl 11e7 With the time control reached there is more time to work out a riskless way for­ ward. 41 :tfl �f6 42 .:tf2 ':el+ 43 �g2 ,Ue5 There are more winning chances with both rooks on the board. 44 .l:f.d2 White has the option of playing 44 f4! ? in order to give himself more room to ma­ noeuvre. Solana presumably decided that this was unwise as it may later lead to the f­ pawn becoming weak. 44 J�g5+ 45 'iti2 l::t h l 46 �e3 lle5+ 47 �d4 llh5 48 :te2 l:th4+ 49 �e3 .l:t4xh2 50 !te7 l:tel+ Now White went the wrong way. 51 �f4? Necessary was 51 �d3! where White's king has breathing space. Then the race after 5l...g5 52 a4 h5 53 a5 should be satisfactory for White. 51 g5+ 52 'i1i>g3 :tee2 53 l:tf7+ 'i1i>e5 White's king is suddenly staring mate in the face!

3 .18 R.Fischer-B.Spassky World Championship (10th matchgame), Reykjavik 1972

•••

••

White's rooks are very active, however, and are able to stop the passed pawns be­ coming a serious threat. Even so, actually winning the game is far from straightfor­ ward. Tying up Black's pieces and then cre­ ating threats against his king seems a good way to start. This can perhaps lead to zugzwang or a timely simplification into a rook vs bishop ending, which may be winning (if Black can't get his pawns going). 34 :td7+ 'i1i>f6 35 l:tb7 :tal+ 36 �h2 1i.d6+ 37 g3 b4 38 'i1i>g2 (see following diagram)

•••

50

38 h5 •••

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e

This leads to Black's rook being tied down to the defence of the bishop.

Timman refutes 38 ... 'i¥;>f5 by 39 .l:.h4 i.e5 40 l:!.h5+! 'i¥;>e6 (or 40 ... 'i¥;>e4? 41 l:te7) 41 l:tb6+ .td6 (4l ...'i¥;>d5 loses a piece to 42 f4) 42 l:txc5 and White will eventually win. The main alternative 38 ... ii.e5 has been widely analysed. Then it's best not to Chase the h-pawn, since after 39 .l:!.b6+ 'i¥;>f5 40 .l:tM .td4 41 l:txh7 'i¥;>e4 Black has excellent coun­ terplay as his king will be able to support the advance of his queenside pawns. In­ stead, White can try to meet 38 ... ii.e5 more actively with 39 f4 ii.d4 40 g4 Ita2+ 41 'i¥;>fl l:ta3 42 M.

Robert Byrne then continues 42 ...b3 43 f5 and gives this as winning for White, but what if Black doesn't touch his b-pawn? Af­ ter 42 ... l:!.a2! the plan of bringing up the king

to help with a mating net after 43 f5 �a6 44 'i¥;>e2 is too slow because of 44 ... h5! breaking up the pawns. Instead 43 l:tb6+! 'i¥;>f7 and now 44 f5 is promising if Black retreats his rook, as White can then bring up his king on the light squares; while if 44 ... l!h2, then 45 .i:i.b7+ 'i¥;>f8 46 l:te6 and White should win in my opinion. Here's a sample variation: 48 .. .lIxh4 47 l:tc6 I:th1 + 48 e2 :h2+ 49 'i¥;>d3 l:ih3+ 50 �c4 l:!.e3 51 'uc8+ l:te8 52 Ihe8+ �xe8 53 g5 'i¥;>d8 54 'i¥;>d5 'i¥;>c8 55 'i¥;>c6 'i¥;>d8 56 Wd6 Wc8 57 l:tf7 b3 58 f6 gxf6 59 gxf6 b2 60 'it>c6 and wins! 39 l:.b6 lid1 40 'it>f3 ! The king heads to e2 where it will put the question to Black's rook. Timman considers 40 f4? to be a serious mistake due to 40 ...'i¥;>f5 41 l:tc4 (or 41 �f3 .l::tf l+ 42 'i¥;>e2 Wxe4 43 'i¥;>xfl Wd5) 41...l:td2+ 42 �f3 ,l;Id3+. 40 'i¥;>f7?! Here Black could play 40... g5! which the Australian Purdy decided was strong enough to earn a draw. Timman, however, analyses a way that leads to White prevail­ ing, even if there is an imprecision in his variation: 41 �e2 :td5 42 g4! (an instructive move, controlling f5 and thus limiting the manoeuvring space of Black's rook) 42 ... hxg4 (42 ... M 43 f4 gxf4 44 lhf4+ �g5 45 :£7 is also difficult for Black) 43 hxg4 'i¥;>£7 44 I1b7+ Wf8 (Black is so tied up after 44 ... �f6 45 1::t d 7 that he is already in zugzwang) and now after 45 l:Ie6, instead of 45 .. .l;Ie5+ 46 Itxe5 ii.xe5 47 'it>d3 i.d4 48 f3 We8 49 'i¥;>c4 Wf8 50 Itd7 ii.f2 51 ltd5 i.e3 52 l::te5 and wins (Timman), Black can complicate mat­ ters with 45 ... c4!, e.g. 46 lid7 .l:!.e5+ 47 I1xe5 ii.xe5 48 l:td5 ii.b2 49 Ihg5 c3 and draws! Hence I prefer 45 l:td7!, which wins as in Timman's main line after 45 ... .l:!.e5 46 nxe5 i.xe5 47 1::tb 7 etc. 41 'i¥;>e2 l:tdS 42 f41 An important move, with which White gains space and control of some key squares. Indeed Black's rook, despite its central loca..•

51

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

tion, is starting to feel hemmed in. The im­ mediate threat is 43 1:!.b5, when Black would be unable to do anything to prevent .l:1exb4, exploiting the pin along the fifth rank. Com­ pare this with the immediate 42 nb5 g6, as 43 nexb4?? would then fail to 43 ....l:!e5+ as pointed out by Purdy, so by covering the e5square the text move makes this a real threat.

42 g6 43 g4! •.•

Now Black's rook is unable to move anywhere. The immediate 43 lIb5 is less ef­ fective, as this is met by 43 .. J::tf5 defending the rook and thus thwarting the .l:!.exb4 idea.

43 ... hxg4 44 hxg4

stances) 48 lIb6 .l:.d5 49 l::te6 wins, as shown by Timman.

45 f5 .lte5 46 nb5 Wf6 If 46 . . . i.. d4 then White invades with 47 1:!.b7+ Wf8 48 l::t e6 l:!.d8 49 !1g6, winning the g­ pawn and threatening the black king.

47 l:Iexb4! Now this is strong since Black has no saving graces.

47 i.. d 4 48 .l:tb6+ We5 49 '1t>f3 ! l::t d 8 •••

More abrupt is 49. . . cxb4 50 l::te6 mate.

50 nb8 nd7 51 n4b7 I1d6 52 lIb6 l:!.d7 53 J:tg6 Wd5 54 nxg5 .lte5 5 5 f6 'It>d4 56 lIb11 1-0 After 56 ... i.. xf6 57 I:!.d1 + '1t>c4 58 .l:!.xc5+ '1t>xc5 59 ':xd7 things become clear. Fischer had to be quite dextrous to maxi­ mize his chances, but Spassky could have possibly defended better. In the next example I managed to find a convincing way to win. How should White continue? Before playing through the solu­ tion spend a few minutes to see if you, too, can find it!

44 ... g5 The alternative continuation 44 ... Wf6 45 nb5 Wf7 gives White the tempting possibil­ ity of capturing on b4. The immediate 46 nexb4? allows Black a saving resource be­ cause, unlike in some of the preceding notes

3 . 19 G.Flear-S.Garza Marco Spanish Team Championship 2006

(where this trick was discussed), White's f­ pawn is now hanging; i.e. 46 . . . cxb4! 47 Ihd5 .ltxf4, which is given by ChessBase (Tim­ man?) as drawn. After trying for a while with variations such as 48 :d4 .lte5 49 :txb4 Wf6 50 Wf3 .ltc3 51 l:tb5 .ltd2 52 Wg3 i..e3 53 Wh4 .ltf2+ 54 Wh3 .lte3, I concluded that I have to agree. However, this isn't the end of the story, since 46 g5! .l:!.f5 47 'It>e3 Wg7 (with the f­ pawn defended 47 .. J:td5 can be strongly met by 48 nexb4, finally under the right circum52

The game continued with...

41 l:td6+ WC5 42 g6!

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e Black has little prospect o f using his ragged pawns for the moment, but with a

... creating a dangerous passed pawn. 42 hxg6 43 l:!.6d5+ 'it>c6 .•.

... and now the coup de grace ...

rook on the seventh he is able to create un­

44 l:th 5 !

pleasant threats.

It feels good to be able to play this type of move! 44 J1f2 If 44. . . l:!.gl+ 45 'it>b2 l:!.g2+ 46 'it>a3 �b1 47 b4! and there is no mate, while after 44 gxh5 45 h7, the pawn is shielded by the black pawn and will promote in peace. ..

...

45 h7 l:!.f8 46 h81W .l:txh8 47 l:!.xh8 1-0

47 ... l:!.d8 48 �d3 l:!.e8 Hoping to invade on e1 or e3.

49 �f1 l:!.e1 When defending positions such as this the question of whether or not to advance one's pawns is quite important. One prob­ lem for White is that Black can envisage a timely . . . l:!.eb1 doubling up against the b­

in

pawn. For instance, if White now 'passes'

4l...�c7 (instead of 4l...'it>c5), but then White

with 50 l:!.d3 b6 51 l:!.c3 h6 52 l:!.d3, there is 52 .. .l!eb1 53 l:!.d7+ 'it>g6, so this may have provoked Epishin to try and mix things.

Black

has

an

alternative

defence

has several ways of trying to win. One of the most attractive is 42 l:!.d7+ 'it>c6 43 nxh7 l:!.xg5 44 l1g7 l:1h5 45 h7 IDl1+ (45 ... l:!.h2 is refuted by the calm 46 l:!.d8, followed by h7-h8'i:f) 46 'it>b2 nh2+ 47 'it>a3 �b 1 48 b4 e3 (on 48 ...axb4+ 49

50 h4!? b6 5 1 g4 h6 A s there i s n o hurry Black places his pawns on dark squares where they are less

:Xb4 nh3+ Fritz finds the decisive 50 l:1g3!!, as

likely to become targets.

50.. l1xg3+ 51 l:!.b3 queens the h-pawn) 49 b5+

52 l:!.C7+ 'it>f8

.

�c5 50 l:tgd7 with a mating net. In the following couple of examples the stronger side is obliged to use his king to increase the pressure, despite already hav­ ing well-placed rooks.

Although 52 . . . �g6 is plausible, the king will be better on e5. Good technique often comes down to finding the best roles for one's pieces.

53 l:!.c6 'it>e7 54 l:lC7+ Naturally not 54 l:!.xb6? due to 54 ... l:!.bbl .

54 ...'it>d6 5 5 1:[c3 'it>e5 56 l:!.f3

3 . 20 V.Epishin-M.Adams

Las Palmas 1994

Now that Black's king has gone as far as it can for the moment, it's time to create ad­ ditional threats with the rook.

56 ...l:!.e4 57 �h3 l:.b1+ 53

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay Instead 57 ... .l:!.e1+ 58 i.f1 l:i.eb1 allows complications following 59 .l:!.f5+ �e6 60 k!.b5.

58 'ith2 1Ie2+ 59 i.g2 .l:bb2 60 .l:r.g3 Wf4 Increasing the pressure.

44 �e1 �g7 4 5 h 4 i.g2 46 .u.ec5 .th3 47 .l:i.b4 It's a good start to place everything on dark squares!

61 g5

47 i.e6 48 Wd1 'it'f6 49 �b6 � g7 50 'it>c1

If 61 'it'h3, then Black wins without fuss following 61. . .I:.e3 62 I;Ixe3 �xe3 63 i.d5 �f4

Black has difficulties creating any threats, so White can just aim to keep control and

64 i.e6 .u.e2 65 i.c4 .l:Ie3+. One of the points of bringing up the king is the possibility of

gradually improve his position. Specifically this means finding a more active role for his

decisively exchanging a pair of rooks.

king.

61 fxg5 62 hxg5 hxg5 63 .l:i.f3+ 'it'e5 64 J::!. g 3 'itd4 65 b4

50 J:ta4 51 h5 i.g4

•..

After 65 lIxg5 Black wins the pawn end­ ing: 65 .. .1hg2+ 66 !txg2 .l::!.xg2+ 67 �xg2 �c3 another point behind having an active king!

65 Jbb4 66 .l:t.xg5 lIbb2 0-1 •.

Black will meet 67 'it>h3 with 67 ... .l:Ixg2 as above. I particularly like the next example. White shows considerable patience in mak­ ing sure his king and both rooks are fully mobilized before finally pushing his a-pawn.

•••

•.

After 51 . . . .:a2 52 'itb1, Black can't keep the white king from going up the board if he wants to stop the a-pawn advancing.

5 2 Wd2 lIa3 5 3 �c2 l:.a4 54 'it'b3 i.d1+ 55 Wc3 There is now the possibility of l:tb4 fol­ lowed by 'itd4, so the king will certainly be able to advance further. 5 5 ...l:ta3+ 56 'itb4 l'ta1 57 Wb5 i.f3 58 .l:!.d6

.l:.b1+ 59 �a6 J:Ib2 60 l::i. b 6 l::i. d 2 61 Wa7

3.21 I.Sokolov-G.Kamsky Amsterdam 1996

61 ...l:td8 The threat of mate delays the advance of the a-pawn, but now Black's rook has no option but to defend passively.

The a-pawn can't be advanced for the

62 ,Ub8 J:td7+ 63 'it'b6 l:td6+ 64 'it'C7 lta6 65 l:tb6 l:ta7+ 66 �d6 i.e2 67 l:tb2 i.f3 68 �f5 i.e4 69 ,Ue5 .tf3 70 l:tf2 .th1 71 l:Ib5 i.e4 72 .l:Ia2

moment, but Black is restricted by this per­

Now it's White's rook that is behind the

sistent threat. Sokolov needs to reorganize

pawn!

his forces.

72 ... .td3 73 ltb6

54

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e - Allowing Black's king to emerge from the comer, but more importantly preparing the a-pawn's advance.

should always b e taken into consideration. The first thing to do in such circum­ stances is improve the placing of all one's

7 3 ...�f6

pieces.

If 73 . . . .Jl.a6 then 74 �c5, moving closer to b6 while even stopping . . . 'it'f6. 74 �c5+ 'it'g5 75 a6 �xh 5 76 l:!.d6 .Jl.e4 77 J::.d 8! �g5 78 �b6 �a8 79 l:!.xa8 .Jl.xa8 80 l:!.c2 f5 81 ':'c8 .lie4 82 a 7 f4 83 l:tc6! 1-0

Adams's handing of the following posi­ tion is highly instructive.

28 h3 h5 29 'it'c2 h4 30 Itd 5 l:th8 31 l:te2 l::t h 6 After the slightly more robust 3 1 . . .:aS White can still employ the same plan.

32 'it'b3 �c6 33 c4! Nothing dramatic, but the exchanging of a pair of pawns opens the position slightly and improves the potential of his rooks. The king also has ambitions to advance further on the queenside.

3 3 ... bxc4+ 34 'it'xC4 l:!.h8 3 5 �c2 'it'd7 36 b4 'it'e6 On 36 . . . :aS White still takes the a-file

3.22 M.Adams-Z.Azmaiparashvili Cap d'Agde 2003

with 37 l:!.a5.

37 l:!.a 2 l:th6 38 b5

This is the type of position which many would dismiss as an easy win. They would

38 .....te5

count pieces, note that Black has nothing spe­ cial going for him and conclude that White must win in due course. However, despite the clear extra exchange, White has a lot of

This allows White to make further in­ roads into the black camp, but alternatives don't seem any better: 3S ... l:tg6 39 'u'h5 and 3S ... .1Le7 39 l:!.a6+ 'it'f7 40 J:.d7 are no im­

work to do. He has no obvious pawn breaks

provement; while if Black covers the queen­

and actually has an extra pawn island. The

side with 3S . . . l;IhS 39 11a6 nbS 40 l::tc6 �d7,

rooks have plenty of open lines

in which to

operate but no obvious targets to pile up on. Black's position is fairly solid and the bishop has the d6 and e5 squares to frustrate White's rooks. Another problem is that there isn't an obvious way of sacrificing the exchange back for a pawn-up ending, something which

then White invades via the other flank: 41 l:th5 g5 42 l::th7+ �e6 43 llhxc7.

39 �C5 I1g6 40 'it'c6 ttg3 41 l:tc2 l:!.b3 42 l:1d8 The big squeeze continues. Note that the idea of sacrificing the exchange to win the c­ pawn is being temporarily thwarted by the black rook hitting the b-pawn.

55

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e Play

42 ... �e7 After 42 ... l:tb4 43 lIe8+ '.t>f7 44 lhe5! fxe5 45 l:tc5 1:txe4 46 �xc7, the rook ending is an easy win.

43 l:td7+ 'it>fS 44 !ta2 Threatening mate!

44 J:tc3+ 45 'it>b7 'it> gS 46 .l::td d2 •.

Intending to place a rook on c2.

46 ... l:tb3 47 'it>c6 :c3+ 4S 'it>d7 l:!.C4 If 48 ... l:tb3, then 49 .:Id5 followed by ':c2 and l:!.xc7.

49 l:tac2 I1b4 50 lId S nxe4 51 Ibc7! The b-pawn will finish Black off.

51 J:te2 .•

Or 51. . .i.xc7 52 �xc7 :c4+ 53 �d7 l::tb4

30 a s iLd5 3 1 g4! Trading a poor pawn for a good one.

31 ... hxg4 3 2 l:!:xg4 .t:.dS 3 3 �c3 .l:i.d6 34 g3 f5!? 3 5 �h4 l:!.d7 36 l:!.hS+ 'it>g7 3 7 naS a6 Although 37 ... b6 would probably be met by 38 a6, fixing Black's a-pawn, this may still be possible as the pawn on a6 could later become a weakness.

3S .l:i.eeS �f6 39 I:tadS .l:!.h7 40 .I:!.hS zte7 41 'udeS .l:Id7 Exchanging rooks is generally a poor idea when the bishop can't cover everything on both flanks: 41 . . Jhe8 42 l:txe8 c5 43 l:tcB and something has to give, e.g. 43 ... c4 44 �d4 winning at least a pawn.

54 'it>c6 l:tc4+ 55 :c5 etc.

42 :dS l:tg7!

52 b6 .l:i.b2 53 b7 'it>h7 54 'it>cS i.xC7 5 5 �xC7 1-0

alive.

The only move to keep winning chances

43 �d2 �g5 44 l:th4 .l:i.e7 45 l:td6 i.f3

3.23 M.Kazhgaleyev-G.Flear French League 2001

Finally activating the rook.

46 .l:!.f4 l:te2+ 47 'it>d3 l:te1! 4S �d4 But not 48 .u.xf3?, which is strongly met by 48 . . J�d1+.

4S i.e4 49 .l:th4 %:tg1 50 l:.hS! i.d5 •.•

It's White's

tum

to prepare a skewer

trick: 50 . . .lhg3? 51 .l:txg6+ �xg6 52 l:.g8+ and Black

would

no

longer

have

winning

chances.

51 .I:!.h7 l1xg3 52 !txb7 f4 Possible was 52 . . . l::t g4+ 53 �d3 f4 54 l:1g7 'it>h6 55 .l:i.a7 f3.

5 3 l:1g7 'it>f5 54 b4

Here Black has two good pawns and a fine bishop which can post itself on d5 or e6. White's rooks lack targets so it's Black who is somewhat better.

26 ... h5 27 ne1 i.e6 2S a4 �fS 29 .l:!.e3 :!.cS Fixing White's kingside pawns with 29 .. .£5 can be answered by 30 lId6 '.t>f7 31 a5, and Black will have problems unravelling without compromising his position. 56

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e

54 ... g5? With the benefit o f hindsight it's clear

The wrong way. Instead, after 61 .. .�g3! 62 l:!.xe4 l:!.xa7 Black has enough compensa­

that 54 . . . l:.b3 55 %Idxg6 lhb4+ 56 �c5 1:.b2

tion with his king so well advanced, e.g. 63

was the way to keep the advantage. In prac­

l:te1 I::t a 2.

tice we all know that it's more difficult to

62 a8'iV lba8 63 l:!.xa8 f2 64 l:!.a3+ �f4 65 l:!.f7+ idS

find the right way when your opponent in­ sists on staying active and creating threats of his own! There is so much to consider and it's no surprise that one can overlook a tacti­ cal trick somewhere along the line . . .

55 b5! Creating a passed pawn. Suddenly it's not just Black playing for a win!

55 ... axb5 56 a6 l:.a 3 57 a7 f3 58 l:!.d8 c5+? Sheer panic! Black should still be able to draw by 58 . . . �f6! 59 l:!.c7 �e6! 60 �c5 (but not the blunder 60 a8'iY? due to 60 .. .lha8 61 .l:txa8 c5+) 60 . . . g4 61 a8'iY l:!.xa8 62 l:!.xa8 g3 63 .l:tg7 f2 64 l:!.f8 .i.g2 65 l:!.xg3 f1'iV 66 !hfl .txfl . 59 �xC5

Not 59 �xd5? !Id3+ (another skewer!) 60 �xc5 l:!.xd8.

59 ... .i.e4 60 l:!.e7 �f4 61 .l:tf8+? The critical move is 61 l:!.d4!, when 61 ...f2? 62 l:!.dxe4+ �f3 (or 62 ...�g3 63 l:!.e3+) 63 .l:Ie3+ lhe3 64 a8'iY+ is clearly hopeless, so Black

66 :Ixf5+ Vz-Vz After 66 l:!.xf5+ the draw was agreed due to 66 . . .�xf5 67 l:!.f3+ �e4 68 l:!.xf2 g4 69 �xb5 g3 etc. However, my opponent missed a fi­ nal chance to win with 66 Ita1 ! g4 67 l:!.d1 !, e.g. 67 ... �g5 (if 67 ... g3 68 l:td5 �g4 69 l:!.dxf5) 68 �d4 g3 69 �e3 .i.h3 70 l:!.f3 �g4 71 l:!.f4+ �g5 72 l:!.d5+ �g6 73 �e2 i.c8 74 l:!.xb5 .i.a6

would have to play 61 ...�f5!, but this still

75 1:tff5 �g7 76 �fl �g6 77 �g2 etc. An ex­

may not be good enough: e.g. 62 l:!.exe4 (bet­

citing game where I lost control.

ter than 62 �b6?! f2 63 l:!.f7+ �e5 64 lhe4+ �e4 65 l:!.xf2 g4 66 l:te2+ �f3 67 l:lb2 lha7 and a draw is inevitable) 62 ... l:!.xa7 which I originally thought was equal, but in fact Black is in danger after 63 l:!.e3! g4 64 l::tee4 �a4 65 l:!.e8! (if 65 l:!.f4+? �e5 66 l:!.f8 l:!.xd4 67 �e8+ �f4 68 �xd4 �g3 69 �e3 �g2 70 l:!.f8 b4 draws) 65 ...�g5 (now if 65 .. J�xd4 66 �xd4 �f4, then 67 .l:te4+! �g3 68 �e3 and Black's pawns are stymied) 66 l:!.g8+ �h4 (after 66...�f5 67 �d5 Jhd4+ 68 �xd4 �f4 69 l:tf8+ �g3 70 �e3 b4 White wins with the precise 71 l:!.d8! b3 72 l:!.d2) 67 l:!.gxg4+ �h3 68 l:!.gf4 'itg3 (68 ...�g2 69 l:!.d2+ �g3 70 l:!.f8 is no bet­

In the following example it was the

player with the rook pair who failed to make the most of his chances.

3.24 A.Vermolinsky-E.Bareev World Team Championship, Lucerne 1997

ter) 69 l:!.f8 and White should be able to win.

One of the difficulties facing White is what approach to take. Should he treat the position as a race between passed pawns, or should he first take care of his opponent's

61 ...�e3?

counterplay?

57

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

44 a4?!

49 l:tg8?

Finkel believes that White shouldn't ad­

A tame move. Instead, after the obvious

vance the a-pawn until he is fully organized.

49 lIb7+ �c8 50 a6, I believe that White is

For instance, after 44 �c2 �g2+ 45 �d3 .l:lg3+

winning. For example, on 50 . . . �c7 why can't

46 �c4 .l:tg2 47 l:tb3 White holds back the f­

White win with 51 b5! (in his notes Yer­

pawn and is ready to advance his own passed pawn under very favourable circum­ stances.

molinsky only analyses the inferior 51 �c2) 5L .c5 (or 5L.cxb5 52 1::t c 1 f2 53 J::tbxc7+) 52 �c2 f2 53 'it>d3; similarly if 50 .. .f2 51 b5! cxb5 52 J:tc1+ iLc5 (52 . . . �d8 53 a7 wins) 53 .l:Ixc5+ 'it>d8 54 l:tc1 fl"iV 55 1Ib8+! �d7 56 .l::t xfl l:txfl +

44 ... 'it>e6 45 a5 'it>d7?! Better is 45 ... l:!.g8 first, and after 46 'it>c2 only then 46 .. .'�d7, when White's advantage in a continuation such as 47 .l:th7+ �c6 48 I.'tf5 �b7 49 b4 is far from decisive.

46 �b8

57 �b2 and Black cannot prevent a6-a7-a8.

49 ... �c7 50 lIg7+ �b8 51 l:tg4 �b7 52 �C2 'It>a6 Yz-Yz Black's king blockades the passed pawn

After 46 a6?! l:tg8, White is likely to re­ main frustrated as the a-pawn is devilishly difficult to push through, e.g. 47 l:ta5 �c6 and Black will have a firm grip on a8. But White may well be able to win here! After the game Bareev pointed out that the

and both rooks are tied down. This is a good example of a phenomenon that I've noticed in my own games. One player is caught in two minds between (a) forcing the issue, and (b) concentrating in the first place on trying to improve his own pieces and restraining

strong possibility of 46 �h8!, taking control

his opponent, before seeking a concrete solu­

of the eighth rank, wins for White: 46 . . . f3 (or

tion. I get the impression that Yermolinsky

46 .. JIf6 47 a6 f3 48 a7 f2 49 .l:th1 fl"iV 50 ltxfl

spent too much time trying to find a forced win, became confused and then didn't have enough left to cope with the complications. My advice is that when a forcing varia­ tion doesn't quite work - rather than shak­ ing your head and cursing the gods in disbe­

.l:txfl+ 51 'it>a2 l::t f8 52 1Ib8 etc) 47 )lf5! (taking care of the threat posed by the f-pawn) 47 . . . �g1 + 48 �a2 .l:tg4 49 .l:th3! f2 50 1::thf3 with full control.

46 ...f3 47 l:tf1 Necessary, but passive.

47 ... �f6 48 b4 48 a6 is met by 48 . . . .i.c5, eyeing a7 and f2.

48 ... c6 58

lief at your misfortune! - settle for plan 'b' and you never know, the tactics may indeed all fit into place a few moves later when all your pieces are on optimum squares.

Two R o o ks v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e The following example features a fasci­

doesn't believe that Black can make pro­

nating battle between two top players where

gress.

some difficult decisions have to be made.

3 7 .. J�hh7 Preparing to battle for the g-file.

38 �f81 .l:i.hf7 39 �h6 l:th7 40 ng6?

3 .2 5 V.Topalov-G.Kasparov Linares 1999

A difficult decision to make on one's 40th move. Stohl - who, like myself, had all the time in the world to analyse this position! considers White's position to be holdable after 40 �f8 �hf7 (bad is 40 . . . .!:!.df7? 41 .!:!.d1+ 'it>c6 42 Itd6+ 'it>c7 43 Mxa6! when White is suddenly on top) 41 i.h6 'it>c6 42 l::t g 6. Black could keep massaging away after 42 .. Jlde7 43 'it>d4 'it>b5 44 'it>c3 lIe8, but there doesn't seem to be any easy way to break down White's defences.

40 ....:.b71 41 �f8 41 c3 is a concession which weakens the d3-square. Black would then regroup with 4 1 . ..l:tb8!, followed by bringing the rooks to e8 and d7. In this way White's bishop would White has only one pawn for the ex­ change but seems to have everything cov­ ered. The key question for Black is how he should try and get his pieces activated. He can take control of the d-file, but this seems of limited value as the entry squares can all

41 .. J:thf7 42 �d6 ltg7 Now White dare not cede the g-file.

43 l:tg5 .!:!.bf7 1 After 43 .. .lhg5

be covered by White.

44 fxg5 llf7 45 'it>f4 Black

cannot make progress. Now, however, Kas­

29 h5 •.•

A controversial decision. Although this fixes White's pawns on dark squares, it be­ comes difficult then to open the wing under favourable

be denied the chance to come back to defend via f8 to c5 and d4, and Black would obtain a decisive penetration with . . . 'it>c6 and .. J�d3+.

circumstances.

Stohl

parov threatens to capture on g5 and follow up with .. .£4+.

prefers

29 ... Wb7 which he describes as more flexible. 30 g5 'it>b7 31 �e3 lId7 White was threatening i.d4, followed by c2-c3 with a blockade. 32 �C5 'it>c6 33 �d6 f6 34 gxf61? This move has been criticized b y some

commentators who prefer 34 g6! J:lh6 35 .!:!.gl, as then winning attempts such as 35 ... d5 36 'it>d2 'it>e4 37 'it'c3 nh8 are messy. 34 gxf6 35 ng1 f5 36 'it>d2 'it>d 5 37 'it'e3 Stohl considers 37 'it>c3!? to be playable; ...

e.g. 37 .. Jlhh7 38 �f8 'it>e4 39 ':'g6 when he

44 c3 59

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay This clearly stops Black coming into d4

on the g-file after both sides have promoted.

but, as we have already noted, it weakens

50 .l:txd4!

d3. However, Stohl points out that alterna­ tives are even worse: 44 l:!.xh5? l:tg3+, or 44 Wf3 'itd4 45 llxh5 .l:f.h7! ?, or finally 44 i.c5 llxg5 45 hxg5 h4.

Aiming for a favourable queen ending. If instead 50 . . .f4, then White can mix things with 51 b5! ? axb5 52 a6. 51 cxd4 c3 52 g6 c2 53 g7 c1'iW 54 g8'i¥ 'iVC4+

44 Wc6!

5 5 �e3 �C3 !

•..

•••

A surprising retreat, but Kasparov is aware that c2-c3 has also weakened the b3square!

45 Wf3 Wb5 46 i.C5 Heading for d4. Instead, 46 �xh5 is again met by 46 .. .l:th7, when a sample of Stohl's analysis that proves that Black wins: 47 �xh7 l:txh7 48 'itg3 Wa4 49 i.c5 Wb3 50 i.d4 I!.h8 51 Wh3 .:Id8 52 h5 lhd4! 53 cxd4 c3 54 h6 c2 55 h7 c1 'iW 56 h8'iIV "ifu1 +.

46 ... Wa4 47 i.d4 Itd7! Threatening a timely exchange sacrifice on d4.

48 We3 Wb3 49 We2

Black's active queen and king work to­ gether to attack White's king and weak pawns. The fact that White is now a pawn up is a minor detail.

56 �d8 A desperate shot was 56 b5! ? in order to create a passed pawn, but 56 . . . axb5! (rather than 56 . . . 'ilVxd4+?! 57 'it>f3 'ilVd5+ 58 Wf2 axb5 59 'ilVc8+ �d3 60 a6, when I can't see a win for Black) 57 a6 b4 58 'i¥g3 (better than 58 a7 'iVxd4+ 59 Wf3 'i¥xa7) 58 . . . 'i¥xa6 59 'i¥e1+ Wb3 60 'iib 1 + 'it>a4 seems to win.

56 ...'i¥d3+ 57 'it>f4 'iWd2+ 58 'it>f3 'ilVd1+ 59 'it>e3

49 .. J:txg5 Now that Black's king is in an optimal position, Kasparov finally releases the ten­ sion.

Allowing a sensational finish, but 59 Wf2

Weaker is 50 hxg5?! h4 51 Wf3 h3 52 r.t>g3 (otherwise 52 g6 Itg7 53 r.t>g3 .l:!.xg6+ 54 Wxh3

doesn't survive for long either: 59 . . . f4! 60 'i¥c8+ 'itd2 61 'iVxa6 (if 61 "ii'xe6 'iNe2+ 62 Wg1 f3 63 "iVa2+ We3 64 �3+ �xd4 and White is busted) 6 1 . . .'i\Ve1+ 62 'itg2 'i¥g3+ 63 Wh1 f3 64 'iWfl 'i¥xh4+ 65 Wg1 'iWg3+ 66 �h1 'iNe1 ! 67 Wg1 h4 and Black wins, as pointed out by

Wc2 wins easily for Black as the f-pawn is

Hecht.

lost and ideas such as b4-b5 are insufficient;

59 'iVg 1+ 60 �e2

50 fxg5

•..

e.g. 55 b5 axb5 56 a6 'it>d3 57 a7 ltg8 58 Wh2

Or if 60 Wf3 'iVfl + 61 �e3 £4+ 62 We4,

b4 etc), as 52 .. .lhd4! wins due to a skewer

Black has the flashy 62 . . . Wd2!, intending

60

Two R o o k s v e rs u s R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e 63 ... 'ii'd3+ 64 'itxf4 "it'e3 mate!

60 'iVg2+ 61 'ite3 f4+1 0-1 ..•

If, rather than resigning, Topalov had tried 62 'ifi>xf4, there would follow 62 ... 'itd3 threatening . . .'iVg4 mate, while after the fur­

fence 34 ...'ifi>f7 35 :g3 (if 35 l:lli1 'itg6 3 6 :tdg1+ then 36 ...ct>f5 would be fine) 35 ... :h8! 36 :tdg1 :h7, Black has good holding chances.

3 5 :td41 1-0 It's mate on g5!

ther 63 .g5 there is naturally 63 . . .•f2 mate. Apart from Kasparov winning in such a stunning way, this game illustrates a num­ ber of technical points. 1 . Manoeuvring is often backed up by concrete analysis 'in the notes' . A friend of mine who is noted for his liking of tactical play recently told me that he really appreci­ ates endgames as they require even more calculation than middlegames! 2. Probing away, obtaining concessions, and switching from one flank to �other are

To finish with, here's an example of the player with an exchange less coming off best.

3.2 7 L.Yudasin-B.Alterma n Haifa 1993

typical ways to stretch the defence. 3. Sacrificing back the exchange is one of the fundamental winning attempts. 4. For breakthroughs to work they often require that one's pieces are coordinated to the maximum.

3.26 G.Kasparov-A.Shirov Astana 2001

Black has positional compensation, as his dark-squared bishop is well placed· and his king will be a powerful piece after further simplification.

45 ..tc4 46 ..tXC4 .l:txC4 47 :te1 b41 48 axb4? •••

Underestimating the danger. After 48 b3!, exchanging off the whole queenside, variations such as 48 . . . axb3 49 :txb3 bxa3 50 :txa3 g4 51 :ta8 ct>xh5 would be rather drawish.

48 :txb4 49 :te2 ct>xh 5 50 ct>a2 g4 51 1:.f8 ct>h4 .•.

Sometimes mates occur out of the blue...

34...'it>f5?? An unfortunate choice. After the best de-

Black's bishop has a fine outpost on e5 where it has a significant influence on both wings. White's rook pair are not able to do much against the inexorable advance of the g­ pawn.

52 1:.a8 g3 53 : g8 :b7 54 ct>a3 :b3+ 5 5 'ifi>a2 61

Pra ctica l Endg a m e Play 55 �a4 is too slow: 55 :xb2 56 :xb2 ...

.txb2 57 �b3 .te5 58 �c4 �h3 59 �d3 .

�e2 .tg3.

g2 60

5 9 �xa4 �h2

White's problems are compounded by his out-of-play king.

55 ... :f3 56 :e2 :f2 57 :e7 :xb2+ 58 �a3

60 :h7+ �g1 61 :h4 g2 62 :hg4 �h1 63

�h3

'iita 3 :d2 64 �b3 .td4 65 :h4+ �g1 66

Using the g-pawn mate.

62

as

a shield to avoid

:116

i.e5 67 :g4 :d3+ 68 �e4 :g3 69 :gh4 �1 70 �d5 g1" 71 :h1 �2 0-1

C h a pt e r Fo u r

I

O u e e n a n d Roo k ve rs u s O u e e n a n d M i n o r Piece -

-

This chapter will concentrate on NQEs involving queens, where one player has an extra ex­ change; i.e. 'iV+.r.:t v 'iW+� and 'iV+: v 'iV-rliJ. Although these positions are slightly less common than the analogous NQEs with rooks covered in Chapter Three, they often present additional technical problems. The presence of queens on the board gives the weaker side more hope. He may have the opportunity to gen­ erate counterplay against the, opposing king, or at least use checks to frustrate winning at­ tempts. If the queens stay on the board, play is often much sharper than many simplified NQEs where there is less fire-power on display. In fact, the side with the advantage will often aim to generate attacking chances against the opposing king in a more blatant way than in Chap­ ter Three. In certain cases the extra exchange is less important than time, the player with the initiative perhaps being able to land the knockout punch first. Therefore, king security is

high on the list of priorities. In a number of cases the rook may not start out as a particularly impressive piece. This may be a hangover from the middlegame where the rook was playing a supporting role. Now that the board is clearer, the assessment of the stronger side's chances can often come down to his ability to activate his rook and thus become dominant when facing a minor piece counterpart. Despite the attraction of attacking possibilities, exploiting the material advantage may just be a question of simplifying to an exchange-up ending or, in rare cases, giving back the exchange for a superior queen ending. With pawns on one wing, my rule of thumb is that equal pawns augers a win, whereas if the player down the exchange has a pawn as partial compensation, then a draw is more likely. An important endgame technique can be seen in Radev-Pribyl (example 4.43), which is highly relevant to the latter part of this chapter.

63

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Queen a n d Rook versus Queen a n d Knight The knight has certain positive properties. In the first example the trusty steed covers his own king long enough to ensure victory, due to the damage caused by White's queen.

4. 1 A.Antunes-G.Flear Pau 1988 39 i.h6+! A strong blow that suddenly puts the black king in danger.

39 ...Wxh6 If 39 ... Wf7, White's attack is also very strong after 40 Si.g5 .:td6 41 'iVxh7+ We6 42 �xh3+ �f7 43 'iVh7+ We6 tbc4.

44 'iig8+ Wf5 45

40 'it'xf6+ WhS 41 tiJC4! White has an obvious perpetual but he can play for more with Black's king being so open. As there are no meaiungful counter­ The relative safety of the two kings is more important than the extra exchange in this particular case.

27 'ii'g8 :el+ 28 Wf4 1-0 Black resigned, as after 28 . . . g5+ 29 Wg3! there are no sensible checks, or if 28 .. :iVc4+ 29 Wg3 and Black has to give up a piece if he wishes to avoid mate: 29 .. :iVxe6 30 'iVxe6+ Wxe6 31 tbxel .

threats the white knight calmly trots across to complete the mating net.

41 ...l:!.d4 Or 41 . . :ii'fl 42 g4+.

42 tiJxes 'it'fl 43 g4+ .u.xg4 44 'it'fS+ 1-0 Mate is forced. In the majority of cases it's the side with

the rook that is most likely to be angling for a direct attack. However, in the following

In the following example Black's king is

example he has to temper such admirable

in the greatest danger - well, he is after White's next move!

intentions with the need to keep his own king secure.

4. 2 V.Topalov-A.Karpov Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 1999

64

4. 3 Ki.Georgiev-A.Shirov Pardubice 1994

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

49 1:i.e2 it'xa 5 50 li'e4 it'b6 51 c4 a s 52 iVh7+! Rather than 52 c5, which is less clear after 52 . . . 'ilVb3.

5 2 ... d8 52 . . .'it>f8 is also hopeless following 53 'it'xh6+ 'it>f7 54 'iVh7+ 'it>f8 55 iVe4, e.g. 55 ... f7 56 it'd5 e7 57 c5 it'a6 58 .l:tel a4 59 c6 it'c8 60 c7.

53 it'g8+ e7 54 iVg7+ 'it>d6 55 !:!.d2+ e5 The end is nigh. Here 55 ... c5 fails to 56 iVgl + 'it>c6 57 .l:td6+!'

35 'iVe3 'iVc6 36 it'h6+?! This looks like an attempt to temporize until the time control. More incisive was 36 'i'b3! g8 (if 36 .. :iVc8 37 .l:tb7 tDd8 38 l1b8 'iVc7 39 c4 and Black is helpless) 37 l:txe6! (a case of giving back the exchange for a win­

56 .l:.d5+ f4 5 7 it'xf6+ g3 58 it'g6+ h3 59 it'f5+ 1-0

4 .4 E.Bareev-V.Topalov Sarajevo 1999

ning queen ending) 37 .. .fxe6 38 it'xe6+ 'it>h8 39 c4 and Black's king still finds itself in a mating net.

36 ... g8 3 7 'iVd2 h6 3 8 h4 it'f3 39 It.d7 Kiril Georgiev points out a n alternative

try in 39 .l:te8+, as 39 . . . h7? asks for 40 'iVxh6+! xh6 41 Ith8 mate, but White will still have his work cut out after 39 . .. tDf8 40 �d8 'iVxf6 41 l:txd6 iVfl .

39 g5!? ••.

A valiant attempt t o mix i t up.

40 .l:txd6 gxh4 41 'ifg2 ! it'xf6 42 gxh4+ f8 43 it'g3 it'f1 44 .l:td2 'ilVC4 45 a s e7 The initial attack has been repulsed, and two pairs of pawns have been exchanged, leaving both kings rather draughty. White now has to regroup to create further threats while, at the same time, keeping his own king adequately defended.

46 .l:tf2! it'C5 47 'ilVf3 'iVe5+ 48 h1 f6 An unpleasant decision to have to make; the text move holds onto the f-pawn, but now the e6-square is weakened. Instead 48 ... it'xa5 49 it'xf7+ d6 50 iVb7 would leave

Although Black's king is very exposed, so is White's!

2 9 'it'e6+ g7 30 .l:tg1+ tDg6 3 1 it'e7+ g8 3 2 iVe8+ g7 3 3 iVe7+ g 8 34 it'e8+ g7 3 5 it'bS! A strong move, combining defence with attack. First of all Black is denied any checks, and White threatens h4-h5, as well as iVb2 exchanging queens.

3 5 ...f7 36 h 5 tDe5 3 7 it'b2 it'f3 After 37. . . it'd3+ 38 it'c2 iVxa3 39 'ilVc7+

Black's king with no hope of any pawn

White forces mate.

cover.

38 it'c2 f6 39 a2 b5 40 l:tg3 it'f4 41 'iVe2 65

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay Further consolidation. The idea is 'iie 3.

In the following example appearances

41 .. JWel 42 f41 'ilixf4

may be rather deceptive.

After 42 . . . lLlc4 White can successfully co­ ordinate his major pieces to hold off Black's threats and maintain a few of his own, e.g. 43 'ilif2 'ilidl 44 �g2 'ilid3 45 'ilixa7.

43 l::t g 2 1-0

4. 6 B.Gelfand-A.Beliavsky Linares 1990

The open f-file adds another avenue of attack. If, rather than resigning, Black had tried 43 ... e7, then at the end of the line

44

'ilixb5 'ilixe4 45 'iib 7+ lLld7 46 l::t g7+ f6 47 '::'x d7 'ilic2+, White has the convenient cross­ check 48 'iWb2+ to tidy things up. As we have seen in the preceding exam­ ples the security of the kings is a major issue in this NQE. In fact, even in positions where other factors seem to be more relevant, it may only be a question of time before at least one of the kings is brought out into the open.

4. 5 G.Flear-J.Pinter Montpellier 1996

Black has two pawns for the exchange and his position seems solid enough. How­ ever, his pawns are not that threatening and White's king is very safe. So the potential insecurity of the black king could be a major issue, but for this to be significant White must engineer threats with the major pieces.

37 ':el 'ilid s 38 l::t d l 'ilies 39 l::t d 7 'ilie6 40 'ii'd l e6 41 l::.d 8 ltJd S 42 'ilib3 It's interesting that Fritz 8 prefers Black here, as it can't see anything concrete for White. However, in practical terms Black will have great difficulty defending against persistent threats coming from all directions.

42 ... a S 43 'ilig3 lLle7 44 'ilib8 'ifb6 4S %td2 'ilie6 Perhaps Black could have tried 45 . . . a4! .

4 6 'ilid8 b6 Here I sacrificed the exchange to open up Black's king.

3S l::txf8+1? xf8 36 'ilih7 'ilib6 37 'ilih8+ e7 38 'ilixg7 l::td 3 39 'ilixh6 'ilixf2 40 'ilif6+ e8 41 'ilih8+ e7 42 'ilif6+ e8 43 'ii' h 8+ e7 Yz-Yz 66

In his notes Beliavsky mentions that 46 . . . a4 can be met by 47 'iVd4, followed by

l:k2-c4 putting pressure on the a-pawn. If Black were to meet this plan by . . .b5 then further weaknesses will appear on the sixth and seventh ranks.

47 a41

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e It's often preparatory pawn moves that are the foundation of active piece play. This one stops Black's queenside advancing and enables White's king to have some wriggle room in case of a threatened perpetual.

4. 7 A.Dreev-V.Epishin St. Petersburg 2004

47 ... g5 48 'iYd4 g4 Beliavsky rejected 48 .. .f4 on the grounds that 49 ::'c2 "iib7 50 �c3, followed by Itb3, would be too awkward.

49 l:tdl! The rook heads for hI .

49 :i'C5 50 'iYd7+ .•

It's not in White's interest to exchange queens, since Black's centralized king would then be an asset!

50 ...We5 51 'iVe8 �f4 52 'ii' b 8+ �g5 52 .. 5,t'f3? allows a decisive attack with 53 'i'g3+ We2 54 .:tel 'ilVd4 55 ':'c2+ �f1 56 1\Vh2, as mentioned by Beliavsky.

53 'i'd8

With White having the move, his king can retain plenty of cover and it's not long before he brings up his rook to pressurize Black's king.

28 h4 "i1ie4 29 'i'b8 Not so much hitting the b7-pawn as pre­ venting ideas such as . . . g3.

29 .. :iVxd4 30 l:tel 'iYf6 31 ne8 "i1if3 32 'i'g3 'iVf7 3 3 'i'e5 b5 34 l':te7 'i'g6 The queen and rook are ideally placed, so it's high time to add a further element.

3 5 h 5 ! 'iYh6 It's also hopeless to exchange queens: 35 . . . 'iYf6 36 'i'xf6 gxf6 37 .l:tc7.

36 'i!Vf5 g3 37 'i'f7+ �h7 38 'iYf5+ �g8 39 f4 53 ...Wf4?! The only hope is to try and create some

Securing White's king. Black's knight is going nowhere and the only way to save it is

threats of his own; for instance 53 . . . e3! 54

to simplify into a lost ending. So . . .

fxe3 g3, when matters are far from clear.

1-0

54 l:tcl 'iYb4 55 l:tc3 tbg6 56 'ii'f6 tbe7 57 'i'e6 �g5 58 ZIc7 1-0 If 58 .. :iVe1 + 59 �a2 'ii'xf2 60 'i'xe7+ �f4, White just has to avoid allowing the black pawns to become too dangerous, and this can be readily achieved with 61 'iYd6+ Wf3 62

l:tf7 Wg2 63 'ilid5.

By now I expect that, in order to assess these types of positions, you are looking first at how vulnerable the kings are! However, it's important to also have an idea of whether or not an exchange of queens is de­ sirable.

67

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

'it'f7+ �xe5 5 1 1:1d8!

4.8 V.Akopian-V.Salov Madrid 1997

Cutting off the king's escape route. It's no longer a question of how many pawns Black has for the exchange, just whether or not his king can survive the coming on­ slaught.

51 ... g5 5 2 'it'g7+ �f5 5 3 f3 Further limiting Black's king.

5 3 ...'it'a2+ 54 �h3 g4+ 5 5 fxg4+ 1-0 Any break for freedom with 55 ... 'ifi>e4 would be short-lived: 56 'iVd4+ Wf3 57 n£8+ �e2 58 1:1f2+, followed by 59 11xa2 and mate. Black cannot try to exploit his material advantage from the following diagram, as his king is so exposed relative to White's.

White has the move and he will naturally parry the threatened fork. In fact his king has reasonable pawn cover and can easily escape from perpetual attempts, whereas Black's can be put under pressure on the back rank. Although the fact that Black only

4.9 G.Kasparov-A.Karpov World Championship (16th matchgame), Moscow 1984

has one pawn for the exchange seems to be of lesser significance, it's relevant to the fol­ lowing play as he doesn't want to play an exchange-down ending.

40 1:1d4 'ilVa8 41 'ilVe2 'ilVe8 42 'ilVc2+ Wg8 The fact that Salov decides not to play the difficult ending, following 42 . . . 'ii'g6 43 'it'xg6+ �xg6 44 1:1d8 �f5 45 1:1f8+ �xe5 46 1:1f7, enables Akopian the chance to play for an attack.

43 'it'd1 Threatening 44 1:1d8.

43 ...'it'g6 44 .l:Id8+ �h7 45 'it'f3 Aiming to double on the eighth rank, whereupon Black's king will be driven into the open.

The game didn't continue for long.

3 2 'ilVf6 1:1d6 3 3 'it'e5 'it'c6+ 34 �h3 'it'd7+ 35 � g 2 'it'c6+ Vz-Vz

If Black defends with 46 ...'ilVe7, then

In certain circumstances it may be the strategy of one of the players to walk his king to another flank to get it out of harm's way.

White can always play the endgame with 47

Naturally if the defending player undertakes

1:1h8+ �g6 48 'ilVe8+.

such a trek, it will probably be under desper­

47 �g2 'ilVxa 3 48 .l:Ih8+ � g6 49 'ilVe8+ Wf5 50

ate circumstances, as in the next example.

45 ... 'it'g5 46 'it'a8 'it'C1+

68

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

4 . 10 M.Adams-M.Gu revich German League 2001

Adams seems to be in trouble, so he tries a desperate leap for freedom with his king.

37 �3 ':'g7 38 'fig1 .h3+ 39 �xf41 ltf7+ 40 'ili'e5 Now Black has to play his fortieth move ... 40 •h8+? How many time do we see the critical decision on move 40? Instead 40 ... �4! wins easily, e.g. 41 g5 .f4+ 42 �xe6 'fic7! and mate follows. ..•

41 d6 .xd4 42 'fiC1 Suddenly the white king is relatively safe as it's sheltered by Black's pawns. White even starts to have threats of his own, such as 'fig5+.

42 .. Ji'xg4 43 xc6 ':'xf2 44 b4 d4?

.xg8+ xg8 50 a5! d3 51 lDe4 �g7 52 b6 g6 53 �b5 :f8 54 �c4! is unclear.

49 .d5 ':'f6+ 50 �a 5

The king has found an unusual, though very safe haven. 50 ...• e2 51 b6 �h6 5 2 lDd7 : g 6 5 3 lDxe5

d 3 54 lDxg 6? White can't capture the d-pawn, but he can play an intermediate check: 54 �1 +! �g7 55 lDxg6 and, with Black unable to give check on e1, White may even be winning! 54 • e1+ 5 5 a6 d2 56 b7 1/z-1/z After the plausible continuation 56 ... d1. 57 .xd1 .xd1 58 b8• •xa4+ 59 b7 �5+ 60 �a8 .xb8+ 61 xb8 xg6 the whole board has been hoovered in no time at all. Although Adams's king walk wasn't fully sound, it destabilized his opponent and was worth a try since the alternatives weren't very good. •..

44 ... ':'xa2! is better, but then White would

I remember a case from my own tour­

probably try his chances with 45 b5! ?, fol­ lowed by pushing the pawn as far as it will go. 45 'fiC4 Now White's pieces are so well coordi­ nated he can even start to think about win­ ning!

nament experience where I failed to cope with my opponent's walkabout. I had the following wild position ...

45 :tf3 46 b6 h7 47 a4 e5 48 b5 ':'f8? •.•

4.1 1 M.Badii-G.Flear Le Touquet 1991

48 ... 'fig8! would be a better try, but then White can even exchange queens, as 49

69

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

4 . 12 G.Flear-AI.David Clichy 1995

If Black can't exploit the advanced king, then the white monarch can even be a power of strength, lending its support to White's potential attack!

39 Itg8+ .••

Black needs to get his king safe before he

39 . . . iVxb2 is met by 40 ttJe5! (but not 40 e7?, which allows Black to consolidate his advantage with 40 . . . 'it'f6+ 41 �h5 l:te8) 40 . . . gxf3 41 iVxf3 iVb4 42 ttJf7+ .l::txf7 43 exf7 iVe7+ 44 'it'xf5 iVxf7+ 45 'it'e5 'ifxa2 46 'ii'c6 and White should be able to draw.

now as safe as houses on the queenside.

40 'it'xf5 gxf3 41 'ii'e 5+ .l:tg7 42 'i¥C3 �g2 43 ttJe5

41 'iVxf6+ 'it'c8 42 'ii'f 5+ 'it'b8 43 'it'fl a6 44 ttJC3 'ii' b 6 45 iVg2 �e3 !

Combining attack with defence!

43 ... iVh3+ 44 'it'f6 'ii' h 4+ 45 'it'f5 iVh5+ 46 'it'e4 f2 47 iVC5 Hitting the f-pawn and threatening 'iff8+. However, Black can meet both threats. Instead, the tempting 47 ttJf7+ 'it'g8 48

can exploit his material advantage.

34 ... 'it'f7 3 5 iVh3 'ii'b 6+ 36 ttJb5 ne8! 37 'iih 7+ 'it>f8 38 'it'a4 'iVC5 39 'i¥h8+ �e7 40 'ifg7+ 'it'd8 The f-pawn is lost, but Black's king is

With the king safe it's time to activate the rook.

46 a3 l1d3 47 �e2 iVd4 48 �b3 nd2 49 'i¥e8+ 'it'a7 50 'iVa4 'ii'f2 5 1 ttJe4 .l:;Ixb2+ 5 2 'it>C3 'ifh2 0-1

iVd2 meets with a well-hidden refutation:

In the following sharp example only the

48 . . :iWg6+ 49 'it'e5 J:txf7 50 exf7+ �xf7 51 'ii'xf2

player with the knight is trying to win. The

iVe6+ 52 �d4 �6+ with a skewer that

logical result of such positions can often

seems to have come from nowhere!

only be determined by precise analysis. Can you find an improvement in these sharp variations?

47 ... 'i¥e2+ 48 'it'f5 'ii' h 5+ Cool is 48. . . h6! 49 'i*'f8+ 'it'h7. A t the time I must have overlooked that 50 �f6 runs into 50 . . . iVxe5+! and wins, e.g. 51 fxe5 fIll mate.

49 'it'e4 iVe8 50 'i¥xf2 'ii'x e6 51 'i*'C5 'i¥xa2 52 iVxb5 iVa8+ 5 3 'it'e3 .l:tgl 54 'i¥d7 'iVa7+ 5 5 'it'e4 iVa8+ 56 �e3 iia7+ 5 7 'it'e4 'iVa8+ 58 'it'e3 Yz-Yz 70

4. 1 3 G.Flear-M.lllescas Cordoba European Team Championship, Plovdiv 2003

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

4. 14 L.Polugaevsky-V.Salov Reggio Emilia 1991/92

3 5 �g8 My opponent suspected that the alterna­ ...

tive 35 ... 'iVf7! was winning, but didn't have enough time to work it out. Then 36 'iVe5+ 'i'f6 (Illescas and others analysed 36 . . . 'iti>g8 in

Informator 89, but it comes more or less to the same thing) 37 'iVe2! (weaker is 37 'ii'd 5?! iDe4 38 'ii'd7+ 'ii'f7 39 'iVd4+ 'iti>h6 40 'iVe3+ g5 41 ':gl ttJxf2+ 42 'iti>g2 d1'iV 43 l:hd1 ttJxd1 44 'i'd4, since 44 ... 'iVd5+! wins for Black) 37 ... ttJe4 38 l:tg1 'iVe5! (following 38 . . . 'iVd4?! 39 �g2 ttJc3 40 'iVe7+ 'iti>h6 41 'iVf8+ 'iti>h5 42 'i'f3+, Black should allow the perpetual as

Salov now ventured the following ...

3 2 l:tc81 •••

Polugaevsky considered this speculative exchange sacrifice to be Black's only move. However, there is another and a better one! He must have dismissed the unnatural­ looking 32 . . .'ii'd 6!, but after the obvious 33 e5, Black escapes with 33 ... ttJd5! due to the

42 ...'iVg4+? 43 'ii'xg4+ 'iti>xg4 is refuted by 44

fork on e3. This tactical point would have

as) 39 'iVe3 'iVd5 (here 39 . . . ttJxf2+ 40 'it'xf2 'i'd5+ 41 'iVg2 d1'iV 42 l:txd1 'iVxd1+ 43 'it'gl

enabled Black to obtain equal chances, while

'i'xa4 44 'iVc5 should offer White good draw­ ing chances; Black's king is going to lack cover in order to avoid perpetual check and the a-pawn is a problem) 40 'iti>g2! (a neat way of limiting the damage) 40 . . . ttJc3+ 41 f3 d1'i' 42 ':xd1 ttJxd1 43 'ii'xa7+ and Black will

after the game continuation he was clearly worse.

3 3 'ii'x c8 'ii'xd3 34 'iVc11 A useful move hitting the g5-pawn and covering the d2 and e3 squares. The passive 34 :£1 ? is met by the surprising 34 ...hxg4 35 hxg4 lLlxg4! 36 fxg4 'ii'xe4+, when White

have technical problems converting his ad­

can't escape perpetual check under favour­

vantage.

able circumstances; i.e. 37 :f3 'it'xg4+ 38 'iti>f2

36 'i'e8+ 'iti>g7 3 7 'ii'e 7+ 'iti>g8 Vz-Vz

'ii'xd4+ 39 'iti>£1 'ii'd 1 + etc.

34 'ii'e 2+ 3 5 'iti>g1 'it'xf3 36 "iixg5+ 'iti>h7 37 gxh 5 •••

The play leading up to the NQE is probably the decisive moment in the next

If 37 :b2, Black should probably reply with 37 . . . ttJxe4, when 38 'ii'xh5+ 'iti>g7 39

highly complicated example. Black has a weak b6-pawn, while at the same time

'ii'e5+ 'iti>g6 is still messy.

White is somewhat handicapped by a vul­

37 lLlxe4 38 'ii'g 2 'ii'e 3+

nerable king.

•••

Black shouldn't exchange queens since 71

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

tLld5 44 :ta3 and so on.

50 l:.c2 c.t>g5 5 1 'iff3 'ifd7 52 IIb2 'ifd4 53 'ifg4+ c.t>f6 54 'ifh4+ c.t>g6 5 5 'iff2 'ifxa4 56 'ii'x b6+ c.t>f5 5 7 'ifb7 'iid 4 58 'iff7+ Polugaevsky suggests 58 'ilfh7+ c.t>g5 59

39 c.t>h1 tLlg3+ 40 c.t>h2 tLlxh 5 41 llf11

nc2, but this still looks far from dear.

Concentrating his efforts on the most important wing.

58 ... c.t>e4 59 'iVh7+ c.t>e3?

the ending is hopeless: 38 .. :ii'xg2+ 39 c.t>xg2 tLlc3 40 .l:hb6 (more precise than 40 :tal b5) 40 ... tLlxa4 41 l':.b7 c.t>g8 42 c.t>f3 tLlc3 43 ltb3

41 'ii'xd4 ••.

41 . ..f5 weakens the g6-square so White switches to the g-file: 42 .l:tg1 'ii'f4+ 43 c.t>h1 'ii'e4

44 'ii'xe4 fxe4 45 .l:tg5 and the rook is far

superior to the knight.

42 :txf7+ c.t>h6 43 'iig4 'iid 6+ 44 c.t>gl 'iiC 5+ 45 :tf2 tLlg7 White's task now is to organize his pieces in such a way as to free himself from checks and pins.

Black survives with 59 . . . c.t>f3! 60 'iic2 e4 (60 . . . a4?! 61 l:.a2 e4 is less good in view of 62 'ifb1, preparing to give some awkward checks) 61 .:ta2 e3.

60 'iic 2 a4 61 l:ta2 Wd7 62 lla 3+ tLld3 63 'iWc1+ c.t>e2 64 'iWg5 'ii'd 5 65 'ii'g 2+ 'ii'xg2+ 66 c.t>xg2 e4 67 llxa4 tLle1+ 68 c.t>g3 e3 69 h4 c.t>d2 70 na2+ c.t>d3 70 . . . tLlc2 loses to 71 c.t>f3 e2 72 .uxc2+ �xc2 73 c.t>xe2.

71 h5 tLlc2 72 :ta8 e2 73 :td8+ We4 73 . . . tLld4 is calmly met by 74 c.t>f2.

74 J::te 8+ c.t>f5 7 5 :txe2 tLld4 76 :td2 1-0 The quality of the king's shelter also comes into play with all the pawns on the same wing.

4.1 5 A.Karpov-E.Bareev Linares 1992

46 'ii'e 4?1 Polugaevsky gives 46 c.t>g2! as preferable and justifies this with the line 46 . . . 'iic6+ 47 c.t>h2 tLlf5 48 l:tg2 'ii'c7+ 49 c.t>h1 'ifc1+ 50 l:tg1 'ii'c6+ 51 �g2, obliging the exchange of queens.

46 ... e5 47 'ii'h 4+ tLlh5 48 c.t>h2 'ifd6 49 'iVe4?1 Here again White has a convenient way of escaping Black's annoying checks: 49 J:.g2! e4+ 50 �h1 'ii'd 1 + 51 l::t g 1 'iff3+ 52 c.t>h2 'iif5 53 'iig4, as pointed out by Polugaevsky.

49 ... tLlf4 Now with Black's knight so well placed, it's not dear how to break down the de­ fences. 72

White has a well-centralized knight, but a weak second rank leads to his downfall.

47 ... �g7 48 'ilf2 'ii'c 1 Threatening ... :tc2.

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

49 'it'xh4 l:tC2+ 50 lLlf2 g5!

is no way for White to break through.

Seriously restricting White's queen. 51 'it'g3

51 iVh5 allows mate after 5 1 . ..'it'e3 etc.

n l:tb5 lLlf4 34 f3 Wg7 3 5 Wf2 g5 36 We3 e6 3 7 We4 lLlg6 38 J::t b 8 h6 39 �a8 tLif4 40 h4 lLlg6 41 hxg5 hxg5 42 l:ta1 lLlf4 Yz-Yz

51 .. 'it'e1 52 h4 Wg6 53 hxg5 .

In the final two examples in this section Black saves himself with perpetual check.

53 f4 loses quickly to 53 . . . l:tc3. 53 ...Wxg5 54 f4+ exf4 55 'it'f3 l:td2

Zugzwang. Black has no immediate threats, but what is White's next move?! 5 6 Wh3 'it'f1+

Black

could

go

wrong

even

now:

56...'it'xf2? 57 'ifxf2 1hf2 is stalemate!

4. 1 7 G.Flear-J.Hector Antwerp 1994

57 'it'g2 l:txf2 0-1

4 . 16 L.Van Wely-A.Shirov Wijk aan Zee 1999

37 ... lLlf3+ 38 Wf1 lLlxh2+ 39 Wg1 lLlf3+ 40 Wf1 lLlh2+ Yz-Yz

Black is able to exploit White's broken structure to steer the game towards a drawn endgame.

4. 18 L.Portisch-G.Kasparov Moscow 1981

28 ... lLld4 29 'it'b7 Cifuentes analyses 29 l:tb8+ Wg7 30 'it'd8! ltJe2+ (but not 30 . . .lLlf3+? 31 Wh1 ! as Black fails to obtain a pawn) 31 Wfl 'it'xd8 32 �xd8 ltJxf4 33 l:td7 e6 and Black should hold.

29 ...liJe2+ 30 Wf1 'it'd3 30 ... lLlxf4 31 'it'xd5 lLlxd5 is essentially the same. 31 'it'b5 lLlxf4+ 3 2 'ifxd3 lLlxd3

It's drawn, since Black has an extra pawn and a solid structure for the exchange. There 73

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

43 .. Jif3+ 44 'iVg2 l2Jg3+! 45 hxg3 'iih 5+ 46 'iVh2 'iVf3+ 47 ng2 �d1+ 48 'iVg1 'iVh 5+ 49 nh2 'iVf3+ Yz-Yz

Oueen a n d Rook vers us Queen and Bishop

41 J:ta6+ •.

Rather than 41 ...'iiVb8?!, which is less clear after 42 'it'd7! .

42 'it>d7 'iVh3+ 43 �e6 43 'it>e7 is close, but not close enough; e.g.

The first example already exemplifies how

43 .. :�xh2 44 it'f8+ (44 it'g7+ goes down to the continuation 44 ... 'it'g5 45 f7 it'c7+ 46 'it>e8 and now the elegant little finish 46 .. J�b6! 47 f8'"

sharp these struggles can be. White has an

.l::i.b8 mate)

advanced passed pawn, but Black's queen

the most precise is 46 ... 1:f6! 47 'Vi'e7 'iVc8+ 48

and rook are prowling and ready to move in

'Vi'd8 'it'xd8+ 49 'it>xd8 'it>h6 50 'it>e7 'it'g7.

for the kill.

43 .. :�d3+ 44 'it>e8

44 ... 'it>g5 45 f7 'iWc7+ 46 'it>e8, when

If 44 �d5, then Black uses his king to

4 . 19 V.Kramnik-P.Leko Tilburg 1998

eliminate the dangerous f-pawn with 44 . . . 'it>g5! 45 'iVe7 (or 45 M+ 'it>f5) 45 ... .ti.xf6 46 M+ 'it>f5 47 'it'xc5 �g4, and Black is well on the way to victory.

44 ... 'it'd6

White's king has no option but to try and escape the sinking ship. It turns out that there is never quite enough time to get the f­ pawn through since, wherever he tries to hide, the hunted monarch is in constant dan­

45 'it'e7?! A better idea is 45 it'g7+ 'it'g5 46 M+ 'it>xh4 47 'iVe7, but it shouldn't be enough to save the game: 47 . . . 'iVxe7+ (47 . . :ii'xe6??

ger.

would be a blunder as 48 f7+ is with check)

38 'it>a4 nxa2+ 39 'it'b5 'iVe3 Equally strong is 39 ... nb2, as after 40

48 'it>xe7 J::t a 1 49 f7 (49 ..tf5? is met by 49 .. J:te1 +! first) 49 . . . l:f.f1 50 f8it' lIxf8 51 'it>xf8

'iVf8+ 'it>g5 41 'iVxc5+ (41 f7 allows mate with 41 . . .nxb3+ 42 'it>c6 'it'f6+ etc) 41 .. :iVxc5+ 42 'it>xc5 'it>xf6 Black should come first in any race.

is still winning for Black. In such positions the bishop is unable to stop both the g- and a-pawns; for instance 51.. .a5 52 �d7 g5 53 'it>e7 g4 54 'it>f6 g3 55 �c6 a4 etc.

40 �d5 'iVxb3+ 41 'it'c6

45 ...it'xe6 0-1

Certainly a better chance than 41 'it>xc5 'iVb6 mate! 74

Kramnik surely intended 46 f7, but re­ signed when he saw that this allows mate in

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e three with 4 6. . . 'iYc8+ 4 7 'iVd8 lite6+ 4 8 f8 'i'xd8 mate.

4. 2 1 A.Shirov-V.Anand Mainz (rapid match, game 8) 2004

4.20 A.Shirov-V.Anand Wijk aan Zee 1999

Here Black's king is under attack and he needs to seek a safe haven elsewhere. Here there is a danger that White will just be worse as Black's knight is the better minor piece. Shirov isn't usually one for passive defence, however . . . 3 3 Axes! dxe5 34 d6 iVdB 3 5 'iVd 5

White's initiative is so strong that Black never has time to use his extra exchange.

51 'i'b5+ C7 52 'i'b7+ dB 53 'iii'c B+ e7 54 �b5 f7 55 �eB+ gBI? 56 �h5+ 'i'fB 5 7 'iWe6+

With the passed d-pawn well supported

Instead, 57 'i'c7 is best met by 57 .. :ilfg7!,

by White's pieces he has ample compensa­

when after 58 d6 'ifu7+ 59 'ili'xh7+ c;t>xh7 60 c1 l:ta2 Black is the one with winning

tion. Black's rook is too passive for him to have any winning chances. 35 ...'I'g5 36 'iVxc5 'i!fc1+ 37 c;t>h2 The game now ends with perpetual check. Instead, Ribli points out a fascinating

After 58 g5 ':f2 (rather than 58 . . .fxg5? 59 'ii'xe5+ h6 60 'it'xh2 which clearly favours

variation

'ii'd2

White) 59 'ii'd7+ 'it>h8 60 g6 'i'g7 Black seems

(37 . :iixg1+? 38 'ittx g1 is hopeless due to the

to hold out for now. White can of course

connected passed central pawns) 38 c5 e4 39 d7 e3 40 c6 e2 41 c7 e1'iV 42 c8'iV, and after all

repeat if he likes.

that excitement it's

42 .. 'iVxg1 + 43 xg1 'ife1 + 44 h2 'it'e5+. 37 ..'it'f4+ 3B g1 Jlfc1+ 39 h2 'iff4+ 40 �h1 'l'c1+ Yz-Yz

Chasing the white king up the board with 58 . . . .l:h1 + 59 c2 .l:th2+ 60 d3 e4+ 61 c4 .l:!c2+ 62 'it>b5 just helps the first player; e.g. 62 . . :ifb8+ 63 'itt c6 'ii'a8+ 64 c;t>d7 iib7+ 65

Five years later the same players demon­

e8 'ii a8+ 66 'it>e7 'ii'f8+ 67 c;t>d7 .l:Ia2 68 'i'e7+ and wins.

resulting

from

37

'iVg1

.

still

a

draw

with

.

.

strated that these double-edged positions can favour the player with the minor piece, especially if he has the safer king.

chances (Lukacs).

57 ... g7 5B d6

5B 'ii'g B .••

59 'i'e7+ hB 60 'i'xf6+ 'iWg7 61 'iWdB+ Lukacs demonstrates that 61 'ii'e6 is in­ sufficient for a win: 6 1 . . .e4! 62 'ife8+ h7

75

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay (62 ... 'ii'g8? is bad because of 63 d7 .l:.d2 64

'ite4) 72 'ite4 �c6 (72 . . . a2 73 'iit d 3 .tf6 74 'iitc4

.ltf7) 63 'ii'xe4+ 'iith8 64 'ii'e8+ 'iith7 65 'ii'e 7 'ith8 66 'ii'xg7+ 'iitxg7 67 d7 l:!d2 68 .te8 'iit f6

is equal) 73 'iit d 3 'iitb5 74 'iit c2 'iit a4 75 lig6 b3+ 76 'iitb l a2+ 77 'iit a l and holds!

69 'iit c 1 lidS 70 'iit c2 'iite 7 71 e4 l:.d4 and he

70 b31

concludes that chances are equal.

Onl y now did I realize that defeat was imminent.

61 'ii'g S 62 'ii'f6+ 'ii'g 7 63 'ii'd S+ 'ifgS Yz-Yz •••

On some occasions both p�ayers have se­ rious ambitions to win.

•••

71 J:td3 Black of course wins after 71 lixd8 b2 72 litdl a4 73 h4 a3 etc.

71 a4 72 lid4 .i.e71 73 lid7+ 'itc6 74 lixe7 b2 7 5 lie6+ 'iit d 5 76 lie5+ 'iitC4 0-1 •••

4. 2 2 G.Flear-N.Giffard Lille 1986

In the next game my opponent lost his

way in a mutual time scramble.

4. 2 3 G.Flear-C. Ward Hastings 1987/88

I had been trying to win this complex NQE but underestimated the risk of losing!

6S 'ii'd 5? After 6 8 l:tg8 'ifel + 6 9 'iit g2 'iVe2+ 7 0 'iit g3 'ii'e l+ 71 'iith3 'ii'e3+ the game should be drawn.

6S 'ii' b 7! •••

54 "iVC2+? •••

My opponent misses a clear win with

Black voluntarily exchanges queens as the race is favourable to the player with the

54 . . . 'iVe2+! 55 'ith3 .tg4+ 56 'iith4 i..h5 (threat­ ening mate on g4 and the rook) 57 Whl+

better pawns!

.tg6 58 l:th8+ 'itxh8 59 'it'xg6 'iVh2+ 60 'iitg4, and after 60 . . . h5+! there is no perpetual

69 'ii'x b7+ 'iit x b7 70 .litd1? Naive. White has practical drawing chances after 70 'iitg2! (naturally bringing the king into play), e.g. 70 . . . a4 71 'iit f3! (much better than 71 J:tbl ?, which shouldn't be met

check as Black forces the exchange of queens and wins easily: 61 'itf5 'ii'c2+ 62 'iit g5 'ii'xg6+ 63 'ifi>xg6 e2 64 d6 el'it' 65 d7 'iWe6+ etc.

by 71 . . .b3? 72 'itf3 'itc6 73 'ite2 'iit c5 74 'iit d3 'itb4 75 :leI, but rather the clinical 71 . . . .te7!

Black continues his misguided idea. He could still draw with 55 . . . e2 56 .l:te7 'ii'd l 57

72 'itf3 a3 and wins) 71 . ..a3 (or 71 . . .b3 72

'iith2 'ifc2 58 'iith3.

76

55 'iit h 3 'iVf5+?

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

56 g4 'it'xf4 5 7 iVbl+ 1-0

the following selection of examples demon­

Suddenly it's Black's king who finds it­ self in a mating net!

strate some of the technical difficulties in

Now another example from one of my own games. This time is was me losing the thread again.

4. 2 4 L. Vasilescu-G.Flear Parthenay 1993

The difference between a win and a loss can be a small detail. . .

37 ...'it'd2? A disastrous choice o f square! 3 7. . .hxgS is certainly an improvement, and then 38 'ii'b7 ! (38 'it'g4? loses the initiative to 38 ... l::t c 6! 39 'i'xgS+ llg6 40 'ilVfS llh6+) 38 . . .'it'd8 39 'ii'xa6

exploiting this material advantage in prac­ tice. In the first case, again from one of my own games, White has problems exploiting his extra material as his pawns are split and Black's king has a solid pawn cover.

4.2 5 G.Flear-E.Prh! Creon 1998

Firstly White needs a period of consoli­ dation, in which he improves his pieces whilst reducing the effectiveness of Black's.

36 a3 h5 37 'it'b4 Aiming to oust Black's queen from its ac­ tive posting.

ltcS 40 .i.d6 'iYc8 41 'it'xc8+ l::txc8 42 .ii.xb4

37 ...'it'Cl+ 38 l::tfl 'it'e3+ 39 'it>h2 'it>g7 40 :f3 'iVe4 41 'iVd2 'it'd 5 42 'iff4

J:txc4 43 .i.e7 is drawish. But 37 . . .'it'c1 ! could

Apart from controlling the b8-h2 diago­

be best of all, when White should go for 38

nal, thus giving White's king an easier time,

g6 (38 'iVg4 is well met by 38 . . . 'iVxc4)

this threatens the exchange of queens which,

38 ...'iVxc4 39 gxf7+ 'it>xf7 40 'it'h7+ 'it>e6 41 f4 J:tc6, which is messy but clearly favours Black.

due to the presence of the distant passed a­ pawn, would win easily for White.

38 'iVg4 l::t c 6 39 gxh6+ f2 The checks are more or less at an end, so Black could resign here.

58 h4 59 a8'ii 'iNg3+ 60 'it> gl h3 61 �a2 1-0 .••

I was quite impressed by Seirawan's con­ fident technique in the following example.

4. 2 6 L.Ljubojevic-V.Seirawan Brussels 1986

In this type of endgame it's useful to know that rook vs bishop with three intact pawns each on the same side is usually won. Here the isolated e-pawn and weak g-pawn would perhaps give White some hope of a draw (if the position simplified that far), so naturally it's more prudent for Brack to make sure that he keeps his a-pawn on the board.

40 .i.dl �d2 41 .i.f3 .uc2 42 .i.c6 .uxc4 43 .i.d7 'it>f6 44 'it>f3 'it>e5 45 .i.e8 lIc3+ 46 'it>e2 'it>f6

In order to win Black must first stop any

White's bishop is on its most effective square, hitting g6 and defending a4, but against Seirawan's logical technique resis­ tance is only temporary.

counter-chances, organize his pieces, and then gradually take control.

47 'it>d2 lita3 48 'it>e2 g5 49 hxg5+ 'it>xg5 50 .i.d7 e5 5 1 'it>fl h4 52 gxh4+ 'it>xh4

27 ... 'iNC5 28 'iNd7 J:.b8 29 g3 g6 Black's king will be safe on g7, a dark square.

30 .i.e2 l::f. b 2 31 'iVe8+ 'it>g7 3 2 a4 'iNd4 3 3 'it>g2 a s 3 4 h 4 h 5 There is no hurry when the opponent has no positive course of action. The importance 78

Black has exchanged off all his pawns that were stuck on light squares, freeing his king for more active operations.

5 3 �e2 'it>g5 54 iLc6 �f6 5 5 'it>fl 'it>e7 56 �e2 'it>d6 57 .i.e8 WC5 58 .i.d7 'ltb4 59 'it>d2 1:txa41 0-1 The pawn ending is hopeless of course.

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e So, realistically, i f the weaker side ex­ pects to hold such positions, his position will need more significant redeeming features than just a loose pawn. In the following ex­ ample Black has two pawns, but on the other hand his king is somewhat exposed.

4. 2 7 A.Karpov-G.Kasparov World Championship (7th matchgame), Seville 1987

Despite Black's king lacking pawn cover, in the game Kasparov was nevertheless able to hold on for a draw. As becomes clear, his bishop covers the dark squares sufficiently well to enable his queen to indulge in spoil­ ing checks, since White's king is not immune from harassment. 33 .l:i.f5 'iVe1+ 34 1:1.f1 Wie5 3 5 'lth1?1 The consensus view seems to be that 35 'i'f4! is stronger, but even in that case after 35 ...Wic5+ 36 'lth1 .i.f6 37 �8+ 'ltg7 38 Wixb7 'i'c4 39 Wib5 "ife4 White will have his work cut out to break down Black's defences. 35 ... b6 36 Wif4 Wih5 3 7 'iVf5

After 37 Wib8+ 'lth7 38 Wixa7 h3, White's king would be so exposed that a draw would be inevitable. 37 ...Wie21

Not yet, thank you! Kasparov does i n fact exchange queens a few moves later, but only

under more favourable circumstances, i.e. when his king is better centralized.

38 .l:Ic1 .i.f6 39 'iVg6 'iVe6 40 .l:i.d1 'iVc8 41 .l:i.f1 �d7 42 �h 5+ White can't get anywhere with 42 .l:i.f5 because of 42 . . . 'iVd1+ 43 'lth2 'ilVd6+ 'iVd3+ 45 �g4 'iVe2+.

44 Wh3

42 ...'ltg7 43 .l:i.f4 Despite the fact that Black can no longer rely on the check on d1, he can still defend.

43 ...'iVd2 44 .l:i.g4+ 'ltf8 45 'iVf5 'iVc1+ 46 'lth2 'iVC7+

47 'iVf4 After 47 'lth3, Black should react either with 47 ... Wic1 ! 48 'lth2 'iVc7+ or 47 ... 'iVc3+ 48 g3 'iVc6!, but he shouldn't be distracted by 48 . . . hxg3? due to 49 'iVd5! g2+ 50 'ltxg2 'iVc2+ 51 'lth3, and now after 51 . . .'iVc3+ 52 .l:Ig3 or 5 1 .. .'iVh7+ 52 'ltg3, White has serious win­ ning chances.

47 ...'iVxf4+ 48 .l:i.xf4 'lte8 Black is able to hold onto his pawns, and his king even finds a way both to defend against any potential invasion and to acti­ vate itself. So it's not surprising that he doesn't seem to be in any trouble here. 49 'ltg1 a6 50 'ltf2 'ltd7 51 'lte2 'ltd6 52 'ltd3

'ltC5 53 :C4+ 'ltd 5 54 .l:i.c7 as 55 .l:i.c4 e5 56 ltg4 .i.e7 57 .l:i.g7 e4+ 58 'lte3 .i.C5+ :;9 'lte2 .i.d4 60 .l:Ig5+ 'ltC4 61 .l:i.f5 61 l:Ig4 can be met by 61 . . .b5 62 axb5 a41 .

61 ...'ltC3 1 79

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay An excellent move. 61 . . .'.tb3? is too slow

White's king is somewhat vulnerable, but

iLb4 64 .I:.xh4

here again good dark square control limits

e2 'iiVx h5+ 44 l:tf3 Grischuk also notes that the rook vs bishop ending after 44 'iiVf3 'iiVxf3+ 45 ..t>xf3 is only a draw, so White's only chance is to keep the queens on the board. 44 ... b6 45 'iiVf6 ..t>e8 46 'iiVc 6+ ..t>e7 47 'iiVb7+ We8 48 'iiVe 4+ ..t>f8 49 �d3

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

Unpinning in order to play his rook to f5, followed by his queen to d5 with impressive centralization. 49 �d6! Making room for the queen to harass the white king. 50 �e2 'ii'e 5+ 51 �d1 'ii' h 5 52 'ii'd 3 �e7 5 3 'i'e2+ 'iW8 5 4 'ii'd 3 �e7 5 5 'ii'e4+ �f8 56 'i'c6 �C5 57 'iii>c 2 Again aiming to unpin! 57 ... 'iWh7+ 58 �d2 'ii' h 5 59 'ii'a 8+ �e7 60 'i'b7+ �8 61 'ii'e 8+ �e7 62 'ii'C 7+ 'iii>e 8 63 'i'c6+ c;W8 64 'ii'a 8+ 'iii>e 7 65 :f4 'ii'g 6 66 l:te4+ Progress at last. The rook takes up a more active role. 66 �d7 67 'ii' b 7+ �d6 68 :f4 �e6 69 'ii'e 6+ �e5 70 'ii'C 7+ 'iii>e 6 71 f3 f5 Not wanting to allow White to install his rook on the e4-square. 72 'ii'c 6+ �7 73 'iWd 5+ �f6 74 �d3 'ii'g 5 7 5 'i'e4 'ii'g 6 76 �e4 'ii'f 7+ 77 'iWd5 •..

...

�h4 84 l::t g8 �h3 85 :g4 �d2, as what then could White do? 83 11f5 �d2 84 11e5+ 'iii>d 7? Perhaps the final error. Instead, 84... 'iii>f7! is recommended by Grischuk. 85 :h5 �e3 86 l::t h 7+ 'iii>d 8 87 'iii>e 6 �e5 88 :d7+ �c8 89 ':'f7 �e3 90 'iii>d 6 Wb8 91 �e6 b5 Otherwise 91...�a8 allows zugzwang with 92 l:te7 'iii>b8 93 :e8+ 'iii> a 7 94 :e4 'iii>b8 95 :a4 and Black will have to give up the b­ pawn anyway. 92 �xb5 �e8 93 'iii>e 6 �d8 94 �d6 We8 95 'iii>e 6 �d2 96 :e7 �8 97 �6 �e8 98 :e7+ 'iii>d 8 99 %le4 1-0 White can play simply 'iii>f5 followed by l:txf4. Even in cases where time trouble isn't to blame, the defender can get worn down by the constant pressure. The next case is even more complicated because, at first, it's not even clear who is better. Complications break out as both players seek opportunities to obtain the full point.

4. 3 5 L.Van Wely-Z.Azmaiparashvili European Championship, Istanbul 2003

77 ...'ii'xd 5+ Missing the clever resource 77 ... b5+! 78 �xc5 'ii'a7+ 79 �c6 'ii'a8+ 80 �c5 with a draw, as White can only escape the checks by losing his rook (i.e. 80 'iii> d 6 'ii'b8+ 81 �d7 'i'xf4). 78 �xd 5 �e3 79 :e4 f4 80 ':'e6+ 'iii>f5 81 :e8 ..tf6 82 ':'f8+ �e7? The wrong way it seems. Grischuk be­ lieves there is no win after 82 ... �g5 83 �e4

An unusual position has arisen. The 85

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

blocked nature of the position isn't ideal for the rook, especially as White has two pro­ tected passed pawns and the potential for rapid counter-measures if Black gets too in­ volved in a quest for an early invasion. It's safest to say that the position offers chances for both sides! 39 .l:ig6 40 .ie3 "iWe6?! More solid is 40 .. J�e6, followed by bring­ ing the king to g6, when Black should never be worse. 41 "iWd1 The exchange of queens would not upset Black. Then his king would no longer be in any danger and would even be useful in blocking White's pawns, thus freeing up the rook and giving it the chance to activate. 41 ;t>g8 •••

5 0 .id4 "iWe4 5 1 ;t>f2 iVe6 5 2 'ifb3 lld8 53 e6!? Is this a winning try, or just an active' move (i.e. rather than submit to any pres­ sure resulting from 53 'iVd1 .l:th8 54 ;t>g3 'ii'c4, although in that case I don't believe that White should be in any particular danger). 5 3 .l::te 8 54 e7 I

..•

•.•

54 Jid7 Van Wely was probably hoping for 54 .. .l'he7? 55 'iVg8+ ;t>h5 56 �8+ 'it>g4 57 .ic3! (planning a mating net with 58 'iti>g2 and 59 �3) 57 ... "iWd7 58 �1 ! (58 'it>g2?? would now be thwarted by 58 ... l:!.h7) 58 .. :iVd3 (or 58 ... .l:i.h7 59 llVg2+ �h4 60 g6 and Black is mated) 59 'iig2+ ;t>h5 60 �3+ 'iti>g6 61 Vih6+ ;t>f7 62 g6+ �e8 63 g7 and White wins! 55 i.f6 Ite8 56 ;t>e2 a s The position i s still very much i n the bal­ ance. 57 i.d4?! Hecht gives 57 iVd1 iVxd1+ 58 ;t>xd1 a4 as equal, which looks about right. 57 a4 58 iVb4 l:te8 59 .if6 As things have turned out, Black can at least penetrate with his queen. 59 ...iVd3+ 60 ;t>f2 iVe2+ 61 We1 'ii b 1+ 62 'it>f2 'iVe2+ 63 ;t>g3!? This is definitely a winning try! The al­ ternative was to accept a perpetual with 63 'it>e1 'iVb1 + 64 ;t>f2 iVc2+. .•

42 iVxh 5 ! It's certainly tempting t o capture Black's pawn and more or less re-establish material parity. Now, however, the possibility of an h-file attack (for either colour! ) has to be taken into account. 42 ... l:!.g7 43 llVd1 l:td7 44 .id4 l:te7 45 �f2 ;t>g7 46 .ie3 l:!e8 At this point 46 .. J:td7? would be catas­ trophic due to 47 'i!i'xd7+ iVxd7 48 e6+. 47 'i!i'd4 ;t>g6 48 �g3 l:!e7 49 'iid 1 l:td7 Black can finally compete for the d-file as his king is no longer on a tactically suspect square. 86

.••

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

63 ..JWe21

:g5+ 0-1 If the king goes to the fourth rank he is fa­ tally pinned, while if he steps out of play with 87 �b6 Black can win in many ways, for ex­ ample 87...�e6 88 �c6 :g2 89 �b5 :txb2+ 90 'itxa4 f2 91 �xf2 :xf2 92 'itb5 'itd5 etc. Sometimes a nifty little tactic is required to get one's way.

64 �d4? Hoping to attack with 'ii'd6+, but Black can now generate a decisive attack. Hecht points out that White's only chance is 64 "i'c5! �h5 65 "el ! (simplest) when Black can't make progress, or if 64 ...Wf3+ 65 �h2 �h5 66 "xf5 We2+ 67 �h1 and Black still has nothing more than a draw. 64..."f3+ 65 �h2 'ii'f 2+ 66 �h3 �h51 67 g6 Even 67 .xb5 (threatening the rook on e8) doesn't stem the tide: 67. . .•f3+ 68 �h2 �g4 69 'ii'xe8 (or if 69 'it>gl, Black has the irresistible 69 .. J:th8! 70 �xh8 .xe3+ 71 �h1 "i'c1+ 72 �g2 'ii'd2+ 73 �gl �g3 also forcing mate) 69 ...'ii'f2+ 70 �h1 'it>g3 and mates next move. 67 ... 1:c8 68 �c3 Wxe3+ 69 �g2 'ii'e 2+ 70 � gl �g4 71 'iVd4 �3 Although 71 ... e3 would finish things immediately, the actual move does illustrate that the king can sometimes be an attacking piece! 72 'ii'd 2 'ii'xd2 73 �xd2 e3 74 �c3 e2 75 g7 �g 3 76 �el+ 'itf3 7 7 'ith2 Following 77 �c3, Black can win with 77... 1:g8 78 'ith2 'itxf4 etc. 77 �xf4 78 �g2 �g5 79 'itf2 'itf6 80 �c3+ �xe7 81 'itxe2 �7 82 �d3 1:g8 The most straightforward win is 82... :txc3+ 83 'itxc3 'itxg7. 83 �d4 ':xg7 84 �C5 f4 85 �xb5 f3 86 �d4

4. 3 6 M.Adams-M.Kobalia FIDE World Championship, Moscow 2001

40 f41 1-0 A nice move to kill off any resistance as 40 ... exf4 41 'ii'xf5+ �xh6 42 :h1+ �h4 43 'ii' g4 is hopeless. Here's an example of an exchange sacri­ fice for a draw.

4. 3 7 A.Karpov-V.lvanchuk Linares 1995

...

(see following diagram)

49 :e2+ 50 �xe2 'ii'x e2+ 5 1 �b3 'ii'd l+ •..

Yz-Yz

87

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

4. 3 8 V.Topalov-J.La utier Belgrade 1995

5 5 �h3? Natural, but bad. Instead, after 5 5 �gl ! 'ii'xh4 56 �h3 �el+ 57 'ii'f l i.e3+ 58 �xe3 'ii'xe3+ 59 �hl, White should hold. 55 ...'ii'f 5+ 56 �h2 �g4 0-1 The pin is deadly! After 57 �xg4 hxg4 White is in a fatal zugzwang and loses his rook.

4 . 40 N.Short-P.Leko Groningen 1996

Exchanging queens is often an effective way to nullify the weaker side's counterplay. 77 ...'ii'f8+! 78 i.d6 �f6! 79 i.xf8 �xe6 80 i.e5 h4 81 i.f2 g3 82 i.xg3 hxg3 83 hxg3 �g6 84 a 5 l:txg3 8 5 �a4 �gl 86 b4 g5 87 b5 g4 88 b6 �b1 0-1 My loss in the following example was as a result of a blunder.

4. 3 9 G.Flear-G.Buckley Hastings 1995/96

88

Here Black has adequate compensation: one solid pawn more, the safer king, and the f4-weakness to keep White occupied. 40 �h2 i.f6 41 �e4 'ii'd 2 42 'ii'e4 i.e3 43 'ii'b 7 Yz-Yz

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

As in the previous example, with play largely confined to a limited front, the stronger side may be denied any realistic winning chances if he is saddled with a chronic weakness.

4 .41 A.Yusupov-P .Leko Ubeda 1997

35 �h1 i.d4 36 �e1 'it'g7 37 f4!? Yusupov obviously decided that Black's domination of the dark squares, after lines such as 37 'iVd3 �g5 38 'iVe4 'iVd2 39 'iVe8 'l'f4, was not conducive for a White win. 37 ... h5! 38 'iie 8 It's important to avoid self-weakening if one can help it. For example 38 g3? would be hit by 38 ...h4!, either breaking up the kingside or, after 39 g4 'iVd5+ 40 'it'h2 �f3, seizing the advantage. 38 ...�f6 39 'iVe4 h4 40 l::tf1 'iVa6 41 �d1 Yz-Yz

Of course the key tactical point can some­ times favour the stronger player ...

4 .4 2 V.Salov-D.Koma rov St. Petersburg 1997

45 �c1! 1-0 The threat of ':'c8 is very strong: for ex­ ample, 45 ... i.b2 46 l:tc8 'it'f6 (desperately try­ ing to avoid mate!) 47 'iVd8+ 'it'e5 48 'iie7+ and wins easily. Black could survive longer with the exchange of queens (45 ... 'iVe5 46 'iVxe5 i.xe5 47 �c5), but this would just be a book win. You may wonder what writers generally mean by a 'book' win. They mean a position (usually an endgame) in which there is a standard technique to bring about victory. Evidently the technique of the average player is less well developed than that of a grandmaster of Salov's class. The following example represents a slight, but worthwhile digression. It demon­ strates that, even when conditions are not at all favourable, there is an excellent chance to win the endgame of rook vs bishop with three pawns each on the same side. This may help you to understand why Komarov threw in the towel so early.

4 . 43 N.Radev-J.Pribyl Thilisi 1971 Although Black has managed to block the white pawns and has maintained a 89

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

'good' bishop, White is nevertheless able to employ an instructive breakthrough.

gests that in most cases rook vs bishop with three pawns on the same side is winning. With the f-pawn already on f4 in the next example, it's more for difficult to win, as White's king will always be vulnerable.

4.44 Z.Hracek-B.Gulko Polanica Zdroj 1996

50 We6 �C3 51 �d3 �b2 52 g4! An unpleasant surprise for Black! 52 ... hxg4 The other capture, 52 .. .fxg4, could be slightly more tricky. After 53 f5 gxf5 54 Wxf5 Wf7 there are a couple of ways to win, but in both cases White has to be precise: a) 55 .i:!.d7+ �e8 56 l:th7 g3 57 Ihh5 �el 58 Wf6! (an important moment, as the obvi­ ous 58 .l:i.h7? allows the resource 58 ... .i.g5!) 58...'it>d7 59 .l:td5+ 'it'c6 60 l:td8 .i.e3 61 ':g8 i.f4 62 h5 Wd7 63 :ig4 and wins. b) 55 'it>g5 �e5 56 'it'xh5 g3 57 �d2 �f6 58 Wg4 'it>g6 59 l::te2 .i.b8 60 h5+ �h6 61 �e6+ 'it>h7 62 �g6 .i.c7 63 'it'g5 .i.b8 64 h6 and wins - a line of analysis proposed by Kholmov after he had experienced the same ending against Tseshkovsky in 1973. 53 h5 Wg7 The alternative, 53 ... gxh5, is relatively straightforward for White: 54 �xf5 'it'g7 55 ':d7+ 'it>h6 56 �d6+ 'it>h7 57 'it'g5 �el 58 l:td7+ Wg8 59 'it>g6 'it'f8 60 f5 g3 61 f6 etc. 54 hxg6 'it'xg6 55 �d 5 �Cl Or if 55 ... 'it>h5 56 'it>xf5 Wh4 57 .l::i. d6 .tel, then 58 �g6 picks off the g-pawn. 56 l:!xf5 .i.xf4 57 .l:!.xf4 �g5 58 �e5 g3 59 We4 g2 60 �f8 �h4 61 �g8 1-0 If the attacking side is able to win even in such unfavourable circumstances, this sug90

Black wouldn't want to exchange queens at present, and it's no easy matter for White to bring this about. 3 2 g4?! A controversial move that I don't per­ sonally like, as it's not evident how to pres­ surize Black, with the white king now being so vulnerable to checks. Instead, I suggest 32 g3, for example 32 ... h5!? 33 h4 �c6+ 34 'iVf3 'YWc2 35 �d1 �2 36 l:td7 'iVel+ 37 'it>g2 'iWe1 38 f5 with fair chances to win. 32 ... h6 3 3 Wg2 'iVd 5+ 34 "ii'f3 "ikC4 3 5 �el �a2+ 36 'iVe2 "iVb3 3 7 "iVe4 "iVa 2+ 38 l:te2 "iVb3 39 Md2 'iVC3 40 .l:i.d7 �b2+ 41 'it>g3 "ii'C 3+ 42 'iVd3 'iWa1 43 "iVc4 'iVa 3+ 44 "iVd 3 Or if 44 'it'g2 "iVb2+ 45 'it'f3 'iWa3+ 46 We4 "iVa8+ 47 'iVd5 "iVa4+ 48 'it'f3 "iVa3+ 49 �g2 "iVb2+ and there is nowhere to run. 44 .. :�a1 45 'iVe3 'iVb2 46 Wh3 1!i"c2 47 'iif3 "iVa2 48 �b7 'iVC4 49 �g3 "iVc1 50 'iid 3 'iVgl+ 51 Wh3 i¥f2 52 i¥d 5 llYe3+ 5 3 Wg2 Yz-Yz

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d M i n o r P i e c e

The stronger side was more successful in the final example.

4.45 M.Krasenkow-Z.Azmaiparashvili Yerevan Olympiad 1996

One's gut feeling is that this 'must' be a theoretical draw. Nevertheless, the experi­ enced Azmaiparashvili was able to eke out a win. 37 Jtb3 The passed pawn is defended by the bishop but rather gets in the way. Compare this with Yusupov-Leko where the bishop had a central outpost. 38 �g2 �b2 39 'iVe1 ..we5 40 'it>f1 :a2 41 'i'b4 'i'a1+ 42 'it>g2 .l:.a4 43 'iVe7 'ii'd 4 44 .tf3 l:ta2 45 'iVe1 'it>g7 46 'iV1l?! It seems that 46 .te4 might be more resis­ tant. Then 46 ... 'it>f6!? (46 ... 'iYe5 isn't convinc­ ing after 47 "i¥b4 .l:tb2 48 'ii c4) 47 'it>f3 11a3+ 48 'itg2 �a4 49 li.f3 �a2 50 i.e4 'iVd2 51 'iVxd2 l:txd2 52 �f3 'it>e5 53 'it>e3 J:!.a2 leaves us with an interesting position. I know that Black can generally win rook and three vs bishop and three on the same side, but here there's the question of the extra d-pawn. It must give White extra drawing chances, though I'm not sure if it's really enough to save the game. 46 ...'iVd2 47 'it>gl 'it>h7 48 'it>g2 Itc2 49 d6

If 49 i.e4, then 49...I:tc1 50 'iNd3 'iVe1 wins at least the f-pawn. 49 ... 'iNxd6 50 i.e4 lId2 51 'ii'C4 'ii'f6 52 'iVC5 'it>g7 5 3 'iVe3 'iVb2 54 'iYf3 If White goes into his shell with 54 .i.f3 'iVd4 55 'ii'e 1 i::tb2 56 .tc6 'it>f6 57 i.f3 'ii'd2 58 'ii'f1 'it>e5 59 i.c6 �e2 60 'ii'gl f5, I don't fancy his chances of surviving. 54 ... 'iid 4 5 5 'it>gl f5 ! Adding a new threat. 56 .ta8 f4 57 'iVxf4 After 57 gxf4 'iVd8 58 i.e4 (or 58 .tc6 !:tc2) 58 .. J:td4! 59 'it>g2 (or 59 'ii'c3 'ii'f6) 59 ... 'iVxh4 60 ..wc3 'iVf6, Black should surely be able to win. 57 .. :iVxf4 58 gxf4 l:!.d4 59 'ili>g2 I!.xf4 60 'ili>g3 I!.g4+ 61 'ili>h3 'it>f6 62 f3 I:tf4 63 'it>g3 'ili>e5 64 i.c6 Itf6

••

65 i.e4? Krasenkow claims that White could draw here, but this seems rather optimistic. I agree that 65 i.a4 is a more sturdy defence, but it's still not good enough to hold in my opinion. After 65 ... 'ili>d4 66 'it>f2 l:Ib6! 67 i.e8 .i:.b2+ 68 'it>f1 (if 68 'it>g3, Black makes pro­ gress with 68 ... .l:i.b8 69 i.a4 'it>e3 as in the game), and now the forcing continuation 68 ... g5! (Krasenkow notes that 68 ... 'ili>e3 69 i.xg6 11f2+ 70 'ili>gl 'it>xf3 71 i.xh5+ 'it>g3 72 i.g6 is only a draw) 69 hxg5 h4 70 g6 'it>e3 71 g7 h3 72 'it>gl l:tg2+ 73 'ili>h1 'it>xf3 74 .i.c6+ 'it>f2 75 g8'iV 1:!.xg8 76 'it>h2 l:th8 77 i.d7 'it>f3 91

Practical Endgame Play

78 i.e6, we reach a position that is given as drawn by Krasenkow, but my tablebase dis­ agrees.

:d7 90 i.g6 :d6 and it's all over. 65

•••

�d4 66 'iW2 :b6

White has no adequate bishop moves left on the b1-h7 diagonal. 67 'it> g 3 �e3 68 .te2 :e6 69 i.e4 :f6 70 i.b7 :f4 71 i.d5 :a4 72 i.f7 :a1 73 'it>gz l:ta7 0-1

Black can indeed win; for example 78 ... :e8 79 .td7 :e7 80 i.f5 �f4 81 i.c8 (if 81 i.xh3, then 81...:e2+ 82 c;t>gl �f3! 83 i.d7 :g2+ 84 �f1 :f2+ 85 �e1 �e3! 86 i.e6 :f6 87 i.d5 :d6 88 i.£7 :d7 89 i.e6 :e7 90 i.h3 :h7! 91 i.g2 :a7 etc) 81...:g7 82 i.e6 :g2+ 83 �xh3 :g3+ 84 �h2 �f3! 85 i.d5+ �f2! 86 i.a2 :d3 87 .tb1 :d1 88 i.a2 :d2 89 i.£7

92

As after 74 i.d5 f8 37 h7 Wg7 (or 37 ... i.c3 38 .l:tf4 b3 39 ':b4) 38 :H4 i.c3 39 .l:.g4+ are both easily winning. 37 1:[b1 i.C3 3 8 h7 Wf7 39 :txb4 i.. d 5 40 l:r.b8 1-0

If there isn't a passed pawn then pressing horne the advantage can be an arduous task.

':'C2 38 i.d7

The stronger side would naturally like to bring his king into play - a standard aim in positions with limited material - but this can be particularly tricky against two vigilant bishops. 38".i.g7 39 i.. g 5 Wg8 40 f5 Taking the opportunity to exchange a pair of pawns. 40".i.e5 41 fxg6 hxg6 42 i.h3 Wf7 43 i.f1 as 44 i.d3 llb2 45 i.C4+ Wg7 46 i.d8 i.C3 47 i.. b 5 Wf7 48 i.c4+ We8 Although Andersson has his rook and bishop on optimal squares, he has to take a long way round to get his king up the board; but he isn't in any particular hurry. 49 i.g5 Wd7 50 i..f4

5.2 V.Miloy-U.Andersson Biel 1996 (seefollowing diagram)

White has one pawn for the exchange and his bishops have plenty of scope. How should Black go about trying to win? 33 ...1:[c8 34 f4 Otherwise Black could pile up on the pawn if it stays on the f2-square. 34 " .11c3 3 5 a4 l:la 3 36 i.e8 l:ta2+ 37 Wh1

After 50 i.. d3!? lia2 and then 51 i.. xg6 :xa4, Black will probably win the race, but 95

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

51 iLc4 is another try. Black now has to choose between threatening the a-pawn or keeping the white king on the back rank. Following 51 ...nb2! (not 51...nxa4?? 52 iLb5+) 52 iLd3 nb4! Black retains good win­ ning chances, e.g. 53 'it>g2 'it>e6 54 iLxg6 nxa4 and Black is still a strong favourite. 50 ... 'it>e7 51 iLb5 'it>f6 52 iLC7 nd2 53 iLf4 na2 54 iLc7 'it>f5 5 5 iLd7+ 'it>e4 56 iLc6+ 'it>e3 57 iLf4+ The alternative 57 iLb6+ can be met by 57 ... iLd4 58 iLxa5 'it>f2 59 h4 'it>xg3, or per­ haps 57 ... 'it>d2!? 57 ...'it>f2 The king finally arrives. Now White must move his h-pawn, thus weakening g3. 58 h4 ne2 59 'it>h2 After 59 iLc7, if there's nothing else Black could go for a passed h-pawn with 59 ... iLe5 60 iLxa5 'it>xg3 61 'it>gl 'it>xh4. 59 ... iLe5 Simplifying into a technically won end­ ing. 60 iLxe5 nxe5 61 g4 ne3 62 g5 ne6 63 iLd7 nd6 64 iLe8 'it>f3 65 h 5 gxh5 66 iLxh5+ 'it>f4 67 iLe8 'it>xg 5 68 'it>g3 nf61 Black cuts off White's king. Now it's a question of bringing his own king to the a­ pawn. 69 iLb5 nf5 70 iLc6 nf6 71 iLe8 'it>h6! 72 'it>g4 'it>g7 7 3 iLd7 :f2 ! A nice manoeuvre to avoid the rigours of 73 ... 'it>f7 74 iLf5, when White's king can ap­ proach the queenside. 74 'it>g3 1:.f7 7 5 iLe8 nf6 76 'it> g4 'it>f8 77 iLb5 'it>e7 78 'it>g3 'it>d6 79 'it> g4 'it>C5 80 'it>g3 'it>b4 81 'it>g4 nf2 0-1 Black clearly intends ... :a2 and then ... nxa4. Now we will consider a series of posi­ tions in which any advantage conferred by the extra exchange is insufficient for victory. In the first of these White is left with pawns only on one flank. 96

5.3 R.Ponomariov-A.Morozevich Moscow 2002

With White about to lose the d-pawn there are no winning chances. 34 l1a4 iLxd5 3 5 nxa6 iLe4 36 l1a4 iLf5 37 'it>g2 h 5 38 iLg5 'it>e6 39 'it>f3 iLd6 Yz-Yz In the next case, although pawns still re­ main on a wider front, the defender has few problems organizing a solid defence.

5 .4 V. Topalov-B.Macieja Reykjavik (rapid) 2003

28 ...'it>e8

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

This ensures that Black can win the iso­ lated a-pawn without losing his c-pawn. 29 i.. e 3 Worse is 29 as, due to 29 ... i.. d 8. 29 l:ta1 30 C4 dxc4 30 ...l:txa4 is well met by 31 i..b 7. 31 i..xc4 l:txa4 32 'i2td3 l:ta 3+ 33 'i2tc2 h6 34 'it>b2 l:ta 5 35 'i2tb3 Yz-Yz This was a rapid game so Black may not have had a great deal of time. Even so how should he try and win? If 35 ... i..g5, then 36 f4 i.f6 37 d5 cxd5 38 i..xd5 l:tb5+ 39 'i2tc4 nb2 40 c6 and White has sufficient compensation. .•.

Ftacnik gives the line 37 g3! d5 38 exd5+ i.. xd5 39 h4 gxh4 40 gxh4 i.. f3 41 l:!.h2 i..h5 42 l:!.g2 with the initiative for White. Black does have connected passed pawns, how­ ever, as a source of potential counterplay. 37 i.. d 8 38 'i2tc1 i.. e 7 39 .l:te3 .••

In rather blocked positions the presence of weaknesses in the stronger side's camp will reduce the chances of employing all of his pieces offensively.

5. 5 N.Short-G.Kasparov PCA World Championship (2nd matchgame), London 1993

39 d5!? Although this seems to exchange off a white weakness, it opens up scope for the bishops and makes a3 into a target. In fact Kasparov is starting to fancy his chances of getting more than half a point. 40 exd 5+ 'i2txd5 41 'i2tb2 'i2te6 42 i.. b 6 i.. d 6 43 h4 Otherwise Black can force White onto the back foot with ... e4 and ... i.. f4. 43 gxh4 44 l:th3 e4 45 l:txh4 i..f4 46 l:th3 i.. g 5 47 i.. d 4 Makarichev analyses 47 i.. e3 i.. xe3 48 l:txe3 'i2te5 49 l1e1 i.. d 7 50 .l:.!.gl 'i2tf4 51 l:tfl+ 'i2tg5 52 l:te1 i.. c6 53 l:tfl i.. d 7 54 lIe1 as equal. However, since Black seemed to be the only one with any chances in this line, the text is more sensible. 47 a S 48 .l:!.h2 a4 49 .l:!.h1 i.. d 7 SO l:!.h2 'i2tdS S 1 l:!.hS Yz-Yz Black not only has all possible avenues of attack under control, he can force a draw with 51...i.. xg4 52 i.. xf6 i.. xh5 53 i.. xg5. .••

•••

Kasparov doesn't have any material compensation for the bishops, but White has weaknesses on e4 and c3 that need constant attention. The rook is unable to activate, so it cannot create any serious problems for Black. 36 i.a7 'i2te6 37 g4?! Throwing away any winning chances.

•••

In total contrast the next position is open and both sides have passed pawns. 97

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e Play

5 .6 G.Kamsky-V.lvanchuk Buenos Aires 1994

White lacks a pawn or two as partial compensation for the exchange; on the other hand his king securely blockades Black's passed pawn and his a-pawn can become a nuisance. 34 ... i.e3 3 5 i.d 5 I:te8 36 i.b7 lIe1 37 a s .l:!.a1 38 a6 d 5 39 i.e7 1 Stronger than 39 ..txdS ':xa6, which would give Black a more comfortable time. 39 ... .l:.b1+ 40 �a4 b3 In this sharp position the following moves are forced. 41 i.a 3 b2 42 �b3 White's king is able to handle the b-pawn even from behind! 42 ... i.f6 43 a7 l:ta1 44 ..txb2 .l:[xa7 45 i.xd5 .l:!.a6 45 ... i.xb2 46 �xb2 �f6 47 i.f3 is drawn. 46 i.xf6+ l:txf6 47 i.f3 ..th6 48 �e3 l:tf4 49 �d3 .l:!.xh4 50 �e3 .l:.a4 51 'itf2 �g5 52 ..tg1 .l:!.b4 5 3 i.e2 .l:r.h4 And here 53 ... M 54 �h2 .l:!.bl 55 i.f3 ..tf4 56 i.c6 is a book draw. 54 g3 J::t a 4 55 �f2 .:ta2 56 �3 litb2 Ya-Ya So the dangerous white a-pawn virtually obliged Black to allow drawish simplifica­ tion. 98

5 .7 B.Gelfand-N.Short Brussels 1991

With all the pawns on one flank Short was able to hold out. 46 i.d3 i.d6 47 :f1 ..t g6 48 1:I.e1 After 48 g4 Black draws with 48 ... i.d5+ 49 ..tgl ..tc5+ 50 ..th2 ..td6+ and so on - a typical checking sequence by a bishop pair. 48 ... h5 49 ..te4 i.g3 50 Wg1 h4 51 �1 �g51 Activating the king makes it hard for White's pieces to get at the black pawns. 52 �e2 �f4 53 �d3 i.f2 54 We2 ..tg3 55 i.d3 �e5 56 ':e5+ �d4 57 1:I.a5 i.d 5 58 b2 tLlc6 37 l:txf7 c3+ 38 'it>cl tLlb4 39 l:!.C7+ 'it>d5 Ftacnik shows that 39...'it>d6 is also in­ adequate: 40 l:!.c4 tLlxa2+ 41 'it>b1 tLld2+ 42 'it>xa2 tLlxc4 43 .ixc4 e5 44 f5! (White doesn't want to be left with only the wrong rook's pawn) 44 ... e4 45 'it>b3 'it>e5 46 .ie6 and wins. 40 a3 tLlc6 40 ...tLla2+ is hopeless after 41 'it>bl . 41 .if3 1-0 Black loses material along the long light diagonal. In the next example all the pawns are on one wing and the stronger side's pawns are damaged. We would assume that this should be less challenging for a pair of de­ fensive knights. However, while knights have a reputation for being fine pieces on a limited front, we shouldn't forget that the rook and bishop can press from afar. 50 it turns out that the knight pair are still put under considerable pressure. 1 00

5 . 10 P.Svidler-A.Shirov Tilburg 1996

5hirov demonstrates how to create prac­ tical problems for White. 41 tLlb4 .id6! 42 tLld3 The wayward knight is stranded after 42 tLlxa6?! 'it>c6 43 tLlb8+ 'it>d5. 42 Jlf5 43 'it>C3 l:th5 44 tLld2 'it>c6 45 tLlC4 .l:Ih4 46 'it>b3 'it>b5 47 tLle3 !? A difficult choice. After 47 tLlxd6+ cxd6, with Black having doubled rooks pawns, there may well be good drawing chances. Obviously 5vidler didn't believe in it and preferred his chances with all the pieces on the board. 47 ... l:!.e4 48 tLld5 l:I.d4 49 tLlc3+ 'it>c6 50 tLla4 'it>d5 51 tLlc3+ 'it>e6 52 tLldl C5! 53 tLle3 l:!.e4 54 tLlc4 .ie7! 5hirov points out that 54 ... 'it>d5? 55 tLlxd6 ..t>xd6 56 c4! would be awkward for Black with his c-pawn under attack. 55 tLlf2 1Ih4 56 tLld3 .ig5! The e3-square is taken away from White's knight, and so Black can happily come with his king to d5 and threaten the knight on c4. White's hopes of a fortress are starting to look forlorn. 57 ..t>C3 57 tLlxc5+ loses a piece, as 5hirov had no.•

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

ticed that after 57... 'it>d5 58 ttJxa6 l:txc4 59 lLlb4+ 'it>c5 60 ttJa6+ 'it>b5 61 a4+ l:txa4 62 lLlc7+ cJi>a5 there are no more checks. S7 'it>ds S8 b3 Necessary, but still a concession. S8 l:.h2 S9 b4? 59 ttJe1 is the only move, when Shirov thinks that Black's best is 59 ... l:th3+ 60 ttJd3 .tf6+ 61 �d2 l:th2+ 62 'it>d1 .i.g5. Carrying this further, after 63 ttJe1 .i.h6 64 ttJd3 cJi>d4 65 a3 �c3 66 ttJxc5 l:txc2, Black is making serious inroads. S9 l:r.h4 0-1 Winning more material. •••

••.

•..

Here's another case of the pawns being on the same side. Although theoretically White has reasonable winning chances, nei­ ther player had much time left. This fact may reduce the likelihood of a logical result.

5 . 11 J.Lautier-J.Piket Monte Carlo (rapid) 2000

89 f4!? ttJc4 90 l:ta4 seems reasonable. 89 .'it'g6 90 �d1 Instead, 90 .i.c3 'it>f5 91 .i.xe5 doesn't seem to win if Black can capture on e5 with his king. 90 'it>fs 91 .i.c3 ttJhS 92 'it>e2?! Here the continuation 92 .l:la5! ttJf4 93 .i.xe5 fxe5 94 .l:ta2 comes into consideration. Black's pawns are then split, which surely offers White more chances than in the game: a) 94 ... ttJh5 95 'it>d2 ttJf4 96 'it>e3 ttJd5+ 97 'it>f2 ttJf4 98 :a8 ttJd3+ (or if 98 ... ttJg6 then 99 g3 is interesting) 99 'it>e3 ttJf4 100 l:tf8+ 'it>g6 101 'it>e4 ttJxg2 102 'it>xe5 and Black is in trou­ ble. b) 94 ... e4! ? 95 l:ta5+ 'it>g6 (after 95 ... 'it>e6 96 fxe4 ttJxg2 97 lhg5 ttJf4 98 'it>d2 ttJxh3, then 99 l:tg6+! seems to win for White) 96 fxe4 ttJxg2 97 1:1a6+ �f7 98 l:ta3 ttJf4 �e1 'it>e6 100 �f2 �e5 101 'it>f3 ttJxh3 102 l:ta5+ and my money is on White to prevail. 92 ttJg6 9 3 l:ta s+ 'it>e6 94 c;t>f2 ttJgf4 9S .i.d2 ttJg6 96 l:tbS ttJes 97 .i.c3 ttJd3+ 98 'it>e3 ttJdf4 99 cJi>f2 ttJd3+ 100 cJi>g1 ttJdf4 101 .i.as , ttJdS 102 .i.d8 ttJdf4 103 .i.C7 ttJd S 104 .i.b8 ttJg7 10S c;t>f2 ttJhS 106 l:tas ttJdf4 107 .i.xf4 Finally releasing the tension. 107 ttJxf4 108 l:ta2 c;t>fs 109 'it>e3 ttJdS+ 110 'it>d4 ttJf4 111 l:td2 ttJhS 112 'it>ds �f4 113 'it>e6 'it>g3 Black's active king saves the day. 114 c;t>fs ttJf4 11S 'it>xf6 ttJxg2 116 'it>xgs After 1 16 l:txg2+ �xg2 1 1 7 'it>xg5, captur­ ing either pawn will lead to a draw. 116 ttJf4 117 c;t>fs ttJxh3 118 l:ta2 ttJg1 119 f4 h3 120 cJi>e4 h2 121 :'xh2 VI-VI ••

•••

.••

•••

•••

88 gS Black's knights have well-anchored squares (e5 and g3) to sit on and even make threats against the g2-pawn. White will probably have to find the right way to sim­ plify to really challenge the blockade. 89 l:ta6 •••

5 .12 L.Van Wely-K.Sasikiran Moscow 2004 Here we have a sharp struggle with White having two protected passed pawns as more than sufficient compensation. To 101

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

save this one Black has to open up play as much as possible.

39 lLlf3 i.e3 40 lLle1 l:tb8 41 lLld3 .l:!.xb3 42 a61 l:tb1 Huzman prefers 42 .. .lk3! which obliges White to push the a-pawn: 43 a7 .l:tc2+ 44 �f3 l:ta2 45 lLlc5 J:ha7 46 lLlxe6 �f7 47 lLlc5 should then be drawn. 43 �f3 l:ta1 44 lLlc5 i.g1 45 �e4 White would like to maintain his a­ pawn, but... 45 ... d3! ... puts an end to that! 46 lLlxe6 l:txa6 47 lLlg5 i.h2 Alternatively, 47... .l:ta3 48 lLlf3 l1c3 49 lLlb2 d2! 50 lLlxd2 .l:txg3 should also result in a draw. 48 g4 d2 Huzman also points out an alternative drawing idea in 48 ... i.xe5!?, e.g. 49 �xe5 :a5+ 50 �f6 (not 50 'it>f4? :a4) 50 ...:a6+ 51 �f5 l:ta5+ repeating, or if 51 'it>e7 .l::!. a4 52 lLld2 lhg4 and a draw seems inevitable: 53 lLlge4 �g7 54 �e6 lhe4+ 55 lLlxe4 d2 56 lLlxd2 �h6. 49 lLlxd2 l:ta4+ 50 �f5 litf4+ 5 1 �e6 :xg4 52 lLlde4 �g7 53 �d 5 i.xe5 Yz-Yz White's last pawns falls after 54 �xe5 %hg5+ 55 lLlxg5 �h6. Finally, we see an example of a closed position. 1 02

5 .13 P .Svidler-L.Aronian Internet Chess Club 2004

With the position so blocked Black has no way to penetrate into White's camp. 27 ... i.f8 28 lLlbd2 i.h6 29 lLlf1 i.f4 30 lLlh4 �d7 31 lLlf5 as 32 h4 .l:[g8 33 �3 .l:!.d8 34 h5 .l:tg8 Yz-Yz

Rook a n d Bisho(? vers us Kn ight a n d opposite-colo u red Bishop

5 . 14 T.Scandella-G.Flear Saint Affrique 2005

Black plans a king invasion on the light

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

squares. 46 �f2 �g6 47 liJe2 nb8 48 ii.d4 �f5 49 ii.C3 �e4 50 liJf4 f5 51 �e2 If 51 liJh5, then 51...ii.d5 52 liJf6+ �d3 53 liJxh7 l:te8 and ... :e2+ will create insur­ mountable problems for White. 51 ... ii.C4+ 52 �2 l:td8 53 ii.e1? This fails to resist much longer as the white king is driven back to the first rank. Instead, 53 liJh5 h6 54 liJf6+ �d3 55 �f3 �c2 56 �f4 ii.d3 enables White to activate his king and put up a fight, although Black naturally retains good winning chances. 53 .. .l'�d1 54 liJg2 l:tb1 5 5 b4 l:tb2+ 56 �gl �f3 57 liJf4 :b1 58 liJg2 �e2 0-1

49 ... liJg3 50 l:lxe6 liJe2+ 51 'ot?b4 c3 52 ne7+ �a8 53 ii.d6 c2 54 ii.c5 White gets there first! 41 ii.a7 c4 42 �d4 ii.c6 43 l:th7+ �c8 44 ii.b6 1-0 Black loses his c-pawn.

5 .16 B.Gelfand-J.Polgar Wijk aan Zee 1998

5.1 5 E.Bareev-P .Svidler Russian Championship, Elista 1997

Black's poorly-placed knight is the cause of his quick demise. 38 fxe5 a4 At least exchanging a pair of pawns. 39 bxa4 This way White obtains a passed pawn. 39 ... ii.xa4 40 �e3 'ot?d7?1 40 ...ii.c2 was somewhat better, but White should still win; for example, 41 ii.a7 c4 42 �d4 ii.d3 43 ii.b8 �d7 44 a4 liJg7 45 a5 liJf5+ 46 �c3 �c6 47 a6 �b6 48 a7 �b7 49 l:te8 and the e-pawn falls, and after the further

Watch how Black is put under pressure on the dark squares. 37 :d6 First of all a queenside pawn must fall. 3 7 ... �f7 38 ii.xb6 �e7 39 ii.C7 ii.e6 40 a 3 a4 41 l:td2 h5?! Gelfand believes that Black would have done better not to advance the h-pawn. His logic probably goes as follows: if at some point defending the h-pawn involves play­ ing ... g6, then the f6-square becomes weak, and if this pawn moves to f5, then e5 and g5 will make convenient entry squares for White's king. 42 �f2 ii.b3 43 :td4 �e8? A surprisingly passive move. Instead, Gelfand thinks the king is better placed on e6 and, noting that 43 ... g5 44 g3 �e6 45 .l:.d6+ �e7 46 :a6 �f7 47 ii.d8 leaves Black rather tied down, recommends the immediate 43 ... �e6! ' Nevertheless, after 44 l:th4 Black probably has to play the undesirable 44 ... g6 1 03

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

anyway, as 44 ... .i.d1 45 l:te4+ would leave Black with an unenviable choice. 44 l:.h4 g6 45 .l:le4+ f8 52 'it>e4 'it>e8 Although 52 .. .£5+ retains the f-pawn for now, it won't save the game: i.e. 53 'it>e5 'it>e8 54 l:tg7 or 53 ... 'it>g8 54 l:td7 etc, which illus­ trates the limitations of a knight in such an open position! All eight legal moves onto dark squares lose immediately. 53 l:ta 5 tbe7 54 .i.xf6 tbc6 5 5 l:tC5 'it>d7 56 �e5 tbe7 57 .i.f6 tbf5 58 d7 63 .i.b4 and Black is squeezed out of moves. 61 'it>f5 tbd6+ 62 'it>g6 h4 63 .i.b4 tbe4 64 'it>f5 .i.c2 65 l:td 5+ 'it>c6 66 'it>e5 .i.b3 67 l:td4 tbf2 68 l:td2 tbd1 69 'it>f5 tbe3+ 70 'it>xg5 1-0

5 . 17 L.Van Wely-A.Morozevich Elista Olympiad 1998

White has only one pawn for the ex­ change, but does have a robust blockade on the light squares. How can Black try to win? 1 04

39 tbf3 'it>f7 40 'it>h3 �6 41 'it>g4 .i.e3 42 tbh4 Van Wely shows his intention to sit tight and temporize with his knight. Black needs to prepare some concrete threats. 42 ...l:tb11 Morozevich now threatens ... l:txb5, after which the a-pawn will queen, so White must move the bishop. 43 .i.c6 Better than 43 tbf5 .i.c5 44 'it>f3 l:tb3+ 45 'it>g2, as then 45 ... ':xb5 46 axb5 a4 wins. 43 l:tb6 44 .i.d5 l:tb4 45 .i.c6 �g5 Black would like to play 45 ...l:tc4, which is a thematic way of forcing the owner of the bishop to cede one of the pawns, but for the moment there is a problem: 46 .i.b5 l:txe4+? 47 'it>f3 hitting both pieces. However, after the text move the threat of ... l:tc4 is real. 46 tbf5 l:tC4 Now the pawn is won cleanly. 47 �b5 l:txe4+ 48 'it>f3 l:.b4 Even though Black has managed to snatch the forward e-pawn, there is still work to do; and care must be shown as 48 ... 'it>xf5? fails to 49 .i.d7+. 49 tbd6 �e6 50 tbC4 .i.d8 51 'it>e4 .i.C7 •••

It's zugzwang: White will soon have to move his king, and then Black's will be able to advance. 52 g4 .i.d8 5 3 'it>d3 'it>d 5! Provoking White's next.

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

54 e4+ �e6 Back again, but now White finds himself with holes on the dark squares. Even the three light-squared targets (a4, e4 and g4) are too many for White to be able to hold indefinitely. 55 'ifte3 ':b1 56 i.a6 i.e7 57 ltJe3 Stohl points out 57 i.c8+ �f6 58 i.f5 l:tb4 59 i.d7 �g5 and Black can win by bringing his rook to the g-file and playing .. Jlxg4. 57 ...:e1+ 58 �d2 lla1 59 i.e4+ 59 i.b5 is somewhat more resistant, but White still has many problems to solve after 59 .. .l::t g 1 60 i.a6 �d6. 59 �d6 60 i.b3 �e5 61 ltJf5 :g1 62 i.d1 i.d8! 63 ltJxg7 i.g5+ 64 �e2 �b4 65 ltJe6 :g2+ 66 �b1 �e3 White's bishop, who has been so busy defending the weak a- and g-pawns, is sud­ denly out of moves! 67 ltJe7 Or if 67 ltJxg5 hxg5 68 i.f3 :f2 69 i.d1 llfl 70 �c1 l:r.h1 mates quickly. 67 ... l:tg1 68 ltJd5+ �d2 0-1 •.•

This just helps White find a more active role for his rook. Instead, after 38 ... i.e5 39 �f3 �f6 40 i.c4 (40 g5+!? �xg5 41 l:tg2+ is interesting, but it's a big pawn to give up for some activity) 40 ... �g5, I can't see any way for White to make progress. If 41 l:.d1, hop­ ing for 41 ...i.xb2 42 :b1 i.c3 43 i.xb3, then Black has 41 ...b5! 42 i.xb5 i.xb2, with a comfortable game after putting the bishop on e5 and the b-pawn on b2. 39 l:.d3 ltJe5 40 %:tf3 i.xb2 41 l:lxf4+ �g6 42 .l::t b4 i.e5 43 i.e4 b2 44 i.a2 �g5 45 i.b1 ltJd7 46 �f3 ltJf6 47 l:tb5 i.d4 48 i.e2 ! This quiet move emphasizes that Black is dose to being in zugzwang. 48 ...ltJd7 After 48 ... i.c5 the continuation 49 i.e4 i.d4 50 l:tb4 tightens the screw. White isn't exactly threatening to capture on d4, but Black has to make a move! Then 50 ... 'ifth6 cedes ground to 51 �f4 i.e5+ 52 'it'f5, win­ ning at least a pawn. 49 �e4 i.e5 50 �e3 i.f4+ 51 �e2 i.e5 52 i.f5 ltJe5

5.18 M.Gurevich-A.Shirov FIDE World Championship, New Delhi 2000

Here Black's blockade seems watertight. 37 i.f1 �f7 38 �g2 ltJe4?

5 3 l:tb4! If 53 l:txb6 Black is able to capture the d­ pawn thus: 53 ... ltJa4 54 lIb8 ltJc3+ 55 �f3 ltJxd5 53 ...�f6 54 �f3 White is now ready to take the backward b-pawn, so Shirov focuses on grabbing White's d5-pawn in return. 1 05

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

54 ... �C3 5 5 I!xb6 �e5 56 �b1 'it>xd 5 5 7 g5! With all his queenside pawns gone, this g-pawn advance is the only thing likely to trouble Black. 57 ... 4Jd7 58 .l:.b7 4Je5+ 59 �f4 4JC4 Although 59 ... �c6 wins a tempo, it doesn't save the day: 60 .l:!.e7 4Jc4 61 g6 4Ja3 62 �a2 d5 63 g7 �xg7 64 lhg7 b 1 � 65 �xb 1 4Jxb 1 66 .l::th7. 60 g6 �c6 61 g7 �e5+ 62 �f5 Or 62 �g5 �xg7 63 l::t xg7 4Jd2 64 �f5 b 1"i*' 65 �xb 1 4Jxb 1 66 �xh4 etc. 62 4Je3+ 63 �e4 4Jd5 64 l:t.f7? This should throw away half a point. In­ stead with 64 'it>d3! Black wouldn't be able to win White's bishop for the b-pawn. 64 ... 4JC3+ 65 �d3 �xg7 66 J::txg7 4Jxb1 67 �c2 4Jd2 Unfortunately for him, Shirov misses the route to an easy draw with 67 ... 4Jc3! 68 �xb2 4Jd1+ 69 'it'c2 4Jf2 and ... 4Jxh3. 68 �xb2 �d5 69 �C2 4Jf3 70 �d3 �e5? Better is 70... 4Je5+, but White can still pressurize with 71 �e3 'it'e6 72 'it>f4 �f6 73 IIh7 4Jg6+ 74 'it'g4 d5 75 'it'h5 and the h­ pawn falls. 71 .l::i. g4 'it>f5 72 'it>e3 4Jg5 73 l::tx h4 d5 74 lIf4+ �g6 7 5 .l!l.h4 d4+ 76 'it'd3 �f5 77 l:th8 4Je6 78 �C4 �e4 79 h4 Wf5 80 .l::. g 8 'it>e4 81 h5 d3 82 �C3 'it'f5 1-0 White has 83 h6 4Jg5 84 .l:!.xg5+ �xg5 85 h7. A typical example of what happens as a result of modem accelerated time limits. Even at the higher levels, games can be ex­ citing yet full of errors!

Black's passed a-pawn gives him chances to hold, but the a2-square is well controlled by the light-squared bishop.

.••

In the next game Black hopes that an ad­ vanced passed pawn will generate enough counterplay.

5 . 19 P.Nikolic-V.Korchnoi Tilburg 1987

1 06

57 f4 Rather than 57 �xg6? a2, when White has to give up his rook for the a-pawn. 57 ... 'it'b4 58 .l!l.e1 4Jb3 59 l:te4+ 4Jd4 60 �h3 In order to avoid annoying knight checks. 60 ... �c3 61 .l:!.e8 �d2?! It's better to keep hold of the a-pawn for the moment with 61...�g7!, e.g. 62 .l::i.g8 �h6 or 62 .l:ta8 �b2 63 .l!l.a6 4Je2! . 62 .l::i.a 8 4Je2 63 .i:!.xa 3 4Jxf4+ 64 �g3 4Je2+ 65 �f3 4JC3 66 .i.xg6 �xh4 67 .l:r.b3 �f6 68 l:tb2+ 'it'e1 69 �xh 5 A curious pawnless position has oc­ curred, where Black's poorly-placed king turns out to be his downfall. 69 ... �d4 70 nb8 �d2 71 .i.g6 �C1 72 .l::t b 3 White would like to get his king into d3. 72 ... �g7?! 72 ...�d2! is a better way of putting up re­ sistance. Although after 73 J:tb7 (if 73 l:tb2+ 'it>c1 74 lIb4 .i.f6, White can't play 75 �e3?? due to 75 ... 4Jd5+) 73 ... Wc1 74 �h7, Black will have to move one of his minor pieces, he has one good move: 74 ... �c5!, since if 75 l:tc7 �d4 76 IIc4 �e5 77 �e3 'it>b2 78 �d3 �a3 79 �f5 �b3 80 �e6 �a3 and Black is by no means lost yet. 73 'it>e3 �f6 74 'it>d3 4Jd5 75 �e4 4Jc3 76

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

i.fs liJd s 77 lIbS liJe3 78 l:tb6 �h8 79 �h7 liJa2 80 i.. g 8 liJe3 81 l::t h 6 i.. e s 82 :hS i..f6 83 l:th2 i.es 84 ':'g2 �h8 8S ':'e2+ 'itbl Or 85 ... 'itd1 86 .l:th2. 86 i.. h 7 liJa2 87 'itd2 'ital 88 :te8 i.. d 4 89 'it>e2 1-0 Mate is forced, e.g. 89 ... i.. e3 90 .l:.b8 etc.

5 . 20 G.Kasparov-A.Karpov World Championship (16th matchgame), New York 1990

This is perhaps the most famous example of this particular NQE. Even after all these years and extensive investigation, it's still possible to find some new twists in the analysis, but the consensus view remains that Black can draw with best play. I'm not 100% convinced. After reading through these notes, what opinion will you have?! 42 ... liJf4 Black plays ... e5 a few moves later. If he goes for it here with 42 ... e5! ?, Kasparov rec­ ommends 43 .l:!.h5 d4 44 'itg3 with an edge; while playing 43 ... e4 to exchange a pair of pawns isn't a good way of easing the de­ fence, as after 44 fxe4 dxe4 45 ':c5 i.. f7 46 lk8+ 'ith7 47 'itg3 Black is already short of moves. 43 llh4 A strange-looking square, but 43 l:tg3 can

be met by 43 ... d4 and the rook is even more clumsily placed! 43 liJd3 44 i.. e 3 eS 4S 'itg3 Evidently White needs to improve the scope of his pieces. He'll then hope to tie down Black's forces and see if he can create a chink in the defensive armour. The de­ fender has one factor in his favour, in that there are only targets on a restricted part of the board. 4S ... d4 After 45 .. .'iit f7 46 lth5 'ite6 47 l:th8 White is able to get positions similar to the game, as Black has nothing better than then play­ ing 47 ... d4. Why not 45 ... e4 I wonder? Kasparov rec­ ommended 46 J:[h5 (he didn't like 46 fxe4 · because of 46 ... liJc5 and, presumably, he didn't believe he could break down Black's blockades after 47 i.. d4 liJxe4+), but how about 46 ... e3! 47 lth2 liJc1 ! and Black seems to have enough tactical resources. 46 i.d2 i.ds 47 ':'hS 'itf7 48 i.. a s 'ite6 49 l::t h 8 liJb2 49 ... e4 loses a pawn to 50 fxe4 i.. xe4 51 �b6. SO .l:te8+ White must press against the potential weaknesses on e5 and g7. so 'itd6 Sl �b4+ 'ite6 S2 l::t e 8+ 52 l::t xe5? is well met by the fork 52 ... liJd3. S2 'itd7 S3 ':es 'ite6 S4 ':'e7 ..•

•..

..•

107

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

and Black loses his d-pawn anyway. 54 g6 A natural move. Kasparov gives the al­ 61 l:ta6+ 'i;f7 62 �e5 lLJd3+ Kasparov shows that 62... d3 leads to an ternative, 54 . . .'!iJc4, as leading to a draw after elegant mate: 63 na7+ 'iit> e8 64 �f6 lLJc4 65 55 .l:txg7 d3 56 l:.g6+ 'iit> f7 57 �a6 d2 58 .l:ta1 e4 59 fxe4 Ji.xe4 60 �f4 Ji.g6 and White can't .l:!e7+ �f8 66 Ji.b4 �g8 67 .l:te8+ �h7 68 Ji.c3 improve his position. However, Fritz shows d2 69 �g5. Exchanging with 62 ... lLJc4+ 63 �xd4 that White can keep some advantage with 56 lLJxa5 64 .l:txa5 �f6 loses for Black (though f4!? and then: a) Firstly we can dismiss 56 ... exf4+ by the it's worth noting that this position would be study-like 57 �xf4 d2 58 .l:1e7+ �f6 59 g5+ a book draw if Black's bishop was on c1 rather than c2!), as White would be able to �g6 60 Ji.xd2! liJxd2 61 l:td7 cind wins. win with 65 g5+ 'i¥i>e6 66 .l:te5+ �f7 67 lIc5 b) The other line is also pretty, with White's rook working overtime after 56 ... d2! Ji.f5 68 �e5 etc. 57 f5+ (stronger than 57 l:te7+ �f6 58 g5+ 63 �xd4 lLJf2 64 g5 Weaving a mating net may take time, but �g6 59 Ji.xd2 liJxd2 60 l:txe5 Ji.b3 as this isn't quite good enough to win) 57 ... �f6 58 .l:th7 there doesn't seem to be a way out for Black. (threatening mate with Ji.e7!) 58 ... Ji.f7 59 64 Ji.f5 65 Ji.d2 �e7 66 �d5 lLJe4 67 l:ta7+ l:th6+ �g7 60 l:r.h1 Ji.d5 61 lla1 (but not 61 �e8 68 Ji.e3 lLJC3+ 69 �e5 'i;d8 70 Ji.b6+ .l:td I? liJe3 62 Ihd2 liJf1 +) 61...�f6 62 lla6+ �e8 71 1.:.C7 lLJe4 72 i.. e 3 lLJg3 7 3 i..f4 lLJh5 �g7 63 .l:ta7+ �g8 64 Ji.xd2 liJxd2 65 .l:ta5 (or 74 J::t a 7 �f8 7 5 Ji.h2 lLJg7 76 Ji.g1 lLJh5 77 even 65 .l:td7! ? liJe4+ 66 �h4 Ji.f7 67 g5) Ji.C5+ 'i;g8 78 �d6 �f8 Stopping the intended 'i¥i>e7, at least for 65 ... Ji.h1 66 l:txe5 �f7 67 �f4 with excellent the moment. winning chances. 55 .l:te7+ �f6 56 l:1.d7 Ji.a2 79 Ji.d4 i.. g 4 80 �e5 Gurevich notes that Black is in trouble af­ The black knight is locked out of play but ter 56 ... lLJd3?! 57 Ihd5 lLJxb4 58 l:td6+ �f7 59 it does stop any White hopes of coming into f4. f6. 57 .l:ta7 Ji.C4 58 Ji.a 5 Ji.d3? 80 ... Ji.f5 81 J:th7 �g8 82 .l:tc7 �f8 83 �c6 Probably the losing move. Instead, Kas­ 'i;g8 84 .l:te7 �f8 85 Ji.d6 �g8 86 .:te8+ �7 parov suggests 58 ... liJd3 which, apart from 87 !:.e7+ �g8 88 Ji.e5 �f8 89 lIa7 Ji.g4 90 avoiding the strong game continuation, 'i;d6 Ji.h3 91 �a 3 ! Ji.g4 92 �e3 ! seems to hold the kingside, as 59 Ji.d8+ �e6 60 .l:tg7 lLJf4 61 �g5 can be met by 61 ...d3! . 59 f4! Before this White's advantage wasn't al­ together convincing, but breaking up the centre now gives him excellent winning chances. 59 exf4+ 59 ... e4? is now bad because of 60 Ji.b6. 60 �xf4 Ji.c2 In his notes in Infarmatar Kasparov criti­ cizes this move, but alternatives are not that great either, e.g. 60 ... �e6 61 Ji.b6 �d5 62 J::t a5+ �c4 63 l:I.a2 �b3 64 lla7 �c4 65 lld7 After a period o f cat and mouse ma••.

••.

•••

1 08

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

noeuvring Kasparov finds the way to make progress. With his rook on e3 he can get his king to d8. 9 2 i..f 5 93 �C7 �f7 94 �d8 i.. g 4 95 i.. b 2! .te6 95 ...lDf4 goes down to 9 6 �e7+ �f8 97 ..ta3 �g8 98 �e4 lDe6+ 99 �e7. 96 i..C 3! Zugzwang! 9 6 i..f 5 The alternative 96 ... lDf4? loses trivially to 97 �f3. 97 l:!e7+ �f8 98 .i.e5 .i.d3 99 �a7 i.. e 4 100 J:!.C7 i.. b l l0l i.. d 6+ �g8 102 �e7 1-0 Now that the king is on e7, mate is not far off: e.g. 102 ... lDg7 103 .l:k8+ �h7 104 i.. e5 lDf5+ 105 �f8. This ending, along with that of Nikolic­ Korchnoi (example 5.19), shows us that there can be good winning chances even with vir­ tually no pawn presence. •••

.•.

In endgames opposite-coloured bishops are considered drawish, whereas in middle­ games they offer good chances for an attack. Here these positions have similarities to the latter as the defender cannot compete on the attacking bishop's colour complex, which the stronger side's king will typically use in order to penetrate.

What happens if Black doesn't touch his f-pawn? Firstly, it's clear that 51...�g7 52 g4 i..b4 53 �a7 i.. c5 54 l:!b7, threatening g4-g5, decides the game without a fight. Instead 51...lDf5!? 52 g4 lDd6 is plausible, but the d6square isn't ideal for a knight, as it will re­ quire constant protection. Karpov must have decided that his defences would eventually be unravelled by the introduction of White's king into the fray, e.g. 53 i.. d 5 i.. f6 54 �a6 'ii1e 7 55 l:!a7+ 'it>e8 56 i.. c6+ 'it>f8 57 �d7 iLe7 58 'it>e3 lDc8 59 'it>e4 lDb6 60 l::t c7 and the pressure is getting unpleasant. 52 �a7 lDg4 53 i.. e 6

5.2 1 N.Short-A.KarpoY Candidates semi-final (4th matchgame), Linares 1992 (see following diagram)

In spite of the presence of opposite bish­ ops White can actually win this position. Short demonstrates that it's possible to play for the attack! 46 �f3 �f8 47 �e4 i..f6 48 nd5 i.. e 7 49 f4 lDg4 50 l:!.a 5 lDh6 51 �f3 f5 !?

5 3 lDh6 After 53 ... lDf6, White can try 54 iLxf5 gxf5 55 �a5 which, in my experience, is very promising for the attacking side. 54 l::tC 7 lDg4 55 1:tb7 lDh6 56 �e3 lDg4+ 57 ••.

1 09

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e Play

'it'd4 ttJf6 58 I:tb8+ 'it'g7 59 l:tb7 �f8 60 i.d5 ttJh5 Short points out that 60 ... ttJxd5 is inade­ quate for the defender: 61 'it'xd5 .tf6 62 'it'e6 iLd4 63 r;tb3 'it'g7 64 g4 fxg4 65 l:tg3. 61 'it'e5 oltf6+ If 6l .. .ttJxg3, then 62 �b8+ 'it'g7 63 I:f.g8+ 'it'h7 64 oltf7 should be good enough. 62 'it'e6 oltd4 63 oltf3 !

A clever move that disrupts the harmony of Black's defensive fortress. 63 ttJxg3 64 J:Id7 olte3 65 l:td3 .tb2 66 l:rd2 oltel Blatny quite rightly points out that 66 ... iLc3 67 l::!. c2 iLa1 68 .l:i.g2 ttJe4 69 l:!.xg6 would be much easier for White. 67 1Idl iLxf4 68 'it'f6 Mate is more important than a couple of pawns! 68 iLe7 69 l:td7 olta 5 70 olte6! Keeping Black's king in the comer area. 70 ... ttJh5+ Or 70... f4 71 .l:!.f7+ 'it'g8 72 'it'xg6 and Black can't stop mate for long. 71 'it'xg6 ttJf4+ 72 'it'xf5 ttJe2 73 iLf3 'it'e8 74 l:td 5 ttJg3+ 75 �e6 .te7 76 J::t d 7 1-0 Because of the proximity of mate Black loses a piece: 76 ... oltb8 77 oltc6 �f8 78 l:!.b7 iLf4 79 :f7+. •••

••.

The next example illustrates a typical method for making progress, tying down 110

the opponent whilst finding useful roles for one's pieces being the first stage.

5.22 V.Kramnik-V.Anand Dos Hermanas 1996

57 ... iLe3 58 l:te5 Here 58 f4 can be met by 58 ... ttJf3!, threatening ... ttJd2. Being patient when it comes to pawn breaks is sensible when your own pieces are on tactically suspect squares. 58 ttJf3 59 � g3 ttJe5 60 nbS .td2 61 f3 iLe3 ?! Allowing White to play the important pawn break f3-f4. Better is 61...ttJc6, which at least delays White's next move. 62 f4! The only way to really test Black. White creates a passed pawn and enables his king to become more aggressive. 62 gxf4+ 63 'it'xf4 ttJf7 Here Kramnik is handicapped by the fact that the ending after 64 i.xf7 'it'xf7 isn't win­ ning. 64 l:!.d 5 iLb2 65 �f5 iLf6 66 l:rdl ttJg5 67 .l:i.d3 ttJf7 68 l:td7 ttJd6+ 69 'it'f4 ttJf7 70 l:tb7 i.e5+ 71 'it'e3 i.d6 72 'it'e4 ttJ g 5+?! Kramnik considers 72 ... 'it'f6 to be more robust. 7 3 �f5 ttJf3 74 .td 5 ttJh4+ 7 5 'it'g5 ttJg6 76 .:ta7 ttJf8?! .••

.••

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

And here 76... ttJf4 77 i.c4 ttJg2 would be more awkward for White. 77 �f5 i.c5 78 lIb7 ..td6 79 g5 ttJg6 80 .i:!.a 7 tLlf8 81 i.b3 ttJg6 82 :a8 ttJf8 83 'itg4

The next case should be a warning for those who are dogmatic about material ad­ vantages.

5 .2 3 P .Svid ler-V.Anand Linares 1998

Even if the opponent seems to be defend­ ing solidly, there's no need to give up hope of winning. Manoeuvring and probing will often wear down his resilience. Kramnik's idea is to reorganize his pieces. The king will be placed on h5 and the rook will come to the f-file to exploit the weakness of the f7square. 83 i.c7 84 Wh5 i.d6 85 �c8 i.e5? A fatal error. Kramnik's notes imply that Black could probably hold with 85 ... i.f4 86 I:tc4 ..td6 87 lId ttJg6 88 lIfl ttJe5 89 :a1 ttJg6. 86 1Ic5 ttJg6 87 :c8 ttJf8 88 �cl ..tc3 Now after 88 ... ttJg6 89 lIfl, unlike in the previous note Black can't play his knight to e5 to defend f7. Black's defences collapse after both 89 ...ttJf4+ 90 Wg4 ttJg6 91 nf7+ Wh8 92 i.c2, and 89 ... ttJh8 90 g6 i.d4 91 IH4 i.c3 92 1:f2 ..tf6 93 l:!.a2 i.c3 94 :ta8 ttJxg6 95 �g8+. 89 .l:Ifl e6 After this concession the seventh rank beckons! 90 �dl Wf7 91 �d8 ttJg6 92 l:td7+ We8 93 i.a4 ttJe5 94 l:!.b7+ Wf8 95 g6 ttJd 3 96 Wh6 ttJC5 97 .l::t b 8+ We7 98 i.c2 ttJd7 99 l:tb7 Wd6 100 g7 i.xg7+ 101 Wxg7 1-0 •••

Here Black is able to set up a solid defen­ sive blockade. 33 ttJh4!? 34 �e2 g5 3 5 'it>d2 'it>g7 36 �f2 ttJf5 !? The Indian's minor pieces are so well in­ stalled that Gofshtein even prefers Black! 37 i.C7 Wg6 38 i.d8 h6 Better than 38 ... g4?!, which gives away f4, and then 39 l:.f4 h5 40 We2 wouldn't enable Black's king to do anything positive. 39 'itel Wh5 40 Wfl Wg4 41 Wgl Wh3 42 b4 g4 43 a4 h5 44 1!f4 a6 Yz-Yz Or if 44 ... g3 45 hxg3 Wxg3 46 J::!. f2 h4 47 i.g5 and White just about holds. .••

Although if we make a quick count of the material on the board in 5.23, White has equal pawns plus an extra exchange, so you may be wondering why White was only fighting for equality? It's always important to look at the rela­ tive quality of the pieces. None of the black pieces can be harassed from their fine light square outposts by White's rook, which in 111

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

fact can't find any targets at all. Is the rook any better than either of Black's minor pieces? If we consider the pawns, Black's 2-1 kingside majority is mobile whereas White's 2-1 centre is blocked. So it's worth stating the common sense point that, in contrast to this example, the team with a rook is more likely to be on top when the rook has an open board. Then the rook and bishop partnership should be able to control rather more squares than the mi­ nor piece duo.

Rook a n d Bishop vers us Knight a n d sa me-colou red Bishop With same-coloured bishops the possibility of exchanging bishops has to be taken into account.

5.24 E.Bacrot-G.Kamsky Turin Olympiad 2006

l'be5 49 i.b2 isn't any better. 46 hxg4 hxg4+ 47 'it>e2 f5 The only way to hold on to the g-pawn, but this stretches Black's defensive resources. 48 g3 i.e5 49 'it>d3 'it>f8 50 i.. h 6+ 'it>e8 5 1 i.. g 7 i.d6 Without bishops White just dances up the board with his king, with mate threats and the f5-weakness in mind. 52 i.. d 4 f4?! Hoping to exchange off some pawns, but hastening the end. However, a few sample variations show that 52 ... l'be7 is also fairly hopeless: 53 i.f6 l'bd5 (if 53 ...'it>f7 54 i.xe7 i.xe7 55 'it>d4 'it>e6 and now simplest is 56 ':xe7+ 'it>xe7 57 'it>e5) 54 i.g5 f4 (after 54 ... l'bc7 55 'it>c4 'it>d7, 56 i.f4 again heads for a win­ ning pawn ending: 56 ... i.xf4 57 gxf4 'it>c6 58 .l:!xc7+ 'it>xc7 59 'it>d5 'it>d7 60 'it>e5 'it>e7 61 'it>xf5 'it>f7 62 'it>xg4) 55 gxf4 i.xf4 (or 55 ...l'bxf4+ 56 i.xf4 i.xf4 57 :b4) 56 i..xf4 l'bxf4+ 57 'it>e4 l'bh3 58 l:tb2 l'bg5+ 59 'it>f5 and so on. 5 3 l':tg7 l'be7 54 gxf4 i.xf4 5 5 'it>e4 i.. d 6 56 l:txg4 'it>f7 57 f4 l'bg8 58 l:.g7+ 'iitf8 59 �d7 i.e7 60 'it>f5 'iitf7 61 i.C5 'it>e8 62 Itxe7+ l'bxe7+ 63 i.xe7 'it>xe7 64 'it>g6 1-0

5 .2 5 M.Adams-A.Dreev Linares 1997

Black will struggle as the ending without bishops (rook vs knight with three solid pawns each on the same side) is normally won for the rook. Black's pawns are not on their best defensive squares either (f7, g6, h5 is ideal). 39 ...l'bd4 40 .l:te7 l'be6 41 l:tb7 h5 42 'it>e2 i.d4 43 i.a3 l'bf4+ 44 'it>f3 l'bg6 45 i.e1 g4+ 45 ... i.f6 46 l:tb5 l'be5+ 47 'it>e4 l'bc4 48 'it>d5 112

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

Black's erstwhile 'active' king is not well placed to defend the kingside. 36 ...lLld5 36 ... �xc3 is met by the cool 37 �bl, with the idea of 1:.c2+ followed by :c7. 37 �b2 jld8 38 �C2 jla 5 39 l:td1 h 5 39 . . .lLlxc3 allows 40 l:td7. 40 jld2 jlb6 41 jle1 f4 42 1:.a1 f3 I prefer 42 ...fxg3 43 fxg3 f5. Huzman then gives 44 l:ta4+ �b5 45 .:th4, but Black can meet both threats with 45 ... lLlf6 when there's still some work to do: 46 jld2 (or 46 �d3 'it>c6 47 �e2 �d5 48 .i.f2 jla5 49 c4+ �e6 50 i.e3, intending jlg5, is also probably good enough) 46 ... jlf2 47 jlg5 lLle4 48 1:.xh5 lLlxg3 49 l:th8, followed by pushing the h-pawn. 43 .l:r.a4+ �c5 44 c4 lLlf6 45 .i.a 5 1 Forcing the exchange o f bishops, which often simplifies the technical phase. 45 lLld7 Neither would 45 ... lLle4 46 jlxb6+ �xb6 47 1:.a3 lLlxf2 48 1:.xf3 lLlxh3 49 %hf7 be too difficult. 46 �d3 f5 47 .i.xb6+ 'Ot>xb6 48 �e3 e4 49 l:tb4+ �c6 50 l:tb5 lDc5 51 l:tb8 lDd7 52 .:th8 lDe5 53 'Ot>d4 lDd3 54 1:.xh 5 1-0 .••

5.26 G.Kasparov-M.Adams Internet 2000

more active squares while, in the meantime, protecting himself from any counterplay. 43 h3 lLld5 44 1:.d1 �e6 45 1:.e1+ �d7 46 .te5 .ta 5 47 1:.e2 .td8 48 h4 .ta5 49 �b2 lLle7 50 .tg3 lLlf5 5 1 .tf2 �c6 52 l:te5 .tb4 With Black's pieces finally pacified White can gradually improve. 5 3 �C2 �d6 54 1:.e8 a s 5 5 'Ot>d3 �d7 56 1:.a8 'Ot>e6 57 1:.a6+ 'Ot>d5 Realistically 57 ... �d7 58 'Ot>c4 lLld6+ 59 �d5 would be too passive. 58 .:tf6 lLld6 59 .te3 Faced with the threat of .tf4 followed by the loss of the f-pawn, Adams decides that his best chance is to eliminate White's queenside. 59 c4+ 60 bXc4+ lLlxC4 61 jlf4 lDb2+ 62 'Ot>c2 lDxa4 63 .:txf7 lDc5 White will now pick off the g-pawn and push the resulting passed pawn. The black pieces cannot do much to stop this. 64 .l:r.f6 .te1 6 5 .l:r.xg6 .i.xh4 66 1:.d6+ �e4 67 g61 �xf4 68 g7 lLle4 69 1:.c6 lLlf6 70 1:.xf6+ jlxf6 71 g8W h4 72 �d3 jlg5 73 Wf7+ 'it>g3 74 �e4 h 3 7 5 Wf3+ �h2 76 Wf2+ �h1 77 Wg3 1-0 ..•

The ability of the rook to zip around the board creating and exploiting weaknesses is seen in the next example.

5.2 7 A.Beliavsky-I.Smirin Moscow 2002 (see following diagram)

White has to bring his king and rook to

28 l:tb3 .i.e7 29 1:.d3 lLlc5 30 l::t d 1 �8 31 jlb8 a6 3 2 jla7 lLla4 3 3 l:td7 �e8 34 l:td4 b5 3 5 l:td2 .i.b4?1 35 ... lLlc3! is preferable, bringing the knight into play. Then 36 jld4 lDd5 37 e4 lLlb4 38 f4 lLlc6 39 .tc3 b4 would keep the game alive. 113

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

36 :te2 'it'd7 3 7 .1L.d4 .1L.d6

g5 44 fxg5 fxg5 45 .1L.g7. 41 fxes fxes 42 .1L.xes .1L.xh4+ 43 'it'f3 .1L.el 44 I!h2 'iit e 6 4S .1L.d4 .1L.c3 46 �xh7 .1L.xd4 47 exd4 ltJc3 48 �a7 'It>ds 49 l:txa6 'it'xd4 SO 'it'f4 ltJe4 sl llxg6 1-0 In the cases where one player has two pawns for the exchange, the particularities of the position, rather than generalities, are needed to make an assessment. If these pawns are connected and passed, then the onus if often on the side with the rook to find some compensating threats.

So far Smirin has kept White's forces from causing any serious damage to his pawns, and the queenside seems to be hunky dory. However, with the black knight somewhat locked out of play, Beliavsky switches flanks to create new problems for the defender.

38 f4 .1L.e7 39 g4! f6 If 39 ... .1L.d6 White can fix the wing with 40 g5, when a possible continuation is 40 ... .1L.e7 41 'it'f3 .i.d6 42 �e4 .1L.e7 43 l:tg2 ltJc5+ 44 .1L.xc5 .1L.xc5 45 �g3 and the h7-pawn will fall. 40 h4 eS A desperate lunge, but alternatives are just as hopeless; for example, 40 ... .1L.d8 41 �f3 .1L.e7 42 g5 f5 43 h5 .1L.d8 44 hxg6 hxg6 45 llh2 or 40 ... h6 41 �f3 .1L.d8 42 I:th2 ltJb6 43 h5 114

5.28 A.Motylev-A.Shirov Moscow 2001

In this example Shirov aims to create some damage on the kingside with his rook, before coming back to stem the tide of pawns. 26 .. Jlel Postny suggests 26 ... 1Ih4 27 h3 g4 28 hxg4 l:!.xg4, but after 29 g3! h5 30 ltJe3 l:tg6 White still has winning chances. 27 a4 l:!.bl 28 'it'e2 11hl Black can also generate counterplay with 28 ... l::tg 1 29 g3 �h1 30 a5 l:txh2 31 .1L.e3 h5! 32 a6 'iitb8 33 b4 h4. 29 .1L.cS 'iit e 6 30 b4 I:!.xh2 31 a s l:th4 31.. . .l:i.xg2? is a pawn too far, as 32 a6 en-

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

forces promotion: 32 ... 'it>c7 33 liJa5 'it>b8 34 b5 etc. 32 'it>d3

the best for the white king. Black gains an important tempo for the task of holding back White's pawns. 36 'it>c2 �d8 37 liJb7 1:I:a8 38 liJd6+ 'iit c 6 39 liJxf5 i.d8 40 liJd4+ 'iit b 7 41 liJe6 i.b6 42 liJxg5 Yz-Yz 42 ... i.xc5 43 bxc5 Ilg8 44 liJxh7 �xg2 of­ fers no winning chances.

Rook a n d Knight vers us Two Kn ights 5.29 S.Salus-G.Flear Montpellier 2006 Following the alternative 32 'it'b3 l::th 1 33 a6 J:te1 34 liJb6! l:te8 35 a7 'it>b7 36 a8iV+ Ilxa8 37 liJxa8 'it>xa8 38 �c4 �b7 39 �d5, White has a won endgame, as pointed out by Postny. However, after the superior reply 32 ... i.d4!, he gives the line 33 g3 r:tg4 34 f3 .l:!.xg3 35 i.. xd4 l:txf3+ 36 'it>a4 as also winning for White. In fact this is questionable since Black has 36 ... nf4! 37 liJe5+ �b7 38 i.. c5 h5 which looks far from clear to me. 32 ... .l::t h 1 33 a6 i.. f6? Shirov could have tried 33 .. '!'Ld1+! imme­ diately, followed by ... lId8, to cut out Postny's interesting alternative outlined in the next note. 34 liJa5+? As this doesn't win, 34 'it>d2! may be best in order to stop the rook returning to the eighth rank. Then 34 ... i.. d 8 (34 ... :a1 ? fails to 35 liJa5+, threatening a7, while 35 .. Jha5 36 bxa5 is hopeless for Black) 35 a7 �b7 (again 35 .. J:ta1 ? is no good due to 36 liJa5+) 36 liJd6+ 'it>a8 37 liJxf5 is given by Postny as 'a slight advantage' to White, but in reality it's much more than that, if not winning, one idea being liJg7-e6. In any case it's no fun to defend! 34 ... �b5 35 a7 Itd1+ Now it's clear why the d3-square is not

A sharp position in which White's con­ nected passed pawns seem to offer more than enough compensation for the exchange. 41 ...liJe4 42 liJg4 After 42 liJd3!? liJc3 43 liJe3 (43 a3 can be met by 43 ... liJe2 when Black seems to be holding up the pawns, as 44 c5? fails to 44 ... liJxd4! 45 liJxd4 J:td5) 43 .. JH8 44 liJe5 J:te8 45 liJf5 a3, Black is on top; for example, 46 liJd6 l:ta8 47 c5 liJxa2 48 c6 liJc3 etc. 42 .. J:tf8 43 c5 Here we reached a typical moment from an early game in an open tournament. I knew that I could bail out with a draw, but couldn't resist going for a risky winning at­ tempt. There are times when you just have 115

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

to speculate to accumulate! 43 lLic3? Brave, but foolhardy! I knew that by 43 ...lLixc5 44 dxc5 .l:tc8, I should be able to draw. As a general rule, of all minor piece duos the pair of knights is the least effective in competing against a rook. The position is open, the knights have no central outposts and it's always worth remembering that two knights vs bare king is drawn. 44 a3 lLid5 45 lLige3 lLie7 46 lLib4 After 46 d5, I don't think Black has any­ thing better than 46 ... lLixd5 47 lLixd5 :c8. 46 g4! In order to be able to use the f3-square. 47 d 5 1 Black has n o worries after 47 lLixg4?! l:tf4 48 lLie5 1::tx d4. 47 .l:tf3 •.•

•••

•..

48 lLibc2? The alternative 48 lLixg4! .l:txa3 49 d6 lLig6 50 c6 seems to be the way for White to win: 50 ...lLif4+ 51 �f2 .l:tc3 52 lLie3! (bringing the other knight over to support the advance of the pawns is key; whereas 52 c7? is less clear: 52 ... lLie6 53 lLid5 .l:tc2+ and now, rather than 54 �e3?! a3 55 lLib4 1:tc5 56 �d3 lLixc7 when Black is OK, White keeps winning chances alive with 54 �e1 ! keeping leaving e3-square for a knight, e.g. 54 ... a3 55 lLige3 .l:tc1 + 56 �d2 a2 57 lLic2 �xc2+ 58 �xc2 lLixc7 59 dxc7 a1"iV 60 c8'iV+ �h7 61 "iVf5+ �h8 62 116

h3 and White should eventually win) 52 ... a3 (or after 52 ... lLie6 53 lLied5 l'k4, then 54 d7 followed by c6-c7 wins the rook) 53 c7 lLie6 54 lLied5 .l:tc1 55 d7 etc. 48 �g8! Now Black is able to bring his king over in time to stop the pawns. 49 c6? Too slow! Critical is 49 d6 lLic6 50 lLib4! (50 d7 is nullified by 50 ....l:tf7 51 lLib4 lLid8 52 c6 lLixc6 53 lLixc6 .l:txd7), when Black loses the race after 50 ... lLixb4? 51 axb4 �f8 52 c6 �e8 53 lLid5 .l:tf8 54 b5 a3 55 d7+ �f7 56 c7 a2 57 d8"iV. However, I believe that Black can hold with the excellent 50 ... lLib8!; for exam­ ple, 51 lLied5 (51 c6 is met by 51...:xe3 52 c7 .l:te8) 51...�f7 52 c6 (or 52 d7 lLixd7 53 c6 We6! with equality) 52 ... lLixc6 53 lLixc6 �e6 54 lLid4+ �xd5 55 lLixf3 gxf3+ 56 �xf3 �xd6 and draws. 49 ... �f8! 50 C7 lLic8 51 lLic4 .l:tc3 52 lLi2e3 �e8 5 3 �2 �d7 With Black's king amongst the pawns, the tables are turned. 54 �e2 54 lLixg4 is similar after 54 ...�xc7 55 lLige3 lLid6. 54 ...�xc7 55 �d2 .l:tb3 56 lLixg4 lLid6 57 lLige3 lLixc4+ 58 lLixc4 .l:th3 0-1 The difference between a win, draw and a loss was how well Black could cope with the passed pawns. It undoubtedly helped that Black obtained enough time to bring his king over, which certainly isn't the case after 48 lLixg4! •••

Even with only a rook and a knight, it's sometimes possible to create dangerous threats against the opposing king.

5.30 L.Yudasin-A.Beliavsky Munich 1991

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

positions, it's worth asking oneself a ques­ tion: What's the probable result after the exchange of a pair of knights? Here it would be a win for White.

37 ltJge4 h4! An annoying move for White as we shall see. 38 ltJC3 �e7 39 ltJde4 ltJf5 40 b4 �d8 Moving out of the way of knight checks and getting ready to stop any queenside ad­ vance. 41 b5 ltJg3 ! A terrible move to have t o face. Black takes the initiative and then the queenside becomes undefendable. 42 ltJf2 Alternatives lose immediately: 42 ltJc5? �h1 mate or 42 ltJxg3? hxg3+ 43 �xg3 .l::.e3+ etc. 42 ... �C1 43 ltJce4 ltJxe4 44 ltJxe4 �xc4 45 ltJd6 l:!.d4 46 ltJb7+ �c8 47 bxa6 �d5 ! Trapping the knight. 48 �gl �b8 49 'OW2 �a7 50 �e3 �xa6 51 �e4 White frees his knight, but at the cost of the g-pawn. 51 ... l:tg5 52 ltJd8 .l:.xg2 53 ltJc6 .l:.g3 54 ltJe5 .l:.xh3 55 tDxg6 .l:tg3 ! 0-1 56 ltJxh4 fails to 56 ... l:tg4+.

5.31 V.Kramnik-J.Piket Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 1999 To estimate the likely outcome in such

57 ... �f8 58 �e3 �e7 59 �f4 �f8 60 �g5 �g7 61 �f4 �f8 62 �e3 A change of heart, since there's nothing doing on g5. 62 ... �e7 63 �d4 �e6 64 .l:ta6+ �e7 65 ltJe3 Threatening ltJd5+, simplifying to a win­ ning ending. 65 ... �f8 66 �a7 �g7 67 ltJC4 �f8 68 g4 Although the text is strongest, the ex­ change of knights by 68 ltJe5 ltJxe5 69 �xe5 �g7, followed by 70 �b7 etc, leads to a stan­ dard position. See Szabo-Trifunovic (exam­ ple 5.32) for the typical winning technique. 68 ... hxg4 69 fxg4 �e7 69 ... �e8 is even worse: 70 g5 ltJh5 71 ltJd6+ �e7 72 �d5! with various threats in­ duding �c6. 70 g5 ltJg4 71 ltJb6 ltJge5 72 �d5 �e8 Now the exchange of knights occurs in even more favourable circumstances. 73 ltJxd7 ltJxd7 74 �d6 ltJb6 7 5 �C7 �f8 76 �c6 ltJa4 7 7 �e5 �g7 78 �d4 ltJb2 79 �C1 ltJa4 80 �b1 1-0 The knight is lost. Knights can be really vulnerable to being trapped when facing a rook, even on an open board. If Black has his best qefensive set-up in a 117

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

typical rook and three vs knight and three on the same side ending, it's worth learning the winning technique. Imagine for a moment that Kramnik had nothing better than this in the previous example. If you had White, how would you go about trying to win?

5.32 L.Szabo-P.Trifunovic Saltsjobaden Interzonal 1948

The first stage of White's plan is to keep the black knight away from its best defen­ sive square on f6. Then he will continue by advancing the f-pawn to disrupt Black's forces. 50 'it>e5 lLih7 Against 50... lLieS 51 l:tc6 'it>fS White con­ tinues in the same way with 52 f4 'it>e7 53 f5. 51 1:1.c6 'it>f8 52 f4 'it>g7 5 3 l::td 6 lbf8 As Black can only really temporize, the moment is right to expand. 54 g4 lLih7 55 h4 lLif8 Lashing out is no better: 55 .. .f6+ 56 'it>e6 lLifS+ 57 f6 or 57 ... 'it>gS 5S h6 eS and now 61 e4 g5 5S h5 e7 60 c7 'it>e7 62 1:I.a6 'it>f7 63 'it>dS eS 61 .l:tg7 lbfS 62 l::t gS and wins. 60 'it>d6 1-0 The king is going to e7 and f7. If the defender has an extra passed pawn on the other wing this will undoubtedly complicate the technical exploitation of the advantage. However, with the rook actively placed behind the pawn, it probably won't change the result. Knights have difficulty maintaining a distant pawn if they don't have support from a pawn or king, as is the case in example 5.33.

5.3 3 A.Karpov-M.lllescas Cordoba Wijk aan Zee 1993

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

38 l:ta7 ttJxa 3 39 ttJd4 �f6 40 f4?! A committal fortieth move that is proba­ bly not best. Ftacnik points out that 40 ttJe2! was simpler, which he judges to be winning. This quiet move is strong as it leads to White soon winning the a-pawn, for instance after 40 ... ttJab5 41 :a5 �e6 42 ttJxc3 ttJxc3 43 �e1 �d6 (or 43 ... h5 44 l:i.c5 ttJe4 45 l:k4) 44 f3 h5 45 �d2 ttJd5 46 l:ha4, and if we use the techniques that we examined in example 5.32, White should win. 40 ... h5 41 �f2 ttJe4 42 :te7 ttJd2 43 �g2 ttJd5 44 l:i.a7 ttJe3 45 l:ta6+ �g7 After 45 ... �e7 White can immediately force concessions with 46 f5. 46 ttJf3 ttJe4 47 ttJe5 ttJe3+ 48 �f3 ttJe2 49 ttJe4 �f8 50 J::!. a 7 g7 51 .l:.a6 �f8 Illescas doesn't want to give up his a­ pawn but now, with the black knights away on business, White has time to expand on the kingside. 52 g4 hxg4+ 53 �xg4 A surprise perhaps, but Karpov is an­ gling for a passed h-pawn. 53 ...�g7 54 f5

White's mating threats for long: 62 ... ttJc3 63 g5 ttJb4 (or if 63 ... �h7 64 h4 �g7 65 h5 �h7 66 h6 ttJe5 67 lla7+ 'it>g8 68 h7+ �h8 then 69 ttJc4!) 64 lIa7+ �f8 65 �h6! ttJc2, and now to finish with a neat mate in two: 66 h7! a1 � 67 l:tf7. 55 f6! Illescas was probably expecting 55 fxg6 fxg6 56 ttJe5 a3, which only seems to be drawing. 5 5 ... ttJb4 If 55 ... ttJd5, then 56 ttJe5 wins the £7pawn. 56 l:ta8 �h7 57 1:I.f8 ttJbd 5 58 �xf7+ �h6 59 :f8 h7 60 :f7+ �g8 60 ... h6 would be met by 61 lLJd2 a3 62 !:tf8 'it'h7 63 lLJf3, with ttJg5+ in the air. 61 ttJe5 1-0

Rook a n d Kn ight versus Two Bishops The bishop pair are in their element when they have a strong passed pawn for com­ pany.

5 . 34 A.Miles-G.Flear Wijk aan Zee 1987

54 ...�h6? This loses without a fight. The best chance is 54 ... gxf5+, reducing White to his remaining pawn. Play could then continue with 55 �xf5 ttJb4 56 .l:Ia7 ttJc6 57 l:td7 ttJe2 58 ttJd6 a3 59 .l:Ixf7+ �g8 60 l:tc7 a2 61 .l:!.c8+ �g7 62 l:ta8, and Black is unable to hold off .

I intended ... ttJec7 with a solid-looking blockade, but didn't get enough time ... 119

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

52 l:txd 5 1 Miles relies o n the power o f his bishop pair to earn the full point. 52 ... exd 5 53 ii.xb4+ �g8 54 ii.C5 g5 55 a6 l:txf4+ 56 e2 h4 70 i.g2 �f5 then 71 i.h3+ holds the fort; and Hecht suggests 68 ... 'it>f5!?, but with 69 i.d7+ 'it>e4 70 i.c6+ 'it>e5 71 ..tg5 'it>f5 72 iLe7 I don't believe White is in serious danger. It is of theoretical significance that the bishop pair can hold this type of position against a rook and two connected passed pawns. 69 i.d7 .l:tb2+ 70 'it>f1 g3 But not 70 ... 'it>h5?? which, tragicomically, allows 71 i.e8 mate. 71 i.h3 'it>h5 Here 71 ...l:!.h2 can be met by the sneaky 72 iLg2 (threatening i.gl), and if 72 ... h3 73 i.xh3 �xh3 74 'it>g2 is an easy draw. 72 iLg1 .:ta2 73 ..td7 l::t b 2 74 ..th3 l::t d 2 7 5 i.e8 �e2 76 ..t h 3 'it>g6 77 i.e3 .l:1 a 2 78 ..tg1 �a 3 79 'it>g2 'it> g 5 80 i.e5 l::td 3 80 ... �a2+ is best answered by the confi­ dent 81 'it>f3!, e.g. 81...l::th2 82 i.e3+ 'it>g6 83 �g4. 81 i.e7+ 'it>h5 82 i.e5 .l::!. e 3 83 i.b6 l:te6 84 i.g1 l::te 2+ 8 5 �f3 l::t e 3+ 86 iLe3 l::t a 3 87 'it>e4 l::t a 8 88 'it>f3 .l::!.f8+ 89 'it> g 2 Itf7 90 iLd4 l::tf4 91 i.e3 l:tb4 92 'it>f3 'it>g6 93 i.f4 l:tb2 94 �g4 g2 95 i.h2 l:tb3 96 'it>xh4 Yz-Yz

5.36 B.Gelfand-E.Bacrot Cap d' Agde (rapid) 2003

Bacrot successfully held this position with the bishop pair, even after quickly los­ ing a pawn. Nevertheless, the logical result is not that clear. 48 lDe5 'it>d6 49 lDf7+ 'it>c6 50 lDxg5 e5+ 51 'it>e3 Gelfand doesn't find a way to convert his advantage despite having a passed pawn. He was certainly handicapped by time trou­ ble, but also by two active bishops! 51 ... iLe3 52 l:t g 2 'it>b6 53 lDe6 i.e6 The weakness at f3 is a real nuisance for White. 54 .l:1g6 'it>a7 5 5 l::tf6 f4 56 lDg5 After 56 lDxf4 i.xf3 a draw becomes more likely. 56 ... i.b5 5 7 1U5 i.d4+ 58 'it>d2 ..te6 59 lDe6! An interesting try to disrupt the coordi­ nation of Black's bishops and one that may well be the best chance of winning. The more solid 59 lDe4 is not bad, but what then would be White's winning plan? 59 ... iLe3+ 60 'it>e2 i.b5+ 61 'it>e1 i.e6 62 lDg5? Critical is 62 .l::!.xe5! .txf3 63 l:!.f5 when it's not clear if Black can draw. For example, after 63 ... i.e4 64 ltf7+ 'it>b6 65 lDxf4 'it>b5 66 lDe2, Black isn't able to capture the remain­ ing white pawn; e.g. 67 ... .td3 67 lDc3+ 'it>c4 68 lDdl i.d4 69 l::t f4, or 66 ... i.g2 67 l::te 7 i.b6 68 l:te6 .ta7 69 lDf4 i.f3 70 lDd3. Therefore White must retain very good winning chances. 62 ... i.d4 63 lDe6 i.e3+ 64 'it>f2 'it>b6 65 lD g5 i.d7 66 l::tf7 i.e6 67 l::t e 7 i.d 5 68 lDf7 i.xb4 69 ':'xe5 Yz-Yz After 69 ... i.xf7 70 l::t f5 Black loses his last pawn. In the following example White has a passed pawn, but he is unable to give the pawn sufficient support for it to be that dangerous. In fact, the bishop pair and cen­ tral pawns are favourite.

121

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

5.37 I.Khenkin-A.Motylev Russian Team Championship 2005

37 as iLc8 38 �b3 �d6 39 ttJb4 iLa7 40 .l:te1 iLd7?! Actually 40 ... iLxf5! is possible, as after 41 kte8 i.. d 7 42 %:ta8 (42 1!h8 c5 43 ttJc2 iLe6 is also promising for Black) 42 ... iLe3 43 a6 f5 44 a7 f4, the a-pawn isn't able to queen so Black is on top however White plays, e.g. 45 ttJxc6 i.xc6 46 l::t d8+ �e5. 41 f6 cS 42 ttJC2 i.e6 43 ttJa3 c4+ 44 'it>C3 d4+ 45 �c2 iLcS 46 l:txe6+ Yz-Yz After the continuation 46 ... �xe6 47 ttJxc4 �xf6 48 �d3 �e6, Black has an extra pawn, but his pawns are isolated, the d-pawn is blockaded, and on top of all that it's the wrong rook's pawn. So a draw is all he can expect.

5.3 8 V.Anand-L.Van Wely Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 2006 (see following diagram)

Black's two pawn majority on the king­ side is significantly devalued! Nevertheless, he was able to draw the game. 122

29 g3! In order to have a strong square on f4 for the knight. 29 ... i.e4 30 �C1 �f8 3 1 ttJf4 'it>e7 32 �d2 b4 Taking the opportunity to exchange a pair of pawns. 33 axb4 i.. x b4+ 34 �e2 iLcs 3 5 ':c1 �d6 36 b3 a s 3 7 h S iLc6 38 'ud1+ �e7 It's notable that there is no positive role in view for White's king, so it seems that the knight will have to try and become more active. 39 ttJdS+ 'it>e6 40 ttJe3 a4 Liquidating the queen's wing. 41 bxa4 .i.xa4 42 l:ta1 Stronger is 42 .l::!. d 8!, intending to chase af­ ter the h-pawn under slightly more favour­ able circumstances than in the game. For instance, after 42 ... i..b5+ 43 �f2! Black doesn't get his king to e5. 42 ... iLbS+ 43 �f2 iLd4 44 lIa8 i.c6 45 1!d8 'it>es! With counterplay, because if 46 .l:i.h8? f4! and suddenly it's Black who wins. 46 �e2 iLbS+ 47 �d2 'it>e4 48 ttJxfS 48 .l:!.xd4+ �xd4 49 ttJxf5+ �e4 50 ttJxh6 is also tempting, but Black has 50 ... iLd7! 51 ttJxf7 �f5! 52 �e3 i.. e6 53 ttJd8 iLg8 with a draw. 48 ... �xfS 49 %:txd4 .i.c6 Black's well-placed pieces now rapidly

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

force a draw. SO ':e4 .tg2 51 'ite3 'it>g5 52 :'e8 f5 53 :g8+ 'it>f6 S4 'it>f4 .th3 55 l:.h8 Yz-Yz With ... 'it>g7 and ... .tg4 in the air, White's winning chances are gone.

5.39 Y.Berthelot-G.Flear Pau 1988

An unbalanced position has arisen straight out of the opening, in which, with an open centre, Black has a pawn and the bishop pair for the exchange. Is it enough compensation? 20 ttJd2 e6 Aiming to avoid exchanging a pair of minor pieces, when White would be on top. 21 ttJb3 �e6 22 'itd2 �d5 23 g3 g6 24 ne1 fS 25 ttJe1 h5 26 a4 h4 Pushing the h-pawn will leave White with an isolated pawn. 27 ttJd3 hxg3 28 hxg3 as? A poor move. If instead 28 ... i.b3! White has 29 a5! i.xa5 30 ttJc5 �d5 31 ttJxb7 .tc7 32 ng1, when the struggle continues with Black having a broken queenside. Nevertheless, having such fine bishops Black would still be very much in the game. 29 b4 axb4 30 exb4 �e7 31 ttJf4 Now it's hard to see how Black can avoid an exchange of minor pieces.

3 1 .td6 If 31.. . .tf7 32 ttJe6+ i.xe6 33 :'xe6 'it>f7 34 l:i.e3 f4 35 1:.f3, White is much better. 32 ttJxd 5 exd5 33 �e6 i.xb4+ 34 �e2 Although Black has two pawns at pre­ sent, he'll lose one back, when White will have real prospects of winning. 34... �e5 34 ...�f7 would be hopeless, as after 35 lIb6 White will obtain a passed pawn. 3 5 .l:i.xg6 �f7 36 l:th6 b6 37 :c6 'ite7 •••

38 as? An impatient, time-trouble induced er­ ror. The slower 38 �f3 �gl 39 'it>f4 �f2 40 l::!. c2 wins a pawn, or if 38 ... i.d4 then 39 'it>f4 �d7 40 �g6. 38 'it>d7 39 .l:.f6 bxa 5 40 llxf5 'it>e6 41 nf1 a4 42 'it>d3 a 3 43 'it>c2 �e5 44 g4 'it>e4!? 45 g5 d4 46 g6 d3+ 47 'it>b3 i.d4 48 'it>xa 3 d2 49 'itb3 'it>d3 50 .l:!.h1 .te5 51 l:!d1 Yz-Yz Although I fortuitously saved this game it gave me the lasting impression that, ceteris paribus, rook and knight are superior to two bishops. Here, even with an extra pawn, Black was always somewhat worse. I'm also willing to bet that White's chances are better than 57% (see the introduction to this chap­ ter) in the initial position, but everyone is entitled to their opinion! My impression is that, in cases where the pawn structures are intact, the bishops can't find enough targets and are thus inferior. •••

123

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

In the next case the fact that White's pawns are all isolated is, however, irrele­ vant. The passed pawn can be supported and rapidly advanced.

5 . 40 P .Nikolic-B.Gelfand Candidates (2nd matchgame), Sarajevo 1991

The presence of a well-supported passed pawn leads to a quick win. 46 ... ..Ite2 47 11c3 �f6 More resistant is 47... �f8, but the follow­ ing plausible continuation shows that the bishop pair can't compete with the passed pawn: 48 nb3 ..Itb6 49 tbe5 �e7 50 nb2 ..Ith5 51 tbc4 ..Itc7 52 b6 ..Itb8 53 �g2 ..Itg4 54 tba5 ..Itd7 55 b7 'it>d8 56 J:tc2 h5 57 tbc6+ ..Itxc6+ (or 57 ... �c7 58 tbe5+!) 58 nxc6 i.c7 59 llf6 �e7 60 nb6 ..Itb8 61 ltc6 followed by nc8. 48 b6! 1-0 The b-pawn is too strong. If 48 ... ..Itxb6 then 49 tbf4 attacks both bishops and wins one of them.

Rook a n d Knight versus Bishop a n d Knight I've started this section with a few positions where all the pawns are on one wing. There

1 24

are clearly similarities with other combina­ tions of pieces where one side has an extra exchange. As I've stated elsewhere, in these circumstances the weaker side will generally require a pawn as a necessary compensation to give him good drawing chances.

5 . 41 J.Piket-M.Gurevich Groningen 1992

Black is burdened by the fact that an ex­ change of minor pieces would leave him with a technical loss. 31 tbe6 3 2 l:tb4 h6 Black's pawn structure means that White has access to the e5-square (tbb1-d2-f3-e5), so Gurevich decides to try and complicate matters. 3 3 tbd2 g5 34 tbf3 �g7 3 5 tbd4 1-0 Black can only avoid the exchange of knights at the cost of the f-pawn. •••

5 . 42 A.Beliavsky-G.Kasparov Linares 1990 Here Black has an easy draw. For the ex­ change he has a pawn, a superior structure, active pieces and a better-placed king.

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

the kingside, chances to win are minimal. 50 ... .i.a 5 51 1:IC4 h 5 ! 52 gxh 5 gxh 5 5 3 f5? Going over the top! Now Gelfand has to go on the defensive. 5 3 ... �xf5 54 1:Ih4 �g5 5 5 1:Ihl .i.c7 56 �d 5 h4 5 7 �e4 f5+ 58 �3 ltJd4+ 59 �g2 .i.g3 60 ltJf2 f4 61 ltJh3+ '�g4 62 ltJf2+ �5 63 %:tal f3+ 64 �fl -.tg5 65 l:1a 5+ ltJf5 66 ltJh3+ �g4 67 ltJf2+ �g5 68 ltJh3+ �g4 69 ltJf2+ �g5 VI-VI

4 0 ltJd3 .i.d5 41 ltJel VI-VI

5 . 44 V.Anand-P .Leko FIDE World Championship, San Luis 2005

5 . 43 B.Gelfand-F.Va l lejo Pons Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 2005

If it were White to move he would play a consolidating move, such as �g2, when he'd be well on the way to winning. However, Black to play can win a pawn ... 3 7 .i.e5! 38 ltJd3 ltJxh3+ 39 �fl 39 �g2 ltJf4+ 40 ltJxf4 .i.xf4 would be eas­ ily drawn. 39 . .i.b8 40 J:td8 i.c7 41 1:Id7 .i.b8 42 l:td4 ttJg5 43 �g2 ltJe6 44 1:[c4 �6 45 f4 i.d6 46 �3 .i.b8 47 �e4 .i.d6 48 �d5 .i.b8 49 .l:tb4 i.C7 50 �c6 Trying hard, but the odds are on the de­ fence. In fact, as White has no pressure on ...

..

Here Leko was also able to draw com­ fortably: 37 ... e3 38 fxe3 .i.xe3+ 39 �hl -.tg7 40 ltJc6 h5 41 l:1dl ttlf6 42 1:[bl ttlg4 43 g3 .i.g5 44 �g2 .i.f6 45 l:1el ltJh6 46 -.tf3 ttlf5 47 l:1dl ltJh6 48 h3 ltJf5 49 l:1d7 The ending of rook and two pawns vs knight and three can sometimes be won in practice, but in general, if the defender has a good defensive set-up and his wits about him, it should be drawn. In fact Anand isn't even able to force this it seems. 49 ... �f8 50 ltJa 5 ltJd4+ 51 �g2 ltJf5 52 ltJC4 �g7 53 g4 hxg4 54 hxg4 ltJe7 55 ltJd6 .i.e5 56 ltJe4 ttlg8 57 g5 57 ttlg5 can be met by either 57.. ltJh6 or .

125

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

even 57 ... ttJf6 58 �xf7+ Wh6 59 ttJe6 ttJxg4. 57 ... Wf8 58 �b7 f6 59 ttJC5 We8 60 ttJd3 i.d6 YI-YI

Maybe White could have played a few moves after 61 :tg7 Wf8 62 gxf6 ttJxf6 63 �xg6 Wf7 64 �.h6, but there aren't really any winning chances at such a high level. Taking Nikolic-Korchnoi (example 5.19) into consideration, even without pawns, White would have winning chances if he had a light-squared bishop instead of a knight!

5 .4 5 K.Arkell-G.Flear Ostend 1987

White's passed pawn isn't going any­ where, but it helped my opponent finish me off with a neat zugzwang. 49 Itxb6 ttJd7 50 1:1c6 We6 51 ttJb7 i.el 52 �C7 i.b4 5 3 We2 h6 54 h4 h 5 5 5 Wdl! 1-0 In the next example Black has a useful outside passed pawn, but White seems to have counterplay.

34 ... e4! This strong move kills off the counter­ play against the c6-pawn as White can't cap­ ture on e4 (due to 35 i.xe4 11e8 etc). 3 5 i.g2 1U8 36 f4 ttJC4 3 7 ttJg6 �g8 Actually 37 ... z:t.e8! is simpler. 38 i.xe4 a4 39 i.d3 a3 40 i.xc4 After 40 Wb1, Black constructs a mating net with 40 ... .t:tb8+ 41 Wa1 ltb2. 40 ...WxC4 41 ttJe5+ Wd 5 0-1 Black has two decisive threats: ... l1xg3 and .. JIb8 cutting the king off from the a­ pawn. In the following example Black seems to be doing alright in terms of pawns. He has two more on the queenside and White's re­ maining ones are not that impressive. How­ ever, there are other factors that are certainly more important...

5 . 47 J.Polgar-V.Topalov Linares 1994 (see following diagram)

5 .46 M.Drasko-G.Flear Montpellier 2000

126

In fact there is no defence to White's main threat of bringing up her king to pro­ duce a mating net! 42 ... 'DC5 43 l:txb6 a4 44 Wg3 i.f7 45 �c6

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

ltJd3 46 'ua6 tLJb2 47 �f4 tLJd3+ 48 �f5 1-0

If Black had played on with 48 ...tLJc5 49 �a5 .tg6+ 50 �e5 tLJd7+ 51 �d6 tLJf8, then the continuation 52 tLJe6 tLJxe6 53 Wxe6 i.e4 54 'it'f6! would illustrate the use of the at­ tacking king to produce a mating net. It's not just attacking kings that need to head for the fray. In example 5.48, at the cost of a pawn Shirov rapidly deploys his king for defensive purposes (see example 5.35 for a similar motif by the same player).

5 .48 E.Bareev-A.Shirov Sarajevo 1999

28 '>i?f6! A brave soldier volunteers for the front! Black needs his king to help stop White's dangerous c-pawn. Instead, Ftacnik points out that 28 ... h6 is rather slow: 29 tLJe4 tLJe6 30 .l:!.c6! i.a5 (30 ... a5 invites the pretty finish 31 l:i.xe6! fxe6 32 c6) 31 .l:txa6 i.c7 32 .l::!. a7 with excellent winning chances, especially as 1:I.b7 is coming. 29 tLJxh7+ On 29 tLJe4+ �e5!? 30 .l:!.xe7+ tLJe6 31 tLJd6 i.xc5 32 tLJxf7+ Wf6 33 .l:Id7, Black has man­ aged to keep his queenside intact and elimi­ nate White's c-pawn. Then with 33 ... a5, or perhaps 33 ...b4, things remain unclear. 29 ...�e5 30 c6 After 30 lhe7+ tLJe6 31 f4+! �d5 White loses the c-pawn. 30 tLJe6 3 1 l!ta7 White has to be careful with his knight out of touch on g5. For instance, 31 .l::!. c8 can be comfortably met by 31..:it> d6; while Ci­ fuentes analyses the alternative 31 1:1.d7 i.d6 32 tLJg5 tLJxg5 33 c7 i.xc7 34 J::Lxc7 as good for Black, since after 34 ... tLJe6! Black would be willing to sacrifice a pawn or two to get his queenside advancing. 31 ... �d6 32 .l:txa6 i.C5 Black's compact and harmonious forces seem to have everything under control. Now White really has to do something about his embarrassed knight! 3 3 h4 b4 34 tLJg5 tLJxg5 3 5 hxg5 b3 36 i:tal •••

..•

Yz-Yz

A fair result as the continuation 36 ...b2 37 l:i.b1 i.d4 38 �f1 Wxc6 39 �e2 e5 40 f3 is very drawish.

5 . 49 V.Akopian-V.Bologan Moscow 2002 The main priority for Black is stopping the c-pawn.

Here White combines threats against the b6- and f7-pawns, whereas Black's minor 127

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

pieces have difficulty in covering both wings at the same time.

'itt g 7 5 5 ':'bS 'ittf6 56 'iWe4 'itt e 7 57 'iWe5 f6 58 ltb7+ 'itt d S 59 'iWb8 mate The fact that this was a rapid game and that Black was no doubt seriously short of time would explain his unfortunate han­ dling of the defence. Nevertheless, I've un­ ashamedly used this and other examples from games with fast time limits, as they can still be instructive. In the following position Black sacrificed the exchange and almost won.

34 a4! Fixing the pawn on b6, rather than allow­ ing ...b5-b4 which would ease Black's de­ fence. 34 'itt g 7 3 5 lDe5 ..td6 36 lDd7 ..tb4 37 ':'b1 ..ta 5 38 g3 Bearing in mind that Black is tied down, Akopian improves his kingside before aim­ ing to reorganize his pieces. 38 g5 39 hxg5 hxg5 40 'itt g 2 g4? A committal move, the idea being to fix White's pawns on dark squares. However, this leads to Black's kingside pawns becom­ ing more vulnerable. A more resilient try would be 40 .. .£6!, intending ... 'itt f7-e7. 41 ':'c1 lDf6 Here 41 ...£5 fails to 42 .l:tc6 'itt f7 43 lDe5+ 'itte 7 44 lDc4 'itt d 7 45 lDxa5 bxa5 46 ':'c5; and 41 ...£6 to 42 l:tc4 f5 43 ':'c6 'itt f7 44 lDe5+ 'itte 7 45 lDc4. 42 lDe5 Now the f7- and g4-pawns are threat­ ened by the knight and the black position collapses. 42 ... ..tb4 43 l:tC4 ..tC5 43 ... ..td6 is a lesser evil, but then White just takes the g-pawn. 44 a s lDd5 45 a6 lDC7 46 a7 'ittf6 47 lDd7+ 'itte 7 48 lDxC5 b5 49 lDa6 lDaS 50 ':'cS lDb6 51 ':'bS b4 52 ':xb6 b3 53 a8'iW 'ittf6 54 ':'xb3

5 . 50 A.Beliavsky-B.Gelfand Belgrade 1995

.•.

•.•

128

41 ... ..txb7!? This offers Black the initiative in return for the exchange. White will have to keep an eye on the passed c-pawn, and his g-pawn is weak. 42 :xds lDxd 5 43 lDe1 lDe3+ 44 'itt C 1 ..te4 Stopping l:td3. 45 ltcS lDd 5 46 'itt d 1 f5 47 'itt e 2 'ittf6 4S h4 f4 49 ':'C4 c2 50 lDxc2?! Why not 50 l::t xc2 ..txc2 51 lDxc2, I won­ der? I can't see how Black would then win, e.g. 51...'itte5 52 'itt f3 lDf6 53 lDel 'itt f5 54 lDd3 lDd5 55 lDxf4 lDxf4 56 'ittxg3 with a draw. 50 ..txg2 51 11c6+ 'ittf 5 52 lDe1 ..te4 53 :c4 lDe3 54 .l:ta4 ••.

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s On a limited front Black's well­ coordinated pieces are able to weave threats against White's king. 54 tDg4 55 J:ta 5+ tDe5 56 l::t a 3? Here Beliavsky claims a draw for White with 56 h5! f3+ 57 tDxf3 Jixf3+ 58 �fl .i.xh5 59 'it>g2. If Black tries 58 ... 'it'f4!? 59 h6 Jie4, White does seem to draw with the accurate 60 J:ta7. 56 ... 'it'g4 57 h5 f3+ 58 �f1 f2 59 tD g2 tDf3 60 tDe3+ �f4 61 tDg2+ .•.

Transposing to the previous note with 64 ... .i.c6! was correct. 65 tDe3 tDh2 66 tDf1 tDxf1 67 �xf1 �g4 68 lIf3 ! White can also employ this stalemate theme in a slightly different way by 68 lla4 �f3 69 l::t a3+ Wf4 70 l::t f3+. 68 ... g2+ 69 'it'xg2 Jixf3+ Yz-Yz It's instructive in the next example to see how Svidler manoeuvres his pieces to in­ crease the pressure.

5.51 P.Svidler-V.lvanchu k Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 2006

61 . .�g5?! .

A natural square, but it complicates the win. Beliavsky points out that Black could have won with 61...�e5 62 �e2 tDh2 63 tDe3 .if3+. He means, of course, that after 64 �d2 g2 65 tDxg2 Jixg2 66 J:ta1 fl'it' 67 nxfl tDxfl + Gelfand would win with bishop and knight vs bare king (see Chapter One). 62 'it>e2 tDd4+ Black could still win with 62 ... Jic6!, e.g. 63 lIa5+ (if 63 tDe3 then 63 ... tDd4+ 64 �fl .ib5+ 65 �g2 tDf5 66 tDfl Jic6+ 67 �h3 g2) 63 ... 'it'g4 64 tDe3+ (both sides promote after 64 h6, but then Black has a winning attack: 64 ... tDd4+ 65 'it'd2 Jixg2 66 h7 fl � 67 h8'iV 'iVe2+ 68 �c3 'ii'c2+) 64 ... �f4 65 .l:!f5+ (65 tDg2+ goes down to the sly 65 ... �e4 66 l:tc5 tDd4+ 67 �fl tDb3!) 65 ... �e4 66 lIxf3 Jib5+ 67 'it>d2 �xf3 68 h6 g2 69 h7 gl'ii' 70 h8'ii' 'it'e1+ 71 �c2 'ii'e2+ with an easy win. 63 'it'f1 tDf3 64 �e2 �xh 5?

In order to try and win White must first find a way to enhance the rook's potential. 3 3 .l:!a3 ! �f8 34 b3 axb3 3 5 axb3 tDd 5 36 .l:!.a 7 That's better! Now the white king has be centralized. 36 ... �e8 37 �c2 Jif6 38 �d3 tDb4+ 39 We4 tDd 5 Finally it's the tum of the knight to find greener pastures. 40 tDg1 Jid8 41 tDf3 f6 Stopping tDe5, but now White can think about probing at the f6 and e6 couplet to see if further concessions can be earned. 42 tDe1 Jic7 43 tDg2 �d7 44 tDe3 tDb4 45 129

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

�f3 Threatening ttJg4 45 ...f5 Now the knight will head for one of the e5-, f4- or g5-squares. 46 �e2 �c8 47 ttJg2 ttJd5 48 ttJel ttJb4 49 ttJf3 �b8 Ivanchuk is tired of waiting and decides to push the rook away from the seventh, but Svidler just brings it round the other way. 50 !tal �b7 51 l:thl �c8 52 nh8+ �d7 5 3 !Ih7+ �c8 54 ttJg5 Something has to give. 54 ... e5 5 5 ttJe6 ..tb8 56 l::t h 8+ �b7 57 dxe5 ..txe5 58 �h5 �a6 59 1:txf5 ..tC3 60 l::tf7 ttJa2 61 �d3 ..tb2 62 f4 �a 5 63 l:ta7+ 1-0 Quite solid defensive positions can be breached if the defender has no counterplay and can't harass the stronger sides pieces, whilst they manoeuvre and keep reposition­ ing themselves to exploit even the slightest of weaknesses.

necessary, in which White gradually nulli­ fies any counter-threats. 49 �fl �e5 50 l:tb4 ..te4 51 ttJC4+ �d5 52 ttJe3+ �c6 5 3 g3 b5 54 axb5+ axb5 5 5 l:.d4 ..tf3 56 �f2 ..thl 57 1:td8 The rook is generally best placed in a less confined area where it's out of harm's way ­ where it's still actively involved, but at a distance. 57 ...ttJe4+ 58 �gl ..tf3 The g-pawn is defended tactically as 58 ... ttJxg3? loses to 59 �g8! f4 60 l::t xg3 fxg3 61 �xhl . 59 b4 A noteworthy moment: Smirin places his b-pawn on a dark square where it's immune to any attack by Black's bishop. 59 ...ttJd6 60 :h8 ..te4 61 :h6 �d7 62 l::t h 7+ �d8 As White's rook has now found an ideal square, the question of how to use the king and knight comes to the fore. 63 �fl

Here's another example where White must prepare more relevant roles for his pieces.

5.52 I.Smirin-K.Sasikira n Turin Olympiad 2006

First of all a period of consolidation is 130

63 ... e5!? Another key moment, where Black forces the exchange of two pairs of pawns. If he temporizes instead, White can think about redeploying with �e2, putting the c-pawn on a dark square with c2-c3, and then ttJf1d2-f3 followed by coming to d4 or e5. 64 c3 f4 65 !:th8+ �C7 66 gxf4 exf4 67 ttJg2 f3 68 ttJel ..td 5

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

Note the following actions of White's king ... 69 f2 liJe4+ 70 xf3 liJxc3+ 71 e3 ..tc4 72 d4 liJe2+ 73 c5 With only two pawns remaining and the front being limited, Black could expect to draw if White couldn't invade with his king. However, with his king already on c5 White has strong pressure. 73 liJf4 74 I:th7+ d8 7 5 .J::i. h 4 liJe6+ 76 d6 lbg7 77 l:th8+ liJe8+ 78 c6 e7 79 liJf3 lbf6 80 liJd4 liJd5 81 C5 liJc3 82 ,U,h3 liJe4+ 83 c6 liJg5 84 l:te3+ 1-0 ... and with the b5-pawn about to be des­ patched to the box, Black resigned. •••

5.5 3 A.Karpov-G.Kasparov World Championship (21st matchgame), New York 1990

The strong b5-pawn gives White the winning chances in this World Champion­ ship encounter. Black's only chance of coun­ terplay is an attack on the poorly defended kingside. 46 b6 Kasparov has a dichotomy: whether to use his rook as a purely defensive piece or try to snatch a pawn or two. 46 J:tg1! Passive defence may not be adequate: ••

46 ...11a8 47 b4 (preferable to 47 ..tb5 l:1c8 48 c3 liJxe4+ 49 b4 liJd6 50 ..ta6 i:ta8, which isn't clear) 47 ... liJd7 48 ..tb5 liJxb6 49 liJxb6 l:lb8 50 liJd7 l:lxb5 51 c3, and despite the simplification White is better, as he continues c4 followed by liJxe5 with realistic winning chances. This variation shows one of Black's main problems: his king is a bystander. 47 liJe3 After 47 b4 llxg2+ 48 c3 liJd7 49 ..tb5 liJb8, Black's knight can hold up the b-pawn for quite a while. Then it's no longer clear who is better, 47 11e1 48 liJc4 If 48 d2, then 48 ... 11al 49 b4 liJd7 50 liJc4 llgl is similar. 48 .l::t g 1 49 liJe3 z:te1 50 liJC4 1:i.g1 51 b4 l:txg2+ 52 C3 liJa4+ 52 ... liJd7 53 b7 1:i.g3 54 liJxe5 is unpleasant for Black. So Kasparov decides to remove the forward b-pawn and get his kingside pawns going quickly. 53 b3 liJxb6 54 liJxb6 llg3 •••

•..

5 5 c3 It may be that 55 c4!? creates more practical chances, e.g. 55 .. Jhh3 56 liJd7 h4 57 liJxe5, and now 57 ... l:lg3 58 b5 h3 59 b6 h2 60 b7 hl'iV 61 b8'iV 'iVc1 + 62 d5 is assessed by Mikhail Gurevich as slightly better for White, while Fritz thinks that White is even winning. Certainly the combined effort of White's forces could create some difficulties 131

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

for Black. Instead Zaitsev suggests 57 ...l:1e3!, when the direct 58 b5 h3 59 b6 h2 60 b7 hl'iV 61 b8'iV is now met by 61...l:1xe4+! with check and a draw (which is perhaps why Karpov chose the c3-square for his king), or if 58 lLlg4 h3 59 b5 Black should be able to hold on after 59 ... l:1g3 60 .i.e2 h2 61 lLlxh2 l:1g2. 55 ... l:1xh3 56 b5 h4 5 7 lLlc4 ':xd3+! A further sacrifice from Kasparov to gain time for the race. 58 Wxd3 h3 59 b6 h2 60 b7 hl'iV 61 b8'iV 'iVfl+! 62 WC3 'iVcl+ 63 Wb3 'iVdl+ 64 Wa2 'iVa4+ 65 lLla3 'iVxe4 Without pawns there are no real winning chances for White. 66 'iVC7+ Wh6 67 lLlC4 'iVd5 68 Wb2 e4!? 69 'iVf4+ Wg7 70 WC3 'iVd3+ 71 Wb4 'iVd4 72 'iVh4 Wf7 73 Wb5 'iVd 5+ 74 Wb4 'iVd4 7 5 'iVh7+ 'iVg7 76 'iVhl 'it'd4 7 7 'iVh4 Wg8 7 8 'iVf4 Wg7 79 'iVcl Wf6 8 0 Wb5 'iVd5+ 81 Wb4 'iVd4 82 Wb5 'iVd5+ 83 Wb6 'iVd4+ 84 Wc6 We6! 8 5 lLle3 �a4+ 86 Wb6 'iVb4+ Yz-Yz In cases where the bishop's side has two pawns for the exchange, there is no signifi­ cant material advantage, so the positional factors have added emphasis.

5 . 54 A.Dreev-V.Malaniuk Yalta 1995

With such a solid position White shouldn't have any particular problems if he keeps a certain control of events. This is the sort of game where the difference between being slightly better and slightly worse de­ pends on very little. 27 J:td8+ 28 WC2 Wf7 29 b4 'Ot>e6 Black's pieces are nicely centralized, but he has no real counterplay for the moment. As White has a queenside majority and Black an isolated a-pawn, Dreev tries to ad­ vance on this wing, but this turns out to have a negative side. 30 lLla 5 lLld5 31 a3 :c8+ 32 Wd2 lLlc3 ! Using the c3-square to generate some counter-chances. n lLlc6 lLlbl+ 34 Wd3 lLlxa3 3 5 lLlxa7 l:1c2 ... and now the c2-square! 36 b5 l:1xf2 37 b6 Wd6 37 ... l:1xg2 can be adequately met by 38 b7 l:1b2 39 lLlc6 l:1xb7 40 lLld8+ Wd5 41 lLlxb7. 38 .i.a8! l:1xh2 39 b7 l:1b2 40 lLlc6 A clever way to promote the b-pawn. 40 l:1b3+ Not 40... Wxc6?? as this loses to 41 b8'iV+. Yes, it's check! 41 We2 WC7 42 b8'iV+ l:txb8 43 lLlxb8 Wxb8 44 .ltd5 All Black's pawns are on light squares, so White has no problems winning the pawn back with equality. 44 lLlb5 45 .i.g8 h6 46 .i.h7 g5 47 .i.xf5 cJi;C7 48 Wf3 Wd6 49 Wg4 We5 50 .i.d3 lLlc3 51 Wh5 lLldl 52 Wxh6 g4 Yz-Yz ••

•..

••.

5.5 5 A.Timofeev-V.lvanchuk Skanderborg 2005 (see following diagram)

39 l:tbl lLle3?! Here one of Black's compensating two pawns is already on the seventh. However, 132

R o o k a n d M i n o r P i e c e v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

his minor pieces can't achieve that much alone as White will be able to control £I, so advancing the king with 39 .. /�)f6 40 �c2 �f5 41 �d3 �g4 comes into consideration.

With Black maintaining an extra pawn on the kingside, he isn't in much danger. 58 l::t h 7+ �d8 59 �d6 i.f4+ 60 �e6 �c8 61 :d7 i.g3 62 :'d 5 i.f4 63 :'c5+ �d8 64 :'c4 i.h2 65 :C3 i.g3 66 :'C2 i.f4 67 :'C5 i.e3 68 l::t d 5+ �C7 69 l::t d 7+ �c6 70 l::td 3 Yz-Yz In cases where the minor pieces can tie down the rook, there can be serious techni­ cal difficulties in exploiting the material ad­ vantage. The finale of this chapter turns out to be a tremendous fight.

40 �C3 h5 41 'iio>d 3 i. g5 42 �e2 a6 An indication that, with White's king in the vicinity of the f-pawn, there is nothing Black can do to make progress ... 43 l:tb3 ! ...but can White?! 43 f1'ii'+ 44 ttJxf1 ttJC4 45 ttJg3 45 l::t c3 i.f6 46 :'c2 i.b2 47 a4 only leads to a draw, as 47... i.a3! eliminates White's b­ pawn. 45 ... i.C1 46 ttJe4 i.xa 3 47 ttJd2 i.c1 The best chance. 48 ttJxC4 bxc4 49 :'c3 i.f4 50 h3 i.d6 5 1 l::txC4 � 6 52 �d3?1 After 52 l::t c6 �e5 53 l::t xa6 i.xb4 54 :'xg6 �f4 we achieve a notorious ending. Rook and rook's pawn vs bishop and rook's pawn can sometimes be won by forcing the defending king away from the pawns and the angling for a winning pawn ending, but cases exist where this process takes more than 50 moves! Here I'm not sure if it's a win or not, but obviously Ivanchuk felt at the time that the text move gave more practical chances. In fact it turns out that he would have done better to play 52 :c6. 52 ... g5 53 �e4 �e6 54 l::t c 6 �d7 55 l:lxa6 i.xb4 56 l::t h 6 h4 57 �d5 i.d2

5.56 A.Onischuk-B.Jobava World Team Championship, Beersheva 2005

•••

As the g6-pawn is soon lost White doesn't have any pawns for the exchange, but instead he can count on good minor pieces as at least partial compensation. Black's isolated pawns are a problem as we'll see. 36 ... :'e7 37 f3 ttJe5 38 ttJd4 The f5-square is beckoning. 38 ...l::t g 7 39 �g2 Improving his pieces while there's time. 39� .. l::t xg6+ 40 �h3 l::t g 8 41 i.g3 �h7 42 i.h4 �g6 43 ttJf5 ! l::t d 8 44 �g2 ttJC4!? The knight is the only piece that's not tied down to the defence of a pawn. 133

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

45 ii.g3 rt;f7 I have a feeling that Black should not be messing about with his king. Instead 45 ... l:td7 46 rt;f2 lDxa3 47 ii.xd6 lDc4 48 ii.c5 a5 would at least be slightly better for Black. 46 rt;f2 rt;e8!? Intending to hold onto the d-pawn, even if this means parting with one of the others. 47 lDg7+ 47 ii.h4 lDxa3 48 ii.xf6 l:td7 is also messy. 47 rt;e7 48 lDxh 5 l:th8 49 lD g7 l:th1 50 lDf5+ rt;d7 51 ii.h4 Now Black has no option: he must go for the queenside pawns. 51 lDxa 3 52 ii.xf6 l:tb1 5 3 f4! White, too, must create threats where he is strongest. For instance 53 ii.c3? just loses time after 53 ... l:tb3 54 ii.e1 lDc2. 53 l:txb4 54 lDd4 lIb2+ 55 rt;f3 lDc2 56 lDf5 Exchanging knights would be hopeless. 56 ltJe1+ 57 rt;e3 ltJg2+ 58 rt;f3 l:td2 59 e51 Exploiting the fact that the knight re­ quires protection. 59 ltJe1+ 60 'it>e4 •••

•••

•••

•••

•••

60 b4? •..

134

Time trouble panic? Instead 60 ... dxe5 61 fxe5 J::te2+ 62 rt;d4 ltJf3+ 63 rt;d3 l:txe5! would still favour Black, unlike the move played in the game! 61 ltJxd6 l:te2+ 62 rt;f5 ltJc2 63 ltJC4 lDd4+ 64 rt;g6 rt;e8 65 e6 White's pawns are getting rather dan­ gerous; hence Black's understandable next move. 6 5 ... ltJxe6 66 dxe6 l:txe6 67 f5 l:tc6 68 ltJe5 l::t b 6 69 lDC4 l:tc6 70 lDa 5 l:tb6 71 rt;g7 rt;d7 If 71 ...l:tb5 then 72 ltJc4 holds onto the f­ pawn by tactical means. 72 ltJC4 l:tb7 73 ii.b2 rt;c6+ 74 rt;g6 rt;C5 7 5 ltJa 5 Apparently 75 ltJe5 also leads to a draw after 75 ... a5 76 f6 a4 77 f7 !hf7 78 rt;xf7 a3 79 ii.c1 rt;d4 80 lDf3+ rt;c3, followed by ...b3-b2. 7 5 l:tb8 76 f6 rt;b5 n ltJb3 as 78 lDd4+ rt;C5 79 f7 a4 80 ltJe6+ rt;c4 81 ii.e5 J::t c 8 82 i.f6 b3 83 ii.b2 The alternative 83 ltJd8 lIxd8 84 ii.xd8 b2 85 f8'iW b 1 'iW+ is of course drawn. 83 ... rt;b4 84 .i.g7 rt;C4 84 ... a3 is also possible, when 85 f8'iV+ .l:txf8 86 ii.xf8+ rt;a4!? (86 ... rt;c3 87 ii.xa3 b2 draws immediately) 87 ltJc5+! 'it>b4 88 ltJe4+ 'it>c4 89 ii.xa3 rt;d3 90 ltJc5+ rt;c2 91 ltJa4 b2! 92 ii.xb2 rt;b3 draws again. 85 ii.b2 rt;b4 86 ii.f6 'it>C4 87 .i.b2 Yz-Yz Although the early phase of this NQE was better for Black, he had serious technical problems converting the advantage. This was due to his weak pawns and the oppo­ nent's active minor pieces. Making progress was probably such a drain on his time and energy that he went badly astray - to the point that he only just drew! .••

C h a pt e r S i x

I

Two B i s h o p s ve rs u s Two Mi n o r Pieces

Of all the NQEs covered in this book, those with two minor pieces each are the most akin to pure endgames. As there are no heavy pieces on the board, mating attacks are rare, so passed pawns and positional features are more relevant than king safety. Before discussing some characteristics, the following figures give an idea of the respective frequencies of these three NQEs: .i.+.i. v .i.+lLl i.+i. v i.+i. i.+.i. v �+lLl

1 .3% 0.2% 0.2%

The percentages are from the games of top ranking players over 2600. In my case, when I sit down to play, the likelihood that I'll end up playing two bishops vs knight and bishop is slightly lower at 1 .03%. Many writers have emphasized the power of the bishop pair and, as we will see below, they often have great grinding potential against a bishop and knight. In fact, there are several characteristics of the bishop pair that give them evident advantages over other minor piece duos. The bishops can probe on both sides of the board and on both colour complexes, so that no opposing pawn can feel fully secure. This is particularly notable when the centre is open, as knights often have difficulty in coping with threats on both wings. In practice, two bishops also seem to be rather good at shepherding home a passed pawn, and have the ad­ vantage of being able to deliver mate much easier than other minor piece couplets. Against a pair of knights the bishops will almost certainly dominate - so much so that the rule of thumb '.i.+i. �+lLl+P' has more than a ring of truth to it. Am I overstating the bishop's case? I'm not so sure; see example 6.9. Against a bishop and knight duo matters are not so extreme, but the bishops' pre­ eminence is still evident in most examples. The knight really needs access to some solid out­ posts to help its team compete. In open positions, even with a good bishop, the bishop and knight duo are often outclassed. The bishops are also quite good at defence, so even when the bishop and knight are on top they may require as much as two extra pawns to drive the advantage home. The threat of =

135

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay exchanging a bishop against the knight, simplifying to a drawish opposite-coloured bishop ending, is one of the defensive ploys.

Two Bishops each

iLf2 iLd6! 3 .ie1, when the best way forward seems to be 3 ... iLfl + 4 '1t>h2 h3!? (double­

With two bishops each - a fairly rare situa­

edged as this enables White's light-squared

tion - the possibility of exchanges into either

bishop to free itself) S iLd1 iLg2 (S ...'1t>gS is

same-coloured bishop endgame is an impor­ tant factor.

less convincing after 6 '1t>gl iLa6 7 '1t>h2 iLc8 8 iLf2 iLg4 9 iLc2 and I can't see a way through)

6.1 Z.Bojczuk-A.Cichocki Poland 1990

6 iLhS (critical; 6 iLe2 goes down to 6 ... iLf3 7 iLfl iLd1) 6 ... iLf3 7 iLf7 iLd1 8 .ixdS '1t>g4 9 iLc4! (if 9 iLxe4 iLxb3 10 iLc6 iLc2 and the b­ pawn will cost White a piece) 9 ... '1t>f3 10 iLd2 iLe2! (but not 1O ... iLxg3+? 1 1 '1t>xh3 iLf2 12 dS iLg3 13 iLd) 1 1 '1t>xh3 iLxc4 12 bxc4 '1t>e2 and the bishop ending eventually leads to a win: 13 iLd '1t>d1 14 iLb2 '1t>c2 IS cS iLb8 16 g4 '1t>xb2 17 gS b3 18 g6 '1t>a3 19 g7 b2 20 g8'it' b1it' 21 'ii'c4 'iih 1+ 22 '1t>g4 'it'f3+ 23 '1t>gS 'iVxe3+ 24 '1t>fS 'ii'f3+ 2S �g6 'iVd3.

2 ...'1t>g4 Now I'm convinced that Black ultimately invades with his king.

3 gxh4 iLf3+ 4 '1t>gl '1t>h3! 5 iLf2 iLd6 6 iLe1 .if8 7 iLf2 iLh6 8 '1t>f1

This little gem I found in Informator 50. Much of the analysis below is by Sapis.

1 ... h4! An interesting breakthrough with a cou­ ple of double-bishop mates stopping White

8 iLb1 iLd1 9 iLa2 is too passive, e.g. 10 '1t>h1 iLd3 11 '1t>gl .if8 12 '1t>h1 iLe7 iLc2 9 ... (or 12 ... iLd6!, planning mate with ... iLh2, . .. .i.fl-g2) 13 '1t>gl iLxh4 14 iLxh4 '1t>xh4 IS '1t>h2 '1t>g4 1 6 '1t>g2 iLc2 1 7 '1t>f2 '1t>h3 18 '1t>e2 '1t>g2 19 '1t>d2 iLd3 20 '1t>e1 '1t>f3 21 '1t>d2 '1t>f2.

8 ...'1t>h2 9 iLg1+ '1t>h1 10 .i.f2 iLg4 11 .i.g3

More resistant is 2 g4+ iLxg4+ 3 · '1t>xh4, but 3 ... iLd6! enables Black to make progress as White is in zugzwang; e.g. 4 .if2 iLh2 S

Trying to complicate matters. Weaker is 1 1 iLg1 .ih3+ 12 '1t>f2 .ig2 (12 ... iLf8, intend­ ing ... iLe7-h4+, is another way, since if 13 h5 iLe7 14 '1t>g3 iLe6 IS iLf2 iLd6+ 16 '1t>h4 '1t>g2 Black has the duel threats of ... '1t>xf2 and ... iLe7 mate) 13 iLd1 iLg7 14 iLg4 iLf6.

iLb1 iLd1 6 .ia2 iLc7 7 '1t>h3!? (Black also gets

11 ... iLxe3 12 iLC7 iLd2

capturing the pawn: 2 gxh4 iLfl mate, or 2 '1t>xh4 iLg4 followed by ... iLd8 mate.

2 '1t>g2

his king into the white camp after 7 iLg3

(see following diagram)

iLd8+ 8 '1t>h3 iLgs 9 iLf2 '1t>g6 10 iLg1 '1t>hS 1 1 .if2 iLc2 12 iLg1 iLd3 13 .if2 iLfl+ 1 4 '1t>h2 '1t>g4 etc) 7 ... .ig4+ 8 '1t>g2 iLe2 9 '1t>h3 iLfl + 10 '1t>h4 iLd8+ 1 1 '1t>g3 iLd3 12 '1t>h3 iLgS etc. White can also try and temporize with 2 136

13 h S After 13 iLxaS, Black uses his e-pawn to win a piece and the game: 13 ... e3 14 .id3

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

.th3+ 15 'it'e2 'it'gl 16 'it'd1 'it'f2 1 7 i.e2 i.f1 18 i.g4 ii.c3 wins easily, e.g. 19 h5 e2+ 20 .txe2 i.xe2+ 21 'it'c2 ii.xh5 and so on.

13 ... i.g5 14 ii.xa 5 e3 15 i.d3 i.h4 0-1 Resigning rather than being mated with 16 i.xb4 e2+ 17 i.xe2 i.h3 mate. In the next example White has an extra pawn but the position remains blocked, while the protected passed pawn cannot advance at the moment as it lacks support.

6.2 J.Piket-L.Christia nsen Groningen 1992

60 i.h5 'it'C7 61 i.e8 ii.e6 62 i.C3 i.e7 63 'it'f2 i.d 5 64 �el i.c4 65 i.g6 i.e6 66 'it'd2 'it>b7 67 'it'c2 ii.d6 68 i.e8 'it'C7 69 'it'b2 i.e7 70 'it'a 3 i.d5 71 ii.g6 i.e6 Now the conditions are right... 72 d 5 ! Giving his opponent a difficult choice as in either case this favourably opens the game for White. 72 ...i.xd5 Black could also try 72 ... cxd5!? 73 i.e8! (73 i.d4?! is less effective due to 73 ... 'it'b7! 74 i.e8 'it'a6 75 i.c6 i.d8 76 i.g7 i.e7 77 i.h6 d4!) 73 ... i.d7 74 i.f7 'it'c6 75 i.d4 i.c8 76 'it'b3 (76 ii.e8+ .i.d7 77 i.g6 i.c8 78 'it'b3 i.d8 79 'it'c3 i.e7 80 a6 i.xa6 81 i.xf5 is another decent try) 76 ... i.d8 (the only move to stave off the inevitable) 77 i.g7 ii.e7 78 ii.h6, and White intends i.g5 which seems to be good enough, e.g. 78 ... 'it'd6 79 .i.e8 i.d7 80 i.xd7 'it'xd7 81 i.g5 i.d6 82 'it'c3 'it'c6 83 i.xh4 d4+ 84 'it>xd4 i.xb4 85 a6 i.c5+ 86 'it'e5 i.xe3 87 'it'xf5 'it'd5 88 .i.e1 .i.d4 89 h4 and Black won't be able to stop all the pawns. 7 3 .i.xf5 C5! The best practical chance is to liberate. 74 i.g6 'it>b7 75 f5 'it'a6 76 i.e8 cxb4+ 77 i.xb4 i.g5 78 i.d7! 78 i.d2 merely repeats the position after 78 ... .i.e7+ 79 i.b4 .i.g5. 78 ... .i.xe3 79 i.c8+ 'it'a7 80 .i.e7 i.d2 81 .i.e6

Piket found a way to unravel the block­ ade. Note how he finds an important role for his king - defending the b-pawn! 13 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Getting ready to push the f-pawn the whole way. 8 1 ... b4+? Critical is 81...e3, when I think that White has more than one way to win: a) 82 .Jtg5!, holding up the e-pawn, is perhaps the most straightforward; e.g. 82 ... .Jtc1 + 83 'it>b4 e2 84 .Jtxh4 .Jtxe6 85 fxe6 .Jtg5 86 .Jte 1 'it>a6 87 h4 .Jtd8 88 'it>b3 and the three passed pawns beat the two! b) 82 .Jtxd5 e2 83 .Jtxh4 e 1 'ii' 84 .Jtxe 1 .Jtxe1 85 f6 .Jth4 is less clear, as White's h­ pawn is the WRP. Nevertheless, I believe that he can win: 86 f7 (or 86 'it>b4!? 'it>a6 87 .Jte6 .Jtxf6 88 .Jtc8+ 'it>a7 89 'it>xb5 'it>b8 90 .Jtf5 'it>c7 91 'it>c5! 'it>d8 92 a6 .Jth4 93 'it>d6 .Jtf2 94 .Jtg6 'it>c8 95 .Jte4 'it>b8 96 'it>e6 'it>c7 97 .Jtg2 'it>b6 98 .Jtfl 'it>c7 99 .Jte2 'it>c6 100 'it>f7 'it>d6 101 h4 gets there in the end) 86 ....Jte7+ 87 'it>b3 'it>a6 88 h4 'it>xa5 89 h5 .Jtf8 90 �c3 .Jtg7+ 91 'it>d3 'it>b4 92 'it>e4 'it>c5 93 'it>f5! (the natural 93 .Jta2? is too slow due to 93 ... 'it>d6 94 'it>f5 'it>e7 95 'it>g6 'it>f8 96 h6 .Jtc3 and draws) 93 ... 'it>xd5 94 'it>g6 and wins. 82 .Jtxb4 1-0

smoothly. The b4-pawn turns out to be very weak. 32 ... 'it>f8 33 .Jtb6 'it>e8 34 'it>d4 .Jtc8 3 5 .Jtd3 'it>d7 36 .JtC5 .Jtd8 3 7 .Jtxb4 'it>c6 38 .JtC5 'it>b7 39 b4 .Jtd7 40 b3 .Jtc6 41 .Jte2 .JtC7 42 .Jtf3 'it>c8 43 f5! A neat way of breaking down Black's de­ fences . 43 ... exf5 43 ... gxf5 44 .Jtxh5 is even worse. 44 .Jtxd 5 .Jtxd 5 45 'it>xd 5 'it>d7 46 as .Jtd8 47 b5! Creating a passed pawn. 47 ... axb5 48 b4 f4 49 'it>e4 'it>c6 50 a6 .JtC7 51 'it>xf4 .Jtd8 5 2 'it>e4 .Jtc7 5 3 a7 'it>b7 54 'it>d 5 1-0 Playing on is pointless, e.g. 54 ....Jtd8 55 'it>d6 .Jtc7+ 56 'it>e7 .Jtxe5 57 'it>xf7 .Jtg3 58 'it>xg6 .Jtxh4 59 'it>xh5 etc.

6 .4 V.Kramnik-J.La utier Horgen 1995

6.3 N.Short-L.Polugaevsky Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 1993

Again the position is rather blocked, but Short was able to convert his advantage 138

Kramnik has a positional advantage due to his protected passed pawn, and his NQE technique is exemplary. 26 .Jte4 h6 If 26 ...g6 27 h4 h5, Black will be left with a static structure where f7 is weak. 27 .Jte3 'it>d7 28 'it>e1 .Jtc6 29 .Jtd3 It's not in White's interest to exchange

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

light-squared bishops, as Black would easily be able to blockade the light square complex. 29 i.d 5 30 a3 f6 31 d2 fxe5 32 fxe5 e6 Here the exchange of dark-squared bish­ ops with 32 ... .tg5 is possible, but in his notes Kramnik still fancies White's chances. 33 e3 i.f3 34 �e4 i.d5 3 5 �a6 i.f3 36 �d4 i.d5 Kramnik intended to meet 36 ...b5? with 37 d3 i.b6 38 i.xb6 xb6 39 ..txb5! xb5 40 d7. 37 a4 i.b3 38 ..tb5+ b7 39 .td7! i.d 5 40 'it'e3 i.a2 41 b4 i.d 5 41 ...g5 may be a better chance, though af­ ter 42 g4 White can play for a similar zugzwang. 42 h4! i.a2 43 ..td2 1 i.d5 44 ..tel ..ta2 45 �e3 ..td5 46 ..ta 3 Kramnik has manoeuvred to leave Black in a mini-zugzwang. 46 .ta2 47 i.e8! i.d5 48 d7 ...

58 g5 f5 59 g6 f6 60 i.g5+ g7 61 d4 i.a4 The hopeful 61 ...b5 62 e5 as would hardly worry White, who could then con­ tinue with 63 �f6+ f8 64 �d6! i.c8 65 i.g5 Wg7 66 We7 a4 67 �f6+ h6 68 g7 etc. 62 'iti>e5 i.e2 63 .tf6+ f8 64 'iW4 1-0 The threat of coming to h6 with the king is decisive.

6. 5 R.Ponomariov-V.lvanchuk Moscow 2002

•••

After all that, it's �f8 with threats against the kingside that decides . . 48 .lte6 49 ..tf8 .ltxa4 50 ..txg7 e7 51 .txh6 i.xd7 52 i.f7 e6 White wins with a nice combination after 52 ... .te7 53 h5 d8 54 .tg7 i.e8 55 h6! - an­ other nifty idea by Kramnik. 53 h 5 d 5 54 ..tg7 i.g5 55 g4 e4 56 h6 i.xh6 57 i.xh6 'it>xe5 Now it's the turn of the g-pawn to be shepherded home. •••

A sharp position in which the result is very much in doubt. 53 e4 .tb4 54 e5 f8 55 f2 i.b5 56 e6 e7 57 �a7 d8 58 .tb6+ e8?1 An unfortunate error. White has two main threats - the passed pawns and a king invasion - and this move doesn't address the latter. Better is 58 ... e7 59 e3 i.a4 60 d3 �b5+ 61 e4 i.a6 with a blockade. But Black isn't lost yet... 59 e3 a4? Now White's king penetrates decisively. Instead, Knaak gives 59 ... �a4 as failing to 60 d3! .td6 (or if 60 ... ..tb5+ then 61 e4, e.g. 61...i.fl 62 'iti>f5 i.xg2 63 i.c4 i.d6 64 'iti>e6 i.c7 65 i.xc7 xc7 66 d6+ and wins) 61 i.xa5 i.d1 62 ..tc4 ..ta4 63 c3 i.d1 64 d2 i.a4 65 cl . 139

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

However, more importantly, Ponom­ ariov and Komarov demonstrate that Black can defend with 59 ... i.f1 ! 60 '1ii>e4 (60 i.b1 i.d6! 61 i.xa5 i.c4 may even favour Black; while 60 g3 a4 61 '1ii>e4 i.e2 is given by the Ukrainians as equal, as here White cannot profit from the invasion: 62 '1ii> f5 i.xf3 63 i.c4 i.d6 64 '1ii>e6 i.c7 65 i.c5 i.xg4+ 66 '1ii>xf6 i.e2 67 i.a2 i.b5 and Black holds on) 60 ... i.xg2 61 i.c4 i.d6! (to stop White promoting with i.a6+ and c7+ etc) 62 i.xa5 f5+!? 63 '1ii>xf5 i.xf3 64 '1ii>e6 i.c7 65 i.b4 i.xg4+ 66 '1ii> f6 i.f3 and White certainly isn't winning. 60 '1ii>e4 i.e2 61 '1ii>fs e4 62 '1ii> e 6 exf3 63 d6 i.xd6 64 '1ii>x d6 1-0

6.6 G.Flear-Y .Pelletier French League 2000

White has the more active bishops and the better pawns, but is this enough to win? Yes, but only if the white king can invade. 27 '1ii>d l g6 28 '1ii>e l '1ii>e 7 29 �2 i.a s 30 i.dl hS 31 h4 a6 32 a4 i.d2 33 g4 Giving more room to the light-squared bishop. 33 ... hxg4 34 .i.xg4 a s 3 S .i.h3 Now I tried to outmanoeuvre my oppo­ nent. 3 S ...'1ii>d 7 36 .il.f4 '1ii>e 7 3 7 i.C7 '1ii>d 7 38 .i.b6 '1ii>d 6 39 i.g2 140

39 ... eS?! This soon loses a pawn due to zugzwang. Instead, 39 ... .i.a8 is the only piece move that doesn't make an immediate concession, though I still believe White can win. 40 '1ii>g3! ? should be good enough; for example, 40 ... e5 41 '1ii>g4 i.xe3 42 i.xa5 i.b7 43 '1ii> g3! (the unfortunate 43 i.e1? .i.f4! leaves White's king in a mating net!) 43 ... .i.f4+ 44 '1ii>f2 e3+ 45 '1ii> f1 e2+ 46 '1ii> f2 .i.e3+ 47 '1ii>xe3 .i.xg2 48 '1ii>xe2 i.e4 49 '1ii>d 2 and wins. If you still need convincing, how about the further continuation 49 ... '1ii>d 7 50 .i.b6 '1ii> d 6 51 i.d8 i.f3 52 .i.g5 '1ii>c 7 53 a5 .i.g2 54 i.e3 '1ii> d 6 55 a6, followed by b6-b7? If 39 ... i.b4, 40 '1ii> g3 is again strong, e.g. 40 ... i.d2 41 '1ii>f4 e5+ 42 '1ii>g5 .i.xe3+ 43 '1ii>xg6 .i.d2 44 .i.f1 e3 45 .i.e2 .i.e4+ 46 '1ii> f7 .i.c2 47 h5 .i.xa4 (or 47 ... e4 48 h6 .i.d3 49 h7! i.c3 50 i.d8! i.xe2 51 i.f6 i.xc4+ 52 '1ii>g6 i.xf6 53 '1ii>xf6 e2 54 h8'iV e 1 it' 55 'it'd8 mate) 48 i.a7 '1ii> c7 49 h6 i.c2 50 i.xc5. 40 '1ii>e 2 i.b4 41 '1ii>f2 i.C3 42 i.a7 i.b2 43 i.b8+ '1ii>e 7 44 i.C7 i.C3 4S .i.h3 This is clearly zugzwang. 4S ... i.b4 No better is 45 ... '1ii>e8 46 i.d6 or 45 ... .i.a8 46 i.c8. 46 i.xes i.d2 47 '1ii>e 2 i.b4 48 i.b2 '1ii>d 6 49 i.f6 i.a 3 SO '1ii>f2 .i.b4 Sl '1ii>g 3 1-0 White can now invade via f4.

Two B is h op s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

6. 7 V.Anand-V.Salov Biel Interzonal 1993

would be more promising for Black; hence the harsh '?' for Black's 56th move. 67 .te2 .td5 68 .tdl .td4 69 �d3 .te3 70 �e3 �6 71 .te2 e5 72 fxe5+ .txe5 73 .tf4 The inferior 73 .txe5+? �xe5 74 .td1 f4+ 75 �d3 f3 76 �e3 .te4 would already leave White in zugzwang. 73 �e6 74 .tdl .tf6 7 5 .tg3 .te3 76 .te2 .te5 77 .tf4 .tf6 78 .tg3 .te7 79 .tdl! But not 79 �d4 f4! when Black would have real chances. 79 ... .te5+ 80 �d3 .td6 81 .txd6 �xd6 82 �d41 •••

Black has an extra pawn, but there is still quite some work to do. Both players must defend their queenside. 48 �1 .tbl 49 �e2 .te4 50 f3 .te6 51 g4 i.e5 52 .tg3 .tb7 5 3 h4 g6 54 .td3 .td5 5 5 .te2 �7 56 .th2 With White purely on the defensive Black has to choose his plan to make pro­ gress. 56 ... h5? Salov later criticized this move, as White was cleverly able to exploit the isolated h­ pawn for defensive purposes. Instead, Salov suggests either 56 ... e5 or 56 ... .td4. After 56 ... e5, for example, a continuation such as 57 .tg3 �e6 58 .tel f5 59 h5!? fxg4 60 fxg4 gxh5 61 gxh5 e4 62 .td2 �f5 would leave White's h-pawn as a target, whereas Black's would be difficult to attack. 57 gxh 5 gxh 5 58 f41 Anand opens the d1-h5 diagonal for his bishop. 58 ... f5 59 .tg3 .te7 60 .tdl! Eyeing the h5-weakness. 60 ... .tf6 61 .tel .te7 62 �e3 .te5+ 63 �d3 �g6 64 .tg3 �f6 6 5 �e2 .te4+ 66 �d2 �g6 The same position with the pawn on h7

It's important to take control of some dark squares. If Black were able to play ... �e5 he would probably be winning. 82 ... .tf7 Salov gives 82 .. .£4 83 .txh5 .txb3 84 .tf3 as only equal. This holds true after the typi­ cal continuation 84 ... .tc2 85 h5 b3 86 �c3 �e7 87 �b2 �f6 88 �c3 �g5 89 �b2 �h4 90 h6 �g5 91 h7 .txh7 92 �xb3 with a book draw. 83 .te2 �e6 84 .tdl �f6 85 .te2 f4 86 .tdl �f5 87 .tf3 Precision is still required. Not 87 �c5?, for instance, as Black could then win after all with 87 ... �e4 88 �xb4 f3. 87 ... .tg6 Salov notes that 87 ... .txb3 gets nowhere after 88 �c5, e.g. 88 ... �g6 (if 88 ... .tf7 89 �xb4 �e5 90 �c3 there's no way through 141

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

for Black; and 88 ... �d5 hardly impresses either: 89 ii.xd5 �g4 90 �xb4 �xh4 91 �c3 �g3 92 �d3 with a draw) 89 �xb4 ii.e6 90 �c3 ii.g4 91 ii.e4+ �f6 92 �d4. 88 ii.e2 ii.e8 89 ii.d1 �f7 Yz-Yz It's not at all clear that Black can win the initial position with best play. However, Anand's admirable defence, exploiting the weak h5-pawn is very instructive. Salov therefore concluded that 56 ... h5 was wrong, but proving a stone-cold win is less evident.

34 �c6! �b4 3 5 ii.b2 ii.C5+ 36 �f3 ii.d3 37 ii.C3 �C4 3 8 �e4 �g6 39 h4 Wh5 40 �f4 .i.d5 41 ii.b5 �g6 42 .i.d3+ �g7 43 ii.c2

6.8 T. Woodward-G.Flear British Lea gue 2004 Black has to time the advance of the c­ pawn with threats against White's weak­ ened kingside. 43 ii.f2?! The correct way forward is 43... ii.a3! 44 �e3 c5 45 .i.d3 (or 45 Wd3 .i.b4 46 �b2 .i.e1 and Black is in business!) 45 ...ii.b4 46 ii.b2 .i.e1 47 �f4 �b3 and the c-pawn is ready to advance. This plan looks close to being deci­ sive. 44 ii.d3 C5?! 45 ii.b5 c4 This attempt is doomed to failure. The blockade cannot be lifted and Black's king is unable to join in the fun. 46 .i.a4 h6 47 .i.b5 ii.b6 48 .i.a4 ii.C5 49 ii.c2 ii.g2 50 ii.a4 ii.f1 51 i.d7 i.d3 52 .i.c8 �g6 5 3 �d7 �a3 54 i.e8 �c2 5 5 ii.b5 ii.d3 56 ii.e8 �g7 57 ii.b5 �f8 58 �e3 �c5+ 59 �f3 ii.b6 60 i.a6 i.d8 61 i.c8 i.C7 62 �d7 �e7 63 i.b5 �f8 64 i.d7 �g7 65 �e8 �b8 66 i.. b 5 �g6 67 ii.e8 �C7 68 �f4 c,t>g7 69 �f3 ••.

This position felt as if it should be won, but unfortunately I let my opponent escape with a draw. 25 ... ii.C3 The radical 25 ... g5!? is best met by the calm 26 ii.d4. 26 f4 ii.d2 Instead, 26 ... ii.a5 27 Wfl ii.b6 28 ii.b4 �e3 29 g3 is not bad, but even better is 26 ... g5! 27 fxg5 ii.xe5 28 g3 'iit g7 29 �f2 �g6 with excel­ lent winning chances. 27 g3 g5!? 28 fxg5 ii.xg5 29 �f2 ii.d2 30 ii.d4 �g7 3 1 �e2 .i.c1 32 ii.b5 ii.a 3 3 3 �e3 ii.b1?! Overlooking White's annoying reply. So 33 ... ii.d5 is much better. 142

Yz-Yz

Two Bishops vers us Two Knights I remember the following instructive end­ game from reading through Botvinnik's Best Games 1 947-1970 (Batsford 1972) in my

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

youth. This is perhaps the most famous ex­ ample of a bishop pair against two knights.

6.9 M.Botvinnik-D.Bronstein World Championship (23rd matchgame), Moscow 1951

35 ... ii.xel?! Botvinnik's comment at this point is in­ teresting: 'A serious error based upon an incorrect judgement of the position. White would find it hard to improve his position ... so Black should calmly play 35 ... 'itf7. By ex­ changing his bishop Black deprives himself of his most active and long distance working piece.' 36 'itxel ttJxb3+ 37 'ite2 ttJa 5 38 'ite3 'itf7 39 e4 Botvinnik again puts it rather well: 'It is already clear that Black's win of a pawn was pointless. His knight at a6 is badly placed, and if once White can open the game and widen the scope of his bishops, Black's posi­ tion could become critical.' 39 ...f5?! This weakens the h-pawn and opens the position for the bishops. 40 gxf5 gxf5 41 �d3 'itg6 42 ii.d6 Botvinnik later concluded that 42 ii.b1 was better, e.g. 42 ... ttJc6 (or if 42 ... fxe4 43 fxe4 dxe4 44 �xe4+ 'itg7 and the bishops

dominate the board) 43 exd5 exd5 44 ii.a2 ttJe7 45 ii.h4 winning a pawn. 42 ... ttJe6 43 ii.bl 'itf6?! Botvinnik suggested 43 ... ttJa7! as the best chance, the idea being that 44 exd5 exd5 45 �a2 b5 46 as is complicated after 46 ...b4+! 47 'itd3 ttJb5. 44 ii.g3 ! This move, according to Botvinnik, was decided upon 'as the result of many hours analysis.' Something we can't do these days! 44 ...fxe4 If 44 ... ttJab4, White could push the black king away with 45 ii.e5+! 'itg6 46 ii.d6 ttJa6 47 exd5 exd5 and then pick off the d-pawn with 48 ii.a2. 45 fxe4 h6 46 ii.f4 h5 47 exd5 exd5 48 h4 ttJab8 49 ii.g5+ 'itf7 50 ii.f5 ttJa 7 After 50 ... ttJe7, Botvinnik intended 51 ii.h3! ttJbc6 52 �g2 'itg7 53 �xe7 ttJxe7 54 �b4 ttJc6+ 55 'itb5 ttJxd4+ 56 'itxb6 and the a­ pawn will be able to promote. 51 ii.f4 ttJbe6 52 ii.d3 ttJe8 53 �e2 'itg6 54 ii.d3+ 'itf6 55 ii.e2 'itg6 56 ii.f3 ttJ6e7 As 56 ... ttJ8e7 can be strongly met by 57 ii.c7 ttJf5 58 ii.xd5 ttJfxd4 59 ii.xb6 ttJe2+ 60 'itc4, the a-pawn will again become a deci­ sive passed pawn. 57 ii.g5 1-0 It's zugzwang. Bronstein resigned as there's no hope after 57... ttJc6 58 ii.xd5 ttJd6 59 �f3 'itf5 60 ii.c1 ! (Smyslov's move, get­ ting out of the way!) 60 ...b5 61 ii.xc6 bxc6 62 as and wins.

6 . 10 I.Sokolov-R.Dautov Ter Apel 1995 (see following diagram)

39 ...f6?! Dautov later suggested 39 .. .f5 as a better try, but Sokolov then intended 40 f4 and the 143

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

g7-pawn comes under fire. Perhaps the least evil is 39 ... g6 40 'it>e3 f5.

40 'it>e3 g5 41 .ta3 Here Dautov points out that 41 ..txd7 is simpler, when 41 ...ltJxd7 42 'it>e4 ltJc5+ 43 'it>d5 ltJxa4 44 ..ta3 'i.t>c8 45 'it>e6 'it>d8 46 'it>xf6 'it>d7 47 'it>xe5 leaves White with a winning ending. One of the features of NQEs with two bishops against two knights is that there are usually ample opportunities to exchange one of the bishops. The defender has diffi­ culties avoiding this possibility, while for the attacking player it's just a question of find­ ing the right moment. 41 ...f5 42 'it>d2 f4 43 'it>c3 e4 44 fxe4 ltJxe4+ 45 'it>d4 ltJef6 46 h3 'it>c8 47 ..ta6+ 'it>d8 48 ..tb7 'it>e8 49 'it>C4 'i.t>f7 As Black's king has moved across to cover any penetration on the kingside, White switches his attention to the b6-pawn. 50 'it>b5 'it>e6 51 'it>c6 ltJe5+ 52 'it>C7 ltJe8+ 5 3 'it>xb6 ltJxd6 Sokolov shows why 53 ... ltJc4+ is inade­ quate: 54 'it>c5 ltJxa3 55 ..tc8+ 'it>f7 56 d7 'it>e7 57 dxe8'iV+ 'it>xe8 58 ..tf5 and 59 'it>b4. 54 ..txd6 Now the time is right! 54 'it>xd6 5 5 a 5 ltJc4+ 56 'it>b5 ltJxa 5?! Other knight moves resist for longer, but White would still win as Sokolov demon­ strates: 56 ... ltJe3 (after 56 ... ltJa3+ simplest is •.•

144

5 7 'it>a4! as both 5 7... ltJc2? 58 a6 'it>c7 59 ..te4, and 57 ... ltJb1 ? 58 a6 'it>c7 59 'it>a5 ltJd2 60 ..td5, immediately win for White, while 57 ... ltJc4 58 'it>b4 ltJe3 59 ..tf3 'it>c7 60 'it>c5 transposes) 57 ..tf3 'it>c7 58 'it>c5 'it>b8 59 'it>d4 'it>a7 60 'it>e5 h5 (60 ... 'it>a6 loses the kingside after 61 'it>f6 'it>xa5 62 'it>g6) 61 ..txh5! ltJxg2 62 'it>f5 f3 (or 62 ... 'it>a6 63 'it>xg5 'it>xa5 64 ..tf3 ltJe1 65 'it>xf4) 63 'it>xg5! f2 64 ..te2 ltJe3 65 h4 fl'iV 66 ..txfl ltJxfl 67 h5 and wins. 57 'it>xa 5 'it>C5 58 ..tf3 'it>d4 59 'it>b5 'it>e3 60 'it>C4 �f2 61 'it>d4 hS 62 �e4 'it>g3 63 'it>e5 g4 64 hxg4 hxg4 65 'it>e4! 1-0 Again we saw the bishops tying down the knights, enabling a king invasion to be on the cards. In the following example the bishops are so powerful they don't need any help from their king until a pawn has been won and the NQE has simplified into a bishop vs knight ending.

6 . 11 A.Shirov-A.Onischuk Tilburg 1997

30 .td7 ltJg6 31 .td6 ltJe6 After 3l...ltJa6 32 b4 the knight on a6 goes. 3 2 ..tb8 ltJC5 3 3 ..th3 a s 34 ..ta7 ltJa4 3 5 b3 ltJC5 36 b4 axb4 37 axb4 ltJa6 38 b5 ltJC7 39 ..td7 'it>f8 40 ..txb6 'it>e7 41 ..tc6 'it>d6 42

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

.ixc7+ �XC7 43 .i.e8 ttJh8 44 �f2 �d8 45 b6! �c8 46 .i.c6 ttJg6 47 �e3 ttJe7 48 .i.d5 �b8 The king and pawn ending after 48 ... ttJxd5+ 49 exd5 f5 wins for White with 50 d6 as the pawns are untouchable, e.g. 50 ... g6 51 'it>d3 h5 52 h4 �d7 53 b7 etc. 49 �d3 ttJc8 50 �C4 1-0 Black seems to have resigned rather early, but after 50 ... ttJxb6+ 51 �c5 �c7 (5l...ttJd7+ 52 'it>d6 and 51...ttJxd5 52 �xd5 f6 53 �e6 are also hopeless) 52 .i.xf7, because of zugzwang White's king will be able to penetrate via d5 or d6 and thus win the e-pawn as well.

6 . 12 J.Polga r-A.Shirov Prague 1999

as White's majority is not dangerous. 29 ttJbl .i.b4 30 ttJb5 .i.xC5+ 31 Wfl f3 32 gxf3 .i.xf3 3 3 ttJd2 .i.d5 34 We2 �e7 3 5 �d3 f5 36 ttJC3 .i.b7 3 7 �C4 .i.e3 38 �d3 .i.gl 39 b4 .i.xh2 40 b5 The race starts in earnest but, as we know, bishops operate well on both flanks at once, unlike knights and kings, so White is soon forced back to try and hold up the black pawns. 40 ... h 5 41 a s h4 42 �e2 Or if 42 a6 .i.g2 43 ttJc4 h3 44 b6 .i.b8 and Black will produce a queen, whereas White won't. 42 ... h3 43 a6 .i.g2 44 �f2 .i.d6 45 ttJf3 After 45 ttJa4, Black can win in several ways, e.g. 45 ... .i.e5 46 ttJf3 .i.xf3 47 �xf3 f4 48 a7 h2 49 �g2 f3+ etc. 45 ... .i.c5+ 46 �g3 f4+1? 47 �g4 If 47 �xf4, then 47 ... .i.d6+ 48 �e3 h2 49 ttJxh2 .i.xh2 50 �f2 .i.h1 seems to win, as the bishops control the squares in front of the queenside pawns. 47 ... .i.gl 48 b6 .i.xf3+ 49 �xf3 h2 50 �g2 f3+ 0-1 A prime example of the bishops operat­ ing on both wings and outclassing the knight pair.

Two Bishops versus Kn ight a n d Bishop 24 C5!? This saves the c-pawn and cuts out ....i.b6+, but it proves to be too ambitious as Black now wins the f-pawn. Finkel prefers 24 ttJd4! when 24 ... .i.xe5 25 fxe5 .i.xc4 26 a3 limits White's disadvantage to a minimum. 24 ... g5 2 5 ttJc6 gxf4 26 a4 Or if 26 ttJxa7, then 26 ... .i.e5 27 �f2 .i.xb2, which is messy but must still be in Black's favour. 26 ... .i.c4! 27 ttJd2 .i.d5 28 ttJxa7 .i.a 5 Two active bishops against two sidelined knights naturally favours Black, especially

Statistics suggest that two bishops are most likely to face mixed minor pieces. So we'll give this section a more detailed look. In the following example White has a slightly worse position, but is able to save the game.

6.13 A.Karpov-B.5passky Candidates semi-final (5th matchgame), Leningrad 1974

145

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

the fray. 25 ...�8 26 lLld2 d3 �d6 36 ..tb5?! There would be more chances with 36 a4 e4+ 37 �d2 'it>e5 38 a5 .tc7 39 lLlb5 .tb8 40 lLld4 .td5 41 �c3, according to Karpov. 36 ... a 5 1 This way a t least Black isn't a s cramped as in the previous note. 37 J.a4 axb4 38 axb4 J.d5 39 lLlb5+ �e7 40 lLlC3 �d6 41 J.C2 h6 42 J.b1 g5 43 ..ta2 ..tg2 44 �e2 .tb7 45 .tC4 .tc6 46 .tf7 J.b7 47 'it>d3 J.g2 48 J.g6 f41? Deciding to create tension on the dark squares; though this isn't altogether neces­ sary, and Karpov could have opted for the holding 48 ... �e6. 49 'it>e2 J.d5 50 ..te4 ..tc4+ 51 �f3 .tf7 Although 51 ...g4+ exchanges some pawns, it doesn't resolve all of Black's prob­ lems, as after 52 �xg4 fxe3 53 fxe3 .txe3 54 .th7! (stopping ... �e6 due to J.g8+) 54 ... 'it>e7 55 lLle4 .te6+ 56 'it>h5, White still has pres­ sure. 52 lLla4 .ta7 In his notes Karpov criticizes this move, suggesting 52 ... ..tc7 instead, with the idea that 53 exf4 exf4 54 gxf4 gxf4 55 �xf4 'it>e7+ 56 'it>f5 J.xh2 exchanges off most of the pawns and thus eases the defensive task. 5 3 b5 .th5+ 54 g4 .tf7 5 5 b6 .tb8 56 'it>e2 .tb3 57 lLlC3 'it>C5 58 b7 .te6 59 'it>f3 'it>C4 60 lLle2 J.d7 61 lLlc1 J.e6 62 h3 'it>b5 63 'it>e2 Karpov points out the plan of a kingside king invasion to try and make progress: 63 .•.

32 a s ! bxa 5 3 3 J.e5 'it>g6 34 J.xd4 lLle8 3 5 i.xa 7 h5 36 gxh5+ �xh 5 3 7 �f2 �g6 3 8 J. d 3 lLlg7 39 J. b 6 a4 4 0 J. C 5 lLle6 41 J.d6 �h5 Yz-Yz The outside passed pawn is stopped in its tracks and Black cannot make progress.

6 . 14 A.Beliavsky-A.Karpov Reykjavik 1991 Another example with Karpov a pawn down, but again he was able to show the defensive qualities of the bishops.

Despite Black being a clear pawn in ar­ rears, there are good drawing chances with the bishop pair. One notable problem for White is the difficulty of getting his king into 146

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

'it>g2!? i.c7 64 tLle2 i.c4 65 tLlg1 �c5 66 h4 gxh4 67 �h3 i.e6 68 �xh4 i.f7 69 tLlf3 fxe3 70 fxe3 �b6, but it's still not winning after 71 g5 (or 71 tLlh2 �a7 72 tLlfl i.d8+ 73 �h3 .i.g5) 71 . ..hxg5+ 72 �xg5 i.e8 73 �f6 i.c6 74 .i.xc6 �xc6 75 e4 Wxb7 76 tLlxe5 Wb6. 63 ...�b6 64 �d3 �C5 65 �C3 i.C4 66 i.f3 .i.c7 67 tLld3+ i.xd3 68 �xd3 �d6 69 �e4 'it>e6 Yz-Yz

6.16 L.Christiansen-M.Adams Las Palrnas 1993

6.1 5 J.Lautier-S.Rublevsky Poikovsky 2003

Black simplifies into an opposite bishop ending to hold this one. 28 ... �f8 29 i.b6 �e7 30 f3 i.f5 31 tLlC7 �d6 32 a6 i.d4+1 33 i.xd4 �xC7 34 i.xg7 �b6 35 �f2 �xa6 36 �e3 �b7 37 �f4 i.d3 38 'it>g5 �c6 39 �f6 i.C4 40 h4 40 i.h6 �d7 41 �g7 �e6 42 �xh7 i.fl 43 g3 i.g2 44 f4 i.h3 is also drawn. 40 ... �d7 41 i.. h 6 i..fl 42 g3 i.e2 43 f4 �e8 44 �g7 .ig4 45 �xh7 �e7 46 �g7 �e6 47 .i.g5 �f51 A rather comical move! White cannot win. 48 �xf7 .ih5+ 49 �g7 i.dl 50 i.e7 Yz-Yz With two extra pawns the bishop and knight have more chances to win, but as we will see, it can be hard work at times!

Here Black has two good pawns in the bag, but he still has to be vigilant in order to be sure to win. 35 ... .id5 36 .ifl tLlC4 37 �f2 With Black obtaining a second passed pawn after 37 i.xc4 bxc4 White would be surely lost, so he prefers to keep his bishops on. Adams now tentatively advances his pawns, being careful not to allow the bish­ ops any targets. 37 ... g6 38 h4 e5 39 .ih3 f5 40 .ifl .ic6 41 i.. d 3 �e6 42 i.e2 tLld6 43 .id3 tLle8 Another plan is 43 ... tLlf7 with the idea of ... h6 and ... g5. Ftacnik then suggests 44 i.. c2 h6 45 g4, trying to mix it. 44 .if8 tLlf6 45 �e3? This is a vulnerable square to get hit by knight forks! Better, according to Adams, were the alternative waiting moves 45 �e1 and 45 .ic2 . 45 ...�f71 The bishop is gradually forced onto a passive square. 46 i.d6 tLld7 47 i.C7 �e6 48 i.d8 tLlf6 49 �f2 tLld 5 50 i.. a 5 h6 Now with everything nicely under con­ trol it's time to advance. 14 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

51 �C2 g5 52 hxg5 hxg5 5 3 �b3 f4 54 �f3 �d6 55 �f2 On 55 �g4, Adams intended 55 ... lLle3+ 56 �xg5 f3 etc. 5 5 ... �d7 56 �C2 lLle3 5 7 � g6 �e6 58 .id8 lLlg4+ 59 �g1 lLlf6 60 �1 fxg3 61 �C2 lLlg4 62 �g1 If 62 �xg5 then 62 ... lLlh2+ 63 �e2 lLlf3, followed by ... g2, wins a piece. 62 ...lLlf2 0-1

6 . 17 P .Leko-V.Akopian Groningen 1996

�f3 �e7 63 h 3 �a4 64 �C2 �f6 6 5 lLla1 iLd7 66 �e4 e5? After 66 ...�d4! it looks as if Black can win the a-pawn with a probable draw: 67 lLlc2 (or if 67 lLlb3 �b2 68 lLlc5 �e8) 67 ... �b2 68 lLle3 �xa3 69 lLlg4+ �g7 70 lLle5 �b5. 67 f5 ! Giving up a pawn to exchange off one of Black's terrible bishops! 67 ...�xf5 68 �xf5 �xf5 69 lLlc2 e4+ 70 �e2 �b6 7 1 lLle3+ �e6 72 g4 .iC7 73 lLlf5 �f4 73 ... h5? fails to 74 lLlg7+. 74 a4 Now the a-pawn can get moving. 74 ... �d5 7 5 as �C5 76 h4 �b5 77 lLlxh6! A strong and surprising blow. 77 ... �xh6 78 g5 �f8 79 'it>e3 �xa 5 80 �xe4 �a3 81 f5 �b5 82 g6 �b2 83 h5 .ig7 84 g5 1-0 When the centre remains fairly blocked, the bishop pair can have difficulties in breaking down a fortress.

6.18 B.Gelfand-V.Sei rawa n Tilburg 1990 Although White is two pawns up he has his work cut out to win this one as well. Firstly Leko chases the bishops away from their active squares and brings his king into the game. 44 �e4 �d7 45 lLlC4 �g1 46 lLle5 �e8 47 lLlf3 �e3 48 �c2 �e7 49 �d3 �C1 50 �C3 �e3 51 �C2 �d6 52 lLld2 Leko later proposed 52 �b4! as more to the point. 52 �d5 53 �e4+ C5 54 �d3 .if2 5 5 lLlf3 �h5 56 lLle5 �e8 57 lLlf3 .ih5 58 lLld2 �e8 59 b4+ Creating a passed pawn that can't receive much support for now, but White has run out of other things to do. 59 ... axb3 60 lLlxb3+ �d6 61 �e2 � g 1 62 .•.

148

If the NQE is of a blocked nature the knight is less likely to be outgunned. 42 h4 g5!? An interesting idea. White's light-

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

squared bishop is permanently hemmed in. 43 hxgs g 6 44 'it' g2 'it'f8 45 ..ie2 'it'e7 46 'it'f3 ttJC7 Yz-Yz

..ib2 Yz-Yz

6 . 19 A.Yusupov-V.Salov Moscow 1992

Naturally in all types of position, well­ placed defenders are often the key to a suc­ cessful defence.

The bishops are not able to make much headway here either. 2 5 h4 gxh4 26 gxh4 hS 27 ..ie2 ..ie8 28 ..igs ..ig6 29 'it'f3 'it'f7 30 ..if1 ttJe8 3 1 ..ih3 ttJf6 3 2 ..ie6+ 'it'g7 3 3 ..ixf6+ 'it'xf6 34 ..ic8 b6 3 5 ..id7 'it'e7 36 ..ic6 ..ie8 3 7 ..ixe8 'it'xe8 3 8 'it'e3 'it' d 7 39 'it'd3 Yz-Yz

6.2 1 V.Kramnik-V.Topalov Vienna 1996

In example 6.20, even on an open board White's blockading bishop stops the bishop pair from creating any real threats.

6 . 20 V.Korchnoi-B.Gulko World Team Championship, Lucerne 1993 (see following diagram)

The passed pawn can't be pushed, so White is not in any danger. 34 ... fS 3 5 exfs ..ixfs 36 g4 ..ie6 37 'it' g2 ..ids 38 ttJgs ..if4 39 h4 h6 40 ttJh3 ..ic1 41 'it'f2

Here Black's knight and White's incon­ venient doubled d-pawns mean that there are no entry squares on the queenside. Kramnik was unable to win. 38 ..ic3 ..i gs 39 ..ie1 'it'f6 40 ..if2 'it'f7? A mined square, as pointed out by Kramnik, who could have taken the oppor­ tunity to improve his bishop. So 40 ... 'it'e7 was preferable. 41 ..ie1? 149

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

In his notes Kramnik demonstrates that 41 i.b5! gives him good chances. This clever move exploits the fact that Black dare not capture on d5 (because of the deadly pin), enabling White to redeploy the bishop; for example, 41 .. .�e7 42 i.c4 i.h6 (the win after 42 ... ttJxc4 43 �xc4 �d7 isn't at all obvious, but the following variation is impressive: 44 �b5 i.h6 45 �a6 �c8 46 b5 i.g5 47 h4 i.. h6 48 �a7 with zugzwang, e.g. 48 ... g5 49 �a6 gxh4 50 gxh4 i.. g7, and now the bishop is able to come to a better diagonal by 51 i.e1 i.h6 52 i.. d 2 i.. g7 53 i.. a 5! i.h6 54 i.xc7! �xc7 55 �a7 and wins - great stuff!) 43 i.b3 �f6 44 i.e1 �e7 45 e4 fxe4+ 46 �xe4 �f6 47 i.. d 1 �e7 48 .if3 �f6 49 �d3 rtie7 50 i.. e4 �f6 51 h4 i.. d 52 i.. d 2 i.. xd2 53 �xd2 with realistic winning chances, perhaps involving b5 and �c3-b4-a5. These remarkable varia­ tions are all Kramnik's. 41 ...�e7 42 e4 fxe4+ 43 �xe4 ttJd7 ! Now White i s unable to successfully free his bishop. 44 �d3 ttJb6 45 i.. b 7 i.. h 6 46 �e4 ttJd7 47 i.. c 6 i.. g 5 48 �f3 ttJb6 49 i.. C 3 h4 50 gxh4 i.xh4 51 �f4 �6 52 �e4 i.. g 5 53 i.. b 5 i.. C 1 54 i.e1 �e7 55 i.h4+ g5 56 i.e1 �6 57 i.e2 �g6 58 i.g4 �f6 59 i.f3 �g6 60 �d 3 i.f4 61 �e4 i.c1 62 i. g4 �f6 6 3 i.e6 �g6 64 �d3 �f6 65 b5 i.f4 66 �C3 .te3 67 �d3 i.c1 68 �C2 i.f4 69 �b3 �e7 70 �b4

Avoiding the last trap; i.e. not 70 ... �d8? because after 71 h4 gxh4 72 i.xh4+ �e8 73 a5, the white king can come to b7 to hit the c7-pawn. 71 �b3 Now 71 h4 gxh4 72 .txh4 isn't check, so Black has time for 72... i.. d2+ keeping the king out of as. 71 i.. e 3 72 �c3 �e7 73 �d3 .ic1 74 i.. a 5 �6 7 5 �e4 �g6 76 �f3 i.. b 2 7 7 �g4 i.. c 1 78 i..f 5+ �f6 79 i.. e 4 i.. e 3 Ya-Ya •••

6. 2 2 E.Bareev-V.Anand Dortmund 2000

All conceivable entry routes into the black camp are covered by the knight and bishop together. Black left his knight on d6 and held out easily.

6.2 3 A.Morozevich-S.Rublevsky Russian Championship, St. Petersburg 1998

70 ... �e8! 150

In this double-edged encounter Black's main problem is his badly-placed knight, especially after White's next move. How­ ever, he can still hope for counterplay with his two connected passed pawns.

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

demonstrate the ability of the bishop pair to massage the slightest of advantages. The latent power of the bishops isn't always evi­ dent at first, but as the examples unravel, you will see them gradually take control.

6.24 V.Anand-L.Bruzon Bautista Leon 2006

35 j.b5! g5 Black has an interesting forcing sequence starting with 35 ... c4!, e.g. 36 e6 (36 �f1 is too slow: 36 ... j.a3 37 �e2?! �e7 38 e6 j.d6) 36 ... c3 37 j.xb8 c2 38 j.f4 j.a3 39 �f2 �e7 40 j.d7 c1"iV 41 j.xc1 j.xc1 with good drawing chances. 36 j.d2 j.d8? With more time Rublevsky would no doubt have gone for 36 ... �f7! 37 j.xa5 �e6 38 j.c7 ttJd7 (free at last!), and this position is far from clear according to Ftacnik, e.g. 39 a4 ttJxe5 40 as c4 41 ii.b6 c3 42 j.a4 d4 43 a6 d3 44 a7 c2 45 a8'ii' (45 j.e3? loses to 45 ... j.c5!) 45 ... cHW+ 46 �g2. 37 e6 c4 38 �f1 a4 If 38 ... j.f6, then 39 j.xa5 �e7 40 j.c7 c3 41 �e2 wins for White. 39 �e2 j.f6 40 j.b4+ ii.e7 40 ... �g7 1oses immediately to 41 e7. 41 j.a 5 j.d6 42 j.d8 g4 43 e7+! j.xe7 44 j.C7 1-0 Black's pawns are stymied after 44 ... d4 45 j.xb8 d3+ 46 �dl . There's no general rule for such posi­ tions. Basically the tactics just need to be navigated as well as possible, but clearly with such a badly-corralled knight the de­ fender has to be particularly accurate to sur­ vive! There follow a series of positions which

Black has a fine knight outpost and a solid position, yet White managed to win. Apart from his bishop pair White's main asset is space. It's instructive to see how An­ and was able to exploit this fact. 3 5 �e3 j.c8 36 j.d1 �d7 37 .lte2 ttJC4+ 38 �f4 �e7 39 g4 j.d7 40 h4 j.e8 41 g5 The first demonstration of his intentions occurs on the kingside, but Anand is really only aiming to gain space before switching flanks. 41 ... hxg5+ 42 hxg 5 ttJe5 43 g 6! Instead, exchanging on f6 would lead nowhere, as Black is able to defend the cen­ tral arena. After the move played, the g­ pawn is only two squares from the promo­ tion square and Black's room for manoeuvre is further restricted. 43 ... ttJC4 44 �3 Now Anand comes across to see what mischief he can cause on the queenside. 44 j.d7 45 'iii>f2 j.c8 46 �e1 j.d7 47 �d1 .•.

151

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

�e8 48 �e2 �a6 49 �b3 �d7 50 �e3 Threatening �xf6. 50 tbe5 After 50 ... We7, White can even contem­ plate an opposite bishop ending: 51 Wb4 We8 52 �xc4 bxc4 53 Wa5 �c8 54 Wb6 �e7 (or 54 ... �d7 55 Wc7 �a4 56 Wxd6 �c2 57 We6 �xe4 58 �xf6! gxf6 59 d6) 55 Wc7 �d7 56 �b4 �a4 57 �xd6+ We8 58 �b4 �d7 59 d6 �a4 60 �c3 �d7 61 e5 fxe5 62 �xe5 �xf5 63 �xg7 �h3 64 �c3 �e6 65 g7 �f7 66 d7 and so on. 51 Wb4 We7 52 �xe5 fxe5 53 �xb5 �e8 54 Wa S 1-0 The bishop on c8 has nowhere to go, and if 54 ... Wd8 simply 55 f6. ••.

White's king can't just rush to the centre, because after 33 We3 We6 34 Wd4 there is the annoying check 34 ... �f6+, when he will have to go back. 33 We6 34 b4 axb4 35 axb4 We5! While White tries to sort his queenside out, Kramnik brings up his king to a very active position. 36 We3 36 b5 is dubious as 36 ... cxb5 37 �xb7 bxa4 leads to a technical win for Black, who can eventually generate a second passed pawn on the kingside. With opposite­ coloured bishops two passed pawns are typically necessary in order to win. 36 �g5+ 37 Wd3 �a6+ 38 We2 Wd4 •••

•••

6.2 5 D.Sadvakasov-V.Kramnik Astana 2001

With Black having broken pawns and an ugly bishop on b7, it's far from obvious that he should really be better. In a practical game, however, even if White should be able to draw, the position still needs playing out. 30 Wf2 f5 31 e4 Instead, Lars Bo Hansen suggests 31 a3 a5 32 c3, followed by b4, when White should be fine. 31 Wf7 32 e5! a s 3 3 a 3 •••

1 52

Compare this with the previous diagram position. Hasn't Black done well!? 39 tbe3? This turns out to be weak. Eliminating the queenside with 39 .txc6 Wc4 40 b5 �xb5 41 .txb5+ Wxb5 42 tbc3+ Wxc5 43 Wd3 would make a draw highly likely. A knight is a rea­ sonable defensive piece with all the pawns on one flank, and furthermore it's the WRP. 39 �d3+ 40 Wb3 �e4+ 41 �e2 �d3+ 42 Wb3 �d2 Black's three pieces create a strong visual impression! 43 tbd1 Postny shows that 43 tbe2+ is losing: 43 ...We3 44 tbf4 �b5 45 tbe6 (or 45 �d1 �f2 •••

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

46 lDe6 .lte3 and White's kingside is lost) 45 .. .'it>xf3 46 lDd4+ g2 47 lDxb5 and now 47 .. ' £4!, when Black either obtains a decisive passed pawn or, following 48 gxf4 cxb5 49 c6 .ltxf4, a trivially won ending. 43 .lte4 44 .lte2 .ltd5+ 45 a4 g5 1 With White having totally lost control of the central arena, Black can safely advance his majority. 46 b5 xe5 47 bxe6 .ltxe6+ 48 c;.t>b3 'iti>d4 49 .ltf1 .lte1 White's king is denied the possibility of coming back to the kingside. 50 .lte2 g4! 51 .lta6 h5 52 e2 .lte4+ 53 e1 .tf3 54 .lte8 f4 55 gxf4 h4 The idea is ... h3 followed by ... g3. 56 f5 g3 5 7 hxg3 hxg3 0-1 An amazing display by Kramnik. The two bishops, ably supported by the king, effortlessly swept White's defences aside. •••

6.2 6 G.Flear-S.Maggs Port Erin 1994

create difficulties for any opponent with this type of position. 25 .ltd3 �8 Moves such as 25 .. .£5!? are often double­ edged, as although Black holds up the white centre, his pawns may later become targets. A counter-plan for White would be to create a passed pawn with e3-e4, a plausible con­ tinuation being 26 .lte5 f7 27 f1 as 28 e2 a4 29 d2 b5 30 f3 .td7 31 g3 .lte6 32 e4. 26 f1 e7 27 e1 d7 28 d2 e5 29 .ltb8 a6 30 e4 Of course the disadvantage of not having playing ... f5 is that the knight will at some point be invited to go elsewhere! 30 lDe7 3 1 i.e5 b5 32 .te2 lD g8 This is obviously a less than ideal square for a knight. In fact it stays here for the rest of the game until it is lost! 33 e3 f6 Every black pawn move is an additional concession. 34 .te3 e6 3 5 .ih5 d6 36 h3 i.e4 37 g3 e7 3 8 h4 i.e6 39 i.a5 d7 40 f4 The majority starts to make its presence felt. 40 gxh4 41 f5 i.b3 42 gxh4 e7 43 f4 d6 44 .lte3 .lte4 45 .ltf3 e7 Or if 45 ... .ltb3, White can make further progress with 46 e5+ fxe5+ 47 i.xe5+ e7 48 i.b7 as 49 .ic7 a4 50 e5 and Black is strug­ gling. 46 e5 fxe5+ 47 xe5 i..f7 48 f6 e4 48 ... d7 is equally hopeless after 49 .ib7 as 50 .idS. 49 .ltd5 lDxf6 50 .ltxf7 1-0 If the knight can be tamed, the player with the two bishops doesn't have to do anything special in such positions. •••

•••

A typical NQE where the bishop pair can grind away. There are several positional fac­ tors that give the holder of the bishop pair chances for a lasting advantage: 1. Plenty of open lines; 2. Fluid pawns; 3. Unbalanced majorities; 4. The knight can be pushed away. Naturally a grandmaster would expect to

6.2 7 B.Gelfand-V.Topalov Moscow Olympiad 1994

153

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Despite the closed nature of the position White's knight doesn't have very good squares. Furthermore, he has a serious weakness on c4 and an out-of-play bishop. 43 �e2 .i.f6 44 lDa3 .i.a4 45 lDb1 .i.c2 46 lDd2 .i.c3 47 lDf3 .i.b4 48 .i.C7 �d7 49 .i.b6 .i.b3 50 �d3 �e8! A triangulation to lose a move. 51 .i.C7 �e7 52 .i.b6 �d7 53 lDg1 53 lDd2 .i.xd2 54 �xd2 .i.xc4, followed by ... .i.xd5 and ... .i.g2, wins easily for Black. 53 ... .i.e1 54 f3 Now White no longer has the f3-square for his knight and another zugzwang is quickly produced. Note that if instead 54 �e2, then 54 ... .i.c3 55 �d3 .i.d4 wins a pawn. 54 ... .i.a2 55 �e2 .i.b4 56 �d3 i.. b 1+ 57 �e2 .i.C3 58 h4 King moves are met by ... i.. d3, picking off the c-pawn. 58 ... gxh4 59 lDh3 .i.e5 60 lDf2 .i.g6 0-1 Black will create further inroads on the kingside with ... h5, e.g. 61 lDh3 h5 62 lDg5 hxg4 63 fxg4 .i.c2 64 lDh3 (64 �d2 is no bet­ ter due to 64 ... .i.b3 65 �d3 .i.d1) 64 ... .i.e4 65 lDg5 .i.g2 66 �f2 h3 and wins.

6.2 8 R.Dautov-A.Dreev Reggio Emilia 1995/96

1 54

Despite White's active-looking pieces, there is nothing concrete, so his drawing chances are actually quite limited. The posi­ tion is open and Black is ready to activate his forces, along with creating a consequential passed pawn. In contrast, White's majority is of nominal value. 40 a4 �e7 41 �gl i.. C 3 As Dautov points out in his notes, Black could also create a passed pawn with 41...�d6 42 lDd3 c5 . 42 lDd3 c5 Black is spoilt for choice as 42 ... .i.c8!? 43 �f2 i.. e6 44 .i.xe6 �xe6 45 �e3 �d5 is also good. 43 bxc5 bxc5 44 lDf4 �d6 45 �f2 .i.c6 46 i.. b 3 �e5 47 g3 �e4 48 lDe6 .i.b4 49 �e2 .i.d7 White is getting short of useful moves. 50 h4 as 51 .i.c2+ �e5 52 lDf8 .i.g4+ 53 �e3 .1Le1 54 lDg6+ �f6 55 lDf4 55 �f4 is dealt with by 55 ... h5, threaten­ ing 56 ... .i.d2+ 57 �e4 .i.f5+ with a fork and a skewer! 55 ....i.xg3 56 lDd 5+ �e6 57 i.b3 i.xh4 58 'it>f4 i.. h 3 59 lDe3+ �d7 60 lDC4 .i.e1 0-1 In the next couple of examples the major­ ity doesn't readily yield a passed pawn for the player with the bishop pair. Neverthe­ less, the fact that the majority exists still cre­ ates problems for the defence!

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

6. 2 9 V.Anand-S.Tiviakov Wijk aan Zee 1996

.iC4+ �f8 70 .if6 �d4 71 �f4 �b2 72 �e4 �a3 73 e6 Now that Black's king has been ushered to the back rank, it's time for this advance. 7 3 �d6 74 iLe5 iLxe5 If 74 ... iLc5, White would be able to play 75 iLb5 �g8 76 .ib8 a5 77 .ie5 and then �d4 to force the exchange of bishops anyway and under even more favourable circum­ stances, as Black has had to move his a­ pawn. 75 �xe5 �g7 76 �d3 tjj c 8 77 a4 tjj e 7 78 iLb5 tjj c 8 79 iLa6 tjj e 7 80 .id3 tjj c 8 81 .ia6 ltJe7 82 �d6 �f6 83 .iC4 tjjf 5+ 84 �d7 tjje 7 8 5 WC7 �e5 86 �b3! Passing the move at an awkward mo­ ment for Black. 86 tjjf5 87 �b7 �d6 88 �xa 7 �C7 89 �a6 Wc6 90 �d1 tjj e 7 91 �f3+ �C7 92 �b5 tjjf5 93 .i g4 •••

.••

Another typical grind by Anand, who again shows that his space advantage is paramount. Despite appearances to the con­ trary, White has few problems in ultimately creating a passed pawn from his central ma­ jority. 43 We2 �f7 44 �e3 fxe5 45 dxe5 ltJe8 46 f4 tjjC 7 47 �f3 tjj a 6 48 �b5 tjj b4 49 �C4 tjj c 6 Anand intended to meet 49 ... tjj c2 with 50 f5! . 5 0 �e4 tjj a 5 If Black tries 5 0. . . �c5, then simplest, ac­ cording to Anand, is 51 .ixc5 bxc5 52 f5 gxf5+ 53 gxf5 tjj d4 54 fxe6+ �e7 55 �d5. 51 .ia6 �C5 52 �d2 tjjc 6 53 f5 Not giving Black time to settle. If, on the other hand, White tries 53 .ic4?! then 53 ... tjje 7 will make things much harder. 53 gxf5+ 54 gxf5 exf5+ 55 �xf5 tLJe7+ Although White has created a passed pawn, Black's knight controls f5 and d5, so it's no easy matter to penetrate with the king. 56 �e4 �g6 57 �b5 �f7 58 �g5 .ia3 59 .iC4+ �g6 60 �f6 .ib4 61 �f4 h6 62 �e4 �a3 63 �h4 �C5 64 �g3 �g7 65 �f4 � g 6 66 �d3+ �g7 67 �g4 �e3 68 �h4 �7 69 •••

93 ...tjjd 6+? According to Anand, 93 ... tjje 7! was a bet­ ter chance; for example 94 �c4 �d6 95 �d4 h5! . Can White still win? I'm not sure. See what you think. 94 �b4 �d8 9 5 �C3 �e7 96 �d4 tjj b 7 97 �C4 Back again. 97 ... �d6 98 Wb5 tjj C 5 99 h4 h5 100 �h3! Zugzwang! 100 ... �e7 101 a s ! tjjx e6 102 �xb6! Not 102 iLxe6?? bxa5 and Black hides his 155

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

king on h8, as it's the WRP. 102 ... tbf4 103 a6 tbd5+ 104 �b7 �d8 105 a7 tbC7 106 �fl �d7 107 �e2 1-0 Tiviakov resisted long and hard, only to err late in the day.

6.30 V.Bologan-S.Rublevsky Poikovsky 2005

Here Black has a solid majority, and at­ tempts by White to create a passed pawn with b4-b5 are unconvincing for the time being. 33 ... g5 34 f3 f6 This will enable the king to come to­ wards the centre. 3 5 �f2 �f7 36 b4 tbC7 37 �e2 �c6 38 �b6 tbb5 39 �e3 Black has done the essentials to maintain a blockade and now has a free move. 39 ...f5?! Bologan thinks that Black should leave his pawns where they are, so presumably he believes that Black should temporize with his king. In general it's often a dichotomy for the defender: don't touch pawns until forced to, or 'improve' them by advancing them. 40 g3 �g6 41 �d3 �d5 In order to stop White's king coming to c4. Bologan shows the problem with the consistent 41 ...e5 - 42 �c4 tbd4 43 �c5! �b7 156

44 �c4 tbxf3 45 �d5! and White will queen his a-pawn after the exchange of bishops. 42 �d4 h5 43 �e5 g4 Rublevsky seems to have things under control on the kingside, but it's best not to jump to conclusions! 44 �e3 �c6 45 �f2 �f7 46 h4! Fixing the h5-pawn.

46 ... gxh3 Letting things be doesn't ease Black's game: 46 ... �g6 47 fxg4 hxg4 (or if 47 .. .fxg4 48 �d3+ �f7 49 �e3 �d5 50 �f4 and the h­ pawn is doomed) 48 �f1, followed by �g2, when Black would be overwhelmed by threats on both wings: a passed h-pawn and a king invasion via c4 and c5. Bologan shows why 46 ...gxf3 doesn't work either: 47 �xf3 �xf3 48 �xf3 tba7 49 �f4 tbc6 50 �c3 'it'g6 51 �e3 e5 52 �d3 �f7 53 �c4 f4 54 gxf4 exf4 55 b5 etc. Note, of course, that White's h-pawn is the RRP! 47 �gl �b7 48 �h2 tba3 49 �xh 3 tbc2 50 �c3 tbe3 51 �h4 f4 The immediate 51...�g6 would be met by 52 f4 tbg4 53 b5. 52 gxf4 �g6 53 �d3+ tbf5+ 54 �h3 �h6 55 �C4 �g6 56 �xe6 �xf3 57 b5! axb5 58 a6 tbe7 59 �d7 tbd 5 60 �g 3 �e4 61 f5+?! 61 �c6! is simpler, because after 61...tbxc3 62 �xe4+ tbxe4+ 63 �h4 the a­ pawn can't be stopped. 61 ...� g 5 62 �a5?

Two B is h op s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

Bologan later regretted not having fin­ ished his opponent off cleanly with 62 i.d2+ �f6 63 i.c6 �xfS 64 i.aS, and the a-pawn will go all the way. 62 ... h4+ 63 'iW2 liJf6? Bologan's notes indicate that all is not hopeless after 63 ...b4! 64 i.e6 liJf6 6S i.xb4 �g4+ 66 'it>gl h3 67 i.d6 'it>f6 68 i.c8 i.d3 69 a7 i.e4 70 i.a6, although White still has good winning chances. If instead 69 i.b7 Black could try 69 ... i.xa6! 70 i.xa6 ..t>xfs with good practical drawing chances (see examples 6.31 and 6.36 for further explanation). 64 i.e8 b4 After 64 ... liJg4+ 6S 'it>gl h3 66 i.c7 Black's counterplay is stymied. 65 i.xb4 'it>g4 66 i.b7 h3 67 i.xe4 liJxe4+ 68 'it>gl Wg3 69 i.e1+ 1-0 The following example shows Black be­ ing able to defend successfully. Seirawan's plan is the creation of a good central outpost for his knight.

6. 3 1 M.Adams-Y.Seirawan Bermuda (10th matchgame) 1999

3 3 e5 e5 34 fxe5 liJxe51 The knight ensures itself a safe central square. 3 5 exb6+ axb6 36 a4 g5 ! Apart from anything else White i s left with a weak pawn on g4. 37 hxg5 hxg5 38 as bxa 5 39 bxa 5 'it>d6 Just before the time control, Seirawan probably wasn't entirely sure that 39 ... i.c8 40 i.xeS+ fxeS 41 �b4 was drawn, although I believe that this is probably simpler than the game continuation. 40 a6 i.xa6! Now the surest way. 41 i.xa6 liJxg4 42 i.e8 liJe5 If Black were to lose his two pawns then the win becomes plausible (see 6.36); as he can in fact hold onto them, Seirawan de­ fends with ease. 43 'it>e3 liJe6 44 i.g1 If 44 i.xf6 liJe7 and White cannot retain both bishops. 44 ... liJe7 45 i.h2+ �d 5 46 i.b7+ �e6 47 'it>d4 'it>d7 48 i.a6 'it>e6 49 i.e4+ 'iW5 50 i.d6 liJg6! 51 i.d3+ 'it>e6 52 i.b4 liJf4 53 i.e2 f5 54 i.a5 liJe2+ 55 'it>e3 liJg3 56 i.e3 'it>f7 57 i.e1 liJe4 58 'it>d4 'iW6 59 i.a 5 liJf2 60 i.d8+ �g6 61 i.b1 liJg4 62 i.e7 liJh6 63 'it>e5 'it>h5 64 i.d3 f4 65 i.e2+ �h4 66 �e4 liJg4 67 i.d1 liJh2 68 'iW5 Yz-Yz After 68 .. .£3 69 i.xgS+ �g3, the f-pawn will oblige White to cede one of his bishops. With all the pawns on one wing, even with an extra pawn for either side, winning chances are slim unless some additional fac­ tor is present.

28 ... liJe8 29 h4 f6 30 i.d4 'it>e7 31 b4 liJd6 3 2 'it>b3 liJf7! Seirawan intends to bite back in the cen­ tre with ... eS.

6. 3 2 B.Gelfand-G.Kamsky Dos Hermanas 1995 Here, with three pawns against two, White can't really make much headway. 157

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

36 ttJd6 3 7 i.d3 ttJf5 38 i.C5 i.d4 39 i.b4 cJi>f6 40 i.d2 h5 41 cJi>e2 i.C5 42 i.c3+ i.d4 43 i.a5 i.C5 44 i.d8+ cJi>g7 45 i.C4 ttJd4+ 46 cJi>e1 ttJc6 47 i.g5 ttJd4 48 i.c1 i.b4+ 49 cJi>f1 i.c3 50 f4 ttJf5 51 cJi>f2 cJi>f6 52 i.d3 ttJd4 5 3 i.a 3 ttJf5 5 4 g4 hxg4 5 5 hxg4 ttJd4 56 g5+ cJi>f7 5 7 i.C4+ cJi>g7 58 i.C5 Gelfand examines 58 i.d6 ttJf5 59 i.e5+ i.xe5 60 fxe5 cJi>f8 61 i.d3 ttJe7 62 i.e4 cJi>f7 63 cJi>e3 ttJc8 64 cJi>d4 ttJb6 65 cJi>c5 cJi>e6! as also leading to a draw. 58 ttJf5 59 cJi>f3 i.b2 60 cJi>e4 ttJg3+ 61 cJi>f3 ttJf5 62 i.b6 i.c1 63 i.C7 i.d2 64 i.e5+ cJi>f8 6 5 i.b3 i.c1 66 cJi>g4 ttJe3+ 67 cJi>h3 ttJf5 68 i.e6 ttJg7 69 i.d6+ cJi>e8 70 i.c4 ttJf5 71 i.e5 cJi>f8 72 i.d3 cJi>f7 73 cJi>g4 ttJe3+ 74 cJi>f3 ttJf5 75 i.c4+ cJi>f8 76 cJi>e4 ttJg3+ 77 cJi>f3 ttJf5 78 i.e6 ttJg7 79 i.g4 cJi>f7 80 cJi>e4 ttJe6 Vz-Vz •••

•••

6.3 3 V.lvanchuk-S.Karjakin Wijk aan Zee 2006 In general, even with 4 vs 3 on the same side, the defence is probably favourite, but here Ivanchuk demonstrates that it is possi­ ble to win in certain circumstances. His king is particularly well placed and able to ad­ vance into Black's half of the board, and this seems to put an extra strain on Black's de­ fence. 158

38 cJi>f4 ttJe5?! Ivanchuk suggests that 38 ... i.d7 39 cJi>e3 cJi>f7 40 i.c5 ttJd8 41 i.c4+ 'it>e8 42 i.d6 ttJe6 is a better defence, when the final result would still be in doubt. 39 i.c7 i.d7 40 �e3 But not 40 i.xe5? g5+ 41 'it>e3 fxe5, which would almost certainly be drawn. 40 �f8 41 �d4 ttJf7 42 i.a 5 ttJe5 43 i.b4+ �e8 After 43 ... �f7, Ivanchuk considers 44 i.d2 �e7 45 f4 ttJc6+ 46 �d5 to be winning. White's advanced king will support the creation of a dangerous passed pawn. 44 �C5 ttJg6 45 i.d2 ttJe5 46 �d6 i.a4 47 f4 ttJf7+ 48 �c7 i.d7 49 i.b4 SLa4 50 i.C4 It's zugzwang, or thereabouts. Black is down to one remaining square for a piece move ... 50 ttJh8 ... that's it! Not surprisingly, as Black is so limited in what he can do, Ivanchuk finds a way to break through. He combines restric­ tion of the knight with the creation of a passed e-pawn. 51 g3 ttJf7 52 h4 ttJh8 53 i.d6 ttJg6 54 i.e2 ttJh8 55 i.c4 ttJg6 56 e5! fxe5 57 fxe5 ttJe7 58 e6 g6 Ivanchuk points out what's wrong with 58 ... ttJf5; i.e. 59 i.d3 ttJe7 60 i.. e5 �f8 61 h5 i.b3 62 i.d6 and Black loses his knight. 59 i.c5 ttJf5 60 i.d3 ttJe7 61 �d6 h5 62 �e5 •••

.••

Two B is h o p s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

tZifs 63 'it>f6 ..ie6 64 e7 1-0 With i.. c4-f7+ coming, Karjakin had had enough.

6. 34 G.Kasparov-A.Karpov Linares 1994

With all the pawns on the same side, it's rare that the bishop and knight can exploit an extra pawn. 34 f4 'it>d6 3 5 Wf3 fS 36 h4 ..ib2 37 g4 fxg4+ 38 Wxg4 tZif6+ 39 Wf3 tZidS 40 ..ie2 i..f6 41 hS Yz-Yz

6. 3 5 A.Karpov-V.Anand Moscow 2002

Karpov tried for a while this time, but wasn't able to win. 78 '>i;>f2 Wf7 79 ..ie3 ..id6 80 i.. d 4 i.. b 3 81 tZie3 ..if8 82 tZifs i.. d l 83 ..ie3 i.. a 4 84 ..if4 ..ies+ 85 Wg3 ..id7 86 i.. e 7 i.. b4 87 f4 ..ie6 88 Wf3 i.. d 2 89 ..id6 ..iel 90 ..ies ..ia8 91 ..id4 i.. a 3 92 ..ie3 ..ie6 93 i.. d 2 ..ies 94 i.. a s i.. a 4 9 5 i.. e 7 ..idl+ 96 Wg3 ..ie2 97 eS fxes 98 fxes .i.b3 99 ..id6 ..ib6 100 ..ib4 ..ie6 101 �f4 .i.a2 102 ..ie3 ..ie6 103 tZid6+ �g8 104 tZie4 i.. g l 105 i.. e l i.. b 6 106 gs hxgs+ 107 tZixgs ..ie8 108 .i.b4 i.. d 8 109 tZif3 ..ie6 110 tZid4 ..if7 111 Wg4 ..ib6 112 tZif3 .i.e6+ 113 �f4 i..f7 114 We4 Yz-Yz The final example kills two birds with one stone. Firstly it reminds us that even with symmetrical pawns the bishop pair can generate pressure, especially when the cen­ tre is so open. The knight is lacking any safe outposts in the central zone, so threats against both wings enable the bishop pair to keep a persistent advantage. However, there is another aspect to these positions that occasionally crops up, and one which deserves some further discussion: that is simplification to the theoretical pawnless NQE of two bishops vs knight. A pawnless Two Bishops versus Knight

6.3 6 L.OII-B.Gelfand Polanica Zdroj 1998 (see following diagram)

The pawns are symmetrical, but this doesn't stop Black creating winning chances. 37 ... We7 38 Wg3 'it>e6 39 Wf4 WdS 40 �e3 as 41 g4 ..id6+ 42 '>i;>e3 a4 43 ..if6 After the positionally suspect 43 a3?!, fix­ ing White's own pawns on dark squares, 1 59

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Black is able to simplify into a vastly supe­ rior bishop ending with 43 ... hxg4 44 hxg4 SLxf3 45 'it>xf3 'it>c4 46 SLf6 'it>d3 followed by ... SLc5-d4 etc.

g4 50 ttJe5+ 'it>g3 51 ttJd7 SLd4 is the right way forward. However, they fall short of judging the position as 'winning', as with so few pawns left there would still be drawing chances. 48 b3 a 3 Now 48 ... 'it>f5 i s less strong i n view o f 49 'it'd4. 49 ttJe4 SLe5 50 SLa 5 1 011 finds a way to keeps his hopes alive by winning the a-pawn. 50 'it>f5 51 ttJc3 SLc6 52 i.b4 'it>g4 53 'it>d3 1 'it>xh4 5 4 SLxa3 'it>g4 5 5 SLe7 h 4 56 SLxh4 'it>xh4 57 a4 Black's last pawn is exchanged, thus in­ creasing the chances of a draw. 57 bxa4 58 bxa4 .i. g2 59 C4 SLf1+ 60 'it>b3 'it>g5 61 a s 'it>f5 62 ttJa4 SLd4 63 ttJb2 'it>e6 64 c2 d 5 65 'it>b3 'it>c6 66 'it>c2 'it>b5 67 'it>b3 SLh3 68 a6 SLe6+ 69 'it>c2 xa6 •••

.••

43 ... b5 Gelfand and Huzman point out that simplification with 43 ...hxg4 44 hxg4 SLxf3 45 'it>xf3 SLe5 doesn't win, as White has 46 SLxe5! 'it>xe5 47 'it>e3 g5 48 b4! a3 49 b5 'it>d5 50 'it>d3 'it>c5 51 'it>c3 'it>xb5 52 'it>b3 with a draw. 44 ttJd2 SLg2 45 gxh5 gxh5 46 h4 'it>e6 The two analysts prefer 46 ...b4! 47 b3 a3 48 ttJc4 SLc5+ 49 'it>e2 .i.e4 as a better way to keep up the pressure. 47 SLd8

47 ... SLd5? Gelfand and Huzman criticize this move, claiming that 47 .. .'it'f5! 48 ttJf3 SLc5+ 49 e2 1 60

This rare NQE is winnable in theory but in many positions takes more than 50 moves. In the actual game Gelfand doesn't get very close to winning, which was proba­ bly for several reasons: time was short, all defends rather well and, in practice, being able to find a series of highly convoluted moves is far from easy. The fact that the FIDE rules of chess al­ low the defending player to claim a draw after 50 moves (without a pawn move or capture) means that those positions where

Two B is h op s v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s mate or the win of the knight requires more

8 0 �c2 �b4 81 �d3 (it's time to run to an­

chess time are a grey area. There are com­

other corner, but Black is able to frustrate the

posers and endgame specialists who put

setting up of the desired blockade; note that

considerable effort into this type of position, but as they occur quite rarely in over-the­

81 tiJb2 is even worse as Black quickly mates

board play, their work has little influence on practical players, even GMs. The NQE two bishops vs knight has a his­ tory. In the 19th century it was understood

with 81.. . .i.g6+ 82 �c1 �b3 etc) 8l.. ..i.g6+ 82 �e3 .i.c7 83 tiJf2 .i.b6+ 84 �f3 .i.h5+ 85 �g3 �c4 86 tiJg4 .i.c7+ 87 �h4 .i.g6 88 �g5 .i.d3 89 �f6 �d5 90 tiJe3+ �e4 91 tiJf5 .i.e5+ (just in time to stop the knight getting to g7 etc)

that the basic blockade of a knight on b2 (or

92 �g5 .i.c2 93 �g4 .i.c7 94 tiJg3+ �d4 95

b7, g7 or g2) supported by its king could be

tiJf5+ �e5 96 tiJh4 �e4 97 tiJf5 .i.d 1 + 98 �g5

unravelled, but it was believed that the de­ fending pieces could then escape in!o another corner and set up the same defensive posture; thus the result was judged to be a draw. Al­ though this was questioned in the 1970's, only in the eighties was it proven (with the

�e5 99 tiJg3 .i.d8+ 1 00 �g6 �e6 101 �h6

help of a computer, which had become suffi­ ciently advanced!) that in fact the bishops

1 1 2 tiJf2 and Black captures the knight with

.i.b6 102 �g5 .i.e3+ 103 �h4 .i.f2 104 �h3 .i.f3 (now it will cost White his knight's life if he wants to get out of the corner!) 105 �h4 �e5 106 �h3 �f4 107 tiJf1 .i.e1 108 tiJh2 .i.b7 109 tiJf1 �f3 1 1 0 tiJh2+ �f2 1 1 1 tiJg4+ �gl 1 12 ... �xf2 in less than 50 moves (count from

could actually frustrate this defensive set-up

move 70) and therefore is winning. He can

and win, but it often takes 60-odd moves to mate. (According to Nunn in 1995, as many as 66 moves may be necessary.) Now in the 21st century, anyone who has installed the Nalimov Tablebases has this information at their fingertips. I've decided not to go into any great detail as it has lim­

then mate as in example 1 .2.

ited practical relevance, but at least to give my computer's proposed 'best' moves to show how a win is possible from this actual position.

70 tiJa4 �b5 First of all, in order to win, the bishops manoeuvre to enable their king to approach the corner: 70 ... .i.c4 71 tiJb2 .i.f1 72 tiJd3 �b5 73 tiJb2 .i.e2 74 tiJd3 .i.f3 75 tiJb2 .i.f6 76 �b3 i.e5 77 �c2 .i.e4+ 78 �b3 .i.g6 79 tiJd1 .i.f7+

71 tiJb2 .i.g8 72 tiJd1 �b4 7 3 �d3 .i.f6 74 'it>e4 �C5 75 tiJe3 .i.d4 76 �f4 .i.f6 77 tiJ g2 �d4 78 �f3 .i.d5+ 79 �f2 �e4 80 � g3 .i.e5+ 81 �2 .i.b7 82 tiJh4 .i.C7 83 tiJg2 �f5 84 tiJe3+ �f4 85 tiJ g2+ �g4 86 tiJe3+ �h3 87 tiJd1 .i.f4 88 �e2 �g3 89 �d3 �f3 90 Wc2 �e2 91 tiJC3+ �e1 92 'it>b3 �d2 93 �C4 i.. e 3 94 tiJa4 .i.c6 95 tiJC5 .i. g2 96 tiJb3+ �C2 97 tiJd4+ �b2 "98 �d3 .i. g5 99 �e2 .i.d5 100 tiJf3 .i.f6 101 �f2 �C3 102 �g3 �d3 103 tiJh4 �e2 104 tiJf5 .i.e6 105 �f4 .i.d7 106 tiJg3+ �d3 107 tiJf5 �C4 108 tiJe3+ �d4 109 tiJg2 �d3 110 �f3 .i.c6+ 111 �f2 .i. g5 112 tiJe1+ �e4 113 tiJg2 'it>f5 114 �g3 Y2-Y2 The fifty moves are almost up and Black hasn't made much progress.

161

C h a pt e r S eve n

I

Ot h er Do u b l e M i n or Piece Co m b i natio n s

Here we will examine examples where both players have two minor pieces, but which don't feature a bishop pair. Examples where at least one player had a pair of bishops were covered in Chapter Six. The relative frequency of the seven possible double minor piece NQEs are as follows.

.i.+.i. v lLl+.i. lLl+.i. v lLl+.i. (same colour) lLl+.i. v lLl+.i. (opposite colour) lLl+.i. v lLl+lLl

2600+ games

My database

328

28

322

34

149

15

130

18

.i.+.i. v .i.+.i.

52

5

.i.+Ji. v lLl+lLl

45

3

lLl+lLl v lLl+lLl

22

3

4.1 %

4.1%

Total % of database

We can conclude that 1 game in 25 will reach the stage of some sort of double minor piece NQE. Of these the chances are that a pair of knights occurs less frequently than a pair of bishops. However, those NQEs featuring a bishop and knight duo for at least one side are the most cornmon. In Chapter Six we looked at those cases where at least one side has a bishop pair, includ­ ing the notorious (and just about the most common) case of two bishops vs knight and bishop. Here we will look at the other four cases. Double knight NQEs are rare and, in my experience, seem often to lead to a quick exchange of one pair of knights, thus simplifying to a pure knight ending. With knight and bishop vs knight pair, again simplification is a typical ploy. One problem for the knight pair when they have the advantage is the possibility of defensive piece sacri­ fices, as two knights vs bare king is drawn. Overall, positional factors such as pawn structure are important and the knight pair as a rule seems to be the equaf of the mixed pair. The subtleties of knight and same-coloured bishop each involves judging such factors as bet­ ter pawns, space and the more active king, as well as the relative activity of the minor pieces

1 62

Oth e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

themselves. The likelihood o f a pair o f minor pieces being exchanged i s fairly high in practi­ cal play. The addition of a pair of knights, compared to pure opposite bishop endings, tends to give the stronger side more winning chances in the NQE of knight and opposite-coloured bishop each. Nevertheless, one extra pawn is often insufficient to win, especially if the defender is able to continually parry threats with the offer of exchanging knights! If the stronger side has been able to work the pawn structure and obtain the potential for a second passed pawn, it may then be in his interest to seek piece exchanges.

Two Knights each Most experienced chess players know that exploiting an extra pawn in an ending is often simplest with no pieces at all on the board, i.e. in a king and pawn ending. In general, the second most advantageous pawn-up ending for the stronger player is with knights. Apart from their rarity, probably the main feature of double knight NQEs is the possibility of the exchange of a pair of pieces into a pure knight ending. This doesn't al­ ways benefit the stronger side, as we will see in example 7.1 . Black avoids this possibility at first, only to find himself obliged to ex­ change knights later in a lost position; whereas we notice, in the notes to move 39, that he could have permitted it on his own terms.

the defender is left with a blockaded pawn then there are nevertheless winning chances! Some endgame theorists have spent years studying ltJ+ltJ v pawn, though it occurs only rarely in practice. The winning technique might be laborious but it is understandable: one knight blocks the pawn whilst the king and other knight shepherd the defending king into a comer (see the note to move 42 for an example). Then, when the defending king is securely penned in, the blockading knight rushes across to help deliver mate. The fact that the defender is left with a free pawn avoids any possible stalemate defence (see 7.3a), the main reason why ltJ+ltJ v bare king is drawn.

7.1 R.Ponomariov-J.Timman Pamplona 2005 There are very few pawns remalrung, which naturally gives Black drawing chances. For instance, the possibility of giv­ ing up a piece for both of White's pawns crops up in the notes to move 39. As a gen­ eral rule, Black would certainly be on the lookout for the possibility of eliminating any remaining white pawns, even if this costs a piece or two, as the ending of ltJ+ltJ v bare king is drawn (see example 7.3). However, if

3 5 ltJf7 36 ltJh5 �e6 37 �d4 ltJfe5 38 ltJf2 ltJf3+ 39 �e3 ltJfe5? A decisive error according to Ponom­ ariov, who instead gives 39 ... ltJg5. White would then have to exchange a pair of knights if he expects to shift the blockading knights: 40 ltJf4+ ltJxf4 41 �xf4 ltJf7, and now •..

1 63

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

the main point of this defensive set-up can be seen after the continuation 42 g5 liJxg5! 43 xg5 d5 44 liJd3 d4 with a draw. White could try 42 e4, but it's hard to imagine him being able to make progress against a resolute defence such as 42 ... liJg5+ 43 d4 liJf3+ 44 e3 liJg5 45 liJe4 liJf7 46 d4 liJh6 47 liJf2 liJf7. 40 e4 liJd7 41 liJd3 liJgfS Even 41 ...liJf6+!? 42 liJxf6 xf6 43 liJb4 liJe7 doesn't look that straightforward for White. 42 g5 f7 After 42 ... tDh7 43 tDhf4+ f7 44 g6+ f6 45 gxh7 liJxc5+ (if 45 ... g7 White should win with 46 tDg6 xh7 47 liJge5 liJf6+ 48 f5 liJd5 49 liJxc6 as Black cannot eliminate the final pawn) 46 liJxc5, we arrive at this rare, but notorious material disposition. Here, since the black pawn is blockaded far enough back, White has enough time to force mate; for example 46 ... g7 47 f5 xh7 48 e6 g7 49 e7 h6 50 f6 h7 51 liJfe6 h6 52 liJg7 h7 53 liJf5 g8 54 e7 h7 55 f7 h8 and now 56 liJe4 c5 57 liJf6 c4 58 liJe7 c3 59 liJg6 mate. 43 liJhf4 gS 44 f5 g7 44 .. liJh7 loses simply to 45 liJe6 h8 46 liJe5. 45 liJe6+ Simplifying under very favourable cir­ cumstances. White's king has already in­ vaded and he is able to retain at least one pawn in all lines. 45 ... liJxe6 46 xe6 liJfS+ The desperate 46 ... liJxc5+ 47 liJxc5 g6 is clearly hopeless after 48 liJe4. 47 e7 liJh7 4S liJf4! 1-0 48 ...liJxg5 now fails to 49 tDe6+, as the king and pawn ending is a trivial win for White. .

In the following high-level encounter the defender was able to successfully eliminate all the remaining pawns. 1 64

7.2 A.Karpov-V.Korchnoi World Championship (8th matchgame), Merano 1981

54 ...liJdb6 5 5 liJf4 fS 56 d3 liJcS Aiming to blockade the e7-square. 57 tDg4 e7 5S tDh6 d6 59 d4 If 59 liJf5+ then 59 ... e5 is possible. 59 ... liJe7 60 liJf7+ C7 61 liJh5 c5+! A fine move that leads to the liquidation of the queenside. 62 bXC5 liJc6+ 63 e3 After 63 e4 liJxc3+ 64 Wf5, Black would have no qualms in pushing with 64 ...b4. 63 ... liJxC5 64 liJxf6 liJxe6 65 h 5 The best chance to maintain some pres­ sure. 65 ... liJfS 66 e4 b6 67 liJg5 h6 6S liJf7 liJe6 69 liJeS In order to cover the g7-square. Instead, 69 liJxh6 liJg7 70 liJf5 liJxh5 71 liJxh5 would be the obvious continuation, but this only leads to a draw after 71 ...b4 72 c4 b3 73 d3 b2 74 c2 bl 'iV+ 75 xbl liJa5, as mentioned by Polugaevsky in his notes. 69 ... liJc5+ 70 e3 liJa4 71 d2 b4 72 cxb4 liJxb4 73 liJxh6 Black now seems to be able to get back in time. 7 3 ...liJc5 74 liJf5 liJd5 7 5 h6 liJe4+ 76 d3

Oth e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

liJg 5 7 7 'iio> d 4 'iio> c 6 78 liJfg7 liJe7 79 liJf6 liJg6 80 liJf5 liJf7 81 h7 liJg5 82 liJe7+ 'iio> b 7 83 liJxg6 liJxh7 84 liJxh7 Yz-Yz A book draw despite the two extra pieces.

7. 3 Two knights versus bare king

White would have the necessary time to engineer a mate: 1 liJh7 a2 2 liJhf6+ 'iio> h 8 3 liJe5 a1"it' 4 liJf7 mate! The following example demonstrates some interesting manoeuvring before sim­ plification eventually takes place. The timing of any possible exchanges naturally requires the players to assess their prospects in the resulting knight ending.

7.4 L.Van Wely-A.Dreev Khanty Mansyisk 2005

Even if White were able to get the follow­ ing sort of position there is still no win: 1 liJf6+ 'iio>f8 and there's no mate. Few people would fall for 1 ...'iio>h8?? 2 liJf7 mate.

7.3a Two knights versus king a n d pawn However, with a black pawn on a3 ...

48 cxd4 49 liJa4 Van Wely prefers to allow Black to retain his extra doubled d-pawn, since the alterna­ tive 49 'iio> xfl dxc3 50 liJxc3 d4 51 liJe4+ 'iio>d5 52 lDd2 lDb5 gives Black a clearly favourable knight ending. 49 liJh2 50 liJf2 liJa6 51 liJb2 liJb4 52 a4 liJa2 53 'iio> d 2 liJf3+ 54 'iio> e 2 liJh2 55 'iio>d 2 liJC3 56 liJbd3 The pair of defending knights seem able to keep everything, including king penetra­ tion, covered for the moment. 56 liJf1+ 57 'iio> e 1 liJe3 58 'iio> d 2 as 59 'iio>e 1 'iio> c 6 60 'iio>d 2 b5 61 axb5+ 'iio>x b5 62 'iio>c 1 liJe4 63 'iio> b 2 lDd2 It's premature to exchange a pair of •••

•.•

•••

1 65

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

knights, as after 63 ... ttJxf2 64 ttJxf2 a4 (or 64 ...'itb4 65 ttJd3+ 'itb5 66 ttJf2) 65 'ita3 White holds firm. Dreev later employs a plan in­ volving ... ttJd6, but first places his king on a less vulnerable square. 64 ttJel 'ites 65 ttJed3+ 'ite6 66 ttJel 'itbs 67 ttJed3 ttJe4 68 d7 52 e5! �g4 If 52 ... �xa2 White mates with 53 lLlf5! c2 54 lLld6 c1 'it' 55 e81li'+ Wc7 56 'iVc8+ �b6 57 'tiib7+ Wc5 58 it'b5. 53 Wd4 �dl 54 WXC3 �a4 5 5 Wd4 We6 56 lLld 5 �f5 57 WC5 �e5 58 a 3 We6 59 lLlC7+ Wxf6 60 e8'iV �xe8 61 lLlxe8+ We6 62 Wb5 We5 63 Wxa 5 f5 64 lLlg7 1-0 For the record, after 64 ... f4 65 lLlh5 f3 66 Wb6 f2 67 lLlg3 Wf4 68 lLlfl the a-pawn will promote, while the knight takes care of the f­ pawn.

7 .6 A.Alekhine-S_Reshevsky Nottingham 1936

played and White should be able to defend, despite the bad bishop. 36 ... fxe5 37 lLlxe5 lLlc2 38 i.b2 lLlcxb4! There's no reason not to take this pawn, as discovered checks lead nowhere. 39 We2 Wg8 40 g3 lLle7 41 lLlf3 lLled5 42 lLlg5 lLlC7 43 We3 lLlc6 44 f4 h6 45 lLlf3 Black's loose-looking pawns will need at­ tention if he hopes to win. 45 ... Wf7 46 Wd3 lLld5 Yet again it's noteworthy how the knight pair cover so many squares. White's more active king can't cause any damage. 47 �cl lLlf6 48 �b2 lLld7 49 �a 3? A further slip. He shouldn't really allow Black to free himself with the following move ... 49 ... e5! 50 We3 We6 5 1 �b2 Wd5 5 2 lLlh4 lLlb6! 53 �cl lLlc4+ 54 Wf2 lLlb4 Threatening another annoying fork. 5 5 We2 lLla2 56 �d2 b4 57 fxe5 b3 58 Wdl lLlxe5 59 lLlg2 We4 60 h4 lLld3 61 �a5 lLlb2+ 0-1 After 62 We2, Black wins with 62 ... lLlc4 followed by ...b2.

7.7 P _Leko-G_Giorgadze European Team Championship, Batumi 1999

White suffers from vulnerable pawns on b3 and e5. 31 �d2 lLle7 32 Wfl lLld4 33 b4 lLld5 A centralized knight pair do cover an awful lot of important squares! 34 lLlc5 b5 3 5 lLld3 f6 36 �Cl? A poor move from such a highly-ranked player. Instead, 36 f4 should have been 1 68

Here is a typical 'good knight vs bad

O t h e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

bishop' scenario with an extra pair of knights. 41 �g4 ttJg7 42 ttJ2g3 �f7 43 b3 i.e7 44 h 5 gxh 5+ Wedberg analyses 44 ...ttJe8 when White has to avoid a small trap: 45 hxg6+? �xg6 46 ttJf5? i.xg5! 47 ttJxg5? ttJf6+ 48 �h4 �xf5. However, after 45 h6! we note that Black's knight is somewhat short of moves! Not sur­ prisingly he is in trouble; for example, 45 ... i.d8 46 ttJc3 i.e7 47 ttJb5 i.d8 48 ttJa7 i.e7 49 ttJc6 i.f8 50 ttJe4, and Black is well and truly tied up. White can win at leisure by switching flanks with his king and, after playing b3-b4 etc, his monarch can penetrate via b5-a6-b7-c8-d7. 45 ttJxh 5 ttJxh5 46 �xh5 Black is defenceless on the light squares. 46 � g 7 47 g 6

Giorgadze now realized that after 51...�g7 52 ttJg5 e2 53 ttJf3 the knight gets back in time.

7.8 E.Bareev-R.Vaganian FIDE World Championship, New Delhi 2000

..•

47 ... i.f8 More resistant is 47 ... i.d8 48 ttJg3 i.f6 49 ttJf5+ �g8, but again White wins by invad­ ing with his king: 50 �g4! (50 �h6 e4 51 g7 e3 52 �g6 i.xg7! is less clear) 50 ... �f8 51 ttJg3 �g7 52 �f5 i.h4 53 ttJh5+ �g8 (or 53 ...�h6 54 ttJf6 i.e1 55 ttJe8) 54 �e6 e4 55 �d7 e3 56 ttJf4 �g7 57 �xc7 i.g5 58 ttJe2 �xg6 59 'it>xd6 �f5 60 �c7 �e4 61 d6 �d3 62 ttJg1 i.f4 63 �c6 �c2 64 d7 i.g5 65 �xb6 �xb3 66 c5 etc. 48 ttJg5 �6 49 ttJe6 e4 50 ttJxf8 e3 5 1 ttJh7+ 1-0

Here Black doesn't have such a bad bishop, but is still rather cramped. Bareev exploits this by aiming to place a knight on e6 to dominate the bishop. 42 f5! ! Liberating the f4-square for use by the d3-knight. 42 ... e5 Dautov shows the problems with the al­ ternatives: a) 42 ... gxf5 43 ttJf4 e5 44 ttJe6 exd4 45 �g2 and the bishop is lost. b) 42 ... exf5 43 ttJf4 ttJa6 44 ttJe6 i.c7 45 ttJe7 and although Black has saved his bishop, his pieces are still tied up. Now ttJxc6 is coming and the other black queen­ side pawns will quickly follow, while any counterplay following 45 ... g5 is insufficient to save the game; e.g. 46 ttJxc6 g4+ 47 �g2 f4 48 ttJe7 f3+ 49 �gl i.b8 50 ttJxd5. 43 dxe5 fxe5 44 ttJxe5 i.f6 44 ... gxf5? loses immediately to 45 ttJf7+. 45 ttJg4+ �g7 46 fxg6 �xg6 47 h5+ �g7 48 1 69

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

h6+ �g6 49 tDxf6 �xf6

50 tDe7! A delightful move that stymies up both of Black's pieces. 50 ... d4 51 �g3 1-0 When the knight pair is trying to win, one defensive idea is to sacrifice both minor pieces for the remaining pawns.

time for h3-h4, g2-g3 and tDf3-d4. Now Black succeeds in exchanging more pawns. 43 fxg5 fxg5 44 g3 .te8 45 tDe4 tDe7 46 �d4 .txh3 47 tDfxg5 .tf1 48 tDd2 .te2 49 tDh3 tDa6 50 tDf4 .tb5 5 1 �e3 �f6 52 tDe4+ �f5 ! Cool hand Jean-Luc shows the way to draw. 53 tDd6+ �g4 54 tDxb5 tDxb4 Not totally necessary but emphasizing the point. 5 5 'ii;>x b4 �xg3 With a clear draw as the h-pawn cannot be blockaded. 56 tDxh 5+ �f3 Yz-Yz Naturally there are many examples where the side with the bishop has the ad­ vantage. Note that these are not necessarily in 'open' positions.

7 . 10 V.Sergievsky-V.Korchnoi Sochi 1966

7.9 G.Flear-J.L.Chabanon Montauban 2000

My outside passed pawn proved insuffi­ cient for victory. 36 f4 �f6 37 �f2 �e7 38 tDb5 tDe5 39 tDe3 .tb7 40 b4 tDe6 41 �e3 f6 42 tDf3 g5 A pre-emptive strike before White has 1 70

Although the position is fairly closed, White lacks good squares for his knights and has no real counterplay. The deciding factor in Black's favour is his significant space advantage. Over the next few moves Korchnoi manoeuvres with his knight and king, and by threatening to invade forces White totally on the defensive.

Oth e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

34 ltJe7 3 5 ltJb5 ltJd5 36 'iitf2 'iit e 7 3 7 ltJC4 'it'd7 38 'iitf1 ltJb4 39 ltJba3 'iit c 6 40 'iit e 2 ltJd 5 Threatening ... ltJxf4 followed by ... g3. 41 'iitf2 ltJc3 Now White is denied b5, his one active square. 42 'iite 1 'iit C 5 43 ltJd2 'iit b4 44 ltJab1 ltJd 5 45 lLlf1 ltJe3 46 ltJxe3 dxe3 47 'iit e 2 .i.d4 0-1 •••

3 0 a4 would be a good prophylactic move, to stop Black's knight coming to b5. 30 ... ltJb5 31 ltJd1 c5 32 a4 ltJc7 33 'iite 2?! Bringing the king to the centre, but ne­ glecting the need to improve the position of his knights. White should really go for 33 ltJfe3 'iit c6 34 ltJf5, when his defence would be solid. 3 3 ...ltJe6 34 'iit d 3 'iitc 6 3 5 ltJde3 .i.C7 Vacating the f4-square for his knight. 36 ltJd2? This allows a neat combination. 36 ...ltJf4+ 37 'iit c 2

There is nothing White can do against ... c6, followed by ...b5, creating a passed a­ pawn.

7 . 11 E.Sergeant-J.R.Capablanca Margate 1935

37 ...ltJxg 2 ! 0-1 A deadly surprise! After 38 ltJxg2 h3 the pawn gets through. White's naIve defending was severely punished, but it shows the danger of allowing one's forces to become uncoordinated.

7 . 12 B.Larsen-J.Timman Tilburg 1979 (see following diagram) In order to make progress in this position

Here Black's good bishop and slightly better pawn structure give him an edge. 28 ... 'iit d 7 29 f3 b6 30 'iitf2

White needs to reorganize his pieces and prepare the central advance e3-e4. Then, with fluid pawns, the bishop will come into its own. 1 71

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

easy win. 54 .te3 'itt e 6 5 5 f41 With Black temporizing and White fully mobilized, it's time for further expansion. 5 5 dxe4+ 55 ... 'itt d 6 would be answered by 56 e5+ 'iit c6 57 f5. 56 �xe4 'iitd 6 .••

45 ttJh3 'ittd 6 46 'itt d 3 ttJf8 47 ttJf4 ttJe6 48 ttJe2 1 White isn't ready to exchange knights. As a general rule, unless the stronger side has something concrete, exchanges often ease the defence. 48 �e6 49 e4 f6 50 .td2 'itt d 6 51 a4 Now that everything is more or less un­ der control, Larsen pushes back the b5knight, freeing his own knight from the de­ fence of d4 for a more active role. 51 ttJbe7 52 ttJe3 'itt e 6 .•.

•••

57 .tel Bringing the bishop to a formidable di­ agonal. 57 ...'itt d 7 58 .ta3 'itt e 8 Black hurries to avoid having to face .tfB, but in response White switches his king to the queenside. 59 d 5 ttJd8 After 59 ... ttJc5+ 60 .txc5 bxc5 61 'ittd3 Black is unable to defend his c-pawn for long; i.e. 61...'ittd 7 62 'ittc4 'itt d 6 63 ttJe4+. 60 'itt d 4 'itt d 7 61 'itt e4 Naturally not 61 .tfB? due to 61...ttJde6+! . 61 ttJe8 After 61...'itteB simplest is 62 ttJb5, e.g. 62 ... ttJa6 63 ttJd6+ �d7 64 ttJf5. 62 ttJe4 ttJf7 63 .tf8 ttJd8 As Larsen notes, other moves are no bet­ ter: 63 ... ttJfd6+ 64 .txd6 ttJxd6+ 65 ttJxd6 �xd6 66 �b5 wins, or if 63 . . 5.tc7 then 64 �b5 and d5-d6 is coming. 64 ttJg3 1-0 The knight has f5 in its sights, when Black's kingside will collapse. ••.

53 h 5 1 Fixing Black's pawns o n the potentially vulnerable dark squares. 53 ...'ittd 6 As Larsen points out in his notes, after 53 ... ttJg5 54 exd5+ ttJxd5 55 ttJxd5 'ittxd5 56 .txg5 hxg5 57 'ittc3 the pawn ending is an 1 72

O t h e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e C o m b i n a t io n s

7 . 13 H.Happel-Ci.Flear Pierrevert 2003

Despite Black having an extra pawn is­ land and a potentially bad bishop, he is much better because White's weaknesses on b5 and e3 are more important. 38 �b4? This natural move (keeping Black's king out of c5) seems to be a decisive error. In­ stead, White should hold after the solid 38 �c3, e.g. 38 ... �c5 39 lLlf4 .Jtd7 40 lLld3+ 'it>d6 41 lLlb2. 38 ... lLlc4 39 lLlc2 .JtfS 40 lLled4 After 40 e4 Black has a neat piece sacri­ fice: 40 ... dxe4! 41 'it>xc4 exf3 and then 42 gxf3 is objectively best, although after 42 ... .Jtxc2 White has a rotten position. 40 .Jtd3 White's knights soon run out of moves. 41 lLlel .Jtfl 42 lLldc2 b6 43 f4 hS 44 g3 f6 4S h4 If 45 lLlf3, then 45 ... .Jtg2 46 lLlfd4 .Jte4 leads to zugzwang; for example, 47 'it>a4 .Jtxc2+ 48 lLlxc2 'it>c5 and something has to give. 4s lLld2 46 lLld4 .Jth3 47 lLlef3 lLlfl 0-1

7 . 14 Ci.Flear-A.Petrossia n Marseilles 2005

3 3 a4 lLlh7 34 a s lLla8 Other moves are no better: 34 ... lLlc8 35 lLlb5 lLlxg5 36 lLlc7 etc, or 34 ... lLld7 35 lLlb5! axb5 36 cxb5 lLlxg5 37 b6 lLlb8 (or 37 ... �f6 38 .Jtxg5+ �xg5 39 'it>c4) 38 .Jtxg5 'it>xg5 39 �c4 and wins. 3 S lLlbSI axbs 36 cxbS The queenside pawns are too strong for Black's knights. 36 lLlc7 37 'it>C4 lLlf8 38 b6 lLla6 39 �bS lLlb8 40 a6 lLlxa6 41 'it>xa6 lLld7 42 b7 1-0 •.•

The next example shows that the bishop can often be placed at a distance and still be influential.

•••

•.•

In minor piece endings piece sacrifices to

break through shouldn't come as a surprise.

7.15 Ci.Flear-S.Vijayalakshmi Marseille 2005 (see following diagram)

In order to reduce the pressure, my op­ ponent decided that it was necessary to ex­ change rooks. 46 .. Jlb7?1 1 73

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Losing without a fight. .Instead, 48 ... lDe8 49 lDb5+ (Fritz suggests 49 f5 breaking up Black's pawns; in particular the d5-pawn is then very weak) 49 ... 'iii c5 (after 49 ... 'iii c6 50 lDd4+ 'iii xb6 51 lDxe6 White would also have excellent winning chances) 50 lDc7 lDg7 51 lDa8 (of course! where else!?) 51...lDe8 52 �a6 lDed6 53 �xb7 lDxb7 54 'it>c3 e5 55 lDr.7 and White seems well on the way to victory. 49 �a6 'iit"c 6 50 �xb7+ 'iiix b7 51 a 5 lDxb6 52 axb6 'iiix b6 53 f5 exf5 54 lDxd 5+ 'iiiC 5 5 5 lDxf6 'iii d 6 56 'it> d 3 'iii e 5 5 7 lDh5 1-0 After the best defence, 46 ... .l:1a8! 47 l:ha8 lDxa8, the knight pair seems to be able to hold White up on the queenside. However, there is always the other fl ank ... 48 'iiie 1 ! ! . I must admit that I only found this idea the next day! Post-mortem analysis of direct attempts to win on the queenside seemed only to show that Black's pieces could blockade and hold their ground. So, as I was both frustrated and curious that the pawn advantage and connected passed pawns didn't seem to enable White to win, I kept analysing. In fact the entry of the king into Black's kingside should finally tip the bal­ ance in White's favour: 48 ...lDb7 49 'iii f2 lDb6 50 'iii g3 'iii c5 51 'iiiM 'iiib4 52 lDdl 'iii xa4 53 'iiih5 and the h-pawn will be the hero. 47 l:bb7 lDxb7 48 b6

48 ... lDa8? 1 74

With the pawns only on one fl ank the stronger sides winning chances shouldn't be underestimated.

7 .16 E.Bareev-I.Sokolov Sarajevo 2003

Bareev decides to advance his pawns be­ fore Black can play ... g6, but then they lack the support of their king. 31 f5 1? lD8d7 3 2 lDd3 32 lDxd7 lDxd7 33 f4 is unlikely to win taking into account the WRP. 32 ...f6 33 f4 fxe5 34 fxe5 g61 50kolov must react before his opponent has time to bring his king to f4 or d4. 35 f6 'iitf7 36 'iitf2 h5 37 'iii g 3 After 37 M lDxe5! 38 lDxe5+ 'iii xf6 39 lDf3

Oth e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

ctJc4 Black i s also favourite to draw. 37 ... g5 38 .i.c6 �e6 39 .i.b5 �f5 40 �f2 Although 40 f7 is tempting, after 40 ...ctJfS (but not 40 ... �e6? 41 ctJc5+!) 41 h4 gxh4+ 42 'iiifxh4 �e6 43 .i.eS ctJc4 44 �xh5 ctJxe5 45 ctJxe5 �xe5 46 �g5 'it>e6 47 �h6 �f6 Black draws easily. 40 ... ctJxe5 41 ctJxe5 'it>xf6 Black only has one pawn for the piece, but the remaining white pawn is the notori­ ous wrong rook's pawn, which means that the exchange of knights leads to a draw. Bareev didn't find a way to make any pro­ gress. 42 ctJd3 ctJd5 43 �g3 ctJc3 44 .i.c6 ctJe2+ 45 'iiif h 2 �f5 46 ctJe1 ctJd4 47 .i.b7 �f4 48 ctJg2+ �e5 49 .i.a6 ctJf3+ 50 �g3 ctJh4 Yz-Yz

47 ...ctJg7 48 g4 Gaining space and exchanging off the WRP. 48 ... hxg4 49 hxg4 ctJge8 50 .i.c4 ctJg7 51 'it>e4 ctJge8 52 .i.f1 ctJe6 If 52 ... f6, then 53 .i.c4 fxe5 54 fxe5 keeps up the pressure. 53 f5 gxf5+ 54 gxf5 ctJC5+ 55 �d4 ctJb3+ 56 WC3 ctJC5 57 .i.b5 The inaccurate 57 f6+? allows Black to get counterplay with 57 ... �e6. 57 ... ctJd7 58 �d4 f6

7 .17 D.Anic-G.Flear French League 1999

With all the pawns on the same side and White having the wrong rook's pawn, I felt that I had good drawing chances, but I al­ most lost! 40 ... ctJd4 41 .i.e4 �8 42 ctJd7+ �e7 43 ctJf6 h5 44 �2 ctJde6 45 �e3 ctJg7 46 .i.d3 ctJge8 47 ctJh7 My opponent doesn't want to exchange a pair of knights yet. Retaining pieces gives him more options.

After 5S ... ctJc7 59 f6+ �eS 60 .i.c4 I quite fancied White's chances of winning. 59 .i.xd7? In time trouble Anic gets confused. Cor­ rect was 59 e6! ctJd6! 60 exd7! ctJxb5+ 61 �c5 ctJc7 62 ctJxf6! and White should win. 59 ...�xd7 60 ctJxf6+ The other try 60 exf6 ctJd6 61 �e5 ctJf7+ 62 Wf4 �eS only draws because of the bad situation of White's knight. 60 ...ctJxf6 61 exf6 �e8 62 �d 5 �f7 63 �e5 �f8 64 We6 Yz-Yz So it seems that, even with the pawns on one flank and the presence of a WRP, the stronger side has good winning chances with knight, bishop and extra pawn vs two knights. A lack of space was certainly one factor in the problems I faced in example 7.17.

1 75

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Kn ight a n d opposite-colou red Bistlop each Naturally there are a number of characteris­ tics associated with pure opposite-coloured bishop endings, but the presence of a pair of knights complicates any generalities. The principle idea (as in the simplified version) still seems to be the stronger side obtaining two passed pawns. If this is achievable then the exchange of knights is acceptable for the stronger player. On the other hand, the de­ fender may profit from this exchange, par­ ticularly if he is facing only one passed pawn and has no secondary weaknesses.

7 .18 G.Flear-J.Campos Moreno Palma de Mallorca 1991

pawns and so retains good winning chances) 42 ... 'it>f6 43 gxh5 iLxb3, when Black's passed pawns are more dangerous. 42 iLg3 gxf3+ 43 ttJxf3 i.xb3 44 iLC7 'it>e6 45 iLxb6 'iii'd 5 46 'it>d2 iLxa4 Despite the two pawn deficit there are few realistic winning chances with opposite bishops. What makes it worse for Black is that he has the WRP. 47 'it>C3 iLd1 48 ttJd2 a4 49 ttJC4 ttJb4 Or 49 ... iLe2 50 ttJe3+ 'it>d6 51 ttJf5+ 'it>e5 52 ttJe3 and the c-pawn is difficult to save. 50 ttJe3+ 'it>c6 51 iLxC5 'it>xC5 52 ttJxd1 ttJd 5+ 53 'it>c2 'it>b4 54 ttJb2 ttJe3+ 55 'it>b1 Yz-Yz The presence of passed pawns is almost always significant, even if they can't easily be advanced due to the opponent's domi­ nation of one colour complex.

7 . 19 P .Leko-M.Krasenkow European Team Championship, Batumi 1999

This is one of my favourite saves. White is just about to cave in on the queenside: the b3-pawn is about to go and a4 will follow. However, I found a way to generate some confusion on the dark squares ... 41 g4+!! Desperately hoping to snatch the b6pawn! 41 hxg4?! Perhaps Black should have tried 41 ...'it>g5! 42 iLe3+ (if 42 iLg3 h4 43 i.c7 iLxb3 44 iLxb6 c4, Black has widely-spaced passed •••

1 76

Despite the fact that White has the sig­ nificant advantage of an outside passed pawn, Krasenkow manages to draw. 41 a4 iLd2 42 ttJd 5 'it>f8 43 'it>gl ttJd3 44 iLC2 ttJC5 45 'it>f2 h6 46 'it>e2 i.g5 47 g3 Rogozenko thinks that the immediate 47 a5 should be met by walking the king to the

O t h e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

a-file, the defensive plan that was also suc­ cessful in the game; for instance, 47 ... 'ite8 48 ..td3 'itd7 49 a6 'itc8 (not 49 ... 'itc6? as White promotes the a-pawn after the pretty 50 ..tb5+!) 50 ..tb5 'itb8 51 lLlb4 e8 Obviously 62 .....txc4? loses to 63 Wxh7 followed by the advance of the h-pawn. 63 tiJf4 ..te2

64 ..txf6?! An attractive move, the idea being to break into Black's camp with his king, but it's probably not good enough against the best defence. Another interesting and more convincing piece offer is 64 tiJg6! as 64 ... hxg6 65 hxg6 ..td3 66 g7 tiJxg7 67 Wxg7 Wc7 (or 67 ... ..txc4 68 ..txd6) 68 ..txf6 ..txc4 69 e7 ..txb5 70 Wf7 seems to clearly win. 64 tiJxf6 65 Wg7 tiJe8+ 66 Wf7 tiJe7 The other try is 66 ... Wd8, but Kramnik shows that White should then be able to win: 67 e7+ Wd7 68 tiJe6 ..tdl 69 tiJf8+ Wc8 70 h6 (70 Wxe8? ..txh5+ would be embarrass­ ing) 70 ... ..th5+ 71 Wg8 tiJf6+ 72 Wg7, winning the h-pawn and ultimately the game after some further tricky manoeuvring: 72 ... tiJe8+ 73 Wxh7 ii.f7 74 Wh8 Wc7 75 tiJe6+! Wd7 76 tiJg7 tiJf6 77 tiJf5 tiJe8 78 h7 ..tg6 79 Wg8 tiJf6+ 80 Wg7 ..txh7 81 Wxf6 ..txf5 82 Wxf5 r3;xe7 83 r3;g6. 67 e7 h6 68 tiJe6 ..td1 The point being that 69 tiJxc7?? would be refuted by the intermediate 69 ... ..txh5+. 69 Wg6 tiJe8 70 tiJf8 Saving the e-pawn and getting ready to •••

1 79

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

capture on h6. However, Black hasn't yet said his last word ... 70 iLe2 71 'it>xh6 iLXC4 72 'it>g6 iLxdS!? After 72... iLd3+! 73 'it>f7 c4 there would still be good drawing chances: 74 'it>xeS c3 75 'it>f7 iLxb5 76 h6 c2 77 h7 c1 it' 7S hSit' "iif4+ 79 'it>e6 iLeS etc. 73 h6 ..•

32 iLC2 4:JC3 3 3 iLb3 iLe7 34 4:Jes f6 3 5 4:Jc6 iLd6 36 h 3 White will send his king over to the other wing once everything is neat and tidy on the kingside. 36 'it>f8 37 'it>fl .ics 38 'it>el �e8 39 iLe6! Not allowing Black's king into play. 39 4:Je4 40 h4 4:Jc3 41 'it>d2 4:Je4+ 42 'it>e2 iLd6 43 f3 4:Jcs 44 i.C4 4:Jd7 Gershon prefers 44 ... 4:Ja4, but still dem­ onstrates a convincing continuation for White: 45 'it>d2 'it>d7 46 4:Jd4 4:Jc3 47 iLgS h6 4S i.f7 g5 49 h5 and Black has a serious weakness on h6 to boot. 45 i.bS! •..

.••

73 ...c4? After 73 ... 4:Jc7!, Kramnik notes the prob­ lem with 74 4:Je6 is that 74 ... iLxe6 75 h7 'it>d7 76 hS"ii 'it>xe7 may not be winning, so in­ stead he suggests the astonishing move 74 4:Jh7!?, but doesn't mention 74 ... iLc4! which may still hold for Black. 74 h7 iLe4+ 75 'it>f7 iLxh7 76 'it>xe8 iLg8 77 4:Jd7! 1-0 77 ... c3 7S 'it>fS! and 77 ... iLe6 7S 4:Jf6 c3 79 'it>fS c2 SO eSiV+ are clearly hopeless, so Black resigned.

7.22 V.Korchnoi-J.Piket Wijk aan Zee 2000 (see following diagram)

With opposite-coloured bishops White's extra kingside pawn isn't in itself sufficient. However, Black's b4-pawn is exposed to attack. 1 80

Zugzwang! The knight can't safely move because of discovered checks, while the bishop must stay put to prevent both 4:Jxb4 and 4:JbS.

Oth e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e C o m b i n a t i o n s

45 ...�f8 46 liJxb4 Axb4 4 7 �xd7 �e7 Making a second passed pawn by ad­ vancing in the centre doesn't look on, as Black can obtain sufficient control of the e5square. However, the a-pawn will tie Black down on the queenside, which should ease the way for White to force a passage for his king into the black position. 48 ..te8 h6 49 a4 �d6 50 �d3 �e5 51 ..td7 g5 52 h5 In fact Korchnoi intends that his second (and decisive!) passed pawn will be the h­ pawn! 52 ... ..ta 5 5 3 ..te8 ..tb6 54 ..tf5 ..ta5 5 5 We4 i.d2 56 �e5 1 The e-pawn doesn't matter any more. 56 ... ..txe3+ 57 �e6 ..td2 58 �d7 �f4 59 �e6 'ittxf3 60 �7! 1-0 It's more elegant to leave Black with his f-pawn. Now White plans simply to capture on h6 and push the h-pawn.

in the game, will be able to create a second passed pawn from his queenside majority. 30 liJg3 liJg2 31 �e4 liJxh4 32 liJf5 The simplest way. 32 liJxf5 3 3 ..txf5 �e7 34 b4 rJi>f8 35 e4 xe5 87 'iti>g4 �d6 88 f4 'iti>e7 89 lLlg6? A bad mistake. Correct is 89 f5 .td5 90 lLlg6, when 90 ... b7 91 lLle7 .ta2 is met by 92 lLlc6 .td5 93 f6. 89 'iti>b6? With any reasonable amount of time left on his clock Bruzon would surely have played 89 ... .te4 drawing! 90 f5 xa7 91 lLle7! 1-0 The knight completely dominates the bishop which can't stop the pawn promot­ ing. •••

•••

Advancing pawns when defending is of­ ten a double-edged sword. Here it has the advantage of fixing White's doubled g­ pawns. 63 a4! With Black so occupied 'improving' his kingside pawns White finds a tactical way to advance the a-pawn. 63 .te4 64 a5 f5 65 lLle5+ 'iti>d6 66 a6 lLle7 67 a7 .td5 68 lLld3 Now Black has to defend the h5-pawn as well as the a8-square. 68 lLle6 69 .te5+ 'iti>d7 70 lLlb4 .ta8 71 lLle2 lLle5 72 �e3 Not yet 72 lLld4?? due to 72 ... lLld3+. 72 lLle6 73 'iti>f2 lLle5 74 'iti>e2 'iti>e6 75 .th8 White is now ready to play lLld4+, win­ ning the f-pawn. 7 5 c.tf7 76 lLld4 gxf3+ 77 gxf3 f4 A refusal to go too passive, but also an indication that the defence has gone seri­ ously wrong. 78 gxf4 lLle6 79 f5 The opposite bishop ending after 79 ... lLlxd4+ 80 .txd4 is winning, as White

7. 2 5 V.Korchnoi-V.Epishi n Madrid 1995

•.•

•••

•••

•••

1 82

White has an extra pawn and Black a weak e-pawn. Korchnoi is able to win quite effortlessly. 24 h4 i.. e 7 2 5 lLld3 .td6 26 b4 .te7 27 .tb7 a5 28 bxa 5 .txa 5 29 g2 .te3 30 .te8 Korchnoi wants to induce Black to play ... e5. 30 lLle6 3 1 lLle5 e5 •••

O t h e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

Now White's king will have access to the d5-square. 31...tiJd8 would avoid advancing the e-pawn, but after 32 tiJe4 b4 33 tiJg5+ Black loses a second pawn. 32 �d7 tiJa7 3 3 �e6+ �e7 34 �g8 h6 3 5 Wf3 tiJc8 36 �e4 �d4 37 tiJd3 tiJd6+ 37 ... �f6 fails because of 38 f4! . 3 8 'it'd 5 tiJe8 39 tiJxe5! Winning a second pawn. 39 ... �xf2 40 tiJxg6+ 'Oitd8 41 �c6 tiJf6 42 i.e6 b4 43 g4 tiJe4 44 �d 5 tiJC3 45 e4 tiJe2 46 �b5 �e1 47 e5 'Oitc7 48 e6 1-0 Black can no longer stop the e-pawn.

7.26 L.Roos-G.Flear Lille 1986

47 as tiJf8 48 b4 tiJe6 49 �C5!? �g6 Although 49 ... tiJxc5 50 bxc5 �g6 looks an obvious continuation with White's knight being so bad, I wasn't so sure that it won, as White's three broken queenside pawns hold up the black majority. 50 �e7 �g5 51 c3 �h4! 52 tiJf3+ After 52 �xf6+ �xh3 Black wins the g­ pawn. 52 ... �xf3 Naturally 52 ... 'it>xh3 was also possible, since any counterplay following 53 tiJd4 tiJxd4 54 'it>xd4 'Oitxg4 55 �xf6 h5 56 'it>c5 h4 57 'it>b6 h3 58 ..te5 can be safely defused by 58 ... �d3 59 'it>xb7 ..tb5. 5 3 �xf3 tiJg5+ 54 'it>f4 tiJe4 5 5 c4 'it>xh3 56 cxd5 cxd 5 57 ..td8 'it>g2 58 ..tb6 'it>h3 59 i.d4 �g2 60 �b6 tiJg5 61 'it>f5 tiJf3 62 'it>e6 0-1 The sealed move. White didn't bother re­ suming as Black wins easily with 62 ... d4 63 'Oitd7 d3 64 i.e3 tiJd4 65 'it>c7 'it>f3 66 ..td2 'it>e2 67 �c1 tiJc6 68 'it>xb7 tiJxb4.

7.27 V.Salov-A.Khalifman Wijk aan Zee 1994

Even with an extra pawn, unless there is some way to breach the opposite colour complex, the defender will have good draw­ ing chances, as in a pure opposite bishop ending. 40 ... �e4 41 tiJe1 'Oite6 42 �f4 d5 43 �d4 tiJg6+ 44 �e3 tiJe7 Black's bishop is established in a won­ derful position, but there's still work to do on the dark squares. 45 g4 tiJg6 46 a4 'iit>f7 ! The king and knight will switch positions in order to threaten a king invasion on the kingside.

Salov has a small advantage due to his bishop pair, but he decides to convert this advantage into a favourable knight and oppo­ site-coloured bishop NQE. 24 tiJa 5 b6 1 83

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

If 24 ... ctJc6 25 i.xg7 ctJxa5 26 i.c3 and the two bishops will be strong favourites against the two knights. 25 i.xe5 i.xe5 26 ctJc6 i.c3 27 i.a6 ctJd6

28 ctJxa7 White has an extra pawn, but Black has plenty of time to decide on his best defen­ sive formation. One typical idea in such po­ sitions is to play ... h5. 28 ... �f8 29 �f1 �e7 One technical problem for White is that his knight on a7 has difficulties getting back into play (without being exchanged for the opposing knight which would of course be very drawish), so Salov plays without the knight for a while. 30 �e2 �e6 31 g4 �d 5 32 �d3 i.b2 33 g5 �C5 34 a4 f6 A controversial move as this gives White a passed pawn. Lars Bo Hansen suggests 34 ... i.g7! ? followed by ... h6 as a preferable alternative. 3 5 gxf6 i.xf6 36 i.b5 i.h4 37 f3 i.f6 38 i.d7 ctJC4 With opposite bishops it's often recom­ mended to put one's pawns on the same col­ oured squares as one's own bishop (as then the opposing bishop cannot attack them!). Therefore perhaps ... g5 and ...h6 would be a reasonable set-up. 39 i.b5 ctJd6 40 i.d7 ctJc4 41 i.e8 ctJd6 42 i.b5 ctJf7 43 f4! g5 1 84

Here 43 ... ctJd6 is strongly met by 44 e4. 44 ctJc6 gxf4 45 exf4 i.h4 45 ... ctJd6 can also be met by 46 ctJb8!.

46 ctJb8! Threatening ctJd7+ followed by ctJxb6. 46 ... �d6 Belov prefers 46 ... ctJd6, but White still re­ tains good winning chances with 47 ctJd7+ �b4 48 ctJxb6 ctJxb5 49 axb5 �xb5 50 ctJd7. 47 ctJd7 i.d8 48 ctJf8 h 5 A sad necessity a s 4 8... h6? 4 9 i.c4 looks very bad for Black. 49 i.c4 ctJh6 50 �e4! Now it's Black's knight that has been pushed out of play. 50 ...�C5?! This seems to ease White's task. Retain­ ing all the pieces would give more chances in principle, but a continuation such as 50 ... M 51 ctJg6 i.f6 52 ctJe5 �e7 53 �d5 ctJf5 54 �c6 ctJe3 55 i.b3 also looks lost. 51 ctJe6+ �xc4 52 ctJxd8 �b4 53 f5 �xa4 54 f6 b5 55 f7 ctJxf7 56 ctJxf7 b4 57 �d3 �a3 58 ctJe5 �b2 59 �d2 b3 60 ctJd3+ �a 3 61 �c3 1-0 It's difficult to pick out one point where Black went wrong, but it's equally unclear that White should be able to win. I'm pretty sure that Black should have handled his kingside pawns differently, for example with an early ... h5, or perhaps meeting g4-g5 with ... i.g7 followed by ... h6.

Oth e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

Knight a n d sa me-colo u red Bishop each In this NQE a small positional advantage may be sufficient for the stronger side, as we'll see in the next few examples. Subtle elements such as a slightly more active king can have far-reaching consequences. In the first example White has more space and a slightly more comfortable game.

36 i.b4! i.g5 37 id8 g6 38 f4 i.d8 39 i.C5? In fact 39 lDb4+! �b5 40 lDxd5 is possible, as the continuation 40 ... 'it>c4 is strongly met by 41 lDb4. 39 ... 'it>d7 40 g4 c6 41 f5 lDc7 If Black first plays the exchange 4l...gxf5 42 gxf5, and only then 42 ... lDc7, White would make plans to go after the isolated h­ pawn with 43 'iit f3.

7.28 M.Matulovic-G.Flear European Team Championship, Belgrade 1985

Although Black has two pawns islands and a poorly-placed knight, it doesn't look like that much for White. In the game I was frankly outplayed, but I don't like to explain away my poor play simply by time trouble. The truth is that I underestimated the dan­ ger, often a fatal error in slightly worse posi­ tions! 32 'iit e 2 'iitf8 32 ... lDb6 is met by 33 i.a5, when White can think about a timely capture on b6 leav­ ing Black with two isolated pawns. 3 3 lDe1 �e8 34 lDd3 'it>d7 3 5 i.a5 �c6? A blunder. Another idea is to try and challenge the centre with 35 ... f6, but the most natural is just to play 35 ... lDb6 anyway.

With 41...lDc7 the knight finally makes it into play, but now I was in for a rude shock. 42 e6+! fxe6 43 fxg6 hxg6 44 lDe5+ 'iite 8 45 lDxg6 White's pawns are clearly better than Black's - and so for that matter are his pieces! 45 ...lDa6 46 i.a7 i.C7 47 h4 'iitf7 48 h5 i.d6 49 g5 C5! 50 dXC5 lDxC5 51 i.xc5! Keeping it simple. White converts his advantages into time: his pawns are more advanced. 51 i.xc5 52 lDe5+ 'iit g 7 53 'iitf3 i.d6 54 lDd7 i.a3? Missing my chance: 54... i.e7! 55 'iit f4 i.d6+ 56 'iit g4 'iit f7! and White cannot win. 5 5 h6+ 'iitg 6 56 lDe5+! Whoops, I missed that one! 56 �h7 If 56 ... 'it>xg5 then 57 h7 etc. 57 �g4 i.d6 58 lDf7 i.a3 59 'iit h 5 i.b2 60 g6+ 'it>g8 61 h7+ 'iitf8 62 h8'iV+ i.xh8 63 lDxh8 d4 64 'iit h 6 d3 65 g7+ 1-0 .•.

.•.

1 85

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

7 .2 9 L.Aronian-P .Svidler Morelia 2006

In this position White has several slight advantages: 1 . The black kingside pawns are fixed on light squares, the same colour as the bish­ ops. 2. More space. 3. A more active knight. 23 4Jes .i.b7 24 a3 4Jc6 2 S 4Jg4! Exchanging knights wouldn't yield very much as there is no obvious way for White's king to penetrate. 2S ... 4Jb8 26 'it>d2 .i.c6 27 �C3 4Jd7 28 f4 a s 29 e 4 bS 3 0 .i.c2

30 ...fS? 186

Panicky. I'm convinced that Black would have more chance by just temporizing. It must be said that White has many options (more mobile majority, space, etc) to try and soften Black up, but he would certainly have work to do. For instance if 30 ... 'it>d6!, White could play 'it>d3, .i.b3 and then angle for a timely d4-d5, e.g. 31 'it>d3 .i.b7 32 .i.b3, and if 32 ... .ic6?! then 33 4Je5 4Jxe5+ 34 fxe5+ 'it>e7 35 d5. However, with 32 ... 'it>e7! all is not lost. 31 exfs exfs 32 4Jes 4Jxes 33 dxes Threatening 'It>d4-c5, so Svidler decides to liquidate the queenside and hope to hold out on a limited front. 33 ... b4+ 34 axb4 axb4+ 3 5 'it>xb4 .i.d7 36 .ib3 .i.c6 3 7 'it>cS .i.e8?! But if 37 ... .i.e4, White replies 38 .i.g8 (in­ tending e5-e6, .i.f7 etc) 38 ... 'it>f8 39 .i.d5 .ic2 40 'it>d6 with a decisive advantage. 38 e6! 1-0 Black's bishop is out of moves. Prolong­ ing the agony with 38 ... 'iit f8 39 �d6 .i.b5 40 e7+ 'it>e8 41 .i.e6 .i.a4, is fairly pointless as 42 .i.c4 yields a decisive zugzwang. In the following example Black's king plays a starring role ...

7. 30 L.Van Wely-V.Filippov Tripoli 2004

O t h e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

White is somewhat worse here due to the weakness on g4, but nevertheless it's aston­ ishing how quickly his position becomes critical. 33 tLJe5 34 tLJdl \t>C5 3 5 'iit C 3 b5! Black will obtain the d4-square for the king. 36 a3 b4+ 37 axb4+ axb4+ 38 'iit d 2 'iit d 4 39 ttJe3 b3! Although this pawn is placed on a light square, keeping up the bind is Filippov's main consideration. Now White no longer has the spoiling tbc2+ available. 40 .te6 tbf3+ 41 e2 'iit e 4 Or 41...'iit eS, as the b-pawn is defended with the fork ... tbd4+ in either case. 42 �f2 tbd4 43 i.C4 i.b5 Black is hoping to gain access to the d3square. 44 i.f7 i.d7 45 i.d5+ 'iit d 3 Now the route is open and ... 'iit d 2-c1xb2 is in the air. 46 tbf5 ..•

7.3 1 A.Morozevich-A.Motylev Krasnoyarsk 2003

This doesn't look much for White, but he has the more active bishop and soon obtains the more dynamic king. 3 2 d3 e7 3 3 'iite 4 e6 34 f4 b5 Taking the annoying pawn with 34... bxcS would probably be met by 3S fS+ 'iit d 7 36 tbd3 i.e7 (or 36 ... c4 37 tbcS+) 37 'iit dS with pressure. 35 tbC2 i.f6 36 i.el g6 37 tbe3 tLJe7 White remains slightly more active, while Black has the better pawn structure. 38 c4! Time to eliminate the doubled pawn. 38 i.b2 39 f5+ Otherwise Black was no doubt intending to repulse White's king with 39 .. .fS+. 39 gxf5+ 40 gxf5+ d7 41 cxb5 axb5 42 i.h4 Probing away. Lesser players might as­ sume that in such 'equalish' positions a draw must be inevitable between grandmas­ ters, but in fact one small error from either player can tip the balance. 42 tbg8 43 tLJc2 i.C3 44 'iit d 3 i.b2 45 i.f2 tbe7 46 'iit e4 c6 47 i.d4! Taking some key squares. After the ex­ change of bishops White's space advantage •..

.•.

46 i.e6! Van Wely was obviously counting on 46 ... tbxfS 47 gxfS i.xfS 48 i.xb3 or 47... \t>c2 48 f6. 47 i.b7 The knight ending after 47 i.xe6 tbxe6 48 'iit f3 tbd4+ 49 �f2 tbc6 SO tbd6 tbeS Sl g3 'iit c2 S2 tbe4 xb2 wins for Black. 47 ... tbxf5 48 gxf5 i.xf5 0-1 •••

•••

187

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

may pay dividends in the pure knight end­ ing. 47 ... �C1 48 ttJb4 Restricting Black's knight. 48 ... �g5 The black knight cannot get to the d5square, as 48 ... �d2 49 ttJd3 ttJd5? drops a pawn after 50 ttJe5+. 49 �e5 Or the immediate 49 ttJd3, when Black may have nothing better than the weakening 49 .. .£6. 49 ...ttJg8 50 ttJd3 �d2 51 �d4 f6 The only way to keep White's knight out of e5, but this pawn is now on a dark square. 52 ttJf2 �e7 53 �f3 �f7 54 ttJe4 �C1 5 5 ttJd6+ �g7 56 �e4 �d2 5 7 ttJc8 �f7 58 �f2 ttJe7 59 ttJd6+

sure. It's often persistent pressure that pro­ vokes mistakes.

7.3 2 V.Malakhov-L.Fressinet Moscow 2006

In this example with symmetrical pawns

59 ... �f8? Getting confused. Black should still be able to hold by manning the barricades with 59 ... �g7! 60 �d4 ttJg8!. 60 �d4 �g7 61 ttJe8+ �f7 62 ttJxf6 �e3 A desperate last shot. 63 �xe3 63 �xe3? would only be equal after 63 ... tbxf5+ 64 �e4 tbxd4. 63 ...�xf6 64 �d4+ �7 65 �e5 b4 66 �b2 ttJd 5 67 �d6 ttJc3 68 �xc6 �e8 69 �b7 1-0 Although Morozevich 'only' won be­ cause of a blunder, it was impressive how he managed to put his opponent under pres1 88

the player who first gets his king to the cen­ tral arena seizes the initiative. 39 �f2 �f8 40 �e3 tbc6 41 f5 ! An awkward move to face. 41 ...�g7 After 41...g5 42 f6 Black would be cramped. 42 fxg6 fxg6 43 ttJe4 With Black's king now out of the way, the knight heads for d6. 43 ... b6 44 ttJd6 �d7 45 tbC4 Urging the pawn forwards. 45 ... b5 Now the c5-square is weakened. 46 ttJd6 g5 After 46 ... �f6 47 ttJe4+ �f7 48 ttJc5 �c8 49 �e4 White also has slight, but continuing pressure. 47 tbf5+ �g6 It is somewhat courageous to allow a dis­ covered check, but as yet there's nothing concrete to fear. Fressinet doesn't really want to simplify with 47 ... �xf5 48 �xf5 since, with possibilities on both flanks, the

Oth e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

ending will favour White. 48 iLe4 tiJd8 Here 48 ... iLxf5 49 iLxc6 b4 50 �d4 iLb1 51 �c5 would again be very good for the first player. 49 g4 as 50 �d4 tiJe6+ 51 �e5 tiJf4 An attempt at some counter-activity, but White's better king is still the key factor. 52 h4

though White would have fair winning chances in practice) 76 ... tiJa5 77 �f6! would also win, but the text is the most efficient. 74 ... �C3 7 5 �C5 tiJxb3+ 76 ii.xb3 �xb3 77 a s 'it>c3 78 a6 b3 79 a7 b2 80 a81i' b1'iV 81 'it'f3+ �d2 82 'iVf2+ �C3 83 'iVd4+ 1-0 Exchanging queens and then winning the resulting king and pawn ending.

7.33 K.Sasikira n-Cu.Hansen Copenhagen 2005

52 ii.xf5 52 ...b4 53 h5+ �h7 54 �f6 would also be unpleasant for Black. So the young French­ man resigns himself to trying his luck in the inferior minor piece ending. 53 ii.xf5+ �f7 54 a3 �e7 55 ii.e4 tiJe2 56 hxg5 hxg5 5 7 iLd3 tiJc1 58 ii.c2 tiJe2 59 �d 5 tiJf4+ 60 �c6 tiJe6 61 iLd1 Eventually the tricky forks run out and Black's queenside comes under the cosh. 61 b4 62 a4 tiJd4+ 63 �c5 tiJe6+ 64 �b6 �d6 65 �xa 5 'it>C5 66 ii.e2 tiJd4 67 ii.c4 tiJc6+ 68 �a6 tiJb8+ 69 �b7 tiJc6 70 �C7 Malakhov's use of his king throughout this example is instructive. Here he com­ bines the possible advance of the a-pawn with the threat of going across to win the g­ pawn. 70 tiJa 5 7 1 i.e6 tiJc6 72 �d7 tiJa 5 7 3 �e7 �d4 74 �d61 It seems that 74 �f6 �c3 75 �xg5 tiJxb3 76 ii.f7 (76 ii.xb3 �xb3 77 a5 �c3 78 a6 b3 79 a7 b2 80 a8� b1'iV is technically drawn, •.•

..•

•.•

This is a typical example of one side suf­ fering from a 'bad bishop' . Black's bishop and pawns are on light squares, so White will aim to infiltrate on the poorly de­ fended dark square complex. 33 �f4 �7 34 �e5! Black loses either the d- or f-pawn. 34 tiJc6+ 3 5 �xd5 ii.b7 36 tiJf4! The discovered check isn't dangerous. 36 �f6 3 7 �C4 �g5 38 g3 h 5 The only chance i s to go for counterplay. 39 d5 tiJa5+ 40 �d4 h4 41 tiJe2 hxg3 42 tiJxg3 �f4 Or if 42 ... �h4, the annoying 43 tiJxf5+ 'it>xh3 44 tiJd6 is highly unpleasant for Black despite the reduced material. 43 tiJe2+ �f3 44 tiJc1 Gaining a tempo as Black's knight is threatened by b2-b4. ••.

•..

1 89

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

44 ..tc8 4S b4 ltJb7 46 Wes f4 47 ltJe2 ..txh3 48 ltJxf4 ..td7 49 ltJe6 1-0 ..ta6 is threatened and Black's king is a long way from the action. .•.

The problem with Black's bishop is less obvious in the next example.

7.34 V.lvanchuk-B.Gelfand Dortmund 1997

Here Black's seemingly active pieces tum out to have limited effect. In fact it soon becomes clear that Black's pawns being fixed on light squares is a most significant factor, as in many lines White will be able to saddle Black with a bad bishop in the ending. 34 ltJe3 3 S .i.e4 Wf8 36 ..tf3 ! Defending the d1-square so as to be able to boot the knight away with Wf2. 36 ... We7 37 Wf2 ltJfS 38 ..te4 Ivanchuk later decided that 38 ltJb7 a4 39 a3! was the most precise, when Black strug­ gles with his a-pawn which would then be also fixed on a light square. 38 ltJd4 39 ltJb7 a4 Black's best chance, according to Ivanchuk, was a knight ending with 39 ... ..tc6! 40 ..txc6 (40 We3 .i.xb7 is level) 40 ... ltJxc6 41 We3 f6!, when White's advantage would be kept to a minimum.

40 ltJd6 ..ta6 41 a 3 41 We3 i s premature, a s Black hits the g­ pawn with 41...ltJe2. 41 bxa 3 41 ...b3 would be strongly met by 42 We3 ltJe2 43 ..tc6 ltJxg3 44 ..txa4. 42 bxa 3 f6 If 42 ... ltJe2, Ivanchuk intended 43 ..tb7! ..txb7 44 Wxe2 with a convincing good knight vs bad bishop ending; while lashing out with 42 .. ' £S can be calmly answered by 43 We3 ltJe2 44 ..tc6 ltJxg3 4S i.xa4 ltJfl + 46 �d4 ltJd2 47 ..te8!, as 47... ltJf3+ 48 �e3 ltJxh4 49 Wf2 is fatal for the knight. 43 'it>e3 ltJe2 44 .i.xg 6 ltJxg3 4S ltJe4 ltJfl+ 46 Wf2 fS Or if 46 ... fxeS 47 fxeS .i.d3, then 48 ..txhS .i.xe4 49 Wxfl is the simplest. 47 ltJcs i.C4 48 ltJxa4 ltJd2 49 ltJcS 1-0 •..

With competing majorities, the quality of the pieces may determine who has the ad­ vantage. In the following example White's king is able to dominate the central arena; this, plus the fact that he can generate a passed pawn, should enable him to prevail.

7.3 5 N.Short-A.Beliavsky Linares 1992

•••

•..

1 90

42 h S ••.

Ot h e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

Black would like to generate something on the kingside, but this will take time. 43 C4 Short immediately creates a passed pawn and with it serious winning chances. 43 ... bxc3+ 44 �xc3 h4 45 .i.f3 lDh5 46 Wd4 tiJg7 47 .i.e4+ �h5 48 'ii;> e 5! The b-pawn will be strong later; first the English GM wants to stymie Black's coun­ terplay on the kingside. 48 lDe8 49 lDg4 .i.d7 50 idS .i.c6 51 iL.e4 i.d7 52 i.f5 .i.c6 53 lDe3 Wh6 54 b4 Wg7 5 5 i.d3 Wf8 56 b5 i. b 7 5 7 lDd5 f6+

7. 3 6 P.Svidler-E.Bareev Russian Championship, Elista 1995

•••

and now when the win was within grasp ... 58 We6?? Instead, 58 �d4 is not bad, but 58 lDxf6 is simplest, e.g. 58 ... lDxf6 (after 58 ... i.xg2 White could snatch the g-pawn with 59 lDh7+ We7 60 lDxg5, or just play 59 b6!) 59 Wxf6 i.xg2 60 b6 We8 (60 ... g4 61 hxg4 h3 can be strongly met by 62 i.a6) 61 .i.f5 which looks good enough. 58 ... .i.c8 mate The moral of this sorry tale is that, even when logically carrying out our strategic plans, we should not overlook the basic tac­ tics! The importance of a well-placed, central­ ized king is illustrated in the following ex­ ample as well.

Here White failed to win, despite his ex­ tra pawn being passed. Black's active king helped the defence's case. 45 lDf4+ �d7 46 lDd3 h5! An excellent move. Black fixes White's h­ pawn on h4, a dark square, ensuring that any future bishop ending is more drawish. 47 gxh 5 gxh 5 48 Wf4 48 lDf4 won't do at all because of 48 ... .i.c7. 48 ...Wc6 49 lDe5+?! It seems that 49 Wf5!, threatening ttJf4 is better, e.g. 49 ...ttJd6+ 50 We5 ttJc4+ 51 Wd4 Wb5 52 Wd5! and White's centralized king would give him better chances. 49 ...ttJxe5 50 Wxe5 iL.e7 51 c4 .i.d8 52 f4 i.e7 53 f5 .i.d8 54 f6 Intending to play the king to g5, so Black has to cover this possibility. 54 ... i.a 5 ! 55 Wf5 i.d2 56 .i.d4 i.c1 57 We4 .i.d2 58 i.f2 i.C3 59 Wf5 i.d2 60 i.g1 Yz-Yz White can't win, e.g. 60 ... Wd6 61 i.h2+ Wc5 62 .i.f4 i.c3 63 'it>g5 Wxc4 64 i.d6 Wd5 65 .i.e7 We6. As in pure minor piece endings, sacrific­ ing a piece for pawns is fairly common. 191

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

7.37 E.Bareev-A.Yusupov Munich 1994

34 b41 Bareev tries to create some pressure against the black queenside to compensate for his weak pawn on f5. 34 g411 Ftacnik points out that simplest way to equalize is to make for e4 with 34 ... ttJg3+ 35 'ot>h2 ttJe4. 3S a4 b6 36 i.xa6! An interesting piece sacrifice. 36 bxes 37 bS ..taS 3S dxes ttJg3+ 39 'ot>g1

was with 39 ... d4!, e.g. 40 b6! ttJe4! 41 b7 i.xb7 42 i.xb7 ttJxc5 43 as! winning the knight, but Black still draws with 43 ... 'ot>f6 44 a6 ttJxa6 45 i.xa6 'ot>xf5 46 'ot>f2 'ot>g5 47 'ot>e2 f5 48 'ot>d3 'ot>h4! etc. 40 b6 d4 41 b7 i.xb7 42 i.xb7 d3 43 'ot>f2 ttJd4 44 'ot>e3 d2 4S 'ot>xd2 ttJb3+ 46 'ot>e21 ttJxes 47 asl fS 4S a6 ttJxa6 49 i.xa6 f4 SO 'ot>d3 'ot>f6 If 50 .. .£3, White naturally replies with 51 g3. S 1 'ot>e4 �gs S2 i.eS 1-0 Continuing with 52 .. .£3 has little point af­ ter 53 g3 f2 54 i.a6 etc.

7. 3 8 G.Flear-E.Formanek Hastings 2001/02

•••

.••

3 S hS1 Underestimating the danger. Black should have no problems drawing after the superior 35 ... ttJxd3 36 'ot>xd3 h5 37 i.f4 Wd7. 36 ttJxes! bxes 37 i.xes+ 'ot>d7 3S i.xa7 Three connected passed pawns are worth more than a piece in this position, particu­ larly as Black has no counterplay. 3S ... 'ot>e6 39 'ot>e2 Threatening to play i.d4 followed by b3b4. 39 ...ttJd7 40 b4 i.fS 41 'it>e3 i.d6 42 a4 ttJfS 43 i.e3 i.es+ 44 'ot>b3 ttJe6 4S bS+ 'it>e7 46 eS •••

39 ... ttJxfS?? In time trouble Black makes an obvious, but erroneous capture. The only way to hold 192

Oth e r D o u b l e M i n o r P i e c e Co m b i n a t i o n s

ii.d4 47 �C4! ii.xe3 48 fxe3 lbg7 49 a s lbf5 50 e4 lbe3+ 5 1 �d4 lbxg2 52 a6 lbf4 5 3 b6+ 'itc6 54 a7 lbe6+ 55 'it>e5 1-0

a s correct, as then the knight can come to d3 to keep out the black king. 40 'it>e5 •••

7.39 V.Kramnik-A.Morozevich Wijk aan Zee 2001

3 3 'it>d6! An interesting winning try. Black has the outside passed pawn, but if this is going to be important he must defuse any danger from the c-pawn. Instead, the 'obvious' 33 ... ii.xf5 is met by 34 lbxf5 'it>xf5 35 �d4 'it>e6 (Morozevich gives 35 ... a5 36 c5 a4 37 'it>c4 'it>e5 38 c6 a3 39 'it>b3 lbb5 40 ii.f1 lbd4+ 41 'it>xa3 lbxc6 with a small edge to Black, but in this I don't think Black has anything after 36 ii.c6!) 36 'it>c5 'it>d7 37 'it>b6 with compensation. The king supporting the passed pawn will tie Black down. 34 'it>d3 as 3 5 'it>C3 ii.d7 36 ii.b7 f6 37 g4!? Not really what he wants to play, but the f-pawn needs defending. 37 ii.a4 Stohl prefers 37 ... a4! ? 38 'it>b4 'it>e5 when Black may have slightly the better of a com­ plicated struggle. 38 h3 ii.d7 39 lbb3 a4 40 c5+? Morozevich gives 40 lbc1 ! with equality •••

•••

41 lbd2? Losing the thread. Morozevich gives 41 lbd4 as better, when 41 ...a3 42 lbc2 (or simi­ larly 42 c6 ii.e8 43 lbc2 a2 44 'it>b2 ii.f7 45 lbb4 ii.c4) 42 ... a2 43 'it>b2 ii.b5 44 'it>xa2 ii.f1 yields some advantage to Black. 41 lbd5+! 42 'it>C4 lbe7 43 lbf3+ 'it>f4 44 lbd4 'it>g3 The fox is in amongst the chickens! 45 c6 The alternative 45 lbe6 �xh3 46 lbxg7 'it>xg4 is hopeless. 45 lbxc61 Killing off White's counterplay. Black's pawns will be too strong for either piece. 46 lbxc6 'it>xh3 47 lbd4 47 lbb8 a3 48 'it>b3 ii.b5 49 'it>xa3 'it>xg4 50 ii.e4 'it>f4 51 ii.c2 is also difficult after 51 ...h5, when the h-pawn will make a beeline for hI . 47 'it>xg4 48 ii.e4 'it>f4 49 ii.c2 a 3 50 'it>C3 h 5 5 1 lbe6+ 'it> e 5 5 2 lbxg7 h4 5 3 ii. d 1 h3 5 4 i.f3 54 lbh5 is no better, as Black wins with 54 ... .ltc6 55 lbg3 h2 followed by ... 'it>f4. 54 .ltxf5 55 lbh5 .ltg6 56 'it>b3 ii.xh5 57 .ltxh5 h2 58 .ltf3 �4 59 .lth1 'it>e3 60 'it>xa 3 f5 61 'it>b3 f4 0-1 •..

•••

•••

•••

1 93

C h a pt e r E i g h t

I

Roo k vers u s Two M i n or Pieces

When we first learn about the relative value of pieces, the rook is attributed with five points, the bishop and knight with three, and a pawn with one. So it would seem reasonable that rook and pawn should be more or less equivalent to two minor pieces. In this chapter we will be looking at those factors which both support and challenge this assertion. Time for some statistics! In a 25,000 game database of top-flight players (2600 and up­ wards) there were the following number of cases: It v �+ltJ

: v �+� It v lb+ltJ

164 57 18

So the most common of these three NQEs is rook against the mixed pair. In the middlegame minor pieces tend to be relatively important and so, with many pieces on the board, a couple of minor pieces will tend to be superior to a rook and pawn. How­ ever, as exchanges occur and lines open, the rook increases its relative strength. If a rook can influence play on both wings and there are targets for it to threaten, why should a bishop and knight be better, especially if they have fewer pawns to help out than the rook? Although my intuition was that the minor pieces were still a stronger force, I decided to investigate if this was really the case. I took the examples from the aforementioned database and stripped out those where one player had an immediate win (of a piece, or an immediate promotion, etc) and this left me with a selection of 'normal-looking' NQEs. I looked at the three cases: where pawns were equal, where the rook had one extra pawn, and where it had two extra pawns. The rook scored as follows: 11 v �+ltJ (equal pawns)

1:[ + pawn v �+ltJ

1:1 + two pawns v �+ltJ

rook +0, =10, -22 rook +9, =27, -12 rook +16, =11, -1

Although these figures were obtained in a scientifically dubious matter their implications are quite clear! I can safely conclude that with equal pawns the minor pieces are very strong

19 4

R o o k v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

favourites, but if the rook has two bonus pawns for company then the balance is tipped just as clearly in the other direction. The contentious case is rook and pawn vs bishop and knight, where chances are almost balanced, the rook actually scoring 47%. So any advantage for the minor pieces is slim indeed. There are naturally some elements that help us to judge which side is likely to prevail. A passed pawn, when well supported, is often the salient factor and in a number of examples is more important than the actual number of pawns. In cases where both sides have chances, the minor pieces (especially the knight) will often need to have support from the king (or perhaps a well-placed pawn) in order to have safe squares where they can avoid harassment from the rook. We will see that it's important for the bishop and knight to be able to go about their business calmly without being stressed by the rook. In the case where there are two bishops against a rook, in most cases the rook struggles to hold the balance. With the relatively rare case of two knights against a rook, the result tends to depend on the nature of the position. The more open the position the more likely the side with the rook will obtain the desired result.

Rook versu s Bishop a n d Knight It's worth noting that bishop, knight and one pawn vs bare rook is almost always winning for the minor pieces, the only exception be­ ing with the WRP.

8.1 S.Ziger-G.Flear Neuchatel 1995

White's remammg pawn will advance and eventually cost Black his rook, whereas the black h-pawn is not dangerous. SS .l:.g6 S6 ..tfS .l:.g3+ S7 �e4 .l:.b3 S8 0.C7 hS?! •••

58...h6 was slightly more resistant. S9 0.e6+ fS 51 lIc6 �g7?! The first chance to play 51...'Llc2! (see be­ low). 5 2 lIc7+ �h6 53 1:c6 'It>g7 54 .l:f.C7+ 'It>fS 55 ':'c6 .if7? The last chance for 55 ... 'Llc2!, e.g. 56 l:txg6 a3 57 lIa6 a2 and Black will eventually win as in examples 1 .3 and 1 .4. Instead, in the game White has the time to bring his king across. 56 l:ta6 i.eS 57 1:1a7 'LlC2 5S 'It>f2 a3 59 'It>e2 'Lld4+ 60 'it>d2 'Llb5 61 :la6 'It>e7 62 e6 'Lld6 63 'It>c2 'LlC4 64 �c3 i.b5 65 na7+ 'It>xe6 66 �b4 'Lld6 67 ":'xa 3 i.eS ..•

The following struggle includes a couple of instructive errors. White's rook is active enough, but the weakness of the a3-pawn should be the deciding factor.

8.6 L.Ljubojevic-J.Polgar Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 1994

6S l:ta 5? White must come back with the king as quickly as possible: 68 'It>c5 'Lle4+ (or 68 ... 'Llf5 69 na6+ 'It>f7 70 'It>d5) 69 'It>d4 'It>f5 70 'It>e3 and it looks drawn! 6S ... 'Llb5! Now the f-pawn is in trouble. 69 �C5 �f5 70 J:laS 'LlC7 71 .l:!.cS 'Lle6+ 72 �d6 i.a4 73 J:taS i.dl 74 l:!.a 5+ 'It>f6 7 5 :tal .ie2 Judit Polgar later pointed out that 75 ... i.g4 76 l1a4 �f5 was simpler. 76 :ta4 i.dl 77 l:te4 'Llg7 7S l:tel i.f3 79 l:tfl i.e4 Although Ljubojevic has delayed the in199

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

evitable, his king cannot help in the defence of the f-pawn. 80 J:tel cJ;>f5 81 '>i;e7 ttJh5 82 J:tgl ttJxf4 83 J:txg6 ttJxg6+ Now you will no doubt understand the importance of examples 1 .3 and 1 .4! 84 cJ;>d6 cJ;>f6 8 5 cJ;>C5 cJ;>e5 86 cJ;>c4 .1d5+ 87 cJ;>d3 ttJf4+ 88 cJ;>e3 .te4 89 cJ;>d2 cJ;>d4 90 cJ;>C1 cJ;>C3 91 cJ;>d1 .1c2+ 92 cJ;>el cJ;>d3 93 cJ;>f2 cJ;>e4 94 cJ;>g3 .1dl 95 cJ;>f2 ttJd3+ 96 cJ;>g3 cJ;>e3 97 cJ;>h4 cJ;>f4 98 cJ;>h3 ttJel 99 cJ;>h4 ttJg2+ 100 cJ;>h3 cJ;>f3 101 cJ;>h2 cJ;>f2 102 cJ;>h3 .te2 103 cJ;>h2 .1g4 104 cJ;>hl ttJe3 105 cJ;>h2 ttJfl+ 106 cJ;>hl .1f3 mate

61 cJ;>e5 cJ;>e7 62 g5 1-0 This is a typical way to win such posi­ tions. Of course if White's pawns were dam­ aged there might be a problem achieving a successful simplification (see 8.9). The next example also illustrates an in­ structive tedmique.

8.8 J.Timman-A.Karpov Bugojno 1980

The case where all pawns are on the same flank is interesting as the result isn't always evident. However, a general rule could be that the bishop and knight require a target in order to convert their superiority.

8.7 R.Ponomariov-K.Sasikiran Bie 1 2004 Karpov exploits White's loose-looking pawns by splitting them. 58 J:ta7 .1d6 59 J:ta8 h4! 60 gxh4 gxh4 Black now uses the f4-square to pressur­ ize the isolated white pawns. 61 cJ;>f2 ttJe6 62 J:tal .1g3+ 63 cJ;>e3 ttJf4 64 l:.hl cJ;>f6 65 cJ;>e4 cJ;>e6 66 cJ;>d4 cJ;>f5 67 cJ;>c3 lbe6 68 cJ;>d3 cJ;>f4 69 cJ;>e2 lbg5 0-1 White is in zugzwang and must lose a pawn.

The weakness of the f6-pawn leads to a quick decision. 53 ttJd5 J:te6 54 ttJxf6! Straightforward. White heads for a win­ ning king and pawn ending. 54 J:txf6 55 g4 hxg4 56 hxg4 cJ;>f7 57 .1xf6 cJ;>xf6 58 cJ;>d4 cJ;>e6 59 cJ;>c5 cJ;>e7 60 cJ;>d5 cJ;>d7 •••

2 00

When the stronger side has broken pawns the chances of winning are naturally reduced.

8.9 B.Gelfa nd-C.Bauer Bie 1 2005

R o o k v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

which he would either continue with lLld3c5, increasing the pressure on the e6-square, or even with f5-f6 which could lead to him obtaining a passed h-pawn.

5 1 :b5+ 'it>f6 5 2 :b6+ i.e6 After 52 ... 'it>g7 53 :b4, the exchange of the h-pawn for the forward f-pawn wouldn't really help Black. 53 'ub5 lLle5 54 'it>g1 i.d7 5 5 :b6+ i.c6 56 :a6 'it>e6 57 l1a 5 f6 58 'it>h2 i.e8 59 :a6+ 'it>f5 60 lta 5 'it> g 6 61 :a8 'it>f7 62 :a7+ 'it>f8 63 :a 5 'it>g7 64 'it>g1 i.f7 65 :a4 lLlg6 66 'it>f2 f5 67 ltb4 'it>f6 68 :a4 i.e6 69 ltb4 i.f7 70 :b6+ 'it>e5 71 :b7 VI-VI 71 . ..i.e6 72 :h7 lLlxh4 73 ltxh5 lLlg6 should be easily drawn. In the following example Black's struc­

ture is solid, but he has a si gni ficant space disadvantage which Fischer exploits by ad­ vancing his pawns.

8.10 R.Fischer-A.Di Camillo US Championship, New York 1957 (see following diagram)

50 h 5 1 Fixing Black's pawns o n dark squares. 50 ... :a4+ 51 i.d4 :a2 52 g4 :e2+ 5 3 i.e3 :a2 54 f4 g6 Enough is enough, Black decides to seek breathing space! If Black just temporizes then White will aim for a timely f4-f5, after

5 5 hxg6 fxg6 56 lLlc5 'it>f7 57 f5 ! Creating a passed pawn. 57 gxf5+ 58 gxf5 exf5+ 59 'it>xf5 h5 60 lLle4 :a s 61 i.gs :d 5 62 lLlf6 :d1 6 3 lLlxh5 Now the win is easy. 63 ... :d5 64 lLlf6 lta 5 65 lLle4 ltd 5 66 lLld6+ 'it>f8 67 'it>e6 :d1 68 i.e7+ 'it>g7 69 'it>d7 :a1 1-0 ..•

Ivanchuk failed to win the following po­ sition as Black. This was no doubt influ­ enced by the fact that it was a rapid game and he probably lacked time, but his oppo­ nent made it difficult by placing his pawns in such a way as to limit the chances of Black creating any weaknesses in the white camp.

8.11 L.Van Wely-V.lvanchuk Monte Carlo (rapid) 1999 (see following diagram)

3 5 e4 lLlf6 36 f3 e5 3 7 'it>g3 lLle8 38 l:la7 lLld6 39 'it>f2 h5 40 g3 'it>e6 41 :a6 i.b5 The alternative plan of 41...£5! 42 exf5+ gxf5, aiming to create a passed pawn with 201

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

... e4, is perhaps more testing.

5 3 exf4+ The other capture comes into considera­ tion, but it seems that 53 ...fxe4 54 fxe5 4:Jc5 55 g4! .i.e6 56 gxh5 gxh5 57 lig5 .i.g4 58 lhg4! leads to a draw; or if 54 ... .i.d5, 55 e6 .i.xe6 56 �xe4 and again a draw is probable. 54 gxf4 fxe4 5 5 �xe4 4:JC5+ 56 �d4 .i.d3 If 56 ... .i.f7, then 57 ltbl+ 4:Jb3+ 58 �e5 and again White should draw. 57 l:tg5 .i.f5 58 l:txf5 ! A fine way to profit from the distant black king. 58 gxf5 59 �e5 4:Jd3+ 60 �xf5 �C5 61 �g5 �d6 62 �xh 5 4:Jxf4+ 63 �g5 �e5 Yz-Yz •••

•••

42 l:tb6 �d7 43 Itb8 �c6 44 �e3 �C5 45 1::t h 8 Positions where the rook has an addi­ tional passed pawn are fairly balanced if the pawn can be successfully blockaded - if it can't, the side with the two minor pieces generally cannot afford to give one up for the pawn, as the ending with rook vs minor piece with three pawns each on the same side is usually lost.

45 ... .i.d7 I still like the idea of playing for .. .f5, e.g. 45 ....i.e8 46 l:tf8 f5. 46 l:ta8 .i.e6 47 l:!.a5+ �b4?1 The idea of going the whole way around the back is attractive in principle. However, once the position opens up and the rook starts to attack the black kingside pawns, the idea seems less appropriate. 48 l:ta1 4:Jc4+ 49 �d3 4:Ja 5 50 �c1 .i.C4+ 51 �e3 4:Jb3 52 ltg1 f5 If 52 ... 4:Jd4, White could obtain counter­ play with 53 f4 f6 54 fxe5 fxe5 55 g4. 5 3 f4! Exploiting the absence of Black's pieces from the kingside is the best practical chance. 2 02

8.12 A.Karpov-V.Korchnoi Candidates final (16th matchgame), Moscow 1974

5 3 �d4 4:Jb7 Korchnoi seems to have b7 in mind as the blockading square.

R o o k v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

54 g4 'iii> h 7 5 5 '.t>g3 �g6 56 �4 hxg4 57 fxg4 f6 58 l::t d 1 'iii> h 6 59 l::t d 4 'iii> g 6 60 h 5+ �h6 61 b5 g6 62 hxg6 �xg6 63 b6 'iii>f7 64 ':d2 'iii> e 7 65 ':C2 i.d5 66 ':C7+ We6 67 lth7 liJd6 1/z-1/z With the b-pawn held in check White cannot make progress. The rook may have greater chances with a rook's pawn (i.e. a- or h-pawn), which as a rule leads to more difficulties for a knight.

8.13 A.Karpov-G.Kasparov World Championship (2nd matchgame), Moscow 1985

l::t d 8+ 57 'iii>C 4 l:td1 58 i.xa 3 l:ta1 59 Wb3 l::t h 1 60 gxh5 ':xh3+ 61 liJC3 l::tf3 After 61 ...':xh5 62 liJe4, the fork on d6 enables White to hold on to the f-pawn. 62 i.c1 l:txf5 63 h61 g6 After 63 ... g5 64 liJe4 Wg6 65 h7 ':f3+ (65 ... 'iii>xh7 66 liJxf6+ :xf6 67 i.xg5 is drawn) 66 Wc4 :h3, White has either the simple 67 i.b2 or the flashy 67 tiJxf6! and draws. 64 liJe4 ':h5 65 i.b2 1/z-1/z 65 .. .£5 is met by 66 h7! l:txh7 67 liJg5+. Bishop and knight vs rook and pawn is one of those material balances that provokes dis­ cussion. Actually it's slightly surprising to me that the minor pieces don't score more highly than 53%. If both sides have passed pawns, the in­ dividual characteristics of the actual case must naturally be taken into consideration. In the following position, for instance, White is unable to engineer a convincing kingside push, so the minor pieces have plenty of time to support the c-pawn whilst restrain­ ing White's desired counterplay.

8.14 A.Lilienthal-M.Botvinnik USSR Championship, Moscow 1944 Stopping the advanced passed pawn will need the combined efforts of all White's pieces, when Black can switch his attention to the kingside. Nevertheless, the game con­ tinuation and Kasparov's notes suggest that Black's decoy doesn't earn him enough time to be able to win. 46 Jle8+ 47 Wf2 h5 48 i.C3 l:tb8 49 i.b4 ':d8 50 We2 a3 51 i.C3 f6 52 i.b4 �7 Although Kasparov prefers 52 ...Wh7, he still feels that White can hold with 53 i.c3 ':b8 54 liJb4! nb5 55 g4 l:.b8 56 'iii> d 3 l::t a8 57 liJa2 :a4 58 i.b4 'iii>h6 59 i.d2+ and Black hasn't achieved very much. 53 liJC3 l:tb8 54 liJa2 ':b5 5 5 g4 ':b8 56 'iii>d 3 .•

Black's passed pawn proves by far the most dangerous, especially when supported 2 03

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay by all three pieces. Look how quickly it goes all the way!

rior king are able to keep control.

42 h4 �d7 43 g4 .i.d5 44 �C1 �e6 45 g 5 �e5?

2 5 ... �c8 26 liJd4 �c1 2 7 liJb3 11h1 28 h3

Far better is 45 ... c4, avoiding the possibil­

The minor pieces supported by the supe­

Note how the rook cannot d o very much.

ity examined in the following note.

28 ...�g8 29 a 3

46 a5?

An important moment, a s Korchnoi set­ tles on his plan. Exchanging a pair of pawns, may seem to open the board and benefit the rook, but in fact White reduces his potential

White should have taken the opportunity to mix things with 46 h5! ?, e.g. 46 ... c4 47 �e1 'iit> d6 (if 47 ... �f5?! 48 g6 liJxf6 49 g7 liJg8 50 �e8 f6 51 a5 and White can keep on fighting) 48 g6 fxg6 49 f7 .i.xf7 50 �xe4 gxh5 51 �f2

queenside exposure, so that it will be easier to defend in the future. Furthermore, Black's

with good drawing chances.

weak a-pawn will soon require defending.

46 ... C4 47 �f1 c3 48 �e2 �d4 49 �d1+ �C4 50 �e3 c2 51 ng1 �c3 52 �f4 liJf2 5 3 �e5 liJd1 54 g6 c1ii 55 �g3+ 'iit> b 4 56 �xd 5 'iVC5+ 5 7 �e4 fxg6 0-1

29 ... bxa3 30 bxa 3 �8 31 a4 �e8 32 as �d7 33 �e2 �C7 34 �d2 �f1 35 �e2 �h1 36 �d2 �f1 3 7 �C3

When the minor pieces don't have a passed pawn to play with, and are hardly

White's king advances up the board, whereas Black's can only wait for the time being.

37 ... �e1 38 liJc5 �a1 39 �b4 l:r.e1 40 'iit> b 5

likely to generate one for a while, then the strategy will be quite different. With pawns on both wings one of the main tasks is to con­ trol key squares, so denying the rook any dangerous penetration. In 8.15, although Black's rook attains the eighth rank, White has well-placed pieces and prevents damage.

8.15 V.Korchnoi-L.Polugaevsky Candidates semi-final (3rd matchgame), Evian 1977 40...�b8?! It would be better still to wait until White goes to a6 before committing his king to b8.

41 �a6 Keene considers 41 �c6! to be stronger. Presumably this means that after 41 ...�c8 White has 42 liJb7! l:Ic1+ 43 �d6 �d1+ 44 �e7 �d7+ 45 �e8 with strong threats, one idea being 45 ... f6 46 liJd6+ e3 64 i.b5) 63 tiJf5+ 'it>xd3 64 tiJxh6 'it>c3. Sometimes there are more important fac­ tors than a couple of pawns ...

8.23 G.Flear-G.And ruet Athens 1989

•••

••

For the price of the h-pawn the knight comes back into play and the blockade will be adequate to hold the game. 54 l:txh4 5 5 tiJd3 l1h2+ 56 'it>c1 'it>d 5 5 7 i.f7+ 'it>e4 58 i. g 6+ 'it>e3 59 tiJb4 l:t h 6 60 tiJC2+ 'it>f4 61 i.d3 as 62 tiJxd41 Yz-Yz •..

Although mating nets are not a regular feature in this NQE, I remember a nice swin­ dle based on an unexpected mate. 64 i.b3 l:te7+ 65 'it>f3 l:td7?

Inste9-d, 65...l:te1 would more or less re­ peat a position from earlier in the game. 66 'it>g3 ! ! 211

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay A shock, to which my opponent failed to adjust.

66 ... g5? After 66. . Jhd4 67 i.e6 Black, facing mate, would be obliged to give up his rook; but then 67. . . l::txf4! 68 'it'xf4 'it'h4 would still give him good drawing chances.

67 f51 Now, with a passed pawn and Black's

The game ended rather unfortunately with 91 . . .h2+? 92 ct>hl i.f3+ 93 ':g2+ V2-V2, since it's the WRP!

92 ':f2 i.d5 If 92 ... i.e3 White fights on with 93 �h2. 93 :e2 'it'g3 94 :e3+ �h4 9 5 ':e2 �g4 96 l:tb2 'iii'g 3 97 ':g2+ 'iii'f3 98 l::t e 2 Instead, 98 ':e2 i.e3+ 99 ct>f1 i.c4 100 ct>el i.gl and 98 ':f2+ ct>e4 are no improve­

poor king, White rapidly finishes off any

ment for White.

resistance.

98 'iii'e 41

67 g4 .•.

If 67 .. Jhd4 then 68 i.f7 is mate.

68 f41 ':'e7 69 tDe6! Dominating Black's rook due to mate.

69 :a7 •••

A clever stalemate trick, but it doesn't help.

70 f6 :a3 71 f7 ':xb3+ 72 �g2 l:tb2+ 7 3 f1 :b1+ 74 'itte 2 l:b2+ 7 5 �e3 g3 76 f8'ii' g 2 7 7 'ii'g 7 1-0

•..

A move originally proposed in a study by Berger.

99 ':'e2+ Or 99 :b2 ct>d3 100 ':'e2 cJi>c3 and it's zugzwang. The rook has no safe moves along the second rank.

99 ...ct>d3 100 ':b2 ct>e3 101 ':e2 ct>b3 This position is worth a diagram.

Rook vers us Two Bishops 8 .24 V.Ciocaltea-L.Pachman Pra gue 1954

White is in zugzwang. The best he will obtain is two bishops vs bare king (see example 1 .2).

In most cases where a rook and extra pawn are facing the bishop pair, the bishops will be on top. The following is a notable exception. With two bishops and pawn vs bare rook the win is usually straightforward, but there are technical difficulties with a wrong rook's pawn.

91 ... i.f3 1 212

8.2 5 V.Kramnik-A.Shirov Monte Carlo (rapid) 1995

R o o k v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

vicinity!) can combine to cover a blockading square twice, and may thus at times be a bet­ ter partnership in defending against a rook plus an annoying passed pawn. However, if any passed pawn can be stopped in its tracks the offensive power of the bishops is then likely to come to the fore.

8.26 E.Bareev-A.Shirov Hastings 1991/92 The bishops have no targets, while the distant passed pawn is a serious danger for White. 36 'it'f2 as 3 7 'it'e2 �d4 38 i.e1 The a-pawn must be stopped. Slower at­ tempts fail, e.g. 38 We3 �b4 39 i.c6 a4 40 'it'd3 a3 41 i.dS e6 42 .lta2 l:tb2 etc. 38 ... l:te4+ 39 'it'd1 a4 40 i.d2 a3 41 'it'c2 a2 42 'it'b2 l:td4! Now the dark-squared bishop cannot continue to defend both the f4-pawn and the b4-square. 43 i.C3 A lesser evil than 43 i.e3? .:tb4+. 43 ...l:txf4 44 '>t>xa2 The a-pawn is finally neutralized, but at the high cost of losing the kingside. 44 .. JU2+ 45 ..t>b3 ':xg2 46 h3 l:tg3 47 i.f1 l:tf3 48 i.g2 l:tf2 49 i.c6 l:th2 50 e6 50 i.d7 e6 would be equally hopeless. 50 .. .fxe6 51 i.e5 .uxh3+ 52 'it'c2 l:th5 53 i.d4 e5 54 i.e3 Wf7 55 'it'd3 'it>f6 56 'it'e4 l:th4+ 5 7 'it'f3 h 5 58 'it' g3 ':'C4 59 i.f3 h4+ 6 0 'it'f2 g5 61 i.e2 l:ta4 62 i.d1 l:tb4 63 i.e2 g4 64 i.f1 'it'f5 65 i.d3+ e4 0-1 One characteristic of the bishop pair is that they require help from their king to hold back such a distant passed pawn. This is because any potential blockading square can be covered by only one of the bishops. In contrast, a bishop and knight (if it's in the

White has an advanced passed pawn in this example, but the bishops, aided by their king, are able to keep it in check. 3 1 ... i.f6 32 :e1 32 e7!?, with the idea that 32 ... 'it'f7?? loses to 33 e8'iV+ 'it'xe8 34 �e1, is successfully met by 32 ... i.g6! 33 l:te1 i.e8 and Black will soon pick up the pawn with ... 'it'f7 etc. 32 ... i.g6 33 nC1 'it'f8 34 b4 After 34 lk6, Black again has to be care­ ful. One promising continuation is 34 ... aS 3S J::f.a6 a4 (not 3S ... i.xb2? as there is 36 e7+! and 37 l:Ixg6) 36 b3 axb3 37 axb3 'it'e7! (37 ...b4?! prepares to blunder after 38 l:tb6 with 38 ... i.c3??; i.e. 39 e7+ and 40 l:txg6 again) 38 l:tb6 i.d3 39 h3 i.c3, followed by ... b4 and ... i.c2. 34 ... i.e4 35 l:tc8+ 3S l:tc7 would be ineffective due to the simple 3S ... i.dS. 213

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

3 5 .'�e7 36 :e7+ 'it>xe6 3 7 l:ta7 i.e2 1 •.

By stopping a2-a4 Black keeps a pawn presence on the queenside. This is important as the NQE of rook vs two bishops, with two pawns each on the kings ide would probably not be winning. 38 :xa6+ �d5 39 l:ta7 i.e5 40 lIa8 i.e3 41 :e8 �d4 42 :e7 �d3 43 h4 i.a4 44 g4 Hastening the end, but if White does nothing much then Black's king will go via c2 and b2 to attack the queenside pawns. 44 ... i.f6 45 h5 'it>e4 0-1 Coming back to pick off the g-pawn.

3 2 ... a6 3 3 i.. a 7 'it>f8 34 i.e2 :d5 3 5 i.b6 g6 36 i.f3 litd7 Now with everything under control and with Black on the defensive, the white king can be brought up. 37 'it>e4 h 5 38 i.e3 'it>e7 39 �e5 rJi>d8 40 i.f4

When the rook is not particularly active, nor able to put any pressure on the opposing position, it's easier for the bishop pair to gradually to assume control.

8.2 7 L.Van Wely-Ki.Georgiev Elista Olympiad 1998 (see following diagram)

Black's rook cannot cause any damage so the weakness of his queenside is key. 3 2 i.b8! Van Wely aims to generate an outpost on b6 for this bishop, which will then be able to cover as and f2 simultaneously. 214

40 ...f6 This has the disadvantage of creating an additional weakness on e6 which the Dutch­ man duly exploits. An interesting question in many an end­ ing and NQE is whether or not the defender can hold with a purely passive defence. Af­ ter 40 ... rJi>c8, for instance, a direct attack on b7 doesn't look convincing: 41 �b6 lle7 42 i.d5 l::t d 7. However, space domination sh?uld soon reap some benefits: 41 i.d6 'it>d8 42 h4 'it>c8 43 'it>d5 'it>d8 44 'it>e5 'it>e8 45 i.d1 ! and the threat of i.. a4 is deadly.

R o o k v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

41 .i.d6 h4 42 'it>d 5 f5 43 �e6 The e6-square is ideal for the king! Black is now faced with the loss of a kingside pawn or two. 43 ... g5 44 h3 g4 45 hxg4 fxg4 46 .i.xg4 l:!g7 47 .i.h3 .l:.g6+ 48 �d 5 l:tg5+ 49 .i.e5 �e7 50 f4 l:tg3 51 f5 .l:td3+ 5 2 .i.d4 �f7 53 f6 1:td1 54 .te6+ �8 55 �e5 1-0

pawns, Black has weaknesses on e5 and g6 as well as the a-pawn. 40 �a 5 hxg4 41 fxg4 g6 If 41 ...Ita8, then 42 .i.e3+ �h7 43 h5, fol­ lowed by bringing the bishop to e4, where­ upon the a-pawn is lost anyway.

8.28 A.Shirov-V.Kramnik Wijk aan Zee 1998

White's bishop pair and more active king give him a significant advantage. His strat­ egy revolves around seeking enough control of the kingside, along with the elimination of the black a-pawn. 34 ... h5 3 5 'it>c3 .l:!.c8 It's probably better to keep the pawns flexible with 35 ... hxg4 36 fxg4 g6. 36 �b4 l:!.bB+ 37 �a4 � g 6? Now 37... hxg4 38 fxg4 g6 was the only way at least to obtain some freedom of ac­ tion on the kingside. 3B .i.e6! This stymies any serious Black activity on the flank. 3B .. J:thB 39 .i.f2 �h6 After 39 . . ..l::te8 Stohl suggests 40 .i.f5+ �h6 41 g5+! fxg5 42 .i.e3 g6 43 .i.xg5+ �g7 44 .i.e4, and while White defends all his

42 g5+!? Taking the opportunity to stamp his au­ thority on the right flank. 42 ...Wg7 A better chance than 42... fxg5 43 .i.e3. 43 �xa6! One error players sometimes make is to be distracted by a tactical sequence. Here, for instance, Shirov rejected the tempting 43 d4? intending 43 ... exd4 44 .i.xd4 l:txh4 45 gxf6+, as then 45 ... �h7 46 .i.c5 l:tf4 47 .i.e7 g5 and Black's g-pawn will earn him a draw with White's king so far away. It's better for White to bring his king back into play first, if he can, before seeking anything flashy. 43 ... l:tdB Voluntarily breaking up his own pawns with 43 . . .fxg5 44 hxg5 1Ih2 (or if 44 .. .1:th5 then 45 .i.e3) 45 .i.c5 Itd2 46 .i.c4 just leads to a slow death. White has no problem hold­ ing on to his pawns while his king comes back into play to pressurize, and ultimately win the e-pawn. 44 .i.C4 f5 45 �b7 e4 46 d4! ! An excellent move. Shirov calculates that his best chance of winning is to create a 215

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

passed pawn, even if Black gets two con­ nected ones. 46 ... f4 47 d5 e3 48 1i.. e 1 f3 49 �C71 !If8 The tactical shot 49 .. JhdS SO 1i.. xdS f2 obviously loses to S1 1i.. c3+ (with check! ) 5l...�h7 52 1i.. c4. 50 d6 .l:tf4 SO ... e2 goes down to the neat S1 d7 f2 S2 1i.. xf2 .l:txf2 53 d8'ii' e1'it' S4 'ii'g8 mate. 51 1i..C 3+ �h7 52 1i.. d 3 1-0 Sometimes just the threat of improving one's pieces is sufficient to induce the oppo­ nent to undertake self-weakening opera­ tions.

8.29 G.Henri-G.Flear Avignon 2005

passive position beware of making unnecessary pawn moves. He would have done better to have waited patiently, despite the fact that Black can make progress with ... �f7-g6-f5 and to f4 or eS, perhaps combined with ... h4 and a timely ... dS. 34 ...'it>g6 35 .l:th1?1 Slightly better was 3S h4 hS 36 gxhS+ �xhS 37 :h1 1i.. d 4!, but White would never­ theless encounter difficulties in holding his h-pawn; i.e. after .. .£S and ... 1i.. f6, or ... 1i..e5 and ... i.. g3. 3 5 ...'it>g5 36 h4+ �f4 Black's active king now causes panic in the white camp. 37 g5?1 fxg5 38 hxg5 �xg5 39 f4+ �g6 It's clear that all White's kingside action has achieved is the loss of a pawn. Now, with a passed pawn to boot, Black has no problems winning. 40 :th2 h 5 41 �f3 d 5 42 1:[g2+ 1i.. g 4+ 43 �g3 1i.. e 3 44 cxd5 cxd 5 45 :c2 �f5 46 l:tc8 1i..xf4+ 47 �f2 d4 48 .l:tC5+ �e4 0-1

The next example may not seem advan­ tageous for Black at first, but it is!

8.30 A.Shirov-B.Gelfa nd Dos Hermanas 1995

Although White has a pawn and a solid position the bishops will give Black the ad­ vantage if the rook cannot generate any threats. So Black will aim to keep White quiet, consolidate and improve his pieces. Then he will be ready to create a passed pawn with ... d5. 31 ... 1i..C 5 32 �e2 �f7 33 f3 as 34 g4?1 A poor anti-positional move. White was no doubt frustrated by his lack of anything to do' and decided to gain space'. This is a typical example of the golden rule that in a I

I

216

Material is certainly limited and White's

R o o k v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

passed pawn is still an important factor, but the weakness of the g3-square turns out to be crucial, especially as White's king is so far away. If for comparative purposes we men­ tally placed the white king on h2, there wouldn't be the same problems as the weakness could then be defended without obliging the rook to help out. 47 ... i.d4 48 �d2 i.f2 49 .l:!.a3 �f6 50 .l:!.d3 �e6 Salov suggests 50 ... i.e6!? intending ... �f5-g4. This certainly seems like another plausible way of increasing the pressure on the g3-pawn. 51 �C3 i.e2

5 2 .l:!.d8 Naturally not 52 Iid2? i.el . 52 �e7 5 3 .l:!.d5 f6 54 �d2 i.g4 After 54 ... i.xc4?! 55 .l:!.xh5 i.xg3 56 �e3 White should be able to hold. 55 .l:!.d3 �e6 56 !ia3 �d7 There seems to be more than one way to skin this rabbit. For instance Gelfand could also have played 56 ... �d6, when a logical continuation would be 57 .l:!.a6+ �c5 58 .l:!.xf6 �xc4 59 ':d6 (or 59 .l:!.g6 �d4!) 59 ... i.xg3 60 �e3 h4 61 .l:!.g6 h3! 62 llxg4 h2 63 .l:!.xg3 hl'ir' with a theoretical, but not that straightfor­ ward win. As the Nalimov tablebase claims mate in thirty moves, Gelfand was perhaps wise to choose the game continuation! 57 .l:!.a6 •••

The alternative try 57 c5!? is best met by 57 ... �c6 58 Iic3 f5 with zugzwang, e.g. 59 �c2 i.xc5. 5 7 ... i.xg3 58 .l:!.xf6 �e7 Gelfand points out that the simplest win was 58 ... h4! 59 �e3 h3 60 ::th6 h2, followed by manoeuvring the light-squared bishop to the long diagonal to enforce ... hl'ir'. 59 l:ta6 h4 60 �e3 h3 61 c5 h2 62 .l:!.a1

62 ... �f6! With the aim of eliminating the f-pawn. It's not too late to go wrong as the continu­ ing presence of White's pawns gives draw­ ing chances; for example, 62 ... �d7? 63 .l:!.c1 �c6 64 �e4 i.e2 65 �e3 i.h5 66 .l:!.al ! and Gelfand doesn't believe that Black can win here, e.g. 66 ... i.f7 67 �f3 i.h4 68 �g2. 63 11b1 The win after 63 �e4 involves an instruc­ tive king walk: 63 ... �g6 64 c6 �h5 65 c7 �h4 66 �e3 (or 66 f5 i.xc7) 66 ... �h3 67 .l:!.c1 �g2 68 llc2+ �f1 and wins as Black can meet checks on c1 with ... i.el . While after 63 c6, Black heads in the other direction: 63 ... 'it>e7 64 .l:!.c1 �d8 65 c7+ 'it>c8 66 �e4 i.e2 67 'it>e3 (if 67 f5, simplest is 67... i.xc7 68 f6 'it>d7 69 f7 i.d6 70 .l:!.hl 'it>e7 71 'it>e3 i.b5 as analysed by Bonsch) 67 ... i.h5 and we have zugzwang. White cannot move his rook (which needs to defend both the c-pawn and the hI-square), so he has to move his king, e.g. 68 �e4 i.f2 69 .l:!.hl i.gl 70 f5 i.e8 etc. 21 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

63 ...'itfs 64 c6 i.xf4+ 65 �f2 i.h3 66 �f3 i.C7 67 !tbS+? 67 l:te1 is more resistant, but after 67 ... �g5 68 J:tc1 i.e6 69 �e4 �g4 Black's king makes it to the h-pawn and wins. 67 ... �f6 68 l:tb1 i.e6 69 11d1 0-1 If 69 �e4 id5+, while after 69 J:td1 Black has a choice between 69 ... h1'iiV+ or 69 ... i.d5+. Even two pawns to the goo'd, the side with the rook may have difficulties against the bishop pair, as you can see in 8.31 .

sibilities on the queenside. 37 /tle7 38 a s White would now meet 3 8. . .a 6 with 39 b4! in order to increase the pressure down the long light diagonal with b4-bS, one of the aspects of advancing the queenside pawns. 38 �d7?! A loose move just before the time control. Instead, Shirov recommends 38... �d6!?, so that 39 dS could be met by 39 ... eS. •.

..•

8. 3 1 A.Shirov-R.Hubner Munich 1993

34 ... �g6?1 Instead, Shirov gives the improvement 34 ... �e7 3S �e3 �d6, as this limits White's advantage to a minimum. 35 �e3 J:td8 If Black decides that his passed pawn must be pushed then White will first rede­ ploy his king as a blockading piece: 3S ... hS 36 �f2 J:tg8 37 �g3 �h6+ 38 �h4, and then he would plan to open the position as in the game with d4-dS. 36 i.C3 �f7 37 a4 Shirov is best known for his tactical abil­ ity, but before he blasts open the position he patiently takes the time to improve his pos218

39 d S ! The bishops corne to life and suddenly there are problems for Black along both long diagonals! 39 ... exd s 40 cxd S cxdS Shirov points out that after 40 ... :f8 41 dxc6+ bxc6 42 �d4 nb8 43 �c4, Black is ba­ sically lost, as he won't be able to defend all his weaknesses (a7, c6, f6) for long; e.g. 43 ... l:i.f8 44 i.d4 a6 4S b4 J:tf7 46 'it'cS. 41 i.xf6 J:tf8 42 i.h4! The bishop conveniently covers d8 and e1, two squares that could have corne in handy for Black's rook. Now the d-pawn is lost. 42 ... 'ii;> c 6 43 �d4 �bS 44 .i.xd S �xa s 45 .i.xb7 l:tb8 46 i.ds hS 47 i.e6 �a6 Or 47 ... J:tbS 48 i.d8+ �b4 49 i.e7+ �aS SO �c4 and the f-pawn falls anyway. 48 i.C4+ �b6 49 �es a s 50 �xfS �cS 51 �eS 1-0 S1...a4 fails to S2 i.e7+.

R o o k v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

Two Knights vers us Rook The knight pair is less likely than other mi­ nor piece duos to be able to beat a rook. Apart from the positional problems faced by knights competing on a wide front, one of the reasons is simply that two knights vs bare king is drawn. This means that, in order to halve out in the following position, the defender just has to give up his rook for the pawn. Although this is easier written than done, I believe that there are in general excellent drawing chances.

8.32 J.Benjamin-J.Timman Amsterdam 1994

83 1Ib3? White finally makes a mistake. Also in­ adequate is 83 'it>d4? lLif3+ 84 'it>d3 g3 85 'it>e2 g2! 86 ':!'xf3+ 'it>g4 87 nf8 (or 87 .l:i.f1 lLig3+) 87 ... gl'iV 88 �g8+ lLig5 and wins. Timman shows the right way with 83 .:!.al ! which would hold for now and should be a draw with best play. Naturally Black can move around trying to create a way to win and, in particular, test someone who was desper­ ately short of time with something like 83 ... lLih3 84 l1a4 lLihf2 85 na3 lLidl 86 'it>d4 lLig5 87 .l:!.al lLie3 88 'it>d3 �f3 and the result is still in doubt! 83 lLif3 84 l:tb2 .••

In this position Benjamin was rather short of time which, along with Timman's wily manoeuvring, put heavy pressure on White. 63 l:tb8 lLig5 64 l:lb5 lLief3 65 nb4 lLie4! Not 65 ... g3? when after 66 l::t g4 the g­ pawn falls. 66 'it>c2 lLifg5 67 l1b3 'it>g2 68 �a3 'it>f2 69 'it>d3 'it>f3 70 'it>d4+ 'it>f4 71 'it>d5 lLif3 72 .l:ta4 lLifd2 73 l:la 3 lLif1 74 'it>d4 lLifd2 75 'it>d 5 lLif3 76 I!a4 lLifg5 77 :ta3 lLif6+ 78 'it>d6 lLige4+ 79 'it>e6 lLie8 80 'it>d5 lLiC7+ 81 'it>c6 lLie6 82 'it>d 5 lLi6g5

84 lLifd2 With the b3-square covered the g-pawn is ready to advance. 85 l:tc2 g3 86 .l:tc1 lLif3 87 .l:i.c2 0-1 .••

219

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

A decisive promotion is assured after 87 ... lLled2 88 Ilc1 g2 89 Ild1 lLlfl . A wide open centre is a typical situation where the rook is in its element.

8 .3 3 A.Dreev-A.Morozevich Wijk aan Zee 2002

zevich's suggestion of 54 'itf3! 'it>e8 55 'itg4 is interesting, when White has some annoying pressure following 55 ... �f7 56 .l:!h6 lLlg8 57 nd6 lLlgf6+ 58 'it>f5 g4 59 a4, although a draw is still the most likely result. 54 ... 'it>e8 55 l:td6 'it>d8 56 l:th6 'it>C7 57 l:Ie6 'it>d8 Yz-Yz Naturally the knights are happier when they have outposts and the position remains blocked.

8 . 34 M.Gurevich-M.lllescas Cordoba Spanish Team Championship 2004

White manages to activate his rook suffi­ ciently to hold the balance. In such positions where the knights lack firm footholds they can be made to feel uncomfortable! 43 ... lLld4 44 'it>e3 lLlc6 45 'it>e4 lLld7?! An inaccuracy! Instead, Morozevich sug­ gests 45 ... 'it>c7!, the point being that 46 b5 can be met by 46 ... �d6, as 47 bxc6? fails to 47 ... 'it>xc5 48 cxb7 lLld7 49 'it>f5 'it>c6 50 'it>g6 'it>xb7 51 'it>xh6 g4. So then he gives 46 'it>f5 'itd6 47 'it>g6 lLle5+ 48 'it>xh6 g4 49 l:ta5 a6 50 b5! with equality, which implies that 50 ... axb5 51 Ilxb5 lLlbc4 52 .l:txb7 lLlxa3 is just a draw. 46 l:tCl! Continuing to keep Black's king away from the centre and getting ready to shake up the kingside pawn structure. 46 lLle7 47 h4 a6 48 hxg5 hxg5 49 .l:Ihl 'itC7 50 l:th6 'itdS 51 l:thS+ 'it>C7 52 I!h6 b6 53 l:te6 'it>dS 54 l:th6 Leading to a tame end. Instead, Moro..•

220

The knights are well placed and quickly dominate the rook. 44 ... 'it>b6 45 'it>c3 'it>a 5 46 l:I.e2 lLlb4 47 .l:i.el lLlbd5+ 48 'it>b2 'it>b4 49 J:r.gl After 49 l:te2 lLld1+ 50 'itc1 lLl5e3 51 l:te1, Black has 51...'it>xb3. 49 lLlf5 50 l:tcl No better is 50 l:td1 c6 51 l::t d 3 lLlde3 52 l:!.d2, as 52 ... b6! is already zugzwang. (There's no need to enter complications with 52 ... lLlh4?! 53 d5 cxd5 54 I!d4+ 'it>c5 55 l:txf4 lLlhxg2.) 50 ... c6 51 .l:i.c4+ 'it>a 5 52 'it>a 3 lLlfe3 5 3 l:tC5+ 'it>b6 Although White has repulsed the oppos­ ing king, he now loses his g-pawn. ..•

R o o k v e rs u s Two M i n o r P i e c e s

54 .l:.c1 liJxg2 5 5 .l:.h1 liJge3 56 �b2 liJf5 5 7 .l:.d1 �a 5 58 �a 3 liJde3 0-1 As 59 l:td2 is strongly met by 59 ... liJxd4!, White resigned. An active rook creates more practical problems, as in the following example.

8.3 5 P.Harikrishna-N.Short Hyderabad 2002

the g-pawn. 37 gxf5 exf5 The passed g-pawn will be an important string to Black's bow. 3S .l:.fS+ �e6 39 .l:.cS g4+ 40 �g3 Or 40 �f2 liJe4+ 41 �gl liJxa3 etc. 40 ... liJxe2+ 41 �h4 ..ti>d7! 42 .l:tc5 g3 43 �h3 liJxe3 0-1 The g-pawn will go the whole way. Distant passed pawns are often a prob­ lem for knights.

8. 3 6 B.Spassky-V.Seirawan Linares 1983

Short will need to find good outposts for his knights. 26 .l:.a8 liJdc5 27 b4 Pushing the knight away and winning the a-pawn. 27 liJa4 28 .l:.xa6 liJec3 By using the c3-square for the two knights to defend each other, Black is able to render his queenside as solid as a rock. Now it's time to take care of the other flank . 29 .l:.a5 g4 30 h3 gxh3+ 3 1 �xh3 �g6 3 2 �g4 Otherwise Black could have played ... ..ti>f5-e4. 3 2 f5+ 3 3 �3 �6 34 a 3 g5 3 5 g4 liJb2 With the kingside tidied up it's time to bring this knight to the more active c4square. 36 .l:.aS liJc4 Threatening ... liJe5+ followed by winning .•.

.••

39 .l:.xh6+ �d5 40 h 5 White's passed pawns (especially the h­ pawn) require a defensive approach from the knights. 40 a 5 41 .l:f6 liJdS 42 h6 liJef7 43 h7 a4 The knights have managed to stop the h­ pawn but are now completely tied up, while Black's king is tom between defending the queenside and helping out his hobbled steeds. 44 �g3 liJhS 45 l:tb6 �c4 46 a3 liJdf7 47 �4 �C5 48 ':bS �d6 Otherwise Spassky intended �f4-f5-f6g7. 49 ':xb5 ..ti>e6 50 .l:.a 5 liJg6+ 51 ..ti>e3 �6 52 .••

221

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

nxa4 'iii>g 7 53 na7 1-0 Now it's the a-pawn that will cause all the damage. To finish with, a complicated example where the rook and two pawns should be better than the knight pair.

8. 3 7 G.Flear-O.Renet Hastings 1987/88

Black has a good pawn front in the centre and two extra pawns. White's knights are at present largely ineffective, so Black is natu­ rally interested in trying for the whole point. 44 f3 nb8 45 'iii>c 2 l:th8 46 t2Ja4 'iii>d 6 47 t2Jd3 nf8?! Aiming for a race, but one which proves to be far from clear. A better chance of win­ ning is the safe option of 47 ....tk8!, when a typical continuation such as 48 'iii> d 2 llc7 49 t2Jc3 c4 50 bxc4 nxc4 leaves a position which only Black could win. He would then have an outside passed a-pawn along with his centre, while the knights still have nothing on which to bite. 48 t2Jaxc5 nxf3 49 t2Jxa6 e4 50 t2JdC5 'iii>e 5 51 b4 d4 52 b5

222

52 ...'iii>d 5? If 52... 'iii> f4, White has the resource 53 b6 'iii>e3 54 t2Jxe4!, taking the sting out of Black's pawns. Then 54 ... 'iii>xe4 55 b7 nf2+ 56 'iii>b3 nf8 57 b8'ti' 1::txb8+ 58 t2Jxb8 'iii>f4 leads to a draw, but bearing in mind what now hap­ pens, this is Black's best continuation. 53 b6 l:tf6 54 t2Jd7 kIf2+ 5 5 'iii> b 3 '>t>c6 This doesn't hold up the b-pawn for long, but it's probably too late to save the game anyway. He could try to see what White's intentions are with 55 .. JU3+, as 56 'iii>c2 kIf2+ 57 'iii>b3 repeats. However, 56 'iii>b4! leads to a far from obvious win: 56 ... e3 57 'iii>b5! (successfully combining promoting the b-pawn with knight checks to stop the black e-pawn; instead 57 b7?? e2 leaves Black on top) 57... e2 58 t2Jb4+ '>t>e6 (or 58 ... 'iii>e4 59 b7 e1'iV 60 t2Jc5+ and the new queen is lost to a fork!) 59 t2Jc5+ �e7 60 t2Jbd3 'iii> d 6 61 b7 'iii>c 7 62 �a6 llfl 63 �a7! and wins. The knights were amazing in these variations! 56 t2Jac5 .l:tfl 57 b7 l:tbl+ 58 �C4 lIxb7 59 t2Jxb7 d3 60 t2Je5+ �xb7 61 t2Jxd3! �c6 62 t2Jel l-0 Even though Black's king was close by, it was astonishing how effective the knights were in pushing the b-pawn home. So they shouldn't be underestimated!

C h a pt e r N i n e

I

Qu e e n vers u s Roo k a n d K n i g ht.

There are six possible situations in which a lone queen is facing two fighting units. Here are their relative frequencies: 26005

My database

'iV v JL�

145 99 91 7

'iV v JL+JL

3

7 9 12 1 1

'iV v tLJ�

3

0

'iV v l:t+JL

'iV v lhll " v ll�

In this and the following two chapters I'll be examining the most common cases. I won't, however, be examining queen vs two minor pieces as this is very rare in practice. In the NQJ? of queen vs rook and knight, in order for the chances to be fairly balanced, one would expect the side with the two pieces to have an extra pawn. The result, of course, de­ pends on many factors, but the solidity of the defensive set-up is often more important than the actual pawn count. One of the most important positional considerations is the situation of the knight. If it can anchor itself on a key square, then the player with the two pieces can

be competitive. Also, if play is on a limited front the queen may have great difficulty in breaking up a well-organized team of defenders. However, as soon as any threats occur on the other wing the knight can be stretched to breaking point. Black needs to hold on to his b7-pawn.

9 .1 Z.Azmaiparashvili-G.Flear

Belgrade 1988

(see following diagram) In order to put up a successful defence

44 ... 11e7 45 'iVxh6+ rJilf7 46 'iVd6 tLJd 5

The blockade seems impossible to lift de­ spite White's king being able to walk all over the place. There are several reasons for this: 1 . There are no pawn breaks of any worth; 2. There is no zugzwang; 3. The b7pawn is unassailable; 4. Black's pieces have

223

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

good defensive squares available.

47 �a2 .l:.e6 48 'ii' b 8 .l:.e7 49 �b3 .l:.d7 50 �C4 .l:.e7 51 �C5 .l:td7 5 2 �C4 .l:.e7 53 .d8 .:te8 54 'ii'd 7+ .l:.e7 5 5 'ii'f 5+ �e8 56 'ii'c 8+ Wf7 57 �c5 .l:tC7 58 Wd8 .l:.e7 59 a4 �e6 60 "'d6+ �7 61 b4 It's not clear how strong the threat of b4b5 is, but it's best to avoid letting White have unnecessary chances. 61 ... liJC3 62 "'f4+ �e8 63 Wb8+ �f7 64 Wf4+ �e8 65 "'g4 liJe4+ 66 �b6 liJd6 67 Wg8+ �d7 68 Wb8 �e6 69 'ii'd 8 �d5 70 �a7 �e6 71 Wg8+ �d7 72 �b6 .l:.e8 73 Wg4+ �d8 74 Wg3 �d7 75 Wh3+ �d8 76 a s .l:.e7 77 'ii' h 4 liJc8+ 78 �C5 �c7 79 b5 cxb5 I don't believe that White can achieve anything much after 79 ... axb5?! either; e.g. 80 a6 bxa6 81 Wf6 �b8 82 �xc6 l::t c7+ 83 �d5 �b7, or 80 Wf4+ �d7 81 Wb8 �d8 82 a6 bxa6 83 �xc6 .l:.e6+ 84 �c5 .l:.d6. 80 Wf4+ 'itd8 81 Wf8+ �C7 82 d5 .l:.d7 83 "'f4+ liJd6 84 'ile5 'it>d8 8 5 Wf6+ �C7 86 'ii'e 5 Yz-Yz

In fact, after ... 3 3 ...e5 ... a draw was agreed, since there are no real winning chances with Black being so solid. Yz-Yz In the next example, even with an extra pawn Black didn't win.

. 9.3 G.Kamsky-A.Grischuk Khanty Mansyisk 2005

If each player has four pawns instead of three, this doesn't change things much.

9.2 G.Kasparov-U.Andersson Niksic 1983

224

In fact Grischuk didn't need to win, as a

draw was sufficient for him to progress to the next round of the competition. So I pre­ sume that his main consideration was avoid­ ing doing anything risky with time being

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d K n ig h t

limited. All the same, could he have done better than in the game? 64 f5 Instead, I prefer 64 ... 'it>g6! 65 .l:tf3 'tie5 66 �h1 h5 67 lL'lfl f5, which looks more dan­ gerous for White. 65 .l:tf3 f4 66 lL'le4 'tif5 67 lL'lf2 h 5 68 g3 ! fxg3+ 6 9 'it>xg3 'tie5+ 70 'it>g2 'ii'd 5 71 Wg3 "iVe5+ Yz-Yz •••

tion which eliminates the e-pawns. 53 ... 'it>C7 54 'ii'a 5+ 'it>c8 55 'ii'a 8+ 'it>C7 56 'tie8! lL'lxe5 57 'ii'x e6 l:l:f4+ 58 g4 .l:te4 59 'tid 5 !:tel 60 'iVg8 'it>d6 61 'tixg7 White wins a pawn, a direct consequence of the distant black king. 61 'it>e6 62 'it>g5 Black's problem is that his king is cut off from the kingside. 62 l:!.fl 63 'tig8+ .l:tf7 64 'tic8+ 'it>e7 65 'ii' b 7+ 'it>e6 66 'tia6+ 'it>e7 67 'tia 3+ 'it>e6 68 'tia2+ 'it>d6 69 'tia6+ 'it>e7 70 'tia 3+ 'it>e6 71 "iVa2+ 'it>d6 72 h4 �f3 73 'iVa6+ 'it>e7 74 'tib7+ 'it>e6 75 "iVb6+ 'it>e7 76 'tib4+ 'it>e6 ••.

•..

In the following example, with an equal number of pawns again, the side with the queen was successful, largely due to his king ultimately being able to penetrate deep into the heart of the defender's position.

9.4 E.Bareev-M.Kobalia Russian Team Championship 2006

17 'it>h6! Heading around the g-pawn to create threats at the back. 17 J:lg3 78 'tib6+ 'it>d5 79 'iWb7+ 'it>d6 80 g5 �g4 If Black were to try 80 ... .l:tf3, then, apart from 81 'it>g7 which looks strong enough, White can win with the immediate 81 h5!, as both 81.. . .l:th3 82 "i*b8+ 'it>d5 83 'tia8+ 'it>d4 84 'tia4+ 'it>d5 85 'ii'a2+ 'it>d6 86 'it>g7 llxh5 87 'it>f6 and 81 ...gxh5 82 g6 .l:tf6 83 'it>g5 .l:txg6+ 84 'it>f5 �e6 85 'iVb4+ 'it>d7 86 'tid4+ 'it>e7 87 'tic5+ 'it>d7 88 'tid5+ lead to Black losing one of his loose pieces. 81 'tib6+ 'it>d5 82 'tif2 ne4 83 "iVg2 'it>d4 84 'tid2+ 'it>C4 85 'it>g7 .l:td4 85 ... !:txh4 drops a piece to the fork 86 "iVel . ••

As a general rule, the queen is incapable of winning such positions on her own when there are no pawn breaks, so the role of the king is crucial. 47 'it>c8 48 'iVf3 lL'ld7 49 'it>g3 'it>d8 Naturally not 49 ... lL'lxe5?? 50 'iVc3+. 50 'iVa8+ 'it>C7 51 �a 5+ 'it>c8 52 'it>h4 l:tf7 53 "iVa 8+ 53 'it>g5!? is possible, as 53 ... lL'lxe5 can be countered by 54 �c5+ (rather than 54 'tixe5? .l:tf5+ 55 'ii'xf5 gxf5) 54 ... 'it>d7 55 g4. However, Bareev chooses a more convincing continua••.

225

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

86 'Yi'a 5 .w.e4 87 �f6 From this square White's king attacks the knight on e5 as well as the pawn on g6. 87 ltJf3 After 87 ... 'it'd4, the three pieces appar­ ently defend each other, but not for long: 88 h5 gxh5 89 �f5 .l:!.e2 90 �a1+ 'ifo>c5 91 �gl+ �b4 92 'iWd1 and Black loses material. 88 h5 The breakthrough had to come sooner or later. Black's pieces have been driven away from the g-pawn and the passed pawn can­ not be stopped. 88 ... gxh 5 89 'ilVC7+ 'it>d 3 90 g6 .l:!.g4 91 g7 �e2 92 g8'iW 1-0 •..

On a limited front the rook and knight can be an effective force.

9.5 J.Nunn-A.Vusupov Linares 1988

after 40 f3 is 40 ...'it>h7 41 'iixf7 e4 42 'iWf5+ (not 42 'tIVxf4? .l:!.xf3+! 43 �xf3 exf3 44 'ifo>xf3 'ifo>g6 45 �f4 d4 46 'ifo>e4 d3 47 'ifo>xd3 �f5 etc) 42 ...ltJg6 43 �xd5 lW'3+ 44 h2 J::tf4 when it looks as if he has matters under control. 40 ... .l:th3+ 41 'ifo>g1 J::tx h4 42 'Yi'b8+ 'it>h7 43 'iWxe5 'it'g6 44 'ikd6+ ltJe6 45 'iWxd 5 l::t g4+ 46 'it>h2 .l:!.xg5 47 �e4+ lIf5 48 'iVd3 ltJg5! Heading for g4 via f3 and e5. 49 �g3 ltJf3 50 �e4 ltJe5 51 'iic 2 ltJg4 52 f3 ltJe5 5 3 f4 ltJg4 54 'iid 3 ltJh6 Planning to unravel with ...�h7 and ... g7g6. 5 5 'tIVd6+ �h7 56 'iVd3 If 56 �e7, then Yusupov intended 56 ... g6 57 'tIVf8 ltJg4 58 'ifo>f3 ltJe5+ 59 'ifo>g3 ltJd7 60 'iJVd6 ltJc5 with ... ltJe6 to follow. 56 ... g6 57 'iYd7 ltJg4 58 'tIVa 7 �g7 59 �d4+ ltJf6 60 'iVb2 'it>h7 61 'ilHb7 ltJd 5 62 'tIVa7 ltJxf4 63 'tIVd7 ltJe6 64 'iVb7 :f4 65 'iYb5 h4+ 66 �h3 g5 67 'ii b 7 Black is not held back by 67 'ikd3+ 'ifo>g7 68 'iWc3+ ltJd4. 67 ...ltJf8 68 'iVd 5 'ifo>h6 69 'iVd6+ ltJg6 70 'iVd2 g4+ 71 'it>g2 'it'h5 72 'tIVd 5+ f5 73 'iYd7 h3+ 74 �g1 g3! 7 5 'ii h 7+ �g5 76 'iYxh3 ltJh4! 0-1

9.6 V.lvanchuk-N.Short Riga 1995

40 'it'h2?! The notorious fortieth move! A better chance is 40 f3!, although White is frankly in trouble anyway. Black, with his last move before the time control, might perhaps be tempted by 40 ...':c2, when White has the re­ source 41 'ilVb8+ 'it>h7 42 'iVxe5 and Black has nothing better than taking a perpetual with 42 ... ltJe2+ etc. Instead, Black's best response 226

White was able to win here even with

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

broken pawns. The winning plan consists of advancing up the board while the pieces defend each other and their pawns. The queen soon runs out of things to do and be­ comes a virtual spectator. 38 .. .'i'd3+ 39 �e1 'ii'e 4 Dolmatov prefers 39 ... g6 competing for space. 40 �e2 �g8 41 f5 �f7 42 lIg3 'ii'h 1 43 h 3 'ii'e4 4 4 lIg4 'i' h 1 45 h4 'ii' h 2 4 6 ltJf1 'ii'e 5+ 47 �f3 ! 'ii'd 5+ Naturally not 47 ... 'ii'xf5+? 48 lIf4. 48 lIe4 'i'd1+ 49 �g2 'i'd 5 50 ltJg3 'ii'c 6 Here again Dolmatov proposes 50 ... g6!?, continuing with 51 fxg6+ �xg6 52 �h3 and judges White only to have a slight edge. However, there seem to be very good win­ ning chances with f- and h-pawns, see for example 9.7 below. 51 �h3 'i'c2 52 f3 'ii'd 1 53 �g4 'iig 1 54 l::t e 6 'ii'd 4+ 55 ltJe4 'i'd7 56 ltJg5+ �g8 57 �h5 'i'd8 58 �g6 'ii'd 7 59 h 5 'i'b5 60 ltJe4 1-0

3 7 d 5 3 8 �g2 h 5 3 9 �f1 :C4 40 'ii'e 5 lIe4 41 fiC3 lIa4 42 'ii'e 5 lIC4 43 �g2 lIe4 44 fiC3 l:te2+ 45 �gl lIe6 46 'i'd4 l:te1+ 47 �g2 lIe4 48 'ii'C 3 lIe6 49 'i'd4 �h7 50 �h3 �g7 51 �g2 lIe4 52 'i'c3 lIC4 5 3 'iVe5 d4 Black decides this is the way forward. 54 'i'd6 ltJg4! Provoking White to touch his h-pawn. 55 h3 Worse i s 5 5 'ii'd8 lIc2+ 5 6 �gl lId2. 5 5 ltJf6 The knight goes back, but Black can be satisfied with the damage done to White's pawn structure. 56 �1 lIc1+ 57 �g2 :c2+ 58 �h1 lIC3 59 'i'xd4 59 �g2? nai'vely allows 59 .. .l:hg3+! 60 'itxg3? ltJe4+. 59 .:.xg3 60 �h2 lIf3 61 �g2 J:tb3 •..

..•

.••

If 60 ... 'i'a4 61 ltJd6 and so on.

9 .7 V.Korchnoi-I.Sokolov Rethyrnnon 2003 This is a further example which suggests that, on a limited front, the rook and knight can be very effective against the queen. 22 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

White now has to struggle on with weak pawns, especially the one on f4. 62 �h2 .l:tb5 63 e7 4S ttJb4 'It>e6 46 c3 Intending 'It>c2 followed by .l:Ic6-a6 to oust the black queen. 46 ... 'iVa4 47 'It>b2 'It>f7 48 .l:!.d4 'iVb5 49 'it'b3 'iVfl SO 'it'b2 'iVbs Sl a3 Slowly but surely! Sl ... 'it'f8 S2 'It>b3 'iVfl S3 a4 'iVbl+ 54 'it'C4 'iVa 1

5 5 'It>bS! With Black's king not in the neighbour­ hood White can rely solely on his well­ supported a-pawn. 229

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

5 5 .. JWxC3 56 liJc6 �b3+ 5 7 l:!.b4 'iiVf7 58 a 5 'iiVf 5+ 5 9 �b6 'ii'f 2+ 6 0 � b 7 'ii'f 7+ 61 �a8 'iiVfl 62 �b8 �e8 63 .l:!.d4 'iVf5 63 ... 'iiVa6 wouldn't hold back the a-pawn for long. Indeed White could logically con­ tinue with 64 �c7 'it'f7 65 1;Ib4 'it'g7 66 .l:!.b6 and 67 a6 etc. 64 l:td8+ �f7 65 �C7 'YWb5 66 J:Ib8 �C4 67 �b4 'iiVfl 68 �b7 �e6 69 a6 �d6 70 a7 'iiVf7+ 71 �a6 'YWe8 72 liJa 5 "iVc8+ 7 3 liJb7+ �d 5 74 1;Ib5+ �d4 7 5 :C5 It's just a question of time before the a­ pawn goes one step further. 7 5 ...'iiVe 6+ 76 �b5 'iiV b 3+ 77 �c6 'iiVa 4+ 77 ... 'iiVf3+ is tougher, but White still pre­ vails; e.g. 78 �b6 'iiVb3+ 79 �c7 'iiVf7+ 80 �b8 'i'f4+ 81 �c7 'iWf8+ 82 ':'c8 �f4+ 83 �a8 �xh4 84 liJa5 'i'xg5 85 liJc6+ �e4 86 �b7 etc. 78 �c7 'iiVe 8 79 liJd6! 'iiVa 8 80 Ita 5 �C3 81 liJc8 �b4 82 liJb6 'iiVf8 83 a8'it' 'iVf4+ 84 �c6 'i'cl+ 85 �d7 1-0

It's time to switch to the queenside. 37 liJxh 5 38 'iWxa7 :d6 39 'iiVc 7 l!e6 40 b4 The creation of a second passed pawn leaves Black in serious difficulties. 40 ... cxb4 41 axb4 liJg7 42 b5 liJe8 43 'iVd8+ �e5 44 �d5+ �f6 45 c5 bxc5 46 b6 liJd6 Or 46 ... l:1xb6 47 'iY'd8+. 47 �xC5 1-0 •..

In fact, one of the principle techniques for the side with the queen is to obtain a second passed pawn.

9.10 G.Kasparov-V .Iva nch uk Frankfurt (rapid) 1998

If there is action on more than one front the queen comes into her own.

9.9 A.Dreev-Zhang Zhong Shanghai 2001

White must first avoid any tricks before going on the offensive. 35 'i'f3 l::td 4 36 �gl! �f6 3 7 lib7 230

Widely spaced passed pawns present a difficult problem for any defence involving a knight. 52 1'if6+ �d7 53 'ii'xf7 .l:i.b6 54 �cl .i::I g 6 5 5 'iVf4 .l::i. e 6 56 �dl e3 57 �e2 �c6 58 c4 This clarifies the central structure and opens lines favouring the queen. 58 ... dxC4 59 'iVxC4+ �d7 60 b4 Black has an impossible dilemma: he cannot defend his e-pawn whilst keeping adequate control of both g6 and b6. 60 ... Itg6 If 60 ... �d6, White plays 61 'ii'c5+ �d7 62 b5 liJc8 63 'i'd5+ .l:i.d6 64 iVf5+ and g5-g6. 61 iVg4+ �C7 62 �xe3 liJd 5+ 63 �f2 �d6

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

64 b5 'iit C 5 65 'iVf5 I1g7 66 g6 'iit d6 67 b6 67 iYf8+ l:te7 68 g7 is even simpler. 67 J::t b 7 68 �g3 .l::t g 7 69 'i£th4 l:.g8 70 b7 1-0 .•

By coincidence the same two players had a similar NQE two rounds later on the same day! Again Kasparov has the queen and ob­ tains a second passed pawn, the difference being that Ivanchuk was more successful in holding out this time!

9.11 G.Kasparov-V.lvanchuk Frankfurt (rapid) 1998

5 7 'iVe4+ There is no win with 57 d6 I:I.xd6 58 'iVxd6+ tiJxd6 59 'iitxd6, e.g. 59 ... 'iit g5 60 'it>c5 �xg4 61 'it>b6 �f5 62 �xa6 b4 63 'iitb5 'iite6 64 �xb4 'it'd6 65 �b5 ctJc7. 57 'i£tg5 58 Wie7 �g6 59 a3 �g5 60 'it>b4 'iit g 6 61 'it>C5 �g5 62 �e4 �h6 63 Wihl+ �g7 64 �h 5 llh6 65 �f5 .l:t.f6 66 Wie4 'iit h 6 67 'iVe3+ 'iit g 6 68 'ifh3 'iit g 7 69 g5 tiJxg5 70 'ifg4 l:Ig6 71 �b4 tiJf7 72 Wid4+ Yz-Yz •••

Another way of defending against a troublesome passed pawn is by a timely sac­ rifice. 41 tiJd6 Defending the b-pawn and letting the lame duck of a d-pawn go. 42 �f3 b5 43 g3 .l:!.e6 44 iYxd 5+ 'it>f6 45 g4 tiJf7 46 �f5+ 'iit e 7 47 d4 1U6 48 �e4+ 'iitf8 The black pieces stay together in order to reduce White's chances of creating an addi­ tional target in the form of a loose piece. 49 �g2 �g7 50 �g3 .l:!. g6 51 d 5 l:td6 52 'i£tf4 .l:f.f6+ 53 'iit e 3 ltd6 54 �d4 J:.g6 5 5 'i£tC5 Control of both d6 and g5 is crucial for Black's defence, so the knight rests happily on f7. 5 5 J:tf6 56 'iYd4 'iit g 6 .•.

9.12 J.Timman-B.Spassky Hilversum 1983

.•

(see following diagram)

231

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Black's rook will head for the fourth rank where it can help construct a blockade. 43 l:.e5 44 'it>g3 ':'c5 45 'it>h4 tDc8 Of course 45 .. .l::txc3?? is just a blunder due to 46 'iVh8+. 46 f4 tDb6 47 g4 White's logical plan is to generate a passed pawn, particularly as after the alter­ native 47 'it>g5 Black plays 47 ... tDd7 to pre­ vent the king coming to f6. 47 fxg4 48 f5 The f-pawn has to be stopped somehow. 48 tDd7 49 'iVg6+ 'it>d8 50 1i'g8+ 'it>e7 51 1i'e6+ 'it>d8 52 f6 tDxf6! The defender can sometimes hold a queen vs rook ending if the conditions are right. In such cases the stronger side will lack pawn breaks, the rook usually needs at least two sure squares (to avoid any potential zugzwang), and the defender must naturally be able to protect all his pawns. 53 1i'xf6+ 'it>d7 54 1i'f7+ 'it>c6 5 5 'iVb3 l:te5 56 'it>xg4 'it>d7 57 'ii' b 7 .:I.C5 58 'iVa6 .:I.e5 59 'it>f4 .:I.C5 Yz-Yz •.•

9.13 V.Topalov-R.Ponomariov Sofia 2006

•••

.••

White cannot make progress, for exam­ ple after 60 'it>e4 'it>d8 61 'it>d4 'it>d7 62 'ii'a7 'it>c6. Black just needs to avoid the possibility of White transposing into a favourable king and pawn ending. In the next example Black was unable to

do so. 232

Topalov first brings up the reserves. 47 g4 h6 48 h4 lIb8 49 'it>g3 lIe8 50 �f3 tDf8 51 'ifd2 'it>g7 52 'iVd4+ 'it>g8 53 'iVf6 lIe6

Now 54 1i'd8 'it>g7 55 d7? fails to 55 ... nd6, but there is a way ... 54 1i'e7! A nice touch that shows who is boss. 54 'it>g7 55 'ikC7 'it>g8 56 d7 tiJxd7 57 1i'xd7 'it>g7 58 1i'd4+ 'it>g8 59 'it>f4 J:tg6 60 'it>f5 1 The right square for the king. Ponom­ ariov points out that 60 h5 lIe6 61 g5? hxg5+ 62 'it>xg5 �h7 is only a draw. 60 .l'�e6 After 60 ... .l:la6 61 'iWc4 :g6 62 h5 l:.tb6 63 •••

••

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

'iVc7, Black has no safe squares on the third rank, as 63 ... l:te6 can be met by the decisive simplification 64 'iVc8+ 'iit g7 65 'iVxe6 fxe6 66 'iitxe6. 61 'iVd7 ttg6 Also unsuccessful is 61..J:te1 62 'iVd8+ �h7 63 'iit f6 �f1 + 64 g7 37 'iih4 (37 a4!?) 37 ... ttJf5! 38 'iVf4 'u'a2 with some practical chances. 36 �f3 Now Black has to endure a difficult de­ fence. 36 J�g6 37 'ir'h4+ �g7 38 "Wie7 Forking two pawns. 38 �f6+ 39 �e2 �e6 40 'iifx b7 �g6 41 a4 e4!? A valiant attempt to complicate White's task. 42 dxe4 ttJc4 43 'iVd 5 43 �d3!? ttJb2+ 44 Wxd4 ttJxa4 45 e5!? is another idea, suggested by Psakhis. 43 ... ttJb6 44 'iVf5+ It's probably best to avoid 44 'iixd4 ttJxa4 ••.

•.

•.•

234

which gives Black some hope, as White would then have to rely on the h-pawns to topple the blockade. 44 ... Wg7 45 as ttJa4 46 �d3 ttJC3 47 �xd4 ttJb5+ 48 �C5 .l:tg6 49 h4 l:te6

Lputian pins his hopes on holding White at bay along the third rank. 50 'iifx e6! A surprising, but effective way forward. 50 .. .fxe6 51 �b6 e5 If 51...ttJc3, White can transpose with 52 'litxa6 ttJxe4 53 �b6! e5 54 �c6! and so on as in the game, rather than 53 b5? e5 54 �b6 ttJd6 55 a6 e4 56 �c5 ttJxb5 57 �xb5 e3 when the coming queen ending with doubled h­ pawns should be drawn. 52 �xa6 ttJd6 53 Wb6 ttJxe4 54 �c6 ttJd6 54 ... ttJc3 55 a6 e4 is a tempo too slow. 55 a6 Here the alternative 55 �xd6 leads to a winning queen ending, but the text is more efficient. 5 5 ... ttJc8 56 �d5 �f6 57 h5 ttJa7 58 h6 ttJb5 59 h7 �g7 60 �xe5 'litxh7 61 'it>f6! Obviously not 61 Wd5?? ttJc7+, winning the a-pawn. 61 ... ttJC7 62 a7 ttJd5+ 63 �e5 ttJb6 64 �d4 1-0 In 9.16, the side with the rook and knight again has the more difficult problems to solve.

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

9. 16 N.Short-L.Polugaevsky Paris (rapid) 1992

After White wins the a-pawn, Black has to decide how best to organize his defence. 50 "iVc8+ �f7 51 "iVxa6 ttJe6 52 "iVd6 ttJf4+ 53 �g3 d4 54 a4 d3 5 5 a s l:te6 56 "iVd8 1:te8 5 7 'ii'c 7+ l':.e7 58 'iVc4+ �f8 59 'iVb4 �f7 6 0 a6 1:td7 61 'iVd2 .l:.a7 62 'iVa2+ 62 'iib2! ? only seems to draw after 62 ... d2 (not 62 ... l:lxa6?? 63 'iVb7+) 63 "iVxd2 l:txa6 64 "iVd7+ �f6 65 'ii'f5+ �e7 66 'ii'xe5+ ttJe6. 62 ...�f6 63 �f3 l:.d7 64 'ii'd 2 11d6? This wild move should be the decisive mistake. Instead, Black should temporize, but how? The best way of doing so seems to be making a king, rather than a piece, move and to a square where White has no checks. That leaves us with 64 ... �g5! and, following 65 �e4, back with 65 ... �f6, when the players could settle on a draw due to the dynamic equilibrium. 65 a7 l:ta6 66 'ii' b 4

have found the following checking se­ quence: 67 'ii'f8+ �e6 68 "iVc8+ �e7 69 "iVb7+ and wins.

67 ...ltxa7 68 'ii'd 6+ ttJe6 Now the position has settled down to equality. 69 'ii' b 6 l:.a4 70 'ii'e 3 l:1f4+ 71 �g3 ttJg5 72 'ifb6+ ttJe6 73 'ii'd 6 :l.d4 74 'iVc6 1:tf4 75 'iVe8 lld4 76 'i/i'g6+ �e7 77 �3 l:tf4+ 78 �e3 J:If6 79 'iVh7 �f7 Yz-Yz In the following example Yusupov's ag­ gressive defending gives White more oppor­ tunities to go astray.

9 . 17 L.Christiansen-A.Vusupov German Lea gue 1993

(see following diagram)

66 ... d2 Not 66.. Jha7?? 67 'iVb6+. 67 "iVxd2? With more time Nigel would no doubt 235

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Material is about balanced, but with pawns on both wings White has more seri­ ous aspirations of winning - well, at least at first! 37 a4 'iiif7 38 a s tZJh7 39 'ikc6 tZJf6 40 'is;>f1 'iiie 7 41 'i*'C5+ 'iiif7 42 'ifc8 'iiie 7 43 'iii e 2 'iiif7 44 f3 'iiie 7 45 'iVC5+ 'it;f7 46 g4 The only pawn break available. 46 ... tZJd5 Capturing once on g4 is alright, but not twice: 46 ...fxg4 47 fxg4 tZJxg4?? 48 'i*'h5+. 47 'i*'c6 'iii e 7 48 'iiif2 48 gxf5!? exf5 49 'iii f2 is possible, but Black has several ways to defend including 49 .. .£4 50 'i*'g6 'iii d 8. 48 l:!.C7 49 'ika8 fxg4 50 fxg4 'iiid 6!? More daring than just staying on the sec­ ond rank. 51 'i*'b8 .•.

5 5 g5 h5?1 The last chance to play for a fortress was with 55 ... hxg5 56 hxg5 'is;>e5. 56 fib1 .l:!.C3+ 5 7 'iiif2 e5 58 'iYd1+ :d3 59 'it'a4+ After 59 'it'xh5!? e4 60 'it'g6, Black plays 60 ... l:!.f3+. Then if White wants to fight for more than a draw with, for instance, 61 'iiie l l:!e3+ 62 'iii d 2 l::t d3+ 63 �c1 .l':tc3+ 64 'iiib2, Black has 64 ... 1k7, leaving the outcome un­ clear. 59 �c5 60 'ike4 A better way to attack the g-pawn is by 60 'iVd7, as after 60 ... e4 61 �xa7+ White picks off the a-pawn as well. 60 l:!.e3 61 'iYg6 e4 62 'ikxg7 l:!.f3+ 63 'is;>e1?! Probably the wrong way. Instead, 63 'iiig 1 l:tg3+ 64 'iiih2 seems to lead to a win; e.g. 64 .. .l:Ig4 65 'ikxa7+ �c4 66 �f2 e3 67 'ike1 'iiib5 68 g6! . 63 Jle3+ 6 4 'iii d 1 'iiiC4 65 'iVf7 J:td3+ 6 6 'iiic 2 .l:!.C3+ 67 'iiib 2 l:!.b3+ If White wants to still seek the whole point he has to try ... 68 'is;> a 2 ... escaping from the checks, but the king is now stuck on the edge. 68 e3 69 'ike6 .l:tb51 Preparing to unpin. 69 ... e2?? would be careless, as 70 'i*'xe2+ is check. 70 g6 'iii d 3 71 'iii a 3 tZJC3 72 g7 tZJb1+ 73 'iiia 2 tZJC3+ Vz-Vz .••

.••

. •

.••

51 'iiie 5!? A wild winning attempt!? It looks to me that Black can probably draw by sitting tight. 52 'i*'b2+ l:!.c3 53 'ikb8+ l:!.C7 54 'i;f3 'iiid 4!? Taking the opportunity to seek counter­ play. It's usually the critical moment when the side under pressure has to decide whether to stay on the defensive or aim to mix things. Here, though, despite the adrenalin surge obtained from going for­ ward, I believe that the circumspect 54 ... �d6 was objectively the best move. •••

236

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d K n ig h t A typical way to obtain perpetual with rook and knight and a fitting end to this hard-fought struggle.

With pawns poised to promote tactics of­ ten dominate. In example 9.18 English GM Nigel Short missed the chance on his fortieth move to win brilliantly against the World Champion.

9.18 N.Short-G.Kasparov PCA World Championship (10th matchgame), London 1993

39 .. :iVdS 40 I;:!.e7? In his notes Short pointed out the possi­ bility of 40 liJe4! and wins after 40 ...'ii d 3 41 J:If2! 'iix d7 42 k:th2+ r3;g7 43 .l:txh7+! r3;xh7 44 liJf6+ or 40 ... "i!Va8 41 J:If2 'iixe4 42 J:Ih2+ r3;g7 43 d8'ii . 40 ...'iid 6 41 ILf7 �d3 1 42 liJe4 'iie 3+ 43 liJd2 'iid 3 Yz-Yz The last few examples feature blockades, where the rook and knight frustrate the side with the queen.

9.19 G.Kamsky-M.lllescas Cordoba Dos Hermanas 1996

64 ...J:Ia7?1 This may well be wrong because of a hidden tactic spotted by Shirov. A calmer possibility is 64 .. Jk7 which has the point of avoiding White's next move. The alternative 64 ... e5 allows White a chance to penetrate with his queen by 65 'iif5 liJd7 66 'iie6 liJc5 67 'ii d5 liJxb3 68 'iixd6, although this is not clear after 68 ... d3+!. 6S (Sl J:Ia s l Better than 65 ... J:Ia2+ 6 6 r3;d3. 66 (xd6 J:Igs 67 d7? Unfortunate. Instead, Shirov points out the killer blow 67 'iixf6! gxf6 68 d7 and wins. 67 ...J:Ixg6 68 d8'iY+ r3;h7 69 g4 If 69 'iYxd4, Black reacts with 69 ... J:Ixg3 70 'iixb4 l:txh3. 69 ... eS 70 'iie 7 J:Igs 71 r3;d3 h S I 72 h4 l:txg4 7 3 'iix es .l:txe4 74 'iif S+ r3;h6 7 S 'iYgS+ r3;h7 76 ii'fS+ r3;h6 7 7 'iYgS+ r3;h7 Yz-Yz If White tries 78 r3;c4, despite winning the d-pawn after 78 ... d3+ etc, he would still be unable to break down Black's defences.

9.20 R.Vaganian-Z.Ribli Montpellier Candidates 1985 Black now constructs and maintains a fortress.

23 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

9.21 G.Kamsky-A.Vusupov Moscow 1992

39 ... ttJd7 40 �e2 f6 41 1Vc6 Wf7 42 1Vb5 We7 43 Wd1 ..t>d6 44 Wd2 If 44 Wc2, then 44 .. J!c7+ 45 Wb2 �c5 re­ tains solidity. 44 .. JbS 45 Wc2 l:i.cS+ 46 Wb2 !!C5 47 1Vd3+ We7 4S 'ilVa6 ttJe5 49 �a7+ ttJd7 50 'iYb7 wd6 51 �aS .I:te5 52 'ilVa6+ The natural try would be 52 �8, but as Ribli points out, Black is not in any danger after 52 ... !tb5 53 Wa2 e5 54 1Vxh6 Wc7! . 52 We7 5 3 �f1 WdS 54 h4 gxh4 5 5 'ilVe1 �b5 Gaining a tempo due to the threat of ... a4. 56 Wa2 h5 Exchanging off his weakest pawn. 57 �xh4 hxg4 5S 1Vxg4 e5 Vz-Vz •••

In the following example Black unneces­ sarily gave away a vital square and allowed his opponent to create a decisive zugzwang. 238

51 �a4 l::t e 6 52 1VaS We7 53 VlVcs ttJd5 54 VlVgS f6 Black could also play 54 ... �f6. 5 5 1Vh7+ WeS 56 f4!? This move has some confusion value. 56 ttJxf4 57 1VC7 ttJd 5 5S �cS+ We7 59 'ifb7+ WfS? Instead, Kamsky considers the blockade to be totally sound after 59 .. .c�)e8!' 60 �d7 ..•

Zugzwang. 60 .:!.e4 If 60 ... ctJf4 White has a decisive break­ through with 61 d5 cxd5 62 c6. •..

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

61 'iix c6 �xd4 62 'itg11 �d1+ 6 3 'ith2 �d2

Tame. Bologan suggests that playing for

This doesn't work, but there's no longer a reasonable way to defend in any case.

64 'iid 7 ttJe3 6 5 'ii'c 8+ 'ite7 66 'ii b 7+ 'itd8 'iia 8+ 'itC7 68 'iVa7+ 'itd8 69 'iia 8+ 'itC7 'iia 5+ 'itc8 71 'iia 6+ �b8 7 2 'ii b 6+ 'ita8 'iixf6 g 4 74 'iVf8+ 'itb7 7 5 'iie 7+ 'itc6 'iix e3 �xf2+ 77 'itg11 �f3 78 'iie4+ �xc5 hxg4 1-0

67 70 73 76 79

9.22 V.Topalov-V.Anand Dos Hermanas 1996

f4-f5 is the only credible winning try.

2 5 ...cxb4 26 'iix b4 'itg 7 27 'itg 2 'it g 8 28 'iic 3 na8 29 'iif3 �b8 30 'iie 3 Yz-Yz If the only pawn remaining is blockaded then there's nothing much to be done.

9.23 A.Fedorov-S.Movsesian Las Vegas 1999

81 g7 76 'iVg3+ 'it> h 7 77 "iVh2+ 'it>g7 7 8 �g2+ �f8 79 d6 :fS+ 8 0 'it>d4 i.. d 7 81 'ili'a8+ 'itog7 82 'ili'd8 :f4+ 83 'it>es :fS+ 84 'it>e4 :f7 8 S �gS+ 'it>h7 86 'it>es

Another memorable experience for me was the following one.

10.2 V.Tseshkovsky-G.Flear Wijk aan Zee 1988 This is a slightly uncomfortable moment for Black, but the 'zugzwang' doesn't prove to be fatal and the fortress holds firm. 86 i.. c 8 87 "iVh4+ 'it>g7 88 "iVg3+ 'it>f8 89 "iih 2 'it>g7 90 "iVg2+ 'it>h6 91 'ili'g8 J:tfS+ 92 'it>e4 i.. d 7 93 'it>d4 :f4+ 94 'it>e3 .tIf6 9S 'it>e4 .l:!.fS 96 'iVb3 1:1.f6 97 'iVg8 IUS Yz-Yz •••

60 hS This wins a pawn, but not the game. 60 .i.f7 61 'it>f1 l:te4 62 hxg6+ i.. xg6 63 "iVxd s In order to draw Black needs to stop the d-pawn at some point (e.g. with a blockade on d7, a square that Black can control with both rook and bishop) and avoid any prob­ lems associated with a white king invasion. 63 .. J:tf4+ 64 'it>e2 1:I.f7 6S �e3 'it>g7 66 �es+ 'it>h7 67 dS i.. fs 68 'it>f4 'it>g6 69 'ili'd6+ l:tf6 70

So, in positions with either no pawns or just one, the harmony of the defending pieces will determine the result. If the side with the rook and bishop has a pawn or two against a bare queen, there are generally good chances of the queen achieving per­ petual check.

.••

10. 3 A.Khalifman-V.lvanchuk Tilburg 1994 Black has two extra rook's pawns, but he cannot win with White's queen bombarding him with checks. 241

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

White has a material advantage, as he has two extra pawns, but also some posi­ tional pluses in the form of a queenside ma­ jority, general solidity and a target on d5. Furthermore, any Black attempts at counter­ play are likely to be frustrated with White having such a safe king. 29 b4 f5 Instead 29 ... a5 30 bxa5 'iixa3 31 a6 just helps White. 30 l:tc3 f4

83 'iVa4+ \t>C5 84 �a 3+ 84 'iVb3! is simpler. 84 ... .ib4 85 'i¥cl+ 'itd6 86 'i¥c2 l::t d 5 87 �g6+ \t>C7 88 'iVf7+ \t>c6 89 'iVg6+ .id6+ 90 \t>g4 �d4+ 91 \t>h3 a4 92 'iVc2+ .iC5 93 �g6+ \t>b5 94 'iVbl+ �a 5 If 94 ... lIb4, Dautov gives 95 'iVd3+ \t>a5 96 �d8 as adequate for White. 95 �el+ \t>b6 96 'iVbl+ l:!.b4 97 'iVg6+ Yz-Yz 97 .. \t>a5 is met by 98 'iVc2 or 98 'iVc6. .

Naturally the side with the rook, bishop and pawns has more chances of winning if he can successfully hide his king.

10 . 4 J.Ehlvest-E.Rozentalis Groningen 1993

242

Aiming to open lines and improve the queen's prospects. 3 1 .if3 �e6 3 2 \t>hl 'ilVa6 3 3 'itgl �e6 34 i.dl 'iVd6 35 i.g4 Wie7 36 .te2 'ilVe6 3 7 b5! 'ii b 6 38 1:.C5 With d5 indefensible Black has to seek some sort of activity. 38 ...�a 5 39 exf4 gxf4 40 �xd 5 Wixa 3 41 �d7+ \t>f6 42 .tfl A good technical move, avoiding checks and safeguarding the bishop. 42 ... \t>e6 43 :g7 \t>f6 44 1:.c7 'iVa l 45 d5 \t>e5 46 d6! A surprising push, but Ehlvest is giving his opponent an unpleasant choice. 46 ...\t>e6!? Capturing the pawn also has its down­ side: 46 .. :it>xd6 47 �c6+ \t>e5 48 l:i.xg6 leaves White with a passed h-pawn, plus chances to attack the weakness on a7. This would also clarify the position and leave Black with

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d B is h op

no targets. 47 d7 �e7 48 ltc6 'iVbl Holding on to the g-pawn at all costs. 48 ... �xd7 49 l:txg6 still leads to excellent chances for White. 49 .l::t d 61 �d8 50 h4

Passing the move to Black, who finds himself in zugzwang. 50 .. :ii'e4 5 1 l:td1 This allows the bishop to come back into play. 51 ...'iVe7 It seems that 51..:iWc2 is the best way to resist, but then White could always try 52 .l:tal 'ifc7 53 l:!a6. 52 iLC4 'iVf6 53 iLe2 'i¥xh4 54 iLf3 'iVf6 5 5 iLg4! 'iVC3 56 � h 2 g5 Or if 56 .. :�h8+, then 57 iLh3 g5 58 l:tel etc. 57 �gl l-0 Another zugzwang. The rook will now get to el or el, followed by giving a decisive check on the eighth rank. The following fascinating struggle leads to a variety of complex situations. The NQE is so rich that at times the annotators have radically different opinions about what is going on! These are the types of examples which are worth a closer look, especially if you are serious about improving your ana­ lytical ability.

10. 5 E.Bareev-A.Beliavsky Linares 1994

Even after simplification from the mid­ dlegame struggle, things have stayed sharp and double-edged. 40 ... 'iVxb4 41 iLxg6+ �g7 42 �d7+ �f6 A natural move that avoids the king be­ ing stuck on the back rank, although Dautov indicates that the alternative 42 ... �g8!? 43 1::tx a7 'i\Vg4! may be playable. The main idea is that chasing the h-pawn is countered by pushing the b-pawn, e.g. 44 l:th7 b5 45 .l:txh6 b4 46 l:[h7 b3, a position which he judges as equal. 43 �xa7 'iVd2 Dautov doesn't rate 43 ...b5 44 .l:th7 'ii'e l (I originally considered 44 ... �g5, but then 45 J::tf7 ! 'iVel+ 46 �g2 b4 47 e4 b3 48 e5 b2 49 �g7 wins for White) 45 �g2 b4 46 .l:txh6 when he prefers White, but 46 ... �g5! is far from clear, e.g. 47 'uh7 b3 48 .l:tb7 'Yi'dl 49 iLe4! 'i¥e2!. 44 hth7 'ii'd 1+ 45 � g2 'ii'd 5+ 46 �gl 'Yi'd1+ 47 �g2 'iVd5+ 48 �h2!? If White tries 48 e4 instead, then the reply 48 ... 'iVd2 from Black simply defends the h­ pawn. 48 ... 'i¥d2 49 �h3 White is now threatening f2-f4. 243

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

49 ... e5 49...b5! could be best, ignoring the threat for the moment. Then after 50 f4, of course 50 ... e5 would be necessary. Going further, the logical continuation 51 l::tf7+ c;t>e6 52 f5+ Kd6 53 1:tf8 'ifxe3 54 f6 'iVf3 55 f7 'iVfl just leads to a draw. 50 i.e8 In his notes Bareev gives 50 c;t>g2 'ifd5+ 51 e4 'iVd2 52 l:tf7+ c;t>e6 53 .l:.b7 'iVb2 54 i.f5+ g2 'iVd 5+ 5 5 e41? 'iVd2 56 .l:.b7 'iVd4 57 i.f5 'iVC5 58 .l:.h7 'iVC1 59 .l:.h8!

Black's problems either, as after 64 l:Ixb6 'iVd1 (or 64 ... 'iVg5 65 .l:.g6 'iVd2 66 l:te6 'iVc3 67 l:.xh6) 65 l:txh6 White has excellent winning chances; e.g. 65 ... 'iVd4 66 g4 'iVd2 67 .l:.h5 f7 69 g6+ c;t>g8 70 l:th7 'iVd6 71 c;t>g3 'iWd3+ 72 c;t>h4 'iVd6 73 l:td7 and White wins according to Beliavsky. 64 g4? Instead, Bareev gives 64 l:tb6 'iVxh5 65 Ihb5 'ii'e8 66 .l:.b6 h5 67 .l:.h6 g8 69 c;t>h3 'iVb5 as unclear, but in this 67 l:.e6! 'iVb5 68 i.g6! still looks unpleasant for the second player. 64 c;t>f7! After 64 ...b4 65 .l:.g6 'iVf4, White creates a dangerous h-pawn with 66 g5!, which leads to a clear win according to Dautov, e.g. 66 ... 'ii'h4 (or 66 ... hxg5 67 h6) 67 gxh6 'iVxh5 68 h7! 'iVxh7 69 .l:.f6+ 'iVf7 70 .l:.xf7+ c;t>xf7 71 i.g4 etc. 65 .l:.b6 'iVd2 66 l:txb5 c;t>f6 67 Iitb6+

59 f7 63 %:tb6) 62 .l:.g6 b4 (62 ... 'iVc1 would again be well met by 63 .l:.b6) 63 %1xh6 b3 64 l:Ih7+ c;t>f6, as analysed by Dautov, seems to win, the most precise being 65 h6! b2 66 l:.b7 etc. 60 .l:.c8 'iVd2 61 l:IC7+ 'iitf8 62 .l:.d7 'iVg5 63 l:Id6 b5 It seems that 63 ... 'iVxh5 doesn't solve

67 ... c;t>g5? Only this is the fatal error. Bareev seems to be right when he claims that Black should draw with 67 ... c;t>f7; for example, 68 l:tg6 'ii'f4 69 g5 hxg5 70 h6 g4 71 h7 'iVf3+ 72 c;t>gl 'ii'd 1 + 73 fl 'iVf3+ and Black keeps checking. 68 .l:.g6+ gl c;t>g5 72 l:td6?!

•••

'=',

244

..•

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d B is h o p

Allowing a disruptive trick. Instead, 72 l:!f7 1iVh3 73 l:td7 would win smoothly as in the game. 72 'iVh3?! Missing a clever stalemate idea: 72 .. JIVg3+!, when after 73 'it>f1 1iVh3+ 74 'it>e2 "iVa3 75 �d3 'iVa6 White is somewhat tangled up. 13 .l:td7 'iVb3?! 74... 'iVf3 is more resistant, not allowing the white king to g2 so easily. 74 'it>g2 'iNc3 75 l:td8 'iNa 3 76 ltd1 'it>f4 77 :i.e1 'iVd6 78 IIh1 'iVh6 79 1Ih3 'it>g5 80 l:tf3 80 'it>f3! transposes to the final position. 80 'iVc6 81 l:th3 'ii h 6 82 'it>f3 1-0 Dautov shows why White is winning: 82 ... 'it>f6 83 g5+! 'it>xg5 (83 .. :�xg5 84 h6 is equally hopeless for Black) 84 l:!.g3+ 'it>h4 85 .l:!g4+ �xh5 86 i.. g6+ iVxg6 87 lhg6 '&t>xg6 88 'it>g4 and wins. I managed to find some improvements on previous analyses and I wouldn't be sur­ prised if you were able to find some more. My conclusion is that Black had drawing chances on a couple of occasions, but overall the rook and bishop were stronger than the queen, even if the latter had a passed pawn on her side. •••

•••

In the next example the queen is once again struggling.

3 3 bxa 3 34 "iVa6 J:Id8 3 5 'iVb6? There are a couple of alternatives: a) Winants looks at 35 bxa3 g4 36 'iVxa4 g3 37 'iVa7+ 'it>f6 38 'iVg1 l:Ig8 39 'iVg2 i:th8 40 a4 l:th2 41 iVg1 l:te2 42 �1 'it>g5! 43 1iVh7 g2 and Black gets there first. b) Kasparov analysed 35 �7+ l:td7 36 �6 g4 37 c4 g3 38 c5 g2 39 c6 l:td8! 40 'it>a2? i..h2 41 'iVb7+ 'it>f6 42 �6 !1g8 43 iYf2+ 1;e7 44 'iVa7+ 'it>f8 45 c7 'it>g7. However, in this line White seems to be OK after 40 'iVa7+!, e.g. 40 ... 'it>e8 (or 40 ... 'it>f6 41 'ilVg1 l:!.g8 42 c7 'it>e7 43 c8'iV lIxc8 44 iYxg2 .:tb8 45 'iVh3!) 41 c7 l:tc8 42 'iVg1 ':xc7 43 iVxg2 l:tb7 44 "iVg8+ 'it>e7 45 iYc8 l:txb2+ 46 'it>al. It makes a big difference that the rook is on d7 (after 38 c5 g2 here) rather than d8 (after 37 c5 g2 in the game). 3 5 ... g4 36 c4 g3 37 c5 g2 38 cxd6+ l:txd6 39 'ilVc7+ .••

10.6 A.Shirov-G.Kasparov Tilburg 1997 (see following diagram)

The most important positional feature is Black's passed g-pawn. 32 g5! 3 3 a 3 After 33 'iia6 :118 34 a3 g4 35 'itb7+ 'it>f6 36 'iVxb4 g3 37 'iVxd6+ '&t>g7 Black's king is as safe as houses and the g-pawn cannot be stopped. •..

245

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

39 ... �f6!! A dramatic winning idea: leaving the rook en prise with check! 40 'iWxd6+ If 40 'iWc5, Black plays 40 ... ..t>g7 41 'it'gl l:tg6 followed by ... �h2. 40 ... �g7 0-1 Black comes out a clear piece to the good after 40 ... �g7 41 ii'c5 �h2 42 d6 gl 'iW+ 43 'iWxg1 + �xg1 44 d7 �b6. Now for some opening theory!

10 . 7 V.Kramnik-A.Shirov Wijk aan Zee 1999 1 tDf3 tDf6 2 c4 c5 3 tDc3 d 5 4 cxd 5 tDxd5 5 d4 tDxC3 6 bxc3 g6 7 e4 ii.g7 8 �b5+ tDc6 9 0-0 cxd4 10 cxd4 0-0 11 �e3 ii.g4 12 ii.xc6 bxc6 13 l:tc1 �xf3 The modem move is the more double­ edged 13 ... 'iWa5. 14 'iWxf3 ii.xd4 15 .:I.fd1 C5?1 This game demonstrated that this line is inferior, so more recently Black has been playing either the more solid 15 ... e5 or vary­ ing on move 13. This goes to show that good technique in a NQE can be influential in changing opening choices! 16 l:txc5 �xe3 17 ':'xd8 �xC5 18 ':'xa8 :xa8

246

19 'iWC3 It seems that this whole line is uncom­ fortable for Black. For instance, White also had the better chances after 19 ... l:.d8!? 20 �f1 �d4 (if 20 ... ii.b6!? then 21 a4!) 21 'iWc7 �b6 22 'iWxe7 .:td2 23 'iWe8+ �g7 24 'iWe5+ �g8 25 f4! :£2+ 26 'iii'e l l:txg2 27 f5 in L.Ftacnik­ V.lvanchuk, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. 19 ....:c8 20 'iii'fi ':'c7 21 a4 Advancing the pawn to as will be useful in disrupting Black's blockade. 21 ... �b6 22 'iWe5 ':'c2 23 a s ! i.C5 24 f4 e6 Krarnni k suggests 24 ... h5 as a lesser evil. 2 5 g4!

As Krasenkow explains, Black has diffi­ culties because of threats arising on both wings. The defence of a7 is precarious and now the black king comes under attack. 25 ... ':'C4 26 'iWC7 h6 27 f5 gxf5 28 gxf5 exf5 29 exf5 f6 Kramnik points out how White wins af­ ter 29 ... l:tc2 30 f6 ':f2+ 31 �e1 r.tx£6 32 'iWxc5 a6; i.e. 33 h4 l:te6+ 34 �f2 �g7 35 �f3 �g8 36 �f4 �g7 37 'iWd4+ �g8 38 h5 �h7 39 �£5 �g8 40 'iWd5 �g7 and now 41 'iWxe6! fxe6+ 42 �xe6 etc. 30 'iWg3+ �f8 31 'ii'g 6 �d4 3 2 ii'xh6+ With the h-pawn falling Black's chances of holding on disappear. 32 ... �e7 33 'iWf4 �d7 34 h4 .l:.a4 35 'ii'e 4 �d6 36 h5 ':'a1+ 37 �e2 �e5 38 'iWb4+ �d 5 39 'iWb7+ 'iii'C4 40 h6 .:ta2+ 41 �f3 1-0

Q u e e n ve rs u s R o o k a n d B is h o p

10 . 8 V.lvanchuk-P.Svidler Linares 1999

51 f2 'iVd2+ 52 .ie2 'iiX C2 53 :xb4 lif5+ Tsesarsky suggests 53 .. .';t>g6 with the sample variation 54 l:tb5 'it>f7 55 b4 lid2 56 �b7+ �g6 57 b5 lidS 58 .i.f3 'i!Vd2+ 59 .ie2 'iid5 repeating. 54 .l:lf4 liC2 55 b4 �g6 56 b5 g7 57 l:tc4 'iVf5+ 58 l:tf4 'iWc2 White has difficulty in freeing his bishop from the pin, and the distracting move 59 b6 can be deemed fairly drawish after 59 ... 'ifb2 60 l:tf5 'iixb6 61 :xh5 'iib2 . 59 g4 hxg4 60 l:txg4+ �h6 61 l:.f4 � g6 62 h5+ �g7 63 :g4+ 'it>h7 64 :C4 lif5+ 65 l:tf4 The best reply to 65 e1 is 65 ... 'iib 1 +! (preferable to 65 ... 'i\¥e5?! 66 e4! ) 66 �f2 'ilf5+ again repeating. 65 .. :ii'e 5 66 .id3+ Presumably Ivanchuk didn't believe he could win after 66 b6 li'b2 67 b7 lixb7 68 .l:lxf6 'iib2 . 66 �h6 67 .ie2 �h7 68 .l:.d4 'iif 5+ 69 l:tf4 Yz-Yz

Apart from having two extra pawns, White has well-placed pieces, a safe king and a very solid pawn structure - and even worse for Black, he has no targets at all for his queen. White's winning technique is as instructive as it is effortless. 34 .ie4 'ild4 3 5 .id3 lib6 36 �g1 'iVd4 37 �g2 f6 38 l:tb51 With the rook defended by the bishop there is little Black can do to prevent the ad­ vance of the queenside majority. 38 ... h 5 Not 3 8... 'i!Va1 ? 3 9 .l:!.b7+ and 40 l:ha7. 39 a4 h4 40 g4 �f8 41 as �e7 42 a6 �d6 43 :b8 'ifd5+ After 43 ... �c7 44 l:tb7+ �d6 45 .if5 White has good chances to win quickly. 44 �g1 lic6 45 b5 'iWC7 46 l:tb7 'ii'c 1+ 47 �g2 'iVC5 48 .ie4!

•.•

10 . 9 E.Miroshnichenko-O.Korneev Khanty Mansyisk 2005 24 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Now the threat of b5-b6 is decisive. 48 ... f5 49 iLxf5 'iVd5+ 50 e4 'iVc5 51 b6! axb6 52 .l:.d7+ �c6 53 a 7 'iVa 5 54 e5 'iVa4 55 e6 �C5 56 e7 'iVc6+ 5 7 �gl 'ii'a 8 58 .i.g6 1-0 In the following example White can't rely on a safe king, so the black queen can give many checks that in the end save the game.

After 61 .l:.xh5, Black has an immediate draw as he obtains access to the a7-square, i.e. 61...'iVd4+ 62 �a5 'iVa7+ 63 'It>b4 'iVd4+ etc. 61 ... 'iVd4+ 62 �a 5 h4 63 i.c6 'iVf2 64 �a6 �c5 The defending king seems best situated out of trouble behind the pawn. 6 5 �b7 'iVf6 66 .l:.d7 'iVh6 67 l:.d5+ �b4 68 b6

10.10 V.Topalov-P.Leko Istanbul Olympiad 2000

White's pieces seem ideally placed and the pawn has advanced to the sixth rank, but it still isn't winning! 68 h3 69 gxh3 'iVxh 3 70 �a7 'it'a 3+ 71 �b7 'iVh3 72 l:tb5+ �C4 73 �a6 1\Va 3+ 74 .l:.a 5 'it'd6 7 5 iLd5+ �b4 76 l:tb5+ �c3 77 iLa2 'iVc6 78 iLd5 'iVd6 79 iLf3 'i¥f6 80 �a 5 'iVf81 But not 80 ... 'ii'xf3? 81 b7 and the pawn queens. 81 b7 'iVa3+ 82 �b6 'iVd6+ 83 iLc6 'iVd4+ 84 �C7 Or 84 l:k5+ �b4 85 b8'ii' 'iVxc5+ 86 'It>c7+ �c3 with a book draw. 84 :ii'f4+ 85 �d7 'iVf7+ 86 'iit d 6 'ii'f6+ 87 �C7 'iVf4+ Yz-Yz It's perpetual. .•.

35 ...'iVf4 36 l:te2 'iVcl+ 37 �f2 b4! Leko decides to take the opportunity to break up White's pawns. Instead, 37 ... 'iVf4+ 38 iLf3 'iVxh2 was plausible, but then White has 39 .l:.e4! followed by .l:.b4 and the b-pawn will soon fall. If White were to obtain con­ nected passed pawns then Black's chances of a draw would be slim. 38 cxb4 'iVf4+ 39 .i.f3 'iVxh2 40 :e4 'iVC7 White cannot cling on to both b-pawns, so he keeps the most advanced one and plays to get it rolling down the board. 41 �e3 'iVcl+ 42 �d4 'iVxb2+ 43 �C4 'iVa2+ 44 �b5 'iVd 5+ 45 �b6 'iVd8+ 46 �c6 'iVa8+ 47 �C5 'iVa7+ 48 �b5 'iVb7+ 49 �C4 'iVc6+ 50 �b3 'iVb5 51 :d4 �g7 52 l:td5 'iVb6 53 b5 �f6 54 �C4 �e7 55 l:td3 'iVa 7 56 �b4 'iVf2 57 .l:ldl h5 58 iLc6 'iVb6 59 .l:td7+ �e6 60 :h7 �d6 61 iLf3 248

•.

10.11 L.Polugaevsky-V.Korchnoi Candidates semi-final (12th matchgame), Buenos Aires 1980

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d B is h op

10.12 J.Tim man-N.Short Hilversum 1989

Sometimes, even in double-edged posi­ tions, quiet moves can be employed to great effect. 49 a 3 1 This slows down Black's action on the flank. It is surprising that this move is better than an immediate advance on the kingside. 49 .. J:te3 Other moves are no better; for instance 49 ... a5 50 'ii'a8+ 'itd6 51 'ii'xa5, or 49 ... %:.a2 50 ii'f6+ 'itc7 51 1i'c3, or 49 ...b4 50 axb4 cxb4 51 'ii'xb4. 50 h5 e3 After 50 ... %:.xa3 51 h6 c3 52 h7 c2, White has 53 'ii'f6+ 'itb7 54 'iVb2 taking the sting out of Black's queenside activity. 51 'iWf6+ �e6 52 'itf2 e21 53 'iWb2 :h3 54 'itg2 �f5 5 5 'ii'f6+ 'ite7 56 'ii'xf5 e1'ii' 57 'iWe5+ 'itb6 58 �xh3 The change has been dramatic: White achieves a favourable queen ending in which his extra pawn makes all the differ­ ence. 58 ... b4 59 axb4 exb4 60 h6 'ii' h 1+ 61 �g4 'iVd1+ 62 �f5 'iWe2+ 63 �6 b3 64 h7 'iWxh7 65 'iVe3+ �e6 66 'ii'x b3 'ii' h 8+ 67 'ite7 'ii' h 4 68 'ii'e4+ 'itb6 69 'iWb4+ �e6 70 'iWe4+ �b5 71 'itf7 a5 72 g6 'ii'g4 73 'iWe5+ 1-0

39 exd4 According to Timman 39 'iixh5+ Jth6 40 'ili'f5+ g6 41 'ii'd7+ �g7 42 exd4 l:.d1 is only about equal. 39 ...'ith6 40 'iWe6+ �f6 41 'iie 3+ �g5 42 'ii'e 5 %:.e3 43 'ii'xa 5 h4 44 'iWxb4 %:.xg3+ 45 'itt h 2 %:.d3 Not the tempting 45 ... �f4? as Black gets badly disrupted by 46 'ii'f8. 46 'iVd6+ �h5 47 a5 :d2+ 48 Wh3 l:.d3+ 49 �h2 .:td2+ 50 'itt h 1 l:.d1+ 51 �g2 %:.d2+ 52 �f3 White's king has to emerge into the open if he still has aspirations of winning. 5 2 ... h3 5 3 'iWe6

In positions with passed pawns on both

sides, tactics often take over.

249

Pra c t ica l E n dg a m e P l ay

After 53 'ii'd 5!? l:td3+, unlike in the game, White cannot dance up the board (since 54 �e4?? l:te3+ 55 �f5 g6 is mate!). 53 ...l:td3+?! Here, Timman gives best play as 53 ... h2 54 �g3 l:ta2 55 'iVf3+ �g6 56 �g4 with only an edge for White. In fact, after 56 ... i.. f6! White may as well take a draw by perpetual check, since 57 a6 l:txa6 58 'ii'f5+ �f7 59 'iVh5+ �g8 60 'iVxh2 l:ta4 offers no objective advan­ tage, while 57 'iWe4+ �f7 58 'iVd5+ �f8 59 'iVxa2? hI 'if is clearly not a good idea. 54 'iit> e 4! l:ta3? After 54... .l:Id2 Black is still on the board. 55 �f5! As if from nowhere White has woven a mating net! 55 ...J:txa 5+ 56 d 5 i..f6 57 'iVe8+ 1-0 Black loses his rook to a fork: 57 ...�h4 58 'iVel+ �h5 59 'ifxa5. Here is another example where both players have passed pawns. This one proves to be a close race.

33 'iVb6 e3 34 a6 l:[e4! The rook is placed behind the passed pawn. The subsequent race leads to both players promoting! 3 5 a7 White has nothing after 35 'iVb1 i.. d 5. 35 ... e2 36 a8W e1'iV+ 37 Wg1 'iVxg1+ 38 �xg1 l:tc4 The character of the position has radi­ cally changed to one without any pawn play. It seems that Black can hold, despite his split pawns, because he can defend eve­ rything. 39 'ifh8+ 'ot>g6 40 �f2 h 5 41 'ii'e 5 i..f7 42 �e2 Black now has to move a piece to an un­ defended square, but as long as he chooses wisely his opponent shouldn't be able to exploit it. 42 ... .l:ta4 42 .. J:k2+ 43 �f3 l:tc4 is also possible. 43 'iVd6+ �g7 44 'ile7 .l:ta2+ 45 �f3 l:ta4 46 'iVg5+ �f8 47 'iWh6+ �g8 48 'ii'd 6 ':C4 49 'ii'd 8+ �g7 50 'iVg5+ �f8 51 �e2 l:ta4 52 'ii'C 5+ �g8 53 �d3

10.1 3 J.Timman-L.Ljubojevic Tilburg 1986

32 as e4! Ljubojevic aims for counterplay with the e-pawn. 250

Although Black is now denied any rook moves (as he doesn't want White's king to cross the fourth rank), he can still temporize with his bishop. 53 ... i.. g 6+ 54 �C3 i..f7 5 5 'ilg5+ �f8 56 'ii'b 5 l:[e4 5 7 'iVC5+ �g7 58 'iVg5+ �f8 59 �d3 .l:Ia4 60 'iVh6+ �g8 61 'ii'c 6 l:tC4! Yz-Yz

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d B is h o p

Demonstrating to White that he isn't go­ ing to win. A plausible finish would be 62 'i'xc4 .i.xc4+ 63 Wxc4 'it>f7 64 'it>d4 'it>f6 65 �e4 'it>g5 66 'it?e5 'it>h4 67 'it>xf4 stalemate. As 61 ... .l:.b4 is also perfectly playable, it's clear that Black is fairly comfortable.

80 'ii'a 8 .i.e7+ 81 'it>d 5 .i.d8 82 'it>e6 llb6+ 83 'it?e5 llb7 84 'iVa 5+ 'it>c8 85 'iVa6 'it>c7 86 'iVe6 l:tb6 87 'iVe8 .l:!.b7 88 'it>d 5 llb6 89 'it>C5

Even if the side with the queen has an ex­ tra pawn, converting the advantage with all the pawns on one side is far from clear-cut. This following example where Black held illustrates this point, although the defender sometimes had to find the only move.

10 . 14 A.Khalifman-A.Miles Hastings 1995/96

89 llb7 Another only move, as becomes clear af­ ter looking at the alternatives: 89 ... llb8?? 90 'i¥c6 mate, or 89 ... :a6 90 'iVe5+ 'it>c8 91 'iYf5+ 'it>c7 92 'iVf4+ 'it>c8 93 'iVg4+ 'it>c7 (no better is 93 ... 'it>b8 94 'iYd7 .i.c7 95 'iVxb5+) 94 'iYg3+ 'it>b7 95 'i¥f3+ 'it>b8 96 'it>xb5 etc. 90 'iVe5+ 'it>d7 91 'iVf5+ 'it>c7 92 'iYe5+ Yz-Yz •••

Khalifman's winning attempts were based on playing for zugzwang, since he was handicapped by having no pawn breaks. In the following example the attack­ ing side was more successful. 50 'iVe6 .i.C7 51 'iVc6 'it>b8 52 'it>d 3 llb6 53 'ilVe8+ 'it>b7 54 'it>d4 .i.d6 5 5 'iVd7+ .i.C7 56 'it>C5 'it>b8 The only good move. 57 a3 'it>b7 58 'i¥d5+ 'it>b8 59 'ilVg8+ 'it>b7 60 'ilVf8 'it>a7 61 'i'c8 .i.d6+ 62 'it>d4 .i.h2 63 'iVd7+ llb7 64 'iYh3 .i.C7 65 'iVc8 .i.h2 66 'iWC2 .i.C7 67 'it>d 5 'it>b8 68 'it>c6 :tb6+ 69 'it>d7 lld6+ 70 'it>e7 l:tb6 7 1 'iVC5 nb7 72 'it>e6 'it>c8 73 'iYf8+ .i.d8 74 'it>d6 l:tb6+ 7 5 'it>C5 llb7 76 'iVf5+ 'it>C7 77 'i'e5+ 'it>d7 78 'iYd6+ 'it>c8 79 'iVa6 'it>C7 Another only move, since 79 ... 'it>b8 fails to 80 'it>c6 and Black loses the b-pawn.

10 . 1 5 M.G urevich-I.Sokolov Dos Hermanas 2001 (see following diagram)

White's pieces are so tangled that he can't avoid losing further material. 59 .i.a3 'iYC3 60 lla4 'it>g6 61 .:ta6 'iVd3?1 Sokolov could have won without any fuss with 61..:ife1 + 62 'it>g2 'iYe4+ 63 'it>gl 'iVb1 + 64 'it>g2 'iVb7+ or 64 'it>h2 'iVf1 as he later pointed out in his notes. 251

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

62 :ta7 'ii'd 1+?1

10.16 G.Flear-H.Mas Hastings 2001/02

There was still a way to pick off one of White's clumsy pieces: 62 ... 1Wb1+ 63 'it>g2 'iib6 64 .l:!.e7 'ii'a5 and the bishop is lost to a fork wherever it goes. Instead, 50kolov demonstrates how to win the hard way! 63 �g2 'ii'd 5+ 64 'it>g1 'iVd4 65 l'tC7 "ila1+ 66 .i.c1 f51 With White rather tied up Black has time to a� vance his pawns, thus adding an extra element to the attack. 67 'it>g2 'iVa8+ 68 'it>g1 f4 69 gxf4 gxf4 70 .l:!.c3 The defender's pieces are far more peril­ ously placed than in Khalifman-Miles above, so it's not surprising that the stronger side can win here. 70 ... �f5 71 'it>f1 'iVa1 72 .l:!.C7 'ifa6+ 73 'it>g2 'ii'a 8+ 74 f3 After 74 'it>gl 'ifgB+ 75 'it>f1 'iVdB 76 .l:tc3 'ifd4 77 .l:!.c7 £3 White's defences are stretched beyond breaking point. 74 . :iVa2+ 75 'it>f1 'iVa6+ 0-1 White has an unenviable choice: 76 'it>g2 'iVe2+, 76 'it>f2 'iVb6+, or 76 'it>e1 'iVa5. .

So if we compare the previous two ex­ amples we notice that the stronger player had several things going for him in the lat­ ter: 1 . Fluid pawns; 2. More options with a 3 vs 2 (rather than a 2 vs 1) majority; 3. Less stable defensive pieces. 252

How should Black defend? 40 .i.c5?? A blunder, but whether Black could have held or not is a good question. It seems that, even if Black keeps a grip on the a7-square, White has chances to win with the creation of additional threats on the other wing: 40 ... !'tf7 41 g5 .i.c5 42 'iVd5 .i.a7 43 'ife5+ 'it>gB 44 'it>g2 .l:!.f2+ 45 'it>g3 .l:!.f7 46 'it>g4 .i.f2 47 h4 .i.a7 4B h5 gxh5+ (if 4B ... .i.f2 49 'ifeB+ .l:!.fB 50 'iVe6+ l:If7 51 hxg6 etc) 49 'it>xh5 .l:!.f1 50 'iNe6+ 'it>g7 51 ifh6+ 'it>gB 52 'iVc6 'it>g7 53 "ilc3+ and Black doesn't have a satisfactory reply. 41 'iNxe7+ 1-0 Of course after 41.. . .i.xe7 42 a7 White promotes. •••

10.17 L.Portisch-L.Ljubojevic European Team Championship, Plovdiv 1983 (see following diagram)

The isolated a- and d-pawns are going to come under pressure.

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d B is h o p

cannot get to h6 and White's king cannot penetrate, hence the inevitable result. 68 'iVg5+ lIg6 69 'iVd8 .I:!.e6 70 �e4 .:th6 71 �f4 .:te6 72 'iVd4 �h7 73 h 5 l::!. h 6 74 �g5 !'te6 ¥z-¥z

10 . 1 8 J.Tim man-A.Yusupov Montpellier Candidates 1985

50 ... i.c6 51 �f2 .l:!.e6 52 'iVb6 It's impossible to defend both isolated pawns so Black keeps holds of the most im­ portant one - the a-pawn. 52 ... i.e8 53 'iVd8 �g7 54 'iVxd5 i.c6 5 5 'iVd4+ �g8 56 e 4 �h7 5 7 'iVa7 i.e8 Undermining Black's blockade is no easy task. 58 �e3 �g8 59 "ii'b 8 �g7 60 �d4 i.b5 61 'iVg3 �g8! Portisch was hoping for 61 ...i.c6 62 'iVc7 i.b5 63 f4 i.c6 64 f5! . 6 2 'iig 5 �g7 63 f4 i.c6 6 4 e5 64 f5 .:txe4+ 65 �d3 .:te8 seems to hold. 64 ... �h7! 65 f5 gxf5 66 'ii'x h5+ �g7 67 'iVxf5 i.b5

Although White has won yet another pawn, Black has permanent control of the third rank, which in tum means the h-pawn

Here White's pawn structure is slightly better, so he is able to generate some pres­ sure. 30 �h2 a s 31 'ii'e 5 h6 According to Yusupov another solid way to defend is 31 ...g6 32 'iVh8 h5 33 'iVh7+ �f6 34 'iVg8 .:tf4!, when ....l:i.g4 should hold firm. If instead 31.. . .:txa2, White wins the h-pawn in return with 32 'iVh5+, when his kingside majority would be a useful asset. 32 a4 g6 33 'iVd5+ �g7 34 'iVe5+ �f7 35 h5 .:tf5 ! Bringing the rook to the fourth rank is the best defensive ploy, according to Yusu­ pov. The alternative 35 ... gxh5 would get Black into hot water after 36 'iVxh5+ �g7 37 b4! axb4 38 a5. 36 hxg6+ �xg6 37 'iVe6+ �g5 38 �g8+ �f6 39 'iVf8+ �g6 40 'iVg8+ �f6 41 g4 .:tg5 42 'iVf8+ �e6 43 'iVe8+ �f6 44 �h3 �g7 45 'iVe7+ �g8 46 'iVf6 �h7 47 �f7+ �h8 48 'iVf8+ �h7 49 'ii'f6! 253

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

The following example shows a balanced position where a draw was agreed.

10.19 V.lva nchuk-J.Timman Amsterdam 1994

Creating a mini-zugzwang, but Yusupov recognizes that Black can live without his c­ pawn if White's queenside is blockaded. 49 ...i.C5! Instead, 49 .. .l:tc5? fails to 50 �f7+ Wh8 51 'it'g6. 50 'iWf7+ �h8 51 'it'e8+ �g7 52 'iid 7+ �f6 5 3 'iWxc7 53 'iWc6+ i.d6 54 b4!? is risky, as after 54 ... axb4 55 "i!Va8 We7 56 a5 b3 57 a6 .l:ta5!, and then something plausible such as 58 a7 �d7 59 �7 :ta2!, White would even be worse. 53 ... i.b4 Now there is nothing White can do to dismantle the fortress. 54 'iWh7 Itg6 55 Wg3 i.d6+ 56 �f3 i.b4 57 'iWd7 J:tg5 58 'iWh7 �g6 59 'iWh8+ �f7 60 'iWd4 l:tg5 61 �f4 �g8 62 'iWf6 Wh7 63 'iif 7+ �h8 64 �f3 l:tg7 65 'ii h 5 �h7 66 �e4 J:tg5 67 'iWf7+ �h8 68 �f4 i.d6+ 69 �e3 i.C5+ 70 �f3 i.b4 71 �e4 i.e1 72 "i!Vf6+ �h7 73 �d3 i.b4 74 'iYf7+ �h8 75 'iVd7 �g8 76 �e4

Yz-Yz

Neither side can realistically hope to make progress. White has a firm grip on the dark squares and Black has no pawn breaks.

10. 20 K.Sasikiran-A.Morozevich Bie1 2004

Yz-Yz

The pawn on a5 and the bishop on b4 were untouchable. In fact, it's worth re­ membering that one advantage of a bishop over a knight is that a bishop and a lone pawn can mutually defend each other. In the case of a knight and a solitary pawn, addi­ tional support is required to secure the wing. 2 54

36 �xa7 i.d4 37 "iib 8 C5! Ftacnik points out that, after 37.. J:tb2 38 'ili'f4+ i.f6 39 "iic7+ i.e7 40 a5, White still has

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d B is h o p

a clear advantage. I presume that White could angle to liquidate the queenside and try his luck with 3 vs 2 on the kingside. In example 10.15 this led to a win. 38 Vi'C7+ f6 This is stronger than 38 .. .c;;t> g8 (in general there should be a good reason to go to the back rank voluntarily; here it's to protect the h-pawn) 39 'iVd8+ e6 f5+ 51 Wxf5 ':'f6+ 52 Wxe5 h6 53 'iVc8 '>t>e8 54 'iixd8+ Wxd8 55 Wxf6. 50 'iVb8+ In this way White gains a tempo to pick off the e-pawn. 50 Wf7 51 'iVxb6 e3 52 'iVe6+ We8 53 'iVxe3 l:tg6 54 'it'e4! Black now has four isolated pawns; not surprisingly they can't all be defended for long. 54 .. .1Ig5+ 5 5 Wf4 Wd7 •••

•••

56 'iVb7+ Kasparov would have been happier after 56 'iVxh7?! c4!, with the idea of ... �c5, when 257

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Black would have chances of resisting. 56 'it>e6 57 'iVc8+ 'it>f7 58 WilC7 This wins one of the queenside pawns and thus obtains a telling advantage on that wing. 58 ... h5 59 gxh 5 .l:!.xh 5 60 Wilxa 5 .i.d6+ 61 'it>e4 It's important to keep one's concentration until the very end: 61 'it>f3 .l:[h3+ 62 We4?? would run into 62 ... We6! and Black mates with ... fS. That would have been a terrible tragedy! 61 ...f5+ Topalov would have met 61...I:!.eS+ by the careful 62 'ot>f3! (but not 62 'it>d3?? c4+) 62 .. .l:t£S+ 63 'it>e3 l:teS+ 64 'it>d2 etc. 62 'it>d 5 .i.e7 63 "ilC7 !Ih6 64 a s l:1d6+ 65 'it>e5 .l:[f6 66 'it'c8 1-0 On 66 ... f4, White doesn't need any fur­ ther subtleties: 67 a6 f3 68 a7 f2 69 a8'iV .i.d6+ 70 'it>dS f1 'it' 71 �g8+ 'it>e7 72 WiIae8 mate will do! .••

10.2 6 A.Shirov-N.Short Groningen 1996

29 ... .l:[d6 Weaker is 29 .. J::tc8?, which allows 30 dS cS 31 Wile4 winning quickly. 30 Wile4! .i.f8 31 g4! This seriously restricts Black and is cer258

tainly better than 31 Wile8?!, after which Black could play 31...fS! and it would be more dif­ ficult to make progress. 31 ... g6 32 �e8! 'it>g7 Black could still try 32 ... fS 33 gxfS gxfS, but the new weakness created just helps White after 34 WileS. 3 3 h4 C5!? A valiant attempt to mix it. Passive de­ fence is fairly easy for White, e.g. 33 ... 'it>g8 34 Wf3 'it>g7 3S 'it>f4 'it>g8 36 hS gxhS 37 gxhS 'it>g7 38 e4 .l:[xd4 39 h6+ �g8 40 'ii'e6+. 34 dXc5 .l::f. d 2+ 35 'it>f3 .i.xC5

36 g5 Opening up Black's king to exploit his loose pieces. 36 ...l1d5 Black also loses material after both 36 .. J:td3 37 gxf6+ 'it>xf6 38 'ii'c6+ .i.d6 39 'it>e2 and 36 ...b4 37 �e6! ' 37 gxf6+ 'it>xf6 38 Wilc6+ 'it>e5 39 e4! .l:[d3+ 40 'ot>e2 l:i.e3+ 41 'it>d2 'it>d4? But any bishop move loses at least a piece; for example 41.. . .i.a7 42 Wilc7+, or 41 .. . .i.d4 42 �dS+. 42 'ii'd 5 mate

10. 2 7 V.Anand-V.Milov Biel 1997

Q u e e n v e rs u s R o o k a n d B is h o p

41 ...'iVb2+ 42 i.d2 �xa2 43 b4 'iVc4+ Inferior is 43 ... a5?! 44 bxa5 b4 45 .l:f.h6+ 'it>f5 46 l:tb6 b3 47 a6, when White has no advantage as the passed pawns cancel each other out; i.e. 47...b2 48 a7 'iVxa7 49 .l:ixb2. 44 'it>f2 'iVd4+ Anand later pointed out that 44 ... 'iYd3! is simpler, as after 45 i.e1 Black could con­ tinue with 45 ... a5! 46 bxa5 b4 and wins, bear­ ing in mind that 47 i.xb4 fails to 47 ... 'iVc2+ 48 'it>gl 'iib 1 +. 45 'it>e2 'iVc4+ 46 f2 'iVd4+ 47 'it>e2 'iVg1 48 l:th6+ 'it>f5 49 l:th5+

to Milov. For instance, 53 'it>f2 'ilVb6+ 54 i.e3 is met by 54 ... 'ilVg6, and if then 55 llg5 Black continues with 55 ... 'iVc2+ 56 'it>f3 'iVg2+ 57 f4 "iY'f1+ 58 e4 f6 59 .l:!.g7 f5+ 60 e5 'iVel . 5 0 i.f4? Failing to take his chance! The consensus seems to be that the bishop should stay on the e1-a5 diagonal to hold the b-pawn: after 50 i.e1 ! 'iVg2+ 51 'it>e3 'iVf1 52 'it>d2 both An­ and and Milov feel that White should be able to draw by putting the rook on h4 next move. Then if 52 ... a5! ? 53 bxa5 b4 54 a6 'iVc4, attempting to take advantage of White's temporary disharmony, the first player has 55 a7 'iWa2+ 56 'it>d3 �a6+ 57 c2 'iVxa7 58 i.xb4 'iVf2+ 59 i.d2 1Vxg3 60 �d5, which is probably just a draw. 50 ... 'iVg2+ 51 'it>e3 'iVa2 52 l:Ih4 Or if 52 l:!.h6+ 'it>f5 53 .l:!h5+ 'it>e6 54 l:te5+ 'it'f6 55 lIe4 f5 56 �e5+ g4 57 l::t g5+ 'it'h3 and Black's king will come round the back. 52 ... f5 53 i.h6 Instead 53 i.c7 �3+ 54 d2 a5 55 bxa5 b4 leaves Black with very strong threats; while after 53 .1:Ih5+ 'it>e6 the b4-pawn will fall. 53 ... 'iWg2 54 g4+ Lashing out acknowledges that alterna­ tives are hopeless; for example 54 i.f4 'iVe4+ 55 f2 'iVxb4. 54 ... 'it>e6 5 5 i.f4 'it>d 5 Now the king finds another invasion route. 56 l:th5+ 'it>C4 57 �h6 'iVxg4 58 �xa6 'it>xb4 59 l::t d 6 "iY'f5 60 �d4+ 'it>C3 61 l:te4 'iVd5 0-1 There are two issues in the next example. Firstly, can Black's king invade? And if so, can he actually do any damage?

49... 'it>f6 Handing White a lifeline! The right ap­ proach was forward into the breach with 49 ... 'it>g4! 50 ltg5+ (if 50 .l:lh4+ 'it>xg3 51 i.e1 +, then simply 51...'iYxe1+) 50 ... 'it>h3 51 :If5 'iYg2+ 52 'it>e3 'ilVc6 and Black wins according

10. 2 8 C.Lutz-V.Topalov Frankfurt 1999

259

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

58 llf2? An instructive position. After this Topa­ lov finds a great way to undermine White's blockade, but at this point the German GM could have stopped the plan before it got underway. Best is 58 i.. d 5! 'ii'b 1 ! (after 58 ...'iVd1 59 i.. xc4 'ii'd4 60 i.. d3 Black would have great difficulty undertaking anything constructive) and now 59 �xc4 'ifb7+ 60 �g1 'iVc7 61 llf2+ 'it>e5 62 i.. d 3 �d4 63 l:tf3 makes White's fortress much simpler than in the game. The fact that he has access to the d3-square, for instance, will greatly help his situation. Another satisfactory idea is the solid 59 lle6+ 'it>g7 60 J:te7+ �f8 61 .l:te2 'ifb5 62 i.. f3, which has the advantage of keeping Black's king confined to the kingside. 58 ... 'it>e5 The start of a long trek around the back of the queenside. 59 lle2+ �d4 60 lile4+ �e5 61 lle2 'it>b4 62 llf2 �a 3 63 i.. e4 'it>b2 64 i..f 5 If the bishop leaves the b1-h7 diagonal then 64 ... 'iVxc2! wins at once. 64 ... 'ii'e 3 65 i.. g 6 'iVe5 66 i..f5 'ii'd 5+ 67 'it>g1 �e1 68 llf1+ 'it>d2 69 llf2+ 'it>e3 The king has taken up a rather menacing post. 70 llf1 'ii'd 2 71 'it>h1 'ii'e 2?! Instead, Black could win by 71 ...'it>e2! 72 �g2 'ii'd4 as White is in zugzwang.

260

72 :a1 After 72 �g1 ! a time-pressed Topalov would have had to find 72 ... 'ii'd 2! 73 'it>h1 (73 i..h7 fails to 73 ... 'ii'd 6 74 'it>g2 'ii'c6+ 75 'it>g1 'ii'c7 due to the fork of the bishop and the g3square) 73 ... �e2!, transposing to the previ­ ous note. 72 ... 'it>f4 Black has a quick win with 72 ... 'iVf3+ 73 �h2 'iVf2+ 74 'it>h1 'ii'g3. 73 :g1 h5! 74 i.. e 8 h4?! And here 74 ... 'ii'xc2 is simplest. 75 i..f5 �f3 76 i.. e 8?! Kaspi shows that 76 i.. h7 leads to zugzwang: 76 ... 'it>e3 77 Ilg2 (or 77 i.. f5 'ii'f3+ 78 �h2 'it>f2) 77 ... 'ii'fl + 78 'it>h2 'it>f3 79 llg1 'ii'f2+ 80 �h1 'ii'a 7 81 i.. f5 �e2 and it's all over bar the shouting, e.g. 82 i.. e4 'ii'e3 83 i.. g2 (or 83 ng2+ �fl) 83 ... 'it>d2 winning the c2-pawn, or 82 i.. g6 'ii'b7+ 83 �h2 'ii'c7+ 84 'it>h1 'iVc6+ picking up the bishop. 76 'ii'x e2 77 i.. b 7+ e6 48 'iVc4+ 'it>xd6 49 'iVxg8; or if 47 ... 'it>e8, 48 'iVc8+ .I:!.d8 49 'iVe6+ mates. In time trouble even top-flight players can fall for a fork.

11.2 V.lvanchuk-S.Rublevsky Neum 2000

Black's king looks a little shaky but his pieces seem well entrenched. So, at first sight, this doesn't seem to be an appropriate example to illustrate loose rooks - but my advice is to be patient! Portisch now unleashed a delightful combination ... 37 .l:tg6! hIg8 For the record 37 ... f5 resists longer, but then 38 .l:.g5 wins at least a pawn. 38 �h6+ 'lto>g7 39 l!h7+ 'it>f8 40 ':'hxf7+! 'iVxf7 41 11xf7+ 'it>xf7 42 'fi'C7+ 'it>e6 43 'iiC4+ nd5 44 'iVc6+ ltd6 45 d 5+ �e7 46 'iVC7+ .§.d7 47 d6+ 1-0

White has loose rooks and an exposed king so has to be careful... 43 �f1?? 43 'it>h3! is correct when Black can cer­ tainly press, but after a typical continuation such as 43 ... 'iVgl 44 .l:tfa2 'iVe3+ 45 'it>g2 'iVg5+ 46 'it>hl 'iVxf5 47 .l:!.al, I doubt he can win. 43 .. :iYc1+ 0-1 Ivanchuk resigned since he loses a rook after 44 'it>g2 'iVc6+ etc. Sometimes it's necessary to make some effort to expose the opponent's king.

1 1. 3 A.Vusupov-A.Sokolov Candidates semi-final (10th matchgame), Riga 1986 After this long forcing sequence Black 2 63

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

No better is 33 ... gxf5 34 'iVa5 :axa4 35 'it'xf5 l:ra6! 36 'iWe5+ ':'f6 37 �f1 kIcf4 38 'iVg5+ �h8 39 'iWc5! and White holds. 34 'ile7 gxf5 35 �g5+ �f8 36 'iVd8+ �g7 37 'iWg5+ Yz-Yz In example 1 1 .5 the rooks are well

If Black is given enough time he'll double up rooks on the isolated d-pawn. So White's game plan is logical. 29 h4! Itfd8 30 h 5 Opening up Black's king so that the queen can give checks and threats. Not sur­ prisingly the game ends with a perpetual. 30 ... gxh5 31 �g5+ �f8 32 'iVxh 5 !!ac8 3 3 'iVh6+ �e7 34 �g5+ �e8 3 5 �g8+ �e7 36 �g5+ Yz-Yz

placed, and they may eventually be able to force the win of Black's vulnerable a-pawn. However, while it's true that White main­ tains some advantage in this position, he is continually hindered in the following play by the lack of a stable shelter for his king, and finds it hard to make progress.

11.5 P .Eljanov-Z.lzoria St. Vincent 2005

11. 4 G.Flear-M.Sebag St. Vincent 2002

I was concerned that Black could quickly pick off the queenside pawns, so I felt it was time for ... 3 3 f5 ! Itaxa4 2 64

34 ... 'iYe6 3 5 h3 �c6+ 36 'it'h2 'it'h7 37 a3 'iYc1 38 .l:t2d3 'iVc2 39 �g2 'iVc6+ 40 'it'g3 'iWg6+ 41 'it'h2 'iYc6 42 f5 !? This pawn now has a cramping effect on Black's kingside. 42 ... �b5 43 kIf3 'iYe5+ 44 l:tdf4 It's simpler to play 44 1:.ff4 picking off the a-pawn immediately as Black can't exploit the self pin. 44 ... 'iWd 5 45 'it'g3 45 f6? is bad, as it just eases Black's de­ fence, e.g. 45 ... g5 46 1:1f5 'iYe4 47 'it'g3 'it'g6 48 l:.b5 �el 49 �g2 'ike6 50 .l:.b4 'ikc6 and the

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o ks

pin is armoying. 45 :iWd6 46 h4 h5 47 �h3 f6?! I'm not sure that Black needs to give up his a-pawn so lightly. I would prefer 47 ... 'iVd7 48 .l:i.b4 'iVc6 when I carmot see a way for White to make progress (if 49 l:tff4 'iVc3+). 48 llxa4 'iNdl 49 l:tff4 "iWhl+ 50 � g3 'iVgl+ 51 �f3 'iVhl+ 52 �e2 '1Wd5 5 3 l:tac4 'iVe5+ 54 �f3 'iNd5+ 55 :tce4 "iWd3+ 56 lIe3 'iid 5+ 57 �g3 'iNhl 58 a4 .•

74 �gl "iWa 5 7 5 l:te3 Or 7S l:tbS 'iVe1+ 76 �g2 'iVe4+ etc. 75 ... 'iit> h 7 76 11ed3 'iNel+ 77 �g2 'iNa 5 78 l:tf3 h8 79 �h3 �h7 80 �h2 �h8 81 �gl "iWel+ 82 �g2 "iWa 5 83 �f1 'iVa6+ 84 l:tfd3 "iVa 5 85 .l:tdC3 �h7 86 l:tf3 'iYa6+ 87 �el A step in the left direction, but it's still not enough to destabilize Black. 87 .. :iWa 5+ 88 �dl 'iYd5+ 89 l:tfd3 'iVa 5 90 f3 �h8 91 �c2 �h7 92 �b2 'iNe5+ 93 l:tdC3 'iVa 5 94 �al �h8 95 �b2 �h7 96 11c4 'iVd2+ 97 �b3 'iNdl+ 98 �b2 'iNd2+ 99 l:tc2 'iVa 5 100 :cc3 �h8 101 !ta2 �h7 102 J::tC4 'iVb6+ 103 'iit>c 2 'iNf2+ 104 �b3 'iVxf3+ 105 �b4 'iVb7+ 106 'it'C3 'iVf3+ Vz-Vz There's nowhere to hide. The impression is that rooks can be rather cumbersome to coordinate.

11.6 A.Yermolinsky-G.KaidanoY US Championship, Long Beach 1993 White has everything defended, but the a-pawn is destined to advance no further - a consequence of his king being too exposed. 58 ...'iNgl+ 59 �f3 'iNhl+ 60 �e2 'iNbl 61 l:tee4 61 as? drops the pawn to 61...'iNa2+. 61 ... 'iNc2+ 62 �f3 'iNdl+ 63 �g2 'iNd5 64 �h2 'iVC5 65 !te3 'iNd6 66 l:tef3 'iVe5 67 �g2 'iNd5 68 .l:tb4 'iVc5 69 :te4 If 69 .nbS? Black hits back with 69 ...'iNc4. 69 .. :iVd5 70 �ee3 'iNC5 71 J:[a3 'iNa 5 Now White can attempt to budge the queen, but this can only be achieved at the cost of king exposure. 72 J::t g 3 'it'h8 73 lIgb3 'iVd5+ Black could also consider 73... 'iNxfS 74 as 'iVdS+, but here and on later occasions Izoria prefers not to give White unnecessary chances by allowing the a-pawn to advance. In fact the pawn never does get to roll for­ ward!

Here again the first task for the player with the rook pair is to organize his pieces to avoid unfortunate checks. Distant passed pawns are secondary. 36 :6c2! Covering the second rank and thus his king. In fact White was unable to do much with his d-pawn anyway: if 36 l:tb6?? 'iVf2+ 265

P ra c t ica l E n dg a m e P l ay

or 36 .l:lxa6?? 'iVh2+; nor with his king: 36 �h3? 'ii'f5+ 37 �h2 'ii'f2+ etc. 36 ... �xd6 37 .:ta2 �e7 38 ':'c6 With the second rank defended it's safe to chase after the a-pawn. 38 ... 'ii'f1 39 ':cxa6 �f8 White now needs to switch his rooks so that they will target the most backward of Black's remaining pawns. 40 .l:lb6 �g7 41 l:[bb2 ! �g6 42 l:!.f2 'ii'e 1 White is interested in doubling on the f­ file, but he first displaces Black's pieces from their ideal situations. 43 l:tae2 'it'd1 If 43 ... 'it'a1 then 44 l:te4!. 44 l:te5!

44 ... �g7? Falling in with White's plans. A much better defence is available in the guise of 44 ... 'ii'd 7! 45 l:tg5+ �h7 46 :g4 (if 46 �f6, then 46 .. .'ii' e7 ripostes) 46 .. .f5 47 l:!.gf4 �g6 48 l:l4f3 (possibly best is 48 g4 fxg4 49 .l:lxg4+ �h5 50 l:te4 with some practical chances) 48 ... 'ii'd6 49 l:.e3 �h5! and Black seems per­ fectly OK, e.g. 50 l':tfe2 �g4 or 50 �h3 'it'd1 . 4 5 Itg5+ �f8 4 6 .l:tg61 With strong threats against the pawns. 46 ... e5 47 .l:Igf6 Now both pawns are doomed. 47 ... e4 48 .l:lxf7+ �g8 49 .l:[e7 'ii'd 3 50 l:lf4 e3 51 .l:lfe4 'ii'c 2+ 52 'it>h3 'ili'c8+ 53 g4 'ilVc1 54 ':xe3 'ili'h1+ 5 5 �g3 'ii'g l+ 56 'it>f4 'ii'f 2+ 57 266

�g5 'it'd2 58 'it>g6 1-0 Mate is close. It's far easier for the rooks to get their act together if the king has better cover.

11. 7 A.Chernin-S.Marjanovic Subotica Interzonal 1987

There are a couple of factors that lead to a quick White win: 1 . Black's pawns are bro­ ken; 2. White can get his rooks doubled up on the forward f-pawn. 36 l:.f3 �g6 37 J::t a 6 'it'd4 38 l:tf4 Waiting for the time control at move 40 before committing himself; 38 naxf6+ is of course more direct. 38 ... 'ii'd 5+ 39 �h2 'ili'd8 40 l:!.c6 'ili'e7 41 l:!.a6 Ftacnik suggests 41 g4 hxg4 42 �g3, in­ tending to capture on f6 next move. 41 .. .'i¥d8 42 .l:laxf6+! 'ii'xf6 43 l:txf6+ �xf6 44 'it>h3 'it>f5 45 f3 f6 46 'itg2 ! A necessary subtlety a s 4 6 g4+? hxg4+ 47 fxg4+ 'itf4 is only drawn. 46 ...'itg6 Now 46 ... 'it>e5 47 g4 hxg4 48 fxg4 �f4 49 'ith3 is zugzwang. 47 g4 1-0 If a pawn can't be supported by another one, then assuming the rooks are able to get

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o k s

coordinated, it can be readily rounded up by the rook pair. The following is a classic ex­ ample.

38 �b7 l:!e8 39 iVc6 l:Iac8 40 iVd7 l:!.cd8 41 "fiC7 .i:i.d 5 42 as .l:tdxe5 43 a6 I:.5e7 44 iVc6

11.8 A.Shirov-V.Anand Linares 1998

White has broken pawns which the rooks will aim to pick off one-by-one. In the mean­ time the queen will try and cause some dis­ ruptive diversions. 3 3 iVb1 Threatening 'iYb8+. 3 3 .. J::td 8! Keeping control of the eighth rank is the right way forward. Alternatives don't in­ spire confidence; e.g. 33 .. .l:he5?? loses to 34 �8+, while 33 ... I:.d7? 34 'ilib8+ �h7 35 'iVb1+ �g8 (35... g6?? 36 e6 is worse) 36 �8+ al­ lows a draw. 34 iVb7 :xC3 3 5 'iVxa7 l:tcc8 The a- and e-pawns are both isolated and thus impossible to defend once the rooks double up on them. 36 a4 l:Ia8 37 'iVC7 l:!.dc8! Anand seeks to eliminate the e-pawn first. As Hecht points out, the obvious 37 ... .l:!.d4?! would be premature in view of 38 "iVc6 l:Idxa4 39 e6 fxe6 40 �xe6+ 'It>h8 41 �h3, when White would have excellent drawing chances with the pawns so diminished.

44 .. JU8! Moving the rook away from threats by the white queen. Black now intends to dou­ ble on the a-file. 45 'it>h3 Or 45 iVc5 l:Id7 46 a7 na8. 45 .. J:ta 7 46 g4 .l:tfaS 47 �h4 Ilxa6 4S iVb7 l:ta 5 49 �c6 J:tfS 50 iVb6 !'tg5 51 iVb3 �hS 52 �b4 .i:i.eS 53 'iVa4 J:tdS 54 iVe4 Now Anand finds a way to get his sec­ ond rook into play ... 54 f5 ! 5 5 gxf5 lUS 0-1 White loses both pawns. ..•

In general, with play on a single wing, for the rooks to achieve their goal their king must be able to avoid spoiling checks. This is unlikely with only one pawn apiece ...

11.9 J.Polgar-V.Kramnik Wijk aan Zee 2005 (see following diagram)

For Black to have chances to win, he needs to be able to double up on the g­ pawn. 37 "fih5+ �gS 3S 'iVeS+ llfS 39 iVe6+ 1:11f7 267

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

40 g3 l:.d8 41 g4 f8 42 g5 !tf6 43 'iVb3 !tdd6 44 'ii'b 8+ f7 45 'ii' b 3+ !tde6 46 g4!?

In the next example the stronger side is

again thwarted by queen checks and various threats.

11.10 A.Karpov-G.Kasparov Linares 2001

It's an interesting decision to advance this pawn, but Judit Polgar is later proved right. 46 ...g8 47 h4 h7 48 iVd3+ !tg6 49 iVf5 !tef6 50 'ii'e4 !tc6 5 1 g3 !tC3+ 5 2 h4 :C5 53 g3 !th5 If 53 ... !tcg5 White still defends with 54 'iVh1+. 54 iVbl !ta 5 55 'ii'e4 !tal 56 'ii'f5 l:tgl+ 5 7 f2

Black needs time to settle if he is to gen­ erate any pressure, but unfortunately he doesn't get it. 34 'ii'b 8+ h7 35 'ii'C 7 g8 36 'ii'b 8+ Yz-Yz . Depending where Black puts his king, White prevents any progress by threatening the f-pawn with 'ii'c7 or giving check on ei­ ther b8 or e5. Here's a more critical example with three pawns each.

11.11 P.Leko-V.Kramnik World Championship (1st matchgame), Brissago 2004 57 ...l:.hl After 57 .. .lHxg4 58 'iVh5+ Black cannot avoid the perpetual, e.g. 58 ... g8 59 'ii'd5+ f8 60 'iVd8+ f7 61 'ii'd7+ f6 62 'ii'd6+ g5 63 'iVe5+ etc. 58 g3 !tgl+ 59 f2 !tlxg4 Yz-Yz 268

(see following diagram)

44 'ii'f4? This slip enables Black to consolidate his king position.

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o ks

his rooks on the f3 soft spot. 47 l:ta4 48 'iVc6 l:t8a6 49 'iVe8+ 'itt g 7 50 'ili'b5 l:t4a 5 51 'ili'b4 l:td5 •••

We already saw in example 1 1 .10 that it is possible to hold such positions by per­ petually making checks and threats. With the following analysis Lukacs shows that another way is to be able to defend a future king and pawn ending. He demonstrates that White should instead play 44 hxg6! hxg6 45 g5! �H5 46 f4, when Black's winning attempts can be nullified with best play: 46 ... l:ta4 47 'iWh4 'itt f8 (if immediately 47 .. J:t£xf4 48 'iVxf4 .1:!.xf4 49 'it>xf4 the end­ game is drawn, e.g. 49 ... 'itt f8 50 'itte4 'itte 7 51 'itte5) 48 'iVh8+! (but not 48 'itt f3? l:taxf4+ 49 'ili'xf4 as Black has the nifty 49 ... 'itt e 7! ! and wins, e.g. 50 'ii'xf5 gxf5 51 'itt e3 'itt d 6) 48 ... 'it>e7 49 'ifb8! l:taxf4 50 'iVc7+! (rather than 50 'it'xf4? .l:lxf4 51 'ittxf4 cJi>d6! when Black takes the opposition), and now the only way to hide involves going back with 50 ... 'itt f8, which can then be safely met by 51 'iVxf4 l:txf4 52 'ittxf4 with a draw. 44 g5! 45 'iVf6 h6! A clever trick. The h-pawn cannot be captured as 46 'ili'xh6 would lose the queen after 46 ... :8a6. 46 f3 Lashing out with 46 f4 invites the rooks to do their worst, e.g. 46 ... .l:la3+! 47 'itt f2 l:ta2+ 48 'itt f3 (or 48 'itt f1 .l:tc8) 48 .. J:t8a3+ 49 'it>e4 l:ta4+ etc. 46 l:t5a6 47 'iVC3 Now Black will aim to bear down with •••

•••

52 'ili'b3 52 f4 again opens the white king to the wrath of the rooks after 52 ... l:td3+ 53 'itt f2 Ita2+ 54 'itte l l:.h3. 52 .l:.ad6 53 'ii'C4 l:td3 54 'ittf2 It's already only a question of time as to how soon Black will get his rooks where he requires them. If 54 'ili'c2 l:te3 55 'itt f2, then with 55 ... .l:ldd3 Black is clearly winning, while Kramnik proposes the methodical 55 ... nee6 56 'ili'c3+ :f6 57 'itt g3 l:.a6 58 cJi>g2 l:ta4 59 'it>g3 .l:laf4 as in the game. 54 l:ta 3 5 5 'iVC5 Kramnik shows that 55 f4 is still hope­ less: 55 ... Itd2+ 56 'itte l l:.h2 57 'ili'd4+ 'itt g8 58 fxg5 l:tal +! and wins. 5 5 l:ta2+ 56 'itt g 3 l:tf6! 57 'ili'b4 l1aa6 58 'itt g 2 l:tf4 59 'ili'b2+ :af6 60 'ili'e5 l:txf3 61 'iiVa 1 1If1 62 'iVc3 Or if 62 'ili'e5 l:t1£4 63 'itt g3 'itth7 64 'ili'al lIe6 65 'ili'bl+ l:tee4 and, as pointed out by the victor, Black will pick off the g-pawn. 62 l:t1f2+ 63 'itt g 3 :2f3+ 64 'iVxf3 l:txf3+ 65 'it>xf3 'ittf6 0-1 •••

•••

•..

•••

For the side with the queen to be able to prevail in single-flank situations, the queen will generally require a couple of extra pawns for company and some opportunities 2 69

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e Play

to get at the defending king. The following is a pertinent example.

11.12 J.Piket-V.lvanchuk Monte Carlo (rapid) 1995

45 h4 46 nh5 Or 46 ngg2 'iVd1 47 !th2 'iYb3+ 48 �f2 "iVg3+ 49 �f1 'lit>f5. 46 .. Ji'gl+ 47 .l:f.f2 iVe1+ 48 �f3 'iVd1+ 49 lle2 'iVd3+ 50 i:1e3 'iVf1+ 51 �e4 'iVg2+ 52 Wd4 "iVg4 5 3 .l:.he5 h3 0-1 ..•

11.1 3 A.Dreev-A.Shirov Wijk aan Zee 1996

34 ... 'iVe5 3 5 Ibb3 g5 36 llb5 'iVa1+ 37 �g2 �g6 38 lle3 'iVa7 39 llbe5 e6 So far so good, but now Piket makes a surprising decision. 40 f4? An attempt at an active defence, but it turns out that the opening of the white king and the weakening of the f4-pawn only eases Black's task. What happens, however, if White just 'waits and sees' if his opponent can make progress? I believe that he should play 40 �h2! when it's not clear if Black can win. 40 ...'iVa2+ 41 !:te2 'iVa8+ 42 �f2 gxf4 43 gxf4 'iVh1 44 .l';Ig5+ �f6 45 �e3?! 45 �g3 is slightly tougher, against which I consider 45 ... �e7!? 46 llh2 'iYe1+ 47 �h3 h4 48 llg4 'iVf1 + 49 l::thg2 �1 + 50 nh2 'iVf3+ 51 �xh4 f5 52 llg3 'iixf4+ 53 �h3 e5 to offer excellent winning chances; or if in this line 46 lla2 then 46 ... f5 takes the g4-square away from White's king thus making the threat of ...h4+ even stronger: 47 lle2 "iVf1 48 nf2 h4+ 49 �f3 'iYd3+ 50 �g2 h3+ 51 Wh2 'iiVe3 again winning the f-pawn. 2 70

Black's rooks are not well placed to han­ dle both passed pawns and, furthermore, his king is too open. 34 'it'e8+ �g7 3 5 'iVe7+ �g8 36 'iVe6+ �g7 3 7 d6! lIf2+ 38 �C3 l:IC1+ 39 �b3 lld1 Against 39 ... .l:!.d2 Dreev intended 40 'iVe7+ �g8 41 'iVd8+ �g7 42 'iVc7+! . 40 'it'e5+? The immediate 40 �c4! is stronger (as on move 42). 40 ... �g8? 5hirov presumably rejected 40 ... 1:I.f6 be­ cause of 41 g4, but then Black can resist with 41...h6 42 h4 g5! 43 hxg5 hxg5 44 'iVxg5+ �f7 as Dreev mentions in his notes. (see following diagram)

Despite having three extra pawns, can White still win? Note that the d-pawn is al­ ready about to fall, and if Black can achieve

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o k s

a barrier with both rooks placed on the sixth rank he should hold (45 b5 %:tdxd6 etc), while the plausible moves 45 'ii'h5+ b6! 1-0 A final subtlety. Ftacnik points out that 56 d8'iiV? is only a draw after 56 ... %:txc5+ 57 bxc5 %:txc5+ 58 'it>d6 %:tf5. There follows another queen offer that again overwhelms the defence.

11.14 J.Polgar-P.Nikolic Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 1996

41 'ii'e 6+ c6 33 "it'f3+ ..t>C5 34 'iWa 3+ ..t>C4 3 5 "it'b3+ ..t>C5 36 a4! This stymies the queenside for the time being. 36 .. J:!b8 37 �c3+ ..t>d 5 38 f4 ..t>e4

39 "it'f3+ 39 "it'c4+ ..t>e3 40 g3 is simpler according to Dolmatov. White could then use his king to support the kingside advance, while his queen calms things down elsewhere. 39 .. .'>?o>d4 40 'iWc6 ..t>e3 41 "iVc1+ Here again 41 g3 is worth considering. 41 .. .'.ti>e2 42 h5 :ec8 43 "iVf1+ ..t>d2 44 "it'b5 �e3 45 g3 ..t>d4 46 ..t>g2 �c3 47 h6 The slow but sure 47 g4 l:lc5 48 'iVd7 ..t>b4 49 ..t>g3 was later preferred by Dolmatov in his notes. Then Black cannot obtain a passed pawn so easily, as after 49 ...b5 White has the decisive 50 'iYd4+ .uc4 51 "it'd6+. 47 ... If.h8 48 'iVd7 b5! The best practical chance to confuse mat­ ters. Now White is obliged to navigate the complications of the coming race. 49 axb5 a4 50 b6 a3 51 "it'a4 '>fi>b2 52 "it'b4+ ..t>a2 53 h7!

Exploiting the fact that the pawn cannot be captured due to a fork (see the next note). 5 3 .. J::t b c8 The winner's notes in Informator show that other tries also fail: 53 ... r!xh7 54 "it'd2+ ..t>b1 55 "ii'd3+ ..t>b2 56 'iWxh7 a2 57 "it'a7 a1"it' 58 �xb8 "ii'd 1 59 "it'e8 and White easily wins the queen ending; or 53 ... .l:!.b7 54 "it'd2+ ..t>b1 55 �d3+ �b2 56 �e2+ ..t>a1 57 "iVa6 etc. 54 b7 .l:tc2+ 5 5 ..t>f3 nb2 56 "iVc4+ Itb3+ 57 ..t>g4 ..t>b2 The rook is lost too lightly after 2 72

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o k s

57 ... l:txh7? 58 'ilfc2+ nb2 59 'ii'xh7. 58 'ife8 :xh7 59 b8'if 1:1g7+ 60 'lfo>h5 :gxg3 61 'ifd6 1:1h3+ 62 'lfo>g6 .l:.bg3+ 63 'lfo>f7 l:th7+ 64 'lfo>xe6 liIh6+ 65 'lfo>f5 l:xd6 66 exd6 a2 67 d7 a1'if 68 'iWb7+ 1-0 White will promote yet another pawn without allowing Black any unpleasant checks after 68 ... 'lfo>c2 69 d8'ii' or 68 .. .l:tb3 69 'ifg2+ 'lfo>a3 70 1i'a8+.

11.16 J.Polgar-A.Shirov Wijk aan Zee 1998

3 2 b3 The pair of passed pawns make an excel­ lent shelter for White's king. 32 ... h 5 33 e4 l:tf5 34 'ifd4+ 'lfo>e7 35 'lfo>a3 l:td6 36 'ifg7+ �e8 37 b4 Black's rooks cannot combine to create any counterplay. He can only give one meaningless check before they run out. 37 l:tf7 38 'ifh8+ 'lfo>e7 39 'ifxh5 l:ta6+ 40 'lfo>b3 ltf1 1-0 White now has four passed pawns and Shirov decided that there was no point con­ tinuing the hopeless task of stopping them. In his notes to another game the Spanish (ex­ Latvian) GM highlights the importance of not wasting one's mental energy during a tournament. •••

If the defender has a denuded king and weak pawns, and the stronger side an ad­ vanced passed pawn, the odds would natu­ rally seem to be on a decisive result.

11.1 7 M.Adams-P.Svidler Linares 1999 Again Black's king is just too open, which inevitably limits the opportunity for the rooks to be effective. 24 'ifd4+ 'lfo>e6 2 5 a41 Apart from giving the king some luft this leads to a break-up of Black's queenside. 2 5 ...1:1hd8 Instead 25 ... bxa4 26 'ifxa4+ 'lfo>b6 27 'ifb3+ 'lfo>a7 28 'ifxe6 would be dead lost for Black: two pawns down and no safe haven for his king. 26 'ifa7 .l:Id1+ 27 'lfo>a2 bxa4 All of Black's pawns are ripe and ready for picking. 28 'ifxa6+ �d7 29 'ifxa4+ 1:1e6 30 'iWa 7+ 'lfo>d6 31 'iWf2 l:td 5 In Chess Base Ftacnik mentions that 31...1:1a6+ 32 'lfo>b3 l:!d5 is well met by 33 c4.

White has two serious preoccupations: his exposed king and the dangerous f-pawn. The only redeeming feature is that the d­ pawn may help to distract the black queen. 41 ltb2 'ife1+ 42 'lfo>a2 'ifa 5+ 43 'lfo>b1 'ife1+ 2 73

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

44 �a2 f3 45 �f6 'iVa 5+ 46 �b1 'iVe1+ I consider 46 ... 'iVxd5! to be more precise (see below). 47 �c2!? Adams probably avoided repeating with 47 �a2, not because of 47 ... 'iVxh4?! which would be less clear after 48 lhf3 'i!Vxg5 49 l:Id3, but rather in view of 47 ... 'i!Va5+ 48 �b1 'i!Vxd5 49 �a2 'ii'a5+ 50 �b1 'i!Ve1+ 51 �a2 'i!Vxh4 52 'uxf3 'it'xg5, which looks rather promising for Black. 47 ... 'i!Ve4+ 48 �C1 'iVe1+?! Again 48 ... 'iYxd5! is called for. 49 �C2 f2? The game move looks so crushing that Svidler's mistake is perfectly understand­ able. However, it turns out that this was the last chance to transpose to the strongly fa­ vourable line outlined above (in the note to White's 47th move) with 49 .. :ii'e4+ 50 �c1 'i!Vxd5! 51 �b1 'it'e4+ 52 �a2 'it'xh4 53 ltxf3 'iYxg5. 50 ltb1 This doesn't threaten the queen, but at least it stops the f-pawn from promoting and, with the threat of d5-d6 in the air, Black is obliged to react. 50 ... 'iYe4+ 51 �b2 'i!Vxd 5 52 l:tf1 'i!Ve5+ No better is 52 ... 'iVd4+ 53 �a2 'i!Vxh4 54 J:.1xf2 'i!Vxg5 55 J::txf7. 53 �a3 'iYe7+ 54 b4 After 54 �a4?, Black plays 54 ... a5! any­ way and White is in trouble. 54 ... a5 5 5 J:.1xf2 The f-pawn is finally eliminated. 55 .. :iIVxb4+ 56 �a2 'iVxh4 57 �g2 57 J:.xf7? leads to a losing king and pawn ending after 57 .. :ii'c4+ and 58 .. :ii'xf7. 57 ... 'iYC4+ 58 �b2 'iYd4+ 59 �a 3 'iYa1+ 60 �b3 a4+ 61 �C4 'i!Vc1+ 62 �b5 'iYb1+ 63 �a 5 63 �xa4?? would be suicidal because of 63 ... 'i!Ve4+. 63 ... 'iYe1+ 64 �a6! Wriggling away from any forks! 2 74

64 J!ib4 65 �ff2 �f8 66 'ue2 a3 67 ,Ud2 .•

The second rank blockade surprisingly puts an end to Black's winning chances. 67 ...f6 There's nothing doing after 67 ... (�g7 68 .l:Idf2. 68 gxf6 g5 69 J:.gf2 'ii'a 4+ 70 �b6 �f7 71 'iii C 7 'iYa 5+ Y2-Y2 Rooks are far less effective when they lack open lines.

11.18 A.Shirov-N.Short Yerevan Olympiad 1996

Here White's queen, g-pawn and king combine in a strong attack on the black monarch. The rooks, on the other hand, are

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o k s

virtual bystanders in this largely closed posi­ tion. 37 �g4 b5 38 'iWh6+ 38 �f5, followed by 39 'iVh6, transposes as Black has to play 38 ... �g8! to avoid mate. 38 ... �g8 39 �f5 f6 40 g6?! Shirov later criticized this move, noting that after the stronger alternative 40 gxf6 White would soon win (due to zugzwang) with 40 .. J!h7 41 'ii'g6+ �f8 42 �e6 .l:tcd7 43 b4 c4 44 a3 l:thf7 45 'iVh6+ �g8 46 'ii'h5. 40 ... .l:te7 41 �xf6

41 ... l:.cd7 Shirov feels that Black could create more practical problems by advancing on the queenside. For example, if he could totally block the wing, he would be able to hold as White cannot break through by creating threats solely on the kingside. Shirov goes into considerable detail to show that White could nevertheless win if he handles the queenside pawns correctly, but only by pro­ voking sharp complications: a) 41...a5 42 a4! b4 43 cxb4 axb4 (if 43 ... cxb4, then 44 'iVh5 followed by 'iVe2 and invasion via the queenside) 44 b3 c4 (44 ... l:tb7 fails to a combination of threats: 45 1ifh5 c4 46 'iVe2 !tec7 47 'ii'g4 .l:tb8 48 'ii'e6+ �h8 49 'ii'x d6) 45 bxc4 b3 46 c5! b2 47 'ii'h l .l:tb7 48 c6 bl'iIV 49 'ii'xbl l:txbl 50 �xe7 and wins! b) 41...c4 42 b3 b4 43 bxc4 bxc3 44 'ii'h2

.l:te8 45 'it>g5!? (the useful waiting move 45 a3!? is also reasonable) and Shirov stops here, but the struggle is far from over, so I've continued with 45 ... l:tee7! (rather than 45 .. .l1ec8 as 46 c5! is then very strong) 46 'ilVe2! 'it>g7 (or if 46 ... .l:tc5, White is on the verge of winning after 47 'ii'd3 !tec7 48 'ii'xc3 .l:txc4 49 'iVa3 l:.d7 50 'iVxa6 l:tcc7 51 'it>h6) 47 'iVf1 ! (I originally considered 47 'iVd3 .l:tc8 48 'ii'xc3 .l:tf8 49 'iVa5 !tf6 50 �g4, but then 50 ... �xg6! turns the tables, as Black threat­ ens ... .l:tg7 and White's king is in serious danger) 47 ... c2 (47 ... .l:te8, intending ....l:tf8-f6, fails to 48 'iVf6+ 'it>g8 49 'iVxd6 .l:tce7 50 'ii'a3 and the connected passed pawns decide) 48 c5! (disrupting Black's defences) and then:

bl) 48 .. Jhc5 49 'iVf6+ 'it>g8 50 'ii'xe7 and mates. b2) 48 ... dxc5 49 1ifh3! 'it>g8 (49 ... c1'ii' al­ lows mate in two: 50 'ii'h7+ 'it>f8 51 �8 mate) 50 d6 c1'ii' 51 dxe7 .l:txe7 52 'it>f6 with a quick mate; e.g. 52 ... .l:tc7 53 'ii'e6+ �f8 54 g7+! Ilxg7 55 'ii'c8 mate. b3) 48 ... .l:te8 (intending ... .l:tf8 etc) fails to the remarkable 49 'iVc1 !, e.g. 49 ....l:txc5 (49 ... .l:tf8 loses more prosaically: 50 cxd6 .l:td7 51 'ii'xc2 .l:tf6 52 'ii'c8 .l:txg6 53 'it>f5 .l:tgxd6 54 'it>e5 eventually wins) 50 �1 .l:th8 51 'iif3 !tf8 52 �3 and mates! 42 'ii'h 5 .l:tg7 43 'ii'f5 .l:tge7 44 'it>g5 .l:tg7 45 'iVe6+ �f8 46 'iVf6+ 'it>g8 47 'it>h6 .l:tge7 Alternatively, 47 ... c4 48 'ii'e6+ (if 48 b3? b4 2 75

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

49 'ii'fl then Black can draw with 49 .. .l:hg6+! 50 �xg6 l:!.g7+, e.g. 51 �h5 l:!.h7+ 52 �g4 l:tg7+ 53 �f3 l:!.f7+ 54 �e2 l:txfl 55 'it>xfl bxc3 56 �e2 cxb3 57 axb3 �f7 58 �d3 �e7 59 �xc3 �d7 60 �b4 �c7 61 �a5 �b7 62 b4 �a7 63 b5 axb5 64 �xb5 �b7) 48 ... �f8 49 'ii'f5+ completes a subtle manoeuvre to give himself a flight-square for his king on f6, the importance of which becomes apparent at the end of this line: 49 ... �g8 50 b3 b4 51 bxc4 (again not 51 'ii'fl? l:txg6+ etc) 51...bxc3 52 c5 c2 53 c6 c1 'iV 54 cxd7 'i¥xe3+ 55 �h5 'ii'e2+ 56 �g5 and wins! 48 c4! Now White is guaranteed some sort of an entry on the queenside. 48 ... b4 It's easier for White after 48 ...bxc4 49 �fl l:th7+ 50 �g5! :th2 51 "iff5 l:te7 52 �f6 !:le8 53 'ii'd 7 l:tf8+ 54 �e6 l:!h6 55 �xd6 l:txg6+ 56 �xe5 and the central pawn mass will soon win the game. 49 'ii'f3 I!.b7 50 "ii'd 1 I!.b8 51 'ilVa4 l:tb6 52 b3!? After 52 a3 Black should probably capture when play is likely to be similar to the game. Instead, 52 ...b3?! 53 "ii'a5 .l:.eb7 54 g7! leaves Black in zugzwang; e.g. 54 ...l1b8 55 'i¥e1 :8b7 56 'iVg1 followed by "ii'g6-h7 mates. 52 �f8 53 a3 Opening lines on the queenside and thus enabling White to create additional threats. •••

2 76

5 3 ... bxa3 54 'ii'xa3 1Ia7 5 5 'ilVa1 � g8 There's no time for queenside play: both 55 ... 1hb3 56 'ii'fl + �g8 57 'ilVf6 and 55 ... a5 56 i¥fl + �g8 57 'ilVf6 yield a decisive advantage for White. 56 "iVf1 r!bb7 57 'ii'f6 I!.d7 58 b4! The point! Some major cracks appear in Black's shell. 58 ... cxb4 59 C5! dXc5 60 'ilNxe5 1-0 Everything becomes clear after 60 ... l:td8 61 �e6+ �f8 62 'ii'f6+ �e8 63 g7.

11.19 P Svidler R Ponomariov Moscow 2001 .

-

.

The rooks are held back by the closed na­ ture of the position, as well as Black's pro­ tected passed e-pawn. White's weakened kingside is a further problem for him. 2 7 .. JWg5 28 l:tg3 b5 As his opponent cannot undertake any­ thing positive, Ponomariov advances his queenside to break up White's centre, with the intention of later winning the d-pawn. 29 l:tf2 Chasing after the b-pawn is bad: 29 lIb1? "ii'd 2 30 l:txb5? as 30 ..."ii'e 1+ 31 �g2 'ilVe2+ wins the rook. 29 ... � g7 30 �g2 as 31 l:tb2 b4! 32 cxb4 axb4 3 3 h3 33 l:txb4?? loses the rook to 33 .. :iWd2+.

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o k s

33 .. :iVc1 Making way for the king to enter the game. 34 1:tgb3 ..t>h6 3 5 .l::tx b4 'iVd1 Better than the precipitous 35 ... e3, when 36 l:t4b3! (but not 36 11b7? 'iVd1 37 .l::!.e 7 'iVd2+) 36 .. :iVe1 37 ..t>f3 gives White some hope. 36 ..t>f2 The only way to restrain the e-pawn at all. 36 .....t>g5 37 .l::!. e 2 ..t>f4

38 l:!b3 White has to let go of the d-pawn as, af­ ter moves such as 38 a4, he drops a rook to 38 ... e3+ 39 Ihe3 'iVd2+ 40 .l:.e2 'iVxb4. White can perhaps delay things with 38 a3, but after 38 .. :�d3 he hasn't really improved his prospects. 38 ... 'iVxd4+ 39 ..t>g2 'iVC4 40 Itf2+ After 40 :be3! 'iVc5 41 ..t>f2 'iVa7 White can avoid zugzwang with 42 a3, followed by temporizing indefinitely with .l::te2-e1-e2 etc. 40 .....t>g5 41 nf7? A forlorn attempt at a counter-attack. If instead 41 l1e3 �c5 42 Itfe2 ..t>f4 43 J:lb3 Black can expand the centre with 43 ... d4, so White should fall back on 43 ..t>f2! as in the previous note, which seems to hold. 41 ... d4 42 h4+ ..t>xh4 42 ... ..t>xg4?? would be disastrous after 43 l:.g3+ followed by 44 l:txh7 mate. 43 l::tx h7+ ..t>xg4 44 l::t g 3+ �f5 0-1

In the following example White retains his own passed pawn, but this still shouldn't be enough to save the game, due to his vul­ nerable king and Black's mass of pawns.

11.20 F.Vallejo Pons-I.Sokolov Pamplona 2002

44 .u.e2 h5 45 .l:tb3 'iiV b 6 46 l::td 2 h4 47 ..t>h1 After 47 l1xd5? White's rooks are left hanging and, unsurprisingly, there is more than one way to pick one off; for example, 47 .. :iic7+ 48 ..t>gl 'iiVc 1 + 49 ..t>g2 'ifc2+. 47 ... d4 48 l:.dd3 g5 49 l:tb4 ..t>h7 50 ..t>g2 Ribli notes the problem with 50 .l::tdxd4, i.e. 50 .. :iVe6 51 l::t g4 'ife1+ 52 ..t>g2 f5! . 5 0. . .iVc5 51 I:.bb3 iVc2+ 52 ..t>f1 f 5 5 3 b 6 g4 54 hxg4 fxg4 5 5 b7 g3 56 l::tf3

277

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Now Sokolov didn't choose the critical line. 56 .. :iVh2 I thought at first that this was a blunder, but in fact it doesn't change the result. The critical line is 56 .. :iVd1 +! 57 'it>g2 'iVe2+ 58 'it>h3 'iVh2+ 59 'it>g4 g2; however, White may still be able to survive with 60 1:tg3! (60 b8"ili'? loses quickly after 60 ... g1 'iV+, e.g. 61 'it>f5 'iVg6 mate or 61 l:!.g3 'iVe2+ 62 'it>f5 'iVgf1+ and there's nowhere to hide: 63 J:rgf3 'ii'c2+ 64 'it>f6 'iVg6+ 65 'it>e7 'iYe2+ 66 l1be3 'iVg5+ 67 'it>f7 'iVc4+ and mates) 60 ... g1'iV 61 J:rxg1 'iVxg1 + 62 'it>f5 as Black's significant material advantage may not be exploitable; e.g. 62 ... 'iVg6+ 63 'it>e5 'iYe8+ 64 'it>xd4 'iVb8 65 'it>c5 'it>g6 66 'it>b6 'it>f5 67 'it>a6 'it>e6 (or 67 ... 'it>g4 68 J:rb4+ 'it>g3 69 .l:tb3+ 'it>g2 70 J:rb2+ 'it>f3 71 J:rb3+ and Black is going nowhere) 68 l:i.e3+ 'it>d5 69 1:I.c3 �f4 70 ilc8 and Black will have to take a draw with 70 .. :�a4+ 71 'it'b6 'iVb4+ etc. 57 b8'iV g2+ 58 'it>e2 gl'iV+ 59 'iVxh2 'iVxh2+ 60 'it>d1 White has the third rank blockade. 60 ... 'it>g6 61 1:1.a3 'iti> g5 62 lth3 'iVg1+ 63 'iti>d2 'it>g4 64 J:rhd3 'it>f4 65 :f3+ 'it>e5 66 .l:Ih3 Yz-Yz

3 2 ... b5! 3 3 'iYxf7 At least by breaking up the kingside pawns it's more difficult to imagine Black winning. 33 ...1:I.f5 34 'iVa7 bxa4 3 5 bxa4 :a2 36 'iVd4 �g8 37 g4 l:tf8 37 ...l:i.a5?? would be foolhardy due to 38 'iYd8+. 38 'iYa7!? Stopping ... l1a8, but Black finds another square from which to attack the a-pawn. 38 h4 lIa8 comes to the same thing. 38 ....l::t.f4 39 a s .l:.fa4 40 'iYe7 !lxa 5 41 'iYxe6+ 'it'h7 42 h4 .l::t. 2 a4 43 h 5 Yz-Yz

When both sides get amongst the oppos­ ing pawns, things can be rather unclear. In the next example the flurry of pawn cap­ tures leads to equality.

11.21 J.Hjartarson-G.Sax Reykjavik 1988 (see following diagram)

Neither side can hope to win. 31 'iYxa7 J:rxe2 32 a4 After 32 "ili'xb6 Iha2 33 b4 .l:.b2 White has no hope of advancing the b-pawn very far and could lose the game on the kingside. 2 78

The following example illustrates how far opening theory can be extended in cer­ tain key forcing lines. Sometimes it's neces-

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o k s

sary to analyse the resulting NQE or end­ game in order to judge whether an option in the opening is advisable or not.

11. 2 2 A.Karpov-L.Van Wely Monte Carlo (rapid) 1999

This position has already occurred sev­ eral times in practice. White tends to have some chances of achieving a pull, and it seems to be important how Black decides to handle his a- and h-pawns. 29 ... h S Presumably Van Wely was hoping to avoid the problems that Black encountered in the earlier game A.Karpov-J.Polgar, Bu­ dapest (rapid match, game 3) 1998, follow­ ing 29 ... a5 30 l:tbc2 h5 31 l:.c4 'ild5 32 a4 'ild2 33 h4 �g7 34 g3, when White had plenty of options. 30 l:tbc2 In view of the lack of progress in the game, perhaps those interested in playing this opening(!) should consider 30 g3! ? 30 ... h4 So this is Van Wely's plan: the h-pawn goes to h4 to cramp any White expansion there, while the a-pawn stays back, keeping away from the relatively exposed a5-square. 31 l:tc4 'ile7 32 a4 'ilg5 3 3 l:te1 'fid8 34 :ec1 Another aspect of ... h4 can be appreci-

ated after 34 l:i.ee4 'ild1+ 35 �h2 'ild6+, when there is no comfortable way to step out of the checks. 34 ...'ild2 3 5 l:t4c2 'ilb4 36 l:tC4 'ild2 37 l:tC5 �g7 38 a5 a61? 39 l:tf1 �h6 40 l:tC4 �h5 A voiding moving his g-pawn forward. 41 ltfc1 f5 !

Black's defensive fortress on the kingside will now be difficult to breach. His structure is solid and he reserves the g5-square as wriggle-room for the king. 42 �C5 �g5 43 l:tb1 �h5 44 .l:!.e5 'ilc2 45 l:tf1 'ild2 46 l:tfe1 �g5 47 l:tb1 'ilc2 48 l:tee1 �h5 49 .l:.a1 'ilC3 50 l:tec1 'ild2 If White is going to achieve anything eventually he'll have to come out of his shell. 51 l:tc6 'ile2 52 l:tb1 'ila2 53 l:te1 'fixa 5 54 lilee6 'ila1+ 5 5 �h2 'ild4 56 l:txg6 'ile5+! Not falling for 56 ... 'ilxf2? 57 l:th6+ �g5 58 ILcg6+ �f4 59 l:txh4+!, when White would have serious chances. 57 g3 hxg3+ 58 l:txg3 'fie2 59 1:.g2 'fie5+ 60 :g3 'ile2 Yz-Yz A convincing display by Van Wely that seems to demonstrate that this particular 'opening theory NQE' is probably playable for Black. There now follow a couple of examples where the draw occurs because neither side dare risk going for more. 2 79

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

11. 2 3 P Nikolic A Grischuk French League 2003 .

-

.

It soon becomes clear that there's nothing much that can be done. 30 ... g6 31 'ii'd 6 .l:le6 32 'iVc7 .l:tSe7 33 'ifdS+ l:teS 34 'ii'C 7 l:tSe7 35 'ifdS+ 'ii.> g 7 36 'ifd4+ 'ii.>g S Yz-Yz Instead, 36 .. .£6 would be risky since, if Black were ever to activate his rooks, his king would then become too exposed to checks on the seventh rank.

11.24 S.Rublevsky-V.Bologan Poikovsky 2003

At first this looks perilous for White's king, but after ... 2S 'ii.>f1 .l:.h2 29 'ii.>g 11 ...he seems to ensure the draw. Black's rooks can double on the seventh with 29 ... l:tdd2, but then White has 30 h6 or 30 'ii'c8+ 'ii.>g 7 31 'ifc3+. 29 ....l:txh 5 30 a4 :as 3 1 'ii'c 6 ltha 5 3 2 b3

The queenside is left in dynamic equilib­ rium which neither side can disturb. Or to put it differently, the rooks tie down the con­ nected passed pawns which in tum tie down the rooks! 32 ... h5 3 3 'ii.>f2 'ii.>g 7 34 'iWc3+ 'ii.>g 6 3 5 'iWC2+ 'ii.>g 7 Yz-Yz In the next example the rook pair are used to release the blockade of the passed pawn.

11.2 5 J.Piket-J.La utier Leiden 1995 (see following diagram)

2S b3! An excellent technical move that doesn't permit Black to play ... c4 in peace. The c­ pawn remains vulnerable on c5, as it can only be defended by the queen, and this fac280

Q u e e n v e rs u s Two R o o ks

tor eventually leads to a favourable breaking up of the queenside. Instead, the precipitous 28 l:tc8?! allows Black strong counterplay with 28 ... c4 29 l:k6 'ii'e5 30 d6 'ii'e2 31 l:tb1 'iVc2.

2S ...'ii'd 7 29 l:.te4 'ii'd 6 30 h 3 h5?1 3 1 l:teS Back again, but now White doesn't have the same concerns about a back-rank mate. 3 1 ... h4 Unfortunately for Black, 31...'ii'd 7 would be answered by 32 l:te5 (hitting the h-pawn) and then, after 32 ... g6, by 33 d6. 32 l:tcS 'iVe7 33 :c1 Also. possible is 33 'iii>f1 'ii'd 6 34 ':c6! 'iVh2 35 d6 'ii'h 1 + 36 'iii>e2 'ii'xg2 37 d7. 33 ... C4 34 bXc4 'ii'xa3 35 cxb5 axb5 36 l:td1 'ii'd 6 3 7 l:tc6 'iVd7

3S d61 The result is no longer in doubt.

3S ... b4 Or if 38. .. 'ii'xc6, then of course 39 d7. 39 l:tc7 'ii'a 4 40 l:tcc1 'ii'd 7 41 l:tb1 g5 42 lIxb4 'iii> g 6 43 f4 Black's kingside now comes under scru­ tiny. 43 ... f5 If 43 .. .f6 44 fxg5 fxg5 45 'iii>h 1 ! �f6 then 46 l:lb5 as in the game or, even simpler, 46 l:tg4, piling up on the g-pawn. 44 fxg5 'iii>xg5 45 �h1 'iii> h 5 46 :b5 �g6 Naturally 46 ... 'ii'xb5 would be met by 47 d7. 47 1:1a 5 �f6 4S l:ta7 Insisting on shifting Black's queen! 48 ...'ii'd 8 49 d7 f8 54 'it'b4+ �g8 5 5 11i'b8+ If 55 'it'c4, then 55 ...l:!.g5+ 56 'it>h2 'it>g7 etc. 55 �h7 56 �b3 :g5+ Or more simply 56 .. J:tg7+ 57 'it>f2 l:!.h2+ 58 'it>f1 %lh1+. 57 'it>h2 'it>g6 58 'ii'e 6+ 'it>g7 59 d5 l:!.g6 60 "'e8 l:!.h6+ 61 'it>g3 l:!.g6+ 62 'it>h2 Yz-Yz •..

Sometimes all the eggs need to be put into one basket!

11.28 P.Leko-V.Anand Dortmund 2004

cided on this course o f action as it's awk­ ward for White to stop the h-pawn without going too passive; for instance, after some­ thing like 47 l:te3? h3 48 l:!.c8+ �h7 49 l:!.c5 'iVg4 50 ng5 'it'h4 Black is close to winning. 47 ......xf4 If 47 ... 1t'g4, then still 48 b5. 48 b5 e5 Lukacs suggests 48......f6+! 49 'it>b4 e5 as better, as White doesn't have the immediate b5-b6. However, after the further 50 �a5 e4 51 l::t dc3, White prepares b5-b6 anyway and Black can't exploit his extra tempo or two. 49 b6! With the b-pawn being so strong Black has to take a perpetual. 49 ... 'it'e1+ 50 �b4 "'b2+ 51 l:!.b3 'it'd4+ 52 'it>b5 �d7+ 5 3 'it>a 5 "'d4 54 'it>b5 "'d7+ 5 5 �a 5 "'d4 56 l:!.be3 "'e4 57 l:!.5e4 "'d 5+ 5 8 'it>a6 "'a8+ 59 'it> b 5 "'d 5+ 6 0 l:te5 "'e4 6 1 ':e7 "'d5+ 62 l:!.7e5 "'e4 63 ':'5e4 "'d 5+ Yz-Yz The final example in this chapter shows the rooks putting up stubborn resistance by defending patiently. The secret of a success­ ful defence is often picking the moment to react more actively.

11.29 R.Ponomariov-A.Morozevich Istanbul Olympiad 2000

46 ... h4 47 lites! Ditching the kingside altogether and re­ lying on the b-pawn. Leko presumably de2 83

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

2 5 ...�h7 26 ':'C4 as!? After 2 6...'ii'a 1+ 2 7 �g2 'ii'xb2 2 8 l::t d 7 'i'xe5 29 ':'cc7 White would have sufficient

It's best to avoid 42 ... 'ii'xb4 43 ':xe5 as Black's kingside would then lack bite.

43 gxf4

counterplay, so Morozevich tries to hone his a-pawn into a dangerous weapon.

27 .l:.d2 'ii'a 1+ 28 �g2 'ii'e 1 29 l::tc d4 a4!? Continuing in the same vein. Instead, 29 ...'i'xe5 30 bxa5 'ii'xa5 31 h3 would be less of a challenge for White.

30 b5 b6 3 1 h4 It's a natural desire to protect the e-pawn with 31 f4, but then there's a danger that the white king would be permanently exposed after 31 ...g4.

31 g4 32 l:r.c2 'i'xe5 33 l:txa4 f5 34 �h2 •••

The ugly 34 l::tb4 protects a rather irrele­ vant pawn, at the cost of the rook being pas­ sive and placed on a vulnerable square. Fur­ thermore, after a continuation such as

43 exf4 .••

The alternative 43 ... 'ii'xf4!? has to be met by the precise move 44 :5c3! (44 l::te 1? g3

44 l:r.1c3? 'i'xb4 are just bad), when

34 ...'i'd5+ 35 �h2 e5, there would be a dan­

and

ger of slipping into zugzwang. Ponomariov

Morozevich presumably judged that he

decides that it's better to keep his king well surveyed.

wasn't going to win with so many isolated pawns; for instance, after 44 ...'ii'xb4 45 ':'e3 'ii'd4 46 l::tb 1 b4 47 l::teb3 'ii'c5 48 �f1 .

34 'ii'x b5 35 .l:.a1 'ii'd 3 36 l::ta c1 e 5 3 7 l::tC 3 'ii'd 4 3 8 :3C2 'ii'e 4 39 l::tC 4 'ii'd 5 40 �g1 •..

More or less waiting for Black to commit himself.

40 b5 •••

Getting the rook off c4, at the cost of ced­ ing c5.

41 :C5 'ii'd 2 42 b4!?

44 .l:.h5+! �g8 45 l:tc8+ The rooks are free at last to have some fun.

45 ... �f7 46 l::tC 7+ �6 47 l::tc 6+ �e7 48 l:r.e5+ �d7 49 l::tc c5 'ii'd 1+ 50 �g2 'ii'f 3+ Clearly 50 .. .£3+ 51 �g3 'ii'g l + 52 �f4 'ii'xf2 53 l::tcd5+ �c6 54 l::tc5+ will also be drawn by perpetual.

The cautious 42 l::t5c2 would be answered by 42 ... 'ii'd4, followed by ...b4, and White might regret having stayed too passive for too long.

51 �g1 'ii'd 1+ 52 �g2 'iWf3+ 53 �g1 g3 54 fxg3 'ii'xg3+ 55 �f1 'ii' h 3+ 56 �g1 YI-YI

42 f4

king won't be able to escape.

.•.

2 84

White has l::tcd5+, l::tc5+ etc and the black

C h a pt e r Twe l ve

I

Roo k a n d B i s h o p vers u s Roo k a n d Kn i g h t

This is by far the most common NQE, with 8.8% of all

2600+ encounters involving this par­

ticular material imbalance. It's therefore evident that, as it's so relevant to practical play, it's an area a serious player would be wise to study. The fact that the properties of a bishop differ from those of a knight lends itself to a num­ ber of generalities concerning the relative strength of these pieces. If we take an empty chess­ board and place a bishop and a knight randomly in the central arena, we notice that the bishop can have as many as 13 possible moves whereas a knight can at best only have eight. The logical deduction would be that the bishop is potentially a better piece, and it's true that most GMs, if given the choice, will take the bishop. As we know, however, there are a number of positions where a knight can at least hold its own, so chess commentators have developed a consensus view of the relative merits of the minor pieces in different types of position: 1.

A bishop i s generally stronger than a knight when the position is open, if the

2.

A knight is often better than a bishop in fairly closed positions, if play is on a

pawns are broken, or play is on both flanks. limited front, or if the bishop is restricted by its own pawns. If we tum our attention to the main subject of this chapter, in which each side has a rook as well as a minor piece, then a common view in books is that rook and bishop are worth more than rook and knight. Having surveyed many examples of this NQE I'm not sure that I agree. The broad arguments that I've mentioned above are frequently overturned, for in­ stance by a slight alteration in the pawn structure, a better-placed king or by several other factors. In my own games the rook and bishop pair scores slightly higher overall than rook and knight, but over the last ten years the opposite is the case! Does this change in fortunes reflect style, maturity, a change in openings, or just sheer chance?

In the fifty examples that follow I'll try and explain those salient factors that the Grand­ master takes into account when assessing these positions. A couple of questions that the players should be almost always asking themselves are the following: 2 85

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

1.

Does the side with the bishop have the right o r the wrong rook's pawn? With bishops in all sorts of endings, the presence of the wrong rook's pawn can sig­ nificantly reduce any presumed advantage of the bishop over knight.

2.

Can the defending side sacrifice their piece for the attacking side's remaining pawns? Remember, of course, the lesson of Chapter Two that rook and knight vs rook without pawns is usually easily drawn, whereas rook and bishop vs rook without pawns gives realistic practical winning chances.

We start with a selection of positions where the bishop really is the better minor piece, the first of which is perhaps the most famous rook and bishop 'massage' of all.

The side with Rook a n d Bishop is tryi ng to wi n

12 . 1 R.Fischer-M.Taimanov Candidates quarter-final (4th matchgame), Vancouver 1971

Note how Fischer accumulates slight ad­ vantages until they become something defi­ nite. 25 .i.f1 a5 26 .i.C4 l:tf8 27 �g2 �d6 28 �f3 liJd7 29 :e3 If Black moves his f-pawn to free his rook, White would then have access to the e6-square. 29 ... liJb8 30 l:td3+ �c7 31 c3 Denying the knight any useful central squares. 31 ... liJc6 32 :e3 Wd6 3 3 a4 286

Fixing the queenside pawns. Note that Fischer isn't dogmatic about putting a pawn on a light square. White ensures that c4 and b5 will be available for his bishop and, later on, his king. 3 3 ... liJe7 34 h3 liJc6 3 5 h4 This type of space-gaining move is typi­ cal when one player has some pressure but nothing concrete. 3 5 ... h5?! This limits White's space advance but al­ lows the pawns to become fixed on light squares. It was better simply to temporize with ... liJe7-c6. 36 l:td3+ �C7 37 l:td5 Now another pawn must be placed on a light square. 37 ...f5 38 %:td2 l:tf6 39 l:.e2 �d7 40 %:te3 g6 41 .i.b5 l:td6 42 �e2 �d8?! With Fischer having obtained targets for his bishop on the kingside, he happily ex­ changes rooks, as the g6-pawn is a serious weakness in the resulting bishop vs knight ending. Black should avoid this with 42 ... �c7, meeting 43 l:td3 with 43 ... l:te6+. 43 l:td3 �C7 44 l:txd6 �xd6 45 �d3 Now Fischer wins a very elegant end­ game. 45 ... liJe7 46 .i.e8 �d 5 47 .i.f7+ �d6 48 �C4 �c6 49 .i.e8+ �b7 50 �b5 liJc8 51 .i.c6+ �C7 52 .i.d 5 liJe7 53 .i.f7 �b7 54 .i.b3 �a7 55 .i.d1 �b7 56 .i.f3+ �c7 57 �a6 liJc8 58 .i.d5 liJe7 59 .i.C4 liJc6 60 .i.f7 liJe7 61 .i.e8

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d K n ig h t

Zugzwang! 61 ... �d8 62 j"xg6! ttJxg6 63 �xb6 �d7 64 �XC5 ttJe7 65 b4 axb4 66 cxb4 ttJc8 67 a s ttJd6 6 8 b 5 ttJe4+ 6 9 �b6 �c8 7 0 �c6 �b8 71 b6 1-0 We can also note the superiority of the rook and bishop duo with a centre bereft of pawns in the following example

has nothing concrete at present. 2 7 ... hS 28 lIc6 a s 29 l:r.b6 l:r.d5 The white rook has taken up an active posting, but again White needs extra rein­ forcements to break down Black's defences. So it's time to introduce the king. 30 �1 g5 31 �e2 g4? A better defence would be offered by 31...a4! when the queenside pawns are kept intact. White would still be slightly more active after a continuation such as 32 �f3 lIe5 33 l:r.d6 �f8 34 j"d2 �e8 35 j"c3 l:1c5 36 g3 �e7 37 l:r.b6 :f5+ 38 �e3 g4 39 h4 �d7, but it's hard to see how Black's light square blockade could be broken down. 32 hxg4 hxg4 33 b31 A strong move, as now Black will inevi­ tably be left with an isolated pawn on the queenside. 3 3 ... l:r.e5 34 �d3 f5 3 5 g3 �f7 36 l:r.a6 b4 37 axb4 axb4 38 lIb6 l:r.e4

12.2 A. Yusupov-V.Anand Linares 1992

The bishop has open diagonals, while the knight lacks safe squares in the centre. 26 .. J:td8 2 7 l:r.c1 Yusupov keeps the rooks on since, de­ spite having the superior minor piece, he

Black holds for the moment but, once White has access to c4, the b-pawn will be in trouble. 39 l:tc6 l:r.e5 40 �C4 l:r.e4+ 41 �d5 �6 42 l:r.C4 l:r.xc4 43 'it?xc4 �e5 44 �xb4 f4 45 gxf4+ ttJxf4 White only has two pawns left, but they prove to be sufficient to win. 46 �C4 ttJh5 47 j"a7 The bishop has the ability to defend the kingside from afar. 287

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

47 ... �e6 48 �b8 ltJf6 49 �d4 ltJd 5 50 �g3 ltJb4 51 �C5 ltJd3+ 52 �C4 ltJel 53 b4 ltJc2 54 b5 �d7 55 �e5 ltJel 56 �d 5 ltJd3 57 �d4 ltJf4+ 58 �e4 ltJe2 59 �e5 A typical example of a knight's difficul­ ties when competing against a bishop in such positions. 59 �c8 60 �e3 ltJCl 61 �b2 ltJb3 62 �d4 ltJcl 63 �d2 ltJb3+ 64 �C3 ltJa5 65 �e5 �d7 66 �f4 �c8 67 �d4 �b7 68 �c5 �a7 Or if 68 ... ltJb3+, then 69 �c4 ltJaS+ 70 �b4 �b6 71 i.e3+ etc. 69 �b4 ltJb7 70 �C7 1-0 Zugzwang! The knight is dominated and lost. So even when pawn structures are solid, the rook and bishop can grind out such posi­ tions. •••

In the previous two examples the knight lacked good central squares and was unable to help out that well in defending both flanks. In 12.3 the knight has a respectable outpost and is thus well placed for any activity on the queenside or centre. However, White's bishop is able to help pressurize Black's kingside from a distance.

12.3 V.Salov-J.Timman Moscow 1992

288

2 5 h5! This enables White to open and control the h-file. Now, whatever he plays, Black will be left with a target on the kingside. 25 ... ltJe6 26 .:f.hl ltJd4 27 �dl f4?! Although this leads to the exchange of more pawns - a typical defensive idea - it exposes his g-pawn to attack. Instead, trying to keep the structure solid has its points, as after 27....l:Id6 28 hxg6 hxg6 29 e3 ltJe6 30 �c2 ltJcs, it's not clear how White will be able to break through. 28 gxf4 exf4 29 hxg6 hxg6 30 l:tgl .l:td6 3 1 e3 fxe3 3 2 fxe3 ltJf5 Black tries to keep his pieces as active as possible. 3 3 e4 ltJe3?! 33 ... ltJe7 is rather passive, but at least the knight keeps out of trouble. 34 iLe2 Wb6 3 5 �d3 ! l:td8 After the plausible 3S .. .l:te6? White wins the knight already with 36 �d4. 36 e5 �C5 Following 36 ... .l:Ie8 Ribli points out that White has 37 l:tgS, and if 37 ... ltJfS 38 .:f.xg6 l:1xeS? then 39 .l:lgS with a deadly pin. 3 7 e6 �d6? 38 e7! A nice tactical shot that further illustrates the fragility of the knight on e3. 3 8 .. J:te8 38 ...�xe7 drops a piece after 39 nel . 39 l:txg6+ �xe7 40 l:txc6

R o o k a n d B i s ho p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

So White emerges with an extra pawn, and it's important to note that the rook's pawn is the RRP . 40 l:!d8 41 l:tC5 e6 42 a4 Not 42 lha5? tiJdI+ 43 c2 tiJe3+ when White has no satisfactory way of escaping the checks. 42 ... l:Ld6 43 i.. e 4 tiJdl+ 44 b3 tiJe3 45 c3 tiJdl+ 46 b3 tiJe3 47 i.. h 7 �b6+ 48 C3 tiJdl+ 49 Wd4 l:td6+ 50 l:td5 l:Lxd 5+ 51 cxd 5+ d6 52 i.. e 4 The d-pawn is blockaded but there is no defence to the intended penetration with c4-b5. 52 tiJf2 53 i..f3 tiJh3 54 C4 tiJf4 5 5 i.. h l! A neat zugzwang move. On hI the bishop supports the d-pawn and is too far away to be troubled by Black's knight. The inferior 55 b5? only draws after 55 ... tiJxd5. 5 5 tiJe2 Other moves are no better: 55 ... d7 10ses to 56 b5 d6 57 xa5 tiJxd5 58 i.. xd5 xd5 59 b6, and 55 ... e5 to 56 c5 tiJd3+ 57 b6. 56 b5 tiJd4+ 5 7 xa 5 C5 58 a6 tiJb3 59 a 5 tiJd4 60 b7 tiJb5 61 a6 1-0 •..

can't get to e5. Black's pawns are now fixed on the same colour as White's bishop mak­ ing them potential targets, even if the posi­ tion still retains its closed character for now.

•..

•••

In the following example, despite the po­ sition being fairly closed, the rook and bishop are still the superior pair. This is be­ cause White is able to extend his space ad­ vantage and create threats on both wings, while at the same time keeping Black's knight passive.

30 tiJc8 Temporizing proves to be rather passive. Possibly 30 ... h5! ? could have been tried, aim­ ing to be less submissive. 31 i.. d 4 a 5 32 i.. C 3 b6 3 3 b4 axb4 34 i.. xb4 tiJe7 35 lIal Intending invasion via the a-file. 3 5 ... h5 36 J::ta 7 hxg4+ 37 hxg4 �c8 38 i..c 3 Black is tied down to one weakness, but that isn't enough for White, who will need to open further lines for the bishop with a timely b2-b4 and c4-c5. 38 e8 39 i.. d 4 f8 40 e4 f7 41 b4 e8 42 i.. e 3 f7 43 c5 bxc5 44 bXc5 dXc5 45 i.. xC5 •••

••.

12 . 4 A.Shirov-I.Sokolov Las Vegas 1999 (seefollowing diagram)

24 f3 d7 2 5 g4 .l:Ih8 26 i.. C 3 h6 27 .:i.hl tiJe7 28 �gl e8 29 h3 f7 30 f5 ! Timed, of course, so that Black's knight 289

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

45 g6? Instead, Black can just about hold with 45 ... 'it>e8!, e.g. 46 �d4 (if 46 d6?! cxd6 47 �xd6 !Ic4+ 48 'it'd3 tLlc8! Black survives) 46 ... tLlg8! (46 .. :it>d8? allows the squeeze with 47 �xe7+ 'it>xe7 48 'it>c5 'it>e8 49 �c6 'it>d8 50 d6 cxd6+ 51 'It>xd6, while 46 ... .:.d8? is just bad after 47 �xe7 �xe7 48 l:txc7+) 47 d6 cxd6 48 �xd6 J::t d 8 49 �d5 l:td7 50 ':'a8+ .l::i. d 8 51 na4 tLlh6. 46 d6! gxf5+ 47 gxf5 cxd6 48 i.xd6 And White wins, despite the minimal material left on the board! 48 .. J:te8 49 'It>d4 'It>f8 50 l!1xe7! ':'xe7 51 'it'd 5 'it>f7 52 �xe7 1-0 After 52 ... 'it'xe7 53 'it>c6 Black loses the f­ pawn and the game. ..•

factor, but here it has a positive consequence for Black as there is no hope of a White counter-attack against it. 42 tLle4 .l:.b2 43 l:td3 'it>g7 44 'it>g3 .l:te2 45 'it'f3 l:tC2 46 �g3 �e7 47 f3? Taking away an important square from the white king. Instead, the sequence 47 'it>f3! f5 48 tLld2 was correct, since if 48 .. .lIc3 White has 49 'it'e2 keeping things as tidy as possi­ ble. 47 ... f5 48 tLld2 ':'c3 Unfortunately for White he has lost con­ trol of the third rank and now gets pushed back. 49 .l:td7 �f6 50 �f2 �e6 51 l:tb7 �g5 52 l:.b6+ 'it'd 5 5 3 tLlfl l:txb3 54 lIxg6 �f4 5 5 tLlg3 l:tb2+ 56 tLl e 2 b3 57 11b6 �d6

12 . 5 G.Flear-N.Mitkov European Team Championship, Plovdiv 2003

The sort of position which can be un­ pleasant to defend, especially with a fast time limit. Black's bishop has the potential to become the better minor piece on such an open board. Another slight, but significant factor is that White has three pawns islands compared to Black's two. The black b-pawn is on the same-coloured square as his bishop, which at times can be a negative 290

The bishop switches to another danger­ ous diagonal. 58 'it>el �c5 59 l:!.b8 �C4 60 tLlg3? This is a blunder, but in fact White was losing anyway; e.g. 60 �c8? .uxe2+ 61 'it'xe2 b2. 60 ... �f2+ 0-1 Small factors often make a significant dif­ ference. In 12.6, if White's knight were on its best square, c4, he wouldn't have any par­ ticular problems. As it is, the e5 and f2 pawns are on dark squares and can come under attack, while Black's control of the c­ file may become important.

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

12 . 6 G.Vallin-G.Flear French Lea gue 2003

26 J1cs 27 CDd4 a s Certainly not 2 7.. .l:he5?? due to 2 8 CDc6+. 28 g3 gs! This move aims to 'dislocate' the e5pawn; i.e. while the pawn isn't actually iso­ lated, defending it with f2-f4 has its draw­ backs. For instance, after the immediate 29 f4, Black can win at least a pawn with 29 ...gxf4 30 gxf4 .J::t d + 31 �e2 .ixd4 32 11xd4 l:i.hl . 29 �g2 g4 30 l:ic2?! On 30 h3, I intended 30 ... h5, anticipating 31 hxg4 hxg4 32 f4 gxf3+ 33 CDxf3 .ic7 with an edge due to White's shaky pawns, but with hindsight perhaps just 30 ... .tc7!? is even better. 30 .1:1c3 ! 31 i:txc3 bxc3 32 CDC2 .iC7 Now Black wins the e5-pawn and has every chance of winning the game. 3 3 f4 gxf3+ 34 'iitxf3 .ixes 3 5 �e4 �d6 36 CDe3 fs+ 3 7 �d3 �cs 3 8 CDC4 Or 38 CDc2 h5 39 a3 �b5 etc. 38 .id4 39 CDxa s es 40 a3 e4+ 41 �C2 .igl 42 h3 .if2 43 b4+ �d s 44 �xC3 .ixg3 45 �d2 f4 46 CDb3 f3 47 �e3 .iC7 48 a4 .ib6+ 49 �d2 �C4 50 as .ia7 51 CDCl �xb4 52 a6 �a 3 0-1

In the next example a space advantage, plus the possibility of a promising pawn advance, puts the defender under pressure.

12 . 7 R.Kasimdzhanov-E.Bareev Sarajevo 2003

•.

.•

•••

It's noticeable that White's king is more active than its counterpart, and he has the potential of a timely f4-f5, gaining further space and driving the knight away from the defence of the d-pawn. 42 ttfl f6? Hubner gives 42 .. J::td8! as stronger, as af­ ter 43 lId Black has 43 .. .f5+! 44 exf6+ (44 gxf5 gxf5+ 45 �xf5 is well met by 45 .. JIf8+) 44 ... 'iit xf6 45 h4 d3 46 g5+ �e7 47 .ixd3 �d4+ 48 �e3 �xf4 and Black is fine. Note that White cannot then attempt 49 .l:!.c7+?! CDxc7 50 bxc7?? since, with the f-file open, Black has the calm 50 .. J:tf8. However, Kasimdzhanov believes that White can still keep an edge with 47 �e3 (instead of 47 .ixd3) 47 ... d2 48 .l:td1 CDg7 (the alternative defence 48 .. J:td6 49 .l:!.xd2 �xd2 50 �xd2 CDxf4 is strongly met by 51 .ic6! 'iit d 6 52 .ixb7 �c5 53 �e3 CDe6 54 .id5! and wins) 49 .id3 .l:!.d6 50 l':txd2 i:txb6 51 �c2. One has to agree that White keeps winning chances alive, due to his more active pieces and Black's vulnerable pawns. 291

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

43 exf6+ 'iio?xf6 44 f5 gxf5+?! The opening of the flank exposes Black's remaining pawn. However, Hubner's sug­ gested alternative, 44 ... 4Jg5+ 45 'iio? xd4 4Jxh3 also looks inadequate after 46 fxg6+ 'iio?xg6 47 i.d3+ 'iio?g7 48 J:!.f5, creating threats against Black's pawns and the offside knight; e.g. 48 ... �c6 49 i.f1 4Jg1 50 We3!. 45 !txf5+ 'iio? e 7 46 �h5 1Id8 If 46 ... .l:Ih8 then White picks off the d­ pawn: 47 i.c4 4Jd8 48 'It>xd4. 47 !txh7+ 'iio?f6 48 .l:!.h6+ 'iio? e 7 49 J:th5 I:!.d6 50 i.e4 d3 51 i.xe6 �xe6+ 52 'iio? xd3 J:txb6 53 !txa 5 �b3+ 54 'iio? e4 l':!.xh3 55 l:.b5 'It>f6 56 'iio?f4 1-0 After 56 .. J:th7 57 Itb6+ Black loses the b­ pawn.

23 ... a6 is also met by 24 �bl . 24 l:!.b1! 'iio?e 7 2 5 i.xa7 �a8 26 .tb6+ This check gains a tempo so enabling White to hold on to his booty. 26 .. .g4 4Je6? A blunder. The only way to continue se­ rious resistance was by 67 ... exf6 68 ':xf6 1Ic4. •••

22 'iio? e 2 4Jh5 After 22 ... 'iit> d 7 Black loses a pawn any­ way: 23 Itb1 .l:!.a8 24 .l:i.b7+ 'It>e6 25 llc7 4Jh5 26 i.e3. 23 i.e3 'iio?d 7 292

..•

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

68 c6+! c;i;>d6 6 9 c 7 'DxC7 7 0 f7 'De6 71 l:td8+ �C7 72 l:.e8 c;i;>d7 73 c;i;>g3 .I:Ia 3+ 74 c;i;>f2 11a2 75 f5! l::txd2+ 76 c;i;>e3 l::t d 6 7 7 fxe6+ l::tx e6+ 78 c;i;>d4 'ud6+ 79 c;i;>C5 I;tc6+ 80 c;i;>b5 l:.f6 81 f81i' l:txf8 82 ':'xf8 1-0 Although it wasn't exactly a great bishop, it helped hold the position together and covered some important dark squares.

so widely spaced. 49 'Da 5+

Determining whether or not a bishop (with its pawns placed on the same coloured squares) can be labelled as a 'bad bishop' becomes complicated when the pawn struc­ ture evolves.

12 . 9 G.Flear-M.Gurevich Clichy 1993

After 49 b4 lIe2+ 50 c;i;>gl l::tb2 51 'Dd4+ c;i;>e5 52 l:tg6 c;i;>f4, Black's pieces are ideally placed and White's protected passed pawns are not quite fast enough: 53 b5 h3 54 a5 (or 54 b6 l::tb4) 54 ... l::t d 2! (rather than 54 ... c;i;>g3 55 'Df5+) 55 b6 l::t xd4 56 b7 l::t d 1+ 57 c;i;>f2 l::td2+ 58 c;i;>e1 (if 48 c;i;>f1 c;i;>e3! mates) 58 ... l::te2+ 59 c;i;>f1 l:te8 60 c;i;>f2 d4 61 a6 h2 62 l::th6 d3 63 a7 l:te2+ 64 �f1 c;i;>f3 65 b8'iIV l:i.f2+ 66 c;i;>e1 d2+ 67 c;i;>d1 c;i;>e4+ 68 c;i;>c2 d1'i1V+ and wins. 49 �e5 50 l::t h 6 .l:i.e2+ 51 c;i;>f1 c;i;>f41 Giving up the h-pawn to get his pieces ready for an attack. 52 lIxh4 l:c2 5 3 l:th8 d4 If 53 ... c;i;>g3 straight away, White can de­ fend with 54 1Ie8. 54 'DC4 Now if 54 .ue8, then 54 ... d3! 55 'Dc4 c;i;>g3 wins as in the game. 54 �g3 5 5 l::t e 8 d 3 ! 56 ne3+ .i.f3 57 l::txf3+ After 57 a5, Black mates with 57 ... l::tc 1+ 58 l:.e1 .i.g2+. 57 c;i;>xf3 58 c;i;>e1 c;i;>e4 59 c;i;>d1 c;i;>d4 60 c;i;>e1 c;i;>C3 0-1 •••

40 f4? A rather unfortunate 40th move, which weakens the e4-square and enables Black to take the initiative. If White just temporizes instead, the position would stay fairly bal­ anced. 40 gxf4+ 41 c;i;>xf4 .i.d7 42 'Df3 l::t e 8 43 I;txa 5 Naturally 43 'De5 is refuted by 43 ...l:!.xe5! . 4 3 J:Ie4+ 44 c;i;>g3 Ji.xg4 45 'DeS h 5 4 6 :a6 h4+ 47 c;i;>f2 l::tx d4 48 'Dxc6 l:i.e4 So we have a race; and the knight is gen­ erally the inferior piece when the pawns are .••

. •

•••

.••

The word 'compensation' is often used and is frequently subjective. It comes down to weighing up the pros and cons of the two camps and then forming a judgement as to their relative importance. 293

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

In the next example White has an extra pawn, but with his pawns so broken and Black so active, there should in my opinion be sufficient compensation. My opponent rec­ ognized this when it was too late.

12 . 10 E.Prh!-G.Flear Laragne-Monteglin 2001

White had been trying to win for a while due to his extra pawn, but simplification has given Black excellent counterplay. 29 xa6 h4 and White can't stop the pawn, e.g. 44 Wb5 Wxg2 45 tDe6 Wg3 46 tDg5 Wf4 47 ttJh3+ Wg4 48 tDg1 1i.d3+ 49 Wc5 Wg3) 40 g3 i.f1 41 WaS We5 42 tDg6+ We4 43 tDe7 Wf3 44 ttJd5 .ic4! (but not 44 ... Wg2 45 tDf6 Wxh2 46 ttJxh5 which is only drawn) 45 tDf4 1i.f7 46 'it>xa6 h4 47 Wb6 hxg3! (47 ... h3 is best avoided, e.g. 48 Wc5 Wf2 49 Wd4 Wg1 50 We3 'it>xh2 51 Wf2) 48 hxg3 Wxg3 49 tDd3 Wg2 50 ttJe5 g3! 51 tDxf7 Wf3 52 tDg5+ Wg4 and the pawn will soon promote. 36 .. J::te 3+ 3 7 �f4 lte4+ 38 Wg3 ':e7 39 l:i.b6+ l:i.e6 40 l:tb7 1i.d3 41 l:td7 .ib5 42 l::t h 7 i.e8 43 ':a7 ':e3+ 44 Wf4 l:ta 3 45 l:i.b7 l:ta4+

l:te6 62 I:txe6+ Wxe6 63 Wg5 1i.e4 64 Wxh5, then 64 ... a5 of course wins.

It's noticeable that Kasparov doesn't rush to push his a-pawn. He prefers to improve his pieces first. 46 We3 l:i.e4+ 47 Wd3 .l:Ie7 48 l!b2 48 .l:i.b6+ is of course countered by 48 ... ne6 again. 48 ... .ib5+ 49 'it>d4 ne2 50 nb3 Wg5 This leads to the demise of White's h­ pawn. 51 g3 nd2+ 52 We4 l:[c2 Or 52 ... :xh2. 5 3 We5 nxh2 54 11c3 �e2+ 5 5 Wd4 l!d2+ 56 We4 ne2+ 57 �d4 nd2+ 58 We4 Wf6 59 nC5 .l:i.e2+ 60 Wf4 After 60 Wd4 1i.e8 everything is under control. 60 ... 1i.d3 0-1 61..J::te4 mate is threatened, while if 61 nc6+

36 ng6+? After the prudent 36 nf4 White's extra pawn should see him home. 36 ... Wf7 3 7 J::t x h6 tDf6 White's rook is suddenly out of play. 38 h3 l:txC4 39 1i.b8? Things would still be unclear after 39 1i.e5 tDxd5 40 Wf2. 39 ... Wg7! 0-1 Whoops! The rook is lost.

The key in certain positions is the relative harmony of the opposing forces. So, when pressing for a full point, it's important to not get carried away with certain preoccupa­ tions to the degree that one allows one's pieces to get tangled up!

12.12 V.Seirawa n-M.Adams Bermuda 1999

12 . 1 3 G.Flear-M.Massoni Calvi 2006 Here Black needs to avoid allowing White to coordinate. 295

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

29 ... ttJe3? Black would have little to fear after 29 ... 'it>g8!, stopping the rook coming to the seventh, with the further point that 30 f5 is met by 30 .. J:td8!. Whereas in the game ... 30 l:tf71 White is able to dominate the seventh rank and thus takes control of events. 30 ...ttJxd S 31 l:txb7 'it>g8 3 2 :g7+ 'it>h8 3 3 l:td7 ttJe3 34 Ji.g7+ 'it>g8 3 5 Ji.es ttJfS 36 'it>f2 1-0 Despite material still being equal, Black resigned as he is seriously restricted. White will bring his king up and win either the c­ pawn or the a-pawn. In the following example Fischer has to take great care in the manoeuvring of his pieces.

12 . 14 T.Petrosian-R.Fischer Candidates final (6th matchgame), Buenos Aires 1971 (see following diagram)

White's advanced pawn is isolated and lacks support. Fischer is able to pick this off and then demonstrates that he can win de­ spite having a bad bishop. 296

3 6 a s .::ta 8 3 7 a 6 lIa7 3 8 'it>f1 gs In order to prevent White from breaking up the kingside. 39 �e2 'it>d6 40 'it>d3 'it>cs 41 ttJg1 'it>bs 42 ttJe2 In Informator 12 Matanovic claims that Petrosian could draw with 42 f4 gxf4 43 g5 fxg5 44 ttJf3 g4 45 ttJxe5 h5 46 ttJg6, but this looks somewhat optimistic; for instance 46 .. .£3 47 e5 Ji.el 48 e6 f2 and I can't find a defence for White. 42 i.as The bishop blocks the white rook's de­ fence of the a-pawn, so that Black can cap­ ture it without exchanging rooks. Fischer continues to keep rooks on in the following play, as their exchange would enable White to draw due to his light square blockade. 43 .l:Ib2+ After the alternative continuation (sug­ gested by Wade and O'Connell) 43 ttJg3 'it>xa6 44 ttJf5 l:tc7 45 l:tc2 l:tb7 46 :c6+ 'it>a7 47 nc5?! .i.el 48 'it>e2 Ji.c3, Black's rook will in­ vade and he will obtain good winning chances. Unfortunately, White can get away with snatching the f-pawn (47 l:txf6!) in this variation. So I suggest instead 43 ... l:txa6! 44 ttJf5 ':e6!, in order to try and untangle with­ out giving too much counterplay; e.g. 45 f3 (45 h4 allows 45 ... gxh4 46 ttJxh4 l:tc6 as 47 .i:!.c2 loses to 47 .. Jhc2 48 'it>xc2 Ji.el) 45 ... Ji.b4 46 h3?! l:k6 and Black is in business. •..

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

43 ...'it>xa6 44 nb1 l:te7

45 .l:i.b2 White can also aim to hold by playing 45 f3 ..ib6 46 l:tb2 'itb7 47 .l:Ib1 I:tc5, but he has to be careful. For instance, 48 .l:tb3 'itc6 49 llb2 holds for now, but then Black keeps piling on the pressure relentlessly: 49 ... .l:ta5 50 liJc1 1:.a3+ 51 l:tb3 ':'a1 52 Wc2 ..ic5 etc; while after 48 1:1a1 nb5 49 'itc2 Black can try the neat breakthrough 49 ... d3+!? 50 'itxd3 l:tb3+, when 51 liJc3? loses to 51..J:txc3+! 52 'itxc3 i.d4+, though White can make a fight of it with 51 Wc4! .uxf3 52 'itd5 .l:tf2 53 liJg3 ':xh2 54 'it>e6. 45 ..ie1 46 f3 After 46 l:!.b1 !? Wade and O'Connell sug­ gest that Fischer would have gone back and regrouped. After 46 ... ..ixf2 47 :£1 ..ie3 48 1:Ixf6+ 'itb5 49 Ite6, Black's attack following 49 .. J:ta7 50 ':'xe5+ Wb4 is attractive, but un­ fortunately White has 51 liJxd4! Ita3+ 52 'it>e2 ..ixd4 53 �xg5 and as Black's remaining pawn is the WRP, winning chances are lim­ ited. 46 �a5 47 .ue2 Itb7 No, thank you! 48 .l:Ia2+ 'it>b5 49 �b2+ i.b4 50 1:ta2 1:te7 5 1 1:I a 1 ne8 52 na7? More resistant is 52 l:ta2, but then Black has an interesting winning attempt based on 52 ... ..ia5 53 Itb2+ 'ita4 54 Ita2+ 'itb4 55 na1 Itc5 followed by advancing the king in a •••

similar way to the game. 52 ... i.a 5

5 3 l:td7? This loses time. 53 Itxh7 followed by h2h4 is better, when White might have some chances of ultimately sacrificing his knight and exchanging off all Black's remaining pawns. 53 ... ..ib6 54 Itd5+ ..ie5 55 liJe1 'ita4 56 Itd7 ..ib4 57 liJe2 'itb3 58 l:tb7 Ita8 59 Itxh7 Ita1 60 liJxd4+ White loses the knight for nothing after 60 liJg3 lIa2 61 liJ£1 :f2. 60 ... exd4 61 'itxd4 .l:Id1+ 62 'ite3 ..ie5+ 63 'ite2 �h1 64 h4 'ite4 65 h5 Ith2+ 66 'ite1 'itd3 0-1 Technical difficulties arise when it's not obvious how to get one's pieces into play.

12 . 1 5 T.Radjabov-G.Kasparov Linares 2004

..•

(see following diagram)

Here any advantage accorded to Black by having an extra pawn is tempered by his ugly structure and a bishop which will take time to get going. Furthermore White's forces are already well posted. 29 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

2 5 ... 'it>d8! 26 l:!f1 i.b7 2 7 tLle4 Not 27 .l:tf7 'it>e8 28 l:!g7? i.. c8, when the rook is actually trapped and .. .'.ti>f8 follows. 27 'it>e7 28 l:.e1 'it>f7 29 'it>d4 h6 30 b4 d6 31 c5 l:!d8 32 l:te3 g5 3 3 l:Ia 3 a6 34 l:.f3+ 'it>g7 3 5 l:!e3?! This enables Black to loosen the bind. In­ stead, 35 .l:tc3 doesn't allow Black to activate his bishop, and 35 ... d5 36 tLld2 l:!e8 37 l:!e3 would maintain White's compensation. 3 5 i.c8! Bringing the bishop to greener pastures. 36 l:tC3 dXc5+ 37 �xc5 i.e6 38 'it>xc6?! Intuitively, it does not feel correct to give up the a2-pawn. The right continuation seems to be 38 a3 (if 38 l:!a3?! then 38 ... i.. d5 39 tLlg3 i.xg2 40 l:!xa6 l:!d2 would still offer Black good winning prospects) 38 ... i.d5 39 'it>d4! with sporting chances for a draw. 38 ... i.xa2 39 tLlc5 39 'it>xc7 l:td4 40 l:ta3 l:txe4 41 l:txa2 l:txb4 would be unpleasant for White to defend, despite the mass exchanges; e.g. 42 'it>d6! ? (42 l:!xa6? l:tb2) 42 ... l:tf4! 43 'it>e5 .l:tf6 44 'it>e4 'it>g6 45 'it>e3 'it>f7 46 l:ta4 'it>e7. 39 l:tb8! This strong move was probably missed, or at least underestimated by Radjabov; one of the points being 40 tLlxa6?? l:tb6+. In fact over the last few moves Black's pieces have become the more effective. 40 l:ta3 i.C4 41 :a4 .l:te8 42 'it>xc7 l:te2 •••

.•.

•.•

298

43 g4? This pawn turns out to be much more vulnerable on g4, a light square, than on g3. Instead, 43 g3 l:txh2 44 tLlxa6 .l:.g2 45 l:ta3 .l:tb2 46 tLlc5 l:txb4 47 'it>d6 was a better chance for a draw. 43 !:txh2 44 tLlxa6 l:!b2 45 'it>b6 i.e2 By picking off the g4-pawn Black obtains two connected passed pawns, which should give him a decisive advantage. 46 tLlC5 i.xg4 47 b5 i.e2 48 tLle6+ 'it>f6 49 tLld4 h5 50 �C5 g4 51 b6 g3! The most precise continuation. 52 b7 g2 53 b8'iV Or 53 tLlxe2 l:txe2 54 lla1 (54 b8'ii loses to 54 ... g1'if check! ) 54 ... l:tb2 55 l:.gl .l:txb7 56 l:lxg2 l:!d7 and with the white king stranded, the rook ending is winning for Black. 53 Jbb8 54 tLlxe2 l:tb2 55 tLlg1 •••

••

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

55 ... :tf2? A serious oversight just when the win was within his grasp. After the relatively straight­ forward 55 ...l:tb1 56 lLlf3 gl"iii'+ 57 lLlxg1 1Ixg1, the rook ending is again winning, e.g. 58 'it'd5 l:!g5+ (or 58 ... �f5) 59 'It>d6 I:tg4. 56 .l:!.a6+ �f5 57 �d4 �f1 58 �e3! Yz-Yz After 58 ... l:txg1 59 �f2 it's a simple draw with White's king so close to the h-file. In 12.16 the fact that White has a bad bishop is irrelevant. A space advantage plus the domination of the d-file by White's rook leave Black totally passive.

12 . 1 6 V.Kramnik-E.Bareev Wijk aan Zee 2003

Although White's domination is obvious due to his superior rook, breaking down the defences isn't straightforward. 37 �c3 �a6 38 �d3 ! .l:IC7 39 �e4 �b7 40 �d1 �c8 41 �d8+ �b7 42 �f41 �c8 43 :r.d7+ 1:I.C7 44 .l:.d3 'it>c8 45 l:td8+ �b7 (see following diagram)

Now comes a beautiful surprise. 46 .if6!! Black only has one pawn on a dark square and Kramnik finds a way to attack it!

46 ... g6 Black cannot temporize as 47 .ixg7! lLlxg7 48 h6 would follow. So what happens if Black captures the bishop immediately? The win is indeed deeply hidden, but it's there all the same: 46 ... gxf6 47 exf6 lIc8 (after 47 ... lLlh4 48 �g4! lLlf5 49 �g5, it's clear that h5-h6 will win back the knight when White would follow up by invading via g7 with his king; 47 ... a3 is similarly hopeless: 48 �g5 l!c8 49 l:!xc8 �xc8 50 h6 lLlxh6 51 �xh6 �d7 52 �g7 �e8 53 f4 etc) 48 Ihc8 �xc8 49 �g5 �d7 50 h6 lLlxh6 51 'It>xh6 e5 52 �h7! �e6 53 �g7 and White wins by zugzwang, i.e. 53 ... a3 54 f3 or 53 ... e4 54 a3. 47 hxg6 fxg6 48 �g5 1-0 After 48 .. J:ks 49 l::. d7+ l:k7 50 !Id3 White wins the g-pawn and, before long, the e­ pawn as well. From my own experience, rook and bishop with an extra outside passed pawn is by no means an easy win. Here's an exam­ ple:

1 2 . 17 L.D'Costa-G.Flear British Championship, Torquay 2002

299

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

him being able to open u p the position.

36 ... ttJe6 37 l:1d2 .1::!. b 1 38 h3 ttJe5 39 f4?! Premature. It's more important for White to organize his pieces before committing his pawns in this way. 39 gxf4 40 exf4 ttJe4 41 .l:!.e2 ttJb6 42 g3 'it'g7 43 lle6 �b2+ 44 'it'f3 ttJd 5 45 .l:!.e2 �b1 46 �e2 ttJb4 47 .l:Id2 ne1 48 �b5 �e3+ 49 'it'f2 ttJd 5 50 a4 na 3 51 lld3 lla2+ 52 'it'f3 'it'f6 5 3 11b3 ttJb6 54 �e8 ttJe4 But not 54 ... ttJxa4? because of 55 11b7. 55 'it'g4 ttJd6 56 �b5 ttJe4 57 'it'h4 'it'g 7 58 �e6 ttJe5 59 ltb4 IIa 3 60 lle4 ttJd3 61 l:td4 e51 62 fxe5 ttJxe5 63 �b7 'it'h6 64 .l:!.e4 f6 65 �c8 'it'g6 66 � g4 'it'h6 67 �f5 ttJg6+ 68 'it' g4 ttJe5+ 69 'it'h4 ttJf3+ 70 'it'g4 ttJh2+ 71 'it'h4 ttJf3+ 72 'it'g4 ttJh2+ Yz-Yz Black's aim was to stay active and, de­ spite having no anchor square, the knight was able to hop around and create enough mischief. .•.

The following example is even more striking.

12 . 1 8 C.Bauer-G.Flear French League 2006 I had gone astray in the play leading up to the diagram, mainly because I had failed to realize that White is actually better, due to 3 00

31 ne5 11e1 32 d4! Instead, 32 l!xa5 l!b1 33 d4 .l::!. xb3 34 d5 cxd5 35 llxd5 'it'e7 is more or less equal with Black's pieces so well placed. 32 J�b1 33 d 5 11xb3 The alternative capture 33 ... cxd5, provok­ ing 34 �xd5 b6 35 llc6, looks hopeless. 34 dxe6 bxe6 3 5 11xa 5 ttJe4 35 .. .lk3 36 11a6 is no better. 36 11c5 ttJb2 3 7 �xc6 Fair enough, things are looking grim, but while there's life ... 3 7 ttJd3 38 11d5 �a 3 39 �b5 ttJb2 40 lld8+ On 40 lld2 Black should keep the tension with 40 ... 11b3, whereas 40 ... ttJxa4? leads to a book win for White after 41 lId8+ 'it'e7 42 na8 ttJc3 43 .l:!.xa3 ttJxb5. 40 ...'it'e7 41 11d7+ .•

••.

R o o k a n d B is h op v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

41 'it>f8! I must admit I was quite pleased with this paradoxical defensive move. After the routine 41 ...'it>f6 42 lIa7, apart from anything else, White threatens i.. e 8. 42 1Ia7 g5 Giving Black some space and some ideas of fixing the white f-pawn on f2, where it can come under attack. 43 hxg5 My opponent was happy to exchange off his WRP. Nevertheless, there's a case for keeping more pawns on the board with 43 h5. 43 hxg5 44 a5 ttJd3 45 'it>f3 I doubt that White can win after 45 i.. xd3 l:txd3 46 lIb7 na3 47 nbS f6. 45 ttJC5+ 46 'it>g4 ttJe6 47 i.. d 7 ttJc5 48 i.. c 6 ttJd3 49 i.. d 5 ttJxf2+ 50 'it>f5 White has harmonized his forces and threatens to create serious threats against Black's king, as well as retaining the passed a-pawn. But it's not over yet... 50...lId3! 51 1Ixf7+ 'it>e8 52 'it>e6 Fritz finds a nice way to win at this point: 52 l:th7, calmly putting the rook out of dan­ ger, and then 52 .. .lhg3 (52 ... lIxd5? fails to 53 �e6 threatening mate) 53 'it>e6 l:te3+ 54 'it>d6 ttJe4+ 55 i.. xe4 l:'.!.xe4 56 a6. 52 lIe3+ Not 52 .. Jhd5? 53 'it>xd5 'it>xf7, when 54 a6 would illustrate how poor a knight can be at stopping rook's pawns! •.•

•..

..•

•.•

53 'it>f6? Correct is 53 'it>d6! ttJe4+ 54 'it>c6 ttJxg3 55 a6 .l:ta3 and then either 56 a7 or 56 'it>b6. 5 3 ttJg4+ 54 'it>g7 After 54 'it>xg5 l:txg3 55 'it>f4 Black bails out with 55 ... l:ta3 into the notorious pawnless ending rook and bishop vs rook (a book draw but unpleasant to defend). 54 l:ta 3 5 5 l:tf5 'it>e7 56 l:txg5 lIxg3! This just holds. 56...lIxa5? 57 l:txg4 lIxd5 58 .l:!e4+ is a winning rook ending for White. 57 a6 1Ia 3 58 l:txg4 The only practical chance to win. In the game my opponent was so shocked that I had managed to get this far, he failed to put me under much further pressure ... 58 .l:ba6 59 l:te4+ 'it>d7 60 'it>f7 l:ta1 61 i.. e 6+ 'it>d6 62 'it>f6 1Id1 63 i.. g4 l:tfl+ 64 i..f5 l:td1 65 1Ie6+ 'it>C5 66 i.. e 4? Sloppy. Better is 66 l::te8 when he still has 40-odd moves to try and mate. 66 J:1d6 Vz-Vz Even with an active rook and bishop fac­ ing a clearly inferior rook and knight, it's still not easy to win this NQE. Christian Bauer couldn't find a way to win purely on the queenside, so he had to create additional pos­ sibilities for himself on the other flank gen­ erally the right idea, but it can become messy. •••

•••

.•

..•

-

In the next example the defender missed

his chance to get rook and bishop vs rook and soon went downhill.

1 2 . 19 A.Onischuk-P.Svidler Halkidiki 2002 (see following diagram)

56 ttJd4? A blunder that loses the knight. In his notes Svidler pointed out the best defence: 56 'it>g4! i.. c3 (alternatively, 56 ... l:tg2+ 57 'it>f3 3 01

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

�c2 58 tLid4 'uc3+ 59 �e4 1i.a3 fails to 60 tLic2! and Black cannot make progress) 57 .l':ta7+ �g8 58 �a8+ 'it>f7 59 tLid6+ �e6 (or 59 .. Jhd6 60 �xa2 etc) 60 tLie4 .t:i.d4 (if 60 ... !Ig2+ 61 �f3 l:tc2 62 tLixc3 l:txc3+ then simplest is 63 'it>e4! �c2 64 �d3) 61 J::txa2 �he4+, and although there are some practical chances (see Chap­ ter Two) it should of course be drawn.

56 ... �d3+ 57 'it'g2 1i.a3 58 tLic2 nd2+ 59 'it'f3 �xc2 60 �a7+ �g6 0-1 After 61 lha3 J::t c3+ 62 Ihc3 a1'iV we reach queen vs rook which should be a win, although it still deserves playing out as there can be technical problems.

12 . 20 A Kar p ov P Svidler Dos Hermanas 1999 .

-

.

Black's pawns are rather ragged and he comes under pressure, despite the knight outpost on d5. 39 ':c6 tLib6 After 39 ... �d8 White can seek a favour­ able rook ending with 40 �f3 l:tf8+ 41 �e4 Itxf2 42 �xd5 lhd2+ 43 'iit>e6 g5 44 �xe7, or instead play 40 h5 g5 41 f4 when White's central pawns, combined with Black's weak­ ness on h6, will give him excellent winning chances. To prevent the latter plan (which also occurs in the game) Black could con­ sider playing 39 ... h5!? himself, but White has continuing pressure all the same, e.g. 40 'it>f3 �g7 41 �e4 �d8 42 1i.g5 'it>f7 43 f3 'iit> g7 44 ktc5 c6 45 ':xc6 .l::t d 7 46 g4. 40 1i.C1 .l:Id5 After 40 ... tLid5 41 h5 g5 42 f4 gxf4, both 43 gxf4 and 43 1i.xf4 tLixf4+ 44 gxf4 come into consideration. 41 ':e6 tLic8 If 41..J::td 7 White naturally continues with 42 h5 again. 42 h 5 ! gxh 5 Black's kingside pawn structure is now chronically weak, but after 42 ... g5 43 f4 Black would soon lose the h6-pawn anyway. 43 J::i.x h6+ �g7 44 ':'xh 5 c5 45 'it>f3 ! c4 46 1i.e3 e6 If 46 ... c3, then 47 �h4! followed by l:!.c4 is simplest. 47 l:th4 tLie7 47 .. ..l:txe5? loses on the spot to 48 1i.d4. 48 z::txc4 tLig6 49 1i.d4 1-0 After 49 ...tLixe5+ Black loses a piece due to the pin, i.e. 50 �e4 �f6 51 1i.c3! �b5 52 f4 etc; but if he can't take back then he's a hopeless two pawns down.

12 . 2 1 J.McKenna-G.Flear Hastings 1993/94

3 02

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

-Ue2+ �d 5 56 �d2+ �e4 5 7 ne2+ �e3 58 lIh2 g6 59 �h1 �e5 60 1:!.h2 l:i.C3 61 �e2+ �d4 62 l:td2+ �e4 63 .l::l. e 2+ 1:!.e3 64 �h2 �e1 65 :txh3 �gl+ 66 �g3 ¥z-¥z With few pawns left simplification to drawn endings involving the WRP or a knight blockade have to be taken into ac­ count, but rook endings can also be drawish!

12.22 A.Khalifman-A.Beliavsky Reykjavik 1991 Black should be winning comfortably here, but I let my concentration slip ... 45 ... h4 Here 45 ...�g5+ 46 �f4 (or 46 �e6 �h7) 46 .. Jlg4+ 47 �f5 �h7 48 ltJb6 iLd4 49 ltJd7 g6+ 50 �e6 �h6 should be good enough. 46 ltJe3 �g5+ 47 �f4 h3?! A rather impatient move, allowing the pawn to become too distant from its compa­ triot. My excuse is that we were playing on the end of the pier and it was freezing, but that doesn't change the result, nor my em­ barrassment! Black should first play 47 ... �gl !, when 48 .l:f.a2 (after 48 ltJg4 Black cuts the white king off by 48 ... �f1 + 49 �e3 iLe7 50 �e2 J::t f5 with excellent winning chances) 48 ... iLg5+ 49 �f3 iLxe3 50 �xe3 g5 isn't the same thing as in the game, as the two passed pawns are really connected and will see Black home. 48 �a2 �gl?? The final error. The rook needed to go behind the pawn with 48 .. J:th5! and then, had I been alert, I might have spotted that 49 ltJg4 is met by 49 ... h2!, since if 50 .l::l. xh2 iLe5+! overloads the knight. But even without that, the slower 49 ... iLe7 50 ltJh2 (if 50 �f3 then 50 ... iLd6) 50 ... iLd6+ 51 �g4 �h7! 52 .l:.d2 �h6, followed by bringing up the king, should win. 49 �h2 iLg5+ 50 �f3 iLxe3 51 �xe3 � g3+ 52 �f4 .:ta3 5 3 � g4 �f7 54 �f2+ �e6 55

At this point material is nominally equal, except that Black is playing without a king. 3 3 �f2 d5 34 �g3 d4 3 5 exd4 exd4 36 � g4 ltJa6 36 ... :td8 is too slow, as White has 37 �h5! ltJd5 (37 ... d3 allows mate by 38 �h6 and 39 lhh7) 38 �a7 ltJf4+ 39 �h6 ltJxe6 40 fxe6 d3 41 l!xh7+ �g8 42 �g7+ �h8 43 .l::l. d 7. The best defence in this line is 40 ... l:te8! 41 f4 f5 42 �xh7+ �g8 43 e7 d3 44 !:tg7+ �h8 45 �g3 .u.xe7 46 lIxd3, but this version of the notori­ ous rook p lus f- and h-pawns vs rook ending (after the f5-pawn falls) looks difficult for Black with the white king so active. 3 7 :d7 ltJC5 38 �d 5 ltJb7 39 .l:f.xd4 hId8 40 .l::l. C4 White must keep the rooks on to main­ tain the pressure. 40 ... ltJd6 41 l:tc7 ltJe8 42 l:H7 !:td4+ 43 f4 3 03

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

ttJd6 44 �a7 Not falling for 44 Ihf6?? c:Ji;g7, when the rook is trapped. 44 ...ttJb5 45 'u'a8+ There is more than one way to win: 45 �e7 ttJd6 46 c:Ji;h5 �xf4 47 �d7! ttJe8 (neither capture is any better: 47 ... ttJxf5 48 I:td8+ or 47 ... �xf5+ 48 c:Ji;h6!) 48 �d8 and Black loses his knight followed by his king. 45 ... c:Ji;g7 46 c:Ji;h5 h6 47 J:tg8+ c:Ji;h7 48 :te8 c:Ji;g7 49 IIe7+ �f8 50 �f7+ c:Ji;e8 51 c:Ji;g6 ttJd6 52 �d7 c:Ji;f8 53 c:Ji;xh6 �d2 54 h4 1:td1 55 h 5 �d2 56 c:Ji; h 7 l:t d 1 57 h6 l:t d 2 58 �g7 � h 2 59 �g6 ttJe8 60 J:tg8+ c:Ji;e7 61 ng4 ttJd6 62 c:Ji;g7 ttJe8+ 63 c:Ji;g6 c:Ji;f8 64 �gl ttJd6 1-0 Black resigned in view of 65 h7 �h3 66 �al �g3+ 67 c:Ji;xf6 ttJe8+ 68 c:Ji;e5 Ile3+ 69 c:Ji;d4 �h3 70 �a7 etc.

34 g4! A typical move to gain space. 34 e6 3 5 �b7 h6 36 h4 l:ta 5 37 c:Ji;fl e5 Taking the opportunity to exchange a pair of pawns. 38 dxe5 i.. x e5 39 c:Ji;g2 i..f6 40 �b4 c:Ji;g7 41 c:Ji;g3 i.. e 5+ 42 c:Ji;h3 i..f6 43 ne4 Preparing to bring the king to f4 to sup­ port g4-g5. 43 ....1::[c 5 44 l::te 8 I:td5 45 c:Ji;g3 i.. d 8 46 c:Ji;f4 After the immediate 46 g5, Black can consider 46 ... h5 to avoid opening the h-file. 46 i.. C 7+ 47 c:Ji;e4 I:i.a 5 48 �e7 na4+ 49 �d3 i.. d 8 50 l:td7 i..f6 51 g5! hxg5 52 hxg5 i.. a l 53 ttJd2 �a 3+ 54 c:Ji;e2 !:ta2 55 c:Ji;f3 i.. C 3 56 ttJe4 i.. b4 57 �b7 �a4 58 ttJf6 i.. c 3 59 ttJe4 iLb4 60 I:td7 �a 5 61 c:Ji;g4 :e5 62 l:1d4 iLe7 63 f4 •..

•..

The player with Rook a n d Knight is tryi n g to wi n When the pawns are on one flank, rook and knight with an extra pawn can often gener­ ate good winning chances. White's tech­ nique in the following game is worth re­ membering.

12 . 2 3 L.Van Wely-A.Shirov Monte Carlo (rapid) 1999

Slowly but surely White prepares a mat­ ing net involving the knight getting to f6. 63 l:te6 64 c:Ji;f3 c:Ji;f8 65 :a4 .l:!.c6 66 �a8+ c:Ji;g7 67 l:!:a7 c:Ji;f8 68 ttJf2 :c8 69 ttJg4 I:tb8 70 ttJe5 l:!.c8 71 �b7 Ile8 72 ttJd7+ c:Ji;g7 73 e4 J:ta8 74 e5 l:ta6 75 ttJf6 Once White has achieved this position the result is no longer in doubt. 7 5 i..f8 76 l:tbl IIa3+ 77 'it'g4 iLe7 78 �hl The open h-file enables White to threaten mate. Black must now simplify into a lost rook ending. Alternatively, the immediate 78 IIb7 also forces the following exchange and is perhaps even simpler; e.g. 78 ... i.. xf6 •..

•••

3 04

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

79 gxf6+ 'it>g8 60 �b8+ 'it>h7 6 1 e6 etc. 78 .i.xf6 79 gxf6+ 'it>g8 80 ktbl �a8 81 l:tb7 J::!. e 8 82 'it>g5 Wf8 83 c;t>h6 �c8 If 83 ... �g8 then 84 e6! follows anyway. 84 e6 fxe6 85 'it'xg6 1-0 A nicely played technical NQE, espe­ cially for a rapid game! •..

In 1986 I adjourned against Jonathan Speelman with the same material distribu­ tion. As a result I became familiar with this winning technique from L.Portisch-C.Prit­ chett, Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978, which I studied at the first adjournment. In my game, at some point Speelman lashed out with his f­ pawn ('you seemed to know what you were doing, so I decided to complicate,' he later explained), but he had to adjourn again a few moves later two pawns down and I duly won three days later at the resumption. The most remarkable thing about that particular game was that it started on the 20th of March 1986 and was completed on the 23rd, while in the meantime I was mar­ ried on the 22nd. I assume with good cause that there are not many people around who started an over-the-board tournament game as a bachelor and completed it as a married man. Am I the only person in the world to have done this? As this technique is so important, here's Portisch in action in the aforementioned ex­ ample:

12 . 2 4 L.Portisch-C.Pritchett Buenos Aires Olympiad 1978 (see following diagram)

26 ... h5 27 l:i.b7 .i.e5 28 tbf3 .i.f6 29 Wg2 l:!.e8 30 e3 l:re7 3 1 .l:.b5 �g7 32 tbd2 .l:Ie5 33 J:!.b4 iLe7 34 .l:.b7 iLf6 3 5 �f3 l:!.e7 36 J::!. b 3 Me6 37

tbe4 i.. e 7 38 l:i.b7 l::t e 5 39 l:td7 �e6 40 tbc3 iLf8 41 tbe2 �e7 42 l:td3 lIes 43 tbf4 11e7 44 lId S :C7 45 tbd3 I:tc6 46 e4 .l:Ia6 47 'ite3 �g8 48 h3 iLh6+ 49 f4 Ma 3 50 g4 hxg4 51 hxg4 iLg7 52 ll:d8+ �h7 5 3 g5 i::ta l 54 e5 J:lgl 5 5 tbC5 lIg3+ 56 'it'f2 J:ta 3 57 tbe4 !Ia2+ 58 'itf3 i::t a 3+ 59 'itg4 1Ia4 60 tbf6+ i..xf6 61 gxf6 .l:.a6 62 l::.f8 lia7 63 e6 fxe6 64 .l:!.e8 �h6 65 .l:!.h8+ lIh7 66 l:txh7+ 'itxh7 67 'itg5 �h8 68 c;t>xg6 'itg8 69 f7+ 'itf8 70 'itf6 e5 71 Wxe5 Wxf7 72 Wf5 1-0

An excellent model that doesn't really need further explanation. Note that Portisch didn't move his pawns until after move 40 (when presumably he'd have had a chance to work out his plan at the adjournment), whereas Van Wely was able to play this out in a rapid game. Knowledge of standard endgames and NQEs is even more impor­ tant these days, as a modem master needs to be able to reproduce this type of technique without breaks and often with limited time. I've had this particular NQE on several occasions, but I'm not totally convinced that it's a forced win.

12.2 5 B.San Marco-G.Flear Valras Plage 1995

3 05

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

29 ... ttJd S In order to win it's best to avoid the early exchange of minor pieces. 30 .i.d4 �c2 31 h4! :d2 32 �3 hS 33 'it'g2 'it'h7 34 .i.cS f6 3 5 :a7 �c2 36 lia s 'it'g6 3 7 'it'fl 'it'fs 38 iLf8 g6 39 �a4 eS 4 0 iL h 6 �b2 41 l1C4 :bl+ 42 'it'g2 ttJb4 43 f37 This constitutes a serious concession. A better defence was 43 .i.d2! when I haven't found a watertight way for Black to win. For instance, 43 ... ttJd3 44 �a4 �b2 45 .i.e3 ttJe1 + 46 'it'f1 ttJf3 47 'it'g2 e4 48 l:Ia1 with drawing chances, e.g. 48 ... 'it'g4 (or 48 ... �b5 49 'it'h3 g5 50 hxg5 fxg5 51 lid ) 49 �a4 f5 50 :a1 f4 51 .i.xf4 ttJxh4+ 52 gxh4 'it'xf4 53 Ita4 .:te2 54 �a6 e3 55 �a4+ Wf5 56 'it'f3 l:txf2+ 57 'it'xe3 �f1 58 l:la5+. It would be good practice to analyse the position after 42 ... ttJb4 to see if you can find anything for Black! 43 .. �b2+ 44 'it'gl 'it'e6 45 .i.f8 ttJd3 46 :c3 ttJe1 47 'it>fl ttJc2 48 .i.h6 ttJd4 49 �a3 ttJfS 0-1 The g3-pawn falls.

12 . 2 6 P .Svidler-A.Morozevich Frankfurt 1999 Here the defender's king is able to take up a more active role, which means that winning chances are significantly reduced.

306

3 6 l1fl h S 3 7 iLb3 .l::f.e 4 3 8 iLdS lIe2 3 9 'it'd4 f6 40 .i.e4 h4 41 h3 ttJf7 42 �al ttJd6 43 .i.f3 l:td2+ 44 'it'c3 �f2 45 'it'd3 fS 46 .l:.a s 'it'e6 47 .i.dS+ �6 48 .i.f3 Itb2 49 'it'd4 Itd2+ 50 'it'C3 :f2 51 'it'd4 Yz-Yz Even with three pawns against two there are good winning chances - if the stronger side can avoid premature exchanges (both rook and three pawns vs rook and two, and knight and three vs bishop and two are drawn if the defender has no bad pawns) while ad­ vancing his king and pawns up the board. Here is an example .

12 . 2 7 R.Ponomariov-V.Korchnoi Donetsk (1st matchgame) 2001

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

34 J:tb2 3 5 'it'e3 l:1b7 After 35 ... ..ib5 Ponomariov intended to continue with 36 tDg3!, e.g. 36 ... i.c6 37 tDf5 or 36 ... h6 37 �a8+ Wh7 38 l:tb8 and White has strong threats in either case. 36 .l:tC5 ..id7 37 h4 1:ta7 38 tDC3 h6 39 Wf4 na6 40 tDd5 ..ie6 41 tDe3 �a3 42 .uC7 Ponomariov later analysed that he had better winning chances with 42 g4!? 'it'f7 43 h5, e.g. 43 ... 'it'f6 44 tDfl l:ta4+ 45 �g3 �a2 46 nc3 l:te2 47 �f4 l:ta2 48 tDg3 ..id5 (I prefer 48 ... l:.a7! 49 tDe4+ 'it'e7 keeping the f5-square covered, which may be tenable and there­ fore implies that the whole NQE may be too) 49 .l:td3 1:ta4+ 50 'it'e3 .l:ta5 51 tDf5 l:.b5 52 'it'f4 .l::!.a5 53 �g3 l:tb5 54 1:td4 �e5 (54 .. J:ta5? loses material after 55 11f4) 55 l!f4 l:tb7 56 tDh4 1:tf7 57 kta4 �c7 58 tDg6+ �f6 59 .!:!.d4 .!:!.c5 60 1:tf4+ �e6 61 1:tf5 'it'd6 62 tDf4 i.c4 63 l:!.f8 .l:!.c7 64 lbg6 �e6 65 f4 �d5 66 f5 :a7 67 f6 gxf6 68 l:!.xf6 and the weak h6-pawn should now lead to a White win. 42 ... 11d3 43 l:I.e7 ..id7 44 tDC4 i.b5 45 tDe5 l:!.d4+ 46 �g3 After 46 'it'f5, 46 ... i.d3+! forces a drawn rook ending or a repetition (47 �e6 i.c4+ etc). 46 .. J�d2! Annoying counterplay against the g­ pawn obliges White to regroup and try again. 47 tDg4 After 47 h5, Black can hold with 47 ... ..ifl ! 48 l:te8+ 'it'h7 49 tDg6 �xg2+ 50 �f4 lIxg6 51 hxg6+ �xg6. 47 ... i.d7 48 tDe3 Wf8 49 lle4 �f7 50 tDC4 .!:!.d5 51 'it'f2 .tf5? An unfortunate move. 52 l:te3? 'Pinning and winning' with 52 lIf4! was correct, when White can force a pawn end­ ing which seems to give him the whole point: 52 ... �e6 (or 52 ... g5 53 lhf5+ .l:txf5 54 tDd6+ 'it'e6 55 tDxf5 'it'xf5 56 �g3) 53 tDe3 l:I.a5 (53 ... lld2+ 54 'lite1 �d3 55 tDxf5 �e5 . •

leads to the same fate after 56 1:td4 l:txd4 57 lbxd4 'it'xd4 58 h5!) 54 �xf5 1'hf5 55 tDxf5 'it'xf5 56 g4+ �f4 57 h5!, as pointed out by Ponomariov. 52 ... 1:td4 53 tDe5+ 'it'f6 54 g4 lId S! 55 f4 Instead, 55 tDc4!? might have retained some winning chances.

5 5 ... g5! Sacrificing the bishop for a drawn case of rook and knight vs rook. 56 gxf5 gxf4 57 tDg4+ �xf5 58 tDxh6+ �g6 59 lle6+ 'it'h5 60 'itf3 'it'xh4 61 tDf7 nd3+ 62 �xf4 .l:Id4+ 63 �3 '!:!'d3+ 64 'it'e4 .l:ta3 65 11g6 'lith3 66 tDe5 1:!.a4+ 67 'lite3 .l:ta3+ 68 tDd3 �h4 69 :g8 �h5 70 'it'e4 Wh4 71 tDf2 .l:!.a7 72 �3 l::tf7+ 73 'it'g2 l:ta7 74 tDe4 'it'h5 75 'itf3 lIf7+ 76 �e3 �h6 77 tDd6 ttf6 78 .tId8 'it'g6 79 'it>e4 l:te6+ 80 'it>d5 l:te7 81 llg8+ 'it'h5 82 tDC4 'it>h4 83 tDe5 'it>h3 84 'it>e4 lle6 85 �5 lla6 86 tDd3 ,Ua5+ 87 'iW4 l:ta4+ 88 �3 'it>h4 89 tDf2 �h5 90 tDe4·�h6 91 �4 Yz-Yz In the following example Black has an ex­ tra pawn, and White's doubled b-pawns and isolated g-pawn don't auger well for the defence. All the same White is able to resist for a very long time. This is partially because Korchnoi takes his time(!) but, more seri­ ously, coordinating the three black pieces to attack the g-pawn, without leaving the queenside exposed, requires careful tech­ nique. ]07

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

12 . 2 8 L.Polugaevsky-V.Korchnoi Candidates semi-final (8th matchgame), Buenos Aires 1980

34 .tiJc6 3 5 ':f1 l:th3+ 36 �c2 a6 37 I!f5+ �d6 38 ':f6+ �d7 39 llf7+ �c8 40 ':'f8+ �b7 41 l:tf5 l::t h 2+ 42 �d3 .l:.h3+ 43 �c2 li:Je7 44 I!e5 li:Jg6 45 l:te4 l:tf3 46 g5 :f5 In this way the bishop is tied down to the g-pawn, enabling Black's king to re-enter the fray. 47 i.. d 2 �c6 48 .l:.e1 .l:'t.f7 49 ]:tal �b5 50 l:te1 li:Je7 51 l:le4 �c6 52 �C4+ 'iitd 7 53 .:td4+ �e6 54 �e4+ �d 5 55 .l:.g4 li:Jg6 56 l:tg1 li:Je5

cannot capture on a6 because of ... li:Jel+ and ... l:tc2 mate. 57 e 4 58 i.. C 3 li:J g6 59 i.. d 2 li:Jf8 60 !:te2+ �d 5 61 i.. c 3 IUS 62 l:.d2+ �e6 63 i.. g 7 li:Jg6 64 :h2 IIf7 65 i.. C 3 65 lhh7? would walk into a fatal self-pin: 65 .. .'it>f5 66 c3 li:Jf4 67 c4 li:Je6 winning the bishop. 65 ... li:Jf4 66 i.. d 2 li:Jd5 67 l::t e 2+ �5 68 :f2+ �g6 69 .l:te2 :e7 70 :f2 li:Je3+ 71 �d3 li:Jf5 7 2 i..f4 l:td7+ 7 3 C 3 li:Jd6 74 !:te2 li:Jb5+ 75 �b2 l:tf7 76 �e4 �f5 77 l::te 1 li:Jd4 78 i.. C1 li:Jf3 79 l:.d1 l:tg7 80 �c3 ••.

•.

57 .l:tg2 57 l:!.al is tempting, but after 57 ... l:tf2 58 �c3 li:Jf3 59 i.. e3 l:te2 60 �d3 .l:.h2 White 308

After a bout of seemingly endless ma­ noeuvring Black is finally ready to take the g-pawn. 80 ... li:Jxg5 81 l:td 5+ a2 g6 3S ltC4 'it>g4! Discovered checks lead nowhere. 36 lte4 ltd7 37 1:[C4? A passive move. White should play 37 �e6! when Black has no easy way to an ad­ vantage, e.g. 37 .. Jitg7 38 ltf6 or 37 ... 'it>f5 38 lte8. 37 'it>h3 Now Black needs to bring further pres­ sure to bear on g3. 38 lte4 lte7 39 l:i.c4 lte6 40 ltcS ttJd4! Only now that any White threats are con­ tained is it time for the knight to enter play. 41 a4 ttJe2 42 i.b8 lte4 43 'it>a 3 lte3+ 44 'it>b4 ttJxg3 4S .l:[c7 'it>xh4 46 ltxb7 gs 47 'it>a s lte6 Lukacs judges this position as just win­ ning for Black. However, White can put up strong resistance as the bishop is able to de­ fend against the connected passed pawns from a distance. In fact, after having a good look I couldn't find a win at all and now consider the position to be drawn with best •••

•••

48 ltb6?? Hopeless. Instead, after 48 b4! Black's technical difficulties are so serious he may not even be winning. Just pushing the h­ pawn is insufficient, e.g. 48 ... �g4 49 lth7 h4 50 b5 axb5 51 axb5 h3 52 b6 l1e2 53 b7 ltb2 54 Sl.e5 ltxb7 55 ltxb7 h2 56 .l:[h7 h1'iIV 57 ltxh1 ttJxh1 58 i.f6 and 59 i.xg5 draws. So Black's best try is 48 ... ttJe4 and then: a) After 49 b5? axb5 50 axb5 g4 51 b6 lte8 52 Sl.f4 ltf8 Black wins the race. It helps that there are no convenient squares on the b8-h2 diagonal; e.g. 53 i.e3 (if 53 i.e5? then 53 ... ltf5) 53 ... g3 54 lte7 ttJd6 55 'it>b4 ttJf5 56 Sl.c5 ltb8 57 ltf7 'it>g4 58 b7 h4 59 i.a7 g2 60 'it>a5 h3 61 lth7 ltxb7 62 ltxb7 h2 and wins! b) But now if 49 ltb6!, not only does White have more chances than the game he seems to be actually drawing: 49 ...ltxb6 (or 49 ... lte8 50 'it>xa6 g4 51 a5 g3 52 Sl.xg3+! 'it>xg3 53 'it>b7 h4 54 a6 h3 55 ltg6+ 'it>f3 56 a7 h2 57 l:.h6 'it>g2 58 ltxh2+ 'it>xh2 59 a8'ii' etc) 50 'it>xb6 g4 51 'it>xa6 g3 52 a5! (52 b5? loses the race rather easily to 52 ... ttJc5+ 53 'it>a5 ttJd7 54 i.d6 'it>h3 55 Sl.f4 h4, or if 54 i.f4 then 54 ... 'it>g4! followed by pushing the h-pawn) 52 ... 'it>h3! (if 52 ... 'it>g4 53 'it>b7 h4 54 a6 h3 White has 55 i.xg3!) 53 i.e5! (after 53 i.a7? h4 54 b5 'it>g4 White's pieces get in the way of each other) 53 ... h4 (or 53 ... g2 54 i.d4 'it>g3 55 b5 ttJf2 56 b6 gl'iIV 57 b7 11Vbl 58 i.e5+) 54 3 09

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

�b7 g2 55 iLd4 and all roads lead to a draw. 48 ... MXb6 49 'it>xb6 'it>g4 50 b4 h4 51 b5 axb5 0-1 In the early part of this example it's not that the knight was the better minor piece, or even that rook and knight were superior to the rook and bishop, but that the rook, knight and king were definitely superior to White's pieces. This is often the key point: which side's forces are the better as a whole. In the following game Black, playing with rook and knight, was able to win even though it's not exactly the type of position where a knight would be obviously better than the bishop. However, White has to keep defending his queenside, while Black's pieces remain more active and play together as a team.

12 . 3 0 B.Abramovic-G.Flear Val Maubuee 1989

34 l:ta 2 tbe1+ 3 5 'it>g3 Md3+ 36 iLe3 Me3 3 7 � h 2 f2 'it>e6 43 i.. e 3 tbe2 44 i.. C 5 'it>e5 After 44 ... a5 45 bxa5! Mxc5 46 a6 Mc6 47 a7 Ma6 48 .l:i.xc2, Black has no advantage 45 e6 47 iLe5 We5 48 l:tb2 tbxa 3 310

Otherwise 48 .. J:tc3 49 l:ta2 tbxa3 comes to virtually the same thing as the game con­ tinuation after 50 iLe7 �e6 51 iLc5 etc. 49 Me2+ 'it>d5 50 l::t d 2+ f7 68 iLd6 If 68 iLxf6? then 68 ... tbe4+ wins. 68 .l:i.h3+ 69 'it>g2 l:ta 3 70 iLf4 tbe6 71 iLel .l:i.e3 72 iLh6 Me4 73 �g3 Mxb4 •.•

R o o k a n d B is h op ve rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

Black has finally generated a passed pawn. 74 l:txa6 �b3+ 75 'it'f2 CDe5 76 1Ib6 'it'g6

77 ..te3 White has seven legal moves with his bishop but none are satisfactory; for in­ stance, 77 ..tf4 CDd3+ 78 'it>g3 CDb4+ 79 'it'h4 CDdS, or 77 ..tf8 CDd7, or 77 ..tel CDd3+, or and finally 77 ..td2 CDe4+ 78 'it'e 1 .l:Ib 1 + 79 'it'e2 �b2. We can conclude that the bishop 'on an open board' is dominated by the knight! 77 ...CDe4+ 0-1 White resigned because neither 78 'it'f3 CDd2+ 79 'it'e2 CDc4, nor 78 'it'e2 CDc3+ 79 'it'd2 ttJdS are worth playing on.

After 34 ..txd3 l:txdS the pin nets Black a pawn.

34 ... 'it'e5 3 5 ne2+ 'it'd4 A fine 'king outpost' . 36 f4 a 5 3 7 h4 h 5 38 ..tf3 b4 39 axb4 axb4 40 'it'g2 b3 41 'it'h3 �d8 0-1 Black is ready to play ...c3, creating an advanced passed pawn which will win White's rook.

12 . 3 2 G.Flea r-C.Foisor Hyeres 1992

My opponent probably enjoyed his re­ venge a month later, when it was his tum to have the powerful knight...

12 . 3 1 G.Flear-B.Abramovic Paris 1989 (see following diagram)

28 ... CDb4 29 a 3 CDd3 30 l:te2 f5 The knight's advanced outpost and White's ineffective bishop leave the defence with little hope. 31 d5 'it'f6 32 ..tfl b5 3 3 l:td2 l:td7 34 ..tg2

Here White's strong knight outpost en­ ables him to control the c-file and thus domi­ nate the game. 3 3 !tel ..te6 The plan of bringing the king to e6 311

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

doesn't seem any better: 33 .. .'.t>£8 34 £4 ct;e7 35 ct;f2 ct;e6 36 .l::!. c7 b5 37 1:!.b7 a6 38 ct;e3 etc. 34 a3 �d8 35 f4 �f8 36 �f2 �e7 37 ct;e3 a s 38 J:!C7+ �f8 39 c;t>d4 l:tb8 4 0 l:t a 7 iLb3 The best practical chance is probably to seek activity with 40 ...b5! and if 41 J:!xa5?! b4 42 axb4 �xb4+ 43 ct;e3 g5! with good draw­ ing chances. However, White can cross this plan with 41 J::tb 7! .!:!xb7 42 lLlxb7 b4 43 a4 iLd7 44 lLlxa5 iLxa4 45 �c4 b3 46 lLlxb3 iLc6 47 g3 when he should win. 41 g4! iLe6 41...fxg4 42 hxg4 b5 is hopeless after 43 f5. 42 gxf5 iLxf5 The other recapture 42 ... gxf5 is well met by 43 l::th7. 43 lLlxf5 gxf5 44 e6 J::t e 8 45 c;t>e5 �e7 46 l::t a 6 .l:!.b7 47 Wf6 l:tb8 48 Wxf5 1-0 In the next example the outpost on d5 is not particularly spectacular, but when com­ bined with White's exposed kingside pawns, it enables Black to maintain the advantage.

12 . 3 3 G.Kamsky-V.Anand Linares 1993

Kamsky decides to keep Black's king from coming to g6. 40 1:.c6 41 ct;b1 ct;h7 42 h5 f6! The g4- and h5-pawns are going to come under the cosh. 43 �e4 After 43 exf6 lLlxf6, Black follows up with ... e5 and wins at least one pawn on the king­ side. 43 fxe5 44 l:txe5 lLlf6 45 g5 hxg5 46 iLxg5 If 46 lhg5 lLle4 47 1:.g2 ':c5 and the h­ pawn falls anyway, though White then could try his luck in a rook ending after 48 :e2 lLlxd2+ 49 l::t xd2 llxh5 50 l:td6. 46 lLlxh 5 Black has been able to generate two passed pawns, but he still has to take great care since the pawns are split. 47 b3 lLlf6!? An interesting choice. 47... cxb3 48 cxb3 lLlf6 49 b4 lLld5 is also possible, but Anand prefers to give the pawn back as this leaves White with a broken structure. 48 bxc4 lLld7 49 .l:!.a 5 ct;g6 50 iLe3 ct;f6 51 C5?! This has the disadvantage of blocking the white rook's influence from the kingside. Then again, after 51 iLg5+ �f7 52 iLe3, Black plays 52 ... e5 anyway. 51 e5 52 l:.a4 ct;f5 53 .l:lb4 g5 54 a4 g4 55 a s llc8 56 �c1 lLlf6 5 7 Xib7 lLld 5 58 iLf2 ct;e4 59 l!b3 �f8 60 iLh4 �f3 ! •••

•••

•.•

.••

38 ...lLle7 39 l::td 4 lLld 5 Denying the rook any chance of penetra­ tion. 40 h4 312

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

Now Black will be able to push on with ... g3. 61 c6 .l:!.xb3 62 cxb3 �f3 63 1i.d8 e4 64 1i.b6 Or 64 c7 CDxc7 65 1i.xc7 e3! 66 �d1 �f2 and Black wins. 64 e3 65 c7 CDxC7 66 1i.xC7 g3 67 �dl g2 68 1i.h2 �f2 0-1 .•.

A 'strong' square may just be little more than a good blockading square, as in exam­ ple 12.34.

as if Black should be able to hold. 3 3 CDe4 Now it's clear that White has all the op­ tions. 33 ... b6 34 f3 Confirming his domination of the central arena. 34 ... gxf3 3 5 gxf3 1i.b2 36 .l:1e7 �f5 37 l:ta7 a s 3 8 C5!

12 . 3 4 V.Topalov-A.Karpov Cannes 2002

White's unhindered access to the e4square is the key reason why he is better here. Control of this square seriously dimin­ ishes the quality of Black's majority. 32 CDd2!? It seems that 32 �e2!, followed by CDd2, could be more precise. As Lukacs points out, Black wouldn't then have the option of ex­ changing rooks and reducing the pressure. 32 g4? Black should take the opportunity to sim­ plify with 32 ... l:td8! 33 �xd8 1i.xd8 34 CDe4 1i.e7 35 �e2, and although White has a com­ fortable time, he is unable to generate the same pressure as in the game. After the fur­ ther 35 ... �f5 36 f3 �e5 37 �d3 a5 it looks as .••

Smashing up Black's queenside and thus winning a pawn. 38 ... bxC5 39 .l:!.xa 5 1i.d4 40 CDxC5 l:tc8 41 b4 e5 42 CDe4 �e6 43 �e2 llc2+ Black finally has activated his pieces and even has some semblance of counterplay, so White will have to be careful. 44 'it'd3 l:th2 45 l:ta6+ �d7 46 CDg5 l:tg2 47 h4 �h2 48 CDe6 1i.f2 49 CDf8+ �C7 50 CDg6 .1i.el After 50 ... 1i.xh4 51 CDxh4 lIxh4 52 �e4, with only rooks remaining, the connected passed pawns will be decisive. 51 b5 l::t b 2 52 a4 nb3+ 5 3 �e4 lte3+ 54 �f5 :xf3 5 5 CDxe5 l:tb3 56 �xf4?1 Lukacs suggests 56 1:[c6+ 'it>d8 57 �g5 keeping hold of the h-pawn, but Black has a hidden resource: 57 .. .f3 58 I!f6 f2 59 �xh5 'uh3 with ... I!xh4+ in the air and some draw­ ing chances. Instead, White should just play 57 �e6!, e.g. 57 .. J:te3 58 b6 1i.a5 59 b7 1i.c7 60 lIc5 f3 61 .l:!.d5+ �e8 62 l::t a5! with a pretty win, or 57 .. J:tc3 58 CDf7+ �e8 59 l:txc3 1i.xc3 313

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

60 b6 .id4 61 b7 .ia7 62 4.:lg5 'it'd8 63 'it'd6 and Black will soon be in zugzwang. 56 ... .ixh4 57 e4 iLg3 58 l:tc6+ 'it'd8 59 4.:ld3 h4 60 l:th6 �a 3 61 4.:lC5 .if2 62 'it'd 5 .ixc5 63 'it'xc5 l:txa4 64 'it'c6 And White wins as the black king cannot get to the b-file. 64 ... l:tC4+ 65 'it'b7 'it'd7 66 b6 l:tb4 67 r:j;a 7 l:1a4+ 68 'it'b8 l::t b4 69 b7 l:ta4 70 nh7+ 'it'd8 71 l:th8+ 'it'd7 72 l:!h6 It's zugzwang. 72 ... 'it'd8 7 3 nh7 .l:!b4 74 'it'a7 :a4+ 7 5 r:j;b6 1-0

12 . 3 5 I.Sokolov-E.Bacrot Albert (4th matchgame) 2004

This looks like a classic example of 'good knight vs bad bishop' . On the queenside it is, but things are not so clear on the other flank. .. 37 'it'g3 'it'f6 38 h4 h6 39 'it'f4 g5+ 40 hxg5+ hxg5+ 41 'it'g3 r:j;f7 42 4.:lb3 Sokolov can't see any way through on the queenside for now, so he decides to bring the knight over to the other wing. 42 ... 'it'e7 43 4.:ld2 'it'd8 44 4.:lf1 l:th7 45 4.:lh2 l:th4 It's important to stop the knight coming to e5 via g4. 46 Ib 7 .id7 47 l::t a 6 'it'e7 48 :a8 r:j;f7 49 4.:lf1 314

Heading back to try the queenside again. Things have changed in that White now has the eighth rank. 49 ....l:th6?! Sokolov points out that 49 ...l:I.h1 50 'it'f2 'it'e7 would be a better defence, as after 51 4.:ld2?! lid1 52 4.:lb3 Black can threaten the b­ pawn with 52 ... �b1 . 5 0 f2 l:tf6+?! 5 1 �gl 'it>g7 52 l:!.d8 l:tf7 With Black's rook now passively placed White can calmly bring the knight over to a5. 53 4.:ld2 'it'f6 54 4.:lb3 'it>f5 ! The best chance is to create some threats by bringing up his king. 5 5 4.:la 5 'it'g4 56 oUa8 lIf6 57 l:Ia7 .ie8 58 �e7

58 ... .ih5?! Bacrot has to combine defence of the c6pawn with kingside play, and this would be best achieved with 58 .. J:tf8!; e.g. 59 nc7 (if 59 �e6, then 59 ... 'it'g3! would give Black the beginnings of a strong attack, and avoiding this by 59 r:j;h2 gets nowhere after 59 ...l:!.h8+) 59 ... !If6 60 4.:lb7 'it>g3 61 4.:ld6 iLh5 62 l:tg7 g4 63 ltg5 'it'h4 64 1:.f5 l:txf5 65 4.:lxf5+ 'it'g5 and White cannot win; for instance, 66 4.:le7 .ie8 67 �f2?? just gets the knight trapped after 67 ... .id7. The problem with 58 ... iLh5?! is that White's next move slows Black down on the kingside.

R o o k a n d B i s h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

59 'It>h2! 'It>h4 60 .l::!. C 7 .ii. e S 6 1 l:!.cS .ii. d 7 62 �dS .ig4 Sokolov points out that, after 62 .. .lH7, White can win with the continuation 63 .l:!.h8+ 'It>g4 64 Ith6 .ii. e8 65 ttJxc6 i.. xc6 66 �xc6 Ith7+ 67 'it'gl 'it>g3 68 l:!.d6 J:!.a7 69 'it>f1 g4 70 J:!.xd5. 63 Itd6 I:tf2 64 ttJxc6 �h5 65 ttJe5 Ite2 The best chance was 65 ... g4, but White should still win after 66 ttJg6+ .ii. xg6 67 l::txg6 llb2 68 J:!.h6+ 'It>g5 69 J:!.h8 J:!.xb4 70 J:!.d8. 66 J:!.h6 g4 67 ttJg6+ 'it>g5 6S lIxh 5+! �xg6 Or 68 ... 'it>xh5 69 ttJf4+ etc. 69 nxd 5 l:!xe3 70 c6 g3+ 71 'it>h3 1-0

12 . 3 6 M.Sharif-G.Flear French League 1994

A 'bad bishop' may not necessarily be blocked in by its own pawns. 21 J:td4 22 ttJf2 J::tc4 23 ttJd3 .l::!.c 2 24 .l:!.fl .l:.g2 25 .l:!.f3 l:!.gl+ 26 �e2 l:!g2+ 27 ttJf2 .l:i.gl 2S l:!a3 'it>bS 29 'it'f3 .l:i.fl? 30 .l:!.d3 �cS 31 l:tdl Now Black's absent bishop becomes really noticeable. 31 l:i.xdl 32 ttJxdl Wd7 33 ttJC3 'it>c6 34 b4 .i.g7 35 'it'e4 i.. h 6 36 a4 .ii. g 7 37 g4 .ii. h 6 3S g5 .ii. g 7 39 'it'd4 h5 40 'it'C4 �fS 41 ttJb5 �d7 42 ttJd4 ..ig7 43 �b5 ..ifS 44 ttJb3 1-0 After 44 ... .ii. g7 45 a5 bxa5 46 ttJc5+ 'it>c8 47 bxa5 White will capture on e6 and then g6. •.

•••

12.3 7 G.Sarthou-G.Flear Saint Affrique 1998

Here the central pawns are rather curi­ ous. Black's knight is well anchored on the d5-square and bears down on the weak c3pawn. Nevertheless, with White occupying the b-file a draw seems likely. 24 h4? A winning try that rebounds. After 24 .l::!.b7 l:!a8 Black shouldn't be in any danger, but there are few realistic winning chances. 24 ... gxh4! 2 5 l:!.hl?! Instead, 25 a4 h3 26 ID11 l:!b8 27 J::txh3 lIb2 28 'it>e 1 l:!a2 29 .l::!.xh6 �xa4 reaches a similar position to the game (after 28 l:txh6), but with White to move, which would enable him to obtain some counterplay with 30 f4. 2 5 .. J:tbS 26 J:!xh4 nb2 27 'it'el nxa2 2S Ibh6 a s 29 l:thS a4 30 nas .l::t a l+ 31 'it'e2 a3 3 2 J:!.a4 After 32 'it'f2 a2 33 �g2, Black can trans­ pose into a clearly favourable rook ending with 33 ... ttJxc3! 34 ..ixc3 l:!.c1 35 l:l.xa2 .l:!.xc3, e.g. 36 .l::i.a4 �e6! (threatening to come to the d5-square) 37 .l:i.a7 l:!.d3! 38 .r:.xc7 c3! 39 .l:!.xc6+ �e7 40 l:!.c7+ 'it'f8 41 .l:i.c8+ 'it'g7 and wins. 32 ... a2 3 3 'it'f2 If 33 .l:!.a8 .l::!.h 1 34 l:txa2, Black has 34 ... ttJxc3+ 35 ..ixc3 l:.h2+. 315

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

3 3 .. .'�e6 34 l:ta8

34 llh11 34... liJxc3? 35 i.xc3 lIc1 now fails to 36 d5+! 'iitxd5 37 i.f6. 35 llxa2 liJxc3 36 1:1c2 Both 36 'iit g2 liJxa2 37 'iit xhl c3 and 36 i.xc3 llh2+ are hopeless for White. 36 ... liJb11 37 i.f4 'if;d 5 Now the king pays a visit to this great square, but not for long as he prepares to invade via c4. 38 i.e5 c3 39 'iit e 3 'iitC4 40 'iite 4 'iit b 3 41 l:th2 liJd2+ 42 'iitd 3 llxh2 43 i.xh2 c2 0-1 Black will promote after 44 'iit x d2 'iitb 2. •..

12 . 3 8 G.Flear-S.Guedon Saint Affrique 2004

White has two weaknesses, d4 and g2, and his pieces have little scope for active play. The knight is clearly dominant. 31 ... .:.g8 32 'iit e 2 liJd7 3 3 'iitf2 liJb81 Preparing to put d4 under pressure. 34 l:.d1 'iit d 6 3 5 i.b1 :'c8 36 i.d3 liJc6 37 i.. b 1 liJa5 3 8 'iit e 2 liJb3 Alternatively, 38... liJc4 wins a pawn straightforwardly, as 39 llc1 is met by 39 ... llg8. 39 �e1 b5 40 i.a2 liJa 5 41 'if;d2 liJc6 42 'if;d3 l:!.g8 43 lld2 liJe7 Black has ... liJf5-e3 coming, so White tries to confuse matters with a king walk. 44 'iit C 31 ':'c8+?1 Black should continue with the direct 44 ... liJf5 anyway, e.g. 45 'iitb4 liJe3 46 'iit a5 liJxg2 47 'iitxa6 liJe 1 48 'iit xb5 liJxf3 49 l:td3 liJg5 etc. 45 'iit b4 liJc6+ 46 'iit b 3 a5 47 i.b1 l:.b8?1 Much stronger is 47 ... a4+! 48 'iit c3 (or if 48 'iit a2 liJa5! and the d4-pawn will soon fall with the white king locked out of play) 48 ... e5 49 dxe5+ liJxe5+ 50 'if;b4 l:k5 with de­ cisive threats. 48 i.a2 lIb7 As 48 ... a4+ 49 'iit c3 llc8 isn't too scary, White could try 50 b3. 49 lId1 1:.c7 50 i.. b 1 b4 51 axb4 :b7

52 i.a2? A losing move. Instead, White can resist with 52 b5! l':!.xb5+ 53 'iit c3, e.g. 53 ...llb4 54 b3 316

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

a4 55 .i.c2 (after 55 bxa4?! l::txa4 Black wins the d-pawn by force) 55 ... Wc7! 56 !id2 a3 57 J:tdl l:txd4 58 �al l:i.b4 59 l::t xa3 ltb8 60 .l:i.a4 e5 61 b4 ttJd4 when Black has a clear advan­ tage, but there would certainly still be hope. 52 tiJxb4 S3 .i.b1 ttJd3+ 0-1

easily cover c3 and f4. 41 J:�d7+ 42 WC2 hS 43 ttJe2 �h6 44 l:1h4 Overprotecting the f4-pawn in order to threaten ttJd4. 44 ... �f8 4S 11h3 ••

•.•

Static weaknesses handicap the rook and bishop duo in the next couple of examples.

12 . 39 B.Larsen-L.Portisch Manila 1974

Black has problems because he has three weak pawns: on b5, e6 and h5. Once the knight gets to d4 something will have to give; but not yet 45 ttJd4?! because of 45 ... .i.xb4! . 4S J:th7 Sacrificing a pawn to create some play with the h-pawn. An alternative defence was 45 ... �h6, hoping to frustrate White's efforts by hitting f4. Portisch probably de­ cided that he couldn't keep the knight from d4 forever and that his best chance to acti­ vate successfully was to do it immediately. If he delayed this decision, he might not get such a good opportunity; for example, 45 ... .i.h6 46 l:!.hl l:!.c7 47 11h4 .i.f8 48 '>t>d3 i.e7 49 J::th l !!c6 50 ttJd4 .l:!.b6 51 '>t>e2! would leave Black with too many problems, as White would bring his king across to keep an eye on the h-pawn, enabling him to invade down the a-file with his rook and win the b5-pawn. 46 ttJd4 h4 47 ttJxe6 .i.e7 48 '>t>d3 '>t>hS 49 '>t>e3 '>t>g4 SO l:.h1 '>t>g3 After 50 ... h3 White can win by forcing means: 51 1:tgl + '>t>h4 52 ttJg7 h2 53 ttJxf5+ '>t>h5 (if 53 ... Wh3 54 l:lg3 mate) 54 l:tg2! hIit' ••

Black's h6-pawn and doubled b-pawns constitute targets, and his bishop is reduced to a passive role; whereas the flexible knight is able to help White improve his position. 32 ttJe1 Firstly the knight heads for d3 to create a bridge for the king to come into the game. 32 .l:tdS 3 3 ttJd3 Wd8 34 '>t>d2 fS Taking away the e4-square from White but potentially weakening e6. 3S '>t>e3 We8 36 l:th1 nd7 37 C3! In order to get his majority going. 37 bxc3 38 bXc3 J::tC 7 39 '>t>d2 Wf7 40 ttJC1 '>t>g6 41 b4 Fixing the b5-pawn on a vulnerable square. Curiously enough, all White's pawns are now on dark squares, but Black's pieces cannot exploit this fact as White can ..•

.•.

31 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

55 tbg3+ Wg6 56 tbxh1 +. 51 .l:tg1+ Wh2 52 Wf2 Black's king and h-pawn may seem threatening, but White's pieces are suffi­ ciently well placed to cope. 52 Jl:h6 53 tbd4 .l:!.a6 54 l:tg2+ 'it>h1 55 Itg1+ Wh2 56 .l:!g2+ 'it>h1 57 .l:!g7 1-0 White has matters under control after 57 ... i.dS 5S tbxf5 l:ta2+ 59 Wf3 l:tc2 60 i:td7 I!.xc3+ 61 Wg4.

drawish. 49 ...Wf7 49 .. .l:l:xh4?? now loses to 50 tbf5+. 50 tbf5 J:!d8 51 h 5 kth8 52 h6

.•

12 . 40 A.Shirov-C.Lutz Dortmund 2002

Despite the open position Shirov shows that White (with the knight) has a small ad­ vantage, as Black has weaker pawns and White's three pieces are able to keep control of key squares. 34 Wc2 I:td7 3 5 tbc3 i.g1 36 h4 Wd8 3 7 tbd 5 nd6 38 Wd3 We8 39 We4 A nice picture of centralization. Black can't do a great deal about the light squares! 39 ... Wf8 40 g4 J:tc6 41 ktf3 l:te6+ 42 Wd3 lIe1 43 tbf6! h6?! A slight, but significant mistake. 43 ... Wg7 is probably better. 44 g5 hxg5 45 tbh7+ We7 46 tbxg5 Forcing the f-pawn to advance. 46 ... f6 47 tbe4 ttd1+ 48 'iti>c2 ktd4 49 tbg3 49 tbxf6?! .l:!.xh4 would of course be very 318

The h-pawn isn't going any further but continues to tie Black down. 52 ... We6 53 'it'd3 We5 54 b4 b5 55 ktf1 .ltb6 56 tbe7 We6 After 56 ... l:Ixh6? 57 !:!.e1+, Black will lose either his bishop or rook to a fork. 57 �e1+ Wf7 58 tbd5 ttd8 If 5S ... i.dS then 59 Uh1 'it>e6 60 l:th5 and White maintains the bind. 59 l:te7+ Wg6 After 59 ... WfS 60 We4 White has every­ thing under control, e.g. 60 .. Jhd5? 61 WxdS 'it>xe7 62 h7. 60 'it'e4 i.f2 61 �e6 i.h4 62 J:txa6 Wxh6 63 tbxf6 Wg5 Or 63 ... i.xf6 64 lIxf6+ Wg7 65 !!b6 l:taS 66 �xb5 l:txa3 67 Wd5 and White wins. 64 We5 i.e1 65 tbe4+ Wg4 66 tbd6 Wf3 67 tbxb5 i.g3+ 68 'it>e6 'iti>e4 69 tbd6+ 1-0 The position was of an 'open' nature, nothing much was going on, and yet the side with a rook and knight turned out to be better! It seems to go against what one intui­ tively feels about such positions, so the les­ son is not to be dogmatic! One of the reasons was that the rook and bishop duo lacked any targets in the white camp, so they couldn't generate any coun-

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

terplay. Therefore, as White had time to cen­ tralize and harmonize his forces, he could relentlessly press against Black's split pawns.

12 . 41 P.Leko-M.Adams Dortmund 2001

White is better here because he has the more active rook. 29 lla 5! g6 30 ltJd4 �b7 31 ltJe61 h5? A decisive mistake due to the weakness of the f6-pawn. There would be more chance after 31...£5, though White keeps up the pres­ sure with 32 f4 h6 33 'iit f2 'iit g8 34 g3 'iit f7 35 t"Dc5 i.. d5 36 ltJd7 �b7 37 cJi>e3. 32 ltJC5 l:tb8 32 ... �d5 is strongly met by 33 ltJd7, and if 33 ... 'iit g 7 then 34 b6 etc. n ltJd7 :a8 34 ltJxf6 a6 3 5 bxa6 Not 35 b6?! .l:1d8 when the knight doesn't have any good squares. White would have to allow simplification with 36 lle5 lld6 37 :e7 llxf6 38 ':xb7, after which Black could force the exchange of the queenside pawns by pushing the a-pawn, with a probable draw. 35 ...l:1xa6 36 .l:.xa6 �xa6 3 7 h41 Of course! With his pawns fixed on light squares Black is condemned to a miserable time.

3 7 ... 'iit g 7 3 8 ltJe4 'iitf7 3 9 'iit h 2 �d3 40 f3 �f1 41 'iitg 3 e 6 42 ltJd2 �d3 43 'iti>f4 'iti>f6 44 ltJe4+ f7 45 'iit g 5 �f1 46 g3 �e2 47 ltJd2 'iti>g7 48 f4 �d1 49 ltJc4 1-0 Hecht points out why Adams resigned: 49 ... �g4 (or if 49 ... �c2 then 50 ltJe3 �d3 51 f5! �b1 52 fxg6 �xg6 53 ltJd5, followed by ltJf4 and ltJxh5+) 50 ltJd6 �e2 51 f5 gxf5 52 ltJxf5+ 'iith7 53 ltJd6 i.. d 1 54 ltJe8 �e2 55 ltJf6+ and White wins a second pawn. In the following position the key factor is White's poorly-placed king.

1 2 .42 S.Sahu-G.Flear London 1987

29 ... h 5 1 319

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Using the threat of mate ( ... ctJg4+, ... Iih1) to win a pawn under favourable circum­ stances. 30 g4 tiJxg4+ 31 'It>g3 tiJf6 3 2 J:te5 e6 3 3 'ue6 Itb1 34 11xe6 Passive defence with 34 .l:Ie2 tiJe4+ 35 'it>h2 h4 36 'It>h3 g5 37 'it>g4 'it>g7 also leaves Black on the verge of victory. 34 ... .l:!.xb2 3 5 .i.d1 b4 36 e4 .l:td2 37 .i.f3 .i:txd4 38 exd 5 ctJxd 5 39 .l:r.d6 ctJe7! A neat tactic seeking decisive simplifica­ tion. 40 I!xd4 tiJf5+ 41 'it>f4 tiJxd4 42 .i.xh5 b3 43 .i.g6 b2 44 'It>g5 44 We3 is no better, e.g. 44 ... ctJb5 45 'it>d2 ctJa3. 44 tiJe2 45 .i.e2 ctJe3 46 � g6 b1"iV 47 .i.xb1 ctJxb1 48 �h7 �f7 0-1

3 2 :e8 3 3 ctJa6 .l:!.e2 34 e3 l:ta2 3 5 ctJe5 .i.e7 Not 35 ... i.e7? due to 36 i::tb8+ i.d8 37 ctJb7 with a decisive pin. 36 'ub7 'it>d8 37 'u'b4 f7 49 l:la6, threatening 50 tiJxf5 and 50 tiJc6. 43 i.e5 44 f4 i.e3 45 .l::!.f7+! A mini-combination to exchange rooks, after which the a-pawn becomes even stronger. 45 'it>xf7 If 45 ... '.t>g6 then 46 l:tc7 forces the ex­ change anyway. 46 tiJd6+ e6 49 e4 e4 55 g4 .i.f6 56 h3 i.b2 56 ... a2 ..t>d2 80 :c8 lLle5 81 ':C5 lLlf3 82 Wa3 lLld4 83 lIc8 lLlb5+ 84 Wa4 lLlc7 8 5 lth8 Yz-Yz

12 . 4 5 P.Leko-A.Shirov Linares 2000

46 :c7+ 'It>h8 47 Itc8+ 'It>h7 48 1:1.C7+ �h8 49 lLlxd6 I:!.f4! Not the obvious move, but Black has a 'perpetual net' in mind. 50 :d7 After 50 b5 e4! both sides have perpetual check, but no more than that! 50 ... .tb6 51 lLlc8 .te3 52 lLle7 lIf1+ 53 �g 2 l1f2+ 54 �g3 e4 5 5 lLlg6+ 55 l:!.d8+ �h7 56 lLld5 stops the immedi­ ate draw, but after 56 ... l1f3+ 57 �g2 �f2+ 58 Wg1 l:H3+ 59 lLlxe3 I:txe3 60 b5 .l:tb3 there is no advantage. 5 5 ... Wg8 56 h6 A thematic mating net, thwarted by one involving perpetual check. 56 ...�f3+ Yz-Yz There is no escaping the checks: 57 �g2 Itf2+ 58 �h1 l:tf1 + 59 �g2 l:f2+ etc.

The defensive q ua l ities of the Kn ight The rook and knight duo sometimes have the ability to put up heroic resistance, even when the rook and bishop seem to be on top.

1 2 .46 G.Flear-J.lruzubieta Elgoibar 1994

321

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

White's only chance is to create a net around Black's king. Unfortunately, in time trouble I failed to do so correctly ... 3 7 'itg5?? A dreadful move as there are two refuta­ tions! Instead, 37 ttJf6! draws: 37 .. .l:hf2+ 38 'ite4 b2 (after 38 ... l:txf6 39 exf6+ 'itxf6, White has 40 .l:tc7 winning the b-pawn) 39 l:tg8+ 'ith6 40 l:th8+ with a draw - a thematic per­ petual with rook and knight. 3 7 .. Jla 5 Black could also win by distracting White's knight with the capture 37 .. .l:hf2!, as 38 ttJxf2 is then strongly met by the advance 38 ...b2. 38 f4 SLxe3 39 l:.b8 After 39 ttJf6 ':'xe5+ 40 'itxh4 SLxf4 41 ttJxh5+ l:txh5+ 42 'itxh5 b2, the b-pawn queens. 39 ...l:txe5+ 40 'itxh4 0-1 Oh dear, oh dear! The following game occurred in round four wi.th the two players on 0/3. As soon becomes clear, the nightmare continued for both Michael Adams and myself!

1 2 . 47 G.Flear-M.Adams Hastings 1996/97

322

White is two pawns down, but Black has some work to do yet. 3 5 ... cxd6 36 ttJb5 Chasing pawns with 36 ttJe4 g4 37 ttJxd6 g3 38 :£7+ 'itg6 39 l:txb7 is hopeless after 39 ... g2. 36 ... l:ta6 37 'ite3 Improving the king is almost always im­ portant in technical positions. 37 h S 38 'itd4 g4?! Advancing the pawns isn't bad, but it's simpler to play 38 ... SLd7 first. 39 ttJC7 l:!a1?1 Instead, Adams could cover the e6square with 39 ... g3! 40 :f3 h4! and wins! 40 ttJe6+ 'itg6 41 .l:tf8 Concentrating on harassing the black king. In contrast Black's king is too well placed after 41 ttJf4+ 'itg5 42 ttJxh3+ gxh3. 41 l:td1+ 42 'ite3 SLf1 Now the c-pawn falls, but White's pieces prove to be annoyingly active. 43 ttJf4+ 'itg7 44 l:tf5 SLxC4 45 l:txh 5 l:te1+ 46 'itd4 b5 47 ttJe6+ 'iii>f7 48 :h7+ ...

•..

(see following diagram)

48 'ite8 Black retains good winning prospects af­ ter 48 ... 'itg6 49 l:tg7+ 'itf6 50 l:txg4 l:td1 + 51 'itc3 SLxd5 52 ttJd4 SLc4, though White has a troublesome blockade on the b4- and d4..•

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

squares. 49 :g7 1:.g1 50 tDC7+ �d8 5 1 ..t>C3 �c8?

rather wisely claimed a draw by repetition! An NQE of mixed emotions. Apart from the humiliation of missing an easy mate in two (with an adequate three or four minutes still on the clock!), at least I managed to put up some decent resistance by harmonizing my forces. It goes to show that even a high­ class opponent can let things slip if the de­ fender is determined, so the lesson is: be tough, never give up too early .

12 . 4 8 D.Bronstein-Ci.Flear Hastings 1995/96 Black's last chance was 51...g3! 52 tDe6+ (52 �b4 g2 53 �a5 l:tal + 54 �b6 fails since the g-pawn queens with check) 52 ... ..t>c8 53 tiJf4 .l:!.£1 54 tDh5 IU5 55 tDxg3 1:hd5 56 �b4 :e5. 52 �b4! g3 5 3 Wa S b4 54 Wb6 .txd 5 5 5 tiJxd 5 b3? Adams should have settled for a draw with 55 ... .:£1, coming back to the defence. 56 l2Jf6 �d8

57 l:td7+?! Simplest is 57 ..t>b7! b2 58 l:td7 mate. 57 ... �c8 58 l:tg7?! And here 58 l:te7!. 58 �d8 59 l:td7+?! �c8 60 l:t g7? Yz-Yz The last chance for 60 .l:!.e7!. At this point I finally saw how to mate, but my opponent ••.

With the white rook and bishop danger­ ously poised, and Black having several soft spots, he shouldn't stay too passive. 36 ...l!e2! 3 7 h4 l:txb2 38 h5 tDf8 39 ':f7 �g8 40 l:txf6 l:txa 2 Making hay while the sun shines! 41 h6 l:te2 41 ...l:ta3? is met by 42 .te4, threatening .td5+. 42 l:Lxa6 l:te3 43 lIa7 �xc3 White's threats ensure that he keeps the draw in hand, but the fact that he no longer has any queenside pawns is reassuring for Black, who can (if the worst comes to the worst) aim to batten down the hatches on the kingside. 44 1:!.g7+ Wh8 45 1:!.b7 � g 8! 323

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

The imprudent 45 .. J1b3?? loses immedi­ ately to 46 ltb8 �g8 47 iLe6+. 46 �f2 Instead 46 .l::f.b 8? is comfortably met by 46 ... �f7. 46 ... ltc1 47 �e2 lth1 4S iLh3 c3 49 �d3 ltd1+ 50 �xc3 .l::. d 6 Finally getting rid of that annoying h­ pawn! Yz-Yz Black's knight didn't exactly play a spec­ tacular role in this example, but it was able to defend its king quite adequately.

12 . 49 V.Tkachiev-G.Flear Clichy 1995

Here White's superiority is not so much based on any superiority of his minor piece, but on the fact that the loose pawn on a6 must fall. Nevertheless, White's structure is sufficiently compromised for Black to be able to hold the game a pawn down. 2S ...ttJfS 29 .I:ta1 ttJe6 30 ltxa6 �f7 31 c5?! Fixing Black's pawns on dark squares with 31 b5 was possible, though Black is still very solid after 31 ...';¥;>e7 32 lta7 'it>d6. 31 ... b5! 3 2 l:ta7 �g6 33 ltb7 c6 34 ltd7 34 l:tb6 would have been met by 34 .. J:tf6! 35 �g3 ttJc7 followed by ... ttJd5, while 35 ltxc6!? should lead to a draw after 35 ... ttJf4+ 324

3 6 iLxf4 ltxc6 3 7 iLxe5 �f5. 34 ...ltf6 35 � g 3 �5 36 lte7 h 5 3 7 � g 2 g 6 3S �g3 ttJf4 39 iLd2 ttJd 5 Black's pieces occupy good defensive squares and White has no pawn breaks, but Black still has to avoid being squeezed. 40 ltg7 e4!? In order to have more room to manoeu­ vre. 41 i.c1 exf3 42 iLb2 ltfS 43 �xf3 �e6+ Even 43 ... ttJxb4!? might be good. 44 'it>g2 ttJe7 45 i.c11 l:tf7 46 l:txf7 �xf7 47 'it>f3 ttJd5 4S iLd2 �e6 49 �e4 �f6 Yz-Yz Knights can be excellent defenders in confined area.

a

12 . 5 0 A.Karpov-V.Korch noi World Championship (20th matchgame), Baguio 1978

Even with two passed pawns on the sev­ enth White can't break down Black's de­ fences. 4s .. .lbdS 49 lteS 'it>f6 50 fxg3 fxg3 51 �e2 �g7 52 iLf3 a4 53 lte4 'it>f6 54 ltxa4 �e7 55 lbh4 �xd7 56 l1f4 �d6 5 7 ltb4 'it>C7 58 :C4+ �d7 59 i.g4+ �eS 60 lte4+ 'it>fS 61 Ji.d7 ltxb7 62 lteS+ �g7 63 ltxdS ltb2+ Yz-Yz White either loses his last pawn or allows

R o o k and Bish o p versus R o o k and Knight a

pin along the d-file when he wouldn't

be

able to win.

31 J:tc8 32 f4+ d6 3 3 i.f3 ':C2+ 34 g 3 ••

':'c3 3 S �2 'iitc 6

Unpinning to pre-empt any ideas of e3In the final example of this chapter

White's pressure is rapidly neutralized by Black bringing his king to the central area.

e4. 36 h4 ':c2+ 3 7 �e1 ':b2 3 8 hS ':b1+ 39 �d2 ':b2+ 40 �e1

White has no advantage after 40 �c3 :f2 41 i.d1 :h2 either.

12.51 LVan Wely-B.Gelfand

40 ':b1+ 41 �d2 Y2-Y2 .••

Bie1 2000

(see following diagram) 26..J:td8 27 h3 �8 28 g4 'iite 71?

Although 28... fxg4 29 hxg4 g5 is met by 30 e4, even then Black's king comes into its own: 30 ...We7! 31 e5 (if 31 exd5 then 31 ...'iitd6) 31...l2Je4 32 i.xe4 dxe4 33 ':xe4 �e6, and White will have serious difficulties trying to exploit the extra pawn. 29 gxfs �d6 30 �g 2 �es 31 i. g4

Now Black's rook can activate.

325

C h a pt e r T h i rt e e n

I

Roo k a n d B i s h o p ve rs u s Roo k a n d o p posite-co l o u red B i s h o p

Most chess players understand the term 'opposite bishops' and many have an idea of what this means in practice. In fact, it's worth reflecting on the point that, whatever material re­ mains on the board, if each player has just one bishop and these operate on different col­ oured squares then they are described as 'opposite bishops'. This commonly arising situation occurs in all phases of the game and is relevant well be­ fore the ending. Such bishops never meet on their travels and the consequences of this prop­ erty influences a master's thinking. In the middlegame, for instance, there may be attacking possibilities for either side, as an attacking bishop evidently cannot be parried by its coun­ terpart, but there is typically the prospect of simplification. The potentially drawish personality of opposite-coloured bishop endings is well known: the defender can often blockade on one colour complex and hold the game despite an inferi­ ority of pawns and a positional disadvantage. However, with the addition of a pair of rooks there are noticeably more prospects for the stronger player. We'll see in this chapter how an attacking rook can have influence on squares of both colours, and sometimes the exchange can even be sacrificed to break down the fortress. Another typical defensive ploy in this NQE is the threat of simplification to a drawn end­ ing. This usually, but not always, means the exchange of rooks. We should, however, re­ member that rook endings also have a reputation of being 'always drawn' (as the cliche re­ minds us), so even an exchange of bishops can be a plausible defence. In desperate circum­ stances the defensive bishop can be sacrificed for pawns, when transposition to Chapter Two would occur, where it's explained that rook and bishop vs rook can be drawn in certain circum­ stances. The rook and opposite-coloured bishops NQE has occurred in a modest 1 .2% of my games, but is strikingly more common, in fact as high as 2.8%, in 2600+ encounters. I'm not sure why there is so much disparity, unless this particular NQE can be associated with the choice of certain openings. The technical problem most likely to be encountered by the stronger side is the difficulty of releasing an opposite bishop blockade.

326

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i t e - c o l o u re d B is h o p

13 . 1 V.Kramnik-V.lvanchu k Novgorod 1994

White is two pawns up, but Black has a firm blockade on the dark squares. 33 g4 Or if 33 :'d 1 1:.d8 34 g4 �b6 and Black remains solid. 33 ... h5 34 gxh 5!? At first sight a curious decision, but after the alternative 34 Wg2 hxg4 35 hxg4 Wg5 it would be problematic to compete on the dark squares. 34 ... l::t h 8 3 5 l::tf4 We5 36 :'h4 �f2 37 l:ta4 l:txh5 38 Wg2 �d4 39 Wg3 l:tg5+ 40 Wf3 1:[g1 41 l:ta 5+ Wf6 42 l:td5 �b6 43 .l:td7 l:tg7 Throughout this chapter the possibility of an exchange of rooks has to be taken into account. In this particular case it helps Black as it would certainly lead to a drawish posi­ tion. 44 l:td3 We5 45 l:td5+ Wf6 46 We4 l:tg3 47 :'d7 1:.xh 31? The cautious 47... 1tg7 also seems play­ able, but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with taking the pawn. 48 l:tf7+ �g5 49 1:.g7+ �f6 50 l:tf7+ Wg5 51 1:.g7+ Wf6 5 2 �g6+ We7 5 3 �b3 l:th4+ 54 Wd 5 l:.f4 5 5 :te6+ wf8

56 l:tf6+ Naturally the continuation 56 f6 �d4 57 l:tc6 �xf6 58 :c8+ Wg7 59 l:tc7+ Wg6 60 l:txa7 should also lead to a draw. 56 ... We7 57 l:te6+ Wf8 58 �e2 l:tf2 59 :'e6 We7 60 l:te6+ Wd7 61 �d3 l:[xa2 62 �b5+ We8 63 f6 .l:td2+ 64 We4 l:lf2 65 lte8+ Yz-Yz After 65 ... �d8 the pawn drops. The defender can sometimes hold out by simply defending passively, just as in many pure opposite bishop endings.

13 .2 M.Ada ms-V.Topalov Dos Herrnanas 1999

32 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

White has the open file and must there­ fore be better, but he is unable to find a way to break down Black's defences. 26 ..th3 'iit>f8 27 a4 a s 28 i.e8 i.f6 29 .l';Ib8 'iit>g 7 30 i.b7 ..te7 31 'iit>g 2 ..tf6 32 'iit> h 3 i.e7 33 i.d5 i.f6 34 �g4 i.e7 35 h5 g5 This looks ugly, but although White can now use the fS-square that is as far as he goes. 36 'iit>f5 i.f6 37 llb5 i.d8 38 i.b7 i.e7 39 .l:!.b2 i.d8 40 �b1 i.f6 41 i.d5 i.d8 42 1:i.b3 lIe7 43 Itb1 ..te7 44 �b7 ..td8 45 l:b8 i.e7 46 .l:!.a8 ..tb6 47 f3 iLe7 48 ':a6 lIe8 49 �e6 I:te7 50 f4 The only conceivable attempt at a break­ through, but it's not enough to make any difference. 50 ... gxf4 51 gxf4 exf4 5 2 'iit>xf4 ..td8 53 l:te8 i.e7 54 na8 iLb6 55 Ila6 i.e7 56 ':e6 Yz-Yz Defending inferior positions can some­ times be a combination of manning the bar­ ricades, jockeying for potential counterplay and, of course, the ubiquitous threat of a timely exchange into a pure opposite bishop ending.

13.3 V.Kramnik-G.Kasparov BGN World Champion�hip (8th matchgame), London 2000

328

Here Black has an extra pawn and some realistic hopes, with his active-looking pieces, of creating problems for the defence. 31 l::tf4! This move, with the threat of .l:!.g4, yields White some counterplay and sets Black the problem of deciding how to handle his king­ side pawns. 3 1 .. J:td3 ? 5hipov mentions that 31...gS?! i s met by 32 .l:tf6 .i;Ia2 33 .l:.g6+ 'iit> f8 34 lhe6 Itxg2+ 35 'iit> f 1, and Black has to be careful. He cannot, for instance, capture on h2 because he loses his bishop: 3S .. .lhh2?? 36 i.cS+ 'iit> g8 37 �e8+ �f7 38 ne7+. He also believes that 31...l:tb3 is insuffi­ ciently testing either: 32 l:tg4 gS 33 h4 l:txb4 34 hxgS hS 3S liIf4 .l:!.b1+ 36 'iit> f2 l!c1 37 g6 l:tc2+ 38 'iit>e3 .l:!.xg2 39 no ..tdS 40 .l:!.g7+ �f8 41 iLf6 eS 42 iLxeS, and he judges the posi­ tion to be drawn. The most challenging move, as Kasparov himself notes, is 31...hS!, stopping the rook from going to g4. Then after 32 g4 h4 (or perhaps 32 ... ..tf3!? 33 gxhS i.xhS) 33 gS 'ua2 34 :txh4 I!g2+ 3S 'iit> f1 l:txgS, Black maintains a clear extra pawn and has reasonable chances of winning. 3 2 l:tg4 g5 It seems that 32 .. .l:td1+ 33 'it>f2 Itd2+ can be met by 34 'iit>e 3! I!xg2 3S lhg2 iLxg2 36 h4 with a draw, as pointed out by Kasparov. 3 3 h4 'iit>f7 34 hxg5 hxg5 3 5 'iit>f2 ! nd2+ Kasparov also gives the alternative 3S ... 'iit> g6 36 'iit>e2 .l:!.b3 37 i.e3 'it'f6!?, which is tricky (in that neither piece can capture on gS) but still not good enough: 38 i.d2 .idS 39 l:txgS iLc4+ 40 'it>d1 with a draw in pros­ pect. 36 'iit>e 3 Ilxg2 37 nxg2 i.xg2 38 i.e5! Yz-Yz The opposite bishop ending is drawn as White can maintain a blockade on the e5and g3-squares. So, despite Krarnnik being able to draw fairly easily, it seems that Kasparov could

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i t e - c o l o u re d B is h op

have made his task more difficult. Of course it's always possible to get carried away ex­ trapolating that a precisely played NQE could have changed the history of the World Championship!

Better than 34 a6 f5+ 35 �e3 1:.c8, when Black can hold for the present. 34 ... �e6 3 5 151 Now the white king is able to maintain its presence on e4. 3 5 1:.e7 36 a6 .i.e5 3 7 .i.e4+ �d6 38 b3 1:.e7 Despite reasonable progress so far, the question arises: how can White release the blockade? 39 .i.d5 ':'e7 40 �e4 .:te7 41 %las �e6 42 .i.d5+ Setting Black an unpleasant choice. ••.

Coming down to earth, it's not always necessary to have a material advantage in order to expect to win. Sometimes a few mi­ nor positional advantages can add up to something significant.

13 . 4 V.Malakhov-Ye Jiangchuan Hyderabad 2002

42 �d6 The alternative 42 ... �b6 is dealt a mortal blow by 43 a7! 1:.xa7 44 1:.xa7 �xa7 45 �xe5 and the kingside pawns are within White's grasp. 43 .i.b7! .i.a7 44 :d5+ �e7 45 1:.b5 So, although the a-pawn has been stopped, the b-pawn now falls and White is well on the way to victory. 45 ... 1:.e6 46 1:.xb4 f5+ 47 Ixf6 1:.xf6 48 �xe5 :tf5+ 49 �e6 �f2 50 .i.d5 �e8 51 �d6 1-0 •.•

White has a pleasant positional advan­ tage as he has the more active pieces and Black's pawns are vulnerable. In particular, while those on b4 and e5 are also exposed, the a6-pawn is chronically weak and re­ quires constant attention. 27 �e3 Wf8 28 'it>e4 .i.d6 29 .i.d3 r;i;e7 30 �d5 1:.e8 Black decides to seek some freedom. He obviously had no stomach for the more pas­ sive alternative 30 ... �d7. 31 .i.xa6 %lxe2 32 .i.d3 1:.e5+ Any adventures along the second rank would soon lose out to the prompt advance of the a-pawn. 33 �e4 16 34 141

An inferior pawn structure can be an­ other source of problems.

13.5 V.Okhotnik-G.Flear Mont St. Michel 1992

329

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Equal material perhaps, but just compare the quality of the two majorities! 39 ... l:tf7 40 b5 e5 41 na8+ e7 42 l:t g8 i.e6 43 b6 d6 44 l:tg6

White's advantage doesn't look that frightening, but Black's rotten pawn struc­ ture (five pawn islands against two!) leads to him having a nightmare of a defensive task ahead. 20 ...l:td 5 21 i.d4 .l::i.g 5 22 l:tg1 Carefully avoiding 22 g3, which would allow Black to create counterplay on the light squares starting with 22 ... 1::!.f5. 22 ... h5 2 3 h4 l:Ia 5?! I now consider 23 ... l:tg4 24 g3 g5 to be a lesser evil. 24 a3 l:tf5 25 c4 g5 Slightly compromising perhaps, but if Black just waits then White can gradually get his queenside majority going. 26 l:th1 g6 27 hxg5 1:txg5 28 l:tg1 f5 29 I:th1 g6 The alternative idea 29 ... l:txg2 30 1::!.xh5+ l:tg5 31 l:th7 doesn't ease Black's woes, as White's queenside still gives him a big plus. 30 l:th2 i.a4 31 d2 i.c6 32 i.e3 l:tf5 3 3 :t h 3 f7 34 g4! After all that quiet manoeuvring this blow comes as quite a shock.

This pin prevents Black getting his pieces onto decent defensive squares and gives White time to bring up his king. 44 J�e7 45 c3 c6 46 b4 b7 47 �C5 Ji.d7 48 d 5 i.e8 49 l:[xg4 i.c6+ 50 �C5 nd7 51 ng6 i.a4 52 ne6 z:tf7 53 .l:Ixe5 i.c6 54 ne6 l:tf5+ 55 d6 .:tf7 56 i.d4 l:td7+ 57 C5 l:th7 58 i.f6 1-0 1'd had enough, since if 5S .. J:th5+ 59 i.e5 i.d7 60 .l::r.e 7 cS 61 d5 White wins easily. •.

It's worth reiterating that, if the oppo­ nent has nothing better to do than just wait patiently, there's no particular rush to com­ mit oneself. Fundamental considerations are keeping control, avoiding the premature exchange of rooks or allowing any unneces­ sary counter-activity. Of course, at the same time gradually maximizing the effectiveness of one's pieces enables one to prepare the moment when it is necessary to make the key decisions.

(see following diagram)

34 ... hxg4 3 5 �h7+ e8 36 l:txc7 All Black's pawns are weak now the white rook has come round the back. 36 ... i.d7 37 lla7 as 38 b4 axb4 39 axb4 330

1 3 .6 o.Popovych-G.Flear Isafjordur 1988

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i t e - co l o u re d B is h o p

Although the b7-square can be block­ aded, there are still plenty of tactical possi­ bilities with three pieces and an advanced pawn in the vicinity of a denuded king. 69 b6

25 l:!.f2 1;!e3 26 �d2 tte7 27 'it>gl f5 28 h 3 �7 2 9 i.C3 l:td7 30 !te2 i.e4 31 'it>f2 'it>e6 32 i.b2 g6 33 �a3 The static weakness of the c5-pawn obliges Black to stay on the defensive, ena­ bling the white king to come to c3 where it will be ready to support the advance of the majority. 33 .1::[ c 7 34 lid2 l:tc6 3 5 'it>e3 'it>e7 36 g3 'it>e8 Black can only wait and hope that White's attempts at making progress lead nowhere. 37 .ib2 'it>e7 38 .il.e5 i.h1 39 �d3 �e4+ 40 d7 50 'it>C4 'it>c8 51 l:ta2 l'Id6 52 l:ia 3 i.b7 5 3 nc3 ..te4 54 �e5 lId7 5 5 'it>C5 !td 3 56 1:tC4 'it>b7 5 7 'it>b4 .l:!.d7 If 57 .. .lhg3 58 l'Ic7+ the b-pawn will be­ come dangerous. Something similar occurs later in the game. 58 �a 5 i.h1 59 i:tc1 ..te4 60 �b4 �f3 61 b4 .l:!.d1 67 �C5 .l:!.d3 68 .l:!.e1 1:txg3 •.

69 �b3 White's penetration is also decisive after 69 ... .1::l. g4 70 .l::t a l .l:Ixf4 71 l:!.a7+ 'it>c8 72 !:tc7+ �b8 73 i.e5 .l:If3 (or if 73 ... !:tf2 74 !:th7+ 'it>c8 75 b7! ..txb7 76 .f:!.c7+ 'it>b8 77 'it>b6! !:te2 78 .l:txb7+ and White should win as he has the RRP) as 74 'it>b4! yields a remarkable zugzwang. Black loses at least a piece: i.e. 74 ... �a8 75 l'Ia7 mate, 74 ... f4 75 lIc4+, 74 ... i.a8 75 .l:!.c3+ �b7 76 .l:;ixf3, or 74 ... �b7 75 !tc6+ 'it>a8 76 J:txg6 �d5 77 l':rg7. 70 �d6 .l:i.d3 71 'it>e5 l:th3 72 .l::t g 1 lIxh4 73 lIxg6 l:th1 74 lIg7+ 'it>b8? Losing immediately. Black can continue to resist and perhaps even hold with 74 ... 'it>c8!, e.g. 75 .1::l. c7+ (75 'it>d6 l':rdl 76 b7+ fails to win due to the calm 76 ... 'it>b8) 75 ... �b8 76 �e6 �bl ! 77 .l:!.h7 �c8! and, al­ though White can still keep up the pressure, there doesn't seem to be a way to win: 78 lhh5 lIb5 79 l::th8+ 'it>b7 80 !:th7+ 'it>c8 81 lIg7 .ubI 82 ':c7+ 'it>b8 83 'it>e7 llb4 84 �c5 (there is nothing after 84 i.e5 Itxb6) 84 ... !:tbl 85 i:td7 'it>c8!. 7 5 'it>e6! i:tc1 76 �e5+ 'it>c8 77 b7+! 1-0 A neat mate to finish things off. It was notable how the kingside had so little influ.••

331

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

ence with the extra passed pawn being so well supported. In the following example all the pieces are somewhat tied down to specific tasks, but White's king is free to take up a more active role.

13.7 P Leko A Shirov Linares 2004 .

-

.

3 3 ... a6 After 33 ... '>t>d7, Black can meet 34 �d4 with 34 ... �c6 keeping the king out, but White has winning chances by dodging the other way with 34 �f4, e.g. 34 .. .l:k1 35 g4 hxg4 36 fxg4 l:tfl + followed by switching back with 37 �e3! (rather than 37 'it>g5 which is well met by 37 .. .1:1g1) 37... i.xg4 38 l:.xd3+, when White's pieces have been freed up to chase down the black a-pawn. 34 �d4 'it>d7 3 5 �e5 �e7 36 a4 White may not have any direct threats, but what can Black do? He has to make a difficult decision: a) 36 ... �d7 allows 37 �b6. b) If 36 ... �b7 37 �d6 �b6 38 �e7 .l:txd2 39 i.xd2, White can subsequently create two passed pawns in this ending, which is gen­ erally bad news for the defender!, e.g. 39 ... i.e6 40 b4! '>t>c6 41 g4 �d5 42 gxh5 gxh5 332

43 �f6 �d4 44 f4 �e4 45 b5 axb5 46 axb5 '>t>d5 47 f5 i.c8 48 b6 'it>c6 49 e6 and wins, since White has the RRP . c) The immediate 36 .. .lhd2! 37 i.xd2 and then 37 ... i.d7! could be the best chance, e.g. 38 b3 i.e6 39 b4 i.d7 40 b5 axb5 41 axb5 i.f5 42 i.e3 i.e6 and Black seems to hold com­ fortably enough; but keeping the tension with 38 a5!, intending a plan based on �f4 and g2-g4, would still give Black some prob­ lems. 36 ....l:r.e1?! Now it's time to liquidate Black's annoy­ ing d-pawn by deflecting the bishop ... 3 7 g4! hxg4 38 fxg4 i.xg4 39 .l::txd3 White has liberated his pieces from tedi­ ous defensive tasks and can go wholeheart­ edly onto the offensive. 39 ...l:i.h1 40 i.a5+! �b7 41 lIb 3+ We8

42 .l:!.b4! If Black wants the h-pawn he'll have to suffer a pin. 42 .. Jlxh4?! Leko believes that Black should try 42 ... i.e6, and if 43 �b6 !leI 44 �xa6 .I:.xe5, but still fancies White's chances after 45 11d4. 43 l:!d4! There is no win of material in the offing, just simplification into a promising rook ending. 43 ... g5 After 43 ... �b7 44 b3 �c8 45 �b6, Black

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i t e - c o l o u re d B is h o p

would have nothing better than 45 ... g5 any­ way, but under inferior circumstances. 44 i.el 11hl 45 .l:txg4 �xel 46 J::txg5 'It>d7 47 :f5 rJ;; e7 Otherwise after 47 .. .'�e6 48 IH6+ 'it'xe5 49 ltxf7 l:tal 50 b3!, the black a-pawn is doomed. 48 b4 J:.al 49 as .l:tcl+ 50 'It>b6 .tt c4 If 50 ... l:bl then 5l l::[f4 'it'e6 52 �xa6 'It>xe5 53 l:th4 f5 54 b5 and White clearly wins. 51 b5! axb5 52 a6 �e6 Huzman points out a delightful win after 52 .. J:ta4, i.e. 53 a7 b4 54 e6! 'It>xe6 55 11a5. 53 l:tf6+ 'it>xe5 54 .l:txf7 1-0 Shirov could have played a few more moves before resigning, but evidently could see no way of avoiding defeat. The natural continuation would be 54 ... .l:!.a4 (or 54 ...b4 55 rJ;;b5 1:!.h4 56 a7) 55 'it>xb5 l:tal 56 a7 (or 56 ltd7 rJ;; e6 57 lId4) 56 ... �e6 57 l::th7 �d6 58 rJ;;b6 .ubI + 59 'It>a6 llal + 60 'It>b7 :tbl + 61 'It>c8 l:ta1 62 �b8 l:!.bl+ 63 l:!.b7 etc.

lent winning chances here. He is a protected passed pawn to the good, and can profit from the serious weakness of the e4-pawn. 34 ..td2! Played in order to be able to defend the sickly e-pawn, while also keeping an eye on the inevitable advance of the black c-pawn. 34 ....l:!.b2 3 5 .ta 5 C4 36 l:Iel 'itf8 37 f6 gxf6 38 gxf6 �e8 39 �gl Going round the other way with 39 l:tal doesn't solve his problems either: 39 ... .tbl 40 .tc7 l:tb3+ 41 'ite2 .txe4 42 .txd6 .txd5 43 .txe5, as Black retains good winning chances with 43 ... l::th3. 39 ... .te2+ 40 'itg3 'itd7 41 l:tg2 The pin ... 41 ...J:.b5! ... the unpin!

Even when play is limited to a narrow front the attacking side can succeed if he has targets to attack.

13 . 8 A.Yusupov-V.Epishin Dortmund 1994 42 .td2 The rook ending after 42 �xe2 l:txa5 seems to win for Black; e.g. 43 .l::!.b2 (or 43 J::t c2 l:tc5 44 J::k3 �c7 45 'it>f3 'itb6 46 'ite3 'itb5 47 'It>d2 �b4) and now simplest is Epishin's intention 43 ... c3! 44 .l:!.c2 llc5 45 'itf3 'itc7 46 'it>e3 'It>b6 47 'itd3 �b5, because the pawn ending after 48 l:txc3 .!:!.xc3+ 49 'iitxc3 'itc5 is an easy win. The other try 42 ..tel also seems lacking after 42 ... .td3 43 'It>f3 l:tbl 44 .ta5 !Hl+ 45 'it>e3 l::t xf6. 42 .td3 43 'itf3 1:tb2 The tactical line 43 ... c3! 44 ..txc3 l:tb3 is •..

Two factors combine to give Black excel-

333

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

simpler; e.g. 45 .i.e1 .i.f1 + 46 'ot>f2 .i.xg2 47 'ot>xg2 �e3. 44 'ot>e3 .i.xe4! 45 'ot>xe4 c3 This pin is decisive. 46 'ot>e3 cxd2 47 lIxd2 l:txd2 48 'ot>xd2 'ot>c7 49 'ot>C3 'ot>b6 50 'ot>b4 e4 51 WC4 e3 52 'ot>d3 WC5 53 'ot>xe3 �xd 5 54 'ot>f4 'ot>e6 55 'ot>g5 d5 56 'ot>xh 5 'ot>xf6 0-1

The g-pawn isn't going any further for the moment, but there are ample opportuni­ ties for Black to create unpleasant threats against the white king. This comes about because White's pieces are somewhat re­ stricted, the light-squared bishop being tied down to the d5-pawn and his rook to the blockade of the g-pawn.

In the next example White's pieces are not on good defensive squares, which ren­ ders his kingside pawns vulnerable to at­ tack.

13 .9 P.Svidler-B.Gelfand Polanica Zdroj 2000

73 ... 11f2+ 74 'ot>gl .l:tb2+ 75 '>t>fl '>t>f4 76 ng2 l:tbl+ 77 'ot>e2 I:!.b2+ 78 'ittfl .l:tbl+ 79 �e2 'itt e4 80 .i.g8 .l:tb2+ 81 '>t>fl llbl+ 82 �e2 �b2+ 83 'ot>fl !1b3 84 'itt e 2 �a3 85 .if7 .if4 86 .ie6 Hecht points out that also after 86 'it'f2 .l::t f3+ 87 'ot>e2 .i.g3 88 .ie6 'it>f4, Black can fi­ nally advance the g-pawn. 86 .i.g3 87 .if7 g4 88 .ih5 .l:!.e3+ 89 �d2 .i.el+ 90 Wdl g3 0-1 White cannot hold onto the d-pawn and stop ... 'ot>f3 at the same time, e.g. 91 .l:!.a2 (91 .if7 'ot>f3 and 91 .ie2 .ic3 92 1:tg1 'ot>xd5 are no better) 91.. . .i.f2 92 na4+ 'ot>xd5 93 l:tg4 �c5 94 'ot>c2 d5, and the combination of two ad­ vancing passed pawns is decisive. •.•

57 f4 Ita2+ 58 'ot>hl lIa3 59 'ot>g2 .l:ta2+ 60 'ot>hl .i.f2 61 g4 Alternatively, 61 'it>g2 .i.e1+ and the g­ pawn is lost. 61 ... fxg4 62 hxg4 .te3 63 lIf8 .l:ta4 64 g5+ 'ot>h5 65 �h8 .ixf4 66 !:txh7+ 'ot>xg5 67 t!.xe7 Although many pawns have now been exchanged, Black can still aim to win with confidence. 67 'ot>f6 68 I!f7+ 'ot>e5 69 .l:th7 After 69 'itt g2 'it>e4 White's king won't have escaped the back rank for long. 69 ... lIa2 70 1!h3 'itte 4 71 'it>gl .ie3+ 72 'it>fl g5 73 lIg3 •.•

334

In the case of an extra outside passed pawn, additional threats are usually re­ quired if the stronger side is going to be suc­ cessful. In 13.10, for instance, pushing the b­ pawn has limited value as the b5-square can be easily blockaded. So Rublevsky turns his attention to the other flank.

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i t e - c o l o u re d B is h o p

1 3 . 10 S.Rublevsky-A.Beliavsky Hyderabad 2002

36 i.d2 g5 If the pawn stays on g7 it will be a target, e.g. if 36 ... h5?! 37 iLc3+ (more precise than 37 l::tc7 �e6) 37 ... 'it>g6 38 :c7 lle7 39 b4 and Black is tied down. 37 l::t C7 i.e6 Postny suggests 37 .. .l:te7! as an im­ provement, when 38 h5?! fails to 38 ... i.e8. 38 h5 Fixing the h6-pawn as a weakness. 38 ... :e7 39 i.C3+ 'litf7 40 :c6 f4 41 f3 :d7 42 b4 :d 5 43 'it>f2 It's more or less zugzwang, as whatever Black does now gives White some chances. 43 ...'it>e7 If instead 43 ... :f5, White has 44 :c7+ 'it>e8 45 :h7. 44 iLg7 g41 (see following diagram)

45 fxg4 Another try is 45 i.xh6!? :d2+ (after 45 ... g3+ 46 'it>e2 l::t xh5 47 iLxf4 :h2 48 i.xg3 l::txg2+ 49 iLf2 White has two passed pawns) 46 'it>f1 :b2 47 iLxf4 (or perhaps 47 :c7+ 'it>d8 48 l:tg7 i.c4+ 49 'it>e1) 47 ... :xb4 48 iLe3

and there are still winning chances. 45 :d2+ 46 'it>f1 :d1+ 47 'it>f2 .:t.d2+ 48 'it>e1 •••

White could still play for the win with 48 'it>gl ! i.d5 (not 48 .. .l:txg2+? as the ending with two widely-spaced passed pawns after 49 'it>xg2 iLd5+ 50 'it>f2 iLxc6 51 i.. xh6 looks dubious for Black) 49 :xh6 :xg2+ 50 'it>f1 f3 51 iLd4 with some chances. 48 l:txg2 49 iLxh6 i.xg4 50 i.xf4 i.xh 5 With only one pawn left on the board and Black so active, the draw is inevitable. 51 b5 :e2+ 5 2 'it>f1 l:tb2 5 3 b6 i.f3 54 :C7+ 'iit e 6 55 i.e3 i.d5 56 'it>e1 i.. e 4 57 i.d4 :b4 58 i.C5 :b2 59 'it>d1 :b3 60 'it>d2 :d3+ 61 'it>e2 :b3 62 l:te7+ 'it>d 5 63 i.e3 l:tb2+ 64 'it>e1 i.f3 65 'litf1 'it>d6 Yz-Yz ..•

In contrast, the absence of potential passed pawns will generally preclude win­ ning chances, but in the following example Black was nevertheless able to build up the pressure.

1 3 . 11 A.Dreev-R.Ponomariov World Team Championship, Yerevan 2001 Even if this sort of position feels like a probable draw, it still needs defending! 335

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

White will have to make several choices about how to handle his pawns and where to put his pieces (counter-pressure or just solid defence?), while Black just keeps on playing and gently probing. Then there is the question of time ticking away ...

46 ... �b4 47 ':'e3 the exchange of rooks guar­ antees the draw) 47 �xe4 fxe4 48 Ihe1 :d4 49 nel ! ':'xa4 50 ':c7+ 'it'f6 51 .l:tc6+, but win­ ning chances would then have virtually dis­ appeared. 42 ... l:!e5

31 ...g6 3 2 g3 White is already faced with the problem of how to place his pawns. 32 ... ':'e8 33 .i.b5 ':'e2 34 .i.d3 ':'e5 35 'it'g2 'it'g7 36 �b5 �a3 3 7 ':d2 .i.b4 The presence of the a-pawns gives both bishops sure squares. Another aspect of the play that follows is that, although neither a­ pawn is directly in danger, it's still impor­ tant for Black that there is potentially a sec­ ond front, as with pawns only on one wing the defender would have less to worry about. 38 ':'e2 e5 The first serious flexing of muscles. 39 ':'e4 h5 40 1:[e4 White must have considered 40 h4 to limit Black's opportunities for gaining space, but fixing another pawn on the same colour as his opponent's bishop must also have given Dreev doubts. Stohl also suggests 40 f4!?, as the exchange of a pair of pawns can be a boon for White. 40 .. J:td5 41 ':e7 e4 42 ':e411 Stohl analyses 42 .i.c4 :f5 43 .i.e6 lIf3 44 .i.d5 .i.e 1 45 ':'c2 f5 46 1:te2 1:td3 (after

43 .i.e6? The decisive mistake, as Black's pawn front now becomes too much for White to handle. Instead, after 43 M! e3 44 fxe3 l:!xe3, White's weak point on g3 can be covered by 45 1:tf4 followed by 1:.f3. 43 ...f5 44 :e2 g5 1 From here on it's difficult to find a con­ vincing defence. 45 ':e4 'it'f6 46 ':e2 .l:te7 47 .i.b5 If 47 l:!c4 (to prevent ... f4), Black can switch to another plan: 47 ... e3 48 fxe3 ':'xe3 intending ... g4, after which ... M will give White awkward problems. 47 ... f4 48 ':e6+ 'it'e5 49 gxf4+ gxf4 50 ':'g6 Stohl recommends 50 f3! :g7+ (50 ... e3 is also promising) 51 c;,i(fl exf3 52 1:.h6, but then Black wins with 52 ... .i.c5. 50 ... 'it'f5 5 1 1Ig8 ':e7 52 1:.e8 This trick doesn't impress Black, who isn't distracted from his plan. 52 ... f3+ 53 'it'f1 l:tg7 54 :e4 'it'e5 55 i.c6 :g4 56 .i.b5 After 56 h3? Black has the strong riposte 56 ... e3! . 56 ...:g2 57 h 3 'it'd 5 1

336

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i t e - c o l o u re d B is h o p

58 l:tc8 Or if 58 I!c2 Jtc5 59 i.d7, Black again has 59 .. e3. 58 ...i.C5 59 .l:ldS+ 'it>e5 60 .l:leS+ f4 61 ncS .txf2 62 1:tC4 0-1 Dreev resigned without waiting for 62...�g3. An instructive game which shows the danger for the defence of allowing one's opponent too much leeway. .

Black really needs to use his king to thwart a possible invasion; e.g. 41...f6! 42 .l:ld1 (or 42 l:tg1 l:ta3+ 43 'it'e2!? i.xf4 44 .l:lxg6+ f7 and White's pieces are suddenly on insecure squares as Black threatens 45 ... .l:!.e3+) 42 ... e6 43 .l:lgl .l:la3+ 44 g4 .l:la4 with excellent drawing chances. 42 g4 .l:la4 This looks sensible enough, but Karpov must have overlooked the following ... 43 .l:!.d11 .l:lC4 After 43 .. J:txe4 44 .l:ld7+ f6 45 l:txc7, Black's position is hopeless. 44 .l:ld7+ fS 45 i.xg6 .l:lxf4+ 46 g5 .l:lc4 White's active pieces create problems for Black's king, despite the limited number of pawns. 47 h5 i.f4+ 4S f6 .l:lcS

Sometimes the weaving of a mating net makes the difference. In the following ex­ ample Karpov failed to defend accurately.

13 . 12 M.Krasenkow-A.Karpov Polanica Zdroj 1998 49 h61 Another neat tactic to make progress. 49 ...gS If 49 ... i.xh6, then 50 l:th7 threatens .l:lh8 mate as well as the bishop. 50 i.f5 .l:leS 50 ... 1i.xh6 is no better: 51 i.e6+ h8 52 g6 with a mating net. 51 i.e6+ hS 5 2 i.C4 1-0 Black has no defence against g6 and mate on h7.

40...i.c7 41 i.e4 �a3+?1

Karpov was more fortunate in the next example. 33 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

13.13 A.Karpov-N.Short Candidates semi-final (5th matchgame), Linares 1992

39 �e3?! Short wrongly rejects an interesting pawn sacrifice that targets his opponenfs king; i.e. 39 .. Jlb4+! 40 'Oti>xa5 (40 'Oti>a3? loses material to 40 ... �c5 41 :c2 a4! 42 �xa4 l:tb1+) 40 ... �c3 41 'Oti>a6 'Oti>c7! and now: a) 42 %:te3? :b6+ 43 'Oti>a7 �d4 wins (Ftac­ nik). b) 42 :c2? :b6+ 43 'Oti>a7 :c6 44 a4 (also hopeless is 44 �a4 :c4! 45 �b3 :c5, as noted by Short) 44 ... �d4+ 45 'Oti>a8 �c5 and Black unpins and mates quickly. c) 42 :f2!, the best defence, is not men­ tioned by Ftacnik in Chess Base nor by Short in Infarmatar. For instance, after 42 ...:b6+ 43 'Oti>a7 �d4 44 l:H7+ 'Oti>c8 45 l:tf8+ 'Oti>d7 46 'Oti>a8! e4 (or 46 ... �c5 47 :h8) 47 :f7+ (not 47 lH4? �c5 48 I:txe4? as Black mates with 48 ...'Oti>c7) 47 ... 'Oti>d6 48 1:.f4 'Oti>e5 49 :f7, White is still fighting despite playing without a king! So 39 .. J:tb4+ is dangerous for White, but not necessarily hopeless. 40 :e2 :e8 41 l:te2 'Oti>e5 42 l:te4 �d4 43 ::'e2 White relies on his light square control to hold. 43 'Oti>b6 44 �e2 I1d8 45 l:te2 �al 46 .te41

'Oti>e5 47 .ta6 I1d6?1 Short criticizes this, recommending in­ stead 47 ... l:td4+ 48 'Oti>b3 l:r.b4+ 49 'Oti>c2 e4 when Black has more control than in the game. 48 :e2+ 'Oti>b6 49 �e4 e4 50 'Oti>b3 �d4 51 .te2 �e5 52 ::'e4 'ue6 53 'uel ,Ue5 54 llf1 .td6 5 5 'uel h5?

•••

•••

338

Here Ftacnik suggests 55 ...:f5 56 101ft l:.g5 57 g4 l:k5, which certainly keeps Black on top after 58 llf7 due to 58 ... a4+! 59 'Oti>b2 (if 59 'Oti>xa4?, 59 ... :c3 mates) 59 ... .te5+ 60 'Oti>b1 a3 followed by 61.. . .tb2 and White is totally tied down. However, White should prefer 58 .tc4, when the result stays in doubt. 56 :e81 l:td 5 57 a4! This move ensures that his bishop will have a strong square on b5. 57 ...�e5 58 :e4 �d4 59 :e8 �e5 60 i.b5 e3?! 60...11d6 was somewhat better. 61 :e6+ 'Oti>b7 62 'Oti>e4 e2 63 I1e6 :g5 64 .te6+ 'Oti>e7 65 .tf3 .tb4 66 l:be2 'Oti>d6 67 l:.e8 h4 Yz-Yz In the following example White has the more active pieces and uses this fact to rap­ idly generate a passed pawn. Then the main characteristic of what follows is endless ma­ noeuvring, as White tries to make progress without allowing counterplay or too many exchanges.

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i te - c o l o u re d B is h o p

13 . 14 M.Botvinnik-S.Gligoric Hastings 1961/62

25 h41 a4 26 h5 gxh5 27 �xh 5 Now the black h-pawn is isolated and difficult to defend. 27 ... .ib2 28 �e2 a 3 29 �b5 h6 30 'it'g2 b6 31 f4 �e8 32 Wh3 !Ie5 3 3 �d3 'it'g8 After 33 .. Jk6, White plays 34 'it'g4 'it'g8 35 'ith5. 34 �d6 �e3 3 5 'it'g4 'it'g7 36 �g6+ 'it'f8 3 7 .if5 b 5 38 1::. b 6 Botvinnik decides to chase the b-pawn rather than the h-pawn, but this may not be the best decision. Instead, after 38 1::.xh6! b4 it seems that White retains excellent winning chances. Following 39 i.e6 'it'g7 40 1::.h5, for instance, the key line 40 ...b3 41 i.xb3 .uxb3 42 axb3 a2 43 na5 a1"iIV 44 1::.x a1 i.xa1 45 b4 looks winning for White. 38 ... 1::.e 5 39 �d371 The last chance to capture on h6. 39 h5+ 40 �h3 'it'g7 41 i.xb5 i.d4 42 �d671 i.f27 Instead, the rook ending after 42 .. .lhb5! 43 1::.xd4 llb2 44 'it'h4 looks unappetizing for Black, but in my opinion is actually drawn; e.g. 44... �g6 45 lId6+ 'it'f5! 46 1::. d5+ 'it'f6 47 'itxh5 �xa2 48 1';1a5 lla1 ! (48 ... 1::.h2+?, how­ ever, is losing: 49 'it'g4 a2 50 �a6+ 'it'f7 51 •..

'it'g5 �g2 52 g4 'it'g7 53 1::.a7+ Wg8 54 f5 'it'h8 55 J:ta8+ �h7 56 f6 �f2 57 :a7+ 'it'g8 58 'it'g6 etc) 49 'it'g4 a2 (if White's g-pawn or king were actually on g2 then he would be able to win, but here he can't) 50 �a6+ 'it'f7 51 f5 (or 51 'it'f5 1::.g 1 52 �a7+ 'it'g8 53 .l::!. xa2 1::. xg3 54 'it'f6 1::.b3 etc) 51...'it'g8 52 'it'g5 l:::t g 1 ! 53 l:txa2 �xg3+ 54 'it'f6 J:tf3 with a book draw. 43 i.d3 1::. e 3 44 'it'g2 i.e5 45 .l::!. d 5 i.e7 46 �f3 'it'f6 47 'it'e2 l::t e 5 White cannot afford to exchange rooks. 48 lld7 �e1 49 1:[a7 1';1a1 50 J::t a 6+ 'it'g7 51 .te4 1::.e 1 52 i.d 5 1::.e 3 5 3 i::t a 7 'it'f6 54 1136+ �g7 5 5 'it'f2 h4 56 gxh4 i.xh4+ 57 'it'e2 Despite the limited material White can keep probing away to create difficulties. 57 ... i.e7 58 i.e4 llh3 59 .ids �e3 60 i.b3 .l::!. h 3 61 i.e6 l:tg3 62 i.e4 l:!.h3 63 i.b3 1::.e 3 64 f5 1::.g 3 65 'it'f2

65 J1g5 Now if 65 ... 1::.c3 White makes progress with 66 l:tg6+ 'it'h7 67 lle6. 66 .te2 1::.g 4 67 �f3 �gl 68 i.d3 lle1 69 �e4 'it'f7 70 'it'e5 1:[e1+ 71 'it'f4 �e1 72 i.e4 .l';1e5 73 .tf3 1::. b 5 74 i.e2 l:te5 75 i.h5+ 'it'g7 76 i.d1 1::. b 5 77 i.e2 llb2 78 .ib3 llf2+ 79 'iit>e 4 �g2 80 'it'f3 There was no hurry in the old days of slow time controls and adjournments. The longer one kept up the pressure, the more likely one could provoke a mistake from one's opponent - or if it just wasn't clear •.

339

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

how to win, a typical ploy was to kill time until the adjournment and analyse at home. 80 ...:g1 81 i.C4 i.h4 82 i.d s i.e7 83 i.b3 :f1+ 84 �e4 :e1+ 8 S �d3 %1g1 86 �e3 %1g4 87 'iit>f3 :g1 88 i.C4 i.h4 89 �e4 i.e7 90 �dS :te1 91 :tg6+ �h7 92 i.b3 :te2 93 �d4 :tf2 94 �es �e2+ 9S �d S i.b4 96 �d4 :td2+ 97 �es i.C3+ 98 �e6 l:th2 99 �e7 i.g7

100 �7? Fatigue? Just when he is so close to his goal Botvinnik stumbles at the final hurdle! Instead, 100 l:.xg7+! �xg7 101 f6+ wins, e.g. 101...�h6 102 f7 l'!e2+ 103 i.. e 6. 100 ... i.h6 101 :ta6 :tf2 102 i.e6 i.C1 103 f6 i.gs 104 i.b3 �h6 Vz-Vz There's no longer any way of advancing the f-pawn without losing it in the process. The next three examples also feature ex­ change sacrifices by the attacking player, to breach the defender's attempts at construct­ ing a fortress.

13 .15 G.Flear-D.Rumens Nottingham 1979 An exchange sacrifice can often simplify the winning technique.

340

36 :txc6+1 bxc6 3 7 �g3 'iit> b 7 3 8 h4 :tfS 39 �g4 :tf8 40 �gs :g8+ 41 �h6 �c8 42 hS 42 i.g7 is simpler. 42 ... �d7 43 �h7 l:lg1 44 i.g7! �e7 4S �g81 lId1 46 i.f8+! 1-0 The h-pawn goes the whole way - al­ though there is still one way White could go wrong: 46 ... �f6 47 h6 l:th1 and now the im­ patient 48 h7?? would be very slack due to 48 . . J:tg1+ 49 �h8 �f7 followed by ... :td1 and Black wins! Instead, the careful 48 i.g7+ wins, as after 48 .. .'itt g6 49 e4 l:th5 50 f5+! exf5 51 e5 Black cannot stop both pawns, or of course 51 exf5 �xf5 52 h7 etc.

1 3 .16 P.Nikolic-R.Hilbner Tilburg 1987

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i t e - c o l o u re d B is h o p

First of all White improves his pieces. 30 l:td1 �f8 3 1 lld4 Ita8 32 nb4 1:Ia7 3 3 i.f4 'itte8 34 �e3 34 i.b8 can be comfortably met by 34 ... lIa5 35 .l::i.xb7 1::txc5. 34 'it;>dS 3 5 �d4 �cS 36 �e5 �d7 3 7 �d4

57 ...�d 5 5S �f5 c5 59 g6 i:ta2 60 g7 .i:!.aS 61 i.g5 c4 62 i.f6 Holding up the c-pawn leads to victory. 62 .. .1:;[c8 63 i.C3 lIaS 64 cj;(g6 �e4 65 f5 Ita 2 66 f6 1-0

.•.

'ittc s

In order to break down the light square blockade the white king will have to invade, so an invasion route must first be prepared. 38 i.e5 g6 39 i.d6 kta 5 40 �e5 i.a2 41 �f6 1:[b5 If Black temporizes, White can calmly create a passed pawn on the kingside. 42 1:[xa4 ki.xb2 43 i.e5 l:!.b5 44 l:taS+ �d7 45 .td4 i.d5 46 nfS .l::!. b 3 Black's active rook limits the potential for advancing the white pawns with any effect. 47 l:tb8 �xa 3 48 .nxb7+ �e8 49 i.e5 .l:!.a2· 50 1:[e7+ �dS

51 l:txf7! The only way to get at the light squares. 51 ... i.xf7 52 �xf7 .l:1.xg2 53 f4 �d7 54 'i¥;?xg6 But not 54 i.d6? .l:i.f2 55 �xg6 �e6 and the light square blockade is re-established! 54...�e6 55 i.d4 �d 5 56 i.g7 The flashy 56 f5! �xd4 56 f6 'It>xc5 57 f7 1:[f2 58 �g7 wins in a more straightforward manner, albeit by a single tempo. 56 ...�xc5 57 i.h6 Nikolic intends to advance his g-pawn first.

1 3 .1 7 N.Short-G.Kamsky PCA Candidates semi-final (4th matchgame), Linares 1994

It's not clear here that an extra pawn is sufficient to generate a win by force, but with the better structure White can certainly make things unpleasant for the defender! 29 ... .l:td 5 30 h4 h5?! A difficult and perhaps erroneous deci­ sion. In opposite-coloured bishop endings often the correct defensive posture is to put the pawns on the same colour as one's bishop. The contrary of most other endings! The idea is that the opponent cannot then attack these pawns with his minor piece. Here this is a controversial decision as the g5-square becomes very useful for White, as we'll see. Instead, Ftacnik suggests 30 ... h6 when, despite the fact that the pawns are on dark squares, there is no easy invasion route for White. 31 i.g5 l1d4 32 ki.e7+ �g8 33 �g3 �d7?! Ftacnik extols the merits of a more active 341

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

defence with 33 .. J�b4! 34 b3 c4!, which cer­ tainly leads to some interesting variations: for instance, 35 .id2 (35 i::te4 is met by the thunderbolt 35 ... cxb3!) 35 ... cxb3 36 .ixb4 (36 J::t xg7+ �xg7 37 .ixb4 bxa2 38 .ic3+ �g6 is just drawn) 36 ... b2 37 �e1 (the tricky 37 �xg7+ �h8 38 .i.c3 b11V 39 a4!, aiming for a decisive discovered check, can be defused by 39 ... 1Vc2 40 l!c7+ �g8 41 axb5 axb5 and Black is the only one with winning chances) 37 ... .id3 and Black simplifies into a drawn opposite-coloured bishop ending. 34 l:!e5 e4 35 .if4 g6 36 .l:!.e6 �f7 3 7 1:I.b6 l:td 5 38 .ig5! l:!d7 39 .if6 �e7 40 .ie3 The bishop is now ideally placed to sty­ mie any counter-activity on the queen's flank and allow White's king the possibility of invasion. The immediate threat is .l:tf6+ when Black will lose the g-pawn. 40 .. J:te6 41 .l:r.b7+ "*,, e 6 42 "*"f4

47 �g7 Preparing a neat winning combination. White is probably winning after the al­ ternative 47 h5 gxh5 48 gxh5, but Black can create technical problems after 48 ... �d5 49 h6 l:1g6+ 50 �h5 lIg1 51 �xa6 l:Ih1 + 52 Wg5 l:tg1 + 53 �f4 l:f.hl . 47 �d 5 48 .if6! �e6 49 .l:!.xg6! Sacrificing the exchange to eliminate the g-pawn. Facing two connected passed pawns the rook will struggle to defend. 49 ...i::te 5+ 50 �h6 e3!? 51 bxe3! Stronger than 51 .ixc3+ .ixg6 52 �xg6 .l:!.c4 53 �h5 �f7, when I'm not sure if White can win. 51 .ixg6 52 �xg6 1:I.a 5 53 h5 �xa2 54 h6 .l:i.h2 55 g5! 1-0 White easily wins the race and stops the a-pawn: 55 ... a5 56 h7 a4 57 h8'iV �xh8 58 .ixh8 a3 59 c4 etc. •..

•..

Giving up the bishop for the opponent's last pawn(s) occurs fairly frequently, but in the next example the sacrifice is successful even though the stronger side retains one pawn on the board.

1 3 .18 V.Anand-A.Karpov Candidates quarter-final (1st matchgame), Brussels 1991 42 .ia4 It seems natural to play 42 .. Jk5 to keep the king out of g5, but this fails in a surpris­ ing manner: 43 g4 hxg4 44 fxg4 .ia4 (Black temporizes, but ... ) 45 �a7 .ib5 46 .ib4 �d5 47 .l:!.e7+ �f6 48 g5+ and it's suddenly mate! 43 �a7 The immediate 43 �g5! is also good. 43 .ie2 44 g4 hxg4 45 fxg4 .id1 46 �g5 .ie2 After 46 ... .l:!.c5+ 47 �xg6 .ixg4, White picks off a second pawn with 48 Iha6+. .••

••.

342

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d o p p o s i t e - c o l o u re d B is h o p

48 .l:td81 Keeping active and delaying the advance of Black's e-pawn. Inferior is 48 l:th5 l:tf1 49 .l:txg5+ �f6 50 .lir.h5 e4! when the e-pawn will take some stopping!, e.g. 51 g5+ �f5 52 l:th6 l:gl and ... e3 is coming. 48...i.xg4 49 :g8+ eM7 50 l:Ixg5 �f5 51 l:h5 e4 52 �b2 �g6 5 3 llh1 l:td6 54 l:td1 d 3 5 5 cxd3 e31 This strong move leaves White on the ropes. 56 i.e5 J:te6 57 �d4 e2 58 .l:le1 �xd3+ 59 g6 60 �d3 �f5 61 'it>e3 i.. c1 + 62 �f2 i.. xf4 63 Wg2 and draws. However, Black can also pin and this creates serious problems for White's har­ mony! After 52 ... l:tc5! 53 Ita7+ (if 53 Wf3, af­ ter 53 ... h3 54 :a7+ �f8 White's pieces are poorly placed) 53 ... Wf8 54 i.. f1 (54 i.. d 3 is met by 54 ... h3) 54 .. .lk1 55 i.. h3 .l:.c4+ 56 �f3 i.. c1 the win is on the cards. 53 i..f1 .l:.f2 54 .:ta2 ! 54 i..h3? i s just bad after 54 . . .i.. c l . 54 ... Wg7 5 5 i.. h 3 Wg6 56 i.. g4 l:tg2 5 7 i.. h 3 1:I.c2 58 f5+! exf5+ 59 i.. x f5+ Wg5 60 e6! 1:I.C4+ 61 �d3 Yz-Yz The rook ending that follows from the inevitable simplification is drawn: 61.. ..l:.c3+ 62 Wd2 .l:.c7 63 .l:.xb2 Wxf5 64 exf7 l:Ixf7 65 We3 'it>g4 66 1Ig2+ Wh3 67 ilg8 etc.

13.20 A.Delchev-G.Flear Creon 2001 This position illustrates an interesting de­ fensive resource. 344

3 3 g5+ In the post-mortem my opponent was most disappointed that he hadn't won and blamed this move. At first he believed that 33 i.. d 5! would do the trick. It's true that White would then threaten to invade start­ ing with g4-g5+ which, when combined with l:te6+ and .l::i.e7+, would at least win the h­ pawn. However, Black has a resource: 33 ... c4! !, which can be described as a disrup­ tive pawn advance. If the pawn is captured Black can threaten to go into a drawn rook ending af­ ter 34 i.. xc4 l:Ib4 35 lIxd2 .l:.xc4. Avoiding this with 35 .l:.e6+ Wg7 36 .l:.e7+ Wf8 37 l:tc7 .l:!.xa4 38 We2 i.. c 1 would still leave Black favourite to draw. The alternative try 34 g5+ leads to a sharp race: 34 ... �g7 35 l:Ie7+ Wf8 36 l:tf7+ We8 37 ilxh7 c3 38 i.. f7+ �f8 39 i.. xg6 c2 40 i.. xc2 (an example of the stronger side giving up the bishop, but the three connected passed pawns don't win) 40 .. .lhc2 41 g6 l:tc4! and Black saves himself. So after 33 i.. d5, the surprising reply 33 ... c4!, based on obtaining counterplay and the threat of drawish exchanges, seems to work. 33 ... �g7 34 �d5 Wf8 35 h4 i.. c 3 36 l:Ie6 �b4 37 l:tc6 1:I.xa4 38 l:txc5 �d2 39 i.. C4 .l:!.a3+ 40 �e4 lIe3+ 41 �d 5 l:te7 42 �c8+ Yz- Yz

C h a pt e r F o u rt e e n

I

Roo k a n d B i s h o p vers u s Rook a n d sa m e - co l o u red B i s h o p

This is the third or fourth most common NQE of all. Statistics indicate that it crops up in one game out of every twenty-five played. Probability

So u rce

Large Database

(MegaBase 2005 plus recent games) 2600+ games My Database

4.46% 4.0% 4.3%

With same coloured bishops, slight positional advantages can become decisive if the op­ ponent has no threats or any general counter-activity. We will notice that this is particularly the case if the weaker side has a so-called 'bad bishop', i.e. one that is restricted by its own pawns. Another instructive type of position is where there are opposing majorities, but one side has the slightly more active pieces; it is usually this side's majority that becomes the more dangerous. With the bishops operating on the same colour squares, they are more likely to be ex­ changed than in the previous chapter with opposite bishops. So simplification into rook end­ ings is more of an issue here. We start, however, with a couple of examples where rooks were exchanged erroneously. 55 �xh4??

14. 1 N.Short-V .Korch noi

Horgen 1995 (see following diagram) To exchange or not to exchange, that is often the question.

A very poor move, since it turns out that the bishop ending is lost. It was advisable to keep rooks on; e.g. 55 �g8+ 'it>f5 56 'it>d4 �b7 57 �d3+ when a draw would be the likely outcome. 55 ... 'it>xh4 56 �e2 'it> g 3 57 'it>d2 �f3 58 �C4 J.. g4 59 i.d5 i.h3 60 i.e4 i. g 2 61 i.d3 f3 62 'it>e3 f2 63 i.C4 i.d 5 64 i.f1 i.c6 0-1

345

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

46 .ib6 :xf3 47 'it>g2 with only slight win­ ning chances for Black.

It's zugzwang. White cannot prevent the king getting to gl, after which the win be­ comes clear: e.g. 65 .ic4 'it>g2 66 .id3 'it>gl 67 .ic4 .ig2 68 .ib5 .ifl 69 .id7 .ia6 70 ii.h3 .ic8, or similarly 65 'it>d2 �h2 66 'it>e3 'it>gl 67 ii.d3 ii.g2 68 .ib5 .ifl etc. How do we explain Short's error? Putting aside the probability of a miscalculation in zeitnot, which may well have been the case, there is a psychological aspect to such deci­ sions. After the defender has suffered the pressure of a difficult defence, there is a natu­ ral tendency to try and force a clear-cut draw­ ing line, rather than allow the tension to be maintained. Here is another example.

43 ... .l:txb6 44 .ixb6 a4 45 'it>g3 .iel 46 iLd4 'it>e6 47 .ie3 'it>d5 48 'it>h4 �e4 49 �h5 'iit b3 50 'it>g6 .ixb2 5 1 .ixb2 'it>xb2 52 'it>xg7 a3 53 'it>xh6 a2 54 g5 fxg5 5 5 �xg5 alii' 56 h4 'ii'g l+ 0-1 In the following position my mistake was basically a miscalculation.

14 . 3 A.Chaumont-Ci.Flear Gien 2004

14 . 2 A.Harley-Ci.Flea r British Lea gue 2004 (see following diagram)

43 .l:f.b6? A poor moment to exchange rooks as the bishop ending is lost. Was this a miscalcula­ tion brought on by a desperate need to ease the pressure? Whatever the case, when in doubt the defender should seek the ex­ change of pawns not pieces. So a better idea was 43 b3! .l:f.xb3 44 ii.xa5 .l:f.a3 45 .l:f.a7+ 'it>g6 346

2 5 ... b4? It turns out that I should have taken the opportunity to exchange bishops with 25 ... .id4! 26 .ixd4 .l:f.xd4 27 'it>gl (if 27 h4

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u re d B is h o p

:d2 28 �b1, Black can activate his king by 28 .. .'�f7 29 'it>h2 �f6 30 �g3 �e5 with a deci­ sive invasion in mind) 27 ... �d2 28 �f2 �d1 + 29 �f1 �xf1 + 30 �xf1 e5 and the king and pawn ending is winning for Black; for ex­ ample, 31 We2 b4 32 �e3 g5 33 g3 �f7 34 f4 (if White just waits Black brings his king to cS, e.g. 34 Wd2 'iite6 35 �e3 'it>d6 36 �d2 �c5 37 e3 b3 38 'it>d2 'it>d4 etc) 34 ... gxf4+ 35 gxf4 exf4+ and wins. 26 h3 c3 27 bxc3 b3 28 1:!.b1 b2 29 Wh2 Itc2 30 c4 .ia 3 3 1 11d1? Here my opponent missed 31 c5! �xc5 32 .txb2 �b5 33 .ixa3 l::t xb1 34 .id6 with every chance of holding the endgame. 31 ... �C1 32 .ixb2 .ixb2 3 3 �xc1 .ixc1 34 Wg 3 f7 35 'it>f2 �f6 36 'it>e2 �e5 3 7 'it>d3 .ta3 38 g 3 g5 39 h4 h6 40 hxg5 hxg5 41 f4+ gxf4 42 g xf4+ Wxf4 43 �d4 .ib2+ 44 �d3 .ie5 45 c5 �f3 0-1 In fact my error on move 25 was actually the result of two miscalculations: I underes­ timated the strength of 25 ... .id4 and, sec­ ondly, overestimated that of 25 ... b4.

45 h3 gxf3+ 46 �xf3 � g6 47 h4! .if6? Tsesarsky criticizes this move which he claims to be a positional mistake. Instead, he recommends placing the black h-pawn on a light square with 47 ... h5! which reduces White's chances to dominate. At first sight this looks awkward after 48 1:!.g5+ �h6, but there doesn't seem to be a way to profit from the discovered check; e.g. 49 .tIe5+?! �g6 50 l':txe6+ fxe6 51 g4 hxg4+! 52 �xg4 .ib2 53 h5+ Wf6 54 .if4 �g7 Black survives, while after 49 g4 hxg4+ 50 l:txg4+ Wh7 51 �g5 there would also be reasonable chances to hold. 48 h5+ �g7 49 .if4 .ie7 50 J:lb5 .id8 51 e5 .ie7 The panicky 51...f6? drops the h-pawn af­ ter 52 .tIb7+ .ie7 53 exf6+ . 52 �g4 .id8 5 3 �f5 A consequence of allowing White to play h4-h5+ is that he gains access to this square. 5 3 .ie7 54 �b7 .id8 5 5 l:tb8 .ia5 56 �a8 .iC3 57 nd8 .ib4 58 g4 .iC5 59 g5 hxg5 60 .ixg5 Now the big threat is .if6+. 60 .ie7 61 h6+ �h7 62 .ixe7! �xe7 63 .tIf8 'it>xh6 63... �a7 leads to a book win for White af­ ter 64 �f6 l:ta1 65 �xf7 �xh6 66 e6. 64 �f6 J::t e 6+ 65 �xf7 ! J::t x e5 66 �f6 1-0 Threatening mate as well as the rook. .•.

.••

Now we tum to a couple of examples where all the pawns are on one side.

14.4 V.Topalov-Cu.Hansen Istanbul Olympiad 2000

14 . 5 P.Leko-V.Kramnik World Championship (5th matchgame), Brissago 2004 (see following diagram)

Here White has an extra, but doubled pawn. With pawns only on the same wing an extra one is generally insufficient in either a rook ending or bishop ending, so it's best for White to retain pieces for the moment. 26 �g2 34 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

to stop this Black would have to place his rook on a4 anyway. 40 e5 i.e7 41 llb7 �f8 42 %:tb8+ �g7 43 Iti>f3 llc4 44 �e2 l:ta4 45 �d3 �h4 46 i.d4 An awkward move to meet. 46 ... 1:ta3+ 47 �C2 na2+ 48 �d3 l:Ia 3+ 49 �c4 l:ta4+ 50 �d 5 l::t a 5+ 5 1 �c6 lita4 52 �c5 i.e7+ 5 3 �d 5 l::t a 5+ 54 �e4 :a4 5 5 l::tc 8 With White's pieces finding their best squares, the only question is whether or not there is a breakthrough available. 5 5 ... i.h4 Although we seem to be deep into the game this is actually a new move! Some­ times opening theory extends even as far as the NQE phase. In the previous game to reach this point (O.Gritsak-Y.Kruppa, Ukrainian Team Championship 2002), White was also better after 26 l1b5 g6 27 f4 l::t d8 28 i.b4 h5 29 �g2 .l:td1 30 i.a5 �g7 31 f5 gxf5 32 l::txf5 �g6 33 e4 i.d8 34 i.c3 l::t d3 35 i.e5 i.h4 36 i.f4, but was ultimately unable to exploit his extra pawn. 26 ... g6 27 f4 �g7 28 1:tb7 ne6 29 l::t d 7 J:!e8 30 l::t a 7 Black would be happy to exchange off ei­ ther piece, for instance after 30 �f3 l::t d 8! ' 30 ... lle6 31 i.C5 ':'c6 32 lla 5 i.C3 3 3 llb5 l::t a 6 Leko suggests 33 .. .£5 34 llb7+ �g8 as an alternative defensive set-up. White would then have to try and organize an eventual central advance involving f2-f3 and e3-e4. 34 l::t b 3 i.f6 3 5 l:Ib8! The threat of i.f8+ forces Black to commit himself. 3 5 ... h5 After 35... i.c3?! 36 i.f8+ �f6 37 e4 Black's pieces would have lost their coordination. 36 l::t b 5 i.c3 37 l::t b 3 i.f6 38 e4 1:ta 5 39 �e3 l::ta 4 Lukacs points out that after 39 ...l::t a8 40 e5 �e7 41 ':b7 �f8 42 �f3, White would like to be able to play f4-f5 followed by �f4xf5. So 348

56 e6+! �f6 Lukacs analyses the alternative 56 .. Jhd4+ 57 �xd4 �xf2+ 58 �e5 fxe6 59 �xe6 i.d4 60 f5 as winning for White, al­ though I must admit I'm not quite sure how the win is achieved after 60 ... gxf5 61 �xf5 i.e3. I would prefer 60 l::t c7+ �h6 61 h4! i.f2 · 62 �f7! �h7 (62 ... i.xh4 gets mated after 63 �g8) 63 �f8+ �h8 64 l::t g 7 and wins. 57 e7! l::t x d4+ 58 �e3 i.xe7 59 �xd4 White has engineered the win of the ex­ change, but Black should still be able to hold. 59 ... i.h4?! Various commentators agree that the al­ ternative 59 ... f5! builds a fortress; e.g. 60 l::tc7 �f6! 61 l::t c6+ �f7 62 �e5 �d8 63 f3 h4 64 �d6 i.e7+ 65 �d7 i.f6 and White has no way through. 60 f3 f5! 61 ':c7+ �6 62 �d 5

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u re d B is h o p

62 ....tg3? A natural enough move attacking the pawn, but unfortunately for Krarnnik it seems to be the losing move. In fact the bishop is more flexibly placed on e1, e.g. 62 ... .te1 ! 63 l:k6+ 'iit f7 64 'it>e5 .ta5! 65 l:tf6+ (if 65 l:k8 then 65 ... .tb6 etc) 65 ... 'it>g7 66 'it>e6 i.c3! 67 l1f7+ �g8 68 l1d7 .tb2 and as the white king is denied access to f6 and f7, the game would be drawn. 63 :c6+ 'it>g7 64 'iite 5 h4 After 64 ... .th4 65 l:tc7+ 'it>g8 66 'it>e6 'it>f8 67 l:tc8+ 'it>g7 68 nb8 .tg3 69 l:tb7+ 'it>h6 70 h4 73 'it>f6 'it>xh3 74 g4) 77 'it>g4 h3 78 l:ta2+ .tf2 79 :xf2+ 'it>xf2 80 'it>xh3 etc. 65 :C7+ 'it>h6 66 ':C41 'it>g7 67 'it>e6 .th2 68 l1C7+ 'it>h6 69 �7 1-0 In the following example Black has a clear extra pawn. Kasimdzhanov is able to solve the technical problems and thus con­ vert his advantage.

14 . 6 E.SutoYsky-R.KasimdzhanoY Batumi (rapid) 2001

28 'it>f6 29 f3 More combative is 29 b4!?, after which Black should avoid ... a6, as getting the pawns stuck on light squares would suit White. Instead, 29 ... 11c8 would be more to the point. 29 l:td8+ 30 'it>el 'it>e5 31 fxe4 .txe4 32 l1C7 Aiming for a pure rook ending with 32 .i.f3!? would be met by the exchange 32 ... .txf3, followed by ... l:td7, keeping things tidy at the back. 3 2 .txg2 Better than 32 .. .£5 33 .tf3, when the active rook on the seventh could prove to be awk­ ward for Black. 33 l::t xf7 i.d5 34 l1g7 'it>f6 3 5 l:tC7 l:th8 36 'iitf2 l:th3 3 7 l:td7 i.e4 Black now aims to advance his king to f4, and then give a check on h2 to force White's king to the back rank. 38 l:td4 'it>e5 39 l:ta4 Or if White tries 39 .l:.d7 then 39 ... l:tb3 40 l:td2 'it>f4 etc. 39 'it>f4 40 i.fl l:tb3 41 l1xa7 Otherwise after 41 l:tb4 the continuation 41 ... .l:.xb4 42 axb4 g5 43 i.e2 g4 44 i.f1 g3+ 45 'it>gl 'it>e3 wins easily. 41 l:txb2+ 42 'it>gl 'it>g3 Black could also push the g-pawn with 42 ... g5. 43 l1a4 i.f3 44 11a 5 •..

•••

•••

•••

•••

349

Pra c t ica l E n dg a m e P l ay

If 34 ... :c7, - then White has a neat ma­ noeuvre to win the a-pawn: 35 i.. a6 i..f5 36 i..b5 i.. c2 37 i.. xa4 i.. xa4 38 :xa4.

44 ...':b1! The g-pawn is not needed as Black forces a winning king and pawn ending. Such a committal solution should only be under­ taken when one is absolutely sure it works! 45 ':g5+ f4 46 ':xg6 i.. e 2 47 ':f6+ e5 48 ':f2 i.. xf1 49 l:txf1 ':xf1+ 50 xf1 d4 5 1 e2 c3 5 2 e3 52 a4 is no better as Black wins after 52 ... b4 53 'It>d3 xa4 54 c3 b5 55 b2 b4. 52 ... b5! 0-1 But not 52 .. .'�b3?, when Hecht points out that 53 d4 xa3 54 c5 would draw.

3 5 �C3 h4 Trying desperately to get some counter­ play in motion. 36 gxh4 ':h8 37 i.. d 5 ! Placing the bishop on an excellent square before advancing the c-pawn, when Black will soon be obliged to enter a losing rook ending. Instead, as Ftamik points out, 37 c6 i.. e6 38 ':xa4 d6 39 l:ta2 l:lxh4 40 Itf2 would be less dear. 37 ... ':xh4 38 b4

In the next example White's extra dou­ bled pawn turns out to be significant.

14 . 7 G.Kasparov-V.Topalov Amsterdam 1995 (see following diagram)

2 5 b2 i.. e 6 26 C4 f8 27 l:ta1 a s 28 c5 e7 29 c4 i.. d 7 30 i..f3 ':b8+ Ftamik refutes the passive defence 30 ... ':a6 by 31 'It>c3 f6 32 i..b 7 ':a7 33 .l:te1+ f8 34 c6 etc. 31 C3 a4 32 �a 3 ':c8 33 d4 h5 34 i.. b 7 ':d8 350

38 ...I:txh2 Ftamik found a neat win after 38 . .':xf4; i.e. 39 c6 i.. e6 40 i.. xe6 fxe6 (if 40 ... �xe6 the king is decisively cut off by 41 .l:f.d3!) 41 'iti>c5 .l::i.h4 42 .l::!.xa4 l::!. xh2 43 .l:ta8! and the c-pawn .

R o o k a n d B is h op v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u re d Bis h o p cannot be denied its promotion.

39 c6 .i.e6 40 .i.xe6 fxe6 41 �C5 �d8 42 l:lxa4 1-0 If 42 ... ':'f2 43 l:taB+ �c7 44 :a7+ �cB 45 ':'g7 l:txf4 46 �b6 wins, as the extra c4-pawn

14 . 9 J.Polgar-A.Grischuk Linares 2001

acts as cover for White's king. This shows us that a pair of doubled passed pawns, when given good support, can be a powerful force in this NQE. Tactical play is the order of the day when there are passed pawns or restricted kings, as in 14.B for instance, where White exploits Black's badly hemmed-in king to generate some neat winning tactics.

14 . 8 A.Shirov-V.Topalov Linares 1995

Polgar is material down but is able to en­ gineer a perpetual check.

42 i.xg6 �g7 43 .i.h5! Not only does the bishop keep out of trouble on h5, it participates in restricting Black's king.

43 ... .i.f1 44 ':'xe6 b4 45 l:t g6 + From now on White has a draw in hand, e.g. 45 l:te7+ etc. So over the next few moves Polgar toys with the possibility of winning.

45 �h8 46 l:tb6 .i.b5 47 g5 l:la1 After 47 ...b3 4B l:tbB+ �g7 49 l:tb7+ �fB? (49 . . �hB would still draw) 50 e6 b2 51 e7+ •.•

.

�gB 52 l:txb5! White even wins.

48 g6 l:tg1+ 41 l:tb4 l:tC7 :Xc4 l:td5 43 l:txd4! ':'xd4 44 .i.c3, while after

There is nothing better; as after 4B . . . b3 49 �f4 b2 50 l:tbB+ �g7 51 l:tb7+ �fB 52 l:tb8+ �e7 53 l:tb7+, the foolhardy 53 . . . �d8? would

41 ...c3 42 .i.f4! .i.c5? 43 .i.e5+ �fB

even lose to 54 g7.

If 41 ...l:txa5 White wins a piece by 42

44 l:tbB it's

already mate!

42 a6 ':'c6 After 42 ... c3 43 .i.f4 c2

44 ':'xd4 c1 'iV, al­

though the rook ending would be winning for White, mate in two with 45 .i.e5+ and 46 ':dB is much simpler!

43 a7! .i.xa7 44 .i.C3+ �f8 45 l:tb7 l:ta6 46 ':C7 l:lxe6 47 l:txa7 1-0

49 �f4 b3 50 l:tb8+ �g7 51 l:!.b7+ �h8 5 2 l:tb8+ �g7 5 3 l:tb7+ � h 8 5 4 l:tb8+ Y2-Y2

14 . 10 N.Short-B.Gelfand Tilburg 1990

351

P r a c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

In this sharp position it turns out that Black's pieces are the more harmoniously placed. That being the case it's no surprise that the tactics work for him. 37 .. Jle4 38 i.g5 If 38 �hb5 Black wins with 38 .. Jle2+ 39 'ith1 (39 'it'h3 i.g1 is just horrible) 39 ... i.f2 40 i.g5 i.xg3 41 a4 f4 42 a5 f3, as noted by B6nsch. 38 ... �e2+ 39 'It>h1 i.f2 40 'it'g2 !Ie2 41 .l::tx b5 h6! A star move. The bishop has nowhere to hide! 42 ..txh6 ..te3+ 43 'it'f1 ..txh6 44 h 5 A last trick. 44... ..te3 If 44 ... gxh5? then 45 �b6+ regains the bishop. 45 hxg6 �f2+ 46 'it'e1 �g2 47 g7 l.lxg3 48 'ite2 f4 49 �b8 �xg7 50 'it'd3 �f7 51 'it'e4 f3 ! The simplest win, as the f-pawn will go all the way. 52 'it'xe3 f2 53 �b6+ 'it'd5 0-1 It's important to try and keep one's pieces coordinated.

14 . 11 A.Shirov-Z.Hracek Ostrava (6th matchgame) 1998

352

3 5 ...�b2? Hracek has gotten so carried away with his own plan that he fails to realize that his pieces are on unfortunate squares. After the superior and safe 35 ... �a4, Black retains some pressure. 36 �g3 b4?? Black had to play 36 .....te5, but then White seizes the initiative with 37 �a3 and 38 llxa6. 37 .l::te 3 'it'f8 37 ... ..te5 loses to the brutal 38 �xe5! dxe5 39 'it'xb2. 3 8 ..tg3 1-0

14 . 12 G.Kamsky-A.Karpov Dortmund 1993

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u re d Bis h o p

All Black's pieces are to be found on the d-file and White has an opportunity to ex­ ploit this factor... 38 i.g6? Now Black can organize himself, after which the connected passed pawns win the game for him. Instead, the paradoxical 38 �c1 ! :d4 39 i.xd7 would be strong for White, as both 39 .. .'iti'xd7? 40 :d1 and 39 ... :xd7? 40 :d1 ! win for White, due to the fact that the black king is outside the square of the h-pawn. 50 Black would have to re­ sort to 39 .. Jhc4+! 40 cJi>b1 :h4 (not 40 .'iltxd7? 41 l:.h1 and h-pawn queens again) 41 l1d1 l:1xh6, but White has excellent winning chances after 42 i.fS+ cJi>c7 43 :d7+ �c6 44 l1xa7 or 43 ... cJi>b8 44 :f7. 38 ... l1h2 39 h7 cJi>e7 40 i.d3 i.e6 41 :gl f5 42 :g7+ cJi>f6 43 :xa7 e4 44 i.e2 f4 45 b3 f3 46 i.dl i.f5 47 cJi>Cl i.xh7 48 :b7 cJi>e5 49 :xb6 :Xa2 0-1 ..

king are both situated on the long diagonal. Black thus ensures the advantage. 47 :h3 The point is, of course, that 47 exfS loses to 47 ... i.dS. 47 .f4 48 :h7+ i.f7 49 i.e2 :d2 50 cJi>fl cJi>f6 51 h4 i.g6 52 .l:1a7 i.xe4 53 i.g4 Or S3 :xa6+ cJi>fS S4 i.xbS f3 and Black's passed pawns are by far the stronger. 5 3 f3 54 l:txa6+ cJi>g7 5 5 :a7+ cJi>f8 The checks run out and Black threatens to queen. 56 :d7 i.d3+ 57 cJi>el f2+ 58 cJi>xd2 fl'ii 59 :d8+ cJi>e7 60 :d7+ cJi>e8 61 :xd3 'ii'f4+ 62 lIe3 'iid4+ 0-1 .•

••.

14 . 14 N.Short-Y.Seirawan Amsterdam 1992

In the following few examples, surpris­ ing tactical resources crop up based on the unfortunate position of one side's pieces.

14 . 13 F.Vallejo Pons-T.Radjabov Linares 2004

28 e6? Instead, 5eirawan gives 28 a3! i.cS 29 b4 i.xf2+ 30 cJi>xf2 :d2+ 31 cJi>e3 lhb2 without an assessment, but after 32 e6 White is on top. 28 e3! A strong blow that turns the outcome of the game on its head. 29 fxe3 Alternatively, if 29 'it>f1 :d1+ 30 c,t>e2 :d2+ 31 cJi>xe3 ':xb2 and then ... i.c5+ will be strong, or if 29 e7 .l:!d1+ (not 29 . . . e2? 30 ..•

46 f51 Exploiting the fact that White's rook and •••

353

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

exd8'iV+ �xd8 31 .i.f6+ �e8, due to 32 J:le7+! .i.xe7 33 .i.c3, after which White's king will go to g2 and f3 and capture the pawn) 30 �g2 �d7 then White will still have to give up a piece to stop the e-pawn queening. 29 .. Jld1+ 30 �g2 l:td2+ 3 1 �f3 l:txb2 3 2 h4 J:txa2 3 3 h 5 IIh2 34 l::t h 7 l:th4 3 5 h6 a s 36 �e2 36 e7 �d7 37 e8'iV+ �xe8 38 J:lxb7 :txh6 39 'it>f4 lH6 40 e4 fxe4+ 41 'it>xe4 Itd6 wins for Black, who will maintain his own pawn and come over to win the white b-pawn. 36 ... b6 37 �d3 �d8 Intending ... 'it>e8, followed by ... .i.f8, and then winning the h-pawn. 38 nh8+ If 38 l:td7+ 'it>e8 39 h7, then 39 ... .i.e7 wins. 38 ... �e7 39 h7

Threatening 11a8, when if Black captures on h7 he gets hit by a skewer, e.g. 39 ... .i.c5?? 40 11a8 11xh7 41 11a7+ etc. 39 �f6! 39 ... �xe6?? 40 Ite8+ wouldn't be any good, so Black intends first ... .i.e7 and then ... �xe6. The game is effectively over. 40 e7 .i.xe7 41 11b8 1:txh7 42 11xb6+ �g5 43 11b7 �g6 44 11b6+ .i.f6 45 11a6 11e7 46 .l:ba 5 .i.g5 0-1 •••

In the following position White gets hit with a thunderbolt.

354

14. 1 5 J.Timman-V.Salov Amsterdam 1991

47 ... .i.a4!! A bolt from the blue! White is unable to cope with the threats on both wings. 48 l:te2 If 48 bxa4 b3 49 .i.xb3 1:hd2 and the g­ pawn will promote. Pushing the h-pawn is also forlorn: 48 h5 .i.xb3 49 h6 .i.xc2 50 h7 .l:tb3+ 51 �e2 and now Black wins easily af­ ter 51...g2 52 h8'ik gl'ii', or even 51 . . . .i.xe4!? with the idea 52 h81i' .i.f3+! and mate in two moves. 48 ... .i.xb3 49 .i.d3 11xe2+ 50 �xe2 .i.d1+1 0-1 Now if 51 �e3 b3 52 .i.b1, then 52 ... .i.c2 and 52 ... �d8 both lead to an easy win. Utilizing the king in a positive way to help out with an attack is not that unusual.

14 . 1 6 J.Ehlvest-P.Nikolic Reykjavik 1991 Material is equal, but the superiority of Black's king tips the struggle in his favour ...

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u red B is h o p

33 ... l:th2 34 .l:th7 �cS I 3 S hS �d4 36 �g1 :g2+ 3 7 �f1 �e3 3 8 fS l:td2 39 �g1 If 39 �e1 .i.f3 and mate is inevitable. 39 ...:'xd3 1 0-1 White resigned as 40 cxd3 c2 41 l:tc7 .i.c6 is decisive. In the following example Kramnik shows how the king can be at the centre of opera­ tions.

14 . 17 V.Kramnik-P.Leko Budapest (rapid match, game 1) 2001

vance of the d-pawn. 2S ... h6 26 ':xb7 l:td7 27 l:tb4 .i.d1+ 28 �fS �g7 29 h41 f6 30 hxgs hxgs Krasenkow notes that 30 .. .fxg5 is inade­ quate after 31 e5, since if 31...l:txd5 then 32 l:tb7+ �f8 33 �f6 l:[d8 34 .i.c4 wins. 31 esl fxes Kramnik's analysis shows that 31 ..Jhd5 doesn't hold due to White's massive king: 32 l:tb7+ �h6 (if 32 .. .'ii' h8 then 33 �g6 .i.h5+ 34 �xh5 l:txd3 35 �g6 is convincing; or 32 .. .'it'f8 33 �xf6) 33 .i.b1 ! l:tc5 (or 33 .. .fxe5 34 �e6) 34 �xf6 .i.c2 35 .i.xc2 Ihc2 36 e6 wins. 3 2 �xes White now has an ideally-placed king which is ready to support the d-pawn. 32 ...f3 As Krasenkow points out, Black cannot stay passive; e.g. 32 ... l:te7+ 33 �f5 l:td7 34 .i.e4 �h6 35 :b1 .i.h5 36 l:th1 wins material . 3 3 gxf3 .i.xf3 34 d6 .l:1d8 3 S .i.fs .i.c6 36 d71 .l:tf8 After 36 ... .i.xd7, 37 I:tb7 wins a piece and the game as it's the RRP . 37 .l:td4 1-0 After 37 ... 11d8 38 �d6 the king muscles in decisively In the next example, too, the white king eventually plays a starring role, but first of all White is concerned with making the pawn structure as favourable as possible.

14 . 1 8 E.Rozentalis-I.Glek Budapest 1996 (seefollowing diagram)

2S �g41 Energizing the king. The monarch will be used to pressurize Black, either in a direct attack on the king or by supporting the ad-

3 1 C41 Rozentalis's thematic plan is to fix a number of Black's pawns on dark squares, leaving his opponent with a bad bishop as well as a space disadvantage. 355

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

31 ... llc6 32 .l:.d 5 iLe7 33 iLf4 'ii;f7 34 'it>d3 'it>e6 35 iLe3 .uc8 If Black tries 35 ... g5 to gain some space, Blatny suggests 36 f4! gxf4 37 iLxf4 iLf8 38 i..e3 obtaining extra weaknesses to work on. 36 f4 iLd6 37 f5+ 'ii; e 7 38 b3 as 39 a4! All of Black's pawns are on dark squares, which means that he will be rather weak on the other colour complex, as we shall see. 39 .. .l:tc6 After 39 ... J:.b8, Blatny notes that White can steer the game into a clearly favourable rook ending with 40 i..xc5 iLxc5 41 Itxc5 1:txb3+ 42 'it>d4! l:tg3 43 1ha5 ilxg4+ 44 'it>d5. 40 'it>e4 1Ic8 41 iLf2 Itc6 42 :td3! Freeing up the d5-square for his king. 42 ... iLc7 43 Itf3 iLb6 44 iLg3 iLa7 45 'it>d5 'it>d7 46 J:te3 l:lb6 47 iLf4 .l:tb7 48 iLd6 'it>d8 49 J::!. d 3!

Removing the rook from the a7-g1 di­ agonal (where it may be tactically suspect) and placing it on a useful square. The threats of iLxc5, 'it>c6 and 'it>e6 are too many for Black to cope with. 49 ... 'it>d7 49 ... oU.d7 would be met by 50 'it>c6, fol­ lowed by �d5, when the c-pawn falls. 50 iLxC5 iLxC5 51 'it>xc5+ 'it>C7 52 J:te3 'it>d7 53 'it>d4 .l::t b 8 54 'it>c3 The king has done its job and returns to hold b3. Now the rook is free to go on the offensive again. 54 ... g6 55 �d3+ 'it>C7 56 fxg6 .l:tg8 57 J:td5 J:1xg6 58 J:txa 5 l:txg4 59 l:tf5 �g6 60 as 'it>d6 61 a6 1-0 In 14.19 Black also suffers from having a bad bishop, although this seems less evident at first sight.

14 . 19 G.Flear-F.Doettling French League 2006

In fact Black's broken pawns on the king­ side, plus his queenside pawns fixed on light squares, ensure a positional advantage for White. 32 i.. d 7! .l:.e5 3 3 b4! Fixing the queenside. 3 3 i.. b 7 34 l:td6 l:te1+ •••

356

R o o k a n d B is h op ve rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u red Bis h o p

After 34 .. J:te2 35 �c6 �xc6 36 ':'xc6 Black loses a pawn. 35 Wf2 .l::ta 1?! A lesser evil is 35 ...:bl 36 ':'xf6 l:tb2+ 37 WeI �xg2 (not 37 .. Jhg2? 38 �e6+ c:3;; g7 39 ':'£7+) 38 .l::txa6 �d5 39 �xb5 .l::t xh2, but I be­ lieve that White would still win after 40 �c6. 36 �e6+ Here 36 �h3! was more precise, defend­ ing the g2-pawn and threatening to win the bishop with a couple of checks. Then curi­ ously after 36 ... l:ta2+ 37 �e3 l:txa3+ 38 �f4 Black's bishop has no squares. 36 c:3;;f8 37 .l::t b 6 White gets in first and wins the a-pawn. 37 ... �e4 The best defence was to activate the king with 37 .. .'ii? e 7!, though after 38 .l::txb7+ �xe6 39 .l::tb6+ �d5 40 .l::t xa6 �c4 41 g4 �b3 42 .l::txf6 ':'xa3 43 .l::t£7 White still retains good winning chances. 38 ':'xa6 f5?! 39 �xf5! Ita2+ 40 �e3 �xf5 41 ':'f6+ �g7 42 .l::txf5 .l::txg2 43 .l::tx b5 litxh2 44 a4 h 5 45 a s 1-0 •••

32 ... c:3;;f8 33 �f2 �e8 34 .l::te 7 .l::ta 4 35 �e3 .l::t b4 36 .l::t b 7!? Giving up a pawn to go active, which is a common ploy in rook endings. Staying pas­ sive with 36 .l::tc2 would be met by 36 ... c:3;; d7 37 c:3;;e2 .l::tb3, followed by ... c:3;;e6-f5 with un­ pleasant pressure. 36 ... .l::tx b2+ 37 �f3 .l::t b 3! A precise move, and better than 37...b4?! 38 !tb8+ �d7 39 l:Ib7+ �d8 (after 39 ... �e6 White has the annoying 40 .l::tb6+ �f5 41 .l::tb7) 40 �g5! �xg5 41 hxg5 �e8 42 �f4 and White has sufficient activity in the rook end­ ing, e.g. 42 ...b3 43 e6! fxe6 44 c:3;;e5 etc. 38 �e2 b4 39 :tb5 l:tb1 40 'it>d3 40 litxd5 is too slow after 40 ...b3 41 .l::tb5 b2, e.g. 42 d5 �a3 43 d6 :tel or 43 �d4 .l::thl . 40 ... b3 41 �e3 b2! 42 �e2 42 l:txb2 .l::t xb2 43 �xb2 �d7 is the same. 42 ... .l::t e 1 43 �d2 b1'iV+ 44 ztxb1 .l:!.xb1 45 d7 46 g4 0-1

14 . 2 1 V.Bologan-V.Sa lov Enghien les Bains 1999

357

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

The best chance, as other moves are hopeless: 81...exf5 allows White's d-pawn to decide events after 82 Wxc6 1:1xh4 83 d5, and 81...gxf5 loses to 82 i.xh5 1:1xh4 83 i.xf7+ Wd8 84 i.xe6 We8 (or 84 ... f4 85 Wd6 and mates) 85 i.d7+ Wf8 86 i.xc6.

Black's bishop is restricted by his pawns and his rook is tied down to the a-pawn, but how can White win with no obvious way to invade? Furthermore, zugzwang doesn't seem on the cards and pawn breaks don't look convincing ... 61 l:tC5 i.d7 62 i.d3 Wd6 63 i.C4 WC7 64 Ite5 Wd6 65 i.d3 WC7 66 1:[C5 Wd6 67 b41 Creating a passed pawn, even if it ex­ changes off Black's main weakness. 67 ... axb4+ 68 Wxb4 1:[b8+ 69 WC3 1:[a8 70 a s WC7 71 i.e2 l:!.b8 72 ':'c4! Heading behind the pawn, despite allow­ ing some counterplay. Obviously Bologan would have had to calculate before burning his bridges, but this seems to be the only way to put Black under pressure. For in­ stance, if 72 i.d3 to stop the counter­ invasion, then 72 .. J!a8 calmly repeats. 72 .. J!bl 73 l::ta 4 :gl If 73 ... Wb8 in order to block the pawn, White would exchange rooks by 74 1:[b4+ 1:[xb4 75 Wxb4 winning easily. 74 a6 i.c8 75 a7 i.b7 76 a8. i.xa8 77 llxa8 l:I.xg3+ 78 Wc4 Wd7 79 Wc5 1:[h3 80 1:[a7+ We8 (see following diagram)

81 f5 ! Creating targets in the black camp. 81 .. J!xh4 358

82 fxg6 fxg6 83 i.f3 Wf8 84 i.xc6 l:.f4 85 1:1al Wf7 86 lIel l:.f5+ Lars Bo Hansen remarks that if 86 ...h4, White piles up on e6 with 87 i.d7 1:1f6 88 Wd6. 87 Wd6 1:1f4 88 i.e4 Wf6 89 WC5 h4 90 i.c6 h3 Or here i f 9 0.. J!f5+ then 91 Wd6, while 90 ... We7 fails to 91 d5 1:1f6 92 d6+. 91 i.d7 h2 92 1:1xe6+ Wg5 93 1:1el :f2 94 i.c6 Wf4 9 5 d 5 :c2+ 96 Wb6 1:td2 97 WC7 g5 98 d6 g4 99 d7 Wg3 100 d8. :xd8 101 Wxd8 Wf2 102 l:thl g3 103 �e7 1-0 In example 14.22 the fluid centre would seem to mitigate against any possibility of Black having a restricted bishop, but it turns out that he isn't able to improve his central structure.

14 . 2 2 V.Zvjaginsev-S.Lputian Poikovsky 2003 Black's pawn structure is slightly inferior

R o o k a n d B is h o p ve rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u red B is h op

due to his extra pawn island. Furthermore, there is a distinct possibility that his bishop will continue to be restricted by his own central pawns.

20...e5 Dautov suggests 20 .. .'.ti>f7, when White could keep some advantage with either 21 h4 e5 22 h5, or 21 f4. 21 f4! i.e6 This enables White to obtain a dominat­ ing square for his king on d4, but despite several ways of handling the pawn struc­ ture, there's no simple solution to Black's problems: a) 21...d4? loses a pawn to 22 fxe5 dxe3+ 23 �xe3. b) 21 ...exf4 22 exf4 'iit f7 23 l:te1 (or 23 'iite3 heading for d4) 23 ... i.e6 24 h3 d4 25 g4 with a mobile majority, whereas d4 is blockaded and weak. c) 21 ... e4 22 i.e2 'itt f7 23 :el .l:!.xel 24 �xel h6 25 h4 'it>f6 26 'itt d 2 g5 27 g3 with a good vs bad bishop ending in prospect. d) 21...'oti'f7!? 22 £Xe5 c.te6 could be best, keeping White's edge to a minimum after 23 11£1 according to Dautov. 22 fxe5 l:te8 23 'iit e 3 l:txe5 24 'iit d 4 :g5 24 ... l:te8! might be a lesser evil, but then White will bring his rook into play with 25 11£1 and follow up with b4-b5 and thus keep Black under pressure. 25 g3 l:tg4+

In this way Black at least dislodges the king, whereas 25 ... 'iit f7 26 :£1+ f8! 28 b5 'It>e7 29 f5 It's understandable that White again chooses not to play too passively. It seems that 29 a4 is too slow because of Glek's in­ tended 29 ... d5! 30 as (or 30 cxd5 'It>d6) 30 ...dxc4 31 b6 axb6 32 a6 'It>d6 33 a7 ne8, or even 32 ... cxd3! 33 a7 llxd2 34 a81¥ l:te2 etc. 29 d5! 30 fxg6 hxg6 31 ..tf4 dXc4 32 .i:!.a 3 l:tb2 3 3 �xa7+ �f6! 34 h4 Black would meet 34 a4 with 34".g5, shifting the bishop and enabling the c-pawn to go all the way. 34 �xb5 3 5 i.g5+ 'It>g7 36 a4 �bl+ 37 'It>h2 c3 0-1

32 . .J1dl+ 3 3 �el l:td2 3 4 lle2 I:td4 3 5 'It>f2 Although 35 h3 puts a further pawn on the wrong coloured square, at least it would slow down Black's kingside advance. Black's kingside play now proves to be much quicker than White's efforts on the opposite wing. 3 5 g4 36 ..td3 h4! 3 7 fxg4 1:.f4+ 38 'It>gl .l:txg4 39 c3 .td5 40 b4 'It>e6 41 l1f2 r!g5 42 c4 ..tc6 43 ..tfl axb4 44 axb4 f5 45 .l:f.a2 f4 46 :ta6 •••

••.

••.

46 .txg2! 47 .i:!.xb6+ 'It>f5 48 nb8 h3 49 c5 e4 50 1H8+ After 50 c6 Adams intended 50."e3 51 c7 .te4+ and mates (52 .tg2 l:.xg2+ 53 'It>f1 .td3+ etc). 50 'lt>e5 5 1 c6 e3 52 .txg2 .l:f.xg2+ 5 3 'It>fl .l:!c2 54 b5 'It>e4 5 5 'It>el 'It>f3 56 'It>dl .l:!C5 57 .l:!e8 'It>f2 0-1 •••

14 . 2 4 P.Leko-M.Adams Dortmund 1996

••.

Black's slightly more active pieces ensure that his majority is the most important. 3 60

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u red Bis h o p

14. 2 5 N.Short-B.Gelfand Novgorod 1996

Black has more than his fair share of weaknesses and certainly has to careful, but the main factor that gives White the better chances is his active rook. 40 �d7? After 40 ... d5?! White's best is 41 exd5+! (Short's 41 :c6+ .ltd6 42 exf5+, with the idea of 42... gxf5?! 43 .i.c5 l:td7 44 f4, is safely met by 42 .. .'.t>d7!) 41 ...�xd5 42 .l:lg8. Then if Black chooses to save his pawn with 42 .. .£4 43 .i.f2 g5, he will be confronted with the problem of saving his king after 44 1:tg6!. He would then have to play 44 .. .l:k7, allowing 45 l::tb6, when he loses a pawn after all and under inferior circumstances. The best move may be 40 ... .i.f6, after which Huzman proposes 41 c4 bxc4+ 42 �xc4 with a clear advantage. Black is unable to get any counterplay, so the passed b­ pawn will be significant. 41 �g8 .i.f6 After 41...'it>f7 White has 42 l::tb8 winning a pawn. Instead, Black can keep material equality with 41...f4 42 .i.f2 g5, when 43 l::tb8 d5! 44 l::tb6+ (if 44 .l::i. xb5, Black has 44 ... dxe4+ 45 �xe4 i::t d 2 with counterplay) 44 ... Wf7 45 exd5 llxd5+ is clearly better for White ac.•.

cording to Huzman (more active rook, better bishop, better majority), but Black may at least be able to put up stiff resistance since his rook is limiting White's options. 42 lIxg6 f4 43 .ltf2 �f7 44 l:th6 �g7 Chasing the rook away and forcing it to a slightly awkward square, but any temporary inconvenience for White is minor compared to having two pawns in the bag. 45 nxh 5 �g6 46 .l:!.f5 �h7 The forcing line with 46...d5 gives Black some counterplay, but this is insufficient according to Short, who analyses 47 h4 dxe4+ 48 �xe4 l:td2 49 h5+ �g7 50 i.c5 'it>f7 (if 50 .. .Ihg2 then 51 i.d6, intending to cap­ ture on e5) 51 h6 'It>g6 (if 51...l:Ixg2, 52 h7 Ith2 53 .i.d6 'It>e6 54 l::txf6+ wins) 52 h7 as win­ ning, since after 52 ... i.g7 53 J:If8! �xh7 54 .l:lb8 White will in fact win on the queenside. 47 h4 �f7 The rook endgame after 47 ... i..xh4 48 .i.xh4 .l:!.xh4 49 ':'f8 l:th2 50 l::td 8 'it>f7 51 l:Ixd6 is winning for White, according to Huzman. 48 g4 fxg3 49 .i.xg3 'it'e6 50 h5 d5 51 i..e 1 l::t d 7 52 h6 dxe4+ 53 'iitxe4 b4 54 i.. g 3 i.h8 55 l::tf8 .i.f6 56 .i.xe5 .i.xe5 57 l::t e 8+ lie7 58 J:Ixe7+ Wxe7

59 cxb4! The most efficient. Instead, the queen ending resulting from 59 �xe5 bxc3 60 h7 c2 61 h8'iV c1'iV would take a long time to win. 59 ... .i.c3 60 b5 'It>d6 61 f4 1-0 361

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

In the next example there isn't any great superiority due to the pawn structure, it's just that all three white pieces are somewhat more active than their black counterparts.

14. 26 P Svid l er C Lutz Frankfurt 1999 .

-

.

to attack by the rook. 27 ...fS After 27 ...bxa5 28 l1a1 �d6 29 l:lxa5 l:lc7 30 �b4 the threat of c4-c5 will be too much for Black; e.g. 30 ... g5 31 fxg5 hxg5 32 c5+ and Black cannot capture as 32 .. Jhc5 loses to 33 1:!.a6+. 28 ii.f3 gs 29 g3 .l:lcS 30 �b4 eS 31 fxeS l::[x es 32 axb6 axb6 33 ii.ds

33 ...lIe2?! 21 IId1 ii.e8 Aiming for kingside counterplay, but this Naturally 21...ii.c6? would lead to a lost seems to be too slow. The last chance was rook ending after 22 ii.xc6 bxc6 23 .l:ld7. 33 .. .£4! when White will have to decide how 22 f4! Increasing White's grip. The advance 22 ' to react. The simplistic 34 gxf4 gxf4 35 .l:lfl nf5 36 ii.e4 nh5 is just equal, while Alter­ c5 seems less accurate, e.g. 22 ... �f8 23 f4 b6! man shows that 35 .l:ld4?! .l:lf5 36 .l:le4+ �f8 37 (releasing the pressure on the queenside) 24 cxb6 (if 24 c6? Black has 24 .. .l:k8 25 lild6 lte6? is refuted by 37 ... ii.f7! 38 ':'xb6 ii.xd5 39 �e7) 24 ... axb6 25 nd4 �e7 26 ':b4 f6 27 �d4 cxd5 f3. However, White can maintain the �d6 28 h4 ii.c6 29 g4 only led to a draw in advantage by finding the right entry route M.Tal-V.Korchnoi, Candidates semi-final with his rook: 34 .l:la1 ! �d6 (on 34 ....l:lf5 Svidler gives 35 g4! .l:lf6 36 ii.f3 .l:ld6 37 c5! (7th matchgame), Moscow 1968. l::t d4+ 38 �c3 bxc5 39 b6 and wins) 35 .l:la6 22 ...�f8 23 b4 �e7 24 bS This alternative (i.e. to c4-c5) queenside �c7 36 .l:la7+ �c8 37 gxf4 gxf4 38 .l:lh7 h5 39 .l:lh8 �c7 40 l:lfS. advance further restricts Black's bishop. 34 ':a1 .l:lb2+ 24 ... b6 25 a4 ':c8 Now if 34 ... f4, then 35 gxf4 gxf4 36 lla6 Seeking solace in the bishop ending after 25 ... .l:ld8 26 .l:lxd8 �xd8 27 �b4 �c7 28 c5 £6 l':tb2+ 37 �c3 .l:lxh2 38 .l:lxb6 f3 39 .l:le6+ �d7 29 a5 would still leave White with excellent 40 .1:.f6 f2 41 b6 will win. Once the white rook chances, as his earlier activity has enabled is behind the passed f-pawn Black lacks a credible defence. him to advance his majority first. 3 5 �C3 l:lxh2 36 .l:la6 f4 26 �b3 h6 27 asl 36 ... .l:lh3 is too slow after 37 .l:lxb6 .l:lxg3+ This will expose Black's remaining pawn 362

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u re d Bis h o p

38 'iitb4 h5 3 9 l:!.e6+ 'iit d 8 4 0 b 6 etc. 37 gxf4 'iitd 6 38 :xb6+ 'iitc s 39 l:tb8 l:th3+ 40 'iitd 2 �g6 41 b6 Ilh2+ 42 'iite l l:tb2 43 b7 l:tbl+ 44 'iitd 2 'iitd4 45 lld8 l:tb2+ 46 'iite l l:tbl+ 47 'iitf2 l:tb2+ 48 'it>gl ':'bl+ 49 �h2 1-0 The following example is similar, in that White's more active pieces lead to him rap­ idly making something out of his queenside majority.

In 14.28 Black's difficulties come about because he has two weaknesses.

14 . 2 8 P .Nikolic-B.Macieja German Lea gue 2002

14 . 2 7 Z.Hracek-R.Oa utov Lippstadt 2000

31 b41 axb3+ 32 axb3 11b7 With no counterplay in view for Black (if 32 .. J!a8 then 33 b4 �d6 34 �b3), his major­ ity is unusable, whereas White's can expand. 33 b4 �f2 34 .l:i.f4 �e3 3 S l:tg4 �gs If 35 ... f6 White switches back with 36 l:te4. Then 36 ... �g5 goes down to 37 b5 fol­ lowed by l:te6 and �d4 winning the b-pawn, whilst the bishop ending after 36 ... l:te7 37 �xe7 �xe7 is hopeless as Black cannot de­ fend the light squares; e.g. 38 �d3 .if4 39 We4 �d6 40 �d5 etc. 36 bS Fixing the weakness on b6. 36 ... 'iite 7 37 l:i.e4+ �d7 38 �xg7 .l::ta 7 39 i.d4 �C7 40 f6 l:i.a2+ 41 'iit b 3 nd2 42 �C3 1-0

30 g41 This makes the defence of e4 problem­ atic. With Black's king so distant he seems unable to defend both the a- and e-pawns for long. 30 ...'iit h 7?1 Probably too passive. Instead, Finkel suggests 30 .. J�Ie8!? 31 Wg3 l:i.eS 32 h4 �dS rapidly activating the rook with the hope of getting some counterplay against f2. 3 1 .l:!.C7 �g 8 32 h4 .l:tb8 Again 32 .. J:le8 comes into consideration. 33 .l:!.c6 'iit h 7 34 'iit g 3 �el 3 5 hS! Towards the end of the game it becomes clear that fixing the h-pawn on h6 is helpful to White's cause. 3 S .. J:tb7 36 �f41 �xf2 Finkel shows that it's rather late for 36 ... l:!.e7, as after 37 lIc5 .ixf2 38 l:haS i.gl 39 �g3 White traps the bishop! 37 .ixa s So White nets a pawn (the one on e4 is condemned), but before he can free his bishop he will need to bring his king across. 3 7 .. J:ta 7 3 63

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

If 37 .. J1e7 White has 38 l::t c7! . 38 l:tcS �h4 39 'itxe4 �gs 40 �d3 g6 41 e4 �h4 42 c,tC4 ii.. f2 43 l:td S With the king poised to go to bS Black is in trouble. 43 .. .f6 44 eS The hasty 44 �bS?! would allow Black some counterplay with 44 ... .l:.e7. 44 ...fxes 4S 1:txes l:tf7 46 �d2 I:tc7+ 47 �d3 I:td7+ After 47... gS White has both wings under control and can win without any further difficulty, e.g. 48 �b4 l:tc8 49 .l:i.e7+ �g8 50 as �c6 Sl l:Id7 etc. 48 �e2 �d4 49 hxg6+ �xg6 50 l1e6+ 'iitf7 5 1 llxh6 �g7 52 .l:ta6 �e5 53 i.. e 3 1-0 Black also has structural problems in the next example.

14. 2 9 P S vidler G Kaidanov Moscow 2003 .

-

.

Apart from the as-pawn which needs constant attention, Black also has be careful about the isolated e-pawn and even the ex­ posed one on g7. 28 �g2 �d8 29 h4! h6 29 ...hS 30 gxhS+ �xhS is just bad after 31 �xg7 i.. d2 (31 ...�xh4?? is a blunder due to 32 i.. gS+) 32 �g3 .l:td3 33 �gS+ �h6 34 �eS+. 3 64

30 h 5+ Again this space-gaining push ties Black down. 30 ... �h7 On h7 the black king is out of the game, but f6 was not a better choice, e.g. 30 ... �f6 31 �f3 (rather than 31 f4?! .l:f.d3) 31...::.d1 32 'iite4, when f2-f4 followed by g4-gS+, and i.. d4+ are both threatened. 3 1 �f3 �d1 3 2 �e4 A fine centralized outpost for the king. Kaidanov hurries to harass the king away while he still can. 32 .. . �gl 3 3 f3 The white forces are on almost ideal squares, so it's no surprise that it will be dif­ ficult for Black to defend. 3 3 . .. .l:te1 34 �d3 l:td1+ 3 5 �c2 .l:!.f1 36 f4 i.. d 6 If 36 ... �f3, simplest is 37 'itd3 �g3 38 g5 as in the game. 37 ilc4 i.. b4

38 gS! hxgs 39 fxg5 �g8 40 g6 Now Black's king is in a potential mating net. 40 .. JU5 41 ::'c8+ i..f8 42 �a8 Ibh S 43 i.. b6 �h4 43 ... �g5 44 i.. xa5 Ihg6 loses to the forc­ ing variation 45 i..b4 �f6 46 lIxf8+ �xf8 47 i.. xf8 �xf8 48 a5 etc. 44 �xa5 �C4+ 45 �d3 �c6 46 i.. e 3 �c8 47 �a7

R o o k a n d B is h o p v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u re d Bis h o p

Although Black has managed to secure the eighth rank, the white rook is equally well placed on the seventh where it supports the a-pawn on its forward journey. 47 ... e5 48 as .i.b4 49 .i.b61 Angling for a winning bishop ending. 49 .l:.b8 50 'it.>C4 .i.f8 51 l:td7 e4 52 l:td8 lbd8 53 .i.xd8 e3 54 a6 1-0 After 54 ... e2 White replies with 55 .i.a5 or 55 .i.h4. •••

Now we niques.

tum

to some defensive tech­

14 . 3 0 G.Flear-C.Bauer Montpellier 2003

Here White is on the defensive and has to be careful. 32 h3? Self-weakening. It would be better sim­ ply to temporize with 32 :f1 . I seemed to have forgotten the golden rule that 'in a solid defensive position be aware of making unnecessary pawn moves' . 32 i.h61 3 3 .i.xh6 'it>xh6 Of course if the h-pawn were still on h2, White would have nothing to fear in the coming rook ending; but as it is, he is worse and will now have to be very accurate. 34 l:tf7 •••

After 34 l:t£3 Black has the excellent 34 ...'it.>g7!, threatening just to exchange rooks and obtain a winning king and pawn end­ ing. 34 l'le3+ 3 5 'it.>c2 l:txg3 36 l:txa7 l:txh3 37 :!a6 'it.>g5 38 l:txb6 h4 39 a4? Another lemon. The correct defence is 39 :c6! 'it.>f4 40 l:txc5 'it.>e4 41 b4! and White seems to escape, or if 39 ... l:tc3+ 40 'it.>d2 h3 41 :!xc5+ 'it.>g4 42 :d5 h2 43 l:txd4+ 'it.>g3 44 'it.>xc3 h1'ii' and surely White can draw. 39 l:tc3+ 40 'it.>b2 h3 41 l:tbB l:tf3 42 b4 cxb4 43 c5 h2 44 1:th8 l:tf2+ 45 'iil' b 3 d3 0-1 •••

•••

14 . 3 1 R.Cifuentes Parada-G.Flear San Sebastian 2005

Here Black needs to find a way to stop the e-pawn and limit the danger to the g6pawn. 39 i.d5 1 40 e6 40 lld3 is answered calmly by 40 ... g7. 40 J:td61 ... and the e-pawn is going nowhere! 41 1:1. g 3 i.xe6 42 .i.x g 6+ 'it>h8 when Black had a clear extra pawn and really should have won. •••

.•

We finish this chapter with a selection of double-edged encounters. My most exciting experience in this NQE 365

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

was the following game where both players missed chances in the complications.

34 'it'g3 l:ta2 3 5 a6 'it'f7 36 1Ib7+ 'it'g6

14. 3 2 G.Flear-V.Moskalenko Fuerteventura 1992

White has an extra pawn, but Black's ad­ vanced pawns give him interesting possibili­ ties. 26 .13 27 �f1 �e6 The immediate 27 .. J!c8 is playable, as 28 l:tb7?! �e6 29 I:txa7? is impossible in view of 29 ... IIc1 and White will be punished for his greed. 28 h3!? l::!.c 8 29 a4 hS 30 g4!? An attempt to free the king. If Black re­ plies with 30 ...h4, White would have a pro­ tected passed pawn, and furthermore after 31 �a6 .l:!.c5 32 �b7 �xe5 33 .tIb4! e3 34 'lii> fl ! he soon wins a pawn. 30 ... hxg4 31 hxg4 I!.c2 32 as �xg4? Black should calmly play 32 ... 'it'f7, bring­ ing the king into the game, e.g. 33 .l:!.b7+ 'it'g6 34 �b5 .l:!.c5 when he seems to have ade­ quate counterplay. 33 'it'h2! Freeing the king and thus seizing the ini­ tiative. 33 �e6 After 33 ... �xf2+ 34 'it'g3, the tricky 34 ... .l:!.xfl 35 .l:!.xfl e3 fails to 36 .l:!.xf3!. .•

..•

366

3 7 Itxa7? The intermediate 37 .l:!.e7! is better, forc­ ing Black to commit himself, e.g. 37 ... �c8 38 lha7 .l:!.a1 39 .l:!.a8! �e6 40 a7 and Black is close to defeat. 37 .. Jla1! 38 �bS 'lii>f s 39 l::!.e 7 lIg1+ 40 'it'h2 !:tg2+ 41 'it'h1?! Here 41 'it'h3 seems to lead to a draw: 41 .. . .l:tg8 42 a7 'it'f4+ 43 'it'h2 .l:th8+ 44 'it'gl I:tg8+ 45 'it'fl lIc8 46 'it'g 1 (but not 46 'it'e 1 ? due to 46 ... e3! ) 46 .. JIg8+ etc. 41 . �dS I 41 ..Jhf2?! i s met b y 4 2 .l:!.xe6!, though Black can still draw with 42 ... e3! (42 ... 'ihe6? loses to 43 a7!) 43 .l:!.c6 'it'xe5 44 a7 .l::t a2 45 .l:!.a6 .l:t.xa6 46 �xa6 e2. 42 a7 .l::txf2 ! 43 �C4? The only defence is 43 :£7+!, when Black can try 43 ... 'it'g6! (if 43 ... 'it'xe5, then 44 �c4! �xc4 45 .l:!.e7+ 'it'f4 46 a8'iV lIfl + 47 'it'h2 .l:!.f2+ draws by perpetual check as the white king must return to the back rank, while 44 ... �a8 45 .l:!.f8 draws by perpetual attack on the bishop), but after 44 a8'iV! (44 IId7? e3! 45 �d3+ 'it'g5 46 .l:!.g7+ 'it'f4 47 .l:!.f7+ transposes to the game) 44 ... �xa8 45 e6! �d5 46 l:tf4 �xe6 47 .l:!.xe4 White seems to hold; e.g. 47 ...'it'f5 (if 47... �d5 then 48 lId4 �b7 49 �c6, and on 47 ... �f5 White has 48 .l:!.e3 .l:!.d2 49 �c6 f2 50 'it'g2) 48 �d3 !:td2 49 .l:!.e3+ �f4 50 IIxe6 .l:!.xd3 51 'it'gl with a book draw. .

.

R o o k a n d B is h op v e rs u s R o o k a n d s a m e - c o l o u re d Bis h o p

43 e3! 44 i.. d 3+ 44 i.. x d5? loses immediately to 44 ... e2. 44...'ii;>f4 45 1If7+ •..

45 'ii;>xe5?! Black has an amazing win starting with 45...i..xf7 !! 46 a8� e2 as White has no defence, e.g. 47 'fia1 (no better is 47 'iYe4+ Wg3 48 ..ixe2 l:::.xe2) 47... .1:.£1+ 48 �xf1 exf1�+ 49 ..ixf1 'ii;>g3! and Black mates by .. ,£2 and ... i..d 5. 46 .l:!.e7+ 'ii;>f4? The wrong way! Instead, 46 ... 'ii;> d 4! still wins: 47 i.. e4 1:.a2 48 i.. xd5 na1 + 49 Wh2 f2 (49 .. .lha7? 50 ':'xa7 e2 51 i.. xf3 e1� is, how­ ever, only a draw) 50 ..ig2 Itxa7 51 .1:.xa7 e2. 47 i..e 4! .l:ta2 ! 48 i.. xd5 J::txa7 49 J::txa7 e2 50 l:::.f7+ 'l.t>g5 51 .1:.g7+ 51 i.. xf3 e1�+ 52 'l.t>g2 is also possible. 51 'ii;> h 6 52 i.. xf3 e1'iY+ 5 3 tt g1 'i!Vf2 ! 54 .td1? Yz-Yz White is still drawing after 54 ..tb7 or 54 .ta8 as the bishop is kept out of trouble. But lIz-V2 ? My opponent didn't quite have enough time to find 54 ... ..t>h7! ! with zugzwang, when White loses his bishop (see example 10.1).

14 . 3 3 V.Anand-J.Timman Tilburg 1991

•.•

.••

White has the advantage in the penulti­ mate example of this chapter, but Black was able to complicate the issue and even tum the tables. A warning to us all that, even when we are better and seemingly in con­ trol, things can go wrong ...

40 g5 40 ... .l:!.c8? is disastrous due to 41 J::t xc8+ 'l.t>xc8 42 i.. xg6. 41 h5 .l:!.d8 42 f3 If White could establish his king on d4 he would be better, so it's time for... 42 d4! ... aiming to attack the e5-pawn with .. J:td5. 43 1:.c5 ..td5 Now Black brings his king up to b6 to hit the rook. 44 �f2 'it'b7 45 g4 White would like to create a passed h­ pawn, which involves preparing f3-f4. 45 �b6 46 l::tc 2 a s 47 'ii;> g 3?! More precise is 47 ..tg6! when 47 .l:t£8 48 �g3 is better for White. Instead, 47 . . . .l:!.d7! ? 48 .l:!.c8 is given by Timman as winning, but is it? Personally I doubt it because Black then has 48 ... d3! 49 .tIel (if 49 .l:!.c3 there is even 49 ... ..ixb3!) 49 . . . a4 and Black is striking back. So after 47 i.. g6 .l:!.d7 White should settle for 48 'it'g3! a4 49 bxa4 bxa4 50 f4 with a clear advantage, e.g. 50 . . . d3 51 .l:!.d2 gxf4+ 52 'it>xf4 i.. xa2 53 .l:!.xa2 d2 54 ..tc2 .l:!.d4+ 55 'it'f3 dl�+ 56 ..ixd1 .l:!.xd1 57 .l:!.xa4. •••

•••

...

..

367

Pra c t ic a l E n dg a m e P l ay

47 ... a4 48 bxa4!? This is considered by Timman to be a blunder, but in fact it's still playable. Never­ theless simpler is 48 f4 axb3 49 axb3 with the advantage, e.g. 49 ... �xb3 50 l:tb2 gxf4+ 51 xf4 �a4 52 g5 hxg5+ 53 xg5 l::t g8+ 54 'it'h6, intending 55 �g6!' 48 ... �C4!

49 �e4? White dare not play the rook ending after 49 �xc4 bxc4 50 l::txc4 d3, e.g. 51 i:tc1 d2 52 �dl �c5 53 f2 (or 53 f4 'it>c4!) 53 ... �c4 54 �e2 �c3 55 a5 l:id5 and so on. However, it's still not too late for 49 �g6!, when 49 .. J:td7 (it never seems possible to take the bishop, e.g. 49 .. .fxg6 50 hxg6 .liLd3 51 g7 .i.g6 52 axb5 d3 53 lk6+ �xb5 54 ltd6! wins, as pointed out by Curt Hansen) 50 f4 is given as unclear by Hansen, but in fact White still has the better of it; e.g. 50 ... d3 51 .i:!.d2 gxf4+ 52 �xf4 and none of Black's plans look satisfactory: if 52 ...bxa4 White has 53 g5, or if 52 ... �c5 he continues with 53 axb5 �xb5 54 a4 �c4 55 �e3 l:td5 56 .i:!.f2!. 49...d3 50 .l:td2 �C5 51 �f2 �d4 What a fantastic king! Now Black is win­ ning! 52 as b4 53 .i.b7 .i:!.d7 54 a6 .i.d5 55 nb2 If 55 �xd5 .l:!.xd5 56 a7 .i:!.a5, Black has everything under control and will win in due course. 55 ... �C3 0-1 368

Finally, an entertaining draw to bring the chapter to a close. In 14.34 White's efforts at pressing for a win led to complications where he almost lost control.

14 . 3 4 A.Morozevich-V.Salov Amsterdam 1996

White has some initiative and chances to create something on the queenside, but Black keeps himself ready to start active op­ erations as soon as White moves his rook away. 29 ... a6 30 �d3 .i.d8 31 a4 .i.e7 32 b5 Si(.d8 3 3 .i:!.b1 The signal for Black to change tack. In his notes Morozevich claims an advantage with 33 �c1 �d7 34 .i:!.c5 gxh4 35 gxh4 .i:!.g8 36 l:td5+, but this doesn't look especially con­ vincing, e.g. 36 ... �e6 37 f4 l:tg3+ 38 �c4 JJ..c7 39 .i.b4 exf4 40 .i:!.xh5 f3. H .. gxh4 34 gxh4 �g8 3 5 bxa6 bxa6 36 .i:!.b8 �d7 37 .l:!.a8 .i:!.g3 38 .l:!.a7+ Si(.C7 39 .i:!.xa6 l:txf3+ 40 'ot>C4 .i:!.f2 41 .i.b4 .i:!.C2+! This check forces White to make a deci­ sion about which way he wants to go. 42 �b5 If 42 �d3 Black's best is 42 ... .l:ta2. 42 ... d3 43 .i:!.xf6 d2 44 .i:!.f1 The position has suddenly become ultra­ sharp. .

R o o k and Bis h o p ve rs u s R o o k and same -colo u red Bis h op

cost Black his rook.

45 a6

44 �d6! •••

Hecht shows that 44 ... .l:tc1 is not possible: 45 .l:tf7+ �e6 46 .l:te7+! � f6 47 �xd2 l1b1 + 48 �c6 �xe7 (48 ... i.xa5? 49 i.g5+ � g6 50 .l:txe5 is ev�n worse) 49 �xc7 l:.b2 50 i.e3 .l:tc2+ 51 �b7 �d7 52 i.b6 and the front a-pawn will

Sacrificing the exchange with 45 i.xd6? doesn't work, as after 45 ....l:tc1 46 �b4 l1xfl 47 i.xd2 .l:tb1+ 48 i.b4 � c7, Black's king is too dose. 45 ...i.xb4 ! Salov's tum to find the only move. Morozevich shows why the alternatives don't hold water: 45 ....l:tb2 46 a7 .l:txb4+ 47 � a5 .l:tb2 48 a8'i1i' i.c7+ 49 �a6 l:tb6+ 50 �a7 and White's king escapes, or if 45 ... l:.c1 there would be 46 1:tf7+ �e6 47 i.xd2 lIb1+ 48 �c6 �xf7 49 a7 etc.

46 a7 lIC1 47 a8'ii' 47 .l:tf7+ �e6 48 a8'i1i' �xf7 49 'ili'd5+ draws.

47 ....l:txf1 48 'ii'd 5+ �e7 49 'ili'xe5+ �f8 50 'ii' h 8+ xe5 •.•

44 ltJd3 With the time control passed, Gurevich had time to rue his luck as 44 d7 falls short in all lines, as we shall see: 44 ... lId2 45 �e6 'it>g7! 46 We7 (46 e5 is met by 46 ... �f8) 46 ... ltJxe4! 47 ltJxe4 (the knight ending after 47 ltJh3 f3 48 d8� l:!.xd8 49 'it'xd8 �f6 50 'it'c7 'it>f5 51 Wxb7 Wg4 is also lost) 47 .. J:le2, when 48 d8� of course leads to a lost king and pawn ending after 48 ... Mxe4+ and 49 ... Md4+ etc. As Kasparov once stated, 'sometimes there is no explanation, a tactical variation either works or it doesn't.' 44 ... !:td2 45 ltJxf4 ltJxe4! White threatened ltJd5 shielding the d­ pawn. 46 'it'xe4 l:!.xd6 47 ltJxh 5 l:!.a6 And Black wins if - as is the case here he can hold on to his b-pawn. 48 a s �h6 49 ltJf4 :i.xa 5 50 ltJe6 �h5 51 Wd4 Wxh4 52 WC4 1Ia1 5 3 ltJC5 lIb1 54 ltJe4 Wg4 55 ltJd2 1:td1 56 ltJe4 Wf4 57 ltJC5 l:!.b1 58 Wd4 Wf5 59 Wd 5 �f6 60 Wd6 .§.b6+ 0-1 Of course time trouble can be the cause of even worse blunders ... 3 71

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

1 5 .3 V.lvanchuk-V.Topalov Linares 1995

39 lLld3+?? With so few pawns remammg Black would probably be able to draw by keeping things simple, such as with 39 ... 'it'f5. 40 .l::txd 3! 1-0 Topalov resigned as 40 ... .l::txd3 is met by the knight fork 41 lLlf4+. •••

Forks seem to crop up all the time in var­ ied circumstances. In the following example Ljubojevic uses a forking theme as a short cut to invasion.

1 5 .4 L.Lju bojevic-L.Portisch Tilburg 1978 (see following diagram)

34 l:!.e6+! 'it'f7 The knight ending after 34 ... 'it'xe6 35 lLld4+ 'it'd6 36 lLlxb3 a4 37 lLld4 is unpleasant for Black with his poor pawn structure. 35 l:!.xc6 l:!.xb2?! Better was 35 ... l:!.xf3 36 .l:i.c5 lLlb6 (defend­ ing by using a fork!) 37 J:tc7+ (37 lIxa5 is only 3 72

about equal, e.g. 37 ... lLlc4+ 38 'it'e2 lIxg3 39 .:i.a7+ 'it'f6 40 b4 l:!g2+ 41 'it'd3 lLle5+ 42 �c3 �g3+ 43 'it'd2 l::t g2+) 37 ... 'it'f8 38 l:!.c3 l:!.f2+ 39 'it'e3 1Ih2 (threatening another fork!) 40 �e4, with just an edge for White.

36 �C5! lLle7 37 !!xa 5 lLlf5 38 'it'C3 l:!.b7 39 :C5 lLlxg3 40 a4 Black's knight is a long way from the a­ pawn, which is now able to rapidly advance. 40 'it'e6 41 lLld4+ 'it'd6 42 'it'C4 l:!.bl 43 lLlb5+ 'it'e6 44 as I:[cl+ 45 'it'b4 l:!.bl+ 46 �a4 lLlf5 47 a6 lIal+ 48 lLla3 l:tdl 49 a7 l:td8 50 lLlb5 1-0 The a-pawn will cost Black his rook. .•.

15.5 A.Dreev-J.Piket Wijk aan Zee 2002

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

Here Dreev uses a fork to finish off his opponent. 41 lbgs1 1-0 Neither 41 ..Jhf6 42 lbh7+, nor 41...c;t>e8 42 l:te7+ is playable. I was fortunate in the following example.

In the next example it's not obvious how White could rapidly construct a mating net around Black's king. But he does!

1 5.7 V.Topalov-V.lvanchuk Linares 1994

15 . 6 G.Flear-P .Capitanio N arbmme-Plage 2006

White threatens l:ta6 so Black must do something quickly. 41 ...lbd4?? With more time my opponent would probably have avoided this blunder and seen that 41 ...c3! had to be played, and then: a) 42 .u.xc3 lbxa7 43 lbd6! tid8 44 lDxf7 'iii>xf7 45 �c7+ Wf6 46 ':xa7 h5 and White has only a nominal advantage. b) 42 �a6 lDxa7 43 lDxa7 c2 leads to a drawn rook endgame. c) 42 c;t>el lDd4 43 lDb6 lDc2+ 44 'it>dl lbxa3 45 lDxa8 lDb5 with a drawn knight ending. d) 42 'it>e2 lDd4+! (better than 42 .. Jhc8 43 a8'iV l:txa8 44 l:txa8 or 43 ... c2 44 c;t>d2!, since rook and three vs knight and three on the same side is a win) 43 c;t>d3 c2 44 l::tc3 lDb5 45 .ti.xc2 lbxa7 draws again. 42 lDb6 lDbS 43 lDxa8 lDxa 3 44 lDb6 1-0

Material is equal, but White has the ini­ tiative. 38 c;t>f3 Taking advantage of the fact that Black must lose a tempo to capture on d4, since the immediate 38 .. Jhd4?? loses to 39 lDe6+. 38 ... 'it>h7 A better chance than 38 ... c;t>f7? 39 g5 . 39 l::txf61 The rook ending after 39 lDxd5 l:txd4 40 lDxc3 �d3+ doesn't yield very much. 39 ... bSI? Otherwise 39 ... l:txd4 40 l::t f7+ 'it>g8 41 l::txb7 leaves Black very passive. 40 l::tx a6 l::txd4 41 .l:Ia7+ 'ii;> g 8 After 41 ...'ii;>h6? Black loses to another fork: 42 g5+! 'ii;>xg5 43 lDe6+. 42 a s l The most awkward for Black, a s White gains time for an attack. 42 ... .l:Ib4 43 gS l::tx b3 44 lDe6 b4 45 'i.tof4! lDe2+ If 45 ... lDe4 46 g6 and mate is nigh. 46 'ii;> e s l::t e 3+ 47 'ii;>f6 l::tf 3+ 48 'ii;> g6 3 73

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

The threat of mate now gives Black little choice. 48 ... tLlf4+ 49 tLlxf4 l::t xf4 50 lla8+ �f8 51 l::txf8+ 'it'xf8 52 a6 b3 53 a7 b2 54 a8�+ 1-0 The idea of creating a mating net with rook, knight and pawn is not uncommon ...

1 5.8 A.Karpov-A.Yusupov Bugojno 1986

If the knight wanders over to the queen­ side his king's fate would be sealed: 42 ...tLlb4 43 .l:!.c7! as (after 43 ... tLlxd3 the white king marches in: 44 'it>h3 as 4S tLlf6+ 'it>f8 46 g4 a4 47 hS a3 48 g6 a2 49 .:tf7 mate) 44 tLlxh6+ 'it>f8 4S g4 tLlxd3 46 'it>g3 and White wins by pushing the g-pawn. 43 .l:!.e7! More to the point than 43 tLlxh6+ f8 44 :as tLlc6 4S �gS 'it>e7, which is far less clear. 43 .'iitf8 44 tLle5! The initiative is more important than the h-pawn. 44 a 5 44. . .hS holds u p the g-pawn, but then White can play 4S fS! directly. 45 g4 a4 46 f5 exf5 After 46 ... �aS, White has the neat tactic 47 .u.xe7! which leads to a winning rook end­ ing: 47 .. .1:heS (if 47 ... 'it'xe7 then 48 tLlc6+ is decisive) 48 �a7 hS 49 g3! hxg4 SO fxe6 l:txe6 S1 xg4. 47 gxf5 tLlxf5 47... a3 would provoke an attractive fin­ ish: 48 f6 a2 49 l:txe7 a1'if SO tLlg6+ 'it>g8 S1 .l:tg7 mate . 48 exf5 .l::!.a 5 •.

•..

...but here the preliminary play is un­ usual. Karpov first holds up the a-pawn with his rook, which gains time for his knight to be brought up to the front, and then the rook switches back to participate in the attack. Most of the following variations are heavily influenced by Karpov's notes. 40 �a 5 The immediate 40 tLlg4 is less clear after 40 ... aS 41 fS exfS 42 exfS tLlf8!, when Black's a-pawn would yield useful counterplay. 40 ... tLle7 41 tLlg4 tLle6 The best shot as 41 ...'.t>g7 42 tLleS would leave Black totally passive. 42 �e5! Dynamic play! Instead, after 42 l:ta4 as 43 tLlxh6+ 'it>g7 44 tLlg4 l:tb8 Black would obtain good play for the pawn, intending to follow up with ... �b8-b4, ... as-a4 and ... tLlc6-a7-bS. 42 ... tLle7 3 74

49 :e5! Yet another forking combination. 49 JIxe5 Or if 49 .. J:ta6 SO f6! .l:txf6, White again has S1 tLld7+. ••

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

50 ttJd7+ �e7 51 liJxC5 a 3 52 �g3 �d6 5 3 ttJb3 �e5 5 4 �g4 h5+ Zugzwang is Black's undoing after 54 ... a2 55 liJal !, e.g. 55 .. .'.t>f6 56 'It>f4 h5 57 ttJc2 h4 58 �g4 h3 59 �xh3 �xf5 60 'iit g3 etc. 55 Wg5 h4 56 f6 We6 Or similarly 56 ... h3 57 f7 h2 58 f8'it' hI 'it' 59 'ife7+ �d5 60 'iVb7+. . 57 �g6 h3 58 f7 h2 59 f8'iV hliV 60 liJC5+ c,t>e5 61 'iVb8+ 1-0 After 61 ...�d5, simply 62 1Ii'a8+ wins the queen with a skewer.

15 . 9 U.Andersson-A.Karpov Marostica (1st matchgame) 1989

.l:txb6+ �d5! (walking into a fork, but...) 47 liJf6+ �c5 (hitting back, but it's not finished yet) 48 l:te6 liJd3! (48 ... l:f.g5 loses to another fork 49 liJe4+ �d5 50 liJxg5, but Black now threatens one of his own) 49 b4+ (after 49 liJxg8 liJf4+ 50 �g4 liJxe6 51 liJxh6 c,t>c4 52 �f5 liJc5 Black will have time to eliminate the queenside) 49 ...�b5 50 a4+ �xb4 51 l:f.e4+ 'iit a5 and Black escapes with a draw, due to yet another fork! 45 .'.t>xe5 46 nb4 liJe3 47 liJC3 liJg21 48 a4 liJf4+ 49 Wh2 liJd3 50 nb5+ �d4 Yz-Yz Black is just too active; for example, 51 liJe2+ 'it'e3 (the unfortunate 51 ...�c4?? would allow 52 b3 mate) 52 liJg3 l:tg4 53 a5 l:f.a4 54 �h3 and Black has at least 54 ... liJxb2 55 ':xb2 ':xa5 with the drawn NQE of rook and knight vs rook. ••

In the next example White has a better pawn structure (a6 and d5 are isolated pawns, and the hole on the f5-square may become weak), but Black is temporarily more active.

1 5 . 10 V.Korchnoi-J.Lautier Bie1 2001 Here Black is under pressure as he is about to lose his remaining queenside pawn, but Karpov is able to save himself by ex­ ploiting White's inactive king. 43 ... e51 Generating counter-chances. It's notice­ able in the following variations how active Black's king becomes compared to White's. 44 fxe5 After 44 f5 liJf6! 45 liJxf6 �xf6 46 l:txb6+ c,t>xf5 47 .l:txh6 'ub8 48 b4 .:ta8 the ending is equal. 44 ... 'iite 61 45 l:txb6+ I shamelessly lifted the following fun variation from Chess Base: 45 l::tb5 liJxe5 46

28 wfl l:td2 29 I::t c 3 I::t d 1+?! Ftacnik criticizes this move and recom­ mends 29 ... liJe4! 30 l:ta3 f5 31 '�e1 f4, the 3 75

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

point being that after 32 f3 Black sacrifices his knight for a strong pawn front with 32 .. .l:hg2 33 fxe4 dxe4 34 lbcs e3, which Ftamik judges to be unclear. 30 �e2 l:tg1 31 lbe1 Slowing down Black's kingside play. 31 ... lbh5 3l ...hS 32 J:i,a3 h4 is tricky. Ftamik sug­ gests the prophylactic antidote 33 l:ta4! (33 �xa6 lbhS will get messy) 33 ... lbhS 34 lbf3 J:i,bl (the point of Ftacnik's idea is that 34 ... �xg2 gets the rook trapped after 3S �f1) 3S lbxgS �xb2+ 36 �e3 d4+ 37 �xd4 l:txa2 38 �xh4 and White should keep the advantage. 32 g3 �h1 The problem for Black is that, although his efforts will net the h-pawn, this is achieved at a certain cost. His rook will re­ quire time to be brought back into play and he will in turn lose his a-pawn. 33 J:ta 3 .l:Ixh 3 34 l:::tx a6 lbf6 Black has to keep White occupied before the queenside pawns can start rolling. He could contemplate 34 ... l:th2!?, for instance, as after the plausible 3S �a3 fS 36 b4 f4 he could certainly lay claim to counterplay. 35 a4 lbe4 36 lbf3 �h1 If 36 ...hS in order to create a passed pawn with ...h4, then White can bring his rook back into the fray with 37 l:taS (Korchnoi's 37 as h4 38 gxh4 gxh4 39 l:tb6 l:thl 40 l1b3, in­ tending J::t a3, is also good) 37 ...h4 38 gxh4 gxh4 39 1::!.xdS .l:thl 40 �e3. Korchnoi prefers 36 ... g4 37 lbd4 hS, in­ tending ... i:Ih2 (37 .. .l::t h2? allows mate in two starting with 38 lbfS+), but after 38 lbfS+ �h7 39 J:taS both 39 .. .l::t h2 40 J::txdS ilxf2+ 41 �e3 and 39 ...lbf6 40 �bS .l:i.h1 41 l:.b3 are un­ satisfactory for Black. 37 as .l:i.a1 3S lbd4 White seems to have even created some mating threats! 3S h5 Worse is 38 ...f6 due to 39 lbfS+ �g6 40 lbe7+ �f7 41 lbxdS. ••.

3 76

39 lbf5+ 'it'h7

40 f3 ! Driving away the actively posted knight. 40 ...lbc5 41 �h6+ �gS 42 l:!.xh 5 4 2 b4! (Korchnoi) i s surely simpler. 42 lba 5 43 J::t xg5+ 'it>fS 44 l:lh5 'it>gS 45 b4 �a2+ 46 �e3 l:!.a3+ Pushing the white king up the board, but there is little alternative as 46 ... lbe6 47 lbe7+ �g7 48 l:hdS is even worse. 47 �d4 lbe6+ 4S �xd5 ltxf3 49 b5 Although the number of pawns has been dramatically reduced, White's extra b-pawn plus his centralized king ensure that he has good winning chances. 49 J:tb3 After 49 ... lbc7+, White has SO �c6! .l:tc3+ Sl �b6 lbdS+ S2 �b7 and the b-pawn will soon be advancing. 50 �d6! lib1 SO .. JhbS? drops a rook to Sl lbe7+. 51 �e7 Apart from putting pressure on the f­ pawn, there is the additional threat of �f6 followed by lbe7+ and 'uh8 mate. 51 lbfS 52 :g5+ lbg6+ 5 3 �d7 �fS 54 lbd6 1:tb3 5 5 g4 l:i.b4 56 l:!.f5 l:.xg4 57 b6 l:tb4 58 b7 1-0 •..

•.

..•

White has a clear extra pawn in IS.1 1, but was surprisingly unable to win. Let's see how Korchnoi managed to save the game.

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

15.11 R.Dautov-V.Korchnoi Swiss Team Championship 2003

aI-square to attack the b3-pawn! 45 l:td3 f6 46 f4 Dautov correctly rejected the tempting idea of bringing his king across at this point with 46 lit>dl 'it'g6 47 'it'c1 1:1c2+ 48 'it'bl, be­ cause of the resource 48 .. J::tc3! . 4 6 h5 4 7 �d1?! After 47 e5! fxe5 48 fxe5 'it'g6 49 J:tf3! Black is obliged to come back to stop the e­ pawn, so taking the pressure off b3: 49 ... CLlc2 50 l:!.f4 (or 49 ... �c2 50 e6 .l:!.c7 51 'it'dl �e7 52 .l::!. f8 l:!.xe6 53 �a8 and the knight is trapped) 50 ... .l:i.a2 51 e6 �a7 52 .l:!.c4 1:1a2 53 lIe4 na8 54 'it'd3 and White obtains a winning advan­ tage. 47 'it> g6 .•.

•..

3S ....l:!.a1 Activating the rook. Both the b3-pawn and the second rank are potential targets in the white camp. 39 l:tdS+ Dautov had an important alternative here which he later analysed: 39 �e3 l:!.bl 40 ttJa5 l:tal (40 ... l:tc1 is too slow because of 41 �d8+ �h7 42 :b8) 41 ltJc6 J:tbl 42 l:i.d8+ 'it>h7 43 J:td3 ltJc3 44 ltJxb4 l:txb3 (at least eliminat­ ing the queenside) 45 ltJd5 ltJdl+ 46 'it>d4 �xd3+ 47 �xd3 with the keystone ending of knight and four vs knight and three on the same side. Fine covered this in Basic Chess Endings (1941) and concluded that it is basically a win. More modem analysts are less commit­ tal about a definitive conclusion, but this ending is certainly won more often than it is drawn at a high level. 39 lit>h7 40 I:tbS ltJd4 41 ltJd2 Not 41 l:txb4? as Black has good play af­ ter 41..J::t a2+ 42 'it>f1 ltJxf3. 41 J:ta2 42 �e3 ltJC2+ 43 �e2 43 �d3? ltJel+ 44 �e2 is met by 44... ltJxf3! . 43 l:tb2 44 J:!.d8! ltJa1 As d4 is not available Korchnoi uses the ••.

••

..•

48 h4?! 48 e5 should still win, despite being quite messy, e.g. 48 ... lit>f5! (48 .. .fxe5 49 'it'c1 llc2+ 50 �bl l:tc3 fails to save the knight, due to the intermediate check 51 l:td6+) 49 'it'c1 ! llc2+ 50 'it>bl l:tc3 51 l:i.d5 CLlc2 52 exf6+ 'it'e6 (with Black threatening a series of checks, White must react quickly) 53 l::!. d6+ (if 53 fxg7? CLla3+ 54 'it>b2 l:!.c2+ 55 'it>al i::!. c1 + 56 CLlbl l:!.xbl + 57 'it>a2, then 57 ... 'it>f7 stops the g­ pawn and draws after 58 l:!.d4! l:tal+! 59 'it>b2 Itbl+ etc) 53 ... Wf5 54 f7! (rather than 54 fxg7? CLla3+ 55 Wal l:!.c1+ 56 CLlbl Itxbl+ 57 'it'a2 l:!.c1 58 g8� l:!.c2+ as Black draws by perpet­ ual check!) 54 ... ltJa3+ 55 'it>a1 J:!.c1+ 56 CLlb1 l:txbl + 57 'it'a2 and White queens with check. 377

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

48 .. .'it>f7 49 �d7+ e8 50 �xg7 ttJxb3 51 ttJC4 Jdg2 52 ttJe3 \t>f8 53 ttJxg2 After 53 �b7, Black saves himself with 53 J::I d2+ 54 �el �d4. 53 �xg7 54 e5 ttJd4 55 exf6+ �xf6 56 ttJe3 b3 57 �Cl ttJe2+ 58 b2 ttJxg3 59 xb3 ttJe2 60 C4 Yz-Yz

41 d6 .•.

...

..•

Modern time limits, where all the moves have to be played in one session and often quite rapidly, have modified players' atti­ tudes towards endgames. Many positions that were once comfortable wins (i.e. in the old days of adjournments), even resignable when the opponent asked for the sealed move envelope(!), are now practically very difficult. The advantage can often only be exploited by analysing some intricate varia­ tions where there is naturally room for error. Such positions can sometimes be particu­ larly difficult for the stronger side to play as he has too much choice! So it's worth re­ membering that, in the hurly-burly of prac­ tical play, stubborn resistance can some­ times lead to miracles; it's just important for the defender to keep on fighting.

As 41...f5 is too slow, due to 42 bxa6 bxa6 43 �b7 fxg4 44 fxg4 ..t>d6 45 l:Ia7, Black pre­ pares to shore up the defences and so delays pushing his kingside pawns. 42 bxa6 bxa6 43 .l:tb7! .l:ta8 Reluctantly, but inevitably, Black has to go passive with his rook after all. 44 ttJb4!

In the next example White's space supe­ riority and more mobile majority give him the advantage.

15.12 V.Topalov-V.Akopian Wijk aan Zee 2004 (see following diagram)

38 b4 ttJd7 39 l:.e2 l::tf8 After the more cautious 39 .. Jk7, White would have to take time to prepare further queenside expansion, with perhaps 40 ..t>d4 followed by l:.b2 and b4-b5. 40 b5! g5 41 .l:tb2 The rook prepares to penetrate. 3 78

Not just attacking the a-pawn; the knight prevents the black king booting the rook away by controlling the c6-square. 44 f5? Black is still concerned with getting his pawns rolling, but this fails to White's c­ pawn push. Instead, Lukacs suggests 44 ... ttJe5! as a better defence, e.g. 45 .l:tb6+ (if 45 ttJd3 simply 45 ... ttJd7 repeats) 45 ...e7 46 1:txa6 .l:txa6 47 ttJxa6 ttJc6!. The a-pawn has a .••

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

higher priority than the f-pawn! 45 gxf5 exf5 46 'ii;>d 4 g4 47 fxg4 fxg4 48 c5+! Now the c-pawn pushes everything out of it way. 48 �e6 49 c6 ttJf6 50 C7 i::tc 8 Necessary, as 50 ... 'ii;> d 7? fails to 51 11bS. 51 tDxa6 Alternatively, there is 51 !tb6+!? 'ii;>f5 52 lLlxa6 g3 53 'ii;> e3 ttJd5+ 54 'ii;> f3 ttJxc7 55 1:tc6 :g8 and now the flashy 56 .l:i.g6!, when Black has nothing better than allowing simplifica­ tion into a miserable rook ending with l1cS 57 tiJxc7 Itxc7 5S 'ii;> xg3. 51 g3 52 l:tb3 ttJxh 5 5 3 'ii;> C 5! g2 Or if 53 ... 'ii;> d 7 then 54 'ii;>b6 and wins, whereas 53 ... .l:.gS fails to 54 .u.bS. 54 �bl tiJf4 5 5 'ii;> c 6 White's lead in the race is decisive due to his superior king. 55 h5 56 �b7 J:tg8 57 ttJC5+ 'It>d5 58 ttJd7 �e6 59 c81!V 1-0 ...

.••

•..

15.13 V.lvanchuk-N.Short Amsterdam 1994

ttJa7 After 31 ...g6? 32 ttJh6 White is ready to invade via either f7 or f8. If Black then tries 32 ... 11dS, White obtains a winning position by 33 lIf6+ 'ii;>e7 34 l:tf7+ 'ii;>eS 35 lIxh7 Ihd3 36 ttJg4, as he will soon generate a passed pawn on the kingside. 32 ttJe3 ttJc8 The players later decided this was wrong and that Black should have played 32 ... ttJc6! . Then White has a choice: a) 33 ttJd5 �cS 34 h5! ttJxa5 35 h6 c6! (35 ... gxh6 is insufficient due to 36 l:1f6+ �d7 37 lIxh6) 36 hxg7 l::t gS! 37 .l:.f6+ 'ii;> d7 38 �xc6!? (flashy, but not dangerous; possibly 3S ttJb6+ is better, when 38 ... 'ii;>c7? fails to 39 ttJc4 ttJxc4 40 lIf7+, while 38 ... 'ii;>e7 allows 39 J::!. f5 .l:i.xg7 40 l::txe5+ c,t>d6 41 d4 and White can claim an edge) 3S ... ttJxc6 39 ttJf6+ �e6 40 ttJxgS c,t>f7 41 ttJf6 'it?xg7 42 ttJd7 c4 43 dxc4 �g6 and Ivanchuk believes that White's ad­ vantage has gone. b) 33 ttJc4 is sensible, and if 33 ... l:td8 then promising is 34 J::!. f3 (Ftacnik), followed by bringing the king to e2 to defend the d­ pawn. This would release the rook for more active measures and White could also envis­ age advancing his kingside pawns. 33 hS Neither 33 ttJd5 c6, nor 33 ttJc4 ttJd6, is dangerous for Black. 3 3 ... ttJe7

Black's structure is compromised with his isolated e-pawn and doubled c-pawns. Furthermore, he is forced immediately onto the defensive as White takes the f-file. 28 1:.f1+ 'ii;> e 6 29 ttJf5 �g8 30 g5 c5 31 c3 3 79

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

34 ttJd S! Sacrificing a pawn to get the rook to sev­ enth heaven. 34 ... ttJxd S Wedberg shows why 34 ... c6 was proba­ bly rejected by Short: 35 ttJxe7 �xe7 36 g6 hxg6 37 hxg6, since 37 ... l1f8 38 lhf8 �xf8 gives White a winning pawn ending; e.g. 39 'it'f3 �e7 40 g4 f6 41 �h5 �e7 42 'it'g5 We6 43 c4 'it'e7 44 'it'f5 'it'd6 45 b3 etc. 3S exd s+ �xd S 36 l:!.f7 b6 Or if 36 ... 'it'd6 37 'it'f3 b6 38 axb6 cxb6 39 'it'e4 �e6 40 llb7 b5 41 l:Ib6+ and White will start picking off pawns like ripe apples. 37 ':xc7 bxa s 38 'it'f3 .l:tf8+ 39 'it'e3 h6 40 l:!.xg7 hxgs 41 .l:txgs .l:.f4 42 c4+ 'it'c6 43 1:tg6+ 'it'b7 44 b3 I:th4 4S h6 e4 46 dxe4 l!h3+ 47 'it'f4 l:txb3 48 l:tg3 1-0 The continuation 48 ... .l:l.b1 49 Ilh3 .l:!.f1+ 50 'it'e5 l:tf8 51 h7 l:[h8 52 'it'f6 would convince most players to resign.

29 :td1 can be answered by 29 ... l:te8 30 .l:th1 .l:te6 with no great inconvenience. 29 ... a6 29 ...a5? is premature due to 30 J:td5. 30 l:tdS l:te8 31 'it'f2 ttJd7 32 l:tfS .:te6 33 g3 ttJcS 34 f4 a s ! Getting things moving, rather than giv­ ing White a dangerous majority by captur­ ing on f4. 3 S �3 After 35 fxg5 hxg5, White shoufdn't be tempted to capture on g5, because following 36 .l:Ixg5? Black has 36 ...b4 37 axb4 axb4 38 ttJe2 ttJe4+, forking to victory. 3 S ... b4 36 axb4 axb4 3 7 ttJe2 I:td6 38 fxgS hxgs 39 .l:lxgs

1 5 . 14 E.Rozentalis-I.Sokolov Yerevan Olympiad 1996

White has a some chances for an advan­ tage with a central knight outpost and the slightly better majority. Nevertheless, Ivan Sokolov finds a way to make use of his queenside. 28 ... bS 29 ttJc3 380

39 ...ttJd3! An excellent resource. Instead, 39 ... .:d2 would lose valuable time, since it doesn't yet threaten c2 as then it's Black who gets forked, so 40 'it'e3! could be played with some advantage. 40 'it'e3! Not 40 cxd3? cxd3 and the pawn is too strong, while if 40 b3 Black replies 40 ... ttJe1+ 41 'it'f2 ttJxc2 42 bxc4 ttJa3! with by far the more dangerous majority. 40 ... ttJxb2 41 ttJd4+ �b6 After 41 ...�d7 42 lilg7+ �c8 43 ttJb5 White has enough activity, according to Chekhov. 42 l:IbS+ 'it'a6 43 ':cS!

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

43 .l:txb4? just loses material to 43. . .lLldl+ 44 e4 lLlc3+ 45 e5 (or 45 e3 lLld5+) 45 .. J:td5+ 46 e6 1hd4. 43 ...lLld1+ 44 �e4 lLlf2+ 45 e3 White does best to avoid 45 f3? because of l:txd4 46 �xf2 'it'b6 47 1:1g5 1:td2+ etc. 45 lLlxg4+ 46 'it'e4 lLlf2+ 47 e3 lLld1+ 48 �e4 lLle3+ 49 '.te5 b6 50 .lIxe4 lId5+ 51 cJi>e6 e5 52 lLle2! The ending after 52 l::txc3?! .l::txd4 53 l:tf3 c4 favours Black. 52 l'.td2 The over-elaborate 52 ... lLldl?! leads to a knight ending after 53 '.txd3 lLle3+ 54 e6 lbxc4 55 g4 lLle3 56 g5 c4 57 g6 lLlg4 58 g7 lbh6, where White has some practical chances to win. 53 lLlxe3 bxe3 54 l!xe3 b5 55 g4 J:tg2 56 �5 e4 57 g5 Yz-Yz A draw seems inevitable after 57 ... '.tb4 58 l:tf3 l:txc2 59 l:I.g3 1:tf2+ 60 'it>e6 c3. •..

•••

With the pawn structure in 15.15 Black has some chances to press against the iso­ lani.

1 5.15 P.Morris-G.Flear London Barbican 1987

get his defensive formation spot on. It's im­ portant that he foresees how the stronger side is likely to try and make progress and sets out his whole outfit accordingly. 23 1:td8 24 lLlf3?! lLle4 25 e1 e6 26 g3 In many such positions this type of dis­ advantage doesn't seem very serious, but if the defender cannot do very much, the stronger side can gradually improve his pieces, increasing the pressure which may become very unpleasant. 26 ... g6 27 �e2 'it>g7 28 h4 'it>f6 29 �g2 .lId S 30 b3 h6! With all the pieces coordinated it's time to undertake the key advance: ... g5-g4 to undermine the isolated d-pawn. 31 1:te4 lLld6 32 iIe1 g5 33 hxg5+ hxg5 34 tth1 Hoping for some activity, but it's rather forlorn. 34 ... g4 3 5 lLle5 l::txd4 ... and the pawn is captured. 36 lLld1+ 'it>e6 37 lLle5+ d 5 38 lLla4 i:!.d2 39 J:te1 lLle4 0-1 Despite playing seemingly reasonable moves this went badly wrong for White. Could he have done better? I think he should have anticipated that his knight on f3 would eventually be kicked away with ... g4, and therefore preferred 24 lLlc2 with J:tel, f2f3 and '.tf2 to follow. The knight on c2 de­ fends the d-pawn from a less vulnerable square, which enables White to play f2-f3 to stop Black using the e4-square. •.•

1 5 .16 V.Kramnik-M.Adams Dortmund 1996

If a defender is resigned to not having any realistic counterplay then he needs to

Immediate simplification to a rook end­ ing would give nothing much, but by retain­ ing the knights White shields his queenside from Black's rook and can advance his ma­ jority quite rapidly. 381

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

42 ... e4 The plausible 42 .. J:ta1 ? loses to Kram­ nik's neat tactic 43 a7! ttJxa7 44 �b6+ �f7 45 l:tb7+ etc. 43 ttJb3 ':C4 44 �f1 lla4 45 l:ta 5 l:tb4 46 ttJC5 ttJa7 47 'It>e2 g5 48 xg5 49 �e3 f1 cJr>f6 (55 ...cJr>f4 gets nowhere after 56 lDd3+) 56 l:te2 l:tal 57 l:te4 and I can't find a win. 53 :f4+ 54 cJr>e2 ltf2+ 55 cJr>d3 nxg2 0-1 It must be said that it's not a pleasant ex­ perience to defend this type of endgame at the best of times, but it's downright torture when you have no time and a desperate urge to visit the little boy's room! •••

In the following game Andersson was able to put up a more successful defence. 37 1:d7+ 38 �e3 Clearly 38 cJr>xe4?? 1:e7+ is not good for White. 38 h 5 39 lDd3 lDg3 40 %:tal h4 41 l:ta4 Wf7 42 l:ta 3 •••

•••

1 5 .18 J. Timman-U.Andersson Indonesia 1983

383

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

�e4 h5!?

42 CUe5 Me7 43 Ma6 A sign that Timman felt that he had more chances with rooks on the board. In fact, knigh t and three vs knight and two on the same side is usually drawn. A win only results if the weaker side has weak pawns or the at­ tacking king can invade deep into enemy territory, both highly unlikely events here. 43 CUd 5 44 �g2 Me7 45 �f3 CUf6 46 Ma8+ rJite7 47 Ma3 CUd5 48 �g4 CUf6+ 49 �h4 CUd7 50 CUf3 CUf6 51 CUg5 l:td7 52 J::r. e 3+ �f8 53 g4 Black has an ideal defensive formation, so Timman will have to advance his pawns to try and destabilize the defender. 53 .l:!.d2 54 h3 I;Id7 55 .l::!.a 3 �e7 56 f5 h6 5 7 ne3+ rJitf8 58 CUe6+ �f7 59 CUf4 l:!.e7 The knight ending is still drawn. 60 �a3 .l:te7 61 CUg6 Intending .l:ta8-f8 mate. How should Black now defend? 61 �e8! If 61 ....l:!b7 62 :a8 CUd7, White can threaten with 63 .i:td8 to simplify to a king and pawn ending - which is winning! 62 �a8+ �d7 Andersson prefers his king to have space to manoeuvre. 63 �f8 CUe8! 64 CUf4 �e7 65 l:tg8 �f7 66 �h8 �e8 67 CUg6 CUd6 There is no option; it has to be the knight ending now. 68 �xe8 CUxe8 69 �g3 �f6 70 �f4 CUb6 71

An interesting way of defending, break­ ing up the white pawns. 72 gxh5 �g5 73 CUf4 CUd7 74 CUe6+ �h6 75 CUf4 CUf6+ 76 'it>e5 CUxh5 7 7 h4 CUf6 78 rJite6 CUg4 79 �d5 CUf6+ 80 'it>e5 CUg4+ 81 rJite4 CUf6+ 82 �f3 CUd7 83 CUg6 �h5 84 �g3 rJith6 85 CUf4 Yz-Yz

•••

•••

Kramnik is able to produce a strong kingside attack in the next example.

1 5 . 19 V.Kramnik-M.Krasenkow Wijk aan Zee 2003

•••

3 84

3 5 CUe5 It's better to avoid the exchange of knights since 35 �g2 CUxf3 36 �xf3 a3!

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s Rook a n d Kn ig h t

doesn't leave White with very much. 35 ... 1:C5 36 lIb8+ �h7 37 lbd7 .l:.b5 38 %:ta8 lbe2+ 39 �g2 nxb2 40 h 5 ! A strong move; whereas the routine 40 nxa4 lbc3 41 l::t a 7 lbd1 looks about equal. 40 lbc3 41 lbe5 With the firm intention of playing lbg6 and I!h8 mate. 41 Jlb5 42 f4 It's too soon for 42 lbg6? as Black just takes the h-pawn. 42 ... lbe4 43 g4! Kramnik reinforces his vice-like grip on the kingside, and Black can do little to com­ bat it. 43 lbf6 44 lbg6 lbg8 Black's knight and king are now com­ pletely tied down; but 44 ... lbxh5 doesn't help Black at all after 45 f5! . 45 lbf8+ � h 8 46 lbg6+ \t> h 7 4 7 f3 White is still not interested in the a­ pawn! 47 kIb3+ 48 'it>e4 a 3 49 lbf8+ �h8 50 lb g6+ �h7 51 g5! hxg5 52 fxg5 l:!.b4+ 53 'it>f5 .l:i.b5+ 54 Wg4 1:!b4+ 55 'iW5 l:tb5+ 56 g4 l::t b4+ 57 lbf4 With several attacking options in the air. 57 a2 58 ':xa2 lbe7 59 l:a8 lbg8 Horrible, but necessary. 60 lta 7 Wh8 61 1;la8 Wh7 62 l:tf8 h8 63 �f3 .l:tb3+ 64 We4 z:tb4+ 65 We5 l:tb5+ 66 llJd5 .l:!.a 5 67 lId8 �h7 68 g6+ Wh8 ..•

•.

••.

••.

6 9 h6! A clever move that avoids any stalemate traps. 69 J:ta7 After 69 ... gxh6, 70 l::t d7 is curtains. 70 lbe3 One doesn't really expect Kramnik to fall for 70 h7? I!e7+! and draws. 70 gxh6 71 lbf5 l:ta 5+ 72 Wf4 .i:!.a4+ 73 �f3 l:!.a 3+ 74 g4 .l:i.a4+ 75 Wh5 l::ta 7 Or 75 ... .l::!. a5 76 .i::!. f8 �b5 77 l::t £7 etc. 76 i.U8 l::t b 7 77 �h4?! The clinical finish was 77 nf7! 1;Ixf7 78 gxf7 lbf6+ 79 g6 lbd7 80 Wxh6 lbf8 81 lbh4 and mate next move. 77 ...l:!.b4+?! After 77 ... .l:!.g7 White would have to find 78 \t>h5 l:tb7 79 l:!.f7! as in the previous note. 78 g3 �b6 If 78 ...J:tb7 then 79 ':'£7 anyway! Instead, after 78 .. .l::!:b3+! White has to steer his king to h5 and win as in the note to 77 �h4?!. 79 lbe7 �g7 80 l:tf7+ 1-0 and mate next move! .•

•.•

Here is another example of a successful attack on a insufficiently defended king.

••.

15.20 A.Khalifman-S.Rublevsky Russian Championship, Elista 1996

385

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay 30 f4 CDd3+

Hindsight makes it easy to criticize, but perhaps Black should try his chances with 30 ... CDd5 31 l:!xc4 'ub2+ 32 l:!c2 !Ixc2+ 33 CDxc2. It's not great but, from Black's point of view, he would have more chances than in the game. 31 'it>e 3 CDb2 32 e4 'ua8 33 fS ! gxfS+ If Black allows a pawn to get to f6 then he won't survive very long; e.g. 33 ... ,Ub8 34 f6 l1.a8 35 e6! fxe6 36 f7+ and CDxe6 etc.

3 3 lIdl CDd7 3 4 g4 g6 3 S 'it>g2 l:ta4 36 h3 �g7 37 d6!? Geller suggests 37 J:.c1 as an alternative, followed by coming to c6 or c7. 37 ...�a6 38 f4 !tc6 39 h4 'it>f8 40 gS?! A surprisingly committal decision for the fortieth move when the adjournment was looming. 40 ... hxgs 41 hxgs

34 CDxfS h S

Or i f 34 .. J:rJ8 White plays 3 5 CDd6 h6 36 'it>f5 and Black has no decent moves. 3S lLlh6+ g7 36 lLlxf7 'it>g6 3 7 lLld6 .l:i.a4 3 8 'it>d s 'ua s+ 39 �d4 J:.al 4 0 c3 lLla4+ 41 'it>b4 It's never too late for a blunder: 41 'it'xc4?? .l:!.c1+. 41 ... c3 4 2 'it>bS! lLlb2 43 e6 !:tel 44 e7 lIes+ 4 S �b6 CDa4+ 46 �a7 1-0 The e-pawn will cost Black a rook. An extra passed pawn should give White pretty good winning chances, but Karpov manages to defend in the next example.

15.21 G.Kasparov-A.Karpov World Championship (40th matchgame), Moscow 1985

386

41 ...fS ! Black obtains access to the f7-square for his king and presents White with a dic;hot­ omy. If White captures en passant Black seems to be able to save himself miracu­ lously, whereas if he leaves the pawn struc­ ture untouched, the chances to get his king and knight active are reduced with the e4 and g4 squares out of bounds. If instead 41 ...f6?! then White has 42 tDg4 fxg5 43 lL'le5!. 42 �d4 After 42 gxf6, Black can just hold with 42 ... �f7 43 lL'lg4 �e6 44 lIel+ 'it>f5 45 tDh6+ 'it>xf6 46 CDg8+ 'it>f7 47 l:te7+ 'it>xg8 48 .l:.xd7 I:tc3! 49 l:tc7 �d3 50 d7 'it>f8, as Keene pOinted out. 42 .. .'�f7 43 lL'lC4 'it>e6 44 'it>f3 ncS 4S �e3 l1bS 46 'it>d2 l!dS Karpov's analysis team had obviously calculated at the adjournment that the knight ending isn't winning. 47 nxdS �xd S 48 CDes �xd6 49 CDxg6

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

Nor does 49 tbxd7 'it'xd7 5 0 Wd3 work for White: 50 ... 'it'e7! 51 'it>c4 'it'e6 52 'it'c5 'it'e7 53 �d5 ..t>d7 54 ..t>e5 'it>e7 etc. 49 tbC5 50 tbh4 'it>e6 51 ..t>e3 tbe4 52 tbf3 d4 ..t>e6 54 ..t>C4 tbf2 5 5 �d4 55 tbd4+ �f7 56 tbxf5 tbh3 leads more quickly to the same result. 55 tbe4 56 tbe1 ..t>d6 57 tbC2 tbC5 58 We3 lbe6 59 tbd4 tbg7 60 ..t>d2 ..t>C5 61 'it'd3 ..t>d5 62 tbe2 tbh5 63 ..t>e3 tbg7 64 tbg3 ..t>d6 65 �3 ..t>e7 66 tbe2 tbe6 67 tbg3 tbg7 68 tbf1 rJtf7 69 tbe3 ..t>g6 70 tbd5 tbe6 YI-YI ... tbxg5 will eliminate both white pawns. •..

40 ... f6 is that after 41 h5 Black may have to endure a mating net around his king (as for example in 15.19, Kramnik-Krasenkow). 41 .l:!.xf7 a4

•••

An extra outside passed pawn would

seem to constitute a decisive advantage, but there are still often technical problems.

15.22 Cu.Hansen-J.Hjarta rson Reykjavik 1997

42 lIb7 Hjartarson demonstrates that Black also wins against other moves: a) 42 tbf4 a3! 43 tbe6 l:!b2 44 .t'i.xg7+ �h8 and the a-pawn will decide. b) 42 tbc3! requires precise play from Black: 42 .. J:!a3! 43 lic7 (or 43 tbe4 �a1+ 44 �e2 a3 45 h5 'it'g8! 46 .l::!.b7 J::!.b 1 !) 43 ... I!.al+ 44 We2 .l:!.c1 ! 45 l:!c4 tbd5 46 �d2 .l:!.xc3 47 l:txc3 tbxc3 48 Wxc3 �g6 49 'it'b4 'it'f5 50 �xa4 �e5 etc. Excellent analysis from the Icelander. 42 ... tbd 5 43 tbd4 a3 44 .l:!.a 7 If 44 tbf5, Black continues with 44 ... l:tb2 followed by ... a3-a2 and .. J:tbl+, as 45 .l:!.xg7+ �h8 gives him nothing to fear. 44 .l:!.d2 45 tbb3 .l:!.b2 0-1 After 46 .uxa3 Black has the decisive ma­ noeuvre 46 ... tbe3+ 47 'it'gl tbc2. •••

Hjartarson notes that 37 ... a5?! 38 Ite5 a4 39 l:ta5 a3 40 tbc3 would be tough to win as the black knight is not helping to support the a-pawn. 37 tbd 5 38 .ue5 tbb4 3 9 lie8+ 'it>h7 40 .l:!.f8 a5! 40 ... ..t>g6?! is incorrect due to 41 tbf4+ �f6 42 tbh5+ �e7 43 l:!b8 and White has coun­ terplay that will already net him the g-pawn. The problem with the obvious alternative

If one player has superior pieces then the opponent will need to bolster the defences and activate as well, if at all possible.

•..

15.23 U.Andersson-N.Short Tilburg 1990

387

Pra c t i c a l E n d g a m e P l ay

White is slightly more active, but on the other hand Black's pawns seem fairly solid. 31 ct:Jc3 :f8 32 :c6 There's no advantage in exchanging rooks. 32 ... .l:!.d8! A clever way of gaining control of the d­ file. n 'it'fl After 33 lhe6 Black wins back the knight with 33 .. .l::t d3 because of the weakness of the back rank, and then 34 g4 Ii.xc3 35 gxf5 l:!xb3 yields adequate counterplay. 33 .. J!d3 Here I quite like 33 .. .'it>f6! 34 'it'e2 'it>e5, when Black's pieces should be sufficiently well placed for him to be able to defend. 34 ct:Jb5 'it>f7 35 ct:Jxa7 nxb3 36 ct:Jc8 f4 Short continues to seek active play. 37 !:txb6 !:ta3 38 ct:Jd6+ 'it>f8? Not the best square, since it gives White extra tactical options with the knight no longer defended. Either 38 ... 'it>e7 or 38 ... 'it'f6 was better. 39 ct:Je4 'it>e7 40 !:tb7+ 'it>d8 41 !:tb6 'it>e7 42 'it>e2 g4 For those who have diligently played through the examples in this chapter, 42 ... !:txa4?? 43 Ii.xe6+! with a fork on c5 will by now be a familiar trap! 43 'it>d2 fxe3+ 44 fxe3 .i:!a2+ 45 'it>d3

388

45 Ii.xg2? It might be better to try 45... c4+!? to ex­ change off the a-pawn, e.g. 46 'it>xc4 (46 'itc3 is met by 46 ... !:ta3+) 46 ... lha4+ 47 'it>d3 !:!.a3+ 48 �e2 l!a2+ 49 'it>f1 'it>f7. 46 a5 �xh2 47 .l:tb7+ 'it>d8 48 a6 !:ta2 49 a7 ct:JC7 50 ct:JC3 It seems that 50 ct:Jxc5 g3 5l lt:)e6+? would even lose, as after 51...ct:Jxe6 52 l:tb8+ �e7 53 a8'iV .l:.xa8 54 l::txa8 g2 55 !:tal It:)g5 56 !:tgl It:)f3 Black uses a fork to win! 50 J:la3 51 �e4! Threatening !:!.xc7! followed by It:)b5+. 51 ... g3 52 'it>f3 !:tal Not 52 ... !:txc3? because of 53 lIxc7 !:ta3 54 !:tb7, followed by !:tb8+. 53 �xg3 �c8 54 l:!b8+ �d7 5 5 ct:Jb5 This wins the exchange. 5 5 Wc6 56 �f3 ct:Jd5 57 a8'ii+ !:txa8 58 !:txa8 �xb5 59 e4 It:)C7 60 1:!.h8 c4 61 'ite3 ct:Je6 62 !:txh6 ct:JC5 63 Wd4 1-0 .••

••

•••

In the following example Portisch is

un­

able to redeploy his knight and, at the same time, stem White's initiative.

1 5 . 24 T Petrosian L Portisch Candidates quarter-final (13th matchgame), Palma de Mallorca 1974 .

-

.

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

.l:.e6 35 .l:.b8+ tDf8 36 �a8 �e1 37 tDd8 �h7 38 b6 l::t b 1 39 b7 tDd7 40 �xa S 1-0 Portisch's pieces couldn't find decent squares and the fact that he had an extra pawn proved virtually irrelevant. My opponent's space advantage and more active pieces led to a comfortable win at my expense in 15.25.

White has excellent activity for the pawn. 24 nc3 tDb4? It seems that Black should play the un­ natural-looking 24 ... tDb2! as there is no way to win the knight, while the continuation 25 l:.c2 ttJd3 26 :'c3 tDb2 just invites a repetition. Although b2 seems a curious square, the alternative and game continuation leads to the knight being pushed out of play. 25 a3 tDa6 26 b4 tDb8 An awkward-looking move, but Portisch has no easy way to coordinate his pieces. A couple of alternatives, however, were wor­ thy of consideration: a) 26 ... .l:td7, leading to 27 .:!.c8+ �h7 28 b5 tDc7 29 tDe5 l:te7 30 tDc6 .l::t d 7 31 tDxa7 tDe8. b) 26 ...�h7, though Black is still passive after 27 b5 tDb8 28 l':!.c7 ttd7 29 .l:tc8 l':.b7. In both cases Petrosian judges White to be somewhat better. 27 1:[c7 as 28 bS tDd7 Black defends himself for the moment, but at the risk of being overly passive. 29 'it>f4 h S 29 . . .f6 30 h5 and 29 . . .tDf8 30 l':.b7 .l:i.d6 31 tDe5 are no better. 30 tDes tDf8 A sad retreat, but 30 ... tDxe5 31 �xe5 leads to Black losing either his b- or d-pawn. 31 J:!.b7 But not 31 IIxf7?? due to 31...tDg6+! . 31 ...f6 3 2 tDc6 tDg6+ 3 3 �g3 ttd6 34 Mxb6

1 5.2 5 C.Bauer-G.Flear French Lea gue 2004

32 J:::td 4 tDxes After 32 .. Jhe5 33 l::txd5 a,xd5 34 tDxd5 Black is still extremely cramped . 3 3 tDxdS a,b7 34 �e3 Amongst his other problems, Black's king is unable to enter the fray. 34 ... bS 35 b3 �f8 36 tDc3 b4 37 tDe4 fJ.C7 Again, simplification isn't a panacea for Black's difficulties, as after 37 fJ.d7 38 fJ.xd7 tDxd7 39 tDd6 he would be playing virtually without his king, e.g. 39 tDf6 40 tDb7 tDd5+ 41 �d4 tDf4 42 tDxa5 tDxh3 43 'it>e4 tDf2+ 44 �f3 tDd3 45 tDc6 We8 46 �e3 and wins. 38 ttd s ttJc6 39 f6! Increasing the bind. 39 Wg8?! 39 .. J:ta7 is more robust, although Black remains under tremendous pressure. ...

...

•..

3 89

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

40 l:te5 'it'h7 41 liJd6 'it'g6 42 We4 1-0 The zugzwang is complete. Resolute defending sometimes pays di­ vidends, as in example 15.26.

15.26 C.Lutz-R.Oautov German League 2004

Here Dautov manages to save a dubious­ looking position a pawn down. 52 g41? g51 Hitting back! It's seems wise not to allow White to obtain a total grip on the king's wing. 53 fxg5 After 53 f5 .l:!.e8 54 liJc4 :te2+ 55 Wg3 litxa2 56 �xa3 �xa3+ 57 liJxa3 �h7, I believe Black has reasonable drawing chances. Instead, 53 Wg3!? is possibly better, just improving his king. 53 ... hxg5 54 liJe4? White is distracted by pawn-lust. Ac­ cording to Dautov, White could win with a careful king advance towards the queenside, e.g. 54 Wg3! liJe4+! 55 �f3 :a4 56 We3 Wg7 57 liJf3 �f6 58 l:I.b3 (rather than 58 .l:r.d4 ':'xd4 59 liJxd4 liJc3 or 59 Wxd4 liJf2) 58 ... liJd6 59 �c3 liJe4 60 �c6+ Wf7 61 liJd4 liJf6 62 .l:tc5 Wg6 63 Wd3 liJd7 64 .l:!.c6+ liJf6 65 liJf3 l:ta5 66 Wc4 etc. 390

5 4... �a41 5 5 liJxa 3 ? S o White wins a second pawn, but how will he move his knight without losing back his a-pawn? 55 ... 'iW7 56 �g2 �e6 57 �f2 liJd5 58 We1 liJf41 Although 58 ... liJb4 59 l:te3+ 'ifr'f6 60 �d2 liJxa2 is plausible, after 61 liJc2 %1f4 62 �b3 �H2+ 63 �d1 �h2 64 liJd4 things could still be awkward for Black with his knight trapped on the edge of the board. Anyway, there's no hurry to win the a-pawn. 59 �e3+ �f6 60 Wd2 na81 The h3-pawn is doomed and the coming knight ending seems only to be a draw. 61 �e2 :th8 62 liJb5 �xh3 63 l::tx h3 liJxh3 64 a4 �e7 65 �b3 liJf2 66 a s �d7 67 Wa4 liJxg4 68 a6 We8 69 liJd6+ Wb8 70 liJe4 Yz-Yz Although example 15.27 demonstrates the importance of a well-supported passed pawn, the abrupt end to the game is sur­ prising. I wonder if any of the readers can offer a more satisfactory explanation!

15.27 N.Short-V.Kramnik Amsterdam 1993

Short creates a passed pawn before Black has time to play ... liJc6, hitting both b4 and e5.

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

3 2 c4! axb4 3 3 axb4 bxc4 3 4 'iit C 3 ttJc6 After 34 ... ttJb7?! 35 �xc4 ttJxc5 36 bxc5 :a7 37 c6 White is well on his way to vic­ tory. 35 !tel ttJa7 36 'iitxC4 Black's majority is not likely to become a major threat, nor does he have any active play. So if he is going to save the game, he will have to prevent the b-pawn from be­ coming too dangerous. 36 ... �d8 37 l:tdl+! The text is strong, though Short later thought that 37 b5 ttJc8 38 �a1, followed by !ta6, was even stronger. 37 ... �e7 Ftacnik refutes 37... �c8 by 38 b5 .l:te7 39 !td6 �b8 40 b6 ttJc8 41 l:td8. 38 b5 ttJc8 39 'iit b4 ttJb6 Or if 39 ... l:i.a7 then 40 ttJa4 l:i.b7 41 l::t e l �d8 42 l:r.c6 ttJe7 43 lId6+ 'it>c8 44 ttJc5 and White presses relentlessly forward. 40 I;td6 ttJd5+

49 e6 'it'd8! 50 exf7 'it'e7 which is a stone cold draw), Black has three possibilities: a) 44 .. Jhb7+ 45 ttJxb7 'it'e6 46 �b4 (but not 46 ttJd8+?! 'it'xe5 47 ttJxf7+ 'it'e4 when Black is fighting back) 46 ... 'it'xe5 47 �c3 �e4 48 Wd2 and White wins, as noted by Short. b) 44 ... d4 45 c4 �d8 46 'it'd3 and White wins easily - Short again. c) 44 .. .f6! (Ftacnik) is the best move, when it's White's tum to make a decision:

el) 45 e6 �d6 46 b6 and now: ell) 46 ... d4 47 Wa7 Ire8 48 b8'iV+ Irxb8 49

41 1Ixd 5! 1-0 I presume that this was an adjournment because it's really rather early to resign. In fact the position is very complicated and I'm even doubtful that White is winning! Can anyone find a win somewhere in the follow­ ing analysis? After 41...exd5 42 b6 l::t c8 43 b7 .l:!.b8 44 �b5! (rather than 44 �c3? �d8 45 �d4 �c7! 46 ttJa6+ xb7 47 ttJxb8 xb8 48 xd5 c7

xb8 d3 50 ttJxd3 rJixe6 51 'it'c7 'lot>f5 (Ftacnik stops here at 'clear advantage', bu t it can be shown to be winning) 52 'it>d6 'it'e4 53 ctJc5+! (avoiding 53 'it'e6 xd3 54 'it'f7 'it>e3 55 �xg7 f5 and draws) 53 ... 'it'e3 54 ctJe6 g5 (or 54 . . . 'iitf2 55 ctJxg7 xg2 56 h4 g3 57 ctJf5+) 55 ctJg7 'lot>f2 56 g3 'It>g2 57 'it'e6 'it'xh2 58 g4 'lot>g3 59 �f5 etc. el2) 46 .. .l:tg8! seems to draw: 47 ctJb3 (47 e7 is no better, e.g. 47 ... d4 48 'it'a7 'it'xe7 49 b8"iY l::txb8 50 xb8 �d6 51 ctJb3 'lot>e5 52 'lot>c7 d3 53 d7 �d5 54 'lot>e7 'It>c4 55 ctJd2+ rJic3 56 ctJf1 d2 57 ctJxd2 xd2 58 �f7 'lot>e3 59 rJixg7 f5 60 xh6 'It>f2 61 h4 'it'xg2 62 g5 �g3) 47 ...xe6 48 rj;; c7 e5 49 ctJa5 rJie4 50 ctJc6 g5 51 ctJd8 l::t g7+ (the point of Black' s previous move) 52 d6 l::txb7 53 ctJxb7 d4 54 ctJc5+ e3 55 e6 rj;; f2 56 g4 g2 57 xf6 rJixh2 58 g6 rj;; g3 59 'It>h5 h3 60 ctJe4 g2 61 xh6 f3 etc. 391

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

c2) 45 exf6+! gxf6 46 'it>c6 d4 and then: c21 ) 47 CDd3 'it>e6 48 �c7 l:tg8 49 b8� lIxb8 50 'it>xb8, but now Black is able to get amongst the white pawns by using the f5square: 50 . . . �f5! (or possibly 50 ... h5! ? 51 'it>c8 h4) 51 'it>c7 'it>e4 52 CDc5+ (52 CDf2+ also fails to win: 52 . . . �e3 53 CDg4+ 'it>e2 54 CDxf6 d3 55 CDe4 �e3 56 CDc3 'it>f2 57 g4 �f3 58 h3 'it>g3) 52 . . . �e3 53 �d6 �f2 54 g4 �f3 55 h3 �g3 56 �e6 'it>xh3 57 �f5 �h4 draws. c22) 47 �c7 1:!.g8 48 b8'ii' ! (less testing is 48 h4 h5! 49 b8� l:i.xb8 50 'it>xb8 �d6 51 CDd3 �d5 52 CDf2 'it>e5 53 g3 f5 54 �c7 f4! and draws) 48 . . . l:I.xb8 49 �xb8 �d6 50 CDd3 �d5 51 CDf2! (slowing down the black king inva­ sion) 5 1 . . .h5! (a precise move to draw; after 51 . . . 'itc4 52 �c7 d3 53 �d6 d2 54 �e6 'it>d4 55 �xf6 �e3 56 CDd1+ �e2 57 CDb2 �f2 58 g4 �f3 59 g5 White wins!) 52 �c7 (or 52 g3 f5 53 f4 56 lLld1 h3 57 gxh3 ;t>g5 58 lLlf2 'it>h4 59 �e6 d3 and draws again. Unless someone can find another way for White it seems that Kramnik was just wrong to resign! In 15.28 Black is only a shade more active at first sight, but it soon becomes clear that his knight will be very influential, whereas White's steed will struggle to make any im­ pact on the game. Because of this Black's advantage is actually quite substantial.

15.28 V.Korchnoi-G.KasparoY Wijk aan Zee 2000 (see following diagram)

3 5 ....l:!.d7 In order to make progress Black has to find a good way to organize his pieces. The text covers the seventh rank while Black 392

prepares to bring his knight to the ready­ made outpost on f4. In his notes Kasparov mentions the alternative 35 ... �d6! with the idea that 36 lLlc5 can be met by 36 ...b6! .

36 �e2 Krasenkow points out that 36 lLlcS doesn't help matters in view of 36 ....l:!.c7 37 �e2 ;t>d6 38 b4 b6 39 .l:1d1+ �e7 40 lLlb3 nc2+ 41 .l:i.d2 �c3, saddling White with various problems. 36 lLld3 37 .l:!.C3 lLlf4+ 38 �f3 �f6 White is now seriously short of sensible moves. 39 lLlc5 .l:.C7 40 h4?! It's understandable to want to exchange off the weak h-pawn, but this leads to Black obtaining an outside passed pawn. The best chance is probably 40 lLla4 l:txc3+ 41 lLlxc3 'it>e5 42 �e3 g4 43 f3 h5, but this is still un­ pleasant for White. 40 ... e5 41 hxg5+ �xg5 42 l::.C4 b5 43 .l:!.c1 b4 44 .l::t C4 If 44 .l:!.gl+ then 44 . . �f6 45 lLla4 .l:!.c8 46 .I:td1 h5 and the h-pawn gets going. 44 ... a5 45 lLla4 .I:tf7 Avoiding 45 ... .l:!.xc4?! 46 bxc4, which gives White a passed pawn, as after 46 . lLle6 47 c5 h5 48 �g3 h4+ 49 'it>h3 Kasparov felt that Black would have difficulty winning the position. 46 �e3 After 46 �g3, Kasparov revealed in his •••

.

.

.

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t vers u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t

analysis how he aimed to make progress: 46...tiJd3 47 lIc2 h5 48 .l:!.d2 tiJe1 49 tiJc5 h4+ 50 'iii>h3 .l:!.f3+ 51 'it'h2 'it'g4 when all the black pieces are operating without hindrance against White's king. 46 tiJg2+ 47 �e2 tiJf4+ 48 �e3 h5 49 l:tC5 lLlg2+ 50 �e2 h4! The e-pawn is now surplus to require­ ments. It's more important to the position that White's defence is handicapped by the absent knight. 51 �xe5+ �g4

15.29 O.Romanishin-J.Benjamin Groningen 1993

•..

It's astonishing that White's slightly more active pieces lead to a quick win. First let's look at the game, and then at how Black could have improved. 28 ... ,S,c7 29 ltJf6+! 'it>h8 30 g4! h6 31 h4 �b7 After 31 .ltJd7? 32 ltJe8 l:tb7, White forks with 33 ltJd6. 32 ,S,a 5 's'e7? 32 ... ltJd7! is better, when 33 ltJe8! (33 ltJxd7? 's'xd7 34 's'xe5 J::!. d 4! would only be equal) 33 .. .'�g8 34 ltJd6 's'c7 35 ltJb5 l:tc2 36 's'xa7 (or 36 'it>f1 ltJf6 37 f3 e4!) 36 ... ltJf6 37 f3 's'xe2 38 ltJd6 still looks good for White, but at least it's rather messy. 33 g5 hxg5 34 hxg5 �g7 35 's'C5 Now White has a strong threat of push­ ing the a-pawn to dislodge the knight, fol­ lowed by 's'c8-g8 mate. 35 . . e4 36 a4! .l:!.b7 36 ... ltJxa4? would really miss the point as 37 J::t c8 forces mate immediately. 37 's'b5! Avoiding 37 a5?! ltJd7. 37 ... a6 38 .l:!.b4 as 39 's'b5 's'b8 40 e3 1-0 White wins at least the two pawns on a5 and e4. It all went horribly wrong for Black, ..

52 lIe8 Korchnoi could have resisted a little longer with the variation 52 f3+ .l:!.xf3 53 �g5+ 'it'xg5 54 Wxf3, but the knight ending is lost after 54 ... ltJe 1 + 55 'it>f2 ltJd3+ 56 'it>f3 lLle5+ 57 'it>g2 �g4 58 ltJc5 h3+ 59 'it>f2 (if 59 Wh2 Black continues with 59 ...'it>h4, prepar­ ing ... ltJg4+ etc) 59 ... 'it>h4 60 ltJe6 ltJd3+ 61 Wf3 tiJe1+ 62 �f2 h2 according to Kasparov. 52 ltJf4+ 53 'it>e3 h3 54 f3+ After 54 ng8+ �h4 55 J::th8+, Black shields his king with 55 ... ltJh5. 54 ...'it>h4 0-1 If White played on, Kasparov gives 55 �h8+ ltJh5 56 'it>f2 l::. g 7 57 ltJc5 h2 58 ltJe6 h1'iV 59 ltJxg7 'i¥h2+ 60 'it>f1 'iVh3+ 61 'it>e2 'i'g2+ as one possible conclusion. •••

In 15.29 White's initiative means that Black has to be very accurate.

.

393

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

whose pieces just couldn't get their act to­ gether. However, Black could have im­ proved right at the beginning! Instead of 28 .. J:l:c7, which proved to be too passive, the active 28 ... MC4! is fine, as the obvious con­ tinuation 29 CLlf6+ �g7 30 CLle8+ �f8 31 CLld6 ':a4 32 �xa4 CLlxa4 33 a3 is just about equal.

Exchanging a pair o f pawns gives White one less to worry about. 53

•..

1:ih 5 54 CLlf2 l:txh2 5 5 'it>f1 'it>d5 56 l:td3+

CLld4 57 'it>gl l:!.h6 58 CLle4 (4

Short finally pushes the c-pawn. 59 bxe4+ bxe4 60 l:td1

60 l:ta3? is hopeless due to 60 ... CLlxf3+. 60 ...11e6

Finally, the story of one that got away.

1 5 . 30 A.Ka rpov-N.Short Candidates semi-final (3rd matchgame), Linares 1992

Short later considered the unpinning 60 ... 'it>e5 to be simpler. 61 CLle3+ �e5 62 'it>f1 �h6 63 lle1+ 'it>f5 64 .l:te8

Time to try and hassle from behind. 64 CLlxf3 6 5 CLle2 ••.

65

.•.

CLlh2+?

If 49 l:te2 Black can make the advance 49 ... c4 under even more favourable condi­ tions than in the previous note. Therefore Karpov decides that the lesser evil is to ditch his lame duck of an e-pawn.

Not exactly an ideal square for a kni ght (unless it leads to an immediate win), as now there's a lack of coordination in the black camp. 65 ... l:th2! is much better, as analysed by Ftacnik: 66 :fS+ (66 a4 could well go down to 66 ... CLle5 67 l:tfS+ 'it>e4 6S CLlxf4 c3 69 CLle2 c2 70 l::t cS 'it>e3 71 l:txc2 l:tf2+ 72 'it>e1 CLlf3+ 73 'it>d1 l'lf1 mate) 66 ... 'it>e4 67 CLlxf4 (after 67 1'hf4+ 'it>e3 Black is threatening everything!) 67 ... c3 (strongest, though 67 ... l:txa2 is also good) 6S CLle2 c2 69 l:tcS CLld4! 70 CLlxd4 c1'i'+ 71 l:txc1 l:th1+ and Black wins.

49 'it>xe5 50 CLld3+

66 'it>gl f3 67 l:tf8+ 'it>e5 68 CLlg 3 l:th7 69 �2

At least the knight is now playing its part.

e3?

Black obviously has a more active posi­ tion, especially as White's knight is badly restricted, but can he win? 42 ... l:td4 43 l:!e2 'it>d5 44 Wg 2 h 5

Another idea is 44 ...c4 45 bxc4+ bxc4 46 CLla4 l:td3 with excellent winning chances. 45 'it>f1 h4 46 'it>g2 CLlg5 47 'it>f2 h3 48 :te2 CLle6 49 'it>e2

••.

'it>d6 51 CLlf2 l:td 5 52 l:te3 'it>e6 5 3 CLlXh 3

394

This may be Black's last moment to win. For instance, Kristensen suggests 69 ...l:td7!

R o o k a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s R o o k a n d Kn ig h t 70 l:te8+ �d4 71 l:th8 l:tb7 and i f 72 l:txh2?

then 72 ...l:tb2+ 73 �gl :l.xh2 74 �xh2 c3, which looks convincing to me. 70 :'e8 �d4 7 1 l:1d8+ �e4 7 2 ttJf5 ! :l.e7 7 3 ltJe3+ � b 5 74 :l. d 1 �a4 7 5 :l.e1 l:t d 7 76 :l.xe3 :d2+ 7 7 �g3

78 ... l:txe3 79 l:txh2 �a3 80 l:th6 a5 81 Wf2 :'c3 (81 ...l:te2+ 82 �xf3 l:txa2 83 We3 l:tc2 84 Wd3 is drawn) 82 l:th5 a4 83 l:th4 :l.c2+ 84 Wxf3 l:txa2 85 �e3 Wb3 86 �d3 :l.g2 87 :'h8 :l.g3+ 88 �d2 Wb2 89 :l.b8+ l:tb3 and, despite ap­ pearances, this is a book draw: 90 :l.c8 a3 91 l:tc2+ Wa1 92 l:tc8. 78 l:te4+ W a 3 79 l:tf4 f1ttJ+ 80 ttJxf1 ttJxf1+ 81 l:txf1 a s 82 l:tf5 a4 83 :l.f4 l:txa 2 84 :l.f3+ �b4 85 l:tf4+ We3 86 l:tf3+ 'it>d4 87 :l.f4+ �e 5 88 l:tb4 a 3 89 l:tb3 �e4 90 �h3 Wd4 91 l:tg3 :l.a1 92 Wh 2 �e4 9 3 l:tb3 a2 94 :l.a 3

Yz-Yz

77 .f2 ••

Instead, 77. . .:l.xa2 allows 78 ttJc2 and the f-pawn perishes. 77 ... l:te2!? threatening .. .£2 is the best chance, but then 78 .l:!.c2! defends (but not 78 a3? l:txe3! 79 l:txe3 ttJf1 + 80 �xf3 ltJxe3 81 �xe3 Wxa3, or 78 ttJd1? l:tg2+ 79 Wh3 as 79 . . Jtxa2! is now possible), e.g.

Short really should have won but he lost his way. We have surely all experienced this phe­ nomenon: one first becomes aware that, be­ cause of an imprecision or two, the win has become harder; one starts to feel more tense and one's brain can't seem to find a clear passage through the mist of variations. There is no easy solution to this affliction. Perhaps the advice I should give is to take a deep breath, stay calm, and try to think ob­ jectively about the position on the board, not the better one of a few moves earlier!

395

C h a pte r Sixte en

I

Two Roo ks ve rs u s Two Roo ks

Although this i s statistically one o f the most common NQEs (the fifth!) i t has a noticeable tendency to simplify rather quickly into a ubiquitous single rook ending. Standard books will tell you that this occurs 'most of the time'. I've aimed to quantify this process by scruti­ nizing my own games and as a result I've come up with a rule of thumb: in two thirds of cases, the result is trivial or there is rapid simplification, so only one third of double-rook endings are really relevant to this section. I'm using the word 'relevant' to mean that there is important action with four rooks on the board, and any subsequent simplification occurs only after a consequent sequence of play. A pair of rooks can be a formidable force, particularly when working together to create threats against the king. King security is an issue here - as it is throughout the final chapters of this book - associated with the presence of so many powerful pieces left on the board. Doubling rooks along the seventh is a typical method employed by both sides, either as part of a mating attack or, failing that, with prospects of a perpetual check. Such dominant rooks can also be used to terrorize pawns, especially isolated ones, on both flanks. In con­ trast, if the position is fairly closed and the rooks are thus denied open lines, then positional factors such as space and the superior pawn structure come more to the fore. When all the pawns are on one wing, there are frequently greater winning chances for the stronger side than in analogous positions with only one pair or rooks. An extra pawn can give shelter to the attacking side's king while the monarch is brought up into the attack, or it may be that the defending king is forced away from his own pawns by the threats made by a pair of hunting rooks. If one side has the advantage of an advanced passed pawn, this may not be enough for victory as it can usually be successfully blockaded. Additional threats on the other wing may well be needed. I shall begin with some salient examples where I aim to develop this theme.

16 . 1 A.Karpov-G.Kasparov World Championship (19th matchgame), Seville 1987

396

White has an extra passed pawn on the queenside, but this is blockaded and comes under pressure. White's king is unable to come across and give it support, which is usually a strong threat in single rook end-

Two R o o k s v e rs u s Two R o o k s

ings. So the only realistic chance to win is to try and create additional threats elsewhere.

We5!?) 50 l:!.f5+ We6 51 lte5+ Wf6 52 ne8 when Black can defend with 52 ... g5!+, but not 52 .. Jk4? as White has a devilish riposte: 53 g5+! hxg5+ 54 Wg4 threatening nf2 mate! That's not a bad 'additional threat' ! Black is busted, e.g. 54 ... g6 55 h6 or 54 ... l:!.e7 55 1:txe7 Wxe7 56 a7 etc. 49 h5 ':c6 50 Itb2 ':cxa6 51 J::t b 6+

The rook ending is only drawn despite Karpov's best efforts. 51 ... nxb6 52 .:!.xa 7 J:f.b1 53 .l:!.xg7 .l:!.f1+ 54 �e3 ne1+ 5 5 Wf3 .l:!.f1+ 56 �e2 nf4 57 'it>e3 �e5 !

28 ... :!.c6 29 z:tfa 1 �f8 30 Wf2 W e7 31 We3

An excellent move. I t requires confidence in one's own analysis to allow simplification to a king and pawn ending a pawn down.

�e6 3 2 na 5 nd6 33 n1a 2 11c6 34 h4

58 .ue7+ �d6 59 J:Ie6+

34 Wd4 nd7+ 35.nd5 �a7 gets nowhere fast.

Or 59 l:th7 Mxg4 60 .uxh6 'it>eS and the draw is sure. 59 ... 'it>xe6 60 'it'xf4 We7! Vz-Vz This precise move holds, e.g. 61 e5 We6! 62 exf6 Wxf6; or 61 'it'f5 �f7 62 eS fxeS 63 Wxe5 �e7 etc.

34 ... .l:.d6 3 5 Wf4 l:tb6 36 1:t2a3 l:tc6 3 7 l:te 5+ �f6 3 8 l:tf5+ W e6 3 9 nfa 5 l:tb6 40 �e5+ Wf6 41 .l:!.ea 5 �e6 42 .l:i.a1 .l:!.c6 43 i::t e 5+ �f6 44 l:tf5+ �e6 45 .l:te5+ �f6 46 l:tea 5 We6 47 l:t1a2 lIb6 48 g 4

Kasparov was able to hold in a similar way in another high-profile match.

16.2 COMP Deep Junior-G.Kasparov New York (4th matchgame) 2003

48 ...f6

It's logical to limit White's chances for expansion, but any change in the pawn structure requires calculation as there is al­ ways the possibility of White infiltrating after the exchange of one set of rooks. Also possible is 48 ... 'it>f6 49 h5 .uc6 (if 49 ... g5+ 50 hxg6 'it>xg6 White can try 51

49 .uc6! 50 .udb5 h 5 ...

397

P r a c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

With White's rooks tied to the b-pawn there's no win against such a solid defensive set-up. 51 �f2 l:i.e6 It's prudent to keep the white king from coming across and supporting the b-pawn. 52 f4 g6 53 'it>g3 'it>g7 54 'it>h4 �h6 5 5 !t1b4 J::td 6 56 g3 f6 Threatening 47 ... J::tbxb6!, as 48 .l:txb6?? even loses to 48 . gS 49 fxgS+ fxgS mate. 57 g4 hxg4 58 hxg4 �g7 59 l:tb3 lIc6 60 g5 f5 61 l:!.b1 1/z-1/z .

.

This type of position seems to be quite common.

16.3 V.Kramnik-P.Leko World Championship (4th matchgame), Brissago 2004

This looks promIsmg for White, but Bacrot finds a way to nullify White's pres­ sure ... 2 3 ... a s ! 24 �xf2 1/z-1/z Topalov couldn't find any advantage against Bacrot's intended 24 ... l:ta6 followed by ... l:te6, bringing the rook to the critical part of the board. If White were to double on the d-file to support the d-pawn, then Black can continue with .. J�e7, .. .£s and ... 1:1£7. To stop dangerous passed pawns both rooks are generally required.

16.5 A.Colovic-G.Flear Creon 2001

43 .. J:td2 1/z-1/z White has no way to improve his forces as there are no targets in Black's position. There can be greater problems for the de­ fender if he has misplaced rooks.

16.4 V.Topalov-E.Bacrot Cap d' Agde (rapid) 2003 398

33

c6

Two R o o k s v e rs u s Two R o o k s

White's c-pawn can be shepherded on­ wards by both white rooks, whereas Black's uncomfortable rook on e4 is seemingly un­ able to help out. 33 J:tc8 34 l:tc1 e5! The rook must get back to the eighth if Black hopes to defend. 35 c7 exd4 But not 35 .. Jhd4?? 36 l:Ib8 and wins. 36 l:tb8 !:tee8 Just in time! 37 �xc8 i::txc8 38 �e2 �f7 39 �d3 'it'e6 40 �xd4 �d6 41 h4 Perhaps the most tricky move is 41 lIc5!? when Black has to be careful, since after 4l ...l:txc7? 42 lIxc7 �xc7 43 �e5 'it'd7 44 �xf5 �e7 45 �g6 �f8 46 'it>h7 �f7 47 g4 'it>f6 48 h4! he is in zugzwang and loses (e.g. 48 ... �f7 49 g5 hxg5 50 hxg5 g6 51 'it>h6 etc). Instead, Black can defend with 41 ...g6, but this has to be followed up precisely: 42 h3 (or 42 h4 g5) 42 .. .lhc7 43 i::txc7 �xc7 44 �e5 and now 44 .. f4! (the only way to draw) 45 gxf4 g5 46 f5 h5 and Black holds. But the immediate 41 ...f4! is simplest, e.g. 42 gxf4 l:txc7 and the draw is assured. 41 ... g5 Black escapes. Actually, the tempo count is now in Black's favour, so he can also get away with 41.. . .:.xc7 42 .uxc7 �xc7 43 �e5 �d7 44 Wxf5 �e7 45 �g6 Wf8 46 'it'h7 'it>f7 47 g4 Wf6 when we have reached the same po­ sition as in the previous note, except that it is White to move. This changes everything as there is no zugzwang and Black holds the position. 42 h5 l::!.x c7 43 llxc7 'it>xC7 44 We5 f4 45 gxf4 gxf4 46 �xf4 �d7 47 Wf5 �e7 Yz-Yz •.

.

In the next example White again has an extra passed pawn, and although Black has been successful in blockading it, the fact that there are pawns on both wings gives White excellent chances of generating further threats.

16.6 G.Flear-B.Finegold Hastings 1988/89

43 'it'f3 ':'cd8 44 l!ed4 'it'e6 45 ne3+ �f7 As the passed pawn is going nowhere I decided to exchange it for Black's a-pawn. 46 l::td e4! J:txd6 47 J:te7+ 'it>f6 48 i:lxa7 h5 After 48.. J::! 8d7 White has a choice be­ tween the single rook ending after 49 l:!.xd7 ':xd7 50 ttc3 .tId4! (50 .. J::! d6? loses to the straightforward 51 l:tc6 l:txc6 52 bxc6 �e6 53 �e4 g6 54 c7 �d7 55 'it>e5 cj;;xc7 56 £4) 51 l:!.c6+ 'it>f5 52 l:txb6 Iha4 53 .uc6 J::ta3+ 54 �g2 (though this may not be winning), and 49 l::t a6, which keeps Black tied down because of the persistent pressure on the b-pawn and along the sixth rank. 49 J:tee7 g6 50 l:!.eb7 With four rooks on the board isolated pawns can be particularly weak. 50 JU8 51 'it>g2 .t!.d2? 51..5�g5 was a better defence, when White may well have to seek a single rook ending in order to press home his ad van­ tage, e.g. 52 J:tf7 J:txf7 53 J:txf7 J:td4 54 'it>h3 J:ha4 55 f4+ 'it>h6 56 J:tf6 .l::i.b4 57 .l::i. xb6 with decent winning chances. 52 �h3! Avoiding Black doubling on the seventh. 52 ... J:txf2 53 ':'xb6+ �f5 .•

399

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Black threatens to construct a mating net with . . . g5-g4+ etc. So White takes the most prudent course to eliminate the black king­ side even if it costs him his a-pawn. 54 ]::t e 7 .!:ta2 55 1:[e5+ 'it>e4 56 1:[xg6 .l:txa4 5 7 1:[xh 5 Now White wins slowly but surely. 57 .l:i.a1 5S 'it>g4 ':'gl 59 .l:.e6+ 'it>d4 60 ':g5 l'tbS 61 b6 ]::t b 1 62 1:[gg6 �b5 63 'it>f4 .l:tfS+ 64 1::t ef6 neS 65 1:[d6+ 'it>e4 66 l:i.e6+ 'it>b4 67 1:.g5 1-0 •.•

As in single rook endings, activity can compensate for lost pawns.

16.7 G.Flear-G.Andruet Val Maubuee 1989

I f 4 6... .l:.a1, then 4 7 a 7 .l:ta8 4 8 .l:txd3 .l:t1xa7 49 ':xe6 and a draw is more or less certain. 47 'it>f3 e5 4S a7 l:i.fS+ 49 'it> g4 e4 50 l:ta2 1:[gl+ 51 'it>h3 l::tfgS 52 .l:txe4 But not 52 a8'ii'? ? as after 52 ... .l:th1 + 53 .l:h2 .l:txh2+ 54 'it>xh2 ':xa8 55 l:he4 .l:td8 Black has two pawns more and every chance of winning. 52 .lith1+ 53 .l:th2 .:tal 54 .l:td4 .l:txa7 55 �xd3 ':a 5 One last threat! 56 .:tg3! l:i.bS 57 l:te2 l:i.h5+ Ya-Ya The extra h-pawn doesn't constitute any real advantage as all simplifications lead to book draws. •••

Losing the initiative can be a risky busi­ ness. In 16.8, for instance, allowing my op­ ponent counter-chances could have cost me dear.

16. 8 G.Flear-S.Crouan French League 2005

44 .l:te7 .l:th1 45 as 45 ':'xe6?? .l:te1+ 46 'it>f5 .l:tf8+ 47 11f6 .l:tf1+ would be a typical way to lose a rook. 45 d3 After 45... .l:te1+ 46 'ifr>f3 (46 'ifr>f4? lets Black gain time with 46 ... e5+!) 46 ... .l:te3+ 47 'ifr>f2 e5 White saves the day with 48 .l:te2!. 46 a6 A curious position; neither pawn can be captured due to skewers: 46 .l:txd3?? .l:th4+ 47 'ifr>e3 .l:th3+ 48 'it>e2 .l:thxd3, or again 46 .l:txe6?? l:te1+ 47 'it>f5 .l:tf8+ 48 .l:tf6 .l:tf1+. 46 .l:te1+ •••

•••

4 00

24 l:txa7 The principled move, but capturing the a-pawn has the downside of losing control of the d-file. However, 24 l:tfd1 as 25 g3 l:Hc8 26 b3 'ifr>g7 27 ':'a7?! .l:td8 doesn't look like much for White. 24 .l:tfdS 25 b3 .l:td2 •••

Two R o o ks v e rs u s Two R o o k s

Now Black's rook on the seventh will be a nuisance and has to be dealt with. 26 f4 h5 27 h4 With the benefit of hindsight I prefer 27 g3, keeping the structure more compact, and if 27 ...h4 simply 28 :f2. 27 J:.bd8 28 .l:tf2 .l:td1+ 29 'iti>h2 �8d4 30 1:ta6 30 g3!? is more solid 30 e5! Generating some serious counterplay. 31 .l:txb6 31 fxeS is also messy after 31...l:txh4+ 32 'ittg3 .l:tg4+ 33 'iti>f3 .l:!.e4. 31 e4 32 l:tb5 .l:te1 33 :xf5 e3 •••

•••

•••

l:te3 l:ted1) 37... l:tg1 38 l:Ie6 e1 'ii'+ (if 38 ... �f7 39 :ce3 :xg2+ White escapes with a draw after 40 �h3! Ith2+ 41 �g3 .l:tg2+ 42 �h3, but not 40 �f3?? due to 41 ...e1ltJ+ 41 1he1 .l:tdf2+ and 42 ... �xe6) 39 lhe1 l:txe1, and although White has amassed five pawns for his rook, with the pawns so far back a draw is the very best he can realistically hope for, e.g. 40 cS �gl 41 Wf3 :gxg2 42 b4 (or 42 c6? .l:tc2) 42 ... .l:!.xa2 43 We4 l:tgb2 and White has suffi­ cient problems that he may well lose. 36 �f3 l:te6 37 .l:te2 1-0 Choosing the right plan when tryin g to exploit an extra pawn is not always straight­ forward.

16.9 G.Flear-K.Allen Port Erin 2001

34 .l:!.c2? White can still keep the e-pawn under control with 34 J:H3! J::t d 2 3S .l:teS e2 36 a4. 34 f61 Stronger than 34 ... �e4, after which 3S .l:teS lhf4 36 Wg3 always favours White. 3 5 Wg 3?! Instead, White can still ensure a draw with 3S �xf6!, and although this is met by 3S ... �e4, White saves his skin with 36 .l:i.c3! 'iti>h7 37 �d3 e2 38 �g3 �h1 + 39 Wxh1 e1 'iV+ 40 �h2 �e7 41 �fS, when Black cannot make progress and best play is probably just 41 . ..'iti>h6 42 :f6+ 'iti>h7 43 J::t fS. 3 5 .l:te4?? A blunder. Instead, 3S ... J::t d 2! wins a rook!, e.g. 36 �c3 e2 37 �xf6 (no better is 37 •••

•••

In technical positions ' what plan to choose?' is the million-dollar question for many a club player. I suggest that, when there is some doubt in one's mind, a little discussion with one' s inner sel f may hel p

matters. Here, for instance, White wou ld l ike to exchange a pair of rooks, when the exploi­ tation of the extra pawn would become eas­

ier. However, if Black avoids this, White' s plan isn't obvious. Attacking the black king isn't really on as the seventh rank is well 401

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

defended, and even advancing the pawn majority doesn't look a cut and dried exer­ cise either. There is also the question of Black's own majority, which could lead to him obtaining counter-chances with a dan­ gerous passed pawn. If nothing presents itself as evident, then improving one's pieces whilst probing to create weaknesses is often the way to start the ball rolling. So I decided first of all to play cautiously on the queenside. Not just as a prophylactic measure, but also to oblige Black to commit himself, after which he would no doubt be left with a target that I could attack. 2 5 J:.fcl J:.aa7 26 �c8+ Wg7 27 .l:lb8 �f5 28 �al a4 If Black instead temporizes, White could start to advance his pawns with f2-f4, �f2-f3 and g2-g4 etc. 29 bxa4 bxa4 30 l:ta3 l:tC5 3 1 l:tb4 .l:!.ca 5 Now that Black's rooks have been forced onto the defensive it's high time to expand. 32 h4 Wf6 33 Mf4+ 'it>e6 Hoping to create some counterplay with the a-pawn, but it proves to be too slow. 34 g4 Wd6 35 Wg2 WC5 36 �g3 Wb5 37 g5 .l:i.5a6 38 z:td4 Ii.C7 39 f4 :taa7 40 e4!? It's probably more precise to play 40 h5 and isolate Black's remaining pawn on the kingside. 40.. J:tC4 41 �xC4 WXC4 42 f5 Wb4 43 Ma l

4 3 . . J:te7 After 43 ... a3 White should opt for 44 Wf4! (rather than 44 f6 Wc5! when Black's king will help blockade the white majority; in­ stead 44 ... �b3? goes down to 45 e5 �b2 46 �f1 a2 47 e6 al� 48 l:!.xal and White's two pawns on the sixth defeat Black's rook) 44 ... 'it>c5 (if 44 ... 'it>b3, then 45 f6 Wb2 46 l:tgl a2 47 e5 aIVi' 48 .u.xal lhal 49 e6 etc) 45 We5! .l:le7+ 46 �f6 �xe4 47 fxg6 hxg6 48 l:txa3 �xh4 49 :td3 with an easy win. 44 f6 .l::i. e B Here 44 .. .lhe4 loses to 45 f7 l:re3+ 46 'it>f4 �e2 47 f8'iV+. 45 �f4 a 3 46 e5 Wb3 47 f7 1-0 A common plan is to seek to pile up along the seventh rank.

16.10 J.Polgar-G.Kasparov Russia vs The World (rapid match), Moscow 2002

Judit Polgar has an extra, though dou­ bled pawn. The simplest way to drive the advantage home seems to be to double on the seventh. 3 2 n2d5 lIh3+ 3 3 Wg2 l::t h 2+ 34 wf3 1:t2h3+ 35 We4 b6 36 ':'c6+ WbB 37 l:td7 l:th2 3B �e3 .l:i.f8 39 l:tcC7 ':'xf5 40 :f.b7+ WeB 41 Mdc7+ wdB 42 ':'xg7 �cB 1-0 4 02

Two R o o ks v e rs u s Two R o o k s

Kasparov resigned as 43 l:!.xa7 'it'b8 44 ltgb7+ 'itt c8 45 l:tf7 lIxf7 46 lhf7 is easy.

16.11 G.Flear-A.Grant Perth 1992

J:!f7 47 .l::txf7 Wxf7 48 'ittg5) 44 ... 1:te2 45 1:txa2 �xa2 46 1'ha2 1:tc7 47 1:ta8+ 'ito>g7 48 'ittg5 1:tc1 ! and despite White's practical chances I be­ lieve that this is a book draw. 38 l:txe6 !ta2 39 1:tg6+ 'ittf8 40 1:tf6+ 'ittg8 41 ti.xfS l:!cc2 42 l:tbS 1:tc8 43 1:tgS+ 'ittf8 44 1:thS 'ittg 8 4S 1::tx h4 .tIe8 46 1:tg4+ 'itt h 8 47 1:ta s 1:te7 48 l:thS+ l:f.h7 49 l:!.xh7+ 'ittx h7 50 1:tgs 1-0 In 16.12 the seventh rank needs to be prised open.

16.12 A.Karpov-A.Khalifman Reykjavik 1991

Here the seventh rank is just asking to be taken! 30 1:tb7 hS 31 .l:Igg7 h4 The a-pawn isn't really a major threat with the seventh rank under White's control, but it can still be a useful decoy. 32 f4 Giving the king some breathing space. 32 ... fS 33 l:tbf7+ We8 34 ti.a 7 'ittf8 35 l:th7 'ito>g8 36 1Ihe7 Two active rooks beat one! 36 .. J!a2+ 3 7 'it'f3 kta3? A pointless move. Instead, Black should prefer 37 ... !Ia1 ! when White would have significant technical difficulties: 38 .l:.xe6 a3 (not 38 ... l:4c2? 39 ne8 mate!) 39 g4! (39 .l:.ea6? falls for 39 ... l:i.c2, threatening mate, when White has nothing better than perpetual check) 39 ... a2! 40 l:tea6 .l:.f1+ 41 'itt g2 .l:.e1 42 'itth3 l:txe3+ 43 Wxh4, but Black would still have excellent drawing chances due to the fact that White will soon be left with only the f- and h-pawn couplet which is often drawn in single rook endings, e.g. 43 ... fxg4 44 Wxg4 (or 44 .l:.xa2 .l:!.f8 45 'it'xg4 l:te4 46 l:tf2

32 e6! fxe6 33 .l:!.dd7 1-0 Apart from picking off Black's remaining pawns, White can even play for mate, e.g. 33 ... J::!.b8 34 .l:!.xg7+ 'it'h8 35 l:txh7+ �g8 36 l:tcg7+ 'it'f8 37 h4! etc. This example brings up another issue. If the defending king stays close to the corner, even with doubled rooks on the seventh, mate requires an additional helper.

16.13 Mate with rooks on the seventh White delivers mate starting with. . . 403

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

1 h6 ... the point being to defend the rook on g7, allowing the other one to give mate on h8.

16.14 Similar, but only perpetua l !

36 J::txf7 l:txe5 3 7 l:txg7+ h8 38 l:t gf7 �e8 39 f4 White can always take the draw, so why not test Black for a few more moves? 39 .l::t c 6 40 �g2 'iOt>g8 41 f5 .l::t b 8! Not giving White the time to play f5-f6. 42 l::tg 7+ 'it>h8 43 l::t h 7+ 'iOt>g8 44 .l:!.bg7+ 'it'f8 45 l:rf7+ �g8 46 f6 ':'xf6! Staving off the mate. 47 .l:thg7+ Yz-Yz •••

Here's an example of another type of 'perpetual net' .

16.16 P.Leko-V.Kramnik World Championship (13th matchgame), Brissago 2004 Here White i s unable to bring any re­ serves up to the attack. So although White can achieve perpetual, he has nothing more. In the following example White has a perpetual in hand.

16.15 M.Sadler-G.Flear Aosta 1990

4 04

Two R o o ks v e rs u s Two R o o k s

32 .c.i;)f6 At this point the game continued 33 g4? (a weakening and time consuming move) 33 ... hxg4 34 hxg4 .l:id1+ 35 'it>f2 l:te5 36 Z!h8 Itd2+ 37 'it>g3 �ee2 38 .l::!. f8+ 'it>g6 39 ttg8+ 'it>f6 40 1:tf8+ 'it>e6 41 !'te8+ 'it>d5 and White was left to defend a difficult ending. Instead ... 33 l:th71 .. .leads to a draw as White is able to stop the black king escaping into the centre. 33 ... h4 33 ... 'it>g6!? would be the only challenging way to keep the game alive, but then 34 .l:tb7! seems to be adequate, as analysed by Hazai: 34... nd2 35 b3 .l::!.fd5 36 nxb6 .l:i.2d3 37 'it>f2 J:Ixb3 38 :le6+ 'iit f5 39 llexd6 l:.xd6 40 .l:txd6 l:l.xb5 41 1:td5+ etc. 34 .l:i.ee71 There is no answer to the threat of per­ petual check. 34 .. J:td1+ 3 5 'it>h2 .l:!.e5 36 l:i.hf7+ 'iit g 6 3 7 l:tg7+ 'it> h 6 3 8 Ilh7+ etc. ••

Sometimes rooks on the seventh are an ineffective weapon if the other side can de­ fend the key square with an active rook.

exchange rooks or not? 3 2 Itc3 1 Trading rooks would enable Black soon to liquidate the queenside pawns with a probable draw in prospect. 32 I!b2 3 3 .l:i.f3 �aa2 Note how the rook on f3 renders Black's 'active' rooks impotent. It's worth remem­ bering this ploy to counter seventh rank pressure. Now Black can do nothing while White mops up on the kingside. 34 lie7+ 'it>g8 3 5 .l:!.e6 'it>g7 36 h4 lle2 37 I!c6 l:iac2 38 Ilc7+ '.t>g8 39 nf6 g5 40 hxg5 hxg5 41 .l:!.f5 g4 42 .l:!.f4 1-0 The g-pawn goes with check. •••

The following couple of examples should help you decide which way the king should go when checked by rampant rooks on the seventh.

1 �hich 16•18

way?

16.17

G.Flear-S.Ledger Hastings 1995/96

The first decision is to decide whether to

1 .l:!.g7+ Now Black has to decide whether to al­ low the capture of the h-pawn with check or move towards the centre. 1 ... '.t>h81 Moving away from the corner is q uite of­ ten wrong. Here for instance it l oses: 1 . . .�f8? 2 .l:!.af7+ '.t>e8 3 .l:!.xh7 c3 4 .l:!.a7 and mate is 405

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

unstoppable. 2 .l';Ixh7+ Wg8 3 .l';Iag7+ Wf8 and White has nothing better than per­ petual check, as 4 h4 c3 5 g4 c2 6 h5 gxh5 7 gxh5 c1"iV 8 h6?? fails to 8 .. :�xh6! ' (Of course 8 z:l.f7+ would still draw.) In the following game a strong grand­ master was punished for going the wrong way.

16.19 A.Grischuk-V.Tkachiev French Lea gue 2003

A practical decision, especially i f time was running out. However, the more spec­ tacular 51 'it>g6! was still possible, e.g. 51...gxh3 52 'it>f7! ne8 53 litxh3 and wins. 51 Jlb4+ 52 'it>g3 .l:!.b3+ 53 'it>h2 .l::t b 8 Now that he's been handed a passed pawn, he might as well push it! 54 h4! l'te4 55 h5 f5 56 .l:!h8+ J:te8 57 .l:!xe8+ Wxe8 58 h6 l:Ib6 59 h7 1-0 Black resigned as the single rook ending is hopeless: 59 .. .l:th6+ 60 'it>g3 'it>f8 61 Wf4 .l';Ih5 62 g3 with a pleasant-looking zugzwang, while the routine 62 .l:!.a8+ 'it>g7 63 h8'iV+ was also convincing. .•

Even with a limited number of pawns, if the defending king is cut off then he's usu­ ally in big trouble.

16.20 T .Petrosian-Y .Balashov USSR Championship, Leningrad 1977

40 .l:i.hg7+ 'it>f8? A poor move. Instead, after 40 ... 'it>h8! there's no convincing plan for White to try and win. 41 I;!af7+ 'it>e8 42 l'te7+ 'it>f8 43 �ef7+ 'it>e8 44 .l:!.h7! Now Black's king has problems avoiding being mated. 44 .l:!e6 45 Wh2 e4 46 'it>g3 e3 47 .l:!a7 'it>d8 48 fxe3 .i:!.xe3+ 49 'it> g4 .:te5 50 'it>h5 Grischuk brings up his king, intending to place it on g6, which gives him the possibil­ ity of constructing a mate, as well as that of threatening to simplify and pick off the f6pawn. Tkachiev now desperately tries to stave off the inevitable by giving up a pawn. 50 g4+ 51 'it>xg4 •..

.•.

406

46 .l:!e2 .l:!af8 47 .l:!a7 .l:!a8 48 l:tae7 .l:!ac8 48 ... g5 is fairly hopeless: 49 l:t2e6+ 'it>d5 50 �e5+ 'it>d6 51 hxg5. 49 .l:!2e6+ 'it>d5 50 'it>h3 .l:!.C7? An error, but an explicable one. Balashov is desperate to exchange a pair or rooks, as otherwise the pressure on the g-pawn would soon make Black's position unten-

Two R o o ks v e rs u s Two R o o ks

able; for instance, if 50 .. J:tc2 then 51 �f6 fol­ lowed by l:!.ee6 piling up on the weak g­ pawn; or if 50 ...ltcfS then 51 f4 :as 52 l:!.e5+ c.t>d6 53 J::t.b 7 l:I.a1 (or 53 ... 'it>c6 54 :f7 c,t>d6 55 :f6+ 'iitd 7 56 l::t g5) 54 l:tg5 .l:!.eS 55 llxg6+ 'It>c5 56 nh7 wins, as pointed out by Mednis. 51 nxg6! 1-0 Winning a second pawn accords White a decisive advantage. Petrosian again succeeds in the following oft-quoted example.

16.21a Black to move in Petrosian-Larsen Black needs to defend his first two ranks to limit White's options. 48 ...l:!.b8! 49 �hd 5 49 l:td7 can be countered by 49 ... !I2b7 50 lIhd5 .l:!.xd7 51 ltxd7 nb5 and winning chances are slim. 49 ... l:t2b7 50 'iitf5 'iit h 7 51 h5 nbS

16. 2 1 T.Petrosia n-B.Larsen Biel Interzonal 1976

Heading for a standard single rook ending with three vs two on the same side, which is normally drawn. So Petrosian was only able to win in 16.21 becau se he had the first move. Black's king gets pushed away from his pawns. 48 .l:td8+ 'iitf7 49 11hh8 .l:.b7 50 .l:i.hf8+ cj;; e 7 50 ... �g6 allows mate with 51 h5+ and 52 lthS. 51 'iitf5 ! The king gets in on the act. 51 ... lt2b3 52 g4 .l:Ig3 53 .l:.de8+ c,t>d6 54 g5 fxg 5 5 5 hxg5 ltb5+ 56 c,t> g6 1-0 The g-pawn is lost. This is all very convincing and runs very smoothly. However, it's also instructive to see what happens if Black had the first move in the initial position.

The following example shows a typical starting position, which has been previously analysed by John Emms as well as Muller and Lamprecht.

16. 2 2 V.Tukmakov-A. Wojtkiewicz Bern 1993 (see following diagram)

35 .l:.bb7 .l:.f8 36 g4! This fine technical

move

is

ai med at

407

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

stopping Black playing ... h5 followed by . . . g6, which is generally considered to be the best defensive formation in such positions. The point is that many kingside pawn ad­ vances undertaken by White would then be nullified by pawn exchanges.

36 .. J�.a4 37 h3 h5? Insisting on playing this move, but as this allows White to gain space and doesn't even exchange a pair of pawns, it is proba­ bly wrong in the present circumstances. Black's best set-up now could be 37 ... g5!, limiting any White pawn expansion; e.g. 38 !1c6 (after 38 �g2, the solid 38 .. .l::t a 6! will be tough to break down) 38 ... �g7 39 �g2 .l:!.a2 40 'it>g3 ne8 41 I:tbb6 .l:th8 42 1:.f6 .l:ta1 43 .l:tf5 I:tg1 + 44 'It>f3 .l:th1 45 'It>g2 l:ta1 46 I:i.b7 :1f8, though White still has pressure as he can test his opponent with either 47 f4 or 47 h4. 38 g5 g6 39 �g2 :aa8 40 .l::tc 6! It's too early to allow an exchange of rooks so 40 �g3? would be incorrect due to 40 .. J::t ac8! (rather than 40 ...!:tab8? 41 l::!.xf7!) 41 l:td7 1:tcd8 etc, when the chances to win with only one rook each are significantly dimin­ ished. 40 �ab8 41 .ll b C7 nbS 42 h4 .l:tb4 43 f3 ! nfb8 Black doesn't fall for the trap 43 ... nxh4? 44 e4!, followed by .l:tc1 and �g3, humiliat­ ing and winning the stranded rook. 44 nf6 •..

4 08

44 .. JI8b7?! 44... .l:tf8 is more robust, but after 45 e4 .l:tb5 46 l:!.e7! l;!b2+ 47 �g3 �b3 48 e5 na3 49 e6 fxe6 50 !:txg6+ �h8 51 l:tf6 the ending is nevertheless winning for White. 45 I:tfxf7 l:txC7 46 .l:txC7 l:txh4 47 e4 Now White has an excellent rook and three pawns vs rook and two ending, including a supported passed pawn. 47 'It>f8 48 nc8+ �g7 49 :C7+ �f8 50 nc1 .l:tf4 51 l:tc8+ �g7 52 :c7+ �g8 5 3 nc6 'ifi'g7 54 .uc7+ �g8 5 5 'it>g3 l:!.f8 56 f4 ne8 57 .l:I.C4 .uf8 58 �C5 ne8 59 'it'f3 kta8 60 f5 �a3+ 61 '.t>f4 h4 62 l:tc8+ �g7 63 f6+ �f7 64 nc7+ '.t>f8 65 l:tg7 1-0 So this example does suggest that, if all the pawns are on one wing, there are indeed additional possibilities for the stronger side in double rook endings, compared to single rook endings. •..

In the next example Black has the better pawn structure.

16. 2 3 G.Flear-I.Manor Tel Aviv 1989 (see following diagram)

2 5 J:::!.xc3 .•

Two R o o k s vers us Two R o o k s

White's pawns are shaky, so I decided at least to eliminate Black's queenside. 26 ndb1 .u.xd 5 27 �xb7 e6!?

Manor opts to retain more pawns on the board. He could instead have tried to win with 27 .. .l:hf3 28 .u.xe7 l:td2 29 l:tfl l:txa2 which, as we've seen in analogous positions, is not without bite with four rooks remaining. 28 l:t7b3 If a pair of rooks are exchanged then a draw is easier to achieve. Therefore Black keeps the rooks on and probes away at White's weaknesses. 28 ... .l::!.c 2 29 l:!.3b2 l:tcC5 30 'iSo>g2 l:ta5 31 �e1 na3 32 �e3 �aa 5 33 .l:Ie4 .ud 3 34 l:!.e3 l:td1 35 Ite4 'ua1 36 Itb8+ Ineffective, but what's best? Not the pas­ sive 36 l:tee2, as this can be met by 36 .. J:tgS+ 37 'iSo>h3 l:thl . In fact, the simplest defence is 36 a4!, as 36 ... :Sxa4 37 .l:i.xa4 l:txa4 should be drawn. 36 ... �g7 37 .t!.b7 �g5+ After 37 ... It1xa2 White probably does best again to invite a three vs four single rook ending with 38 1::.£4 ! l:tf5 39 Mxf5, rather than play the tempting 38 l:txe6?!, as this is strongly met by 38 ... l:tgS+ 39 'iSo>fl l:ta1 + 40 'iSo>e2 Itgg1 41 .l:tee7 l:tae1+ 42 Wd3 l:txe7 43 l:txe7 l:!.hl . 38 I;Ig4 .l:1f5 From this excellent square the rook hits f3 as well as defending f7.

39 a4? A time trouble blunder. Instead 39 .l:ta7! would give chances to hold. 39 ...l:ta3 40 l:tb5 l:tfxf3 41 l:tbb4 l:tf5 42 l:tgf4 l:txf4 43 l:txf4 g5 44 I!.b4 h5 45 h3 f5 46 f3 .ua2+ 47 Wg1 Wf6 48 l:td4 We5 49 .l:lb4 l:!.d2 50 h4 g4 51 fxg4 hxg4 52 h5 '>tf6 53 as l:ta2 0-1 There are similarities between 1 6.23 and the following. Pawns are equal and again White has a benign passed pawn. The weak­ nesses inherent in his queenside are less evi­ dent than the broken structure we saw above, but they are soon shown to be vulnerable.

16.24 G.Flea r-M.Kaminski Polanica Zdroj 1992

4 09

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

3 5 J�te1+ 36 'it'd3 �f3+ 37 'it>d2 :te4 38 b3 �d4+ The rook is ideally placed here to pres­ surize White's p a wns . 39 'it'c2 b5! ..

Undermining White's extended centre, which leads to the win of a p awn .

De s pi te

some temporary activity White's rooks are no match for Black' s pair.

40 cxb5 axb5 41 J:tgh2 �xg3 42 l:th7+ Wg6 43 ':xC7 l:txd 5 44 .l::!. c 8 'it'f5 The king heads for the centre where it can find shelter and help support the duo of passed pawns.

45 l:th6 :d4 46 a3 :g2+ 47 WC3 1:[g3+ 48 Wc2 l:tdd3 49 a4 bxa4 50 bxa4 'it>e4 51 l:tC4+ 'it>d 5 52 l:tb4 l:th3 53 .l:.g6 l':.dg3 54 l:txg3 l:txg3 5 5 'ii> b 2 'ii> C 5 56 .l:lb8 l:tg4 57 'it>b3 l:tg3+ 58 'it>b2 d5 59 a s l:!.g6 60 'it>b3 e4 61 Wa4 e3 62 l:tb5+ 'it>d4 63 l:tb6 0-1 In the next example White has the weaker pawns, a factor which will become significant if he is unable to find any targets in the black camp.

26 b4 Stohl points out that Black has the slightly better chances after 26 fxe5 dxe5 27 l:td1 :d6 28 f4 exf4 29 .l:hf4 l':r.fd7 30 l:Hd4 f5 31 �f2 �f6 32 ':4d3 l:te7, due to the white d­ pawn being isolated. Instead, he prefers 26 ':c4 to provoke the exchange of a pair of rooks, and then after 26 ... 1:c7 to continue 27 fxe5 fxe5 28 1:xc7 ':'xc7 29 f4! when the single rook ending is drawish. 26 ':C7 Polgar naturally lays claim to the open c­ file. 27 l!Ib1 Although 27 fxe5 fxe5 28 f4 exf4 29 gxf4 is again plausible, with all four rooks on the board 29 ... ':'c2 would prove annoying. 27 ...f5 ! 28 .l:lee1 exf4 29 bxa s bxa s 30 1:bS 30 gxf4 is strongly met by 30 ... 1:c4. 30 f3 ! Creating problems for White's king due to the possibility of a back rank mate. 31 l!Ixa 5 After the passive 31 l::tb3 ':c4 32 :a1 :fc7 33 ':xf3 .l:.d4, Black wins a clear pawn. 31 J:tfe7 3 2 l:!.f1 .l::!. e s 3 3 1:bS 1:C4 34 as 1:a4 3 5 h4 11a2 36 'it>h2 A bit random. The best chance is 36 1:b3 l:txd5 37 l::txf3 l::t axa5 which would certainly be unpleasant to defend, but isn't clearly lost. 36 'it>f6 •••

•••

••

16.2 5 V.Akopian-J.Polgar Enghien les Bains 2003

•••

2 5 a51 It's wise to stop l:te4-b4. •••

410

Two R o o ks v e rs u s Two R o o ks 37 g41

This smacks of lashing out in time trou­ ble. It still wasn't too late for 37 l:tb3 37 fxg4 38 'it>g3 h 5 39 l:tc1 g5! Judit Polgar enjoys playing for mate! 40 l:tc6 l:te1! 41 l:txd6+ 'it>f5 42 :f6+ Not exactly a serious defence, but both 42 hxg5 h4+! and 42 .l::. e6 .l:.gl+ (or 42 ... gxh4+) 43 'it>h2 l:tg2+ lead to an immediate mate. 42 'it>xf6 43 hxg5+ 'it>g6 0-1 .

•.•

for instance, in an analogous position to 16.26 but with White having a superior queenside, it would have been far more dif­ ficult, if not impossible, for Black to convert the extra pawn.

.•.

16. 2 6 A.Morozevich-I.Nataf Cannes 2002

In the following example there is nothing wrong with White's pawns, but Black can seize the initiative as he has the move.

16.27 P .Svidler-V. Topalov Prague (rapid) 2002

Despite his opponent having four pawn islands, White's weakness on the b3-square costs him dear. 44 .:tb8 45 ,U,d6 �b3+ 46 'it>d2 ':'xb2+ 47 h3 52 .l:!.g1 g6 28 a 3 Svidler defends against the first wave. The rook on f3 holds the f2-pawn as well as helping out on the queenside. 28 ... h5 29 J:te1! A careful move. The threat was to oust the rook from its defensive role on the f-file by 29 . g4 30 hxg4 hxg4 31 �f4 f5 32 ne1 'ot>f6 when the subsequent ... e5 is decisive. 29 ... �d4 30 !!fe3 lia 2 31 .l:I1e2 lid1+ 32 '.tg2 lIaa1 Keeping all rooks on and intending to come round the back to attack the h-pawn which White has difficulty defending. 33 g4 b!h1 34 f3 h4 3 5 ltb3 The h-pawn will fall soon enough, so White intends to create a passed pawn once Black quits the queenside. 35 ... .l:Iag1+ 36 '.tf2 1.:[g3 37 a4 lih2+ 38 �f1 ':hxh 3 39 :f2 l:.h1+ 40 '.te2 h3 .

.

Black is clearly ahead in the race. 41 b5 axb5 42 axb5 h2 43 b6 J::le 1+! Time is of the essence. 44 �xe1 h1'tW+ 45 1:.f1 .l:tg1 46 �xg1 'i'xg1+ 47 �d2 'tWh2+ 48 �e1 'ii'f4+ 49 '.te2 'ii' b 8 50 b7 Topalov's technique ensures that he is now able to convert his advantage. There's no hurry (on the chessboard that is - the clock is another matter!) in such positions; the important thing is to make progress 412

without the slightest risk. 50 ... �f6 51 'ot>d 3 'iti>e5 52 'iti>e3 'iti>d5 53 llb1 '.te6 54 .l:!.e1+

54 ... �d7 54 ... �xb7 55 :b1+ �c8 56 llxb8+ 'it>xbB should also win, but Topalov decides not to take the risk that there might be a defensive resource in the king and pawn ending. With limited time available it's often easier to play many straightforward moves, rather than just a few that require precise calculation. 55 l:tb1 �C7 56 ':'e1+ �d6 57 lld1+ �e7 58 .l:lb1 f5 59 gxf5 exf5 60 '.te2 �d6 61 lld1+ '.te5 62 l1b1 '.tf4 63 llb3 '.tg3 64 �1 f4 65 '.te2 g4 66 fxg4+ �xg4 67 11b6 'ii'e 5+ 68 ..wl Over the next few moves Black can win more quickly (68 ... f3! right here, for in­ stance), but the most important thing in practical play with limited time is to find a sure-fire way, even if it takes longer (as I've mentioned before, but as it's such an im­ portant point it's worth repeating! ) . 6 8 .. :ifb8 69 ll b 3 f 3 70 llb6 �g3 71 llg6+ �f4 72 llb6 'iti>e4 7 3 l:.b4+ 'iti>e3 74 ::tb3+ �e4 75 :b4+ �d 5 76 .l:lb3 �C4 7 7 .:txf3 'ii'xb7 78 �2 �d4 79 lle3 'tWf7+ 80 :f3 'tWa2+ 81 �g3 '.te4 82 .l:!.f4+ �e5 83 :f3 'ii'e 2 84 :f2 'i'h5 8 5 :f3 'ii'g 5+ 86 'iti>h2 �e4 87 ':g3 'tWh4+ 88 �g2 'ii h 5 89 1:.g8 �e3 90 ':g3+ �4 91 :g7 'tWd 5+ 92 �h2 �3 93 :g2 'ii h 5+ 94 �gl 'iih 4 0-1

Two R o o k s vers u s Two R o o k s

The battle in the next game revolves around activating the rooks.

16. 2 8 E.Szylar-G.Flear Creon 1998

able to stave off the mate. 32 nxh2+ 3 3 'it>g1 nhg2+ 34 'it>h1 nxe2 35 nxa 5 nh2+ 36 'it>g1 neg2+ 37 'it>f1 nd2 38 'it>g1 .l:r.h3 39 a4 nhxd 3 40 l:ta8+ ..t>h7 41 as !:ta2 42 a6 11d6 0-1 The remaining pawn falls. •••

If the opponent is passive, the stronger side can sometimes build up pressure with two rooks in a way that wouldn't be possi­ ble in a single rook ending.

16.29 H.Happel-G.Flear Saint Affrique 1995

21 :e6 22 nfb1 f61 This pawn break enables the second rook to come into play. 23 exf6 nfxf6 White's king is the more vulnerable so, in order to hold the balance, he needs to find the right role for his rooks. 24 'it>g2 nf4 2 5 a3 h6 26 :a 7? Chasing pawns misses the point. Instead, White shouldn't lose after 26 :el !, taking the other open file and preparing to bolster the defences with either ne3 or l:te4. 26 :g6+ 27 g1 litg6+ 30 'it>h1 l:.f2 31 nxe3 l:!gg2 3 2 :te5? White should take the time to hold on to the h-pawn, after which he seems able to save the game: 32 h4! l:th2+ (if 32 ... l:.g4 then 33 litb5 nxh4+ 34 'it>gl l:thh2 35 lha5 l:hc2 36 nxc2 l:hc2 37 a4; or 32 .. ..l:hc2 33 litxc2 �xc2 34 .l::!.b 5) 33 'it>gl .l:tfg2+ 34 'it>f1 htd2 35 e7 44 l:te2 'it>d7 45 11e3 .l::t g 6 46 :ee1 llee6 47 :'1e2 llg3 48 .l:.e2 g5 49 fxg5 :'xg5 50 1:.ee2 .l:te4 51 l:ted2 l:.g6 52 'it>f1 .l:!.f6 5 3 e5 ! 'ot>e7 39 f4 .l:i.b4 40 l:ta 5 :b7 41 e4 :C7 42 :c5! :c8 43 .i:!.C3 �e8 44 1:.C4 But not 44 .l::!.x c 6?! which is met by 44 ... 'ot>d7+ 45 �d5 :xe4!. 44....:c8 45 .l:.b4 11c7 46 a s �d7 47 llb3! Waiting to see which way Black will go. 47 ... 'ot>e7 48 a6! 'ot>d7 49 �f6 �c8 50 l:th3 According to Anand, the immediate 50 f5 should also win. 50 ... :d7 51 f5 gxf5 52 exf5 c5 53 :C3 :C7 54 g6 fxg6 55 fxg6 c;t>d 7 56 g7 :c8 57 Mg3 1-0 With only rooks, it's quite rare for a space advantage to be sufficient when 415

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

there's a lack of any obvious targets for the stronger player to latch onto. But here's a classic example of the stronger side succeed­ ing.

b4 38 'it>d2 �d6 39 'it>d1 'it>C5 40 b3 c3 41 l::tc 1 d 3 42 cxd3 l:th2 43 .:tc2 l:th1+ 44 'ite2 Wd4 0-1

16.3 2 L.Molina Carra nza-J.R.Capablanca Buenos Aires 191 1

Picturesque! White has completely run out of both space and moves. One aspect of games between modem masters is that the weaker side is much less likely to stay passive indefinitely. Black has a space advantage but White doesn't have any serious weaknesses. Ca­ pablanca is content to patiently build up his position, especially as his opponent cannot do a great deal. 22 ... c5 23 'it>gl Wf7 24 'it'f2 The more active try 24 f4 exf4 25 l::txf4+ 'ite6 26 l::t afl J::txf4 27 l:txf4 a4 would be clearly favourable for Black. 24 ...'ite6 25 �e2 b5 26 Wd2 g5 27 h3 h5 28 g4 h4 29 We2 White is tied down to passive defence, despite the fact that so far (apart from cas­ tling) Black has yet to move either rook! 29 .. J:tf7 30 llf2 l:tfa7 31 �d3 a4 32 bxa4 c4+ 33 �d2 l:!.xa4 34 l:!b1

1 6. 3 3 S.Atalik-S.Mamedyarov Calvia Olympiad 2004

(see following diagram)

Now Capablanca is ready to exchange one pair of rooks, as his remaining rook then ties down White completely. 34 ... l:!.a1 3 5 l:!.ff1 l:!.xb1 36 l:!.xb1 l:1a2 3 7 �d1 416

3 2 lila2 1 Going passive, since the moment i s not yet right for positive action. Atalik analyses the alternative 32 l:!.xc5? dxc5 33 l:!.c1 l:!.xe2+ 34 �h3 l:!.e5 35 'iit> g4 g5 36 h4 h6 37 hxg5 hxg5

Two R o o k s v e rs u s Two R o o k s

as leading to a win with Black. With two extra pawns he obviously has good chances. 32 ... �e6 3 3 'it>f2 l:lh6 34 �h1 l:ta 5 Both of White's rooks are tied down to defending humble pawns, at least for the time being. 35 a4 'it>f7 36 h4 a6 37 Itb2! Atalik is now good and ready. He cor­ rectly calculates that temporarily sacrificing a pawn to activate is the correct approach. 37 ... nxa4 38 J:tb7+ 'litf6 39 l::td 7 l::td 4 40 I:ta7 g6 Accepting that he can't keep hold of eve­ rything. 41 �xa6 l:Ih5 42 .l:i.a7 h6 43 .l:!.h7 1:td2 44 l:lh8 'iitg 7 45 l:te8 g5 46 c;t>g2 'it>f7 47 l:Ie4 d5 48 �e5 d4 Now White is able to liquidate into a very drawish single rook ending. 49 hxg5 .l:i.xg5+ 50 .l::tx g5 hxg5 51 nh7+ c;t>e6 52 'lith d3 53 exd3 lbd3 54 'it>e2 l:i.e3+ 5 5 'iitf2 l::t a 3 56 .l:i.g7 'litf6 57 �g8 �a 5 58 'litg2 �e5 59 'litf2 Yz-Yz Shirov demonstrates exemplary play to save the following dubious position.

16. 3 4 A.Karpov-A.Shirov Wijk aan Zee 2003

defence, but this doesn't stop him activating the other one. 29 .. J:tc7! The c-file is naturally a good choice if Black wants to get some counterplay going. 30 l:td2 'it>g7 31 g4 'it>f6 32 'iitg 2 .l:i.c4 Eyeing the potential target on d4. 3 3 f4 l:Id7 34 'it>g3 a s ! Creating some further play. 35 'it>h4 a4! 36 a3 After 36 gxf5 gxf5 37 'it>h5, Huzman points out that 37 ... a3! 38 bxa3 ':c3 39 h4 J:tf3 is a satisfactory response. 36 ... b5 37 gxf5 gxf5 38 'iit h 5?! Karpov suggests 38 .l:!.e8! as a better try. Indeed, after 38 ... h4 39 axb4 Mxb4 40 l:If8+ 'lite6 41 lle2+ 'it>d6 42 11f6+ 'it>c7 43 IId2 White wins a pawn, while 40 .. .lH7 41 l:Ixf7+ '>txf7 42 Wg5 We6 43 h4 ':c4 44 h5 is also unpleas­ ant for Black. 38 ... b4 39 axb4 i:txb4 40 �e8 i:tb3 41 llf8+ Mf7 42 .l::!.xf7+ c;t>xf7 43 'litg5 i:txh 3 44 '>txf5 I:th5+ 45 'litg4 :i.h1 46 c;t>f5 Mh5+ 47 'it>g4 .l:!.h1 48 I:!.c2 Itd1 49 1:1C7+ 'litg8 50 �c8+ Yz-Yz Black has nothing to fear after 50 '>tg5 :!.xd4 51 f5 :!.h4.

16. 3 5 A.Ka rpov-V.Korch noi World Championship (16th matchgame), Baguio City 1 978

Shirov has a rook tied down to passive 41 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

White has the better pawns, while Black has a slightly passive set-up which obliges him to play precisely. 38 �C7! It's too early to go active, as 38 ....l:!e2 39 l::te 1 l:.xg2 40 ..t>c5 would lead to the invasion of all three white pieces! 39 .l:.el ..t>d6 With Black's king covering the c5- and e5-squares he seems to be more or less hold­ ing, despite the passive rook on b6. 40 f4 The only other way to try and maintain any real pressure is to improve the kingside pawns, but after 40 g4 Black gains counter­ play with 40 ... a5 41 bxa5 c5+ 42 �d3 lIxb2. 40 Jbe1 41 l::tx el as! Refusing to stay passive. Instead, 41 ...h5 42 na1 �c7 43 'u'a5 �d6 44 f5 could lead to zugzwang. 42 bxa 5 nxb2 Yz-Yz Various annotators have analysed the fi­ nal position to equality; e.g. 43 na1 c5+ 44 �d3 lIb7 45 a6 Ita7 46 c4 d4 47 .l:la5 itf3 .uxa 3 50 'it>xg3 �XC3+ 51 'it>h4 J:Icl 52 g4 l:thl+ 53 'it>g3 d4 54 11a2 d3 55 'it>g2 !;:tel 56 'it>f2 �xe4 57 'it>f3 0-1 In the next example my opponent had to decide on his plan. Should he stay pa ssi ve or go active? As is often the case in the real world, the answer is somewhere in between!

16.3 7 G.Flear-F .Libiszewski French Lea gue 2001

Although White now has limited space, the text is too committal. Instead, Kasparov gives 40 ... .l:.h1 ! maximizing the activity of the rook; e.g. 41 fxg4 (or 41 'it>f2 l:tb1 !) 41 ...11£1 (threatening ... 11f4) 42 g3 c4 43 gS dS and Black obtains an overwhelming central advantage. 41 11d3? Despite all Black's elegant play it wasn't too late for White to save himself, which he could have done with the vigorous 41 f4! 11h4 42 fxeS l:tdxe4+ 43 'it>f3 11hf4+ 44 �xg3 11g4+ 45 '>itf3 etc. Trying for more with 4S ... 1he2 46 'it>xe2 l:txg2+ 47 'it>f3 11h2 48 '>itg3 11d2 49 exd6 is ineffective, as pointed out by Fine. 41 J:thl 42 f4 Too late! .•

31 ... g5?! If Black does 'nothing much' it' s n o t clear that White will be able to force a win, al­ though he has an interesting plan based on placing his rooks on h4 and f1 and then playing f2-f4 and I::!. g4 with strong pressure. To counter this, and similar ideas, Black's best idea is probably to bring his king to e6 and then gradually advance his queenside majority. This advance requires care if Black 419

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

is not to weaken himself prematurely, when White could switch back. However, once White commits a rook to g4 the advance can be accelerated. Therefore Black should more or less wait for the moment, but be prepared to create a counter-punch on the queenside when circumstances are right. 32 hxg6 hxg6 3 3 .l::!. h l Now threats down the h-file become an­ noying for Black. 33 �h8 34 .l::!. c cl a5 35 f4 This will lead to additional possibilities for White. 35 ... b4 36 fxe5 fxe 5 37 �cfl 'it>e6 38 'it>d3 White' s king is used to keep an eye on Black's majority. 38 ... .l::!. a b8 •••

39 g4! Threatening g4-g5. 39 ... g5 40 'it>c4 nxhl? The wrong way to exchange rooks. Cor­ rect is 40 .. J:th4!, e.g. 41 l1xh4 (41 11hg1?? would be quickly punished by 4l ...�h3 42 �c1 b3 and Black wins!) 4l...gxh4 42 g5 (after 42 �h1 Black has the strong move 42 .. .1:f8!, threatening to come to f3 when the white king will find itself in trouble!) 42 ...ng8 43 �f6+ 'it>d7 44 g6! (44 �f7+?! 'it>d8 45 �h7 1:4xg5 46 �xh4? won't do because of 46 ...11g3!) 44 ... h3 45 �f7+ 'it>c8! (after 45... 'it>e6 46 l:.e7+ 'it>f6 47 �h7 �xg6 48 1:4xh3 'it>e6 49 'it>b3 White retains some winning chances) 46 g7 (or 46 420

IIh7 .l:!.xg6 47 l:!.xh3 .l:!.g4) h2 47 l:tf8+ 'it>b7! and Black draws. 41 .l::!.x hl .l::lf8 Or if 41 ...a4 42 .l:::!.b 1 J:tf8 43 11xb4 l:!.f4 44 .l::!. xa4 �xg4 45 'it>b3 and White is better. 42 i:th6+ '>i;>d7 42 .. .l::t£6 is clearly hopeless after 43 l:txf6+ �xf6 44 'it>b3 'it>e6 45 'it>a4 etc. 43 l::t h 7+ 'it>d8 44 kIc7 llf4 45 .l:txc6 l:.xe4+ 46 �d 5 l:!xg4 47 �a6 l:td4+ 48 'it>e6 'it>c8 49 c6 1-0 Out-and-out races are less clear cut than in single rook endings, because of extra tac­ tical possibilities.

16. 3 8 J.Levitt-G.Flear London 1990

Here I sidestepped a potential banana skin by recognizing that there was a tactical problem with the back rank. 34 ... g6! Avoiding 34...b2? 35 l:!.b6 a3?? 36 :b8 when White wins. 35 I:te5 b2 36 l:4b6 l:4dl+ 37 11el l:4xel+ 38 'it>xel a3 39 l:4b8 'it>e7 40 l':!.xc8 bl'iV+ 0-1 In the final example of this chapter the logical outcome resulting from the imbal­ anced pawn structure is far from evident. I

Two R o o ks v e rs u s Two R o o ks

suspect that with only one rook each White would be better; whereas here, with four rooks on the board, the contrary is true!

1 6 . 39 I.Smirin-T.Markowski Moscow 2002

Although 35 llxf7!? allows the interme­ diate 35 ... l:!.xb4+, White seems to be able to hold after 36 �b2! �xb2+ 37 �xb2 �xf7 38 a5 g4 39 hxg4 fxg4 40 a6 g3 41 a7 g2 42 a8'if gl'i' 43 'i'd5+ with a book draw. 3 5 �g7 36 as f4 37 �b2 f3 38 �f2 h5 39 �b3? 39 �b5 was necessary, when Black has nothing better than the repetition by 39 ... �g6 40 l1b6+ �g7 etc. 39 JIe4 40 a6 g4 41 hxg4 hxg4 42 �b7 •••

••

30 f5! The pawns start rolling. 31 gxf5 exf5 32 .l:i.d7 g5 33 b4 l:!.C4 34 l:!.b7 Instead, Ribli suggests 34 l:!.b2! l:!.b8 35 b5 ::!.xa4 36 b6, sacrificing a pawn in order to rapidly advance the remaining passed pawn. Although this looks scary I believe that Black is still better after 36 ... f4! 37 l::tb3 (or 37 b7 f3 38 ':'c7 :f4) 37 ... f3! 38 ':'xf3 �xb6+, with winning chances since White's king is so far from the kingside. 34 ...l:!.f7 35 llb8+ •••

42 ...lIe3+ 42 .. .lhb7? only seems to draw after 43 axb7 .l:!.e8 44 l:tc2 i:tb8 45 1:tc4 as White then copes with Black's passers. 43 'it>c2 g3 44 !If1 After 44 a7 gxf2 45 a8"iV f1 'i' Black wins easily with his extra rook. 44 g2 45 Itg1 .l::!. e e7 46 a7 ne8! 47 IIb8 .l:i.e2+! 48 'it>d3 .l:i.xa 7 0-1 ••.

421

C h a pte r S eve n tee n

I

Qu een a n d B i s h o p ve rs u s Quee n a n d K n i g ht

In my opinion, queen and bishop vs queen and knight is the most controversial of all NQEs. This is perhaps because I don't necessarily agree with the cliched adage that 'the queen and knight duo are superior' . This thought-provoking comment is generally attributed to the great pre-war technical specialist Capablanca. Is it that he felt that the queen and knight form a complementary partnership, whereas the strengths of queen and bishop are outweighed by their lack of flexibility, or even their incompetence, on one colour complex? It's an interesting opinion, nevertheless, and one that is worth developing; especially as in most simplified positions, ceteris paribus, the bishop is generally considered as a superior piece to the knight. Determin­ ing whether or not the great Cuban was right is far from easy; for example, I have found no Capablanca games that would support his assertion! Statistics don't seem to shed much light on the relative strength of bishop and knight with various material combinations. In my games with rook and bishop vs rook and knight there is a slight, albeit unconvincing, positive score for the rook and bishop which vaguely supports the consensus view. How­ ever, in the ending of bishop vs knight the number of wins by each piece is almost identical, which certainly doesn't bear out the expected superiority of the bishop (+36=47-37). In my 64 games with queen and bishop vs queen and knight there were 21 wins for the queen and knight, 24 draws, and 19 victories for the queen and bishop. Again very close to fifty per cent. A closer look at the decisive games shows that in most cases one side already had a sig­ nificant advantage obtained in the middlegame. So in fact the number of positions that are 'reasonably balanced but enable the stronger pair to demonstrate an inherent superiority' are limited. If we want to concentrate our attention on such positions we should first eliminate those in which one side already has a decisive material advantage. Then, in order to judge the re­ mainder, I feel that we need a list of priorities:

1. Relative king security. 2. Strong passed pawns. 3. Are either of the minor pieces handicapped by happenstance?

422

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

4 . The pros and cons o f the pawn structures.

5. Piece coordination. If it is indeed the case that in a particular example the queen and knight coordinate better and thus are the superior pair, it's probably because the influence of the first four priorities is minimal. So, although Capablanca's intuition may help us to avoid underestimating the knight in this particular NQE, I don't think that it is helpful to overstate the case. In practice, queen and bishop vs queen and knight is relatively important, with as many as 2.3% (2.5% of my games) of 2600+ encounters reaching this type of NQE, making it the sixth most common of all. In the forty examples that follow there are a number of cases where it's not clear which material combination should come out on top; these are of particular interest to help us com­ pare the relative merits of these pairs. So you may find it useful to note in particular the fol­ lowing positions: 17.9 and 17.15, where the queen and knight defend slight disadvantages; 17.25, 17.26 and 17.27, where the queen and knight take control; and then 17.13, 17.16 and 17.17 where, conversely, the queen and bishop tum up the heat. King security is top of the list of priorities. Firstly I shall begin with a painful memory where this point helped determine the result.

17 . 1 G.Flear-L.Gutman London 1987

Apart from having a material advantage White also has a passed d-pawn. However, my opponent resisted sufficiently well to give me serious technical problems. Indeed, I even lost this! 33 tiJc3 h3 34 'ilkd3 i.f8 Restraining the desired d5-d6 advance, since if 35 d6? then 35 ... 'ilkc5+. 35 'it>f1 i.d6 36 tiJe2 �g7 37 1i'c3 'iVd7 38

We1 i.b8 39 'ii'C4 i.a7 40 'it>d2 'iVe7 41 �c2 b5 42 'it'd3 i.C5 43 'iit b 1 Finding a more secure shelter for the king. Well, at least that's what I thought! 43 ... a 5 44 tiJd4 b4 45 tiJc6 "ikC7 46 a4 i.g1 47 'ti'f1 47 d6?? fails to 47 ... 'it'xc6 48 d7 i.b6. 47 ... 'it'b6 But not 47 ... ..txh2? 48 'iiVf2. 48 tiJxa 5 i.xh2 49 "ikxh 3 'iVxa 5 50 "ikxh2 b3 51 'it'e2 'iiVx a4 52 "ikd 3 'ilkb4 53 'ike3 "ifC4 54 'iVf3 'iWC2+ 0-1 A tragedy from my point of view, but why did things go so badly wrong? I should mention that it gets tiresome when players are forever evoking time trouble as the main reason for their failure, so I won't stress that chestnut. There are, let's face it, inevitably factors on the chessboard that lead to techni­ cal problems, which in tum induce problems with the clock. Here, in fact, White's king could never obtain a completely secure loca­ tion, and as a result I wasn't able to calmly prepare a central pawn advance. In contrast Black's king was completely :: : '" throughout proceedings. 423

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

In the following game the weaker side was able to save himself by generating coun­ terplay against the opposing king.

1 7 .2 V.Kramnik-G.Kaspa rov BGN World Championship (6th matchgame), London 2000

53 'iVg8+ r;t>f5 54 'iYd 5+ r;t>g6 5 5 "ii'xe4+ �g7 56 'iia 8? A natural enough move, but now Kas­ parov manages to activate his queen. The key to unlocking the secrets of the position seems to be to take the d-file with 56 'it'd5!, e.g. 56 .. .'�Jc6 (56 ... 1ha5? loses to 57 c6 'iVc7 58 i..b 6! 'iYxb6 59 'ii d7+ tiJf7 60 c7) 57 i.. d4 tiJxd4 (or 57 ... r;t>g6 58 i.. c3 when every­ thing is under control, e.g. 58 ...b4 59 i.. xb4! tiJxb4 60 'it'e4+, as Kramnik gave later in his annotations) 58 'iVxd4 'iYxa5 when the c­ pawn makes all the difference after 59 c6, e.g. 59 ... 'it'e1+ 60 r;t>h2 'iYe7 61 g3 �f8 62 'it'd5 (centralizing the queen enables it to cover so many squares for both attack and defence) 62 ...'iVh7+ 63 c,t>g2 'it'e7 64 �f1 and Black is running short of sensible moves. This is stronger than 56 i.. d4 'it'd7 57 i.. c3, when the presence of Black's queen on the d-file would, as in the actual game, give the defender hope. 56 ...'iVd7! 424

After 56 .. :�Wxa5!? Kramnik's intended 57 'iYc8?! is met by 57 .. :�e1+ 58 �h2 'it'd1 59 g3 'iYd3 with similar play to the game. White should prefer 57 g3!, e.g. 57 .. :�e1+ 58 �g2 'iVd1 and now White can regain his pawn advantage with 59 'iYxa6. 57 r;t>h2 After 57 'it'xa6?, the continuation 57 ... 'iVd1 + 58 ..t>h2 �5+ 59 ..t>g3? f5 60 i.. d4+ 'it>g8 would be even dangerous for White! 57 ...'iVd3 !

58 g 3 Kramnik understandably didn't fancy 58 �xa6 here either, as his king gets seriously booted about; i.e. 58 ...'iYh7+ 59 �g3 'iih4+ 60 r;t>f3 when Black can again play 60 .. .f5! 61 g3 'iVe4+ 62 �e2 tiJe6! with adequate counter­ play as .. .f5-f4 is threatened. 58 ...tiJf7 59 'it'b7 'it>g6 60 'iYxa6 tiJe5 61 1i'a8 tiJg4+ Better than 61...'iYe2?, as White could then wriggle out with 62 'it'e4+ �g7 63 'i¥i>g2 tiJd3 64 g4. 62 �h3 �f5 ! 63 'iVg8+ Or if 63 �g2, then 63 ... tiJxe3+ 64 fxe3 'iVc2+ 65 �f1 ! (but not 65 �f3?? or 65 �h3?? because of 65 ... g4+! 66 �xg4 "ii'f5+ 67 'i¥i>h4 �5 mate) 65 ... 'it'd1+ and draws. 63 ... �h6 64 'ii'h 8+ �g6 65 'i¥e8+ �h6 66 'ii'h 8+ Yz-Yz Kasparov's counterplay seemed to come from nowhere!

Q u e e n a n d B i s h op v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t In the next example Black's badly-placed king leads to a rapid denouement.

17 . 3 G.Kasparov-A.Karpov World Championship (22nd matchgame), Leningrad 1986

Here Black's bishop, bearing down on f2, compensates for his broken pawns; but any winning attempt by him fails because of his vulnerable king. 37 'ikc2 Or similarly 37 'iVc4, as if 37 ... 'iiVd 1 + 38 Wg2 'ifb1, then 39 'iVe6! and plenty of checks. 37 'ike6 38 ltJd2 'YWg4 Threatening the g-pawn. Dautov notes that 38 ... 'YWxa2 can be met by 39 'iiVxc6 "iVal+ 40 c;t>g2 'iVe1 41 'iiVd7+ c;t>h6 42 "iVe8! "iVxf2+ 43 c;t>h3 and Black has to allow perpetual check. 39 iYd3 'iVd1+ 40 c;t>g2 �d4 41 irVa 3! Yz-Yz Once White gets his queen round the back a perpetual is inevitable, e.g. 41 ..."iVxd2 42 'ike7+ c;t>h6 43 'ikf8+ c;t>h7 44 "iVf7+. •••

17 . 5 L.Van Wely-A.Shirov Belgrade 1999 45 'iVd6 c3 46 'ikd4 1-0 The decisive threat is 47 'iiVe3+, so Black must surrender his c-pawn to avoid mate. If he plays on with 46 ... .lth7 47 "ii'xc3 .ltg8 48 a4 f6 49 'iiVd4 g5 50 ltJd7 c;t>g6 51 as the result is not in doubt.

17 . 4 R.Dautov-I.Sokolov Dresden 1998

Here White's extra pawn is balanced by Black's dangerously poised pieces. 36 ltJf3 .ltf4 37 'ikc2 g5! 38 'ikd1 g4 39 hxg4 hxg4 40 ltJh2 g3 41 ltJf3 .i.d6 Now the threat of ... �6+ obliges White to exchange queens with an inevitable draw. 42 "iVd4+ "iYxd4 43 ltJxd4 'itf6 44 ltJbs .i.cS 45 ltJxa7 Yz-Yz Even in positions where one side has an extra outside passed pawn, the relative vul425

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

nerability of the monarchs is still a major influence in determining the result.

1 7 .6 I.Novikov-E.Rozentalis Montreal 2004

forward after 45 'itt g3 iVc4 46 'iVf5+ g6 47 'it'c8. White was able to hold this game be­ cause the queen and bishop were · able to control the aI-square as well as create threats against Black's king. The queen and knight pair couldn't give Black sufficient control, so Rozentalis didn't have the con­ fidence to make a serious winning attempt. In the following example the situation is more favourable for the stronger side, but still, exploiting the advantage of the extra passed pawn is no trivial matter. The knight cannot operate on both flanks at once whereas White can again combine restraint of the a-pawn with harassment of Black's king.

Black is surprisingly unable to win, de­ spite having an extra pawn on a2. First of all he has to play an awkward knight retreat because his king is in check. 38, ttJe8 38 .. .'it>h7? just loses the a-pawn to 39 "iVc2+. 39 'ittf2 e4!? An imaginative try. Obvious attempts at consolidating fail: 39 .. .f6? is met by 40 iVe6+ picking up the a-pawn again, while if 39 ... 'itt f8 then 40 'iVc3 threatens both 41 'ii'xe5 and 41 'iVa3+. 40 fxe4 'itt h 7 41 e5 Exchanging queens with 41 'it'f5+? iVxf5+ 42 exf5 ttJd6 would give Black winning chances. 41,..'it'b6+ 42 e3 ttJC7?! Here 42 ... 'it'c7 would be met by 43 'it'f5+ g6 44 'it'd3, when if 44 ... iVc1 White would have good drawing chances by threatening mayhem along the long diagonal with 45 "iVd4, or if 44... ttJg7 then 45 e6!? is messy. 43 .ltd4 'iVc6 44 g4 'it'C2+ Yz-Yz Rozentalis evidently couldn't see a way

17 . 7 J.M.Flouzat-G.Flear Saint Affrique 2000

..

426

32,..'ii'c 8 Firstly, Black takes control of his back rank to gain time to reorganize. 3 3 .ltf4 a6 34 .lte3 ttJf6 3 5 'ii'e 5 'ii'c 6+ 36 f31? Neatly placing his pawns on light squares and controlling e4, but there is now an inherent looseness in White's kingside. However, if 36 'itt g l, then 36 ... 'ii'f3 37 'itth2 ttJd5 38 .ltd4 f6 and White has nothing better

Q u e e n a n d B is h op v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

than 39 'iYg3, when the exchange o f queens will ease Black's winning task. 36 'iYb5 Black hopes to shepherd the a-pawn up the board whilst holding onto his kingside. 37 'iiC 7 as 38 .i.d4 iVe2+ 39 c,t>g3 'iVe1+ 40 .tf2 'iVd2 41 'iYb8+ c,t>h7 42 'iVa7 'iYa2 Conveniently defending the f-pawn as well as supporting the advance of the a­ pawn. 43 h4 a4 44 .i.C5 'it'b3 45 'iYe7 .•.

White hopes to render the advance ... a3 impossible, which is a realistic aim, but now his pieces are somewhat tied down. This enables Black to create threats on a second front; i.e. against White's king. 45 ... 'iYd5 46 'iYa7 'ii'd 7 47 'iYb8 tLid 5 Here I missed the tactical shot 47 ... tLixg4! 48 fxg4 'iYd3+ picking off the bishop to a fork. Fritz of course didn't! 48 .i.d6 'iYc6 49 'ii'f8 'iYb6! 50 .i.C5 'ii'a 5 5 1 h5 51 'iYd6 allows 51...'iYc7 leading to a win­ ning ending. 51 .. Ji'e1+ 52 .i.f2 'ii'e 5+ 53 c,t>g2 tLif4+ 0-1 White resigned as 54 c,t>gl 'iYa1+ 55 �h2 'iYf1 56 hxg6+ �h6! 57 'iVh8+ �xg6 is hope­ less. So, just as in other NQE duos, the passed pawn often cannot win under its own stearn; but there are chances of success if it can be

used to render the defender sufficiently pas­ sive to give the stronger side time to obtain additional threats elsewhere. If the extra outside pawn is the property of the side with the bishop, however, then it's generally easier to convert the advan­ tage.

1 7.8 V.Korchnoi-B.Macieja Bled Olympiad 2002

44 ... g6 Black prudently secures his kingside be­ fore pushing the a-pawn. 45 g3 as 46 c,t>g2 a4 47 tLie3 �g7! Here 47 ... a3? would be an unfortunate blunder: 48 tLic2 'iVb2 49 tLixa3 "i¥xa3 50 'iVxf6. 48 'iVd6 i.. e 5 48...a3? again fails to 49 tLic2. 49 'iYd 5 White continues to restrain the a-pawn's advance by tactical means. 49 ...'ii'd 4 Still not 49 ... a3? 50 tLic2 of course. 50 'iVa 5 .i.d6 51 g5 With White's queen distracted, Black switches his attention to the other flank. 51 .. JlVe4+ 52 �h2 White's desperate attempts at counter­ play are doomed to failure with the black king so secure; e.g. 52 �f1 hxg5 53 �xg5 42 7

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

�1+ 54 'it'g2 a3 55 tDg4 'iYe4+ 56 �h2 iLe7 57 �6+ �g8. 52 .. :�h4+ 53 'it>g2 'ifxg5 54 'ifxa4 iLxg3 5 5 fxg3 If 55 tDg4 then 55".iLe5 tidies up. 5 5 .. :�'xe3 56 �C4 h 5 57 �C2 �d4 58 �e2 h4 59 g4 �f4 60 'it>h1 �h6 0-1 Rather than resigning White could have tried a final 'joke' with 61 �f2!?, although I don't know if many playing Black would have seen the funny side of 61..:iixf2?? 62 g5+! and stalemate next move! Instead, Black wins with 61...'it>g5!.

3 0...a 6 3 1 'iYh8 h 5 3 2 'iYg7+ 'it'e8 3 3 'iYh8+ �e7 34 'ifg7+ Yz-Yz Black's queen and knight cover all his weaknesses and the king can always tempo­ rize, so there is no risk of zugzwang. Note that White has no potential pawn breaks. The defensive qualities of knights can be appreciated even in sharper situations.

1 7 .10 V.Milov-J.Polgar Buenos Aires 2000

In certain circumstances the defender is happy to have a knight.

17.9 V.Kramnik-V.Anand Frankfurt 1999

White's bishop bears down the long di­ agonal, but despite having split pawns, Black is able to build a strong defensive set-up. 26 ...�7 27 'iYc6 tDd7 28 iLC3 f5 29 �gl 'iYe6 30 'iYa8 This looks the most dangerous, but Black can still hold out. Instead, Tyomkin consid­ ers the endgame arising after 30 iVxe6+ �xe6 31 �f1 �d5 32 �e2 tDf8 to be equal, with ".tDe6 coming. Black's well-centralized king puts a stop to any White activity. 428

39 ... tDe8! Polgar finds a way to save this dubious­ looking position by angling for a light square blockade. 40 iLd2 f5 41 c5 tDf6 42 d6 'ilie8 Giving up a second pawn, but maintain­ ing control of the e8-a4 diagonal. 43 'iYxh4+ �g8 44 'iYf2 'iYa4 45 iLC3? Wasting an important tempo. Milov later stated that 45 iLb4! tDd5 46 'i¥d4! wins. 45 .. :ii'C4 But not 45".iVxa3? due to 46 iLxf6 gxf6 47 d7. 46 iLb4 Now 46 iLxf6 gxf6 47 d7 can be met by 47".'iVd5, when 48 'iVa2 (48 c6? even loses to 48".d2) 48,,:�xa2 49 d8'iV+ 'it>g7 50 'i'e7+ leads to a draw.

Q u e e n a n d B is h op v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

46 ...�f7 4 7 �h2 �e6 4 8 'iVg3 �7 4 9 'iVf2 �e6 50 'iVg3 Ya-Ya We shall now tum to a number of posi­ tions in which the bishop is on the stronger side but there are technical difficulties in exploiting the advantage. In 1 7. 1 1 White has a 'clear' extra pawn, but Black is well dug in and able to put up strong resistance.

17 . 11 M.Adams-Y.Seirawan Bermuda (3rd matchgame) 2000

First of all Adams improves his pieces. 30 'ili'd3 �g7 31 h3 �f8 32 'iVd8+ 'it>g7 3 3 'i'd3 �f8 34 .id1l? 'ii'e 7 3 5 .ib3 In his notes Adams later preferred 35 b4 at once. As a general rule, choosing between 'further preparation' or 'immediate action' isn't always clear-cut; however, a useful rule of thumb to help one decide is first to try and judge which side will benefit most from extra consolidation. 35 ltJd7 1 The knight comes to the queenside to help combat White's majority. 36 'i'e3 �g7 3 7 �h2 ltJe5 38 .ie2 'iid 6 With both sides sitting comfortably in the central arena, it's time to stretch the de­ fender's resources, so Adams starts to soften up Black's king. •••

39 h41 �8 40 �g1 �g7 41 h5 gxh5 42 'i'g5+ �f8 43 'iVxh 5 �e7 44 'iVh4+ �f8 45 'i'h8+ �e7 46 'iVh4+ �f8 Only now does he judge the time right to touch his majority. 47 b4 axb4 48 exb4 ltJa6 49 'i'e411 A surprising pawn offer. More routine is 49 b5 ltJc5 50 'i'h8+ �e7 51 'ili'a8 with the plan of creating a passed pawn. 49 ...ltJxb4 Black really has to take the bait, but now becomes tied up as his knight is completely out of play on b4. 50 .ib3 'ii'e 7 51 �1 �g7 52 �e2

52 ...f5?! Seirawan later regretted not having tem­ porized with 52 ... �f8. Adams then gives 53 g4 (if 53 �d2, Black escapes with 53 .. :ii d7+ 54 �c3 ltJc6) 53 ... 'it>g7 54 g5 'it>g6 55 'i'h4 keeping some advantage. After the further 55 ... e4 56 'i'h6+ �f5 57 "it'xb6 'it>xg5 58 a5, White's winning chances will lie on the queenside after all. 53 "it'g8+ �f6 54 "it'b8 Combining threats against the king and the b-pawn. 54 .. JiVe5 55 'iWd8+ �g6 56 'iWe8+ 'it>g5 57 'ii'g 8+ �h6 58 'i'e6+ Another way to launch the attack is by 58 .if7, to which Adams added the forcing variation 58 .. :iNc2+ 59 'it>f1 "iHc1 + 60 �g2 "iHc6+ 61 �g1 'it'f6 62 'iWf8+ 'iWg7 63 'iVe7! 429

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

(threatening �4+) 63 . . :iKg4 64 �f6+ �h7 65 jLe6 and White wins. If Black tries 62 ... 'it>g5, then 63 "ii'xb4 "ii' xf7 64 'iNxb6 yields a win­ ning queen ending according to Psakhis. 58 ... �g5 59 �f7 ! With terrible threats. Black's knight is a distant spectator while the king is cold­ bloodedly assassinated. 59 .. .f4 60 g4! �d6 61 'iKf5+ 'i1th6 62 g5+ �h5 63 f3 ! ttJd 5 Just to stop the mate by jLf7+ and 'iKg4. 64 �f7+ �xg5 65 'iVxd 5 1-0 How should one assess the following po­ sition?

17 . 12 M.Almeida-G.Flear Fuerteventura 1992

26 jIVe5 27 a4 c5 28 ttJe2 d4 29 ttJg3 h6 30 ..t>f2 c4! The pawns advance even further. 3 1 'iVe2?! Better is 31 bxc4 jLxa4 32 ttJe2, and al­ though 32 ... 'iKxh2 would still favour Black, there would be more practical chances for the first player. 31 d3! Dissuading White from exchanging queens since 32 �xe5 dxe5 33 cxd3 cxb3 is hopeless. 3 2 Vi'd2 'iKd4+ 3 3 ..t>fl d 5 3 3... 'iKb2! i s even stronger. 34 c3 'iKe5 3 5 bXc4 dXc4 36 ttJe4 jLc6 0-1 White lost on time, but in any case after 37 ttJg3 jLxa4 he would have had a nigh on impossible defensive task ahead of him. So it turned out that the queen and bishop duo were the more dynamic. The pawn phalanx was able to advance, driving White's knight away from the centre, and thus ensuring that Black obtained the advan- . tage. .•

.••

17 . 1 3 G.Kasparov-N.Short Tilburg 1991

White's position seems solid enough and Black has an extra pawn island, but just looks what happens in the game. 2 5 .. :iif6 25 ... c5! ? is also possible, as the bishop vs knight ending following 26 'iKe7 'iKf6 27 'iKxf6 gxf6 28 ttJe2 d4 should favour Black. 26 'iid 2 Doubtlessly 26 c3 would complicate Black's task of advancing his d-pawn to d4, but after 26 ... c5 White is still denied a decent central square for his knight. 430

Here the queen and bishop duo offer White winning chances due to a space ad­ vantage allied with Black's clumsy pawns.

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t In the following variations, most of which

are based on Kasparov's, there are several instructive tries to obtain a breakthrough. 38 'i'f3 'ii'f7 39 ii.b4 �C7 40 'ii'C 3+ �d8 41 'i'f3 t;c7 42 �d2!? Sometimes it's worthwhile giving one's opponent 'some rope to hang himself with'. By this 1 mean that it often happens in a prac­ tical game that, if the stronger side makes direct threats, the defender can see them and naturally reply with the necessary defensive moves. So a clever ploy in a clearly favour­ able position is to play 'useful building-up moves', thus leaving the defender with plenty of choices, none of which, however, can release the pressure. The defender may then help prepare his own noose. 42 �d8! Short correctly temporizes with his king. After 42 ... ttJe7?! Kasparov suggests 43 a6 with 43 ...bxa6 44 'ii'c3+ �d7 45 i.xd6 �xd6 46 'iic5+ �d7 47 'iYxa7+ in mind, which is indeed an interesting idea. However, the continuation of this analysis is inaccurate (I know that it's very easy to find improve­ ments 15 years later helped by a more pow­ erful computer etc, but there it is!): 47 ... �d8 48 b6 'ii'f6 49 b7 ttJc6 50 b8'iY+ ttJxb8 51 'i'xb8+ �d7 52 'ilib7+ �e8 53 'iixd5 'i'g5+ 54 t;c3 'ii'xg4 55 �e6+ and White has an advan­ tage according to Kasparov because he can follow up by pushing his d-pawn. Rather than 47... �d8?, 1 prefer 47 ... �e8! 48 'i'a8+ t;d7 49 b6 'ii'f6 50 'iYa7+ 'it>e8! 51 b7 ttJc6 52 b8'iY+ ttJxb8 53 'iVxb8+ 'i'd8, when Black holds on to his d-pawn and 54 'iYe5+ �f8 is at best unclear. But instead of all this, why not 43 'iVc3+! �d7 44 ii.xd6! �xd6 45 'iVc5+ t;d7 46 'i'xa7 'iYf6 47 'iVxb7+, which should surely be very good for White. 43 �d1 'it>C7 44 ii.e1 ttJe7 45 a6? Kasparov felt that White should go back with 45 ii.b4, though after 45 ... ttJc8 I'm not sure what he intended as an alternative win­ ning plan.

45 b6? Kasparov points out that opening the po­ sition with 45 ...bxa6! is correct, as following 46 i.a5+ 'it>d7 47 'i'c3, Black has 47 .. :it'f6! and it's no longer clear who is better. 46 ii.h4 g5 47 �f2 •••

••.

47 'iYf6 Kasparov demonstrates a convincing win (up to a point) against 47 ... h5 48 gxh5 'i'xf5 49 'iYxf5 ttJxf5 50 c4! (a great move, which is too deep for my computer) 50 ... dxc4 51 d5 g4 52 'it>c2 'it>c8 53 'it>b2! (a nice touch; instead 53 'it>c3 can be met by 53 ... g3, as 54 �xg3? fails to 54 ... ttJxg3 55 h6 ttJe4+ and the knight is able to stop the pawn) 53 ... 'it>c7 54 t;a3 �c8 55 �b4 c3 56 �xc3 g3 57 �gl t;d7 and now Kasparov's 58 �d3? allows Black to escape with 58 ... g2! and if 59 We2? ttJg3+, but 58 �d2! completes his plan successfully: 58 ... g2 (or 58 ... '>te7 59 i.xb6!) 59 'it>e1 and White wins as the g-pawn is now doomed. 48 �h1! The queen bears down the h-file, but also along the long light-squared diagonal and the pressure becomes more intense. 48 '>td7 49 c4 '>te8 50 '>td2 �f7 51 cxd 5? Too hasty. Kasparov later recognized that it was better to improve his pieces first with the patient 51 'itc3 (defending the d4pawn) 51.. .'it>g7 52 �g3 (hitting the d6pawn) 52 ... �f7, and only now 53 cxd5. 51 '>tg7 52 �d3 �f7 53 iL g 3 �e8 •..

...

.•.

431

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

54 �C4?! 54 �1 !? is more testing but ultimately insufficient; e.g. a) 54 .. .'�jxd5 55 �xd6 iVe3+ 56 'It>c4 "Yi'f3 57 iLe5+ 'it>f8 (57 ... 'lt>f7! also looks a tough nut to crack) 58 �3 tiJe3+ 59 �b4 tiJd5+ 60 'it>a3 "YWh1 61 �c2, banking on a decisive invasion once the checks have run out, although after 61.. .�f3+ 62 �b2 �e7 Black is still fighting. b) 54 ... �d7 55 'it>e4 tiJg8 56 �e5+!? Wf7! (after 56 ... dxe5 57 dxe5 the three connected passed pawns certainly look promising for White; while if 56 ... tiJf6+, 57 i.xf6+ 'it>xf6 58 "iYh1 �e8+ 59 'it>f3 'It>g7 60 'It>f2 �xb5 61 f6+! wins) 57 'iWb4 �c8! and Black comes round the back when a draw looks logical. 54 tiJxf5! 5 5 gxf5 'iVe2+ 56 'it>c3 'iVe3+ 57 'it>C4 "iVe2+ But not 57 .. :iVxg3? as 58 'iVh5 would re­ kindle White's hopes of winning. 58 'it>C3 Yz-Yz What can we learn from such a compli­ cated example? There are cases when an advantage can only be converted with long forcing sequences, which are not always evident over the board. ..•

1 7 .14 A.Khalifman-V.Salov Candidates (4th matchgame), Wijk aan Zee 1994 432

Here pawns are equal, but White's king is rather vulnerable. 63 "iVC5 �h1 64 tiJe1 �d5 65 �g3 'iVa6 This queen will be hard to hold off for long, whereas counterplay is difficult to or­ ganize with Black's king being so safe. 66 'iVc1 'YWa2 67 'iVc2 "i!Va1 68 'ii'd 2 Now that White's queen has been forced off the c-file Black can introduce an extra weapon. 68 g5 ! 69 'iVe3 69 fxg5 loses quickly to 69 .. :�xe5+ 70 'it>h4 f4! . 6 9. . .Wg6 7 0 tiJf3 70 h4 resists for longer, but Black should still win after either 70 ... gxf4+ 71 'it'xf4 'l'dl 72 tiJf3 i.xf3 73 'ii'xf3 'iVd2+ 74 'iVe3 'iVxb4+ or 70 ... g4 71 Wid2 'it>h5. 70 .. :�Vf1 71 fxg5 i.. xf3 72 'iVxf3 'iVg1+ 0-1 Mate is close: 73 "iVg2 f4+ 74 'it>f3 'i'e3+ 75 'it>g4 h5+ 76 'it>h4 "iVe1+ 77 iVg3 iVxg3 mate. .••

In the following example White's king­ side pawn structure is a problem but he is able to hold out� largely due to his superior king.

1 7. 1 5 A.Yermolinsky-V .Ivanchuk World Team Championship, Lucerne 1997

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

3 1 f6 32 ltJf3 �e4 3 3 ltJe1 .if2! 3 4 ltJd3 .ixg3 35 'iVgl! A useful counterblow, which leads to threats along the g-file as well as some pos­ sible checks with 'iVcS+. 35 ... .ixf4 After 3S ... �f3 White gets plenty of coun­ terplay with 36 �cS+, e.g. 36 ... 'it'd7 37 'ii'f8 'i'g4 38 ltJcS+ 'it'c6 39 "ii'c8+ 'it'dS 40 b4. In­ stead, 3S ... .ixh4 could be relatively best, e.g. 36 "ii'xg7 (or even 36 'iVcS+!? 'it>d7 37 'iVxhS 'i'hl+ 38 ltJc1) 36 .. :iYhl+ 37 'it>a2 'iVdS+ 38 b3 as 39 a4 when Black is probably still better, but with White's queen so active and his king relatively safe it will be hard for Black to make progress. 36 "ii'xg7 'i¥h1+ 37 Wa2 "ii'd 5+ 38 b3 "iif5 39 'i'fS+ 'it>C7 40 'ii'e 1+ 'it>cS 41 'iVeS+ 'it>C7 42 'i'e7+ Yz-Yz •..

The next example doesn't exactly pro­ mote the case for the superiority of queen and knight.

17 . 1 6 V.Epishin-V.Bologan Mainz (rapid) 2002

35 f3 The endgame after 3S 'ii'cS+ 'iNxc5 36 ltJxcs .idS 37 f4 'i;;e7 38 'i;; f2 \t>d6 favours Black slightly. 35 ... "ii'd 5 36 �f2 h6 37 h4?! A natural move, but a weak one. If White doesn't touch his pawns then his posi tion is probably too solid to breach. 37 ... 'it'gS 3S ltJC5 .ic6 39 'iVC3 "¥idS! Now the h4-pawn requires defence. 40 g 3?! Although the pawn structure is again in­ tact, Bologan hasn't overlooked that the h3square is now weak! Instead, 40 llViJ4 is more solid. 40 "ii'd 5 41 ltJa6 �e6 42 ltJb4 .ib7 43 "¥id4 �h 3 44 'ii'f4 Defending the kingside pawns while threatening 'ii'b8+. 44 .. :ii'h 2+ 45 'it'e3 'iVg1+ 46 'iit d 2? Blundering a pawn. White should still hold after 46 'it'e2!, although Black can keep the tension with 46 .. :iVcs hoping for ... .ic8e6-c4. 46 .. :iVf2+ 47 �C3 •••

(see following diagram)

47 ..txf3 The exchange of queens wou l d tu rn White's king from a liability into an asset: 47 ... 'i:Vxf3+?! 48 'i¥xf3 .ixf3, as this can be met .••

In fact, as White's knight lacks a good central square Black can try to win with little risk.

433

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

with

49

ttJc2 followed by ttJd4 and if neces­

sary �b4.

48 ttJd 3 'ii'e 2 49 'ii'd 4?! if.. e 4 50 ttJC5 'iie l+ 51 'iid 2 �xg3+ Another one bites the ... 52 �b4 if.. g 6 5 3 'iid 4 'ii b 8 54 ttJd7 �d8 55 �xb5 if..f 5 The rest is unnecessary. 56 �b4 'iNxd7 57 'iVe5 'iVb7+ 58 �C5 ..td7 59 'ile7 'iWc6+ 60 �b4 'iNb6+ 61 �C3 'iVb3+ 6 2 � d 2 "ili'xb2+ 63 � e 3 'ilVb6+ 64 �d3 'ilfe6 65 'iVd8+ 'iNe8 66 'iNb6 ..tb5+ 67 �c3 'ilVc6+ 0-1 Naturally, a player of Epishin's strength would probably not have let such a solid position slip if he wasn't pressed for time, but it still illustrates how seemingly incon­ sequential pawn moves can lead to prob­ lems. In the next example the fairly closed na­ ture of the position may seem to favour the knight, but White is able to create threats on more than one front, so it's the queen and bishop that are again favourite. In quieter positions play typically favours the side who has the fewest pawn islands.

17 . 17 c.Sauer-G.Flear Montpellier 1996

434

The e5-pawn i s one weakness and the back rank is another. These will require at­ tention. 3 2 ...ttJd6 After 32 ... 'iVd6 White keeps some pres­ sure after 33 "iVc4. 3 3 ..tg6 'iNd7?! A passive move. Instead, 33 ... 'iVc4 can be met by 34 'iNd5!? as 34 ... 'iNxd5 35 exd5 yields an advantage to White, who has a queenside majority and better pawns in general. It turns out that the other try 34 ... 'iWxc3 is too risky, as Black's back rank is difficult to pro­ tect: 35 �g2! (35 'iVe6 'iNf3 is less clear) 35 .. :iWc6 36 "ii'e6 b5 37 'iWe7 "ii'a8 38 "'xeS with strong pressure and now a passed pawn as well. So it seems that Black should simply have centralized his king with 33 ... �g8! 34 f3 �f8 35 �f2 �e7, when any White advantage is kept to a minimum. 34 'ii'd 5 'ii'x h3 I originally intended 34.. :ilVe7, but even­ tually rejected it due to the fantastic break­ through 35 b5! ! axb5 36 a6 bxa6 37 'iWa8+ and wins. 3 5 'iNxe5 'iNd7 36 'iNd5 c6 37 'iNe5 �g8 Too late! 38 c4! �f8 38 ... ttJxc4? loses to 39 'ii'b8+. 39 C5 liJC4 40 'ii'b 8+ �e7 41 e5! If instead 41 .tf5 Black may be able to save himself with 41 ...'iNd1+ 42 �h2 (if 42

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

then 42. . .lDe3+! with a perpetual) 42 ...'i'h5+ 43 �h3 g4 44 'iVc7+ �e6 45 'iVc8+ We5 46 'iVxg4 'i!Vxg4 47 �xg4 �d4 48 �c8 Wc3 etc. 41 ...'iVdl+ 42 �h2 'iVd7 43 �h5 1-0 A decisive zugzwang; for instance, if 43 ... lDd2 then 44 e6 'iVxe6 45 'iVe8+ �f6 46 'i'd8+ wins. Wg2

The pawn structure is more familiar in 17.18.

17 . 1 8 I.Nemet-G.Flear Chiasso 1991

bxa4 'iVc4 can be met by 33 'iVe8! as 33 ...'iVxa4 allows the pin 34 d5. 31 ... cxb5 32 lDe5 a4 33 bxa4 bxa4 34 ..t>h2 'iVb3 3 5 'iVf4 a3 This is decisive as White's threats are eas­ ily dealt with. 36 lDd7 'iVe6 37 lDxf6 'iVxf6 38 'iWd2 'iVb6 39 h3 'iVb1 0-1 So, despite the result, White should have held with precise play. The following is perhaps the most fa­ mous example of queen and bishop vs quccn and knight. It is also an important position in the history of the World Championship. Kasparov was obliged to win in order to retain his crown and was indeed successful, but could Karpov have held out with an al­ ternative defence?

17 . 19 G.Kasparov-A.Karpov World Championship (24th matchgame), Seville 1 987

A typical isolated pawn position, but will one weakness be enough for the stronger side to be able to make meaningful pro­ gress? 28 a4 �f6 29 �e3 h 5 30 b3 With everything seemingly stabilized, Black throws in an extra ingredient to spice up the dish. 30 ... b5! 31 axb5? A mistake, in my opinion, as Black can now obtain a strong passed pawn. Instead, 31 'iVd3 is met by 31...bxa4 32 bxa4 c5; and 31 'iVc3 by 31...bxa4 32 bxa4 c5! 33 'iVxc5 'iVxf3. However, there is a defence that successfully parries the threat of 31...bxa4 32 bxa4 �c4; i.e. the modest 31 �g2!, when 31.. .bxa4 32

White has an extra pawn and Black's pawns are split, but note the presence of the wrong rook's pawn. 40 ... �f6 41 �b5 "ile7 42 g2 g6 The question of how to handle the king­ side pawns is invariably a delicate one for the defence. After 42 g5, White has 43 f4! ...

435

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

'i¥ f6 44 'iit h 3! with the plan of capturing on g5 and placing his king on g4, while follow­ ing 44 . . .gxf4 45 exf4 his position has poten­ tial. Otherwise 42 .. .'�f6 43 h4 and only now 43 ... g5 is best met by 44 h5!, when White has chances of obtaining strong pressure. 43 'i¥a 5 'i¥g7 44 �C5 'iff7 45 h4

51..:�f6 52 'iHxf6+ '.toxf6 to be lost: 53 f4 e5 54 'it>f3 tt:ld7 55 '.toe3 tt:lc5 56 .i.d5 and White brings his king round to c4. It's in these sorts of variations that the vulnerable pawns on g6 and h5 mean that the movements of Black's king will be significantly restricted. 52 'ifd6 c;t>g7 53 i.b5 'it>g8 54 i.c6 �a7 55 'iYb4! A careful move, avoiding the premature 55 e5?! ViVaS! 56 .i.e4 ViVe1 when it would be much harder to make progress. Kasparov intends �7, from where the queen will con­ trol the seventh rank as well as the long di­ agonal. 55 'i¥C7 56 �b7! ViVd8 56 ... 'i¥d6 is met by 57 .i.e8, when the £7square becomes White's property. 57 e5! •..

45 ... h5? A key moment. Kasparov and others recommend 45 ... 'it>g7 when, although White can push up his kingside pawns, the general consensus is that this isn't enough to win. I don't know if anyone has ever given this position a thorough enough analysis to prove the objective result, but Karpov no doubt decided that 46 g4, with the real pros­ pect of g4-g5, was going to be very unpleas­ ant! After the text move the pawns being fixed on the same-coloured squares as White's bishop turns out to be an extra nail in Karpov's coffin, but it required the class of Kasparov to be able to exploit this fact. 46 'iVc6 'iHe7 47 .i.d3 'i¥f7 48 'iHd6 'it>g7 49 e4 '.tog8 Instead, 49 .. :YWb7!? is possible, trying to restrain White by hitting the e-pawn. Then 50 'iHe5+ c;t>f7 51 .i.c4 is given by Botvinnik as clearly advantageous for White, though not yet winning. 50 i.C4 '.tog7 51 'iHe5+ c;t>g8 Kasparov anal yses the ending after 436

It's zugzwang. 57 .. Ji'a 5 Or if 57 .. .'iYd3 58 i.e8 "iYf5, White forces a winning ending with 59 �f3!, as he can after the alternative 57 ... tt:lh7 58 'iHd7. 58 .i.e8 �C5 59 'iVf7+ 'it>h8 60 �a4 "it'd5+ 61 c;t>h2 'iVc5 62 .i.b3 �c8 63 .i.dl 'iVc5 64 'iSit g2 1-0 Black is squeezed; for example, 64 ... 'ib4 65 .ii. f3 'iHc5 66 i.e4 � 67 f3! (67 i.xg6?? falls for the hackneyed stalemate trick 67... tt:lxg6 68 "iYxg6 'ilfb7+ 69 '.toh2 'iig2+!) 67 ... 'iHd2+ 68 '.toh3 "iYb4 (the ending after 68 ...'iVh6 69 f4 "iYg7 70 "iYxg7+ '.toxg7 71 .ic6

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

would be easy as the knight i s blocked in, and White brings his king around the board unhindered) 69 i.. xg6 tbxg6 70 'YWxg6 'iixh4+, and now the coup de grace 71 �g2! as pointed out by Kasparov. White wins a sec­ ond pawn as it's no longer stalemate.

ful role. On h6 it defends the f7-square, re­ strains any further White kingside pawn advance, and keeps itself out of trouble. Va­ ganian is sufficiently happy with this piece that he leaves it where it is for virtually the rest of the game! Needless to say White is unable to make any progress at all.

Winning these positions with all the pawns on the same side is even more diffi­ cult when the defender has unified pawns.

17 . 20 U.Andersson-R.Vaga nian Tilburg 1983

The exchange of queens is generally un­ favourable for White due to the presence of the WRP, a fact which doesn't help his task. 44 'YWe5 45 "iYd3 ttJh6 46 'iYd7 tbf5 47 "iia 7 tLlh6 48 "iVa4 tbf5 49 "iVb3 ttJh6 50 'i¥d 3 ttJg8 51 "iVd4 1Wf6 Black won't want to allow a passed pawn. 52 i.. e 6 tbh6 5 3 ..td7 tbg8 54 ..th3 tbe7 5 5 .td7 tbg8 56 �fl �f8 57 i.. b 5 �f3 58 �el tLlf6 59 "iVf4 �hl+ 60 �e2 �g7 61 �d4 'i¥bl 62 i..d 3 'iia 2+ 63 �el 'iVe6 64 �d2 �g8 6 5 f3 "iYa2+ 66 i.. e 2 "iVa 5+ 67 'iVe3 'iYa6 68 ..tb3 'i'b6 69 1We4 "ii b 7 70 �e2 �g7 71 �e3 �d7 72 'iYe4 'iYe7 7 3 e4 tbg8 74 "iVd4+ '.t>h7 7 5 �d2 tbh6 The knight may seem to be 'passively placed' or 'out of play' here, but it has a use.•.

76 ..te2 �b7 77 i.. d 3 �a8 78 �e3 "iVa 5 79 �e2 'i¥a2+ 80 �el "iia 5+ 81 '.t>dl �a 3 82 i.. e 2 �a 5 83 ..td3 �a 3 84 �e2 �a 2+ 85 �e3 'i¥a 5 86 .te2 �el 87 �e5 �gl+ 88 �d2 "iVf2 89 'i¥f4 �g7 90 '.t>d3 'it>h7 91 .tdl �fl+ 92 '.t>d2 �f2+ 93 '.t>el �el 94 '\t>e2 �g7 95 'i¥d6 �e3 96 �b2 �h7 97 �f4 �d4+ 98 �el �gl 99 �d2 �f2+ 100 .te2 '\t>g7 101 �d6 �h7 102 �e5 �g8 103 �e7 �h7 104 �d3 �el 105 "iVf4 �g7 106 �g5 �h7 107 �e5 Wg8 108 �e7 '.t>h7 109 '.t>e3 �g7 110 �d6 Wg8 111 �e5 �h7 112 �b8 ttJg8 113 �f4 ttJh6 114 �g5 '.t>g7 115 �d3 �bl+ 116 �d2 'i¥b4+ 117 '.t>dl �d4+ 118 el �gl+ 119 i..fl �h7 Yz-Yz When the queen and knight are in the as­ cendancy, difficulties can arise if the knight lacks a suitable foothold.

17.21 D.Conti n-G.Flear

St. Vincent 2003

43 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

At the time I was disappointed that my technique wasn't up to delivering the full point. However, a good look at this NQE has now convinced me that winning this position is far from evident. 3 2 ... tDd6 If 32 ... 'iVxb3?! White should continue 33 "iVc8! (but not 33 i.. f1 ? b4 34 "iVc8 as Black keeps the second pawn after 34 . . .•a4 35 'iVb8 �h7) 33 ... �d1+ 34 i.. f1 �f8 35 �8 �e7 36 �xb5 and, with all the pawns being on the same side, White's drawing chances are increased. 33 i..fl �d 5 34 'ii'b 6 g5!? The principal idea of this thrust is to re­ strict the opposing pawns, but it is well met by White's reply. If, instead, Black tries to advance his e-pawn White is not without resources, e.g. 34 ... �h7 35 h4 e5 36 b4 e4 37 �c5! (an annoying move as now Black's queen must budge from its well-centralized posting) 37 . . .•d1 38 �g2 'ii'd2 39 �gl and if 39 ... g6, to shield the king, then 40 h5 is an­ noying. 3 5 h4! gxh4?1 This leads to Black having split kingside pawns. I suspect that Black should try either 35 ... �g7 36 hxg5 hxg5 or 35 ... g4! ? 36 i..e2 h5 37 b4 �g7 38 'i¥c5 �f6. 36 'i¥d8+ �g7 37 'i¥xh4 tDfs 38 �g4+ �f6 39 b4 'i¥d4?! Here it's no doubt better to play 438

39 ... tDd4!, but even in this seemingly domi­ nating position the win is still not quite in Black's grasp: 40 'iff4+ �g7 41 'iig4+ 'ittf8 42 'i!Vf4 h5 43 �h2! �e7 44 i.. g2 'i¥d6 45 'i¥g5+ We8 46 �xh5 'i¥xb4 47 'ii'h8+ �e7 48 'ii'h4+ �d7 49 'iif6 and White resists. 40 'ii'f3 In time trouble I had overlooked this simple move, with the duel threats of g3-g4 and to the b-pawn. 40 ... �g7 41 �xb5 'i¥xb4 Now Black will have to try and win on just one flank. Unfortunately Black's split pawns leave his king rather too exposed and, as a result, I was unable to put suffi­ cient pressure on White to be able to win. 42 i.. d 3 tDd6 43 'ife3 'i¥C3 44 Wh2 tDe8 45 Wg2 tDf6 46 'ii'f3 'ii'd 4 47 Wgl tDg4 48 .te2 tDe5 Both 48 ... h5! ? and 48 .. .f5!? come into con­ sideration. 49 'i¥h 5 'i¥e4 50 f4!

A committal decision, but it proves to be adequate. 50 ... tDg6 51 .b5 'i¥d4+ 52 �g2 tDe7 53 'ifd3 �b2 With White's pawns placed on the oppo­ site colour to his bishop, I decided that there was no real hope of winning the pure minor piece ending. 54 .b5 .d4 55 .d3 'iVa! 56 'ii'd l 'i'b2 5 7 �h3 tDf5 58 'ii'd 3 'ili'al

Q u e e n a n d B is h op ve rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

I've had a close look at S8. . .ltJd4 and, al­ though I consider it a better try, I still feel that White should hold. Here's a sample of my analysis: S9 .i.d1 'iYf2 60 .i.hS "it'g1 61 i.f3 hS 62 i.g2 (rather than 62 i.xhS? 'iVh1 + 63 c,t>g4 liJfS) 62 ... f6 63 'iVd2, and any attempts by Black to improve just seem to lead to him further exposing his king. 59 "it'f3 "it'e1 Another try, S9 ... 'i!Vg1 60 i.d3 liJd4, can be successfully met by 61 �e4 fS 62 �7+ c,t>f6 63 "it'a8. 60 i.d3 liJe3 61 "it'e4 fS 62 'ii' b 7+ �f6 63 'i'a8 �e7 64 i.bS 'ilt'd1 6S "it'e8+ �d6 66 'l'c6+ We7 67 "iVe8+ Wd6 68 "iVc6+ f1 with good chances to wriggle out. 66 ... g4 67 g3? But it's also too late for 67 "iYe3, as after 67 ... "i¥xe3 68 fxe3 gxh3 69 gxh3? liJxdS 70 exdS e4! White loses the d-pawn and then the game. 67 ... hxg3 68 fxg3 Or if 68 "it'xg3, then 68 ... "it'xg3+ 69 fxg3 liJxdS 70 exdS gxh3 wins easily. 68 ... "i¥C1+ 69 Wh2 'Yi'b2+ 70 Wh1 "iif2 0-1 Threatening ...liJh5, and if 71 hxg4 then 71 ...ltJxg4 leads to a quick mate. A good example of a knight showing its superiority on a limited front. That is, when White's bishop was both 'bad' (in the sense that his pawns were on light squares) and 'absent' (from helping out with the defence of his king). We shall continue with some more ex­ amples in which the queen and knight pair are on top.

17 . 2 3 A.Yusupov-V.Anand Candidates (4th matchgame), Wijk aan Zee 1994

It must surely be a draw? Leko thought differently ... 61.. :iVf4+ 62 Wg1 liJf8 63 'iYC7?! Most players would be reticent of going for 63 'ii'e3 'ilt'xe3 64 fxe3, as White's inferior pawns give Black some practical chances. Nevertheless, I think this is the best chance of avoiding the following denouement. 439

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Here Black has pawn weaknesses and no real targets for his bishop, whereas the knight is guaranteed the use of a fine square on c4. 2 9 �C2

29 g4?! is premature as 29 ... 'iVd3! would then be awkward. 2 9 .. :iVd 5?! A centralization that unfortunately misses the point. Black had to take the op­ portunity to improve his kingside pawns, to which end Yusupov recommends 29 ... h5! and Wolff 29 ... g4. In either case Black doesn't get his pawns stuck on dark squares. 30 g4! Fixing the black pawns and gaining in­ fluence on the light squares. 30 ... 'it>fS 31 tiJC4 f5?! Anand doesn't want to stay too passive, but after this move his king becomes vul­ nerable. In his notes he later understood that the more solid 31 ...i.f6, followed by ... fl ..idS •••

3 5 e4! fxe4 36 fxe4 'iVC5 After 36 ... 'iVd4 37 'ii'b2 'iVxb2 38 tiJxb2 'it>f6 39 tiJc4, White has all the winning chances due to his superior minor piece. 37 'iWf2 ! 'iWe7 44 0

Anand obviously didn't fancy exchang­ ing queens as, again, having the worse mi­ nor piece and weak pawns all over the place, his chances of holding the endgame would be slim. 3S 'iWd4+ 'it>gS 39 'it>e2 i.b6!? A desperate attempt at some sort of free­ dom as Black is running short of moves. 40 tiJxb6 axb6 41 'it'xb6 'it'a 3 42 'iWdS+ eS 44 'it>f3 c5 45 'iWd6 'it>f7 46 'iWd7+ 'it>f6 47 'iWdS+ 'it>f7 4S e5 'iVa6 Instead 48 .. :ii'xa2 is well met by 49 'ili'f6+. 49 'iVd7+ 'it>gS 50 'it>e3 'iVxa2 51 'iVxe6+ d6 45 �g5 'Ot>xe6 46 'ot>d2 f4! •••

5 3 ... tDxb3 54 �d8 'Ot>e4 5 5 'it>g4 'ot>d3 56 1ti>f4 'iitxC4 5 7 'iit e 4 'it>C3 58 i.f6+ 'it>c2 59 i.e5 59 'iii d 5 is well met by 59 ... �d3 followed by pushing the c-pawn. 59 C4 60 'ot>e3 c3 61 i.f6 Equally hopeless is 61 'iite4 tDc5+ 62 1ti>dS tDxa4 63 'iii c4 tDb2+ 64 �b5 a4 65 'Ot>b4 tDd3+ or 65 .i.d6 'ot>b3 etc. 61 tDC5 62 'Ot>e2 62 .i.d8 loses to the neat 62 ... lti>d1 63 .i.xa5 c2 64 .id2 tDb3, and 62 'it>d4 to 62 ... tDxa4 63 'it>c4 tDb6+! (but not 63 . tDb2+? which fails this time to 64 �b5 a4 65 'it>b4) 64 'Ot>b5 a4 65 i.e7 (or 65 'it>b4 tDd5+) 65 ... lti>b3 66 �xb6 c2 67 i.g5 a3 and one of the pawns will promote. 62 �b3 0-1 ..•

•••

..

.•.

The next couple of examples illustrate the predominance of queen and knight when they are associated with solid pawns and good squares. Then the limitations of the queen and bishop pair are shown up.

17.2 6 Ki Georgiev P H Nielsen French League 2004 .

Creating an outside passed pawn. 47 gxf4 h4 48 �e3 h3 49 'it>f3 'it>f5 50 Wg3 tDxf4! 51 i.d8 Naturally 51 i.xf4? loses to 51 ...h2 52 'ot>xh2 'ot>xf4 etc. 51 tDe2+ 52 Wxh3 tDd4 53 i.xb6 Karpov shows that 53 'Ot>g2 is no better as Black picks off all the pawns: 53 ... 'ot>e4 54 'it>f1 'Ot>d3 55 'it>e1 tDxb3 56 �d1 'ot>xc4 57 'Ot>c2 tDd4+ 58 'ot>b2 tDe6 59 �xb6 'Ot>b4 60 i.a7 �xa4.

-

.

.

•.•

442

This is the sort of position in which the queen and knight partnership excels. White's solid structure and safe king (the long diagonal can be blocked if need be)

Q u e e n a n d B i s h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

soon lead to Black having nothing better to do but just wait. White, on the other hand, is able to probe Black's broken pawn structure at will. 20 .'iWe6 21 'ili'd8+ �g7 2 2 f3 'iWes+ 2 3 �g2 'i'b4 24 iYd2 Black has some time to decide which pawns to move or not. One plausible set-up is ...h6 and .. .f5 to give himself some space and cover key squares; another is just to leave things as they are. 24... iLe6 2S a3 'iVes 26 lDd1 M?! Nielsen obviously didn't want the knight to come to g4, but this pawn proves to be a weakness later on. 27 lDe3 iLb7 28 �f1 iLa6 29 'ili'e3 �f8 30 tL\g2 e2 Before White can exploit Black's fragile kingside he needs to reorganize his pieces, so the next task is to get his king to safety. 50 'it>e7 51 �f2 'it>f7 52 'iYd2 �g7 53 �g2 'iVal 54 ttJfl 'it>g6 54 ... ii.h3+ 55 �xh3 llYxf1+ doesn't work since 56 Vikg2+ is check and White wins. 5 5 ttJg3 Vikbl Black has no targets, so White cannot be distracted from bringing his knight to f4. 56 ttJe2 ii.e8 57 ttJf4+ �g7 58 ttJe6+ �g6 58 ... 'it>f7 allows the strong 59 1Vh6 and mates. 59 1lVf2 �h6 60 'iVg3 'iVb2+ 61 �h3 1-0 61 .. . ..tg6 62 'it'xd6 leads to a quick mate. Note that if Black could have maintained his pawn on g5, it would have been far more difficult for White to win as he wouldn't have had access to f4. 50 the somewhat rash ... h5, which led to Black losing control of the f4-square, was almost certainly wrong. ••.

.•.

41 Vikd2 'ilVbl 42 �b2 'ilVd3 43 'iVc3 'iWbl 44 'it>d2 Vika2+ 45 'iYb2 Vika7 45 ... llYc4 is well met by 46 ttJe3. 46 ttJe3 h5?! Lars Bo Hansen labels this move as dubi­ ous, and it later becomes clear that Black loses control of events on the kingside, so this pawn move proves to be self-weakening. In­ stead, perhaps Black should play a 'wait and see' strategy with 46...h6 or 46... �g6. 47 g3 'i;e7

In the following example 5hirov, playing with the queen and knight, has sacrificed a pawn for compensatory activity.

17.30 R.Hubner-A.Shirov Ter Apel 1997

. Timman suggests that 47 ... h4 was a lesser evil - at least then White would have less room for manoeuvre on the h-file. 48 h4! Fixing Black's h-pawn on a vulnerable square.

White may indeed have an extra pawn, 44 5

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

but with the inferior structure and the less dynamic minor piece, he must be on his guard. Furthermore, Black's king is very safe, so Shirov naturally continues to press for a win. 23 :ii'd l+ 24 ..tfl liJC5 25 'iie 3 'ii'g4+ 26 ..tg2 liJe6 27 h3 'iWxf4 28 'iWxa7 'iWcl+ 29 'iti>h2 'iti>g7 30 'i!Vxb7 liJf4 3 1 'iVb6 31 'iWxc6? is bad as 31 ...liJe2 1eads to mate, e.g. 32 h4 'iWf4+ 33 'iti>h3 liJg1 mate. 31 liJe2 32 f3 'ifxC3 3 3 'iWf2 Now 33 'if'xc6? allows mate starting with 33 ... 'ii'e5+. 33 'iWe5+ 34 �hl liJf4 3 5 ..tfl Hubner has staved off the first wave of the attack, but he must continue to defend carefully. 35 ... g5 36 h4 h6 37 hxg5 hxg5 38 'iti>gl 'iti>g6 39 'iWb6 'iVC3 ! 40 'i!Vf2 After 40 'iVxc6+ 'iti>h5 41 'iVc5 'iVxf3 White isn't yet lost, but he has created further problems around his own king. 40 f6 41 'iti>h2 c5 .•

•••

•••

'ifb2 'iWxC4! Now it's Black who has an extra pawn. 46 e5 'iWe2+ 47 'ilixe2 liJxe2 48 exf6+ �xf6 49 ..td3 liJf4 50 ..tbl The ending may not be completely lost, but it's clearly unpleasant to defen.d . 50 c4 5 1 'iti>g3 liJd5 52 'iti>g4 liJe3+ 53 Wg3 We5 54 ..tg6 liJd5 5 5 'iti>g4 �f6 56 ..tbl liJe3+ 5 7 Wg3 'iti>e5 58 ..tg6 c3 59 ..tbl liJd5 59 ... c2? would be wrong, as then White draws with 60 ..txc2 liJxc2 61 Wg4 'iti>f6 62 f4. 60 Wg4 Wf6 61 'iti>g3 liJf4 62 'iti>g4 liJd5 63 Wg3 Wg7 64 �f2 'iti>h6 65 �e2 liJb4 66 .te4 Wg7 67 We3 Wt6 68 ..ta8 �e6 69 ..tb7 �e5 70 ..ta8 Wd6 71 ..te4 'iti>C5 •••

.••

42 a4?1 Hubner is, as a rule, a patient defender, but even he has his limits! Here he decides to give up the a-pawn to try and activate, but as Stohl recommends, Black should probably just temporize further with 42 'iti>gl, leaving the a-pawn on a2, when the defence would be easier to conduct. 42 'iWal 43 ..th3?! 'iVxa4 44 ..tf5+ 'iti>g7 45 •••

44 6

72 f4?1 Probably the losing move, and another attempt by Hubner to release the unbearable tension that proves to be incorrect! Better is 72 ..tf5 Wc4 73 ..te6+ liJd5+ 74 �e2 �d4 75 ..tf5 and it's not clear that Black can win. 72 ... g4 7 3 f5 liJd5+ 74 Wd3 liJf6 75 .th1 Wb4 76 'iti>c2 WC4 77 ..tg2 0-1 Stohl shows how Black wins after 77 .tg2 with 77 ... Wd4 78 WeI g3 79 ..tf3 liJg4 80 .tg2 (or if 80 ..tb7 We5 81 Wc2 liJe3+ 82 �xc3 liJd5+ and the g-pawn has a free run to the promotion square) 80 ... 'iti>e5 81 ..th3 lLle3 82 Wb1 liJxf5 83 'iti>c2 'iti>d4! and everything be­ comes clear. In 1 7.31 Black's bishop isn't officially a

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

'bad bishop', but the blocked centre still hems it in.

17.3 1 B.Gelfand-V.Anand Linares 1991

.

Here Black failed to find the right defen­ sive set-up. 44 ...�g6? Gelfand instead suggests 44 ... .1dS! 45 'ii?f2 .1c7 46 'it'h5 Wg7, which covers all ave­ nues of attack, and then Black can even con­ tinue with ... 'ii'f7. 45 'ii?f1 h5 Now if 45 ... .1dS White switches flanks with 46 'ii'g2+ Wf7 47 'iVa2 'iVg6 4S 'iVa7+, which is decisive according to Gelfand; al­ though Black could defend better with 46 ... �h7! 47 'ifa2 'iff7 as 48 'iVaS 'iVh5! then leads to perpetual check. 46 "g2+ Wf7 47 'iVe2 'ifg6 48 liJd7! Aiming for e5 or bS! 48 ...i.f6 49 liJb8 An unusual way of creating problems. Now the c6-pawn is fatally weak. 49 ... .1e7 50 'ifg2 1 Shutting down any potential counter­ play. 50 ... 'ii'e 6 51 'iVb2 'iVc8 5 2 'ifb6 .1d8 53 'ii'a 7+ 'ii?e 8 54 We2 A quiet move which demonstrates that

Black is in zugzwang. 54 ... h4 5 5 h3 ..ta 5 After 55 ... ..tf6 56 'ifb6 .1d8 - and unlike a few moves ago! - 57 'ifxc6+ is now check! 56 Wd1! Gelfand prefers to get his king to a less exposed square before playing his queen along the seventh. 56 ... .1c3 Or if 56 ... .1dS 57 Wc2 ..ta5, then 58 'iVg7 would come anyway. 57 'ifg7 ii'e6 58 'ifb7 'iVg6 59 liJxc6 Of course 59 'iVxc6+ 'ifxc6 60 liJxc6 should also be good. Note that if White's king was still on e2 this would in fact be essential. 59 ..."g1+ 60 WC2 'iff2+ 61 �xc3 'ife1+ 62 Wb2 1-0 The checks soon run out. In the next couple of positions White has a positional advantage due to his classic � good knight vs bad bishop' scenario.

17.3 2 M.Apicella-G.Flear French League 1997

32 Wg2 .1e7 33 'iff3 'iVc81? Avoiding the miserable ending after 33 ... 'ifxf3+ 34 Wxf3. 34 liJC3?! Too cautious. Instead, 34 'iVf7 and if 44 7

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

34 ... 'ifc2+ 35 'it>h3 'iiYc8+ 36 g4 looks the right way to proceed, when the presence of White's queen on f7 would have been in­ timidating. 34 ... �g7 3 5 h4 b5! Not wanting to stay too passive. 36 h5 b4 37 ltJe4 'iiYC 2+ 38 'It>h3 'iYC4 39 'ifg4+ �f8 40 'iif 5+ 'it>e8 41 'ifg6+ �d7 42 'ife6+ �d8 43 "iVg8+ The natural 43 4Jxd6 is just a draw after 43 ... 'iffl + etc. 43 ... �d7 44 ltJd2 'iVxa2!? 45 'ifg4+ �d8 46 'ifg8+ �d7 47 'ifaS �a1 4S "iYc6+ 'it>dS 49 'ii'a S+ �d7 50 'iVc6+ 'it>dS 51 �g4 "iVd1+ 5 2 ltJf3 e 4 5 3 'iYa8+ � d 7 54 'ii b 7+ �dS 5 5 'iYbS+ Yz-Yz In the next example Black is unable to get any counterplay, and this time the superb knight sees White home.

17.3 3 V.Anand-J.Piket Monte Carlo (rapid) 2000

Another thematic example of (queen and) good knight vs (queen and) bad bishop. This sort of position typically arises from the King's Indian Defence, although here it resulted from a closed Spanish. 39 �g2 �g7 40 'iiYb 3 'ifC7 41 'iiY b 5 �f7 42 'ifc6! 'ifdS 448

The endgame after 42 .. :�\hc6 43 dxc6 'ite8

44 ltJc3, with ltJd5 coming, is frankly horri­ ble for Black. 43 'ikb7 �eS 44 4JC3 Heading for b5, where the knight not only hits d6 but also envisages the manoeu­ vre ltJc7-e6. 44 :i1Na 5 45 ltJb5 �e1 46 'iVc8+ 1-0 White picks off the d-pawn after 46 ... 'itf7 47 "iYe6+ 'It>f8 48 ltJxd6, and the resulting queen ending is easy as Black has no per­ petual: 48 ... .ixd6 49 'ifxd6+ �f7 50 "iVe6+ 'itf8 51 d6 'iVe4+ 52 'it>h2 'iVf4+ 53 �gl 'iYc1+ 54 �g2. ••

In 17.34 Black doesn't really have a bad bishop, but his two pieces are still no match for the queen and knight.

17.34 S.Dvoirys-R.Vaganian European Cup, Yerevan 1997

It's curious how Black lost this position so quickly. In fact his three pawn islands (to White's two) and relatively exposed king offer some interesting possibilities for the first player. The c6-pawn can be considered a 'weakness', but most significantly the c5pawn is soon to have a more elevated status as a passed pawn! 2S ... .ie5

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

After 28 . . :iVh7 the tricky 29 'iVg6 is annoying. 29 b4 'i'g4 This turns out to lose an important tempo, but even the superior 29 ... 'it>f7 30 'iVa6 if6 31 b5 cxb5 32 c6 'iNc7 33 iVb7 yields White a strong initiative. 30 tDf3 i..f6 31 'iYa6! "Yid7 3 2 bS! gs 32 ... cxb5 33 c6 'iYd6 34 'iYc8+ \th7 (or 34 ... i..d8 35 'iJd4) 35 c7 is no improvement. 33 bxc6 "iNe6 34 'iVb7 1-0 The role of the stronger side's king is worth noting in the following two examples.

17. 3 5 B.Bujisho-G.Flear Montpellier 2000

\txf6 doesn't seem to be sufficient to win, e.g. 41 \te3 e5 42 g3 'iJd5+ 43 i..xd5 xd5 44 'it'd2 'it'd6 45 'it'c2 c7 46 \tb3 b6 47 a4 h5 48 d4 etc. So Black should probably try 38 ...h5, although it's not clear how he will make progress after 39 f1 h4 40 'it>f2. 38 ... 'iJd7 39 �g8+ After 39 "ilc7, simplifying to the ending with an extra pawn after 39 .. :�We1 + 40 h2 �e5+ 41 'iNxe5+ 'iJxe5 is now promising for Black; e.g. 42 b6 'iJd7 43 b7 'it'f6 44 g3 e5 and the black king is able to invade. 39 �f6 40 �h8+ �gs 41 h4+ 'it'g4! 42 'it>f2 42 �xh6 is more robust, but still ulti­ mately losing after 42 .. :iWe1+ 43 h2 "iixh4+ 44 'iVxh4+ xh4. 42 ...�xh4+ 43 e2 "iVe7+ 44 f2 'iJes 4S �a8 'iJxd 3+ 46 gl �e3+ 47 \th2 "iWf4+ 48 'it'gl �g3 0-1 The black king started out as a potential liability and ended up leading a mating at­ tack. •••

The surprising feature of the next game is how White's king walks unhindered into the opposing camp.

17. 36 L.Van Wely-V.Kramnik Wijk aan Zee 1998 Although Black is a pawn up, he has technical difficulties. White has a passed pawn, Black's knight is somewhat passive and his king is likely to be awkwardly placed in the case of a timely 'iWb8-g8. 37 ...g7 !? 38 Wib8? My opponent, who was in time trouble is tempted to push Black's king about. Instead, White would do better to improve his own king with 38 \tf2!, covering the entry squares for Black's queen on the e-file. Then simplifi­ cation with 38 ... g5!? (not 38 ... 'iJd7? due to the strong pin 39 �c7!) 39 "iNxf5 "iNf6 40 "iixf6+

3 6 cS "iia 1 3 7 'iJds i.. e 6 38 'iYc3+ h6 449

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

After 38 ... �g8 Ftacnik gives the follow­ ing line to illustrate Black's fate: 39 lDe7+ �f8 40 �d6! 'iWd1+ 41 lDd5 �g8 42 �e7! .i.xd5 43 �c8+ �g7 44 'iWf8 mate. 39 �e3+ �g7 40 �d4+ �h6 41 �b6 'iWf1 42 'iWd2+ �g7 43 �xb7 A remarkable idea. It's the king that does the damage! 43 .. J" 'b5+ The queen ending after 43 ... i.. x d5+ 44 exd5 �5+ 45 �a7 'iVc5+ 46 �xa6 'iWd6+ 47 �b5 'iWd7+ 48 'itc4 'iWc7+ 49 �b3 is an easy win. 44 lDb6 f6 45 'ir'd6 .i.f7 46 b4 g5 47 a4 1-0 If 47 ... 'iWfl White soon mates after 48 lDd7 �a1 49 e5 fxe5 50 'iWf6+ �g8 51 'iWh6. The following complicated example must have required a great deal of calculation.

1 7. 3 7 A.Morozevich-A.Shirov Astana 2001

With Black's pawns mainly confined to the light squares, the knight is able to ma­ noeuvre more effectively than the bishop. 40 'iWb8+ �g7 41 'tWxd6 'tWxf2 1 The best chance. Huzman points out that Black is in big trouble after capturing the other pawn: 41 ...'ii'xc3 42 lDd7 �h6 43 f4 etc. Otherwise, there is no solace in an early ex450

change of queens, as the minor piece ending is unpleasant: 41 ...'iWe6 42 'iWxe6 i..xe6 43 lDe8+ �f7 44 lDd6+ �e7 45 lDb7 f4 46 tLlc5 i.. c8 47 h4 and White has good winning chances, for instance after the further moves 47 ... h6 48 g3 fxg3+ 49 fxg3 �f6 50 �g2 �f5 51 �f3 h5 52 lDe4 .i.e6 53 lDd6+ 'itf6 54 �f4. 42 lDd7 Neither king can feel totally at ease, but if White retains control of the b8-h2 diagonal with his queen, then he can avoid any per­ petual ideas. Black may have an extra pawn, but the holes on his dark squares and weak queenside pawns are more important factors in the position. 42 ... h4) 72 We3 .i.c6 73 ttJg6 .i.d7 74 ttJe5 ..ie6 75 c6+ �b6 76 �f2 (zugzwang again!) 76 ... ..id5 (76 ... .i.f5 goes down to 77 d7 �c7 78 ttJf7) 77 c7 .i.e6 78 c8'iY .i.xc8 79 d7 .i.xd7 80 ttJxd7+ and wins. White was able to dominate with the queen and knight because Black was unable to compete on the dark squares. In the next example Black favourably modifies the pawn structure.

17 . 3 8 V Anand V Ivanchuk FIDE World Championship, Moscow 2001 .

50 ... 'it>h6 On 50 ...'it>f7 Morozevich gives 51 ttJg5+ �e8 52 ttJxh7 f4 53 'iVg5 'it>f7 54 h5 gxh5 55 'i'xh5+ .i.g6 56 ttJg5+ �g7 57 ttJe6+ Wf7 58 'i'd5 as the route to victory. 51 �g5+1 This seems to win. 51 .. JWxg5 52 hxg5+ 'it>h5 53 'it>g3 h6 Or if 53 ... .i.c6 54 Wf4 .i.xg2 55 ttJc5 h6 56 gxh6 �xh6 57 ttJxa6 and White is near the winning post. 54 gxh6 �xh6 5 5 ttJe5 �g5 56 ttJxa6 f4+ 57 �f2 'it>f6 58 ttJe5 ..ie6 59 a6 We7 60 ttJb7

-

.

3 5 e41 After this Black obtains a pawn-up end­ ing, or a superb square on f3 for the knight, or a incisive invasion with his queen. 36 'iYg4 Dismal, but alternatives are no better. If 36 d4 then Black has 36 ... ttJh4 followed by ••.

451

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

... ttJf3, while after 36 dxe4 �e5+ 37 �g2 "ti'xb2 38 "iVf2 �c2 the white pawns are fa­ tally weak. 36 .. :iVxg4 37 hxg4 ttJes 3 8 g3 38 dxe4 ttJf3+ 39 �g2 ttJxd2 40 e5 is hope­ less after 40 ... ttJxc4 41 e6 ttJxe3+ 42 �f3 ttJxd5. 38 ... exd3 39 b3 g6 40 e4 hS 41 gxhS 41 g5 is strongly met by 41...h4+, e.g. 42 'itg2 h3+ 43 'it>xh3 ttJf3 44 i.. c3+ 'itg8 45 e5 dxe5. 41 ... gxhs 42 �f2 h4 0-1 Black can't cope with two passed pawns: 43 .if4 h3 44 �e3 'it'g7! 45 'itd2 'it>f6 46 'it>e3 h2 47 i.. xh2 ttJg4+ 48 'it>xd3 ttJxh2 etc.

least this assures him of a firm control of d4. 42 "iYb1 "iVc6+ 43 f3 ttJd4 44 "iVe4! This may not be sufficient for a draw, but it represents the best practical chance for White. Morozevich decides to exchange queens in such a way that he is able to hold back the black pawns. Instead, after 44 'l'd1 �7 45 i.. f2 g6 46 �d3 �3 47 'ilNxb3 ttJxb3 48 �g3 f5, it's much easier for Black to make use of his majority. 44 .. :�xe4 45 fxe4 �e6 Hecht suggests that Black wins with 45 ... g6!?, but this isn't clear. In fact there may be two ways to defend successfully:

The possibility of simplification into a bishop vs knight ending is often a key moment.

17 . 3 9 A.Morozevich-P .Leko Dortmund 2001

With White keeping his pieces active Black's extra pawn isn't easy to convert. 34 "iVa4 'tIYe8 3 5 i.. e 3 'it'g8 36 �a7 "iVd8 3 7 "iVb7 "iVC7 3 8 �a8+ �f7 39 g4! Pawns are wisely placed on opposite­ coloured squares to the bishop. 39 .. :�d7 40 'it'g2 h6 41 'tIYb8 c5 Leko would probably prefer to avoid putting his pawn on a dark square, but at 452

a) 46 i.. xh6 is suicidal because of 46 ... g5 47 h4 ttJe6 and the bishop is trapped. b) If White plays passively with 46 Wf2?!, then 46 ... h5 47 'it>g2 hxg4 (47 .. .f5!? is also promising; for example 48 exf5 gxf5 49 gxf5 'it'f6 50 .ic1 'It>xf5 51 .ia3 ttJe6 52 'It>f3 e4+ 53 'it>e3 h4 54 i..b2 ttJf4 55 i.. a3 ttJd3 wins, or 49 gxh5 'itf6 50 h4 f4 51 i.. c 1 �f5 and I fancy Black to win) 48 hxg4 �e6 49 .ic1 !? (more resistant than 49 �f2?! f5 50 exf5+ gxf5 51 gxf5+ 'it'xf5 followed by ... �e4 etc) 49 ... ttJb3 50 .ie3 f5! (if 50 ... �d6?!, 51 .ih6! is tougher) 51 gxf5+ gxf5 52 .ih6 (or 52 exf5+ Wxf5 53 �f3 ttJd4+ 54 �f2 'it>e4 and Black wins the remaining white pawn) 52 ... f4 53 .if8 Wf7 54 .id6 'it>f6 55 .if8 �e6 56 �h3 ttJd2 57 .1xc5 ttJxc4 58 .ib4 ttJd6 with an easy win. c) 46 �g3 h5 and now the German end-

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

game analyst continues with 47 �h4 hxg4 48 Wxg4 (or 48 hxg4 f5 etc) 48 .. .£5+ 49 exf5 gxf5+ 50 �g5 �e6 51 h4 ttJf3+ 52 Wh5 f4 53 �xc5 'it'f5 54 ii.b4 e4 55 c5 ttJe5 56 ..td2 e3 57 ..tel 'it'e4 and Black wins. However, the ' win' seems less clear-cut after 47 ii.d2! hxg4 48 hxg4 'ite6 (or if 48 ...ttJb3 49 ..tel We6 50 Wf2 ttJa1 51 ii.a5 ttJc2 52 'ite2 ttJd4+ 53 Wd3 Wd7 54 ..tb6 Black doesn't seem to be getting anywhere) 49 ..ta5 f5 (after 49 ... ttJc2 50 ..tb6 'it'd6 51 ii.d8 ttJe3 52 �xf6 ttJxc4 53 'itf3 White again should hold, due in part to Black's split pawns) 50 gxf5+ gxf5 51 exf5+ Wxf5 52 ..tb6 ttJe6 53 �f3 (unlike in variation 'b' above, the king cannot enter) 53 ... e4+ 54 'ite3 �e5 55 ..ta7. d) Morozevich also suggests a defence based on 46 h4!?, which is unusual as the pawn is then fixed on a dark square, but Black can't exploit this here: 46 ... h5 47 g5 fxg5 (if 47 .. .£5, 48 ..txd4! exd4 49 exf5 gxf5 50 'it'f3 is drawn as the black king is going no­ where) 48 ..txg5 ttJe6 49 ..te3 'itf6 50 �h2. So White may be able to draw in both ' c' and 'd'. 46 �f2 g5 47 �d2 �f7 48 ..ta5 ttJb3 49 ..tC7

�xh4 �d6 5 4 � h 5 ttJg5 5 5 'itxh6 ttJxe4 5 6 �g6 'ite6 Now 56 ... ttJd2 is ineffective: 57 �xf6 ttJxc4 58 ..ta7 e4 59 g5 e3 60 g6 e2 61 g7 e1'YW 62 �xc5+! Wxc5 63 g8'YW and the queen and knight vs queen endgame should be drawn. 57 ..ta7 ttJf2 58 g5 fxg5 The race after 58 ... f5 59 ii.xc5 ttJe4 60 ii.b6 f4 61 �h6 f3 62 g6! also leads to equality. 59 ..tXC5 ttJe4 60 ..te3 g4 61 �h5 �f5 62 'ith4 ttJf6 63 c5 ttJd 5 64 c6 �e4 65 ii.C5 �f3 66 �d6 e4 67 c7 tLlxC7 ¥z-¥z Whether or not Leko could have won the knight vs bishop ending is a moot point. The main reason that I used this particular game is that Morozevich made his opponent's task very difficult by engineering the exchange of queens in the least unfavourable manner. In the final example of this chapter the defender probably shouldn't have ex­ changed queens. He must have underesti­ mated his opponent's winning chances in the simplified ending.

1 7 . 40 A.Dreev-E.Pigusov FIDE World Championship, Moscow 2001

49 ... ttJd4 Morozevich gives 49 ... ttJd2! as the way to win, e.g� 50 'ite3 ttJxc4+ 51 'It>d3 ttJa3 52 ..tb6 tLlb5 53 ii.xc5 ttJc7 54 ii.f2 ttJe6 55 h4 ttJf4+ 56 �d2 gxh4 57 ..txh4 'itg6 and Black invades after ... tLlg2 and ... �g5. 50 �b6 ttJe6 51 �g3 �e7 52 h4 gxh4+ 5 3

After having resisted for quite a while in the NQE phase, Pigusov erroneously de453

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Now White's king is able to take a star­ ring role in the proceedings.

7S ... lbxa3 76 .td3 is one of the reasons why many players prefer bishops to knights in endgames! Then White wins, e.g. 76 ... aS 77 b5 a4 78 eS £XeS 79 WxeS 'it>f7 80 g4 'it>g7 81 g5 'it>f7 82 g6+ 'it>g7 83 cJ;>fS and so on, or 76...b5 77 eS £XeS 78 WxeS a6 79 cJ;>d4 cJ;>f6 80 cJ;>c3 'it>g5 81 cJ;>b3 lbc4 82 .txc4 bxc4+ 83 cJ;>xc4 'it>g4 84 cJ;>cS etc.

67 ... lbf3 68 cJ;>C3 f6 69 .te2 lbes 70 cJ;>d4

76 d6 71 cJ;>e3 lbg6 7 2 .thS lbes 73 fS itJc6, threatening a fork on d4, as the best way to defend. In the game Black soon regrets not having access to the c6-square.

cides to exchange queens. 6 s ...'iid 4?

Instead, after 6S ... 'iic 7 66 .tdS lbeS Black is well entrenched and it's not clear how White can increase the pressure. 66 'iix d4 lbxd4 67 cJ;>b2

74 cJ;>fS cJ;>e7 7S .te2

78 bS

Naturally White doesn't exchange pawns if he can help it. 78 lbes 79 cJ;>fS .••

But not 79 gS?! as Black escapes (for now) with 79 . . . lbg6+ 80 cJ;>fS lbh4+. 79 ...lbf7

Now comes a neat breakthrough which was probably overlooked by Pigusov when he exchanged queens. 80 e s ! lbxeS 81 gs lbd7 82 g6 xf6 lbe4+ 8S cJ;>es lbc3

7 s ...lbd6+

Getting

454

the

knight

corralled

with

86 i.d3

cJ;>e7 87 .tC4 cJ;>f8 88 cJ;>d6 lbb1 89 a4 1-0

C h a pt e r E i g h t e e n

I

Qu e e n a n d K n i g h t ve rs u s Quee n a nd K n i g ht

In NQEs where both players have a queen and a knight, there seems to be a high risk of queens being exchanged at some point. This factor greatly influences play, as knight endings are recognized as one of the easiest to win with only a small advantage. So, apart from any attacking possibilities that arise whenever queens are on the board, here subtle positional considerations are more in evidence than in Chapters 19 and 20 (with bishops or rooks in­ stead of knights). In my games, queen and knight vs queen and knight crops up 1 .3% of the time, whereas in 2600+ encounters the figure is a slightly lower 1.1%. I f one side i s forced t o abandon the knight, s o that the NQE o f queen and knight vs queen arises, the extra piece is not always enough to win if the stronger side lacks exploitable pawns. From a theoretical point of view queen and knight vs queen without pawns is usually drawn, except in cases where the stronger side has ideally-placed pieces and can start with a checking sequence. We start with a couple of examples where Ivan 50kolov had technical difficulties exploit­ ing an extra pawn.

18 . 1 I.Sokolov-V.Korchnoi Dresden 1998 (seefollowing diagram) Although Black is a pawn down he would seem to have good cause to expect to draw: White has two isolated pawns, of which a2 is particularly weak, and there is the problem of the first rank.

29 'iVc8+ �g7 30 1\i'b7!

455

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Cleverly using tactical threats to force the knight to retreat. 30 lDd6 Alternatives all have flaws: 30 ... lDc3?? al­ lows White to win with a direct attack after 31 lDe5; 30 .. :iha2?? just blunders a piece, as 31 'iYxe4 also defends against the mate; and 30 ... g4 loses to 31 'iVxe4 gxf3 32 iV'e5+. 31 'iVbl lDbs 3 2 h3 White spends a tempo to avoid any dis­ asters, but can't Black now attack the a­ pawn? 3 2 lDc3 3 3 �b2!? White could play 33 1We1 at once (as at move 35), but he elects first to set a little trap. 3 3 ... lDdl After the premature 33 ... lDxa2? White springs the trap with 34 d5+ lDc3 35 d6, when Black is too tangled up to be able to handle the d-pawn. 34 'iYal lDc3 3 S 'iVel The pin gains time for White. 3s 'iVa 3 36 1Wes+ �g8 37 'iVe3 iV'b2 38 h4! lDe2+?! Now 3B ... lDxa2! 39 hxg5 hxg5 40 'iVxg5+ �fB would be a lesser evil according to Sokolov, when the result would be in doubt, especially since White lacks a passed pawn. 39 'it'h2 g4 40 lDes lDxd4 41 lDxg4 lDfS 42 lDxh6+ lDxh6 43 'iVxh6 •..

•••

•..

The queen ending with an extra passed 456

pawn should be winning. 43 ...�xf2 On 43 ... �xa2 Sokolov intended 44 'i'g5+ 'it>fB (or if 44 ... �h7 then 45 'iVf6) 45 f4, fol­ lowed by pushing the h-pawn. 44 a4 �d4 4S 'iVgS+ Wh7 46 as f6 47 'i'g3 'it>h6 48 a6 eS 49 'iVf3 'it>g6 SO hS+ �h6 51 'it>h3 'it'gs S2 g4 1-0 The only way to avoid an immediate mate is to exchange queens, which obvi­ ously loses. Black's problems in this example stemmed from his vulnerable kingside, without which I would have serious doubts about White's chances of winning. In 1B.2 Sokolov decides that, in order to make progress, he'll have to find a more se­ cure refuge for his king. Compare the first diagram below with the one after it.

18.2 I.Sokolov-T .Radjabov Sarajevo 2002

The additional e-pawn is well blockaded and Black's queen and knight both seem well placed to ward off any White winning attempts. How can he try to win? 26 g3 a6 27 a4 'ii'd 4 28 �e2 '>i'g7? Sokolov and Hazai suggest blocking the wing with 2B ... a5!? in order to stop White using the a4-square (see the game continua-

Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

tion), even at the cost of giving away the one on bS. However, White could then play 29 eS! and obtains very good chances in the knight ending after 29 ... dxeS (or 29 ... 'iVxeS 30 'i'xeS dxeS 31 'iit d 2) 30 tLJbS 'iVe4 31 �d2 'i'xe2+ 32 �xe2. If Black decides instead to retain queens with 31...'it'fS, then after the logical 32 tLJd6 'it'd7 33 tLJe4 (not 33 'ii'xeS?? 'i'xd6! 35 'i'xd6 tLJe4+) 33 ... 'i'e7 34 tLJxf6 'i'xf6 35 �d3! White gets a favourable queen end­ ing. 29 a5! Fixing Black's pawns, and also gaining access to the a4-square �hich is important in some lines. 29 ... 'it'e5 30 'iitc 2 'iit g 6 31 �b3 Before undertaking any active measures the king needs to be repositioned. It's head­ ing for g2, but Sokolov gains time on the clock along the way. 31 ...�g7 32 cto>c2 cto>g6 33 �dl �g7 34 �el 'it>g6 35 "ii'd l cto>g7 Radjabov just temporizes. Instead, 3S ... tLJxe4? allows a strong pin by 36 'iVd3 'it>fS 37 �e2, when Black has no option but to simplify into the king and pawn ending which seems to be losing: 37 ... 'it'd4 38 'iVxd4 cxd4 39 tLJxe4 Wxe4 40 �d2 d3 41 �c3 d2 (or if 41 ...�f3 42 �xd3 �xf2, then 43 cS of course) 42 �xd2 �d4 43 b3 etc. Against another 'pass move', 3S ... �h6, Sokolov demonstrates that White can still continue with 36 �f1, as 36 ... tLJxe4 again loses, this time to 37 "ii'e2 tLJf6 (37 ... tLJxc3 38 'i'xeS dxeS fails to 39 d6 and the pawn can't be stopped) 38 'i'xeS dxeS 39 tLJa4 (the a4square comes into play!) 39 ... tLJd7 40 tLJb6 tLJxb6 41 axb6 Wg6 42 �e2 �fS 43 b4 cxb4 44 cS and wins. 36 �fl �h6 At this point 36 ... tLJxe4 would be met by 37 'iVxg4 with good chances even in the queen ending, as White's king is snug in its fine shelter. 37 �g2 �g6 38 'iVb3

3 8 ..."ii'd 4? After rejecting the capture for so long, it seems that 38 ... tLJxe4! was now the best move; e.g. 39 lIVc2 �fS 40 tLJd1 �g6 41 tLJe3 �hS with good chances to hold. In tum, White's best try for a pull may be Ftacnik's 41 'iVe2 tLJf6 42 'iWxeS dxeS 43 tLJe3. 3g e5! The extra pawn is sacrificed in order to disrupt the black pieces long enough for White to get at the queenside. Instead, the immediate 39 'i'xb7 tLJxe4 40 tLJxe4 'iixe4+ 41 �h2 'i'e1 is just a draw. 39 ...'iVxe5 39 ... dxeS is hardly better, e.g. 40 'iixb7 tLJe4 (if 40 ... 'it'xc4 Sokolov intended 41 'iVc6 keeping control) 41 'ifb6+ �hS 42 tLJxe4 'ili'xe4+ 43 Wh2 'ili'xc4 (or 43 ... ii'e2 44 'iixcS) 44 'fic7 'iVc2 45 'iWf7+ 'iVg6 46 'i'f8 and White wins the queen ending thanks to the d­ pawn. 40 'iix b7 tLJe4 41 'iVxa6 Now it's the passed a-pawn that decides the day. 41 ... tLJxc3 42 bxc3 'iVe4+ 43 �h2 �h5 44 'ifc8! Careful play. Instead, 44 'iVxd6?? 'iVg2+! is best avoided! 44 ...'i'xc4 45 a6 'i'a2 46 'i'f5 �h6 47 'it'f6+ Wh5 48 'iif 7+ �h6 49 a7 1-0 Improving the king's position is another 45 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

feature of the following example. White has an isolated d-pawn and an exposed king, but although neither of these factors would be serious in isolation, when they are com­ bined ...

18.3 L.Ljubojevic-J.Piket Monte Carlo (2nd matchgame) 1994

36 'iNe3+ 37 �f1 �d3+ 38 'it>f2 �e3+ 39 'it>f1 'iNe4 Defending the c-pawn by tactics; i.e. 40 �xc6?? ct:Je3+ 41 'it>f2 "iVxc6. 40 iVC1 g5 ! 41 h3 Piket doesn't rate this move very highly, but otherwise the threat of ... g4 is annoying. 41 ... 'it>f7 42 a3 h 5 Renewing the possibility o f ... g4 when the knight will be obliged to move and leave the d-pawn to its fate. 43 �e1 i¥d3+ 44 'it> gl ct:Je3 45 'iif2 'It>e6 46 �e1 Wd7 More thematic is the daring 46 ...'lt>d5! as the king cannot be touched, e.g. 47 �c1 ct:Jc4. 47 �f2 ct:Jd1+ 48 'it>g3 ct:Je3 49 i¥a 5 After 49 Wf2 Black doesn't repeat, but continues with 49 ... g4!, e.g. 50 hxg4 hxg4 51 ct:Je5+ (or if 51 ct:Jd2 then 51...g3+! 52 'it>gl ct:Jc2 53 �d1 �xd4+ is immediately decisive) 51...fxe5 52 "iVxe3 �xd4 and Black obtains a winning king and pawn ending. •••

458

49 ... ct:Jf5+ The obvious move would seem to be 49 ... "iVe2, but Piket was keen to avoid 50 �a7+ 'it>e8 51 'iNb8+ 'it>f7 52 'iVc7+ e6 56 'iVe4+ �d6 57 'i'xc6+ 'It>xc6 58 ct:Jd4+ 'it>d5 59 ct:Jxe2 and White has good drawing chances. 50 'it>h2 g4 51 hxg4 hxg4 Now there is no worthwhile checking se­ quence against Black's king, so White has to accept the loss of his d-pawn. 52 iVd2 "iVe4 53 ct:Je1 g3+ 54 �gl "iixd4+ 55 "iVxd4+ ct:Jxd4 The pawn-up knight ending is winning. 56 ct:Jd3 Wd6 5 7 'It>f1 Wd 5 58 'It>e1 c4 65 b3+ 'ot>c3 66 a4 After 66 ct:Je2+ �xb3 67 ct:Jxg3, simply 67 ... ct:Jd4 wins easily. 66 .. 'lt>d2 67 as f4 0-1 .

The pawn structure in example 18.4 is

Q u e e n a n d K n ig h t v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

well known and arises from several opening variations. Normally, in fairly simplified positions the weakness of the isolated d­ pawn is insufficient for victory if it's the only weakness, but there's no escaping the fact that the defence can still be unpleasant.

18.4 V.lvanchuk-V.Korchnoi Lviv 2000

27 tLle5 tLlf6 Ivanchuk suggests 27 ...b5! 28 a4 (or if 28 ttJd3, then 28 ... 'iVc4 29 'iVd1 tLld6 30 tLle5 "iUe4 31 tLlc6 tLlc4 gives Black enough activity) 28 ...b4 29 tLld3 'iVc4 30 iVxc4 dxc4 31 tLle5 bxc3 32 bxc3 tLld6 33 tLlc6 tLlb7 and Black holds. As a general rule, in slightly worse positions it's often difficult to know whether to push one's pawns or not. 28 'iVa4 c;t>h7 29 tLle6 29 tLlxf7? just loses the knight after 29 .. .'�e7. 29 g6 30 tLle5 'it'g7 31 'iVf4 g5 32 'iVd2 tLle4 Ivanchuk again feels Black should under­ take a more active approach with 32 ...b5, meeting 33 tLlf3 tLle4 34 'iVe2 with 34 ... b4. 33 'iVe2 "iVd6 34 tLlg4 iVe6 3 5 "iHd 3 h5 36 'iVd4+ c;t>g8 3 7 tLle3 The white pieces have found ideal squares, while Black's are now tied down to the isolani. •••

3 7 ...tLlf6 3 8 f3 c;t>f8 As the queens and knights are occupied it's time to bring the kings into play. 39 c;t>f2 'iit> e 8 40 b4! axb4 41 exb4 Capturing this way enables White to soon obtain an outside passed pawn which will also require Black's attention. 41 ...�d7 42 a4 We8 43 'iit>e 2 h4 44 'iit> d 2 'iit> b 7 45 c;t>d3 'iit a 6 46 'iit e 3 'iVe6+ 47 'iit> b 3 'iHe6 48 'it'b2 'iit b 7 49 �a3 "iHd6 50 'it'b3 �e6 51 a5! Increasing the pressure. 51 ... bxa 5 52 bxa 5 'iit a 6 5 3 Wb4

5 3 ... 'iVd6+ Ivanchuk and Sulypa analyse a couple of alternatives: 53 .. .'�c6 54 "iVd3+ 'iit> a7 55 tLlf5 tLld7 56 "iUc3, and 53 ... "iUe7+ 54 "iVc5 "iVb7+ 55 'iit> c3 tLld7 56 "iHd6+ 'iit> xa5 57 tLlxd5, preferring White in both cases, but they consider the latter of these to be the lesser evil. 54 iVe5 �b8+ After 54 .. .'iVxc5+ 55 'iitxc5 'iit> xa5 56 tLlxd5 tLlh5 57 'it'd6 the white king will mop up Black's kingside. 55 c;t>e3 "iVb1?! A final error. Instead, after the superior 55 .. :�Ve5+ 56 c;t>d2 'iVb2+ 57 tLlc2 White's knight is pinned, enabling Black to continue his resistance. 56 tLle2 1-0 Suddenly Black finds his king under at­ tack and cannot solve all his problems, e.g. after 56 ...'it'b7 57 iVe7+ the knight is lost. 459

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

A space advantage often means ad­ vanced pawns which, as we have seen in this book, can be a positive feature if one keeps control. However, once the defending pieces are activated and the initiative has changed hands, there is a danger that any advanced pawns will just be overextended and come under attack.

3 9 ...'ii' h 1+ 40 tbg1 ttJb2! The knight heads to the outpost on c4 where it will bear down on the a3-weakness. 41 1&'C3 ttJC4 42 'iYb4 Psakhis gives 42 g4 iVh4 43 f3 'iie7! and the a3-pawn falls, after which a continuation such as 44 tbe2 'iVxa3 45 'ii'xa3 tbxa3 46 ttJc3 tbc2 47 tbxa4 tbxd4 should win for Black. 42 'ii'e 4 43 tbe2 43 'i¥xa4? would invite an abrupt end to proceedings: 43 ... tbd2 mate! 43 ... 'iiC 2 •••

18. 5 A.Grischuk-M.Gu revich Cannes (rapid) 2001

White has several weaknesses (d4, a2, h5, and his king), and his situation is not helped by the fact that Black's monarch is perfectly secure. 3 3 'iie4+ 34 �f1 34 'iif3 is met by 34 .. :�Vc2. 34 ... tbb4 35 a3 tbd3 36 '*'d2 Not 36 'ii'xa5? as there is no defence after the straightforward 36 .. :iVf3. 36 ... 'iif5 37 ttJg1 If 37 ttJc3?! 'iVf3 38 ttJdl 'iie4! and White is again under serious pressure, with his knight now on a worse square. 37 :iWe4 38 tbe2 a4! Fixing the a3-pawn which soon comes under siege. 39 �e3 39 �gl ! would be a better chance, and if 39 ... 'iif3 only then 40 'ii'e 3. •••

There are just too many threats. 44 ttJf4 After 44 f3, Black continues with 44 ... 'iVb3. 44 'ii'd 1+ 45 'it'g2 'ii'x d4 46 �gl If 46 'iWb8+ �h7 47 'iVbl+, Black ends all hope with 47 .. :iVe4+. 46 ... 'ii'x e5 47 'i¥xa4 �a1+ 48 �g2 'iYxa 3 49 1\Ve8+ �f8 50 'i¥d7 'iYa8 51 �h2 tbe5 52 'iiC 7 tbf3+ 53 'iit h 3 d4 54 �d6 'ii'e 4 55 �g2 d31 56 'iitf1 0-1 •.•

Sometimes it doesn't take much to have winning chances.

.•

460

18.6 B.Gelfand-V.Topalov Amsterdam 1996

Q u e e n a n d K n ig h t v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

41 ctJe2 If 41 Wg1, then 41...ctJh7! with ... ctJgS in mind - one of the points behind 40 ... h6. 41 ... 'iYd1+ 42 �f2 iYc2 43 �e3 "iNb1 44 ctJg3 "iVe1+ 45 Wd3 "iVg1

It turns out that the e4-pawn is weaker than d6. This comes down partly to which side has the initiative, but also to the fact that f6 is a secure square from which the black knight can attack e4. For this to be sig­ nificant, Black also needs to be able to create additional threats against White's kingside: the ubiquitous 'second weakness'. 33 JWC5 34 ctJC3 ctJf6 3 5 'ilVf3 'it'g7 36 g4 If White tries 36 ctJe2 iYc4 37 ctJg3, then 37 ... hS with the threat of ... M is awkward. Instead, Hecht recommends a defensive set­ up based on ctJd1-f2 with g2-g3 and �g2. However, 36 'it'h2?! wouldn't be the best way to start as Black then has the paralysing 36 .. .'iWc4!. The correct move order is 36 ctJd1 !, when 36 ... 'iVc1 37 'it'h2 ctJxe4 (otherwise White is able to consolidate) 38 'ilVxe4 'iVxd1 39 "iVc4 would lead to White obtaining coun­ terplay, making the queen ending a prob­ able draw. 36 iYa 3 37 Wg2 'ilVb2+ 38 �g1 38 ctJe2? 1i'c2 would be the end of the e4pawn. 38 .. JWC1+ 39 Wg2 �d2+ 40 �f1 h6?! A useful, but perhaps not the most pre­ cise move. In his notes Topalov prefers 40 ... hS 41 gxhS ctJxhS 42 ctJe2 ctJf4 with con­ tinuing pressure, even after the exchange of knights. His conclusion is perhaps influ­ enced by the fact that White misses a draw a few moves later. •.

•••

Now although the defences seem to be well organized, White's insecure king is al­ ways going to be a problem. 46 h4! Best, according to Topalov, as this en­ ables the possibility of M-hS thus obtaining access to the fS-square. If instead 46 "iNe3 'iVg2 47 1Ya7+ �h8 48 �8+ ctJg8, Black avoids the perpetual and retains good win­ ning chances. 46 .. :iVb1+ 47 �e2 'iVc2+ 48 Wf1? The players later agreed that a draw would be the logical result after 48 �e I ! . Topalov then looks at 48 . . .'iVc1 + 49 We2 'iVf4, but judges that it's only equal after SO hS! ctJxg4 Sl hxg6 �xg6 S2 ctJfS, as counterplay against d6 comes just in time. 48 .. :iVc8! 49 h5 49 gS just leads to the loss of the g-pawn after 49 ... hxgS SO hxgS ctJh7. 49 ... ctJxg4 The problem with the choice of the £1square for the king becomes clear: Black gains a crucial tempo due to the fork on h2. 50 'iVe2 'iVc1+ 51 Wg2 i:Vf4 52 hxg6 �xg6 53 1if3 �g5 54 ctJf5 �d2+ 5 5 �g1 h 5 56 ctJg7 S6 ctJg3 is hopeless after S6 ... 'it"f4, while if 461

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e Play

56 tL\xd6 then 56 .. :�c1 + 57 xa6 62 e6 'it'b5 63 e7 1-0 Yusupov resigned as 63 ... tDxe7 64 'it'xe7 'it'b4 65 tDd2 'it'c3 66 'it>d6 is hopeless. If the defender has the potential for counter-activity, timing becomes an issue.

18.8 M.Adams-P.Leko Groningen 1995 Karpov is in no hurry to rush his a-pawn forwards. True to his careful style he prefers to organize his pieces first and seek better control. In fact, after 47 a5 d5 48 e4+ c6 49 e5 tDe8 50 e4 tDg7 51 tDc4 �b5, he felt that Black would have drawing chances, since if the white king heads up the board to support the advance of the e-pawn, then Black's kingside would become dangerous. 47 tDe8 If 47 ... �d4, then 48 a5! would be appro­ priate with Black's king outside the square; e.g. 48 ... tDd7 49 a6 tDe5+ 50 e2 tDc6 51 tDf3+ xe4 52 tDxg5+ and White has a winning position, according to Karpov. 48 'it'e3 Ci:JC7 49 Ci:JC4+ 'i¥tf6 50 'i¥tf2 Ci:Ja6 51 g3 tDb4 52 h4 With his knight far away, this creates ad­ ditional problems for Black - even on the kingside! 52 tDc6 53 a s ! tDb4 54 tDd2 tDc6 After 54 ... tDa6 55 hxg5+ 'it>xg5 56 tDf3+ White gains access to some key squares; while if 54 ... g4, at least obtaining a protected passed pawn for his troubles, then 55 tDc4 �g6 56 tDe3 tDa6 57 tDd5 leaves Black with insurmountable problems (the a- and e­ pawns and the weakness of h5); e.g. 57... h6 (or 57 ... f7 58 tDf4) 58 e5 g6 59 e6 g7 60 tDf4 �f6 61 tDxh5+ xe6 62 xg4 etc. •••

•.•

If White has time to consolidate (for in­ stance by placing the queen on e3 and his knight on b4), he would stand much better. So Leko decides that he has to hit back quickly. 45 b4! Undermining the d4-square and seizing the initiative. 46 tDh5 'iY'g5 47 'iY'el+ Although 47 f4!? keeps the pawn, it also leaves the knight stuck on h5. Leko felt that Black could defend with the following line: 47 .. :iVg6 48 cxb4 tDd8 49 'iVh4 'it'f7 50 'iY'xd8 iVxh5 51 'iVd7+ 'it'f8 52 'iVd8+ 'it'f7 53 'iVh4 'it'd1 with a draw by perpetual in prospect. However, in this 50 b5! cxb5 51 'iY'xd8 'iVxh5 52 ii'xd5+ would then win for White, an idea •.•

4 63

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

which is also interesting one move earlier, i.e. 49 b5 cxb5 50 g4 fxg4 51 'iVxd5. So the best defence after 47 f4 'ii g6 48 cxb4 is the modest 48 ... 'it>f8!, moving the king to a less tactically suspect square. Then after 49 'iVf3 Black can get away with 49 ... lLld8, as 50 b5 (50 �e2 lLle6 51 'ii'e5 is only worth a draw after 51...'iVxh5 52 'iYxe6 'iVh2+) 50 ... cxb5 51 �xd5 is met by 51 ...lLlc6 and Black seems to be OK. 47 ... 'it>d7 48 lLlf4 'iVf6 49 'iVd2 After 49 lLld3 bxc3 50 'iVxc3 Black has 50 ... h5!, and White doesn't have time to chase after the a-pawn, as ...h5-h4 would create counter-chances on the kingside. However, the calm 49 'it'g2!? comes into con­ sideration, keeping things nice and tidy and avoiding the same trick on the h-file as in the game. 49 ... bxc3 50 'iNxC3 h 5 ! Again Leko doesn't hesitate about strik­ ing before White can get his own play going. 51 lLlxh 5 Otherwise ... h4 will be annoying. 51 ... 'iVh8 52 g4 fxg4 53 fxg4 lLlh61 White isn't given time to consolidate, as he needs to defend both g4 and d4. 54 'it>g3 lLlf5+1 Another fine blow. 55 gxf5 'iVxh 5 56 'ilVd3 'iHg5+ 57 'it>f2 'iVf4+ 58 'it>e2 Yz-Yz White cannot profitably avoid the per­ petual. Vigorous defensive play by Leko. A poorly-placed knight can be a source of problems for the defender, as in the fol­ lowing two examples.

18.9 V.TopaloY-R.KasimdzhanoY Tripoli 2004 The main problem for Black is his side­ lined knight. 4 64

29 ... �g7 30 'iVc2 'iVf7 3 1 'it>e2 h6 Instead, opening the centre with 31...e5! exposes White's king and enables the black knight to come into play via c4. Ftacnik then gives 32 dxe5 dxe5 33 'iVd3 (if 33 lLlxe5 Black regains the pawn with 33 ...'ilVh5+ 34 liJf3 �xb5+) 33 ... lLlc4 34 lLlg5 'iVh5+ 35 g4 'iVxgS 36 'iNxc4, with just a small advantage for White in the queen ending. 32 a4 Now the variation in the previous note doesn't work as b5-pawn is defended. 32 .. .'ii' b 7 3 3 g41 "iif7 34 'iVc3 Wh7 35 h4 h7 or 37... 'it'g7, then 38 gS! 'iVxh5 39 �c7+ 'it>g6 offers White various ways to keep an edge, such as 40 gxh6 'it>xh6 41 'iYxd6, or 40 'iVxd6 'iVg4 41 'itf2 'iVf5 42 gxh6, or 40 'ike7 hxgS 41 'iVxe6+ �g7 42 'iYxd6.

Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

38 'iVxh6 To be frank, Ftacnik doesn't think much of Black's chances after 38 dxe5 dxe5 39 tDxe5 'iVa2+ 40 'it>e3 'i¥b3+ (40 .. .'iVxa4 goes down to 41 �c8+ �g7 42 'iYd7+ �f6 43 "iHd6+ and mates) 41 �f2. So perhaps Kasimdzhanov just intended 39 ... 'iVe7! ?, when there will be technical problems for White to exploit his extra pawn with his king so open. 38 ... e4

42 ...'iVf2+ 43 We4 43 tDf3?? now loses to 43 .. .'ii'e3+. 43 "iYg2+ 44 �f4 iVf2+ 45 �e4 Yz-Yz .••

1 8 . 10 R.Bellin-G.Flear Guernsey 1990

During the game I wasn't sure that Black was objectively winning, but with White's king and knight bogged down I felt that it 39 tDg5? would be awkward for my opponent. It's so tempting to go forward into the at­ 30 ... tDb5! tack, especially when it's with a gain of A good move, but an easy one to play. tempo! But this allows Black the series of Alternatives don't give very much and the checks he's been angling for. In fact, the worst that can happen now is that White calm 39 tDd2! d5 40 �e1 ! is called for, keep­ gets perpetual check. ing away from any Black counter-checks. 3 1 iVcs+ Then after 40 ... �e7 41 'iYg6+ �h8 42 g5 31 a4? is hopeless after 31...tDc3. White should soon win. 31 �g7 32 iVbS 39 JiVa2+ 40 �e3 tDC4+ 41 �xe4 'iVg2+ 42 After 32 �xb7? tDc3 33 g3 tDd 1 34 'il'xa6 Wf4 'ii'f2+ 35 Wh1 'iVxf3+ 36 'it>gl 'iYf2+ 37 'lth1 White doesn't escape with 42 �d3 due to tDc3, the threat of ... tDe2 is decisive. 42 ... tDb2+ 43 'it>c3 tDd1 + 44 �b4 "iVd2+ 45 �c4 . 32 g5! 'iVa2+. So the only way to play on is 42 tDf3!?, Giving the king some extra luft. when although 42 .. :�e2+ 43 Wd5 tDe3+ wins 3 3 iVe5+ 'ltg6 34 1li'hS h6! a piece, after 44 �xd6 "iYxf3 45 'iYe6+ �h7 46 34... tDc3 leads to an immediate draw af­ �c7 'iVf4+ 47 �b7 White has chances as he ter 35 'iig8+ Wf6 36 'iYd8+. will collect all of Black's pawns. So Black 3 5 ifgS+ Wf6 36 'iVhS+ 'lte7! should prefer 42 ... "iHxg4+, after which 43 Avoiding the perpetual. �d5 1li'xf3+ 44 �xc4 d5+ 45 �b4 may not be 37 iVxh6? enough to win due to 45 .. :ii'd3!. More resistant was 37 'ii'c8 tDc3 38 g4 •..

.•

•..

465

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

ttJd1 39 'ili'c7+ �f8 40 Wg3, although the best White can then do is survive to a dismal knight ending following 40 ... 'ii'e2 41 h3 �g8! (threatening to capture on e3; not yet 41 ...ttJxe3? as 42 'ii'b8+ �g7? unfortunately drops the knight to 43 'ii'e5+) 42 f4 ttJc3 43 f5 ttJe4 44 'iVh2+ 'ii'xh2+ 45 ttJxh2 exf5 46 gxf5 �g7 and Black will shortly win a pawn. 37 ttJC3 38 'ii'xg5+ �d7 0-1 White resigned in view of 39 ... ttJe2+ and mate next move, or 39 g3 ttJd1 40 �g2 Wf2+ 41 �h3 'ili'xf1+ and Black wins. •••

Curiously, in the same tournament I had another interesting example of this NQE.

1 8 . 11 G.Flear-H.Bartels Guernsey 1990

If Black just bides his time with 39 ...Wh7, White's best plan seems to be to advance his h-pawn to h5 and then capture the d-pawn: 40 �f2 (40 �g4 ttJf8 41 h4 �h8 42 h5 is less convincing, as this allows the freeing 42 ... g6! ) 40 ... ttJf8 41 g4 ttJg6 42 h4 ttJf8 43 h5 �h8 44 �f3 �h7 45 �g3 �h8 46 ttJe7 'i'e6 47 ttJxd5 with excellent winning chances. It's worth noting that this type of position with­ out queens is generally won, i.e. knight end­ ings with four against three on the same side. 40 �3 �h7 41 g4 Opening the h-file to prepare a further avenue of attack. 41 hxg4+ 42 hxg4 ttJf8 43 �g2 ttJe6?1 43 ... �h8 44 �g3 ttJg6 is more resistant. Then if White has no mating continuation, he would perhaps have to settle for 45 Wf3 �h7 (rather than 45 ... 'ii'h7 46 'ii'c8+ 'i'g8 47 'ii'd 7 'ii'h7 ?? 48 'ii'e8+) 46 �e2 �h8 47 Wd3 �h7 48 �d4 ttJf8 49 'ii'xd5 with fairly good winning chances. 44 'ili'b1 �h8 45 ttJe7 The black queen cannot defend against both 'ii'b8 and 'ii'h l . 45 Wh7 4 6 'ii' b 8+ 1-0 .•.

•..

In the case of one side having an extra pawn, but all the remaining pawns are on the same wing, the chances of success are high when the defender has a weakened pawn structure. Here the threat of mate forces Black to go on the defensive. 34 'ii' b 1+ 3 5 �h2 'ili'b8+ 36 f4 'ili'g8 3 7 'ii'xa7 Re-establishing material equality. De­ spite the fact that all the pawns are on one front, White can certainly press to win with Black being so tied down and the d-pawn so weak. 37 ... ttJf8 38 'ili'b7 ttJg6 39 �g3 1 Bringing the king into play and toying with the possibility of coming to g4. 39 ... h5 •..

466

18.1 2 B.Zivkovic-S.Marjanovic Nis 1983 (see following diagram)

50 h 5 ! 51 'ii'C 5 h4 Further softening up White's king due to the threat of ... h3. 52 gxh4 ttJf3+ 53 �2 ttJxh4 54 'ii'C 3+ f6 55 'ili'C7+ �h6 56 Wg3 g5 57 ttJd2 'ii'f 5+ 58 c,t>el ••.

Q u e e n a n d K n ig h t v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

�hS 5 9 �e2 1\¥d 5 6 0 liJf1 f5 Black gradually advances, aiming to maximize his forces.

67 ...�g4! This renders the defence of the h-pawn even more problematic. 68 �1 �h3 69 �e2 On 69 �g1, Black even has 69 .. :ifxd2! . 69 .. JWh1 70 'iVf1+ 'iVxf1+ 71 liJxf1 �g2 72 liJd2 g4 7 3 �d3 liJf3 74 liJe4 liJxh2 0-1 White's exposed king and fragile pawn structure certainly eased Black's task in 18.12. In the next position the stronger side doesn't have such an easy time.

61 'iVe3 After 61 liJe3, Marjanovic intended 61 ..:ii'e6 with ... �g6 and .. .f4 in mind. Oth­ erwise after 61 h3, Black would again pre­ pare to advance the f-pawn by retreating his king. 61 .. :ii'g 2+ 62 'iff2 'ii'g 4+ 63 'ifi>d3 'ii'e4+ 64 �C3 f4 White's king is now in the open and far from the scene of action - an indication that things are far from well in the white camp. 65 liJd2 'ii'c 6+ 66 �d3 'iVd 5+ Now even the knight ending is a straightforward win, e.g. after 67 'iVd4 'i'xd4+ 68 �xd4 'ifi>g4. 67 �e2

18.13 M.Gurevich-U.Andersson Leningrad 1987

Here's a more typical example where the defender's pawns are better placed. In this case a draw seems to be the objectively cor­ rect result. 57 'ii'e 2 'ii'd 4 58 h3 'ii'd 5 59 'ii'e 7 'iVd1+ 60 �h2 'iVd 5 61 'ii'e 1 'iVd6 62 �gl 'ii'd 5 63 'ii'b 1 'ii'e 5 64 liJf1 liJd5 65 'ii' b 5 'i'e6 66 'ii'b 8+ �h7 67 'ii'f8 liJf6 68 liJe3 'ii'e 5 69 'ii'a 3 'ifi>h8 70 'ii'a 8+ 'ifi>h7 71 'ii'a 3 �h8 72 'iVC1 'iVe6 73 'iVc3 �h7 74 'iVC5 'ii'e 8 75 f3 Finally deciding on his course of action. In such positions GMs tend to take their time - which amateurs, who generally like 'to get on with if, sometimes find hard to understand. In fact, clock permitting, pa467

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

tience is often advisable for the stronger side, as this gives him more time to work out a good plan, and for psychological pres­ sure to build on the defensive side who has to worry for longer! 7s .. :�lVb8 76 'iVfS+ �h8 77 liJC4 'iia 7+ 78 'it'hl 'iliC7 79 liJes 'iVcl+ 80 'it'h2 "ilC7 81 Whl 'iic l+ 82 �h2 'fIC7 83 'iie 6 �h7 84 f4 Blocking the diagonal reduces the chances of an untimely check. 84 .. :iVb7 8S 'iffS+ �g8 86 'iVe6+ �h7 87 liJc6 'WiC7 88 'iVfS+ Wh8 89 liJd4 �g8 90 Vie6+ 'it'h7 91 'ilie3 Wg8 92 liJfS �f7 93 'iid 4 'it'e6 94 liJe3 �f7 9S liJC4 �e6 96 �gl Wf7 97 liJd6+ �g8 98 'iie s "ilcl+ 99 �h2 'iVC7 100 liJfs

100 'ilVf7?! It's a natural reaction to keep the queens on since White hasn't demonstrated any­ thing too frightening so far. Nevertheless, Gurevich later preferred the forcing 100 .. :�Wxe5! 101 fxe5 liJe4 102 e6 g6! 103 liJxh6+ �fS, and the e-pawn will fall. White will then only have a nominal advantage in the theoretically drawn ending of knight and two pawns vs knight and one pawn. 101 g4! The only practical chance of winning is to push the g-pawn. 101 .. :�·a7 102 Wg2 'iVb7+ 103 �g3 'iVf7 104 liJe7+ �f8 lOS liJfS �g8 106 gs hxgs 107 fxgs liJd7?

This leads to defeat. Black should aim to defend by 107...'iib3 +!, e.g. lOS liJe3 (or simi­ larly lOS �h4 'Wic4+ 109 'ilid4 'ilVxd4+ 110 liJxd4 liJd5 1 1 1 'it'g4 g6) 108 ... liJh5+ 109 �g4 g6 1 1 0 'iVd5+ 'iYxd5 1 1 1 liJxd5 'it'f7 with a draw in prospect. 108 'iie 4! 'Yi'b3+ 109 �h4 liJf8 110 ttJe7+1 �h8 110 ...�f7 1 1 1 g6+ 'it'f6 112 liJd5+ is even worse. 111 iVf4 Forcing the knight to move. 111 ... liJh7 After 1 1 1 . . .liJe6 White has 1 12 'iig4, when the threat of 'iVh5 mate forces Black to give up his g-pawn with 1 1 2 ... g6. 112 �g4 'ilic2 113 'iVf3 1-0

•..

468

After 1 13 ... 'iVc4+ 1 14 �h5 'iVa2 115 h4 we have zugzwang, as the black queen needs to stay on a2 to cover both the a2-gS diagonal and the possibility of "ilaS; e.g., if 115 .. :i'a7 then White mates quickly with 1 1 6 Vif7. The next example should serve as a re­ minder that a material advantage is irrele­ vant if one's king is about to get mated.

18.14 N.Short-J.Nunn Brussels 1986

Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d Kn ig h t

majority of cases there are no winning chances, as the defending queen can give many spoiling checks and the stronger side can't even get close to constructing a mating net. However, if the three attacking pieces do get close to the defending king, then something like the following can occur ...

18 .1 5 D.Bryson-G.Flear British Championship, 1985 In this complicated position White had been pressing to win (well, he has more pawns!), but in fact his king is too vulner­ able and, in my opinion, he is actually los­ ing. 38 1i'xd4 Here Nunn gave 38 ttJf4 ttJe4 (not 38 .. :iU1+? 39 h4! 'iWf3, as White has 40 'i'c8+ h7 41 'ii'f5+ g8 42 ttJd5! 'i'xf5 43 ttJe7+ f8 44 ttJxf5 and wins) 39 'i'c8+ h7 40 'i'f5+ 'with perpetual check', but it seems he overlooked that Black can actually win with 40 ... h6!, escaping the checks and leav­ ing White's king in big trouble, e.g. 41 a5 g5 and White has to give up his queen. If White tries 38 'i'c8+ h7 39 ttJe1, this costs him his knight after 39 ... 'i'£1+ 40 h4 (40 ttJg2 is strongly met by 40 ... d3) 40 ... 'i'xe1 (40 ... ttJe4 with mating threats is also tempt­ ing) 41 'i'f5+ g8 and Black is favourite to win. 38 .. :ii'f1 +1 39 �h4 'i'fs 0-1 This mating net must have come as a shock to Short. If 40 g4, to avoid mate, he loses his queen after 40 ... g5+ 41 g3 ttJe4+ 42 g2 'i'xg4+ 43 'iir>h 1 ttJg3+ 44 hxg3 'i'xd4.

Queen a n d Kn ight vers us Queen

Edinburgh

66 'i'g7+ f3 67 'i'c3 e4 68 'i'b4+! . .. and draws due to stalemate. Yz-Yz In special circumstances the extra piece enables victory to be achieved. This usually means starting with a checking sequence where the knight can get involved.

18 . 16 Z.Kozul-A.Shirov Sarajevo 2004 (see following diagram)

-

Here I think it's useful to briefly discuss the pawnless version of this NQE. In the great

Both sides have just promoted and it makes all the difference that it's Black to move. 4 69

Practical Endgame Play 66 :ii'f2 + 67 �h3 ••

Or 67 �g4 lLleS+ 68 'it>gS 'ii'g3+ 69 �fS 'iWg4+ 70 'itf6 'iWg6+ 71 'ite7 'ii'£7+ 72 'it>d8 'iWd7 mate. 67

•••

lLlf4+ 68 'it> g4 'ii'g 2+ 69 c;j;>fS

If 69 'ii?xf4, then Black skewers the queen with 69 ...'ii'h2+ . 69 'iWh3+ 70 'iW6 'iWh4+ 71 'iWs 'iWh 5+ 72 •••

'iW6 'ii'g6+ 73 c;j;>e7 'iWg 7+ 74 �d8 lLle6+ 7 S 'itc8 'iWc3+ 76 'ii? b 7 'iWc6+ 7 7 'it>a7 'ii'a 4+ 78 �b6 'ii'b4+ 79 �a7 'ii'a s + 80 �b7 lLlC5+ 81 'itc8 'ii'a 6+ 0-1

There's no point in playing out 82 �d8 'ii'f6+ 83 �c8 'iWf8+ 84 �c7 'iWd6+ 85 'ii? c8 'iWd7 mate.

4 70

C h a pt e r N i n et e e n

I

Qu e e n a n d B i s ho p ve rs u s Q u e e n a n d B i s h o p

In this chapter I'll be looking at both same-coloured and opposite-coloured bishop scenarios. There are naturally some differences between the two cases. If the bishops are of the same colour, positional factors such as 'bad bishops' and weak pawns can be important, especially if queens are likely to be exchanged. If, however, queens stay on the board then vulnerable kings and passed pawns are the most striking influences on the likely outcome. If the bishops are not of the same colour, the possibility of transposition to an opposite­ coloured bishop ending is paramount in the players' thoughts. Then a material advantage may not be enough to win, so the stronger player will often seek the key factor of two widely-spaced passed pawns before he feels confident enough to simplify . Defending against the stronger side's favourite colour complex can be difficult if there are weaknesses, or of course threats, on both flanks. The queen and same-coloured bishop NQE occurs about 1 % of the time and is somewhat more common than cases with opposite bishops (0.8% for 2600+ players and 0.5% in my games).

Queen a n d Bishop versus Queen and same-colou red Bishop As is often the case where queens are on the board, if one or both kings are exposed to checks then this has an overriding influence on play. Another important factor is the presence and strength of any passed pawns, especially when they cannot be easily block­ aded.

19 .1 P Svidler M Adams Groningen 1997 .

-

.

56 .. :iib ll

After 56 . . :ii'xc3?! White opens the posi-

4 71

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

tion with 57 d5 exd5 58 'iVxd5+ �c7 59 'iVxb5 when Black's king clearly lacks shelter. 57 "*,b7+?! Chasing Black's king to a more secure lo­ cation is counterproductive. Instead, White should gear himself up to preparing poten­ tial counterplay with 57 g4! Ji.d6 (after 57 ...b4 58 cxb4 'iixb4 White again has 59 d5, exposing the black king to checks) 58 'iVf3, when Black will have to watch out for the advances d4-d5 and f4-f5. 57 ... �e8 58 'iVc6+ �f7 59 �b7 Hoping that the pin on the bishop will help in the process of earning a draw. 59 ... b4! 60 g4? White can in fact stop the pawn in time after 60 cxb4! c3 61 .Jte3 c2 (otherwise 61..:iVa2+ 62 'itf3 'iVc4 is met by the excellent defensive resource 63 Wf2! c2 64 'iVh1, while after 61...�e1 White's only good defence is 62 'iVf3 c2 63 f5! opening Black's king up to a plethora of checks) 62 'ii c7 "iVe1 63 Wf3 �f1+ 64 We4 "iVd1 65 g4! "iUxg4 66 Wd3 "iVd1+ 67 iLd2 and the pawn is lost. So it looks as if White could still hold with 60 cxb4! . 6 0... b 3 61 iLh4 White reinforces his pin, but Adams has correctly calculated that he can parry this in advantageous circumstances. 61 ... 'iic 2+ 62 'iiit h 3 62 'iiith l is no better, due to 62..."i¥d1+ 63 Wh2 lYe2+ 64 �h3 "i¥f1 + 65 Wh2 �xf4+ 66 �h3 g5. 62 .. :iVXC3+ 63 'iiit g 2 "i¥d2+ Many players would have been happy with 63 ...�4, but Adams wants even more! 64 �f3 iYd1+ 65 'iiitf2 After 65 'iiite3 �gl+ Black wins at least a piece. 65 ... lYxd4+ 66 'iiit e 2 lYd3+ 67 �f2 lYd2+ 68 Wf3 "i¥b4 Obviously 68 .. :�d5+ is simpler. 69 WliC7 b2 70 .Jtxe7 'iYxe7 71 'ii b 6 c3 72 We3 lYd7 73 f5 A last gasp effort, but to no avail. 4 72

73 ... gxf5 74 gxf5 exf5 7 5 'iiitf4 'ifd2+ 76 '>i;>e5 �e2+ 77 �xf5 �d3+ 78 �e5 b1� 79 'i'e6+ 'iiit g 7 80 'iff6+ �g8 81 "YWe6+ Wf8 82 'i'f6+ 'iiit e 8 0-1 The black king runs to the queenside. In 19.2 the 'outside passed pawn' proves to be an important asset, especially as White's bishop has its sphere of influence reduced by its own pawns.

19 . 2 M.Adams-G.Kasparov Linares 1999

Neither king is particularly secure, but Kasparov has the biggest trump up his sleeve: the distant passed a-pawn. In com­ parison, any passed white pawn on the kingside can be handled by the combined efforts of Black's king and queen. 40 fxg6 hxg6 41 e5! Aimed at destabilizing Black before he can get everything under control. 41 .. :�xe5 42 �b7 .Jte8 43 iLg2 Adams prefers to improve his bishop, rather than try to defend the position that follows 43 �xa6 Wh7, which would be diffi­ cult with his own king completely denuded. 43 ...'ii h 5+?! Kasparov decides to keep things simple, but the most incisive continuation is 43 ... a5

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p 44 .td5+ �h8 45 Va8 (after 45 �e6 �c6+ 46 'i'xc6 'iYxe6 47 'ii'c7 'ii'e5 48 'iVxa5 �h7 Ad­ ams notes that Black has good chances in the queen ending) 45 ... �h7 and the passed g­ pawn will offer both king shelter and win­ ning possibilities for Black. 44 'it>g1 'iYxh6

52... 'iWh8+! 53 �gl 'ilVd4+, when the a-pawn gives Black an easy win in the bishop end­ ing. 52 ... �g7 53 �d 5 Now 53 'iYxa5? fails to 53 ... .td7+ 54 'it>h4 'iWf4 mate. 5 3 ... a4 The a-pawn is becoming too strong. 54 'ii' b 6 .td7+ 55 �g2 'iYe2+ 56 �g1 a3 57 'ivxc5 After 57 'ifa7 a2! White's checks soon run out: 58 'iVxd7+ 'it>h6 59 'iVh3+ �g5 60 'iYg3+ 'iig4. 57 ... 'iVe1+ 58 �g2 a2 59 'iYd4+ �h7 0-1 If an advanced passed pawn is to be dangerous it will generally require support, usually from the queen.

What's the best queen move now? 4 5 'iie 7? If 45 'ilfxa6, then 45 ... 'ilVe3+ 46 �h1 'iYe1+ 47 'it>h2 'ife5+ 48 �h1 i.f7 and Black consoli­ dates. Instead, the best move seems to be 45 'ii'd5+! with good drawing chances, e.g. 45 ... �f7 46 'ilVxd6 'iie3+ 47 �h2 'it>g7! (com­ pare 47 ... a5 with the game; here White can grab the a-pawn as 48 'iVd8+ 'it>g7 49 'ii'xa5 'iYxd3 50 'ii'xc5 should be drawn) 48 .td5! (48 .te4 is less good after 48 ... 'iYh6+ 49 �g2 'iYg5+ 50 h2 as 51 'iVa6 'iVd2+ 52 �g3 'iYb4 53 'ilia7 �f6 etc), when Black wouldn't have an easy time containing White's activity and, at the same time, pushing the a-pawn. 45 ... 'iVC1+ 46 i.f1 i.f7 47 'iYxd6 'iWe3+ 48 �h1 a 5 ! Now this advance proves to b e very strong. 49 'iVd8+ .te8 50 .tg2 White dare not capture the a-pawn as 50 'ilVxa5? loses to 50 ... .tc6+ 51 �h2 (or 51 .tg2 'iYh3+) 51...1Iff2+ 52 �h3 .td7 mate. 50 ...'iWe1+ 5 1 'it>h2 'ti'e5+ 52 'it>h3 Adams rejected 52 �h1 because of

19 . 3 A.Morozevich-N.Short Wijk aan Zee 2000

Black seems to have a clear positional advantage due to his protected passed pawn on e3. However, Morozevich finds an inter­ esting way of undermining Black's pawn structure. 32 g3 ! An unexpected tactical blow that comes just in time. 3 2 ...fxg3 3 3 h4! 4 73

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

The queen is now obliged to move and cannot defend both advanced pawns. 3 3 .. :ii'f5 Although 33 ... 'iVe7!? has the advantage of holding onto his most dangerous pawn, winning chances are not easy to generate after 34 i.. e 2. For instance, 34 ... i.. f7 (34 ... i.. f5 35 'it'g2 g5 is countered by 36 "ii'd5 'it>g6 37 iVg8+) 35 'it>g2 i.. xa2 36 �xg3 g5 can be met by 37 'iVe4+! "ii'xe4 38 fxe4 and the bishop ending is drawish. 34 'iVxe3 'i!Vf6 Apparently 34 .. :iVc2 doesn't worry White either: 35 i.. e2 "iVxa2 36 �g2! "iia4 37 i.. d 3 "iVxb4 38 i.. xg6+ 'it>xg6 39 iVe8+ and draws. 35 i.. d 3! This exchange exposes Black's king. 35 ... iVxh4 36 i.. xg6+ �xg6 37 'iVeS+!

37 'it'h6! Black has to be careful about his choice of square. a) 37 ... �f6?? 38 'iVd8+ is out of the ques­ tion. b) 37 ... �h7? is not much better, as it al­ lows 38 "iVe4+ "iNxe4 39 fxe4 and the pawn ending is actually winning for White, whose hitherto dormant queenside majority comes to life to win the day; e.g. 39 ... Wg6 40 b5 'it>f6 41 a4 �e6 (or 41...'it>e5 42 a5 �xe4 43 b6) 42 a5 'It>d7 43 a6 Wc8 44 e5 and White wins, as pointed out by Mikhalevski. c) 37 .. st'f5?! is also too dangerous: 38 •.•

4 74

\lVf7+ We5 39 �xc7+ Wd4 (39 ... 'lt>d5? allows 40 "iVb7+! followed by "iNe4+ exchanging queens again to a winning king and pawn endgame) 40 �xg7+ �c4 41 "iVb2 and only White will have any serious pretensions about winning. 3S \lVhS+ 'it'g6 39 �eS+ 'it'h6 Yz-Yz When a passed pawn lacks support and is easily blockaded, it can become a weak­ ness, as in the following example.

19 . 4 M.Gu revich-A.Shirov Sarajevo 2000

Here Gurevich injudiciously advances his d-pawn to give himself a passed pawn. However, it soon proves to be a weakness, because 1 . The pawn is blockaded; 2. Black can bring his king over to attack it; 3. There is insufficient compensating play elsewhere for White. 34 d6?! Instead, the safe option was 34 e4 with a balanced game. 34 ... i.. d S 35 h3 'i!Ve6 36 e4 If 36 d7 then 36 ...f5, followed by ... 'it>f7 and eventually ... 'iVd5, when the d-pawn would be separated from the rest of White's forces. 36 ... b6 37 i..f2 WfS

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

Intending to bring the king to d7, after which the d-pawn will be put under pres­ sure. 38 g4 38 d7? is wrong because of 38 ... �e7. In­ stead, Shirov seems to have analysed the way for White to escape from his difficulties: i.e. 38 'ili'xa6! 'ir'xe4+ 39 �gl, when Black doesn't seem to have anything more than a draw with 39 .. :ifb1+ 40 �g2 'iVe4+ etc. 38 �e8 39 �f3?! Defending the e-pawn and preparing to meet 39 ... �d7?! by 40 "ii'x a6. However, this slow move allows Black to consolidate his position, and it would still have been better to take on a6 at once. 39 ... b5! 40 i.. e 3 If 40 i.. c5, then 40 ... �d7 with ... i.. f6-e5 in the pipeline. 40 ...'iVf6+! 40...�d7 would be slack, as White would then kick-start his counterplay by 41 'iVd4 with threats on both wings. 41 �e2 �d7 42 i.. d 4 "iig 6! Keeping the tension. There is nothing af­ ter 42 ... "ii'x d6 43 i.. xg7. 43 i..e 5 h5 44 "iif3 As 44 gxh5?? loses to 44 .. :ifxh5+, White is obliged to defend the g4-pawn. If he does this with 44 �f3, then 44 ... hxg4+ 45 hxg4 'i'h6 46 �f1 i..b6 yields a healthy initiative. 44 ... hxg4 45 hxg4 ...

45 ... i..f6! Setting a challenge to White's bishop and a sign that Black is not put off by the pros­ pect of a pure queen ending. 46 i.. xf6?! After 46 i.. f4 i.. d4 47 �d3 i.. a7 48 i..e5 £6 49 i.. g3 "iif7 Black has prospects of invading with his queen. Furthermore, in certain cir­ cumstances (for example after an exchange of queens) he has ... i..b8 when the d-pawn finally falls. Nevertheless, this may give bet­ ter practical chances for White than the game, as after the bishops come off the d­ pawn is immediately condemned. 46 ...fixf6 Shirov rejected 46 ... gxf6?! because, after 47 �d3 �xd6 48 �g3+ �d7 49 �gl, White's queen would cause too much of a nuisance. 47 'iVe3 Shirov calculated that 47 'iVxf6 gxf6 48 �e3 �xd6 49 �d4 a5 50 bxa5 c5+ 51 �c3 �c6 leads to a Black win. 47 ... �xd6 48 'ili'a7+ �e6 49 'iVxa6 �e5!

What a dynamic king! White's weak e4and g4-pawns are now subjected to close scrutiny. 50 �a7 "ii'e 6 51 �f2 If 51 �f3 then 51...�3+ 52 'iVe3 'iVxe3+ 53 �xe3 g5 and the white king must give way. 51 �a2+ 52 �g3 �xe4 53 'iVC5 'iVd5 54 "iic 1 g5 Black's pawns and his queen are all de•..

4 75

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

fended, so he's not afraid of a few checks. 5 5 "iVe1+ �d3 56 a4 Alternatively 56 iVd1+ �c3 57 'iVc1+ �b3 58 "iVe3+ 'it>b2 just helps Black attack the queenside. 56 ... bxa4 57 �d1+ �c3 58 "iYxa4 Ribli demonstrates that 58 ii'xd5 cxd5 59 b5 fails to 59 ... a3 60 b6 a2 61 b7 a1'iV 62 b8'ti' 'iYg1+ 63 �f3 'ti'f1+ and Black decisively ex­ changes queens with .. :iYf4+. 58 .. :iVd3+ 0-1 59 �f2 "iVc2+ is hopeless. Although this example was quite com­ plicated, it's evident that White's problems arose as the d-pawn was overextended on d6. In 19.5 Black's passed pawn is short­ lived, but the twin advantages of a better bishop and safer king ensure that he retains the advantage.

19 . 5 R.Vaganian-N.Short Horgen 1995

42 ... iLc8 43 �f2 After 43 .ic2 Black first plays 43 ... iLd7! to shield his king from checks, and then will be ready to undertake active operations with his queen. 43 ..."iVh2+ 44 �xf3 "iHh1+ 45 'It>e3 4 76

Short points out that 45 �f4 'it'c1 + 46 'iVe3? 'iVb1 would lead to the loss of White's bishop. 45 .. :�e1+ White is faced with the loss of a pawn whichever way he goes. 46 'iii>f3 46 Wd3 'ti'xg3+ is even worse. 46 .. JiVxc3+ 47 'ti'e3 'ti'b2 Short decides to keeps the queens on the board, despite having an extra pawn and the superior bishop; the point being that, after simplification to a bishop ending, he might not be able to find a way to invade with his king. After the move played in the game, White still suffers from his bad bishop and vulnerable pawns, and his problems are ex­ acerbated by having the more exposed king. 48 .id1 iLd7 A convenient square, both shielding his monarch and pressing against a4. 49 iVe2 �h8 Switching from one flank to another in order to keep White under pressure. 50 g4?! Short considers this to be wrong as it makes the g-pawn more vulnerable. But in any case White is stretched to defend his three pawn weaknesses on a4, c4 and the g­ file. 50 .. :iVh3+ 51 Wf4 f6 A general consolidating move. 52 iLc2 The attempt at becoming active with 52 'iVe7 just costs another pawn after 52 ... 'it'f1+ 53 iLf3 'ti'xc4+ 54 'it>g3 "iVd4. 52 .. :iVc3 53 .id1 There are times when an 'exposed' king can actually become an asset if it is allowed to invade. Here 53 id5? might attempt that, or at least open up Black's king, but unfor­ tunately Black wins easily with 53 ... ii'e5+! 54 "iVxe5 dxe5+ 55 'It>e4 3l.. xa4. 53 �d8 54 iYc2 After 54 .i.c2 Short illustrates why he .••

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

thinks that the g-pawn is not so well placed on g4: 54 ... 'iVd4+ 55 Wg3 'iVg1+ and if 56 'iti>f4? .txg4! 57 'iVxg4 i¥f2+ etc. 54 'iVd4+ 55 Wg3 'iVg1+ 56 Wf4 'ii'f1+ White cannot hold onto all of his pawns for long. His weaknesses are just too serious. .•.

57 'iti>e3 Dautov shows the way against 57 iLf3, i.e. 57 ... 'iVa1 58 iLd1 'iVe5+ 59 'iii f3 Wc7 60 'iVd3 'i¥g5 61 'ife4 f5 62 gxf5 .txf5 63 'i'f4 'i'h5+ 64 g3 'iWxd1 65 'iWxf5 'iWxa4. Alterna­ tively, Short gives 57 'iii g3 f5 58 gxf5 .txf5 and stops here, the implication being that White cannot hold even with pawns only on one front, e.g. 59 'iVb3 'iii c7 60 iLf3 iLd7 61 .td1 'iVg1 + 62 'iii f4 'iVf2+ 63 .tf3 'i¥h4+ 64 'iti>e3 'iVd4+ 65 �e2 'iVaI . 5 7. .JWh3+ 58 'iiif4 'ii' h 4 59 iLf3 59 'i¥b3 'iii c7 60 'i¥g3 'ii'g5+ 61 'iti>f3 'iWd2 62 i.e2 iLxa4 is no better. 59 ... f5 60 'iWd1 'iii c 7 61 iLe2 fxg4 62 iLxg4 'i'f6+ 63 �g3 'iVc3+ 64 'iii g 2 'iVxC4 0-1 Vaganian threw in the towel as the last desperate try 65 .txd7 'iiix d7 66 'ii'h5, is coolly refuted by 66 ... 'iVxa4 67 'i!Vf7+ �d8 68 'i'f8+ 'iii c7 69 'ili'e7+ 'i'd7. The following tussle illustrates a number of points concerning passed pawns and the role of kings, but the most important lesson perhaps is the need to be flexible when cir­ cumstances change.

19.6 I.Hakki-G.Flear Tunis 1999

Black has two extra pawns, but White now has some tantalizing possibilities 33 iLe5! A shock, as I hadn't seen this move at all! I expected either 33 .td6?? which loses to 33 ... 'i'd1 +, or 33 .th6?! 'iVb4 and White would have nothing better than going into the unpleasant ending of queen and three vs queen and four on the same side with 34 .txf8 'i!Vxf8 35 'iVxa5 3 3 ...f5 ! The only move; Black has to return his two extra pawns in order to avoid being mated. 34 'ili'f6 'iWd1+ 35 'iii h 2 'iVd 5 36 'iVh8+ 'iiif7 37 'ii'x h7+ �e8 38 'iVxg6+ 'iii d 7 39 'iVf7+ .te7 40 f4 a4 With the time control reached a race is on the cards. 41 h4 a3 42 'i!Vg7 ! a2 43 iLf6?! Losing the thread. The natural 43 h5! was correct, when a draw would be the logical conclusion: 43 ... 'i'd1 44 h6 'i¥h5+ 45 'iii g3 and 45 ... 'iiie8!, threatening ....th4+, seems to more or less provoke a repetition by 46 'iVg8+ 'iii d7 47 'iVg7 etc. 43 ... 'ii'd 6 44 g3? .

477

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Better was 44 .i.xe7 'ii'xe7 45 'ii'd4+ 'it'd6 46 'iVa7+ �e8 47 'iVxa2 'iVxf4+ 48 g3 'ilVe3, which only gives Black a nominal edge. Aiming to repeat with 44 .i.e5 should also be satisfactory. 44 ...�c61 A neat winning try. 45 .i.d4 Not now 45 .i.xe7? 'ii'd2+ 46 �h3 'ii'c 1 and wins, since Black threatens mate at hI as well as 47 ... al'i1V. 45 ... �d5? A pleasing move to play, but it shouldn't work. Instead, Fritz finds an amazing win in 45 ... al 'iV! 46 .i.xal 'iVd2+ 47 'it>h3 'it'dl with a decisive attack; e.g. 48 �h2 (if 48 'iWb2 'iih l + 49 'iIt'h2 "iix al, or 48 'iVc3+ .i.c5) 48. .. 'iYe2+ 49 �h3 'ii'f l+ 50 �h2 .i.c5 51 .i.d4 'iVe2+ 52 'it>h3 'ifdl winning the bishop. In fact, as we see from these lines, the black king is actually quite well placed where it is!

will eventually take control of the long di­ agonal. 48 ....i.d6 49 .ta1 .i.f8 50 �h3 ii.h6 51 'iti>h4

51 ... �d 5 1 I like this manoeuvre, though it's possi­ ble that 51...�d3!? heading for bl may also win. 52 .i.f6 �d6! 53 g4 Hopeless, but so is 53 .i.e5+ �e7 54 i.b2 1iii> f7 55 .i.e5 .i.g7, as Black will promote, whereas White will not! 53 ... 1i.xf4 54 h6 .i.xh6 55 g5 .i.xg5+ 56 �xg5 e5 0-1 In the following example I was out­ played by my opponent and the clock! As Black has the worse minor piece it's not so surprising that the correct defence is based on exchanging bishops.

46 h5? A fatal mistake! White could still draw with 46 .i.al ! �e4 47 'ii'c3 'iVc5! (instead 47 ... 'iVd5? 48 �g2! would leave Black in big trouble due to the threat of 'iWf3 mate!) 48 'iYb2! (White doesn't have to exchange queens) 48 ... 'iVc4 49 'ifb7+ �e3 50 'it'xe7 'iVe2+ 51 �h3 'ii'fl + 52 �h2 'ii'x al 53 'it'xe6+ Iiii> f3 54 'iVc6+ etc. 46 �e4 47 'ii'e 5+ 'ikxe5 48 i.xe5 The bishop ending is won for Black who •••

4 78

19 . 7 E.Prh!-G.Flear Saint Affrique 1996 (seefollowing diagram)

Prie doesn't seek any complications, he just consolidates, safe in the knowledge that his opponent is stuck with the inferior pawn structure. 31 'ii'd 8+ �g7 32 itd2 Wg8 3 3 'ilVd8+ 'iti>g7 34

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

19.8 J.Granda Zuniga-A.Vermolinsky Wijk aan Zee 1997

Fixing Black's weak pawns seems to be more important than the consequent open­ ing of White's king. 3s ... 'ii'e4 36 �e1 White now hopes to continue with �e2 or 'ii'd 3 when he creates threats against the . a-pawn. 36 'ii'f 1+? Losing time due to a tactical oversight. Instead, 36 ... h5 37 'ii'd 3! gives White a pleas­ ant edge in the bishop ending (37 'ii'e2 'ii'c3 38 'ii'xa6 c5 39 'ii'd3 'ii'e 1+ is less clear). The correct defence was 36 ... i.g4!, seeking the exchange of bishops. The resulting queen ending after 37 i.xc6 'ii'xc6 38 'ii'd8+ �g7 39 'ii'd4+ 'ii'f6 40 'ii'xg4 'iVxf2 41 'ii'c4 'ihg2 42 'iVxa6 h5 is far from clear. 37 �b2 'iVe4 38 'iVe3 1 From White's point o f view everything is under control. 38 ... 'ii'a 2+ 39 'ii;> e 1 i.ds 40 i.e2 1 i.e6 The penny drops. Black's play is refuted as the intended 40 ... i.xg2 loses the queen to 41 i.c4. 41 i.xa6 'iVds 42 g 3 hS 43 i.b7 'ii' b s 44 i.xe6 'ii'f1+ 45 �b2 'ii'xf2 46 a4 gs 47 a s g4 48 a6 i.e8 49 i.b7 i.d7 50 'iVes 'iVf6+ 5 1 e3 1-0 •..

The next example illustrates some inter­ esting technical points.

26 ... e4! A nice move that breaks up White's pawns and at the same time obtains a passed a-pawn. White has to hurry to liqui­ date it. 27 bxe4 'iVxe4 28 'ii'd 7 h4! Further damaging White's pawns since ... h3 cannot be allowed. 29 gxh4 'ii'g4+ 30 �h1 'ii'xe4 Threatening mate! 31 �g1 'ii'xe3 32 'ii'xa7 'ii'e 1+ 33 �g2 'ii'e4+ 34 f3 As pointed out by Avrukh, after 34 �gl 'ii'xh4 White dare not capture on f7, due to 35 'iVxf7? 'iVg4+ 36 'it>h1 'ilfu3 threatening the bishop as well as mate. 34 ...'ii'f4 3 5 i.es 'ii'x h4 Now the pawn cannot be taken because of the fork on g5. 36 i.e3 'iVf6 So we arrive at 3 vs 2 on the same side. In this position White's broken kingside pawns provide Black with serious chances to win the game. 37 'ii'd 7 'ii'f S 38 'ii'a 4 �f6 39 h 3 �gs Now White has to answer the question: 'to exchange or not to exchange?' 4 79

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

19.9 A. Yusupov-M.Adams Dortmund 1994

40 i.. xg5? The wrong choice! As a general rule, keeping the bishops has the advantage that the stronger side's king is less likely to be able to join in the attack. So I recommend instead 40 i.. f2! .i.f4 41 'iWd7 'ii'g 5+ 42 'it'f1 �g7 43 'iVd3 e5 44 'it'd7 'it'f6 45 'ii'd 3 VlNe6 46 'it>g2 'iWa2 47 �f1 as a better chance. Pre­ sumably Granda Zuniga thought that he would be able to defend the queen ending, but with split pawns this proves to be diffi­ cult if not impossible. 40 ... 'iYxg5+ 41 'it>f2 'iYd2+ 42 'it>g3 e5 43 "it'h4+ �g7 44 f!ie7 'it'f4+ 45 'it>g2 'ii'f6 46 'ii'C 7 c,t>h6 47 "iVc8 'i¥g5+ 48 �f2 'iWd2+ 49 'it>g3 itf4+ 50 c,t>g2 �g5! 51 iVd8+ f6 52 "ile7 "it'd4 53 'tlYe6 Avrukh shows that 53 'i¥h7 doesn't solve White's problems: 53 .. :iWd2+ 54 'it>g3 'iVe1+ 55 'it>g2 �f4! 56 'iVxg6 (or 56 'i¥h6+ �f5 57 'iVh7 "it'd2+ 58 c,t>g3 'iVg5+ 59 �f2 �f4!) 56 .. :Vi:Ve2+ 57 �gl 'it'e3+ 58 �h2 'iVf2+ 59 iYg2 'i¥xf3 60 �d2+ 'i¥e3 and Black is close to winning. 5 3 iVd2+ 0-1 Resignation seems premature at first, but after 54 �g3 WVf4+ 55 'it>g2 (if 55 'it>f2 then 55 ... e4! 56 "ilxe4 �xe4 57 fxe4 �f4 etc) 55 ... �h4 56 �f2 e4 one can readily understand White's decision. .••

In the following sharp position Adams failed to find the best move. 4 80

39 J!Vd3 ? In the race that follows Black i s missing a tempo, and it's at this point that he could have prepared a superior version by first forcing White to commit his bishop. This can't be done by 39 ... e4 because of 40 .Jid4 h4 41 i.. xg7 "ii'xg7 42 d6 and wins, as pointed out by Stohl. Therefore Yusupov suggests 39 ... VlNf5! (39 .. :iWc2! comes to the same thing), when White has to make a decision. Then after 40 .i.g3 VlNe4 41 d6, the useful 4l ...h4 comes with tempo and 42 .i.f2 itf4+ 43 �gl "ii'c 1+ is already perpetual check; while if 40 .i.e3 then 40 .. :ii'e4 hits both the bishop and the d-pawn, and White doesn't have much after 41 .i.g5 "Vi'xd5 42 .i.f6 iVg8 43 .i.xe5 �h8 44 .i.xg7+ "Vi'xg7 45 'iYxc4 "Vi'e5+. 40 d6 c3 After 40 ... 'it>g6 (to unpin) 41 .i.h4 'iVd4 42 d7 .i.f6 White continues with 43 d8"ii'! (rather than 43 Ji.xf6? "ii'f4+ when Black has perpet­ ual check) 43 ... 'iVxd8 44 'iVxd8 i.. xd8 45 .Jixd8 c3 46 Ji.a5 c2 47 Ji.d2 and emerges with a winning ending. 41 d7 c2 42 .i.e3! The position after 42 d8'iW? "iUxd8 43 'iWxc2+ is only equal. •.

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

42 ...'iVxe3 43 �xc2+ e4

check would seem to be on the cards, but .. 43 'ii'f 3?? After 43 'it'g2 'iVe2+ the draw would in­ deed not be far off. 43 ... g4+! 0-1 A fine combination that Larsen had over­ looked. After 44 �xg4 .th5+! 45 'it'xh5 "ii'g5 is mate! .

Queen a n d Bishop versus Queen a n d opposite-colo u red Bishop

44 'iVC7! 1-0

The simplest; although promoting immedi­ ately also wins: 44 d8"ii' .ie5+ 45 g3 .txg3+ (or 45 .. :�xg3+ 46 �h1 "ii'xh3+ 47 'it'g1 'tWg3+ 48 'it'f1 "ii'f3+ 49 �f2 �3+ 50 "ii'g2 and White again escapes from the perpetual check) 46 'it>h1 'iVf3+ 47 �g2. Sometimes play just comes down to pure tactics. Naturally enough with bishops on the board, these are more often than not along diagonals ...

19.10 B.Larsen-B.Spassky Linares 1981

With both kings so exposed a perpetual

In contrast to the previous section, here the defender is less likely to be worried about simplification into an ending with just bish­ ops, and so the stronger side has generally to increase his advantage with queens on the board. Sometimes this involves a direct at­ tack on the defending king, or it can be long­ term pressure arising from the defender's inability to stave off threats indefinitely on one particular colour-complex. Sometimes, just as we saw in 19.10, a straightforward tactic ends the struggle im­ mediately, a good example with opposite bishops being the following:

19.11 N.Short-R.Vaganian Barcelona 1989

White to play and win. 4 81

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

51 �e5+I 1-0 After Sl...'it>xeS S2 'iVc3+ White picks off the black queen. This 'skewer and win' move is in fact the coup de grace at the end of a long tactical sequence. More commonplace is the frustrating (for the stronger side!) scenario in 19.12. White is unable to make much of his positional ad­ vantage as he can't undermine the weaker side's blockade.

easy for White to organize a kingside attack if he also has to keep an eye on the d4-pawn. 37 'ili'f3 cxd4 38 cxd4 1i'e7 39 'iVc6 �f8 40 'ili'g6+ �g7 41 1i'f5 �e8 42 Wh2 Manoeuvring to bring the king to a more active posting. Instead, 42 �c2 is all very well, but it doesn't threaten much as Black's king would be perfectly safe on f8, a dark square of course! 42 ... 'iIi'e7 43 'it>g1 'ii'e 8 44 Wf2 'it>f8 45 'iii> e3 'it>g8 46 'it>d3 'ili'e7 47 g4 �f8 48 �d5 1i'a3+ 49 'it>e4 'iVe7 50 1i'g6+ �g7 51 'ii'c 6 �f8

19 . 12 M.Adams-V.Anand FIDE World Championship, New Delhi 2000

White has some pressure, especially on the light squares, but it doesn't seem to be enough against accurate defence. 33 h51 As mentioned by Huzman, White has no advantage in the opposite bishop ending after 33 eS 1i'fS 34 'iVxfS gxfS 3S 'it>f3 �a3. 3 3 ... gxh5 An interesting decision. The attempt to build a dark square wall with 33 ... gS?! 34 1i'f3 f6 is dubious because of 3S eS! £XeS 36 dxeS 'iVd2+ 37 'it>h3 and Black's king is very exposed. 34 e5 'it>g8 35 'ili'f3 .tg7 36 'ili'xh 5 c5! Hitting back at the centre. It won't be 482

52 'ii b 7 White's king cannot go any further with queens on the board. 52 ...1i'xb7 5 3 �xb7 .tb4 54 d 5 'it>f8 55 'iii>fS �e7 56 �a6 �g5 57 d6 �h4 58 �b5 i.g3 59 'it>e4 �h2 60 'it>f5 .tg3 61 �c4 �h4 6 2 �d5 'it>e8 63 �C4 Wf8 64 �b5 �g3 65 i.c6 �h4 66 'it>e4 �g5 67 �b5 .th4 68 'it>d5 i.g 3 6g e6 The last try, but it's insufficient. 69 ...fxe6+ 70 Wxe6 �f4 71 d7 Although 71 'it>d7 �g3 72 'it>c6 �f4 73 d7 'it>e7 74 'it>b7 'it>d8 7S 'it>xa7 wins the a-pawn, after 7S ... .te3 White cannot create any fur­ ther threats. 71 ... �C7 72 'it>f6 �d8+ 73 'it>g6 .tg5 Ya-Ya It often happens that the defender con­ trols his particular colour-complex too well to be in danger, whether there are queens or

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

not. Naturally, from our point of view it's instructive to see some examples where the stronger side is successful. So in contrast to 19.12 (where Black kept his king out of dan­ ger), in 19.13 the threat of mate combined with gradual expansion leads to the block­ ade being undermined in instructive style.

19 .1 3 L.Christiansen-A.Karpov Wijk aan Zee 1993

Despite appearances this position is ac­ tually quite difficult for Black, since White can pressurize g7 while Black has no coun­ terplay. 37 ..t c4 38 �d4 �d3? It turns out that the restraining 38... h5! was correct, since in the game White's king­ side expansion with g2-g4 proves to be rather strong. 39 g4 fxg4 40 hxg4 'iVg6 Giving up a pawn to get a pure opposite bishop ending often has to be taken into con­ sideration, and here Black might have played 40 .. :ii'f6!? 41 Wi'xf6 gxf6 42 ..txf6 and then 42 ... h5 (eliminating the weakness on h6) 43 gxh5 ..te2! (not 43 ... �h6? 44 'it>g3 'it>xh5 45 f5 followed by �f4, when White has some chances to win) 44 'it>g3 �xh5 45 f5 cJ;; g7 46 �f4 �f3 47 'it>e5 'it>f7 and Black is drawing. •••

41 �d7 �e2 42 'it>g3 h5 43 g5 iLg4 Karpov naturally constructs a light square blockade, but Christiansen hasn't given up yet... 44 'Wie7 �f5 45 'it>h4! The king is safe as houses here and sup­ ports the g-pawn ready for a strong break­ through. 45 �g4? The correct defence seems to be 45 ... iLe6! and if 46 'iVf8 'iVf7, as 47 'iVxf7 �xf7 48 f5 g6 is easily drawn. 46 �f8 �e6 46 ... �f5? is strongly met by 47 �xg7! . •••

47 f5 ! �xf5 48 �xg7 Black is now faced with an unenviable choice. 48 'iVe6 Instead, 48 .. :iVxg7 49 Wi'xf5+ Wi'g6 goes down to 50 �f6! 'iVxf6 51 gxf6 �g6 52 f7 �xf7 53 'it>xh5 with a winning pawn end­ game, e.g. 53 ... �e6 54 'it>g5 �e5 55 �g4 �d5 56 'it>f5 �c4 57 'it>xe4 �b3 58 �d4 �xa3 59 e4 �b4 60 e5 a5 61 e6 a4 62 e7 a3 63 e8'iV a2 64 �8+ 'it>a3 65 'it>c4 etc. 49 �f6 'iVd7 50 'iVh6+?! 50 �8+ �g6 51 'iYxh5 mate was some­ what simpler! 50 ... �g8 51 g6 �xg6 52 'it'xg6+ �f8 53 'ii h 6+ 'it>e8 54 'it'h8+ 'it>f7 5 5 'it'g7+ �e6 56 'ii'xd7+ �xd7 5 7 'it>xh 5 �e6 58 iLd4 �f5 59 a4 1-0 •••

4 83

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

White's advantage in the next example comes from his superior pawn structure.

19 . 14 A. Yusupov-J.Timman Candidates semi-final (5th matchgame), Linares 1992

This game was played in a high-level match and so has naturally received great attention from various analysts. Despite all the detail involved in the following variations it's important not to lose sight of the reason why White has a positional advantage. If we compare the pawn structures, White can blockade the queenside majority with his pieces, whereas his own 4 vs 2 kingside ma­ jority retains its flexibility. White will be aim­ ing to profit from this fact whereas Black will try to distract him or, if that doesn't work, to blockade as best he can. 29 ...'ii'e 6?! Dvoretsky prefers 29 ... 'iVf4, one point be­ ing 30 e6? 'iVg4!, and another 30 h3 i.. d 7 when the bishop is well placed for the de­ fence and Black envisages tidying up the queenside with ... b5. However, White can then cross this plan with the daring 31 'ii'xb6!, e.g. 31...'ii'c 1 + 32 'lith2 'ii'xc3 (instead 32 ... 'ii'f4+ is well parried by 33 g3) 33 'ii'd8+ followed by capturing the bishop with check, thus obtaining a winning queen end4 84

ing due to the strength of the e-pawn. 30 i.. d 4 i.. b 3?! Yusupov doesn't like this time-wasting move, but after 30 ...b5 31 h3 h5 32 'iVd2 White would continue as in the game, when it's not clear that Black really wants his pawn on bS, interfering with his bishop. Instead, Black could try 30 ... i.. d 7 here, as 31 'iVxb6 (31 i..xb6 is well met by 3l...c3!) 3l...'ii'xb6 32 i..xb6 is analogous to the main part of the note to 34 g4, and thus fairly drawish. 31 h3 h 5 3 2 'iVd2 i.. a 4 3 3 'iVg5 Another way to continue is 33 'iVb4, try­ ing to oblige Black to play ...b5, though this could be met by 33 ... i.. d 7!? again. 33 . .. f5 38 f3 h4, and now it seems that 39 'litf2 'litf4 40 e6 'litf5 41 e7 �e6 42 i.. c5 c3 43 'lite3 i..b5 44 i..b4 d4+ 45 'itxd4 c2 46 i.. d 2 'litxe7 47 'litc3 i.. f1 leads to a draw. 34 ... hxg4 3 5 hxg4 'liteS If 35 ... i.. d 1, White can play the consoli­ dating 36 f3! as 36 ... i.. xf3? loses to 37 'ii'f4+. 36 'litg2

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

Black's defence is difficult as the pressure is relentless. 36 ... �d7 Yusupov shows that 36 ... c3 37 i.xc3 d4 offers Black nothing for his pawn after 38 i.b4 i.c6+ 39 �g3, and also that 36 ... i.d1 37 f3 'irVf7?! 38 �e3 is hopeless due to the dual threats of e5-e6 and simply i.xb6. Timman has consistently avoided playing ...b5 as this gives White chances to penetrate via as, e.g. 36 ... b5 37 f3! 'iVf7 38 'irVd2 'iNe7 39 'iNa5 'iVxa3 (the passive 39 .. :ii'b7 would allow White a free hand on the kingside) 40 'iVa8+ rJi;e7 41 'iYb7+ �f8 and now 42 e6! 'iVe7 43 i.c5 is the simplest win. 37 �g3 i.dl 38 f3 rJi;C7? Moving the king further away eases White's task. Perhaps Black should try 38 ... i.c2 in anticipation of an eventual f4-f5. 39 'irVf6! With conditions now propitious Yusu­ pov steers the game into an opposite­ coloured bishop ending. 39 ... 'iVxf6 Ftacnik analyses that 39 ... �d7 doesn't hold either after 40 b6 c3 41 'iVxe6+ �xe6 42 i.d4 c2 43 i.b2 i.e2 44 �f2 i.b5 45 We3 �d7 46 �d2 i.a4 47 f4 We6 48 �c3, but in this line Black might defend with 43 ... d4! 44 f4 g5. So White should prefer 41 'iWd8+! �c6 42 'iVc7+ �b5 43 i.d4, with such strong threats that Black has nothing better than 43 .. :iVc6 44 'iNxc6+ i.xc6 45 i.c3, when the opposite bishop ending is now clearly winning. 40 exf6 �d7 41 i.xb6 c3 42 i.d4 c2 43 i.b2 �e6 44 g5 i.e2 45 �f2 i.b5 46 �e3 i.e8 47 �d3 i.a4 48 rJi;C3 rJi;d6 49 i.cl �e6 50 �b4 1-0 Black cannot contain the white pawns on both flanks, e.g. 50 ... i.c6 51 a4 d4 52 f4 d3 53 as i.b7 54 �b5 i.d5 55 �b6 �d7 56 a6 i.e4 57 a7 with zugzwang: if 57 ... i.d5 White wins with 58 f5! gxf5 59 g6, as Ftacnik points out. Gelfand published a detailed analysis of

the following grind where he has a mobile kingside majority and a space advantage. In fact, most of the following instructive analy­ ses are his, and from which we can conclude that (as is often the case in such positions) there is no forced win, but the defender is made to suffer and eventually cracks.

19. 1 5 B.Gelfand-Ye Jiangchuan Shenyang 2000

2 5 ... b6?! It's often a controversial choice to opt for moves such as 25 ... g5! ?, as it could loosen the light squares, but it at least limits oppor­ tunities for White to expand his kingside pawns. The text move turns out to be rather passive. 26 h4 i.g7 27 �g2 i.f6 28 'iVd3 'iWe8 29 'iVf3 �g7 30 i.d3 'iVd7 ! The defender has to envisage how he in­ tends to handle the kingside; for instance, 30 ... h5?! may just weaken the g6-square; the na'ive 30 .. :ii'a4?! allows 31 h5 under favour­ able circumstances; while the win against 30 ... h6?! shows that any pawn moves in a purely defensive position can have serious consequences: 31 'iVg4 g5 (31 ...h5 again weakens g6) 32 �f5! gxh4 33 g4! 'iNf7 34 'iHh7+ �f8 35 'iYxh6+ 1!\Vg7 36 'iVxg7+ 'it'xg7 37 f4! Wh6 38 �f3 (or more simply 38 g5+ i.xg5 4 85

P ra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

39 fxg5+ �xg5 40 'iit> f3 etc.) 38 ... i.e7 39 i.f1 .id8 40 'iit>e4 i.e7 41 c,t>f5 etc. 31 hS?! Stronger according to Gelfand is 31 'iVe4!? 'iVe7 32 'iVg4 intending f2-f4 and h4-h5. 31 'iVf7 32 hxg6 hxg6 3 3 'iVe4 c,t>h6 34 'iVg4 'iVe8 Another idea is 34 ... g5!?, but the resulting self-weakening outweighs any additional freedom of movement; for instance, after 35 'iit> f1 'iYh5 36 'Yif5 c,t>g7 37 c,t>e1 White can get his king out of harm's way and leave Black close to zugzwang. 35 C5!? bxc5 36 bXc5 'iit> g 7 3 7 c6 'iif7 38 �f1 'iVe8 39 .ie4 Preparing the way for �e2-d3-c4 and an eventual king penetration via b7. 39 ... d3!? A practical decision, giving up the hin­ drance of a d-pawn so the bishop has room to move about freely. The alternative would be to continue to temporize with 39 ...'iVf7. 40 .ixd 3 i.C3 41 'iit> g 2 'iWf7 42 i.e4 i.f6 43 'iVc8 i.d4 44 f3 i.b6 45 f4 i.d4 46 'iWg4 i.f6 47 �f3 i.d4 Now 47 ... g5!? is more plausible as it ex­ changes a pair of pawns; e.g. 48 �e3 c,t>h6! 49 'iit> d3 gxf4 50 gxf4 (or 50 'iVxf4+ 'iit> g 7 51 'iWf5 i.e5 etc) 50 .. :ii'h5 with reasonable drawing chances for Black. 48 'iit> e 2 i.b6 49 'iVd7 'iit>f8 If Black insists on defending with ... i.d4b6-d4, White would make progress as fol­ lows: 49 ... i.d4 50 �f3 i.b6 51 g4 .id4 52 g5! .ib6 53 �g4 i.d4 (if 53 ... i.e3 then 54 .ixg6! c,t>xg6 55 f5+ �g7 56 g6 wins) 54 'iid 8! .ib6 55 f5 gxf5+ 56 .ixf5 'iYf8 (56 ... .id4 loses to 57 i.e6 'iif8 58 'iWxc7+ etc) 57 'iVd7+ 'iVf7 58 .ie6 'iVxd7 59 cxd7 c5 60 dxc6 and Black will be unable to stop all the pawns. If Black instead changes tack and decides to stay on the a1-h8 diagonal with, say, 54 ... .ic3 (instead of 54 ... i.b6) then Shipov gives 55 f5! gxf5+ 56 .ixf5 .ie5 57 'iVc8! with zugzwang, e.g. 57... .ic3 58 .ie6, or 57 ... .ih2

58 'ifd7 c,t>f8 (or if 58 ... i.e5 then 59 .ie6!) 59 'iVd8+ 'iie8 60 'ikf6+ 'iff7 61 'iYh8+ sneakily forking the bishop. 50 'iit>f3 Better than 50 'iit> d 3?! 'iVf6.

.••

486

50 ...'iit> g 7? So far Ye Jiangchuan has managed to de­ fend well, but here he loses his way. Alternatively Black could try 50 ... i.d4!? 51 g4 .ib2 (with the idea 52 g5 .iel !), but then Gelfand had in mind the piece sacrifice 52 .ixg6!, which he proves to be winning with a long analysis; e.g. 52 .. :�xg6 (Black can't save himself with 52 ... 'ilhd5+ 53 '>t>g3 i.f6 54 g5 i.xg5 55 fxg5 'iWxg5+ 56 'ilVg4 'iie3+ 57 'iif3+ or 55 ...'iVe5+ 56 �f3 etc) 53 'iid8+ 'iVe8 (or 53 ... 'iit> g7 54 'ifxc7+ 'iit>h6 55 g5+ '>t>h5 56 'iWe7 'iVd3+ 57 'iVe3 'iVxd5+ 58 'iit> g3 'iVxc6 59 'iVe2+ 'iit> g6 60 'iYxb2 and the queen ending is winning) 54 'iVxc7 .ia3 55 'iYh7! 'ilVe1 56 'iVf5+ �g7 57 'ii d7+ 'iit> f8 58 c7 'iWc3+ (the checks also run out after 58 ... 'ilVf1+ 59 'iit> g3 'iYe1+ 60 �h2 'iff2+ 61 �h3) 59 �g2 'iYc2+ 60 '>t>g3 'iic3+ 61 �h4 'iYh8+ 62 'iit> g5 'iig8+ 63 '>t>h6 'iYh8+ 64 �7 'iYf6+ 65 'iit>h5 and wins! Instead, Black should profit from the fact that his queen is no longer pinned by play­ ing 50 .. :�f6!, intending to meet 51 g4? by 51...'iVc3+, and 51 'iit> g4 with the temporizing 51...'iit> g8, when the onus is on White to show that he has anything concrete. 51 g4!

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

There is nothing for White after 51 'it'g4?! i.d4 52 'ii'xf7+ �xf7 53 'it'g5 i.f6+ 54 'it'h6 i.g7+ 55 �h7 g5! as he can't do anything about the dark squares. 51 ... g5!? Otherwise White will play 52 g5 which seems to win, as we saw in the note to Black's 49th move. 52 i.f5! i.d4 52 ... gxf4 loses again to 53 i.e6 ii'xd7 54 cxd7 c6 55 dxc6 and White will eventually win with his widely spaced passed pawns. 53 fxg5 �f8

king round even with queens on the board, e.g. 55 .. :iVe7+ 56 .te6 i.f6 57 �d3 �g7 58 'it'c4 �xg6 59 �b5 'iVg7 60 �a6 .tc3 61 g5 �xg5 62 'ili'xg7+ .txg7 63 �b7 etc. 56 cxd7 f3! and wins easily after 57 ... .txg5 58 ii'c8+ 'ili'e8 59 'iixc7. However, after 54 ... .tf2 White can't win with 55 .te6 as the stalemate trap now works: 55 ... 'iVg6+ 56 �f3 'iVd3+ 57 �xf2 'iVe3+! or 56 �f4 i.g3+! 57 �xg3 'ii'd3+ 58 �h4 'iVh3+! etc, so he would have to repeat with 56 .tf5! �f7 and try again. The way forward seems to be 55 g6! 'iiVe8+ 56 'i!Ve6 'iVxe6+ 57 dxe6 as the ending is winning for White; e.g. 57 ... i.M 58 �d5 i.f6 59 �c4 �e7 60 �b5 d5 61 �a6 �d6 (or 61...d4 62 �b7 �d6 63 e7 etc) 62 �b7 .te5 63 �c8 d4 64 �d8 .tf6+ 65 �e8 d3 66 �f7 d2 67 .tc2. 55 g6 'i!Vxd7 Otherwise Gelfand is ready to bring his

Black's king is in trouble after ... 40 c7! ... decoying his queen. 40 .. JWxC7 41 'iVe1+ 1-0 Black resigned as 41...'it'g5 42 M+ �h5 43 'tWe6 leads to a forced mate. When I first came across the following example I was surprised that White could win with only one concrete advantage, i.e. 487

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

the passed b-pawn. However, he can also create threats against the black king, thus stretching the defender's resources.

i.b8 5 1 1lt'g2+ �f8 52 'ii' h 3 h4 53 �c8 rl;e7 Now comes the decisive blow.

19.1 7 L.Bruzon Bautista-L.Dominguez Havana 2004

39 'iVd5 'iVe7 40 �f2 i.b6+ 41 �e2 i.g1 42 .i.C4 .i.h2 43 g4 iLg3 One possible defence is 43 ... .i.g1 !?, in­ tending to keep the bishop on the a7-g1 di­ agonal. 44 gxh5 gxh5 45 b4 iLxh4 Better is 4S .. :iYa7! (Bruzon). Then after 46 'it'd3 .i.xh4 47 bS (47 �xd6? allows useful counterplay with 47 ... 'iVf2!), although 47 ... .i.g3 looks reasonable enough for Black (48 b6 'iNxb6! 49 'iVxf7+ �h6 gives White no more than a draw, since SO 'iWf8+ �gS Sl �g7+?! is met by Sl...�h4), the temporizing 48 iLb3! still maintains the pressure. For in­ stance, if 48 ... h4? then 49 b6! 'iVxb6 40 1ixf7+ leads to mate, as the black king can no longer run away using the h4-square! 46 b5 'iNd7 46 ... 'iWe6! is an interesting alternative, as 47 'iHc6 �3 leads to a draw; and can White really win after 47 �xe6 fxe6 48 b6 .i.d8 49 b7 .i.c7 SO .i.xe6 �f6? I'm not convinced per­ sonally. 47 b6 .i.d8 48 b7 .i.C7 49 'iVd2 'iVd8 50 �d3 ! 488

5 4 i.xf7! �C7 5 5 i*'e6+ �f8 5 6 'iHe8+ rl;g7 5 7 'iYg8+ �f6 58 .i.d5 i.a7 59 'iYf8+ �g6 60 'iWf5+ �g7 61 'it'g4+ Bruzon mentions that the alternative 61 'iWgS+ �f8 62 'iYg8+ etc at once was a bit quicker. 61 ... �h6 62 'iVxh4+ �g6 63 'iYg4+ �6 64 �e6+ �g7 65 'iYg8+ 'it'f6 66 'iVf8+ rl;g6 67 �f5+ �g7 68 'iHg5+ �f8 69 Wig8+ �e7 70 'iif 7+ �d8 71 'iHf8+ �d7 72 �c8+! 1-0 A nice touch; 72 .. :ilhc8 is of course an­ swered by 73 i.e6+! . Yusupov analyses the following NQE in great detail (the vast majority of the varia­ tions below are his) - a sign that leading GMs take seriously the process of analysing all phases of their own games.

19.18 A.Yusupov-M.Gurevich Munich 1993 (see following diagram)

The advantage of an extra outside passed pawn will again have to be combined with generating threats in another area, possibly against Black's king. However, this process

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

will be complicated by the fact that the stronger side's king is somewhat exposed.

41 'i¥c2 ! Defending the king (c8-square) and pre­ paring to advance the a-pawn. 41 ... �f4 42 a4 �C7 Black naturally aims to restrain the pass­ ed pawn, so it's time to create some threats on the other wing. 43 'iVg6 'iVc8+ Although capturing on h2 is tempting, 43 ... �xh2 has a downside in that after 44 �e4 �g8 45 a5 White's threats are in danger of becoming overwhelming. 44 �e6 �a8 45 "ikf7 'iNd8 46 �f5 'iNa8 47 �g4!? Here 47 �e4 doesn't achieve anything af­ ter 47 .. :iVc8+ 48 'it>g2 'ii' d 8. 47 ... .i.xh2 Now is the time. Instead, after 47 ... "iVxa4+? 48 �e4 the threats of mate will force Black to part with his bishop, i.e. 48 ... �d6 49 l\Yg6 �g8 50 l\Ye6+ 'it>f8 51 "ikxd6+. Chasing White's king too vigorously can also rebound on Black, e.g. 47 .. :ij'd8 48 h4! (48 'iVg6? �g5+) 48 .. :it'd4+ 49 �e4 'iVg1+ 50 'it>h5 "ikc5+ 51 �d5 and wins. 48 "ikg6 �g8 Here again 48 ... 'iVxa4+? costs a piece, this time after 49 �h3. 49 �e6+ �h8 50 a s 'iNb8 51 �h3 �C7 5 2 �f5 'it>g8 5 3 .i.e6+ � h 8 5 4 a6 �b6 5 5 �f5

'it>g8 56 '*iVe6+ �h8 56 ... f8?? loses on the spot to 57 �g6. 57 '*iVg6 �g8 58 .i.e4 '*iVc8+ 59 �g2 "ikd8 60 "ike6+ 'it>h8 61 �h3 "ikb8 62 "ii'f5 �g8 62 .. :iVg8!? 63 'it'd7 "ikb8 is another defen­ sive try. The word 'grovelling' comes to mind! 63 f4 After 63 'iVd7 'it>h8 64 f4 .i.a7 65 .i.d3 �b6 66 "ikf5 Black might be able to sit tight with 66 ... 'iVg8! again. There is no zugzwang to hand since the bishop can temporize along the a7-g1 diagonal. As a general rule in posi­ tions with the defender tied down, the stronger side needs to add an extra element to try and tip the balance in his favour. Here, with no pawn breaks, White would have to try and use his king positively, though it's not evident how he can achieve this without exposing it to some disruptive checks. 63 "ikd8! 64 �g3 �a7 65 �b1?! Not a good square for the bishop; nor would 65 �c2 be ideal because Black could then safely play 65 ... "ikb6! . So White should just keep the bind tight with 65 'iVe6+ �h8 66 "iVf7. .••

65 ... �f2+!? 65 ... �b6 would be more submissive, e.g. 66 �c2 �a7 67 �g4 "ikb6 68 �h5 'iVc5 69 �b3+ �h8 70 �d5 .i.b6 71 'iie6 'iVf8, but even here White still wouldn't be sure to win. 489

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

66 'ot>g2 I had thought that taking the bishop would allow an immediate draw, but after 66 'ot>xf2 'iWd2+ 67 �f3 'iWdl+ 68 'oii>e3 'iWel+ 69 'oii> d4 'iWb4+ 70 'it>d5 'iWb5+ White can actually wriggle out and retain some winning chances with 71 'oii> d 6! 'iVxa6+ 72 'oii> c5 'iVa5+ 73 'oii> c4 �a6+ (73 .. :ihf5 74 .ltxf5 g5 is met by 75 .lte6+ followed by 76 f5, holding onto the last pawn) 74 'oii>b4 �6+ 75 'iWb5 "iWd6+ 76 'oii>b 3. 66 ... 'iWd2 67 "iWe6+ 'It>f8 Black's king is now forced into the open. This isn't yet serious in itself, but it adds an extra dimension to the following period of play.

68 'oii>f3 68 .ltg6 is tempting, threatening mate in two ways; but Black escapes as follows: 68 ... .lta7+ 69 'It>f3 (69 'It>h3 "iVe3+ exchanges queens to a drawn ending) 69 ... "iVf2+ 70 'It>g4 'iWg2+, when pushing for a win with 71 'oii> f5?? would even lose to 71 ..:�'h3+ 72 'It>e5 .ltb8+ 73 'it>d5 "ifb3+. 68 ... .ltg1! 69 "iWfS+ After 69 .lta2 Black draws with 69 .. :iVf2+ 70 �g4 h5+! 71 'ot>xh5 �+ etc. 69 ... 'oii>e 7 70 "iVes+ 'ot>d8 71 �b8+ 'it>e7 72 'iWC7+ 'oii>f8 7 3 'iVc8+ 'oii> e 7 74 'ii' b 7+ 'it>d8 7 S .lte4 'iWf2+?! Yusupov believes that Black should have preferred either 75 ... g5! ? or 75 ... 'ii'd l+, since after the text move the defence becomes 490

even more difficult. 76 �g4 �a7 77 'iWb3! .ltd4 Not 77.. :iVxa6? as 78 "iWdl+ picks up the bishop. 78 .ltfs 'It>C7 79 'iWds 79 "iVb5!? is another way to try and keep some pressure. 79 ... .ltf6 80 �d7+ 'it'b6 81 'iWd6+

81 ... 'oii> a s ! The immediate 81...�b5? was losing after 82 .ltd7+ 'oii> c4 (or 82 ... 'ot>a5 83 'iWa3+ 'oii>b6 84 "iVe3+ 'oii> xa6 85 .ltc8+ winning the queen) 83 'iWc6+, as all roads lead to defeat: a) 83 ... 'oii>b4 84 'iWb7+. b) 83 ... 'oii> d 3 84 .ltf5+ 'It>e3 (if 84 ...'lt>d4, then 85 "iVd7+) 85 �e4+ 'it>d2 86 'iVc2+ 'oii>el (or 86 ... 'it>e3 87 'ii'd3+ 'it'f2 88 'iVd2+) 87 �f3. c) 83 ... 'ot>d4 84 .lte6 (threatening "iYd7+) 84 ... 'oii>e3 (other moves also lose quickly; e.g. 84 ... h5+ 85 'ot>f3, or 84 ... "ifb8 85 'iWb7 'iWd6 86 'it'd7, or 84 ... .lte7 85 'it'c4+ 'It>e3 86 "iWc1 + etc) 85 "iVc1+ 'oii> f2 (85 ... �d3 is dispatched by 86 .ltc4+ �e4 87 VWhl+ �d4 88 iVgl+, or if 85 ... �e4 similarly 86 "iWhl+! 'It>e3 87 iVgl+) 86 "iVd2+ 'it>gl 87 �el+ �h2 88 "iVg3+ 'oii>hl 89 .ltd5 mate. 82 "iVa3+ �bS One of the problems with a wide open king is that the defender must continually avoid certain mined squares, e.g. 82 ... 'it>b6?? 83 "iVe3+. 83 .ltd3+ 'oii> c 6 84 'iWc1+! �d6

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

Once again the right square. Instead, 84 ... 'iitd5 leaves Black's king in a pickle after 85 .i.b5, while 84 ... 'iit d 7 85 iLb5+ 'it'd8? loses to 86 'ilNc6 i¥gl + 87 'iith5! "i:lVd1 + 88 'iit g6, al­ though 85 ... 'iite7 reaches a position that may be tenable (see the next note). 8S iLbS iLd4?! After a long heroic defence Gurevich is finally worn down. Instead, Yusupov con­ siders the only playable line to be 85 ... 'iit e 7!? 86 "i:lVa3+ (note that 86 'ilNc6 'ilNg1 + 87 'iit f5 can be met here by 87 ... g6+ since the bishop is defended) 87 ... e6 when Black can struggle on. However, there is another, albeit more risky, way to defend: 85 .. :iVb6 86 'ilNa3+ �c7 87 a7 'ilNe6+! 88 'it>g3 ii'e1 + 89 'iit g2 'ilNe4+ 90 'iith3 'ilNh1 +! 91 'iit g4 (Yusupov stops here claiming a win, but if we go further. .. ) 91 ...'ilNd1+ 92 'i.t>f5 "iVd5+ 93 'it>g6 'ilNg2+ 94 'it>f7 'iVd5+ 95 'iit f8 �a8+ 96 iLe8 then Black has 96 ... 'iitb7 and the a-pawn is doomed. 86 'ilNc6+ 'iit e 7 87 fs !

Black now has three alternatives but none of them seem to save the game. 87 ...'ilNb6 87 ... i.f2 drops the g-pawn to 88 ii'e6+ 'iit d 8 89 ii'g8+ c7 90 �xg7+ 'iitb6 91 'ilNxa7+ 'iitxa7 92 'iith5 i.e3 93 'iit g6 when White wins easily enough. However, this opposite-coloured bishop ending surprisingly turns out to be a draw if Black can get his bishop to f8 or g7 to defend

the h6-pawn. To this end 87 ... i.c5!? is possi­ ble, with the point that 88 "iWe6+ 'iit d8 89 ii'g8+ 'it>c7 90 "i:lVxg7+ 'iitb6 91 Vi"xa7+ (if 91 f6 then 91...i.d4! 92 'ilNe7 i.c5 holds, as for that matter does 91...'iVa8) 91 ...'iitxa7 92 'it'h5 iLf8! 93 �g6 'iitb6 94 iLfl 'iit a7 is not winning, e.g. 95 f6 'iitb6 96 f7 'iit a 7 97 'iith7 h5! 98 'iit g8 iLc5 99 f8ii'+ iLxf8 100 'iit xf8 h4 and the h-pawn will distract the bishop, so White will not be able to hold onto his a-pawn. Instead, 87 ... .ic5 should be met by 88 �d5! temporizing and leaving Black in zugzwang. Then 88 ... iLf2 89 �e6+ wins as above, while 88 ... 'ilNb6 89 �d7+ 'iit f6 90 a7! h5+ (if 90 .. :iixa7 then 91 �e6 is mate) 91 �xh5! (not 91 'iit f3? iLg1, as White's king is then threatened with ... 'ilNe3 mate!) 91.. .g6+ 92 �h6 .ie3+ 93 'iith7 'ilNxa7 94 ii'xa7 iLxa7 95 fxg6. A curious winning variation, as mate and the a-pawn are nullified, but the re­ maining g-pawn cannot be stopped. 88 'ilNd1+ 'it'f6 89 iLC4 Using the a-pawn as a decoy also works here; i.e. 89 a7 h5+ 90 'iit xh5! g6+ 91 'iith6! .ie3+ 92 'iith7 'ilNxa7 93 ii'xa7 .ixa7 94 fxg6, as in the previous note. 89 ... hS+ 90 'iitx h s 'iit e s 91 �g4! "iWd6 If 91...�e4 then simply 92 'ilNe6+ ex­ changes queens, while at the same time ob­ taining a second passed pawn. 92 ii'xg1+ 'iit e 4 93 'iVb7+ �es 94 'ilNh1 94 f6! was simpler. Black cannot capture the f-pawn because of mate and otherwise White threatens 95 'ilNe7. 94 ...'ilNcS 95 'ilNh2+ 'iitf6 96 �h6+ 'iit e 7 97 "iVe6+ 'iit d 8 98 'ilNdS+ 1-0 Now with two passed pawns (and the RRP) the opposite bishop ending is finally winning. An epic struggle. In 19.19 we see another example of the stronger side winning a position which with best play would probably only be drawn. Defending such positions can be excruciat­ ingly difficult! 491

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

39 'iVb2 !

19 . 19 M.Adams-V.Anand Dortmund 1998

28 cS! A fine pawn sacrifice to prevent Black getting a straightforward dark square block­ ade, as would occur, for example, after 28 as .lta3 and then to cS. 28 ... dxcS 29 a s .ltb2 30 a6 .ltd4 3 1 .ltf1 c4! At some point or other the bishop will need to be able to defend the a7-square, hence this counter-sacrifice. Bangiev gives an alternative example, 31...hS 32 �S iVxbS 33 .ltxbS c4 34 .ltxc4 gS 3S M, as clearly bet­ ter for White; since it's not ideal for Black to exchange queens if he is going to have a kingside pawn fixed on a light square. 32 iVxC4 'iVb2 33 "ii'e 2 iVC3 Adams considers this to be the right de­ cision. The opposite bishop ending after 33 ... iVxe2 34 ..txe2 is not necessarily lost, but White would retain fairly good winning chances by eventually creating some king­ side threats, as well as having the advanced a-pawn. 34 'it'g2 .ltb6 3 5 �a 2 'iVd4 36 �C2 e6 3 7 SLbS h6 38 iVe2 'iVcS? Unnecessarily ceding the long diagonal, unless that is Black changes his mind about exchanging queens. Adams prefers 38 ... 'it'g7. 492

39 ... gS?! This seems to be yet another example of mishandling one's pawn structure in time trouble. Anand probably didn't want to be too passive, but this kingside advance ulti­ mately leads to a White win. Instead, Adams suggests playing 39 ... hS, which I believe im­ plies that Black could just try and sit tight and not move his pawns any further. In re­ ply I suppose White might put his queen on f6 and eventually sacrifice his bishop on g6 for a handful of pawns. So if Black wants to avoid this, 39 ... eS! ? 40 M hS is another idea which may hold water. 40 .ltd3 g4 41 iVf6 hS 42 'iif4 'it'f8 43 e5 'iVdS+ 44 .lte4 'iVd4 Adams proposes 44 .. :iVc4 4S iVh6+ �e8 46 iVh8+ �e7 47 'iYf6+ 'it'e8 48 .ltb7 iVd4 as a better defence, which unfortunately loses immediately to 49 .ltc6+ �f8 SO 'ilVh8+ �e7 51 'iVe8 mate; but 48 ... 'iVc2! would enable Black to stay on the board. 45 'iVh6+ 'it'e7 46 �f6+ �f8 47 SLc6 'it'g8 48 h4! This fine move, obtaining some extra luft for his king, is probably what Anand over­ looked (or at least underestimated) when he advanced his g-pawn to 'cramp' White. The immediate 48 .lte8? iVe4+ gets White no­ where, but now (with the king having access to the h2-square) this constitutes a threat.

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

White has two passed pawns and thus a completely winning endgame. In the next example the defender is again faced with difficult problems in time trou­ ble. His kingside pawns, fixed on the same colour as the opposing bishop, prove to be particularly fragile.

19 . 20 A.Huzman-G.Kasparov Tel Aviv (simultaneous match) 1998 48 ... gxh3+? This could be the final error. Instead, Bangiev demonstrates a possible defence with 4S .. :�c5 49 Si.e4 (Adams gives 49 i.e8 'iVc7 50 �h2, but after Bangiev's 50 ... i.a7! I don't see a breakthrough for White) and now the temporizing 49 ... i.a7! keeps Black in the game; but not 49 ... iVd4? as after 50 iVg5+ \tf8 51 �6+ \te7 (or 51 ...\te8 52 Si.c6+ \td8 53 'iVf6+ �c7 54 .lieS) 52 "ii'f6+ \tfS 53 .lig6 it's all over bar the shouting. 49 \txh3 "ii'a 1 Other defences also fail: a) 49 .. :iVxf2 50 "ii'xf2 Si.xf2 51 Si.f3 picks up the h-pawn, after which the opposite bishop ending is winning because Black will either remain tied to the weakness on f7 or play ... f6 when White will obtain a decisive second passed pawn. b) 49 ...iVc4 50 Si.eS 'iVf1+ (or 51...1\Vg4+ 52 \th2 and Black has to exchange queens, when the ending is lost) 51 �h4 "i¥h1 + 52 \tg5 'iVc1 + 53 f4 'ikc7 54 'it>h6 and all White's pieces join in the mating fun. 50 �g2 "iVc1 After 50 ... iVxa6 White wins with 51 'iYg5+ \tfS 52 'ifu6+ �g8 53 i.e4, e.g. 53 .. :iVa7 54 iVh7+ \tf8 55 "iVh8+ �e7 56 Si.c6 and 'iVeS mate. 51 i.f3 h4 52 gxh4 "iVC5 5 3 i.h5 �c6+ 54 iVf3 WliC7 5 5 "iVb7 �xb7+ 56 axb7 i.c7 57 f4 1-0

3 7 ... "iVC7 37 .. :it'f6!? is also possible, when Kas­ parov analyses 38 Si.d7 iVb2+ 39 iVf2 (infe­ rior is 39 �h3?! l1Vb3 40 Si.b5 iVf3 41 Si.a4 h5 42 i.d1 �d3 as White is then in a tangle) 39 .. :iVc3 40 .lib5 Si.c5 41 iVf3 Wlid2+ 42 \th3 \tg7 as dearly advantageous for Black. The main difference with the game is the absence of the white bishop from the defence of its kingside, so I'm sure Kasparov would have been able to create problems for his oppo­ nent by advancing his kingside pawns. 38 1lVe3 If 38 �c3 Black has 3S ...b5. 38 ... h 5 This leaves White's bishop short of moves. Instead, 3S ...iVxc4 39 'iVxb6 iVxd5+ 40 �h2 iVd3 41 iVf2 doesn't test White suffi­ ciently. 493

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

39 'iVd3 39 'it>h2! is better, as this enables the bishop to redeploy and keeps the queen on the key e-file. 39 ... 'iVe7 40 'it>h1 'iVe5 41 'it>h2 'iVf6 According to Kasparov even stronger is 41 ...g5 42 hxg5 h4 43 ..tg4 hxg3+ 44 'it>g2 'iVxg5 45 'iVe2 'it>g7 and connected passed pawns will give Black's chances a boost. 42 'it>g2? Kasparov claims that 42 'it>gl was prefer­ able, when Black should continue with 42 ... 'iVe5 43 'it>h2 and then 43 ... g5! as we saw in the previous note. 42 ...'iVb2+ 0-1

Suddenly, and perhaps unexpectedly, White has no playable moves: 43 'it>f3 and 43 'it>f1 lose quickly to 43 ... 'iVh2; 43 'it>hl to 43 ... 'iVf2; and 43 'it>gl to 43 ... ..tc5+ 44 'it>hl �f2 45 'iVf1 'iVxg3. The kingside collapses in each case.

2 8 'iVd2!? After 28 �xe8+ 'it>xe8 29 b5 ..tc3, White loses a pawn but perhaps not the game. 28 .. :ii'e 5 29 bXc5 ..tXC5 30 ..td3 'it>g7 31 'it>f1 'iVa1+ 32 'iVe1 'iVb2 Now Larsen spurns the chance for an opposite bishop ending with 32 ... 'iVxel + 33 'it>xe 1 'it>f6. Perhaps the best defence then is to delay Black's king invasion by playing 34 f4. 3 3 �e2 �C3 34 g3 ..td4 3 5 h4 'ii'xa 5 36 h5 'iVa1+ 3 7 'it>g2 ..tC5 This reasonable-looking move allows a hidden defensive resource. Instead, 37 ... ..te5!? keeps some pressure as the black king would then have better cover. 38 hxg6 hxg6

In the following example I wasn't sure, in a worse position, whether I should exchange queens or not. Both possibilities look equally unpleasant, even if defensible.

19. 2 1 G.Flear-B.Larsen Las Palmas 1992

494

39 ..txg6! I enjoyed playing this one!

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

39 fxg6 After 39 ... �xg6 40 'ii'g4+ �f6 41 'ifu4+ a perpetual is also unavoidable. However, Black can still keep the advantage with the amazing counter-sacrifice 39 ... .i.xf2!, when 40 �xf2 (if 40 'ii'xf2 simply 40 ... �xg6) 40 .. :iVd4+ 41 Wg2 Wxg6 42 'ii'e 7 'ii'e5 43 'iYxb7 'i'e2+ 44 Wh3 'ii'xc4 45 'ii'c6 'ii'f1 + 46 �h2 'i'e2+ 47 �h3 �e5 will be unpleasant for White to defend. 40 'ii'e 7+ �gS 41 'ii'd S+ �f7 42 'ii'd 7+ �gS 43 'ii'd S+ Vz-Vz •••

There are times when the defender just has to knuckle down and do his best to blockade an extra pawn.

19 . 2 2 G.Sargissian-B.Macieja Stepanakert 2004

moving forwards. 30 'iVe2 'ii'c 3 31 .i.c6 hS 32 'ii'f 3 A sign that Black is too firmly en­ trenched. With queens off White can try to use his king actively. 32 ... 'ii'xf3+ 3 3 �xf3 a s It will now be problematic for White to make anything of his queenside. 34 �e2 WfS 3 5 f3 �e7 36 �d3 .i.g1 37 h 3 Vz-Vz Here's a sample line to show that the draw is a reasonable result at this point: 37 ... i.f2 38 g4 hxg4 39 hxg4 g5 40 �c3 .i.c5 41 Wb2 �d6 42 .i.e8 f6 43 a3 �e5 (or 43 ... i.d4+ 44 �c2 .i.c5) and the attack on a3 keeps White from enforcing b3-b4 with the move �c3. In the following position a draw was agreed straight away, as Black cannot even dream of doing anything with his extra pawn.

19 . 2 3 J.Polgar-J.La utier Dos Hermanas 1995

2S ... g6 Getting tempted by booty, forgetting the essentials, can be the way to lose. For in­ stance, here 28 . . :�xa2? allows 29 'ii'd8+ .i.f8 30 c5 and the c-pawn becomes a serious problem for Black. 29 �g2 .i.cS! Black determinedly concentrates on stop­ ping the c-pawn rolling. Again not 29 ... 'ii'xa2? 30 �d8+ �g7 31 'iWd4+ �g8 32 c5 as Black is in trouble once the c-pawn starts

Vz-Vz In 19.24 White cannot make enough threats to earn the full point, even with mo­ bile pawns on both flanks. 495

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

19 . 2 4 I.Sokolov-Z.Hracek Istanbul Olympiad 2000

34 a4 i.d4 3 5 'ilYf3 'iYc6 36 iVf4 ii'f6 37 'iVc7+ fif7 38 ii'c2 a5 39 'it'g2 b6 40 i.f3 i.. C 5 41 i.e4 'Yi'f6 42 'iNe2 fie5 43 'ilYc2 fif6 44 i.d5 fif5 45 'ilYb2+ 'it'f6 46 'ii'e 2 fid4 47 i.C4 'iWf6 48 f4 The first real moment of interest. White has to attempt something on the kingside. 48 ... fid4 49 'it>h3 h5 50 'iNe6 �h6 Both kings try to keep out of the way of awkward checks. 51 i.d5 'ii'd 3 52 i.e4 White hopes to create threats against g6 and the h8-square, but Black can defend. 52 ... 'ii'f1+ 53 i.g2 'ilid3 54 fig8 �d7+ 5 5 � h 2 "iYg7 56 'iVe8 'ii'f8 5 7 'iVe5 fie7 58 'Yi'h8+ fih7 59 'iVa8 'it'e7 60 i.e4 �g7 61 'iVc6 "iff6 62 fid7+ 'iNe7 63 �d 3 "iff6 64 �h3 'ilYd6 65 iVc2 fif6 66 f5 Aiming to open up Black's king. 66 g5! Probably simpler than 66... gxfS 67 i.. xfS. 67 hxg5 'iVxg5 68 'iYC3+ 'ilif6 69 iVd2 i.e7 70 ii'f4 iVg5 71 'iVe5+ "iff6 72 'Yi'xf6+ Yz-Yz •••

The next example had important conse­ quences for the outcome of the 2004 FIDE World Championship. 496

19 . 2 5 R.Kasimdzhanov-M.Adams FIDE World Championship final (6th matchgame), Tripoli 2004

White has an extra pawn and a couple of targets to attack on the light squares, but on the other hand the a3 and eS pawns come under attack. 3 5 JiYe7 Grabbing the a-pawn with 3S ... i.xa3? would be a mistake due to 36 e6 fxe6 37 'ii'xe6+ 'it>g7 38 iVb3. 36 e6?! According to Adams 36 "ifa8+ 'it>g7 37 e6! is more precise: 37... fxe6 (after 37... i.xa3? 38 exf7 the presence of the pawn on f7 gives White extra tactical options, e.g. 38 ... i.xb4 39 'iNg8+ �f6 40 fie8 i.d6 41 f4! 'ilYf8 42 ii'e3) 38 �xa6 eS 39 ii'a8 e4 40 'iVdS and White has good winning chances thanks to his domina­ tion of the light squares (pressure against bS, e4, f7 and g8 will give Black a rough ride). 36 ...fxe6 37 iVa8+ �f7 ! 37 ... �g7 38 fixa6 eS?! 39 'iVa8 e4 40 ii'dS would transpose to the previous note. 38 "ifxa6 'iNd7 39 g5 If White plays slowly (39 i.b3, for in­ stance), Black could try and mix things with 39 ... hS. 39 ...'it'e7 40 ii'a8 i.d4 .•

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

19 . 2 6 G.Flear-S. Tiviakov Bastia (rapid) 1997

41 'iYg8?? A winning try which could have gone horribly wrong. White should have played something like 41 iVe4, 41 h4 or 41 iVf3 re­ taining some advantage. With the text Kasimdzhanov chases the h-pawn, but in so doing puts his queen out of play - an exam­ ple of getting sidetracked and losing piece coordination, as with the queen absent from play White's whole position suddenly falls apart. 41 ... 'iVc6+ 42 'it>g3 i.xf2+? Good enough for a draw, but Black could have gone for gold with 42 .. :ii'e4! 43 'iYxh7+ 'it>f8! 44 "ii'h6+ (White cannot escape either after 44 f3 'iVe5+ 45 �g2 'iYxg5+ 46 �f1 'iYd2 or 44 f4 'iYe3+ 45 'itg4 'iYe2+ 46 �g3 'iVf2+ 47 'it>g4 'iVg2+ 48 'it>h4 i.f2 mate) and at this point there's more than one way to win: Ftacnik gives 44 ... �e8 45 f3 �c2 46 i.xe6 i.e5+ 47 f4 'iYd3+ 48 �g4 'iVe2+ 49 �g3 'iVe3+ 50 �g2 �e4+ 51 'it>f2 i.d4+ etc, while Adams notes 44 ... i.g7 45 'iVh4 i.e5+ 46 f4 'iVe1+ 47 'it>g4 'ilVe2+ 48 'it>g3 i.c3 49 'iYh6+ �e7 50 'iYh7+ 'it>d6 51 h4 i.e1+ 52 'it>h3 iff3+ 53 �h2 i.g3+ 54 'it>gl 'ilVf2+ 55 �h1 'iVh2 mate. 43 �xf2 'iVc2+ 44 �e3 Yz-Yz When all the pawns are on the same side a draw will normally result, but in the fol­ lowing position Black to move was able to win.

47 ... 'iVh3 48 f3 'iVxg3+ 49 �f1 i.xf3 0-1 This seems to be exceptional indeed, since if it was White to move in 19.26 he should be able to save himself...

19.26a White to move in Flear-Tiviakov

47 �h2 i.f3 Even though circumstances are still fa­ vourable for Black, I don't think he is able to win with either this or after 47 ... i.a8 48 i.d2 497

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

'ii'b 1 49 f3 etc. 48 WC4 Wb1 49 1i.C1 Wb7 50 1i.e3 h5 51 Wg1 'iWd7 52 WC2+ e4 5 3 'iit h 2

... and my money is on a draw.

Queen a n d Bishop versus Queen -

If one player is obliged to part with his bishop then, in most cases, the extra piece will lead to a win. Naturally this can be complicated by a lack of pawns for the stronger side and, in fact, if there are no pawns on the board (Le. a pawn less queen and bishop vs queen) a draw will normally result. However, if the stronger side has even one unpromising pawn (the WRP), there are still good winning chances, as the following marginal example shows.

Was+ �h7 5 3 'iWg2 Wf4 54 'iVc2+ �h6 5 5 'iWg2 1i. e 5 56 'iVc6+ 1i.f6 57 Wg2 1i.d4 5 8 Wc6+?

After the only defence, 58 'iVe2!, Black should continue with 58 ... 1i.e5 and try to confuse his opponent, since 58 ... 'iit g5 would allow 59 Wd2! 1i.e3 (59 ... Wxd2 60 h4+ is stalemate) 60 'iVd8+ and draws, as exchang­ ing queens is the only way to escape from the checks. 58 �g5 59 Wd5+ �h4 60 'iWd8+ Or 60 Wg2 Wc1+ 61 �h2 1i.e5+ etc. 60 .ltf6 61 'iWd5 'iWf1+ 62 'iit h 2 Wxh3+ Here 62... 1i.g5! intending ... 1i.f4+ wins immediately. 63 �gl Wg4+ 64 'iit h 1 iLd4 65 'iVd8+ �h3 66 'iVd7 iLf6 67 'iWd3+ Of course after 67 'iWxg4+? hxg4! Black suddenly has a g-pawn and will soon win. 67 �h4 68 'iWd5 iLg5 69 'iWg2 'iVd1+ 70 'i'gl 'i'd3 71 We1+ �g4 •••

••.

••.

19. 2 7 J.Banas-J.Kostro Stary Smokovec 1972 (see following diagram)

43 :iWd1+ 44 �h2 1i.d6+ 45 g3 Wd2+ 46 'iitg 1 'iWe1+ 47 'iWf1 'iWxg3+ 48 'iWg2 We3+ Of course Black can't afford to exChange queens, as it's the WRP. 49 �h1 'iWe1+ 50 Wg1 'iWe5 51 'iWg2 h 5 52 ••

498

(see following diagram)

72 We6+?1 More resistant is 72 Wg1 +! �f5 73 Wg3! Wd5+ 74 'iVg2 Wc4 75 Wf3+ �g6 76 Wg3 h4 77 'iWf3. 72 'iitf4 73 Wf7+? This just helps his opponent. Instead, it seems (letting Fritz run on this position) that the result would still be in doubt after no •••

Q u e e n a n d B is h o p v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d B is h o p

less than three alternatives: 73 'ifc6, 73 'ifa2 and 73 'ife1 . 73 �g 3 74 'ifC7+ �g4 7 S 'ifh2 ..•

If 75 WcS+ g8, but by combining threats on both wings White wins a pawn: 30 Ilg4+ (30 l:th4 f5 is less damaging than in the game as White is unable to double on the d-file) 30 ... 'it>h8 31 J:tc4 l:Ic8 32 �f3 c5 33 b4! . 3 0 iVd1! Now Black is unable to cope with the white heavy pieces. 30 Wg6 3 1 l:td7 'iic s 32 h4! Giving his king more room, while offer­ ing additional attacking possibilities. 32 l!g8 3 3 1\Ve1 Also good is 33 �d2 h6 34 b4 �e5 35 l:txa7 winning a pawn. 33 �f6 34 �g2 Not getting so carried away with the at­ tack as to overlook the threat of .. Jhg3+.

20. 3 M.Gurevich-V.Milov Amsterdam 2000

•..

•••

.••

502

28 l:t.d1 �g7 29 ltd4 Threatening �g4. 29 fS 30 'iVd2 lif7 31 lid8+ �h7 32 'iVf4 �f6 3 3 'iVd4 Wg6 34 b1!? •..

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d R o o k

This calm move emphasizes that Black's pieces are so tied up that he cannot under­ take anything positive. With his king cen­ tralized White has more options to simplify into a winning ending, but as it turns out Black doesn't survive that far. 34 :iVe7 35 !:tgS+ �f7 Following 35 .. .'it'h7 36 .l:;!.b8 White threat­ ens both l':txb5 and 'iVh4+. 36 l!aS ::td6 3 7 �hS �d7? 3S :xa 7! 1-0

then 39 'iiVh8 g6 40 'ilVg6+ �h6 4 1 �d7 forces a draw. If, instead, Black decides to sit tight on the kingside then Ftacnik suggests 36 ...b5 37 :d1 'iWe2 38 .l:td4 'iVe3 with a repeti­ tion as a logical conclusion to the game. 3 7 .l:!.d1

••

In the three previous examples it's worth noting that with these particular pawn struc­ tures simplified rook or queen endings would have been drawish, but with the ex­ tra firepower on the board the possibility of mate comes into the equation, which en­ abled the attacking side to win. In the following position predicting the final result is far from easy.

20 . 4 P .Svidler-V. Topa lov Wijk aan Zee 2004

Black has a material advantage and even possesses two connected passed pawns, but the fact that his king is less secure means the position is actually more difficult for him. 36 'ilVd6 h 5?! Here Svidler gives 36 ... g5 37 Itd3 'iiVf4 38 'iVd8 h5 as being slightly better for Black, but

3 7 :iVf2?! Here 37 ... 'iVe2 38 �gl 'iiVf2 39 'ifd1 '.tg8! 40 l1h1 g6 is playable. White can keep Black on the defensive and has sufficient play, but perhaps no more. Instead, Svidler concludes that 37 ...'iff4 38 'iiVb8 'iff3 39 .l:td8 '.tg6 40 'ifd6 is unclear. White can't break through this defence but he can keep Black tied down. Another line 37 ... 'ilVf3 38 l1g1 'iVf5 39 �xg7+ �xg7 40 'iWxe7+ 'It>g6 41 'iVxb7 leads to an unclear queen ending. 3S 'iVd3 iVg2 39 �f1+ '.t>gS? After 39 ... e8 (definitely the lesser evil), White switches back with 40 'ifc4 'ifc6 41 "iVh4 and has some advantage after picking off the h-pawn; e.g. 41...�d7 42 'i¥xh5+ '.td8 43 l1f4 as Ftacnik points out. 40 'iVdS+ '.th7 41 IUS 'ifg1+ 42 '.tb2 'iVg5 43 'iWd3+1 g6 Black has to reluctantly advance his g­ pawn, as 43 .. :it'g6 10ses to 44 l:lh8+. 44 'iVd6 Black can no longer resist as his king is too exposed, and of course there is no hope of counterplay against White's king. 44 '.tg7 45 'iVbS 'i¥h6 46 'i¥dSI 1-0 .•

.••

503

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

As a general rule, with one king exposed and the other very safe, it's just a question of time before the defender is overwhelmed ...

2 0. 5 M.Adams-S. Tiviakov Wijk aan Zee 2001

29 l::t a 7+ 'it;>h6 More resistant is 29 ... �h8! 30 b3 (not the hasty 30 "iVd5? because of 30 .. :�Vc1 + 31 'it;>h2 'it'f4+ etc) 30 ... l::tb8 (if instead 30 ... d5, hoping for 31 �xd5? 'iVc1+ again, the pawns become too weak after 31 �a1 !, e.g. 31..:it'f6 32 l::t a8+ 'it;>g7 33 �a7+ 'it>h6 34 l::th8 �xh8 35 �xb6+ 'it;>g5 36 �xc5 d4, when White could either win the queen ending by pushing the passed b-pawn, or the pawn ending following 37 �e7+ 'it;>g6 38 'ilVe6+ 'iVf6 etc, as 38 ... 'it;>g5 loses at once to 39 h4+! etc) 31 l::t d 7 l:tg8 32 g3 f4, but after 33 'iVd3 :g6 34 g4 "iVf6 35 'iVd5 the pressure is still terrible. 30 l:td7 'iVg6 31 iid5 f4 Or if 31...Iia6 32 'ue7 'it;>g5 33 'ue6 'iVg7 34 'it'f3! and Black can resign. 32 'it'aS 'it;>h5 If 32 ...'it'f6 33 'it'g8 'it'f5 34 h4! the mate threat of .l::!.xh7+ followed by 'iVg5 is decisive. 33 �a7 1-0 Sometimes the only way to win is to al­ low one's own king to come into the open. 5 04

20.6 L.Gutman-G.Flear Paris 1988

32 .I:f.dS+ 'it;>g7 33 'it'e5+ 'it;>h6 34 l::t g S 1:.c1+ 35 'it;>h2! 35 'it;>g2?? would be completely wrong, as after 35 ... 'it'fl + 36 'it;>f3 'it'h1 + 37 'it;>f4 J:tc4+ 38 e4 f6! 39 'iVxe6 'uc3 it's Black who has the winning attack. 3 5 ...l:th1+! Flashy, but unfortunately for me my op­ ponent had seen further. 36 'it;>g2 ! O f course 3 6 'it;>xh1 ? 'iVfl + i s drawn by perpetual check. 36 .. :it'f1+ 3 7 'it;>f3 'it'd1+ 3S 'it;>f4 ... and White's king is safe enough. 3S ... f6 39 'it'xf6 'it'd6+ 40 'it;>g4 1-0

20. 7 Mi.Tseitlin-G.Flear Hastings 1995/96

(see following diagram) 3 3 .. J�d 5! Giving up the eighth rank in order to continue to give the d-pawn maximum sup­ port. Naturally I had to calculate that Black's

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d R o o k

king wasn't in serious danger.

34 11c8+ �h7 Black could also play 34...'it'g7 35 �4 d3 36 �f8+ (if 36 Vi'c3+ Black has 36 ... e5) 36 ... Wf6 37 .l:!:c7 (or 37 'iWh8+ Wf5) 37...�f3+ 38 Wg1 and now the elegant 38 ... d2! wins: 39 1:rxf7+ We5 40 'iVb8+ (if 40 ':xf3 there's 40 ... d1'iV+ 41 Wg2 'iiVxf3+; or 40 "iVg7+ 'it>e4 41 �xg6+ �d4) 40 .. J:td6 41 "iYb5+ (41 'i!Vh8+ We4) 41 ..JWd5 42 'iiVe2+ 'iiVe4 43 "iYb5+ ltd5 44 'iYb8+ �d4 45 'iYb4+ Wd3 and the black king escapes. 3 5 "iVa8 "iVf3+ 36 Wg1 'iYd1+ 37 Wg2 d3 3 8 tth8+ 'it>g7 39 "iYf8+ 'it>f6 4 0 1;Ih7 'iff3+ 4 1 'it'gl l:td7 Alternatively, 41...d2 42 1;Ixf7+ 'ite5 wins as in the previous note. 42 �g7+ Wf5 Running up the board is strong, but 42 ... We7 is also possible, since Black can wriggle free as follows: 43 'i¥xg6 d2 44 "iVg5+ 'iff6 45 "iVc5+ We8 46 WVc8+ J:.d8 47 'iiVc6+ 'itf8 etc. 43 'iif8 'iVd1+ 44 'it>g2 "iWf3+ 45 �gl

48. . .�f6 49 "iYc5+ Wh6 50 �e3+ 'i¥g5 5 1 'iie2 �d5 52 �d1 Vi'd3 and now 53 a4 is met by 53 ... e5! 54 a5 e4! 55 a6 e3 56 fxe3 'iixe3+ 57 �g2 'iWf3+ etc.

46 �h6 e5 47 'YWd2 Instead, 47 h4 can be met in several ways, one strong one being 47 ... 'iie4 48 'iiVg5+ We6 49 l::th8 f6. 47 "iWf3 48 h3 gxh3 49 .l:!:xh3 'iVe2 50 g4+ Wf6 5 1 'iiC 3 d2 0-1 •..

In fact it's not so unusual to see a king having to navigate a storm in order to seek a safe harbour.

20 . 8 J.Timman-A.Ka rpov Bali 2000

(see following diagram)

45 ... 'ii b 7! A slow but sure way to victory; it turns out that f5 is a great shelter for the king! Ac­ tually 45 ... d2 46 kIxf7+ lhf7 47 'iixf7+ 'it>g5 still wins, though I couldn't see how at the time: 48 'ife7+ (48 h4+? loses to 48 ... 'ith6) 505

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

3 3 'ili'g3+ f41 After 33 ... Wf6? 34 gxf5 gxf5 35 ':xf5+ Wxf5 36 'ili'xg7 ::tg4+ 37 'ii'xg4+ Wxg4 38 Wg2 the king and pawn ending would be a com­ fortable win for White. 34 'iVe1+ xh4? "ii'h2+ 40 'it>g4 "iWh5 mate) 39 .. .l::t h5+ 40 'it>g4 or 3S ... 'iVe2+ 39 "iVf3 "iVh2 40 'iVa3! repeats and so White escapes with a draw! 33 'iVd3+ g6 34 lId 7 �g7 34 ... .l:Ih4+? 35 'it>f3! would actually leave Black in trouble, as both f7 and the rook on h4 (for once!) are en prise. 3 5 .l:Ixf7+! Yz-Yz After 35 ... 'it>xf7 36 "iVd7+ 'it>fS 37 'iVdS+ White has perpetual check.

2 0.10 L.Hazai-R.Simic Vinkovci 1986

after 34 l::t xd6 'iif7 35 'iVe2 'i¥b7. 32 .. JU8 33 b6 'iVe8 34 b7 �f7 35 !;Ic8 'iVf2+ 36 �dl 'iVd4+ 37 'it>cl 'iVe3+ 38 'it>b2 'iVd2+ 39 'it>a 3 'iVe3+ 40 'it>a4 'iVd4+ 40 .. :iixe4+ is met by 41 'Yi'c4. 41 'it>b5 "iVd3+ 42 'it>b6 'iVd4+ 43 'it>C7 1-0 If 43 ... 'iVc5+ then 44 'it>d7 and the sensible checks have run out. An attractive king-walk that we more typically associate with queen endings. Naturally such a manoeuvre requires careful calculation, but it is easier to perform if there is an ultimate shelter (pawns of either col­ our!) and the opposing rook is pinned. Here's a more modem example in which Gurevich takes a calculated risk with his king to keep winning chances alive.

20.11 M.G urevich-A.Grischuk Cannes (rapid) 2001

Hazai anticipates how Black will soon seek counterplay and thus prepares his king to run for freedom. 32 'it>el! White can't win by 32 'it>g2 J:rfS 33 b6 'iVeS 34 b7? because of 34 .. :�Vf7 35 ncs 'iVf3+ 36 'it>h3 'iVh5+ etc. True, he can retain some ad­ vantage with 34 l:txd6! 'iVf7 35 'iVe2, but after 35 .. :iltb7 there would be technical problems to convert the advantage. Similarly, 32 'it>gl J:tfS 33 b6 'iVeS also gives Black drawing chances following 34 b7 'iVf7 35 :tc2 'iVb3 or

Naturally White's c-pawn should give him the advantage, but winning chances are limited by his insecure king. 3 5 ... iVh5+ 36 'it>d2 iVh4 3 7 'it>el iVhl+ 38 'it>e2 'iVh5+ 39 'it>d3 ? A n interesting winning try, but not, it seems, best. After the stronger 39 f3! Black's toughest defence involves removing the king from the sensitive back rank with 507

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

39 ... 'it>h7, when 40 ttd8?! 'iVh2+ 41 'it>d3 'iVc2+! leads to a draw. However, White keeps good winning chances with 40 lId7!, e.g. 40 .. :iWh1 (after 40 .. :ifb5+ 41 'ii'd3+ the rook ending wins for White) 41 'ii'xb3 'iWg2+ 42 'it>d3 'tifl + 43 'it>c3 'tixf3 44 'iib 6! and Black is in trouble. 39 ...'tid1+ After the temporizing 39 ...'it>h7! White may have to accept that a draw is inevitable and thus play 40 'it>d2. Instead, 40 'tWc6? would be bad because of 40 .. :iYd1 + 41 e4 (or if 41 c4? then 41...'ii'c2+ 42 'it>b5 .l:txc7 wins) 41 . . :it'h1+ 42 f3 'iVh5 43 lId7 'iWf5+ 44 'it>d4 'iVf6+ 45 'it>c5 �xb2 and Black isn't worse. 40 'it>e4! 'iVh1+ After 40 ... 'ii'h5? White should capture on b3: 41 'iixb3! (rather than 41 :d8+? 'it>h7 42 llxc8?? 'iid 5 mate!) 41 ...�f5+ 42 f3 'ii'h3+ 43 'it>e2 'iVg4+ 44 'it>fl 'ifu3+ 45 'it>e 1 1'Vh1 + 46 �e2 iVh5+ 47 f3 'iVh2+ 48 'it>d3 etc. Instead, 40 ... 'i!Vb1 +?! is plausible, but then 41 'it>f3 (41 e5?? gets into serious trouble after 41 ..."iif5+ 42 d6 e5! ) 41 ...'iVh1 + 42 'it>e2 "iVh5+ would give White another opportu­ nity to play 43 f3! as in the note to White's 39th move. 41 'it>es 'iVh S+ 42 d6

White seems to have found a safe enough square for the moment. 42 .. :YWbS?? 508

A time trouble blunder. Necessary is 42 ... e5! opening up White's king again, e.g. 43 fxe5 �g6+ 44 'it>d5 'iVe6+ 45 e4 �g4+ 46 f4 �g2+ 47 'it>d3 �fl + and Black will draw after all. 43 'iWc6 'iWb4+? 44 l:txb4 1-0 When one side has a material advantage but the more exposed king, the result can be unpredictable.

20 . 12 G Flear J P Lejeune French League 1995 .

-

.

.

36 ...ttC1 37 �d8+ After 3 7 'iVxa7? 'iVe5! Black's major pieces are poised to cause maximum difficulties for the white king. 37 ... h7 38 'ii'd 7 �cs+ Not 38 .. :iVe5? since White would be de­ lighted to exchange queens with 39 'iVf5+. 39 'ii'd 4?! The most prudent course would be 39 g3, allowing Black to take a draw with 39 .. :iVe5+ 40 h3 'ifu5+ 41 'it>g2 'iVg5+ 42 'iit>h3 "iVh5+ etc. 39 .. JWgS Instead, 39 ... 'iih5 40 'it>e3 "iVg5+ 41 'it>e2 transposes, and 40 .. J::t e 1+ 41 'iit' d3 "ii'xf3+ 42 c2 .l:txe4 43 'ii'xa7 11c4+ 44 'it>b1 'iVfl+ 45 'iit> a2 l:Ic1 46 'iVd4 is far from clear, but with his

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d R o o k

king still unsafe White has to be the more careful. 40 �e2 .l:Ihl Here the calm 40 ... a5! is called for. White's king isn't going anywhere, and as Black's pieces are already so well poised to cause further mischief, there was a good case for a prophylactic move. 41 �d3 'iVh5 42 'iVxa7 Taking the opportunity to snatch the a­ pawn while it's still hanging. 42 ...'iVxf3+ Rather than recapture a pawn, Black does better to put the emphasis on keeping the king under pressure with 42 .. Jk1 ! ?, when the natural reply 43 �f2 could be met by 43 ...'iVb5+ and Black has at least a draw, e.g. 44 �e3 'iVc5+ 45 �e2 'iVc4+ 46 �e3 'iVc5+ etc. 43 iVe3 'iVf6 44 'iVd4 'iVfl+ 45 �c2

45 ... iib1+? This enables the white king to get out of trouble. Instead, after 45 .. :�a6 White is un­ able to shelter his monarch so easily, e.g. 46 �b3 (46 'iVd3 is met by the awkward 46 .. :ilVa4+) 46 .. J�.a1, taking the a2-square away, followed by some queen checks. 46 �b3 l:Ifl Or 46 ... lIe1 47 'iVd3 'iVxd3+ 48 lIxd3 1he4 49 a4 and the race will be won by White. 47 'iVd3 'iVxd3+ After 47 ... 'iVc1 48 e5+ g6 49 e6! Black's

king i s opened u p nicely, unless he tries 49 ... IH6 when White takes a winning ending with 50 'iVc3 'Yi'xc3+ 51 �xc3 l:txe6 52 a4 etc. 48 nxd3 g5 The rook ending turns out to be winning for White. 49 a4 h5 50 as g4 51 �a2 .l:!.f6 52 lIa 3 l:ta6 53 b4 h4 54 b5 .J::t g 6 55 a6 g3 56 hxg3 h3 57 lIf3 h2 58 :xf7+ 1-0 The result was unpredictable as there were many possibilities for Black and he may even have been better at one point. I was somewhat fortunate in the next game as well, the moral being not to under­ estimate threats against one's king!

2 0. 1 3 V.Crea-G.Flear Asti 1997

41 'iVf4+ �h7 42 lIg6 'iVf8? A result of poor analysis. Instead, Black can keep a decisive advantage with 42 ... c1 'iV! 43 lIh6+ �g8 44 'iixc1 'iVxf5+ 45 �g2 lIe7 as White's attack is no longer dangerous. 43 f6! lIe7? And this should lose. Black can probably still hold out with 43 ...lIe6!, e.g. 44 'iVf5+ (or 44 .l:tg7+ 'iVxg7 45 fxg7 �xg7 46 'iVc7+ �g8!? 47 �g4 e3! 48 fxe3 lIf6 49 e4 lIfl ) 44 ... �h8 45 lIg7 'iVxg7 46 fxg7+ �xg7 etc. 509

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

44 'iVf5? White misses a pretty win with 44 �h6+! ! �xh6 45 �f5+ 'it>g8 46 fxe7 'iYc6 47 'iYf8+ 'it>h7 48 'iVf7+ 'it>h6 49 e8'it'. 44 'it>h8 45 :th6+ 'it>g8 46 .l:f.g6+ 'it>h8 47 nh6+ 'it>g8 48 l:tg6+ Yz-Yz .••

In 20.14 White would seem to have a clear advantage due to Black's relatively exposed king. However, Dreev is able to demonstrate that the white king is not to­ tally secure either.

20.1 4 I.Krush-A.Dreev Hastings 2000

39 Z!b1 'it>g6 40 l::t b 7 as 41 'it'b2 ! Instead, 4 1 i:tb6 'it>f6 4 2 .l:'txe6+ isn't a very good way to win a pawn, as after 42 ... �xe6 43 'iVxd3 'iVe1+ 44 �h2 (44 'iWfl ?! can even be met by 44 ... 'it'xfl+ 45 'it>xfl �e5) 44 .. :iYxf2 White isn't really any better. 41 .. J�d4 42 'iVb5?! White might have preferred 42 �a7!, which threatens 'iVb7 whilst continuing to defend the f2-square. Nevertheless, all is not lost for Black, who can then try 42 ... M 43 gxM �f4! with chances to avoid defeat (but not 43 ... nd1+? 44 'it>h2 'ti'f4+ as, unlike in the actual game, 45 g3 wins with f2 defended). 42 ..JId8 43 'iYe6 510

Threatening to double on the seventh, but Black has one free tempo to create some mischief of his own. 43 ... h4! 44 "fie7 Not now 44 gxh4? nd1+ 45 'it>h2 'iVf4+ 46 g3 �xf2+ 47 �g2 �d2 when Black is on top. 44 ... 11d1+ 45 'it>h2 hxg3+ 46 'it>xg3 .l:i.d3+ 47 f3 .llxf3+! Forcing perpetual check. 48 gxf3 'ifxf3+ 49 �h2 'iYf2+ 50 'it>h1 'iYf1+ 5 1 'it>h2 Yz-Yz

2 0. 1 5 B.Kouatly-S.Kindermann Tmava 1987

Here Black has the safer king and is in the process of getting his queenside majority going. Furthermore, the white d-pawn is somewhat shaky. 28 h 5 ! The tricky 2 8 'iVd5 "iig4 2 9 'iff3 can be met by 29 ... �xh4+!, rather than submitting to a repetition, but the second player would still have to follow up precisely; e.g. 30 'it>g2 bxc3?! (better is 30 .. .'it'h8! improving the po­ sition of Black's queen and thus retaining a clear advantage) 31 l:th1 c2 (as suggested by Kindermann) could be thwarted by 32 .l:txh4 c1 'it' 33 'iVe2 c3 34 �e5, when Black would have to take a perpetual check. 28 ... gxh 5

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d R o o k

After 28 .. Jhd6! ? White can further com­ plicate matters with 29 fS! (29 �a8+? fails to 29 ... Wh7! 30 hxg6+ Wg7!; rather than 29 ... �g7? which generously allows mate after 30 h6+ �h7 31 'ilVf8) 29 ... 'ilVeS (or here 29 ... gxfS, when after 30 "iVa8+ Wg7 31 h6+ 'it>g6! 32 'ilVg8+ WhS 33 l:!.xd6 "iVxd6 34 h7 Black takes a draw; but not 31...Wh7?? 32 'iVf8! again) 30 "iVa8+ �g7 31 f6+ Wh7 32 hxg6+ �xg6 33 'iWg8+ (which king is the most exposed now!?) 33 .. .'it'fS 34 "iVh7+ Wg4! (if 34 ...�e6? then White wins with 3S l:!.e1 �d2+ 36 �f1 ) 3S l:!.gl+ �f4 36 �4+ �fS 37 'iVh7+ Wf4 with an unusual draw. 29 'i¥xh 5 1Ixd6 Black could also try 29 ... �fS 30 �g3 'iVc2, but White has sufficient resources after 31 cxb4 cxb4 32 d7 c3 33 l:!.d6! threatening gS­ g6, e.g. 33 ... 'iVfS 34 "iVh1 .uxd7 (or 34 ... c2 3S 'iVc6!) 3S "iVa8+ �g7 36 "iVc8 "iVe4 37 'iVxd7 �e3+ 38 Wg4 c2 39 g6 and Black has to take the draw. 30 l:th1 Now neither king can feel very safe. 30 l::i.d 2+ 31 �f1 'it>f8 32 g6! "iixg6 3 3 �xe5+ �d6 34 'iVe8+ r$;e7 3 5 'iVb7+ �d7 3 6 'i1Ve4+ 'iVe6 3 7 'i1Vb7+ l:!.d7 If 37 ... Wd6 then 38 "iVa6+ seems to give White at least a draw. 38 "iVxb4+ 'i1Vd6 39 �e2

39 ..."iVxb4 40 exb4 l:!.d3 Yz-Yz Lines such as 41 l:i:c1 l:!.a3 42 l:txc4 .l:!.xa2+ 43 We3 as offer no chances for either side. In the following high-level encounter the stronger side was unable to exploit his mate­ rial advantage because of his more vulner­ able king.

20.16 R.Kasimdzhanov-M.Adams Wijk aan Zee 2002

.••

A cool move; with a rook ending coming Kouatly improves his king.

35 a 5 36 �d2 Me8 3 7 "iVd 5?! Kasimdzhanov later blamed this move on time trouble and instead proposed 37 l:dS :£8 38 e4, keeping control and thus a safe pawn-up advantage. 3 7 .. :¥i'f8! Ditching the e-pawn to get at White's king. 38 'iVxe5 i::t e 2+ 39 'it>h3 �f1+ 40 �g4 'i1Ve2+ 41 Wf5 'iVf3+ There was a trap here: 41 .. . .l::!. cS?, hoping for a skewer with 42 'iWxcS? �S+, is refuted by the intermediate 42 lIxh6+! �g8 and only then 43 'iVxcS. Now, however White continues his king is bombarded by checks. 42 iYf4?! 42 �g6 'ilVg4+ 43 'it>f7 was a better try, when White retains winning chances, but ..•

511

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

Black can make a sufficient nuisance of him­ self to render a draw the most probable re­ sult; e.g. 43 ... �h7 44 nd4 "iYf3+ 45 �e7 "ifb7+ 46 l:td7 �4+ 47 'it>e8 .l:!.c8+ 48 ll:.d8 .l:!.c6! (rather than 48 ... .l::!.xd8+?! 49 'it>xd8 "iWb6+ 50 "it'c7 fixe3 51 'illVxa5 �xb3 52 �f5+ �h8 53 "it'f4 with fair winning chances for White despite an open king) 49 Vi'd5 (or similarly 49 "Yi'f5+ l::t g6!) 49 .. J:H6 50 "it'd3+ .l:l.g6! 51 h5 (or 51 "it'f5 �xb3 and Black is OK) and now 51 ...iVe7+! 52 �xe7 is stalemate! 42 �C5+ 43 �e6 "ikaS 44 �e7 1::1C 7+ 45 l;Id7 ncs 46 l::t C 7 I:i.eS+ 47 c;t>d6 .l::!. d S+ 4S d4

In the following example Black's only chance is to continually harass White's king.

20.1 7 Du.Rajkovic-M.Pavlovic Yugoslavia 1987

44 .. Jlg7+ Black cannot afford to simplify, e.g. 512

56 ... J::!. g 4+? The wrong check! Instead, 56 .. :iYb6+! 57 �d5 "iVb5+ 58 �e6 iVe8+ is still a drawn posi­ tion. 57 �C5 "iVa2 5S e6+ �h7 59 d7 Itg5+ 60 l1e5 For the record, 60 �d6! is even better, but the text eventually leads to a win. 60 ... iVa7+ 61 �d 5 'ilVb7+ 62 �d6 'ilVb 6+ 63 "iWc6 iVd4+ 64 �C7 ! A fine combination which soon leads to a winning queen ending. 64 ..."iYxe5+ 65 'it>cs .I;tgS+ 66 dS"i' :xdS+ 67

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d R o o k

'it>xdS 'iVf6+ 6S 'it>d7 'iYd4+ 69 'iVd6 'iVa4+ 70 'it>dS 'iVaS+ 71 fS Vl!Ve5 74 Vl!VeS+ 'it>h6 7 5 Vl!Ve7 �f4+ 76 'it>gS Vl!Vg4+ 77 Wf7 'iVg7+ 7S WeS 'iVe3 79 'iYfS+ 'it>g6 SO 'iVf7+ Wh6 Sl 'iVf4+ Wg7 Otherwise after 81...'it>h7 82 'i¥f5+ 'it>h6 83 e7 White is winning easily. S2 'iVg5+ 1-0 The susceptibility of a king to checks and threats is well illustrated with pawns only remaining on one wing. Many of the follow­ ing positions would be dead drawn if either major piece were to be exchanged, but with queen and rook both hunting down a hap­ less monarch ...

Curiously, the pieces form a cross - a nice example of 'pin and win' (if 3 l:1:xa3 then 3 .. :�xd2 of course). In the actual game Black failed to notice this trick and played the sad 2 ... l:ta7?, when White was no longer in any danger.

2 0.19 J.Piket-V.Topalov Monte Carlo (blindfold rapid) 2000

20.18 O.Bogatyrev-E.Zagoria nsky Moscow 1947

In either a rook or queen ending there would be virtually no hope of Black being able to win. Here, however, the disposition of the white pieces, and particularly his king, enables Black to win the game by tacti­ cal means. 1 J:ta3+ 2 l:td3 If 2 'it>g4 "iVh2 3 'iVf2 f5+ (or 3 ... 11xh3 crash­ ing through) 4 �M lhh3+! 5 gxh3 �xf2 mate. 2 .. :iVd4! .•

Here again, despite the fact that all the pawns are on one side, White can generate a decisive attack. 34 'ifdS+ 'it>g7 3 5 lIeS t!.bl+ 36 c;t>h2 'i¥e6 37 iVd4+? Stohl points out that Piket missed a win here with 37 �f8+ �f6 38 iVh8+ 'it>g5 (or if 38 ... �f5 then 39 Mc5+ �e4 40 f3+ \t>e3 41 .l:i.e5+) 39 l:Ic5+ f5 (39 ... \t>h6 allows 40 iVf8 mate) 40 'iVd8+ 'it>h6 (40 ... �h5 gets mated by 41 f4! 'it>h6 42 iif8+ �h5 43 g4+ c;t>M 44 'iVh6) 41 'iVh4+ 'it>g7 42 l:!c7+. 3 7 ... Wh6 The only hope, as 37 .. :i*'f6? fails to 38 .l::!. g8+. 3S l:!gS iVe7 39 h4!? Piket could have kept up the pressure on Black's king with 39 'i¥g7+ c;t>g5 40 g3! . This is stronger than the more forcing lines 40 "iVxh7 'iVf6! 41 M+ 'it>g4 42 f3+ c;t>f5 43 'iVh6 "ii'e5+ and 40 f4+ 'it>xf4 41 iVd4+ 'it>g5 42 Vl!Vd2+ 513

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

d3 'it>g7! But not 65 .. Jhf4??, which falls for the skewer 66 a7 l:ta4 67 l:th8! !:!.xa7 68 !1h7+ etc. 66 1Ia7+ 'ittf6 67 We3 'it>f5 6S nas J:!a 3+ Yz-Yz •..

In the next example the presence of some extra pawns constitutes a third front and helps the stronger player. 519

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

20 . 2 9 M.Cebalo-I.Smirin Solin 1999

The threat is 34 'ilic7 'ii'xc7 35 dxc7 ':'c6 36 J:td8+ etc, so Black avoids this by moving his king off the back rank. 33 ... Wh7 34 J:tdS ! Now the b-pawn's helpful support o f the c5-square means that White threatens 'iVc7 again; i.e. 35 'iVc7 'iVxc7 36 dxc7 1:k6 37 .l:tc5 etc. 34 ... J:te2 3S .li:tes ! Instead, 35 l:.xh5+?! gxh5 3 6 'iVxh5+ Wg7 37 'iVxe2 'iVxd6+ is unconvincing. Nor does 35 'iVc7? work here, due to 35 ... 'ilVe6 36 l:.dl 'iVe5+ 37 Whl l:.el+ 38 .li:txel 'iVxel+ 39 'i2th2 'iVe5+ etc. 3 S ... l:r.d2 Alternatives are grim; for instance, if 35 ... na2? 36 'iVc7 wins again, while 35 .. .l:he5 36 'ii'xe5 Wg8 37 Wg3 leaves Black suffering in an almost certainly hopeless queen end­ ing. 36 J::tx hS+! Now this is strong. 36 ... Wg8 After 36 ... gxh5 37 'ii'xh5+ g3 'iWe5+ 66 iVf4+ "iVxf4+ 67 'it'xf4 .l:!.xh4 68 J::i. a8 is drawn) 64 ng3 (or 64 hxg5+ 'it>xg5 65 "iVg3 �1+ 66 "iVh2 "iVd5 and Black wins with .. J:th1) 64.. :�e4 65 .l:!.gl J::i. d 8! (if 65 ... l:td3+ then 66 l:!.g3 f5 67 hxg5+ �g6 68 iVg2 seems to hold for White) 66 l:!.g2 (after 66 �g3 f5! 67 hxg5+ 'it>g6 Black wins with ... .l:th8+, or 68 gxf5+ "iVxf5+ 69 'it'g2 'iWe4+ etc) 66 ... gxh4 (66 .. .f5 is good here too) 67 �c7 �e3+ 68 'it>h2 �d3 69 iVc2 (no better is 69 g5+ fxg5 70 iVc6+ 'iYih5) 69 ... 'it>g5 70 "iVe2 'iWf4+ 71 'it'gl "iVd6 and wins!

These variations are not exhaustive but my analysis convinced me that 53 l::t a3 is not sufficient to save the game. 53 ... a 3 54 �f4?! 54 J::i.e3 J::i. d 1 55 l:txa3 �c6 56 .l:!.a8+ trans­ poses to line 'b' of the previous note. White's best defence is 54 !:!.a4!, e.g. 54 ... .l:!.d1 (54 ...l:i.d3 55 l:!.xa3! is a probable draw) 55 "iVe2 .l:Ia1 56 "iVe8+ cj;; g7 57 l:tf4 (it's White's tum to switch between the a-pawn and threats against the opposing king!) 57 ... 'iWe6 and now, rather than 58 "iVxe6?! fxe6 59 .l:!.a4 'it>f6 when Black has some winning chances, 58 "iVd8! intending 'iVd4+ probably holds for White; e.g. 58 ... .:c1 59 "iVd4+ �g8 60 "iVd8+ 'it>h7 61 "iVf8 l::t c7 62 "iVxa3. 54 "iVe7 55 l:tf3 l:ta8 56 l!e3 'iWC5 57 lIf3 l:Ia7 58 1Ie3 'it>h7 59 .l:!.f3 �f8 60 l:tf6 •••

522

The alternative defence 60 .ile3 f6 61 .!:tel "iVf7 62 "iVc2 a2 63 lIa1 'iWd5 is similar to the game, except that Black has played ... f6. Would this weakening be sufficient to en­ able White to draw? 60 ... iVe7 61 !:tb6 �d7 62 .l:!.f6 �b7

63 .l:!.d6 63 cj;; g l?! turns out to be a poor choice of square, as after 63 ... 'it'g7! (stronger than 63 .. :iVb2?! 64 �xf7+ �h6 65 'iVxb2 axb2 66 l:':!.xa7 b1'iV+ 67 'it>h2 when White might be able to construct a fortress) 64 .ild6 "iVb2 65 'iNxb2+ (65 l!d2 'ii'xa2 66 .uxa2 'it'f6 gives Black an easy technical win) 65 ... axb2 66 l:i.b6 loses to 66 ... .l:!.a1 +. 63 ... "iVf3 Now 63 ... "iVb2? 64 'iNxb2 axb2 65 nb6 should only draw, as there is no check on al. 64 1:Ib6 .l:.a 5 65 Iid6 l:!.a7 The tempting 65 ... J::te5?, threatening ... .l:!.e1 or .. Jle2, would allow the resource 66 i:td3! iVxd3 67 'it'xf7+ and White draws by perpetual check. 66 .l:.b6 iic3 67 .l:!.b1 "iVd4 68 i:tb8 "iVC3 69 .l:!.b1 The na'ive 69 i:tb3? fails to 69 .. :iVxb3! 70 'it'xb3 a2. 69 ..."iVf6! 70 'it>gl iVe6 71 'iVc2 a2 72 ':'a1 'iVd 5 7 3 'it>h2 J::i. a 3 74 'iYb2 Ma4 7 5 'iYih3 "iVf3 76 1le1? But 76 'it>h2 .l::!.e4 wins for Black anyway: 77 'iYxa2 l:te2, or 77 l!xa2 .l:i.el .

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d R o o k

76 .. Jbh4+! 0-1 This complicated NQE certainly isn't 100% worked out and may indeed be hold­ able with best play; see the note to move 60, for instance. Another possible defence is the rook ending arising from 54 .l:i.a4 (instead of 54 .l:i.f4) which may only be a draw. Such positions with an extra a-pawn, plus sound kingside pawns (3 vs 3) for both sides, can be summarized as follows: 1) In a queen ending the win is more likely than a draw. 2) In a rook ending, the player who gets his rook behind the passed pawn is most likely to get his desired result. 3) With queen and rook vs queen and rook, the result is in the balance.

31 g3 .l:i.e2 32 l':rf3 'it>g7 3 3 �C1! 'iVd s Not 33 ... �xb2? 34 �c7 and Black loses the f-pawn, while after 33 ... e5 White has time for 34 b3. 34 �C3+ eS 3S l':Ie3 �d1+ 36 'it'g2 �d S+ 37 Wg1 �d1+ 38 Wg2 �d S+ 39 I!f3 gS? A tempting winning attempt, but it turns out to be an unnecessary self-weakening. Instead, 39 ... .l:i.d2 40 b4 .l:i.d4 would leave Black's pieces well centralized and his king much more solid, and it's difficult to see how White could expect to make progress. 40 h3 �g6 41 b4 .l:i.e4 42 'i!Vb3 .l:tC4 43 'it'h2 "iVd4 43 ... e4? is poor due to 44 1::r c3.

2 0. 3 2 G.Flear-J.P.Boudre Saint Affrique 2000

Here White's b-pawn doesn't seem very dangerous, but it can still be useful as a de­ coy. 30 �b1+ g6 Boudre later suggested 30 ... f5! ?, when White can't hold onto the b-pawn; e.g. 31 g3 (after 31 l::r£3 ?! Black seizes the initiative with 31...�d2! 32 J::te3 .l:i.xe3 33 fxe3 'i¥xe3+ 34 �h1 �f2 35 b4 e5) 31..J:te2 32 .l:i.f3 J::t xb2.

44 g4! A good positional move, giving White an excellent outpost on f5, from where the rook will both defend f2 and create pressure against Black's kingside. 44 ... e4 4S 1::rf S "iWd 3?! I was expecting 45... 'i!Vd6+ 46 'it>g2 �xb4 47 "iWa2! when, despite the simplified nature of the position, Black has significant prob­ lems to solve, as White's queen will come round the back to harass his king. Black's best may then be 47 ... iVc3 48 'iVa8 .l:!.c8 49 WNxe4 "iWc6 50 .t:i.d5+ �h6, but his position remains unpleasant to defend. The best practical chance involves open­ ing White's king with 45 ... e3!, e.g. 46 fxe3 "iWd2+ 47 �g3 WVe1+ (but not 47 .. :�xb4? as 523

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

White then has 48 'iVd3!) 48 l:!.f2 (if 48 c2 �a4+ 30 'It>d2 �a2 31 �e7 �xb2+ 32 'It>d3 when the com­ plications seem to favour White who can seek a shelter for his king on the kingside, e.g. 32 ... iVb1+ 33 'It>e3 ii'e1+? 34 'It>f3 ii'xc3+ 35 Wg4 h5+ 36 WM ii'e1 + 37 g3 and wins) 28 ... 'iWa1+ 29 �c2 �a4+ 30 'It>b1 �e4+ 31 'It>c1 �e8 32 �f2 and White keeps up the pres­ sure. 26 �e6! 27 i¥e2! 27 :d1?! is met simply by 27... �e4+, while after 27 ii'xg7?! llb8! Black's activity is sufficient for a draw, e.g. 28 l:tc1 �d3+ 29 .l:!.c2 (not 29 'It>a1 ? due to 29 .. :iVd2 30 llb1 l:tb5 and wins) 29 ... 'iWd1+ 30 l:!.c1 �d3+ 31 l:tc2 etc. 27 .l:!.d81 Keeping control of the d-file, albeit at the cost of the a-pawn. 28 �xa6+ �e7 29 'iWa7+ �e6 30 "iHa6+ �e7 31 "i¥a 5+ 'iit b 7 32 �b5+ 'iit e 7 33 �a 5+ 'iit b 7 34 "iHb5+ We7 35 ii'e2 .••

.••

36 ... g6 37 e4?1 This weakens White's position slightly, so now any simplification won't worry Black. However, after 37 Wc2 Black has 37 .. :iVa2 38 iVb5 �d5 and White isn't mak­ ing progress, while Leko gives 37 ... .tIb8 38 lla1 iVb7 which he believes to be adequate for Black. 37 �d2 38 �e3 .l:i.d41 Now White is virtually forced into a rook ending where he has no winning chances. 39 "iYxd2 .uxd2 40 1:.e3 Alternatively, 40 M 1:.d3 41 .l:!.gl should also be drawn, e.g. 41...'lt>b6 42 Wc2 .tIf3 43 b3 Wa5 44 .l:!.a1+. 40 ... 1:.xh2 41 llf3 1 �e6 42 'ii;> a 2 :h3 43 ktb3 h4 44 gxh4 .l:!.xh4 45 l:tf3 .uh5 46 l:!.g3 �h2 47 1:.f3 1:.e2 48 �b3 :tel 49 l:i.f2 �b6 50 1:1f3 �a 5 51 .l:!.f2 llel 52 �a 3 l:tal+ 5 3 Wb3 l:tel 54 1:.f3 Wb6 55 :tf2 Yz-Yz •..

In 20.35, despite persistent pressure that arose from an opening gambit, I was able to wriggle out of my opponent's bind.

2 0. 3 5 M.Vanderbeeken-G.Flear Montpellier 2005

The only chance of winning is to come back and try to bolster the defences. How­ ever, Black is under no direct threat and so can take the time to prepare for the end­ game. 3 5 ... h 5 1 Limiting any potential expansion o n the kingside. 36 g3 36 �xh5?? even loses to 36 .. :iVd3+.

Here Black has an extra pawn, but win­ ning will be difficult. The queenside major­ ity is stymied and his pieces are rather tied 525

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e Play

down to the defence of his king. 26 1:I.c8 2 7 a4 �f8 28 "iVb3 �d6 29 'iVe3 f5 Hoping to obtain some breathing space for the kin& at the risk of creating weak­ nesses. 30 �d4 �f6 31 �C4 "iVd6 32 'i¥d4 .l:.g8 3 3 'iVe3 g5! The only way to generate winning chances. Black obtains further room for ma­ noeuvre and threatens to eventually get rid of the annoying h-pawn. 34 �e2 Mark Hebden later suggested 34 "iVc3!, as the queen then surveys both c7 and g7. If Black continues with 34 ... �g6 35 l:i.c1 'i¥xd5 36 'iYxc7 Wxh6 37 �xa7 l:tg6 White has sev­ eral ways to keep up some threats, such as 38 a5 or 38 "i¥b8. 34 Wg6 35 'YWd3 1If8 36 g4?! Rather desperate and leading to White's king becoming more exposed than Black's. 36 ... �xh6 37 gxf5 "iff6 38 'YWh3+ �g7 39 Ite3 llf7 40 ':c3 �e5 41 �g3 "ilHxf5 42 l:!xC7 �xd 5 43 ..wC3+ Wg6 44 .l:i.c8 .l::i.f4 45 "iVc2+ �h6 46 .l::t c 3 l'ih4 47 f3 1Id4 0-1 ..•

••.

In the next example Black has to spend time consolidatin& before pushing White's active pieces back and eventually force a winning ending.

20.3 6 Esat Sadikl-G.Flear Bern 1991 (see following diagram)

There's no particular hurry; of primary importance is reducing any danger from the opponent's counterplay. 36 ... .:d7 37 �f1 ..wd 5 38 �f2 h6 39 "iVf8+ Wh7 40 :tf4 �g5 41 .!:tg4 "iVf5 42 fie8 Rook endings are generally hopeless for White. 52 6

42 .. :ilVf7 43 �c8 c6 44 'i"b8 l::t d 5 45 "iVg3 1:tf5 46 "iVd3 �h8 47 ..we3 .l::!.f1+ 48 gS 36 trd6) 35 l':IaS i:l:c1+ 36 �h2 'it>h6 37 'iVfS+ ft'g7 3S �e7 l::t c2 39 �g2 with the threat of l.:tfS. However, Black can survive with 39 .. .f5! (39 .. .f6? allows

40 'iVeS �c5 4 1 �S with decisive threats) 40 "ii'g5+ �h7 41 neS l:tc7 42 "iWdS l:tb7, when White has continuing pressure but no defi­ nite way of exploiting the extra pawn. 34 ... 'iVxd6 3 5 l:!:xd6 .l:i.c2 36 J:.a6 b4 37 �g2 .l:tb2 38 �f3 b3 39 axb3 lIxb3 40 �f4 J:.b2 41 f3 .ub4+ 42 e4 .l::t b 3 43 J:.d6 .l:ta 3 44 e5 lla4+ 45 �e3 J:ta1 46 ltd4 �f8 47 'it>f4 �e7 48 nd6 lif1 49 l:tf6 l':Ih1 50 �g5 J:!.gl 51 �h6 .l:Ixg3 5 2 f4 'it>f8 5 3 e6 'it>e7 54 exf7 'it>f8 5 5 .l:!.xg6 J::!. g4 56 'It>xh 5 l:rxf4 57 'it>g5 .uxf7 58 h5 t!.f1 59 �h6 !:tf5 60 l:ta6 �g8 61 c;t>g6 Yz-Yz That has to go down as a missed oppor­ tunity! I rather panicked in time trouble and exchanged queens, instead of calculating that the black king could be placed under persistent pressure in the NQE. The next example has a number of in­ structive phases.

20. 3 8 P Nikolic J Piket Wijk aan Zee 2000 .

-

.

White has an extra d-pawn but it's block­ aded, and while the exchange of either pair of pieces would favour him, this isn't easy to achieve in the near future. It's also unlikely that White will be able to break the blockade directly, so he'll have to create additional threats elsewhere. 52 7

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

27 �b4 b6 28 h3 �g7 29 a 3 h 5 30 J::i. d 3 'ilYc6 31 'iVd2 'iVf6 32 'iVC3 'iVf4 3 3 'iVe1 'iNf6 Naturally Black doesn't fall for 33 .. Jhd4?? 34 'iVc3 when White pins deci­ sively. 34 �e4 "iVd6 3 5 h4 �d7 36 g3 �d6 37 'iNe1 �f6 38 'iVC3 'It>g8 39 �C4 "iVd6 40 1:tf3 !? The first real tentative attempt to pres­ sure his opponent. Nikolic eyes up f7 as a potential target. 40 ... �g7 41 "iVc3 �f8 42 �c8+ 'It>g7 43 lIf4

43 f5 !? A committal move, but Piket had to make a key decision here. If, for instance, 43 ... a5 44 'iYe8 "Wic7 45 a4 "iVb7 46 l:.e4 and White is making progress. Black's best approach may be to avoid moving any pawns - until the timing is right that is. For example, 43 .. :�e7 44 'iVc6 (aiming to prise open the blockade) 44 ... ttd6 45 "iVe4 'iVd7 (if 45 ... tte6 White continues with 46 iff3 followed by d4-d5) 46 "iVe5+ �g8 47 lle4, and now 47 ... �h7?! is unconvincing because of 48 b4 l:td5 (or if 48 ... :e6 then 49 'iVf4 Itd6 50 l::te8! ) 49 'iYf6 ttf5 50 1:Ie7! 'iVd5 51 l::te 5!, but 47 ... f5! sets a devilish trap: 48 J::t f4?? ne6 49 "iVb8+ .l:!.e8 and the white queen has no squares; instead, the ending after 48 "iVe8+ 'iNxe8 49 .u.xe8+ Wf7 50 1:1a8 a5 51 l:.b8 �e6 is drawn. 44 .llf3 !? Now that Black's seventh rank is ex•••

528

posed Nikolic sacrifices his d-pawn for the attack. Instead, Tsesarsky suggests 44 "iVb7+, as the rook ending is promising despite White's slightly clumsy rook. Here's a sam­ ple line from his analysis: 44 .. :�'d7 45 'it'xd7+ l::t x d7 46 Wfl ttc7 47 d5 ttc1+ (47 ... .I:!.d7 48 Itd4 �f6 is inadequate after 49 f4! followed by bringing his king into the fray) 48 'iite2 �c2+ 49 We3 lhb2 50 l:i:d4 'It>f7 51 d6 'It>e8 52 d7+ �d8 53 ttd6 l::t a2 54 l:txg6 J::t xa3+ 55 'It>f4 'It>xd7 56 .l::Ih6 b5 57 J:txh5 b4 58 llxf5 a5 59 h5 and White should win. However, Black can improve on this with 47 ... 'lt>f6! 48 .l::t d4 'It>e5! 49 J::i. d 2 f4 50 gxf4+ �xf4 51 �e2 !Id7 when he is favourite to draw. 44 ... l:!.xd4 45 11C3 l::t e4 This is a better chance than 45 .. :�'d8? 46 l::i. c7+, as the pawn-up ending is clearly very favourable for White after 46 ... �f8 47 'iNxd8+ ttxd8 48 ttxa7, while 46 ... 'it>h6? is even worse due to 47 "iVb7! "iNh8 48 �f7 with the deadly threat of "iVe7-g5 mate. 46 "iVC7+ 'iYe7 The rook ending after the exchange 46 .. :iVxc7?! 47 Ihc7+ �f6 48 ttxa7 l::te2 49 b4 b5 is again miserable and best avoided, for example 50 kIa5 11e5 (or 50 ... tta2 51 �g2 We6 52 �f3 Wf6 53 We3 We6 54 �xb5 .u.xa3+ 55 Wf4 and the king invades via g5) 51 Wg2 �e6 52 'it>f3 'it>f6 53 J:Ia6+ 'it>g7 54 .l:.c6 threat­ ening :c5 etc. 47 b4 "iVf7 After 47 ... tte6 an interesting plan is to expose the a-pawn: 48 �g2 tte4 49 b5 l:te1 50 Mc6 lIe5 51 a4 �e4 (after 51..JIe2 then 52 "Wif4! is strong) 52 a5 bxa5 53 'iYxa5 'it'f7, when both 54 �c8 and 54 "Wia1 + are promis­ ing. White should at worst obtain a rook ending with an extra b-pawn which yields excellent winning chances. 48 "iHd8 tte8 49 'iVd4+ 'It>h7 50 J:r.c6 �e7 5 1 b5 'iVg7 Here Tsesarsky believes that Black can hold with 51...ttd7 52 'iNc3 f4. 5 2 "iHb4 "iVe5 5 3 a4 11.f7 54 "iVC4

Q u e e n a n d R o o k v e rs u s Q u e e n a n d R o o k

b ) 5 S. . .f4 5 9 "iVaS l:!.f7, which looks pre­ carious, but there doesn't seem to be a way for White to exploit Black's king 59 �d8 l:tf7 60 l:th8+ �g7 61 �d4+ 1-0 61...l:tf6 is hopeless after 62 l:tdS. The following NQE is double-edged, as White's passed pawn is of less importance than his vulnerable king.

54 Wg7? Returning the rook with 54 .. J�e7 is bet­ ter, keeping control of the e-file. 55 l:.e6 �C7 56 �d4+ �h7 57 J::t e 8 ti.g7 58 'i¥d 5!? Best is 5S 'iVf6, when White has some winning chances, but Black can hold with accurate play; e.g. 5S ... 'iVc1+! (after the infe­ rior 5S ... 'iH7 White can force a winning rook ending with 59 �dS ti.gS 60 ti.e7 J::txdS 61 l:txf7+ Wh6 62 ti.xa7) 59 �g2 "iVd2 60 "iVe5 (60 "iVfS is adequately met by 60 .. :iVd5+ 61 'it>h2 "iVgS 62 "iVxgS+ l:ixgS 63 oUxgS 'it'xgS 64 �g2 'it'f7 65 'it'f3 �e6! 66 �f4 Wf6 67 f3?! g5+! 6S hxg5+ �g6) 60 ... �d7 61 iVbs "iVb7+ 62 "iVxb7 .l:i.xb7, and now White can try his luck with a king advance, but I don't think he is win­ ning: 63 �f3 ti.d7 64 �f4 l:td4+ 65 �g5 :g4+ 66 �f6 l::txa4 67 l:te7+ �h6 6S l:tg7 f4! (6S ... l:tg4?! is suspect after 69 l:txa7 l:tb4 70 .l:!.g7 ti.xb5 71 l:txg6+ �h7 72 f4! l:tc5 73 'it'g5) 69 J:!.xg6+ 'it'h7. 58 'iVb7? The pressure tells. The problem for the weaker side in such positions is that the at­ tacking side can keep probing away until the defender's time and patience run out. In­ stead, there were two plausible ways of de­ fending: a) 5S ... 'iVc1+ 59 Wh2 �2 60 �g2 'iVf6, as covering hS limits White's chances of ever achieving a mating net. ...

.••

20. 3 9 M.Adams-A.Beliavsky European Team Championship, Leon 2001

38 l:tC7 l:!.e5 39 �fl l::tf5 40 �a l 'it>h7 41 d6? White had to play 41 .!:!.cS! 'it'h6 42 l:thS+ �g5 43 ifc1, when best play seems to be a draw by 43 .. .'iVe2 44 e4+ .l:If4 45 d6 "iNf2+ 46 Wh2 'iVh4+ etc. 41 .. JiVg3 42 l:!.c8 If 42 'iVa7 then moving out of harm's way with 42 ... Wh6! leaves White's king hope­ lessly weak. 42 .. Jlbe3+ 43 �hl f6 44 �C3 After 44 d7 the strongest reply is to threaten mate with 44 .. J:If4 when Black keeps control, despite White's desperate measures: 45 ti.hS+ Wg7! 46 .l:I.gS+ 'it>h6 47 l::thS+ Wg5 4S 'ilYxf6+ ':xf6 49 dS� iVc1 + 50 �h2 "iVf4+ 51 �gl iVd6 and the rook ending looks winning, e.g. 52 "iVxd6 l::t xd6 53 nbS 529

Pra c t i c a l E n dg a m e P l ay

':d5 54 :b6 h4 55